Page:Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire vol 5 (1897).djvu/546

 524 APPENDIX lative activity, and some attempts to recover lost provinces — successful only in Italy ; (h) a.d. 959-1025, marked by large acquisitions of long-lost territory, both in Asia and Europe ; (t) a.d. 1025-1057, stationary. The succession of these three periods of decline, renovation, and expansion, is illustrated by an exact parallel in the succession of three corresponding but shorter periods, in the fifth and sixth centuries. There we see the decline and territorial diminution of the Empire, in the reigns of Arcadius and Theodosius II., under the stress of the Gothic and Hunnic invasions ; the renovation, with finan- cial retrenchment, under Zeno and Anastasius ; the brilliant territorial expansion, under Justinian, rendered possible by the carefiU policy of his predecessors. It is also remarkable that the third period in both cycles is marked by great legi.sla- tive activity. Further, the last part of the Basilian period (a.d. 1025-1057) corresponds to the reigns of Justin II., Tiberius II., and Maurice. (4) Comnenian Dynasty, a.d. 1057-1204. At the very beginning of this period, the Empire, undermined by centuries of a pernicious economic .system and strained to the utmost by the ambitious policy of the Basilian period, yields to the invasion of the Seljuk Turks and loses territory which it had never lost before. A series of able, nay, brilliant, princes presei-ve the fabric for another century and a quarter ; but, when it passes into the hands of the incapable Angeli, it collai^ses at the first touch (a.d. 1204). This period of decline, following on the period of expansion, corresponds to the earlier period of decline in the 7th century, following on the expansion of the 6th. The Persian invasion under Phocas and Heraclius corresponds to the Seljuk invasion under Romanus Diogenes ; while Heraclius, Constaus II., and Constantine IV. correspond to Alexius, .John, and Manuel: we have even a parallel to the wayward Justinian II. in the wayward Andronicus. The two cycles might be presented thus : — Revival : ] Second half of 5th century. I 8th century. Expansion : 6th century. | 9th-llth century. Decline : ! 7th century. Ilth-l2th century. Result : | Anarchy, c. a.d. 700. | Fall, c. a.d. 1200. 10. A CHRONOLOGICAL QUESTION OF THE EIGHTH CENTURY— (P. 184, 186) From the year a.d. 726 to the year a.d. 774 there is a consistent inconsistency in the dates of the chronicle of Theophanes. The Anni Mundi and the indictions do not correspond. Thus a.m. 6220 is equated with Ind. 12; but while a.m. 6220 answers to a.d. 727-8, Ind. 12 should answer to a.d. 728-9. It has been generally assumed that the Indictions are right and the Anni Mundi wrong ; and the received chronology (of Baronius, Pagi, Gibbon, Lebeau, Muralt, Finlay, Hopf, &c.. &<5. ) is based on this assumption. But it was pointed out (Bury, Later Roman Empire, ii., 425-7) that the anomaly was not due to an error of Theophanes (of the same kind as that which he perpetrated in his annals of the preceding century, see above, Appendix 1), since a contemporary document (the Ecloga of Leo and Constantine) presents the same inconsistency ; and that we must infer that the Anni Mundi are right and the Indictions wrong. For, while the Anni lIundi represented a chronological system based on historical data., with which the government could not conceivably have tampered, the Indictions were part of a financial system which might be manipulated by the Emperor. The conclu!*ion was drawn (Bury, ih. ) that Leo VI. had packed two indictions into one year of twelve months, for the pur- pose of raising a double capitation tax ; and that, nearly fifty years later, Constan- tine V. spread one indiction over two years of twelve months (a.d. 772-4), so restoring the correspondence between Anni Mundi and Indictions according to