CHAPTERS 7-8 (C.1204-1453).
The 250 years of the splintered Empire are complex and difficult to deal with in a short note, and in any case from the point of view of the Church there is no single, detailed and well-balanced presentation. Works covering this period (including monographs on individual Emperors) often tend to be orientated towards relations between Constantinople and the West. J. Gill, Byzantium and the Papacy 1198-1400 (New Brunswick, 1979) does just this with success even if slightly biased towards the West. K. M. Setton, The Papacy and the Levant (1204-1571) (Philadelphia, 1976-1981) gives full and readable detail with rich bibliography but is also rather more concerned with western than Byzantine reactions. The two general councils of the period have been fully treated. Here the best guides are: for Lyons II, B. Roberg, Die Union zwischen der griechischen und der lateinischen Kirche auf dem II. Konzil von Lyon (1274) (Bonn, 1964); and H. Wolter and H. Holstein, Lyon I et Lyon II (Histoire des conciles œcuméniques, 7, Paris, 1966); and for Ferrara-Florence see J. Gill, The Council of Florence (Cambridge, 1959) and his Constance et Bâle-Florence (Histoire des conciles œcuméniques, 9, Paris, 1965). There is a racy firsthand account of what went on behind the scenes on the occasion of the Ferrara-Florence council by a high official from Hagia Sophia, Les 'mémoires' du Grand Ecclésiarche de l'Église de Constantinople Sylvèstre Syropoulos sur le concile de Florence (1438-1439) (Concilium Florentinum: Documents et Scriptores, set. B, 9, Rome, 1971), ed. and trans. V. Laurent. Some insight into the attitude of one of the more understanding Byzantine emperors towards union is seen in John VI Cantacuzenus's discussion with the papal legate Paul, edited by J. Meyendorff, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 14 (1960), 147-77 (Greek text, summary, and commentary).
In the first half of the thirteenth century the situation was complicated by rivalry between the two Greek kingdoms of Epirus and Nicaea which is briefly described by D. M. Nicol, The Despotate of Epiros I & II (Oxford, 1957; Cambridge, 1984) and M. Angold, A Byzantine Government in Exile (Oxford, 1970), not particularly full on the Church. There is a vivid account of the experiences of a delegation of friars to negotiate on union with John III Vatatzes of the Nicene Empire, Disputatio Latinorum et Graecorum . . . ed. G. Golubovich, Archivum Franciscanum Historicum, 12 (1919), 428-70, not however a book easy to come by. The prominence often given to the negotiations on union should be balanced by probes into regional activities. For instance on the structure of society in the Peloponnese see D. Jacoby, “The Encounter of Two Societies: Western Conquerors and Byzantines in the Peloponnese after the Fourth Crusade,” American Historical Review, 78 (1973), 873-906. Or on the measure of symbiosis between Greeks and Latins in Cyprus see A. and J. Stylianou, The Painted Churches of Cyprus (Cyprus, 1964). Conditions in Asia Minor outside the control of either Greek or Latin are revealed by S. Vyronis, The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor . . . (Los Angeles and London, 1971). Similar probes could be made in other regions, e.g. the Cyclades or Crete, see the references given in chapter VII above. The differing attitudes of Greek and Latin to theological problems are discussed by Podskalsky, Theologie und Philosophie in Byzanz (Munich, 1977), but he is often not easy reading; he gives a note on Latin theological works translated into Greek.
The Greek church re-established in Constantinople in 1261 had its internal problems. On hesychasm see as a start J. Meyendorff, Introduction à l'étude de Grégoire Palamas (Paris, 1959, also trans. later into English (London, 1962) but less full). Poverty and other economic difficulties are described in The Letters of Patriarch Athanasius I, ed. A.-M. M. Talbot (Washington, DC, 1975). This should be balanced by the less well publicized but important work by N. Oikonomides, Hommes d'affaires grecs et latins à Constantinople (XIIIe-XVe siècles) (Montreal and Paris, 1979). A salutary reminder that 1453 did not mean the end of the Orthodox patriarchate (any more than 1054 marked a definite schism) can be found in S. Runciman, The Great Church in Captivity (Cambridge, 1968).
Dostları ilə paylaş: |