BYZANTINE
107
BYZANTINE
explains why the Iconoclastic emperors always found
supporters in the higher ranks of the clergy. Thus
it was that Leo III conducted his attack against
the protesting popes through the Patriarch Anas-
tasius. When Pope Gregory II refused in recognize
the edict of 726, the emperor withdrew from his
jurisdiction Sicily, Lower Italy, and [Uyria, and
placed them under the Patriarch of Constantinople.
Constantine Copronymus had similar support. Up-
held by prelates in favour of a national Church, he
.nice more, through the council of 754, prohibited
tin' veneration of images. We know of the numerous
martyrdoms caused by the execution of the decree,
and how the Empress Irene, herself a friend of the
'image-worshippers", finally yielded. There soon
followed tin' reaction of tic Iconoclasts under Leo V,
the Armenian, and the Phrygian dynasty, and at last tin- legal restoration of image-worship by Theodora. We have already seen thai this victory of the ortho- dox party, viewed from an ecclesiastico-political standpoint, was riot complete. The reason of this partial defeat lay not in the existence of a party
among the higher clergy favouring a national Church, l>ut in the fart that the orthodox party gradually lost their hold on the people. We know how the antagonism ol the Greeks to the Latins had gradually grown more intense. It was regarded as unpatriotic when Theodore of Studium and Ins friends so openly declared for Rome. The strength of this National- Church movement came into most perfect evidence
with tlie advent of the great Photius. His rise and
the fall of the Patriarch Ignatius «cre connected
with a shabby court intrigue, the Patriarch Ignatius having ventured to oppose the all-powerful Bardas during the reign of Michael 111 (842 67). Ai in t the proceedings oi Photius differed in no n from those of a common office-seeker. Hut by op- ■ the claims of Old Rome to Bulgarian obedience
lie suddenly gained immense popularity, and thus paved the way lor the ultimate separation of the hi I .aim ( 'hurdles. It was Boris (852-88), the Bulgarian Tsar, who stirred up the entire question. Willi the help of Si. (lenient, a disciple of Methodius, the Apostle of the Slavs, lie had introduced Christianity among his people; cm the occasion of his own baptism, the Emperoi Michael III was sponsor. Soon afterwards Boris tried to withdraw from the influence of East Louie, and enter into closer relations with ( >ld Koine. At the same tune the Holy See renewed its claims to the Illyrian obedience. Photius's answer was the fyict/jcXios 1-wutto\ti (circular letter) of 867, by which he soii-hl to establish the separation from (lid Koine Loth in ritual and in dogma. In spite of the many
vacillations of Byzantine politics between the par- tisans of Ignatius ami those of Photius during the next decades, this was the first decisive step towards the schism of 105 I
During this whole period the Bulgarians had
f'ven great trouble to the Byzantine Empire. The mperor Nicephorus I fell in battle against them, and his successors warded them off only with the I difficulty. Equally violent, were the wars
i the Saracens and the Slavs. There was
no second investment of the capital by the Syrian
Arahs. it is true, though on the other hand, in
sen. the city was hard pressed by the Varangian
Kos, I. ut all the more danger was to !*■ apprehended from the Arahs who had been expelled from Spain
ami had settled in Egypt in 815. In 826 they con- quered Crete, and about the seme time the \i al'- of Northern Africa began to settle in Sicily, a migratory movement which finally resulted in the complete loss of the island to the Byzantines. As once they had conic from Syria and Asia Minor. so now many Greek families migrated to Lower Italy and the Peloponnesus. The ( iiristianization
I a . n i
and hellenization of the Slavs was now begun, and
soon produced rich fruits. It is difficult, as we
have already said, to determine how great an ad-
mixture of Slavic blood flows in the veins of the
Greeks of to-day; on the other hand, it. is certain
that the Slavs have left many traces of their laws
and c u s f o ms.
The agrarian law,
dating, possibly,
i em i he time of the Emperoi Leo
III, shows the strength of the Slavic influence on the develop- ment of the By- zantine agrarian system.
Ii remains to touch on the re- lations between t h e Byzantine Empire and the West during this
period. In the West, the Frankish nation had gradu- ally taken the lead of all other Germanic peoples. As we know, the relations of Byzantium with these na- tions were always somewhat unstable. One thing only had remained unchanged: the Byzantine rulers, as legitimate successors of the Roman emperors, had always maintained their claim to sovereignty over the Germanic peoples. For the most part this had Keen unconditionally admitted, as is evident from the coinage. At the time of the Empress Irene, however, a great change set in. The restoration of the Roman Empire of the Wist by Charlemagne (800) was the signal for a complete break with all previous traditions. The West stood now on the same footing as the East. As we know, this important step had been taken in full accord with the papacy. Historically, it is thus a part of the controversies which began with the withdrawal of Illyrian obe- dience, and culminated in the ^-yKwcXtos liriaroX-q of
Photius. The idea of a national imperial Church seemed to prevail in both East and West; to be sure this was only seemingly so, for the popes did not give up their universal supremacy , but soon began again to utilize politically their advantageous location
midway between East and West.
(4 ) Period oj Political Balance; S67-1057. Michael III Eudocia Ingerina Basil I
Leo VI
Alexander
Romanus I, (Lacapenus)
Constantine VII Helena Stephen Constantine
Romanus II Theophano Nicephorus II, Phocas
Basil II Constantine VIII Theodora John Zimisces
|
(1) Romanus III Argyrus
Maria (2; Michael IV
Michael V (3) Constantine IX, . Monomachu
The period of the highest development of Byzan- tine power was not dynastically the most fortunate
