No More Learning

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he enacted and repealed laws at will.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. It was this skilfully organised bureaucracy which, in Byzan-
tium as in Rome, really assured the firm government and solid founda-
tion of the monarchy; it was this large body of obscure CerpetiKOL,
studying affairs in detail, preparing decisions, and conveying to all parts
the sovereign pleasure, that supplied the support and strong framework
which gave life and endurance to the Byzantine Empire. And at certain
periods, as for instance in the eleventh century, this bureaucracy was
strong enough even to direct the general policy of the monarchy.
III.
It is obvious that between the fifth and eighth centuries great changes
were introduced into the government of the provinces by the administrative
reforms of Justinian and his successors. Contrary to the Roman tradition,
in some districts the civil and military powers had been amalgamated;
soon the necessity of establishing the defence of the territory on a firmer
basis led to the appointment of those who held high military command
to be civil administrators of the districts in which their troops were
stationed. Thus at the end of the sixth century the exarchates of Africa
and Italy were created in the West, and during the course of the seventh
century the themes of the Anatolics, the Armeniacs, the Opsician, the
Thracesian, and that of the sailors" (Carabisiani), in the East'. Gradu-
ally the civil administration became subordinated to the great military
chiefs, and finally lost all importance and nearly disappeared, while the civil
provinces, the eparchies, into which Rome divided the Empire, were super-
seded by the themes, so called from a word which originally meant army
corps and afterwards came to be applied to the district occupied by an
army corps. During the course of the eighth century the new system
became universal, and was improved by the subdivision of those themes
which were too large and by the creation of new themes. This remained the
basis of the Byzantine administrative system until the fall of the Empire.
At the beginning of the tenth century there were twenty-six themes,
a little later thirty-one. They were divided between the two great de-
partments which existed in the logothesion of the dromos, that of the East
('Avaton) and that of the West (Avois). Neither the boundaries nor
the chief towns are precisely known; and their extent, and even their
number, were in the course of centuries modified by somewhat frequent
re-adjustments. But we know that until the eleventh century those of
the East were the most important; they were indeed the richest and
most prosperous districts, fertile and populous, those which, as has been
said, “really constituted the Roman Empire. ” In the hierarchy of officials
their governors occupied a much higher position than did those of the
provinces in Europe, and their emoluments were much greater. From
1 Cf. on the origin of the themes, Vol. 11. pp. 38-39, 226 seq. , 395-396.


## p. 733 (#775) ############################################

The themes in the tenth century
733
Asia Minor the Empire drew its best soldiers, its finest sailors, and the
treasury derived thence its most certain revenue. It was the strength of
the monarchy, and the occupation of its greater part by the Seljūq Turks
at the end of the eleventh century was a terrible blow from which
Byzantium never recovered.
In the tenth century the themes of Anatolia were as follows: in the
western portion of Asia Minor, the Opsician (capital Nicaea), the Opti-
matan (capital Nicomedia), the Thracesian (south-west of Anatolia),
Samos, the Cibyrrhaeot (south coast of Anatolia), Seleucia, and above
all the great theme of the Anatolics. Near the Black Sea were the
themes of the Bucellarians, Paphlagonia, the mighty theme of the Arme-
niacs, and that of Chaldia. Along the eastern frontier there stretched the
themes of Charsianum, Lycandus, Mesopotamia, Sebastea, and Colonea.
All these marches of the Empire were full of fortresses and soldiers, and
in the epic of Digenes Akritas Byzantine popular poetry has finely
recorded the active and simple, perilous and heroic, life led by the
imperial soldiers in their unending warfare with the infidel.
The Western themes were those of the Balkan peninsula, and until
the beginning of the eleventh century, as long as the first Bulgarian
empire lasted, they occupied only its outskirts. There was the theme of
Thrace which contained Constantinople, and that of Macedonia with its
capital Hadrianople, both of them rich enough and important enough
to enable their governors to rank close after those of the Asiatic themes,
whether as to their place in the hierarchy or their emoluments. Then
came, stretching along the shores of the Archipelago, the themes of
Strymon, Thessalonica (of great importance because of its capital which
was justly regarded as the second city of the Empire in Europe), Hellas,
the Peloponnesus, and the Aegean Sea. On the shores of the Ionian Sea
and the Adriatic were situated the themes of Nicopolis, Dyrrhachium,
Cephalonia, and Dalmatia, and in Southern Italy those of Calabria and
Longobardia. Finally, on the Black Sea there was the theme of Cherson.
During the tenth century the number of provinces in the Empire was
increased by the conquests of the Emperor, either by the creation
of certain themes which only survived a short time, such as those of
Leontokomes, Chozan, Samosata, etc. , or by the establishment of other
subdivisions of a more lasting character, such as the duchy of Antioch, the
government of Bulgaria, which was entrusted to an officer bearing the
title of commissioner (TT povońtns), or that of Italy, which combined the
two Italian provinces under the authority of a magistrate styled catapan.
During the days of the Comneni other themes made their appearance. But,
whatever the nature of these changes, the principle which guided this
administrative system was always the same: the concentration of every
sort of power in the hands of the military governor.
At the head of each theme was placed a governor called a strategus,
generally honoured with the title of patrician, whose salary varied
CI
XXII.


## p. 734 (#776) ############################################

734
Officials of the themes
according to the importance of his government, from 40 pounds of gold
to five pounds. He was appointed by the Emperor and reported directly
to him. He not only commanded the military forces of his district, but
exercised within it all administrative power, the government of the terri-
tory, and the administration of judicial and financial affairs. He was
like a vice-emperor; and, especially in early days when the themes were
less numerous and of greater extent, more than one strategus was tempted
to abuse his excess of power.
Under his orders the theme was divided
into turmae, governed by officers bearing the title of turmarchs, while
the turma was again subdivided into lieutenancies (topoteresiae) and
banda, which were similarly administered by soldiers, drungarii and
counts. Furthermore, the strategus was assisted by an adequate number
of officials. There were the Domestic of the Theme or Chief of Staff; the
Chartulary of the Theme who supervised recruiting, commissariat, and
military administration; the count of the tent (kóptn), and the count of
the hetairia, the centarch of the spatharii, the protochancellor, and the proto-
mandator. Most important of all was the protonotary, who in addition
often bore the title of Judge of the Theme. He was at the head of the
civil administration ; he attended to judicial and financial affairs ; and,
although subordinate to the strategus, he had the right of corresponding
directly with the Emperor. Thus the central power maintained a repre-
sentative of civil interests to supervise and hold in check the all-powerful
governor.
As a variation of this system the governors of certain provinces bore
other titles than that of strategus—Count in the Opsician, Domestic in
the Optimatan, Duke at Antioch, Pronoetes in Bulgaria, and Catapan in
Italy and elsewhere. Furthermore, at certain strategical points of the
frontier there existed, beside the themes, small independent governments
centred round some important stronghold; these were called clisurae
(xheloovpa means a mountain pass), and their rulers styled themselves
clisurarchs. Many frontier provinces were originally clisurae before their
erection into themes ; among these were Charsianum, Seleucia, Lycandus,
Sebastea, and others. Here again, as in all degrees of this administrative
system, most of the power was in the hands of the military chiefs. And
thus, although she derived such strength from the Roman tradition,
Byzantium had developed into a state of the Middle Ages.
This administrative body, well trained and well disciplined, was
generally of excellent quality. The members of the bureaucracy were
usually recruited from the ranks of the senatorial nobility (ovykantikoi),
and were trained in those schools of law which were pre-eminently
nurseries of officials (it was specially for this purpose that in 1045
Constantine Monomachus reorganised the School of Law in Constanti-
nople). Kept in close and exclusive dependence on the Emperor, who
appointed, promoted, and dismissed all officials at his own pleasure, they


## p. 735 (#777) ############################################

Importance of the bureaucracy
735
לל
were very closely supervised by the central power, which frequently sent
extraordinary commissions of inquiry to the provinces, invited the
bishops to superintend the acts of the administration, and encouraged
subjects to bring their grievances before the imperial court. Thus these
officials played a part of the first importance in the government of the
Empire. No doubt they were only too often amenable to corruption, as
happens in most Oriental states, and the sale of offices, which was for
long habitual in Byzantium, led them to oppress those under them in
the most terrible manner. As regards the collection of taxes, indeed, this
administration, anxious to satisfy the demands of the sovereign and the
needs of the treasury, frequently shewed itself both hard and unreason-
able, and consequently often hindered the economic development of the
monarchy. But it rendered two great services to the Empire. In the
first place it succeeded in securing for the government the financial re-
sources necessary for carrying out the ambitious policy of the Basileus.
Nor was this all. The Empire had neither unity of race nor unity of
language. It was, as has truly been said by A. Rambaud,“ an entirely
artificial creation, governing twenty nationalities, and uniting them by
this formula: one master, one faith. ” If, after the middle of the seventh
century owing to the Arab conquest, and after the eighth owing to the
loss of the Latin provinces, the Greek-speaking population held a
preponderance in the Empire, many other ethnical elements-Syrians,
Arabs, Turks, and above all Slavs and Armenians—were intermingled
with this dominant element, and imparted a cosmopolitan character to
the monarchy. To govern these varied races, often in revolt against
imperial authority, to assimilate them gradually, and to bestow cohesion
and unity on this State devoid of nationality, such was the task which
confronted the imperial government and which devolved on its ad-
ministrative agents. And the work achieved by this administration is
undoubtedly one of the most interesting aspects of the history of
Byzantium, one of the most striking proofs of the power of expansion
which was for so long possessed by Byzantine civilisation.
“Every nationality,” says Constantine Porphyrogenitus,
" which
posse
sesses characteristic customs and laws, should be allowed to retain its
peculiarities. ” The Byzantine government did not indeed always apply
this rule of perfect toleration to the vanquished; more than once it
happened that some small body of people was forcibly removed from
one district to another so as to make room for others more amenable to
imperial authority. In general, however, it shewed more consideration
for those who had been annexed by conquest, endeavouring by calcu-
lated mildness to gain their affections and encourage them to adopt
the manners and customs of Byzantine society. Thus, in conquered
Bulgaria, Basil II decreed “that the old order of things should continue,"
that taxes should be paid as heretofore in kind, that, subject to the
authority of the Byzantine High Commissioner, the country should
לל
CH, XXIII.


## p. 736 (#778) ############################################

736
Hellenisation of the Empire
retain its native officials, and that a Bulgarian prelate should be at the
head of the Bulgarian Church, which was to be independent of the
Patriarch of Constantinople. By a lavish distribution of titles and
honours the Basileus endeavoured to conciliate the Bulgarian aristocracy,
and sought, by encouraging intermarriage, to establish friendship between
the best elements of both nations, thus leavening the Byzantine nobility
with the most distinguished of the vanquished. In like manner in
Southern Italy the imperial government very skilfully adapted its
methods to local conditions, allowing members of the native aristocracy
to share in the government of the province, seeking also to attract
them by lavishing on them the pompous titles of its courtly hierarchy,
and scrupulously respecting the customs of the country. Elsewhere the
vanquished were conciliated by reductions in taxation, or by a system
of exemption for a more or less extended period. Thus, little by little,
was stamped on these alien elements a common character, that of
Hellenism, while moreover they were unified by the common profession
of the Orthodox religion.
Greek was the language of the administration and the Church. It
was inevitable that by slow degrees all the populations of the Empire
should come to speak it. In certain districts colonies were established
to secure the predominance of Hellenism ; such was the case alike in
Southern Italy and in the region of the Euphrates, on the confines of
the Arab world. In other parts, by the mere influence of her superior
civilisation Byzantium assimilated and modified those elements which
were most refractory. Whether she succeeded in merging the best of
the vanquished in her aristocracy by their marriages with wives of noble
Greek birth, or whether she attracted them by the lure of high command
or great administrative office, by the distribution of the sonorous titles
of her hierarchy or the bribe of substantial pay, she conciliated all
these exotic elements with marvellous ingenuity, The Greek Empire
did not shrink from this admixture of barbarian races; by their means
it became rejuvenated.
Instead of excluding them from political life it
threw open to them the army, the administration, the court, and the
Church. Byzantium in its time had generals of Armenian, Persian, and
Slav origin; Italian, Bulgarian, and Armenian officials; ministers who
were converted Arabs or Turks. For all these aliens Greek was the
common language in which they could make themselves understood, and
thus Greek assumed the spurious appearance of a national language.
Speaking the same language, gradually and insensibly adopting the
same customs and manners of life and thought, they emerged from the
mighty crucible of Constantinople marked with the same character and
merged in the unity of the Empire.
It was the great aim of the imperial administration to apply this
policy and realise this union by means of Hellenism. The Church
helped this work by uniting all the discordant elements which formed


## p. 737 (#779) ############################################

Assistance of the Church
737
1
the Empire in a common profession of faith. Here again language and
race mattered little ; it was enough to have been baptised. Baptism
admitted the barbarian neophyte to the State as well as to the Church.
No doubt this religious propaganda more than once took the form of
cruel persecutions, in the ninth century of the Paulicians, in the eleventh
of the Armenians, in the twelfth of the Bogomiles. It was generally,
however, by shewing a more skilful tolerance that Byzantium gained
adherents. She evangelised and made Christians of the dissidents, Slavs
of Macedonia and the Peloponnesus, the Turks of the Vardar, the
pagan mountaineers of Maina, the Muslims of Crete and the Upper
Euphrates, who formed part of the Christian Empire or became subject
to it by annexation. Conquest was everywhere followed by religious
propaganda, and, to incorporate the vanquished territory more com-
pletely in the Empire, the Church multiplied the number of Greek
bishoprics, whose incumbents, subject to the Patriarch of Constantinople,
were the most faithful and efficient agents for the spread of Orthodoxy.
In the regions of Anatolia recaptured from the Arabs, as in Southern
Italy regained from Lombards or Saracens, and also in Armenia which
was annexed at the beginning of the eleventh century, the first work of
the imperial government was to create numerous bishoprics of the Greek
rite, which by establishing the predominance of Orthodoxy in the
country ensured its moral possession by the monarchy. The monks,
especially in Southern Italy, were not the least active agents of Hellenisa-
tion. In Calabria, the territory of Otranto, and Apulia, their monasteries,
chapels, and hermitages were centres round which the people gathered,
and where, by association with the monks, they learnt Greek. Thus
religion in combination with Hellenism assured the unity of the
Byzantine Empire. “ Orthodoxy,” says Rambaud, “ took the place of
nationality. ”
IV.
The administrative organisation of the Byzantine Empire was
founded, as we have seen, on military institutions. In Byzantium, ,
indeed, as in all states in the Middle Ages, an essential place was held
by the army, which assured the defence of the territory and formed the
strength of the monarchy. “The army," wrote one Emperor, “is to the
State what the head is to the body. If great care be not taken thereof
the very existence of the Empire will be endangered. ” Consequently
all the rulers who really considered the greatness of the monarchy, alike
the Isaurian Emperors, the great military sovereigns of the tenth cen-
tury, and the Busileis of the Comnenian family, exercised a constant and
watchful care over their soldiers; and as long as the Byzantine army was
steadfast and numerous, devoted to its task and to its master, so long
the Empire endured in spite of all difficulties.
C. MED, H. VOL. IV. CH. XXIII.
47


## p. 738 (#780) ############################################

738
The army
At all periods of its history the Byzantine army was partly recruited
from the inhabitants of the Empire. In theory every Roman citizen was
subject to military service, and those men who rendered it, either by
conscription or by voluntary enlistment, were even in administrative
language regarded as the real soldiers, the true representatives of the
national army; they were always called oi 'Pwpaſou. Actually these levies
were of somewhat unequal quality, and for various reasons the imperial
government very soon allowed a military tax to be substituted for actual
military service. And it gradually came to rely in greater measure on
the services of mercenaries, whom it regarded as superior in quality and
more constant in fidelity. Since the Emperor paid handsomely, since to
those who enlisted under his flag he made liberal grants of land, actual
military fiefs, irrevocable, inalienable, and hereditary, he had no difficulty
in securing from the neighbouring states a countless number of ad-
venturers ready to barter their services. Thus it was a strange patchwork
of nationalities that met under the standards of Byzantium. In Justinian's
day there were Huns and Vandals, Goths and Lombards, Persians,
Armenians, African Moors, and Syrian Arabs. In the armies of the
tenth and eleventh centuries there appeared Chazars and Patzinaks, Var-
angians and Russians, Georgians and Slavs, Arabs and Turks, Northmen
from Scandinavia and Normans from Italy. In the army of the Comneni
there were Latins from all the countries of the West, Anglo-Saxons and
Scandinavians, Italians and Germans, Frenchmen from France, Normans
from Sicily, and representatives of all the races of the East. These aliens
were even allowed to enlist in the bodyguard of the Emperor. One of
the regiments of this guard, the hetairia, was in the tenth century almost
exclusively composed of Russians, Scandinavians, and Chazars. And the
famous Varangian guard, originally formed of Russians at the end of the
tenth century, was successively recruited from among Russian Scandi-
navians, Northmen of Norway and Iceland, and Anglo-Saxons. In the
tenth century Armenian contingents were numerous and highly esteemed
in the imperial army; in the twelfth century the Latins were the best of
the Byzantine troops. Many of these foreigners achieved brilliant careers
in Byzantium, and attained high command and great military honours.
The army thus constituted possessed great qualities of steadfastness
and courage. Inured to the profession of arms, capable of bearing every
kind of hardship, fatigue, and privation, constantly engaged in strenuous
exercises, strengthened by the frequent improvements that were intro-
duced into its methods of warfare, it was a matchless instrument of war
which for over six hundred years rendered brilliant services to the
monarchy and crowned its banners with a halo of glory. Nevertheless
the army was not without grave and formidable defects. The system of
regional recruiting resulted in placing the soldiers in too close a personal
relation with their leader, generally one of the feudal nobility of the land,
to whom the men were closely attached by many ties of dependence, and


## p. 739 (#781) ############################################

Quality of the army and its leaders
739
whom they more readily obeyed than the distant Emperor; so that the
monarchy was constantly disturbed by political insurrections, caused by
the ambitions of the generals and supported by the fidelity of their men.
On the other hand, the mercenaries, homeless adventurers intent only on
earning as much as possible, were no less dangerous servants, owing to
their want of discipline and their tendency to mutiny. Their leaders were
real condottieri, always ready to sell themselves to the highest bidder or
to fight for their own hand; and during the latter part of its existence
the Empire suffered terribly, alike from their greed and their insurrections.
The efficient control of such soldiers depended entirely on the general
commanding them, the influence he exercised, and the confidence he
inspired. Fortunately for Byzantium it happened that for centuries the
Empire was lucky enough to have eminent generals at the head of its
army-Belisarius and Narses in the sixth century, the Isaurian Emperors
in the eighth, John Curcuas, the Phocas, Sclerus, Tzimisces, and Basil II
in the tenth, and the Emperors of the Comnenian family in the twelfth.
All these, and especially those of the tenth century, watched over
their soldiers with careful solicitude; they lavished on them rewards and
privileges, they surrounded them with consideration and recognition, so
as to keep them contented and enthusiastic, and to find them always ready
to“risk their lives for the sacred Emperors and the whole of the Christian
community. ” By encouraging in them this double sentiment, first that
they were the descendants of the invincible Roman legions, and secondly
that they were fighting under Christ's protection for the defence of
Christendom, the Basileis inspired their soldiers with patriotism for
Byzantium, a patriotism compounded of loyal devotion and pious en-
thusiasm which for long made them victorious in every field of battle.
The troops forming the Byzantine army were divided into two
distinct groups, the táquata, who garrisoned Constantinople and its
suburbs, and the Oéuata, who were stationed in the provinces. The first
group was chiefly composed of the four cavalry regiments of the Guard,
the Scholae, Excubitors, Arithmus or Vigla, and Hicanati, and the
infantry regiment of the Numeri. Each of these corps, whose strength
was generally quoted, perhaps with some exaggeration, at 4000, was
commanded by an officer bearing the title of Domestic; in the tenth
century the Domestic of the Scholae was Commander-in-chief of the
army. The themes, or provincial army corps (Tà čFw Oéuata, tà trepatiKià
Ofuata), whose strength varied from 4000 to 10,000 men according to
the importance of the province they defended, had at their head a strate-
gus; each theme was divided into two or three brigades or turmae, each
turma into three μοίραι or δρούγγοι commanded by a Drungarius,
each połpa or regiment into ten banda commanded by a count. These
troops are often referred to in the texts as τα καβαλλαρικά θέματα. The
cavalry indeed formed their principal part, for cavalry in Byzantium, as
CH. XXIII,
47-2


## p. 740 (#782) ############################################

740
Organisation of the army
in all states in the Middle Ages, was the most esteemed arm; whether
it were the heavy cavalry in armour, the cataphracts, or the light cavalry,
the trapezitae, it formed an instrument of war of admirable strength
and flexibility.
Besides these troops, which constituted the actual army in the field,
there was the army of the frontiers (Tà åkpitikà Ouara), which was
formed on the model of the limitanei of the fifth and sixth centuries; it
occupied military borderlands along the frontier, where in return for
their military service the soldiers received land on which they settled
with their families. The duties of these detachments were to defend the
limites, hold the fortified posts, castles, and citadels which Byzantium had
established in successive lines along the whole extent of the frontier, to
occupy strategic points, hold mountain passes, guard roads, keep a close
watch on all preparations by the enemy, repel invasion, and be ready
with a counter-offensive. A curious tenth-century treatise on tactics has
preserved for us a picturesque account of the strenuous life led on the
“marches" of the Empire, on the mountains of Taurus, or the borders of
Cappadocia, perpetually threatened by an Arab invasion. It was an
arduous and exacting warfare, in which the problem was to contain an
enterprising and daring enemy by means of weak forces ; a war of sur-
prises, ambushes, reconnaissances, and sudden attacks, in which the
trapezitae, or light cavalry, excelled. All along the frontier a network of
small observation posts was connected with headquarters by a system of
signals; as soon as any movement by the enemy was observed, skirmishing
parties of cavalry set out, carrying only one day's rations to ensure
greater mobility, and with darkened accoutrements and weapons so as to
be less visible. Behind this curtain mobilisation proceeded. The infantry
occupied the mountain passes, the population of the plains took refuge
in the fortresses, and the army concentrated. It is interesting to note in
these instructions with what care and forethought nothing is left to
chance, either as regards information or supplies, the concentration or
movements of troops, night attacks, ambushes, or espionage. Mean-
while the cavalry made daring raids into enemy territory to cause the
assailants uneasiness regarding their lines of communication and to
attempt a useful diversion, while with his main force the Byzantine
strategus sought contact with the enemy and engaged battle, generally
by a sudden and unforeseen attack displaying mingled courage and cunning.
It was an arduous type of warfare in which it was necessary always to be
on the alert to avoid a surprise, to counter blow with blow, raid with raid;
a war full of great duels, cruel, chivalrous, and heroic episodes; but a
marvellous training for those who took part in it.
The Byzantine epic gives a magnificent picture of the valiant and
free life led by these soldiers on the Asiatic marches in the poem of
Digenes Akritas, the defender of the frontier, “the model of the brave,
the glory of the Greeks, he who established peace in Romania. ” Nowhere


## p. 741 (#783) ############################################

Its numbers
741
are the qualities of courage, energy, and patriotism of these Byzantine
soldiers more clearly shewn than in this poem, wherein also is evident
the proud consciousness of independence innate in these hard fighters,
great feudal lords, who waged the eternal struggle with the infidel on
the frontiers, amid glorious adventures of love and death. “When my
cause is just," says the hero of the poem, “I fear not even the Emperor. '
This characteristic feature betrays, even in an epic which exalts into
beauty all the sentiments of the age, the inherent weakness from which
the Empire was henceforward to suffer—the insurmountable unruliness
of the Byzantine army and its leaders.
It is difficult to calculate exactly the strength of the Byzantine army,
but we must be careful not to exaggerate its size. In the sixth as in the
tenth century, in the tenth as in the twelfth, armies were not of vast
numbers-only about 20,000 to 30,000 men, and often much less,
although they achieved the most signal victories and conquered or
destroyed kingdoms. Against the Arabs in the tenth century the army
in Asia attained a total of some 70,000 men. Including the Guard and
the regiments of the army in Europe, the grand total of the Byzantine
forces does not seem to have amounted to more than 120,000 men. But
handled as they were with a tactical skill the rules of which had been
carefully laid down by the Emperors themselves, such as Leo VI and
Nicephorus Phocas, fortified by a multitude of ingenious engines of
war which were preserved in the great arsenal of Mangana, based finally
on the network of strongholds which Byzantine engineers constructed
with so consummate a science of fortification, this army, steadfast and
brave, full of spirit, enthusiasm, and patriotism, was indeed for long
almost invincible.
V.
Owing to the great extent of her coast-line, and the necessity of re-
taining command of the sea, which formed the communication between
the different parts of the monarchy, Byzantium was inevitably a great
maritime power. Indeed, in the sixth and seventh centuries, and until
the beginning of the eighth, the imperial fleet dominated the eastern seas,
or rather it was the only Mediterranean fleet until the Arabs made their
appearance halfway through the seventh century. It was thus capable of
successfully carrying on the struggle when the Umayyad Caliphs of Syria
in their turn created a naval power and assailed Byzantium by sea as
well as by land; it was actually the fleet which saved the Empire in the
seventh century, and which saved Constantinople in the great siege of
717. After this the navy was apparently somewhat neglected. The war
with the Caliphs of Baghdad was mainly on land; and the Isaurian
Emperors seem moreover to have felt some uneasiness as regards the
excessive power of the Grand Admirals. In the ninth century the
CH. XXIII.


## p. 742 (#784) ############################################

742
The fleet
monarchy paid dearly for this neglect when the Muslim corsairs, who
were masters of Crete, for over a century ravaged the coasts of the
Archipelago almost with impunity, and when the conquest of Sicily
ensured to the Arab navy the supremacy of the Tyrrhenian sea as well
as that of the Adriatic. Towards the close of the ninth century it was
decided to reorganise the fleet, and once more, until the beginning of the
twelfth century, Byzantium was the great sea-power of the Mediterranean.
In the tenth century the Emperor of Constantinople boasted that he
commanded the seas (Palaoookpateiv) up to the Pillars of Hercules.
Nicephorus Phocas declared that he was the sole possessor of naval power,
and even at the end of the eleventh century Cecaumenus wrote: “The
feet is the glory of Romania (ο στόλος εστίν η δόξα της Ρωμανίας)”.
This position was seriously threatened when the Seljūq Turks conquered
Asia Minor, because the Empire was thereby deprived of the provinces
whence its best crews were drawn. Henceforth Byzantium resorted to
the practice of entrusting its naval operations to other navies, those of
Pisa, Genoa, and above all Venice; and depending on these allies it neg-
lected naval construction. This was the end of the Byzantine navy. In
the thirteenth century the maintenance of a fleet was regarded by the
Greeks as a useless expense, and a contemporary writer states with some
regret that "the naval power of Byzantium had vanished long ago. "
Originally all the naval forces of the Empire were combined under
one command; in the seventh century the fleet was the “theme of
the sailors” (το θέμα των καραβισιάνων or των πλωιζομένων), whose
chief, or strategus, generally held the rank of patrician. The Isaurian
Emperors divided this great command, and created the two themes of
the Cibyrrhaeots (which included all the south-western coast of Asia
Minor) and the Dodecanese, or Aegean Sea, whereto was added in the
ninth century the theme of Samos. These were the three pre-eminently
maritime themes; but naturally the other coastal provinces—Hellas,
Peloponnesus, and above all the themes of the Ionian Sea (Nicopolis,
Cephalonia)—also contributed somewhat to the formation of the fleet
and the provision of crews.
The Byzantine fleet, like the army, partly recruited its men from the
population of the Empire; and in return for their services the Empire
assigned to the sailors of the Cibyrrhaeot, Samian, and Aegean themes
estates which, as with the land forces, were constituted as inalienable and
hereditary fiefs. Another part of the personnel was drawn from the
Mardaites of Mount Lebanon, whom the Emperors established in the
seventh century, some in the region of Attalia where they possessed a
special and almost autonomous form of government under their catapan,
others in the coastal provinces of the Ionian Sea. Finally, Varangian
sailors, whose skill was highly appreciated, were often engaged to serve
in the fleet. As in the land forces, the pay was good; consequently the
Empire found no difficulty in securing crews for its ships.


## p. 743 (#785) ############################################

Its organisation and equipment
743
Like the army, the navy was divided into two distinct groups. There
was in the first place the imperial feet (το βασιλικοπλόϊμον), commanded
by the Drungarius of the Fleet, whose importance seems to have increased
immensely towards the close of the ninth century. This squadron was
stationed in the waters of the capital. There was also the provincial fleet
(ó DepatikÒS OTóos), composed of the squadrons from the maritime themes,
which was commanded by the strategi of these themes. Generally in
great naval expeditions both these fleets were united under the command
of the same admiral. It is impossible to compute, from the documents
extant, the relative strength of these two fleets. The number of ships
assembled for the campaign of 907 shews an imperial fleet of 60 dromons
in line as opposed to 42 from the maritime themes, and this fact is enough
to shew the importance of the squadron entrusted with the defence of
the capital.
The Byzantine fleet contained units of various types. There was first
the dromon, which was a strong and heavy but swift vessel, with a high
wooden turret on deck (the xylokastron) furnished with engines of war.
The crew consisted of 300 men, 230 rowers and 70 marines. Originally,
the same men were employed for rowing and for fighting, but soon the
drawbacks of this system became apparent, and by the reforms of the
ninth century the two groups which formed the crew were separated.
Subordinate to the dromon there were lighter vessels, the pamphylians,
some manned by 160 others by 130 men, and the ousiai, which seem
to have been built after the model of the large Russian boats, and
to have been attached to the dromons at the rate of two ousiai to each
larger vessel. Their crews varied from 108 to 110 men. All vessels other
than dromons were often referred to under the general name of chelandia,
some belonging to the pamphylian class, others to that of the ousiai.
What rendered these ships particularly formidable was the superiority
which they derived from the use of Greek fire. A Syrian engineer of the
seventh century, named Callinicus, had imparted to the Byzantines the
secret of this “liquid fire,” which could not be extinguished, and which
was said to burn even in water. It was thrown on to the enemy ships,
either by means of tubes or siphons placed in the prow of the Greek
vessels, or by means of hand-grenades. The reputation of this terrible
weapon, exaggerated by popular imagination, filled all the adversaries of
Byzantium with terror. Igor's Russians, who were crushed outside Con-
stantinople in 941, declared: “The Greeks have a fire resembling the
lightning from heaven, and when they threw it at us they burned us; for
this reason we could not overcome them. ” In the thirteenth century
Joinville speaks of Greek fire with similar emotion. Any man touched by
it believed himself to be lost; every ship attacked was devoured by flames.
And the Byzantines, conscious of the advantage they derived from this
formidable weapon, guarded the secret with jealous care. The Emperors,
in their dying recommendations, advised their successors not to reveal it
CH. XXIII.


## p. 744 (#786) ############################################

744
Tactical handling of the fleet
to anyone, and threatened with anathema any impious person who might
dare to disclose it.
Like the army, the navy was handled with great tactical skill. In the
special treatises of the tenth century which have been preserved, we find
the most minute instructions for maneuvring and for boarding, for the
use of Greek fire and other weapons of offence, boiling pitch, stones,
masses of iron, and the like. There is also evident the same anxiety in
maintaining the efficiency of the crews by incessant practice, and the same
care with regard to the sailors as to the soldiers. Nevertheless, and in
spite of the importance given to the great theme of the Cibyrrhaeots
by the proximity of the Arab territory, in spite of the great services
rendered by the fleet, in the tenth century the navy was less regarded
than the land forces; the strategi of the three maritime themes received
much lower salaries (ten pounds of gold) than those of the governors of
the great continental themes of Anatolia.
But by all these means, by land and sea, Byzantium was a great
power; and, by her wise naval and military organisation, she remained
until the end of the twelfth century a great and powerful military state.


## p. 745 (#787) ############################################

745
CHAPTER XXIV.
BYZANTINE CIVILISATION.
For over a thousand years, from the end of the fourth century to the
middle of the fifteenth, the Byzantine Empire was the centre of a civi-
lisation equal to that of any age in brilliancy, certainly the most brilliant
known to the Middle Ages, and possibly even the only real civilisation
which prevailed in Europe between the close of the fifth century and the
beginning of the eleventh. While the barbarian states of the West were
laboriously developing the elements of a new culture from the scanty
remains of the Roman tradition, Byzantium—Rome's successor, and
imbued with the spirit and teachings of Hellenism-never ceased to be
the centre of refinement and the home of a great movement in thought
and art. Byzantium, indeed, was no mere transmitter of the tradition of
antiquity. Contact with the East had modified her, and the influence of
Christianity had left a deep imprint; and, contrary to a still widely-spread
opinion, she was capable of originality and creation. Hellenism, Christi-
anity, and the East met and combined in forming Byzantine civilisation;
and by the characteristic forms it assumed, by its superiority, as well as
by the long and profound influence it exercised in both the Eastern and
Western world, this civilisation played a prominent part in the history
of the Middle Ages, the history of thought, and the history of mankind.
For over a thousand years, Constantinople, the capital of the Empire,
was the most brilliant and characteristic expression of this civilisation. For
over a thousand years the whole world gazed with feelings of admiration
and greed at the city which Byzantines called “the City protected by God,"
or merely, “the City (tókus),” the magnificent, mighty, and prosperous
city which has been felicitously described as “the Paris of the Middle
Ages. ” The whole medieval world dreamt of Constantinople as a city
famous for beauty, wealth, and power, seen through a shimmer of gold.
“She is the glory of Greece,” wrote a Frenchman in the twelfth century;
“her wealth is renowned, and she is even richer than is reported. ” “Con-
stantinople,” said another, “is the peer of Rome in holiness and majesty”;
and Benjamin of Tudela adds: “Except Baghdad there is no town in the
universe to be compared with her. ” According to Robert of Clari, it was
said that “Two-thirds of the world's wealth were in Constantinople, and
the other third was scattered throughout the world. " And everyone
knows the celebrated passage in which Villehardouin declares: “No man
could believe that so rich a city existed in all the world,” and asserts that
בי
CH, XXIV.


## p. 746 (#788) ############################################

746
Twofold aspect of Byzantine civilisation
66
לל
the city was “ queen over all others. ” The fame of the imperial city re-
sounded throughout the whole of the then-known world. Men dreamt of
her amid the chilly mists of Norway, and on the banks of the Russian
rivers, down which the Varangians sailed towards matchless Tsarigrad;
they dreamt of her in Western strongholds, where trouvères sang the
marvels of the imperial palace, the floating hall swayed by the breezes of
the sea, and the dazzling carbuncle which gave light to the imperial
apartments during the night. Men dreamt of her alike among the bar-
barian Slavs and the needy Armenians, who aspired to seek their fortunes
in the service of an Emperor lavish of pay. Men dreamt of her in Venice
and the commercial cities of Italy, and calculated the magnificent revenues
which the Byzantine sovereigns yearly derived from their city. Even
up to her final days of decadence, Constantinople remained one of the
most beautiful and illustrious cities of the universe, the splendid centre
and ornament of the Empire, the home of matchless wealth and culture,
the pride and glory of the monarchy.
In order to obtain a clear understanding of Byzantine civilisation, to
visualise the mode of life and the dominant tastes in this vanished society,
and to realise the mentality of the Greeks in the Middle Ages, we must
therefore begin by studying Constantinople. And moreover it is about
her that we have most information. At every stage of her history there
are valuable documents which describe for us admirably the buildings
of the great city, and the appearance she presented: for the fifth
century we have the Notitia of 450; for the sixth century the book of
Edifices by Procopius, the poem of Paul the Silentiary, and the description
of the church of the Holy Apostles by Nicholas Mesarites; for the tenth
century the
of Constantine the Rhodian on the seven wonders of
the capital and the Ceremonies of Constantine Porphyrogenitus ; finally
the narratives of countless travellers, French, Italians, Spaniards,
Russians, and Arabs,-who visited Constantinople from the twelfth to
the fifteenth century. Moreover Byzantine literature reflects, as in a
magic mirror, the ideas which were familiar and precious to the inhabitants
of the capital, and the great currents of thought which prevailed in her.
But Constantinople was not the Empire. In contrast to the capital which
was luxurious, refined, and elegant, and also turbulent, cruel, and corrupt,
there was another Byzantium, simpler and ruder, more robust and more
serious, the Byzantium of the provinces, about which we know less than
the other, but whose aspect we must nevertheless attempt to reconstruct;
for the strength and stability of the monarchy was derived therefrom, no
less than from Constantinople, and its study is indispensable if we wish
to understand the character of Byzantine civilisation. In this vanished
world, Constantinople and the provinces seem like the two opposite leaves
of a diptych, and, in spite of the deep contrast offered by these two
Byzantiums, it was their union which formed the power and greatness
of the Empire.
poem


## p. 747 (#789) ############################################

Constantinople: its extent and walls
747
But before presenting a picture of Byzantine civilisation under this
twofold aspect, a preliminary remark is necessary. In the course of a
thousand years, between the fourth century when it came into being and
the fifteenth when it disintegrated, Byzantine society necessarily under-
went profound changes. A historian who seeks to present a picture of
the whole runs great risks of completely falsifying the aspect of things if
he borrows indiscriminately from authors of widely different ages, if, like
Krause who aspired to shew us the “Byzantines of the Middle Ages,” he
combines facts drawn from sources which are chronologically widely apart.
In order to avoid this danger, we shall here note only the most persistent
features, those which seem really characteristic of Byzantine civilisation,
and, apart from these permanent elements, we shall always be careful to
mention the exact date of the social phenomena recorded and to mark
their evolution. Thus perhaps will emerge an approximately correct
presentment of this vanished world, this infinitely complex society to
which the mixture of nationalities imparted so strongly cosmopolitan a
character, and which we must study successively in Constantinople and
in the provinces so as to arrive at a clear understanding of the soul of
Byzantium.
I.
By the general appearance she presented, the splendour of her public
buildings, the multitude of ancient statues which adorned her broad
squares, the luxury of her palaces and the beauty of her churches,
the picturesque animation lent to her streets by a motley and cosmo-
politan crowd, Constantinople, even at first sight, produced a powerful
impression of wealth and magnificence. By the middle of the fifth
century, barely a hundred years after her foundation, the Byzantine
capital was already a very large town. Theodosius II was obliged to
enlarge the city which had become too narrow for the enormous influx of
population, and carried the new enclosure far beyond the wall built by
Constantine, thus making her boundaries, except at one point, identical
with those of Stamboul in the present day. For her protection he built
the admirable line of ramparts from the Sea of Marmora to the end of
the Golden Horn, which still exist to-day, and whose triple defences,
ranged one behind the other, remain one of the finest examples of military
architecture of all time. Against this mighty wall, which rendered
Constantinople a great and impregnable fortress, there hurled themselves
in succession all the barbarians, Huns and Avars, Bulgars and Russians,
Arabs from the East and Crusaders from the West. On the very eve
of the final catastrophe in 1453, the great capital still vaunted her
military power and “this crown of ramparts, which was surpassed not
even by those of Babylon. ”
Within this vast enclosure there stretched henceforward a magnificent
city. Built like Rome on seven hills, she was divided like the former
CH. XXIV.


## p. 748 (#790) ############################################

748
Plan of Constantinople in the tenth century
capital of the Empire into fourteen regions, and since the days of Con-
stantine the Emperors had spared no pains to render her equal or even
superior to the great city, which for so many centuries had been the
heart of Roman power. The Notitia of 450 shews us a Constantinople
full of palaces—the first region especially was, says this document, regiis
nobiliumque domiciliis clara-magnificent squares; sumptuous buildings
for public utility, baths, underground cisterns, aqueducts and shops;
buildings devoted to popular amusement, theatres, hippodromes, and
the like. Some figures given in the Notitia are significant of the great-
ness and wealth of the city: without taking into account the five imperial
palaces, six domus divinae belonging to Empresses, and three domus
nobilissimae, there were in Constantinople in the fifth century 322 streets,
52 porticoes, 4388 domus or mansions, and 153 private baths; and more-
over this magnificent city was the finest museum in the world, because
of the masterpieces of ancient art which the Emperors had removed from
the famous sanctuaries of the Hellenic world to adorn their capital.
But to realise fully the importance of the imperial city, we must
consider her as she was in the tenth century, at the moment when, indeed,
she attained her apogee of splendour and prosperity. We possess fairly
exact information as to her plan and her principal streets at this date,
and they can still be traced in the thoroughfares of present-day Con-
stantinople.
Between St Sophia to the north, the imperial palace to the south,
and the Senate-house to the east, there stretched the square of the
Augusteum,“ Constantinople's square of St Mark," all surrounded with
porticoes, in the centre of which, on a tall column, towered an equestrian
statue of the Emperor Justinian. To the west lay the arcade of the
Golden Milestone, whence started the great street of the Mese, which,
like all the important thoroughfares of the city, was bordered with
arcaded galleries, or čußoroi. Crossing the quarter of the bazaars, and
passing the Royal Basilica (Law-courts) and the Praetorium (residence
of the Prefect of the City), it led into the Forum of Constantine, one of
the handsomest parts of the city. In the centre stood a porphyry column
(now called the burnt pillar), and all round the square there were palaces
with gigantic domes, their walls decorated with mosaics and panels of
precious metals; in front of these, under marble porticoes, were ranged
the masterpieces of Greek sculpture. Thence, through the quarter of
the Artopolia (the bakers), the Mese reached the great square of the
Taurus, where in front of the Capitol was erected the lofty column of
Theodosius, decorated, like Trajan's column, with spiral bas-reliefs com-
memorating “the slaughter of the Scythian barbarians and the destruction
of their towns. ” Farther on there were the cross-roads of Philadelphion,
where the main street split into three branches. One descended towards
the Golden Horn; the second led to the church of the Holy Apostles and
the gate of Charisius (Hadrianople Gate); the third and most frequented
לל


## p. 749 (#791) ############################################

Contrasts presented
749
בל
crossed the squares of Amastrianon and the Bous, whence a street
branched off to the right towards the gate of St Romanus (Top Qāpū),
and finally, after crossing the Forum of Arcadius in which rose a tall
column with bas-reliefs representing scenes of war and triumph, it passed
in front of the monastery of Studion, and reached the Golden Gate.
This was the most famous and most magnificent of all the gates of Con-
stantinople, with its propylaea decorated with ancient bas-reliefs and
inlaid with coloured marbles, and the triple bay of its triumphal arch
flanked by two massive marble pylons ; it was through this gate that the
Emperors made their solemn entry into the capital on their days of coro-
nation or triumph, when they went in stately procession through streets
hung with tapestry, blazing with lights, and strewn with flowers, amidst
the acclamations of the people, and passed along the Mese to St Sophia.
In close proximity to these vast thoroughfares, bordered with long
arcaded galleries, decorated with statues, and full of rich palaces, there
were naturally to be found in Constantinople narrow streets, dark,
muddy, and squalid, infested with dogs and with thieves, who, says one
historian, were almost as numerous as the poor.