Politics, Religion and Spiritual Conflict
The relationship between emperor and patriarch was frequently a tense one. Emperors were regarded as the defenders of Orthodoxy, and in this capacity they invested considerable sums in building and decorating churches and endowing monasteries as symbols of their piety, and many also developed an advanced knowledge of Christian theology. They also intervened directly in matters of strictly theological import, an aspect of their authority inscribed in the definition and assumptions about their role. This frequently led to clashes between emperors and patriarchs, on occasion the deposition of a patriarch, and the polarisation of opinion within the church. In the period from the sixth to the fifteenth century more than a third of all patriarchs were forced to resign or were deposed from office when they clashed with an emperor over some matter or other. The Emperor Justinian had attempted a general definition of this relationship in the sixth century, in which the church and the clergy were defined by their role as pastoral and spiritual guardians of the Christian community, but within which the emperor’s position, while not above the law, was nevertheless seen as the embodiment of the law, since he was chosen and appointed by God. The application of these concepts in reality was problematic.
Emperors were more often successful in their conflicts with patriarchs than vice versa: in the ninth and tenth centuries alone four patriarchs - Ignatios, Photios, Nicholas I and Euthymios
- were deposed when they refused to accept the imperial line, yet all four are recognised as outstanding churchmen and theologians in their own way. But the ambiguous relationship between emperors and patriarchs, ranging between friendly support to open opposition, is summed up in the act of penance which an emperor might on occasion volunteer, or be required, to perform, to atone for his sins and other transgressions. And although emperors usually won the day when looked at from the short-term point of view, there were plenty of occasions when patriarchs were able to mobilise sufficient and effective opposition to prevent an emperor having his own way, as several of the examples already cited show.
From the ninth century the orthodox world expanded as missionary activity, political conversion and a range of other factors brought extensive territories in the Balkans and in Russia into the church. While the patriarchate of Constantinople did not administer these lands directly, it always retained an ideological authority. The result was a certain imbalance in the relationship between emperor and patriarch, since the latter came to exercise authority over a much wider world, a more ‘ecumenical’ world than that of the political empire of east Rome. In this context it is understandable that patriarchs often felt they had the authority, and indeed the duty, to pronounce in political as well as moral matters, since the whole orthodox world looked to them, as much as to - and often rather than
- the emperor for spiritual and moral guidance.
While the patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem were under Muslim domination, a real conflict of interest evolved between Rome and Constantinople. The chief cause of this was simple: Rome was the first see, founded by St Peter, and as such claimed primacy over all others - including the right to intervene in affairs of dogma, liturgical custom and matters affecting members of the Christian community in general. On the other hand, while Constantinople had an apostolic tradition (St Andrew is supposed to have visited the city), it was by no means as strong as Rome’s and was, indeed, emphasised only from the later fourth century as the city grew into its role as imperial capital. It was this latter point which caused problems, since after the disappearance of the western empire the eastern ruler was effectively sole emperor, his residence was Constantinople, and the archbishopric of Constantinople could claim equal status with Rome as a result of this imperial position. The problem was that the relationship between emperor and patriarch frequently resulted in frustrated or vexed patriarchs (or their clergy or representatives) who could appeal to the pope at Rome as an independent arbiter of disagreements, but who would see this as a clear recognition of his superior status within the church. Imperial interference in Italian politics, whether secular or religious, did not help.
Map 7.4 Constantinople, Rome and emperor: the 11th century.
Disagreement over the line followed by the eastern church was thus one cause for poor relations between the two patriarchates. The tendency in Rome to a more independent position than Constantinople wanted was another. And from the later eighth century the Roman decision to look to the Frankish kings for political support further heightened tensions. The coronation of Charles, King of the Franks, as Roman emperor in the west was the final blow to Constantinopolitan efforts to maintain its position in Italy and the west. The issues came out clearly in a correspondence between Rome and Constantinople in the 860s, in which the Byzantines proudly proclaimed their greater claim to being the ‘real’ Romans, only to be roundly challenged in a sharply-worded reply from Pope Nicholas I, which pointed out in the clearest terms east Roman inadequacies in these and other areas.
In the end, these tensions reflected much longer-term and much more deeply-rooted differences between the Latin and Greek parts of the former Roman empire. They frequently came to the surface in disagreements which had their origins often in relatively trivial differences of practice or interpretation. The so-called Photian schism, and the schism of 1054 (see page 67), were mere forerunners of the attitudes which were to evolve on both sides following the First Crusade, and which contributed ultimately to the sack of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade in 1204. But after 1054 the division of the church encouraged ever greater papal intervention in the affairs of the various Balkan powers, further heightening already-existing tensions.
World History
