Character of Byzantine History. Gibbon described Byzantine history as "a tedious and uniform tale of weakness and misery." The great authority of his name, and similar opinions expressed by Voltaire, Montesquieu and Taine, caused this judgment to be generally adopted until the middle of the last century. "Byzantine" even yet is too frequently used as a term of opprobrium. The scholars now recognize the great services which the Byzantine Empire performed and the debt which we owe to it. They realize that for eight centuries law, literature, art, industry, and commerce were carried on at Constantinople; and that this city not merely preserved the remnants of the classical civilization, but also made it possible, by her victories, for the West to develop until it was in a position to absorb this older culture. They have learned that the most important feature of the Byzantine Empire is "its constant vitality and power of revival," "its marvelous recuperative energy," until the period of decline in the eleventh century.

Position Of Constantinople. In a consideration of the sources of its strength, the position of its capital must be placed first. Byzantium had had a memorable history, extending over almost a thousand years, before Constantine chose it for his residence. Its position made it practically impregnable. On the north, east, and south it is surrounded by water; and the approach on either north or south is by a long, narrow channel that can be easily defended. On the west, the land side, a wall was built across the peninsula, about four miles in length; later, a second wall was built farther to the west. Its position also made Constantinople admirably adapted to be the capital of the Roman Empire. It was in Europe, but close to Asia, and not far from Egypt. By the Black Sea, which is five times the size of Lake Superior and has more than 2000 miles of coast, it could draw upon the resources of all the tributary basin to the north, as well as upon the riches of Asia Minor. It has a magnificent land-locked harbor, with deep water so that large vessels can unload at the wharves.

Commerce. This harbor was the center of an active commerce. For several centuries Constantinople was the greatest trading port in the Christian world and also maintained relations with the Saracens. The furs, honey and wax, brought from the North by Russian merchants, were exchanged for the spices, drugs, and precious stones from the Orient, which were brought by Byzantine vessels from Alexandria. Merchants from many lands resorted to Constantinople, but most of the traffic on the sea was carried in Byzantine vessels until the eleventh century. This commerce was burdened with heavy tolls which furnished a large revenue to the government. But the profits were so great that the merchants became rich and the city prospered, especially in the ninth and tenth centuries. Later, when Constantinople had lost its monopoly of sea trade, the wealth of its merchants excited the wonder even of Benjamin of Tudela, who had seen Bagdad. He tells of the great stir and bustle which prevailed at Constantinople in consequence of the gathering of many merchants from Babylon, Mesopotamia, Media, Persia, Egypt, Palestine, Russia, Hungary, Lombardy, Spain, and other countries. He said the Greeks were extremely wealthy; "they dress in garments of silk, ornamented with gold and other costly materials; they ride upon horses, and in their appearance they are like princes." This wealth was another source of strength to the Byzantine Empire.

Army and Navy. It was also a constant temptation to other powers and the emperors needed a strong army and a large navy to defend their possessions. After the great defeat at Hadrianople the Roman army had been strengthened and in particular the cavalry was made the most important arm of the service. But troops of all kinds were enrolled from different peoples, both within and without the Empire, each with its distinctive weapons. Gradually a strong military force was provided whose main strength came from the peoples of Asia Minor, under their own leaders, and consequently the danger from the excessive employment of Germans as soldiers was avoided. Weapons were improved, Greek fire came into use, the science of strategy was carefully studied. Emperors wrote text-books on tactics and the conduct of war. The Byzantine armies were the best equipped in the world and were usually under efficient officers. The navy too was well organized and did good service.

Centralized Government. In other medieval empires and kingdoms the army was usually the real power and on it the rulers had to depend in order to maintain their position. At Constantinople there was a centralized government of civil officials which controlled the state. They had inherited from the old Roman Empire its organizing capacity and the various governmental functions were divided among different bureaus, each with a large staff of well-trained clerks. Men from many nations found a career in these offices and served for long periods of years. Even when an emperor was assassinated and a new family came into power it mattered little to most of the officials, especially the rank and file, and the business of the bureau went on as before. A few of the chiefs might be killed or displaced, but the less prominent, on whom the routine business of the bureau depended, would be undisturbed. This well-organized, centralized administration carried on the government from generation to generation and stabilized the Byzantine Empire.

Law and Order. In spite of dynastic changes and occasional scenes of violence and riot, law and order ruled in Constantinople. These were essential for commerce and the merchants were always on the side of the de facto government. Moreover the emperor was interested from a selfish standpoint, if nothing more, in the preservation of good order and the maintenance of just private law; his income depended upon these conditions. The Corpus Juris of Justinian was gradually modified and had to be translated into Greek, as few of the people could understand Latin. Two of the later emperors published codes, in Greek, to meet the needs of the time and to make clear what were the existing statutes. Law had an orderly development at Constantinople; and even the emperor, although absolute in so many spheres, had to submit to its rule. The people were fond of recounting how Justinian had been unable to seize illegally land which belonged to humble artisans and the devices or compromises to which he had been obliged to submit, in order not to violate the majesty of the law.

Absorption of Foreigners. The law was territorial, not personal as was the case in western Europe. All the inhabitants of the Empire were tried by a uniform system. A Russian, a Varangian, a Persian, an Italian, who lived at Constantinople was no longer under his native code, but was subject to Roman law. The number of such foreigners was very great. For the Empire drew into its service men from very many nations and willingly allowed merchants from distant lands to settle in its capital. Often chiefs of barbarous tribes were enticed to serve the emperor and sometimes against their fellow tribesmen. The old Roman maxim of "Divide and command" was still heeded and it was easier to avert danger of attack by this means than by any other. Tribute was frequently paid to barbarians and many entered within the boundaries of the Empire, with or without the consent of the government. Fortunately the number in the early centuries was never too great and the Empire gradually absorbed and assimilated them. In this way the vacant lands were again brought under cultivation, decline in population was checked, and the emperor's treasury and army were kept filled.

Unity of Empire. The absorption and assimilation were the more easy because the Empire was cosmopolitan. Although the Greek people probably formed not more than a bare majority of the population, Greek was the universal language. Justinian was the last emperor who spoke Latin as his mother tongue. A half century after his death Latin was understood by only a small number of the people and had been superseded by Greek. Besides language, religion was a bond of union for all the people, and the Byzantine Empire was peculiarly bound up with the church, which used Greek in its liturgy. Moreover, the tradition of the old Roman Empire, the oxe Empire, still haunted the thoughts of men and they still called themselves Romans, and thought of the emperor as the head of the Roman Christian world. "The Byzantine Empire was not the political expression of a nation; it was an artificial creation, governing twenty different nationalities, and uniting them all by this formula; one ruler, one faith. Its pride was a purely fictitious belief, the heritage of Rome; but it had a real bond of strength: religious unity."

External foes: Germans. It was fortunate that there were so many sources of strength, for the Empire was beset by foes and many of its provinces were lost. First the Germans, as we have seen, overran most of the West, and founded kingdoms: the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes in Britain; the Franks in Gaul; the Visigoths in Spain; the Vandals in Africa; the Ostrogoths in Italy; to mention only the most prominent. Then came the first example of the "marvelous recuperative energy" peculiar to the Byzantine Empire. The generals of Justinian reconquered Africa, Italy, and part of Spain. Under his successors the Spanish possessions were lost and most of Italy fell into the hands of the Lombards. It is interesting to recall, as Oman does, that the whole peninsula of Italy never again was governed by one ruler until I870. "Justinian had no successor till Victor Emmanuel."

Persians. Justinian was prevented from carrying out his plan to reconquer all the West from the Germans by danger on the other frontiers and especially by war with the rulers of Persia. Persia and Rome were inveterate enemies, as there was no sharply defined boundary between the two empires and each coveted the rich lands held by the other. Soon after Justinian's accession, Kobad, the Persian king, had again declared war. Belisarius was so successful that, on Kobad's death, three years later, Chosroes, his successor, was glad to make peace, and to wait until he himself was firmly seated on the throne and a more favorable opportunity presented itself. Justinian's war against the Ostrogoths offered this opportunity, and in 540 A.D. Chosroes invaded northern Syria, and sacked Antioch, carrying its citizens into captivity. Belisarius was recalled from Italy and for several years each foe ravaged the other's territory. A truce, and later peace, was agreed upon, on condition that the Byzantines should pay a nominal tribute. Justin II, who succeeded Justinian, refused to pay, and war broke out again in 572. For about twenty years it dragged on indecisively, weakening both empires. The rise of a usurper in Persia led the emperor Maurice to aid the rightful heir, another Chosroes, to regain his throne. In gratitude Chosroes made peace as soon as he had crushed the usurper. BThen Maurice was deposed by Phocas, in 602, Chosroes declared war upon the latter, taking as his pretext the murder of his friend and benefactor. For almost twenty years the Persians were successful, conquering Asia Minor, Syria and Egypt. In 6I4 they captured Jerusalem, slew the Christians in the city, and carried off the "true cross." This was the most dangerous crisis the Byzantine Empire had experienced; but again its "vitality and power of revival" were in evidence. Heraclius had deposed Phocas and now determined to lead the army in person, a thing which no emperor since Theodosius had done. All the churches in the capital sent their ornaments and every kind of treasure to be minted into money for the service of the state. The dole of grain, which Constantine had established for the populace, was suspended and the people, without murmuring, flocked to enlist. Finally in 622 Heraclius could take the field against the enemy and in six successive campaigns humbled Persia. Chosroes' son revolted, and putting his father to death sought peace. Heraclius consented, and the conditions were that the Persians should withdraw from all their conquests, should return all captives, should pay an indemnity, and should give back the "true cross." Heraclius had restored the empire.

Avars. His delay in attacking the Persians had been due to trouble with the Avars on the north. They were nomads who had been driven out of Asia by the Turks and had settled in southern Russia. They, as well as the other barbarians on the northern border of the Empire, received presents from Justinian, who used each tribe as a menace or check to some other, constantly stirring up strife among them. "So long as the barbarians destroyed each other," wrote a contemporary, '* the emperor was always victor without drawing his sword, no matter what was the end of the struggle." But this was a dangerous policy: there was always a chance that the barbarians might attempt to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. In fact, the Avars did make a raid into the Empire just before Justinian died. Justin refused to continue the payment to them and thus provoked war, which continued with short intermissions. Heraclius, after a show of force, had to buy them off, before he was free to attack Persia In 626 the Avars and Persians joined in a siege of Constanti nople, but this failed. While the Avars long remained dangerous to the Empire, they were never again so great a menace.

Slavs. Closely associated with the Avars, in the minds of the Byzantines, were the Slavs. These peoples were unwarlike and were repeatedly held in subjection by one conqueror after another. Many were seized and sold as slaves; many had to support nomads who made their winter quarters among them, eating their grain and violating their women. They were originally a lighthaired blond people and the dark skin and hair of many Slavs is attributed to this constant intermixture of nomad blood. Their sad plight led them to dwell amid swamps, in the depths of the forests, in inaccessible places; when suddenly attacked, we are told that they dove under water and, lying upon their backs on the bottom, breathed through long reeds which projected as if growing naturally. They are said to have fought desperately when forced to defend themselves, but never to have taken the offensive except when under the command of a foreigner. This was frequently their lot. But fleeing from the Avars who held them in serfdom, or seeking better homes, Slavs were constantly filtermg into the Empire. Sometimes they fought for the Avars under compulsion, being placed in the front rank to bear the brunt of the attack. Consequently the Byzantine chroniclers did not always distinguish clearly between the two. But while the Avars made raids the Slavs settled, gradually replacing the older population, which had been reduced by war, pestilence, and famine, until they formed the vast majority in some sections of the Empire. Under Samo, a Frank, a strong Slavic kingdom was founded, and at this time and later when under alien leadership they were a redoubtable foe.

Arabs. While the Avars and Slavs were menacing the Empire the Arabs suddenly fell upon it and wrested from it the largest part of its lands. The end of the reign of Heraclius saw the Empire reduced to almost as great straits as it had experienced at the time when he became emperor. The long Persian wars had exhausted both antagonists so that the Moslems had little difficulty in their early conquests. Their internal dissensions gave Constantinople a breathing spell. But afterwards, twice in a half century, it had to withstand a siege, for six months in 673, and still longer in 7I7-718. The second failure was the most important check that the Mohammedans had ever experienced and effectually prevented their great plans of conquest. Constantinople was "the bulwark of Europe." But it had to pay dearly for its frontier position and saw its provinces and islands fall under the dominion of the enemy.

Other Foes. If this were a history of the Byzantine Empire, it would be necessary to give a long list of the external foes and to tell of dangers from Bulgarians, Russians, and many others. Repeatedly the Empire was threatened, often it was reduced to dire straits; always until the thirteenth century it maintained itself, giving proof of its vitality. There were glorious epochs; in the tenth century, when Crete and other lands were reconquered from the Saracens- in the early eleventh, when Basil earned his grim title of "slayer of the Bulgarians." The Empire seems to have been at its best when confronted with the greatest dangers.

Internal Weakness: No Rule of Succession. At other times, and frequently even when endangered by external foes, Constantinople was weakened by internal dissensions and the bad policies of the government. One fact, upon which historians of the Byzantine Empire have always dwelt, was that there was no fixed rule of succession. They have described the assassinations, mutilations and depositions of the emperors. They have emphasized the conditions which permitted a barbarous leader, a drunken groom, or a favorite of the empress to seize the imperial office. They have compiled figures to show how many emperors met what might be called elsewhere an unnatural end. Undoubtedly there is some truth in these strictures and the lack of a definite system of heredity or selection did at times weaken the Empire and precipitate civil war. But it must also be noted that such revolutions usually occurred when the ruler was weak or vicious and that the successor was frequently a man of real ability and proved to be the savior of the state. The fact that the imperial offfice was a possible goal for any strong man, regardless of race or condition, gave to the Empire many of its ablest rulers.

The Church. The position of the church in the Empire was at once a source of strength and a source of weakness to the state. It was the former because it was a bond of unity and also because the emperor was unquestionably the head of the church. The patriarch was but a minister and a servant of the emperor; there was no investiture struggle nor any similar contest. The emperor, even when a rebel upstart who had secured the throne by murder, was an object of sacred reverence to the populace, until he in turn was dethroned. But this servile position was detrimental to the Orthodox Church, which never took the place held in the west of Europe by the Roman Catholic Church. It had no great regenerating influence on the people; it was not the leader in educaion; it could not exercise any real control over a guilty ruler; it lacked virility and the power of growth. The Eastern monks played no such role as their Western brothers. While it is impossible to write the history of the Middle Ages in the West without giving the church the center of the stage, in Byzantine history it appears mainly as an adjunct to the emperor. The people were interested in theological questions to a much greater degree than in the west of Europe, and frequently those disaffected politically espoused a doctrinal cause obnoxious to the emperor. Often they were able to show their opposition to a ruler or to his ministers only by taking up some controverted point in theology or by cheering the jockeys of the opposition color in the hippodrome, as these were the only safe methods of criticism. At times, the emperor imposed his will upon the church to establish some theological doctrine which was repugnant to the beliefs and habits of a large part of the subjects.

Iconoclasm. Then serious trouble arose. The most noted instance was the iconoclastic struggle. In the capital, images, in the shape of both statues and pictures, adorned the churches and were held in great reverence by the masses. Apparently in Asia Minor and Syria there were a large number of Christians who had been affected by the teachings of Islam concerning idols and thought it their duty to discard all such representations of saints or of divinity. After Leo the Armenian had beaten off the Saracens in 7I8, he attempted the even more difficult task of ridding the churches of all images. This aroused great opposition; riots broke out; some of the emperor's officials, when attempting to remove an image of Christ, were killed by a mob; the emperor executed some of the leaders and called upon the army to enforce his policy throughout the Empire. The monks were the leaders of the Iconodules, or slaves to images, as the Iconoclasts called them, and suffered some persecution. The struggle lasted for over a century, during which time most of the emperors were Iconoclasts and the oflficials sided with them. But the people clung to the images, and finally the empress, Theodora, acting as guardian for her son, brought about a change of imperial policy, deposed the iconoclastic patriarch who had been her husband's appointee, and decreed the restoration of images. But the outcome was a partial compromise, as after that the icons were always pictures, and statues were no longer venerated in the churches.

Power of People. This long struggle showed the power of the people in Constantinople. While the majority of the population in the Asiatic themes had apparently sided with the iconoclastic emperor, the citizens in the capital, aside from the high office-holders both in church and state, had been opposed. The army had been on the imperial side. But the people had finally carried the day. The emperors always had to humor the populace. Constantine had granted a dole of grain and had arranged for races and games in the hippodrome--the old Roman policy of giving panem et circenses. The factions were allowed great freedom in the hippodrome, as is evident from the account of the events which led up to the Nika riot under Justinian. The members of the factions were at times enrolled as soldiers to defend the city. The great plague in 542 had swept away many of the people; we are told that 5000 persons a day died in Constantinople. But the population was recruited again and consisted of representatives of many nations. The occupations which attracted them seem to have been commerce and industry, the governmental offices and the positions in the church, both of which were very numerous. All of these occupations were essential to the prosperity of the Empire and the people engaged in them and living at the capital exercised an influence which was usually silent, but decisive upon the policy of the emperors. The murmurs of the populace might compel an emperor to dismiss an unpopular minister or even to take a colleague who was desired by the people. The fact that offices, even the highest, might be aspired to by a man of ability, was a constant incentive to many a boy of humble rank. And those who rose to prominence in the imperial service remained in touch, through their relatives, with popluar opinion.

Feudalism. There was a decided difference between the capital and the provinces. In the latter, apart from the commercial centers, feudalism became more and more dominant, especially in the ninth and tenth centuries. The causes were similar to those which had built up the power of the nobles in the West during the fourth and fifth centuries. The small proprietors needed protection and commended themselves to the powerful. Great estates were formed and were increased by confiscations, until they sometimes embraced almost the whole of a province. The heads of the estates raised armies which served under their leadership. They became more and more dangerous to the emperor until finally in the eleventh century the great families of Asia Minor took possession of the imperial office. This feudalism, which differed in many respects from the western, has not been thoroughly treated; here, as in so many other fields of Byzantine history, it is necessary to be very cautious about generalizations, as much intensive study is still needed. In fact, in almost every phase of the economic or social life of the Byzantine Empire scholars can find subjects which will repay the most careful work.

Taxation. The emperors had aided in the growth of these great estates because at first they made the problem of securing funds more easy, as the head of the estate could be held responsible for the taxes due from all the people dwelling upon it. Justinian had drawn heavily upon the treasury for his great wars and many buildings, so that the Empire was almost exhausted. But his successors, especially in times of crisis, had to find new methods of wringing money from the people. The ordinary direct taxes were the land tax and the hearth tax; the latter was a fixed sum from each household. In addition there were taxes on inheritances, judicial fines, and customs duties. The last were very important and were frequently heavy, but they do not seem to have burdened commerce, as the merchants continued to prosper. The land tax caused the greatest difficulty and was frequently manipulated to aid monasteries or to check the growth of the power of the feudal lords. Religious institutions, including monasteries, hospitals and orphanages, were at times exempt from all taxation. The result was a rapid growth of such institutions and the monasteries in particular acquired great estates on which the people paid no hearth tax. Consequently some emperors felt it necessary to restrict the alienation of property to monasteries and even to force the monks to relinquish a part of their holdings. They took similar action to restrain the growth of large lay estates and the power of their possessors. But the latter were too strong and their support was often too necessary to the emperor, so that the attempts to use taxation as a weapon had little result. They only emphasized the differences between the commercial and industrial capital and the feudal provinces.

Lack of Preparedness. As these differences became more pronounced they led to a policy which was fraught with peril. Too many of the emperors, when not confronted with actual danger from a strong external foe, neglected the army, fearing to give too much power into the hands of the local nobles who led their own troops. They employed mercenaries, Varangians and men from the border tribes, in preference to calling upon the natives of Asia Minor who had been so efficient under their feudal lords. The people of the capital were unmilitary in their tastes and influenced the imperial policy. This was especially true after the death of Basil, "slayer of the Bulgarians," in I025. There seemed then little danger from the caliphate, which was so weak, or from the border tribes on the north which were impressed by the victory over the Bulgarians. Consequently the army was neglected and the peace- CzH::~P. loving Constantinople held sway. This was fatal. For this period was the one in which the decline was most evident and when the Empire was to be subjected to greater disasters than it had experienced for centuries.

Schism. Soon after the middle of the eleventh century a series of events occurred which make an epoch in Bvzantine history. First, the consummation of the break between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church. Relations between the two had been strained for centuries, ever since the time when Gregory the Great had protested against the use by the patriarch of the title "Ecumenical Bishop," to which he opposed his own title of sersus servorlfm Dei. At the time of the iconoclastic decree of Leo the Isaurian, the pope called a council, which anathematized all who should refuse to reverence images. Consequently, the emperor decreed that the dioceses in southern Italy should no longer be under the jurisdiction of the pope, but under the patriarch. During the period of iconoclastic emperors the popes were opposed to their authority. Soon after the strife ended came the struggle between Ignatius and Photius for the patriarchate, when the former appealed to the pope and won his support, in opposition to the emperor. In consequence of this the Synod of Constantinople in 867 accused the Roman Church of heresy, especially denouncing the enforced celibacy of the priests and the doctrine that the Holy Ghost proceeded both from the Father and from the Son; the latter they declared "a heresy so awful as to deserve a thousand anathemas." Attempts were made to patch up the differences, but neither of the churches was willing to make real concessions and there was much rivalry concerning missions to the Bulgarians and Slavs, as each church tried to enroll these peoples in their own fold. Finally the patriarch shut the Latin churches and convents in Constantinople and brought matters to an issue. Each church excommunicated the other and the schism became final in I054. After this there was a hostile feeling in the West and some historians have thought that Pope Urban's main interest in preaching the crusade was the desire to bring the Greek Church under the authority of the Roman.

Rise of Comneni. The second decisive event was the transference of the imperial office to the heads of the great aristocratic families in Asia Minor, which resulted in the dominance of the Comneni. With them the Oriental influence became stronger, despotism became more marked, and a series of disasters showed the decline of the Empire. The carefully organized administrative bureaus seem to have been neglected and the power apparently passed into the hands of untrained favorites. Commerce was gradually diverted from Byzantine vessels to the ships of the rising Italian seaports; the emperor's income was lessened.

Seljuks. The most disastrous event, however, was the advance of the Seljukian Turks. They had occupied Bagdad in I055 and were pressing steadily westward. They subjugated Armenia and Georgia and then attacked the Empire itself. At Manzikert, in I07I, they won a great victory and captured the emperor. They soon had possession of all the interior of Asia Minor and in I074 a new emperor had to make a disgraceful treaty by which he abandoned to the Turks all that they had conquered, and a Turkish general established himself at Nicaea.

Alexius. Conditions seemed desperate, but the Empire was not yet exhausted, and under Alexius Comnenus, who became emperor in I08I, showed more of its old vitality. He struggled against the Turks and by the death of their ruler in I092 was freed from his greatest danger, as Turkish leaders set up independent principalities and quarreled among themselves, instead of joining in war against Alexius. He was attacked by the Norman Robert Guiscard, who, going over from southern Italy, captured Durazzo and for almost four years waged war successfully, conquering many places and making ready to attack Constantinople. His death in I085 and the contests among his sons in Italy averted this danger from the Empire, which had been in desperate straits. The Patzinaks on the north repeatedly raided the Empire and in conjunction with the Turks attempted to besiege Constantinople. In I09I Alexius finally won a victory over them and slaughtered many thousands of men, women, and children, so that the greater part of the nation was destroyed and the remainder forced to furnish soldiers for the imperial army. The first ten years of Alexius' reign had been years of almost uninterrupted conflict and he had been obliged to seize property of the church in order to hire mercenaries. In the army which fought against Robert Guiscard at Durazzo were Normans, Franks, English, Germans, Russians, Bulgarians, Armenians, Turks, and men from other nations. These hirelings were frequently treacherous and deserted to the emperor's foes. Alexius in turn bribed the followers of his opponents and used all the resources of tricky diplomacy to protect himself. Finally, in 1092, as a result of his strenuous efforts and a great good fortune in the death of his most dangerous antagonists, he obtained a breathing spell in which to strengthen his empire. But, as this had lost most of its territories, he desired as soon as possible to reconquer some of its Asiatic possessions; and the strife among the Turks seemed to furnish a favorable opportunity. In order to utilize this he needed troops and these he sought, as often before, from the Christian states in the West. The result will be discussed in the next chapter.

Influence of the Byzantine Empire. Before ending this chapter on the Byzantine Empire it is important to note its influence on the general history of Europe. The whole eastern half of Europe owes its civilization to new Rome and not to old Rome. Russia and the Balkan states came under the influence of Constantinople and derived from it their religion and many of their customs. On the western countries its influence was less marked, but still very important. From its earliest days the new capital of the Empire had had many connections with the west of Europe. These became less frequent after the days of Charlemagne, with whom Byzantine emperors had exchanged presents and embassies. But there were associations through the papacy, through commerce, and because of the Greek possessions in southern Italy. Otto the Great obtained a Greek princess as the bride of his son and she brought in her train Greek attendants and Greek fashions which impressed the imagination of the Germans. In times of need the Byzantines had sought aid from the West. During the period of the crusades the intercourse was to be much greater and the more advanced civilization was destined to exert a more powerful influence upon the westerners, even although the latter were usually hostile.

Conservatism. The conservatism which was the most marked characteristic of the Byzantine civilization preserved much of the classical literature and learning. In no sphere of thought or action was there a sharp break with the past. Law, government, military science, art, slowly evolved, constantly building upon the older traditions. Even in religion there was no such great change as we are apt to imagine must take place when Christianity supersedes paganism. As Hatch has pointed out, Greek influence profoundly modified the original ideas and ideals of Christianity. The Byzantines with their love and study of the old Greek classics imbibed many of the pagan points of view. Just as they interpreted the Bible allegorically the preachers explained the fall of Troy as a moral allegory. Plato was made into a precursor of Christ. Michael Psellos, one of the most influentiafl leaders in the eleventh century, had learned the Iliad by heart and when profoundly moved by the death of his sister vented his grief in verses which show no trace of Christian influence, but are filled with pagan feeling. The fact that there had been no such break with the past as occurred in the West enabled Constantinople to perform its greatest service as a storehouse of classical traditions and learning until the West had reached a maturity of thought which led it to desire such mental pabulum. The western scholars drew upon this hoard for centuries, at first hesitatingly, then with confidence, until the time came in the days of the "Renaissance" when they made almost a fetich of Homer.

Literature. Learning and authorship were held in high renown at Constantinpole. Naturally dwelling upon the past glories, as was their conservative tendency, the scholars were to a great extent compilers and merely handed down the works of the great men of antiquity. By this means the learning of Greece was preserved, for their own use, for the Arabs, and later for the modern world. We owe much of our knowledge to the epitomes and compilations in vogue among the Byzantines. Emperors were patrons of literature and also authors. Reference has already been made to their works on military science and law. Constantine VII, in the tenth century, among other writings, prepared a treatise on the administration of the Empire, to which we owe much of our information, and also one on the ceremonies and court functions It is very interesting to see how the etiquette of the Byzantine court influenced western usages and to compare the pompous ceremonial which surrounded a Louis XIV of France with the customs described by the tenth-century Byzantine emperor.

Art. The influence might be traced along very many lines, but possibly it was the most striking in the various fields of art. Passing over the jewelry, ivory work, enamels, embroidery, and many minor arts, in architecture and painting the debt to Byzantium is enormous. Justinian was a great builder and his chief work vitas S. Sophia, "the fairest church in all the world," to quote a western medieval writer. With this judgment Ferguson agrees, declaring that internally it is "the most perfect and beautiful church ever yet erected by any Christian people." It served as a model for many medieval churches in Italy and southern France, and its influence can be traced to-day in almost every Christian country. Equally marked is the importance of Byzantine painting. In the first half of the last century a painter's hand-book, which dates from the eleventh century or earlier, was discovered in a Byzantine monastery. It contained practical rules for the artists and designs for representations of Biblical and sacred scenes. "Here, in fact, in an old monkish practice-book, are the types of sacred art as we find it in sculpture, mosaic, fresco, metal, and illuminated work from the sixth to the sixteenth century, and from Syria to Ireland, throughout the Christian world." [Harrison, Byzantine History in the Early Middle Ages (London, 1900), p. 60.]