SECTION V
Chapter 7 - The Roman Empire in the East--the Byzantine Empire (340-1453 C.E.)

  Most modern Christians in Europe and America trace their religious heritage
through the WESTERN tradition of the Christian Roman Empire.  However,
following the reign of Constantine the Great, it was the EASTERN half of
the Roman Empire that was considered to be the "true" inheritors of
the Roman Empire.  Constantine had MOVED the official capital of the Roman
Empire from pagan Rome to Constantinople in 340 C.E. Therefore following
Constantine's death, Constantinople was, "in theory", the new political and
spiritual capital of BOTH the Eastern and Western halves of the empire.

  Constantine, had ruled as absolute head of both the Roman State AND the
Christian Church. Following the tradition of Constantine, Byzantine emperors
considered themselves both the secular AND spiritual heads of Christendom.
The patriarch (or religious head) of Constantinople could be overruled in
religious matters, and even deposed without ceremony by the emperor. However
as Rome was so far away from Constantinople, the Catholic church in the West
escaped the jurisdiction of the emperor--as he no longer had any effective
political control in the West.

The Eastern Empire Survives the Barbarian Sieges to become a Strong Empire.

  Unlike the decline and later collapse that occurred in the West, the
Eastern emperors had retained strong centralized control over the Eastern
empire. Supported by an effective tax system that collected in coinage
(and not natural produce, as in the West), Eastern emperors could maintain
a core of large and loyal soldiers who were paid in cash, and not land.
Although there were large feudal landholding estates in the East, they seem
to have become fewer in number, and more scattered throughout the countryside.
Thus, they were less able to pose a challenge to the Eastern emperor by
collecting their own taxes and forming their own armies. The main military
forces remained directly under the emperor's command. 

  In addition to possessing a powerful maritime fleet, Eastern Byzantine
escaped from being invaded by the barbarians because, time after time,
they bribed the barbarians to spare their cities--with gold. The Byzantines
basically left the poorer West to its own resources, in facing the barbarians.

  Social conditions in the West took a different turn than it did in the
Byzantine Empire.  Byzantine society was characterized by sharp contrasts--
ranging from the extravagant self-indulgence of the wealthy, to the ascetic
humble lifestyles of religious monks and hermits. There was a large class of
peasants who worked the lands of large estate-owners, as there was in the West.
However, there was also a middle-class that maintained an important role in
the East.

   In the East, international trade continued to bring in an important source
of revenue (and thus taxes).  Merchants, bankers, and manufacturers were
highly respected members of society--for unlike in Rome--there did not
develop a view that despised earning one's living via industry or trade.
In the East, the wealthy lived in luxury and opulence--which, in turn,
encouraged industrial activity for extravagant garments interwoven with gold
and silver, jeweled ornaments, and exquisite glass and house ware.  Whereas
large areas of Italy and southern France had sunk into primitive ruralism,
cities in the Byzantine Empire remained important.

  The continuation of industrial activity within the Byzantine Empire, meant
that the life of the average man in Byzantine was probably better off than
his counterpart in the West.   Even the lot of the surf who was bound to the
estate of his master was probably better off in the Eastern realm than in
the West.--For one thing the landlord's powers of exploitation were at least
regulated by law through the East, unlike in the West.  Eastern monasteries
came to be one of the richest landowners in the Byzantine Empire, from the
large bequeaths of land given to them by pious farmers.  This land owned by
the monasteries were cultivated by surfs--and not by monks and priests.
During the seventh and eight centuries, a movement spread that granted
many serfs their freedom, and allowed them the status of tenants over the
land they cultivated.  (This lasted until the eleventh century, when again
large estate-owners predominated the scene.) Byzantine society had a thriving
slave-trading business.  Probably many of these slaves were used by the
Byzantines in domestic service, and thus did not face the harsh life of
the serfs toiling on the land.

   Throughout the period of Byzantine, literature consisted for the most
part of compilations and religious writings--such as commentaries, hymns,
and biographies on the lives of the saints.  There was some progress in
science and medicine in the early years of the Empire--perhaps due to the
survival of Hellenistic literature and science.  However, a period of
stagnation in the sciences followed the years of wars whereby the Byzantine
Empire-- under the emperor Justinian--fought a major war on Italian soil in
a futile effort to permanently reunite the two realms of the Roman Empire.

Reign of Justinian (527-565 C.E.)

  Justinian was the most powerful emperor of Byzantium, after Constantine
himself.  He ascended the throne in 527 C.E., when he was 45 years old. His
wife, the beautiful Theodora was of lowly birth--and had been a former
actress and dancer before she married Justinian.

Religious Crackdown under Justinian

  Unlike his predecessors, who had passively allowed vestiges of paganism to
remain, Justinian was determined to convert the ENTIRE population over into
Orthodox Christianity. Regarding the pagan Greeks, Justinian declared:

 "one finds persons possessed by the error of the unclean and abominable
  Hellenes, and performing their practices, and this arouses in God, in his
  love for mankind, a righteous anger."

  He issued the following decree in the 530s, which effectively ordered
the entire population to convert to Orthodox Christianity:

  "All those who have not yet been baptized must come forward, whether they
  reside in the capital or in the provinces, and go to the very holy churches
  with their wives, their children, and their households, to be instructed in
  the true faith of Christians.  And one thus instructed and having seriously
  renounced their former error, let them be judged worth of redemptive baptism.
  Should they disobey, let them know that they will be excluded from the
  State and will no longer have any rights of possession, neither goods nor
  property; stripped of everything, they will be reduced to penury, without
  prejudice to the appropriate punishments that will be imposed on them."

   "Appropriate punishments" included the death penalty for those who
practiced pagan cults.(Landowners would merely lose their property and
be banished). Heads of families that baptized WITHOUT their families joining
them would lose their jobs. Regarding professors and teachers:

  "We forbid anyone stricken with the madness of the impure Hellenes to teach
  so as to prevent them, under the guise of teaching those who by misfortune
  happen to attend their classes, from in fact corrupting the souls of those
  they pretend to educate."  (Code of Justinian I, 10,11 as quoted by
  Pierre Chuvin, A CHRONICLE OF THE LAST PAGANS, Harvard University Press
  Cambridge, Massachusetts/London England 1990, p 133).

  As part of a religious campaign to suppress the last vestiges of paganism and
heresy, the Platonic Academy in Athens was closed down in 529-532 C.E.
The Platonic Academy, had dated back to the 4th century B.C.E. in Athens. It
had survived the Roman conquest of Greece, and later early Christianization.
As the professors were paid from inheritances from donors, as opposed to
state pensions, they had survived earlier suppression attempts. Following
the closings, there following violent uprisings and riots, which were put
down harshly. (Ibid p 144-6)

  Justinian stood firm on his decision, saying regarding the pagan heretics 
that: "It is more than enough [for them] merely to be alive." (Code Justinian I, 
5 laws 12,14, quoted by Pierre Chuvin (op.cit, p 134) Justinian believed the 
Bible should be referred to in explaining the natural world. Even his personal 
physician, Aetius used religion for his cures. For example, his prescription for 
removing a bone from the throat was to shout to the bone:

  "As Jesus Christ drew Lazarus from the grave, and Jonah out of the whale,
  thus Blasius, the martyr and servant of God, commands, 'Bone come up or bone
  go down.'"

The "Nika" Riots

  Justinian's policies (which included heavy taxation to finance his wars)
came close to losing him his throne in the early years of his reign. The
people in Constantinople were fanatical about the sport of chariot racing,
and were divided into two factions--the Greens and the Blues (based on the
color of their favorite jockey's uniform.) In 532 C.E., a disturbance broke
out in the city between these two factions. Justinian responded by punishing
the leaders of both factions. However, they united in their anger in armed
revolt against the government. As the army tried to restore order, the
incident sparked an all-out revolt.  The city was set on fire, and thousands
were killed in the rioting. During the rioting, the people chanted "Nika!"
(which is Greek for "conquer") in the streets.

  Justinian, believing his life to be in jeopardy, prepared to abdicate and
flee from the capital.  At the last moment, the Empress Theodora announced
that she would remain, and indeed would view her throne "as a glorious tomb".
Inspired by his wife's determination, Justinian chose to stay and fight.
He sent his most brilliant general, Belisarius, into the Hippodrome,
backed up by 3000 veterans.  The battle was fierce and savage. In one day,
Belisarius' army had slaughtered somewhere between thirty and fifty
thousand people. However order was restored and Justinian saved his throne.

The Monophysite Controversy Regarding the Divine Nature of Jesus Christ

  Although religion reigned supreme during these times in the minds of most
people, there were still powerful UNRESOLVED theological issues--none of
which were more divisive than those regarding the EXACT nature of the
Divine Jesus.  That is, this issue which surfaced in the early days of
Christianity, was still creating bitter controversy. At issue here was
over whether Jesus had ever been a mere HUMAN, or had he also been divine
during the period of time he spent on earth?

  Catholics argued that Jesus had BOTH a divine AND a human nature. Other
Christian groups, later called "Monophysites" (ie from their belief in the
"one nature" of God), believed that if Jesus was of divine nature--
then he could NEVER have been a MERE HUMAN on earth. The Monophysitic view
which was probably influenced by the Neo-Platonist contempt for the material
world, had been declared heretical almost a century earlier during the Council
of Chalcedon (451 C.E.).  However the "heretical" sects remained strong,
especially in the Eastern provinces of Egypt and Syria.  Justinian convened
a second council in Constantinople in 553 C.E. to address the issue, but
the compromise formula that came out was almost as harsh as the old formula.
To the Monophysites, the new interpretation was still unacceptable. The
controversy over the nature of Jesus raged on passionately after Justinian's
death.

The Dream of Reuniting the Eastern and Western provinces of the Roman Empire

  Justinian believed himself to be mandated by God to restore the eastern
and western halves of the Roman Empire to its earlier days of glory. In
533-34 C.E. his general, Belisarius defeated the Vandal kings in North Africa,
and the territory was reincorporated back into the Empire. The troops were
immediately shipped from Africa to Italy--in an attempt to retake the Western
half of the Empire.  By 540 C.E., Justinian had captured Ravenna, the important
east coast Italian city.  However the Goths regrouped to begin a new siege.

    Around this time, the bubonic plague broke out in the ancient world,
spreading to Constantinople in 543 C.E.  Justinian attributed the plague to
God's anger and a "sign" before the imminent Second Coming. Justinian kept
up the war campaign against the barbarian kings in Italy, despite the
continued outbreak of the plague.  This war campaign lasted off and on in
the region for the next fifty years.

   After roughly twenty years--ie by 554 C.E., three Gothic barbarian kingdoms
in Italy were soundly defeated, and Justinian was in control over all of
Italy. During these twenty years, most of the fighting and devastation
occurred in Italy.  Rome itself, had been repeatedly attacked and sacked
under Justinian, in the war to rejoin Italy with the Eastern Roman Empire.
The long military conflict brought the Italian countryside into stark
barbarism.  So many people died, that fields were left untilled. Pestilence
and famine completed the misery of the people. Wolves became a problem as
they moved in to feed off the numerous unburied human corpses. Desperation
was so great, that cannibalism was actually reported in some areas.  Only
in the cities, was there any small remnant left of civilization.

  Thus, ironically most of the devastation of Rome occurred NOT from the
barbarian invasions under Alaric, but during the war with the Byzantines--
When the Byzantine emperor Constans II (successor of Justinian) visited
Rome, he collected all the metal from the statues and buildings (including
the bronze and lead tiles and roofs, and wall clamps holding buildings
together) to melt down into armaments.  (Paul Johnson, HISTORY OF
CHRISTIANITY, p 130)

Legacy of Justinian's Empire.

  One of Justinian's greatest achievements was to codify ancient Roman
laws, which were blended with Christian morality--into what later become
known as Justinian's Roman code.  This was later adopted by much of Western
Europe to form the basis of their laws. Justinian also constructed the
magnificent Church of the Holy Wisdom (Hagia Sophia) in Constantinople.
So dazzling was its architecture and decorations, that Justinian is
purported to have said that he had outdone the biblical King Solomon
himself when he built the Temple at Jerusalem.  (After Muslim Turks
conquered Constantinople, they converted the church into a mosque. Later,
the Turkish government converted it into a museum. Although much of the
original splendor of the church has been stripped away, the building still
stands today as a monumental architectural achievement!)

  When Justinian died in 565 C.E., he had, come close to reuniting much of
the Western and Eastern halves of the Roman Empire. However his victory was
very short-lived! Even on his deathbed, the empire had already begun to
crumble. In the next three years, another Germanic tribe, the Lombards,
invaded and took back the majority of Italy from Byzantine control. The
Byzantine treasury was empty from decades of war, and the army was in
disarray.

  By 589 C.E., Byzantine had largely abandoned its efforts to regain control
over Italy and, with it the Western half of the Empire.

Emergence of Islam

   Probably the MOST important outcome of the Byzantine Re-conquest was to
weaken BOTH the East and  Western halves of the old Roman empire--thus
making them more vulnerable to future attacks by other invaders. The emerging
Muslim power in Arabia, took advantage of this weakness, and became a strong
force in their own right by 634 C.E. Persia was defeated at the hands of the
Muslims, after a stampede caused by their own trained war elephants.  Egypt,
Syria, Palestine, North Africa, and Spain also fell to the Muslims.

  By 700 C.E., the Christian Byzantine empire had lost roughly half of its
territory--including the important patriarchal cities of Alexandria,
Antioch and Jerusalem-- to Muslim Arabs. One of the reasons for the success
of the Arabs, was that Eastern Christians frequently "liked" the Muslims
better than Orthodox Christian rulers. Thus the first Islamic victory,
occurring at the River Yarmuk in 636 C.E., was made possible because some
12,000 Christian Arabs (Copts, Jacobites, etc) had gone over to the Arab
side. The victorious Muslims allowed the inhabitants of their conquered
territories religious freedoms.  In some cases, Monophysite Christian
leaders (who had been exiled under Orthodox Christian rule) were allowed to
return to their communities under Muslim rule.

   Not only did the Muslim Arabs militarily conquer these territories, but
they were also successful in quickly converting the majority of the
population from Christianity to Islam! Various reasons have been offered
as to why the majority of Christians were so easily converted to Islam:

  Some historians have suggested that many Eastern Christians converted to
Islam because the Muslims imposed special taxes on Christians and Jews
living in their territory. (Pagans, on the other hand were not tolerated and
were given the choice of conversion to Islam, or dying by the sword.  Mohammed
had taught special respect for Jews and Christians, which is why they were
tolerated, unlike the pagans.) Other historians find it hard to believe that
so many people converted for mere monetary reasons. After all, the small
minority of Christians who remained in these lands-- shows that at least
SOME chose NOT to convert. (Christians also had imposed taxes on Jews living
in their lands, without likewise converting Jews over in comparable numbers.)

   Some historians have pointed to a second cause of the mass conversion
of Christians to become Muslims.  Eastern Christians living in Muslim-
controlled lands belonged to sects that had been proclaimed heretical by
Orthodoxy (such as Arians and Monophysites.) That is, the official
Christianity that was being forced upon them lacked a popular basis of
support--and official Christian doctrines were received with distrust
and resentment.

   It will be recalled that the Arian Christians believed that Jesus was NOT 
born a god--but was a man who had been chosen as the messiah-savior by God. 
Possibly, they found Islam's theology of one God, with Allah as His Prophet (and 
Jesus highly regarded as a minor prophet)--instead of a divine order of three 
Gods in one Trinity-- to be more similar in concept to their original Arian 
Christian doctrines. If this analysis is correct, then it would be an important 
example of where the insistence on conforming to Orthodox doctrine, cost 
Christianity an important area within the world! (Paul Johnson, HISTORY OF 
CHRISTIANITY, op. cit., p 179)

The Emergence of a Powerful Muslim Civilization

  While Western European secular learning had disappeared, a great deal of 
culture and learning-- representing a mixture of Greek, Roman, and Jewish 
thought-- survived in the outer realms of Byzantine Empire, and in other regions 
throughout the east. Many of the Neo-Platonists who left the Plato Academy of 
Athens after it was closed down by Justin in 529 C.E., moved to Jundi Shapur, in 
Persia which became a famous center of learning. Here, Greek translations of 
ancient works (such as Plato and Aristotle) were merged with learning from 
India,  Syria, and Persia. Jundi Shapur thus became an important center of 
learning in astronomy, medicine, mathematics, philosophy, and astrology.

  In the centuries after the Muslims had conquered much of the old Eastern
Roman Empire (between 620 and 650 C.E.), the societies they controlled
experienced a renaissance in learning and cultural activity.  In 765 C.E., the
caliph of the newly founded city of Baghdad, was cured by Christian monks
stationed in Jundi Shapur in Persia.  The caliph invited some of the monks
to come to Baghdad to establish a hospital. Their presence served to
influence the Muslim Arabic culture in Greek philosophy and science. Soon,
Muslim scholars began busily translating Greek texts to recover the ancient
lost knowledge in physics, medicine, mathematics and astronomy. Islamic
science grew during this time--to where it became the unquestioned leader of
its time in classical learning in the arts and sciences.

  For example, during this time the Persian physician Abu Bakr al-Razi (known
in Europe as Bubachar or Rhazes) was held to be not only the greatest
physician within Islam, but also in the whole ancient world. He compiled
many encyclopedic works, including one on smallpox and measles.  He also
applied the sciences of chemistry and physics towards medicine and
measurements (such as the hydrostatic balance to measure specific gravitation).
The Muslim physician and philosopher, Avicenna (980-1037) discovered that
diseases such as tuberculosis, pleurisy were contagious--and the role played
by contaminated soil and water in their spread. The Muslim physicist,
Ibn-al-Haitham, (965-1020) studied a large number of problems in optics
using mathematics and experimentation. His research showed an advance
understanding of what is today termed, the "scientific" method. The Latin
translation of his works exerted a large influence on the later development
of Western science--especially on such early scientists as Roger Bacon and
Johannes Kepler.

  Some Muslim learning was borrowed not only from the Greeks, but from the
cultural exchange with Indian writings on mathematics and astronomy.
Muslim Arabs began using the Arabic numeral convention (as opposed to the
crude Roman representation of numbers), complete with decimals. Numerals
were used by the Arabs to develop algebra and other advanced mathematics.
Their astronomy was vastly superior to any Western European study of the topic.
Many of the sciences (such as chemistry) were also relatively more free of
the "mystical" element, which then discredited Western science.

  True, Muslim chemistry was heavily entangled with alchemy--the pseudo-science
that holds that all metals are made of the same essential material.  Therefore
they believed that base metals such as lead could be transmuted into gold--
if one could find the philosopher's stone.  (Some Muslim chemists, however,
denied the theory of the transmutation of metals.) Muslim chemists and
alchemists were the first to describe the chemical processes of distillation,
filtration, and sublimation.  During their experiments, new substances and
compounds were discovered--including carbonate of soda, borax, nitrate of
silver, saltpeter, alum, and nitric and sulphuric acids. The point is that
science was tolerated, and thus allowed to co-exist side by side Muslim
mysticism, such as Sufism.

  (Note: This toleration would change around the eleventh century C.E.  Then,
fundamentalist Muslims took over--burning books, and condemning learning and
knowledge as evil.  Afterwards, this thriving civilization plunged into its
own version of a Dark Age.)

Iconoclasm in the Byzantine Empire.

  Following the reign of Justin, the veneration of icons in the Byzantine
Empire (paralleling relics in the West) played an important symbolic role in
holding the Eastern empire together against increasing threats from its
neighbors. During this time, icons (ie religious paintings, statues, and
mosaics) were believed to contain within them some of the divine power from
God Himself. Thus, veneration was often paid directly towards the icon--as
opposed to God, or to the saints. The veneration of icons served to
psychologically inspire the troops on the battlefield--just as relics
carried by Western Christian barbarian leaders gave them confidence that
they possessed great miraculous powers on the battlefield.

   However, after the Arabs and Bulgars began defeating Christian cities
(despite them being under the protection of some holy image), many Orthodox
theologians, began looking for "reasons" for their defeat and humiliation.
The Muslims taught that the depiction of humans in art-- was a form of
idolatry. (This is why Muslim artists developed beautiful geometric shapes
and designs to take their place).  The Muslims leveled charges against
the Byzantine Christians that their veneration of the icons was tantamount
to IDOLATRY!

   On the defensive--Eastern Orthodox monks (some of whom depended on
income from selling icons to the people) tried to argue that it was
instead the LACK in faith of the people, not the lack in power of the images,
that was the ultimate cause of the recent defeats on the battlefield.  Still,
many Byzantine Christians appear to have taken these charges very seriously--
including the Eastern emperor.  In 726 C.E., the Byzantine Emperor, Leo III
took the side of the iconoclasts and ordered the destruction of all images
throughout the empire! In the East, iconoclasm (ie the smashing of all
religious icons) was seriously undertaken during the eighth and ninth
centuries C.E. Because of this, many religious works of art from Byzantine
have not survived today.

  The emperor made his edict effective for the West as well. Western Catholics,
however, refused to comply with the Byzantine emperor's orders.

Deterioration in Relations Between East and West Christianity--
Rome Designates Itself as the True Leader of Christianity

  Originally, Orthodox Eastern Christianity and Western Orthodox (Catholic)
Christianity had SHARED a common basis in doctrine.  That is, going back to
the Council of Nicea (325 C.E.), BOTH had rejected the Arian view that the Son
is subordinate to the Father. After the Council of Chalcedon (451 C.E.), BOTH
rejected the Monophysitic view that held Christ only had a divine nature,
(as opposed to the dual nature of being BOTH divine AND human).

  However, in 484 C.E., Orthodox Eastern Christianity reversed its position,
and came down on the side of the Monophysites regarding the doctrine of
Jesus' one divine nature.  This difference in doctrine produced a chilling
effect in the relations between Orthodox Eastern Christianity and
Western (Catholic) Christianity.

   Thus, the Chalcedon formula describing Christ's nature as "one person
in two natures" came to be interpreted in different ways between Eastern
and Western (Catholic) Orthodoxy.  In the West, (based largely on St.
Augustine's views on the Nature of the Trinity), Jesus was seen as the
pre-existent Son of God--ie as the Logos (Word) as described in the Gospel
of John.  As such, Jesus was seen to be of the same substance, but still a
separate, distinct entity or Being. ("The Father and the Son are two in
relation to each other, but one in relation to the Spirit"). In the East,
Byzantine theologians believed that the Son and the Spirit emanated in form
from the Father.  For example, on Byzantine icons, the Greek letters for
"YHWH" (Yahweh or Jehovah) were often printed around the face of Jesus.

  In the original version of the Nicene creed, the Holy Spirit had been
defined as proceeding from the Father ONLY.  This, however, was at odds
with how the concept of the Trinity became understood in the West.  During
the sixth century C.E. in Spain, the Latin word "filioque" (meaning "and from
the Son") was fraudulently inserted in the Western copy of the Nicene creed.
This interpolation now had the Nicene Creed read so that the Holy Spirit
proceeded from the Father AND FROM THE SON.

  The FILIOQUE was first interpolated in order to champion the Catholic
position against Arians, who denied the divinity of Jesus. The writings of
St. Augustine were used to justify the Catholic doctrine of filioque.

   In later centuries, Catholics insisted that it was the Orthodox Greeks
who had fraudulently OMMITTED the phrase "and from the Son". Orthodox Greeks
became angry at being falsely accused of interpolation.  They resented the
insertion of filioque in the creed by the West, and refused to accept the
increasing demands of Rome to make it part of their doctrine. The issue of
filioque turned into one of the main causes for ensuing bitter conflicts
between Eastern and Western Christendom.

  There were of course, other doctrinal differences as well, that had evolved
over time between East and Western Christendom.  Unlike in the West, the
Byzantines had not thought highly of the doctrines of St. Augustine--
believing them to be inferior because of its non-Greek, limited outlook,
and its emphasis on feeling over reason.  (Also, the Byzantines felt no need
for Augustine's doctrine justifying Church authority.--For in the East,
it was traditionally accepted that the Emperor had complete command over
both secular and religious matters.)

  Thus, the Byzantines never accepted St. Augustine's doctrine of Original
Sin. (It will be recalled this doctrine insisted that all babies are born
in sin--due to the sexual act of their parents-- and could only be erased
by God's grace.) Instead, unlike in the West, the Greek Orthodox read the
Genesis story to imply that Adam's sin was separation from God.  Due to Adam's
disobedience, mankind inherited a current unnatural condition which ends
upon death.  Christians are liberated from this death by undergoing baptism
and the sacraments of the Church.

   The Church in the West, following the Doctrine of Original Sin, stressed
mankind's deplorable, wicked condition, which God forgives based on His
"grace."  In the East, Greek Orthodox Christians optimistically focused
on mankind's potential of approaching God, and hence immortality through the
mediation of the Church and its sacraments.  In the West, mankind could only
hope for God's "grace" in being granted salvation in the afterlife.

  In the West, priests were not allowed to marry. St. Augustine was once again
influential in this trend, when he forbade members of his monasteries
to marry.  Because his doctrine of "Original Sin" identified sexual desire
as the "cause" of the break between God and man, sexual relations came to be
seen as an obstacle between God and devout men.  In the East, this tradition
did not take hold, and priests were allowed to marry.

Rome Refuses to Destroy her Religious Images

  Rome was already viewed as the spiritual leader in the WESTERN Christendom.
Much had been made of her tradition that TWO of Christendom's most famous
apostles--St Peter and St Paul had been martyred and buried on Rome's soil.
Increasingly, popes began to speak of their actions as being "divinely"
directed by the invisible spirit of St. Peter himself-- which floated
around Rome.  Thus, for example in 710, when the current pope in Rome
accused the Archbishop of Ravenna (Italy) of rebellion, the sentence--which
was to blind both the Archbishop's eyes--was signed by the order of St.
Peter himself--instead of the pope! (Paul Johnson, op cit, p 169).

  Rome used relics to support its authority as head of the Christian
Church.  It should thus come as no surprise, that when the Byzantine
emperor ordered the West to destroy their religious images, the bishop of
Rome, Gregory II refused!

  The Byzantine emperor responded by sending imperial troops into Italy
to enforce his order--and a terrible and bloody war ensued in the Italian
seaport city of Ravenna. The carnage from the battle, reportedly was so
terrible, that the inhabitants of the Po Valley, voluntarily abstained from
eating fish in the river for the next six years--least they might inadvertently
eat some of the human flesh that had been dumped into the river!

  Politically, the battle was a stale mate. Western Christendom remained
defiant.  After the pope's death in 731, a synod in Rome threatened
excommunication to anyone who would attack the images of the saints.

   However, in the process of cutting off all ties with the Byzantine emperor,
Rome left itself open to military attacks-- as it at the time, held no
SECULAR doctrine or justification for maintaining an army. During this time,
there developed the practical theory that the old lands of the Western Empire
"should" be under the control of Rome, which after all was the old capital of
the Roman Empire.  The only problem with this --was the fact that Byzantium,
through Constantine's successors, held valid claim as the "true" heads of
Christendom. Thus, what was needed was some proof to show that it was Rome
who "should" lead--both politically and spiritually-- in the West.

   This "proof" became supplied through a forgery, that became known as the
Donation of Constantine.

The Donation of Constantine

  According to the Donation, the emperor Constantine had "meant" to give Rome
supreme control over the West through a "personal gift" to St. Peter.  The
occasion for the donation (and a fact previously "unknown" by everyone
until mentioned in the donation), was that the emperor Constantine I, had
come down with leprosy while still in Rome.  The saints Peter and Paul
appeared to him in a vision, and told him that the only person who could
cure him was Sylvestor (who was then bishop of Rome). After Bishop Sylvestor
visited Constantine, he gave him a baptism, which immediately cured him of
the disease.

  In gratitude, the emperor Constantine purportedly wrote a letter (ie the
Donation) dated March 30, 315 C.E., whereby he gave Sylvester and his successors
for all time, the  "palaces, the City of Rome, and all the provinces, places,
and cities of Italy and the regions of the West".  Constantine then placed
this letter on the body of St. Peter in Rome, as a personal gift to him
(which explained why it was not discovered for so many centuries.) The
Donation stated that the reason why the emperor later departed to
Constantinople, was that he believed a secular emperor should NOT share the
spiritual seat of the successor of Peter. (E.R. Chamberlin, THE BAD POPES,
Dorset Press, 1969, p 14)

  After its "discovery", Rome pointed to this document as proof of its
authority to be the Head church. With historical inquiry and criticism
virtually non-existent during the Dark Ages, few people questioned the
legitimacy of this document.

  It was only many centuries later-- during the Renaissance in the fifteenth
century--that the Donation of Constantine was exposed as an obvious religious
fraud.  For example, in the letter, Constantine talked of establishing
Constantinople as one of the four patriarchal sees.  But in 315 C.E.,
Constantinople did not exist at that time--nor had Constantine even proposed
building it at that early a date.  The letter stated that Constantine
effectively gave the Pope in Rome power to rule over the Western half of
the Empire.--Yet history showed that the sons of Constantine exercised this
power themselves immediately upon their father's death. Constantine referred
to himself as the conqueror of the Huns.--But they appeared in Europe some
fifty years AFTER the date in the letter. The bishop of Rome was given the
title of "pope", but this title was not exclusively given to the bishop of
Rome until some two hundred years later. Constantine's donation was also
missing from important official decretal listings.  In general, its Latin
terminology was poor and barbarous--and there was frequent confusion over
various technical terms.

  (After Valla exposed the document as a fraud in 1440 C.E. (Note: His
analysis was initiated from political rivalry that then existed between
the pope and an Argonese King), no scholar then or since has seriously
refuted his findings.)

Principle of Election for Papal Succession

   The Lombards, the latest and most powerful of the barbarian invaders,
began settling in Italy, with the void in power left by the retreating
Byzantines.  In 755 C.E., Pope Stephen asked for help from the Franks, a
germanic tribe located north of the Alps.  The king of the Franks, Pepin
championed the pope's cause, and defeated the Lombards. Based on the newly
discovered claim in the Donation of Constantine (ie, that these territories
now belonged to the bishop of Rome), Pepin turned the conquered territories
over to the papacy in Rome--as opposed to the Byzantine Empire. Pepin's son,
Charles continued his father's commitment, by later waging further campaigns
against the Lombards in support of the pope.

  The donations of land formed what was later called the Papal States.--
This essentially gave the office of Pope the secular powers of a feudal lord.
In previous centuries, the pope had wielded only spiritual powers.  The
pope now controlled large revenues from cities and large landholdings,
which were under his direct control.

Papal Succession Become Violent

  With the growth in power and wealth of Catholic popes in Rome, successions
of popes became especially violent, as great wealth was now involved.  Upon
Pope Paul's death in 768 C.E., there was a gory/bloody battle for control
over the succession to the papacy.

   During the coup, which was initiated by a local duke, the newly named
pope was blinded and tortured. (He later died of his wounds).  The duke had
his brother proclaimed Pope. (Although the Pope had NO previous clerical
background, he was quickly ordained cleric, sub-deacon, deacon, and priest--and
then bishop and pope on the same day. Another series of bloody coups followed,
as other rivals fought for the title of Pope.

   Finally, by 774 C.E. a decree was issued that established for the PEACEFUL
succession of popes, by ordering an election by "known priests and leaders
of the church and of all the clergy". Even this did not halt all the
political intrigues.--In 799 C.E., Leo III was kidnapped and barely escaped
being blinded himself. (It would be a mistake to think that only Catholics
were involved in such intrigues.  For example, during this same time, the
Byzantine throne was held by the Empress Irene--who had ascended to the throne
only after arresting and blinding her emperor son.--He later died of his wounds.
A history of Byzantine will show that blinding was a popular means of doing
away with relatives who were considered a threat to the throne).

Rome Aproaches a Partnership with the Franks

  Even after the Franks had aided Rome in forcing back the Lombards, Rome
still lacked any strong political armies over the remaining lands of the
Western Roman Empire.  As such, they were vulnerable to another attack by
the Byzantines. At the same time, they were concerned with the rising power
of the Muslims. Rome began to look for a PARTNER to serve as her champion.

  During this time, the Franks were the most powerful barbarian tribe in the
West. Rome also felt a stronger alliance with the Franks because they had
converted directly into ORTHODOX Christianity through the efforts of
missionaries, (unlike other "barbarian" tribes that had been earlier
converted into the ARIAN sect.)

   The Franks held no love for the Byzantine Empire. They did not
recognize the Byzantine Empress as the rightful ruler, as their ancient
germanic laws forbade an inheritance to go to a woman if there were any
male claimants to it. When the Byzantine empire held a church council in
Nicea in 787 C.E., Charlemagne and his court priests wrote a violent
denunciation of the Byzantine doctrines, calling them "stupid, arrogant,
erroneous, criminal, schismatic, and lacking in sense or eloquence...
one filthy pond of Hell." (Paul Johnson, HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY, p 180)

  Just as Rome needed the Franks for political protection, the Frankish
kings desired the "blessings" of the Pope to sanction their State authority.
Under paganism, royal families had claimed to be descended from mythological
gods.  With Christianity, if the royal bloodline failed (through lack of heirs,
defeat in battle, etc)--then the new rulers wished to be "sanctioned" through
a Christian ceremony as the ordained king by God's representative on earth
(ie the pope).  Charlemagne's father, Pepin had asked for and obtained the
divine sanction of the pope, just before staging a political coup to install
himself and his descendants as the new kings of the Franks.

Crowning of Charlemagne as the Western Holy Roman Emperor in 800 C.E.

   In early 800 C.E., the Church leaders in Rome, formally offered Charles
the Great (Charlemagne) the office of Western emperor of the Holy Roman
Empire.  It was envisioned that this would begin a new partnership between
the Church and the new emperor to create a new vitalized Christian empire.
Constantine accepted.  On Christmas day, 800 C.E., he traveled to Rome to be
crown by Pope Leo III, as the first Holy Roman Emperor.

  The coronation of Charles the Great represented a landmark event for
Western Christian history for two reasons--First, it officially restored 
the title of Western emperor (whose office had remained vacant since 478 C.E.). 
Second, it signaled that Byzantine claims to spiritual authority over the 
West had officially been terminated.

   The coronation also set another precedent--for it was the pope of Rome
who had "officially" blessed the coronation of this king. This would erupt,
centuries later into a power play between who held ultimate authority--the
State vs. the Church in Western society. For now, the Church knew it needed
the Franks, and did not press the issue too far.

  Charlemagne, recognized the implications of this ceremony on his divine
right as king.  During the coronation, when Pope Leo had presented the crown
to him as if it were the "gift" of the bishop of Rome-- Charlemagne was
greatly offended.  He felt that he had already earned the crown on his own
merits.  When he had been talked into the coronation, he had been led to
believe that he would rule over a new powerful Roman empire. Envisioning
powers not unlike the great Constantine himself, this would mean that he
would be the official head of BOTH Church and State.

  After the coronation, Charlemagne later claimed that if he had understood 
the implications of the ceremonial crowning, that he would have refused to 
have attended the mass at all!  (Indeed, when his own son was later crowned 
as the successor-emperor, Charlemagne insisted on personally placing the 
crown on his son's head!)

The Foundation of European Nations

  The coronation of Charlemagne, signaled a new era for the West.
Charlemagne's goal was to officially reconstruct medieval society within
a Christian Augustinian framework.  Charlemagne was an admirer of St.
Augustine--especially of his work, THE ETERNAL CITY. New legislation was
issued to attempt to bring the peoples' lifestyles into line with official
Christian teaching. Roman baptism, prayers, and mass were brought into the
churches.

  Bishops set up courts during this time which covered economic, family, and
sexual matters.  Marriage laws date from this time. Two courts of justice
evolved --one conducted by the Church, and the other maintained by the local
town, state, or nobleman. Generally (except in cases of heresy), penalties
in Church conducted courts were relatively mild in relation to the civil
courts. (Civil courts during this time, would order the death penalty for
minor crimes such as stealing.)

Reopening of the Schools

   One of Charlemagne's greatest legacies was to reopen secular schools of
learning.  His adviser Alcuin, was largely responsible for modifying the
medieval mindset that all secular learning was opposed to godliness.
Charlemagne could justify the new secular learning because he wanted
educated clergy and missionaries to implement his new vision of a new
Christian society. Therefore he established schools in connection with
cathedral towns and monasteries.  These schools later became the forerunners
of universities that would spring up in Europe in the twelfth and thirteenth
centuries.  At these schools, there was a return to teaching the seven
liberal arts--grammar, rhetoric, logic, arithmetic, music, geometry, and
astronomy.

  The importance of the rise in universities was not from any immediate
improvement in the QUALITY of learning--but in the mere fact that education
had revived at all--and more people could now read and write! Religious
instruction still dominated the nature of the new education. For example,
disease was believed to be due to mankind's sins, and the just result of
God's wrath.  The study of music was based on a half mystical doctrine of
numbers. Geometry was a series of statements on Euclid's findings--without
the proofs. As for arithmetic and astronomy, their chief importance lay in
calculating the date of Easter. (W.C. Dampier, A HISTORY OF SCIENCE--AND ITS
RELATIONS WITH PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGION, (Cambridge University Press, 1979)
p 79)

   Although secular knowledge was now taught--there was little to no inquiry
into NEW knowledge.  This can be seen in the study of medicine, where students
were allowed to study the ancient Graeco-Roman doctors--but were not allowed
to QUESTION their authority. Indeed, it became as much a sin to doubt the
authority of the ancients, as it was to question the words of the Bible.
All knowledge that man could attain, was already believed to have been
written down by ancient authorities.  Thus, there was no NEW knowledge to be
discovered--no new truths to be found.

  The task of the medieval scholar was to organize and codify the knowledge
that had been set down by the ancient authorities.  Whenever discrepancies
appeared between authors, it was the work of the scholar to reconcile all
points of view into a general unifying statement, demonstrating God's divine
intervention into the affairs of mankind.

Legacy of Charlemagne

  Charlemagne's great successes on the battlefield, built a powerful empire
that annexed lands in central Europe and Italy to his Frankish realm.
Charlemagne essentially brought all the Germanic peoples--with the exception
of the Scandinavians in the north, and the Anglo-Saxons in Great Britain--
into one united nation.

  Despite the brief unification of much of western Europe under the
Franks, the period was overall a harsh one.  It has been estimated that
Charlemagne spent the majority of his forty-three reign conducting various
war campaigns (fifty-four in all) to control the borders of his empire.
Indeed, Charlemagne waged so any wars, that one chronicler of the time pointed
out how the year 790 C.E. was exceptional-- because it "was a year WITHOUT war".

  Charlemagne's war against just the Saxons had lasted off and on some thirty
years. The Saxons had savagely resisted Charlemagne's efforts to convert them
from paganism to Christianity (massacring garrisons and murdering Christian
missionaries). Charlemagne retaliated with harsh measures--beheading some
forty-five hundred Saxons, deporting thousands others into Christian
Frankish controlled territories, and in turn colonizing Saxon lands with
loyal Frankish citizens. Charlemagne gave the Saxons the ultimatum of
converting to Christianity-- or death. (Alcuin criticized these harsh
actions--but was overruled by his king.)

  In the year following Charlemagne's death in 814 C.E., his empire quickly
fell apart, as three of his grandsons fought violently against each other
for power. It was not until some thirty years later, in 843 C.E., that a
settlement was reached.--One grandson received the Low Countries leading
down into Italy, another received the area that would become France,
and the third an area that would later become the nation of Germany.  From
this base would develop, over the next centuries, strong secular kings who
would compete with the papacy in Rome for power and wealth.

Pessimism and Resignation. People Now Looked in Anticipation to the
Millennium (1000 C.E.)

  As noted above, the leadership of the Franks deteriorated shortly after
Charlemagne's death.  Family quarrels, in-fighting, and incompetence
seriously weakened the Franks. The court and school systems set up by
Charlemagne fell in disuse. Large land-owners took advantage of the
breakdown in order, by setting themselves up as independent rulers over
new feudal states. Christian barons frequently waged wars among themselves
over local land disputes--slaughtering serfs (men, women, and children),
and burning down their crops and villages in order to weaken their master's
holdings. The violence of the times was also reflected in the succession
intrigues of the popes in Rome--where rival popes imprisoned, starved,
tortured, and assassinated each other to gain power. In the process, sons
would kill fathers-- husbands would kill their wives.  All of society was
uprooted in the terrible violence.

  Arguably some of this infighting lead to the further weakening of
Europe, so they were more susceptible to invasions from other tribes.
Vikings from the north, Muslims from North Africa and southern Spain (called
Saracens by the Europeans), and Magnars from Mongolia swept down into
Europe, plundering and murdering inhabitants in the area.

  Pious clergymen were appalled by the violence they saw all around them,
and turned further inward.--Most believed these to be the times of turbulence
as predicted before Judgment Day. In 909 C.E., Hervee, archbishop of Rheims
lamented at the Council of Trosly:

  "The cities lie in ruins, the monasteries are burned or destroyed, the
  country far and wide reduced to a lifeless desert.  Like the first peoples
  of earth, men live without law an fear of punishment, abandoning themselves
  to their passions. Everyone does as he pleases, defying the laws divine
  and human, as well as the orders of their bishops.  The strong oppress the
  weak.  Everywhere there is violence against the poor who are helpless to
  resist--and equally helpless the churches and cloisters who cannot defend
  what is theirs.  And we ourselves, bishops, shepherds of the people, we who
  should correct, protect, do not fulfill our task.  We neglect to preach,
  see our flock abandoning god and wallow in vice without speaking to them,
  advising them, offering them our hands.  They tell us that the burdens we
  lay upon them are too heavy, and we do not even offer them our little
  finger.  And therefore the flock, our Lord's sheep, perish by our silence.
  In the meantime we think only of our own well-being.  But the moment
  approaches when we must give accounts.  Soon we shall see approach the day,
  majestic and terrible, when we, together with our flock, shall stand before
  the Great Shepherd of all."

  Otto, Bishop of Bambert argued that these were the times for building
monasteries:

  "This whole world is a place of exile; and so long as we live in this
  life we are pilgrims of the Lord.  Therefore we need spiritual stables
  and inns, and such resting-places as monasteries afford to pilgrims.
  Moreover, the end of all things is at hand, and the whole world is seated
  in wickedness; wherefore it is good to multiply monasteries for the sake
  of those who would flee from the world and save their souls."
  (Paul Johnson, HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY, p 177)

The First Millennium (1000 C.E.), and the "End of the World" Scenario

  Belief in the "immediacy" of the Second Coming was, of course, nothing
new!  There have almost always been LOCAL movements, that were headed by
self-proclaimed prophets or messiahs. For example, Gregory of Tours HISTORY
OF THE FRANKS, tells how in 591 C.E., a man claiming to be the Messiah
performed miraculous cures, and indeed gathered a following of some 3000
people including priests. According to Gregory, the man encouraged all to
pray to him directly, so as to "adore him". Further this "messiah" encouraged
his disciples to steal from the rich, so as to redistribute the money to the
poor.  The local Bishop arranged for this madman to be cut down to pieces.

  The Catholic Church had NOT sanctioned any of these earlier movements
that believed the End was near.  However, as the approach of the year
1000 C.E. drew closer (ie the first millennium), essentially everyone--
including Church officials--believed that the "End" was imminent!

  Strong biblical support for this view could of course be found, in the
following verses in Revelation 20:

  "And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his
  prison and shall go out to deceive the nations...And the sea gave up the
  dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were
  in them: and they were judged every man according to their works."

Revelations also described Four Horsemen that would be the forerunners of
the Apocalypse--War, Plague, Famine, and Death.

The gospel of Matthew, described the days before Judgment as follows:

   "Nation shall rise against nation; kingdom against kingdom; and there
    shall be famines and pestilences and earthquakes in diverse places.
    And these are the beginning of sorrow." (Matthew 24:7-8)

  These conditions seemed all to well to describe the period of the Dark
Ages. The wars and overall misery that the people saw around them, seemed
to be a sure "sign" that the End was almost upon them.

On the Eve of the "Millennium"

  Most people, including Church officials, believed that Judgment Day would
fall on the last day of the year in 999 C.E. According to the monk Raoul
Glauber, author of TALES, although people disagreed about the exact day and
hour, they all agreed that "Satan will soon be unleashed because the
thousand years have been completed."

  Because many expected the Last Judgment to occur in Jerusalem, there
was a surge of pilgrimages to Jerusalem. Some groups were so large,
that they were compared to the size of a huge army.  Many had sold all
their worldly possessions to undertake the pilgrimage. In addition, many
had made last minute donations to the churches and monasteries--some of them
donating all their earthly goods, as a show of faith and hope in being one
of the Elect to rise to heaven.

  The monk Glaber chronicled how pilgrims traveled on foot, in carts,
riding horseback, and singing psalms, all the while watching the horizon
for a sign of the impending Judgment:

  "Every phenomenon of nature filled them with alarm.  A thunderstorm
  sent them all upon their knees in mid-march.  It was the opinion that
  thunder was the voice of God announcing the Day of Judgment."

  Other contemporary chroniclers told of miraculous signs that were believed
to presage the great event.  One writer told how the sky split open, and
a gigantic torch fell from the sky as a lightening bolt. After the sky
closed back together, the image of a dragon with blue feet appeared, whose
head grew so large, that it filled up the whole sky.  In Aquitaine, came
reports of bloody rain, whose stain would not wash out. This was seen to
symbolize wars and violence.  In Italy, came reports of increased activity
of the volcano at Mt Vesuvius. (Richard Erdoes, C.E. 1000-LIVING ON THE BRINK
OF APOCALYPSE, Harper & Row San Francisco, 1988. p 2-4)

  According to one medieval chronicler, on that fateful day, crowds thronged
the sacred buildings in Rome, waiting for the sound of the trumpets and
angels that were to initiate the Day of Judgment. Some had come wearing
sackcloth and ashes, and had spent weeks doing penance for their sins.
As mentioned earlier, many had already given away all of their money and
possession to the poor in the hopes that they would be presumed worthy
during the imminent Judgment to be taken up into heaven.

  As midnight, a great bell within the old basilica of St. Peter's in Rome
began to ring. According to one report, there were "not a few dying from
fright, giving up their ghosts then and there."  Everyone waited, but
nothing happened.  Finally, everyone breathed a sigh of relief, and there was
much weeping and laughing. After days of waiting, some people began
thinking of returning home.  (The Church declined to return any of the
donations that it had earlier received).

  Many determined that the End was STILL near, but that the date was a
little off-- say due in 1033 C.E. (ie 1000 years from the date of Jesus'
DEATH instead of his birth!)  The "End" did not occur then either.  Still,
many people interpreted violent storms and serious food shortages in
1033 to be the "signs" described in Matthew 24:7-8--meaning that the End
could not be very far away.