Obrazy na stronie

of government seems to have been sometimes Lyons with Typhon, that is, red-haired. (Diod. Sic, 1, 88.)

(Lugdunum), and sometimes Geneva-By their old constitution, they had kings, called hendinos, whom they chose and deposed at their pleasure. If any great calamity befell them, as a failure of the crops, a pestilence, or a defeat, the king was made responsible for it, and his throne was given to another, from whom they hoped for better times. Before their conversion to Christianity (which happened after their settlement in Gaul), they had a high-priest called Sinestus, whose person was sacred, and whose office was for life. The trial by combat even then existed among them, and was regarded as an appeal to the judgment of God— Continually endeavouring to extend their limits, they became engaged in a war with the Franks, by whom they were at last completely subdued, under the son of Clovis, after Clovis himself had taken Lyons. They still preserved their constitution, laws, and customs for a time. But the dignity of king was soon abolished, and, under the Carlovingians, the kingdom was divided into provinces, which, from time to time, shook off their dependance. Their later movements belong to modern history. (Claud, Mamert. Paneg. Maximian, c. 5.-Hadrian, Wales. Rer. Franc., 1, p. 50.— Jornand, de Regnor. Success., p. 54.—Id. de reb. Get., p. 98.-Paul. Warnefr. de gest. Longob., 3, 3.— Encyclop. Americ, vol. 2, p. 329.) Busiris, a king of Egypt, son of Neptune and Lysianassa daughter of Epaphus, or (as Plutarch states, from the Samian Agatho), of Neptune and Anippe, daughter of the Nile. (Plut., Parall, p. 317.) his king, in consequence of an oracle, offered up strangers on the altar of Jupiter: for Egypt having been afflicted with a dearth for nine years, a native of Cyprus, named Thrasius, a great soothsayer, came thither, and said that it would cease if they sacrificed a stranger every year to Jupiter. Busiris sacrificed the prophet himself first of all, and then continued the practice. When Hercules, in the course of his wanderings, came into Egypt, he was seized and dragged to the altar; but he burst his bonds, and slew Busiris, his son Amphidamas, and his herald Chalbes. (Apollod., 2, 5, 11.)—Now who was this Busiris : —We have here a question to which the ancients themselves gave very different answers. Isocrates, in defending the memory of the Egyptian monarch, pretends that he lived two centuries before Perseus, and, consequently, long anterior to Hercules. (Isocr., Busir., c. 15.) Other writers have made mention of from three to five kings of Egypt bearing this same name. (Heyne, ad Apollod., l. c.—Sturz., ad Pherecyd, p. 141—Compare Theon., Progymn, c. 6–Syncell, Chron, p. 152–Interpret. ad Diod, 1, 8S.) Herodotus contradicts the common tradition, and seeks to free the Egyptians from the reproach of having offered up human victims. He may be right as regards the times immediately preceding the period when he himself flourished, since it is well known that king Amasis abolished human sacrifices at Heliopolis, and great changes took place also after the Persian conquest. Still, however, numerous scenes and images delineated in the temples and sepulchres of Egypt, speak but too plainly for the existence of this frightful custom in earlier times. (Costaz, Descript, de l'Eg., vol. 1, c. 9, p. 401–Guignaut, planche xliv.– Compare Manctho, ap. Porphyr. de Abstin, 2, 55– Plut, de Is. et Os., p. 556, ed. Wyttenb.—Plut, de Malign. Herod., p. 857.) According to Eratosthenes, as cited by Strabo (802), Egypt never had a king named Busiris, but the whole superstructure of fable erected upon this name has no other origin than the odious inhospitality of the inhabitants of the Busiritic nome. We have here, without doubt, a glimpse of the truth, which is fully revealed to us by Diodorus Siculus. According to this writer, or, rather, the tradition collected by him, the kings of Egypt immolated in earlier times, on the tomb of Osiris, men of the same colour

They sacrificed also cattle of this same hue, a circumstance that reminds us of the red heifer mentioned in scripture (Numb., 19, 2–Compare Spencer, de Legibus Hebr. ritual., 15, p. 489, ed. Pfaff–Witsius, #. 2, 8.) Now, continues Diodorus, these red-haired persons were almost always strangers, few of the Egyptians being found with hair of that colour; and hence arose the fable of human sacrifices by Busiris. In fact, expressly adds this writer, Busiris is not the name of a king, but means, in the AEgyptian language, “the tomb of Osiris.” We have here, then, a solution of the whole legend. The settered Hercules is the sun in the winter season, enseebled and in the hands of his enemy. He is about to become the prey of the tomb (the victim of Busiris); but, on a sudden, resumes his strength, breaks his setters, and triumphs over gloom and darkness.-But why sacrifice victims of the peculiar colour mentioned above! Possibly we have here a traditionary allusion to the shepherd race, the red-haired, blue-eyed strangers, who once overran the land, and whose cruel devastations well entitled them to be identified, in a degree, with Typhon, the spirit of all evil.—Jablonski (Voc. AEgypt., p. 54) and Zoega (de Obelisc., p. 288) explain the word Busiris through the Coptic Be-Ousiri, i.e., “the tomb of Osiris,” in accordance with the remark of Diodorus, mentioned above. Champollion, on the other hand, writes the word Pousiri, and sees in it only the name of Osiris, preceded by the article. He condemns, at the same time, as altogether absurd, the etymology given by many of the Greeks, namely, Boüç and 'Oatpic. (Com. pare Steph. Byz., s. v.) Agreeing with him on this latter point, we must nevertheless regard the expla. nation of Diodorus, which he also rejects, as entitled to great weight. Plutarch, moreover (de Is. et Os., c. 21), says expressly, that Boüalpig is the same as Taçãaupts, which he derives, in consequence, from ráðoc, “a tomb,” and 'Oatpac. (Creuzer, Symbolik, vol. 1, p. 353, seqq.—Guigniaut, vol. 1, pt. 2, p. 848, seqq.)—II. There were three or four cities of this name in ancient Egypt, the most celebrated of which is laced by Herodotus in the centre of the Delta. It |. a magnificent temple of Isis. (Herod., 2, 59.— Compare Strab., 802.—Diod. Sic, 1, 85, et 88. – Wesseling, ad Diod, l. c.—Champollion, l'Egypte sous les Pharaons, vol. 1, p. 365; vol. 2, p. 42, &c.) It is worthy of remark, that these were all sepulchral cities. (Guigniaut, l.c.) Butes, I. one of the descendants of Amycus, king of the Bebryces, very expert in the combat of the cestus. He was one of the Argonauts, and leaped overboard in order to swim to the island of the Sirens, but Venus caught him up and conveyed him to Lilybaeum in Sicily. Here she became by him the mother of Eryx. (Apoll. R., 4,912.- Virg., AEn, 5,372.)—II. A son of Pandion king of Athens, and brother of Erechtheus. The father divided his offices between his two sons, giving Erechtheus his kingdom, and Butes the priesthood of Minerva and Neptune Erichthonius. Butes married Chthonia, the daughter of his brother, and the sacerdotal family of the Butada deduced their lineage from him. (Apollod, 3, 15, 1.)—III. An armourbearer to Anchises, and afterward to Ascanius. Apollo assumed his shape when he descended from heaven to encourage Ascanius to fight. Butes was killed by Turnus. (Virg., AEn., 9,647; 12, 632.) Buthrötum, a town of Epirus, opposite Corcyra. It was originally a small village, but was subsequently fortified by the Romans, in order to keep in subjection the inhabitants of the interior, and became a place of great consequence. Virgil makes Helenus to have reigned here. (AEm., 3,295, seqq.) Stephanus Byzantinus derives the name from an ox (Bosc) .# broken loose at this place when about being sacrificed. (Cramer's Anc. Greece, vol. 1, p. 107.) 271

Butus, a city of Egypt, at the Sebennytic mouth of the Nile, or, rather, on the southern shore of the Butus Lacus, the outlet from which into the sea is formed by the Ostium Sebenny ticum. It was.famed for its temples of Apollo, Diana, and Latona, that is, of Egyptian deities supposed to coincide with these. The temple of Latona had a celebrated oracle connected with it, and the goddess had also an annual festival here, which was one of the most numerously attended in Egypt. The shrine of the goddess, according to Herodotus, was of one solid stone, having equal sides, each side, forty cubits long. It was brought from a quarry in the isle of Philae, near the cataracts, on rafts, for the distance of 200 leagues, to its destined station, and seems to have been the heaviest weight ever moved by human power. It employed many thousand men for three years in its transportation. The nodern Kom-Kasir is thought to correspond to the ancient city. Schlichthorst, however, gives the modern name of the ancient site as El-Bucub. (Herod., 2, 59, et 63–Plin., 5, 10.) Byblus, a town of Phoenicia, nearly midway between Tripolis and Berytus. Stephanus of Byzantium calls it a very ancient city, but this expression suits better an earlier place, called Palaeobyblus. The name Byblus itself shows very plainly that the founders of the place were Greeks, and merely took the inhabitants of Palaeobyblus to reside with them. The influence of Grecian customs here is also shown by the worship of Adonis, to whom a temple was consecrated in this city, and the river called after whom was in the neighbourhood of this place. Byblus did not lie directly on the coast, but on a height at some distance from it. The modern name is Esbile, or, according to the Frank pronunciation, Dschibile. The appellation Zebelet occurs already in Phocas. (Joh. Phoc., c. 5.—Mannert, Geogr., vol. 6, pt. 1, p. 383.) ByRsa, the citadel of Carthage. The story commonly told about the origin of its name is as follows: When Dido came to Africa she bought of the inhabitants as much land as could be encompassed by a bull's hide. After the agreement, she cut the hide in small thongs, and enclosed a large piece of territory, on which she built a citadel, which she called Byrsa (3ápaa, a hide). This, however, is a mere fable of the Greeks. The name is derived from the Punic term Basra, “a fortification,” “a citadel,” the sibilant being transposed. (Gesen., Phoen. Mon., p. 420– Compare Heyne, ad Virg., AEm., 1, 367.-Walck., Opusc., vol. 1, p. 103.) Byzacium, a district of Africa Propria, lying above the Syrtis Minor. The Carthaginians were the possessors of it, and for a long time allowed no Roman vessels to navigate the coast below the Hermean promontory, fearful lest their enemies might be tempted to seize what formed the granary of Carthage. This district was originally distinct from what was termed Emporia, which lay below it. Afterward, however, they became united into one, and the territory of Byzacium was extended upward as far as the river Bagradas, thus forming the Byzacena Provincia. (Plin., 5, 4.—Liv., 29, 25.-Polyb., 1, 82—Id., 3, 23.−Id., Excerpt. Leg., 118.)—Gesenius deduces the name Byzacium (Bizacium, Bwaaakiriç, Polyb.) from the Punic Byt saki, “an irrigated region.” (Phoon. Mon., p. 420.) Hamaker, less correctly, from Beth saki, “the abode of irrigation.” (Miscell. Phoen., p. 234.) Byz ANTiu M, a celebrated city of Thrace, on the shore of the Thracian Bosporus, called at a later period Constantinopolis, and made the capital of the Eastern empire of the Romans. It was founded by a Dorian colony from Megara, or, rather, by a Megarian colony in conjunction with a Thracian prince. For Byzas, whom the city acknowledged, and celebrated in a festival as its founder, was, according to the legend, a son of Neptune and Ceroessa the daughter of Io, and ruled over all the

adjacent country. The meaning of the myth would appear to be, that a Thracian prince, having united himself in marriage with a Grecian female, founded the city, with the aid of a Greek colony, and gave the place a name derived from his own. (Scymn., 715. –Euseb., Chron. Ol., 30, 2.—Steph. Byz., s. v.–Eustath., ad Dion. Perieg., 803.-Dionys. Byzant., p. 5–Geogr. Gr. Min., vol. 3.) The early commerce of Megara was directed principally to the shores of the Propontis, and this people had sounded Chalcedon seventeen years before Byzantium, and Selymbria even prior to Chalcedon. (Herod., 4, 144.—Scymn., 714.) When, however, their trade was so still farther to the north, and had reached the shores of the Euxine, the harbour of Chalcedon sank in importance, and a commercial station was required on the opposite side of the strait. This station was Byzantium. The appellation of “blind men,” given to the Chalcedonians by the Persian general Megabyzus (Herod., 4, 144), for having overlooked the superior site where Byzantium was afterward founded, does not therefore appear to have been well merited. As long as Chalcedon was the northernmost point reached by the commerce of Megara, its situation was preferable to any offered by the opposite side of the Bosporus, because the current on this latter side runs down from the north more strongly than it does on the side of Chalcedon, and the harbour of this city, therefore, is more accessible to vessels coming from the south. On the other hand Byzantium was far superior to Chalcedon for the northern trade, since the current that set in strongly from the Euxine carried vessels directly into the harbour of Byzantium, but prevented their approach to Chalcedon in a straight course. (Polyb., 4, 43.) The harbour of Byzantium was peculiarly favoured by nature, being deep, capacious, and sheltered from every storm. The current of the Euxine swept vessels into it without the aid of sail or oars, and it also brought thither various kinds of fish that afforded a lucrative article of commerce. From its shape, and the rich advantages thus connected with it, the harbour of Byzantium obtained the name of Chrysoceras, or “the Golden Horn,” which was also applied to the promontory or neck of land that contributed to form it. (Plin., 4, 11.Amm. Marcell., 22, 8.) And yet, notwithstanding all these advantages, Byzantium remained for a long time an inconsiderable place. The declining commerce of Megara, and the character which Byzantium still sustained of being a half-barbarian place, may serve to account for this. At a subsequent period the Milesians sent hither a strong colony, and so altered for the better the aspect of things, that they are regarded by some ancient writers as the founders of the city itself. (Vell. Paterc., 2, 15.) When, at a later day, the insurrection of the Asiatic Greeks had been crushed by Darius, and the Persian fleet was reducing to obedience the Greek cities along the Hellespont and Propontis, the Byzantines, together with a body of Chalcedonians, would not wait for the coming of the Persians, but, leaving their habitations, and fleeing to the Euxine, built the city of Mesembria on the upper coast of Thrace. (Herod., 6, 33.) The Persians destroyed the empty city, and no Byzantium for some time thereafter existed. This will explain why Scylax, in his Periplus, passed by Byzantium in silence, while he mentions all the Grecian settlements in this quarter, and among them even Mesembria itself. Byzantium re-appeared aster the overthrow of Xerxes, some of the old inhabitants having probably returned, and here Pausanias, the commander of the Grecian forces, took up his headquarters. He gave the city a code of laws, and a government modelled, in some degree, after the Spartan form, and hence he was regarded by some as the true founder of the city. (Justin, 9, 1.) The Athenians succeeding to the hegemony, Byzantium fell under their control, and received so many imrtant additions from them, that Ammianus Marcelinus, in a later age, calls it an Attic colony (22, 8). The city, however, was a Doric one, in language, customs, and laws, and remained so even after the Athenians had the control of it. The maintenance of this military post became of great importance to the Greeks during their warfare with the Persians in subsequent years, and this circumstance, together with the advantages of a lucrative and now continually increasing commerce, gave Byzantium a high rank among Grecian cities. After Athens and Sparta had weakened the power of each other by national rivalry, and neither could lay claim to the empire of the sea, Byzantium became an independent city, and turned its whole attention to commerce. Its strong situation enabled it, at a subsequent period, to resist successfully the arms of Philip of Macedon; nor did Alexander, in his eagerness to march into Asia, make any attempt upon the place. It preserved also a neutral character under his successors. The great evil to which the city of Byzantium was exposed came from the inland country, the Thracian tribes continually making incursions into the fertile territory around the place, and carrying off more or less of the produce of the fields. The city suffered severely also from the Gauls; being compelled to pay a yearly tribute, amounting at least to eighty talents. After the departure of the Gauls it again became a flourishing place, but its most prosperous period was during the Roman sway. It had thrown itself into the arms of the Romans as early as the war against the younger Philip of Macedon, and enjoyed from this people not only complete protection, out also many valuable commercial privileges. It was allowed, moreover, to lay a toll on all vessels passing through the straits, a thing which had been attempted before without success, and this toll it shared with the Romans. (Strabo, 320–Herodian, 3, 1.) But the day of misfortune at length came. In the contest for the empire between Severus and Niger, Byzantium declared for the latter, and stood a siege in consequence, which continued long after Niger's overthrow and death. After three years of almost incredible exertions, the place surrendered to Severus. The few remaining inhabitants whom famine had spared were sold as slaves, the city was razed to the ground, its territory given to Perinthus, and a small village took the place of the great commercial emporium. Repenting soon after of what he had done, Severus rebuilt Byzantium, and adorned it with numerous and splendid buildings, which in a later age still bore his name, but it never recovered its former rank until the days of Constantine. (Herodian, 3, 6–Dio Cass., 74, 10—Spartian., Caracall., c. 1–Zosimus, 2, 30. —Suidas, s. v. Xetopoc.—Treb. Pollio, Gallen., c. 6.—Claud., c. 9.)—Constantine had no great affection for Rome as a city, nor had the inhabitants any great regard for him. He felt the necessity, moreover, of having the capital of the empire in some more central quarter, from which the movements of the German tribes on the one hand, and those of the Persians on the other, might be observed. He long sought for such a locality, and believed at one time that he had found it in the neighbourhood of the Sigaean promontory, on the coast of Troas. He had even commenced building here, when the superior advantages of Byzantium as a centre of empire attracted his attention, and he finally resolved to make this the capital of the Roman world. For a monarchy possessing the western portion of Asia, and the largest part of Europe, together with the whole coast of the Mediterranean Sea, nature herself seemed to have destined Byzantium as a capital. Constantine's plan was carried into rapid execution. The ancient city had possessed a circuit of forty stadia, and covered merely two hills, one close to the water, on which the Seraglio at pres

ent stands, and another adjoining it, and extending toM. M.

wards the interior to what is now the Besestan, or great market. The new city, called Constantinopolis, or “City of Constantine,” was three times as large, and covered four hills, together with part of a fifth, having a circuit of somewhat less than fourteeen geographical miles. Every effort was made to embellish this new capital of the Roman world; the most splendid edifices were erected, an imperial palace, mumerous residences for the chief officers of the court, churches, baths, a hippodrome; and inhabitants were procured from every quarter. Its rapid increase called, from time to time, for a corresponding cnlargement of the city, until, in the reign of Theodosius II., when the new walls were erected (the previous ones having been thrown down by an earthquake), Constantinople attained to the size which it at present has. (Zonaras, 13, 23.) Chalcondylas supposes the walls of the city to be 111 stadia in circumference; Gyllius, about thirteen Italian miles; but, according to the best modern plans of Constantinople, it is not less than 19,700 yards. The number of gates is twenty-eight; fourteen on the side of the port, seven towards the land, and as many on the Propontis. The city is built on a triangular promontory, and the number of hills which it covers is seven. Besides the name of Constantinopolis, or Constantinou polis (Kovarantivov Tóżuc), this city had also the more imposing one of New Rome (Néa Poum), which, however, gradually fell into disuse. At the present day, the peasants in the neighbourhood, while they repair to Constantinople, say in vulgar Greek that they are going estan bolin (i. e., & Tāv Tóżiv), “to the city,” whence has arisen the Turkish name of the place, namely, Stamboul. The more polished or less barbarous inhabitants, however, frequently call it Constantinia. It is easy to recognise in the vulgar Greek of the peasantry, as just given, the remains of the ancient Doric. (Mannert, Geogr., vol. 7, p. 154, scqq.) For an account of the Byzantine empire consult the succeeding article, at the end of which also will be found some remarks on the Byzantine historians, as they have been denominated. —Constantinople was taken by Mohammed II., on the 29th May, A.D. 1453. Byzantinum imperium. The Byzantine, or Eastern Roman Empire, comprehended at first, in Asia, the country on this side of the Euphrates, the coasts of the Black Sea, and Asia Minor; in Africa, Egypt; and in Europe, all the countries from the Hellespont to the Adriatic and Danube. This survived the Western Empire 1000 years, and was even increased by the addition of Italy and the coasts of the Mediterranean. It commenced in 395, when Theodosius divided the Roman empire between his two sons, Arcadius and Honorius. The Eastern Empire fell to the elder, Arcadius, through whose weakness it suffered many misfortunes. During his minority Rufinus was his guardian and minister, between whom and Stilicho, the minister of the Western Empire, a fierce rivalry existed. The Goths laid waste Greece. Eutropius, the successor, and Gainas, the murderer, of Rufinus, were ruined by their own crimes. The latter lost his life in a civil war excited by him (A.D. 400). Arcadius and his empire were now ruled by his proud and covetous wife Eudoxia. till her death (A.D. 404). The Isaurians and the Huns wasted the provinces of Asia, and the country along the Danube. Theodosius, the younger, succeeded his father (A.D. 408), under the guardianship of his sister Pulcheria. , Naturally of an inferior mind, his education had made him entirely imbecile, and unfit for self-command. Pulcheria, who bore the title of Augusta, administered the kingdom ably. Of the Western Empire, which had been ceded to Valentinian, Theodosius retained Western Illyria. The Greeks fought with success against the King of the Persians, Varanes. The kingdom of Armenia, thrown into confusion by internal dissensions, ** at the same time by the Romans and the Persians, became now an apple of contention between the two nations (A.D. 440.) Attila laid waste the dominions of Theodosius, and obliged him to pay tribute. After the death of her brother, Pulcheria was acknowledged empress (A.D. 450). She was the first female who attained this dignity. She gave her hand to the senator Marcian, and raised him to the throne. His wisdom and valour averted the attacks of the Huns from the frontiers, but he did not support the Western Empire in its wars against the Huns and Vandals with sufficient energy. He afforded shelter to a part of the Germans and Sarmatians, who were driven to the Roman frontiers by the incursions of the Huns. Pulcheria died before him in 453. Leo I. (A.D. 457), a prince praised by contemporary authors, was chosen successor of Marcian. His expeditions against the Wandals (A.D. 467) were unsuccessful. His grandson Leo would have succeeded him, but died a minor shortly after him, having named his father Zeno his colleague (A.D. 474). The government of this weak emperor, who was hated by his subjects, was disturbed by rebellions and internal disorders of the empire. The Goths depopulated their provinces till their king, Theodoric, turned his arms against Italy (A.D. 489). Ariadne, widow of Zeno, raised the minister Anastasius, whom she married, to the throne (A.D. 491). The nation, once excited to discontents and tumults, could not be entirely appeased by the alleviation of their burdens and by wise decrees. The forces of the empire, being thus weakened, could not offer an esfectual resistance to the Persians and the barbarians along the Danube. To prevent their incursions into the peninsula of Constantinople, Anastasius built the long wall, as it is called. After the death of Anastasius, the soldiers proclaimed Justin emperor (A.D. 518). Notwithstanding his low birth, he maintained possession of the throne. Religious persecutions, which he undertook at the instigation of the clergy, and various crimes into which he was seduced by his nephew Justinian, disgrace his reign. After his early death, in 521, he was succeeded by the same Justinian, to whom, though he deserves not the name of the Great, many virtues of a ruler cannot be denied. He was renowned as a legislator, and his reign was distinguished by the victories of his general Belisarius; but how unable he was to revive the strength of his empire was proved by its rapid decay after his death. Justin II., his successor (A.D. 565), was an avaricious, cruel, weak prince, governed by his wife. The Lombards tore from him part of Italy (A.D. 568). His war with Persia, for the possession of Armenia, was unsuccessful; the Avari plundered the provinces on the Danube, and the violence of his grief at these misfortunes deprived him of reason. Tiberius, his minister, a man of merit, was declared Ca2sar, and the general Justinian conducted the war against Persia with success. The Greeks now allied themselves, for the first time, with the Turks. Against his successor, Tiberius II. (A.D. 578), the Empress Sophia and the general Justinian conspired in vain. From the Avari the emperor purchased peace; from the Persians it was extorted by his general Mauritius or Maurice (A.D. 582). This commander Tiberius declared Caesar in the same year. Mauritius, under other circumstances, would have made an excellent monarch, but for the times he wanted prudence and resolution. He was indebted for the tranquillity of the eastern frontiers to the gratitude of King Chosroes II., whom, in 591, he restored to the throne from which he had been deposed by his subjects. Nevertheless, the war against the Avari was unsuccessful, through the errors of Commentiolus. The army was discontented, and was irritated, now by untimely severity and parsimony, and now by timid in

dulgence. They finally proclaimed Phocas, one of

their officers, emperor. Mauritius was taken in his flight and put to death (A.D. 602). The vices of Phocas, and his incapacity for government, produced the greatest disorders in the empire. Heraclius, son of the governor of Africa, took up arms, conquered Con.."; and caused Phocas to be executed (A.D. 610). He distinguished himself only in the short period of the Persian war. During the first twelve years of his reign, the Avari, and other nations of the Danube, plundered the European provinces, and the Persians conquered the coasts of Syria and Egypt. Having finally succeeded in pacifying the Avari, he marched against the Persians (A.D. 622), and defeated them; but, during this time, the Avari, who had renewed the war, made an unsuccessful attack on Constantinople in 626. Taking advantage of an insurrection of the subjects of Chosroes, he penetrated into the centre of Persia. By the peace concluded with Siroes (A.D. 628), he recovered the lost provinces and the holy cross. But the Arabians, who, meanwhile, had become powerful under Mohammed and the caliss, conquered Phoenicia, the countries on the Euphrates, Judea, Syria, and all Egypt (A.D. 631– 641). Among his descendants there was not one able prince. He was succeeded by his son Constantine III., probably in conjunction with his step-brother Heracleonas. The former soon died, and the latter lost his crown and was mutilated. After him, Constans, son of Constantine, obtained the throne (A. D. 642). His sanguinary spirit of persecution, and the murder of his brother Theodosius, made him odious to the nation. The Arabians, pursuing their conquests, took from him part of Africa, Cyprus, and Rhodes, and defeated him at sea (A.D. 653). Internal disturbances obliged him to make peace. After this he left Constantinople (A.D. 659), and, in the following year, carried on an unsuccessful war against the Lombards in Italy, in which he lost his life at Syracuse (A.D. 660). Constantine IV., Pogonatus, son of Constans, vanquished his Syracusan competitor Mezizius, and, in the beginning of his reign, shared the government with his brothers Tiberius and Heraclius. The Arabians inundated all Africa and Sicily, penetrated through Asia Minor into Thrace, and attacked Constantinople for several successive years by sea (A.D. 669). Nevertheless, he made peace with them on favourable terms. But, on the other hand, the Bulgarians obliged him to pay a tribute (A.D. 680). Justinian II., his son and successor, weakened the power of the Maronites, but fought without success against the Bulgarians and Arabians. Leonitius dethroned this cruel prince, had him mutilated, and sent to the Tauric Chersonese (A.D. 695). Leonitius was dethroned by Apsimar, or Tiberius III. (A.D. 698), who was himself dethroned by Trebelius, king of the Bulgarians, who restored Justinian to the throne (A.D. 705); but Philippicus Bardanes rebelled anew against him. With Justinian II. the race of Heraclius was extinguished. The only care of Philippicus was the spreading of Monotheism, while the Arabians wasted Asia Minor and Thrace. In opposition to this prince, who was universally hated, the different armies proclaimed their leaders emperors, among whom Leo the Isaurian obtained the superiority (A.D. 713-714). Leo repelled the Arabians from Constantinople, which they had attacked for almost two years, and suppressed the rebellion excited by Basilius and the former emperor Anastasius. From 726 the abolition of the worship of images absorbed his attention, and the Italian provinces were allowed to become a prey to the Lombards, while the Arabians plundered the eastern provinces. After his death (A.D. 741) his son Constantine W. ascended the throne, a courageous, active, and noble prince. He vanquished his rebellious brother-in-law Artabasdus, wrested from the Arabians part of Syria and Armenia, and overcame at last the Bulgarians, against whom he had been long unsuccessful. He died (A.D. 775), and was succeeded by his son Leo III., who fought successfully against the Arabians; and this latter, by his son Constantine VI., whose imperious mother Irene, his guardian and associate in the government, raised a powerful party by the restoration of the worship of images. He endeavoured in vain to free himself from dependance on her and her favourite Stauratius, and died in 796, after having had his eyes put out. The war against the Arabians and Bulgarians was long continued; against the former it was unsuccessful. The design of the empress to marry Charlemagne excited the discontent of the patricians, who placed one of their own order, Nicephorus, upon the throne (A.D. 802). Irene died in a monastery. Nicephorus became tributary to the Arabians, and fell in the war against the Bulgarians (A.D. 811). Stauratius, his son, was deprived of the crown by Michael I, and he in turn by Leo IV. (A.D. 813). Leo was dethroned and put to death by Michael II. (A.D. 826). During the reign of the latter, the Arabians conquered Sicily, Lower Italy, Crete, and other countries. Michael prohibited the worship of images; as did also his son Theophilus. Theodora, guardian of his son Michael III., put a stop to the dispute about images (A.D. 841). During a cruel persecution of the Manichaeans, the Arabians devastated the Asiatic provinces. The dissolute and extravagant Michael confined his mother in a monastery. The

vernment was administered in his name by Bardas, É. uncle, and after the death of Bardas by Basil, who was put to death by Michael (A.D. 867). Basil I., who came to the throne in 867, was not altogether a contemptible monarch. He died A.D. 886. . The reign of his learned son, Leo V., was not very happy. He died A.D. 911. His son, Constantine VIII., Porphyrogenitus, a minor when he succeeded his father, was placed under the guardianship of his colleague Alexander, and after Alexander's death in 912, under that of his mother Zoe. Romanus Lakopenus, his general, obliged him, in 919, to share the throne with him and his children. Constantine subsequently took sole possession of it again, and reigned mildly but weakly. His son Romanus II, succeeded him in 959, and sought successfully against the Arabians. To him succeeded, in 963, his general Nicephorus, who was put to death by his own general, John Zimisces (A.D. 970), who carried on a successful war against the Russians. Basil II., son of Romanus, succeeded this good prince. He vanquished the Bulgarians and the Arabians. His brother, Constantine IX. (A.D. 1025), was not equal to him. Romanus III. became emperor (A.D. 1028) by a marriage with Zoe, daughter of Constantine. This dissolute but able princess caused her husband to be executed, and successively raised to the throne Michael IV. (A.D. 1034), Michael V. (A.D. 104.1), and Constantine X. (A.D. 1042). Russians and Arabians meanwhile devastated the empire. Her sister Theodora succeeded her on the throne (A.D. 1053). Her successor, Michael VI. (A.D. 1056), was dethroned by Isaac Comnenus in 1057, who became a monk (A.D. 1059). His successor, Constantine XI., Ducas, fought successfully against the Uzes. Eudocia, his wife, guardian of his sons Michael, Andronicus, and Constantine, was intrusted with the administration (A.D. 1067), married Romanus IV., and brought him the crown. He carriod on an unsuccessful war against the Turks, who kept him for some time prisoner. Michael VII, son of Constantine, deprived him of the throne (A.D. 1071). Michael was dethroned by Nicephorus III (A.D. 1078), and the latter by Alexius I, Comnenus (A.D. 1081). Under his reign the crusades commenced. His son, John II., came to the throne in 11 18, and fought with great success against the Turks and other barbarians. The reign of his son Manuel I., who succeeded him in

1143, was also not unfortunate. His son, Alexius II., succeeded (A.D. 1180), and was dethroned by his guardian Andronicus, as was the latter by Isaac (A.D. 1185). After a reign disturbed from without and within, Isaac was dethroned by his brother, Alexius III. (A.D. 1195). The crusaders restored him and his son Alexius IV. ; but the seditious Constantinopolitans proclaimed Alexius V, Ducas Murzuphlus, emperor, who put Alexius IV. to death. At the same time Isaac II, died. During the last reigns, the kings of Sicily had made many conquests on the coasts of the Adriatic. The Latins now forced their way to Constantinople (A.D. 1204), conquered the city, and retained it, together with most of the European territories of the empire. Baldwin, count of Flanders, was made emperor; Boniface, marquis of Montferrat, obtained Thessalonica as a kingdom, and the Venetians acquired a large extent of territory. In Rhodes, Philadelphia, Corinth, and Epirus, independent sover. eigns arose. Theodore Lascaris seized on the Asiatic provinces, bore the title of emperor at Nice, and was, at first, more powerful than Baldwin. A descendant of the Comneni, named Alexius, established a principality at Trebisond, in which his great-grandson John took the title of emperor. Neither Baldwin nor his successors were able to secure the tottering throne. He himself died in captivity among the Bulgarians (1206). To him succeeded Henry, his brother, with Peter, brother-in-law of Henry, and his son Robert (A.D. 1221). With the exception of Constantinople, all the remaining Byzantine territory, including Thessalonica, was conquered by John, emperor of Nice. Baldwin II., brother of Robert, under the guardianship of his colleague, John Brienne, king of Jerusalem, died in 1237. Michael Palaeologus, king of Nice, conquered Constantinople in 1261, and Baldwin died in the West a private person. The sovereigns of Nice, up to this period, were Theodore Lascaris (A.D. 1204); John Ducas Patatzes, a good monarch and successful warrior (A.D. 1222); Theodore II., his son (A.D. 1259), who was deprived of the crown by Michael Palaiologus (A.D. 1260). In 1261 Michael took Constantinople from the Latins. He laboured to unite himself with the Latin church, but his son Andronicus renounced the connexion. Internal disturbances and foreign wars, particularly with the Turks, threw the exhausted empire into consusion. Andronicus III., his grandson, obliged him to divide the throne (A.D. 1322), and, at length, wrested it entirely from him. Andronicus died a monk (A.D. 1328). Andronicus IV., who ascended the throne in the same year, waged war unsuccessfully against the Turks, and died A.D. 1341. His son John was obliged to share the throne with his guardian, John Cantacuzenus, during ten years. The son of the latter, Matthew, was also made emperor, but John Cantacuzenus resigned the crown, and Matthew was compelled to abdicate (A.D. 1355) Under the reign of John, the Turks first obtained a firm footing in Europe, and conquered Gallipolis (A.D. 1357). The family of Palæologus, from this time, were gradually deprived of their European territories, partly by revolt, and partly by the Turks. The sultan Amurath took Adrianople A.D. 1361. Bajazet conquered almost all the European provinces except Constantinople, and obliged John to pay him tribute. The latter was, some time after, driven out by his own son Manuel (A.D. 1391). Bajazet besieged Constantinople, defeated an army of western warriors under Sigismund, near Nicopolis, and Manuel was obliged to place John, son of Andronicus, on his throne. Timour's invasion of the Turkish provinces saved Constantinople, for this time (A.D. 1402). Manuel then recovered his throne, and regained some of the lost provinces from the contending sons of Bajazet. To him succeeded his son John (A.D. 1425), whom Amurath II. ** all his

« PoprzedniaDalej »