this event was only a revolt of some western provinces against the legal ruler of the Empire.

But, Charles was, of course, fully aware of the precariousness of his position, since his coronation did not solve the question of his rule over the eastern part of the Empire. He realized that after Irene the Byzantine Empire would elect another emperor, whose rights to the imperial title would be recognized as indisputable in the East. Anticipating these complications, Charles opened negotiations with Irene by proposing marriage to her, hoping "thus to unite the Eastern and Western provinces."91 In other words, Charles understood that his title meant very little unless recognized by the Byzantine Empire. Irene accepted the marriage proposal favorably, but shortly after this she was dethroned and exiled (in the year 802), and Charles' project of marrying her and combining the Eastern and Western parts of the empire was not realized.

After Irene's fall the Byzantine throne came into the hands of Nicephorus. Negotiations were carried on between him and Charles, probably in regard to the recognition of Charles' imperial title by Nicephorus. It was only in the year 812 that the legates of the Byzantine Emperor Michael I Rangabé saluted Charles at Aix-laChapelle (Aachen) as Emperor-Basileus. This legalized the imperial election of the year 800. From the year 812 onward there were two Roman emperors, in spite of the fact that in theory there was still only one Roman Empire. "In other words," says Bury, "the act of 812 A.D. revived, in theory, the position of the fifth century. Michael I and Charles, Leo V and Lewis the Pious, stood to one another as Arcadius to Honorius, as Valentinian III to Theodosius III; the imperium Romanum stretched from the borders of Armenia to the shores of the Atlantic."92 It is self-evident that this unity of the Empire was purely nominal and theoretical. Both empires led distinctly different lives. Furthermore, the very idea of unity was being forgotten in the West.

The imperial rank obtained by Charles for the West was not long lived. During the ensuing troubles, followed by the disintegra

1 Theophanes (ed. De Boor, p. 475). Diehl rejects these negotiations, in the Cambridge Medieval History, IV, 24.

92 Bury, A History of the Eastern Roman Empire (London, 1912), p. 325.

tion of Charles' monarchy, the title fell to casual holders and disappeared completely in the tenth century in order to rise again in the second half of the same century, but this time in its anti-historical form of the "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation."

Only after the year 800 is it possible to speak of an Eastern Roman Empire, and J. B. Bury does this by entitling the third volume of his History of the Byzantine Empire, which embraces events from 802 (the year of Irene's fall) to the beginning of the Macedonian dynasty, A History of the Eastern Roman Empire, while the first two volumes of his work bear the title of A History of the Later Roman Empire.

Summary of the activities of the Isaurian dynasty.—History places much value upon the services of the first rulers of the Isaurian line, particularly upon the achievements of Leo III. And justly so, for the latter, having ascended the throne after a highly troubled period of anarchy, has shown himself to be an eminent general, a gifted administrator, and a wise legislator who understood the problems of his time. The religious policy of the iconoclasts stands quite apart from their other activities. In most of the historical writings Leo III is praised very highly. For instance, the Greeks recognize him "as one of the greatest rulers of the Eastern Empire, and one of the benefactors of humanity," the Germans, "as one of the greatest men on the imperial throne," who clearly understood the need for "radical reform at the head and in the members," "a man who was destined to restore the empire by means of iron and blood, a person of great military genius."95 The English scholar refers to Leo's achievements as "the regeneration of the Roman Empire," while a French historian characterizes the deeds of the Isaurian emperors as "one of the very greatest and most admirable efforts that have ever been made for raising the moral, material, and intellectual level of the people," and compares the importance of their "sweeping attempt at organization with the

93 Παπαῤῥηγοπούλου, Ιστορία τοῦ ἑλληνικοῦ ἔθνους (Athens, 1867), ΙΙΙ, 467.

4 K. Schenk, "Kaiser Leons III Walten im Innern," Bys. Zeitsch., V (1896), 289, 296.

95 H. Gelzer, Abriss der byz. Kaisergeschichte, p. 960.

96 Bury, A History of the Later Roman Empire, II, 410.

measures undertaken by Charles the Great."97 In very recent times Charles Diehl has made the statement that "from the government of the Isaurian emperors a new principle of life sprung forth, which was to enrich the world forever."98 In the somewhat casual estimates of Russian scholars, who, with the exception of the church historians, have not yet made any attempts at a detailed study of the general history of the Isaurian emperors, we do not find any excessive praise for these rulers. The three volumes of J. A. Kulakovsky deal only with events up to the epoch of the iconoclastic emperors. The first volume of Lectures in Byzantine History, by S. P. Shestakov, which embraces this period, does not contain any estimate. A very interesting and fresh appraisal of the antimonasterial and antimonastic movement is found in the Outlines of C. N. Uspensky. Finally, Th. I. Uspensky remarks: "Leo the Isaurian is responsible for the rather rude manner with which the delicate problem of faith and worship of God was left by the government to the military and police authorities, and they offended the religious feeling of the people and made of the local problem an event of state importance."'99

While recognizing the unusual energy and some administrative genius on the part of the first two iconoclastic emperors, and admitting that Leo III unquestionably saved the Empire, we must, on the basis of all the available historical materials, abstain from excessive praise of the Isaurian dynasty. For their policy, no matter how sincere on their part, introduced great internal troubles into the life of the Empire, which was seriously disturbed for more than a hundred years. Even in its first period in the eighth century the iconoclastic movement alienated Italy and brought about very strained relations with the Pope, who excommunicated the iconoclasts and turned to the West for aid and protection. The resulting friendship with the Frankish rulers initiated a new and extremely significant period of medieval history. At the same time the foundation for the future final rupture between the churches was gradually being laid. During the Isaurian period the Byzantine Empire lost

7 Lombard, Constantine V, p. 169.

98 The Cambridge Medieval History, IV, 26.

* Th. I. Uspensky, op. cit. (Leningrad, 1927), II, 22.

Middle Italy, including the Ravenna exarchate, which was conquered in the middle of the eighth century by the Lombards and later handed over to the Pope by Pippin the Short.

We must keep in mind, however, that no complete history of the Isaurian dynasty has yet been written, and that many significant problems of this period still remain unsolved. For example, the question of the reduction of the number of monks and monasteries and the apparently frequent secularization of monasterial land property calls for investigation. A more thorough investigation of the social aspect of the iconoclastic policy of the Isaurian emperors is at present one of the essential problems of Byzantine studies. Careful research into this question may throw much new light upon the entire so-called "iconoclastic" epoch and disclose in it more profound meaning and still greater universal historical significance.

II. THE IMMEDIATE SUCCESSORS OF THE ISAURIAN HOUSE (802-20)

AND THE TIME OF THE AMORIAN OR PHRYGIAN

DYNASTY (820-67)

The emperors from 802 to 867 and their origin.-The time from the beginning of the ninth century until the accession of the Macedonian dynasty in the year 867 has been viewed by historians as a transitional period from the epoch of the revival of the Empire under the Isaurian emperors to the brilliant time of the Macedonian emperors. But the most recent studies show that this period is not a mere epilogue and much more than a prologue. It appears to have an importance of its own and signifies a new phase in Byzantine culture.100

We saw that the revolution of the year 802 deposed Irene and raised Nicephorus I (802-11) to the Byzantine throne. According to oriental sources, Nicephorus was of Arabian origin. 101 One of his ancestors must have migrated into Pisidia, a province in Asia Minor, where Nicephorus was later born. The revolution of 802 was in its

100 See Bury, A History of the Eastern Roman Empire, p. viii.

101 See, for example, Tabari, III (2), 695. Chronique de Michel le Syrien (ed. Chabot, III (1), 15). E. W. Brooks, "Byzantines and Arabs in the Time of the Early Abbasids," English Historical Review (October, 1900), p. 743.

nature one of the very rare examples in the annals of Byzantine history. An overwhelming majority of political uprisings in the Byzantine Empire were organized and led by military generals, leaders of the army. The case of Nicephorus was an exception to this general rule, for he was in no way connected with the army and held only the high post of minister of finance. This emperor fell in battle with the Bulgarians in the year 811, and the throne passed, for a few months, to his son, Stauracius, who had also been severely wounded in the Bulgarian campaign. Stauracius died in the same year (811), but even before his death he was deposed in favor of the curopalates Michael I, a member of the Greek family of Rangabé, married to Procopia, a sister of the unfortunate Strauracius and a daughter of Nicephorus I. But Michael I also ruled only for a short period of time (811-13), for he was deposed, chiefly because of his unsuccessful campaign against the Bulgarians, by the military commander Leo, an Armenian by birth, known in history as Leo V the Armenian (813-20). In the year 820 Leo V was killed and the throne passed to one of the commanders of the guards, Michael II (820-29), surnamed the "Stammerer." He came from the fortress of Amorion in Phrygia, a province of Asia Minor, hence his dynasty (820-67), represented by three rulers, is called the Amorian or Phrygian dynasty. He was a coarse and ignorant provincial who had spent his youth in Phrygia "among heretics, Hebrews, and halfhellenized Phrygians."102 One late Syrian source asserts even that Michael II was a Jew by birth.108 When he died the throne passed to his son, Theophilus (829-42), who was married to the famous restorer of orthodoxy, Theodora, from Paphlagonia in Asia Minor. The last member of this dynasty was their son, the corrupt and incapable Michael III (842-67), who has come down through the ages with the despicable surname of "Drunkard."

During the minority of Michael III his mother, Theodora, was the official ruler of the Empire for a period of fourteen years, in which she intrusted all government affairs to her favorite, Theoctistus. When Michael became of age he ordered that Theoctistus be killed; then compelled his mother to take holy orders and assumed

102 Bury, III, 78.

103 Chronique de Michel le Syrien (ed. Chabot, III (1), 72).