No More Learning

3 W. Norden, Das Papsttum und Byzanz, pp. 67-74.
4 d’Achery, Spicilegium, 1. 161. Dräseke, Bischof Anselm von Havelberg (Zeitschrift
für Kirchengesch. xxxi. 179).
و


## p. 601 (#643) ############################################

Manuel Comnenus and the Union
601
to gain the East? . The crusaders reached Constantinople by the Danube
route, but while Louis VII was actually the guest of Manuel Comnenus
the Bishop of Langres advised him to open the Crusade by seizing Con-
stantinople? . Such a proposal had no chance of being entertained by a
King of France, but Roger II returned to the attack when he had an inter-
view with Louis VII at Potenza on his return from the Crusade. The king,
passing through Italy, communicated the project to Pope Eugenius III
at Tivoli, but the Pope, who feared the ambition of the King of Sicily, did
not welcome the idea? . Nevertheless, the plan of Roger was approved by
highly qualified religious personalities, by Peter the Venerable, Abbot of
Cluny, by St Bernard, and above all by Suger, Abbot of St Denis, who in
his correspondence with the Pope saw in it the most effective means of
consummating the union between the Churches. The plan of a crusade
against Constantinople was definitely given to the world.
This danger being temporarily averted, Manuel Comnenus tried to
utilise the political rivalries which divided the West to revive the
grandiose project of Alexius Comnenus of bartering the religious union
for the imperial crown at St Peter's in Rome.
From the very first it was the common hostility of Pope Hadrian IV
and the Basileus against William I, King of Sicily, which furnished a basis
of negotiations. An alliance was concluded between them at Bari in
1155. This partook of a military character, and the Pope was pledged to
raise troops to help the Greek generals to conquer Apulia. But the
religious union was not forgotten, and Hadrian IV sent to Constantinople
two pontifical notaries to work there. The correspondence which he ex-
changed on this subject with Basil, Archbishop of Ochrida, shews us how
far more difficult the religious agreement was than the political alliance.
When the Pope compared the Greek Church to the lost piece of silver
or the lost sheep of the Gospel, Basil replied somewhat sharply that
the Roman Church, which had herself made an addition to the Creed,
was not entitled to accuse the Greeks of having wandered from the
fold 4.
Circumstances seemed more propitious when in 1159 Alexander III
sent an embassy to Manuel, asking his alliance against Frederick Barba-
rossa”. The struggle between the Pope and the Germanic Empire began
afresh with Italy as the stake, but Manuel seemed to hesitate, when in
1161 he received letters from the King of France, Louis VII, and the
pontifical legate in France, William of Pavia, which urged him to recog-
nise Alexander III and proposed an alliance. The legate, after censuring
1 Odo of Deuil, MGH, Script. xxvi. 66.
2 Ib. xxvi. 66.
3 Chalandon, Jean II et Manuel Comnène, pp. 331-337.
4 Mansi, Concilia, xxxi. 799. Chalandon, op. cit. pp. 358-360. W. Norden,
op. cit. p. 95. Schmidt, Des Basilius aus Achrida bisher unedierte Dialoge.
5 Chalandon, op. cit. p. 558. Liber Pontificalis, ed. Duchesne, 11. p. 403.
CH. XIX.


## p. 602 (#644) ############################################

602
Failure of Manuel's policy
the conduct of the Germanic Emperors, recalled the prosperous times
which the Church had known when there was but one Empire in the
world. The allusion was clear? .
Manuel seems to have been favourably disposed towards this idea. On
25 December 1161 he writes to Louis VII that he recognises Alexander III
as lawful Pope, and asks the king to send an embassy to Constanti-
nople. He himself sent in 1163 to France three ambassadors’, whose
mission was to communicate a matter of extreme importance, not to
be divulged except in the joint presence of the Pope and the king
at the same conference? But this preliminary condition could not be
carried out, and it would appear from the correspondence exchanged on
the matter that it was the hesitation of Louis VII which destroyed the
formal conclusion of an alliance. After having seen the king, the ambassa-
dors waited a long time at Saint-Gilles for instructions which never came.
It was January 1164 before they once more reached Constantinople.
This want of success did not deter Manuel, who now adopted the
policy of addressing himself directly to the Pope, and proposed in 1166
the reunion of the Churches in exchange for the imperial crown of the
West. The Pope cordially welcomed these overtures and sent to Con-
stantinople Ubaldo, Cardinal-Bishop of Ostia, and Cardinal John”. Dis-
cussions were held at Constantinople between these legates and the
members of the Greek clergy, but they led to nothing. According to
Cinnamus? , the Pope required Manuel to transfer his residence to Rome,
and that was the cause of the discontinuance of the negotiations.
In 1170 Manuel made a final attempt with Alexander III, but the
favourable moment had passed. The formation of the Lombard League
had improved the position of the Pope, who only returned an evasive
answer to these overtures, but sent, however, two legates to Constanti-
nople. The relations between the Pope and the Basileus were excellent
right up to the last. In 1175 Manuel announced to Alexander III the
victory which he had just won over the Turks at Dorylaeum, and invited
him to accelerate the departure of the Western crusaders to fight the
Turks. The Pope gave instructions to this effect to the legate whom he
had sent to France. But notwithstanding sincerely good intentions the
Pope and the Emperor had been powerless to triumph over the obstacles
which militated against their agreement. The very curious dialogue
between the Emperor Manuel and the Patriarch Michael Anchialus
1 Recueil des Historiens des Gaules, xv. 55 and 772.
2 Ib. xvi. 81.
3 Ib. xv. 803-807.
4 16. xvi. 56, 57. Chalandon, op. cit. pp. 560-562.
6 Liber Pontificalis, ed. Duchesne, 11. p. 415.
• Chalandon, op. cit. p. 565. Hergenroether, Photius, III. p. 810.
7 Cinnamus, vi. 4 (CSHB, p. 262).
8 Liber Pontificalis, ed. Duchesne, 11. pp. 419-420.
9 Osberti Annales, MGH, Script. xvin. 86. Chalandon, op. cit. p. 567.


## p. 603 (#645) ############################################

Rupture between Byzantium and the West
603
shews unmistakably that the Greek clergy clung to all their distrust of
Rome? On the other hand, the incessant interference of the Comneni
in the doctrinal and disciplinary matters of the Greek Church proves that
the Basileus would never consent to resign the religious authority which
had been transmitted to him from his predecessors? .
The death of Manuel Comnenus in 1180 was followed by a violent
reaction against his Western policy and against the Latins. Andronicus
Comnenus, the usurper of the throne, consolidated his power by letting
popular hatred work its worst on the Western colonies in Constanti-
nople. The massacre of the Latins in 1182 was an unpardonable act
which led to the reprisals of 1204. From this moment it was open
warfare between the West and Byzantium, and act upon act of hostility
followed. Now it was the aggression of William II, King of Sicily, in
1189, and the sack of Thessalonica ; now the alliance of Isaac Angelus
with Saladin in 1189; now the hostility which he evinced to Frederick
Barbarossa in 1190; now the occupation of the island of Cyprus in 1191
by Richard Coeur-de-Lion. Above all, there were the preparations of
Henry VI, heir to the Norman Kings of Sicily, to have done once and
for all with the Byzantine Empire: a fleet had already been assembled
at Messina, and, in spite of the Pope, the Emperor was on the point of
embarking for Constantinople when he died prematurely (28 September
1198).
All these acts intensified bitterness. At the very time when Barba-
rossa's Crusade was passing through, the Greeks openly treated the Latins
as heretics, and the Patriarch in a sermon preached at St Sophia promised
indulgences to every Greek who killed a hundred crusaders. The crusade
against Constantinople seemed therefore inevitable, and would have taken
place sooner had not the death of Henry VI produced a lull which the
new Pope, Innocent III, tried to utilise on behalf of the union.
Ever since his accession, in fact, Innocent III had been busy in
organising a crusade, and to his mind the realisation of religious
union with Constantinople was the postulate of its success. The first
step towards agreement was taken by Alexius III, who found he had the
same enemy as the Pope in the person of Philip of Swabia, brother of
Henry VI and son-in-law of the deposed Emperor Isaac Angelus. He
openly proposed to the Pope an alliance against the Hohenstaufen, but
Innocent III in his answer brought the question on to the religious plane
by intimating to the Emperor that, if he wanted to end the complaints
of the Western peoples against him, he ought to lead a crusade to the
Holy Land, and work for the union of the Churches. A letter on the
1 Ed. Loparev, VV. , xiv. p. 344.
2 Oeconomos, La vie religieuse dans l'empire byzantin au temps des Comnènes et
des Anges.
3 Letter of Frederick Barbarossa to King Henry, ed. W. Norden, op. cit. p. 120;
Ansbert, Historia de expeditione (Fontes rerum Austriacarum Scriptores, v. 32).
CH. XIX.


## p. 604 (#646) ############################################

604
The Fourth Crusade
necessity of re-establishing the unity of the Church was at the same time
addressed to the Patriarch? For more than a year this correspondence
was kept up without any result, and in a style which shewed little diplo-
macy, for the two principals refused to make the slightest concession in
fundamentals.
The Pope, while negotiating with Alexius III, was all the time order-
ing the Crusade to be preached; but the expedition was organised inde-
pendently of him, and the barons who took the cross were content with
asking him to ratify the measures which they adopted. The Pope took
no share in the conclusion of the treaty with Venice for free passage
(March 1201), nor in the election of Boniface of Montferrat as leader
of the Crusade (May 1201). The prince Alexius, son of Isaac Angelus,
escaping from his prison, lost little time in coming, first of all, to ask
Innocent III to support the restoration of his father, and to undertake
the promotion of the religious union; but he next went to Germany to
his brother-in-law Philip of Swabia, and it was then probably that,
without the cognisance of Innocent III, Philip of Swabia and Boniface
of Montferrat decided at the interview at Haguenau (25 December 1201)
to divert the Crusade to Constantinople. Boniface of Montferrat, on
presenting himself at Rome in May 1202 to propose to Innocent III
the restoration of Isaac Angelus with the support of the crusaders,
encountered a categorical refusal.
The barons thereupon acted contrary to the wish of the Pope, and
the crisis was precipitated. There was, first of all, the diversion to Zara,
to which the crusaders consented on the plea of paying their debt to the
Venetians. Then, on the Pope's refusal to excuse the capture of Zara,
it was determined to confront him with the accomplished fact. 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.