CONSTANTINOPLE
1)1
CONSTANTINOPLE
stantinople saw the crusaders for the first time in
1096. The contact between the two civilizations was
not cordial ; the Greeks gave generally to the crusad-
ers an unkindly reception. They looked on them as
enemies no less than the Turks, except that the cru-
saders, marching in the name of Christ and backed by
all the strength of the West, appeared much more
dangerous than the Mussulman Turks. On the other
hand the Franks were only too ready to treat the
Greeks as mere unbelievers, and, but for the opposi-
tion of the popes, woiJd have begun the Crusades with
the capture of Constantinople.
These sad quarrels and the fratricidal conflicts of Christian nations lasted nearly a century, until in 1182 Emperor Andronicus Comuenus, a ferocious tyrant, ordered a general massacre of the Latins in his capital. In 1190 the Greek patriarch, Dositheus, solenmly promised indulgences to any Greek who would murder a Latin. These facts, together with the selfish views of the Venetians and the domestic divisions of the Greeks, were enough to provoke a con- flict. The Greek Emperor Alexius III had de- throned his brother and stripped his nephew of all rights (1195); the latter sought a shelter in the We.st (1201), and, together with his brother-in-law. Em- peror Philip of Swabia, w-ith Venice, and Boniface of Montferrat (chief of the projected crusade), he turned aside the Fourth Crusade and directed the knights, first to the siege of Zara in Dalmatia, and afterwards to Constantinople. In spite of the formal veto of In- nocent III, the crusaders laid siege to the city, which soon surrendered (17 July, 1203). Emperor Alexius
III took flight. His brother, Isaac Angelus, was taken from prison and crowned emperor, with his son Alexius IV. The crusaders had hoped that the new emperors would keep their promises and reimite the two Churches; confident of this they wrote to Inno- cent III (August, 120.'!) to justify their behaviour. But the imperial ]iromise was not kept; indeed, it could not be executed. In November, 1205, Alexius
IV broke off all relations with the crusaders. There- upon the hostility between the Greeks and the Latins was in almost daily evidence; brawls and conflagra- tions were continually taking place. Alexius IV and his father were dethroned and put to death (Febru- ary, 1204) by a usurper who took the name of Alexius
V Murtzuphlos. The latter made haste to put his capi- tal in a state of defence, whereupon the crusaders began a second siege. After several onslaughts the city was taken (12 and 1.3 April, 1204) amid scenes of great cruelty; the slaughter was followed by an unbridled ])limder of the countl&ss treasures heaped up during so many centuries by the Byzantine emperors. The holy relics especially excited the covetousness of the Latin clerics; Villehardouin asserts that there were but few cities in the West that received no .sacred booty from this pillage. The official booty alone, ac- cording to the same historian, amounted to about eleven millions of dollars whose purchasing power was then of course much greater than at this day. The following 9 May, Baldwin, Count of Flanders, be- came emperor; Boniface of Montferrat obtained Thes- salonica and Macedonia; the knights, various feudal fees; Venice, the islands and those regions of the em- pire that assured her maritime supremacy. This new Latin Empire, organized according to feudal law, never took deep root. It was imable to hold its own against the Greeks (who had immediately created two empires in Asia, at Niea-a and at Trebizond, a despot- ate in Epirus and other small States) nor against the Bulgariaius, Coraans, and Serbs. After a much-dis- turbed existence it disappeared in 1201, and Con- stantinople became again the centre of Greek power with Michael I'aheologus as emperor.
Latin Pathiahihate. — Together with the Latin Empire a Latin patriarchate had been established in 1204 at Constantinople, on which occasion the Greek
patriarch took refuge at Nicoea. Notwithstanding
the missions of Cardinal Benedict a Sancta Susanna
(1205-1207) and Pelagius of Albano (1213), negotia-
tions, and even persecutions, the Latins failed to in-
duce all their Greek subjects to acknowledge the au-
thority of the pope. In its best days the Latin patri-
archate never mmibered more than twenty-two arch-
bishoprics and fifty-nine suffragan bishoprics, situ-
ated in Europe, in the islands, and even in Asia Minor.
However, the Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople
outlived the Latin Empire, after the fall of which the
Latin patriarchs resided in Greece or in Italy. From
1302 the Holy See reserved to itself the appointment
to this office and united with the patriarchate first
the Archbishopric of Candia, later the Bishopric of
Negropont; this was still the situation as late as 1403.
A coiLsistorial decree of 1497 reserved this high title
to cardinals; the rule, however, was subject to many
exceptions. In modern times a contrary practice has
prevailed; the Latin titular Patriarch of Constanti-
nople ceases to bear this title only on entrance to the
Sacred College. Of course, after the fall of the Latin
or Frankish Empire in 1261, the Latin patriarch
could not deal directly with the Catholics of Constan-
tinople; they were committed to the care of patri-
archal vicars, simple priests chosen usually among the
superiors of religious orders resident in the city, Ob-
servantine or Conventual Franciscans, and Domini-
cans. This lasted until 1651, when the Latin patri-
arch was allowed by the sultan to have in Constanti-
nople a patriarchal sufi^ragan bishop, who was free to
administer the diocese in the name of the patriarch.
Finally, in 1772, the Holy See suppressed the office of
patriarchal suffragan and appointed patriarchal vicars
Apostolic, which system is yet in existence.
Restoration op Greek Empire; Efforts at Reunion ok the Churches. — Having anticipated a little we may here take up the thread of our narra- tive. By the recoverj' of Constantinople in 1261, Michael Palieologus had drawn on himself the enmity of some Western princes, especially of Charles of Anjou, brother of St. Louis and heir to the rights of the aforesaid Latin emperors of Constantinople. To forestall the crusade with which he was threatened the Greek emperor opened negotiations with the pope and accepted the union of the Churches. It was pro- claimed at the CEcumenical Council of Lyons in 1274, and was confirmed at Constantinople by several par- 1| ticular councils held under the Greek patriarch, John Beccus, a sincere Catholic. It was not, however, ac- cepted by the Greek people who remained always inimical to the West, and, on the emperor's death in 1282, it was rejected at a council held in the Blacherna; church. Thenceforth the rulers of Constantinople had to reckon with the ambitious claims of Charles of Valois, brother of Philip the Fair, and of other Latin pretenders to the imperial crown. The city itself was rent by the theological disputes of Barlaamites and Palamists arising from Hesychasm (q. v.), also by the domestic dissensions of the imperial family during the reigns of the two Andronici, John Palieo- logus, and John Cantacuzene. With the aid of Turk- ish mercenaries John Cantacuzene (the hope of the Palamists) withstood the legitimate emperor and conquered the city.
The Byzantine Empire was now in face of its last and greatest peril. The smaller Greek Empire of Trebizond controlled since 1204 a part of its Asiatic provinces. The Fourth Crusade had caiLsed almost all the islands and a great part of its pos,se«sions in Europe to fall into the hands of the Venetitms, Genoese, Pisans, and local dynasts. It feareii most, however, the new empire of the Osmanlis that was rapidly over- flowing all .\sia Minor. Tlie Osinanlis were originally a small Turkish tribe of Khora.ssan; in the thirteenth centurj' they had settled near Doryla>um fEiki- Shehir), whence they gradually annexed all the sul-
