CHAPTER XVI

THE LAST DAYS OF JUSTINIAN: LITERATURE AND ART IN THE

SIXTH CENTURY: SUMMARY AND REVIEW OF THE REIGN

In the spring of 550, when the five years' truce with Persia expired,

Justinian became anxious to effect a further pacification with Chosroes,

and Peter Magister, with whose diplomatic work we are already familiar,

was entrusted with the negotiations. The Shah, however, declined to

formulate any definite terms at the moment and dismissed him with a

promise that he would shortly send a plenipotentiary of his own to the

Byzantine Court, who should have full powers to draft a treaty in

accordance with the best interests of both nations. He was as good as

his word, and the Persian embassy soon arrived at Constantinople, headed

by Isdigunas, a man insufferably pompous and arrogant, who brought with

him in his train such an immense following that he seemed to be

advancing to the battlefield rather than conducting a peaceful mission.

He was accompanied by his wife, children, and a brother; and also by two

members of the highest Persian nobility, who displayed themselves in

public wearing golden diadems on their heads. The Byzantines resented

the overwhelming magnificence of this legation, regarding it as an

intolerable assumption of superiority by the Orientals; and they were

especially indignant when they saw Justinian receiving them with an

effusive ceremony which suggested that he conceded everything to their

pretensions. These negotiations were protracted over eighteen months,

during which the multitude of Persians were allowed to pervade the city

with the utmost freedom, engaging in every sort of commerce as if they

were natives of the place; and, contrary to custom, subjected to no

supervision which might restrain them from gaining information of

strategic value. At length a second truce for five years was purchased

from Chosroes for two thousand pounds of gold (£80,000), whilst, as

compensation for the cessation of arms since the arrival of the

ambassador, a further sum of six hundred (£24,000) was agreed upon. The

Emperor, judiciously enough, wished to pay by annual instalments, so

that he might retain a pledge in his hands to ensure the faithful

observance of the compact, but the idea was abhorrent to the Byzantine

populace, who considered that they should thus become tributaries of the

Persian monarch. The amount was, therefore, paid down in full, and

Isdigunas returned home, the bearer on his own part of a splendid

pecuniary gift from Justinian.[841]

In the meantime the subsidiary war in Lazica went on continuously, as

Chosroes was unwilling to relinquish his hold on the principality, and

professed that his pacific engagements did not apply to that outlying

region. Thus the capture of Petra by Bessas, as already related, was an

occurrence of the same year as the renewal of the truce with Isdigunas.

After those events the Persian occupation was still maintained by

Mermeroes, who had already been many years in the country, and contested

the supremacy of the Byzantines with varying success. His most notable

effort was the siege of Archaeopolis, the capital, in 550, when, after

many strenuous attempts, he tried to capture the town by bribing one of

the natives to fire the granaries. He thought by this means to divert

the attention of the small garrison from the walls, so that the

attacking force should be unresisted while effecting an entry. Contrary

to expectation, however, the Byzantines were just prepared for a sally;

and, leaving a few of their number within to extinguish the flames, they

burst out suddenly on the besiegers. The latter, taken by surprise,

suffered such loss that Mermeroes forthwith raised the siege and retired

to another part of the country.[842]

Mermeroes died in 554, and was replaced by Nachoragan, whose career was

short and unfortunate. In the following year he essayed the siege of

Phasis, a town by the sea at the mouth of the river of the same name. He

had an army of sixty thousand at his disposal, while the Roman forces,

under Martin and Justin the son of Germanus, did not amount to a third

of that number. As the town was built of wood the Persian general

expected an easy conquest, and resolved to destroy the walls by fire. On

the south, where not defended by river and sea, an external muniment had

been improvised in the shape of a fosse, filled with water from an

adjacent lake, and a palisade. On the water were stationed a number of

vessels with baskets fixed to the mastheads; and from these, as from

towers, darts and missiles were shot or hurled. The Orientals, who had

rendered their line of blockade continuous by a bridge of boats across

the Phasis, were provided with elephants, having towers on their backs,

and had constructed machines for attack of every description. After a

few days' work the fosse had been levelled up to the ground by the

ingestion of various materials; and Nachoragan, at the outset of a

determined assault, said to a band of two thousand pioneers whom he was

despatching to a neighbouring wood to bring up further supplies of

timber, "When you see the smoke rising you will know that the Roman

defences are in flames, and may hasten back to aid in the work of

destruction." On the morning of the same day Justin, by a divine

inspiration, as we are told, had stolen out of the town with five

thousand cavalry and a brigade of infantry, in order to pray at a church

of great sanctity in the vicinity. Subsequent events now become shaped

by a prior incident which I have next to mention. Fearing that his men

might lose heart by comparing the paucity of their numbers with the

multitude of the enemy, Martin had a few days before caused a

travel-stained messenger to arrive ostentatiously amid a concourse of

the soldiery and hand him a letter, which he opened and read aloud. The

missive purported to come from the Emperor and to convey a notice that

large reinforcements had arrived within a score of miles and would

shortly join the garrison. "Tell them," said he, with assumed

indignation, "that their aid is not required: just as we are about to

discomfit the enemy, their coming will snatch from us the glory of

victory." The ruse succeeded; his action was acclaimed by the troops;

and not only were they inspirited, but some anxiety was communicated to

the besiegers, to whom the affair was reported, and a considerable body

of men was detached to watch the route by which the visionary army was

expected to arrive. The Persians attacked vigorously on the land side,

and were resisted with equal energy by the Byzantines. A great clamour

arose, and Justin, on the return from his pious errand, became aware

that a fierce battle was raging. He found himself in the rear of the

assaulting force, when, with sudden determination, he ordered his ensign

to be raised and charged the enemy in the back. The Romans routed those

upon whom they swept down, and a panic quickly spread through the

Oriental troops. The army of relief, whose propinquity had been

credited, was assumed to be actually present, and a general flight

ensued. Justin followed on hotly, and ten thousand of the Persians were

slain before the pursuit was abandoned. At last he collected his men and

returned to Phasis, where all the siege engines now appeared, scattered

around, as deserted by the enemy. Their destruction by fire was at once

resolved upon, and the column of smoke rose in proximity to the walls.

To those engaged felling timber in the distant wood it seemed to

indicate the consummation of their general's designs; whereupon the two

thousand pioneers at once threw down their implements, and hastened

impetuously to the town, fearing to be too late to deserve a share in

the predicted success. Thus they unwittingly ran into the arms of the

Byzantines, who slaughtered them to the last man.[843] As soon as the

news of this disaster was conveyed to Chosroes he was filled with rage

against Nachoragan, whom he immediately recalled and ordered to be

flayed alive. His skin, torn off in one piece from head to foot, so as

to retain the shape of the body, was sewn up and inflated like a

bladder; and then suspended from the summit of a lofty rock to signalize

the fate which should befall anyone who fled before the enemies of the

Shahinshah.[844]

Among the most notable incidents during this period of the war in Lazica

was the affair of King Gubazes. The mother of that prince was the

daughter of a senator, and before his succession he had borne arms for

some years as a silentiary at the Byzantine Court. Shortly before the

death of Mermeroes, owing to an error of judgment on the part of the

Roman generals, a section of the army had been severely handled by the

Persians; and the Lazic king had taken upon himself to report the matter

to Justinian as resulting from the incapacity of his officers. Martin

and two of his subordinates, the brothers Rusticus and John, were those

chiefly concerned; and in their minds much animosity was excited against

Gubazes. They concerted a plot, therefore, to encompass his death; and

John made a special journey to Constantinople with the object of

accusing him to the Emperor. Owing to his former defection to the

Persians, Justinian was easily persuaded that he was again meditating a

similar treachery; wherefore he ordered that he should be arrested and

brought to the capital for interrogation. "But," queried John, "should

he resist your mandate?" "Then," said the Emperor, "you may kill him as

an open enemy." Armed with this authority in a written warrant John

returned to Lazica; and the brothers at once sent Gubazes an invitation

to meet them at a certain spot, using as a pretext that they wished to

confer with him as to an attack upon the Persians. Unsuspectingly the

King advanced with a few unarmed followers to the place indicated. With

the knowledge of the other generals, who contemplated merely an arrest,

Rusticus and John, accompanied by an armed band, proceeded to meet him.

The plotters, however, knowing that an interrogatory would reveal their

treachery, had it in their minds to provoke Gubazes by an altercation,

and then to assassinate him in pretended compliance with the terms of

their warrant The parties met, and the brothers challenged the King to

join them in an expedition against the common enemy. But he declined,

saying that, until they had retrieved their errors and proved themselves

to be capable leaders, he would not follow them to the battlefield. This

attitude was taken as sufficiently evincing a determination to resist

the Imperial authority; and John struck him with his sword, causing him

to fall from his horse. Then as he lay on the ground, at the bidding of

Rusticus, some of the guards standing by consummated the murder.[845]

This foul deed aroused the utmost indignation among the Lazi; and the

nation decided forthwith to transfer their allegiance to the Persians. A

public debate, however, was held, at which moderate counsels ultimately

prevailed; and it was resolved to send delegates to demand justice of

the Emperor. On their arrival at the Court they asserted the criminality

of the assassins, and defended Gubazes from their imputations. They also

solicited that Tzathes, his younger brother, then resident in the

capital, should be appointed King in his stead. Justinian accepted their

assurances and acceded to their request; and he at once commissioned

Athanasius, a senator of the highest rank, to proceed to Lazica in order

to bring the culprits to trial. A judicial court was constituted in

public with great pomp to impress the natives; the senator occupied a

lofty throne surrounded by guards and legal assessors, and Rusticus and

John were produced loaded with shackles. Advocates of the Lazi, who were

versed in Greek, conducted the prosecution, and demonstrated that the

innocence of Gubazes was beyond question. The written commission of

Justinian was read, by which it was shown that only armed resistance to

arrest would have justified what was done. The prisoners made an

elaborate defence, asserting, but without a shadow of proof, that the

King had been a traitor, and maintained that they had acted with the

cognizance and assent of Martin. Athanasius summed up the case calmly,

and concluded that Gubazes was acting within his rights when he refused

to join the proposed expedition in view of the adverse opinion he had

formed as to their military competency. He, therefore, pronounced the

brothers to be guilty, and condemned them to be decapitated. They were

forthwith mounted on mules, and paraded to the place of execution,

whilst a herald announced their delict and proclaimed the supremacy of

the laws (555). As to Martin, his complicity was not investigated

openly, but it was considered prudent to supersede him in his command,

and relegate him to a private position. Justin was then appointed to be

principal general in Lazica.[846] After this date the Lazic war flagged,

and within a year or two the two monarchs gladly agreed to a cessation

of arms, with the understanding that each was to retain those positions

in the country of which they happened at the moment to be in

occupation.[847]

The defence of the Danubian frontier against the scarcely remittent

barbarian raids was very inefficiently maintained, at least during the

latter years of Justinian's reign. Hence the safety of life and property

in Thrace and Illyricum was in continual jeopardy. In 549 the Slavs were

first emboldened to cross the river, when a horde of three thousand

rushed headlong against the Roman forces, whom they utterly routed,

though considerably more numerous than themselves. They then pursued

their course, devastating the country mercilessly, until they arrived at

Toperus, a town of sixty thousand inhabitants, and the most important

seaport of Thrace. By a ruse they enticed the garrison to make a sally,

and, having massacred them, soon captured the town by means of scaling

ladders. The whole adult male population, amounting to fifteen thousand,

was slaughtered, and the women and children were reduced to servitude.

The Slavs then returned to their own abodes, leaving their track

littered with the unburied corpses of their victims, whom it was their

custom to kill by transfixing them to the ground by means of stakes

driven through their bodies.[848]

Less than ten years later a populous nation of barbarians, the Avars,

appeared on the west of the Caspian, who were destined during the next

couple of centuries to become troublesome enemies of the Byzantine

Empire. Justin still held the chief command in Lazica, and to him they

made overtures that they should be received into the Roman alliance. He

forwarded a chosen legate, Candich by name, to Constantinople, who

boastfully informed the Emperor that he belonged to the greatest nation

of the earth, who were capable of annihilating all his enemies. But they

demanded rich presents, a yearly subsidy, and the bestowal of a fertile

region for them to inhabit, before they entered the service of the

Empire. Justinian, as the historian informs us, was now broken by years,

and there remained to him little of the force of mind which he had

displayed when he conquered the Vandals and Goths. He was tired of war

and desired to avoid it by any pacific means. He at once accepted the

suggestion of the Avars, and despatched an ambassador to them, the

bearer of golden chains, silken vestments, and numerous other costly

gifts, which Justin was instructed to distribute judiciously and to

direct the hostilities of the recipients against various turbulent

tribes. This was done effectively, and severe chastisement was inflicted

in many quarters. The Avars, however, refused a grant of land in

Pannonia, as being too distant from their ancient seats. Subsequently

the Chagan, such was the title of the Avar chief, sent a numerous

deputation to the capital, but, after long detention, they were

dismissed without definite result. Their strange appearance was one of

the spectacles of the city at this time, and the populace wondered at

their long hair, plaited and tied up with ribbons. During their stay

they took the opportunity of purchasing a large quantity of arms, and

the Emperor notified Justin that they must by no means be allowed to

import these safely into their own district. The weapons were seized,

therefore, while in transit, by the military; and the circumstance was

the origin of the bitter hostility which was afterwards displayed by the

Chagan and his subjects towards the Empire.[849]

In 559 the most alarming barbarian invasion which occurred during the

reign of Justinian is recorded. Zabergan, an enterprising Hunnish

leader, conceived no less a design than to subvert, or, at least, to

pillage the whole Eastern Empire. The statement suggests the irruption

of a vast horde of barbarians, who would spread themselves far and wide

over the country and sweep everything before them in their destructive

course; but such was the deplorable condition of the defences of the

Empire, that this bold scheme was undertaken with an army which could

scarcely have exceeded fifteen thousand horse. With this force Zabergan

crossed the Danube on the ice in the month of March, and when he had

penetrated the interior for a sufficient distance, divided his army into

three sections. To the first was allotted the conquest of Greece; the

second was impelled towards the Thracian Chersonnesus, from whence it

was contemplated that it should pass the Hellespont and overrun the

Asiatic provinces; whilst with the third division, consisting of seven

thousand cavalry, the leader advanced against the metropolis. This plan

of campaign was entered on without hindrance, as the provinces were

almost destitute of soldiery. Those of the military who were in an

opulent position abandoned themselves to dissipation, devoting their

time to the Circus, the theatre, and courtesans, while the rank and file

of the army deserted the colours and tried to make a living as

civilians. Such was the result of the conduct of the pay-masters and

commissaries, who embezzled the funds apportioned to the military

establishment; and here again, as a second historian tells us, the

senile ineptitude of the Emperor was manifested. As Zabergan pursued his

course the districts through which he passed were devastated savagely on

every side. Private mansions and convents were broken into, women of all

classes were seized and subjected to the brutal excesses of his

followers, and infants were scattered about the fields to become a prey

to dogs and vultures. The Long Walls were dilapidated, and even those of

the city itself; the damage being chiefly the effect of earthquake

shocks, which had been severe during recent years. The barbarians passed

through the former, therefore, and encamped on the river Athyras, less

than twenty miles from Constantinople. In the meantime the capital

became filled with consternation, which was increased by crowds of

fugitives who rushed thither from the outlying tracts. From the Golden

Gate to Blachernae the suburban churches were emptied of their precious

ornaments, cartloads of which were borne within the walls. There was no

regular garrison to occupy the battlements; the Scholars and other

Palace guards, who had been ordered out to defend the Long Walls, fled

at the sight of the enemy, and the multitude of civilians and rustics

were devoid of military instinct and unable to wield the weapons which

were supplied to them; nor had the government a single officer with the

slightest capacity for active warfare at their disposal. In this strait

the Emperor found that he had no resource but to commission Belisarius

to undertake the defence of the city. The veteran general, long

unemployed, had already succumbed to age and infirmity, but he obeyed

with alacrity, and again appeared in the martial attire which he seemed

to have laid aside for ever. With difficulty he collected three hundred

soldiers of those who had served under him in his wars, and with these

as his main force, he proceeded to employ as effectively as possible the

unwarlike rabble. They were instructed to post themselves behind a long

trench which he caused them to excavate, and numerous fires were lit to

indicate the presence of a great host. At the approach of the enemy they

were also enjoined to raise a huge din by clashing together their swords

and shields. Zabergan, however, was led to suspect the real state of the

defenders, and directed a mass of two thousand cavalry to make an

impetuous dash against the Byzantines. Belisarius, forewarned, divided

his veterans into three equal bands, one of which he retained about his

own person, whilst the others were concealed in the woods, so as to

attack the enemy on the flanks as they passed. These tactics were put

into practice effectively; the general charged the Huns in front as soon

as they came in sight, and simultaneously the ambushed troops fell on

them from each side. An immediate rout of the barbarians was the result,

and they fled back with all speed to their own camp. Four hundred were

slain in the pursuit which ensued, whilst among the Romans no single

life was lost. When Belisarius returned to Constantinople he was

acclaimed as a saviour by the populace, but from the magnates of the

bureaucracy he experienced nothing but repellent looks and invidious

utterances, and he relapsed at once into the obscurity from which he had

emerged for the moment like a meteor.[850]

As for the further efforts of Zabergan's expedition, they may be

dismissed in a few words. At the Pass of Thermopylae the Huns were

brought up by a wall from which they were repulsed by the garrison; and

at the entrance to the Chersonnesus their career was similar checked. In

the latter case, however, they constructed a fleet of rafts, by means of

which six hundred of them tried to land on the peninsula from the waters

of the Hellespont; but they were attacked by a number of Byzantine

galleys during their perilous navigation, and almost all perished by

drowning. Ultimately the survivors of both failures rejoined their

leader, who still maintained his ground and proclaimed that he would not

quit the Roman soil until he had been paid a large sum in gold. His

captives were then reviewed and assessed at so much a head, and with the

ransom thus accumulated Zabergan retreated to the Danube. Justinian,

however, was determined to prevent his escaping at so little cost to

himself; and he forthwith despatched an emissary to Sandichl, chief of

another tribe of Huns, who had been heavily subsidized for guarding the

approaches to the Empire from the north. Having upbraided him for

negligence, he informed him that the funds which should have been his

had now been paid out to Zabergan, wherefore he must be satisfied to

lose the amount unless he could recover it by force. Hence an

internecine war broke out between the two tribes, who were named Utigurs

and Cotrigurs respectively, in the course of which they mutually

destroyed each other, much to the advantage of the Byzantines.[851] At

the same time a fleet of biremes was sent up the Danube to assist in the

retaliative operations. Soon after the departure of the enemy, a great

concourse of citizens, with the Emperor himself at their head, although

now probably in his seventy-seventh year, went out from the capital to

survey the Long Walls; and Justinian continued to reside in the vicinity

all the summer engaged in supervising the restoration of that

bulwark.[852]

In 562 a definite and comprehensive treaty was at last concluded with

Persia, by which Chosroes agreed to relinquish all claim to Lazica in

consideration of an annual payment of thirty thousand solidi (£17,000).

This peace, which was to remain in force for fifty years, was the final

diplomatic achievement of Peter Magister, who died soon after, on his

return to Constantinople.[853] During the next year Justinian undertook

a pilgrimage to Myriangeli, a holy place in Galatia, at a distance of

three hundred miles from the capital, being the longest journey he had

made since he mounted the throne.[854] On his return, octogenarian

though he was, a conspiracy to assassinate him was promoted by some

officials who had access to the Palace, but the design was betrayed by

one of the associates of the plot. Many arrests were made, and some of

the prisoners tried to save themselves by pretending that they had

merely been suborned by Belisarius. The general was summoned before the

Imperial council for interrogation, and, although there was no evidence

to substantiate the accusation, he was degraded from his rank and

ordered to be detained as a prisoner in his own mansion.[855] This

formal incarceration was not relaxed for over six months, but at last

Justinian became persuaded of his innocence and allowed him to resume

his position at Court.[856] About eight months afterwards the great

soldier died, having had nothing but disregard and ingratitude for his

lot during the final years of his life, but there is no foundation for

the story of later centuries that he was actually reduced to indigence

and used to sit as a mendicant in the streets of Constantinople,

protesting his blindness and begging a copper of those who passed

along.[857] After his death, we read that his fortune was raked into the

coffers of the state,[858] whence it is inferred that his daughter

Joannina, the only relative he is known to have possessed, must have

predeceased him. The death of his stepson Photius is mentioned as having

occurred a decade or so previous to his own,[859] but his wife Antonina,

notwithstanding that she was so much his senior, appears to have long

outlived him and to have ended her days in the odour of sanctity. It is

recorded that the pious widow went to live with Vigilantia, the sister

of Justinian, and at her suggestion restored a church which had been

destroyed by fire.[860]

In the closing scene of his life Justinian is exhibited to us as

agitated by his ruling passion, devotion to theological subtleties, and

as expending his last breath in an attempt to impose on the Church a

heresy which he had rejected when his faculties were more acute. With

one foot in the grave he became convinced that the Aphthartodocetae or

Incorruptibles had arrived at the true view as to the properties of the

flesh of Christ; and the octogenarian Emperor embarked on the enterprise

of elevating this tenet to the rank of an Orthodox dogma. The resistance

of Eutychius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, who had presided at the

Fifth General Council, was punished by expulsion from his see; and

Anastasius, the Patriarch of Antioch, was threatened with a similar

fate. To enforce conformity with the Emperor's most recent conviction an

edict was prepared, which would have excited a commotion among the

Orthodox communions throughout the Empire, but its issue was prevented

by the unexpected death of its author.[861]

Justinian died in November, 565, at an early hour of the morning, in the

thirty-ninth year of his reign, and the eighty-third of his age.[862]

The news was at once conveyed to the Senate, who forthwith aroused

Justin, the son of Vigilantia, and besought him to accept the Crown. He

occupied the post of Curopalates, or intendant of the Imperial

household, and his succession had doubtless been privately arranged for

some time previously. After his formal acquiescence the funeral rites of

the deceased monarch were the first care. The body was placed upon a

golden bier in a hall of the Palace, and Sophia, the wife of Justin, and

a niece of Theodora, herself enshrouded it in a purple robe, on which

were pictorially embroidered all the great events of Justinian's reign.

By sunrise the people had become informed, and the assemblage in the

Hippodrome followed in accordance with time-honoured precedent. Justin

appeared, was acclaimed and hoisted on a buckler, and all the customary

preliminaries of a coronation were enacted. The new Emperor made a

speech, in which he promised to reform all abuses, and gave a practical

earnest of his intentions by announcing that his uncle's debts would be

paid forthwith. A band of notaries, accompanied by a gang of porters

bearing bags of gold, then entered the arena, and all creditors who

presented themselves had their accounts settled. The completion of the

obsequies was the next duty to be accomplished. The people thronged the

hall where the corpse lay in state; the bier was lifted up and borne

away amid a crowd of mourners carrying wax lights, and a choir of

virgins who intoned hymns as the procession moved along. The Church of

the Holy Apostles was its destination, and when that edifice was reached

the body was deposited in a golden sarcophagus which had been prepared

for its reception by Justinian himself. A popular festival followed; the

city was decorated with flowers, fruits, reeds, and olive branches; a

variety of musical instruments resounded from every quarter amid popular

applause and rejoicings; and the reign of Justin II was inaugurated with

all the illusive hopes which foresaw the return of the Golden Age in the

accession of the new monarch.[863]

With respect to literature and art in this age, a few remarks may be

added to what has already been said upon the subject in a previous

chapter of this work. But in relation to the productions of the Eastern

or Later Roman Empire, the words literature and art must be used in a

modified sense, because there were no Byzantine classics and no artistic

masterpieces. Greek poetry ended with Menander and Theocritus, nearly

three centuries before the Christian era; the last Latin poet was

Claudian, who flourished more than a century before the time of

Justinian. During the succeeding millennium, however, there were many

versifiers at Constantinople, but no poet. Yet we could rarely spare

their works, as they are often valuable for the historical or other

information which they contain. As regards prose, of course, the

position is different; for in that domain highly meritorious works can

be produced without the aid of genius. The chief Byzantine writer there

is Procopius, to whose compositions, considerable in bulk as they are,

we are indebted for almost all detailed history of the sixth century. He

was, as we have seen, for the most part the companion of Belisarius in

his wars, not in a military capacity, but as a civil adjutant; and hence

he is generally describing events in which he himself took an active

part. He appears to be absolutely truthful, and it is improbable that he

has given currency to any deliberate falsehood. In recondite matters he

is sometimes corroborated by other historians, and he has never been

contradicted.[864] Close critics of his text are able to point out that

he used Herodotus and Thucydides as his models.[865] He was a man of

abundant common sense, well informed for his epoch, and less

superstitious than any typical specimens of his contemporaries. In

religion he was a freethinker, believing in a Providence, which,

however, had not become concrete in the form of any personal being in

his mind.[866] When making use of previous writers he adopts their

accounts with little discrimination, though he sometimes suggests that

the reader may disbelieve if he sees fit to do so.[867] Three terms may

be distinguished in his literary career. During the first, which extends

to about 550, he was actively engaged in the Persian, Vandalic, and

Gothic wars, and wrote his account of them in seven books. In the

meantime he had opportunities of becoming intimately acquainted with the

system of government and personality of the bureaucracy; and his

observations led him to feel a strong repugnance for the administration

and all connected with it. In the second term he resolves to register in

a secret work his adverse conclusions and private information respecting

the actors in the scenes which were passing around him, in the hope that

it may lead to their being one day shown up in their true colours for

the common benefit of humanity, when the dangers of such a publication

shall no longer exist.[868] In 550, therefore, he writes his Secret

History or Anecdotes, which he anticipates will attain the desired

end.[869] He then turns his attention to the more recent operations of

the Persian and Gothic wars, in which he had not himself borne a part,

and describes them by adding an eighth, and final, book to his

historical compositions. Gradually his literary work becomes generally

known, and its merit recognized; the Emperor himself becomes one of his

readers, and concludes that Procopius is the historian by whom his name

will be handed down to future ages. He becomes personally interested in

him, and the third term sees him enjoying the sunshine of Court favour.

Justinian, proud of his extensive building achievements, is anxious that

his activity in this sphere shall not perish in obscurity, and employs

the historian to compose a work in which all his notable architectural

works shall be described in realistic detail. For this compilation the

Emperor himself affords information, and has the book written under his

own eye in the flattering style usually adopted by courtiers when

referring to the sovereign. Procopius, not indifferent to material

advantages, complies with established formalities, and receives the meed

of his talents and industry from the Emperor impersonally, as the state

official who acts as the deputy of the public. Later on he is promoted

to the post of Praefect of the City; and it falls to his lot to become

custodian of his former chief when arrested on suspicion of

conspiracy.[870] He had no biographer, and of his private life and

connections nothing is known except that he was a native of Caesarea, in

Palestine.[871]

As literature, all other Byzantine authors are practically negligible,

but their value as sources of historical information has been

sufficiently evidenced in the course of this work. At no subsequent

period did a second Procopius arise, but a few words may be said about

his immediate continuator, Agathias. He was an advocate by profession,

in modern phrase, a briefless barrister, whose tastes were literary

rather than forensic. He attempted poetry with slight success, and

finally hoped to find his vocation in writing history in emulation of

Procopius.[872] Not being a man of action like his predecessor, nor

occupant of a post which enabled him to base his narrative mainly on

personal experience, he wrote as a student rather than as an observer of

events. He is thus better acquainted with books than with men, more

widely read than Procopius, but studied, diffuse, deficient in personal

convictions, and lacking in historical insight. His short history, which

was interrupted by death, is, however, invaluable as being a sole

source; and it is unlikely that, had he not undertaken it, anyone else

would have filled his place and done it better.[873]

The sixth century in the West was not altogether an age of darkness and

ignorance, but was illuminated by two writers—who have already been

mentioned as intimates of Theodoric—Cassiodorus and Boethius. The latter

was a voluminous and able author; and his _Consolation of Philosophy_,

composed in the prison from which he was released only by a death

sentence, is well known to modern readers, and has every title to rank

as one of the Latin classics. Cassiodorus, also a prolific writer,

though of no great talent, is important in the world of letters as

having been the founder of literary monkhood, which he originated in a

monastery erected by himself at Squillace, whither he retired after his

political career.[874] He is understood to have survived there for

thirty years, and almost to have become a centenarian in the enjoyment

of learned leisure. St. Benedict also flourished in the first half of

the sixth century; and the well-known order instituted by him, the

Benedictines, ultimately took up the work initiated by Cassiodorus, and

produced some of the most erudite contributors to knowledge of the

ancient classics.

When treating of Byzantine art the question must always arise whether

that term can be applied to productions which in previous or subsequent

ages would not have been accepted as competent work. The renaissance of

art in Italy is a phrase virtually synonymous with emancipation from

Byzantine methods, but the latter, as already explained, ultimately

became rooted in a conventionalism which was not typical of earlier

efforts.[875] In the time of Justinian there is no evidence that

painting and sculpture in the higher sense existed at all. We know of no

pictorial representations, with the exceptions of miniatures in

manuscripts and mosaics on the walls of sacred edifices,[876] while the

glyptic art seems to have been almost confined to columnar capitals and

carving on plates of ivory.[877] Of the former class it can only be said

that all specimens are not bad, of the latter that there is some

meritorious work.

The Byzantines were great builders, and in this sphere alone are their

artistic creations really worthy of consideration. The features of

classical Greek architecture, which with certain variations subsequently

became Roman, are familiar to all. A Hellenic city of the best period

was a chaste arrangement in white marble, in which the simplicity of the

straight line was applied to define the form of all public buildings.

Rows of accurately proportioned pillars, supporting a continuous

entablature, invested both edifices and open spaces, and formed

sheltered colonnades which were a defence against extremes of weather at

all seasons. The architectural conception originated at some time far

back when timber was the only material used for construction.

Geometrical curves were rarely if ever seen, except in fluted columns,

but the diversity of form to be found in the undulating lines of nature

was profusely represented by foliaceous capitals, and in pediments,

friezes, and metopes sculptured with the various figures of animal life.

The Byzantine Greeks, however, completely reversed the conceptions of

their ancestors, and abandoned the purity of classical style. Interest

in form was gradually lost along with the capacity to execute it; and

the taste of the age found its refuge in an overwhelming attachment to

diversity and brightness of colour. To satisfy this craving recourse was

had to variegated marbles, of which lavish use was made, for pillars in

the mass, and in thin slabs for mural decoration. For the latter purpose

also every available space was invested with glaring mosaics, the gaudy

hues of which compensated for the absence of grace and natural

proportions in the gaunt figures with which they were crowded. But these

methods were applicable only to interiors, whence the building itself

came to be considered as merely a packing-case into which was to be

stuffed the wealth of meretricious adornment. Thus a temple, that is a

church, became a ponderous and shapeless mass of brickwork, with an

appearance appropriate, perhaps, to a barrack or a barn, instead of

being a civic ornament of light and beauty. The Romans had the secret of

a form of construction other than the continued entablature, and were

attached to the method of sustaining superimposed masses by means of the

arch, akin to which was the dome, which they probably adopted after

their arms had penetrated to the East. On the Tiber, therefore, the

straight entablature began to be displaced by a series of arches; and

vaulted roofs were occasionally seen under the first emperors. In the

new Byzantine architecture, which originated, or, at least, came to

maturity under Justinian, both these methods of building were developed

to the fullest extent. Among the lost arts at Constantinople about this

time, seems to have been the skill to sculpture capitals after the

Corinthian or Ionic patterns, the place of which was taken by clumsy

inverted pyramids, quadrangular and truncated, which were used to effect

a junction between the pillars and the superimposed structure.[878] It

is possible, as suggested,[879] that this device may have been first

adopted to support the roof in the obscurity of an underground cistern,

but it was afterwards transported to the upper air and employed, as at

St. Sophia, to complete the columns in the most decorative edifices. In

these positions it was necessary to abolish the crudeness of such

capitals, and, as there was a partial revival of art under Justinian,

this object was accomplished with some success by cutting the surface of

the pyramid over with a tracery of vegetable foliage, in the midst of

which simple monograms were often interspersed. As such shapes are not

produced in any strict conformity of outline, they are usually imitated

with facility, and a measured or geometrical treatment is, in general,

satisfactory to the eye.

In the sixth decade of this century, three incidents occurred, which

were of more or less importance in connection with the subject of this

section. In 551 some Asiatic monks introduced themselves to Justinian,

and informed him that it was in their power to solve the difficulties

which oppressed him with respect to the silk trade. Having resided long

in China, they had become familiar with the method of rearing the

silkworm, and they explained that if the eggs were transported to Europe

they could be hatched in dung, so that a native manufacture of silk

could be established. The Emperor promised to reward them liberally if

they should succeed in the enterprise; and the next year they again

presented themselves, furnished with a stock of the eggs, which, as some

say, they had been obliged to carry away furtively concealed in hollow

canes. Successful incubation followed; the worms were fed on mulberry

leaves; and from this beginning dates the active propagation of the

insects throughout Southern Europe, from whence nearly half the quantity

of silk in commercial demand is supplied to the markets of the

world.[880] In 554 a severe earthquake occurred, the violence of which

was chiefly operative along the Syrian coast. The city of Berytus was

totally wrecked, and many persons, including numbers of law students,

perished in the ruins. The law school was then removed to the

neighbouring town of Sidon until Berytus should be rebuilt, but,

although the restoration was effected satisfactorily, there is some

doubt as to whether the city regained its celebrity as a centre of legal

education.[881] Another disastrous earthquake happened in 557 and

wrought much havoc at Constantinople. One of the results of the

catastrophe was that the dome of St. Sophia collapsed, bringing

destruction to many of the elaborate and precious structures which

occupied the floor of the church. The original architects were dead, but

a younger Isidorus was entrusted with the work of reinstatement, and a

new dome was constructed, having its altitude increased by twenty feet.

At the re-opening a grand ceremony was enacted comparable to that which

had taken place on the first occasion a score of years previously.[882]

* * * * *

It appears that the requisites for the welfare of a nation might with

general consent be defined as peace abroad, and prosperity at home. We

have seen that the reign of Justinian was one of incessant activity, but

we fail to discern that the continuous ferment, the motive impulse of

which emanated from Constantinople, was in any way beneficial to the

human race. For nearly forty years war was almost peripheral with

respect to the dominions of that Emperor; in Africa, in Italy,

aggressive; on the Danube and on the Euphrates, defensive. It is

possible that the lot of the Orthodox Christians in Africa may have been

ameliorated by the expulsion of their Vandal rulers; but we are told by

an eye-witness that the country, which had previously been flourishing

and populous, was thereby reduced for hundreds of miles to a desert, and

that as an ultimate result the Byzantine invasion might be credited with

the annihilation of fully five millions of the inhabitants.[883] There

is good reason to conclude, however, that before the time of Justinian,

the religious rancour which had prevailed between the Arians and the

Orthodox in the African provinces had been subdued to the level of

mutual toleration, so that in the best interests of that region a

continuance of the Vandal administration would have been desirable. If

there be any doubt as to whether the Vandal war was really harmful to

the people chiefly concerned, there can be no question but that the

invasion of Italy was an unmitigated calamity for the inhabitants of

that peninsula. It would be difficult to define an age, even prior to

the dissolution of the Roman Republic, during which the Italians could

be said to have lived in the uninterrupted enjoyment of peace and

prosperity. From the foundation of Rome the peninsula was distracted for

more than twelve centuries, first by ethnical and then by civil

commotion, and ultimately by barbarian devastation. But for nearly forty

years under the rule of Theodoric, a settlement was reached, when

beneficent government without fiscal rapacity went hand in hand with

religious toleration.[884] It must be conceded that the successors of

the founder of the Gothic monarchy were true neither to their own

interests nor to those of the Italians, but the wanton warfare carried

on so persistently by Justinian for nearly two decades, whilst he

neglected the defence of his own dominions, was more fraught with

disaster to Italy than the transient, though determined, barbarian

irruptions: and we have it from the same authority that the depopulation

of the country was even more evident to the contemporary observer than

was that of Africa.[885]

The incapacity of the Byzantine administration to create and protect a

thriving population, has been sufficiently exemplified in the foregoing

chapters, wherein we have seen the results of fiscal oppression and of

ineffective preparations for repelling the Persians and barbarians.[886]

A glance at the course of events after the time of Justinian will

complete the picture, and illustrate more fully the imbecility of the

empire which that monarch attempted, but failed to consolidate. Scarcely

three years had elapsed from the death of Justinian until the Lombards

invaded Italy, and in a short time the greater part of the peninsula as

far south as Naples was permanently wrested from the Byzantines. It is

said that this irruption was provoked by Narses himself out of revenge

for his having been treated with contumely by the Byzantine Court. He

sent samples of fruits and agricultural produce to King Alboin, and

counselled him to migrate southwards with his nation in order to enjoy

the fertility of Italy.[887] But, being soon repentant, the eunuch died

at Rome shortly afterwards at the age of ninety-five (568).[888] The

fifty years' peace with Persia lasted only ten years, and in 572

Chosroes again crossed the Euphrates, ravaged the Roman provinces, and

made himself master of Dara. Later on, however, he was successfully

opposed by the Emperor Tiberius, and in 579 he died of chagrin, as it is

said, at the ill success of his arms.[889] But early in the seventh

century Chosroes II overran Syria and Asia Minor, taking Damascus and

Jerusalem, and established his camp at Chalcedon, in sight of

Constantinople. About 622, however, the fortune of the Byzantines was

restored by the notable campaigns of the Emperor Heraclius; and in 650

the Saracenic successors of Mohammed conquered the Persian empire. But a

decade before that event, they had overthrown the Byzantine armies, and

had taken permanent possession of Syria and Egypt. In the meantime the

Imperial capital itself had been severely oppressed by the martial

activities of the age; and between 625 and 680 had undergone several

sieges by Persians, Avars, and Saracens. Such was the state of the

Eastern Empire less than a century after the death of Justinian. One

third of its home territory had passed into the hands of the

Mohammedans, and half of the appanage of Italy into those of the

Lombards. Before the year 700 the Arabs had worked their way to the

extreme West, and the whole of Christian North Africa had been effaced

by the votaries of Islam. If the Vandal kingdom had been left

undisturbed, there is no reason to suppose that it could have withstood

the conquering fanatics who were inspired by the Apostle of Mecca;

although the existence of a flourishing Western civilization for more

than seven hundred years between the Red Sea and the Atlantic proves

that states of the highest European type might be permanently

established in those latitudes. The subject need not be pursued into

further detail; the samples given illustrate sufficiently how the

Græco-Roman power became progressively dilapidated, with occasional

intervals of better fortune, until in the fifteenth century the

Byzantine Empire became synonymous with the area circumscribed by the

walls of Constantinople. In 1453 the city was taken by the Turks, and

the fact announced to Christendom that civilization and progress in the

modern sense had become extinct in three-fourths of the countries which

lie around the basin of the Mediterranean.[890]

Shortly after his accession we find Justin II reprobating in the old

strain the rapacity of the Rectors,[891] deploring the fact that they

buy instead of earning their appointments as the reward of having proved

their capacity, and reiterating the futile injunction that they are to

delay their departure from the provinces for fifty days after laying

down their office. In the exordium to this Constitution he characterizes

in a pregnant allusion the administration of his predecessor, and may be

said to pronounce the epitaph of Justinian:

"THE MERE PROMULGATION OF ADMIRABLE LAWS IS NOT THE SOLE ESSENTIAL IN A

STATE, BUT THE ENACTMENTS MUST BE ZEALOUSLY MAINTAINED AND ENFORCED,

WHILST DELINQUENTS ARE SUBJECTED TO CONDIGN PUNISHMENT. FOR WHAT CAN BE

THE UTILITY OF LAWS WHICH APPEAR ONLY ON PAPER, AND ARE NOT RENDERED

BENEFICENT TO THE SUBJECT BY BEING PRACTICALLY APPLIED?"

THE END

[841] Procopius, De Bel. Goth., iv, 11, 15.

[842] Procopius, De Bel. Goth., iv, 14.

[843] Agathias, iii, 19 _et seq._

[844] _Ibid._, iv, 23.

[845] Agathias, ii, 2 _et seq._

[846] Agathias, iv, 1 _et seq._

[847] _Ibid._, 30. An incident in the Lazic war may serve to illustrate

the usual manners of the soldier of the period. A band of forty beset a

mountain fortress inhabited by a tribe in league with the Persians. It

was called the Iron Castle from its supposed impregnability. A single

rocky path, steep and narrow, led to the gate, where some huge stones

were poised, capable of sweeping the track from top to bottom in their

downward course if set in motion. In the darkness of the night, the

Romans essayed the capture. Eight sentinels were seen at their posts,

but all asleep. One of the ascending party slipped and made a racket

with his shield, which roused the guards, who snatched up torches and

gazed in every direction. But the Romans stood stock still, and escaped

notice in the dark. The sentinels returned to their slumbers, and were

at once attacked and slain. The Romans then rioted through the town, set

fire to the houses, which were of wood; massacred women who scurried

around; even a lady of rank, jewelled and elegantly dressed, who stepped

out with a torch, was received with lance thrusts in the abdomen;

children were flung into the air and transfixed by being caught on the

points of pikes; until all seemed to be exterminated. The Byzantines

then rested carelessly, as assured of safety, but the enemy collected

from another quarter and, observing their fewness, killed nearly all by

an unforseen attack; Agathias, iv, 15 _et seq._

[848] Procopius, De Bel. Goth., iii, 38. It was about this time, after

the death of Theodora, that John of Cappadocia returned to the capital,

but he had fallen into too great disrepute to be reinstated in any

creditable post by the Emperor. Being reduced to great poverty, he found

that at last he must take seriously to the priesthood. At the ceremony

of his ordination, not having a decent cassock, a monk named Augustus,

who was standing by, lent him his garment. Shortly it was noised through

the city that the prophecy as to John's exaltation had been fulfilled,

and that he had now really "assumed the mantle of Augustus"; De Bel.

Pers., ii, 30.

[849] Menander, Legat., i; Theophanes, an. 6050.

[850] Agathias, v, 11, _et seq._

[851] Agathias, 24, _et seq._ But Menander says Sandichl only seized on

their horses, declining to make war on his own blood; Legat., ii; cf. p.

415.

[852] Theophanes, an. 6051.

[853] Menander, Legat., ii.

[854] Theophanes, an. 6056. The chronology seems to be muddled here.

[855] Jn. Malala, p. 493.

[856] Theophanes, an. 6055.

[857] Codinus, p. 29 (from Banduri).

[858] Theophanes, an. 6057.

[859] John Eph., Hist. (Smith), _loc. cit._

[860] Codinus, p. 108. On her return to Constantinople after the death

of Theodora, Antonina broke off the match with Anastasius, although, in

order to make sure of the alliance, the Empress had caused the young

people to cohabit during their betrothal; Procopius, Anecd., 5.

[861] Evagrius, iv, 39, _et seq._; Eustathius, Vit. Eutychii, etc.

[862] Theophanes, an. 6057, etc.

[863] The funeral and coronation scenes are described by Corippus in his

poem, De Laud. Justini Min., i, 226, _et seq._, iii, 28, _et seq._, etc.

Theophanes Byz. mentions a general of the East, "Theodore, son of

Justinian," who is generally supposed to be a son of the Emperor by a

concubine after the death of Theodora. Procopius gives an account of a

youth whom the latter was attached to, but treated cruelly. He seems,

however, not to have been a lover, but merely a _protégé_; Anecd., 16.

Justinian figures in Dante's Paradise (vi), and has a whole canto to

himself. He summarizes Roman history both before and after his own

times, and confesses that he owes his salvation to having been converted

from Monophysitism by Pope Agapetus.

[864] See pp. 345, 348, 441, 442, 454, 620.

[865] A fallacy seems to have gained currency that Procopius is pedantic

because he nearly always calls Constantinople Byzantium. He could not do

otherwise without being singular: the new name is scarcely ever used,

except in official documents and ecclesiastical writers. It is to this

persistence of the original title of the city that we owe the survival

into modern times of the epithet Byzantine.

[866] See p. 514; cf. De Bel. Pers., ii, 9, 10; De Bel. Goth., i, 3,

etc.

[867] The general ignorance of this age is well illustrated by the

ridiculous account Procopius gives of Britain; De Bel. Goth., iv, 20.

The island, he says, is divided longitudinally by a wall on account of

the diversity of climatical conditions which prevail on the different

sides. To the east the country is genial and salubrious, fertile with

corn crops and fruit trees, and thickly populated. But on the west of

the wall everything is the contrary, and no man could exist there, even

for half an hour. The region is thronged with vipers, serpents

innumerable, and poisonous beasts. And, what is hardly credible, if

anyone should cross the wall, he at once succumbs fatally to the

pestilential air—as the natives relate. But he thinks it must be

altogether a fable when they say that the villagers on a certain part of

the Gallic coast, who live as fishers and farmers are absolved from

payment of taxes on condition of their ferrying the souls of the dead

across the ocean to this adjacent isle of Britain. In tempestuous

weather, at the dead of night, they are summoned from their beds, and

have to rush to the sea-shore. There they find numbers of apparently

empty boats. They have to seize the oars and row for a day and a night.

When they start, the vessels are weighed down to the water's edge, but

on returning, they are so light as barely to skim the surface. Yet all

the time they see no one; but when landing the souls, they hear a voice

calling out the names and titles of each of the deceased.

Procopius also makes an excursion into British history, which is,

perhaps, no more authentic than his ghostly narrative. The Franks, he

informs us, claimed some extent of suzerainty over the island, and when

they sent a legation to Justinian in 548, they included, for the sake of

ostentation, a number of Angles in the party. He goes on to relate that

a prince of the Varni, a nation occupying lands to the north of the

Rhine over against Britain, had betrothed his son Radiger to a British

maid, the sister of the King of the Angles. He had himself recently

taken, as his second wife, a sister of Theodebert, the Frankish monarch.

Soon afterwards, finding himself on his death-bed, he exhorted his son

to marry his step-mother, a connection permitted by their law, as being

more to the interest of the Varni than the British alliance. On his

father's decease, Radiger obeyed these instructions, whereupon the

British princess, indignant at being jilted, assembled an army of one

hundred thousand, under one of her brothers' generalship, and invaded

the country of her faithless lover. Procopius explains that all this

force consisted of infantry, since the islanders had never even seen a

horse. A great battle was fought, in which the Varni were defeated and

put to flight. Radiger being taken prisoner, was brought before the

martial princess, who reproached him severely for his conduct towards

her. He excused himself by pointing out the various necessities which

had weighed upon him, but expressed his present willingness to fulfil

his first contract of marriage. His offer was accepted, and ultimately

the nuptials of Radiger and the English princess were peacefully

solemnized; _ibid._

[868] Anecd., _praef._

[869] He mentions (Anecd., 18, 23, 24), that he is writing thirty-two

years after Justinian came into power, meaning 518, the date of the

accession of the superannuated Justin; see p. 304. The credit of

pointing out the very obvious fact that Procopius ignores Justin as a

cypher, is due to Haury, Procopiana, Augsburg, 1891.

[870] Jn. Malala, _loc. cit._ The name was not uncommon, so that the

identification is only highly probable.

[871] De Bel. Pers., i, 1.

[872] See his own remarks, i, introd., iii, 1.

[873] For an expanded account and appreciation of Byzantine writers, see

Krumbacher's Gesch. d. Byz. Lit., 2nd ed., Munich, 1896; also the

introduction to Diehl's _Justinian_, and his Études Byzant., 1904.

Useful summaries and jottings on various points are also to be found in

the appendixes to Bury's Gibbon, especially vol. iv.

[874] See his tracts for educational purposes, some of which are

referred to on p. 212.

[875] See Agincourt's pictorial series, which exemplifies the perfection

of Greek and Roman art, traces its decay, and finally illustrates its

rehabilitation in the fifteenth century. In Diehl's _Justinian_ there

are many excellent photographs of sixth century productions.

[876] The mosaics of Ravenna can be examined in the South Kensington

facsimiles, and their crudity recognized by comparing them with modern

work of the same kind executed on the walls of the museum. One of the

faces in these tableaux, that of Maximian, Bishop of Ravenna, who stands

besides Justinian, gives the impression of being a faithful likeness;

which is probable, since the work was executed under his own supervision

(_c._ 545). This was a man of some force of character, who gained

considerable repute in his day. Of him an amusing story is told: it is

said that he discovered a great treasure, which it was his duty to hand

over to the Emperor, but, as he wished to retain a portion for his

charitable obligations, he hit on the following expedient. Having killed

an ox, he emptied the abdomen and stowed a quantity of the gold inside.

He then took a pair of boots and filled them with a further amount. With

the rest of the treasure he set out for Constantinople and, on his

arrival, presented it to Justinian. The Autocrator immediately inquired,

"Is this the whole of what you discovered?" "All," said Maximian,

"except what I put in the belly and the boots." By this answer he is

supposed to have hoodwinked the Emperor, who imagined him to allude

merely to his sustenance and travelling expenses while on the road;

Agnellus, Lib. Pontif., _in Vita_.

[877] There is one very pleasing example, the well-known diptych of the

archangel Michael in the British Museum, but it seems of unique merit.

[878] A century or so before Justinian, however, very fine capitals of a

Corinthian type were being sculptured at Thessalonica; see the pictorial

exposition of the churches in that city by Texier and Pullan. Some of

those done in the sixth century are represented, and seem to be very

inferior, as are those at St. Vitale.

[879] See p. 539.

[880] Procopius, De Bel. Goth., iv, 17; Theophanes Byz. etc.

[881] Agathias, ii, 15.

[882] _Ibid._, v, 9; Theophanes, an. 6051, etc.

[883] Procopius, Anecd., 18.

[884] The reign of Theodoric has been treated most fully by Hodgkin,

Italy and her Invaders, Lond., 1880, etc.

[885] Procopius, Anecd., 18.

[886] It appears that Justinian kept up an army of no more than 150,000

men, whereas for the Eastern Empire alone twice that number at least was

considered necessary by former rulers. Agathias, v, 13; see p. 167.

Thus, notwithstanding the numerous forts he built ostentatiously, he

neglected to garrison them, both in Europe and Asia; (Procopius, Anecd.,

24; see p. 541), whilst the lavish subsidies paid to the barbarians

constituted a standing invitation for the most distant tribes to present

themselves constantly in order to receive those gratifications (_Ibid._,

8, 11, 19). As for the Long Walls, they were so devoid of troops that,

as Agathias remarks (v, 13), they were not even so well protected as a

farm yard, where at least a watch-dog's bark might be heard.

[887] It is said that in his latter days he incurred the enmity of his

subordinates through parsimony, whence they petitioned for his recall.

On his refusal to return to the capital in obedience to a mandate,

Sophia taunted him by writing, "Come and take up your proper place among

the handmaids who ply the distaff in the women's apartments," to which

he replied, "I will find a yarn for her to spin which she will not be

able to get through in her lifetime"; Paulus Diac., Hist. Miscell.,

xviii, etc.

[888] Agnellus, Lib. Pontif., Agnellus, Peter Sen.

[889] Agathias, iv, 29.

[890] The history of the Empire up to the fall of Constantinople, has

been narrated by Gibbon, and at greater length by Finlay. The fullest

account of the siege is that of Pears, Lond., 1896.

[891] Nov. clxi. At all times and places the Byzantine system was so

oppressive, that even the Abasgi and Tzani, who were supposed to have

found salvation in Christianity (pp. 700, 702), revolted to the Persians

and had to be reconquered; Procopius, De Bel. Goth., iv, 9; Agathias, v,

1. Notwithstanding his Roman experience, his having retrieved his

character at Petra, and his age, Bessas at once entered on another

campaign of fiscal extortion in Pontus and Armenia; Procopius, De Bel.

Goth., iv, 13. Justin also, the son of Germanus, countenanced a

subordinate in harrying the farmers for military stores which they could

not supply, in lieu of which they had to buy off their liability for an

exorbitant sum; Agathias, iv, 22.

INDEX

Abasgi, conversion of, 702;

revolt of, 758.

Academy of Plato, 421.

Achaemenian dynasty of Persia, 373.

Adarbâd, revisor of Avesta, 384.

Aerikon, a tax, 485.

Africa, provinces of, 492;

campaigns of Belisarius in, 501 _sqq._;

Byzantine government of, 517.

Africans, character of, 496;

dress of, 497.

Agapetus, Pope, at CP., 671.

Agathias, historian, on philosophers, 436;

his writings, 748.

Agnates, relatives by males, 715.

Ahura-Mazda, Persian "Lord of Wisdom," 376.

Alamundar, Arab sheikh, invades Syria, 404.

Alexander the Great, his conquests and successors, 371.

Alexander the "Scissors," 624.

Alexandria, corn monopoly at, 483;

religious war at, 676.

Amalasuntha, Gothic Queen, 546;

her death, 550, 611.

Amshaspands, Persian council of Heaven, 377.

Anastasius, his savings dissipated, 441.

Ancona, naval battle of, 646.

Angra-Mainyu, Persian "Devisor of Evil," 376.

Anthemius, architect, 529.

Anthimus, Monophysite Patriarch, 670.

Antioch, 587;

capture of, 590.

Antonina, wife of Belisarius, her infidelities and intrigues, 605,

611, 673;

supposed capture at Portus, 637;

her death, 741.

Apamea, Persian King at, 592.

Apostles, Holy, new church of, 537, 743.

Aphthartodocetæ, heresy of, 742.

Arab conquests, 757.

Archaeopolis, siege of, 728.

Arda Virâf, visits heaven and hell, 384.

Ardeshír, founder of later Persian Empire, 373;

avenger of Darius, 385.

Areobindus, African governor, his murder, 522.

Arethas, Arab sheikh, 407, 594, 688.

Ariminum, betrayal of, 572;

siege of, 574;

battle at, 652.

Aristotle, philosopher, 421.

Arsacid or Parthian dynasty of Persia, 371, 373.

Art, Byzantine, 749 _sqq._

Artabanes, a general, in Africa, 522;

in Armenia, 585;

at CP., 621;

in Sicily, 646;

in Italy, 662.

Artabanus, defeated by Ardeshír, 373.

Asclepigeneia, female philosopher, 428.

Athanagild, Visigothic King, 527.

Athanasius, judge in Lazica, 732.

Augustus, his limiting of the Empire, 371;

tomb of, 557.

Aurelian, walls of, at Rome, 555.

Auximum, siege and capture of, 572, 573, 578.

Avars, embassy from, 735.

Avesta, the Persian Bible, 376.

Bachelors, disabilities of, 718.

Baduela, Gothic King. _See_ Totila.

Balâsh, Shah, dethroned for building baths, 379.

Barbarians, assaults of on Empire, 417, 734, 736.

Barishnûm, Persian purification, 379.

Belisarius, his campaigns against Persia, 397, 593, 596;

quells Nika riot, 468;

in Africa, 505;

his triumph, 515;

in Italy, 550, 630;

at Ravenna, 580;

characterization of, 580, 582;

in disgrace, 618, 740;

letters of, 631, 641;

last campaign, 738;

his death, 741.

Berytus, loses silk trade, 483;

law school at, 724;

ruin of, 753.

Bessas, a general, in Armenia, 413;

at Petra, 601;

at Rome, 634, 637;

his avarice, _ib._, 758.

Bishops, rules for appointing, 689;

ethics of, 690;

exemptions of, _ibid._

Boarex, Queen of Huns, 418.

Boethius, statesman and author, 546, 749.

Bolum, a fort, 402.

Bosporus, revolt of, 701.

Britain, fabulous account of, 745.

Brunechilde, daughter of Athanagild, 528.

Burial in earth illegal in Persia, 378.

Butilin and Leuthar, Frankish generals, invade Italy, 661;

their death, 663, 664.

Butzes, a general, 395.

Buzes, a general, 398, 413;

he deserts Hierapolis, 586.

Callinicus, battle of, 407;

taking of, 597.

Callinicus, a Rector, impaled, 455.

Carthage, topography of, 493 _sqq._;

siege of, 510.

Casilinum, battle of, 664.

Cassiodorus, statesman and author, 546, 749.

Cassius, Avidius, his massacre of the Seleucians, 372.

Cavades, Persian king, his deposition, 387;

restoration, 388;

his war with Rome, 395;

his death, 414.

Cavades, Persian prince in Roman army, 415, 649.

Centumcellae, 644.

Chalke, vestibule, restoration of, 537.

Children, illegitimate, 691, 719.

Chosroantioch, 591.

Chosroes, Persian king, his accession, 415;

his character and studies, 435, 484;

in Lazica, 594, 607;

his death, 757.

Church property, 692.

Circus factions, affectations of, 453;

enormities of, 454.

Cisterns at CP., 539;

Strzygowski and Forscheimer on date of, _ibid._

Clergy, rules for, 691.

Code of Justinian, 721.

Comito, sister of Theodora, 403.

Constantina, new anti-Persian fortress, 416.

Constantine, a general, 564, 567;

his death, 606.

Constitutum, Justinian's doctrinal thesis, 684 _sqq._

Consuls, abolition of, 484.

Corippus, poet, 526, 743.

Cothon, harbour at Carthage, 494.

Council, Fifth Oecumenical, 684, 899.

Cow, sacred to Persians, 379.

Cremation, illegal in Persia, 378.

Cruelties of Roman soldiers in Lazica, 733.

Ctesiphon, Parthian capital of Persia, 374;

taken by Trajan, 372.

Cudworth, Cambridge Platonist, 439.

Cumae, siege of, 659;

surrender of, 662.

Cutzes, a general, 395.

Cyrus, the Achaemenian, founder of Persian Empire, 371;

a new, at Istakhr, 373.

Dagisthaeus, a general, parallel between and Bessas, 658.

Damascius, philosopher, 432, 438.

Daphne, grove at Antioch, 589, 592.

Dara, battle of, 397;

fortifications of, 542.

Darmsteter on Zoroaster, 376 _sqq._

Debtors, new laws in favour of, 712.

Decimum, battle of, 507.

Defenders of Cities, restoration of, 476.

Demetrius, a general, 626 _sqq._

Demarch and Mandator, dialogue between, 456.

Diehl, Byzantine archaeologist, 410, 473, 497, 543, 749.

Digest or Pandects, 722.

Dinkhard, late Pahlavi treatises, 394.

Diocletian, his Persian wars, 372.

Divorce, laws respecting, 719.

Dog, wonderful, 643.

Domitian, resemblance of Justinian to, 366.

Druj Nasu, Persian demon of lies, 377.

Edessa, engineering at, 541;

siege of, 598.

Elesbaas, Negus, embassy to, 410.

Elijah, Justinian compared to, 443.

Encyclical, Papal decree, 687.

_Epibole_, a tax, 485.

Epicurus, philosopher, 423.

Erse, Irish and Sanskrit, 375.

Eudaemon, Prefect of City, 458.

Eudocia, Roman princess, marries Vandal King, 500, 516.

Eudoxia, Empress, 499.

Euphemia, daughter of John of Cappadocia, 614.

Father and son, laws as to, 713.

Firdausi, Persian poet, 394.

Fire-temples, Persian, 393.

Forscheimer (and Strzygowski) on date of cisterns at CP., 539.

Forts, Byzantine, 542.

Foundlings, laws as to, 711.

Funeral rites, Justinian's described, 742.

Gaianus, heresiarch, 675.

Galerius, his Persian wars, 372.

Gelimer, Vandal king, 501;

his capture, 514;

at CP., 516.

Genseric, Vandal king, 499, 563.

Germanus, nephew of Justinian, in Africa, 520;

at Antioch, 588;

his death, 646.

Goat, abandoned infant reared by a, 575.

Golden Horn, new bridge at, 541.

Gontharis, revolt of, 521.

Gubazes, Lazic king, revolts to Persia, 594;

his murder, 731;

trial respecting, 732.

Gudelina, wife of Theodahad, 610, 611.

Hadrian, Emperor, Mausoleum of (Castle of St. Angelo), 557, 567;

his Perpetual Edict, 716.

Heraion, palace of, 368.

Heretics, disabilities of, 692 _sqq._;

punishment of, _ibid._

Hermogenes, minister and general, 396.

Hierapolis, desertion of, by Buzes, 586.

Hilderic, Vandal king, 500, 549.

Homerites, or Himyarites, 410.

Hormisdas, palace, later use of, 669, 682, etc.

Huns, irruptions of, 412, 648, 736;

conversion of, 701.

Husband and wife, laws as to, 719.

Hypatius and Pompeius, usurpers, 460, _sqq._

Illegitimate children, 691, 719.

Inheritance, laws as to, 715, _sqq._

Institutes of Justinian, 723.

Interest on money lent, 713.

Iran, native name of Persia, 373.

Iron Castle, Lazica, taking of, 733.

Isdigunas, Persian ambassador, 600, 726.

Isidorus, architect, 529, 754.

Islands, prefect of, 473.

Istakhr, capital of Persis, 373;

a new Cyrus arises at, _ibid._

Jacob Baradaeus, apostle of Monophysites, 688.

Jews, treatment of, 698.

Joannina, daughter of Belisarius, 741.

John, nephew of Vitalian, a general, in Italy, 571, 572, 574, 651, 660.

John of Antioch, historian, 417, 545.

John of Cappadocia, a financier, 444;

his carousing, 447;

his fall, 613;

his return, 735.

John, officer, murders Gubazes, 731.

John of Ephesus, Monophysite bishop and historian, 699, etc.

John, son of Theodora, 621.

John the Armenian, 506, 511;

his death, 512.

John Troglita, a general, 526.

Judges, puisne, 478.

Judicatum, Papal decree, 681, 685.

Julian, legate to Aethiopia, 410.

Julian, Emperor, 425, 433.

Julian, heresiarch, 675.

Julian, rebel, 695.

Junonia, first name of Roman Carthage, 492.

Justin, a general in Lazica, 728, 735.

Justin II, Emperor, his accession 742.

Justinian, Emperor, personal appearance and character, 365;

suppresses revolt, 467;

popular execration of, 486;

his clerical laws, 689;

his persecutions, 692;

his theological works, 702;

his legislation, 709, _sqq._;

his heresy, 742;

his death, _ibid._

Kavádh. _See_ Cavades.

Krumbacher, editor of Byzantine literary history, 748.

Kvêtûk-das, Persian marriage custom, 382.

Lactarian Mount, 660.

Latin, proposed abolition of at CP., 445.

Lazica, war in, 594, 600, 608, 727.

Leo, Emperor, African expedition of, 499.

Leuthar. _See_ Butilin.

Literature, Persian, 395;

Byzantine, 744.

Lombards invade Italy, 756.

Lydus, Jn., his office, 487.

Magdalen Asylum, 479.

Majorian, Emperor, 499.

Mandator and Demarch, dialogue between, 456.

Mandracium, harbour at Carthage, 493.

Marcus Aurelius endows Athenian schools, 424.

Marinus, philosopher, 430.

Marriages, incestuous, legal in Persia, 380;

Chrysostom on, 381.

Martin, a general, in Lazica, 729, 733.

Martyropolis, siege of, 412.

Mashita palace, 394.

Matasuentha, wife of Vitigis, 564;

her treacheries, 572, 580;

marries Germanus, 623.

Maxilloplumacius, extortioner, 446, 452.

Maximian, bishop, 750.

Mazdak, Persian heretic, 386;

his sect massacred, 388.

Mazdeism, Persian religion, 376.

Melchites, 689.

Menna, patriarch, 675.

Mermeroes, Persian general, 727.

Milan, surrender of, 573;

recapture of, 575.

Milvian bridge at Rome, 573, 643.

Missions to Nubia, 688;

to Caucasus, 700.

Mithra, Persian sun-god, 377.

Monasteries, constitution of, 691.

Monophysites, encouraged by Theodora, 370, 669 _sqq._

Montanists, revolt of, 694.

Moors, their method of warfare, 524.

Mosaics, 497, 535, 538, 751.

Mundas, a general, 419;

at CP., 467;

his death, 551.

Mutilation as punishment, 452, 480.

Myriangeli, Justinian's pilgrimage to, 740.

Nachoragan, Persian general, 728;

his punishment, 730.

Naples, sieges of, 552, 626.

Narses, eunuch general, at CP., 467;

in Italy, 574, 648, _sqq._;

takes Rome, 658;

at Casilinum, 664;

at Alexandria, 676;

his death, 756.

Nasks, divisions of Avesta, 376.

Negus of Axum, embassy to, 410.

Neoplatonism, 425.

Neoplatonists in Persia, 434 _sqq._

Neoplatonism and Christianity, 438.

Nestorius, heresiarch, 679.

Nika revolt, 459.

Nisibis, Persian, 395, 399, 416, 593, 600.

Nöldeke, his Persian researches, 374.

Novels of Justinian, 725.

Nubia, mission to, 688.

Numidia, pillars in, 497.

Nushirvan (Chosroes) 389.

Odovacar, barbarian king in Italy, 545.

Origen, Egyptian Father, 677, 701.

Ormuzd and Ahriman, 376.

Orontes, river of Antioch, 587.

Otter or water-dog, sacred to Persians, 379.

Pahlavi, old Persian, 376.

Palestine, religious wars in, 694, 697.

Palladius, rapid courier, 448.

Pan, Great God, death of, 431.

Pandects. _See_ Digest.

Parthians, their conquest of the Seleucidae, 371.

_Patria potestas_, 713.

Patricians, 90, 714, 770.

Paul, Patriarch, 677.

Paul the Silentiary, his poem on St. Sophia, 533.

Peace, Perpetual, 416.

Pelagius, Pope, at Rome, 633, 639;

at CP., 677;

in Italy, 686.

Pergamus, philosophy at, 425.

Perozes, Persian prince, his attack on Dara, 397.

Perpetual Edict, 716.

Persepolis, Persian capital, 373;

fired by Alexander, _ibid._

Persian queen, a Christian (?), 415.

Persians, sociology of, 374 _sqq._

Persis, home of Persian race, 372.

Peter Magister, ambassador in Italy, 540;

in Persia, 726, 740.

Petra, sieges of, 594, 601.

Petronius, official plundering of, 446.

Pharangium, a fort, 402.

Pharas, Gelimer's captor, 513.

Phasis, siege of, 728.

Philosophers, female, 428.

Philosophy, Greek, various sects of, 421, _sqq._;

in Persia, 434.

Photius, son of Antonina, 607, 616;

his death, 741.

Plague in the East, 602.

Plato, philosopher, 421.

Plotinus, philosopher, 427, 430.

Plutarch, philosopher, 426.

Pompeius and Hypatius, usurpers, 460, _sqq._

Pontus, Vicar of, restored, 486.

Porch, painted, 422.

Porphyrio, a ferocious whale, 368;

capture of, 643.

Porphyry, philosopher, 430.

Portus, operations at, 632, 635, 644.

Praetor, Edict of, 716.

Praetor of the people, new official, 478.

Pragmatic Sanction, 665.

Prejecta, Justinian's niece, 521, 622.

Proaeresius, philosopher, 426, 428.

Proclus, Neoplatonist, 427, _sqq._

Procopius, historian, 503, 578;

his writings, 744;

arrests Belisarius, 748.

Property, church, 692.

Prostitution, at CP., 479;

of slaves forbidden, 710.

Provinces, changes in government of, 473 _sqq._

Queer occurrences, 382, 575, 735, 750.

Quicherat on Plotinus, 437.

Ravenna, mosaics at, 366, 367, 750;

sieges of, 545, 578.

Rectors of provinces, their rapacity, 449, _sqq._;

reforms respecting, 472;

rewards for, 477.

Robespierre compared to Justinian, 366.

Rome, topography of, 555;

sociology of, 558;

sieges of, 566, 630, 642, 643, 658.

Rufinas, legate to Persia, 396;

his peace, 416.

Rusticiana, widow of Boethius, 639.

Rusticus, officer, murders Gubazes, 731.

St. Saba at CP., 696.

St. Sophia, church of, 530;

dilapidation of, 754.

Salona, taking of, 551;

Narses at, 649.

Salvian on rapacity of Rectors, 451;

against the Africans, 496.

Salvius Julianus, lawyer, 716.

Samaritans, revolt of, 695, 697.

Sandichl, Hunnish leader, 739.

Sanskrit, related to Zend, Erse, etc., 376.

Sapor, Shah, persecutes Christians, 386.

Sassanian dynasty of Persia, 373.

Seleucus and Seleucidae, successors of Alexander the Great, 371.

Severus, heresiarch, 675.

Severus, Sept., his Persian wars, 372.

Silk trade, 411, 483.

Silkworm imported into Europe, 753.

Silverius, Pope, 554, 569;

his deposition and death, 612, 673.

Simplicius, philosopher, 435.

Sisimithres, his mother-wife, 382.

Sittas, a general, 403, 700;

his death, 585.

Slaves, new laws in favour of, 708.

Slavs, irruption of, 734.

Socrates, philosopher, 420.

Spain, Byzantines in, 526.

Stagnum, harbour at Carthage, 493.

Stoa, painted, 422.

Stoic philosophers, 422.

Stotzas, revolt of, 518.

Strzygowski (and Forscheimer) on date of cisterns at CP., 539;

_Byzantinische Denkmäler_, 770, 771.

Sycae, Theodora's monastery at, 676.

Synesius at Athens, 426.

Syrianus, philosopher, 426, 432, 433.

Taginae, battle of, 654.

Tansar, his letter, 384;

oldest document of Mazdeism, _ibid._

Taxes, oppressive, 445, 481;

in Persia, 391.

Teïas, Gothic general, 650;

elected king, 657;

his death, 660.

Theodahad, Gothic king, 547, 550;

his death, 554.

Theodebald, Frankish king, 659, _sqq._

Theodebert, Frankish king, 576, 579, 645, 746.

Theodora, Empress, personal appearance and character, 367;

conduct during revolt, 466;

popular execration of, 486;

her intrigues, 609;

letters of, 608, 619;

her religious policy, 669, _sqq._;

her death, 643, 689.

Theodore Ascidas, bishop, 677, 687.

Theodoric, Gothic king, 544, 755.

Theodosius, lover of Antonina, 603, _sqq._

Three Chapters, controversy of, 678, _sqq._

Tiberius, Emperor, 431, 433.

Tibur, capture of, 630.

Ticinum, the Goths at, 657, 659.

Tiridates, Parthian King, visits Nero, 379.

Totila or Baduela, Gothic king, his accession, 625;

at Naples, 626;

at Rome, 629, 643;

at Taginae, 652;

his death, 656.

Toperus, massacre at, by Slavs, 734.

"Towers of Silence" or Dakhmas, 378.

Trajan, Emperor, his conquests, 371.

Tribonian, a lawyer, 442;

his legal work, 720.

Tricamerum, battle of, 510.

Triumph at CP., 515.

Tyre, loses silk trade, 483.

Tzani, conversion of, 700;

their revolt, 758.

Tzathes, Lazic King, 732.

Uranius, charlatan, 436.

Usdrilas, Gothic general, 651.

Vandals, persecute Catholics, 494;

their character, 500.

Vendidâd, part of Zend-Avesta, 377, etc.

Vigilius, Pope, in Sicily, 632;

at Rome, 680;

at CP., 681, _sqq._;

his death, 686.

Vitigis, Gothic king, 553;

at Rome, 566, _sqq._;

capture of, 581;

his death, 623.

Walls, Long, 543, 737, 756.

Water, sacred among Persians, 378.

Water storage at CP., 539.

Whale. _See_ Porphyrio.

Wife, husband and, laws as to, 719.

Wills, laws as to, 715, 717.

Women in the church, 691.

Xenophon, his description of Syrian desert, 405.

Yemen, Christianity in, 409.

Zabergan, Hunnish leader, 736.

Zaberganes, Persian minister, 608.

Zend, language, 376.

Zeno of Citium, philosopher, founder of Stoics, 422.

Zooras, fanatical monk, 675.

Zoroaster or Zarathushtra, 376;

Darmsteter on, _ibid., sqq._;

Mills on, 384.

CORRIGENDA ET ADDENDA

Pp. 19, 744, notes. See a letter of mine in _The Athenæum_, 30th June

1906, p. 798, in which I show that, almost without exception, Byzantine

writers use the old name even as late as Photius and Anna Comnena. Cf.

note to p. 632 _infra_.

P. 20, _for_ 446 _read_ 409.

P. 34, n. 2, insert, the elephants are.

P. 49. There is an ivory carving thought to represent a religious

procession passing the Chalke, _c._ 552: reproduced in Strzygowski,

Byzant. Denkmäler, iii, 1903, p. xviii; also in Beylié's work and

others. The identifying feature is a bust of the Saviour above a portal

(see text).

P. 61, _for_ xv, 7, _read_ vii.

P. 66, n. 7, _add_ Suetonius, Augustus, 96.

P. 67, n. 4, _for_ 325 _read_ 334.

P. 80, n. 4, _for_ xiii _read_ xviii.

P. 87. A monograph on the headdress of Byzantine ladies has been written

by Molinier (Etudes hist. du moyen âge, 1896). It was a usual fashion to

puff up the hair in a great roll or crown such as is often noticed in

the miniatures of medieval MSS.

P. 88, n. 2, _for_ 21 _read_ 181.

P. 90. The difference between the Patricians created by Julius Caesar

(Suetonius, J. C., 41) and those by Constantine is that the former were

hereditary, the latter only life peers.

P. 91, n. 4, _read_ Hefner-Alteneck.

P. 110, _add_ Jn. Lydus, De Magist. i, 32 _et seq._

P. 114, n. 6, _add_ Cod. III, xxxviii, 11.

P. 126, n. 4, _for_ 770 _read_ 792.

P. 133, n. 3, _read_ +Karximades+.

P. 167, n. 3, _add_ They were under the Master of the Offices.

P. 169, n. 6, _read_ Marcellinus.

P. 188, n. 1, _for_ 330 _read_ 530.

P. 191, n. 1, _for_ xii _read_ XII.

P. 202, n. 1, _add_ cxxviii.

P. 216, n. 3, _for_ A to E _read_ a to e.

P. 222, n. 3, _read_ Juliana. The miniatures in this work have been

critically discussed by Diez in Strzygowski's Byzant. Denkmäler, 1903.

P. 232, n. 1, _add_ on its way to resolution into the formless protyle

or ether.

P. 237, note, _read_ Olympius.

P. 238, n. 2, _read_ Peripatetics.

P. 245, _read_ currents for; n. 1, _read_ of Abonoteichos.

P. 265, l. 8, _read_ and Iranian ... those.

P. 273, n. 1, for the two _read_ Pagan and Christian metaphysics.

P. 281, n. 4, _add_ Some others, and especially one Paul of Thebes,

assumed the eremitic life previous to Anthony, but their example did not

become conspicuous enough to set the fashion; see the life of Paul by

Jerome.

P. 283, _read_ the outposts.

P. 300, n. 6, _add_ cf. Jn. Malala, xxiii, p. 430.

P. 330, n. 2, _read_ VIII, vi, 20.

P. 332, note, _add_ Suetonius wrote the lives of Roman _meretrices_, but

the work is lost; Jn. Lydus, De Magist., iii, 54. Not known otherwise.

P. 342, n. 2, _read_ 497 as the date of her birth.

P. 482, n. 3, _for_ Minor _read_ Major (Roman). See the collection of

Armenian historians (in French) by Langlois, Paris, 1864-69. According

to Moses of Chorene (iii, 42) the partition into Roman and Pers-Armenia

was made by Sapor and Arcadius. But the Persian here concerned must have

been Shapur III who, (Nöldeke) reigned 383-388. Hence the Roman

potentate could be no other than Theodosius the Great. All the Armenian

writers mention the division (as Faustus, Byz. vi, 1), but do not name

the contracting rulers. Persarmenia comprised the eastern two-thirds of

the country. Theodosiopolis, the seat of government in the Roman third,

was built _c._ 420 by Theodosius II (?). Procopius, De Aedif., iii, 15,

Moses, iii, 59. Needless to say Nöldeke's dates do not agree with St.

Martin's.

P. 523, last line, _read_ "girl." Apparently then she was not an old or

even a mature woman.

P. 540, _read_ Asia Minor and Syria.

P. 612. _After_ could desire, _read_ he should wear the robe of

Augustus, etc.

P. 632. Epidamnum. Procopius always uses this name, but twice adds,

"they now call it Dyrrhachium" (De Bel. Vand., i, 1, etc.), meaning, I

presume, locally, his readers knowing only the original name. The Greeks

as a nation never took to these new names. Thus he makes a similar

remark about Antioch (De Aedif., v, 5, etc.) which never became

Theopolis to the general. Dyrrhachium was about fifty-five miles down

the coast from the southernmost point of Dalmatia.

P. 675, l. penult. Date 535 according to Brooks, _Byzant. Zeitsch._,

xii, 494, 1903.

P. 731, _read_ Byzantine Court.[892]

P. 734. _After_ unforeseen attack _read_ a nemesis approved of by the

historian who relates the occurrence.

[892] Procopius, De Bel. Pers., ii, 29. Arrears of pay for ten years

seem to have been owing to him for this service.

CHISWICK PRESS: PRINTED BY CHARLES WHITTINGHAM AND CO.

TOOKS COURT, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON.