This great stream of art and culture went on uninterruptedly, no matter what were the palace intrigues or the sudden changes of government. One winter night a great cry is raised, the Emperor, the brave general whose glorious campaigns had enabled the city to increase its wealth and commerce a thousandfold, had been slain, foully murdered by order of his wife and his ancient friend. Yet there is no revolt among the people; what is it to them? A few dangerous partizans are killed, and later a few of the hired murderers, and the wife in question, are offered up to the Church in expiation of the usurper’s crime. In the evening Nicephorus Phocas is Emperor, and by the next morning John Zimisces is crowned and reigning in his stead. Both the emperors were good generals, and could keep the barbarians at bay, and, for the matter of that, they were both flagrant usurpers, the rightful sovereigns, Basil and Constantine, being kept half prisoners in the palace, while their so-called colleagues ruled the country; and if freedom from invasion, wealth, and munificent patronage of the arts are signs of good government, then these usurpers were pattern rulers. This was by no means the case with Basil II., who, at the mature age of sixty flung off the tutelage of his colleagues and plunged into a wild career of conquest, earning for himself not only the title of “Destroyer of the Bulgarians,” but the hearty hatred of his subjects at home and in the provinces. With Basil we must leave the Byzantine Empire, which had reached its apogee of political power and art production. It was centuries before the internal decay made itself felt, but the great edifice never recovered the shock of the invasion and sack of Constantinople by the Crusaders in 1204, and falling bit by bit before the attacks of the Mahometans, finally fell an easy prey to the Seljuk Turks in 1453. FOOTNOTES: [8] Second leaf in the Royal Museum of Decorative and Industrial Art, Brussels. [9] See the plaque with the _Judgment of Solomon_ in the Louvre. [10] A round tomb with a cupola has been excavated in the Via Praestina, and the circular Church of S. Costanzo is the tomb of a daughter of the Emperor Constantine. [11] _Les Tapisseries Coptes_, par M. Gerspach, Paris, 1890. [12] Venturi considers that the Throne was made for another Maximian, Archbishop of Constantinople 345, and being taken in the course of time to Venetia, is identical with that mentioned in the Chronicle of the Deacon John; who tells of an ivory throne sent in December, 1001, by the Doge Pietro Orseolo, to the Emperor Otto III., who was then residing in Ravenna, and gave it to the Cathedral. There is no mention of an ivory throne in the Cathedral before this date. Cf. _Storia dell’ arte italiana_, vol. i., p. 466. Ricci connects this throne with that of St. Mark in Grado. Cf. _L’arte italiana decorativa e industriale_, vol. vii., p. 104.