BYZANTINE
100
BYZANTINE
This brief resume 1 shows the important part played
by women in the imperial history of Byzantium.
Nor was female influence restricted to the imperial
family. The development of Roman law exhibits
a growing realization of woman's importance in the
family and society. Theodora, whose greatness is
not eclipsed by that of her celebrated consort, Jus-
tinian, is a typical example of the solicitude of a
■woman of high station for the interests of the low-
liest and the most unworthy of her sisters — from
whose ranks perhaps she herself had risen. Byzan-
tine civilization produced a succession of typical
women of middle class who are a proof, first, of the
high esteem in which women were held in social life
and, secondly, of the sacredness of family life, which
even now distinguishes the Greek people. To this
same tendency is probably to be ascribed the suppres-
sion by Anastasius of the bloody exhibitions of the cir-
cus called venationes. We must not forget, however,
that under the successor of Anastasius, Justin, the
so-called circus factions kept bears for spectacles in the
circus, and the Empress Theodora was the daughter
of a bear-baiter. Still the fact remains that cultured
circles at that time began to deplore this gruesome
amusement, and that the venationes, and with them
the political significance of the circus, disappeared
in the course of Byzantine history.
One may be amazed at the assertion that the By- zantine was humane, and refined in feeling, even to the point of sensitiveness. Too many bloody crimes stain the pages of Byzantine history — not as extraor- dinary occurrences, but as regularly established in- stitutions. Blinding, mutilation, and death by tor- ture had their place in the Byzantine penal system. In the Middle Ages such horrors were not, it is true, unknown in Western Europe, and yet the fierce cru- saders thought the Byzantines exquisitely cruel. In reading the history of this people, one has to accustom oneself to a Januslike national character — genuine Christian self-sacrifice, unworldliness, and spirituality, side by side with avarice, cunning, and the refinement of cruelty. It is, indeed, easy to detect this idiosyn- crasy in both the ancient and the modern Greeks. Greek cruelty, however, may have been aggravated by the circumstances that savage races not only re- mained as foes on the frontier, but often became in- corporated in the body politic, only veiling their bar- baric origin under a thin cloak of Hellenism. The whole of Byzantine history is the record of struggles between a civilized state and wild, or half-civilized, neighbouring tribes. Again and again was the By- zantine Empire ete facto reduced to the limits of the capital city, which Anastasius had transformed into an unrivalled fortress; and often, too, was the victory over its foes gained by troops before whose ferocity its own citizens trembled.
Twice in the period just considered Byzantium w T as on the point of falling into the hands of the Goths: first, when, under the Emperor Arcadius, shortly after Alaric the Visigoth had pillaged Greece, the German Gainas, being in control of Constantinople, simultaneously stirred up the East Goths and the Gruthungi, who had settled in Phrygia; a second time, when the East Goths, before their withdrawal to Italy, threatened Constantinople. These deliver- ances may not have been entirely fortunate. There are differences in natural endowments among races; the history of the Goths in Spain, Southern France, and Italy shows that they should not be classed with the savage Huns ami Isaurians, and a strong admix- ture of Germanic blood would perhaps have so bene- fited the Greek nation as to have averted its moral
and political paralysis. But this was not to I \-
pected of the Ilunnie and Isaurian races, the latter including, probably, tribes of Kurds in the Taurus ranges in tiie south-easl of \-i a Minor. It can only be considered fortunate that success so long crowned
the efforts to ward off the Huns, who, from 412 to 451 ,
when their power was broken at Chalons, had been a
serious menace to the imperial frontiers. More dan-
gerous still were the Isaurians, inhabitants of impe-
rial territory, and the principal source from which the
guards of the capital were recruited. The Emperor
Zeno was an Isaurian, as was likewise his adversary,
Illus, Magister Ofjxciorum, who, in league with Verina,
mother of the empress, plotted his downfall; and
while these intrigues were in progress the citizens of
Constantinople were already taking sides against the
Isaurian body-guard, having recourse even to a gen-
eral massacre to free themselves from their hated op-
pressors. But it was the Emperor Anastasius who
first succeeded in removing these praetorians from
the capital, and in subjugating the inhabitants of
the Isaurian mountains (493) after a six years' war.
The same period is marked by the beginning of the Slavic and Bulgar migrations. The fact has al- ready been mentioned that these races gradually possessed themselves of the whole Balkan Peninsula, the Slavs meanwhile absorbing the Finnic-Ugrian Bulgars. The admixture of Greek blood, which was denied the Germanic races, was reserved for the Slavs. To how great a degree this mingling of races took place, will never be exactly ascertained. On the other hand, the extent of Slavic influence on the in- terior developments of the Byzantine Empire, es- pecially on that of the landed interests, is one of the great unsolved questions of Byzantine history.
In all these struggles, the Byzantine polity shows itself the genuine heir of the ancient Roman Empire. The same is true of the contest over the eastern boundary, the centuries of strife with the Persians. In this contest the Byzantine Greeks now found allies. The Persians had never given up their native fire-worship, Mazdeism. Whenever a border nation was converted to Christianity, it joined the Byzan- tine alliance. The Persians, realizing this, sought to neutralize the Greek influence by favouring the various sects in turn. To this motive is to be at- tributed the favour they showed to the Nestorians, who at last became the recognized representatives of Christianity in the Persian Empire. To meet this policy of their adversaries, the Greeks for a long time favoured the Syrian Monophysites, bitter enemies of the Nestorians. Upon this motive, the Emperor Zeno closed the Nestorian school at Edessa, in 489, and it was a part of the same policy that induced the successors of Constantine the Great to support the leaders of the Christian clerical party, the Mamiko- nians, in opposition to the Mazdeistic nobility. Theo- dosius II resumed this policy after his grandfather, Theodosius the Great, had, by a treaty with Persia (387), sacrificed the greater part of Armenia. Only Karin in the valley of the Western Euphrates, thence forth called Theodosiopolis, then remained a Roman possession. Theodosius II initiated a different policy. He encouraged, as far as lay in his power, the diffusion of Christianity in Armenia, invited Mesrob and Sa- hak, the founders of Armenian Cnristian literature into Roman territory, and gave them pecuniary as- sistance for the prosecution of the work they had un- dertaken, of translating Holy Scripture into Arme- nian. Anastasius followed the same shrewd policy. On the one hand, he carried on a relentless war with the Persians (502-06) and, on the other hand, lost no opportunity of encouraging the Monophysite sect which was then predominant in Egypt. Syria. and Armenia. It is true that he met with great difficulties from the irreconcilable factions, as had those of his predecessors who had followed the policy of religious indifference in dealing with the sects. The Eastern Churches in these centuries were torn by theological controversies so fierce as to have
been with good reason compared with the sixteenth- century disputes of Western Christendom. All the
