medieval history of the country, have prevailed. The controversy originated in the famous thesis of Professor Falhnerayer of Munich, that, owing to the great influx first of Slavonian and afterwards of Albanian colonists, not a single drop of Hellenic blood flows in the veins of the Greeks at the present day. The discussion of this point has enlisted much ability and learning on both sides, but the question appears now to have been pretty well set at rest by the abandonment of Fallmerayer s hypothesis. How early barbarian settlements began to take place in Greece it is difficult to determine ; but though the occupation of the Peloponnese by Avars and Slavonians at the end of the 6th century, on which much stress has been laid, is doubt fully historical, yet colonies of those races probably estab lished themselves in the northern part of Greece. But that the great change in this respect was produced by the pesti lence is shown by the oblivion of Hellenic names of places which dates from that time. For, though a fair number of ancient names of seaport towns, such as Patrae, Corinth, and Epidaurus, and some names even in a district so ex tensively occupied by Slavonians as Arcadia, have been pre served to the present day, yet the great majority of the modern names are now, and have been since the 8th century, either Slavonic or of later Greek origin. Not only was the country greatly depopulated by the plague, but a consider able portion of the native middle class was induced by the emperor to migrate to the capital, in order to fill up the void in the inhabitants which had been caused by its ravages. The districts which were thus left vacant were soon after occupied by Slavonian tribes, so that until the middle of the 9th century they formed a large part of the population. But in the latter part of that century the Greeks began to recover a numerical superiority, and from this period dates the process of the absorption and Helleniz- ing of the Slavonians, so as to form the mixed race of which the greater part of the population of Greece is now composed. In effecting this change the Greek Church played an important part. The affinity between the ancient and modern Greeks has been traced by several lines of reasoning. It has been pointed out how great is the resem blance of character between them, and that too in points presenting the sharpest contrast to the character of the Slavonic races. The survival of old beliefs and classical superstitions at the present day has been carefully observed. The language is a lineal descendant of the ancient speech, and contains next to no Slavonic element ; and lest it should be thought that this language had been imported into the provinces from one or more great centres, and had not sur vived in the districts themselves, it is proved that numerous classical words and forms, which have been lost to the language at large, still survive in the local dialects. Thus, though the physical connexion between the modern Greeks and the ancient Hellenes, in certain districts at all events, may be slight, as seems to ba implied by the differencs of physiognomy, yet in all that really constitutes a people, their character, feelings, and ideas, the former are the lineal descendants of the latter.
IV. Period of Byzantine Decline : from Isaac I. to the taking of Constantinople by the Latins, 1057-1204 A.D.
At the commencement of the preceding period there was a prevailing fear among the inhabitants of the empire that its extinction was imminent, and we have seen how this was followed by an age of unexampled prosperity. The feeling of the time on which we now enter was completely the opposite of this, and yet it was a period of decline. The long duration of the empire, notwithstanding numerous vicissitudes, its superiority to contemporary nations in power and wealth, and its apparent security from foreign enemies, inspired the people with a belief in its permanency, and blinded them to the seeds of disease that were already working. Yet before the end of the llth century the Seljuk Turks had occupied all the inland part of Asia Minor, and had established their capital at Nicaea, in the immediate neighbourhood of Constantinople. It would, however, be a mistake to suppose that, in its external relations at all events, the whole of the Comnenian period was a time of decay. On the contrary, during a consider able period it witnessed a remarkable revival ; and the three great emperors of that dynasty, Alexius, John, and Manuel Comnenus, whose long reigns extend over an entire century (1081-1180), were men who would be conspicu ous figures in any age. All of them were distinguished by personal courage and skill in war, by literary culture, and by sagacity in politics ; but in other respects they re presented very different types. The first, Alexius, was in defatigable in business, patient in maturing his schemes, and active in carrying them out, but vainglorious, unprin cipled, and fond of artifice. From this Ulyssean phase of Greek character we turn to a true Achilles, his son John, the most amiable character that ever occupied the Byzantine throne a man irreproachable in morals, open-hearted, generous in action, prudent in council, and pious without superstition. The last of the three, Manuel, presents us with a nature spoiled by the early possession of absolute power, but gifted with most of the features admired by his contemporaries handsome in person, tall of stature, and so powerful that, at a tournament at Antioch in which the chivalry of the West took part, he unhorsed every antago nist but passionate in temper and ill-regulated in mind. In an age which produced men like these it may well be inquired, What were the sources of decline 1
In the first place, the emperors were almost the only capable men. This was the natural effect of the centralization of the system. The neglect of the education of persons intended to be employed in the administration, and the employment of creatures of the court for offices of trust, were now bearing their fruit. Everything depended on the existing sovereign ; and it only required the vices of a thoroughly profligate man like Andronicus Comnenus, the last of his dynasty, to ruin the state. As might be ex pected also under these circumstances, disorder soon crept into every branch of the public service. The census, which for eleven centuries had been carefully compiled, was now neglected ; justice, which more than anything else had united the provinces to the empire, was more imperfectly administered ; and the army became inferior to those of Western nations. This last change was produced partly by the degeneracy of the nobles in military spirit, owing to the growth of luxury, partly by the officers being appointed by favouritism, and the habit of disbanding troops at the end of a campaign, in order to save money to defray the expenses of the court. At the same time the great diminution of the middle class, owing to the extension of the large properties, lessened the number of those who were willing to defend their liberties against invaders. The privileges also, in respect of trade, which were conceded by Alexius I. to the Venetians and by Manuel to the Genoese and Pisans, to the detriment of the native merchants, commenced the decline of Greek commerce; and this was accelerated by the piracy that arose, when the money that had been contributed by the commercial communities for the main tenance of local squadrons of galleys was ordered to be remitted to Constantinople. To all this must be added the influence of the higher Greek clergy, whose subserviency to the state had increased since the separation from the Western Church, and the conservatism of whose ideas discouraged all attempts at progress on the part of the people.
