3 - The Barnes Review

PAGE 14 the barnes review MAY/JUNE
them as alien interlopers enamored with,
but still beneath, the dignity of Rome.
Similarly, theology was affected, or,
alternatively, many of the political is -
sues were at root theological ones. Theo -
logical disputation was central for both the
East and the West, and, according to Nor -
wich, was a specifically Byzantine passion.
When the empire was separated into two
parts, the two segments developed differently
from each other. The case was also
true with regard to theology. But there
came a time where the chasm was too
broad to be easily bridged. Questions over
papal supremacy (rather than primacy,
which is rather uncontroversial), the filioque
(seemingly rather academic, but contains
many implications concerning the
nature of the trinity), and many other
issues made it extremely difficult to
express unity. The fraud that was “the
Council of Florence” was forced upon the
Byzantines just a few years before their
fall. That council simply imposed “Roman”
(Western) theology upon Byzantium, which
had no choice but to comply, for the
“Romans” (of the First Rome) had promised
military assistance if they would give in to
demands that “Rome” would not have
thought of making just a century before.
Given that the “Second Rome” was about to
fall, this was a measure of desperation and
done completely under duress.
This, of course, came about 200 years
after the ill-fated crusades. These military
ventures, while having a noble purpose,
were not led by noble minds. The crusades
failed for numerous reasons, largely having
to do with the fact that they were organized
along lines later immortalized by the Three
Stooges. Furthermore, with the occasional
complicity of the pope of Rome, they were
directed as much against the Orthodox as
against the Muslims. Interestingly, both
sides used the Muslim “enemy” against
each other when it suited their interests.
This culminated in the “Fourth Crusade,”
which was explicitly aimed at Constantin -
ople and not Islam. A weakened eastern
empire was overwhelmed by the tribes of
the West, including the Normans, many of
whom had little firsthand knowledge of
Chris tianity or civilized government. When
these bumpkins came to the gates of the
most elaborate and ostentatious city in
Eur o pean history, their lusts led to the
slaughter of thousands of eastern Romans:
This Byzantine “miracle of the loaves and fishes” is a mosaic from the nave
wall of Sant’ Apollinare Nuovo in Ravenna and dates from about A.D. 504.
clergy, women and other non-combatants as
well as soldiers. The Latins then occupied
the empire, such as it then was, and ruled it
as their personal satrapy (with the full consent
of the Roman pope), holding the
Romans (i.e., Byzantines) in utter contempt.
The crusaders were able to carve out
a few small and basically insignificant ministates
in the Levant (a part of Europe
under the Romans, but now Islamicized)
after deposing the canonical Byzantine
prelates. Now, Pope Innocent clearly did not
sanction the slaughter, in fact, he deplored
it. On the other hand, he never anathematized
the usurpers of the By zan tine state or
punished them in any respect. In fact, after
the Latins took the city, the pope recognized,
after nearly 900 years, Byzan tium’s
status as the “Second and New Rome,”
which was solemnly proclaimed at the first
ecumenical council but re sisted by the pope
of Rome at that time. At this time, that
august title was proper now that the city
was in the hands of the La tins. There can be
no question that this situation remains an
important part of the re ligious estrangement
between East and West.
This “Rape of Constantinople,” importantly,
made it impossible for the churches
to ever become unified again; only recently
have moves in this direction occurred. It
was largely because of this seminal crime
that the Orthodox Church, in no small
part, still opposes union with Rome, starting
from the grass-roots rebellion that
deposed the prelates present at the “Coun -
cil of Florence,” imposing “unity” by force.
As if, in Norwich’s prescient words, “unity
could ever be achieved by a stroke of a pen.”
Of course, after this, Byzantium was never
the same. With some propriety can one
claim that Byzantium fell in 1204, at least
in that she was never able to regain her collective
esteem, military power and sense of
mission ever again. The Holy City had been
violated, and violated in the most vile way
by groups of marauders, under orders from
the First Rome, to stamp out “heresy.” The
sore festers to this day between East and
West. After this, the “empire of Byzantium”
was eventually split into four units, the
most important of which was the
“despotate of Epiurus,” along with the
sebastocrators of Thessaly and the despots
of Thessalonica, which lasted but a short
time. Then, the Islam icists found a
Byzantium hopelessly divided and an
empire with no morale to speak of. The
emperor himself died in hand-to-hand combat
with the hordes of Muslims on that
fateful day in July of 1453.
Through much of Byzantium’s history,
she was the “man to beat.” Her incredible