CHAPTER XIX

Chapter 2210,501 wordsPublic domain

THE LAST BYZANTINE EMPRESSES

A hundred years of life still awaited the Eastern Empire from the time when John IV. returned to the throne, and half-a-dozen Empresses were yet to play their varied parts on the imperial stage. Had any impartial and sagacious observer reflected on the condition of the Empire at the time, as we have described it, he would hardly have promised it a new lease of one hundred years’ tenancy of its stricken domain. At Constantinople, of course, no one foresaw the end. It is usually in fairly robust, not in really dying, civilizations that we find an apprehension of impending ruin: as in France and England to-day. But the Byzantine Empire had shrunk to such proportions, the Turks were closing round its capital with such steady advance, and there was so little enlightenment in its mind, or real patriotism in its heart, that it seemed to be very near the end. No miracle was wrought in its favour, but it was saved for a time by one of the accidents of human history. The Tartars or Moguls attained the height of their power under the famous Timour, and the ambition of the Turk was distracted and enfeebled.

There should be a peculiar interest in studying the features of the Empresses who occupy the familiar palaces during this hundred years’ grace of the doomed civilization. We are so accustomed to finding the character of a period reflected in the character of the Empresses that the last representatives of the imperial line should afford us an instructive insight into the final life-phase of a civilization. The idea has become somewhat popular that nations grow old, as individuals do, and die of loss of vitality; and that in their last years they pass into singular convulsions or eccentricities. We shall, unfortunately, be impeded in this interesting study by the scantiness of the records. The ample chronicles of Cantacuzenus and his theological rival close, and two or three confused and ill-proportioned writers alone preserve for us a fragmentary record of the last hundred years. As in all such meagre records, the story of the women suffers most. Still, enough is said to give us an adequate idea of the remaining Empresses and their times; and it may be said in a word that we find no convulsions, or eccentricities, or increasing debility of individuals, but the familiar and unfortunate Byzantine character pursuing its selfish ambitions and passions until the great broom of the Turk sweeps the degenerate successors of the Romans for ever out of the East.

John IV., now a young man of twenty-five, occupies the throne for nearly forty years out of the remaining century, but this reign is almost barren of interest for us, and must be treated only as an introduction of his children. Helena had brought with her from Tenedos a young boy named Andronicus, and two brothers, Manuel and Theodore, were added in the course of time to the family. That is all that we find recorded of the Empress Helena. She may have died early in her husband’s reign, though the fact that he does not marry again until old age, suggests, in the case of such a man, that she lived to witness his amours and his political ineptitude. The interest passes to her children.

Andronicus, a pretty and spoiled boy, was betrothed in his tenth year to Maria, daughter of Alexander of Trebizond, who was about the same age when she became the Empress-elect. However, the character of Andronicus was to defraud her of the promise of the crown. We do not know in what year they were married, but it must have been before 1369, when John went to Italy, leaving Constantinople in charge of Andronicus. The Turks were again advancing, and John could see no escape except with the assistance of the Latins. He first visited Venice, and received a most flattering welcome, but no material help. Borrowing a sum of money from Venetian bankers, he went on to Rome and opened negotiations with the Vatican. It seemed to the Vatican an excellent opportunity to convince the Greeks that the Holy Ghost did proceed from _both_ the Father and the Son--the chief dogmatical point at issue between the two Churches--and John hurriedly embraced that dogma, and would have embraced any number of dogmas, in the hope of being rewarded with an army. The reward was very meagre, however, and, after trying a few more princes with no more success, he returned to Venice to re-embark for the East. Then the Venetian moneylenders detained his imperial person as a common debtor, and he appealed to Andronicus to seize sufficient Church treasure to pay the debt.

Andronicus was enjoying his short spell of power over the shrunken treasury during his father’s absence, and the demand was irksome. He sent word to Venice that the clergy declined to allow him to seize their chalices and reliquaries, and that, to his regret, he saw no way of delivering his father from the debtors’ prison. He was a true Paleologus: a selfish voluptuary, eager only to have the sole right to the keys of the treasury. His younger brother Manuel, however, professed indignation, zealously gathered funds to meet the debt, and hastened to Venice to release his father. He _may_ have been prompted by a sincere piety; but the natural effect of his action was that, when John returned dolefully to the city, Manuel began to wear purple boots, and the chances of Andronicus and Maria occupying the throne became slender. It appeared that, the less the Empire became, the fiercer was the struggle for it. The Turks had already reached and taken Adrianople, and Thessalonica was now the only large town in the possession of the Empire besides the capital. A few years later Thessalonica went. Manuel, who governed it, and was a youth of spirit and ambition, made a futile effort to break loose of the Turks. He was pardoned by the Sultan Murad, but he lost Thessalonica.

After the return of John the pressure of the Turks had been evaded by a voluntary subjection, and the Emperor of Constantinople was now a vassal of the Sultan, holding, under his sovereign lord the Turk, the city itself and a few thousand square miles of poverty-stricken territory to the west of the capital. He was compelled to do homage, and to supply a hundred soldiers, captained by one of his sons, whenever the Sultan pleased. There was, however, still a fair revenue from such sources as trade and port duties, and John contrived to excite the envy of his elder son by the luxurious dinners, the choice wines and the pretty dancing-girls, which he could still afford to enjoy. It is enough to say that John IV., in his desolate little Empire, contracted a very severe gout, and Andronicus was not unwilling to run the same risk.

When, therefore, John was summoned to join the Sultan’s army in Asia, and Andronicus was once more left in charge, the foolish and egoistical youth made another effort to secure his father’s income. Sultan Murad had left his son Saudgi in charge of his European possessions, and the two princes became close friends. In 1376 the news reached the Sultan that they had disowned their fathers and proclaimed themselves independent sovereigns. The unhappy John was at once suspected of collusion, though the Sultan came in time to realize that John was not at all willing to leave the palace to his son until he was compelled to do so. The conspiracy was soon settled. As the Sultan’s troops approached, the two youths threw themselves in Didymoteichus, but they were compelled to surrender. Murad put out the eyes of Saudgi, and sent Andronicus to his father with orders to inflict the same punishment on him, under pain of war. John directed that his sight should be destroyed by boiling vinegar, and Andronicus was confined in a tower near the Blachernæ palace. His son, a boy of tender years, was punished in the same way, and Maria sadly joined them in the dreary tower.

For two years Andronicus and Maria lamented their evil fortune in the tower of Anemas. In the course of time it had appeared that the blinding was not complete; Andronicus recovered the use of one eye, and his son was merely afflicted with a squint. The Sultan Murad, moreover, died, and Constantinople was not at all extravagantly devoted to the ruling monarch. Andronicus therefore found a means of communicating with the Genoese at Galata, and, with their aid, the family were stealthily delivered from the tower and taken across the water. During his brief rebellion Andronicus had promised the island of Tenedos to the Genoese in return for their help, and they had, of course, no hope of getting it from John. From Galata Andronicus made his way to the camp of the new Sultan, and promised him several hundred pounds of gold a year if he would lend him an army with which to attack his father. The Turk had, as we may see presently, a large and expensive establishment to maintain, and he accepted the bargain. Of moral or decent feeling there seemed to be a complete absence at the time in all parties. The troops were put under the command of the one-eyed fugitive, and he drew cautiously near the city.

He had the good fortune to find John and Manuel, quite unsuspicious of his approach, in a suburban palace, and the two, together with the younger brother Theodore, were promptly lodged in the tower of Anemas, from which Andronicus had escaped. The more thoroughgoing Sultan urged Andronicus to put them to death, but such conduct did not become a Christian monarch. They were entrusted to the care of a corps of Bulgarian guards, and Andronicus and Maria mounted the gilded thrones. But their tenure did not last more than two or three years, and we may close the series of petty revolutions in a few words.

John and Manuel communicated with the Venetians and offered _them_ the island of Tenedos--one of the few fragments of Empire that a Byzantine ruler might still sell for a tawdry crown--if they would displace Andronicus. The plot was detected in time, and the Venetians were repulsed; though they consoled themselves with taking Tenedos. In the third year of imprisonment, however, the Bulgarian guards were duped by a half-witted servant named Angel, and nicknamed Devil or Devilangel, and John and his sons escaped to Scutari and opened in their turn a deal with the Sultan. They offered him twice the sum offered by Andronicus. He genially sent an officer to learn _which_ monarch the people really did prefer, and would defend, and was informed that Manuel was the favourite. Lest one should be disposed to think Manuel much better than the rest of the family, I may emphasize that Manuel had offered a vast sum of money out of the poor revenue of the city, and had promised to lead out two thousand troops every spring in the service of the Turk, if the crown were conferred on him. It was a sordid squabble for the last coppers of the beggared city, and it ended in a compromise. John was to occupy the throne; Andronicus and his son to be his heirs. A more or less royal residence was found for Andronicus and Maria at Selymbria, and on the revenues of that and a few other towns they contrived to maintain a tolerable state.

As soon as Andronicus had gone John crowned Manuel, in defiance of the treaty, and sought a fitting wife for him; and his search had the effect of bringing one more pathetic young Empress upon the scene. John was now in his sixth decade of life, a prematurely aged and very gouty man, hardly able to stand erect, but his sensuous nature was not extinct. He sent to Trebizond to ask Manuel for the daughter of the Emperor Alexis, and Eudocia Comnena, the young widow of a Turkish noble, proved to be so beautiful that the veteran libertine decided to marry her himself. He was not an old man; Du Cange puts the marriage, with some reason, about the year 1380, when John would be fifty-one years old. But he is described by the indignant chronicler as worn with debauch and tottering with gout, and we must think lightly of the lady who could accept his hand in order to share his crown--the crown of imitation diamonds. We have, however, no direct knowledge of Eudocia. She shared John’s imperial poverty for ten years, and disappeared at his death. We are disposed to suspect her influence when we find John, in his old age, beginning to restore the fortifications of the city in order to prepare for the last conflict with the Turk. Sultan Bayezid suddenly called on Manuel to appear at his Court, and then ordered John to destroy the two marble towers he had built beside the Golden Gate, or he would put out the eyes of Manuel. The old Emperor obeyed, and wearily lay down to die (1391).

Andronicus had died before his father, and, by the treaty of 1381, the crown should pass to his son John. But Manuel had been crowned in 1384, and he determined to seize the purple. He was still in the Court of Bayezid when the news of his father’s death came. The Turkish monarchs now had their capital at Brusa (originally Prusa), a town about sixty miles from Constantinople across the Sea of Marmora, which had been famed for some centuries as a pleasure and health resort on account of its warm springs. Here the later sultans had gathered all the luxury which would in an earlier age have passed to Constantinople. No imitation stones flashed from the turban or the scimitar of the Sultan and his nobles, for he had great stores of emeralds, rubies and diamonds; a large park sheltered curious beasts and birds from all parts of the known world; and the quiet gardens and gorgeous halls were enlivened by the forced song of the most beautiful boys and women that Greece, Servia, Bulgaria, Hungary, and even more distant Christian countries could supply. On this sybaritic paradise the dreaded Timour was to fall in a few years, but in 1391 the Tartars still lingered in the wilds, and the Turk dreamed of world-dominion. Manuel was one mean vassal among a crowd, the captain of a hundred feudal soldiers, in this glittering Court, and he decided to fly to Constantinople and shut himself behind its still formidable walls. They proved worthy of his trust, and for several years, though to the great suffering of the inhabitants, Manuel defied the Sultan.

During the siege, apparently, Manuel married, so that an Empress shared the straits of the long and terrible siege. She was Irene (or Helene), the daughter of Constantine Dragases, who governed a part of Macedonia. Irene is rarely mentioned in the scrappy and contradictory chronicles of the time, but she is one of the few of whom we have a pictorial representation. The miniature--found in a manuscript of the works of Denis, the so-called Areopagite--is a very quaint, though not very instructive, picture of Irene and Manuel and their two sons, but he would be a bold physiognomist who would venture to make a text of the flat and conventional features of a Byzantine portrait. Her experience of Byzantine life was dreary. During nearly seven or eight years (including the brief respite) the Turks swarmed round the walls of Constantinople, and were only prevented by their lack of powerful rams and slings--to say nothing of that new implement called a cannon, which was just entering European warfare--from penetrating. The great areas of desolation within the walls became more desolate, and the scanty supplies of food sold at appalling prices. With the Sultan outside could be seen John, the son of Andronicus, whom Bayezid affected to consider the lawful Emperor, and, although Manuel was a brave and humane ruler, the weary citizens were ready to acclaim John. But Manuel received the aid of Marshal de Boucicault and two thousand men, as well as a fleet of Venetians and Genoese, and held out stoutly until, at the close of 1399, the appearance of Timour the Tartar in the rear of the Sultan persuaded him to make peace. John was admitted as co-Emperor, and an effort was made to restore the stricken city.[35]

Manuel was the finest of the later Paleologi, and, although we cannot admire many of the steps he took to attain power, he made an excellent effort to use it for the restoration of the Empire. It seemed to him that his hope lay in enlisting the interest of the West against the infidel, and he set out at once with Irene and her two children. He left Irene in Greece, however, with his brother Theodore and Bartholomæa, and thus no Byzantine Empress was ever seen farther west than Greece. Manuel took ship to Italy, where very little was to be obtained, went to Paris, where he found Charles VI. insane, and even crossed the sea to the little island which had once sent so many Varangians to Constantinople. This visit to England induces one of the later Byzantine chroniclers (Chalcocondylas) to tell his readers something of that country, and we are interested to learn that, in the days of Henry IV., Englishmen shared their wives in common when they travelled, and held it their first duty to offer their wives to visitors; but he adds that London is already the greatest city of the West, though the strange island produces no wine and its inhabitants speak a most peculiar language.

Manuel obtained little money and few volunteers, and was returning in dejection when he heard that Timour had routed the Turks. Only a few years before Bayezid had received legates from Timour in his palace at Brusa. He had disdainfully shaved them and sent them back to their barbaric master. Then the Tartars had swept over Asia Minor, scattered all the pretty boys and ladies of the Brusa pleasance, and compelled John of Constantinople to transfer his alliance from Bayezid to himself. Manuel confirmed the vassalage on his return, but he sent John into exile and set about restoring his Empire while the giants wore down each other’s strength. But I pass over the next decade, during which the internal troubles of the Turks gave Manuel an opportunity to reform and reconstruct. Our historian, Finlay, speaks somewhat contemptuously of his work, and, able and well-intentioned as Manuel was, it may be admitted that the work was too vast for him. In any case we lose sight of Irene for several decades, after the return of Manuel in 1405, and will pass at once to the next and, as far as we know, last Empress of Constantinople.

The introduction of Maria of Trebizond is preceded by some romantic adventures in the private life of the Court, of which the chroniclers give us a fairly ample account. Irene had six sons, of whom the eldest, John, married the daughter of the Grand Duke of Moscow in the year 1414. He was already twenty-four years old, and of irregular life, but the hands of the princesses and princes of Byzantium were no longer sought in the Courts of the world. Anna was a child of eleven years, and we may assume that John remained with his mistresses until, three years later, Anna was carried off by the plague. Again there seems to have been some difficulty in finding a wife for the heir to the throne, but in or about the year 1420 legates were sent to Italy, and they returned with two eligible young ladies. Cleope, the beautiful and gifted daughter of Count Malatesta of Rimini, was married to Irene’s second son, Theodore, and went to spend an unhappy life with that restless prince in Lacedæmonia. For John the legates had brought Sophia, daughter of the Marquis of Montferrat, and she and her husband at once received the imperial title.

The appearance of Sophia of Montferrat on the imperial stage was brief and eventful. She was a tall and very graceful young woman, with golden hair that fell to her feet, a beautiful neck and broad round shoulders, fine arms, and hands and fingers “like crystal,” says the chronicler. But nature had spoiled these many perfections by misshaping her nose and giving a very careless finish to her eyes and eyebrows. John disliked her, kept himself coldly aloof from her, and pressed his father to send her back to Montferrat. A more chatty chronicler, however, gives a more serious reason for John’s dislike. Sophia had been as virtuous as she was beautiful until she came to Constantinople, but, whether it was the taint in the atmosphere of the Court (most of the Paleologi have natural children) or the example of her husband, she quickly lapsed. There was a natural son of her husband about the Court, and this youth she incited into a most unnatural relation. A maid of the Court caught them _in flagrante delicto_ and told her lover; and the lover informed John. By making a hole in the wall of the bedroom John convinced himself of the truth of the story and was very indignant. It may be stated on behalf of Sophia that, when John spoke of the indignity to one of the Court jesters, he was reminded that he had himself some time before stolen his son’s mistress; it is therefore not impossible that the seduction was on the side of the youth and had a vindictive character.

Such was the kind of life witnessed in the last ruins of the Eastern Empire. John insisted that Sophia must go home; Manuel, possibly conscious of the difficulty of finding alliances, was reluctant to send her. Sophia found her position intolerable, however, and decided to run away, with the aid of the Genoese of Galata. They moored a galley at the foot of the imperial gardens, and Sophia, pretending to go for a stroll in the garden with her Italian maids and young courtiers, walked to the quay and was shipped over the water to Pera before her flight became known. It was published in the city the next day, and there was much buckling of arms and preparing of boats to avenge this last outrage of the hated Genoese. Manuel was, however, now overshadowed by his son, and Sophia was permitted to depart quietly for her home. The chronicler adds that she was received with great honour and rejoicing at Montferrat, and ended her days in a nunnery.

The date of Sophia’s flight and of John’s third marriage is difficult to determine. The plainest reading of the contradictory chronicles is that the trouble occurred in the last year of Manuel’s reign and the flight took place a month after his death, but this is inconsistent with the express declaration that the old Emperor intervened in the dispute. Manuel died on 25th July 1425. For some years the ambition of the Turk, who had quickly recovered from the heavy blows dealt by Timour, had fully revived and had given him great anxiety. A young Sultan, Murad II., had succeeded to the throne, and Manuel had imprudently recognized a pretender to the succession. When the young Sultan vigorously took the field, hanged the pretender, and drew up under the walls of Constantinople, Manuel, now a feeble old man of seventy-five, left the direction of affairs to John, and retired to pursue that ardent study of the Scriptures which absorbed him in his later years.

John abjectly apologized, but the angry Sultan ranged his machines against the walls and proceeded to batter them. He was drawn off for a time by the strategy of John, who had the Sultan’s brother conveyed to Brusa and set up as Sultan, but Murad returned more angry than ever, and one of the last earthly sounds to catch the ear of the aged Manuel was the roar of the first cannons that seem to have appeared at Constantinople. The diffusion of knowledge at the time may be gathered from the fact that one of the most learned of the chroniclers, in discussing these “bombards,” observes that he does not think they are of very ancient origin. Before the end of the siege Manuel was warned by an attack of apoplexy that his death was near. He donned the black robe, became plain Brother Matthew, and died two days--not two years, as Finlay says--afterwards, at the age of seventy-seven. Irene also then retired from the world and became the nun Hypomene, whom we shall later find endeavouring to settle the quarrels of her selfish children. She remained “mistress” (_despoine_) of the Empire and watched its slow decay with concern.

John was able, after the death of his father, to obtain peace from the Sultan at the price of a heavy annual subsidy, and the Empire entered upon its last quarter of a century of melancholy decay. Long years of effort had taught the sultans that their siege engines were not powerful enough to crack the heavy shell in which earlier Emperors had enclosed the city, and they were content to hold it in vassalage and draw a large tribute from its sinking revenue. The time had gone by for the last serious effort to save the Empire. Its trade had passed to the Italians, and of the provinces from which it had so long extorted its rich supply of gold there now remained only a few towns to the west of Constantinople, a part of the Peloponnesus, and Thessalonica (which would soon be sold to Venice for fifty thousand gold coins). The metropolis, therefore, continued to shrink within its eighteen-mile enclosure, and, as a severe pestilence fell on the inhabitants for the last time in 1431, they were reduced to something like one hundred thousand, instead of the million they had once been.

It was over this dismal little Empire that the last Empress, Maria of Trebizond, was called to preside. Whether the flight of Sophia came before or after the death of Manuel, John V., who succeeded his father, soon found it necessary to seek a bride. He married, in 1427, the daughter of Alexis of Trebizond, a handsome woman of excellent character, and we are fortunate enough to have a short description, from the pen of a French knight, of Maria and her desolate surroundings. Bertrandon de la Brocquière made a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, and returned through Constantinople in the year 1432. The plague had ravaged it in the previous year, and Bertrandon sympathetically refers to the broad spaces of ruin that half filled the enclosure within the walls. He notes that the Greeks are still busy with their processions, religious and imperial, and that they still cherish in their churches such important relics as the pillar at which Christ was scourged, the board on which his body was laid out, the gridiron on which St Lawrence had been martyred, and the stone on which Abraham had offered food to his angel visitors. Apparently the credentials of these relics had not been imposing enough to convince Western purchasers, indulgent as they were.[36]

When the knight heard that the Empress was about to proceed to St Sophia, and on to the Blachernæ palace, he went to the square to see the procession. We know what the spectacle would have been at an earlier date. First would come a corps of Excubitors or Varangians, with shining axes and gold accoutrements, clearing a way through the crowd. Then a regiment of pale-faced eunuchs, their leaders dressed in white silk and glittering with jewels, would precede a large body of maids and dames, from foreign slaves to the greatest ladies of the Empire, more superbly dressed than most of the queens of Europe. And lastly would come the gold-plated, gem-encrusted litter, drawn by four white horses, possibly with one of the highest nobles in Europe at the rein of each, the Empress sitting stiffly in her gold-cloth tunic, over which spread the mantle of purple silk with deep embroidered edges, and, if it were a solemn occasion, a massive domed crown on her head, from which large diamonds and pearls fell in long chains to her shoulders. Very different was the spectacle witnessed by Bertrandon de la Brocquière. Maria’s suite consisted of two ladies, three eunuchs, and three aged ministers. With this poor escort she was to drive the several miles of road to the Blachernæ palace. She wore a high hat (probably a silk-covered mitre) with three golden plumes, and she had broad flat rings, set with a few jewels, in her ears. She was young and fair; “I should not,” says the pilgrim, “have had a fault to find with her had she not been painted, and assuredly she had not any need of it.” The paint seems to have been the one surviving portion of the luxurious inheritance of the Empresses of Constantinople.

Maria was a woman of tame and mediocre, if faultless, character, and, as her husband was weak and incompetent, the miserable Empire lay helplessly awaiting the end. Patriotism was an extinct virtue. “The absence of truth, honour and patriotism,” says Finlay, “among the Greek aristocracy during the last century of the Eastern Empire is almost without a parallel in history.” The Western Empire had, even in its last years, had its Symmachus, its Prætextatus and its Flavianus. Irene’s sons could do no more than quarrel for their selfish interests in the ruins. Andronicus, who had charge of Thessalonica, which was restored to the Greeks for a time, sold it to Venice, and went to enjoy his fortune in the Peloponnesus. In that last fragment of the Empire Theodore and Constantine were on the verge of civil war owing to the clash of their petty ambitions. There seemed to be no resource in the East, and John, leaving the city in charge of his wife and mother, went to make a last appeal to his fellow-Christians of the West to stem the Mohammedan tide. It was now clear that the Greek Church would, as the price of assistance, have to surrender its independence to the papacy, and John took with him the patriarch and his bishops.

It may be read in history how, at the Councils of Ferrara (1438) and Florence (1439), the Greek bishops abandoned the positions they had fiercely maintained for so many centuries against the Western Church and, with one exception, signed the Roman claims. I will add from the Byzantine writers only that, whatever arguments were discussed in open Council, and however pressing the need of the Empire, it was a secret and generous payment of gold to the Byzantine bishops which finally convinced them. They bargained, like Syrian pedlars, for their signature. It may also be read in history how John returned in deep dejection to his mother. Instead of the promised fleet, the Pope had given him only two galleys and three hundred men and a very moderate sum of money. His wife, Maria, had died during his absence; the Sultan was pressing for an explanation of this visit to Italy; and the people and lower clergy of Constantinople were infuriated at the surrender of their spiritual independence, and were now treacherously joined by the corrupt bishops, who had signed the decrees. John wearily sustained the attack, assuring the Sultan that he had visited Italy only in order to discuss certain details of the Christian faith, and secretly pressing the Pope and the Western monarchs to fulfil their promises.

Hypomene, now an aged and venerable lady, sadly watched the struggle of her sons, and endeavoured to curb their selfish tempers. Demetrius, her youngest son, recollected that he, unlike John, had been “born in the Porphyra,” and disputed the shaking throne of his brother. He gathered about him a ragged army of Turks and looted whatever was left of the suburbs beyond the walls, until his force melted away on account of the poverty of the plunder, and he consented to be reconciled. Theodore, the second son, complained that he had not enough income to maintain his state in the town of Selymbria, which he governed, and he demanded a share of John’s. It was refused, and he in turn was about to lead troops against the capital when John, in his fifty-eighth year, was removed by a greater power (31st October 1448) from the scene of his troubles.

No one even now suspected that the next Emperor would be the last--that in five years the crescent would glitter over the imperial palaces--and the struggle for the throne broke out afresh. Demetrius alone was in the city when John died, and he noisily renewed his claim to the purple, but his character was too well known for him to find serious adherents. His mother united with the citizens in preventing him from succeeding, and they sent legates to ask the Sultan to allow Constantine, the ablest of the brothers, to be crowned. He had lately been opposed to the Sultan, but permission was given, and to his “despotate” at Sparta the legates were sent with the imperial ensigns. Constantinople did not even enjoy a last coronation, as the new Emperor was crowned at Sparta (6th January 1449) and would not have the ceremony repeated. He favoured the union of the Churches. He reached Constantinople in March, and the royal brothers gathered in the presence of Hypomene and such nobles as Constantinople could still boast to swear resonant oaths of peace and loyalty.

Constantine had been twice married and widowed when, in his early forties, he ascended the throne. His first wife, Theodora, daughter of the Count of Tocco, had died in 1429; his second wife, Catharine, daughter of Notaras Paleologus, had died in 1443, two years after her marriage. There were no children of either marriage, and Constantine made it one of his first duties to provide a third wife and an heir to the throne. The historian Phrantzes was entrusted with this delicate mission, and he set out from Constantinople with an escort which, it was thought, would impress the King of Iberia and the Emperor of Trebizond, to whom he was sent. It was, as he describes it, a weird mixture of monks, musicians and medical men; their baggage consisted mainly of musical instruments, instead of the superb robes and plate that an earlier escort might have taken, and Phrantzes says that they did impress and astonish the foreign Courts. But they were unfortunately wrecked on the way to Iberia, a country between the Black Sea and the Caspian, and seem to have been detained for nearly two years by lack of funds; and they then discovered that the King of Iberia expected a gift _for_ his daughter, instead of presenting one _with_ her, and returned unsuccessful to Constantinople.

In the meantime--apparently on 23rd March 1450--Hypomene had brought to a close her long and troubled life. With her death the series of Empresses of Constantinople comes to an end, but their story cannot be intelligibly concluded without a glance at the great catastrophe which, three years later, swept away the tottering thrones and made an end of Christian Byzantium.

The Sultan Murad II., who had so long looked with indulgent eye on the remnant of the Byzantine Empire, died in 1451. His son and successor, Mohammed II., was a young man of twenty-one years: a very able, highly cultivated and extremely ambitious young prince. To him the existence of this Christian island, the city of Constantinople, in the ocean of Mohammedan conquest was an intolerable anomaly. The Turks had long since carried the crescent over what we now call Turkey in Europe, and it was only by sea that Constantinople could communicate directly with the other Christian powers. To put an end to this Christian avenue into the heart of his dominion and make the great city the capital of the Mohammedan world was the early ambition of Mohammed II. Probably every sultan for a hundred years or more had desired this, but their siege machinery had hitherto proved incapable of shattering the stout old walls of that city.

Constantine XI. underrated the young Sultan, and very soon gave him a pretext for an attack. Mohammed had signed a truce with the Hungarians, and gone to settle certain disturbances in his Asiatic dominions, when he received a most insolent and offensive message from Constantinople. He must at once increase the pension of Prince Orkhan (the nephew of Suleiman, then living in retirement at Constantinople), or else the Greeks will consider Orkhan’s claim to the Turkish throne. It was the last blunder of the Paleologi. Mohammed courteously heard and dismissed the legates, and proceeded to pacify his Asiatic province. Constantine had grossly failed to appreciate the young Sultan’s character. After his coronation at Adrianople his Christian vassals--the Emperors of Trebizond and Constantinople, the Duke of Athens, etc.--had hastened to do homage, and had seen only an accomplished, amiable and, in private life, vicious young man, from whom they had little to fear.

Shortly afterwards the Court at Constantinople was alarmed to hear that a large army of Turkish workmen had arrived at a spot on the Asiatic coast only five miles from the city, and were, with great rapidity, building a powerful fort which would command the entrance to the Black Sea. Constantine sent a protest; Mohammed disdainfully replied that he would do as he liked in his own dominions. In time the Turkish soldiers of the district fell to quarrels with Constantine’s subjects, and the Emperor, ordering the gates of the city to be closed, demanded some recompense. Mohammed at once declared war, and went to Adrianople to concentrate his forces and gather a more powerful armament than his predecessors had used. The value of powder was now realized, and, although they were crude objects of only moderate effectiveness, immense cannons, which could throw stone balls weighing more than a hundred pounds, were associated with the old rams and slings and towers.

Constantine quickly realized the gravity of his position, and made every effort to patch the fortifications, enlist troops and provision the town. An urgent appeal was sent to Italy, and hundreds of volunteers and adventurers were attracted; though the Pope was still mainly concerned about the recognition of his supremacy, and sent a cardinal who distracted the doomed city with fierce religious controversy. When the hour came, Constantine found that barely six thousand Greeks could be induced to enlist in the last defence of their city, and these, with other two or three thousand Italians, had to hold fifteen miles of wall, with many gates, against seventy thousand Turks and three hundred vessels.

On 12th December 1452 the church of St Sophia rang with its last great Christian celebration, the solemn union of the Latin and Greek Churches, the price of that secular aid which was destined never to arrive. Four months later the vanguard of the Turks was descried from the walls, and day by day the endless regiments and engines of attack and the monstrous cannons came from the line of the horizon and took up their stations. For a time the spirits of the besieged were maintained by those little successes which so often precede a great catastrophe. Four large Italian ships had fought their way through the Turkish fleet and brought provisions: Mohammed’s biggest gun had burst: a general attack of the enemy had been repulsed. But the incessant rain of projectiles made at last a ghastly breach in the stout wall, and on 29th May, before dawn, the dreaded Janissaries flung themselves at the defenders. The last of the Paleologi died like a man. Later in the day the victorious Turks swept over his body and the bodies of some thousands of his people, and the last remnant of the Byzantine Empire was swallowed up in the Mohammedan tide. And the relics of its culture passed westward and, meeting and blending with the humanism of the later Middle Ages, begot the new man and new woman of the Renaissance, the heralds of modern times.

FOOTNOTES

[1] Readers of Professor Bury’s incomplete “History of the Later Roman Empire” may wonder that I continue to use the phrase “Byzantine Empire” after Bury’s protest against that phrase. But it seems to me that if “Roman Empire” means an Empire centred in Rome, “Byzantine Empire” is the most congruous name for a dominion that centres in ancient Byzantium and has, during the far greater part of its story, no connexion whatever with Rome. Most historians continue to speak of it as Byzantine.

[2] See, especially, J. Ebersolt, “Le Grand Palais de Constantinople.” 1910.

[3] There was no hereditary right to the throne in the Roman Empire, though a father generally contrived to secure it for his son. “Born in the purple” is, by the way, an inaccurate description of the imperial children, though not uncommon. They were “born in the Porphyra,” or porphyry-lined palace; but, as the Greek word _porphura_ properly means “purple,” it is mistranslated at times. There are those who maintain that the imperial colour was rather red than what we know as purple.

[4] The date of the marriage is much disputed. Chroniclers assign it to various years, and, when the son of Ariadne and Zeno mounts the throne, he is variously described as an infant, a boy of seven, and a youth of seventeen. Professor Bury puts the marriage in 458 or 459. I prefer the estimate of Tillemont, that it took place in 468, the year of the disgrace of Basiliscus.

[5] It is a popular fallacy, as we shall frequently see, that the Romans had abandoned these bloody spectacles in the days of Honorius.

[6] See, especially, the work of Débidour, “L’Impératrice Théodora,” and a summary and approval of Débidour’s arguments in an article by Mr Mallett in _The English Historical Review_, January 1887. Mr W. G. Holmes’s learned work, “The Age of Justinian and Theodora” (2 vols., 1907), is much too meagre in its references to Theodora.

[7] See the Latin translation (“Commentarii de Beatis Orientalibus”) by Douwen and Land of this Syriac work (Amsterdam, 1889). John also speaks of her as “a most astute woman,” and, although his work teems with the immense services done to his Church by Theodora, he never mentions her with more than stiff and formal respect.

[8] It is necessary to explain to the unfamiliar the “factions” of the Hippodrome. In the chariot contests the rival drivers were distinguished by their colours: white, red, blue and green. The white and red were of little account, but the blue and green divided the populace of Constantinople into bitterly hostile parties or “factions.” These parties were almost in the nature of sporting clubs: they were publicly recognized, and had their own premises, chariots, beasts, officers, etc. We shall find the fate of dynasties almost turning at times on the struggle of the “blues” and “greens.”

[9] This conversation (preserved in Theophanes) is sometimes described as a free discharge of invectives against Justinian, and surprise is expressed that the character of his wife is not included. The dialogue is not at all a general attack on Justinian. It is, for the most part, a sober and earnest demand of justice, and contains only one insulting line--possibly an isolated cry of some more impetuous member of the party.

[10] I have passed in silence an earlier charge against Theodora in the “Anecdotes.” The Gothic queen Amalasuntha had appealed to Justinian, and Theodora is said to have sent an officer to cause her to be assassinated, lest her great beauty should seduce the Emperor. Procopius gives a different version of the murder of Amalasuntha in his “Gothic War,” and we have no serious reason to involve Theodora.

[11] Shorthand (_notatio_) was, of course, familiar to the Romans and daily practised. It may not be superfluous to add that the dignity of Cæsar was a semi-imperial rank conferred usually on sons or possible successors of the Emperor, or King (_basileus_), as the eastern Romans came to call their monarch.

[12] It should be noted that the organized factions were not nearly so large as these incidents suggest. When Maurice had wished to arm them against the usurper, he found that the blues numbered only nine hundred, and the greens fifteen hundred. The entire population was about a million.

[13] See Pernice’s “L’Imperatore Eraclio,” 1905, p. 25.

[14] Professor Bury gives his age as twenty-three, and assumes that he was born in 615, but Nicephorus places his birth in the second Persian campaign (623). The first son of Martina had died. His name (or nickname) is spelt either Heraclonas or Heracleonas.

[15] The readers of Gibbon may often notice that words or speeches quoted here differ materially from corresponding quotations in the great historian. The reason is that Gibbon invariably paraphrases such quotations. They are in this work translated literally from the Greek chroniclers.

[16] I have not been able to consult this interesting “Life of St Philaretus,” and am quoting Diehl’s admirable work, “Figures Byzantines.”

[17] A monk of this monastery, Theodore of Studium, has left us a number of letters and works, though they give little satisfaction to the profane historian. One letter, however, is addressed to the ex-Empress Maria, and we learn from it that her daughter, or one of her daughters (Euphrosyne and Irene), pressed her to come and live in her palace. Theodore sternly forbids her to return to that world of sin.

[18] Finlay rejects the story on the ground that Theodora could not possibly have made her husband believe that sacred images were dolls for her children. But that is not the story; Theodora denied that she had any dolls at all.

[19] The mystery of the children of Theophilus is yet unsolved. Michael was born, of Theodora, about 828, and we know that another boy, named Constantine, was born. But the five daughters--Thecla, Anna, Anastasia, Pulcheria and Maria--are a puzzle, to which the wretched Byzantine chroniclers give us no clue. They make Thecla, the eldest, a gay and dissolute woman thirty years afterwards, and they marry Maria, the youngest, about 832; while they speak of the whole of them as young girls, playing with their grandmother’s dolls, about the time when the youngest of them marries Alexius. It is frequently suggested that they were the daughters of an earlier wife of Theophilus, but this is hardly consistent with the later gaiety of Thecla (down to 868) or the doll story; nor, although we do not know the exact age of Theophilus, can we easily admit that he had been married for twenty years--which is necessary to make Maria fifteen in 832--before he chose Theodora under the guidance of his stepmother.

[20] “Zwei Griechische Texte über die H. Theophano,” edited by E. Kurtz, in the “Mémoires de l’Academie Impériale de St Petersbourg,” viii. series, vol 3. Unfortunately, the legendary and partisan character of the essays compels us to use them with discretion. I have also taken much from the Greek life of the patriarch Euthymius, and have been much helped by the notes of its editor, de Boor.

[21] The mixture of palaces and monasteries may cause some perplexity. The explanation is that for a long time it was a pious and very common custom of wealthy Constantinopolitans to ensure prayers for their soul by leaving their palaces to the monks, and even converting them into monasteries before they died, so as to die in the ranks of the monks. We shall find the next Emperor checking this practice, to the great anger of the monks.

[22] G. Schlumherger. “Un Empereur Byzantin au Dixième Siècle.” (1890); a very fine and ample study of Byzantine life.

[23] Basil was a natural son of Romanus I. and a Russian (or else Bulgarian) slave. It is a curious mistake on the part of Gibbon, and even of Schlumberger, to confuse the Basil whom she belaboured with her own son Basil.

[24] In point of fact, a writer of the time, Michael Atteliates, says that he had no wife. Flach (“Die Kaiserin Eudokia,” 1876) seems to have overlooked this authority.

[25] Until recent years Eudocia was, as one reads in Gibbon, reputed to have been the authoress of “Ionia,” but later writers have shown that this was an error. She undoubtedly wandered in the fields of letters and philosophy under the guidance of Psellus, and seems to have written a little.

[26] _Sebastos_ is the Greek equivalent of the Latin _Augustus_. It must not be forgotten that, while I continue to use the words “Emperor” and “Empress,” they were now more commonly called “King” and “Queen,” “Lord” and “Lady,” or “Master” and “Mistress.”

[27] Since the princess, or Cæsaress, has her apologists, if not admirers, this may seem a hasty judgment. It is based simply on her narrative, controlled by the accounts of other chroniclers. The last pages of her history are superb in their mendacity, and she commonly suppresses or perverts the facts. For the difficulties of her father’s position, and the great services he rendered to the Empire, which must be put in the scale against his duplicity and fraud, I must send the reader to historians.

[28] One or two remarks on the novel may not be without interest. It is far the weakest of Scott’s historical romances. Byzantine antiquities were little known in England at the time when it was written, and the great novelist is reduced to a meagreness or inaccuracy of detail which places the story in unfavourable contrast to his Scottish romances, and he is forced to admit countless anachronisms. Anna Comnena was only thirteen years old at the time, and did not begin to write her “Alexiad” until twenty or thirty years later. The golden birds and lions, also, which Scott puts beside the imperial throne, had been melted down by Michael the Drunkard two hundred years before. I mention these features only because Scott is usually so conscientious, even in romance.

[29] It may be well to repeat that the neater phrase in Gibbon is an artistic paraphrase, not a translation, of the original Greek.

[30] “Typicum, sive Regula, Irenes Augustæ,” published by the Benedictines of St Maur in their “Analecta Græca” (1688).

[31] The marriage of Alexis is placed by Finlay in 1178, but William of Tyre, who was in Constantinople at the time, says that it took place in the year of the death of Louis VII. and of Manuel. Nicetas also says that Anna was “not quite eleven” when she married Andronicus (in 1183) and “not quite eight” when she married Alexis.

[32] Finlay, following Nicephorus Gregoras, wrongly says that Theodore had left “no son” to inherit the purple. George Acropolites, the better authority, says that he left “no mature son.” The son of Philippa was eight years old, and seems to have lived under the cloud of his mother’s disgrace.

[33] This lady is sometimes named Markesina, but the term is merely a Greek attempt to speak of her as “the Marchioness.” Her real name is unknown.

[34] Finlay declines to regard the dominion which was re-established by the Greeks in 1261 as “the Byzantine Empire.” But as there had never been any dynastic continuity, and as “Byzantine Empire” merely means an empire which has its seat in Constantinople, or ancient Byzantium (the name still commonly given to the city by its own writers), I see no reason to discard the phrase.

[35] Manuel’s younger brother, Theodore, was never crowned and had been crushed by the Sultan, so that his beautiful wife, Bartholomæa, daughter of the Duke of Athens, does not enter our list; and as Bartholomæa had no children (though her husband had several) there was no complication of the new arrangement to be feared from that side.

[36] Bertrandon’s interesting narrative may be read in English in T. Wright’s “Early Travels in Palestine.”

INDEX

Acacius, 25

Æcatherina, 181

Aetius, 98

Agapetus, 40

Agnes, wife of Henry of Flanders, 257

“Alexiad,” the, 208, 216

Alexis II., 226, 233

Alexis III., 246, 248, 250

Alexis Angelus, 240–249, 251, 253

Alexis Comnenus, 198, 199, 200, 202–215

Alexius, 93, 94

Amalasuntha, 43

Amantius, 21, 22

Anastasia (Ino), 57, 60, 62, 63

Anastasia, wife of Constantine IV., 81, 83

Anastasius, 19, 21

Andronicus, 220, 227, 228–236

Andronicus II., 272–274, 276–295, 297

Andronicus III., 290, 292, 295–301

Andronicus IV., 318, 319, 320–322

Andronicus Paleogogus, 259

Anna Comnena, the elder, 197, 198, 199, 200–206

Anna Comnena, the younger, 192, 198, 199, 200, 207, 213, 216

Anna of Hungary, 276

Anna of Moscow, 326

Anna of Savoy, 298–316

Anna, wife of Alexis II., 224, 234, 236, 249

Anna, wife of Theodore Lascaris, 255, 256, 258

Anna, wife of Vatatzes, 261, 268

Anthemius, 11, 15

Anthimus, 40, 46

Antonina, 31, 41, 43, 45, 49

Apocaucus, 291, 301, 302, 305, 306

Ariadne, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18–20

Arsenius, 33

Arsenius the Patriarch, 269

Artabanes, 50

Asper, 1, 2, 9

Athalaric, 75

Augusteum, the, 4

Baldwin of Flanders, 248, 252, 257

Bardas, 111, 113, 115, 117

Bardas, brother of Xiphilin, 184

Basil the Chamberlain, 155, 156

Basil the Macedonian, 117, 118, 120–123

Basil, son of Romanus I., 115

Basil II., 158

Basiliscus, 9, 12, 13, 14

Bassus, 48

Bayezid, Sultan, 323, 324

Belisarius, 28, 31, 40, 49

Bertha, wife of Romanus II., 139

Bertrandon de la Brocquière, 329

Bigleniza, 22

Blachernæ Palace, the, 110

Blues, the, 26, 36

Bogomilians, the, 211

Bohemund, 209, 211

Boniface of Montferrat, 252, 255

Bucoleon Palace, the, 150, 151

Buza, 49

Candidates, the, 5

Casia, 107

Cathara, 290

Catherine Paleologina, 333

Chalcedon, Council of, 92

Chalke, the, 5

Charito, 58, 61

Charlemagne, 90, 92, 98

Christopher, 137, 138

Cleope of Rimini, 326

Comitona, 26, 31

Consistorium, the, 5

Constans II., 81

Constantina, 58, 62, 65, 66

Constantine, brother of Andronicus II., 273, 274, 275, 296

Constantine Catepano, 175

Constantine Copronymus, 83, 85, 86

Constantine Delassenus, 160, 168, 175

Constantine Ducas, 182, 183

Constantine the Paphlagonian, 130, 133

Constantine IV., 81

Constantine VI., 87, 89, 93, 95, 96, 97

Constantine, brother of Michael IV., 171, 173, 174

Constantine Monomachos, 176–180

Constantine Porphyrogenitus (VII)., 129, 131, 138, 141

Constantine XI., 333, 334–336

Constantinople, 3

Constantinople captured by Latins, 251

Constantinople captured by Turks, 336

Constantinople recovered by Greeks, 267

Corippus, 53

Crusaders, the, 208, 210, 218, 221, 247

Daphne, 6, 8

Demetrius, 284

Demetrius, son of John VI., 332

Denderis, 109

Drizibion, 150

Eclipses, Greek view of, 260

Elpidius, 90

Epiphania Eudocia, 75

Eudocia Comnena, 322

Eudocia, daughter of Constantine VIII., 158

Eudocia Decopolitana, 114

Eudocia Ingerina, 114, 116, 118, 119, 120

Eudocia Macrembolitissa, 182, 183–194, 199

Eudocia, mistress of Andronicus, 220, 227, 228

Eudocia, sister of Andronicus II., 280

Eudocia, wife of Constantine V., 84

Eudocia, wife of Heraclius, 69, 70

Eudocia, wife of Leo VI., 127

Eudocia, wife of Murtzuphlus, 250–251, 253–254

Eudocia, wife of Theodosius, viii

Eudoxia, viii

Eulogia, 263, 265, 266, 271, 272

Euphemia, 21, 22, 29

Euphrosyne Ducæna, 240, 244–255

Euphrosyne, wife of Michael II., 106, 107

Euthymius, 127, 128, 130

Evagrius, 47, 53

Excubitors, the, 5

Fabia, 68

George Paleologus, 202, 204

George of Pisidia, 72

Germanus, 49, 55

Greens, the, 26, 36

Gregoria Anastasia, 78

Gryllus, 118

Harmatius, 13, 14, 15

Hecebolus, 27

Helen of Bulgaria, 261, 262

Helen, wife of John V., 305, 309, 312–315, 318

Helena, daughter of Constantine VIII., 158

Helena, wife of Constantine VII., 134, 137, 138, 141

Heraclius, 67, 68, 69, 70–76

Heraclius Constantine, 69, 72, 73, 76, 78

Heraclonas, 73, 75, 76, 79

Hieria Palace, the, 30

Hippodrome, the, 3, 25, 26

Hormisdas Palace, the, 30, 33, 34

Hypatius, 38

Hypomene, 328, 332, 333

Iconoclasts, the, 85, 86, 90, 91, 111

Illus, 14, 16, 17, 18

Ino, 57, 58, 59, 60

“Ionia,” the, 186

Irene of Brunswick, 288, 297

Irene of Montferrat, 276–286

Irene Paleologina, 313, 314

Irene, wife of Alexis Comnenus, 198, 202, 203, 204, 207–215

Irene, wife of Cantacuzenus, 304, 309, 310, 311–316

Irene, wife of John, 283

Irene, wife of John Comnenus, 216

Irene, wife of Leo IV., 84, 85–100

Irene, wife of Manuel I., 220, 221

Irene, wife of Manuel III., 324, 325, 328

Irene, wife of Vatatzes, 259–261

Isaac Angelus (II.), 235, 238, 246, 249

Isaac Comnenus, 181, 197

Joannina, 50

John Camateros, 221

John Cantacuzenus, 291, 296, 301–318

John Comnenus, 213, 214, 215–219

John Ducas, 187, 189, 191, 197

John of Cappodocia, 42, 43, 44

John of Constantinople, 112, 113

John of Ephesus, 24, 29

John the Eunuch, 162, 164, 166, 168, 171

John the Fat, 246

John Vatatzes, 259–262

John Zimiskes, 145, 152

John V., 305, 309, 310–315, 318–323

John VI., 265, 267, 268, 269, 326, 328, 329

Joseph Bringas, 143, 144, 145, 146

Joseph the Patriarch, 270

Julius Nepos, 11

Justin, 22, 28, 29

Justin II., 52, 54, 56–59

Justina, 49

Justinian, 23, 24, 25, 28–29, 37, 38, 43, 48, 53

Justinian II., 81, 82, 83

Kathisma, the, 4, 54

Leo Phocas, 133, 134

Leo the Armenian, 104, 106

Leo Sgurus, 253

Leo the Deacon, 143

Leo the Isaurian, 2, 6, 10

Leo IV., 84, 85, 86, 88

Leo VI., 120, 121, 123–131

Leontia, wife of Marcian, 11, 15, 16

Leontia, wife of Phocas, 64, 65, 67, 68

Leontius, 17, 18

Liberatus, 24, 40

Magnaura Palace, the, 6, 109

Manuel I., 219, 220, 222–225

Manuel Paleologus, 288, 289

Manuel, uncle of St Theodora, 111, 115

Manuel III., 319, 321, 322, 323–328

Maria, daughter of Eulogia, 271

Maria, daughter of Manuel I., 225, 226, 227, 231, 232

Maria of Armenia, 280, 287–297

Maria of Trebizond, 318, 320, 321, 322, 326, 329–332

Maria, wife of Constantine VI., 93, 95, 96

Maria, wife of Isaac Angelus, 238, 239, 248, 252, 255

Maria, wife of Leo, 83, 84

Maria, wife of Manuel I., 223

Maria, wife of Michael VI., 192, 193, 194, 199, 200, 203, 204

Maria, wife of Theodore Lascaris, 259

Maraptica, 236

Marcian, 1, 2

Martha Paleologina, 264, 265, 271

Martina, 70–80

Martinacius, 121, 125

Mary, wife of Baldwin, 257

Maurice, 62, 63, 64

Melisend, 222, 223

Mese, the, 4

Methodius, 112

Michael I., 102, 103

Michael II., 104, 105

Michael III., the Drunkard, 110, 111, 113–118

Michael IV., 164, 165, 166–170

Michael V., the Caulker, 170, 171, 173, 174

Michael VI., 188, 189, 191, 193, 199

Michael Angelus, 254

Michael Cathara, 290, 291

Michael Paleologus, 263–272

Michael Psellus, 159, 163, 165, 177, 186

Mohammed II., 334

Monophysites, the, 13, 20, 32, 40, 79

Morality of the Eastern Empire, 136–137

Murad, Sultan, 320, 321

Murad II., 328, 334

Muzalon, 264

Murtzuphlus, 250–252

Nicephoritzes, 191, 192, 194

Nicephorus Blemmydas, 262

Nicephorus Botaneiates, 194, 195, 196, 200

Nicephorus Bryennius, 179, 181, 213

Nicephorus Diogenes, 208

Nicephorus Melissenus, 205

Nicephorus Phocas, 143, 144, 145, 146–153

Nicephorus, son of Eudocia, 87, 95

Nicholas the Patriarch, 127, 128, 130

Nikin, Bishop of, 79

Oath, the, at Constantinople, 168, 169

Palace, the Imperial, 4

Palamism, 307, 311

Patricius, 11, 13

Paul, 9

Pepin the Frank, 84

Peter Barsymes, 48

Philagrius, 28, 79

Philaretus, St., 92

Philippa of Antioch, 230, 233

Phocas, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68

Photius, son of Antonina, 45

Phrantzes, 333

Polyeuctes, 144, 146, 147, 148

Porphyra, the, 8

Porphyrogenitus, 8

Priscus, 67, 69

Procopia, wife of Michael, 102, 103

Procopius, 23, 24, 25

Pulcheria, viii, 1

Pyrrhus, 77, 79

Raymond of Tripoli, 222

Relics at Constantinople, 169, 170, 258

Robert Guiscard, 207

Romanus I., 132, 133, 134, 137

Romanus II., 139, 141, 142, 143

Romanus Argyrus (III.), 161, 163, 165, 166

Romanus Diogenes, 184–191

Samonas, 127, 129, 130

Saudgi, 320

Scholarians, the, 5

Scott, Sir Walter, 208

Sclerena, 176, 177, 178

Sergius, 70, 76

Shorthand in ancient times, 56

Silverius, 40, 41

Simonides, 277, 280, 281, 284, 285

Sir Janni, 291, 293, 297, 300

Solomon’s Throne, 109

Sophia, 52–63

Sophia of Montferrat, 326–328

Stauracius, 88, 89, 91, 94, 98

St Daniel Stylites, 8

Strategopulina, 274

St Simeon, 33

St Sophia, church of, 4, 38, 39, 47

St Stephen, church of, 6

Stylianus Zautzes, 122, 123

Synadenus, 200

Tarasius, 91, 96

Tartars, the, 324, 325

Thecla, daughter of Theophilus, 110, 117, 119

Thecla, wife of Michael II., 106

Theoclistos, 110, 115

Theodora, daughter of Constantine VIII., 158, 199–162, 173–180

Theodora, mistress of Manuel I., 220, 223

Theodora Paleologina, 301, 305

Theodora, St, 101, 106–119

Theodora of Tocco, 333

Theodora, wife of Baldwin III., 230, 231

Theodora, wife of Justinian, 8, 21, 23, 26, 27, 28–51

Theodora, wife of Justinian II., 82, 83

Theodora, wife of Michael Paleologus, 263, 265, 268, 269–275

Theodora, wife of Romanus, 137

Theodora, wife of Zimiskes, 155

Theodore, Abbot, 122, 123, 124

Theodore Guniazitza, 126

Theodore Lascaris, 256, 258

Theodore Synadenus, 291

Theodosia, wife of Leo, 104, 105

Theodosius, 41

Theodosius, son of Maurice, 62, 63, 64, 65

Theodote, 95, 96, 97, 98

Theophanes, 113

Theophano, St, 121, 122, 123

Theophano, wife of Romanus II., 140–157

Theophano, wife of Stauracius, 102

Theophilus, 106–110

Theophobos, 110

Tiberius, 56, 58, 61, 62

Trascallisseus, 9

Tribonian, 52

Triclinon, the, 7

Tzantzes, 125

Valentine, 28, 79

Verina, 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12–18

Vigilius, 40, 42

Xene, 289, 294

Xiphilin, 183, 184

Yolande, 258

Zeno, 10, 12, 14, 15, 19

Zenonis, 12, 13, 14

Zoe Carbonopsina, 128–135

Zoe, daughter of Constantine VIII., 158, 159–178

Zoe, daughter of Zautzes, 122, 124, 126

Zonarus, 24

THE RIVERSIDE PRESS LIMITED, EDINBURGH

* * * * * *

Transcriber’s note:

Punctuation, hyphenation, and spelling were made consistent when a predominant preference was found in the original book; otherwise they were not changed.

Simple typographical errors were corrected; unpaired quotation marks were remedied when the change was obvious, and otherwise left unpaired.

Footnotes, originally at the bottoms of pages, have been collected and moved to precede the Index.

The index was not checked for proper alphabetization or correct page references.

Page 106: A duplicate image was removed; the correct one remains, following page 138.

Page 116: The appearance of the transcription of Greek in the illustration will vary according to the fonts installed on your reading device.

Page 315: “Two large triremes (galleys with two banks of oars)” was printed that way; should be either “biremes” or “three banks”.

Footnote 22 (originally on page 143): “G. Schlumherger” should be “G. Schlumberger”.