No More Learning

In the course of the campaign negotiations were initiated in
which the Venetians were duped. These were continued without result
up to 1175. At this date Venice made an alliance with William II, King
of Sicily. Thus directly threatened, Manuel decided upon concessions.
He set at liberty the prisoners arrested in 1171, restored their goods to
them, and granted to Venice the privileges enjoyed under former treaties
of commerce. In the interval, in 1173, Venice had given help to the
Germans in their attempt to take Ancona from the Greeks.
The policy which Manuel pursued in Italy naturally reacted upon
the relations between the Greek Empire and the Germans. The atti-
tude which he took up there would naturally have as its first consequence
a complete rupture with Barbarossa. This, however, was postponed for
some time owing to the secrecy with which the Greek Emperor con-
trived to cover up his intrigues. It was only when the occupation of
Ancona took place in 1166 that Manuel's hostility to Barbarossa shewed
itself clearly. From 1159 to 1165 several embassies were exchanged
between the two Emperors, and in 1166 Henry, Duke of Austria, made a
useless journey to Manuel's court to attempt to bring about an under-
standing. Just at that time Manuel's occupation of Ancona had opened
Barbarossa's eyes, and he was determined to avenge himself on the earliest
opportunity. However, the progress made by Manuel in Italy, marked
by the treaties with Genoa in 1169 and with Pisa in 1170, decided Bar-
barossa on attempting a reconciliation. From 1170 to 1172 proposals
were discussed for the marriage of Manuel's daughter with Barbarossa's
CB. XII.
24-2


## p. 372 (#414) ############################################

372
Manuel and Hungary
son. They led to nothing, and in 1173 Barbarossa was engaged in the
siege of Ancona (which had given itself up to the Greeks), and was also
trying to negotiate an alliance with William II, evidently directed against
Manuel. At the same time the Western Emperor was attempting in his
turn to create difficulties for his adversary, and was treating with the
Sultan of Iconium. Manuel took no share in the Treaty of Venice (1177)
and, as we shall see, continued the struggle with the Western Emperor
up to the last day of his life.
His Italian policy, being based wholly on diplomacy, always left the
greater part of the military forces of the Empire free, a circumstance
which enabled the Emperor at the same time to pursue a more active
and warlike course in two other quarters, Hungary and Asia. Since the
peace signed with Géza, Manuel had played a waiting game in Hungary,
content with giving a refuge at Constantinople to two of the king's
brothers, the future Stephen IV and Ladislas. At the death of Géza
(1161), Manuel had made use of the pretenders whom he had at hand
in order to interfere in the concerns of the Hungarian succession, calcu-
lating thus to secure some advantage for the Empire. The laws of
succession were not yet fully fixed in Hungary, and Stephen IV could
plead in his favour the ancient usage by which the brother of a dead
king was to be preferred to the son, in order to put forward a claim
to the throne to the prejudice of his nephew Stephen III. Manuel
supported the claims of his protégé by Byzantine troops. A strong party
grew up in Hungary hostile to the claims of Géza's son, but refusing
to admit those of Stephen IV, who was looked upon as too much the
vassal of Constantinople. The Hungarians feared that by giving the
crown to Stephen IV their country might become a mere satellite of
Constantinople, and to avoid this danger made choice of Ladislas, brother
of Stephen IV, whom they regarded as less submissive to the influence of
the Byzantine court. Ladislas was barely seated on the throne when he
died (1162). The struggle between the two Stephens then recommenced,
Manuel still giving support to his candidate. To bring the contest to an
end, the counsellors of the young King Stephen III offered to hand over
to Manuel another son of Géza's named Béla, who was recognised as the
future heir to the crown of Hungary and granted a considerable appanage
which included Dalmatia. As the appanage of Béla, who would be brought
up in Constantinople, Dalmatia practically fell back into the hands of
the Byzantines, and the result of Manuel's Hungarian policy was an im-
portant territorial acquisition. To make his success the surer, Manuel,
who as yet had no son, decided to betroth his daughter Mary to the
Hungarian prince, whom he destined for his successor. By this means
Hungary would have been united to the Greek Empire.
It was not without difficulty that the Greeks entered into possession
of Dalmatia. As the position of Stephen III grew stronger, the Hun-
garians came to regret the sacrifice they had agreed to, and for several


## p. 373 (#415) ############################################

Manuel and Serbia
373
years the war was renewed. Manuel, having become master of Dalmatia
in 1166, remained in the end the victor. The birth of a son to him in
1169 caused him to alter his arrangements. Béla ceased to be heir pre-
sumptive and, his betrothal to Mary having been set aside, he was married
to the Emperor's sister-in-law, a daughter of Constance of Antioch. On
the death of Stephen III, Béla with the aid of Byzantine troops mounted
the throne of Hungary. As the price of his support Manuel kept his
hold on Bela’s appanage. Béla always remained devoted to him, although
it was only after his patron's death that he recovered Dalmatia.
The continual wars which were waged during this period on the
Danube frontier kept up a state of unrest among the Serbs, who were
vassals of the Empire. Manuel was repeatedly obliged to intervene. He
deposed Pervoslav Uroš, replacing him by his brother Béla (1161? ).
Then, Béla having retired from power, Manuel set up as his successor
Dessa, another son of Béla Uroš (c. 1162). Dessa, who a few years
later took the name of Stephen Nemanja, attempted to throw off the
Byzantine suzerainty. More than once Manuel was forced to interfere
to restore order; finally he seized Stephen Nemanja, whom he kept prisoner
for some time in Constantinople. It is not known exactly at what date
Stephen regained his liberty. He took advantage of the disorder which
followed the death of Manuel to secure the independence of his
country.
It was not until about 1150 that the affairs of the East called for the
intervention of Manuel. At that time the situation of the Byzantine
possessions had become critical. Thoros, son of the Armenian prince
Leo, had escaped from captivity, and had succeeded in taking from the
Greeks a large part of Cilicia. At the same time the Muslim conquest had
made a great step in advance by the capture of Edessa, and the position
of the Latin states in Palestine was rendered even more precarious by the
entrance into the contest of the Musulmans of Iconium, who with Qilij
Arslān, son of Mas'ūd, wished to have their share in the dismembering of
the Latin principalities. In the extreme peril in which they stood the
Latins asked for help from the West, but the danger was so threatening
that they had recourse to the Emperor of Constantinople. Manuel
ordered his troops in the East to support the Latins. About the same
time he bought from the wife of Joscelin II, Count of Edessa, all that
remained in her hands of the possessions of her husband. Constance,
Princess of Antioch, having become a widow, also turned to the Emperor
for protection. The position of things thus favoured Greek intervention.
Manuel charged his cousin, Andronicus Comnenus, with the task of re-
ducing Thoros, and sent also his brother-in-law the Caesar John-Roger
whom he proposed to Constance as a husband. This projected marriage
never took place, and Andronicus only succeeded in getting himself de-
feated before Mamistra.
Manuel then changed his policy and attempted to secure the submission
CH. XII.


## p. 374 (#416) ############################################

374
The Latin East
of Thoros by means of Masóūd. The latter accepted Manuel's offers all
the more willingly as he had himself subjects of complaint against Thoros.
The Armenian prince had pillaged Cappadocia, taking advantage of the
struggle between Masóūd and the Dānishmandite rulers, Yaʻqūb Arslān
and Dhū’l-Qarnain, son and heir of 'Ain-ad-Daulah. The result of this
experiment did not correspond to Manuel's hopes. On a first occasion
Masóūd treated with Thoros but at Manuel's expense; on a second the
Musulman troops were thoroughly beaten. Profiting by the inaction of
Manuel, who was detained by affairs in Italy, Thoros approached Reginald
of Chatillon who had become Prince of Antioch through his marriage
with Constance, and the two set on foot an expedition against the island
of Cyprus, where immense booty was obtained (1155 or 1156).
This aggression against the Byzantines greatly displeased the King of
Jerusalem, Baldwin, for, confronted by the growing success of the Atābeg
Nūr-ad-Dīn, the master of Damascus, he was meditating a rapprochement
with Manuel, to whom he had applied for the hand of a princess of the
imperial family. The request of Baldwin came just as the imperial idea
was beginning to take shape in Manuel's mind. The Emperor, whose
Oriental policy, like that of his predecessors, was dominated by the wish
to regain Antioch for the Empire, eagerly welcomed the proposal of
Baldwin, which would give him an opportunity of posing as the protector
of the Holy Places. He gave the King of Jerusalem the hand of his niece
Theodora, daughter of his brother Isaac, and as soon as peace had been
concluded with the King of Sicily (1157) he organised a great expedition
for the East.
By about the month of September 1158 Manuel had arrived in
Cilicia at the head of a very considerable force. None of his adversaries
dared to stand against him, and in succession Reginald of Chatillon and
Thoros were obliged to come in penitential garments and submit them-
selves to his mercy. The Emperor consented to pardon them. Reginald
was obliged to acknowledge himself the vassal of the Empire, engaging
to supply a strong contingent of troops whenever required to do so by
the Emperor. Ambassadors from most of the Oriental princes were to
be found hastening to the imperial camp before Mamistra. The Latins
themselves, the King of Jerusalem first among them, sought help of
Manuel in whom they now placed all their hopes; Baldwin himself entered
into a treaty, he also being obliged to furnish troops to the Greek
Empire.
In April 1159 Manuel left Cilicia to make his solemn entry into
Antioch, escorted by the Latin princes on foot and unarmed, and followed
by the King of Jerusalem on horseback but without weapons. Passing
through streets adorned with carpets and hangings, to the sound of drums
and trumpets and to the singing of triumphal hymns, the Emperor was
brought in procession to the cathedral by the Patriarch in his pontifical
robes, while the imperial banners were hoisted on the city walls.


## p. 375 (#417) ############################################

Manuel's marriage with Mary of Antioch
375
His stay at Antioch marks the highest pitch of glory to which Manuel
attained throughout his reign. He took pleasure in the pomp with which
he surrounded himself, and in the largess which he distributed to dazzle
the Latins and Orientals. For a week feasts and shows followed each
other rapidly, and on one day the Emperor might be seen descending
into the lists to measure himself against Reginald of Chatillon, while the
officers of the imperial army contended with the Frankish knights.
Towards the end of May the Emperor left Antioch with all the
materials for a siege, taking the road to Edessa, but after a few days'
march the army halted, for the negotiations with Nūr-ad-Dīn had
just reached a conclusion. Manuel procured the liberation of all the
captives held in the Atābeg's prison, the number of whom reached six
thousand. The abandonment of the campaign which had been begun
caused the deepest disappointment to the Christians of the East. To
justify the retreat of the Greeks, a rumour was circulated that a con-
spiracy had been discovered at Constantinople. There is perhaps no
need to lay stress on the explanations put forward at the time. May it
not be supposed that Manuel entered into the treaty because he had no
kind of interest in the destruction of the power of Nūr-ad-Dīn? It was
to the struggle of the Atābegs and the Christians that the Empire owed
the advantages which had been won in the East. Had he subjugated
Nūr-ad-Dīn, Manuel would have delivered the Latins from their dread of
the Musulman peril, and they as soon as the danger was removed would,
as they had done before, make haste to forget their engagements to the
Empire. In order that the suzerainty of Constantinople might be recog-
nised by the Latins, it was necessary that the Musulman peril should con-
tinue to exist. This appears to give the most reasonable explanation of
Manuel's conduct.
On his return to Constantinople Manuel, who had been left a widower,
meditated drawing closer the bonds between himself and the Latins of
Palestine by marrying a Latin princess. He requested the King of Jeru-
salem to grant him the hand of Millicent, sister of Raymond III, Count
of Tripolis. But, the marriage being once agreed upon, the negotiations
were drawn out for more than a year, until at last Manuel suddenly broke
them off and transferred his choice to Mary, daughter of Constance,
Princess of Antioch. The chief result of the marriage was to bring Antioch
more decidedly within the sphere of Byzantine influence, which was now
exerted energetically on the side of the Latins against the Turks. At
the battle of the Bukaia (1163) and at Hārim (1164) the Greeks fought
side by side with the Latin lords. After the defeat at Hārim the Emperor
sent reinforcements to Cilicia, but he made the mistake of committing
the province to his cousin Andronicus as governor. Andronicus ruined the
imperial policy by procuring the murder of Sdephanê, the brother of
Thoros, who was thus alienated from the Empire. Then, having fallen
in love with Philippa, Manuel's sister-in-law, Andronicus deserted his
CH. XII.


## p. 376 (#418) ############################################

376
Amaury of Jerusalem
post as governor in order to fly with the object of his passion. In spite
of these incidents Constantinople and Antioch remained on excellent
terms. Manuel came to the help of his brother-in-law Bohemond III
with financial support, and obtained from him permission for the Greek
Patriarch to return to Antioch. While Amaury, the Latin Patriarch,
departed hurling anathemas against the city, the Greek, Athanasius, took
possession of the see. This supplies a fresh proof of the influence exercised
over Antioch by the Greek element. There was then in this quarter
substantial progress on the part of the Byzantines.
Such was not the case in Cilicia. Thoros having died (c. 1167), his
son Rupen II succeeded him, but after a short time was robbed of his
crown by his uncle Mleh, who in order to seize power had allied himself
with Nur-ad-Dīn. With the latter's help Mleh succeeded in maintaining
his position until the death of his patron, when he was overthrown and,
Rupen II being dead, was replaced by Rupen III, son of Sdephanê, the
victim of Andronicus. Throughout these struggles Constantinople seems
to have played a very secondary part in Cilicia. It is only the attempt
by Manuel to bring about the union of the Greek and Armenian Churches
which shews that Constantinople had not yet lost interest in Armenian
affairs. It is quite probable that the object aimed at by the Emperor
was at least as much political as religious, and that the opposition offered
by the Armenian clergy, which caused the failure of the negotiations,
was also political in character.
Baldwin's successor on the throne of Jerusalem, Amaury, after having
at the opening of his reign sought in vain for help from the West, turned
decidedly from 1165 onwards towards Constantinople. He asked for
the hand of a princess of the imperial family, and on 29 August 1167
his marriage took place at Tyre with the daughter of the Protosebastos
John Comnenus, a nephew of the Emperor, the son of his brother
Andronicus. Through this new connexion the ties between Constanti-
nople and the kingdom of Jerusalem became closer, and Manuel agreed
to lend his help to King Amaury, who, in order to prevent Nūr-ad-Dīn
from occupying Egypt, where the Caliphate had fallen into utter de-
cadence, wished to annex the country himself. Several attempts by the
Jerusalem had failed; it was now decided that in 1169 the Greeks
and Latins should try to effect a joint conquest of Egypt. Delays on the
part of Amaury caused the expedition to fail, for the provisions of the
Greeks, calculated to last for three months, had been already largely con-
sumed when their feet quitted Acre.
The Greek fleet under the command of the Grand Duke Alexius
Contostephanus had a strength of 150 biremes and 60 transport ships.
It left the port of Coela near Sestos in July. But the expedition, in-
stead of setting out in August as had been agreed, only left Syria to
besiege Damietta in October. The siege lasted for two months, at the end
of which the town made terms with Amaury. The campaign had failed,
King


## p. 377 (#419) ############################################

Wars with the Turks
377
and the Greeks, who were suffering greatly from want of provisions, were
in haste to depart. Their return journey was disastrous, a large number
of their vessels being lost at sea, and the Empire derived no advantage
whatever from the expedition.
Manuel, however, was not discouraged by this want of success, and in
1171 he gave a favourable reception to Amaury, who had come to Con-
stantinople to ask for his support. A treaty was signed by which Manuel
pledged himself to assist the King of Jerusalem in a renewed attempt
upon Egypt. According to a Greek chronicler, Amaury at this time
acknowledged himself the vassal of the Emperor, but as the statement
cannot be verified it is impossible to speak decidedly on the point. As
to the proposed expedition, we know that Manuel urged Amaury's suc-
cessor, Baldwin IV, to march upon Egypt(1177). The opposition of Philip,
Count of Flanders and Vermandois, who was then in Palestine, was fatal
to the plan which had been agreed on, its execution being deferred to
some unspecified date.
It remains for us to consider the relations of Manuel with the Sultan
of Iconium. Mas'ûd had died (c. 1155) and had been succeeded at Iconium
by Qilij Arslān, and at Gangra and Ancyra by another of his sons,
Shāhinshāh. On its return from Antioch in 1159 the Greek army was
attacked near Cotyaeum by Musulman bands, and next year Manuel
undertook a campaign in order to chastise Qilij Arslān. In this struggle
he relied on the support of other Mohammedan princes, Ya'qub Arslan,
Dhū’l-Nun, Mahomet, son of Dhü'l-Qarnain, and also on Shāhinshāh,
brother of Qilij Arslān. In 1160 Ya'qub Arslān was attacking Qilij
Arslān, while on all sides the Greeks were falling upon such Turkish tribes
as were to be found in the neighbourhood of the frontier. In consequence
of this general onslaught Qilij Arslān treated for peace during the winter
of 1161. The negotiations fell through, and war was resumed at the begin-
ning of spring. Manuel, by way of Philadelphia, invaded the dominions
of the Sultan, who retorted by attacks upon Phileta and Laodicea.
In 1162 Manuel called upon all his vassals to strike a decisive
blow. Finding himself seriously menaced, Qilij Arslān made friends with
Ya'qūb Arslān and Shāhinshāh, and then negotiated with Manuel,
with whom he finally concluded a treaty of alliance. Soon after, Qilij
Arslān appeared at Constantinople, where he remained for more than three
months. He departed loaded with presents, having made the Emperor
the fairest of promises for the future. He had pledged himself to restore
to the Empire a number of towns which had been taken by the Musulmans.
Not one of these promises was ever carried out.
The years from 1162 to 1174 were occupied by perpetual strife among
the Musulmans of Asia Minor, the Greeks being thus allowed some respite.
In the end Qilij Arslān was left victor over his chief adversaries. His
brother Shāhinshāh and Dhü'l-Nun then sought refuge at Constan-
tinople.
CH. XII.


## p. 378 (#420) ############################################

378
Battle of Myriocephalum
In order to be able to pursue his European policy undisturbed, Manuel
had since his treaty with Qilij Arslān supplied the latter with heavy
subsidies as the price of peace. In proportion as his power increased, the
Sultan of Iconium, urged on perhaps by Frederick Barbarossa, assumed
a more independent attitude towards the Empire, while the incursions of
the nomad tribes of Turks were renewed with greater frequency than ever.
To secure his frontier, Manuel repaired the fortifications of a certain
number of strongholds, notably Pergamus and Chliara. He then fortified
the two lines of defence supplied by the rivers Maeander and Hermus.
It was not till 1175 that a definitive rupture took place between
Manuel and the Sultan of Iconium. The former insisted that Qilij
Arslān should fulfil his promise to restore to the Empire certain towns
which he had taken from it. Supported by Frederick Barbarossa, Qilij
Arslān refused to comply with the Emperor's demands, and Manuel decided
upon war, counting upon the support of all the remaining partisans of
Shāhinshāh and Dhū’l-Nun among the Musulmans. While a detach-
ment of Greek troops was sent under Gabras and Shāhinshāh to occupy
Amasia, which was still in the hands of the latter's supporters, Manuel
carried out the fortification of a whole series of towns, Dorylaeum, an
important strategic point on the road to Iconium, Lampe, and Sublaeum
(1175). Next year the Emperor resolved to attack Iconium. With this
object he preached a regular crusade, calling upon all his vassals for help.
While Andronicus Vatatzes went to attack Neo-Caesarea, Manuel himself
took command of the army which was to march upon Iconium. The fate
of both expeditions was equally disastrous. Vatatzes failed before Neo-
Caesarea and was killed, his army being routed. Manuel himself became
entangled with his whole army in the mountainous region to the east
of Sublaeum (Homa). He had neglected to explore the country-side
with scouts during his march, and was caught by the Muslims in the
narrow defiles at Myriocephalum. The Greeks met with a complete dis-
aster, in which the finest of the imperial troops were slaughtered by the
Musulmans. Manuel himself compared his defeat to that of Romanus
Diogenes at Manzikert. For reasons unknown to us Qilij Arslān used his
victory with moderation, and offered peace on honourable terms, stipu-
lating only for the destruction of the fortifications at Dorylaeum and
Sublaeum. Manuel agreed to the conditions proposed, and led the wreck
of his army back to Constantinople.
With the disaster of Myriocephalum all enterprises on a large scale in
the East came to an end. Though broken by his defeat, the Emperor
did indeed renew the war during the latter part of his reign; but the Greek
generals had to confine themselves to the defence of the frontier, and
all idea of an advance upon Iconium, to attack the central seat of the
Musulman power, was abandoned. In fact, the battle of Myriocephalum
sealed the fate of the Comnenian dynasty, if not of the Byzantine
Empire.


## p. 379 (#421) ############################################

Death of Manuel
379
As a result of his defeat Manuel met with a mortification from
Frederick Barbarossa which he must have felt keenly. The Western
Emperor wrote to the Basileus, and remembering old scores himself
spoke of the unity of the Empire. In his letter he clearly asserts the
superiority of the Emperor of the West, sole heir of the Roman Emperors,
over all other sovereigns, in particular, over the King of the Greeks.
Manuel, who feared that the Westerns might profit by his defeat to
attack his Empire, strove by all the means which he had before found
successful to paralyse Barbarossa's forces. He supported William,
Marquess of Montferrat, when he raised a revolt in Italy, and, in order to
set a seal on the alliance, married his daughter Mary to Renier, one of
William's sons. Again it was Byzantine gold that helped to equip the
troops that defeated Frederick’s Arch-Chancellor, Christian of Mayence,
near Camerino. Manuel was trying to arrange for the purchase of Christian,
whom Conrad of Montferrat had made prisoner, when his own death put
a stop to the negotiations. Thus after lasting twenty years the struggle
between the two Empires came to an end-a struggle in which diplomacy
counted for more than armies. Manuel's policy with regard to Barbarossa
was very burdensome to the imperial treasury, for money was the weapon
with which he chiefly carried on the contest. If his policy seems to have
yielded no very striking results, it must be remembered that Manuel was
successful in keeping the forces of his enemy in a state of inaction, and
was thus able to pursue his policy of conquest in Hungary and the East
unhindered.
The only success which sweetened the bitterness of Manuel's last
years
was the marriage of his son Alexius with Agnes, the daughter of Louis VII
of France. This match had been arranged at the Emperor's request by
Philip, Count of Flanders, who on his return from an expedition to the
Holy Land had passed through Constantinople in 1178. The little
princess, who reached Constantinople in a Genoese vessel, was married to
the heir of the Empire on 2 March 1180. On 24 September in the same
year the Emperor died after a long illness, during which, confident in
the predictions of astrologers, he never ceased to nurse illusions as to his
prospect of recovery. This conviction that he would recover prevented
him from making any arrangements for the organisation of the govern-
ment during the minority of his son.
Alexius II, son and successor of Manuel Comnenus, was twelve years
old at the time of his father's death. Naturally therefore he had no
share in state affairs, the regency being in the hands of his mother Mary
of Antioch, whose charm and beauty the chroniclers vie in celebrating.
Every man about the court, convinced that the Empress could be wooed
and won, endeavoured to attract her attention.
For some time the court was
the scene of all manner of intrigues, and, in order to gain favour with the
Empress, young and old rivalled one another in the elegance and splendour
CH. XII.


## p. 380 (#422) ############################################

380
Alexius II
of their attire and in their jewels and perfumes, each hoping to be the
lucky man on whom her choice would fall. Mary made the double mistake,
first, of allowing herself to make a choice among the crowd of gallants who
surrounded her, and, secondly, of distinguishing with her favour the vain-
glorious and incapable Protosebastos Alexius Comnenus, son of Manuel's
elder brother Andronicus. All power was soon exercised by the favourite,
who by his childish pride, his contemptuous treatment of the chief officials,
and the pretensions which he ostentatiously put forward, excited a general
hatred in which the Regent was naturally included. The favour which
she shewed to the Latins who filled the chief posts in the army and the
administration, and on whose support she came naturally to rely, com-
pleted the exasperation of the public mind, which was besides excited
by the courtiers. Before long the “foreign woman” as the Empress was
called was detested in Constantinople, and a plot was set on foot against
the all-powerful favourite. In order to kindle the indignation of the
populace, it was given out that Alexius Comnenus intended to
marry
the
Empress and to arrange for the disappearance of the young Emperor in
order to seize the throne himself.
The leading spirit in the plot was Mary daughter of Manuel, with her
husband the Caesar Renier. Having been for a short time heiress to
the throne, Mary was inconsolable for the loss of her prospects, and she
heartily detested her step-mother. A great many of the members of the im-
perial family gathered round her—Alexius Comnenus, illegitimate son of
Manuel, John and Manuel Comnenus, the sons of Andronicus the future
Emperor; and to these were added some of the chief officials, notably
John Camaterus, prefect of the city. The assassination of the favourite
was resolved
on, but the stroke miscarried and the plot was discovered.
Mary and her fellow-conspirators at once took refuge in St Sophia, which
they turned into a fortress. Although the people shewed themselves
clearly in favour of the conspirators, who also had the support of the
Patriarch Theodotus and the higher clergy, the Protosebastos did not
scruple to order an assault upon the church, thereby causing immense
scandal (May 1182). This profanation, which finally alienated the public
mind from him, in no way benefited Alexius Comnenus, whose troops were
unable to take St Sophia. The Empress-Regent, reduced to treat with
the besieged, was compelled to pardon them and to promise the leaders
their lives and dignities. Nor was it long before the favourite met with
a further rebuff. He attempted to depose the Patriarch and to constrain
him to retire into a monastery. But Theodotus was brought back in
triumph by the populace. The Regent, feeling herself in danger from
the general hostility that surrounded her, sought help from outside, and
petitioned her brother-in-law Béla III, King of Hungary, to come to
her aid.
Meanwhile events at Constantinople were being watched from a
distance with passionate interest by a man whose supporters were con-


## p. 381 (#423) ############################################

Andronicus
381
stantly stirring up the hostility of the populace against the Regent and
her favourite. His name began to pass from mouth to mouth; he was
the only person capable of saving the situation; the people of the capital
and the malcontents of the Court rested all their hopes on Andronicus
Comnenus.
This son of Isaac Comnenus was a strange being. His father was
a brother of the Emperor John, and in the son the populace of Con-
stantinople saw its future deliverer. Learned, eloquent, and witty, he had
for a long time been the arbiter of fashion and taste in the capital, and
the magnificence of his dwelling had become famous. The exquisiteness
of his dress shewed off his handsome features—handsome enough to befit
a throne, says a chronicler. A man of personal courage, Andronicus, like
Manuel, had distinguished himself in single combat, but his cool and ready
audacity delighted above all things in political intrigue. Full of ambition,
he meditated unceasingly on the means of reaching the throne; of
debauched life, the court rang with stories of his various scandalous
amours. His vices were paraded with astonishing cynicism. While the
lover of his cousin Eudocia, Andronicus had been appointed Duke of
Cilicia, and on his defeat by Thoros II had hastened back to his mistress.
He had then entered into a conspiracy with Géza, King of Hungary, and
when arrested in 1153 was plotting the assassination of Manuel. He made
several unavailing attempts to escape, but in the end after many changes
of fortune succeeded in gaining a refuge at the court of Yaroslav, Prince
of Halicz (1164). Manuel, uneasy that so restless a brain should be
intriguing among the Russians, had pardoned his cousin and had then
re-appointed him Duke of Cilicia. While residing in his province An-
dronicus conceived a passion for the Emperor's sister-in-law Philippa,
daughter of the Princess of Antioch, who yielded to his solicitations.
Quickly forsaking her, Andronicus set out for the Holy Land, where he
carried off his cousin Queen Theodora, widow of Baldwin of Jerusalem.
The couple for several years led a wandering life, going from court to
court in the Muslim East, and finally establishing themselves near Colonea
in a citadel presented to them by a Musulman emir. Andronicus made
use of his position, which was close to the frontier of the Empire, to keep
up incessant warfare against his cousin. Excommunicated by the Patri-
arch for his relations with Theodora, he nevertheless continued to live
with her. It was, however, on her account that he was at last reduced to
sue for pardon. In order to get the better of his cousin, Manuel had his
mistress carried off by the Duke of Trebizond. Andronicus, incapable of
dispensing with her society, resolved upon making his submission. After
a solemn reconciliation with Manuel, in which he proved his talents as
an actor, he retired into private life at Oenaeum on the shores of the
Black Sea.
It was from this retreat that for more than a year he followed the
course of events at Constantinople. Increasing age had taught him
CU. XII.


## p. 382 (#424) ############################################

382
Coup d'état of Andronicus
prudence, and he fully realised that if he did not succeed in reaching the
throne this time all his hopes would be at an end. Affecting complete
indifference to all the rivalries which surged round Alexius II, Andronicus
was meanwhile setting in motion partisans who kept him informed of the
state of opinion. The moment came when his daughter Mary gave him
the signal for action. He marched without hesitation upon Constanti-
nople at the head of his tenants and of some of the troops in Paphla-
gonia whom he had seduced from their allegiance, declaring his object to
be the liberation of the Emperor. His march across Asia Minor was a
triumph; not only did he defeat the loyal troops, but their general, An-
dronicus Angelus, declared for him. His victorious army encamped upon
the Asiatic shore of the Bosphorus, and before long the very sailors of the
fleet, on whom lay the duty of barring his passage, came to make their sub-
mission to him. The population of the capital rushed to greet its darling,
who took up the rôle of champion of the Greeks against the foreigners.
The Empress-Regent and her favourite no longer received any support
except from the Latins, who alone staved off the entry of Andronicus into
the capital. To overcome this obstacle a formidable outbreak was en-
gineered in Constantinople; the populace, goaded on to attack the Latin
quarters, indulged in the most shameless excesses and even massacred the
sick in the hospitals. Many Latins perished; at the same time a large
number succeeded in getting on board some fifty vessels, and by the
ravages they committed in the islands of the Propontis and along the
coast exacted a heavy penalty from the Greeks for the treacherous
onslaught which they had made.
Once her Latin supporters had been massacred, all was over with the
Regent. Giving himself out as the liberator of Alexius II, Andronicus
entered Constantinople. He began by banishing the Empress from the
palace, and then arranged for the disappearance of such members of the
imperial family as were likely to oppose any obstacle to his plans. Mary
and the Caesar Renier died in a manner unknown; the Empress-mother
was condemned to death, and her son forced to sign her sentence himself.
In the face of these atrocities the Patriarch Theodotus withdrew. In
September 1183 Andronicus became joint Emperor with Alexius II, whom
he murdered in November of the same year, and thereupon married Agnes,
who had been his victim's wife.
The reign of Andronicus presents a series of unparalleled contrasts.
So far as the administration of the provinces is concerned, Andronicus
shewed great and statesmanlike qualities; on the other hand his govern-
ment at Constantinople was that of the most hateful of tyrants.
The provincial population had much to bear both from the imperial
functionaries and from the great feudal lords. Andronicus exacted from
the latter class an unfailing respect for the property and rights of the
peasants, and treated with extreme severity such as were reported to him
as having abused their power. As to the officials, he made a point of


## p. 383 (#425) ############################################

Administration of Andronicus
383
choosing them carefully and paying them liberally, so that they should
have no need to oppress the peasants in order to recoup themselves for
the price paid for their appointments. To all he guaranteed rigid justice.
Such as were convicted of peculation were severely punished. “You have
the choice,” the Emperor used to say, “between ceasing to cheat and
ceasing to live. ” Short as was the reign of Andronicus, these measures
had their effect; order and prosperity returned to the provinces, and
some of them which had been deserted by their inhabitants again became
populated. Finally, one of the happiest measures introduced by the
Emperor was the abolition of the rights of wreck and estray.
Andronicus was a lover of literature and of the arts. He surrounded
himself with jurists, and took pleasure in beautifying Constantinople.
The repairing of aqueducts and the restoration of the church of the Forty
Martyrs were the two chief works which he carried out. In one of the
additions made to the church of the Forty Martyrs he had a series of
mosaics executed representing his adventures and his hunting exploits.
But this bright side of Andronicus' reign is defaced by the ferocious
cruelty with which he treated his opponents. The aristocracy opposed
him violently. At Philadelphia, at Nicaea, at Prusa, at Lopadium, and in
Cyprus, risings took place organised by the representatives of the greatest
families among the nobility. At this juncture the Empire was being
attacked on all sides: the Sultan of Iconium had re-taken Sozopolis and
was besieging Attalia, Béla III had crossed the Danube, and finally in .
1185 the King of Sicily, William II, was invading Byzantine territory.
In face of all these dangers Andronicus, fearing to lose the power so
long coveted, determined to maintain himself by terror. The noblest
Byzantine families saw their most illustrious members put to death or
horribly mutilated. At Constantinople as in Asia Minor the work of
repression was terrible; even the Emperor's own family was not spared.
In the capital, terror had bowed the necks of all, and Andronicus seemed
to have nothing left to fear when the Norman invasion came and brought
about his fall.
During the summer of 1185 the Normans, having taken Thessalonica,
advanced
upon Constantinople. At their approach a panic fell upon the
city; the population, in terror of their lives, complained that Andronicus
was making no preparations for resisting the enemy. The Emperor's
popularity, already impaired by his cruelties, crumbled away under the
fear of invasion. Sullen disaffection was muttering in the capital, and An-
dronicus again had recourse to violence; large numbers were arrested on
the pretext of punishing those secretly in league with the Normans, and
the Emperor contemplated a general massacre of the prisoners. The
arrest of a man of no great importance, Isaac Angelus, was the last drop
that made the cup run over. Escaping from the soldiers sent to arrest
him, Isaac took refuge in St Sophia; the people at his summons gathered
in crowds, and before long rebellion thundered around him and burst out
CH, XII.


## p. 384 (#426) ############################################

384
Death of Andronicus. The Angeli
began
with terrific force. Isaac Angelus was proclaimed Emperor. Andronicus
in vain attempted to resist; he was beaten and took to flight, but was
stopped, and soon after given up to the fury of the people. The rabble
tore out his beard, broke his teeth, cut off one of his hands, put out one of
his eyes, and then threw him into a dungeon. On the morrow his tortures
afresh. He was led through the city on a mangy camel, while stones
and boiling water were thrown at him. Finally, he was brought to the
Hippodrome, where the soldiers, having hung him up by the feet, amused
themselves by cutting him in pieces. Throughout these hideous tortures
Andronicus shewed superhuman courage. Raising his mutilated arm to
his lips he constantly repeated “Kyrie eleison! wherefore wilt thou break
a bruised reed? "
Such in September 1185 was the end of the last Emperor of the
house of the Comneni, who for more than a century had arrested the
ruin of their country. With his great qualities of statesmanship, the
last of the dynasty might have helped to regenerate the Empire. Un-
fortunately the evil elements in his character had the mastery, and
contributed to hasten the hour of that decadence which no member of
the house of the Angeli was to prove capable of retarding.
The reign of Isaac II (1185-1195) was indeed a succession of mis-
fortunes, converted by incapacity into disasters. Cyprus remained in
revolt under an Isaac Comnenus until it was conquered by Richard
Coeur-de-lion in 1191; and the great nobles of the Empire were so much
out of hand as to be almost independent. The Bulgarians rose; the Serbs
had thrown off(1180) their vassalage. If the Byzantines were able to throw
back the invasion of William II of Sicily, Isaac II's alliance with Saladin,
and his resistance to Frederick Barbarossa's transit through the Balkans
on the Third Crusade confirmed the growing enmity of the West.
Frederick forced his way to the Bosphorus, ravaging the country and
sacking Hadrianople. He compelled the transport of his troops to Asia
from Gallipoli, and the delivery of provisions, but not before he had
mooted the proposal of a crusade being preached against the Greeks.
When in 1195 Alexius III took advantage of the general discontent to
blind and depose his brother, no improvement came about. Rather,
the anarchy became worse, while the government's incompetence and
oppression remained glaring. The thirteenth century was to shew that
there were sound elements and great men still in the Empire, but before
they could gain control there fell upon it the shattering disaster of the
Fourth Crusade.


## p. 385 (#427) ############################################

385
CHAPTER XIII.
VENICE.
During the period covered by this chapter the State of Venice did not
reach maturity. She did not become a world-power till after the Fourth
Crusade, nor was it till a full century later that she finally developed her
constitution. But the germs of her constitution and the seeds of her sea-
power are both to be found in these earliest years of her existence. The
problems which dominate these years are the question of immigration,
when and how did the inhospitable islands of the lagoons become settled;
how did the community develop; how did it gradually achieve its actual
and then its formal independence of Byzantium; how did it save itself
from being absorbed by the rulers of the Italian mainland, Charles the
Great, Otto II, and Frederick Barbarossa.
The earliest authentic notice we have of the lagoon-population is to
be found in the letter addressed (c. 536) by Cassiodorus, in the name of
Witigis, King of the Goths, to the Tribuni Maritimorum, the tribunes of
the maritime parts. The letter, written in a tone between command and
exhortation, is highly rhetorical in style, but gives us a vivid picture of a
poor though industrious community occupying a site unique in the world.
This community, in all probability, formed part of the Gothic
Kingdom, for it seems certain that the Tribuni Maritimorum whom
Cassiodorus addresses were officers appointed by the Goths. The chief
characteristics of this people are that they were salt-workers and seamen,
two points highly significant for the future development of Venice. No
doubt the population here referred to was largely augmented, if not
actually formed, by the refugees who sought safety in the lagoons from
the ever recurrent barbarian incursions on the mainland, Attila's among
the number; but it is not till the Lombard invasion in 568 that we can
begin to trace the positive influence of the barbarian raids and to note
the first signs of a political constitution inside the lagoons themselves.
The campaign of Belisarius (535–540) brought Venetia once more
under the Roman Empire (539); and, when Narses the Eunuch under-
took to carry out Justinian's scheme for the final extermination of the
Goths (551), he was forced to recognise the importance of the lagoons.
His march upon Ravenna by way of the mainland was opposed by the
Franks and by the Goths under Teias. In these circumstances John, the
C. MED. H. VOL. IV. CH. XIII.
25


## p. 386 (#428) ############################################

386
Lombard invasion. The Tribuni
son of Vitalian, who knew the country well, suggested that the army
should take the lagoon and lidi route, through which it was conducted
by the lagoon-dwellers with their long ships and light ships (vîes kai
ăkatoi), thereby enabling the Greek army to reach Ravenna and inciden-
tally leading up to the final victories of Busta Gallorum (552) and Mons
Lactarius (553); after this the coast districts (Tà émialaosidia xwpía)
became definitely and undisputedly parts of the Roman Empire once
more.
But the hold of Byzantium upon Italy generally was weak. The
Persian war absorbed the imperial resources. There was little to oppose
Alboin and his Lombards when in the spring of 568 they swept down
from Pannonia and within the year made themselves lords of North Italy.
Then began a general Alight from the mainland; and the process was re-
newed during the next hundred years down to the second sack of Oderzo
(667). Throughout this period the settlement of the lagoons definitely
took place, and we find the first indication of a constitution in those obscure
officials, the Tribuni Majores and Minores of the earliest chronicles. Pauli-
nus, Patriarch of Aquileia, fled from his ruined diocese bearing with him
the treasury and the relics. He was followed by his flock, who sought refuge
in Grado. The refugees from Concordia found an asylum in Caorle;
Malamocco and Chioggia were settled in 602, and possibly some of the
Rialto group of islands, the site of the future City of Venice, received
inhabitants for the first time. The final peopling of Torcello, with which
the earliest Venetian chronicles are so much concerned, took place in
636, when Altino, one of the last remaining imperial possessions on the
mainland, fell. Bishop Maurus and Tribune Aurius settled in the Torcello
group of islands, and built a church. The tribune assigned certain
islands as church-lands, and appointed, as his tribune-delegate in the
island of Ammiana, Fraunduni, who likewise built a church and appor-
tioned certain lands to furnish the revenue thereof. Twelve lagoon-
townships were settled in this manner, Grado, Bibiones (between Grado
and Caorle), Caorle, Heraclea, Equilio Jesolo (now Cavazuccherina),
Torcello, Murano, Rialto, Malamocco, Poveglia, Clugies minor (now
Sottomarina), and Clugies Major (now Chioggia). If, as is probable, a
process similar to that which took place in the settlement of Torcello
went on in the case of these other townships, then we find a solution of
the vexed question as to the exact nature of the major and minor tribunes,
the former being, like Aurius, the leaders of the immigrants, the latter,
like Fraunduni, delegates in the circumjacent islands.
In the confusion and obscurity of the early chronicles it is difficult
to arrive at a clear idea of the political conditions in the lagoon-town-
ships. In the structure of the Empire, Venetia formed part of the
province of Istria. We know from the inscriptions of Santa Eufemia
in Grado that the Greeks maintained a fleet in the lagoons down to the
sixth century; but as they gradually lost ground on the mainland before


## p. 387 (#429) ############################################

Growth of the community
387
the Lombard invaders, they withdrew their forces, leaving the islanders
of the lagoons to defend themselves as best they might. The lagoon-
dwellers gathered round their leading men or tribunes; but their powers.
of defence were feeble, as is proved by the raid of Lupus, Duke of Friuli,
upon Grado (630), and it was probably only the intricate nature of their
home-waters which saved them from absorption by the barbarian. These
tribunes wielded both military and civil authority, and in theory were
undoubtedly appointed by and dependent on the Exarch of Ravenna as
representing Byzantium in Italy. The office tended to become hereditary
and
gave rise to the class of tribunitian families. Side by side with the
secular power, as represented by the tribunes, grew the ecclesiastical
power centring round the patriarchate of Grado (568), and the lagoon
sees of Caorle (598), Torcello (635), Heraclea (640), Malamocco (640),
Jesolo (670), Olivolo (774). The Arianism of the Lombards drove the
orthodox bishops from their mainland churches to seek asylum in the
lagoons. The clergy as was natural, thanks to their education, played a
large part in the developing life of the lagoon communities; but, if we
may draw a conclusion from the instance of Torcello, it would seem that
the secular power reserved a kind of superiority or patronage over the
ecclesiastical: a fact significant in the future development of ecclesiastico-
political relations in Venice. Besides the leading, or “noble,” families
represented by the tribunes, and the clergy gathered round their bishops,
we find that there was a general assembly of the whole population which
made its voice heard in the choice of both tribunes, priests, and bishops,
but otherwise appears to have been of little weight.
Throughout the seventh century the imperial possessions on the main-
land were gradually shorn away by the Lombard kings. The second sack
of Oderzo (667), which had been the seat of an imperial Magister Militum,
seems to have caused the rise of Heraclea, the lagoon-township where the
refugees from Oderzo found asylum, to the leading place among the twelve
tribunitian centres. So great was the number of the fugitives that they
overflowed into the neighbouring township of Jesolo, and its population
was soon large enough to demand a separate bishopric (670). The
collapse of the Roman Empire on the mainland led to the severing of all
land-communication between the lagoons and Istria, of which they had
hitherto formed a part. It seems that either directly and deliberately
by the will of the imperial authorities, or by the will of the lagoon-
dwellers with a view to their better protection, Sea-Venice was separated
from Istria and erected into a distinct ducatus (after 680). The Venetian
chronicler, John the Deacon, represents the creation of the first doge in
the following terms: “In the times of the Emperor Anastasius and of
Liutprand, King of the Lombards, the whole population of Venice, along
with the Patriarch and the bishops,,came together and by common accord
resolved that it would be more honourable for the future to live under
dukes than under tribunes; and after long debate as to whom they should
CA. XIII.
25-2


## p. 388 (#430) ############################################

388
The first doge
יל
יל
elect to this office, at length they agreed upon a capable and illustrious
man named Paulitio. ”
The date usually given for the choice of the first doge is 697, but it
John the Deacon be right it cannot be placed earlier than 713, the year
in which Anastasius came to the throne. The question has been raised
as to whether the lagoon population independently elected their first
doge, or whether he was appointed by the imperial authorities. Both
may be true in the sense that he was chosen by the community, as in all
probability were the tribunes, and confirmed by the exarch or the im-
perial authority. In any case it is certain that there was no question of
the lagoon population claiming formal independence of Byzantium at
that time nor for long after; but, as a matter of fact, a very few years
later (726), at the time of the Italian revolt against the iconoclastic
decrees of Leo the Isaurian, the population of the lagoons undoubtedly
made a free and independent election of their doge in the person of Orso,
the third holder of that title.
The election of the first doge, Paulutius Anafestus, a “noble” of
Heraclea, marks the close of the earliest period in Venetian history; the
second period is concerned with the events which led up to the concentra-
tion of the lagoon-townships at Rialto, the city we now call Venice, in 810.
The notes of the period are: first, the development of the dukedom as
against the older order of the tribunes and against the ecclesiastical
power of the Patriarchs of Grado; second, the internal quarrels between
rival townships, Heraclea, Jesolo, Malamocco, which largely contributed
to the final concentration at Rialto; third, the question of self preserva-
tion, the maintenance of such practical, de facto, independence of By-
zantium as the community had acquired through the weakness of the
Empire, and the struggle to avoid absorption by the powerful barbarian
rulers of the mainland, Lombard and Frank.
The dependence of Venice on Byzantium has been maintained by
modern historians, and it cannot for a moment be disputed that, in
theory, it existed; as late as 979 we find public documents dated by the
year of the imperial reign. But in practice it is the population of the
lagoons which elects the doge, and murders, deposes, blinds, or tonsures
him if dissatisfied with the tendency of his policy, while no one brings
them to account for such acts of independence. An explanation of the
frequent revolutions and ducal downfalls has been suggested in the
jealousy of the various tribunitian families reduced in importance by the
creation of the dukedom; but if it be permissible to consider the lagoon-
dwellers as an individual community and to talk of the spirit of a race,
viewed by the light of events as they occurred, it looks as though the
Venetian population was inspired by an instinct towards independence
and deliberately worked towards that goal.
The earliest and most important act of Paulutius was the conclusion
of a treaty (713–716) with Liutprand, the powerful King of the Lombards.


## p. 389 (#431) ############################################

Relations with the Lombards
389
The treaty is lost, but we can gather its terms from the reference to it in
subsequent pacta with the kings of Italy. It consisted of two parts: the
first a guarantee of security for Venetian traders on the mainland; protec-
tion of Venetian flocks and horses; right to cut wood in Lombard territory;
in return for these privileges the doge agreed to pay an annual tribute.
The second part contained a definition of boundaries on the mainland.
This second part is said to have been “concluded in the days of King Liut-
prand, between the Duke Paulutio and the Magister Militum Marcellus. ”
Of this difficult passage three explanations have been suggested. It is said
that Marcellus was the Magister Militum (the chief imperial authority)
of Istria, and that it was he who concluded the treaty with the consent
of the doge. But Istria and Sea-Venice were by this time separated;
“Dux” is superior in rank to “Magister Militum,” and as a matter of
fact the doge's name comes first; finally the agreement is said to be
not between Marcellus and Liutprand but between (inter) Paulutio and
Marcellus. The second theory is that Marcellus was Magister Militum
in Venice and associated himself with the doge in treating with Liut-
prand; but here again the word inter seems fatal. The third and most
plausible theory is that Marcellus was the imperial Magister Militum in
Venice, and that acting on imperial orders he and the doge delimited the
territory of Heraclea and obtained from Liutprand a confirmation of the
same, as is proved by the “precept” of 25 March 996. Whichever view
be correct, the treaty with Liutprand is of the highest importance as
shewing us the Venetian community under its first doge securing treaty
rights from the masters of the mainland.
It is certain that the early doges did not exercise a wide or undis-
puted power in the lagoon community. Not until the ninth century, after
the concentration at Rialto, did they assume the unchallenged headship
of the State. The office of tribune persisted long after the creation of the
dukedom; as late as 887 we hear of the Tribune Andrea rescuing the
body of the Doge Peter I Candianus from the Slavs.