Western Europe after the Reformation

The conception was not precisely the doctrine of the Comparison divine right of kings as such doctrine was de- divine right eloped in Western Europe after the Reformation, though there was much in common between the two ideas. The more recent doctrine was widely accepted, probably because the Reformation had, in England at least, attached to the person of the sovereign the attribute of supremacy in spiritual things which in the West had, before the Reformation, been conceded to the pope.

But in Constantinople, as at present in Russia, the emperor had always been supreme in things temporal and in things spiritual. The advocates of divine right in England based their argument on the assumption that certain families had been divinely chosen, and retained a divine right in consequence of this choice. In Eastern Europe the assumption was rather that an inspiration was granted to them on their appointment. A divine right of succession, so far as I am aware, never formed part of the popular belief. The ruler was the “ Lord’s anointed,” and is so called by the Greek writers of the twelfth century, but he was only entitled to be regarded as possessing this sacred character after he had been anointed.

Ilis selection wras another matter, and the people of Constantinople never lost sight of the fact that, they had a right to appoint an emperor when there was a vacancy. With this exception the right of the emperor was theoretically undisputed and indisputable. The conception of government was of an authority over the nation with which the people had nothing to do but obey its decrees. The duty of the government was not only to protect the empire from external foes, to provide security for life and property, and to give protection at sea to the commerce of merchants, but also to propound the religious belief of the nation, and to be at once the guardian of its faith, its morality, and its orthodoxy.

Greekspeaking Roman

All the attributes which in the West were possessed by the Roman emperor as head of the state in things temporal, and by the pope in things spiritual, were in Constantinople possessed by the Roman emperor alone. In this respect, indeed, the Russian czar is the true successor of the emperor of the Greekspeaking Roman empire.

But, as I have said, important reservations must be made the mainland. The spirit of the Greek was too much steeped in individualism to allow it to give the unquestioning obedience which is rendered by Slavs bulgaria tour. Its traditions and its intelligence alike made it take an interest in the course of government, and thus to this extent made the condition of things in the Byzantine empire different from that which exists under the ruler of Russia.

Thus it happens that while, when we reach the twelfth century, we find ourselves with abundant traces of a traditional sentiment in favor of absolute right, we find also equally abundant evidence of the dawn of the modern idea that the ruler holds a trust for the benefit of the people, and is re influence possible to them. Trade and commerce had con of trade.

Tributed largely

Tributed largely to the introduction of this new view of government, though Christianity and ancient philosophy had also had a share in bringing about the change. The people of the capital were essentially a commercial people. The inhabitants of the leading cities of the empire were principally engaged in trade. Salonica, Smyrna, Ricomedia, Rodosto, and a host of other cities, derived their prosperity from the fact that they were seaports frequented by merchants coming from far-distant countries. The islands of the Archipelago and coasts of the yEgean have at all times supplied great numbers of sailors.

The movement within the empire itself for the purpose of government over so wide a territory as that ruled from Constantinople must also have been great. The result was a population in which there was an unusually large number of travellers. Travel brought intelligence, and the profits of commerce brought independence.

The interests of the population required security for life and property, and the people on many occasions showed that they were indisposed to tolerate a ruler who neglected these first necessities of good government. We shall see that the population of the capital cared little for mere dynastic changes, but on many occasions showed resentment against rulers who tampered with the coinage, or who could not repress piracy and keep the peace of the seas.