seized by a man who, by his force of character and his great abilities, inaugurated a new state of things, and gave the empire a new lease of life. This man was Leo the Isaurian.
III. Period of Byzantine Prosperity : from Leo III. to Isaac I. (Comnenus), 716-1057 A.D.
Considerable difference of opinion has existed as to the precise time at which the Roman empire of the east may have ended, and the Byzantine empire to have commenced. Gibbon remarks that "Tiberius by the Arabs, and Maurice by the Italians, are distinguished as the first of the Greek Caesars, as the founders of a new dynasty and empire." The question turns on modifications of the old Itoman system of administration, and the introduction of a new order of things, which lasted until the overthrow of the state. These commenced, no doubt, shortly after the death of Heraclius, and were closely connected with the victorious advance of the Saracens, which necessitated a reform, and at tha same time concentrated the empire, and confined it more and more within the districts inhabited by Greeks. But the altered state of things did not become apparent, nor were the changes systematized, until the time of Leo III., and therefore he may most rightly be regarded as having inaugurated the Byzantine empire. The first cen tury and a half of the present period embraces the icono clastic controversy, while the two remaining centuries coincide with the rule of the Basilian dynasty, It was a time of great men and great achievements, both in govern ment and war, and the events it contains amply suffice to defend the Byzantine empire from the imputation of feeble ness and decrepitude ; and those who delight to find in history strongly marked characters and stirring incidents will be amply rewarded here. Few personages stand out in stronger relief than the ruthless, yet ascetic, warrior Basil, the slayer of the Bulgarians ; and few occurrences are more romantic than the death of Leo the Armenian, who defends himself with the crucifix in his chapel, where he was chanting the prayers in the early morning, while his successor lies in fetters in the neighbouring dungeon.
We must first notice the reforms, which caused the reign of Leo III. to be an era in the history of the empire. These extended to almost every branch of the administra tion. In respect of the army, he reorganized the military establishment by placing the various bodies of soldiers in the different "themes," or departments, each with a general of its own, thereby providing for local defence, and avoiding the danger of rendering the military commanders too influ ential a system which defended the empire for five cen turies. The geographical arrangement in themes was intro duced by Heraclius, but reorganized by Leo, and bore somewhat the same relation to the previous division into provinces that the departments in France bear to the earlier distribution of that country. In respect of finance, he brought the taxation immediately under the emperor s cognizance, so that thenceforth the emperors were their own finance ministers. All local agencies for collecting the taxes were abolished, and their functions transferred to the im perial officers, who took census regularly. By this means he raised more money than his predecessors, but the increased prosperity of the people showed that the burden did not fall so heavily. In respect of justice, in order to obviate the difficulties which had arisen in the administration of Justinian s elaborate laws, especially since the facilities for communication throughout the empire had decreased, he published in Greek an abridged manual called the Ecloga, and codified the military, agricultural, and maritime laws. In respect of religion, he aimed at counteracting the ele ment of superstition which had crept into the church, and through it was corrupting the public mind. But this last point calls for separate consideration, since the worship or prohibition of images became the burning question of the age.
The history of iconoclasm is the history of Constantinople during the 8th century and the first half of the 9th, and involved a great part of the empire in its distractions. There can be little doubt that, in his opposition to image worship, Leo represented the opinion of a large part of the enlightened laymen of his time, while the great body of the clergy, but especially the monks, together with the mass of the population, were passionately attached to the statues and pictures, as objects of reverence, not to say of adoration. But the fact that the stronghold of iconoclasm was Asia Minor, and especially that part of it which bordered on the countries occupied by the Saracens, suggests that it was in part owing to the spread of Mahometanism, the rigidly guarded spirituality of which creed was a stand ing protest against more material conceptions of religion. Nor should we overlook the deeply rooted feeling in tbe mind of Orientals of the opposition between spirit and matter, which would naturally cause them to be alive to such questions of controversy. The emperors of this time were those of the Isaurian, Armenian, and Amorian dynas ties, all which names remind us that they came from the Asiatic provinces ; whereas the great restorer of images, the empress Irene, during whose regency the second council of Nicaea in their favour was held (787 A.D.), was an Athenian. But the matter was complicated by a further issue ; the question of images was closely connected in the minds of the emperors, and especially of Leo III. and his hard-handed son Constantine Copronymus, with that of their supremacy in matters of religion. They viewed with jealousy the independent power of the church, and were glad of the opportunity this controversy afforded of strength ening their control over this department, and claiming to the full those ecclesiastical rights which, from the time of Constantine the Great onward, had attached to the im perial authority. As this move was only part of a system of centralization, the monks and others who supported image worship were from one point of view the assertors of liberty against aggression, and they were recognized as such by a certain number of thinking men, who watched with anxiety the growth of despotism. As toleration was un known to the age, persecution was carried on by both sides with equal fierceness, and the contest swayed to and fro, until it was brought to an end by the final restoration of images under Michael III., the last of the Amorian line (842). Its effects on society had been remarkable, At first its influence was bracing, as was shown by the re newed vigour which pervaded the empire ; for both sides were thoroughly in earnest, and among the iconoclasts in particular an element of Puritan energy was evolved. But in its later stages, when the people at large were weary of the strife, and the struggle was felt to be in reality one between church and state, the prevalent hypocrisy generated disrespect for religion, and this was followed by genera? immorality. It further caused the loss to the empire of its dominions in central Italy. So great was the alienation produced by this movement in the minds of the popes Gregory II. and III. that thenceforward the holy see was for the most part either active in its opposition to the Byzantine power or lukewarm in support of it. At last, in 751, Ravenna was captured by the Lombards, and the Greek exarch retired to Naples.
The subsequent ecclesiastical affairs of this period must be briefly dismissed, though they exercised an important influence on the fortunes of the Greeks. The final separation of the Eastern and Western Churches took place in 1053, though events had long before been leading up to it. Already in the middle of the 9th century, when the pope
