How far they were facts, we never shall exactly know. Almost all our
information comes from Catholic historians--and he would be a rash
man who would pin his faith on any statement of theirs concerning the
actions of a heretic. But I think, even with no other help than
theirs, we may see why Dietrich would have looked with horror on any
intimacy between the Church of Rome and the Court of Constantinople.

We must remember first what the Greek Empire was then, and who was
the new Emperor. Anastasius the poor old Emperor, dying at eighty
with his heart broken by monks and priests, had an ugly dream; and
told it to Amantius the eunuch and lord chamberlain. Whereon
Amantius said he had had a dream too;--how a great hog flew at him as
he was in waiting in the very presence, and threw him down and eat
him fairly up. Which came true--though not in the way Amantius
expected. On the death of Anastasius he determined to set up as
Emperor a creature of his own. For this purpose he must buy the
guards; to which noble end he put a large sum of treasure into the
hands of Justin, senator, and commander-in-chief of the said guards,
who takes the money, and spends it on his own account; so that the
miserable eunuch finds, not his man, but Justin himself, Emperor, and
his hard-earned money spent against him. The mere rise of this
unscrupulous swindler and his still more unscrupulous nephew,
Justinian, would have been enough to rouse Dietrich's suspicion, if
not fear.

Deep and unspeakable must have been the royal Amal's contempt for the
man. For he must have known him well at Constantinople in his youth;
known how he was a Goth or other Teuton after all, though he was
called a Dardanian; how his real name was Uprauda (upright), the son