No More Learning

But these pious souls and
these holy women, of whom the eighth century offers so many examples,
lent an unparalleled lustre to the Byzantine Church; and since for some
years it was they who were the leaders of opinion, that Church drew
from them and kept throughout the following century a force and a
greatness never equalled.
The opponents of images, on their side, have contributed no less to
this splendour of Byzantine civilisation. Though making war upon
icons, the Isaurian Emperors were anything but Puritans. In place of
the religious pictures which they destroyed they caused secular and even
still-life subjects to be portrayed in churches and palaces alike-scenes
of the kind formerly affected by Alexandrine art, horse-races, hippodrome
games, landscapes with trees and birds, and also historical scenes depicting
the great military events of the time. In the style of this Iconoclastic
art, especially in its taste for the decorative, there is a genuine return to
antique traditions of the picturesque, mingled with influences derived
from the Arab East. This was by no means all to be lost. The rena-
scence of the tenth century owed more than is generally thought to
these new tendencies of the Iconoclastic period.
The same character is traceable in the thoroughly secular and oriental
splendour with which the Byzantine court surrounded itself, in the
lustre of its fêtes, which were still almost pagan, such as the Brumalia,
in which traditions of antiquity were revived, in the taste for luxury
shewn by private individuals and even by churchmen. With this taste
for elegance and art there was a corresponding and very powerful intel-
lectual advance. It will suffice to recall the names of George Syncellus
and Theophanes, of John Damascene and Theodore of Studion, of the
Patriarchs Tarasius and Nicephorus, to notice the wide development
given to education, and the breadth of mind and tolerance to be met
with among certain men of the day, in order to realise that here also the
Iconoclastic period had been far from barren. Certainly the Empire in
the ninth century had still many years to go through of disaster and
anarchy. Yet from the government of the Isaurian Emperors a new
principle of life had sprung, which was to enrich the world for ever.


## p. 27 (#69) ##############################################

CHAPTER II.
FROM NICEPHORUS I TO THE FALL OF
THE PHRYGIAN DYNASTY.
I.
יל
The religious policy of the Empress Irene, the concentrated and
impassioned devotion which she brought to the task of restoring the
cult of images, had produced, in the external affairs of the Empire no
less than in its internal condition, results which were largely injurious.
Her financial policy, and the considerable remissions of taxation which
she had agreed to in the hope of assuring her popularity and of recom-
mending herself to the Church, had had no better success. An onerous
task was thus laid
upon
her successor. He had to remedy the penury
of the exchequer, to restore order to a thoroughly disturbed State, by
prudent administration to extinguish the memories of a bitter and lengthy
quarrel, and thus to quiet its last convulsive heavings.
Such was the end aimed at, it would seem, from the opening of his
reign by the new Emperor Nicephorus I (802–811). From his opponents
be has met with hardly better treatment than the great iconoclast
sovereigns of the eighth century. Theophanes declares “ that on all
occasions he acted not after God but to be seen of men,” and that in all
his actions “he shamelessly violated the law," and he severely blames his
unmeasured love of money,” comparing him to “a new Ahaz, more
covetous than Phalaris and Midas. ” In reality, Nicephorus seems to have
been a talented ruler, anxious to fulfil his duties as Emperor, a man
of moderate temper and comparatively tolerant. He renounced the
violent courses adopted by the Iconoclast Emperors, but he was deter-
mined to maintain the great work of reform which they had carried out.
good financier-before his accession he had filled the high office of
Logothete-General—he desired to restore to the treasury the supplies of
which it stood in need, and in the very first year of his reign he reimposed
greater part of the taxes imprudently abolished by Irene, until
in 810 he had thought out a comprehensive scheme of financial re-
organisation, of which the most essential feature was the abrogation of
the numerous fiscal exemptions enjoyed by Church property. A man
Very jealous of his authority-he bitterly reproaches his predecessors with
having had no idea of the true methods of government—he would never
tolerate the idea of any person being more powerful than himself, and
A
the
сн. ІІ.


## p. 28 (#70) ##############################################

28
Nicephorus 1. Opposition of the monks
לל
claimed to impose his will upon the Church as well as the State. His
adversaries the monks forgave nothing of all this, and have depicted him
as a tyrant, oppressive, cruel, hypocritical, and debauched, while it is also
plain that, owing to the harshness of his financial measures, he was highly
unpopular. “Everybody," as one of his courtiers said to him, “exclaims
against us, and if any misfortune happens to us, there will be general
rejoicing at our fall. ” Yet it would appear that Nicephorus, in difficult
times, possessed some of the qualities which go to make a good Emperor.
But passions were still so much heated that everything offered matter
for strife. The monks were outraged at the idea of ecclesiastical pro-
perty being liable to taxation and Church tenants subject to a poll-tax.
They vehemently denied the right of the Emperor to interfere in religious
matters. They even resisted the authority of the Patriarch Nicephorus,
who in 806 had succeeded Tarasius. Yet Nicephorus brought to his
high office a fervent zeal for the reform of the monasteries and the
destruction of heresy, and thus would have seemed likely to be accept-
able to the monks of the Studion and their fiery Abbot Theodore. But,
before attaining to the patriarchate, Nicephorus had been a layman, and
it was necessary to confer all the grades of holy orders on him at the
same time. Consequently the Studite monks violently protested against
his election. But above all the new Patriarch was, like the Emperor, a
statesman of opportunist tendencies desirous of pacifying men's minds
and of obliterating the traces of recent struggles. At the request of the
Basileus, he summoned a Synod to restore to his sacerdotal functions the
priest Joseph, who had formerly been excommunicated for having solem-
nised the marriage of the Emperor Constantine VI and Theodote. The
assembly, despite the protests of Theodore of Studion, complied with
the Patriarch's wish, and even restored Joseph to the dignity of Grand
Oeconomus (807). This was the origin of the long quarrel called the
Moechian controversy” (from poixós, adulterer, whence the name
Moechiani given to the supporters of Joseph's rehabilitation).
The monks of the Studion resolutely withdrew from communion with
the Patriarch. “ We shall endure everything," Theodore declared,
“ death itself, rather than resume communion with the Oeconomus and
his accomplices. As to the Patriarch, he makes us no answer, he refuses
to hear us, he is, in everything, at the Emperor's orders. For my part,
I will not betray the truth despite the threat of exile, despite the
gleaming sword, despite the kindled faggots. ” And indeed the Emperor
quickly became impatient of an opposition which disturbed the peace of
the Church afresh, and which irritated him the more keenly in that it
claimed to subject the conduct and marriage of an Emperor to canonical
rules. Another Synod, held in 809, reiterated therefore the lawfulness of
Constantine VI's espousals, declared that the Emperors were above the
law of the Church, and pronounced sentence of excommunication upon all
gainsayers. The old Abbot Plato, Theodore of Studion, and his brother
ול


## p. 29 (#71) ##############################################

Michael I Rangabé
29
ול
Joseph, Archbishop of Thessalonica, were banished to the Princes Islands;
the seven hundred monks of the Studion, who vehemently refused to go
over to the side of the temporal power, were scattered, imprisoned, mal-
treated, driven into exile. For two whole years persecution raged. The
fact was, as Theodore of Studion truly wrote, “it was no longer a niere
question of ecclesiastical discipline that was at stake. A breach has been
made in faith and morals and in the Gospel itself. ” And in opposition
to the Emperor's claim to set himself above the laws of the Church and
to make his will prevail, Theodore boldly appealed to Rome, and to
secure the liberty of the Eastern Church he invoked the judgment of the
Pope, “ the first of pastors," as he wrote, “ and our apostolic head. ”
Thus, despite the good intentions of the Emperor and his Patriarch,
passions flared up afresh ; and such was the fanaticism of the devout
party that they ignored the grave dangers threatening the Empire, and
even looked upon the death of the Emperor, who fell fighting against
the Bulgars on the disastrous day of 25 July 811, as a just punishment
from God upon their cruel foe.
Michael I Rangabé (811-813) succeeded his father-in-law Nice-
phorus, after the short reign of Stauracius, the son of the late Emperor.
He was a prince after the Church's heart, “ pious and most orthodox,”
writes Theophanes; his chief anxiety was to repair all the injustices of
the preceding reign, “on account of which,” adds Theophanes, “Nice-
phorus had miserably perished. ” He recalled the Studites from exile,
caused the Oeconomus Joseph to be condemned anew, and at this cost
succeeded in reconciling the monks with the Patriarch. He shewed
a supporter of images, anxious to come to an understanding
with Rome, and firmly opposed to the iconoclasts. Such a policy, at a
time when the Bulgarian war was raging and the terrible Khan Krum
threatening Constantinople, was grossly imprudent. The iconoclasts,
were still strong in the capital, where Constantine V had settled
numerous colonists from the East, and where the Paulicians, in particular,
occupied an important place; besides which almost the whole army had
remained faithful to the memory of the illustrious Emperors who had
formerly led it to victory. Thus Constantinople was in a state of tense
excitement; plots were brewing against Michael; noisy demonstrations
took place at the tomb of Constantine V. When in June 813 Michael I
was defeated by the Bulgars at Versinicia, near Hadrianople, the icono-
clasts considered the opportunity favourable for dethroning the Emperor.
The army proclaimed one of its generals, Leo the Armenian, Strategus
of the Anatolics, begging him “to watch over the safety of the State,
and to defend the Christian Empire. ” On 11 July the usurper entered
Constantinople. His accession was to be the signal for a supreme effort
to impose iconoclast ideas upon the Empire.
himself
indeed,
The new Emperor, who was of Eastern origin, was, although secretly,
CH, II. .


## p. 30 (#72) ##############################################

30
Leo V the Armenian
יל
an iconoclast at heart. But so great was the peril from outside—the
Bulgars were besieging Constantinople—that he was at first obliged
to cloak his tendencies, and to sign a confession of faith by which he
pledged himself to defend the orthodox religion and the veneration of
the sacred icons. But when he had inflicted a severe defeat on the
barbarians at Mesembria (813), and when the death (14 April 814) of
the terrible Khan Krum had led to the conclusion of a truce for thirty
years with his successor Omurtag, Leo no longer hesitated to make his
real feelings known. Drawing his inspiration from the same ideas as
those on which the resolutions of Leo III had been based, he declared
that if the Christians were always beaten by the pagans, “it is because
they prostrate themselves before images. The Emperors who adored
them,” he proceeded, “have died in exile or in battle. Only those who
destroyed them have died on the throne and been buried in the Church
of the Holy Apostles. It is their example that I shall follow. ” He there-
fore ordered the learned John Hylilas, surnamed the Grammarian, to
collect the authorities favouring the condemnation of images, and in
particular to draw from the archives of the churches the acts of the
Council of 753. On the other hand, he attempted to win over the
Patriarch Nicephorus to his views, and, with the hope of shaking the re-
sistance of the party opposed to him, he summoned a conference at the
imperial palace, where under his presidency orthodox and iconoclasts
might hold a debate. The speech with which he opened the assembly
was answered by courageous remonstrances from Theodore of Studion.
“ Church matters,” he boldly declared, “are the province of priests and
doctors; the administration of secular things belongs to the Emperor.
This is what the Apostle said: “God has instituted in His Church in the
first place the apostles, then prophets, then evangelists, but nowhere
does he make mention of Emperors. It is to the former that it apper-
tains to decide matters of dogma and faith. As for you, your duty is to
obey them and not to usurp their place. ” Leo, exasperated, suddenly
brought the assembly to a close, and next day a decree appeared for-
bidding thenceforward the discussion of religious questions. The resist-
ance of the opposition party only gathered strength.
“For my part,"
declared Theodore of Studion, “I had rather have my tongue cut out,
than fail to bear testimony to our Faith and defend it with all my might
by my power of speech. What! are you to have full liberty to main-
tain error, and are we to keep silence concerning the truth! That we
will never do. We will not give our tongue into captivity, no, not for
an hour, and we will not deprive the faithful of the support of our
words. ” Did the Emperor dread the influence of the Studites ? At all
events, he pretended to yield, and at the Christmas festival 814 he
solemnly did reverence to the icons at St Sophia. But before long he
took his resolve.
In the month of March 815 the Patriarch Nicephorus was banished,


## p. 31 (#73) ##############################################

Theodore of Studion and the freedom of the Church
31
and in his place was set up an official of the palace, Theodotus Cassiteras,
wholly devoted to the Emperor's policy. It was in vain that the monks
of the Studion arranged solemn demonstrations in honour of the holy
images, and that on Palm Sunday 815 more than a thousand religious
walked in procession round the monastery, each bearing an icon in his
hands and singing the canticle,“We venerate your sacred images, O blessed
Saints. ” The Emperor retorted by convoking a Council at St Sophia (815),
which confirmed the canons of the Synod of 753, proscribed images after
its example, declaring that they were mere “idols,” and recommended
worship in spirit and in truth. ” Nor did the assembly resist the temp-
tation to cast parenthetic reproach on the memory of Irene, recalling the
happy state of the Church “up to the day when the imperial sceptre
had fallen from the hands of men into those of a woman, and when,
through the folly of that woman, the Church of God was ruined. ” It
was the controversy over images breaking out afresh. But while the
earlier iconoclast movement had lasted more than half a century, the
second was to endure barely twenty-five years (815-842). This time
the enemies of icons were to find confronting them, particularly in the
monks of the Studion, a resistance better organised, more vigorous, and
more dangerous also. In its defence of images the Byzantine Church
now really aspired to something beyond. She openly aimed at casting
off the authority of the State and winning her freedom, and in order to
secure her independence she did not hesitate to appeal to the Pope
against the Emperor and, despite her former repugnance, to recognise
the primacy of the Roman Church. This is the characteristic feature
distinguishing the second phase of the great controversy. Between
Church and State, then, there was waged at Constantinople much the
same conflict which, in the West, took later on the form of the struggle
over Investitures.
However, Leo V at first tried moderate methods. But the Studites
were immovable, and the opportunists, fearful of seeing the struggle re-
opened, lent their support to the uncompromising monks. Theodore
of Studion was banished (815) and his monks scattered, while against
images as well as their defenders persecution was let loose. “The altars
have been overthrown," writes Theodore of Studion, “and the temples
of the Lord laid waste; a lamentable sight it is to see the churches of
God despoiled of their glory and disfigured. Among my brethren, some
have had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, others of chains and
prison on a little bread and water, some have been condemned to exile,
others reduced to live in the deserts and mountains and in dens and caves
of the earth, others after receiving many stripes have gone hence to the
Lord as martyrs. Some there are who have been fastened in sacks
and thrown by night into the sea. ” Again, he says, “The holy vessels are
melted down, the sacred vestments cast to the flames, with the pictures
and the books which contain anything concerning images. Inquisition is
יל
CH. II.


## p. 32 (#74) ##############################################

32
Murder of Leo V. Accession of Michael the Amorian
ול
made, and questions put from house to house, with threats and terrorism,
so that no single picture may escape the heretics. He who most signalises
himself by his rage against Christ is judged worthy of the most honour.
But for those who resist--scourges, chains, prison, the tortures of
famine, exile, death. They have only one thought—to compel everyone
to yield. The persecution we endure is beyond any persecution by the
barbarians. ”
From his distant exile, Theodore, without truce or intermission,
valiantly encouraged the resistance. “Are we to yield,” he wrote, “are we
to keep silence, and out of fear give obedience to men and not to God?
No, never. Until a door is opened unto us by the Lord, we shall not
cease to fulfil our duty as much as in us lies. ” He renewed and repeated,
therefore, the letters and exhortations which he addressed to Pope
Paschal, appealing for justice and help: “Listen to us, 0 Apostolic
Head, charged by God with the guidance of Christ's sheep, porter of the
heavenly kingdom, rock of the Faith on which is built the Catholic
Church, for you are Peter, you are the successor of Peter, whose throne
you honourably fill. ” The Pope, with no great success, attempted to
intervene, and the struggle went on, becoming ever more embittered.
In the face of the Emperor's severities many ended by giving way.
“ Nearly all spirits quail,” writes Theodore of Studion himself, “and give
attestations of heresy to the impious. Among the bishops, those of
Smyrna and Cherson have fallen ; among abbots, those of Chrysopolis,
of Dios, and of Chora, with nearly all those of the capital. ” Leo the
Armenian seemed to have won the day.
But his fall was at hand. Even in his own circle plots were hatching
against him, and one of his old companions in arms, Michael the
Stammerer, Count of the Excubitors, was at the head of the conspirators.
Leo V had him arrested, and to save him his friends hazarded a bold
stroke. On 25 December 820, while the Emperor was attending the
morning office of the Nativity, mingling, as was his custom, his voice
with those of the choristers, the plotters, who had contrived to slip in
among the congregation, struck him down at the foot of the altar.
Michael, instantly set at liberty, was proclaimed, and, while his feet were
still loaded with fetters, was seated on the imperial throne. With him
began the Phrygian dynasty (Michael was a native of Amorium), which
for three generations, from 820 to 867, was to rule the Empire.
The new sovereign (820—829) was, it would appear, somewhat in-
different in religious matters. “I have not come,” he said to the former
Patriarch Nicephorus, “ to introduce innovations in matters of faith and
dogma, nor to question or overthrow what is fixed by tradition and has
gained acceptance. Let every man, then, do as seems him good and
right; he shall have no vexation to undergo, and no penalty to fear. ”
He began, therefore, by recalling the exiles ; he set at liberty the victims


## p. 33 (#75) ##############################################

His tolerant policy
33
of the preceding reign, and flattered himself that by assembling a con-
ference, in which the orthodox and the iconoclasts should deliberate
together over the question of images, he could bring them to an agree-
ment and restore peace. Theodore of Studion, who had returned to
Constantinople, flatly refused to enter into any relations with the
heretics, and, faithful to the doctrine which he had always maintained,
he declared to the prince: “ There is no question here of human and
temporal things in which kings have power to judge ; but of divine and
heavenly dogmas, which have been entrusted to those only to whom God
has said: “Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in
heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed also in
heaven. ' Who are they who have received this power ? The Apostles
and their successors.
As to emperors and sovereigns, their part is to
lend their support and approbation to what has been decreed. No
power
has been granted them by God over the divine dogmas, and if they
exercise such, it will not be lasting. ”
The Emperor was ill-inclined to accept these admonitions. He
signified his pleasure by setting on the patriarchal throne, at the death
of Theodotus Cassiteras (821), not the former Patriarch Nicephorus,
whose restoration the Studites demanded, but an avowed enemy of
images, Anthony, Bishop of Syllaeum. Much displeased also at the nego-
tiations which his opponents were carrying on with Rome, he gave a
very ill reception to the monk Methodius who brought him letters from
Paschal I; he caused him to be scourged, and imprisoned him for more
than eight years in a little island in the Gulf of Nicomedia. It is true
that, when in 822 the formidable insurrection of Thomas broke out in
Asia Minor, Michael thought it prudent to recall to Constantinople the
monks, whom he had again banished from it; “it was by no means,"
says the biographer of Theodore of Studion, “from any tenderness
towards theni, but in dread lest some should espouse the cause of Thomas,
who passed for a supporter of image-worship. ” But on the ending of the
civil war by the defeat of the rebel (823), Michael thought himself in a
position to act more vigorously. Convinced that it was above all the
support of Rome which encouraged the uncompromising temper of his
adversaries, he began a correspondence with the Emperor of the West,
Louis the Pious, and, in a curious letter of 824, denounced to him the
abuses of image worship, and requested his intervention at Rome, in
order to induce the Papacy to put an end to them. Under these con-
ditions it became difficult for the defenders of icons to remain at
Constantinople. Theodore of Studion withdrew to a convent in Bithynia
and died there in 826. The iconoclast policy was triumphant; but,
faithful to the promises of toleration made on the morrow of his
accession, Michael refrained from all violence against his opponents; while
personally constant to his resolve to render no worship to images, he left
those who thought otherwise freedom to cling to what seemed to them
the orthodox faith.
C. MED. H. VOL. IV, CA. II.
3


## p. 34 (#76) ##############################################

34
Theophilus: revival of persecution
Theophilus, his son and successor (829–842), shewed more zeal in
combating icons. Sincerely pious, and delighting, like the true Byzantine
prince he was, in theological discussions, of a systematic turn of mind,
and obstinate to boot, it was not long before he came to consider
Michael II's politic tolerance inadequate, and, under the influence of his
former tutor, John Hylilas, whom he raised to the patriarchal throne in
832, he resolved to battle vigorously with the iconodule party. Severe
measures were ordered to prevent its propaganda and to strike at its
leaders; to banish, especially from Constantinople, the proscribed pictures,
and to punish any painter who dared to produce them. Once again terror
reigned: convents were closed, the prisons were filled with victims, and
some of the punishments inflicted were of extraordinary cruelty. The two
Palestinian monks, Theodore and Theophanes, who stand out, after the
death of Theodore of Studion, as the foremost champions of the icons,
were first banished, then recalled to Constantinople, where the Emperor
caused to be branded on their foreheads with red-hot irons certain
insulting verses which he had composed for the purpose. Hence the
name of Graptoi, bestowed on them in hagiographical writings. Lazarus,
the painter of icons, was also imprisoned and barbarously tortured ;
Theophilus ordered, it is said, that his hands should be burned with
red-hot irons. Other supporters of pictures were exiled. But the work
of the iconoclast Emperor was ephemeral. Even in the palace, the
sympathies of the prince's own circle were secretly with the forbidden
images: the Empress Theodora and her mother Theoctiste hardly con-
cealed their feelings, and the Basileus was not unaware of it. He also
realised that the whole Empire besides was weary of an interminable
struggle leading to no result. It was vain for him to exact on his death-
bed from his wife Theodora, whom he left Regent, and from the ministers
who were to assist her, a solemn oath to make no change in his policy,
and not to disturb in his office the Patriarch John, who had been its chief
inspirer (842). Rarely has a last injunction been made more utterly in
vain.
II.
While the second phase of the quarrel of the images was thus develop-
ing, events of grave importance were taking place within the Empire as
well as without.
Irene's crime against her son, by diverting the succession from the
Isaurian dynasty, had re-opened the chapter of revolutions. The old
Empress had been overthrown by a plot; other conspiracies were con-
stantly to disturb the reigns of her successors.
First in time (803) came the rising of Bardanes Turcus, who, originally
strategus of the Anatolics, had been placed by Nicephorus in supreme
command of all the troops in cantonments in Asia Minor. Intoxicated
by this great position and by his popularity among the soldiers, Bardanes


## p. 35 (#77) ##############################################

Civil Wars (802–823)
35
proclaimed himself Emperor. But the insurrection was short-lived. The
rebel leader, betrayed by his chief partisans and unable to take Constan-
tinople, threw up the game and entered the cloister.
and entered the cloister. In 808 another
plot was set on foot to place on the throne the Patrician Arsaber,
who held the high office of quaestor; in 810 there was an attempt to
assassinate the Emperor. Things were much worse after the death of
Nicephorus. During the few months that his son Stauracius reigned
(after escaping wounded from the defeat inflicted by the Bulgars on the
Byzantines) unending intrigues went on with the object of raising his
brother-in-law, Michael Rangabé, to power, and the Patriarch Nice-
phorus himself took part with the Emperor's ministers in fomenting the
revolution which dethroned him (October 811). Less than two years
afterwards, the disasters of the Bulgarian war, the discontent of the
army after the defeat of Versinicia, and the great danger threatening the
Empire, caused the fall of Michael; the soldiers proclaimed their general,
Leo the Armenian, Emperor. Entering Constantinople he seized upon
supreme power (July 813). It has already been seen that, thus raised
to the throne by an insurrection, Leo fell a victim to plotters who assas-
sinated him on Christmas morning 820.
Under Michael II, there was, for two years, little or no improvement
in the state of things; the Empire was convulsed by a terrible civil war let
loose by the insurrection of Thomas the Slavonian, an old brother-officer
of the Emperor. Professing to be Constantine VI, the dethroned son of
Irene, Thomas had won over the whole iconodule party, proclaiming him-
self its defender; he appealed to the lower classes, whose social claims
he supported, and, in this almost revolutionary movement, he gathered
round him all who were discontented. Finally, he had secured the sup-
port of the Arabs: the Caliph Ma’mūn had recognised him as Emperor,
and authorised the Patriarch of Antioch to crown him with all solemnity.
Master of nearly the whole of Asia Minor, leader of an army of more
than eighty thousand men, Thomas had now only to get possession of
Constantinople. He succeeded in leading his soldiers into Europe, and
the fleet of the themes of the Aegean and of the Cibyrrhaeots being
at his disposal, he attacked the capital by land and sea.
A first attempt
failed (December 821-February 822), but in the spring of 822 Thomas
returned to the charge, and reinforced by contingents supplied to him
from the European provinces which were warmly in favour of images, he
pushed on the siege throughout the year 822 with so much vigour that
the fall of Michael II seemed merely a question of days. Only the interven-
tion of the Bulgars saved the Emperor. In the spring of 823 the Khan
Omurtag made a descent upon Thrace. Thomas had to bring himself to
abandon Constantinople to go to meet this new enemy, by whom he was
completely beaten. Some weeks later, having been defeated by the
imperialist troops, he was compelled to throw himself into Arcadiopolis,
where he held out until the middle of October 823. In Asia Minor also,
CH, II.
3-2


## p. 36 (#78) ##############################################

36
Recognition of the Western Empire (812)
where the troops of the Armeniac and Opsician themes had remained
unshakably loyal to the Emperor, the last attempts at resistance were
crushed. But the alarm had been great, and if the defeat of Thomas'
rising had made the Phrygian dynasty safe for long years to come, on the
other hand it is certain that the continual outbreaks, coming one after
another from 802, had notably impaired the strength and exhausted the
resources of the Empire.
This was plainly to be seen in the disasters both in the East and in
the West encountered by the foreign policy of the State.
From the early days of his reign Nicephorus had made efforts to come
to a settlement of the Italian question with Charlemagne, and the treaty
of 803, which left to the Eastern Empire Venice, the Dalmatian coast,
Naples, Calabria, and Sicily, abandoned, per contra, Istria, the interior of
Dalmatia, the Exarchate of Ravenna, the Pentapolis, and Rome to the
Franks. But, as Constantinople refused to recognise the Emperor of the
West, it was not long before hostilities broke out afresh, and Frankish
intrigues in the Venetian lagoons decided Nicephorus on taking energetic
steps. A Greek fleet appeared at the head of the Adriatic (807) without,
however, enabling the Byzantines to hinder Pepin, the young Frankish
King of Italy, from taking, after a long siege, the islands of the lagoon
(810). Negotiations were therefore reopened with Aix-la-Chapelle, and
the treaty of 812, while restoring Venice to the Eastern Empire and in
other respects renewing the convention of 803, provided for the recogni-
tion by Constantinople, although reluctant, of Charlemagne's imperial
title. Thus the Greeks accepted the events of 754 and renounced their
historic rights to Italy; thus, as Charlemagne wrote, the Western Roman
Empire officially took its place side by side with the Eastern Empire;
thus, as Einhard expressed it, every occasion of stumbling was defini-
tively removed between them. But for Constantinople it was a deep
humiliation to have been forced to recognise even momentarily, even
with the secret intention of withdrawing the concession, the event which,
on Christmas Day 800, had taken place in St Peter's at Rome.
Still heavier blows fell upon the Empire in the East. The resolution
arrived at by Nicephorus, immediately upon his accession, to refuse the
tribute which Irene had been forced to pay to the Arabs, had renewed
the war between the Empire and the powerful Caliphs of the Abbasid
dynasty. It proved disastrous to the Byzantines, at least for the first ten
years; from 814 to 829, however, internal disturbances in the Moham-
medan world restored to the Greeks some degree of tranquillity in Asia.
But elsewhere the Musulmans gained alarming advantages. In 826
some Arabs, who had been driven from Spain, seized upon Crete, and
founded the stronghold of Chandax. All the efforts of the Byzantines in
the reign of Michael II to re-conquer the island proved useless, and the
Musulman corsairs, masters of so excellent a strategic position, were to


## p. 37 (#79) ##############################################

Losses to the Arabs and Bulgarians
37
become, for a century and a half, the terror of the Eastern Mediterranean.
About the same time, the rising of Euphemius in Sicily had consequences
no less serious for Constantinople. In 827 the rebel called the Musulmans
of Africa to his help, and the Aghlabid Emir, Ziyādatallāh, landed in the
island. The Arabs were not to evacuate it before the end of the eleventh
century. It is true that they failed at first before Syracuse, but then the
troops despatched from Constantinople were completely defeated at Mineo
(830), and soon after that the great town of Palermo fell into the hands
of the infidels (831). And if more than a quarter of a century, up to 859,
was still needed to complete the conquest of Sicily, yet the Arabs, from
this time onward, held in Western waters a position analogous to that
which the possession of Crete gave them in the East, and were soon from
thence to menace Southern Italy'.
The war which had been waged against the Empire, during the early
years of the ninth century, by Krum, the Khan of Bulgaria, ran an even
more terrible course. Let loose by the imprudent offensive of Nicephorus,
it was marked by sanguinary disaster. In 809 Sardica fell into the hands of
the Bulgars, and its garrison was massacred. In 811 the great expedition
which Nicephorus led into Bulgaria came to an end in the Balkan passes
with a severe defeat, in which the Byzantine army, surrounded on all
sides, was cut to pieces, and the Emperor himself slain. Thereupon Krum
committed frightful ravages in Thrace and Macedonia, and Michael I,
attempting to check him, was completely defeated at Versinicia near
Hadrianople (June 813). Even Constantinople was threatened. Krum
appeared under the walls of the capital, which was saved by the energy
of Leo V, though the surrounding districts were fearfully wasted by the
exasperated Bulgarian prince. Hadrianople fell into his hands; but Leo's
victory at Mesembria (Autumn 813) restored the fortunes of the Empire,
and the death of Krum (April 814) just as he was preparing a fresh on-
slaught upon Constantinople, sufficed to reassure the Byzantines. Shortly
afterwards a peace for thirty years was concluded between the Empire
and the new ruler of Bulgaria, Omurtag: the frontier of Thrace, dividing
the two states, was now marked by a line of fortifications running from
Develtus to Makrolivada, between Hadrianople and Philippopolis. The
fact was that the Bulgars had, at that moment, more pressing anxieties
on their western frontier; the Frankish threat was sufficiently engrossing
to make them ready to live on good terms with the Byzantine Empire”.
One last incident had disturbed the reign of Nicephorus. In 807 the
Slavs of the Peloponnesus had risen and laid siege to Patras. Legend
relates that the town was miraculously saved by its patron, St Andrew
the Apostle. At any rate, it seems that, after this outbreak, the Slav
tribes were compelled to adopt more regular habits of life, less dangerous
to the security of the country.
· For details of these events see infra, Chapter v, pp. 126-8, 134-6.
2 For details of these events see infra, Chapter viii, pp. 232-4.
CH. II.


## p. 38 (#80) ##############################################

38
Struggle with the Caliphs
In face of the difficulties which they had had to overcome, the early
Emperors of the ninth century had not been devoid of real merit. Nice-
phorus was an energetic and courageous prince and a capable adminis-
trator. Leo V was a skilful general, solicitous for the military defence of
the Empire and for the sound organisation of justice, whose great quali-
ties his very enemies acknowledged. The Patriarch Nicephorus said of
him on the morrow of his assassination: “ The Empire has lost an
impious prince, but a great defender of the public interest.
" The second
sovereign of the Phrygian dynasty was no less remarkable, and his reign
(829-842) was marked by decided improvement in the situation at home
as well as abroad.
In the East, the Caliphate had for several years been greatly dis-
turbed and weakened by the insurrection of Bābak and the communistic
sect of the Khurramites of which he was the leader. Theophilus, from the
moment of his accession, turned these conditions to good account. He
entered into negotiations with the rebels, and gave a hearty welcome to
those of them who, under the command of Theophobus, a Persian officer,
came (it is said, to the number of thirty thousand) to ask leave to serve
in the imperial army (830). The war with the Arabs immediately broke
out again. As long as the Caliph Ma'mūn lived, it was marked by varying
success, and the Emperor was more than once obliged to bring himself
to make overtures for peace. But after Ma'mūn's death (833) he assumed
the offensive more boldly. The campaign of 837 on the Euphrates proved
fortunate. Zapetra and Samosata were taken, and Theophilus celebrated
his victory by a triumphal entry into his capital. The following year,
however, the Byzantines met with a serious defeat at Dazimon, now
Tokat, and Amorium, the cradle of the royal house, was taken by the
Musulmans and sacked. The Emperor had to submit to negotiate and a
truce was signed (841). Fortunately the death of the Caliph Mu'tasim,
who was already meditating an attack on Constantinople (842), and a
disaster suffered by the Arab fleet attempting the enterprise, caused a
temporary cessation of the struggle?
About the same time the Byzantine Empire, through its diplomatic
relations, was extending its influence and increasing its reputation. In
833, at the request of the Khan of the Chazars, a Byzantine officer built
at the mouth of the Don the fortress of Sarkel. It was intended to pro-
tect the district against the attacks of the Patzinaks, and especially of
the Russians, who were beginning to threaten the shores of the Black
Sea, and who for the first time sent ambassadors to Constantinople in 838.
The Byzantine court was, besides, on good terms with the Western Em-
perors; in 839 Theophilus applied to Louis the Pious for his support in
an attack on Syria or Egypt. Similar negotiations took place with the
Umayyad Emirs of Cordova, at all times the enemies of the Abbasid
1 For details see infra, Chapter v, pp. 128–31.


## p. 39 (#81) ##############################################

Internal government of Theophilus
39
וי
Caliphs. Thus from the shores of the Crimea to the limits of the West,
Byzantine diplomacy, after a long time of isolation, resumed its earlier
activity.
But it is especially on account of his home government that Theo-
philus is still remembered. The chroniclers picture this prince much as
the Arab tales represent Hārūn ar-Rashid, as a ruler ever anxious to
render absolute justice to all his subjects, accessible to every comer,
willingly taking part in the life of the people in order to gain more
accurate information, severe towards the guilty, and eager to redress all
injustices. A good administrator, he applied himself to bringing the
finances into order, and at his death left a large reserve; the financial
prosperity enjoyed by the Empire is proved most clearly by the fact
that the gold coins (solidi, bezants) of Byzantium were current through-
out the world'.
Theophilus set himself with no less energy to secure the defensive
organisation of the Empire. In Asia, besides the ancient “five themes”
there were the new themes of Paphlagonia and Chaldia, without reckon-
ing the small military governments, or clisurae, of Seleucia, of Charsianum,
of Cappadocia, and of Colonea. On the Black Sea, the free town of
Cherson was also made into a theme, in order to strengthen the defence
against the Patzinaks and the Russians. Finally, in the European ter-
ritories where, from 813, the Peloponnesus had been constituted a separate
theme, Theophilus created the themes of Thessalonica, of Cephalonia, and
of Dyrrhachium, in order to ward off the Bulgarian threat to Macedonia
and the Arab danger in the Adriatic. Thus the military defence of the
Empire was completed and perfected.
Lastly, Theophilus was a great builder. He loved pomp and splendour
and all that might enhance the prestige of his throne. On two occasions,
in 831 and 837, he dazzled Constantinople by the magnificence of his
triumphs. He added to the beauty of the imperial palace by wonderful
buildings, in which he plainly sought to rival the glories of Baghdad.
Around the new throne-room, the Triconchus, to which the Sigma terrace
led, he raised numerous and sumptuous pavilions, glorious with many-
coloured marbles, and glittering with golden mosaics.
Still further to emphasise the beauty of his palace, he adorned it with
admirable specimens of the goldsmith's art. In the great hall of the
Magnaura was a plane-tree made of gold, shading the imperial throne,
on the branches of which golden birds were perched; at the foot of the
throne were lions couchant of gold, and on either hand golden griffins
stood sentinel; opposite was set up a golden organ, adorned with enamels
and precious stones. These masterpieces of splendour and luxury were at
the same time marvels of mechanical skill. On audience-days, when foreign
1 On the finances of the Empire at this period cf. Bury's Eastern Roman Empire
(802-867), Chapter vil, pp. 210 sqq.
CH. II.


## p. 40 (#82) ##############################################

40
Regency of Theodora
ambassadors entered the hall, the birds in the plane-tree fluttered and
sang, the griffins sat up on their pedestals, the lions arose, lashed the air
with their tails, and gave forth metallic roars. Elsewhere, a great coffer
of gold, the Pentapyrgion, served to hold the imperial insignia and the
crown jewels. Again, Theophilus had renewed the imperial wardrobe
with unheard-of splendour, the gala robes worn on days of ceremony by
the Basileus and the Augusta, the cloth of gold or gold-embroidered
garments which adorned the great dignitaries of the court when they
walked in solemn procession. He also, at great cost, restored the ramparts
of Constantinople. All this conveys a strong impression of wealth (it is
estimated that Theophilus spent more than a million a year on his build-
ing operations), of magnificence, and of beauty. Certainly Theophilus was
lacking in several of the outstanding qualities of a statesman; his religious
policy was ill-judged, and his wars not always successful. Nevertheless,
his reign is conspicuous as a time of unusual brilliancy, a proof of the
moral and material revival of the Byzantine Empire towards the middle
of the ninth century.
III.
Theophilus at his death left the throne to a child of tender
age,
his
son Michael III, who was not more than three or four years old. The
Empress Theodora, therefore, assumed the regency during the minority
of the young sovereign, her counsellors being her uncle the Magister
Manuel, and the Logothete Theoctistus. They were religious men, secretly
attached, as was the Basilissa herself, to iconodule principles, men of
good sense also, who regarded with natural anxiety the long continu-
ance of the religious strife and the serious consequences that it might
have for the dynasty. The execution of the iconodule Theophobus, the
successful general, the Emperor's own brother-in-law, which Theophilus
had ordered from his death-bed, looks like a recognition of the threaten-
ing appearance of the situation, the champions of images waiting only for
a leader to attempt a revolution. The Regent's ministers, especially her
brother Bardas, who had great influence with her, strongly urged her to
hasten the restoration of orthodoxy. The Basilissa, however, hesitated.
She had been deeply attached to her husband and put great faith in the
correctness of his political views, she was unwilling to consign his last in-
structions to oblivion, and, finally, she was much concerned at the prospect
of the anathema likely to be pronounced against the late Emperor if
iconoclasm were condemned. Nearly a year was needed to overcome the
Regent's scruples. At last, however, fearing for the throne of her son,
she came to a decision.
It was of the first importance, if the restoration of images was to be
successfully carried out, to get rid of the Patriarch John, a clever and
formidable man, whose enemies had created for him a sinister reputation
as a magician, and who was nicknamed Lekanomantis. The prelate was


## p. 41 (#83) ##############################################

Final restoration of image worship (843)
41
therefore invited to sit on the council which had just been convoked in
order to restore images to honour. John refused, and was consequently,
not without some slight maltreatment, deposed and relegated to a
monastery. In his seat was installed the monk Methodius, in former
days so harshly persecuted by Michael II, but whom Theophilus, by a
singular caprice, had admitted to intimacy on account of his scientific
attainments. Highly favoured by Theodora, the new Patriarch assumed
full control of the council which met in February 843. To please the
Empress, the bishops hastened to except Theophilus from the condemna-
tion directed against heretics, admitting without discussion the pious
fraud which represented the Emperor as having, in his last moments, re-
pented of his errors. Thanks to this compromise, the restoration of
orthodoxy was accomplished without opposition. The pictures were
solemnly reinstated in honour; the exiles and the proscribed were recalled
and welcomed in triumph; the prisoners were set at liberty; the remains
of the martyrs who had died in the struggle were brought back in state to
Constantinople; and anathemas fell upon the most famous of the icono-
clasts. Then, the work of the council having been accomplished, on the
first Sunday in Lent (19 February 843) a triumphal procession, headed
by the Empress herself, marched through the streets of the capital, from
the church of the Virgin in Blachernae to St Sophia, where the enthusi-
astic people returned thanks to the Most High. In the evening, at the
Sacred Palace, Theodora gave a great banquet, at which were assembled
the prelates and confessors and those who had suffered for the cause. It
was the festival of Orthodoxy, which from that time the Greek Church
has solemnly celebrated on the first Sunday in Lent every year, in com-
memoration of the reinstatement of images and of the blessed Theodora.
Thus, after more than a century of strife, peace was at last restored
to the Empire. But if, from the dogmatic standpoint, the victory of the
iconodule party was complete, the Church, on the other hand, was forced
to give up the tendency towards independence which some of her most
illustrious champions had shewn. One of the essential objects to which
the policy of the Iconoclast Emperors had been directed was the reduction
of the Church to entire dependence on the State. In spite of the protests
of their opponents, who, from Gregory II and John Damascene down to
the Fathers of the Council of 787 and Theodore of Studion, had with one
voice refused to the Emperor the right περί πίστεως λόγον ποιείσθαι,
,
it was this imperial policy which now proved victorious. “In the struggle,"
writes Harnack, “which for a century the Byzantine Church maintained
against the State, not her religious constitution alone, but her liberty
was at stake. On the first point, she was the victor; in the struggle for
liberty, she yielded. ” Thus, in spite of the re-establishment of orthodoxy,
the Studite party and the freedom for which they had fought were de-
feated, and the work of the Iconoclast Emperors proved not to have been
in vain.
יל
CH. 11.


## p. 42 (#84) ##############################################

42
Persecution of the Paulicians
Theodora's government, however, which lasted up to 856, assumed, as
might have been expected, somewhat of a religious complexion. The
Empress, priding herself highly on having restored orthodoxy, held it no
less important to wage war upon heresy. From the end of the seventh
century, the Paulicians,
so called from the great respect which they pro-
fessed for the Apostle Paul, had been spreading their doctrines through
Asia Minor, from Phrygia to Armenia. Their progress had been furthered
by the patronage of the Iconoclast Emperors, and the Orthodox Church
saw with great anxiety the growth of the influence and the spread of the
propaganda of sectaries whom she characterised as Manichaeans. Theo-
philus, it is not exactly known why, had allowed himself to be persuaded
into persecuting them, and part of the heretical community had from
that time sought refuge in Arab territory. Theodora was only too happy
to be able in this point to continue her husband's policy. By her orders,
the Paulicians were called upon to choose between conversion and death,
and, as they refused to yield, the imperial government set itself to break
down their resistance. Blood was shed in torrents in the parts of Asia
Minor where they were settled; it is said that one hundred thousand
persons suffered death. The survivors, led by Carbeas, one of their chiefs,
went to ask shelter from the Emir of Melitene, and settling around Te-
phrice, which became their main citadel, they soon made it clear to the
Byzantines how ill-advised they had been in thrusting into the arms of
the Musulmans men who, up till then, had valiantly defended the fron-
tiers of the Empire. It has been said with justice that the persecution
of the Paulicians was “one of the greatest political disasters of the ninth
century. "?
The pious zeal which inspired the Regent suggested to her more for-
tunate projects elsewhere. She initiated the great missionary enterprise
through which, some years later, the Gospel was to be brought to the
Chazars, the Moravians, and the Bulgars. In order to subdue the ever
restless Slav tribes of the Peloponnesus, she despatched thither the
Strategus Theoctistus Bryennius (849) who, except in the Taygetus
region where the Milengi and the Ezerites kept their autonomy, suc-
ceeded in establishing the imperial authority on a firm basis throughout
the province, and in preparing the way for the conversion of the Slavs.
Finally, Theodora, by her sound financial administration, did no small
service to the state. Unfortunately, as is often the case under feminine
government, the imperial palace was a hive of intrigue. The Logothete
Theoctistus, the Regent's chief minister, had her entire favour, and against
him her brother Bardas sought support from the young Emperor Michael,
his nephew, who, as he grew up, shewed deplorable tendencies. Bardas
used his influence to embitter the resentment of the young prince against
the Logothete, and in 856 a plot was concocted which ended in the
1 Bury, History of the Eastern Roman Empire, p. 276.


## p. 43 (#85) ##############################################

Michael III and the Caesar Bardas
43
murder of Theoctistus. This was a blow aimed full at Theodora, and
thus she understood it. For two years more she lived in the palace, until
in 858 she was requested to withdraw into a convent. But her political
career was already over. From the day after the assassination of Theoc-
tistus, Michael III had taken power into his own hands; Bardas, ap-
pointed Magister and Domestic of the Scholae, and at last in 862 almost
admitted to a share in the Empire under the title of Caesar, was for ten
years (856-866) to exercise supreme power in the name of his nephew.
In spite of the sedulous care which his mother had bestowed on his
education, Michael III, who was now about seventeen or eighteen years
old, was a prince of the worst type. Without taking too literally all
that has been related of him by chroniclers too much bent on excusing
the murder which gave the throne to Basil the Macedonian, and there-
fore disposed to blacken the character of his victim, it is certain that the
behaviour of the miserable Emperor was calculated to scandalise both the
court and the capital. He cared for nothing but pleasure, hunting,
riding, racing, wrestling of athletes; he delighted in driving a chariot on
the palace race-course and in shewing himself off before his intimates.
He frequented the lowest society, was ever surrounded by charioteers, musi-
cians, buffoons, and players; he spent part of his nights drinking (history
has bestowed on him the surname of Michael the Drunkard); he amused
himself and his unworthy favourites with coarse and indecent jests, turning
religion into ridicule, parodying the sacred rites, and in "his low and
tasteless jests sparing neither the Patriarch nor the Empress-Mother. He
wasted the money amassed by his parents in ridiculous extravagances;
public business was to him an unwelcome infliction, a mere hindrance to
his amusements, an interruption to his course of folly; in fine, he was
the natural prey of favourites for ever contending for his good graces,
and his court, where he ostentatiously displayed his mistress, Eudocia
Ingerina, was the home of ceaseless intrigue.
Bardas, who governed the Empire in the name of Michael III, was a
man of another stamp. Keenly ambitious, greedy of power and wealth,
little troubled with scruples or morals, he was, despite his vices, a man of
unquestionable capacity. Even his enemies have been unable to deny
his
great qualities. A good administrator, he prided himself on his love
of strict justice and on his incorruptibility as a minister, and in this
way he made himself highly popular. A man of great talents, he loved
letters and was interested in scientific studies. Theophilus had already
appreciated the importance of restoring Constantinople to its intellectual
pre-eminence in the Eastern world; he had been the patron of learned
men, and had heaped favours on the Patriarch John and on the great
mathematician, Leo of Thessalonica. Bardas did more. To him is due
the honour of having founded the famous school of the Magnaura, where
he gathered the most illustrious teachers of the day. Its direction was
CH. II.


## p. 44 (#86) ##############################################

44
Intellectual revival under Bardas
put into the hands of Leo of Thessalonica, one of the greatest minds of
the ninth century, whose universal learning-he was equally versed in
mathematics, medicine, and philosophy—had gained for him among his
contemporaries the reputation of a wizard and magician. Around him
were others teaching geometry, astronomy, and philology, and to en-
courage the zeal of the professors and the eagerness of their pupils, Bardas
used to pay frequent and diligent visits to the school. He counted other
learned men among his intimates: Constantine, some years afterwards to
become the apostle of the Slavs, and then teaching philosophy at the
University; Photius, the most distinguished and brilliant intellect of the
time as well as the man of most learning, who was shortly, by the favour
of the all-powerful minister, to attain the patriarchal throne of Constan-
tinople. Under the influence of Bardas, a great wave of intellectual
revival was already passing over the capital, presaging the renaissance of
the tenth century, and already, by its secular and classical character,
arousing the anxiety of the Church. It has been justly remarked that
henceforward there was to be no more interruption, no further period of
darkness breaking into the literary activities of the Byzantines, until the
fall of Constantinople, and that one of the most valid claims to glory of
the Amorian dynasty in the history of civilisation is undoubtedly the
interest which the court then shewed in education and learning?
Bardas had still another honour, that of successfully accomplishing,
with the help of the Patriarch Photius, the great work of the conversion
of the Slavs”. Two men were the renowned instruments in the work,
Constantine, better known under his name in religion, Cyril, and his
brother Methodius, “the Apostles of the Slavs," as history still calls
them to-day. Constantine, the younger of the two, after having been at
first a professor at the University of Constantinople, had, about 860,
successfully carried out a mission to Christianise the Chazars; he was
thus marked out for the work when, towards 863, Rostislav, Prince of
Great Moravia, requested of the Byzantine court that his people might
be instructed in the Christian Faith. In 864 Cyril and Methodius set
out, and they carried with them the means of assuring the success of
their undertaking. Natives of Thessalonica, and thus quite familiar with
the language and customs of the Slavs, who on all sides dwelt around that
great Greek city, the two missionaries well understood the necessity of
speaking to those whom they desired to convert in their own tongue.
For their benefit, therefore, they translated the Gospel into a dialect
akin to that spoken by the Moravians, and, in order to transcribe it,
they invented an alphabet from the Greek minuscule, the Glagolitic
script. At the same time, Cyril and Methodius introduced into Moravia
a Slav liturgy, they preached in the language, and did their utmost to train
Slav clergy. Thus it was that their success was achieved, and after their
a
1
Bury, op. cit. p. 435.
2 See infra, Chapter vilB.


## p. 45 (#87) ##############################################

Conversion of Bulgaria to Orthodoxy
45
first stay in Moravia, Rome herself expressed her approbation of the
methods they had employed in their undertaking (868). It is true that
later on, owing to the opposition and intrigues of the German clergy,
the work so magnificently begun was quickly ruined. But nevertheless,
the glory remained to Constantinople of having, at the same time that
she brought the orthodox faith to the Slavs, created the alphabet and the
liturgical language in use amongst them to-day.
The conversion of Bulgaria was another triumph for Constantinople.
From the first thirty years of the ninth century, Christianity had begun
to make its way among the Bulgars, and imperial policy watched its
progress with interest, seeing in it a means of strengthening Byzantine
influence in this barbarian kingdom. On his side, Tsar Boris, placed as he
was between the Greek Empire and that great Moravia which, at this very
time, was accepting Christianity, realised that he could no longer remain
pagan. But he hesitated between the orthodoxy of Constantinople and
the Roman faith offered him by Germany, whose ally he had become.