Page:EB1911 - Volume 14.djvu/825

 Ter-Minassianz, have published from an Armenian translation a German edition (Leipzig, 1907; minor edition 1908) of the work “in proof of the apostolic teaching” mentioned by Eusebius (H.E. v. 26). This work, which is in the form of a dialogue with one Marcianus, otherwise unknown to us, contains a statement of the fundamental truths of Christianity. It is the oldest catechism extant, and an excellent example of how Bishop Irenaeus was able not only to defend Christianity as a theologian and expound it theoretically, but also to preach it to laymen.

—The edition of the Benedictine R. Massuet (Paris, 1710 and 1734, reprinted in Migne, Cursus patrologiae, Series Graeca, vol. v., Paris, 1857) long continued to be the standard one, till it was superseded by the editions of Adolph Stieren (2 vols., Leipzig, 1848–1853) and of W. Wigan Harvey (2 vols., Cambridge, 1857), the latter being the only edition which contains the Syriac fragments. For an English translation see the Ante-Nicene Library. Of modern monographs consult H. Ziegler, Irenaeus, der Bischof von Lyon (Berlin, 1871); Friedrich Loofs, Irenaeus-Handschriften (Leipzig, 1888); Johannes Werner, Der Paulinismus des Irenaeus (Leipzig, 1889); Johannes Kunze, Die Gotteslehre des Irenaeus (Leipzig, 1891); Ernst Klebba, Die Anthropologie des heiligen Irenaeus (Münster, 1894); Albert Dufourcq, Saint Irénée (Paris, 1904); Franz Stoll, ''Die Lehre des Heil. Irenaeus von der Erlösung'' und Heiligung (Mainz, 1905); also the histories of dogma, especially Harnack, and Bethune-Baker, An Introduction to the Early History of Christian Doctrine (London, 1903).

IRENE, the name of several Byzantine empresses.

1. (752–803), the wife of Leo IV., East Roman emperor. Originally a poor but beautiful Athenian orphan, she speedily gained the love and confidence of her feeble husband, and at his death in 780 was left by him sole guardian of the empire and of their ten-year-old son Constantine VI. Seizing the supreme power in the name of the latter, Irene ruled the empire at her own discretion for ten years, displaying great firmness and sagacity in her government. Her most notable act was the restoration of the orthodox image-worship, a policy which she always had secretly favoured, though compelled to abjure it in her husband’s lifetime. Having elected Tarasius, one of her partisans, to the patriarchate (784), she summoned two church councils. The former of these, held in 786 at Constantinople, was frustrated by the opposition of the soldiers. The second, convened at Nicaea in 787, formally revived the adoration of images and reunited the Eastern church with that of Rome. As Constantine approached maturity he began to grow restive under her autocratic sway. An attempt to free himself by force was met and crushed by the empress, who demanded that the oath of fidelity should thenceforward be taken in her name alone. The discontent which this occasioned swelled in 790 into open resistance, and the soldiers, headed by the Armenian guard, formally proclaimed Constantine VI. as the sole ruler. A hollow semblance of friendship was maintained between Constantine and Irene, whose title of empress was confirmed in 792; but the rival factions remained, and Irene, by skilful intrigues with the bishops and courtiers, organized a powerful conspiracy on her own behalf. Constantine could only flee for aid to the provinces, but even there he was surrounded by participants in the plot. Seized by his attendants on the Asiatic shore of the Bosporus, the emperor was carried back to the palace at Constantinople; and there, by the orders of his mother, his eyes were stabbed out. An eclipse of the sun and a darkness of seventeen days’ duration were attributed by the common superstition to the horror of heaven. Irene reigned in prosperity and splendour for five years. She is said to have endeavoured to negotiate a marriage between herself and Charlemagne; but according to Theophanes, who alone mentions it, the scheme was frustrated by Aëtius, one of her favourites. A projected alliance between Constantine and Charlemagne’s daughter, Rothrude, was in turn broken off by Irene. In 802 the patricians, upon whom she had lavished every honour and favour, conspired against her, and placed on the throne Nicephorus, the minister of finance. The haughty and unscrupulous princess, “who never lost sight of political power in the height of her religious zeal,” was exiled to Lesbos and forced to support herself by spinning. She died the following year. Her zeal in restoring images and monasteries has given her a place among the saints of the Greek church.

See E. Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (ed. J. Bury, London, 1896), vol. v.; G. Finlay, History of Greece (ed. 1877, Oxford,) vol. ii.; F. C. Schlosser, Geschichte der bilderstürmenden Kaiser des oströmischen Reiches (Frankfort, 1812); J. D. Phoropoulos,  (Leipzig, 1887); J. B. Bury, The Later Roman Empire (London, 1889), ii. 480-498; C. Diehl, Figures byzantines (Paris, 1906), pp. 77-109.

2. (c. 1066–c. 1120), the wife of Alexius I. The best-known fact of her life is the unsuccessful intrigue by which she endeavoured to divert the succession from her son John to Nicephorus Bryennius, the husband of her daughter Anna. Having failed to persuade Alexius, or, upon his death, to carry out a coup d’état with the help of the palace guards, she retired to a monastery and ended her life in obscurity.

3. (d. 1161), the first wife of Manuel Comnenus. She was the daughter of the count of Sulzbach, and sister-in-law of the Roman emperor Conrad II., who arranged her betrothal. The marriage was celebrated at Constantinople in 1146. The new empress, who had exchanged her earlier name of Bertha for one more familiar to the Greeks, became a devoted wife, and by the simplicity of her manner contrasted favourably with most Byzantine queens of the age.

IRETON, HENRY (1611–1651), English parliamentary general, eldest son of German Ireton of Attenborough, Nottinghamshire, was baptized on the 3rd of November 1611, became a gentleman commoner of Trinity College, Oxford, in 1626, graduated B.A. in 1629, and entered the Middle Temple the same year. On the outbreak of the Civil War he joined the parliamentary army, fought at Edgehill and at Gainsborough in July 1643, was made by Cromwell deputy-governor of the Isle of Ely, and next year served under Manchester in the Yorkshire campaign and at the second battle of Newbury, afterwards supporting Cromwell in his accusations of incompetency against the general. On the night before the battle of Naseby, in June 1645, he succeeded in surprising the Royalist army and captured many prisoners, and next day, on the suggestion of Cromwell, he was made commissary-general and appointed to the command of the left wing, Cromwell himself commanding the right. The wing under Ireton was completely broken by the impetuous charge of Rupert, and Ireton was wounded and taken prisoner, but after the rout of the enemy which ensued on the successful charge of Cromwell he regained his freedom. He was present at the siege of Bristol in the September following, and took an active part in the subsequent victorious campaign which resulted in the overthrow of the royal cause. On the 30th of October 1645 Ireton entered parliament as member for Appleby, and while occupied with the siege of Oxford he was, on the 15th of June 1646, married to Bridget, daughter of Oliver Cromwell. This union brought Ireton into still closer connexion with Cromwell, with whose career he was now more completely identified. But while Cromwell’s policy was practically limited to making the best of the present situation, and was generally inclined to compromise, Ireton’s attitude was based on well-grounded principles of statesmanship. He was opposed to the destructive schemes of the extreme party, disliked especially the abstract and unpractical theories of the Republicans and the Levellers, and desired, while modifying their mutual powers, to retain the constitution of King, Lords and Commons. He urged these views in the negotiations of the army with the parliament, and in the conferences with the king, being the person chiefly entrusted with the drawing up of the army proposals, including the manifesto called “The Heads of the Proposals.” He endeavoured to prevent the breach between the army and the parliament, but when the division became inevitable took the side of the former. He persevered in supporting the negotiations with the king till his action aroused great suspicion and unpopularity. He became at length convinced of the hopelessness of dealing with Charles, and after the king’s flight to the Isle of Wight treated his further proposals with coldness and urged the parliament