It is interesting to note that the first union at Lyons under Michael Palaeologus was achieved not under the pressure of the eastern Turkish danger, but under the menace of the aggressive policy of Charles of Anjou.

Since the Comneni, the attitude of the Eastern Emperor towards the union had greatly changed. Under the Comneni, especially in the epoch of Manuel, the Emperor had sought for union not only under pressure of the external Turkish danger but also in the hope, already merely an illusion, that with the aid of the Pope they might gain supreme power over the West, i. e. restore the former Roman Empire. This aspiration clashed with the similar aspiration of the Popes to attain supreme temporal power over the West, so that no union took place. The first Palaeologus, in his negotiations for union, had much more modest pretensions. He had in mind not the expansion of the Byzantine Empire in the West, but its defense, with the help of the Pope, against the West, in the person of the powerful and menacing Charles of Anjou. The papal curia met his proposals favorably, realizing that the ecclesiastical submission of Byzantium to Rome would bring about also a political submission even if the Sicilian danger were averted. But the possibility of such an increase of the temporal power of the Pope met with definite resistance from West European rulers. In his turn, on his way to the reconciliation with the Roman Church, the Eastern Emperor met with stubborn opposition among the Greek clergy who, in an overwhelming majority, remained faithful to Greek Orthodoxy. The historian Norden says Pope Gregory X "influenced the King of Sicily with spiritual reasons, Palaeologus his prelates with political arguments."219

One of the prominent representatives of the Greek church, "a wise man, master of eloquence and science,"220 to quote a source (Gregoras), and the future Patriarch, John Beccus (Veccus), had been opposed to the union and was accordingly imprisoned. During his confinement he became a partisan of the

219 Norden, Das Papsttum und Byzanz, p. 505.

220 Niceph. Greg., V, 2, 5 (I, 128).

union and an active supporter of the Emperor in his project of reconciliation with Rome, an event of great importance for Michael's aim.

The council was held in 1274, in the French city of Lyons. Michael sent a solemn embassy headed by the former Patriarch, Germanus, and the historian, George Acropolitas, a high official (the Grand Logothete) and the Emperor's friend. It was intended that Thomas Aquinas, the most famous representative of medieval Catholic scholarship, should take the leading part at the council on behalf of Rome, but he died on his way to Lyons. His place was taken by the no less brilliant Cardinal Bonaventura.

The Union of Lyons was achieved on condition that the Emperor should recognize Filioque, azyme (unleavened bread), and the supreme authority of the Pope; to all these stipulations, in the name of Michael, George Acropolitas took oath.221 Michael also expressed to the Pope his readiness to support by troops, money, and provisions the proposed joint crusade for the liberation of the Holy Land, but he stipulated that peace be established with Charles of Anjou so that the Emperor, in diverting all his forces to the East, need not fear attack from the West.

Neither side was pleased with the results of the union. As was to be expected, Michael met with stubborn resistance among the great majority of the Greek clergy. An anti-union council against Michael Palaeologus and John Beccus was held in Thessaly.222 Moreover, the idea of a crusade could not be agreeable to the Emperor, who was unable to forget the warning of the Fourth Crusade. There was the additional difficulty that Michael Palaeologus was on good terms with the Sultan of Egypt, the sworn enemy of the Latins of Syria.

From 1274 to 1280, five papal embassies came to Constanti

221 See the profession of faith read at the Council on behalf of Michael Palaeologus, in the very interesting article by F. Vernet, Le 11-e concile oecuménique de Lyon, 7 mai17 juillet 1274, in the Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, ix (Paris, 1926), coll. 138486; the whole article on coll. 1374-91. See also the article by V. Grumel, Le 11-e concile de Lyon et la réunion de l'église grecque, ibidem, coll. 1391-1410. Both articles afford good information on the sources and literature of the Union of Lyons. See also Norden, op. cit., 520-615.

222 V. Grumel, "En Orient après le II-e concile de Lyon," Echos d'Orient, XXIV (1925), 321-22.

nople in order to confirm the union.223 But in 1281 the new Pope, the Frenchman Martin IV, whom Charles of Anjou set upon the papal throne, as we know, broke the union and gave entire support to Charles' aggressive plans against Byzantium. But Michael regarded himself as formally bound by the Union of Lyons to the day of his death.

Besides the question of union Byzantium was agitated under Michael by the struggle of religious-political parties, the most important of which was the so-called Arsenites.

Beginning with the twelfth century, in the Byzantine Church may be noted two opposing parties, not to be reconciled, which were struggling for influence and power in ecclesiastical administration. One of those parties is called in Byzantine sources the "zealots" (wrai), the other the "politicians" (TOITIKOL) Or moderates; 224 a church historian (A. Lebedev) styles this party "by the modern French parliamentary term of opportunists."225

The zealots, champions of the freedom and independence of the Church, were opposed to state interference in church affairs, a point of view which brought them into continual collision with the Emperor. In this respect the zealots' ideas resembled those of the famous Theodore of Studion who in the ninth century openly spoke and wrote against imperial interference with church affairs.226 The zealots would not make any concession to the imperial power; they wished to submit the Emperor to severe ecclesiastical discipline, and were fearless of any collision with the government or society that might arise from their ideas. Accordingly, they became involved at various times in political troubles and disorders and gained the reputation of a party political as

223 See V. Grumel, "Les ambassades pontificales à Byzance après le II-e Concile de Lyon (1274-1280)," Echos d' Orient, XXIII (1924), 446-47; in this article (pp. 43747) there are some important corrections of the chronology given by W. Norden. Cf. M. Viller, "La question de l'union des églises entre Grecs et Latins depuis le concile de Lyon jusqu'à celui de Florence (1274-1438)," Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique, XVI (1921), 261.

224 Niceph. Gregoras, VI, 1, 7 (I, 165). Pachymeres, IV, 12 (I, 280).

225 A. Lebedev, Historical sketch of the state of the Byzantine-Eastern church from the end of the eleventh to the middle of the fifteenth century (Moscow, 1902), Sec. ed., pp. 296-97 (in Russian).

228 See vol. I, 345-46.

well as ecclesiastical. They could not boast of much education and took no care to have an educated clergy; but they faithfully observed the rules of strict morality and austerity. In the struggle with their opponents they were often supported by the monks, and in the moments of their triumph they opened to the monks the way to power and activity. A historian of that time (Gregoras) notes concerning a patriarch, that "he could not even read correctly."227 Describing the spirit prevailing among the monks when a zealot became patriarch the same historian writes: "It seemed to these malignant monks that after storm and troubles calm had come, and after winter, spring."228

Strict supporters of Orthodoxy, the zealots were stubbornly opposed to Michael's inclination to the union, and particularly in this connection they had great influence with the mass of the people.

The politicians or moderates were directly opposed to the zealots. They stood for state support of the church and cooperation between church and state; accordingly they did not object to the exerting of state influence on the church. They believed that a strong temporal power unrestrained by external interference was essential for the well being of a nation; therefore they were ready to make considerable concessions to the imperial power. They followed the so-called theory of "economy", which stated that the church in its relation to the state should accommodate itself to circumstances; to justify the theory of economy the politicians usually referred to the life of the Apostles and the Holy Fathers. Recognising the importance of education, they tried to fill the ecclesiastical offices with cultured and educated men. As they interpreted the rules of strict morality rather liberally and lacked sympathy with severe asceticism, the politicians sought support not among the monks, but among the secular clergy and the educated classes of society.

Naturally, the activities of both parties greatly differed. A Russian church historian (A. Lebedev) says: "When the politi

227 Niceph. Gregoras, VIII, 12, 1 (I, 360).

228 Idem, VI, 7, 4 (I, 193).

cians were acting on the church stage, they put their theories into effect smoothly and with comparative peace; on the contrary, when the zealots had the reins of government, relying upon so changeable an element in Byzantium as the monks and, to some degree, the mob, they always acted noisily, often stormily, and sometimes even seditiously."229 The majority of the politicians were in favor of the Union of Lyons, giving their support to the religious policy of Michael Paleologus.

The struggles between the zealots and politicians, the origin of which some scholars trace back to the epoch of iconoclasm and the disputes between the Ignatians and Photians in the ninth century, were felt, of course, by the people and aroused great agitation among them. Sometimes matters came to such a pass that one house and one family held representatives of both parties; a historian of that time (Pachymeres) says: "The church schism has reached such a point that it separates the dwellers of one house: father is opposed to son, mother to daughter, sister-in-law to mother-in-law." >"230

Under Michael Palaeologus the zealots, or, as they were sometimes called at the end of the thirteenth and beginning of the fourteenth century, the Arsenites, displayed intensive activity. The word Arsenite takes its origin from the name of the Patriarch Arsenius, who twice mounted the patriarchal throne, the first time at Nicaea, the second time at Constantinople after the restoration of the Empire. A man of little scholarship, Arsenius was chosen Patriarch by the Emperor of Nicaea, Theodore II Lascaris, who hoped that Arsenius, exalted beyond his merits, would be a mere tool in the Emperor's hands. But Theodore's expectations were not fulfilled. The administration of Arsenius was marked by severe collisions between him and the Emperor and led to the formation first of the party and then of the schism of the "Arsenites", which agitated the Greek Church for several decades. Arsenius did not hesitate to excommunicate Michael Palaeologus, who, contrary to his oath, had dethroned and blinded the unfor

229 A. Lebedev, op. cit., p. 298 (in Russian).

230 Pachymeris, De Michaele Palaeologo, IV, 28 (I, 314).