Ecclesiastical relations
The ecclesiastical life of Byzantium under the Comneni and Angeli is important mainly in two directions: first, in internal ecclesiastical relations which centered in the attempts to resolve certain religious problems and doubts which agitated Byzantine society and were of the most vital interest in that epoch; secondly, in the relations of the eastern church to the western, of the patriarchate of Constantinople to the papacy.
In their attitude to the Church the emperors of the dynasties of the Comneni and Angeli firmly adopted the caesaropapistic view which was so very characteristic of Byzantium. In one version of the History of Nicetas Choniates Isaac Angelus is quoted: “On earth there is no difference in power between God and emperor; kings are allowed to do everything, and they may use without any distinction that which belongs to God along with their own possessions, because they have received the imperial power from God, and between God and them is no difference.”270 The same writer, speaking of the ecclesiastical policy of Manuel Comnenus, gave the general belief of the Byzantine emperors, who consider themselves “the infallible judges of matters of God and man.”271 This opinion was supported in the second half of the twelfth century by the clergy. A celebrated Greek canonist and commentator of the so-called pseudo-Photian Nomocanon (a canonical collection of fourteen titles), the patriarch of Antioch, Theodore Balsamon, who lived under the last Comnenus and the first Angelus, wrote: “The emperors and patriarchs must be esteemed as church teachers because of their holy anointment. Therefore, orthodox emperors have the power to teach Christian people and, like priests, to burn incense as an act of worship to God.” Their glory is that, like the sun, they, by the brilliance of their orthodoxy, enlighten the world from one end to another. “The power and activities of the emperors concern body and soul (of man) while the power and activity of the patriarch concern only soul.”272 The same author stated: “The Emperor is subject neither to the laws nor to the canons.”273
Ecclesiastical life under the Comneni and Angeli enabled the Emperors to apply widely their caesaropapistic ideas: on the one hand, numerous “heresies” and “false doctrines” considerably agitated the minds of the population. On the other hand, the menace from the Turks and Patzinaks, and the new relations between the Empire and the West resulting from the crusades, began to threaten the very existence of Byzantium as an independent state, and forced the Emperors to consider deeply and ponder seriously the problem of union with the Catholic church, which in the person of the pope, could prevent the political danger threatening the East from the West.
As regards religion, the first two Comneni were in general the defenders of the Eastern Orthodox faith and church; nevertheless, under the pressure of political reasons, they made some concessions in favor of the Catholic church. Alexius Comnenus’ daughter, Anna, struck by the activity of her father, in her “Alexiad” calls him, doubtless with exaggeration, “the thirteenth Apostle”; or, if this honor must belong to Constantine the Great, Alexius Comnenus must “be set either side by side with the Emperor Constantine or, if any one objects to that, next to Constantine.”274 The third Comnenus, Manuel, inflicted great harm upon the interests of the eastern church for the sake of his illusive western policy.
In the internal church life of the Empire the chief attention of the emperors was directed to the struggle with dogmatic errors and heretic movements of their time. One side of the ecclesiastical life alarmed the emperors, the excessive growth of ecclesiastic and monastic property, against which the government, from time to time, had taken adequate measures.
In order to provide funds for state defense and the compensation of his supporters, Alexius Comnenus confiscated some monastic estates and converted several sacred vessels into money. But to appease the discontent which this measure aroused, the Emperor returned to the churches an amount equal to the value of the vessels and condemned his own action by a special Novel, “On abstaining from using the sacred vessels for public needs.”275 Manuel by restoring the abrogated Novel of Nicephorus Phocas (964) again limited the increase of the church and monastic property; but later he was forced by means of other Novels, as far as possible, to modify the harsh consequences of this decree.
Disorders and moral decline among the clergy also alarmed Alexius Comnenus, who, in one of his novels, declared, “The Christian faith is exposed to danger, for the clergy with every day becomes worse”;276 he planned some measures for raising the moral standard of the clergy by ameliorating their life according to the canonic rules, by improving their education, by widely developing pastoral activity, and so on. But unfortunately because of the general conditions of that time he did not always succeed in carrying out his good beginnings.
Though they sometimes declared themselves against the excessive increase of church property, the Comneni, at the same time, were often the protectors and founders of monasteries. Under Alexius Mount Athos was declared by the Emperor exempt forever from taxes and other vexations; “the civil officials had nothing to do with the Holy Mountain.”277 As before, Athos was not dependent on any bishop; the protos, that is, the chairman of the council of the igumens (abbots, priors) of the monasteries of Athos, was ordained by the Emperor himself, so that Athos was directly dependent on him. Under Manuel the Russians who had formerly lived on Mount Athos and possessed there a small monastery received, by the order of the protaton (the council of the igumens), the convent of St. Panteleimon, which is widely known even today.
Alexius Comnenus also supported St. Christodulus in founding in the island of Patmos, where, according to tradition, the Apostle John wrote his Apocalypse, a monastery of that Saint, which still exists today. In the chrysobull published on that matter the Emperor granted this island to Christodulus as his permanent and inalienable property, exempted it from all taxes, and prohibited any officials from appearing in the island.278 The strictest regime was introduced into the life of the monastery.279 Chalandon says, “the island of Patmos became a small ecclesiastical and almost independent republic where only monks could live.”280 The attacks of the Seljuqs on the islands of the Archipelago forced Christodulus and the monks to leave Patmos and take refuge in Euboea, where Christodulus died at the end of the eleventh century. Christodulus’ reforms did not survive him, and his attempt in Patmos completely failed.281
John Comnenus built in Constantinople the monastery of the Pantokrator (Almighty) and instituted there a very well-organized hospital for the poor with fifty beds. The internal arrangement of this hospital is described in much detail in the statute (typicon) issued by the Emperor in this connection282 and is an example, “perhaps the most touching that history has preserved, concerning humanitarian ideas in Byzantine society.”283
The intellectual life of the epoch of the Comneni was distinguished by intense activity. Some scholars even call this period the epoch of the Hellenic renaissance which was brought about by such eminent men of the Empire as, for example, Michael Psellus. This intellectual revival expressed itself under the Comneni in various ways, including the formation of different heretical doctrines and dogmatic errors, with which the Emperors, as protectors of the Orthodox faith, had to come into collision. This feature of the epoch of the Comneni influenced the so-called Synodicon, that is, the list of heretical names and antichurch doctrines which is still read every year in the Eastern Orthodox church during the first week of Lent, when an anathema is pronounced against heretics and antichurch doctrines in general; and a considerable number of the anathematized names and doctrines in the Synodicon were originated in the time of Alexius and Manuel Comnenius.284
The chief energies of Alexius were directed against the Paulicians and Bogomiles who had been established for a long time in the Balkan peninsula, especially in the district of Philippopolis. But neither persecution of the heretics nor public disputes organized by the Emperor nor the burning of the head of the Bogomilian doctrine, the monk Basil, could eradicate their doctrines, which, without spreading very widely throughout the Empire, nevertheless continued to exist. Then the Emperor appealed to the monk Euthymius Zigabenus, a man skilled in grammatical knowledge and rhetoric, a commentator of the books of the New Testament and the Epistles of St. Paul, asking him to expose all existing heretical doctrines, especially the Bogomile doctrine, and to refute them on the basis of the Church Fathers. In accordance with the Emperor’s desire Zigabenus drew up a treatise The Dogmatic Panoply of the Orthodox Faith which, containing all the scientific proofs fitted to refute the arguments of the heretics and to show their emptiness, was to serve as a manual for the struggle with heretical errors.285 In spite of this, however, under Manuel occurred the famous case of the monk Niphon who preached the Bogomile doctrine.286
Among the other events in the intellectual life of Byzantium under Alexius Comnenus was the case of a learned philosopher, John Italus (coming from Italy), a pupil of Michael Psellus, who was accused of suggesting “to his hearers the perverted theories and heretical doctrines condemned by the Church and opposed to the Scriptures and tradition of the Fathers of the Church, of not honouring sacred images,”287 and so on. The official report on the accusation of John Italus of heresy, published and interpreted by a Russian scholar, Th. Uspensky, opens an interesting page in the intellectual life of the epoch of the first Comnenus. At the council which examined the case of Italus there was on trial not only a heretic preaching a doctrine dangerous to the Church, but also a professor of the high school teaching people of mature age who was himself influenced by the ideas of Aristotle, Plato in part, and other philosophers. Some of his disciples were also summoned to court. After having examined Italus’ opinions the council declared them misleading and heretical. The patriarch to whom Italus was delivered for instruction in truth became himself, to the great scandal of the church and population, an adherent to Italus’ doctrine. By order of the Emperor a list of Italus’ errors was then drawn up. Finally, anathema was pronounced against the eleven items of his doctrine and against the heretic himself.288
As not all the works of Italus are published, it is impossible to form a fixed opinion about him and his doctrine. There is, therefore, some disagreement among scholars on this problem. While, as Th. Uspensky said, “the freedom of philosophical thought was limited by the supreme authority of the Scriptures and the works of the Fathers of the Church,”289 Italus, as some investigators, Bezobrazov and Bryanzev, for example, state, “judged it possible, in some problems, to give the preference to pagan philosophy over church doctrine”;290 he “separated the domain of theology from that of philosophy, and admitted the possibility of holding independent opinions in one or the other domain.”291 Finally, in connection with the case of Italus, N. Marr raised “the most important question of whether the initiators of the trial of Italus were on his level in intellectual development, demanding the separation of philosophy from theology, and whether, having condemned the thinker for intrusion upon theology, they granted him his freedom in purely philosophical speculation?”292 Of course, the answer is no: at that time such freedom was impossible. But Italus is not to be considered only as a theologian. “He was a philosopher who was condemned because his philosophical system did not conform to the doctrine of the Church”;293 and the most recent investigator of the religious life of the epoch of the Comneni said that all the information clearly shows that Italus belonged to the Neoplatonic school.294 All the discrepancy and difference in opinion show how interesting is the problem of John Italus from the point of view of the cultural history of Byzantium at the end of the eleventh and the beginning of the twelfth century.
But this is not all. Attention has been paid to the doctrines which appeared in western European philosophy in the lifetime of John Italus and resembled the doctrines of the latter; for example, such a resemblance is to be found in the doctrine of Abelard, a famous French scholar and professor of the first half of the twelfth century, whose autobiography, Historia calamitatum, is still read with intense interest. In view of the complicated and insufficiently investigated problem of mutual cultural influences between the East and West in this epoch, it may be too sweeping a statement to say that the western European scholasticism depended on that of Byzantium; but it may be affirmed that “the circle of ideas in which the European mind was working from the eleventh to the thirteenth century was the same that we find in Byzantium.”295
In external ecclesiastical affairs the time of the first three Comneni was an epoch of active relations with the popes and the western church. The chief cause of those relations, as the appeal of the Emperor Michael VII Parapinakes to Pope Gregory VII showed, was the danger threatening Byzantium from her external enemies, the Turks and Patzinaks. This danger compelled the emperors to seek for aid in the West, even at the price of the union of the churches. Therefore, the tendency of the Comneni to conclude a union with the Roman Church is explained by purely external political reasons.
In the most terrible years, that is, at the end of the eighties and the beginning of the nineties of the eleventh century, Alexius Comnenus held out the hand of reconciliation and agreement to Pope Urban II, promising to summon a Council in Constantinople in order to discuss the question of the azyms and other subjects which separated the two churches. In 1089 a synod of the Greek bishops, with Alexius I presiding, took place in Constantinople. At this synod was discussed the motion of Urban II to put his name again into the diptychs and to mention him in divine services, and under the pressure of the Emperor this delicate problem was decided in the affirmative.296 Probably to this time is to be referred a treatise of Theophylact of Bulgaria, On the Errors of the Latins, in which V. Vasilievsky saw a sign of the times.297 The main theme of the treatise is very remarkable. The author did not adopt the common view of the definite separation of the churches; neither did he acknowledge the errors of the Latins to be so numerous as to make separation unavoidable; he expresses himself against the spirit of theological intolerance and haughtiness which was predominant among his learned contemporaries. In a word, Theophylact in many points was ready to grant reasonable concessions. But in the symbol of the Creed no ambiguity could be admitted, no addition; in other words, it was impossible to adopt filioque in the eastern symbol.
But the critical situation of the Empire and some difficulties which befell Pope Urban II in Rome, where an antipope had been elected, prevented the summoning of the council. The First Crusade, which took place some years later, and the hostilities and mutual distrust which arose between the Greeks and crusaders were unfavorable to an understanding between the two churches. Under John Comnenus negotiations were carried on concerning the union between the Emperor and Popes Calixtus II and Honorius II; two letters exist addressed by John to these popes. Papal envoys arrived in Constantinople with full powers to treat the question.298 But they failed to arrive at any tangible result. On the other hand, some learned Latins from the West took part in theological disputations at Constantinople. A German, Anselm of Havelberg, who wrote about 1150, left a very interesting account of a disputation held before John Comnenus in 1136, at which “there were present not a few Latins, among them three wise men skilled in the two languages and most learned in letters, namely James, a Venetian, Burgundio, a Pisan, and the third, most famous among Greeks and Latins above all others for his knowledge of both literatures, Moses by name, an Italian from the city of Bergamo, and he was chosen by all to be a faithful interpreter for both sides.”299
Relations became more active under John’s latinophile successor, Manuel I. The latter, hopeful of the restoration of the single Roman Empire, and convinced that he could receive the imperial crown only from Rome, offered the pope the prospect of union. It is obvious, accordingly, that the cause of the negotiations for union was purely political. The German historian Norden rightly remarked, “The Comneni were hoping with the help of the papacy to rise to dominion over the west and thereupon over the papacy itself; the Popes were dreaming with the support of the Comneni of becoming the masters of the Byzantine church and thereupon of the Byzantine Empire.”300
After the Second Crusade Manuel corresponded with several popes. The popes themselves also were sometimes ready to lend a friendly hand to the Emperor, especially Pope Hadrian IV, who was engaged in a quarrel with the king of Sicily and was angry with the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa, who had been recently crowned. In his message to the archbishop of Thessalonica, Basil, Hadrian IV expressed his desire “to help in bringing all the brethren into one church” and compared the eastern church with lost drachma, wandering sheep, and the dead Lazarus.301
Shortly after, Manuel through his envoy officially promised Pope Alexander III the union of the churches, provided the pope would return to him the crown of the Roman Empire which was then, against all rights, in the hands of the German king, Frederick; if, for that purpose, the pope needed money or military forces, Manuel would supply him with troops in abundance. But Alexander III, whose situation in Italy had somewhat improved, refused this offer.
A council was summoned by the Emperor in the capital to put an end to the various causes of discontent existing between the Latins and Greeks, and to find some means for joining the churches. Manuel exerted himself to the utmost to incline the patriarch to concessions. “A Conversation” at the council between Manuel and the patriarch, is a very interesting document for the light it throws on the views of the two chief participants in the council. In this “Conversation” the patriarch says that the pope is “reeking with impiety,” and prefers the yoke of the “Agarens” [i.e. Muhammedans] to that of the Latins. This statement of the patriarch, apparently reflecting the ecclesiastical and public feeling of the epoch, was to be many times repeated in the future, for example, in the fifteenth century, at the time of the fall of Byzantium. Manuel was forced to yield and declared that he would withdraw from the Latins “as from the serpent’s poison.”302 Thus all the discussions at the council failed to produce any agreement. It was even decided to break off entirely with the pope and his partisans.
Thus Manuel, both in his secular external policy and in his ecclesiastical policy, was wholly unsuccessful. The cause of this failure may be explained by the fact that the Emperor’s policy in both fields was only his own personal policy and had no solid and real basis in public opinion. The restoration of the one Empire had already for a long time been impossible and the unitarian tendencies of Manuel met with no sympathy in the masses of the Empire’s population.
In the last five years of the rule of the Comneni (1180–85), especially under Andronicus I, the ecclesiastical causes were absorbed in the complicated external and internal conditions. Andronicus, an enemy of the Latin sympathies of his predecessor at the beginning of his reign, could not be a partisan of the union with the western church. In internal ecclesiastical affairs, he dealt harshly with the patriarch of Constantinople and allowed no disputes on faith.303 “A Dialogue against the Jews,” which is often ascribed to him, belongs to a later time.
The time of the Angeli, politically full of troubles, was equally disturbed in ecclesiastical life. The emperors of this house felt themselves to be masters of the situation. The first Angelus, Isaac, deposed at his leisure the patriarchs of Constantinople, one after another.
Under the Angeli the vigorous theological dispute of the Eucharist arose in Byzantinum; the Emperor himself took part in it. A historian of that epoch, Nicetas Choniates, said the question was “whether the body of Christ, of which we partake, is as incorruptible (ἄϕθαρτον) as it became after His passion and resurrection, or corruptible (ϕθαρτóν), as it was before his passion.”304 In other words, in this dispute the question was “whether the eucharist of which we partake, is subject to the common physiological processes to which any food that man takes is subject, or not subject to those physiological processes.”305 Alexius Angelus stood as the protector of “the insolently defiled” truth and supported the doctrine of the “incorruptibility” of the Eucharist. A similar dispute in Byzantium at the end of the twelfth century can be explained by western influence, which was very strong in the Christian East in the epoch of the crusades. As is known, such disputes had begun in the West a long time before; even in the ninth century there had been men who taught that the Eucharist is subject to the same processes as ordinary food.
As far as the relations of the Angeli to the pope are concerned, the pope was guided by political expediency, desiring, of course, to induce the eastern church to adopt union. The pope’s plan failed. The complicated international situation, especially just before the Fourth Crusade, brought forward the king of Germany, who seemed to take an important part in the solution of the Byzantine problem. As the king of Germany was the most dangerous foe of the papacy, the pope, in order to prevent the western Emperor from getting possession of the Eastern Empire, endeavored by all means to support the “schismatic” eastern Emperor, even a usurper such as Alexius III who had dethroned his brother Isaac. Innocent III was in a rather embarrassing position during the Fourth Crusade, when the head of the Catholic church, at first acting very energetically against the diversion of the crusade, was gradually forced to change his mind and to declare the compliance of God with the sack of Constantinople by the crusaders, almost unexampled in barbarity as it was.
In summary, religious life under the Comneni and Angeli, a period of one hundred and twenty-three years (1081–1204), was marked by extraordinary intensity and animation in external relations and especially by conflicting and contradictory internal movements. Without doubt, from the point of view of religious problems this epoch is of great importance and of vivid interest.306
Internal administration
Financial and social conditions.—As a general thesis one may say that the internal situation of the Byzantine Empire and the administrative system changed little in the course of the twelfth century. Whereas the history of the Byzantine church under the Comneni and Angeli has been more or less fully investigated, conditions are quite different for internal social and economic life. And if the internal history of Byzantium has been inadequately investigated, there is a particular lack of thorough research in the period beginning with the epoch of the Comneni. Even today histories usually offer on this subject short chapters, based sometimes only on general speculations, some occasional remarks or excursus, or at the very best, small articles on one problem or another, so that, at least for the present, there is no adequate conception of the internal history of this epoch. The most recent investigator of this period, the French scholar Chalandon, died before he could publish the promised continuation of his book in which the problem of the internal life of Byzantium in the twelfth century was to have been fully discussed.307
A representative of the large landowning nobility of Asia Minor, Alexius Comnenus, became Emperor of a state in which the financial system was entirely disorganized both by numerous military enterprises and by internal troubles of an earlier period. In spite of the crippled financial condition, Alexius, especially in the beginning years of his rule, had to remunerate his partisans, who had supported him in gaining the throne, and to present the members of his family with rich gifts. Fierce wars with the Turks, Patzinaks, and Normans, and the events connected with the First Crusade also required enormous expenditures. The estates of large landowners and of monasteries served as a means for replenishing the treasury.
As far as one can judge from the fragmentary information of the sources, Alexius had no scruples in confiscating the property of large landowners; even in the case of political plots capital punishment was often replaced by confiscation of land. The lands of the monasteries, which were given as grants (in Greek kharistikia) for life to recipients who were thence called kharistikarioi, were exposed to similar confiscation.
The system of kharistikia was not invented by the Comneni, but because of their financial difficulties, they perhaps resorted to it more frequently than anyone else. The system is connected with the secularization of the monastic estates under the iconoclastic emperors and probably with some phenomena of the social life of a still earlier time. In the tenth and eleventh centuries the system of kharistikia was already in frequent use. Monasteries were granted both to ecclesiastics and laymen, even to women, and it happened sometimes that monasteries for men were granted to women, and those for women to men. The kharistikarios was expected to defend the interests of the monastery granted to him, to watch over it in order to secure it from the caprice of the governor or tax gatherers and from illegal taxes, and to manage skillfully monastic economy, converting to his own benefit the revenues which remained after he had fulfilled his obligations. Of course, in reality he neglected his duties, and the monastic donations in general were nothing but a source of revenue and profit. Accordingly monastic economy was growing weak and declining. The kharistikia were very profitable for the receivers, and the Byzantine high officials sought for them eagerly. The ordinance of Alexius which provided for the conversion of some sacred vessels into money was later abrogated by him.
But confiscations of land were insufficient to improve the finances. Then Alexius Comnenus resorted to perhaps his worst financial measure, the corruption of money, the issue of debased coin, for which sources blame Alexius heavily. Along with the former golden coins of full weight, which were called nomisma, hyperpyrus, or solidus, he had put into circulation a certain alloy of copper and gold or silver and gold called nomisma which was circulated on a par with the full coin. The new nomisma as compared to the former, which consisted of twelve silver coins or miliarisia, was equal in value only to four silver coins, one-third as much.308 But Alexius insisted that taxes be paid in money of full weight. Such measures brought still greater confusion into the finances of the Empire and irritated the population.
The difficult external situation and almost complete financial bankruptcy of the country, despite the measures taken, forced the government to collect the taxes with extreme severity; and as many large estates, secular as well as ecclesiastic, were exempt from taxes, the whole burden of taxation fell upon the lower classes who were completely exhausted under the unbearable pressure of fiscal exactions. The tax-collectors, who are called by a writer of the eleventh and the early twelfth century, the archbishop of Bulgaria, Theophylact, “rather robbers than collectors, despising both divine laws and imperial ordinances,” were running wild among the people.309
The cautious rule of John Comnenus somewhat improved the state finances, in spite of almost continuous wars. But the rule of his successor Manuel put the country again on the verge of bankruptcy. At this time the population of the Empire decreased, and consequently the ability of the population to pay taxes also decreased. Some districts of Asia Minor were abandoned because of Muhammedan invasions; a portion of their population was captured, another part escaped in flight to the maritime cities. The abandoned territories could not, of course, pay taxes. The situation was similar in the Balkan peninsula owing to the aggressions of the Hungarians, Serbs, and the peoples beyond the Danube.
Meanwhile expenses were increasing. Besides the expenses of military enterprises, Manuel squandered enormous amounts of money on a mass of foreigners who had come to Byzantium because of the Emperor’s Latin sympathies; at the same time he required money for buildings, for sustaining the absurd luxury at his court, and for supporting his favorites, both men and women.
The historian Nicetas Choniates drew a striking picture of universal discontent with the financial policy of Manuel.310 The Greeks of the islands of the Ionian sea, unable to endure the burden of taxation, passed over to the Normans. Like Alexius Comnenus, Manuel tried to improve his finances by means of confiscation of the secular and ecclesiastic estates, and restored the famous Novel of Nicephorus Phocas, of 964, concerning church and monastic landownership.
Only in the reign of the last Comnenus, Andronicus I, whose short rule was marked by a reaction against Manuel’s policy, did the situation of the taxable classes improve. Andronicus is known to have come out as protector of the national interests and the lower classes against Manuel’s latinophile policy and support of the large landowners. Large landowners and tax collectors were brought sharply to account; provincial governors began to receive high salaries from the treasury; the sale of public offices ceased. A historian contemporary with Andronicus, Nicetas Choniates painted this idyllic picture:
Everyone, to quote a Prophet, lay quietly in the shade of his trees and having gathered grapes and the fruits of the earth ate them joyfully and slept comfortably, without fearing the tax collector’s menace, without thinking of the rapacious or insatiable exactor of duties, without looking askance at the gleaner in his vineyard or being suspicious of the gatherer of cornstalks; but he who rendered unto Caesar those things which are Caesar’s, of him no more was required; he was not deprived, as he used to be, of his last garment, and he was not reduced to the point of death, as formerly was often the case.311
The Byzantine sources give a sad picture of the internal life of the country under Manuel, and conditions could not, of course, improve greatly in the short and stormy reign of Andronicus. But the Jewish traveler, Benjamin, from the Spanish city of Tudela, who visited Byzantium in the eighth decade of the twelfth century, i.e. under Manuel, gave in the description of his journey some glowing praise of Constantinople as a result of his personal observation and oral communications. Benjamin wrote concerning Constantinople:
From every part of the Empire of Greece tribute is brought here every year, and strongholds are filled with garments of silk, purple, and gold. Like unto these storehouses and this wealth, there is nothing in the whole world to be found. It is said that the tribute of the city amounts every year to 20,000 gold pieces, derived both from the rents of shops and markets, and from the tribute of merchants who enter by sea or land. The Greek inhabitants are very rich in gold and precious stones, and they go clothed in garments of silk with gold embroidery, and they ride horses, and look like princes. Indeed, the land is very rich in all cloth stuffs, and in bread, meat, and wine. Wealth like that of Constantinople is not to be found in the whole world. Here also are men learned in all the books of the Greeks, and they eat and drink every man under his vine and his fig tree.312
In another place the same traveler says: “All sorts of merchants come here from the land of Babylon, from the land of Shinar (Mesopotamia), from Persia, Media, and all the sovereignty of the land of Egypt, from the land of Canaan, and the empire of Russia, from Hungaria, Patzinakia, Khazaria, and the land of Lombardy and Sepharad (Spain). It is a busy city, and merchants come to it from every country by sea and land, and there is none like it in the world except Bagdad, the great city of Islam.”313 Under Manuel also, an Arabian traveler, al-Harawy (or el-Herewy) visited Constantinople, where he was well received by the Emperor; in his book he gave a description of the most important monuments of the capital and remarked: “Constantinople is a city larger than its renown proclaims. May God, in His grace and generosity, deign to make of it the capital of Islam!”314 Perhaps one should compare the description of Benjamin of Tudela, with some verses of John Tzetzes, a poet of the epoch of the Comneni, relating also to Constantinople. Parodying two Homeric verses of the Iliad (IV, 437–38) “For they (the Trojans) had not all like speech nor one language, but their tongues were mingled, and they were brought from many lands,” John Tzetzes said, not without bitterness and irritation: “The men are very thievish who dwell in the capital of Constantine; they belong neither to one language nor to one people; there are minglings of strange tongues and there are very thievish men, Cretans and Turks, Alans, Rhodians and Chians (of the island of Chios), … all of them being very thievish and corrupt are considered as saints in Constantinople.”315 The brilliant and bustling life of Constantinople under Manuel reminded A. Andreades of the life of certain capitals such as Paris in the last years of the Empire, on the eve of the catastrophe.316
It is difficult to say exactly what was the population of the capital at that time. But perhaps, as a mere conjecture, the population of Constantinople towards the end of the twelfth century may be computed at between 800,000 and 1,000,000.317
In connection with the increase of large estates under the Comneni and Angeli, the landowners were steadily gaining in strength and power and becoming less dependent on the central government; feudal processes were sweepingly developing in the Empire. Referring to the epoch of the two last Comneni and Isaac II Angelus, Cognasso, wrote: “Feudalism covers thenceforth the whole Empire, and the Emperor must contend with grand provincial landlords who do not always consent to provide soldiers with the generosity shown, for example, for the struggle against the Normans. … As the equilibrium between the elements which formed the social and political platform of the Empire was broken, the aristocracy obtained the upper hand, and finally the Empire came under its power. The monarchy is deprived of its power and wealth in favor of the aristocracy.” The Empire was hastening to its ruin.318
To the time of Manuel belongs a very interesting chrysobull which prohibited the transference to any but officials of senatorial or military rank of the immovable property granted by the Emperor; if, none the less, a transference had taken place contrary to this regulation, the immovable property was to go to the treasury.319 This prohibition of Manuel, depriving the lower classes of the chance of possessing imperial land grants, made the aristocracy master of immense territories.320 This chrysobull was abrogated in December, 1182, by Alexius II Comnenus. The abrogation was signed by the latter; but, without doubt, it was drawn up under the pressure of the all-powerful regent, Andronicus. From 1182 on the imperial grants in immovable properties might be transmitted to anyone regardless of his social rank.321
The chrysobull of 1182 must be interpreted in connection with the new policy of Andronicus towards the Byzantine aristocracy and large landowners, against whom he had to open a stubborn struggle. Alexius II Comnenus, who signed the law, was the mere mouthpiece of Andronicus’ will. Therefore doubt is cast upon the opinion of some scholars who think that as Manuel’s prohibition had clearly been aimed at the Franks and should have hindered the land purchases of those foreign traders, so the abrogation of the prohibition was an act friendly to the Franks and entirely corresponded with the policy of Alexius II Comnenus.322 True, the government of Alexius II, who was a child, and of his mother, had sought for the support of the hated Latin elements, but after Andronicus had entered Constantinople and been proclaimed regent, circumstances changed; the government fell into his hands, and towards the end of 1182 his policy was already openly hostile to the Latins.
Defense and commerce.—Because of almost permanent hostilities in the epoch of the Comneni, the army cost the state enormous sums of money, and the Comneni took care of the restoration and strengthening of their army. The army consisted of a great number of mercenaries of the most various nationalities besides the local elements supplied by the themes. Under the Comneni there was a new national element in the army—the Anglo-Saxon.
The cause of the appearance of the Anglo-Saxons in Byzantium was the conquest of England by the Normans under William the Conqueror in 1066, when the catastrophe which had burst upon England after the battle of Senlac, a few miles north of Hastings, delivered the country into the hands of the severe conqueror. Attempts at insurrection on the part of the Anglo-Saxons against the new ruler were severely quelled by executions and extinguished in streams of blood. Many Anglo-Saxons, in despair, abandoned their fatherland. In the eighties of the eleventh century, at the beginning of the rule of Alexius Comnenus, as the English historian Freeman emphasized in his very well-known work on the conquest of England by the Normans, some convincing indications of the Anglo-Saxon emigration into the Greek Empire were already evident.323 A western chronicler of the first half of the twelfth century wrote: “After having lost their liberty the Anglians were deeply afflicted… . Some of them shining with the blossom of beautiful youth went to distant countries and boldly offered themselves for the military service of the Constantinopolitan Emperor Alexius.”324This was the beginning of the “Varangian-English bodyguard” which, in the history of Byzantium of the twelfth century, played an important part, such as the “Varangian-Russian Druzhina” (Company) had played in the tenth and eleventh centuries. Apparently, there never was such a great number of mercenary foreign troops in Byzantium as during the latinophile rule of Manuel.
As far as the navy was concerned, the maritime forces which had been well organized by Alexius seem gradually to have been losing their fighting power, so that under Manuel they were in a state of decline. Nicetas Choniates, in his history, sharply condemned Manuel for the destruction of the maritime power of the Empire.325 Under the Comneni, the Venetian vessels which had made an alliance with the Empire helped Byzantium a great deal, but, of course, at the expense of Byzantine economic independence.
Manuel restored and fortified some places which were in a state of decay. He fortified a very important city and stronghold, Attalia (Satalia), on the southern shore of Asia Minor.326 He also erected fortifications and constructed a bridge at Abydos, at the entrance into the Hellespont,327where one of the most important Byzantine customhouses was located and where, from the time of the Comneni, the Venetians and their rivals, Genoese and Pisans, had their residences.
Provincial administration under the Comneni has not yet been satisfactorily investigated. It is known that in the eleventh century the number of themes reached thirty-eight.328 The reduction of the territory of the Empire in the eleventh and twelfth centuries made it impossible for the boundaries of the provinces and their number to remain the same. Information on this problem can be drawn from the Novel of Alexius III Angelus, of Nov. 1198.329 where the trade privileges granted Venice by the Emperor are discussed and where are enumerated “by names all the provinces that were under the power of Romania and where (the Venetians) could conduct their trade business.”330 The list given in this Novel, a source which has not yet been adequately studied, gives an approximate idea of the changes which took place in the provincial division of the Empire in the course of the twelfth century.
Most of the former themes had been governed by military governors or strategi. Later, especially after the battle of Manzikert in 1071, and then in the course of the twelfth century in connection with the growing Turkish danger in Asia Minor and with the secession of Bulgaria in 1186, the territory of the Empire was considerably reduced. Owing to the reduction of territory, the very important title of strategus given to the governor general of the themes towards the end of the eleventh century fell into disuse. Under the Comneni the title of strategus entirely disappeared, because it became inappropriate to the smaller size of the provinces, and it was gradually replaced by dux, a title which had been already borne, in the ninth century and earlier, by the governors of some small provinces.331
In the commercial situation of the Empire under the Comneni and Angeli an exceedingly important change took place as a result of the crusades: the West and East began to engage in direct commercial relations with each other and Byzantium lost the role of intermediate commercial agent between them.332 It was a severe blow to the international economic power of the Eastern Empire. Then in the capital itself, as in some other places, Venice had already gained a strong footing at the beginning of the reign of Alexius Comnenus. Under the same emperor the Pisans obtained very important commercial privileges at Constantinople; they received there a landing place (scala) and a special quarter with stores for their merchandise and private houses; reserved seats were guaranteed to the Pisans at St. Sophia during divine service and in the Hippodrome for public spectacles.333 Towards the end of the reign of John Comnenus the Genoese opened negotiations for the first time with Byzantium, and it is certain that the main cause of these negotiations related to commercial questions. Manuel’s policy was always closely connected with the commercial interests of Venice, Pisa, and Genoa, who, undermining the economic power of the Empire, were, in their turn, in a state of permanent commercial competition. In 1169 Genoa received exceptionally advantageous trade privileges all over the Empire, except in two places on the northern shores of the Black and Azov Sea.334
After the terrible massacre of the Latins in 1182 their position became again more favorable under the Angeli; and finally in November 1198 a chrysobull was reluctantly granted by Alexius III Angelus to Venice, reciting and confirming the previous bull of Isaac Angelus regarding the defensive alliance with Venice, renewing the trading privileges and adding a number of new provisions. The boundaries of the Venetian quarter remained unchanged.335 According to one writer, some clauses of this treaty exerted very great influence upon the institution of consular jurisdiction in the Ottoman Empire.336
Not only in the capital, but also in many provincial cities and islands of the Empire, the Venetians, Pisans, and Genoese took full advantage of their trading privileges and held quarters of their own. Thessalonica (Salonica) was, after Constantinople, the most important economic center of the Empire. There, as a source of the twelfth century testified, every year at the end of October, on the occasion of the feast of St. Demetrius, the patron of the city, a famous fair was held; and at that time Greeks and Slavs, Italians, Spaniards (Iberians) and Portuguese (Lusitanians), “Celts from beyond the Alps” (French), and men who came from the distant shores of the Atlantic, swarmed to Thessalonica and carried on their business transactions.337 Thebes, Corinth, and Patras in Greece were famous for their silks. Hadrianople and Philippopolis, in the Balkan peninsula, were also very important commercial centers. The islands of the Aegean also took part in the industry and commerce of that time.
As the fatal year 1204 approached, the commercial importance of Byzantium was thoroughly undermined by the commercial efficiency and initiative of the Italian republics, Venice, Genoa, and Pisa. Venice occupied the first place. The monarchy lost, as the Italian historian, Cognasso, said, “its power and wealth in favor of the aristocracy, just as it is forced to lose its numerous other rights in favor of the commercial cosmopolitan class of the great cities of the Empire.”338