Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-12T23:49:40.476Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Michael VIII Palaeologus and the Union of Lyons (1274)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 August 2011

Deno Geanakoplos
Deno Geanakoplos
Affiliation:
Harvard University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Union of Lyons between the Greek and Latin churches was largely the result of the political aims of the Byzantine Emperor Michael VIII Palaeologus. It was he who initiated the negotiations and who almost single-handedly attempted to force the union upon his Empire. He was convinced, as both Greek and Western historians repeatedly observe, that union was the one effective means to avert the menace of an expedition against Constantinople by the powerful coalition of Charles of Anjou, then King of Sicily. Recently recovered from the Latins by Palaeologus, Constantinople was still relatively weak, and it was mainly the Emperor's flexible diplomacy that had hitherto been able to maintain it against the Latins. To Palaeologus' mind only the offer of union could induce the Holy See to restrain Charles from his plan of conquest.

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 46 , Issue 2 , April 1953 , pp. 79 - 89
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1953

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 This article (the substance of a lecture delivered before a Harvard church history class at the invitation of Dr. George Williams) focuses on the motivations of Palaeologus' unionist policy rather than on negotiations with the papacy or the Council of Lyons itself about which a number of studies exist. This is part of a broader treatment of the Union of Lyons included in a monograph under preparation regarding Palaeologus' relations with the Latins.

2 See the Greek historians (both of the Bonn edition) George Pachymeres, De Michele Palaeologo, I, 370, ll. 2–4: “It was clear that the Emperor sought the union only from fear of Charles; otherwise it would never have entered his mind.” Also 367, ll. 10–11. Similarly Nicephorus Gregoras, Historia Byzantina, I, 123, ll. 3–8 and 125, ll. 2–6: “Therefore, beset by so many difficulties which drove him to desperation, the Emperor now sends an embassy to the pope [promising] to bring about the reconciliation and union of the churches of old and new Rome, if only the pope would avert the expedition of Charles.” Cf. the Western chroniclers, the Primat, in Bouquet, Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France, XXIII (Paris, 1876) 91Google Scholar: “aucune furent qui crurent mieux que paour les eust contrainz de venir a celi concille.” Also Villani, Cronica di Giovanni, ed. Moutier-Dragomanni, I (Florence, 1844) 374Google Scholar: “Per lo quale riconciliamento de' Greci, il detto papa confermὸ il detto Paglialoco imperadore dello ‘mperio di Costantinopoli.” (Papal confirmation of Palaeologus as legitimate Catholic Emperor of Constantinople would, of course, have blocked the ambitions of Charles.) See, finally, explicit mention of Michael's fear of the Latins in Gestes des Chiprois, published in Recueils des historiens des croisades, Documents Arméniens, II (Paris, 1906) 789Google Scholar.

3 Pach., 358, l. 17 and Gregoras, 123, ll. 18–20.

4 For Michael's previous diplomacy see Chapman, C., Michel Paléologue Restaurateur de l'Empire Byzantin (Paris, 1926) chs. 6–11Google Scholar.

5 Pach., 384, ll. 10–13. Charles was the vassal of the papacy for the Kingdom of Sicily.

6 Pach., 386, ll. 16–18. Cf. Gregoras' version of the same speech, 126, ll. 23ff.

7 Pach., 386, ll. 20ff. Cf. Gregoras, 125, ll. 11–16.

8 See the letter of Clement IV, dated July 21, 1266, in Les Registres de Clément IV, ed. Jordan, , I (Paris, 1893) no. 346, 93Google Scholar, complaining to the Archdeacon of Durazzo that no one would make the crossing to Italy “propter inconstantiam maris et viarum discrimina.”

9 Pach., 387, ll. 7–8. According to Laurent, V., “Le Serment anti-Latin du Patriarche Joseph Ier,” Échos d'Orient, XXVII (1927) 405Google Scholar, of the three points the greatest concession was mention of the pope in the public prayers, since it denoted to the people communion between Latin and Greek churches. Cf. Pach., 390, ll. 3–4.

10 Pach., 387, ll. 8ff. Cf. the same sentiment in Gregoras, 127, ll. 9–12: “My conduct is the part of wise administration, since necessity demands that a slight damage be suffered for the sake of greater advantage.” The problem of oikonomia (it existed in Byzantium almost from its foundation) involved two opposing points of view: the rigorist, which maintained that the church should be practically independent of the state, and the liberal, which insisted that when demanded by political necessity the church should subordinate itself to the needs of the state. On these theories see Dvornik, F., The Photian Schism History and Legend (Cambridge, 1948) 8Google Scholar, 24, etc.

11 Torsello, Marino Sanudo, Istoria del Regno di Romania, in Hopf, Chroniques Gréco-Romanes (Berlin, 1873) 135Google Scholar: “Tentò con ogni modo possibile aver la grazia e favor della Eclesia Romana.”

12 See the letter of Pope Gregory X to Palaeologus in Les Registres de Grégoire X, ed. Guiraud, (Paris, 1892) no. 315, 123Google Scholar, dated November 21, 1273, referring to the pressure of Angevin supporters: “qui … notarent quasi non in sinceritate debita hoc tam salubre negotium prosequaris.” Pach., 410, ll. 2–4, relates that Charles became so enraged at papal refusal to permit his expedition that he bit his sceptre. Cf. a similar passage in the Historia Sicula of Bartolomeo of Neocastro in Muratori, RISS, XIII, pt. 3 (Bologna, 1921) 22: “iracundia fervidus, dentibus frendet, rodens robur.”

13 Cf. Norden, W., Das Papsttum und Byzanz (Berlin, 1903) 504Google Scholar.

14 Note even Pachymeres' praise of Gregory's motives, 369, ll. 9–10 and 370, ll. 1–6. Also the praise of Palaeologus himself, ibid., 458, l. 18.

15 Cf. note 8.

16 Pach., 359, l. 8, emphasizes Palaeologus' flattery of the papacy. Cf. also the terms of filial devotion and profound piety with which the Emperor addressed Gregory in a letter published in Guiraud, Reg. Grég., no. 313, 119. See likewise Viller, M., “L'Union des Églises entre Grecs et Latins,” Revue d'histoire Ecclésiastique (1921) 263Google Scholar, who believes that Palaeologus was a complete hypocrite regarding the union.

17 It should be noted that the papal successors of Gregory were not free of suspicion regarding imperial motives, since twice within a few years after Lyons, they required Michael to reiterate his oath of fidelity to the Roman church. See Grumel, V., “Les ambassades pontificales à Byzance après le IIe Concile de Lyon,” Échos d'Orient, XXIII (1924) 442Google Scholar, note 2.

18 Actually Popes Innocent V and John XXI, in particular, had already suspected Michael's sincerity. See Laurent, M. H., Le Bienheureux Innocent V (Città del Vaticano, 1947) 283Google Scholar. Finally in 1281 Martin IV, completely under Angevin influence, excommunicated Palaeologus and the union was broken. According to Pach., 505, l. 19, the Emperor and his supporters were excommunicated as “tricksters.”

19 Pach., 458, ll. 1–3.

20 Les Registres de Nicolas III, ed. Gay, (Paris, 1898) no. 376, 128Google Scholar: “cum adjectione ilia filioque … decantari.” This demand had already been made, less peremptorily, however, by Pope John XXI just before his death. See Grumel “Les ambassades,” 437. For an analysis of the Latin profession of faith which the papacy insisted Palaeologus adopt, see Karmiris, J., ‘Hē apodidomenē eis ton Michaēl VIII Palaiologon homologia pisteōs tou 1274,” Archeion Ekklēsiastikou kai Kanonikou Dikaiou (Athens, 1947) 127ffGoogle Scholar.

21 Pach., 461, ll. 10–13. Cf. Grumel, “Les ambassades,” 437–438.

22 In contrast to his severity after Lyons. See the recent work of Evert-Kapessova, H., “La Société Byzantine et l'Union de Lyon,” Byzantinoslavica, X (Prague, 1949) 28ffGoogle Scholar.

23 Pach., 360, ll. 5–7 and 17–18. Also 368, l. 12.

24 The influence of the Lyons union on the south Italian Greeks (united to Rome at the Council of Bari in 1098) is mentioned by Sanudo, Istoria, 143. Referring presumably to the early 14th century, his date of writing, he records: “Sonovi anco molti Greci in Calabria ed in Terra d'Otranto che ubbidiscono alla Santa Chiesa Romana, mà forse non cosi devotamente, come farianno, se l'imperatore Sior Michele Paleologo e il Patriarca … fossero … ubbidienti.”

25 Pach., 360, l. 19 and 361, ll. 1–4. Doubtless referred to here by Pach. is the difference between the Greek and Latin practices of communion in one and two kinds. Partaking of the Greek communion would perhaps have indicated premature acceptance of union on the part of the Latin friars.

26 On the Bishop see Les Registres d'Urbain IV, ed. Guiraud, , II (Paris, 1901) no. 748, 357 and no. 848, 405Google Scholar. Also Pach., 360, ll. 8–16. For reasons not made entirely clear, but which Pach. attributes to ill-feeling, the Bishop was later exiled to Heracleia in Pontus.

27 See letter in Guiraud, Reg. Grég., no. 194, 68B. According to the same letter, Palaeologus had previously dispatched Parastron to the pope as his envoy.

28 For Palaeologus' praise of Gregory, see note 14, supra. Note also the high opinion of the Greek envoy to the Holy See, George Metochites, as printed in M. Laurent, Innocent V, 440.

29 On Beccus, who was at first an ardent opponent of union, see Pach., Bk. V, chs. 12–15; and Gregoras, 123, ll. 5–8. Cf. also Souarn, R., “Tentatives à union avec Rome, Un patriarche catholique au XIIIe siècle,” Échos d'Orient, III (1900) 229–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Zotos, A., Ioannēs ho Bekkos Patriarchēs Cōnstantinoupoleōs Neas Rhomēs ho Latinophrōn (Munich, 1920)Google Scholar, which I was able to consult through the kindness of Professor F. Dölger.

30 On Parastron in Constantinople see Pach., 371–372.

31 See Glassberger, Nicholas, Analecta Francescana, II (Quaracchi, 1887) 88Google Scholar: “pro eius canonizatione Imperator Graecorum et Praelati Graeciae instanter apud dominum Papam laborabant.” Cf. Golubovitch, P., “Cenni storici su Fra Giovanni Parastron,” Bessarione, X (1906) 295ffGoogle Scholar. Parastron had acted as interpreter between the Greeks and Latins at the Council of Lyons.

32 Pach., 372, ll. 7ff. As Viller, op. cit., 282, points out, the chief cause for the failure of union was lack of understanding on both sides. Cf. Fliche, A., “Le problème oriental au second concile oecuménique de Lyon,” Orientalia Christiana periodica (Miscellanea Jerphanion), XIII (1947) 483Google Scholar, who emphasizes that at Lyons the papacy and Emperor alone reached an understanding.

33 Pach., 386, ll. 12–13; 387, ll. 17–18.

34 Pach., 379, l. 17 and 389, l. 13, who says that many families were split over union as was even the imperial family. On this latter point see also ibid., 379, ll. 16–17 and 459, ll. 12ff.

35 Pach., 358, ll. 16–17 and Gregoras, 123, ll. 3–8. Cf. Villani, op. cit., I, 389: “Paglialoco non avea podere nè in mare nè in terra di risistere alla potenzia e apparecchiamento del re Carlo.” The coalition of Charles had practically encircled Constantinople.

36 Pach., 390, ll. 8–9; 391; 399ff.; 484; and 505, ll. 14–15. See also note 34, supra.

37 See Pach., 393, ll. 12–16 and 485, ll. 19–20 for mention of pro-Lascarid, anti-Palaeologan sentiment. Cf. Troitskiĭ, J., Arsenius and the Arsenites (in Russian) (St. Petersburg, 1873) 99–101Google Scholar.

38 Previale, L., “Un Panegyrico inedito per Michele VIII Paleologo,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift, XXXXII (1942) 10Google Scholar, note 4. Also Gelzer, H., Byzantinische Kulturgeschichte (Tübingen, 1909) 29Google Scholar; and Treitinger, O., Die öströmische Kaiserund Reichsidee nach ihrer Gestaltung im höfischen Zeremoniell (Jena, 1938) 159Google Scholar.

39 As, for example, the Virgin's miraculous intervention in 626 during the reign of Heraclius. For further information on the Virgin-protector see Grabar, A., “Un Graffite Slave sur la façade d'une église de Bukovine,” Revue des Études Slaves, XXIII (1947) 89ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar. and Wolff, R. L., “Footnote to an Incident of the Latin Occupation of Constantinople: The Church and the Icon of the Hodegetria,” Traditio, VI (1948) 319ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar. (both kindly suggest to me by their authors). See also Frolow, A., “La dedicace de Constantinople dans la tradition byzantine,” Revue de l'histoire de Religions (1944) 61Google Scholarff.

40 Pach., 153, ll. 11–14. Acropolites (Georgii Acropolitae Opera, ed. Heisenberg, I [Leipzig, 1903]) 183, l. 3.

41 Pach., 389, ll. 14–17. Cf. the anti-Latin polemic of the contemporary George Moschabar in Demetracopoulos, A., Graecia Orthodoxa (Leipzig, 1872) 62Google Scholar: “The true Orthodox are by Him [Christ] preserved from every visible and invisible attack of the enemy.”

42 See the remarkable speech of Palaeologus (in Gregoras, 127, ll. 1–7) warning his subjects that conquest of Constantinople by Charles would completely Latinize them.

43 Demetracopoulos, op. cit., 47–48 and Pach., 376, ll. 9–10.

44 On this see the orations of Holobolus, Michael's court orator (Manuelis Holoboli Orationes, ed. Treu, [Potsdam 1906] 39Google Scholar).

45 See Dmitrievskij, A., Opisanie liturgičeskih rukopisej, I, (Kiev, 1895) 771Google Scholar, for Palaeologus' description of the Latins as a “half-barbarian people.”

46 Note Holobolos' excoriation of the Latin oppressors, op. cit., 44 and 70. Also Dmitrievskij, op. cit., 790, where Michael writes of “the haughty Latins who tyrannized over Constantinople.”

47 From the report of Metochites printed in M. Laurent, Innocent V, 424, note 23. To the Greeks of the period the term “Frank” was synonymous with “Latin.” Cf. the disparaging modern Greek term ἐϕράγκεψες (“You have become a Frank,” i.e., “a Catholic”) See also Pach., 401, ll. 15–16: “They avoided their own brothers [the unionists] as execrable.”

48 Pach., 389, ll. 12–14.

49 P.G., vol. 141, col. 952D.

50 On the Arsenites see Pach., 277 and 382. The most recent study regarding them is that of Laurent, V., “Les Grandes Crises Religieuses à Byzance. La Fin du Schisme Arsénite,” Académie Roumaine Bulletin de la Section Historique, XXVI 2 (Bucharest, 1945) 1ff.Google Scholar, a copy of which was kindly given to me by the author. See further Sykoutres, J., “Peri to schisma tōn Arseniatōn,” Hellēnika, II (Athens, 1929) 257ffGoogle Scholar. and later issues.

51 Arsenius was deposed by a Greek synod in 1267 when Michael threatened to appeal to Rome for absolution from patriarchal excommunication imposed for his blinding of John IV Lascaris.

52 On this see Evert-Kapessova, op. cit., 29–31 and 33–34.

53 For example, by the Greek historian of the Council of Florence (1438–1439), Syropoulos, S., Historia vera unionis non verae… Concilii Florentini (Hague, 1660) 238Google Scholar. Regarding Patriarch John Beccus, who was also called Latinophron by his contemporaries, see the interesting article of Hofmann, G., “Patriarch Johann Bekkos und die lateinisch Kultur,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica, XI (1945) 141ffGoogle Scholar. Hofmann shows that for one stigmatized as Latinophron, Beccus had surprisingly little knowledge of Latin culture and Latin theological writings — none, for example, of the works of his great contemporary Thomas Aquinas. According to Hofmann “Die Bildung … des Bekkos war griechisch durch und durch.” (op. cit., 140 and 161).

54 This is a major conclusion in this author's work on Palaeologus' relations with the Latins.

55 On Michael's treatment of the monks see Pach., 488–491 and Gregoras, 127ff. For an argument that Michael was “far from practicing a general policy of hostility to the monasteries,” see Rouillard, G., “La Politique de Michel VIII Paléologue à l'égard des monastères,” Études Byzantines, I (1943) 83ffGoogle Scholar. As to the false legends regarding Michael's personal chastisement of monks on Mount Athos, see Binon, S., Les origines Légendaires et L'Histoire de Xeropotamou et de Saint-Paul, de L'Athos (Louvain, 1942) 110ffGoogle Scholar. In addition to the foregoing regarding Michael's policy toward the Greek church, there should also be mentioned his extreme solicitude for rebuilding churches and monasteries immediately after the reconquest of Constantinople (Pach., 172, ll. 17–18; 164, ll. 5–12; and George of Cyprus, Laudatio Michaelis Paleologi, P.G., vol. 142, col. 377) as well as his numerous rescripts in favor of Greek monasteries, for two of which he himself wrote regulae. On this see Miklosich and Müller, Acta et Diplomata, IV (Vienna, 1871) 330–341Google Scholar; Troitskiĭ, J., Imp. Michaelis Paleologi de Vita Sua Opusculum (St. Petersburg, 1885)Google Scholar; and Dmitrievskij, op. cit., 769.

56 Pach., 74, ll. 10–13; Gregoras, 68, ll. 12–14.

57 See Pach., 366, ll. 13ff. Also Gregoras, 129, ll. 13–19, who relates that during Vatatzes' reign, the famous scholar, N. Blemmydes, was forced to write his prounionist works in secret because of popular feeling. On the negotiations between Vatatzes and the papacy with a view to restoring to the Greeks Constantinople then in Latin possession, see Schillman, F., “Zur Byzantinischen Politik Alexanders IV,” Römische Quartalschrift, XXII (1908)Google Scholar Heft 4, 108ff.; and Wolff, R. L., “The Latin Empire of Constantinople” (thesis, Harvard University, 1947) 643–645Google Scholar. To Professor Wolff I am indebted for criticism of the present article.