Page:Destruction of the Greek Empire.djvu/232

 198 DESTRUCTION OF THE GREEK EMPIRE succession of the political and religious systems of Byzantium as well as of its mission to the non-civilised nations of Asia. 1 Allowing for the difference between the Greek and the Slav intellect, the analogy in a general sense holds fairly good, and is especially noticeable in two points, the religious spirit of both peoples and their contented exclusion from all active participation in the government. It is, however, difficult to determine how far the con- ditions of existence in the first half of the fifteenth century among the citizens of the capital resembled those found in Eussia. The difficulty arises, not merely from distance of time, but from the fact that iD the empire manners, usages, the conception of life, and the influence of religion were neither Western nor modern. The people were governed much as Kussia is governed now : but there were important differences due to race, tradition, and environment. Never- theless, the condition of the empire reminds one of the Eussia of fifty years ago. There were the same great distances be- tween the capital and the provinces and the same difficulty of communication. News travelled slowly ; public opinion hardly existed. There were in the country a mass of ignorant peasants tilling the ground and caring little for anything else, peasants who were in a condition of serfdom, thinking of the emperor as a demi-god and rendering unquestioning obedience to his representatives ; thinking of the Church as a divine institution entrusted with miraculous powers to confer a life after death, but far too ignorant to trouble themselves about heresies or dogmas. Among these peasants probably only the priests and monks were able to read, although among a people naturally intelligent this would not necessarily imply a want of interest in what was going on around them. The analogy to Eussia must not be pushed too far. Eeligion and language, a common form of Christianity and the traditional duty of submission to the rule of Constantinople were the bonds which held the empire together, but the Greek tendency to individualism 1 Eambaud, L' empire de Gre'ce, p. 367. Bikelas and Finlay make the same comparison.