BYZANTINE
112
BYZANTINE
the family dissensions of the Palceologi, as among the
most unfortunate occurrences of the empire. It is a
sorry spectacle to see Andronicus II (1282-1328)
dethroned by his grandson Andronicus III (1328-41)
and immured in a monastery, and John V (1341-
76 and 1379-91) superseded first by Cantaeuzene,
then by his own son Andronicus IV (1376-79), and
finally by his grandson John VII (1390). It is true
that the neighbouring states, the Turkish Empire
in particular, were rent with similar dissensions.
The house of the Palseologi, moreover, produced
some capable rulers, such as Michael VIII, Manuel II
(1391-1425), Constantine XI (1448-53). Still, the
contests for the throne, at a period when the imperial
glory was manifestly on the wane, could not but be
ruinous to the best interests of the empire, and con-
tribute mightily to its dissolution.
At first it seemed as though such capable rulers as Theodore I, Lascaris (1204-22), John III, Vatatzes (1222-54), and Theodore II, Lascaris (1254-58), must bring back prosperous times to the empire. It was no small achievement, to be sure, that the Greeks were able not only to make a brave stand against the Franks, but to expel them again from Constantinople, a task which was all the more diffi- cult because at that time the Greek nation had under- gone a dismemberment from which it never recovered. The Empire of Trebizond, tmder the Comneni, survived the fall of the capital on the Bosphorus (1453) for some years. The task of reabsorbing into the body of the empire the state, or rather the states, of the Angeli in Thessalonica, Thessaly, and Epirus was accomplished slowly and with difficulty. It was impossible to drive the Franks from Byzantine soil. Split up into various minor principalities after the fall of Thessalonica (1222) and Constantinople (1261), they settled in the central part of Greece and in the Peloponnesus, in Crete, Euboea, Rhodes, and the smaller islands. Moreover, during the course of the fourteenth century, the Serbs rose to unexpected heights of power. During the reigns of Stephen Urosh II, Milutin (1281-1320), and Stephen Du- shan (1321-55), it seemed as though the Serbs were about to realize the old dream of the Bulgars, of a Byzantine Empire under Slavonian rule. This dream, however, was shattered by the Turkish vic- tory on the Field of Blackbirds (1389). It was not easy for the Greeks to maintain themselves against so many enemies for two and a half centuries, and it often appeared as though the end had come. The Frankish Emperor of Constantinople, Henry (1206- 16), had come very mar to destroying Greek inde- pendence, and would probably have succeeded had he not been snatched away by an early death. A second crisis came during the minority of the Latin Emperor Baldwin II (1228-61), when the Frankish princes were considering the appointment of the Bulgarian Tsar John II, Ason, as guardian of the young emperor, and regent of the empire. The plan failed of execution only because of the stubborn oppo- sition of the Latin clergy, and the final choice fell on the old King of Jerusalem, John of Brienne (1229-37). Thus the danger was temporarily averted, and the Emperor John Vatatzes was wise enough to gain the favour of the Bulgarian powers by prudent deference to their wishes, as, for instance, by recognizing the Archbishop of Tirnovo as autocephalous patriarch.
The Latin Empire became dangerous lor the third and lasl time when the Franks began, in the year 1236, to renew their heroic attempts in regain their conquests. John Vatatzes, however, succeeded in
garrying the blow by forming .in alliance with the Imperor Frederick II. whose daughtei \ime he espoused. Even alter the fall of the capital (1261), the fugitive Frankish emperor became a Bource of
danger, inasmuch as he ceiled to the Angevins his right as Lord' Paramount of Achaia. As early as
the year 1259 there had been serious complications
with the principality of Achaia. At that time
Michael VIII, by the conquest of Pelagonia had suc-
ceeded in withstanding a coalition formed by William
of Villehardouin, Prince of Achaia, Michael II,
Despot of Epirus, and Manfred of Sicily. When
Charles of Anjou replaced Manfred the situation be-
came more serious. In 1267 Charles captured Corfu,
and in 1272 Dyrrachium; soon afterwards he re-
ceived at Foggia John IV, Lascaris, who had been
overthrown and blinded by Michael VIII, Paleeologus.
In this crisis Palteologus knew of no other resource
than to call upon the pope for assistance. At the
Council of Lyons, his representative, Georgius Acro-
polites, accepted the confession of faith containing
the "Filioque", and recognized the primacy of the
pope, thus securing the political support of the
papacy against Anjou. Only the Sicilian Vespers
gave him permanent immunity from danger from
this source (1282). After this the Byzantine Empire
was no longer menaced directly by the Norman peril
which had reappeared in the Angevins. The Byzan-
tines were gradually entering into a new relationship
with the West. They assumed the role of coreligion-
ists seeking protection. But of course the reunion
of the churches was a condition of this aid, which,
as at an earlier period, was vehemently opposed by
the people. The national party had already taken
a vigorous stand against the negotiations of the
Council of Lyons, which had found an excellent ad-
vocate in the patriarch, John Beccus. This opposition
was made manifest whenever there was any question
of union with Rome from political motives, and it
explains the attitude of the different factions in the
last religious controversy of importance that con-
vulsed the Byzantine world: the Hesychast move-
ment. This movement had its inception at Athos,
and involved a form of Christian mysticism which
reminds us strongly of certain Oriental prototypes.
By motionless meditation, the eyes fixed firmly on
the navel (whence their name, Omphalopsychites), the
devotees pretended to attain to a contemplation of
the Divinity, and thereby absolute quietude of soul
(hesychia, whence Hesi/chasts). The key to this
movement is found in the needs of the time, and it
was not confined to the Greek world. Many Eastern
princes of this period assumed the "angel's garb",
and sought peace behind monastery walls. The
sect, however, did not fail to encounter opposition.
In the ensuing controversy, Barlaam. a monk of
Calabria, constituted himself in a special manner the
adversary of Hesy chasm. It is significant that Bar-
laam's coming from Southern Italy, which was in
union with Rome, and his having been under the
influence of the Scholasticism of the West did not
commend him to the good graces of the people, but
rather contributed to the victory of his adversaries.
Thus the great mass of the people remained as
before, thoroughly averse to all attempts to bring
about the union. The Byzantine rulers, however,
in their dire need, were obliged as a last resource to
clutch at this hope of salvation, and accordingly had
to face the deepest humiliations. When the un-
fortunate Emperor John Y. after hastening to tin-
papal court at Avignon to obtain assistance tor Con-
stantinople, was on his homeward journey, he was
detained at Venice by creditors who had furnished
the money for the journey. His son. Andronicus [V,
who acted as regent at Constantinople, refused to
advance the requisite amount. At last the younger
son, Manuel II, then regent of Thessalonica, collected
suilieiiiii monej i" redeem his father (1370). Con-
sidering the wretched state of Byzantine affairs and
the unfriendly spirit of the people, it was certainly
generous that the West twice sent a considerable
body of reinforcements to the Byzantines. Both
expeditions, unfortunately, proved unsuccessful. In
