BYZANTINE EMPIRE. 757 BYZANTINE EMPIRE. perous and its enemies were weak. Romanus II. (95O-!)0;5), son of Constantine. reconquered Crete tlirou<;li his able general. Nieepliorus Phocas. The latter became Emperor (;)G3-itGl)) by marry- ing Komanus's sister, but he ruled the Empire in the name of his two step-sons. Basil II. (963- 1025) and Constantine VIII. (003-1028) . and the same was done by John Zimisces (!)G9-!)78), who murdered Xicephorus and married his widow. Like Xicephorus, John Zimisces was an able sol- dier. He defeated the Russians and reconquered Antioch and Edessa fiom the Saracens. Basil II. succeeded to the Empire, crushed the Bulgarians, and extended his dominions farther than any Emperor since Justinian. Constantine VIII. was sole Emperor from 1025 to 1028. He had taken little part in the government before and was very weak. On his death without a son the Lusbands'and creatures of his daughter Zoe ruled the Empire for twenty-six years. It was on the whole a very disastrous period. But Theodora, Zee's sister, who ruled from 1054 to 1057, was able and virtuous. With her the Macedonian line ended. For twenty-six years there was a succession of emperors of little importance, none of them able to cope with the Seljukian Turks, who rapidly conquered all of the Asiatic possessions of the Empire. Alexis Comnenus (1081-1118) was compelled to face new dangers from the attacks of the Xormans and the armies of the Crusaders. He struggled bravely and was successful in many respects. But, unfortunately, the tinances of the Empire were seriously impaired by the diversion of commerce from Constantinople occasioned by the growth of the Italian cities and the founda- tion of the Kingdom of Jenisalem. In addition, the policy of Alexis caused the Greeks to be bitterly hated by the Crusaders. Alexis was succeeded by .John the Good { 1118-43), who was vigorous and warlike. He was constantly en- gaged in fighting the Seljuks, Hungarians, Ser- vians, and Armenians. Manuel Comnenus (1143- 80) engaged in many wars for his own personal glory, but neglected the finances and government, so that he left the Empire in a bad condition. In the next twenty-four years incompetent rulers brought the Empire to the verge of ruin. Cyprus was lost, Bulgaria became independent, and the Seljuks threatened to conquer Constantinople. The Venetians were hostile, and allied themselves for an expedition with the Crusaders, who covet- ed the riches of Constantinople, which seemed to them fabulous. In 1204 Constantinople was taken and sacked and the Latin Empire estab- lished. This was very weak and lasted only until 1261, when Michael Palaeologus, the ruler of Xicaa, the strongest of the Greek States which had arisen when the capital was captured by the Franks, expelled the Latins and reestablished .a Byzantine Empire. But this empire was much smaller than it had been in 1204, and the ruling familv, the PaUeologi. were unable to make it powerful. Michael ail. (1201-82) attempted to gain allies by offering to bring the Greek Church under the authority 6f the Pope. His son, An- dronicus II. (1282-1328), was utterlj' incompe- tent, and the last years of his reign were filled with civil wars. period of disaster followed. The command of the sea was lost, the finances were in hopeless disorder, and the rulers were weak. The Ottoman Turks were now establish- ing their pnwf-r nn tlip ruins of the Seljukian realm in Asia Minor, and one by one they con- quered the provinces of the Empire.. Under John V. (1341-91) the Turks made their first perma- nent conquest in Europe bv seizing Gallipoli in 1.354. .Manuel II. (1391-1425) and .John VIII. (1425-48) were feeble rulers and practically vas- sals of the Sultan. Constantine XIII. (1448-53) struggled bravely but unsuccessfully to retain his capital, the only portion of the Empire which was left, and finally, in 1453, Constantinople was taken by the Turks. The capture of the capital marks the end of the Byzantine Empire. Until recently it has been the fashion to treat the Bj'zantine Empire with contempt. CJibbon described its history as " a tedious and uniform tale of weakness and misery." Voltaire spoke of it as "a worthless repertory of declamation and miracles, disgraceful to the human mind." Montesquieu wrote: "The history of the Greek Empire, from Phocas on. is merely a succession of revolts, schisms, and treacheries." Taine con- demned it as "a gigantic moldiness lasting a thousand years." In 1854 a writer in an Eng- lish review "rejoiced over the supposed momcut when the last Byzantine historian was blo i into the air by our brave allies the Turks." But in the last half-century all this has been changed. Scholars now recognize the inestimable debt which we owe to the Byzantine Empire. They realize that for eight centuries the Roman Em- pire, transplanted to Xew Rome, i.e. Constanti- nople, persisted in its task ; that law, literature, industry, and commerce did not cease to flourish ; that Constantinople stemmed the tide of invasion from the East, which otherwise might have en- gulfed all Europe. They have learned that the most striking feature of Byzantine history is "its constant vitality and power of revival," its "marvelous recuperative energy," shown at every crisis in its history. It is impossible to characterize this history as a whole, because it covers a period of time greater in length than the history of England from the Xorman Conquest to the present day. For more than a thousand years d.'nasties changed, wars and revolutions took place, the fortunes of the Empire sank and rose again. Of the 107 persons who ruled from 395 to 1453 as emperors or associates of emperors, 20 were as- sassinated. 18 were blinded or otherwise muti- lated, 12 died in a monastery or a prison, 12 abdicated uiider compulsion or of their own free will, 3 died of starvation. 8 died in battle'or as a result of accident — a total of 73. Vice, corrup- tion, and cruclt.v were the dominant features at some periods; the government was despotic; the people were superstitious, effeminate, and ser- vile. Yet the Empire lived on; the administra- tion and organization remained effective; the traditions and civilization of Old Rome were maintained. Great wealth, which was a source of wonder to all visitors, was accumulated, and great armies, which were the most eft'ective in the world, were maintained. If an.v scholar, in spite of the complexitv of B.vzantine history, should attempt a generalization, probably he would say, as Frederic Harrison has said — "Irst, that the Byzantine Empire preserved more of the tradi- tion, civil and military organization, wealth, art, and literature of the older Rome than existed elsewhere: and. secondl.v, that in many essen- tials of civilization it was more modern than the nascent nations of the West." These are the
