Page:Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire vol 5 (1897).djvu/545

 APPENDIX 523 Mr. Hutton maintains a theory (which had been promulgated by Crackan- thorpo at the beginning of the seventeenth century, and controverted by Hody towards the end of the same century), that Justinian never fell into the Aphthar- todocetic heresy. He is compelled to reject the distinct evidence of contem- porary writers (cp. above, p. 140, n. 101) ; and he rests his case, which he has defended with great ability, on the high character for orthodoxy borne by Justinian and his theological learning, and on the fact that his memory was not condemned by the Church. Cut the direct evidence is too strong, whatever opinion be held either of the sincerity of Justinian in theological matters, or as to the psychological probabilitj' of a theologian of seventj- or eighty years of age lapsing into a christological heresy. As the edict was never issued, the Church was not called on to condemn him. 9. PERIODS OF THE LATER EMPIRE, A.D. 610 TO A.D. 1204— (CHAP. XLVIII.) Many readers of the xlviiith chapter, having travelled over the long series of the later Emperors through a period of six hundred years, may come away with a bewildered feeling of having seen much and distinguished little, and with a conviction that it would require an arduous effort of the memory to retain the succession of the princes and the association of each with his own acts. The memory, however, will find the task considerably alleviated, when the whole period is divided into certain lesser periods into which it naturallj- falls ; and it might have been well if Gibbon had added to his lucid exposition of the plan of his own work (in the introduction to this chapter) a brief survey of the six hun- dred years, according to its divisions. These divisions roughly correspond to dynasties. (1) Heraclian Dynasty. Seventh century, a. d. 610-717. In this period the Empire declines in power, and the boundaries retreat, throvigh the encroachments of the Saracen and Slavonic invaders. It ends with twenty 3'ears of anarchy (a.d. 69.5-717) : Justinian II. being overthrown ; followed by two tyrants ; restored again to power ; killed ; and followed by three tyrants. (2) Iconoclastic Period. Eighth and ninth centuries, a.d. 717-867. This is the period of revival. The territorial extent of the Empire is still further reduced, but, within its diminished borders, between the Haemus and the Taurus, it is consolidated and renovated. This is mainly the work of the two great Emperors Leo III. and his sou Constantine V. (717-775). On the principle of dynastic division, this period falls into three parts : — {a) Syrian (commonly called Isaurian) Dynasty, a.d. 717-802. {b) Three Emperors who did not found dynasties, a.d. 802-820. (c) Amorian Dynasty, a.d. 820-867. But it may be more usefully divided into two parts, representing the two triumphs and defeats of iconoclasm. (a) A.D. 717-813. Doctrine of iconoclasm established under the first three Emperors (717-780) ; reaction against it, and restoration of images, under Irene and Constantine (780-802). The following Emperor (Nicephorus) is indifferent, and his successor (Michael I. ) is an image-worshipper. (6) A.D. 813-867. Iconoclasm re-established by three Emperors (813-842) ; re- action against it, and restoration of images, under Theodora and Michael III. (842-867). Thus the history- of iconoclasm in the ninth century is a replica of its history in the eighth ; and observe that in both cases the reaction was carried out under a female sovereign. (3) Basilian, or Armenian (" Macedonian"), Dynasty, a.d. 867-1057. This period is marked by a reaction against the policy of the Iconoclasts (cp. Appendix 10), and by a remarkable territorial expansion, rendered po.ssible by the consolidation which had been the work of the great Iconoclasts. We may con- veniently distinguish three sub-periods: (a) a.d, 867-959, marked by great legis-