No More Learning

Some of
the provincial troops were dexterously won over ; then a pretext was
found for removing from the capital and disbanding such regiments of
the guard as were ill-disposed. Finally, the Council was convoked at
Nicaea in Bithynia; it was opened in the presence of the papal legates
on 24 September 787. This was the seventh Ecumenical Council.
Three hundred and fifty bishops were present, surrounded by a fervent
crowd of monks and igumens. The assembly found a month sufficient for
the decision of all the questions before it. The worship of images was
restored, with the single restriction that adoration (Natpeia) should not
be claimed for them, but only veneration (Tipoo kúvnois); the doctrine
concerning images was established on dogmatic foundations; finally,
under the influence of Plato, Abbot of Sakkudion, ecclesiastical dis-
cipline and Christian ethics were restored in all their strictness, and a
strong breeze of asceticism pervaded the whole Byzantine world. The
victorious monks had even higher aims in view ; from this time Plato
and his nephew, the famous Theodore of Studion, dreamed of claiming
for the Church absolute independence of the State, and denied to the
Emperor the right to intermeddle with anything involving dogma or
religion. This was before long to produce fresh conflicts graver and of
higher importance than that which had arisen out of the question of
images.
In November 787 the Fathers of the Church betook themselves to
Constantinople, and in a solemn sitting held in the Magnaura palace
the Empress signed with her own hand the canons restoring the beliefs
which she loved. And the devout party, proud of such a sovereign, hailed
her magniloquently as the “Christ-supporting Empress whose govern-
ment, like her name, is a symbol of peace” (xplotopópos Eipnun,
φερωνύμως βασιλεύουσα).
).
יל
CH. I.


## p. 22 (#64) ##############################################

22
Irene and Constantine VI
Irene's ambition was very soon to disturb the peace
which was still
insecure. Constantine VI was growing up; he was in his eighteenth
year. Between a son who wished to govern and a mother with a passion
for supreme power a struggle was inevitable. To safeguard her work, not
less than to retain her authority, Irene was to shrink from nothing, not
even from crime.
Formerly, at the outset of the reign, she had, as a matter of policy,
negotiated a marriage for her son with Charlemagne's daughter. She now
from policy broke it off, no doubt considering the Frankish alliance less
necessary to her after the Council of Nicaea, but, above all, dreading lest
the mighty King Charles should prove a support to his son-in-law
against her. She forced another marriage upon Constantine (788) with a
young Paphlagonian, named Maria, from whom she knew she had nothing
to fear. Besides this, acting in concert with her minister Stauracius, the
Empress kept her son altogether in the background. But Constantine VI
in the end grew tired of this state of pupilage and conspired against the
all-powerful eunuch (January 790). Things fell out ill with him. The
conspirators were arrested, tortured, and banished; the young Emperor
himself was Aogged like an unruly boy and put under arrest in his
apartments. And Irene, counting herself sure of victory, and intoxicated,
besides, with the flatteries of her dependents, required of the army an
oath that, so long as she lived, her son should never be recognised as
Emperor, while in official proclamations she caused her name to be placed
before that of Constantine.
She was running great risks. The army, still devoted to the memory
of Constantine V, was further in very ill humour at the checks which it
had met with through Irene's foreign policy. The Arab war, renewed by
the Caliph Hārūn ar-Rashid (September 786), had been disastrous both
by land and sea. In Europe the imperial troops had been beaten by the
Bulgars (788). In Italy the breach with the Franks had led to a disaster.
A strong force, sent to the peninsula to restore the Lombard prince,
Adelchis, had been completely defeated, and its commander slain (788).
The troops attributed these failures to the weakness of a woman's govern-
ment. The regiments in Asia, therefore, mutinied (790), demanding the
recognition of Constantine VI, and from the troops in Armenia the in-
surrection spread to the other themes. Irene took the alarm and abdicated
(December 790). Stauracius and her other favourites fell with her, and
Constantine VI, summoning round him the faithful counsellors of his
grandfather and his father, took power into his own hands.
The young Emperor seems to have had some really valuable qualities.
He was of an energetic temper and martial instincts; he boldly resumed
the offensive against the Arabs (791-795) and against the Bulgars (791).
Though the latter in 792 inflicted a serious defeat on him, he succeeded
in 796 during a fresh campaign in restoring the reputation of his troops.
All this recommended him to the soldiers and the people. Unfortunately


## p. 23 (#65) ##############################################

Constantine VI sole ruler: intrigues of Irene
23
his character was unstable: he was devoid of lasting suspicion or resentment.
Barely a year after the fall of Irene, yielding to her pressing requests, he
restored to her the title of Empress and associated her in the supreme
power. At the same time he took back Stauracius as his chief minister.
Irene came back thirsting for vengeance and more eager than ever in
pursuit of her ambitious designs. She spent five patient years working
up her triumph, and with diabolical art bred successive quarrels between
her son and all who were attached to him, lowering him in the eyes of
the army, undermining him in the favour of the people, and finally ruin-
ing him with the Church.
At the very beginning she used her newly regained influence to rouse
Constantine's suspicions against Alexius Muselé, the general who had
engineered the pronunciamento of 790, succeeding so well that the Em-
peror disgraced him and had him blinded. On learning this usage of
their leader the legions in Armenia mutinied, and the Emperor was
obliged to go in person to crush the revolt (793). This he did with great
harshness, thus alienating the hearts of the soldiers who were his best
support. At the same time, just as on the morrow of the Bulgar defeat
(792), the Caesars, his uncles, again bestirred themselves. Irene persuaded
her son to put out the eyes of the eldest and to cut out the tongues of
the four others, an act of cruelty which availed little, and made the prince
extremely unpopular with the iconoclasts. Then, to excite public opinion
against him, she devised a last expedient.
Constantine VI had become enamoured of one of the Empress-mother's
maids of honour, named Theodote, and Irene had lent herself complai-
santly to this passion. She even counselled her son to put away his wife
in order to marry the girl--as she was well aware of the scandal which
would follow. The Emperor lent a ready ear to this advice. In spite of the
opposition of the Patriarch Tarasius, who courageously refused a demand
to facilitate the divorce, he dismissed Maria to a convent and married
Theodote (September 795). There was a general outburst of indignation
throughout the religious party at this adulterous connexion. The monks,
especially those of the Sakkudion with Plato and Theodore at their head,
abounded in invective against the bigamous Emperor, the “new Herod,”
and condemned the weakness of the Patriarch in tolerating this abomina-
tion. Irene surreptitiously encouraged their resistance. In vain did Con-
stantine VI flatter himself that, by courtesy and calmness, he could allay
the excitement of his opponents, even going so far as to pay a visit in
person to the monks of the Sakkudion (796) and coolly replying to their
insults" that he did not intend to make martyrs. ” At last, however, in
the face of their uncompromising mood, he lost patience. He caused the
monks of the Sakkudion to be arrested, beaten, imprisoned, and exiled.
These severities only exasperated public opinion, which Irene turned to
her own advantage. While the court was at the baths of Prusa, she
worked
up the plot which was to restore her to power. It burst forth
св. І


## p. 24 (#66) ##############################################

24
Irene reigns as Emperor
17 July 797. The Emperor was arrested and imprisoned at the Palace,
in the Porphyry Chamber where he had been born, and by his mother's
orders his eyes were put out. He was allowed, with his wife Theodote,
to end his days in peaceful obscurity. Irene was Empress.
The devout party were determined to see in this odious crime of a
mother against her son nothing but the just punishment of an adulterous
and persecuting Emperor, and traced the hand of Providence in an
event which brought back to power the most pious Irene, the restorer
of orthodoxy. She, quite unmoved, boldly seized upon the govern-
ment, and, as though intoxicated with her omnipotence and with the
delight of having realised her dreams, did not hesitate—such a thing
had never been seen and never was to be seen again in Constantinople-
to assume, woman as she was, the title of Emperor. Skilfully, too, she
secured her authority and maintained her popularity. She banished to
Athens the Caesars, her brothers-in-law, who were again conspiring (797),
and a little later she had the four younger blinded (799). To her friends the
monks she gave tokens of favour, building new monasteries and richly en-
dowing the famous convents of the Sakkudion in Bithynia and the Studion
in Constantinople. In order to win over the people, she granted large
remissions of taxation, lowering the customs duties and the taxes on pro-
visions. The delighted capital greeted its benefactress with acclamations.
Meanwhile, secret intrigues were being woven around the Empress,
now aged and in bad health. Irene's favourites, Stauracius and Aëtius,
had dreams of securing the throne for one of their relatives, there being
now no legitimate heir. And for more than a year there raged round
the irritated and suspicious Irene a heated and merciless struggle.
Stauracius was the first to die, in the middle of 800. While the By-
zantine court wore itself out in these barren disputes, the Arabs, under
the rule of Hārūn ar-Rashid, again took the offensive and forced the
Empire to pay them tribute (798). In the West, peace was signed with
the Franks, Benevento and Istria being ceded to them (798). Soon an
event of graver importance took place. On 25 December 800, in St Peter's
at Rome, Charlemagne restored the Empire of the West, a deep humilia-
tion for the Byzantine monarchy which claimed to be the legitimate heir
of the Roman Caesars.
It is said that a sensational project was conceived in the brains both
of Charlemagne and Irene—that of a marriage which should join their
two monarchies under one sceptre, and restore, more fully than in the
time of Augustus, Constantine, or Justinian, the ancient unity of the orbis
Romanus. In spite of the distinct testimony of Theophanes, the story
lacks verisimilitude. Intrigues were, indeed, going on round the old
Empress more eagerly than ever. Delivered from his rival Stauracius,
Aëtius was pushing his advantage hotly. Other great lords were
opposing him, and the Logothete-General, Nicephorus, was utilising the
common dissatisfaction for his own ends. The iconoclasts also were
secretly planning their revenge. On 31 October 802 the revolution broke


## p. 25 (#67) ##############################################

Deposition of Irene
25
לי
out. The palace was carried without difficulty, and Nicephorus pro-
claimed Emperor. Irene, who was absent at the Eleutherian Palace,
was arrested there and brought back to the capital; she did nothing
in her own defence. The people, who were attached to her, openly
shewed themselves hostile to the conspirators, and the coronation, at
which the Patriarch Tarasius had no scruple in officiating, was some-
what stormy. Irene, “like a wise woman, beloved of God," as a con-
temporary says, submitted to accomplished facts. She was exiled, first
to the Princes Islands, and then, as she still seemed too near, to Lesbos.
She died there soon afterwards (August 803).
Her contemporaries forgave everything, even her crines, to the pious
and orthodox sovereign, the restorer of image-worship. Theophanes,
as well as Theodore of Studion, overwhelm with praise and fattery the
blessed Irene, the new Helena, whose actions “shine like the stars. ' In
truth, this famous sovereign was essentially a woman-politician, ambitious
and devout, carried away by her passion for empire even into crime, one
who did more injury than service to the interests of the monarchy. By
her too exclusive absorption in the work of restoring images, she weakened
the Empire without and left it shrunken territorially and shaken morally.
By the exaggerated deference which she shewed to the Church, by the
position which, thanks to her, that Church, with strength renewed by
the struggle, assumed in the Byzantine community, by the power which
the devout and monastic party under such leaders as Theodore of Studion
acquired as against the State, the imperial authority found itself seriously
prejudiced. The deep divisions left by the controversy over images pro-
a dangerous state of discontent and unrest; the defeated icono-
clasts waited impatiently, looking for their revenge. Finally, by her
intrigues and her crime, Irene had made a perilous return to the period
of palace revolutions, which her glorious predecessors, the Isaurian
Emperors, had brought to a close for nearly a century.
duced
And yet at the dawn of the ninth century the Byzantine Empire still
held a great place in the world. In the course of the eighth century,
through the loss of Italy and the restoration of the Empire of the
West, and also through the preponderance in the Byzantine Empire
of its Asiatic provinces, that Empire became an essentially Oriental
monarchy.
And this development in a direction in which it had for
a long time been tending, finally determined its destiny and the part
it was to play. One of the greatest services rendered by the Isaurian
Emperors had been to put a period to the advance of Islām; the Empire
was to be thenceforward the champion of Europe against the infidel.
In the same way, as against barbarism, it was to remain throughout the
East of Europe the disseminator of the Christian Faith and the guardian
of civilisation.
Despite the bitterness of the quarrel over images, the Byzantine State
CH, I.


## p. 26 (#68) ##############################################

26
The achievements of the Isaurian Emperors
came forth from the ordeal with youth renewed, full of fervour and
vigour. The Church, not only stronger but also purer for the conflict,
had felt the need of a moral reformation which should give her fresh life.
Between 797 and 806, in the Studion monastery, the Abbot Theodore
had drawn up for his monks that famous rule which, with admirable
feeling for practical administration, combines manual work, prayer, and
regard for intellectual development. In lay society, taught and led by
the preaching of the monks, we find a like stress laid on piety, chastity,
and renunciation. No doubt among these devoted and enthusiastic
spirits a strange hardness may sometimes be noticed, and the heat of
the struggle occasionally generated in them a singular perversion of the
moral sense and a forgetfulness of the most elementary ideas of justice,
to say nothing of a tendency to superstition. But these pious souls and
these holy women, of whom the eighth century offers so many examples,
lent an unparalleled lustre to the Byzantine Church; and since for some
years it was they who were the leaders of opinion, that Church drew
from them and kept throughout the following century a force and a
greatness never equalled.
The opponents of images, on their side, have contributed no less to
this splendour of Byzantine civilisation. Though making war upon
icons, the Isaurian Emperors were anything but Puritans. In place of
the religious pictures which they destroyed they caused secular and even
still-life subjects to be portrayed in churches and palaces alike-scenes
of the kind formerly affected by Alexandrine art, horse-races, hippodrome
games, landscapes with trees and birds, and also historical scenes depicting
the great military events of the time. In the style of this Iconoclastic
art, especially in its taste for the decorative, there is a genuine return to
antique traditions of the picturesque, mingled with influences derived
from the Arab East. This was by no means all to be lost. The rena-
scence of the tenth century owed more than is generally thought to
these new tendencies of the Iconoclastic period.
The same character is traceable in the thoroughly secular and oriental
splendour with which the Byzantine court surrounded itself, in the
lustre of its fêtes, which were still almost pagan, such as the Brumalia,
in which traditions of antiquity were revived, in the taste for luxury
shewn by private individuals and even by churchmen. With this taste
for elegance and art there was a corresponding and very powerful intel-
lectual advance. It will suffice to recall the names of George Syncellus
and Theophanes, of John Damascene and Theodore of Studion, of the
Patriarchs Tarasius and Nicephorus, to notice the wide development
given to education, and the breadth of mind and tolerance to be met
with among certain men of the day, in order to realise that here also the
Iconoclastic period had been far from barren. Certainly the Empire in
the ninth century had still many years to go through of disaster and
anarchy. Yet from the government of the Isaurian Emperors a new
principle of life had sprung, which was to enrich the world for ever.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Internal government of Theophilus
39
וי
Caliphs. Thus from the shores of the Crimea to the limits of the West,
Byzantine diplomacy, after a long time of isolation, resumed its earlier
activity.
But it is especially on account of his home government that Theo-
philus is still remembered. The chroniclers picture this prince much as
the Arab tales represent Hārūn ar-Rashid, as a ruler ever anxious to
render absolute justice to all his subjects, accessible to every comer,
willingly taking part in the life of the people in order to gain more
accurate information, severe towards the guilty, and eager to redress all
injustices. A good administrator, he applied himself to bringing the
finances into order, and at his death left a large reserve; the financial
prosperity enjoyed by the Empire is proved most clearly by the fact
that the gold coins (solidi, bezants) of Byzantium were current through-
out the world'.
Theophilus set himself with no less energy to secure the defensive
organisation of the Empire. In Asia, besides the ancient “five themes”
there were the new themes of Paphlagonia and Chaldia, without reckon-
ing the small military governments, or clisurae, of Seleucia, of Charsianum,
of Cappadocia, and of Colonea. On the Black Sea, the free town of
Cherson was also made into a theme, in order to strengthen the defence
against the Patzinaks and the Russians. Finally, in the European ter-
ritories where, from 813, the Peloponnesus had been constituted a separate
theme, Theophilus created the themes of Thessalonica, of Cephalonia, and
of Dyrrhachium, in order to ward off the Bulgarian threat to Macedonia
and the Arab danger in the Adriatic. Thus the military defence of the
Empire was completed and perfected.
Lastly, Theophilus was a great builder.