[Transcriber's Note: Greek sections in this article are unclear and have
been transliterated to the best of my ability. The very unclear letters
have been replaced by an asterisk]
The name of Belisarius is more generally known through the medium of the
novel, the opera, and the print-shop than by the pages of history.
Procopius, Gibbon, and Lord Mahon have done less for his universal
popularity than some unknown Greek romancer or ballad-singer in the
middle ages. Our ideas of the hero are involuntarily connected with the
figure of a tall old man, clad in a ragged mantle, with a stout staff in
his left hand, and a platter to receive an obolus in his right,
accompanied by a fair boy grasping his tattered garments, and carefully
guiding his steps.
We shall now venture to investigate the relationship between the
Belisarius of romance, and the Belisarius of history; and we believe we
shall be able to prove that the historical hero died in full possession
of his sight several centuries before the birth of his blind namesake,
the hero of romance; that he was not more directly related to the
unfortunate sufferer, than our disreputable acquaintance Don Juan of the
opera, was to the gallant and presumptuous Don Juan of Austria, the hero
of Lepanto; and that in short, as we say in Scotland, there was no
connexion but the name. In this case, however, the connexion has proved
a pretty close one; for a noble, accomplished and accurate English
historian, Lord Mahon, in his "Life of Belisarius" has considered it
strong enough to advance a plea of identity between the warrior of
history and the beggar of romance.
Such an authority renders the labour of brushing the dust from a few
volumes of Byzantine Chronicles to us "a not ungrateful task;" and one
that we hope will not prove entirely without interest to our readers.
Our object is to re-establish the truth of history, and to restore to
some Greek Walter Scott of the middle ages the whole merit of
constructing an immortal tale, which for centuries has tinged the stern
annals of the Eastern empire with an unwonted colouring of pathos. Lord
Mahon has so fairly stated his case, that we believe his candour has
laid criticism to sleep, and his readers have generally adopted his
opinions.
The truth is, the Belisarius of history, the bold and splendid general
of Justinian, is a hero of the Roman empire, of the Eastern or Byzantine
empire, if you please, but still historically a Roman hero. Now, on the
other hand, the Belisarius of romance, the vision of a noble victim of
imperial ingratitude, is a creation of Greek genius, of modern Greek
genius, if you prefer adding the depreciating epithet, but still of
Greek genius placed in its undying opposition to Roman power.
We must now introduce to our readers the Belisarius of history as he
really lived, acted, and suffered. It is not necessary for this purpose
to recite his military exploits. They are described in the immortal
pages of Gibbon, and minutely detailed in the accurate biography by Lord
Mahon. It will suffice for our purpose to collect a few authentic
sketches of his personal conduct and character, and some anecdotes of
his style of living, from the works of his secretary Procopius, the last
classic Greek writer, and an historian of no mean merit.
Belisarius was born in the city of Germania, a metropolitan see on the
frontiers of the Thracian and Illyrian nations.[9] Thus, though strictly
speaking he was neither a Roman nor a Greek, he considered himself, and
was considered by his contemporaries, a Roman. The dialect of the
inhabitants of Thrace and Illyria is supposed still to possess a
representative in the modern Albanian; but in the time of Justinian,
the language of the higher classes in the cities was Latin, and there
can be no doubt that Belisarius spoke both Latin and Greek with equal
fluency. As far as race was concerned, it seems, however, tolerably
certain, that he was more closely allied in blood to Scanderberg and
Miaoulis than to Scipio or Epaminondas. As he was a man of rank and
family, he became an officer of the imperial guard at an early age.[10]
His tall and vigorous frame, smooth and handsome face, joined to a
smoother tongue, a calm and equable disposition, and a stout heart, made
him the very man to rise rapidly in the Roman service. Accordingly, as
early as the year 526, he appears in a high military command.[11] Like
Marlborough, to whom he bears some resemblance in personal character, he
strengthened his position at court by marrying the Lady Antonina, the
beautiful favourite of the Empress Theodora, though she was as fierce a
shrew as the Duchess Sarah, and wherewithal not so modest, if we give
credit to her husband's secretary.
It was the fashion at the Horse-guards of Constantinople during the
reign of Justinian, to encourage barbarian usages in military affairs.
Hussars from the country of the Gepids, cuirassiers from Armenia and the
ancient seats of the Goths, and light cavalry from the regions occupied
by the Huns, were the favourite bodies of troops. The young nobles of
the Roman empire adopted the uniforms of these regiments; wore long
hair, inlaid armour, and tight nether garments, and never condescended
to invest their persons in the modest equipments of the old Roman
dragoons, or of the modern legionaries whose ranks were officered by
mere provincials.
The reasons which compelled the imperial government to prefer foreign
mercenaries to native troops were based at first on principles of
internal policy, and at last on absolute necessity. Augustus feared the
Roman senators and knights; Constantine had not the means of paying for
good Roman soldiers; and Justinian could not have found a sufficient
number of suitable recruits among the citizens of his wide-extended
empire. The pivot of the administration of Imperial Rome, as of Imperial
Britain, was the treasury, not the Horse-guards. The taxes paid by the
citizens filled that treasury: but a soldier was exempt from taxation;
consequently, it became a measure of unavoidable necessity on the part
of the Roman government to prevent citizens escaping their financial
burdens by becoming soldiers. Had the citizens got possession of arms,
Rome could not have remained a despotism.
On the other hand, the system of Roman tactics rendered it necessary to
procure military recruits of a degree of physical strength far above the
average standard of mankind. When the population of the empire had been
divided into two widely separated social classes of wealthy citizens and
poor cultivators, serfs, or slaves, the supply of recruits furnished by
the richest portions of the empire became very small. The danger of
employing foreign barbarians, who remained isolated amidst an
innumerable population, and surrounded by hundreds of walled towns,
manned by their own municipal guards, was evidently less than that of
entrusting legions of slaves with arms, and teaching them habits of
combination and discipline. The servile wars, which inflicted a mortal
wound on the Republic, would have been renewed, and would probably have
soon destroyed the Empire.[12]
It is customary with historians to discourse on the impolicy of the
Roman emperors in employing barbarian mercenaries; but the fact is, that
their finances did not admit of their purchasing the thews and sinews
required for the service any where but among the barbarians. The system
certainly answered admirably for the imperial government. It upheld the
tyranny of the Caesars and the terror of the Roman arms for more than a
thousand years; and it might have rendered Rome immortal had she not
committed suicide.
If the system really be so bad as it is often represented, it seems
strange that it should have been adopted with all its imperfections in
British India. But the truth is this; the mercenaries of the Roman
armies were more faithful to their contract than the emperors. It is by
sovereigns and ministers of state, not by generals of mercenaries, that
empires are prepared for destruction. Our Indian empire is always in
greater danger from a conceited Foreign secretary or a foolish
Governor-general than from a rebellion of the native troops. If our
administration be only as wise as that of Imperial Rome, somewhat more
just, and a great deal less avaricious, there seems no reason why a
British government should rule at Calcutta for a shorter period than a
Roman one at Constantinople. The laws of Rome still survive in the
courts of justice of the greater part of Europe; the spirit of the Roman
Republic breathes, at the present hour, in full energy in the Papal
councils; and are we to suppose that the institutions of a more Catholic
philanthropy, in the progress of development under the British
constitution, are less capable of acquiring an inherent vitality?
The age of Belisarius was deeply imbued with the military spirit of the
middle ages; and Belisarius was himself as proud of his accomplishments
as a daring horseman, a good lance, and a stout bowman, as of his
military science. Cavalry was the favourite portion of the army in his
day, and he shared in the general contempt felt for infantry. The
horsemen were sheathed in complete steel; and their helmets,
breast-plates and shields, were impenetrable even to the shafts of the
Persians, who drew their bow-strings to the right ear, and threw
discredit on the prowess of the Homeric archers.[13] The Roman officers,
as must always be the case where cavalry is the principal arm, were
remarkable for personal courage and impetuous daring; and perhaps in the
whole annals of Rome there cannot be found another period in which
headlong rashness was so universally the characteristic of the generals
of the Roman armies.
The favourite position of Belisarius on the field of battle was to
figure like Richard Coeur-de-Lion as a colonel of cuirassiers, not
like Marlborough, to perform the duties of a commander-in-chief.
Procopius prefaces an account of one of his rashest combats by declaring
that he was not in the habit of exposing himself unnecessarily, but on
the occasion in question, he owns that Belisarius fought too much like a
mere soldier in the front rank.
The whole Gothic army advancing to besiege Rome had passed the Tiber
before Belisarius was aware that his troops, stationed to defend the
Milvian bridge, had abandoned their post. On going out to reconnoitre,
he fell in with the enemy. Instead of retreating, he led on the cavalry
that attended him to the charge. He was mounted on his favourite
charger; the Greeks called it Phalion, the barbarians Balan, from its
colour: it was a bay with a white face. Balan was perfectly broken to
his hand, and his armour, wrought by the skill of Byzantine artists, was
too light to incommode his powerful frame, yet tempered to resist the
best-directed arrow or javelin. The person of Belisarius was soon
recognised in the Gothic army, and the shout spread far and wide to the
javelin-men and the archers, "At the bay horse! At the bay horse!" The
bravest of the Gothic chiefs placed their lances in rest, and rushed
forward to bear down the Roman general. The guards of Belisarius, in
that trying hour, showed themselves worthy of their own and, their
general's fame. They closed up by his side, so well as to leave him only
a single enemy. It is ridiculous to attempt describing a personal
encounter thirteen centuries after the event. The duties of Procopius
did not place him at the elbow of Belisarius at such an hour, and even
if he had been there he could have seen but little of what others were
about.
The result of the encounter is matter of history. A thousand Goths fell
in the skirmish, and the bravest of the veteran guards of Belisarius
perished by his side. The barbarians were driven back to their camp; but
when Belisarius imprudently followed them, he was repulsed by the Gothic
infantry forming before the lines, and the Romans were compelled to make
a precipitate retreat. They galloped back to the gates of Rome closely
pursued by fresh squadrons of Gothic cavalry. But as they reached the
walls in disorder, the garrison refused to open the gates, fearing lest
the Goths might force their way into the city with the fugitives, and
believing that Belisarius had perished in the battle. There was now
nothing left for the commander-in-chief but to form a small squadron of
his faithful guards, and make a desperate and sudden charge on the
advancing Goths. The manoeuvre was executed with consummate skill, and
the leading ranks of the enemy were broken, thrown into confusion, and
forced back on the succeeding squadrons by the impetuous charge. The cry
spread that the garrison had made a sally; the obscurity of evening was
commencing, the Goths commenced their retreat; and Belisarius and his
wearied troops were at last allowed to enter Rome. In this desperate
encounter, their respective enemies allowed that Belisarius was the
bravest of the Romans, and Wisand of the Goths. The Roman general
escaped without a wound, but the valiant Goth, borne down in the combat
around the person of Belisarius, was left for dead on the field, where
he remained all the next day, and it was only on the third morning, in
taking up his body for interment, that he was discovered to be still
alive. He recovered from his wounds and lived long afterwards.[14]
Belisarius, unlike the noble barons of more modern days, who were all
pride and presumption in their iron shells, mounted on their dray
horses, but useless when dismounted, did not disdain to add to his
knightly accomplishments that of a most skilful archer. This skill saved
Rome in a dangerous attack. When the Goths advanced their movable
towers against the walls, drawn forward by innumerable yokes of oxen,
Belisarius, placing himself on the ramparts, ordered the garrison to
allow the towers to advance unmolested by the machines to within
bow-shot. Then taking up a long bow, which might have graced the hand of
Robin Hood, and choosing two shafts of a yard in length, he drew the
bowstring to his ear, and shot his shaft at the tower. The Gothic
captain, who was directing its movements from the summit, had trusted
too much to the workmanship of his Milan armour. The fabric was not
equal to that of Byzantium. The shaft pierced him to the heart; he
tottered a moment on the edge of the tower, and then fell headlong
forward. The second shaft brought down another Goth. Belisarius then
ordered his archers to shoot at the oxen, which soon fell, pierced by a
thousand arrows; and the towers that the Gothic army counted on to
enable them to make a general assault, remained immovable until the
Romans could burn them.[15]
Belisarius, fond of cavalry, seems to have overlooked, nay, even to have
neglected, the discipline of the Roman infantry. While besieged in Rome,
he defended the place by a series of cavalry skirmishes, and allowed all
the officers of the infantry who could mount themselves to serve on
horse-back. Some of the native officers of the legionaries, jealous of
their reputation, offered to lead their troops on foot. Belisarius would
hardly allow them to quit the walls, and plainly expressed his want of
confidence in the Roman infantry on the field of battle, while he showed
his utter contempt for the city militia, by keeping it carefully shut up
within the walls. The battle in which the infantry took part proved
unsuccessful; but the officers who led it died bravely, sustaining the
combat after the cavalry had fled.[16]
Yet Belisarius knew well how to appreciate the tactics of the old Roman
legion; and he made use of a singular method of obtaining the great
military advantages to be derived from the possession of a body of the
best infantry. At the battle of Kallinikon, when his cavalry was broken
by the iron-cased horsemen of Persia--the renowned _kataphraktoi_, or
original steel lobsters--the Roman general, with the genius of a Scipio
or a Caesar, saw that the steadiness of a body of infantry could alone
save his army. He immediately ordered the heavy lancers of his own guard
to dismount, and form square before the feebler and less perfectly
equipped soldiers of the legions of the line. With this phalanx,
presenting its closely serried shields and long lances to the repeated
charges of the _kataphraktoi_, he foiled every attack of the victorious
Persians, and saved his army.[17]
Belisarius, however, acquired more favour at the court of Justinian, and
secured the personal affection of the Emperor more, by slaughtering the
people of Constantinople in a city rebellion, originating out of the
factions of the Circus, than by his exploits against the distant enemies
of the empire. The affair was called the Day of Victory. The scene was
repeated on the 4th of October 1795, in the city of Paris, and was
called the Day of the Sections. The part of the Thracian Belisarius was
then performed by the Corsican Bonaparte. In the tragedy of old, three
thousand citizens were massacred by the mild Belisarius, in that of
Paris, hardly three hundred perished by the inexorable Napoleon.
The personal conduct of Belisarius is presented to us under two totally
different points of view, in the works of his Secretary Procopius. In
the authentic history of the Persian, Vandal, and Gothic wars, he
appears as the commander-in-chief of the Roman armies, his actions are
narrated by a Roman historian, and his conduct is held up to the
admiration of Roman society. In the secret history, on the contrary, we
have, it is true, the same man described by the same author, but the
work is addressed to the Greek race, and not to their Roman rulers, and
it presents Belisarius as the instrument of a corrupt and tyrannical
court, engaged in plundering the people, while crouching under the
oppression of which he was the minister. The history of Procopius was
written for the libraries of the Byzantine nobles; the anecdotes for the
clubs of the Greek people. Though composed in the same language, they
belong not only to two different classes of literature, but even to the
literature of two different races of men.[18]
Belisarius was a fortunate, as well as a great general. His victories
over the Vandals and the Goths prove his military talents; but the
spectacle of their kings, Gelimer and Witiges, the representatives of
the dreaded Genseric and the mighty Theoderic, walking as captives
through the streets of Constantinople, made a deeper impression on men's
minds than the slaughter of the bloodiest battle. Nor was the
restoration of the sacred plate of the Temple of the Jews to the city of
Jerusalem, an event of less importance, in a superstitious age, than the
destruction of a barbarian monarchy. Among the spoils of the Vandals at
Carthage, Belisarius had found in the treasury those sacred vessels
which Titus, nearly five centuries before, had carried away to Rome from
the ruins of Jerusalem. Genseric had transported these relics to Africa,
when he plundered Rome in the year 455. Justinian was generous enough to
revive the long forgotten ceremony of a Roman triumph in order to
augment the glory of Belisarius; and the sacred plate of the Jews was
exhibited to the people of Constantinople amidst the pomp of the
gorgeous pageant. The emperor then commanded them to be removed to
Jerusalem, to be preserved in a Christian church.[19]
The restoration of the sacred spoils of Jerusalem rendered the name of
Belisarius renowned in the eastern world, far beyond the bounds of the
Roman empire; the glory of refusing the throne of the Caesars of the
west, amazed the barbarians of Europe as far as the filiation of the
Gothic and Germanic races extended. The glory of being deemed worthy of
the empire, was eclipsed by the singular display of personal dignity
which could refuse the honour. When Belisarius was on the eve of putting
an end to the Gothic monarchy by the conquest of Ravenna and the capture
of Witiges, the Goths, reflecting on their national position in the days
of Alaric and Theoderic, when they were only the soldiers of the empire,
offered their submission to Belisarius, and invited him to assume the
dignity of Emperor of the West. Belisarius refused the offer. He had
seen in his Italian campaigns, that the Gothic nobles of Italy were no
longer the same soldiers as the Gothic mercenaries of the imperial
armies.[20] The merit of refusing the empire must have been deeply felt
by Justinian; but the jealousy excited by the renown, which conferred
the option of accepting such power, gradually effaced the impression of
that merit in the breasts both of the feeble emperor, and of his
energetic and ambitious consort, Theodora. Though Belisarius loved money
and splendour, and had more of Pompey than Caesar in his character, still
the boldest cabinet minister must have felt that lie could no longer
safely be entrusted with the whole military power of the empire. Though
his fidelity remained inviolable, a seditious army could compel him,
even if unwilling, to become its instrument. From the day, therefore,
that Belisarius refused the Empire of the West, a cloud fell over his
military career. It was determined by the imperial administration never
again to entrust him with a force sufficient to proceed in a career of
conquest.
It is needless to dwell on the military events of the life of
Belisarius. Lord Mahon states it as the purpose of his work, to show how
the genius of one man averted the dangers, and corrected the defects,
which beset the tottering empire.[21] Gibbon, in gorgeous phrase, exalts
him to the dignity of being the Africanus of New Rome; and speaks of the
Roman armies as being animated by the spirit of Belisarius, one of those
heroic names which are familiar to every age and to every nation.[22]
But if history is to be composed from the facts recorded by historians,
rather than from their opinions and their distribution of flattery and
censure, it must be owned that Belisarius was only the greatest in a
constellation of gallant warriors. Hilbud, Germanos, and Salomon, were
his worthy companions in arms; and the eunuch Narses was all but his
equal as a general, and greatly his superior as a statesman.
We must now turn to examine the personal conduct of Belisarius. He was
unfortunately too much under the influence of his beautiful wife, though
she was a few years older than her husband. Her close friendship with
the Empress Theodora, her talents, her bold character, and the devoted
attachment she displayed to Belisarius, excuses his too servile
affection. She embarked with him in the African expedition, though
Procopius says that the boldest Roman generals feared the enterprise;
and she accompanied him in Italy. In the historical works of Procopius,
she is represented as an excellent wife; in his secret libel, as a
shameless and profligate woman.
The presence of the Lady Antonina at Carthage and Rome, compelled
Belisarius to keep up a splendid and expensive court. The
commander-in-chief was fond of wealth, Antonina of splendour. The
fortunes of private individuals were still enormous, and rivalled the
wealth of Crassus and the debts of Caesar.[23] Belisarius, like a noble
Roman, availed himself of his commands in Africa, and Italy, to become
master of sums equalling in amount the mighty accumulations of extortion
collected by the consuls and proconsuls of old Rome, when they plundered
Syria, Egypt, Pontus and Armenia. Of this wealth Belisarius made no
inconsiderable display when at Constantinople. He passed along the
streets, and appeared in the Hippodrome, attended by a numerous and
brilliant suite of Gothic, Vandal, and Mauritanian chiefs, mounted on
the finest horses, and clad in the richest armour, that wealth could
command. In the days of his greatest prosperity, his own guards amounted
to 7000 horsemen; and they were more formidable from their discipline
and military experience than from their numbers. To this band of
well-trained veterans, he owed many of his victories over the Goths in
Italy.[24]
The civil administration of Belisarius was never very successful. His
bad financial management involved his African army in revolt; and in
Italy he overlooked disorders, which at last produced indiscipline in
his own ranks, and famine among the Italians. The expense of supporting
his cohorts of personal guards, and the necessity of securing the
services of the most experienced and boldest troopers in this chosen
corps, induced him to wink at irregularities in Africa and Italy, that
he would have been obliged to punish severely near Constantinople or in
Greece. At Abydos, he had ordered two Huns of the mercenary cavalry to
be hanged for committing a murder; at Rome, he ran the risk of being
murdered himself in the midst of a council of war, by one of his
generals, from having neglected too long to cheek the rapacity and
injustice every where perpetrated under the sanction of his authority.
His own personal conduct, and the manner in which he governed Italy,
cannot be better illustrated than by two examples recorded, not in the
secret libel, but in the public history of his secretary Procopius.
Belisarius deposed the Pope of Rome, as well as the Kings of the Vandals
and the Goths. The account Procopius gives us of this extraordinary act,
is conveyed in so few and in such cautious words, that it is necessary
to notice their brevity. "The Pope Silverius was suspected of holding
treasonable communication with the Goths, who at that time besieged
Rome. Belisarius seized him, and banished him to Greece."[25] But even
if the fact that Pope Silverius had really held treasonable
communication with the Goths, be admitted, still the manner in which he
was condemned by Belisarius affords irrefragable evidence of the
injustice of his civil administration.
As the representative of the emperor, Belisarius held a court with all
the pomp of a sovereign prince. Yet when the Pope, accompanied by his
clergy, presented himself at the palace to answer the summons of the
imperial lieutenant, he was compelled to enter alone into the cabinet,
where the affairs of Italy were decided by the governor-general. In this
hall of audience, the Pope found Belisarius seated, while Antonina was
reclining on a sofa, in the midst of the assembly, and taking an active
part in the business transacted. It was she, and not Belisarius, who
interrogated the pontiff. The general's wife insulted the representative
of Saint Peter with reproaches, while the general remained a silent
spectator of the lady's arrogance, and did not even investigate the
evidence of the Pope's guilt. Prejudged by the suspicions of Belisarius,
and condemned by the anger of Antonina, Silverius was allowed no
opportunity of repelling the accusations brought against him. In the
very presence of the commander-in-chief, his pontifical robes were torn
off; and as he was hurried away, he was hastily covered with the garb of
a monk, and immediately embarked for Greece, to die an exile.
Now, whether it be true or not that Belisarius and Antonina persecuted
the Pope to gratify the revenge of Theodora, who had vainly demanded his
approbation of an heretical favourite, or that they committed this act
of injustice to participate in a large bribe paid by his successor,
there can be no doubt that the manner of the Pope's condemnation,
without trial, must have destroyed all confidence in the justice of
Belisarius throughout Italy, and from this moment every calumny against
his administration would readily find credence.
The second example of the arbitrary government of Belisarius, affords
the means of estimating the extent to which the officers of the army
were allowed to carry their peculation and extortion, as well as the
total disregard of all the principles of judicial administration
displayed by the commander-in-chief himself, in compelling them to
disgorge their plunder. The details of this singular event are reported
by Procopius with minuteness and simplicity, and he concludes his
narration with a distinct condemnation of the injustice of his patron's
conduct. He says, it was the only dishonourable act of his life, but
adds, that in spite of the usual moderation of Belisarius, Konstantinos
was murdered.[26]
Konstantinos, a Thracian general, was one of the bravest and most active
of the Byzantine officers. He led a division of the army against Perugia
and Spoleto; and during the assault of Rome by the Goths, the defence of
the tomb of Hadrian had been confided to him. He defended this strange
fortress with great valour, though his proceedings have been the subject
of execration for the lovers of ancient art ever since, as he used the
innumerable statues with which the tomb was adorned, to serve as
missiles against the enemy.[27]
Praesidius, a Roman of Italy, and a man of some distinction, resided at
Ravenna under the dominion of the Goths. Wishing to escape from their
power, he fled, and sought refuge in a church near Spoleto. The only
objects of great value he had carried away with him, were two splendid
daggers set in gold, and richly adorned with valuable gems.
Konstantinos, hearing of this booty, sent his adjutant to take away the
daggers. Praesidius hastened to Rome, and on arriving complained to
Belisarius, who only requested Konstantinos to arrange the affair. Such
conduct appeared to Praesidius a mockery of justice; and one day, as
Belisarius was riding through the Agora, he laid hold of the reins of
the general's horse, and called with a loud voice, "Is it permitted,
Belisarius, by the laws of the Roman empire, that a suppliant who
implores your protection against the barbarians be plundered by Roman
generals?" In vain the staff officers around ordered Praesidius to let go
the general's bridle, and threatened him with punishment; he refused,
until he received a promise from Belisarius that he should receive
justice. There is something truly Oriental in all this, and very little
in accordance with the principles of the Justinian code: the promise of
Belisarius is considered of more value than the laws of the empire. He
appears in the character of a vizier or a sultan in the Arabian Nights.
Next day a council of the principal officers of the army was convoked in
the palace of Belisarius; and, in the presence of the assembled
generals, Konstantinos was summoned to restore the jewelled daggers to
Praesidius. The attempt to discountenance military license, which had so
long been tolerated, appeared to the rude Thracian a parade of justice,
assumed merely for the purpose of imposing on the Italians; he
conceived, that while surrounded by his colleagues, he might safely
despise what he considered to be a farce. He therefore refused to give
up his plunder, and said gaily that he would rather throw the daggers
into the Tiber than restore them. Belisarius, enraged at the insolent
boldness of his proceeding, exclaimed, "Are you not bound to obey me?"
The reply was, "Yes, in every thing else according to the Emperor's
commission; but not in this matter." On receiving this answer, the
commander-in-chief ordered his guards to be summoned. The order
astonished Konstantinos, who saw the affair was assuming a more serious
aspect than he had foreseen. Well aware that peculation and extortion
were not very heinous offences in the Roman armies, he immediately
suspected the existence of a project to ruin him for some other reason,
and cried out, "Are the guards ordered in to murder me?" "No," said
Belisarius, "only to compel you to restore the plunder which your
adjutant seized in the church at Spoleto." Konstantinos saw the
commander-in-chief enraged, and knew the Byzantine government well
enough to feel his life insecure under the turn affairs seemed taking.
With the quick determination of the daring chiefs who then led the
fierce soldiers of the empire, he resolved to secure revenge, and
perhaps make it the means of escape. Suddenly drawing his sword, he
sprang at Belisarius, and made a thrust at his heart. The
commander-in-chief, struck with amazement, only contrived to escape by
jumping back and dodging behind Bessas, a Thracian Goth of high rank in
the Roman army.[28] Konstantinos turned to escape, but was seized by the
generals Ildiger and Valerian; and the guards entering dragged him from
the council chamber to another room, where he was shortly after murdered
by the order of Belisarius.[29]
Now it must be recollected that we have an account of these two
remarkable events in the life of Belisarius from an eye-witness. The
very reserve of Procopius, who, in the affair of the Pope, omits all
mention of Antonina, and glides over the injustice of the proceedings
from dread of the feminine ferocity of the lady, and the priestly
persecution of the successor of Silverius, who still continued to occupy
the Papal chair when the history was written, affords us an indubitable
warrant for the accuracy of the graphic description of the impressive
scene which attended the murder of Konstantinos. When the History of the
Gothic War was published, many of the generals who had been present at
the council were still living.
These pictures of Belisarius and his times are not very favourable. A
governor-general sitting in council, with his wife on the sofa directing
the despatch of business, and a commander-in-chief holding a council at
which one of his generals of division rushes at him with a drawn sword,
do not give us an exalted idea of the order maintained in society during
the brilliant conquests of Justinian's reign. Reasoning from analogy, it
may appear natural enough that such a governor-general and
commander-in-chief should end his career by having his eyes put out and
by begging his bread.
There was another circumstance which very much increased the probability
of Belisarius dying a beggar. We do not wish to deprive the tale of the
smallest portion of the just sympathy of the latest posterity. The fact
is, Belisarius grew enormously rich during his successful campaigns
against Gelimer and Witiges, and even contrived to accumulate treasures
during his unsuccessful wars with Chosroes and Totila.[30] Like his
friend Bessas and his enemy Konstantinos, as the truth must be spoken,
he did not neglect the golden opportunities he enjoyed of gaining golden
spoils from all sorts of men. Now, from the days of Sylla, to those of
Justinian, not to say a good deal earlier and later, it was the avowed
system of the financiers of Rome to increase the budget by
confiscations. The Ottoman empire, heir to most of the vices and some of
the grandeur of Imperial Constantinople, cherished the system as a part
of its strength, until it adopted the more pitiful vices of Western
Europe. Anastasius--not the ecclesiastical historian of the earlier
Popes, but the hero of the "Memoirs of a Greek," by Mr Thomas Hope--in
his ratiocination on the principles of Ottoman finance, gives us a
compendious abstract of those of Imperial Rome during eleven centuries,
from Augustus to Constantine Dragoses:--
"Regarding each officer of the state only in the light of one of the
smaller and more numerous reservoirs, distributed on distant points to
collect the first produce of dews, and drip, and rills, ere the
collective mass be poured into the single greater central basin of the
Sultan's treasury, you give yourself no trouble to check the dishonesty
of your agent, or to prevent his peculations. You rather for a while
connive at, and favour and lend your own authority to his exactions,
which will enable you, when afterwards you squeeze him out, to combine
greater profit with a more signal show of justice. In permitting a
temporary defalcation from your treasury, you consider yourselves as
only lending out your capital at more usurious interest. Nine long
years, while your work is done for you gratuitously, you feign to sleep,
and the tenth you wake from your deceitful slumber; like the roused
lion, you look round where grazes the fattest prey, stretch your ample
claw, crush your devoted victim, and make every drop of his blood, so
long withheld from your appetite, at last flow into the capacious bowels
of your insatiable _hazne_"--(treasury).[31]
Belisarius was certainly a fatted prey, and it is no wonder that his
inordinate wealth excited the cravings of the minister of finance of the
lavish Justinian and the luxurious Theodora. After his return from the
conquest of Italy, he lived at Constantinople in a degree of
magnificence unrivalled by the proudest modern sovereign. His household
consisted, as we have already seen, of a small army; and as he was fond
of parade, he rarely appeared in public without a splendid staff of
mounted officers. His liberality and his military renown ensured him the
applause of the people whenever he presented himself among them. Such
wealth, such a train of guards, and such popularity, not unnaturally
excited both envy and alarm. Accordingly, when the unsuccessful issue of
the campaigns against the Persians under Chosroes, in 541 and 542, had
diminished the popularity of Belisarius, the Emperor seized the occasion
of rendering him less an object of fear by depriving him of a
considerable number of his guards and great part of his treasures.[32]
The picture Procopius has drawn of Belisarius in his disgrace, is by no
means flattering to the general; it represents him as a mean-spirited
and uxorious courtier. "It was a strange spectacle, and incredible, had
we not been eye-witnesses of the fact, to behold Belisarius, deprived of
all his official rank, walking in the streets of Constantinople almost
alone, dejected, melancholy, and fearing for his life."[33]
Shortly after, Belisarius was partially reinstated in favour and sent to
command in Italy against Totila. In 548, he quitted that country for the
second time, after struggling unsuccessfully against the Gothic monarch.
The jealousy of Justinian had prevented his receiving the supplies
necessary for carrying on the war with vigour; and the want of success
is not to be considered as any stain on the military reputation of
Belisarius. Though he returned ingloriously to Constantinople, still,
even amidst the misfortunes of the Roman arms in Italy, he had not
neglected to save or accumulate wealth, and he was enabled to pass the
rest of his life in great if not in regal splendour.[34]
He enjoyed the glory of his earlier exploits, and the popularity secured
by his equable temperament, undisturbed for eleven years. In the year
559, an incursion of the Huns was pushed forward to the very walls of
Constantinople. The weakness of Justinian, the avarice of his ministers,
and the rapacity of his courtiers, had introduced such abuses in the
military establishments of the capital, that in this unexpected danger
the city appeared almost without a regular garrison. In this difficulty,
all ranks, from Justinian to the populace, turned to Belisarius as the
champion of the empire. The aged hero, finding the imperial guards
useless as a military corps, since it had been converted into a body of
pensioners, appointed by the favour of ministers and courtiers, and its
ranks filled up with shopkeepers and valets--assembled such of the
provincial troops and of his old guards as were living in the
capital.[35] With a small body of experienced veterans, and an army in
which fear at least ensured obedience to his orders, he took the field
against the Huns. Victory attended his standard. He not only drove back
the barbarians, but overtook and destroyed the greater part of their
army.
There was nothing of romance in this last campaign of Belisarius. He
could no longer lead his gallant guards to display his own, and their
valour, in some rash enterprise. His war-horse, Balan, was in its grave,
and his own strength no longer served him to act the colonel of
cuirassiers. But he was, perhaps, all the better general for the change;
and his manoeuvres effected a more complete destruction of the Huns,
than would have resulted from the defeat of their army by the bold
sallies of his youthful tactics.
The glory of the aged hero, and the proofs it afforded of his great
popularity and extensive authority over the military classes throughout
the empire, again revived the jealousy of the court. The ministers of
Justinian perhaps dreaded that the affection of the emperor for his
former favourite might recall Belisarius into public life, and effect a
change in the cabinet. To prevent this, they calumniated him to the
feeble prince, and worked so far on his timidity as to induce the
emperor to withhold those testimonials for great public services which,
it was customary to bestow. The fact that he was persecuted by the
court, endeared Belisarius to the people and augmented the aversion of
the emperor.[36]
Belisarius was now an object of suspicion to the government. And at this
interesting period of his life, all cotemporary history suddenly fails
us. The events of his latter days are recorded by writers who lived more
than two hundred years after his death.[37]
In the year 562, a plot against the life of Justinian was discovered,
and Belisarius was accused by some of the conspirators as privy to it.
The accusation was sure to please the party in power. Several of his
dependents, on being put to the torture, gave evidence against him. He
was suspected by the government; but his conduct during a long life
rendered the charge improbable, and the Roman law never placed any great
reliance on evidence extracted by torture.[38] In this bitter hour, it
must be confessed that Justinian treated Belisarius with more justice
than he had treated the Pope Silverius. A privy council was convoked, at
which the principal nobles, the patriarch, and some of the officers of
the imperial household, were present with the emperor in person.
Belisarius was summoned, and the cause of the conspirators was heard.
Justinian was induced for a moment to believe in his guilt. The order
was given to place him under arrest. He was deprived of the guards that
still attended him, his fortune was sequestered, and he was confined a
prisoner in his palace. Six days after the first examination, the
business of the conspiracy was again investigated, and Justinian did not
retract his previous suspicions. Belisarius was kept under arrest in
his own palace without any further proceedings being directed against
him. These examinations took place on the 5th and 11th of December; and
the text of Malalas must be received as convincing evidence that
Justinian took no stronger measures against Belisarius before the
commencement of the year 563.[39]
On the 19th of July of that year Belisarius was restored by Justinian to
all his honours. Some months of cool reflection had convinced the
emperor, that the extorted evidence of a few dependents against an
opposition leader, ought not not to outweigh the testimony of a long
life of unstained loyalty. The remainder of that life was passed in
tranquillity; and in the month of March of the year 565, the patrician
Belisarius terminated his glorious career, and his fortune reverted to
the imperial treasury. Such is the brief account which we possess of the
last days of the conqueror of the Vandals and the Goths--the restorer of
the spoils of Jerusalem--the deposer of a Pope--the destroyer of the
tomb of Hadrian--and the last of the Romans who triumphed, leading kings
captive in his train.[40] Antonina survived her husband, and lived in
retirement with Vigilantia, the sister of Justinian, but in the
enjoyment of wealth. Before her death she reconstructed the church of St
Procopius, which had been destroyed by fire; and it received, from her
affection for Justinian's sister, the name of Vigilantia.[41]
We must now notice the accounts of the modern Byzantine writers. George
Cedrenus was a monk of the eleventh century, who has left us a history
of the world to the year 1057. It contains many popular stories, but
often transcribes or abridges official documents as well as ancient
historians. In this work we might expect to find any fable, generally
accredited, concerning Belisarius; but the account of his latter days is
in exact conformity with those of Theophanes and Malalas.[42]
John Zonaras had been Grand Drungary, or First Lord of the Admiralty at
Constantinople, before he retired to end his days in a monastery on
Mount Athos. His Chronicle extends from the Creation to the year 1118,
and contains much information not found elsewhere. He is considered as
among the most valuable of the Byzantine historians. He mentions that
Belisarius was compromised in the plot against the life of Justinian;
that he was deprived of his guards and kept prisoner in his house; and
that, when he died, his fortune was taken by the imperial treasury.[43]
Consequently Belisarius was in possession of his fortune at the time of
his death, and it is possible that Justinian may have been his legal
heir.[44]
The chronicle published under the name of Leo Grammaticus, which dates
from the twelfth century, states that Belisarius, having been accused of
plotting against the Emperor Justinian, died of grief.[45]
Such are the historical accounts which the annals of the Byzantine
empire furnish concerning the fate of Belisarius. But, attached to the
collection of Justinian's laws, there is a rescript, which would alone
afford conclusive evidence of the restoration of Belisarius to all his
honours, if we could place implicit reliance on the date it bears.
Unfortunately, however, for our purpose, the authority on which Cujacius
published it, is not sufficiently established to give satisfactory
authenticity to its date. This date is 565, and in the month of March of
this year Belisarius died; and in the month of November Justinian also
followed him. The rescript speaks of Belisarius incidentally as "our
most glorious patrician;" an expression incompatible with his having
suffered any great indignity, or remained in permanent disgrace.[46]
We must now turn from examining public history, to consider popular
feeling. Belisarius, as we have already observed, was the hero of the
Roman world; but another society existed in the very heart of that
world, which hated every thing Roman. This society was Greek; it had its
own feelings, its own literature, and its own church. Of its literature,
Procopius has left us a curious specimen in his Secret History, where
the facts of his public Roman history are presented to the discontented
Greeks, richly spiced with calumny and libels on the Roman
administration. Peculiar circumstances gave the reign of Justinian a
prominent position in the history of the world, as the last great era of
Roman history, and its memory was long cherished with a feeling of
wonder and awe.[47] We must, however, remark, that from the death of
Justinian to the accession of Leo III. the Isaurian, the government of
the Eastern empire was strictly Roman. From the reign of Leo III. to
that of Basil I. the Macedonian (867) if not quite Roman, it was very
far from Greek.
Three centuries after the death of Belisarius and Justinian, new
feelings arose. The Greeks then looked back on the authentic history of
Belisarius as they did on that of Scipio and Sylla,--as a history
unconnected with their own national glory, but marking the last
conquests which illustrated the annals of the Roman empire, and
affording one of those mighty names admirably adapted
"To point a moral, or adorn a tale."
We must now endeavour to prove that its use for this purpose, in the
manner transmitted to us, was subsequent to the accession of Basil the
Macedonian.
We believe that the blindness and beggary of Belisarius, as recorded in
the Greek romance, of which the memory has become a part of the
tradition of Western Europe, was suggested to the novelist by the fate
of Symbat, an Armenian noble in the Byzantine service, who married the
daughter of the Caesar Bardas, the uncle of the Emperor Michael III. The
catastrophe of the romance is mentioned by two writers of the twelfth
century. One is the anonymous author of a description of Constantinople,
who was a cotemporary of Zonaras. The other is John Tzetzes, who wrote a
rambling work consisting of mythological and historical notices in Greek
political, civil, or profane verse, as it may be called, (_versus
politici_)--the epic poetry of modern Greece; correctly compared by Lord
Byron to the heroic strain of
"A captain bold of Halifax who lived in country quarters."
This poet flourished at the end of the twelfth century.
The anonymous Guide-Book, relates that Justinian, envying the glory of
Belisarius, put out his eyes, and ordered him to be placed in the Lauron
with a bowl of earthenware in his hand, that the charitable might bestow
on him an obolus.[48] Tzetzes repeats the same story in his learned
doggrel, only he gives Belisarius a wooden dish in his hand, and
stations him to beg in the Milion or Stadium of Constantinople. But
Tzetzes, who piqued himself on his historical knowledge, candidly tells
his readers, that other chronicles say that Belisarius was restored to
all his former honours.[49]
The notices of a Greek guide-book, and the tales of a popular versifier,
concerning a Roman general, ought certainly to be received with great
caution, when they are found to be at variance with all historical
evidence. In this case, tradition cannot be admitted to have had any
existence for many centuries after the death of Belisarius. The supposed
tradition is Greek,--the authentic history is Roman. But historical
evidence exists to show that all the details concerning the blindness
and beggary of Belisarius have been copied by the author of the romance,
from circumstances which occurred at Constantinople in the year 866.
In that year, the Armenian, Symbat, after assisting his wife's cousin
the Emperor Michael III. (who rejoiced in the jolly epithet of the
Drunkard,) and the future emperor Basil the Macedonian, (who
subsequently murdered his patron the Drunkard,) to assassinate his own
father-in-law Caesar Bardas, rebelled against his connexion the
Drunkard.[50] He engaged Peganes, the general of the theme of Opsikion,
or the provinces on the Asiatic shore of the Hellespont, in his
rebellion. Peganes was soon taken prisoner by the imperial troops, and
the Drunkard ordered his eyes to be put out and his nose to be cut off,
and he then sent him to stand in the Milion for three days successively,
with a bowl in his hand, to solicit alms. A month after, the news that
Symbat was captured was brought to the emperor, while he was feasting in
the palace of St Mamas. He ordered Peganes to be led out to meet the new
prisoner, that Symbat might be conducted into Constantinople with every
possible indignity. The blind and mutilated Peganes was compelled to
walk before his friend, with a bowl of earthenware in the form of a
censer, filled with sulphur, as if burning incense to perfume him. The
right eye of Symbat was put out, and his right hand cut off, and in this
state he was placed in the Lauron, like a beggar, with a bowl hung
before his breast to receive charity. Three days after, the two rebels
were allowed to return to their houses, where they were kept prisoners.
Symbat regained possession of his sequestered fortune when Basil the
Macedonian became emperor.
Now, even if we admit the possibility of the politic Justinian having
treated Belisarius as Michael the Drunkard treated the unprincipled
Symbat, still it is impossible to compare the words in which the
Guide-book and Tzetzes commemorate the misfortunes of the hero with the
narratives of the punishment of Peganes and Symbat, without feeling that
the former are transcribed from the latter.
To prove this, if necessary, we could quote the words of our
authorities. The earliest account of the punishment of Peganes and
Symbat is given by George the Monk, a Byzantine writer whose chronicle
ends with the year 920. The chronicle of Simeon Metaphrastes, which also
belongs to the tenth century, and that of Leo Grammaticus, give the same
account, almost in the same words. There can be no doubt that they are
all copied from official documents; the style is a rich specimen of the
monastic state-paper abridgment.[51]
The state-paper style was retained in the romance from which the
Guide-book was copied, to impress the feeling of reality on the minds of
the people; while the mention of the obolus, an ancient coin, marked
the antique dignity with which the tale was invested. The obolus had
been, for centuries, unknown in the coinage of Constantinople; and the
word was no longer in use in the public markets of Greece. But besides
this, if the Guide-book is to be admitted as an authority for a
historical fact, it very soon destroys the value of its own testimony
concerning the blindness and beggary of Belisarius; for, only a few
lines after recording his disgrace, it mentions a gilt statue of the
hero as standing near the palace of Chalce.
Such is fame. The real Belisarius, the hero of the history and the
libels of Procopius, being a Roman general, owes his universal
reputation to the creation of an imaginary Belisarius by some unknown
Greek romance-writer or ballad-singer. The interest of mankind in the
conquests and records of Byzantine Rome has become torpid; but the
feelings of humanity, in favour of the victims of courtly ingratitude,
are immortal. The unextinguishable aversion of the Hellenic race to
tyranny and oppression, has given a degree of fame to the name of
Belisarius which his own deeds, great as they were, would never have
conferred. This is but one proof of the singular influence exercised by
the Hellenic mind over the rest of the world during the middle ages. It
may be continually traced in the literature both of the east and the
west. Whenever the sympathies are awakened by general sentiments of
philanthropy among the emirs of the east, or the barons of the west,
there is reason to suspect that the origin of the tale must be sought in
Greece. Europe has been guided by the mind of Hellas in every age, from
the days of Homer to those of Tzetzes; and its power has been maintained
by addressing the feelings common to the whole human race--feelings long
cherished in Greece after they had been banished from western society by
Goths, Franks, and Normans.[52]
There is yet one important reflection which, if the study of the age of
Belisarius and Justinian does not suggest, we have failed to comprehend
its true spirit. In spite of its glory--of its legislative, its legal,
its military, its administrative, its architectural, and its
ecclesiastical greatness, it was destitute of that spiritual power which
rules and guides the souls of men. It was an age entirely material and
selfish. Religion was a mere formula: Christianity slept victorious
amidst the ruins of extinguished paganism. Belisarius could depose one
Pope, and sell the chair and the keys of St Peter to another, without
rousing the indignation of the Christian world. Liberty was an
incomprehensible term. That energy of individual independence and
physical force which excited the barbarians of the north to conquer the
western empire, and enabled the Romans of Byzantium to save the eastern,
was sinking into lethargy. Patriotism was an unknown feeling. Indeed,
what idea of nationality or love of country could be formed by the
privileged classes of Constantinople? Their successors the Turks may be
taken as interpreters of the sentiments of the Byzantine Romans on this
subject, who, while vegetating in Stamboul, gravely tell you that Mecca
is their country.
In short, the spirit of liberty and religion was torpid in the empire of
Justinian, and perhaps in the soul of Belisarius. These two remarkable
men were both governed by the material impulses of military discipline
and systematic administration. Verily, the mission of Mahomet was
necessary to awaken mankind, and rouse the Christian world from its
lethargy to the great mental struggle which, from the hour of the
unfolding of the banner of Islam, has left the minds of men no repose;
and will henceforth compel them to unite the spirit of religion with all
their restless endeavours to realise each successive dream of social
improvement that the human soul shall dare to conceive.
_Athens, March 20, 1847._