Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 3.djvu/131

 BYZANTINE

99

BYZANTINE

striking are the facts that as early as the eighth and ninth centuries, the Byzantines, in their wars with the Arabs, used gunpowder — the so-called Greek fire — and that a German emperor like Otto III pre- ferred to be a Roman of Byzantium rather than a German. This Byzantine civilization, it is true, suffered from a serious and incur- able disease, a worm gnawing at its core: the utter absence of origi- nality. But here, again, we should 1 iware of unwar- ranted generaliza- tion. A change in this respect is to be noted from age to age; in the first centuries, be- fore ili 1, complete severing of 'he po- litical nnd ecclesi- astical ties uniting them with the Eastern nations, the Greek mind still retained its gift of receptivity, and an ir1 traditions, in combination with

Persian. Syrian, and other Oriental motives, produced the original plan of the true Byzantine church, a type which left its impression on architecture, sculpture, painting, and the minor arts. Ami yet, so complete was the isolation of the empire, separated from other nations by the character of its govern- ment, the strictness of its court etiquette, the refine- ment of its material civilization, and, not least, by the peculiar development of the national Church, that a kind of numbness crept over both the language and the intellectual life of the people. The nations of the West were indeed barbarians in comparison with the cultured Byzantines, but the West had something for the lack of which no learning, no tech- nical skill could compensate — the creative force of an imagination in harmony with the laws of nature.

As to the share which Byzantine ecclesiastical de- velopment had in this isolation, it must be conceded that the constitution of the Eastern Church was rather imperial than universal. Its administration was seriously influenced by the politics of the empire; the boundaries of the empire bounded the Church's aspirations and activities. In the West, the oblitera- tion of those boundaries by the Germanic peoples and the outburst of vigorous missionary activity on all sides furthered very notably tin' idea of a universal Church, embracing all nations, and unfettered by po- litical or territorial limits. In the East the develop- ment w:is quite different. Here, indeed, missionary work met with considerable success. 1 f'tn the Syr- ian and Egyptian Church sprang the Ethiopian, the Indian, the Mesopotamian, and the Armenian

Churches. Constantinople sent apostle': to the Sla- vonic and Finnic-Ugrian races. Still, these Oriental

Churches show, from the very beginning, a peculiar national structure. Whether this was a legacy from the ancient Eastern religions, or whether it was the

reaction against Greek civilization which had been

imposed upon the people of the ( irient from the time of Alexander the Great, the adoption of Christianity Men) hand in hand with nationalism. < Apposed to this nationalism in many important respects was the Creek imperial church. Precisely beca only an

imperial Church, it had not yet grasped the concept of a universal Church. As tic imperial Church, con- stituting a department of the state-administration, its opposition to the national Churches among the Oriental peoples was always very emphatic. Thus

it is that the dogmatic disputes of these Churches are, above all, expressions of politico-national struggles. In the course of these contests Egypt, and Syria, and finally Armenia also were lost to the Greek Church. The Byzantine imperial Church at last found itself almost exclusively confined to the Greek nation and its subjects. In the end it became, in its own turn, a national Church, and definitively severed all bonds of rite and dogma linking it with the West. The schism between the Eastern and Western Churches thus reveals a fundamental oppo- sition of viewpoints: the mutually antagonistic ideas o| the universal Church and of independent national Churches —an antagonism which both caused the schism and constitutes the insurmountable impedi- ment to reunion.

II. Dynastic History. — (1) Roman Period; (a) Dynasties of Theodosius I and Leo I; A, D. 305-518.

Bauto, a Frank

I

Eudoxia

Theodosius I

Arcadius

Honorius

Marcianus Pulcheria Theodosius II Eudocia-Athenaia

Leo I

Verina

Basiliscus Anastasius

Zeno Ariadne

Leo II

A glance at the above genealogies shows that the law governing the succession in the Roman Empire persisted in the Byzantine. On one hand, a certain law of descent is observed: the fact of belonging to the reigning house, whether by birth or marriage L r i\ es a strong claim to the throne. On the other hand, the people is not entirely excluded as a political factor. The popular co-operation in the government was not regulated by set forms. Tic high civil and military officials took part in the enthronement of a new mon- arch, often by means of a palace or military revolu- tion. Legally, the people participated in the govern- ment only through the Church. From the time of Marcianus, the Byzantine emperors were crowned by the Patriarchs of Constantinople.

Of the emperors of this period, Arcadius (S05-408) and Theodosius II (408-50) received the throne by right of inheritance. The old senator Marcianus (450-57) came to the throne through his marriage with the sister of Theodosius II. Pulcheria, who for years previously had been an inmate of a convent. The Thracian Leo I, the Great (457-74), owed his power to Aspar the Alan, M agister Miliium per Orien- tem, who, as an Arian, was debarred from the imperial dignity, and who therefore installed the orthodox Leo. Leo, it is true, soon became refractory, and in 171 Aspar was executed by imperial command. On Leo's death the throne was transmitted through his daugh- ter Ariadne, "ho had been united in marriage to the

leader of the Isaurian body-guard, and had a son by him, Leo II. The sudden death of Leo, however, after he had raised his father to the rank of coregent, placed the reins of power in the hands of Zeno (17! 'tli, who was obliged to defend his authority against repeated insurrections. All these movements were instigated by his mother-in-law, Verina. who first proclaimed her brother Basiliscus emperor, and later Leontius, the leader of the Thracian army. Victory, however, rested with Zeno, at whose death Ariadne once more decided the succession by bestow- ing her hand on Anastasius Silentiarius (491-518), who hud risen through the grades of the civil service.