Listed 168 sub titles with search on: Biographies Emperors for destination: "VYZANTION Ancient city TURKEY".
288 - 337
Constantinus I., Flavius Valerius Aurelius, surnamed Magnus or "the Great", Roman emperor, A. D. 306-337, the eldest son of
the emperor Constantius Chlorus by his first wife Helena, was born in the month
or February, A. D. 272. There are many different opinions respecting his birth-place;
but it is most probable, and it is now generally believed, that he was born at
Naissus, now Nissa, a well-known town in Dardania or the upper and southern part
of Moesia Superior.
Constantine was distinguished by the choicest gifts of nature, but
his education was chiefly military. When his father obtained the supreme command
in Gaul, Britain, and Spain, he did not accompany him, but remained with the emperor
Diocletian as a kind of hostage for the fidelity of his parent, and he attended
that emperor on his celebrated expedition in Egypt. After the capture of Alexandria
and the pacification of that country in A. D. 296, Constantine served under Galerius
in the Persian war, which resulted in the conquest and final cession to the Romans
of Iberia, Armenia, Mesopotamia, and the adjoining countries, for which Diocletian
and Maximian celebrated a triumph in Rome in 303. In these wars Constantine distinguished
himself so much by personal courage as well as by higher military talents, that
he became the favourite of the army, and was as a reward appointed tribunus militum
of the first class. But he was not allowed to enjoy quietly the honours which
he so justly deserved. In his position as a kind of hostage he was exposed to
the machinations of the ambitious, the jealous, and the designing; and the dangers
by which he was surrounded increased after the abdication of Diocletian and Maximian
and the accession of his father and Galerius as emperors (A. D. 305). He continued
to live in the East under the eyes of Galerius, whose jealousy of the superior
qualities of Constantine was so great, that he meditated his ruin by exposing
him to personal dangers, from which Constantine, however, escaped unhurt. In such
circumstances he was compelled to cultivate and improve his natural prudence and
sagacity, and to accustom himself to that reserve and discretion to which he afterwards
owed a considerable part of his greatness, and which was the moreremarkable in
him as he was naturally of a most lively disposition. The jealousy of Galerius
became conspicuous when he conferred the dignity of Caesar upon his sons, Severus
and Maximin, a dignity to which Constantine seemed to be entitled by his birth
and merits, but which was withheld from him by Galerius and not conferred upon
him by his father. In this, however, Constantius Chlorus acted wisely, for as
his son was still in the hands of Galerius, he would have caused his immediate
ruin had he proclaimed him Caesar; so that if Constantine spoke of disappointment
he could only feel disappointed at not being in the camp of his father. To bring
him thither became now the great object of the policy of both father and son.
Negotiations were carried on for that purpose with Galerius, who, aware of the
consequences of the departure of Constantine, delayed his consent by every means
in his power, till at last his pretexts were exhausted, and he was obliged to
ailow him to join his father. Justly afraid of being detained once more, or of
being cut off by treachery on his journey, Constantine had no sooner obtained
the permission of Galerius than he departed from Nicomedeia, where they both resided,
without taking leave of the emperor, and travelled through Thrace, Illyricum,
Pannonia, and Gaul with all possible speed, till he reached his father at Boulogne
just in time to accompany him to Britain on his expedition against the Picts,
and to be present at his death at York (25th of July, 306). Before dying, Constantius
declared his son as his successor.
The moment for seizing the supreme power, or for shrinking back into
death or obscurity, had now come for Constantine. He was renowned for his victories
in the East, admired by the legions, and beloved by the subjects, both heathen
and Christian, of Constantius, who did not hesitate to believe that the son would
follow the example of justice, toleration, and energy set by the father. The legions
proclaimed him emperor; the barbarian auxiliaries, headed by Crocus, king of the
Alemanni, acknowledged him; yet he hesitated to place the fatal diadem on his
head. But his hesitation was mere pretence; he was well prepared for the event;
and in the quick energy with which he acted, he gave a sample of that marvellous
combination of boldness, cunning, and wisdom in which but a few great men have
surpassed him. In a conciliatory letter to Galerius, he protested that he had
not taken the purple on his own account, but that he had been pressed by the troops
to do so, and he solicited to be acknowledged as Augustus. At the same time he
made preparations to take the field with all his father's forces, if Galerius
should refuse to grant him his request. But Galerius dreaded a struggle with the
brave legions of the West, headed by a man like Constantine. He disguised his
resentment, and acknowledged Constantine as master of the countries beyond the
Alps, but with the title of Caesar only: he conferred the dignity of Augustus
upon his own son Severus.
The peace in the empire was of short duration. The rapacity of Galerius,
his absence from the capital of the empire, and probably also the example of Constantine,
caused a rebellion in Rome, which resulted in Maxentius, the son of Maximian,
seizing the purple; and when Maximian was informed of it, he left his retirement
and reassumed the diadem, which he had formerly renounced with his colleague Diocletian.
The consequence of their rebellion was a war with Galerius, whose son, Severus
Augustus, entered Italy with a powerful force; but he was shut up in Ravenna;
and, unable to defend the town or to escape, he surrendered himself up to the
besiegers, and was treacherously put to death by order of Maxentius (A. D. 307).
Galerius chose C. Valerius Licinianus Licinius as Augustus instead of Severus,
and he was forced to acknowledge the claims of Maximin likewise, who had been
proclaimed Augustus by the legions under his command, which were stationed in
Syria and Egypt. The Roman empire thus obeyed six masters: Galerius, Licinius,
and Maximin in the East, and Maximian. Maxentius, and Constantine in the West
(308). The union between the masters of the West was cemented by the marriage
of Constantine, whose first wife Minervina was dead, with Fausta, the daughter
of Maximian, which took place as early as 306; and at the same time Constantine
was acknowledged as Augustus by Maximian and Maxentius. But before long serious
quarrels broke out between Maxentius and Maximian; the latter was forced by his
son to fly from Rome, and finally took refuge with Constantine, by whom he was
well received. Maximian once more abdicated the throne; but during the absence
of Constantine, who was then on the Rhine, he reassumed the purple, and entered
into secret negotiations with his son Maxentius for the purpose of ruining Constantine.
He was surprised in his plots by Constantine, who on the news of his rebellion
had left the Rhine, and embarking his troops in boats, descended the SaΓ΄ne and
RhΓ΄ne, appeared under the walls of Arles, where Maximian then resided, and forced
him to take refuge in Marseilles. That town was immediately besieged; the inhabitants
gave up Maximian, and Constantine quelled the rebellion by one of those acts of
bloody energy which the world hesitates to call murder, since the kings of the
world cannot maintain themselves on their thrones without blood. Maximian was
put to death (A. D. 309); he had deserved punishment, yet he was the father of
Constantille's wife.
The authority of Constantine was now unrestrained in his dominions.
He generally resided at Trier, and was greatly beloved by his subjects on account
of his excellent administration. The inroads of the barbarians were punished by
him with great severity: the captive chiefs of the Franks were devoured by wild
beasts in the circus of Trier, and many robbers or rebels suffered the same barbarous
punishment. These occasional cruelties did not prejudice him in the eyes of the
people, and among the emperors who then ruled the world Constantine was undoubtedly
the most beloved, a circumstance which was of great advantage to him when he began
his struggle with his rivals. This struggle commenced with Maxentius, who pretended
to feel resentment for the death of his father, insulted Constantine, and from
insults proceeded to hostile demonstrations. With a large force assembled in Italy
he intended to invade Gaul, but so great was the aversion of his subjects to his
cruel and rapacious character, that Roman deputies appeared before Constantine
imploring him to deliver them from a tyrant. Constantine was well aware of the
dangers to which he exposed himself by attacking Maxentius, who was obeyed by
a numerous army, chiefly composed of veterans, who had fought under Diocletian
and Maximian. At the same time, the army of Constantine was well disciplined and
accustomed to fight with the brave barbarians of Germany, and while his rival
was only obeyed by soldiers he met with obedience among both his troops and his
subjects. To win the affections of the people he protected the Christians in his
own dominions, and he persuaded Galerius and Maximin to put a stop to the persecutions
to which they were exposed in the East. This was a measure of prudence, but the
Christians in their joy, which increased in proportion as Constantine gave them
still more proofs of his conviction, that Christianity had become a moral element
in the nations which would give power to him who understood how to wield it, attributed
the politic conduct of their master to divine inspiration, and thus the fable
became believed, that on his march to Italy, either at Autun in France, or at
Verona, or near Audernach on the Rhine in Germany as some pretend, Constantine
had a vision, seeing in his sleep a cross with the inscription en toutoi nika.
Thus, it is said, he adopted the cross, and in that sign was victorious.
Constantine crossed the Cottian Alps (Mount Cenis), defeated the vanguard
of Maxentius at Turin, entered Milan, and laid seige to Verona, under the walls
of which Maxentius suffered a severe defeat. Another battle fought near Rome on
the 28th of October, 312, decided the fate of Maxentius : his army was completely
routed, and while he tried to escape over the Milvian bridge into Rome, he was
driven by the throng of the fugitives into the Tiber and perished in the river.
Constantine entered Rome, and displayed great activity in restoring peace to that
city, and in removing the causes of the frequent disturbances by which Rome had
been shaken during the reign of Maxentius; he disbanded the body of the Praetorians,
and in order that the empire might derive some advantage from the existence of
the senators, he subjected them and their families to a heavy poll-tax. He also
accepted the title of Pontifex Maximus, which shews that at that time he had not
the slightest intention of elevating Christianity at the expense of Paganism.
The fruit of Constantine's victories was the undisputed mastership
of the whole western part of the empire, with its ancient capital, Rome, which,
however, had then ceased to be the ordinary residence of the emperors. At the
same time, important events took place in the East. The emperor Galerius died
in A. D. 311, and Licinius, having united his dominions with his own, was involved
in a war with Maximin, who, after having taken Byzantium by surprise, was defeated
in several battles, and died, on his flight to Egypt, at Tarsus in Cilicia, in
313. Thus Licinius became sole master of the whole East, and the empire had now
only two heads. In the following year, 314, a war broke out between Licinius and
Constantine. At Cibalis, a town on the junction of the Sau with the Danube, in
the southernmost part of Pannonia, Constantine defeated his rival with an inferior
force; a second battle, at Mardia in Thrace, was indecisive, but the loss which
Licinius sustained was immense, and he sought for peace. This was readily granted
him by Constantine, who perhaps felt himself not strong enough to drive his rival
to extremities; but, satisfied with the acquisition of Illyricum, Pannonia, and
Greece, which Licinius ceded to him, he established a kind of mock friendship
between them by giving to Licinius the hand of his sister Constantina. During
nine years the peace remained undisturbed, a time which Constantine employed in
reforming the administration of the empire by those laws of which we shall speak
below, and in defending the northern frontiers against the inroads of the barbarians.
Illyricum and Pannonia were the principal theatres of these devastations, and
among the various barbarians that dwelt north of the Danube and the Black Sea,
the Goths, who had occupied Dacia, were the most dangerous. Constantine chastised
them several times in Illyricum, and finally crossed the Danube, entered Dacia,
and compelled them to respect the dignity of the Roman empire. His fame as a great
monarch, distinguished both by civil and military abilities, increased every year,
and the consciousness of his talents and power induced him to make a final struggle
for the undivided government of the empire. In 323, he declared war against Licinius,
who was then advanced in years and was detested for his cruelties, but whose land
forces were equal to those of Constantine, while his navy was more numerous and
manned with more experienced sailors. The first battle took place near Adrianople
on the 3rd of July, 323. Each of the emperors had above a hundred thousand men
under his command; but, after a hard struggle, in which Constantine gave fresh
proofs of his skill and personal courage, Licinius was routed with great slaughter,
his fortified camp was stormed, and he fled to Byzantium. Constantine followed
him thither, and while he laid siege to the town, his eldest son Crispus forced
the entrance of the Hellespont, and in a three days' battle defeated Amandus,
the admiral of Licinius, who lost one-third of his fleet. Unable to defend Byzantium
with success, Licinius went to Bithynia, assembled his troops, and offered a second
battle, which was fought at Chrysopolis, now Skutari, opposite Byzantium. Constantine
obtained a complete victory, and Licinius fled to Nicomedeia. He surrendered himself
on condition of having his life spared, a promise which Constantine made on the
intercession of his sister Constantina, the wife of Licinius; but, after spending
a short time in false security at Thessalonica, the place of his exile, he was
put to death by order of his fortunate rival. We cannot believe that he was killed
for forming a conspiracy; the cause of his death was undoubtedly the dangerous
importance of his person. Constantine acted towards his memory as, during the
restoration in France, the memory of Napoleon was treated by the Bourbons: his
reign was considered as an usurpation, his laws were declared void, and infamy
was cast upon his name.
Constantine was now sole master of the empire, and the measures which
he adopted to maintain himself in his lofty station were as vigorous, though less
bloody, as those by which he succeeded in attaining the great object of his ambition.
The West and the East of the empire had gradually become more distinct from each
other, and as each of those great divisions had already been governed during a
considerable period by different rulers, that distinction became dangerous for
the integrity of the whole, in proportion as the people were accustomed to look
upon each other as belonging to either of those divisions, rather than to the
whole empire. Rome was only a nominal capital, and Italy, corrupted by luxury
and vices, had ceased to be the source of Roman grandeur. Constantine felt the
necessity of creating a new centre of the empire, and, after some hesitation,
chose that city which down to the present day is a gate both to the East and the
West. He made Byzantium the capital of the empire and the residence of the emperors,
and called it after his own name, Constantinople, or the city of Constantine.
The solemn inauguration of Constantinople took place in A. D. 330, according to
Idatius and the Chronicon Alexandrinum. The possibility of Rome ceasing to be
the capital of the Roman empire, had been already observed by Tacitus, who says
(Hist. i. 4), "Evulgato imperii arcano, posse principem alibi quam Romae fieri".
Constantinople was enlarged and embellished by Constantine and his successors;
but when it is said that it equalled Rome in splendour, the cause must partly
be attributed to the fact, that the beauty of Constantinople was ever increasing,
while that of Rome was constantly decreasing under the rough hands of her barbarian
conquerors. By making Constantinople the residence of the emperors, the centre
of the empire was removed Irom the Latin world to the Greek; and although Latin
continued to be the official language for several centuries, the influence of
Greek civilization soon obtained such an ascendancy over the Latin, that while
the Roman empire perished by the barbarians in the West, it was changed into a
Greek empire by the Greeks in the East. There was, however, such a prestige of
grandeur connected with Rome, that down to the capture of Constantinople by the
Turks, in 1453, the rulers of the Eastern empire retained the name of Roman emperors
as a title by which they thought that they inherited the government of the world.
The same title and the same presumption were assumed by the kings of the German
barbarians, seated on the ruins of Rome, and they were the pride of their successors
till the downfall of the Holy Roman empire in Germany in 1806.
The year 324 was signalized by an event which caused the greatest
consternation in the empire, and which in the opinion of many writers has thrown
indelible disgrace upon Constantine. His accomplished son, Crispus, whose virtues
and glory would perhaps have been the joy of a father, but for their rendering
him popular with the nation, and producing ambition in the mind of Crispus himself,
was accused of high treason, and, during the celebration at Rome of the twentieth
anniversary of Constantine's victory over Maxentius, was arrested and sent to
Pola in Istria. There he was put to death. Licinius Caesar, the son of the emperor
Licinius and Constantina, the sister of Constantine, was accused of the same crime,
and suffered the same fate. Many other persons accused of being connected with
the conspiracy were likewise punished with death. It is said, that Crispus had
been calumniated by his step-mother, Fausta, and that Constantine, repenting the
innocent death of his son, and discovering that Fausta lived in criminal intercourse
with a slave, commanded her to be suffocated in a warm bath. As our space does
not allow us to present more than a short sketch of these complicated events,
some additions to which are given in the lives of Priscus and Fausta, we refer
the reader to the opinion of Niebuhr, who remarks (History of Rome), "Every one
knows the miserable death of Constantine's son, Crispus, who was sent into exile
to Pola, and then put to death. If however people will make a tragedy of this
event, I must confess that I do not see how it can be proved that Crispus was
innocent. When I read of so many insurrections of sons against their fathers,
I do not see why Crispus, who was Caesar, and demanded the title of Augustus,
which his father refused him, should not have thought - 'Well, if I do not make
anything of myself, my father will not, for he will certainly prefer the sons
of Fausta to me, the son of a repudiated woman'. Such a thought, if it did occur
to Crispus, must have stung him to the quick. That a father should order his own
son to be put to death is certainly repulsive to our feelings, but it is rash
and inconsiderate to assert that Crispus was innocent. It is to me highly probable
that Constantine himself was quite convinced of his son's guilt: I infer this
from his conduct towards the three step-brothers of Crispus, whom he always treated
with the highest respect, and his unity and harmony with his sons is truly exemplary.
It is related that Fausta was suffocated, by Constantine's command, by the steam
of a bath; but Gibbon has raised some weighty doubts about this incredible and
unaccountable act, and I cannot therefore attach any importance to the story."
During the latter part of his reign, Constantine enjoyed his power
in peace. As early as 315, Arius denied at Alexandria the divinity of Christ.
His doctrine, which afterwards gave rise to so many troubles and wars, was condemned
by the general council assembled at Nicaea in 325, one of the most important events
in ecclesiastical history. Constantine protected the orthodox fathers, though
he must be looked upon as still a Pagan, but he did not persecute the Arians;
and the dissensions of a church to which he did not belong, did not occupy much
of his attention, since the domestic peace of the empire was not yet in danger
from them. Notwithstanding the tranquillity of the empire, the evident result
of a man of his genius being the sole ruler, Constantine felt that none of his
sons was his equal; and by dividing his empire among them, he hoped to remove
the causes of troubles like those to which he owed his own accession. He therefore
assigned to Constantine, the eldest, the administration of Gaul, Britain, Spain,
and Tingitania; to Constantius, the second, Egypt and the Asiatic provinces, except
the countries given to Hannibalianus; to Constans, the youngest, Italy, Western
Illyricum, and the rest of Africa: they all received the title of Augustus. He
conferred the title of Caesar upon his nephew Dalmatius, who obtained the administration
of Eastern Illyricum, Macedonia, Thrace, and Greece; and his nephew Hannibalianus,
who received the new title of Nobilissimus, was placed over Pontus, Cappadocia,
and Armenia Minor, with Caesareia as capital. They were to govern the empire,
after his death, as a joint property. Among the three Augusti, Constantine, the
eldest, was to be the first in rank, but they were to be equal in authority :
the Caesar and the Nobilissimus, though sovereign in their dominions, were inferior
in rank, and, with regard to the administration of the whole empire, in authority
also to the Augusti. The failure of this plan of Constantine's is related in the
lives of his sons.
In 337, Constantine was going to take the field against Sapor II.,
king of Persia, who claimed the provinces taken from him by Galerius and Maximian.
But his health was bad; and having retired to Nicomedeia for the sake of the air
and the waters, he died there, after a short illness, on the 22nd of May, 337.
Shortly before his death, he declared his intention of becoming a Christian, and
was accordingly baptized. His death was the signal for the massacre of nearly
all his kinsmen, which was contrived by his own sons, and subsequently of the
violent death of two of his sons, while the second, Constantius, succeeded in
becoming sole emperor. The following were the most important ot the laws and regulations
of Constantine. He devel oped and brought to perfection the hierarchical system
of state dignities established by Diocletian on the model of the Eastern courts,
and of which the details are contained in the Notitia Dignitatum. The principal
officers were divided into three classes : the Illustres, the Spectabiles, and
the Clarissimi; for officers of a lower rank other titles were invented, the pompous
sounds of which contrasted strangely with the pettiness of the functions of the
bearers. The consulship was a mere title, and so was the dignity of patricius;
both of these titles were in later years often conferred upon barbarians. The
number of public officers was immense, and they all derived their authority from
the supreme chief of the empire, who could thus depend upon a host of men raised
by their education above the lower classes, and who, having generally nothing
but their appointments, were obliged to do all in their power to prevent revolutions,
by which they would have been deprived of their livelihood. A similar artificial
system, strengthening the government, is established, in our days, in Prussia,
Austria, France, and most of the states of Europe. The dignity and dangerous military
power of the praefecti praetorio were abolished. Under Diocletian and Maximian
there were four praefecti, but they were only lieutenants of the two Augusti and
their two Caesars. Constantine continued the number, and limited their power by
making them civil officers : under him there was the Praefectus Orienti over the
Asiatic provinces and Thrace; the Praefectus Italiae, over Italy, Rhaetia, Noricum,
and Africa between Egypt and Tingitania; the Praefectus Illyrico, who had Illyricum,
Pannonia, Macedonia, and Greece; and the Praefectus Galliae, over Gaul, Britain,
Spain, and Tingitania or the westernmost part of Africa. Rome and Constantinople
had each their separate praefect. Under the praefecti there were thirteen high
functionaries, who were civil governors of the thirteen dioceses into which the
empire was divided, and who had either the title of comes or count, or of vicarious
or vice praefect. Between these officers and the praefecti there were three proconsuls,
of Asia, Achaia, and Africa, who however were but governors of provinces, the
whole number of which was one hundred and sixteen, and which were governed, besides
the proconsuls, by thirty-seven consulares, five correctores, and seventy-one
presidentes.
The military administration was entirely separated from the civil,
and as the Praefecti Praetorio were changed into civil officers, as has been mentioned
above, the supreme military command was conferred at first upon two, then four,
and finally eight Magistri Militum, under whom were the military Comites and Duces.
The number of legions was diminished, but the army was nevertheless much increased,
especially by barbarian auxiliaries, a dangerous practice, which hastened the
overthrow of the Western and shook the Eastern empire to its foundations. The
increase of the army rendered various oppressive taxes necessary, which were unequally
assessed, and caused many revolts. There were seven high functionaries, who may
be compared with some of the great officers of state in our country, viz. the
Praepositus Sacri Cubiculi, or Lord Chamberlain the Magister Officiorum, who acted
in many concerns as a secretary for home affairs; the Quaestor, or Lord Chancellor
and Seal-Keeper; the Comes Sacrarum Largitionum, or Chancellor of the Exchequer
for the public revenue; the Comes Rerum Privatarun Divinae Domus for the private
property of the emperor; and, finally, two Comites Domesticorum, or simply Domestici,
the commanders of the imperial life-guard. For further details we refer to the
authorities enumerated at the end of this article, and to Gutherius, "De Officiis
Domus Augustae".
Constantine deserves the name of Great: he rose to the highest pinnacle
of power, and owed his fortune to nobody but himself. His birth was a source of
dangers to him; his exalted qualities caused jealousy among his enemies, and during
the greater part of his reign his life was one continued struggle. He overcame
all obstacles through his own exertions; his skill vanquished his enemies; his
energy kept the hydra of anarchy headless; his prudence conducted him in safety
through conspiracies, rebellions, battles, and murder, to the throne of Rome;
his wisdom created a new organization for an empire, which consisted of huge fragments,
and which no human hand seemed powerful enough to raise to a solid edifice. Christianity
was made by him the religion of the state, but Paganism was not persecuted though
discouraged. The Christianity of the emperor himself has been a subject of warm
controversy both in ancient and modern times, but the graphic account which Niebuhr
gives of Constantine's belief seems to be perfectly just. Speaking of the murder
of Licinius and his own son Crispus, Niebuhr remarks (Hist. of Rome), "Many judge
of him by too severe a standard, because they look upon him as a Christian; but
I cannot regard him in that light. The religion which he had in his head must
have been a strange compound indeed. The man who had on his coins the inscription
Sol invictus, who worshipped pagan divinities, consulted the haruspices, indulged
in a number of pagan superstitions, and, on the other hand, built churches, shut
up pagan temples, and interfered with the council of Nicaea, must have been a
repulsive phaenomenon, ard was certainly not a Christian. He did not allow himself
to be baptized till the last moments of his life, and those who praise him for
this do not know what they are doing. He was a superstitious man, and mixed up
his Christian religion with all kinds of absurd superstitions and opinions. When,
therefore, certain Oriental writers call him isapostolos they do not know what
they are saying, and to speak of him as a saint is a profanation of the word".
The blame which falls upon Constantine for the death of Maximian,
Licinius, and Crispus, will fall upon many kings, and we have only fabulous accounts
of the mental sufferings which his bloody deeds might have caused him. Constantine
was not so great during the latter part of his reign. In proportion as he advanced
in years he lost that serene generosity which had distinguished him while he was
younger; his temper grew acrimonious, and he gave way to passionate bursts of
resentment which he would have suppressed while he was in the bloom of manhood.
He felt that the grandenr of Rome could be maintained only in the East, and he
founded Constantinople; but the spirit of the East overwhelmed him, and he sacrificed
the heroic majesty of a Roman emperor to the showy pomp and the vain ceremonies
of an Asiatic court. His life is an example of a great historical lesson: the
West may conquer the East, but the conqueror will die on his trophies by the poison
of sensuality.
As Constantine the Great was a successful political reformer, and
the protector of a new religion, he has received as much undeserved reproaches
as praise; the Christian writers generally deified him, and the Pagan historians
have cast infamy on his memory. To judge him fairly was reserved for the historians
of later times. (Euseb. Vita Constantini; Eutrop. lib. x.; Sextus Rufus, Brev.
26; Aurel. Vict. Epit. 40, 41, de Caes. 40, &c.; Zosim. lib. ii., Zosimus is a
violent antagonist of Constantine; Zonar. lib. xiii.)
The accounts of, and the opinions on, Constantine given by Eumenius,
Nazarius, &c., in the Panegyrics, and by the emperor Julian, in his Caesars as
well as in his Orations, are of great importance, but full of partiality: Julian
treats Constantine very badly, and the Panegyrics are what their name indicates.
Among the ecclesiastical writers, Eusebius, Lactantius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theophanes,
&c., are the principal; but it has already been observed that their statements
must be perused with great precaution. The Life of Constantine by Praxagoras,
which was known to the Byzantines, is lost. Besides these sources, there is scarcely
a writer of the time of Constantine and the following centuries, who does not
give some account of Constantine; and even in the works of the later Byzantines,
such as Constantine Porphyrogenitus and Cedrenus, we find valuable additions to
the history of that great emperor. The most complete list of sources, with critical
observations, is contained in Tillemont, Histoire des Empereurs. See also Manso,
Leben Constantins des Grossen.
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Nov 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Fausta, Flavia Maximiana, the daughter of Maximianus Herculius and Eutropia, was married in A. D. 307 to Constantine the Great, to whom she bore Constantinus, Constantius, and Constans. She acquired great influence with her husband in consequence of having saved his life by revealing the treacherous schemes of her father, who, driven to despair by his failure, soon after died at Tarsus. But although, on this occasion at least, she appeared in the light of a devoted wife, she at the same time played the part of a most cruel stepmother, for, in consequence of her jealous machinations, Constantine was induced to put his son Crispus to death. When, however, the truth was brought to light by Helena, who grieved deeply for her grandchild, Fausta was shut up in a bath heated far above the common temperature, and was thus suffocated, probably in A. D. 326. Zosimus seems inclined to throw the whole blame in both instances on Constantine, whom he accuses as the hypocritical perpetrator of a double murder, while others assign the promiscuous profligacy of the empress as the true origin of her destruction, but in reality the time, the causes, and the manner of her death are involved in great obscurity in consequence of the vague and contradictory representations of our historical authorities. (Zosim. ii. 10, 29; Julian, Orat. i; Auctor, de Mort. persec. 27; Eutrop. x. 2, 4; Victor. Epit. 40, 41; Philostorg. H. E. ii. 4)
Crispus, Glavius Julius, eldest of the sons of Constantinus Magnus and Minervina, derived his name without doubt from his greatgreat-grandfather Crispus, the brother of Claudius Gothicus. Having been educated, as we are told by St. Jerome, under Lactantius, he was nominated Caesar on the 1st of March, A. D. 317, along with his brother Constantinus and the younger Liciniusand was invested with the consulship the year following. Entering forthwith upon his military career, he distinguished himself in a campaign against the Franks, and soon after, in the war with Licinius, gained a great naval victory in the Hellespont, A. D. 323. But unhappily the glory of these exploits excited the bitter jealousy of his step-mother Fausta, at whose instigation he was put to death by his father in the year A. D. 326.(Euseb. Chron. ad ann. 317; Sozomen. Hist. Eccl. i. 5)
In 333/334 A.D., on the island of Cyprus, the Magister pecoris camelorum Calocaerus revolted and took up the purple. He was defeated by Dalmatius the Censor. The usurper and his accomplices were tried and executed at Tarsus in Cilicia.
Flavius Julius Delmatius, who was educated at Narbonne under the care of the rhetorician Exsuperius; distinguished
himself by suppressing the rebellion of Calocerus in Cyprus; was appointed consul
A. D. 333; two years afterwards was created Caesar by his uncle, whom he is said
to have resembled strongly in disposition; upon the division of the empire received
Thrace, Macedonia, together with Achaia, as his portion; and was put to death
by the soldiers in A. D. 337, sharing the fate of the brothers, nephews, and chief
ministers of Constantine. It must be observed that there is frequently great ditfficulty
in distinguishing Delmatius the father from Delmatius the son. Many historians
believe the former to have been the consul of A. D. 333, and the conqueror of
Calocerus, the date of whose revolt is very uncertain. A few coins of the younger
in gold, silver, and small brass, are to to be found in all large collections,
and on these his name is conjoined with the title of Caesar and Princeps Juventutis,
the orthography being for the most part Delmatius, although Dalmatius also occasionally
appears.
Constantius II., Flavius Julius, Roman emperor, A. D. 337-361, whose name is sometimes written Flavius Claudius
Constantius, Flavius Valerius Constantius, and Constantinus Constantius. He was
the third son of Constantine the Great, and the second whom he had by his second
wife, Fausta; he was born at Sirmium in Pannonia on the 6th of August, A. D. 317,
in the consulate of Ovidius Gallicanus and Septimius Bassus. He was educated with
and received the same careful education as his brothers, Constantine and Con stans,
was less proficient in learned pursuits and fine arts, but surpassed them in gymnastic
and military exercises. He was created consul in 326, or perhaps as early as 324,
and was employed by his father in the administration of the eastern provinces.
At the death of his father in 337, Constantius was in Asia, and immediately hastened
to Constantinople, where the garrison had already declared that none should reign
but the sons of Constantine, excluding thus the nephews of the late emperor, Dalmatius
and Hannibalianus, from the government of those provinces which had been assigned
to them by Constantine, who had placed Dalmatius over Greece, Macedonia, Thrace,
and part of Illyricum, and Hannibalianus over Pontus, Cappadocia, and Armenia
Minor, with Caesareia as the capital. The declaration of the army, whether preconcerted
between them and the sons of Constantine or not, was agreeable to Constantius,
who was apparently resolved to act in accordance with the same views. In a wholesale
murder, where the troops were the executioners, the male descendants of Constantius
Chlorus by his second wife perished through the cruel perfidy of Constantius,
who spared the lives of only two princes, Flavius Julius Gallus and Flavius Claudius
Julianus, the sons of Flavius Julianus Constantius, youngest son of Constantius
Chlorus, who himself became a victim of his nephew's ambition. Besides those princes,
the patrician Optatus and the praefectus praetorio Ablavius were likewise massacred.
It would be difficult to exculpate Constantius from the part which he took in
this bloody affair, even if it were true that his crime was not so much that of
a murderer as that of a cool spectator of a massacre which he could have prevented.
After this the three sons of Constantine the Great had an interview
at Sirmium in Pannonia, and made a new division of the empire (September, 337),
in which Constantine, the eldest, received Gaul, Spain, Britain, and part of Africa;
Constantius, the second and the subject of this article, Thrace, Macedonia, Greece,
the Asiatic provinces, and Egypt; and Constans, the youngest, Italy, Illyricum,
and the rest of Africa. The ancient world was thus governed by three youths of
twenty-one, twenty, and seventeen years of age. Immediately after the death of
Constantine the Great a war broke out with the Persian king, Sapor II., which
was chiefly carried on in Mesopotamia and on the frontiers of Syria, and, with
short interruptions, lasted during the whole reign of C(onstantius. This war was
to the disadvantage of the Romans (Greeks), who were vanquished in many battles,
especially at Singara, in 343, where Constantius commanded in person, and after
having carried the day, was routed with great slaughter of his troops in the succeeding
night. On the other hand, the Persians sustained great losses in their fruitless
attempts to take the strong fortress of Nisibis, the key of Mesopotamia; and as
other fortified places in that country as well as in the mountains of Armenia
were equally well defended, Sapor gained victories without making any acquisitions.
Being thus engaged in the east, Constantius was prevented from paying
due intention to the west, and he was obliged to be a quiet spectator of the civil
war between his brothers, in which Constantine was slain at Aquileia, and Constans
got possession of the whole share of Constantine in the division of the empire
(A. D. 340). In 350, Constans was murdered by the troops of Magnentius, who assumed
the purple and was obeyed as emperor in Britain, Gaul, and Spain; at the same
time Vetranio, commander of the legions in the extensive province of Illyricum,
was forced by his troops to imitate the example of Magnentius, and he likewise
assumed the purple. It was now time for Constantius to prove with his sword that
none but a son of the great Constantine should rule over Rome. At the head of
his army he marched from the Persian frontier to the West. At Heracleia in Thrace
ambassadors of Magnentius waited upon him, proposing that he should acknowledge
their master as emperor, and cement their alliance by a marriage of Constantius
with the daughter of Magnentius, and of Magnentius with Constantina, eldest sister
of Constantius; they threatened him with the consequences of a war should he decline
those propositions. Constantius dismissed the ambassadors with a haughty refusal,
and, sending one of them back to Magnentius, ordered the others to be put in prison
as the agents of a rebel. His conduct towards Vetranio tended to a reconciliation;
but while he promised to acknowledge him as co-emperor if he would join him against
Magnentius, he secretly planned treachery. Having bribed or persuaded the principal
officers of Vetranio to forsake their master if it should suit his plans, he advanced
towards Sardica, now Sophia, where he met with Vetranio, both of them being at
the head of an army, that of Vetranio, however, being by far the stronger. Had
Vetranio, a straightforward veteran, who could disobey but was not made for more
refined perfidy, now acted in the spirit of Constantius, he could have seized
his rival in the midst of his camp; but the result was very different. On a plain
near Sardica a tribune was erected, where the two emperors showed themselves to
their troops, who filled the plain apparently for the purpose of being witnesses
of a ceremony by which the empire was to have two lawful heads. Constantius first
addressed the armed crowd, and artfully turning upon his " legitimate" opinion,
that a son of the great Constantine was alone worthy to reign, suddenly met with
a thunder of applause from his own troops as well as those of Vetranio, who, either
spontaneously or in accordance with the instructions of their officers, declared
that they would obey no emperor but Constantius. Vetranio at once perceived his
situation : he took off his diadem, knelt down before Constantius, and acknowledged
him as his master, himself as his guilty subject. Constantius evinced equal wisdom:
he raised Vetranio from the ground, embraced him, and, as he despised a throne,
assigned him a pension, and allowed him to spend the rest of his days at Prusa
(A. D. 351).
Constantius now turned his arms against Magnentius, after having appointed
his cousin Gallus as Caesar and commander-in-chief of the army against the Persians.
At Mursa, now Essek, a town on the river Drave in Hungary, Magnentius was routed
(28th of September, A. D. 351) in a bloody battle, in which Constantius evinced
more piety than courage; but where the flower of both armies perished. The conquest
of Illyricum and Italy was the fruit of that victory, and Magnentius fled into
Gaul. There he was attacked in the east by the army under Constantius, and in
the west by another army, which, after having conquered Africa and Spain, crossed
the Pyrenees and penetrated into Gaul. After another complete defeat at mount
Seleucus in the Cossian Alps, and the rebellion of the principal cities in Gaul,
Magnentius, reduced to extremity, put an end to his life, and his brother Decentius
followed his example (A. D. 353). Constantius became thus master of the whole
West. He avenged the murder of his brother Constans, and established his authority
by cruel measures, and neither the guilty nor the innocent were exempt from his
resentment.
Once more the immense extent of the Roman empire was ruled by one
man. The administration of the government and the public and private life of Constantius,
approached more and more those of an Asiatic monarch: eanuchs reigned at the court,
and secret murders, dictated by jealousy or suspicion, were committed by order
of the emperor, whenever justice disdained or was too weak to assist him in his
plans. One of the victims of his malice was his cousin, Gallus Caesar. Guilty
of negligence, disobedience, and cruelty in his administration of the East, he
deserved punishment; and his guilt became still greater when he put to death the
imperial commissioners, Domitian, praefectus praetorio Orientis, and Montius,
quaestor palatii, who were sent to his residence, Antioch, to inquire into his
conduct, but conducted themselves with the most imprudent haughtines, threatening
and defying Gallus, when they ought to have ensnared him with gentle persuasions
and intrigues, according to their instructions. They were torn to pieces by the
mob excited by Gallus, who after such an atrocious act seemed to have had but
one means of saving himself from the emperor's resentment -rebellion. But deceived
by new promises from the artful Constantius, he went to meet him at Milan. At
Petovio in Pannonia he was arrested, and sent to Pola in Istria, where he was
beheaded in a prison (A. D. 354). Julian, the brother of Gallus was likewise arrested;
but, after having spent about a year in prison and exile, was pardoned at the
intervention of his protectress, the empress Eusebia, and in November, 355, was
created Caesar and appointed to the command-in-chief in Gaul, which was suffering
from the consequences of the rebellion of Sylvanus, who had assumed the purple,
but was ensnared by Ursicinus, by whom he was murdered in the church of St. Severin
at Cologne in September, 355.
In 357, Constantius visited Rome, where he celebrated an undeserved
triumph. Imitating the example of Augustus, he ordered the great obelisk which
stood before the temple of the Sun at Heliopolis to be carried to Rome, where
it was erected in the Circus Maximus. (Having been thrown down, it was placed
by order of pope Sixtus V. before the portal of the church of St. John Lateran,
and is known as the Lateran obelisk.) From Rome Constantius went to Illyricum,
where his generals made a successful campaign against the Quadi and Sarmatians,
and thence returned in 359 to Asia to meet the armies of Sapor, who had once more
invaded Mesopotamia, and taken Amida, now Diyarbekr, and the minor fortresses
of Singara and Bezabde. Before Sapor appeared in the field, Gaul was invaded by
the Alemanni and the Franks, but their power was broken in a three years' campaign
by Julian, who made Chnodomarius, the king of the Alemanni prisoner; and not only
by his martial deeds, but also by his excellent administration, which won him
the hearts of the inhabitants, he excited the jealousy of Constantius. Accordingly,
orders arrived in Gaul that the legions employed there should march to the defence
of the East. The pretext for this command was, that Gaul being tranquil, no great
army was required there, but the real motive was the fear that Julian might abuse
his popularity, and assume the purple. Instead of preventing tnat event, the iniprudent
order caused it. The troops refused to march; and Julian having nevertheless brought
thicu into motion, they suddenly proclaimed him emperor (A. D. 360). It is related
in the life of Julian how he acted under these circumstances; his protestations
of innocence were misconstrued; his ambassadors, who met with Constantius at Caesareia,
were dismissed with anger, and war was declared. Constantius, with the greater
part of his army, marched to the West, and the empire was on the eve of being
shaken by a dreadful civil war, when the sudden death of Constantius at Mopsocrene,
near Tarsus in Cilicia (3rd of November, A. D. 361), prevented that calamity,
and made Julian the sole master of the empire. By his third wife, Maxima Faustina,
Constantius left one daughter, who was afterwards married to the emperor Gratian.
(Amm. Marc. lib. xiv.-xxi.; Zosimus, lib. ii. iii.; Agathias, lib. iv.; Euseb.
Vita Constantin. lib. iv.; Eutrop. lib. x. 5, &c.; Julian. Oral. i. ii.; Liban.
Orat. iii.-x.; Zonar. lib. xiii.)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Nov 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Maxima Faustina, the third wile of Constantius, whom he married at Antioch in A. D. 360, a short period before his death. She gave birth to a posthumous daughter, who received the name of Flavia Maxima Constantia, and was eventually united to the emperor Gratian. We know nothing with regard to the family of this Faustina, but she appears again in history along with her child, as one of the supporters of the rebel Procopius, who made good use of the presence of the youthful princess to inflame the zeal of his soldiers by rekindling their enthusiasm for the glories of the house from which she sprung. (Ducange, Fam. Byz.; Amm. Marc. xxi. 6.4, 15.6, xxvi. 7. 10, 9.8)
Julianus, Flavius Claudius, surnamed Apostata, "the Apostate," Roman emperor,
A. D. 361-363, was born at Constantinople on the 17th of November, A. D. 331 (332?).
He was the son of Julius Constantius by his second wife, Basilina, the grandson
of Constantius Chlorus by his second wife, Theodora, and the nephew of Constantine
the Great.
Julian and his elder brother, Flavius Julius Gallus, who was the son
of Julius Constantius by his first wife, Galla, were the only members of the imperial
family whose lives were spared by Constantius II., the son of Constantine the
Great, when, upon his accession, he ordered the massacre of all the male descendants
of Constantine Chlorus and his second wife, Theodora. Both Gallus and Julian were
of too tender an age to be dangerous to Constantius, who accordingly spared their
lives, but had them educated in strict confinement at different places in Ionia
and Bithynia, and afterwards in the castle of Macellum near Caesareia: and we
know from Julian's own statement in his epistle to the senate and people of Athens,
that, although they were treated with all the honours due to their birth, they
felt most unhappy in their royal prison, being surrounded by spies who were to
report the least of their words and actions to a jealous and bloodthirsty tyrant.
However, they received a careful and learned education, and were brought up in
the principles of the Christian religion: their teachers were Nicocles Luco, a
grammarian, and Ecebolus, a rhetorician, who acted under the superintendence of
the eunuch Mardonius, probably a pagan in secret, and of Eusebius, an Arian, afterwards
bishop of Nicomedeia. Gallus was the first who was released from his slavery by
being appointed Caesar in A. D. 351, and governor of the East, and it was through
his mediation that Julian obtained more liberty. The conduct of Gallus in his
government, and his execution by Constantius in A. D. 354, are detailed elsewhere.
Julian was now in great danger, and the emperor would probably have sacrificed
him to his jealousy but for the circumstance that he had no male issue himself,
and that Julian was consequently the only other surviving male of the imperial
family. Constantius was satisfied with removing Julian from Asia to Italy, and
kept him for some time in close confinement at Milan, where he lived surrounded
by spies, and in constant fear of sharing the fate of his brother. Owing to the
mediation of the empress Eusebia, an excellent woman, who loved Julian with the
tenderness of a sister, the young prince obtained an interview view Constantius,
and having succeeded in cahniag the cmperor's suspicions, was allowed to lead
a private life at Athens (A. D. 355). Athens was then the centre of Greek learning,
and there Julian spent short but delightful period in intercourse with the most
celebrated philosophers, scholars, and artists of the time, and in the society
of a company of young men who were devoted to the pursuit of knowledge, and among
whom was Gregory Nazianzen, who became afterwards so celebrated as a Christian
orator. Among those learned men Julian was not the least in renown, and he attracted
universal attention both by his talents and his knowledge. The study of Greek
literature and philosophy was his principal and favourite pursuit. He had been
brought up by Greeks and among Greeks, and his predilection for whatever was Greek
was of course very natural ; but he did not neglect Latin literature, and we Jearn
from Ammianus Marcellinus (xvi. 5), that he had a fair knowledge of the Latin
language, which was then stil spoken at the court of Constantinople. While Julian
lived in happy retirement at Athens, the cmperor was bent down by the weight of
public affairs, and the empire being exposed to the invasions of the Persians
in the east, and of the Germans and Sarmatians in the west and the north, he followed
the advice of Eusebia, in opposition to his eunuchs, in conferring the rank of
Caesar upon Julian, who was accordingly recalled from Athens and summoned to Milan,
where Constantius was residing. Julian obeyed reluctantly : the Greek Minerva
had more charms for him than the Roman Jupiter, and he was too well acquainted
with the mythology of his ancestors not to know that even the embraces of Jupiter
are sometimes fatal. On the 6th of November, A. D. 355, Julian was solemnly proclaimed
Caesar, and received, as a guarantee of the emperor's sincerity, the hand of his
sister Helena, who was the youngest child of Constantine the Great. At the same
time he was invested with the government of the provinces beyond the Alps, but
some time elapsed before he set out for Gaul, where he was to reside, and during
this time he began to accustom himself to behave with that composure and artihcial
dignity which suited a person of his exalted station, but which corresponded so
little with his taste and habits. When he first entered upon public life he was
timid and clumsy, and he used afterwards to laugh at his own awkwardness on those
occasions. The internal peace of Gaul was still suffering from the consequences
of the revolt of Sylvanus, and her frontiers were assailed by the Germans, who
had crossed the Rhine, burnt Strassburg, Treves, Cologne, and many other flourishing
cities, and made devastating inroads into the midland provinces of Gaul. Accustomed
to the quiet occupations of a scholar, Julian seemed little fitted for the command
in the field, but he found an experienced lieutenant in the person of the veteran
general Sallustius, and the wisdom he had learned in the schools of Greece was
not merely theoretical philosophy, but virtue : temperate to the extreme, he despised
the luxuries of a Roman court, and his food and bed were not better than those
of a common soldier. In his administration he was just and forbearing; and never
discouraged by adversity nor inflated by success, he showed himself worthy to
reign over others, because he could reign over himself.
Julian arrived in Gaul late in A. D. 355, and, after having stayed
the winter at Vienna (Vienne in Dauphine), he set out in the spring of 356 to
drive the barbarians back over the Rhine. In this campaign he fought against the
Alemanni, the invaders of Southern Gaul. He made their first acquaintance near
Rheims, and paid dearly for it : they fell unexpectedly upon his rear, and two
legions were cut to pieces. But as he nevertheless advanced towards the Rhine,
it seems that the principal disadvantage of his defeat was only a loss of men.
In the following spring (357) he intended to cross the Rhine, and to penetrate
into the country of the Alemanni; and he would have executed his plan but for
the strange conduct of the Roman general Barbation, who was on his march from
Italy with an army of 25,000, or perhaps 30,000 men, in order to effect his junction
with Julian. A sufficient number of boats was collected at Basel for the purpose
of throwing a bridge over the Rhine, and provisions were kept there for supporting
his troops, but barbation remained inactive on the left bank, and proved his treacherous
designs by burning both the ships and the provisions. In consequence of this,
Julian was compelled to adopt the defensive, and the Alemanni, headed by their
king Chnodomarius, crossed the Rhine, and took up a position near Strassburg (August,
A. D. and took up a position near Strassburg strong : Julian had only 13,000 veterans;
but he did not decline the engagement, and, after a terrible conflict, he gained
a decisive victory, which was chiefly owing to the personal valour of the young
prince. Six thousand of the barbarians remained on the field, perhaps as many
were slain in their flight or drowned in the Rhine, and their king Chnodomarius
was made prisoner. The loss of the Romans in this memorable battle is stated by
Ammianus Marcellinus to have been only 243 privates and four officers; but this
is not credible. Chnodomarius was well treated by Julian, who sent him to the
court of Constantius.
Immediately after this victory Julian invaded the territory of the
Alemanni on the right bank of the Rhine, but more for the purpose of exhibiting
his power than of making any permanent conquests, for he advanced only a few miles,
and then returned and led his troops against the Franks, who had conquered the
tract between the Seheldt, the Maas, and the Lower Rhine. Some of the Frankish
tribes he drove back into Germany, and others he allowed to remain in Gaul, on
condition of their submitting to the Roman authority. Upon this he invaded Germany
a second time, in 358, and a third time in 359, in order to make the Alemanni
desist from all further attempts upon Gaul, and he not only succeeded, but returned
with 20,000 Romans, whom the Alemanni had taken, and whom he compelled them to
give up.
The peace of Gaul being now established, Julian exerted himself to
rebuild the cities that had been ruined on the frontiers of Germany: among those
rebuilt and fortified by him were Bingen, Andernach, Bonn, and Neuss, and, without
doubt, Cologne also, as this city had been likewise laid in ashes by the Germans.
As the constant inroads of the barbarians had interrupted all agricultural pursuits
in those districts, there was a great scarcity of corn, but Julian procured an
abundant supply by sending six hundred barges to England, which came back with
a sufficient quantity for both grinding and sowing. The minimum of the quantity
of corn thus exported from England has been calculated at 120,000 quarters, and
it has been justly observed that the state of agriculture in this country must
have been in an advanced condition, since so much corn could be exported nearly
altogether at the same time. Julian bestowed the same care upon the other provinces
of Gaul, and the country evidently recovered under his administration, although
the power with which he was invested was by no means extensive enough to check
the system of rapacity and oppression which characterises the government of the
later Roman emperors. His usual residence was Paris: he caused the large island
in the Seine, which is now called l'ile de la Cite, and whereupon stood ancient
Paris or Lutetia, to be surrounded by a stone wall and towers, and he built the
Thermae Juliani, a palace with baths, the extensive remains of which, "les thermes
de Julien", are still visible in the Rue de la Harpe, between the palace of Cluny
and the School of Medicine.
While Julian became more and more popular in the provinces entrusted
to his administration, and his fame was spreading all over the empire, Constantius
once more gave way to the suggestions of jealousy and distrust, and believed that
Julian aimed at popularity in order to gain for himself the supreme authority.
It happened that in A. D. 360 the eastern provinces were again threatened by the
Persians. Constantius commanded Julian to send to the frontiers of Persia four
of his best legions and a number of picked soldiers from his other troops, apparently
that he might be able apprehend him, which it was impossible to do while he was
surrounded by so many thousands devoted warriors. This order surprised Julian
in April 360: to obey it was to expose Gaul to new inroads of the Germans, and
Britain to the ravages of the Scots and Picts, whose incursions had assumed such
a dangerous character that Julian just despatched Lupicinus to defend the island;
but to disobey the order was open revolt. His soldiers also were unwilling to
march into Asia; but Julian, notwithstanding the dangers that awaited him, resolved
to obey, and endeavoured to persuade his troops to submit quietly to the will
of their master. His endeavours were in vain. In the night large bodies of soldiers
surprised the palace of Julian, and proclaimed him emperor. He had hid himself
in his apartments; but they soon discovered him, dragged him, though respectfully,
before the assembled troops, and compelled him to accept the crown. Upon this
he despatched Pentadius and Eutherius with a conciliatory message to Constantius,
in which, however, he positively demanded to be acknowledged as Augustus, and
to be invested with the supreme authority in those provinces over which he had
ruled as Caesar, viz. Gaul, Spain, and Britain. The conditions of Julian were
haughtily declined; and after a considerable time had elapsed in fruitless negotiations,
which Julian employed in making two more expeditions beyond the Rhine against
the Franks and the Alemanni, he at last resolved to wage open war, and to march
upon Constantinople. His army was numerous and well disciplined, and the frontier
along the Rhine in an excellent state of defence: his troops, who had refused
leaving Gaul without him, now joyfully left it with him. Meanwhile, Constantius
likewise collected a strong army, and gave directions for the defence of his capital
from Antioch, from whence he had superintended the Persian war. Informed of his
plans, Julian resolved to thwart them by quickness and energy. At Basel on the
Rhine he divided his army into two corps: one, commanded by Novitta, was to march
through Rhaetia and Noricum; the other, under the orders of Jovius and Jovinus,
was to cross the Alps and march through the north-eastern corner of Italy: both
divisions were to unite at Sirmium, a town on the Savus, now Save. Julian, at
the head of a small but chosen body of 3000 veterans, plunged into the wildernesses
of the Marcian, now Black Forest; and for some time the rival of Constantius seemed
to be lost in those dark glens whence issue the sources of the Danube. But when
Novitta, Jovius and Jovinus arrived at Sirmium, they be held, to their joy and
astonishment, the active Julian with his band, who had descended the Danube and
had already defeated the extreme outposts of Lucilian, the lieutenant of Constantius
in those regions.
From Sirmium Julian moved upon Constantinople: the officers of Constantius
fled before him, but the inhabitants received him with acclamations of joy; and
at Athens, Rome, and other important cities, he was either publicly or privately
acknowledged as emperor, having previously sent explanatory letters to the authorities
of those distant places. Informed of the unexpected appearance of Julian on the
Danube, Constantius set out from Syria to defend his capital; and a terrible civil
war threatened to desolate Italy and the East, to when Constantius suddenly died
at Mopsocrene in Cilicia, on the third of November, A. D. 361, leaving the whole
empire to the undisputed posses sion of Julian. On the 11th of December following,
Julian made his triumphal entrance into Constantinople. Shortly afterwards the
mortal remains of Constantius arrived in the Golden Horn, and had were buried
by Julian in the church of the Holy Apostles with great solemnity and magnificence.
While Julian thus gave a Christian burial to the body of his rival,
he had long ceased to be a Christian himself. According to Julian's own statement
(Epist. ii.), he was a Christian up to his twentieth year; and the manner in which
he praises his tutor, Mardonius, seems to imply that Mardonius and the philosopher
Maximus first caused him to love the religion of the ancient Greeks, without,
however, precisely estranging him from the Christian religion, which seems to
have been the effect of his study of the ancient Greek philosophers. The vile
hypocrisy of the base and cruel Constantius, the conviction of Julian that Con
stantine the Great had at first protected, and afterwards embraced, Christianity
from mere political motives, the persecuting spirit manifested equally by the
Orthodox and Arians against one another,-- had also a great share in the conversion
of Julian. During ten years he dissembled his apostacy, which was, however, known
to many of his friends, and early suspected by his own brother Gallus and it was
not till he had succeeded to the throne that he publicly avowed himself a pagan.
Our space does not allow us to enter into the details of his apostacy, and we
must refer the reader to the sources cited below. His apostasy was no sooner known
than the Christians feared a cruel persecution, and the heathens hoped that paganism
would be forced upon all who were not heathens; but they were beth disappointed
by an edict of [p. 647] Julian, in which lie proclaimed a perfect toleration of
all parties. He was not, however, impartial in his conduct towards the Christians,
since he preferred pagans as his civil and military officers, forbade the Christians
to teach rhetoric and grammar in the schools, and, in order to annoy them, allowed
the Jews to rebuild their great temple at Jerusalem 1 and compelled the followers
of Jesus to pay money towards the erection of pagan temples, and, in some instances,
to assist in building them. Had Julian lived longer he would have seen that his
apostacy was not followed by those effects, either religious or political, which
he flattered himself would take place: he would have learnt that paganism, as
he understood it, was not the religion of the great mass of pagans, and that paganism,
as it actually existed, was a rotten institution, destitute of all religious and
moral discipline; and he would have witnessed that, however divided the Christians
were, there was something better and healthier in Christianity than futile subjects
for subtle controversies.
Soon after his accession Julian set out for Antioch, where he remained
some time busy in organising a powerful army for the invasion, and perhaps subjugation,
of Persia. The people of Antioch received him coolly: they were Christians, but
also the most frivolous and luxurious people in the East, and they despised the
straightforward and somewhat rustic manners of an emperor who had formed his character
among stern Celts and Germans. At Antioch Julian made the acquaintance of the
orator Libanius; but the latter was unable to reconcile the emperor to the sort
of life which prevailed in that splendid city. He therefore withdrew to Tarsus
in Cilicia, where he took up his winter-quarters. In the following spring (March,
363) he set out for Persia. The different corps of his army met at Hierapolis,
where they passed the Euphrates on a bridge of boats, and thence moved to Carrhae,
now Ilarran, a town in Mesopotamia about fifty miles E. N. E. from Hierapolis.
Julian's plan was to march upon Ctesiphon, but in order to deceive the Persian
king, Sapor, he despatched Procopius and Sebastianus with 30,000 men against Nisibis
(east of Carrhae), while he himself wheeled suddenly round to the south, following
the course of the Euphrates on its left or Mesopotamian side. Procopius and Sebastianus
were to join Arsaces Tiranus, king of Armenia, and Julian expected to effect a
junction with their united forces in the environs of Ctesiphon ; but the treachery
of Arsaces prevented the accomplishment of his plan, as is mentioned below. While
Julian marched along the Euphrates in a south-eastern direction, he was accompanied
by a fleet of 1100 ships, fifty of which were well-armed galleys, and the rest
barges, carrying a vast supply of provisions and military stores. At Circesium,
situated on the confluence of the Chaboras, now the Khabur, with the Euphrates,
he arrived at the Persian frontier, which rail along the lower part of the Chaboras,
and he Fntered the Persian territory on the 7th of April, 363, at the head of
an army of 65,000 veterans. The bridge of the Chaboras was broken down behind
them by his orders, to convince the soldiers that a retreat was no plan of their
master. From Circesium he continued marching along the Euphrates till he came
to that narrow neck of land which separates the Euphrates from the Tigris in the
latitude of Ctesiphon. This portion of the route lies partly through a dreary
desert, where the Romans experienced some trifling losses from the light Persian
horse, who hovered round them, and occasionally picked up stragglers or assailed
the rear or the van. Previous to crossing the neck of land, Julian besieged, stormed,
and burned Perisabor, a large town on the Euphrates; and while crossing that tract,
he was delayed some time under the walls of Maogamalcha, which lie likewise took
after a short siege and razed to the ground. Julian now accomplished a most difficult
and extraordinary task: he conveyed his whole fleet across the above-mentioned
neck of land, by an ancient canal called Nahar-Malcha, which, however, he was
obliged to deepen before he could trust his ships in such a passage; and, as the
canal joined the Tigris below Ctesiphon, he looked for and found an old cut, dug
by Trajan, from Colche to a place somewhat above Ctesipllon, which, however, he
was likewise compelled to make deeper and broader, so that at last his fleet run
safely out into the Tigris. The canal of Nahar-Malcha is now called the canal
of Saklawiyeh, or Isa; it joins the Tigris a little below Baghdad, and it still
affords a communication between the two rivers. Through a very skilful manoeuvre,
he brought over his army on the left bank of the Tigris, -a passage not only extremely
difficult on account of the rapid current of the Tigris, but rendered still more
so through the stout resistance of a Persian army, which, however, was routed
and pursued to the walls of Ctesiphon. The city would have been entered by the
Romans together with the fugitive Persians, but for the death of their leader,
Victor. Julian was now looking out for the arrival of Procopius and Sebastianus,
and the main army of the Armenian king, Arsaces or Tiranus. He was sadly disappointed:
his lieutenants did not arrive, and Tiranus arranged for a body of his Armenians
to desert which had joined the Romans previously, and which now secretly withdrew
from the Roman camp at Ctesiphon. Julian nevertheless began the siege of that
vast city, which was defended by the flower of the Persian troops, king Sapor,
with the main body of his army, not having yet arrived from the interior of Persia.
Unable to take the city, and desirous of dispersing the king's army, Julian imprudently
followed the advice of a Persian nobleman of great distinction, who appeared in
the Roman camp under the pretext of being persecuted by Sapor, and who recommended
the emperor to set out in search of the Persian king. In doing so, Julian would
have been compelled to Abandon his fleet on the Tigris to the attacks of a hostile
and infuriated populace: this he avoided by setting fire to his ships,--the best
thing he could have done, if his march into the interior of Persia had been dictated
by absolute necessity; but as he was not obliged to leave the city, even success
would not have compensated for the loss of 1200 ships. In proportion as the Romans
advanced eastward, the country became more and more barren, and Sapor remained
invisible. The treachery of the Persian noble was discovered after his secret
flight, and Julian was obliged to retreat. He took the direction of the province
of Corduene. The Persians now appeared: swarms of light horse were seen hovering
round the army; larger bodies followed, and ere long Sapor, with his main army,
came in sight, and harassed fearfully the rear of the Romans. Still the Romans
remained victorious in many a bloody engagement, especially at Maronga; but it
was in the mouth of June, and the oppressive heat, and the want of water and provisions
had a pernicious effect upon the troops. On the 26th of June the Roman rear was
suddenly assailed by the Persians, and Julian, who commanded the van, hastened
to the relief of the rear without his cuirass, the heat making a heavy armour
almost insupportable. The Persians were repulsed, and fled in confusion. Julian
was pursuing them with the utmost bravery, when in the middle of the melee he
was shot by an arrow, that pierced through his liver. He fell from his horse mortally
wounded, and was conveyed to his tent. Feeling his death approaching, he took
leave of his friends with touching words, but certainly not with that fine and
elegant speech with which Ammianus Marcellinus (xxv. 3) makes him bid farewell
to the world.
Jovian was chosen emperor in his stead, on the field of battle.
We cannot enter into a long description of Juliain's character. His
talents, his principles, and his deeds, were alike extraordinary. His pride was
to be called by others and by himself a philosopher, yet many facts prove that
he was very superstitious. Most Christian writers abused and calumniated him because
he abandoned Christianity: if they had pitied him they would have acted more in
accordance with that sublime precept of our religion, which teaches us to forgive
our enemies. It must ever be recollected that the bigotry, the hypocrisy, and
the uncharitableness, of the majority of the Christians of Julian's time, were
some of the principal causes that led to his apostacy. In reading the ancient
authorities, the student oughlt to bear in mind that the heathen writers extol
Julian far too high, and that the Christians debase him far too low.
Julian was great as an emperor, unique as a man, and remarkable
as an author. He wrote an immense number of works, consisting of orations
on various subjects, historical treatises, satires, and letters : most of the
latter were intended for public circulation. All these works are very elaborately
composed, so much so as to afford a fatiguing and monotonous reading to those
who peruse them merely for their merits as specimens of Greek literature but they
are at the same time very important sources for the history and the opinions of
the age on religion and philosophy. Julian also tried to write poetry, but he
was no poet: lie lacks imagination, and his artificial manner of embellishing
prose shows that he had no poetical vein. He was a man of reflection and thought,
but possessed no creative genius. His style is remarkably pure for his time, and
shows that lie had not only studied the classical Greek historians and philosophers,
but had so far identified himself with his models, that there is scarcely a page
in his works where we do not meet with either reminiscences from the classical
writers, or visible efforts to express his ideas in the same way as they did.
With this painful imitation of his classical models he often unites the exaggerated
and over-elaborate style of his contemporaries, and we trace in his writings the
influence of the Platonists no less than that of Plato, Aristotle, Thucydides,
and so many other writers of the golden age. There is, however, one circumstance
which reconciles the reader to many of the author's defects: Julian did not merely
write for writing's sake, as so many of his contemporaries did, but he shows that
he had his subjects really at heart, and that in literature as well as in business
his extraordinary activity arose from the wants of a powerful mind, which desired
to improve itself and the world. In this respect Julian excites our sympathy much
more, for instance, than the rhetorician Libanius.
The following are the editions of the entire works of Julian:
Juliani Imperatoris Opera quae exlant, with a Latin translation by P. Martinius
and C. Cantoclarus, and the author's life by Martinius, Paris, 1583: Juliani Opera,
quae quidem reperiri pottuerunt, omnia, Paris, 1630, by Petavius, with notes and
a Latin translation. A better edition than either of the two preceding is: Juliani
Impcratoris Opera, quae supersunt omnia, Leipzig, 1696, by Ezechiel Spanheim,
who perused an excellent codex, which enabled him to publish a much purer text
than Petavius, and he added the notes of Petavius and his translation, which he
corrected, as well as an excellent commentary of his own. This edition contains
63 letters of Julian. Spanheim further added to it S. Cyrilli, Aleaandrini Archiepiscopi,
contra impium Julianum Libri Decem, which is the more valuable as Cyrillus was
one of the most able adversaries of Julian, as is mentioned below. The following
is a list of Julian's works, with the principal separate editions of each:
I. Letters. The first collection, published by Aldus, Venice, 1499, contains only
48 letters; Spanheim published 63 in his edition of the works of Julian; others
were found in later times, four of which are printed in Fabricius, Biblioth. Graec.
; the last and best edition is by L. H. Heyler, Mainz, 1828; it contains 83 letters,
with a Latin translation and a commentary of the editor. There are besides some
fragments of lost letters. Among the letters of Julian, there is also one which
was written to him by his brother Gallus, in A. D. 353, who advises him to remain
faithful to the Christian religion. The authenticity of several letters is contested.
They treat on various subjects, and are of great importance for the history of
the time. One, which was addressed to the senate and people of Athens, and in
which the author explains the motives of his having taken up arms against the
emperor Constantius, is an interesting and most important historical document.
II. Orations. 1. Elkomion pros autokratora Konstantion, with a Latin translation
by Petavius, Paris, 1614: an encomium of the emperor Constantius, in which Julian
is not consisteit with his usual feelings of contempt and hatred towards that
emperor. In general Julian speaks very badly of the whole imperial family, and
even Constantine the Great does not escape his severe censure. Wyttenbach, in
the work quoted below, has written some excellent observations on this work. 2.
Peri ton Autokpatoros Tpraxeon, e tepi Basileias, two orations on the deeds and
tile reign of the emperor Constantius, which are of great importance for the knowledge
of the time: in the complete editions. Julian wrote these orations in Gaul, and
betray in many a passage his preference of paganism to Christianity, as well as
his enthusiastic love of the new Platonic philosophy. 3. Eusebias tes basilidos
Elkomion, an encomiurnon the empress Eusebia, tile patroness of Julian: ed. Petavius,
Paris, 1614. 4. Eis ton basilea Helion, an oration on the worship of the sun,
addressed to Sallustius, his old military councillor and friend, first in Gaul
and afterwards in Germany: ed. by Theodorus Marcilius, Paris, 1583; by Vincentius
Marinerius, Madrid, 1625. 5. Eis ten metera ton theon, an oration on the mother
of gods (Cybele): Julian visited the temple of Cybele at Pessinus, and restored
her worship. 6. Eis tous ataideutous Kunas; and 7. Pros Herakleion Kunikon, peri
tou pos Kunisteun, kai ei prepei toi Kuni muthous, prattein two orations on true
and false Cynicism, the latter addressed to the Cynic Heracleius. 8. Epi te exudoi
tou alathotatou ealloudtion taramuthetikos,a letter to the aforesaid Sallustius,
in which he consoles himself and his friends on the recal of Sallustius, by the
emperor Constantius, from Gaul to the East. 9. A letter, or more correctly dissertation,
addressed to his former tutor, the philosopher Themistius, on the difficulty the
author thinks he would experience in showing himself so perfect an emperor as
Themistis expected.
III. Otler Works. 1. Kaisapes e Sumtosion, the "Caesars or the Banquet," a satirical
composition, which Gibbon justly calls one of the most agreeable and instructive
productions of ancient wit. Julian describes the Roman emperors approaching one
after the other to take their seat round a table placed in the heavens; and as
they come up, their faults, vices, and crimes, are censured with a sort of bitter
mirth by old Silenus, whereupon each Caesar defends himself as well as he can,
that is, as well as Julian allows him to do; but in this Julian shows much partiality,
especially towards Constantine the Great and other members of the imperial family.
Alexander the Great also appears. He and other great heroes at last acknowledge
that a royal philosopher is greater than a royal hero, and the piece finishes
with a great deal of praise bestowed upon Julian by himself. There are many editions
and translations of this remarkable production. Of these, the most important are
the text with a Latin translation by C. Cantoclarus, Paris, 1577, the Editio Princeps;
the same Ibid. 1583; the same, corrected by Frederic Sylburg, in the third volume
of his Romanae Hisitoriae Scriptores Minorcs, and separately, Frankfort, 1590;
by Petrus Cunaeas, with an elegant Latin translation, Leyden, 1632; the same with
the notes of Cellarius, Leipzig, 1693, 1735. The best editions are by J. M. Heusinger,
Gotha, 1736, 1741, and by Harless, the editor of Fabricius, Bibl. Graeca, Erlangen,
1785. An English translation of the Caesares, the Misopogon, and several other
productions of Julian, is contained in "Select Works of the Emperor Julian, and
some Pieces of the Sophist Libanius, &c., with Notes from Petav, La Bleterie,
Gibbon, &c., and a translation of La Bleterie's Vie de Jovien, by John Duncombe",
London, 1784. Several French, German, Italian, and Dutch translations are mentioned
by Fabricius.
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Jan 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Helena, Flavia Julia, daughter of Constantine the Great and Fausta, was given in marriage by her brother Constantius to her cousin Julian the Apostate, when the latter was nominated Caesar, towards the end of A. D. 355. She survived the union for five years only, until A. D. 360, having borne one child, a boy, which died immediately after its birth. Her sterility, as well as the fate of this solitary infant, were ascribed, as we learn from Ammianus Marcellinus, to the guilty arts of her sister-in-law, the empress Eusebia. (Amm. Marc. xv. 8.18, xvi. 10.18, xxi. 1.5)
Jovianus, Flavius Claudius, Roman emperor (A. D. 363-364), was the son of the
Comes Varronianus, one of the most distinguished generals of his time, who had
retired from public life when the accession of his son took place. Jovianus was
primus ordinis domesticorum, or captain of the lifeguards of the emperor Julian,
and accompanied him on his unhappy campaign against the Persians. Julian having
been slain on the field of battle, on the 26th of June, A. D. 363, and the election
of another emperor being urgent, on account of the danger in which the Roman army
was placed, the choice of the leaders fell first upon their veteran brother Sallustius
Secundus, who, however, dedined the honour, and proposed Jovian. The merits of
his father more than his own induced the Roman generals to follow the advice of
their colleague, and Jovian was proclaimed emperor on the day after the death
of Julian. He immediately professed himself to be a Christian. The principal and
most difficult task of the new emperor was to lead his army back into the old
Roman territories. No sooner had he begun his retreat, than Sapor, the Persian
king, who had been informed of the death of Julian, made a general attack upon
the Romans. Jovian won the day, continued his retreat under constant attacks,
and at last reached the Tigris, but was unable with all his efforts to cross that
broad, deep, and rapid river in presence of the Persian army. In this extremity
he listened to the propositions of Sapor, who was afraid to rouse the despair
of the Romans. After four days' negotiations he purchased the safety of his army
by giving up to the Persian king the five provinces, or rather districts, beyond
the Tigris, which Galerius had united to the Roman empire in A. D. 297, viz. Arzanene,
Moxoene, Zabdicene, Rehimene and Corduene, as well as Nisibis and several other
fortresses in Mesopotamia. Great blame has been thrown upon Jovian for having
made such a disgraceful peace; but the circumstances in which he was placed rendered
it necessary, and he was, moreover, anxious to secure his crown, and establish
his authority in the western provinces. He had no sooner crossed the Tigris than
he despatched officers to the West, investing his father-in-law Lucillianus with
the supreme command in Italy, and Malaricus with that in Gaul. On the western
banks of the Tigris he was joined by Procopius with the troops stationed in Mesopotamia,
and being now out of danger, he devoted some time to administrative and legislative
business. His chief measure was the celebrated edict, by which he placed tile
Christian religion on a legal basis, and thus put an end to the persecutions to
which the Christians had been exposed during the short reign of Julian. The heathens
were, however, equally protected, and no superiority was allowed to the one over
the other. The different sectaries assailed him with petitions to help them against
each other, but he declined interfering, and referred then to the decision of
a general council ; and the Arians showing themselves most troublesome, he gave
them to understand that impartiality was the first duty of an emperor. His friend
Athanasins was restored to his see at Alexandria. After having abandoned Nisibis
to tile Persians, he marched through Edessa, Antioch, Tarsus, and Tyana in Cappadocia,
where he learnt that Malaricus having declined the command of Gaul, Lucillianus
had hastened thither from Italy, and had been slain in a riot by the soldiers,
but that the army had been restored to obedience by Jovinus. From Tyana Jovian
pursued his march to Constantinople, in spite of an unusually severe winter. On
the 1st of January, 364, he celebrated at Ancyra his promotion to the consulship,
taking as colleague his infant son Varronianus, whom he called nobilissimus on
the occasion. Having arrived at Dadastana, a small town in Galatia, on the borders
of Bithynia, he indulged in a hearty supper and copious libations of wine, and
endeavoured to obtain sound repose in an apartment which had lately been whitewashed,
by ordering burning charcoals to be placed in the damp room. On the following
morning (17th of February, 364) he was found dead in his bed. His death is ascribed
to various causes -to intemperance, the coal-gas, and the poison of an assassin.
It is possible, though not probable, that he died a violent death, to which Ammianus
Marcellinus (xxv. 10) seems to allude when he compares his death with that of
Aemilianus Scipio.
(Amm. Marc. xxv. 5-10; Eutrop. x. 17, 18; Zosim. iii.; Zonar.; Oros. vii. 31;
Sozomen. vi. 3; Philostorg. viii. 5; Agathias, iv.; Themistius dwells upon the
history of Jovian in several orations, especially Or. 5 and 7, and bestows all
the praise on him which we might expect from a panegyrist; De la Bleterie, Histoire
de Jovien, Amsterd. 1740, the best work on the subject.)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Jan 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Valens, emperor of the East A. D. 364-378, the brother of Valentinian I., was born about
A. D. 328. The name of his wife was Albia Dominica, by whom he had a son and two
daughters. Under Julian he was one of the Domestici. He was made emperor of the
East by his brother on the 28th of March A. D. 364, as is told in the article
Valentinianus I.
Valens had in his service the Prefect Sallustius, and the generals
Lupicinus, Victor, and Arinthaeus. By a constitution of the 16th of December of
this year, he forbade the practice of giving presents to those who carried to
the provinces important news, such as the accession of an emperor or his assumption
of the consulship : he allowed the carriers of such news to receive the presents
which persons of property or condition might choose to give, but not to exact
anything from those who were not in easy circumstances. The Goths are spoken of
as having made their appearance in Thrace in this year, but they were induced
to retire, probably by money. Valens left Constantinople in the spring of A. D.
365, for Asia Minor, and he was at Caesarea in Cappadocia in the month of July,
when the great earthquake happened, which shook all the country round the Mediterranean.
The revolt of Procopius for a time rendered the throne of Valens insecure. Procopius
assumed the imperial title at Constantinople, on the 28th of September, A. D.
365, and Valens received the intelligence as he was going to leave Caesarea. After
the death of Procopius, A. D. 366, Valens treated the partisans of the rebel with
great clemency according to Themistius; but Ammianus and Zosimus say that he punished
many innocent persons. The fact of some persons being punished is certain: the
nature and degree of their participation in the revolt may be doubtful. The emperor
had sworn to demolish the walls of Chalcedon for the share which it had taken
in the insurrection, but at the prayer of the people of Nicaea, Nicomedia, and
Constantinople, he satisfied his superstition by pulling down some small portion
of the walls and rebuilding it. Probably about this time he did Constantinople
the service of improving the supply of water by building an aqueduct.
The year A. D. 367 is memorable in the reign of Valens for an extraordinary
event, the diminution of the taxes by one fourth, a measure which rarely happens
in the history of a nation, the general rule being progressive taxation till people
can pay no more. The diminution was the less expected as a war with the Goths
was imminent. These barbarians had for some time hung on the northern frontier,
and occasionally pillaged the Roman lands. Three thousand Goths, who had been
sent by Athanaric to aid Procopius, were compelled to surrender after the death
of the rebel, and were distributed in the towns along the Danube and kept under
surveillance. The Gothic king, Ermenric, demanded these Goths back, but Valens
refused then, and resolved on war, as he had nothing else to do.
Before undertaking the war, for which he made great preparation, Valens
received the rite of baptism from Eudoxus, the chief of the Arians who was then
seated in the chair of Constantinople. Thus, says Tillemont, "he began by an act
which involved him in a thousand mishaps, and finally precipitated his body and
his soul to death". The emperor posted his troops on the Danube, and fixed his
camp at Marcianopolis, the capital of Lower Maesia. He was ably assisted by Auxonius,
who was made Praefectus Praetorio in place of Sallustius, who was relieved of
his office on account of his age. Valens crossed the Danube, and finding no resistance,
ravaged the country of the enemy. He was again at Marcianopolis in January A.
D. 368, where he appears to have passed the winter. An incursion of the Isaurians,
who extended their ravages to Cilicia and Pamphylia, and cut to pieces Musonius,
the Vicarius of Asia, and his troops, may perhaps be referred to this year.
The military events of the year A. D. 368 were unimportant. Valens
was unable to cross the Danube, and he passed the winter again at Marcianopolis.
On the 10th of October, the city of Nicaea was destroyed by an earthquake. On
the 3d of May, A. D. 369, Valens left Marcianopolis for Noviodunum, where he crossed
the Danube and entered the country of the Goths. The Goths sustained considerable
loss; and Valens also defeated Athanaric, who opposed him with a numerous army.
He returned to Marcianopolis, intending to pass another winter there, but the
Goths sued for peace, which was granted on the condition that they should not
cross the Danube, and should only be allowed to trade at two towns on the river.
The treaty between Valens and Athanaric was concluded on vessels in the Danube,
for Athanaric refused to set his foot on the Roman territory. At the end of this
year, Valens was at Constantinople.
The year A. D. 370 is memorable for the cruel punishment of eighty
ecclesiastics. The Arians were persecuted by the Catholics at Constantinople,
and the Catholics sent a deputation of eighty ecclesiastics to Valens, who was
then at Nicomedia. It is said that Valens ordered them to be put to death, and
that his order was executed by Modestus, Praefectus Praetorio, by placing them
in a vessel on the sea, and setting fire to it. "This inhumanity", observes Tillemont,
"was punished by a famine which desolated Phrygia and the neighbouring country";
but the pious historian does not explain how the sufferings of the innocent are
to be considered as a punishment on the guilty.
Valens spent the early part of A. D. 371 at Constantinople, whence
he moved to Caesarea in Cappadocia, where he probably spent the winter. About
this time he lost his only son. When the youth was taken ill, the emperor who
had entertained a design of banishing Basilius, bishop of Caesarea, applied to
him for his help, and the bishop promised that the boy should recover, if the
emperor would allow him to be baptized by Catholic priests : "but Valens caused
him to be baptized by Arians, and the child immediately died." It was about this
time also that Valens divided Cappadocia into two provinces, and made Tyana the
capital of the second.
In A. D. 372 Modestus, the Praefect, and Arinthaeus were consuls.
Arinthaeus, who was a man of extraordinary stature, and of perfect form, of great
courage and superior military skill, had been employed both by Julian and Jovian,
and he had served Valens well in the war against Procopius. On the 13th of April,
Valens was at Antioch in Syria, whither he had gone to conduct the war against
Sapor king of Persia. Sapor had made a treaty with Jovian, in which it seems that
Armenia was comprehended. However this may be, Sapor had set his mind on getting
possession of Armenia, and about A. D. 369, having prevailed on Arsaces, the Armeniian
king, to come to an entertainment, he made him prisoner, put out his eyes, and
finally ordered him to be executed. He gave the government of Armenia to Cylax
and Artabanus, two natives, and creatures of his. Olympias, the wife of Arsaces,
escaped with her son Para and her treasures to a strong place, which Cylax and
Artabanns with some Persian troops made an unsuccessful attempt to take: it is
said that Cylax and Artabanus were treacherous to their Persian allies.
Para implored the assistance of Valens, who supported him at New Caesarea
in Pontus, in a manner suitable to his rank, and he sent Comes Terentius to put
him in possession of Armenia, but without conferring on him the insignia of royalty,
which, it was supposed, might be taken as an infraction of the treaty with the
Persians. On hearing of this Sapor sent troops into Armenia, who drove Para into
the mountains. Sapor, not being able to seize Para, made a show of reconciliation
and Para of submission, one of the tokens of which was the heads of Cylax and
Artabanus, for which Sapor had asked, on the ground that they were rather the
masters than the servants of Para. Valens upon this sent Arinthaeus into Armenia,
who checked the approach of the Persian troops. Sapor complained, but Valens paid
no attention to his complaints. The Persian king threatened an attack, but nothing
was done this year, though Valens appears to have advanced into Mesopotamia.
In the following year A. D. 373, the Roman and the Persian armies
met; the Romans, commanded by Comes Trajanus and Vadomarus, formerly a king of
the Allemanni (Amm. Marc. xxix. 1). Mesopotamia was apparently the seat of the
war. Sapor was defeated, and retired to Ctesiphon after a truce was agreed on.
Valens spent the winter at Antioch.
During this winter there was a conspiracy to assassinate Valens, to
which some persons, said to be pagans, were encouraged by believing that some
person whose name began with Theod, was destined to succeed Valens. This was learned
by the application of certain magical arts, and the person pointed out as the
successor of the emperor was Theodorus, one of the notarii or secretaries of the
emperor. This affair is told at length by Ammianus (xxix. 1). Theodorus and many
other persons were put to death, some innocent and others guilty, for the existence
of a plot appears probable enough. Sozomen says that all persons of rank who bore
a name beginning with Theod were put to death, which is not credible. He also
assigns this as the cause of the death of Theodosiolus or Theodosius, a grandee
of Spain, and it seems that he must mean Theodosius, the father of the emperor
Theodosius, who was executed at Carthage, A. D. 376. However, many persons were
executed who had dealt in magic ; Maximus, once the teacher of the emperor Julian,
Simonides, Hilarius and others. Books of magic were diligently sought after, and
all that could be found were burnt. Chrysostom, then a young man, who by chance
found a book of magic, expected and feared to share the fate of those who had
dealt in this wicked art.
The same year in which Gabinius in the West fell a victim to Roman
treachery (A. D. 374), Para perished by the same shameful means. Pail, it appears,
was established on the throne of Armenia, but Valens was for some reason dissatisfied
with him, and sent for him to Tarsus under some pretext, leaving him to wait there,
until Para, suspecting that it was intended to keep him prisoner, made his escape
to Armenia. Valens commissioned Comes Trajanus, the commander of the Roman forces
in Armenia, to put him to death, and Trajanus executed the order by inviting Para
to a banquet and assassinating him.
Negotiations for peace were still going on with Sapor (A. D. 375),
but they resulted in nothing. The emperor spent this year at Antioch, taking little
care of the administration, and allowing his ministers to enrich themselves by
unjust means. Ammianus (xxx. 4) has a chapter on these matters. The pretext for
these odious inquisitions was the vague charge of treason against the emperor.
The events of A. D. 376 were unimportant. Valens was consul for the
fifth time with Valentinianus, junior, who with his elder brother Gratianus had
succeeded their father Valentinianus I., who died at the close of A. D. 375. Valens
was preparing for war against the Persians, and he assembled a great force, but
there is no record of what was the result of all this preparation. Sapor made
conquests in Iberia and Armenia, which Valens could not prevent. Valens sent Victor
to Persia to come to terms with the Persian king, and peace was made on terms,
as it appears, not advantageous to the Romans.
At this time the Romans became acquainted with the name of the Huns.
The Huns, after attacking various tribes and the Alans, who inhabited the banks
of the Tanais, fell upon the Goths called Greuthingi or Eastern Goths, and so
alarmed them that Ermenric, their king, killed himself. Vithimis, his successor,
fell in battle against the Huns, and Alatheus and Saphrax, the guardians of his
son Vitheric, retreated before this formidable enemy, to the country between the
Borysthenes and the Danube. Athanaric and his Goths attempted a useless resistance
to the Huns on the banks of the Dniester. The Goths, and among them were some
of the people of Athanaric, to the number of about 200,000, appeared on the banks
of the Danube and asked for permission to enter the Roman territories. Valens
was then at Antioch, and the Goths sent a deputation to him at the head of which
was their bishop Ulphilas. Valens granted the request of the Goths, but ordered
that their children should be carried over to Asia as hostages, and that the Goths
should not bring their arms with them; but the last part of the order was imperfectly
executed. Accordingly the Goths were received into Thrace and spread over the
country on the borders of the Danube. Their chiefs were Alavif and Fritigern.
Valens was still at Antioch (A. D. 377). It was the policy of the
Romans to draw away the Goths from the immediate banks of the Danube, who bad
not moved off, because they were not supplied with provisions, as the emperor
had ordered. Lupicinus, Comes of Thrace and Maximus, who held the rank of Dux,
are accused of irritating the barbarians by their treatment, and of driving them
to arms. Lupicinus attempted to make the Goths leave the Danube, and employed
for that purpose the soldiers who were stationed on the river; but as soon as
the Greuthingi, under Saphrax and Alatheus, saw the banks unprotected, they crossed
over, having previously been refused permission. The Greuthingi joined Fritigern
and his Goths at Marcianopolis. Lupicinus invited Alavif and Fritigern to a feast,
but instead of a reconciliation, this brought about a quarrel, and a battle, in
which Lupicinus was defeated. Some Goths, who were already encamped near Hadrianople,
were ordered to cross the Hellespont, but they asked for two days' delay and supplies
for the journey. The chief magistrate of the city, being irritated at some damage
done by the Goths to a country-house of his, attacked them, and had the worst
in the combat. These Goths soon joined Fritigern, who had advanced as far as Hadrianople,
and they besieged the city. They could not take Hadrianople, but they were masters
of all the country, which they pillaged.
Valens was at Antioch when he heard this news, and he sent forward
Profuturus and Trajanus with the legions from Armenia to bring the Goths to obedience.
These two generals were joined by Ricimer, who brought some help from Gratian.
The Romans found the main body of the Goths at a place called Salices or the Willows,
supposed to be in the tract called Scythia Parva between the lower course of the
Danube and the sea, where a great battle was fought, apparently with no advantage
to the Romans, for they returned to Marcianopolis. The further operations of this
campaign led to no decisive result, and there was loss on both sides. The Goths
appear to have spread themselves all over the country between the Danube and the
Archipelago, and to have advanced even to the suburbs of Constantinople. Valens
reached Constantinople on the 30th of May, A. D. 378. He deprived Trajanus of
the command of the infantry, which he gave to Sebastianus, to whom he entrusted
the conduct of the war. "It was", says Tillemont, "worthy of an Arian emperor
to entrust his troops to a Manichaean. It was he who with the emperor determined
on the unfortunate battle where they perished, against the advice of the most
prudent, and principally Victor, general of the cavalry, a man altogether Catholic".
Valens left Constantinople on the 11th of June, with evil omens. A solitary named
Isaac, whose cell was near Constantinople, threatened him with the vengeance of
God. "Restore", he said, "to the flocks their holy pastors, and you will gain
a victory without trouble : if you fight before you have done it, you will lose
your army and you will never return".
The emperor encamped with a powerful army near Hadrianople. Trajanus,
it appears, was restored to his command, or held some command; but the advice
of Sebastianus prevailed with the emperor over that of Victor and the other generals,
and a battle was resolved on. It was on the 9th of August, A. D. 378, and some
few hours from Hadrianople, where the Romans sustained a defeat so bloody, that
none can be compared with it in the Annals of Rome, except the fight of Cannae,
Ammianus (xxxi. 13) has given a laboured description of the battle, not particularly
clear. The Theuringi under Fritigern, and the Greuthungi under Alatheus and Saphrax,
destroyed two-thirds of the Imperial army. Trajanus, Sebastianus, Valerianus Comes
Stabuli, and Equitius, fell. Valens was never seen after the battle. He was wounded
by an arrow, and, as some say, died on the field. According to another story,
he was carried to a peasant's house, to which the barbarians set fire without
knowing who was in it, and Valens was burnt. Though the mode of his death is not
certain, all authorities agree in saying that his body was never found. The commentary
of Orosius on the death of Valens is instructive (vii. 33 : "The Goths some time
before sent ambassadors to Valens to pray that bishops (episcopi) might be sent
to them to teach them the rule of Christian faith. Valens, through pestiferous
depravity, sent teachers of the Arian dogma. The Goths retained the instruction
in their first faith, which they received. Therefore by the just judgment of God
the very persons burnt him alive, who through him even after death, are destined
to burn on account of the vice of their error".
The reign of Valens is important in the history of the empire on account
of the admission of the Goths into the countries south of the Danube, the commencement
of the decline of the Roman power. the furious contests between the rival creeds
of the Catholics and the Arians, and the persecution of the Catholics by Valentinian,
also characterize this reign. These religious quarrels, which we night otherwise
view with indifference, are not to be overlooked in forming our judgment of this
period, nor must we forget them when we attempt to estimate the value of the historians
for this period.
The character of Valens is drawn by Gibbon and Tillemont; by Gibbon
perhaps with as much impartiality as he could exercise, by Tillemont under the
influence of strong religious convictions, with as much fairness as we can expect
from one who condemned the persecutions of Valens, both as a man of humanity and
a zealous Catholic.
The chronicle of Hieronymus terminates with the death of Valens, and
here also ends the history of Ammianus, the last of the Roman historians. Eutropius,
who does not deserve the name of historian, wrote his Breviariam Historiae Romanae
in the time of Valens, and by the order of the emperor, to whom his work is dedicated.
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Jan 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Procopius (Prokopios), Roman emperor in the East, through rebellion, from A. D.
363 to 366. According to all probability, he was a relation of the emperor Julian
through Basilina, the mother of that emperor, and the second wife of Constantius
Consul, who was the youngest son of Constantius Chlorus. Procopius was a native
of Cilicia, where he was born about A. D. 365. Constantius II. made him his secretary,
and employed him in the field as tribune. The emperor Julian created him comes,
and appointed him commander in Mesopotamia, when he set out against Persia in
A. D. 363. It was then said that Julian had advised him to assume the purple,
or manifested a wish that he should be his successor in case he should lose his
life in the projected expedition, and this saying afterwards found many believers,
to the great advantage of Procopius. However, it was Jovian who succeeded Julian,
in 363, and by him Procopius was charged with conducting the body of the fallen
hero to Tarsus. Aware that Jovian entertained suspicions against him, or, perhaps,
in order to carry out schemes which, at that period, nobody expected, Procopius
went to Caesareia in Cappadocia, instead of returning to the imperial quarters.
This step was sufficient to rouse the suspicions of Jovian, whatever might have
been his previous disposition, and some troops were despatched to seize the fugitive,
who, however, deceived his pursuers, and escaped with his family to Tauris. Afraid
of being betrayed by the barbarians, he soon left that country and returned to
Asia Minor; a dangerous step, which, however, throws some light on his secret
plans. During some time he wandered from place to place, and his return having
been discovered by Valentinian and Valens, the successors of Jovian (364), he
hid himself in the mountains, till at last he found refuge at the house of the
senator Strategius, who lived near Chalcedon. Strategius became a confidant of
the ambitious schemes of Procopius, who found further adherents among the numerous
adversaries of Valens in Constantinople, whither the fugitive general often proceeded
on secret visits. The eunuch Eugenius became one of the principal promoters of
the plans of Procopius, which were now manifestly those of deposing Valens, and
making himself master of the East. The plot broke out in 365, and owing to his
numerous partisans and his own artifices, the people of Constantinople proclaimed
him emperor on the 28th of September of that year. The emperor Valens was at that
period staying at Caesareia in Cappadocia, but was soon informed of the rebellion,
and prepared for effective resistance. Meanwhile, Procopius set out for Asia Minor
with a well-disciplined army, advanced as far as the Sangarius, and, through a
bold stratagem, caused an imperial body, which defended the passage of that river,
to desert their master, and join his own army. However, Valens advanced in his
turn, and laid siege to Chalcedon, but was defeated under its walls, and obliged
to retreat into Phrygia; Marcellus, a general of Procopius, took the important
town of Cyzicus, and Procopius became master of Bithynia; a series of successes
which turned his mind, made him haughty, and caused him more adversaries than
adherents. The war was renewed with vigour in the spring of the following year
366, but to the great disadvantage of Procopius, whose army, commanded by the
fugitive Persian prince, Hormisdas, was totally defeated by the celebrated general
Arbetion. Soon afterwards, on the 27th of May, 366, another battle was fought
at Nacolia, in Phrygia, the two rivals commanding their armies in person, and
it ended in the rout of the rebels. Procopius fled, accompanied by a few attendants,
with whom he wandered some days in the mountains, when they treacherously seized
him, and delivered him into the hands of Valens, by whose order he was immediately
put to death. Socrates says that Procopius suffered death by being tied to two
trees forcibly bent together, which, on snapping asunder, tore the body of the
unfortunate man to pieces. The cruel conduct of Valens against the partisans of
Procopius belongs to the history of the former.
(Amm. Marc. xxvi. 6; Zosim. lib. iv.; Themist. Orat. 7; Socrat. iv. 3, &c.; Philostorg.
ix. 5)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Jan 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
11/1/347 - 17/1/395
Theodosius I., was the son of Theodosius, who restored Britain to the empire,
and was beheaded at Carthage. The family of Theodosius was Spanish, and the future
emperor was born in Spain, about A. D. 346, as some say at Italica, the birth-place
of Trajan, though other authorities say that he was a native of Cauca in Gallicia.
His panegyrists derive his descent from Trajan, but this lofty lineage seems not
to have been discovered until Theodosius was invested with the imperial purple.
Theodosius received a good education; and he learned the art of war
under his own father, whom he accompanied in his British campaigns. During his
father's lifetime he was raised to the rank of Duke (dux) of Moesia, where he
defeated the Sarmatians (A. D. 374), and saved the province. On the death of his
father (A. D. 376), he retired before court intrigues to his native country, where
he cultivated his own lands, which probably lay near his native place between
Segovia and Valladolid. At this tile he was already married to a Spanish woman,
Aelia Flacilla or Placilla, who is sometimes called Placidia, by whom he became
the father of Arcadius, Honorius, and a daughter Pulcheria. From this peaceful
retirement he was called in the thirty-third year of his age to receive the imperial
purple. Valens, the colleague of Gratian, had recently lost his life at Hadrianople
(A. D. 378), where the Roman army was completely broken by the Goths, and Gratian,
feeling himself unable to sustain the burden of the empire, invited Theodosius
to fill the place of Valens. Theodosius was declared Augustus by Gratian at Sirmium
in Pannonia, on the 19th of January A. D. 379. He was intrusted with the administration
of Thrace, Asia, and Egypt, which had been held by Valens, together with Dacia
and Macedonia. The new emperor of the East had the conduct of the war against
the Goths.
The history of Ammianus Marcellinus ends with the death of Valens,
and the authorities on which the historian of the reign of Theodosius has to rely,
are greatly inferior to Ammianus. Their character is well expressed by Gibbon
in a few words, and they are referred to by Tillemont (Histoire des Empereurs,
v.), with his usual diligence and accuracy.
The Romans were disheartened by the bloody defeat which they had sustained
on the plains of Hadrianople, and the Goths were insolent in their victory. Theodosius
was too prudent to lead dispirited troops against a successful enemy, and he formed
his head quarters at Thessalonica, the capital of the diocese or division of Macedonia,
from whence he could watch the movements of the Goths. In four years' campaigns
(A. D. 379-382), of which the particulars are imperfectly recorded, Theodosius
revived the courage of the Roman soldiers, and while he seems to have prudently
kept aloof from any general engagement, he took all opportunities of attacking
his enemy in detail, and securing for his men the advantage of victory without
the danger of defeat. The Goths, who were not held together by any well-constituted
authority, and only by the ability of their commander Fritigern, became disorganized
by his death, and were split up into numerous bands which went about seizing all
that they wanted, and destroying that which they had not the prudence to reserve
for another time. Jealousy arose between the Ostrogoths and the Visigoths; and
Theodosius by his agents added the inducement of money to those who were discontented.
Modares, a chieftain of rank, went over to the Romans, among whom he obtained
the rank of mastergeneral, and he earned his reward by surprising and massacring
a body of Goths, and carrying off a great number of captives with four thousand
waggons (Zosimus, iv. 25). In A. D. 381, Athanaric was compelled to leave his
forests, and to cross the Danube; and many of those who had formerly acknowledged
Fritigern as their leader, and were weary of anarchy, now yielded obedience to
this Gothic judge. Tillemont conjectures that Athanaric was expelled by Fritigern,
Alatheus, and Saphrax; but Gibbon's narrative seems to signify (for seems is all
the meaning that in many cases can be imputed to it) that Fritigern was already
dead. However Athanaric was too old and too prudent to carry on war with the new
emperor : he listened to proposals of peace, and he even went to Constantinople
to visit the emperor. Theodosius left the city to meet him, and received him with
the greatest respect. The Goth was struck with amazement at the magnificence of
Constantinople, and exclaimed that the Roman emperor was an "earthly God". Athanaric
fell ill at Constantinople, and died there. Theodosius gave him a splendid funeral,
and erected a monument to his memory. This politic behaviour gained over the whole
army of Athanaric; and the adhesion of so large a body of the Visigoths was followed
by the submission of the rest. "The general or rather final capitulation of the
Goths may be dated four years, one month, and twenty-five days after the defeat
and death of the emperor Valens".
The Ostrogoths, who had retired from the provinces of the Danube about
four years ago, returned (A. D. 386) to the lower course of that river recruited
by an army of Scythians, whom none of the inhabitants on the banks of the Danube
had ever seen before (Zosimus, iv. 38). Promotus, the general on the Thracian
frontier, who knew that he was a match for the invaders, thought it prudent to
draw them over to the south bank, without letting them wait for their opportunity
in the winter; and by his spies he encouraged them to hope that by secretly crossing
the river, they might destroy the Roman army. The passage was made on a dark night
in numerous canoes; but the Ostrogoths discovered their mistake when they found
the south bank of the Danube guarded by a triple row of vessels through which
they could not penetrate. At the same time the Roman galleys descending the river,
swept before them the frail boats of the Ostrogoths, and Alatheus the king, and
his bravest troops, were either drowned in the Danube or destroyed by the sword.
Those who escaped sued for mercy to the Romans. It is uncertain whether Theodosius
had personally any share in this victory. Zosimus says that after the victory
Promotus sent for Theodosius, who was at no great distance. If the historian Zosimus
unjustly deprives Theodosius of all merit, the poet Claudian made amends for it
by flattery and exaggeration.
A treaty was made with the Goths, the precise date and terms of which
do not appear to be known; but they were settled within the limits of the empire,
in tracts which were neglected or unoccupied. A colony of Visigoths was established
in Thrace, and the remains of the Ostrogoths were planted in Phrygia and Lydia.
They were not scattered among the population of Thrace or Asia Minor, but they
obtained whole districts in which they still lived as a Gothic people, acknowledging
[p. 1064] the emperor as their sovereign. but probably retaining jurisdiction
in all disputes among themselves The chieftains still governed their followers,
lowers, but there was no kingly dignity. Forty thousand Goths were kept in the
service of the Eastern empire, under the title of Foederati, and were distinguished
from the other troops by golden collars, better pay. and more licence. But though
the Goths were thus converted from enemies into dubious allies. their settlement
within the limits of the empire is justly viewed as the immediate cause of the
downfal of the western division. In the civil war against Maximus (A. D. 388),
some of those barbarians who were in his army listened to the proposals of Maximus.
but their treachery being discovered, they fled into the marshes and forests of
Macedonia, where they were pursued by Theodosius and cut to pieces.
Maximus, a native of Spain, like Theodosius, was living in Britain
in retirement or in exile. When this province revolted against Gratian. Maxims
was chosen their leader. and he invaded Gaul with a powerful army. Gratian fled
from Paris to Lyon, where he was overtaken by Andragathius, the commander of the
cavalry of Maximus and put to death (A. D. 383). Maximus sent an envoy to Theodosius
to explain and justify his conduct, to excuse the assassination of Gratian as
having been accomplished without his orders. and to offer to the emperor of the
East peace or war. A war with the fierce soldiers of the north would perhaps have
been an unequal contest for Theodosius, whose dominions had recently suffered
from the ravages of the Goths; and reluctantly, as we may conclude, he made a
treaty with Maximus, whom he acknowledged emperor of the countries north of the
Aips, but he secured to Valentinian the brother of Gratian, Italy, Africa, and
western Illyricum Thus the empire was divided into three parts; one of which,
an empire won by usurpation, consisted of three rich countries -Spain, Gaul, and
Britain.
Theodosius was the son of a Christian father, whose ancestors acknowledged
the creed of Nicaea; and next to Constantine he became the great glory of tile
Christian church. The merits of Gratian secured him from the orthodox Christians
a rank equivalent to that of a saint; and after his death they found a worthy
successor to his orthodoxy in the more vigorous emperor of the East. Theodosius
was not baptized until the end of the first year of his reign, when he was admonished
by a serious illness no longer to delay this ceremony. In A. D. 380, before he
commenced operations tions against the Goths, he was baptized at Thessalonica
salonica by the archbishop Ascolius, in the orthodox faith of the Trinity; and
his baptism was immeddiately followed by a solemn edict which fixed the faith
of his subjects (Tillemont, Histoire des Empereurs; Cod. Theod. 16. tit. 1. s.
2), and branded with the name of heretics all who dissented front the imperial
creed. The edict declared "according to the discipline of the apostles, and the
doctrine of the gospel, let us believe the sole deity of the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Ghost, under an equal Majesty and a pious Trinity: we authorise the
followers of this doctrine to assume the title of Catholic Christians; and as
we judge that all others are extravagant madmen. we brand them with the name of
heretics, and declare that their conventicles shall no longer usurp the respectable
appellation of churches: besides the condemnation of divine justice, they must
expect to suffer the severe penalties which our authority, guided by heavenly
wisdom, shall think proper to inflict on them" . The faith which Theodosius so
ardently embraced can hardly be supposed to be the result of a subtle inquiry
into the metaphysical distinction between the sameness of substance or strict
homoousian doctrine of Athanasius, and the similarity of substance in the Father
and the Son, or the homoiousian doctrine it which some of the Arians sought refuge.
A singular anecdote is told of Amphilochius, bishop of Iconium and afterwards
a saint, who administered to Theodosius a practical lesson on the homoousian doctrine.
It was in A. D. 383, just after Theodosius had raised his son Arcadius to the
rank of Augustus, and the two emperors were seated on a throne to receive the
homage of their subjects. Amphilochius saluted Theodosius with reverence; his
son he addressed with the familiarity of an equal. The emperor, indignant at this
rudeness, ordered the bishop to be dragged from his presence, when he exclaimed.
"Such is the treatment, O emperor, which the King of heaven has prepared for those
impious men who affect to worship the Father, but who refuse to acknowledge the
equal majesty of his divine Son". Theodosius embraced the bishop, and never forgot
the lesson. Arcadius was at this time about six years of age.
Constantinople was the head-quarters of Arianism at the time of the
accession of Theodosius ; but his baptism in the orthodox faith and his edict
gave the Catholics hopes of their supremacy being re-established. The emperor
entered Constantinople with his army, and offered Damophilus the Arian prelate
the alternative of subscribing to the creed of Nicaea or of resignation. Damophilus
resigned his dignities, and retired into exile and poverty. Gregory of Nazianzus,
who had laboured hard to restore the Catholic faith at Constantinople, was placed
on the archiepiscopal throne which Damophilus had left vacant. Early in A. D.
381, Theodosius declared his intention to expel from all the churches both bishops
and clergy who should refuse to profess the creed of Nicaea; and Sapor, his lieutenant,
was armed with full powers to effect a change, which was accomplished without
disturbance in all the Eastern empire. In the month of May (A. D. 381) a meeting
of one hundred and fifty bishops who formed the first general council of Constantinople,
and the second of the oecumenical general councils, was assembled to confirm and
complete the creed that had been established by the council of Nicaea. The council
had to explain some things which were ambiguous, and to dispose of the sect of
the Macedonians, who, to the heresy of homoiousianism, added that of a belief
that the Holy Ghost was created (ktiston). The council declared the equal divinity
of the Holy Ghost, the third person in the Trinity, which dootrine has prevailed
in the Eastern church without interruption to the present time. After the death
of Meletius, Gregory of Nazianzus presided in this council, and he has left a
picture of the turbulent and disorderly proceedings which characterised its close.
Theodosius, after establishing the supremacy of the Catholic faith
by the council of Constantinople, proceeded to give it effect. In the course of
fifteen years (A. D. 380-394) he published fifteen decrees against heretics, or
those who were not of his own creed. The penalties were most particularly directed
against those who rejected the doctrine trine of the Trinity; and they extended
to ministers, assemblies, and the persons of heretics. It was about the time that
the council was sitting that he deprived all persons who apostatised from Christianity
to Paganism of the right which every Roman citizen had enjoyed at least from the
time of the Twelve Tables, of disposing of his property by testament. In July
(A. D. 381) he forbade the Arians and Eunomians to build any church; and the law
appears to mean that every place of worship which they already possessed should
be taken from then. The various enactments against heretics are contained in the
Code of Theodosius (16. tit. 5. s. 6-23; and the commentary of Gothofredus): the
Eunomians, whose guilt consisted in denying any resemblance between the two substances,
stances, and who were accordingly Anomoeans, were also deprived of the power of
testamentary disposition, and of taking by testamentary gift : they seem, in fact,
to have been deprived of all the rights of citizens. The Manichaean heresy was
punishable with death; and the same penalty threatened the Audians or the Quartodecimans,
who celebrated the festival of Easter on the wrong day. To the reign of Theodosius
belonged the glory or the infamy of establishing Inquisitors of Faith, who seem
to have been specially enjoined to look after the crime of the Quartodecimans.
Though Theodosius thus established the principle of persecution, it is said that
his rival Maximus was the first Christian prince "who shed the blood of his Christian
subjects on account of their religious opinions". It is fortunate for the fame
of Theodosius that there is not the same evidence of his giving effect to his
own laws as there is for the severity of Maximus, under whose reign Priscillianus
and others suffered death for heresy at Treves, A. D. 385.
In A. D. 387 Maximus, not content with the possession of Spain, Gaul,
and Britain, aspired to wrest Italy from the feeble hands of Valentinian II.,
who as an Arian was disliked by his Catholic subjects of Italy, and was opposed
in his heretical projects by the zeal of Ambrose, the Catholic archbishop of Milan.
Maximus was in sight of Milan, before Valentinian and his mother Justina, who
directed the administration, were aware of his hostile intentions; and he entered
the city without resistance. Justina and her son embarked from one of the harbours
in the north part of the Hadriatic and arrived in safety at Thessalonica. No resistonce
was made to Maximus, except by the small town of Aemona, on the border of Italy.
Theodosius visited Justina and her son at Thessalonica, and reminded Valentinian
that his opposition to the faith of Nicaea was the cause of his own ruin and of
the success of Maximus. Valentinian, it is said, acknowledged his errors, and
returned to the true faith; and the orthodox emperor promised to restore him to
his throne: but perhaps he was influenced by other motives than gratitude to Gratian,
and zeal in support of the Catholic faith. Theodosius was a widower; and Valentinian
had a sister Galla, young and beautiful. Tillemont would fix the marriage of Theodosius
and Galla a year before the visit to Thessalonica at the close of A. D. 886; or
he would make a compromise by admitting that Theodosius asked her in marriage
in A. D. 386, but did not actually marry her till A. D. 387: his desire was to
protect the piety of Theodosius from the scandal of a sensual motive. But Zosimus
(iv. 44) states that Justina, a woman of influence, fluence, who knew the amorous
propensities of Theodosius, prevailed over the irresolution of the emperor by
her daughter's tears and beauty. Theodosius saw her and was captivated: he asked
her of her mother for his wife, but he only obtained tained her on condition of
restoring Valentinian. Though Gibbon has preferred the authority of Zosimus, there
is some evidence opposed to it; and yet the narrative of Zosimus is so precise
and circumstantial that it is difficult not to give credit to it. There is nothing
improbable in the fact of a passion for a woman determining a political question.
After Theodosius had decided on his course, his operations were rapid
and vigorous. He found Maximus encamped near Siscia, in Pannonia, a city situated
on the great river Save. Maximus had not talent equal to his ambition, and Theodosius
had a force which confounded the soldiers of the usurper by a mode of attack to
which they were unaccustomed. His Huns, Alans, and his Goths were mounted archers,
who annoyed the heavy troops of Gaul and Germany by the irregularity of a Parthian
attack. Maximus, after sustaining one defeat on the banks of the Save, and probably
a second, fled across the Alps, and shut himself up in Aquileia, just before Theodosius
reached the gates. But in spite of his Moorish guard, he was given up to Theodosius
by his own soldiers and the people of Aquileia, with his hands tied behind him.
Theodosius, according to his panegyrist Pacatus, was not indisposed to pardon
but his soldiers , saved him the difficulty of a decision, by dragging Maximus
from his presence and beheading him. Maximus had left his son Victor in Gaul,
with the title of Caesar, or perhaps of Augustus. Arbogastes, the active general
of Theodosius, seized the youth, and put him to death a short time after his father.
Theodosius spent the winter at Milan, and in the following year (June 13th, 389)
he entered Rome in triumph, accompanied by Valentinian and his own son Holnorius.
Two events in the life of Theodosius may be brought into juxtaposition
as evidence of his uncertain character and his savage temper.
In A. D. 387, the city of Antioch complained of increased taxation, the necessary
consequence of the wars in which the emperor had been engaged; and Antioch, as
it had not suffered from an enemy whose ravages had been confined to Europe, was
unwilling to bear its share of the expense of the Gothic campaigns. The complaints
of the citizens were soon changed into active riot (February): the states of the
emperor, of his father, and of his wife Placilla, were thrown down; but these
idle demonstrations were quickly suppressed by an armed force. The governor sent
to the emperor at Constantinople an account of these riots, and the citizens of
Antioch, in great alarm, despatched Flavian their bishop, and the senator Hilarius,
to acknowledge their guilt and to pray for forgiveness. In March the judgment
of the emperor was brought by Hellebicus and Caesarius, two of his officers, who
declared that Antioch was degraded from the rank of a city, was stripped of its
possessions and privileges, and reduced to the condition of a village dependent
on Laodicea. The places of public amusement were shut up, and the usual distribution
of corn was stopped, which was equivalent to a sentence of starvation against
those who were accustomed to receive this pauper's allowance. A severe investigation
was made into the circumstances of the riot, and those who were convicted by the
extraordinary commissioners of the emperor peror lost their property, and were
reduced to beggary. Some of the rioters, or of the accused, were put to death.
The commissioners, however, suspended the complete execution of the emperor's
sentence against the city, and Caesarius went to Constantinople to obtain a final
answer from the emperor to the petition of the people and the prayers of the monks
and hermits, who left their solitudes, and crowded to Antioch, to intercede for
the metropolis of the East. The emperor had already relented at the entreaty of
the bishop and the eloquent address of the senator; the senate of Constantinople
had interceded for Antioch, and Theodosius pardoned the city, and all who had
taken part in the riot. The property of those who had been convicted was restored,
the poor got their allowance again, and Antioch resumed its former dignity and
jurisdiction. Tillemont has collected all the circumstances of this affair of
Antioch (Histoire, &c., vol. v. p. 261, &c.), at great length.
In A. D. 390, Thessalonica, the metropolis of the Illyrian provinces,
was disturbed by a riot during the emperor's residence at Milan. Botheric, who
commanded the soldiers there, had imprisoned one of the charioteers of the Circus,
who had solicited a youth to a shameless intercourse. The populace in vain called
for their favourite charioteer during the celebration of the games: the general
kept him in the prison which his crime had merited. It seems that the populace
was ready for insurrection; a trifling cause was enough to set them in motion,
and the garrison was weak. Botheric and his officers were overpowered and assassinated
by the people, and their bodies were dragged about the streets. An inquiry into
the riot, and the punishment of the guilty, was necessary and just; but Theodosius
punished a whole city, guilty and innocent together. It is said that his minister
Rufmus prompted the emperor to issue his savage orders, notwithstanding the intercession
of the bishops. An army of barbarians was sent to Thessalonica instead of a civil
commission supported by a sufficient force. The people were invited to the games
of the Circus, and they came without suspicion; but as soon as the place was full,
the soldiers received the signal for a massacre. For three hours the spectators
were indiscriminately exposed to the fury of the soldiers, and seven thousand
of them, or, as some accounts say, more than twice that number, paid the penalty
of the insurrection. The soldiers, it is said, were ordered to produce a certain
number of heads, an order which aggravates the guilt of Theodosius, who, if not
softened by the usual feelings of humanity, might have remembered the city in
which he had so often resided. This massacre, unparalleled in history,
is a stain on the name of Theodosius, an eternal brand of infamy. Tillemont,
who has so minutely recorded the clemency of Theodosius in the affair of Antioch,
observes, "that this year (A. D. 390) is celebrated for the cruelties
which the order of Theodosius caused to be committed at Thessalonica,
and still more celebrated for the penance which Theodosius performed to expiate
so great a crime. We only touch, in a few words, on an event so illustrious and
important, because we reserve it for the his tory of St. Ambrosius.The illustrious
and important event was the penance, more illustrious and important in the eyes
of the pious historian than the unpardonable crime of massacring thousands. It
is singular, as Gibbon remarks, that Zosimus, who is certainly not partial to
Theodosius, perhaps hardly just, and exposes his faults, dots not mention the
massacre of Thessalonica; and yet the fact is not doubtful.
Ambrosius, the archbishop of Milan, thought that the civil administration
was an affair in which the clergy had an interest; and a riot at Callinicum on
the Persian frontier, in which the fanatics of the place, at the instigation of
their bishop, had burnt a place of worship of the Valentinians, and the synagogue
of the Jews, found an apologist in the archbishop of Milan. The provincial magistrate
had condemned the bishop to rebuild the synagogue, or to make good the damage,
and the rioters to be punished; and the emperor confirmed this equitable and moderate
sentence. But to tolerate difference of opinion was, in the archbishop's judgment,
the same as to persecute the orthodox; and Theodosius was compelled, by the archbishop's
monitions and lectures, to let the bishop and his turbulent flock go unpunished.
"St. Ambrosius", says Tillemont, " thought that a prince who pardoned so many
other similar acts, ought not to expose the Christian religion to the insults
of its enemies by so rigorous an order". The massacre of Thessalonica was a trial
for the firmness of Ambrosius: he who thought that the burning of a Jew synagogue
ought not to be punished could hardly overlook the massacre of a Christian city.
He retired from the emperor's presence, but he represented his crime to him in
a letter, and he told him that penitence alone could efface his guilt. But the
archbishop was prudent in his remonstrances, and to protect himself, he called
in the aid of a vision, in which he said that he had been warned not to offer
the oblation in the name of Theodosius, nor in his presence. When the emperor
proceeded to perform his devotions in the usual manner in the great church of
Milan, the archbishop stopped him at the door, and demanded a further acknowledgment
of his guilt. The conscience-struck Theodosius humbled himself before the church,
which has recorded his penance as one of its greatest victories. He laid aside
the insignia of imperial power, and in the posture of a suppliant in the-church
of Milan, entreated pardon for his great sin before all the congregation. After
eight months, the emperor was restored to communion with the church, at Christmas,
A. D. 390.
Theodosius spent three years in Italy, daring which he established
Valentinian on the throne of the West, a measure for which his historians may
claim the merit of generosity; for he probably would have had no difficulty in
keeping the western empire, which he had wrested from the usurpation of Maximus.
Theodosius returned to Constantinople early in November A. D. 391.
Valentinian II. did not long maintain his power, Arbogastes, who had
served Gratian with fidelity, and had contributed under Theodosius to the overthrow
of Maximus, was appointed master-general of the forces in Gaul. But he aspired
to govern a master who had not vigour enough to command obedience, and the emperor's
authority gradually declined. In A. D. 392 Valentinian made a last effort to resume
his power, and he personally announced to Arbogastes that he was dismissed from
all his employments. The general received the announcement with contempt; and
in a few days after Valentinian was found dead. It was believed that he had been
strangled by order of Arbogastes. The barbarian, who did not think it prudent
to assume the imperial purple, set up Eugenius, a rhetorician, and formerly his
secretary, as emperor of the West. Theodosius received the ambassadors of Eugenius,
who announced his elevation, with dissembled indignation, for he was ill disposed
to renew a war in the west, which he had only just ended. But his own pride, and
the tears of his wife Galla, the sister of Valentinian, urged him to punish the
usurper. Two years were spent in the preparation for this war; but the emperor,
with prudent precaution, imitating the example of those who consulted the god
of Delphi in the times of heathenism, sent a favourite eunuch to ask the advice
of John of Lycopolis, an Egyptian anchorite, whether he should make war on Eugenius,
or wait till Eugenius attacked him. John declared that Theodosius would be victorious,
but yet not without loss and bloodshed, as in the war with Maximus ; that he would
die in Italy after his victory, and leave to his son the empire of the west. "Thus
Theodosius did not engage in this war any more than in the other, except by the
order which God gave to him by his prophet". (Tillemont).
Theodosius prepared himself to fulfil the prophecy by recruiting his
legions, with the aid of his two master-generals Stilicho and Timasius. Arbogastes,
who commanded for Eugenius, posted himself on the border of Italy, but allowed
Theodosius to pass the Julian Alps, and enter the plains which extend to Aquileia.
Here he found the formidable army of Arbogastes, consisting of hardy Gauls and
Germans. Theodosius attacked the enemy, but he was compelled to retire with great
loss, particularly of his Gothic allies. Arbogastes now occupied the passes in
his rear, and the emperor's position was most critical. But he was saved by the
treachery of the generals of Eugenius, who sent to express their readiness to
desert, if the rewards which they asked were granted. Theodosius accepted their
conditions, and led his troops to a fresh attack on the camp of the enemy. A tempest,
that rose during the battle, and blew full in the face of the troops of Eugenius,
contributed to their discomfiture and the victory of Theodosius. The head of Eugenius
was separated from his body, while he was suing for mercy at the feet of his conqueror;
and Arbogastes, after wandering in the mountains, terminated his fortunes by his
own sword. Theodosius received the submission of the west, and, at the intercession
of Ambrosius, used his victory with moderation.
Theodosius died on the seventeenth of January A. D. 395, four months
after the defeat of Eugenius, whether, as some say, in consequence of the fatigues
of war, or, as others, in consequence of intemperate habits, it is not possible
to decide. The two sons, Arcadius and Honorius, had already been elevated to the
rank of Augusti, and it was arranged that the empire should be divided between
them. Honorius was not in the war against Eugenius, but he came to Milan before
his father died, and received from him the gift of the empire of the west. The
arrival of Honorius was celebrated by the games of the Circus, at which the dying
emperor assisted.
The formal destruction of paganism marks the reign of this orthodox
emperor. "The ruin of paganism, in the age of Theodosius", says Gibbon,
"is perhaps the only example of the total extirpation of any ancient and popular
superstition, and may therefore deserve to be considered as a singular event in
the history of the human mind". Without admitting the truth of this remark
as to the total extirpation of paganism, we must assign to Theodosius the design
to extirpate it. His rigorous steps to wards the overthrow of the ancient religion
are traced by Tillemont with minute diligence (vol. v. p. 229, &c.). In December
381 he prohibited sacrifices, either by day or by night, in the temples or out
of the temples; and also he forbade the curious inquisition into futurity by the
examination of the viscera of animals. Libanius, in his oration in defence of
the temples, written probably about A. D. 384, says, that the laws of Theodosius
at that time had not closed the temples, nor prohibited persons from going there,
nor the burning of incense, but only the sacrifice of animals. But so long as
the temples existed, the old religion would subsist; and therefore to destroy
it the temples must be destroyed. Libanius complains that people, clothed in black
(no doubt he means monks,) ran in bodies to the temples,overthrew the altars,
pulled down the roofs and the walls, and sometimes killed the priests who resisted.
He says, however, that soldiers were also employed in this work of demolition,
and that in fact no temples were destroyed without the order of the emperor. Some
few temples were converted into Christian churches, and thus preserved; "but
in almost every province of the Roman world, an army of fanatics, without authority
and without discipline, invaded the peaceful inhabitants; and the ruin of the
fairest structures of antiquity still displays the ravages of those barbarians,
who alone had time and inclination to execute such laborious destruction"'
(Gibbon.) The lands of the temples were probably given to the Christian churches
as a general rule. (Tillemont.) Cynegius, the praetorian prefect of the East,
was sent by Theodosius in 386 into Egypt, the seat of all monstrous superstitions,
with a commission to prohibit idolatry, and to close the temples. It does not
appear that he had any power to destroy them. It was probably not till 389 that
the Christians obtained their great triumph over the idolatry of Egypt, by the
destruction of the magnificent temple of Serapis at Alexandria. The fall of this
great idol shook the popular belief of Egypt to its foundation. The emperor had
given his orders to destroy the statue of Serapis; but the heathens believed that
the deity would resent the slightest affront to his majesty. A soldier, bolder
than the rest, encouraged by the archbishop Theophilus, dealt a blow against the
cheek of Serapis with a ponderous axe, and the face of the idol fell to the ground.
The deity silently submitted to his fate; the idol was broken in pieces, and dragged
through the streets of Alexandria. The overthrow of the old religion, which was
still practised, was accomplished by the last edict of Theodosius in 390 (Cod.
Theod. 16. tit. 10. s. 12), which in harsh and intolerant terms, censured by a
modern Christian writer, forbade, under severe penalties, in some cases extending
to death, "the worship of an inanimate idol by the sacrifice of a guiltless victim".
The spirit of the Theodosian edicts was that of the most bitter persecution; and
while we commend his wishes to purge society of gross and debasing superstitions,
we cannot reconcile the laws of the emperor with the religion which he professed,
nor admit that persecution would have been so efficient a cure of idolatry as
the inculcation of the doctrines of Christ, and the example of a practice conformable
to them. But he who could order the massacre of Thessalonica was ill adapted to
teach a faith which was contradicted by his practice.
T he reign of Theodosius is one of the most important periods of the
later empire. Gibbon has sketched it in a masterly manner, but too favourably
for the character of Theodosius; who was probably a voluptuary, a sensualist,
certainly a persecutor, cruel and vindictive. That he possessed some
great qualities cannot be denied; and his natural temper may have been mild, but
it was unequal and uncertain ; it wanted sufficient consistency to entitle him
to the name of a truly great and good man. Tillemont has, with unwearied industry
which allows nothing to escape it, collected, in his dry, annalistic fashion.
all the materials for the reign of Theodosius; and Gibbon has largely availed
himself of the labours of the learned ecclesiastic.
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Jan 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Flacilla or Flaccilla, Aelia (in Greg. Nyss. Plakilla, in Chron. Alex. Phlakkilla), first wife of Theodosius the Great. Several moderns infer from an obscure passage in Themistius (Orat. xvi. De Saturnino), that she was the daughter of Antonius, who was consul A. D. 382, but this is very doubtful. She appears to have been born in Spain (Claudian, Laus Serenae, vs. 69), and to have had a sister, the mother of Nebridius, who was married after A. D. 388 to Salvina, daughter of Gildo, the Moor (Hieron. Epist.ad Salvin.). Flaccilla had at least three children by Theodosius -namely, Arcadius, born about A. D. 377, Honorius, born A. D. 384, both afterwards emperors; and Pulcheria, who was apparently born before 379, as Claudian (Laus Seren. 113, 136) intimates that Theodosius had more than one child when raised to the throne. This Pulcheria died before her mother, and Gregory Nyssen composed a consolatory discourse upon the occasion. Some have supposed that she had another child, Gratian, but without reason. Flaccilla herself died A. D. 385, at a place called Scotoamin, in Thrace, and Gregory Nyssen, composed a funeral discourse for her. All writers conspire to praise Flaccilla for her piety, and charity, and orthodoxy, and she has been canonized in the Greek Church (Greg. Nyss. Orat. Funeb. pro Flaccilla ; Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. v. 19; Themist. De Human. Theodos. Imp.; Sozom. Hist. Eccles. vii. 6; Chron. Alex. v. Paschal.).
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Dec 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Galla, the daughter of the emperor Valentinian I., and second wife of Theodosius the Great. According to Zosimus, she accompanied her mother, Justina, and her brother, Valentinian II., when they fled to Theodosius, on the invasion of Italy by the usurper Maximus (A. D. 387). Theodosius met the fugitives at Thessalonica, and Justina artfully placed her weeping daughter before him, to work at once on his compassion and his love. Galla was eminent for beauty, and the emperor was smitten, and requested her in marriage. Justina refused her consent, except on condition of his undertaking to attack Maximus, and restore Valentinian, to which condition he consented, and they were married, probably about the end of A. D. 387. Tillemont, who rejects the account of Zosimus as inconsistent with the piety of Theodosius, places the marriage in A. D. 386, before the flight of Valentinian; but we prefer, with Gibbon, the account of Zosimus. During the absence of Theodosius in Italy, Galla was turned out of the palace at Constantinople by her step-son, the boy Arcadius, or by those who governed in his name. She died in childbirth, A. D. 394, just as Theodosius was setting out to attack Arbogastes and Eugenius, after giving to Theodosius a daughter, Galla Placidia, and apparently a son named Gratian. Whether the latter, who certainly died before his father, was the child whose birth occasioned her death, or whether there was a third child, is not clear. Tillemont understands Philostorgius to claim Galla as an Arian; but the passage in Philostorgius (x. 7) appears to refer rather to her mother, Justina. However, the Paschal Chronicle calls her an Arian, and the marked silence of Ambrose with respect to Galla in the passage just referred to makes it not unlikely that she was suspected or known to be not orthodox. (Zosim. iv. 44, 45, 55, 57; Marcellin. Chron.; Chron. Pasch.)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Dec 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Arcadius, emperor of the East, was the elder of the two sons of the emperor Theodosius
I. and the empress Flaccilla, and was born in Spain in A. D. 383. Themistius,
a pagan philosopher, and afterwards Arsenius, a Christian saint, conducted his
education. As early as 395, Theodosius conferred upon him the title of Augustus;
and, upon the death of his father in the same year, he became emperor of the East,
while the West was given to his younger brother, Honorius; and with him begins
the series of emperors who reigned at Constantinople till the capture of the city
by the Turks in 1453. Arcadius had inherited neither the talents nor the manly
beauty of his father; he was ill-shapen, of a small stature, of a swarthy complexion,
and without either physical or intellectual vigour; his only accomplishment was
a beautiful handwriting. Docility was the chief quality of his character; others,
women or eunuchs, reigned for him; for he had neither the power to have his own
will, nor even passion enough to make others obey his whims. Rufinus, the praefect
of the East, a man capable of every crime, had been appointed by Theodosius the
guardian of Arcadius, while Stilicho became guardian of Honorius. Rufinus intended
to marry his daughter to the young emperor, but the eunuch Eutropius rendered
this plan abortive, and contrived a marriage between Arcadius and Eudoxia, the
beautiful daughter of Bauto, a Frank, who was a general in the Roman army. Exposed
to the rivalship of Eutropius, as well as of Stilicho, who pretended to the guardianship
over Arcadius also, Rufinus was accused of having caused an invasion of Greece
by Alaric, chief of the Goths, to whom he had neglected to pay the annual tribute.
His fall was the more easy, as the people, exasperated by the rapacity of the
minister, held him in general execration; and thus Rufinus was murdered as early
as 395 by order of the Goth Gainas, who acted on the command of Stilicho. His
successor as minister was Eutropius, and the emperor was a mere tool in the hands
of his eunuch, his wife, and his general, Gainas. They declared Stilicho an enemy
of the empire, confiscated his estates within the limits of the Eastern empire,
and concluded an alliance with Alaric, for the purpose of preventing Stilicho
from marching upon Constantinople (397). After this, Eutropius was invested with
the dignities of consul and general-in-chief -the first eunuch in the Roman empire
who had ever been honoured with those titles, but who was unworthy of them, being
as ambitious and rapacious as Rufinus.
The fall of Eutropius took place under the following circumstances.
Tribigildus, the chief of a portion of the Goths who had been transplanted to
Phrygia, rose in rebellion, and the disturbances became so dangerous, that Gainas,
who was perhaps the secret instigator of them, advised the emperor to settle this
affair in a friendly way. No sooner was Tribigildus informed of it, than he demanded
the bead of Eutropius before he would enter into negotiations; and the emperor,
per-suaded by Eudoxia. gave up his minister. St. Chrysostom, afraid of Arianism,
pleaded the cause of Eutropius, but in vain; the minister was banished to Cyprus,
and soon afterwards beheaded (399). Upon this, the Goths left Phrygia and returned
to Europe, where they stayed partly in the neighbourhood of Constantinople, and
partly within the walls of the city. Gainas, after having ordered the Roman troops
to leave the capital, demanded liberty of divine service for the Goths, who were
Arians; and as St. Chrysostom energetically opposed such a concession to heresy,
(Gainas tried to set fire to the imperial palace. But the people of Constantinople
took up arms, and Gainas was forced to evacuate the city with those of the Goths
who had not been slain by the inhabitants. Crossing the Bosporus, he suffered
a severe defeat by the imperial fleet, and fled to the banks of the Danube, where
he was killed by the Huns, who sent his head to Constantinople.
After his fall the incompetent emperor became entirely dependent upon
his wife Eudoxia, who assumed the title of "Augusta", the empress hitherto having
only been styled " Nobilissima". Through her influence St. Chrysostom was exiled
in 404, and popular troubles preceded and followed his fall. As to Arcadius, he
was a sincere adherent of the orthodox church. He confirmed the laws of his father,
which were intended for its protection; he interdicted the public meetings of
the heretics; he purged his palace from heretical officers and servants; and in
396 he ordered that all the buildings in which the heretics used to hold their
meetings should be confiscated. During his reign great numbers of pagans adopted
the Christian religion. But his reign is stigmatized by a cruel and unjust law
concerning high treason, the work of Eutropius, which was issued in 397. By this
law, which was a most tyrannical extension of the Lex Julia Majestatis, the principal
civil and military officers of the emperor were identified with his sacred person,
and offences against them, either by deeds or by thoughts, were punished as crimes
of high treason (Cod. ix. tit. 8. s. 5; Cod. Theod. ix. tit. 14. s. 3). Arcadius
died on the 1st of May, 408, leaving the empire to his son Theodosius II., who
was a minor.
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Eudoxia, the daughter of the Frank Bauto, married to the emperor Arcadius, A. D. 395, by whom she had four daughters, Flacilla or Flaccilla or Falcilla, Pulcheria, Arcadia, and Marina, and one son, Theodosius II. or the younger. She was a woman of high spirit, and exercised great influence over her husband: to her persuasion his giving up of the eunuch Eutropius into the power of his enemies may be ascribed. She was involved in a fierce contest with Chrysostom, who fearlessly inveighed against the avarice and luxury of the court, and scrupled not to attack the empress herself. The particulars of the struggle are given elsewhere. She died of a miscarriage in the sixth consulship of Honorius, A. D. 404, or, according to Theophanes, A. D. 406.
Theodosius II., was the only son of the emperor Arcadius, who died on the first
of May, A. D. 408. Theodosius was born early in A. D. 401, and was declared Augustus
by his father in January A. D. 402. There is a story that Arcadius, by his testament,
made Yezdigerd, king of Persia, the guardian of his son; but it hardly deserves
notice, and certainly not refutation. On the death of Arcadius, the government
was given to or assumed by the praefect Anthemius, the grandson of Philip, a minister
of Constantius, and the grandfather of the emperor Anthemius. In A. D. 405 Anthemius
was made consul and praetorian praefect of the East. He faithfully discharged
his duty as guardian of the empire and the infant emperor. In the year in which
Arcadius died. the Huns and the Scyrri entered Thrace under Uldin. who rejected
all terms of accommodation. but. being deserted by some of his officers, the recrossed
the Danube, after losing a great number of his Huns. The Scyrri, who loitered
in his rear, were either killed or made prisoners, and many of the captives were
sent to cultivate the lands in Asia. Anthenius strengthened the Illyrian frontiers.
and protected Constantinople, by building what were called the great walls, probably
in A. D. 413.
Theodosius had a sister, Pulcheria, born A. D. 399, who, in A. D.
414, became the guardian of her brother and the administrator of the empire, before
she was sixteen years of age: she was declared Augusta on the fourth of July,
A. D. 414. Pulcheria was undoubtedly a woman of some talent, though of a peculiar
kind. She superintended the education of her brother, and directed the government
at the same time; nor did her influence cease with the minority of Theodosius.
She educated her brother after her own ascetic notions; and though his literary
instruction was not neglected, nor the exercises proper to form his health and
strengthen his body, his political education was limited to the observance of
the forms and ceremonials of the court. It may be that Pulcheria, with some vigour
of understanding, had no knowledge of the more important duties of a man who is
at the head of a nation. Pulcheria and her sisters, Arcadia and Marina, had publicly
dedicated themselves to the service of God and to a life of chastity; and the
whole imperial household was regulated in conformity to this principle. "Pulcheria",
says Tillemont, a great admirer of this saint, "accustomed Theodosius to
pray incessantly, to visit the churches often, and to make them presents; to respect
the bishops and other ministers of the altar, &c".But if the young emperor was
carefully protected against the dangers to which a youth in an exalted station
is exposed, he was not trained in those studies which befit a man and an emperor.
To excel in mechanical occupations, to write a fine hand, which, in a private
station, may give amusement, and are at least harmless, imply in a prince a want
of taste and of talent for more important things, or an illdirected education.
Theodosius had, in fact, little talent, and his education was not adapted to improve
it. He passed a blameless youth, for he was shut up in his palace, except when
he went a hunting; and he possessed the negative virtues of a retired and austere
life. The ecclesiastics extol him for his piety and his respect to the church;
and he prosecuted the work which his grandfather commenced, by demolishing to
their foundations the temples of idols, the monuments of the superstition and
of the taste of the pagans. It was his ambition not to leave a vestige of the
ancient religion behind him.
He published various edicts against heretics, and an edict specially
directed against Gamaliel. the last patriarch of the Jews. By an edict of the
16th May, 415, he declared it incest for a widower to marry his wife's sister.
and the children of such a marriage were made bastards. Constantius, in A. D.
355, had already enacted the same law, which, though enacted again in our own
times, is protested against by the common understanding of mankind.
The great event of the life of an emperor who was a nullity, was his
marriage, which was managed by his sister, who managed every thing. The woman
whom his sister chose for his wife and whom Theodosius married (probably in A.
D. 421), was the accomplished Athenais, who, after her baptism, for she was a
heathen, received the name of Eudocia. Her life from this time is intimately connected
with the biography of her husband, and is told at length elsewhere.
About the close of A. D. 421 war broke out between the emperor of
the East and Varanes or Bahram, the successor of Yezdigerd. A Christian bishop
had signalized his zeal by burning a temple of the fire-worshippers at Susa, and
this excess was followed by a persecution of the Christians by the Magi. This
persecution, begun at tile close of the reign of Yezdigerd, was continued under
his successor; and some Christian fugitives crossed the frontiers into the Roman
territories to seek protection. The Persian king claimed the fugitives, but his
demand was refused; and this, added to other causes of dispute, kindled a war
between the two empires. Theodosius was not a soldier, and the war was carried
on for about two years by his general Ardaburius, with no important results. The
defence of Theodosiopolis in Mesopotamia has immortalised the name of its warrior
bishop Eunomus. The town had been besieged by the enemy for some time, but the
bishop and his flock stoutly held out, and destroyed the wooden towers of the
enemy. Tile obstinate resistance of the place provoked the blasphemy of a Persian
prince, who threatened to burn the temple of God when he took tile town. The bishop,
shocked at his impious threats, pointed at him a balista, which bore the potent
name of St. Thomas, and tile formidable machine discharged a stone which struck
the blasphemer dead. Upon this the king of Persia lost heart, and withdrew his
troops.
Socrates, the chief authority for the history of the Persian war,
says that Theodosius, notwithstanding his success in the war, was the first to
propose terms of peace. A truce for one hundred years was concluded between the
Persians and the Romans. The kingdom of Armenia, now extin-guished, was divided
between the Persians and the Romans, an arrangement which gave to tile empire
of the East a new and extensive province. The division of Armenia probably followed
the conclusion of a second Persian war, A. D. 441. In A. D. 423 died Honorius
the emperor of the West. Placidia, the sister of Honorius, had been sent away
from Italy, with her sons Valentinian and Honorius, by the Western emperor, a
short time before his death, and she took refuge at Constantinople. The throne
of the West was usurped by Joannes, who declared himself emperor. Theodosius refused
to acknowledge the usurper, and sent against him a force commanded by Ardaburius.
The usurper was taken in Ravenna, and his head was cut off, A. D. 425. Theodosius
was enjoying the games of the Circus at Constantinople when the news came, and
he showed his piety, as Tillemont remarks, by stopping the entertainment, and
inviting all the people to go to the church with him, to return thanks to God
for the death of the tyrant. Whether Theodosius had no ambition to keep the empire
of the West, or those who governed him determined his conduct, he resolved to
confer it on his youthful cousin Valentinian. Eudocia, the daughter of Theodosius,
was betrothed to the young emperor, and she was married to him in A. D. 437.
The reign of the younger Theodosius was not free from the religious
troubles which had distracted the reign of his grandfather Theodosius. The great
dispute which originated with Nestorius, who was made patriarch of Constantinople
in A. D. 428, and ended in the Council of Ephesus, A. D. 431, is described at
length under Nestorius.
The Huns had ravaged the eastern provinces in the reign of Arcadius,
the father of Theodosius ; and they were now tile formidable neighbours of the
empire on the frontier of the Danube. In A. D. 441 the Huns, under Attila and
his brother Bleda, crossed the Danube, and took Viminiacum in Moesia; they broke
through the Illyrian frontier, the fortresses of which offered only a feeble resistance,
destroyed Sirmium, Singidunum (Belgrade), Sardica, and other towns, and extended
their ravages into Thrace. Theodosius recalled the troops from Sicily which he
had sent against Genseric king of the Vandals, and collected from Asia and Europe
all the men that he could muster; but his generals were unable to direct this
force efficiently, and after several defeats they retreated towards Constantinople,
which alone, of all the cities between the Archipelago and the Euxine, remained
for the protection of the emperor. The history of the ravages of Attila comprehends
several years, and they were apparently interrupted by intervals of peace, for
it was not till A. D. 447, the year of the great earthquake which destroyed part
of the walls of Constantinople and threw down fifty seven towers, that the Huns
approached, the capital, and peace was finally made. In A. D. 447 448 Theodosius
concluded a disgraceful peace with the king of the Huns, to whom was given up
a territory on the Danube extending from Singidunum to Novae, in the diocese of
Thrace, and fifteen days' journey in breadth. The annual subsidy that had hitherto
been paid to Attila, was increased from seven hundred pounds of gold to twenty-one
hundred, and six thousand pounds of gold were to be paid on the spot. Theodosius
had exhausted his treasury by extravagant expenditure, and his unfortunate subjects,
who had been pillaged by the Huns, were pillaged again by this unwarlike and feeble
emperor, to supply the demands of the barbarian conqueror. Attila also required
all the deserters from his camp to be given up, and he claimed back, without any
ransom, all his men who had been taken prisoners.
In A. D. 448 or 449 Theodosius sent an embassy to Attila, at the head
of which was Maximin. The ambassador was accompanied by the historian Priscus,
who has left a most interesting account of the domestic habits of Attila. The
proposed object of the embassy was to maintain the good understanding between
the emperor of the East and the king of the Huns; but Theodosius had a private
object to accomplish, the execution of which was entrusted only to Vigilius, the
interpreter ; and this was the assassination of Attila. The ambassador passed
through Sardica, and crossed the Danube; and in some place north of this river
he had his first interview with Attila, whom he was obliged to follow in his progress
northwards before he could conclude the business on which he was sent. The narrative
of Priscus leads us to infer that the place in which the king of the Huns gave
his final reception to the ambassador was in the plains of northern Hungary. The
proposal to assassinate Attila had been made at Constantinople by the eunuch Chrysaphius,
who then reigned in the name of Theodosius, and made to Edecon, a chieftain of
the Scyrri. Vigilius was the median of communication between Chrysaphius and Edecon,
who was to receive for his reward some of the wealth on which he had gazed with
admiration at Constantinople. The scheme was communicated to the emperor, who
approved of it. The emperor's conduct was rendered more disgraceful by the fact
that Maximin, his ambassador, was exposed to all the danger of the discovery of
this treachery, and, being kept in ignorance of it, had not even the choice of
refusing to conduct the embassy. Edecon discovered the treachery to Attila, who,
more generous than the Christian emperor, disdained to punish Vigilius, though
he confessed his guilt; and looking at the affair as a matter of business, the
barbarian took two hundred pounds of gold, instead of the life of Vigilius. But
he sent two ambassadors to Constantinople, who boldly rebuked the emperor for
his guilt, and demanded the head of Chrysaphius. Instead of directly refusing
the demand, Theodosius sent a fresh embassy, loaded with presents, to deprecate
the wrath of Attila, who preferring gold to vengeance, pardoned the emperor and
his guilty associates: he even abandoned all claim to the country south of the
Danube; but here his liberality was not great, for he had made it a desert.
In June A. D. 450, Theodosius was thrown from his horse as he was
hunting near Constantinople, and received an injury from which he died, in the
fiftieth year of his age and the forty-second of his long and inglorious reign.
His sister Pulcheria succeeded him, but prudently took for her colleague in the
empire the senator Marcian, and made him her husband.
In the reign of Theodosius, and that of Valentinian III., who was
emperor of the West from A. D. 425 to 455, was made the compilation called the
Codex Theodosianus. In A. D. 429 the administration of the Eastern Empire declared
that there should be formed a collection of the Constitutions of the Roman emperors
from the time of Constantine to that date, after the model of the two collections
of Gregorianus and Hermogenianus. The arrangement of the constitutions was to
be determined by the matter to which they referred, and those which treated of
several matters were to be divided, and each part placed under its appropriate
title. Those constitutions which had been altered by subsequent constitutions
were not always to be rejected, but the date of each constitution was to be given,
and they were to be arranged in the order of time. Eight functionaries (illustres
et spectabiles) and an advocate were appointed to compile this code. Nothing was
done till A. D. 435, when a new commission was appointed with the same power as
the former commission, and the additional power of making changes in the constitutions.
The new commissioners were sixteen, part of whom were of the rank of Illustres,
and part of the rank of Spectabiles. On the fifteenth of February, A. D. 438,
the Code was published, and it was declared to be from the first of January, A.
D. 439, the only authority for the "Jus Principale", or that law which was formed
by imperial constitutions, from the time of Constantine. In the same year the
Code was published at Rome, as law for the Western Empire also, by Valentinian.
The Code consists of sixteen books, which are divided into titles,
with appropriate rubricae or headings; and the constitutions belonging to each
title are arranged under it in chronological order. The first five books comprise
the greater part of the constitution which relates to Jus Privatum ; the sixth,
seventh, and eighth books contain the law that relates to the constitution and
administration ; the ninth book treats of criminal law; the tenth and eleventh
treat of the public revenue and some matters relating to procedure; the twelfth,
thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth books treat of the constitution and the administration
of towns and other corporations; and the sixteenth contains the law relating to
ecclesiastical matters.
The Theodosian Code has been preserved in an epitome contained in
the Breriarium which was made by order of Alaric II., king of the Visigoths, in
A. D. 506, but several constitutions and some entire titles are omitted in this
epitome. It has also been preserved in the MSS. of the original Code, yet only
in an incomplete form, and we have consequently to refer to the Breviarium for
a considerable part of the Theodosian Code. The constitutions in the Code of Justinian,
which belong to the period comprised in the Theodosian Code, are taken from the
Code of Theodosius, but have undergone considerable alterations. After the edition
of Cujacius, Paris, 1686, fol., the foundation for the text of the last eleven
books of the Code was the MSS. of the original Code; but for the first five books
and the beginning of the sixth book (tit. 1, and the beginning of title 2) the
text of the epitome in the Breviarium was the foundation. The best of these editions,
after the time of Cujacius, and that which is invaluable for the commentary, is
that of J. Gothofredus. which was edited after his death by A. Marville, Lyon,
1665; and afterwards by Ritter, Leipzig, 1736-1745.
Recent discoveries have added to the last eleven books, and furnished
considerable and most important additions to the first five books. The first discoveries
which furnished materials for the text of the Code, were made by A. Peyron, at
Turin, in a palimpsest : these discoveries have enabled us to make considerable
additions to the first five books. These additions were published by Peyron in
1823. In 1820 Clossius discovered, in the Ambrosian Library at Milan, a MS. of
the Breviarium, into which the copyist has transferred various pieces from a MS.
of the original Code: they were published by Clossius in 1824. Wenck published
in 1825, Leipzig, the first five books of the Code, as we now possess them, with
critical and explanatory notes.
The last and most complete edition of the text of the Theodosian Code
is that by Hanel in the Corpus Juris Ante-justiniancum, published at Bonn, 1837.
The Theodosian Code, by its adoption in the Western Empire, established a uniformity
of law in the East and the West. But as new laws would occasionally be necessary,
and it was desirable to maintain this uniformity, it was agreed between the Eastern
and the Western emperors, that future constitutions, which might be published
in one part of the empire, should be forwarded to the other, and promulgated there
also. The new constitutions were called Novellae Leges, or simply Novellae. In
A. D. 447 Theodosius sent a number of such Novellae to Valentinian, who in the
following year confirmed and promulgated them in the Western Empire. These Novelle
form the first collection of Novellae which followed the compilation of the Theodosian
Code.
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Jan 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Eudocia Augusta, wife of the emperor Theodosius II. She was the daughter of the
sophist Leontills, or Leon, or, as he is called in the Paschal Chronicle, Heracleitus
of Athens, where she was born. The year of her birth is doubtful. Nicephorus Callisti,
who has given the fullest account of her, states (xiv. 50) that she died in the
fourth year of the emperor Leo, which corresponds to A. D. 460-61, aged sixty-seven;
and that she was in her twentieth year when she married Theodosius. According
to this statement, she must have been born A. D. 393-4, and married A. D. 413-14.
But the age of Theodosius (born A. D. 401) leads us to prefer, for the marriage,
the date given by the Paschal or Alexandrian Chronicle and by Marcellinus (Chron.),
viz. the consulship of Eustathius and Agricola, A. D. 421. We must then give up
the calculation of Nicephorus as to the time of her death, or as to her age at
that time or at her marriage. Possibly she came to Constantinople in her twentieth
year, in 413-14, but was not married till 421. She was called originally Athenais,
and having excellent natural abilities, was educated by her father and by the
grammarians Hyperechius and Orion in every branch of science and learning then
cultivated. She was familiar with Greek and Latin literature, rhetoric, astronomy,
geometry, and the science of arithmetic. She was also eminent for her beauty;
and in consideration of these advantages, natural and acquired, her father at
his death left her no share in his property, all of which he bequeathed to her
two brothers Valerius and Aetins, called Genesius by Zonaras, or Gesius in the
Paschal Chronicle, saying that her good fortune and the fruits of her education
would be a sufficient inheritance.
From dissatisfaction either at this arrangement, or at some wrong
she had suffered, Athenais went to Constantinople to appeal against her brothers;
and Pulcheria, sister of Theodosius, who managed alike him and his empire, fixed
on her as a suitable wife for him. Athenais was a heathen; but her heathenism
yielded to the arguments or persuasions of Pulcheria and of Atticas. patriarch
of Constantinople, by whom she was baptized, receiving at her baptism the name
of Eudocia, and being adopted in that ordinance by Pulcheria as a daughter--an
expression apparently indicating that she had that princess for a sponsor. The
date of her marriage (A. D. 421), given by Marcellinus and the Paschal Chronicle,
is probably correct, though Theophanes places it one if not two years earlier.
Most historians mention only one child of this union, Eudoxia, who,
according to Marcellinus, was born in the thirteenth consulship of Honorius, and
the tenth of Theodosius, i. e. A. D. 422, and betrothed, in the consulship of
Victor and Castinus, A. D. 424, to her cousin Valentinian, afterwards emperor
of the West as Valentinian III. Tillemont thinks there are notices which seem
to show that there was a son, Arcadius, but he must have died young. Marcellinus
mentions another daughter of the emperor Theodosius, and therefore (if legitimate)
of Eudocia also, Flacilla; but Tillemont suspects that Marcellinus speaks of a
sister of Theodosius so named. Flacilla died in the consulship of Antiochus and
Bassus, A. D. 431. The marriage of Valentinian with Eudoxia was celebrated, not,
as at first appointed, at Thessalonica, but at Constantinople (comp. Socrates,
Hist. Eccles. vii. 44; Niceph. Call. Hist. xiv. 23; Marcellin. Chron. Aetio II
et Sigisuldo Coss), in the year 436 or 437, most likely the latter. In 438, Eudocia
set out for Jerusalem, in discharge of a vow which she had made to visit "the
holy places" on occasion of her daughter's marriage; and returned the year following
to Constantinople, bringing with her the reputed relics of Stephen the proto-martyr.
It was probably in this journey that she visited Antioch, addressed the people
of that city, and was honoured by them with a statue of brass, as related by Evagrius.
At her persuasion Theodosius enlarged the boundaries and the walls of Antioch,
and conferred other marks of favour on that city. She had received the title of
Augusta A. D. 423.
Hitherto it is probable that Eudocia had interfered but little with
the influence exercised by Pulcheria in public affairs. Nicephorus says, she lived
twenty-nine years in the palace, "submitting to (hupo) Pulcheria as mother and
Augusta". As Nicephorus places Eudocia's marriage in 413-14, he makes 442-43 the
period of the termination of Pulcheria's administration. He states, that Eudocia's
administration lasted for seven years. which brings us to 449-50 as the date of
her last journey to Jerusalem, a date which, from other circumstances, appears
to be correct.
During the seven years of her administration, in A. D. 444, according
to the Paschal Chronicle, but later according to Theophanes, occurred the incident
which was the first step to her downfall. An apple of remarkable size and beauty
had been brought to Constantinople, which the emperor purchased and presented
to his wife. She sent it to Paulinus, the magister officiorum, who was then confined
by a fit of the gout; and Paulinus, deeming it a suitable offering, sent it to
the emperor. Theodosius recognized it as the one which he had given to Eudocia;
and, without mentioning the reason to her, enquired what she had done with it.
She, apprehensive of his displeasure at having parted with his gift, replied that
she had eaten it, and confirmed her assertion by an oath. This falsehood increased
the emperor's suspicions that Eudocia regarded Paulinus with undue affection;
and he banished him to Cappadocia, where he was either then or afterwards put
to death. Marcellinus places his death in the fifth consulship of Valentinian
A. D. 440; but we prefer the statement of Nicephorus, that his banishment was
after 442-3, and are disposed to place his death in A. D. 449-50. Eudocia, however,
soothed for a time the jealousy of her husband, but it was not eradicated, as
subsequent events shewed. Gibbon rejects the whole story of the apple " as fit
only for the Arabian Nights ;" but his scepticism appears unreasonable.
The quarrels of the ecclesiastics were the immediate occasion of her
downfall. Chrysaphius, the eunuch and head chamberlain, a supporter of the monk
Eutyches, wished to procure the deposition of Flavian, patriarch of Constantinople,
who had just been elected, A. D. 447. Chrysaphius, finding that Flavian was supported
by Pulcheria, who, though no longer directing the government, retained considerable
influence, applied to Eudocia, whom he reminded of the grievances she had sustained
"on Pulcheria's account". Eudocia, after a long continued effort, at last succeeded
in alienating her husband from his sister. Pulcheria was forbidden the court,
and retired from Constantinople; and in the second or pscudo-council of Ephesus
(A. D. 449), known as "the council of robbers" (e lestrike), Flavian was deposed,
and so roughly treated by the assembled prelates, that he died of their violence
a few days after. But Theodosius was soon led to take up the cause of the murdered
patriarch. He banished Chrysaphius, and stripped him of all his possessions; and
shewed his anger with Eudocia by reviving the quarrel about the apple; so that
she begged and obtained permission to retire to Jerusalem. Pulcheria was recalled,
and resumed the now vacant management of affairs, which she retained during the
short remainder of the reign of Theodosius and that of her husband Marcian, who
succeeded him.
Eudocia might possibly have been reconciled to her husband, but for
an event recorded by Marcellinus, which rendered the breach irreparable. Saturninus,
who held the office of comes domesticorum, being sent for the purpose by Theodosius,
on what account is not stated, but probably through jealousy, slew two ecclesiastics,
Severus, a priest, and Johannes or John, a deacon, who were in the service of
Eudocia at Jerusalem. She, enraged, put Saturninus to death, and was in return
stripped of the state and retinue of empress, which she had been hitherto allowed
to retain. Marcellinus places these sad events in the eighteenth consulship of
Theodosius, A. D. 444; but this date is altogether inconsistent with the facts
mentioned by Nicephorus. Theophanes placed them in A. M. 5942, Alex. era (A. D.
450), which is probably correct; if so, it must have been before the death of
Theodosius, which took place in that year.
Eudocia spent the rest of her life in the Holy Land, devoting herself
to works of piety and charity. She repaired the walls of Jerusalem, conversed
much with ecclesiasties, built monasteteries and hospitals, and a church in honour
of the proto-martyr Stephen on the spot where he was said to have been stoned;
enriched existing churches with valuable offerings, and bestowed great sums in
charity on the priests and the poor. But she was, for some years, obnoxious to
the imputation of heresy. The opinion of Eutyches on the union of the two natures
in Christ, which she held, and which had triumphed in the "council of robbers"
at Ephesus (A. D. 449), was condemned in another council held at Chalcedon (A.
D. 451), soon after the death of Theodosius. The decrees of this latter council
Eudocia for some years rejected. When, however, she heard of the captivity of
her daughter Eudoxia, whom, with her two daughters, Genseric, king of the Vandals,
had carried into Africa (A. D. 455), she sought to be reconciled to Pulcheria,
that she might interest her and her husband, the emperor Marcian, in behalf of
the captives. By the intervention of Olybrius, to whom one of the captive princesses
was betrothed, and of Valerius, the reconciliation was effected; and Pulcheria
anxiously sought to restore Eudocia to the communion of the church. She engaged
her brothers and daughters (according to Nicephorus) to write to her for this
purpose: from which it may be gathered that the brothers of Eudocia had become
Christians, and were still living. According to the Paschal Chronicle, they had
been advanced to high offices, Aetius or Gesius in the provinces, and Valerius
at court. Possibly the Valerius who had been one of the mediators between the
princesses, was one of them. Who "the daughters" of Eudocia were, is not clear.
We read only of two, Eudoxia, now in captivity, and Flacilla, long since dead.
If the letters were from the captive princesses, we must understand daughters
in the more extended sense of female descendants. These letters and the conversations
which Eudocia held with Symeon the Stylite, and Euthymius, an eminent monk of
Jerusalem, determined her to renounce Eutychianism; and her conversion led many
others to follow her example; but it is honourable to her that she continued her
gratuities to those who retained as well as to those who renounced these opinions.
She died at Jerusalem in the fourth year of the reign of Leo I. A. D. 460-61,
and was buried in the church of St. Stephen, which she herself had built. Theophanes
places her death in A. M. 5947 Alex. era (A. D. 455), but this is too early. Her
age has been already noticed. She solemnly declared at her death that she was
free from any guilty connexion with Paulinus.
Eudocia was an author. She wrote:
1. A poem on the victory obtained by the troops of her husband Theodosius over
the Persians, A. D. 421 or 422. This was in heroic verse, and is mentioned by
Socrates (Hist. Eccles. vii. 21).
2. A paraphrase of the Octateuch, also in heroic verse. Photius describes it as
consisting of eight books, according to the division of that part of Scripture
which it embraced ; and says it was well and perspicuously written, and conformable
to tile laws of tile poetic art; but that the writer had not allowed herself the
poetic licences of digression and of mingling fiction with truth, having kept
very close to the sense of the sacred books
3. A Paraphrase of the Prophecies of Daniel and Zechariah, in the same measure.
4. A poem, in the same measure and in three books, on the history and martyrdom
of Cyprian and Justina, who suffered in the persecution under Diocletian. Photius
gives a pretty full account of this poem.
5. Zonaras land Joannes Tzetzes ascribe to Eudocia Homero-Centones; and a poem
under that title, composed of verses and parts of verses from Homer, and having
for its subject the history of the fall and of the redemption of man by Jesus
Christ, has been repeatedly published, both in the original and in a Latin version.
In one edition, it is said to be by Eudocia Augusta, or Patricius Pelagius. The
genuineness of this work is, however, very disputable, and even the fact o
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Dec 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Pulcheria (Poulcheria), co-empress and empress of the East, A. D. 414-453, was the eldest daughter of the emperor Arcadius, who died in A. D. 414, and was succeeded by his son Theodosius the Younger. But as this prince was then only fourteen years old, Pulcheria took the reins of government in his stead, although she too had scarcely passed the limits of childhood, being born in A. D. 399. She was created Augusta on the 4th of July, 414, and henceforth reigned in the name of her weak brother with the consent and to the satisfaction of the senate and the people. The historical and political part of her reign is, however, more properly told in the life of Theodosius Il., and we shall consequently only relate such facts as are more particularly connected with the person and character of this extraordinary woman. Immediately after her accession she took the veil, together with her younger sisters Arcadia and Marina, the latter probably against their will, but Pulcheria decidedly from political motives, although the ceremony took place with a religious solemnity, as if she had parted for ever with earthly affairs. She probably intended to bar every ambitious scheme upon her and her sisters' hand, leet she should lose her power, or the empire become an object of contest between three brothers-in-law. But although she lived separated from the world, she did not remain strange to its interests, and her long and peaceful reign, at least in Asia, give evidence of her eminent abilities. In her personal intercourse she was extremely mild and amiable, her superior education giving additional charms to it: she spoke and wrote Latin and Greek with equal facility and elegance, and was well versed in arts, literature, and science. Her piety was sincere, and although she gave millions to the poor and the distressed, and likewise for the building and embellishment of churches and convents, she was bountiful without ostentation. To her brother Theodosius she was a guardian angel, instilling into his mind the most virtuous principles, and watching his education; and if she could not make an energetic man of him, it was not her fault but that of his original mental and intellectual constitution. He trusted her with the utmost confidence, and was happier in seeing the administration in her hands, than he would have been had the cares of it devolved upon him. Pulcheria brought about the marriage between her brother and the beautiful and virtuous Athenais (Eudoxia), and she performed her task in so charming a manner that many a modern chaperone would do well to take her for a model (A. D. 421). Theodosius died in 450, and, leaving only a daughter, was succeeded by her husband Valentinian III., who also was unfit for the throne. Pulcheria consequently remained at the head of affairs, and began her second reign by inflicting the punishment of death upon the dangerous and rapacious eunuch Chrysaphius. Fearing lest the ambition of that haughty intriguer should be imitated by others, she resolved to marry, and of course was released from her vows of chastity. The object of her choice was the excellent Marcian, with whom she continued to reign in common till her death, which took place on the 18th of February, 453, at the age of 54 years and one month. She was lamented by every body, and was afterwards canonised; her feast is still celebrated in the Greek church. There is a story told by Suidas that Pulcheria had a lover, Paulinus. and that she had lived in incestuous intercourse with her brother; but we doubt the first, and do not believe the second, because it is not to be reconciled with the well-known character and principles of both Pulcheria and Theodosius.
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Jan 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Marcianus, emperor of the East (A. D. 450-457), was the son of an obscure but respectable
man, who had served in the imperial armies. He was born either in Thrace or in
Illyricum, about A. D. 391; and at an early age he entered the imperial army.
Of his earlier history we are acquainted with a few trifling stories and adventures.
His way to fortune was slow, for in 421, at the age of thirty, he was still a
common soldier, or, perhaps, a non-commissioned officer. Some years afterwards
he attached himself to the famous general Aspar, and subsequently to his son Ardaburius,
as private secretary, obtaining, at the same time, the office of captain of the
guards. During fifteen, or perhaps nineteen years, he continued in the service
of those eminent men, and found ample opportunities for developing his military
talents. He accompanied Aspar in his unfortunate campaign against Genseric, king
of the Vandals in Africa, in 431, when he was made a prisoner of war; but on account
of his reputation, and perhaps for services which history does not record, obtained
his release, and returned to Constantinople. His history during the following
nineteen years is veiled in obscurity; and it is only from subsequent events that
we are allowed to conclude that he distinguished himself in no ordinary degree;
for the emperor, Theodosius the Younger, having died in 450, his widow, the celebrated
Pulcheria, offered her hand and the imperial title to Marcian, on condition that
he would not prevent her from continuing the state of virginity which she had
hitherto enjoyed; and Marcian, who was then about sixty, consented to it gladly,
and married the chaste empress, who was then above fifty. At that time Marcian
held the rank of tribune and senator; and he was so favourably known among the
people, that his elevation to supreme power was received by them with applause
and demonstrations of joy. His coronation took place on the 24th of August, 450;
and the whole transaction, as it seems, was so little premeditated, and was settled
in so short a time, that Valentinian, the emperor of Rome, was not even asked
to give his consent, which he did, however, at a later period, for he stood in
great want of the assistance of a man like Marcian, who, to military renown, acquired
in the war against the Vandals and Persians, joined a kind disposition and accomplished
diplomatic skill.
Both the Eastern and the Western empire were then in great apprehension
from the unbounded ambition and power of Attila, who had no sooner heard of the
election of Marcian than he despatched ambassadors to him, demanding, in an imperative
tone, the tribute which the younger Theodosius had engaged to pay annually to
the king of the Huns. "I have iron for Attila", was the emperor's stern answer,
"but no gold". Upon this Apollonius was sent into Attila's camp to negotiate the
continuance of peace, and was charged with presents for the barbarian, which he
was to deliver on the express condition that they were presents, but no tribute.
Attila having declined to admit the ambassador into his presence, though not to
accept the presents, Apollonius firmly refused to give up the latter previous
to having obtained an audience; and being at last admitted, behaved so and fearlessly,
that the king swore he would take bloody revenge. lie thought it, however, more
prudent to turn his wrath against Valentinian, who had likewise affronted him,
by refusing to give up his sister Honoria, whom Attila claimed as his betrothed
wife. Without disclosing his intention as to the countries he had chosen for an
invasion, Attila sent messengers at once to Rome and Constantinople, who addressed
each of the emperors with the haughty and insulting words: "Attila, my lord and
thy lord, commands thee to provide a palace for his immediate reception". Upon
this he set out for the invasion of Gaul, A. D. 451.
In the same year Marcian assembled the council of Chalcedon, where
the doctrines of the Eutychians were condemned. In the following year, 452, the
celebrated Ardaharius, then dux Orientis, defeated the Arabs near Damascus, and
made them sue for pence; and Maximin met with similar success against the Blemmyes,
who had invaded the Thebais in Upper Egypt. A strong army was also sent towards
the frontiers of the Western empire to assist Valentinian against Attila, who
was then invading Italy, and to secure the Eastern empire against any unexpected
diversion of the barbarians. In short Marcian neglected nothing to prepare peace
and happiness for his subjects, who had so cruelly suffered under his predecessors.
The death of Attila, in 453, relieved him not only from great and just anxiety,
but the subsequent, and almost immediate dissolution of the empire of the Huns,
afforded him an opportunity of repopulating those provinces which had been laid
waste by the Huns in their previous campaigns against Theodosius. Thus the Eastern
Goths received extensive lands in Pannonia; Sarmatians (Slavonians) and Herules,
in Illyricum; and Scyri, Alans and Huns, under Attila's youngest son Hernac, in
Scythia and Lower Moesia. The death of the excellent empress Pulcheria, in 454,
cased a general affliction; but the popularity of Marcian only gained by it. In
the following year, 455, Valentinian was murdered; Maximin usurped the crown;
Italy and Gaul were covered with ruins and blood; and the Vandal Genseric pillaged
Rome. In the midst of these terrible commotions, Marcian secured the peace of
his own dominions with his wonted wisdom and firmness; and some disturbances having
broken out in Lazica, in 456, which were kindled by the Armenians and Persians,
he sent able officers against the latter, who soon compelled the enemy to desist
from farther hostilities. But in the beginning of 457 Marcian fell ill, and after
five months' suffering, died on the 26th of June following. His death would have
been the signal of great calamities but for the power of Aspar, who caused Leo
the Great to be chosen emperor. Marcian had, of course, no issue from Pulcheria.
He had, however, a daughter, the offspring of a former marriage, who was called
Euphemia, and was married to Anthemius, who became afterwards emperor of the West.
Marcian was decidedly an excellent man, who deserves our admiration for the manner
in which he governed his wide dominions, and procured for them domestic and external
peace during the terrible expeditions of the Huns and the Vandals. His laudable
efforts to put down the venality and corruption of the public functionaries and
advocates were crowned with success; and the Codex Theodosianus connobly tains
many of his constitutions, from which we may draw a favourable conclusion as to
his honesty and wisdom. His orthodoxy caused him to be praised in an exaggerated
degree by the orthodox writers.
(Evagr. ii. 12; Theophan.; Theodor. Lect. i. 28; Nicephor. Call. xv. 1-4; Zonar.
vol. i.; Procop. Vand. 1, 4)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Jan 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Leo I., Flavius, surnamed the Great, and Thrax, emperor of Constantinople (A. D. 457-474), was
of barbarian origin, and was born about A. D. 400, in the country of the Bessi,
in Thrace, whence he received the surname of " the Thracian". At the death of
the emperor Marcian (457) he was an obscure tribunus militurn, and held the command
of Selymbria. The powerful patrician, Aspar, despairing to seize the crown without
creating a civil and religious war, which might have proved his downfall, resolved
upon remaining in power by proclaiming emperor a man whom he thought equally weak
and obedient; and he consequently contrived the election of Leo, who was recognised
by the senate on the 7th of February, 457. Leo was crowned by Anatolius, patriarch
of Constantinople; and this is the first instance of a Christian sovereign having
received his crown from the hands of a priest, a ceremony which was afterwards
adopted by all other Christian princes, and from which the clergy, as Gibbon justly
observes, have deduced the most formidable consequences. Shortly after Leo's accession,
religious troubles broke out in Egypt, which afforded the new emperor an opportunity
of showing that he did not intend to be a tool of his minister. The Eutychians
of Alexandria slew the orthodox bishop Proterius, and chose one of their own creed,
Elurus, in his stead, who was protected by the Arian, Aspar, in spite of the emperor's
authority. Leo, however, did not give way, and in 460 he had Elurus deposed, and
superseded by an orthodox bishop, to the great annoyance of Aspar. This minister,
finding himself checked in many other instances by the man whom he had raised
from the dust, once had tile impudence to reproach the emperor with faithless
conduct towards his benefactor; upon which Leo calmly replied, that no prince
should be compelled to resign his own judgment and the interest of his subjects
to the will of his servants.
In 466 the Huns threatened at once the northern provinces of Persia
and the Eastern empire. Hormidac, one of their chiefs, crossed the Danube on the
ice, but Leo had assemled a sufficient force to check them. His general, Anthemius,
afterwards emperor of Rome, defeated them at Sardica, and some time afterwards
Anagastus routed them in another pitched battle. Their principal chief, Dengizec,
who was a son of Attila, was killed, and his head was sent to Constantinople,
where it was exposed to the public. The Huns now sought for peace, and desisted
from further hostilities. About this time also Leo made serious preparations for
restoring peace to the western empire, where the ambition of Ricimer and Genseric,
the king of the Vandals in Africa, had caused interminable troubles and bloodshed.
Ricimer entered with him into negotiations, which were not without beneficial
effects for Italy, since they led to the election of Anthemius, mentioned above,
as emperor of Rome; but Genseric was rather obstinate, though he tried to avoid
war by sending back to Constantinople Eudoxia, the widow of the Western emperor,
Valentinian III., and her daughter, Placidia, whom he had kept as captives during
seven years. No sooner, however, was Anthemius proclaimed in Rome, than the two
emperors concerted a joint attack upon Carthage, the deplorable issue of which
is told in the life of Basiliscus, who had the chief command in this unfortunate
expedition. The defeat of Basiliscus gave Leo an opportunity of getting rid of
Aspar and his three haughty sons, Ardaburius, Patricius, and Ermenaric, for public
opinion pointed out Aspar as the secret contriver of the failure of the expedition;
and the people, especially the orthodox, declared themselves against him in most
violent language. In order to exasperate the people still more against the minister,
Leo treacherously proposed to him to give his daughter, Ariadne, in marriage to
Aspar's son, Patricius, or Patriciolus. When the news of the intended marriage
spread abroad, the inhabitants of Constantinople rose in arms, and stormed the
palace of Aspar, who escaped assassination by flying, with his sons, into the
church of St. Euphemia. They left it on the promise of Leo that no harm should
be done to them; but they had scarcely arrived within the precincts of the imperial
palace, when Trascalisseus rushed upon them with a band of the emperor's body
guard, and assassinated Aspar and Ardaburius. This foul deed was perpetrated at
the command of Leo, on whose memory it is an indelible stain. Trascalisseus, the
stanch adherent of Leo, was rewarded with the hand of his daughter, Ariadne, adopted
the Greek name of Zeno, and thus finally filled the imperial throne. Aspar had
left many friends among his fellow-believers, the Arians, who, in revenge of his
death, excited Ricimer to fresh intrigues in the West, and persuaded the Goths
to invade Thrace. They came accordingly, and during two years the very environs
of Constantinople were rendered unsafe till they yielded to the superior skill
of the Roman generals, and sued for peace. The end of Leo's reign was thus disturbed
by a calamity which was the immediate consequence and the deserved punishment
of the murder of Aspar, although the emperor suffered less from it than his innocent
subjects. Feeling his strength decline, and having no son, Leo chose in 473 his
grandson Leo, the infant son of Zeno and Ariadne, his future successor, and proclaimed
him Augustus. He died in less than a year afterwards, after a long and painful
illness, in the month of January, 474, and was buried in the mausoleum of Constantine.
Although Leo does not deserve the name of the Great, he was distinguished
by remarkable talents and moral qualities; his mind was enlightened; he was active,
wise, and always knew how to attain his ends. His piety was sincere; he showed
great respect to the clergy, and sincerely admired the famous Daniel Stylites,
who passed his life on the top of a column in Constantinople. He is reproached
with want of firmness in his conduct towards Aspar and Basiliscus. Leo was illiterate,
but appreciated literature and science. On one occasion one of his courtiers reproached
him with having given a pension to the philosopher Eulogius: " Would God", answered
the emperor, "that I had to pay no other people than scholars". Theodoric the
Great was educated at the court of Leo. The reign of this emperor is signalised
by some extraordinary events. In 458 Antioch was destroyed by an earthquake; in
465 a fire broke out in Constantinople, and destroyed the public and private buildings
on a space 1750 paces long, from east to west, and 500 wide from north to south.
In 469 inundations caused an immense loss of life and property in various parts
of the empire; and in 572 there was an eruption of Mount Vesuvius, which was not
only felt in Constantinople, but all the historians agree that there were such
showers of ashes that the roofs of the houses were covered with a coat three inches
thick. Whether this is true or not is another question.
The wife of Leo, Verina, was renowned for her virtues. He had a son
by her who died young, and two daughters, Ariadne, married to Zeno, and Leontia,
who married Marcian, the son of Anthemius.
(Cedren; Zonar. vol. ii.; Suidas, s. v. Leon and Zenon.)
Leo II., emperor, succeeded his grandfather, Leo 1., in A. D. 474, at four years of age, and died in the same year, after having reigned under the guardianship of his mother, Verina, and his father, Zeno, by whom he was succeeded.
Zenon or Zeno, emperor of the East, A.D.474-491, was descended from a noble Isaurian family.
His name was originally Trascalisseus, which he exchanged for that of Zeno when
he married Ariadne, the daughter of the emperor Leo I. in 468. He probably assumed
this name because another Isaurian of the name of Zeno had obtained distinction
under Theodosius II., and been elevated to the consulship in 448. Of the early
life of Zeno we have no particulars; but we are told that Leo gave him his daughter
in marriage in order to secure the support of the Isaurians against his ambitious
minister Aspar, from which we may conclude that Zeno had great influence among
his countrymen. On his marriage with Ariadne, he was raised by the emperor to
the rank of patrician, was appointed commander of the imperial guards and of the
armies in the East, and was elevated to the consulship along with Marcianus in
469. The elevation of Zeno brought great trouble upon the church in consequence
of his patronage of Peter, surnamed the Fuller, who had been expelled from the
monastery of the Acoemetae both for immorality and heresy. Through the influence
of Zeno Peter obtained possession of the patriarchate of Antioch in this year,
but the means by which he gained his object, and his subsequent deposition by
Leo are related elsewhere. Though Zeno was thus the means of giving some trouble
to the emperor, he nevertheless was regarded by Leo as the main stay of his throne,
and accordingly excited the jealousy of Aspar. While engaged in a campaign against
the barbarians, who were ravaging Thrace, he narrowly escaped being assassinated
by the friends of Aspar. On his return to court he persuaded Leo to get rid of
his dangerous minister, and by his advice and contrivance Aspar was murdered in
471. Leo had no male children, and he wished to appoint his son-in-law his successor;
but as soon as the emperor's intentions became known, there were great tumults
at Constantinople, for the Greeks could not bear the idea of submitting to an
Isaurian, and they hated Zeno personally both for the ugliness of his person and
of his mind (Zonar. xiv. 2). Leo accordingly gave up his intention, and appointed
as his successor his grandson Leo, the son of Zeno and Ariadne. This was in the
year 473, and on the 3d of February in the following year (474) the emperor died,
and was succeeded by his grandson. As the young emperor was only a child, the
government devolved upon Zeno; and now that he had the real power, he soon acquired
the title as well. Assisted by the dowager empress Verina, he was declared emperor
with the approbation of the senate; and his own son put the crown upon his head.
His son, however, had still the precedence, and in the laws promulgated in this
year in the names of the two Augusti, the name of Leo always precedes that of
Zeno. By the death of Leo, which occurred towards the end of the year (474), Zeno
became sole emperor. Some writers accuse him of having made away with his son
to secure the undivided sovereignty for himself; and they even allege that Ariadne
was privy to the crime : but as the Greek historians, who never miss an opportunity
of blackening the character of Zeno, do not say a word respecting the murder of
his son, we may safely reject the tale as a calumny.
The reign of Zeno was marked by great disasters, by intestine commotions,
and foreign wars. He is represented by the Greek historians as a voluptuary, a
miser, and a tyrant. His contemptible character and his oppressive government
occasioned frequent revolts among his subjects. The barbarians ravaged the fairest
provinces of his empire; and the Goths, after encamping under the very walls of
Constantinople, founded a new kingdom in Italy under the sway of Theodoric the
Great. Zeno had not been many months upon the throne before he was driven out
of Constantinople by a formidable rebellion excited by Verina and her brother
Basiliscus, A. D. 475. Zeno took refuge in Isauria along with his wife Ariadne,
and Basiliscus was proclaimed emperor. Basiliscus sent Illus and his brother Trocundus,
who were also Isaurians, with a powerful army against the fugitive emperor, whom
they defeated in July, A. D. 476. But Basiliscus was still more unpopular at Constantinople
than Zeno. His adherents were discontented and divided; and Zeno accordingly found
no difficulty in persuading Illus to desert his new master, and espouse his cause.
Zeno and Illus now marched upon Constantinople, and they appear to have received
support from Theodoric. who had succeeded his father Theodemir as king of the
Ostrogoths. Near Nicaea they were met by the troops of Basiliscus under the command
of his nephew Harmatius or Harmatus, but the latter was also gained over, and
Zeno entered Constantinople without opposition in the month of July, A. D. 477,
twenty months after his expulsion. Basiliscus was deposed and sent to Phrygia,
where he perished in the winter of the same yea. The treachery of Harmatius had
been purchased by great promises, which Zeno was now obliged to fulfill. He was
made commander-in-chief of the army, and his son was raised to the rank of Caesar
; but these high dignities only caused his ruin. Illus, who was jealous of any
rival in power, easily persuaded the weak and timid emperor that Harmatius was
aiming at the sovereignty, and accordingly before the end of the year Harmatius
was murdered, and his son, the Caesar, was made reader in the church of Blachernae,
in the neighbourhood of Constantinople.
Zeno now devolved the cares of government upon Illus, while he gave
himself up to the enjoyment of his pleasures. In A. D. 478 Illus was sole consul.
In this year Theodoric, son of Triarius, a Gothic chief, who had been one of the
supporters of the emperor Basiliscus, and who had retired into Thrace upon the
fall of the latter, appeared before Constantinople at the head of a formidable
army, and pillaged the surrounding country. Zeno called to his aid Theodoric,
the son of Theodemir, who proceeded against his namesake; but the treachery of
the emperor, who neglected to supply him with the troops and provisions he had
promised him, led the son of Theodemir to conclude a peace with the son of Triarius.
Zeno, who now feared to have the whole force of the Gothic nation turned against
him, hastened to make peace with the son of Triarius, which he was only able to
obtain by the most humiliating concessions.
In the following year, 479, a new and dangerous revolt broke out.
At the head of it was Marcian, the grandson of the emperor of that name, and the
son of Anthemius, the emperor of the West. Marcian had married Leontia, the daughter
of the late emperor Leo, and the sister of Ariadne, the wife of Zeno. He raised
the standard of revolt in Constantinople itself, was joined by a powerful party,
and defeated the forces of Zeno, whom he besieged in his palace. In the course
of the night, however, Illus found means to corrupt his troops, and Marcian was
obliged to take refuge in a church. He was dragged out, ordained forthwith as
a presbyter, and banished to a monastery in Cappadocia. As soon as Theodoric,
the son of Triarius, heard of this revolt, he marched upon Constantinople under
the pretext of coming to the assistance of his ally, but in reality in hopes of
obtaining possession of the city without a struggle. He was, however, induced
by large sums of money to retire. Meantime war had been continued against Theodoric,
the son of Theodemir, who, enraged at the treachery of the emperor in the preceding
year, had been turned from an ally into a foe. The war was ably conducted by Sabinianus,
Zeno's general, who gained some advantages over Theodoric.
In A. D. 481, war broke out again with Theodoric, the son of Triarius. He marched
against Constantinople at the head of a more formidable army than he had ever
collected previously, but was accidentally killed by his own javelin, while riding
one day upon a new horse. Unexpectedly delivered from this formidable enemy, Zeno
purchased peace with the other Theodoric in 483, by conferring upon him the most
extraordinary honours. [Vol. III. p. 1044, a.] In the following year, 484, Theodoric
was consul. This year was signalised by the commencement of a new rebellion, which
lasted longer than any of the preceding ones, and brought Zeno to the brink of
ruin. It was headed by Illus, the powerful minister of Zeno, who had now become
an object of suspicion to his master, and of hatred both to Verina and Ariadne.
The history of this rebellion is related at length elsewhere [IILUS]. It was not
finally suppressed till A. D. 488, when Illus and Leontius, whom the former had
proclaimed emperor, were both taken prisoners and put to death. During the revolt
of Illus, misunderstandings occurred between Theodoric and Zeno. In 487 the Gothic
king again took up arms and threatened Constantinople. To save himself and his
capital, Zeno gave Theodoric permission to invade Italy, and expel the usurper
Odoacer from the country. The terms were gladly accepted by Theodoric, and Zeno
lived to see she foundation of a powerful Gothic kingdom in Italy. Zeno died in
the month of April A. D. 491, after a reign of seventeen years. He left no children,
and was succeeded by Anastasius, an officer of the imperial life-guard of the
Silentiarii, who married Ariadne, the widow of Zeno.
In A. D. 482, Zeno published the famous Henoticon (henotikon), which
was signed by all the bishops of the East under his reign, and that of Anastasius.
It is preserved by Evagrius (iii. 13). The various modern writers who comment
upon it are given by Fabricius (Bibl. Graec. vol. xi.).
(Tillemont, Histoire des Empereurs, vol. vi., and Clinton, Fasti Romani, in which
works all the authorities are collected.)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Jan 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Illus, a leading personage in the troubled reign of the Byzantine emperor Zeno, who reigned
A. D. 474-491. His name is variously written Illos (which is the most common form),
Illos, Illous, Hillos, and Hillous, and by Latin writers, ILLUS, ELLUS, and HYLLUS.
Victor of Tunes in one place calls him Patricius, mistaking his title of Patrician
for a proper name.
Illus was an Isaurian, but the time and place of his birth are unknown.
He is said to have held various offices under the Emperor Leo I. (A. D. 457-474),
and to have been an intimate friend of Zeno, apparently before his accession.
But we first read of him in Zeno's reign and in hostility to that emperor. Basiliscus,
brother of the empress dowager Verina,the widow of Leo,hadexpelled Zeno from Constantinople
(A. D. 475) and sent an army in pursuit of him under Illus and his brother Trocondus
(whose name is variously written Trokondos, Trokoundos, Troboundos, Prokoundos,
Promondos, and Sekooundos, and by the Latin writers Trocundus and Tricundius)
into Isauria, where Zeno had taken refuge. The brothers defeated the fugitive
emperor (July, A. D. 476) and blockaded him on a hill called by the people near
it "Constantinople." (Suidas, s. v. Zenon.) During the blockade Illus and Trocondus,
instigated by the senate of Constantinople, with whom Basiliscus had fallen into
odium and contempt, and themselves discontented with the usurper, were prevailed
on by the promises and gifts of Zeno to embrace his side, and to march with united
forces towards the capital. At Nice in Bithynia they were met by the troops of
Basiliscus under his nephew and general Armatus, or Harmatus (Armatos or Armatos),
or Harmatius; but he, too, was gained over, and Basiliscus, forsaken by his supporters,
was dethroned and put to death (A. D. 477).
Illus was sole consul A. D. 478, and in 479 he was instrumental in
crushing the dangerous revolt of Marcian, grandson of the Byzantine emperor of
that name, and son of Anthemius, emperor of the West. Marcian had married Leontia,
daughter of the late Emperor Leo by Verina, and sister of Ariadne, Zeno's wife.
His revolt took place at Constantinople, where he defeated the troops of Zeno
and besieged him in the palace. For a moment Illus wavered, but his failing courage
or fidelity was restored by the assurances of an Egyptian soothsayer whom he patronised.
Marcian's forces were corrupted by Illus; and Marcian himself, with his brothers
Procopius and Romulus, was taken. The brothers escaped, but Marcian was sent,
either to Tarsus in Cilicia, and made a priest in the church there, or to the
foot of Papurius (Papouoios), or Papyrius, a stronghold in Isauria, then used
as a state prison. Trocondus, the brother of Illus, was consul A. D. 482; and
Illus himself enjoyed the dignities of patricius and [p. 570] magister officiorum.
He is said to have employed his power and influence well, and to have rendered
good service to the state in peace as well as in war. He assiduously cultivated
science and literature.
It was perhaps his literary predilections that made him the friend
and patron of Pamprepius (Pamprepios) for whom he obtained a salary from the public
revenue, and to whom also he made an allowance from his private resources. Pamprepius
was a native of Thebes, or, according to others, of Panopolis in Egypt, an avowed
heathen, and eminent as a poet, a grammarian, and especially for his skill in
divining the future. Pamprepius was hated both by Zeno and by the dowager empress
Verina, and during the absence of Illus, who had gone on some business into Isauria,
they banished him on a charge of attempting to divine future events in favour
of Illus and against the emperor. Illus, knowing that his intimacy with him had
been the real cause of his banishment, received him into his household, and, on
his return to the capital, took him with him. The date of these events is doubtful
: it is possible that they occurred before Marcian's revolt, though a later date
is on the whole more probable.
As the weakness of Zeno's character made him jealous of all persons
of influence and talent, it is not wonderful that the commanding position and
popular favour of Illus rendered him an object of suspicion, and that the emperor
in various ways sought to rid himself of him. The ambitious Verina, the dowager
empress, was also his enemy, and formed a plot against his life. The assassin,
an Alan, employed by her, is said to have wounded Illus; but this is doubtful,
as historians have confounded her plot with the later one of her daughter Ariadne.
At any rate Verina's attempt was defeated, and Zeno, equally jealous of her and
of Illus, banished her at the instance of the latter, and confined her in the
fort of Papurius. There is some doubt as to the time of these events also. Candidus
places the banishment of Verina before the revolt of Marcian, and Theodore Lector
assigns as the cause of it her share in the revolt of Basiliscus. It is not unlikely,
indeed, that this turbulent woman was twice banished, once before Marcian's revolt,
for her connection with Basiliscus, and again after Marcian's revolt, for her
plot against Illus. From her prison she managed to interest her daughter Ariadne,
the wife of Zeno, in her favour, and Ariadne endeavoured to obtain her release,
first from Zeno, and then from Illus, to whom the emperor referred her. Illus
not only refused her request, but charged her with wishing to place another person
on her husband's throne. This irritated her; and she, like her mother, attempted
to assassinate Illus. Jornandes ascribes her hatred to another cause: he says
that Illus had infused jealous suspicions into Zeno's mind which had led Zeno
to attempt her life, and that her knowledge of these things stimulated her to
revenge. The assassin whom she employed failed to kill Illus, but cut off his
ear in the attempt. The assassin was taken, and Zeno, who appears to have been
privy to the affair, was unable to prevent his execution.
Illus, with his friend Pamprepius, now retired from court, first to
Nice, and then, on pretence of change of air and of procuring the cure of his
wound, into the East, where he was made general of all the armies, with the power
of appointing the provincial officers. Marsus, an Isaurian officer of reputation,
who had first introduced Pamprepius to Illus, and the patrician Leontius, a Syrian,
and an officer of reputation, either accompanied him or joined him in the East,
and probably also his brother Trocondus. Having traversed Asia Minor they erected
the standard of revolt (A. D. 483 or 484). Illus declared Leontius emperor, defeated
the army of Zeno near Antioch, and having drawn over the Isaurians to his party,
and obtained possession of Papurius, released Verina, and induced her to crown
Leontius at Tarsus, and to send a circular letter to the imperial officers at
Antioch, in Egypt, and the East, by which they were prevailed on to join Illus.
This important service did not, however, prevent Illus from sending Verina back
to Papurius, where she soon after closed her restless life. Zeno (A. D. 485) sent
against the rebels a fresh army. said to consist of Macedonians and Scythians
(Tillemont conjectures, not unreasonably, that these were Ostro-Goths) under John
"the Hunchback". or, more probably, John "the Scythian", and Theodoric the Ostro-Goth,
who was at this time consul. John defeated the rebels near Seleuceia (which town
of that name is not clear, perhaps the Isaurian Seleuceia) and drove them into
the fort of Papurius where he blockaded them. In this difficulty Trocondus attempted
to escape and gather forces for their relief, but was taken by the besiegers and
put to death. Illus and Leontius were ignorant of his fate, and, encouraged by
Pamprepius, who gave them assurance of his return and of ultimate victory, held
out with great pertinacity for above three years. In the fourth year the death
of Trocondus was discovered, and Illus, enraged at the deceit practised on him
by Pamprepius, put him to death. The fort was soon after taken by the treachery
of Trocondus's brother-in-law, who had been sent for the purpose from Constantinople
by Zeno, and Illus and Leontius were beheaded (A. D. 488) and their heads sent
to the emperor.
Tillemont and Le Beau regard the revolt of Illus as an attempt to
re-establish heathenism; but for this view there seems no foundation. We do not
know that Illus was a heathen, though Pamprepius was one : it is more likely that
Illus was a man of no fixed religious principles, and that his revolt originated
either in ambition, or in a conviction that his only prospect of safety from the
intrigues of his enemies and the suspicions of Zeno was the dethronement of the
emperor. It is remarkable that Gibbon does not mention the name of Illus, and
scarcely notices his revolt.
(Suidas, s. vv. Zenon, Pamprepios; Zonar. xiv. 2; Theophan. Chronog.; Evagrius,
H. E. iii. 8, 16, 24, 26, 27; Candidus, apud Phot. Bibl. cod. 79; Malchus, apud
Phot. Bibl. cod. 78; Damascius, apud Phot. Bibl. cod. 242; Procop. B. V. i. 7;
Marcellinus, Chronicon ; Victor Tun. Chronicon.; Theodor. Lector, H. E. i. 37,
ii. 3, 4; Jornandes, de Reg. Success. c. 47 ; Cedrenus, Compendium; Liberatus
Diaconus, Breviarium Caussae Nestorianorum et Eutychianorum, c. 16, 17, apud Galland.
Biblioth. Patrum, vol. x ; Tillemont, Hist. des Empereurs, vol. vi; Le Beau, Bas
Empire, c. 36; Gibbon, ch. 39.)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Jan 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Henoticon. The story of the Henoticon forms a chapter in that of the Monophysite heresy in
the fifth and sixth centuries. It is the name of the unhappy and unsuccessful
law made by the Emperor Zeno in order to conciliate Catholics and Monophysites.
Really, it satisfied no one and brought about the first great schism between Rome
and Constantinople.
When Zeno (474-91) came to the throne the Monophysite trouble was
at its height. The mass of the people of Egypt abd Syria rejected the Council
of Chalcedon (451) altogether, and found in Monophysitism an outlet for their
national, anti-imperial feeling. The three Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch,
and Jerusalem were in schism. The Catholic Patriarch of Alexandria, Proterius,
had been murdered in 457; a fanatical Monophysite, Timothy Aelurus (Ailuros),
had been elected as his successor. He died in 477; the heretics elected one Peter
Mongus - the "Stammerer" -to succeed him; the Catholics, John Talaia. Peter Gnapheus
(Fullo), one of the most determined leaders of the heretical party, occupied the
See of Antioch; Theodosius, also a Monophysite, that of Jerusalem. Over 500 bishops
in these patriarchates were open partisans of Eutyches's heresy. Zeno found himself
in a difficult position. On the one hand he was a friend of Peter Fullo of Antioch
and sympathized with the Monophysites, on the other he was forced into the defence
of the Catholic Faith by the fact that his rival Basiliscus (whom he succeeded
in deposing) had made himself the protector of the heretics. Zeno,
in spite of his personal feeling, came to the throne as the champion of the Catholic
party. At first he protected the Catholic bishops (John Talaia, for instance).
But he was anxious to conciliate his old friends in Egypt and Syria, and he realized
how much harm this schism was doing to the empire. He therefore issued
a law that was meant to satisfy every one, to present a compromise that
all could accept. This law was the famous Henoticon (henotikon,
"union"). It was published in 482.
As an attempt at conceding what both parties most desired, the Henoticon
is a very skillful piece of work. It begins by insisting on the faith defined
at Nicaea, confirmed at Constantinople, followed faithfully by the Fathers at
Ephesus. Nestorius and Eutyches are both condemned, the anathemas of Cyril approved.
Christ is God and man, one, not two. His miracles and Passion are works of one
(whether person or nature, is not said). Those who divide or confuse, or introduce
a phantasy (i.e. affirm a mere appearance) are condemned. One of the Trinity was
incarnate. This is written not to introduce a novelty, but to satisfy every one.
Who thinks otherwise, either now or formerly, either at Chalcedon or at any other
synod, is anathematized, especially Nestorius, Eutyches, and all their followers.
It will be noticed that the Henoticon carefully avoids speaking of nature or person,
avoids the standard Catholic formula (one Christ in two natures), approves of
Peter Fullo's expression (one of the Trinity was incarnate), names only the first
three councils with honour, and alludes vaguely but disrespectfully to Chalcedon.
There is no word against Dioscurus of Alexandria. Otherwise it offends rather
by its omissions than by its assertions. It contains no actually heretical statement
(the text is in Evagrius, "H. E.", III, 14; Liberatus, "Breviarium", XVII). Peter
Mongus accepted it, explaining that it virtually condemned Chalcedon and thereby
secured his place as Patriarch of Alexandria. His rival, John Talaia, was banished.
Peter Fullo at Antioch accepted the new law too. But the strict Monophysites were
not content, and separated themselves from Mongus, forming the sect called the
Acephali (akephaloi, "without a head" - with no patriarch). Nor were Catholics
satisfied with a document that avoided declaring the Faith on the point at issue
and alluded in such a way to Chalcedon. The emporer succeeded in persuading Acacius
(Akakios), Patriarch of Constantinople (471-80), to accept the Henoticon, a fact
that is remarkable, since Acacius had stood out firmly for the Catholic Faith
under Basiliscus. It is perhaps explained by his personal enmity against John
Talaia, orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria. The Henoticon was addressed in the first
place to the Egyptians, but was then applied to the whole empire. Catholic and
consistent Monophysite bishops were deposed, their sees were given to people who
agreed to the compromise. But the emporer had not counted with Rome. From all
parts of the East Catholics sent complaints to Pope Felix II (or III: 483-92)
entreating him to stand out for the Council of Chalcedon. He then wrote two letters,
one to Zeno and one to Acacius, exhorting them to continue defending the Faith
without compromise, as they had done before (Epp. i et ii Felicis III in Thiel,
"Epistolae Rom. Pontificum genuinae" Braunsberg, 1868. 222-39). Then John Talaia,
exiled from Alexandria, arrived at Rome and gave a further account of what was
happening in the East. The pope wrote two more letters, summoning Acacius to Rome
to explain his conduct (Epp. iii et iv, ibid). The legates who brought these letters
to Constantinople were imprisoned as soon as they landed, then forced to receive
Communion from Acacius in a Liturgy in which they heard Peter Mongus and other
Monophysites named in the diptychs. The pope, having heard of this from the Acoemeti
(akoimetoi, sleepless) monks at Constantinople, held a synod in 484 in which he
denounced his legates, deposed and excommunicated Acacius (Epp. vi, vii, viii,
ibid., 243 sq.). Acacius retorted by striking Felix's name from his diptychs.
Thus began the Acacian schism that lasted thirty-five years (484-519). The Acoemeti
monks alone at Constantinople stayed in communion with the Holy See; Acacius put
their abbot, Cyril, in prison. Acacius himself died in schism in 489. His successor,
Flavitas (or Fravitas, 489-90), tried to reconcile himself with the pope, but
refused to give up communion with Monophysites and to omit Acacius's name in his
diptychs. Zeno died in 491; his successor, Anastasius I (491-518), began by keeping
the policy of the Henoticon, but gradually went over to complete Monophysitism.
Euphemius (490-496), patriarch after Flavitus, again tried to heal the schism,
restored the pope's name to his diptychs, denounced Peter Mongus, and accepted
Chalcedon; but his efforts came to nothing, since he, too, refused to remove the
names of Acacius and Flavitas from the diptychs (see Euphemius of Consstantinople).
Gelasius I (492-96) succeeded Felix II at Rome and maintained the same attitude,
denouncing absolutely the Henoticon and any other compromise with the heretics.
Eventually, when the Emporer Anastasius died (518), the schism was healed. His
successor, Justin I (518-27), was a Catholic; he at once sought reunion with Rome.
John II, the patriarch (518-20), was also willing to heal the schism. In answer
to their petitions, Pope Hormisdas (514-23) sent his famous formula. This was
then signed by the emperor, the patriarch, and all the bishops at the capital.
On Easter day, 24 March, 519, the union was restored. Monophysite bishops were
deposed or fled, and the empire was once more Catholic, till the troubles broke
out again under Justinian I (527-65).
Adrian Fortescue, ed.
This text is cited Jan 2006 from The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent online edition URL below.
Basiliscus (Basiliskos), usurper of the throne of Constantinople, was the brother
of the empress Verina, the wife of Leo I., who conferred upon his brother-in-law
the dignities of patrician and "dux " or commander-in-chief in Thrace. In this
country Basiliscus made a successful campaign against the Bulgarians in A. D.
463. In 468, he was appointed commander-in-chief of the famous expedition against
Carthage, then the residence of Genseric, king of the Vandals--one of the greatest
military undertakings which is recorded in the annals of history. The plan was
concerted between Leo I. Anthemius, emperor of the West, and Marcellinus, who
enjoyed independence in Illyricum. Basiliscus was ordered to sail direct to Carthage,
and his operations were preceded by those of Marcellinus, who attacked and took
Sardinia, while a third army, commanded by Heraclius of Edessa, landed on the
Libyan coast east of Carthage, and made rapid progress. It appears that the combined
forces met in Sicily, whence the three fleets started at different periods. The
number of ships and troops under the command of Basiliscus, and the expenses of
the expedition have been differently calculated by different historians. Both
were enormous; but while we must reject the account of Nicephorus Gregoras, who
speaks of one hundred thousand ships, as either an error of the copyists or a
gross exaggeration, everything makes us believe that Cedrenus is correct in saying
that the fleet that attacked Carthage consisted of eleven hundred and thirteen
ships, having each one hundred men on board. Sardinia and Libya were already conquered
by Marcellinus and Heraclius when Basiliscus cast anchor off the Promontorium
Mercurii, now cape Bon, opposite Sicily. Genseric, terrified, or feigning to be
so, spoke of submission, and requested Basiliscus to allow him five days in order
to draw up the conditions of a peace which promised to be one of the most glorious
for the Roman arms. During the negotiations, Genserie assembled his ships, and
suddenly attacked the Roman fleet, which was unprepared for a general engagement.
Basiliscus fled in the heat of the battle; his lieutenant, Joannes, one of the
most distinguished warriors of his time, when overpowered by the Vandals, refused
the pardon that was promised him, and with his heavy armour leaped overboard,
and drowned himself in the sea. One half of the Roman ships was burnt, sunk, or
taken, the other half followed the fugitive Basiliscus. The whole expedition had
failed. After his arrival at Constantinople, Basiliscus hid himself in the church
of St. Sophia, in order to escape the wrath of the people and the revenge of the
emperor, but he obtained his pardon by the mediation of Verina, and he was punished
merely with banishment to Heraclea in Thrace.
Basiliscus is generally represented as a good general, though easily
deceived by stratagems; and it may therefore be possible that he had suffered
himself to be surprised by Genseric. The historians generally speak ambiguously,
saying that he was either a dupe or a traitor; and there is much ground to believe
that he had concerted a plan with Aspar to ruin Leo by causing the failure of
the expedition. This opinion gains further strength by the fact, that Basiliscus
aspired to the imperial dignity, which, however, he was unable to obtain during
the vigorous government of Leo. No sooner had Leo died (474), than Basiliscus
and Verina, Leo's widow, conspired against his feeble successor, Zeno, who was
driven out and deposed in the following year. It seems that Verina intended to
put her lover, Priscus, on the throne; but Basiliscus had too much authority in
the army, and succeeded in being proclaimed emperor (October or November, 475).
His reign was short. He conferred the title of Augusta upon his wife, Zenonida;
he created his son, Marcus, Caesar, and afterwards Augustus; and he patronised
the Eutychians in spite of the decisions of the council of Chalcedon. During his
reign a dreadful conflagration destroyed a considerable part of Constantinople,
and amongst other buildings the great library with 120,000 volumes. His rapacity
and the want of union among his adherents caused his ruin, which was accelerated
by the activity of Zeno, his wife, the empress Ariadne, and generally all their
adherents. Illus, the general despatched by Basiliscus against Zeno, who had assembled
some forces in Cilicia and Isauria, had no sooner heard that the Greeks were dissatisfied
with the usurper, than he and his army joined the party of Zeno; and his successor,
Armatius or Harmatus, the nephew of Basiliscus, either followed the example of
Illus, or at least allowed Zeno to march unmolested upon Constantinople. Basiliscus
was surprised in his palace, and Zeno sent him and his family to Cappadocia, where
they were imprisoned in a stronghold, the name of which was perhaps Cucusus. Food
having been refused them, Basiliscus, his wife, and children perished by hunger
and cold in the winter of 477-478, several months after his fall, which took place
in June or July, 477 (Zonaras, xiv. 1, 2; Procop. De Bell. Vand. i. 6, 7)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Nov 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Leontius Ι. a Syrian, and an officer of reputation, joined Illus in rebelling against Zeno, the emperor of Constantinople. Leontius was proclaimed emperor in A. D. 482, and was taken prisoner and put to death at Constantinople in A. D. 488.
Anastasius I. (Anastasios), emperor of Constantinople, surnamed Dicorus (Dikoros)
on account of the different colour of his eye-balls, was born about 430 A. D.,
at Dyrrachium in Epeirus. He was descended from an unknown family, and we are
acquainted with only a few circumstances concerning his life previously to his
accession. We know, however, that he was a zealous Eutychian, that he was not
married, and that he served in the imperial lifeguard of the Silentiarii, which
was the cause of his being generally called Anastasius Silentiarius. The emperor
Zeno, the Isaurian, having died in 491 without male issue, it was generally believed
that his brother Longinus would succeed him; but in consequence of an intrigue
carried on during some time, as it seems, between Anastasius and the empress Ariadne,
Anastasius was proclaimed emperor. Shortly afterwards he married Ariadne, but
it does not appear that he had had an adulterous intercourse with her during the
life of her husband. When Anastasius ascended the throne of the Eastern empire
he was a man of at least sixty, but though, notwithstanding his advanced age,
he evinced uncommon energy, his reign is one of the most deplorable periods of
Byzantine history, disturbed as it was by foreign and intestine wars and by the
still greater calamity of religious troubles. Immediately after his accession,
Longinus, the brother of Zeno, Longinus Magister Officiorum, and Longinus Selinuntius,
rose against him, and being all natives of Isauria, where they had great influence,
they made this province the centre of their operations against the imperial troops.
This war, which is known in history under the name of the Isaurian war, lasted
till 497, and partly till 498, when it was finished to the advantage of the emperor
by the captivity and death of the ringleaders of the rebellion. John the Scythian,
John the Hunchbacked, and under them Justinus, who became afterwards emperor,
distinguished themselves greatly as commanders of the armies of Anastasius. The
following years were signalized by a sedition in Constantinople occasioned by
disturbances between the factions of the Blue and the Green, by religious troubles
which the emperor was able to quell only by his own humiliation, by wars with
the Arabs and the Bulgarians, and by earthquakes, famine, and plague (A. D. 500).
Anastasius tried to relieve his people by abolishing the chrusarguros, a heavy
poll-tax which was paid indifferently for men and for domestic animals. Immediately
after these calamities, Anastasius was involved in a war with Cabadis, the king
of Persia, who destroyed the Byzantine army commanded by Hypacius and Patricius
Phrygius, and ravaged Mesopotamia in a dreadful manner. Anastasius purchased peace
in 505 by paying 11,000 pounds of gold to the Persians, who, being threatened
with an invasion of the Huns, restored to the emperor the provinces which they
had overrun. From Asia Anastasius sent his generals to the banks of the Danube,
where they fought an unsuccessful but not inglorious campaign against the East-Goths
of Italy, and tried, but in vain, to defend the passage of the Danube against
the Bulgarians. These indefatigable warriors crossed that river in great numbers,
and ravaging the greater part of Thrace, appeared in sight of Constantinople;
and no other means were left to the emperor to secure the immediate neighbourhood
of his capital but by constructing a fortified wall across the isthmus of Constantinople
from the coast of the Propontis to that of the Pontus Euxinus (A. D. 507). Some
parts of this wall, which in a later period proved useful against the Turks, are
still existing. Clovis, king of the Franks, was created consul by Anastasius.
The end of the reign of Anastasius cannot well be understood without
a short notice of the state of religion during this time, a more circumstantial
account of which the reader will find in Evagrius and Theophanes cited below.
As early as 488, Anastasius, then only a Silentiarius, had been active
in promoting the Eutychian Palladius to the see of Antioch. This act was made
a subject of reproach against him by the orthodox patriarch of Constantinople,
Euphemius, who, upon Anastasius succeeding Zeno on the throne, persuaded or compelled
him to sign a confession of faith according to the orthodox principles laid down
in the council of Chalcedon. Notwithstanding this confession, Anastasius continued
an adherent to the doctrines of Eutychius, and in 496 he had his enemy, Euphemius,
deposed and banished. It is said, that at this time Anastasius showed great propensities
to the sect of the Acephali. The successor of Euphemius was Macedonius, who often
thwarted the measures of the emperor, and who but a few years afterwards was driven
from his see, which Anastasius gave to the Eutychian Timotheus, who opposed the
orthodox in many matters. Upon this, Anastasius was anathematized by pope Symmachus,
whose successor, Hormisdas, sent deputies to Constantinople for the purpose of
restoring peace to the Church of the East. However, the religious motives of these
disturbances were either so intimately connected with political motives, or the
hatred between the parties was so great, that the deputies did not succeed. In
514, Vitalianus, a Gothic prince in the service of the emperor, put himself at
the head of a powerful army, and laid siege to Constantinople, under the pretext
of compelling Anastasius to put an end to the vexations of the orthodox church.
In order to get rid of such an enemy, Anastasius promised to assemble a general
council, which was to be presided over by the pope, and he appointed Vitalianus
his commander-in-chief in Thrace. But no sooner was the army of Vitalianus disbanded,
than Anastasius once more eluded his promises, and the predomination of the Eutychians
over the orthodox lasted till the death of the emperor. Anastasius died in 518,
at the age of between eighty-eight and ninety-one years. Evagrius states, that
after his death his name was erased from the sacred "Diptychs" or tables.
Religious hatred having more or less guided modern writers as well as those whom
we must consider as the sources with regard to Anastasius, the character of this
emperor has been described in a very different manner. The reader will find these
opinions carefully collected and weighed with prudence and criticism in Tillemont's
" Histoire des Empereurs." Whatever were his vices, and however avaricious and
faithless he was, Anastasius was far from being a common man. Tillemont, though
he is often misled by bigotry, does not blame him for many actions, and praises
him for many others for which he has been frequently reproached. Le Beau, the
author of the "Histoire du Bas Empire," does not condemn him; and Gibbon commends
him, although principally for his economy (Evagrius, iii. 29, seq.; Theophanes,
pp. 115-141, ed. Paris; Gregor. Turon. ii. 38).
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Justinus I., or the elder, emperor of the East from A. D. 518-527, was of barbarian, probably
Gothic extraction. Tired of the humble occupation of a shepherd, for which he
had been brought up in his native village, Tauresium, in Dardania, he went to
Constantinople in company with two youthful comrades, to try his fortune in the
capital. Justin entered the guards of the emperor Leo, and through his undaunted
courage soon rose to some eminence. He served with great distinction against the
Isaurians and the Persians, and his merits were successively rewarded with the
dignities of tribunus, comes, senator, and at last commander-in-chief of the imperial
guards, an important post, which he held in the reign of the emperor Anastasius.
It was expected that the aged Anastasius would appoint one of his three nephews
his future successor, but as they evinced little capacity, the emperor hesitated.
His prime minister, the eunuch Amantius, availed himself of his master's irresolution
to promote his own interest by bringing about the election of his creature Theodatus,
and for this purpose entrusted large sums of money to Justin, with which he was
to bribe the guards and other persons of influence to espouse the cause of Theodatus.
He expected that an illiterate and rude barbarian, who resembled Hercules more
than Mercury, would faithfully execute his orders. But he was greatly mistaken.
Justin employed the money for his own elevation; and when Anastasius died, on
the 10th July, 518, it was not Theodatus whom the army proclaimed emperor, but
Justin, who thus ascended the throne without opposition, at the advanced age of
sixty-eight. Justin could neither read nor write, and was in every respect a rude
soldier; but his predecessor Anastasius was scarcely more civilized, and the people
preferred a brave master to a learned one. Feeling his incapacities as a statesman,
Justin committed the direction of affairs to the quaestor Proclus, and this excellent
man discharged his functions to the satisfaction of both master and subjects.
Soon after his accession, as it appears, Justin assumed the noble name of Anicius;
some, however, believe that he had previously been adopted by a member of that
illustrious family. Amantius, indignant at being cheated by a rustic, gave vent
to his feelings, and perhaps conspired with Theodatus. They were accordingly accused
of treason, and, what was still worse, of heresy, and they paid for their imprudence
with their heads. Several of their associates shared their fate. In 519 Justin,
who was a stanch adherent of the orthodox church, and had adopted energetic measures
against the Eutychians, concluded an ararngement with pope Hormisdas, in consequence
of which the harmony between Rome and Constantinople remained undisturbed during
a considerable time, to the great satisfaction of the East. In the following year,
520, Justin adopted his nephew Justinian, whom he had withdrawn in early youth
from their native village, and the government was henceforth in the hands of Justinian.
The elevation of Justinian was signalized by an event which occasioned great discontent
and disorders in the empire. The Goth Vitalian, so famous by his war against Anastasius,
and who held the offices of consul and magister militum, under Justin, became
an object of suspicion and jealousy to the emperor and his crafty nephew, and
on rising from a banquet to which he had been invited, was treacherously assassinated
by the order and in presence of Justin and Justinian. Vitalian was beloved by
the faction of the Green, who immediately took up arms, and as they were opposed
by the Blue, who enjoyed the favour of the emperor, great troubles arose, which
lasted during three years, without Justin's becoming well acquainted with the
extent of danger. When he was at last apprised of it, he appointed one Theodotus
prefect of the capital, who succeeded in restoring peace. In 522 some misunderstanding
arose between Justin and Theodoric, king of the East Goths in Italy, who was offended
with Justin because he continued to appoint consuls, a dignity which, in the opinion
of Theodoric, could only be conferred by the master of Rome; but Justin prudently
renounced the privilege, leaving its exercise entirely to the Gothic king, who
accordingly appointed Symmachus and the famous Boethius consuls for the year 522.
In the same year misunderstandings arose between Justin and the Persian king Cabades,
on account of the kingdom of Colchis or Lazica. Cabades proposed to the emperor,
as a guarantee for their mutual friendship, to adopt his favourite son Nushirwan
or Chosroes, who afterwards reigned over Persia with so much glory, and Justin
would have complied with the king's wishes, but for the interference of the wise
quaestor Proclus, on whose advice the emperor declined the proposition. Annoyed
by the failure of his plan, Cabades prepared for war, the outbreak of which was
hastened by Gurgenus, king of Iberia, throwing himself upon the protection of
the emperor. The Persians having invaded Iberia, Justin dispatched Sittas and
Belisarius against them, and this is the first time that the name of Belisarius
becomes known in history. He was, however, not successful in this campaign, but
was, nevertheless, appointed governor of the great fortress of Dara, on the confines
of Mesopotamia and Syria. and the historian Procopius was appointed his secretary.
The war was carried on for some years without leading to important results on
either side. In 525 a terrible earthquake and the overflowing of several rivers
carried destruction through some of the finest cities of the empire. In the East
Edesa, Anazarba, and Pompeiopolis were laid in ruins, and in Europe Corinth and
Dyrrachium met with a similar fate. But the destruction of Antioch at the same
time by fire and water offered a still more heart-rending sight. When Justin heard
of its awful fate, he ordered the theatres to be closed, took off his royal diadem,
and dressed himself in mourning. He spent two million pounds sterling towards
the rebuilding of Antioch, which was done with the utmost splendour, and he evinced
a proportionate liberality towards the other sufferers. On the whole, Justin,
though a barbarian and a fanatic, was a man of good sense, a sincere well wisher
of his subjects, and successful in choosing capable persons to govern them; his
knowledge of the human character was remarkably sound. He died on the 1st of August,
527, shortly after having conferred the dignity of Augustus upon his nephew and
successor, the great Justinian. He was buried in the church of Euphemia near his
wife Euphemia, a woman as illiterate and rude as her husband, but who never interfered
with public affairs, and who caused that church to be built at her expense. (
Evagr. iv. 1-10, 56; Procop. Vandal. i. 9; De Aed. ii. 6, 7, iii. 7, iv. 1; Arcan.
c. 6, 9; Pers. i. 19. ii. 15, &c.; Theoph.; Zonar. vol. ii.)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Jan 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Justinianus, I. Flavius Anicius, surnamed Magnus, or The Great, emperor of Constantinople
and Rome from A. D. 527 to 565. The date of the birth of Justinian is fixed on
the 11th of May, A. D. 483, in L' Art de Verifier les Dates, where the question
is critically investigated. His birthplace was the village of Tauresium, in the
district of Bederiana, in Dardania, where he afterwards built the splendid city
of Justiniana, on the site of which stands the modern town of Kostendil.
At an early age Justinian went to Constantinople, where his uncle
Justin, who had risen to high military honours, took care of his education and
advancement. During some time he lived as an hostage at the court of Theodoric,
king of the East Goths. After the accession of his uncle Justin to the imperial
throne, in 518, he rose to eminence, and prepared his own fortune by securing
that of the emperor. Active in the destruction of the eunuch Amantius and his
associates, he contrived or perpetrated the murder of Vitalian, the Goth, so famous
by his rebellion against the emperor Anastasius, and who was stabbed at a banquet
in the presence of Justin and Justinian. In reward for his faithful allegiance,
Justinian was made commander-in-chief of the armies in Asia; but he was no warrior,
and preferred remaining at Constantinople, where he canvassed the friendship of
the clergy and the senators. He was advanced to the consulship in 521, and his
influence became so great, that, at the suggestion of the senate, the aged emperor
adopted him, and proclaimed him co-emperor, 1st of April, 527. Justin died a few
months afterwards, and Justinian was crowned by the patriarch of Constantinople,
together with his wife, the actress Theodora, whom he raised to the dignity of
empress, in spite of the opposition of his mother and other relatives.
Justinian signalised his accession by public festivals more splendid
than the Greeks had ever witnessed, and the money alone which was distributed
among the people is said to have amounted to 288,000 pieces of gold. Had he not
been an excellent financier, his extravagances might have impeded his operations
against the enemies of the empire, against whom he was obliged to prosecute the
war which had been begun by his predecessor; but lie understood thoroughly the
subtle art of emptying those purses again which his liberality had filled; and
if his generals were not successful against the Persians, it was not for want
of money. The Huns on the northern shores of the Euxine, especially around the
Palus Maeotis, or the Sea of Azof, were either subjugated or submitted voluntarily;
and the Arabs, who made frequent inroads into Syria as far as Antioch, were likewise,
though with more difficulty, compelled to desist from hostilities. The relations
between Constantinople and Persia were of an indifferent character, and an open
war broke out between the two powers, when Justinian promised to assist Tzathus,
the king of the Lazi, between Pontus and the Caucasus, who came to Constantinople
to implore the aid of the Romans against the Persians. In the first campaign against
these hereditary enemies of Rome, the generals of Justinian, Belisarius, Cyricus,
and Petrus, were defeated; but their successor, Petrus Notarius, was successful.
The war was chiefly carried on in Armenia, but also on the frontiers of Syria
and Mesopotamia, and lasted till 532, when, after as many defeats as victories,
but without being compelled by necessity, Justinian made peace with Chosroes,
the Persian king, who desisted from further hostilities on receiving an annual
tribute of 440,000 pieces of gold. Justinian wished for peace with Persia, because
he intended to make war against the Vandals in Africa, and to subdue, if possible,
the political factions by which the empire had so often been shaken, and which
had created a fearful riot in the very year that the peace was concluded with
Persia. In January, 532, Justinian honoured the public feast in the hippodrome
with his presence, being surrounded by vast numbers of the "Blue faction" (hoi
Benetoi), who were adherents of the orthodox Catholic church, and, consequently,
partisans of the orthodox emperor. Suddenly some of the "Green faction" (hoi Prasinoi),
who had already made much noise, rose and complained of several grievances, especially
that the emperor patronised the Blue, and showed himself too indulgent towards
their riotous and dissolute conduct. They further complained of fiscal oppression
and the partial administration of justice. In all these points they were perfectly
right. The emperor answered them through a crier (Mandator, the Latin Mandator),
and a long dialogue ensued, which grew more and more violent on both sides, and
which Theophanes gives with apparent fidelity. The Blues took the emperor's part;
the quarrel came to blows, and after a short struggle within the hippodrome, the
infuriated factions rushed into the streets, and soon Constantinople was filled
with murder and bloodshed. The houses of the leaders of the two parties were demolished,
others were set on fire; and every body being engaged either in saving their own
lives or in attempting the lives of others, the flames spread from street to street,
and a general conflagration consumed thousands of houses, the church of St. Sophia,
a large part of the imperial palace, the baths of Zeuxippus (Alexander), the great
hospital of Sampso, and a vast number of churches and public or private palaces.
After five days' murder and plunder, many thousands of dead bodies covered the
streets, or lay roasting among burning ruins. These riots are known by the name
of the Wika riots, the word Wika, "be victorious", having been the war-cry of
both the Blue and the Green. Unfortunately for the emperor, the two factions,
after fighting against each other, perceived that the victory of neither would
remove those abuses against which the Green had first risen, and they consequently
formed an union, and turned their fury against such of the imperial officers as
were most suspected of peculation and oppression. The chief objects of their hatred
were the quaestor Tribonian, the jurist, and the praefect John, of Cappadocia;
Justinian deposed them both, in order to appease the popular fury, but in vain.
Hypatius and Pompeius, two nephews of the late emperor Anastasius, who were removed
from the court because they were suspected of being engaged in the riots, were,
apparently against their will, chosen by the populace to act as their leaders;
Hypatius was proclaimed emperor, and Justinian, despairing of quelling the rebellion,
prepared to fly with his treasures to Heracleia, in Thrace, none of his ministers,
not even Belisarius, having succeeded in discovering any means of saving their
master in this critical moment. He would have been lost but for his wife Theodora,
who exercised an extraordinary influence over him. Being present at the privy
council, where the emperor declared his resolution of leaving the city, she rose,
and with impressive words, sometimes reproaching and sometimes encouraging, produced
a happy change in the minds of Justinian and his councillors. Narses bribed the
chiefs of the Blue, and soon rekindled those hostilities between the two factions
which only an extraordinary event had appeased for a moment; and, sure of the
assistance of the Blue, Belisarius led a body of 3000 veterans against the hippodrome,
where the Green had fortified themselves. In a dreadful carnage 30,000 of the
Green were massacred within the space of one day; and IIypatius and Pompeius having
been made prisoners, were led to death, with eighteen other leaders of patrician
or consular rank. Thus ended one of the most terrible riots that had ever happened
at Constantinople; but the power of the Green was far from being broken, and the
two factions continued to make the hippodrome an occasional scene of bloodshed
during the whole reign of Justinian.
Immediately after these troubles Justinian made serious preparations
for a war against the Vandals. His pretext was to avenge the deposition of the
aged Hilderic, the lawful king of the Vandals, and a great favourite of Justinian,
on account of his orthodoxy, who had been deprived of his throne by the warrior
Gelimer; but his design upon Carthage was blamed by the people, who had in mind
the unhappy campaign of Basiliscus against the Vandals in A. D. 468, and still
more so by most of his ministers, especially John of Cappadocia, who, however,
acted from very selfish motives. Nor does it appear that Justinian originated
the plan, which seems to have been suggested to him by Theodora and Antonina,
the wife of Belisarius, and to which he was finally persuaded by this great general.
This was the last contest between Rome and Carthage, but on neither side was it
carried on by Romans or Carthaginians, those who boasted of the former name being
Greeks and Scythian or Gothic barbarians, while the defenders of Carthage were
a mixture of Germans and Slavonians, commanded by Germanic chiefs. An army of
35,000 soldiers, commanded by Belisarius, left the Bosporus in June, 533, in a
fleet of 500 ships, manned by 20,000 mariners, and among the troops were several
thousand archers with coats of mail, who fought on horseback, and of which Procopius
gives a description which strongly resembles that of the brave Caucasians in our
time. From the Bosporus the fleet made for Methone (Modon), in Messenia, where
the troops were landed, and remained a short time on the shore to refresh themselves;
thence they sailed round the Peloponnesus, reached Zante, and cast anchor at Caucana,
about 50 miles from Syracuse, where they were well treated by the Goths -a great
act of imprudence on their part- and they finally landed on the African shore,
near the promontory of Caput Vada, now Capaudia, at five days' journey south of
Carthage. Gelimer, having dispatched part of his army and fleet for the conquest
of Sardinia, was unable to offer any effective resistance: moreover, the aborigines
of the country, and the descendants of the former Roman settlers, received the
Romans as Catholic brethren, and Belisarius advanced as far as the palace of Grasse,
only 50 miles from Carthage, meeting only with friends, and not with enemies.
At 10 miles distance from Carthage the Romans encountered the main army of the
Vandals, who were routed, and so completely dispersed, that Gelimer despaired
of defending his capital with success, and fled into the interior, in order to
collect a new army. A few days afterwards, on the 15th of September, 533, the
inhabitants of Carthage opened their gates to the victor, hot only without resistance,
but with manifestations of joy. While Belisarius employed his time in repairing
the fortifications of Carthage, Gelimer succeeded in raising a considerable number
of troops, and his brother Zano, who had meanwhile conquered Sardinia, returned
in haste with his army, which, however, was only 5000 men strong, and joined Gelimer
in his camp at Balla, five days' journey from the capital. They marched upon Carthage,
and their forces increased daily; so that when they arrived at Tricameron, 20
miles from Carthage, they commanded an army ten times more numerous than that
of Belisarius. But the Vandals who defended Africa were no longer the same who
had conquered it: they were enervated by the climate and the luxuries of the South;
and in a pitched battle at Tricameron they were entirely defeated. Gelimer fled
into the mountains in the South, but was pursued by the Roman Pharas, who kept
him besieged in a castle on Mount Papua, where he was reduced to such extremity
that he at last surrendered, and after having been presented to Belisarius at
Carthage, was sent to Constantinople, where he was treated by Justinian with great
generosity.After the conquest of Carthage, Belisarius reduced the whole tract
of Africa along the shore of the Mediterranean, as far as the columns of Hercules,
and brought likewise the islands of Sardinia and Corsica, as well as the Baleares,
under the authority of Justinian.
The overthrow of the Vandal kingdom in Africa was followed by a war
with the East Goths in Italy, which arose out of the following circumstances,
in which the cunning and artfulness of Justinian were no less conspicuous than
the frank heroism of Belisarius. Shortly after the accession of Justinian, the
young king of the East Goths,Athalaric, died,and his mother Amalasuntha, a highly
gifted woman, who was the youngest daughter of the great Theodoric, succeeded
her son, and, in order to establish her power the better, married her cousin Theodat.
It happened, however, that Justinian contemplated a marriage with that queen,
although he was already married to Theodora; and we cannot doubt that, in order
to obtain his ends, he would have sacrificed both his wife and king Theodat. Suspecting
his designs, Theodora secretly negotiated with Theodat, and made him great promises,
if he would put Amalasuntha to death. Theodat saw his danger, and lost no time
in seizing his unfortunate queen, and confining her in a castle, where she was
found strangled some time after her imprisonment (534). The anger of Justinian
was extreme, and as the Gothic kingdom was shaken by political factions, while
his own power had much increased through his conquest of Africa, he prepared for
an invasion of Italy. The pretext he alleged was to avenge the murder of Amalasuntha.
He began his hostile demonstrations by demanding the fortress of Lilybaeum, in
Sicily, from the Goths: this town had been given to Thrasimond, king of the Vandals,
by Theodoric the Great, but after the overthrow of the Vandals in 534, the Goths
occupied the town, and refused to surrender it to Justinian, when he claimed it
as an appendage of the Vandal kingdom. Thus the war broke out, the chief events
of which, till the final recal of Belisarius in 548, are related in the life of
Belisarius. When Belisarius was recalled, the Roman army was in a critical position,
because the brave Gothic king, Totilas, had gained great advantages over Belisarius,
and after his recal the Goths made such progress as to reduce the Roman power
in Italy to a shadow. Totilas took Rome by a stratagem, restored the senate, and
made it once more the seat of the Gothic empire. Thence he sailed to Calabria,
took Tarentum and Rhegium, conquered Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica, and despatched
a fleet of 300 gallies, which were probably manned by Greek natives of Southern
Italy, for the Goths were no mariners, to the coast of Greece, where the Gothic
warriors landed, and spread terror among the inhabitants. They pushed as far as
Nicopolis and Dodona, and Totilas sent envoys to Justinian, offering him peace,
and promising to assist him against any enemy, if he would desist from his designs
upon Italy. Justinian would perhaps have accepted his offers but for the circumstance
that the Goths being Arians, the orthodox church in Italy was in danger of being
overthrown by schismatics. Fresh troops were consequently sent to Italy, and Germanus,
the nephew of Justinian, who was renowned by many victories over the Bulgarians,
the Persians, and the Mauritanians, was destined to command them, but died at
Sardica, in Illyricum, on his march to Italy. The choice of Germanus proves the
danger in which the empire was placed by the victories of Totilas. This prince
was dear to the Goths through his marriage with Mathasuntha, daughter of Amalasuntha,
and grand-daughter of Theodoric the Great; and as he was also one of the best
Roman generals, a suspicious man like Justinian must have had urgent motives for
sending him into Italy, where, in case of success, he had still greater chances
of becoming king of the Goths than Belisarius could have had in making himself
independent in Africa. But Germanus was a man of so excellent a character as to
be above the suspicions even of a Justinian. The mere fact of his being appointed
to the command roused the spirit of the Roman army, and ere the eunuch Narses
was chosen to succeed him, the Gothic fleet had been defeated, and Sicily reconquered
by Artabanus. Narses led the Roman army round the Adriatic into Italy, while a
fleet followed him along the shore, and in a dreadful battle at Tagina (July,
552) slew 6000 Goths, and dispersed the rest. Totilas fell in the conflict, and
his bloody dress was sent as the most acceptable trophy to Justinian. The successor
of Totilas, Teias, continued the war, but he likewise was killed in a pitched
battle on the river Sarnus, near Naples, and his death was the downfal of the
Gothic kingdom in Italy. A host of Franks and Alemanni descended from the Alps
to dispute the possession of Italy with Narses, and their first inroad was so
irresistible that they penetrated as far as the straits of Sicily. But in a battle
on the river Volturnus, near the bridge of Casilinum, they were routed with great
slaughter by Narses, who drove their scattered remnants beyond the Alps (554).
Narses was appointed exarch, or viceroy, of Italy, and took up his residence at
Ravenna, and he united his efforts with those of his master in settling the domestic
state of Italy, which was nearly ruined through the protracted war, while millions
of her inhabitants had perished by the sword and famine.
To these conquests the lieutenants of Justinian in Africa added a
considerable tract in Spain, along the shores of the Mediterranean and the Atlantic,
from the south-western extremity of Algarve in the west to the confines of the
modern kingdom of Murcia in the east, which the West Goths were obliged to cede
to the victorious Romans; and the fortunate Justinian now reigned over the whole
extent of the Roman empire as it existed under the earlier emperors, except the
greater part of Spain, Gaul, and Britain, where the most warlike of all the barbarians
of those times exercised an authority unchecked by either Romans or Greeks. The
strength of Justinian's empire, however, did not correspond with its dimensions.
Both the Romans and Greeks were enervated, and little disposed to serve in the
field, when they could buy foreigners to defend Rome and Constantinople; and the
practice of enlisting barbarians proved very dangerous, since so many veterans,
who returned into their native forests or steppes, informed their brethren of
the internal weakness of the Roman empire. We thus see that, notwithstanding the
fear which the victories of Belisarius, Narses, Germanus, and so many other great
generals, necessarily caused among the immediate neighbours of the Romans, many
barbarian nations, that lived at greater distances from the Roman frontiers, pushed
slowly towards Italy, Greece, and Asia Minor, in order to be ready to invade the
empire at the first opportunity. From the extreme north of Germany, the Longobards,
of Saxon origin, advanced towards the Danube, and settled in Moravia and Northern
Hungary, whence, but a few years after the death of Justinian, they broke forth
for the conquest of Italy. Their neighbourhood appeared so dangerous to Justinian,
that he tried to gain them to his interests, and to use them as a barrier against
other enemies, by ceding to them Pannonia and Noricum. The latter province was,
however, soon taken from the Longobards by the Franks. The neighbours of the Longobards,
the Gepidae, had founded a kingdom in Eastern Hungary and Transylvania as early
as the middle of the fifth century; and since they were always annoying the Romans
in Illyricum, Justinian availed himself of their feuds with the Longobards, and
assisted the latter. In consequence of this, the power of the Gepidae was weakened,
but that of the Longobards increased in proportion; and had Justinian lived but
two years longer, he would have seen that the final overthrow of the Gepidae had,
as its immediate consequence, the destruction of the Roman power in Italy by the
Longobards. Still farther in the East, on the river Don, appeared in 557 the Avars,
a nation of Turkish origin. In accordance with his usual policy of turning the
feuds of the barbarians to his own profit, Justinian lavished his money upon the
Avars, and employed them together with his own forces against some barbarian tribes
which annoyed the Roman possessions in the Chersonnesus Taurica (the Crimea).
This was in 558. Only four years afterwards the whole of the nations north of
the Danube, as far west as modern Bavaria, was subjugated by the Avars, and Justinian
II. paid dearly for the timid and wavering conduct of Justinian I. [p. 664] Among
the nations subdued by the Avars were the Bulgarians, between the Don and the
Volga, who, in 559, passed the frozen Danube, and under their chief, Zabergan,
ravaged Thrace and Macedonia, and appeared under the walls of Constantinople.
The capital was saved by Belisarius, whom Justinian rewarded with a dry compliment.
If we turn our eyes from the West to the East, we find that the treaty
of peace had scarcely been concluded between Constantinople and Persia, before
the Persian king Chosroes or Nushirwan, with his accustomed faithlessness, violated
its conditions, and a new and terrible war broke out in 540. According to Procopius,
however, Justinian purposely excited the Persian king to take up arms, and, at
any rate, wished for a new war, which is the more likely, as he was then at the
pinnacle of his power. In the year mentioned Nushirwan invaded Syria, and the
Roman army being too weak to arrest his progress, he spoiled the principal towns
of their riches, and laid siege to Antioch, which was defended by Germanus. This
general thought his forces insufficient for an effective resistance, and consequently
withdrew, a step for which he has been charged with cowardice, although on many
other occasions he had shown himself a brave and fearless man. The "queen of the
East" soon became a prey to the Persians, and after having been plundered, was
destroyed by fire. The Asiatic provinces of Justinian would have been lost but
for the timely arrival of Belisarius (541), who through a well calculated invasion
of Mesopotamia and Assyria, compelled Nushirwan to leave the province of Pontus
which he was ravaging, and to hasten to the defence of his hereditary dominions.
Suddenly Belisarius was recalled to Constantinople, and during his absence Nushirwan
collected his forces, and set out for a new invasion of Syria and Palestine. In
this emergency Belisarius was again put at the head of the Roman armies in those
quarters; and the mere fact of his presence was sufficient to induce Nushirwan
to repass the Euphrates. Every body now expected that Belisarius would march forthwith
upon Ctesiphon, when the unfavourable turn of the Gothie war required his presence
in Italy (543). No sooner was he gone than 30,000 Romans suffered a severe defeat
from 4000 Persians ; but the differences between the two empires were nevertheless
settled to the satisfaction of Justinian, and a sort of truce was made, in consequence
of which that part of the East was no longer disturbed by the Persians. It happened,
however, that the Lazians and Colchians became tired of their dependence upon
Constantinople, and implored the protection of Nushirwan, who accepted the offer,
and placed garrisons in the principal towns of those nations. A few years were
sufficient to show them that the rapacity of the king was still greater than that
of the emperor, and they accordingly entreated Justinian to receive them again
among his subjects, and to deliver them from their Persian oppressors. Justinian
despatched Dagisteus with 7000 Romans and 1000 Zani into Lazica; and Petra, the
strongest fortress of the country, was taken from the Persians by storm, after
a memorable and protracted siege (549-551). This war lasted, with various success,
till 561, when, tired of eternal bloodshed, the two monarchs came at last to an
agreement. Through the peace of 561 the tranquillity of the East was finally restored,
but Justinian bought it on the dishonourable condition of an annual payment of
30,000 pieces of gold. Yet the profit of this negotiation was on the side of Justinian,
because Nushirwan renounced his claims upon Colchis and Lazica, both of which
countries were then renowned for their gold mines; and the restoration of peace
in all his Eastern dominions was a sufficient consideration to induce Justinian
to expend so small a sum as 30,000 pieces of gold. In the beginning of the Persian
war Justinian concluded a singular alliance. At that time there was a Christian
kingdom in Southern Arabia, which extended over the provinces of Yemen and Hadhramaut,
and was then commonly called the kingdom of the Homeritae. Dunaan having seized
the supreme power, persecuted the Christians, who found assistance in the person
of Eleesbam, the Negus or Christian king of Abyssinia, who came over to Arabia,
and made himself master of the Homeritic kingdom. With this Eleesbam Justinian
entered into negotiations, and in 533 despatched Nonnosus as ambassador to him,
to induce him to unite his forces with the Romans against the Persians, and to
protect the trade between Egypt and India, especially that of silk, which Justinian
wished to establish by sea, through the assistance of the inhabitants of Abyssinia
and Arabia. Nonnosus ascended the Nile, and was received by Eleesbam at Axum,
but he did not attain his objects. Soon afterwards the Homeritae freed themselves
from the Abyssinian supremacy; but the rise of Mohammedanism proved the ruin of
the Christians in Arabia, for the power of the Abyssinian kings in Africa was
weakened through internal discord and revolutions. Gibbon remarks with great justness,
that " these obscure and remote events are not foreign to the decline and fall
of the Roman empire. If a Christian power had been maintained in Arabia, Mohammed
must have been crushed in his cradle, and Abyssinia would have prevented a revolution
which has changed the civil and religious state of the world".
The final overthrow of the Gothic power in Italy, the peace with Persia,
the reconquest of Lazica, and the last victories of Belisarius over the Bulgarians
in 559, followed each other so closely, and were of such importance in their consequences,
that Justinian was allowed during the last years of his life to enjoy in peace
the extraordinary power which his ambition made him wish for, but which he owed
entirely to the skill and heroism of Belisarius, Narses, and Germanus, and many
other generals, as well as to the valour and discipline of the troops formed by
those eminent officers. Nino months after Belisarius, the victim of his base ingratitude,
had sunk into the grave, the emperor Justinian died, on the 14th of November,
565, at the age of eighty-three, and left an empire, colossal in size, threatening
in its appearance, but rotten in its foundations, to the imbecile son of his sister
Vigilantia, Justinus II.
After this sketch of the principal political events of the reign of
Justinian, it remains to say a few words on the manner in which he guarded his
empire against so many enemies which surrounded it, and on the system of his government
at home.
The ancient Roman system of fortifying the frontiers of the empire
was carried by Justinian to an extent which plainly shows the great danger to
which his subjects were constantly exposed; for not only were the outer frontiers
secured by an immense number of forts and towers, interspersed with larger regular
fortresses, but even most of the towns in the very heart of Greece, Thrace, and
Asia were provided with walls and towers, to protect the inhabitants against the
irresistible inroads of the barbarians. Thence Montesquieu observes, that the
Roman empire at the time of Justinian resembled the Frankish kingdom in the time
of the Norman inroads, when, in spite of every village being a fortress, the kingdom
was weaker than at any other period. The entire course of the Danube was defended
by about eighty forts, of different dimensions, all of which were guarded by numerous
garrisons; other fortresses were erected beyond the river, in the middle of the
countries of the barbarians. But these detached forts were utterly unable to protect
Thrace against an enemy who used to appear suddenly with overwhelming forces,
leaving no alternative to the Roman garrisons than of shutting themselves up within
their walls, and of beholding as inactive spectators the Bulgarians swimming over
the Danube with 20,000 horses at once, or crossing it in the winter on the solid
ice. Similar forts were built, too, from the junction of the Save with the Danube
north, towards Pannonia, and they proved quite as ineffective against the Avars
as the forts along the Danube against the Bulgarians. Italy was fortified by nature,
yet the Franks crossed the Alps with impunity. Thence the necessity of creating
a system of inland fortifications. The ancient Greek wall across the Thracian
Chersonnese, near Constantinople, was carefully restored, and brought to a degree
of strength which caused the admiration of Procopius; the Bulgarians nevertheless
crossed it, and fed their horses in the gardens round Constantinople. Similar
walls, with towers, were constructed across Thessaly (beginning with the defiles
of Thermopylae) and across the isthmus of Corinth; yet Bulgarians, Slavonians,
and other barbarians, kept the inhabitants of Greece in constant fear of being
carried off as slaves. At whatever point these savage warriors appeared, they
were always the strongest, and the poor Romans had no other chance of safety left
than of taking refuge within the larger towns, the solid fortifications of which
were sufficient to keep the enemy at a distance. In the north-east the isthmus
of the Chersonnesus Taurica, the present Crimea, was fortified in the same way
as the isthmus of Corinth, by a long wall. The Roman possessions along the eastern
shores of the Euxine and in the Caucasus were covered with forts and military
stations; and from the corner of Colchis to the sources of the Euphrates, and
along the river as far as Syria, and thence along the edge of the Syro Arabic
desert, there was scarcely a town or a defile but was surrounded by walls and
ditches, or shut up by massive barriers of stone, against the inroads of the Persians.
Syria was thought to be sufficiently guarded by the great desert between the Euphrates
and the Lebanon, and the fortifications of the Syrian towns were allowed to fall
into decay, till the repeated invasions of Nushirwan and the sack of Antioch directed
the attention of Justinian to that quarter also. Dara, not far fron Nisibis, was
the strongest bulwark of the empire on the side of Mesopotamia, and constantly
prooked the jealousy of the Persians.
The enormous suns which the defence of the empire required, together
with the gold which Justinian lavished upon the barbarians, involuntarily led
to the system of his administration. Procopius, in his Secret History or Anecdota,
gives an awful description of it but however vicious that administration was,
the colours of Procopius are too dark, and his motives in writing that work were
not fair. There was decided order and regularity in the administration, but the
leading principles of it were suspicion and avarice. The taxes were so heavy,
their assessment so unequal, that Gibbon compares them to a hail-storm that fell
upon the land, and to a devouring pestilence with regard to its inhabitants. In
cases of necessity, the inhabitants of whole districts were compelled to bring
their stores of corn to Constantinople, or other places where the troops might
be in want of it, and they were either not paid at all, or received such bad prices
that they were often completely ruined. In all the provinces the officers of the
crown took much more from the people than the law allowed, because the venality
of places was carried on openly as a means of filling the emperor's treasury,
and the purses of his prime minister; and those who purchased places, which were,
after all, badly paid, could not keep their engagements with the sellers, nor
enrich themselves, without carrying on that system of robbery, which is at the
present day the general practice in Turkey and most of the other countries in
the East. Justinian certainly tried to check peculation and venality (Novella,
viii.), but this thundering edict was soon forgotten, and it would seem that the
emperor himself lent his endeavours to throw it into oblivion. Another great abuse
which the principal officers made of their power was that of prevailing upon wealthy
persons to make wills in their favour, to the disadvantage of the natural heirs.
A great source of revenue for the imperial treasury consisted in the numberless
duties, entry fees, andothercharges, mostly arbitrary, laid upon trade and manufactures,
and we may fairly presume that the tradespeople were as much oppressed as the
land-owners. Some branches of trade, as for instance silk, were made monopolies
of the crown, and, in short, there were no means left untried to fill his treasury.
However, he never tampered with the coinage, nor gave it an artificial value.
The millions thus obtained by Justinian were not only sufficient to cover the
expenses occasioned by the army, the fortifications, the wars, and the bribery
of barbarians, but enough remained to enable him to indulge his passion of perpetuating
his name by public festivals, and especially by those beautiful buildings and
monuments which were erected by his order, and render his time conspicuous in
the history of art. Procopius describes them in his work "De Aedificiis Justiniani".
The church of St. Sophia in Constantinople, that splendid edifice, which, though
now transformed into a Turkish mosque, still excites the admiration of the spectator,
was the most magnificent building erected by Justinian. Besides this Church of
St. Sophia, there were twenty-five other churches constructed in Constantinople
and its suburbs, among which were the beautiful churches of St. John the Apostle
and St. Mary the Virgin, near the Blachernae, the latter of which he perhaps only
repaired. The imperial palace at Constantinople was embellished with unparalleled
splendour and taste; and his new palace with the gardens at Heraeum, near Chalcedon,
was praised as the most beautiful residence in the world. The "Antiquities of
Constantinople", by Petrus Gyllius (English translation by John Ball, London,
1729), give a description of the most remarkable buildings of Justinian, in Constantinople.
Justinian paid 45 centenaries of gold (nearly 200,000 l.), towards the rebuilding
and embellishment of Antioch, after it had been destroyed by an earthquake; his
native village he transformed into a large and splendid city, to which he gave
his name; and, in short, there was not a town of consequence in his vast dominions,
from the Columns of Hercules to the shores of the Caspian, but could show some
beautiful monument of the emperor's splendour and taste. Asia Minor still contains
a great number of edifices erected by Justinian, and our modern travellers have
discovered many which were formerly unknown. Indeed his love of splendour and
his munificence in matters of taste, show, or luxury, no less than his extraordinary
power, made his name known over the world, whence he received embassies from the
remotest nations of Asia. In his reign the silk-worm was brought to Constantinople,
by some Nestorian monks, who had visited their fellow-Christians in China.
In 541 Justinian abolished the consulship, or, more correctly, discontinued
the old-established custom of choosing consuls. The consulate being a mere title,
it was but reasonable to do away with it, although the name was still dear to
the people; but it was not abolished by law until the reign of the emperor Leo
Philosophus (886-911.) Justinian likewise shut up the schools at Athens and Alexandria,
where the Neo-Platonists still professed dogmas which the orthodox emperor thought
dangerous to Christianity. In the time of Justinian, however, those schools were
only a shadow of what they had been in the first centuries of our era. Christian
orthodoxy was one of the most important objects which Justinian endeavoured to
establish in his empire, and many of his laws testify his zeal on behalf of the
church and the clergy. But his piety was exaggerated, and toleration was a thing
unknown to him. He persecuted Christian sectaries, Jews, and pagans, in an equally
heartless manner, and actually endeavoured to drive them all out of his dominions.
Towards the end of his life, however, Justinian changed his religious opinions
so much that he was considered a complete heretic. Nestorianism, which he was
so active in condemning at the fifth General Council, the second of Constantinople,
in 553, was the doctrine which he embraced.
The character of Justinian presented a strange mixture of virtues
and vices, but he was neither so depraved as Procopius depicts him, nor so accomplished
as the modern jurists of Germany and France represent him in their admiration
for his legislation. His private life was exemplary. He was frugal, laborious,
affable, and generous, but his mean suspicions and unreasonable jealousy never
allowed him to gain the love of his friends or the esteem of his subjects. His
conduct towards Belisarius was execrable. Another of his vices was rapacity, and
it would seem that he considered men created to work, not for themselves, but
for him alone. Thence the little regard he paid to the complaints of his subjects
with reference to his perpetual wars; and although he assisted them with great
liberality when they were suffering from the consequences of those plagues and
earthquakes which signalized his time, his motive was vanity as much as humanity.
If we look at his endless and glorious wars, we should think that he was a great
warrior himself, or possessed at least great military talents : but however great
his talents were, they were not in that line; he never showed himself in the field,
and his subjects called him a bigoted and cowardly tyrant. As a statesman he was
crafty rather than wise; yet his legislation is a lasting monument of his administrative
genius, and has given him a place in the opinion of the world far beyond that
which he really deserves.
(Procopius, with special reference to his Anecdota and De Aedificiis; Agathias,
Hist.; Paulus Silentiarius ; Cedrenus; Zonaras, xiv.; Joannes Malala, vol. ii.;
Marcellinus, Chron. ad an. 520, &c.; Theophanes; Evagrius, iv. 8, &c.; Jornandes,
De Regn. Succ., De Reb. Goth.; Paulus Diaconus, De Gest. Longobard. i. 25, &c.,
ii. 4, &c.; the best description of the reign and character of Justinian is given
in Gibbon's Decline and Fall.)
THE LEGISLATION OF JUSTINIAN.
The idea of forming a complete code of law has been attributed to Pompey, to Cicero,
and to Julius Caesar. Such, too, was the original plan of Theodosius the younger,
although a much more limited design was ultimately carried into effect in the
Theodosian Code. Shortly before the reign of Justinian, upon the submission of
the Western empire to Germanic rule, the Roman law was still allowed to retain
its force in the West by the side of a newly-introduced Germanic jurisprudence.
The Lex Romana, as it was barbarously called, remained the law of the subjugated
Romans, while the Barbari, as the Germans were proud to be styled, continued to
live under their own Teutonic institutions. Under this anomalous system of personal
laws, many difficulties must have arisen, and it was found necessary to make separate
collections of such sources of law as were to be recognised for the future in
regulating the respective rights and duties of the subjugated Roman provincials
and their conquerors. In the West Gothic kingdom, which was established in Spain
and a part of Gaul, a collection of Roman laws was formed during the reign of
Alaric II. (A. D. 484--507), partly from the Theodosian, Gregorian, and Herimogenian
Codes, and partly from the works of jurists. This collection is known in modern
times by the name Breviariumn Aniani, or Breviarium Alaricianum. In A. D. 493
the Ostrogoths became masters of Italy, and in A. D. 500 Theodoric the Great published
for the use of the whole population of the Ostrogothic kingdom a set of rules
based on the Roman, not the Gothic law. About the year A. D. 517 the Lex Romiana
Burgundiorunm was compiled for the use of the Burgundian Romans. The Burgundian
conquerors, who, towards the middle of the fifth century, established a kingdom
upon the banks of the Rhone, had already a similar code of their own, called Gundobada.
Though the necessities which called for these legislative efforts
in the kingdoms of the West did not exist to the same extent in the Oriental empire,
ther, were not wanting other reasons for legal reform and consolidation. From
the time of Constantine, he fresh and vigorous spirit of the classical jurists
seems to have vanished. Many of the most active intellects were now turned away
from legal to religious discussions. Jurisprudence, no longer the pursuit of the
minister and statesman, became the handicraft of freedmen (Mamert. Panegyr. x.
20). The law was oppressed by its own weight. The complexity of practice, the
long series of authoritative writings, the unwieldy bulk of express enactments,
and the multitude of voluminous commentators, were sufficient to bewilder the
most resolute jurist. In the midst of conflicting texts, it was hard to find out
where the true law lay. By the citation law of Theodosius II. and Valentinian
III. (Theod. Cod. 1. tit. 4. s. 3), the majority of juristic suffrages was substituted
for the victory of scientific reasoning. The schools of law established by Theodosius
II. at Rome and Constantinople (Cod. 11, tit. 18) were unable to revive the practical
energy of former times. A host of pedants and pretenders came into existence.
Some quoted at second-hand the names of ancient jurists, whose works they had
never read, while others derided all appeal to scarce and antiquated books, which
they boasted that they had never seen. To them the name of an old jurist was no
better than the name of some outlandish fish. (Amm. Marcell. xxx. 4; Jac. Gothofredus,
Proleyomena ad Theod. Cod. i.)
Such were the evils which Justinian resolved to remedy. In his conceptions
of the measures necessary for this purpose he was more vast than all who had preceded
him, and he was more successful in the complete execution of his plan. It seems
to have been his intention to establish a perfect system of written legislation
for all his dominions ; and, to this end, to make two great collections, one of
the imperial constitutions, the other of all that was valuable in the works of
jurists. He was personally not unacquainted with the theory and the working of
the law; for, in his youth, he had devoted careful attention to the study of jurisprudence
at Constantinople; and, in his manhood, had discharged the duties of the most
important offices in the state.
The first work attempted by Justinian, as the most practical and the
most pressing, was the collection of imperial constitutions. This he commenced
in A. D. 528, in the second year of his reign. The task was entrusted to a commission
of ten, who are named in the following order: Joannes, Leontius, Phocas, Basilides,
Thomas, Tribonianus, Constantinus, Theophilus, Dioscorus, Praesentinus. (Const.
Haec quae necessario.) In compiling preceding constitutions, and making use of
the Gregorian, Hermogenian, and Theodosian Codes, the commission was armed with
very ample powers. It was authorized to correct and retrench, as well as to consolidate
and arrange. The commissioners executed their task speedily. In the following
year, on the 7th of April, A. D. 529, the emperor confirmed the "Novum Justinianeum
Codicem", giving it legal force from the 16th of April following, and abolishing
from the same date all preceding collections. Little did he then think how short
was destined to be the duration of his own new code ! (Const. Summa Reipublicae.)
At the end of the following year (Const. Deo Auctore, dated Dec. 15.
A. D. 530), Tribonian, who had given proof of his great ability in drawing up
the code, was authorised to select fellow-labourers to assist him in the other
division of the undertaking -a part of Justinian's plan which the emperor justly
regarded as the most difficult, but also as the most important and the most glorious.
Tribonian was endowed with rare qualifications for such an appointment. He was
himself deeply learned in law, and possessed in his library a matchless collection
of legal sources. He had passed through many gradations of rank, knew mankind
well, and was remarkable for energy and perseverance. "His genius", says Gibbon,
"like that of Bacon, embraced as its own all the business and knowledge of the
age". In pursuance of his commission, he selected the following sixteen coadjutors:
Constantinus, comes sacrarum largitionum; Theophilus, professor at Constantinople;
Dorotheus, professor at Berytus; Anatolius, professor at Berytus; Cratinus, professor
at Constantinople, and eleven advocates who practised in the courts of the praefecti
praetorio, namely, Stephanus, Menna, Prosdocius, Eutolmius, Timotheus, Leonidas,
Leontius, Plato, Jacobus, Constantinus, Joannes. This commission proceeded at
once to lay under contribution the works of those jurists who had received from
former emperors "auctoritatem conscribendarum interpretandique legum". They were
ordered to divide their materials, under fitting titles, into fifty books, and
to pursue the arrangement of the first code and the perpetual edict. Nothing that
was valuable was to be excluded, nothing that was obsolete was to be admitted,
and neither repetition nor inconsistency was to be allowed. This "juris enucleati
codex" was to bear the name Digesta or Pandectae, and to be compiled with the
utmost care, but with all convenient speed. Rapid indeed was the progress of the
commissioners. That which Justinian scarcely hoped to see completed in less than
ten years, was finished in little more than three; and on the 30th of Dec. A.
D. 533, received from the imperial sanction the authority of law. It comprehends
upwards of 9000 extracts, in the selection of which the compilers made use of
nearly 2000 different books, containing more than 3,000,000 (trecenties decem
millia) lines (versus or stichoi). (Const. Tanta, Const. Dedoken.)
This extraordinary work has been blamed by men of divers views on
divers accounts. Tribonian and his associates, regarding rather practical utility
than the curiosity of archaeologists, did not scruple at times so to adulterate
the extracts they made, that a theorizer in legal history might easily be misled
if he trusted implicitly to their accuracy. Hence the emblemata Triboniani have
been to many critics a fertile topic of reprehension. The complaints of others
are levelled against scientific rather than historical delinquencies. Unity and
system, say they, could result only from a single complete code of remodelled
laws, and not from the lazy plan of two separate collections, made out of independent
pre-existing writings; and though, from the circumstances of the time, Justinian
may have been forced to adopt the latter alternative, it was unphilosophical to
commence with the constitutions in place of the jurists. Those principles which
lie at the foundation of jurisprudence pervade the [p. 668] writings of the Roman
lawyers, and their works are in reality more full of practical law than the constitutions
to which occasional exigency gave birth. Then the arrangement of the Digest sins
against science. The order of the Edict, which it followed, was itself based on
the order of the twelve tables, and was historical or accidental, not systematic.
There is no pars generalis -no connected statement of first principles- no regular
development of consequences. Leading maxims are introduced incidentally, and matters
of the greatest moment, as the law of procedure, are scattered under various heads
-here a little, and there a little.
The Digest is divided into seven partes, and is also divided into
fifty books. The partes begin respectively with the 1st, 5th, 12th, 20th, 28th,
37th, and 45th books. Each book is divided into titles, and each title has a rubric
or heading denoting the general nature of its contents. The division into seven
parts, though the late Hugo often took occasion to insist upon its importance,
has been little attended to in modern times. Under each title are separate extracts
from ancient jurists--sometimes only a single extract. These were not originally
numbered, but they were headed by the name of the author, and a reference to his
work (inscriptiones). Justinian directed that a catalogue should be prefixed to
the Digest with the names of all the authors cited, and of the particular works
from which the extracts were taken. Such a catalogue, though not perhaps the genuine
original, is placed at the beginning of the celebrated Florentine manuscript of
the Digest, and is thence called the Florentine Index. The jurists from whom extracts
are directly taken, often cite other jurists, but seldom literally. These are,
however, pure or literal, though not direct extracts, from Q. Mucius Scaevola,
Aelius Gallus, and Labeo. There are 39 jurists, from whose works the Digest contains
literal extracts, whether made directly or at second-hand ; and these 39 are often
called the classical jurists, a name sometimes extended to all those jurists who
lived not later than Justinian, and sometimes confined to Papinian, Paulus, Ulpian,
Gaius, and Modestinus, from the special manner in which these five are mentioned
in the citation law of Valentinian III. Extracts from Ulpian constitute about
one third of the Digest; from Paulus about one sixth; from Papinian about one
twelfth. In Hommnel's Palingenesia Pandectarum the fragments of each jurist are
collected and printed separately: an attempt is made to reanimate the man--to
restore his individuality--by bringing together his dispersed limbs and scattered
bones.
The internal arrangement of the separate fragments of jurists under
each title would appear at first sight to be completely fortuitous. It is neither
chronological nor alphabetical; nor does it consistently and uniformly follow
any rational train of thought, depending on the subject treated of. Blume (as
he now writes himself, or Bluhme, as the name was formerly written) has elaborately
expounded a theory which, though rejected by Tigerstrom and others seems to rest
upon the foundation of facts, and must at least be something like the truth. No
one can form a sound opinion of the merits of Blume's theory without a careful
examination of a great number of titles in the Digest. It is found that the extracts
under each title usually resolve themselves into three masses or series--that
the first series is headed by extracts taken from commentaries on Sabinus; the
second from commentaries on the Edict; and the third from commentaries on Papinian.
Hence he supposes that the commission was divided into three sections, and that
to each section was given a certain set of works to analyse and break up into
extracts. The masses or series he names from the works that head them : the Sabinian,
Edictal, and Papinian masses; although each mass contains extracts from a great
number of other works unconnected with Sabinus, the Edict, or Papinian. Besides
these three principal masses of extracts, a set of miscellaneous extracts, forming
an appendix to the Papinian mass, seems to have been drawn up in order to complete
the selection, and may be said to form a fourth, or supplementary mass, called
by Blume the Post-Papinian.
Regularly, the mass that contained the greatest number of fragments
relating to any particular title appears first in that title. The total number
of fragments belonging to the Sabinian mass exceeds the number in the Edictal,
and the Edictal fragments are more numerous than the Papinian. Hence the usual
order is S, E, P. By these initial letters (previously used by Blume) the brothers
Kriegel in their edition of the Digest (Lips. 1833), mark the separate fragments,
to denote the masses with which they are classed. The fragments belonging to the
supplementary mass are marked Pp. For the details of exceptions from this arrangement,
and the reasons for such exceptions; for lists of the works of ancient jurists,
so classed as to show to what mass the fragments of each work belong ; and for
applications of the theory to critical purposes, the reader is referred to Blume's
justly celebrated essay on the Ordnung der Fragmenta in den Pandectentiteln, in
the 4th volume of Savigny's Zeitschrift, and to the following works: Hugo, Lehrbuch
der Digesten, 2te Ausg. Berl. 1828; Reimarus, Bemerkungen uber die Inscriptionenruhen
der Pandecten fragmenta, Gotting. 1830; the synoptic tables appended to the Digest
in the edition of the brothers Kriegel, which forms part of the last Leipzig edition
of the Corpus Juris Civilis.
It may seem remarkable that the credit of this discovery should be
reserved to so recent a date. Most of the moderns who investigated the subject
had sought, by reference to the actual contents of the fragments, to make out
the principle on which they were arranged; but it was an examination of the inscriptiones
that led Blume to his theory. Some approximations to it had been previously made
by inquirers who followed the same clue. Ant. Augustinus had observed that, in
each title, the fragments taken from different books of the same work were regularly
arranged, an extract from book 2. never coming before an extract from book 1.
Giphanius (Oeconomia Juris, Franc. 1606) had gone further than Augustinus ; and
Jac. Gothofredus, in his commentary on the title of the Digest, "De Regulis Juris"
(Opera Minora), approaches more closely than Giphianius to Blume's discovery.
It is to be remarked that most of the institutional works, and most
of the dogmatic treatises on the pure jus civile of Rome -on the law of Rome as
unaltered by legislation or equitable construction- furnish extracts to the Sabinian
mass. The works which relate to the modifications of the original law introduced
by jus honorarium fall naturally into the Edictal mass; while the Papinian mass
consists of fragments from works which relate chiefly to the practical application
of the law, e. g. cases and opinions relating to miscellaneous points in the construction
of wills. Those who are still opposed to Blume's theory think that the compilers
of the Digest were led to their arrangement of the fragments by something like
a natural development of the subject treated under each title : that they inserted
at the commencement of a title such passages as explain the law institutionally,
or such as relate chiefly to the original principles of the jus civile: that they
then proceeded to the modifications of the original law, and finally to its practical
applications. According to this theory, the principle of internal arrangement,
though rude, would lead incidentally to something like uniformity in the order
of the works analysed: according to Blume's theory, where the contents of a title
proceed from the simple to the more complex, such an arrangement is secondary
and dependent on the general character of the three groups of works analysed by
different sections of the commissioners. He admits, however, that some of the
exceptions to the general rule of arrangement which his theory propounds result
from attention to the natural order of ideas. Thus, at the beginning of a title,
fragments are placed, severed from the mass to which they regularly belong if
they contain definitions of words or general divisions of the subject, or give
a summary explanation of leading principles.
Considering the short time in which the Digest was completed, and
the peculiarity of its arrangement, its compliance with the requisitions of Justinian
deserves high commendation. It was not, however, entirely free from repetitions
of the same passage under different titles (leges geminatae), nor from the insertion
of fragments under unappropriate heads (leges fugitivae or erraticae), nor from
the admission of actual inconsistencies or contradictions (antinomiae, leges inter
se pugnantes).
Justinian forbade all commentary on his collections, and prohibited
the citation of older writings. It is said that Napoleon exclaimed, when he saw
the first commentary on the Code Civil, "Mon Code est perdu!" and Justinian seems
to have been animated with the same spirit. He allowed no explanation save the
comparison of parallel passages (indices, paratitla), and the interpretation of
single words or phrases. Such at least were his original injunctions, though they
were not long obeyed. The text was to be written in letters at length, all abbreviations
(notae, sigla) and numeral figures being interdicted.
The emperor was desirous that the body of law to be compiled under
his direction should be all in all, not only for practice, but for academical
instruction; but the Digest and the Code, though they were to form part of an
advanced stage of legal education, led far into detail, which could not well be
understood by beginners. It became necessary therefore to compose an elementary
work for students. Already in the constitution, Deo Auctore, of Dec. A. D. 530,
Justinian had declared his intention of ordering an elementary work to be written.
The composition of it was entrusted to Tribonian, in conjunction with Theophilus
and Dorotheus, who were respectively professors in the two great schools of law
at Constantinople and Bervtus. Florentinus and other Roman jurists had written
elementary works (Institutiones, Regularumn libri), but none were so famous as
the Institutes and Res Quotidianae of Gaius, which were taken as the basis of
Justinian's Institutes. Other treatises, however, were also made use of, and alterations
were made for the purpose of bringing the new treatise into harmony with the Code
and the Digest. Hence there is an occasional incongruity in the compilation, from
the employment of heterogeneous materials. For example, at the very commencement
the discordant notions of Gains and Ulpian on the jus naturale and the jus gentium
are brought together, but refuse to blend in consistent union. The general arrangement
of the work, which is divided into four books, does not materially differ from
that of the Institutes of Gaius, of which we have given a sketch under Gaius.
The Institutes received the imperial sanction on the 21st of November, 533, and
full legal authority was conferred upon them, from the 30th of December, A. D.
533, the same day from which the Digest was to take effect as law. (Prooem. Instit.;
Const. Tanta, 23)
Had it been possible to make law for ever fixed, and had the emperor's
workmen been able to accomplish this object, the desire of Justinian's heart would
have been fulfilled. But there were many questions upon which the ancient jurists
were divided. Under the earlier emperors, these differences of opinion had given
rise to permanent sects; nor were they afterwards entirely extinguished, when
party spirit had yielded to independent eclecticism. The compilers of the Digest
tacitly, by their selection of extracts, manifested their choice; but a Catholic
doctrine, the great object of Justinian's wishes, was not thus to be accomplished.
At the suggestion of Tribonianus, the emperor began, while his compilations were
yet in progress, to issue constitutions having for their object the decision of
the ancient controversies. These constitutions helped to guide the compilers of
the Digest and Institutes; but, as they were issued from time to time after the
first constitutionum codex (the greater part of them in the years 529 and 530),
it was found desirable, when they had reached the number of fifty, to form them
into a separate collection, which seems to have been published under the title
L. Constitutionum Liber. This collection has not come down to us in a separate
form, for its legal authority was repealed upon the revision of the Constitutionum
Codex; and the separate publication of the Fifty Decisions has been doubted; but
the phrase in the ancient Turin Gloss upon the Institutes, Sicut libro L. constitutionum
invenies (Savigny, Gesch. des R. R. im Mittelalter, vol. ii.), confirms the inference
to be drawn from Const. Cordi, 1, and Inst. 1. tit. 5. 3. (Brunquell, Hist. Jur.
Rom. ed. 1742; Hugo, Civilist. Mag. vol. v.)
Even after the publication of the fifty decisions, the imperfection
and ambiguity of the existing law required to be remedied by further constitutions.
The incompleteness of the Code of A. D. 529 was now apparent, and Justinian was
not indisposed to the revision of a compilation, which, having been made at the
commencement of his reign, contained but little of his own legislation. Accordingly,
the task of revision was entrusted to Tribonianus (who had no part in the original
compilation), with the assistance of the legal professor Dorotheus, and [p. 670]
the advocates, Menna, Constantinus, and Joannes. They were empowered to omit,
to improve, and to add; and, in the formation of the secunda editio, or repetita
praelectio, care was taken to insert the constitutions of Justinian which had
appeared since the first edition. It is probable that all the Fifty Decisions
were incorporated, although we have not the means of precisely identifying them.
On the 16th of Nov. A. D. 534, Justinian issued a constitution, giving legal force
to the new edition of the Code, from the 29th of Dec. 534. To this new edition,
in contradistinction to the former (which was now superseded and carefully suppressed),
has been usually given the name Codex Repetitae Praelectionis. It is now ordinarily
called the Code of Justinian, although it is more correctly called Constitutionum
Codex, since the other collections of Justinian are also entitled to the name
of Codes. The earliest constitution contained in the Code is one of Hadrian, the
latest one of Justinian, dated Nov. 4., A. D. 534. The matter of constitutions
older than Hadrian had been fully developed in the works of jurists. The Code
is divided into 12 books, and the books into titles, with rubrics denoting their
contents. Under each title, the constitutions are arranged chronologically. Each
constitutio is headed by an inscriptio, or address, and ended by a subscriptio,
announcing the place and time of its date, The general arrangement corresponds
on the whole with that of the Digest, so far as the two works treat of the same
subject, but there are some variations which cannot be accounted for. For instance,
the law of pledges and the law of the father's power occupy very different relative
positions in the Digest and the Code. Some constitutiones, which are referred
to in the Institutes, do not appear in the modern manuscripts of the Code; and
it is doubtful whether they were omitted by the compilers of the second edition,
or left out by subsequent copyists.
Justinian, though fond of legal unity, was fond of law-making. If
he had lived long enough, there might perhaps have been a second edition of the
Digest. When the new Code was published, he contemplated the necessity of a supplement
to it, and promised that any legislative reforms which he might afterwards make
should be formed into a collection of Novellae Constiiutiones.(Const. Cordi, 4).
Many such Novells (neari diataxeis), with various dates, from Jan. 1. 535, to
Nov. 4. 564, were published from time to time, by authority, in his life-time.
The greater part were promulgated in the first five years after the publication
of the new Code; and there is a marked diminution in the number of Novells subsequent
to the death of Tribonian in 545. There are extant at least 165 Novells of Justinian,
making many reforms of great consequence, and seriously affecting the law as laid
down in the Digest, Institutes, and Code. Though the imperial archives contained
all the Novells that were issued from time to time, no collective publication
by official authority seems to have taken place before Justinian's death, for
Joannes Scholasticus, at the beginning of his collection of 87 chapters, compiled
from the Novells of Justinian, between A. D. 565 and 578, speaks of those Novells
as still sporaden keieenon. (Heimbach, Anecdota, vol. ii)
Such were Justinian's legislative works -works of no mean merit- nay,
with all their faults, considering the circumstances of the time, worthy of very
great praise. They have long exercised, and, pervading modern systems of law,
continue to exercise, enormous influence over the thoughts and actions of men.
It is true that they exhibit a certain enslavement to elements originally base,
for there was much that was narrow and barbarous in the early law of Rome; but,
partly by tortuous fictions, and partly by bolder reform, the Roman jurisprudence
of later times struggled to arrive at better and more rational rules. The Digest
is especially precious, as preserving the remains of jurists whose works would
otherwise have been wholly lost, notwithstanding their great value as illustrations
of history, as materials for thinking, and as models of legal reasoning and expression.
If adherence to the contents of the imperial law during the middle ages cramped
on the one hand the spontaneity of indigenous development, it opposed barriers
on the other to the progress of feudal barbarism.
We proceed now to give some account of the literary history, and to
mention the principal editions, separate and collective, of Justinian's compilations.
The editions up to the end of the first third of the 16th century are scarce,
for, from the inconvenience of their form, and the variety of contractions they
employ, they have been subjected to the sane fate with the early manuscripts :
but, like the early manuscripts, they are often of use in correcting the text.
The first printed edition of the Institutes is that of Petrus Schoyffer,
fol. Mogunt. 1468. The last edition of importance is that of Schrader, Berlin,
1832. This is an exceedingly learned and elaborate performance, and is intended
to form part of an intended Berlin Corpus Juris Civilis, which is still promised,
but has hitherto made no further visible progress. Among the exegetical commentators,
Vinnius, a Costa, and Otto, will be found the most useful. The Institutiones cum
Commentario Academico, by Vinnius, first appeared, Amst. 1642, and has been frequently
reprinted. The Elzevir Vinnius of 1665 is, typographically, the neatest; but the
jurist will prefer those editions which are enriched with the notes of Heineccius,
and contain the Quaestiones Selectae of Vinnius. (2 vols. 4to. Lugd. 1747, 1755,
1761, 1767, 1777). The Commentarius ad Institutiones of a Costa (Jean de la Coste)
first appeared, Paris, 1659; but the best editions are those of Van de Water Ultraj.
1714, and Rucker Lugd. 1744. The Commentarius et Notae Criticae of Everard Otto
first appeared Traj. ad Rhen. 1729; and the best edition is that of Iselin Basil.
1760. The commentaries of Balduinus Paris, 1546, Hotomann Basil. 1560, 1569, Lugd.
1588, Giphanius Ingols. 1596, Bachovius Frank, 1628, 1661, Merillius Paris, 1654,
Traj. ad Rhen. 1739, and Hoppius Dantz. 1693; and edited by Walchius, Frank. ad
Moen. 1772, also deserve mention. There are modern French commentaries and translations
by Blondeau, Ducaurroy, Ortolan, and Etienne ; and there is an English translation,
with the Latin text and notes, by George Harris, LL.D. London, 1796, 1812. We
regard the Greek Paraphrasis of Theophilus as the most useful of all commentaries,
but the original work is so clear as seldom to require voluminous explanation;
and not without reason was an Essay, as long ago as the first year of the 18th
century, composed by Homberg, professor of law at Helmstadt, De Multitudine nimia
Commentatorum in Institutiones Juris. The Institutes of Justinian were edited,
jointly with those of Gaius, by Klenze and Bocking Berol. 1829. The most valuable
critical editions anterior to Schrader's are those of Haloander Nuremb. 1529,
Contius Paris, 1567, Cujas Paris, 1585; re-edited by Kohler, Gottingen, 1773,
Biener, Berlin, 1812, and Bucher, Erlangen, 1826. A complete account of the literature
connected with the Institutes would fill a volume. The reader is referred for
full and authentic information on the subject to Spangenberg, Einleitung in das
Corpus Juris Civilis; Boking, Institutionen; Prodromus Corporis Juris Civilis
a Schradero, Clossio, Tafelio edendi, Berol. 1823; Beck, Indicis Codicum et Editionum,
Juris Justiniani Prodromus, Lips. 1823; and the editions of the Institutes by
Biener and Schrader.
The literary history of the Digest has been a subject of hot and still
unextinguished controversy. The most celebrated existing manuscript of this work
is that called the Florentine, consisting of two large quarto volumes, written
by Greek scribes, probably not later than the end of the sixth, or the beginning
of the seventh century. It was formerly supposed by some to be one of the authentic
copies transmitted to Italy in the lifetime of Justinian, but this opinion is
now abandoned. It is, in general, free from contractions and abbreviations, which
were strictly forbidden by the emperor, but letters and parts of letters are sometimes
made to do double duty, as necesset for necesse esset (geminationes), and AB for
A B (monogranmmata). The Florentine manuscript was for a long time at Pisa, and
hence the glossators refer to its text as litera Pisana (P. or Pi.), in contradistinction
to the common text (litera vulgata). Its history before it arrived at Pisa, is
doubtful. According to the testimony of Odofredus, who wrote in the 13th century,
it was brought to Pisa from Constantinople, and Bartolus, in the 14th century,
relates that it was always at Pisa. We are strongly inclined to put faith in the
constant tradition that it was given to the Pisans by Lothario the Second, after
the capture of Amalfi, in A. D. 1135 (?), as a memorial of his gratitude to them
for their aid against Roger the Norman. The truth or falsehood of this tradition
would be a matter of little importance, if it were not usually added, among other
more apocryphal embellishments, that Lothario directed the Digest to be taught
in the schools, and to be regarded as law in the courts, and that the Roman law
had been completely forgotten, until the attention of the school of Bologna was
turned to it by the ordinance of the emperor, consequent upon the finding of the
manuscript. (Sigonius, de Regno Ital. xi. in fine.) It is certain that soon after
the capture of Amalfi, the Roman law, which had long been comparatively neglected,
was brought into remarkable repute by the teaching of Irnerius, but this resuscitation
is attributed by Savigny to the growing illumination of men's minds, and to that
felt want of legal science which the progress of commerce and civilisation naturally
produces. He thinks that civilisation, excited by these causes, not by any sudden
discovery, had only to put forth its arm and seize the sources of Roman law, which
were previously obvious and ready for its grasp.
Pisa was conquered by the Florentine Caponius, in 1406, and the manuscript
was brought to Florence in 1411 (?), ever since which time it has been kept there
as a valuable treasure, and regarded with the utmost reverence.
Where the Florentine manuscript may have been before the siege of
Amalfi is of little consequence ; but it is of great consequence that we should
be able to decide another much disputed question, namely, whether the Florentine
manuscript be or be not the sole authentic source whence the text of all other
existing manuscripts, and of all the printed editions, is derived. In favour of
the affirmative opinion there are several facts, which have not, we think, been
satisfactorily accounted for. The leaves of the Florentine manuscript are written
on both sides and the last leaf but one, in binding the volume, has been so placed
as to reverse the order of the pages. The fault is copied in all the existing
manuscripts. The order of the 8th and 9th titles in the 37th book of the Digest
is reversed in the Florentine manuscript, but the error is corrected by the scribe
by a Greek note in the margin. There are fragments similarly reversed in lib.
35, tit. 2, and lib. 40, tit. 4, and similarly corrected. In the other existing
old manuscripts, written by men who did not understand Greek, the error is reproduced,
but not the correction. On the other hand, an interpolation added in Latin in
the margin of the Florentine manuscript, is inserted in the text of the other
manuscripts. For this reason, the last four fragments of lib. 41, tit. 3, are
wrongly converted into a separate title, with the rubric de Solutto. In the 20th
and 22nd titles of the 48th book, there are blanks in the Florentine manuscript,
indicating the omission of several fragments, which were first restored by Cujas
from the Basilica. The omissions exist in all the ancient manuscripts. In general,
where the text of the Florentine manuscript presents insuperable difficulties,
no assistance is to be derived from the other manuscripts, whereas they all, in
many passages, retain the errors of the Florentine. Their variations are nowhere
so numerous and arbitrary as where the Florentine is defective or corrupt. Moreover,
they appear to be all later than the beginning of the twelfth century; and, in
general, the older they are, the less they depart from the Florentine.
In opposition to these facts, the supporters of the conflicting theory
adduce many passages of the ordinary text in which the omissions and faults of
the Florentine manuscript are corrected and supplied. Some of the variations are
not improvements, some may be ascribed to critical sagacity and happy conjecture,
and some may have been drawn from the Basilica or other Eastern sources : yet,
in the list which Savigny has given, a few variations remain, which can scarcely
be accounted for in any of these ways. Passages from the Digest, containing readings
different from those of the Florentine manuscript, occur in canonists and other
authors, anterior to the supposed discovery at Amalfi. Four palimpsest leaves
of a manuscript of the Digest, nearly as old as the Florentine, were found at
Naples by Gaupp, and an account of them was published by him at Breslau, in 1823.
They belong to the tenth book, but are nearly illegible.
In most of the manuscripts and early editions, the Digest consists
of three nearly equal volumes. The first, comprehending lib. 1-24, tit. 2, is
called Digestum Vetus ; the second, comprehending lib. 24, tit. 3--lib. 38, is
called Infortiatum ; the third, comprehending lib. 39--lib. 50, is called Digestum
Novum. The Digestum Vetus and Digestum Novum are each again divided into two parts;
the second part of the former beginning with the 12th book ; the second part of
the latter with the 45th. The Infortiatum is divided into three parts, of which
the second begins with the 30th book, and the third (strangely enough) with the
words tres partes occurring in the middle of a sentence, in Dig. 35, tit. 2. s.
82. The third part of the Infortiatum is hence called Tres Partes. The glossators
often use the name Infortiatum for the first two parts of the second volume, e.
g. Infortiatum cum Tribus Partibus ; and sometimes the Tres Partes are attached
to the Digestum Novum. In order to explain these peculiarities, many conjectures
have been hazarded. It is most probable that the division owes its origin partly
to accident; that the Digestum Vetus first came to the knowledge of the earliest
glossators; that they were next furnished with the Digestum Novum ; then with
the Tres Partes, which they added to the Digestum Novum ; and that then they got
the Infortiatum, so called, perhaps, from its being forced in between the others;
and that finally, in order to equalize the size of the volumes, they attached
the Tres Partes to the Infortiatum. The common opinion is that the Infortiatum
derived its name from having been reinforced by the Tres Partes.
The editions of the Digest, with reference to the character of their
text, may be divided into three classes, the Florentine, the vulgate, and the
mixed. Politianus and Bologninus had both carefully collated the Florentine manuscript,
but no edition represented the Florentine text before the year A. D. 1553, when
the beautiful and celebrated edition of Laelius Taurelius (who, out of paternal
affection, allowed his son Franciscus to name himself as the editor) was published
at Florence. This edition is the basis of that given by Gebauer and Spangenberg
in their Corpus Juris Civilis, and these editors had the advantage of referring
to the later collation of Brenkmann. The vulgate editions have no existing standard
text to refer to. The ideal standard is the text formed by the glossators, as
revised by Accursius. Their number is immense. The first known edition of the
Digestum Vetus was printed by Henricus Clasm (fol. Perusiae, 1476), although Montfaucon
(Bibl. MSS. p. 157) mentions the existence of an edition of 1473, of the first
and second parts of the Digest. The first edition of the Infortiatum is that of
Piicher (fol. Rom. 1475), and the first Digestum Novum was printed by Pucher (fol.
Rom. 1476). In the early vulgate editions the Greek passages of the original are
given for the most part in an old Latin translation, and the inscriptions prefixed
to the extracts, and referring to the work and the author, are either imperfect
or wanting. Of the mixed editions, the earliest is that which was edited by Baublommius
(Paris, 1523, 1524), with the aid of the collation of Politianus, but the most
celebrated is that of Haloander (4to. Nuremb. 1529), published without the gloss.
Haloander was, himself, a daring and adventurous critic, and made much use of
the conjectural emendations of Budaeus and Alciatus.
The commentators upon the Digest and upon separate portions of it
are extremely numerous. Among the most useful are Duarenus (Opera, Luc. 1765),
Cujacius, Ant. Faber (Rationalia in Pandectas, Lugd. 1659-1663), Donellus, Ant.
Matthaeus (De Criminibus, Commenturius ad lib. 47 et 48 Dig.), Bynkershoek, Noodt.
The commentaries of Voet and Pothier are well known in this country. The voluminous
Meditationes in Pandectas of Leyserus, and the still more voluminous German Erlauterungen
of Gluck, with the continuations of Muhlenbruch and Reichardt, are interesting,
as showing the construction put upon the law of the Digest, in cases that occur
in modern practice. One of the most valuable works upon the Digest is Ant. Schulting's
Notae ad Digesta, cum animadversionibus Nic. Smallenberg, Lug. Bat. 1804-1835.
Here the reader will find ample references to the work where the difficulties
of the text are best explained. The Pandectenrecht of Thibaut and the Doctrina
Pandectarum of Muhlenbruch are not commentaries on the Digest, but are systematic
expositions of the civil law, as it exists in Germany at this day.
In Brenkmann's Historia Pandectarum will be found a full account of
the early state of the controversy relating to the history of the Florentine manuscript.
The writings of Augustinus, Grandi, Tanucci, Guadagni, Schwartz, and others, who
have signalised themselves in this field, are referred to in Walch's note on Eckhard's
Ermeneutica Juris, 74; and the researches of Savigny on the same subject will
be found in the second and third volumes of his "History of the Roman Law in the
Middle Ages". For detailed information as to editions of the Digest and Commentaries
on that work, Spangenberg's Einleitung, and Beck's Prodromus, may be consulted
with advantage.
The earliest manuscript containing a portion of the Constitutionum
Codex is a palimpsest in the Chapter House at Verona, and two of the 10th century
have been lately discovered by Blume at Pistoia and Monte Casino. In the early
editions the first nine books are separated from the other three, which, relating
principally to the public law of the Roman empire, were often inapplicable in
practice under a different government. Hence, by the glossators, the name Codex
is given exclusively to the first nine books; while the remainder are designated
by the name Tres Libri. At first the inscriptions and subscriptiones of the constitutions
were almost always omitted, and the Greek constitutions were wanting. Haloander
considerably improved the text, and was followed by Russardus. Cujas, Augustinus,
and Contius, were of service in restoring to their places the omitted constitutions
(leges restitutae). Leunclavius (1575), Charondas (1575), Pacius (1580), Dionysius
Gothofredus (1583), Petrus and Franciscus Pithoeus (Obs. ad Cod. Par. fol. 1689),
all contributed to the criticism and restoration of the text; and in more modern
times, Biener, Witte, and the brothers Heimbach, have similarly distinguished
themselves.
The first edition of the first nine books was printed by P. Schoyffer,
Mogunt. 1475; and the Tres Libri first appeared (along with the Novells and the
Libri Feudorum) at Rome, 1476. The first edition of the twelve books was given
by Haloander, Noremb. 1530.
Cujas and Wissenbach are among the best commentators on the Code.
The commentaries of the latter comprise the first seven books (in lib. iv. prior.
4to. Franeq. 1660; in lib. v. et vi. ib. 1664 ; in lib. vii. ib. 1664).
For further particulars as to the other editions and commentators,
reference may be made to Spangenberg's Einleitung, Beck's Prodromus, Biener's
Beitrage zur Revision der Justin. Cod., and the preface of S. Hermanni to his
edition of the Code in the Leipzig edition of the Corpus Juris Civilis, commenced
by the brothers Kriegel.
An abstract of the first eight books of the Code, made at latest in
the 9th century, was discovered by Niebuhr at Perugia; and this Summa Perusina
has been edited by G. E. Heimbach, in the second volume of his Anecdota,. Lips.
1840.
W e possess the Novells of Justinian in three ancient forms; the Latin
Epitome of Julianus, of which we have already spoken (article Junianus); an ancient
Latin translation (the Authenticum, or Versio Vulgata), containing 134 Novells,
and the Greek collection, numbering 168 Novells.
Of the 134 Novells contained in the Versio Vulgata, the glossators
recognised only 97 as practically useful, and these were the only Novells to which
they appended a gloss. As the Institutes, Digest, and Code, were divided into
books and titles, the glossators divided the 97 glossed Novells (which they arranged
chronologically) into nine books, intended to correspond with the first nine books
of the Code. These books were called collationes. Under each collatio was placed
a certain number of constitutions, and each constitution formed a separate title,
except the 8th, which was divided into two titles. There were thus 98 titles.
The rubrics of the constitutions, and the division into chapters and paragraphs,
though not due to Justinian, were probably older than the glossators, and to be
attributed to the original collectors or translators. The 97 glossed Novells,
thus divided, constituted the liber ordinarius ; the remaining Novells of. the
Authenticum were called extravagantes or authenticae extraordinariae, and were
divided into three collationes, to correspond with the last three books of the
Code : but, as they were not used in forensic practice, they soon ceased to be
copied in the manuscripts. The oldest printed edition of the versio vulgata is
that of Vit. Piicher, containing the 97 Novells, with the gloss, followed by the
last three books of the Code (Rom. 1476).
The Greek collection of the Novells of Justinian was made for the
use of the Oriental lawyers, probably under Tiberius II., who reigned A. D. 578-582.
The Greek collection was not confined to constitutions of Justinian. There are
four of Justin II., three of Tiberius II., and four edicts (eparchica, formae)
of the praefectus urbi and praefectus praetorio. A list of the rubrics of the
168 Novells was first printed in Latin by Cujas (Exposit. Novell. fol. Lugd. 1570),
and the original Greek text of this list is given in the second volume of Heimbach's
Anecdota. It is called Index Reginae, from having been found in the queen's library
at Paris.
The Greek Novells were wholly unknown to the glossators. Haloander
was the first who published them at Nuremburg, in 1531, from an imperfect Florentine
manuscript. Scrimger, a Scotchman and Professor of the Civil Law at Geneva, afterwards
published them from a less imperfect Venetian manuscript. The collection of Scrimger
was printed by H. Stephanus at Geneva in 1558. Neither the Venetian nor the Florentine
manuscript contains in full the 168 Novells. Sometimes the mere title of an omitted
Novell is inserted; sometimes only the number of the Novell is given, and the
lacuna is marked by asterisks.
Haloander gave a Latin version of the Novells he published. Scrimger
published the Greek without a translation; but the Novells, which are contained
in Scrimger and not in Haloander, were translated by Agylaeus. (Supplementum Novelarum,
Colon. 1560.)
The labours of Contius constituted the next important stage in the
literary history of the Novells. He formed a Greek text from combining Haloander
and Scrimger. He formed a Latin text from the Versio Vulgata, so far as he was
acquainted with it. This he supplied by a translation from the Greek, partly his
own and partly compiled from Haloander. He subjoined the matter contained in Julian's
Epitome, so far as it was not contained either in the Versio Vulgata or in the
published Greek Novells. In this manner he made up the 168 Latin Novells, which
compose the stock of Novells in ordinary modern editions of the Corpus Juris Civilis.
Contius published many editions of the Novells, differing among themselves
in a way which it is necessary to remark. Some of the editions contained the gloss,
and in these the 97 glossed Novells were arranged as usual in the old nine collationes,
while all the remaining Novells were subjoined as a tenth collatio. An important
change, however, took place in the unglossed edition of 1571. In this, Contius
classed the 168 Novells with reference to their dates (though there are some exceptions
to the chronological order), and distributed them, so arranged, into nine collationes,
and subdivided the collationes into titles. The same order was reproduced in the
edition of 1581, and has been followed ever since in all but the glossed editions.
From the account which we have given, it will easily be conceived that great confusion
has been occasioned in references by the varieties of arrangement in different
editions of the Novells. for example, the 131st Novell of modern editions of the
Corpus Juris Civilis forms, according to the arrangement of Contius, the 14th
title of the 9th collatio, while it was the 6th title of the 9th collatio of the
old glossators.
Of modern editions since the time of Contius, it is unnecessary to say much. Under
the title Novellae Constitutiones Justiniani, a Graeco in Latinum versae opera
Hombergk zu Vach, Marburg, 1717, more is performed than is promised. The author
presents to us not only a very good new Latin translation, but the Greek text,
and a series of Latin Novells from the versio vulgata, of which the original Greek
has not been preserved, and valuable critical notes. The translation of Hombergk
zu Vach is the basis of that of Osenbriiggen, the editor of the Novells in the
Leipzig Corpus Juris Civilis.
Among the best commentators upon the Novells may be mentioned Cujas,
Joach. Stephanus (Expositio Novellarum, Franc. 1608), and Matthaeus Stephanus.
(Commentarius Novellarum, Gryphsw. 1631. Cum notis Brunnemanni, Viteb. 1700, Lips.
1707).
G. E. Heimbach, in the first volume of his Anecdota, has published
the remains of the ancient commentators, Athanasius Scholasticus, Theodorus Hermopolitanus,
Philoxenus, Symbatius, and Anonymus.
Much labour and learning have been recently expended in unravelling
the intricacies of this part of literary history, and in correcting the errors
of former writers on the Novells. Biener's Geschichte der Novellen Justinian's
contains the most accurate [p. 674] and elaborate information upon this subject.
G. E. Heimbach's essay, De Origine et Fatis Corporis quod clxviii. Novellis Constitutionibus
constat, Lips. 1844, contains some questionable views. Mortreueil has treated
of the Novells in his Histoire du Droit Byzantin, vol. i..
The separate Novells were designated by the glossators by the name
Authenticae, but that word has also another signification, which it is necessary
to explain, in order to prevent the mistakes which have sometimes occurred in
consequence of this verbal ambiguity. In their lectures on the Institutes and
the first nine books of the Code, the earliest glossators were accustomed to insert
in the margin of their copies abbreviated extracts from such parts of the Novells
as made alterations in the law contained in the text. In reading the Digest, they
referred to the notes contained in the margin of the Code. At a later period these
abstracts were discontinued in the Institutes. In the Code they were taken from
the margin, and placed under the text, where they still appear, distinguished
by Italic type in most of the modern editions. They are called Authenticae either,
as some assert, from their representing the latest authentic state of the law,
or from the name of the source whence they were taken, and which, in practice,
they nearly superseded. Certain capitularies of Frederic I. and Frederic II.,
emperors of Germany, about the end of the 12th century, were treated by the glossators
as Novells, and thirteen extracts taken from them are inserted in the Code, with
the inscription "Nova Constitutio Frederici". They are known by the name Authenticae
Fredericianae.
The collections of Justinian, together with some later appendages,
formed into one great work, are commonly known by the name Corpus Juris Civilis.
The later appendages are really arbitrary and misplaced additions, having no proper
connection with the law of Justinian, and they vary in different editions. They
consist, for the most part, of a collection of constitutions of Leo the Philosopher,
anterior to A. D. 893; of some other constitutions of Byzantine emperors, from
the 7th to the 14th century; of the so-called Canones Sanctorum Apostolorum ;
of the Feudorum Consuetudines ; a few constitutions of German and French monarchs
; and the Liber de Pace Conslantiae.
The expression Corpus Juris was employed by Justinian himself (Cod.
5. tit. 13. s. 1); but the earliest editions of the whole of his legal collections
have no single title. Russardus first chose the title Jus Civile. The modem name
Corpus Juris Civilis appears first in D. Godefroi's edition of 1583, though the
phrase had been employed by others before him. The old glossed editions consist
of five volumes, folio (usually bound in five different colours), namely : 1.
Digestum Vetus; 2. Infortiatum ; 3. Digestum Novum; 4. The Codex, i. e. the first
nine books of the Code; 5. Volumen, or Volumen Parvum, or Volumen Legum Parvum,
containing the Tres Libri, the Authenticae, and the Institutiones. The latter
had a separate title-page, and was sometimes bound as a separate volume, distinct
from the Volumen. This arrangement was first departed from by R. Stephanus in
his edition of the Digest in five instead of three volumes (Paris, 1527-1528).
The editions of the Corpus Juris Civilis may be divided into the glossed and the
unglossed. The gloss is an annotation which was gradually formed in the school
of Bologna, and finally settled by Accursius. It is of great practical importance,
since, in the countries which adopted the civil law, the portions without the
gloss did not possess legal authority in the courts. Quod non recipit glossa,
id non recipit curia, was the general maxim. All the editions up to that of Claud.
Chevallon (Paris, 15250-1527) have the gloss. The latest glossed edition is that
of J. Fehiu. (Lugd. 1627). This celebrated edition has on the title-page of every
volume (in allusion to the place of its publication, Lyons) the representation
of a living lion, surrounded by bees, with the motto Ex forti dulcedo. Hence it
is known by the name Edition du Lion Mouchete--a name also given to one of the
previous editions of D. Gothofredus (Fol. Lugd. 1589). The very valuable index
of Daoyz is appended as a sixth volume to the edition of J. Fehius. Of the unglossed
editions, some have notes and some have none. Of the unglossed editions with notes,
the two most celebrated and useful are that of D. Godefroi and Van Leeuwen (2
vols. fol. apud Elzeviros, Amst. 1663), and that of Gebauer and Spangenberg (Gotting.
1776, 1797). Of the editions without notes the most beautiful and convenient is
the well-known, but not very correct, Elzevir of 1664, distinguished as the Pars
Secundus edition. Two editions by Beck, were published at Leipzig in 1825-1836.
The latest edition is that which was commenced by the brothers Kriegel in 1833,
and completed in 1840, Hermanni having edited the Code, and Osenbriiggen the Novells.
The edition undertaken by Schrader and other eminent scholars will, if completed
as it has been begun, supersede for some purposes all that have gone before it.
The old editions of Contius, Russardus, Charondas and Pacius, are sought for by
critics. A more complete enumeration of the editions of the collective Corpus
Juris Civilis will be found in Bocking's Institutionen.
There is a French translation of the whole Corpus, with the Latin
text en regard, published at Paris 1805-1811. In this work we have : 1. The Institutes,
by Hulot; 2. The Digest, by Hulot and Berthelot; 3. The Code, by Tissot; 5. The
Novells, by Berenger; 6. La Clef des Lois Romaines, ou Dictionnaire. There is
also a German translation of the whole Corpus, by a society of savans, edited
by C. E. Otto, Bruno Schlilling, and C. F. F. Sintenis (Lips. 1830-1833).
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Jan 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Justinus II., the younger, emperor of the East, from A. D. 565-578, and nephew of the great
Justinian. His reign is signalized by important and extraordinary events. Justin
had infinitely less merit than his cousins Justinus and Justinian, the sons of
Germanus, who had distinguished themselves in the field against the Persians,
and were universally beloved for the frankness of their character; but he was
of a crafty disposition, and while his cousins exposed their lives in the defence
of the empire, he prudently remained at Constantinople and courted the aged Justinian.
In order to insinuate himself the better into his uncle's favour, he married Sophia,
the niece of the empress Theodora, a beautiful and clever woman, but ambitious,
imperious and revengeful. In the night that Justinian died (13th of November,
565), Justin had retired to his apartments, and was fast asleep, when he was suddenly
awakened by a loud knocking against his door: it was a deputation of the senate,
composed of some of its members who had witnessed the emperor's death, and now
came to congratulate Justin, whom, according to their report, the dying monarch
had appointed his successor. Whether this was true or not, no time was lost by
Justin and his friends. He went immediately to the senate, who were already waiting
for him, and after a document had been read to him, which purported to be the
will of Justinian, he was forthwith proclaimed emperor. Early in the following
morning he repaired to the hippodrome, which was filled by an immense and anxious
crowd. and after having delivered divers fine speeches, which met with boisterous
acclamation, he issued a general pardon for all offenders, and, in order to convince
the people the more completely of his vir tuous and generous sentiments, summoned
the numerous creditors of Justinian to come forth with their claims. They obeyed
eagerly, and their as tonishment was still greater when a file of porters made
their appearance, each sighing under the weight of an enormous bag of gold: in
a few hours the whole of Justinian's debts was discharged. The people found no
limits to their praise and delight, and their admiration of their new master was
at its height, when Sophia, imitating the noble example set by her lord, opened
her treasury and paid the debts of a host of poor people. At the same time the
orthodox Justin issued an edict of universal toleration; all persons exiled for
their religion, except Eutychius, were recalled and restored to their families
or friends; and the church enjoyed a state of peace for fifty years, unprecedented
in the annals of the ecclesiastical history of the East. The golden age seemed
to have arrived in Constantinople and the provinces.
Too soon, however, did the real character of Justin show itself, and
sadly disappointed the sanguine hopes of the Greeks. An embassy of the khan of
the Avars having solicited an audience, Justin dismissed them haughtily and provoked
the resentment of their chief; and he exhibited an equally overbearing conduct
in his negotiations with the Persians, whence an early rupture might easily be
prognosticated. In 566 the indignation of the Greeks was provoked by the murder
of Justin the younger, the emperor's cousin. This distinguished prince excited
the jealousy of both Justin and Sophia, and, from the Danube, where he commanded
against the Avars, he was suddenly sent as governor to Egypt, but had scarcely
put his foot on the shore of Alexandria, when he fell under the dagger of a hired
assassin. His numerous friends were exasperated; it was said that they had conspired
against the emperor, and the alleged conspiracy was stifled in blood. The treasures
Justin had spent in satisfying the creditors of Justinian, he recovered by a system
of oppression and rapacity which surpassed even that of his predecessor, and the
places under government were sold without shame or disguise. Italy, exhausted
and ravaged by the Gothic war and its consequences famine and disease, was in
a deplorable state. Alboin, king of the Longobards, coveted that fair conquest
of Justinian, but his hopes were checked through fear of Narses, who still held
the command at Ravenna. Yet Narses was approaching the extreme limits of human
life, and Alboin resolved to wait, and to increase his power by breaking that
of his troublesome neighbours the Gepidae, who reigned in Hungary. He entered
into an alliance with the Avars, and in 566 the Gepidae disappeared from among
the independent barbarians in Europe. Every one could now foresee an invasion
of Italy, and Justin ought consequently to have concentrated his power in the
plains of the Po, and put both his treasures and soldiers at the free disposition
of Narses. Narses, however, was hated by Sophia, and he had given just causes
of complaint to the Italians, by his arbitrary government and his extreme rapacity.
Justin, listening to the foolish advice of his wife, sent him an order to return
to Constantinople, and bring with him his own riches and those of the public treasury;
and Narses, having remonstrated, pointing out the imminent danger from the Longobards,
Sophia sent him a most insulting letter, which so roused the fury of the old general
that he invited Alboin to turn his arms against Italy, promising that he would
not take the command of the Romans. Soon afterwards, however, he deeply regretted
his faithlessness, and tried to dissuade Alboin from the undertaking. But it was
too late, the Longobards descended into Italy, and Narses died of grief.
In 568 Alboin descended the Julian Alps, with his stern Longobards
and numerous contingents of Bavarians, Suevians, and other Germans: 20,000 Saxons,
the kinsmen and old confederates of the Longobards, joined the expedition with
their wives and children. Longinus, the successor of Narses, was an incompetent
general, who had neglected to fortify the passes through the Alps, and thus the
barbarians rushed down into Italy like an Alpine torrent. Forum Julii, built by
Caesar, was the first town they conquered, and, having been made by Alboin the
seat of a feudal duchy, which extended over the adjacent districts, was the cause
of that province being now called Friuli, or in German Friaul, which is a corruption
of Forum Julii: Grasulf was its first duke. Aquileia soon followed the fate of
Forum Julii, and its fugitive inhabitants took refuge on the Venetian islands.
In 569 Alboin took Mantua, conquered Liguria as far as the Cottian Alps, and on
the 5th of September of the same year, victoriously entered Milan (Mediolanum),
where he was crowned king of Italy. Henceforth the country surrounding Milan was
called Longobardia, or Lombardy, the name which it still bears. In the following
year Alboin made himself master of a large portion of Central Italy, and founded
a second feudal duchy at Spoleto, where Faroald reigned under his supremacy. The
establishment of a third duchy at Benevento was the fruit of the campaign of 570:
Alboin found a strong colony of Longobards in that place, who had settled there
nineteen years previously, having received the town with its territory from Narses,
in reward for their services in the Greek armies; their chief, Zotto, was made
duke. In 571 Calabria fell into the hands of the Longobards, and now the name
of Calabria was given by the Greek government to the narrow peninsula of Bruttium
and part of Lucania, countries which are still called Calabria. Rome and Ravenna,
however, as well as different other portions of Italy in the north and in the
south, withstood the conqueror, and remained under the sway of the emperor.
While the most splendid conquest of Justinian was thus wrested from
the Greeks, Justin found consolation in pleasures and, luxury, leaving the government
in the hands of his wife, his ministers, and his eunuchs. At the very time that
Italy was taken from him, he was involved in a dangerous war with the Persians,
which broke out under the following circumstances. The Turks having by this time
made great conquests in the countries to the north of Persia, gave umbrage to
the Persian king Chosroes, especially since they concluded an alliance with Justin,
and Chosroes began hostilities by invading and subjugating the kingdom of the
Homeritae, in Southern Arabia. Encouraged by the approach and success of the Turks,
the Iberians and Persarmenians threw off the Persian yoke, and submitted to Justin,
on condition of his defending them against Chosroes. The emperor promised to do
so, and at the same time refused to pay the annual tribute of 30,000 pieces of
gold, which had been fixed by former treaties. Thus war broke out in 572. Justin
sent Marcian against the Persians, an able general, who found no army on his arrival
at the frontiers, but created one in a short time, and did more than could have
been expected under such circumstances. He was shut up for some time in the important
fortress of Dara. Reinforced by the contingents of the Lazians and other Caucasian
nations, he suddenly sallied forth, laid siege to Nisibis, and offered battle
to Chosroes, who approached with an army of 100,000 men. At this critical moment
Acacius arrived from Constantinople with an order for Marcian to hasten directly
to the capital, and surrender the command to him. Marcian obeyed, but no sooner
was he gone than the whole Greek army disbanded, as Acacius was known to be destitute
of all military talent. The consequence was that Syria was ravaged by the Persians
with fire and sword, Dara, the bulwark of the empire, was taken by Chosroes, after
a long and gallant resistance. When this news reached Constantinople, Justin showed
all the symptoms of insanity, and his mental disorder increased so much as to
make him unfit for any business (574). The entire government now devolved upon
the empress Sophia.
Two years previously Alboin had been assassinated, shortly after he
had taken Pavia, where his successor Clepho took up his residence. This king was
slain a short time after his accession, but the Longobards, nevertheless, maintained
themselves in the greater part of Italy. These events were coincident with a war
against the Avars, who worsted the Greek commander Tiberius, a great general at
the head of a bad army. The state of the empire was so critical that Sophia persuaded
Justin to adopt Tiberius and to make him Caesar. The emperor followed the advice,
and in 574 the new Caesar was presented to the senate. Sophia acted wisely in
buying a truce of one year from the Persians for the sum of 45,000 pieces of gold,
which was soon afterwards prolonged for three years, by an annual tribute of 30,000
pieces. But this truce did not include Armenia, and thus Chosroes set out in 576,
or more probably as early as 574, with a large army to extend the frontiers of
his realm in the north-west. With great exertions and sacrifices Tiberius succeeded
in raising an army of 150,000 foreign mercenaries, with whom he despatched Justinian,the
emperor'scousin, against the Persians, thus leaving Italy unprotected and Greece
open to the inroads of the Slavonians. The details of this remarkable campaign
are narrated in the lives of Tiberius and Justinian. Justinian obtained splendid
victories, and sent 24 elephants to Constantinople; but he sustained in his turn
severe defeats, and was succeeded in the supreme command by Mauricius, who, in
578, penetrated as far as the Tigris. The war was still raging with unabated fury,
when Justin, whose mental sufferings were increased by an ulcer on his leg, felt
his dissolution approaching, and consequently created Tiberius Augustus on the
26th of September, 578, and had him crowned and publicly acknowledged as his successor.
Justin died on the 5th of October following; the best action of his life was the
choice of his successor.
(Corippus, De Laud. Justini; Evagrius, v. 1-13; Theophan.; Cedren.; Zonaras, vol.
ii; Glycas; Const. Manasses)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Jan 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Tiberius II., emperor of the East A. D. 578-582. His full name was Anicius Thrax,
Fflavius Constamtinus. He was captain of the guards to the emperor Justinus II.,
who elevated him to the rank of Caesar or Augustus, A. D. 574. He was a native
of Thrace, whence he has the addition of Thrax to his name. He assumed the name
of Constantinus after he became emperor. The date of his birth is uncertain. He
was brought up at the court of Justinian, and employed by Justinus II., who succeeded
Justinian A. D. 565. In A. D. 573 Tiberius commanded the imperial troops against
the Avars, in the neighbourhood of the Save and the Danube. He lost one battle
against them, but he soon recovered this failure, and secured for the empire the
possession of Sirmium, near the junction of the Save and the Danube. Justinus,
feeling himself incompetent for the labour of administration, associated Tiberius
with him, and it is said that the influence of his wife Sophia, who admired the
handsome captain, contributed to determine the emperor's choice. The speech which
the emperor addressed to Tiberius on this occasion is preserved by Theophylactus
Simocatta, and has been translated by Gibbon : it contained wise advice, and Tiberius
followed it. Justinus survived this ceremony four years, during which the weight
of administration fell on Tiberius alone.
The Longobards were now in Italy, but a war with Persia prevented
Tiberius from directing all his attention to that quarter. Yet he maintained his
authority in the exarchate of Ravenna, and in other parts of Italy, and he saved
Pelagius II., the pope of Rome, and the Roman citizens, from the Longobards, by
a timely supply of provisions, which were forwarded by a fleet. To check the progress
of the Longobards in the north of Italy, he concluded an alliance some years later
with Chilperic the king of the Franks. The war with Chosroes, king of Persia,
demanded all the resources of Tiberius. In A. D. 576. Justinian, who was in command
of the armies of the Eastern Empire, crossed the Bosporus with a force of 150,000
men, to relieve Theodosiopolis in Armenia, which was defended by Theodorus, a
Byzantine general. This force comprehended a great number of Germans and Slavonians.
A battle was fought with Chosroes near Melitene in Armenia, in which the Persians
were defeated, and many of them perished in the Euphrates. An immense booty, carried
by twenty-four elephants, was brought to Constantinople. Justinian is said to
have advanced into the very centre of the Persian empire, and was about concluding
a treaty with Chosroes, but it was interrupted by some advantage gained over Justinian
by one of the generals of Chosroes. Justinian was recalled. and Mauricius, afterwards
the successor of Tiberius was appointed to command in his place. Mauricius secured
himself against sudden attacks by adopting the old Roman plan of never resting,
except in an entrenched camp. The winter (A. D. 577-578) Mauricius spent in Mesopotamia.
Justinus died on the fifth of October A. D. 578, and Tiberius was
now sole emperor. Sophia, it is said, hoped to become the wife of Tiberius, but
when the people in the Hippodrome called for the new empress, Tiberius produced
as his wife Anastasia, to whom he had been for some time secretly married. Sophia,
though treated with respect by the new emperor, and enjoying an ample allowance,
could not forget her disappointment, and she is said to have induced Justinian
to conspire with her to overthrow the man whom she had loved. The plot was discovered:
Sophia was deprived of all power of doing further mischief, and Justinian, who
was pardoned, became a faithful friend of Tiberius.
In A. D. 579 Chosroes, the Persian, was succeeded by Hormisdas, and
the war began again. Mauricius defeated the Persians, overran a large part of
Persia, and in a bloody contest on the Euphrates, A. D. 580, gave the forces of
Hormisdas a most signal defeat; and again in the following year. In Africa, which
had long been disturbed by the natives, Gennadius, the exarch of Ravenna, defeated
(A. D. 580) Gasmul, king of the Mauritani. Mauricius enjoyed a triumph at Constantinople
for his Persian victories, A. D. 581, and in August of that year, Tiberius, whose
health was rapidly failing, raised him to the dignity of Caesar, having no sons
of his own. He also gave him his daughter Constantina in marriage. Tiberius died
on the 14th of August, A. D. 582, and was succeeded by Mauricius.
Tiberius was universally regretted. By an economical administration
he diminished the taxation of his subjects, and always had his treasury full.
There were at least six constitutions of the emperor Tiberius; three of which
(Nos. 161, 163, 164) form part of the collection of 168 Novellac, one is found
by itself in the Venice manuscript, the fifth is lost, and the sixth only exists
in Latin. The constitution (No. 163, Peri kouphismon demosion, "On the Diminution
of Taxes", expresses a humane desire to relieve the people from their burdens,
combined with a prudent regard to supply the necessary demands of the state.
(Gibbon, Decline and Fall, &c., ch. 45, who also gives the references to the authorities
for the reign of Tiberius)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Jan 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Mauricius (Maurikios), Flavius Tiberius, one of the greatest emperors of Constantinople
(A. D. 582-602), was descended from an ancient Roman family which settled in Asia
Minor, perhaps some centuries previous to his birth, which took place about A.
D. 539, in the town of Arabissus. in Cappadocia.
Maurice spent his youth at the court of the emperor Justin II.; and
although he undoubtedly served also in the army, his name does not become conspicuous
in history previous to 578. At that period he was comes cubiculorum; and Tiberius
had no sooner succeeded Justin (578) than he appointed Maurice magister militum,
and gave him the command in Mesopotamia against the Persians, in place of the
general Justinian, with whose military conduct the emperor was not satisfied.
As Tiberius was considered to be the greatest captain of his time, he would not
have entrusted so important a command to an inexperienced courtier, and consequently
one cannot but infer that he was perfectly acquainted with the great capabilities
of Maurice. The event fully justified the emperor's choice. A truce of three years
had been made between Persia and the empire, extending to the whole of the frontier
except Armenia, where war was carried on as before. But Chosroes violated the
truce, and invaded Mesopotamia before the Romans were at all aware of his hostile
intentions. At this critical moment Maurice arrived in Mesopotamia, and forthwith
began by restoring the relaxed discipline of the troops: one of his first measures
was the re-establishment of the ancient custom of the legions never going to rest
at night before fortifying their camp. This custom had long since been neglected;
and the favourite manoeuvre of the Persians of surprising the Romans in the night
was thus rendered abortive. At the opening of the campaign, however, the Persian
general, Tamchosroes, made himself master of the important fortress of Thomane,
and pushed as far as Amida. Maurice soon drove him back, and in his turn invaded
the province of Arzanene, sending some detachments beyond the Tigris. The first
campaign ended without any decisive battle. In the second campaign, 579, Maurice
and his excellent lieutenant Narses-who must not be confounded with Narses, the
general of Justinianmade a successful invasion of Media, and took up their winter-quarters
in Mesopotamia. In 580 he crossed the Euphrates at Circesium (Circessus or Cercusium),
a town situated in the angle made by the Chaboras joining the Euphrates, with
a view of marching across the desert upon Ctesiphon. His plan was frustrated through
the treachery of some Arab allies, and he found himself unexpectedly compelled
to make head against the main army of the Persians. The contest was sharp, and
ended with a total overthrow of the Persians, who evacuated whatever places they
held in Mesopotamia, and fled in confusion beyond the Euphrates. Now Chosroes
offered peace, but Maurice peremptorily demanded the restoration of the great
fortress of Dara, the bulwark of the empire, declining to accept any indemnity
in money, and the war was renewed with more fury than before (581). A pitched
battle, in which the Persian army was almost annihilated, and their commander,
Tamchosroes, died the death of a hero, concluded the war, to the advantage of
the Romans, and Maurice hastened to Constantinople to surprise the emperor and
the nation with the welcome news that the most dangerous enemy of Greece was humbled,
and peace restored to the East. This was more than what even Tiberius expected;
and Maurice having gained universal popularity by his brilliant victories, the
emperor invited him to enter Constantinople in triumph (582).
Soon afterwards the brave Tiberius fell dangerously ill; and feeling
his end approach, assembled the senate, and proposed Maurice as his successor.
His touching speech met with no opposition; Constantinople was in rapture; and
the dying emperor increased the joy of his subjects by giving his eldest daughter
Constantina in marriage to Maurice. A few days afterwards Tiberius died (13th
of August, 582); and the fortunate Maurice now ascended the throne.
His mature age (43) was a guarantee to the nation that the rapid fortune
of their new master was not likely to turn his head; and indeed he did not deceive
their expectation, although his reign was an uninterrupted series of wars. We
shall first speak of the Persian war.
Maurice had scarcely ascended the throne, and given proof of his forbearance,
by pardoning instead of punishing various persons who had been guilty of treason,
when news came from the Persian frontier that Hormisdas, the son of Chosroes,
had broken the peace, and attacked the empire. Before the end of the year (582)
John Mystacon, the commander-in-chief in those quarters, engaged in a pitched
battle with the Persians near the of the Nymphius and the Tigris; but although
the Romans fought with great valour, the day was lost, through the jealousy of
one of their generals, Curs, and their army was dispersed. They suffered another
defeat at Acbas, and Mystacon was compelled, through misfortune and illness, to
spend the whole season of 583 on the defensive. Maurice, dissatisfied with his
conduct, recalled him, and sent Philippus or Philippicus in his stead, having
previously given him his sister Gordia in marriage. This general would have ventured
some decisive blow in 584, but his army was decimated famine, diseases, and fatigues;
he took the offensive in 585, but performed nothing particular. In 586 Philippicus
at last brought the enemy to a stand at Solacon, not far from Dara, and obtained
a decisive victory, which he owed especially to his infantry, which, until the
time of Maurice, was made little use of in the later wars in the East. The Persian
army was nearly destroyed. A strong body of their veterans, however, reached safely
a hill at some distance from the field of battle, where they entrenched themselves,
but were routed, with great slaughter, by the Roman, Stephanus. Now Philippicus
invaded Arzanene. He was in sight of another Persian army, and ready to fight
them, when some trifling circumstance caused such a panic among his troops, that
they gave way to the impulse, and fled in the utmost confusion. The Persians followed
them without loss of time, took and plundered the baggage, and pursued them as
far as Amida. Philippicus fell ill through grief, for the fruit of his great victory
at Solacon seemed to be entirely lost; and being unable to appear in the field,
he gave the command to Heraclius, Andreas and Theodore of Addea. Heraclius, who
afterwards became emperor, retrieved the fortune of the Romans, and gave such
splendid proofs of his military skill, that, Philippicus having been recalled
in 588, he was entrusted with the temporary command-in-chief till the arrival
of Priscus, whom the emperor had despatched to supersede Philippicus. The latter
was so extremely jealous of his successor, that lie employed treason in order
to avenge himself for the insult, and kindled a rebellion among the troops which
threatened to ruin the emperor's affairs in the East. They refused to acknowledge
Priscus, forced Germanus to take the supreme command, and deposed all officers
with whom they were displeased, choosing others in their stead. In this emergency
Aristobulus arrived, whom Maurice had sent into Mesopotamia, immediately upon
being informed of the mutiny; and this able man having gained some ascendancy
over the rioters, availed himself of his advantage, and together with Heraclius
led the army, who were then encamped under the walls of Martyropolis (on the Nymphius,
in Sophene) against the main body of the Persians, who approached to besiege that
great fortress. The Romans carried the day; but in the pride of victory the soldiers
once more raised the standard of rebellion. At his critical time, Gregory, bishop
of Antioch, arrived, as the emperor's plenipotentiary, and he at last succeeded
in soothing the turbulent spirit of the legions, and prevailed upon them to obey
Philippicus as their commander-in-chief. This was ex actly what this ambitious
man wished for; but as he was unable to do honour to his important funetion, when
he had obtained it in a fair way, he junction was found to be still less competent
now his mind was inflated by unfair success (589). His first act of incompetency
was the loss of Martyropolis, of which the Persians made themselves master by
a stratagem and the recapture of the fortress became next to impossible, when,
through his carelessness, a strong body of Persians was allowed to relieve the
garrison. Maurice was extremely vexed at these proceedings, and full of rancour
against all those who had promoted the mutiny; he showed no further indulgence
to his brother-in-law, but deprived him of his post, and appointed Comentiolus
in his place. By this was the very man who commanded those legions which first
mutinied in 588. This faithless and incompetent general would have made a sorry
figure but for the aid of the gallant Heraclius: at the battle of Sisarbene he
was among the first who took to flight; and the Romans seemed to be lost when
Heraclius restored order, and gained one of the most glorious victories ever obtained
over the Persians: the camp of the enemy was taken, and an immense booty sent
to Constantinople, creating the most unlimited satisfaction and joy in the court
as well as in the town. Soon afterwards Acbas was re-taken by Heraclius; and affairs
speedily took a turn in favour of tile Romans, by a commotion in Persia, which,
on account of its important consequences for the empire, deserves a short explanation.
While the Roman arms became more and more dangerous, Hormisdas concluded an alliance
with the Turks in Bactriana (Turkistan), whose khan consequently came to his apparent
relief with a host of some hundred thousand marauders on horseback. They behaved
like allies till they had quartered themselves on the frontier of Media, when
they altered their conduct, and it became manifest that they had made a secret
alliance with Maurice; and being now in the heart of Persia, were ready to fall
upon the rear of the royal armies engaged in Mesopotamia. In this extremity Persia
was saved by Baram, a general highly distinguished for his former campaigns against
the Romans, who attacked the Turks in the passes of the Hyrcanian mountain, and
gave them such a bloody lesson, that they desisted from further hostile attempts.
Baram was rewarded with ingratitude for he was deprived of his command, and insulted
in a most poignant manner. Compelled to rebel or to lose his head, he took up
arms against the king, and a general defection ensued, during which Hormisdas
was seized and blinded by Bindoes, a prince of royal blood, who had been ill-treated
by his master. Chosroes, the son of Hormisdas, now ascended the throne, with the
consent of Bindoes, and prepared for marching against Baram. The royal troops
were defeated, Chosroes fled into the Roman territory, and during the ensuing
troubles in Persia the blinded king, Hormisdas, was murdered by Bindoes, or, as
Theophylact states, beaten to death by order of his own son, Chosroes. Gibbon
rejects the latter account. When Chosroes, with a few attendants, suddenly arrived
at the gates of Circesium, the Roman commander would scarcely trust his own eyes,
and immediately requested him to remove to the more stately city of Hierapolis,
whence the king sent a touching letter to Maurice, imploring his generous aid
for the recovery of his throne. When our pride is flattered, our honour satisfied,
and our heart moved at one and the same time, human nature seldom withstands the
dictates of its better feelings ; Maurice shed tears when he read the letter,
and granted his protection to the royal fugitive. A powerful army, under the command
of Narses, was assembled on the frontier; loyal Persians flocked to the Roman
camp to serve their legitimate sovereign ; Narses and Chosroes entered Persia;
and in a decisive battle at Balarath they routed the rebel Baram, whose troops
were dispersed, while he himself fled into Turkistan, where he met with an untimely
death, either by poison or grief. Chosroes now re-ascended the throne of his ancestors
(591), and peace and friendship reigned henceforth between Persia and the empire
as long as Maurice sat on the throne. Dara and Martyropolis, the bulwarks of Mesopotamia,
and the objects of so many a bloody contest, were given to Maurice as a reward
or on condition of his assistance.
We now turn to the war with the Avars, of which our account must be
brief. The first war against the chagan or khan of these barbarians, who ruled
over an extent of country nearly equal to that which once obeyed Attila, broke
out in 587. Comentiolus, who commanded against them, being unfortunate, Mystacon
was sent to supersede him, although he could not boast of much success in Persia.
But his lieutenant Droctulf, a German, who had long served in the imperial armies,
watched over the blunders of his chief, and in a pitched battle so utterly discomfited
the Avars, that the khan refrained from any incursion during the following five
years. The next war broke out some time after the peace with Persia, and Maurice
had leisure to withdraw a great portion of from Asia, and employ them against
the Avars. He intended to put himself at their head, but it was already customary
at the court of Constantinople that the emperor should not command in the field,
and he consequently gave way to the remonstrances of the senate, and sent Priscus
in his stead, who, however, was soon superseded by the emperor's brother Peter.
The choice was a bad one, and as early as 598 Priscus resumed the supreme command.
He was less successful than was expected, though he was an excellent general,
and in 600 the army received a new commander in the person of Comentiolus, that
faithless and cowardly intriguer, whose conduct had been so very suspicious in
Asia. In appointing him, Maurice committed either a great blunder or secretly
wished to ruin him. Comentiolus had no sooner taken the field, when he suffered
a severe defeat from the chagan: 12,000 Romans remained prisoners of war with
the Avars. We shall speak hereafter of their fate, an evert intimately connected
with that of the emperor. The honour of the Roman arms was restored in five successful
battles by the gallant Priscus, but Comentiolus thwarted his plans by intrigues
and treacherous manoeuvres, and at last Priscus was again put at the head of the
army. In the autumn of 602 he intended to winter along the southern bank of the
Danube, when Maurice ordered him to take up his quarters on the northern side,
where they would have been exposed to the attacks of the Avars. Some pretend that
Maurice gave this order for the purpose of paring the magazines within the empire;
but it would seem as if he rather intended to punish those troops for previous
acts of disobedience and mutiny, by assigning them winter-quarters in an inhospitable
country. However this may be, the measure was imprudent, and proved the ruin of
the emperor.
Gibbon observes with great justness, that, while in the camp alone
the emperors ought to have exercised a despotic command, it was only in the camps
that his authority was disobeyed and insuited. The spirit of mutiny and arrogance
in the army, that hereditary cancer of Roman administration, reigned unabated
when Maurice took the reins of government, and he who met with blind obedience
when a mere magister militum, had to encounter that dangerous mutiny of his Persian
army immediately upon exchanging the baton for the sceptre. Nor was this the only
outbreak, though the others were of less magnitude. It has been told above that
12,000 Romans were made prisoners of war by the Avars. The trifling sum of 6000
pieces of gold was demanded for their ransom. Maurice, moved by avarice, as some
say, refused to pay it, and now 12,000 veterans were put to death by their captors.
The army and the nation were deeply indignant at this atrocious deed, and cursed
Maurice for his abominable conduct. However, in acting as he did, the emperor
had a powerful though secret motive: those 12,000 were the soldiers of Comentiolus,
it was they who had chiefly caused the great mutiny during the Persian war; and
in abandoning them to the fury of barbarians, he at once assuaged his resentment
and got rid of a band of dangerous mercenaries. But his conscience continually
reproached him with this barbarous act. He wrote to the most eminent divines of
his realm, to receive consolation from their censure or their indulgence; he tried
to forget his forces his pangs by redoubled activity in the cabinet. It was all
in vain: he neither recovered the peace of his soul nor the love of his subjects;
and the army bore such hatred against him, that they only seemed to wait for a
suitable pretext to break out in open rebellion. His own imprudence furnished
them with an opportunity, by ordering them, in the autumn of 602, to take up their
winter-quarters on the Avarian side of the Danube. They complained that the emperor
desired to sacrifice them, like their 12,000 brethren. They held tumultuous meetings,
which the emperor's brother Peter tried in vain to counteract; and Phocas having
been chosen by them for the command-in-chief, Peter had no alternative left but
escaping secretly, and [p. 978] carrying the news of the revolt to the emperor
in Constantinople. There the green faction assumed a threatening attitude, and
information having reached them that Phocas was marching upon Constantinople,
such a commotion arose in the capital, that Maurice thought it best to fly into
the provinces, and there to prepare for resistance. He effected his escape by
sea, together with his wife and children. A storm compelled him to land near the
church of St. Autonomus, not far from Chalcedon. Thence he despatched his eldest
son Theodosius to the court of Chosroes, to implore him to confer the same favour
upon the emperor which the emperor had once conferred upon the king. Maurice with
his family took sanctuary in the church of St. Autonomus: he was tortured by sufferings
of body and despair of mind. During this time Phocas arrived in Constantinople,
and was proclaimed emperor on the 23d of November, 602. He immediately sent executioners
in search of Maurice, who was dragged with his family from the sanctuary to the
scaffold. Five of his sons, Tiberius, Petrus, Paulus, Justin, and Justinian, had
their heads cut off while their father stood by praying, but not trembling, awaiting
the fatal stroke in his turn. He was murdered on the 27th of November, 602; his
eldest son Theodosius, who had not proceeded far on his way to Persia, was arrested,
and shared his fate soon afterwards. The empress and three of her daughters were
thrown into prison, but in 605, or perhaps 607, they were likewise put to death,
and their bodies thrown into the sea. The heads of Maurice and his sons were carried
on pikes to Phocas, who, after having enjoyed the sight for some time, gave orders
for the execution of Petrus, the brother of Maurice, Comentiolus, Constantine
Lardys, and a great number of other persons of distinction.
Among the papers of the murdered emperor was found his will, which
he had made in the fifteenth year of his reign (597), and by which he left Constantinople
and the East to Theodosius; Rome, Italy and the Islands, to his second son Tiberius.
Maurice was indeed preparing for wresting Italy from the Lombards, and might have
carried his plan into execution, but for the great wars against the Persians and
the Avars. Although greater as a general than as a king, Maurice was yet one of
the best emperors of the East. Constantly active, he knew no other pleasure than
that which arises from doing one's duty; he was firm without being obstinate,
bold yet prudent, and both severe or forbearing according to circumstances. He
was completely master of his passions and appetites, sober to the extreme, a loving
and virtuous husband and father, and full of filial piety. No sooner was he informed
of the intentions of the emperor Tiberius towards him, than he entreated his father
Paulus and his mother Joanna to come to Constantinople, and they were both present
at his marriage with the princess Constantina. They continued to live at his court,
and his father became one of his most influential ministers: the fame of Paulus
as a wise and well-disposed man spread abroad, and the views of Maurice upon Italy
being likely to lead to either an alliance or a war with the Franks in Gaul, their
king Childebert wrote a letter to Paulus on that subject, which is given in Hist.
Francor. vol. i. A natural and timely death in 593 saved Paulus from being involved
in the wholesale murder of the imperial family. Maurice is said to have loved
money too much; but he was so far from oppressing his subjects from taxes, that,
on the contrary, he lowered them considerably; on one occasion he took off one-third
of the land-tax. Arts and sciences were protected by this great emperor, who possessed
considerable learning.
Maurice wrote twelve books on the military art, which have fortunately
come down to posterity. They are entitled Strategika, and were published with
a Latin version, together with Arrian's "Tactica", by John Scheffer, Upsala, 1664.
The text contains 382 half pages, and the version as much; the editor added 157
pages of notes, and a few pages with very curious representations of the different
battle arrays spoken of in the work.
(Theophylact. Simocatta, Vita Mauricii ; Evagr. lib. v. vi.; Theoph.; Cedren.;
Zonar. vol. ii.; Menander.; Niceph. Call. xviii. 5, &c.)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Jan 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Phocas (Phokas), emperor of Constantinople from A. D. 602 to 610. The circumstances under
which this monster was raised to the throne are related at the end of the life
of the emperor Mauricius. Phocas was of base extraction, and a native of Cappadocia.
For some time he was groom to the celebrated general Priscus, and at the time
of his accession he held the humble office of a centurion. His brutal courage
had gained him a name among the common soldiers, and among those of his companions
who liked warfare as the art of butchering mankind. His coronation took place
on the 23d of November 602; his wife Leontia was likewise crowned. After he had
momentarily quenched his thirst for revenge and murder in the blood of Mauricius,
of his five sons, and of his most eminent adherents, such as Constantine Lardys,
Comentiolus and others, he bought an ignoble peace from the Avars, but was prevented
from enjoying it by a fierce attack of the Persian king Chosroes. This prince
considered the accession of a despicable murderer to the Byzantine throne as a
fair opportunity of avenging himself for the many defeats he had suffered from
Mallritius; and he was still more urged to take up arms by Narses, a faithful
adherent of the late emperor, and then commanderin-chief on the Persian frontier.
Anxious to escape the fite of so many of his friends, Narses made overtures to
Chosrocs, left the head-quarters of his army, and remained in a sort of neutral
position at Hierapolis. Thus a war broke out with Persia which lasted twenty-four
years, the first eighteen of which presented an uninterrupted series of misfortunes
to the Romans, and which was decidedly the most disastrous that was ever carried
on between the two empires. Asia Minor from the Euphrates to the very shores of
the Bosporus was laid waste by the Persians; a great number of its populous and
fllorishing cities was laid in ashes; and hundreds of thousands of its inhabitants
were carried off into slavery beyond the Tigris. But for this war Asia Minor would
have better withstood the attacks of the Arabs, who some years later achieved
what the Persians had begun. Afraid to lose his crown if he absented himself from
Constantinople, and feeling, as it seems, the inferiority of his military capacities,
Phocas remained in his capital to enjoy executions and beastly pleasures, while
the eunuch Leontiau started for the theatre of the war with a motley army composed
of the most incongruous elements, He thus encountered the Persian veterans commanded
by their king Chosroes, the greatest man of the East. At Dara the eunuch was utterly
defeated. His successor Domentiolus, the emperor's brother, was not able to stop
the progress of the enemy, and from the Black Sea to the confines of Egypt the
Persians ravaged the country. During this time Domentiolus entered into negotiations
with Narses with a view of reconciling hint with the emperor. Beguiled by the
brilliant promises of Domentiolus, Narses imprudently left his stronghold, and
finally proceeded to Constantinople. While he hoped to be placed again at the
head of the Roman armies, he was suddenly arrested, and without further inquiries
condemned to death. He was burnt alive. Thus perished the worthy namesake of the
great Narses, with whom he has often been confounded, although the one was a centenarian
when the other first tried his sword against the Persians. This Narses was so
much feared by the Persians that mothers used to frighten their children with
his name. His murder increased the unpopularity of the emperor. Germanus, the
father-in-law of the unfortunate Theodosius, the eldest son of Mauricius, who
had once had a chance of obtaining the crown, now persuaded the captive empress
Constantina to form a plot against the life of the tyrant. She consented, being
under the impression that her son Theodosius was still alive, and accompanied
by one Scholasticus, who seems to have been the scape-goat in this affair, she
left her dwelling, together with her three daughters, and followed him to the
church of St. Sophia. At her aspect the people were moved with pity. They took
up arms, and a terrible riot ensued. But for the bad will of John, the leader
of the Greens, who paid for his conduct by being burnt alive by the mob, the outbreak
would have been crowned with success. As it was, however, Phocas had the upper
hand. The riot was quelled; Scholasticus was put to death; and Germnanus was forced
to take the monastic habit : he had managed things so cleverly that no evidence
could be produced against him : else he would have paid for the plot with his
life. The empress Constantine found a protector in the person of the patriarch
Cyriacus, and her life was spared; but she was confined in a monastery with her
three daughters. The general hatred against Phocas, however, was so great that
Constantina braved the dangers of another conspiracy which broke out in 607, and
in which she interested several of the principal personages of the empire : she
still believed that her son Constantine was alive. A woman contrived this plot,
and a woman frustrated it. This was Petronea who, being in the entire confidence
of the empress, was employed by her as a messenger between the different parties,
and who sold the secret to Phocas as soon as she had gathered sufficient evidence
against its leaders. The tyrant quelled the plot by bloody, but decisive measures.
Constantina and her three daughters had their heads cut off at Chalcedon, on the
same spot where her husband and her five sons had suffered death. Among those
of her chief adherents who paid for their rashness with their lives were Georgius,
governor of Cappadocia; Romanis, advocates curiae; Theodorus praefectus Orientis;
Joannes, primus e secretariis; Athanasius, the minister of finances; David, master
of the palace, and many others besides great numbers of inferior people, who all
suffered death under the most horrible torments. The tyrant's fury, the devastations
of the Avars, the alarming success of the Persians, threw the empire into consternation
and despair. Dara, the bulwark of the empire towards the Tigris, was taken by
Chosroes in 606; Edessa, of no less importance, shared its fate; Syria was a heap
of ruins; Mesopotamia yielded to the king; whosoever was suspected of having been
a friend to Mauricius, or of being opposed to the present state of things, was
seen bleeding under the axe of the executioner. At last Phocas insulted his former
favourite Crispus, the husband of his only daughter Domentia, who had vainly endeavored
to produce a change in the conduct of the emperor. Crispus, a sensible and well-disposed
man, looked out for assistance, and fully aware of the chances which any conspiracy
ran that was carried on in the corrupted capital, he sought it at the farthest
extremity of the empire, in Mauritania. Heraclius, exarch of Africa, was the person
upon whom his choice fell. Confiding in his strength and the love of the Africans,
Heraclius entered into the plans of Crispus, and began to show his sentiments
by prohibiting the exportation of corn from the ports of Africa and Egypt, from
whence Constantinople used to draw its principal supplies. The consequence was,
as was expected, discontent in the capital. Although urged by Crispus to declare
himself openly, Heraclius wisely continued his policy during two years. Meanwhile,
the name of Phocas was execrated throughout the whole empire; and owing to a mad
order which he gave for the baptism of all the Jews in his dominions, a terrible
riot broke out in Alexandria. Shortly before this, the Persians, after having
routed Domentiolus near Edessa, inundated all Asia Minor, appeared at Chalcedon,
opposite Constantinople, and laden with booty retired at the approach of the winter
(609-610). This led to riots in Constantinople, and a bloody strife between the
Blues and the Greens. Phocas was insulted by the populace, and the means he chose
to restore quiet were only calculated to increase the troubles; for by a formal
decree he incapacitated every adherent of the green faction from holding any office,
either civil or military. Now, at the proper moment, Heraclius, the eldest son
of the exarch Heraclius, left the shores of Africa with a fleet, and his cousin
Nicetas set out at the head of an army for Constantinople, where Crispus was ready
to receive and assist them without the tyrant having the slightest presentiment
of the approaching storm. Their success is related in the life of Heraclius. On
the third of October, 610, Constantinople was in the hands of Heraclius, after
a sharp contest with the mercenaries of Phocas, who spent the ensuing night in
a fortified palace, which was defended by a strong body. The guard fled during
the night. Early in the morning the senator Photins approached it with a small
band, and finding the place unguarded, entered and seized upon Phocas, whom they
put into a boat and paraded through the fleet. He was then brought before Heraclius
on board the imperial galley. Heraclus, forgetting his dignity, felled the captive
monster to the ground, trampled upon him with his feet, and charged him with his
abominable government. "Wilt thou govern better", was the insolent answer of the
fallen tyrant. After suffering many tortures and insults, Phocas had his head
struck off. His body was dragged through the streets, and afterwards burned, together
with that of Domentiolus, who had fallen in the battle. Phocas, the most blood-thirsty
tyrant that ever disgraced the throne of Constantinople, was as ugly in body as
monstrous in mind. He was short, beardless, with red hair, shaggy eyebrows; and
a great scar disfigured his face all the more, as it became black when his passions
were roused. Heraclius was crowned immediately after the death of his rival.
(Theoph.; Cedren.; Chron. Pasch.; Zonar. vol. ii.; Simocatta, viii. c. 7, &c.)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Jan 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Heraclius, (Herakleios), a Roman emperor of the East, reigned from A. D. 610 to
641. The character of this extraordinary man is a problem ; his reign, signalised
by both splendid victories and awful defeats, is the last epoch of ancient Roman
grandeur: he crushed Persia, the hereditary enemy of Rome, and he vainly opposed
his sword to the rise and progress of another enemy, whose followers achieved
their prophet's prediction, the extermination of the Roman empire in the East.
Heraclius was the son of Heraclius the elder, exarch or governor-general
of Africa, who was renowned for his victories over the Persians, and who was descended
from another Heraclius, of Edessa, who wrested the province of Tripolitana from
the Vandals during the reign of the emperor Leo the Great. Heraclius the younger,
the subject of this notice, was born in Cappadocia, about A. D. 575. We know little
of his earlier life, but we must suppose that he showed himself worthy of his
ancestors, since in A. D. 610, his father destined hint to put an end to the insupportable
tyranny of the emperor Phocas. This prince, the assassin of the emperor Mauritius,
whose throne he had usurped, committed such unheard-of cruelties, and misgoverned
the empire in so frightful a manner, that conspiracies were formed in all the
provinces to deprive him of his ill-gotten crown. The principal conspirator was
Crispus, the son-in-law of Phocas, who urged Heraclius the elder to join him in
the undertaking. During two years the prudent exarch declined rising in open rebellion,
but lie manifested his hostile intentions by prohibiting the export of corn from
Africa and Egypt into Constantinople, thus creating discontent among the inhabitants
of the capital, who depended almost entirely upon the harvests of Africa. He then
withheld from the imperial treasury the revenue of his province, and at last promised
open assistance to Crispus, who had offered him the imperial crown. This, however,
the exarch declined, alleging his advanced age. In his stead lie sent his son
Heraclius with a fleet, and Nicetas, the son of his brother, and his lieutenant,
Gregorius or Gregoras, with an army, with which they were to proceed through Egypt,
Syria, and Asia Minor. They started from Carthage in the autumn of A. D. 610.
There is a strange story that the one who should first arrive at Constantinople
should be emperor. But a fleet requires only twelve days or a fortnight to sail
from Africa to the Bosporus, and no army can march from Carthage to Constantinople
in less than three months. When Heraclius with his fleet appeared off Constantinople,
Crispus rose in revolt; Heraclius forced the entrance of the Golden Horn; and
the emperor, abandoned by his mercenaries, hid himself in his palace. The ignominious
death, which Phocas suffered from the infuriated mob, is related in the life of
that emperor. When Phocas was conducted before Heraclius, " Is it thus, wretch,"
exclaimed the victor, " that thou misgovernest the empire ?" "
Govern it better," was the sturdy answer; and Heraclius, in a fit of vulgar
passion, knocked the royal captive down with his fist, and trampled upon him with
his feet.
Constantinople was then agitated by two factions, the blue and the
green. The green saluted Heraclius as emperor; the greater part of the population
followed their example; and whatever might have been the secret designs of Crispus,
he had no chance of prevailing upon the people while a conqueror filled their
souls with admiration and gratitude. No enmity, however, arose between Heraclius
and Crispus, who was rewarded with riches and honours, and entrusted with the
supreme command against the Persians. Nicetas, of course, arrived long after the
downfal of the tyrant; but as he could not traverse so many provinces without
preparing the people for the revolution, he received his share, likewise, in the
favours of the new emperor, with whom he continued to live in the most intimate
friendship.
The Eastern empire was then in a miserable condition. Torn to pieces
by political factions, attacked and ravaged in all quarters by barbarous and implacable
enemies, its ruin was imminent, and a great monarch only could prevent its downfal.
Heraclius was a great man, and yet he accomplished nothing. He had certainly great
defects: his love of pleasure was unbounded, but his virtues were still greater;
yet we search in vain for a single powerful exertion to extricate himself and
his subjects from their awful position. This seems strange and wholly unaccountable;
but when we call to mind his heroic exploits in a subsequent part of his reign,
we have every reason for believing that he could not act vigorously on account
of the circumstances in which he was placed, and therefore we are not justified
in condemning his inactivity.
The following was the state of the empire: the European provinces
between the Bosporus and the Danube were laid waste by the Bulgarians, Slavonians,
and especially the Avars, who, in (619, overran and plundered all the country
as far as Constantinople. Heraclius tried all the means within his power to persuade
them to retreat; and having at last found their king disposed to return to his
native wildernesses, he went into his camp, which was pitched in the neighborhood
of Constantinople, for the purpose of concluding a definite truce through a personal
interview. The barbarian having pledged his word to refrain from all hostilities,
the gates of Constantinople were left open, and a motley crowd of soldiers citizens,
and women left the town to witness the interview. No sooner had Heraclius entered
the camp of the Avars, than he was suddenly surrounded by their horsemen, who
sabred his escort, and would have made him a prisoner but for the swiftness of
his horse. He succeeded in reaching the town, but the immense crowd of spectators
were less fortunate. Many of them were unmercifully slain, others trampled down
by the horses, and such was the flight and the eagerness of the pursuit, that
the gates were closed before the last of the fugitives were in safety, as there
was. the greatest danger lest the pursuers should enter the town together with
the flying Greeks, and make themselves masters of the capital. The barbarian then
withdrew, with 250,000 prisoners, into his kingdom beyond the Danube. As the part
of Illyricum between the Haemus, the Danube, the Adriatic sea, and the frontier
of Italy was laid waste and most of its inhabitants slain or carried off, Heraclius
allotted it to the Servians and Croates, with a view of making them serve as a
barrier against the Avars, and those nations have ever since continued to live
in that part of Europe. In Italy the exarchatte was exposed to the attacks of
the Lombards and some Slavonian tribes: the latter conquered Istria, where they
still continue to dwell. In Spain and on the opposite coast of Africa, part of
the Greek dominions was conquered by the West-Gothic king, Sisibut, in 616, and
the remaining part by king Suinthila, in 624. These calamities, however, were
trifling in comparison with those inflicted upon the empire by the inroads and
conquests of the Persians. The war which broke out in A. D. 603 between the emperor
Phocas and the Persian king Chosroes or Khosrew II., was still raging, and to
the conquest of Mesopotamia and parts of Arminia, the king added, in the beginning
of the reign of Heraclius, all Syria and Palaestine. Sarlbar, the Persian general,
conquered and pillaged Jerusalem in A. D. 615, and sent the holy lance, as his
noblest trophy, to his master at Ctesiphon. In A. D. 616, Sarbar took and plundered
Alexandria, conquered Egypt, and penetrated as far as Abyssinia; the export of
corn from Egypt to Constantinople was interrupted, and famine soon began to increase
the sufferings of the capital. Having been urged by a Greek officer to abandon
Egypt as a country of which the Persians could only keep transient possession,
the proud victor pointed out a lofty column in Alexandria, and said, " I
shall leave Egypt after you have swallowed that column !" During this year,
another Persian army overran Asia Minor, laid siege to Chalcedon, opposite Constantinople,
and took it, in A. D. 616. The Greeks, however, reconquered it a few years afterwards.
Heraclius made an attempt to enter into negotiations with Chosroes, but his ambassadors
were thrown into prison, where they were afterwards put to death. It seems that
Heraclius remained unshaken in the midst of all these tempests: he kept his eye
upon Persia; he organised and increased his means, and when at last the time was
come when he thought himself able to keep the field, he took the command of his
troops in person, against the persuasion of his courtiers, and astonished the
world by a series of campaigns worthy of comparison with those of the most consummate
generals of all times. " Since the days of Scipio and Hannibal," says
Gibbon, " no bolder enterprise has been attempted than that which Heraciius
achieved for the deliverance of the empire."
Heraclius spent a whole year in disciplining a host of Greeks and
barbarians into a compact army. In 622 he embarked them on vessels lying in the
Bosporus, and made sail for Cilicia. He pitched his camp in the plain of Issus,
and occupied the Pylae Ciliciae and the other passes of the Taurus and Anti-Taurus
that lead into the plain round the corner of the gulf of Iskenderun, between Mount
Taurus and Mount Amanus. He was soon surrounded by a Persian army, but defeated
it in a decisive battle, and, in spite of repeated attacks, fought his way across
the Taurus and Anti-Taurus into the province of Pontus. There his army took up
its winter-quarters. He himself returned to Constantinople, and in the spring
of 623 sailed with another army, small but select. to Trebizond. This campaign
and those of the following years led to great results: the campaign of 624, however,
is fall of obscurities. Heraclius crossed Armenia, and soon was in sight of Gandzaca,
now Tauris, which yielded to him after a short siege, Chosroes being unable or
un willing to defend it, although he was in the neighbourhood with 40,000 veteran
soldiers. Thence the emperor marched into the Caucasian countries, destroying
some of the most famous temples of the Magi, on his way through Albania (Daghestan),
along the Caspian Sea. His motive in approaching the Caucasus was probably to
put himself into communication with Ziebel, the khan of the Khazars, with whom
he afterwards concluded a very advantageous alliance. The Khazars were masters
of the steppes north of the Caucasus as far as the Don and the Ural. Joined by
the Colchians and other Caucasian nations, he directed his attacks against the
northern part of Media, and he penetrated probably as far, and perhaps beyond,
the present Persian capital, Ispahan. He then returned to the Caucasus, but before
taking up his winter-quarters, he was attacked by the main army of the Persians
commanded by Chosroes in person, who, however, suffered a total defeat. Having
been informed that Chosroes meditated another expedition against Constantinople,
which would be commanded by Sarbar, Heraclius descended, in 625, into Mesopotamia,
and from thence went into Cilicia in order to fall upon the rear of the Persians,
if Sarbar should venture to penetrate into Asia Minor with a Greek army at his
back. In order to drive the emperor before him, Sarbar attacked him on the river
Sarus, now Sihfun. A terrible conflict took place; the Persians were routed with
great slaughter, and Heraclius gained the entire devotion of his soldiers, not
only for having led them to a decisive victory, but also for the most splendid
proofs of personal courage: on the bridge of the Sarus he slew a giant-like Persian,
whom nobody dared to meet in single combat. Sarbar hurried into Persia, and Heraclius
once more marched into Pontus. During this year Chosroes concluded an alliance
with the Avars: they had been on friendly terms with the emperor since the year
620, but they now listened to the proposals of the Persian, and in 626 they descended
into Thrace, laying siege to Constantinople, while Sarbar with a powerful army
advanced from Persia, and took up his former quarters on the Asiatic shore of
the Bosporus. Heraclius was then encamped on the lower Halys. Every body expected
lie would fly to the relief of his capital; but he did just the contrary. He despatched
his son Theodore with an army against Sais, the lieutenant of Chosroes, who invaded
Mesopotamia, and he himself, with the main body, took up a position in the Caucasus,
taking no notice of Sarbar and the Avars. His plan was admirable, and crowned
with complete success. In the Caucasus he was joined by the khan Ziebel, with
whom lie had just concluded an offensive and defensive alliance, and who now hastened
to his assistance with a powerful army of Khazars. The khan with his main army
invaded Media; Heraclius, with his Greeks and 50,000 Khazarian auxiliaries, attacked
Assyria; and Constantinople stood firmly against its assailants. As neither of
the besiegers had ships, they could not effect a junction, and thus the Avars
withdrew, after having sustained several severe defeats, and Sarbar amused himself
with besieging Chalcedon, thus running the risk of being cut off from Persia:
for in the following year, 627, Heraclius made an irresistible attack against
tile very heart of the Persian empire. He crossed the Great Zab, and encamped
on the ruins of Nineveh. Rhazates, the Persian general, took up a fortified position
[p. 405] near the junction of the Little Zab and the Tigris. There he was attacked
and routed by the emperor, in the month of December, 627, and an immense booty
remained in the hands of the victors. A few days afterwards Heraclius took Dastagerd
or Artemita, not far from Ctesiphon, which was the favourite residence of Chosroes,
and the numerous palaces of the king in the neighbourhood of that town were likewise
taken and plundered. The booty was so great as to baffle description, though we
must not believe the Arabic historians when they say that in the treasury of Dastagerd
the king used annually to deposit the greater part of the income of the empire,
which amounted to two hundred millions of pounds sterling, and that the Greek
emperor found in the treasury a thousand chests full of diamonds and other precious
stones. Chosroes fled to Seleuceia, and thence into the interior of Persia. The
only army left to him was that of Sarbar, and he sent messengers to Chalcedon
to urge his immediate return. The messengers were intercepted, but Heraclius ordered
them to be released, taking care, however, to substitute another letter for that
written by the king, in which it was said that the king was victorious on all
sides, and that Sarbar might continue the siege of Chalcedon.
The protracted absence of Sarbar in such a critical moment was certain
proof of high treason in the eyes of the Persian king, and a confident officer
was despatched into the camp of Chalcedon, bearing an order to the second in command,
directing him to kill Sarbar. The despatch fell into Sarbar's hands: he inserted
after his name those of four hundred of the principal officers, who seeing their
lives in danger, agreed with the proposition of their commander to conclude a
separate peace with the Greeks. Deprived of his only army and his best general,
Chosroes was unable to oppose resistance to a new attack of Heraclius upon the
heart of Persia. He fled to the East, abandoning the West to the victorious Greeks;
but the loyalty of his subjects ceased with his victories, and Chosroes became
the victim of a rebellion headed by his own son, Siroes, by whom he was put to
death in the month of February, A. D. 628. In the following month of March a peace
was concluded between Heraclius and Siroes, in consequence of which the ancient
limits of the two empires were restored, and the holy cross was given back to
the Christians. It was presented to the holy sepulchre by Heraclius himself in
A. D. 629. Previous to this, however, the emperor celebrated his victories by
a triumphal entrance into Constantinople : the blessings of his subjects followed
him wherever he went, and his fame spread over the world from Europe to the remotest
corners of India. Ambassadors from that country, from the Frankish king, Dagobert,
and many other eastern and western princes, came to Constantinople to congratulate
the emperor on his having overthrown the hereditary enemy of the Roman empire.
The glory acquired by Heraclius was of short duration. The provinces
reconquered from the Persians he was deprived of for ever by the Arabs. Our space
does not allow us to give more than a short sketch of the long and bloody war
that gave a new religion and a new master to the East.
On his way to Jerusalem in A. D. 629, Heraclius received at Edessa
an ambassador of Mohammed, who summoned the empeior to adopt the new religion.
In spite of this insult the emperor condescended to conclude a treaty of friendship
with the prophet. A small town, however, on the frontier of Syria was plundered
by some Arabs, and this trifling circumstance was the signal of a general war,
which Mohammed feared all the less as the Greek empire was exhausted through the
long wars with the Persians. The war was continued by Mohammed's successors, Abubekr
and Omar; and before Heraclius died, Syria, Palaestine, and Jerusalem, Mesopotamia
and Egypt, were annexed to the dominion of the Khalifs. Heraclius did not command
his armies, as he had done with so much success against Chosroes, but spent his
days in pleasures and theological controversies in his palace at Constantinople.
The motives of his inactivity are unknown to us, and we are inclined to ascribe
the misfortunes of the last ten years of his reign to bodily sufferings and debility,
the consequence of his numerous campaigns and of the many wounds which he had
received in his daring exploits, rather than to some mental derangement, or to
that sort of character which has been given him by modern historians, who represent
him as possessing a mixture of energy and laziness of such an extraordinary description
as to be hardly consistent with the organisation of the human mind. So Iong as
there is no positive evidence of the most unequivocal character, no man, and still
less a great man, ought to be declared either a madman or a fool. Heraclius died
on the 11 th of March (February), A. D. 641, and was succeeded by his eldest son,
Heraclius, called Constantine III., whom he had by his first wife, Eudoxia; lie
left another son, Heracleonas, by his second wife, Martina. A colossal statue
of Heraclius was shown at Barletto in Apulia so late as the end of the fifteenth
century. (Theophan., ed. Paris; Nicephor., ed. Paris; Cedrenus, ed. Paris; Chronicon
Alexandrinum; Zonar. vol. ii., ed. Paris; Manasses; Glycas, &c., ed. Paris.)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Nov 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Eudocia Fabia, wife of the emperor Heraclius. She was the daughter of a certain African noble, and was at Constantinople (A. D. 610) when Heraclius, to whom she was betrothed, having assumed the purple in Africa, sailed to Constantinople to dethrone the tyrant Phocas. Phocas shut her up in a monastery with the mother of Heraclius; but his fall led to their release. She was married on the day of Heraclius's coronation, and crowned with him, and, according to Zonaras, received from him the name of Fabia; but Cedrenus makes Fabia her original name, which is more likely. She had by Heraclius, according to Zonaras, three children, a daughter Epiphania, and two sons, the elder named Heraclius and the younger Constantine. She died soon after the birth of the youngest child. Cedrenus assigns to them only a daughter and one son, who was, according to him, called both Heraclius and Constantine. He places the death of Eudocia in the second year of Heraclius, A. D. 612. (Zonaras, Annales; Cedrenus, Compendium)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Dec 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Heracleonas (Herakleionas), the second son of the emperor Heraclius, reigned together with his brother, Constantine III., after the death of their father in March (February), A. D. 641, and he succeeded his brother in the month of June (May) following. Constantine III. had two sons, but their legitimate rights were disregarded by his ambitious stepmother Martina, who placed her younger son, Heracleonas, on the throne, and reigned in his name till the following month of September, when her misgovernment was put an end to by a revolt of the people, headed by Valentinus, the commander of the troops in Asia. Martina was punished with the loss of her tongue, and Heracleonas was deprived of his nose. They were both confined in a convent, and finished their days in obscurity. Heracleonas was succeeded by Constans II., the son of his brother, Constantine III.
Constantinus III., Flavius Heraclius, called Novus Constantinus, emperor of the East,A. D. 641, the son of the emperor
Heraclius by his first wife, Eudoxia, was born in May, 612, and succeeded his
father on the 11th of March (February), 641, together with his younger half-brother
Heracleonas, the succession being thus established by the testament of their father.
Constantine died as early as the 22nd of June (25th of May) A. D. 641, after a
reign of 103 days, either from ill-health, or probably from poison administered
to him by his step-mother Martina. His successor was his brother Heracleonas.
Constantine distinguished himself personally in a war against the Persians. Advised
by his rapacious treasurer, Philagrius, he sacrilegiously ordered the grave of
his father to be robbed of a golden crown of seventy pounds' weight, which stuck
so fast to the head of the dead emperor, that the corpse was mutilated in removing
the crown from it. (Theophan.; Cedren.; Zonar.; Glycas)
Constans II., Flavius Heraclius, emperor of the East, A. D. 641-668, the elder
son of the emperor Constantine III. and the empress Gregoria, was born on the
7th of November, A. D. 630, and his original name was Heraclius. After the death
of his father, who reigned but a few months, in A. D. 641, the throne was seized
by Heracleonas, the younger brother of Constantine III.; but as Heracleonas was
a tool in the hands of his ambitious mother, Martina, he incurred the hatred of
the people, and a rebellion broke out, which was headed by Valentinus Caesar.
Valentine at first compelled Heracleonas to admit his nephew Heraclius as co-regent,
and on this occasion Heraclius adopted the name of Constantine, which he afterwards
changed into that of Constans. Not satisfied with this result, Valentine proclaimed
Constans sole emperor: Heracleonas and Martina were made prisoners, and, after
being mutilated, were sent into exile. Thus Constans II. succeeded in the month
of August, A. D. 641, and on account of his youth was obliged to be satisfied
with only the name of emperor, and to abandon his authority to Valentine, who
is probably identical with one Valentinian, who rebelled in A. D. 644, but was
killed in a skirmish in the streets of Constantinople.
The reign of Constans II. is remarkable for the great losses which
the empire sustained by the attacks of the Arabs and Longobards or Lombards. Egypt,
and at last its capital, Alexandria, had been conquered by 'Amru, the general
of the khalif 'Omar, towards the close of the reign of the emperor Heraclius,
the grandfather of Constans (A. D. 610-641). Anxious to regain possession of Alexandria,
Constans fitted out an expedition against Egypt, and we are informed by the Chinese
annalists, that he sent ambassadors to the emperor of China, Taisum, to excite
him to a war against the Arabs, by whom the Chinese possessions in Turkistan were
then infested. This emperor reigned from A. D. 627 till 650, and as the Christian
religion was preached in China during his reign by Syrian monks, from which we
may conclude that an intercourse existed between China and the Greek empire, the
fact related by the Chinese annalists seems worthy of belief, especially as the
danger from the Arabs was common to both the empires. When Manuel, the commander
of the imperial forces, appeared with a powerful fleet off Alexandria, the inhabitants
took up arms against the Arabic governor 'Othman, and with their assistance Manuel
succeeded in taking the town (A. D. 646). But he maintained himself there only
a short time. 'Amru approached with a strong army; he took the town by assault,
and Manuel fled to Constantinople with the remnants of his forces. A considerable
portion of Alexandria was destroyed, and the Greeks never got possession of it
again. Encouraged by this success, the khalif 'Omar ordered his lieutenant 'Abdu-l-lah
to invade the Greek possessions in northern Africa. 'Abdu-l-lah met with great
success; he conquered and killed in battle Gregorius, the imperial governor of
Africa, and the Greeks ceded to him Tripolitana, and promised to pay an annual
tribute for the remaining part of the imperial dominions in Africa. This treaty
was concluded without the consent of Constans, and although it was dictated by
necessity, the emperor blamed and punished his officers severely, and shewed so
much resentment against his subjects in Africa, that he took revenge upon them
seventeen years afterwards, as is mentioned below.
While 'Abdu-l-lah was gaining these advantages in Africa, Mu'awiyah,
who subsequently became khalif, drove the Greeks out of Syria, and, after conquering
that country, sailed with a fleet of 1700 small craft to Cyprus, conquered the
whole island, and imposed upon the inhabitants an annual tribute of 7200 pieces
of gold. The island, however, was taken from the Arabs two years after the conquest,
by the imperial general Cacorizus. The Arabs made also considerable progress in
Cilicia and Isauria, which were ravaged by Bizr, one of their best generals. While
the finest provinces of the East thus became a prey to the khalifs, the emperor
was giving all his attention towards the protection of monothelism, to which sect
he was addicted, and the persecution of the orthodox catholic faith. Unable to
finish the religious contest by reasonable means, Constans issued an edict by
which he prohibited all discussions on religious subjects, hoping thus to establish
monothelism by oppressive measures. This edict, which is known by the name of
"Typus", created as much discontent as laughter: it was rejected by the pope and
generally by all the churches in Italy, and contributed much to ruin the emperor
in public opinion. His subjects manifested publicly their contempt for his character,
and the governors of distant provinces paid so little respect to his authority,
that they seemed to be independent princes. A revolt broke out in Armenia under
Pasagnathus, who made himself completely independent; but he afterwards returned
to obedience.
As early as 648, a truce for two years had been concluded between
the Arabs and Constans. 'Abdu-l-lah availed himself of that truce to invade and
conquer Nubia and Abyssinia; but he returned in 651, renewed hostilities, and
sent an expedition against Sicily, where the Arabs took several places, and maintained
themselves there. In the same year Mu'awiyah spread terror through both the East
and the West by the conquest of Rhodes, and it was on this occasion that the famous
colossus was sold to a Jew of Edessa.
The fall of Rhodes failed to rouse Constans from his carelessness.
He still endeavoured to compel obedience to his "Typus" in Italy, although it
had been condemned by pope Martin I. Theodorus Calliopas, the imperial exarch
in Italy, arrested Martin in his own palace in 653, and sent him from thence to
Messina, afterwards to the island of Naxos, and at last, in 654, to Constantinople.
Here, after a mock trial, he was condemned of holding treacherous correspondence
with the infidels, and was mutilated and banished to Cherson, in the Chersonnesus
Taurica, where he died in September, A. D. 655. Many other bishops of the orthodox
faith were likewise persecuted, among whom was St. Maximus, who died in exile
in the Caucasus, in 662.
In 655, the war with the Arabs became alarmingly dangerous. Mu'awiyah,
then governor of Syria, fitted out a fleet, which he entrusted to the command
of Abu-l-abar, while he himself with the land forces marched against Caesareia,
whence he intended to proceed to the Bosporus. In this imminent danger Constans
gave the command of Constantinople to his eldest son, Constantine, and sailed
himself with his own ships against the hostile fleet. The two fleets met off the
coast of Lycia, and an obstinate battle ensued, in which the Greeks were at last
completely defeated. Constantinople seemed to be lost. But the khalif 'Othman
was assassinated in 655, and Mu'awiyah, who was chosen in his stead, was obliged
to renounce the conquest of Constantinople, and to defend his own empire against
the attempts of 'Ali, and afterwards of his son Hasan, who assumed the title of
khalif, and maintained themselves at Kufa till 668. Delivered from the Arabs,
Constans made war upon the Slavonian nations south and north of the Danube with
great success.
In 661, Constans put his brother Theodosius to death. The reasons
for this crime are not well known; for, as Theodosius had taken orders, and was
consequently unfit for reigning, political jealousy could not be the cause; perhaps
there was some religious difference between the two brothers. The murder of his
brother pressed heavily upon him; he constantly dreamt about him, and often awoke,
crying out that Theodosius was standing at his bedside, holding a cup of blood,
and saying, "Drink, brother, drink !" His palace at Constantinople was insupportable
to him, and he at last resolved to quit the East and to fix his residence in Italy.
The political state of this country, however, was as strong a reason for the emperor's
presence there as the visions of a murderer.
As early as A. D. 641, Rotharis, king of the Longobards, attacked
the imperial dominions in northern Italy, and conquered the greater part of them.
One of his successors, Grimoald, had formed designs against the Greek possessions
in southern Italy, where the emperor was still master of the duchies of Rome and
Naples, with both the Calabrias. Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica belonged likewise
to the Greek empire. The emperor's authority in Italy was much shaken by the religious
and civil troubles which he had caused there by his absurd edict, the "Typus";
but, on the other hand, the dissensions among the dukes and other great chiefs
of the Longobards seemed to afford a favourable chance for the re-establishment
of the Roman empire of Italy by the Greeks, an enterprise which one hundred years
before the emperor Justinian had so gloriously achieved by his general Narses.
Under these circumstances, Constans resolved not only to imitate the example of
Justinian, but to make Rome once more the centre of the Roman empire. His resolution
caused the greatest surprise, for since the downfall of the Western empire no
emperor had resided, nor even made a momentary stay, in Italy. "But", said Constans,
"the mother (Rome) is worthier of my care than the daughter (Constantinople)";
and, having fitted out a fleet, he fixed the day of his departure, and ordered
the empress and his three sons to accompany him. He waited for them on board of
his galley, but no sooner had they left the imperial palace, than the people of
Constantinople rose in revolt and prevented them by force from joining the emperor.
Being informed of this, Constans spit against the city, cursed its inhabitants,
and ordered the sailors to weigh anchor. This took place towards the end of 662.
Constans stayed the winter at Athens, having previously appointed his eldest son,
Constantine, governor of Constantinople. Our space prevents us from giving an
account of his campaign in Italy ; it is sufficient to state, that though he met
at first with some success, his troops were afterwards defeated by the Longobards,
and he was obliged to relinquish his design of subduing them. After plundering
the churches and other public buildings of Rome of their finest ornaments and
treasures, he took up his residence at Syracuse for a time. In this city also
he gratified his love of avarice and cruelty to such an extent, that many thousands
fled from the island and settled in different parts of Syria, especially at Damascus,
where they adopted the religion of Mohammed. The emperor's absence from the seat
of government excited Mu'awiyah to make fresh inroads into the Greek provinces.
It has been already related that Constans was deeply offended on account
of the treaty having been concluded without his consent between his officers in
Africa and the Arabian general 'Abdu-l-lah. In 665, Mu'awiyah being then chiefly
occupied in the eastern part of the Khalifate, Constans resolved to revenge himself
upon his subjects in Africa, and accordingly imposed a tribute upon them which
was more than double what they had engaged to pay to the Arabs. This avaricious
and imprudent measure caused a revolt. They invited the Arabs to take possession
of their country, promising to make no resistance. Upon this Mu'awiyah entered
Africa, defeated the few troops who were faithful to Constans, and extended his
conquests as far as the frontiers of Mauretania. During the same time the Longobards
extended their conquests in Italy. Despised and hated by all his subjects, Constans
lost his life by the hand of an assassin, at least in a most mysterious manner,
perhaps by the intrigues of orthodox priests. On the 15th of July, 668, he was
found drowned in his bath at Syracuse. He left three sons, Constantine IV. Pogonatus,
his successor, Heraclius, and Tiberius. The name of his wife is not known. (Theophanes;
Cedrenus; Zonaras; Glycas; Philo Byzantinus, Libellus de, Septem Orbis Spectaculis;
Paulus Diaconus (Warnefried), De Gestis Longobardorum; Abulfeda, Vita Mohammed)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Nov 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Gregorius, a Patrician, as Theophanes calls him, of the Byzantine province of Africa at the
time of its first invasion by the Saracens. By the aid of the "Africans" Gregory
revolted from the Byzantine empire, and made himself " tyrannus", or independent
sovereign of the province. This was in A. D. 646, in the reign of Constans II.
Perhaps his insurrection suggested or encouraged the purpose of invading the province;
for the next year (A. D. 647), the Mohammedan army advanced westward from Egypt,
and Gregory was entirely defeated by them. We gather from Theophanes only the
bare facts of Gregory's revolt and defeat; but Arab or Moorish writers afford
various particulars of a very romantic and improbable character, which have been
embodied in the work of Cardonne, and copied at length by Gibbon.
(Theophan. Chronog. vol. i.; Cardonne, Histoire de de l'Afrique et de l'Espagne
sous la Domination des Arabes, vol. i.; Gibbon, c. 51)
Constantinus IV., Flavius, surnamed Pogonatus or Barbatus, emperor of the East, A. D. 668-685, the eldest
son of Constans II., succeeded his father in 668. Constans having lost his life
by assassination at Syracuse, his murderers, who seemed to have had great power,
and who were assisted by the Greek army stationed in Sicily, chose as emperor
one Mizizus, Mecentius, or Mezzetius, an Armenian. Constantine fitted out an expedition
against the usurper, quelled the rebellion in 669, and put Mizizus to death. After
a short stay at Syracuse, Constantine sailed back to Constantinople, carrying
with him the body of his father; but no sooner [p. 838] was he gone, than an Arabic
fleet, perhaps invited thither by the rebels, appeared off Syracuse. The place
was taken by surprise and partly destroyed, and the riches and statues, the plunder
of Rome, collected there by Constans, were carried by the Arabs to Alexandria.
The Greek troops in Asia revolted soon after the return of the emperor. They would
be governed by a "Trinity", and not by a sole sovereign, and demanded that Constantine
should divide his authority with his two brothers, Heraclius and Tiberius, who
had the title but not the power of Augusti. This rebellion was likewise soon quelled,
and Constantine pardoned both his brothers. At the same time, an Arabic army commanded
by Ukbah and Dinar invaded the remaining part of the Greek dominions in Africa
(Mauretania), penetrated as far as the shores of the Atlantic, and ravaged the
country so fearfully, that both the Greek and Berber inhabitants rose in despair,
and, under the command of a native chief named Kussileh, surprised the Moslems,
and killed nearly all of them. This however was no advantage to the emperor, since
Kussileh succeeded in seizing the supreme power in that country.
In 671 the Arabs equipped a powerful fleet with the intention of laying
siege to Constantinople. They conquered Smyrna and nearly all the islands of the
Grecian archipelago, and began the blockade of Constantinople in the spring of
672; but, after a protracted siege of five months,were compelled to sail back,
after sustaining immense losses from the Greek fire, which had just been invented
by Callinicus, a native of Heliopolis in Syria, and was first employed in that
siege. Yezid, the son of the khalif Mu'awiyah, who commanded the Arabic forces,
returned in the following spring, and, during a period of seven years, regularly
appeared before Constantinople in the spring, and sailed to his winter-quarters
in the autumn, but was not able to take the city. During the last siege, in 679,
the Arabic fleet lost so many ships by the Greek fire, that Yezid was compelled
to make a hasty retreat, and not having a sufficient number of ships for his numerous
forces, despatched a body of 30,000 men by land for Syria, while he embarked the
rest on board his fleet. But his fleet was destroyed by a storm, and the land
army was overtaken and cut to pieces by a Greek army commanded by Florus, Petronas,
and Cyprianus. This unfortunate campaign, and the war at the same time with the
Maronites or Druses of Mount Lebanon, pressed so heavily upon the khalif Mu'awiyah,
that, wishing for peace, he signed the conditions offered him by Constantine,
and he thus became liable, for the period of thirty years, to an annual tribute
of 3000 pounds of gold accompanied by rich presents of slaves and horses. By this
glorious peace the authority of the Greek emperor rose to such a height, that
all the minor powers of Asia sought his protection. But his name was less dreaded
in Europe, for he was compelled by the Bulgarians to cede to them that country
south of the Danube which is still called Bulgaria.
In 680 Constantine assembled the sixth general council at Constantinople,
by which the Monothelists were condemned and peace was restored to the church.
In 681 the emperor's brothers, Heraclius and Tiberius, were both deprived of their
dignity of Augustus, which title Constantine conferred upon his son Justinian.
We know almost nothing of the last five years of the reign of Constantine: he
died in the month of September, 685, and was succeeded by his son, Justinian II.
Besides the wars which signalized the reign of Constantine IV., there
is an event not less remarkable, which most probably took place during the same
period. We allude to the new division of the empire, which had hitherto been administered
according to the ancient system, so that, for instance, all the Asiatic dominions
were ruled by a civil governor or proconsul, and the whole army stationed in that
part of the empire had likewise but one chief commander, the praefect of Asia.
The constant incursions of the Arabs required the presence of different moveable
corps stationed in the frontier provinces, the commanders of which were independent
of one another : these bodies were called themata (themata), from thema (pema),
a position. This name was afterwards given to the districts in which such corps
were stationed, and its use became so general, that at last the whole empire was
divided into twenty-nine themata, seventeen of which were in the eastern and southern
or Asiatic part of the empire, and twelve in the northern and western parts, from
the Cimmerian Bosporus to Sicily. This important change in the administration
of the empire took place in the latter years of the reign of Heraclius, or in
the reign of Constantine IV., that is, from about 635 to 685. But although we
do not precisely know the year, there are many reasons for believing that Constantine
IV. was the originator of that plan. (Cedren.; Zonar.; Glycas; Theophan.; Paulus
Diacon. De Gestis Longobard.)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Nov 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Justinian II., surnamed Rhinotmetus (he whose nose is cut off), emperor of the East (A. D. 685-695
and 704-711), succeeded his father Constantine IV. Pogonatus, in the month of
September, A. D. 685, at the age of sixteen. Soon after his accession he made
a truce of ten years with the khalif 'Abdu-l-malek, which is very remarkable in
the history of the Eastern empire. The civil wars by which the empire of the Arabs
was shaken compelling the khalif to cease making war without his realm, in order
to obtain peace within, he bound himself to pay a daily "tribute of 1000 pieces
of gold, one slave, and one horse of noble breed". The emperor in his turn ceded
to the khalif one moiety of the income of Armenia, Iberia (in the Caucasus), and
Cyprus, which were henceforth held in joint occupancy by the two monarchs, and
he promised to employ his forces and authority in compelling the Mardaites or
Maronites, in Mount Lebanon, to refrain from molesting the Arabs. This promise
was a great political blunder, the consequences of which are still felt by the
inhabitants of the Lebanon and Syria. Leontius, one of the most distinguished
generals of the Greeks, and afterwards emperor, having been charged with executing
the treaty in the case of the Maronites, assassinated their chief Joannes, compelled
the people to take the oath of allegiance, and persuaded 10,000 Maronites to leave
their native mountains with their wives and children, and to settle in Thrace
and Armenia. Until then the Christian Maronites had been a barrier against the
progress of the Arabs in these quarters, and no sooner were they thus dispersed
than the Mohammedans obtained a firm footing in the Taurus and Anti-Taurus, and
found themselves enabled to invade Asia Minor at their leisure. It is true the
Maronites never lost their independence entirely, but other tribes, hostile to
them, settled in Lebanon; and they continued to be what they still are, an outpost
surrounded by the enemies of Christianity, scarcely able to maintain themselves
on their native rocks, and unable to make a step beyond them.
It was expected that the energy which young Justinian had shown on
many occasions would lead him to perform great and good actions; but his bad character
soon became manifest, and caused a universal and deep disappointment throughout
his dominions. Instead of establishing peace in the church, he caused new dissensions
through his intolerance : the Manichaeans were cruelly persecuted ; many thousands
were put to death by the sword or by fire; and the remainder were driven into
merciless exile. In 688 he broke the peace with the Bulgarians, and obtained a
splendid victory over them; but having allowed himself to be surprised by another
army, he was totally routed, lost half of his troops, and fled in confusion to
Constantinople. About the same time the Arabs set out for their fourth invasion
of Africa. Justinian exerted himself with great activity in opposing their designs;
a numerous fleet carrying a strong body of troops, left Constantinople, and, being
reinforced by the garrisons of Sicily, compelled the Arabs to retreat in haste
to their native country. Instead of availing himself of his success, Justinian
foolishly gave up his joint occupancy of Cyprus, which was forthwith seized by
the Arabs, who, encouraged by the strange conduct of the emperor, invaded Asia
Minor and Mesopotamia in 692, and in the following year conquered all Armenia.
Justinian consoled himself with pleasures, and found relief in torturing his subjects.
His luxury, especially his love of erecting magnificent buildings, in which he
rivalled his great namesake Justinian I., involved him in extraordinary expenses,
and the art of inventing new taxes soon became his favourite occupation. He was
ably assisted by two monsters whose names are branded in the history of civilisation.
Stephanus, the minister of finances, so pleased his master by his skill in plundering,
that he continued to enjoy his favours, although he threatened the emperor's mother,
Anastasia, with the punishment inflicted upon naughty children; and the monk Theodatus,
who rose to the dignity of Logotheta, was unsurpassed in the art of realising
the rapacious measures of his colleague. Those who could not pay the taxes were
driven out of their homes, tortured, or hanged by hundreds; and those who refused
paying them were stifled with the smoke of damp burning straw, till they gave
up either their property or their lives. The people of Constantinople, exasperated
by rapacity and cruelty, showed symptoms of rebellion, and, in a moment of fury,
Justinian ordered his guards to rush into the streets and to massacre all whom
they might find abroad. The order became known before it was executed, and a general
rebellion ensued, to which chance gave an able and successful leader. Leontius,
the commander against the Maronites, having become suspected by Justinian, soon
after his return from that campaign was arrested and confined in a prison, where
he remained about three years, till the emperor, who neither dared to put him
to death, nor liked to have him alive in his capital, suddenly restored him to
liberty, and gave him the government of Greece, with an order to set out immediately.
As he was in the act of stepping on board a galley in the Golden Horn, he was
stopped by an exasperated and trembling crowd, who implored him to save them from
the fury of Justinian. Without hesitation he put himself at the head of the people.
To St. Sophia! they shouted. Thousands of well-armed men soon surrounded the cathedral,
and in a few hours the revolution was achieved, and Leontius was seated on the
imperial throne. Justinian, a prisoner loaded with chains, was dragged before
him; the mob demanded his head; but Leontius remembering the kindness of the father
of Justinian, saved the life of his rival, and banished him to Cherson in the
present Crimea. Previous to his departure, however, Justinian had his nose cut
off: hence his name Rhinotmetos. (A. D. 695)
After a reign of three years Leontius was dethroned and confined in
a prison, in 698, by Tiberius Absimarus, who reigned till 704, when the exiled
Justinian regained possession of his throne under the following circumstances:
In his exile Justinian thought of nothing but revenge, and his misfortunes, far
from smoothing his violent temper, increased the fury of his passions. He ill
treated the inhabitants of Cherson, where he seems to have exercised some power,
or enjoyed at least too much liberty, so unmercifully that they formed a plan
to put him to death. He escaped their just resentment by a sudden flight to Busirus,
the khan of the Khazars, who received him well, gave him his sister Theodora in
marriage, and assigned him the town of Phanagoria, in the present island of Taman-
on the Cimmerian Bosporus, as a residence. When Tiberius became informed of this,
he bribed Busirus, who sent out messengers with an order to kill the imperial
refugee. But Theodora discovered their designs, and having communicated them to
her husband, he killed two of the messengers, sent his faithful wife back to her
brother, and escaped to Terbelis, the king of the Bulgarians. Terbelis was soon
persuaded to undertake one of those sudden inroads for which the Bulgarians were
so much dreaded in those times, and before Tiberius knew that his rival had fled
from Phanagoria, he saw him with fifteen thousand Bulgarian horse under the walls
of Constantinople. Some adherents of Justinian led the barbarians secretly into
the city, and flight was now the only safety for Tiberius. Overtaken at Apollonia,
he was carried back to Constantinople, and together with his brother Heraclius,
and the deposed and still captive emperor Leontius, dragged before Justinian,
who was just amusing himself in the Hippodrome. While they lay prostrate before
him the tyrant placed his feet on the necks of his two rivals, and continued to
look at the performances and to listen to the savage demonstration of joy of the
people, who were shouting the verses of the psalmist: "Thou shalt tread upon the
lion and adder; the young lion and the dragon shalt thou trample under thy feet."
Having at last satisfied his revenge he ordered them to be put to death. A system
of persecution was now carried on against the adherents of Leontius and Tiberius,
of which few examples are found in Byzantine history: the capital and the provinces
swarmed with informers and executioners, who committed unheard of cruelties, while
the confiscated property of the unhappy victims was employed in satisfying the
demands of Terbelis. As early as 708 the friendship between the khan and the emperor
was at an end. Terbelis treated and was justified in treating Justinian as a madman.
War was declared, and Justinian having suffered a total defeat at Anchialus, returned
to Constantinople to commit fresh cruelties. About this time the Arabs took Tyana
and made great progress in Asia Minor, and the inhabitants of Ravenna having shown
their discontent with the rapacity of the exarch, an expedition was sent against
them, and after the town had been taken, it was treated worse than if it had belonged
to the Persians or Bulgarians: the rich spoil of that ruined city was carried
to Constantinople. In 710 Pope Constantine was summoned to appear at Nicomedeia
before the emperor, who had some ecclesiastical reform in view, and he went thithertrembling,
but against his expectation was treated with great honours, and returned in the
following year. From Nicomedeia, where he had resided for some time, Justinian
was compelled to fly suddenly to his capital, as a body of Arabs had penetrated
as far as Chalcedon. Unable to obtain any advantage over them, Justinian resolved
to cool his fury in the blood of the Chersonites, and the savage Stephanus was
sent against them with a fleet and the order to destroy the whole population.
They found, however, time to fly into the country, and Stephanus returned in anger,
after having hanged, drowned, or roasted alive, only a few hundreds where he hoped
to massacre thousands. Neither he nor his fleet reached the capital: a storm destroyed
the ships, and the Euxine swallowed up the crew. He had no sooner left Cherson
than the inhabitants returned to their city, a general insurrection arose, and
Bardanes was proclaimed emperor, and assumed the purple under the name of Philippicus
(Philepicus). Infuriated at the loss of his fleet, and the escape of the Chersonites,
Justinian fitted out a second expedition, under the command of Maurus, who, however,
found Cherson well fortified and still better defended. Trembling to appear before
their master without having executed his bloody orders, Maurus with his whole
army joined Philippicus, who, with them and his own forces, forthwith sailed for
Constantinople. Meanwhile, Justinian was gone to Sinope, on the Euxine, opposite
the Crimea, in order to be as near as possible to the theatre of the war, and
he was delighted when he discovered his fleet on the main in the direction of
the Bosporus. He was soon informed of the rebellion, and hastened to his capital,
in order to prepare a vigorous defence, but on his way thither he received the
terrible news that Constantinople had surrendered to Philippicus, and that his
son, the youthful Tiberius, had been assassinated on the altar of the Church of
the Holy Virgin. He hastened back to Sinope, but while he was hesitating what
to do, he was overtaken by Elias, once his friend, but whom he had cruelly persecuted,
and who put him to death (December, 711). Elias struck off the tyrant's head and
sent it to Constantinople, where it arrived in January, 712. Philippicus now reigned
without opposition. Justinian was the last emperor of the family of the great
Heraclius; and he was the first who caused the image of Christ to be put on his
coins.
(Theophan.; Niceph. Call.; Cedren.; Zonaras, vol. ii.; Glycas; Const. Manasses;
Const. Porphyr. De Adm. Imp. c. 22, 27; Suidas, s. v. Ioustinianos; Paulus Diacon.
De Gest. Longob. vi. 11, 12, 31, 32)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Jan 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Leontius II. (Leontios), emperor of Constantinople (A. D. 695-698), deposed and succeeded the
emperor Justinian II. towards the end of A. D. 695. He appears first in history
as commander of the imperial troops against the Maronites, in which capacity he
gave cause for suspicion, and accordingly after his return to Constantinople,
he was put into prison. His popularity, however, was so great, that the emperor
did not dare to give him a fair trial, but kept him in confinement during three
years, when, at last, he released him on condition of his leaving the capital,
and taking the supreme civil and military command in Greece. Leontius was on the
point of sailing from the Golden Horn, when the people, exasperated by the tyranny
of Justinian, rose in rebellion, in consequence of which Justinian was deposed,
and Leontius raised to the imperial dignity. The particulars of this revolution
are given in the life of Justinian II. In the first year of the reign of Leontius
the empire enjoyed universal peace, as Theophanus says, except, however, at Ravenna,
where a frivolous riot caused much destruction and bloodshed. In the second year
of his reign (697) an event occurred which is of the greatest importance in the
history of Italy, as well as of all Europe and the East. Until that year Venice
had belonged to the Byzantine empire, forming part of the government of Istria;
but its advantageous position, and the independent and enterprising spirit of
its inhabitants, had raised it to such importance and wealth, that its ruin was
certain, if it remained any longer exposed to the consequences of the numerous
court-revolutions at Constantinople. The Venetians, accordingly, resolved upon
forming an independent government, and in 697 chose Paulus Lucas Anafestus, commonly
called Paoluccio, their first sovereign duke or doge. It seems, however, that
this change took place with the connivance of the Byzantine government, for during
many years afterwards friendly relations were kept up between Venice and Constantinople.
In the same year, 697, the Arabs set out for their fifth invasion of Africa; and,
after having defeated the Greeks in many engagements, their commander, Hasan,
took Carthage. He lost it again, but retook it in the following year, 698. In
order to expel the Arabs from the capital of Africa, Leontius sent reinforcements
to the Patrician Joannes, the commander-in-chief in Africa, who succeeded in forcing
the entrance of the harbour, but was beaten back again, and compelled to a shameful
flight. Carthage now was destroyed by the Arabs, and has since disappeared from
among the cities of the world. Joannes sailed for Constantinople in order to obtain
a re-inforcement, and try another chance. His land and sea forces were both equally
mortified at the disgraceful result of the expedition; and Absimarus, one of their
leaders, persuaded them that they would suffer for a defeat of which the commander-in-chief
was the only cause. His words took effect; a mutiny broke out when the fleet was
off Crete; Joannes was put to death by the exasperated soldiers; and Absimarus
was proclaimed emperor. The surprise of Leontius was extreme when he saw his fleet
return to the harbour of Constantinople, and, instead of saluting him, raise the
standard of rebellion. Absimarus having bribed the guards on the water side, entered
the city without resistance, and seized upon the person of Leontius, who was treated
by the usurper as he had treated his predecessor Justinian Rhino tmetus, for the
captive emperor had his nose and ears cut off, and was confined in a convent,
where he finished his days. The deposition of Leontius and the accession of Absimarus,
who adopted the name of Tiberius, took place in 698.
(Theoph.; Cedren.; Niceph. ; Const. Manasses; Zonar. vol. ii; Glycas; Paul. Diacon.
vi. 10-14)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Jan 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Tiberius Absimarus, who held the command of the Cibyratae in the fleet of Leontius II., was proclaimed emperor by the mutinous soldiers and sailors, and, returning to Constantinople, he usurped the throne and put Leontius in prison, A. D. 698. The usurper added to his name Absimarus, the respected name of Tiberius. His brother Heraclius, whom he appointed to conduct the war against the Arabs, invaded Syria (A. D. 699--700), and treated the inhabitants with the most inhuman cruelty. The events of this usurper's reign are unimportant. The strangeness of his rise was only equalled by the suddenness of his fall, and by the restoration to the imperial throne of Justinian II. (A. D. 704), who had been expelled by Leontius, as Leontius was expelled by Tiberius.
Philippicus, or more correctly Philepicus (Philippikos or Philepikos), emperor of Constantinople
from December, A. D. 711, to the fourth of June, 713. The account of his accession
to the throne is related in the life of the emperor Justinian II. Rhinotmetus.
His original name was Bardanes; he was the son of Nicephorus Patricius ; and he
had distinguished himself as a general during the reigns of Justinian and his
predecessors; he was sent into exile by Tiberius Absimarus, on the charge of aspiring
to the crown. After having been proclaimed by the inhabitants of Cherson and by
the army, with which he was commanded to exterminate those people by the emperor
Justinian II., he assumed the name of Philippicus, or, as extant coins of him
have it, Filepicus; Theophanes, however, calls him Philippicus previous to his
accession. After the assassination of the tyrant Justinian, Philippicus ruled
without opposition, though not without creating much dissatisfaction through his
dissolute course of life, and his unwise policy in religious matters. Belonging
to the sect of the Monothelists, he deposed the orthodox patriarch Cyrus, and
put the heretic John in his stead. The whole East soon embraced, or at least tended
towards, Monothelisml; the emperor brought about the abolition of the canons of
the sixth council; and the names of the patriarchs, Sergius and Honorius, who
had been anathematized by that council, were, on his order, inserted in the sacred
diptychs. Philippicus had scarcely arrived in his capital when Terbilis, king
of Bulgaria, made his sudden appearance under its walls, burned the suburbs, and
retired with many captives and an immense booty.
During this time the Arabs took and burnt Amasia (712), and in the
following year (713) Antioch in Pisidia fell into their hands. The emperor did
nothing to prevent these or further disasters ; a plot, headed by the patricians
Georgius, surnamed Boraphus, and Theodore Myacius, was entered into to deprive
him of his throne; and the fatal day arrived without Philippicus being in the
least prepared for it. On the 3rd of June, 713, he celebrated the anniversary
of his death; splendid entertainments were given in the hippodrome, the emperor
with a brilliant cavalcade paraded through the streets of Constantinople, and
when the evening approached, the prince sat down with his courtiers to a sumptuous
banquet. According to his habit, Philippicus took such copious libations that
his attendants were obliged to put him to bed in a senseless state. On a given
signal, one of the conspirators, Rufus, entered the bed-room, and, with the assistance
of his friends, carried the drunken prince off to a lonely place, where he was
deprived of his eyesight. A general tumult ensued, and the people, disregarding
the pretensions of the conspirators, proclaimed one of their own favourites, Anastasius
II. Philippicus ended his life in obscurity, but we have no particulars referring
to the time of his death.
(Theophan.; Niceph. Const.; Zonar. vol. ii.; Cedrenus; Paul. Discon. de Gest.
Longob. vi. 31-33; Suid. s.v. Philippikos)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Jan 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Anastasius II.,emperor of Constantinople. The original name of this emperor was Artemius, and he was one of the ministers (Protoasecretis) of the emperor Philippicus, who had his eyes put out by the traitor Rufus, in the month of June A. D. 713. Artemius, universally esteemed for his character and his qualities, was chosen in his stead, and, although his reign was short and disturbed by troubles, he gave sufficient proofs of being worthy to reign. After having punished Rufus and his accomplices, he appointed the Isaurian Leo, who became afterwards emperor, his general in chief against the Lazes and other Caucasian nations, and himself made vigorous preparations against the Arabs, by whom the southern provinces of the empire were then continually harassed. He formed the bold plan of burning the naval stores of the enemy on the coast of Syria, stores necessary for the construction of a large fleet, with which the Arabs intended to lay siege to Constantinople. The commander of the Byzantine fleet was John, who combined the three dignities of grand treasurer of the empire, admiral, and dean of St. Sophia, and who left Constantinople in 715. But the expedition failed, and a mutiny broke out on board the ships, in consequence of which John was massacred, and Theodosius, once a receiver of the taxes, proclaimed emperor. It is probable that the rebel had many adherents in the Asiatic provinces; for while he sailed with his fleet to Constantinople, Anastasius, after having left a strong garrison for the defence of his capital, went to Nicaea for the purpose of preventing all danger from that side. After an obstinate resistance during six months, Constantinople was taken by surprise in the month of January 716, and Anastasius, besieged in Nicaea, surrendered on condition of having his life preserved. This was granted to him by the victorious rebel, who ascended the throne under the name of Theodosius III. Anastasius retired to a convent at Thessalonica. In the third year of the reign of Leo III. Isaurus (721), Anastasius conspired against this emperor at the instigation of Nicetas Xylonites. They hoped to be supported by Terbelis or Terbelius, king of Bulgaria; but their enterprise proved abortive, and the two conspirators were put to death by order of Leo.
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Theodosius III., was compelled, perhaps, against his will, to be proclaimed emperor of the East in A. D. 716, by the fleet, which also declared that Anastasius, his predecessor, was unfit to reign. Theodosius filled the unimportant office of a collector of the revenue when he was taken to Constantinople to be crowned Emperor of the East. In January 716, he was proclaimed emperor, and in the following year he prudently abdicated, and left the throne for Leo the Isaurian, who commanded the troops in the East. Theodosius spent the rest of his life in the tranquil retirement of a monastery.
Leo III., Flavius, surnamed Isaurus, or the Isaurian, emperor of Constantinople (A. D. 718-741),
and one of the most remarkable of the emperors of the East, was a native of Isauria,
and the son of a respectable farmer, who settled in Thrace, taking his son with
him. Young Conon, which was Leo's original name, obtained the place of a spatharius
in the army of the emperor Justinian II. Rhinotmetus, and soon rose to eminence
through his military talents. Anastasius II., who reigned from A. D. 713-716,
gave him the supreme command in Asia, which he was still holding when Theodosius
III. deposed that emperor, and seized the crown in January, 716. Summoned to acknowledge
Theodosius, the gallant general called him an usurper, and immediately took up
arms against him, alleging that he would restore the deposed Anastasius to the
throne, but really intending [p. 736] to make himself master of the empire. Artabazes,
the commander of the Armenian legions, supported Leo, who had besides many friends
in the army. Leo was then holding the field against the Arabs, who had laid siege
to Armorium in Galatia. After outwitting Muslima, the general of the Arabs, he
set out for Cappadocia, where he found the inhabitants willing to submit to him,
but was closely followed by Muslima. Leo would ere long have been pressed by two
enemies, had he not anticipated the attack of theweakerof them, the emperor Theodosius.
He accordingly left Cappadocia, and his rapid marches afforded him at once the
double advantage of leaving the Arabs far behind him, while he daily came nearer
to the imperial troops, who were far from being strong enough to resist him in
the field. At Nicomedeia he was stopped by a son of Theodosius, who was defeated
and taken prisoner. Leo now marched upon Constantinople; and Theodosius, despairing
of success, resigned his crown (March 718), and retired to a convent at Ephesus,
where he lived peacefully during more than thirty years. Scarcely had Leo received
the homage of the people, when the khalif Soliman appeared before Constantinople
with a powerful army and a numerous fleet. He considered the trick played by Leo
upon Muslima at Armorium as a personal insult, and now came to take revenge. This
siege of Constantinople, the third by the Arabs, and one of the most memorable
of all, lasted just two years, from the 15th of August, 718, to the 15th of the
same month in 720. Soliman died soon after its commencement, and was succeeded
by the khalif Omar, who swore by his beard that he would take revenge upon Leo.
But Leo sallied out from the Golden Horn with his galleys, the Greek fire consumed
the Arabian ships, and the emperor returned laden with booty and captives. In
two other naval engagements the Arabs were beaten with still greater losses; and
in the beginning of August, 720, their land forces were routed in a pitched battle,
with a loss of 28,000 men. Unable to continue the siege any longer, the khalif
raised it on the 15th of August, but only a small portion of his fleet -the third
he had built for the conquest of Constantinople- reached the harbours of Syria,
the greater portion having been destroyed by a storm. So close was the siege,
so enormous the preparations of the Arabs, that even the splendid victories of
Leo could not prevent the inhabitants of the provinces from thinking Constantinople
was lost, since the very news of those victories could not reach them on account
of the watchfulness of the besiegers. The whole empire was in consternation, and
in the western kingdoms rumours were afloat that the khalif had ascended the throne
of the Byzantine emperors. Among those who believed these rumours was Sergius,
governor of Sicily, who took measures to make himself independent, and to that
effect proclaimed his lieutenant, Basil, king of Sicily and Calabria. Basil accepted
the dignity, and adopted the name of Tiberius; while Sergius took proper steps
to secure the crown for himself in case of complete success. Meanwhile, however,
Leo had bettered his condition so much that he could despatch his general. Paulus,
with a few loyal veterans, to Sicily; and through the exertions of this energetic
man, the rebellion was soon quelled. Basil was taken prisoner and lost his head;
but Sergius escaped to the Lombards in Italy He was subsequently pardoned, and
finally succeeded in obtaining again the same government in Italy, which he intended
to wrest from the emperor. Another conspiracy that took place in consequence of
the critical position of Leo, was that of the deposed emperor, Anastasius II.
The plot was not discovered till 721, after the termination of the siege of Constantinople,
and Anastasius paid for his temerity with his head.
In spite of his defeats before Constantinople, the khalif Omar continued
the war, and in 726 took Caesareia in Cappadocia, and Neo-Caesareia in Pontus.
Leo, however, had not only sufficient forces to make the Arabs feel that he was
still more powerful than they, but his authority was so well established, that
he undertook to carry out his favourite design, the abolition of the worship of
images in the Catholic church. To this effect he issued a general edict, which
is one of the most important acts of legislation in the Eastern empire, and perhaps
in the whole Christian world. The question of the images was not only a matter
of religion, but concerned as much the political state of the empire. The abuse
of the images on one side, and the horror in which they were held by the numerous
Mohammedans and Jews in the East on the other, gave origin at last to the iconoclasts,
or image-breakers. In declaring for them, Leo certainly intended to purify the
Catholic creed; but there seems to be no doubt that by removing the images from
the churches, he hoped to make the Jews and Mohammedans more favourably inclined
to the Christians and a Christian government; and although the adherents of images
were very numerous, it cannot be doubted that they would have lost all power if
Leo had succeeded in rallying the Iconoclasts, the Jews, the Mohammedans, and
the numerous worshippers of fire in Asia, round the throne of an energetic and
enlightened emperor. Indeed it seems that the protectors of the Iconoclasts in
those earlier times entertained some hope of making them the medium through which
the unbelievers would be led to Christ, and the Eastern empire restored to its
ancient splendour; and this explains at once the religious and the political importance
of the question. In the West the question of the images produced scarcely any
effect upon the people, though more upon the Frankish clergy, and still more upon
the conduct of the bishops of Rome, who, by declaring in favour of the Iconoclasts,
would have been abandoned by the last of their followers. In short, the question
of the images, like so many others connected with the domestic history of tile
Byzantine empire, was at once religious and political; and while, among the modern
writers, Le Beau is but too often influenced by religious opinions, and Gibbon
treats the history of that empire too much as a philosopher and an orator, we
are entitled to hope that time will bring us another historian who, starting from
a mere historical and political point of view, will satisfactorily explain the
overwhelming influence of religious controversies upon the social development
of the Eastern empire.
The edict of Leo through which the images were condemned caused a
general revolution throughout the whole empire, and was the immediate cause of
the loss of Ravenna, Rome, and several other possessions of the Greeks in Italy,
which were taken by the Lombards, and of the final separation of the Latin from
the Greek church. Germanus, patriarch of Constantinople, Joannes Damascenus, and
the violent Joannes Chrysorrhoas, in the East, and pope Gregory II. in the West,
were the principal leaders of those who opposed that edict, either by words, writings,
or deeds. The pope became so troublesome, that Paulus, exarch of Ravenna, was
ordered to make an expedition against Rome. But the ardour of the Romans, who
were assisted by the Lombards of Spoleto and Tuscia, and the failure of a plot
to assassinate the pope, compelled Paulus to return to Ravenna, where he had trouble
enough to maintain his authorityover the inhabitants who worshipped images. In
the East a rebellion broke out in the Peloponnesus and the Cyclades, and the inhabitants
besieged Constantinople by sea, but Leo compelled them to sail back and to submit
to his government. A revolt in Constantinople was not so easily quelled, till,
after much bloodshed, Leo felt himself strong enough to depose and banish the
patriarch Germanus, and to appoint the iconoclast Anastasius in his place (730).
The majority of the professors in the numerous schools and academies of Constantinople
declared for the images, which enraged Leo so much, that it is said he gave orders
to burn the library of St. Sophia, hoping thereby to prevent the doctors from
strengthening their opinions by historical arguments. But this is decidedly an
idle story, invented by some ignorant monk, and repeated by fanatics: the library,
which contained 36,000 volumes, became probably the prey of some conflagration.
Upon this Gregory III., the successor of Gregory II., assembled in 731 a council
at Rome, by which the Iconoclasts were condemned; and now the opposition against
the emperor became so great as to induce him to send a powerful expedition against
Italy, with a special command to reduce Ravenna (734). The expedition failed,
and Ravenna and the exarchate fell into the hands of the Lombards, who, after
having lost it and gained it again, kept it till 756, when king Aistulph was compelled
by Pipin of France to cede it to pope Stephen II., and ever since that province
has continued to belong to the papal states. This check in Italy induced Leo to
detach Greece, Illyria, and Macedonia from the spiritual authority of the popes,
and to submit them to that of the patriarchs of Constantinople; and this is the
real, effective cause of the fatal division of the Latin and Greek churches (734).
During the seven following years the history of Leo offers little
more than the horrible details of a protracted war with the Arabs. The khalif
Hesham endeavoured to produce an effect upon the minds of the Syrians by supporting
an adventurer, who pretended to be Tiberius, the son of Justinianus II., and who
was sent by the khalif to Jerusalem, where he made his entrance, in the dress
of a Roman emperor. But this was a mere farce. Things were more serious when,
in 739, the Arab general Soliman invaded the Roman territories with an army of
90,000 men, who were divided into three separate bodies. The first entered Cappadocia,
and ravaged it with fire and sword; the second, commanded by Malek and Batak,
penetrated into Phrygia; and the third, under Soliman, covered the rear. Leo,
though surprised, had assembled sufficient forces, and his general Acroninus defeated
the second body in Phrygia in a pitched battle, in which Malek and Batak were
both killed. Soliman withdrew in haste into Syria. In October, 740, an awful earthquake
caused great calamities throughout the empire. In Constantinople many of the principal
buildings were levelled to the ground; the statues of Constantine the Great, Theodosius
the Great, and Arcadius, were thrown from their pedestals; and the wall along
the Propontis, together with all its towers, fell at once into the sea. Thrace
was covered with ruins. In Bithynia, Nicomedeia and Prenetus were thrown down,
and of the entire town of Nicaea, only one building, a church, remained standing.
In Egypt several towns disappeared, as it were, with all their inhabitants. On
the 18th of June, 741, the emperor Leo died, after long sufferings, and was interred
in the church of the Apostles: he was succeeded by his son Constantine V., surnamed
Copronymus.
Leo III., the founder of the Isaurian dynasty, may be charged with
cruelty and obstinacy, and he had only received a soldier's education; but he
was prudent, active, energetic, just, and decidedly the kind of king whom the
corrupted Greeks required. Moreover, he acted upon principles, and never abandoned
one of them during the whole course of his life. The orthodox writers have outraged
his name because he protected the Iconoclasts, but we know too well the degree
of impartiality which they can claim.
(Theophan; Cedren.; Niceph.; Glyc.; Zonar. vol. ii.; Paul. Diacon., De Gest. Long.
vi. 47, &c.)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Jan 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Gregorius, a pretender to the purple in the time of the emperor Leo III., the Isaurian. Intelligence of the siege of Constantinople by the Saracens, soon after Leo's accession, having reached Sicily, Sergius, general of the Byzantine forces in that island, revolted, and appointed Gregory, who had been one either of his servants or his soldiers, emperor, changing his name to Tiberius (A. D. 718). Theophanes and Cedrenus call this puppet emperor not Gregory, but Basil the son of Gregory Onomagulus, and state that he was a native of Constantinople; but Zonaras calls him Gregory, though he agrees with the other historians as to his taking the name of Tiberius. When the intelligence of these transactions reached Constantinople, Leo, who was already relieved from the pressure of the Saracens, sent one of his officers, Paul, who had held the office of "Chartularius," to put down the revolt. Paul landed at Syracuse with the intelligence of the deliverance of Constantinople, and with letters to the troops, who immediately returned to their allegiance, and seizing Gregory and those whom under Sergius's direction he had appointed to office, delivered them up in bonds to Paulus. Sergius himself fled to the Lombards on the borders of Calabria. Paul put Gregory to death, and sent his head to the emperor, and punished his supporters in various ways. (Theophanes, Chronog. vol. i.; Cedren. vol. i. ; Zonar. xv. 2.)
Constantine V., surnamed Copronymus (ho Kopronumos), because he polluted the baptismal font at
the time of his baptism, emperor of the East, A. D. 741-775, was the only son
of the emperor Leo III. Isaurus. He was born in 719, and succeeded his father
in 741. The unfortunate commencement of his reign is related in the life of the
emperor Artavasdes. The downfall of this usurper in 743 and the complete success
of Constantine caused much grief to pope Zacharias, who had recognized Artavasdes
because he protected the worship of images, while Constantine was an iconoclast,
at whose instigation a council held at Constantinople in 754 condemned the worship
of images throughout the whole Eastern empire. Constantine was most cruel in his
proceedings against the orthodox: he anathematized Joannes Damascenus and put
to death Constantine, the patriarch of Constantinople, St. Stephanus, and many
other fathers who had declared for the images. In 751 Eutychius, exarch of Ravenna,
was driven out by Astolf (Astaulphus), king of the Longobards, who united that
province with his dominions after the dignity of exarch had been in existence
during a period of 185 years. A war having broken out between Astolf and Pipin
the Short, king of the Franks, the latter conquered the exarchate and gave it
to pope Stephen (755), the first pope who ever had temporal dominions, the duchy
of Rome being still a dependency of the Eastern empire. Constantine sent ambassadors
to Pipin, Astolf, and the pope, to claim the restitution of the exarchate; but
the negotiations proved abor tive, since the emperor could not give them sufficient
weight by the display of a formidable army in Italy; for his troops were engaged
in disastrous wars with the Arabs, who ravaged Pamphylia, Cilicia, and Isauria;
with the Slavonians, who conquered Greece; and with the Bulgarians, who penetrated
several times as far as the environs of Constantinople. The Bulgarian king, Paganus,
however, suffered a severe defeat from Constantine in 765, in which he was treacherously
killed, and Constantine entered his capital in triumph; but in the following year
he sustained a severe defeat from the Bulgarians, and was compelled to fly ingloriously,
after losing his fleet and army. Constantine still flattered himself with regaining
Ravenna, either by force or arms; but after Charlemagne became king of the Franks
he relinquished this hope, and united his dominions on the continent of southern
Italy with the island of Sicily, putting all those provinces under the authority
of the Patricius or governor-general of Sicily. The continental part of the new
province or Thema of Sicily was sometimes called Sicilia secunda, whence arose
the name of both the Sicilies, which is still the regular designation of the kingdom
of Naples. In 774, the empire was once more invaded by the Bulgarians under their
king Telericus; but Constantine checked his progress, and in the following year
fitted out a powerful expedition to chastise the barbarian. Having resolved to
take the command of it in person, he set out for the Haemus ; but some ulcers
on his legs, the consequence of his debaucheries, having suddenly burst, he stopped
at Arcadiopolis, and finally went on board his fleet off Selembria, where he died
from an inflammatory fever on the 14th of September, 775.
Constantine V. was a cruel, profligate, and most fanatical man; but
he was, nevertheless, well adapted for the business of government. He was addicted
to unnatural vices; his passion for horses procured him the nickname of Caballinus.
He was thrice married : viz. to Irene, daughter of the khagan or khan of the Khazars;
a lady called Maria; and Eudoxia Melissena. His successor was his eldest son,
Leo IV., whom he had by Irene. During the reign of Constantine V. the beautiful
aqueduct of Constantinople, built by the emperor Valens, which had been ruined
by the barbarians in the time of the emperor Heraclius, was restored by order
of Constantine. (Theophan.; Cedren.; Nicephor. Gregoras; Glycas; Zonar.)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Nov 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Eudocia, third wife of the emperor Constantine V. (Copronymus). She was crowned and received the title of Augusta from her husband in the twenty-eighth year of his reign, A. D. 768. (Cedreni Compendium)
Artavasdes or Artavasdus (Artabasdos) Emperor of Constantinople, was probably descended from a noble Armenian family. During the reign of Constantine V. Copronymus (A. D. 741-775), he was appointed Curopalatus, and married Anna, a daughter of this emperor. Constantine, as his nick-name Caballinus indicates, would havc made an excellent groom, but was a bad emperor; excited by fanaticism, he was active in the destruction of images in the churches, and thus acquired the name of the new Mohammed. Artavasdes, an adherent of the worship of images, profited from the discontent of the people against Constantine, and during a campaign of the emperor against the Arabs, prepared a revolt in Phrygia. Constantine, doubtful of his fidelity, demanded the sons of Artavasdes as hostages for the good conduct of their father, who refused to give them up, and suddenly surprised his master at the head of an army. Constantine was defeated, and fled into Phrygia Pacotiana, where he assembled his troops. Meantime, the rebel had won over the patrician Theophanes Monotes and Anastasius, the patriarch of Constantinople, to his cause. Both these men had great influence among the people, whom they persuaded that Constantine was dead; and thus Artavasdes was proclaimed emperor. He and Constantine both tried to obtain the aid of the Arabs: but they assisted neither, and shewed hostility to both. Artavasdes re-established the worship of images. He conferred the title of emperor upon his eldest son, Nicephorus; and he sent his second son, Nicetas, with an army into Armenia. Constantine found assistance among the warlike inhabitants of Isauria, and early in 743 opened a campaign against Artavasdes, which terminated in the fall of the usurper. In May, 743, Artavasdes was defeated near Sardis; and in August, 743, his son Nicctas was routed at Comopolis in Bithynia : in this battle fell Tigranes, a noble Armenian, the cousin of Artavasdes. The usurper fled to Constantinople, where he was besieged by the imperial forces; and while this city was exposed to the horrors of famine, Nicetas was taken prisoner near Nicomedeia. On the 2nd of November, 743, the besiegers took Constantinople by storm. Artavasdes, his sons, and his principal adherents, had their eyes put out, were conducted through the city on asses, with the tails in their hands, and were afterwards all put to death. Artavasdes was recognized as emperor by pope Zacharias. (Cedrenus, i.; Zonaras, ii; Procopius, de Bell. Pers. i. 2, &c.;)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Leo IV., Flavius, surnamed Chazarus, emperor of Constantinople (A. D. 775-780), belonged to the
Isaurian dynasty, and was the eldest son of the emperor Constantine V. Copronymus,
whom he succeeded on the 14th of September, 775. He was born on the 25th of January,
750, and received his surname Chazarus on account of his mother Irene, who was
a Chazarian princess. Leo, being in weak health, had his infant son Constantine
(VI.) crowned in the year after his accession, and his five brothers, Nicephorus
Caesar, Christophorus Caesar, Nicetas, Anthemeus, and Eudoxas, took a sacred oath
to acknowledge the young Augustus as their future master. This oath, however,
they broke repeatedly, formed conspiracies, and were punished with mutilation
and exile. After some fruitless attempts at recovering freedom and power, they
finally disappeared from the world at Athens, which was their last place of exile.
In 777 Teleric, king of the Bulgarians, fled to Constantinople, in consequence
of some domestic commotions, and was well received by Leo, although he had behaved
very treacherously against Leo's father. In 778 the Arabs invaded the empire.
Leo sent against them an army of 100,000 men, commanded by Lachano Draco, who
routed them, after they had gained various successes in Syria, in 780: in this
battle Othman, the son of the khalif Mahadi or Modi, lost his life. When the news
of this victory arrived at Constantinople the emperor was no more among the living:
his death took place on the 8th of September, 780. He was succeeded by his infant
son Constantine VI., who reigned under the guardianship of his mother Irene. Leo
IV. was an honest man, much better than his profligate father, but weak in body
and mind.
(Theophan.; Cedren; Const. Manass.; Zonar. vol. ii.; Glycas)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Jan 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Constantinus VI., Flavius, emperor of the East, A. D. 780-797, the son of Leo IV. Chazarus Isaurus and Irene,
was born in 771, and succeeded his father in 780, under the guardianship of his
mother, a highly-gifted but ambitious and cruel woman, a native of Athens. The
reign of Constantine VI. presents a hideous picture of wars, civil and religious
troubles, and pitiless crimes. Elpidus, governor of the thema of Sicily, revolted
in 781; and it seems that his intention was either to place himself or one of
the four paternal uncles of the young emperor on the throne; but the eunuch Theodore,
an able general, defeated him in several engagements in 782, and Elpidus fled
with his treasures to the Arabs in Africa, by whom he was treated till his death
with the honours due to an emperor. The power of the Arabs grew every year more
dangerous to the empire. In 781 they suffered a severe defeat from the eunuch
Joannes in Armenia, evacuated that country, and fled in confusion to Syria; but
in the following year, a powerful Arabian army, divided into three strong bodies,
and commanded by Harun-ar-Rashid, the son of the khalif Mahadi, penetrated as
far as the Bosporus, and compelled Irene to pay an annual tribute of 60,000 pieces
of gold. The peace, however, was broken some years afterwards, and the new war
lasted till the end of the reign of Constantine, who in 790 lost half of his fleet
in the gulf of Attalia, but obtained several victories over the Arabs by land.
He was likewise victorious in a war with the Slavonians, who had conquered all
Greece, but were driven back by Stauracius in 784.
At an early age, Constantine was betrothed to Rotrudis, daughter of
Charlemagne; but quarrels having broken out with that emperor on the subject of
the Greek dominions in Italy, the match was broken off, and Constantine married
Maria, an Armenian lady, whom he repudiated three years afterwards, and married
one Theodata. In 787, the sect of the Iconoclasts was condemned in the seventh
general council held at Nicaea, and the worship of images was restored throughout
the empire. When Constantine came of age, he was of course intrusted with the
administration of the empire; but Irene's influence was so great, that she remained
the real sovereign. Tired of his vassalage, Constantine intrigued against her,
and had already resolved to arrest her, when the plot was discovered; his partisans
were severely punished, and he himself received the chastisement of a boy from
the hands of his mother. Infuriated by this outrage, the young emperor requested
the assistance of his Armenian life-guard, and, having found them all devoted
to him, seized upon his mother, and confined her in one of her palaces, where
she was kindly treated, but was allowed to have no other company but that of her
attendants. A reconciliation took place some time afterwards, but Irene finally
contrived the ruin of her son.
After succeeding in being recognized as the lawful master of the empire,
Constantine put himself at the head of his army, and set out to meet the Bulgarians,
who were plundering all Thrace. He obtained some advantages over them, but lost
a pitched battle, saw his army cut to pieces, and with difficulty escaped to Constantinople.
There he received intelligence that a conspiracy against his life, formed by his
four uncles and supported by the Armenian guard, was on the eve of breaking out.
His measures were at once quick and energetic: he seized the conspirators, disarmed
the Armenians, whose commander, Alexis, had his eyes put out, and punished his
uncles with equal severity: one of them was blinded, and the three others had
their tongues cut off, and they were all forced to become ecclesiastics, in order
to incapacitate them for reigning. They were afterwards banished, and died in
obscurity.
The reconciliation which had taken place between Constantine and his
mother was a hollow one; Irene could not forget that she had once ruled, and during
an expedition of her son against the Arabs she formed another conspiracy. On Constantine's
return in 797, he was suddenly assailed by assassins while he was sitting in the
Hippodrome to look at the races. He escaped unhurt, fled from the city, and directed
his course to Phrygia. Before arriving there, he was joined by the empress and
a host of partisans. Relying on the promises of Irene, he returned to Constantinople,
but was surprised in his palace by a band of assassins hired by Irene and her
favourite, the general Stauracius. His eyes were put out by their order with so
much violence that he died on the same day. By a singular coincidence of circumstances,
he was murdered in the " Porphyra", the name of the apartment where the empresses
were accustomed to be confined, and where he was born. His only son, Leo, having
died in his lifetime, he was succeeded by his mother Irene. Constantine VI. was
the last of the Isaurian dynasty. Zonaras and Cedrenus say, that he survived his
excaecation for a considerable time; but their opinion seems to be untenable,
although Le Beau believes it to be correct. (Theophan.; Cedren.; Zonar.; Joel;
Glycas)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Nov 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Nicephorus I., (Nikephoros), emperor of Constantonople, A. D. 802-811, was a native of Seleuceia
in Pisidia, and by all sorts of court intrigues rose to the important post of
logotheta, or minister of finances,with which he was invested by the empress Irene.
The prime minister Aetius, an eunuch, conspired against that excellent princess
with a view of putting his brother Leo on the throne. His schemes were seen through
by several of the grand functionaries of state, and a counterconspiracy took place,
which is decidedly one of the most remarkable recorded in history. The principal
leaders on both sides were eunuchs, of whom seven were against Aitius, viz., Nicetas,
the commander of the guard, his two brothers, Sisinnius and Leo Clocas, the quaestor
Theoctistus, Leo of Sinope, Gregorius, and Petrus, all of whom held the patrician
rank. Their object was to raise Nicephorus to the throne, and they succeeded through
one of those sudden strokes which are so characteristic of the revolutions of
Constantinople. On the 31st of October, 802, Nicephorus was suddenly proclaimed
emperor. He began his career by deceiving Irene by false promises; and no sooner
had she entrusted her safety to him, than he sent her into exile in the island
of Lesbos, where she died soon afterwards of misery and grief. The vices of the
new master of the empire soon became so conspicuous that he incurred the hatred
of the very parties to whom he was indebted for his elevation; but as he was supported
by the clergy, and a crowd of reckless characters, he attacked his former friends
openly, and put their leader Nicetas to death. Upon this Bardanes. surnamed the
Turk, the bravest man and best general of Greece, rose in revolt, was proclaimed
emperor by his adherents, and marched against Nicephorus, who was unable to vanquish
him in the field, and took refuge in intrigues. Forsaken by his principal supporters
Bardanes promised to submit on condition of enjoying his life and property. Both
were granted him by the emperor. As soon, however, as Bardanes was in the power
of his faithless rival, he was forced to take the monastic habit, had his property
confiscated, was deprived of his eyes, and continued till his death to be a victim
of unremitting cruelty and revenge. In 803 Nicephorus sent ambassadors to Charlemagne,
and received in his turn an embassy from the latter. A treaty was made between
them, by which the frontiers of the two empires were regulated: Charlemagne was
confirmed in the possession of Istria, Dalmatia, Liburnia, Slavonia, Croatia,
and Bosnia; but the Dalmatian islands and sea-towns were left to Nicephorus. In
these transactions Nicephorus showed no small deference to his great rival in
the West, while he behaved with impudence towards his equally great rival in the
East, the khalif Harun-ar-Rashid, who resented the insult by invading the empire.
After a bloody war of several years, during which a great portion of Asia Minor
was laid waste, Nicephorus was compelled to accept the disgraceful conditions
of a peace, by which he was bound to pay to the khalif an annual tribute of 30,000
pieces of gold, out of which three were considered as being paid by the Greek
emperor personally, and three others by his son Stauracius. In 807 Nicephorus
set out for Bulgaria, being involved in a war with king Crum, and in the same
year the Arabs ravaged Rhodes and Lycia. A dangerous conspiracy obliged him to
return to Constantinople, where a few months after his arrival another one broke
out of which he nearly became a victim. Through the death of Harun-ar-Rashid,
in 809, Nicephorus was relieved from his most formidable enemy, but was nevertheless
unable to secure peace to his subjects, king Crum of Bulgaria proving as dangerous
as the khalif. In order to carry on th e war against the Bulgarians with effect,
Nicephorus established a strong and permanent cordon, or army of observation,
along the Danube, and oppressed his people with taxes. The public indignation
was roused, and an attempt was made to assassinate him. However, he was destined
to die a more honourable death. Having drained the people of their gold and silver
he was enabled to raise a very strong army, at the head of which he penetrated
very far into Bulgaria (811), and so weakened Crum that the latter sued for peace.
Nicephorus, proud of his success, rejected the request; but the barbarian king
now rose with all the energy of despair, and, as often happens in such cases,
ruined the man who was too sure of ruining him. The Greeks being encamped on a
plain surrounded on all sides by steep rocks, intersected by a few narrow ravines,
Crum contrived to block up all these defiles but one with enormous quantities
of dry wood and other combustible materials, which one night were set on fire,
while the Bulgarians from all sides shouted their war cries as if they intended
to descend into the plain and take the camp by assault. The terrified Greeks rushed
towards the only defile that was still open, but there were received by Crum with
his main forces, and a conflict in the night ensued in which the Greek army was
nearly destroyed, and Nicephorus lost his life, slain either by the enemy or his
own enraged soldiers (25th of July 811). His son Stauracius, although badly wounded,
escaped and hastened to Constantinople, where he was proclaimed emperor.
(Theophan.; Cedren; Zonar. vol. ii.; Manass. Glycas)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Jan 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Michael I. Ragabe, emperor of Constantinople from A. D. 811 to 813, was the son of Theophylactus,
one of the high functionaries who, together with Stauracius, conspired against
the emperor Constantine VI., and the grandson of one Rhangabe, from whom he derived
his surname. Michael was at once honest, handsome, and gifted with many talents,
but he was of a weak character, and his amiability could not always efface the
unfavourable impression which his want of energy made upon persons of stouter
hearts than his. He stood in great favour with the emperor Nicephorus I. (802-811),
who, by creating him master of the palace, raised him to the highest rank in the
empire after the emperor and his family, and finally gave him his daughter Procopia
in marriage. Stauracius, however, the son and successor of Nicephorus, was far
from sharing the sentiments of his father towards the master of the palace, and
feeling himself dying from the effects of a wound, received some months previously
on the battle-field where his father was slain by the Bulgarians, he gave orders
to blind Michael, in order that his wife Theophano, to whom lie intended to bequeath
the throne, might find no obstacles at her succession. One Stephanus was charged
with executing the emperor's order. He wisely refrained from doing so, and informed
Michael of it. They immediately assembled the chief officers of the state, and
being all willing to support Michael, they proclaimed him emperor while Stauracius
was still alive (2nd of October, 811). The dying emperor implored and obtained
mercy from his brother-in-law, and went to expire in a convent. The accession
of Michael caused great joy among the people, though little in the army: the soldiers,
however, were soon satisfied by the liberal use which the new emperor made of
the rich treasures hoarded up by the late Nicephorus. Michael, a peaceful man,
began his reign by restoring peace to the disturbed church, and recalling from
exile Leo Armenus, a celebrated general, who now enjoyed the emperor's full confidence,
for which he afterwards rewarded him by hurling his benefactor from his throne.
In the spring of 812, Crum, the king of the Bulgarians, again invaded the territories
of the empire. Michael set out at the head of his army to meet him, but committed
the imprudence of allowing the empress Procopia to accompany him. A general discontent
and symptoms of sedition among the troops were the consequences of his thoughtlessness;
a woman with more than seeming authority in the camp being then an unheard of
thing. Distrusting the army, the emperor hastened back to the capital, followed
by a host of reckless barbarians who laid the country waste with fire and sword.
At their approach, multitudes of people, mostly iconoclasts, fled before them;
and a sedition in consequence broke out among the numerous iconoclasts in Constantinople,
which was quelled, not without difficulty, by Leo Armenus: their leader Nicolaus
was confined in a convent; and they were finally all driven out of the city and
dispersed in the provinces, by order of the emperor. About the same time great
numbers of Christians of all sects took refuge within the empire, flying from
the dominions of the khalifs, which were then filled with commotion and civil
wars. Crum, meanwhile, pursued his victorious course, and laid siege to Mesembria,
whereupon he made offers of peace, which, on account of their moderation, the
emperor was inclined to accept, but his councillors were for further resistance.
Mesembria was now taken by assault, and the danger from the Bulgarians grew daily
more alarming. In February 813, Michael once more set out to meet them, again
accompanied by his wife Procopia. Her presence in the camp had the same consequences
as before. Leo Armenus secretly fomented the discontent of the troops, and carried
on those intrigues which led to the loss of the battle of Adrianople (22d of June,
813), the flight of Michael to Constantinople, and his deposition by the successful
rebel, as is related in the life of Leo V. The deposed Michael retired into a
convent, where he led an obscure, but quiet and happy life, during more than thirty
years. Leo succeeded him on the throne.
(Cedren.; Zonar. vol. ii.; Const. Manass.; Theoph. Contin.; Author. incert. post
Theoph.; Glycas; Joel,; Genesius,; Leo Gram.; Symeon Metaphrastes)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Jan 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Leo V., Flavius Armenus, emperor of Constantinople (A. D. 813-820), succeeded Michael I. Rhangabe, on the
11th of July, 813: he was of noble Armenian descent, and the son of the celebrated
Bardas Patricius. Leo enjoyed great renown as a skilful and intrepid general,
and was highly esteemed by the emperor Nicephorus I. (802-811), whom he rewarded,
however, with treachery. He was punished with exile, from which he was recalled
in 811 by his friend Michael I., who succeeded Nicephorus in that year. Michael
appointed him dux Orientis, and was served in the same way as his predecessor.
The wife of Michael, Procopia, having obtained great influence over her husband,
was the cause of a wide-spread disaffection of the army, and Leo availed himself
of this circumstance to seize the crown. There is a story of an old woman at Constantinople,
a prophetess, who predicted the speedy downfall of Michael and the elevation of
Leo, who seems to have turned the superstition of the Greeks to his own advantage.
While Leo carried on a successful war against the Arabs in Asia, the emperor fought
with great disadvantage against Crum, king of the Bulgarians, who in 812 took
Mesembrya, and threatened Constantinople. His defeats obliged Michael to recall
Leo from Asia, and in the spring of 813 the emperor and Leo set out from Constantinople,
at the head of one of the finest and most numerous armies that the Greeks had
ever seen. Michael intended to harass the Bulgarians by manoeuvres, avoiding any
decisive conflict. His wise delay was secretly approved of by Leo and his confederates,
but they persuaded the army that the emperor was a coward, who followed the advice
of his wife rather than that of his generals, and the poor emperor was forsaken
before he had any idea how and by whom. The Greeks met the Bulgarians in the environs
of Adrianople; but Michael, seeing the strong position of the enemy, declined
again to risk a pitched battle. Now Leo and his friends urged him with all their
might to attack Crum; and the Greek soldiers showed such violent anger at being
again disappointed in coming to close quarters with the barbarians, that on the
22d of June the emperor gave orders for the attack. The conflict took a favourable
turn for the Greeks, and every body prognosticated a complete victory, when Leo,
with his Cappadocians and Armenians, suddenly took to flight, and caused a total
rout of the imperial army. Michael saved himself within the walls of Adrianople,
and in the evening Leo arrived with his troops. Nobody ventured to acquaint the
emperor with the real cause of Leo's flight; and the remnants of the army being
too much disorganised to risk a second battle, he followed the council of the
treacherous general, and withdrew to Constantinople. There Joannes Hexabulus,
the honest governor of the capital, mentioned to him his suspicions of Leo, but
met with disbelief, till Leo appeared with his troops under the walls of Constantinople,
and made his entrance into the city, without meeting with any opposition. After
the departure of Michael from Adrianople, the friends of Leo induced the soldiers
to proclaim as emperor the gallant Armenian, instead of the coward who was still
their master; but Leo refused to accept the crown till, with feigned indignation,
his friend and subsequent successor, Michael the Stammerer, rushed upon him with
his drawn sword, crying with the accents of rage, " With this sword I will open
the gates of Constantinople, or plunge it into thy heart, if thou refusest any
longer to comply with the just wishes of thy comrades." Upon this Leo threw off
the mask, marched upon Constantinople, and seated himself on the throne, from
which Michael descended without murmuring, and retired into a convent, where he
lived during upwards of thirty years.
No sooner was Leo crowned than Crum appeared before Constantinople.
IIe burnt its suburbs, with all its magnificent buildings, withdrew to take Adrianople,
and send its inhabitants into slavery, appeared again near the capital, and continued
his devastations till Thrace was a desert. Having no army, Leo showed the greatest
activity in forming one, and his efforts were already crowned with success, when
Crum suddenly died in one of the gardens of Constantinople (814), and was succeeded
by king Deucom. Now Leo sallied out. At Mesembrya he brought the Bulgarians to
a stand, and took bloody revenge for the calamities they had brought upon Greece:
the barbarian army was annihilated. In 815 Deucom appeared again, and met with
a similar fate, whereupon Leo invaded Bulgaria, defeated the barbarians wherever
he met them, and ravaged the country in a manner still worse than the Bulgarians
had done in Thrace. Such was the consternation of the barbarians, that Mortagon,
the successor of Deucom, deemed himself fortunate in obtaining a peace for thirty
years; and such was the impression made upon the minds of his unruly subjects
by the fierce onsets of Leo, that they remained quiet during seventy-four years.
Thus Leo crushed the hereditary and most dangerous enemy of the Byzantine empire.
The empire now enjoyed peace, and Leo was active in restoring the
happiness of his subjects. He protected the Iconoclasts, and showed himself a
firm, though often cruel, opponent of the worshippers of images; hence arose many
conspiracies, which he quelled with ease. He reformed the whole system of administration.
Before his reign all the civil and military offices were sold to the highest bidder;
he, on the contrary, gave them to the worthiest, and punished severely all those
that were found guilty of peculation. He often presided in the courts of justice;
and woe to those judges who had acted unfairly or unjustly. In his punishments,
however, he observed no just proportion; decapitation, mutilation, or banishment,
being as often inflicted for slight offences as for capital crimes. Pleasure was
unknown to him, but that which arises from the satisfaction of having done one's
duty. Day and night he was at work. Most of the provinces he visited, and his
occasional visits had a still more beneficial effect, since he always arrived
without being announced. His conduct towards the adorers of images, however, created
him many enemies; and at last his best friend became the cause of his ruin. Michael
the Stammerer, though a staunch adherent of Leo, could not help blaming him for
many actions; and being no master of his sharp tongue, his words produced more
effect than he intended. This annoyed Leo, who ordered Michael to inspect the
troops in Asia, as the best means of getting rid of him at court. Michael refused
to comply with the order, and was soon surrounded by a crowd of the secret enemies
of Leo, who persuaded him to enter into their plans. The honest Hexabulus was
informed of the plot, and Michael was seized, tried, and sentenced to be burnt
alive in a furnace It was just Christmas eve 820, and he was to be executed on
the same day. Leo left his palace to witness the execution, and the unhappy man,
loaded with chains, was dragged along, when the empress besought her husband not
to carry out his bloody verdict on that sacred day, but to wait till after Christmas.
Leo, moved by her entreaties, ordered Michael to be taken back to his prison.
On the following day the emperor and his whole court went in procession to church,
and according to a custom established at the Byzantine court, the emperor himself
began the sacred chant. This was the signal of his death. During the night the
friends of Michael had resolved to risk every thing in order to save his and their
own lives; and dressed in the garb of priests, with arms hid under their floating
garments, they entered the church without creating any suspicion. At the moment
they heard Leo's voice they rushed upon him. He escaped to the altar, and defended
himself with the great cross; but in vain-nobody came to his rescue. Exhausted
by an heroic resistance, he saw one of his murderers, of gigantic stature, aim
a fatal blow at him. "Have mercy! " cried the fainting emperor. "This is not the
hour of mercy", replied the giant, "but the hour of revenge!" and with one blow
he felled him to the ground. Michael was now dragged from his prison, and, as
Gibbon says, he was snatched from the fiery furnace to the sovereignty of an empire.
Leo left four sons, the eldest of whom, Sarbatius or Symbatius, was crowned as
his father's future successor shortly after the deposition of Michael Rhangabe.
They were all castrated by order of Michael the Stammerer, and confined in a convent.
Sarbatius died in consequence of the operation.
(Theoph.; Cedren.; Zonar. vol. ii.; Leo Gram.; Const. Manass.; Joel Glycas; Genesius)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Jan 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Michael II. Balbus (Michael ho Traulos), or the "Stammerer", emperor of Constantinople, A. D. 820-829.
This prince was of low origin; he was born at Amorium, and spent his earlier youth
as a groom, in different stables of his native town. He afterwards entered the
army, and although he was ignorant and illiterate, he met with success in [p.
1074] his new profession, owing to his bold character and uncommon impudence.
One of his superior officers esteemed him so much that he gave him his daughter
Thecla in marriage. Having made the acquaintance of the celebrated Bardanes, he
found numerous opportunities of distinguishing himself under the eyes of that
eminent general, who accordingly promoted him, and in spite of a defect of his
speech, whence his surname ho Traulos, he became conspicuous as one of the best
Greek generals. The emperor Leo V. owed the fortunate issue of his conspiracy
against Michael I. in a great measure to the assistance of Michael the Stammerer,
and accordingly raised the latter to the highest dignities in the empire. But
Michael wanted prudence, and having often severely censured the conduct of Leo,
incurred the displeasure of his master. In order to get rid of him, Leo sent him
into Asia as dux Orientis, but soon recalled him for fear he should kindle a rebellion.
Nothing the wiser for so many apparent proofs of Leo's displeasure, Michael continued
to abuse both the emperor and the empress. Vexed at being perpetually thwarted,
censured, and libelled by this troublesome officer, Leo once more ordered him
to proceed to Asia and inspect the troops. This time Michael refused to comply
with the order, and openly joined a number of disaffected persons, who made secret
preparations for depriving Leo of his crown. The plot was discovered through the
zealous honesty of Hexabulus, and Michael was arraigned of high treason. Sentenced
to be burnt alive in a furnace, Michael escaped death, and was raised to the throne
in an almost miraculous way, as is related in the life of Leo V. (Christmas, 820).
Immediately after the assassination of Leo, Michael was released from his prison,
and such was the haste of his friends to proclaim him emperor and show him to
the public, that they did not even wait until his fetters were taken off, but
hurried him, loaded with irons, to the hippodrome, where a trembling crowd saluted
him with shouts of satisfaction.
The first act of the new emperor was to castrate the four sons of
Leo, but no sooner was this infamous crime committed, than the perpetrator had
to defend himself against a formidable avenger of the death of Leo and the disgrace
of his sons. This was Thomas, commander-in-chief of the troops in Asia, whose
revolt was one of the most dangerous that ever threatened the rulers of Constantinople.
A few months after raising the standard of rebellion, Thomas was master of the
whole of the Byzantine possessions in Asia. He concluded an alliance with the
Arabs, and was then proclaimed emperor at Antioch (821). He pretanded to be the
emperor Constantine VI., who was said to have survived his excaecation, and he
styled himself so, though he was not blind; but he was originally a run-away slave
who had risen to eminence in the army. Having no children, he adopted an unknown
youth, who was created Augustus, and then marched at the head of an army of 80,000
men, against Constantinople. His adopted son was slain in the neighbourhood of
the Hellespont, and Thomas adopted another, a former monk, to whom he gave the
name of Anastasius. Upon this Thomas crossed the Hellespont, and laid siege to
Constantinople. Michael awaited the danger with undaunted courage. Unable to take
the field against superior forces, he adopted measures to render the capital impregnable,
and a bloody defeat, which Thomas suffered in 822 while leading his men to a general
assault, proved that Michael had not lost all chances of success. Thomas retired
into Thrace, but renewed the siege in 823, by sea and land. His fleet obtained
a victory over the imperial nayy. Gregorius Pterotes, an old friend of Leo V.,
and a general of great experience and influence, whom Michael had banished to
Samos, now left his exile, and joined the rebel ; but the emperor having meanwhile
obtained several advantages, and the motley army of Thomas, which was composed
of specimens of all the different nations of Hither Asia, betraying symptoms of
disaffection Pterotes resolved to desert to the emperor. Afraid to appear there
alone, he seduced many of the rebels to join him, and with them secretly left
the camp of Thomas. But Thomas had watched him, and the two-fold traitor was stopped
on his flight, defeated, and put to death. Proud of his success, Thomas endeavoured
to force the Golden Horn with a fleet of 350 vessels, but Michael fell upon him
with such vigour as not only to repel him, but to destroy the greater portion
of his fleet. Thomas was no more successful in his assaults by land, the capital
being gallantly defended by Michael, his son Theophilus, Olbienus, Catacylus,
and other generals of renown; yet in spite of their valour, they could not dislodge
Thomas from his lines around Constantinople, and there was just fear lest hunger
should achieve what the sword was unable to accomplish. In this extremity Michael
received an offer from Mortagon, king of the Bulgarians, to join him against the
rebel. Michael declined the proposition, and this act shows that he was no ordinary
man: he would rather stand his own chance than make common cause with an ally
who would have turned against him in case of defeat, and asked for an exorbitant
reward in case of success. Mortagon, however, came on his own account, and fell
upon the besieging army, not so much because he wanted to help Michael as because
he was desirous of plundering some one. Being defeated by the Bulgarians, Thomas
raised the siege and retreated into Thrace. Michael now sallied forth, followed
his enemy closely, and at last brought him to a stand. Thomas was entirely defeated;
one-half of the army went over to the victor's side; and he shut himself up in
Adrianople. Michael soon followed him thither, and made preparations for forcing
the city to surrender through famine, which so frightened the inhabitants that
they seized the rebel and dragged him to the emperor. Thomas had his hands and
feet cut off, and in this state was put on an ass and paraded through the streets.
Michael joined the procession, according to the barbarous custom of the time.
"If you are really emperor", cried the fainting man, "have mercy on a wretch,
and take my life at once!" Michael urged him to confess whether he had any accomplices
at the court, and to name them. Had Thomas done so, many an innocent man might
have suffered death together with as many guilty, but John Hexabulus, whose name
was always prominent among the straightforward and the honest, stopped the emperor,
crying out, "Will you give credit to an enemy against your own friends?" Michael
felt the reproach, and desisted from further inquiries of Thomas, who was subsequently
thrown on a dungheap, where he expired several days after (October, 823) The chief
partizans of Thomas met with severe punishment. Thus ended a revolt, during which
Michael proved he was worthy of his throne.
In 824 Michael renewed the friendly intercourse which had subsisted
between his predecessors and the Western or Frankish emperors: he sent an embassy
to Louis the Pious, and also wrote a letter to him, which his ambassadors presented
to Louis at Rouen. It is known that the Byzantine emperors would never recognise
the imperial title of the Frankish kings, and afterwards those of Germany. In
the above-mentioned letter Michael consequently called Louis only "Ludovicus qui
vocatus est Francorum et Longobardorum Imperator," and this the Byzantine historians
consider as a great condescension. The letter is contained in Thegan's Vie de
Louis le Debonnaire, and in the works of other historians. In the same year, 824,
a band of Spanish Arabs, commanded by one Abuhafiz, made adescentupon Crete and
conquered the island, which was henceforth called Candia, from Candax, its new
capital, which was founded by the Arabs: Michael was unable to dislodge them,
and the island was lost for ever. A colony of Arabs, the descendants of the followers
of Abuhafiz, still inhabits a portion of Candia. Michael lost likewise the province
of Dalmatia, which was taken from him by the Servians, but the greatest loss he
had to suffer was that of Sicily. Euphemius governed the island for the emperor,
and having met with some disappointment at the court, invited Ziadet-Allah, the
third khalif of the Aglabites in Africa, to take possession of the country. Ziadet-Allah
accordingly went to Sicily in 827, with a powerful fleet, and the island soon
became a prey to the Arabs, and remained in their possession for upwards of two
hundred years. Michael died a natural death on the first of October, 829. and
was succeeded by his son Theophilus.
(Cedren.; Leo Gram.; Zonar. vol. ii.; Genes.; Theophan. Contin.; Symeon Metaphrastes;
Glycas; Const. Porphyr. De Admin. Imp. c. 22 ; Const. Manass; Joel)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Jan 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Theophilus (Theophilos), emperor of Constantinople A. D. 829-842, was the son and successor
of Michael II. Balbus, with whom lie was associated in the government as early
as 821.He was engaged in war with the Saracens during the greater part of his
reign, but notwithstanding his valour and energy he was generally unsuccessful
against these formidable foes, and hence obtained the surname of the Unfortunate.
At the end of his fifth campaign he had the mortification of seeing the city of
Amorium in Phrygia, which was the birth-place of his father, and which he and
his father had adorned with public buildings, levelled to the ground by the caliph
Motassem. Like most of the other Byzantine emperors, Theophilus took part in the
religious disputes of his age. He was a zealous iconoclast, and persecuted the
worshippers of images with the utmost severity; but notwithstanding his heresy,
the ancient writers bestow the highest praise upon his impartial administration
of justice. He died in 842, and was succeeded by his infant son Michael III.,
who was left under the guardianship of his mother, the empress Theodora.
(Zonar. xv. 25-29 Cedrenus; Continnator Theoph. lib. iii.; Ducange, Familiac Byzantinac;
Gibbon, Declinc und Fall, cc. xlviii. and lii.)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Jan 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Michael III., emperor of Constantinople from A. D. 842 to 867, was the son and successor of
the emperor Theophilus, and the grandson of Michael II. the Stammerer. He ascended
the throne at the age of three, and reigned under the guardianship of his talented
mother Theodora. This active princess began by re-establishing the worship of
images, an undertaking in which she had to encounter intrigues of a most dangerous
nature. Her armies were less successful; they were beaten in the Caucasus and
in Asia Minor, and an expedition fitted out for the recovery of Crete from the
Arabs was totally discomfited. She despatched a fleet of 300 ships with a view
of conquering Egypt, but the capture and temporary possession of Damietta was
the only result of it. On the other hand, she continued to be fortunate in her
exertions for the orthodox church and the Christian religion in general: the Khazars
were converted in 847, and a few years afterwards the Bulgarians, those hereditary
enemies of Byzantium, adopted likewise the religion of Christ. But her zeal for
images caused a most dangerous revolt of the Paulicians (848), who entered into
an alliance with the Arabs, and baffled the efforts of the imperial armies to
reduce them to obedience. Meanwhile, Michael grew up and gave proof of his wicked
propensities. At the boyish age of fifteen he already led an immoral life with
Eudoxia, a noble young lady, the daughter of one Ingerius, who belonged to the
great family of the Martinacii; and his mother preferring under these circumstances
to give him a lawful wife, he accepted with the greatest indifference Eudoxia,
the daughter of Decapolita, continuing all the while his licentious intercourse
with the other Eudoxia, his mistress. The principal person at the court was Theoctistus,
a celebrated, though not always successful general, who incurred the jealousy
of Bardas, the brother of the empress, and the displeasure of the young emperor.
Michael and Bardas consequently formed a plot to make away with Theoctistus, and
carried their design into effect, Michael being the first to raise his hand against
his unfortunate minister. Bardas was appointed Magnus Logotheta in his stead,
and he soon seized the uncontrolled direction of public affairs. The murder of
Theoctistus so afflicted Theodora that she laid down her functions as regent and
retired into private life (854). Michael now abandoned himself to a life of almost
unparalleled profligacy, for a description of which we must refer to the graphic
pen of Gibbon (vol. ix. p. 45, &c. ed. 1815).
In 856 Bardas was made Caesar; and his power being now unlimited,
he caused the empress Theodora, with her daughter, to be confined in a convent.
On the whole, however, Bardas was no despicable man, though his ambition was boundless.
Full of talents, learning, and an enthusiastic love of the fine arts, he was zealous
in promoting the arts, science and literature, which had been greatly neglected
during the reign of the father and grandfather of Michael. The philosopher Leo
was his principal assistant in attaining these laudable objects. Owing to the
irresistible influence of Bardas, the patriarch Ignatius was deposed in 857, and
the famous Photius succeeded him. In 858 the empire was involved in a great war
with the Arabs. Leo commanded against them, and obtained more glory than the unworthy
emperor deserved. He defeated the Arabs in several pitched battles, drove them
beyond the Euphrates, crossed that river, and made several successful incursions
on the eastern side of the Tigris, penetrating to the neighbourhood of Baghdad.
During this time, however, the Arab general, 'Omar, laid Pontus waste. Thinking
success on the battle-field an easy thing, Michael resolved to put himself at
the head of his army, and marched against 'Omar; but the Arabs had been reinforced
by a strong body of incensed Paulicians, and under the walls of Samosata the emperor
received a severe lesson for his folly. Upwards of 6000 Greeks were taken prisoners,
and among them the gallant Leo, whom the Arabs would never restore to liberty
in spite of the brilliant ransom offered them. In 860 Michael paid as dearly for
a second lesson in Cappadocia; and 'Omar now carried destruction over Cappadocia,
Pontus, and Cilicia, whence he carried 70,000 prisoners into perpetual captivity
(862). Either good sense or the want of his accustomed revels in the capital,
or the advice of Bardas, induced Michael to put his younger brother, Petronas,
then governor of Lydia and Ionia, at the head of the army; and Petronas chose
for his lieutenant Nazar, governor of Galatia, whose maxim was, that a small,
but good army, was better than a large, but bad one. Near Amasia they fell in
with the main army of the Arabs, commanded by 'Omar. The Greeks obtained a splendid
victory; 'Omar was slain; and his head was carried to Constantinople by Petronas,
to whom his brother allowed the honour of a triumphal entrance. In order to commemorate
the glory of his armies, and with a view of handing his name down to posterity,
Michael ordered a hippodrome to be built, which surpassed everything of the kind
in magnificence. Jealous of Petronas, the emperor set out in 864 for the purpose
of taking the command. He had scarcely arrived in Asia when he was recalled, because
a Russian fleet of 200 large barges had suddenly made its appearance in the Bosporus,
and was attacking the Golden Horn. Michael hardly escaped being taken prisoner
whilst crossing the Hellespont, but he was soon released from his fear, in consequence
of the Russian fleet being destroyed by storm. This was the first blockade of
Constantinople by the Russians, or, more correctly speaking, by the Norman nobles,
who had just made themselves masters of Western Russia. By this time Michael had
grown tired of the ascendancy of Bardas, and felt deeply offended at being exhorted
by him to lead a better life. Whether Bardas meant this in reality or not is a
matter of doubt, for he certainly wished to establish his own elevation on the
ruin of Michael. Bardas was thus gradually superseded in the favour of his master
by Basil the Macedonian, afterwards emperor, who married Michael's mistress, Eudoxia,
in exchange for whom he surrendered his sister, Thecla, who became the emperor's
mistress. Michael formed a plot with Basil to assassinate Bardas; and soon afterwards
the Caesar was treacherously killed by Michael, Basil, and a band of assassins
hired for the purpose (866). Thereupon Basil rose to eminence, and was proclaimed
Caesar. In the same year (866) the patriarch Photius proclaimed the deposition
of pope Nicholas I. The conduct of Michael continued to be so disgusting, that
Basil. in his turn, remonstrated with him, and soon incurred the hatred of his
master, who began to look out for some daring men who would help him in despatching
the Macedonian. Of this Basil became informed, and very naturally resolved to
anticipate the emperor's designs. le persuaded him to accept a supper in the house
of his mother, Theodora, who, utterly unacquainted with the intention of Basil,
had consented to invite her son, as a means of restoring a good understanding
between the relers. As the supper degenerated into an orgy, Theodora and her daughter
retired, leaving her son alone with Basil and a few more guests, who soon made
the emperor so drunk, that he was obliged to lie down on a bed. In this helpless
state he was murdered by a band of assassins who had been secretly introduced
into Theodora's dwelling (24th of September, 867). Basil followed him on the throne.
The reign of Michael III., however disgusting the part which he played, is one
of the most interesting in Byzantine history: it is rich in events worthy of the
attention of the scholar, the philosopher, the historian, the soldier, and the
divine; and whoever feels more than superficial sympathy for the fate of the later
Greeks will be amply rewarded by turning from this imperfect sketch to the sources
from which it is taken.
(Cedren.; Zonar. vol. ii.; Leo Gram; Symeon Metaphrast.; Theophan. Contin.; Genes.;
Joel; Const. Manass.)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Jan 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Basilius I., Macedon (Basileios ho Makedon), emperor of the East, one of the most
extraordinary characters recorded in history, ascended the throne after a series
of almost incredible adventures. He was probably born in A. D. 826, and is said
to have been the descendant of a prince of the house of the Arsacidae, who fled
to Greece, and was invested with large estates in Thrace by the emperor Leo I.
Thrax. (451-474.) There were probably two Arsacidae who settled in Thrace, Chlienes
and Artabanus. The father of Basil, however, was a small landowner, the family
having gradually lost their riches; but his mother is said to have been a descendant
of Constantine the Great. At an early age, Basil was made prisoner by a party
of Bulgarians, and carried into their country, where he was educated as a slave.
He was ransomed several years afterwards, arrived at Constantinople a destitute
lad, and was found asleep on the steps of the church of St. Diomede. His naked
beauty attracted the attention of a monk, on whose recommendation he was presented
to Theophilus, surnamed the Little, a cousin of the emperor Theophilus (829-842),
who, a diminutive man himself, liked to be surrounded by tall and handsome footmen.
Such was Basil, who, having accompanied his master to Greece, was adopted by a
rich widow at Patras. Her wealth enabled him to purchase large estates in Macedonia,
whence he derived his surname Macedo, unless it be true that it was given him
on account of his pretended descent, on his mother's side, either from Alexander
the Great or his father, Philip of Macedonia, which however seems to be little
better than a fable. He continued to attend the little Theophilus, and after the
accession of Michael III. in 842, attracted the attention of this emperor by vanquishing
in single combat a giant Bulgarian, who was reputed to be the first pugilist of
his time. In 854 Michael appointed him his chief chamberlain; and the ambition
of Basil became so conspicuous, that the courtiers used to say that he was the
lion who would devour them all. Basil was married to one Maria, by whom he had
a son, Constantine; but, in order to make his fortune, he repudiated his wife,
and married Eudoxia Ingerina, the concubine of the emperor, who took in exchange
Thecla, the sister of Basil. The marriage was celebrated in December, 865; and
in September, 866, Ingerina became the mother of Leo, afterwards emperor. The
influence of Basil increased daily, and he was daring enough to form a conspiracy
against the emperor's uncle, Bardus, upon whom the dignity of Caesar had been
conferred, and who was assassinated in the presence of Michael.
A short time afterwards, Basil was created Augustus, and the administration
of the empire devolved upon him, Michael being unable to conduct it on account
of his drunkenness and other vices. The emperor became nevertheless jealous of
his associate, and resolved upon his ruin; but he was prevented front carrying
his plan into execution by the bold energy of Basil, by whose contrivance Michael
was murdered after a debauch on the 24th of September, 867.
Basil, who succeeded him on the throne, was no general, but a bold,
active man, whose intelligence was of a superior kind, though his character was
stained with many a vice, which he had learned during the time of his slavery
among the barbarians and of his courtiership at Constantinople. The famous patriarch
Photius having caused those religious troubles for which his name is so conspicuous
in ecclesiastical and political history, Basil instantly removed him from the
see of Constantinople, and put Ignatius in his place. He likewise ordered a campaign
to be undertaken against the warlike sect of the Paulicians, whom his generals
brought to obedience. A still greater danger arose from the Arabs, who, during
the reign of the incompetent Michael III., had made great progress in Asia and
Europe. Basil, who knew how to choose good generals, forced the Arabs to renounce
the siege of Ragusa. In 872, he accompanied his Asiatic army, which crossed the
Euphrates and defeated the Arabs in many engagements, especially in Cilicia in
875. In 877 the patriarch Ignatius died, and Photins succeeded in resuming his
former dignity, under circumstances the narrative of which belongs to the life
of Photiu. The success which the Greek arms had obtained against the Arabs, encouraged
Basil to form the plan of driving them out of Italy, the southern part of which,
as well as Sicily and Syracuse, they had gradually conquered during the ninth
century. They had also laid siege to Chalcis; but there they were defeated with
great loss, and the Greeks burnt the greater part of their fleet off Creta. After
these successes, Basil sent an army to Italy, which was commanded by Procopius
and his lieutenant Leo. Procopius defeated the Arabs wherever he met them; but
his glory excited the jealousy of Leo, who abandoned Procopius in the heat of
a general action. Procopius was killed while endeavouring to rouse the spirit
of his soldiers, who hesitated when they beheld the defection of Leo. Notwithstanding
these unfavourable occurrences, the Greeks carried the day. Basil immediately
recalled Leo, who was mutilated and sent into exile. The new commander-in-chief
of the Greek army in Italy was Stephanus Maxentius, an incompetent general, who
was soon superseded in his command by Nicephorus Phocas, the grandfather of Nicephorus
Phocas who became emperor in 963. This happened in 885; and in one campaign Nicephorus
Phocas expelled the Arabs from the continent of Italy, and forced them to content
themselves with Sicily.
About 879, Basil lost his eldest son, Constantine. His second son,
Leo, who succeeded Basil as Leo VI. Philosophus, was for some time the favourite
of his father, till one Santabaren succeeded in kindling jealousy between the
emperor and his son. Leo was in danger of being put to death for crimes which
he had never committed, when Basil discovered that he had been abused by a traitor.
Santabaren was punished (885), and the good understanding between Basil and Leo
was no more troubled. In the month of February, 886, Basil was wounded by a stag
while hunting, and died in consequence of his wounds on the 1st of March of the
same year.
Basil was one of the greatest emperors of the East; he was admired
and respected by his subjects and the nations of Europe. The weak government of
Michael III. had been universally despised, and the empire under him was on the
brink of ruin, through external enemies and internal troubles. Basil left it to
his son in a flourishing state, with a well organised administration, and increased
by considerable conquests. As a legislator, Basil is known for having begun a
new collection of the laws of the Eastern empire, the Basilikai Diataxeis, "Constitutiones
Basilicae", or simply "Basilica", which were finished by his son Leo, and afterwards
augmented by Constantine Porphyrogeneta. The bibliographical history of this code
belongs to the history of Leo VI. Philosophus. (See Basilica)
The reign of Basil is likewise distinguished by the propagation of the Christian
religion in Bulgaria, a most important event for the future history of the East.
Basil is the author of a small work, entitled Kephalaia parainetika
xs. pros ton eautou huion Leonta (Exhortationum Capita LXVI. ad Leonem filium),
which he dedicated to, and destined for, his son Leo. It contains sixty-six short
chapters, each treating of a moral, religious, social, or political principle,
especially such as concern the duties of a sovereign. Each chapter has a superscription,
such as, Peri paioeuseos, which is the first; Pepi times Hiereon; Peri dukaiosunes;
Peri arches; Peri logou teleiou, &c., and Peri anagnoseos graphon, which is the
last. The first edition of this work was published, with a Latin translation,
by F. Morellus, at Paris, 1584; a second edition was published by Damke, with
the translation of Morellus, Basel, 1633; the edition of Dransfeld, Gottingen,
1674, is valued for the editor's excellent Latin translation; and an-other edition,
with the translation of Morellus corrected by the editor, is contained in the
first volume of Bandurius, "Imperium Orientale", Paris, 1729.
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Nov 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Eudocia, daughter of Incer or Inger, and concubine of the emperor Michael III.,
by whom she was given in marriage (about A. D. 866) to Basil the Macedonian, afterwards
emperor. She bore Basil a son, afterwards the emperor Leo the Philosopher, so
soon after their marriage, that it was said that Michael was the child's father,
and that she was pregnant at the time of her marriage. Cedrenus speaks of the
marriage of Basil with Eudocia, whose noble birth and beauty he celebrates; but,
far from making her the concubine of Michael, speaks of her as excelling in modesty.
(Zonaras, Annales; Cedrenus, Compendium)
Basilica the Greek code of Roman law. About A.D. 876, the Emperor Basil, the Macedonian,
commenced this work, which was completed by his son Leo, the philosopher, who
reigned from A.D. 886 to 911. Before the reign of Basil, there had been several
Greek translations of the Pandects, the Code, and the Institutes; but there was
no authorised Greek version of them. The numerous Constitutions of Justinian's
successors, and the contradictory interpretations of the jurists, were a further
reason for publishing a revised Greek text under the imperial authority. This
great work was called Anakatharsis ton palaion nomon, to hexekontabiblion, ho
basilikos (Nomos) and ta basilika. It was revised by the order of Constantine
Porphyrogennitus, about A.D. 945. The Basilica comprised the Institutes, Pandects,
Code, the Novellae, and the imperial Constitutions subsequent to the time of Justinian,
in sixty books, which are subdivided into titles. For the Institutes the paraphrase
of Theophilus was used; for the Digest the platos of Stephanus, and the commentary
of Cyrillus and of an anonymous author; for the Code the kata podas of Thalelaeus
and the work of Theodorus; and for the Novellae, except the 168, the Summae of
Theodorus, Athanasius, and Philoxenus. The publication of this authorised body
of law in the Greek language led to the gradual disuse of the original compilations
of Justinian in the East. But the Roman law was thus more firmly established in
Eastern Europe and Western Asia, where it has maintained itself among the Greek
population to the present day.
The arrangement of the matter in the Basilica is as follows:--All
the matter relating to a given subject is selected from the Corpus Juris; the
extracts from the Pandect are placed first under each title, then the constitutions
of the Code, and next in order the provisions contained in the Institutes and
the Novellae, which confirm or complete the provisions of the Pandect. The Basilica
does not include all that the Corpus Juris contains; but it preserves numerous
fragments of the opinions of ancient jurists, and of imperial constitutions, which
are not in the Corpus Juris.
The Basilica were published, with a Latin version, by Fabrot, Paris, 1647. Fabrot
published only thirty-six books complete, and six others incomplete: the other
books were made up from an extract from the Basilica and the Scholiasts. Four
of the deficient books were afterwards found in MS., and published by Gerhard
Meerman, with a translation by M. Otto Reitz, in the fifth volume of his Thesaurus
Juris Civilis et Canonici; and they were also published separately in London,
in 1765, as a supplement to Fabrot's edition. The work, however, is still incomplete,
not less than 17 out of the 60 books having been lost, and others mutilated. The
best edition is that of C. W. E. Heimbach, Leipzig, 1833-51, with a Supplementum
editionis Basilicorum Heimbachianae by C. E. Zacharia von Lingenthal, Leipzig,
1846.
This text is from: A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities (1890) (eds. William Smith, LLD, William Wayte, G. E. Marindin). Cited Jan 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Alexander (Alexandros), emperor of Constantinople, was the third son of the emperor Basilius and Eudocia. He was born about A. D. 870, and, after his father's death, he and his brother Leo, the philosopher, bore the title of imperator in common. Leo died on the 11th of May, 911, and Alexander received the imperial crown, together with the guardianship of his brother's son, Constantinus Porphyrogenitus, whom he would have mutilated so as to render him unfit to govern, had he not been prevented. The reign of Alexander, which lasted only for one year and some days, was one uninterrupted series of acts of cruelty, debauchery, and licentiousness; for the restraints which he had been obliged to put on himself during the lifetime of his brother, were thrown off immediately after his accession, and the worthiest persons were removed from the court while the ministers to his lusts and passions were raised to the highest honours. He involved his empire in a war with Simeon, king of the Bulgarians, but he did not live to see its outbreak. He died on the 7th of June, 912, in consequence of a debauch, after which he took violent exercise on horseback.
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Leo VI., Flavius, surnamed Sapiens and Philosophus, emperor of Constantinople (A. D. 886-911), second
son of Basil I., the Macedonian, by his second wife, Eudoxia, was born in A. D.
865, and succeeded his father on the 1st of March, 886, after having previously
been created Augustus. A short time before the death of Basil, young Leo narrowly
escaped the punishment of a parricide, a crime, however, of which he was not guilty,
but of which he was accused by the minister, Santabaren, the knavish favourite
of the emperor. As soon as Leo ascended the throne he prepared for revenge. He
began by deposing the notorious patriarch Photius, who was the chief support of
Santabaren; and having got rid of that dangerous intriguer, he had the minister
arrested, deprived him of his eyes, and banished him to one of the remotest corners
of Asia Minor. The reign of Leo presents an uninterrupted series of wars and conspiracies.
In 887 and 888 the Arabs invaded Asia Minor, landed in Italy and Sicily, and plundered
Samos and other islands in the Archipelago: it was only in 891 that the emperor's
authority was re-established in his Italian dominions. Styiianus, Leo's father-in-law,
and prime minister, gave occasion to a bloody war with the Bulgarians. At that
period these people were no longer so barbarous as in former centuries, and they
carried on a considerable trade with the Byzantine empire, having their principal
factories at Thessalonica, where they enjoyed great privileges. These privileges
Stylianus disregarded, and exposed the Bulgarian merchants to vexations and ill-treatment.
Thence arose a war with the Bulgarian king, Simeon, who ravaged Macedonia, and
routed the Greek army, commanded by Leo Catacalon and Theodosius, the latter of
whom was killed in the action, to the great regret of the nation and the emperor.
The credit of Stylianus ceased with the death of his daughter, the empress; and
his disgrace grieved him so much that he died of sorrow and disappointed ambition
(894). Leo got rid of the Bulgarians by involving them, through intrigues, in
a war with the Hungarians. The following years were rendered remarkable by several
conspiracies. That of 895 proved nearly fatal to the emperor, but it was discovered
in time, and quelled by one Samonas, who, in reward, was created patricius, and
soon rose to great wealth and power. A few years afterwards Leo was attacked in
a church during service by a ruffian, who felled him to the ground with a club;
but on this occasion also the emperor escaped, and the assassin met with the fate
he deserved. The inactivity of Leo induced the Arabs and northern neighbours of
the empire to attack it at their convenience. The former once more invaded Sicily,
and took Tauromenium; and in 904 appeared with a numerous fleet in the harbour
of Thessalonica. This splendid city, the second in wealth and population after
Constantinople, was ill fortified and still worse garrisoned, so that in spite
of the efforts of the inhabitants, the Arabs soon made themselves master of it.
They destroyed a great portion of it; and after having plundered it during ten
days, left the harbour with their fleet laden with booty and captives. The history
of this conquest was described by Joannes Cameniata in his valuable work, The
Capture of Thessalonica (Ehalosis tes Thessalonikes). About this time the last
remains of the authority of the senate were finally abolished by a constitution
of Leo. In 910 Samonas was sentenced to perpetual imprisonment for having abused
the confidence the emperors had never ceased to bestow upon him since he had crushed
the conspiracy of 895. In 911 the Arabs defeated the Greek fleet off Samos. In
this action the Greeks were commanded by Romanus Lecapenus, who became emperor
during the minority of Constantine VII. Porphyrogenitus. Leo died in the same
year, 911, either on the 11th of May or on the 11th of July, of a chronical dysentery.
His successor was his infant son, Constantine Porphyrogenitus, whom he had by
his fourth wife, Zoe; and his younger brother, Alexander, who had nominally reigned
with Leo since the death of their father, Basil, but who, preferring luxury and
idleness to business, had abandoned his share in the government to his elder brother
Leo. Leo was married four times; in consequence of which he was excluded from
the communion with the faithful by the patriarch Nicolaus, as the Greek church
only tolerated a second marriage: it censured a third, and it condemned a fourth
as an atrocious sin. The first wife of Leo was Theophano, the daughter of Constantinus
Martinacius; the second Zoe, the widow of Theodorus Guniatzita, and the daughter
of the minister Stylianus, who, after the marriage of Zoe, received from his son-in-law
the unusual title of basileopator, or father of the emperor; the third was Eudoxia,
a woman of rare beauty; and the fourth was Zoe Carbonopsina, who survived her
husband.
It is difficult to understand how the exalted name of Philosophus
could be given to a man like Leo, and one would feel inclined to take it ironically,
were it not for the impudent flattery of the later Greeks. Gibbon, with a few
striking words, gives the following character of this emperor:"The name of Leo
VI. has been dignified with the title of philosopher; and the union of the prince
and the sage, of the active and speculative virtues, would indeed constitute the
perfection of human nature. But the claims of Leo are far short of this ideal
excellence. Did he reduce his passions and appetites under the dominion of reason?
His life was spent in the pomp of the palace, in the society of his wives and
concubines; and even the clemency which he showed, and the peace which he strove
to preserve, must be imputed to the softness and indolence of his character. Did
he subdue his prejudices, and those of his subjects? His mind was tinged with
the most puerile superstition; the influence of the clergy, and the errors of
the people, were consecrated by his laws; and the oracles of Leo, which reveal
in prophetic style the fates of the empire, are founded on the arts of astrology
and divination. If we still inquire the reason of his sage appellation, it can
only be replied, that the son of Basil was less ignorant than the greater part
of his contemporaries in church and state; that his education had been directed
by the learned Photius; and that several books of profane and ecclesiastical science
were composed by the pen, or in the name of the imperial philosopher".
In speaking of Leo's literary merits, we must first say a few words
of his legislation.
In his time the Latin language had long since ceased to be
the official language of the Eastern empire, and had gradually fallen into such
disuse as to be only known to a few scholars, merchants, or navigators.
The earlier laws being all written in Latin, opposed a serious obstacle to a fair
and quick administration of justice; and the emperor Basil I., the father of Leo,
formed and partly executed the plan of issuing an authorised version of the Code
and Digest. This plan was carried out by Leo, who was ably assisted by Sabathius,
the commander of the imperial lifeguards. The new Greek version is known under
the title of Basilikai Diataxeis, or shortly, Basilika; in Latin, Basilica, which
means "Imperial Constitutions" or "Laws". It is divided into sixty books, subdivided
into titles, and contains the whole of Justinian's legislation, viz., the Institutes,
the Digest, the Codex, and the Novellae; as also such constitutions as were issued
by the successors of Justinian down to Leo VI. There are, however, many laws of
the Digest omitted in the Basilica, which contain, on the other hand, a considerable
number of laws or extracts from ancient jurists which are not in the Digest. The
Basilica likewise give many early constitutions which are not contained in Justinian's
Codex. They were afterwards revised by the son of Leo, Constantine Porphyrogenitus.
Editions: Hervet published a Latin translation of the books 28-30, 45-48, Paris,
1557. Cujacius, who made the Basilica a special subject of his studies, and published
the criminal part of them at Lyon, 1566, estimated the translation of Hervet but
little, and accordingly published a revised edition under the title "Libri VIII.
Basilikon Diataxeon, id est, Imperialium Constitutionum in quibus continentur
totum Jus Civile, a Constantino Porphyrogenito in LX. libros redactum, G. Herveto
interprete. Accessit Liber LX.,Jacobo Cujiacio interprete. Cum Praefatione D.
Gothofredi," Hanoviae, 1606. Previous to this edition, Joannes Leunclavius published,
with notes and commentary, "LX. Libri Basilikon, id est, Universi Juris Romani,
&c., Ecloga sive Synopsis; accessit Novellarum antehac ineditarum Liber", Basel,
1575. All these are incomplete editions of Latin versions. The Greek text, with
a revised Latin version, of 36 complete, 6 incomplete books, and fragments of
the remaining 18 books, was first published by Fabrot, Paris, 1647. Four of the
deficient books, viz. 49- 52, were afterwards discovered in MS., and published,
with a Latin version by G. 0. Reitz, by the Dutch jurist Meermann, in the 5th
vol. of his Nov. Thesaur. Juris Civ. et Can. A separate reprint of these four
books was published in London 1765, as a supplement to Fabrot's edition. As long
ago as 1830 the brothers Heimbach, in Germany, began a new critical edition of
the whole collection, of which the first volume appeared in 1833, but which is
not yet finished. The law of the Basilica is by no means a mere matter of antiquity:
it is the groundwork of the legislation of the modern Greeks in Turkey as well
as in the kingdom of Greece, and also that of the legislation of the principalities
of Moldavia and Wallachia; and a closer investigation of the laws of Russia would
perhaps trace the influence of the Basilica upon the history of the civilisation
of that country also. (Montreuil, Histoire du Droit Byzantin ; C. W. E. Heimbach,
De Basilicorum Origine, Leipzig, 1825; Haubold, Manuale Basilicorum, Leipzig,
1819)
The principal works written, or supposed to be written, by the emperor Leo VI.
are:
1. Ton en polemois taktikon suntomos paradosis, commonly called "Tactica", an
essay on the art of warfare in the author's time, which is celebrated in military
history. Leo perused freely the works of earlier writers on the subject, but it
would be unjust to charge him with plagiarism: there is a great deal of his own
in the work, especially on the policy to be observed in warfare, but it betrays
no genius. The editio princeps, but only in a Latin version, is by Joannes Checus
(John Cheke), of Cambridge, and was published at Basel, 1554: it is dedicated
to king Henry VIII., and was consequently composed previously to the death of
that king, in 1547. The Greek text, together with the translation of Cheke, revised
by Jo. Meursius, was first published at Leyden, 1612; the same in the 6th vol.
of Meursii Opera, edited by Lami, Florence, 1745; the same, together with Aelian's
Tactica, Leyden, 1613. The importance of the work caused it to be translated into
several modern languages. The best version is the one in French, entitled, "Institutions
Militaires de l'Empereur Leon le Philosophe, traduites du Grec par M. Joly de
Mezera", Paris, 1771, with engravings. The best German translation is entitled
"Kaiser Leo's des Philosophen Strategie und Taktik, ubersetzt von einem MS. in
der Kaiserlichen Bibliothek zu Wien bei J. W. von Bourscheid". Vienna. 1771-1781,
with notes and engravings. The notes are very good, but the version resembles
much more the French translation by Mezeray than the Greek text.
2. Naumachika. Some passages extracted from the Tactica, and given by Fabricius, led to the supposition that they are quotations fron, and consequently fragments of, a separate work of Leo on naval warfare.
3. XVII. Oracula, written in Greek iambic verses, and accompanied by marginal
drawings, on the fate of the future emperors and patriarchs of Constantinople,
showing the superstition of Leo if lie believed in his divination, and that of
the people if they had faith in the absurd predictions. The 17th Oracle, on the
Restoration of Constantinople, was published in Greek and Latin by Joan. Leunclavius
ad Calcem Const. Manassae, Basel, 1573. Janus Rutgersius edited the other sixteen,
with a Latin version by Georg. Dousa, Leyden, 1618. Other editions: "Espositione
delli Oracoli di Leone imperatore", by T. Patricius, Brixen, 1596; by Petrus Lambecius,
with a revised text from an Amsterdam Codex, with notes and a new translation,
Paris, 1655. A German translation by John and Theodore de Bry appeared in "Vita,
&c. Muhammedis", quoted above; and a Latin one by the same translators, Frankfort,
1597; the same year in which the German version was published. It is doubtful
whether Leo is or not the author of the Oracles. Fabricius gives a learned disquisition
on the subject.
4. Orationes XXXIII., mostly on theological subjects. One of them appeared in
a Latin version by F. Metius, in Baronius, Annales ; nine others by Gretserus,
in the 14th vol. of his Opera, Ingolstadt, 1600; three others, together with seven
of those published by Gretserus, by Combefis, in the first vol. of his Biblioth.
PP. Graeco-Lat. Auctar. Nov., Paris, 1648; Oratio de Sto. Nicolo, Greek and Latin,
by Petrus Possinus, Toulouse, 1654; Oratio de Sto. Chrysostomo, restored from
the life of that father by Georgius Alexandrinus, in the 8th vol. of the Savilian
ed. of St. Chrysostomus, Antwerp, 1614; some others in Combefis, Biblioth. Concionatoria,
in the Biblioth. Patrum Lugdun., and dispersed in other works Leonis Imp. Homilia
nunc primum vulgata Graece et Latine, ejusdemque qua Photiana est, Confutatio,
a Scipione Maffei, Padua, 1751.
5. Epistola ad Omarum Saracenum de Fidei Christianae Veritate et Saracenorum Erroribus, in Latin, Lyon, 1509, by Champerius, who translated a Chaldaean version of the Greek original, which seems to be lost; the same in the different Biblioth. Patrum, and separately by Professor Schwarz, in the Program of the University of Leipzig, of the year 1786.
6. Canticum Compunctionis ex Meditatione extremi Judicii, Greek and Latin, by
Jac. Pontanus, Ingolstadt, 1603; and in the various Biblioth. Patr.
7. Carmen iambicum de misero Graeciae Statu, with a Latin version by F. Lucidus,
edited by Leo Allatius in his "De Consensu utriusque Ecclesiae".
8. XXII. Versus Retrogradi (Karnikoi), published by Leo Allatius in Excerpt. Graec.
Rhetor., Rome, 1641. Different hymns of Leo are extant in MS. in various libraries.
9. E gegonuia diatuposis para tou Basileos Deontos tou Sophou, hopos echousi taxeos
hoi dronoi ton Ekkleoion, ton hupokeimenon toi Patriarchei Konstantinoupoleos
Dispositio facta per Imperatorem Leonem Sapientem quem ordinem habeant throni
Ecclesiarum Patriarchae Constantinopolitano subjectarun, Greek and Latin, by J.
Leunclavius, in Jus Graeco-Romanum; by Jac. Goar, ad calcem Codini, Paris, 1648.
10. Eis ta Monomeriou, In Spectaculum Unius Dei, an epigram of little value, with
notes by Brodaeus and Opsopaeus, in Epigram. Libri VII., ed. Wechel, Frankfort,
1600.
Among other productions ascribed to Leo, and of which the reader will
find an account in the sources cited below, we mention only two books on falconry,
extant in MS. in a Munich MS., which seems to be different from a Turin MS. entitled
Orneosophistikon, since the first treats on falconry exclusively, and the latter
on various birds, though on falcons more than others: the first may be an extract
of the second.
(Zonar. vol. ii; Cedren; Joel,; Manass.; Glycas; Genes.; Codin.)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Jan 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Eudocia, third wife of Leo the Philosopher, son of Basil the Macedonian and of
Eudocia. She died in childbirth soon after, and the child died also. She was the
daughter, or of the race of Opsicius. Of the date of her marriage and death we
have no account. It was probably near the beginning of the tenth century; at any
rate before A. D. 904. (Zonaras, Annales; Cedrenus, Compendium)
Constantinus VII., Flavius Porphyrogenitus, (ho Porphurogennetos), emperor of the East, A. D. 911-959, the only son of the
emperor Leo VI. Philosophus, of the Macedonian dynasty, and his fourth wife, Zoe,
was born in A. D. 905; the name Porphurogennetos, that is, "born in the purple",
was given to him because he was born in an apartment of the imperial palace called
porphura, in which the empresses awaited their confinement. The name Porphyrogenitus
is also given to Constantine VI., but it is generally employed to distinguish
the subject of this article. Constantine succeeded his father in 911, and reigned
under the guardianship of his paternal uncle, Alexander, who was already Augustus,
governed the empire as an absolute monarch, and died in the following year, 912.
After his death the government was usurped by Romanus Lecapenus, who excluded
Constantine from the administration, leaving him nothing but an honorary retreat
in the imperial palace, and who ruled as emperor till 944, when he was deposed
and exiled by his sons Stephanus and Constantine, both Augusti, and who expected
to be recognised as emperors. They were deceived; the people declared for the
son of Leo; Constantine left his solitude, and, supported by an enthusiastic population,
seized upon the usurpers, banished them, and ascended the throne.
In the long period of his retirement Constantine had become a model
of learning and theoretical wisdom; but the energy of his character was suppressed;
instead of men he knew books, and when he took the reins of government into his
hands, he held them without strength, prudence, and resolution. He would have
been an excellent artist or professor, but was an incompetent emperor. Yet the
good qualities of his heart, his humanity, his love of justice, his sense of order,
his passion for the fine arts and literature, won him the affections of his subjects.
His good nature often caused him to trust without discernment, and to confer the
high offices of the state upon fools or rogues; but he was not always deceived
in his choice, and many of his ministers and generals were able men, and equally
devoted to their business and their master. The empire was thus governed much
better than could have been expected. In a long and bloody war against the Arabs
in Syria, the Greek arms were victorious under Leo and Nicephorus, the sons of
Bardas Phocas; the Christian princes of Iberia recognised the supremacy of the
emperor; alliances of the Greeks with the Petchenegues or Patzinacitae in southern
Russia checked both the Russians and the Bulgarians in their hostile designs against
the empire; and Constantine had the satisfaction of receiving in his palace ambassadors
of the khalifs of Baghdad and Africa, and of the Roman emperor Otho the Great.
Luitprand, the emperor's ambassador, has left us a most interesting account of
his mission to Constantinople (Annales Luitpranli). One of the most praiseworthy
acts of Constantine was the restoration to their lawful proprietors of estates
confiscated during rebellions, and held by robbers and swindlers without any titles,
or under fraudulent ones. Constantine's end was hastened by poison, administered
to him by an ungrateful son, Romanus (his successor), in consequence of which
he died on the 15th of November, A. D. 959. His wife was Helena, by whom he had
the above-mentioned son Romanus, a daughter Theodora, married to Joannes Ziiniscus,
and other children.
Constantine Porphyrogenitus holds a high rank in literature. His productions
are no masterworks in point of style and thought, but they treat of important
and interesting subjects, and without him our knowledge of his time would be reduced
to a few vague notions; for he not only composed works himself, but caused others
to be composed or compiled by the most able men among his subjects. His own works
are:
I. Historike diegesis tou biou kai praxeon tou Basileiou tou aoidimou basileos
(Vita Basilii), the life of Basilius I. Macedo, the grandfather of Constantine
Porphyrogenitus, a work of great importance for the reign and character of that
great emperor, although it contains many things which cannot be relied upon, as
Constantine was rather credulous, and embellished the truth from motives of filial
piety or vanity. Editions : 1. By Leo Allatius in his Summiktoi, with a Latin
translation, Cologne, 1653; the text divided into 70 sections or chapters. 2.
By Combefisius, in his "Scriptores post Theophanem", Paris, 1685; divided into
101 sections or chapters; with a new translation and notes of the editor.
II. Peri ton Thematon, "De Thematibus" (The origin and signification of the word
Thema as a new name for "province", is given in the life of Constantinus IV).
This work is divided into two books; the first treats on the Eastern (Eastern
and Southern) or Asiatic themas, and the second on the Western (Western and Northern)
or European themas. Editions: 1. The first book, with a Latin translation and
notes, by B. Vulcanius, Leyden, 1588. 2. The second book, with a Latin translation
and notes by T. Morellus, Paris, 1609. Both these editions, and consequently the
complete work, were reprinted and edited with some other works of Constantine,
by Meursius, Leyden, 1617. 3. The same in the sixth volume of "J. Meursii Opera",
edited by Lami. 4. The complete work, by Bandurius, in the first volume of his
"Imperium Orientale", with notes and a corrected version by the editor. 5. The
same in the third volume of the Bonn edition or the works of Constantine Porphyrogenitus,
a revised reprint of the edition of Bandurius, but without the map of De I'Isle,
edited by Immanuel Bekker, Bonn, 1840.
III. "De Administrando Imperio", without a corresponding Greek title. This celebrated
work was written by the imperial author for the special purpose of informing his
son Romanus of the political state of the empire, its various resources, and the
political principles which ought to be followed in its administration, as well
as in its relations to foreign nations. It contains abundance of historical, geographical,
ethnographical, and political facts of great importance, and without it our knowledge
of the times of the author and the nations which were either his subjects or his
neighbours would be little more than vagueness, error, or complete darkness. The
work is divided into 53 chapters, preceded by a dedication to prince Romanus.
In the first 13 chapters the author gives an account of the state of several nations
which lived towards the north of the Danube, such as the Petchenegues or Patzinacitae,
the Chazars, the Bulgarians, the Turks (by which he means the Majars or present
Hungarians), and especially the Russians, who were then the most dangerous enemies
of Constantinople. In the 14th and following chapters he speaks of Mohammed, and
gives a view of the rising power of the Arabs, which leads him to Spain and the
conquest of the West Gothic kingdom by the Arabs. (cc. 23 and 24.) The relations
of the Greeks to Italy and to the Frankish kingdoms are related in cc. 26 to 28.
In the eight following chapters (29 to 36), which are all very long, he dwells
on the history and geography of those parts of the empire which a few centuries
before his time were, and are still, occupied by Slavonian nations, viz. Dalmatia,
Servia, Croatia, &c. In c. 37 and following he returns to the Patzinacitae, Chazars,
and other nations in ancient Scythia -a most valuable and interesting section,
on which Bayer wrote the best commentary which we have on the work: it refers
likewise to the corresponding part of the Themata and is contained in the ninth
volume of the "Commentarii Academiae Petropolitanae". After illustrating that
subject, Constantine proceeds to Iberia, Armenia, and some of the adjacent countries
in Asia. Chapter 52 contains some remarks on the thema of the Peloponnesus, a
country of which the author speaks also occasionally in other chapters; and in
the 53rd and last chapter, which is of considerable length, he gives interesting
information respecting the city of Cherson, the Chersonitae, and other adjacent
nations. The style of the work is generally clear and simple, but the logical
order of the subjects is in some instances broken. Editions : 1 and 2. By Meursius,
1610 and 1617, in his "Opera Const. Porph.", with a Latin translation. 3. By the
same, in the sixth volume of "Meursii Opera", edited by Lami, in which, however,
only the translation of Meursius is contained, the editor having likewise given
the more perfect text and translation of Bandurius. 4. By Bandurius, in his "Imperium
Orientale", the best edition, partly on account of a map of the Eastern empire
by Guillaume de L' Isle, which belongs both to this work and to that on the Themas.
Bandurius added a new translation and an extensive commentary. Having perused
better MSS. than Meursius, Bandurius was enabled to add the text with a translation
of the 23rd and 24th chapters ("De Iberia" and "De Hispania"), of which Meursius
had only fragments, so that he could not translate them. 5. By Immanuel Bekker,
Bonn, 1840, in the Bonn collection of the Byzantines, a revised reprint of the
edition of Bandurius without the map of Guillaume de L' Isle. The commentary of
Bayer cited above belongs likewise to this work.
IV. Biblion Taktikon, taxin periechon ton kata Dalattan kai gen machomenon, commonly
called "Tactica", an essay on the art of warfare by sea and by land, a very interesting
treatise. Editions: 1 and 2. By Meursius, in "Constantini Opera", and in the sixth
volume of "Meursii Opera", edited by Lami, both cited above. No. 1 gives only
the text, but No. 2 has also a Latin translation by Lami. Maffei, who translated
a Cod. Veronensis of this work, attributes it to Constantine, the son of the emperor
Romanus Lecapenus.
V. Biblion Strategikon peri ethon diaphoron ethnon &c., commonly called "Strategica",
an interesting treatise on the mode of warfare adopted by different nations. Edition,
by Meursius, in the sixth volume of his works edited by Lami, with a Latin translation
of the editor.
VI. Ekthesis tes Basileiou Taxeos, "De Ceremoniis Aulae Byzantinae". This work
is divided into three sections, viz. the first book, an appendix to the first
book, and the second book. It gives a detailed account of the ceremonies observed
at the imperial court of Constantinople. The appendix to the first book treats
of the ceremonies observed in the imperial camp, and when the emperor sets out
from his palace for the purpose of leading his army into the field, or returns
from it to his capital : it is dedicated to Romanus, the son of Constantine. The
first book is divided into 97 chapters, the appendix into 16 sections, or heads,
which are not numbered, and the second book into 56 chapters, the last chapter
incomplete; and it seems that there were originally some chapters more, which
have not been discovered yet. The work is on the whole tedious and wearisome,
as we may presume from the nature of the subject and the character of the emperor,
who dwells with delight on trifling forms and usages which scarcely anybody but
a master of ceremonies would find it worth while to write upon. The style, however,
is pure and elegant for the time; but the work abounds with Arabic and other terms
strange to the Greek language, which are, however, explained by the commentators.
It is impossible to read it through; but if used as a book of reference it answers
well, and it contains, besides, a number of important facts, and little stories
or anecdotes referring to the life of former emperors. Editions: 1. By Leich and
Reiske, the first volume containing the first book and the appendix, Leipzig,
1751; the second volume containing the second book, ibid. 1754, with a Latin translation,
an excellent Commentary to the first book by Reiske, and Notes and a "Commentatio
de Vita et Rebus Gestis Constantini" by Leich. 2. By Niebuhr, Bonn, 1829-1830.
This is a carefully revised reprint of the editio princeps; it contains the remaining
part of Reiske's commentary (to the appendix and the second book), first edited
by Niebuhr. The prine cipal laws issued by Constantine (Novellae Constitutiones)
have been published by Leunclavius in his "Jus Graeco-Romanum", and by Labbe,
Paris, 1606.
Constantine wrote besides several smaller treatises on religious and
other matters.
Besides his own writings, we owe to Constantine's love of literature
the preservation of some works from destruction or oblivion, and the compilation
of others at his order. Such are :
I. "Collectanea et Excerpta Historico-Politica et Moralia", an extensive compilation,
of which but the 27th book, Peri Presbeion, "De Legationibus", and the 50th, Peri
Aretes kai Kakias, "De Virtute et Vitio", have been preserved. A further account
of this work is given in the life of Priscus.
II. Hippiatrika, "De Medicina Veterinaria", compiled from the works of a number
of writers, a list of whom is given by Fabricius; it is divided into two books.
Editions: 1. A Latin translation by J. Ruellius, Paris, 1530. The Greek text,
by Simon Grynaeus, Basel, 1537. 3. By Valesius, together with the "Collectanea",
&c., Paris, 1634. An Italian translation of it was published at Venice, 1543,
and a French one at Paris, 1563. III. Geoponika, "De Re Rustica", which is generally
attributed to Bassus Cassianus. Both the Hippiatrica and the Geoponica were held
in high esteem in the middle ages as well as in after times, and they were both
used for practical purposes, as we may see from the numerous editions and translations,
especially of the Geoponica. The first eight books of this work, which treat on
the cure of beasts, and form a kind of domestic veterinary handbook, were separately
published in a Latin translation by Andreas a Lacuna, Cologne, 1543. An Italian
translation of the complete work appeared at Venice, 1542; French ones at Poitiers,
1545, Lyon, 1557; and a German, by Michael Herr, in 1551, 3rd edition, edited
by Ludwig Rabus, Strassburg, 1566.
The Annals of Theophanes were continued by Constantine's order, and he also induced
Josephus Genesius to write his Annals, which contain the period from Leo Armenus
to Basilius Macedo. An account of Constantine's laws is given in the life of the
emperor Leo Philosophus. (Cedren.; Leo Diaconus; Zonar.; Joel; Glycas)
This text is from: A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities (1890) (eds. William Smith, LLD, William Wayte, G. E. Marindin). Cited Nov 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Romanos I., Lecapenus, (Rhomanos ho Lakapenos), Byzantine emperor from A. D. 919-944,
was the son of Theophylactus Abastactus, a brave warrior, who had once saved the
life of the emperor Basil. Romanus served in the imperial fleet, distinguished
himself on many occasions, and enjoyed the esteem of his fellow-soldiers on account
of his rare bravery. One of his men having been attacked by a lion, Romanus, who
was near, rushed to his assistance and killed the monster in single combat. When
the young Constantine VII. Porphyrogenitus, ascended the throne, Romanus was high
admiral, and commanded the fleet on the Danube in the war with the Bulgarians,
but as he suddenly withdrew with his ship and made sail for Constantinople, he
was accused of treachery by Leo Phocas. It must, however, be understood that both
the accused and the accuser aimed at supreme power, and Romanus left the theatre
of the war, probably for the purpose of being within reach of the throne, as well
as of the man who wanted to place himself thereon. A civil war was on the point
of breaking out, when Romanus, patronised and perhaps loved by the dowager empress,
seized upon the chamberlain Constantine, one of the most influential adherents
of Phocas, who avenged the captivity of his friend by taking up arms. Romanus,
who had been appointed Magnus Hetaeriarcha, or commander in chief of the foreign
body-guard of the emperor, worsted Phocas, and in reward was made Caesar in September,
and crowned as Augustus and emperor on the 17th December, 919. He had previously
given his daughter Helena in marriage to the young emperor Constantine, and shortly
after his accession he conferred the rank of Augustus and Augusta upon his son
Christopher and his wife Theodora. Romanus was now the legitimate colleague of
Constantine VII., over whom he exercised such authority as to cause many plots
against his life, and sometimes open rebellions, which he succeeded in quelling.
The following are the principal events of his reign. The great schism
of the church, which had lasted ever since the deposition of the patriarch Euthymius
and the famous fourth wedlock of the emperor Leo VI., was at last healed, in 920,
through the intervention of Pope John X.; and by an edict of Constantine VII.
of the same year, a fourth marriage was declared anti-canonical, and made punishable.
In 921 another of those interminable wars with the Bulgarians, or perhaps only
a fresh and formidable invasion, drew the attention of Romanus towards the Danube,
but the Bulgarians saved him the trouble of going so far away from Constantinople
by advancing thither with all their force, and ravaging the country. This war
became still more formidable when Simeon, the king of the Bulgarians concluded,
in 923, an alliance with the Arabs. But we purposely refrain from giving the details
of these barbarous wars, presenting little more than an uninterrupted series of
bloodshed and devastations without profit to either party. A remarkable interview
between Romanus and Simeon, which took place in 926, under the walls of Constantinople,
put a temporary end to these troubles. In the previous year the patrician John
Radinus worsted and destroyed the fleet of the famous pirate chief Leo, of Tripolis,
who had sacked Thessalonica twenty-two years previously. In 927 King Simeon died,
after having ruined Bulgaria through his very victories, and was succeeded by
his son Peter, who was less warlike, though not less courageous than his father;
for he entered the Byzantine territory at the head of a strong army, proposing
to the emperor to choose between war and peace, on condition of his giving him
his grand-daughter in marriage, a proposition which Romanus the more eagerly accepted,
as he wanted all his forces to check the progress of the Arabs. His possessions
in Italy also required protection against the petty Lombard princes. In 901 Christopher
died, the eldest son of Romanus and husband of Sophia, the daughter of Nicetas
magister palatii, who a short time previously had been sent into a convent for
a conspiracy against the emperor, Romanus, so wise in many respects, compromised
himself extremely in 933, by making his son Theophylactus, a lad of sixteen, patriarch
of Constantinople, after first obtaining the approbation of Pope John XI. Theophylactus
proved a very miserable prelate. From 934 to 940 the empire enjoyed an almost
universal peace, Italy excepted, where the petty warfare with the Lombard princes
went on as before. But in 941 Constantinople was in terror at the sudden appearance
of a Russian fleet of 10,000 boats, commanded by Prince Ingor, who cast anchor
at the very entrance of the Bosporus, and whose troops ravaged the neighbouring
country. Romanus, however, equipped in all haste a small number of galleys (15?)
lying in the Golden Horn, with which Theophanes boldly attacked the Russians,
destroyed a great number of their boats, and compelled Ingor to fly. Theophanes
soon afterwards obtained a second victory over the rest of the fleet on the coast
of Thrace, and of this formidable armada very little came back to Russia. Ingor
died soon afterwards, and in 945 his wife Olga came to Constantinople to receive
baptism: she was christened Helena, and is held in the utmost veneration in the
Russian church.
Down to this period Constantine Porphyrogenitus, although tile legitimate
emperor by descent, had only enjoyed the title of his rank, and he now resolved
upon having the power also. To this effect he excited the ambition of the two
surviving sons of Romanus, Stephanus and Constantine, both Augusti, who in their
turn were tired of the autocracy of their aged father. A conspiracy was set on
foot, headed by Stephanus, who had the assistance of several energetic and distinguished
men. Sure of success, he suddenly seized upon the person of his father, and with
secret despatch had him carried to the island of Protea, at the entrance of the
Propontis, where Romanus was thrown into a convent and had his head shaved forthwith,
as he was thus rendered incompetent to reign (20th of December, 944). The sons
of Romanus, however, did not reap the fruits of their treachery, for Constantine
VII. was proclaimed sole emperor, after the unnatural children of the deposed
emperor had enjoyed the title of co-emperors during the short space of five weeks.
They were then arrested and sent to Protea, where a touching interview took place
between them and their unfortunate father. Stephanus died nineteen years afterwards
in exile, and Constantine survived his captivity only two years, when he was massacred
in an attempt at making his escape. Romanus lived a quiet monkish life in his
convent, and died a natural death on the 15th of June, 948.
(Cedren.; Leo. Diacon.; Manass.; Zonaras, vol. ii.; Glycas)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Jan 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Constantinus VIII., emperor of the East, reigned, together with his brother Stephanus, after the deposition of their father, Romanus Lecapenus, but was soon compelled to cede the throne to the lawful sovereign, Constantine Porphyrogenitus. (A. D. 945)
Romanus II., or the Younger, Byzantine emperor from A. D. 959-963, the son and
successor of Constantine VII. Porphyrogenitus, was born in 939, and succeeded
his father on the fifteenth of November 959. His short reign offers a few events
of note. Endowed with great personal beauty and bodily strength, he preferred
gymnastics, hunting, and other pleasures to the duties of an emperor, which he
left to his minister Bringas. His wretched wife Theophano, who had persuaded him
to poison his father, was no sooner independent than she excited Romanus against
his own family; his five sisters were compelled to leave the palace, and confined
in the same convent where Sophia, the widow of Christophorus Augustus had then
been during thirty years; but the empress dowager, Helena, possessed too much
energy to yield to her daughterin-law, and she accordingly remained in the palace,
but she died soon afterwards of a broken heart. Although Romanus never showed
himself in the field, he had two renowned generals by whom some glorious deeds
were done, namely, the two brothers Nicephorus and Leo Phocas. Nicephorus recovered
the flourishing island of Creta, after a long siege of its capital Candia, and
after the Arabs had ruled there during 150 years (961); and Leo was successful
against the Arabs in Asia. After the fall of Candia, and the splendid triumph
of Nicephorus in Constantinople, the two brothers joined their forces against
the Arabs, and obtained most signal victories over them. A rumour having spread
of the death of Romanus, Nicephorus approached the capital through fear of Bringas;
but the rumour was false, and Nicephorus remained in Asia, observing Constantinople.
Events showed the prudence of this step; for Romanus, already exhausted by his
mode of life, was despatched by poison administered to him by his own wife Theophano.
He died on the 15th of March, 963, at the age of twenty-four. Ambition, and perhaps
the secret advice of the eunuch Bringas, urged Theophano to commit the foul deed.
Romanus married first Bertha, afterwards called Eudoxia, the natural daughter
of Hugo, king of Italy, who died a child before the marriage was consummated.
By his second wife Anastasia, afterwards called Theophano, a woman of base extraction,
he left two sons, Basil II. and Constantine VIII., who followed him on the throne,
and two daughters, Theophano, who married Otho II. emperor of Germany, an excellent
woman, who became the ancestress of most of the reigning houses in Europe, and
Anna Posthuma, who married Wladimir, first Christian prince of Russia.
(Cedren.; Zonar. vol. ii.; Manass., Glycas; Leo Diacon.)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Jan 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Nicephorus II. Phocas (Nikephoros ho Phokas), emperor of Constantinople A. D. 963-969, was the son of
the celebrated Bardas Phocas, and was born in or about 912. He owed his elevation
to those great military capacities which were hereditary in his family, and through
which he obtained a fame that places him by the side of Narses, Belisarius, and
the emperors Heraclins, 3Mauricius, and Tiberius. In 954 Constantine VII. Porphyrogenitus
appointed him magnus domesticus, and his brothers Leo and Constantine, next to
him the best generals, were also entrusted with great military commands. The Greeks
were then at war with the khalif Modhi, against whom Nicephorus and his brothers
marched in 956. The first campaign was rather disastrous to the Greeks, who were
defeated in a pitched battle in which Constantine Phocas was taken prisoner by
the Arabs, who afterwards put him to death. In 958 Nicephorus and Leo took a terrible
revenge. Chabgan, the Arab emir of Aleppo, the terror of the Christians, had conquered
Cilicia: Nicephorus defeated him several times, took Mopsuestia and. Tarsus, and
forced him to fly into Syria, while Leo conquered the important fortress of Samosata.
In an ensuing campaign in Svria the Greeks were likewise victorious, and, Romanus
II. having succeeded his father Constantine in 959, Nicephorus proposed to the
young emperor to drive the Arabs out of Crete, where they had established their
power 136 years previously, to the great grief and annoyance of the Greeks. The
expedition took place in 960, and the capital Candia, a fortress which was believed
to be impregnable, having surrendered in 961, after a memorable siege of ten months,
the island once more recognised the Greek rule. All Greece was in joy, and the
conquest was thought to be so important, and, above all, was so unexpected, that
the victor was allowed the honour of a public triumph in Constantinople. In 962
Nicephorus set out for another campaign in Syria, at the head of a splendid army
of 200,000 men, according to the probably exaggerated statements of the Arabs,
and of 80,000 men according to Liutprand. The passes across Mount Anianus were
forced, Aleppo, Antioch, and the other principal towns of Syria surrendered, or
were taken by assault, and Nicephorus pushed on towards the hEuphrates. The victor
was checked in his military career by the death of the emperor Ronanus in 963,
whose prime minister Brindas, jealous of the unparalleled success of Nicephorus,
endeavoured to ruin him by intrigues. Brindas made tempting propositions to John
Zimisces and his brother Romanus Curcuas, through whose instrumentality he hoped
to accomplish his objects; but those two generals, having apprised their commander-in-chief
of the treachery of Brindas, Nicephortus was enabled to triumph over his rival.
Theophano, the widow of Romanus, rewarded him by appointing him supreme commander
of all the Greek armies in Asia, with unlimited and almost sovereign authority.
In consequence of a widow, the mother of two infant princes, being placed at the
head of the empire, the numerous partisans of Nicephorus persuaded him to seize
the supreme power, and after some hesitation he allowed himself to be proclaimed
emperor. Upon this he went to Constantinople, and consolidated his power by marrying
Theophano; he was crowned in the month of December, 963; and along with him reigned,
though only nominally, Basil II. and Constantine IX., the two infant sons of Romanus
and Theophano.
During the absence of Nicephorus the Greeks were victorious in Cilicia,
under the command of John Zimisces, afterwards emperor, and Nicephorus having
joined him in 964, they, in three campaigns, conquered Damascus, Tripoli, Nisibis,
and mnlly other cities in Syria, compelled the emir Chabgan to pay a tribute,
and overran the whole country as far as the Euphrates. In 968 the Greeks crossed
the Euphrates, Baghdad trembled, and the khalif seemed lost, but the death of
Nicephorus, and the ensuing troubles in 969, saved the Mohammedan empire from
destruction. Inflated with success Nicephorus had made himself odious to many
of his subjects, and, although he was still popular with the army, the people
in general, especially in Constantinople, were tired of his severity. Unfortunately
for him he neglected his wife, and the bravest man in Greece fell a victim to
the spite of a woman and the ambition of a jealous friend: John Zimisces and Theophano
conspired against his life. Some of their helpmates were hidden in the imperial
palace, and one night, on a certain signal being given, Zimisces came in a boat
from the Asiatic side of the Bosporus, where he was watching an opportunity, to
the water-gate of the palace, joined his confederates, and, guided by Theophano,
entered the emperor's bedchamber. They found him sleeping on a skin: he started
up, but the sword of one Leo clove his skull and he was soon despatched. His murderer
Zimisces married his widow and succeeded him on the throne. Nicephorus Phocas
was without doubt a most energetic man and a first-rate general, but his bright
qualities were darkened by a very treacherous disposition, as we best see from
his transactions with the emperor Otho I., which the latter entered into with
a view of obtaining the hand of the princess Theophano or Theophania, the daughter
of the late emperor Rotianuos. and stepdaughter of Nicephorus, for his son Otho,
afterwards emperor. To this effect he sent, ifi 968, bishop Liutprand to Constantinople,
who wrote a work on his embassy, which is one of the most interesting and important
sources for the reign of Nicephorus, and the public and private lives of the Greeks
of those times. The emperor Otho I. also endeavoured to obtain the cession of
the Greek possessions in Italy, as a dowry of the princess Theophania, and it
would perhaps have been advantageous to both parties if such a cession had taken
place, Nicephorus being unable to defend Italy. The marriage of Otho II. with
Theophania subsequently took place, but space forbids us to enf'er into the details
of these transactions.
(Liutprandus, Legatio ad Nicephporusm Phoearn; Cedren.; Zonar. vol. ii.; Manass.;
Joel ; Glycas)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Jan 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Joannes I. Zimisces (Ioannes Tzimiskes), emperor of Constantinople (A. D. 969-976),
was descended from an illustrious Armenian family. He was the grandson of Theophilus,
whose name was conspicuous during the reign of Romanus I. Lecapenus, and the grand-nephew
of Curcuas, the brother of Theophilus, who was still more eminent. The surname
Zimisces was given to Joannes on account of his diminutive size, that word signifying
in the Armenian language a man of very small stature. Zimisces served from his
early youth in the Greek armies, and astonished both his friends and foes by the
heroic deeds which he performed on the field of battle. During the regency of
Theophano, the widow of the emperor Romanus, Nicephorus Phocas became the leader
of the empire, and was constantly supported by Zimisces, who saved him from ruin
when the eunuch Bringas conspired against his life. Believing that the friendship
between Nicephorus and Zimisces was only pretended, Bringas wrote to Zimisces,
offering him great reward -perhaps the crown- if he would kill Nicephorus, but
Zimisces not only showed the letter to his friend, but urged him to assume the
imperial crown. This Nicephorus did in 963, and reigned as colleague of the two
minor sons of Romanus and Theophano, Basil II. and Constantine VIII. Nicephorus
married the widow Theophano, and appointed Zimisces second commander of the armies,
himself being the first. In this capacity Zimisces performed such extraordinary
exploits, and gained such decisive victories, that he became the idol of the army,
and was acknowledged to be the first general in the East. The Arabs were then
masters of all Syria and Cilicia. In the battle at Adana (963) they were routed
with great slaughter by Zimisces, and 5000 of their veteran troops having entrenched
themselves on a steep hill, refusing to surrender, the gallant commander of the
Greeks put himself at the head of a chosen body, stormed the entrenchments, and
exterminated the infidels. Henceforth that hill was called the bloodhill. In the
following year Zimisces conquered the greater part of Cilicia, crossed Mount Amanus,
entered Syria, and spread terror through the valley of the Orontes. Mopsuestia,
which was then called Massissa, resisted the protracted siege of Nicephorus, who
gave up all hopes of taking it, and was retiring, when Zimisces approached with
a few brave troops, and took the town by storm. His eminent services were rewarded
with ingratitude. Through the intrigues of the emperor's brother, Leo, he was
deprived of his command, and sent into exile. The empress Theophano, however,
who was his mistress in secret, contrived that he should be sent to Chalcedon,
opposite Constantinople. [p. 578] From Chalcedon Zimisces continued his adulterous
intercourse with Theophano, and was received by her in disguise in the very apartments
of her husband. They concerted a plan to kill Nicephorus, and to have Zimisces
proclaimed emperor. In the night of the 11th to the 12th of December, 969, Zimisces
crossed the Bosporus with a few daring followers, and having been wound up, by
means of baskets attached to ropes, to the upper story of the imperial palace
by some of the servants of the empress, they were led to the bedroom of Nicephorus,
who soon fell under their weapons. Before he expired he was exposed to most unmerciful
tortures, and, abusing him with the most opprobrious terms, Zimisces broke his
jaw-bone with the pommel of his sword.
Being proclaimed emperor, Zimisces imitated the example of his unfortunate
predecessor, and reigned as colleague of the two sons of Romanus. His first act
was to send his enemy Leo, the brother of Nicephorus, into exile; his second,
to obey the summons of Polyeuctes, the patriarch of Constantinople, who urged
him to banish Theophano; his third, to divide part of his property among the poor,
and spend the rest in building a vast and splendid hospital on the Asiatic shore
of the Bosporus. He then sent his general Nicolaus against the Arabs, who were
besieging Antioch with the flower of their army; and his general Bardas Sclerus
against the Russians, who had overrun and traversed Bulgaria, and laid siege to
Adrianople. Both of the generals were successful, and the Greek arms obtained
decisive victories in Europe and Asia. The triumph of Zimisces was checked by
a rebellion of Bardas Phocas, the son of the exiled Leo, who assumed the imperial
title at Caesareia, and was supported by his father and his brother Nicephorus;
but the rebellion was soon quelled, and Leo and Nicephorus were taken prisoners,
and condemned to death. The emperor, nevertheless, spared their lives, and sent
them into exile, till, having rebelled a second time, they were blinded, and kept
in confinement. Bardas Phocas having surrendered to Bardas Sclerus, was compelled
to assume the monastic habit, and to spend the rest of his life in a convent in
Chios. Previous to these events (970), Zimisces, who was then a widower, having
lost his wife Maria, the sister of Bardas Sclerus, married Theodora, the daughter
of Constantine Porphyrogenneta, and the sister of the late Romanus II., a marriage
agreeable to the Greeks, who revered the memory of the learned and mild Constantine.
Meanwhile, the Russians had again invaded Bulgaria; and they would have formed
lasting settlements in that country but for the valour of Zimisces, who took the
command in the field, while a Greek fleet sailed up the Danube, cutting off the
retreat of the northern barbarians. Parasthlava, the capital of the Bulgarian
kingdom, had been taken by the Russians, and the Bulgarian king, Bosisa, was kept
there by the Norman Sventislav (Sviatoslav, Wenceslaus), or Sphendosthlaba, as
the Greeks call him, the prince of the Russians of Kiew. Under the walls of Parasthlava
the Russians suffered a bloody defeat; a large body of their best troops, who
defended the castle, was cut to pieces; and Zimisces once more gave proof of military
genius and undaunted courage. Sphendosthlaba made peace, and withdrew to Russia,
while Bosisa was generously re-established by Zimisces on his hereditary throne.
These events were followed by the marriage of Theophano or Theophania--not the
banished empress, but the daughter of the late emperor Romanus II.--with Otho
II., Roman emperor and king of Germany. A fresh war with the Arabs called the
emperor from his capital to Syria. Zimisces fought with his usual fortune, defeated
the Arabs in several pitched battles, and pursued them as far as the confines
of Palestine, when they sued for peace. On his return to Europe the emperor beheld
with pleasure a large extent of land in Cilicia, covered with beautiful villas
and thriving farms; but having been informed that those fine estates belonged
to the eunuch Basilius, who was one of the principal officers of his household,
"Is it for eunuchs", he cried out, "that brave men fight, and we endure the hardships
of so many campaigns!" Basilius was informed of this, but disguised his apprehensions
or anger. A few days afterwards, however, Zimisces felt symptoms of a serious
illness; he grew worse and worse, and on his arrival in his capital he was on
the verge of death. He expired shortly after his return, on the 10th of January,
976, at the age of fifty-one, leaving the memory of one of the most distinguished
rulers of the Byzantine empire. His successor was Basil II., who reigned together
with his brother Constantine VIII.
(Cedren. vol. ii.; Zonar. xvi. 28, xvii.1-5; Leo Diaconus, 1. iii.-ix , x. c.
1-12)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Jan 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Constantinus IX., emperor of the East, A. D. 976-1028, the son of the emperor Romanus II., was born in A. D. 961, and began to reign, together with his elder brother, Basil II., in 976; but, addicted to idleness and luxury, he took no part in the administration of the empire. After the death of Basil in 1025, he became sole emperor; but, fortunately for his subjects, who suffered much from the Arabians during his miserable administration, he died three years afterwards, in 1028. Constantine IX. was the last of the Macedonian dynasty. His successor was Romanus Argyrus, the husband of his daughter Zoe, whom he had by his wife Helena Augusta.
Basilius I. (Basileios), emperor of the East, was the elder son of Romanus II.,
of the Macedonian dynasty, and was born in A. D. 958; he had a younger brother,
Constantine, and two sisters, Anna and Theophano or Theophania. Romanus ordered
that, after his death, which took place in 963, his infant sons should reign together,
under the guardianship of their mother, Theophano or Theophania; but she married
Nicephorus Phocas, the conqueror of Creta, and raised him to the throne, which
he occupied till 969, when he was murdered by Joannes Zimisces, who succeeded
to his place. Towards the end of 975, Zimisces received poison in Cilicia, and
died in Constantinople in the month of January, 976. After his death, Basil and
Constantine ascended the throne; but Constantine, with the exception of some military
expeditions, in which he distinguished himself, led a luxurious life in his palace
in Constantinople, and the care of the government devolved upon Basil, who, after
having spent his youth in luxuries and extravagances of every description, shewed
himself worthy of his ancestor, Basil I., and was one of the greatest emperors
that ruled over the Roman empire in the East.
The reign of Basil II. was an almost uninterrupted series of civil
troubles and wars, in which, however, the imperial arms obtained extraordinary
success. The emperor generally commanded his armies in person, and became renowned
as one of the greatest generals of his time. No sooner was he seated on the throne,
than his authority was shaken by a revolt of Sclerus, who, after bringing the
emperor to the brink of ruin, was at last defeated by the imperial general, Phocas,
and obliged to take refuge among the Arabs. Otho II., emperor of Germany, who
had married Theophania, the sister of Basil, claimed Calabria and Apulia, which
belonged to the Greeks, but had been promised as a dower with Theophania. Basil,
unable to send sufficient forces to Italy, excited the Arabs of Sicily against
Otho, who, after obtaining great successes, lost an engagement with the Arabs,
and on his flight was taken prisoner by a Greek galley, but nevertheless escaped,
and was making preparations for a new expedition, when he was poisoned (982).
In consequence of his death, Basil was enabled to consolidate his authority in
Southern Italy. In different wars with Al-masin, the khalif of Baghdad, and the
Arabs of Sicily, who were the scourge of the sea-towns of Southern Italy, the
Greeks made some valuable conquests, although they were no adequate reward either
for the expenses incurred or sacrifices made in these expeditions. Basil's greatest
glory was the destruction of the kingdom of Bulgaria, which, as Gibbon says, was
the most important triumph of the Roman arms since the time of Belisarius. Basil
opened the war, which lasted, with a few interruptions, till 1018, with a successful
campaign in 987; and, during the following years, he made conquest after conquest
in the south-western part of that kingdom, to which Epeirus and a considerable
part of Macedonia belonged. In 996, however, Samuel, the king of the Bulgarians,
overran all Macedonia, laid siege to Thessalonica, conquered Thessaly, and penetrated
into the Peloponnesus. Having marched back into Thessaly, in order to meet with
the Greeks, who advanced in his rear, he was routed on the banks of the Sperchius,
and hardly escaped death or captivity; his army was destroyed. In 999, the lieutenant
of Basil, Nicephorus Xiphias, took the towns of Pliscova and Parasthlava in Bulgaria
Proper. But as early as 1002, Samuel again invaded Thrace and took Adrianople.
He was, however, driven back; and during the twelve following years the war seems
to have been carried on with but little energy by either party. It broke out again
in 1014, and was signalized by an extraordinary success of the Greeks, who were
commanded by their emperor and Nicephorus Xiphias. The Bulgarians were routed
at Zetunium. Being incumbered on his march by a band of 15,000 prisoners, Basil
gave the cruel order to put their eyes out, sparing one in a hundred, who was
to lead one hundred of his blind companions to their native country. When Samuel
beheld his unhappy warriors, thus mutilated and filling his camp with their cries,
he fell senseless on the ground, and died two days afterwards. Bulgaria was not
entirely subdued till 1017 and 1018, when it was degraded into a Greek thema,
and governed by dukes. This conquest continued a province of the Eastern empire
till the reign of Isaac Angelus (1185-1195).
Among the other events by which the reign of Basil was signalised,
the most remarkable were, a new revolt of Sclerus in 987, who was made prisoner
by Phocas, but persuaded his victor to make common cause with him against the
emperor, which Phocas did, whereupon they were both attacked by Basil, who killed
Phocas in a battle, and granted a full pardon to the cunning Sclerus; the cession
of Southern Iberia to the Greeks by its king David in 991; a glorious expedition
against the Arabs in Syria and Phoenicia; a successful campaign of Basil in 1022
against the king of Northern Iberia, who was supported by the Arabs; and a dangerous
mutiny of Sclerus and Phocas, the son of Nicephorus Phocas mentioned above, who
rebelled during the absence of Basil in Iberia, but who were speedily brought
to obedience. Notwithstanding his advanced age, Basil meditated the conquest of
Sicily from the Arabs, and had almost terminated his preparations, when he died
in the month of December, 1025, without leaving issue. His successor was his brother
and co-regent, Constantine IX., who died in 1028. It is said, and it cannot be
doubted, that Basil, in order to expiate the sins of his youth, promised to become
a monk, that he bore the frock of a monk under his imperial dress, and that he
took a vow of abstinence. He was of course much praised by the clergy; but he
impoverished his subjects by his continual wars, which could not be carried on
without heavy taxes ; he was besides very rapacious in accumulating treasures
for himself; and it is said that he left the enormous sum of 200,000 pounds of
gold, or nearly eight million pounds sterling. Zonaras (vol. ii.) multiplies the
sum by changing pounds into talents; but this is either an enormous exaggeration,
or the error of a copyist. Basil, though great as a general, was an unlettered,
ignorant man, and during his long reign the arts and literature yielded to the
power of the sword.
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Nov 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Romanus III., Argyros, or Argyropulus (Rhomanos ho Arguros or ho Arguropoulos),
Byzantine emperor from A. D. 1028-1034, was the son of Leo Argyrus Dux, and belonged
to a distinguished family. Romanus obtained such military glory in the reign of
Constantine VIII., that this prince appointed him his successor, and offered him
the hand of one of his daughters, a few days before he died. Romanus was married
to Helena, a virtuous woman, whom he tenderly loved, and declined both the crown
and the bride. Constantine, however, left him the choice between his offer, or
the loss of his eyes. Even then Romanus did not yield to the temptation, and would
have declined it again but for the prayers of his own wife, who implored him to
accept both, and rather sacrifice her than the empire. Their marriage was accordingly
dissolved ; and Romanus, now married to the princess Zoe, succeeded Constantine
on the 12th of November, 1028. He was a brave, well-instructed man, perhaps learned;
but he over-valued himself, and thought himself the best general and the best
scholar of his time. Numerous acts of liberality and clemency gained him the hearts
of his new subjects at the very beginning of his reign, but did not prevent some
court conspiracies. At the same time his arms met with disgrace in Sicily and
Svria, nor did he retrieve his fortune when he took the field in person. The Arabs
worsted him near Azar in Syria, and he only escaped captivity by shutting himself
up in Antioch (1030), whence he hastened to Constantinople. His lientenants Nicetas
and Simeon, and especially Theoctistes, however, soon restored the honour of the
Greek armnies. Their success so mortified Argyrus that he became the prey of a
deep melancholy, and only occupied himself with building churches and convents,
his wife Zoe seizing the reins of the enipire. Meanwhile the war with the Arabs
was carried on with varying success, till at last the Greeks obtained great advantages
in a decisive naval engagement, and by the conquest of Edessa. which was obliged
to surrender in 1033. But the plague ravaged the provinces, and in the North the
Patzinegues and other barbarians made de structive inroads. These disasters roused
Romanus from his indolence. But it was too late: he had made himself unpopular
for ever, and his own family had become strangers to him. The more his generals
were successful against the Arabs, the more the nation became convinced that without
him still greater advantages light be obtained. Hence arose a criminal intrigue
betweeen Zoe, an ambitious and voluptuous wife, though past fifty, and the general
Michael, surnamed Paphlago. Zoe administered a slow poison to her husband, in
of which he died a lingering death (1034), which was accelerated by the cruel
deed of Zoe assistants, who held the enfeebled emperor, who was taking a bath,
under water till life was nearly gone. Half dead, he was taken out and placed
on a bed, when his wife despatched him by a dose of active poison. Romans died
at the age of sixty-six, and was succeeded by Michael IV. the Paphlagonian, who
married Zoe. It is certain that Romanus left no issue by Zoe, and it is doubtful
whether he had any by Helena; but his family continued to flourish in Constantinople
down to its capture by the Turks, and more than 150 years afterwards.
(Cedren.; Zonar. vol. ii.; Manass.; Glycas)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Jan 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Michael IV. Paphlagon, emperor of Constantinople from A. D. 1034 to 1041, was one of the younger brothers
of John the Eunuch, first minister under Romanus III. and his predecessor, Constantine
IX. Among the four brothers of John, who had once been a monk, Michael and Nicetas
were originally moneychangers, Constantine and George eunuchs and mountebanks
by profession; Stephanus, their brother-in-law, whose name will appear hereafter,
was a ship's calker. When John rose to eminence he promoted Michael to the office
of chamberlain to Romanus III., a post for which he was well fit, for he was stupid
and handsome. Having further the advantage of being young, he pleased the empress
Zoe so much, that she admitted him to her bed. The fact was reported to Romanus,
who would not believe it, because he knew that Michael was subject to epileptic
fits; but Zoe and her lover were afraid that he would believe it one day or other,
and consequently contrived the assassination of Romanus. The day after his murder
Zoe announced to the senate that she had chosen Michael for her husband, and wished
him to be acknowledged as emperor. John the Eunuch being the secret promoter of
these transactions, the wishes of the empress were complied with, and Michael
and Zoe were proclaimed on the 11th of April, 1034. No sooner was this done than
John removed Zoe from the administration of the state, by keeping her a prisoner
in her palace; and as Michael was unfit to reign, he seized the supreme power
without aspiring to the name. The beginning of Michael's reign was signalised
by a general famine and a terrible earthquake at Jerusalem, which lasted forty
days with scarcely any interruption. Upon this the barbarians invaded the territory
of the empire on all sides, while the fleets of the Arabs in Sicily and Africa
covered the Archipelago, and plundered the islands. John, however. succeeded in
making peace with them on tolerable conditions. He also brought the Servians to
submission, made peace with the Arabs in Egypt, and had the satisfaction of seeing
the Arabs of Baghdad defeated under the walls of Edessa, which thee had invested
in 1037. About this time a civil war among the Arabs in Sicily afforded a good
opportunity of bringing back that island to the imperial sway; and Leon Opus,
the governor of the Greek dominions in Southern Italy, was consequently sent over
into Sicily. He defeated time Arabs several times, and returned with many captives,
besides 15,000 Christian prisoners of war, which he had taken from the Mohammedans.
In 1039 John equipped a powerful fleet and an appropriate army, the fleet being
commanded by Stephanus, the brother-in-law of John and the emperor ; and the whole
expedition by Maniaces, who was the best general in the Greek army. The Greeks
were joined by a small, but gallant body of Norman auxiliaries, commanded by three
sons of the chivalrous Tancred. Messina and Syracuse were taken by the Greeks,
and the Arabs sustained such losses that their brethren in Africa were in great
alarm. They consequently came to their relief with 50,000 men; but few of these
ever returned to their native country, and thirteen towns and cities surrendered
to the victorious Greeks. In 1040 a fresh army arrived from Africa, which was
still more numerous than the preceding; but in a pitched battle with the Greeks
and Normans, they were utterly defeated, leaving 50,000 either dead on the field,
or prisoners in the hands of the victor. Sicily once more obeyed the Greek sceptre,
when a base intrigue caused the loss of what had been so fairly won. Owing to
the negligence of Stephanus, the Arab commander-in-chief found means to escape,
with a few followers, to Africa; and Maniaces was so vexed at his flight, that
in reproaching Stephanus for it, he probably forgot the degree of deference which
he owed to the brother-in-law of the powerful eunuch. In order to avenge himself
for the insult, Stephanus calumniated his chief at the court, and caused a warrant
to be sent to Sicily for his arrest. After Maniaces had left the island, the negligence
of his successors in the command, Stephanus, Doceanus, and Basilius Pediatites,
caused one loss after another; and in dividing the booty of their former victories
with the Normans, they behaved so unfairly, that their gallant allies not only
withdrew, but attacked the Greek dominions on the continent of Italy. The Arabs
suffered one more defeat at Messina; but after that met with continual success,
and before the end of 1040 Sicily had again ceased to be a Byzantine province,
and in Italy the Greek power was expiring under the sword of the Normans. About
the same time the Bulgarians endeavoured to throw off the Greek yoke, and overran
Thrace and Macedonia. Michael, forced to fly suddenly from Thessalonica, where
he then held his court, left his treasury under the care of one Ibazas, a Bulgarian
in the Greek service, who availed himself of the opportunity, and with his trust
joined his countrymen.
Constantinople was in the greatest danger of falling into the hands
of the barbarians, when, to the surprise and wonder of the whole empire, the apathetic
emperor, who was besides suffering from an incurable dropsy, declared his intention
of putting himself at the head of his army. In vain his friends and the empress
endeavoured to persuade him to abandon his purpose: "If I have made no conquests",
said he, "I will at least do my utmost to prevent losses". He was so weak that
he was obliged to be raised on his horse, and every morning the troops expected
that he would not see the evening; but he held bravely out, and the moral effect
of his appearance upon his soldiers as well as his enemies was so great, that
the former fought with the utmost bravery, while the Bulgarians were confounded
before they had been defeated. After driving out the barbarians from Thrace and
Macedonia, Michael penetrated into Bulgaria; and in the course of one campaign
brought back that extensive country to its allegiance to the Greek emperors. The
war being thus finished with glory, Michael celebrated a triumphal entry into
Constantinople, and soon afterwards died, on the 10th of December, 1041. This
enterprise does great credit to Michael, whose conduct gives proof of a great
moral truth, that there is no man so bad but there is still something good left
in him, which, under proper circumstances, will shine forth, and cause the man
to do actions which, though they cannot obliterate his former conduct, will yet
entitle him to our forbearance and compassion. Shortly before his end Michael
chose his nephew, Michael, his future successor, who consequently succeeded him
on the throne.
(Cedren.; Zonar. vol. ii.; Manass.; Joel; Glycas)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Jan 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Michael V. Calaphates (Kalaphates), or the "Calker", emperor of Constantinople from December, A. D. 1041, to April, 1042, was the son of Stephanus, the brother-in-law of Michael IV., who had once followed the trade of a ship's calker, whence the surname of his son. He was adopted by Michael IV. and the empress Zoe; but as he was a profligate fellow, the emperor would soon have excluded him from tile throne had death left him time. The people detested Michael V., and persuaded Zoe to reign in his stead; but a few days were sufficient to make Zoe repent her ambition, and she quietly resigned in favour of her adopted son. Michael began by banishing Zoe and the eunuch John, his uncle, and committed several other imprudent acts, the consequence of which was, that the people of Constantinople rose in rebellion. A fierce battle was fought between them and the adherents of Michael, which ended in the storm of the imperial palace, and in the flight of the young emperor and his brother Constantine to the convent of Studa, where they both took the monastic habit, and continued to live many years in a quiet obscurity. Zoe and her sister Theodora were proclaimed co-empresses by the people, 21st of April, 1042. (Cedren.; Zonar. vol. ii.; Manass.; Glycas; Joel)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Jan 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Constantinus X., Monomachus (ho Monomachos), emperor of the East, A. D. 1042-1054. His surname was given him
on account of his personal courage in war. In 1042 the government of the empire
was in the hands of two imperial sisters, Zoe, the widow of the emperor Romanus
Argyrus, and afterwards of Michael IV. the Paphlagonian, and Theodora, a spinster,
who were placed on the throne by the inhabitants of Constantinople, after they
had deposed the emperor Michael V. Calaphates, the adopted son of Zoe. The two
sisters being afraid of their position, Zoe proposed to Constantine Monomachus
that he should marry her; and as she was rather advanced in age, being then upwards
of sixty, she allowed the gallant warrior to bring his beautiful mistress, Sclerena,
with him to the imperial palace, where the two ladies lived together on the best
terms. Constantine was saluted as emperor, and conferred the dignity of Augusta
upon Sclerena. Soon after the accession of Constantine, Georgius Maniaces, a brother
of Sclerena, who was renowned for his victories over the Arabs, and who then held
the command in Italy, raised a rebellion. At the head of a chosen body of troops
he crossed the Adriatic, landed in Epeirus, joined an auxiliary army of Bulgarians,
and marched upon Constantinople. An assassin delivered the emperor from his fears:
Maniaces was murdered by an unknown hand in the midst of his camp.
A still greater danger arose in 1043 from an invasion of the Russians,
who appeared with a powerful fleet in the Bosporus, while a land force penetrated
as far as Varna: but the fleet was dispersed or taken in a bloody engagement,
and the Russian army was routed by Catacalo.
In 1047, while absent on an expedition against the Arabs, Constantine
received news of another rebellion having broken out, headed by Tornicius, a relative
of the emperor, who assumed the imperial title, and laid siege to Constantinople.
The emperor hastened to the defence of his capital, broke the forces of the rebel
in a decisive battle, and Tornicius, having fallen into the hands of his pursuers,
was blinded and confined to a monastery. Constantine was not less fortunate in
a war with Cacicus, the vassal king of Armenia and Iberia, who tried to make himself
independent; but, unable to take the field against the imperial armies, he was
at last compelled to throw himself at the feet of the emperor and implore his
clemency. His crown was taken from him, but he was allowed to enjoy both life
and liberty, and spent the rest of his days in Cappadocia, where his generous
victor had given him extensive estates. Iberia and Armenia were reunited under
the immediate authority of the Greeks.
While the frontiers of the empire were thus extended in the East,
Thrace and Macedonia suffered dreadfully from an invasion of the Petchenegues,
who were so superior to the Greeks in martial qualities, that they would have
conquered all those provinces which they had hitherto only plundered, but for
the timely interference of the emperor's body-guards, composed of Waregians or
Normans, who drove the enemy back beyond the Danube, and compelled them to beg
for peace (A. D. 1053). At the same time the Normans made great progress in Italy,
where they finally succeeded in conquering all the dominions of the Greek emperors.
In the following year, 1054, the great schism began, which resulted in the complete
separation of the Greek and Roman churches, and put an end to the authority of
the popes in the East. Constantine did not live to see the completion of the schism,
for he died in the course of the same year, 1054. Constantine was a man of generous
character, who, when emperor, would not revenge many insults he had received while
he was but an officer in the army. He managed, however, the financial department
in an unprincipled manner, spending large sums upon the embellishment of Constantinople
and other luxuries, and shewing himself a miser where he ought to have spared
no money. Thus, for economy's sake, he paid off his Iberian troops, 50,000 in
number, who were the bulwark of Greece, and who were no sooner disbanded than
the frontier provinces of the empire were inundated by Arabs and Petchenegues,
so that, although he augmented the extent of his dominions by the addition of
Iberia and Armenia, he contributed much to the rapid decline of Greek power under
his successor. The successor of Constantine X. was the empress Theodora mentioned
above (Cedren.; Psellus in Zonar.; Glycas; Joel)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Nov 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Zoe, the daughter of Constantinus IX. was married first to Romanus III. Argyrus, who succeeded her father on the throne, and reigned A. D. 1028-1034. Towards the end of her husband's reign, though she was then about 50 years of age, she carried on a criminal intrigue with the general Michael, surnamed the Paphlagonian; and that she might be able to gratify her pleasures without restraint she caused her husband to be murdered, and raised Michael to the throne, whom she then married. Michael IV. the Paphlagonian, reigned from A. D. 1034-1041; and on his death, she was persuaded by the people to reign in her own name. A few days made Zoe repent her ambition, and she placed the crown on the head of Michael V. Calaphates, whom her second husband had adopted in his life-time. The new emperor showed the basest ingratitude to his benefactress, and commenced his reign by banishing Zoe. This and other imprudent acts caused an insurrection at Constantinople. Michael was deposed at the end of a year's reign, and Zoe and her sister Theodora were proclaimed co-empresses on the 21st of April, 1042. The two sisters reigned together for about two months; but as they feared for their position, Zoe, who was then about 60, married a third husband, whom she raised to the throne. and who is known by the name of Constantinus X. Monomacans. She died in 1050 while her third husband was still alive.
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Jan 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Michael VI. Stratioticos, emperor of Constantinople from A. D. 1056 to 1057, was chosen by the empress Theodora for her successor shortly before she died ; and he succeeded accordingly on the 22d of August, 1056. His surname, "the warrior," indicates his military merits; but at the time of his elevation he was broken down by age, and his character had lost all its former energy. Theodora, a woman, had a manly spirit, but Michael the warlike had the spirit of a woman. Michael was scarcely seated on the throne when Theodosius, a cousin of the late emperor Constantine X. Monomachus, rose in revolt; but after a fierce struggle, which filled the streets of Constantinople with blood, the rebel was compelled to lay down his arms, and was fortunate to escape with mere banishment. The famous general, Catacalon, was recalled from his post as governor of Antioch, and Michael, a cousin of the emperor, was placed in his stead. Catacalon returned to the capital with disaffection in his heart, and there met a great number of his colleagues, whom the emperor had rewarded with fine speeches instead of giving more solid proofs of his gratitude for their former achievements, and all of whom shared the disaffection of Catacalon. A military conspiracy was the consequence, and a deputation was sent by the malcontents to Isaac Comnenus, who resided at Castamone, in Asia Minor, requesting him to accept the crown, which he did, after some hesitation. Michael tried to check the progress of his rival at once by intrigues and weapons, but his duplicity availed him nothing, and his arms were defeated in the battle of Hades by Isaac and Catacalon, whereupon he resigned (31st of August), and retired into a convent. (Cedren.; Zonar. vol. ii.; Manass.; Glycas)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Jan 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Isaacus I. Comnenus (Isaakios ho Komnenos), emperor of Constantinople (A. D. 1057-1059),
and the first of the Comneni who ascended the imperial throne, was one of the
most virtuous emperors of the East. He was the elder son of Manuel Comnenus, praefectus
totius orientis in the reign of Basil II, whom he lost while still a boy, and
was educated, together with his younger brother John, under the care of Basil.
Their learning. talents, and moral principles, as much as the merits of their
late father, recommended them to the favour of the emperor, and at an early age
they were both entrusted with important civil and military functions. Isaac became
so distinguished, that, supported by the illustrious name of his family, he succeeded
in obtaining the hand of Catharina, or Aicatharina, the daughter of Samuel, or
perhaps John Wladislaus, king of the Bulgarians, a lady who, at the time when
Isaac made her acquaintance, was a captive at the Byzantine court. During the
stormy reigns of tile eight immediate successors of Basil II. (Constantine IX.,
Romanns III., Michael IV., Michael V., Zoe, Constantine X., Theodora, and Michael
VI.), who successively occupied the throne during the short period of 32 years,
the position of Isaac was often dangerous but lie conducted himself with so much
prudence, and enjoyed so much of the general esteem, that he not only escaped
the many dangers by which he was surrounded, but was considered by the people
a worthy successor of their worthless master, Michael VI. The conduct of this
emperor was so revoltin, that shortly after his accession in 1056, the principal
nobles and functionaries, supported by the clergy and a large majority of the
nation, resolved to depose him. They offered the crown to the old Catacalon, a
distinguished general who was leader of the conspiracy, but he declined the proposition
on the ground of his age and obscure birth, and pointed out Isaac Comnenus as
a fit candidate for their choice. Isaac was proclaimed emperor (August 1057) without
his knowledge, and was with some difficulty induced to accept the crown. Michael
sustained a severe defeat at a place called Hades, and, despairing of success,
proposed to Isaac to share with him the imperial power, an offer which the peaceful
prince would have accepted but for the interference of Catacalon, who strongly
opposed any amicable arrangement, on the ground of the well-known faithlessness
of Michael. The latter was soon after compelled to resign, and assume the monastic
habit. In his struggle with Michael, Isaac was cordially assisted by his excellent
brother John. He rewarded the leaders of the conspiracy with great liberality,
but in a manner that showed his good sense, for he sent most of them into the
provinces, and conferred such honours and offices upon them as entailed only a
moderate degree of power and influence. He divided the important functions of
the curopalates between Catacalon and his brother John. The treasury being exhausted,
he introduced a system of great economy into all the branches of the administration,
showing, by his own example, how his subjects ought to act under such circumstances.
In levying new taxes, however, he called upon the clergy also to contribute their
share, but they refused to comply with his orders; and the patriarch of Constantinople,
Michael Cerularius, had the impudence to say to the emperor: "I have given you
the crown, and I know how to take it from you again". Banishment was the reward
for this insolence, and death prevented the priest from taking revenge by kindling
a rebellion. In several cases Isaac acted rather haughtily, and he sometimes found
difficulty in reconciling through his wisdom, those whom he had wounded through
his pride. In 1059 he marched against the Hungarians, who had crossed the Danube,
land compelled them to sue for peace. This was the only occasion during his reign
where he could show that he was the best tactician among the Greeks. The empire
recovered visibly under his administration from so many calamities, and great
was the grief of the people when, after his return from the Hungarian campaign,
he was suddenly attacked by a violent fever, which brought him to the verge of
the tomb. Feeling his death approaching, lie called for his brother and offered
him the crown, but John having declined it, lie appointed Constantine Ducas, a
renowned general, his future successor. Isaac, however, recovered from his illness,
but, to the utmost grief and astonishment of his brother and the people, resigned
the crown into the hands of Constantine Ducas, and retired to a convent (December,
1059). His wife and daughter followed his example, and took the veil. Isaac survived
his abdication about two years, living in the strictest performance of the duties
of a monk. and devoting his leisure hours to learned occupations. The emperor
Constantine XI. often visited him in his cell, and consulted him on important
affairs; and among the people he was in the odour of sanctity. His death probably
took place in 1061. He left no male issue. Homer was the favourite author of Isaac,
who wrote Scholia to the Iliad, which are extant in several libraries, but are
still unpublished. There are also extant in manuscript Peri ton kataleiphthenton
hupo tou Omerou, and Charakterismata, being characteristics of the leaders of
the Greeks and Trojans menitoned in the Iliad. His other works are lost.
(Cedren. ; Zonar. vol. ii.; Scylitzes; Glycas; Joel)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Jan 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Constantinus XI., Ducas (ho Douxkas) emperor of the East, A. D. 1059-1067, was chosen by the emperor Isaac I. Comnenus, who abdicated in 1059, as his successor, in preference to his own children, because he thought him to be the most worthy of his subjects. It proved, however, that, although Constantine was undoubtedly one of the best subjects of Isaac, he still was not fit to rule in those troublous times. Previously to his election, Constantine had been very active in putting Michael VI. Stratioticus on the throne (A. D. 1056), but he deserted him in the following year and espoused the party of Isaac Comnenus, who succeeded in seizing the government. Thence their friendship arose. When he ascended the throne, the people expected that he would take vigorous measures against those swarms of barbarians who were attacking the empire from all sides, and they were the more justified in their expectations as Constantine was an able general. But he loved talking quite as much as action, and instead of preparing for war, he addressed the people in a long elaborate speech on the duties of an emperor under the circumstances of the times. So fond was he of speeches, that he said he preferred the crown of eloquence to the crown of Rome, nor can we feel sure whether he really meant so or not, for both those crowns were rather dusty then. Having reduced his army from motives of economy, he saw, his empire suddenly invaded (in 1064) by a host, or probably the whole nation, of the Uzes, for they are said to have been 600,000 men strong. While they ravaged Thrace and Macedonia, the Hungarians crossed the Danube and seized Belgrade, the key of the empire. Fortunately for the Greeks, the plague broke out in the camps of those barbarians, and so much diminished their numbers that they hastened back to their steppes beyond the Danube. During the same time the Turks-Seljuks made similar attacks upon the Greek domains in Asia, and the Normans obtained possession of the rest of the emperor's dominions in Italy. Bani, the capital of them, was taken shortly before the death of the emperor, which happened in A. D. 1067. Constantine had many good qualities, though they were overshadowed by petty and strange passions. Love of justice induced him to recall immediately on his accession all those who were exiled for political crimes, and to undertake a great number of lawsuits, which, accustomed as he was to follow his sophistical genius, he believed to be just, while they proved to be mere chicaneries. When it became known that his love of war had turned into love of legal intrigues, many officers of his army abandoned the profession of arms, and became advocates for the purpose of rising to honours and making their fortunes. Constantine conferred the title of Augustus upon his three sons, Michael, Andronicus, and Constantine, who were all under age, and whom he destined to succeed him and to reign conjointly under the regency of his widow Eudoxia. But she was unable to keep the throne alone, and married Romanus Diogenes for the sake of protection and support, and this distinguished general, who was created emperor, must be considered as the real successor of Constantine XI. (Scylitzes; Psellus in Zonar.; Glycas; Nicephorus Bryenn.)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Nov 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Eudocia Augusta of Macrembolis, wife of the emperors Constantine XI. (Ducas) and
Romanus IV. (Diogenes). She was married to Constantine while he was yet in a private
station, and bore him two sons, Michael and Andronicus, before his accession in
A. D. 1059, and one son, Constantine, born afterwards; they had also two daughters,
Theodora and Zoe. On tile accession of Constantine she received the title of Augusta
and on his death, A. D. 1067, he bequeathed the empire to her and to their three
sons, Michael VII. (Parapinaces), Andronicus I., and Constantine XII. (Porphyrogenitus).
He bound Eudocia by an oath not to marry again. Eudocia had in fact the management
of the government, the children being all young. Perceiving that the protection
of the eastern frontier, which was threatened with invasion, required a stronger
hand, she married Romanus IV. (Diogenes). Romanus, who was eminent for his fine
figure, strength, and warlike qualities, had, on the death of Constantine XI.,
prepared to seize the throne, but was prevented by Eudocia, who threw him into
prison, and exiled him; but, either for reasons of state, or from affection, soon
recalled him, and raised him to the command of the army. Her oath not to marry
had been given in writing, and committed to the custody of the patriarch of Constantinople;
but by a trick she recovered it, and, within eight months after her husband's
death (A. D. 1068), married Romanus, and raised him to be colleague in the empire
with herself and her sons. She had hoped to govern him, but was disappointed,
and his assertion of his own will led to quarrels between them. During the captivity
of Ronmanus, Joannes or John Ducas, brother of the late Constantine, who had been
invested with the dignity of Caesar, declared Michael Parapinaces sole emperor,
and banished Eudocia to a convent which she had herself built on the shore of
the Propontis. On the death of Diogenes, who on his release had fallen into the
hands of Andronicus, the eldest son of Joannes Ducas, and died from the cruel
usage he received, A. D. 1071, Eudocia buried her unhappy husband with great splendour.
She appears to have long survived this event. (Zonaras, Annales; Michael Glycas,
Annales)
Eudocia compiled a dictionary of history and mythology,, which she
called Ionia, i. e. Collection or bed of Violets. It was printed for the first
time by Villoison, in his Anecdota Graeca, Venice, 1781. It is prefaced by an
address to her husband Romanus Diogenes, in which she describes the work as "a
collection of genealogies of gods, heroes, and heroines, of their metamorphoses,
and of the fables and stories respecting them found in the ancients; containing
also notices of various philosophers". The sources from which the work was compiled
are in a great degree the same as those used in the Lexicon of Suidas. The sources
are examined and described by Meineke in his Observationes in Eudociae Violetum,
in the fifth and sixth volumes of the Bibliothek der allen Litteratur und Kunst,
Gottingen, 1789.
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Dec 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Romanus IV., Diogenes (Rhomanos ho Diogenes), Byzantine emperor from A. D. 1067-1071,
was the son of one Constantine Diogenes, a by the rather extravagantt character,
who conspired against the emperor Romanus Argyrus, but escaped pursuit by leaping
out of a high window. Romallnus Diogenes was the grand-nephew of Romanus Argyrus,
through his mother; and enjoying the patronage of the court notwithstanding his
either's conduct, soon rose to the dignities of patrician and duke of Sardica
or Triaditza. In the reign of Constantine X. Ducas, he solicited the place of
Magnus Vestiarius, and having received the answer: "Deserve it through your merite",
forth with returned to sardica, sallied out with the garrison, and routed a party
of Patzinegue marauders, of whose heads he sent a collection to Constantinople.
The emperor returned the compliment by granting him desired appointment, adding:
"You owe your preferment not to me, but to your sword". This piqued Romanus; and
from that time he entertained schemes of rebellion and of raising himself to the
throne. After the death of Conistantine, and duiring the reign of his widow Eudoxia,
he became bolder; but his manoeuvres were seen through, and he was arrested, tried,
and sentenced to death. Previous to execution he was presented to the empress;
and as he had obtained great military renown, and was besides a remarkably handsome
man, he made such a visible impression upon Endoxia, that his judges thought it
convenient to annul their sentence, in consequence of which he was sent into nominal
exile in his native country Cappadocia. Two days after his departure he was ioined
by some messengers of the empress, who ordered him to return to Constantinople.
At his arrival there he was immediately appointed commander-in-chief of the army.
The end of this farce was his marriage with the empress, and his proclamation
as emperor three days after their marriage. Constantine X., however, had left
three sons, who considered themselves prejudiced through the accession of Romrnanus,
and entered into a dantgerouse gerous plot against his life; but their mother
scceeded in pacifying them, and submitting them to her authority. There remained,
however, a strong party of malcontents at the court, composed of eminent stand
hihii-born men. Romans, active and energetic, not only counteracted their plans,
but introduced measures of radical reform into the corrupted administration, and
freed himself from the authority of his wife, by leaving Constantinople aud keeping
his court on the Asiatic side of the Bosporus.
To these domestic quarrels the Turks put a sudconsequence den end.
Their sultan, Alp-Arslan, approached by rapid marches from the shores of the Caspian
and the highlands of northern Persia, while one of his lieutenants attacked Syria.
Romanus took the field against them with his usual energy and promptitude. His
intention was to cover Syria, and he was already on its frontiers when he was
informed of the progress of the Turkish arms in the North. He consequently left
Syria to his generals, and marched to Pontus with such rapidity, that he surprised
and routed several Turkish bodies stationed on its fiontier. This was sufficient
to keep the main body of the Turks within Persia. Ro. manus therefore hastened
hack to Syria. He made a successful campaign down to Antioch and up again along
the Euphrates. and wherever he carried his arms the enemy was worsted. One of
his generals, less fortunate, or less skilful, was surprised The Turks, and lost
the day and half of his army. Romanus flew to his support; and in a nocturnal
engagement, took the camp of the Turks and routed them with great slaughter (20th
of November, 1068). He then marched again up the Euphrates as far as Ara, constantly
annoyed by the light troops of the enemy; but he placed his troops in good and
safe winter-quarters, and returned to the capital. Eudoxia, reconciled to her
husband, had meanwhile governed the state with wisdom; and, in acknowledgment
of the vicitories of the emperor, presented him with a sort of miscellaneous work,
entitled "Ionia", which she had just finished. The campaign was renewed in 1069,
and the imperial arms were again successful, though not uniformly so, as the Turks
succeeded in taking and pillaging Iconium. The third campaingn in 1070, was carried
on under the commandin-chief of Manuel Comnenus, the emperor requir ing repose
after so many fatigues. Ere long, news reached the court that Manuel had been
defeated and taken prisoner. The emperor was artfully persuaded by some false
friends to refrain from taking the command once more, and matters would have taken
a bad turn, but for the rare shrewdness of Manuel. It happened that Chrysoscul,
the victorious Tcrkish general, pretended to have a better right to the sultanship
than Alp-Arslan, and Manuel was no sooner aware of it than, a real Comnene as
he was, he persuaded him to desert the sultan, and fly with him to Constantinople,
promising him the assistance of the emperor for the recovery of his rights. The
vanquished thus led his victor to Constantinople, to the utmost astonishment of
the court. Romanus took as much advantage of this strange incident as circumstances
would allow; and, in 1071,again set out in person against Alp-Arsldn. But little
acquainted with human baseness, line left many of his real friends at home, and
took with him many a secret enemy invested with high power. He penetrated as far
as the Araxes, not without a manly resistance from the Turks and many a partial
defeat of his generals. His position in those wild regions became dangerous, but
he stoutly refused the peace offered to him by the sultan. Upon this a pitched
battle was fought at Manzicert on the Araxes (26th of August, 1071); and owing
to the treachery of some of his officers, no less than to the valour of Alp-Arslan,
Romanus lost the day and his liberty. It nas been said that the noble sultan ill-treated
his captive, but this is not true, on the contrary he received him well, and discoursed
with him as a friend. "What would you have done with me", asked the sultan, "if
I had been your prisoner ?" "Beaten you to death", was the By zantine's answer.
"I will treat you differently", replied the barbarian infidel, "and according
to the precepts of your own religion, which commands humanity and forgiveiess
of injuries". Alp-Arslan accordingly gave him 10,000 pieces of gold, and all those
prisoners whom the emperor chose to pick out. Upon this a peace was concluded
on equitable terms, except a ransom of 1,500,000, and an annual tribute of 360,000
pieces of gold. Ronmanus shed tears when he took leave of his noble victor, who
allowed him to return to Constantinople betore the conditions of the treaty of
peace were fulfilled. The news of this disaster caused a complete revolution in
the capital, so that when Ronmanus appeared at its gates, he was refused admittance.
Michael Parapinaces had been raised to the imperial dignity, but Romanus did his
utmost to crush him and recover his throne. He was not successful. Twice defeated
in pitched battles, he at last surrendered, and was put to death by order of Michael.
Romanus left three sons, of whom Nicephorus made himself conspicuous in after
years. The reign of Romanus Diogenes, though short, is full of highly interesting
events, especially of military adventures, such as those of the noble Scot Ursel
or Russell Baliol; but space forbids us to enter upon these details.
(Zonar. vol. ii.; Glycas; Manass.; Bryenn.)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Jan 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Constantinus XII., Ducas, emperor of the East, the youngest son of the preceding, succeeded his father Constantine XI. in 1067, together with his brothers Michael and Andronicus, under the regency of their mother Eudoxia, who married Romanus III. Diogenes and made him emperor. After the capture of Romanus by the Turks in 1071, Constantine and his brothers were proclaimed emperors, but Michael, the eldest, was the real ruler. Constantine was confined in a monastery by the emperor Nicephorus III. Botaniates about 1078. His final fate is not well known. He died either in the same year in consequence of cruel tortures to which he had been exposed, or as late as 1082, in a battle between the emperor Alexis I. and Robert Guiscard. Anna Comnena calls him Constantius
Michael VII. Ducas Parapinaces, emperor of Constantinople from A. D. 1071 to 1071, was the [p. 1078] son of the
emperor Constantine XI., Ducas, who created died in 1059, shortly after appointing
his three sons, Michael, Andronicus, and Constantine, to succeed him in joint
possession of the crown. On account of their tender age, their mother, Eudoxia,
reigned for them; and having married Romanus Diogenes, this distinguished general
enjoyed the imperial title and power till he was made a prisoner by Alp Arslan,
the sultan of the Seljuks, in August, 1071. When hiscaptivitybecame known at Constantinople,
Joannes Caesar caused his nephew, Michael, to be proclaimed emperor, with a view
of reigning under his name. Soon afterwards Romanus returned from his captivity,
but he came too late to retrieve his fate: he was seized and blinded, and died
from the operation in October, 1071. Eudoxia was confined in a prison; and these
atrocities were committed without Michael taking the least step to prevent them.
John, archbishop of Sida, in Pamphylia, John the Caesar, Nicephorizus,
and other ministers, now governed the empire for Michael. Enraged that the ransom
for which he had restored the late Romanus to liberty was not paid by Michael,
sultan Alp Arslan invaded the empire in 1072. Isaac and Alexis Comnenus commanded
the Greek army against him. Owing to the want of discipline of his troops, Isaac
lost a battle and his liberty, but was soon ransomed by Alexis. The two brothers
prepared for taking revenge, when affairs received a different turn, through the
daring ambition of one Ursel, a kinsman of the kings of Scotland, and the commander
of a body of European auxiliaries in the Greek service. Having made himself master
of most of the strongholds and mountain passes in the anti-Taurus and portions
of Armenia and Lazica, he ceased at once to fight against the Turks and to help
the Greeks, intending to make himself independent in those parts. For this purpose
he intrigued with John the Caesar, who joined him, and was proclaimed emperor
of the Greeks by the Frankish auxiliaries. Both the Greeks and Turks looked at
these proceedings with wonder, when the latter, impatient to come to blows, fell
upon John and Ursel, defeated them, and made them both prisoners. Ursel soon redeemed
himself, and retired into Pontus, whither he was followed by Nicephorus Palaeologus,
who gained a decisive battle over him. On his flight, Ursel was again taken by
the Turks. Alexis Comnenus, wishing to obtain possession of this dangerous adventurer,
offered a large bribe to the Turks for his person; and having attained his ends,
sent him to Constantinople (1073), where he was kept in prison.
In 1074 the Bulgarians, exasperated by the insatiable avarice of the
minister Nicephorizus, attempted to throw off the Greek yoke, and offered the
crown to Bodinus, the grandson of Michael, king of Servia, who accepted it, and
came to their assistance with a body of his countrymen. Bulgaria was then governed
by Nicephorus Carentenus, a very competent man, who had taken proper measures
for quelling the revolt, when he was prevented from carrying them out by the arrival
of Damianus Dalassenus, who was sent to supersede him as governor. Dalassenus
owed his promotion to some court intrigue. and six weeks after his appointment
had the satisfaction of seeing himself a prisoner of the Bulgarians. and his army
flying through the country. Bryennius, who had been Caesar after the captivity
of John, retrieved the fortune of the Greeks. Bodinus lost several battles, and
fell into the hands of Bryennius, who, on the order of Michael, sent him as a
state prisoner to some fortress in Syria, whence, however, the young prince escaped
and returned to Servia, over which he became king after the death of his father.
Bryennius likewise compelled the Servians to sue for peace; purged the Adriatic
and the Ionian sea of the Norman pirates; and quelled a dangerous mutiny of some
of his barbarian auxiliaries, who were headed by Nestor, the commander-in-chief
of the army of observation on the Danube. His success deserved reward, but earning
disgrace instead, he listened to the persuasive wishes of his numerous friends,
raised the standard of rebellion, and was proclaimed emperor under the walls of
Adrianople. He despatched his brother John to lay siege to Constantinople, while
he continued to consolidate his authority in Thrace and Macedonia. The capital
was gallantly defended by Constantine Ducas, Alexis Comnenus, and Ursel, who was
restored to liberty on condition of employing his great military talents for the
defence of the emperor. Meanwhile, another rebellion broke out in the East. Only
ten days after Bryennius had assumed the imperial title his example was followed
by Nicephorus Botaniates in Asia Minor, who advanced with an army mostly composed
of Turks, and soon penetrated as far as Nicaea. At that time Constantinople had
ceased to be besieged by John Bryennius, whose men were too licentious to hold
out long against well-disciplined troops, commanded by the best generals of Greece,
and he consequently withdrew to the head-quarters of his brother. The conduct
of the emperor during this crisis was so contemptible that the approach of Botaniates
created joy among the people, and caused great satisfaction to a crowd of disaffected
generals and ambitious priests: they sent a deputatiom to him, inviting him formally
to occupy the imperial throne; and he of course complied with their wishes. Michael,
forsaken by all his adherents except Alexis and Isaac Comnenus, who stood with
him to the last moment, abandoned all hopes of resisting so formidable an enemy,
and without regret resigned the crown to Botaniates, on the 25th of March, 1078.
The ensuing struggle between Botaniates and Bryennius belongs to the history of
the former. Michael was allowed to retire into a convent, and Botaniates had so
little fear of his harmless character that he made him Archbishop of Ephesus,
a post for which the ex-emperor was decidedly more fit than for the throne of
Constantinople. As weak-minded as his father, Michael had the misfortune to be
put under the tutorship of the wellknown Michael Psellus, a learned pedant, who,
instead of making the young prince fit to rule over man, by teaching him law and
history, and enlarging his mind, which was already narrow enough, instructed him
chiefly in grammar and rhetoric, thus creating in the young man an artificial
taste for such studies, which never left him in after life, and made his mind
quite unfit for the severe Ibusiness of government and legislation. While Michael
was a boy Psellus was proud of him, because his pupil was more learned than other
boys of his age, but when he became a man and a king, Psellus felt ashamed of
him and himself, and to this feeling we must needs ascribe the circumstance that
he did not extend his history to the reign of Michael, but left off with his accession.
(Zonar. vol. ii.; Bryen. lib. ii. iii. &c.; Scylitz.; Glycas; Manass.; Joel)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Jan 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Nicephorus III. Botaniates, emperor of Constantinople A. D. 1078-1081. He belonged to an illustrious family
which boasted of a descent from the Fabii of Rome. He was looked upon as a brave
general, but his military skill was the only quality that recommended him. It
is related in the life of the emperor Michael VII. Parapinaces, how Michael lost
his throne in consequence of the contemporaneous rebellion of Bryennius and Botaniates,
the subject of this article, and that the latter succeeded Michael on the throne.
Botaniates was crowned on the 25th of AMarch, 1078,and soon afterwards married
Maria, the wife of Michael, from whom she became divorced by the deposed emperor
taking holy orders. Before Nicephorus could enjoy his crown he had to defend it
against Bryennius, whom he routed and made a prisoner in the bloody battle of
Salabrya. Bryennius met the fate of most of the unfortunate rebels: he had his
eves put out, and was finally assassinated. Nicephorus made himself so detested
by his brutal manners, his ingratitude, and his debaucheries, that his short reignr
of three years was little more than an uninterrupted struggle against rebels,
amongst whom Basilacius, who was defeated on the Vardar by Alexis Comnenus, Constantine
Ducas, and Niceiphorus Melissenus, aspired to the throne. The 1st was still in
arms when the two Cotineni, Alexis and Isaac, were compelled to leave the court
if they would maintain their dignity and independence, in consequence of which
Alexis was proclaimed emperor and took up arms against his sovereign. Unable to
resist the torrent, Nicephorus made propositions to Melissenus to abdicate in
his favour, but Alexis Comnenus soon compelled him to do so in his own, and occupied
the throne in his stead (1st of April, 1081). Nicephorus was obliged to become
a monk and conform to the austere rules of St. Basil: lie died some time after
his deposition. His complaint that he regretted the loss of his throne and liberty
less than the necessity he was under to refrain from eating meat, shows sufficiently
what sort of man he was.
(Zonar. vol. ii.; Joel.; Glycas; Manass.)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Jan 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Bryennius, Nicephorus (Nikephoros Bruennios), the accomplished husband of Anna
Comnena, was born at Orestias in Macedonia in the middle of the eleventh century
of the Christian era. He was the son, or more probably the nephew, of another
Nicephorus Bryennius, who is renowned in Byzantine history as one of the first
generals of his time, and who, having revolted against the emperor Michael VII.
Ducas Parapinaces, assumed the imperial title at Dyrrhachium in 1071. Popular
opinion was in favour of the usurper, but he had to contend with a third rival,
Nicephorus Botaniates, who was supported by the aristocracy and clergy, and who
succeeded in deposing Michael and in becoming recognized as emperor under the
name of Nicephorus III. The contest then lay between Nicephorus Betaniates and
Nicephorus Bryennius, against whom the former sent an army commanded by Alexis
Comnenus, who afterwards became emperor. Bryennius was defeated and made prisoner
by Alexis near Calabrya in Thrace : he was treated by the victor with kindness;
but Basil, the emperor's minister, ordered his eyes to be put out. His son, or
nephew, the subject of this article, escaped the fate of his relative; and no
sooner had Alexis Comnenus ascended the throne (1081), than the name of Bryennius
became conspicuous as the emperor's most faithful friend.
Bryennius was not only distinguished by bodily beauty and military
talents, but also by his learning, the affability of his manners, and the wisdom
he shewed in the privy council of the emperor. During the first differences with
the crusaders, he was one of the chief supports of the throne; and, in order to
reward him for his eminent services, Alexis created for him the dignity of panhypersebastos
- a title until then unknown in the code of Byzantine ceremonies, and which gave
the bearer the rank of Caesar. But Bryennius is also called Caesar, and we must
therefore suppose that this title was formally conferred upon him. The greatest
mark of confidence, however, which Alexis bestowed upon him was the hand of his
daughter, Anna Comnena, with whom Bryennius lived in happiness during forty years.
Bryennius distinguished himself in the war between Alexis and Bohemond, prince
of Antioch, and negotiated the peace of 1108 to the entire satisfaction of his
sovereign.
Anna Comnena and the empress Irene tried to persuade the emperor to
name Bryennius his successor; but Alexis would not deprive his son John of his
natural rights. After the death of Alexis in 1118, and the accession of John,
Anna and Bryennius conspired against the young emperor, but the conspiracy failed.
The cause of its failure was the refusal of Bryennius to act in the decisive moment,
for which he was severely blamed by his haughty wife. They were punished with
confiscation of their estates and banishment to Oenoe, now Unieh, on the Black
Sea, where they led a retired life during several years. Bryennius afterwards
recovered the favour of the emperor. In 1137 he went to Cilicia and Syria with
the intention of relieving the siege of Antioch by the crusaders; but ill health
compelled him to return to Constantinople, where he died soon afterwards.
Bryennius is the author of a work entitled Hule historias, which is
a history of the reign of the emperors Isaac I. Comnenus, Constantine XI. Ducas,
Romanus III. Diogenes, and Michael VII. Ducas Parapinaces; his intention was to
write also the history of the following emperors, but death prevented him from
carrying his design into execution. This work, which is divided into four books,
is one of the most valuable of the Byzantine histories, and is distinguished by
the clearness of the narrative. Its principal value arises from its author being
not only a witness but also one of the chief loaders in the events which he relates,
and from his being accustomed to, and having the power of forming a judgment upon,
important affairs. The editio princeps forms part of the Paris collection of the
Byzantines, and was published by Pierre Poussines at the end of Procopius, Paris,
1661, fol., with notes and a Latin translation. The editor, who dedicated the
work to Christina, queen of Sweden, perused two MSS., one of Cujas, and the other
of Favre de St. Joire. Du Cange has written excellent notes upon it, which form
an appendix to his edition of Cinnamus, Paris, 1670, fol. Cousin (le president)
translated it into French in his usual extravagant and inaccurate way, which induced
Gibbon to say, "did he ever think?" A new and careful edition has been
published by Meineke, together with Cinnamus ("Nicephori Bryennii Commentarii,"
Bonn, 1836, 8vo.), which forms part of the Bonn collection of the Byzantines.
It contains the notes of Pierre Poussines and Du Cange, and the Latin translation
of the former revised by the editor. (Anna Comnena, Alexias ; Cinnamus, i. 1-10;
Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vii.; Hankius, de Byzant. Rer. Script. Graec.)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Alexis or Alexius I. Comnenus (Alexios Komnenos), emperor of Constantinople, was
most probably born in A. D. 1048. He was the son of John Comnenus, and the nephew
of the emperor Isaac Comnenus, and received a careful education from his mother
Anna. He accompanied the emperor Romanus Diogenes in the war against Alp-Arslan,
sultan of the Turks-Seljuks, and was present at the battle of Malazkerd, where
this emperor was made a prisoner by the sultan. After the deposition of Romanus
Dio genes in 1071, Alexis Comnenus and his elder brother Isaac joined the party
of the new emperor, Michael VII. Ducas, who employed Alexis against the rebels
who had produced great disturbances in Asia Minor. In this war Alexis distinguished
himself as a successful general, and showed that extraordinary shrewdness which
afterwards became the principal feature of his character. He defended Michael
VII. against the rebel Nicephorus Botaniates, but the cause of Michael having
become hopeless, he readily joined the victorious rebel, who became emperor under
the title of Nicephorus III. in 1077. The authority of Nicephorus III. was disobeyed
by several rebels, among whom Nicephorns Bryennius in Epeirus was the most dangerous;
but Alexis defeated them one after the other, and the grateful emperor conferred
upon him the title of "Sebastos". Alexis was then considered as the first general
of the Byzantine empire, but his military re nown made him suspected in the eyes
of the emperor, who kept him at Constantinople and tried to get rid of him by
base intrigues. But Alexis opposed in trigues to intrigues, and as he was not
only the most gallant, but also the most artful among his shrewd countrymen, he
outdid the emperor, who at last gave orders, that his eyes should be put out.
Alexis now fled to the army on the Danube, and was proclaimed emperor by the troops.
Assisted by his brother Isaac, who acted with great generosity, Alexis marched
to Constantinople, obtained possession of the city by a stratagem, deposed the
emperor, and ascended the throne in 1081.
The Byzantine empire was then at the point of ruin. While Alexis carried
on the war against the rebel Nicephorus Bryennius, and afterwards during his forced
sojourn at Constantinople, and the time of his differences with Nicephorus III.,
Melek-Shah, the son of Alp-Arslan, and the greatest prince of the Seljuks, had
conquered the Byzantine part of Asia Minor, which he ceded to his cousin Soliman.
The Bulgarians threatened to [p. 130] invade Thrace, and Robert Guiscard, duke
of Apulia, with a mighty host of Norman knights, had crossed the Adriatic and
laid siege to Durazzo, the ancient Dyrrachium. In this critical position Alexis
evinced extraordinary activity. He concluded peace with the Seljuks, ceding Asia
to them; he made an alliance with Venice and Henry IV., emperor of Germany; and
he sold the sacred vessels of the churches to pay his troops. His struggle with
the Normans was long and bloody, but famine, diseases, civil troubles, and a powerful
diversion of Henry IV., compelled the Normans to leave Epeirus in 1084. During
this time the Seljuks had recommenced hostilities, and threatened to block up
Constantinople with a fleet constructed by Greek captives. In this extremity Alexis
implored the assistance of the European princes.
The conquest of Jerusalem by the Seljuks, the interruption of the
pious pilgrimages to the holy grave, and the vexations which the Christians in
the East had to endure from the infidels, had produced an extraordinary excitement
among the nations in Europe. The idea of rescuing the town of our Saviour became
popular; the pope and the princes shewed themselves favourable to such an expedition,
and they resolved upon it after the ambassadors of Alexis had related to them
at Piacenza in 1095 the hopeless state of the Christians in Asia. The first Crusaders
appeared in Constantinople in 1096. They were commanded by Peter the Hermit and
Walter the Pennyless, and were rather a band of vagabonds than an army. Alexis
hastened to send them over to Asia, where they were massacred by the Turks. Soon
after them came a powerful army, commanded by Godfrey of Bouillon, and their continued
stay in the neighbourhood of Constantinople gave occasion to serious differences
between the Latins and the Greeks. However Alexis, by the alternate use of threats
and persuasions, not only succeeded in getting rid of the dangerous foreigners
by carrying them over to Asia, but also managed the pride of Godfrey of Bouillon
and his turbulent barons with so much dexterity, that they consented to take the
oath of vassalage for those provinces which they might conquer in Asia, and promised
to restore to the emperor the Byzantine territories, which had been taken by the
Seljuks. In his turn he promised to assist them in their enterprise with a strong
army, but the dangerous state of the empire prevented him from keeping his word.
However, in proportion as the Crusaders, in 1097, advanced into Asia, Alexis followed
them with a chosen body, and thus gradually reunited with his empire Nicaea, Chios,
Rhodes, Smyrna, Ephesus, Sardes, and finally all Asia Minor. The descendants of
Bohemond, prince of Antioch, did homage to Alexis, to whom they restored Tarsus
and Malmistra. During the latter years of his reign, Alexis was occupied with
consolidating the domestic peace of his empire, which was then often disturbed
by religious troubles. He died in 1118, at the age of seventy, and his successor
was his son John, generally called Calo-Joannes.
Alexis was the author of a work entitled logarike, which was published
in the 4th volume of the Analecta Graeca, Par. 1688, and also from a later manuscript
by Gronovius at the end of his work De Sestertiis, Lugd. Bat. 1691. Respecting
the ecclesiastical edicts of Alexius, several of which are extant, see Fabric.
Bibl. Graec. vii. p. 729.
The life of Alexis has been carefully, though very partially, described
by his daughter, Anna Comnena, in her Alexias, which is the principal source concerning
this emperor.
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Calo-Joannes or Joannes II. Comnenus (Kalo-Ioannes ho Komnenos), one of the greatest
and best emperors of the East, the eldest son and successor of Alexis I. Comnenus,
was born in 1088. His real name was Joannes. His diminutive stature, tawny complexion,
and ugly features, distinguished him, not to his advantage, from among the other
princes of the handsome Comnenian race; and it would seem that his name Calo-Joannes,
or John the Handsome, was a nickname, were we not justified in believing that
that name was given him for the beauty of his mind. His virtues were acknowledged
by his father, who, when urged on his death-bed to leave the empire to Bryennius,
his excellent son-in-law, resisted the persuasion of his wife and his daughter
Anna, and appointed Calo-Joannes his successor. The new emperor ascended the throne
on the 15th of August, 1118. It is related under Anna Comnena and Nicephorus Beryennius,
that their conspiracy to depose Calo-Joannes and to make Bryennius emperor, proved
abortive, and that the property of both was confiscated. The emperor was especially
protected by his younger brother, Isaac Sebastocrator, and by his minister, Axuch,
a Turk who had been made prisoner during the reign of Alexis I., and who, joining
great talents and knowledge with honesty and affable manners, advanced from one
eminent post to another, till he became magnus domesticus, or prime minister,
an office which he held during the whole reign of Calo-Joannes. The conspiracy
of Anna and Bryennius was the only event that troubled the reign of Calo-Joannes,
who won the hearts of his subjects to such a degree, that he ventured to abolish
the punishment of death, and deserved to be called the Byzantine Marcus Aurelius.
His relations with his brother Isaac were a model of brotherly affection, and
though their friendship was on one occasion disturbed by the slander of some courtiers,
it was but for a short time. The reign of Calo-Joannes is a series of wars, and
each war was a triumph for the Greek arms. But while Nicetas and Cinnamus, the
chief sources, dwell with prolixity on the description of so many glorious deeds,
they have neglected to give us a satisfactory exposition of the emperor's administration,
and their chronology is very confused. This circumstance has probably induced
Gibbon to relate the reign of Calo-Joannes without any chronology except the dates
of his accession and his death. Le Beau, in his Histoire du Bas Empire, gives
a careful chronology which he has established by comparing the Latin historians,
especially Guilielmus Tyrensis and Otho Frisingensis; and Du Cange (Familiae Byzantinae)
gives an account of the different statements respecting the year in which Calo-Joannes
died. We follow Le Beau and Du Cange.
The wars of Calo-Joannes with the different princes of the Turks lasted
during his whole reign with scarcely any interruption. In the first campaign,
in 1119, he took Laodiceia, and spared the lives of the garrison, and in 1120
he took Sozopolis. An invasion of the Petchenegues or Patzinacitae, who had crossed
the Danube, called him to Thrace, and in 1122 he obtained a complete victory over
them in Macedonia, giving the example at once of a general and a soldier. This
war was finished to the advantage of the Greeks: the Petchenegues returned into
their Scythian steppes, and great numbers of them who had been made prisoners
received lands from the emperor in the very districts which their brethren had
laid waste. In 1123 he took the field against the revolted Servians, who were
supported by Stephen II., king of Hungary, who took Belgrade and Branizova. But
in the following year, 1124, Calo-Joannes advanced with a strong army, took Francochorium
near Sirmium, conquered the country between the Save and the Danube, and forced
the king to desist from farther attempts on the Greek empire. According to the
Greek historians, the advantages of this war were rather on the side of king Stephen;
while, strange enough, the Hungarian annalists attribute both victories and advantages
to the Greeks. Thence Calo-Joannes turned once more against the Turks of Iconium,
and took Castamonia and Gangra, which his garrisons were, however, obliged to
surrender to the Turks a short time afterwards. The emperor was more fortunate,
in 1131, against the Armenians of Cilicia, or Armenia Minor, under their prince
Livo or Leo, who was vanquished in several engagements; and in 1137, all his dominions
were annexed to the Greek empire, and received the name of the fourth Armenia.
This conquest brought him in contact with Raymond, prince of Antioch, who, according
to the treaties made between Alexis I. and prince Boemond I. of Antioch, was obliged
to recognize the Greek emperor as his liege lord, but refused doing so, till Calo-Joannes
compelled him, partly by negotiations, partly by threats. The emperor entered
Antioch in 1138, and prince Raymond and the count of Edessa held the bridles of
his horse, as a token of their vassalship. During his stay in that town, the emperor
was exposed to great danger by a sudden uproar of the people, who fancied that
the town was about to be given over to the Greeks. The emperor saved himself by
a sudden flight, and was going to storm Antioch, when prince Raymond came to his
camp, made an apology for the reckless conduct of his subjects, and soothed the
emperor's anger by a new protestation of his faith. Calo-Joannes and Raymond now
joined their troops, and made a successful campaign against the Turks-Atabeks
in Syria, whose emir Emad-ed-din had conquered Haleb. Calo-Joannes returned to
Constantinople in 1141, defeating on his march the sultan of Iconium, from whom
he took the fortified islands in the lake near Iconium, and exterminated the pirates
and robbers who had infested the coasts from Cilicia to Lydia. Encouraged by so
many victories, and supported by eminent generals and well-disciplined troops,
who were in every respect equal to those of the Latin princes of the East, Calo-Joannes
conceived the plan of conquering the Latin kingdoms and principalities of Jerusalem,
Antioch, &c., and of driving out the Atabecks from Syria, all of which were provinces
that had once belonged to the Eastern empire. In 1142 he set out for Cilicia at
the head of a strong army, pretending that he was going to make a pilgrimage to
Jerusalem. In the spring of 1143, he was at Anazarba. While hunting one day in
the forests on the banks of the Pyramus, he attacked a wild boar : he succeeded
in piercing the beast with his spear, but in the struggle his quiver was upset,
and he received a slight wound in his hand from one of the arrows. The weapon
was poisoned, and as the emperor would not allow his hand to be amputated, he
died from the effects of the wound, on the 8th of April, 1143. His successor was
his fourth son, Manuel, whom the emperor appointed in preference to his third
son, Isaac; his eldest sons, Alexis and Andronicus, had both died a short time
before their father. The wife of Calo-Joannes was Irene the daughter of Wladislaw
I. the Saint, king of Hungary, the sister of king Caloman, and the aunt of king
Stephen I., with whom Calo-Joannes made war : he married her before 1105, and
she died in 1124. (Nicetas, Joannes Comnenus; Cinnamus, i. ii. 1-5.)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Nov 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Eudocia, Daughter of Andronicus Comnenus, second son of the Byzantine emperor Calo-Joannes. She was married, but to whom is unknown; and after her husband's death lived in concubinage with Andronicus, her cousin, afterwards emperor as Andronicus I. Her second husband was Michael Gabras, to whom she was married. We can give no exact dates of the few incidents known of her life. She lived in the middle of the twelfth century. (Michael Glycas, Manuel Comnenus)
Manuel I., Comnenus (Manouel ho Komnenos), emperor of Constantinople A. D. 1143-1181,
the fourth child and son of the emperor Calo-Joannes (Joannes II.), was born about
A. D. 1120, and succeeded his father in 1143. Of his three elder brothers, Alexis
and Andronicus had both died before their father; but the third, Isaac Sebastocrator,
was still alive, and would have had better claims to the crown than Manuel, but
for a special declaration of the late emperor, who preferred the younger to the
elder on account of his martial qualities. Manuel was with his father when the
latter lost his life through an accident in Cilicia; and fears were entertained
that Isaac, who was then in Constantinople, would seize the supreme power. But
no sooner had John expired than the faithful minister, Axuch, hastened to the
capital, seized Isaac, confined him in a prison, and succeeded in causing Manuel
to be recognized in Constantinople, where he met with a brilliant reception, on
his arrival from Cilicia, a short time afterwards. Manuel was scarcely seated
on his throne, when he was involved in an uninterrupted series of wars with the
nations of the East as well as the West, in which, though not always successful,
he distinguished himself so much by his undaunted courage and heroic deeds as
to deserve the name of the greatest hero of a time when there was no lack of extraordinary
achievements in the field. The discovery that his brother Isaac seemed not to
entertain ambitious designs, and the re-establishment of a good understanding
between the two brothers, allowed Manuel to devote himself entirely to the conduct
of his wars and to those endless intrigues and negotiations in which he found
himself involved. As early as 1144 his general, Demetrius Branas, forced Raymond,
the Latin prince of Antioch, who had shaken off his allegiance towards the emperor,
to submit to Greek valour, and to renew, in Constantinople, the bonds of his vassalship.
In the following year Manuel set out against the Turks, who had invaded Isauria,
defeated them in several pitched battles, and cast such a terror among the Turkish
soldiers, that they would no longer keep the field; whereupon peace was concluded
to the advantage of the victor. About this time Manuel found reason to distrust
his brother Isaac, who was deprived of his title of Sebastocrator; but as there
was no direct evidence of treason against him, he was allowed to live on condition
of retiring into a convent, where he spent the rest of his life. In the same year,
1147, Manuel received information from king Louis VII. of France, that the Western
princes, headed by the king and the emperor Conrad III. of Germany, had resolved
upon a new crusade, and desired his alliance. Manuel promised it, but gave secret
information of the approaching storm to the Turks. Nevertheless he allowed Conrad
to pass through his dominions with a vast army, and subsequently the French king
also.
While the Crusaders were fighting with the Turks, Manuel was involved
in a war with Roger, the Norman king of Sicily, who possessed likewise a large
portion of Southern Italy, and who, thinking that the new crusade would prevent
the Greek emperor from maintaining great forces in Europe, prepared for an invasion
of Greece. This war, which broke out in 1148, is by far the most remarkable in
the history of Manuel, who, however, did not engage in it alone, but found an
ally in the republic of Venice. Marching at the head of his veterans towards Macedonia,
he was informed, while at Philippopolis, that the Patzenegnes had crossed the
Danube, probably excited by king Roger. Without hesitating a moment, Manuel wheeled
to the right, fell upon the barbarians, drove them back into the Dacian wildernesses;
and after receiving hostages for their future good behaviour, returned with rapid
marches towards Macedonia. embarked at Thessalonica, and landed his host in Corfu
before the end of the year. There he was joined by a Venetian army. The fortress
of Corfu yielded to him after an obstinate and protracted siege, signalised by
the death of his brotherin-law, Stephanus Contostephanus, Magnus Dux, who was
succeeded in the command by the faithful Axuch. The surrender of that important
fortress was delayed by a bloody quarrel which broke out between the Greeks and
the Venetians. In this siege Manuel was foremost among those who stormed the town;
and his fleet having one day made several fruitless attempts to drive the Sicilians
from some outworks near the sea, he put himself on the poop of a galley, and cheered
his men on while showers of arrows and other missiles came down upon the spot
where he stood. His boldness excited the admiration of the Sicilians, who ceased
for a moment to make him the aim of their weapons. They would, however, soon have
despatched him but for the voice of their commander, who cried out that it would
be dishonourable to kill an hero like Manuel. The emperor intended to attack Roger
within his own dominions, but the crafty Norman enticed the Servians and Hungarians
to make a diversion on the Danube. The former were vanquished in two campaigns,
when they begged for peace; and the Hungarian war lasted till 1152, when their
king, Geisa, after having been beaten in many pitched battles, promised to desist
from molesting the empire. The peace, however, was of short duration. In the same
year, 1152, Manuel experienced a repulse in a war with the Turks in Cilicia; but
in Italy his armies met with glorious success. The Greeks having landed in Italy,
took Brundusium, Bari, and other places of importance; the fleet of the Sicilians
was defeated in several decisive engagements; and it seemed that John Ducas, the
gallant commander-in-chief of the Greeks, would find no more obstacles in re-uniting
Southern Italy with the Byzantine empire. The sanguine hopes of Manuel were blighted
by William, the successor of king Roger, who fell upon Alexis Comnenus, the successor
of John Ducas; and after a severe struggle, routed the Greeks. At the same time
the Greek fleet was defeated off Negropont; and Maius, the Sicilian admiral, sailed
without loss of time for Constantinople, where he landed a considerable force.
The inhabitants were thrown into the utmost consternation; but their fears soon
ceased, since Maius was not strong enough to attempt any thing of importance,
and consequently sailed home, satisfied with some booty and captives. These checks
produced a great effect upon the mind of Manuel, who, having received a very noble
letter from king William, with offers of an honourable peace, accepted the proposition,
and thus this memorable war terminated in 1155. The conquests on both sides were
given back, as well as all the captives, except those Greeks taken by the Sicilians
who were silk-weavers, and who were to remain in Italy, where they laid the foundation
of the flourishing state of Italian silk manufactures. The following years were
signalised by hostilities with Raymond, prince of Antioch, who was soon brought
to obedience; and Az-ed-din, the Turkish Sultan, who met with no better success,
and went to Constantinople to sue for peace.
The tranquillity of Asia was no sooner settled, than a new and terrible
war broke out in the north. King Geisa of Hungary fancied that the forces of the
empire were exhausted by protracted warfare, and accordingly crossed the Danube.
Manuel intended to lead his armies in person, but he [p. 923] yielded to the entreaties
of his subjects and his ministers, who wanted a firm head in the capital during
the approaching storm; and the command of the army was consequently entrusted
to Andronicus Contostephanus. Under Andronicus were Andronicus Lampados, Andronicus
Comnenus, and Demetrius and Georgius Branas. The armies met not far from Zeugminum,
the present Semlin; and after one of the most bloody and obstinate contests recorded
in history, in which Demetrius Branas was slain, and the left wing of the Greeks
completely routed, Andronicus Contostephanus at last carried the day. So terrible
was the loss of the Hungarians, that king Geisa sued for immediate peace, which
was granted to him; and during a considerable period the Byzantine influence was
so great in Hungary as to cause to its inhabitants great uneasiness for their
further independence. A few years afterwards Manuel set out for Asia, and in an
interview with king Amalric, who had just come to the throne, and intended to
persuade Manuel to send him some auxiliaries for an expedition into Egypt, Manuel
accepted the proposition with joy; but instead of a subordinate force, he equipped
a fleet of 220 large ships, with a sufficient army on board, under the command
of Andronicus Contostephanus (1169). When this powerful armament appeared off
Ascalon it excited the jealousy of Amalric, who was justly afraid that his share
in the projected conquests would not answer his expectation; and this jealousy
gradually instilling itself into the minds of all the party, became the cause
of the final failure of the whole undertaking. The combined Latin and Greek forces
marched by land upon Damietta, where the fleet appeared soon afterwards. The siege
was long; but the town was at last reduced to such extremity, that everybody expected
its hourly surrender, when the treachery of either Amalric himself or one of his
generals obliged the assailants to raise the siege and retreat into Palestine.
In order to clear himself from any blame, Amalric went to Constantinople, where
he met with a splendid reception from Manuel, who was ready to join him in a second
expedition, when he was unexpectedly involved in two wars, with the Venetians
and the Turks. In 1176 Manuel suffered a dreadful defeat near Myriocephalus from
Sultan Az-ed-din, in spite of his almost incredible personal valour, and completely
surrounded by superior forces, was comnpelled to make a dishonourable peace, promising,
among other conditions, to raze the fortresses of Sableium and Dorylaeum (1176).
Anxious to revenge himself for such unexpected disgrace, Manuel broke the peace,
and the war was renewed this time with better success for the Greeks, who routed
Az-ed-din in Lydia, and finally obtained an honourable peace (1177). Manuel now
proposed to the emperor Frederic an alliance against king Henry of Sicily, whom
he intended to deprive of all his dominions; but the negotiations to that effect
were carried on slowly; and it seemed that Manuel had lost his former energy.
In fact, the defeat at Myriocephalus preyed upon his mind; his strength was undermined
by a slow fever; and in the spring of 1180 he was compelled to keep to his bed,
from which he never rose again. After a painful and long illness, he died on the
24th of September following, at the age of sixty. The reign of Manuel was glorious,
yet presents nothing but an uninterrupted series of bloodshed and devastation.
Manuel was perhaps the greatest warrior of his time, but he was far from being
a great general. When young he was virtuous, but after he had ascended the throne
he plunged into all those vices by which the Greeks, and especially the Comnenian
family, disgraced themselves. He oppressed his subjects by heavy war-taxes, yet
he did not pay his troops, though he gave large pensions to ministers or other
men of influence at foreign courts, where he was constantly intriguing. He is
said to have been deeply versed in theology, but was certainly rather a great
talker than a great thinker on religion. His first wife was Bertha (Irene), niece
of Conrad III., emperor of Germany; and his second Maria (Xene), daughter of Raymend,
prince of Antioch. His concubinage with his niece, Theodora Comnena, was a great
disgrace to him. He was succeeded by his only son, Alexis II.
(Cinnam. lib. i. iv.; Nicet. lib. ii. iii.; Guill. Tyrensis, lib. xvi. We have
more Latin or Western than Byzantine sources on the history of the time)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Jan 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Alexis or Alexius II. Comnenus (Alexios Komnenos), emperor of Constantinople,
the son of the emperor Manuel Comnenus, was born in 1167, according to Nicetas.
In 1179, he married Agnes or Anna, the daughter of king Louis VII. of France,
and succeeded his father in 1180, under the guardianship of his mother Maria,
the daughter of Raymond, prince of Antioch. They both became victims of the ambition
of Andronicus Comnenus, who first compelled the young emperor to sign the death
of his mother, and then put Alexis to death in 1183; whereupon he succeeded him
on the throne. (Nicetas, Alexis Manuel)
Andronicus I. Comnenus (Andronikos Komnenos), emperor of Constantinople, son of Isaac,
grandson of Alexis I. and first-cousin of the emperor Manuel Comnenus, was born
in the beginning of the twelfth century after Christ. The life of this highly
gifted man, who deserves the name of the Byzantine Alcibiades, presents a series
of adventures of so extraordinary a description, as to appear more like a romance
than a history. Nature had lavished upon him her choicest gifts. His manly beauty
was unparalleled, and the vigour of his body was animated by an enterprising mind
and an undaunted spirit. Endowed with great capacities, he received a careful
education, and the persuasive power of his eloquence was so great, that he was
equally dangerous to kings and queens : three royal princesses were his concubines.
For love and war were his predominant passions, but they both degenerated into
luxury and cruelty. In every deed or mischief, says Gibbon, he had a heart to
resolve, a head to contrive, and a hand to execute.
In 1141 he was made prisoner by the Turks-Seljuks, and remained during
a year in their captivity. After being released, he received the command in Cilicia,
and he went there accompanied by Eudoxia Comnena, the niece of the emperor Manuel,
who lived on a similar footing with her sister Theodora. At the close of this
war he received the government of Naissus, Braniseba, and Castoria; but the emperor
soon afterwards ordered him to be imprisoned in Constantinople. He escaped from
captivity after having been confined twelve years, and fled to Jaroslav, grand
duke of Russia, and at Kiev obtained the pardon of his offended sovereign. He
contrived an alliance between Manuel and Jaroslav against Hungary, and at the
head of a Russian army distinguished himself in the siege of Semlin. Still suspected
by Manuel, he was again sent to Cilicia. He staid some time at Antioch, and there
seduced Philippa, the daughter of Raymond of Poitou, prince of Antioch, and the
sister-in-law of the emperor Manuel, who had married her sister Maria. To escape
the resentment of the emperor, he fled to Jerusalem, and thence eloped with Theodora,
the widow of Baldwin III. king of Jerusalem, a Comnenian princess who was renowned
for her beauty. They first took refuge at the court of Nur-ed-din, sultan of Damascus;
thence they went to Baghdad and Persia, and at length settled among the Turks.
He then proceeded to make war upon the emperor of Constantinople, and invaded
the province of Trebizond, but the governor of this town succeeded in taking queen
Theodora and the two children she had borne to Andronicus, and sent them to Constantinople.
To regain them Andronicus implored the mercy of his sovereign, and after prostrating
himself laden with chains to the foot of the emperor's throne, he retired to Oenoe,
now Unieh, a town on the Black Sea in the present eyalet of Trebizond. There he
lived quietly till the death of the emperor Manuel in 1180.
Manuel was succeeded by Alexis II., whom Andronicus put to death in
the month of October 1183, and thereupon he ascended the throne. Agnes or Anna,
the widow of Alexis, and daughter of Louis VII. king of France, a child of eleven
years, was compelled to marry Andronicus, who was then advanced in years. His
reign was short. He was hated by the nobles, numbers of whom he put to death,
but was beloved by the people. His administration was wise; and he remedied several
abuses in civil and ecclesiastical matters. William II., the Good, king of Sicily,
whom the fugitive Greek nobles had persuaded to invade Greece, was compelled by
Andronicus to desist from his attack on Constantinople and to withdraw to his
country, after he had destroyed Thessalonica. Thus Andronicus thought himself
quite sure on the throne, when the imprudence of his lieutenant, the superstitious
Hagiochristophorites, suddenly caused a dreadful rebellion. This officer resolved
to put to death Isaac Angelus, a noble but not a dangerous man; the people of
Constantinople, however, moved to pity, took arms for the rescue of the victim,
and Isaac was proclaimed emperor. Andronicus was seized, and Isaac abandoned him
to the revenge of his most implacable enemies. After having been carried through
the streets of the city, he was hanged by the feet between the statues of a sow
and a wolf, and in that position was put to death by the mob (12th of September,
1185). (Nicetas, Manuel Comnenus, i. 1, iii. iv. 1-5; Alexis Manuelis Comn. Fil.
c. 2, 9, &c.; Andronicus Comnenus; Guilielmus Tyrensis, xxi. 13)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Isaacus II. Angelus (Isaakios ho Angelos), emperor of Constantinople (A. D. 1185
-1195), was the eldest son of Andronicus Angelus, and was born in the middle half
of the 12th century. Belonging to one of the great Byzantine families and descended,
through his grandmother Theodora, from the imperial family of the Comneni, he
held several offices of importance in the reign of the emperor Manuel Comnenus;
but his name remained obscure, and the emperor Andronicus Comnenus, the exterminator
of the Greek nobility, despised to kill such a harmless being, although he put
his father Andronicus Angelus to death. The weak-minded Isaac became, nevertheless,
the cause of the deposition and miserable end of Andronicus Comnenus. In the summer
of 1185 the emperor retired for a short time to one of his country seats in Asia,
appointing one Hagiochristophorites his lieutenant in Constantinople during his
absence. This officer gave orders to put Isaac to death, because his name began
with an I; and there was a silly belief among the people that Andronicus would
be ruined by somebody whose name began with an I. Isaac was fortunately apprized
of the bloody design of the emperor's lieutenant, but had barely time to escape
from his palace, and to avail himself of the sanctuary of the church of St. Sophia.
A dense crowd soon filled the church : Isaac implored their assistance; and the
numerous enemies of Andronicus, exerting themselves to kindle a revolt in favour
of any one persecuted by that cruel emperor, the fickle people of Constantinople
suddenly took up arms, killed the officers despatched by Hagiochristophorites
to put Isaac to death, and proclaimed the latter emperor of Constantinople (A.
D. 1185). Andronicus hastened to his capital, but it was too late he was seized
by the mob, and, by order, or at least with the consent of Isaac, perished in
the miserable manner which is related in his life.
No sooner was Isaac firmly established on the throne than lie began
a life which Gibbon thus describes: "He slept on the throne, and was awakened
only by the sound of pleasure: his vacant hours were amused by comedians and buffoons;
and even to these buffoons the emperor was an object of contempt: his feasts and
buildings exceeded the examples of royal luxury, the number of his eunuchs and
domestics amounted to twenty thousand, and the daily sum of four thousand pounds
of silver would swell to four millions sterling the annual expense of his household
and table. His poverty was relieved by oppression, and the public discontent was
inflamed by equal abuses in the collection and the application of the revenue".
Shortly after his accession Isaac was involved in a dreadful war with the Bulgarians,
which arose under the following circumstances:
After the conquest by Basil II. of the powerful Bulgarian kingdom,
which extended over the greater part of the Thracian peninsula, the Bulgarians
continued to live under the sway of the Byzantine emperors, till Peter and Asan,
two brothers, who were descended from the ancient kings of Bulgaria, took up arms
in order to deliver their country from the insupportable oppression and rapacity
of Isaac. They were successful -they penetrated as far as Thessalonica- they defeated
and made prisoner Isaac Sebastocrator, the Greek generalissimo, in a pitched battle;
and at last Asan was acknowledged as king of Bulgaria Nigra, or that country which
is still called Bulgaria. In this war the Bulgarians were assisted by the Blachi
or Moro-Vlachi, the descendants of ancient Roman colonists in the mountainous
parts of Thessaly and Macedonia, who were likewise driven to despair by the rapacious
emperor, and who finally left their homes and emigrated into the countries beyond
the Danube (Dacia), where, mixed with Slavonian tribes, they continued to live,
and still live, as Wallachians. However, some of them remained in their native
mountains in Thessaly and Macedonia: they were the ancestors of the present Kutzo-Wallachians.
In a second war with the Bulgarians, the Greek arms obtained a decisive victory
(1193); but Isaac was, nevertheless, obliged to recognise the successor of Asan,
Joannicus or Joannes. Isaac was more successful against William II., the Good,
who was compelled, in 1187, to give up the conquests which he had made two years
previously in Epeirus, Thessaly, and Macedonia. In 1189 the emperor Frederic I.
of Germany appeared on the northern frontier of the Byzantine empire, with an
army of 150,000 men, on his way to the Holy Land. Iin spite of the menaces of
Isaac., the emperor quietly advanced, took up his winter-quarters at Adrianople,
and crossed the Bosporus, deelining both to help the Bulgarians against the Greeks,
and the Greeks against the Bulgarians.
Isaac was so terrified by the emperor's march through his dominions,
and the success of the other crusaders in Syria and Palestine, that he sent an
ambassador to Saladin offering him his alliance against the Latins, which, however,
Saladin declined, because Isaac demanded the restitution of the holy sepulchre.
Besides Bulgaria, Isaac lost the island of Cyprus, where Alexis Comnenus had made
himself independent, but was deprived of his conquest by Richard Coeur de Lion
of England (1191), who in 1192 ceded it to king Guido of Jerusalem; and Cyprus
was never again united to the Byzantine empire. Isaac, continuing to make himself
despised and hated by the Greeks, a rebellion broke out at Constantinople while
he was hunting in the mountains of Thrace; and Alexis, the younger brother of
Isaac, was raised to the throne. On this news, Isaac fled without daring to implore
the assistance of any one. Arrived at Stagyra in Macedonia, he was arrested and
brought before Alexis, who ordered his eyes to be put out, and confined him in
a prison (1195). Alexis, the son of Isaac, fortunately escaped, fled to Italy,
and succeeded in rousing the Latin princes to a war against Alexis III., which
resulted in the capture of Constantinople in 1203, and the restoration of the
blind Isaac, who reigned, together with his son, till the following year, 1204,
when Alexis IV. was dethroned and killed by Alexis Ducas Murzuphlus, who usurped
the throne, and kept it during two months, when he, in his turn, was deposed by
the Latins. Murzuphlus spared the life of Isaac, who, however, did not long survive
the melancholy fate of his youthful and spirited son.
(Nicetas, Isaacius Angelus; Isaacius et Alexis filius; the Latin authorities quoted
under Alexis III., IV., V.]
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Jan 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Alexis or Alexius III. Angelus (Alexios Angelos), the brother of the emperor Isaac II. Angelus, whom he deposed and blinded in 1195. Being a descendant of Alexis I. Comnenus by Theodora, the youngest daughter of the latter, he assumed the family-name of his great ancestor, and is therefore commonly called Alexis Angelus-Comnenus. In 1197 and 1198, he carried on war with Persia and the Seljuks of Koniah, but his armies were defeated. Being base, rapacious, and cruel, he incurred the hatred and contempt of his subjects, and prepared his ruin. He lost the crown through his nephew, Alexis, the son of Isaac II. Angelus, who, having escaped from Constantinople, succeeded in persuading the Crusaders assembled in Venice to make an expedition against the usurper. Amounting to 20,000 men, and commanded by Dandolo, doge of Venice, they attacked Constantinople in the month of July, 1203; but before they had taken this city, Alexis III. abandoned his palace and fled to Italy, carrying with him 10,000 pounds of gold. After his flight, Constantinople was occupied by the Crusaders, who recognised as emperors the blinded Isaac and his son Alexis. He afterwards returned to Greece, and treacherously blinded the emperor Alexis V. Murzuphlus, who after his deposition in 1204, had fled to Alexis III., whose daughter he had married. Meanwhile, Theodore Lascaris succeeded in making himself independent at Nicaea, but was involved in a war with Ghayath-ed-din, sultan of Koniah. In 1210, Alexis III. fled to this sultan, and persuaded him to support his claims to the throne of Byzantium, and to declare war against Theodore Lascaris. The war proved fatal for the sultan, who was killed in the battle of Antioch, and Alexis III. was made prisoner. Theodore Lascaris had married Anna Angela-Comnena, the second daughter of Alexis III., but this circumstance did not prevent him from confining his father-in-law to a monastery at Nicaea. (1210). There Alexis III. died some years after at an advanced age; the exact year of his birth is not known. (Nicetas, Alexis Angelus, Isaacus Angelus, iii. 8, &c.; Isaacius et Alex. fil. c.?
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Alexis or Alexius IV. Angelus (Alexios Angelos), was the son of the emperor Isaac
II. Angelus. It is mentioned under Alexis III. that, after the deposition of tills
emperor, he and his father were placed on the throne by the Crusaders. Alexis
IV. was crowned together with Isaac II. on the 29th of July, 1203, and, to secure
himself on the throne, engaged the Crusaders to continue at Constantinople. He
had promised them to put an end to the schism of the Greek Church, but did not
do anything for that purpose, nor did he fulfil his other engagements towards
the Crusaders. At the same time, he did not understand how to maintain his dignity
among the turbulent and haughty barons of Italy, France, and Flanders, who were
assembled in his capital. Serious differences consequently arose between him and
his deliverers. Alexis Ducas, surnamed Murzuphlus, an ambitious and enterprising
man, took advantage of these troubles, and suddenly seized the crown. By his order
Alexis IV. was put to death on the 28th of January, 1204; Isaac II. died of grief.
(Nicetas, Isaacius Angelus, iii. c. 8, &c.; Isaacius et Alexis fil.)
Alexis or Alexius V. Doucas (Alexios Douka), surnamed "Murzuphlus", on account of the close junction of his shaggy eyebrows, was crowned emperor of Constantinople on the 8th of February, 1204, after having been present at the murder of Alexis IV., who was put to death by his order. His earlier life is almost unknown. Nicetas, however, states, that he had always been rapacious and voluptuous; on the other hand, he was a man of great courage and energy. Immediately after he had usurped the throne, the Crusaders, who were still assembled under the walls of Constantinople, laid siege to this city. Alexis V. disdained to conclude peace with them on dishonourable conditions, and prepared for resistance, in which he was vigorously assisted by Theodore Lascaris. However, courage suddenly abandoned him, and he fled to the deposed emperor Alexis III., whose daughter Eudoxia Angela-Comnena he had just married. Constantinople was taken by storm by the Crusaders (12th of April, 1204), who, after having committed those horrors, of which Nicetas, an eye-witness, gives such an emphatical description, chose Baldwin, count of Flanders, emperor of Constantinople, but leaving him only the fourth part of the empire. After being deprived of sight by his father-in-law, Alexis V. fled to the Morea, but was arrested and carried to Constantinople, where the Crusaders put him to death by casting him from the top of the Theodosian column.(Nicetas, Murzuphlus; Isaacius Angelus et Alex. fil. c. 4, 5)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Theodorus I. Lascaris, Greek emperor of Nicaea, A. D. 1206-1222, was descended
from a noble family at Constantinople. While in a private station he married Anna
Angela Comnena, the second daughter of the emperor Alexis III. Angelus. He was
a man of energy and ability. and exhorted his father-in-law to resist the Latins
when they laid siege to Constantinople in 1203, ; but Alexis in despair abandoned
the city and fled to Italy, to Conrad, Marquis of Monteferrato, who had married
his sister. In the troubles which followed at Constantinople, the history of which
has been related elsewhere, Theodore continued to support the party that was opposed
to the Latins; but after Constantinople had been taken by storm on the 12th of
April 1204, and Baldwin, count of Flanders, had been placed on the imperial throne,
Theodore fled with his wife to the Asiatic coast. Here he succeeded in raising
some troops, by means of which he made himself master of the town of Nicaea, and
the greater part of Bithynia. He was, however, soon deprived of his conquests
by Louis Count of Blois, who had received Bithynia as his share of the Byzantine
dominions; but he recovered them again when Louis was recalled' to Constantinople
to the assistance of Baldwin, who was hard pressed by the Bulgarians and the revolted
Greeks. Theodore had previously governed with the title of Despot, in the name
of his father-hi-law, the deposed emperor Alexis II.; but as the latter was. still
retained in captivity by the Marquis of Monteferrato, he now assumed the title
of emperor of the Romans, as lawful heir to the crown, in virtue of his marriage
with Anna, and was publicly crowned at Nicaea as emperor by Michael Autorianus,
the Greek patriarch (1206). His title, however, was disputed by several other
Greek princes, who had established for themselves independent principalities in
Asia Minor. The most formidable of these rivals was Alexis Comnenus, who reigned
as emperor at Trebizond, with whom Theodore carried on a successful war for some
years. He also had to contend with Henry, the Latin emperor at Constantinople,
and the successor of Baldwin, over whom he gained several victories ; and it is
no small proof of his abilities, that although surrounded by so many enemies,
he gradually extended his dominions, and increased his power. For the history
of his war with the Latins, see Henricus. In 1210 a new enemy appeared. In this
year his father-in-law, Alexis, who had escaped from captivity, claimed the throne,
and was supported in his claims by Gayath-ed-din, the powerful sultan of Koniah.
As Theodore refused to surrender the crown to his father-in-law, the sultan marched
against him at the head of a powerful army, but was defeated and slain in battle.
Alexis fell into the hands of Theodore, who kept him in confinement in a monastery,
where he died some years afterwards. Theodore spent the latter years of his reign
in peace. He died in 1222, a little more than 45 years of age, and in the 18th
year of his reign, computing from the time that he first became master of Nicaea,
but in the 16th year from the date of his coronation. He left no male offspring,
and was succeeded by his son-in-law Joannes Vatatzes, who had married his daughter
Irene. Theodore was married thrice. 1. To Anna Comnena, the daughter of Alexis
III. 2. To Philippa, an Armenian princess, whom he divorced. 3. To Maria, the
daughter of Peter of Courtenay, emperor of Constantinople.
(Nicetas, Alex. Comn. and Balduinus; Acropolita, cc. 6, 14, 15, 18; Du Cange,
Familiae Byzantinae)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Jan 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Balduinus I. (Baldouinos), Baldwin, the first Latin emperor of Constantinople,
was the son of Baldwin, count of Hainaut, and Marguerite, countess of Flanders.
He was born at Valenciennes in 1171, and after the death of his parents inherited
both the counties of Hainaut and Flanders. He was one of the most powerful among
those warlike barons who took the cross in 1200, and arrived at Venice in 1202,
whence they intended to sail to the Holy Land. They changed their plan at the
supplication of prince Alexis Angelus, the son of the emperor Isaac II. Angelus,
who was gone to Venice for the purpose of persuading the crusaders to attack Constantinople
and release Isaac, who had been deposed, blinded, and imprisoned by his brother
Alexis Angelus, who reigned as Alexis III. from the year 1195. The crusaders listened
to the promises of young Alexis, who was chiefly supported by Baldwin of Flanders,
as he is generally called; and they left Venice with a powerful fleet, commanded
by the doge of Venice, Dandolo, who was also commander-in-chief of the whole expedition.
The various incidents and the final result of this bold undertaking are given
under ALlexis III., IV., and V. The usurper Alexis III. was driven out by the
crusaders ; prince Alexis and his father Isaac succeeded him on the throne; both
perished by the usurper Alexis V. Ducas Murzuphlus; and Murzuphlus in his turn
was driven out and put to death by the crusaders in 1204. During this remarkable
war Baldwin distinguished himself by his military skill as well as by his personal
character, and the crusaders having resolved to choose one of their own body emperor
of the East, their choice fell upon Baldwin.
Baldwin was accordingly crowned emperer at Constantinople, on the
9th of May, 1204. But he received only avery small part of the empire, namely
Constantinople and the greater part of Thrace; the Venetians obtained a much greater
part, consisting chiefly of the islands and some parts of Epeirus; Boniface, marquis
of Monteferrato, received Thessalonica, that is Macedonia, as a kingdom; and the
rest of the empire, in Asia as well as in Europe, was divided among the French,
Flemish, and Venetian chiefs of the expedition. The speedy ruin of the new Latin
empire in the East was not doubtful under such divisions; it was hastened by the
successful enterprises of Alexis Comnenus at Trebizond, of Theodore Lascaris at
Nicaea, and by the partial revolts of the Greek subjects of the conquerors. Calo-Ioannes,
king of Bulgaria, supported the revolters, who succeeded in making themselves
masters of Adrianople. Baldwin laid siege to this town; but he was attacked by
Calo-Ioannes, entirely defeated on the 14th of April, 1205, and taken prisoner.
He died in captivity about a year afterwards. Many fables have been invented with
regard to the nature of his death: Nicetas (Urbs Capta, 16) says, that Calo-Ioannes
ordered the limbs of his imperial prisoner to be cut off, and the mutilated body
to be thrown into a field, where it remained three days before life left it. But
from the accounts of the Latin writers, whose statements have been carefully examined
by Gibbon and other eminent modern historians, we must conclude, that although
Baldwin died in captivity, he was neither tortured nor put to death by his victor.
The successor of Baldwin I. was his brother Henry I. (Nicetas, Alexis Isaacius
Anyelus Fr. iii. 9, Alexis Ducas Murzuphlus, i. 1, Urbs Capta, 1-17; Acropolita,
8, 12; Nicephorus Gregor. ii. 3, &c.)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Nov 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Henricus, (Henrikos), Henry, a Greek emperor (A. D. 1206-1216), the second son
of Baldwin VIII., count of Flanders and Hainaut, was born about 1176, and succeeded
his elder brother Baldwin on the throne of Constantinople in 1206. Henry was one
of the leading chiefs in the great expedition of the Latin barons against Constantinople,
in 1204, and in the division of the empire was rewarded with territories in Asia,
which, however, he had first to wrest from Theodore Lascaris and the other leaders
of the rebellious Greeks. He defeated Lascaris in a bloody battle near Adramyttium
in Mysia, in 1205, and the conquest of Bithynia was the fruit of his victory.
The emperor's campaign against the Bulgarians obliged him to repair to the other
side of the Bosporus, and he left Asia at the head of 20.000 Armenian mercenaries,
with whom he marched upon Adrianople. Before he had reached that town, he was
informed that Baldwin, without waiting for the arrival of his brother, had imprudently
engaged a pitched battle with the Bulgarian king, Joannicus or Calo-Joannes, that
the imperial troops had suffered a severe defeat, and that nobody knew what had
become of the emperor (15th of April, 1205). In this emergency, Henry left his
army, and hastening alone to the field of battle near Adrianople, arrived in time
to save the imperial army from utter destruction. The fate of Baldwin being entirely
unknown, Henry was chosen regent, and he conducted his forces back to Constantinople.
The Bulgarian king followed in his steps, burnt Philippopolis, and ravaged all
Thrace in a most savage manner. He reckoned upon the assistance of the discontented
Greeks, and, had they joined him, the fate of the new Latin empire of Constantinople
would have been sealed; but his unheard-of cruelties showed the Greeks that among
their foreign masters the Bulgarian was the worst; and the inhabitants of Adrianople,
after having defended their town against Henry as an usurper and tyrant, now opened
their gates, and received him within their walls with acclamations of joy. This
was in 1206. It was then known that the emperor Baldwin was a prisoner of the
king of Bulgaria, and in the summer of 1206 the news came of his melancholy death.
Henry, known as a skilful general, endeared to most of the Latin barons for having
saved them after the defeat of Adrianople, and moreover next of kin to his brother,
was unanimously chosen emperor, and crowned at Constantinople on the 20th of August,
1206. At the same time Theodore Lascaris was recognised by a large number of towns
and villages as lawful emperor, and took up his residence at Nicaea. From that
time down to 1261, there was a Latin-Byzantine and a Greek-Byzantine empire, to
which we must add a third, the Greek empire of the Comneni at Trebizond. An alliance
between the king of Bulgaria and Theodore Lascaris placed Henry in great danger.
He kept the field in Thrace and Asia with great bravery, and found additional
strength in an alliance with the Marquis of Montferrat, lord or king of Thessalonica,
whose daughter Agnes he married; but he lost her soon afterwards. In 1207 Joannicus
died, and Henry concluded a political marriage with his daughter, which led to
a [p. 382] lasting state of peace with Phrorilas, the brother and successor of
Joannicus. He also made a truce with Theodore Lascaris, who was hard pressed by
David, the gallant brother and general of Alexis I., the new emperor of Trebizond.
In 1214, Theodore Lascaris formed a most advantageous peace with Alexis, and now
suddenly invaded Bithynia, surprised the troops of Henry which were stationed
there, and conquered them in a pitched battle. To avenge this defeat, Henry crossed
the Bosporus with a chosen army, and laid siege to Pemanene. The town surrendered
after an obstinate resistance, which so roused the resentment of Henry, that he
ordered the three principal officers of the garrison to be put to death, viz.
Dermocaitus, Andronicus Palaeologus, the brother-in-law of Theodore Lascaris,
and a brother of Theodore Lascaris, whose name is not mentioned, but who was undoubtedly
the brave Constantine Lascaris, who defended Constantinople with so much gallantry
against the Latins in 1204. The issue of the campaign, however, was not very favourable
to Henry, for he obtained peace only on condition of ceding to his rival all the
territories situate east of a line drawn from Sardis to Nicaea, and to leave Theodore
Lascaris in possession of those which he had conquered west of that line in Bithynia
previous to the truce mentioned above. In 1215 the fourth Lateran council was
assembled by pope Innocent III., and a kind of mock union was formed between the
Roman and Greek churches within the narrow dominions of Henry. Gervasius was made
patriarch of Constantinople, and recognised by both Henry and the pope, who besides
declared Constantinople the first see of Christendom after Rome. In the following
year (1216), Henry set out to wage war with his former friend Theodore, despot
of Epeirus and Aetolia, but died suddenly, before any hostilities of consequence
had taken place. It is said that he died by poison, and both the Greeks and the
Latins are charged with the murder; but the fact is doubtful. Henry left no male
issue, and was succeeded by Peter of Courtenay.
In spite of the perpetual wars into which he was driven by circumstances,
and which he carried on with insufficient means, Henry found time to ameliorate
the condition of his subjects by several wise laws and a careful and impartial
administration. Towards the Greeks he showed great impartiality, admitting them
to the highest offices of the state, and never giving any preference to his own
countrymen or other foreigners; and there are many passages in the Greek writers
which prove that the Greeks really loved him. To make a nation forget a foreign
yoke is, however, no easy task, and no ruler has ever succeeded in it but by displaying
in equal proportions valour, energy, prudence, wisdom, and humanity. For these
qualities great praise has been bestowed upon Henry, and he well deserved it.
(Gregoras, lib. i. ii.; Nicetas, ed. Paris; Acropolita; Villehardouin, De la Conqueste
de Constantinoble, ed. Paulin Paris, Paris, 1838.)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Nov 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Joannes III. Vatatzes (Ioannes ho Batatzes), also called Joannes Ducas Vatatzes,
because he was descended in the female line from the great family of the Ducas,
emperor of Nicaea (A. D. 1222-1255), was one of the most remarkable among the
successors of Constantine. He first distinguished himself in the defence of Constantinople
against the Latins in 1204, and after its loss fled with Theodore Lascaris to
Nicaea. Next to this distinguished prince, Vatatzes was the most active and successful
in preventing the whole of the Greek empire from becoming a prey to the Latins,
and he was likewise one of those who supported Theodore Lascaris after he had
assumed the imperial title, and taken up his residence at Nicaea. In reward for
his eminent services in the field as well as in the council, Theodore gave him
the hand of his daughter Irene, and appointed him his future successor, because,
having no children, he thought Vatatzes more fit and worthy for the crown than
either of his four brothers, Alexis, John, Manuel, and Michael. Vatatzes thus
succeeded Theodore Lascaris on the imperial throne of Nicaea in 1222. In the same
year Theodore Angelus, despot or prince of Epeirus and Aetolia, made himself master
of Thessalonica and of nearly the whole of Macedonia, assumed the title of emperor,
and was crowned by the bishop of Achrida.
Four emperors now reigned over the remnants of the Eastern empire,
Andronicus I. Gidon in Trebizond, Theodore Angelus in Epeirus and Macedonia, Robert
of Courtenay in Constantinople, and John Vatatzes in Nicaea; and it is curious
that the imperial crown devolved upon three of them in the same year, 1222, while
the fourth, Robert of Courtenay, took actual possession of his dominions only
in the previous year, 1221. Of these, the emperor in Nicaea was the greatest.
No sooner had Vatatzes ascended the throne than Manuel and Michael
Lascaris abandoned him, went to Constantinople, and persuaded Robert to declare
war against Vatatzes. Its issue was unfavourable to the Latins. In a pitched battle
at Poemanene or Poemanium, in 1224, the Latin troops were completely defeated;
and such was the hatred of the Greeks against the foreign intruders, that they
neither gave nor accepted quarter : the two Lascaris were taken prisoners, and
payed their treason with the loss of their eyes. In consequence of this victory,
the greater part of the Latin possessions in Asia fell into the hands of the Greeks.
On the sea the Latins were successful; they blockaded the Greek fleet in the port
of Lampsacus, and Vatatzes preferred burning his own ships to having them burnt
by his enemy. However, Vatatzes had little to lose on the sea, and the Latin emperor
was finally compelled to sue for peace, and to leave the greater part of his Asiatic
possessions in the hands of Vatatzes. The peace was of short duration. The old
John of Brienne, who after the death of Robert, in 1228, exchanged his nominal
kingdom of Jerusalem for the real though tottering throne of Constantinople, attacked
Vatatzes in 1233, in Asia, but was routed in Bithynia, and hastened back to Thrace.
Supported by the fleets of the Venetians, he could, however, renew his inroads
whenever he saw a favourable opportunity. Accordingly, Vatatzes conceived the
plan of making himself master of the sea, and had he succeeded, the national Greek
empire would have been soon restored to its limits of 1204. Samos, Lesbos, Chios,
Cos, Rhodes, and many other islands, were conquered by the Greeks, but the main
force of the Venetians was in Candia; and though Vatatzes conquered the greater
part of that island, his progress was checked by the Venetian governor Marino
Sanuti, the historian, who at last forced the Greeks to sail back to Asia. Baffled
on the sea, Vatatzes renewed his continental plans, and concluded, in 1234, an
alliance with Asan, king of Bulgaria. Their united forces besieged Constantinople
in 1235, by land and sea, but the superiority of the Latin mariners over the Greek
led to a total defeat of the Greek fleet, and twenty-four Greek gallies fell into
the hands of the victors, and were paraded in triumph in the port of Constantinople.
Listening to the persuasions of Messire Anseau de Cahieu, who acted as regent
in the absence of the emperor Baldwin II., Asan showed symptoms of defection,
and forsook his ally in 1237, when they were just besieging Constantinople a second
time. By land, however, Vatatzes was more successful, and conquered the rest of
the Latin possessions in Asia. The assistance which Baldwin II. obtained in Europe
is mentioned in the life of that emperor; but the formidable knights of France
and Italy tried in vain to obtain a firm footing in Asia, and Baldwin was reduced
to such weakness, that he was unable to prevent Vatatzes from sailing over to
Macedonia, and compelling the self-styled emperor, John Comnenus of Epeirus, Aetolia,
and Macedonia, to cede him Macedonia, to renounce the imperial title, and to be
satisfied with that of despot of Epeirus (1242). In 1243 Vatatzes concluded an
alliance with Gaiyath-ed-din, the Turkish sultan of Iconium, in order to resist
the approaching Mongols; and having thus secured his eastern frontiers, he renewed
his attacks upon the Latins in Constantinople. His fame was then so great, that
the Roman emperor, Frederic II., one of his greatest admirers, gave him his natural
daughter Anne in marriage, in 1244, the first wife of Vatatzes having died in
1240. Never despairing of putting an end to the Latin domination in the East,
but obliged to give up the plan of effecting it with the Bulgarian king, Vatatzes
undertook to subdue the Bulgarian nation, and to force those warlike barbarians
to serve under his banners against the intruders at Constantinople. In 1246 he
had already conquered the southwestern portion of Bulgaria, and given its government,
together with that of Thessalonica (Macedonia) to his Magnus Domesticus Andronicus
Palaeologus, when his progress was checked by a combined attack of the Latins
and Michael Comnenus, despot of Epeirus. The issue of a protracted war was favourable
to Vatatzes, who took several of the towns of the Latins in Thrace, and made peace
with Michael in 1253. The following years were peaceful, and Vatatzes employed
his leisure in promoting the happiness of his subjects. He patronised arts and
sciences, constructed new roads, distributed the taxes equally, and made himself
beloved by every body through his kindness and justice. Michael of Epeirus having
threatened a new war, Vatatzes set out against him, but was taken ill in Macedonia,
returned to Asia, and died, after long sufferings, at Nymphaeum, on the 30th of
October, 1255, at the age of sixty or sixty-two. Vatatzes is justly called one
of the greatest emperors of the East; and the merit of having put an end to the
Latin empire belongs as much to him as to Michael Palaeologus, who carried out,
in 1261, the plan which had been conceived and successfully begun by Vatatzes.
The successor of Vatatzes was Theodore Lascaris II.
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Jan 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Theodorus Angelus, the Greek emperor of Thessalonica, A. D. 1222-1230, was descended
from a noble family, being the son of Joannes Angelus, also called Comnenus, and
the grandson of Constantinus Angelus. After the overthrow of the Greek empire
by the Latins in 1204, Theodore Angelus served for some time under Theodore Lascaris,
the emperor of Nicaea, but afterwards passed over to Europe to join his bastard
brother Michael, who had established an independent principality in Epeirus. On
the death of Michael he succeeded to his dominions, which he greatly enlarged
by the conquest of Thessaly, Macedonia, and other surrounding countries. He took
Peter of Courtenay prisoner, who had been elected emperor of Constantinople, as
he was travelling through Epeirus to the imperial city, and kept him in captivity
till his death. Elated by his numerous successes, Theodore assumed the title of
Emperor of the Romans, and was crowned at Thessalonica in 1222, in the same year
that Joannes Vatatzes succeeded to the imperial title at Nicaea, and Andronicus
at Trebizond. He carried on war with success against the Latins, took Adrianople,
and advanced as far as the walls of Constantinople. He was, however, recalled
to the defence of his own dominions by an invasion of Asan, king of the Bulgarians,
who defeated him in battle, took him prisoner, and deprived him of his eyes, in
1230. During his captivity among the Bulgarians, his brother Manuel had seized
his dominions and assumed the title of emperor; but Theodore having obtained his
liberty, gained possession of Thessalonica by stratagem, and deposed his brother.
In consequence of the loss of his sight, he conferred the title of emperor upon
his son Joannes; but the latter was subsequently conquered in the lifetime of
his father by Joannes Vatatzes, the emperor of Nicaea, who compelled him to renounce
the imperial dignity, and to content himself with the rank of despot.
(Acropolita, cc. 14, 21, 25, 26, 38, 40, 42; Du Cange, Familiae Byzantinae)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Jan 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Balduinus II. (Baldouinos), the last Latin emperor of the east, was descended from the noble family of Courtenay, and was the son of Peter I. of Courtenay, emperor of Constantinople, and the empress Yolanda, countess of Flanders. He was born in 1217, and succeeded his brother, Robert, in 1228, but, on account of his youth, was put under the guardianship of John of Brienne, count De la Marche and king of Jerusalem. The empire was in a dangerous position, being attacked in the south by Vatatzes, the Greek emperor of Nicaea, and in the north by Asan, king of Bulgaria, who in 1234 concluded an alliance with Vatatzes and laid siege to Constantinople by sea and land. Until then the regent had done very little for his ward and the realm, but when the enemy appeared under the walls of the capital the danger roused him to energy, and he compelled the besiegers to withdraw after having sustained severe losses. John of Brienne died soon afterwards. In 1337 Vatatzes and Asan once more laid siege to Constantinople, which was defended by Geoffroy de Villehardouin, prince of Achaia, while the emperor made a mendicant visit to Europe. Begging for assistance, he appeared successively at the courts of France, England, and Italy, and was exposed to humiliations of every description; he left his son Philip at Venice as a security for a debt. At last he succeeded in gaining the friendship of Louis IX., king of France, of the emperor Frederic II., and of Pope Gregory IX., among whom Louis IX. was the most useful to him. The French king gave the unhappy emperor a large sum of money and other assistance, in return for which Baldwin permitted the king to keep several most holy relics. With the assistance of the Latins, Baldwin obtained some advantages over Vatatzes, and in 1243 concluded an alliance with the Turks Seljuks; but notwithstanding this, he was again compelled to seek assistance among the western princes. He was present at the council of Lyon in 1245, and returned to Greece after obtaining some feeble assistance, which was of no avail against the forces of Michael Palaeologus, who had made himself master of the Nicaean empire. On the night of the 15th of July, 1261, Constantinople was taken by surprise by Alexis Caesar Strategopulus, one of the generals of Michael Palaeologus. Baldwin fled to Italy. In 1270 he nearly persuaded Charles, king of Naples, to fit out a new expedition against Michael Palaeologus, and Louis IX. of France promised to second him in the undertaking; but the death of Louis in Tunis deterred the Latin princes from any new expedition against the East. Baldwin II. died in 1275, leaving a son, Philip of Courtenay, by his wife Maria, the daughter of John of Brienne. The Latin empire in the East had lasted fifty-seven years. (Acropolita, 14, 27, 37, 78, 85, &c.; Pachymeres, Michael Palaeologus, iii. 31,&c., iv. 29; Nicephorus Gregor. iv. 4, &c., viii. 2, &c.)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Nov 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Theodorus II. Lascaris, Greek emperor of Nicaea, A. D. 1255-1259, was the son of
Joannes Vatatzes and of Irene, the daughter of Theodorus I. Lascaris, from whom
he derived the surname of Lascaris. His short reign presents nothing worthy of
record. He died in August, 1259, in the 36th or 37th year of his age, and was
succeeded by his son Joannes Lascaris. (Du Cange, Familiac Byzantinae)
Joannes IV. Lascaris (Ioannes ho Daskaris), emperor of Nicaea (A. D. 1259-1261),
was the son of the second emperor of Nicaea, Theodore II., Lascaris, whom he succeeded
in 1259, at nine years of age. He first reigned under the guardianship of the
patriarch Arsenius and the Magnus Domesticus Muzalon. The latter was slain, with
his adherent, in a revolt of the guards, kindled by Michael Palaeologus, who was
proclaimed emperor; and after having taken Constantinople from the Latins, in
1261, he deprived the youthful emperor of his eyes, and sent him into exile, where
he died in obscurity.
Michael VIII. Palaeologus (Palaiologos), emperor of Nicaea, and afterwards of Constantinople, from A. D. 1260 to 1282,
the restorer of the Greek empire, was the son of Andronicus Palaeologus and Irene
Angela, the granddaughter of the emperor Alexis Angelus. He was born in 1234.
At an early age he rose to eminence, which he owed to his uncommon talents as
much as to his illustrious birth, and to the same causes he was indebted for many
a dangerous persecution. Without dwelling upon his earlier life, we need only
mention that he was once obliged to take refuge at the court of the sultan of
Iconium, and having subsequently been appointed governor of the distant town of
Durazzo, the slander of his secret enemy followed him thither, and he was carried
in chains to Nicaea. He justified himself, however, and the emperor Theodore II.
Lascaris held him in higher esteem than he had ever done before. This emperor
died in August 1259, leaving a son, John III., who was only nine years old, and
over whom he had placed the patriarch Arsenius and the magnus domesticus Muzalon,
as guardians. Neither of them enjoyed popularity, being both known for their friendship
for the Latins. Nine days after tile death of Theodore, while his obsequies were
solemnizing in the cathedral of Magnesia, the imperial guard suddenly broke into
the church, and Muzalon, his brothers, and many of his principal adherents fell
victims to the military wrath. Michael Palaeologus, whom Theodore had lately appointed
magnus dux, was chosen as guardian instead of Muzalon, and soon afterwards he
received or gave himself the title and power of despot. Thence there was only
a step to the throne, which Michael also took. He made himself master of the imperial
treasury, bribed or gained the Varangian guard and the clergy, and was proclaimed
emperor at Magnesia. Michael and the boy John were crowned together at Nicaea,
on the 1st of January, 1260. His succession filled the Nicaean empire with joy
and satisfaction. It was not so in Constantinople. Although Baldwin II. enjoyed
little more than the name of an emperor and the shadow of an empire, the substance
whereof was in the hands of the princes of Nicaea, Epeirus, and Achaia, he assumed
a haughty tone towards Michael, and demanded the cession of those parts of Thrace
and Macedonia which belonged to Nicaea, as a condition of acknowledging him as
emperor. At first Michael treated the Latin ambassadors with ridicule, till they
declared they would be satisfied with Thessalonica or even Seres. "Not a village!"
replied Michael sternly, dismissing them with contempt; and he was right in doing
so, for he had already taken proper measures for driving the Latins out of Constantinople.
The ambition of Michael, the despot of Epeirus, checked him for a while in his
lofty career. Seeing a child on the throne of Nicaea, and a lofty but forsaken
foreigner, destitute of power, on that of Constantinople, Michael of Epeirus conceived
the same plan as Michael Palaeologus, and the success of the latter at first did
not at all discourage him. Things growing serious, the new emperor of Nicaea made
him honourable offers in order to maintain peace between them. But the despot
of Epeirus reckoned upon his alliance with Manfred, the Norman king of Sicily,
and William de Villehardouin, the French prince of Achaia and the Morea, and rushed
boldly into the field. At Achrida he suffered a severe defeat ; Villehardouin
was taken prisoner and brought to Constantinople. The Greeks in their turn were
totally beaten at Tricorypha. Little moved by the disadvantageous turn of his
affairs in the West, Michael Palaeologus hastened his expedition against Constantinople,
and before the end of the year 1260 Baldwin II. was shut up within his capital.
Michael, however, was not strong enough to reduce the city, and returned to Nicaea.
Upon this he made an alliance with the Genoese, and in 1261 sent a new army beyond
the Bosporus, the progress of which he watched from his favourite residence of
Nymphaeum near Smyrna. Strategopulus Caesar commanded the Greek army round Constantinople,
the natural strength of which offered again such obstacles to the besiegers, that
the Caesar converted the siege into a blockade, informing the emperor of the bad
chances he had of speedy success. While matters stood thus, one Cutrizacus, the
commander of a body of voluntary auxiliaries, was informed of the existence of
a subterranean passage leading from a place outside the walls into the cellar
of a house within them, and which seemed to be known only to the owner of the
house. Cutrizacus immediately formed a plan for surprising the garrison by means
of the passage, and after concerting measures with the commander-in-chief, ventured
with 50 men through the passage into the city. His plan succeeded completely.
No sooner was he within than he took possession of the nearest gate, disarmed
the post, opened it, and the main body of the Greeks rushed in. The stratagem
was executed in the dead of night. The inhabitants, roused from their slumber,
soon learned the cause of the noise, and kept quiet within their houses, or joined
their daring countrymen. The Latins dispersed in various quarters were seized
with a panic, and fled in all directions, while the emperor Baldwin had scarcely
time to leave his palace and escape on board of a Venetian galley, which carried
him immediately to Italy. On the morning of the 25th of July, 1261, Constantinople
was in the undisputed possession of the Greeks, after it had borne the yoke of
the Latins during 57 years 3 months and 13 days.
A private messenger brought the news of this strange revolution to
Nymphaeum, and Michael at first refused to believe it till the arrival of some
officers of the Caesar dispersed all doubt: as a further token of the veracity
of their account, they produced the sword, the sceptre, the red bonnet, and other
articles belonging to Baldwin, who had not found time to carry them with him.
Michael lost no time in repairing to Constantinople, and on the 14th of August
held his triumphal entrance, saluted by the people with demonstrations of the
sincerest joy. Constantinople, however, was no more what it had been. During the
reign of the Latins plunder, rapine, and devastation had spoiled it of its former
splendour; trade had deserted its harbour; and thousands of opulent families had
abandoned the palaces or mansions of their forefathers, in order to avoid contact
with the hated foreigners. To restore. re-people, and re-adorn Constantinople
was now the principal task of Michael ; and, in order to accomplish his purpose
the better, he confirmed the extensive privileges which the Venetian, the Genoese,
and the Pisan merchants had received from the Latin emperor. Although the Nicaean
emperors considered themselves the legitimate successors of Constantine the Great,
the possession of Constantinople was an event of such magnitude as to suggest
to Michael the idea of a new coronation, which was accordingly solemnized in the
cathedral of St. Soplia. But Michael was crowned alone, without John, an evil
omen for the friends of the young emperor, whose fears were but too soon realised,
for on Christmas day of the same year 1261, Michael ordered his colleague to be
blinded, whereupon he was sent into exile to a distant fortress. This hateful
crime caused a general indignation among the people, and might have proved the
ruin of Michael had he been a man of a less energetic turn of mind. The patriarch
Arsenius, co-guardian to John, was irreconcileable ; he fearlessly pronounced
excommunication upon the imperial criminal; and years of trouble and commotion
elapsed before Michael was re-admitted into the communion of the faithful, by
the second successor of Arsenius, the patriarch Joseph.
But to return to the war with the despot of Epeirus. A short time
after the conquest of Constantinople the despot Michael defeated Strategopulus,
and made him a prisoner. The Greeks had scarcely rallied, when a new enemy rose
against them. This was Villehardouin, who had been released from his captivity
on condition of ceding some of his territories, and of remaining quiet for the
future. But the loss of Constantinople was such a blight to the hopes of pope
Urban IV. of effecting a complete union between the Latin and the Greek churches,
that he urged the European princes to undertake a crusade against the Greek schismatics,
and commanded Villehardouin to commence hostilities forthwith, relieving him from
the oath he had sworn, to keep peace with Michael. Villellardouin was successful
by sea and land, but Michael avoided further danger by promising the pope to do
his utmost in order to effect the intended union. Urban was now the first to offer
himself as mediator between the belligerents, and as both the parties were tired
of bloodshed, peace was soon restored (1263). In the following year the war between
the emperor and Michael of Epeirus was likewise brought to an end by an honourable
peace, and shortly afterwards the despot died. To Nicephorus, the eldest of his
legitimate sons, who had just married Eulogia, the sister of the emperor, he left
Epeirus; but the better and larger half of his kingdom, viz. Thessaly, became
the share of his favourite natural son John, a warlike man, who was well fit to
defend his inheritance. In 1265 Arsenius was deposed because he would not revoke
the excommunication of the emperor: his adherents, the Arsenites, caused a schism
which lasted till 1312.
In 1269 Michael was involved in a dangerous war with Charles, king
of Sicily, who took up arms on pretence of restoring the fugitive Baldwin to the
throne, and who was joined by John of Thessaly, the above-mentioned son of the
despot Michael of Epeirus. The despot John, the emperor's brother, took the field
against his namesake, but, owing to circumstances which it was not in his power
to remove, that gallant commander of the Greeks suffered a terrible defeat (1271
), and the prince of Thessaly, forthwith marching upon Constantinople, placed
the capital in jeopardt. But the loss of Negropont and the destruction of his
fleet by the Greeks compelled him to fill back. Justly afraid that the hostilities
of the king of Sicily and the despot of Thessaly were only the forerunners of
a general crusade of all the Latin princes against him, Michael tried to avoid
the storm by at last making earnest proposals towards effecting the union of the
Greek church with that of Rome. To that effect the learned Veccus, accompanied
by several of the most distinguished among the Greek clergy, was sent to the council
assembled at Lyon in 1274, and there the union was effected by the Greeks giving
way in the much-disputed doctrine of the procession of the Holy Ghost, and submitting
to the supremacy of the pope. The union, however, was desired only by a minority
of the Greeks, and the orthodox majority accordingly did their utmost to prevent
the measure from being carried out. Michael in his turn supported his policy with
force. The patriarch Joseph was deposed, and Veccus appointed in his stead; cruel
punishment was inflicted upon all those who opposed tile union; and Greece was
shaken by a religious commotion which forms a remarkable event in the ecclesiastical
history of the East. As space forbids us to dwell longer upon these important
transactions, we can only remark that the union was never effectually carried
out, and fell entirely to the ground upon the death of Michael. The manifest duplicity
and the cruelty with which the emperor behaved in this affair made him odious
to his own subjects and contemptible to his new Latin friends, and the latter
part of his reign was an uninterrupted series of domestic troubles and foreign
wars. His dearly-bought friendship with the Latin, and especially the Italian
powers, was brought to a very speedy end.
The emperor Baldwin having died, his son Philip assumed the imperial
title, and succeeded in forming an alliance between pope Martin IV., Charles of
Anjou, king of Sicily, and the Venetians, with a view of reconquering Constantinople
and dividing the Greek empire. Soliman Rossi, a French knight, commanded the allied
forces, and, invading the empire from the north, met at Belgrade the Greek forces
commanded by the magnus domesticus Tarcaniotes. A pitched battle ensued, in which
the invaders were totally routed: the magnus domesticus made a triumphant entry
into Constantinople, and all danger of a second invasion was removed. Not satisfied
with the glory of his arms and the material benefit he derived from his victory,
Michael resolved to take terrible revenge: he paid 20,000 ounces of gold towards
equipping a Catalan fleet with which king Peter of Arragon was to attack Sicily,
and the "Sicilian Vespers", in which 8,000 Frenchmen were massacred, and in consequence
of which Sicily was wrested from Charles of Anjou and united with Arragon, were
in some degree the work of Michael's fury.
In the autumn of the same year (1282) Michael marched against John,
the unruly prince of Thessaly, but, before any thing serious had been done, he
fell ill, and died on the 11th of December, 1282, at the age of 58, leaving the
renown of a successful but treacherous tyrant. His son Andronicus II. succeeded
him.
(Pachymer. lib. i.-vi.; Niceph. Gregor. lib. iv.-v.; Acropol. c. 76, &c.; Phranz.
lib. i.)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Jan 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Andronicus II. Palaeologus, the Elder (Andronikos Palaiologos), emperor of Constantinople,
the eldest son of the emperor Michael Palaeologus, was born A. D. 1260. At the
age of fifteen he was associated with his father in the government, and he ascended
the throne in 1283. Michael had consented to a union between the Greek and Latin
churches on the second general council at Lyon, but Andronicus was opposed to
this measure, and was at length excommunicated by pope Clement V. in 1307. During
this the Greek armies were beaten by Osman, the founder of the Turkish empire,
who gradually conquered all the Byzantine possessions in Asia. In this extremity
Andronicus engaged the army and the fleet of the Catalans, a numerous band of
warlike adventurers, to assist him against the Turks. Roger de Flor, or de Floria,
the son of a German noble at the court of the emperor Frederic II., the commander
of these adventurers, accordingly went to Constantinople with a numerous fleet
and an army of 8000 men. The emperor appointed him admiral of the empire, and
conferred upon him the title of Caesar. This famous captain defeated the Turks
in several engagements, but his troops ravaged the country of their allies with
as much rapacity as that of their common enemies, and in order to get rid of them,
the emperor caused Roger to be assassinated at Adrianople. But the Catalans now
turned their arms against the Greeks, and after having devastated Thrace and Macedonia,
they retired to the Peloponnesus, where they conquered several districts in which
they maintained themselves.
Michael, the son of Andronicus, was associated with his father in the throne.
Michael had two sons, Andronicus and Manuel. Both loved the same woman without
knowing that they were rivals, and by an unhappy mistake Manuel was slain by the
hand of his brother. Their father, Michael, died of grief, and the emperor, exasperated
against his grandson, showed some intention to exclude him from the throne. Thus
a dreadful civil war, or rather three wars, arose between the emperor and his
grandson, which lasted from 1321 till 1328, when at last the emperor was obliged
to abdicate in favour of the latter. Andronicus the elder retired to a convent
at Drama in Thessaly, where he lived as monk under the name of Antonius. He died
in 1332, and his body was buried in Constantinople. (Pachymeres, Andronicus Palaeologus;
Nicephorus Gregoras, lib. vi.-x.; Cantacuzenus, i. 1, &c.)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Michael IX. Palaeologus, son of Andronicus II., was associated with his father in the throne of Constantinople, but died in the lifetime of his father. An account of him is given under Adronicus II.
Andronicus III. Palaeologus, the Younger (Andronikos Palaiologos), emperor of
Constantinople, was born in 1296, and succeeded his grandfather in 1328, as has
been related in the preceding article. He was unsuccessful in his wars with the
Turks; he lost the battle of Philocrene against sultan Urkhan and his brother
Ala-ed-din, who had just organized the body of the Jannisaries, by whom Thrace
was ravaged as far as the Haemus. Equally unsuccessful against the Catalans in
Greece, he was more fortunate against the Bulgarians, the Tartars of Kiptschak,
and the Servians.
He was twice married, first to Agnes or Irene, the daughter of Henry,
duke of Brunswick, and after her death to Anna, countess of Savoy, by whom he
had two sons, John and Emanuel. At his death, in 1341, he left them under the
guardianship of John Cantacuzenus, who soon began to reign in his own name. (Nicephorus
Gregoras, lib. ix.-xi.; Cantacuzenus, i. c. 58, &c., ii. c. 1-40; Phranzes, i.
c. 10-13; comp. Pachymeres, Andronicus Palaeologus)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Joannes V. Cantacuzenus (Ioannes ho Kantakouzenos), emperor of Constantinople
(A. D. 1342-1355), often called Joannes VI. His full name was Joannes Angelus
Comnenus Palaeologus Cantacuzenus. He was the eldest son of Joannes Cantacuzenus,
the chief of a great Greek family, and Theodora Palaeologina, and was born early
in the beginning of the 14th century.His history is intimately connected with
that of his ward and rival Joannes VI. Palaeologus. John Cantacuzenus, the subject
of this article, early distinguished himself in the service of his relative, the
emperor Andronicus Palaeologus the elder, who appointed him prefect of the sacred
bed-chamber. United, by friendship and harmony of sentiments, to the emperor's
grandson, Andronicus the younger, he took the part of the latter in his rebellion
against his grandfather; and it was to his valour, wisdom, and exertions, that
the younger Andronicus owed his final success and the undisputed crown of Constantinople.
[p. 580] In reward for his services, he was appointed magnus domesticus. Aetolia
and Lesbos, both in the hands of usurpers, were re-united by him to the empire;
and his influence was so great, that he, rather than Andronicus, was the real
sovereign of the Greeks. His administration was wise : he enforced the laws with
firmness, but also with forbearance; and at a time when every public functionary
was a robber of the people, he alone escaped the charge of peculation and fiscal
oppression. The emperor bestowed upon him unbounded confidence, and was so fondly
attached to him, that he proposed to share the throne with him. This Cantacuzenus
refused, from motives both of modesty and prudence. Andronicus, on his deathbed
(A. D. 1341), appointed him guardian of his infant son, John, in whose name he
was to govern the empire.
No sooner had Cantacuzenus begun to exercise his eminent functions,
than he was checked by two ambitious intriguers, the admiral Apocauchus and the
patriarch of Constantinople, John of Apri, who aspired to the regency, and for
that purpose persuaded the widow of the late emperor, Anna, princess of Savoy,
to claim the guardianship of her son, although it was lawfully vested in Cantacuzenus.
The conspirators found many adherents ; and from a system of calumny and petty
annoyance, proceeded to bold attacks. During a temporary absence from the capital,
Cantacuzenus was suddenly charged with high treason; and his enemies being his
judges also, he was found guilty, sentenced to death, and deprived of his estates
and emoluments. Under such circumstances he had no alternative but rebellion or
death: yet he hesitated till his friends showed him that even by submission and
imploring the clemency of his adversaries, he could not save his life. Accordingly
Cantacuzenus took up arms, not against the infant emperor, but against his powerful
councillors, and assumed the title of emperor. On the 21st of March, 1342, he
was crowned with great solemnity, together with his wife, Irene, at Adrianople,
by Lazarus, patriarch of Jerusalem. His adherents not being numerous, he sought
assistance at the court of Stephen Duscham, kral or king of Servia; and having
reason to suspect the faith of this prince, he reluctantly concluded an alliance
with Umur Bey, the Turkish prince of Aidin (Lydia, Maeonia and Caria). During
the transactions which led to this alliance Cantacuzenus was at the Servian court,
and his wife was at Didymoticum. Umur Bey sailed over to Greece with a fleet of
380 vessels, and an army of 28,000 men; and after having left a strong garrison
at Didymoticun, marched upon Servia. An early and very severe winter compelled
him to return to Asia without having had an interview with Cantacuzenus; but the
two princes met in the following year, 1343, at Clopa, near Thessalonica, and
in their operations against Apocauchus and his party, Greece and Thrace were dreadfully
ravaged. Bribed by Apocauchus, Umur Bey ceased assisting Cantacuzenus, who, however,
found a more powerful ally in the person of Urkhan, sultan of the Turks Osmanlis,
to whom he gave his daughter in marriage. During five years Greece was desolated
by a civil war. In 1346, however, Cantacuzenus became the more powerful; and having
made a sort of reconciliation with the dowager empress, Anna, he advanced upon
Constantinople, after re-enforcing his army by a body of Latin mercenaries. In
January, 1347, he took the capital with scarcely any resistance, the gates having
been opened by Facciolati, an Italian captain, who was the secret adherent of
Cantacuzenus; and Apocauchus was slain in the tumult. Being now sole master, Cantacuzenus
consented to acknowledge John Palaeologus as co-emperor, on condition that until
the majority of the young prince, who was then fifteen years, and would be of
age at twenty-five, according to the Greek law, he should be the sole ruler ;
and as a guarantee for the future harmony between the two princes, he married
his daughter Helena to his youthful colleague. In the same year Cantacuzenus was
crowned a second time in the capital, by Isidorus, patriarch of Constantinople.
The reign of John Cantacuzenus was not blessed with peace. In the
year of his accession, the plague made great havoc among the inhabitants of the
capital and other towns. The Genoese of Pera, who enjoyed great privileges, despised
the imperial authority, took up arms, and laid them down only after having obtained
still greater privileges; and during the same time Duscham, the kral of Servia,
made an inroad into Thrace, but was fortunately compelled, by severe defeats,
to sue for peace. The emperor's relations with the Turks were amicable for several
years. In his history (iv. 16) Cantacuzenus alludes to a project formed by Merjan,
an eunuch in the service of sultan Urkhan, to poison his young colleague; but
it would seem as if the story had been invented by himself, for the purpose of
frightening young Palaeologus, and thus bringing him under a still closer watch.
His friendship with Urkhan was, however, not very sincere, for he sent ambassadors
to pope Clement VI. promising to bring the Greek church under the papal authority
if the holy father would preach a crusade against the Turks; but Clement declined
the proposition, knowing that the Greeks and Latins would agree upon religion
only so long as the crusaders did upon a common plan of attack, and an equal mode
of division in case of success. Meanwhile, dissensions arose between Cantacuzenus
and Palaeologus, who grew tired of his inactivity, and listened to the advice
of the former party of Apocauchus, although he was kindly treated and allowed
full domestic freedom by his father-in-law, which, it would seem, was quite enough
for so young a man. Suspecting some treachery, Cantacuzenus sent him to reside
at Thessalonica, and employed Anne of Savoy, though in vain, as mediator between
her son and him : the young prince emancipated himself from the surveillance of
the officers charged with guiding and watching him, and in 1353 raised the standard
of rebellion. Defeated in a pitched battle by the united forces of Cantacuzenus
and Urkhan, Palaeologus took refuge with the Latins in Tenedos; and in order to
exclude him for ever from the throne, the emperor proclaimed his son, Matthaeus,
coemperor, and his future successor. However well calculated this step might have
been had the emperor enjoyed universal popularity, it proved disastrous under
contrary circumstances, as the Greeks felt much more sympathy with the house of
the Palaeologi than with the Cantacuzeni, and the emperor soon learned that the
people's attachment to a distinguished person is often much less strong than their
love of a distinguished family. Numerous bands organised themselves for the support
of the son of their late emperor, but the forces upon which the latter could rely
with more security were the mercenary band and the ships of Gasteluzzi or Gatteluzzi,
a noble Genoese who promised to help him to the crown on condition of obtaining
the hand of his sister and the grant of some lands. The descendants of Gasteluzzi
became sovereign princes, and were conspicuous in the latter part of Byzantine
history. Palaeologus and Gasteluzzi made sail for Constantinople; and pleading
distress and want of provisions as pretext for their admission within the Golden
Horn, the chain across the entrance of the port was lowered by the watch of the
harbour, who were either bribed by Palaeologus, or were not aware that the ships
had hostile intentions. The inhabitants of Constantinople now took up arms against
Cantacuzenus, who, although he asserts the contrary, was apparently forsaken by
most of his adherents, abdicated (January, 1355), and four days after his abdication
renounced the world, and assumed the monastic habit.
Under the name of Joasaph or Joseph, he spent the remainder of his
days in devotion and literary occupation in the convents of Constantinople and
Mount Athos; and in his solitude he wrote the history of his times. His wife,
Irene, likewise retired to a convent. The time of the death of John Cantacuzenus
is uncertain. He was still alive in 1375, for in that year pope Gregory XI. wrote
a letter to him; but if he died only in 1411, as has been pretended, and Ducange
(Fam. Byzant. p. 260) believes, he would have attained an age of more than one
hundred years, because he was a contemporary of, and probably of the same age
with, Andronicus Palaeologus the younger.
His principal work is the " History" (Historion Biblia D), which comprises
in four books the reign of Andronicus the younger and his own, and finishes with
the year 1357. It is written with elegance and dignity, and shows that the author
was a man of superior intelligence, and fully able to understand and judge of
the great events of history: but it is far from being written with impartiality
; he throws blame upon his adversaries wherever he can, and praises his party,
and especially himself, in a manner which betrays a great deal of vanity and hypocrisy.
For the knowledge of the time it is invaluable, especially as the history of Nicephorus
Gregoras is a sufficient check upon his ; so that if the two works are compared,
a sound and sagacious mind will correct the one by the other.
Gibbon speaks of this history in the following terms, and his judgment
is as true as it is expressive: "The name and situation of the emperor John Cantacuzene
might inspire the most lively curiosity. His memorials of forty years extend from
the revolt of the younger Andronicus to his own abdication of the empire; and
it is observed that, like Moses and Caesar, he was the principal actor in the
scenes which he describes. But in this elegant work we should vainly seek the
sincerity of a hero or a penitent. Retired in a cloister from the vices and passions
of the world, he presents not a confession, but an apology, of the life of an
ambitious statesman. Instead of unfolding the true counsels and characters of
men, he displays the smooth and specious surface of events, highly varnished with
his own praises and those of his friends. Their motives are always pure, their
ends always legitimate; they conspire and rebel without any views of interest,
and the violence which they inflict or suffer is celebrated as the spontaneous
effect of reason and virtue".
This work was first made known to the world through Gretserus, who
published a Latin translation of it by Jacob Pontanus, with notes and the life
of the author by the same, Ingolstadt, 1603. Pontanus perused a MS. which was
kept in the Munich library. The Greek text first appeared, from a Paris MS., in
the splendid edition of Pierre Seguier, chancellor of France, Paris, 1645, with
the revised translation of Pontanus, his and the editor's notes, and the life
of the author by Pontanus. It was badly reprinted in 1729 by the editors of the
Venice collection of the Byzantines. The last edition is that of Louis Schopen,
1828-32, in the Bonn collection of the Byzantines, a careful reprint of the Paris
edition: the editor, however, had no MS. to peruse. The other works of Cantacuzenus
are of no great importance. Apologiae (Kata tes ton Sarakenon haireseos Apologiai
D), the principal, are in four books, being a refutation of the religion of Mohammed;
and Kata ton Moamed logoi D, four orations against Mohammed. The author was evidently
well acquainted with the Koran; but in refuting Mohammedanism, and proving the
truth of the Christian religion, he allowed himself to be guided by the prejudices
of his time and all sorts of vulgar stories, legends and fables. The Greek text
and a Latin translation of these works, along with a translation of the Koran,
was first published by Rudolphus Gualterus, Basel, 1543; the translation alone,
ib. 1550. Cantacuzenus also wrote a Paraphrasis of the Ethics of Aristotle; six
epistles extant in MS. at Oxford; and several smaller treatises, chiefly on religious
subjects.
The chief sources are the works of Cantacuzenus and Nicephorus Gregoras,
especially lib. viii--xv.; Ducas, c. 1, &c.; Phranza, i. 1-14; Fabric. Bibl. Graec.
vol. vii.; Hankius, De Byzantin. Rerum Script. Graec.; Pontanus, Vita Joannis
Cantacuzeni.)
Joannes VI. Palaeologus (Ioannes ho Palaiologos), emperor of Constantinople (A.
D. 1355-1391), often called Joannes V., the only son and heir of the emperor Andronicus
III. Palaeologus the younger was born in 1332, and nominally succeeded his father
in 1341. It has been narrated in the preceding article how the young prince first
reigned under the guardianship of Joannes Cantacuzenus, then under the authority
of a party headed by the admiral Apocauchus and the empress Anne of Savoy, and
at last as a nominal colleague of John Cantacuzenus, who held the title and the
power of emperor, till he ceded both to John Palaeologus, in 1355, whose real
accession consequently begins with that year. For the same reason he stands in
the series of emperors as John VI., although strictly he was the fifth of that
name. John VI. was a weak prince. "After his enfranchisement from an oppressive
guardian", says Gibbon, "he remained thirty-six years the helpless and, as it
should seem, the careless spectator of the public ruin. Love, or rather lust,
was his only vigorous passion; and in the embraces of the wives or virgins of
the city, the Turkish slave forgot the dishonour of the emperor of the Romans".
The reign of this emperor is nevertheless full of the most important events, and
nothing affords a better insight into the causes of the final overthrow of the
Greek empire than the history of his time. Our space, however, is too confined
to give more than a sketch of those events which are most remarkable for ecclesiastical
as well as political history. The young emperor was scarcely seated on his throne
when the Turks crossed the Bosporus, and by the capture of the fortress of Tzympe,
now Chini or Jemenlik, laid the foundation of all their further conquests in Europe.
The plan of extending the dominions of the Osmanlis over Europe was formed by
Soliman, the son of sultan Urkhan, the governor of Cyzicus, while he was wandering
in the silence of a moonlight night through the ruins of that ancient and once
splendid town; and having crossed the Bosporus with 10,000 horse, he soon conquered
an extensive district near the mouth of the Hebrus. He died in 1358; but his brother
Murad, who succeeded sultan Urkhan in 1359, took up and realized his plans. Neither
the arms nor the gold of Palaeologus could stop the victorious career of sultan
Murad: town after town fell into his hands; and in 1361 he took the noble city
of Adrianople, which soon became the capital of the Turkish empire. Thence he
directed his march upon Servia, despising the forces of the emperor, who could
have fallen upon his rear and cut off his retreat to Asia, but stood trembling
within the closed gates of Constantinople. With the fall of Adrianople the fate
of the Greek empire was sealed. Pope Urban V. yielding to the entreaties of the
Greek emperor, who promised to submit to his spiritual authority, entreated king
Louis of Hungary to arm for the defence of both the Servian and Greek Christians,
and from that time the protection of the remnants of the Greek empire depended
entirely upon the fears or the courage of the kings of Hungary. A united army
of Servians and Hungarians, commanded by king Louis, advanced upon Adrianople,
but at two days' distance from that town was stopped by Murad, who obtained a
decisive victory over them (1363). After this Murad took up his permanent residence
at Adrianople, and gradually conquered the greater part of the Thracian peninsula;
but finding the Servians formidable adversaries, he made peace with John Palaeologus,
who paid him a heavy annual tribute. Aware that his turn would come as soon as
the Servians should have been brought under the Turkish yoke, Palaeologus resolved
to implore the assistance of the Western princes, and with that view made overtures
to pope Urban V. to adopt the Roman Catholic religion if he would assist him in
his plans. The negotiations being carried on too slowly for his fears and his
hopes, he went twice to Rome (1369 and 1370). Urban promised to put 15 galleys,
500 men in armour, and 1500 archers, at his disposal; but this succour never arrived
at Constantinople, nor did the pope succeed in his endeavours to arm the Western
princes for the defence of the city. The emperor, however, kept his promise to
the pope, and in the presence of four cardinals solemnly professed himself a Roman
Catholic, and acknowledged the pope as the spiritual head of the Greek church.
Disappointed in Rome, Palaeologus went to Venice; but there he not only failed
in obtaining assistance, but being short of money, he incurred debts, and was
arrested by some Venetian merchants. He sent messengers to his son Andronicus,
who, during his absence, governed the empire, which was then reduced to the city
of Constantinople, Thessalonica with its district, a few islands, and some districts
in the Peloponnesus and northern Greece, and implored him to do his utmost for
his delivery should he even be obliged to sell the holy vessels of the churches.
Andronicus, in pursuit of some selfish and ambitious plans, remained deaf to the
prayers of his father. Manuel, however, the emperor's second son and lord of Thessalonica,
was no sooner informed of the misfortune of his father, than he sold his whole
property, hastened to Venice, and released his father, who immediately returned
to Constantinople (1370), although not without serious apprehensions of vengeance
from sultan Murad. In order to soothe him he sent his third son, Theodore, as
a hostage, to Adrianople; whereupon he deprived Andronicus of his supreme authority,
and appointed the faithful Manuel coemperor. Andronicus, a man full of ambition
and destitute of principles and honour, now sought for revenge; and being acquainted
with one of the sons of Murad, who governed the European provinces during the
sultan's absence in Asia, and who was a secret enemy of his father, he had an
interview with this prince, and they mutually promised to murder their fathers,
and then assist each other in obtaining the supreme power. The name of the Turkish
prince was Sauji, but the Greek historians call him Saboutrios and Mose Trelepes
(Moses the gentleman), Chalcocondylas being the only one who writes the name nearly
correctly, Siaous. Murad was soon informed of the conspiracy. He summoned the
emperor to appear at his court, and to justify himself, since it was believed
that only Sauji, not Andronicus, really intended the alleged crime, and that the
whole was but a plot of John Palaeologus : but the deep grief of the emperor at
hearing this terrible news soon convinced the sultan of his innocence. They now
resolved to unite their efforts in punishing the traitors, who had meanwhile raised
troops and pitched their camp near Apricidium, in the neighbourhood of Constantinople.
In the dead of night they were roused by the voice of the sultan, who was seen
riding fearlessly through the tents of the rebels, summoning them to avoid certain
death by returning to their duty, and promising life and liberty to their royal
leaders likewise, if they would now surrender and implore his mercy. Most of the
rebels, Turks as well as Greeks, immediately availed themselves of the sultan's
conditions, and were pardoned, but the two princes fled. Sauji was taken in the
town of Didymoticum, blinded, and afterwards put to death: and Andronicus having
likewise been made prisoner by the imperial troops, he and his son John were sentenced
to be deprived of their sight, but the operation was unskilfully performed with
boiling vinegar, and neither father nor son was entirely blinded. The rebellion
of the sons of the two Eastern monarchs is differently told by the Byzantine and
Turkish historians; but the narratives of the Greeks, Chalcocondylas, Phranza,
and Ducas, deserve more credit, because they agree even in details. Phranza indeed
says that the rebellion took place previous to the emperor's journeys to Rome
in 1369 and 1370, though it really happened in 1385; but chronology is the weak
side of Phranza, and here, as in many other cases, he makes an anachronism. Andronicus
and his son were confined in the tower of Anemas, a sort of state prison, where
forty years previouslsy the admiral Apocauchus was murdered. Some time before
this an event took place wnich showed the utter decay of the Greek power.
When prince Manuel was despot of Thessalonica, he waged war on his
own account against the Turks, who were then engaged in serious contests with
the Servians in Europe, and some Turkoman princes in Asia. His undertaking was
rash, and his forces inadequate. Khair-ed-din Pasha advanced upon Thessalonica,
and despairing of defending himself with success, Manuel left the town to its
fate, and fled by sea to Constantinople. Trembling for his own safety, his father
refused to receive in his palace a son who had incurred the anger of the sultan,
and the unfortunate prince sailed to Lesbos, in hopes of finding protection at
the court of Gasteluzzi, the Latin prince of that island, but there also the gates
were closed at his appearance. Having no other alternative but voluntary exile
or death, Manuel, with noble boldness, hastened to Brusa, appeared resolutely
in presence of the sultan, confessed himself guilty, and implored his enemy's
mercy. After a silence of some minutes, the sultan said to him, "You have been
wicked, be better, and if you are good, the condition of the empire over which
you are destined to rule will be good too. Return to Constantinople -I will give
orders to your father to receive you well". Not till then did the emperor dare
to embrace his son. In 1389 sultan Murad was assassinated by a Servian captive,
Milosh Kobilovicz; and his successor, the terrible Bayazid, soon manifested more
hostile intentions than his father. Availing himself of the dissensions in the
imperial family, he carried on secret negotiations with Andronicus and his son
while they were imprisoned in the tower of Anemas, and with them and the leaders
of the Genoese at Pera he concerted the plan of dethroning John. Andronicus having
escaped from his prison, with the aid of the Genoese, Bayazid suddenly surprised
John and Manuel in one of their palaces without the gates of Constantinople, and
gave them to the custody of Andronicus, who confined them in the same prison whence
he had escaped, and treated them with humanity, although the sultan constantly
urged him to put them to death. Andronicus was acknowledged as emperor by Bayazid
on condition of paying a heavy tribute ; but the captive emperor having promised
to pay the same tribute, to take the oath of allegiance to the sultan, and to
assist him in all his wars with 12,000 horse and foot, Bayazid, after ascertaining
that the Greeks preferred Manuel to Andronicus, ordered the latter to restore
his father to liberty, and to be satisfied with the conditions which he would
make, in order to prevent any further dissensions between him and his father.
These conditions were, that John and Manuel should reign over Constantinople and
its environs as far as they were subject to the imperial sceptre, and that Andronicus
should hold, as a fief of the crown, the towns and districts of Selymbria, Heracleia,
Rhaedestus or Rhodosto, Danias and Panidas, on the Propontis, and the fine town
of Thessalonica, which, during the time, had alternately been in the hands of
the Turks, the Venetians, and the Greeks. The chronology of these events is far
from being clear. Bayazid succeeded in 1389, and John died in 1391. Yet it is
said that John was imprisoned through the same sultan, remained in prism during
two years. and afterwards reigned again during several years. Was. John perhaps
arrested by Bayazid previous to this prince having succeeded his father in 1389
? If this were the case, the whole matter would be clear. Gibbon pays no attention
to the chronology of this period, and it cannot be denied that the account he
gives of the last Greek emperors is very short and incomplete. The submission
of Manuel to sultan Murad, and the generous pardon he obtained, are not even alluded
to by Gibbon, although he had undoubtedly read it in Chalcocondylas and Phranza
: the last three volumes of Ameilhon's continuation of Le Beau's "Histoire du
Bas Empire" were not published when Gibbon, in 1787, concluded the last volume
of his "Decline and Fall". The writer of this article has endeavoured, but in
vain, to clear up the chronology of the events alluded to, by means of "Hammer's
History of the Turkish Empire; " and the conjecture he has offered seems to be
the only means of solving the difficulty.
When John was once more established on his throne, lie sent his son
Manuel, then co-emperor, and acknowledged by all parties as his future successor,
as a hostage to sultan Bayazid. Both of them were summoned by the sultan to assist
him in reducing the town of Philadelphia, now Allah Shehr, which was the last
possession of the Greeks in Asia Minor; and so complete was their dependence,
that they followed the summons, and were seen among the foremost of the Turks
while the town was stormed, thus compelling their own subjects to submit to the
Turkish yoke (1390). Manuel, moved by fear, now secretly proposed to his father
to strengthen and increase the fortifications of Constantinople, but the emperor
having begun the work, and already constructed several new walls and towers, a
peremptory order came from Bayazad to pull down the new fortifications, and leave
every thing in its former state. The order was complied with; and it is said that
the shame which the old emperor felt at being thus treated as an humble vassal
of the Turks, hastened his death, which took place in 1391.
(Chalcocondylas, i. 2, &c.; Phranza, i. 16, &c.; Ducas, c. 5-15 ; Cantacuzenus,
iii. 4, &c.)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Jan 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Matthaeus, Catacuzenus (Matthaios ho Kantakouzenos), co-emperor of Constantinople, was the eldest son of John VI., who associated him in the supreme government in 1359, with a view of thwarting the schemes of John Palacologus, who, although then an exile in Tenedos, enjoyed great popularity, and had a fair prospect of seizing the throne. Both John and Matthaeus, however, were unable to prevent John Palaeologus from taking Constantinople in the month of January, 1355, an event which put an end at once to the reign of the father and the son, who both abdicated and retired into a convent. Matthaeus, who died before his father, or towards the end of the 14th century, was married to Irene Palaeologina, by whom he had six children. Matthaeus Cantacuzenus was a learned man, and during his protracted residence in one of the convents of Mount Athos wrote different works, mostly commentaries on the Holy Scriptures, of which several are extant in MS., and one of which has been published, viz.--"Commentarii in Cantica Canticorum," ed. Vincentius Richardus, 1624, fol.; he was perhaps also the author of " Commentarius in Sapientiam Salomonis," extant in MS. (Cave Hist. Lit., Append. p. 37.
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Manuel II., Palaeologus (Manouel ho Palaiologos), emperor of Constantinople A.
D. 1391-1425, was the son of the emperor John VI., in whose life is related the
history of Manuel previous to his sole accession, which took place on the death
of John, in A. D. 1391. Manuel was then an hostage at the court of sultan Bayazid,
but no sooner was he informed of the death of his father, than he escaped from
Nicaea, and hastened to Constantinople, fearing lest his brother Andronicus should
seize the crown. His flight enraged the sultan, who, without declaring war, advanced
with his main army against Constantinople, and laid siege to it, swearing he would
not retire till he had taken the city, and put the emperor to death. In this extremity
Manuel implored the assistance of the Western princes, with whom he had constant
negotiations: his efforts were crowned with success, inasmuch as a powerful army,
composed of Hungarians, Germans, and French, headed by the flower of European
chivalry and nobility, appeared on the Turkish frontier, and obliged Bayazid to
raise the siege, and defend his own kingdom. The unfortunate battle of Nicopolis,
in 1396, where the allies were routed, and 10,000 of them, who were taken prisoners,
massacred by the victors on the field of battle, seemed to be the signal for the
final destruction of the Greek empire, for no sooner had Bayazid obtained that
decisive victory on the banks of the Danube, than he changed the blockade of Constantinople
into a close siege. The obstinate resistance of the inhabitants, and the attention
which the sultan was obliged to pay to the appreaching danger arising from the
conquests of Timur, delayed the surrender of the Greek capital; and after a blockade
and siege of nearly six years, the belligerent parties came to terms. Manuel turned
the friendship of Bayazid for John, the son of the blinded Andronicus, to his
own advantage. He gave his nephew the government of Constantinople, reserving
for himself the Peloponnesus, whither he proceeded with his family, and then set
out for Europe, to beg succour from the Western princes. Italy, France, and Germany,
received the imperial suppliant with all the honours due to his rank; but his
prayers for assistance were in vain, and he returned to Constantinople in 1402,
at a moment when a great political crisis made his presence most necessary. During
his absence, John reigned with absolute power, having obtained his recognition
from Bayazid, on conditions which show the state of helpless weakness into which
the small remnant of the Byzantine empire was sunk. At that period there were
already three mosques in Constantinople, where a numerous Mohammedan population
enjoyed the free exercise of their religion. To these John was compelled to add
a fourth; and besides, the sultan obtained the privilege of establishing in the
capital a "mehkeme", or court of justice, where a Turkish "kadi", or judge, administered
justice in the name of the sultan, who increased the number of Mohammedans by
settling a numerous colony of Turkmans at Kiniki, a borough in the immediate vicinity
of Constantinople. A yearly tribute of 10,000 ducats was added as another condition.
Considering Constantinople a prey which he could seize at the first
opportunity, Bayazid resolved, first to subdue Greece, the greater part of which
was then governed by Latin princes, among whom the dukes of Delphi and Athens
were the principal. Greece was an easy conquest, and Athens, which the Turks still
called the city of philosophers, became for some time the seat of a Turkish pasha.
The fall of Constantinople now seemed to be inevitable, and Bayazid had already
assembled an army for its speedy reduction, when the great Timur invaded Asia
Minor with a countless host. At Angora (1402) the Turkish army was annihilated
by the Tatar; and Bayazid, with his son Musa, fell into the hands of the victor.
This unexpected event saved Manuel. Bayazid died soon after his captivity; and
Timur, who left Asia Minor for the purpose of conquering China, died in 1405.
Meanwhile, the sons of Bayazid seized each a portion of their father's empire;
and the Tatar having withdrawn from Asia Minor, a civil war broke out between
the Turkish princes, which ended in the undisputed government of prince Mohammed,
the first of the sultans of that name (1415). During these disturbances Manuel
acted with diplomatic skill: he first removed his nephew, John, from the government;
and perceiving the rising fortune of Mohammed, joined him; and in 1413 he contributed
to the defeat and death of prince Musa, who had succeeded his brother Suleiman,
in 1410, in the government of European Turkey. In reward for his assistance, Manuel
received from Mohammed several places on the Euxine, Thessalonica and its territory,
and several districts in the Peloponnesus. The latter part of the reign of Manuel
was quiet. Still hoping that the Western princes would finally unite for the purpose
of putting an end to the Turkish dominion and restoring the Greek empire, he sent
ambassadors to the Council of Constance with seeming instructions to effect a
union of the Latin and Greek churches. But his real intentions were quite different;
he never earnestly wished for such an union; and Phranza (ii. 13) was witness
when the emperor openly said that he negotiated with the Western princes for no
other purpose but causing fear to the Turks. This was well known in Europe; and
while Greek fickleness and duplicity prevented a cordial understanding between
the East and the West, it became one of the principal causes of the destruction
of the Greek empire. Manuel died in 1425, at the age of 77, and was succeeded
by his eldest son John (VII.), whom he had by his wife Irene, daughter of Constantine
Dragas, and whom he created co-emperor in 1419.
(Laonic. i. 2; Ducas, c. 12-15; Phranza, i. 16, &c.)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Jan 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Joannes VII. Palaeologus, emperor of Constantinople (A. D. 1425-1448), was born
in 1390, and succeeded his father, the emperor Manuel II., in 1425, after having
been made co-emperor in 1419. In the year of his accession he concluded a new
peace with sultan Murad II., and the Turks being then engaged in war with Hungary,
Servia, Wallachia, Venice, and the Turkomans, in Asia Minor, he enjoyed the quietude
of a slave during more than ten years. His empire consisted of the city of Constantinople
and its immediate neighbourhood : the other Greek possessions in Greece, on the
Propontis and on the Black Sea, were governed with sovereign power by his six
brothers, among whom was Constantine, the last emperor of Constantinople. But
the peace with Murad did not include his brothers also, and several of them were
deprived by the sultan of their small principalities, and took refuge at Constantinople.
Still, hoping that the Greek empire could be restored, through the western princes,
he followed the line of policy which had been adopted by so many of his predecessors,
and promised to unite the Greek church with the Roman, if the pope would rouse
the kings of Europe for his defence. Pope Engene IV. invited him to Rome, alleging
that his [p. 584] presence there would do most in his favour. But the imperial
finances were exhausted, through the heavy tribute paid to the Turks, and the
emperor would have been unable to accept the invitation but for a timely succour
of eight papal gallies laden with provisions, and the still more acceptable present
of a handsome sum of money, to defray the expenses of his journey. John, accompanied
by his brother Demetrius, a host of prelates and priests, among whom was the learned
Bessarion, set out from Constantinople in November, 1437, and safely arrived at
Venice, where he was received with all the honours due to his rank. After a short
stay at Venice, he proceeded to Ferrara, and there also was received with great
state by the sovereign of that principality. It was at Ferrara that the council
was to assemble. Pope Eugene IV. had preceded him thither. Particular reasons
induced the pope to treat the Greek emperor with much more attention, and the
Greek prelates with much less pride, than the mightier emperor of Germany, or
the arrogant prelates of the West. The council of Ferrara was but a continuation
of those of Pisa, Constance, and Basel, in which the supremacy of the popes had
met with severe checks, especially in the latter, where the authority of the councils
was declared to be superior to that of the popes; and Eugene flattered himself
that, through the re-union of the widely-spread church of the Greeks with that
of Rome, he would secure for himself and his successors that unlimited authority
which was once possessed by pope Gregory VII., and others of the preceding centuries.
In the following year the council was transferred to Florence, and there, after
long negotiations, carried on with remarkable ability and learning by Bessarion
and bishop Marcus, of Ephesus, on the part of the Greeks, the re-union of the
two churches was concluded in July, 1439. The Greek Syropulus has written the
history of the councils of Ferrara and Florence; and to his work, of which Robert
Creighton published a Latin translation at the Hague, 1660, fol., we refer the
reader for particulars. The emperor and his suite returned to Constantinople early
in 1440, rather disappointed that the western princes had declined giving any
direct promise of restoring the Greek empire to its ancient splendour, and his
disappointment was still greater when he went on shore in his capital. The Greek
people considered their spiritual union with Rome as the prelude to a second Latin
empire in the East; the orthodox and the bigotted thought their souls in danger;
the learned were shocked at the idea, that by submitting to the infallible decision
of the pope they would henceforth be deprived of all the honours and advantages
they derived from either removing or creating religious difficulties; and bishop
Marcus of Ephesus, who had constantly opposed a reunion on conditions dictated
by the pope, raised the standard of Greek orthodoxy, and confined the doctrine
of the united church within the palace of the emperor, and the narrow cells of
his chaplains.
The journeys of several of the Greek emperors to Rome were of great
importance in the revival of classical learning in Italy, and that of John VII.
forms an epoch in the history of literature, the consequences of which we can
trace down to the present day. After his return to Constantinople, John was engaged
for some time in secret negotiations with the pope, who, moved by the dangers
of a Turkish invasion of Italy, rather than by compassion for the independence
of the Greeks, roused king Ladislaus of Hungary to break the peace which he had
concluded with sultan Murad, and to invade Turkey. The dreadful rout of the Hungarians,
in 1444, at Varna, where king Ladislaus and the cardinal Julian lian were slain,
placed John and his capital in jeopardy, but the sultan was bent upon retiring
from the throne, and refrained from punishing the emperor. During the Hungarian
campaign, the emperor's brother, Constaantine, had enlarged his dominions in Greece
so much, that in 1445 he reigned over the whole Peloponnesus and a considerable
part of northern Greece. Murad marched against him with the victors of Varna,
stormed the Hexamilion, or the wall which, stretching across the isthmus of Corinth,
served as a barrier against an invasion from the north, took and destroyed Corinth
and Patras, and was only induced through a second invasion of the Hungarians,
in 1447, to allow Constantine the further possession of the Peloponnesus, on condition
of paying an annual tribute. The peace between Constantine and the sultan was
concluded by the historian Phranza. In the following year, 1448, John died, and
was succeeded by his brother Constantine, the last emperor of Constantinople.
John was thrice married, 1. to Anna, a Russian princess; 2. to Sophia of Montferrat;
and 3. to Maria Comnena, of the imperial family of Trebizond; but by none of them
did he leave any issue.
(Phranza, lib. ii.; Ducas, c. 28-33)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Jan 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Constantinus XIII., Palaeologus, surnamed Drafases (ho Palaiologos ho dragases), the last emperor of the East, A. D. 1448-1453, was the fourth son of the emperor Manuel II. Palaeologus. He was born in A. D. 1394, and obtained the throne after the death of his elder brother, the emperor John VII., in 1448. He first married Theodora, daughter of Leonardo, count of Tocco, a lord in the Peloponnesus, and, after her death, Catharina, daughter of Notaras Palaeologus Catelusius, prince of Lesbos, by neither of whom he left issue. Previously to his accession, Constantine was despot or lord of a small remnant of the Byzantine empire in the Chersonnesus Taurica, and during the reign of his brother John he was invested with the principality of, or more correctly a principality in, the Pcioponnesus, which he bravely defended against the Turks. After the death of John, the throne was claimed by his surviving brothers, Demetrius, the eldest, Constantine, and Thomas. A strong party having declared for Constantine, this prince, who was still in the Peloponnesus, accepted the crown after long hesitation, as he saw that he had but few chances of defending it against the overwhelming power of the Turks, who had gradually reduced the Byzantine empire to the city of Constantinople and a few maritime places and islands in Greece. In his embarrassment he sent Phranza, the historian, to the court of sultan Murad II., declaring that he would not exercise that power which the Greeks had conferred upon him, unless the sultan would give him his permission. Murad having received the ambassador favourably, and given his consent, Constantine embarked on board a squadron, and soon afterwards arrived at Constantinople. He made peace with his brothers by giving them his former domain in the Peloponnesus. The beginning of his reign was quiet; but sultan Murad died in 1450, and his son and successor, the ambitious and lofty Mohammed, was far from shewing the same sentiments towards Constantine as his father. Mohammed was then engaged in a war against the Turkish emir of Caramania, who made such a desperate resistance, that the councillors of Constantine thought this to be a favourable opportunity for making their master somewhat more independent of the sultan. They threatened to assist prince Urkhan (the eldest brother of Mohammed?), who lived at Constantinople and claimed the Turkish throne, to raise an army and to enter into a contest with Mohammed. Ambassadors having been sent to the sultan to inform him of the dispositions of the Greek court, the vizir Khalil reproached them with their imprudent and presumptuous conduct in very severe terms, and concluded with the words, "If you will proclaim Urkhan as sultan, you may do so; you may call the Hungarians for assistance, you may try to reconquer all those countries which we have taken from you; but know ye that you will succeed in nothing, and that instead of winning an inch of ground, you will lose the petty remains of your empire which we have left you. My master shall be informed of the subject of your message, and his will shall be done" (Ducas). Soon afterwards, Mohammed made preparations for a siege of Constantinople, having declared that he would not make peace till he could reside in the capital of the Greek empire. Constantinople was blockaded by land and by sea till the sultan's artillery was ready, which was cast at Adrianople by Urban, a Dacian or Hungarian founder, and was of greater dimensions than had ever been made before. While it was casting Mohammed took Mesembria, Anchialos, Byzon, and other towns which still belonged to the empire. On the 6th of April, 1453, Mohammed appeared under the walls of Constantinople at the head of an army of 258,000 men, carrying with him, among other pieces of large size, a gun which threw a stone ball of 1200 pounds. The city was defended by the Greeks and numerous Venetian, Genoese, and other Frankish auxiliaries or volunteers; and the Christian navy was superior to the Turkish, not in number, but in the construction of the ships and the skill of the Frankish marines. Our limits do not allow us to give a history of this siege. Among the numerous works, in which the account is given with more or less truth or beauty, we refer to Gibbon, Le Beau, "Histoire du Bas Empire", continued by Ameilhon, and Hammer, "Geschichte des Osmanischen Reiches". The contest lasted from the 6th of April till the 29th of May, 1453: prophecies had foretold its issue. On that day the last emperor of the East fell on the wall of his trembling capital: Thelo thanein mallon e zen, he cried out in despair when the Turks stormed the wall and he was forsaken by his guards. Surrounded by a crowd of Janissaries, and foreseeing his fate, he cried out again, "Is there no Christian who will cut off my head?" He had scarcely uttered these words when he was struck by two Turks at once, and expired unknown to them on a heap of slain. His body was afterwards discovered, and when Mohammed was in undisputed possession of the city, he ordered his head to be cut off, and had it nailed on the porphyry column on the place called Augusteum. It was afterwards sent as a trophy to the principal towns in Turkish Asia. One of the first acts of the victor was the consecration of the church of St. Sophia as a mosque, and Mohammed was the first Moslem who prayed there standing on the altar. It is said that he entered that church on horseback, but this is an idle story invented by monks. He alighted from his horse at the principal gate, entered the church with visible respect and admiration, and was so far from committing any profanation, that he killed with his own hand a Turk whom he discovered breaking up the beautiful marbles of the pavement. The conquest of Constantinople was an event of the greatest importance to the Sultans. During upwards of one thousand years that city had been looked upon by the nations of the East as the sacred seat of both the supreme temporal and spiritual power, and being masters of Constantinople, the Sultans at once were considered as the heirs of the Roman emperors. Until then the obedience paid to them was but submission to the sword of a conqueror: it was now both fear and habit, and the transient impression of victory acquired the strength of hereditary duty. With the fall of Constantinople, darkness spread over the East; but the Muses flying from the Bosporus found a more genial home on the banks of the Arno and the Tiber. Almost four centuries have elapsed since the first Mohammedan prayer was offered in St. Sophia; yet all the power and glory of the Sultans have been unable to root out of the minds of the Greeks the remembrance of their past grandeur, and at the present moment the duration of the Turkish power in Constantinople is less probable than the revival of a new Greek empire. (Phranzes; Ducas; Chalcocondyles; Leonardus Chiensis, Hist. Constant. a Turc. expugnatae, a small but curious work, written a few months after the fall of Constantinople)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Nov 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Receive our daily Newsletter with all the latest updates on the Greek Travel industry.
Subscribe now!
