What do you think?
Rate this book
Byzantine East and Latin West: Two worlds of Christendom in Middle Ages and Renaissance : studies in ecclesiastical and cultural history
Publisher's Remainder
- GenresHistory
206 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1976
17 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
April 26, 2022
An interesting series of essays exploring the influence of the Byzantines on Western Europe. The essays focus on late Byzantine history and extend a little past the taking of Constantinople by the Ottomans in 1453. In particular, there is a focus on the attempts to repair the schism between the Eastern and Western churches, to present a unified front against the Ottomans.
The first chapter discusses the Byzantine influence on the West. In particular, Byzantine law and diplomacy as well as the prestige of certain elements related to kingship was very influential in the West. While the West received Aristotle from the Muslims in Spain, Plato was reintroduced into the West by the Byzantines (particularly the Byzantine thinker Plethon who wanted to bring back Sparta). The Byzantine colony in Venice was important in printing Greek works of philosophy, making Plato available to the West for the first time. In addition to the fork, Byzantine theology and church music seems to have influenced Aquinas and Pope Gregory in their own masterworks. Of interest in art is the influence on the great painter El Greco, who likely spent his youth in Byzantine influenced Crete.
The book then moves onto the questions of "caesaropapism," the belief that the Byzantine emperor controlled both the secular and spiritual worlds. While the emperor was the defender of the church had a hand in selecting (and deposing) patriarchs (though popular patriarchs could always stir up trouble) and set the boundaries of various bishoprics, the emperor's power over the church was not absolute. It was true the emperor had a right to call ecumenical councils (there was a debate over who was to sign first the union of florence, the emperor or pope) but the patriarchs needed to be represented (hence the rejection of the union at Lyons). The emperor could stand behind the icon screen, receive communion like priests and preach but could not perform the sacraments. Most importantly, the emperor could never dictate the doctrines of the church.
My favorite essay in the book discussed the council of florence, where the east agreed to mend the break between the churches. While the great schism is normally dated to the mutual excommunications in 1054, the break in communion was in fact not complete until the fourth crusade in 1204 (before that there was still inter-communion and mutual prayers for each other's church leadership). To summon the west's aid against the ottomans, the late byzantine emperors tried to enlist the pope's help, cumulating the council of florence. It was quite interesting that the east decided to go to the pope instead of the council at Basel, which might have appealed more to the counciler east (that was a victory for the pope and was likely because the pope could provide more practical aid). The meeting got off to a rocky start, the patriarch refused to kiss the pope's foot, the traditional sign on homage, arguing that the apostles were not required to kiss peter's foot. As a result, the eastern delegation stayed on the boat for quite some time. Eventually, the eastern delegation was allowed to land but did not get the public welcome because the patriarch would not pay homage, instead there was a private feast. Then some time was expended on the issue of where everyone would sit. The pope wished to sit between the eastern delegation and the western delegation, but the emperor wanted to preside over the council. Eventually, the pope was seated on the western side, with the eastern emperor higher (and a mirroring empty throne for the western emperor), with the patriarch lower than the pope. Stickest theologically was the issue of the filioque. Ultimately, the compromise was struck that the holy spirit processed from the father but through the son. Members of the eastern delegation objected to the council and when the delegation returned east most of the population did as well. Help from the west did not really materialize, the west appreciated the ancient greeks but not so much the byzantines. The author concludes that the anti-latin feeling as a result of the fourth crusade (so much so that some in the east preferred the ottomans) poisoned the council's chances and the only way to overcome that fear that their church would latinize would have been to hold the council in the east, but that likely would have been a nonstarter (it would have caused an immediate invasion from the ottomans and challenged papal prerogatives).
The rest of the book is devoted the actual transmission from the east through the Venice colony of byzantines and through crete. The Greek colony in Venice became quite important as a publishing certain for ancient greek works, stimulating university learning in nearby areas. Through the importance of certain greek cavalry units in Venice the Greeks living there were able to eventually even build their own orthodox church, in communion with the east. Many scholars went from Venice to the rest of Europe to influence intellectual life. Later in the 16th century, Venice ended up being a common pit stop for intellectuals from Crete would would then advance to more northern europe, and we see Cretean scholars in Spain and France.
Finally the book concludes with the thinker margunios, one of these cretean scholars. Margunios was one of these Cretean scholars, but he had an innovative solution to the filoque problem. Margunios argued that there was simply a semantical issue. When the east said proceeded from the Father, the east meant the eternal procession within the Godhead, when the west added "and the Son" it meant the temporal procession from the Son to the world. In Margunios's view then, both forms are acceptable. What was most interesting was that Margunios engaged both with the east and west, leaving his latin books to the monks on Mount Athos.
It was Margunios's hope that better mutual understanding could heal the rift between the west and east. The author seems to take that approach as correct, in his own way, added to that mission.
The first chapter discusses the Byzantine influence on the West. In particular, Byzantine law and diplomacy as well as the prestige of certain elements related to kingship was very influential in the West. While the West received Aristotle from the Muslims in Spain, Plato was reintroduced into the West by the Byzantines (particularly the Byzantine thinker Plethon who wanted to bring back Sparta). The Byzantine colony in Venice was important in printing Greek works of philosophy, making Plato available to the West for the first time. In addition to the fork, Byzantine theology and church music seems to have influenced Aquinas and Pope Gregory in their own masterworks. Of interest in art is the influence on the great painter El Greco, who likely spent his youth in Byzantine influenced Crete.
The book then moves onto the questions of "caesaropapism," the belief that the Byzantine emperor controlled both the secular and spiritual worlds. While the emperor was the defender of the church had a hand in selecting (and deposing) patriarchs (though popular patriarchs could always stir up trouble) and set the boundaries of various bishoprics, the emperor's power over the church was not absolute. It was true the emperor had a right to call ecumenical councils (there was a debate over who was to sign first the union of florence, the emperor or pope) but the patriarchs needed to be represented (hence the rejection of the union at Lyons). The emperor could stand behind the icon screen, receive communion like priests and preach but could not perform the sacraments. Most importantly, the emperor could never dictate the doctrines of the church.
My favorite essay in the book discussed the council of florence, where the east agreed to mend the break between the churches. While the great schism is normally dated to the mutual excommunications in 1054, the break in communion was in fact not complete until the fourth crusade in 1204 (before that there was still inter-communion and mutual prayers for each other's church leadership). To summon the west's aid against the ottomans, the late byzantine emperors tried to enlist the pope's help, cumulating the council of florence. It was quite interesting that the east decided to go to the pope instead of the council at Basel, which might have appealed more to the counciler east (that was a victory for the pope and was likely because the pope could provide more practical aid). The meeting got off to a rocky start, the patriarch refused to kiss the pope's foot, the traditional sign on homage, arguing that the apostles were not required to kiss peter's foot. As a result, the eastern delegation stayed on the boat for quite some time. Eventually, the eastern delegation was allowed to land but did not get the public welcome because the patriarch would not pay homage, instead there was a private feast. Then some time was expended on the issue of where everyone would sit. The pope wished to sit between the eastern delegation and the western delegation, but the emperor wanted to preside over the council. Eventually, the pope was seated on the western side, with the eastern emperor higher (and a mirroring empty throne for the western emperor), with the patriarch lower than the pope. Stickest theologically was the issue of the filioque. Ultimately, the compromise was struck that the holy spirit processed from the father but through the son. Members of the eastern delegation objected to the council and when the delegation returned east most of the population did as well. Help from the west did not really materialize, the west appreciated the ancient greeks but not so much the byzantines. The author concludes that the anti-latin feeling as a result of the fourth crusade (so much so that some in the east preferred the ottomans) poisoned the council's chances and the only way to overcome that fear that their church would latinize would have been to hold the council in the east, but that likely would have been a nonstarter (it would have caused an immediate invasion from the ottomans and challenged papal prerogatives).
The rest of the book is devoted the actual transmission from the east through the Venice colony of byzantines and through crete. The Greek colony in Venice became quite important as a publishing certain for ancient greek works, stimulating university learning in nearby areas. Through the importance of certain greek cavalry units in Venice the Greeks living there were able to eventually even build their own orthodox church, in communion with the east. Many scholars went from Venice to the rest of Europe to influence intellectual life. Later in the 16th century, Venice ended up being a common pit stop for intellectuals from Crete would would then advance to more northern europe, and we see Cretean scholars in Spain and France.
Finally the book concludes with the thinker margunios, one of these cretean scholars. Margunios was one of these Cretean scholars, but he had an innovative solution to the filoque problem. Margunios argued that there was simply a semantical issue. When the east said proceeded from the Father, the east meant the eternal procession within the Godhead, when the west added "and the Son" it meant the temporal procession from the Son to the world. In Margunios's view then, both forms are acceptable. What was most interesting was that Margunios engaged both with the east and west, leaving his latin books to the monks on Mount Athos.
It was Margunios's hope that better mutual understanding could heal the rift between the west and east. The author seems to take that approach as correct, in his own way, added to that mission.
Displaying 1 of 1 review