Justinian the Great. Justinian I the Great - biography, facts from life, photographs, background information

Together with Justinian I (April 1 – August 1) Predecessor Anastasius I Successor Justinian I Birth OK.
presumably Bederian (province of Macedonia Salutaris). Death August 1(0527-08-01 )
Constantinople Genus Justiniana (founder) Spouse Euphemia Religion Orthodoxy Justin I at Wikimedia Commons

Origin and military career

The future emperor began his military service during the reign of Leo as a simple legionary soldier. According to numerous sources, he did not learn to write until the end of his life. In the first years of his reign, Anastasia participated in the suppression of the Isaurian rebellion. During the Persian campaign Anastasia 502-505. commanded a separate detachment. During the rebellion of Vitalian 514-515. participated in the defense of Constantinople and breaking the naval blockade of the city. By the end of his reign, Anastasia rose to the rank of committee of excuvites - head of the palace guard.

Accession to the throne

Emperor election

Immediately after the death of the old emperor silenciary sent a message to Master of Officials Köhler and Justin, chief of the palace guard. Both arrived together with the guards subordinate to them, Koehler called on his subordinates scholars, and Justin excuvites, after which the official announcement of the emperor's death was made. The next morning, the demos gathered at the Hippodrome, holding an acclamation demanding a new emperor. At this time, senior officials and Patriarch John II gathered in the palace for negotiations, but could not reach an agreement. As the negotiations dragged on, the demes at the Hippodrome proclaimed one of the officers of the Excuvites, a certain John, who later became the bishop of Heraclea, emperor, and raised him on his shield. However, the Veneti did not support this and a clash between factions began, in which several people died. The Scholararii then proclaimed one of their officers emperor, which caused further clashes. An attempt was also made to elect Justinian, but he refused.

Perhaps the conspiracy had a religious basis. At the very least, Marcellinus Comite refers to the conspirators as "Manichaeans", which was common practice regarding opponents of the Council of Chalcedon at the time. In the 6th century Syriac chronicle of Zechariah of Mytilene, as well as other Syrian sources, Amantius is declared a martyr for the freedom of his faith.

The unclear circumstances of the conspiracy and conflicting descriptions in the sources have made this conspiracy the subject of numerous studies.

General characteristics of the board

Procopius, characterizing Justin, writes that he did nothing good and nothing bad to the country, remaining a peasant peasant on the throne. The Secret History states that he did not even know the alphabet and resorted to cunning to sign decrees - the courtiers cut out a stencil from a tablet, and Justin simply traced the letters. In fact, Justin was not at all involved in governing the country, leaving power to the quaestor Proclus, who ruled at his own discretion. With such a weak emperor, it was not difficult for Justinian to begin to lay his hands on the future inheritance during his uncle’s lifetime.

Domestic policy

Having gained support for his election and successfully suppressed the conspiracy of Amantius, the new government, whose main force was Justinian, decided to bring back those who had been unjustly exiled in the previous reign. Among the most famous exiles, the chronicles name the patrician Apion, the senators Diogenianus and Philoxenus and others. All of them were returned to the capital to their previous positions and then promoted. Apion was appointed praetorian prefect of the East, Diogenianus led the troops in the east, and Philoxenus (lat. Flavius ​​Theodorus Philoxenus Soterichus Philoxenus) in 525 became consul of the West.

However, the greatest impact was the return of Vitalian, a powerful military leader who, while serving as comitae foederati, had nearly overthrown Anastasius and whom Justin had recently fought. Despite the fact that Vitalian's troops were defeated, he still remained the main force in the Balkans. Since Vitalian's differences with the previous government were outwardly religious in nature, and the new dynasty supported Orthodoxy, Vitalian and Justin met and swore allegiance to each other. Evagrius directly says that when returning Vitalian, Justin feared his strength and suspected his desire to seize the throne. Vitalian agreed to take the post of head of the so-called permanent troops(lat. in praesenti), and in 520 he became consul. This led to the expected consequences, and the Balkans were reassured, however, being a much more experienced politician than the elderly Justin and young Justinian, Vitalian posed a constant danger to them.

After Vitalian's death, Justinian took his post as commander of the permanent troops.

With the accession of Justin, a new dynasty appeared in Byzantium, traditionally called by the name of its second representative. At the time of his election, Justin was able to gain the support of the highest aristocracy and the Veneti party that sympathized with it. The reasons for this were their expectations of strengthening their influence under a weak emperor, as well as common religious views. In the first years of the new reign, these hopes could be considered justified. John Malala reports unrest provoked by the Veneti in 519 in all major cities of the empire. Significant was the unrest in Antioch in Syria, which forced the cancellation of the local Olympic Games in the early 520s. The unrest began to subside only in 523 after drastic measures were taken.

Religious politics

The accession of Justin meant a new era in the religious policy of the empire. The two previous emperors, Zeno and Anastasius, adhered to the Monophysite trend. After Zeno issued his Henotikon in 482, intended to be a compromise between the warring parties, relations between Constantinople and Rome were interrupted until a turn to strict Chalcedonianism took place in 518. Relations were restored with

And such a marriage caused a protest from Empress Euphemia. In addition, Theodora showed a clear tendency towards Monophysitism. However, Justinian did not back down. After the death of Euphemia in or around the year, Emperor Justin did not oppose his adopted son. He issued a decree on marriage, which allowed, in particular, a repentant actress who had given up her previous occupation to enter into legal marriage even with high-born persons. Thus the wedding took place.

From the beginning of the reign of Justinian, Thrace began to be subjected to increasingly destructive raids by the “Huns” - Bulgars and “Scythians” - Slavs. In the year, the commander Mund successfully repelled the onslaught of the Bulgars in Thrace.

From the time of Justin, Justinian inherited a policy of persecution of Monophysite monasteries and clergy in northern Syria. However, there was no widespread persecution of Monophysitism in the empire - the number of its adherents was too large. Egypt, the stronghold of the Monophysites, was constantly in danger of disrupting the supply of grain to the capital, which is why Justinian even ordered the construction of a special fortress in Egypt to guard the grain collected in the state granary. Already in the early 530s, Empress Theodora used her influence on her husband to begin negotiations and attempts to reconcile the position of the Monophysites and the Orthodox. In the year, a delegation of Monophysites arrived in Constantinople and was sheltered by the royal couple in the palace of Hormizda. Since then, here, under the patronage of Theodora and with the tacit consent of Justinian, there was a refuge for the Monophysites.

The Nika Rebellion

However, this agreement was in fact a victory for the Monophysites and Saint Pope Agapit, sent by the Ostrogothic king Theodahad to Constantinople as a political ambassador, convinced Justinian to turn away from the false peace with Monophysitism and take the side of the Chalcedonian decisions. The Orthodox Saint Mina was elevated to the place of the displaced Anthimus. Justinian drew up a confession of faith, which Saint Agapit recognized as completely Orthodox. Around the same time, the emperor compiled the Orthodox prayer book “The Only Begotten Son and Word of God,” which was included in the rite of the Divine Liturgy. On May 2 of the year, a Council opened in Constantinople in the presence of the emperor for the final trial of the case of Anthima. During the Council, a number of Monophysite leaders were condemned, among them Anthimus and Sevier.

However, at the same time, Theodora persuaded the emperor to agree to appoint as heir to the deceased Pope Agapit, who had shown a willingness to compromise, Deacon Vigilius. His elevation to the papal throne by imperial will took place on March 29 of the year, despite the fact that Silverius had already been elected to the primate see in Rome that year. Considering Rome to be his city and himself to be the highest authority, Justinian easily recognized the primacy of the popes over the Patriarchs of Constantinople, and also easily appointed popes at his own discretion.

The Troubles of 540 and Their Consequences

In internal administration, Justinian adhered to the same line, but paid much less attention to attempts at legislative reforms - after the death of the lawyer Tribonian in the year, the emperor issued only 18 documents. In the year, Justinian abolished the consulate in Constantinople, declaring himself consul for life, and at the same time stopping expensive consular games. The king did not give up on his construction undertakings - so, in the year the huge “New Church” was completed in the name of the Blessed Virgin Mary on the ruins of the Jerusalem Temple.

Theological debates of the 540s and 550s

From the early 540s, Justinian began to delve deeper into questions of theology. The desire to overcome Monophysitism and end discord in the Church did not leave him. Meanwhile, Empress Theodora continued to patronize the Monophysites and in the year, at the request of the Ghassanid Arab sheikh al-Harith, contributed to the establishment of the Monophysite hierarchy through the installation of a traveling Monophysite bishop, James Baradei. Justinian initially tried to catch him, but this failed, and the emperor subsequently had to come to terms with Baradei’s activities on the outskirts of the empire. Although Empress Theodora died in the year having reconciled with the Orthodox Church, there is a version according to which she bequeathed to the emperor not to persecute prominent Monophysites, who all this time were hiding in the Constantinople palace of Hormizda. One way or another, the Orthodox emperor did not intensify the persecution of the Monophysites, but tried to gather believers in a single Church by condemning other false teachings.

Around the beginning of the 540s, the emperor raised the possibility of formally condemning Origen. Having accused him of 10 heresies in a letter to Saint Menas, in the year the emperor convened a Council in the capital, which condemned Origen and his teaching.

At the same time, the imperial theological adviser Theodore Askidas proposed to condemn some of the writings of Blessed Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Willow of Edessa and Theodore of Mopsuet, which expressed Nestorian errors. Although the authors themselves, long deceased, were respected in the Church, a conciliar condemnation of their erroneous views would have deprived the Monophysites of the opportunity to slander the Orthodox by accusing them of Nestorianism. In the year Justinian promulgated an edict against the so-called. “Three Chapters” - non-Orthodox works of the three above-mentioned teachers. However, instead of reconciling the Monophysites with the Church, this caused a protest in the West, where the condemnation of the “Three Chapters” was seen as an attack on Orthodoxy. The Patriarch of Constantinople, Saint Mina, signed the imperial decree, but Pope Vigilius did not agree for a long time and even went to the extent of breaking off communion with the Church of Constantinople.

The empire fought for a long time against the rebel troops in Africa, who hoped to redistribute the newly conquered lands among themselves. Only in the year was it possible to successfully suppress the rebellion, after which North Africa firmly became part of the empire.

At the end of the 540s, Italy seemed lost, but the requests of Pope Vigilius and other noble Roman refugees in Constantinople convinced Justinian not to give up and he again decided to send an expedition there in the year. The numerous troops gathered for the campaign first moved to Thrace, from where, thanks to this, the rampaging Slavs left. Then, in the year, a large force of Romans finally arrived in Italy under the command of Narses and defeated the Ostrogoths. Soon the peninsula was cleared of pockets of resistance, and during the year some lands north of the Po River were also occupied. After many years of exhausting struggle, bloodless Italy, with its administrative center in Ravenna, was nevertheless returned to the empire. In the year, Justinian issued the “Pragmatic Sanction”, which canceled all the innovations of Totila - the land was returned to its former owners, as well as the slaves and colons freed by the king. The emperor, not trusting the competence of the imperial administrators, entrusted the management of the social, financial and educational systems in Italy to the bishops, since the Church remained the only moral and economic force in the destroyed country. In Italy, as in Africa, Arianism was persecuted.

The importation of silkworm eggs for about a year from China, which until then had strictly kept the secret of silk production, was a significant success. According to legend, the emperor himself persuaded the Persian Nestorian monks to deliver him the precious cargo. From that time on, Constantinople began to produce its own silk, on which a state monopoly was established, bringing large revenues to the treasury.

Heritage

Prayers

Troparion, tone 3

Desiring the beauty of the glory of God, / in earthly [life] You pleased him / and, having cultivated the talent entrusted to you well, you made him stronger, / for him and fought righteously. / Because of the reward of your deeds, / like a righteous man, you accepted From Christ God // Pray to Him to be saved by those who sing to you, Justinians.

Kontakion, tone 8

The chosen one of piety is abundantly / and the champion of the truth is not shameful, / people praise you more honestly and dutifully, God-wise, / but as having boldness towards Christ God, / you who praise humility ask, and we call you: Rejoice, Justinians of everlasting memory.

Sources, literature

• Procopius of Caesarea, Justinian's Wars.
• Procopius of Caesarea, About buildings.
• Procopius of Caesarea, Secret history

• Dyakonov, A., “News of John of Ephesus and Syrian chronicles about the Slavs in the VI-VII centuries,” VDI, 1946, № 1.
• Ryzhov, Konstantin, All the monarchs of the world: vol. 2 - Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, Byzantium, M.: "Veche," 1999, 629-637.
• Allen, Pauline, "The "Justinianic" Plague," Byzantion, № 49, 1979, 5-20.
• Athanassiadi, Polymnia, “Persecution and Response in Late Paganism,” JHS, № 113, 1993, 1-29.
• Barker, John E., Justinian and the Later Roman Empire, Madison, Wisc., 1966.
• Browning, Robert Justinian and Theodora, 2nd ed., London, 1987.
• Bundy, D. D., “Jacob Baradaeus: The State of Research,” Museon, № 91, 1978, 45-86.
• Bury, J. B., "The Nika riot," JHS, № 17, 1897, 92-119.
• Cameron, Alan, "Heresies and Factions," Byzantion, № 44, 1974, 92-120.
• Cameron, Alan Circus Factions. Blues and Greens at Rome and Byzantium, Oxford, 1976.
• Cameron, Averil, Agathias, Oxford, 1970.
• Cameron, Averil, Procopius and the Sixth Century, Berkeley, 1985.
• Cameron, Averil, The Mediterranean World in Late Antiquity, London and New York, 1993.
• Capizzi, Giustiniano I tra politica e reliogione, Messina, 1994.
• Chuvin, Pierre, Archer, B. A., trans., A Chronicle of the Last Pagans, Cambridge, 1990.
• Diehl, Charles, Justinien et la civilization byzantine au VIe siècle, I-II, Paris, 1901.
• Diehl, Charles, Theodora, impératrice of Byzance, Paris, 1904.
• Downey, Glanville, "Justinian as Builder," Art Bulletin, № 32, 1950, 262-66.
• Downey, Glanville, Constantinople in the Age of Justinian, Norman, Okla., 1960.
• Evans, J. A. S., "Procopius and the Emperor Justinian," Historical Papers, The Canadian Historical Association, 1968, 126-39.
• Evans, J. A. S., "The "Niká Rebellion and the Empress Theodora," Byzantion, № 54, 1984, 380-82.
• Evans, J. A. S., "The dates of Procopius" works: a Recapitulation of the Evidence," GRBS, № 37, 1996, 301-13.
• Evans, J. A. S. Procopius, New York, 1972.
• Evans, J. A. S. The Age of Justinian. The Circumstances of Imperial Power, London and New York, 1996.
• Fotiou, A., "Recruitment Shortages in the VIth Century," Byzantion, № 58, 1988, 65-77.
• Fowden, Garth, Empire to Commonwealth: Consequences of Monotheism in Late Antiquity, Princeton, 1993.
• Frend, W. H. C., The Rise of the Monophysite Movement: Chapters on the History of the Church in the Fifth and Sixth Centuries, Cambridge, 1972.
• Gerostergios, Asterios, Justinian the Great: The Emperor and Saint, Belmont, 1982.
• rus. translation: Gerostergios, A., Justinian the Great - Emperor and Saint[transl. from English prot. M. Kozlov], M.: Sretensky Monastery Publishing House, 2010.
• Gordon, C. D., "Procopius and Justinian's Financial Policies," Phoenix, № 13, 1959, 23-30.
• Grabar, André The Golden Age of Justinian, from the Death of Theodosius to the Rise of Islam, New York, 1967.
• Greatrex, Geoffrey, "The Nika Riot: A Reappraisal," JHS, 117, 1997, 60-86.
• Greatrex, Geoffrey, Rome and Persia at War, 502-532, Leeds, 1998.
• Harrison, R. M. A Temple for Byzantium, London, 1989.
• Harvey, Susan Ashbrook, "Remembering Pain: Syriac Historiography and the Separation of the Churches," Byzantion, № 58, 1988, 295-308.
• Harvey, Susan Ashbrook, Asceticism and Society in Crisis: John of Ephesus and "The Lives of the Eastern Saints", Berkeley, 1990.
• Herrin, Judith, The Formation of Christendom, Oxford, 1987.
• Herrin, Judith, "Byzance: le palais et la ville," Byzantion, № 61, 1991, 213-230.
• Holmes, William G., The Age of Justinian and Theodora: A History of the Sixth Century AD, 2nd ed., London, 1912.
• Honoré, Tony, Tribonian, London, 1978.
• Myendorff, J., “Justinian, the Empire, and the Church,” DOP, № 22, 1968, 43-60.
• Moorhead, John Justinian, London and New York, 1994.
• Shahid, I., Byzantium and the Arabs in the Sixth Century, Washington, D.C., 1995.
• Thurman, W. S., “How Justinian I Sought to Handle the Problem of Religious Dissidents,” GOTR, № 13, 1968, 15-40.
• Ure, P. N., Justinian and his Reign, Harmondsworth, 1951.
• Vasiliev, A. A., History of the Byzantine Empire, Madison, 1928, repr. 1964:
• see Russian translation vol. 1, ch. 3 “Justinian the Great and his immediate successors (518-610)” at http://www.hrono.ru/biograf/bio_yu/yustinian1.php
• Watson, Alan, trans. The Digest of Justinian, with Latin text edited by T. Mommsen with the aid of Paul Krueger, I-IV, Philadelphia, 1985.
• Weschke, Kenneth P., On the Person of Christ: The Christology of the Emperor Justinian, Crestwood, 1991.

Used materials

• Historical portal page Chronos:
• http://www.hrono.ru/biograf/bio_yu/yustinian1.php - used art. TSB; encyclopedias The world around us; from the book Dashkov, S. B., Emperors of Byzantium, M., 1997; historical calendar-almanac Holy Rus'.
• Evans, James Allan, "Justinian (527-565 A.D.)," An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Emperors, St. Petersburg, Noah Publishing House, 1994, 25-44: and “Flavius” is a sign of belonging to the imperial family.

  The word is missing from the original. Probably missed by mistake.

Justin I. Solid, gold.

Justin I - Byzantine emperor in 518-527. By origin he was an illiterate peasant, originally from the village of Vederiana in the province of Internal Dacia. The young men went to Constantinople and entered military service in the tagma of the Excuvites at the court of the emperor Leo I(457-474). He made a dizzying career, rising to the top thanks to his military talents and everyday cunning. Participated in the suppression of the Isaurian uprising, commanded the provincial army during Iranian-Byzantine war 502-505 At the end of the reign Anastasia I(491-518) appointed committee of the Excuvites. After the death of Anastasius I, not a single relative of the deceased emperor was considered in Constantinople as a real contender for the throne. Mighty preposition of the sacred edicule Amantium sought the throne for his nephew Theocritus, but the army voted for the committee of the excuvites Justin. On his side were the Senate and the people, dissatisfied with the religious and socio-political activities of Anastasius. Justin immediately executed Amantius and Theocritus and returned the popular commander in Constantinople to the capital Vitaliana. Justin I decisively turned the religious policy of the state towards Orthodoxy, ordered the removal of about fifty Syrian bishops - Monophysites and began persecuting everyone who supported heretical movements. Around 525, Byzantium suffered from a strong earthquake, many cities were almost completely destroyed, including one of the largest centers of the East - Antioch. The Emperor allocated considerable funds for their restoration. In early April 527, Justin I became seriously ill and therefore appointed his nephew Justinian as co-emperor with the title of Augustus, but in fact Justinian had ruled the empire under his elderly uncle long before that. Emperor Justin died on August 1, 527, and was succeeded by Justinian I .

Byzantine dictionary: in 2 volumes / [comp. General Ed. K.A. Filatov]. SPb.: Amphora. TID Amphora: RKhGA: Oleg Abyshko Publishing House, 2011, vol. 2, p.531-532.

Justin was an Illyrian peasant by origin. Under Emperor Leo, in order to get rid of poverty, he and his two brothers reached Constantinople on foot and entered military service. Procopius writes that upon arrival in the city, the brothers had nothing but goat coats and biscuits grabbed from the house, but here they were immediately lucky: since they had an excellent physique, they were selected to join the court guard. Subsequently, under Anastasia, Justin participated in the Isaurian War. Then he gradually achieved great power and was placed at the head of the court guard (Procopius: “The Secret History”; 6). Justin received imperial power beyond all expectations, because there were many noble and rich people who were related to the deceased Anastasius and had more rights to appropriate such great power to themselves. Amantius, the overseer of the imperial repose, was a very strong man at that time. As an eunuch, he himself, by law, could not rule, but he wanted to put the crown of autocratic power on Theocritus, a man devoted to him. For this purpose, he called Justin, gave him a large amount of money and ordered it to be distributed to people who were especially suitable for such a task and could clothe Theocritus in purple. But Justin, either because he bribed the people with this money, or because he gained the favor of the so-called bed servants with it - they tell about this in different ways - acquired royal power for himself and after that took the lives of both Amantius and Theocritus with some other people.

Justin summoned Vitalian, who lived in Thrace, to Constantinople, who had once attempted to deprive Anastasius of supreme power, because he feared his strength and his belligerence, about which rumors spread everywhere. To inspire confidence in him, Justin declared him commander of part of the army and then promoted him to consul. In the rank of consul, Vitalian came to the palace and was treacherously killed at the palace door (Evagrius: 4; 1, 3). Unlike the previous emperors, Zeno and Anastasius, Justin professed strict Orthodoxy. He ordered the removal of about fifty Syrian Monophysite bishops and initiated persecution of adherents of all heretical trends (Dashkov: “Justin the First”). Justin even wanted to seize and cut off the tongue of the Antiochian primate Severus for blaspheming the Council of Chalcedon (Evagrius: 4; 4).

According to Procopius, Justin was alien to all learning and did not even know the alphabet, which had never happened among the Romans before. And at a time when it was customary for the emperor to put his own hand on the documents containing his decrees, he was not able either to issue decrees or to be involved in what was being done. A certain Proclus, who happened to be with him in the position of quaestor, did everything himself at his own discretion. But in order to have evidence of the emperor’s handwritten signature, those to whom this matter was entrusted came up with the following. Having cut on a small smooth board the outline of four letters, meaning “read” in Latin, and dipping a pen in the colored ink with which emperors usually write, they handed it to Justin. Then, placing the said tablet on the document and taking the emperor's hand, they traced the outline of these four letters with a pen so that it passed along all the slots in the wood.

Justin lived with a woman named Luppikina. A slave and barbarian, she was bought by him in the past and was his concubine. And so, together with Justin, in her declining years, she achieved imperial power. This woman did not have any merits; she remained ignorant of state affairs. She did not appear in the palace under her own name (it was too funny), but began to be called Euphemia. Justin himself was unable to make his subjects either good or bad, for he was extremely weak in mind and truly like a pack donkey, capable only of following the one who pulls his bridle, and every now and then shaking his ears. He was distinguished by his simplicity, did not know how to speak well, and was generally very masculine. In old age, having weakened in mind, he became a laughing stock for his subjects, and everyone treated him with complete disdain, since he did not understand what was happening. His nephew, Justinian, while still young, began to manage all state affairs and was the source of many misfortunes for the Romans (Dig: “Secret History”; 6, 8,9).

All the monarchs of the world. Ancient Greece. Ancient Rome. Byzantium. Konstantin Ryzhov. Moscow, 2001

JUSTINE I (c. 450–527 AD), Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire. Justin's most memorable accomplishment is the end of a ca. 35 years of church dispute with the West. Thanks to the patronage that Justin provided to the future emperor Justinian, he was able to exert a significant influence on the subsequent history of the empire.

Justin was born into a peasant family, possibly in Bederian (Salutaris province of Macedonia). Having set off at the age of approx. After 20 years in search of fortune in Constantinople, he entered the service at court and, gradually rising through the ranks of the career ladder, reached the high position of comes excubitorum under Emperor Anastasia I, i.e. commander of the imperial guard. When the emperor died on July 9, 518, leaving the question of succession open, Justin ascended the throne, contrary to expectations. This happened as a result of cunning intrigues when Justin used the money allocated to him to support another candidate to promote his own candidacy.

There was nothing unusual in the way Justin came to power for that era, however, unlike many other adventurers, the founder of the new dynasty was almost 70 years old when he came to power, and the undeniable merits of the commander seemed to be the only argument in his benefit. Barely literate, Justin was forced to sign official documents according to the stencil that his pen followed. Gradually, the emperor delegated more and more powers to his nephew Justinian. Coming from the same place as Justin, Justinian was an educated and sophisticated man, but he owed his rise solely to his uncle, who caused a scandal among the aristocracy by legitimizing his ward’s relationship with the former actress Theodora, whom Justin made a patrician. Justin's own wife was his elderly cohabitant named Euphemia. He acted very wisely by adopting Justinian and making him his co-emperor in 527, when he became seriously ill due to the opening of an old battle wound. Justin died four months later, on August 1, 527.

Anastasius left Justin with a number of unresolved problems - religious schism, an unreliable army, unrest in the capital, which found its way out in the irreconcilable rivalry of the hippodrome parties, which at that time was a veiled form of political struggle, high taxes and discontent in the provinces. Justin's most radical political measure, implemented through the hands of his nephew, was the conclusion of alliances in the West with supporters of the Roman Church, which was achieved at the cost of a decisive offensive against the Eastern Monophysite heretics, who had the support of the two previous emperors. The council, which met at Tire in 518, was followed by three years of brutal persecution of the Monophysites, many of whom were forced to hide in Egypt. As a result, the reconciliation of the Eastern and Western churches, achieved in 519, became possible.

Now Justin could gradually change his policy of appeasing the Arian Theodoric, king of the Ostrogoths in Italy. Justin's last friendly gesture towards Theodoric was to give him permission to appoint consuls in Rome in 522. After this, Justin entered into an alliance with the Vandal kingdom in North Africa, but Theodoric failed to gain support for the new orthodox Merovingian kingdom in Gaul. In 524 Justin began to persecute the Arians as heretics, and by the end of his reign Ostrogothic Italy found itself isolated and its enemies allied with Constantinople as the defender of Orthodoxy in the West. The scope of Justin's diplomatic efforts extended all the way to Abyssinia, where he helped the kings of Aksum (despite their Monophysitism) in their campaigns against the Yemenite tribes.

During the reign of Justin, the first Slavic people who were to invade the Balkans, the Antes, appeared on the borders of the empire, and in the last months of his reign the Persians rose again.

Materials from the encyclopedia "The World Around Us" were used.

Like a donkey that obeys its driver in everything

Justin I (c. 450 - 527, emp. from 518)

The son of poor Illyrian peasants, Justin came to Constantinople barefoot, with a knapsack over his shoulders, to seek happiness in the capital. He began his service as a simple soldier under Marcian, and under Anastasia, in the Isaurian war and the war with Vitalian, he already held command positions. At the time of Anastasia's death, Justin held the high post of Comitat Excuvites, chief of the imperial bodyguards. A good military man, he had no education, and therefore was distinguished by ignorance, lack of eloquence and bad manners.

Since the late Anastasius had nephews, they could well lay claim to the throne, but the eunuch Amantius, influential at court, decided to make his protégé, a certain Theocritus, emperor. Amantius gave Justin a large sum of money to distribute to the excuvites in order to lure the latter to his side. Justin distributed the gold in his own name, without mentioning anything about the order of Amantius, and since he was a man, despite his rather advanced age, popular among the common people and the army due to his origin and personal qualities, they proclaimed him emperor.

Among the palace nobility, some influential persons also supported the candidacy of the Comite, and on July 10, 518, Justin was crowned. So the ruler of the Romans became, according to Theophan, “a pious king, a strict and highly experienced man, who began serving as a simple soldier and rose to the rank of senator... and was amiable in everything, as an ardent lover of the Orthodox faith and a man experienced in military affairs.” They said that shortly before his death, Anastasia had a dream in which the emperor saw that after him the throne would go to the one who was the first to come to him in the morning with a report. This man turned out to be the Committee of the Excuvites, so that when one day at a reception Justin, walking around the emperor, accidentally stepped on the edge of his robe, he turned around and asked with a smile: “Why are you in a hurry!”

In order to save himself from trouble, the new emperor ordered the execution of Amantius and Theocritus.

He allowed those exiled under Anastasia to return to the capital, and the rebellious Vitalian, as a supporter of Orthodoxy, was favored, receiving the title magister militum, and in S20 he became consul (he soon died as a result of an assassination attempt).

Justin I decisively turned the state's religious policy towards orthodoxy. Unlike Zinon and Anastasius I, he set a course for reconciliation with the papacy, the conflict with which (“the schism of Acacius”) did not stop for 35 years. The emperor ordered the removal of about fifty Syrian Monophysite bishops and initiated persecution of adherents of all heretical trends of Christianity. Pope Hormizd and the Eastern Roman monarch were soon truly reconciled. This seriously alarmed Theodoric, who, suspecting the Romans of political treason, unleashed terror against the old nobility, and among others, one of the most educated people of that time, the Neoplatonist philosopher Boethius, consular and master of the offices of the Ostrogothic king, died. Ravenna's relations with Byzantium deteriorated, despite the diplomatic curtseys of Justin I: around 519, he made Theodoric's grandson Atalaric consul and adopted him.

In 521 the Persian war resumed. Two years later, Lazika (a region of Western Georgia) seceded from Persia, and its ruler, having converted to Christianity, found help from Justin I.

Around 525, Byzantium suffered from a strong earthquake, many cities were almost completely destroyed, including one of the largest centers of the East, Antioch-on-Orontes. The Emperor allocated considerable funds for their restoration.

Fierce fights broke out between circus parties in Constantinople for several years. The city prefect "calmed" the population by carrying out public executions.

Being a person quite far from science, even semi-literate (they said that he never learned to write, and in order to put resolutions on the submitted documents, they made a tablet for him with the letters legi - “read” cut into it, along which he moved a pen), Justin perfectly understood the need for a broad education for a statesman and tried to give it to his nephew Justinian (he did not have his own children).

(biographical reference book).

The west of the Roman Empire, captured by the Germans, who divided it into barbarian kingdoms, lay in ruins. Only islands and fragments of the Hellenistic civilization, which by that time had already been transformed by the light of the Gospel, were preserved there. The German kings - Catholic, Arian, pagan - still had reverence for the Roman name, but the center of gravity for them was no longer the dilapidated, devastated and depopulated city on the Tiber, but New Rome, created by the creative act of St. Constantine on the European shore of the Bosphorus, cultural superiority which over the cities of the West was indisputably obvious.

The original Latin-speaking, as well as Latinized, inhabitants of the Germanic kingdoms adopted the ethnonyms of their conquerors and masters - the Goths, Franks, Burgundians, while the Roman name long ago became familiar to the former Hellenes, who ceded their original ethnonym, which fed their national pride in the past, to the small ones in the east empires to the pagans. Paradoxically, subsequently in our Rus', at least in the writings of learned monks, pagans of any origin, even Samoyeds, are called “Hellenes.” People from other nations - Armenians, Syrians, Copts - also called themselves Romans, or, in Greek, Romans, if they were Christians and citizens of the empire, which was identified in their minds with the ecumene - the Universe, not, of course, because they imagined on its borders is the edge of the world, but because the world lying beyond these borders was deprived of fullness and self-worth in their consciousness and in this sense belonged to pitch darkness - meon, in need of enlightenment and sharing the benefits of Christian Roman civilization, in need of integration into the true ecumene, or, what is the same, to the Roman Empire. From then on, the newly baptized peoples, regardless of their actual political status, were, by the very fact of baptism, considered included in the imperial body, and their rulers from barbarian sovereigns became tribal archons, whose powers stemmed from the emperors in whose service they were, at least symbolically , entered, receiving ranks from the palace nomenklatura as a reward.

In Western Europe, the era from the 6th to the 9th centuries is the dark ages, and the East of the empire experienced during this period, despite crises, external threats and territorial losses, a brilliant flourishing, reflections of which were cast to the west, which is why it was not overturned as a result of the barbaric conquest into the mother's womb of prehistoric existence, as happened in its time with the Mycenaean civilization, destroyed by immigrants from Macedonia and Epirus, conventionally called Dorians, who invaded its borders. The Dorians of the Christian era - Germanic barbarians - stood no higher than the ancient conquerors of Achaia in terms of their level of cultural development, but, finding themselves within the empire and turning the conquered provinces into ruins, they fell into the field of attraction of the fabulously rich and beautiful world capital - New Rome, which withstood the blows of human elements and learned to appreciate the ties that bound their people to him.

The era ended with the assimilation of the imperial title to the Frankish king Charles, and more precisely and definitely - with the failure of attempts to settle relations between the newly proclaimed emperor and the successive emperor - St. Irene - so that the empire remained united and indivisible if it had two rulers with the same title, as has happened many times happened in the past. The failure of negotiations led to the formation of a separate empire in the West, which, from the point of view of political and legal traditions, was an act of usurpation. The unity of Christian Europe was undermined, but not completely destroyed, for the peoples of the East and West of Europe remained for another two and a half centuries in the bosom of a single Church.

The period that lasted from the 6th to the turn of the 8th–9th centuries is called Early Byzantine after the anachronistic, but still sometimes used in these centuries in relation to the capital - and never to the empire and state - ancient toponym Byzantium, reanimated by historians of modern times, for whom it began to serve as a name both the state and civilization itself. Within this period, its most brilliant segment, its acme and apogee, was the era of Justinian the Great, which began with the reign of his uncle Justin the Elder and ended in unrest that led to the overthrow of the legitimate emperor of Mauritius and the rise to power of the usurper Phocas. The emperors who reigned after Saint Justinian until the rebellion of Phocas were directly or indirectly related to the dynasty of Justin.

Reign of Justin the Elder

After the death of Anastasius, his nephews, Master of the East Hypatius and the consulars of Probus and Pompey, could claim supreme power, but the dynastic principle in itself meant nothing in the Roman Empire without support from real power and the army. The nephews, having no support from the Excuvites (Life Guards), did not seem to lay claim to power. The eunuch Amantius, who enjoyed special influence over the late emperor, the preposit of the sacred bedchamber (a kind of minister of the court), tried to install his nephew and bodyguard Theocritus as emperor, for which purpose, according to Evagrius Scholasticus, he called upon the committee of the Excuvites and senator Justin, “transferred to him great wealth, ordering the distribution them among people who are especially useful and capable of (helping) Theocritus to put on purple clothing. Having bribed either the people or the so-called excuvites with these riches... (Justin himself) seized power.” According to the version of John Malala, Justin conscientiously fulfilled the order of Amantius and distributed money to the Excuvites subordinate to him so that they would support the candidacy of Theocritus, and “the army and people, having taken (the money), did not want to make Theocritus king, but by the will of God they made Justin king.”

According to another and quite convincing version, which, however, does not contradict the information about the distribution of gifts in favor of Theocritus, at first the traditionally rival guards units (the technology of power in the empire provided for a system of counterweights) - the Excuvites and the Schola - had different candidates for supreme power. The Excuvites raised on their shield the tribune John, a comrade-in-arms of Justin, who soon after the acclamation of his superior by the emperor became a cleric and was made metropolitan of Heraclea, and the scholae proclaimed the master of the militum praesentalis (army stationed in the capital) Patricius emperor. The threat of civil war thus arising was averted by the decision of the Senate to install as emperor the elderly and popular military leader Justin, who, shortly before the death of Anastasius, defeated the rebellious troops of the usurper Vitalian. The Excuvites approved this choice, the Scholas agreed with it, and the people gathered at the hippodrome welcomed Justin.

On July 10, 518, Justin entered the box of the hippodrome along with Patriarch John II and the highest dignitaries. Then he stood on the shield, the campidductor Godila placed a gold chain - a hryvnia - around his neck. The shield was raised to the greetings of the soldiers and people. The banners flew up. The only innovation, according to the observation of J. Dagron, was the fact that the newly proclaimed emperor after the acclamation “did not return to the triclinium of the lodge to receive the insignia,” but the soldiers lined up “turtle-like” to hide him “from prying eyes” while “the patriarch laid a crown on his head" and "clothed him in a chlamys." Then the herald, on behalf of the emperor, announced a welcoming address to the troops and people, in which he called on Divine Providence for help in his service to the people and the state. Each warrior was promised 5 gold coins and a pound of silver as a gift.

A verbal portrait of the new emperor is available in the “Chronicle” of John Malala: “He was short, broad-chested, with gray curly hair, a beautiful nose, ruddy, handsome.” To the description of the emperor’s appearance, the historian adds: “experienced in military affairs, ambitious, but illiterate.”

At that time, Justin was already approaching 70 years of age - at that time it was the age of extreme old age. He was born around 450 into a peasant family in the village of Bederiane (located near the modern Serbian city of Leskovac). In this case, he, and therefore his more famous nephew Justinian the Great, comes from the same Inner Dacia as St. Constantine, who was born in Naissa. Some historians find Justin's homeland in the south of the modern Macedonian state - near Bitola. Both ancient and modern authors designate the ethnic origin of the dynasty differently: Procopius calls Justin an Illyrian, and Evagrius and John Malalas a Thracian. The version of the Thracian origin of the new dynasty seems less convincing. Despite the name of the province where Justin was born, Inner Dacia was not true Dacia. After the evacuation of the Roman legions from real Dacia, its name was transferred to the province adjacent to it, where at one time the legions were redeployed, leaving Dacia conquered by Trajan, and in its population it was not the Thracian, but the Illyrian element that predominated. Moreover, within the Roman Empire, by the middle of the 1st millennium, the process of Romanization and Hellenization of the Thracians had already been completed or was being completed, while one of the Illyrian peoples - the Albanians - has safely survived to this day. A. Vasiliev definitely considers Justin an Illyrian; to one degree or another he was, of course, a Romanized Illyrian. Despite the fact that his native language was the language of his ancestors, he, like his fellow villagers and all residents of Inner Dacia in general, as well as neighboring Dardania, at least knew Latin. In any case, Justin had to master it in military service.

For a long time, the version of the Slavic origin of Justin and Justinian was seriously considered. At the beginning of the 17th century, the Vatican librarian Alemmann published a biography of Justinian, attributed to a certain Abbot Theophilus, named his mentor. And in this biography, Justinian was given the name “Upravda”. In this name one can easily guess the Slavic translation of the Latin name of the emperor. The infiltration of Slavs across the imperial border into the central part of the Balkans took place in the 5th century, although at that time it was not of a massive nature and did not yet pose a serious danger. Therefore, the version of the Slavic origin of the dynasty was not rejected out of hand. But, as A.A. writes Vasiliev, “the manuscript that Alemann used was found and examined at the end of the 19th century (1883) by the English scientist Bryce, who showed that this manuscript, being compiled at the beginning of the 17th century, is of a legendary nature and has no historical value.”

During the reign of Emperor Leo, Justin, together with his fellow villagers Zimarchus and Ditivist, went into military service to get rid of poverty. “They reached Byzantium on foot, carrying goat’s sheepskin coats on their shoulders, in which upon arrival in the city they had nothing but biscuits taken from the house. Included in the lists of soldiers, they were selected by the basileus to serve as court guards, because they were distinguished by their excellent physique.” The imperial career of a poor peasant, fantastically unthinkable in medieval Western Europe, was an ordinary phenomenon and even typical of the late Roman and Roman Empire, just as similar metamorphoses were repeated more than once in the history of China.

While serving in the guard, Justin acquired a concubine, whom he later took as his wife - Lupicina, a former slave whom he bought from her master and partner. Having become empress, Lupicina changed her common name to an aristocratic one. According to Procopius’s caustic remark, “she did not appear in the palace under her own name (it was too funny), but began to be called Euphemia.”

Possessing courage, common sense, and diligence, Justin made a successful military career, rising to the rank of officer and then general. In his career, he also had breakdowns. One of them was preserved in the annals, because after the rise of Justin it received a providential interpretation among the people. The story of this episode is included by Procopius in his Secret History. During the suppression of the Isaurian rebellion during the reign of Anastasius, Justin was in the active army, commanded by John, nicknamed Kirt - “Humpbacked”. And so, for an unknown offense, John arrested Justin in order to “put him to death the next day, but he was prevented from doing this by... a vision... In a dream, someone of enormous stature appeared to him... And this vision ordered him to free his husband, whom he... threw into prison ". John at first did not attach any significance to the dream, but the dream vision was repeated the next night and then a third time; the husband who appeared in the vision threatened Kirt “to prepare a terrible fate for him if he does not carry out what was ordered, and added that subsequently... he will extremely need this man and his relatives. This is how Justin happened to survive then,” Procopius sums up his anecdote, possibly based on the story of Kirtus himself.

Anonymous Valesia tells another story, which, according to popular rumor, foreshadowed Justin, when he was already one of the dignitaries close to Anastasius, supreme power. Having reached a ripe old age, Anastasius was thinking about which of his nephews should become his successor. And then one day, in order to guess the will of God, he invited all three to his chambers and after dinner left them to spend the night in the palace. “He ordered to put the royal (sign) at the head of one bed, and by which one of them chooses this bed for rest, he will be able to determine to whom to give power later. One of them lay down on one bed, while the other two, out of brotherly love, lay down together on the second bed. And... the bed where the royal sign was hidden turned out to be unoccupied. When he saw this, on reflection, he decided that none of them would rule, and began to pray to God to send him a revelation... And one night he saw in a dream a man who told him: “The first one about whom you will be informed tomorrow in your chambers, and he will take power after you.” It so happened that Justin... as soon as he arrived, was sent to the emperor, and he was the first to be reported... by the preposit." Anastasius, according to Anonymous, “gave gratitude to God for showing him a worthy heir,” and yet, humanly, Anastasius was upset by what had happened: “Once during the royal exit, Justin, hastening to express respect, wanted to walk around the emperor on the side and involuntarily stepped on on his robe. To this the emperor only said to him: “Where are you hurrying?”

In climbing the career ladder, Justin was not hindered by his illiteracy, and, according to Procopius’s probably exaggerated assessment, illiteracy. The author of the “Secret History” wrote that, having become emperor, Justin found it difficult to sign the edicts and constitutions issued, and so that he could still do this, a “small smooth tablet” was made, on which “the outline of four letters” was cut, meaning in Latin “Read” (Legi. - Prot. V.Ts.); Having dipped the pen in the colored ink with which basileus usually write, they handed it to this basileus. Then, placing the said tablet on the document and taking the basileus’s hand, they traced the outline of these four letters with a pen.” Given the high degree of barbarization of the army, illiterate military leaders were often placed at its head. This does not mean at all that they were mediocre generals, on the contrary - in other cases, illiterate and illiterate generals turned out to be outstanding commanders. Turning to other times and peoples, we can point out that Charlemagne, although he loved to read and highly valued classical education, did not know how to write. Justin, who became famous under Anastasia for his successful participation in the war with Iran and then, shortly before his ascension to the pinnacle of power, for suppressing the rebellion of Vitalian in the decisive naval battle near the walls of the capital, was, at the very least, a capable military leader and a prudent administrator and politician, as eloquently says popular rumor: Anastasius thanked God when it was revealed to him that he would become his successor, and therefore Justin does not deserve Procopius’ contemptuous characteristics: “He was completely simple (hardly so, probably only in appearance, in manners. - Prot. V.Ts.), could not speak well and was generally very masculine”; and even: “He was extremely weak-minded and truly like a pack donkey, capable only of following the one who pulls his bridle, and every now and then shaking his ears.” The meaning of this abusive philippic is that Justin was not an independent ruler, that he was manipulated. In Procopius’s view, such a sinister manipulator, a kind of “gray eminence,” turned out to be the emperor’s nephew Justinian.

He truly surpassed his uncle in abilities, and even more so in education, and willingly helped him in the affairs of government, enjoying complete trust on his part. Another assistant to the emperor was the outstanding lawyer Proclus, who from 522 to 526 served as quaestor of the sacred court and headed the imperial office.

The first days of Justin's reign were stormy. The prepositor of the sacred bedchamber, Amantius, and his nephew Theocritus, whom he predicted to be the heir of Anastasius, not accepting the unfortunate defeat, the failure of their intrigue, “planned,” according to Theophan the Confessor, “to cause outrage, but paid with their lives.” The circumstances of the conspiracy are unknown. Procopius presented the execution of the conspirators in a different form, unfavorable for Justin and especially Justinian, whom he considers the main culprit of what happened: “Not even ten days passed after he achieved power (meaning the proclamation of Justin as emperor. - Prot. V.Ts), how he killed, along with some others, the head of the court eunuchs, Amantius, without any reason, except because he said a rash word to the bishop of the city, John.” The mention of Patriarch John II of Constantinople sheds light on the possible spring of the conspiracy. The fact is that Justin and his nephew Justinian, unlike Anastasius, were adherents, and they were burdened by the severance of Eucharistic communion with Rome. They considered overcoming the schism and restoring the church unity of the West and the East to be the main goal of their policy, especially since Justinian the Great saw the prospect of restoring the Roman Empire in its former fullness behind the achievement of this goal. Their like-minded person was the newly installed primate of the capital’s Church, John. It seems that in his desperate attempt to replay the already played game by eliminating Justin, the preposite of the sacred bedchamber wanted to rely on those dignitaries who, like the late emperor, gravitated toward Monophysitism and who were little concerned about the break in canonical communication with the Roman See. According to the monophysite John of Nikius, who refers to the emperor only as Justin the Cruel, after coming to power, he “put to death all the eunuchs, regardless of the degree of their guilt, since they did not approve of his accession to the throne.” Obviously, other eunuchs in the palace were Monophysites, in addition to the preposite of the sacred bedchamber who was in charge over them.

Anastasius Vitalian tried to rely on adherents of Orthodoxy in his rebellion against him. And now, in a new situation, despite the fact that he himself played a decisive role in the defeat of the rebel, Justin now, perhaps on the advice of his nephew, decided to bring Vitalian closer to himself. Vitalian was appointed to the highest military position of commander of the army stationed in the capital and its environs - magister militum praesentalis - and was even awarded the title of consul for 520, which in that era was usually held by the emperor, members of the imperial house with the titles of Augustus or Caesar, and only the most high-ranking dignitaries from persons who are not close relatives of the autocrat.

But already in January 520, Vitalian was killed in the palace. At the same time, he was inflicted 16 dagger wounds. Among Byzantine authors we find three main versions regarding the organizers of his murder. According to one of them, he was killed by order of the emperor, since he learned that he “planned to rebel against him.” This is the version of John Nikius, in whose eyes Vitalian was especially odious because, close to the emperor, he insisted that the Monophysite Patriarch of Antioch Sevirus have his tongue cut for his “sermons full of wisdom and accusations against the Emperor Leo and his vicious faith.” , in other words, against the Orthodox diaphysite dogma. Procopius of Caesarea in the “Secret History,” written with the fury of one obsessed with hatred of Saint Justinian, names him as the culprit of Vitalian’s death: having ruled autocratically in the name of his uncle, Justinian at first “hurriedly sent for the usurper Vitalian, having previously given him a guarantee of his safety,” but “ soon, suspecting him of having insulted him, he killed him for no reason in the palace along with his relatives, not at all considering the terrible oaths he had previously made as an obstacle to this.” However, the version presented much later, but probably based on no surviving documentary sources, deserves more confidence. Thus, according to Theophan the Confessor, a writer at the turn of the 8th–9th centuries, Vitalian was “killed in an insidious manner by those of the Byzantines who were angry with him for the extermination of so many of their compatriots during his rebellion against Anastasius.” A reason to suspect Justinian of a conspiracy against Vitalian could be given by the fact that after his murder he took the post of master of the army, which became vacant, although in reality the emperor’s nephew undoubtedly had more direct and irreproachable paths to the highest posts in the state, so this is a serious argument this circumstance cannot serve.

But what act of the emperor his nephew was really involved in was the restoration of the Eucharistic communion with the Roman Church, which was broken during the reign of Zeno in connection with the publication of the notorious “Enotikon”, the initiative of which belonged to Patriarch Acacius, so that this break itself, which continued during 35 years old, in Rome received the name “Acacian schism.” On Easter 519, after extremely difficult negotiations conducted by the papal legates in Constantinople, a divine service was held in the capital's Church of Hagia Sophia with the participation of Patriarch John and the papal legates. Justinian was prompted to take this step not only by his shared commitment to the Chalcedonian oros, but also by his concern to remove obstacles (among which one of the most difficult was the church schism) for the implementation of the grandiose plan he had already outlined for restoring the integrity of the Roman Empire.

The government was distracted from the execution of this plan by various circumstances, and among them was the renewed war on the eastern border. This war was preceded by a rare occurrence in the history of relations between Iran and Rome, not only a peaceful, but also a directly friendly phase, established in the first years of Justin's reign. Since the end of the 5th century, Iran has been shaken by the confrontation caused by the teachings of Mazdak, who preached utopian social ideas similar to chiliasm, which grew on Christian soil: about universal equality and the abolition of private property, including the introduction of a community of wives; he received massive support from the common people and that part of the military aristocracy, which was burdened by the religious monopoly of the Zoroastrian magicians. Among the enthusiasts of Mazdakism were people who belonged to the Shah dynasty. Mazdak's preaching captivated Shah Kavad himself, but later he became disillusioned with this utopia, seeing in it a direct threat to the state, turned away from Mazdak and began to persecute both him and his supporters. Being already old, the Shah made sure that after his death the throne would go to his youngest son Khosrov Anushirvan, who was closely associated with the circles of zealous adherents of traditional Zoroastrianism, bypassing his eldest son Kaos, whose upbringing Kavad, at the time of his passion for Mazdakism, entrusted to the zealots of this teaching, and he , unlike his father, who changed his views, remained a Mazdakite in his convictions.

In order to acquire an additional guarantee of the transfer of power to Khosrow, Kavad decided to enlist support in case of critical developments from Rome and sent a message to Justin, which was retold by Procopius of Caesarea (not in his “Secret History”, but in the more trustworthy book “The War with the Persians” ) looks like this: “You yourself know that we suffered injustice from the Romans, but I decided to completely forget all the grievances against you... However, for all this I ask you for one favor, which... would be able to give us in all the blessings of the world abound. I suggest you make my Khosrow, who will be the successor to my power, your adopted son.” This was an idea that mirrored the situation a century ago, when, at the request of Emperor Arcadius, Shah Yazdegerd took under his wing the infant successor of Arcadius Theodosius II.

Kavad's message delighted both Justin and Justinian, who did not see a catch in it, but the quaestor of the sacred court, Proclus (whose praise Procopius does not skimp on in both the history of wars and in the "Secret History", where he contrasts him with another outstanding lawyer Tribonian and Justinian himself as a supporter of existing laws and an opponent of legislative reforms) saw in the Shah’s proposal a danger to the Roman state. Addressing Justin, he said: “I am not accustomed to put my hand to anything that smacks of innovation... knowing full well that the desire for innovation is always fraught with danger... In my opinion, we are now talking about nothing other than under a plausible pretext to transfer the state of the Romans to the Persians... For... this embassy from the very beginning has the goal of making this Khosrow, whoever he may be, the heir of the Roman basileus... By natural law, the property of fathers belongs to their children.” Proclus managed to convince Justin and his nephew of the danger of Kavad's proposal, but, on his own advice, it was decided not to refuse him his request directly, but to send envoys to him to negotiate a peace - until then only a truce was in effect, and the question of borders were not settled. As for the adoption of Khosrow by Justin, the ambassadors will have to declare that it will be accomplished “as it happens among the barbarians,” and “the barbarians carry out adoption not with the help of letters, but by handing over weapons and armor.” The experienced and overly cautious politician Proclus and, as can be seen, the cunning Levantine Procopius, who fully sympathized with his distrust, were hardly right in their suspicion, and the first reaction to the Shah’s proposal on the part of the rulers of Rome, originally from the Illyrian rural hinterland, could have been more adequate , but they changed their minds and followed the advice of Proclus.

The nephew of the late emperor, Anastasia Hypatius, and the patrician Rufin, who had friendly relations with the Shah, were sent for negotiations. From the Iranian side, high-ranking dignitaries Seos, or Siyavush, and Mevod (Mahbod) took part in the negotiations. Negotiations took place on the border of the two states. When discussing the terms of the peace treaty, the stumbling block turned out to be the Laz country, which in ancient times was called Colchis. Since the time of Emperor Leo, it was lost to Rome and was in the sphere of influence of Iran. But shortly before these negotiations, after the death of the Laz king Damnaz, his son Tsaf did not want to turn to the Shah with a request to grant him the royal title; instead, he went to Constantinople in 523, was baptized there, and became a vassal of the Roman state. During the negotiations, Iranian envoys demanded the return of Lazika to the supreme authority of the Shah, but this demand was rejected as insulting. In turn, the Iranian side considered the proposal to adopt Khosrow by Justin according to the rite of barbarian peoples an “unbearable insult.” The negotiations reached a dead end and it was not possible to agree on anything.

The response to the breakdown of negotiations on the part of Kavad was repression against the Ivers, closely related to the Laz, who, according to Procopius, “are Christians and better than all the peoples known to us, they keep the charters of this faith, but from ancient times ... have been subordinate to the Persian king. Kavad decided to forcibly convert them to his faith. He demanded from their king Gurgen that he perform all the rituals that the Persians adhere to, and, among other things, under no circumstances bury the dead, but throw them all to be devoured by birds and dogs.” King Gurgen, or, in another way, Bakur, turned to Justin for help, and he sent the nephew of Emperor Anastasius, patrician Provos, to the Cimmerian Bosporus, so that the ruler of this state, for a monetary reward, would send his troops against the Persians to help Gurgen. But Prov's mission did not bring results. The ruler of Bosporus refused help, and the Persian army occupied Georgia. Gurgen, along with his family and Georgian nobility, fled to Lazika, where they continued to resist the Persians who had now invaded Lazika.

Rome went to war with Iran. In the country of the Laz, in the powerful fortress of Petra, located near the modern village of Tsikhisdziri, between Batum and Kobuleti, a Roman garrison was stationed, but the main theater of military operations became the region familiar to the wars of the Romans with the Persians - Armenia and Mesopotamia. The Roman army entered Perso-Armenia under the command of the young commanders Sitta and Belisarius, who had the rank of Justinian’s spearmen, and troops led by the master of the army of the East Livelarius moved against the Mesopotamian city of Nisibis. Sitta and Belisarius acted successfully, they ravaged the country into which their armies entered, and, “capturing many Armenians, they retired to their own borders.” But the second invasion of the Romans into Perso-Armenia under the command of the same military leaders was unsuccessful: they were defeated by the Armenians, whose leaders were two brothers from the noble family of Kamsarakans - Narses and Aratiy. True, soon after this victory both brothers betrayed the Shah and went over to the side of Rome. Meanwhile, Livelarius' army during the campaign suffered the main losses not from the enemy, but due to the sweltering heat, and in the end was forced to retreat.

In 527, Justin dismissed the unlucky military leader, appointing instead Anastasius Hypatius's nephew Anastasius Hypatius as master of the army of the East, and Belisarius as dux of Mesopotamia, who was entrusted with command of the troops that retreated from Nisibis and were stationed in Dara. Talking about these movements, the historian of the war with the Persians did not fail to note: “At the same time, Procopius was appointed to him as an adviser” - that is, he himself.

During the reign of Justin, Rome provided armed support to the distant Ethiopian kingdom with its capital in Axum. The Christian king of Ethiopia, Caleb, waged war with the king of Yemen, who patronized the local Jews. And with the help of Rome, the Ethiopians managed to defeat Yemen, restoring the dominance of the Christian religion in this country, located on the other side of the Bab el-Mandeb Strait. A.A. Vasiliev notes in this regard: “At the first moment we are surprised to see how the Orthodox Justin, who ... launched an offensive against the Monophysites in his own empire, supports the Monophysite Ethiopian king. However, beyond the official boundaries of the empire, the Byzantine emperor supported Christianity as a whole... From a foreign policy point of view, the Byzantine emperors viewed every conquest for Christianity as an important political and perhaps economic conquest." In connection with these events in Ethiopia, a legend subsequently developed that acquired official status, included in the book “Kebra Negast” (“Glory of Kings”), according to which two kings - Justin and Caleb - met in Jerusalem and there they divided the entire land between themselves, but in this case, the worst part of it went to Rome, and the best part to the king of Aksum, because he has a more noble origin - from Solomon and the Queen of Sheba, and his people are therefore God's chosen New Israel - one of many examples of naive messianic megalomania.

In the 520s, the Roman Empire suffered from several earthquakes that destroyed large cities in different parts of the state, including Dyrrachium (Durres), Corinth, Anazarb in Cilicia, but the most disastrous in its consequences was the earthquake that struck the metropolis of Antioch with about 1 million inhabitants . As Theophan the Confessor writes, on May 20, 526, “at 7 o’clock in the afternoon, during the consulate in Rome, Olivria, the great Antioch of Syria, through the wrath of God, suffered an unspeakable disaster... Almost the entire city collapsed and became a grave for the inhabitants. Some, while under the ruins, became alive victims of fire coming out of the ground; another fire fell from the air in the form of sparks and, like lightning, burned whomever it met; at the same time, the earth shook for a whole year.” Up to 250 thousand Antiochians, led by their patriarch Euphrasius, fell victim to the natural disaster. The restoration of Antioch required enormous expenses and lasted for decades.

From the very beginning of his reign, Justin relied on the help of his nephew. On April 4, 527, the very old and seriously ill emperor appointed Justinian as his co-emperor with the title of Augustus. Emperor Justin died on August 1, 527. Before his death, he experienced excruciating pain from an old wound in his leg, which was pierced by an enemy arrow in one of the battles. Some historians retroactively give him a different diagnosis - cancer. In his best years, Justin, although illiterate, was distinguished by considerable abilities - otherwise he would not have made a career as a military leader, much less would have become an emperor. “In Justina,” according to F.I. Uspensky, “one should see a man fully prepared for political activity, who brought to the administration certain experience and a well-thought-out plan... The main fact of Justin’s activity is the end of a long church dispute with the West,” which in other words can be described as the restoration of Orthodoxy in the east of the empire after the long dominance of Monophysitism.

Justinian and Theodora

After the death of Justin, his nephew and co-emperor Justinian, who at that time already bore the title of Augustus, remained the only emperor. The beginning of his sole and, in this sense, monarchical rule did not cause confusion either in the palace, or in the capital, or in the empire.

Before the rise of his uncle, the future emperor was called Peter Savvaty. He named himself Justinian in honor of his uncle Justin, and then, having already become emperor, as his predecessors did, the family name of the first Christian autocrat Constantine was Flavius, so that in the consular diptych of 521 his name reads Flavius ​​Peter Savvatius Justinian. He was born in 482 or 483 in the village of Taurisia near Bederiana, the native village of his maternal uncle Justin, into a poor peasant family of Sabbatius and Vigilance, of Illyrian, according to Procopius, or, less likely, Thracian origin. But even in the rural outback of Illyricum at that time they used, in addition to the local language, Latin, and Justinian knew it from childhood. And then, finding himself in the capital, under the patronage of his uncle, who made a brilliant career as a general during the reign of Anastasius, Justinian, who had extraordinary abilities, inexhaustible curiosity and exceptional diligence, mastered the Greek language and received a thorough and comprehensive, but predominantly, as can be concluded from The range of his later activities and interests included legal and theological education, although he was also versed in mathematics, rhetoric, philosophy and history. One of his teachers in the capital was the outstanding theologian Leontius of Byzantium.

Having no inclination for military affairs, in which Justin excelled remarkably, he developed as an armchair and bookish man, equally well prepared for both academic and government activities. However, Justinian began his career under Emperor Anastasia with an officer position in the palace schola of the Excuvites under the command of his uncle. He enriched his experience by staying for several years at the court of the Ostrogothic king Theodoric the Great as a diplomatic agent of the Roman government. There he got to know the Latin West, Italy and the Arian barbarians better.

During the reign of Justin, becoming his closest assistant and then co-ruler, Justinian was awarded the honorary titles and titles of senator, comite and patrician. In 520 he was appointed consul for the following year. The festivities that took place on this occasion were accompanied by “the most expensive games and performances on the hippodrome that Constantinople has ever known. At least 20 lions, 30 panthers and an unknown number of other exotic animals were killed in a large circus." At one time, Justinian served as master of the army of the East; in April 527, shortly before the death of Justin, he was proclaimed Augustus, becoming not only de facto, but now also de jure co-ruler of his uncle, who was already dying. This ceremony took place modestly, in Justin’s personal chambers, “from which his serious illness no longer allowed him to leave,” “in the presence of Patriarch Epiphanius and other high dignitaries.”

We find a verbal portrait of Justinian in Procopius: “He was not big and not too small, but of average height, not thin, but slightly plump; His face was round and not without beauty, for even after two days of fasting there was a blush on him. To give an idea of ​​his appearance in a few words, I will say that he was very similar to Domitian, the son of Vespasian,” whose statues have survived. This description can be trusted, especially since it corresponds not only to the miniature relief portraits on coins, but also to the mosaic images of Justinian in the Ravenna churches of St. Apollinaris and St. Vitalius and the porphyry statue in the Venetian temple of St. Mark.

But it is hardly worth trusting the same Procopius when he is in the “Secret History” (otherwise called “Anekdote”, which means “Unpublished”, so this conventional title of the book, due to its peculiar content, subsequently came into use as a designation of the corresponding genre - biting and caustic, but not necessarily reliable stories) characterizes the character and moral rules of Justinian. At the very least, his evil and biased assessments, so contrasting with other statements, already of a panegyric tone, with which he abundantly equipped his history of wars and especially the treatise “On Buildings,” should be taken critically. But, given the extreme degree of irritable hostility with which Procopius writes about the personality of the emperor in the Secret History, there is no reason to doubt the validity of the characteristics placed in it, representing Justinian from the best side, regardless of whether - positive, negative or dubious - in the world they were seen by the author himself with his special hierarchy of ethical values. “For Justinian,” he writes, “everything went easy... because he... did without sleep and was the most accessible person in the world. People, even humble and completely unknown, had every opportunity not only to come to the tyrant, but also to have a secret conversation with him”; “in the Christian faith he... was firm”; “He, one might say, had almost no need for sleep and never ate or drank to his fullest, but it was enough for him to barely touch food with his fingertips to stop eating. As if this seemed to him a secondary matter, imposed by nature, for he often remained without food for two days, especially when the time came on the eve of the celebration of the so-called Easter. Then often... he remained without food for two days, content with a small amount of water and wild plants, and, having slept, God willing, for an hour, spent the rest of the time in constant pacing.”

Procopius wrote in more detail about Justinian’s ascetic asceticism in his book “On Buildings”: “He constantly rose from his bed at dawn, staying awake in worries about the state, always personally directing state affairs both in deed and word, both during the morning and at noon, and often all night long. Late at night he would lie down on his bed, but very often he would immediately get up, as if angry and indignant at the soft bedding. When he began to eat, he did not touch either wine, or bread, or anything else that was edible, but ate only vegetables, and at the same time coarse ones, soaked for a long time in salt and vinegar, and served as a drink for him. pure water. But even with this he was never satisfied: when dishes were served to him, he, only having tasted from those on which he was eating at that time, sent the rest back.” His exceptional devotion to duty is not hidden in the libelous “Secret History”: “What he wanted to publish in his own name, he did not entrust it to be compiled by someone who had the position of quaestor, as was customary, but considered it permissible to do it for the most part himself " Procopius sees the reason for this in the fact that in Justinian “there was nothing of royal dignity, and he did not consider it necessary to guard it, but in his language, appearance, and way of thinking he was like a barbarian.” In such conclusions, the degree of conscientiousness of the author is characteristically revealed.

But are the accessibility of Justinian, noted by this hater of the emperor, his incomparable diligence, which obviously stemmed from a sense of duty, ascetic lifestyle and Christian piety, compatible with a highly original conclusion about the demonic nature of the emperor, in support of which the historian refers to the evidence of unnamed courtiers , to whom “it seemed that instead of him they were seeing some kind of unusual devilish ghost”? In the style of a real thriller, Procopius, anticipating medieval Western fantasies about succubi and incubi, reproduces, or rather still invents, stunning gossip about “that his mother ... used to tell someone close to him that he was not born from her husband Savvaty and not from any person. Before she became pregnant with him, she was visited by a demon, invisible, but leaving her with the impression that he was with her and had intercourse with her as a man with a woman, and then disappeared, as in a dream. Or how one of the courtiers “talked how he... suddenly rose from the royal throne and began to wander back and forth (he was not used to sitting in one place for a long time), and suddenly Justinian’s head suddenly disappeared, and the rest of his body seemed , continued to make these long movements, he himself (who saw this) believed (and, it seems, quite sensibly and soberly, if all this is not pure invention. - Prot. V.Ts.) that his vision became blurred, and he stood shocked and depressed for a long time. Then, when the head returned to the body, he thought in embarrassment that the gap he had previously (in vision) had been filled.”

With such a fantastic approach to the image of the emperor, it is hardly worth taking seriously the invective contained in this passage from The Secret History: “He was both insidious and susceptible to deception, one of those who are called evil fools... His words and actions were constantly full of lies, and at the same time he easily succumbed to those who wanted to deceive him. There was in him some unusual mixture of unreasonableness and depravity of character... This basileus was full of cunning, deceit, was distinguished by insincerity, had the ability to hide his anger, was two-faced, dangerous, was an excellent actor when it was necessary to hide his thoughts, and knew how to shed tears not from joy or sorrow, but artificially causing them at the right time as needed. He lied constantly." Some of the traits listed here seem to relate to the professional qualities of politicians and statesmen. However, as we know, it is common for a person to notice his own vices in his neighbor with special vigilance, exaggerating and distorting the scale. Procopius, who wrote “The History of Wars” and the book “On Buildings”, which was more than complimentary to Justinian, with one hand, and “The Secret History” with the other, presses with particular energy on the insincerity and duplicity of the emperor.

The reasons for Procopius’s bias could be and, obviously, were different - perhaps some remaining unknown episode of his biography, but also, probably, the fact that for the famous historian the holiday of the Resurrection of Christ was the “so-called Easter”; and, perhaps, one more factor: according to Procopius, Justinian “prohibited sodomy by law, subjecting to inquiry cases that did not take place after the law was issued, but concerning those persons who were noticed in this vice long before him... Those exposed in this way were deprived of their and so they led their shameful members around the city... They were also angry with the astrologers. And... the authorities... subjected them to torture for this reason alone and, having firmly whipped them on the back, put them on camels and carried them around the city - they, already elderly people and in all respects respectable, who were charged only with the fact that they wished to become wise in the science of the stars."

Be that as it may, in view of such disastrous contradictions and inconsistencies found in the notorious “Secret History”, it should be O take greater confidence in the characteristics that the same Procopius gives to him in his published books: in the “History of Wars” and even in the book “On Buildings” written in a panegyric tone: “In our time, the Emperor Justinian appeared, who, having assumed power over the state , shaken by unrest and brought to shameful weakness, increased its size and brought it to a brilliant state... Finding faith in God in the past unsteady and forced to follow the paths of different confessions, having wiped out from the face of the earth all the paths leading to these heretical fluctuations, he achieved this , so that she now stands on one solid foundation of true confession... Himself, on my own impulse, forgave in And We, who were plotting against him, having filled those in need of means of living to the point of satiation with wealth and thereby overcoming the unfortunate fate that was humiliating for them, ensured that the joy of life reigned in the empire... Of those whom we know by rumor, they say that the best sovereign was the Persian king Cyrus ... If anyone takes a close look at the reign of our emperor Justinian ... this person will admit that Cyrus and his power were a toy in comparison with him.”

Justinian was granted remarkable physical strength and excellent health, inherited from his peasant ancestors and tempered by an unpretentious, ascetic lifestyle, which he led in the palace, first as co-ruler of his uncle, and then as sole autocrat. His amazing health was not undermined by sleepless nights, during which he, as in the daytime, indulged in the affairs of government. In old age, when he was already 60 years old, he fell ill with the plague and was successfully cured of this fatal illness, then living to a ripe old age.

A great ruler, he knew how to surround himself with assistants of outstanding ability: these were the generals Belisarius and Narses, the outstanding lawyer Tribonian, the brilliant architects Isidore of Miletus and Anthimius of Thrall, and among these luminaries his wife Theodora shone as a star of the first magnitude.

Justinian met her around 520 and became interested in her. Like Justinian, Theodora had the most humble, although not so ordinary, but rather exotic origins. She was born in Syria, and according to some less reliable information, in Cyprus at the end of the 5th century; her exact date of birth is unknown. Her father Akakios, who moved with his family to the capital of the empire, found a kind of income there: he became, according to Procopius’s version, which is also repeated by other Byzantine historians, “an overseer of circus animals,” or, as he was also called, a “safeguard.” But he died early, leaving three young daughters orphans: Komito, Theodora and Anastasia, the eldest of whom was not yet seven years old. The widow of the “safecracker” married for the second time in the hope that her new husband would continue the craft of the deceased, but her hopes were not justified: in Dima Prasinov they found another replacement for him. The mother of the orphaned girls, however, according to Procopius’s story, did not lose heart, and “when ... the people gathered at the circus, she, putting wreaths on the heads of three girls and giving garlands of flowers to each in both hands, put them on their knees with a prayer for protection.” The rival circus party of the Veneti, probably for the sake of moral triumph over their rivals, took care of the orphans and took their stepfather to the position of overseer of animals in their faction. Since then, Theodora, like her husband, has become an ardent fan of the Veneti - the blue ones.

When the daughters grew up, their mother placed them on the stage. Procopius, characterizing the profession of the eldest of them, Comito, calls her not an actress, as should be the case with a calm attitude to the topic, but a heterosexual; Subsequently, during the reign of Justinian, she was married to the master of the army, Sitta. During her childhood, spent in poverty and need, Theodora, according to Procopius, “dressed in a chiton with sleeves... accompanied her, serving her in everything.” When the girl grew up, she became an actress in the mimic theater. “She was unusually graceful and witty. Because of this, everyone was delighted with her.” Procopius considers one of the reasons for the delight into which the young beauty brought the audience not only her inexhaustible ingenuity in witticisms and jokes, but also her lack of shame. His further story about Theodore is filled with shameful and dirty fantasies, bordering on sexual delirium, which says more about the author himself than about the victim of his libelous inspiration. Is there any truth to this game of fevered pornographic imagination? The famous historian Gibbon in the age of “enlightenment”, who set the tone for the Western fashion for Byzantophobia, willingly believes Procopius, finding an irresistible argument in favor of the reliability of the anecdotes he told in their very improbability: “They don’t invent such incredible things - that means they are true.” Meanwhile, the only source of information on this part of Procopius could be street gossip, so the actual lifestyle of young Theodora can only be judged based on the biographical outline, the characteristics of the artistic profession and the morals of the theatrical environment. The modern historian Norwich, touching on this topic, rejects the reliability of Procopius’s pathological insinuations, but, taking into account the rumors from which he could draw some of his anecdotes, notes that “still, as we know, there is no smoke without fire, so there is no doubt about the fact that Theodora, as our grandmothers put it, had a “past.” Whether she was worse than others - the answer to this question remains open.” The famous Byzantine scholar S. Diehl, touching on this sensitive topic, wrote: “Some psychological traits of Theodora, her concerns for poor girls who died in the capital more often from want than from depravity, the measures she took to save them and free them “from the shameful yoke slavery”... as well as the somewhat contemptuous cruelty that she always showed to men, to a certain extent confirm what is reported about her youth... But is it possible to believe because of this that Theodora’s adventures produced that terrible scandal that Procopius describes, that she really was an extraordinary courtesan? .. We must not lose sight of the fact that Procopius likes to present the depravity of the persons he depicts in almost epic proportions... I... would be very inclined to see in her... the heroine of a more banal story - a dancer who behaved the same way as people behave at all times women of her profession."

To be fair, it should be noted that unflattering characteristics addressed to Theodora also came from a different direction, however, their essence remains unclear. Sh. Diehl expresses disappointment that the Monophysite historian Bishop John of Ephesus, “who knew Theodora closely, out of respect for the greats of this world, did not tell us in detail all the offensive expressions with which, in his own words, the pious monks - people famous with its brutal frankness."

When, at the beginning of the reign of Justin, the hard-to-get theatrical bread became bitter for Theodora, she changed her lifestyle and, becoming close to a native of Tyre, possibly her fellow countryman, Hekebol, who was then appointed ruler of the province of Pentapolis, located between Libya and Egypt, left with him to his place services. As S. Diehl commented on this event in the life of Theodora, “finally tired of fleeting connections, and having found a serious man who provided her with a strong position, she began to lead a decent life in marriage and piety.” But her family life did not last long, ending in a breakup. Feodora had a young daughter left with her. Abandoned by Hekebol, whose later fate is unknown, Theodora moved to Alexandria, where she settled in a hospitable house that belonged to the Monophysite community. In Alexandria, she often talked with monks, from whom she sought consolation and guidance, as well as with priests and bishops.

There she met the local Monophysite Patriarch Timothy - at that time the Orthodox throne of Alexandria remained vacant - and with the Monophysite Patriarch of Antioch, Sevier, who was in exile in this city, a respectful attitude towards whom she retained forever, which especially motivated her when she became a powerful assistant her husband, to seek reconciliation between the Diaphysites and the Monophysites. In Alexandria, she seriously took up her education, read the books of the Fathers of the Church and foreign writers and, possessing extraordinary abilities, an extremely insightful mind and a brilliant memory, over time, like Justinian, she became one of the most erudite people of her time, a competent expert in theology. Life circumstances prompted her to move from Alexandria to Constantinople. Contrary to everything that is known about Theodora’s piety and impeccable behavior from the time she left the stage, Procopius, losing his sense not only of proportion, but also of reality and plausibility, wrote that “having passed throughout the entire East, she returned to Byzantium. In every city she resorted to a craft, which, I think, a person cannot name without losing the mercy of God,” this expression is given here to show the value of the writer’s testimony: in other places in his pamphlet he, without fear of “depriving the mercy of God” , enthusiastically names the most shameful of the exercises that existed in reality and were invented by his fevered imagination, which he falsely attributes to Theodora.

In Constantinople, she settled in a small house on the outskirts. Needing funds, she, according to legend, set up a spinning workshop and in it she wove yarn herself, dividing the labors of hired women workers. There, under circumstances that remain unknown, around 520, Theodora met the emperor's nephew Justinian, who became interested in her. At that time, he was already a mature man, approaching 40 years of age. Frivolity was never characteristic of him. Apparently, he did not have much experience with women in the past. He was too serious and picky for that. Having recognized Theodora, he fell in love with her with amazing devotion and constancy, and this subsequently, during their marriage, was expressed in everything, including in his activities as a ruler, which Theodora influenced like no one else.

Possessing rare beauty, a penetrating mind and education, which Justinian knew how to value in women, brilliant wit, amazing self-control and strong character, Theodora managed to captivate the imagination of her high-ranking chosen one. Even the vindictive and vindictive Procopius, who seems to have been painfully offended by some of her caustic jokes, but who harbored a grudge and splashed it out on the pages of his “Secret History” written “on the table,” pays tribute to her external attractiveness: “Theodora was beautiful in face and she is full of grace, but short in stature, pale-faced, but not quite white, but rather yellowish-pale; her gaze from under her furrowed eyebrows was menacing.” This is a kind of lifetime verbal portrait, all the more reliable since it corresponds to the mosaic image of her, also lifetime, which was preserved in the apse of the Church of St. Vitaly in Ravenna. A successful description of this portrait of her, dating, however, not to the time of her acquaintance with Justinian, but to a later time in her life, when old age was already ahead, was made by S. Diehl: “Under the heavy imperial mantle, the waist seems higher, but less flexible; under the diadem that hides the forehead, a small, gentle face with a somewhat thinner oval and a large straight and thin nose looks solemn, almost sad. Only one thing has been preserved on this faded face: under the dark line of fused eyebrows, beautiful black eyes... still illuminate and seem to destroy the face.” The exquisite, truly Byzantine grandeur of Augusta’s appearance in this mosaic is emphasized by her regal clothes: “The long robe of violet purple that covers her below shimmers with lights in the soft folds of the embroidered gold border; on her head, surrounded by a halo, is a high diadem of gold and precious stones; her hair is intertwined with pearl threads and threads studded with precious stones, and the same decorations fall in sparkling streams onto her shoulders.”

Having met Theodora and fallen in love with her, Justinian asked his uncle to grant her the high title of patrician. The emperor's co-ruler wanted to marry her, but faced two obstacles in his intention. One of them was of a legal nature: senators, to whose class the autocrat’s nephew was naturally included, were forbidden by the law of the holy emperor Constantine to marry former actresses, and the other stemmed from resistance to the idea of ​​such a misalliance on the part of the emperor’s wife Euphemia, who loved her nephew her husband and sincerely wished him every good, even though she herself, in the past called not by this aristocratic, but by the common people's name Lupicina, which Procopius finds funny and absurd, had the most humble origins. But such fanaticism is precisely a characteristic feature of suddenly elevated individuals, especially when they are characterized by innocence combined with common sense. Justinian did not want to go against the prejudices of his aunt, whose love he responded with grateful affection, and did not rush into marriage. But time passed, and in 523 Euphemia went to the Lord, after which Emperor Justin, who was alien to the prejudices of his late wife, abolished the law prohibiting senators from unequal marriages, and in 525, in the Church of Hagia Sophia, Patriarch Epiphanius married the senator and patrician Justinian to the patrician Theodora.

When Justinian was proclaimed Augustus and co-ruler of Justin on April 4, 527, his wife Saint Theodora was next to him and received the appropriate honors. And henceforth she shared with her husband his government labors and honors that befitted him as an emperor. Theodora received ambassadors, gave audiences to dignitaries, and statues were erected to her. The state oath included both names - Justinian and Theodora: I swear by “almighty God, His only begotten Son our Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, the holy glorious Mother of God and the Ever-Virgin Mary, the four Gospels, the holy archangels Michael and Gabriel, that I will serve well the most pious and holiest sovereigns Justinian and Theodora, the wife of His Imperial Majesty, and work unfeignedly for the success of their autocracy and rule.”

War with the Persian Shah Kavad

The most important foreign policy event in the first years of Justinian's reign was the renewed war with Sasanian Iran, described in detail by Procopius. Four mobile field armies of Rome were stationed in Asia, forming b O most of the armed forces of the empire and intended for the defense of its eastern borders. Another army was stationed in Egypt, two corps were in the Balkans - in Thrace and Illyricum, covering the capital from the north and west. The emperor's personal guard, consisting of seven scholas, numbered 3,500 selected soldiers and officers. There were also garrisons in strategically important cities, especially in fortresses located in the border zone. But, as can be seen from the above description of the composition and deployment of the armed forces, Sassanian Iran was considered the main enemy.

In 528, Justinian ordered the garrison commander of the border city of Dara, Belisarius, to begin construction of a new fortress in Mindon, near Nisibis. When the walls of the fortress, on the construction of which many workers worked, rose to a considerable height, the Persians became worried and demanded to stop construction, seeing in it a violation of the agreement concluded earlier, under Justin. Rome rejected the ultimatum, and the redeployment of troops to the border began on both sides.

In the battle between the Roman detachment led by Kutsa and the Persians near the walls of the fortress under construction, the Romans were defeated, the survivors, including the commander himself, were captured, and the walls, the construction of which served as the fuse of the war, were razed to the ground. In 529, Justinian appointed Belisarius to the highest military position of master, or in Greek, stratilate, of the East. And he made an additional recruitment of troops and moved the army towards Nisibis. Next to Belisarius at the headquarters was Hermogenes, sent by the emperor, who also had the rank of master - in the past he was Vitalian's closest adviser when he staged a rebellion against Anastasius. The Persian army marched towards them under the command of Mirran (commander-in-chief) Peroz. The Persian army initially numbered up to 40 thousand cavalry and infantry, and then reinforcements of 10 thousand people arrived. They were opposed by 25 thousand Roman soldiers. Thus, the Persians had a twofold superiority. On both front lines there were troops of different tribes of the two great powers.

A correspondence took place between the military leaders: Mirran Peroz, or Firuz, on the Iranian side and Belisarius and Hermogenes on the Roman side. Roman commanders offered peace, but insisted on the withdrawal of the Persian army from the border. Mirran wrote in response that the Romans could not be trusted, and therefore only war could resolve the dispute. The second letter to Peroz, sent by Belisarius and his companions, concluded with the words: “If you are so eager for war, then we will oppose you with the help of God: we are confident that He will help us in danger, condescending to the peacefulness of the Romans and being angry at the boasting of the Persians, who decided to go to war against us, who offered you peace. We will march against you, attaching to the tops of our banners before the battle what we mutually wrote to each other.” Mirran’s response to Belisarius was filled with offensive arrogance and boasting: “And we go into battle not without the help of our gods, with them we will go against you, and I hope that tomorrow they will lead us into Dara. Therefore, let the city have a bathhouse and dinner ready for me.”

The general battle took place in July 530. Peroz started it at noon with the expectation that “they will attack the hungry,” because the Romans, unlike the Persians, who are accustomed to having lunch at the end of the day, eat before noon. The battle began with a shootout with bows, so that the arrows rushing in both directions obscured the sunlight. The Persians had richer supplies of arrows, but eventually they too ran out. The Romans were favored by the wind that blew in the face of the enemy, but there were losses, and considerable ones, on both sides. When there was nothing left to shoot, the enemies entered into hand-to-hand combat with each other, using spears and swords. During the battle, more than once a superiority of forces was discovered on one side or the other in different parts of the line of combat contact. A particularly dangerous moment for the Roman army came when the Persians standing on the left flank under the command of the one-eyed Varesman, together with a detachment of “immortals”, “quickly rushed at the Romans standing against them,” and “they, unable to withstand their onslaught, fled,” but then a turning point occurred that decided the outcome of the battle. The Romans, who were on the flank, struck the rapidly advancing detachment from the side and cut it in two. The Persians, who were in front, were surrounded and turned back, and then the Romans fleeing from them stopped, turned around and struck the soldiers who had pursued them earlier. Finding themselves surrounded by the enemy, the Persians desperately resisted, but when their commander Varesman fell, thrown from his horse and killed by Sunika, they fled in panic: the Romans overtook them and beat them. Up to 5 thousand Persians died. Belisarius and Hermogenes finally ordered the pursuit to stop, fearing surprises. “On that day,” according to Procopius, “the Romans managed to defeat the Persians in battle, which had not happened for a long time.” For his failure, Mirran Peroz suffered a humiliating punishment: “the king took away from him the ornament of gold and pearls that he usually wore on his head. Among the Persians this is a sign of the highest dignity after the royal one.”

The war with the Persians did not end with the victory of the Romans at the walls of Dara. The sheikhs of the Arab Bedouins intervened in the game, wandering along the borders of the Roman and Iranian empires and plundering the border cities of one of them in agreement with the authorities of the other, but, above all, in their own interests - for their own benefit. One of these sheikhs was Alamundar, a highly experienced, inventive and resourceful robber, not without diplomatic abilities. In the past, he was considered a vassal of Rome, received the title of Roman patrician and king of his people, but then went over to the side of Iran, and, according to Procopius, “for 50 years he exhausted the strength of the Romans... From the borders of Egypt to Mesopotamia, he ravaged all areas, stole and took away everything, burned the buildings he came across, enslaved many tens of thousands of people; Most of them he killed immediately, others he sold for a lot of money.” The Roman protégé from among the Arab sheikhs, Aref, in skirmishes with Alamundar invariably suffered setbacks or, Procopius suspects, “acted treacherously, as most likely should be allowed.” Alamundar appeared at the court of Shah Kavad and advised him to move around the Osroene province with its numerous Roman garrisons through the Syrian desert to the main outpost of Rome in the Levant - to the brilliant Antioch, the population of which is particularly careless and cares only about entertainment, so that the attack will be for him a terrible surprise for which they will not be able to prepare in advance. As for the difficulties of marching through the desert, Alamundar suggested: “Don’t worry about the lack of water or anything else, for I myself will lead the army as I think best.” Alamundar's proposal was accepted by the Shah, and he put the Persian Azaret at the head of the army that was to storm Antioch, with Alamundar next to him, “showing him the way.”

Having learned about the new danger, Belisarius, who commanded the Roman troops in the East, moved an army of 20,000 to meet the enemy, and he retreated. Belisarius did not want to attack the retreating enemy, but warlike sentiments prevailed among the troops, and the commander was unable to calm his soldiers. On April 19, 531, on the day of Holy Easter, a battle took place on the banks of the river near Kallinikos, which ended in defeat for the Romans, but the victors, who forced Belisarius’s army to retreat, suffered colossal losses: when they returned home, a count of those killed and captured was made. Procopius talks about how this is done: before the campaign, the soldiers each throw one arrow into baskets placed on the parade ground, “then they are stored, sealed with the royal seal; when the army returns... then each soldier takes one arrow from these baskets.” When the troops of Azareth, returning from a campaign in which they failed to take either Antioch or any other city, although they were victorious in the case of Callinicus, marched in formation in front of Kavad, taking arrows from their baskets, then, “since in There were many arrows left in the baskets... the king considered this victory a disgrace for Azareth and subsequently kept him among the least worthy.”

Another theater of war between Rome and Iran was, as in the past, Armenia. In 528, a detachment of Persians invaded Roman Armenia from the side of Perso-Armenia, but was defeated by the troops stationed there, commanded by Sitta, after which the Shah sent there a larger army under the command of Mermeroy, the backbone of which was the Savir mercenaries numbering 3 thousand horsemen. And again the invasion was repulsed: Mermeroy was defeated by troops under the command of Sitta and Dorotheus. But, having recovered from the defeat, having made an additional recruitment, Mermeroy again invaded the Roman Empire and set up a camp near the city of Satala, located 100 kilometers from Trebizond. The Romans unexpectedly attacked the camp - a bloody, stubborn battle began, the outcome of which hung in the balance. The decisive role in it was played by the Thracian horsemen who fought under the command of Florence, who died in this battle. After the defeat, Mermeroy left the empire, and three prominent Persian military leaders, of Armenian origin: the brothers Narses, Aratius and Isaac - from the aristocratic family of Kamsarakans, who successfully fought with the Romans during the reign of Justin, went over to the side of Rome. Isaac surrendered to his new masters the fortress of Bolon, located near Feodosiopolis, on the border, the garrison of which he commanded.

On September 8, 531, Shah Kavad died from paralysis of the right side, which befell him five days before his death. He was 82 years old. His successor was, on the basis of the will he drew up, his youngest son, Khosrov Anushirvan. The highest dignitaries of the state, led by Mevod, stopped the attempt of the eldest son of Kaos to take the throne. Soon after this, negotiations began with Rome to conclude peace. From the Roman side, Rufinus, Alexander and Thomas took part in them. The negotiations were difficult, interrupted by breaks in contacts, threats from the Persians to resume the war, accompanied by the movement of troops towards the border, but in the end, in 532, a treaty on “eternal peace” was signed. In accordance with it, the border between the two powers remained largely unchanged, although Rome returned to the Persians the fortresses Farangium and Volus that had been taken from them, the Roman side also undertook to move the headquarters of the commander of the army stationed in Mesopotamia further from the border - from Dara to Constantine. During negotiations with Rome, Iran, both earlier and this time, put forward a demand for joint defense of passes and passages through the Greater Caucasus Range near the Caspian Sea to repel attacks by nomadic barbarians. But, since this condition was unacceptable for the Romans: a military unit located at a considerable distance from the Roman borders would be there in an extremely vulnerable position and completely dependent on the Persians, an alternative proposal was put forward - to pay Iran money to compensate for its costs on the defense of the Caucasian passes. This proposal was accepted, and the Roman side undertook to pay Iran 110 centinarii of gold - a centinarium was 100 libras, and the weight of a libra was approximately one-third of a kilogram. Thus, Rome, under the plausible guise of compensation for expenses for joint defense needs, undertook to pay an indemnity of about 4 tons of gold. At that time, after the increase in the treasury under Anastasia, this amount was not particularly burdensome for Rome.

The subject of negotiations was also the situation in Lazika and Iveria. Lazika remained under the protectorate of Rome, and Iveria - Iran, but those Ivers, or Georgians, who fled from the Persians from their country to neighboring Lazika, were given the right to remain in Lazika or return to their homeland at their own request.

Emperor Justinian agreed to make peace with the Persians because at that time he was developing a plan for conducting military operations in the west - in Africa and Italy - in order to restore the integrity of the Roman Empire and to protect the Orthodox Christians of the West from the discrimination to which they were subjected to the Arians who ruled over them. But he was temporarily kept from implementing this plan by the dangerous developments in the capital itself.

Nika Mutiny

In January 532, a rebellion broke out in Constantinople, the instigators of which were members of the circus factions, or dims, the Prasins (green) and Veneti (blue). Of the four circus parties by the time of Justinian, two - the Levki (white) and the Rusii (red) - disappeared, leaving no noticeable traces of their existence. “The original meaning of the names of the four parties,” according to A.A. Vasiliev, is unclear. Sources of the 6th century, that is, the era of Justinian, say that these names correspond to the four elements: earth (green), water (blue), air (white) and fire (red). Dimas similar to those in the capital, bearing the same names of the colors of the clothes of circus drivers and crews, also existed in those cities where hippodromes were preserved. But the dimas were not only communities of fans: they were endowed with municipal responsibilities and rights, and served as a form of organization of civil militia in the event of a siege of the city. Dimas had their own structure, their own treasury, their own leaders: these were, according to F.I. Uspensky, “the democrats, of which there were two - the Dimocrats of the Venets and Prasins; both of them were appointed by the king from the highest military ranks with the rank of protospatharius." In addition to them, there were also Dimarchs, who previously headed the Dima of the Levki and Rusii, who actually died out, but retained the memory of themselves in the nomenclature of ranks. Judging by the sources, the remnants of the Dima Leuci were absorbed by the Veneti, and the Rusiev by the Prasini. There is no complete clarity regarding the structure of dims and the principles of division into dims due to insufficient information in the sources. It is only known that the Dimes, led by their Dimocrats and Dimarchs, were subordinate to the prefect, or eparch, of Constantinople. The number of Dims was limited: at the end of the 6th century, during the reign of Mauritius, there were one and a half thousand Prasins and 900 Venets in the capital, but their much more numerous supporters joined the formal members of the Dims.

The division into dimas, like modern party affiliation, to a certain extent reflected the existence of different social and ethnic groups and even different theological views, which in New Rome served as the most important indicator of orientation. Among the Veneti, wealthier people predominated - landowners and officials; natural Greeks, consistent diaphysites, while the dim prasins united mainly merchants and artisans, there were many people from Syria and Egypt, and the presence of monophysites was also noticeable among the prasins.

Emperor Justinian and his wife Theodora were supporters, or, if you like, fans, of the Veneti. The characterization of Theodora as a supporter of the Prasins found in literature is based on a misunderstanding: on the one hand, on the fact that her father was once in the service of the Prasins (but after his death, the Prasins, as mentioned above, did not take care of his widow and orphans, in while the Veneti showed generosity to the orphaned family, and Theodora became a zealous “fan” of this faction), and on the other hand, on the fact that she, not being a Monophysite, provided patronage to the Monophysites at a time when the emperor himself was looking for a way to reconcile them with the Diaphysites, meanwhile, in the capital of the empire, the Monophysites concentrated around the Dima Prasins.

Not being recognized as political parties, performing, in accordance with their place in the hierarchy of capital institutions, rather a representative function, dimas still reflected the moods of various circles of urban inhabitants, including their political desires. Even during the times of the Principate and then the Dominat, the hippodrome became the center of political life. After the acclamation of the new emperor in the military camp, after the church blessing on the reign, after his approval by the Senate, the emperor appeared at the hippodrome, occupied his box there, which was called kathisma, and the people - the citizens of New Rome - with their welcoming cries performed the legally significant act of electing him emperor, or, closer to the real state of affairs, recognition of the legitimacy of a previously completed election.

From a real-political point of view, the participation of the people in the election of the emperor was exclusively formal, ceremonial in nature, but the traditions of the ancient Roman Republic, torn apart during the times of the Gracchi, Marius, Sulla, and triumvirates by the struggle of parties, made their way in the rivalry of circus factions, which went beyond the boundaries of sports excitement. As F.I. wrote Uspensky, “the hippodrome represented the only arena, in the absence of a printing press, for the loud expression of public opinion, which was sometimes binding on the government. Here public affairs were discussed, here the population of Constantinople expressed to a certain extent their participation in political affairs; While the ancient political institutions through which the people expressed their sovereign rights gradually fell into decay, unable to get along with the monarchical principles of the Roman emperors, the city hippodrome continued to remain an arena where free opinion could be expressed with impunity... The people politicized at the hippodrome , expressed censure to both the tsar and the ministers, and sometimes mocked the unsuccessful policy.” But the hippodrome with its dimes served not only as a place where the masses could criticize the actions of the authorities with impunity, it was also used by groups or clans surrounding the emperors, bearers of government powers in their intrigues, and served as a tool for compromising rivals from hostile clans. Taken together, these circumstances turned dimas into a risky weapon, fraught with rebellion.

The danger was aggravated by the extremely daring criminal morals that reigned among the stasiots who made up the core of the dims - something like avid fans who did not miss the races and other performances of the hippodrome. About their morals, with possible exaggerations, but still not fantasizing, but relying on the real state of affairs, Procopius wrote in the “Secret History”: the stasiots of the Veneti “openly carried weapons at night, but during the day they hid small double-edged daggers at their hips. As soon as it began to get dark, they formed gangs and robbed those who (looked) decent throughout the agora and in the narrow streets... During the robbery, they considered it necessary to kill some so that they would not tell anyone about what happened to them . Everyone suffered from them, and among the first were those Veneti who were not stasiotes.” Their smart and elaborate attire was very colorful: they trimmed their clothes with a “beautiful border... The part of the chiton that covered the arm was pulled tightly together near the hand, and from there it expanded to incredible sizes all the way to the shoulder. Whenever they were in the theater or at the hippodrome, shouting or cheering (the charioteers) ... waving their arms, this part (of the chiton) naturally swelled, giving the fools the impression that they had such a beautiful and strong body that they had to clothe it in similar robes... Their capes, wide trousers, and especially their shoes were Hunnic both in name and in appearance.” The stasiots of the Prasins, who competed with the Veneti, either joined enemy gangs, “overwhelmed by the desire to participate in crimes with complete impunity, while others fled and took refuge in other places. Many, overtaken there too, died either at the hands of the enemy or after being persecuted by the authorities... Many other young men began to flock to this community... They were prompted to this by the opportunity to show strength and audacity... Many, having seduced them with money, pointed out to the stasiots their own enemies , and they immediately destroyed them." The words of Procopius that “no one had the slightest hope that he would remain alive given such an unreliable existence” are, of course, only a rhetorical figure, but an atmosphere of danger, anxiety and fear was present in the city.

The thunderous tension was discharged by a riot - an attempt to overthrow Justinian. The rebels had different motives for taking risks. Adherents of the nephews of Emperor Anastasius lurked in palace and government circles, although they themselves did not seem to aspire to supreme power. These were mainly dignitaries who adhered to Monophysite theology, of which Anastasius was an adherent. Dissatisfaction with the government's tax policy had accumulated among the people; the main culprits were seen as the emperor's closest assistants, Praetorian Prefect John of Cappadocia and Quaestor Tribonianus. Rumor accused them of extortion, bribes and extortion. The Prasins resented Justinian's open preference for the Veneti, and the Stasiotes of the Veneti were dissatisfied that the government, despite what Procopius had written about condoning their banditry, still took police action against particularly obvious criminal excesses that they committed. Finally, in Constantinople there were still pagans, Jews, Samaritans, as well as heretics Arians, Macedonians, Montanists and even Manichaeans, who rightly saw a threat to the very existence of their communities in Justinian’s religious policy, aimed at supporting Orthodoxy with the full force of law and real power. So flammable material accumulated in a high degree of concentration in the capital, and the hippodrome served as the epicenter of the explosion. It is easier for people of our time, captivated by sporting passions, than it was in previous centuries, to imagine how easily the excitement of fans, charged at the same time with political predilections, can result in unrest that poses the threat of uprising and coup, especially when the crowd is skillfully manipulated.

The beginning of the rebellion was the events that took place at the hippodrome on January 11, 532. In the interval between the races, one of the prasins, apparently prepared in advance for the performance, on behalf of his god turned to the emperor who was present at the races with a complaint about the spafarius of the sacred bedchamber of Calopodium: “Many years, Justinian - Augustus, win! “We are being offended, the only good one, and we are unable to bear it any longer, God is our witness!” . The emperor's representative, in response to the accusation, said: “Calopodia does not interfere in the affairs of government... You come to spectacles only to insult the government.” The dialogue became more and more tense: “Be that as it may, whoever offends us will have his part with Judas.” - “Be silent, Jews, Manichaeans, Samaritans!” - “Do you vilify us as Jews and Samaritans? Mother of God, be with us all!..” - “Not joking: if you don’t calm down, I’ll order everyone to have their heads cut off” - “Order them to kill! Perhaps punish us! Blood is already ready to flow in streams... It would be better for Savvaty not to be born than to have a son as a murderer... (This was already an openly rebellious attack.) So in the morning, outside the city, under Zeugmus, a murder took place, and you, sir, at least looked at it! There was a murder in the evening." The representative of the blue faction responded: “The killers of this entire stage are only yours... You kill and rebel; you only have stage killers.” The representative of the Greens turned directly to the emperor: “Who killed the son of Epagathus, autocrat?” - “And you killed him and blame it on the gays” - “Lord, have mercy! Truth is being violated. Therefore, it can be argued that the world is not governed by God’s Providence. Where does such evil come from? - “Blasphemers, fighters against God, when will you shut up?” - “If it pleases your power, I will inevitably remain silent, most august one; I know everything, I know everything, but I’m silent. Farewell justice! You are already speechless. I will move to another camp and become a Jew. God knows! It’s better to become a Hellenic than to live with gays.” Having defied the government and the emperor, the Greens left the hippodrome.

An insulting altercation with the emperor at the hippodrome served as a prelude to the rebellion. The eparch, or prefect, of the capital, Eudemon, ordered the arrest of six people suspected of murder from both dimes - green and blue. An investigation was carried out and it turned out that seven of them were indeed guilty of this crime. Eudemon pronounced a sentence: four criminals should be beheaded, and three should be crucified. But then something incredible happened. According to the story of John Malala, “when they... began to hang them, the pillars collapsed, and two (sentenced) fell; one was “blue”, the other was “green”. A crowd gathered at the place of execution, monks from the monastery of St. Conon came and took with them the broken criminals sentenced to execution. They transported them across the strait to the Asian coast and gave them refuge in the church of the martyr Lawrence, which had the right of refuge. But the prefect of the capital, Eudemon, sent a military detachment to the temple to prevent them from leaving the temple and hiding. The people were outraged by the actions of the prefect, because in the fact that the hanged men broke free and survived, they saw the miraculous action of God's Providence. A crowd of people went to the prefect's house and asked him to remove the guards from the temple of St. Lawrence, but he refused to fulfill this request. Dissatisfaction with the actions of the authorities grew in the crowd. The conspirators took advantage of the murmur and indignation of the people. The stasiots of the Veneti and Prasin agreed on a solidarity rebellion against the government. The password of the conspirators was the word “Nika!” (“Win!”) - the cry of the spectators at the hippodrome, with which they encouraged the competing drivers. The uprising went down in history under the name of this victorious cry.

On January 13, equestrian competitions dedicated to the Ides of January were again held at the capital’s hippodrome; Justinian sat on the imperial kathisma. In the intervals between races, the Veneti and Prasins unanimously asked the emperor for mercy, for the forgiveness of those sentenced to execution and miraculously freed from death. As John Malala writes, “they continued to shout until the 22nd race, but received no answer. Then the devil inspired them with a bad intention, and they began to praise each other: “Many years to the merciful Prasins and Venets!” Instead of greeting the emperor. Then, leaving the hippodrome, the conspirators, together with the crowd that joined them, rushed to the residence of the prefect of the city, demanded the release of those sentenced to death and, having not received a favorable response, set the prefecture on fire. This was followed by new arson, accompanied by the killing of soldiers and everyone who tried to counteract the rebellion. According to John Malala, “the Copper Gate to the very scholia, and the Great Church, and the public portico burned down; the people continued to riot." A more complete list of buildings destroyed by fire is given by Theophanes the Confessor: “The porticoes from Kamara itself on the square to the Halka (stairs), silver shops and all the buildings of Lavs were burned... they entered houses, robbed property, burned the palace porch... the premises of the royal bodyguards and the ninth part of Augusteum... They burned the Alexandrov baths and Sampson’s large hospice house with all his sick.” Shouts were heard from the crowd demanding that “another king” be installed.

The equestrian competitions scheduled for the next day, January 14, were not cancelled. But when at the hippodrome “the flag was raised according to custom,” the rebels Prasin and Veneti, shouting “Nika!”, began to set fire to the spectator areas. A detachment of Heruli under the command of Mundus, whom Justinian ordered to pacify the riot, could not cope with the rebels. The Emperor was ready to compromise. Having learned that the rebellious Dimas were demanding the resignation of the dignitaries John the Cappadocian, Tribonian and Eudaimon, who were especially hated by them, he complied with this demand and sent all three into retirement. But this resignation did not satisfy the rebels. Arson, murder and looting continued for several days, covering a large part of the city. The conspirators' plan definitely leaned towards the removal of Justinian and the proclamation of one of Anastasius's nephews - Hypatius, Pompey or Probus - as emperor. To speed up the development of events in this direction, the conspirators spread a false rumor among the people that Justinian and Theodora fled from the capital to Thrace. Then the crowd rushed to the house of Probus, who left it in advance and disappeared, not wanting to be involved in the riot. In anger, the rebels burned his house. They also did not find Hypatius and Pompey, because at that time they were in the imperial palace and there they assured Justinian of their devotion to him, but did not trust those to whom the instigators of the rebellion were going to entrust the supreme power, fearing that their presence in the palace might induce hesitant bodyguards to treason, Justinian demanded that both brothers leave the palace and go to their home.

On Sunday, January 17, the emperor made another attempt to quell the rebellion through reconciliation. He appeared at the hippodrome, where the crowd involved in the rebellion had gathered, with the Gospel in his hands and with an oath, he promised to release the criminals who had escaped from the hanging, and also to grant amnesty to all participants in the rebellion if they stopped the rebellion. In the crowd, some believed Justinian and welcomed him, while others - and they were obviously the majority among those gathered - insulted him with their cries and demanded that his nephew Anastasius Hypatius be installed as emperor. Justinian, surrounded by bodyguards, returned from the hippodrome to the palace, and the rebellious crowd, having learned that Hypatius was at home, rushed there to proclaim him emperor. He himself feared the fate ahead of him, but the rebels, acting assertively, took him to the forum of Constantine to perform a solemn acclamation. His wife Maria, according to Procopius, “a reasonable woman and known for her prudence, held her husband back and did not let him in, moaning loudly and crying out to all her loved ones that the Dima were leading him to death,” but she was unable to prevent the planned action. Hypatius was brought to the forum and there, in the absence of a diadem, a gold chain was placed on his head. The Senate, which met urgently, confirmed the election of Hypatius as emperor. It is not known how many senators there were who avoided participating in this meeting, and which of the senators present acted out of fear, considering Justinian’s position hopeless, but it is obvious that his conscious opponents, probably mainly from among the adherents of Monophysitism, were present in the Senate earlier, before the mutiny. Senator Origen proposed preparing for a long war with Justinian; the majority, however, spoke in favor of an immediate assault on the imperial palace. Hypatius supported this proposal, and the crowd moved towards the hippodrome, adjacent to the palace, in order to launch an attack on the palace from there.

Meanwhile, a meeting between Justinian and his closest assistants, who remained faithful to him, took place there. Among them were Belisarius, Narses, Mund. Saint Theodora was also present. The current state of affairs was characterized by both Justinian himself and his advisers in an extremely gloomy light. It was risky to rely on the loyalty of the soldiers from the capital's garrison who had not yet joined the rebels, even on the palace schola. The plan to evacuate the emperor from Constantinople was seriously discussed. And then Theodora took the floor: “In my opinion, flight, even if it ever brought salvation and, perhaps, will bring it now, is unworthy. It is impossible for one who was born not to die, but for one who once reigned, being a fugitive is unbearable. May I not lose this purple, may I not live to see the day when those I meet do not call me mistress! If you want to save yourself by flight, basileus, it is not difficult. We have a lot of money, and the sea is nearby, and there are ships. But be careful that you, who have been saved, do not have to choose death over salvation. I like the ancient saying that royal power is a beautiful shroud.” This is the most famous of the sayings of Saint Theodora, one must assume - authentically reproduced by her hater and flatterer Procopius, a man of extraordinary intellect, who was able to appreciate the irresistible energy and expressiveness of these words that characterize her herself: her mind and the amazing gift of words with which she once shone at stage, her fearlessness and self-control, her passion and pride, her steel will, tempered by everyday trials that she had endured in abundance in the past - from early youth to marriage, which lifted her to an unprecedented height, from which she did not want to fall, even if The lives of both herself and her husband, the emperor, were at stake. These words of Theodora wonderfully illustrate the role that she played in Justinian’s inner circle and the extent of her influence on public policy.

Theodora's statement marked a turning point in the rebellion. “Her words,” as Procopius noted, “inspired everyone, and, having regained their lost courage, they began to discuss how they should defend themselves... The soldiers, both those who were entrusted with guarding the palace and everyone else, did not show loyalty to the basileus , but they also did not want to explicitly take part in the matter, waiting to see what the outcome of events would be.” At the meeting, it was decided to immediately begin to suppress the rebellion.

A key role in restoring order was played by the detachment that Belisarius brought from the eastern border. Together with him, German mercenaries acted under the command of their commander Munda, appointed strategist of Illyricum. But before they attacked the rebels, the palace eunuch Narses entered into negotiations with the rebellious Veneti, who had previously been considered reliable, since Justinian himself and his wife Theodora were on the side of their blue god. According to John Malala, he “secretly left (the palace) and bribed some (members of) the Veneti party by distributing money to them. And some rebels from the crowd began to proclaim Justinian king in the city; people divided and went against each other." In any case, the number of rebels decreased as a result of this division, but it was still large and inspired the most alarming fears. Convinced of the unreliability of the capital's garrison, Belisarius lost heart and, returning to the palace, began to assure the emperor that “their cause was lost,” but, under the spell of the words spoken by Theodora at the council, Justinian was now determined to act in the most energetic manner. He ordered Belisarius to lead his detachment to the hippodrome, where the main forces of the rebels were concentrated. Hypatius, who was proclaimed emperor, was also there, sitting on the imperial kathisma.

Belisarius's detachment made its way to the hippodrome through the charred ruins. Having reached the portico of the Veneti, he wanted to immediately attack Hypatius and capture him, but they were separated by a locked door, which was guarded from the inside by Hypatius’s bodyguards, and Belisarius feared that “when he finds himself in a difficult position in this narrow place,” the people would attack the detachment and because of his small numbers, he will kill all his warriors. Therefore, he chose a different direction of attack. He ordered the soldiers to attack the disorganized crowd of thousands gathered at the hippodrome, taking it by surprise with this attack, and “the people... seeing warriors dressed in armor, renowned for their courage and experience in battle, striking with swords without any mercy, turned to flight.” But there was nowhere to run, because through another gate of the hippodrome, which was called the Dead (Nekra), the Germans under the command of Munda burst into the hippodrome. A massacre began, in which more than 30 thousand people fell victims. Hypatius and his brother Pompey were captured and taken to Justinian's palace. In his defense, Pompey said that “the people forced them against their own desire to accept power, and they then went to the hippodrome, having no evil intent against the basileus” - which was only a half-truth, because from a certain point they ceased to resist the will of the rebels . Ipaty did not want to justify himself to the winner. The next day they were both killed by soldiers and their bodies thrown into the sea. All the property of Hypatius and Pompey, as well as those senators who participated in the rebellion, was confiscated in favor of the fiscus. But later, for the sake of establishing peace and harmony in the state, Justinian returned the confiscated property to their former owners, without depriving even the children of Hypatius and Pompey - these unlucky nephews of Anastasius. But, on the other hand, Justinian, soon after suppressing the rebellion, which shed a lot of blood, but less than could have been shed if his opponents had succeeded, which would have plunged the empire into civil war, annulled the orders he had made as a concession to the rebels: the emperor's closest assistants Tribonian and John were returned to their former posts.

(To be continued.)

Justin the philosopher begins a series of Christian thinkers for whom ancient culture in its most humanistic manifestations was, if not a sister, then, in any case, the closest relative of Christianity. For Tatian and his numerous early medieval followers, it was nothing more than a complete delusion, or, in his words, “the creation of the devil.” In the ranks of Justin there will later be Clement and Origen, Lactantius and Boethius. Among Tatian are Theophilus and Tertullian, Arnobius and Gregory I. Augustine will never be able to make a final choice between these two positions, but, as his essay “De doctrina Christiana” shows, he will rather lean towards the position of Justin.
Justin's worldview6 is basically eclectic. It depends most heavily on the Stoics; The influence of Philo and the Stoic Platonists is noticeable. Together with the Stoics and Platonists, he is convinced of the high dignity of human reason and its ability to find truth. In the “Dialogue with Tryphon” we can find, for example, the following passage: “Nothing can be better than to prove that reason dominates everything and that a person guided by it can correctly evaluate the aspirations of others and show them the path to happiness” [ (Dial. 3). These words could equally be attributed to Heraclitus, Plato, and the Stoics. In his first “Apology,” Justin, almost quoting Plato’s “Republic,” writes: “Until rulers and peoples philosophize, states will not prosper” (Apol. I 3). In these words, however, there is a significant difference from Platonism: Justin is a philosopher of early Christianity, which F. Engels correctly characterized as the religion of the lower classes,7 therefore he, naturally, partly expresses the ideology of these lower classes and calls on not only rulers, but also peoples to philosophize. From his point of view, philosophy should be the property of everyone, and not the privilege of an elite minority of a chosen people - the Greeks (Ibid.).
But we would misunderstand Justin if we saw in this call to philosophize the idea of ​​the need to expand the influence of secular philosophical schools, or the Cynic-Stoic idea of ​​philosophy as a “revelation” of nature accessible to everyone. For a Christian apologist (like Justin) to be a philosopher ultimately meant to be a divinely revealed Christian, and the “democratization” of philosophy meant first of all the spread of Christian knowledge and Christian faith. Unlike the Cynics and Stoics, for whom the achievement of truth was a matter of personal, individual effort, for the Christian apologist the final truth was already contained in Scripture in ready-made form and did not require a special search8; rather, it only needed interpretation, dissemination and defense. All these three tasks are to some extent included in the problematics of Justin’s writings, but still for Justin the main thing is defense [(apology).
Justin does not deny pagan philosophy the right to be called wisdom, but considers it wisdom of a lower order compared to Christian wisdom. The reasons for this position boil down to the following. Firstly, pagan philosophy, according to Justin, is not universal and always remains the property of only a small elite, while Christian wisdom is open to everyone. Secondly, what pagan philosophy says about truth, the meaning of life, etc., is expressed in a difficult and sophisticated form, while Christian wisdom speaks about the same thing better and in the simplest and most understandable words. Thirdly, pagan philosophy is divided into many schools, the opinions of which often contradict each other, but truth and true wisdom must be united. This is precisely, according to Justin, Christian wisdom. for it relies on a single source of truth - Holy Scripture. Fourthly, Christian wisdom has superior authority, for if pagan wisdom is the creation of people, even if partially connected to the world Logos, then Christian wisdom is a divine creation. Finally, the advantage of Christian wisdom is its greater antiquity compared to paganism, for, according to Justin, the Jewish prophets expounded their teachings (inherited by Christians) long before the advent of Greek philosophy. Arguing on the principle of post hoc ergo propter hoc, Justin, following Philo, uses the criterion of antiquity to prove the influence of the books of the Old Testament on Greek philosophy.
Thus, in Justin one can find almost all the main types of subsequent general argumentation in favor of the priority of Christian wisdom over pagan wisdom, that is, arguments from universality, simplicity, unity, authority and antiquity9. And yet Justin found much truth in Greek philosophy. Here he included all those ancient ideas, and above all the ideas of the Platonists and Stoics familiar to him, which echoed Christian views, among them the doctrine of one God, his creation of the world, the immortality of the soul, providence, etc. But these ideas, in his opinion Justin, did not belong to pagan philosophy itself: “... everything that is said by anyone that is good belongs to us Christians” (Apol. II 13). Justin tries to justify such a seemingly extravagant statement with two arguments going back to Philo. The first is the already mentioned thesis about the Greeks borrowing their best ideas from the books of the Hebrew prophets. For example, Plato simply borrows his cosmogonic doctrine (according to Timaeus) and the doctrine of free will (probably according to Phaedrus, 248 pp.) from Moses (Apol. I 25). The difference between this view and the similar view of Philo is only that here the “mentor” of Greek philosophy, Moses, is no longer so much a teacher of Jewish law as a prophet of Christ, thinking Christianly long before the appearance of the Gospel. Already in Justin, Christianity is placed at the center of world history and all the events that preceded it are interpreted as having the target function of “preparation” for it. From this point of view, Moses and Plato are only instruments of providence, and Plato goes on an Egyptian journey precisely in order to borrow the mouth of Mosaic wisdom and transmit it to the people. Another argument is the doctrine of Logos, borrowed by Justin in the philosophical part directly from the Stoics, in the theological part, apparently, from Philo and in the Old Testament. In any case, Justin does not refer to the fourth gospel and probably does not know it. What was new in comparison with the Stoics and Philo of Alexandria was Justin’s identification of the Logos with Christ. Therefore, for him, “all those who lived according to the Logos are Christians, even if they were considered atheists, like Socrates or Heraclitus” (Ibid. 13).
Like Philo, Justin makes the Logos a mediator between the world and God. The biblical God the Father is incomprehensible and inexpressible in language. The names that are attributed to him in Scripture (“father”, “god”, “creator”, etc.) do not serve to designate his essence, but to name his actions and manifestations (Apol. I 6). Being completely transcendental, God carries out his connection with the world through the Logos, who is his Son, born before the creation of the world. Justin interprets the birth of the Logos in terms of the Stoic theory of the “inner” and “spoken” word. Eternally present in God as his inner word, i.e., actual thought, the Logos receives independent existence when this word is proclaimed and emanates outward. At the same time, giving birth to the Word-Logos, God does not lose anything from his existence, for “the word does not decrease in us when we pronounce it” (Dial. 01). The birth of the Logos from God is like the transmission of light from one torch to another (Ibid. 128) 10. These analogies allow us to consider Justin’s Christological position quite orthodox from the point of view of the future Nicene creed (“Light from Light”), but his emphasis on that the Logos was precisely “born,” that is, received independent existence before the creation of the world, and before that it was only an internal property of God, could in the future become one of the sources of Arianism. In general, Justin's theological position is unstable and contradictory - a natural consequence of the immaturity of Christianity itself, which was just emerging in this era.
Justin could not rely on any official theology, because it simply did not exist yet. In fact, he himself had to construct this theology at his own peril and risk. As for Justin’s philosophical, or, better to say, ideological position, many of its features are explained by the novelty and urgency of the task that he solved - to combine philosophy with Christianity, but to combine, unlike the Gnostics, without prejudice to Christianity. Solving this problem, Justin took as material for constructing a Christian picture of the world everything that was at hand, unless it harmed the basic Christian idea. His intuition and experience of the New Testament books told him that in ethics and natural philosophy one could take something from the Stoics. And he borrows the Stoic teaching about virtues and the natural basis of morality. He uses the Stoic theory of notiones communes - general concepts of morality inherent in human nature itself, but Justin especially insists on the innateness of all people with a “natural concept” of God (Dial. 93). Approving in general the Heraclitean-Stoic doctrine of logos, he does not accept the fatalism and materialism of the Stoics and turns to Plato and the Platonists for support. In the latter he finds the doctrine of free will (“Phaedrus”) and the creation of the world by one god (“Timaeus”). In Timaeus (28c) he finds confirmation of the biblical teaching about the incomprehensibility of God, and in Plato's second letter - a hint of the doctrine of the Trinity11. Justin also relies on the Platonists in his doctrine of the soul, defending its immortality and divine dignity,12 but rejects the Platonists’ opinion that the soul is immortal by nature, considering, together with Christianity, its immortality as a gift from God (Apol. I 8). Of course, he also rejects the doctrine of metempsychosis. At key points in his anthropology, Justin is less dependent on pagan philosophers and argues more in the spirit of the Epistles of Paul 13.
Thus, Justin opens the first page of the centuries-old history of the conscious assimilation by Christian thinkers of elements of pagan philosophical culture. His main position: Greek philosophy is in harmony with Christian teaching and confirms it with its best examples - will become one of the classical positions in the subsequent era. However, Justin’s student Tatysn14 already demonstrated by his example that this was not the only possible position.
Both Justin and Tatian came from the Hellenistic Near East, which considered Christian teaching primarily its own property, bestowed by it on the Roman world. The proud sense of religious superiority experienced by Middle Eastern Christians contrasted sharply with the disdainful attitude towards them as barbarians by Greco-Roman pagan society. Justin already demanded at least equal rights between pagan and Christian wisdom. But he did not suffer from the “provincial complex” that so aggravated Tatian’s understandable sense of protest against Hellenic exclusivity, for whom it often reached the point of blind hatred of everything Greek.
In his invective "Adversus graecos" Tatian undertakes a "barbaric" invasion of pagan culture. “Your books,” he writes, addressing the Hellenes, “are like labyrinths, and those who read them are like a barrel of Danaids* You tore wisdom into pieces, depriving yourself of true wisdom. You do not know God and, arguing with each other, you refute yourselves. Therefore, you are all insignificant, and although you arrogate to yourself the gift of speech, you reason like the blind with the deaf” (Adv. 25). Tatian contrasts this torn apart wisdom of pagan philosophical schools with the “wisdom of the barbarians,” which, in his opinion, is superior to the Hellenic both in the sense of its unity, and in terms of universality, simplicity, authority and antiquity, 15 but especially in terms of its morality. Convicting Hellenic philosophy of immorality, Tatian points out that the Hellenic teachings always diverged from real behavior: Diogenes died of gluttony, Aristippus was a libertine, Plato was sold into slavery by Dionysius because he could not satisfy his greed, etc. .
JAdv. 7) 16. And not only philosophers, but also everything that bore the proud name of Hellenism, is depicted by Tatian almost exclusively in black colors. What is this? Malicious distortion of the truth or rhetorical exaltation of a lawyer for centuries of humiliated and exploited peoples of the periphery of the Roman Empire? More likely the latter. Elsewhere in his work, Tatian clearly shows that the harsh attitude towards Greek culture is a reaction, not an aggression. “Why do you appropriate wisdom only to yourself,” Tatian says to the Greeks, “having neither another sun, nor other stars above you, nor a better origin, nor even a death different from other people?..” (Adv. 26). Behind Tatian's demand for equality of all peoples with regard to wisdom there is also a demand for equality in a broader, social sense. Tatian still shared the paleo-Christian hopes that the new religion would liberate peoples from slavery and tyranny and give them all equal political rights (Adv. 29).
If Justin can be called the ideologist of the moderate (mainly slaveholding) wing of Christianity, then Tatian undoubtedly expressed the opinions of the Christian lower classes. He constantly worries about the fate of small people. He condemns Aristotle for the fact that in his ethics he deprived the right to happiness of all those whom evil fate had not endowed with nobility of birth, physical strength and beauty, or wealth (Adv. 2). His democratism is also evidenced by the positive part of his teaching, where vulgar stoicism and cynicism (close to the everyday worldview of the common people) predominate and aristocratic Platonism is almost completely absent (in contrast to Justin). But the best evidence of this is Tatian’s radicalism in relation to elite culture.
Tatian brings to its logical conclusion the curious idea taken from Justin about plagiarism of the Greeks. Everything that the Greeks boast of as their personal property, they stole from the barbarians: they took the alphabet from the Phoenicians, geometry and history from the Egyptians, astronomy from the Babylonians, etc. As for philosophy, the Greeks also stole it from the barbarians, namely, among the Jews, but without adding anything to this except Errors and errors, they spoiled it beyond recognition (Adv. 7, 35). For us, contemporaries of developed historical science, such statements can only cause bewilderment. But in the era of Justin and Tatian they did not look so absurd. Even we derive European alphabets from Phoenician, and we begin the history of exact sciences from Egypt and Assyro-Babylonia. The ancients presented history mainly as chronology and paleography, and the oldest examples of both actually belonged to Egypt. And regarding the borrowing of philosophy, many could believe Philo, Justin and Tatian (and this is confirmed by the very duration of the existence of this “hypothesis”). For, on the one hand, the ancients did not believe much (if at all) in the individual’s ability to make independent creative discoveries, especially in philosophy, and they always looked for a more ancient source of this or that philosophical idea. Thus, generally accepted chains appeared: the Stoics and Aristotle - from Plato, Plato - from Socrates, Socrates - from Pythagoras, Pythagoras - from the Brahmans, the Brahmans - from God himself 17. Since, as a rule, the chains were closed on one or another god 18 and the result was that the teaching ultimately has a divine origin, it was natural to assume that as it became more numerous, the teaching became dull and deteriorated, gradually losing its original purity as it passed from hand to hand. It is not surprising, therefore, that the degree of depth and truth of a teaching was often made dependent on its antiquity. It was for this reason that the Pythagorean Numenius placed Moses and Pythagoras above Plato, and Plato above Aristotle. On the other hand, the Greeks were convinced that the mysterious journeys of their “spiritual fathers”, Pythagoras and Plato, to the East were decisive for the emergence of their teachings. Given the above, it can be assumed that this extravagant argument of Philo, Justin, Tatian and their followers did not always miss the mark.

In the positive part of his teaching19 Tatian is less successful than in criticism. He condemned the Greek
philosophy, without having time to understand it, and came to the defense of Christianity, without having time to understand the Scriptures. The result was many philosophical contradictions and dogmatic errors. The latter eventually took him beyond the boundaries of Christianity and made him a “heretic” for all time, the founder of the Encratist sect. Modern Catholic historians like to note with relief that this hater of ancient culture ended his days outside the bosom of the church20. In contrast, the “teacher of the church”, highly revered by Catholics, Jerome of Stridon, spoke of Tatian’s work “Adversus Graecos” as “the best and most useful of all the works” of this apologist (De script. 47). Such an assessment, of course, does not mean that this outstanding philologist and expert on antiquity shared the opinions of Tatian. Rather, it reflected Jerome’s well-known, but unfulfilled dream of eradicating the spirit of Cicero and Seneca in himself and becoming a “pure” Christian writer. But even Tatian himself, seemingly almost free (unlike Jerome) from the tempting brilliance of Greek education, could not escape ancient pagan influences. Moreover, thinkers of such a great culture as Jerome and others like him could not avoid them. In the sense of dependence on ancient education, the next apologist, Athenagoras, is closer to Jerome than Tatian; closer to Tatian is the philosophical antipode of Athens - Theophilus.