Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 3.djvu/140

 BYZANTINE

108

BYZANTINE

Seldom has there been such an accumulation of moral filth as in the family of Basil the Macedonian (867- 86). The founder of the house, a handsome hostler of Armenian extraction, from the vicinity of Adrian- ople, attracted the notice of a high official by his powerful build and his athletic strength and later gained the favour of the dissolute emperor Michael III, the last of the Phrygian emperors. Basil was also a favourite with women. His relations with the elderly Danielis of Patras, whom he had met whilst in the retinue of his master, were most scandalous. The gifts of this extremely wealthy woman laid the foundations of Basil's fortune. The depth of his baseness, however, is best seen in his marriage to the emperor's mistress, Eudocia Ingerina. Michael III stipulated that Eudocia should remain his mistress, to that it is impossible to say who was the father of Leo VI, the Wise (886-912). His physical frailty and taste for learned pursuits — during his reign the

Code of the Basilica was prepared in sixty books — as also the mutual aversion between Basil and Leo are no evidence for the paternity of the Macedonian. If this view be correct, Basil's line was soon extinct, as his real son, Alexander, reigned only one year (912-13). Constantine VII, Porphyrogenitus (913- 59), the long wished-for heir, by the fourth marriage of Leo the Wise, inherited the learned tastes of his father, but was not completely deficient in energy. It is true he left the government at first to his father- in-law, Romanus I, Lacapenus (919-44), and later to his wife Helena; still, when Romanus had become too overbearing, Constantine VII showed himself possessed of enough initiative to enlist the aid of Stephen and Constantine, sons of Romanus, in over- throwing the power of their father, and, later, to set aside his brothers-in-law (945). In Romanus II (959-63) the dissolute nature of his great-grandfather Michael III reappeared. His reign, fortunately, lasted only a few years, and then Theophano, his widow, the daughter of an innkeeper, took into her hands the reins of government, for her minor sons. Circumstances compelled her marriage with Nicepho- rus II, Phocas (963-69), an old and fanatically religious warrior. He is the first of that series of great military leaders who occupied the Byzantine throne, and who soon raised the empire to undreamed- of heights of power. As in the dynasty of Heraclius, three <>t these reigned in succession: Nicephorus II, John Zimisces, ami Basil II. John I, Zimisces (969- 76), was the nephew of Nicephorus, but very unlike him. The younger man was as joyous and life-loving in disposition as the older was grim and unlovable. Theophano, therefore, did not hesitate to introduce into the palace the murderer of her morose husband. Hut like Sophia, niece of the great Theodora, she saw her hopes dashed to the ground. The new emperor

ied her in a convent and, to legitimize his power,

i Married Theodora, sister of Basil and Const ant inc. t he two young emperors. Like his uncle, John Zimisces was only coregent, but he showed great force in his ad- ministration of affairs. At his death the elder of the young emperors was competent to take charge of the SI iti Luckily, Basil II (976 1025) proved as capable a military leader ae his two predecessors. It. was un-

der his brother, Constantine VIII (1026-28), that the reaction set in. In opposition to the great imperial generals who had brought the empire to an unhoped- for pinnacle of power, a civilian party had grown up which had for its aim the curtailment of military power. This party was successful during the reigns of Constantine and his successors. Constantine VlII left two daughters, Zoe and Theodora. Zoe (102S-50) was forty-eight years of age at the death of her father, but even after that married three times, and by her amours and her jealousy brought many trials upon her younger sister. Zoe's three husbands, Romanus III, Argyrus (1028-34), Michael IV (1034- 41), and Constantine IX, Monomachus (1042-54), all came from the higher bureaucratic circles. Thus the civil party had gained its end. This explains why neither Zoe nor the nephew of her second hus- band, whom she had adopted, and who proved so ungrateful, Michael V (1041-42 — termed the Caulker because his father was a naval engineer) could uphold the glory attained by the State during the times of the great military emperors. Even generals as great as Georgius Maniaces and Harold Hardrada — the latter, chief of the North-German (Varangian) body- guard which was coming more and more into promi- nence^ — were powerless to stem the tide of the de- cline. The general discontent was most manifest when Theodora, on the death of her sister and her last surviving brother-in-law, assumed the reins of power, and not unsuccessfully (1054-56). On her death-bed she transferred the purple to the aged senator Michael VI, Stratioticus (1056-57). This was the signal for the military power to protest. The holders of great landed estates in Asia Minor gave the power instead to one of their own faction. Isaac I, Comnenus, inaugurates a new era.

During the period of its greatest power, i. e. under the military emperors, the Byzantine State was able to expand equally in all directions. It had its share of reverses, it is true. The most important was the final loss of Sicily to the Saracens; in 87S Syracuse fell, and in 902 Tauromenium (Taormina), the last Byzantine stronghold on the island, was taken by the Arabs. Two years later Thessalonica was sub- jected to an appalling pillage. As compensation for the loss of Sicily, however, the Byzantines had Lower Italy, where, since the conquest of Bari (875), the Lombard thema had been established. This led to the renewal of relations with the Western pow- ers, especially with the recently founded Saxon line. The Byzantines were still able to hold their own with these, as formerly with the Carlovingians. Con- spicuous was the success of the campaigns against the Arabs in the East: the fall of the Caliphate of Bagdad rendered it possible to push forward the fron- tier towards Syria; Melitene (928), Nisibis (942 13), Tarsus and Cyprus (965), and Antioch (968-69) were captured in turn. About the same time (961) Crete was wrested back from the Arabs. These were the battlefields on which the great generals of the empire, chiefly Armenian, Paphlagonian, and Cappa- docian by race, won distinction. Under Romanus 1 it was the great Armenian Kurkuas. and later the Cappadocian Nicephorus Phocas who achieved these victories. Nicephorus. as husband of Theophano, ascended the throne, and as emperor he achieved his victorious campaign against the Arabs. His assassination brought to the throne his nephew John Zimisces, an Armenian, and fortunately a war- rior as great as his uncle.

John made preparations for the subjugation of the

Bulgarians. 1 1 will be recalled how Tsar Boris in- troduced Christianity into Bulgaria and, even at that period, thought, by ingratiating himself with

Rome to escape from Byzantine influence. Tsar

Synieon (893 927) devised another way of attaining independence, He raised his archbishop to the rank