Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 3.djvu/144

 BYZANTINE

112

BYZANTINE

the family dissensions of the Palceologi, as among the most unfortunate occurrences of the empire. It is a sorry spectacle to see Andronicus II (1282-1328) dethroned by his grandson Andronicus III (1328-41) and immured in a monastery, and John V (1341- 76 and 1379-91) superseded first by Cantaeuzene, then by his own son Andronicus IV (1376-79), and finally by his grandson John VII (1390). It is true that the neighbouring states, the Turkish Empire in particular, were rent with similar dissensions. The house of the Palseologi, moreover, produced some capable rulers, such as Michael VIII, Manuel II (1391-1425), Constantine XI (1448-53). Still, the contests for the throne, at a period when the imperial glory was manifestly on the wane, could not but be ruinous to the best interests of the empire, and con- tribute mightily to its dissolution.

At first it seemed as though such capable rulers as Theodore I, Lascaris (1204-22), John III, Vatatzes (1222-54), and Theodore II, Lascaris (1254-58), must bring back prosperous times to the empire. It was no small achievement, to be sure, that the Greeks were able not only to make a brave stand against the Franks, but to expel them again from Constantinople, a task which was all the more diffi- cult because at that time the Greek nation had under- gone a dismemberment from which it never recovered. The Empire of Trebizond, tmder the Comneni, survived the fall of the capital on the Bosphorus (1453) for some years. The task of reabsorbing into the body of the empire the state, or rather the states, of the Angeli in Thessalonica, Thessaly, and Epirus was accomplished slowly and with difficulty. It was impossible to drive the Franks from Byzantine soil. Split up into various minor principalities after the fall of Thessalonica (1222) and Constantinople (1261), they settled in the central part of Greece and in the Peloponnesus, in Crete, Euboea, Rhodes, and the smaller islands. Moreover, during the course of the fourteenth century, the Serbs rose to unexpected heights of power. During the reigns of Stephen Urosh II, Milutin (1281-1320), and Stephen Du- shan (1321-55), it seemed as though the Serbs were about to realize the old dream of the Bulgars, of a Byzantine Empire under Slavonian rule. This dream, however, was shattered by the Turkish vic- tory on the Field of Blackbirds (1389). It was not easy for the Greeks to maintain themselves against so many enemies for two and a half centuries, and it often appeared as though the end had come. The Frankish Emperor of Constantinople, Henry (1206- 16), had come very mar to destroying Greek inde- pendence, and would probably have succeeded had he not been snatched away by an early death. A second crisis came during the minority of the Latin Emperor Baldwin II (1228-61), when the Frankish princes were considering the appointment of the Bulgarian Tsar John II, Ason, as guardian of the young emperor, and regent of the empire. The plan failed of execution only because of the stubborn oppo- sition of the Latin clergy, and the final choice fell on the old King of Jerusalem, John of Brienne (1229-37). Thus the danger was temporarily averted, and the Emperor John Vatatzes was wise enough to gain the favour of the Bulgarian powers by prudent deference to their wishes, as, for instance, by recognizing the Archbishop of Tirnovo as autocephalous patriarch.

The Latin Empire became dangerous lor the third and lasl time when the Franks began, in the year 1236, to renew their heroic attempts in regain their conquests. John Vatatzes, however, succeeded in

garrying the blow by forming .in alliance with the Imperor Frederick II. whose daughtei \ime he espoused. Even alter the fall of the capital (1261), the fugitive Frankish emperor became a Bource of

danger, inasmuch as he ceiled to the Angevins his right as Lord' Paramount of Achaia. As early as

the year 1259 there had been serious complications with the principality of Achaia. At that time Michael VIII, by the conquest of Pelagonia had suc- ceeded in withstanding a coalition formed by William of Villehardouin, Prince of Achaia, Michael II, Despot of Epirus, and Manfred of Sicily. When Charles of Anjou replaced Manfred the situation be- came more serious. In 1267 Charles captured Corfu, and in 1272 Dyrrachium; soon afterwards he re- ceived at Foggia John IV, Lascaris, who had been overthrown and blinded by Michael VIII, Paleeologus. In this crisis Palteologus knew of no other resource than to call upon the pope for assistance. At the Council of Lyons, his representative, Georgius Acro- polites, accepted the confession of faith containing the "Filioque", and recognized the primacy of the pope, thus securing the political support of the papacy against Anjou. Only the Sicilian Vespers gave him permanent immunity from danger from this source (1282). After this the Byzantine Empire was no longer menaced directly by the Norman peril which had reappeared in the Angevins. The Byzan- tines were gradually entering into a new relationship with the West. They assumed the role of coreligion- ists seeking protection. But of course the reunion of the churches was a condition of this aid, which, as at an earlier period, was vehemently opposed by the people. The national party had already taken a vigorous stand against the negotiations of the Council of Lyons, which had found an excellent ad- vocate in the patriarch, John Beccus. This opposition was made manifest whenever there was any question of union with Rome from political motives, and it explains the attitude of the different factions in the last religious controversy of importance that con- vulsed the Byzantine world: the Hesychast move- ment. This movement had its inception at Athos, and involved a form of Christian mysticism which reminds us strongly of certain Oriental prototypes. By motionless meditation, the eyes fixed firmly on the navel (whence their name, Omphalopsychites), the devotees pretended to attain to a contemplation of the Divinity, and thereby absolute quietude of soul (hesychia, whence Hesi/chasts). The key to this movement is found in the needs of the time, and it was not confined to the Greek world. Many Eastern princes of this period assumed the "angel's garb", and sought peace behind monastery walls. The sect, however, did not fail to encounter opposition. In the ensuing controversy, Barlaam. a monk of Calabria, constituted himself in a special manner the adversary of Hesy chasm. It is significant that Bar- laam's coming from Southern Italy, which was in union with Rome, and his having been under the influence of the Scholasticism of the West did not commend him to the good graces of the people, but rather contributed to the victory of his adversaries. Thus the great mass of the people remained as before, thoroughly averse to all attempts to bring about the union. The Byzantine rulers, however, in their dire need, were obliged as a last resource to clutch at this hope of salvation, and accordingly had to face the deepest humiliations. When the un- fortunate Emperor John Y. after hastening to tin- papal court at Avignon to obtain assistance tor Con- stantinople, was on his homeward journey, he was detained at Venice by creditors who had furnished the money for the journey. His son. Andronicus [V, who acted as regent at Constantinople, refused to advance the requisite amount. At last the younger son, Manuel II, then regent of Thessalonica, collected suilieiiiii monej i" redeem his father (1370). Con- sidering the wretched state of Byzantine affairs and the unfriendly spirit of the people, it was certainly generous that the West twice sent a considerable body of reinforcements to the Byzantines. Both expeditions, unfortunately, proved unsuccessful. In