book 6, chapter 14 (volume 2).

BYZANTINE EMPIRE. A. D. 717. Its organization by Leo the Isaurian.

"The accession of Leo the Isaurian to the throne of Constantinople suddenly opened a new era in the history of the Eastern Empire. ... When Leo III. was proclaimed emperor [A. D. 717], it seemed as if no human power could save Constantinople from falling as Rome had fallen. The Saracens considered the sovereignty of every land, in which any remains of Roman civilization survived, as within their grasp. Leo, an Isaurian, and an Iconoclast, consequently a foreigner and a heretic, ascended the throne of Constantine and arrested the victorious career of the Mohammedans. He then reorganized the whole administration so completely in accordance with the new exigencies of Eastern society that the reformed empire outlived for many centuries every government contemporary with its establishment. {338} The Eastern Roman Empire, thus reformed, is called by modern historians the Byzantine Empire; and the term is well devised to mark the changes effected in the government, after the extinction of the last traces of the military monarchy of ancient Rome. ... The provincial divisions of the Roman Empire had fallen into oblivion. A new geographical arrangement into Themes appears to have been established by Heraclius, when he recovered the Asiatic provinces from the Persians; it was reorganized by Leo, and endured as long as the Byzantine government. The number of themes varied at different periods. The Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus, writing about the middle of the tenth century, counts sixteen in the Asiatic portion of the Empire and twelve in the European. ... The European provinces were divided into eight continental and five insular or transmarine themes, until the loss of the exarchate of Ravenna reduced the number to twelve. Venice and Naples, though they acknowledged the suzerainty of the Eastern Empire, acted generally as independent cities. ... When Leo was raised to the throne the Empire was threatened with immediate ruin. ... Every army assembled to encounter the Saracens broke out into rebellion. The Bulgarians and Sclavonians wasted Europe up to the walls of Constantinople; the Saracens ravaged the whole of Asia Minor to the shores of the Bosphorus."

_G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine Empire, book 1, chapter 1._

ALSO IN: _E. W. Brooks, The Emperor Zenon and the Isaurians (English History Review, April, 1893)._

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 717-797. The Isaurian dynasty.

The dynasty founded by Leo the Isaurian held the throne until the dethronement of Constantine VI. by his mother, Irene, A. D. 797, and her dethronement, in turn by, Nicephorus I., A. D. 802. It embraced the following reigns:

Constantine V., called Copronymus, A. D. 741-775; Leo IV., 775-780; Constantine VI., 780-797; Irene, 797-802.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 726-751. The Iconoclastic Controversy. Rupture with the West. Fall of the Exarchate of Ravenna. End of authority in Italy.

See ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY, and PAPACY: A. D. 728-774.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 802-820. Emperors: Nicephorus 1., A. D. 802-811; Stauracius, A. D. 811; Michael I., A. D. 811-813; Leo V., A. D. 813-820.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 803. Treaty with Charlemagne, fixing boundaries.

See VENICE: A. D. 697-810.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 820-1057. The Amorian and Basilian or Macedonian dynasties.

Michael, the Amorian (820-829) so named from his birth-place; Amorium, in Phrygia, was a soldier, raised to the throne by a revolution which deposed and assassinated his friend and patron, the Emperor Leo V. Michael transmitted the crown to his son (Theophilus, 829-842) and grandson. The latter, called Michael the Drunkard, was conspired against and killed by one of the companions of his drunken orgies (867), Basil the Maeedonian, who had been in early life a groom. Basil founded a dynasty which reigned, with several interruptions, from A. D. 867 to 1057--a period covering the following reigns:

Basil I., A. D. 867-886; Leo VI., A. D. 886-911; Constantine VII. (Porphyrogenitus), A. D. 911-950; Romanus I. (Colleague), A. D. 919-944; Constantine VIII. (Colleague), A. D, 944; Romanus II., A. D. 959-963; Nicephorus II., A. D. 963-969; John Zimisces, A. D. 969-976; Basil II., A. D. 963-1025; Constantine IX., A. D. 963-1028; Romanus III., A. D. 1028-1034; Michael IV., A. D. 1034-1041; Michael V., A. D. 1041-1042; Zoe and Theodora, A. D. 1042-1056; Constantine X., A. D. 1042-1054; Michael VI., A. D. 1056-1057.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 865-1043. Wars, commerce and Church Connection with the Russians.

See RUSSIANS: A. D. 865-900; also CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 865 and 907-1043.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 870-1016. Fresh acquisitions in Southern Italy.

See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 800-1016.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 963-1025. Recovery of prestige and territory.

"Amidst all the crimes and revolutions of the Byzantine government--and its history is but a series of crimes and revolutions--it was never dismembered by intestine war. A sedition in the army, a tumult in the theatre, a conspiracy in the palace, precipitated a monarch from the throne; but the allegiance of Constantinople was instantly transferred to his successor, and the provinces implicitly obeyed the voice of the capital. The custom, too, of partition, so baneful to the Latin kingdoms, and which was not altogether unknown to the Saracens, never prevailed in the Greek Empire. It stood in the middle of the tenth century, as vicious indeed and cowardly, but more wealthy, more enlightened, and far more secure from its enemies than under the first successors of Heraclius. For about one hundred years preceding there had been only partial wars with the Mohammedan potentates; and in these the emperors seem gradually to have gained the advantage, and to have become more frequently the aggressors. But the increasing distractions of the East encouraged two brave usurpers, Nicephorus Phocas and John Zimisces, to attempt the actual recovery of the lost provinces. They carried the Roman arms (one may use the term with less reluctance than usual) over Syria; Antioch and Aleppo were taken by storm; Damascus submitted; even the cities of Mesopotamia, beyond the ancient boundary of the Euphrates, were added to the trophies of Zimisces, who unwillingly spared the capital of the Khalifate. From such distant conquests it was expedient, and indeed necessary to withdraw; but Cilicia and Antioch were permanently restored to the Empire. At the close of the tenth century the emperors of Constantinople possessed the best and greatest portion of the modern kingdom of Naples, a part of Sicily, the whole [present] European dominions of the Ottomans, the province of Anatolia or Asia Minor, with some part of Syria and Armenia."

_H. Hallam, The Middle Ages, chapter 6._

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 970-1014. Recovery of Bulgaria.

See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 907-1043; also BULGARIA, and ACHRIDA.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1054. Ecclesiastical division of the Eastern from the Roman Church.

See FILIOQUE CONTROVERSY, and ORTHODOX CHURCH.

{339}

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1057-1081. Between the Basilian and the Comnenian dynasties. A dark period.

"The moment that the last of the Macedonian dynasty was gone, the elements of discord seemed unchained, and the double scourge of civil war and foreign invasion began to afflict the empire. In the twenty-four years between 1057 and 1081 were pressed more disasters than had been seen in any other period of East Roman history, save perhaps the reign of Heraclius. ... The aged Theodora had named as her successor on the throne Michael Stratiocus, a contemporary of her own who had been an able soldier 25 years back. But Michael VI. was grown aged and incompetent, and the empire was full of ambitious generals, who would not tolerate a dotard on the throne. Before a year had passed a band of great Asiatic nobles entered into a conspiracy to overturn Michael, and replace him by Isaac Comnenus, the chief of one of the ancient Cappadocian houses, and the most popular general of the East. Isaac Comnenus and his friends took arms, and dispossessed the aged Michael of his throne with little difficulty. But a curse seemed to rest upon the usurpation; Isaac was stricken down by disease when he had been little more than a year on the throne, and retired to a monastery to die. His crown was transferred to Constantine Ducas, another Cappadocian noble," who reigned for seven troubled years. His three immediate successors were:

Romanus IV., A. D. 1067-1071; Michael VII., A. D. 1071-1078; Nicephorus III., A. D. 1078-1081.-

_C. W. C. Oman, The Story of the Byzantine Empire, chapter 20._

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1063-1092. Disasters in Asia Minor.

See TURKS (SELJUKS): A. D. 1063-1073; and A. D. 1073-1092.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1064. Great revival of pilgrimages from Western Europe to the Holy Land.

See CRUSADES: CAUSES, ETC.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1081. The enthronement of the Comnenian Dynasty.

See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1081.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1081-1085. Attempted Norman conquest from Southern Italy.

Robert Guiscard, the Norman adventurer who had carved for him-self a principality in Southern Italy and acquired the title of Duke of Apulia,--his duchy coinciding with the subsequent Norman kingdom of Naples--conceived the ambitious design of adding the Byzantine Empire to his estate. His conquests in Italy had been mostly at the expense of the Byzantine dominions, and he believed that he had measured the strength of the degenerate Roman-Greeks. He was encouraged, moreover, by the successive revolutions which tossed the imperial crown from hand to hand, and which had just given it to the Comnenian, Alexius I. Beyond all, he had a claim of right to interfere in the affairs of the Empire; for his young daughter was betrothed to the heir-expectant whose expectations were now vanishing, and had actually been sent to Constantinople to receive her education for the throne. To promote his bold undertaking, Robert obtained the approval of the pope, and an absolution for all who would join his ranks. Thus spiritually equipped, the Norman duke invaded Greece, in the summer of 1081, with 150 ships and 30,000 men. Making himself master, on the way, of the island of Corcyra (Corfu), and taking several ports on the mainland, he laid siege to Dyrrachium, and found it a most obstinate fortification to reduce. Its massive ancient walls defied the Norman enginery, and it was not until February, 1082, that Robert Guiscard gained possession of the town, by the treachery of one of its defenders. Meantime the Normans had routed and scattered one large army, which the Emperor Alexius led in person to the relief of Dyrrachium; but the fortified towns in Illyria and Epirus delayed their advance toward Constantinople. Robert was called home to Italy by important affairs and left his son Bohemund (the subsequent Crusader and Prince of Antioch), in command. Bohemund defeated Alexius again in the spring of 1083, and still a third time the following autumn. All Epirus was overrun and Macedonia and Thessaly invaded; but the Normans, while besieging Larissa, were undone by a stratagem, lost their camp and found it necessary to retreat. Robert was then just reentering the field, in person, and had won an important naval battle at Corfu, over the combined Greeks and Venetians, when he died (July, 1085), and his project of conquest in Greece ended with him. Twenty years afterwards, his son Bohemund, when Prince of Antioch, and quarreling with the Byzantines, gathered a crusading army in France and Italy to lead it against Constantinople; but it was stopped by stubborn Dyrrachium, and never got beyond. Alexius had recovered that strong coast defence shortly after Robert Guiscard's death, with the help of the Venetians and Amalfians. By way of reward, those merchant allies received important commercial privileges, and the title of Venice to the sovereignty of Dalmatia and Croatia was recognized. "From this time the doge appears to have styled himself lord of the kingdoms of Dalmatia and Croatia."

_G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires,