The ecclesiastical history of the time of the Palaeologi is extremely interesting both from the point of view of the relations between the Greek Eastern church and the papal throne, and from the point of view of the religious movements in the internal life of the Empire. The relations with Rome, which took the form of attempts to achieve union with the Catholic church, were, except the Union of Lyons, closely connected with the ever-growing Turkish danger, for in the opinion of the Byzantine Emperor this danger could be prevented only by the intervention of the pope and the western European sovereigns. The readiness of the pope to favor the proposition of the eastern monarch very often depended upon international conditions in the West.
The Union of Lyons.—The popes of the second half of the thirteenth century, in their eastern policy wished no repetition of the Fourth Crusade, which had failed to solve the extremely important problem of the Greek schism, and merely had served to postpone the other important question of a crusade to the Holy Land. Now it seemed desirable to the popes to achieve a peaceful union with the Greeks, which would put an end to the old schism and give grounds to hope for the liberation of Jerusalem. The recapture of Constantinople by the Greeks in 1261 was a heavy blow to the pope. Papal appeals to save what the Latins had accomplished in the East were sent to many sovereigns. But the papal attitude depended upon affairs in Italy: the popes, for example, did not wish to act with the Hohenstaufen Manfred, whom they hated. Yet when Manfred’s power in southern Italy was destroyed by Charles of Anjou, though the latter had been invited by the pope, his aggressive policy against Byzantium found no favor with the papacy. The popes realized that the power of Charles, increased by the conquest of Byzantium, would be hardly less dangerous to the world position of the papacy than the Hohenstaufen sway in Byzantium. It is interesting to note that the first union at Lyons under Michael Palaeologus was achieved not under the pressure of the eastern Turkish danger, but under the menace of the aggressive policy of Charles of Anjou.
Since the Comneni, the attitude of the eastern Emperor towards the union had greatly changed. Under the Comneni, especially in the epoch of Manuel, the emperor had sought for union not only under pressure of the external Turkish danger but also in the hope, already merely an illusion, that with the aid of the pope he might gain supreme power over the West, i.e. restore the former Roman Empire. This aspiration clashed with the similar aspiration of the popes to attain supreme temporal power over the West, so that no union took place. The first Palaeologus, in his negotiations for union, had much more modest pretensions. He had in mind not the expansion of the Byzantine Empire in the West, but its defense, with the help of the pope, against the West in the person of the powerful and menacing Charles of Anjou. The papal curia met his proposals favorably, realizing that the ecclesiastical submission of Byzantium to Rome would bring about a political submission also even if the Sicilian danger were averted. But the possibility of such an increase of the temporal power of the pope met with definite resistance from western European rulers. In his turn, on his way to the reconciliation with the Roman church, the eastern Emperor met with stubborn opposition among the Greek clergy who, in an overwhelming majority, remained faithful to Greek Orthodoxy. The historian Norden said that Pope Gregory X “influenced the King of Sicily with spiritual reasons, Palaeologus his prelates with political arguments.”241
One of the prominent representatives of the Greek church, the future patriarch John Beccus (Veccus), “a wise man, master of eloquence and science,”242 according to Gregoras, had been opposed to union and was therefore imprisoned. During his confinement he became a partisan of the union and an active supporter of the Emperor in his project of reconciliation with Rome, an event of great importance for Michael’s aim.
The council was held in 1274 in the French city of Lyons. Michael sent a solemn embassy headed by the former patriarch Germanus and the historian George Acropolitas, the grand logothete and the Emperor’s friend. It was intended that Thomas Aquinas, the most famous representative of medieval Catholic scholarship, should take the leading part at the council on behalf of Rome, but he died on his way to Lyons. His place was taken by the no less brilliant Cardinal Bonaventura. A Mongol bishop also attended the council.243 The author of the Vita of Saint Bonaventura, Petrus Galesinius (Pietro Galesino) in the sixteenth century, and some other writers of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries asserted that at the invitation of the pope Emperor Michael Palaeologus himself went to Lyons to attend the council. But this error was caught and refuted by Leo Allatius in the seventeenth century.244
The Union of Lyons was achieved on condition that the Emperor should recognize filioque, azyme (unleavened bread), and the supreme authority of the pope; to all these stipulations, in the name of Michael, George Acropolitas took oath.245 Michael also expressed to the pope his readiness to support by troops, money, and provisions the proposed joint crusade for the liberation of the Holy Land, but he stipulated that peace be established with Charles of Anjou so that the Emperor, in diverting all his forces to the East, need not fear attack from the West.246
Neither side was pleased with the results of the union. As was to be expected, Michael met with stubborn resistance among the great majority of the Greek clergy. An antiunion council against Michael Palaeologus and John Beccus was held in Thessaly.247 Moreover, the idea of a crusade could not be agreeable to the Emperor, who was unable to forget the warning of the Fourth Crusade. There was the additional difficulty that Michael Palaeologus was on good terms with the sultan of Egypt, the sworn enemy of the Latins of Syria.
From 1274 to 1280, five papal embassies came to Constantinople in order to confirm the union.248 But in 1281 the new pope, the Frenchman Martin IV, whom Charles of Anjou set upon the papal throne, broke the union and gave entire support to Charles’ aggressive plans against Byzantium. But Michael regarded himself as formally bound by the Union of Lyons to the day of his death.
The Arsenites.—Besides the question of union Byzantium was agitated during the reign of Michael by the struggle of religious-political parties, the most important of which was concerned with the so-called Arsenites.
Beginning with the twelfth century, there were two irreconcilably opposing parties in the Byzantine church which were struggling for influence and power in ecclesiastical administration. One of those parties is called in Byzantine sources the “zealots” (ζηλωταί), the other the “politicians” (πολιτικοί) or moderates;249 church historian A. Lebedev styled this party “by the modern French parliamentary term of opportunists.”250
The zealots, champions of the freedom and independence of the church, were opposed to state interference in church affairs, a point of view which brought them into continual collision with the emperor. In this respect the zealots’ ideas resembled those of the famous Theodore of Studion who in the ninth century openly spoke and wrote against imperial interference with church affairs. The zealots would not make any concession to the imperial power; they wished to submit the Emperor to severe ecclesiastical discipline, and were fearless of any collision with the government or society that might arise from their ideas. Accordingly, they became involved at various times in political troubles and disorders and gained the reputation of a party political as well as ecclesiastical. They could not boast of much education and took no care to have an educated clergy, but they faithfully observed the rules of strict morality and austerity. In the struggle with their opponents they were often supported by the monks, and in the moments of their triumph they opened to the monks the way to power and activity. A historian of that time, Gregoras, noted that one patriarch “could not even read correctly.”251 Describing the spirit prevailing among the monks when a zealot became patriarch the same historian wrote: “It seemed to these malignant monks that after storm and troubles calm had come, and after winter, spring.”252 Strict supporters of Orthodoxy, the zealots were stubbornly opposed to Michael’s inclination to the union, and they had great influence with the mass of the people.
The politicians or moderates were directly opposed to the zealots. They stood for state support of the church and co-operation between church and state; accordingly they did not object to the exerting of state influence on the church. They believed that a strong temporal power unrestrained by external interference was essential for the well-being of a nation; therefore they were ready to make considerable concessions to the imperial power. They followed the so-called theory of “economy,” which stated that the church in its relation to the state should accommodate itself to circumstances; to justify the theory of economy the politicians usually referred to the life of the Apostles and the Holy Fathers. Recognizing the importance of education, they tried to fill the ecclesiastical offices with cultured and educated men. As they interpreted the rules of strict morality rather liberally and lacked sympathy with severe asceticism, the politicians sought support not among the monks, but among the secular clergy and the educated classes of society.
Naturally, the activities of both parties greatly differed. The Russian church historian A. Lebedev, said: “When the politicians were acting on the church stage, they put their theories into effect smoothly and with comparative peace; on the contrary, when the zealots had the reins of government, relying upon so changeable an element in Byzantium as the monks and, to some degree, the mob, they always acted noisily, often stormily, and sometimes even seditiously.”253 The majority of the politicians were in favor of the Union of Lyons, giving their support to the religious policy of Michael Palaeologus.
The struggles between the zealots and politicians, the origin of which some scholars trace back to the epoch of iconoclasm and the disputes between the Ignatians and Photians in the ninth century, were felt, of course, by the people and aroused great agitation. Sometimes matters came to such a pass that one house and one family held representatives of both parties; a historian of that time said: “The church schism has reached such a point that it separates the dwellers of one house: father is opposed to son, mother to daughter, sister-in-law to mother-in-law.”254
Under Michael Palaeologus the zealots, or, as they were sometimes called at the end of the thirteenth and beginning of the fourteenth century, the Arsenites, displayed intensive activity. The word Arsenite comes from the name of Patriarch Arsenius, who twice mounted the patriarchal throne, the first time at Nicaea, the second time at Constantinople after the restoration of the Empire. A man of little scholarship, Arsenius was chosen patriarch by the Emperor of Nicaea, Theodore II Lascaris, who hoped that Arsenius, exalted beyond his merits, would be a mere tool in the Emperor’s hands. But Theodore’s expectations were not fulfilled. The administration of Arsenius was marked by severe collisions with the Emperor and led to the formation first of the party and then of the schism of the “Arsenites,” which agitated the Greek church for several decades. Arsenius did not hesitate to excommunicate Michael Palaeologus, who, contrary to his oath, had dethroned and blinded the unfortunate John IV Lascaris, the last Emperor of Nicaea. The infuriated Emperor deposed Arsenius and sent him into exile, where he died. Arsenius considered his deposition and the ordination of the new patriarchs of Constantinople misdeeds which were bringing about the ruin of the church. Arsenius’ ideas roused the people and found not a few partisans among both clergy and laymen. The result was the formation of the schism of the “Arsenites,” who chose as their motto a sentence of the Apostle Paul: “Touch not; … handle not” (Coloss., 2:21), i.e. touch not those whom Arsenius has condemned. Eager guardians of Eastern Orthodoxy, the Arsenites are distinguished from the zealots only by their position in regard to the Patriarch Arsenius.
The Arsenites gained strong support from the people, among whom they sent secret agents, pilgrims and vagrants, called by the populace “godly men” and by a historian, Pachymeres, “wearers of sackcloth” (σακκοϕόροι),255 who made their way into many families and sowed there the seeds of schism. A Russian church historian, J. E. Troizky, described the situation as follows:
There was in the Byzantine Empire a force, dark and unrecognized. It was a strange force. It had no name, and revealed itself only in moments of emergency. It was complicated, intricate, and of doubtful origin and character. It consisted of the most manifold elements. Its members were beggars, “wearers of sackcloth,” pilgrims, simpletons, obscure wanderers, madmen, and other disreputable people—men of unknown origin, without settled homes. For various reasons they were joined by disgraced dignitaries, deposed bishops, interdicted priests, monks expelled from their monasteries, and sometimes even by dishonored members of the imperial family. The spirit of this party was determined by its origin and composition. Created by abnormal social conditions, it offered a secret opposition, in general passive but effective, to these conditions and to the power responsible for them, that is, the imperial power. This opposition was usually expressed by spreading rumors which more or less compromised persons in government authority. This force seldom ventured openly to provoke political punishment, but it often seriously affected the government, whose fear was the greater, because, on the one hand, the secret activity was very difficult to trace, and, on the other hand, it had a great effect on the social organization. The people, miserable, depressed, and ignorant, and therefore credulous and superstitious, constantly persecuted both by external enemies and state officials, burdened with exorbitant taxes, and crushed under the pressure of the privileged classes and foreign merchant monopolists—the people were very easily influenced by the insinuations coming from the out-of-the-way places where lived the representatives of the secret force. This was the more true because the force, formed from the people and subject to the conditions under which they lived, had the secret of playing upon their feelings at the decisive moment. The populace of the capital itself was particularly affected by these insinuations. … This force in its opposition to the government used different slogans; but its opposition was particularly dangerous to the head of the state, when upon its banner was exhibited the magic word “Orthodoxy.”256
Under Michael Palaeologus the partisans of the blinded ex-Emperor John Lascaris joined the Arsenites.
The government of Michael Palaeologus resorted to measures of compulsion and severity and the Arsenites were forced to flee from the capital, where their activity had been almost exclusively concentrated. The provinces were now open to their propaganda, and the provincial population, in huge crowds, thronged to listen to their inflammatory speeches condemning the Emperor and exalting the deposed patriarch. Arsenius’ death failed to put an end to the schism, and the struggle continued. As J. Troizky said, the struggle of the parties under Michael, “by its feverish animation and unscrupulousness, reminds us of the stormiest times of the heresy struggles in the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries.”257
The Union of Lyons changed in many respects the position of the Arsenite party. The question of union presented a broader interest, for it touched the main foundation of the Greek church—Orthodoxy. The Arsenites with their narrow interests and biased speculations were pushed temporarily into the background; the attention of the government and people was turned almost exclusively to the problem of the union. This fact explains the almost complete silence of the sources upon the activity of the Arsenites from the time of the Union of Lyons to the death of Michael VIII. There is a rather hazy indication that in 1278 an Arsenite council was held in Thessaly or Epirus; its chief aim was to secure the triumph of the Arsenite cause and to glorify Arsenius’ memory.258
Feeling this stubborn opposition, open and secret, to his plans for union, Michael behaved with great cruelty in the last years of his reign.
His successor and son Andronicus II inherited from his father two difficult problems in the ecclesiastical life of the Empire: the union, and the strife between the Arsenites and the official church. First of all, the new Emperor solemnly renounced the union and restored Orthodoxy. A historian of that time wrote: “Envoys were sent everywhere carrying the imperial decrees which announced the settlement of the church disorders, free return to all those who had been exiled for their zeal in church affairs, and an amnesty to those who had suffered in any other way.”259 The carrying out of this measure presented no great difficulties, because the great majority of the Eastern clergy and population was opposed to the union with the Roman church. The Union of Lyons lasted formally for eight years (1274–82).
The abolition of the union meant the triumph of the ideas of the zealots and Arsenites, who were the convinced enemies of union, the “uniates,” and of everything Latin. But the Arsenites were not satisfied. They took part on the side of Lascaris in a political plot against the Emperor, hoping, in the case of success, to obtain exclusive influence in the state. But the conspiracy was disclosed in time and put down; thereafter the Arsenite schism gradually disappeared and did not survive Andronicus the Elder, who, in spite of many troubles from the Arsenites, finally consented to their solemn reconciliation with the church. After the reconciliation, a few of the schismatic Arsenites “seceded from the agreement and began to live apart in schism again”;260 but J. Troizky, said this was “the last convulsion before the death of the out-of-date movement, which at that time found no support anywhere, and soon disappeared, leaving no trace, along with its last followers, giving place to new civil and ecclesiastical troubles.”261
Towards the end of the thirteenth century, in connection with the abolition of the union and triumph of the Orthodox policy, the party of the zealots, who placed their reliance upon the monks and monastic ideals, increased in power. In the fourteenth century they showed vigorous activity not limited to church problems, but extended to politics and social movements. For example, the zealots took an active part in the troubles of Thessalonica in the fourteenth century, pursuing some political aims which have not yet been satisfactorily elucidated, and they sided with Emperor John V Palaeologus against Cantacuzene; for this reason Iorga called the zealots “legitimists.”262 An interesting attempt to expound the political ideology of the zealots, on the basis of an unpublished oration of the famous Byzantine mystic Nicholas Cabasilas has been recently made by the Roumanian scholar Tafrali.263
In the first half of the fourteenth century the zealots and monks gradually got the upper hand of the secular clergy. This movement ended in the complete triumph of the Athonian monks over the patriarchate of Constantinople in the epoch of the so-called Hesychast controversies. This period saw the last patriarch elected from the state officials and the last patriarch elected from the secular clergy. “From this time on the highest posts in the hierarchy are exclusively occupied by monks, and the patriarchal throne of Constantinople becomes for a long time the property of the representatives of Mt. Athos.”264
Under Andronicus II the Elder an important change in the administration of Athos took place. At the end of the eleventh century Alexius Comnenus had freed Athos from submission to any outside ecclesiastical or civil power and placed the monasteries of Athos under the control of the Emperor alone. He ordained the protos, that is to say, the head of the council of abbots (igumens), to whom the administration of the monasteries was entrusted. Andronicus the Elder renounced direct power over Mount Athos and handed the monasteries over to the patriarch of Constantinople, who was to ordain the protos. In the imperial charter (chrysobull) granted on this occasion, the protos of Mount Athos, this “second paradise or starry heaven or refuge of all virtues,” was to be “under the great spiritual power of the Patriarch.”265
With the name of Andronicus the Elder is connected the last important reform of the ecclesiastical organization in the history of Byzantium, a new distribution of the eparchies in accordance with the reduced territory of the Empire. In spite of some changes under the Comneni and Angeli, the distribution of the eparchies and episcopal sees at the end of the thirteenth century corresponded nominally to the distribution usually ascribed to Leo the Wise in about 900. But in the thirteenth century circumstances completely changed. The territory of the Empire was reduced: Asia Minor was almost entirely lost; in Europe, the Slavonic and Latin states occupied the major part of the land which had belonged before to the Empire. Nevertheless “the list of the metropoles submitted to the Apostolic and Patriarchal throne of the city protected by God, Constantinople,”266which was drawn up under Andronicus the Elder, entirely disregards the modest extent of the territory of the Empire: the list enumerates a long line of cities in foreign regions and lands, which in ecclesiastical respects were subject to the patriarch of Constantinople. Of the more distant points indicated in this list one may notice several metropoles in the Caucasian regions, in the Crimea, Russia, Galich, and Lithuania. The distribution of the metropoles under Andronicus the Elder is also important, because with some changes which were introduced later, it is still in force in Constantinople. “The list at present in force of the metropoles of the Oecumenical throne,” wrote a Russian specialist in the field of the Christian East, J. Sokolov, “goes back to ancient times and in one part is a direct and undoubted continuation from the Byzantine epoch.”267
The Hesychast movement.—In the first half of the fourteenth century the interesting Hesychast movement, mystical and religious, made its appearance in Byzantium and gave rise to eager controversies and vigorous polemic. Hesychasts (Greek word ἡσυχασταί), i.e. “those who live in quiet,” or quietists, was the name given to the men whose goal was indivisible and full unity with God, and who chose as the only way to its attainment complete seclusion from the world, hesychia (ἡσυχία) which meant “silence, speechlessness.”
The quarrel of the Hesychasts, which greatly disturbed the inner life of the state, originated in the troubled and complicated period when the Empire was struggling for its existence, first against invasion by the Turks and later the Serbs, and second, against severe internal troubles arising from the stubborn conflict of the two Andronicoi, grandfather and grandson, and of John Palaeologus and John Cantacuzene. Only a short time had elapsed since the schism of the Arsenites, which had greatly disturbed church and state affairs.
A Greek monk, Barlaam, who arrived from south Italy (Calabria), began the quarrel. He distorted and ridiculed the Hesychast doctrine prevalent chiefly in the Athonian monasteries, which was communicated erroneously to him by an uneducated Byzantine monk. A report presented to the patriarch contains these lines: “Until the most recent time we had lived in peace and stillness, receiving the word of faith and piety with confidence and cordial simplicity, when, through the envy of the devil and insolence of his own mind a certain Barlaam was raised against the Hesychasts who, in the simplicity of their heart, live a life pure and near to God.”268 Athos, which had always been the guardian of the purity of Eastern Orthodoxy and monastic ideals, was painfully affected by this quarrel and, of course, took a leading part in its development and solution.
Scholars consider this quarrel a very important event of the fourteenth century. The German Byzantinist Gelzer rather exaggerated when he said this ecclesiastical struggle “belongs to the most remarkable and, in its cultural and historical aspect, the most interesting phenomena of all times.”269Another scholar, the more recent investigator of the problem, a Greek who received his education in Russia, Papamichael, considered the Hesychast movement the most important cultural phenomenon of the epoch, deserving attentive study.270 Scholars vary greatly concerning the inner conception of the Hesychast movement. Troizky saw in this movement the continuation of the struggle between the zealots and the politicians,271 or, in other words, the monks and the secular clergy, a struggle which, during the Hesychast quarrel, ended in complete triumph for the monks. Th. Uspensky came to the conclusion that the Hesychast quarrel was a conflict between two philosophical schools, the Aristotelian, whose doctrines had been adopted by the Eastern church, and the Platonic, whose followers were anathematized by the Church. Later the conflict was transferred into the theological sphere. The historical significance of the chief spokesmen for the Hesychast doctrine comes from the fact that they were not only the spokesmen for the Greek national ideas in the struggle with the West, but, still more important, stood at the head of the monastic movement and had the support of Athos and the monasteries in the Balkan peninsula which depended upon the Holy Mountain.272 A more recent investigator of this problem, Papamichael, whose book came out in 1911, did not deny that the struggle of the monks (the party of the zealots) with the politicians, and some philosophical speculation, were secondary factors in the movement; but he believed that the correct interpretation of the Hesychast quarrel lies primarily in the purely religious domain. On the one hand it is found in that intense mysticism prevalent at that time, not only in the West but also in the East, especially in Athos; on the other hand, in the attempt of the western Greek monk Barlaam to Latinize the Orthodox Byzantine East, by rationalistic and sarcastic attacks, which shook monastic authority in Byzantium.273
Barlaam’s Latin proselyting is not yet satisfactorily proved. Putting that aside, the Hesychast movement, though primarily religious, became still more interesting in connection with the prevailing mysticism in western and eastern Europe, and with some cultural phenomena of the epoch of the Italian renaissance. The study of this aspect of the Hesychast movement belongs to the future.
The most prominent of the Hesychasts in the fourteenth century and the man who best reduced to a system the doctrine of hesychia was the archbishop of Thessalonica, Gregorius Palamas, a well-educated man and an able writer, a sworn adversary of Barlaam and the head of the party of the Palamites, named from him. At the same time many other Hesychasts were explaining and interpreting the doctrine of hesychia, especially a Byzantine mystic, unfortunately very little known, Nicholas Cabasilas, whose ideas and works deserve careful study.
According to the above-mentioned work of Papamichael and its exposition by J. Sokolov, the Hesychasts devote themselves entirely to the knowledge and contemplation of God, and the attainment of unity with Him, and concentrate all their strength for this purpose. They retire “from the whole world and all that reminds them of the world,” and isolate themselves “by means of the concentration and gathering of the mind in themselves.” To attain this concentration the Hesychast has to detach himself from all imagination, all conceptions, all thoughts, and free his mind from all knowledge, in order to be able freely, by an absolute independent flight, to merge easily into the truly mystic darkness of ignorance. The highest, most sincere, and most perfect prayer of the perfect Hesychasts is an immediate intercourse with God, in which there exist no thoughts, ideas, images of the present or recollection of the past. This is the highest contemplation—the contemplation of God one and alone, the perfect ecstasy of mind and withdrawal from matter. No thought is more perfect or higher than such a prayer. It is a state of ecstasy, a mystic unity with God, deification (apotheosis; ἡ θέωσις). In this state the mind wholly transcends the limits of matter, frees itself from all thought, requires a complete insensibility to outward impressions and becomes deaf and mute. Not only is the Hesychast entirely cut off from outward impressions, but he also transcends his individuality and loses consciousness of himself, being wholly absorbed in the contemplation of God. Therefore he who has reached ecstasy no longer lives a personal and individual life; his spiritual and corporeal life stops, his mind remains immovable, attached to the object of contemplation. Thus, the basis and center of hesychia is the love of God from soul, heart, and mind, and the desire for divine contemplation through the abnegation of everything, however small and remote, which might recall the world and its contents. The goal of the Hesychasts is attained by absolute isolation and silence, by “the care of the heart” and mortification of the mind, continuous penitence, abundant tears, the memory of God and death, and the constant repetition of an “inner” prayer: “Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy upon me; oh, Son of God, help me.” The consequence of this prayerful spirit is a blissful humility. Later the doctrine of the sacred hesychia was more systematized, especially among the Athonian monks, where the way to attaining the more perfect “hesychia” was divided into several categories and composed of definite “schemes” and “ladders,” in one of which, for example, are “the four deeds of the speechless”: the beginners, progressives, successful, and perfect. Very few became perfect, i.e. attained the highest degree of hesychia, “contemplation.” The majority of ascetics reached only the first degrees.274
The leader of the Hesychast movement was the archbishop of Thessalonica Gregorius Palamas. Under the protection of Andronicus II, he had received a broad and many-sided education at Constantinople, and he had been inclined from his youth to the study of the problems of monastic life. At twenty he took the monastic habit on Mount Athos. Then, dwelling in Athos, Thessalonica, and some isolated places in Macedonia, he excelled all his fellows on the Holy Mountain in ascetism and devoted all his strength to endeavoring to reach “contemplation.” He worked out a definition of his own of the so-called “contemplation” (θεωρία), and proceeded to devote his literary talents to the interpretation of his ascetic ideas. His intention to withdraw into complete solitude in order to devote himself wholly to the “inner” prayer was defeated by the outbreak on Athos of the troubles aroused by Barlaam.
The plans with which Barlaam came to Byzantium have not yet been satisfactorily elucidated. He inspired there such confidence that he was appointed igumen (abbot) of a monastery at Constantinople. Defeated in a discussion with an eminent Byzantine scholar, Nicephorus Gregoras, Barlaam fled to Thessalonica and thence to Athos. There through an ignorant monk he became acquainted with the doctrine of hesychia. He accused the Hesychasts who attained the highest degree of perfection “of seeing with their corporeal eyes, the divine and uncreated light shining around them”; thus, the monks destroy the dogmas of the church, if they affirm that they see the divine light with their corporeal eyes, for thereby they declare the divine blessing created and the divine being apprehensible.
The literary dispute which arose on this point between Palamas and Barlaam and created the parties of the Palamites and Barlaamites, had no definite result. The matter was transferred to Constantinople, where it was decided to convoke a council. The council was to deal with the problem of the nature of the light of Thabor, that is to say, of the light which had shone on Christ and which His disciples had seen on the mountain of Thabor during the Transfiguration. Was that light created or uncreated? In the doctrine of Palamas, the light or shining which the perfect Hesychasts were deemed worthy to attain was in truth a light identical with the light of Thabor; the divine light was uncreated, and the light of Thabor was also uncreated.
At the council summoned in the church of St. Sophia, Palamas gained the upper hand of Barlaam, who was forced publicly to express repentance for his error. However, the sources on that council are rather contradictory, and Th. Uspensky, for example, was inclined to be doubtful about whether, as a result of the council, Barlaam was condemned or pardoned. In any case, Palamas was dissatisfied with the decision of the council.275
Church troubles continued, debatable questions were discussed at other councils, and the representatives of the church were entangled in the political complications of the strife between John Palaeologus and John Cantacuzene. Palamas lived an agitated life; for a time he was even confined in prison by the patriarch for his religious ideas. At this time he met with an active opponent in Nicephorus Gregoras, who had formerly acted with such energy against Barlaam and then gone over to the side of the reconciliation with Rome. Finally Palamas’ cause triumphed, and his doctrine was recognized by the council as the true doctrine of the whole Orthodox church. The decree of the council listing “Barlaam’s blasphemies” proclaimed that “he has been cut off from intercourse with Christians as much for his numerous faults as for the fact that he called the light of the Transfiguration of the Lord, which appeared to His blessed disciples, who ascended the mountain with Him created and describable and differing in nothing from the light perceived by the sense.”276 But the struggle and many misfortunes of Palamas had undermined his strength, and after a severe illness he died in 1360. On a beautiful miniature in a manuscript containing John Cantacuzene’s works in the National Library of Paris, John Cantacuzene is portrayed seated upon the throne at the council solving the problem of the nature of the light of Thabor.
The Hesychast quarrel of the middle of the fourteenth century resulted in a decisive victory for strict Orthodoxy in general and for the monastic ideals of Athos in particular. The monks dominated both the church and the state. The dead body of Palamas’ chief opponent, Nicephorus Gregoras, was exposed to insults and dragged along the streets of the city, according to another opponent, John Cyparissiotes surnamed “the Wise.”277 At this moment, according to L. Bréhier, a dark future was beginning for the Empire.278 But the German Byzantinist Gelzer drew a rather idyllic picture of the life of the Athonian monks of the period. He wrote:
The Holy Mountain proved to be the Zion of the true faith. In the horrible crisis of the death of the whole nation, when the Ottomans were mercilessly treading down the Roman people, Athos became a refuge, whose stillness was sought by broken souls, and many strong hearts, which had been led astray in their earthly life, preferred in isolation from the world to live through their moral strife in union with God. In those sad times monastic life offered the unfortunate nation the only permanent and real consolation.279
The role of the Hesychasts in the political struggle of their epoch has not yet been clearly determined, but the leaders of the political parties, such as Palaeologus and Cantacuzene, realized plainly the significance and strength of the Hesychasts and turned to them more than once for help in purely secular problems. But the threatening political situation, such as the ever present Turkish danger, for instance, compelled the Emperors—even those who sought for the support of the Hesychasts—to deviate from the strict Orthodoxy of the triumphant Palamas and his partisans, and seek for reconciliation with the Roman church, which, in the opinion of the Eastern emperors, alone could rouse western Europe to defend Christianity. This leaning to the West grew particularly strong, when, after Cantacuzene’s deposition, there established himself on the throne John V Palaeologus, half-Latin on his mother’s side, who himself became Catholic.
The conversion to Catholicism of Emperor John V.—Towards the seventh decade of the fourteenth century the Turks were the masters of Asia Minor and the peninsula of Gallipoli in Europe, and were beginning to advance through the Balkan peninsula and threatening to encircle Constantinople. John V Palaeologus put all his trust in the pope.
The fourteenth century was the epoch of the so-called “Babylonian Captivity”; from 1305 to 1378 the seven popes consecutively occupying the throne of St. Peter had a more or less permanent residence on the Rhone, at Avignon, and were practically dependent on the French kings. The papal appeals to the western rulers for aid against the Turks were fruitless or brought about only small expeditions, sometimes temporarily successful, but of no permanent help. There was no longer any crusading enthusiasm in the West. Also, in the opinion of the west Europeans of that time, the schismatic Greeks were more repulsive than the Muslim Turks. Petrarca wrote: “The Turks are enemies, but the Greeks are schismatics and worse than enemies.”280
In 1367 Pope Urban V decided to move from Avignon to Rome. On his way to the Eternal City he was met by Byzantine envoys who notified him that the Emperor was anxious to adopt Catholicism and for this purpose was ready to come to Rome. John V arrived in Rome by sea, via Naples.281 That John in his decision to adopt Catholicism had no support from the Byzantine church is clear from the fact that among the high officials who accompanied him to Rome there was not a single representative of the Byzantine clergy. In October 1369, in Rome, he solemnly read aloud his confession of faith in full accordance with the dogmas of the Roman Catholic church. In the temple of St. Peter the pope celebrated a solemn service during which John V once more read the confession of faith and confirmed again the dogma that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and Son, and that the pope was the head of all Christians. On the same day the Emperor dined with the pope; all the cardinals were invited to the table. Through Naples and Venice, the Emperor returned to Constantinople. His stay at Venice ended in humiliation. He was arrested by the Venetians as an insolvent debtor and released only when his noble and energetic son, the future Emperor Manuel, came in person to Venice and redeemed his father. Shortly after the Emperor’s departure, Pope Urban V returned to Avignon.
In his encyclical letter the pope expressed his joy at John’s return to the Catholic faith and abjuration of the schism, and declared his hope that this example would be imitated by “the numberless peoples who followed the schism and the errors of the Greeks.” At the same time, however, the patriarch of Constantinople Philotheus, sent messages not only to the population of the Empire but also to the Orthodox Christians beyond its confines, in Syria, in Egypt, in the South-Slavonic countries, and in far-off Russia, urging them to be constant to the Orthodox faith. There was to be a stubborn resistance to John’s religious policy. His conversion in Rome had no real results, and he could receive from the pope nothing but attention, presents, and promises. Despite the papal appeals, western Europe sent no help against the Turks. John’s conversion, so solemnly proclaimed, was merely a personal affair; the overwhelming majority of the population of the Empire remained faithful to the Eastern Orthodox church.282 Nevertheless this journey of the Emperor is of interest as an episode in the history of cultural intercourse between Byzantium and western Europe in the epoch of the Renaissance.
The Union of Florence.—The most celebrated church union was the Union of Florence in 1439. At this time the political atmosphere in the Christian East was much more critical than at the time of John’s conversion. The sack of Serbia and Bulgaria by the Turks, the defeat of the crusaders at Nicopolis, the fruitless journey of Manuel II through western Europe, and finally the conquest of Thessalonica by the Turks in 1430, had put the Eastern Empire in a situation too critical to be saved by the Mongol defeat of the Turks at Angora. The Turkish successes were already a serious menace to Europe also; this was the reason why at the Council of Florence the necessity of a common Latin-Greek struggle against the Turks was so strongly felt. But in spite of the desperate situation, the Orthodox nationalistic party in Byzantium opposed the idea of union, not only from the fear of losing the purity of Greek Orthodoxy, but also from the feeling that western aid bought by the price of union would result in the political supremacy of the West over the East: in other words, the impending domination of the Turks might be replaced by that of the Latins. At the beginning of the fifteenth century, a Byzantine polemist, Joseph Bryennius, wrote: “Let no one be deceived by delusive hopes that the Italian allied troops will sooner or later come to us. But if they do pretend to rise to defend us, they will take arms in order to destroy our city, race, and name.”283 In the fifteenth century, this apprehension was justified by the political plans of Alfonso the Magnanimous against the East.
About the same time in the West, after the Councils of Pisa and Constance, there was convoked the third great council of the fifteenth century, the Council of Basel, which announced as its program the reform of the Church in its head and members, and the settlement of the Hussite movement which, after the death of John Huss, had spread very widely. Pope Eugenius IV was not in sympathy with the council. The Council of Basel and the pope, at the same time and independently of each other, opened negotiations with Emperor John VIII. The Council of Basel and Constantinople exchanged embassies, and among the Greek envoys was the igumen (abbot) of a Constantinopolitan monastery, Isidore, the future metropolitan of Moscow. He delivered a speech in favor of church union which, he said, “would create a great monument vying with the Colossus of Rhodes, whose top would reach the sky and whose brilliancy would be seen in East and West.”284 After fruitless disputes concerning the place of a future council, the Fathers of the Council of Basel decided they would settle the Hussite quarrel, and then consider the Greek problem. The Byzantine Greeks, representatives of true Orthodoxy, were deeply offended at being put on the same footing with the “heretic” Hussites. “A real storm burst out” at Constantinople.285 Meanwhile, the Emperor was nearing agreement with the pope, who was taking over the leadership in the union negotiations. Fearing the reformatory tendencies of the Council of Basel, Eugenius IV transferred the council to the north-Italian city of Ferrara, and when the plague broke out there, to Florence. Some of the members of the council, however, in disobedience to the papal orders, remained at Basel and even elected another pope.
The meetings of the Council of Ferrara-Florence were held with unusual solemnity. Emperor John VIII with his brother; Joseph, the patriarch of Constantinople; Mark (Marcus), the metropolitan of Ephesus, a convinced opponent of the union; Bessarion, the gifted and highly educated supporter of the union; and a great number of other representatives of the clergy and laity arrived at Ferrara by way of Venice. The Grand Prince of Moscow, Vasili II the Dark (or Blind), sent to the council Isidore, metropolitan of Moscow, who was favorably inclined to the union; a numerous retinue of the Russian clergy and laity accompanied him. This was the time of the very flower of the Italian Renaissance. Ferrara under the House of Este and Florence under the House of Medici were brilliant centers of artistic and intellectual activity.
The quarrels and debates at the Council, which were reduced to the two chief problems, the filioque and the primacy of the pope, dragged on for a long time. Not all the Greeks were willing to recognize these dogmas, and the weary Emperor was on the point of leaving Florence. Patriarch Joseph, who was opposed to the union, died at Florence before its official promulgation. But Isidore, the metropolitan of Moscow, worked very actively in favor of the union. Finally, the decree of union drawn up in two languages was solemnly promulgated in the presence of the Emperor on July 6, 1439, in the cathedral of Florence, Santa Maria del Fiore. Several Greeks, however, with Mark of Ephesus at their head, refused to sign the decree.
In Italy there exist today a number of marks of the union of Florence. A very interesting contemporary copy of the decree of union, written in three languages, Latin, Greek, and Slavonic, is preserved and exhibited in one of the libraries of Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana; besides the Greek and Latin signatures to this document, there is the Russian signature “of the humble bishop Abramius of Suzdal,” who was present at the council. The cathedral of Florence, Santa Maria del Fiore, where the union was promulgated, still exists. In another church of Florence, Santa Maria Novella, one may see today the funeral monument of Patriarch Joseph, who died during the council, with his life-size picture in fresco. Finally, in the Palazzo Riccardi, also at Florence, there has been preserved a fresco by the fifteenth century Italian painter, Benozzo Gozzoli, representing the procession of the Magi, who go to Bethlehem to adore the newborn Christ; in the persons of the Magi the painter portrayed, though rather fantastically, John Palaeologus and Patriarch Joseph, whose entrance into Florence he might have personally observed. Rome also has some relics of the Union of Florence. Between the big bas-reliefs, fifteenth century work with the pictures of the Savior, the Holy Virgin, and St. Peter and St. Paul on the well-known entrance gates into the temple of St. Peter, are some small bas-reliefs relating to the Council of Florence: the Emperor’s sailing from Constantinople, his arrival in Ferrara, a meeting of the Council of Florence, the Emperor’s departure with his retinue from Venice. Finally, in one of the museums of Rome there is preserved a beautiful bronze life-size bust of John Palaeologus wearing a pointed hat. This bust, which is often reproduced, was perhaps made from life during the Emperor’s stay at Florence.286
Like the Union of Lyon, the Union of Florence was not accepted in the East, and on his return to Constantinople John very soon realized that his enterprise had miscarried. A numerous Orthodox party gathered around Mark of Ephesus, who had refused to sign the decree of union; many of those who had signed withdrew their signatures. At Moscow, Isidore ordered the decree of union to be solemnly read in the Cathedral of the Assumption (Uspenski Cathedral), but he found no support. The Grand Prince called him no longer the shepherd and teacher of his flock but a ravening wolf, and he was placed under arrest in a monastery, from which he escaped to Rome. The eastern patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem also declared against the union, and at the Council of Jerusalem, in 1443, the Council of Florence was called “impure (μιαρά).”287
The Catholic church, however, still recognizes the validity of the decree of the Council of Florence, and as late as the nineteenth century Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical concerning the union of the churches appealed to the Orthodox to return to the decree of union.
The last Byzantine emperor, Constantine XI, like his brother John VIII, believed that the salvation of the perishing Empire lay in union with the western church.
The question of the Council of St. Sophia.—Some scholars assume that in 1450 in the church of St. Sophia, a council was summoned which was attended by numerous representatives of the Orthodox clergy who had come to Constantinople, among them the patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem; this council condemned the union and its partisans and announced the restoration of Orthodoxy. Leo Allatius, a very well-known scholar in Italy in the seventeenth century, was the first to publish the fragments of the acts of this council but he considered them spurious. Since then the opinions of scholars have been divided: some, following the example of Allatius, regarded the acts of the council as spurious and affirmed that the council itself never existed; others, Greek theologians and Greek scholars in particular, who were exceedingly interested in such a council, considered the published acts genuine and the convocation of the Council of St. Sophia a historical fact. In more recent times, the tendency has been to consider the acts of the Council of St. Sophia false and to deny the very fact of the convocation of the council,288 although some scholars still aver that the council really took place.289 There is not enough evidence to affirm that under Constantine there was an open break from the union confirmed by a council. On the contrary, when he saw fatal danger approaching the city, Constantine again appealed for aid to the West. Instead of the desired military aid, only the former metropolitan of Moscow, Isidore, who had participated in the Union of Florence, now a cardinal in the Roman Catholic church, arrived in Constantinople and in December 1452, five months before the fall of the city, read in St. Sophia the solemn promulgation of union and celebrated the union liturgy, including the name of the pope. This act at such a crisis aroused the greatest agitation among the population of the city.
After the fall of Constantinople, the religion and religious institutions of the Greeks were preserved under the Turkish sway. In spite of the occasional violence of the Turkish government and the Muhammedan people against the representatives of the Greek church and the Orthodox population, under Muhammed II and his immediate successors the religious rights which had been granted the Christians were strictly observed. The patriarch, bishops, and priests were proclaimed inviolable. The clergy was exempted from taxes, while all the rest of the Greeks were obliged to pay an annual tribute (charadj). Half of the churches in the capital were converted into mosques, and the other half remained in use by the Christians. The church canons remained in force in all matters concerning the inner church administration, which was in the hands of the patriarch and bishops. The sacred patriarchal synod continued to exist, and the patriarch along with the synod carried on the matters of church administration. All religious services could be freely celebrated; in all cities and villages, for instance, Easter might be solemnly celebrated. This religious toleration in the Turkish Empire has been preserved to the present day,290 although in the course of time, cases of Turkish violation of the religious rights of the Christians became more frequent, and the position of the Christian population was from time to time very difficult.
The first patriarch of Constantinople under the new rule was elected by the clergy soon after the capture of the city by the Turks, and he was recognized by the sultan. The choice fell on Gennadius (George) Scholarius. He had accompanied John VIII to the Council of Ferrara and Florence and had been then a partisan of union, but later he changed his mind and became a zealous defender of Orthodoxy. With his accession, the Greco-Roman union entirely ceased to exist.