No More Learning

The second period is dominated by the names of two law-giving
Emperors: Basil the Macedonian (867-886) and Leo the Wise (886-911),
who both lived at its commencement.
Basil, a conqueror on the field of battle, wished likewise to ensure
for his subjects the benefits of a system of legislation more practical than
that which had existed before him. Two motives urged him to this course.
The first, of a legislative kind, is mentioned by his official biographer,
the author of the Vita Basilii: it was to dissipate the obscurity and
unravel the confusion prevailing in civil law as a result of good and bad
enactments, and the uncertainty as to which laws had been abrogated
and which were still in force. The second motive, of a political order, is
CH, XXII.


## p. 712 (#754) ############################################

712
Legislation of Basil I
referred to in the Prologue to the Prochiron itself, and in a passage of
the Epanagoge, two of his works of which we are about to speak: this
was to substitute works edited under his own auspices for the Ecloga of
the Iconoclasts, against whom Basil had vowed an undying hatred which
is betrayed in the unfair judgment he passed on their admirable little
book. All Basil's work was thus intended to achieve the rehabilitation
of Justinian's legislation, which practising lawyers had been abandoning
more and more.
In the first place Basil published an introductory manual to the science
of law: the II póxelpos vóuos (lex manualis) or Prochiron, promulgated
between 870 and 879 by himself and his two sons, Constantine and Leo
(the Wise). This very simple manual consisted of texts which were being
continually applied in current usage; it has frequently been compared
with the Institutes, and it was founded on Greek translations of, and
commentaries on, the works of Justinian. In its second part it also
reproduced the provisions of the Ecloga in spite of the abuse of its
authors in the Prologue. There are few innovations due to Basil. The
Prochiron is divided into forty titles: betrothal and marriage (titles
I to XI), obligations (titles XII to XX), inheritance (XXI to XXXVII),
public law (XXXVIII to XL). The Prochiron enjoyed a great reputa-
tion among civil lawyers, as well as among the canonists of the Greek
and Russian Churches, even after the fall of the Eastern Empire. Further
on we shall quote some striking proofs of the evident estimation in which
it was held.
Basil's second work was likewise a manual of law: the 'Etavaywyn
Tøv vóuwy published in the names of Basil, Leo, and Alexander, between
879 and 886. This work only constitutes a draft, without any official
character, of a “second edition"—such is the meaning of the Greek title-
of the Prochiron, as well as an introduction to the work which Basil
intended to be his masterpiece, the 'Aνακάθαρσις των παλαιών νόμων
(Repurgatio veterum legum), a collection “of pure and unadulterated law,
divided into forty books, and prepared like a divine draught,” a work to
which we shall presently return. As regards the Epanagoge, it consists
of forty titles corresponding in general to those of the Prochiron. Like
the latter, it marks a return to the provisions of Justinianean law,
although it includes certain later reforms.
There exists great obscurity as to the Anacatharsis, to which we
alluded above. The most competent students of Byzantine history con-
sider that the work, which has not been preserved, was actually executed
in Basil's reign, although there are doubts about its scope, as the Pro-
chiron speaks of a work in sixty books, while the Epanagoge refers to
one in forty. Most probably the Anacatharsis was not promulgated by
Basil, but served as foundation for the Basilics promulgated by his son,
Leo VỊ.
1 So Biener and Zachariae.


## p. 713 (#755) ############################################

Legislation of Leo VI: the Basilics
713
The Emperor Leo the Wise, or the Philosopher, must be regarded as
the most eminent Byzantine legislator after Justinian, for on the one
hand he has left the most famous and most extensive monument of post-
Justinian Graeco-Roman law (the Basilics), and on the other a great
number of Novels.
The Basilics owe their name, not to the Emperor Basil, but to
their character as imperial decisions (τα βασιλικά, ο βασιλικός). They
are also called ο Εξηκοντάβιβλος because they contain sixty books, and
ο Εξάβιβλος because in the manuscripts. they form six volumes.
The edict (Proemium) which appears at the beginning of the Basilics
explains the aim and defines the spirit of the compilation. According
to Leo, the error in the method employed by Justinian was that the
same subjects were distributed over four different works (Code, Digest,
Institutes, Novels); the Emperor Leo, discarding everything contradictory
or obsolete, proposed on the contrary to assemble in one single book all pre-
vious laws bearing on the same subject, so as to facilitate reference. For this
purpose he appointed a commission of qualified jurisconsults, whose names
have been lost, except that of the President, the Protospatharius Sym-
batius. The exact date when the Basilics were promulgated has not been
determined; it has been placed by different authorities in 888,889, or 890.
The sixty books of the Basilics are divided into a varying number of
titles supplied with rubrics; the titles are themselves divided into numbered
chapters (kepálata), and these, finally, are divided into paragraphs
(θέματα).
As there no longer exists in any library a complete manuscript, the
general arrangement of the work is only known by the table or Index of the
manuscript Coislin 151 of the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris, and by
the Tipucitus? . In some particulars the plan follows that of the Code,
in others that of the Digest. The first Book is devoted to the Holy
Trinity and the Catholic Faith. In the second are collected the general
rules of law drawn from the Digest. Books III to V treat of ecclesiastical
law. Books VI to IX deal with magistrates, jurisdictions, and procedure.
Books X to LIII are devoted to matters concerning civil law, Books
LIV to LVII to public and military law. Book LVIII is occupied with
servitudes and the water-system? , Book LIX with funerary laws, Book LX
with crimes and penalties.
Within the titles, the laws (or chapters) are not the personal work
of Leo; their text was in no way revised by the commissioners for the
Basilics. They were all drawn from earlier works, chiefly from the Code
and the Digest, a very few from the Institutes, many from the Novels of
Justinian and his successors, a few also from the Prochiron. The laws are
all given in Greek; when they are derived from the three Latin works of
Justinian, they have been extracted not from the originals but from
Greek commentaries of the sixth and seventh centuries; for the Code,
1 See infra, p. 722.
2 See Vol. 11. Chapter 111, p. 89.
CH. XXII.


## p. 714 (#756) ############################################

714
The Novels of Leo VI
יל
from the Commentary of Thalelaeus and from the Breviarium of Theo-
dore; for the Digest, from the commentaries of the Anonymnus, Stephen,
and Cyril; for the Institutes, from the Paraphrase of Theophilus. The
Novels are drawn from the collection called the CLXVIII Novels, in
which Justinian's Novels were completed by the addition of the Novels
of Justin II and Tiberius, and by the Eparchics (or Edicts of the Prae-
torian Prefects).
It must be noted that the text of the laws is, in the manuscripts,
accompanied by numerous marginal scholia. The most important of these,
which constitute the ancient scholia," are extracts from the Greek com-
mentaries of the sixth and seventh centuries enumerated above; they were
probably added to the actual text of the laws, of which they represent a
sort of interpretation (épunvela), between 920 and 945, in the reign of
Constantine Porphyrogenitus. To refer the addition of the ancient
scholia to his reign is the only way of explaining how Balsamon could
have attributed a final Repurgatio Legum to Leo's son. The other scholia,
"the recent scholia,” were introcluced subsequently, in the course of the
eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries; they are due to jurisconsults
of less weight: John Nomophylax, Calocyrus Sextus, Constantine Nicaeus,
Gregory Doxopater, Patzus, Theodorita or Hagiotheodorita, and finally
the Anonymus?
If we wish to appreciate the value of the Basilics in a few words, it
may be said that in themselves they offered to the lawyers of the Greek
Empire the great advantage over the Justinianean Code of being a unified
work composed in Greek. At the time of their appearance, and for long
afterwards, they inspired a respect all the deeper for being the work
realised or inspired by the founder of the Macedonian house in continuance
of the reforms of the great Emperor Justinian. For modern scholars, the
text of the Basilics and the ancient scholia present the advantage of
sometimes enabling them to recover the original version of Justinian's
works, which has been altered by copyists, or even the original version of
the texts of classical jurisconsults altered by the members of Justinian's
commission. The closer examination of the ancient scholia has even per-
mitted the recovery of some fragments of pre-Justinian law, whose import
and origin are only beginning to be perceived.
The Novels of Leo the Wise are chiefly known by the collection of
CXIII Novels, with Preface, a collection of which the Latin translation
by Agylaeus is appended to the Novels of Justinian in the complete
editions of the Corpus iuris civilis. With two exceptions which concern
two Novels not appearing in this edition, they are undated. Most of
1 The chief fault in Heimbach's edition of the Basilics is that he has not been
sufficiently careful to preserve the distinction observed in the manuscripts between
the scholia of different authors or different ages. The Supplementum of Zachariae
von Lingenthal does not incur this reproach.


## p. 715 (#757) ############################################

Novels from 911 to 1045
715
them are later than the Basilics. This collection of CXIII Novels was
probably formed previous to Leo's second marriage (894), or at any rate
to his third marriage (899). The Preface states that the Emperor has
made a selection among the ancient laws, that he has omitted or expressly
abrogated useless laws, and that he has converted into laws certain
customs deemed worthy of this honour.
The collection of CXIII Novels has been abridged in a work entitled
Ecloga Novellarum Leonis pii Imperatoris in capp. LVI. The author is
possibly identical with that of the Synopsis Maior); wishing to preserve
only those Novels still in force, he has not kept more than half of the
original collection, and has only retained the enactive clauses of the
original texts. This Ecloga Novellarum was probably compiled towards
the middle of the tenth century.
There exist, moreover, seven Novels by Leo which have survived, in
addition to the collection of CXIII Novels.
Leo's Novels have been utilised by the principal writers of treatises
on Civil or Canon Law subsequent to the tenth century: Psellus, Michael
Attaliates, Balsamon, Matthew Blastares, and Harmenopulus. Several of
these Novels shew that, in the reign of Leo the Wise, great territorial
estates were constantly growing, and that Leo was not strong enough to
struggle with the Powerful, who, under the Macedonian dynasty, were
developing into real feudal lords.
During the long period which separated Leo's reign from that of
Constantine Monomachus, i. e. from 911 to 1045, the legislative activity
of the Emperors does not appear to have been very fruitful. The manu-
scripts only provide us with a few Novels by Romanus Lecapenus, Con-
stantine VII Porphyrogenitus, Nicephorus Phocas, John Tzimisces, Basil
II Bulgaroctonus, Romanus III Argyrus, and Zoë.
In contrast to the Novels of Basil and Leo which, in completion of
their fundamental works, treat various subjects affecting different parts
of legislation, the scanty Novels of these Emperors only refer to a few
special points. Two subjects in particular are the object of regulations:
1. The law of redemption, preference, or pre-emption (protimesis, ius
protimeseos), granted to relatives or neighbours in cases of alienation of
some estate or house for a pecuniary consideration, was established prin-
cipally by Novel II of Constantine VII and Romanus Lecapenus in 922.
Some writers have conjectured that this law, which had existed since an
earlier period of the Roman Empire, was intended to moderate the op-
pression of small landholders by the Powerful. The Byzantine Emperors
were frequently obliged to revive its operation on account of the in-
efficacy or obscurity of the decrees of their predecessors.
2. The character of military estates which it was necessary to protect
so as to safeguard the resources intended to meet the expenses of the army.
1 See infra, p. 717.
CH. XXII.


## p. 716 (#758) ############################################

716
Legal education under Leo VI
Whatever the subject treated, the Novels are above all concerned with
custom, either in recording good customs or in attempting to check bad
ones. Amongst the most original institutions which they regulate and
which arose from ancient popular customs, must be mentioned the
Deópntpov referred to for the first time in a Novel of Constantine VII
Porphyrogenitus. This was a gift made by the husband to the wife for
ius primae noctis or pretium virginitatis; it was in addition to the
Útópolov or donation propter nuptias.
All official teaching of law in a State school had long disappeared
when it was restored by Constantine Monomachus in 1045. It had been
replaced, much to the detriment of legal studies, by a purely private
system of instruction which is described rather inadequately in broad out-
line in the Book of the Prefect by Leo the Wise (Aeóvtos TOû cópou tò
ÉTT A PXixòv Bißríov), which is an edict on the trade-gilds of Constantinople,
discovered by Nicole. From Chapter I of this edict, devoted to the
organisation of the notarial profession, we get our information. The
twenty-four notaries of the capital formed a corporation. To be eligible
for it, young men had to attend the lectures of professors attached to
this corporation. These professors were of two kinds, professors of law,
παιδοδιδάσκαλοι νομικοί, and encyclopaedic professors, διδάσκαλοι; they
were under the supervision of the Prefect, and after having been elected
by co-option they had to be confirmed by that high official. The
students subsequently underwent an examination before the whole cor-
poration of notaries. Possibly the same professors also taught the youths
who were studying for the bar, who would then have to undergo an
examination before the gild of advocates. The programme of studies was
amazingly simple: the Book of the Prefect states that the candidates
“must know by heart the forty titles of the Prochiron and be familiar
with the sixty books” (of the Basilics), and this was all.
Some historians have thought that control by the Prefect, enjoined
by the Edict of Leo, was not of long continuance, and that the organisa-
tion of studies by the corporation of notaries became relaxed, so that
finally legal education was absolutely uncontrolled; this would give the
cause, or one of the causes, for the serious decadence of the science of law
between Leo's reign and the reform of 1045. Their hypothesis seems to
be absolutely confirmed by the complaints of Constantine Monomachus,
when he took steps to end this lamentable state of things.
The Epitome legum, or Ecloga legum in epitome expositarum, which
appeared in 920, the first year of the reign of Romanus Lecapenus, was
derived, according to its editor Zachariae, from another Epitome ex anti-
quis libris collecta, consisting of extracts from the Digest (after Stephen and
the Anonymus), extracts from the Code (after Theodore and Thalelaeus),
extracts from the Novels(after the Breviarium of Theodore), a selection from


## p. 717 (#759) ############################################

Legal treatises based on the Ecloga and Basilics
717
the texts of the Prochiron, with some references to the Basilics and the
Novels of Leo. The author-possibly the Symbatius of the Basilics—
announces in a Preface full of interesting historical details that he will
only record useful regulations. The work consists of fifty titles. This
manual enjoyed a great reputation, as may be seen from the numerous
copies and revisions of its text.
The Ecloga of Leo and Constantine, although condemned by Basil,
had nevertheless retained a great practical influence for the reasons
already indicated. The influence of this very convenient short manual
is shewn by the publication of new works based upon it, which are
known as the Ecloga Privata, the Ecloga Privata Aucta, and the Ecloga
ad Prochiron Mutata. The Ecloga Privata was a re-issue, now lost, of
the original with some modifications; Zachariae considers that it is the
source of the Ecloga Privata Aucta. The Ecloga Privata Aucta seems to
have been compiled from the Ecloga Privata and an Encheiridion con-
taining a mixture of Justinianean law and new law. This work expounds
the form of Byzantine law prevailing in Southern Italy. Its date is very
hard to discover, but possibly it may even be as late as the twelfth cen-
tury. The Ecloga ad Prochiron Mutata in forty titles seems to have been
drawn up at the same date and in the same country. It is derived from
the Ecloga Privata, the Epitome legum, and the Prochiron. Two of its
peculiarities are, first, the presence among its texts of the Ecloga Legis
Mosaicae, extracted from the Mosaic law in thirty-six short chapters
taken from the Pentateuch, and, secondly, the presence of loci singulares
dealing with penal law, passages of foreign origin alien to Graeco-Roman
law, which have given rise to controversy (they are attributed by different
writers to a Lombard or to a Norman origin).
The Synopsis Basilicorum Maior is a work composed with the help of
the Basilics. It opens with a title on the Orthodox faith. It contains
twenty-four parts or letters, divided into titles arranged in alphabetical
order according to the rubrics of the titles of the Basilics, and includes
extracts from the capitula of the Basilics. The work, whose author is
unknown and is perhaps the same as the compiler of the Ecloga Novel-
larum Leonis, was written towards the middle of the tenth century. It is
accompanied by annotations due to various authors. Its success was con-
siderable; it was the foundation of the Synopsis Minor and was utilised
by the Prochirum auctumº and by Harmenopulus? .
The Prochiron of Basil only underwent one modification. This was
the Prochiron legum, which was made up of fragments from the Ecloga,
the Prochiron, the Epanagoge, and the Epitome legum; these fragments
were adapted to contemporary (late tenth century) practice and to the
part of Italy in which the compilation was made,
Amongst other revisions of the Epanagoge, it will be enough to
mention the Epanagoge aucta, at the end of the tenth century, a small
1 See infra, p. 722. 2 See infra, p. 722. 3 See infra, pp. 722–3.
CH. XXII.


## p. 718 (#760) ############################################

718
The IIeipa. Canonical collections
manual which utilises the Prochiron, the Ecloga cum appendice, the
Epitome Novellarum of Athanasius, the Basilics, and the Novels of Leo,
as well as the Epanagoge.
After all these works, which were in fact only abridgments or revisions
of existing works, we come at last to a more original achievement, which
possesses the merit of being the result of practical jurisprudence; it is
actually the only example of this kind in all the abundance of Byzantine
legal literature.
It was called the IIeîpa or Practica sive Doctrina ex actis magni
viri Eustathii Romani. It was written by an unknown author em-
ployed in the law-courts at Constantinople, who appears to have been
subsequently a judge in the same courts, and who was regarded with
considerable respect by his colleagues. The seventy-five titles of the
treatise consist both of fragments from the Basilics and of reports of
cases with reasons for the decisions. These cases extend from the middle
of the tenth century (about 950) until the reign of Romanus III Argyrus
(1028–1034). According to the title of the work, the author utilised the
decisions of the famous jurisconsult, Eustathius Romanus, although we
are not certain whether the latter ever drew up a list of legal cases which
could have served in the composition of the Lleipa. The Ilcipa is too
mediocre a work to be ascribed to Garidas, or to be regarded as an
official manual intended for use in the new School of Law of Constantine
Monomachus, as has been suggested. Nevertheless it is of sufficient value
to supply us with precious details on the jurisprudence and the legal
administration, organisation, and procedure of the Greek Empire, at the
end of the tenth and beginning of the eleventh century.
In conclusion, and for the sake of completeness, it is necessary to
mention some monographs written at various times in the tenth and
eleventh centuries: the opusculum of Eustathius and of George Phobenus
on the Hypobolon (a new name for the donation propter nuptias); a short
anonymous commentary on the protimesis (right of redemption); and
finally, the treatises de peculiis and de privilegiis creditorum.
In the period between 867 and 1045 there appeared only re-issues of
canonical collections or Nomocanones composed in the sixth century.
These were: the re-issue in 883 of the Nomocanon XIV titulorum called
the Syntagma of Photius, but of which Photius, the well-known Patriarch
of Constantinople, was probably neither the new editor nor the author;
another revision of the same work, which served as a foundation to the
work of Theodore Bestes (eleventh century); and a revision of the Epitome
(Synagoge) canonum by Simon the Logothete in the reign of Basil II
Bulgaroctonus (975-1025).
i So Zachariae.


## p. 719 (#761) ############################################

The law school of Constantinople (1045)
719
III.
ול
The development of the science of law has, at all times and in all
places, a close connexion with the organisation of serious instruction in
this science. It seems that the system indicated in the Book of the Prefect,
which we described in considering the previous period, did not give
satisfactory results (if indeed it remained in force). The Novel of Con-
stantine Monomachus in 1045 on the reform of legal education reveals
the deplorable results of the system of gild education, and proposes to
rectify them by a return to the system of State education. These were
the two fundamental ideas developed therein.
The Novel itself states that there were no means of guaranteeing a
high standard for professors of law, as these were independent teachers.
“The
young men,” it says, “eagerly seek for some one to teach them the
science of law, but, as they find no one with professional authority and
supported by the imperial approval, for lack of a better each adopts the
teacher whom he meets haphazard. " Thereby there arose great confusion
in the judgment of cases, and often there were divergencies, or even
contradictions, in the sentences pronounced by the judges, who had been
trained by teachers holding different opinions; hence also the inferiority
of the notaries and advocates. The Emperor was very careful to note
that these evils arose from the system of liberty in legal education which
prevailed in Constantinople, because, in the first place, other branches
of education supported by the State were in successful operation, and,
secondly, because certain towns, in which the teaching had remained
organised, attracted students to the detriment of the capital. The respon-
sibility for this decadence falls, says the Emperor, on his predecessors,
who indeed improved the laws but failed to ensure an official organisa-
tion for the Schools of Law.
Constantine Monomachus, a pacific Emperor, was fortunate enough
to find two able counsellors, who helped him to start the necessary reforms
-Xiphilin and Psellus, the former a judge in the Courts of the Hippo-
drome, the latter secretary to the Emperor. The drafting of the Novel
of 1045 was due to John Mauropus or Euchaïtensis, amongst manu-
scripts of whose works it was discovered by Cardinal Angelo Mai.
According to the Novel, the school founded by the Emperor was an
official and gratuitous State school. The professor-principal (Nomophylax)
was appointed by the Emperor, was removable by him, and was paid by
him. The course of study is defined in the Novel. The diploma on leaving
was a State diploma necessary for the exercise of the offices of advocate
or notary, or for eligibility for high administrative office. The first
Nomophylax was Xiphilin himself. He was no doubt helped in his task
by other teachers. The school was established in the buildings of the
church of St George.
CH. XXII.


## p. 720 (#762) ############################################

720
Novels from 1045 to 1453
Notwithstanding the absence of precise information, we must suppose
that the school of Constantinople survived at least until the fourteenth
century; for the title of Nomophylax was borne, in the twelfth century by
Doxopater, Alexius Aristinus,and Theodore Balsamon; in the thirteenth by
Michael Chumnus; in the fourteenth by Constantine Harmenopulus; all
of whom were jurists or canonists of reputation. Other jurisconsults such
as Garidas, the Pseudo-Tipucitus, or Hagiotheodorita, were professors in
the same school, but not its principals.
All these men have left legal works of greater or lesser value, and
of varying degrees of originality, works which in any case shew the
successful result of the reform operated by Constantine Monomachus.
Byzantine legislation, in the strict sense of the word, includes the
civil laws (vóuoc TocTikoi), and the Novels (veapal) of the Emperors.
Up to the eleventh and twelfth centuries the civil laws were still
summed up in the two great legislative works of Justinian and Leo the
Wise, for Leo, when he promulgated the Basilics, had no intention of
superseding Justinian's compilation, to which however the Basilics was
to be preferred in cases of disagreement. But at the close of the twelfth
entury, during the reign of Manuel Comnenus, Justinian's codification
was definitely put aside, although, as we shall see, jurisconsults still
studied the works of which it was composed. So much for the legislation
of the past.
The Novels of the Emperors, whereby new law was created, were not
very numerous between the eleventh and the fifteenth century. Of some
Emperors there is only a single Novel extant (Constantine Monomachus,
Michael Stratioticus, Isaac Comnenus, Constantine Ducas, Alexius II
Comnenus, Michael Palaeologus, Andronicus III). Of others we know
only two, three, or four Novels (Michael Ducas, Nicephorus Botaniates,
John Comnenus, Isaac Angelus, John Vatatzes, Andronicus II Palaeo-
logus). The only Emperors whose Novels form a more imposing col-
lection are Alexius I Comnenus, twenty-five of whose texts remain, and
Manuel Comnenus who left seventeen. Many of these enactments re-
gulated points in religious government or in canon law: for instance,
binding force given to betrothal or promise of marriage (1084, 1092),
prohibition of marriage on account of consanguinity (1094, 1160),
marriage of slaves (1094). The reforms in civil law are generally of
little interest; it is only necessary to mention one which also has to do
with marriage, the privilege granted by Constantine Ducas to the wife
to have priority of the exchequer in the recovery of her dowry in respect
of the objects named in the marriage contract. Finally, among the
Novels referring to other matters, the most important was the great
Novel X of Manuel Comnenus (1166) which constitutes a real system
of judicial organisation and procedure, as it deals with assessors, the
hearing of cases, the introduction of a suit, with preliminary examina-


## p. 721 (#763) ############################################

Monographs of the eleventh century
721
tions, advocates, sentences, with summons and appeals, and even with
protimesis in the case of a mortgage.
The vicissitudes of the Eastern Empire under various dynasties, some-
times Greek, sometimes Latin, were naturally not without their echoes
in the development of legal science, in so far as it found expression in
treatises of varied nature and diverse scientific import. Several pheno-
mena of legal activity are worthy of note: the manuscripts of Justinian's
Novels and the Institutes and Paraphrase of Theophilus were re-copied
as frequently as the Basilics themselves and their scholia; later scholia
were added to the work of Leo the Wise; the Greek Emperors favoured
the composition of treatises on civil or canon law; the earlier sources of
Byzantine law, such as the Prochiron, Ecloga, and Epanagoge, continued
to serve as nuclei for new commentaries; but the most famous work of
this period, the Promptuarium of Harmenopulus, only appeared at the
close of the Greek Empire.
The earliest productions of legal literature with which we meet are
monographs. First, a Liber de Actionibus arranged in alphabetical order,
only a few extracts from which have been preserved among the later scholia
of the Basilics, and which the professor Garidas wrote in the reign of Con-
stantine Ducas (1059–1067); then, by the same author, a short treatise
de homicidiis, intended to explain Novel XII of Constantine Porphyro-
genitus on murder; finally, the Meditatio de nudis pactis dating from
the middle of the eleventh century, a somewhat brief text, which pre-
sents the interesting feature of being an original work without a model.
It is probably the votum of an assessor of the Supreme Court of the
Empire, which was presided over by the Emperor in person, or in his
absence by the Drungarius of the watch? It may have been written by
John Xiphilin himself, the counsellor of Constantine Monomachus.
After these monographs comes the Synopsis Legum, composed in
1406 iambic and “political” verses? ; it is usually attributed to Michael
Psellus and may date from 1070.
This attribution is, however, denied by
Monnier on account of the weak and childish character of the work. It
was compiled by order of Constantine Monomachus with the object of
instructing Michael Ducas in some elementary notions of law; it utilises
the Code, Digest, and Novels, and the Basilics, reverting to ancient law,
making law-suits the starting-point for the discussion of legal matters,
and seeking inspiration from various prose treatises and monographs,
some still extant, others lost. Among these authorities we find a few
works which offer some analogy to certain elements of the Synopsis, and
which
go under the name of Psellus; possibly they also are not his work.
i So Monnier and Platon.
2 The Greek national metre of the Middle Ages, and even of the present day.
A "political” verse is an iambic tetrameter catalectic, but depends on stress accent
not on quantity.
46
C. MED. H. VOL. IV. CH. XXII.


## p. 722 (#764) ############################################

722
Later legal works: Harmenopulus
The Iloinua vouckóv of Michael Attaliates contains thirty-seven titles
and a preface dedicated to Michael Ducas. It is almost entirely derived
from the Basilics. It was followed in the original redaction by a sup-
plement containing, among other texts, the Novels of Leo. The aim
of Michael Attaliates was to edit a very brief manual of law both practi-
cal and theoretical, accessible to all, with some historical notes. The
probable date of its composition is 1073 or 1074. The IIoinua vouckóv
was utilised in a few later works, particularly in the Prochirum auctum.
To the beginning of the twelfth century belongs the Tipucitus, the
work of an unknown author. Its title, TITOVKELTOS, is an artificial one
derived from the words tí tou xeitai; (quid ubi invenitur? ). The title is
appropriate to the character of the book, which is a table of contents of
the Basilics, giving the rubrics and most important chapters under each
title and indicating analogous passages in all of them. The T'ipucitus is
of undoubted service in reconstructing the lost books of the Basilics? .
With regard to the Basilics, it is well to recall the fact that it was during
this period that they received the addition of the “recent scholia” derived
from the works of John Nomophylax, Calocyrus Sextus, Constantine
Nicaeus, Gregory Doxopater, Patzus, Theodorita or Hagiotheodorita,
and finally an anonymous writer (eleventh or thirteenth century).
The Synopsis Minor (tò uerpòv katà otoixeiov), which is divided
into twenty-four parts or letters of the alphabet, subdivided into titles,
has for sources the Iloinpa of Michael Attaliates, the Synopsis Maior,
the Epanagoge, and the Glossae Nomicae; its author (according to
Zachariae) wrote in Nicaea under John Ducas Vatatzes (1222-1255).
It is not a mere reproduction of its authorities, and, notwithstanding the
decadent period during which it was written, it constitutes a convenient
repertoire of thirteenth-century law.
The Prochirum auctum is a Prochiron in forty titles, augmented by
texts from the Basilics, the Synopsis Maior, etc. , Imperial Novels, and
extracts from works on canon law; the text is followed by thirty-two
Paratitla, of which No. XXV is the treatise De Creditis. This work was
written before 1306. It dates about the period of the restoration of the
Empire to Constantinople.
The Promptuarium, or Hexabiblos, of Harmenopulus, Nomophylax
and supreme judge at Thessalonica, a friend of Philotheus who was
Patriarch from 1354 to 1355 and again from 1362 to 1376, the author
of various treatises on canon law, has a history which is told in the
preface. Harmenopulus had taken up Basil's Prochiron, believing that in
accordance with the preface of the book he would find therein collected
all provisions of obvious necessity and constant utility. But when he
read it he was disappointed to find that some of the most important
things had been omitted. Therefore he decided to revise the book, making
it complete, as he says, by aid of the Corpus Legum, the Basilics, the
1 The Tipucitus has not yet been published in its entirety.


## p. 723 (#765) ############################################

Later canonical collections
723
Novels, the Romaics of the Magister, the Eparchics, and the Manuals.
In order to distinguish between his texts, he put the signum solare at
the head of his additions, and the signum saturninum before the original
text of the Prochiron. The sources identified by the modern editor,
Gustav Ernst Heimbach, are as follows: the Synopsis Maior (not the
Basilics), the Synopsis Minor, the Ecloga Novellarum Leonis, the 'Potai,
the IIeipa (referred to under the name of the Romaics of the Magister"),
an appendix to the Synopsis whence Harmenopulus derived the Novels
up to the days of Manuel Comnenus, the Epanagoge, extracts from
Julianus Ascalonita (a pre-Justinian writer who described the law which,
in Syria and Palestine, governed vicinage, boundaries of property, and
the like), the Ecloga, and the synodal sentences of the patriarchs. Later
interpolations, taken from the same works and added to the manuscripts,
attest the success of the Hexabiblos, a success which continued in Greece
and Russia even after the fall of the Eastern Empire. The six books
(whence the name Hexabiblos) are concerned with the following subjects:
(I) Law, legal organisation, restitutions, and liberty (18 titles).
(II) Possession, new work, adoption, and maritime law (11 titles).
(III) Sale, deposit, and partnership (11 titles).
(IV) Betrothal and marriage (12 titles).
(V) Wills and wardship (12 titles).
(VI) Crimes and penalties (15 titles).
The six books are followed by four titles on various subjects, and by
appendices, containing among other things the rural laws.
The Promptuarium is the most complete treatise on civil and criminal
law composed during the final period of Byzantine law. An additional
merit in the eyes of modern historians is that certain texts which ap-
peared in Justinian's codification have been reproduced by Harmenopulus
from pre-Justinian sources; in the Hexabiblos they consequently appear
untouched by Justinian's commissioners, and give readings free from the
interpolations which so often prevent us from knowing the original
versions of classical texts.
It was only after the days of the Comneni that the study of canon law
became more serious and produced important works, either by order of
the Emperors, or at least encouraged by them.
In addition to the revisions of the Epitome Canonum Antiqua, which
belong to the eleventh and twelfth centuries, we find the Nomocanon of
Doxopater, which was composed by order of John Comnenus (1118-1143),
and presents great analogies with the Syntagma, ascribed to Photius.
Another Nomocanon, on the Epitome canonum, is due to the Nomo-
phylax Alexius Aristinus.
The same Syntagma, attributed to Photius, which consists of a Nomo-
canon with XIV titles and of the Collectio Canonum, was first developed,
so to say, by Theodore Bestes, who had been directed by Michael VII
CH, XXII.
46—2


## p. 724 (#766) ############################################

724
The Syntagma of Matthew Blastares
before 1080 to transcribe the texts of the civil laws cited in each
chapter; this transcription has been utilised by modern editors of
Justinian's Code. In the twelfth century the Syntagma was not only
revised but annotated in the remarkable works of John Zonaras, Grand
Drungarius of the watch in the reign of Manuel Comnenus (1159–1169),
and of Theodore Balsamon, Nomophylax and Patriarch of Antioch. The
Exegesis Canonum of Balsamon, undertaken by order of Manuel Comnenus
and of the Patriarch Michael Anchialus (1169–1177), acquired in the
East a very great reputation which has lasted until the present day. The
author proposed to establish a concordance between the civil laws used in
the Nomocanon ascribed to Photius, as edited by Zonaras, and the texts
of the Basilics; for this purpose he employed a twofold method: he
reproduced the passages from the Basilics parallel with the civil texts
from the Nomiocanon, and indicated the passages which had not been
retained in the Basilics. The work was therefore of the greatest practical
utility to contemporaries; it is equally helpful to modern critics of the
Justinianean code and the Basilics, as also for the study of Byzantine law
in general, for it includes several Novels either by Leo the Wise or the
Comneni, as well as sentences passed by synods and patriarchs which are
only known to us by this transcription.
From the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries there also remain
some canonical writings by Michael Psellus, Balsamon, Michael Chumnus,
and others, of which it is enough to mention the existence.
Under the Palaeologi there appeared a work as famous as that of
Balsamon, and as wide-spread among the clergy as the Promptuarium
of Harmenopulus was among the world of lay practitioners. This was
the Syntagma Canonum et Legum, which Matthew Blastares, a monk,
completed in 1335. The preface is followed by a history of the sources
of the body of Greek Canon law up to 879, and by a history of Roman
law up to the Basilics. The Syntagma of Matthew Blastares contains
three hundred and three titles in twenty-four chapters or letters of the
alphabet. The titles are formed of the provisions of canon law and of
civil law alternately or separately. The provisions of civil law seem to
have been taken from a revision of the Epanagoge.
The last work to be mentioned is the Epitome Canonum which
Harmenopulus placed at the end of his Promptuarium; it is divided into
six sections and twenty-six titles.
Byzantine legislation shed its lustre throughout Eastern Europe and
Asia. Its influence is unmistakable on the ecclesiastical law of the Rus-
sians, and on the civil law of the Roumanians, Serbs, and Georgians (Code
of Vakhtang).
In the West it likewise exerted its influence on the law of Italy, which
was for so long part of the Empire of Constantinople. This is not the


## p. 725 (#767) ############################################

The diffusion of Byzantine legislation
725
place to deal exhaustively with the diffusion of Byzantine legislation in
Italy, because the subject seems rather to belong to the history of Italian
law. It will be enough to indicate the principal features of this diffusion?
The diffusion of Byzantine law in Italy, or more precisely in Southern
Italy and Sicily, is shewn first by a phenomenon referred to above: the
compilation on Italian soil of legal works on Byzantine law. The Pro-
chiron legum (tenth century), the Ecloga privata aucta (twelfth century ? ),
the Ecloga ad Prochiron mutata (twelfth century), are works which are
very valuable for comparison because they add to their models the modi-
fications arising from local laws, or even loci singulares which are not of
Graeco-Roman origin.
The influence of Byzantine law in Italy was moreover exercised in
another way, as well as in the learned and scientific form: by the rise of
customs, which, here as everywhere, constitute popular and vulgar law,
customs which are proved by the acts of notarial practice, or which are
found codified in numerous municipal statutes in the Middle Ages. But
when we examine the details of institutions, there is great difficulty in
determining the exact extent of Byzantine influence; as some institution
or other existing in Italian law, to which we are tempted to assign a
Byzantine origin because the same institution occurs in Byzantine law, may
have arisen either by development of the native law, or by contamination
from foreign laws possessing similar institutions. Thus, in Sicily, com-
munity of property between husband and wife, or between them and
their children, may as reasonably have arisen from the development of
the vulgar law, or by contamination from Franco-Norman law, as from
the direct influence of the Ecloga. And the same applies to certain
regulations on protimesis common alike to Sicilian sources and to Byzan-
tine, such as the Epanagoge, the Novels of Leo the Wise, or those of
Constantine Porphyrogenitus and Romanus Lecapenus; probably these
regulations in Sicily are derived from customs already existing there in
the Byzantine period, and confirmed in the East by legislative texts,
rather than from these texts themselves. In Southern Italy the protimesis
is said to be Graecorum prudentia derivata; the Byzantine element prepon-
derates in public law and in ecclesiastical matters; in private law, the
executors of wills are called epitropi (érr LT PÓTrol); but other institutions
may have arisen from native development of ancient customs, and not
from the diffusion of Byzantine legal works or Byzantine Novels.
i Siciliano Villanueva has given a good résumé of the subject (Diritto Bizantino,
$ 4).
CH. XXII.


## p. 726 (#768) ############################################

726
CHAPTER XXIII.
THE GOVERNMENT AND ADMINISTRATION
OF THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE.
1.
Few States, even in the Middle Ages, possessed so absolute a concep-
tion of monarchical authority as the Byzantine Empire. The Emperor,
or Basileus as he was officially termed after the beginning of the seventh
century, always regarded himself as the legitimate heir and successor of
the Roman Caesars; like them he was the Imperator, that is, both the
supreme war-lord and the unimpeachable legislator, the living incarnation
and infallible mouthpiece of the law. Since his contact with the Asiatic
East, he had become something more, the master (despotes), the autocrat
(autokrator), the absolute sovereign below whom there existed, not sub-
jects, but, as they humbly styled themselves, slaves (dolllol TŘS Baolheias);
the greatest personages only approached him after prostrating them-
selves in an actual act of adoration (Tipoo KÚvnous). Finally, Christianity
had bestowed a crowning attribute on him. He was the elect of God, His
Vicar in earth, and, as was said in Byzantium, a prince equal to the
apostles (isapostolos); by right of which he was regarded as the
supreme
head and defender of religion, at once king and priest, absolute, and
infallible in the spiritual order as he was in temporal matters. And from
the combination of these various elements there resulted a despotic and
sacred power, whose exercise, at least theoretically, knew no bounds, an
authority not only based on political investiture but also consecrated
and adorned with matchless lustre by God and the Church'.
The Roman tradition as accepted in Byzantium placed the Emperor
above the law. He thus exercised absolute authority over inanimate objects
as well as people, and his competence was universal. “All things depend
on the care and administration of the imperial majesty,” declared Leo VI
in one of his Novels. The Basileus exercised military power, either when
he appeared personally at the head of his armies, or when his generals
carried off victories in his name. In him was vested the legislative power;
he enacted and repealed laws at will. Indeed all the Byzantine Emperors
from Justinian to the Comneni were great legislators. He kept a close
1 On the quasi-sacred position of the Emperor cf. Battifol, P. , and Brebier, L. ,
Les survivances du culte impérial romain; and on the support given by provincials to
the Emperor because he was Christian, see an excellent paper by Sir W. Ramsay,
read at the Berlin International Historical Congress, 1908, and published in the
Expositor, October, 1908.


## p. 727 (#769) ############################################

The Basileus
727
supervision over administrative affairs, appointing and dismissing officials
at his pleasure, and advancing them in the complicated hierarchy of
dignities according to his caprice. He was the supreme judge; the im-
perial courts of justice, at which he not infrequently presided in person,
both tried criminal cases and heard appeals. He watched the financial
administration, so essential to the welfare of the Empire, with constant
care. His authority extended to morals, which he supervised, and to
fashion, inasmuch as he laid down sumptuary laws and imposed limits on
extravagance.
The Basileus governed the Church as well as the State. He nominated
the bishops to be elected, and conferred investiture on them. He made
the laws in religious as in civil matters. He convoked councils, directed
their discussions, confirmed their canons, and enforced their decisions.
He interfered in theological quarrels, and, priding himself on his skill as
a theologian, did not shrink from defining and imposing dogmas. He
was the defender of the Church, and it was his duty not only to combat
heresy, but to spread the Orthodox faith throughout all the inhabited
globe (oixovuévn), over which God had promised him dominion as a
reward for his pious zeal. “Nothing should be done in Holy Church
contrary to the opinion and will of the Emperor,” declared a Patriarch
of the sixth century. “The Basileus,” said a prelate in the twelfth century,
“is the supreme arbiter of faith in the Churches. "
Outward appearances and external forms were carefully designed to
increase this absolute power and express the character of this imperial
majesty. In Byzantium ostentation was always one of the favourite in-
struments of diplomacy, magnificence one of the common tricks of politics.
For this reason were attached to the name of the Emperor in official
language sonorous titles and pompous epithets, originally borrowed
from the magnificent titles of the older Roman Emperors, but replaced
later by this shorter formula: “N. , the Emperor faithful in Christ our
God, and autocrat of the Romans” (πιστός εν Χριστώ τω θεώ βασιλεύς
και αυτοκράτωρ των Ρωμαίων). To this end were designed the display of
countless and extravagant costumes donned by the Emperor on various
ceremonial occasions, the splendour of the imperial insignia, the privilege
of wearing purple buskins, and, above all, the ostentatious and somewhat
childish ceremonial which in the “Sacred Palace" encompassed the ruler
with dazzling magnificence, and which, by isolating him from common
mortals, caused the imperial majesty to be regarded with more profound
respect. “By beautiful ceremonial,” wrote Constantine Porphyrogenitus
who in the tenth century took special pleasure in codifying Court ritual,
“the imperial power appears more resplendent and surrounded with
greater glory; and thereby it inspires alike foreigners and subjects of the
Empire with admiration. ” It was to this end that round the Emperor
there were endless processions and a countless retinue, audiences and
banquets, strange and magnificent festivals, in the midst of which he led
CH. XXIII.


## p. 728 (#770) ############################################

728
Creation of the Basileus
a life of outward show, yet hollow and unsatisfying, from which the
great Emperors of Byzantium often succeeded in escaping, but whose
purpose was very significant: to present the Basileus in an effulgence, an
apotheosis, wherein he seemed not so much a man as an emanation of
the Divinity. And to attain this end everything that he touched was
“sacred,” in works of art his head was surrounded by the nimbus of the
saints, the Church allowed him to pass with the clergy beyond the sacred
barrier of the iconastasis, and on the day of his accession the Patriarch
solemnly anointed him in the ambo of St Sophia. And to this end the
official proclamations announced that he reigned by Christ, that by Christ
he triumphed, that his person“ proceeded from God and not from man,"
and that to these Emperors, “supreme masters of the universe, absolute
obedience was due from all. ”
Such were the character and the extent of imperial power in Byzantium,
and thence it derived its strength. But there were also inherent weaknesses.
In Byzantium, as in Rome, according to the constitutional fiction the
imperial dignity was conferred by election. Theoretically the choice of the
sovereign rested with the Senate, which presented its elect for the approval
of the people and the army. But in the first place the principle of election
was often in practice replaced by the hereditary principle, when the reign-
ing Emperor by an act of his will admitted his son, whether by birth or
adoption, to share his throne, and announced this decision to the Senate,
people, and army. Moreover, the absence of any fixed rule regarding the
right of succession paved the way for all kinds of usurpation. For a con-
siderable time there might be in Byzantium neither a reigning family nor
blood royal. Anyone might aspire to ascend the throne, and such ambi-
tions were encouraged by soothsayers and astrologers. After the end of
the ninth century, however, we notice a growing tendency in favour of
the idea of a legitimate heir. This was the work of the Emperors of the
Macedonian family, “in order to provide imperial authority,” as was said
by Constantine VII, "with stronger roots, so that magnificent branches
of the dynasty may issue therefrom. ” The title of Porphyrogenitus (born
in the purple) described and hallowed the members of the reigning family,
and public opinion professed a loyal and constantly increasing devotion
to the dynasty. In spite of many obstacles the house of Macedon main-
tained itself on the throne for over a century and a half; that of the
Comneni lasted for more than a century without a revolution; and in the
eleventh century usurpation was regarded as a folly as well as a crime,
because, says a writer of that period, “he who reigns in Constantinople
is always victorious in the end. " It is none the less true that between
395 and 1453 out of 107 Byzantine Emperors only 34 died in their beds;
while eight perished in the course of war, or accidentally, all the others
abdicated, or met with violent deaths, as the result of 65 revolutions in
the camp or the palace.


## p. 729 (#771) ############################################

Limitations of imperial authority
729
This power, already so uncertain in origin and stability, was further
limited by institutions and custom. As in pagan Rome, there were the
Senate and the People over against the Emperor. No doubt in course of
time the Senate (oúrykantos Bourn) had become a Council of State, a
somewhat limited assembly of high officials, generally devoted to the
monarch. It nevertheless retained an important position in the State,
and it was the rallying-point of the administrative aristocracy which was
still called, as in Rome during the fourth century, the senatorial order
(ovykAntikol), that civil bureaucracy which often derived means of re-
sisting the Emperor from the very offices wherein it served him. The
people indeed, who were officially represented, so to speak, by the demes
or factions in the circus, were now only a domesticated rabble, content if
it were fed and amused. But these factions, always turbulent and dis-
affected, often broke out into bloodthirsty riots or formidable revolu-
tions. Yet another power was the Church. Although so subservient to
imperial authority, in the Patriarch it possessed a leader who more than
once imposed his will on the Basileus; once at least in the ninth century
it sought to claim its liberty, and Byzantium only just escaped a quarrel
similar to that of the Investitures in the West. Finally and above all,
to keep imperial authority in check there was the army, only too ready
to support the ambitions of its generals and constantly shewing its might
by insurrections. So that it may fairly be said that imperial power in
Byzantium was an autocracy tempered by revolution and assassination.
II.
Round the person of the Emperor there revolved a whole world of
court dignitaries and high officials, who formed the court and composed
the members of the central government.
Until towards the close of the sixth century, the Byzantine Empire
had retained the Roman administrative system. A small number of high
officials, to whom all the services were subordinated, were at the head of
affairs, and, after the example of Rome, the Byzantine Empire had main-
tained the old separation of civil and military powers and kept the terri-
torial subdivisions due to Diocletian and Constantine. But during the
course of the seventh and eighth centuries the administration of the By-
zantine monarchy underwent a slow evolution. Civil and military powers
became united in the same hands, but in new districts, the themes, which
superseded the old territorial divisions. The high officials in charge of
the central government became multiplied, while at the same time their
individual competence was diminished. And, simultaneously, personal
responsibility towards the Emperor increased. It is hard to say by what
gradual process of modification this great change took place. The new
system made its first appearance in the time of the Heraclian dynasty,
and the Isaurian Emperors probably did much to establish it definitely.
II
CH. XXIII.


## p. 730 (#772) ############################################

730
The twofold hierarchy of rank and office
In the tenth century, in any case, the administration of the Empire in
no way resembled the system which prevailed in the days of Justinian.
Henceforward in Byzantium a twofold and carefully graded hierarchy,
the details of which are recorded for us at the beginning of the tenth
century by the Notitia of Philotheus, determined the rank of all individuals
who had anything to do with the court or with public administration.
Eighteen dignities, whose titles were derived from the civil or military
services of the palace, formed the grades of a kind of administrative aris-
tocracy, a sort of Byzantine Chin, in which advancement from one grade
to another depended on the will of the Emperor. Of these honorary titles
the highest, except those of Caesar, Nobilissimus, and Curopalates, which
were reserved for the princes of the imperial family, were those of Magister,
Anthypatus, Patrician, Protospatharius, Dishypatus, Spatharocandidatus,
Spatharius, and so on. Eight other dignities were specially reserved for
eunuchs, of whom there were many in the Byzantine court and society.
Certain active duties, similarly classified according to a strict hierarchy,
were generally attached to these dignities, the insignia (Bpabeia) of
which were presented to the holders by the Emperor. Such were in the
first place the high offices at court, whose holders, the praepositus or
Grand Master of Ceremonies, the parakoimomenos or High Chamberlain,
the protovestiarios or Grand Master of the Wardrobe, and so on, were in
charge of the various services of the imperial household (kovßournelov)
and of all that vast body of subordinates, cubicularii, vestiarii, koitonitai,
chartularii, stratores (grooms), etc. , whose numbers made the palace seem
like a city within a city. Such were also the sixty holders of the great
offices of public administration, who occupied the posts of central govern-
ment and the high military or administrative commands, either in Con-
stantinople or in the provinces, each of whom had a large number of
subordinates. Appointed by imperial decree and subject to dismissal at
the Emperor's pleasure, they advanced in their career of honours by favour
of the ruler. And advancement in the various grades of the hierarchy of
dignities generally coincided exactly with promotion to higher admini-
strative office. In order to understand the mechanism of the imperial ad-
ministration, it must be borne in mind that in Byzantium every official had
two titles, one honorary, marking his rank in the administrative nobility,
the other indicating the actual office with which he had been invested. And
as both dignity and office, and advancement in either, depended entirely
on the good will of the Emperor, the zeal of the administrative body was
always sustained by the hope of high office, and by the expectation of
some promotion which would place the recipient one step higher in the
ranks of the Empire's nobility. Never in consequence was any administra-
tive body more completely in the master's hands, more strongly centralised,
or more skilfully organised, than that of the Byzantine government.
In the capital near the sovereign, the heads of the great departments,
the Ministers, if they may be so called, directed the government from


## p. 731 (#773) ############################################

The ministers
731
above and transmitted the will of the Emperor throughout all the realm.
Since the seventh century the Byzantine Empire had gradually become
Hellenised, and the Latin titles which were still borne by officials in the
days of Justinian had assumed a purely Greek form: the praefectus had
become the eparch, the rationalis the logothete, and so on. Among these
high officials there were first the four logothetes. The Logothete of the
Dromos was originally entrusted with the service of transport and the post
(dromos is the translation of the Latin cursus publicus), but gradually
became the Minister of Home Affairs and of Police, the Secretary for
Foreign Affairs, and the High Chancellor of the Empire; finally after
the tenth century he was simply known as the Grand Logothete, and
became a sort of Prime Minister. Next to him came the Logothete of the
Public Treasury (Toû YEVLxoû) who managed financial affairs; the Logo-
thete of the Military Chest (ToŮ otpaTIWTIKOŮ) who was Paymaster-
General of the Army; and the Logothete of the Flocks (Tv áryé wv) who
managed the studs and crown estates. Other high offices of the financial
administration were held by the chartulary of the sakellion, who dealt
with the patrimony and private fortune of the Emperor, by the eidikos,
who was in charge of manufactures and arsenals, and above all by the
sacellarius, who was a kind of Comptroller-General. The quaestor, who
alone of all these officials retained his Latin title, was Minister of Justice;
the Domestic of the Scholae, or Grand Domestic, was Commander-in-chief
of the army; the Grand Drungarius was Minister of the Navy. Finally
the Eparch, or Prefect of Constantinople, had the onerous task of govern-
ing the capital and maintaining order in it; he had to supervise the gilds
among which Byzantine industries were distributed and to keep an eye on
the factions of the circus (demes), who officially represented the people; he
controlled the city police and the prisons, and had power to try any case
affecting public order; finally, he had charge of the food supplies of the
capital. All these duties rendered him a person of very great importance,
and secured him the foremost rank among civil dignitaries. In the list
of the sixty great officials he was eighteenth, while the Sacellarius was only
thirty-second, and the Logothete of the Dromos only thirty-seventh.
And with regard to this it must be remembered that in the Byzantine
Empire, as in all states in the Middle Ages, military officials definitely
took precedence of the civil ones; the Domestic of the Scholae, or Com-
mander-in-chief of the army, was fifth on the list of great officials, the
strategi, who were both governors of provinces and commanders of army
corps, were placed above the ministers, and the most important of them,
the Strategus of the Anatolics, was fourth on the list.
Under the orders of the ministers there existed a large body of em-
ployees. These formed the innumerable bureaux which were known as
secreta or logothesia; prominent among them were those of the imperial
chancery controlled in the Palace by the First Secretary (protoasecretis)
and the master of petitions (ó &TÈ TÔ deňoewv), and those of the various
CH. XXIII.


## p. 732 (#774) ############################################

732
Institution of the themes
ministers.