The reign of the soldier John Tzimisces, like that of Nicephorus
Phocas, was military in character, and events of note in home politics
(with the exception of religious events) are few in number.
Phocas, was military in character, and events of note in home politics
(with the exception of religious events) are few in number.
Cambridge Medieval History - v4 - Eastern Roman Empire
As to Bringas,
he was of course dismissed, and was detained at a distance from Con-
stantinople in a monastery, where he died in 971. These arrangements
made, Nicephorus turned his thoughts towards a marriage with Theophano,
both from personal and from political considerations. The matter, how-
ever, was not quite so simple as at first it looked. Both the Church and
## p. 73 (#115) #############################################
His marriage with Theophano
73
lay society might have something to say on the subject. It was probably
in order to gain time to reconcile the public mind to the idea, as well as
to observe the proprieties, that Nicephorus, acting in accord with the
Empress, sent her away to the palace of Petrion on the Golden Horn
until the day fixed for the wedding. It took place on 20 September, six
months almost to a day after the death of Romanus. As might have
been expected, it aroused great displeasure among the clergy. St Atha-
nasius was much incensed against his old friend, and Polyeuctes,
finding himself tricked, steadily refused communion to Nicephorus for a
whole year. For, on the one hand, there was to the monks, of whom the
Patriarch was one, something distinctly scandalous in the spectacle of
this man of fifty marrying a woman in the twenties; this austere general,
ascetic almost to a fault, who had vowed to end his days as a celibate in
a monastery, now, having by the help of the Church attained to supreme
power, suddenly uniting himself to Theophano, one of the most ill-famed
and vicious of women, utterly repulsive in the eyes of the religious world.
On the other hand, the newly-wedded couple, having both been widowed,
could not, without doing penance, enter upon a second marriage. The
determined refusal of Polyeuctes was, however, very offensive both to
Nicephorus and Theophano. We are told that Nicephorus never forgave
the Patriarch. This Polyeuctes was soon to learn, and not only he but
the whole body of the clergy was to suffer in consequence.
The ecclesiastical struggle, thus inauspiciously begun on the marriage-
day of Nicephorus, ended only with his death. If the chroniclers are
to be trusted, it was further envenomed by the rumours set afloat
by a court chaplain named Stylianus. He claimed, indeed, that the
Emperor's marriage with Theophano was unlawful and void, because
Nicephorus had stood godfather to one, if not two, of the Empress'
children. The canons were absolutely conclusive against such unions,
which were forbidden by "spiritual affinity. ” It is not very easy to
determine how much foundation there was for the statement. It is
certainly strange if Polyeuctes were ignorant of a circumstance so serious
and notorious, and if Nicephorus and Theophano on their side took no
notice of this ecclesiastical impediment. Was the allegation of Stylianus
made before or after the marriage ceremony? Even on this point the
chroniclers give us no answer. However this may be, one thing is plain,
that Polyeuctes was roused, and he demanded of Nicephorus under the
heaviest canonical penalties the repudiation of Theophano. Naturally the
Emperor refused, and at once gathered together an assembly, half
ecclesiastical and half lay, to discuss the question. This miniature council,
composed of court bishops and officials devoted to the royal family, made
no difficulty about coming to the decision which Nicephorus would be
likely to desire. The regulation on which Polyeuctes relied was, it was
decided, invalid, although its meaning was unmistakable, because it had
been put forth in the name of a heretical Emperor, Constantine
CH. III.
## p. 74 (#116) #############################################
74
Nicephorus' hostility to the monks
Copronymus. Further, to bolster up this rather pitiful decision, Stylianus
came forward to declare solemnly that Nicephorus had never been
godfather to any one of the imperial children, and that he himself had
never spoken the incriminating words. It is not known whether Polyeuctes
was convinced, but it is probable, for, averse from compromise as he was,
he yet admitted the Emperor to the Holy Communion. But what after
all do these stories amount to? Nothing can be positively known. It is
plain that they fit in badly with what knowledge we have of the manners
of the age and the characters of its chief personages. It would appear
that, if the struggle had been as heated and as much founded in reason
on the part of the Patriarch as is represented, the latter would not
then have hesitated to maintain his condemnation and Nicephorus would
probably have deposed him. If both consented to an apparent reconcilia-
tion, we must believe that the chroniclers either exaggerated, or what is
more likely, misunderstood the nature of the dispute. It is not impossible
that at bottom the whole affair was merely a quarrel got up by the
monks, who were indignant at the conduct of Nicephorus and at his
marriage.
This explanation of these events is supported by the fact that
at once, in 964, Nicephorus, as though to take his revenge, published
a Novel as strange as it was revolutionary against the monks. He,
who had once so greatly loved the religious, turned suddenly to scoffing
at and sitting in judgment on his old friends. “The monks,” he says,
“possess none of the evangelical virtues; they think only of acquiring
worldly goods, of building, and of enriching themselves. Their life differs
in nothing from that of the thorough worldling. ” They were ordered to
leave the cities and go forth into the wilderness, abandoning all their
lands and goods. It was no doubt to help them along this path that he
forbade (though he had himself given large sums to St Athanasius when
he founded his convent on Mount Athos) that new monasteries should
be established or others enriched by new donations, or that lands, fields,
or villas should be left by will to convents, hospitals, or clergy.
This celebrated Novel had, it would seem, a double object. It
gave Nicephorus the means of avenging himself upon the monks for the
humiliations they had lately inflicted on him, and it enabled him also to
find the necessary supplies which he wanted to carry on the war. "The
revenues were intended indeed,” he said, “ to be distributed to the poor,
but in reality they profited none but the clergy, and this while the
soldiers, who were going forth to fight and die for God and the Emperor,
lacked even necessaries. ” The fact was that Nicephorus wished as Em-
peror to prosecute the expeditions which he had begun as a private
subject. From 964 to 966 the Empire resounded with the clash of arms.
While his generals were fighting the African Arabs in Sicily and Cyprus,
Nicephorus himself twice went forth to encounter the Asiatic Saracens
in Cilicia, Mesopotamia, and Syria. For these distant wars he needed
ור
## p. 75 (#117) #############################################
Ecclesiastical and military legislation
75
large sums of money, and it was the property of the clergy, which as long
as he lived he never spared, that supplied him with funds.
This doubled-edged policy was made clear and obvious during the
winter of 966-967, immediately upon the Emperor's return to Constan-
tinople. Thanks to the court bishops, in residence at the capital and
thus in the Emperor's power, he embodied in an edict a measure in the
highest degree injurious to the Church. For the future it was declared
unlawful to nominate any subject to a bishopric without the Emperor's
consent. In this way Nicephorus made sure of having bishops entirely
at his devotion, and at the same time he could seize upon the Church
revenues, whether during the vacancy of a see or after an appointment
had been made. There are many examples to prove this. It is not
known what attitude the clergy took up on this matter. In no quarter
do we hear of revolts or of coercive measures, but doubtless such a policy
must have powerfully furthered the rise of the popular movement which
thrust Nicephorus from power. In any case, the first demand of Poly-
euctes on the accession of Tzimisces was to be for the abrogation of these
anti-clerical measures.
The last fact which the chroniclers record in connexion with ecclesi-
astical matters in this reign, is the strange idea conceived by the Emperor
of constraining the Church to venerate as martyrs those who had fallen
in the warfare against the infidel. Naturally, nobody was found willing
to comply with this eccentric demand, and Nicephorus was compelled to
abandon a project opposed by Polyeuctes and the whole of the clergy.
Putting aside this perennial quarrel with the churchmen, which
itself had a military aim, Nicephorus seems during his short reign
to have had little attention to spare for anything but his soldiers and
the army. It was this, indeed, which before long predisposed the popu-
lace towards that movement of revolt which was to bring about his
speedy ruin. Quite early in the reign, after the example of his predeces-
sors, Nicephorus revived the laws favouring the small military holdings
and protecting them against the vexatious and extortionate purchase of
them by the great. He granted his soldiers the widest facilities for
regaining possession of their lands when they had been sold or stolen,
and this evidently with a view to retaining their services in the army.
Then, legislating in accordance with his own experience, he issued a
Novel dealing with the Armenian fundi, that is, the fiefs belonging to
those Armenian soldiers, mercenaries in the service of the Empire, who
had obtained military lands in return for their services but did not always
fulfil the obligations which their tenure imposed upon them. In 967 and
at another date not exactly known, Nicephorus issued two more Novels
touching landed property, and especially the property of the rich. The
Emperor required that each man should keep what he possessed, or at
least should acquire lands only from those set apart for his caste. A
noble might only possess noble fiefs; a commoner only commoners' fiefs ;
CH. III.
## p. 76 (#118) #############################################
76
General discontent
a soldier only military allotments. This was plainly to protect and
strengthen the very framework of Byzantine society. Unfortunately
these laws, the character of which was further emphasised by countless
instances, were too exclusively military in their scope. The exaggerated
importance attached to the army was shewn in every possible way, and
ended by irritating and exciting the public mind. About 966 and 967
the mutterings of revolt began to be heard on every side.
If the many excesses of the army, and the marks of exclusive favour
which Nicephorus lavished on it, were the chief causes of the Byzantine
revolution which swept away the Emperor, they were not the only ones.
The anti-clerical policy of Nicephorus had already alienated numbers
of his subjects. His military policy fostered the spread of this dis-
affection. But, above all, his fiscal measures provoked general discontent.
In consequence of the wars of the Empire, more and more money was
constantly being required by the government. Taxes increased at a pro-
digious rate, while in other directions retrenchments were made in habitual
expenditure, which estranged all classes, nobles and commoners. As if all
this had been insufficient, exceptional measures were now taken. Not
only did the tax-gatherers receive strict orders; to exact the taxes, but,
more serious still, the Emperor himself trafficked in corn, wine, and oil, of
which commodities the government had a monopoly, thus causing such a
rise in the cost of living that riots began to break out in almost every
direction. On Ascension Day (9 May 967), as Nicephorus was returning
from his devotions, he was stopped by crowds of people and insulted in
the heart of Constantinople, stones and tiles being thrown at him. He
would certainly have perished, but that his faithful bodyguard covered
his hasty retreat to the palace. This insurrection had no other effect than
to make Nicephorus aware of his danger. It did not avail to change his
line of policy. For his own defence, without reckoning with his recent
fresh expenditure, he had a strong high wall built to surround the Great
Palace completely, and within its circuit, close to the sea, he erected the
fortress of Bucoleon where he was to meet his death.
Like the earlier years of Nicephorus, his last two were entirely given
up to war on all sides. There were wars in Bulgaria and Italy, and in
Syria, where Antioch and Aleppo were taken. Among home events, two
only are worth recording. One was the arrival at Constantinople in 967
of the Bulgarian ambassadors, claiming the tribute which the Empire
had been accustomed to pay to the Tsar. Nicephorus, who was on the
watch for a pretext to declare war against his neighbour, received the
ambassadors roughly, insulted them before the whole court, and drove
them ignominiously away. Soon afterwards, he set out at the head of
his troops for Bulgaria. The other event, which was of the same character,
was the embassy of Liudprand, Bishop of Cremona, now sent for the second
time to Constantinople by the Emperor Otto. Liudprand arrived in the
East on 4 June 968. His master, after his usurpations in southern Italy
## p. 77 (#119) #############################################
Murder of Nicephorus
77
and his assumption of the title of Emperor, had made him the bearer
of a pacific message and a proposal of marriage. The German sovereign
hoped to bring the struggle in Italy to an advantageous conclusion, and
to secure quiet possession of the provinces which he had conquered, by
means of a marriage between his son and Theophano, daughter of
Romanus II. The embassy met with wretched success. Liudprand, de-
tained as a half-prisoner and publicly insulted by Nicephorus and his court,
spent four months at Constantinople, and was obliged to leave without
having obtained any concession. For the time the marriage fell into
abeyance; the idea was only resumed later, and the union did not take
place until 972.
Immediately after Liudprand's embassy, about the end of July 968,
Nicephorus set out for a campaign in Asia Minor, and did not return
to Constantinople until the beginning of 969. Notwithstanding the fresh
laurels which he had reaped in Syria, only death awaited him. Disaffection
to his rule was daily growing and plots were openly discussed. On the
other hand, Theophano had found a new lover, and John Tzimisces had
become the Emperor's successful rival in love as he had already been in
war. As Schlumberger has pointed out, the whole clue to the palace
drama, in which these two were the chief actors, escapes our grasp.
How and why did Theophano and Tzimisces decide upon ridding them-
selves of Nicephorus ? We do not know, nor do contemporaries seem to
have known. All the conjectures put forward by chroniclers, Byzantine,
Arab, and Western, are possible, but of none is there a shadow of proof.
Two things only are certain, first, the passion of Theophano for Tzimisces,
secondly, the plot to kill the Emperor, which they jointly concocted
with the help of several other conspirators. The murder took place in
the night of 10–11 December 969. By Theophano's means the palace was
opened to Tzimisces and his confederates, and they, without difficulty,
made their way into Nicephorus' chamber. They found the Emperor
asleep, lying on a tiger-skin. Arousing him with kicks, they then struck
at his face with a sword, inflicting a great wound. In this state, the
conspirators, after tying his legs together, dragged him before Tzimisces,
who loaded him with insults, spurning him with his foot and plucking
out his beard. Finally he completed his work by shattering the Emperor's
skull with a sword, while another assassin ran him through the body.
This done, in order to check the revolt which was beginning, Tzimisces
immediately had himself crowned, and ordered that the head of Nicephorus
should be exhibited at a window. Next day, in great secrecy, the murdered
Emperor was buried in the church of the Holy Apostles, and thus came
to a bloody end one of the most glorious reigns, if it be looked at solely
from the military point of view, in the whole of Byzantine history.
CH. III.
## p. 78 (#120) #############################################
78
John Tzimisces: his early life
JOHN TZIMISCES (969-976).
John Tzimisces, whose true surname was Chemshkik, or Chemishgig,
which the Byzantines made into Tzimisces, belonged to an ancient and
noble Armenian family. Through his father he was related to the illustrious
house of Curcuas, and through his mother to that of Phocas. He was
born at Hierapolis in Armenia (now Chemishgadzak, i. e. birth-place of
Tzimisces) about 924 and, like Nicephorus and all his other relatives,
was a soldier from his boyhood. He early attached himself to his cousin,
and made the great campaigns of Cilicia and Syria in his company. .
At this time a close friendship united them, and we know that it was
Tzimisces who prevailed upon Nicephorus to ascend the throne. His
military renown and his exploits in battle almost equalled those of the
Emperor, and his popularity was great in the army, on account of his
bravery, his liberality, and also his personal beauty, although he was
short of stature. On the accession of Nicephorus, he received the post
vacated by the Emperor, that of Domestic of the Scholae of Anatolia,
became magister, and was entrusted with the task of prosecuting the
conquests of Nicephorus, work which be accomplished with signal success
chequered by occasional reverses. Was it these successes which alienated
the Emperor from Tzimisces ? It may be so, but the truth is not known.
One thing, however, is certain, that in 969 Tzimisces fell from favour.
It is possible, it is even probable, that there were other causes for this
disgrace. Tzimisces was not long in discovering that his former brother-
officer, though under obligations to him, did not shew him proper con-
sideration, treated him just like the other generals, and was ungrateful
towards him. Moreover, what may very well have determined him to
throw in his lot with the discontented, and to weave the conspiracy which
put an end to the reign of Nicephorus, was the influence of Theophano
herself, who had at this time a strong passion for him. In any case, it
was she who helped him in his revolt and urged him on to assassinate
Nicephorus. Finally, Leo Phocas was an inveterate foe of Tzimisces and
constantly accused him to his brother, doing all in his power to embitter
the relations between them. All these causes combined to bring about
first a complete breach and finally a violent hatred between these two
old friends and kinsmen. In 969 Tzimisces had been deprived of his
military rank, had been driven from court, and had received orders to
live in exile on the Asiatic coast on his estates in Chalcedon, whence
he was forbidden to depart. It was, however, from thence that he
set out on the night of 9-10 December to perpetrate the murder which
seated him on the throne. On attaining supreme power Tzimisces was
forty-five years old. He was the widower of a certain Maria, a sister of
Bardas Sclerus, was the lover of Theophano, and was childless. In order
to succeed to the throne after the murder of Nicephorus, he was ready to
accept any conditions which might be laid upon him. .
## p. 79 (#121) #############################################
First measures as Emperor
79
Immediately after his coronation, Tzimisces, as Nicephorus had done,
declared that he would look upon himself merely as the guardian and
protector of the legitimate sovereigns, Basil and Constantine, and as
Regent therefore of the Empire. After this, he set to work to organise
his government. He took as his chief minister the famous Basil, illegitimate
son of Romanus Lecapenus and favourite of Constantine VII, who has
already appeared as the zealous supporter of Nicephorus at the time of
his accession, who became his Parakoimomenos, or chief Chamberlain, and
received the post, created for him, of President of the Senate. Basil, for
the same reasons no doubt as Tzimisces, had abandoned the Emperor,
and when the conspiracy of 969 was formed made common cause with
the plotters. Thus, as soon as Tzimisces was seated on the throne, Basil
became the real head of the government, and by him the first measures
taken were inspired. By his orders the new sovereign was proclaimed in
every quarter of the city, and public gatherings, disorder, and pillage
were forbidden, under pain of beheading. It was not desired that the
revolutionary scenes which had marked the accession of Nicephorus should
be re-enacted in Constantinople. The next step was to dismiss all
functionaries who were in favour of the former Emperor, and to replace
them by new men. Leo Phocas and his sons, with the exception of Peter,
a eunuch, were banished to Methymna and Amasia. In this way
the
position of Tzimisces was secured.
The Patriarch Polyeuctes, who had reached a great age, was near
his end when the events of 10 December 969 took place. What was his
attitude on first hearing of the revolution we do not know, but on the
other hand we know how, despite the burden of his years, he received
Tzimisces, when the new Emperor, a week after his crime, presented
himself at St Sophia in order to be crowned. The Patriarch firmly
refused to take part in any religious ceremony until Tzimisces should
have done penance, exculpated himself from the murder of Nicephorus,
and denounced the criminals. Polyeuctes went further. On this solemn
occasion he took the revenge of his lifetime, issuing to John this ultima-
tum: “Drive first of all from the Sacred Palace the adulterous and guilty
wife, who planned and directed everything and who has certainly been
the chief mover in the crime. ” Finally, feeling perhaps the moral strength
of his own position as against this suppliant murderer, the Patriarch
took another step in advance and exacted, as a striking reparation, the
repeal of the whole of the religious legislation of the late Emperor, the
recall to their sees of all the exiled bishops, and the distribution of
the usurper's private fortune to the poor and the hospitals. John agreed
to everything. The Novels were immediately abrogated, the bishops
recalled, Theophano exiled to Proti and later to Armenia, while John
himself made no scruple of swearing that he had not lifted his hand
against Nicephorus, and denounced on oath several of his late accomplices
CH, Ul.
## p. 80 (#122) #############################################
80
Ecclesiastical affairs
as guilty of the crime. Then, as much from necessity as policy, he gave
great largess to the poor, the peasants, and even the aristocracy. This
done, Polyeuctes crowned John at Christmas 969. Before his death the
Patriarch had a last gratification, that of seeing Tzimisces faithfully fulfil
his promises as to his religious policy. The Church of Antioch having
lost its Patriarch, Christopher, Tzimisces caused Polyeuctes to appoint
in his place a holy hermit, Theodore of Colonea, who had long been known
to him. The Patriarch was spared long enough to perform the consecration
on 8 January 970. His death followed on 28 January.
The successor to Polyeuctes was proposed by Tzimisces to a synod
which he assembled when the vacancy occurred. Basil, like Theodore
of Colonea, was a poor monk of the Olympus, famous for his saintliness
and his prophecies. He was a friend of the Emperor, and when his
consecration took place on 13 February John might certainly flatter
himself that he had made a wise and fortunate choice both for the
Church and for himself. Yet this did not prove to be altogether the
case, for, in fact, in 974 a conflict broke out between the two
authorities; Basil, who had less discernment doubtless than Polyeuctes,
would have liked to turn the Church into one vast convent, and to enforce
reforms which were distasteful to the bishops. Perhaps, indeed, he went
further, and, if we are to believe Leo the Deacon, unwisely began to
super-
vise the conduct of his subordinates rather too closely. With all his
merits, we are told, “he was of a curious and investigating turn of mind. '
What is certain is that complaints were laid against him on this account,
and he was also reproached with maladministration of the Church. In
short, the Emperor was obliged to interfere. He called upon the Patriarch
to appear before his court and clear himself. Basil refused to take any
such step, alleging that he came under no jurisdiction but that of an
Ecumenical Council, which would necessarily bring in the West. This led
to his fall. While Polyeuctes, strong in his right, had maintained himself in
the see of Constantinople against all comers, Basil for his part, being very
possibly guilty of the errors laid to his charge, was deposed and sent into
exile at his monastery on the Scamander. His syncellus, Anthony of the
Studion, succeeded him. Perhaps this deposition of Basil may have some
vague connexion with affairs in Italy, and with the presence at Constanti-
nople of the exiled anti-Pope Boniface. But it seems rather unlikely, and
in any case our authorities do not make the statement. All that has been
said by historians on the subject is mere conjecture.
The death of its patron Nicephorus did not hinder the building
and extension of the Great Laura (monastery) of St Athanasius, founded
in 961. In 970 the community there was numerous enough to allow of
the saint's imposing upon them a rule, a typikon determining the laws
which should govern the monks of the Holy Mountain. Unfortunately
the typikon was ill-received and ill-observed, so much so that a revolt
broke out against the Abbot. The mutineers considered St Athana-
## p. 81 (#123) #############################################
Secular affairs
81
sius and his rules too severe, and appealed to the Emperor. This was the
reason that Tzimisces, after holding an inquiry, granted to the Laura
the chrysobull of 972 confirming the typikon of St Athanasius and
the privileges granted by Nicephorus. The monastery was declared
"autocephalous” under the sole authority of the Abbot (Igumen). The
Golden Bull laid down rules for the administration of the convent, and
its provisions are still in force to-day.
The reign of the soldier John Tzimisces, like that of Nicephorus
Phocas, was military in character, and events of note in home politics
(with the exception of religious events) are few in number. One
of the most important was certainly the revolt of Bardas Phocas in
971. Son of Leo and nephew of Nicephorus, Bardas had been banished
to Pontus on the death of the Emperor. Thanks to the good offices of
his father and other members of his family, of some of the strategi who
had remained loyal to Nicephorus, and even of some among the clergy, he
succeeded in breaking prison and in surrounding himself with partisans.
Then, taking advantage of the Russian war, which Tzimisces was just
beginning, Bardas had himself proclaimed Emperor at Caesarea, amidst
large numbers of adherents. Fortunately, civil war had not time to break
out. The Emperor's brother-in-law, Bardas Sclerus, was immediately
sent against the usurper, who, before he had struck a blow, found himself
deserted by his friends and forced to surrender. He was relegated with
his family to a monastery in the island of Chios. Next year, while
Tzimisces was at the siege of Durostolus (Silistria), Leo Phocas attempted
to regain power, but unsuccessfully. Being taken prisoner at Constanti-
nople he was blinded and in this state re-consigned to his monastery.
While the ineffectual revolt of Bardas Phocas was just about to
break out, and the preparations for the war with Russia were being
pushed feverishly on, Tzimisces took advantage of the situation to form
a fresh union. Being debarred from marrying Theophano, he fell back
upon Theodora, a princess of mature age, daughter of Constantine VII
and aunt of Romanus II. This prudent marriage gave great satisfaction
at Constantinople, for it confirmed the legitimate descendants of Basil I
upon the throne.
Before setting out for the brief and victorious Russian war, in the
spring of 972, Tzimisces found time to receive another German embassy,
which sought Constantinople in order to renew the negotiations, broken
off under Nicephorus, respecting the marriage of Theophano, daughter of
Romanus II, with the youthful Otto II. The embassy headed by Gero,
Archbishop of Cologne, reached Constantinople about the end of 971.
The girl, in spite of certain doubts which have been raised, certainly
appears to have been a genuine princess, born in the purple, and sister
of Basil II; she was betrothed, and set out for Italy. The marriage
took place at Rome on 14 April 972.
ܪ
C. MED. H. VOL. IV. CH. JI.
6
## p. 82 (#124) #############################################
82
Death of John Tzimisces
So far as we can judge from the scanty documents which have
come down to us, Tzimisces seems not to have given much of his
personal attention to the work of internal administration. His wars
occupied him sufficiently. Only one Novel issued in his name has been
preserved; it concerns the slaves taken in war. Basil the Parakoimomenos
remained chief minister up to the death of Tzimisces, and used his position
to enrich himself to a scandalous extent. This meant that the social
difficulty remained unsolved, and became even graver. All the efforts of
his predecessors had thus been fruitless. And yet the Emperor be-
haved liberally to all classes of society. He made large distributions
from his private resources. But the only genuinely useful legislative
measure which he carried out was the abolition of the highly unpopular
tax called the Kapnikon, or poll tax, which was paid only by plebeians.
The reign of John Tzimisces was being made illustrious by his
victories, when suddenly, on his return from a second campaign in
Asia, he died in Constantinople on 10 January 976. Many discussions
have arisen as to this unexpected death. Did the Emperor fall a victim
to poison or to sickness? It cannot be certainly known, but according
to Schlumberger it is most probable that he succumbed to typhus.
However this may be, John Tzimisces left the Empire devoid of all
apparent support and likely soon to be given up to all the fury of revo-
lution. No one, it is plain, foresaw what manner of man Basil II would
prove himself to be.
With Tzimisces the tale of great soldiers raised to the throne breaks
off for the time. Henceforward, power was to return to the Macedonian
House until the rise of the Comneni. The Emperors who were to reign
from 1028 to 1057 might be foreigners or men of no account. For in
fact, in contrast to what followed on the death of Romanus II, the
reins of power were now to be held by the female members of the reigning
house.
## p. 83 (#125) #############################################
CHAPTER IV.
THE MACEDONIAN DYNASTY FROM 976 TO 1057 A. D.
The death of John Tzimisces not only closed for a time the period of
great if usurping generals, but also, except for the reign of Basil II, put
an end to the great military successes of the Empire. Thenceforward, from
the death of Basil II in 1025 down to the day when a new dynasty,
that of the Comneni, came to take up the sceptre of Constantinople, the im-
perial sovereignty, while its condition became ever more and more critical,
remained in the hands of the descendants of Basil I. It was held first by
men and afterwards by women, and was discredited and degraded by
most extraordinary palace intrigues which are barely conceivable to the
Western mind.
John Tzimisces left no heir capable of succeeding him. Besides, as we
have seen, he, like Nicephorus Phocas, had always strictly reserved the
rights of the two imperial children, Basil and Constantine, the sons of
Romanus II and Theophano, of whom he had declared himself the guardian.
It was to them, consequently, that the imperial crown, according to the
hereditary principle, now fell. Basil II was the elder of the two. He was
probably born some time in the year 958, and was crowned on 22 April
960. His brother Constantine was two years younger, having been born
in 960 or 961. He, in his turn, was crowned Emperor on 7 April 961.
They both spent their early years under the guardianship of their mother
and of the two generals who successively raised themselves to the throne,
probably without suffering much, unless morally and intellectually, from
the political events which took place. Few men can have differed more
from each other than these two brothers, whose actual reigns in Constan-
tinople covered a period of 52 years. Basil II, above all a warrior and a
ruler, had no taste for luxury, art, or learning. He was a rough and arbi-
trary man, never able to throw off the soldier, a sort of Nicephorus Phocas
with a better title. Constantine, on the other hand, reminds us of his father,
and especially of his great-great-uncle, Alexander. Like the latter, he always
chose a soft and easy life, preferring the appearance of power to its reality?
and pleasures of every kind to the discipline of work. Thus Constantine
while his brother lived no more governed than did Alexander. Admitted
1 Though Psellus tells us that it was Basil who refused to share power with his
brother.
CH, IY.
6-2
## p. 84 (#126) #############################################
84
First years of Basil II
to a purely honorary share in the sovereignty, he enjoyed its dignities while
knowing nothing of its burdens. Yet, in contrast to Alexander, Con-
stantine appears on certain occasions to have shewn himself a brave
soldier, and at all events he never at any time manifested the evil and
mischievous characteristics of Leo VI's brother. He was a weakling, who
thought himself lucky to have someone more capable than himself
at his
side to undertake the direction of affairs. Of the two brothers only Con-
stantine seems to have married. At some unstated time he took to wife
Helena, the daughter of the patrician Alypius, who was the mother of his
three daughters, Eudocia, Zoë, and Theodora, two of whom were to be
rulers of Constantinople after his death up to 1056. When by the
death of Tzimisces the two young men succeeded to power, their mother
was in a convent, and there was no influential member of their family
with whom their responsibilities might have been shared. They had
no one to depend upon except their great-uncle, the famous eunuch and
parakoimomenos Basil', who had been chief minister under four Emperors,
and Bardas Sclerus the general, brother-in-law of the late Emperor John
Tzimisces, who had promised him the succession.
The first years of Basil II (976–989).
As might be expected, Basil and Bardas detested one another, and
both aspired to the chief power. The former, however, was actually in
Constantinople, and easily seized upon the helm in Basil II's name and
perhaps with his consent, while the other, who was with the army, could
only lay his plans for the future. The eunuch Basil thus, at the outset
of the new reign, remained what he had heretofore been, the real and
all-powerful minister of the Empire.
The first action of the new government was to recall Theophano from
her convent; then immediately afterwards, in order to strengthen his own
position, Basil deprived his rival of the title of Stratelates of the armies
of the East, and gave him the office of Duke of the frontier theme of
Mesopotamia. Other great officers, friends of Sclerus, were dealt with
in the same way: for instance, Michael Burtzes, who was sent to Antioch
with the titles of Duke and magister. The patrician Peter Phocas suc-
ceeded Sclerus as commander of the armies of Anatolia.
At this juncture, Bardas Sclerus appeared in Constantinople, no
doubt to be invested with his new command. The diminished importance
of his position had exasperated him, and he made so little secret of it in
his conversation that Basil ordered him to leave Constantinople at once
and rejoin his troops. This was the signal for revolt. As soon as he
reached Mesopotamia, he stirred up his army to revolt against the
eunuch, having first taken care to recall his son Romanus to his side.
1 Basil, it will be remembered, was brother of Romanus II's mother.
## p. 85 (#127) #############################################
Revolt of Bardas Sclerus
85
Like other revolts, this one, which was destined to last four years,
began with the proclamation of Bardas as Emperor, some time during
the summer of 976. The troops made no difficulty about acclaiming
their commander, and Bardas soon drew fresh and substantial contin-
gents from Armenia and even from several emirs with whom he nego-
tiated. By his orders the military funds were seized upon and the
rich landowners taxed, and in this way he obtained the money that he
needed. Then immediately opening the campaign, he made himself
master of several fortresses such as Kharput and Malatīyah, and set out
for Constantinople. Peter Phocas was at once despatched against him to
Caesarea in Cappadocia. Meanwhile the Bishop of Nicomedia received
orders to approach him with a view to an accommodation. It was labour
lost. Sclerus was bent on empire or war.
The rebel army was for long successful. After a preliminary affair
between vanguards which resulted to the advantage of his troops,
Bardas won a great victory over Peter Phocas at Lepara-Lycandus
in the autumn of 976 which threw Asia Minor open to him. The
revolt spread from place to place. Whole provinces, with their soldiers,
sailors, officials, and rich landowners, quickly ranged themselves on the
side of the victor. Civil war was everywhere, and, in consequence,
Bardas and his army penetrated by way of Caesarea to Cotyaeum.
Constantinople was panic-stricken, but Basil's energy did not fail him.
At the opening of 977 he sent off the protovestiary Leo with dis-
cretionary powers, to lead the imperial army and to buy off the muti-
neers. He was no more fortunate than Peter Phocas had been. If,
at the very outset, thanks to his skilful tactics, he gained an appreciable
advantage at Oxylithus over a detachment of the rebels, he incurred a
defeat at Rhegeas, where Peter Phocas fell, towards the end of 977.
Through this victory, Asia Minor with its fleet and troops fell into the
hands of Sclerus. It was with this great accession of strength that in the
spring of 978 he again set out for Constantinople and laid siege to Nicaea,
which was defended by Manuel Comnenus, surnamed Eroticus. But
Manuel, after a blockade of several weeks, was forced to surrender, and
Sclerus entered Nicaea, his last halting-place before Constantinople. It
was also the scene of his last triumph.
While Sclerus was gaining this brilliant success, his fleet under
the Admiral Curticius was being defeated and annihilated by the
imperial admiral, Theodore Carantenus. Nevertheless, the imperial pre-
tender advanced upon Constantinople, which was in a state of terror.
The situation was rendered graver by a revolt of the Bulgarians and a
Scarcity of soldiers. But once again the aged Basil saved the Empire,
this time by making an appeal to one of his former enemies, Bardas
Phocas, himself once a leader of revolt, who had been reduced to
impotence by the very Bardas Sclerus whom he was now about to meet
and overthrow. Bardas Phocas, having received full powers, did not
CH
. .
## p. 86 (#128) #############################################
86
Defeat of Sclerus: fall of the eunuch Basil
spend time over the defence of Constantinople. He threw himself into
Caesarea, where the broken remains of the imperial army lay under the
command of Maleinus, in order to take the army of Sclerus in the rear,
and oblige him to retrace his way into Asia Minor. This, in fact, was what
happened. Sclerus was forced to retreat from before Constantinople in
order to meet the danger from Phocas, whom he encountered not far from
Amorium in the plain of Pancalia. Here Phocas was defeated on 19 June
978, but was able to retire in good order to Charsianum, where he was
again beaten by Sclerus. Nevertheless, the game was not lost for the
imperialists. During the winter of 978-979 they obtained help from the
Curopalates of Iberia, and in the spring of 979, on 24 March, a fresh
battle was fought at Pancalia, ending, after a single combat between the
two namesakes, in the complete triumph of Phocas, the final defeat of the
rebel army, and the flight of the defeated pretender to Saracen soil.
Constantinople was thus saved.
Bardas Sclerus took refuge at Amida, and soon afterwards in the
summer of 979 was imprisoned at Baghdad with his family by the order
of the Caliph. At Constantinople it was desired that the rebel should be
handed over, and to obtain this object the parakoimomenos sent an embassy
to Baghdad headed by Nicephorus Uranus. It was unsuccessful. The
Caliph would not relax his hold on the prisoner, and Sclerus remained
in durance up to December 986. As to his followers, they were granted
an amnesty as early as 979 or 980.
But now it was the turn of the eunuch Basil. Hardly had the
Empire been momentarily saved from the revolt of Bardas Sclerus,
when the military conspirators within its borders, unmindful of the very
serious position of affairs in Italy, Bulgaria, and Syria, began plotting
anew as they had done under preceding Emperors. The parakoimo-
menos Basil, on the one hand, to whose energy the defeat of Sclerus was
due, felt himself, in spite of his immense services, more and more de-
serted by Basil II, who was becoming eager to govern in person; while on
the other hand, the great military leaders, Bardas Phocas and Leo Melis-
senus, were dreaming of a military dictatorship and looking back to their
illustrious predecessors such as Nicephorus and Tzimisces. They wanted a
part to play, and thought the rôle assigned them by the Emperor alto-
gether inadequate. For these reasons, and many others of which we are
ignorant, the whole body of great officers resolved to join hands in order
to rid themselves of Basil II. The conspiracy was hatched at Constanti-
nople, and appears to have had its ramifications in Syria and Bulgaria.
Unluckily for the plotters, the Emperor received timely warning, and the
latent antagonism between him and his old minister burst forth with
startling suddenness and violence (985). Roughly and without warning,
Basil snatched power from the hands of the parakoimomenos, drove him
from the palace, confined him to his house, and then banished him to
Bosphorus. The rest of the conspirators were now reduced to impotence,
## p. 87 (#129) #############################################
Conspiracy of Phocas and Sclerus
87
90
but the Emperor was not yet strong enough to punish all his enemies.
Melissenus and Phocas were spared. As to the parakoimomenos, his
immense fortune was confiscated, and he died soon after his fall, stripped
of everything and in a mental state bordering upon madness. Once again
plotting bad ended in a fiasco. It had served no other end than to
make the Emperor sure of himself, and to transform him wholly and
completely. “Basil,” says Zonaras, “became haughty, reserved, suspi-
cious, implacable in his anger. He finally abandoned his former life of
pleasure.
Basil II had not seen the last of ill-fortune with the fall of his minister.
Hardly was he set free from the arbitrary domination of the eunuch Basil,
when he was called upon to face fresh dangers. In the autumn of 986 he
had just returned to Constantinople, after having been defeated by the
Bulgarians on 17 August owing to lack of zeal on the part of his lieu-
tenants. Suddenly, while the Byzantine generals, Bardas Phocas at their
head, were plotting against their sovereign, the news came that Sclerus
had escaped from Baghdad, and for the second time had put forward his
pretensions at Malațīyah. It was the beginning of the year 987. Whether
he would or no, in order to win over Bardas Phocas, Basil was forced to
restore him in April to his dignity of Domestic of the Anatolian Scholae,
from which he had been dismissed after the plot of 985, and to despatch
him against Sclerus. Unfortunately, Phocas was devoid of scruples. In-
stead of doing the duty imposed on him, he betrayed his master and
entered into negotiations with Sclerus. This shews us in what peril Basil
stood. His position was further made worse by the fact that Phocas also
on 15 August 987 had himself proclaimed Emperor for the second time
with great pomp at Chresianus, nearly all the military officers rallying
round him! . Again civil war divided the Empire, while on the frontiers
the Bulgarians were making ready to invade its territory. Basil II could
not have escaped ruin had the two pretenders acted loyally towards one
another. Like professional thieves, they had agreed to march together
upon Constantinople and there to divide the Empire. Phocas was to have
the capital and the European provinces, Sclerus Asia Minor. But the
following incident intervened. More discerning than his father, young
Romanus Sclerus, divining Phocas' bad faith, refused to agree to the
proposed treaty, and going straight to Constantinople opened the
Emperor's eyes to the true state of affairs. And in truth he was right in
his suspicions, for during an interview between the two pretenders on
1 This shews what strange revulsions of fortune might be seen within a few years
at Constantinople. In 971 Bardas Phocas had himself proclaimed Emperor in OPP0-
sition to Tzimisces. Sclerus opposed and defeated him, and he retired into a convent
as a monk. In 976–977 it was Sclerus who broke out into revolt, while Phocas was
despatched against him. Ten years passed, and the two hostile leaders were again
on the scene, but this time they were acting in concert, both pretending to the
throne and both declared Emperors.
CH. IV.
## p. 88 (#130) #############################################
88
Collapse of rebellion
14 September 987, Phocas had Sclerus seized and deprived of his imperial
dignity, after which he was sent under a strong guard into confinement
at the castle of Tyropaeum in custody of Phocas' wife.
Phocas, now left to be the only pretender, at once hastened to ad-
vance upon Constantinople, nearly all Asia Minor being in his favour.
He arrived under the city walls probably in the early days of 988.
Part of his army encamped at Chrysopolis, the other half going to
besiege Abydos in order to seize at once upon the Straits, the fleet,
and the convoys which secured the food-supply of Constantinople.
Basil II faced ill-fortune with splendid energy. He had recourse to
Russia, and signed a treaty at Kiev which brought him the help of 6000
Varangians. The famous druzhina arrived during the spring of 988,
probably in April, and a few months later, in the summer, crossing over
to the coast of Asia Minor under Basil II, it met the enemy's forces in
the terrible battle of Chrysopolis, where victory remained with Basil.
Meanwhile, in the direction of Trebizond, a member of the princely
Armenian family of Taron was causing disquiet to the eastern wing of
Phocas' army, and forced the pretender to despatch his Iberian con-
tingents to the defence of their homes, while he himself hurried to
the help of his lieutenant, Leo Melissenus, at Abydos. It was around
this town that the final act in the drama took place. Constantine, Basil's
brother, was the first to set out for Abydos. He was soon followed by
Basil with the Russians, and in the spring of 989 the two armies met. The
decisive action took place on 13 April. By some accident which has
been explained, Phocas suddenly hurled himself in person against Basil, and
narrowly missing him fell dead without ever having been wounded. The
battle was now won. The rebel troops dispersed, and were cut in pieces
by the imperialists. Many prisoners were taken, and the leaders of the
revolt, with the exception of Melissenus, were executed. Basil II had
definitely triumphed over all rivals. Bardas Sclerus, it is true, was set at
liberty by Phocas' wife as soon as she learned the fate of her husband,
but his release profited him little. The new rebellion, begun in the
summer of 989, was quickly ended by a reconciliation between Basil II
and Sclerus. The latter secured his pardon, and the title of Curopalates.
All his adherents were also pardoned. The pacification was sealed by an
interview between Basil II and Sclerus in October 989. Sclerus, however,
did not long survive his fall. He died blind and in semi-captivity at
Didymotichus on 6 March 991.
During the thirteen years from 976 to 989 contemporary records,
which by the way are extremely meagre, speak of little beyond the
civil strife which dyed the Empire with blood. It is probable indeed
that all other administrative concerns were thrust into the background
by the ever fresh perils which menaced the Empire, for the few events
that are mentioned during the period all have a close connexion with
the civil war. One of the most important was unquestionably the resig-
never
## p. 89 (#131) #############################################
Ecclesiastical affairs
89
nation of the Patriarch, Anthony of Studion, in 980. We do not know
what caused his retirement from the Patriarchate, nor have we any
explanation of the fact that his successor, Nicholas Chrysoberges, was
not elected until 984. It seems, however, that the reason must be sought
in the revolt of Sclerus.
he was of course dismissed, and was detained at a distance from Con-
stantinople in a monastery, where he died in 971. These arrangements
made, Nicephorus turned his thoughts towards a marriage with Theophano,
both from personal and from political considerations. The matter, how-
ever, was not quite so simple as at first it looked. Both the Church and
## p. 73 (#115) #############################################
His marriage with Theophano
73
lay society might have something to say on the subject. It was probably
in order to gain time to reconcile the public mind to the idea, as well as
to observe the proprieties, that Nicephorus, acting in accord with the
Empress, sent her away to the palace of Petrion on the Golden Horn
until the day fixed for the wedding. It took place on 20 September, six
months almost to a day after the death of Romanus. As might have
been expected, it aroused great displeasure among the clergy. St Atha-
nasius was much incensed against his old friend, and Polyeuctes,
finding himself tricked, steadily refused communion to Nicephorus for a
whole year. For, on the one hand, there was to the monks, of whom the
Patriarch was one, something distinctly scandalous in the spectacle of
this man of fifty marrying a woman in the twenties; this austere general,
ascetic almost to a fault, who had vowed to end his days as a celibate in
a monastery, now, having by the help of the Church attained to supreme
power, suddenly uniting himself to Theophano, one of the most ill-famed
and vicious of women, utterly repulsive in the eyes of the religious world.
On the other hand, the newly-wedded couple, having both been widowed,
could not, without doing penance, enter upon a second marriage. The
determined refusal of Polyeuctes was, however, very offensive both to
Nicephorus and Theophano. We are told that Nicephorus never forgave
the Patriarch. This Polyeuctes was soon to learn, and not only he but
the whole body of the clergy was to suffer in consequence.
The ecclesiastical struggle, thus inauspiciously begun on the marriage-
day of Nicephorus, ended only with his death. If the chroniclers are
to be trusted, it was further envenomed by the rumours set afloat
by a court chaplain named Stylianus. He claimed, indeed, that the
Emperor's marriage with Theophano was unlawful and void, because
Nicephorus had stood godfather to one, if not two, of the Empress'
children. The canons were absolutely conclusive against such unions,
which were forbidden by "spiritual affinity. ” It is not very easy to
determine how much foundation there was for the statement. It is
certainly strange if Polyeuctes were ignorant of a circumstance so serious
and notorious, and if Nicephorus and Theophano on their side took no
notice of this ecclesiastical impediment. Was the allegation of Stylianus
made before or after the marriage ceremony? Even on this point the
chroniclers give us no answer. However this may be, one thing is plain,
that Polyeuctes was roused, and he demanded of Nicephorus under the
heaviest canonical penalties the repudiation of Theophano. Naturally the
Emperor refused, and at once gathered together an assembly, half
ecclesiastical and half lay, to discuss the question. This miniature council,
composed of court bishops and officials devoted to the royal family, made
no difficulty about coming to the decision which Nicephorus would be
likely to desire. The regulation on which Polyeuctes relied was, it was
decided, invalid, although its meaning was unmistakable, because it had
been put forth in the name of a heretical Emperor, Constantine
CH. III.
## p. 74 (#116) #############################################
74
Nicephorus' hostility to the monks
Copronymus. Further, to bolster up this rather pitiful decision, Stylianus
came forward to declare solemnly that Nicephorus had never been
godfather to any one of the imperial children, and that he himself had
never spoken the incriminating words. It is not known whether Polyeuctes
was convinced, but it is probable, for, averse from compromise as he was,
he yet admitted the Emperor to the Holy Communion. But what after
all do these stories amount to? Nothing can be positively known. It is
plain that they fit in badly with what knowledge we have of the manners
of the age and the characters of its chief personages. It would appear
that, if the struggle had been as heated and as much founded in reason
on the part of the Patriarch as is represented, the latter would not
then have hesitated to maintain his condemnation and Nicephorus would
probably have deposed him. If both consented to an apparent reconcilia-
tion, we must believe that the chroniclers either exaggerated, or what is
more likely, misunderstood the nature of the dispute. It is not impossible
that at bottom the whole affair was merely a quarrel got up by the
monks, who were indignant at the conduct of Nicephorus and at his
marriage.
This explanation of these events is supported by the fact that
at once, in 964, Nicephorus, as though to take his revenge, published
a Novel as strange as it was revolutionary against the monks. He,
who had once so greatly loved the religious, turned suddenly to scoffing
at and sitting in judgment on his old friends. “The monks,” he says,
“possess none of the evangelical virtues; they think only of acquiring
worldly goods, of building, and of enriching themselves. Their life differs
in nothing from that of the thorough worldling. ” They were ordered to
leave the cities and go forth into the wilderness, abandoning all their
lands and goods. It was no doubt to help them along this path that he
forbade (though he had himself given large sums to St Athanasius when
he founded his convent on Mount Athos) that new monasteries should
be established or others enriched by new donations, or that lands, fields,
or villas should be left by will to convents, hospitals, or clergy.
This celebrated Novel had, it would seem, a double object. It
gave Nicephorus the means of avenging himself upon the monks for the
humiliations they had lately inflicted on him, and it enabled him also to
find the necessary supplies which he wanted to carry on the war. "The
revenues were intended indeed,” he said, “ to be distributed to the poor,
but in reality they profited none but the clergy, and this while the
soldiers, who were going forth to fight and die for God and the Emperor,
lacked even necessaries. ” The fact was that Nicephorus wished as Em-
peror to prosecute the expeditions which he had begun as a private
subject. From 964 to 966 the Empire resounded with the clash of arms.
While his generals were fighting the African Arabs in Sicily and Cyprus,
Nicephorus himself twice went forth to encounter the Asiatic Saracens
in Cilicia, Mesopotamia, and Syria. For these distant wars he needed
ור
## p. 75 (#117) #############################################
Ecclesiastical and military legislation
75
large sums of money, and it was the property of the clergy, which as long
as he lived he never spared, that supplied him with funds.
This doubled-edged policy was made clear and obvious during the
winter of 966-967, immediately upon the Emperor's return to Constan-
tinople. Thanks to the court bishops, in residence at the capital and
thus in the Emperor's power, he embodied in an edict a measure in the
highest degree injurious to the Church. For the future it was declared
unlawful to nominate any subject to a bishopric without the Emperor's
consent. In this way Nicephorus made sure of having bishops entirely
at his devotion, and at the same time he could seize upon the Church
revenues, whether during the vacancy of a see or after an appointment
had been made. There are many examples to prove this. It is not
known what attitude the clergy took up on this matter. In no quarter
do we hear of revolts or of coercive measures, but doubtless such a policy
must have powerfully furthered the rise of the popular movement which
thrust Nicephorus from power. In any case, the first demand of Poly-
euctes on the accession of Tzimisces was to be for the abrogation of these
anti-clerical measures.
The last fact which the chroniclers record in connexion with ecclesi-
astical matters in this reign, is the strange idea conceived by the Emperor
of constraining the Church to venerate as martyrs those who had fallen
in the warfare against the infidel. Naturally, nobody was found willing
to comply with this eccentric demand, and Nicephorus was compelled to
abandon a project opposed by Polyeuctes and the whole of the clergy.
Putting aside this perennial quarrel with the churchmen, which
itself had a military aim, Nicephorus seems during his short reign
to have had little attention to spare for anything but his soldiers and
the army. It was this, indeed, which before long predisposed the popu-
lace towards that movement of revolt which was to bring about his
speedy ruin. Quite early in the reign, after the example of his predeces-
sors, Nicephorus revived the laws favouring the small military holdings
and protecting them against the vexatious and extortionate purchase of
them by the great. He granted his soldiers the widest facilities for
regaining possession of their lands when they had been sold or stolen,
and this evidently with a view to retaining their services in the army.
Then, legislating in accordance with his own experience, he issued a
Novel dealing with the Armenian fundi, that is, the fiefs belonging to
those Armenian soldiers, mercenaries in the service of the Empire, who
had obtained military lands in return for their services but did not always
fulfil the obligations which their tenure imposed upon them. In 967 and
at another date not exactly known, Nicephorus issued two more Novels
touching landed property, and especially the property of the rich. The
Emperor required that each man should keep what he possessed, or at
least should acquire lands only from those set apart for his caste. A
noble might only possess noble fiefs; a commoner only commoners' fiefs ;
CH. III.
## p. 76 (#118) #############################################
76
General discontent
a soldier only military allotments. This was plainly to protect and
strengthen the very framework of Byzantine society. Unfortunately
these laws, the character of which was further emphasised by countless
instances, were too exclusively military in their scope. The exaggerated
importance attached to the army was shewn in every possible way, and
ended by irritating and exciting the public mind. About 966 and 967
the mutterings of revolt began to be heard on every side.
If the many excesses of the army, and the marks of exclusive favour
which Nicephorus lavished on it, were the chief causes of the Byzantine
revolution which swept away the Emperor, they were not the only ones.
The anti-clerical policy of Nicephorus had already alienated numbers
of his subjects. His military policy fostered the spread of this dis-
affection. But, above all, his fiscal measures provoked general discontent.
In consequence of the wars of the Empire, more and more money was
constantly being required by the government. Taxes increased at a pro-
digious rate, while in other directions retrenchments were made in habitual
expenditure, which estranged all classes, nobles and commoners. As if all
this had been insufficient, exceptional measures were now taken. Not
only did the tax-gatherers receive strict orders; to exact the taxes, but,
more serious still, the Emperor himself trafficked in corn, wine, and oil, of
which commodities the government had a monopoly, thus causing such a
rise in the cost of living that riots began to break out in almost every
direction. On Ascension Day (9 May 967), as Nicephorus was returning
from his devotions, he was stopped by crowds of people and insulted in
the heart of Constantinople, stones and tiles being thrown at him. He
would certainly have perished, but that his faithful bodyguard covered
his hasty retreat to the palace. This insurrection had no other effect than
to make Nicephorus aware of his danger. It did not avail to change his
line of policy. For his own defence, without reckoning with his recent
fresh expenditure, he had a strong high wall built to surround the Great
Palace completely, and within its circuit, close to the sea, he erected the
fortress of Bucoleon where he was to meet his death.
Like the earlier years of Nicephorus, his last two were entirely given
up to war on all sides. There were wars in Bulgaria and Italy, and in
Syria, where Antioch and Aleppo were taken. Among home events, two
only are worth recording. One was the arrival at Constantinople in 967
of the Bulgarian ambassadors, claiming the tribute which the Empire
had been accustomed to pay to the Tsar. Nicephorus, who was on the
watch for a pretext to declare war against his neighbour, received the
ambassadors roughly, insulted them before the whole court, and drove
them ignominiously away. Soon afterwards, he set out at the head of
his troops for Bulgaria. The other event, which was of the same character,
was the embassy of Liudprand, Bishop of Cremona, now sent for the second
time to Constantinople by the Emperor Otto. Liudprand arrived in the
East on 4 June 968. His master, after his usurpations in southern Italy
## p. 77 (#119) #############################################
Murder of Nicephorus
77
and his assumption of the title of Emperor, had made him the bearer
of a pacific message and a proposal of marriage. The German sovereign
hoped to bring the struggle in Italy to an advantageous conclusion, and
to secure quiet possession of the provinces which he had conquered, by
means of a marriage between his son and Theophano, daughter of
Romanus II. The embassy met with wretched success. Liudprand, de-
tained as a half-prisoner and publicly insulted by Nicephorus and his court,
spent four months at Constantinople, and was obliged to leave without
having obtained any concession. For the time the marriage fell into
abeyance; the idea was only resumed later, and the union did not take
place until 972.
Immediately after Liudprand's embassy, about the end of July 968,
Nicephorus set out for a campaign in Asia Minor, and did not return
to Constantinople until the beginning of 969. Notwithstanding the fresh
laurels which he had reaped in Syria, only death awaited him. Disaffection
to his rule was daily growing and plots were openly discussed. On the
other hand, Theophano had found a new lover, and John Tzimisces had
become the Emperor's successful rival in love as he had already been in
war. As Schlumberger has pointed out, the whole clue to the palace
drama, in which these two were the chief actors, escapes our grasp.
How and why did Theophano and Tzimisces decide upon ridding them-
selves of Nicephorus ? We do not know, nor do contemporaries seem to
have known. All the conjectures put forward by chroniclers, Byzantine,
Arab, and Western, are possible, but of none is there a shadow of proof.
Two things only are certain, first, the passion of Theophano for Tzimisces,
secondly, the plot to kill the Emperor, which they jointly concocted
with the help of several other conspirators. The murder took place in
the night of 10–11 December 969. By Theophano's means the palace was
opened to Tzimisces and his confederates, and they, without difficulty,
made their way into Nicephorus' chamber. They found the Emperor
asleep, lying on a tiger-skin. Arousing him with kicks, they then struck
at his face with a sword, inflicting a great wound. In this state, the
conspirators, after tying his legs together, dragged him before Tzimisces,
who loaded him with insults, spurning him with his foot and plucking
out his beard. Finally he completed his work by shattering the Emperor's
skull with a sword, while another assassin ran him through the body.
This done, in order to check the revolt which was beginning, Tzimisces
immediately had himself crowned, and ordered that the head of Nicephorus
should be exhibited at a window. Next day, in great secrecy, the murdered
Emperor was buried in the church of the Holy Apostles, and thus came
to a bloody end one of the most glorious reigns, if it be looked at solely
from the military point of view, in the whole of Byzantine history.
CH. III.
## p. 78 (#120) #############################################
78
John Tzimisces: his early life
JOHN TZIMISCES (969-976).
John Tzimisces, whose true surname was Chemshkik, or Chemishgig,
which the Byzantines made into Tzimisces, belonged to an ancient and
noble Armenian family. Through his father he was related to the illustrious
house of Curcuas, and through his mother to that of Phocas. He was
born at Hierapolis in Armenia (now Chemishgadzak, i. e. birth-place of
Tzimisces) about 924 and, like Nicephorus and all his other relatives,
was a soldier from his boyhood. He early attached himself to his cousin,
and made the great campaigns of Cilicia and Syria in his company. .
At this time a close friendship united them, and we know that it was
Tzimisces who prevailed upon Nicephorus to ascend the throne. His
military renown and his exploits in battle almost equalled those of the
Emperor, and his popularity was great in the army, on account of his
bravery, his liberality, and also his personal beauty, although he was
short of stature. On the accession of Nicephorus, he received the post
vacated by the Emperor, that of Domestic of the Scholae of Anatolia,
became magister, and was entrusted with the task of prosecuting the
conquests of Nicephorus, work which be accomplished with signal success
chequered by occasional reverses. Was it these successes which alienated
the Emperor from Tzimisces ? It may be so, but the truth is not known.
One thing, however, is certain, that in 969 Tzimisces fell from favour.
It is possible, it is even probable, that there were other causes for this
disgrace. Tzimisces was not long in discovering that his former brother-
officer, though under obligations to him, did not shew him proper con-
sideration, treated him just like the other generals, and was ungrateful
towards him. Moreover, what may very well have determined him to
throw in his lot with the discontented, and to weave the conspiracy which
put an end to the reign of Nicephorus, was the influence of Theophano
herself, who had at this time a strong passion for him. In any case, it
was she who helped him in his revolt and urged him on to assassinate
Nicephorus. Finally, Leo Phocas was an inveterate foe of Tzimisces and
constantly accused him to his brother, doing all in his power to embitter
the relations between them. All these causes combined to bring about
first a complete breach and finally a violent hatred between these two
old friends and kinsmen. In 969 Tzimisces had been deprived of his
military rank, had been driven from court, and had received orders to
live in exile on the Asiatic coast on his estates in Chalcedon, whence
he was forbidden to depart. It was, however, from thence that he
set out on the night of 9-10 December to perpetrate the murder which
seated him on the throne. On attaining supreme power Tzimisces was
forty-five years old. He was the widower of a certain Maria, a sister of
Bardas Sclerus, was the lover of Theophano, and was childless. In order
to succeed to the throne after the murder of Nicephorus, he was ready to
accept any conditions which might be laid upon him. .
## p. 79 (#121) #############################################
First measures as Emperor
79
Immediately after his coronation, Tzimisces, as Nicephorus had done,
declared that he would look upon himself merely as the guardian and
protector of the legitimate sovereigns, Basil and Constantine, and as
Regent therefore of the Empire. After this, he set to work to organise
his government. He took as his chief minister the famous Basil, illegitimate
son of Romanus Lecapenus and favourite of Constantine VII, who has
already appeared as the zealous supporter of Nicephorus at the time of
his accession, who became his Parakoimomenos, or chief Chamberlain, and
received the post, created for him, of President of the Senate. Basil, for
the same reasons no doubt as Tzimisces, had abandoned the Emperor,
and when the conspiracy of 969 was formed made common cause with
the plotters. Thus, as soon as Tzimisces was seated on the throne, Basil
became the real head of the government, and by him the first measures
taken were inspired. By his orders the new sovereign was proclaimed in
every quarter of the city, and public gatherings, disorder, and pillage
were forbidden, under pain of beheading. It was not desired that the
revolutionary scenes which had marked the accession of Nicephorus should
be re-enacted in Constantinople. The next step was to dismiss all
functionaries who were in favour of the former Emperor, and to replace
them by new men. Leo Phocas and his sons, with the exception of Peter,
a eunuch, were banished to Methymna and Amasia. In this way
the
position of Tzimisces was secured.
The Patriarch Polyeuctes, who had reached a great age, was near
his end when the events of 10 December 969 took place. What was his
attitude on first hearing of the revolution we do not know, but on the
other hand we know how, despite the burden of his years, he received
Tzimisces, when the new Emperor, a week after his crime, presented
himself at St Sophia in order to be crowned. The Patriarch firmly
refused to take part in any religious ceremony until Tzimisces should
have done penance, exculpated himself from the murder of Nicephorus,
and denounced the criminals. Polyeuctes went further. On this solemn
occasion he took the revenge of his lifetime, issuing to John this ultima-
tum: “Drive first of all from the Sacred Palace the adulterous and guilty
wife, who planned and directed everything and who has certainly been
the chief mover in the crime. ” Finally, feeling perhaps the moral strength
of his own position as against this suppliant murderer, the Patriarch
took another step in advance and exacted, as a striking reparation, the
repeal of the whole of the religious legislation of the late Emperor, the
recall to their sees of all the exiled bishops, and the distribution of
the usurper's private fortune to the poor and the hospitals. John agreed
to everything. The Novels were immediately abrogated, the bishops
recalled, Theophano exiled to Proti and later to Armenia, while John
himself made no scruple of swearing that he had not lifted his hand
against Nicephorus, and denounced on oath several of his late accomplices
CH, Ul.
## p. 80 (#122) #############################################
80
Ecclesiastical affairs
as guilty of the crime. Then, as much from necessity as policy, he gave
great largess to the poor, the peasants, and even the aristocracy. This
done, Polyeuctes crowned John at Christmas 969. Before his death the
Patriarch had a last gratification, that of seeing Tzimisces faithfully fulfil
his promises as to his religious policy. The Church of Antioch having
lost its Patriarch, Christopher, Tzimisces caused Polyeuctes to appoint
in his place a holy hermit, Theodore of Colonea, who had long been known
to him. The Patriarch was spared long enough to perform the consecration
on 8 January 970. His death followed on 28 January.
The successor to Polyeuctes was proposed by Tzimisces to a synod
which he assembled when the vacancy occurred. Basil, like Theodore
of Colonea, was a poor monk of the Olympus, famous for his saintliness
and his prophecies. He was a friend of the Emperor, and when his
consecration took place on 13 February John might certainly flatter
himself that he had made a wise and fortunate choice both for the
Church and for himself. Yet this did not prove to be altogether the
case, for, in fact, in 974 a conflict broke out between the two
authorities; Basil, who had less discernment doubtless than Polyeuctes,
would have liked to turn the Church into one vast convent, and to enforce
reforms which were distasteful to the bishops. Perhaps, indeed, he went
further, and, if we are to believe Leo the Deacon, unwisely began to
super-
vise the conduct of his subordinates rather too closely. With all his
merits, we are told, “he was of a curious and investigating turn of mind. '
What is certain is that complaints were laid against him on this account,
and he was also reproached with maladministration of the Church. In
short, the Emperor was obliged to interfere. He called upon the Patriarch
to appear before his court and clear himself. Basil refused to take any
such step, alleging that he came under no jurisdiction but that of an
Ecumenical Council, which would necessarily bring in the West. This led
to his fall. While Polyeuctes, strong in his right, had maintained himself in
the see of Constantinople against all comers, Basil for his part, being very
possibly guilty of the errors laid to his charge, was deposed and sent into
exile at his monastery on the Scamander. His syncellus, Anthony of the
Studion, succeeded him. Perhaps this deposition of Basil may have some
vague connexion with affairs in Italy, and with the presence at Constanti-
nople of the exiled anti-Pope Boniface. But it seems rather unlikely, and
in any case our authorities do not make the statement. All that has been
said by historians on the subject is mere conjecture.
The death of its patron Nicephorus did not hinder the building
and extension of the Great Laura (monastery) of St Athanasius, founded
in 961. In 970 the community there was numerous enough to allow of
the saint's imposing upon them a rule, a typikon determining the laws
which should govern the monks of the Holy Mountain. Unfortunately
the typikon was ill-received and ill-observed, so much so that a revolt
broke out against the Abbot. The mutineers considered St Athana-
## p. 81 (#123) #############################################
Secular affairs
81
sius and his rules too severe, and appealed to the Emperor. This was the
reason that Tzimisces, after holding an inquiry, granted to the Laura
the chrysobull of 972 confirming the typikon of St Athanasius and
the privileges granted by Nicephorus. The monastery was declared
"autocephalous” under the sole authority of the Abbot (Igumen). The
Golden Bull laid down rules for the administration of the convent, and
its provisions are still in force to-day.
The reign of the soldier John Tzimisces, like that of Nicephorus
Phocas, was military in character, and events of note in home politics
(with the exception of religious events) are few in number. One
of the most important was certainly the revolt of Bardas Phocas in
971. Son of Leo and nephew of Nicephorus, Bardas had been banished
to Pontus on the death of the Emperor. Thanks to the good offices of
his father and other members of his family, of some of the strategi who
had remained loyal to Nicephorus, and even of some among the clergy, he
succeeded in breaking prison and in surrounding himself with partisans.
Then, taking advantage of the Russian war, which Tzimisces was just
beginning, Bardas had himself proclaimed Emperor at Caesarea, amidst
large numbers of adherents. Fortunately, civil war had not time to break
out. The Emperor's brother-in-law, Bardas Sclerus, was immediately
sent against the usurper, who, before he had struck a blow, found himself
deserted by his friends and forced to surrender. He was relegated with
his family to a monastery in the island of Chios. Next year, while
Tzimisces was at the siege of Durostolus (Silistria), Leo Phocas attempted
to regain power, but unsuccessfully. Being taken prisoner at Constanti-
nople he was blinded and in this state re-consigned to his monastery.
While the ineffectual revolt of Bardas Phocas was just about to
break out, and the preparations for the war with Russia were being
pushed feverishly on, Tzimisces took advantage of the situation to form
a fresh union. Being debarred from marrying Theophano, he fell back
upon Theodora, a princess of mature age, daughter of Constantine VII
and aunt of Romanus II. This prudent marriage gave great satisfaction
at Constantinople, for it confirmed the legitimate descendants of Basil I
upon the throne.
Before setting out for the brief and victorious Russian war, in the
spring of 972, Tzimisces found time to receive another German embassy,
which sought Constantinople in order to renew the negotiations, broken
off under Nicephorus, respecting the marriage of Theophano, daughter of
Romanus II, with the youthful Otto II. The embassy headed by Gero,
Archbishop of Cologne, reached Constantinople about the end of 971.
The girl, in spite of certain doubts which have been raised, certainly
appears to have been a genuine princess, born in the purple, and sister
of Basil II; she was betrothed, and set out for Italy. The marriage
took place at Rome on 14 April 972.
ܪ
C. MED. H. VOL. IV. CH. JI.
6
## p. 82 (#124) #############################################
82
Death of John Tzimisces
So far as we can judge from the scanty documents which have
come down to us, Tzimisces seems not to have given much of his
personal attention to the work of internal administration. His wars
occupied him sufficiently. Only one Novel issued in his name has been
preserved; it concerns the slaves taken in war. Basil the Parakoimomenos
remained chief minister up to the death of Tzimisces, and used his position
to enrich himself to a scandalous extent. This meant that the social
difficulty remained unsolved, and became even graver. All the efforts of
his predecessors had thus been fruitless. And yet the Emperor be-
haved liberally to all classes of society. He made large distributions
from his private resources. But the only genuinely useful legislative
measure which he carried out was the abolition of the highly unpopular
tax called the Kapnikon, or poll tax, which was paid only by plebeians.
The reign of John Tzimisces was being made illustrious by his
victories, when suddenly, on his return from a second campaign in
Asia, he died in Constantinople on 10 January 976. Many discussions
have arisen as to this unexpected death. Did the Emperor fall a victim
to poison or to sickness? It cannot be certainly known, but according
to Schlumberger it is most probable that he succumbed to typhus.
However this may be, John Tzimisces left the Empire devoid of all
apparent support and likely soon to be given up to all the fury of revo-
lution. No one, it is plain, foresaw what manner of man Basil II would
prove himself to be.
With Tzimisces the tale of great soldiers raised to the throne breaks
off for the time. Henceforward, power was to return to the Macedonian
House until the rise of the Comneni. The Emperors who were to reign
from 1028 to 1057 might be foreigners or men of no account. For in
fact, in contrast to what followed on the death of Romanus II, the
reins of power were now to be held by the female members of the reigning
house.
## p. 83 (#125) #############################################
CHAPTER IV.
THE MACEDONIAN DYNASTY FROM 976 TO 1057 A. D.
The death of John Tzimisces not only closed for a time the period of
great if usurping generals, but also, except for the reign of Basil II, put
an end to the great military successes of the Empire. Thenceforward, from
the death of Basil II in 1025 down to the day when a new dynasty,
that of the Comneni, came to take up the sceptre of Constantinople, the im-
perial sovereignty, while its condition became ever more and more critical,
remained in the hands of the descendants of Basil I. It was held first by
men and afterwards by women, and was discredited and degraded by
most extraordinary palace intrigues which are barely conceivable to the
Western mind.
John Tzimisces left no heir capable of succeeding him. Besides, as we
have seen, he, like Nicephorus Phocas, had always strictly reserved the
rights of the two imperial children, Basil and Constantine, the sons of
Romanus II and Theophano, of whom he had declared himself the guardian.
It was to them, consequently, that the imperial crown, according to the
hereditary principle, now fell. Basil II was the elder of the two. He was
probably born some time in the year 958, and was crowned on 22 April
960. His brother Constantine was two years younger, having been born
in 960 or 961. He, in his turn, was crowned Emperor on 7 April 961.
They both spent their early years under the guardianship of their mother
and of the two generals who successively raised themselves to the throne,
probably without suffering much, unless morally and intellectually, from
the political events which took place. Few men can have differed more
from each other than these two brothers, whose actual reigns in Constan-
tinople covered a period of 52 years. Basil II, above all a warrior and a
ruler, had no taste for luxury, art, or learning. He was a rough and arbi-
trary man, never able to throw off the soldier, a sort of Nicephorus Phocas
with a better title. Constantine, on the other hand, reminds us of his father,
and especially of his great-great-uncle, Alexander. Like the latter, he always
chose a soft and easy life, preferring the appearance of power to its reality?
and pleasures of every kind to the discipline of work. Thus Constantine
while his brother lived no more governed than did Alexander. Admitted
1 Though Psellus tells us that it was Basil who refused to share power with his
brother.
CH, IY.
6-2
## p. 84 (#126) #############################################
84
First years of Basil II
to a purely honorary share in the sovereignty, he enjoyed its dignities while
knowing nothing of its burdens. Yet, in contrast to Alexander, Con-
stantine appears on certain occasions to have shewn himself a brave
soldier, and at all events he never at any time manifested the evil and
mischievous characteristics of Leo VI's brother. He was a weakling, who
thought himself lucky to have someone more capable than himself
at his
side to undertake the direction of affairs. Of the two brothers only Con-
stantine seems to have married. At some unstated time he took to wife
Helena, the daughter of the patrician Alypius, who was the mother of his
three daughters, Eudocia, Zoë, and Theodora, two of whom were to be
rulers of Constantinople after his death up to 1056. When by the
death of Tzimisces the two young men succeeded to power, their mother
was in a convent, and there was no influential member of their family
with whom their responsibilities might have been shared. They had
no one to depend upon except their great-uncle, the famous eunuch and
parakoimomenos Basil', who had been chief minister under four Emperors,
and Bardas Sclerus the general, brother-in-law of the late Emperor John
Tzimisces, who had promised him the succession.
The first years of Basil II (976–989).
As might be expected, Basil and Bardas detested one another, and
both aspired to the chief power. The former, however, was actually in
Constantinople, and easily seized upon the helm in Basil II's name and
perhaps with his consent, while the other, who was with the army, could
only lay his plans for the future. The eunuch Basil thus, at the outset
of the new reign, remained what he had heretofore been, the real and
all-powerful minister of the Empire.
The first action of the new government was to recall Theophano from
her convent; then immediately afterwards, in order to strengthen his own
position, Basil deprived his rival of the title of Stratelates of the armies
of the East, and gave him the office of Duke of the frontier theme of
Mesopotamia. Other great officers, friends of Sclerus, were dealt with
in the same way: for instance, Michael Burtzes, who was sent to Antioch
with the titles of Duke and magister. The patrician Peter Phocas suc-
ceeded Sclerus as commander of the armies of Anatolia.
At this juncture, Bardas Sclerus appeared in Constantinople, no
doubt to be invested with his new command. The diminished importance
of his position had exasperated him, and he made so little secret of it in
his conversation that Basil ordered him to leave Constantinople at once
and rejoin his troops. This was the signal for revolt. As soon as he
reached Mesopotamia, he stirred up his army to revolt against the
eunuch, having first taken care to recall his son Romanus to his side.
1 Basil, it will be remembered, was brother of Romanus II's mother.
## p. 85 (#127) #############################################
Revolt of Bardas Sclerus
85
Like other revolts, this one, which was destined to last four years,
began with the proclamation of Bardas as Emperor, some time during
the summer of 976. The troops made no difficulty about acclaiming
their commander, and Bardas soon drew fresh and substantial contin-
gents from Armenia and even from several emirs with whom he nego-
tiated. By his orders the military funds were seized upon and the
rich landowners taxed, and in this way he obtained the money that he
needed. Then immediately opening the campaign, he made himself
master of several fortresses such as Kharput and Malatīyah, and set out
for Constantinople. Peter Phocas was at once despatched against him to
Caesarea in Cappadocia. Meanwhile the Bishop of Nicomedia received
orders to approach him with a view to an accommodation. It was labour
lost. Sclerus was bent on empire or war.
The rebel army was for long successful. After a preliminary affair
between vanguards which resulted to the advantage of his troops,
Bardas won a great victory over Peter Phocas at Lepara-Lycandus
in the autumn of 976 which threw Asia Minor open to him. The
revolt spread from place to place. Whole provinces, with their soldiers,
sailors, officials, and rich landowners, quickly ranged themselves on the
side of the victor. Civil war was everywhere, and, in consequence,
Bardas and his army penetrated by way of Caesarea to Cotyaeum.
Constantinople was panic-stricken, but Basil's energy did not fail him.
At the opening of 977 he sent off the protovestiary Leo with dis-
cretionary powers, to lead the imperial army and to buy off the muti-
neers. He was no more fortunate than Peter Phocas had been. If,
at the very outset, thanks to his skilful tactics, he gained an appreciable
advantage at Oxylithus over a detachment of the rebels, he incurred a
defeat at Rhegeas, where Peter Phocas fell, towards the end of 977.
Through this victory, Asia Minor with its fleet and troops fell into the
hands of Sclerus. It was with this great accession of strength that in the
spring of 978 he again set out for Constantinople and laid siege to Nicaea,
which was defended by Manuel Comnenus, surnamed Eroticus. But
Manuel, after a blockade of several weeks, was forced to surrender, and
Sclerus entered Nicaea, his last halting-place before Constantinople. It
was also the scene of his last triumph.
While Sclerus was gaining this brilliant success, his fleet under
the Admiral Curticius was being defeated and annihilated by the
imperial admiral, Theodore Carantenus. Nevertheless, the imperial pre-
tender advanced upon Constantinople, which was in a state of terror.
The situation was rendered graver by a revolt of the Bulgarians and a
Scarcity of soldiers. But once again the aged Basil saved the Empire,
this time by making an appeal to one of his former enemies, Bardas
Phocas, himself once a leader of revolt, who had been reduced to
impotence by the very Bardas Sclerus whom he was now about to meet
and overthrow. Bardas Phocas, having received full powers, did not
CH
. .
## p. 86 (#128) #############################################
86
Defeat of Sclerus: fall of the eunuch Basil
spend time over the defence of Constantinople. He threw himself into
Caesarea, where the broken remains of the imperial army lay under the
command of Maleinus, in order to take the army of Sclerus in the rear,
and oblige him to retrace his way into Asia Minor. This, in fact, was what
happened. Sclerus was forced to retreat from before Constantinople in
order to meet the danger from Phocas, whom he encountered not far from
Amorium in the plain of Pancalia. Here Phocas was defeated on 19 June
978, but was able to retire in good order to Charsianum, where he was
again beaten by Sclerus. Nevertheless, the game was not lost for the
imperialists. During the winter of 978-979 they obtained help from the
Curopalates of Iberia, and in the spring of 979, on 24 March, a fresh
battle was fought at Pancalia, ending, after a single combat between the
two namesakes, in the complete triumph of Phocas, the final defeat of the
rebel army, and the flight of the defeated pretender to Saracen soil.
Constantinople was thus saved.
Bardas Sclerus took refuge at Amida, and soon afterwards in the
summer of 979 was imprisoned at Baghdad with his family by the order
of the Caliph. At Constantinople it was desired that the rebel should be
handed over, and to obtain this object the parakoimomenos sent an embassy
to Baghdad headed by Nicephorus Uranus. It was unsuccessful. The
Caliph would not relax his hold on the prisoner, and Sclerus remained
in durance up to December 986. As to his followers, they were granted
an amnesty as early as 979 or 980.
But now it was the turn of the eunuch Basil. Hardly had the
Empire been momentarily saved from the revolt of Bardas Sclerus,
when the military conspirators within its borders, unmindful of the very
serious position of affairs in Italy, Bulgaria, and Syria, began plotting
anew as they had done under preceding Emperors. The parakoimo-
menos Basil, on the one hand, to whose energy the defeat of Sclerus was
due, felt himself, in spite of his immense services, more and more de-
serted by Basil II, who was becoming eager to govern in person; while on
the other hand, the great military leaders, Bardas Phocas and Leo Melis-
senus, were dreaming of a military dictatorship and looking back to their
illustrious predecessors such as Nicephorus and Tzimisces. They wanted a
part to play, and thought the rôle assigned them by the Emperor alto-
gether inadequate. For these reasons, and many others of which we are
ignorant, the whole body of great officers resolved to join hands in order
to rid themselves of Basil II. The conspiracy was hatched at Constanti-
nople, and appears to have had its ramifications in Syria and Bulgaria.
Unluckily for the plotters, the Emperor received timely warning, and the
latent antagonism between him and his old minister burst forth with
startling suddenness and violence (985). Roughly and without warning,
Basil snatched power from the hands of the parakoimomenos, drove him
from the palace, confined him to his house, and then banished him to
Bosphorus. The rest of the conspirators were now reduced to impotence,
## p. 87 (#129) #############################################
Conspiracy of Phocas and Sclerus
87
90
but the Emperor was not yet strong enough to punish all his enemies.
Melissenus and Phocas were spared. As to the parakoimomenos, his
immense fortune was confiscated, and he died soon after his fall, stripped
of everything and in a mental state bordering upon madness. Once again
plotting bad ended in a fiasco. It had served no other end than to
make the Emperor sure of himself, and to transform him wholly and
completely. “Basil,” says Zonaras, “became haughty, reserved, suspi-
cious, implacable in his anger. He finally abandoned his former life of
pleasure.
Basil II had not seen the last of ill-fortune with the fall of his minister.
Hardly was he set free from the arbitrary domination of the eunuch Basil,
when he was called upon to face fresh dangers. In the autumn of 986 he
had just returned to Constantinople, after having been defeated by the
Bulgarians on 17 August owing to lack of zeal on the part of his lieu-
tenants. Suddenly, while the Byzantine generals, Bardas Phocas at their
head, were plotting against their sovereign, the news came that Sclerus
had escaped from Baghdad, and for the second time had put forward his
pretensions at Malațīyah. It was the beginning of the year 987. Whether
he would or no, in order to win over Bardas Phocas, Basil was forced to
restore him in April to his dignity of Domestic of the Anatolian Scholae,
from which he had been dismissed after the plot of 985, and to despatch
him against Sclerus. Unfortunately, Phocas was devoid of scruples. In-
stead of doing the duty imposed on him, he betrayed his master and
entered into negotiations with Sclerus. This shews us in what peril Basil
stood. His position was further made worse by the fact that Phocas also
on 15 August 987 had himself proclaimed Emperor for the second time
with great pomp at Chresianus, nearly all the military officers rallying
round him! . Again civil war divided the Empire, while on the frontiers
the Bulgarians were making ready to invade its territory. Basil II could
not have escaped ruin had the two pretenders acted loyally towards one
another. Like professional thieves, they had agreed to march together
upon Constantinople and there to divide the Empire. Phocas was to have
the capital and the European provinces, Sclerus Asia Minor. But the
following incident intervened. More discerning than his father, young
Romanus Sclerus, divining Phocas' bad faith, refused to agree to the
proposed treaty, and going straight to Constantinople opened the
Emperor's eyes to the true state of affairs. And in truth he was right in
his suspicions, for during an interview between the two pretenders on
1 This shews what strange revulsions of fortune might be seen within a few years
at Constantinople. In 971 Bardas Phocas had himself proclaimed Emperor in OPP0-
sition to Tzimisces. Sclerus opposed and defeated him, and he retired into a convent
as a monk. In 976–977 it was Sclerus who broke out into revolt, while Phocas was
despatched against him. Ten years passed, and the two hostile leaders were again
on the scene, but this time they were acting in concert, both pretending to the
throne and both declared Emperors.
CH. IV.
## p. 88 (#130) #############################################
88
Collapse of rebellion
14 September 987, Phocas had Sclerus seized and deprived of his imperial
dignity, after which he was sent under a strong guard into confinement
at the castle of Tyropaeum in custody of Phocas' wife.
Phocas, now left to be the only pretender, at once hastened to ad-
vance upon Constantinople, nearly all Asia Minor being in his favour.
He arrived under the city walls probably in the early days of 988.
Part of his army encamped at Chrysopolis, the other half going to
besiege Abydos in order to seize at once upon the Straits, the fleet,
and the convoys which secured the food-supply of Constantinople.
Basil II faced ill-fortune with splendid energy. He had recourse to
Russia, and signed a treaty at Kiev which brought him the help of 6000
Varangians. The famous druzhina arrived during the spring of 988,
probably in April, and a few months later, in the summer, crossing over
to the coast of Asia Minor under Basil II, it met the enemy's forces in
the terrible battle of Chrysopolis, where victory remained with Basil.
Meanwhile, in the direction of Trebizond, a member of the princely
Armenian family of Taron was causing disquiet to the eastern wing of
Phocas' army, and forced the pretender to despatch his Iberian con-
tingents to the defence of their homes, while he himself hurried to
the help of his lieutenant, Leo Melissenus, at Abydos. It was around
this town that the final act in the drama took place. Constantine, Basil's
brother, was the first to set out for Abydos. He was soon followed by
Basil with the Russians, and in the spring of 989 the two armies met. The
decisive action took place on 13 April. By some accident which has
been explained, Phocas suddenly hurled himself in person against Basil, and
narrowly missing him fell dead without ever having been wounded. The
battle was now won. The rebel troops dispersed, and were cut in pieces
by the imperialists. Many prisoners were taken, and the leaders of the
revolt, with the exception of Melissenus, were executed. Basil II had
definitely triumphed over all rivals. Bardas Sclerus, it is true, was set at
liberty by Phocas' wife as soon as she learned the fate of her husband,
but his release profited him little. The new rebellion, begun in the
summer of 989, was quickly ended by a reconciliation between Basil II
and Sclerus. The latter secured his pardon, and the title of Curopalates.
All his adherents were also pardoned. The pacification was sealed by an
interview between Basil II and Sclerus in October 989. Sclerus, however,
did not long survive his fall. He died blind and in semi-captivity at
Didymotichus on 6 March 991.
During the thirteen years from 976 to 989 contemporary records,
which by the way are extremely meagre, speak of little beyond the
civil strife which dyed the Empire with blood. It is probable indeed
that all other administrative concerns were thrust into the background
by the ever fresh perils which menaced the Empire, for the few events
that are mentioned during the period all have a close connexion with
the civil war. One of the most important was unquestionably the resig-
never
## p. 89 (#131) #############################################
Ecclesiastical affairs
89
nation of the Patriarch, Anthony of Studion, in 980. We do not know
what caused his retirement from the Patriarchate, nor have we any
explanation of the fact that his successor, Nicholas Chrysoberges, was
not elected until 984. It seems, however, that the reason must be sought
in the revolt of Sclerus.
