The King of Sicily, who saw
himself threatened by a possible rising of the Ghibellines in Italy, complied,
sorely against his will, and gave the necessary instructions to his agents.
himself threatened by a possible rising of the Ghibellines in Italy, complied,
sorely against his will, and gave the necessary instructions to his agents.
Cambridge Medieval History - v4 - Eastern Roman Empire
The
arrival at Zara of embassies from Philip of Swabia (1 January 1203) and
from the pretender Alexius (7 April) decided the crusaders to attack
Constantinople. The conscience of the crusaders had been salved by most
specious promises, union of the Churches, participation of the restored
Emperor in the Crusade—the entire programme of the Pope himself.
Innocent III had in vain made the greatest efforts to keep the Crusade
on the route to Egypt. The alliance between the Ghibellines, of whom
Philip of Swabia was the leader, and the Venetians, which saw in the
Byzantine Empire a tempting prey, was stronger than the will of the
Pope. Further, Isaac Angelus and his son, once restored, were unable to
keep the promises which they had made, and the crusaders were forced
to besiege Constantinople a second time. This time it was conquest pure
and simple: the sack of the palace, the monasteries, and the churches,
the partition of the Empire between the barons and the Venetians. In
1205 the whole East was covered with Latin settlements, and only
two centres of resistance were left, the one in Epirus under the dynasty
of the Angeli, the other at Nicaea round Theodore Lascaris. The con-
1 MPL, CCXIV,
cols. 326–7.
## p. 605 (#647) ############################################
The compulsory union
605
querors could fondly flatter themselves that, by disobeying the orders of
the Pope, they had put an end to the schism of the Greeks, and assured
for ever the supremacy of the Roman Church in the East.
According to the principles of the Canon Law, the conquest of the
East in no way necessarily involved the absorption of the Greek Church
by the Latin Church. To realise the union, it was necessary, first, that
the Greeks gave a formal adherence, then, that the Greek Church should
return to the conditions previous to 1054, communion with Rome, auto-
nomous institutions, native clergy, national rites. But for this solution
to prevail the conquerors, clerics as well as laymen, would have had to
shew improbable self-abnegation ; the property and revenue of the Greek
clergy was too tempting a prey for them.
To do this, these men of the thirteenth century needed a perfect
familiarity with history which they could not possess. Between 1054 and
1204 the position of the Papacy had been completely changed; the
spiritual supremacy of the Holy See was accepted by all, and many
would defend its temporal supremacy. To the West, since the schism of
the Greeks, the Roman Church represented the Catholic Church. What
she required from the other Churches was no longer merely communion,
but submission in matters of dogma and discipline. The Christian republic
tended to become a monarchy.
On the side of the Greeks, finally, a spirit of conciliation would have
been necessary, but the events of which they had just been victims
rendered this impossible. The chronicle of Nicetas echoes the exasperation
which the sack of Constantinople roused among them. A contemporary
pamphlet, entitled “Our grievances against the Latin Church,” enume-
rates a long list, as absurd as it is spiteful, of the practices with which
they charged the Latins, and declares that it is impossible to communicate
with men who shave their beards and eat meat on Wednesday and fish
in Lent? The more moderate Greeks, in a letter to Innocent III about
1213, declared that they would gladly attempt a conciliation, but on con-
dition that the difficulties were solved by an Ecumenical Council and
that no violence should be employed to secure their adhesion? .
Innocent III, resigned to the conquest of Constantinople, which he
had never wished but in the end considered a providential event, resolved
at least to turn it to the best advantage of Christendom by realising
the religious union and organising the Church of the East. But the
crusaders, taking no account of his intentions, had confronted him with
actual facts. At the very outset, on their own authority, they placed
Latin clergy at the head of the churches and monasteries; their task
was lightened by the Greek clergy, of whom many members had fled for
refuge to Nicaea or Epirus. On the other hand, agreeably to the bargain
struck with Venice, the greater part of the property of the Church was
1 Luchaire, Innocent III, La question d'Orient, pp. 238–243.
2 16. pp. 251-257.
CH. XIX
## p. 606 (#648) ############################################
606
Innocent III and the Greek Church
secularised. At Constantinople itself the Venetians took possession of
the richest monasteries, and installed at St Sophia a chapter of canons,
who elected to the Patriarchate a Venetian noble, Thomas Morosini.
The Pope, much against his will, was forced to confirm this choice.
The same example was followed in all the states founded by the
Latins, the kingdom of Thessalonica, duchy of Athens, principality of
Achaia, the Venetian possessions in Crete and the Archipelago. The Latin
clergy and the religious or military orders of the West were installed
everywhere. Innocent III had no choice but to accept this spoliation of
the Greek Church; he did his best, however, to stop it, and to bring the
new clergy into strict subordination to the Holy See. His legate, Cardi-
nal Benedict of Santa Susanna, was able to sign a treaty in 1206 with the
regent of the Latin Empire, Henry of Flanders, by which the barons
relinquished to the Church a fifteenth of their estates and incomes. The
same legate was commissioned to obtain the consent of the Greek clergy
to the religious union. His instructions were to offer most conciliatory
terms. He negotiated with the Greek bishops of one power after another,
even treating with those of the Empire of Nicaea, and going so far as to
concede the use of leavened bread for the Eucharist. The Pope even
allowed the validity of the orders conferred by the Greek prelates.
The only obligation which he imposed on them was to recognise formally
the authority of the Holy See by means of an oath taken according to
the feudal form while clasping the hands of the legate. The bishop must
swear fidelity and obedience to the Roman Church, undertake to answer
every summons to a council, to make a journey, like the Western bishops,
to the threshold (ad limina) of the Apostles, to receive the legates with
due ceremony, and to inscribe the name of the Pope on the diptychs.
This was in reality a serious innovation, irreconcilable with the system
of autonomy which the Greek Church had enjoyed before 1054. Many
indeed of the Greek bishops agreed to take this oath, but it was one of
the principal obstacles to the duration of the union. In many places
resistance was offered to it, and there were even scenes of violence.
The mission entrusted to Cardinal Pelagius in 1213 completed the
exasperation of the Greeks. His instructions were far less conciliatory
than those of his predecessor, and he went far beyond them. Being
commissioned to obtain the submission of all the Greek clergy, he had
the recalcitrant thrown into prison, had seals affixed to the church doors,
and drove the monks out of their convents. The Emperor Henry was
alarmed at these events, and intervened, liberating the prisoners and re-
opening the churches.
In these circumstances Pelagius, in order to carry out the pontifical
instructions, called for the assembling of a conference at Constantinople
with the Greek clergy of Nicaea. Nothing could come of this. The
delegate of the Empire of Nicaea, Nicholas Mesarites, Metropolitan of
Ephesus, was received with honour, but complained of the haughty
## p. 607 (#649) ############################################
Fall of the Latin Empire
607
attitude of Pelagius. Sharp and sarcastic words were exchanged, and,
after a week of discussion, the meeting broke up without any results.
At the Lateran Council, in 1215, there was not a single representa-
tive of the Greek native clergy, and very few of the Latin bishops of the
Eastern Empire took the trouble to attend. The Council proclaimed that
the Greeks had come once more under the jurisdiction of the Holy
See. They were permitted to preserve their ritual and their peculiar
uses, but the hatred which they incessantly shewed towards the
Latins, by re-baptising the infants whom they had baptised, and by
purifying the altars which had been used by them, was denounced in
vigorous terms.
The situation did not improve under the successors of Innocent III,
and the relations between the Latin clergy and the natives became worse
and worse.
The correspondence of the Popes of the thirteenth century
is full of expostulations directed against the Latin bishops for their abuse
of power and their outrages? . Step by step as the Emperor John Vatatzes
or the Despot of Epirus reconquered territories, the Latin bishops were
compelled to abdicate and make room for Orthodox Greeks. Towards the
middle of the thirteenth century the Church of the Latin Empire was, like
the Empire itself, plunged into deep distress, and, except in the Morea and
in the Venetian possessions, the moment was drawing near when it would
disappear. Nothing was destined to remain of the conquerors' exploits
but the hatred rankling in the heart of the Greeks.
But for a long time the Popes had come to despair of the safety
of the Latin Empire and, being supremely solicitous for the interests of
Christendom, they were beginning to welcome the proposals for alliance
which came to them from Nicaea.
Theodore Lascaris had indeed thought of regaining Constantinople by
peaceable means, through a marriage with the daughter of the Emperor
Peter de Courtenay in 1219. This matrimonial policy was intended to
be completed by a religious union with Rome. According to a letter of
the Patriarch of Nicaea to John Apocaucus, Metropolitan of Naupactus,
he contemplated calling a council at Nicaea to put an end to the schism.
This project was not carried out, doubtless on account of the opposition
of the clergy, sufficiently shewn by the reply of John Apocaucus to
the Patriarch? . The process was not all on one side, for in 1232,
Manuel, Despot of Epirus, became master of Thessalonica, and, seeing
his overtures rejected by the Patriarch of Nicaea, made his submission
to Pope Gregory IX.
At the same time the Emperor of Nicaea, John Vatatzes, sent by
the hands of the Patriarch Germanus a letter to the Pope and cardinals
1 W. Norden, op. cit. pp. 274-5.
2 Ed. Vasil'evski, VV. , 1896. W. Norden, op. cit. p. 342.
3 W. Norden, op. cit. p. 349. Tafrali, Thessalonique des origines au xixe siècle,
P. 220.
CA. XIX,
## p. 608 (#650) ############################################
608
John Vatatzes and attempts at union
to propose the union to them. In reality, John Vatatzes was trying in this
way
to check the offensive which John de Brienne, elected Emperor of
Constantinople in 1231, was preparing against Nicaea. Gregory IX was
favourably inclined towards these proposals, and sent to Nicaea two Fran-
ciscans and two Dominicans who had conversations with the Patriarch
and the Holy Synod, but far from ending in harmony the conference
terminated in reciprocal anathemas? Vatatzes at least had been able to
conclude a suspension of hostilities with John de Brienne.
Gregory IX made another overture to Vatatzes in 1237, but the
letter which he sent him was never answered? The Pope then prepared
a crusade against him, and the King of Hungary, Béla, consented to
direct it (1240). Vatatzes in alarm sent to Béla a promise of religious
union with Rome. But, Hungary having been invaded by the Mongols
in 1241, Vatatzes, having no cause of anxiety from that quarter, forgot
his promise.
Nevertheless with laudable constancy the Popes, who had abandoned
the task of supporting effectively the Latin Empire, continued to follow
up the religious union with Nicaea. At the Council of Lyons in 1245
Innocent IV reckoned the Greek schism among the five wounds from
which the Church was suffering. In 1249 he sent to Vatatzes John of
Parma, General of the Franciscans, in order to dissuade him from the
alliance with Frederick II, and to gain him over to the union. Confer-
ences followed, but in 1250 Frederick II captured in Southern Italy the
ambassadors whom Vatatzes was sending to the Pope. They remained in
prison until his death (December 1250). Set free by Manfred, they were
able to rejoin the Pope at Perugia in November 1251, but the negotia-
tions came to nothing, and Vatatzes renewed his attacks upon the Latin
Empire.
It was Vatatzes who resumed the pourparlers in 1254. His ambas-
sadors, the Archbishops of Cyzicus and Sardis, were detained like their
predecessors in the kingdom of Sicily, but ended by joining Inno-
cent IV at Rome, and accompanied him to Anagni and then to Assisi.
Vatatzes demanded the abandonment of Constantinople, the re-establish-
ment of the Greek Patriarch, and the withdrawal of the Latin clergy.
In return he undertook to recognise the primacy of the Pope, to replace
his name in the diptychs, to obey his decisions in so far as they conformed
to the Councils, and to admit his jurisdiction and his right to assemble
councils. He even admitted that the Greek clergy should take an oath
of canonical obedience to the Papacy. Never had the Greeks up to
that time made such liberal concessions, and the matter might perhaps
have been settled but for the simultaneous deaths of Innocent IV and
John Vatatzes (1254).
1 Mansi, Concilia, xxIII. Pp. 47–55.
2 Ed. Norden in Papsttum und Byzanz, p. 751.
3 Ib. pp. 362-366.
4 Ib. pp. 367–378.
## p. 609 (#651) ############################################
Policy of Michael Palaeologus
609
The conversations were resumed, however, in 1256 between Theo-
dore II Lascaris and Alexander IV. The Pope sent to Nicaea Orbevieto,
Bishop of Civitavecchia ; he had instructions to arrange for the as-
sembling of a council, and to ask that Greek clerics should be sent to
Rome, but after the interview which he had with Theodore at Thessa-
lonica the preliminaries were broken off.
The plan of the Pope had failed, and he had not been able to use for
the union the valuable pledge of Constantinople. The Greeks re-entered
that city in 1261 without ceasing to be schismatics. The Pope, Urban IV,
contemplated at first preparations for a crusade against Michael Palaeo-
logus, but to carry that out he would have been forced to tolerate the
alliance of Manfred, whose idea was to restore the Latin Empire for his
own advantage. On his side, Michael Palaeologus, having tried in vain to
treat with Manfred, had no resource left but to turn to the Pope. It was
thus a common hostility against Manfred which decided them to take up
the question of the union.
Michael Palaeologus, one of the most practical minds of the thirteenth
century and as subtle a diplomat as the Byzantine world ever produced,
regarded the union merely as an instrument which would enable him at
the same time to gain all the Latin States and hinder the promotion of
a new crusade against Constantinople. This is the key to the fluctuating
character of his diplomacy. The whole time he was negotiating with the
Pope he was continually fighting the Latins, and his zeal for the union
varied with his successes and his reverses.
In 1262 Michael sent to Urban IV an embassy which put the question
unequivocal terms. Let the Pope recognise Michael Palaeologus as
legitimate sovereign of Constantinople, and the religious union would be
easy. Urban answered that he would consent to that, if Michael refrained
from attacking the Latin possessions. But at the beginning of 1263
Michael, finding the occasion favourable, attacked the Venetian
posses-
sions with the aid of the Genoese fleet. The Pope immediately ordered a
crusade against him to be preached and then, in consequence of the ill-
success of his appeal, picked up the broken threads of the negotiations.
He wrote a conciliatory letter to Michael (28 July 1263), and sent him four
Franciscan friars, but these delayed on their route to negotiate at Venice,
in Epirus, and in Achaia.
It was only in the spring of 1264, at the moment when the dis-
couraged Pope was preaching the crusade against him, that Michael
Palaeologus, whose army had suffered a check in Messenia, once more
contemplated the union. The letter which he addressed to Urban IV
contains a formal promise of union and of participation in the crusade.
The Pope in his answer (June 1264) could not disguise his joy, and he
announced the despatch of legates to Constantinople.
But Urban IV died (close of 1264), and at the outset of his pontificate
Papadopoulos, Theodore II Lascaris, p. 101.
in
1
C. MED. H. VOL. IV. CH. XIX.
39
## p. 610 (#652) ############################################
610
Schemes of Charles of Anjou
Clement IV, occupied with the struggle against Manfred, ignored Con-
stantinople. It was probably in 1266 that new embassies were exchanged",
but at that moment the victory of Charles of Anjou over Manfred at
Benevento (February 1266) was a factor which modified and complicated
the question. Charles of Anjou, titular defender of the Holy See, lord of
the kingdom of Sicily, soon revived the plans of his Ghibelline predecessors
against Constantinople. On 27 May 1267, by the treaty of Viterbo,
Baldwin II surrendered to Charles of Anjou his rights over the Latin
Empire, and the King of Sicily made immediate preparations to start his
expedition.
But Clement IV, while seeming to approve them, distrusted the plans
of Charles of Anjou, and continued to treat with Michael Palaeologus,
who, disturbed by the menaces of the King of Sicily, had sent him
another embassy, imploring him to prevent the war between the Greeks
and Latins (1267). A characteristic detail, which shews how pressing
the danger seemed, is that even the Patriarch wrote to the Pope pro-
posing the union to him. The Pope welcomed these overtures, but,
deeming himself master of the situation, insisted in his answer upon a
complete submission of the Greek Church without any discussion, under-
taking in return to prevent the war. Michael, whose fears were increasing,
replied that he could not accept these terms of union without rousing
against himself all the Greeks. To testify his goodwill, he actually offered
to take part in the coming crusade. The Pope in his answer (17 May
1267) maintained his uncompromising attitude, and refused to give any
assurance to the Emperor until the union was accomplished. On 27 May
following Clement IV gave his approbation to the Treaty of Viterbo, a
clear proof that he counted upon the threat of Charles of Anjou to render
the Greeks more tractable.
Clement IV, however, died on 28 November 1268, and in consequence
of divisions among the cardinals the papal throne was vacant for three
years. Charles of Anjou wished to profit by this circumstance to realise
his plans, but, in the absence of a Pope, it was to the King of France,
St Louis, that Michael Palaeologus turned in order to avert the
danger. He sent two embassies to France (1269) with proposals for
religious union. St Louis referred the matter to the college of car-
dinals, who returned to Michael Palaeologus the ultimatum imposed by
Clement IV in 1267. The Emperor had at least attained his object, for
Charles by joining his brother St Louis in the crusade of Tunis (1270)
was obliged to postpone his attack upon Constantinople? .
Immediately after the death of St Louis (25 August 1270), however,
Charles of Anjou resumed his offensive against the Greek Empire both
by diplomacy and by force of arms. It was evident that nothing but the
1 According to the conjecture of W. Norden, op. cit. p. 444,
2 L. Brebier, L'Église et l'Orient, p. 237.
## p. 611 (#653) ############################################
Gregory X and Michael Palaeologus
611
conclusion of the union would succeed in stopping him. The cause of
the union, so much desired by Michael Palaeologus, found a champion in
the person of the new Pope, Tedaldo Visconti, elected under the name of
Gregory X (September 1271), who was in the Holy Land when he heard of
his exaltation. Gregory X, like Innocent III before him, saw in the union
the essential condition of success of the crusades. He could not therefore
be anything but hostile to the ambitious projects of Charles of Anjou,
and as soon as he assumed the tiara he opened relations with Michael
Palaeologus.
A series of embassies was exchanged in 1272 and 1273 between
Rome and Constantinople. One of the most active emissaries between
the two courts seems to have been a Franciscan friar of Greek origin,
John Parastron, who could speak both Greek and Latin. During these
negotiations Charles of Anjou was hurrying on his preparations, and
sent an army to the Morea (May 1273). Michael Palaeologus on his side
continued to attack the Latin states.
In spite of these unfavourable circumstances, the Pope and the Emperor
had such interests in the union that they ended by achieving their pur-
pose.
The embassy sent by the Pope to Constantinople in 1272 announced
the assembling of an Ecumenical Council at Lyons for May 1274.
Michael Palaeologus then set on foot among the Greek clergy a very
clever campaign of propaganda, by emphasising the incalculable benefits
which the union would procure for the Empire at the cost of trifling or
purely platonic concessions, such as the recognition of the primacy of the
Pope and his commemoration on the diptychs. He met with an obstinate
opposition headed by the Patriarch Joseph, but he was resolved to have
his own way.
In May 1273 Michael sent a new embassy to Rome. Without dis-
guising the difficulties with which he met from the Greek clergy, he de-
clared that the union would shortly be consummated, and he asked the
Pope for safe-conducts for the Greek ambassadors who would be sent to
the Council. Gregory X immediately took measures to insure the safety
of this embassy, and in November 1273 he called on Charles of Anjou to
enter into a solemn undertaking on the point.
The King of Sicily, who saw
himself threatened by a possible rising of the Ghibellines in Italy, complied,
sorely against his will, and gave the necessary instructions to his agents.
Michael Palaeologus, meanwhile, had not been inactive at Constanti-
nople, and had continued his propaganda among the clergy. A decisive
success for him was the conversion of the chartophylax John Beccus to
the cause of the union; this example helped to win over several bishops.
The most obstinate were sent into exile or imprisoned. Finally, on the
assurance that not an iota would be changed in the Creed, the clergy
drew up an act by which they agreed to the primacy of the Pope, his
mention on the diptychs, and appeals to Rome. The Patriarch Joseph
alone remained obdurate. This act was intended to be handed to the
CA. XIX.
3942
## p. 612 (#654) ############################################
612
The Council of Lyons
Pope simultaneously with a letter from the Emperor which recognised
the Roman doctrines in a much more explicit manner.
Gregory X had opened the Ecumenical Council in the cathedral of
Lyons on 7 May 1274. On 24 June following, Germanus, ex-Patriarch of
Constantinople, the Archbishop of Nicaea, and the Grand Logothete were
received there with great ceremony, and put the letters of the Emperor
and the Greek people into the hands of the Pope. On 6 July the Pope
read out these letters and, in the name of the Emperor, the Grand Logo-
thete repudiated the schism ; the Pope then chanted a Te Deum. The
union was achieved, and the ex-Patriarch handed to the Pope letters from
the Serbian and Bulgarian clergy who formally recognised it.
Thus, according to the plan which had been drawn up by Clement IV,
the union had been accomplished without discussion or controversies.
The Greek Church had submitted voluntarily, at least in appearance. A
new era of peace seemed to dawn for Christendom, but its duration was
destined to be brief.
The first tangible result of the union for Michael Palaeologus was the
conclusion of a truce with Charles of Anjou, through the mediation of
the Abbot of Monte-Cassino delegated by the Pope (1 May 1275).
Gregory X had kept his promise. Would Michael Palaeologus be able
to keep all of his?
There is evidence that from the very first he continued in 1275 his
attacks on the Latin states of Greece. Was he at least going to make
a reality of the religious union? On 16 January, the day of the festival
of St Peter, he had a solemn service held in the chapel of the imperial
palace, and commemorated the name of the Pope. On 25 May following,
the Patriarch Joseph, obdurate as ever, was replaced by John Beccus,
head of the union-party. But the public ceremony, by which the deci-
sions of the Council of Lyons should have been notified to the people,
was continually postponed. In the family of the Emperor his sister
Eulogia was at the head of the opponents of Rome. Michael, notwith-
standing, continued to make a shew of burning zeal to the Pope, and on
10 January 1276 he announced to Gregory X his intention of taking
part in the much talked-of crusade.
Even in Rome the conditions were becoming less favourable to the
union. After the death of Gregory X three Popes of the Angevin party
followed within a few months of each other. An ultimatum prepared
by Innocent V was sent to Michael Palaeologus by John XXI (1277).
The Emperor was to swear to the union personally, and to obtain an oath
from the Greek clergy, who were to pledge themselves also to teach nothing
contrary to the Roman doctrines. The Emperor consented to take the
required oath, but the mass of the Greek clergy refused, in spite of ex-
communications from John Beccus. At the same moment the Despot of
Epirus, John the Bastard, held an anti-unionist council, which excom-
municated the Emperor, the Patriarch, and the Pope.
## p. 613 (#655) ############################################
Breach of the Union
613
John Gaetano Orsini, elected Pope in 1278 under the name of
Nicholas III, was, unlike John XXI, an opponent of the Angevins, and
he rendered a conspicuous service to Michael Palaeologus when he forbade
Charles of Anjou to attack Constantinople. On the question of the
union, however, he was more peremptory than his predecessors. The
papal nuncios, whom he sent to Michael Palaeologus in October 1278,
notified a new ultimatum to him. The Emperor was called upon to send
a fresh statement of his adherence to the confession of Lyons, to compel
the Patriarch and the clergy also to swear adherence to it, to accept the
permanent residence of a papal legate at Constantinople, to introduce
the Filioque into the Creed, to renounce all uses which the Pope might
deem contrary to the faith, and to excommunicate the enemies of the
union.
A fresh breach was imminent, and yet Michael Palaeologus struggled
to the end to uphold the union. A synod was convened to receive the
proposals of the nuncios, and drew up a reply, the exact wording of which
is not known, but which appears, without running counter to the Pope's
wishes, to have consisted mainly of vague promises. Nevertheless, in order
to satisfy the Pope, John Beccus introduced the Filioque into the Creed,
but by doing so he only supplied new grievances to the opposite party,
many of whom were imprisoned by the Emperor.
Nicholas III was succeeded, however, on 22 February 1281 by a Pope
of the Angevin party, Martin IV. Charles of Anjou had already sent
troops to Epirus, and, with the support of the Pope, was preparing a
decisive attack on the Greek Empire. It is not therefore astonishing
that the Pope did not receive favourably the embassies which Michael
Palaeologus had sent him. So much so that on 18 November 1281 he
excommunicated Michael Palaeologus, and threatened to pronounce his
deposition if he did not submit before 1 May 1282. Some months pre-
viously the Pope had entered into the coalition formed by Venice and
Charles of Anjou against - Michael (July 1281). The departure of the
Crusade was fixed for the month of April 1283. The days of the Byzan-
tine Empire seemed numbered, when the tragedy of the Sicilian Vespers
(30 March 1282) wrecked the schemes of the coalition. When Michael
Palaeologus died (11 December 1282) he had shaken off the nightmare of
Angevin invasion, but the religious union to which he had devoted all
his energies was definitely broken.
With the power of Charles of Anjou disappeared the principal poli-
tical reason which could justify this union in the eyes of the Greeks. The
new Emperor, Andronicus II, had no anxieties on the Western frontier.
It is not therefore surprising that his reign was marked by a violent
reaction against the policy of union. All the clergy condemned by
Michael Palaeologus were considered martyrs of Orthodoxy, and were
released from their prisons. The Patriarch John Beccus was deposed,
exiled to Prusa, and then brought before a synod. A reign of terror
CH. XIX.
## p. 614 (#656) ############################################
614
Policy of Andronicus II
prevailed at Constantinople, and the unionist clergy knew in their turn
the pains of exile and imprisonment. Even the memory of the late Em-
peror was condemned. This outburst of fanaticism shews the intense
unpopularity of the union at Constantinople. Henceforward the monks
dominated the Greek Church, and from this epoch onwards the higher
ranks of the clergy were almost exclusively recruited from among them. It
was the monks then who fanned the flame of popular hatred against the
Westerners. Forced into an attitude of sullen nationalism, they shewed
that they preferred the ruin of the Empire to union with Rome.
The check to the union and the attitude of Andronicus II explain
why the Crusade against Constantinople was still the order of the day in
the West, but there was no prince now in those parts capable of renewing
the attempt of Charles of Anjou. Charles of Valois in 1307–1308 and
Philip of Taranto (1312–1325), both heirs by marriage of claimants
to the Latin Empire, tried in turn, but without success, to invade
Greece. The danger to the Empire that was destined to revive the
proposals of union lay in a different quarter.
It may be said that it was during the long and disastrous reign of
Andronicus II (1282–1332) that the fate of Byzantium was sealed.
Religious disputes, ravages by the Catalan Company, Turkish invasions
of Asia Minor, civil war, all these calamities burst almost at once over
the Empire. Andronicus by his incompetence and invertebrate policy
destroyed the fabric reared by his father. It is not then surprising that
he could not maintain to the end the uncompromising attitude which he
had adopted towards the Latins.
In 1323, learning that a French fleet in the service of the Pope, com-
manded by Amaury de Narbonne, was on the point of setting sail for
Constantinople, he sent to the West the Genoese Bishop of Kaffa to pro-
pose a new union. Soon after, in 1326, he commissioned another Genoese
to bear a letter on the same subject to the King of France, Charles the
Fair. The king sent to Constantinople the Dominican Benedict of Como,
but the negotiations were kept secret, and Andronicus was compelled to
adinit to the ambassador how difficult it would be to propose a new union
to the Greeks'.
Meantime the Ottoman State, which had been allowed to form owing
to the weakness of Andronicus II, was becoming more and more a menace
to Constantinople. In 1334 Andronicus III became anxious, and sent over-
tures of union to Pope John XXII by two Dominicans who were returning
from the Tartars. The Pope gave them a favourable hearing and sent
them back to Constantinople, but they were unable to discuss the matter
publicly with the Greek clergy as they demanded.
In 1335, as a proof of his good will, Andronicus III consented to take
part in the Crusade organised by Benedict XII under the leadership of the
i Paris, Archives Nationales; Trésor des Chartes. See Omont, Bibliothèque de
ľ École des Chartes, 1892, p. 254.
## p. 615 (#657) ############################################
Clement VI and union
615
ביי
King of France. Finally in 1339 the Emperor sent secretly to Avignon
the Venetian Stephen Dandolo, and one of the most celebrated humanists
of Constantinople, the Calabrian monk Barlaam, Abbot of the Soter.
But these emissaries had not even official letters accrediting them to the
Pope. They had the difficult mission of inducing Benedict XII to pro-
inise the despatch of prompt aid to the East. It was only subsequently
that there could be any question of union. Barlaam pleaded his case
eloquently. “That which separates the Greeks from you,” he said, not
without justification, “is not so much the difference of dogmas as the
hatred they feel against the Latins, provoked by the wrongs which they
on their side have suffered. It will be necessary to confer some great
benefit upon them to change this feeling. " He added that the union
could not be effected by force; only a General Council could establish it,
and if the Greeks had not recognised the Council of Lyons it was because
the Greek emissaries had been appointed by the Emperor and not by the
Patriarchs of the East? . Barlaam had thus outlined the programme of
the future council which was intended to effect the union, but this idea
was so far premature, and the Pope offered an invincible opposition to
every argument. The despatch of Western help must in his view be
conditional on the recognition by the Greeks of the Council of Lyons.
The whole matter went no further than the exchange of fine promises.
There existed, however, at Constantinople a party favourable to the
union, which centred round the Empress Anne of Savoy and the nobles
of her country whom she had brought to Constantinople in 1326'.
Having become regent in the name of her son John V Palaeologus after
the death of Andronicus III in 1341, Anne of Savoy sent to Pope
Clement VI in the autumn of 1343 a gentleman of Savoy, Philip de
Saint-Germain, bearing instructions from the regent and the Grand Duke
Alexius Apocaucus. He was commissioned to express to the Pope the
attachment of the regent and of her son John V to the Roman Church,
and to pray for the despatch of a fleet and an army to defend Constan-
tinople against the attacks of the Turks, as well as against those of their
ally John Cantacuzene, who had proclaimed himself Emperor“.
Clement VI was extremely favourable to the union. In 1343 he was
occupied in organising with the help of Venice the naval league which
ended in the recapture of Smyrna from the Turks (1344). He wrote to
the Latin Patriarch Henry, who resided at Negropont, to the Dominicans
of Pera, and to the Venetian and Genoese colonies of Constantinople, to
invite them to exert all their efforts towards preparing the union. In
spite of his friendly inclinations, the Pope held the same point of view as
1 Gay, Le pape Clément VI et les affaires d'Orient, pp. 49–50.
? Ib. p. 115.
3 Ib. p. 46.
4 Ib. p. 47. These instructions are known from the answers of Clement VI
(21 and 23 Oct. 1342) and from Johu Cantacuzenus, III. 87, CSHB, p. 359.
CH. XIX.
## p. 616 (#658) ############################################
616
John VI Cantacuzene
his predecessors; the despatch of assistance must be conditional on the
abjuration of the schism.
At the time of the ill-starred Crusade of the Archipelago in 1346,
the heir to the Dauphiné, Humbert, treated with the regent, and the
question between them was the union of the Churches, but nothing
occurred beyond conversations, and the occupation of the island of Chios
by the Genoese only exacerbated the Greeks.
Meanwhile Western politicians regarded the union as more and more
desirable. When the prince Humbert, a disillusioned man, entered
the Dominican order, he founded scholarships at the University of
Paris, and reserved many of them for students belonging by birth to
“Greece and the Holy Land," whom he destined to teach Greek in the
convents of the Dominicans (1349)'. But these good intentions were
powerless before the hatred which divided the Greeks from the Western
nations. There were incessant conflicts in the countries still occupied by
the Latins. In 1364 the Greeks of Candia rose against the Venetians,
who wished to impose the Latin ritual on them, and terrible massacres
ensued? The anecdotes related at the same epoch by Petrarch to Urban
V leave no doubt about the feeling of the people towards the Latins.
Sometimes they riotously interrupted the Latin services, sometimes they
fumigated the churches frequented by the Latins, and lost no oppor-
tunity of treating them as dogs, “when they could do so with im-
punity. ";
John Cantacuzene, now master of Constantinople (February 1347),
sought to dissipate the justifiable distrust which his alliance with the
Turks had roused against him. Unlike his predecessors, he sent to the
Pope an official embassy to persuade him that, far from favouring the
Turks, he was prepared to fight them, and also to ask that the leader of
the coming crusade might act in concert with him. Clement VI, who
was by no means friendly towards Cantacuzene, gave a vague answer and
promised to send him an embassy, but three years elapsed before he
despatched to Constantinople two Dominicans, one a bishop in Venetia,
the other in Crete, with instructions to negotiate the religious union“.
John VI replied to these overtures by testifying his zeal for the
union, at the same time declaring that only a truly Ecumenical Council
could render it possible. The Pope, on his side, informed him that he
was favourable to holding a council, but that the existing state of Chris-
tendom made it impossible to assemble it”. Relations, however, still
continued between him and the Emperor, but nothing came of them.
p. 79.
1 Gay, op. cit.
2 Gibbons, The Foundation of the Ottoman Empire, p. 132. Gregoras, xxv. 17,
CSHB, p. 41.
3 Petrarch, Senilia, 7 (Gibbons, op. cit. p. 133).
+ Gay, op. cit. pp. 102–109.
6 Gay, op. cit. pp. 110–118. Cantacuzenus, 1v. 9, CSHB, pp. 59–60.
## p. 617 (#659) ############################################
John V Palaeologus
617
Under cover of the civil war between John Cantacuzene and John
Palaeologus, the Ottomans had gained a footing in Europe by the capture
of Gallipoli (1354), and had lost no time in overrunning Thrace. John V,
who held power after the abdication of Cantacuzene (1355), saw no
hope of safety except in complete submission to the Pope. In 1356 he
sent two ambassadors to Avignon with a document in which he pledged
himself to recognise the Pope as head of the Church, to obtain like
recognition from his subjects, to receive the pontifical legates with all
respect, and to send his son Manuel to Rome as a hostage. In return
he claimed prompt aid for Constantinople, of which the Pope would
bear the cost for six months. During that period a legate could go to
Constantinople, and collate whom he wished to ecclesiastical benefices.
As a clearer proof of his zeal the Emperor proposed to found at Con-
stantinople colleges where Latin would be taught, and he recognised the
right of the Pope to declare the throne vacant if he failed to execute his
promises.
Innocent replied to the Emperor by a gushing letter, writing also to
the Patriarch Callistus and the principal bishops, and sent two nuncios
to Constantinople. But, when the question of collecting the required
fleet was broached, the Pope could not obtain anything from the Latin
powers: neither Venice, nor Genoa, nor the King of Cyprus, nor even
the Knights of Rhodes, consented to the slightest sacrifice.
Meantime the position of the Ottomans in the Balkan peninsula
grew stronger day by day. In 1363 Murād compelled John V to sign
a treaty, tantamount to vassalage, which prevented him froin lending his
help to the effort made by the Hungarians and the Serbs, in response
to
the Pope's demand, to recapture Hadrianople. In 1366 Murād actually
took up his residence at Hadrianople, the first step towards the blockade
of Constantinople. At this crisis John V made fresh appeals to the Pope
for help, and, while Urban V preached the crusade, he himself paid a visit
to the King of Hungary towards the close of 1365, in order to remove
the scruples which the king felt in lending his help to schismatics, and to
affirm by oath the intention of himself and all his family to embrace the
Roman faith.
The Crusade, led by Amadeus VI, Count of Savoy, cousin of the
Emperor, succeeded in recovering Gallipoli from the Turks and in
rescuing John V, whose return to Constantinople was in danger of being
cut off by the Bulgarians. The Archbishop of Smyrna and the Latin
Patriarch of Constantinople actually embarked on the fleet of Amadeus VI,
which was returning to the West, with orders to announce to Urban V
that the Emperor would come and abjure the schism before him in
person (1367). Urban V lost no time in writing to the three sons of
the Emperor, to the Empress Helena, to John Cantacuzene (who had
retired to a convent), to the Patriarch Philotheus, to the people and
clergy of Constantinople, to exhort them to favour the union.
CH. XIX.
## p. 618 (#660) ############################################
618
Manuel Palaeologus in the West
On 18 October 1369 John V, received at Rome with the greatest cere-
mony, presented his profession of faith to the cardinals. On 21 October
he solemnly abjured the schism before the Pope on the steps of the basilica
of St Peter. But this was only a personal abjuration, and was not
binding on the Greeks. Thus the voyage of John V to Italy failed to
produce the results anticipated from it. His conduct at Venice ended
in his being thrown into prison for debt, and, when after this humiliation
he passed once more through Rome in 1370, he could not obtain from
the Pope the smallest subsidy.
It was in vain that in 1373 his ambassadors scoured Europe and
actually reached France, where Charles V made them vague promises. In
vain Pope Gregory XI, fully aware of the danger which the Ottomans were
threatening to Europe, wrote urgent letter after letter to the crowned
heads, to Louis, King of Hungary (1372 and 1375), to Edward III, King
of England (1375). The sovereigns and their knights assumed the cross
with stately pomp, for it was a time of splendid festivals and eloquent
speeches; but no profitable results followed. John V, abandoned by all,
had ended in 1373 by acknowledging himself the vassal of Murād and
handing over to him his son Manuel as hostage.
Manuel, who became Emperor in 1391, renewed the same pressing
appeals by embassies to the Western sovereigns. This time the King of
Hungary, Sigismund, directly threatened by the Turks, backed up the
Byzantine demands, and Pope Boniface preached the Crusade which
terminated in the disaster of Nicopolis (1396), although its object had
been the deliverance of Constantinople. In 1397 Manuel sent his uncle
Theodore Cantacuzene to Paris. The King Charles VI refused per-
mission to his brother the Duke of Orleans to start for the East, but
he promised 600 men-at-arms, who were placed under the orders of
Marshal Boucicaut, and succeeded in clearing the immediate approaches
to Constantinople and breaking the blockade.
At the advice of Boucicaut himself, Manuel adopted the policy of
visiting the West personally in order to plead more effectually the cause of
Constantinople. He set out on 10 December 1399, passed through Venice,
Padua, and Milan, made another solemn entry into Paris on 3 June 1400,
landed in England, was received in London on 21 December by Henry
IV, returned to France in February 1401, and remained in Paris until
November 1402. After a stay at Genoa, he went to take ship at Venice
(April 1403), and on 15 June following he was back in Constantinople? .
The Emperor had found everywhere a courteous and splendid
welcome. At Paris and at London, in particular, he and his suite owed
much to their being objects of public curiosity. He was overwhelmed
with banquets; the most complimentary speeches and the fairest promises
were lavished on him. During his stay in Paris he even had a con-
troversy on the Procession of the Holy Ghost with a doctor of the
1 Collected texts by Lambros, Neoshellenomnemon, XIII. pp. 132–133.
## p. 619 (#661) ############################################
The Battle of Angora, 1402
619
Sorbonne, but this was only a showy passage of arms without any results.
arrival at Zara of embassies from Philip of Swabia (1 January 1203) and
from the pretender Alexius (7 April) decided the crusaders to attack
Constantinople. The conscience of the crusaders had been salved by most
specious promises, union of the Churches, participation of the restored
Emperor in the Crusade—the entire programme of the Pope himself.
Innocent III had in vain made the greatest efforts to keep the Crusade
on the route to Egypt. The alliance between the Ghibellines, of whom
Philip of Swabia was the leader, and the Venetians, which saw in the
Byzantine Empire a tempting prey, was stronger than the will of the
Pope. Further, Isaac Angelus and his son, once restored, were unable to
keep the promises which they had made, and the crusaders were forced
to besiege Constantinople a second time. This time it was conquest pure
and simple: the sack of the palace, the monasteries, and the churches,
the partition of the Empire between the barons and the Venetians. In
1205 the whole East was covered with Latin settlements, and only
two centres of resistance were left, the one in Epirus under the dynasty
of the Angeli, the other at Nicaea round Theodore Lascaris. The con-
1 MPL, CCXIV,
cols. 326–7.
## p. 605 (#647) ############################################
The compulsory union
605
querors could fondly flatter themselves that, by disobeying the orders of
the Pope, they had put an end to the schism of the Greeks, and assured
for ever the supremacy of the Roman Church in the East.
According to the principles of the Canon Law, the conquest of the
East in no way necessarily involved the absorption of the Greek Church
by the Latin Church. To realise the union, it was necessary, first, that
the Greeks gave a formal adherence, then, that the Greek Church should
return to the conditions previous to 1054, communion with Rome, auto-
nomous institutions, native clergy, national rites. But for this solution
to prevail the conquerors, clerics as well as laymen, would have had to
shew improbable self-abnegation ; the property and revenue of the Greek
clergy was too tempting a prey for them.
To do this, these men of the thirteenth century needed a perfect
familiarity with history which they could not possess. Between 1054 and
1204 the position of the Papacy had been completely changed; the
spiritual supremacy of the Holy See was accepted by all, and many
would defend its temporal supremacy. To the West, since the schism of
the Greeks, the Roman Church represented the Catholic Church. What
she required from the other Churches was no longer merely communion,
but submission in matters of dogma and discipline. The Christian republic
tended to become a monarchy.
On the side of the Greeks, finally, a spirit of conciliation would have
been necessary, but the events of which they had just been victims
rendered this impossible. The chronicle of Nicetas echoes the exasperation
which the sack of Constantinople roused among them. A contemporary
pamphlet, entitled “Our grievances against the Latin Church,” enume-
rates a long list, as absurd as it is spiteful, of the practices with which
they charged the Latins, and declares that it is impossible to communicate
with men who shave their beards and eat meat on Wednesday and fish
in Lent? The more moderate Greeks, in a letter to Innocent III about
1213, declared that they would gladly attempt a conciliation, but on con-
dition that the difficulties were solved by an Ecumenical Council and
that no violence should be employed to secure their adhesion? .
Innocent III, resigned to the conquest of Constantinople, which he
had never wished but in the end considered a providential event, resolved
at least to turn it to the best advantage of Christendom by realising
the religious union and organising the Church of the East. But the
crusaders, taking no account of his intentions, had confronted him with
actual facts. At the very outset, on their own authority, they placed
Latin clergy at the head of the churches and monasteries; their task
was lightened by the Greek clergy, of whom many members had fled for
refuge to Nicaea or Epirus. On the other hand, agreeably to the bargain
struck with Venice, the greater part of the property of the Church was
1 Luchaire, Innocent III, La question d'Orient, pp. 238–243.
2 16. pp. 251-257.
CH. XIX
## p. 606 (#648) ############################################
606
Innocent III and the Greek Church
secularised. At Constantinople itself the Venetians took possession of
the richest monasteries, and installed at St Sophia a chapter of canons,
who elected to the Patriarchate a Venetian noble, Thomas Morosini.
The Pope, much against his will, was forced to confirm this choice.
The same example was followed in all the states founded by the
Latins, the kingdom of Thessalonica, duchy of Athens, principality of
Achaia, the Venetian possessions in Crete and the Archipelago. The Latin
clergy and the religious or military orders of the West were installed
everywhere. Innocent III had no choice but to accept this spoliation of
the Greek Church; he did his best, however, to stop it, and to bring the
new clergy into strict subordination to the Holy See. His legate, Cardi-
nal Benedict of Santa Susanna, was able to sign a treaty in 1206 with the
regent of the Latin Empire, Henry of Flanders, by which the barons
relinquished to the Church a fifteenth of their estates and incomes. The
same legate was commissioned to obtain the consent of the Greek clergy
to the religious union. His instructions were to offer most conciliatory
terms. He negotiated with the Greek bishops of one power after another,
even treating with those of the Empire of Nicaea, and going so far as to
concede the use of leavened bread for the Eucharist. The Pope even
allowed the validity of the orders conferred by the Greek prelates.
The only obligation which he imposed on them was to recognise formally
the authority of the Holy See by means of an oath taken according to
the feudal form while clasping the hands of the legate. The bishop must
swear fidelity and obedience to the Roman Church, undertake to answer
every summons to a council, to make a journey, like the Western bishops,
to the threshold (ad limina) of the Apostles, to receive the legates with
due ceremony, and to inscribe the name of the Pope on the diptychs.
This was in reality a serious innovation, irreconcilable with the system
of autonomy which the Greek Church had enjoyed before 1054. Many
indeed of the Greek bishops agreed to take this oath, but it was one of
the principal obstacles to the duration of the union. In many places
resistance was offered to it, and there were even scenes of violence.
The mission entrusted to Cardinal Pelagius in 1213 completed the
exasperation of the Greeks. His instructions were far less conciliatory
than those of his predecessor, and he went far beyond them. Being
commissioned to obtain the submission of all the Greek clergy, he had
the recalcitrant thrown into prison, had seals affixed to the church doors,
and drove the monks out of their convents. The Emperor Henry was
alarmed at these events, and intervened, liberating the prisoners and re-
opening the churches.
In these circumstances Pelagius, in order to carry out the pontifical
instructions, called for the assembling of a conference at Constantinople
with the Greek clergy of Nicaea. Nothing could come of this. The
delegate of the Empire of Nicaea, Nicholas Mesarites, Metropolitan of
Ephesus, was received with honour, but complained of the haughty
## p. 607 (#649) ############################################
Fall of the Latin Empire
607
attitude of Pelagius. Sharp and sarcastic words were exchanged, and,
after a week of discussion, the meeting broke up without any results.
At the Lateran Council, in 1215, there was not a single representa-
tive of the Greek native clergy, and very few of the Latin bishops of the
Eastern Empire took the trouble to attend. The Council proclaimed that
the Greeks had come once more under the jurisdiction of the Holy
See. They were permitted to preserve their ritual and their peculiar
uses, but the hatred which they incessantly shewed towards the
Latins, by re-baptising the infants whom they had baptised, and by
purifying the altars which had been used by them, was denounced in
vigorous terms.
The situation did not improve under the successors of Innocent III,
and the relations between the Latin clergy and the natives became worse
and worse.
The correspondence of the Popes of the thirteenth century
is full of expostulations directed against the Latin bishops for their abuse
of power and their outrages? . Step by step as the Emperor John Vatatzes
or the Despot of Epirus reconquered territories, the Latin bishops were
compelled to abdicate and make room for Orthodox Greeks. Towards the
middle of the thirteenth century the Church of the Latin Empire was, like
the Empire itself, plunged into deep distress, and, except in the Morea and
in the Venetian possessions, the moment was drawing near when it would
disappear. Nothing was destined to remain of the conquerors' exploits
but the hatred rankling in the heart of the Greeks.
But for a long time the Popes had come to despair of the safety
of the Latin Empire and, being supremely solicitous for the interests of
Christendom, they were beginning to welcome the proposals for alliance
which came to them from Nicaea.
Theodore Lascaris had indeed thought of regaining Constantinople by
peaceable means, through a marriage with the daughter of the Emperor
Peter de Courtenay in 1219. This matrimonial policy was intended to
be completed by a religious union with Rome. According to a letter of
the Patriarch of Nicaea to John Apocaucus, Metropolitan of Naupactus,
he contemplated calling a council at Nicaea to put an end to the schism.
This project was not carried out, doubtless on account of the opposition
of the clergy, sufficiently shewn by the reply of John Apocaucus to
the Patriarch? . The process was not all on one side, for in 1232,
Manuel, Despot of Epirus, became master of Thessalonica, and, seeing
his overtures rejected by the Patriarch of Nicaea, made his submission
to Pope Gregory IX.
At the same time the Emperor of Nicaea, John Vatatzes, sent by
the hands of the Patriarch Germanus a letter to the Pope and cardinals
1 W. Norden, op. cit. pp. 274-5.
2 Ed. Vasil'evski, VV. , 1896. W. Norden, op. cit. p. 342.
3 W. Norden, op. cit. p. 349. Tafrali, Thessalonique des origines au xixe siècle,
P. 220.
CA. XIX,
## p. 608 (#650) ############################################
608
John Vatatzes and attempts at union
to propose the union to them. In reality, John Vatatzes was trying in this
way
to check the offensive which John de Brienne, elected Emperor of
Constantinople in 1231, was preparing against Nicaea. Gregory IX was
favourably inclined towards these proposals, and sent to Nicaea two Fran-
ciscans and two Dominicans who had conversations with the Patriarch
and the Holy Synod, but far from ending in harmony the conference
terminated in reciprocal anathemas? Vatatzes at least had been able to
conclude a suspension of hostilities with John de Brienne.
Gregory IX made another overture to Vatatzes in 1237, but the
letter which he sent him was never answered? The Pope then prepared
a crusade against him, and the King of Hungary, Béla, consented to
direct it (1240). Vatatzes in alarm sent to Béla a promise of religious
union with Rome. But, Hungary having been invaded by the Mongols
in 1241, Vatatzes, having no cause of anxiety from that quarter, forgot
his promise.
Nevertheless with laudable constancy the Popes, who had abandoned
the task of supporting effectively the Latin Empire, continued to follow
up the religious union with Nicaea. At the Council of Lyons in 1245
Innocent IV reckoned the Greek schism among the five wounds from
which the Church was suffering. In 1249 he sent to Vatatzes John of
Parma, General of the Franciscans, in order to dissuade him from the
alliance with Frederick II, and to gain him over to the union. Confer-
ences followed, but in 1250 Frederick II captured in Southern Italy the
ambassadors whom Vatatzes was sending to the Pope. They remained in
prison until his death (December 1250). Set free by Manfred, they were
able to rejoin the Pope at Perugia in November 1251, but the negotia-
tions came to nothing, and Vatatzes renewed his attacks upon the Latin
Empire.
It was Vatatzes who resumed the pourparlers in 1254. His ambas-
sadors, the Archbishops of Cyzicus and Sardis, were detained like their
predecessors in the kingdom of Sicily, but ended by joining Inno-
cent IV at Rome, and accompanied him to Anagni and then to Assisi.
Vatatzes demanded the abandonment of Constantinople, the re-establish-
ment of the Greek Patriarch, and the withdrawal of the Latin clergy.
In return he undertook to recognise the primacy of the Pope, to replace
his name in the diptychs, to obey his decisions in so far as they conformed
to the Councils, and to admit his jurisdiction and his right to assemble
councils. He even admitted that the Greek clergy should take an oath
of canonical obedience to the Papacy. Never had the Greeks up to
that time made such liberal concessions, and the matter might perhaps
have been settled but for the simultaneous deaths of Innocent IV and
John Vatatzes (1254).
1 Mansi, Concilia, xxIII. Pp. 47–55.
2 Ed. Norden in Papsttum und Byzanz, p. 751.
3 Ib. pp. 362-366.
4 Ib. pp. 367–378.
## p. 609 (#651) ############################################
Policy of Michael Palaeologus
609
The conversations were resumed, however, in 1256 between Theo-
dore II Lascaris and Alexander IV. The Pope sent to Nicaea Orbevieto,
Bishop of Civitavecchia ; he had instructions to arrange for the as-
sembling of a council, and to ask that Greek clerics should be sent to
Rome, but after the interview which he had with Theodore at Thessa-
lonica the preliminaries were broken off.
The plan of the Pope had failed, and he had not been able to use for
the union the valuable pledge of Constantinople. The Greeks re-entered
that city in 1261 without ceasing to be schismatics. The Pope, Urban IV,
contemplated at first preparations for a crusade against Michael Palaeo-
logus, but to carry that out he would have been forced to tolerate the
alliance of Manfred, whose idea was to restore the Latin Empire for his
own advantage. On his side, Michael Palaeologus, having tried in vain to
treat with Manfred, had no resource left but to turn to the Pope. It was
thus a common hostility against Manfred which decided them to take up
the question of the union.
Michael Palaeologus, one of the most practical minds of the thirteenth
century and as subtle a diplomat as the Byzantine world ever produced,
regarded the union merely as an instrument which would enable him at
the same time to gain all the Latin States and hinder the promotion of
a new crusade against Constantinople. This is the key to the fluctuating
character of his diplomacy. The whole time he was negotiating with the
Pope he was continually fighting the Latins, and his zeal for the union
varied with his successes and his reverses.
In 1262 Michael sent to Urban IV an embassy which put the question
unequivocal terms. Let the Pope recognise Michael Palaeologus as
legitimate sovereign of Constantinople, and the religious union would be
easy. Urban answered that he would consent to that, if Michael refrained
from attacking the Latin possessions. But at the beginning of 1263
Michael, finding the occasion favourable, attacked the Venetian
posses-
sions with the aid of the Genoese fleet. The Pope immediately ordered a
crusade against him to be preached and then, in consequence of the ill-
success of his appeal, picked up the broken threads of the negotiations.
He wrote a conciliatory letter to Michael (28 July 1263), and sent him four
Franciscan friars, but these delayed on their route to negotiate at Venice,
in Epirus, and in Achaia.
It was only in the spring of 1264, at the moment when the dis-
couraged Pope was preaching the crusade against him, that Michael
Palaeologus, whose army had suffered a check in Messenia, once more
contemplated the union. The letter which he addressed to Urban IV
contains a formal promise of union and of participation in the crusade.
The Pope in his answer (June 1264) could not disguise his joy, and he
announced the despatch of legates to Constantinople.
But Urban IV died (close of 1264), and at the outset of his pontificate
Papadopoulos, Theodore II Lascaris, p. 101.
in
1
C. MED. H. VOL. IV. CH. XIX.
39
## p. 610 (#652) ############################################
610
Schemes of Charles of Anjou
Clement IV, occupied with the struggle against Manfred, ignored Con-
stantinople. It was probably in 1266 that new embassies were exchanged",
but at that moment the victory of Charles of Anjou over Manfred at
Benevento (February 1266) was a factor which modified and complicated
the question. Charles of Anjou, titular defender of the Holy See, lord of
the kingdom of Sicily, soon revived the plans of his Ghibelline predecessors
against Constantinople. On 27 May 1267, by the treaty of Viterbo,
Baldwin II surrendered to Charles of Anjou his rights over the Latin
Empire, and the King of Sicily made immediate preparations to start his
expedition.
But Clement IV, while seeming to approve them, distrusted the plans
of Charles of Anjou, and continued to treat with Michael Palaeologus,
who, disturbed by the menaces of the King of Sicily, had sent him
another embassy, imploring him to prevent the war between the Greeks
and Latins (1267). A characteristic detail, which shews how pressing
the danger seemed, is that even the Patriarch wrote to the Pope pro-
posing the union to him. The Pope welcomed these overtures, but,
deeming himself master of the situation, insisted in his answer upon a
complete submission of the Greek Church without any discussion, under-
taking in return to prevent the war. Michael, whose fears were increasing,
replied that he could not accept these terms of union without rousing
against himself all the Greeks. To testify his goodwill, he actually offered
to take part in the coming crusade. The Pope in his answer (17 May
1267) maintained his uncompromising attitude, and refused to give any
assurance to the Emperor until the union was accomplished. On 27 May
following Clement IV gave his approbation to the Treaty of Viterbo, a
clear proof that he counted upon the threat of Charles of Anjou to render
the Greeks more tractable.
Clement IV, however, died on 28 November 1268, and in consequence
of divisions among the cardinals the papal throne was vacant for three
years. Charles of Anjou wished to profit by this circumstance to realise
his plans, but, in the absence of a Pope, it was to the King of France,
St Louis, that Michael Palaeologus turned in order to avert the
danger. He sent two embassies to France (1269) with proposals for
religious union. St Louis referred the matter to the college of car-
dinals, who returned to Michael Palaeologus the ultimatum imposed by
Clement IV in 1267. The Emperor had at least attained his object, for
Charles by joining his brother St Louis in the crusade of Tunis (1270)
was obliged to postpone his attack upon Constantinople? .
Immediately after the death of St Louis (25 August 1270), however,
Charles of Anjou resumed his offensive against the Greek Empire both
by diplomacy and by force of arms. It was evident that nothing but the
1 According to the conjecture of W. Norden, op. cit. p. 444,
2 L. Brebier, L'Église et l'Orient, p. 237.
## p. 611 (#653) ############################################
Gregory X and Michael Palaeologus
611
conclusion of the union would succeed in stopping him. The cause of
the union, so much desired by Michael Palaeologus, found a champion in
the person of the new Pope, Tedaldo Visconti, elected under the name of
Gregory X (September 1271), who was in the Holy Land when he heard of
his exaltation. Gregory X, like Innocent III before him, saw in the union
the essential condition of success of the crusades. He could not therefore
be anything but hostile to the ambitious projects of Charles of Anjou,
and as soon as he assumed the tiara he opened relations with Michael
Palaeologus.
A series of embassies was exchanged in 1272 and 1273 between
Rome and Constantinople. One of the most active emissaries between
the two courts seems to have been a Franciscan friar of Greek origin,
John Parastron, who could speak both Greek and Latin. During these
negotiations Charles of Anjou was hurrying on his preparations, and
sent an army to the Morea (May 1273). Michael Palaeologus on his side
continued to attack the Latin states.
In spite of these unfavourable circumstances, the Pope and the Emperor
had such interests in the union that they ended by achieving their pur-
pose.
The embassy sent by the Pope to Constantinople in 1272 announced
the assembling of an Ecumenical Council at Lyons for May 1274.
Michael Palaeologus then set on foot among the Greek clergy a very
clever campaign of propaganda, by emphasising the incalculable benefits
which the union would procure for the Empire at the cost of trifling or
purely platonic concessions, such as the recognition of the primacy of the
Pope and his commemoration on the diptychs. He met with an obstinate
opposition headed by the Patriarch Joseph, but he was resolved to have
his own way.
In May 1273 Michael sent a new embassy to Rome. Without dis-
guising the difficulties with which he met from the Greek clergy, he de-
clared that the union would shortly be consummated, and he asked the
Pope for safe-conducts for the Greek ambassadors who would be sent to
the Council. Gregory X immediately took measures to insure the safety
of this embassy, and in November 1273 he called on Charles of Anjou to
enter into a solemn undertaking on the point.
The King of Sicily, who saw
himself threatened by a possible rising of the Ghibellines in Italy, complied,
sorely against his will, and gave the necessary instructions to his agents.
Michael Palaeologus, meanwhile, had not been inactive at Constanti-
nople, and had continued his propaganda among the clergy. A decisive
success for him was the conversion of the chartophylax John Beccus to
the cause of the union; this example helped to win over several bishops.
The most obstinate were sent into exile or imprisoned. Finally, on the
assurance that not an iota would be changed in the Creed, the clergy
drew up an act by which they agreed to the primacy of the Pope, his
mention on the diptychs, and appeals to Rome. The Patriarch Joseph
alone remained obdurate. This act was intended to be handed to the
CA. XIX.
3942
## p. 612 (#654) ############################################
612
The Council of Lyons
Pope simultaneously with a letter from the Emperor which recognised
the Roman doctrines in a much more explicit manner.
Gregory X had opened the Ecumenical Council in the cathedral of
Lyons on 7 May 1274. On 24 June following, Germanus, ex-Patriarch of
Constantinople, the Archbishop of Nicaea, and the Grand Logothete were
received there with great ceremony, and put the letters of the Emperor
and the Greek people into the hands of the Pope. On 6 July the Pope
read out these letters and, in the name of the Emperor, the Grand Logo-
thete repudiated the schism ; the Pope then chanted a Te Deum. The
union was achieved, and the ex-Patriarch handed to the Pope letters from
the Serbian and Bulgarian clergy who formally recognised it.
Thus, according to the plan which had been drawn up by Clement IV,
the union had been accomplished without discussion or controversies.
The Greek Church had submitted voluntarily, at least in appearance. A
new era of peace seemed to dawn for Christendom, but its duration was
destined to be brief.
The first tangible result of the union for Michael Palaeologus was the
conclusion of a truce with Charles of Anjou, through the mediation of
the Abbot of Monte-Cassino delegated by the Pope (1 May 1275).
Gregory X had kept his promise. Would Michael Palaeologus be able
to keep all of his?
There is evidence that from the very first he continued in 1275 his
attacks on the Latin states of Greece. Was he at least going to make
a reality of the religious union? On 16 January, the day of the festival
of St Peter, he had a solemn service held in the chapel of the imperial
palace, and commemorated the name of the Pope. On 25 May following,
the Patriarch Joseph, obdurate as ever, was replaced by John Beccus,
head of the union-party. But the public ceremony, by which the deci-
sions of the Council of Lyons should have been notified to the people,
was continually postponed. In the family of the Emperor his sister
Eulogia was at the head of the opponents of Rome. Michael, notwith-
standing, continued to make a shew of burning zeal to the Pope, and on
10 January 1276 he announced to Gregory X his intention of taking
part in the much talked-of crusade.
Even in Rome the conditions were becoming less favourable to the
union. After the death of Gregory X three Popes of the Angevin party
followed within a few months of each other. An ultimatum prepared
by Innocent V was sent to Michael Palaeologus by John XXI (1277).
The Emperor was to swear to the union personally, and to obtain an oath
from the Greek clergy, who were to pledge themselves also to teach nothing
contrary to the Roman doctrines. The Emperor consented to take the
required oath, but the mass of the Greek clergy refused, in spite of ex-
communications from John Beccus. At the same moment the Despot of
Epirus, John the Bastard, held an anti-unionist council, which excom-
municated the Emperor, the Patriarch, and the Pope.
## p. 613 (#655) ############################################
Breach of the Union
613
John Gaetano Orsini, elected Pope in 1278 under the name of
Nicholas III, was, unlike John XXI, an opponent of the Angevins, and
he rendered a conspicuous service to Michael Palaeologus when he forbade
Charles of Anjou to attack Constantinople. On the question of the
union, however, he was more peremptory than his predecessors. The
papal nuncios, whom he sent to Michael Palaeologus in October 1278,
notified a new ultimatum to him. The Emperor was called upon to send
a fresh statement of his adherence to the confession of Lyons, to compel
the Patriarch and the clergy also to swear adherence to it, to accept the
permanent residence of a papal legate at Constantinople, to introduce
the Filioque into the Creed, to renounce all uses which the Pope might
deem contrary to the faith, and to excommunicate the enemies of the
union.
A fresh breach was imminent, and yet Michael Palaeologus struggled
to the end to uphold the union. A synod was convened to receive the
proposals of the nuncios, and drew up a reply, the exact wording of which
is not known, but which appears, without running counter to the Pope's
wishes, to have consisted mainly of vague promises. Nevertheless, in order
to satisfy the Pope, John Beccus introduced the Filioque into the Creed,
but by doing so he only supplied new grievances to the opposite party,
many of whom were imprisoned by the Emperor.
Nicholas III was succeeded, however, on 22 February 1281 by a Pope
of the Angevin party, Martin IV. Charles of Anjou had already sent
troops to Epirus, and, with the support of the Pope, was preparing a
decisive attack on the Greek Empire. It is not therefore astonishing
that the Pope did not receive favourably the embassies which Michael
Palaeologus had sent him. So much so that on 18 November 1281 he
excommunicated Michael Palaeologus, and threatened to pronounce his
deposition if he did not submit before 1 May 1282. Some months pre-
viously the Pope had entered into the coalition formed by Venice and
Charles of Anjou against - Michael (July 1281). The departure of the
Crusade was fixed for the month of April 1283. The days of the Byzan-
tine Empire seemed numbered, when the tragedy of the Sicilian Vespers
(30 March 1282) wrecked the schemes of the coalition. When Michael
Palaeologus died (11 December 1282) he had shaken off the nightmare of
Angevin invasion, but the religious union to which he had devoted all
his energies was definitely broken.
With the power of Charles of Anjou disappeared the principal poli-
tical reason which could justify this union in the eyes of the Greeks. The
new Emperor, Andronicus II, had no anxieties on the Western frontier.
It is not therefore surprising that his reign was marked by a violent
reaction against the policy of union. All the clergy condemned by
Michael Palaeologus were considered martyrs of Orthodoxy, and were
released from their prisons. The Patriarch John Beccus was deposed,
exiled to Prusa, and then brought before a synod. A reign of terror
CH. XIX.
## p. 614 (#656) ############################################
614
Policy of Andronicus II
prevailed at Constantinople, and the unionist clergy knew in their turn
the pains of exile and imprisonment. Even the memory of the late Em-
peror was condemned. This outburst of fanaticism shews the intense
unpopularity of the union at Constantinople. Henceforward the monks
dominated the Greek Church, and from this epoch onwards the higher
ranks of the clergy were almost exclusively recruited from among them. It
was the monks then who fanned the flame of popular hatred against the
Westerners. Forced into an attitude of sullen nationalism, they shewed
that they preferred the ruin of the Empire to union with Rome.
The check to the union and the attitude of Andronicus II explain
why the Crusade against Constantinople was still the order of the day in
the West, but there was no prince now in those parts capable of renewing
the attempt of Charles of Anjou. Charles of Valois in 1307–1308 and
Philip of Taranto (1312–1325), both heirs by marriage of claimants
to the Latin Empire, tried in turn, but without success, to invade
Greece. The danger to the Empire that was destined to revive the
proposals of union lay in a different quarter.
It may be said that it was during the long and disastrous reign of
Andronicus II (1282–1332) that the fate of Byzantium was sealed.
Religious disputes, ravages by the Catalan Company, Turkish invasions
of Asia Minor, civil war, all these calamities burst almost at once over
the Empire. Andronicus by his incompetence and invertebrate policy
destroyed the fabric reared by his father. It is not then surprising that
he could not maintain to the end the uncompromising attitude which he
had adopted towards the Latins.
In 1323, learning that a French fleet in the service of the Pope, com-
manded by Amaury de Narbonne, was on the point of setting sail for
Constantinople, he sent to the West the Genoese Bishop of Kaffa to pro-
pose a new union. Soon after, in 1326, he commissioned another Genoese
to bear a letter on the same subject to the King of France, Charles the
Fair. The king sent to Constantinople the Dominican Benedict of Como,
but the negotiations were kept secret, and Andronicus was compelled to
adinit to the ambassador how difficult it would be to propose a new union
to the Greeks'.
Meantime the Ottoman State, which had been allowed to form owing
to the weakness of Andronicus II, was becoming more and more a menace
to Constantinople. In 1334 Andronicus III became anxious, and sent over-
tures of union to Pope John XXII by two Dominicans who were returning
from the Tartars. The Pope gave them a favourable hearing and sent
them back to Constantinople, but they were unable to discuss the matter
publicly with the Greek clergy as they demanded.
In 1335, as a proof of his good will, Andronicus III consented to take
part in the Crusade organised by Benedict XII under the leadership of the
i Paris, Archives Nationales; Trésor des Chartes. See Omont, Bibliothèque de
ľ École des Chartes, 1892, p. 254.
## p. 615 (#657) ############################################
Clement VI and union
615
ביי
King of France. Finally in 1339 the Emperor sent secretly to Avignon
the Venetian Stephen Dandolo, and one of the most celebrated humanists
of Constantinople, the Calabrian monk Barlaam, Abbot of the Soter.
But these emissaries had not even official letters accrediting them to the
Pope. They had the difficult mission of inducing Benedict XII to pro-
inise the despatch of prompt aid to the East. It was only subsequently
that there could be any question of union. Barlaam pleaded his case
eloquently. “That which separates the Greeks from you,” he said, not
without justification, “is not so much the difference of dogmas as the
hatred they feel against the Latins, provoked by the wrongs which they
on their side have suffered. It will be necessary to confer some great
benefit upon them to change this feeling. " He added that the union
could not be effected by force; only a General Council could establish it,
and if the Greeks had not recognised the Council of Lyons it was because
the Greek emissaries had been appointed by the Emperor and not by the
Patriarchs of the East? . Barlaam had thus outlined the programme of
the future council which was intended to effect the union, but this idea
was so far premature, and the Pope offered an invincible opposition to
every argument. The despatch of Western help must in his view be
conditional on the recognition by the Greeks of the Council of Lyons.
The whole matter went no further than the exchange of fine promises.
There existed, however, at Constantinople a party favourable to the
union, which centred round the Empress Anne of Savoy and the nobles
of her country whom she had brought to Constantinople in 1326'.
Having become regent in the name of her son John V Palaeologus after
the death of Andronicus III in 1341, Anne of Savoy sent to Pope
Clement VI in the autumn of 1343 a gentleman of Savoy, Philip de
Saint-Germain, bearing instructions from the regent and the Grand Duke
Alexius Apocaucus. He was commissioned to express to the Pope the
attachment of the regent and of her son John V to the Roman Church,
and to pray for the despatch of a fleet and an army to defend Constan-
tinople against the attacks of the Turks, as well as against those of their
ally John Cantacuzene, who had proclaimed himself Emperor“.
Clement VI was extremely favourable to the union. In 1343 he was
occupied in organising with the help of Venice the naval league which
ended in the recapture of Smyrna from the Turks (1344). He wrote to
the Latin Patriarch Henry, who resided at Negropont, to the Dominicans
of Pera, and to the Venetian and Genoese colonies of Constantinople, to
invite them to exert all their efforts towards preparing the union. In
spite of his friendly inclinations, the Pope held the same point of view as
1 Gay, Le pape Clément VI et les affaires d'Orient, pp. 49–50.
? Ib. p. 115.
3 Ib. p. 46.
4 Ib. p. 47. These instructions are known from the answers of Clement VI
(21 and 23 Oct. 1342) and from Johu Cantacuzenus, III. 87, CSHB, p. 359.
CH. XIX.
## p. 616 (#658) ############################################
616
John VI Cantacuzene
his predecessors; the despatch of assistance must be conditional on the
abjuration of the schism.
At the time of the ill-starred Crusade of the Archipelago in 1346,
the heir to the Dauphiné, Humbert, treated with the regent, and the
question between them was the union of the Churches, but nothing
occurred beyond conversations, and the occupation of the island of Chios
by the Genoese only exacerbated the Greeks.
Meanwhile Western politicians regarded the union as more and more
desirable. When the prince Humbert, a disillusioned man, entered
the Dominican order, he founded scholarships at the University of
Paris, and reserved many of them for students belonging by birth to
“Greece and the Holy Land," whom he destined to teach Greek in the
convents of the Dominicans (1349)'. But these good intentions were
powerless before the hatred which divided the Greeks from the Western
nations. There were incessant conflicts in the countries still occupied by
the Latins. In 1364 the Greeks of Candia rose against the Venetians,
who wished to impose the Latin ritual on them, and terrible massacres
ensued? The anecdotes related at the same epoch by Petrarch to Urban
V leave no doubt about the feeling of the people towards the Latins.
Sometimes they riotously interrupted the Latin services, sometimes they
fumigated the churches frequented by the Latins, and lost no oppor-
tunity of treating them as dogs, “when they could do so with im-
punity. ";
John Cantacuzene, now master of Constantinople (February 1347),
sought to dissipate the justifiable distrust which his alliance with the
Turks had roused against him. Unlike his predecessors, he sent to the
Pope an official embassy to persuade him that, far from favouring the
Turks, he was prepared to fight them, and also to ask that the leader of
the coming crusade might act in concert with him. Clement VI, who
was by no means friendly towards Cantacuzene, gave a vague answer and
promised to send him an embassy, but three years elapsed before he
despatched to Constantinople two Dominicans, one a bishop in Venetia,
the other in Crete, with instructions to negotiate the religious union“.
John VI replied to these overtures by testifying his zeal for the
union, at the same time declaring that only a truly Ecumenical Council
could render it possible. The Pope, on his side, informed him that he
was favourable to holding a council, but that the existing state of Chris-
tendom made it impossible to assemble it”. Relations, however, still
continued between him and the Emperor, but nothing came of them.
p. 79.
1 Gay, op. cit.
2 Gibbons, The Foundation of the Ottoman Empire, p. 132. Gregoras, xxv. 17,
CSHB, p. 41.
3 Petrarch, Senilia, 7 (Gibbons, op. cit. p. 133).
+ Gay, op. cit. pp. 102–109.
6 Gay, op. cit. pp. 110–118. Cantacuzenus, 1v. 9, CSHB, pp. 59–60.
## p. 617 (#659) ############################################
John V Palaeologus
617
Under cover of the civil war between John Cantacuzene and John
Palaeologus, the Ottomans had gained a footing in Europe by the capture
of Gallipoli (1354), and had lost no time in overrunning Thrace. John V,
who held power after the abdication of Cantacuzene (1355), saw no
hope of safety except in complete submission to the Pope. In 1356 he
sent two ambassadors to Avignon with a document in which he pledged
himself to recognise the Pope as head of the Church, to obtain like
recognition from his subjects, to receive the pontifical legates with all
respect, and to send his son Manuel to Rome as a hostage. In return
he claimed prompt aid for Constantinople, of which the Pope would
bear the cost for six months. During that period a legate could go to
Constantinople, and collate whom he wished to ecclesiastical benefices.
As a clearer proof of his zeal the Emperor proposed to found at Con-
stantinople colleges where Latin would be taught, and he recognised the
right of the Pope to declare the throne vacant if he failed to execute his
promises.
Innocent replied to the Emperor by a gushing letter, writing also to
the Patriarch Callistus and the principal bishops, and sent two nuncios
to Constantinople. But, when the question of collecting the required
fleet was broached, the Pope could not obtain anything from the Latin
powers: neither Venice, nor Genoa, nor the King of Cyprus, nor even
the Knights of Rhodes, consented to the slightest sacrifice.
Meantime the position of the Ottomans in the Balkan peninsula
grew stronger day by day. In 1363 Murād compelled John V to sign
a treaty, tantamount to vassalage, which prevented him froin lending his
help to the effort made by the Hungarians and the Serbs, in response
to
the Pope's demand, to recapture Hadrianople. In 1366 Murād actually
took up his residence at Hadrianople, the first step towards the blockade
of Constantinople. At this crisis John V made fresh appeals to the Pope
for help, and, while Urban V preached the crusade, he himself paid a visit
to the King of Hungary towards the close of 1365, in order to remove
the scruples which the king felt in lending his help to schismatics, and to
affirm by oath the intention of himself and all his family to embrace the
Roman faith.
The Crusade, led by Amadeus VI, Count of Savoy, cousin of the
Emperor, succeeded in recovering Gallipoli from the Turks and in
rescuing John V, whose return to Constantinople was in danger of being
cut off by the Bulgarians. The Archbishop of Smyrna and the Latin
Patriarch of Constantinople actually embarked on the fleet of Amadeus VI,
which was returning to the West, with orders to announce to Urban V
that the Emperor would come and abjure the schism before him in
person (1367). Urban V lost no time in writing to the three sons of
the Emperor, to the Empress Helena, to John Cantacuzene (who had
retired to a convent), to the Patriarch Philotheus, to the people and
clergy of Constantinople, to exhort them to favour the union.
CH. XIX.
## p. 618 (#660) ############################################
618
Manuel Palaeologus in the West
On 18 October 1369 John V, received at Rome with the greatest cere-
mony, presented his profession of faith to the cardinals. On 21 October
he solemnly abjured the schism before the Pope on the steps of the basilica
of St Peter. But this was only a personal abjuration, and was not
binding on the Greeks. Thus the voyage of John V to Italy failed to
produce the results anticipated from it. His conduct at Venice ended
in his being thrown into prison for debt, and, when after this humiliation
he passed once more through Rome in 1370, he could not obtain from
the Pope the smallest subsidy.
It was in vain that in 1373 his ambassadors scoured Europe and
actually reached France, where Charles V made them vague promises. In
vain Pope Gregory XI, fully aware of the danger which the Ottomans were
threatening to Europe, wrote urgent letter after letter to the crowned
heads, to Louis, King of Hungary (1372 and 1375), to Edward III, King
of England (1375). The sovereigns and their knights assumed the cross
with stately pomp, for it was a time of splendid festivals and eloquent
speeches; but no profitable results followed. John V, abandoned by all,
had ended in 1373 by acknowledging himself the vassal of Murād and
handing over to him his son Manuel as hostage.
Manuel, who became Emperor in 1391, renewed the same pressing
appeals by embassies to the Western sovereigns. This time the King of
Hungary, Sigismund, directly threatened by the Turks, backed up the
Byzantine demands, and Pope Boniface preached the Crusade which
terminated in the disaster of Nicopolis (1396), although its object had
been the deliverance of Constantinople. In 1397 Manuel sent his uncle
Theodore Cantacuzene to Paris. The King Charles VI refused per-
mission to his brother the Duke of Orleans to start for the East, but
he promised 600 men-at-arms, who were placed under the orders of
Marshal Boucicaut, and succeeded in clearing the immediate approaches
to Constantinople and breaking the blockade.
At the advice of Boucicaut himself, Manuel adopted the policy of
visiting the West personally in order to plead more effectually the cause of
Constantinople. He set out on 10 December 1399, passed through Venice,
Padua, and Milan, made another solemn entry into Paris on 3 June 1400,
landed in England, was received in London on 21 December by Henry
IV, returned to France in February 1401, and remained in Paris until
November 1402. After a stay at Genoa, he went to take ship at Venice
(April 1403), and on 15 June following he was back in Constantinople? .
The Emperor had found everywhere a courteous and splendid
welcome. At Paris and at London, in particular, he and his suite owed
much to their being objects of public curiosity. He was overwhelmed
with banquets; the most complimentary speeches and the fairest promises
were lavished on him. During his stay in Paris he even had a con-
troversy on the Procession of the Holy Ghost with a doctor of the
1 Collected texts by Lambros, Neoshellenomnemon, XIII. pp. 132–133.
## p. 619 (#661) ############################################
The Battle of Angora, 1402
619
Sorbonne, but this was only a showy passage of arms without any results.
