He brought his
family with him, a strange family, to tell the truth, and one which laboured
under the disadvantage of doubtful legitimacy.
family with him, a strange family, to tell the truth, and one which laboured
under the disadvantage of doubtful legitimacy.
Cambridge Medieval History - v4 - Eastern Roman Empire
41 (#83) ##############################################
Final restoration of image worship (843)
41
therefore invited to sit on the council which had just been convoked in
order to restore images to honour. John refused, and was consequently,
not without some slight maltreatment, deposed and relegated to a
monastery. In his seat was installed the monk Methodius, in former
days so harshly persecuted by Michael II, but whom Theophilus, by a
singular caprice, had admitted to intimacy on account of his scientific
attainments. Highly favoured by Theodora, the new Patriarch assumed
full control of the council which met in February 843. To please the
Empress, the bishops hastened to except Theophilus from the condemna-
tion directed against heretics, admitting without discussion the pious
fraud which represented the Emperor as having, in his last moments, re-
pented of his errors. Thanks to this compromise, the restoration of
orthodoxy was accomplished without opposition. The pictures were
solemnly reinstated in honour; the exiles and the proscribed were recalled
and welcomed in triumph; the prisoners were set at liberty; the remains
of the martyrs who had died in the struggle were brought back in state to
Constantinople; and anathemas fell upon the most famous of the icono-
clasts. Then, the work of the council having been accomplished, on the
first Sunday in Lent (19 February 843) a triumphal procession, headed
by the Empress herself, marched through the streets of the capital, from
the church of the Virgin in Blachernae to St Sophia, where the enthusi-
astic people returned thanks to the Most High. In the evening, at the
Sacred Palace, Theodora gave a great banquet, at which were assembled
the prelates and confessors and those who had suffered for the cause. It
was the festival of Orthodoxy, which from that time the Greek Church
has solemnly celebrated on the first Sunday in Lent every year, in com-
memoration of the reinstatement of images and of the blessed Theodora.
Thus, after more than a century of strife, peace was at last restored
to the Empire. But if, from the dogmatic standpoint, the victory of the
iconodule party was complete, the Church, on the other hand, was forced
to give up the tendency towards independence which some of her most
illustrious champions had shewn. One of the essential objects to which
the policy of the Iconoclast Emperors had been directed was the reduction
of the Church to entire dependence on the State. In spite of the protests
of their opponents, who, from Gregory II and John Damascene down to
the Fathers of the Council of 787 and Theodore of Studion, had with one
voice refused to the Emperor the right περί πίστεως λόγον ποιείσθαι,
,
it was this imperial policy which now proved victorious. “In the struggle,"
writes Harnack, “which for a century the Byzantine Church maintained
against the State, not her religious constitution alone, but her liberty
was at stake. On the first point, she was the victor; in the struggle for
liberty, she yielded. ” Thus, in spite of the re-establishment of orthodoxy,
the Studite party and the freedom for which they had fought were de-
feated, and the work of the Iconoclast Emperors proved not to have been
in vain.
יל
CH. 11.
## p. 42 (#84) ##############################################
42
Persecution of the Paulicians
Theodora's government, however, which lasted up to 856, assumed, as
might have been expected, somewhat of a religious complexion. The
Empress, priding herself highly on having restored orthodoxy, held it no
less important to wage war upon heresy. From the end of the seventh
century, the Paulicians,
so called from the great respect which they pro-
fessed for the Apostle Paul, had been spreading their doctrines through
Asia Minor, from Phrygia to Armenia. Their progress had been furthered
by the patronage of the Iconoclast Emperors, and the Orthodox Church
saw with great anxiety the growth of the influence and the spread of the
propaganda of sectaries whom she characterised as Manichaeans. Theo-
philus, it is not exactly known why, had allowed himself to be persuaded
into persecuting them, and part of the heretical community had from
that time sought refuge in Arab territory. Theodora was only too happy
to be able in this point to continue her husband's policy. By her orders,
the Paulicians were called upon to choose between conversion and death,
and, as they refused to yield, the imperial government set itself to break
down their resistance. Blood was shed in torrents in the parts of Asia
Minor where they were settled; it is said that one hundred thousand
persons suffered death. The survivors, led by Carbeas, one of their chiefs,
went to ask shelter from the Emir of Melitene, and settling around Te-
phrice, which became their main citadel, they soon made it clear to the
Byzantines how ill-advised they had been in thrusting into the arms of
the Musulmans men who, up till then, had valiantly defended the fron-
tiers of the Empire. It has been said with justice that the persecution
of the Paulicians was “one of the greatest political disasters of the ninth
century. "?
The pious zeal which inspired the Regent suggested to her more for-
tunate projects elsewhere. She initiated the great missionary enterprise
through which, some years later, the Gospel was to be brought to the
Chazars, the Moravians, and the Bulgars. In order to subdue the ever
restless Slav tribes of the Peloponnesus, she despatched thither the
Strategus Theoctistus Bryennius (849) who, except in the Taygetus
region where the Milengi and the Ezerites kept their autonomy, suc-
ceeded in establishing the imperial authority on a firm basis throughout
the province, and in preparing the way for the conversion of the Slavs.
Finally, Theodora, by her sound financial administration, did no small
service to the state. Unfortunately, as is often the case under feminine
government, the imperial palace was a hive of intrigue. The Logothete
Theoctistus, the Regent's chief minister, had her entire favour, and against
him her brother Bardas sought support from the young Emperor Michael,
his nephew, who, as he grew up, shewed deplorable tendencies. Bardas
used his influence to embitter the resentment of the young prince against
the Logothete, and in 856 a plot was concocted which ended in the
1 Bury, History of the Eastern Roman Empire, p. 276.
## p. 43 (#85) ##############################################
Michael III and the Caesar Bardas
43
murder of Theoctistus. This was a blow aimed full at Theodora, and
thus she understood it. For two years more she lived in the palace, until
in 858 she was requested to withdraw into a convent. But her political
career was already over. From the day after the assassination of Theoc-
tistus, Michael III had taken power into his own hands; Bardas, ap-
pointed Magister and Domestic of the Scholae, and at last in 862 almost
admitted to a share in the Empire under the title of Caesar, was for ten
years (856-866) to exercise supreme power in the name of his nephew.
In spite of the sedulous care which his mother had bestowed on his
education, Michael III, who was now about seventeen or eighteen years
old, was a prince of the worst type. Without taking too literally all
that has been related of him by chroniclers too much bent on excusing
the murder which gave the throne to Basil the Macedonian, and there-
fore disposed to blacken the character of his victim, it is certain that the
behaviour of the miserable Emperor was calculated to scandalise both the
court and the capital. He cared for nothing but pleasure, hunting,
riding, racing, wrestling of athletes; he delighted in driving a chariot on
the palace race-course and in shewing himself off before his intimates.
He frequented the lowest society, was ever surrounded by charioteers, musi-
cians, buffoons, and players; he spent part of his nights drinking (history
has bestowed on him the surname of Michael the Drunkard); he amused
himself and his unworthy favourites with coarse and indecent jests, turning
religion into ridicule, parodying the sacred rites, and in "his low and
tasteless jests sparing neither the Patriarch nor the Empress-Mother. He
wasted the money amassed by his parents in ridiculous extravagances;
public business was to him an unwelcome infliction, a mere hindrance to
his amusements, an interruption to his course of folly; in fine, he was
the natural prey of favourites for ever contending for his good graces,
and his court, where he ostentatiously displayed his mistress, Eudocia
Ingerina, was the home of ceaseless intrigue.
Bardas, who governed the Empire in the name of Michael III, was a
man of another stamp. Keenly ambitious, greedy of power and wealth,
little troubled with scruples or morals, he was, despite his vices, a man of
unquestionable capacity. Even his enemies have been unable to deny
his
great qualities. A good administrator, he prided himself on his love
of strict justice and on his incorruptibility as a minister, and in this
way he made himself highly popular. A man of great talents, he loved
letters and was interested in scientific studies. Theophilus had already
appreciated the importance of restoring Constantinople to its intellectual
pre-eminence in the Eastern world; he had been the patron of learned
men, and had heaped favours on the Patriarch John and on the great
mathematician, Leo of Thessalonica. Bardas did more. To him is due
the honour of having founded the famous school of the Magnaura, where
he gathered the most illustrious teachers of the day. Its direction was
CH. II.
## p. 44 (#86) ##############################################
44
Intellectual revival under Bardas
put into the hands of Leo of Thessalonica, one of the greatest minds of
the ninth century, whose universal learning-he was equally versed in
mathematics, medicine, and philosophy—had gained for him among his
contemporaries the reputation of a wizard and magician. Around him
were others teaching geometry, astronomy, and philology, and to en-
courage the zeal of the professors and the eagerness of their pupils, Bardas
used to pay frequent and diligent visits to the school. He counted other
learned men among his intimates: Constantine, some years afterwards to
become the apostle of the Slavs, and then teaching philosophy at the
University; Photius, the most distinguished and brilliant intellect of the
time as well as the man of most learning, who was shortly, by the favour
of the all-powerful minister, to attain the patriarchal throne of Constan-
tinople. Under the influence of Bardas, a great wave of intellectual
revival was already passing over the capital, presaging the renaissance of
the tenth century, and already, by its secular and classical character,
arousing the anxiety of the Church. It has been justly remarked that
henceforward there was to be no more interruption, no further period of
darkness breaking into the literary activities of the Byzantines, until the
fall of Constantinople, and that one of the most valid claims to glory of
the Amorian dynasty in the history of civilisation is undoubtedly the
interest which the court then shewed in education and learning?
Bardas had still another honour, that of successfully accomplishing,
with the help of the Patriarch Photius, the great work of the conversion
of the Slavs”. Two men were the renowned instruments in the work,
Constantine, better known under his name in religion, Cyril, and his
brother Methodius, “the Apostles of the Slavs," as history still calls
them to-day. Constantine, the younger of the two, after having been at
first a professor at the University of Constantinople, had, about 860,
successfully carried out a mission to Christianise the Chazars; he was
thus marked out for the work when, towards 863, Rostislav, Prince of
Great Moravia, requested of the Byzantine court that his people might
be instructed in the Christian Faith. In 864 Cyril and Methodius set
out, and they carried with them the means of assuring the success of
their undertaking. Natives of Thessalonica, and thus quite familiar with
the language and customs of the Slavs, who on all sides dwelt around that
great Greek city, the two missionaries well understood the necessity of
speaking to those whom they desired to convert in their own tongue.
For their benefit, therefore, they translated the Gospel into a dialect
akin to that spoken by the Moravians, and, in order to transcribe it,
they invented an alphabet from the Greek minuscule, the Glagolitic
script. At the same time, Cyril and Methodius introduced into Moravia
a Slav liturgy, they preached in the language, and did their utmost to train
Slav clergy. Thus it was that their success was achieved, and after their
a
1
Bury, op. cit. p. 435.
2 See infra, Chapter vilB.
## p. 45 (#87) ##############################################
Conversion of Bulgaria to Orthodoxy
45
first stay in Moravia, Rome herself expressed her approbation of the
methods they had employed in their undertaking (868). It is true that
later on, owing to the opposition and intrigues of the German clergy,
the work so magnificently begun was quickly ruined. But nevertheless,
the glory remained to Constantinople of having, at the same time that
she brought the orthodox faith to the Slavs, created the alphabet and the
liturgical language in use amongst them to-day.
The conversion of Bulgaria was another triumph for Constantinople.
From the first thirty years of the ninth century, Christianity had begun
to make its way among the Bulgars, and imperial policy watched its
progress with interest, seeing in it a means of strengthening Byzantine
influence in this barbarian kingdom. On his side, Tsar Boris, placed as he
was between the Greek Empire and that great Moravia which, at this very
time, was accepting Christianity, realised that he could no longer remain
pagan. But he hesitated between the orthodoxy of Constantinople and
the Roman faith offered him by Germany, whose ally he had become. Con-
stantinople could not allow Bulgaria to come within the Western sphere
of influence. A military expedition recalled the prince to discretion (863),
and as his conversion, besides, was to be rewarded by an increase of
territory, he made his decision. He asked to be baptised into the
Orthodox Church, receiving the christian name of Michael (864); and
the Patriarch Photius, realising to the full the importance of the event,
delightedly hailed the neophyte as “the fairest jewel of his efforts. ”
Despite the resistance of the Bulgarian aristocracy, the Tsar compelled
his people to adopt Christianity with him. But he was soon made
uneasy by the apparent intention of Constantinople to keep him in too
strict a dependence, and so turned towards Rome, requesting the Pope,
Nicholas I, to set up the Latin rite in his kingdom. The Pope welcomed
these advances, and Roman priests, under the direction of Formosus,
began to labour in Bulgaria (866–867). This did not suit Byzantine
calculations; the imperial government had no intention of loosing its
hold
upon Bulgaria. In the council of 869 Rome was obliged to yield
to the protests of the Greeks; the Orthodox clergy were reinstated in
Bulgarian territory, and the Tsar had to reconcile himself to re-entering
sphere of action of the Greek Empire.
the
IV.
The government of Bardas had thus to a remarkable degree increased
the prestige of the Empire. Beyond the frontier, however, Arab successes
provided the shadows in the picture. The piracies of the Musulmans of
Crete brought desolation to the Aegean, and the great expedition which
the Logothete Theoctistus led against them in person (843) had produced
no better results than did the enterprise attempted against Egypt, despite
the temporary success achieved by the capture of Damietta (853). In
CH, II.
## p. 46 (#88) ##############################################
46
External dangers
Sicily the infidels were proceeding successfully with the conquest of the
island; Messina fell into their hands in 843, and Leontini in 847;
Castrogiovanni, the great Byzantine fortress in the middle of Sicily,
yielded in 859, and the Greek expedition sent to re-conquer the province
(860) was completely foiled. In Asia, where the defection of the
Paulicians had been a heavy blow to the Empire, affairs prospered no
better. It is true that, in 856, Petronas, brother of the Empress Theo-
dora, made his way into the country of Samosata and Amida, and attacked
Tephrice. But in 859 the Byzantine army, commanded by the Em-
peror himself, was beaten before Samosata, and not long afterwards (860)
at Chonarium, near Dazimon. In 863 Omar, the Emir of Melitene, took
Amisus. This time the Greeks braced themselves for a great effort, and
the brilliant victory won by Petronas at Poson, near the Halys (863),
restored for the moment the reputation of the imperial arms'.
Whilst these events were taking place, a serious and unforeseen danger
had menaced Constantinople. While the Emperor was in Asia and the
imperial fleet busied in Sicily, some Russian pirates had unexpectedly
crossed the Bosphorus and attacked the capital (860). In this emergency,
the Patriarch Photius nobly sustained the spirit of the people, and it was
rather to his energy than to the supposed intervention of the Blessed
Virgin, that the capital owed its safety. Further, the approach of the
army from Asia Minor, returning by forced marches, determined the bar-
barians upon a retreat which proved disastrous to them. And the
treaty not long afterwards concluded with the Russians, lately settled at
Kiev, opened up, towards the north, vast future prospects to the Empire.
One last event, pregnant with future consequences, marked the ad-
ministration of Bardas. This was the breach with Rome. For some con-
siderable time the chief minister had been on bad terms with the Patriarch
Ignatius, that son of the Emperor Michael Rangabé who, having been
tonsured on the death of his father, had in 847 been raised to the
patriarchate. On the feast of the Epiphany (January 858) the prelate
had thought it his duty to refuse communion to Bardas, and this the
latter never forgave. He therefore set to work to implicate Ignatius in
an alleged treasonable plot. The Patriarch was arrested and deported to
the Princes Islands, while in his place the minister procured the election
of Photius, a layman, who within six days received all the ecclesiastical
orders, and on 25 December 858 celebrated a Solemn High Mass at
St Sophia. The accession to the patriarchate of this man of mark, who
was, however, of consummate ambition, prodigious arrogance, and un-
surpassed political skill, was to bring about a formidable crisis in the
Church. Ignatius, in fact, though evil-intreated and dragged from one
place of exile to another, resolutely declined to abdicate, and his sup-
porters, above all the monks of the Studion, violently resisted the
1 For details of these events see infra, Chapter v, pp. 131-4, 136–8.
## p. 47 (#89) ##############################################
The Photian schism with Rome
usurpation of Photius. The latter, in order to compel their submissi
attempted to obtain recognition from Rome, and, by means of a m
diplomatic letter, entered into communication with Nicholas I.
Pope eagerly seized the opportunity to interfere in the dispute.
the legates whom he sent to Constantinople allowed themselves to
led astray by Photius, and the council which met in their presence at
church of the Holy Apostles (861) summoned Ignatius before it,
posed him, and confirmed the election of Photius. Nicholas I was
the man to see his wishes thus ignored. Ignatius, besides, appealed
Rome against his condemnation. At the Lateran synod (April 8
Photius and his partisans were excommunicated, and were called upon
resign their usurped functions immediately; Ignatius, on the other ha
was declared restored to the patriarchal throne.
It was the wonderful astuteness of Photius which turned a pur
personal question into an affair of national importance. Most skilfu
he turned to account the ancient grudges of the Greek Church agai
the West, the suspicion and dread always aroused in it by the claims
Rome to the primacy. He made even greater play with the ambitious
imprudent designs of Nicholas I upon the young Bulgarian Church; and
won over the whole of public opinion to his side by posing as the champ
of the national cause against the Papal usurpers. The encyclical, wh
in 867 Photius addressed to the other patriarchs of the East, summed
eloquently the grievances of the Byzantines against Rome. The coun
which was held soon after at Constantinople under the presidency of
Emperor, made the rupture complete (867). It replied to the c
demnations pronounced by Nicholas I by anathematising and deposing
Pope, and condemning the heretical doctrines and customs of the West
Church. The breach between Rome and Constantinople was comple
the schism was consummated, and Photius, to all appearance, triumpha
But his triumph was to be short-lived. The murder of Michael III,
raising Basil the Macedonian to the throne, was suddenly to overthr
the Patriarch's fortunes.
While these events, portending such serious consequences, were tak:
place, Michael III continued in his course of pleasure, folly, and debauche
By degrees, however, he became weary of the all-powerful influe
wielded by Bardas. From the year 858 or 859 the Emperor had
favourite
. This was an adventurer, the son of a poor Armenian fam
which circumstances had transplanted to Macedonia, a certain Ba
whose bodily strength and skill in breaking horses had endeared him
Michael III. This man became chief equerry, and in 862 grand chamb
lain and patrician. His obliging conduct in marrying the Emperor's m
tress
, Eudocia Ingerina, put the finishing touch to the favour he enjoy
His rapid advance could not fail to disquiet Bardas, all the more beca
Basil was unquestionably clever,and obviously extremely ambitious. T}
it was not long before the two men were engaged in a bitter strugg
CH. II.
## p. 48 (#90) ##############################################
48
Murder of Bardas and of Michael III
It ended in 866 by the murder of Bardas, who, during a campaign in
Asia, was slaughtered by his enemies under the very eyes of the Em-
peror. Thus Basil was victorious. Some weeks later the Emperor adopted
him and raised him to the dignity of Magister; soon after, he associated
him in the Empire (May 866). But with a prince such as Michael III
favour, however apparently secure, was still always uncertain, and Basil
was well aware of it. The Emperor, more addicted than ever to wine, was
now surpassing himself in wild follies and cruelties. Basil, knowing that
many were jealous of him and attempting to undermine him with the
Emperor, must have been perpetually in fear for his power and even for his
life. An incident which revealed the precariousness of his situation de-
cided him on taking action. On 23 September 867, with the help of
some faithful followers, Basil, in the palace of St Mamas, murdered the
wretched Emperor who had made him great, and, next morning, having
gained possession of the Sacred Palace, seized upon power. It seems plain
that the Empire joyfully acquiesced in the disappearance of the capricious
and cruel tyrant that Michael III had become. But Basil was more than
a skilful and lucky aspirant, he was a great statesman; by setting a new
dynasty on the throne, he was destined, through his vigorous govern-
ment, to usher in for the Empire two centuries of glory and renown.
## p. 49 (#91) ##############################################
CHAPTER III.
THE MACEDONIAN DYNASTY FROM 867 TO 976 A. D.
The race of Leo the Isaurian, which in no inglorious fashion
filled the whole of the eighth and ninth centuries with its iconocla
struggles, social reforms, and palace intrigues, nominally died out in
in the person of a debauched and incapable young Emperor, Michael
known as the Drunkard. The man who in consequence ascended the thr
by means of a crime, and founded the Macedonian dynasty, was Bas
To study the personal character and home policy of the soverei
directly or indirectly descended from him down to 1057, is, in effect
depict the leading aspects of the period, save for the ever-present strug
for existence against external foes.
Basil I (867-886).
The founder of the Macedonian dynasty was born about 8121 in
neighbourhood of Hadrianople, of a humble Macedonian family enga
in agriculture and probably of Armenian extraction. As always happ
in such cases, no sooner had Basil ascended the throne than the genealog
provided him with illustrious ancestors. His obscure family history
made the subject of legendary embellishments, as were his infancy
early years. The Arsacides, Philip of Macedon, Alexander, and Const
tine, were attributed to him as his remote progenitors. It was rela
that marvels and prodigies had attended his birth, foreshadowin,
glorious future for him. As a matter of fact, Basil's father and mot
were poor peasants. “While still in swaddling clothes” he was, with
family, carried captive into Bulgaria by the troops of Krum, and th:
he remained until he was about twenty years old. On his return
Macedonia, finding himself rich in nothing but brothers and sisters,
Set out for Constantinople and took service in the first instance with
וי
? In an article in the Byzantinische Zeitschrift (Vol. xx, pp. 486-491) Mr Bro
Contests this date, and, consequently, the whole chronology of Basil 1. Here
puts the future Emperor's birth between 830 and 835. In spite of the argume
which he brings forward, the writer of this chapter has thought it necessary
adhere to the date already adopted by him in Basile 1er, as the reasons allegea
NIr Brooks appear by no means conclusive.
C. MED. H. VOL. IV, CH. III.
4
## p. 50 (#92) ##############################################
50
Basil I: his early life
Strategus of the Peloponnesus, Theophylitzes. Here he rose to fortune,
having on a voyage to Patras had the good luck to make acquaintance
with a rich widow named Danielis, who showered favours upon him.
A very handsome man and of herculean strength, he attracted notice at
Constantinople, and in 856 the Emperor Michael took him into his
service as chief groom.
In this way Basil was brought into intimate association with the
sovereign, whose confidant he soon became. While the government was
left to Bardas, Michael amused himself and Basil became the self-appointed
minister of the imperial pleasures. Amidst the corruptions of the court
the shrewd peasant contrived to make a place of his own and gradually
to render himself indispensable. He rose in favour, obtained ancient
dignities for himself, and, in order that he might have no rival to fear,
in April 866 he assassinated the Caesar Bardas, Michael's uncle. This
was a preliminary crime. Having thus got rid of the real ruler of the
state, Basil prevailed upon the Emperor, on 26 May following, to declare
him associated in the imperial authority. Thus the path to the crown
was thrown open to him. It was quickly traversed. Having lost the
affection of the Emperor, who had taken a fancy to a boatman named
Basiliscianus and wished to have him crowned, Basil, no longer feeling
himself secure, formed a plot with several of his relations and friends, and
on the night of 23 September 867 procured the assassination of Michael in
the St Mamas palace. This done, he instantly returned to Constantinople,
took possession of the imperial palace, and had himself proclaimed sole
Emperor. The Macedonian Dynasty was founded. It was to last for
nearly two centuries.
According to the chroniclers, the revolution of September 867 was
welcomed by the population as a whole. The Senate, the nobles, the
the army, and the people made no difficulty about acclaiming the man of
the moment, for it was generally understood that the Empire was passing
through a serious crisis, and that it was of the first importance to have
the throne filled by one who was a good soldier, a wise administrator,
and a valiant leader. Now there was no doubt that Basil possessed these
qualifications.
Having reached the age of fifty-six when he mounted the throne, the
new Emperor did not arrive at power unaccompanied.
He brought his
family with him, a strange family, to tell the truth, and one which laboured
under the disadvantage of doubtful legitimacy. While still young, Basil
had married a Macedonian girl named Maria, from whom he procured a
divorce in 865 when his fortunes shewed signs of soaring. The Emperor
Michael immediately married him to his own mistress, Eudocia Ingerina,
who nevertheless continued to live with her imperial lover. On Basil's
accession, she mounted the throne with him as Empress, dying in 882.
Ostensibly Basil had two sons, Constantine and Leo. Who were these
## p. 51 (#93) ##############################################
The finances
51
children? The elder, Constantine, was his father's favourite. He was
probably born about 859. In 870 Basil associated him in his govern-
ment, and took him on the campaign which he made in 877 against
Germanicea. Unfortunately he died in 879, to the despair of his father,
whose mind became affected. The mother of this son was unquestionably
Maria, and he would have been the natural heir. There were probably
also four daughters of the same marriage, who were sent to a convent
and ignored on all hands. One of them, however, must have married, for
Basil had a son-in-law, a celebrated general, Christopher. As to Leo,
he was almost certainly born at the palace of St Mamas on 1 December
866. Whatever Constantine VII says in his life of his grandfather, Leo
was not Basil's son but the offspring of Michael and Eudocia Ingerina.
He was consequently illegitimate. The evident antipathy with which
Basil regarded him is thus easily understood. He was nevertheless Basil's
successor. After becoming Emperor, Basil had two more sons by Eu-
docia, Alexander, who reigned jointly with Leo VI and died in 912, and
Stephen, who became Patriarch of Constantinople. Basil had, besides,
brothers and sisters, but none of them played a part of any importance.
One of his sisters, Thecla, made herself notorious by her misconduct, and
his brothers took an active and prominent share in the murder of
Michael.
On the morrow of Michael's assassination, Basil, already co-regent,
was proclaimed sole Emperor by Marianus, Prefect of the City, in the
Forum. Then, having at St Sophia solemnly returned thanks to God,
he set himself to the task of government. The first matter which seems
to have engaged his attention was the exchequer. The finances were in
a truly deplorable state. Michael III had wasted all his resources, and
in order to raise money had sold, broken up, or melted down a large
number of works of art. When Basil came to examine the treasury,
nothing was left in it. But a statement of accounts was found in possession
of one of the officials, proving that serious malversations had been com-
mitted. The thieves were forced to restore half of the sums abstracted,
and in this way a certain amount was brought into the treasury. Other
sums of importance reached it in due time, helping to restore the finances
to solvency.
But this, in itself, was little. The first urgent reform was the re-
organisation of the financial machinery of the State. Social questions
at this juncture had become acute. The feudal class, which was all-
powerful, was striving to accentuate more and more the formidable dis-
tinction between the rich and the poor, the duvaroi and the Trévntes, and
crying abuses were springing up in every direction. Basil tried to protect
the small men against the great, by shewing favour to the lesser land-
holders; he appointed honest and trustworthy officials over the finances,
and exerted himself to maintain the peasant in possession of his plot, and
to secure him from being ruined by fines or taxes out of all proportion
CH, III.
4-2
## p. 52 (#94) ##############################################
52
Revival in legislation and the arts
to his wealth. Then, taking a step further, he endeavoured to reform the
method of collecting the taxes by revising the register of lands, and com-
pelling the officials to set down in clear, legible, comprehensible figures
the fixed quota on which depended the amount of tax payable. Finally,
he took a direct and personal share in financial administration, verifying
the accounts, receiving the complaints which reached Constantinople, and
acting as judge of final resort. It is probable that exertions such as these
brought about a temporary improvement in the state of the poor and
labouring classes. Nevertheless, as we shall see, Basil's successors were in
their turn to find the social and financial tension more acute than ever.
While thus attending to the finances, Basil also applied himself to the
task of legislative and judicial re-organisation. Here, as elsewhere, he
made a point in the first place of choosing officials of integrity, and also
just and learned judges. He cared little from what stratum of society
his judges were drawn, provided that they discharged their duties faithfully.
Basil required that they should be numerous and easily accessible, and
that their pay should be sufficient to make them independent. Justice
was to be administered daily at the Chalce Palace, at the Hippodrome,
and at the Magnaura, and more than once Basil himself was seen to enter
the court, listen to the trial, and take part in the deliberations.
But it is plain that the chief legislative work of Basil was the revision
of the Justinianean Code and the issue of new law-books. In 878 or 879,
without waiting for the completion of the work of re-modelling which he
had planned, he promulgated the Prochiron, a handbook or abridg-
ment which determined the laws and unwritten customs in force, and
abrogated those no longer in use. The Prochiron was, above all, con-
cerned with civil law. It maintained its authority up to 1453. A second
and fuller edition was prepared by Basil about 886. This was the Epana-
goge, which besides formed an introduction and a summary, intended
for a more important collection in forty books, the Anacatharsis. The
last-named work is no longer in existence. No doubt its substance, as well
as that of the Epanagoge, was included in the Basilics. But apparently
neither of these earlier works was ever officially published. In any case,
they did not remain in force for long? .
During the most glorious period of his reign, Basil gave a new impulse
to the fine arts which was destined to outlast his life. Under his direc-
tion, large numbers of churches were re-built, repaired, and beautified.
In architecture we get the type of cupola intermediary between the
large and dangerous dome of St Sophia and the elegant lantern-towers
of a later age, while buildings on the basilica model become rarer, and
architects are chiefly eager to construct splendid churches with gilded
roofs, glittering mosaics, and marbles of varied hues. It was to Basil that
his contemporaries owed, among other buildings, the magnificent church
1 Cf. infra, Chapter xxii, pp. 711-12.
## p. 53 (#95) ##############################################
Religious questions
begun in 876 and consecrated in 880, called, in contradistinctio
St Sophia, the New Church, with its scheme of decoration in
colours, and its unequalled mosaics forming a great assemblag
religious pictures, a church worthy to stand beside that which Just
had built. We know it fairly well through the descriptions of Ph
and Constantine VII.
Basil's artistic enterprise also found free scope in the erectio
secular buildings which he raised for his own use, such as the pala
the Caenurgium, with its famous historical decorations and its orname
pavements. The lesser arts also entered on a period of revival,
among works which have come down to us one in particular is fan
the celebrated manuscript of St Gregory (Parisinus 510) with its
page illuminations and its varied ornamentation. It is of the hi
interest for the reign of Basil, as it leaves us some trace of the port
unfortunately in a very imperfect condition, of Basil, Eudocia, Leo
Alexander.
The religious question was the chief concern of Basil's reign.
his accession, the dispute with Rome which had arisen over Ph
had reached an acute stage, and the Eastern Church was deeply div
Photius had been chosen Patriarch in very irregular fashion on 25
cember 858, a month after the banishment of the rightful Patri
Ignatius. Bardas had been the cause of the whole trouble, and, as
as 860, Rome had intervened. In spite of the Roman legates wh
861, had allowed themselves to be intimidated into recognising Phc
Nicholas I had deposed and anathematised him and his adherents.
result was anarchy. Basil, therefore, who disliked “the knavery of
sage” and was also desirous of conciliating the Roman See and resto
religious peace to the Empire, hastened to recall Ignatius on 23 Nove
867, and to demand a council to put an end to the schism. This Co
met in St Sophia on 5 October 869 and sat until 28 February
Basil, though in an indirect and covert way, took a leading part i
and brought about the triumph of his own policy. On 5 Nove
Photius was anathematised, declared to be deposed, and exiled to
monastery of Skepes.
The Emperor had, in part at least, gained his end. The solemn sit
of a council had, in the eyes of the public, set a seal
his
usurpa
and the Church found itself in the position of having implicitly re
nised his title. And, what was more, the arrival of ambassadors
Bulgaria, who came at this juncture to inquire of the Council to w
of the two Churches, Rome or Constantinople, their own belon
Was a further advantage for Basil. Thanks to the support given hir
the Patriarch Ignatius, against the will of Rome and its legates,
Emperor obtained a decision that Bulgaria came under the jurisdic
of the Patriarchate, and Ignatius consecrated a bishop for that cour
The result of all these religious transactions was clear. Basil's autho
upon
CH
. .
## p. 54 (#96) ##############################################
54
Close of Basil I's reign
at home and abroad was strengthened, but at the same time he had
broken with the Pope, Hadrian II'.
The settlement, however, brought some measure of peace to the
Church. In 875 or 876 Photius even returned to Constantinople as tutor
of the imperial children, entered again into communication with Pope
John VIII, and waited for the death of the aged Ignatius, which oc-
curred on 23 October 877. Three days later, Photius again took possession
of the patriarchal throne, and the Pope, upon certain conditions which
were never carried out, confirmed his title. A temporary end was thus
put to the schism, and the two authorities were again in harmony.
A Council was held at Constantinople in 879–880 to decide the religious
question. But by that time Basil's reign was virtually ended. Having
lost his son Constantine he allowed things to take their own course, and
Photius profited by his apathy to weave the conspiracy which proved his
ruin.
Basil's reign ended gloomily. The nineteen years during which he had
governed the Empire had not been free from complications. More than
once he had had to foil a conspiracy aimed against his life; serious diffi-
culties had arisen with his successor Leo; his armies had not been uni-
formly successful. It was, however, Constantine's death in 879 which
really killed Basil. From this time onwards his reason was clouded; he
became cruel and left to others all care for the administration. He
himself spent his time in hunting, and it was while thus employed that
he was overtaken by death at Apamea as the result of an accident
perhaps arranged by his enemies. He was brought back seriously injured
to Constantinople, where he died on 29 August 886, leaving the Empire
to Leo VI under the guardianship of Stylianus Zaützes, an Armenian, who
later became father-in-law of the Emperor.
LEO VÍ (886–912).
The revolution of 867 which had raised Basil to the throne was now
undone, so far as its dynastic significance went, since with Leo VI the
crown returned to the family of Michael III. Although the offspring of
an adulterous connexion, the new sovereign was none the less of the im-
perial blood, and his accession really meant that the murderer's victim in
the person of his son thrust aside the impostor in order to take his
proper
place. Officially, however, Basil's successor was regarded as his legitimate
heir, and many no doubt believed that he was in fact his son and
1 As we are here considering only the internal government of the sovereigns of
the Macedonian house, no mention is made of the religious enterprises of Basil and
his successors in the mission field, a subject which appears to belong too exclusively
to Basil's foreign policy. To the Emperors, missions were a method of conquest as
much as or more than a purely apostolic work. See infra, Chapter vii B.
## p. 55 (#97) ##############################################
Accession and antecedents of Leo VI
52
Eudocia's. It is this false situation which explains the estrangemen
between Basil and Leo, the conduct of the latter, and doubtless also th
existence of a party at court which remained permanently hostile to Basi
and constant to Michael's dynasty in the person of Leo VI.
Leo, when he ascended the throne at Constantinople (886), was twent
years old. Up to that time his life had been a painful one. It is tru
that Basil had given him an excellent education, and that his care ha
not been thrown away. We know that Leo VI was surnamed the Wise
or the Philosopher, probably on account of his writings, his eloquence
and his learning. But this was certainly the sole advantage which th
new ruler owed to his nominal father. While he was still quite young
Basil had him tonsured; then, as he had an heir in the person of Con
stantine and as public opinion looked upon him as the father of the second
child also, he associated him in the Empire with Constantine, and soon
afterwards with Alexander. As long as Constantine lived, the relation
between Basil and Leo were in no way unusual, but on the death of the
eldest son the situation was changed. Leo now became the heir, the
second place only falling to Alexander. It will easily be understood tha
this was a grief to Basil. At all costs he desired to set Leo aside in favou
of Alexander. In the winter of 880–881 the Emperor married his adopted
son to a young girl for whom he had no affection and who might be sup
posed unlikely to bear him children. This was Theophano, a relation o
Eudocia Ingerina, afterwards St Theophano. A daughter was, neverthe
less, born of this marriage, named Eudocia, but she died in 892. He
birth no doubt caused an increase of hatred on both sides. Leo roused
himself, the party which he led took shape, and in 885 a revolt broke
out under John Curcuas, Domestic of the Hicanati, supported by sixty
six fellow-plotters, all great dignitaries of the court. The conspirator
were discovered and severely punished. Leo, who had been concerned in
the affair, was betrayed by a monk named Theodore Santabarenus, and
thrown into prison with his wife and little daughter. The Emperor
threatened to have his eyes put out, but was dissuaded from this course
by Photius himself, and some of the courtiers. Leo was restored to hi
dignities, but the Emperor gave him neither his confidence nor his affection
Before long, Basil died, as a result of a hunting-accident which may wel
have been a murder.
A light was at once shed upon the doubtful paternity of Leo by hi
conduct on the death of Basil I. Without bestowing much attention or
the remains of his supposed father, he reserved all his care for those o
his real parent, Michael III. Immediately on his accession he ordered
that the body of the murdered Emperor should be solemnly removed
from Chrysopolis, where it had been hastily interred in 867, and brought
to Constantinople, where a magnificent funeral service was held over i
in the church of the Holy Apostles. It thus appeared that he wished to
emphasise the renewal, in his own person, of a dynastic tradition which
CH. III.
## p. 56 (#98) ##############################################
56
End of the Photian schism
had been momentarily interrupted. He then applied himself to the task
of government, in theory jointly with Alexander but practically as sole
ruler. The reign of Leo VI is in one sense the completion and crowning
of that of Basil. All the reforms adumbrated during the late reign were
achieved and codified under Leo, and the majority of the questions then
left unsolved were now dealt with. To pronounce the reign a poor and
feeble one is grossly unfair. It is true that, as far as foreign affairs are
concerned, there is little to record and that little not of a fortunate
kind. Leo VI evidently was not built on the scale of Basil. Far more
at home in court and cabinet than his predecessor, he had none of the
qualities of a general. This did not, however, prevent his doing useful
work as a ruler.
The first religious question which confronted the new government
was that of Photius. Leo was certain to be a foe to the Patriarch, who,
with the help of his friend Santabarenus, had done his utmost to ex-
acerbate Basil against his heir. He had hoped to profit by the late Em-
peror's weakened condition and by the youth of his successor to thrust one
of his own relatives into the chief authority. In any case, it was he who,
through the agency of Santabarenus, had procured the imprisonment of
Leo and his family. Thus, when after his three months' disgrace Leo's
dignities had been restored to him by Basil, Santabarenus had been driven
to his see of Euchaita near Trebizond, there to hide himself in oblivion.
But unfortunately for both parties Leo did not forget. By the new Em-
peror's orders, immediately upon the death of Basil, Photius was removed
from his office, and a tribunal met to try his case as well as that of his
accomplice. Their guilt could not in point of fact be proved, but this
did not affect the result of their trial. The Patriarch was sent into exile,
dying at Bordi or Gordi in Armenia in 891 ; Santabarenus was scourged
and banished to Athens, where his eyes were put out. Then Leo's young
brother Stephen, aged sixteen, was raised to the Patriarchal See at
Christmas 886. His tenure of it was but brief, for he died on 17 May
893. Finally, in 900, after letters and legates had passed between Rome
and Constantinople, the act uniting the two Churches was solemnly
signed, Anthony Cauleas being Patriarch. By these various means the
schism was brought to an end, and some measure of peace was restored to
the Church.
This repose was not, indeed, of long duration, for during Leo's reign
an obscure religious question arose to rekindle popular excitement and
theological passion, namely, the successive marriages of the Emperor. On
10 November 893 Theophano died, and Leo was at last free to think
of re-marrying. Now for a long time, to the great displeasure of Basil,
Leo had maintained a mistress named Zoë, a woman, it would appear,
of the worst possible reputation. Her father was Stylianus Zaützes,
Leo's guardian, who had probably encouraged his sovereign's passion,
for immediately upon his accession Leo loaded him with favours, put
## p. 57 (#99) ##############################################
Leo's four marriages
57
the direction of public business into his hands, and before long, having
already raised him to the rank of magister, created for him the sound-
ing title of Basileopator (894). He then married Zoë as his second
wife, but a few months after her marriage she also died, during the
summer of 896, without having borne a male heir to the Emperor.
Contrary to all rule and custom, Leo determined on a third marriage, and
in the spring of 899 he took as his wife a young Phrygian girl named
Eudocia, by whose death he was again left a widower on 20 April 900
Not long after he was attracted by the daughter of a noble and saintly
family, Zoë, who in allusion to her black eyes was surnamed Carbo-
nupsina. The Emperor at first could not venture to marry her. He
several times manifested his intention of doing so, but met with such
general reprobation that he felt forced to refrain, until the day when
Zoë
gave
birth to a son, afterwards Constantine VII. This was in the
autumn of 905. In January 906 the child was solemnly baptised by the
Patriarch, but only upon condition that Leo should dismiss Zoë. This
stipulation was in accordance not only with the canons of the Byzantine
Church but also with the civil laws enacted by Leo himself. Both alike
forbade a fourth marriage.
It will be readily understood that this austere provision commended
itself neither to Leo nor to Zoë. The Emperor wished to legitimate his
sole heir and successor ; Zoë hoped to become Empress and to reign.
Now the Patriarch had already refused to concur in the marriage with
Eudocia, and had suspended the priest who blessed the union. And,
moreover, that Patriarch was Anthony Cauleas, and the question was
merely of a third marriage. What was likely to be the attitude of the
new Patriarch, Nicholas, towards a fourth union ? Leo, however, per-
sisted. Three days after Constantine's baptism, he married Zoë and
created her Augusta. Nicholas, though he had been a friend of the Em-
peror from childhood and had been named Patriarch by him, did not
temporise. Having in vain endeavoured to influence his master, he re
fused to recognise the marriage, and at the end of 906 forbade the guilty
Emperor to enter St Sophia. The Patriarch had on his side the Church
the court, and the city. It was, however, agreed that Rome should be
consulted on the subject. Both Nicholas and Leo wrote to the Pope,
who despatched legates, and in the end granted a dispensation for the
marriage. The Eastern Patriarchates also sanctioned this relaxation of
the established law, and immediately Nicholas was driven into exile and
resigned his office. He was succeeded by Euthymius, a saintly man, in
January 907. But the conflict of course was not to be so easily ex
tinguished. In June 911 the debates on the Emperor's fourth marriage
were still going on. They lasted, indeed, up to the death of Leo (11 May
912) and even beyond it.
Leo's legislative activity shewed itself in the ecclesiastical domain as
well as in the civil. Between 901 and 907, in conjunction with his friend
CH. III.
## p. 58 (#100) #############################################
58
Administration and legislation
לי
the Patriarch Nicholas, he published a list of the Churches in dependence
upon Constantinople and the order of their precedence. He thus carried
through a genuine reorganisation of the outer framework of the Byzan-
tine Church, including Illyricum in its jurisdiction, despite the repeated
protests of the See of Rome. These Néa Taktiká which form the sequel
to the Ilalaià Taktiká of the preceding period shew us, in fact, the
ecclesiastical provinces of the Balkan peninsula grouped around Con-
stantinople.
Independently of this new set of regulations, and before it was issued,
Leo, as soon as he succeeded to power, had addressed to his brother
Stephen a series of Novels dealing with ecclesiastical affairs, the interior
organisation of the Church, and religious discipline, just as the Patriarch
himself might have done. It was he also who created certain new ecclesi-
astical honours, or gave greater importance to others already existing, such
as the office of syncellus held by his brother before he became Patriarch.
These measures formed part of a general scheme of reform already initiated
by Basil, which Leo desired to follow up to a successful issue.
To whatever branch of the civil administration we turn, traces appear
of the handiwork of Leo VI. His energy seems to have been enormous.
The book of “Ceremonies,” a collection published by Constantine VII,
dealing with the organisation and working of the court and the different
civil and religious ceremonies, contains material compiled under Leo VI.
At any rate, to it was appended the Kantopołórylov, or ceremonial
treatise of precedence at court, composed in 899 by the atriclines (dapifer)
Philotheus? .
Final restoration of image worship (843)
41
therefore invited to sit on the council which had just been convoked in
order to restore images to honour. John refused, and was consequently,
not without some slight maltreatment, deposed and relegated to a
monastery. In his seat was installed the monk Methodius, in former
days so harshly persecuted by Michael II, but whom Theophilus, by a
singular caprice, had admitted to intimacy on account of his scientific
attainments. Highly favoured by Theodora, the new Patriarch assumed
full control of the council which met in February 843. To please the
Empress, the bishops hastened to except Theophilus from the condemna-
tion directed against heretics, admitting without discussion the pious
fraud which represented the Emperor as having, in his last moments, re-
pented of his errors. Thanks to this compromise, the restoration of
orthodoxy was accomplished without opposition. The pictures were
solemnly reinstated in honour; the exiles and the proscribed were recalled
and welcomed in triumph; the prisoners were set at liberty; the remains
of the martyrs who had died in the struggle were brought back in state to
Constantinople; and anathemas fell upon the most famous of the icono-
clasts. Then, the work of the council having been accomplished, on the
first Sunday in Lent (19 February 843) a triumphal procession, headed
by the Empress herself, marched through the streets of the capital, from
the church of the Virgin in Blachernae to St Sophia, where the enthusi-
astic people returned thanks to the Most High. In the evening, at the
Sacred Palace, Theodora gave a great banquet, at which were assembled
the prelates and confessors and those who had suffered for the cause. It
was the festival of Orthodoxy, which from that time the Greek Church
has solemnly celebrated on the first Sunday in Lent every year, in com-
memoration of the reinstatement of images and of the blessed Theodora.
Thus, after more than a century of strife, peace was at last restored
to the Empire. But if, from the dogmatic standpoint, the victory of the
iconodule party was complete, the Church, on the other hand, was forced
to give up the tendency towards independence which some of her most
illustrious champions had shewn. One of the essential objects to which
the policy of the Iconoclast Emperors had been directed was the reduction
of the Church to entire dependence on the State. In spite of the protests
of their opponents, who, from Gregory II and John Damascene down to
the Fathers of the Council of 787 and Theodore of Studion, had with one
voice refused to the Emperor the right περί πίστεως λόγον ποιείσθαι,
,
it was this imperial policy which now proved victorious. “In the struggle,"
writes Harnack, “which for a century the Byzantine Church maintained
against the State, not her religious constitution alone, but her liberty
was at stake. On the first point, she was the victor; in the struggle for
liberty, she yielded. ” Thus, in spite of the re-establishment of orthodoxy,
the Studite party and the freedom for which they had fought were de-
feated, and the work of the Iconoclast Emperors proved not to have been
in vain.
יל
CH. 11.
## p. 42 (#84) ##############################################
42
Persecution of the Paulicians
Theodora's government, however, which lasted up to 856, assumed, as
might have been expected, somewhat of a religious complexion. The
Empress, priding herself highly on having restored orthodoxy, held it no
less important to wage war upon heresy. From the end of the seventh
century, the Paulicians,
so called from the great respect which they pro-
fessed for the Apostle Paul, had been spreading their doctrines through
Asia Minor, from Phrygia to Armenia. Their progress had been furthered
by the patronage of the Iconoclast Emperors, and the Orthodox Church
saw with great anxiety the growth of the influence and the spread of the
propaganda of sectaries whom she characterised as Manichaeans. Theo-
philus, it is not exactly known why, had allowed himself to be persuaded
into persecuting them, and part of the heretical community had from
that time sought refuge in Arab territory. Theodora was only too happy
to be able in this point to continue her husband's policy. By her orders,
the Paulicians were called upon to choose between conversion and death,
and, as they refused to yield, the imperial government set itself to break
down their resistance. Blood was shed in torrents in the parts of Asia
Minor where they were settled; it is said that one hundred thousand
persons suffered death. The survivors, led by Carbeas, one of their chiefs,
went to ask shelter from the Emir of Melitene, and settling around Te-
phrice, which became their main citadel, they soon made it clear to the
Byzantines how ill-advised they had been in thrusting into the arms of
the Musulmans men who, up till then, had valiantly defended the fron-
tiers of the Empire. It has been said with justice that the persecution
of the Paulicians was “one of the greatest political disasters of the ninth
century. "?
The pious zeal which inspired the Regent suggested to her more for-
tunate projects elsewhere. She initiated the great missionary enterprise
through which, some years later, the Gospel was to be brought to the
Chazars, the Moravians, and the Bulgars. In order to subdue the ever
restless Slav tribes of the Peloponnesus, she despatched thither the
Strategus Theoctistus Bryennius (849) who, except in the Taygetus
region where the Milengi and the Ezerites kept their autonomy, suc-
ceeded in establishing the imperial authority on a firm basis throughout
the province, and in preparing the way for the conversion of the Slavs.
Finally, Theodora, by her sound financial administration, did no small
service to the state. Unfortunately, as is often the case under feminine
government, the imperial palace was a hive of intrigue. The Logothete
Theoctistus, the Regent's chief minister, had her entire favour, and against
him her brother Bardas sought support from the young Emperor Michael,
his nephew, who, as he grew up, shewed deplorable tendencies. Bardas
used his influence to embitter the resentment of the young prince against
the Logothete, and in 856 a plot was concocted which ended in the
1 Bury, History of the Eastern Roman Empire, p. 276.
## p. 43 (#85) ##############################################
Michael III and the Caesar Bardas
43
murder of Theoctistus. This was a blow aimed full at Theodora, and
thus she understood it. For two years more she lived in the palace, until
in 858 she was requested to withdraw into a convent. But her political
career was already over. From the day after the assassination of Theoc-
tistus, Michael III had taken power into his own hands; Bardas, ap-
pointed Magister and Domestic of the Scholae, and at last in 862 almost
admitted to a share in the Empire under the title of Caesar, was for ten
years (856-866) to exercise supreme power in the name of his nephew.
In spite of the sedulous care which his mother had bestowed on his
education, Michael III, who was now about seventeen or eighteen years
old, was a prince of the worst type. Without taking too literally all
that has been related of him by chroniclers too much bent on excusing
the murder which gave the throne to Basil the Macedonian, and there-
fore disposed to blacken the character of his victim, it is certain that the
behaviour of the miserable Emperor was calculated to scandalise both the
court and the capital. He cared for nothing but pleasure, hunting,
riding, racing, wrestling of athletes; he delighted in driving a chariot on
the palace race-course and in shewing himself off before his intimates.
He frequented the lowest society, was ever surrounded by charioteers, musi-
cians, buffoons, and players; he spent part of his nights drinking (history
has bestowed on him the surname of Michael the Drunkard); he amused
himself and his unworthy favourites with coarse and indecent jests, turning
religion into ridicule, parodying the sacred rites, and in "his low and
tasteless jests sparing neither the Patriarch nor the Empress-Mother. He
wasted the money amassed by his parents in ridiculous extravagances;
public business was to him an unwelcome infliction, a mere hindrance to
his amusements, an interruption to his course of folly; in fine, he was
the natural prey of favourites for ever contending for his good graces,
and his court, where he ostentatiously displayed his mistress, Eudocia
Ingerina, was the home of ceaseless intrigue.
Bardas, who governed the Empire in the name of Michael III, was a
man of another stamp. Keenly ambitious, greedy of power and wealth,
little troubled with scruples or morals, he was, despite his vices, a man of
unquestionable capacity. Even his enemies have been unable to deny
his
great qualities. A good administrator, he prided himself on his love
of strict justice and on his incorruptibility as a minister, and in this
way he made himself highly popular. A man of great talents, he loved
letters and was interested in scientific studies. Theophilus had already
appreciated the importance of restoring Constantinople to its intellectual
pre-eminence in the Eastern world; he had been the patron of learned
men, and had heaped favours on the Patriarch John and on the great
mathematician, Leo of Thessalonica. Bardas did more. To him is due
the honour of having founded the famous school of the Magnaura, where
he gathered the most illustrious teachers of the day. Its direction was
CH. II.
## p. 44 (#86) ##############################################
44
Intellectual revival under Bardas
put into the hands of Leo of Thessalonica, one of the greatest minds of
the ninth century, whose universal learning-he was equally versed in
mathematics, medicine, and philosophy—had gained for him among his
contemporaries the reputation of a wizard and magician. Around him
were others teaching geometry, astronomy, and philology, and to en-
courage the zeal of the professors and the eagerness of their pupils, Bardas
used to pay frequent and diligent visits to the school. He counted other
learned men among his intimates: Constantine, some years afterwards to
become the apostle of the Slavs, and then teaching philosophy at the
University; Photius, the most distinguished and brilliant intellect of the
time as well as the man of most learning, who was shortly, by the favour
of the all-powerful minister, to attain the patriarchal throne of Constan-
tinople. Under the influence of Bardas, a great wave of intellectual
revival was already passing over the capital, presaging the renaissance of
the tenth century, and already, by its secular and classical character,
arousing the anxiety of the Church. It has been justly remarked that
henceforward there was to be no more interruption, no further period of
darkness breaking into the literary activities of the Byzantines, until the
fall of Constantinople, and that one of the most valid claims to glory of
the Amorian dynasty in the history of civilisation is undoubtedly the
interest which the court then shewed in education and learning?
Bardas had still another honour, that of successfully accomplishing,
with the help of the Patriarch Photius, the great work of the conversion
of the Slavs”. Two men were the renowned instruments in the work,
Constantine, better known under his name in religion, Cyril, and his
brother Methodius, “the Apostles of the Slavs," as history still calls
them to-day. Constantine, the younger of the two, after having been at
first a professor at the University of Constantinople, had, about 860,
successfully carried out a mission to Christianise the Chazars; he was
thus marked out for the work when, towards 863, Rostislav, Prince of
Great Moravia, requested of the Byzantine court that his people might
be instructed in the Christian Faith. In 864 Cyril and Methodius set
out, and they carried with them the means of assuring the success of
their undertaking. Natives of Thessalonica, and thus quite familiar with
the language and customs of the Slavs, who on all sides dwelt around that
great Greek city, the two missionaries well understood the necessity of
speaking to those whom they desired to convert in their own tongue.
For their benefit, therefore, they translated the Gospel into a dialect
akin to that spoken by the Moravians, and, in order to transcribe it,
they invented an alphabet from the Greek minuscule, the Glagolitic
script. At the same time, Cyril and Methodius introduced into Moravia
a Slav liturgy, they preached in the language, and did their utmost to train
Slav clergy. Thus it was that their success was achieved, and after their
a
1
Bury, op. cit. p. 435.
2 See infra, Chapter vilB.
## p. 45 (#87) ##############################################
Conversion of Bulgaria to Orthodoxy
45
first stay in Moravia, Rome herself expressed her approbation of the
methods they had employed in their undertaking (868). It is true that
later on, owing to the opposition and intrigues of the German clergy,
the work so magnificently begun was quickly ruined. But nevertheless,
the glory remained to Constantinople of having, at the same time that
she brought the orthodox faith to the Slavs, created the alphabet and the
liturgical language in use amongst them to-day.
The conversion of Bulgaria was another triumph for Constantinople.
From the first thirty years of the ninth century, Christianity had begun
to make its way among the Bulgars, and imperial policy watched its
progress with interest, seeing in it a means of strengthening Byzantine
influence in this barbarian kingdom. On his side, Tsar Boris, placed as he
was between the Greek Empire and that great Moravia which, at this very
time, was accepting Christianity, realised that he could no longer remain
pagan. But he hesitated between the orthodoxy of Constantinople and
the Roman faith offered him by Germany, whose ally he had become. Con-
stantinople could not allow Bulgaria to come within the Western sphere
of influence. A military expedition recalled the prince to discretion (863),
and as his conversion, besides, was to be rewarded by an increase of
territory, he made his decision. He asked to be baptised into the
Orthodox Church, receiving the christian name of Michael (864); and
the Patriarch Photius, realising to the full the importance of the event,
delightedly hailed the neophyte as “the fairest jewel of his efforts. ”
Despite the resistance of the Bulgarian aristocracy, the Tsar compelled
his people to adopt Christianity with him. But he was soon made
uneasy by the apparent intention of Constantinople to keep him in too
strict a dependence, and so turned towards Rome, requesting the Pope,
Nicholas I, to set up the Latin rite in his kingdom. The Pope welcomed
these advances, and Roman priests, under the direction of Formosus,
began to labour in Bulgaria (866–867). This did not suit Byzantine
calculations; the imperial government had no intention of loosing its
hold
upon Bulgaria. In the council of 869 Rome was obliged to yield
to the protests of the Greeks; the Orthodox clergy were reinstated in
Bulgarian territory, and the Tsar had to reconcile himself to re-entering
sphere of action of the Greek Empire.
the
IV.
The government of Bardas had thus to a remarkable degree increased
the prestige of the Empire. Beyond the frontier, however, Arab successes
provided the shadows in the picture. The piracies of the Musulmans of
Crete brought desolation to the Aegean, and the great expedition which
the Logothete Theoctistus led against them in person (843) had produced
no better results than did the enterprise attempted against Egypt, despite
the temporary success achieved by the capture of Damietta (853). In
CH, II.
## p. 46 (#88) ##############################################
46
External dangers
Sicily the infidels were proceeding successfully with the conquest of the
island; Messina fell into their hands in 843, and Leontini in 847;
Castrogiovanni, the great Byzantine fortress in the middle of Sicily,
yielded in 859, and the Greek expedition sent to re-conquer the province
(860) was completely foiled. In Asia, where the defection of the
Paulicians had been a heavy blow to the Empire, affairs prospered no
better. It is true that, in 856, Petronas, brother of the Empress Theo-
dora, made his way into the country of Samosata and Amida, and attacked
Tephrice. But in 859 the Byzantine army, commanded by the Em-
peror himself, was beaten before Samosata, and not long afterwards (860)
at Chonarium, near Dazimon. In 863 Omar, the Emir of Melitene, took
Amisus. This time the Greeks braced themselves for a great effort, and
the brilliant victory won by Petronas at Poson, near the Halys (863),
restored for the moment the reputation of the imperial arms'.
Whilst these events were taking place, a serious and unforeseen danger
had menaced Constantinople. While the Emperor was in Asia and the
imperial fleet busied in Sicily, some Russian pirates had unexpectedly
crossed the Bosphorus and attacked the capital (860). In this emergency,
the Patriarch Photius nobly sustained the spirit of the people, and it was
rather to his energy than to the supposed intervention of the Blessed
Virgin, that the capital owed its safety. Further, the approach of the
army from Asia Minor, returning by forced marches, determined the bar-
barians upon a retreat which proved disastrous to them. And the
treaty not long afterwards concluded with the Russians, lately settled at
Kiev, opened up, towards the north, vast future prospects to the Empire.
One last event, pregnant with future consequences, marked the ad-
ministration of Bardas. This was the breach with Rome. For some con-
siderable time the chief minister had been on bad terms with the Patriarch
Ignatius, that son of the Emperor Michael Rangabé who, having been
tonsured on the death of his father, had in 847 been raised to the
patriarchate. On the feast of the Epiphany (January 858) the prelate
had thought it his duty to refuse communion to Bardas, and this the
latter never forgave. He therefore set to work to implicate Ignatius in
an alleged treasonable plot. The Patriarch was arrested and deported to
the Princes Islands, while in his place the minister procured the election
of Photius, a layman, who within six days received all the ecclesiastical
orders, and on 25 December 858 celebrated a Solemn High Mass at
St Sophia. The accession to the patriarchate of this man of mark, who
was, however, of consummate ambition, prodigious arrogance, and un-
surpassed political skill, was to bring about a formidable crisis in the
Church. Ignatius, in fact, though evil-intreated and dragged from one
place of exile to another, resolutely declined to abdicate, and his sup-
porters, above all the monks of the Studion, violently resisted the
1 For details of these events see infra, Chapter v, pp. 131-4, 136–8.
## p. 47 (#89) ##############################################
The Photian schism with Rome
usurpation of Photius. The latter, in order to compel their submissi
attempted to obtain recognition from Rome, and, by means of a m
diplomatic letter, entered into communication with Nicholas I.
Pope eagerly seized the opportunity to interfere in the dispute.
the legates whom he sent to Constantinople allowed themselves to
led astray by Photius, and the council which met in their presence at
church of the Holy Apostles (861) summoned Ignatius before it,
posed him, and confirmed the election of Photius. Nicholas I was
the man to see his wishes thus ignored. Ignatius, besides, appealed
Rome against his condemnation. At the Lateran synod (April 8
Photius and his partisans were excommunicated, and were called upon
resign their usurped functions immediately; Ignatius, on the other ha
was declared restored to the patriarchal throne.
It was the wonderful astuteness of Photius which turned a pur
personal question into an affair of national importance. Most skilfu
he turned to account the ancient grudges of the Greek Church agai
the West, the suspicion and dread always aroused in it by the claims
Rome to the primacy. He made even greater play with the ambitious
imprudent designs of Nicholas I upon the young Bulgarian Church; and
won over the whole of public opinion to his side by posing as the champ
of the national cause against the Papal usurpers. The encyclical, wh
in 867 Photius addressed to the other patriarchs of the East, summed
eloquently the grievances of the Byzantines against Rome. The coun
which was held soon after at Constantinople under the presidency of
Emperor, made the rupture complete (867). It replied to the c
demnations pronounced by Nicholas I by anathematising and deposing
Pope, and condemning the heretical doctrines and customs of the West
Church. The breach between Rome and Constantinople was comple
the schism was consummated, and Photius, to all appearance, triumpha
But his triumph was to be short-lived. The murder of Michael III,
raising Basil the Macedonian to the throne, was suddenly to overthr
the Patriarch's fortunes.
While these events, portending such serious consequences, were tak:
place, Michael III continued in his course of pleasure, folly, and debauche
By degrees, however, he became weary of the all-powerful influe
wielded by Bardas. From the year 858 or 859 the Emperor had
favourite
. This was an adventurer, the son of a poor Armenian fam
which circumstances had transplanted to Macedonia, a certain Ba
whose bodily strength and skill in breaking horses had endeared him
Michael III. This man became chief equerry, and in 862 grand chamb
lain and patrician. His obliging conduct in marrying the Emperor's m
tress
, Eudocia Ingerina, put the finishing touch to the favour he enjoy
His rapid advance could not fail to disquiet Bardas, all the more beca
Basil was unquestionably clever,and obviously extremely ambitious. T}
it was not long before the two men were engaged in a bitter strugg
CH. II.
## p. 48 (#90) ##############################################
48
Murder of Bardas and of Michael III
It ended in 866 by the murder of Bardas, who, during a campaign in
Asia, was slaughtered by his enemies under the very eyes of the Em-
peror. Thus Basil was victorious. Some weeks later the Emperor adopted
him and raised him to the dignity of Magister; soon after, he associated
him in the Empire (May 866). But with a prince such as Michael III
favour, however apparently secure, was still always uncertain, and Basil
was well aware of it. The Emperor, more addicted than ever to wine, was
now surpassing himself in wild follies and cruelties. Basil, knowing that
many were jealous of him and attempting to undermine him with the
Emperor, must have been perpetually in fear for his power and even for his
life. An incident which revealed the precariousness of his situation de-
cided him on taking action. On 23 September 867, with the help of
some faithful followers, Basil, in the palace of St Mamas, murdered the
wretched Emperor who had made him great, and, next morning, having
gained possession of the Sacred Palace, seized upon power. It seems plain
that the Empire joyfully acquiesced in the disappearance of the capricious
and cruel tyrant that Michael III had become. But Basil was more than
a skilful and lucky aspirant, he was a great statesman; by setting a new
dynasty on the throne, he was destined, through his vigorous govern-
ment, to usher in for the Empire two centuries of glory and renown.
## p. 49 (#91) ##############################################
CHAPTER III.
THE MACEDONIAN DYNASTY FROM 867 TO 976 A. D.
The race of Leo the Isaurian, which in no inglorious fashion
filled the whole of the eighth and ninth centuries with its iconocla
struggles, social reforms, and palace intrigues, nominally died out in
in the person of a debauched and incapable young Emperor, Michael
known as the Drunkard. The man who in consequence ascended the thr
by means of a crime, and founded the Macedonian dynasty, was Bas
To study the personal character and home policy of the soverei
directly or indirectly descended from him down to 1057, is, in effect
depict the leading aspects of the period, save for the ever-present strug
for existence against external foes.
Basil I (867-886).
The founder of the Macedonian dynasty was born about 8121 in
neighbourhood of Hadrianople, of a humble Macedonian family enga
in agriculture and probably of Armenian extraction. As always happ
in such cases, no sooner had Basil ascended the throne than the genealog
provided him with illustrious ancestors. His obscure family history
made the subject of legendary embellishments, as were his infancy
early years. The Arsacides, Philip of Macedon, Alexander, and Const
tine, were attributed to him as his remote progenitors. It was rela
that marvels and prodigies had attended his birth, foreshadowin,
glorious future for him. As a matter of fact, Basil's father and mot
were poor peasants. “While still in swaddling clothes” he was, with
family, carried captive into Bulgaria by the troops of Krum, and th:
he remained until he was about twenty years old. On his return
Macedonia, finding himself rich in nothing but brothers and sisters,
Set out for Constantinople and took service in the first instance with
וי
? In an article in the Byzantinische Zeitschrift (Vol. xx, pp. 486-491) Mr Bro
Contests this date, and, consequently, the whole chronology of Basil 1. Here
puts the future Emperor's birth between 830 and 835. In spite of the argume
which he brings forward, the writer of this chapter has thought it necessary
adhere to the date already adopted by him in Basile 1er, as the reasons allegea
NIr Brooks appear by no means conclusive.
C. MED. H. VOL. IV, CH. III.
4
## p. 50 (#92) ##############################################
50
Basil I: his early life
Strategus of the Peloponnesus, Theophylitzes. Here he rose to fortune,
having on a voyage to Patras had the good luck to make acquaintance
with a rich widow named Danielis, who showered favours upon him.
A very handsome man and of herculean strength, he attracted notice at
Constantinople, and in 856 the Emperor Michael took him into his
service as chief groom.
In this way Basil was brought into intimate association with the
sovereign, whose confidant he soon became. While the government was
left to Bardas, Michael amused himself and Basil became the self-appointed
minister of the imperial pleasures. Amidst the corruptions of the court
the shrewd peasant contrived to make a place of his own and gradually
to render himself indispensable. He rose in favour, obtained ancient
dignities for himself, and, in order that he might have no rival to fear,
in April 866 he assassinated the Caesar Bardas, Michael's uncle. This
was a preliminary crime. Having thus got rid of the real ruler of the
state, Basil prevailed upon the Emperor, on 26 May following, to declare
him associated in the imperial authority. Thus the path to the crown
was thrown open to him. It was quickly traversed. Having lost the
affection of the Emperor, who had taken a fancy to a boatman named
Basiliscianus and wished to have him crowned, Basil, no longer feeling
himself secure, formed a plot with several of his relations and friends, and
on the night of 23 September 867 procured the assassination of Michael in
the St Mamas palace. This done, he instantly returned to Constantinople,
took possession of the imperial palace, and had himself proclaimed sole
Emperor. The Macedonian Dynasty was founded. It was to last for
nearly two centuries.
According to the chroniclers, the revolution of September 867 was
welcomed by the population as a whole. The Senate, the nobles, the
the army, and the people made no difficulty about acclaiming the man of
the moment, for it was generally understood that the Empire was passing
through a serious crisis, and that it was of the first importance to have
the throne filled by one who was a good soldier, a wise administrator,
and a valiant leader. Now there was no doubt that Basil possessed these
qualifications.
Having reached the age of fifty-six when he mounted the throne, the
new Emperor did not arrive at power unaccompanied.
He brought his
family with him, a strange family, to tell the truth, and one which laboured
under the disadvantage of doubtful legitimacy. While still young, Basil
had married a Macedonian girl named Maria, from whom he procured a
divorce in 865 when his fortunes shewed signs of soaring. The Emperor
Michael immediately married him to his own mistress, Eudocia Ingerina,
who nevertheless continued to live with her imperial lover. On Basil's
accession, she mounted the throne with him as Empress, dying in 882.
Ostensibly Basil had two sons, Constantine and Leo. Who were these
## p. 51 (#93) ##############################################
The finances
51
children? The elder, Constantine, was his father's favourite. He was
probably born about 859. In 870 Basil associated him in his govern-
ment, and took him on the campaign which he made in 877 against
Germanicea. Unfortunately he died in 879, to the despair of his father,
whose mind became affected. The mother of this son was unquestionably
Maria, and he would have been the natural heir. There were probably
also four daughters of the same marriage, who were sent to a convent
and ignored on all hands. One of them, however, must have married, for
Basil had a son-in-law, a celebrated general, Christopher. As to Leo,
he was almost certainly born at the palace of St Mamas on 1 December
866. Whatever Constantine VII says in his life of his grandfather, Leo
was not Basil's son but the offspring of Michael and Eudocia Ingerina.
He was consequently illegitimate. The evident antipathy with which
Basil regarded him is thus easily understood. He was nevertheless Basil's
successor. After becoming Emperor, Basil had two more sons by Eu-
docia, Alexander, who reigned jointly with Leo VI and died in 912, and
Stephen, who became Patriarch of Constantinople. Basil had, besides,
brothers and sisters, but none of them played a part of any importance.
One of his sisters, Thecla, made herself notorious by her misconduct, and
his brothers took an active and prominent share in the murder of
Michael.
On the morrow of Michael's assassination, Basil, already co-regent,
was proclaimed sole Emperor by Marianus, Prefect of the City, in the
Forum. Then, having at St Sophia solemnly returned thanks to God,
he set himself to the task of government. The first matter which seems
to have engaged his attention was the exchequer. The finances were in
a truly deplorable state. Michael III had wasted all his resources, and
in order to raise money had sold, broken up, or melted down a large
number of works of art. When Basil came to examine the treasury,
nothing was left in it. But a statement of accounts was found in possession
of one of the officials, proving that serious malversations had been com-
mitted. The thieves were forced to restore half of the sums abstracted,
and in this way a certain amount was brought into the treasury. Other
sums of importance reached it in due time, helping to restore the finances
to solvency.
But this, in itself, was little. The first urgent reform was the re-
organisation of the financial machinery of the State. Social questions
at this juncture had become acute. The feudal class, which was all-
powerful, was striving to accentuate more and more the formidable dis-
tinction between the rich and the poor, the duvaroi and the Trévntes, and
crying abuses were springing up in every direction. Basil tried to protect
the small men against the great, by shewing favour to the lesser land-
holders; he appointed honest and trustworthy officials over the finances,
and exerted himself to maintain the peasant in possession of his plot, and
to secure him from being ruined by fines or taxes out of all proportion
CH, III.
4-2
## p. 52 (#94) ##############################################
52
Revival in legislation and the arts
to his wealth. Then, taking a step further, he endeavoured to reform the
method of collecting the taxes by revising the register of lands, and com-
pelling the officials to set down in clear, legible, comprehensible figures
the fixed quota on which depended the amount of tax payable. Finally,
he took a direct and personal share in financial administration, verifying
the accounts, receiving the complaints which reached Constantinople, and
acting as judge of final resort. It is probable that exertions such as these
brought about a temporary improvement in the state of the poor and
labouring classes. Nevertheless, as we shall see, Basil's successors were in
their turn to find the social and financial tension more acute than ever.
While thus attending to the finances, Basil also applied himself to the
task of legislative and judicial re-organisation. Here, as elsewhere, he
made a point in the first place of choosing officials of integrity, and also
just and learned judges. He cared little from what stratum of society
his judges were drawn, provided that they discharged their duties faithfully.
Basil required that they should be numerous and easily accessible, and
that their pay should be sufficient to make them independent. Justice
was to be administered daily at the Chalce Palace, at the Hippodrome,
and at the Magnaura, and more than once Basil himself was seen to enter
the court, listen to the trial, and take part in the deliberations.
But it is plain that the chief legislative work of Basil was the revision
of the Justinianean Code and the issue of new law-books. In 878 or 879,
without waiting for the completion of the work of re-modelling which he
had planned, he promulgated the Prochiron, a handbook or abridg-
ment which determined the laws and unwritten customs in force, and
abrogated those no longer in use. The Prochiron was, above all, con-
cerned with civil law. It maintained its authority up to 1453. A second
and fuller edition was prepared by Basil about 886. This was the Epana-
goge, which besides formed an introduction and a summary, intended
for a more important collection in forty books, the Anacatharsis. The
last-named work is no longer in existence. No doubt its substance, as well
as that of the Epanagoge, was included in the Basilics. But apparently
neither of these earlier works was ever officially published. In any case,
they did not remain in force for long? .
During the most glorious period of his reign, Basil gave a new impulse
to the fine arts which was destined to outlast his life. Under his direc-
tion, large numbers of churches were re-built, repaired, and beautified.
In architecture we get the type of cupola intermediary between the
large and dangerous dome of St Sophia and the elegant lantern-towers
of a later age, while buildings on the basilica model become rarer, and
architects are chiefly eager to construct splendid churches with gilded
roofs, glittering mosaics, and marbles of varied hues. It was to Basil that
his contemporaries owed, among other buildings, the magnificent church
1 Cf. infra, Chapter xxii, pp. 711-12.
## p. 53 (#95) ##############################################
Religious questions
begun in 876 and consecrated in 880, called, in contradistinctio
St Sophia, the New Church, with its scheme of decoration in
colours, and its unequalled mosaics forming a great assemblag
religious pictures, a church worthy to stand beside that which Just
had built. We know it fairly well through the descriptions of Ph
and Constantine VII.
Basil's artistic enterprise also found free scope in the erectio
secular buildings which he raised for his own use, such as the pala
the Caenurgium, with its famous historical decorations and its orname
pavements. The lesser arts also entered on a period of revival,
among works which have come down to us one in particular is fan
the celebrated manuscript of St Gregory (Parisinus 510) with its
page illuminations and its varied ornamentation. It is of the hi
interest for the reign of Basil, as it leaves us some trace of the port
unfortunately in a very imperfect condition, of Basil, Eudocia, Leo
Alexander.
The religious question was the chief concern of Basil's reign.
his accession, the dispute with Rome which had arisen over Ph
had reached an acute stage, and the Eastern Church was deeply div
Photius had been chosen Patriarch in very irregular fashion on 25
cember 858, a month after the banishment of the rightful Patri
Ignatius. Bardas had been the cause of the whole trouble, and, as
as 860, Rome had intervened. In spite of the Roman legates wh
861, had allowed themselves to be intimidated into recognising Phc
Nicholas I had deposed and anathematised him and his adherents.
result was anarchy. Basil, therefore, who disliked “the knavery of
sage” and was also desirous of conciliating the Roman See and resto
religious peace to the Empire, hastened to recall Ignatius on 23 Nove
867, and to demand a council to put an end to the schism. This Co
met in St Sophia on 5 October 869 and sat until 28 February
Basil, though in an indirect and covert way, took a leading part i
and brought about the triumph of his own policy. On 5 Nove
Photius was anathematised, declared to be deposed, and exiled to
monastery of Skepes.
The Emperor had, in part at least, gained his end. The solemn sit
of a council had, in the eyes of the public, set a seal
his
usurpa
and the Church found itself in the position of having implicitly re
nised his title. And, what was more, the arrival of ambassadors
Bulgaria, who came at this juncture to inquire of the Council to w
of the two Churches, Rome or Constantinople, their own belon
Was a further advantage for Basil. Thanks to the support given hir
the Patriarch Ignatius, against the will of Rome and its legates,
Emperor obtained a decision that Bulgaria came under the jurisdic
of the Patriarchate, and Ignatius consecrated a bishop for that cour
The result of all these religious transactions was clear. Basil's autho
upon
CH
. .
## p. 54 (#96) ##############################################
54
Close of Basil I's reign
at home and abroad was strengthened, but at the same time he had
broken with the Pope, Hadrian II'.
The settlement, however, brought some measure of peace to the
Church. In 875 or 876 Photius even returned to Constantinople as tutor
of the imperial children, entered again into communication with Pope
John VIII, and waited for the death of the aged Ignatius, which oc-
curred on 23 October 877. Three days later, Photius again took possession
of the patriarchal throne, and the Pope, upon certain conditions which
were never carried out, confirmed his title. A temporary end was thus
put to the schism, and the two authorities were again in harmony.
A Council was held at Constantinople in 879–880 to decide the religious
question. But by that time Basil's reign was virtually ended. Having
lost his son Constantine he allowed things to take their own course, and
Photius profited by his apathy to weave the conspiracy which proved his
ruin.
Basil's reign ended gloomily. The nineteen years during which he had
governed the Empire had not been free from complications. More than
once he had had to foil a conspiracy aimed against his life; serious diffi-
culties had arisen with his successor Leo; his armies had not been uni-
formly successful. It was, however, Constantine's death in 879 which
really killed Basil. From this time onwards his reason was clouded; he
became cruel and left to others all care for the administration. He
himself spent his time in hunting, and it was while thus employed that
he was overtaken by death at Apamea as the result of an accident
perhaps arranged by his enemies. He was brought back seriously injured
to Constantinople, where he died on 29 August 886, leaving the Empire
to Leo VI under the guardianship of Stylianus Zaützes, an Armenian, who
later became father-in-law of the Emperor.
LEO VÍ (886–912).
The revolution of 867 which had raised Basil to the throne was now
undone, so far as its dynastic significance went, since with Leo VI the
crown returned to the family of Michael III. Although the offspring of
an adulterous connexion, the new sovereign was none the less of the im-
perial blood, and his accession really meant that the murderer's victim in
the person of his son thrust aside the impostor in order to take his
proper
place. Officially, however, Basil's successor was regarded as his legitimate
heir, and many no doubt believed that he was in fact his son and
1 As we are here considering only the internal government of the sovereigns of
the Macedonian house, no mention is made of the religious enterprises of Basil and
his successors in the mission field, a subject which appears to belong too exclusively
to Basil's foreign policy. To the Emperors, missions were a method of conquest as
much as or more than a purely apostolic work. See infra, Chapter vii B.
## p. 55 (#97) ##############################################
Accession and antecedents of Leo VI
52
Eudocia's. It is this false situation which explains the estrangemen
between Basil and Leo, the conduct of the latter, and doubtless also th
existence of a party at court which remained permanently hostile to Basi
and constant to Michael's dynasty in the person of Leo VI.
Leo, when he ascended the throne at Constantinople (886), was twent
years old. Up to that time his life had been a painful one. It is tru
that Basil had given him an excellent education, and that his care ha
not been thrown away. We know that Leo VI was surnamed the Wise
or the Philosopher, probably on account of his writings, his eloquence
and his learning. But this was certainly the sole advantage which th
new ruler owed to his nominal father. While he was still quite young
Basil had him tonsured; then, as he had an heir in the person of Con
stantine and as public opinion looked upon him as the father of the second
child also, he associated him in the Empire with Constantine, and soon
afterwards with Alexander. As long as Constantine lived, the relation
between Basil and Leo were in no way unusual, but on the death of the
eldest son the situation was changed. Leo now became the heir, the
second place only falling to Alexander. It will easily be understood tha
this was a grief to Basil. At all costs he desired to set Leo aside in favou
of Alexander. In the winter of 880–881 the Emperor married his adopted
son to a young girl for whom he had no affection and who might be sup
posed unlikely to bear him children. This was Theophano, a relation o
Eudocia Ingerina, afterwards St Theophano. A daughter was, neverthe
less, born of this marriage, named Eudocia, but she died in 892. He
birth no doubt caused an increase of hatred on both sides. Leo roused
himself, the party which he led took shape, and in 885 a revolt broke
out under John Curcuas, Domestic of the Hicanati, supported by sixty
six fellow-plotters, all great dignitaries of the court. The conspirator
were discovered and severely punished. Leo, who had been concerned in
the affair, was betrayed by a monk named Theodore Santabarenus, and
thrown into prison with his wife and little daughter. The Emperor
threatened to have his eyes put out, but was dissuaded from this course
by Photius himself, and some of the courtiers. Leo was restored to hi
dignities, but the Emperor gave him neither his confidence nor his affection
Before long, Basil died, as a result of a hunting-accident which may wel
have been a murder.
A light was at once shed upon the doubtful paternity of Leo by hi
conduct on the death of Basil I. Without bestowing much attention or
the remains of his supposed father, he reserved all his care for those o
his real parent, Michael III. Immediately on his accession he ordered
that the body of the murdered Emperor should be solemnly removed
from Chrysopolis, where it had been hastily interred in 867, and brought
to Constantinople, where a magnificent funeral service was held over i
in the church of the Holy Apostles. It thus appeared that he wished to
emphasise the renewal, in his own person, of a dynastic tradition which
CH. III.
## p. 56 (#98) ##############################################
56
End of the Photian schism
had been momentarily interrupted. He then applied himself to the task
of government, in theory jointly with Alexander but practically as sole
ruler. The reign of Leo VI is in one sense the completion and crowning
of that of Basil. All the reforms adumbrated during the late reign were
achieved and codified under Leo, and the majority of the questions then
left unsolved were now dealt with. To pronounce the reign a poor and
feeble one is grossly unfair. It is true that, as far as foreign affairs are
concerned, there is little to record and that little not of a fortunate
kind. Leo VI evidently was not built on the scale of Basil. Far more
at home in court and cabinet than his predecessor, he had none of the
qualities of a general. This did not, however, prevent his doing useful
work as a ruler.
The first religious question which confronted the new government
was that of Photius. Leo was certain to be a foe to the Patriarch, who,
with the help of his friend Santabarenus, had done his utmost to ex-
acerbate Basil against his heir. He had hoped to profit by the late Em-
peror's weakened condition and by the youth of his successor to thrust one
of his own relatives into the chief authority. In any case, it was he who,
through the agency of Santabarenus, had procured the imprisonment of
Leo and his family. Thus, when after his three months' disgrace Leo's
dignities had been restored to him by Basil, Santabarenus had been driven
to his see of Euchaita near Trebizond, there to hide himself in oblivion.
But unfortunately for both parties Leo did not forget. By the new Em-
peror's orders, immediately upon the death of Basil, Photius was removed
from his office, and a tribunal met to try his case as well as that of his
accomplice. Their guilt could not in point of fact be proved, but this
did not affect the result of their trial. The Patriarch was sent into exile,
dying at Bordi or Gordi in Armenia in 891 ; Santabarenus was scourged
and banished to Athens, where his eyes were put out. Then Leo's young
brother Stephen, aged sixteen, was raised to the Patriarchal See at
Christmas 886. His tenure of it was but brief, for he died on 17 May
893. Finally, in 900, after letters and legates had passed between Rome
and Constantinople, the act uniting the two Churches was solemnly
signed, Anthony Cauleas being Patriarch. By these various means the
schism was brought to an end, and some measure of peace was restored to
the Church.
This repose was not, indeed, of long duration, for during Leo's reign
an obscure religious question arose to rekindle popular excitement and
theological passion, namely, the successive marriages of the Emperor. On
10 November 893 Theophano died, and Leo was at last free to think
of re-marrying. Now for a long time, to the great displeasure of Basil,
Leo had maintained a mistress named Zoë, a woman, it would appear,
of the worst possible reputation. Her father was Stylianus Zaützes,
Leo's guardian, who had probably encouraged his sovereign's passion,
for immediately upon his accession Leo loaded him with favours, put
## p. 57 (#99) ##############################################
Leo's four marriages
57
the direction of public business into his hands, and before long, having
already raised him to the rank of magister, created for him the sound-
ing title of Basileopator (894). He then married Zoë as his second
wife, but a few months after her marriage she also died, during the
summer of 896, without having borne a male heir to the Emperor.
Contrary to all rule and custom, Leo determined on a third marriage, and
in the spring of 899 he took as his wife a young Phrygian girl named
Eudocia, by whose death he was again left a widower on 20 April 900
Not long after he was attracted by the daughter of a noble and saintly
family, Zoë, who in allusion to her black eyes was surnamed Carbo-
nupsina. The Emperor at first could not venture to marry her. He
several times manifested his intention of doing so, but met with such
general reprobation that he felt forced to refrain, until the day when
Zoë
gave
birth to a son, afterwards Constantine VII. This was in the
autumn of 905. In January 906 the child was solemnly baptised by the
Patriarch, but only upon condition that Leo should dismiss Zoë. This
stipulation was in accordance not only with the canons of the Byzantine
Church but also with the civil laws enacted by Leo himself. Both alike
forbade a fourth marriage.
It will be readily understood that this austere provision commended
itself neither to Leo nor to Zoë. The Emperor wished to legitimate his
sole heir and successor ; Zoë hoped to become Empress and to reign.
Now the Patriarch had already refused to concur in the marriage with
Eudocia, and had suspended the priest who blessed the union. And,
moreover, that Patriarch was Anthony Cauleas, and the question was
merely of a third marriage. What was likely to be the attitude of the
new Patriarch, Nicholas, towards a fourth union ? Leo, however, per-
sisted. Three days after Constantine's baptism, he married Zoë and
created her Augusta. Nicholas, though he had been a friend of the Em-
peror from childhood and had been named Patriarch by him, did not
temporise. Having in vain endeavoured to influence his master, he re
fused to recognise the marriage, and at the end of 906 forbade the guilty
Emperor to enter St Sophia. The Patriarch had on his side the Church
the court, and the city. It was, however, agreed that Rome should be
consulted on the subject. Both Nicholas and Leo wrote to the Pope,
who despatched legates, and in the end granted a dispensation for the
marriage. The Eastern Patriarchates also sanctioned this relaxation of
the established law, and immediately Nicholas was driven into exile and
resigned his office. He was succeeded by Euthymius, a saintly man, in
January 907. But the conflict of course was not to be so easily ex
tinguished. In June 911 the debates on the Emperor's fourth marriage
were still going on. They lasted, indeed, up to the death of Leo (11 May
912) and even beyond it.
Leo's legislative activity shewed itself in the ecclesiastical domain as
well as in the civil. Between 901 and 907, in conjunction with his friend
CH. III.
## p. 58 (#100) #############################################
58
Administration and legislation
לי
the Patriarch Nicholas, he published a list of the Churches in dependence
upon Constantinople and the order of their precedence. He thus carried
through a genuine reorganisation of the outer framework of the Byzan-
tine Church, including Illyricum in its jurisdiction, despite the repeated
protests of the See of Rome. These Néa Taktiká which form the sequel
to the Ilalaià Taktiká of the preceding period shew us, in fact, the
ecclesiastical provinces of the Balkan peninsula grouped around Con-
stantinople.
Independently of this new set of regulations, and before it was issued,
Leo, as soon as he succeeded to power, had addressed to his brother
Stephen a series of Novels dealing with ecclesiastical affairs, the interior
organisation of the Church, and religious discipline, just as the Patriarch
himself might have done. It was he also who created certain new ecclesi-
astical honours, or gave greater importance to others already existing, such
as the office of syncellus held by his brother before he became Patriarch.
These measures formed part of a general scheme of reform already initiated
by Basil, which Leo desired to follow up to a successful issue.
To whatever branch of the civil administration we turn, traces appear
of the handiwork of Leo VI. His energy seems to have been enormous.
The book of “Ceremonies,” a collection published by Constantine VII,
dealing with the organisation and working of the court and the different
civil and religious ceremonies, contains material compiled under Leo VI.
At any rate, to it was appended the Kantopołórylov, or ceremonial
treatise of precedence at court, composed in 899 by the atriclines (dapifer)
Philotheus? .
