196 THE DECLINE AND FALL fA.D. 824 October] Theophiius. A.D. 829, October 3 banks of the Tigris and the shores of the Caspian.'^ He formed the siege of Constantinople ; but the capital was defended with spiritual and carnal weapons ; a Bulgarian king assaulted the camp of the Orientals, and Thomas had the misfortune, or the weakness, to fall alive into the power of the conqueror. The hands and feet of the rebel were amputated ; he was placed on an ass, and, amidst the insults of the people, was led through the streets, which he sprinkled with his blood. The deprava- tion of manners, as savage as they were corrupt, is marked by the presence of the emperor himself Deaf to the lamentations of a fellow-soldier, he incessantly pressed the discovery of more accomplices, till his curiosity was checked by the question of an honest or guilty minister : " Would you give credit to an enemy against the most faithful of your friends ? " After the death of his first wife, the emperor, at the request of the senate, drew from her monastery Euphrosyne, the daughter of Constantine the Sixth. Her august birth might justify a stipulation in the maiTiage- contract, that her children should equally share the empire with their elder brother. But the nuptials of Michael and Euphrosyne were barren ; and she was content with the title of Mother of Theophiius, his son and successor. The character of Theophiius is a rare example in which religious zeal has allowed, and perhaps magnified, the virtues of an heretic and a persecutor. ^'^ His valour was often felt by the enemies, and his justice by the subjects, of the monarchy ; but the valour of Theophiius was rash and fruitless, and his -' [The foreign origin of Thomas, "by separating him in an unusual degree from the ruling classes in the empire — for he was, like Michael, of a very low rank in society — caused him to be regarded as a friend of the people ; and all the subject races in the empire espoused his cause, which in many provinces took the form of an attack on the Roman administration, rather than of a revolution to place a new emperor on the throne. This rebellion is remarkable for assuming more of the character of a social revolution than of an ordinary insurrection " (Finlay, ii. p. 130). Thomas entered into connexion with the Saracens, and the Patriarch of Antioch was permitted to crown him in that city. He besieged Constantinople twice with his lleet. After his defeat by the Bulgarians he was besieged in Arcadi- opolis for five months ; his own followers surrendered him. We possess Michael's account of the rebellion in a letter which he addressed to Lewis the Pious, A.D. 824,] '•'^ [The portrait of the Emperor Theophiius drawn by Schlosser and by Finlay is probably too favourable. The hard judgment of H. Gelzer, who regards him as a much overrated, really insignificant, ruler, may be nearer the truth (in Krum- bacher's Gesch. der byz. Litt. , p. 968). Gelzer especially condemns him for incapacity to understand the sign of the times. His persecution of the iconodule priests had something fanatical about it which did not mark the policy of the earlier iconoclastic sovereigns. There is no authority for Gibbon's statement (p. 197) of cruel punishments (cp. Schlosser, o/>. cit. p. 524), but he does not connect these punishments with image-worship. The finances were in a prosperous state in this reign, but the credit is not due to Theophiius, whose incontinent passion for building caused a serious drain on the treasury.]
