During the last period of Byzantine history, that of the Palaeologi (1250-1453), a number of writers still appear to deserve some mention. Nicephorus Vlemmides (thirteenth century) sternly castigated the errors of the Roman Church both by word and pen. Constantine Armenopulos, in the fourteenth century, produced a synopsis of the Nomocanon compiled by Photius. Gregory Palamas (d. 1360), the distinguished Metropolitan of Salonica, devoted his pen mainly to the defense of the Hesychasts, or Quitists, of Mount Athos against the attacks of Barlaam, but is also the author of other works, among which the Dialogue between Body and Soul is well worth reading. Nicholas Cabasilas, who succeeded Gregory as Metropolitan of Salonica, was a great lover and exponent of Mystical Theology, as is shown by his commentary on the Liturgy and particularly by his beautiful book Concerning the Life of Christ. Macarius of Philadelphia (c. 1350) annotated the Book of Genesis, and the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke. Simeon of Salonica (d. 1429) is an authority on liturgical matters, although, like all the other writers of his times, he follows the mystical and allegorical method of interpretation. Mark Eugenicus of Ephesus (d. 1449) distinguished himself at Florence above all his fellows by his indomitable character and his refusal to sign the would- be Act of Union, which so disappointed the Pope that, on learning of it, he cried out: “Then we have accomplished nothing!” Mark's writings are chiefly directed against the Pope. Lastly, let us mention Sylvester Syropulos, who was also present at Florence, and who has left us an honest and heart-breaking account of all he witnessed there, edited later under the title A true history of a false union.

Christian Life and Worship.

The Condition of Morals.

   The morality of mediaeval life was disfigured by many blemishes. Many Christians confined their virtue to the observance of outward forms, and considered that frequent attendance at festivals and holy days, pilgrimages to famous shrines, the worship of wonder-working images, and similar ceremonies were enough to justify them in their Christian calling. The Emperors themselves were often the worst sinners in this respect. Michael III, nicknamed the Drunkard, who treated everything holy and sacred with mockery, was yet constantly presenting wonderful votive offerings to St. Sophia. And Basil the Macedonian, who assassinated him in order to seize the throne for himself, built churches to propitiate the Archangel Michael, who at his death would carry off his soul and bring it up to judgment. Blinding and mutilation were common occurrences in the palaces of those days. And yet these kings considered themselves as anointed by God to be the leaders and absolute rulers of their people, — a conviction which accounts for their perpetual interference in the affairs of the Church. It was they who negotiated with Rome, against the wishes of their whole people; they who convened Synods and condemned heretics; and they who arbitrarily elected and deposed the Patriarchs. “I built thee, even, and I will break thee too,” were the words of a certain Emperor to a Patriarch who had fallen out of favor.

The Reverse of the Medal.

   It must not, however, be supposed from what has just been said that the Middle Ages were a period of unrelieved darkness in which virtue was unknown. That faith lived on in the heart of the people, although too often dormant, is evident from their fervent prayers and supplications during their political reverses, and from the general and passionate litanies held in times of earthquake, pestilence, and other such calamities. That this faith, moreover, was not dead and barren is proved by the institution of every kind that existed for the succour of the poor and the orphaned, under the direct care of the Church. And if, on the one hand, the interference of the State in ecclesiastical affairs marked an abuse of power, it revealed on the other hand the great interest taken in religion at that time, when the idea of a state without religion was inconceivable, and when even the Byzantine Emperors themselves were sometimes skilled theologians. Neither should it be forgotten that, though some of the heads of the Church submitted through weakness to the imperial will, there was yet no lack of fearless prelates who valiantly defended the independence of their Church and, like other Nathans, rebuked the errors of their rulers. Patriarchs such as Germanus, Photius, Nicholas the Mystic and Arsenius, are the brightest jewels of the Orthodox Church.