Chapter 3: , page 89 (44)

BYZANTINE EMPIRE.
Its part in history.
Its defence of Europe.
Its civilizing influence.

"The later Roman Empire was the bulwark of Europe against the
oriental danger; Maurice and Heraclius, Constantine IV. and
Leo the Isaurian were the successors of Themistocles and
Africanus. … Until the days of the crusades, the German
nations did not combine with the Empire against the common
foe. Nor did the Teutons, by themselves, achieve any success
of ecumenical importance against non-Aryan races. I may be
reminded that Charles the Great exterminated the Avars; but
that was after they had ceased to be really dangerous. When
there existed a truly formidable Avar monarchy it was the
Roman Empire that bore the brunt; and yet while most people
who read history know of the Avar war of Charles, how few
there are who have ever heard of Priscus, the general who so
bravely warred against the Avars in the reign of Maurice. I
may be reminded that Charles Martel won a great name by
victories, in southern Gaul over the Saracens; yet those
successes sink into insignificance by the side of the
achievement of his contemporary, the third Leo, who held the
gate of eastern Europe against all the forces which the
Saracen power, then at its height, could muster. Everyone
knows about the exploits of the Frank; it is almost incredible
how little is known of the Roman Emperor's defence of the
greatest city of Christian Europe, in the quarter where the
real danger lay. …. The Empire was much more than the
military guard of the Asiatic frontier; it not only defended
but also kept alive the traditions of Greek and Roman culture.
We cannot over-estimate the importance of the presence of a
highly civilised state for a system of nations which were as
yet only beginning to be civilised. The constant intercourse
of the Empire with Italy, which until the eleventh century was
partly imperial, and with southern Gaul and Spain, had an
incalculable influence on the development of the West. Venice,
which contributed so much to the growth of western culture,
was for a long time actually, and for a much longer time
nominally, a city of the Roman Empire, and learned what it
taught from Byzantium. The Byzantine was the mother of the
Italian school of painting, as Greece in the old days had been
the mistress of Rome in the fine arts; and the Byzantine style
of architecture has had perhaps a wider influence than any
other. It was to New Rome that the Teutonic kings applied when
they needed men of learning, and thither students from western
countries, who desired a university education, repaired. …
It was, moreover, in the lands ruled by New Rome that old
Hellenic culture and the monuments of Hellenic literature were
preserved, as in a secure storehouse, to be given at length to
the 'wild nations' when they had been sufficiently tamed. And
in their taming New Rome played an indispensable part. The
Justinian law, which still interpenetrates European
civilisation, was a product of New Rome. In the third place
the Roman Empire for many centuries entirely maintained
European commerce. This was a circumstance of the greatest
importance; but unfortunately it is one of those facts
concerning which contemporary historians did not think of
leaving records to posterity. The fact that the coins of the
Roman Emperors were used throughout Europe in the Middle Ages
speaks for itself. … In the fourth place, the Roman Empire
preserved a great idea which influenced the whole course of
western European history down to the present day—the idea of
the Roman Empire itself. If we look at the ecumenical event of
800 A. D. from a wide point of view, it really resolves itself
into this: New Rome bestowed upon the western nations a great
idea, which moulded and ordered their future history; she gave
back to Old Rome the idea which Old Rome bestowed upon her
five centuries before. … If Constantinople and the Empire
had fallen, the imperial idea would have been lost in the
whirl of the 'wild nations.' It is to New Rome that Europeans
really owe thanks for the establishment of the principle and
the system which brought law and order into the political
relations of the West."

_J. B. Bury,
History of the Later Roman Empire,
book 6, chapter 14 (volume 2)._

BYZANTINE EMPIRE. A. D. 717.
Its organization by Leo the Isaurian.

"The accession of Leo the Isaurian to the throne of
Constantinople suddenly opened a new era in the history of
the Eastern Empire. … When Leo III. was proclaimed emperor
[A. D. 717], it seemed as if no human power could save
Constantinople from falling as Rome had fallen. The Saracens
considered the sovereignty of every land, in which any remains
of Roman civilization survived, as within their grasp. Leo, an
Isaurian, and an Iconoclast, consequently a foreigner and a
heretic, ascended the throne of Constantine and arrested the
victorious career of the Mohammedans. He then reorganized the
whole administration so completely in accordance with the new
exigencies of Eastern society that the reformed empire
outlived for many centuries every government contemporary
with its establishment.
{338}
The Eastern Roman Empire, thus reformed, is called by modern
historians the Byzantine Empire; and the term is well devised
to mark the changes effected in the government, after the
extinction of the last traces of the military monarchy of
ancient Rome. … The provincial divisions of the Roman Empire
had fallen into oblivion. A new geographical arrangement into
Themes appears to have been established by Heraclius, when he
recovered the Asiatic provinces from the Persians; it was
reorganized by Leo, and endured as long as the Byzantine
government. The number of themes varied at different periods.
The Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus, writing about the
middle of the tenth century, counts sixteen in the Asiatic
portion of the Empire and twelve in the European. … The
European provinces were divided into eight continental and
five insular or transmarine themes, until the loss of the
exarchate of Ravenna reduced the number to twelve. Venice and
Naples, though they acknowledged the suzerainty of the Eastern
Empire, acted generally as independent cities. … When Leo
was raised to the throne the Empire was threatened with
immediate ruin. … Every army assembled to encounter the
Saracens broke out into rebellion. The Bulgarians and
Sclavonians wasted Europe up to the walls of Constantinople;
the Saracens ravaged the whole of Asia Minor to the shores of
the Bosphorus."

_G. Finlay,
History of the Byzantine Empire,
book 1, chapter 1._

ALSO IN:
_E. W. Brooks,
The Emperor Zenon and the Isaurians
(English History Review, April, 1893)._

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 717-797.
The Isaurian dynasty.

The dynasty founded by Leo the Isaurian held the throne until
the dethronement of Constantine VI. by his mother, Irene, A.
D. 797, and her dethronement, in turn by, Nicephorus I., A. D.
802. It embraced the following reigns:

Constantine V., called Copronymus, A. D. 741-775;
Leo IV., 775-780;
Constantine VI., 780-797;
Irene, 797-802.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 726-751.
The Iconoclastic Controversy.
Rupture with the West.
Fall of the Exarchate of Ravenna.
End of authority in Italy.

See ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY,
and PAPACY: A. D. 728-774.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 802-820. Emperors:
Nicephorus 1., A. D. 802-811;
Stauracius, A. D. 811;
Michael I., A. D. 811-813;
Leo V., A. D. 813-820.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 803.
Treaty with Charlemagne, fixing boundaries.

See VENICE: A. D. 697-810.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 820-1057.
The Amorian and Basilian or Macedonian dynasties.

Michael, the Amorian (820-829) so named from his birth-place;
Amorium, in Phrygia, was a soldier, raised to the throne by a
revolution which deposed and assassinated his friend and
patron, the Emperor Leo V. Michael transmitted the crown to
his son (Theophilus, 829-842) and grandson. The latter, called
Michael the Drunkard, was conspired against and killed by one
of the companions of his drunken orgies (867), Basil the
Maeedonian, who had been in early life a groom. Basil founded
a dynasty which reigned, with several interruptions, from A.
D. 867 to 1057—a period covering the following reigns:

Basil I., A. D. 867-886;
Leo VI., A. D. 886-911;
Constantine VII. (Porphyrogenitus), A. D. 911-950;
Romanus I. (Colleague), A. D. 919-944;
Constantine VIII. (Colleague), A. D. 944;
Romanus II., A. D. 959-963;
Nicephorus II., A. D. 963-969;
John Zimisces, A. D. 969-976;
Basil II., A. D. 963-1025;
Constantine IX., A. D. 963-1028;
Romanus III., A. D. 1028-1034;
Michael IV., A. D. 1034-1041;
Michael V., A. D. 1041-1042;
Zoe and Theodora, A. D. 1042-1056;
Constantine X., A. D. 1042-1054;
Michael VI., A. D. 1056-1057.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 865-1043.
Wars, commerce and Church Connection with the Russians.

See RUSSIANS: A. D. 865-900;
also CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 865 and 907-1043.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 870-1016.
Fresh acquisitions in Southern Italy.

See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 800-1016.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 963-1025.
Recovery of prestige and territory.

"Amidst all the crimes and revolutions of the Byzantine
government—and its history is but a series of crimes and
revolutions—it was never dismembered by intestine war. A
sedition in the army, a tumult in the theatre, a conspiracy in
the palace, precipitated a monarch from the throne; but the
allegiance of Constantinople was instantly transferred to his
successor, and the provinces implicitly obeyed the voice of
the capital. The custom, too, of partition, so baneful to the
Latin kingdoms, and which was not altogether unknown to the
Saracens, never prevailed in the Greek Empire. It stood in the
middle of the tenth century, as vicious indeed and cowardly,
but more wealthy, more enlightened, and far more secure from
its enemies than under the first successors of Heraclius. For
about one hundred years preceding there had been only partial
wars with the Mohammedan potentates; and in these the emperors
seem gradually to have gained the advantage, and to have
become more frequently the aggressors. But the increasing
distractions of the East encouraged two brave usurpers,
Nicephorus Phocas and John Zimisces, to attempt the actual
recovery of the lost provinces. They carried the Roman arms
(one may use the term with less reluctance than usual) over
Syria; Antioch and Aleppo were taken by storm; Damascus
submitted; even the cities of Mesopotamia, beyond the ancient
boundary of the Euphrates, were added to the trophies of
Zimisces, who unwillingly spared the capital of the Khalifate.
From such distant conquests it was expedient, and indeed
necessary to withdraw; but Cilicia and Antioch were
permanently restored to the Empire. At the close of the tenth
century the emperors of Constantinople possessed the best and
greatest portion of the modern kingdom of Naples, a part of
Sicily, the whole [present] European dominions of the
Ottomans, the province of Anatolia or Asia Minor, with some
part of Syria and Armenia."

_H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages,
chapter 6._

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 970-1014.
Recovery of Bulgaria.

See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 907-1043;
also BULGARIA, and ACHRIDA.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1054.
Ecclesiastical division of the
Eastern from the Roman Church.

See FILIOQUE CONTROVERSY,
and ORTHODOX CHURCH.

{339}

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1057-1081.
Between the Basilian and the Comnenian dynasties.
A dark period.

"The moment that the last of the Macedonian dynasty was gone,
the elements of discord seemed unchained, and the double
scourge of civil war and foreign invasion began to afflict the
empire. In the twenty-four years between 1057 and 1081 were
pressed more disasters than had been seen in any other period
of East Roman history, save perhaps the reign of Heraclius.
… The aged Theodora had named as her successor on the throne
Michael Stratiocus, a contemporary of her own who had been an
able soldier 25 years back. But Michael VI. was grown aged and
incompetent, and the empire was full of ambitious generals,
who would not tolerate a dotard on the throne. Before a year
had passed a band of great Asiatic nobles entered into a
conspiracy to overturn Michael, and replace him by Isaac
Comnenus, the chief of one of the ancient Cappadocian houses,
and the most popular general of the East. Isaac Comnenus and
his friends took arms, and dispossessed the aged Michael of
his throne with little difficulty. But a curse seemed to rest
upon the usurpation; Isaac was stricken down by disease when
he had been little more than a year on the throne, and retired
to a monastery to die. His crown was transferred to
Constantine Ducas, another Cappadocian noble," who reigned for
seven troubled years. His three immediate successors were:

Romanus IV., A. D. 1067-1071;
Michael VII., A. D. 1071-1078;
Nicephorus III., A. D. 1078-1081.

_C. W. C. Oman,
The Story of the Byzantine Empire,
chapter 20._

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1063-1092.
Disasters in Asia Minor.

See TURKS (SELJUKS): A. D. 1063-1073;
and A. D. 1073-1092.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1064.
Great revival of pilgrimages from Western Europe to the Holy
Land.

See CRUSADES: CAUSES, ETC.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1081.
The enthronement of the Comnenian Dynasty.

See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1081.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1081-1085.
Attempted Norman conquest from Southern Italy.

Robert Guiscard, the Norman adventurer who had carved for
himself a principality in Southern Italy and acquired the
title of Duke of Apulia,—his duchy coinciding with the
subsequent Norman kingdom of Naples—conceived the ambitious
design of adding the Byzantine Empire to his estate. His
conquests in Italy had been mostly at the expense of the
Byzantine dominions, and he believed that he had measured the
strength of the degenerate Roman-Greeks. He was encouraged,
moreover, by the successive revolutions which tossed the
imperial crown from hand to hand, and which had just given it
to the Comnenian, Alexius I. Beyond all, he had a claim of
right to interfere in the affairs of the Empire; for his young
daughter was betrothed to the heir-expectant whose
expectations were now vanishing, and had actually been sent to
Constantinople to receive her education for the throne. To
promote his bold undertaking, Robert obtained the approval of
the pope, and an absolution for all who would join his ranks.
Thus spiritually equipped, the Norman duke invaded Greece, in
the summer of 1081, with 150 ships and 30,000 men. Making
himself master, on the way, of the island of Corcyra (Corfu),
and taking several ports on the mainland, he laid siege to
Dyrrachium, and found it a most obstinate fortification to
reduce. Its massive ancient walls defied the Norman enginery,
and it was not until February, 1082, that Robert Guiscard
gained possession of the town, by the treachery of one of its
defenders. Meantime the Normans had routed and scattered one
large army, which the Emperor Alexius led in person to the
relief of Dyrrachium; but the fortified towns in Illyria and
Epirus delayed their advance toward Constantinople. Robert was
called home to Italy by important affairs and left his son
Bohemund (the subsequent Crusader and Prince of Antioch), in
command. Bohemund defeated Alexius again in the spring of
1083, and still a third time the following autumn. All Epirus
was overrun and Macedonia and Thessaly invaded; but the
Normans, while besieging Larissa, were undone by a stratagem,
lost their camp and found it necessary to retreat. Robert was
then just reentering the field, in person, and had won an
important naval battle at Corfu, over the combined Greeks and
Venetians, when he died (July, 1085), and his project of
conquest in Greece ended with him. Twenty years afterwards,
his son Bohemund, when Prince of Antioch, and quarreling with
the Byzantines, gathered a crusading army in France and Italy
to lead it against Constantinople; but it was stopped by
stubborn Dyrrachium, and never got beyond. Alexius had
recovered that strong coast defence shortly after Robert
Guiscard's death, with the help of the Venetians and
Amalfians. By way of reward, those merchant allies received
important commercial privileges, and the title of Venice to
the sovereignty of Dalmatia and Croatia was recognized. "From
this time the doge appears to have styled himself lord of the
kingdoms of Dalmatia and Croatia."

_G. Finlay,
History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires,
book 3, chapter 2, section 1._

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1081-1185.
The Comnenian emperors.

Alexius I., A. D. 1081-1118;
John II., A. D. 1118-1143;
Manuel I., A. D. 1143-1181;
Alexius II., A. D. 1181-1183;
Andronicus I., A. D. 1183-1185.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1096-1097.
The passage of the first Crusaders.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1146.
Destructive invasion of Roger, king of Sicily.
Sack of Thebes and Corinth.

When Roger, king of Sicily, united the Norman possessions in
Southern Italy to his Sicilian realm he became ambitious, in
his turn, to acquire some part of the Byzantine possessions.
His single attack, however, made simultaneously with the
second crusading movement (A. D. 1146), amounted to no more
than a great and destructive plundering raid in Greece. An
insurrection in Corfu gave that island to him, after which his
fleet ravaged the coasts of Eubœa and Attica, Acarnania and
Ætolia. "It then entered the gulf of Corinth, and debarked a
body of troops at Crissa. This force marched through the
country to Thebes, plundering every town and village on the
way. Thebes offered no resistance, and was plundered in the
most deliberate and barbarous manner. The inhabitants were
numerous and wealthy. The soil of Bœotia is extremely
productive, and numerous manufactures established in the city
of Thebes gave additional value to the abundant produce of
agricultural industry. … All military spirit was now dead,
and the Thebans had so long lived without any fear of invasion
that they had not even adopted any effectual measures to
secure or conceal their movable property. The conquerors,
secure against all danger of interruption, plundered Thebes at
their leisure. … When all ordinary means of collecting booty
were exhausted, the citizens were compelled to take an oath on
the Holy Scriptures that they had not concealed any portion of
their property yet many of the wealthiest were dragged away
captive, in order to profit by their ransom; and many of the
most skilful workmen in the silk-manufactories, for which
Thebes had long been famous, were pressed on board the fleet
to labour at the oar. …
{340}
Benjamin of Tudela, who visited Thebes about twenty years
later, or perhaps in 1161, speaks of it as then a large city,
with two thousand Jewish inhabitants, who were the most
eminent manufacturers of silk and purple cloth in all Greece.
The silks of Thebes continued to be celebrated as of superior
quality after this invasion. … From Bœotia the army passed
to Corinth. … Corinth was sacked as cruelly as Thebes; men
of rank, beautiful women, and skilful artisans, with their
wives and families, were carried away into captivity. … This
invasion of Greece was conducted entirely as a plundering
expedition. … Corfu was the only conquest of which Roger
retained possession; yet this passing invasion is the period
from which the decline of Byzantine Greece is to be dated. The
century-and-a-half which preceded this disaster had passed in
uninterrupted tranquillity, and the Greek people had increased
rapidly in numbers and wealth. The power of the Sclavonian
population sank with the ruin of the kingdom of Achrida; and
the Sclavonians who now dwelt in Greece were peaceable
cultivators of the soil, or graziers. The Greek population, on
the other hand, was in possession of an extensive commerce and
many flourishing manufactures. The ruin of this commerce and
of these manufactures has been ascribed to the transference of
the silk trade from Thebes and Corinth to Palermo, under the
judicious protection it received from Roger; but it would be
more correct to say that the injudicious and oppressive
financial administration of the Byzantine Emperors destroyed
the commercial prosperity and manufacturing industry of the
Greeks; while the wise liberality and intelligent protection
of the Norman kings extended the commerce and increased the
industry of the Sicilians. When the Sicilian fleet returned to
Palermo, Roger determined to employ all the silk-manufacturers
in their original occupations. He consequently collected all
their families together, and settled them at Palermo,
supplying them with the means of exercising their industry
with profit to themselves, and inducing them to teach his own
subjects to manufacture the richest brocades, and to rival the
rarest productions of the East. … It is not remarkable that
the commerce and manufactures of Greece were transferred in
the course of another century to Sicily and Italy."

_G. Finlay,
History of Byzantine and Greek Empires, from 716 to 1453,
book 3, chapter 2, section 3._

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1147-1148.
Trouble with the German and French Crusaders.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1147-1149.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1185-1204.
The Angeli.
Isaac II., A. D. 1185-1195;
Alexius III., A. D. 1195-1203;
Alexius IV., A. D. 1203-1204.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1203-1204.
Its overthrow by the Venetians and Crusaders.
Sack of Constantinople.

The last of the Comnenian Emperors in the male line—the
brutal Andronicus I.—perished horribly in a wild
insurrection at Constantinople which his tyranny provoked, A.
D. 1185. His successor, Isaac Angelus, collaterally related to
the imperial house, had been a contemptible creature before
his coronation, and received no tincture of manliness or
virtue from that ceremony. In the second year of his reign,
the Empire was shorn of its Bulgarian and Wallachian provinces
by a successful revolt. In the tenth year (A. D. 1195), Isaac
was pushed from his throne, deprived of sight and shut up in a
dungeon, by a brother of equal worthlessness, who styled
himself Alexius III. The latter neglected, however, to secure
the person of Isaac's son, Alexius, who escaped from
Constantinople and made his way to his sister, wife of Philip,
the German King and claimant of the western imperial crown.
Philip thereupon plotted with the Venetians to divert the
great crusading expedition, then assembling to take ship at
Venice, and to employ it for the restoration of young Alexius
and his father Isaac to the Byzantine throne. The cunning and
perfidious means by which that diversion was brought about are
related in another place (see CRUSADES: A. D. 1201-1203). The
great fleet of the crusading filibusters arrived in the
Bosphorus near the end of June, 1203. The army which it bore
was landed first on the Asiatic side of the strait, opposite
the imperial city. After ten days of parley and preparation it
was conveyed across the water and began its attack. The towers
guarding the entrance to the Golden Horn—the harbor of
Constantinople—were captured, the chain removed, the harbor
occupied; and the imperial fleet seized or destroyed. On the
17th of July a combined assault by land and water was made on
the walls of the city, at their northwest corner, near the
Blachern palace, where they presented one face to the Horn and
another to the land. The land-attack failed. The Venetians,
from their ships, stormed twenty-five towers, gained
possession of a long stretch of the wall, and pushed into the
city far enough to start a conflagration which spread ruin
over an extensive district. They could not hold their ground,
and withdrew; but the result was a victory. The cowardly
Emperor, Alexius III., fled from the city that night, and
blind old Isaac Angelus was restored to the throne. He was
ready to associate his son in the sovereignty, and to fulfill,
if he could, the contracts which the latter had made with
Venetians and Crusaders. These invaders had now no present
excuse for making war on Constantinople any further. But the
excuse was soon found. Money to pay their heavy claims could
not be raised, and their hatefulness to the Greeks was
increased by the insolence of their demeanor. A serious
collision occurred at length, provoked by the plundering of a
Mahometan mosque which the Byzantines had tolerated in their
capital. Once more, on this occasion, the splendid city was
fired by the ruthless invaders, and an immense district in the
richest and most populous part was destroyed, while many of
the inhabitants perished. The fire lasted two days and nights,
sweeping a wide belt from the harbor to the Marmora. The
suburbs of Constantinople were pillaged and ruined by the
Latin soldiery, and more and more it became impossible for the
two restored emperors to raise money for paying the claims of
the Crusaders who had championed them. Their subjects hated
them and were desperate. At last, in January, 1204, the public
feeling of Constantinople flamed out in a revolution which
crowned a new emperor,—one Alexis Ducas, nicknamed
Mourtzophlos, on account of his eyebrows, which met.
{341}
A few days afterwards, with suspicious opportuneness, Isaac
and Alexius died. Then both sides entered upon active
preparations for serious war; but it was not until April 9th
that the Crusaders and Venetians were ready to assail the
walls once more. The first assault was repelled, with heavy
loss to the besiegers. They rested two days and repeated the
attack on the 12th with irresistible resolution and fury. The
towers were taken, the gates were broken down, knights and
soldiers poured into the fated city, killing without mercy,
burning without scruple—starting a third appalling
conflagration which laid another wide district in ruins. The
new emperor fled, the troops laid down their
arms,—Constantinople was conquered and prostrate. "Then began
the plunder of the city. The imperial treasury and the arsenal
were placed under guard; but with these exceptions the right
to plunder was given indiscriminately to the troops and
sailors. Never in Europe was a work of pillage more
systematically and shamelessly carried out. Never by the army
of a Christian state was there a more barbarous sack of a city
than that perpetrated by these soldiers of Christ, sworn to
chastity, pledged before God not to shed Christian blood, and
bearing upon them the emblem of the Prince of Peace. …
'Never since the world was created,' says the Marshal
[Villehardouin] 'was there so much booty gained in one city.
Each man took the house which pleased him, and there were
enough for all. Those who were poor found themselves suddenly
rich. There was captured an immense supply of gold and silver,
of plate and of precious stones, of satins and of silk, of
furs and of every kind of wealth ever found upon the earth.'
… The Greek eye-witness [Nicetas] gives the complement of
the picture of Villehardouin. The lust of the army spared
neither maiden nor the virgin dedicated to God. Violence and
debauchery were everywhere present; cries and lamentations and
the groans of the victims were heard throughout the city; for
everywhere pillage was unrestrained and lust unbridled. … A
large part of the booty had been collected in the three
churches designated for that purpose. … The distribution was
made during the latter end of April. Many works of art in
bronze were sent to the melting-pot to be coined. Many statues
were broken up in order to obtain the metals with which they
were adorned. The conquerors knew nothing and cared nothing
for the art which had added value to the metal."

_E. Pears,
The Fall of Constantinople,
chapters 14-15._

ALSO IN:
_G. Finlay,
History of the Byzantine and Greek Empires, from 716 to 1453,
book 3, chapter 3, section 3._

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1204.
Reign of Alexius V.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1204-1205.
The partitioning of the Empire by the Crusaders and the Venetians.

"Before the crusaders made their last successful attack on
Constantinople, they concluded a treaty partitioning the
Byzantine empire and dividing the plunder of the capital. …
This treaty was entered into by the Frank crusaders on the one
part, and the citizens of the Venetian republic on the other,
for the purpose of preventing disputes and preserving unity in
the expedition." The treaty further provided for the creation
of an Empire of Romania, to take the place of the Byzantine
Empire, and for the election of an Emperor to reign over it.
The arrangements of the treaty in this latter respect were
carried out, not long after the taking of the city by the
election of Baldwin, count of Flanders, the most esteemed and
the most popular among the princes of the crusade, and he
received the imperial crown of the new Empire of Romania at
the hands of the legate of the pope. "Measures were
immediately taken after the coronation of Baldwin to carry
into execution the act of partition as arranged by the joint
consent of the Frank and Venetian commissioners. But their
ignorance of geography, and the resistance offered by the
Greeks in Asia Minor, and by the Vallachians and Albanians in
Europe, threw innumerable difficulties in the way of the
proposed distribution of fiefs. The quarter of the Empire that
formed the portion of Baldwin consisted of the city of
Constantinople, with the country in its immediate vicinity, as
far as Bizya and Tzouroulos in Europe and Nicomedia in Asia.
Beyond the territory around Constantinople, Baldwin possessed
districts extending as far as the Strymon in Europe and the
Sangarins in Asia; but his possessions were intermingled with
those of the Venetians and the vassals of the Empire.
Prokonnesos, Lesbos, Chios, Lemnos, Skyros, and several
smaller islands, also fell to his share."

_G. Finlay,
History of Greece from its Conquest by the Crusaders,
chapter 4, sections 1-2._

"In the division of the Greek provinces the share of the
Venetians was more ample than that of the Latin emperor. No
more than one fourth was appropriated to his domain; a clear
moiety of the remainder was reserved for Venice and the other
moiety was distributed among the adventurers of France and
Lombardy. The venerable Dandolo was proclaimed Despot of
Romania, and was invested, after the Greek fashion, with the
purple buskins. He ended at Constantinople his long and
glorious life; and if the prerogative was personal, the title
was used by his successors till the middle of the fourteenth
century, with the singular, though true, addition of 'Lords of
one fourth and a half of the Roman Empire.' … They possessed
three of the eight quarters of the city. … They had rashly
accepted the dominion and defence of Adrianople; but it was
the more reasonable aim of their policy to form a chain of
factories and cities and islands along the maritime coast,
from the neighbourhood of Ragnsa to the Hellespont and the
Bosphorus. … For the price of 10,000 marks the republic
purchased of the marquis of Montferrat the fertile island of
Crete or Candia with the ruins of a hundred cities. … In the
moiety of the adventurers the Marquis Boniface [of
Montferrat] might claim the most liberal reward; and, besides
the isle of Crete, his exclusion from the throne [for which he
had been a candidate against Baldwin of Flanders] was
compensated by the royal title and the provinces beyond the
Hellespont. But he prudently exchanged that distant and
difficult conquest for the kingdom of Thessalonica or
Macedonia, twelve days' journey from the capital, where he
might be supported by the neighbouring powers of his
brother-in-law, the king of Hungary. … The lots of the Latin
pilgrims were regulated by chance or choice or subsequent
exchange. … At the head of his knights and archers each
baron mounted on horseback to secure the possession of his
share, and their first efforts were generally successful. But
the public force was weakened by their dispersion; and a
thousand quarrels must arise under a law and among men whose
sole umpire was the sword."

_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 61.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/25717_

{342}

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1204-1205.
The political shaping of the fragments.

See
ROMANIA.
THE EMPIRE;
GREEK EMPIRE OF NICÆA;
TREBIZOND;
EPIRUS:
NAXOS, THE MEDIÆVAL DUKEDOM
ACHAIA: A. D. 1205-1387:
ATHENS: A. D. 1205-1456:
SALONIKI.

BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 1261-1453.
The Greek restoration.
Last struggle with the Turks and final overthrow.

The story of the shadowy restoration of a Greek Empire at
Constantinople, its last struggle with the Turks, and its fall
is told elsewhere.

See CONSTANTINOPLE, A. D. 1261-1453.

"From the hour of her foundation to that in which her sun
finally sank in blood, Christian Constantinople was engaged in
constant struggles against successive hordes of barbarians.
She did not always triumph in the strife, but, even when she
was beaten she did not succumb, but carried on the contest
still; and the fact that she was able to do so is alone a
sufficing proof of the strength and vitality of her
organization. … Of the seventy-six emperors and five
empresses who occupied the Byzantine throne, 15 were put to
death, 7 were blinded or otherwise mutilated, 4 were deposed
and imprisoned in monasteries, and 10 were compelled to
abdicate. This list, comprising nearly half of the whole
number, is sufficient indication of the horrors by which the
history of the empire is only too often marked, and it may be
frankly admitted that these dark stains, disfiguring pages
which but for them would be bright with the things which were
beautiful and glorious, go some way to excuse, if not to
justify, the obloquy which Western writers have been so prone
to cast upon the East. But it is not by considering the evil
only, any more than the good only, that it is possible to form
a just judgment upon an historic epoch. To judge the Byzantine
Empire only by the crimes which defiled the palace would be as
unjust as if the French people were to be estimated by nothing
but the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, the Reign of Terror, and
the Commune of 1871. The dynastic crimes and revolutions of
New Rome were not a constant feature in her history. On the
contrary, the times of trouble and anarchy were episodes
between long periods of peace. They arose either from quarrels
in the imperial family itself, which degraded the dignity of
the crown, or from the contentions of pretenders struggling
among themselves till one or other had worsted his rivals and
was able to become the founder of a long dynasty. … The most
deplorable epoch in the history of the Byzantine Empire, the
period in which assassination and mutilation most abounded,
was that in which it was exposed to the influence of the
Crusaders, and thus brought into contact with Western Europe.
… The Byzantine people, although in every respect the
superiors of their contemporaries, were unable entirely to
escape the influence of their neighborhood. As the guardians
of classical civilization, they strove to keep above the
deluge of barbarism by which the rest of the world was then
inundated. But it was a flood whose waters prevailed
exceedingly upon the earth, and sometimes all the high hills
were covered, even where might have rested the ark in which
the traditions of ancient culture were being preserved. …
The Byzantine Empire was predestinated to perform in especial
one great work in human history. That work was to preserve
civilization during the period of barbarism which we call the
Middle Ages. … Constantinople fell, and the whole Hellenic
world passed into Turkish slavery. Western Europe looked on
with unconcern at the appalling catastrophe. It was in vain
that the last of the Palaiologoi cried to them for help.
'Christendom,' says Gibbon, 'beheld with indifference the fall
of Constantinople,' … Up to her last hour she had never
ceased, for more than a thousand years, to fight. In the
fourth century she fought the Goths; in the fifth, the Huns
and Vandals; in the sixth, the Slavs; in the seventh, the
Persians, the Avars, and the Arabs; in the eighth, ninth, and
tenth, the Bulgars, the Magyars, and the Russians; in the
eleventh, the Koumanoi, the Petzenegoi, and the Seljoukian
Turks; in the twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth,
the Ottomans, the Normans, the Crusaders, the Venetians, and
the Genoese. No wonder that at last she fell exhausted. The
wonder is, how she could keep herself alive so long. But it
was by this long battle that she succeeded in saving from
destruction, amid the universal cataclysm which overwhelmed
the classical world, the civilization of the ancients,
modified by the Christian religion. The moral and intellectual
development of modern Europe are owing to the Byzantine
Empire, if it be true that this development is the common
offspring of antiquity upon the one hand and of Christianity
upon the other."

_Demetrios Bikelas,
The Byzantine Empire
(Scottish Review, volume 8, 1886)._

----------BYZANTINE EMPIRE: End----------

BYZANTIUM,
Beginnings of.

The ancient Greek city of Byzantium, which occupied part of
the site of the modern city of Constantinople, was founded,
according to tradition, by Megarians, in the seventh century
B. C. Its situation on the Bosphorus enabled the possessors of
the city to control the important corn supply which came from
the Euxine, while its tunny fisheries were renowned sources of
wealth. It was to the latter that the bay called the Golden
Horn was said to owe its name. The Persians, the
Lacedæmonians, the Athenians and the Macedonians were
successive masters of Byzantium, before the Roman day, Athens
and Sparta having taken and retaken the city from one another
many times during their wars.

BYZANTIUM: B. C. 478.
Taken by the Greeks from the Persians.

See GREECE: B. C. 478-477.

BYZANTIUM: B. C. 440.
Unsuccessful revolt against Athens.

See ATHENS: B. C. 440-437.

BYZANTIUM: B. C. 408.
Revolt and reduction by the Athenians.

See GREECE: B. C. 411-407.

BYZANTIUM: B. C. 340.
Unsuccessful siege by Philip of Macedon.

See GREECE: B. C. 340.

BYZANTIUM: B. C. 336.
Alliance with Alexander the Great.

See GREECE: B. C. 336-335.

BYZANTIUM: A. D. 194.
Siege by Severus.

See ROME: A. D. 192-284.

BYZANTIUM: A. D. 267.
Capture by the Goths.

See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.

BYZANTIUM: A. D. 323.
Siege by Constantine.

See ROME: A. D. 305-323.

BYZANTIUM: A. D. 330.
Transformed into Constantinople.

See CONSTANTINOPLE.

{343}
C.

ÇA IRA:
The origin of the cry and the song.

"When the news of the disastrous retreat [of Washington, in
1776] through the Jerseys and the miseries of Valley Forge
reached France, many good friends to America began to think
that now indeed all was lost. But, the stout heart of Franklin
never flinched. 'This is indeed bad news,' said he, 'but ça
ira, ça ira [literally, 'this will go, this will go'], it will
all come right in the end.' Old diplomats and courtiers,
amazed at his confidence, passed about his cheering words.
They were taken up by the newspapers; they were remembered by
the people, and, in the dark days of the French Revolution,
were repeated over and over again on every side, and made the
subject of a stirring song which, till the Marseillaise Hymn
appeared, had no equal in France."

_J. B. McMaster,
History of the People of the United States,
volume 2, page 89._

_L. Rosenthal,
America and France,
page 263._

"The original words (afterward much changed) were by Ladré, a
street singer; and the music was a popular dance tune of the
time composed by Bécourt, a drummer of the Grand Opera."

_Century Dictionary._

"The original name of the tune to which the words were written
is 'Le Carillon National,' and it is a remarkable circumstance
that it was a great favourite with the unfortunate Marie
Antoinette, who used to play it on the harpsichord."

_J. Oxenford,
Book of French Songs
(note to "Ça ira")._

CAABA AT MECCA, The.

"An Arab legend asserts that this famous temple was erected by
Abraham and his son Ishmael with the aid of the angel Gabriel.
Mahomet lent his authority to the legend and devoted to it
several chapters in the Koran, and thus it became one of the
Mussulman articles of faith. Even before the introduction of
Islamism this story was current through a great part of Arabia
and spread abroad in proportion as the Ishmaelitish tribes
gained ground. … This temple, whose name 'square house'
indicates its form, is still preserved. It was very small and
of very rude construction. It was not till comparatively
recent times that it had a door with a lock. … For a long
time the sole sacred object it contained was the celebrated
black stone hadjarel-aswad, an aerolite, which is still the
object of Mussulman veneration. … We have already mentioned
Hobal, the first anthropomorphic idol, placed in the Caaba.
This example was soon copied. … The Caaba thus became a sort
of Arabian Pantheon, and even the Virgin Mary, with her child
on her knees, eventually found a place there."

_F. Lenormant,
Manual of Ancient History of the East,
book 7, chapter 3._

ALSO IN:
_Sir W. Muir,
Life of Mahomet,
chapter 2._

CABAL, The.

See CABINET, THE ENGLISH;
also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1671.

CABALA, The.

"The term Cabala is usually applied to that wild system of
Oriental philosophy which was introduced, it is uncertain at
what period, into the Jewish schools: in a wider sense it
comprehended all the decisions of the Rabbinical courts or
schools, whether on religious or civil points."

_H. H. Milman,
History of the Jews,
volume 2, book 18._

"The philosophic Cabala aspired to be a more sublime and
transcendental Rabbinism. It was a mystery not exclusive of,
but above their more common mysteries; a secret more profound
than their profoundest secrets. It claimed the same guaranty
of antiquity, of revelation, of tradition; it was the true,
occult, to few intelligible sense of the sacred writings and
of the sayings of the most renowned Wise Men; the inward
interpretation of the genuine interpretation of the Law and
the Prophets. Men went on; they advanced, they rose from the
most full and perfect study of the Talmuds to the higher
doctrines, to the more divine contemplations of the Cabala.
And the Zohar was the Book of the Cabala which soared almost
above the comprehension of the wisest. … In its traditional,
no doubt unwritten form, the Cabala, at least a Cabala,
ascends to a very early date, the Captivity; in its proper and
more mature form, it belongs to the first century, and reaches
down to the end of the seventh century of our era. The Sepher
Yetzira, the Book of Creation, which boasts itself to be
derived from Moses, from Abraham, if not from Adam, or even
aspires higher, belongs to the earlier period; the Zohar, the
Light, to the later. The remote origin of the Cabala belongs
to that period when the Jewish mind, during the Captivity,
became so deeply impregnated with Oriental notions, those of
the Persian or Zoroastrian religion. Some of the first
principles of the Cabala, as well as many of the tenets, still
more of the superstitions, of the Talmud, coincide so exactly
with the Zendavesta … as to leave no doubt of their kindred
and affiliation."

_H. H. Milman,
History of the Jews,
book 30._

CABILDO. The.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1769.

CABINET, The American.

"There is in the government of the United States no such thing
as a Cabinet in the English sense of the term. But I use the
term, not only because it is current in America to describe
the chief ministers of the President, but also because it
calls attention to the remarkable difference which exists
between the great officers of State in America and the similar
officers in the free countries of Europe. Almost the only
reference in the Constitution to the ministers of the
President is that contained in the power given him to require
the opinion in writing of the principal officer in each of the
executive departments upon any subject relating to the duties
of their respective offices.' All these departments have been
created by Acts of Congress. Washington began in 1789 with
four only, at the head of whom were the following four
officials: Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury,
Secretary of War, Attorney General. In 1798 there was added a
Secretary of the Navy, in 1829 a Postmaster General, and in
1849 a Secretary of the Interior. … Each receives a salary
of $8,000 (£1,600). All are appointed by the President,
subject to the consent of the Senate (which is practically
never refused), and may be removed by the President alone.
Nothing marks them off from any other officials who might be
placed in charge of a department, except that they are
summoned by the President to his private council. None of them
can vote in Congress, Art. XI., §6 of the Constitution
providing that 'no person holding any office under the United
States shall be a member of either House during his
continuance in office.'"

_J. Bryce,
The American Commonwealth,
chapter 9._

{344}

"In 1862 a separate Department of Agriculture was
established. … In 1889 the head of the Department became
Secretary of the Department of Agriculture and a Cabinet
officer. A Bureau of Labor under the Interior Department was
created in 1884. In 1888 Congress constituted it a separate
department, but did not make its head a Secretary, and
therefore not a Cabinet officer." There are now (1891) eight
heads of departments who constitute the President's Cabinet.

_W. W. and W. F. Willoughby,
Government and Administration of the United States
(Johns Hopkins University Studies, series IX.,
numbers 1-2), chapter 10._

CABINET, The English.

"Few things in our history are more curious than the origin
and growth of the power now possessed by the Cabinet. From an
early period the Kings of England had been assisted by a Privy
Council to which the law assigned many important functions and
duties (see PRIVY COUNCIL). During several centuries this body
deliberated on the gravest and most delicate affairs. But by
degrees its character changed. It became too large for
despatch and secrecy. The rank of Privy Councillor was often
bestowed as an honorary distinction on persons to whom nothing
was confided, and whose opinion was never asked. The
sovereign, on the most important occasions, resorted for
advice to a small knot of leading ministers. The advantages
and disadvantages of this course were early pointed out by
Bacon, with his usual judgment and sagacity: but it was not
till after the Restoration that the interior council began to
attract general notice. During many years old fashioned
politicians continued to regard the Cabinet as an
unconstitutional and dangerous board. Nevertheless, it
constantly became more and more important. It at length drew
to itself the chief executive power, and has now been
regarded, during several generations, as an essential part of
our polity. Yet, strange to say, it still continues to be
altogether unknown to the law. The names of the noblemen and
gentlemen who compose it are never officially announced to the
public. No record is kept of its meetings and resolutions; nor
has its existence ever been recognized by any Act of
Parliament. During some years the word Cabal was popularly
used as synonymous with Cabinet. But it happened by a
whimsical coincidence that, in 1671, the Cabinet consisted of
five persons the initial letters of whose names made up the
word Cabal, Clifford, Arlington, Buckingham, Ashley, and
Lauderdale. These ministers were therefore emphatically called
the Cabal; and they soon made that appellation so infamous
that it has never since their time been used except as a term
of reproach."

_Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 2._

"Walpole's work, … the effect of his policy, when it was
finally carried through, was to establish the Cabinet on a
definite footing, as the seat and centre of the executive
government, to maintain the executive in the closest relation
with the legislature, to govern through the legislature, and
to transfer the power and authority of the Crown to the House
of Commons. Some writers have held that the first Ministry in
the modern sense was that combination of Whigs whom William
called to aid him in government in 1695. Others contend that
the second administration of Lord Rockingham, which came into
power in 1782, after the triumph of the American colonists,
the fall of Lord North, and the defeat of George III., was the
earliest Ministry of the type of to-day. At whatever date we
choose first to see all the decisive marks of that remarkable
system which combines unity, steadfastness, and initiative in
the executive, with the possession of supreme authority alike
over men and measures by the House of Commons, it is certain
that it was under Walpole that its ruling principles were
first fixed in parliamentary government, and that the Cabinet
system received the impression that it bears in our own time.
… Perhaps the most important of all the distinctions between
the Cabinet in its rudimentary stage at the beginning of the
century and its later practice, remains to be noticed. Queen
Anne held a Cabinet every Sunday, at which she was herself
present, just as we have seen that she was present at debates
in the House of Lords. With a doubtful exception in the time
of George III., no sovereign has been present at a meeting of
the Cabinet since Anne. … This vital change was probably due
to the accident that Anne's successor did not understand the
language in which its deliberations were carried on. The
withdrawal of the sovereign from Cabinet Councils was
essential to the momentous change which has transferred the
whole substance of authority and power from the Crown, to a
committee chosen by one member of the two Houses of
Parliament, from among other members. … The Prime Minister
is the keystone of the Cabinet arch. Although in Cabinet all
its members stand on an equal footing, speak with equal voice,
and, on the rare occasions when a division is taken, are
counted on the fraternal principle of one man, one vote, yet
the head of the Cabinet is 'primus inter pares,' and occupies
a position which, so long as it lasts, is one of exceptional
and peculiar authority. It is true that he is in form chosen
by the Crown, but in practice the choice of the Crown is
pretty strictly confined to the man who is designated by the
acclamation of a party majority. … The Prime Minister, once
appointed, chooses his own colleagues, and assigns them to
their respective offices. … The flexibility of the Cabinet
system allows the Prime Minister in an emergency to take upon
himself a power not inferior to that of a dictator, provided
always that the House of Commons will stand by him. In
ordinary circumstances, he leaves the heads of departments to
do their own work in their own way. … Just as the Cabinet
has been described as being the regulator of relations between
Queen, Lords and Commons, so is the Prime Minister the
regulator of relations between the Queen and her servants. …
Walpole was in practice able to invest himself with more of
the functions and powers of a Prime Minister than any of his
successors, and yet was compelled by the feeling of the time
earnestly and profusely to repudiate both the name and title,
and everyone of the pretensions that it involves. The earliest
instance in which I have found, the head of the government
designated as the Premier is in a letter to the Duke of
Newcastle from the Duke of Cumberland in 1746."

_J. Morley,
Walpole,
chapter 7._

"In theory the Cabinet is nothing but a committee of the Privy
Council, yet with the Council it has in reality no dealings;
and thus the extraordinary result has taken place, that the
Government of England is in the hands of men whose position is
legally undefined: that while the Cabinet is a word of
every-day use, no lawyer can say what a Cabinet is: that while
no ordinary Englishman knows who the Lords of the Council are,
the Church of England prays, Sunday by Sunday, that these
Lords may be 'endued with wisdom and understanding'! that
while the collective responsibility of Ministers is a doctrine
appealed to by members of the Government, no less than by
their opponents, it is more than doubtful whether such
responsibility could be enforced by any legal penalties: that,
to sum up this catalogue of contradictions, the Privy Council
has the same political powers which it had when Henry VIII.
ascended the throne, whilst it is in reality composed of
persons many of whom never have taken part or wished to take
part in the contests of political life."

_A. V. Dicey.
The Privy Council,
page 143._

{345}

CABINET, The Kitchen.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1829.

CABOCHIENS, The.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1380-1415.

CABOT, John and Sebastian.
American Discoveries.

See AMERICA: A. D. 1497, and 1498.

CABUL: A. D. 1840-1841.
Occupation by the British.
Successful native rising.
Retreat and destruction of the British army.

See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1838-1842.

CABUL: A. D. 1878-1880.
Murder of Major Cavagnari, the British Resident.
Second occupation by the English.

See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1869-1881.

----------CABUL: End----------

CACIQUE.

"Cacique, lord of vassals, was the name by which the natives
of Cuba, designated their chiefs. Learning this, the
conquerors applied the name generally to the rulers of wild
tribes, although in none of the dialects of the continent is
the word found."

_H. H. Bancroft,
History of the Pacific States,
volume 1, page 210, foot-note._

CADDOAN FAMILY, The.

See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY;
also, TEXAS: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

CADE'S REBELLION.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1450.

CADESIA (KADISIYEH), Battle of.