Page:EB1911 - Volume 23.djvu/541

a mental transformation, which we can trace for 300 years before in visible processes of decay and growth, had reached a crisis.

Besides the adoption of Christianity, Constantine's reign is marked by an event only second in importance, the shifting of the centre of gravity of the Empire from the west to the east by making Byzantium a second capital, a second Rome. The foundation of Constantinople (q.v.) determined the subsequent history of the state; it established permanently the division between the eastern and western parts of the Empire—a principle already introduced—and soon exhibited, though not immediately, the preponderance of the eastern half. The eastern provinces were the richest and most resourceful, and only needed a Rome in their midst to proclaim this fact; and further, it was eastward that the Empire fronted, for here was the one great civilized state with which it was in constant antagonism. Byzantium was refounded on the model of Rome, had its own senate, and presently a praefectus urbi. But its character was different in two ways: it was Christian and it was Greek. From its foundation New Rome had a Christian stamp; it had no history as the capital of a pagan empire. There was, however, no intention of depressing Rome to a secondary rank in political importance; this was brought about by the force of circumstances.

The Christian Roman Empire, from the first to the last Constantine, endured for 1130 years, and during that long period, which witnessed the births of all the great modern nations of Europe, experienced many vicissitudes of decline and revival. In the 5th century it lost all its western provinces through the expansion of the Teutons; but in the 6th asserted something of its ancient power and won back some of its losses. In the 7th it was brought very low through the expansion of the Saracens and of the Slavs, but in consequence of internal reforms and prudent government in the 8th century was able before the end of the 9th to initiate a new brilliant period of power and conquest. From the middle of the 11th century a decline began; besides the perpetual dangers on the eastern and northern frontiers, the Empire was menaced by the political aggression of the Normans and the commercial aggression of Venice; then its capital was taken and its dominions dismembered by Franks and Venetians in 1204. It survived the blow for 250 years, as a shadow of its former self.

During this long life its chief political rôle was that of acting as a defender of Europe against the great powers of western Asia. While it had to resist a continuous succession of dangerous enemies on its northern frontier in Europe—German, Slavonic, Finnic and Tatar peoples—it always considered that its front was towards the east, and that its gravest task was to face the powers which successively inherited the dominion of Cyrus and Darius. From this point of view we might divide the external history of the Empire into four great periods, each marked by a struggle with a different Asiatic power: (1) with Persia, ending c. 630 with the triumph of Rome; (2) with the Saracens, who ceased to be formidable in the 11th century; (3) with the Seljuk Turks, in the 11th and 12th centuries; (4) with the Ottoman Turks, in which the Roman power went down.

Medieval historians, concentrating their interest on the rising states of western Europe, often fail to recognize the position held by the later Empire and its European prestige. Up to the middle of the 11th century it was in actual strength the first power in Europe, except in the lifetime of Charles the Great, and under the Comneni it was still a power of the first rank. But its political strength does not express the fulness of its importance. As the heir of antiquity it was confessedly superior in civilization, and it was supreme in commerce. Throughout the whole period (to 1204) Constantinople was the first city in the world. The influence which the Empire exerted upon its neighbours, especially the Slavonic peoples, is the second great role which it fulfilled for Europe—a rôle on which perhaps the most speaking commentary is the doctrine that the Russian Tsar is the heir of the Roman Caesar.

The Empire has been called by many names—Greek, Byzantine, Lower (Bas-empire), Eastern (or East-Roman). All these have a certain justification as descriptions, but the only strictly correct name is Roman (as recognized in the title of Gibbon's work). The continuity from Augustus to Constantine XI. is unbroken; the emperor was always the Roman emperor; his subjects were always Romans (Ῥωμαῖοι: hence Romaic—Modern Greek). “Greek Empire” expresses the fact that the state became predominantly Greek in character, owing to the loss, first of the Latin provinces, afterwards of Syria and Egypt; and from the middle of the 6th century Greek became the official language. “Lower Empire” (Later is preferable) marks the great actual distinction in character between the development before Constantine (Haut-empire) and after his adoption of Christianity. “Byzantine” sums up in a word the unique Graeco-Roman civilization which was centred in New Rome. Eastern is a term of convenience, but it has been used in two senses, not to be confused. It has been used, loosely, to designate the eastern half of the Empire during the 80 years or so (from 395) when there were two lines of emperors, ruling formally as colleagues but practically independent, at Rome and Constantinople; but though there were two emperors, as often before, there was only one Empire. It has also been used, justifiably, to distinguish the true Roman Empire from the new state founded by Charles the Great (800), which also claimed to be the Roman Empire; Eastern and Western Empire are from this date forward legitimate terms of distinction. But between the periods to which the legitimate and illegitimate uses of the term “Eastern Empire” apply lies a period of more than 300 years, in which there was only one Empire in any sense of the word.

A chronological table of the dynasties will assist the reader of the historical sketch which follows.

Succession of Emperors arranged in Dynasties.

1. Constantinian Dynasty.—A.D. 324–363.

Emperors (founder of dynasty, Constantius I., 305–306): Constantine I. (306, sole emperor since), 324–337.

In west—Constantine II., 337–340; Constans, 337–350

In east—Constantius II., 337–⁠.

Sole emperors: Constantius II., 350–361; Julian, 361–363

Inter-Dynasty.—Jovian, 363–364.

2. Valentinianean Dynasty.—A.D. 364–392.

Emperors:

In west—Valentinian I., 364–375; Gratian, 367–383; Valentinian II., 375–392.

In east—Valens, 365–378 (Theodosius I., 379–392).

3. Theodosian Dynasty.—A.D. 392–457.

Emperors: Theodosius I. (379), 392–395.

In east—Arcadius, 395–408; Theodosius II., 408–450; Marcian, 450–457.

In west—Honorius, 395–423; Constantius III., 422; Valentinian III., 425–455; (non-dynastic) Maximus, 455; Avitus, 455–456.

4. Leonine Dynasty.—A.D. 457–518.

Emperors:

In east—Leo I., 457–474; Leo II., 474; Zeno, 474–491; Anastasius I., 491–518.

In west—non-dynastic, Majorian, 457–46I; Severus, 461–465; (Leo I. sole emperor, 465–467); Anthemius, 467–472; Olybrius, 472; Glycerius, 473–474; Julius Nepos, 474–480; (usurper, Romulus Augustulus, 475–476).

5. Justinianean Dynasty.—A.D. 518–602.

Emperors: Justin I., 518–527; Justinian I., 527–565; Justin II., 565–578; Tiberius II., 578–582; Maurice, 582–602.

Inter-Dynasty.—Phocas, 602–610

6. Heraclian Dynasty.—A.D. 610–711.

Emperors: Heraclius, 610–641; Constantine III., 641; Heracleonas, 641–642; Constans II., 642–668; Constantine IV. (Pogonatus) 668–685; Justinian II. (Rhinotmetus), 685–695; (non-dynastic) Leontius, 695–698 and Tiberius III. (Apsimar), 698–705; Justinian II. (restored), 705–711. II.

Inter-Dynasty.—Philip Bardanes, 711–713; Anastasius II. 713–7I6; Theodosius III., 716–717.

7. Isaurian (Syrian) Dynasty.—A.D. 717–802.

Emperors: Leo III., 717–740 (alias, 41); Constantine V. (Copronymus), 740–775; Leo IV. (Khazar), 775–780; Constantine VI., 780–797; Irene, 797–802.

Inter-Dynasty.—Nicephorus I., 802–811; Stauracius (son of Nicephorus), 811; Michael I. (Rhangabē, father-in-law of Stauracius), 811–813; Leo V. (Armenian), 813–820.

8. Phrygian or Amorian Dynasty.—A.D. 820–867.

Emperors: Michael II. (Stammerer), 820–829; Theophilus, 829–842; Michael III. (Drunkard), 842–867.

9. Macedonian Dynasty.—A.D. 867–1057.

Emperors: Basil I. (Macedonian), 867–886; Leo VI. (philosopher) and Alexander, 886–912; Constantine VII.