Circumspectio ad oikonomia: Modes of religious accommodation in the era of the Latin Empire

Citation preview

CIRCUMSPECTIO A D OIKO OMIA: MODES OF RELIGIOUS ACCOMMODATIO I THE ERA OF THE LATI EMPIRE

Brendan J. McGuire, B.A., M.A.

A Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Faculty of Saint Louis University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

2011

UMI Number: 3475186

All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent on the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI 3475186 Copyright 2011 by ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346

COMMITTEE IN CHARGE OF CANDIDACY: Professor Thomas Madden Chairperson and Advisor Professor Warren Treadgold Professor Damian Smith

i

Table of Contents CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

CHAPTER 2: THE HISTORIOGRAPHICAL TRADITION . . . . . . . 8 CHAPTER 3: LITURGICAL ACCOMMODATION Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Papadopoulos-Kérameus and the Chalki text . August Heisenberg and the Milan text . . . . The problem of the Greek Q source . . . . . Text in light of context . . . . . . . . . . The Q Source Revealed? . . . . . . . . . . . Liturgical accommodation in light of Codrington's discoveries . . . . . . . . . .

51 54 62 68 73 76 85

CHAPTER 4: ACCOMODATION ON THE STRUCTURE OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL HIERARCHY Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Precedents for hierarchical compromise elsewhere in the Mediterranean world . . . . 89 The dual patriarchate of Constantinople . . .94 An analysis of the negotiations . . . . . . .99 The dual patriarchate proposed . . . . . . .115 The statute of Ravennika . . . . . . . . . .127 The reign of Honorius III . . . . . . . . . 129 CHAPTER 5: THEOLOGICAL AND POLITICAL ACCOMMODATION AS THE LATIN EMPIRE BEGAN TO DECLINE Friars, a Patriarch, and an Emperor . . . . .140 The last years of the Empire: theological discussion in the capital itself . . . . . . 188 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSISON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 Primary Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

205

Secondary Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

206

Vita Auctoris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

209

ii

Chapter 1: Introduction

Scholarship has long acknowledged that political and social relationships between Latins and Greeks, both in the Latin Empire of Constantinople and in Frankish Greece, were enormously complex; relations on the religious level have received study.1

far

less

acknowledgement

and

little

systematic

When discussed at all, the relationship between the

Latin and Greek churches is often simply characterized as one of oppressor and oppressed, or as a coin whose two sides are domination and resistance.2

Nevertheless, the

scant evidence that we have from the period indicates a far 1

Study of the Empire’s political history began in the seventeenth century with Charles du Fresne du Cange’s monumental Histoire de l’empire de Constantinople sous les empereurs latins (Paris, 1657). It was picked up again in the nineteenth and has continued since: Carl Hopf, Geschichte Griechenlands vom Beginn des Mittelalters bis auf unsere Zeit, vol. 1 (Leipzig: Ersch-Gruber, 1867), George Finlay, A History of Greece from its Conquest by the Romans to the Present Time, volume 4 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1877), William Miller, The Latins in the Levant: A History of Frankish Greece (1204-1566) (London: John Murray, 1908), Ernst Gerland, Geschichte des lateinischen Kaiserreiches von Konstantinopel, 2nd edition (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1966, originally published 1905), Jean Longnon, L’Empire latin de Constantinople et la Principauté de la Morée (Paris: Payot, 1949), Robert Lee Wolff, “The Latin Empire of Constantinople,” in A History of the Crusades, 2nd edition (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), “The Latin Empire of Constantinople and the Franciscans,” in Traditio II (1944), 213-237, “The Organization of the Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople, 1204-1261,” in Traditio VI (1948), 33-60, “Politics in the Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople,” in Dumbarton Oaks Papers, vol. VIII (1954), 227-303, Peter Lock, The Franks in the Aegean, 1204-1500 (London: Longman, 1995). 2 Cf. Athanasios Papadopoulos-Kerameus, “Documents grecs pour servir a l’histoire de la quatrième croisade (liturgie et reliques) ,” in Revue de l’Orient Latin, vol. 1 (Paris, 1893), 542, and A. Heisenberg, “Die römische Messe in griechischer Übersetzung,” in 7eue Quellen zur Geschichte des lateinischen Kaisertums und der Kirchenunion, part II (London: Variorum Reprints, 1973), 12-15, Raymond Janin, “Les sanctuaires de Byzance sous la domination latine,” in Revue des Études Byzantines (Vol. II, 1944), Deno Geanakoplos, Byzantine East and Latin West: Two Worlds of Christendom in the Middle Ages (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1966).

1

more complex dynamic, in which different constituencies in the Latin and Greek churches favored and implemented widely varying strategies for dealing with one another. accommodation

of

the

other

on

religious

In fact,

matters

figured

prominently among the strategies employed by leaders both Latin and Greek—a long list of actors that includes the popes, the Frankish emperors, the lords of Latin Greece (both

Frankish

leaders

of

knights

the

and

various

native

Greek

political

archons),

successor

states,

the

patriarchs of Nicaea (not to mention Naupactus and Ochrid), and various other high-ranking French, Venetian, and Greek clerics,

both

secular

and

monastic.

This

dissertation

proposes to study the modes of accommodation which were advocated

and

ecclesiastical

attempted

by

dance

which

in

all

sides, Greeks

in and

the

complex

Latins

found

themselves between 1204 and 1261. To conceive the problem clearly, it is necessary first of all to point out that strategies of accommodation were almost

always

conditioned

by

the

local

political

and

ecclesiastical context, and were therefore specific to time and place.

Thus, a clear distinction has to be maintained

among

various

the

political

entities

that

strove

for

supremacy in the region during this period: Frankish Achaia and Morea were sites for the development of unique modes of 2

accommodation, which differed substantially from those seen in the Kingdom of Thessalonika, in Constantinople, or in other Frankish territories such as Cyprus (which had been in

Latin

hands

since

the

time

of

King

Richard

the

Lionheart, but where Greco-Latin ecclesiastical relations were influenced profoundly by events in Constantinople and Nicaea after 1204).3 that

the

Greek

permission

from

submit

a

to

Thus, for example, there is evidence

clergy the

local

of

Cyprus

requested

Patriarchate Latin

of

bishop;

Nicaea

this

and to

advice

received obey was

and then

withdrawn after protests to Nicaea came in from the Greek monastic

clergy

resident

in

Latin

Constantinople.4

Moreover, the evidence seems to indicate that even within a given

local

consensus

on

context,

or

appropriate

always to be found.

within modes

a

of

single

monastery,5

accommodation

was

not

Hence, this study will seek to give

due weight to the particular and the local at all times. Given the diversity of source material relevant to this study,

it

smaller,

seemed thematic

appropriate categories;

3

to it

break

the

therefore

problem proposes

into to

The influence of local conditions on religious relations in different parts of the Greek world can be seen in Michael Angold, “Greeks and Latins after 1204: the Perspective of Exile,” in Latins and Greeks in the Eastern Mediterranean after 1204, edited by Benjamin Arbel, Bernard Hamilton, and David Jacoby (London: Frank Cass, 1989), and Aneta Ilieva, Frankish Morea 1205-1262: Socio-cultural Interaction between the Franks and the Local Population (Athens: Historikeis Ekdoseis, 1991). 4 Angold, “Greeks and Latins after 1204,” 72-73. 5 Angold, 70.

3

examine

1)

evidence

of

liturgical

accommodation

in

the

early years of the Latin Empire, 2) accommodation on the structure of the ecclesiastical hierarchy (which was also intertwined with theological debates) in the Latin Empire and

its

dependent

territories,

and

3)

attempts

at

theological and political accommodation that took place in the later years of the Latin Empire, particularly during the reign of the great Nicaean leader John Ducas Vatatzes. Evidence for “liturgical accommodation” comes from two fascinating

texts

discovered

in

early twentieth centuries.6 seen

these

texts

as

the

late

nineteenth

and

Traditionally, scholars have

evidence

for

a

Latin

strategy

of

liturgical proselytism; nevertheless, as this chapter will explain, internal evidence in the texts suggests that they were created by Greeks, rather than by Latins as has been previously assumed, and that they mark an attempt at Greek accommodation with the Latin church through the liturgy. The

centrality

of

the

liturgy

in

the

lives

of

medieval

Christians renders this a particularly significant line of investigation. The

chapter

on

“hierarchical

accommodation”

will

discuss the various ways in which both Latins and Greeks 6

Athanasios Papadopoulos-Kerameus, “Documents grecs pour servir à l’histoire de la quatrième croisade (liturgie et reliques) ,” in Revue de l’Orient Latin, vol. 1 (Paris, 1893), 542, and A. Heisenberg, “Die römische Messe in griechischer Übersetzung,” in 7eue Quellen zur Geschichte des lateinischen Kaisertums und der Kirchenunion, part II (London: Variorum Reprints, 1973), 12-15.

4

sought an agreement on the structure of the ecclesiastical hierarchy.

In Constantinople, as Michael Angold has noted,

the Greek clergy initially sought a dual patriarchate; this proposal also received the endorsement of the Latin Emperor Henry of Flanders.

The failure of Innocent III to accept

it

to

led

directly

the

establishment

of

“Patriarchate of Constantinople” at Nicaea. hierarchical and

by

accepted

accommodation

other the

was

constituencies: jurisdiction

of

considered Greek Latin

a

rival

Nevertheless, at

other

clergy bishops,

times

sometimes and

Greek

bishops sometimes acknowledged the Latin Patriarchate.7

On

the Latin side, the papacy often considered ways to use the Patriarchate of Constantinople as a bargaining chip to end the schism, while Frankish lords often took the side of Greek bishops against the popes.8 By “theological accommodation,” I refer principally to the

negotiations

over

theological

issues

that

occurred,

both in person and via correspondence, between Greek and Latin clerics of all ranks.

Of course, there are several

7

Cf. Jean Longnon, L’Empire latin de Constantinople et la Principauté de la Morée (Paris: Payot, 1949), Michael Angold, “Greeks and Latins after 1204: the Perspective of Exile,” in Latins and Greeks in the Eastern Mediterranean after 1204, edited by Benjamin Arbel, Bernard Hamilton, and David Jacoby (London: Frank Cass, 1989), and Aneta Ilieva, Frankish Morea 1205-1262: Socio-cultural Interaction between the Franks and the Local Population (Athens: Ιστορικες Εκδοσεις ετ. ∆. Βασιλοπουλος, 1991). 8 Cf. Wolff, “The Latin Empire of Constantinople and the Franciscans,” in Traditio II (1944), 213237, “The Organization of the Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople, 1204-1261,” in Traditio VI (1948), 3360, “Politics in the Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople,” in Dumbarton Oaks Papers, vol. VIII (1954), and Angold, “Greeks and Latins after 1204: the Perspective of Exile,” in Latins and Greeks in the Eastern Mediterranean after 1204, edited by Benjamin Arbel, Bernard Hamilton, and David Jacoby (London: Frank Cass, 1989).

5

discussions that

do

of

not

theological

constitute

differences

attempts

at

from

this

period

accommodation,

e.g.

Constantine Stilbes’ enumeration of Latin errors, or the 1252

Dominican

treatise

Nevertheless, discussions

Contra

important were

Errores

Graecorum.

face-to-face

held

between

theological

Greek

and

Latin

representatives at various moments in the first two decades of

the

Latin

Empire,

and

in

Nicene

territory

later

on

(first in the 1230s, and again in the years 1259-1260, as the destruction of the Latin Empire drew near).9

Although a

systematic theological settlement was never achieved, the modes in which it was pursued (and the reasons for its failure)

are

significant.

Theological

accommodation

sometimes also occurred unilaterally, as when Pope Innocent IV advised his legate that existing Orthodox beliefs on life after death were essentially equivalent to the Latin doctrine

of

Purgatory,

despite

major

differences

in

terminology and modes of expression.10 “Political accommodation,” which is dealt with in the fourth

chapter

reign,

refers

practiced

by

alongside to the

a

the

events

particular

political

strategy

leaders

9

of

of

John of

Vatatzes’

accommodation

Greek

successor

Cf. August Heisenberg, 7eue Quellen zur Geschichte des lateinischen Kaisertums und der Kirchenunion, part II (London: Variorum Reprints, 1973), Robert Lee Wolff, “The Latin Empire of Constantinople and the Franciscans,” in Traditio II (1944). 10 Angold, “Greeks and Latins after 1204,” 74.

6

states who negotiated, either directly or through proxies, over the issue of church union.

It may be noted that this

imperial strategy for dealing with the papacy was what led directly to the unions of Lyons and Florence; it was first developed, however, as a response to the creation of the Latin Empire in 1204.

The rulers of Nicaea were frequent

advocates of this strategy; Theodore Lascaris, John Ducas Vatatzes, and Michael Palaeologus all implemented it.

For

Theodore Lascaris, political security in Asia Minor was his motivation;

for

the

others,

it

was

possession

of

the

imperial capital, and they appeared more than willing to forge a nominal union with the papacy in exchange for these political goals.11 Thus, it appears that in the highly fluid political and social environment of the former Byzantine Empire after 1204, many modes of accommodation with the Latin church were pursued by leaders of the Greek church—and vice versa. It will be the task of this study to shed light on these attempts at religious accommodation and hopefully thereby to improve our understanding of the Latin East and of the broader drama of East-West relations in the Middle Ages.

11

Wolff, “The Latin Empire of Constantinople and the Franciscans,” in Traditio II (1944), 213-

237.

7

Chapter 2: The Historiographical Tradition

The historiographical tradition, which tends to give full credit to the complexity and tortuousness of the Latin Empire’s political history, which at the same time grossly oversimplifying its religious history, begins with Charles du

Fresne

du

Cange’s

seventeenth-century

magnum

opus,

Histoire de l’Empire de Constantinople sous les empereurs Jean Alexandre Buchon published a revision of Du

français. Cange’s

masterpiece

in

1826,

adding

appendices;

its

analyses are suffused with a nationalism that would have been as much at home in the nineteenth century as in the seventeenth.

Du Cange tells us that “France” was not only

responsible for the creation of the kingdom of Jerusalem, but also for its maintenance and conservation through the years.12 contributed

We

are

by

told

the

that

concern

the that

papacy, the

for

popes

its

had

part,

for

ces

nouvelles colonies, which was manifested by the number of preachers

that

they

sent

out

over

the

years,

who

distribuaient libéralement les trésors de l’Église à ceux

12

Du Cange, Histoire de l’Empire de Constantinople sous les empereurs français (Paris, 1657), 1.

8

qui

s’enrôlaient

sous

l’étendard

de

Jésus-Christ.13

The

Fourth Crusade, for Du Cange, was conceived in the mind of Pope

Innocent

III

as

a

further

effort

to

reinforce

the

suffering “colonies,” at a time when the Islamic states surrounding them were suffering from mutual antagonism and internal strife. His

narrative

Villehardouin caused

by

of

somewhat

the

the

Fourth

uncritically,

nationalist

lens

is

Crusade but

not

follows

the

distortion

fully

manifested

until Du Cange attempts to account for Baldwin I’s imperial election.

Struggling to understand why the electors chose

a petty Flemish lord over the mature and powerful Marquis Boniface

of

Montferrat,

Du

Cange

opines

that

they

were

influenced by the consideration of nationality: Baldwin was “French,” while Boniface’s estates lay in Italy, laquelle étant partagée en diverses souverainetés.14

Thus, according

to Du Cange, Baldwin was chosen under the assumption that he could call upon the vast resources of the French kingdom for the defense of the new empire.

Du Cange’s historical

error is obvious: Baldwin the Fleming held feudal estates in a land that was every bit as divided as Italy—and in

13 14

Du Cange, 2. Du Cange, 27.

9

fact his estate provided far less in the way of resources and wealth than those of his rival. Du Cange’s lengthy political history proceeds emperor by emperor; despite the kinds of dated analysis that it quite contains, it must be noted that Du Cange was far ahead of his time in his interest in this neglected field. He brought evidence and ideas to the fore, many of which would not begin to be capitalized on until the nineteenth century. Carl Beginn

Hopf’s

des

monumental

Mittelalters

Geschichte

bis

auf

Griechenlands

unsere

Zeit,

vom

originally

published in 1867 as part of the Ersch-Gruber Encyclopedia, contains a substantial section on the Latin Empire which builds on the discoveries of Du Cange, Buchon, and Louis de Mas

Latrie

notes

that

with the

Griechenland

characteristically Geschichte

hat

bis

der

heute

German

frankischen als

die

hellenischen Volkes und Landes gegolten.15

rigor.

Hopf

Herrschaft

dunkelste

in

Zeit

He provides a

complete summary of the field’s development up to his own time, paying tribute to the discoveries of Du Cange and Buchon,

and

then

preoccupying

himself

with

questions concerning the Chronicle of the Morea.

15

critical As Hopf

Carl Hopf, Geschichte Griechenlands vom Beginn des Mittelalters bis auf unsere Zeit, vol. 1 (Leipzig: Ersch-Gruber, 1867), 134.

10

notes,

Buchon

presents

two

versions

of

the

text

in

his

collection of chronicles, the Greek version under the title Βιβλιον του κουγκεστας, title

Livre

de

and la

the

Old French

conqueste

de

version

under

Constantinople

et

the de

l’empire de Romanie et dou pays de la Princée de la Morée (Hopf states that he is aware of other versions, including the

Italian,

summaries).16

which

he

deems

to

be

obviously

later

Hopf concludes that he must “cling” to the

opinion that the French version is original, dating to the time

when

man

Franzoesisch

ja

sprach

ueberhaupt und

damals

schrieb.17

In

in

Griechenland

reference

to

the

“worth” of the text, however, Hopf notes what his French predecessors failed to consider: the chronology sehr viel zu wuenschen uebrig lasse.18

In fact, the Chronicle takes

quite a beating from Hopf, who refers to its contents as Fabeln, in which it is difficult to distinguish between Treu und Glauben.19 Hopf’s detailed political history of the Latin Empire and

Latin

Greece

Villehardouin

and

relies Robert

primarily of

Clari,

on on

the

chronicles

other

of

chronicles

edited by Buchon (including that of Ernoul de Giblet), on the famous source collection of Tafel and Thomas, on the 16

Hopf, 136. Hopf, 136. 18 Hopf, 136. 19 Hopf, 136. 17

11

chronicle of Nicetas Choniates, and on the Gesta Innocentii III edited by Etienne Baluze. region’s

political

history

Every twist and turn of the appears,

beginning

with

the

short reign of Baldwin of Flanders as Emperor (kein ganzes Jahr

lang,

in

unruhiger

auswaertige Kriege).20

Zeit,

durch

innern

Zwist

und

Indeed, throughout the entirety of

his narrative Hopf displays a phenomenal command of the internal detailing

and

external

its

affairs

interaction

with

of the

the

Latin

numerous

Empire, Byzantine

successor states and the revitalized Bulgarian empire, as well

as

Frankish allies.

the

domestic

emperors

political

and

feudal

Nevertheless,

challenges

faced

lords,

and

Hopf’s

dizzying

amidst

their

by

the

Venetian medley

of

wars, negotiations, battles lost and won, successions and usurpations,

the

church

rarely

puts

in

an

appearance.

Except perhaps for the odd reference to the “power of the curia,”—which, Hopf tells us, was exercised most directly in the East by funds flowing from the West—the religious drama of the Latin Empire is passed over in silence.21 A decade following the publication of Hopf’s volumes, English

scholar

George

Finlay

published

an

even

more

massive History of Greece in seven volumes, the fourth of

20 21

Hopf, 139. Hopf, 146.

12

which deals with the Latin Empire and Frankish Greece.22 Finlay’s

volume

begins

with

an

attempt

to

account

for

“changes in the population of Greece after the decline of the Roman Empire”; although this section is suffused with a racial preoccupation sometimes found in nineteenth-century scholarship, it nevertheless serves as a reminder of the demographic diversity of the region in the Middle Ages. Subsequent chapters are arranged thematically, in a roughly chronological order, and deal with 1) historical causes of “hostile

feelings”

conquests leading

on up

between

Byzantine the

East

territory

conquests

of

and

West,

beginning

1204,

3)

2) in

the

crusader 1096,

and

“Empire

of

Romania” between 1204 and 1261 (including the Kingdom of Thessalonika), 4) Epirus, 5) the Duchy of Athens, 6) the principality of Achaia (Morea), 7) Byzantine government in the

Peloponnesus

after

1261,

8)

the

Duchy

of

the

Archipelago, and 9) the Empire of Trebizond. Like Hopf’s, Finlay’s scholarship is as magnificent as his rhetoric, but his attention to religious issues is both scant

and

superficial.

In

his

chapter

on

“causes

of

hostile feelings,” Finlay endorses the old view that the schism between the Latin and Greek churches arose from a

22

George Finlay, A History of Greece from its Conquest by the Romans to the Present Time, volume 4 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1877).

13

single event, namely, the mutual excommunications of 1054 between Patriarch Michael Cerularius and Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida.23 given

the

era

assertions

in

While this is perfectly understandable which

(though

also

he

was

writing,

typical

of

Finlay’s

his

age)

other

are

less

justifiable, including his assessment that the events of 1054

somehow

“stimulated”

a

“religious

hatred

between

Latins and Greeks,” which in turn “contributed to hasten the ruin of the Greek nation.”24 The beginning of Finlay’s chapter on the history of the crusades reveals his perspective somewhat more clearly. Finlay argues that the crusades were “the cause of unmixed evil” to the Christians of the East, to whom the Latins “appeared

closely

Lombards.”25

to

resemble

the

Goths,

Vandals,

and

Referring to the crusades generally, Finlay

compares

their

Muslims,

asserting

organization

conquests

of

that

society

unfavorably the

latter

among

their wide-extended empires.”26

the

to

“left

to

destroyed

all

Finlay, the

wherever existing

23

Finlay, 59. Finlay, 61. 25 Finlay, 65. 26 Finlay, 66. 24

14

of

the

untouched

the

Christians

throughout

How he arrives at such a

surprising conclusion is never made clear. according

those

they order

went of

The crusaders, “immediately society,

and

revolutionized

every

institution

connected

and the cultivation of the soil.”27

with

property

The result, wherever

crusader conquests occurred, was unambiguous: “mankind was forced back into a state of barbarism.”28 This grim assessment of the feudal reorganization of crusader conquests in general influences Finlay’s analysis of

the

Latin

treaty,29

partition Romania

Empire:

after

Finlay

illustrates

the

a

detailed

remarks

history

that

of

summary the

feudal

of

the

“empire

of

conquests

in

countries far too advanced in their social organization to receive

feudal

ideas.”30

Although

Finlay

displays

a

sophisticated understanding of the theoretical difference between

Byzantine

assumption

that

autocracy

the

latter

and

Frankish

represents

a

feudalism, more

his

primitive

stage on the scale of human evolution distorts his argument about how the implementation of feudalism would have worked in practice: “The Greeks were far superior to the Franks . .

.

Byzantine

jurisprudence

in

its

last

state

of

degradation [was] far in advance of [the society] depicted in the Assize of Romania, where we are presented with the feudal

code

of

the

East

in

27

Finlay, 66. Finlay, 66. 29 Finlay, 88-90. 30 Finlay, 94. 28

15

its

highest

state

of

perfection.”31

It is not surprising, therefore, that under

the ambiguous rubric of social health, Finlay tells us that “the empire of Romania presents Frank society in a state of rapid decline and demoralization; while the Greek empire, as soon as its capital was transferred to Asia, offers the aspect of steady improvement.”32 Finlay

does

ecclesiastical

make

affairs

some in

attempt

the

Latin

to

Empire,

deal

with

offering

a

series of eloquent but facile assertions concerning churchstate relations in the reign of Henry of Flanders.

The

assertions

III,

who

[of

the

begin

“showed

a

Fourth

Crusade]

displayed

criticism

determination

a

Crusaders,

with

on

as

to

of

profit

soon

as

willingness

to

condition

that

Innocent

by

it

the

was

promote the

crime

perpetrated, the

affairs

views of

of

the

and the

church

should be settled in a manner satisfactory to the papal see.”33

Nevertheless, Finlay’s principal concerns remain

political and economic rather than religious; he breezes through

the

resolution, exemption

of

disputes

over

throws

his

the

clergy

church

hands from

property

up, civil

and

horrified,

their

at

the

jurisdiction,

and

remarks on the inability of Franks and Venetians to act 31

Finlay, 95. Finlay, 95. 33 Finlay, 101. 32

16

harmoniously

due

to

differing

political

interests.

He

offers only the barest hint of a distinction between “the priests of the Greek church, who had united with the papal church, . . . and those Greeks who still denied the Pope’s supremacy, and adhered to their national usages and to the doctrines

of

the

church.”34

orthodox

Indeed,

these

few

lines touch only the surface of the deep and roiling waters of a complex and tumultuous religious history, into which Finlay declines to wade. Finlay’s

massive

followed

by

a

scholar,

William

more

general focused

Miller,

history work

whose

from

1908

of

Greece

another

The

was

English

Latins

in

the

Levant covers the history of Frankish Greece from 1204 to 1566.35

Miller

identifies

one

of

the

most

important

distinctions between the work of Finlay and that of Hopf, noting that Finlay describes “the history of each small state separately,” preventing the reader from obtaining a view of the period as a whole, while Hopf combines “the separate

narratives

into

one,”

causing

“confusion.”36

Miller, therefore, adopts a via media of sorts, offering two narratives: one of continental Greek history in the period (which includes the history of the states of Epirus, 34

Finlay, 103-104. William Miller, The Latins in the Levant: A History of Frankish Greece (1204-1566) (London: John Murray, 1908). 36 Miller, viii. 35

17

Achaia, Athens, Cephalonia, and Euboea) and another of the history of the Archipelago and Corfu.37 one

of

Miller’s

greatest

Herein, however,

limitations

is

revealed:

by

interesting himself only in the history of “Greece,” i.e. in

the

history

of

the

lands

that

comprised

the

Greek

kingdom in 1908, Miller has excluded from consideration the broader political context in which the events in “Greece” played

themselves

out.

Constantinople,

Thrace,

Nicaea,

Trebizond, and Bulgaria lie outside the scope of his work, along with Crete. Despite his geographical limitations, however, Miller wins

his

reader’s

sympathy

from

the

outset

with

a

fascinating statement of purpose: having acknowledged his debt to Carl Hopf, he argues that Hopf’s greatest failure was in his presentation of “Frankish barons” as “labeled skeletons in a vast, cold museum, instead of human beings of

like

passions

with

ourselves.”38

Miller’s

intention,

therefore, is to “breath life into the dry bones,” and to “bring upon the stage in flesh and blood” a “motley crowd of Burgundian, Flemish, and Lombard nobles, German knights, rough

soldiers

Florentine

37 38

of

fortune

financiers,

from

Catalonia

Neapolitan

Miller, viii. Miller, viii.

18

and

courtiers,

Navarre, shrewd

Venetian and Genoese merchant princes, and last but not least, the bevy of high-born dames.”39

Miller’s enthusiasm,

along with his forthrightness about conceiving the history of Frankish Greece as “a romantic drama,”40 is heartwarming. Despite

his

description

of

the

work

as

a

“drama,”

however, Miller presents a dense, 700-page narrative whose rigor and attention to political detail outshine Finlay’s. Within his narrowly defined geographical scope, there is not a political twist or turn, between the Fourth Crusade and the Ottoman conquest of the Archipelago, that escapes Miller’s attention. Greek

population

sophisticated

than

His assessment of the attitude of the towards that

of

the

Latin

Finlay.

conquest Despite

is

paying

more his

mandatory lip-service to the “fanatical hatred between East and West” that Finlay made so much of, Miller argues that “even

the

rule

of

the

Franks

must

have

seemed

to

many

Greeks a welcome relief from the financial oppression of the Byzantine Government.”41

Here Miller quite correctly

points out a distinction that Finlay had ignored, namely the distinction in viewpoint between Byzantine provincials and residents of the capital: while the capital was the location of “extravagant ostentation” on the part of the 39

Miller, vii. Miller, viii. 41 Miller, 6. 40

19

emperors (especially the Comneni), Greece proper had long been the prey of pirates, local tyrants, and, worst of all, imperial tax collectors.42 descriptions and,

of

the

conversely,

Choniates embraced

as at

tax-collectors’

cites

evidence the

Miller cites Michael Akominatos’

Michael’s of

capital

description of Attica).

exactions

the (“an

own

Athens,

brother

attitude utter

in

Nicetas

toward

hole”

is

Greece Nicetas’

Akominatos, the metropolitan of

Athens, did in fact liken the rapacity of the Byzantine government to that of Xerxes, and to Medea “who scattered her poisons over Thessaly.”43 Miller’s arguments are in fact highly suggestive of the possibility that some portion of the Greek population, at

least

in

the

accommodation

provinces,

with

the

new

may

have

Latin

been

order

primed of

for

things.

Nevertheless, Miller can do little more than tantalize us on

this

score:

his

principal

concerns

are

not

with

the

attitude of the population, but with the tortuous political history

of

the

region.

Religion

appears

incidentally

insofar as it appears at all in Miller’s work. A similarly dense study of the political history of the period, published in the same decade as Miller’s work,

42 43

Miller, 6. Miller, 7.

20

Ernst Gerland’s Geschichte des lateinischen Kaiserreiches von Konstantinopel can be distinguished from that of Miller by

its

focus

Thrace,

on

and

events

Anatolia,

in as

the

capital,

opposed

to

the

region

of

proper.44

Greece

Gerland’s work is further distinguished by his attention to religious issues; although like many of his contemporaries Gerland

mentions

religious

issues

only

insofar

as

they

touch on the broader political landscape of the Empire, he nevertheless displays a genuine interest in the dynamics of Latin-Greek relations.

Gerland argues that Innocent III

first gave hints of his policy toward the Greek church in letters to the clergy of Constantinople and the princes of Achaia, which he sent by way of the papal legate Cardinal Pelagius of Albano in 1213.45

Gerland’s reflection on Pope

Innocent’s correspondence is fascinating: scheint mir der Papst Ton,

einen der

von

abweicht.46 returned

schaeferen

to

der

Ton

bisherigen

Nevertheless, his

angeschlagen

earlier,

sanften

Gerland more

zu

haben,

Duldung

finds

tolerant

that

ein

einen wenig

Innocent

principles

(the

tolerance of the Greek rite that he had initially commended to Morosini) in the years afterwards.47

44

This portrayal of

Ernst Gerland, Geschichte des lateinischen Kaiserreiches von Konstantinopel, 2nd edition (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1966). 45 Gerland, 233. 46 Gerland, 233. 47 Gerland, 233.

21

Pope Innocent as unsteady and shifting in his policy toward the

Greeks

is

somewhat

explained or defended. negotiations contribution

of to

and

not

adequately

Nevertheless, in reference to the

1213, the

unusual,

Gerland

makes

historiography

by

an

important

highlighting

the

motivations of Theodore Lascaris, along with the various concessions that Lascaris appeared willing to make to the Latins.48 the

Thus, without really placing his discoveries in

broader

context

of

the

Latin

Empire’s

religious

history, Gerland has in fact stumbled upon some of the most important pieces of evidence which reveal the complexity of Latin-Greek relations in this period. Of course, among the countless shorter articles that have been published on the Latin Empire of Constantinople, special

mention

particular

given

ought

be

made

rise

to

the

Papadopoulos-Kerameus’ l’histoire

de

la

of

current

“Documents quatrième

those

which

study:

grecs croisade

pour

have

in

Athanasios servir

(liturgie

à et

reliques),” and August Heisenberg’s “Die römische Messe in griechischer Übersetzung.”49

It is in these articles that

one can most clearly perceive the pertenacity of accepted

48

Gerland, 234-235. A. Papadopoulos-Kérameus, “Documents grecs pour servir à l’histoire de la quatrième croisade (liturgie et reliques) ,” in Revue de l’Orient Latin, vol. 1 (Paris, 1893), 542, and A. Heisenberg, “Die römische Messe in griechischer Übersetzung,” in 7eue Quellen zur Geschichte des lateinischen Kaisertums und derKirchenunion, part II (London: Variorum Reprints, 1973), 12-15. 49

22

opinions, even in the face of discernible evidence to the contrary.

Kerameus’s

article

was

occasioned

by

his

discovery of a unique liturgical document in the monastic library at Halki, while Heisenberg’s stemmed from a similar discovery in the Ambrosian Library. Their

articles,

along

with

the

documents

they

discovered, will be dealt with more fully in the second chapter of this study; let it suffice for now to say that both scholars see these liturgical texts as evidence of a Latin proseltyzing strategy.

They argue that Latin clerics

created an interlinear, bilingual version of the Roman Rite of Mass, with the Latin text written in Greek characters, in order to facilitate the conversion of the Greek clergy from

their

traditional

rites

to

those

of

the

Western

Church—a flawed conclusion that can only be attributed to the inability of earlier scholarship to conceive of the possibility

of

religous

accommodation

occurring

in

Latin

the Latin Empire. Jean

Longnon

published

his

work

L’Empire

latin

de

Constantinople et la Principauté de la Morée four decades after Miller had written; nevertheless, he may have had Miller argument

in

mind

that

when

one

he

cannot

introduced treat

the

the

work

history

of

Greece separately from that of the Latin Empire. 23

with

the

Frankish He argues

that l’empire latin de Constantinople et la principauté de la Morée . . . ne constituent pas deux domains différents. In fact, for Longnon, leur histoire ne forme qu’un seul et même

sujet:

la

seconde,

en

effet,

fit

d’abord

partie

intégrante du premier, et elle le prolongea ensuite durant près de deux siècles.50 into

five

parts:

1)

Longnon therefore divides his work the

Fourth

Crusade,

2)

the

Empire

through the reign of Robert of Courtenay, 3) the “decline of the Empire and the apogee of the Principality,” which includes a treatment of the Chronicle of the Morea, 4) The Morea under Angevin protection, and 5) the last years of the principality. Longnon argues that the great military victories of the

emperor

Henry,

particularly

in

the

years

mark the political apogee of the Empire.51

1210-1211,

It is at this

point in his narrative that Longnon inserts a fascinating little

section

entitled

“La

vie

dans

l’empire

latin,”

wherein he makes some fascinating observations about the ecclesiastical

situation.

Citing

the

famous

work

of

Raymond Janin and Leo Santifaller, Longnon points out that the cathedral of Hagia Sophia appears to have been used for both the Greek and the Latin rites, at least in the early 50

Jean Longnon, L’Empire latin de Constantinople et la Principauté de la Morée (Paris: Payot,

51

Longnon, 128.

1949), 7.

24

years of Latin rule.52 the

main,

Innocent

Moreover, Longnon believes that in III’s

instructions

regarding

the

possession of churches and monastic buildings were followed strictly, i.e. that Latin clergy were only permitted to assume control of sanctuaries that had been abandoned by the Greeks.53

In the provinces, Longnon explains that Latin

bishops

out

went

to

assume

sees

that

had

either

been

abandoned by their Greek bishops, or whose titular bishop refused obedience to the papacy.

Some chanoines latins, he

tells us, assistaient les évêques latins et dans les villes et les châteaux où vivaient un certain nombre de Français. Nevertheless, dans le reste du pays le petit clergé grec demeura en place.

In regard to Greek monks, Longnon points

out that they were tolerated wherever they remained, and that Henry of Flanders actually restored the Greek monks to a famous monastery near Thessalonika.54

For the Athonites,

moreover, a special status was established due to their reputation for holiness; in fact, Innocent III ended up taking them under his personal protection.55

Thus, Longnon

presents us with the first hints that the religious history of

the

Latin

Empire

may,

in

fact,

have

been

far

more

complex and multifaceted than scholarship has traditionally 52

Longnon, 136. Longnon, 136. 54 Longnon, 137. 55 Longnon, 137. 53

25

claimed; Latins

instead

and

of

Greeks

two

appear

uniformly

antagonistic

as

at

being,

least

groups,

sometimes,

willing to work together, to negotiate, to accommodate. The articles of Robert Lee Wolff form a substantial and genuinely seminal contribution to the historiography on the Latin Empire.

Wolff’s relationship with Longnon is an

interesting one; in fact, later in life Wolff blamed the timing of Longnon’s book for his own failure to publish a monograph on the Latin Empire.56

Despite his failure to

turn the fruits of his research into a monograph, Wolff lived to see his many articles enjoy wide influence in the field.

One of his most important, “The Latin Empire of

Constantinople,” edited

volume

was A

published

History

of

in the

both

editions

of

(the

Crusades

the

first

published by the University of Pennsylvania in 1962, and the second by the University of Wisconsin in 1969).

Like

Longnon’s

some

monograph,

tantalizing

hints

Wolff’s

about

the

article nature

includes

of

the

religious

situation under Latin rule, and of the complexity of the motives

and

interests

of

highly fluid environment. capital,

various

theological 56

Latin

settlement

all

parties

in

this

Wolff points out that in the

prelates with

involved

attempted

representatives

to

achieve

of

the

See Wolff’s preface to the 1976 Variorum edition of his collected articles.

26

a

Greek

clergy.57 and

These included the papal legate Peter Capuano,

Cardinal

debated, topics

Benedict

cajoled,

with

however,

and

their

receives

“contentious temporarily

of

and close

Susanna,

wrangled

Greek a

St.

over

theological

Thomas

verdict

hot-tempered,”

going

Greek

in

churches

discussed,

various

counterparts.

negative

who

a

Morosini,

from so fit

Wolff far

as

as

to

passion.58

of

Wolff notes that Pope Innocent commanded Morosini to treat Greek

episcopal

obtain

from

the

consecrations Greek

bishops

as

valid,

and

statements

of

simply

to

submission.

“Everywhere,” Wolff further argues, agreeing with Longnon, the “lower level of the clergy remained Greek, continuing to marry and to have families.”59 Wolff

pays

a

certain

amount

of

attention

in

this

article to the internal disputes that wracked the Latin church in Constantinople, particularly the battles between the Venetians and the French over the Patriarchate, and the fights over church property. one

wonders

Venetian

if

figures

Wolff’s as

Throughout these passages,

stereotypical

“money-grubbing”

descriptions and

“biased”

of are

completely warranted, but Wolff’s treatment is nevertheless an able one.

His overarching thesis, which is, like those

57

Robert Lee Wolff, “The Latin Empire of Constantinople,” in A History of the Crusades, 2nd edition (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), 196-197. 58 Wolff, 197. 59 Wolff, 197.

27

of his predecessors, principally political, argues that the Latin Empire was in a difficult position to begin with, but rendered itself unviable through a series of diplomatic and military

blunders,

usually

characterized

shortsightedness and incompetence. focus,

however,

Wolff

does

by

Despite his political see

this

same

Latin

shortsightedness as being present in their dealings with the Greek church: he argues that, although “the efforts of its wisest emperor [Henry] and of several popes to heal the breach between Latins and Greeks deserve our attention,” nevertheless

“Latin

rule

deepened

and

perpetuated

hatred between the two branches of Christendom.”60

the

Wolff’s

verdict on this subject has certainly remained the majority one. Two of Wolff’s other articles deserve special mention: one on the Franciscans in the Empire,61 and one on the Latin Patriarchate.62

In the former article, Wolff starts with an

important historiographical observation, remarking on the fact that Longnon, Miller, and Gerland say almost nothing about events in Constantinople after the end of Henry’s reign (1216).

He is, of course, aware that this is due to

60

Wolff, 232. Robert Lee Wolff, “The Latin Empire of Constantinople and the Franciscans,” in Traditio II (1944), 213-237. 62 Robert Lee Wolff, “The Organization of the Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople, 1204-1261,” in Traditio VI (1948), 33-60. 61

28

a

tremendous

dearth

of

source

material

in

general,

but

observes that for some reason material on the Franciscans in

the

argues,

capital the

after

1216

Franciscan

abundant.63

is

order

wielded

In

“personal

fact,

he

influence

over the last two Latin Emperors of Constantinople,” and “played

a

large

part

in

the

ecclesiastical

life

of

the

empire in its last days,” especially as other institutions crumbled.64

As far as relations between the Latins and

Greeks are concerned, Wolff’s article on the Franciscans is extremely important; it illustrates the role played by the Friars Minor in negotiations for church union in 1234. The context in which these negotiations took place is a fascinating one.

Wolff notes that after the death of

Henry in 1216, the papacy had “ceased to look upon the Latin Empire and Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople as effective unifying forces,” favoring negotiations with the Lascarids

as

the

most

likely

path

to

unity.65

The

Lascarids, for their part, were motivated by the desire to obtain Constantinople from the Latins; for the Emperors of Nicaea, this was the principal incentive to sponsor union negotiations.66

Of

course,

one

must

always

distinguish

between the motivations of the emperors who sponsored the 63

Wolff, “Franciscans,” 213. Wolff, “Franciscans,” 223. 65 Wolff, “Franciscans,” 224. 66 Wolff, “Franciscans,” 226. 64

29

negotiations

and

the

Greek

clergy

who

participated-a

distinction that Wolff is not always careful to make. any

case,

beginning

Wolff

recounts

with

the

Constantinople

in

the

arrival

1231,

which

story of so

of

the

John

of

alarmed

In

negotiations Brienne the

in

powerful

Lascarid John Ducas Vatatzes that he urged his patriarch, Germanus, to open a correspondence with Pope Gregory IX.67 Nevertheless, influenced

Wolff by

argues

“the

that

suggestion

Germanus of

five

was

also

anonymous

Franciscans, who arrived by chance in Nicaea on the way home from the Holy Land, and who brought Germanus’ letters to Rome.”68

Wolff quotes from Germanus’ letter to Pope

Gregory, which expresses the former’s admiration for the Franciscan

brothers,

his

belief

that

their

visit

was

providential, and his fervent wish to mend the schism—a wish with which Pope Gregory concurred in his reply.69

The

papally-sponsored

two

mission

that

resulted

was

led

by

Dominicans and two Franciscans, who were amicably received in Nicaea in 1234.

Wolff’s article recounts the sad story

of the breakdown in negotiations that finally brought an end to this promising episode, but what is most significant is the way in which this episode illustrates the diversity 67

Wolff, “Franciscans,” 225. Wolff, “Franciscans,” 225. 69 Wolff, “Franciscans,” 225. 68

30

of

motivations

and

the

fluidity

of

the

political

and

ecclesiastical situation in the Aegean, even as the Latin Empire reached its perigee. Wolff’s article on the Latin Patriarchate, which is subtitled Latin

“Social

and

Conquest,”

ecclesiastical article

Administrative

paints

situation

reveals

the

the

in

ways

even

in

Consequences complexity

clearer

which

the

of

of

colors.

Empires

the the This

tortuous

political history spilled over into the religious sphere, most

obviously

in

Thessalonika.

Wolff

recounts

that

Margaret, a.k.a. Maria, widow of both Isaac II Angelus and Boniface of Montferrat, faced a rebellion among her Lombard subjects in Thessalonika after her second husband’s death.70 She

was

rebels.71

supported

by

Emperor

Henry,

who

crushed

the

From an ecclesiastical point of view, what is

interesting is the way in which Margaret sought the support of her Greek subjects: protecting Greek suffragan bishops who refused submission to Latin metropolitans, refusing to pay tithes and forbidding her subjects from doing so, and possibly even imprisoning Latin clerics.72 Innocent

III

ordered

the

Latin

bishops

Nevertheless, to

protect

the

traditional rights of any Greek clergy who offered their 70

Wolff, “Patriarchate,” 37. Wolff, “Patriarchate,” 38. 72 Wolff, “Patriarchate,” 38. 71

31

nominal submission to the papacy.73 however,

Wolff’s

article

bares

For the most part,

the

dark

side

of

close

coexistence between the Greek and Latin churches: strife between

and

within

communities,

and

violence

against

clerics by both sides, even to the point of bloodshed.74 Wolff’s article is, of course, principally noteworthy for the clarity with which it illuminates the administrative structure of the Latin Patriarchate. Of course, one cannot conclude a discussion of Wolff’s prolific scholarship on the Latin Empire without mentioning his

famous

article

Constantinople,” 1954.75

“Politics

published

in

in

the

Dumbarton

Latin

Empire

of

Oaks

Papers

in

This lengthy article, with appendices, seeks to

give as complete an institutional history as is possible of the Latin Patriarchate—a history that Wolff calls “one of the most revealing chapters in the curious and ill-fated colonial experiment which the westerners attempted to carry on in Constantinople.”76

Of course, one would not deny that

the history of the Latin Empire inspires curiosity, nor, knowing the outcome, that its history was “ill-fated,” but seeing the Empire as principally a “colonial” enterprise

73

Wolff, “Patriarchate,” 39. Wolff, “Patriarchate,” 34-43. 75 Robert Lee Wolff, “Politics in the Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople,” in Dumbarton Oaks Papers, vol. VIII (1954), 227-303. 76 Wolff, “Politics,” 295. 74

32

brings with it obvious difficulties—not the least of which is that fact that any serious effort on the part of the West to “colonize” Constantinople would have altered the history substantially. of

an

organized

It was, in fact, the complete lack

“colonial”

strategy

that

placed

Latin

holdings in the Eastern Mediterranean in their frequently precarious position. Be

that

as

Patriarchate’s

it

sad

may,

history

Wolff’s is

analysis

both

of

the

penetrating

and

rigorous.

He recounts the knotty circumstances surrounding

Morosini’s

election

with

commendable

clarity,

explaining

that the partition treaty between crusaders and Venetians rendered

the

Patriarchate

“a

political

consolation-prize

for the party which should prove unsuccessful in electing an

Emperor.”77

installed without

The

Venetian

the

election

canons

knowledge

of

of

of

Morosini

Hagia

Pope

Sophia

Innocent

by

the

was

III

or

newly

performed even

of

Morosini himself; Wolff notes that after hearing of the conquest, Pope Innocent was clearly far from certain that he

wanted

a

Nevertheless,

77 78

Latin

Patriarch

Innocent

in

confirmed

Wolff, “Politics,” 227. Wolff, “Politics,” 228.

33

Constantinople the

fait

at

accompli

all.78 with

which

he

was

presented,

after

issuing

suitable

denunciations of the election’s lack of canonicity.79 The subsequent history of the Latin Patriarch’s office is of course a notoriously troubled one. that

after

initially

asserting

a

Wolff points out

papal

prerogative

to

select the Latin Patriarch, Pope Innocent changed his mind twice,

first

apparent

recanting

infringement

and on

the

even

apologizing

rights

of

the

for

this

cathedral

chapter, and then barely a year later limiting the rights of the chapter by prescribing an election process involving “the prelates of all the conventual churches in the city.”80 Wolff then observes that papal interference in the choice of Latin Patriarchs was to be the general pattern; of the six men who held the office between 1204 and 1261, one (Morosini) was “confirmed” by the papacy, two (Simon of Tyre and Pantaleone Giustiniani) were chosen directly by the papacy without any action on the part of the chapter, and two (Gervasius of Heracleia and Matthaeus of Jesolo) were

chosen

by

the

papacy

after

disputed

elections.81

Nevertheless Wolff does not see papal involvement as the problem; in fact, his analysis indicates that the tragedy of the Latin Patriachate was exacerbated by the degree to 79

Wolff, “Politics,” 228. Wolff, “Politics,” 229. This letter of Innocent’s, preserved in the register of his successor, Honorius III, is included in Wolff’s appendix. 81 Wolff, “Politics,” 229-230. 80

34

which

it

operated

discussing

the

independently

Patriarch

of

the

Matthaeus

papacy.

(1221-1226),

In Wolff

argues that he was typical rather than exceptional among Latin

Patriarchs,

insofar

as

he

was

“a

power-hungry

prelate, determined to assert his own authority, willing to infringe upon papal prerogative, greedy, and hard put to it funds.”82

for

Even

allowing

for

the

influence

of

traditional Venetian stereotyping in Wolff’s argument, it is hard not to acknowledge that he makes a strong case for his assessment of the Patriarchate’s institutional history: in short, Wolff argues that the six men who held the office were,

to

a

greater

or

lesser

degree,

short-sighted

and

selfish, and that they were more concerned with plundering the churches and monasteries of the Latin Empire and Greece than

with

ensuring

the

long-term

ecclesiastical institutions.

viability

of

the

In fact, the papacy comes off

rather well in Wolff’s analysis, as always being committed to larger objectives than those of the Latin Patriarchs, and even being willing to give away the Latin Patriarchate in

a

heartbeat

Greeks.”83

“in

exchange

for

an

agreement

with

the

Indeed, Wolff shows that the healing of the

schism always took precedence among papal goals, over and

82 83

Wolff, “Politics,” 278. Wolff, “Politics,” 295.

35

above

the

maintenance

of

Latin

institutions

in

Constantinople. Wolff’s

lament

for

the

decayed

state

of

the

Latin

imperial institutions in the later years of the empire is a compelling

one;

nevertheless,

Empire

its

last

in

years

scholarly attention.

the

has

history drawn

of

some

the

Latin

measure

of

One fascinating piece of scholarship

is Deno Geanakoplos’ “Greco-Latin Relations on the Eve of the Byzantine Restoration,” which examines the anti-Nicene alliance Despot

forged of

amongst

Epirus

Prince

Michael

William

II,

and

of

Achaia,

Manfred

of

the

Sicily.

Geanakoplos deals with the motives of each man separately, leading

up

to

a

discussion

of

the

battle

that

resulted

therefrom—an overwhelming victory for Michael Palaeologos, which paved the way for his conquest of the capital.84 puzzle,

of

course,

is

how

the

divergent

The

interests

of

Epirus, Latin Achaia, and Frederick II’s son could possibly have

coincided.

The

answer

is

at

once

obvious

and

surprising: despite the alliance with Nicaea that Manfred inherited from his father, an alliance with Epirus (sealed by

a

marriage

to

the

Despot’s

84

daughter)

gave

Manfred

a

Deno Geanakoplos, “Greco-Latin Relations on the Eve of the Byzantine Restoration: the Battle of Pelagonia, 1259,” in Dumbarton Oaks Papers, vol. VII (1953), 99-141. Geanakoplos notes that Hopf famously referred to the alliance against Nicaea as an “unnatuerliche Bundesbruederschaft.”

36

strong foothold in the Balkans.85 had

taken

advantage

Palaeologan

revolution

of to

Michael II, for his part,

the

chaos

seize

Nicene

surrounding territory

on

the the

European side of the straits, and needed new allies to back up

his

audacious

conquests

against

so

able

an

enemy

as

Michael VIII.86 The motives of William II, according to Geanakoplos, are more conjectural; the prince may have needed Epirote help to “subdue the recalcitrant Frankish barons of Middle Greece.”87

The alliance also appears to have won him the

“willing” allegiance of the Greek archons.88

Of course,

Geanakoplos reminds us that William needed all the help he could

get

at

that

point

anyway,

in

light

of

obvious

Palaeologan ambitions to drive the Franks from the region.89 In any case, it is obvious that the political alignment of Greece, the Balkans, and the Aegean in 1259 was clearly not a simple Latins-vs.-Greeks scenario.

The multiplicity of

powers and factions in the region, the complexity of their motivations, challenges, and priorities, and the adaptable nature of their alliances are all striking. the

case

on

the

political

85

level—and

Geanakoplos, “Greco-Latin Relations,” 103-105. Geanakoplos, “Greco-Latin Relations,” 101. 87 Geanakoplos, “Greco-Latin Relations,” 109-110. 88 Geanakoplos, “Greco-Latin Relations,” 110. 89 Geanakoplos, “Greco-Latin Relations,” 110. 86

37

If this was

indeed,

if

the

scholarship agrees on one thing, that would be it—then we are led to wonder how it could not also have been the case on the religious level. In fact, Michael Angold does present evidence that the shifting alliances, complexity of allegiances, and attempts at compromise that characterize the political life of the former Byzantine world between 1204 and 1261 were in fact reflected on the religious level.

In his article “Greeks

and Latins after 1204: the Perspective of Exile,” Angold attempts

to

place

Constantinople,

Greco-Latin

Greece,

and

church

Cyprus

relations

within

the

in

broader

context of East-West relations in the era of the crusades. He argues that one of the “main concerns” of the “Byzantine establishment”

after

Third

was

Crusade

relations

between

the “to

the

hostilities return

two

to

engendered

the

old

churches.”90

by

pattern

Indeed,

the of

Angold

argues that “an accommodation could be reached,” due to an “underlying spirit of conciliation on both sides.”91

In

fact, he even implies that the events of 1204 did not in themselves

spoil

“Byzantines

were

the

possibilities

everywhere

demoralized

of and

conciliation: inclined

to

come to terms with their conquerors, as advantageously as 90

Michael Angold, “Greeks and Latins after 1204: the Perspective of Exile,” in Latins and Greeks in the Eastern Mediterranean after 1204, edited by Benjamin Arbel, Bernard Hamilton, and David Jacoby (London: Frank Cass, 1989), 63-64. 91 Angold, 64.

38

they could.”92 forward

a

In support of this argument, Angold brings

fascinating

piece

of

evidence

from

Cardinal

Benedict’s difficult negotiations with the Greek clergy of Constantinople. exasperated

At

cardinal

one

point

in

the

accused

the

Greeks

debate,

of

the

disobedience;

they responded that “this was hardly fair,” for they could have sought exile with their countrymen and coreligionists at

Nicaea,

Turks.93

or

with

Angold

David

points

Comnenus, out

that

or the

even

among

nature

of

the the

settlement between the Greek church and their new rulers was up in the air for several years: in fact, “the Orthodox community in Constantinople tried to persuade Innocent III to allow the election of an Orthodox patriarch after the death of John Camaterus.”94

The idea of a twin patriarchate

at Constantinople had the backing of the emperor Henry, but could not win Innocent’s approval, and it was only in 1208 that the majority of the clergy of the capital threw their religious

lot

in

with

the

Lascarids,

by

supporting

the

creation of a new patriarch at Nicaea.95 Interestingly enough, Angold attempts to confine the “period of uncertainty” to the years between 1204 and 1208, arguing that after 1208 “the sack of Constantinople and the 92

Angold, 66. Angold, 67. 94 Angold, 67. 95 Angold, 67. 93

39

Latin conquest were recognized as criminal acts . . . an affront to Orthodoxy.”96

His own article, however, presents

evidence that this attitude was not universal among the subject Greeks.

Nicene Patriarch Germanus II, upon his

elevation to the throne in 1223, wrote to his flock in the capital

warning

them

that

particularly “insidious.”97

the

“Latin

heresy”

was

The “insidious” nature of the

Latin “heresy” apparently lay in its ability to “seduce” even monks: Angold mentions “a monk of the monastery of St Mamas” who went so far as to “put his adhesion to Latin teachings in writing.”98

The monk later recanted and was

forgiven by his monastery, but his story certainly raises the possibility that he was not the only one who strayed from the allegedly uniform resistance to Latin oppression. An

interesting

comparative Greeks

purposes

“submitted

tidbit

that

is

case

the

fairly

happily

Angold of to

presents

Sicily, Norman

for

where

rule,

the

while

their monasteries benefited from Norman generosity.”99

In

light of the Latin patronage of Greek monasteries mentioned by

Longnon,

the

question

about

whether

Greek

monastic

clergy in Constantinople and Greece proper were uniformly hostile

to

their

Latin

lords

96

Angold, 67. Angold, 69-70. 98 Angold, 70. 99 Angold, 70. 97

40

and

the

Latin

church

can

certainly be raised.

Other departures from the “certainty”

that Angold had advocated earlier include the advice given by

Patriarch

Germanus

to

the

Greek

church

of

Cyprus,

advising them to acquiesce to the Latin archbishop and take their

cases

to

his

courts,

in

the

name

of

oikonomia.100

Angold notes that this decision was revoked after input from another constituency—influential Greeks who remained under Latin rule in Constantinople.101

The possibility of a

Cypriot union with the Latin church appeared more likely than

not

during

the

reign

of

Innocent

IV,

according

to

Angold, for Innocent IV followed “an enlightened policy

.

. . in his dealings with the eastern churches,” in which “differences of custom and practice were to be treated with the

sympathy.”102

greatest

All

of

these

little

puzzle-

pieces combine to indicate a larger picture—a picture of a complex

and

fluid

religious

situation

in

which

accommodation, compromise, and even overt conversion appear among

the

strategies

Latin rule. Greek

and

pursued

by

Greek

Christians

under

Indeed, one ought always to keep in mind that Latin

churches

were

made

up

of

many

smaller

communities and constituencies with differing interests and opinions,

and

that

both

sides

100

frequently

changed

their

Angold, 72. Notably, oikonomia would be the same principle invoked by Michael VIII in 1274 to justify the union of Lyons. 101 Angold, 73. 102 Angold, 74.

41

strategy in response to the demands of the moment.

In

light of this, a systematic and in-depth investigation of many of the issues Angold raises appears to be called for. Peter Lock’s rigorous 1995 monograph The Franks in the Aegean, 1204-1500 marks a return to the kind of general work that had been written by Finlay and Miller so many decades earlier.

Like Miller, Lock extends his temporal

scope from the Fourth Crusade down to the era of the last Latin princedoms to be conquered by the Ottomans.103 work

is

distinguished

by

its

impressive

Lock’s

apparatus,

its

systematic discussions of sources and historiography, and a thematic organization that sometimes renders the chronology difficult to follow.

His work is also noteworthy for its

attention to religious issues: Lock includes a chapter on the Latin secular church, and a chapter on Latin religious orders.

Evidence, of course, is scarce, which sometimes

leads Lock to jump from one century to another in confusing fashion.

In any case, a clear if skeletal picture emerges

of the Latin church in the Empire and Greece: the secular clergy

consisted

chapters.104 priest

103 104

Lock

ministering

mainly points in

of out

Greece

bishops that

and

the

after

cathedral

“ordinary

1204”

is

Peter Lock, The Franks in the Aegean, 1204-1500 (London: Longman, 1995). Lock, 209-212.

42

Latin almost

impossible to find; as Longnon and Wolff had argued, the lower

clergy,

especially

entirely Greek.105 wishes

of

Latin

in

the

countryside,

remained

While this sometimes ran contrary to the lords—Lock

cites

Otho

de

la

Roche,

who

petitioned Innocent III in 1210 for the ministrations of Latin priests—the Latin hierarchy remained at peace with the

situation.106

When

Innocent

did

attempt

to

recruit

Western monks and scholars to found institutions in the Latin Empire, it seems that he had “the persuasion of the Greeks,” rather than “the pastoral needs of the Latins” in mind.107 When

discussing

information

on

Augustinians,

the

the

religious

activities

Benedictines,

orders, of

Lock

the

mendicants,

presents

Cistercians, and

military

orders; the activities of the mendicants, particularly in the later years of the Latin Empire, are given pride of place as they were in the studies of Wolff and Angold.108 Lock

also

devotes

a

section

to

the

state

of

Greek

monasticism under Latin rule, coming to conclusions that reinforce

those

monasteries

were

of

Longnon. “taken

He

under

105

Lock, 213. Lock, 213. 107 Lock, 214. 108 Lock, 222-239. 106

43

points papal

out

that

protection,”

Greek and

“allowed to function.”109

A Greek monastic community was

“free to receive endowments and to conduct its affairs as it saw fit.”110

Lock dismisses as “totally underserved” the

charge of papal complicity in or responsibility for any pillaging of Athos, pointing out that Pope Innocent always “took

measures

to

stop

any

undue

exploitation

by

his

subordinates as soon as he was convinced of it,” and that treatment of the monasteries by Latin conquerors compares quite favorably to the destruction inflicted on them by officials

of

considered, penetrating

Michael Lock’s and

VIII

in

the

observations interesting;

on

1270s.111

All

religious

they

whet

things

issues

the

are

reader’s

appetite for a deeper investigation. Lock’s relies

in

discussion part

on

of

an

monasticism

earlier

work

in by

Latin

Greece

Beata

Kitsiki

Panagopoulos, entitled Cistercian and Mendicant Monasteries in Medieval Greece.112 concerned

with

architecture entitled

in

Panagopoulos’ work is principally

unearthing Greece,

“Historical

evidence although

Background,”

of its

Cistercian opening

attempts

to

church

section, give

an

abbreviated history of the Latin church in the Empire and

109

Lock, 226-227. Lock, 227. 111 Lock, 228. 112 Beata Maria Panagopoulos, Cistercian and Mendicant Monasteries in Medieval Greece (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1979). 110

44

Greece,

unfortunately

process. theory

She

that

Crusade

begins

Dandolo

to

committing by

had

many

endorsing conspired

Constantinople,

errors

the to

in

the

long-discredited

divert

ludicrously

the

Fourth

describes

the

crusade fleet as “turning around” on its way to “Jerusalem” despite the fact that its original goal was Egypt and that it never turned around, and asserting that the crusaders attacked Constantinople the second time because of “serious doubts that the Byzantines would ultimately help them reach the

Holy

Land.”113

Her

narrative

thus

savages

the

historical reality in ways that are too numerous to mention and too shocking for polite words.

She makes the factually

fuzzy assertion that the Empire of Nicaea lasted “for more than

two

and

a

half

centuries,”

and

in

a

confused

way

describes Innocent III as an “ardent advocate of the Fourth Crusade,” seeming to imply that he favored the conquest of Constantinople

in

advance.114

The

value

of

her

work,

however, lies in the clarity with which it attempts to lay out a “religious geography” of the Latin Empire; only in the

lands

that

remained

in

Latin

hands

through

the

fourteenth century, she argues, do we find a lasting impact in

ecclesiastical

113 114

architecture.

Panagopoulos, 3-4. Panagopoulos, 4-5.

45

She

demonstrates

that

Latin monastic architecture, much of it Gothic, actually flourished in Greece during the Middle Ages; in the capital and its surroundings, however, hardly a trace can be found. From a more anthropological perspective, one of the most

significant

contributions

to

the

historiography

in

recent years comes from Aneta Ilieva, whose Frankish Morea: 1205-1262 appeared in 1991, revealing for the first time the complexity of some of the puzzles that confront the historian of Frankish Greece.115 social-science

approach

to

the

Ilieva attempts to take a problem

of

Greco-Latin

coexistence in the Peloponnesus, demonstrating an awareness of

a

wide

range

of

primary

and

secondary

material,

including vast amounts of scholarship published in modern Greek.

In her review of the literature, she notes that “a

thesis

appeared”

“survived

even

in to

the our

nineteenth time,”

and

century,

which

has

states

“that

the

crusaders’ conquest of the Morea reinforced the feelings of disgust and hatred, the incompatibility of temper and of manners,

of

conquerors

conquered.”116

and

Despite

the

pertinacity of this thesis, Ilieva argues that it “turned out to be invalid in view of the progress of studies in the

115

Aneta Ilieva, Frankish Morea 1205-1262: Socio-cultural Interaction between the Franks and the Local Population (Athens: Ιστορικες Εκδοσεις ετ. ∆. Βασιλοπουλος, 1991). 116 Ilieva, 28.

46

field,”

and

is

therefore

“heard

less

and

less

often

today.”117 Ilieva’s

chapter

“on

resistance

and

cooperation”

illustrates some of the many complexities of Greek society under Frankish rule.

She argues that in the aftermath of

the conquest, three kinds of behavior were possible for the native

population:

1)

“rejection

of

the

alien,”

2)

“occasional acquaintance,” and 3) “deeper acquaintance with selective adoption of the alien.”118

The role that these

categories play for her is somewhat ambiguous, however, for she

quickly

drops

them

“active”

and

“passive”

cooperation.

in

“passive”

favor

of

other

resistance, Despite

some

and

categories:

“active”

ambiguities

in

and her

theoretical framework, the dynamics that she uncovers are significant: under the heading of “active resistance,” she discusses the resistance of the Acrocorinth (led by the famous “tyrant” Leon Sgouros), and that of Monemvasia.

In

the case of Sgouros, she notes that his supporters included the

Latin

included

Archbishop the

Thessalonica acceptable

117 118

Greek

of

archons,

Boniface ruler

Neopatras,

than

of

who

while saw

Montferrat the

Ilieva, 29. Ilieva, 171.

47

infamous

his the

as

a

tyrant

enemies King

far of

of more the

Peloponnesus.119

She

argues

that

a

picture

emerges,

in

which “resistance was characteristic of social forces that either

had

traditions

of

self-government,”

as

Monemvasia

did, or “had achieved real independence before or shortly after the fall of Constantinople,” as Sgouros did.120

These

“forces” could and did struggle against the Franks, but often turned out—as Sgouros did—to be “obstructive to the shaping of an anti-Latin coalition,” due to their “previous activities.”121

Passive resistance, usually in the form of

emigration, seemed to be the mode of resistance favored by the

higher

clergy—Ilieva

cites

the

Greek

archbishop

of

Patras, noting that he “was not one of the defenders of his town,”122—of course, Ilieva should not be as surprised by this

as

she

prohibitions

is,

given

forbidding

the

Greek

traditional

clerics

to

be

canonical involved

in

war. Active cooperation from the local population, on the other hand, was a striking feature of the Frankish conquest of the Morea.

She notes that before the battle in the

plain of Kalamata, it was the Greek archons “who informed the crusaders about the Byzantine troops gathered nearby,”

119

Ilieva, 173-175. Ilieva, 175. 121 Ilieva, 175. 122 Ilieva, 179. 120

48

and

who

“gave

an

opinion

on

the

need

for

fleet.”123

a

Moreover, “the Greeks themselves contributed to the fall of Nikli and when possible tried to spare the efforts and the sacrifices of the Franks.”124

Thus, it appears that the

reaction of the residents of the Peloponnesus to Frankish conquest was diverse, and at all times dictated by local needs and priorities, rather than any kind of anachronistic national allegiance.

What remains less clear from Ilieva’s

study is the place of religion in all of this. In fact, it is the broad picture of interaction on the religious level between Latins and Greeks that this current study hopes to elucidate. studies

of

Kerameus

and

As has been shown, the early Heisenberg

brought

suggestive

evidence to the fore, in a field that has been dominated for centuries by attempts to answer political, social, and economic

questions

achievement

of

Du

rather

than

Cange’s

religious

ones.

seventeenth-century

The

work

was

enormous; it created a field of study that lay dormant for two

hundred

publications scholarship.

years, of

until

archival

Hopf,

Buchon’s

material

Finlay,

discoveries

facilitated

Gerland,

and

and

further

Miller

made

enormous strides in understanding the political history of

123 124

Ilieva, 187. Ilieva, 187.

49

the Latin Empire and Latin Greece, while at the same time endorsing a more or less simplistic understanding of its religious

history.

principally

concerned

Longnon with

and

Wolff,

political

and

while

being

institutional

history, brought important religious questions to the fore— for which, the potential beginnings of answers appear in the work of Angold and Lock.

The time has come for a

systematic study of religious interactions between Latins and Greeks under Latin rule. faceted

and

Therefore,

complex; this

they

present

These interactions are multiare

study

the

study

confines

of

a

itself

lifetime. to

the

efforts at various kinds of religious accommodation that occurred between Latins and Greeks in the period of the Empire, from 1204-1261.

50

Chapter 3: Liturgical Accommodation

INTRODUCTION It is a truism to assert that the Latin conquest of Constantinople in 1204 resulted in the creation of a new political and religious situation for the residents of the imperial capital and its environs. nature

of

this

new

religious

Nevertheless, the exact

situation

has

rarely

been

examined with any degree of scholarly rigor; although there is

a

historiographical

tradition

devoted

to

the

complex

political history of the Latin Empire and Frankish Greece, the

interior

between

religious

Latins

and

dynamics—especially

Greeks

within

the

interactions

Latin

Empire

of

Constantinople—have drawn a lamentable dearth of scholarly interest.125

As a result, attempts by scholars to examine

religious texts from the Latin Empire have been, perhaps more often than not, guided by inherited assumptions about the

environment

in

which

those

125

texts

were

produced—

This can be seen throughout the entire sweep of the historiographical tradition, from Charles du Fresne du Cange’s monumental Histoire de l’empire de Constantinople, all the way to the present: Carl Hopf, Geschichte Griechenlands; George Finlay, A History of Greece; William Miller, The Latins in the Levant; Ernst Gerland, Geschichte; Jean Longnon, L’Empire latin de Constantinople; Robert Lee Wolff, “Constantinople,” “Franciscans,” “Patriarchate,” “Politics”; Peter Lock, The Franks in the Aegean, etc.

51

assumptions matched

whose

only

deficiency

by

maintained.

the

Most

in

evidentiary

tenacity

importantly,

with

warrant

which

scholars

is

they

have

are

inherited

assumptions about the nature of power relationships within the Latin Empire, and have, under the influence of these assumptions,

failed

to

notice

the

contrary

implications

contained in certain important pieces of evidence. It

is

with

two

such

pieces

of

evidence

that

this

chapter concerns itself: both are liturgical texts in a Greek

hand,

dating

occupation.

The

from

the

early

years

of

late

nineteenth-century

the

Latin

scholar

A.

Papadopoulos-Kérameus discovered the first of these while attempting

to

library

Chalki,

at

catalog

the

while

manuscripts the

second,

of in

the two

monastic fragments,

languished in the Ambrosian Library of Milan until it was discovered and published by August Heisenberg in 1923.126 The two manuscripts bear almost exactly the same content, namely, substantial portions of the Latin-rite Mass written in

the

Greek

language,

with

(somewhat

more

oddly)

an

interlinear Latin translation rendered phonetically in the Greek alphabet. feature

admits

Both scholars recognized that this latter of

no

explanation,

126

other

than

that

some

A. Papadopoulos-Kérameus, “Documents grecs,” 542, and A. Heisenberg, “Die römische Messe in griechischer Übersetzung,” 12-15.

52

portion of the Greek clergy must have offered the Westernrite

Mass

in

the

Latin

tongue

(hence

the

need

for

a

phonetic Latin text in Greek letters); both PapadopoulosKérameus

and

potentially

Heisenberg

very

saw

significant,

their

discoveries

especially

insofar

as

as they

might help illuminate the religious changes brought about by the Latin conquest. Nevertheless, produced

by

the

the two

inferences

and

discoverers

interpretations

were

guided

by

the

scholarly consensus of their time, which characterized the relationship between Latins and Greeks in the Middle Ages as

one

of

Latin

brute

force

versus

inveterate

Greek

resistance and hostility.

As is the case with most late

nineteenth-

twentieth-century

therefore,

and

early

Papadopoulos-Kérameus

and

historians,

Heisenberg

leave

little if any room in this relationship for compromise, accommodation, or attempts at mutual understanding, and as a

result,

they

both

fail

to

notice

the

explosive

implications that these liturgical texts contain. the

story

that

these

Mass

texts

tell

is

In fact,

one

of

a

complicated and changing religious landscape, in which at least some element of the conquered people's clergy was willing

to

push

Orthodoxy

to

53

its

limits

in

seeking

a

mutually satisfactory settlement with Constantinople's new masters.

PAPADOPOULOS-KÉRAMEUS

AND THE

CHALKI

TEXT

In introducing his readers to the Mass text that he discovered

in

the

monastery

of

Chalki,

Papadopoulos-

Kérameus unfortunately fails to engage in rigorous textual analysis, choosing instead to present a series of loose arguments

that

reflect

prejudices

typical

of

both

nineteenth-century French orientalism and early Byzantinist scholarship.127 be

taken

as

He argues that this liturgical text should un

témoignage

important

de

la

très

grande

influence exercée par le clergé français sur les conscience et

la

fois

oriental.128

des

habitants

de

Constantinople

du

rite

Specifically, he maintains that the Franks, as

new-found masters of the city, ont cherché à consolider leur domination non point seulement par les armes et les fortifications, mais en s'efforçant de faire adopter par les

Grecs

le

rite

latin.129

127

As

mentioned

above,

The works of Joseph-Francois Michaud, and of Papadopoulos-Kérameus' contemporary Henri Grégoire, appear to have been particularly influential in forming Papadopoulos-Kérameus' perspective. Like the former, he tends to exaggerate the role of the French at the expense of other Latins, and like the latter, he regards the Fourth Crusade as little more than a barbarian invasion, which destroyed the flourishing East Roman civilization. 128 A. Papadopoulos-Kérameus, “Documents grecs,” 543. 129 A. Papadopoulos-Kérameus, “Documents grecs,” 543.

54

Papadopoulos-Kérameus'

view

corresponds

to

the

scholarly

consensus current at his time, which remained in place for many

years

after

he

wrote;

this

consensus

saw

Latin

Christians in general, and the crusaders in particular, as being

interested

Eastern

in

Christian

manfully.

the

wholesale

counterparts,

domination

who

Papadopoulos-Kérameus,

in

while

of

turn

their

resisted

emphasizing

the

role of the “French” crusaders, portrays them as being, if anything, even more tyrannical than previously thought: not content with an armed conquest of the city, he tells us, the

Frankish

lords

and

their

clergy

sought

to

twist

religion into an instrument of “domination,” by forcing the unhappy Greeks to conform to the Latin liturgical usage against

their

will.

In

contrast

to

these

French

barbarians, he depicts the clergé grec de cette ville as being

extraordinarily

resilient

despite

the

difficult

situation; he describes their resistance as heroic, qui, à diverses reprises, malgré mille persecutions, avait refusé de reconnaitre la suprématie latine.130 In

support

of

his

analysis,

Papadopoulos-Kérameus

attempts to establish the origin of the liturgy that is contained version 130

in can

the

Chalki

text.

He

be

found

in

undated

an

A. Papadopoulos-Kérameus, “Documents grecs,” 543.

55

claims

that

original

medieval

Latin

liturgical manuscript of the monastery of St. Gall, which had been published in Etienne Baluze's eighteenth-century edition

of

supposedly parmi

Capitularia

reflects

les

between

the

croisés

these

la

Regum

liturgie

francs.131

two

latine

It

liturgies

and

Francorum,

is

that

la

upon

plus the

which

commune

similitude

Papadopoulos-Kérameus

rests his most significant contention: that the liturgical text of Chalki proves that le clergé latin, après avoir pris

possession

oeuvre

de

adopter

siège

prosélytisme

la

Kérameus,

du

liturgie

the

Chalki

patriarchal,

en

faisant

latine.132 Mass

text

ait

poursuivi

traduire

Thus,

for

represents

en

grec

son et

Papadopoulosan

originally

Latin liturgy commonly used among the Franks, which was in turn translated from Latin into Greek at Frankish behest, and then used by the Franks as a means of proselytism— religious warfare, waged non point seulement par les armes et les fortifications, but through the liturgy as well. Nevertheless, cannot

withstand

Papadopoulos-Kérameus' close

analysis;

not

contentions

only

are

there

enormous differences between the liturgical text of Chalki and

that

dependence

131 132

of of

the the

Capitularia—differences former

upon

the

A. Papadopoulos-Kérameus, “Documents grecs,” 544. A. Papadopoulos-Kérameus, “Documents grecs,” 543-544.

56

that

latter

make a

the

virtual

impossibility—but

a

linguistic

examination

of

the

interlinear Latin and Greek words of the Chalki manuscript reveals

that

acquainted version

the

with

of

author/scribe

the

the

Latin

Mass

may

tongue.

contains

not In

so

have fact,

many

been this

well Latin

grammatical

and

syntactical errors—as well as omissions and deviations from the standard, ancient wording of the Roman canon—that it is hard

to

imagine

that

it

was

prepared

under

Latin

supervision at all. Beginning with the last point, a few examples will suffice to demonstrate the problem.

The beginning of the

Memento in the standard Roman canon, which is recorded in the Capitularia manuscript as well as in every Roman Missal down to the present day, reads as follows: Memento, Domine, famulorum

famularumque

tuarum,

et

omnium

circumstantium,

quorum tibi fides cognita est et nota devotio, pro quibus tibi

offerimus,

vel

qui

tibi

laudis pro se suisque omnibus.133 Memento

in

the

Chalki

offerunt

hoc

sacrificium

The transliterated Latin

manuscript,

however,

begins

as

follows: Μέµεντο, ∆όµινε, φαµουλόρουµ φαµουλάρουµ ετθ οµνίουµ κίρκουµ τίβι 133

Cf. Etienne Baluze, ed., Capitularia Regum Francorum, vol. II (Paris: Francisci-Augustini Quillau, 1780), 1352-1368 [accessed via VFL microfilm 1225]. This medieval Latin version of the Roman Canon—the one to which I refer as “standard”--has been passed down virtually unchanged since the time of Pope St. Gregory the Great, to whom it is attributed. The many editions of the Missale Romanum published since 1570 agree word for word with the Capitularia text, with minor 20th-century additions such as the commemoration of St. Joseph. Thus, the serious discrepancies between this standard version and the transliterated texts of Chalki and Milan raises doubts as to whether these latter texts were really produced by Latins.

57

φιδες κόγνιτα εστ ετθ νότα δεβότζιο.134 Transliterated back into Latin script, this would be Memento, Domine, famulorum famularum et omnium circum fides cognita est et nota devotio, which is positively absurd—in fact, it makes no grammatical sense whatsoever.

Most

especially,

the

genitive

plural

participle circumstantium has disappeared, leaving only the contextually ludicrous preposition circum.

If this were

not enough to invite qualms about the idea that the Chalki text was produced by Latin proselytizers, further red flags are raised by the fact that the interlinear Greek version of

the

same

passage

is

grammatically

flawless,

and

manifestly not a translation from the flawed Latin. Greek

text

begins Μνήσθητι,

παρισταµένων.135 The passage

Greek

intelligible,

Κύριε, τῶν δούλων καὶ

participle and

παρισταµένων

corresponds

to

The

πάντων τῶν

renders

the

is

Latin

the word

circumstantium, which is nowhere to be found in the Chalki text.

This leaves us no alternative except to conclude

that the author of the Chalki text, who was so obviously unfamiliar with the Latin language—and even if he had been a

Latinist

rendering obtained

134 135

could

from his

never

the

Greek

have

derived

unintelligible version

of

the

A. Papadopoulos-Kérameus, “Documents grecs,” 547. A. Papadopoulos-Kérameus, “Documents grecs,” 547.

58

the

correct

Latin—must Roman

have

liturgy

Greek first from

a

preexisting source.

The interlinear Greek cannot be, as

Papadopoulos-Kérameus interlinear Latin.

claims,

a

translation

of

the

This conclusion leaves us somewhat at

loose ends, however, for it leaves open the questions of 1) where the author obtained his rough phonetic rendering of the Latin text, and 2) why he chose to include it. Of

course,

as

both

Papadopoulos-Kérameus

and

Heisenberg point out, the only obvious reason for including the phonetic Latin text was so that Greek clerics could say the

Roman

Mass

in

Latin,

with

the

interlinear

Greek

translation in front of them all the while so that they would

know

what

they

were

saying.

Both

Papadopoulos-

Kérameus and Heisenberg see this as obvious evidence of Latin proselytism, but if those who produced the text in question were in fact themselves Greeks, then this attempt to allow their fellow Greek clerics to say the Latin Mass takes

on

character

an

entirely

might

be

different

shall

character.

receive

deeper

What

that

consideration

below; first it is crucial to make some kind of educated guess as to whence the phonetic Latin in the Chalki text was derived, if the author himself did not know Latin (or at least did not know it well enough to translate between Latin and Greek, as is obvious from the text).

59

There

are

indeed

certain

linguistic

clues

in

the

Chalki manuscript that provide an answer to this latter question.

Among them is the prayer at the beginning of the

Roman Canon, which in its standard form reads as follows: Te igitur, clementissime Pater, per Jesum Christum filium tuum

Dominum

nostrum,

supplices

rogamus

ac

petimus

uti

accepta habeas et benedicas haec dona, haec munera, haec sancta sacrificia, etc.136 Chalki

text,

while

The phonetic rendering in the

corresponding

roughly

to

the

Latin

grammar and syntax, replaces accepta habeas with the single non-existent word ακτζεπταβέας, and changes haec dona, haec munera to ἐκ δόναρ ἔκ µουἀργερα.137 There is only one possible way that

the

author

could

have

obtained

actzeptabeas

for

accepta habeas: even though it makes no sense in Latin, it could easily have sounded that way.

Similarly, it is hard

to imagine where donar ec muargera came from, unless it was a garbled oral rendering of dona, haec munera.

Thus, from

the Chalki text a picture begins to emerge, of a Greek scribe sitting close by the altar during a Latin liturgy, and recording ever so carefully sounds that he himself does not understand—or at least does not understand well.

With

great care he attempts to reproduce the Latin sounds in his

136 137

Cf. Baluze, Capitularia, 1352-1368. A. Papadopoulos-Kérameus, “Documents grecs,” 547.

60

own

alphabet,

but

even

the

greatest

care—especially

in

light of the fact that the canon would have been recited in a

low

tone—cannot

save

him

from

some

mistakes.

Non-

existent words appear here and there (such as muargera in place of munera) while in other places (such as in the Memento text dealt with above) words and parts of words that are essential for the meaning of the passage end up dropping out without the scribe realizing it—perhaps due to the

celebrant's

quickly.

voice

dropping

too

low

or

moving

too

This last fact—the many missing words and parts

thereof—would also seem to eliminate the possibility that that Latin text was deliberately and carefully dictated to the Greek scribe by a Latin cleric. Thus, it appears that the most plausible explanation for the origins of the phonetic Latin in the Chalki text is that a Grecophone scribe who was not a master of the Latin language—it

would

be

overly

charitable

to

call

his

acquaintance with Latin even an elementary one, based on the errors in the text—took down the sounds of the Latin liturgy as it was being celebrated by a Latin priest. then

took

this

version

and

placed

it,

in

an

He

imperfect

interlinear fashion, alongside a preexisting Greek version of the corresponding parts of the Roman Mass, remaining unaware of the Latin sounds that were missing, and of the 61

ones that did slip in which should not have.

The text he

thus produced would allow Greek clerics like himself to celebrate the Roman rite in Latin (or a close approximation thereof), Greek.

while

following

the

meaning

of

the

words

in

Thus, without claiming that all the questions have

yet been answered, it appears safe to conclude that the significance of this text, whatever it may be, is quite different

from

that

attributed

to

it

by

its

modern

discoverer; it is highly implausible to imagine that any literate

Westerner

could

have

produced

this

text

or

envisaged its use as a means of proselytism.

AUGUST HEISENBERG Despite

the

decisive

AND THE

MILAN

TEXT

refutation

of

Papadopoulos-

Kérameus that an analysis of the Chalki text allows, and despite the fact that the contents of the Chalki text, even on their own, raise the the possibility of a newer, more sophisticated

paradigm

for

Greco-Latin

relations

after

1204, there nevertheless remain more questions than answers at this point in the inquiry.

For example, even if one

were to hypothesize that Greek clerics wanted to celebrate the Latin liturgy on their own initiative—and this has by no means been proven yet—it is not clear precisely why they 62

would have wished to do so.

Nor is it clear exactly how

such celebrations would have been regarded by the various constituencies

within

the

Greek

Orthodox

clergy

of

Constantinople and the Latin Morea, or for that matter by the Latins themselves.

If, for example, the cleric who

produced that Chalki text was a lone renegade, rather than part of some broader movement, the significance of that text for our understanding of the wider religious landscape would be greatly diminished. some

of

these

broader

In order to begin answering

questions,

and

to

provide

more

context for the inquiry, it is advantageous to turn to some documents 1923,

edited

and

particularly

fragments,”

which

published his

by

edition

Heisenberg

August of

discovered

the in

Heisenberg two the

in

“Milan

Ambrosian

library among the early thirteenth-century manuscripts of Nicholas Mesarites' works—a set of codices that Heisenberg dates to the early years of the Latin occupation. Heisenberg observes that the contents of the two-part Milan manuscript, on the whole, match that of the Chalki text, with the exception that the former is in far worse physical

condition

than

the

latter:

Im

Nachlaß

des

Mesarites finden sich auf den Blättern Cod. Ambros. Gr. F 93 . . . die von Mäusen mehr als zur Hälfte abgenagt sind, die

Reste

einer

griechishcen 63

Übersetzung

der

römischen

Messe mit interlinearem lateinischen Text in griechischer Schrift.138

Heisenberg expresses regret that he did not

have enough space to publish the Milan fragments side-byside

with

the

Chalki

text,

but

assures

the

reader

there are few significant differences between them. is,

in

fact,

a

crucial

error

on

Heisenberg's

that This

part;

the

evidence, discussed below, indicates that the Milan text was produced by a completely different process than the Chalki text.

It must be observed, however, that Heisenberg

deserves

credit

analysis

that

attempt.

for

his

performing

some

nineteenth-century

rigorous

textual

colleague

did

not

Heisenberg, in fact, catches onto the fact that

the Latin in the Milan text is, like that of Chalki, deeply flawed, and does not follow the standard wording of the Roman

canon.

He

argues,

Der

erste

Herausgeber

[Papadopoulos-Kérameus] hat die Ansicht ausgesprochen, sie wäre hier vom römischen Klerus des lateinischen Kaisertums in

die

griechische

Griechischen

die

Sprache

Annahme

übersetzt

bequemer

zu

worden,

machen

.

.

um

den

.

[E]s

bestehen gegen diese Auffassung, so nahe es liegt, einige Bedenken.139

Among these einige Bedenken, Heisenberg points

out that if the scribe/translator/author had consulted the

138 139

A. Heisenberg, “Die römische Messe in griechischer Übersetzung,” 12. A. Heisenberg, “Die römische Messe in griechischer Übersetzung,” 13.

64

Roman Mass in its original form—e.g. in a Roman Missal—it would be extremely odd for him to have included so many errors

in

points

out,

mistakes

the

Latin

go

to

text,

beyond

include

which,

mere

as

scribal

grammatische

Heisenberg or

rightly

transcriptionary

Irrtümer.140

He

also

highlights some areas in which the Latin is not bad, but nevertheless does not follow the traditional wording of the Roman Canon—as though the scribe had come up with it by back-translating it from the Greek.

This latter feature is

unique to the Milan text, and although Heisenberg failed to realize it, points to a significant difference in origin between the Milan text and that of Chalki. Indeed, the grammatical mistakes and deviations from the norm that Heisenberg discovers in his Milan text are quite

different

particular,

from

those

Heisenberg

of

calls

the

Chalki

attention

document;

to

two

in

glaring

errors in the Latin version of the Institution narrative and in the prayers leading up to it.141 present standard

in

the

form

prayer

includes

Quam the

The first error is

oblationem,

words

which

benedictam,

in

adscriptam,

ratam, rationabilem, acceptabilemque facere digneris.142

140 141

In

A. Heisenberg, “Die römische Messe in griechischer Übersetzung,” 13. Papadopoulos-Kérameus ommitted this section from his incomplete transcription of the Chalki

manuscript. 142

its

Cf. Baluze, Capitularia, 1352-1368.

65

the

Milan

text,

the

reads βενεδίκταµ αδσκρίπταµ ράταµ

Latin

δεσιδεράβιλεµ βενερεσπόσαµ ρατζιονάβιλεµ φίερι διγνάρις.143 This

Latin

is

intelligible, but it inexplicably deviates from the ancient textual standard, and therefore also from the wording that would

have

been

used

by

any

Latin

priest

at

the

time.

Heisenberg seizes on the out-of-place word beneresposam and points

out

that

it

is

a

perfectly

understandable

mistranslation of the corresponding interlinear Greek word εὐαπολόγητον,

which

in

literary

Greek

would

have

meant

something like acceptabilem, but in the vulgar thirteenthcentury Greek something more like bene responsum.144

Thus,

Heisenberg

deduces

Milan

manuscript

(in

from

which

this

the

passage

Greek

is

that

the

mistake-free)

was

actually produced by a Greek cleric with an intermediate knowledge of Latin, rather than a Latin church official with access to real Latin texts; perhaps more importantly, he

concludes

that

the

Latin

the

Milan

text

is

a

back-

translation from the Greek in the same manuscript, which in turn comes from an unknown preexisting source. A

second

example

mentioned

by

Heisenberg

sufficient to dispel any doubt of this.

should

be

He points out that

in place of the standard qui pridie quam pateretur, the

143 144

A. Heisenberg, “Die römische Messe in griechischer Übersetzung,” 14. A. Heisenberg, “Die römische Messe in griechischer Übersetzung,” 14.

66

Milan

Latin

text

reads κι αντε ουναµ δίεµ πάτι εουµ,

which

is

cumbersome, makes little sense, and could not have been taken from a Latin liturgical document. understandable,

however,

as

what

It is perfectly

Heisenberg

calls

eine

schlechte Verbalübersetzung des griechischen Textes—a poor word-for-word

translation

of

the

grammatically

correct

Greek indirect statement ὁστις πρὸ µιᾶς ἡµέρας τοῦ παθεῖν αὐτὸν.145 Thus, it seems reasonable to conclude, with Heisenberg, that the Milan text was produced by a Greek cleric rather than a Latin, that this cleric had a native knowledge of his own tongue but an imperfect understanding of older Attic Greek, and that his knowledge of Latin was imperfect but at least was present to some extent; we can further conclude that the author had access to a preexisting Greek version of the Roman

Liturgy

(since

the

interlinear

Latin

is

a

back-

translation from this), and that he produced the document without

consulting

Latin

texts

or

listening

to

Latin

Masses. At this juncture, it is important to understand the differences

between

the

discovered by Heisenberg.

Chalki

text

and

the

manuscript

Although Heisenberg did not see

any significance in the differences between the two texts, the differences in the kind of Latin errors they contain 145

A. Heisenberg, “Die römische Messe in griechischer Übersetzung,” 14.

67

point

to

completely

different

methods

of

obtaining

Latin, and therefore completely different authors.

the

It is

possible that the author of the Chalki text effectively did not understand a word of Latin, but he at least had enough access

to

Latin

phonetically, mistakes. clearly

liturgies

with

fair

to

accuracy

transcribe and

the

several

Canon

revealing

The author of the Milan text, on the other hand, did

know

Latin

to

some

extent,

although

not

perfectly, as can be seen in his attempt to reproduce a Greek-style indirect statement in Latin.

Like the Chalki

author, he failed to consult the original Latin text of the Mass, but unlike the Chalki author, he produced his Latin version from scratch, by translating it from an older Greek version written in a high literary style. Greek

text

of

the

realized—constitutes

Roman the

Mass—as

next

This preexisting

Heisenberg

important

piece

himself of

the

puzzle.

THE

PROBLEM OF THE

GREEK Q

SOURCE

It is in puzzling out the nature of the original Greek source(s) that the decay of the Milan text truly becomes an obstacle.

There is little overlap between the preserved

sections of the Milan text and the section of the Chalki 68

text

that

Papadopoulos-Kérameus

saw

fit

to

publish,

and

where they do overlap, Heisenberg used the Chalki text to fill

in

many

gaps,

making

it

impossible

to

determine

exactly how the two Greek versions would have agreed with one another.146

Having established that the two manuscripts

were produced by different authors with different levels of education and contact with Latin culture, it would be an interesting point if it could be shown whether both authors were

working

Nevertheless,

from we

the

must

exact

content

same ourselves

Greek with

model. having

demonstrated that in the early thirteenth century there was at least one, if not more, partial Greek versions of the Roman Mass, which included the Roman canon, and to which Greek clerics would have had access even when Latin texts of the Roman Mass and canon were not available. language

version

(or

versions

as

the

case

This Greek

may

be)

was

written in a high literary style which at times eluded the comprehension of at least one of our two thirteenth-century authors, and it was clearly not produced from a Latin model by either of them—the Chalki writer knew only Greek, and the Milan author was translating from Greek into Latin and not the other way around. 146

A. Heisenberg, “Die römische Messe in griechischer Übersetzung,” 47. It is extremely unfortunate that the Chalki text has been lost; H.W. Codrington reported in 1936, more than forty years after Papadopoulos-Kérameus had worked with the document, that it could be found “neither at the Theological College nor at the Commercial School.” Cf. Codrington, The Liturgy of St. Peter, 116.

69

It is in discussing this very question—that of the origins of the original Greek text—that Heisenberg finds himself in something of a bind; like Papadopoulos-Kérameus, he wants to see the diffusion of an interlinear, GrecoLatin, Roman-rite Mass as an avenue for Latin proselytism. Having himself just shown, however, that there is a great deal of textual evidence indicating that these documents were not produced by the Latin authorities, he has to cast about for an explanation.

He thinks he has found one in

the person of the papal legate's translator, Nicholas of Otranto.

Noting that Nicholas had been recruited from the

Greek-speaking territories of southern Italy, which in the thirteenth century were united to the papacy, Heisenberg speculates that these Italo-Greeks must have used a Greek version

of

the

Roman

liturgy.147

Having

laid

down

this

premise, Heisenberg finds it easy to imagine Nicholas being ordered to bring this text along with him for use among the conquered Greeks of Constantinople, and he argues that this text was the Greek original from which the Milan author produced his back-translation.148

Now, however, Heisenberg

has jumped from the frying pan into the fire, because he cannot explain the presence of the interlinear Latin words;

147 148

A. Heisenberg, “Die römische Messe in griechischer Übersetzung,” 14. A. Heisenberg, “Die römische Messe in griechischer Übersetzung,” 14.

70

if the uniate Greeks of southern Italy did indeed use a Greek-language

version

of

the

Roman

liturgy,

and

if

Nicholas brought this version with him for diffusion in Constantinople, then there would have been no reason to invent an interlinear Latin version from scratch, or even to include Latin text at all.149

Moreover, if it had been

the Latin authorities who ordered the imposition of this liturgy,

the

would

presumably

have

seen

to

it

that

the

Latin text followed the real wording of the Roman Canon; it defies common sense to assert that the garbled phoneticism of the Chalki text and the awkward back-translation of the Milan

fragments

liturgical

were

part

of

proselytism.

a

Thus,

Latin-run we

are

enterprise left

with

of the

conclusion stated earlier, i.e. that these two texts were produced by two different Greek clerical authors, each of whom had access to an already-existing Greek version of the Roman Mass. Without evidence

of

realizing the

it,

process

Heisenberg

through

does

which

the

include

some

Roman

canon

passed from its original Latin version into accurate and beautiful Greek, before being back-translated into awkward Latin in thirteenth-century Constantinople.

149

This evidence

Heisenberg's attempts to provide a reason are brief and somewhat self-contradictory. Cf. A. Heisenberg, “Die römische Messe in griechischer Übersetzung,” 14.

71

comes in one of Nicholas Mesarites' accounts of a GrecoLatin debate after 1204, in which Mesarites himself quotes from the Milan version of the Roman liturgy (or one exactly like it).

The section that he quotes comes from the second

half of the Roman canon, which in its original Latin form would have read panem sanctum vitae aeternae et calicem salutis perpetuae.150

The transliterated Latin quoted by

Mesarites is only slightly different, but displays a lack of variation in vocabulary, reading πάνεµ σάγτουµ βίτε σεµπιτέρνε ετθ κάλυκεµ βίτε σεµπιτέρνε..151

Although Mesarites himself does not

realize it, the Greek text that he quotes does not follow this Latin at all, but is a perfect translation from the Latin

original

version

unacquainted:

ἄρτον

ἀεννάου.152 Thus,

we

language

ἅγιον

can

with

which

he

ζωῆς

ἀεννάου

καὶ

firmly

master-version

establish

of

the

Roman

is

apparently

ποτήριον that

σωτηρίας

the

liturgy

Greekalready

existed in the early thirteenth century, and that it had been translated (accurately) from Latin into Greek at some prior

date—quite

immemorial Latin

Latin

versions

possibly text,

being

and

centuries not

bandied

from about

prior—from the

the

transliterated

after

1204.

The

thirteenth-century Greeks who produced the Milan and Chalki 150

Cf. Baluze, Capitularia, 1352-1368. A. Heisenberg, “Die römische Messe in griechischer Übersetzung,” 15. 152 A. Heisenberg, “Die römische Messe in griechischer Übersetzung,” 15. 151

72

texts,

therefore,

started

with

this

Greek

master-version

and attempted to add interlinear Latin to it, without the ability

(or

perhaps

without

feeling

it

necessary)

to

consult the original Latin model.

TEXT The

IN LIGHT OF CONTEXT: LITURGY AND ORTHODOXY AFTER

linguistic

and

textual

analyses

that

1204 have

been

offered up to this point have sought to establish, first of all, that the liturgical texts discovered by PapadopoulosKérameus and Heisenberg are not what those two scholars supposed

them

to

be,

i.e.

evidence

of

a

Latin-run

liturgical project meant to proselytize the Greeks.

More

importantly, the treatment up to this point has also sought to show what the texts actually are, i.e. documents created by two different Greek clerics using two different methods, neither

of

which

involved

the

ecclesiastical or civil authorities.

cooperation

of

Latin

Nevertheless, despite

having established something about the true nature of these two documents and their creators, the argument has come no closer to answering the broader questions raised earlier, including how these liturgical texts might have fit into the wider context of Greco-Latin relations within the Latin Empire

of

Constantinople.

When 73

one

juxtaposes

these

documents

with

disputations however,

Nicholas

between

the

Mesarites'

Latin

evidence

and

begins

accounts

Greek to

church

form

a

of

the

officials,

more

coherent

picture. Nicholas Mesarites was a Greek monk and bishop, who served as Metropolitan of Ephesus in the early years of the Lascarid state, and who at various times represented both the monastic clergy of Constantinople and Emperor Theodore Lascaris

in

negotiations

with

representatives

Innocent III and the Latin patriarchate.

of

Pope

His accounts of

these negotiations, which often took the form of lively debates, were also edited by Heisenberg, and published in the same 1923 volume as the Milan fragments, Neue Quellen zur

Geschichte

des

lateinischen

Most

Kirchenunion.

important

Kaisertums for

our

und

der

purposes

is

Mesarites' account of a debate between the Greek monastic clergy

of

Constantinople

and

the

representatives

of

the

papal legate Cardinal Pelagius of Albano, which took place in

the

year

1206.

In

articulates

one

liturgical

commemoration

Patriarch—and

demand

makes

it

this of

debate,

the of

clear

74

Greek

the that

the

papal

legate

clergy—namely,

pope

and

the

fulfillment

of

the

Latin this

demand is all that is necessary to heal the schism.153 an

effort

to

conciliate

his

interlocutors,

the

In

cardinal

tells them that they did well to refuse recognition in the anaphora while their own patriarch, John Camaterus, still lived; having lost him to an untimely death in Bulgaria earlier that year, the cardinal tells them, they ought now to accept the replacement appointed by the pope.154

The

Greek clergy, of course, adamantly refuse to commemorate Morosini or Innocent.

First of all, it is interesting to

note

Latin

that

the

main

demand

was

liturgical

in

character; Pelagius does not speak of any administrative or other changes, but simply demands that the Greek clergy add certain names to the diptychs read during the anaphora of their liturgy. that

the

Kérameus

It is equally intriguing, moreover, to note

kinds and

of

liturgical

Heisenberg

demands

suggest

do

that

not

Papadopoulos-

appear

anywhere:

nowhere does Cardinal Pelagius demand that the Greek clergy exchange their liturgy for that of Rome, and he certainly does not ask them to conduct the liturgy in Latin.

153

“πῶς ὑµεῖς, ὦ Γραικοί, τολµᾶτε µὴ ὑπακούειν τῷ παρὰ τοῦ πάπα ἀποσταλέντι πατριάρχῃ ὑµῶν ὥστε ὁµολογεῖν αὐτὸν πατριάρχην καὶ ἀναφέρειν αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς ἱεροῖς ὑµῶν διπτύχοις; ὁ γὰρ πάπας κεφαλή ἐστι πασῶν τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν.” Mesarites, “Epitaphios,” in Heisenberg, ed. 7eue Quellen zur Geschichte des lateinischen Kaisertums und der Kirchenunion, part I, 52. 154 “Καλῶς ἐπράξατε ἑτέρου ἀναφορὰν µὴ ποιήσαντες, µέχρις ἄν ὁ πατριάρχης ὑµῶν ἔζη. Ἐπεὶ δὲ ἐκεῖνος τῷ χρεὼν ἐλειτούργησεν, ὀφείλετε τῷ παρὰ τοῦ πάπα ἀποσταλέντι πατριάρχῃ ὑπακούειν καὶ τούτου ποιεῖν τὴν ἀναφοράν.” 53.

75

These facts constitute the final nail in the coffin for the idea that the Chalki and Milan texts reflected a Latin strategy of proselytism, but they also seem to cast doubt on the idea that these texts formed part of a Greek strategy of accommodation: if saying the Roman Mass, and in Latin no less, was not something the Latins were asking for, then it is not clear why there would have been a motive for Greek clerics to make the switch voluntarily, especially

when

Latin

demands

that

were

fulfill met with resistance and rejection.

much

easier

to

To understand

this paradox—and, indeed, to understand the true essence of the Chalki and Milan texts—one needs to be able to say more about

the

textual

tradition

to

which

these

liturgies

belong.

THE Q SOURCE REVEALED? Searching

for

bilingual

manuscripts

similar

to

the

ones discovered by Papadopoulos-Kérameus and Heisenberg has proven to be a difficult task.155

Fortunately, my search

was eased upon discovering that a thorough study of known manuscripts of the Roman liturgy in Greek was undertaken in 155

Searching through the manuscript catalogues of the Vatican Library, Ambrosian Library, Bibliothèque Nationale, and the Marciana yielded no mentions of similar documents from the era of the Latin Empire.

76

the

1930s

by

liturgical

scholar

H.

W.

Codrington;

his

sedulous labor produced a study entitled The Liturgy of St. Peter, which was published in 1936 as part of the obscure series

Liturgiegeschichtliche

Quellen

Forschungen.156

und

In this remarkable monograph, Codrington traces the entire documentary history of the Roman liturgy in its Greek and bilingual

forms;

arguments

laid

certain

than

particular,

liturgy,

out

discoveries

above,

conclusions

confidence

antiquity

his

with

would

Codrington's of

the

advocated

and

allow

a

much

otherwise study

Greek-language above,

confirm

as

many

the

version as

degree

possible.

confirms

well

the

assertion

greater be

of

the of

its

of of In

relative the

use

Roman in

the

Byzantine world centuries prior to the Fourth Crusade. The title of Codrington's monograph—The Liturgy of St. Peter—reflects the fact that this is the title borne by a series of extant Greek manuscripts containing some version of a “translation of the Western Mass set in an Eastern framework.”157

Manuscripts

bearing

the

ΛΕΙΤΟΥΡΓΙΑ ΤΟΥ ΑΓΙΟΥ ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΟΥ ΠΕΤΡΟΥ generally Greek

translation

of

the

Roman

156

canon

and

title

include

other

central

The series was edited by a scholarly German Benedictine named Kunibert Mohlberg, in cooperation with Professor Adolf Rücker of the University of Münster. 157 H. W. Codrington, The Liturgy of St. Peter (Münster: Verlag der Aschendorffschen Verlagsbuchhandlung), 1936), 26.

77

a

parts of the Roman Mass, including some proper prayers, surrounded

by

an

envelope

of

Byzantine

liturgical

ceremonies, the details of which vary from one manuscript to another.158

Significantly, Codrington argues that “all

the extant Greek texts of the St Peter are based ultimately on one and the same Latin text, as is shown by the use of the same Collect, Secret, and Postcommunion,” as well as “the same and unusual ending to the prayers 'cum quo vivis et regnas' in place of 'qui tecum vivit et regnat,' and the same preface to the Lord's Prayer 'Divino magisterio edocti et salutaribus monitis instituti.'”159 This “Liturgy of St. Peter” can be found in Greek in three

manuscript

families:

1)

a

set

of

Vatican

library

manuscripts which “originally came from the monastery of S. Maria del Patire by Rossano” with which Codrington also classifies Paris Bibl. Nat. Gr. 322, 2) a Grottaferrata codex

internally

unidentified

identified

“monastery

or

as church

originating of

Sts

from

the

Nicholas

and

Epiphanius,” and 3) a late text, Vat. Ottobon. Gr. 384, in which “the order of the Eastern framework has been altered to agree with that of the Latin Mass of the fifteenth or

158 159

Codrington, The Liturgy of St. Peter, 1-26. Codrington, The Liturgy of St. Peter, 28.

78

the sixteenth century.”160

The liturgy is also attested in

Georgian and Slavonic versions.161 It texts

is

important

discovered

by

to

note

that

the

Chalki

Papadopoulos-Kérameus

and

and

Milan

Heisenberg

are distinguished from Codrington's “Liturgy of St. Peter” not only by their bilingualism but also by their content. Codrington notes that although they contain “the same Greek version of the Latin Mass” as the St. Peter documents, the Chalki and Milan texts are nevertheless “devoid” of the Eastern ceremonial envelope in which the “Liturgy of St. Peter” is packaged.162

Interestingly enough, although no

title remains on the heavily-damaged Milan fragments, the Chalki text bears the title Ἡ λατινικῆ λειτουργία του ἁγίου Γρηγορίου τοῦ ∆ιαλόγου, and is thus attributed to St. Gregory the Great rather

than

correctly

to

St.

identifies

Peter. this

Nevertheless,

“Liturgy

of

St.

Codrington Gregory

the

Dialoguist” as a “cognate” of the liturgy of St. Peter, dependent on it for the Greek text of the Roman canon.163 Although the Byzantine infiltrations that are distinctive of the liturgy of St. Peter were stripped away, leaving us with

a

basic

Missa

quotidiana

160

Codrington, The Liturgy of St. Peter, 25-26. Codrington, The Liturgy of St. Peter, 25. 162 Codrington, The Liturgy of St. Peter, 26. 163 Codrington, The Liturgy of St. Peter, 26. 161

79

cum

Canone,

Codrington

identifies the Greek text as being the same as that of the St.

Peter;

effectively,

the

creators

of

the

Chalki

and

Milan liturgies took an existing Greek version of the Roman Mass with which they were acquainted, and made something new out of it by adding interlinear Latin and purifying the ceremonial of components borrowed from the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. Thus,

Codrington's

documentary

work

confirms

my

argument from internal evidence that that Chalki and Milan texts represent the overlay of interlinear Latin text upon a

preexisting

Greek

version

of

the

Roman

Mass.

His

observations on the dating and evolution of the “Liturgy of St. Peter” are worthy of consideration as well; they will help us contextualize the Chalki and Milan texts within the broader tradition of Byzantine use of Roman liturgies, and assist in refuting Heisenberg's opinion that the “Liturgy of St. Gregory the Dialoguist” was first imported into the Byzantine world from from the Latin West after the Fourth Crusade. Codrington's arguments

study

regarding

presents

the

date

a of

series origin,

of

rigorous

provenance,

evolution, and diffusion of the Liturgy of St. Peter. of

the

details

of

his

arguments

are

irrelevant

to

Many the

present study, but his conclusions certainly bear upon what 80

we are able to assert about the “cognate” versions of that liturgy

which

were

Constantinople. evidence

and

created

in

the

Latin

Empire

of

Based on a detailed analysis of internal comparison

with

what

is

known

about

the

evolution of the Roman liturgy, Codrington argues that the Liturgy of St. Peter was first translated into Greek using a Latin original which cannot be placed earlier than the pontificate

of

Sergius

I

(687-701).164

Observing

the

mixture of liturgical archaisms with later features, and favoring

a

conservative

estimate

of

the

Liturgy's

antiquity, he further argues that the actual translation into Greek, using a perhaps already-ancient Latin original, would have occurred not earlier than the beginning of the ninth century and not later than the middle of the tenth.165 The earliest manuscripts—the Grottaferrata text and the socalled Rossano codex (Vat. Gr. 1970) date from the eleventh and twelfth centuries respectively.166 Regarding the provenance of the Liturgy of St. Peter, Codrington favors Southern Italy as “the obvious point of contact

between

centuries.”167

East

and

Regardless

West

in

of

its

the

ninth

original

and

tenth

provenance,

however, the Liturgy of St. Peter spread widely throughout 164

Codrington, The Liturgy of St. Peter, 59. Codrington, The Liturgy of St. Peter, 59-60. 166 Codrington, The Liturgy of St. Peter, 5-8, 25-28. 167 Codrington, The Liturgy of St. Peter, 71. 165

81

the

Eastern

Orthodox

centuries.168 eminent

Codrington

Athonite

Mountain

from

world

who

was

1006-1020,

in

notes abbot

the

tenth

that of

provided

St. Iberon

us

with

and

eleventh

Euthymius, on one

the of

an Holy the

earliest attestations of the Liturgy of St. Peter, when he mentioned it in response to a query.

Apparently, a young

monk named Theodore had asked “whether the Liturgy of St. James was lawful”; the saint's response was that although “the Liturgies of Chrysostom and Basil are now employed everywhere,” nevertheless “the Liturgies of James and Peter are equally valid and their use is left to the choice of the individual priest.”169

Thus, we have evidence of an

early eleventh-century Athonite abbot not only displaying knowledge

of

the

Greek-language

Roman

liturgy,

but

professing the opinion that this liturgy holds a rightful place alongside the revered Eastern Orthodox liturgies of St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil, and St. James; the Greek priest is given leave to use it at his discretion. Athos also serves as the centerpiece to a fascinating if admittedly conjectural argument that Codrington offers, regarding the diffusion of the Greek-language Roman liturgy in

the

broader

Orthodox

world.

168

He

observes

that

St.

This is not to say that it was widely used, but that it can be found over a wide geographical range, including in Georgian and Slavonic versions. 169 Codrington, The Liturgy of St. Peter, 51.

82

Euthymius, the abbot who knew and endorsed the liturgy of St. Peter, was actually a Georgian, who first came to the Holy

Mountain

in

972,

and

helped

build

monastery of Iberon between 981 and 985.170

the

Georgian

The Georgian

contingent with which St. Euthymius was associated is known to have provided hospitality and assistance to a monk from Italy

named

Leo—brother

to

the

duke

of

Benevento—who

established a Benedictine foundation on Mt. Athos in the late tenth century.171 influx

of

Latin

This Western monastery received an

monks

almost

immediately;

Codrington

speculates that “as was the case when St. Nilus and his followers came to Monte Cassino, discussion doubtless took place

as

to

the

difference

between

Roman

and

Eastern

customs, and this quite conceivably may have led to to the importation from Italy of the Greek version of the Latin Mass.”172

Although this theory is conjectural, it accounts

well for two facts: 1) St. Euthymius' acquaintance with the “Liturgy of St. Peter,” and 2) the appearance of a Georgian version of the same liturgy. may

be

attributed

to

the

That this latter development Georgian

monks

of

Athos

“is

probable in view of the activity of St. Euthymius and St.

170

Codrington, The Liturgy of St. Peter, 77. Codrington, The Liturgy of St. Peter, 77. 172 Codrington, The Liturgy of St. Peter, 78. 171

83

George

of

Iberon

in

the

translation

of

Greek

works.”173

Thus, to summarize Codrington's argument: we know that St. Euthymius had knowledge of the Greek-language Roman liturgy and approved of it, that he was an avid translator of Greek works into Georgian, that he was on very good terms with a colony

of

Latin

Benedictines

from

Southern

Italy

who

settled on Athos in the tenth century, and that a Georgian version of the Liturgy of St. Peter is attested in at least one manuscript.

These facts are consistent with the theory

that the “Liturgy of St. Peter” was present on Athos in the tenth and early eleventh centuries, that it was brought to Athos

by

monks

Euthymius

from

himself

translation.

Even

the

was if

south

of

Italy,

responsible one

is

and

for

restricted

the to

that

St.

Georgian

more

modest

assertions, however, Codrington proves beyond a reasonable doubt

that

the

Greek-language

Roman

liturgy,

although

extremely rare, was known in the Byzantine world—indeed, in the

spiritual

capital

of

Byzantine

monasticism—centuries

prior to the Fourth Crusade, and that Orthodox priests even had authoritative permission to celebrate it.

173

Codrington, The Liturgy of St. Peter, 78.

84

LITURGICAL

ACCOMMODATION IN LIGHT OF

CODRINGTON'S

DISCOVERIES

Knowing that the “Liturgy of St. Peter” was indeed the Q

source

Milan

for

texts

understanding

the

liturgies

contained

dramatically these

in

enhances

texts

as

the

Chalki

and

case

for

towards

an

the

efforts

accommodation with the new situation faced by Greek clerics after the Latin conquest of Constantinople.

It must be

understood that the Chalki and Milan texts are not simple reproductions of the “Liturgy of St. Peter.”

As Codrington

himself noted, these versions were created by extracting the Greek-language version of the Roman liturgy from the Liturgy

of

removed.174

St.

Peter,

with

Byzantine

infiltrations

Interlinear Latin text was then added—text that

was produced by two entirely separate processes, with the Chalki author obtaining a very rough phonetic reproduction of the actual Latin liturgy, and the author of the Milan text doing a new translation from Greek to Latin and not vice versa. clerics

in

What this shows us is that there were Greek Constantinople

under

Latin

rule

who

were

attempting to create a text that would allow Greek priests to say the Roman liturgy in Latin.

What they were doing

was loyal to Orthodox tradition, and yet innovative at the 174

Cf. Codrington, “Appendices.”

85

same time: they began with a Greek version of the Roman liturgy that was known both within the Byzantine Empire and the

broader

Orthodox

world,

that

was

hallowed

by

antiquity and endorsed by an esteemed Athonite saint.

its They

then, rather creatively, used it as the basis for a new kind of text—one that would allow monoglot Greek priests to say the Latin liturgy in the Latin tongue. The history of the Roman liturgy in Greek helps to explain

why

this

accommodation Morosini

was

when

and

seen easier

Innocent

liturgy—were not.

as

a

permissible

things—like

III

in

the

avenue

of

commemorating

standard

Byzantine

Unlike the commemoration of Morosini,

which in the minds of the Greek monks would violate the traditional canons associated with the election of a new patriarch,

the

Greek-language

Roman

liturgy

was

in

sense part of the heritage of the Orthodox church. resurrect betrayal

it of

and

edit

principle,

it

creatively

and

yet

may

involves have

potential in the minds of those responsible.

had

no

some To real

enormous

It would have

allowed Greek priests to minister to Latin congregations when or where Latin priests were lacking; in fact, it would have

allowed

a

certain

bi-ritualism

on

the

part

of

the

Greek clergy, and it is not hard to see why that would have been desirable in the minds of Greek clerics seeking some 86

sort of accommodation with the new order of things. case,

the

modified

theory

of

although

Papadopoulos-Kérameus,

ultimately

completely dead to rights.

retained

by

In any

which

was

Heisenberg,

is

The assertion that the Chalki

and Milan texts were produced as part of some Latin-run proselytism internal

program evidence

everything

we

flies

in

within

know

the

the

about

the

face

of

documents policies

tremendous themselves,

of

the

Latin

ecclesiastical authorities in the conquered Empire, and the evidence accumulated by Codrington regarding the history of the Roman liturgy in Greek. clerics

produced

themselves

to

these

the

The alternative—that Greek

texts

in

rapidly-changing

order world

to of

accommodate post-1204

Constantinople—provides us with exciting insight into the diversity of responses to the Latin conquest among Greek clerics: it indicates that these responses may have been as diverse on the religious level as they were among elites in the chaotic world of regional politics, and that the need to provide pastoral care for the newly arrived Latins may, just possibly, have fostered some of that diversity and encouraged

Greek

clerics

to

accommodation.

87

develop

strategies

of

Chapter III: Accommodation on the Structure of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy

INTRODUCTION The

establishment

hierarchy

on

the

of

the

newly

Latin

conquered

ecclesiastical territory

of

Constantinople and Greece has been studied ably by various scholars, including Robert Lee Wolff, Kenneth Setton, and Jean Richard.175 accommodation

Nevertheless the role, in that process, of between

and

among

Latin

and

Greek

constituencies has usually been overlooked—possibly because efforts

at

accommodation

perceived to have failed.176

between

Latins

and

Greeks

are

Whether an unequivocal verdict

of failure should be assigned to such efforts is a question that may be deferred for the time being; suffice it to say that existing accounts of the church hierarchy's complex history remain incomplete, neglecting a crucial part of the 175

Cf. Kenneth Setton, The Papacy and the Levant, vol. 1 (Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society, 1976); Robert Lee Wolff, “The Latin Empire of Constantinople,” in A History of the Crusades, vol. II, 2nd edition (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), 187-233, and “The Organization of the Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople, 1204-1261: Social and Administrative Consequences of the Latin Conquest,” in Traditio, VI (1948), 33-60; Jean Richard, “The Establishment of the Latin Church in the Empire of Constantinople,” MHR 4:1 (1989) 45-86. 176 Cf. Wolff, “Organization of the Latin Patriarchate,” 35-42.

88

picture.

Indeed,

attempts

at

accommodation—whether

successful or not—may be said to have shaped the course of events in a variety of important ways, contributing to the makeshift settlement that eventually became the status quo. They involved all the major figures in the capital and the surrounding therefore

region,

hold

up

not

a

to

mirror

mention to

the

the

wider

religious context in which they took place. provide

us

character

with

and

highly

significant

complexity

of

papacy,

and

political

and

Moreover, they

insights

Greco-Latin

into

relations

the after

1204.

PRECEDENTS

FOR HIERARCHICAL COMPROMISE ELSEWHERE IN THE

MEDITERRANEAN

WORLD

In his 1989 article “The Establishment of the Latin Church

in

the

points

out

that

Empire before

of

Constantinople,”

1204

there

were

Jean

Richard

already

several

working examples of “the coexistence of the Greek and Latin rites

in

formerly

Byzantine

under Latin domination.”177

territories

which

had

come

Richard cites the examples of

Norman Italy, the Holy Land, and Cyprus, each of which was the site of its own unique model of coexistence based on

177

Richard, “Establishment of the Latin Church,” 45.

89

conditions.178

local rejects

the

Regarding

interpretation

of

southern

Italy,

Deccareaux,

who

Richard

considered

“the Normans to be instruments of a papal policy directed against the Greek rite.”179

He points out that although “an

old Council canon forbade the presence of two bishops in the same city,” and as a result “the Greek bishop generally gave

up

garrison,

his

seat”

upon

nevertheless

predominant,

the

the

installation

“[w]here

Greek

bishop

the

of

Greek

the

Norman

population

remained.”180

In

was

Santa

Severina in 1198, “Innocent III quashed the appointment of a

Latin

maintain Moreover,

bishop the

.

.

Greek

Richard

.

noting

language

notes

that

that

this

and

the

in

church

to

rite.”181

Greek

Norman

was

Italy

“Greek

monasticism flourished”; Casola and Patirion on the Italian mainland were both founded by Bohemond (in 1099 and 1103 respectively),

and

“enjoyed

the

protection

of

the

Holy

See,” while “more than eighty monasteries of the Greek rite were established on the island of Sicily.”182

In Norman

Italy, however, submission to papal authority by the Greekrite community was not controversial; indeed, the Greekspeaking

Christian

communities

178

of

Italy,

even

though

Cf. Christopher MacEvitt, The Crusades and the Christian World of the East (Philadelphia: The University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007). 179 Richard, “Establishment of the Latin Church,” 58. 180 Richard, “Establishment of the Latin Church,” 45. 181 Richard, “Establishment of the Latin Church,” 45. 182 Richard, “Establishment of the Latin Church,” 45.

90

practicing Byzantine liturgical traditions, had long been subject to papal jurisdiction. In Latin Antioch, the Kingdom of Jerusalem, and Latin Cyprus,

one

also

witnesses

Greek

and

Latin

churches

existing side-by-side, finding creative ways to circumvent the problems presented by the principle of “one city, one bishop.” final

Richard notes that in the case of Antioch, the

settlement

was

influenced

by

the

Comneni,

and

it

involved the Latin Patriarch taking up residence at Qusair while the Greek Patriarch possessed the ancient see.183

In

Jerusalem, a Latin Patriarch was installed, while “a Greek bishop”

was

granted

“the

title

of

one

of

the

vacant

episcopal sees,” and “the canonical status of vicar to the bishop.”184

Latin

In

Cyprus

the

situation

was

similar,

although Richard laconically observes that the Greek church “had

to

recognize

the

Roman

primacy

(which

was

not

difficult) and maintain obedience to the Latin diocesans (which was much less simple).”185 Thus, the Latin conquest of Constantinople occurred at a

time

when

there

were

several

more

or

less

successful

models of hierarchical coexistence between Greek and Latin churches under Latin rule.

In Constantinople itself, the

183

Richard, “Establishment of the Latin Church,” 45. Richard, “Establishment of the Latin Church,” 45-46. 185 Richard, “Establishment of the Latin Church,” 46. 184

91

Latin church had a presence that predated the conquest; communities of Italians and Scandinavians were served by Latin

churches

that

were

specific

to

each

group.

Of

course, these particularistic parishes were “incapable of providing a sound basis for the ecclesiastical organization necessitated by the conquest.”186

Nor was it at all clear

how things would be settled in the immediate aftermath of thereof;

Richard

notes

that

Innocent's

earliest

instructions deal only with the churches abandoned by their fleeing Greek pastors.187

These were to be staffed by Latin

priests as “a temporary solution.”188 Innocent

“soon

learned—to

indignation—that

.

.

.

his

the

Richard relates that great

surprise

crusaders

had

and

permitted

themselves to take over Church property, to institute an ecclesiastical

hierarchy,

themselves.”189

and

Nevertheless,

to

assign

Innocent

its was

titles

to

“forced

to

accept the establishment of this Church, which had been made without his approval.”190 Richard being

forced

argues to

that

accept

Pope the

Innocent

fait

III,

accompli

of

even

after

Morosini's

election, hoped “to ensure a modus vivendi between Greeks

186

Richard, “Establishment of the Latin Church,” 46. Richard, “Establishment of the Latin Church,” 46. 188 Richard, “Establishment of the Latin Church,”46. 189 Richard, “Establishment of the Latin Church,” 47. 190 Richard, “Establishment of the Latin Church,” 47. 187

92

and Latins” that was modeled on Norman Italy.191

In this

vein, he cites correspondence in which Innocent instructed Morosini to appoint Greek bishops to vacancies in dioceses where the population was Greek, and Latin bishops where the population

mixed.192

was

The

only

hitch

came

when

some

Greek bishops—as in Athens and Corinth—“preferred exile to submission called

to

for

Rome.”193

the

Although

appointment

of

Innocent's

Greek

instructions

successors,

Richard

notes that the exiles “were normally succeeded by Latin bishops.”194 Nevertheless, throughout

Richard

mainland

notes

Greece

and

that the

the

Greek

Aegean

bishops

islands

who

“swore obedience to the Latin patriarch and remained in charge of their dioceses” were actually “less exceptional than one would believe.”195 Latin

bishops,

accepted

being

bishops.”196

Richard blessed

Even in dioceses taken over by

observes by

and

“that

many

submitting

hegoumenoi to

Latin

The imperial capital itself, however, was the

site of more serious challenges to Pope Innocent's plans.

191

Richard, “Establishment of the Latin Church,” 47. Richard, “Establishment of the Latin Church,”47. 193 Richard, “Establishment of the Latin Church,”47. 194 Richard, “Establishment of the Latin Church,” 47. 195 Richard, “Establishment of the Latin Church,” 47. 196 Richard, “Establishment of the Latin Church,” 47. 192

93

THE The

CONSTANTINOPLE:

DUAL PATRIARCHATE OF

events

that

played

out

PROPOSAL AND CONTEXT

over

the

course

of

the

years 1206-1208 would be absolutely critical in determining the

nature

of

Constantinople.

the

ecclesiastical

settlement

in

During those years Latin and Greek elites,

both lay and clerical, inside and outside the Latin Empire, engaged in a complex series of gestures and negotiations that

ultimately

city's

Greek

resulted

monastic

in

the

clergy

refusal

to

of

submit

much

to

the

of

the

Latin

Patriarch; this decision was cemented when a rival Greek Patriarch-in-exile was appointed by the Lascarid empire in 1208.

Nevertheless, those two years witnessed some of the

most dramatic attempts at accommodation, by figures on both sides, that one finds in the annals of the period.

These

efforts engaged the energies of the highest elites of the time, including the Latin Emperor Henry of Flanders, who had succeeded Baldwin I in 1206. In

his

monumental

work

The

Papacy

and

the

Levant,

Kenneth Setton introduces his readers to the character of Henry of Flanders (1206-1216) in striking and unequivocal terms: “The second Latin Emperor of Constantinople . . .

94

was

a

great

man.”197

Although

Setton

was

referring

principally to his greatness as the military savior of the Latin political entities in the Aegean, it is also worthy of note that Henry of Flanders, perhaps more fully than many other Frankish elites, understood the importance of religious accommodation as a strategy for dealing with the Greek

population

of

Constantinople.

The

available

evidence—some of it well known, much of it more obscure— indicates that Henry was a far-seeing man, who understood that satisfying the monastic clergy of Constantinople was the key to any real church union, and who therefore sought to encourage and facilitate negotiations between the City's monks and Latin church authorities, both in Constantinople and

in

Rome.198

faraway

attempted

the

various

Henry,

however,

initiatives

for

could

not

have

which

he

was

responsible if the Greek monastic clergy were not a willing and

committed

Henry

and

partner;

the

Greek

indeed, monks

the of

evidence

shows

Constantinople

that

worked

together, especially in the early years of his reign, and despite

difficulties—and

even

obstruction—presented

by

other constituencies.

197

Kenneth Setton, The Papacy and the Levant, vol. 1 (Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society, 1976), 27. 198 Setton, The Papacy and the Levant, 27.

95

One

well-known

fruit

of

Henry's

efforts

is

the

proposal of a dual patriarchate; the letter from the Greek monastic clergy to Innocent III that contains this proposal constitutes one example of an effort at accommodation that has

certainly

been

discussed

scholarship.199

in

Nevertheless, this letter is often discussed in a vacuum, without reference to the less well-understood context from which

emerged.200

it

In

fact,

the

offer

of

the

dual

patriarchate was but one manifestation among several for which we have evidence, of the commitment on the part of local

Latin

remained

political

in

agreement

elites

Constantinople

on

hierarchy.

a

new

The

participation

to

of

four

the

Greek

achieve

structure

dynamics

of

and

for

this

basic

a

the

monks

who

comprehensive ecclesiastical

process

involve

constituencies:

the 1)

representatives of those Greek monks who chose not to flee the city after the Latin conquest, but instead remained to deal

with

the

new

order

of

things,

2)

local

Latin

ecclesiastical elites, including the papal legate Cardinal Benedict

of

St.

Susanna

and

the

Latin

Patriarch

Thomas

Morosini, 3) the papacy, and 4) Henry of Flanders himself, who, while remaining in the background, was nevertheless an 199

Cf. Richard, “Establishment of the Latin Church,” and Wolff, “Politics in the Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople.” 200 This is especially true of Wolff.

96

essential force behind much of the correspondence and faceto-face negotiation. The

writings

of

Nicholas

Mesarites

are

an

indispensable source for fleshing out the whole process, most of which played out in the latter part of 1206 and the early part of 1207.201

In fact, the failure to refer to

Mesarites may be blamed for the lack of contextualization in

many

treatments

proposal.202

of

the

famous

“dual-patriarchate”

In fact, Mesarites indicates that, the “dual

patriarchate”

proposal

first

emerged

in

a

series

of

meetings, sponsored by Henry of Flanders, that were held between representatives of Constantinople's Greek monastic clergy on the one hand, and the chief Latin ecclesiastics on the other. September

and

These meetings took place over the course of October

of

1206,

and

jurisdictional and theological issues.

dealt

with

both

Cardinal Benedict

and Thomas Morosini sought to obtain from the monks the simple

recognition

of

the

Latin

Patriarch

as

the

true

Patriarch of Constantinople; the Greek monks, on the other hand, held firm in their refusal to subject themselves to Morosini.

Nevertheless, the Greek monks were not simply

being intransigent: in fact they asked Cardinal Benedict 201

The complete text is found in August Heisenberg, ed., 7eue Quellen zur Geschichte des lateinischen Kaisertums und der Kirchenunion, vol. I (Munich: Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1923). 202 Cf. Wolff, “Politics.”

97

and Patriarch Morosini to provide them with a successor to John Camaterus--who had died in Thrace earlier that year-to reign alongside Morosini rather than in place of him. The cardinal and the Latin Patriarch would have none of this suggestion, but simply sought to call the Greeks to “obedience,”

giving

rise

to

much

of

the

fascinating

theological debate that dominated the meetings.

What is

interesting is that it was only when these efforts—brokered by the Latin Emperor himself—failed to produce a mutually acceptable solution on the structure of the hierarchy that the monks' proposal of a dual patriarchate was forwarded to Rome. From a source-critical perspective, there are certain things

that

ought

to

be

kept

in

mind

when

relying

Nicholas Mesarites’ accounts of the meetings. Mesarites became

was

the

a

deacon

in

metropolitan

Constantinople;

of

Ephesus

servant of the Lascarid regime. were

the

actual

spokesmen

for

and

In 1206,

later an

on

on,

he

invaluable

He and his brother John the

Greeks

in

the

1206

discussions; John died in 1207, and it was in the funeral oration for his brother that Nicholas provided much of the detail

about

what

happened

at

these

meetings.

Understandably, therefore, his contemporary accounts of the debates often gave short shrift to the arguments of the 98

various Latin spokesmen, while giving propotionately much more space to the theological and canonical reasoning of the Greeks (and thus to John’s eloquence).203

Nevertheless,

the fact remains that Nicholas was an eyewitness to these discussions, and provides first-hand insight, if not into the minds of his Latin interlocuters, at least into the way in

which

he

and

his

brother

approached,

perceived,

and

conducted the negotiations.

AN According negotiation

to

ANALYSIS OF THE NEGOTIATIONS

Nicholas

session

Mesarites’

held

in

account

September

of

1206,

the the

participants were the papal legate Cardinal Benedict of St. Susanna

(accompanied

members

of

by

Thomas

Constantinople's

Morosini),

monastic

Mesarites being the primary spokeman). the

discussion

refuse

by

to

submit

Mesarites’

account

was

simply

that

asking to

how

Latin

indicates the

monks

the

that

clergy

the

leading

(with

John

The cardinal began

Greeks

Patriarch

and

could

Thomas

possibly Morosini;

cardinal’s

“acknowledge

request

[Morosini]

as

patriarch,” and, significantly, “commemorate him in [their]

203

Cf. Joseph Gill’s source-criticism in Byzantium and the Papacy 1198-1400 (New Brunswick, NJ, 1978), 32.

99

diptychs.”204

sacred

The

nature

of

this

request

was

significant in part because of what it left unsaid: the cardinal

was

commemoration

clearly of

the

implying

Latin

that

Patriarch

the

would

liturgical suffice,

and

Mesarites makes no mention of any other demands on the part of the Latin ecclesiastical elites. The cardinal’s argument relied on the principle that “the

pope

is

the

head

of

all

the

churches”;

this

is

significant, since the pope’s title caput omnium ecclesiarum was part of the Byzantine legal tradition as well as the Latin

theology

of

the

papacy.205

Nevertheless,

the

implications that Cardinal Benedict derived from the title were undoubtedly foreign to his interlocutors; in fact, the cardinal

argued

that

being

“head

of

all

the

churches”

necessarily implied the right to do what he wished with the subject churches.206 the

refusal

to

The cardinal therefore concluded that

commemorate

Morosini

as

patriarch

would

render the monks “disobedient” (ἀπειθεῖς).207 Having

laid

out

the

cardinal’s

demands,

Mesarites

provides a somewhat lengthy account of the monks’ initial

204

“πῶς ὑµεῖς, ὦ Γραικοί, τολµᾶτε µὴ ὑπακούειν τῷ παρὰ τοῦ πάπα ἀποσταλέντι πατριάρχῃ ὑµῶν ὥστε ὁµολογεῖν αὐτὸν πατριάρχην καὶ ἀναφέρειν αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς ἱεροῖς ὑµῶν διπτύχοις;” Epitaphios, 52. 205 “ὁ γὰρ πάπας κεφαλή ἐστι πασῶν τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν.” “Epitaphios,” 52. Cf. Warren Treadgold, A History of the Byzantine State and Society (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1997), 259-261. 206 “καὶ ἐξουσίαν κέκτηται ποιεῖν πάντα ὅσα καὶ βούλεται ἐν ταῖς ἁπανταχοῦ ἐκκλησίαις.” “Epitaphios,” 52. 207 Mesarites, “Epitaphios,” 52.

100

response,

which

held

off

on

delving

theological issue of papal authority.

into

the

complex

Instead, the monks

responded that they were not “disobedient to the apostolic and

conciliar

Morosini;

in

tradition”

indeed,

they

refusing

argued,

to

commemorating

commemorate Morosini

in

the anaphora of their liturgy would have been impossible, since up until recently they had been commemorating their own

patriarch

(John

Camaterus),

and

it

would

have

been

contrary to their tradition to commemorate another while he was

still

“numbered

among

the

living.”208

The

monks’

statement is couched cautiously, noting that they have not been

able

to

commemorate

Morosini

“up

to

this

point

in

time” (µέχρι τοῦ νῦν), rather than making an absolute refusal.209 Thus,

the

entirely,

monks and

dodged

took

the

refuge

issue in

of

the

papal

argument

authority that

the

apostolic tradition forbids commemorating a new patriarch while

the

previous

one

was

still

alive

(and,

by

implication, the canonical office holder). Of

course,

Camaterus

had

the

died

cardinal in

was

Bulgaria

208

well

earlier

aware

that

John

that

year.

He

“ἡµεῖς, ὦ δέσποτα, οὔτε ἀπειθεῖς ἐσµὲν οὔτε ταῖς ἀποστολικαῖς καὶ συνοδικαῖς ἀντιτασσόµενοι παραδόσεσιν οὐ πεποιήκαµεν µέχρι τοῦ νῦν τὴν τοῦ παρὰ τοῦ πάπα ἀποσταλέντος πατριάρχου ἐν τοῖς ἱεροῖς ἡµῶν διπτύχοις ἀναφοράν. ἀλλ’ ὡς ἔχοντες πατριάρχην καὶ τοῦτον αεὶ ἀναφέροντες, µέχρις ἂν ἐν τοῖς ζῶσιν ἐκεῖνος συνηριθµεῖτο, ἑτέρου τινὸς ἀναφορὰν οὐκ ἐποιησάµεθα, µετὰ δὲ τὴν ἐκείνου πρὸ ὀλίγου πρὸς κύριον ἐκδηµίαν διὰ τὸ µὴ µέχρι τοῦ νῦν σχεῖν ἕτερον πατριάρχην ἑτέρου ἀναφορὰν τινὸς οὔτε ἐποιησάµεθα οὔτε ποιῆσαι δυνάµεθα.” “Epitaphios,” 52−53. 209 Mesarites, “Epitaphios,” 52.

101

therefore monks,

responded

telling

commemorate lived.210 however,

with

them

that

Morosini The

not

they

while

obvious long

diplomatic

in

of

the

well”

to

refuse

“did

their

rejoinder coming;

praise

own

to he

patriarch

their told

Greek

still

argument

them

to

that

was, with

Camaterus’ death the justification for their refusal has disappeared.211 phase

of

This forced the monks to move to the next

their

appointment.

argument:

The

monks

the may

canonicity

have

been

of

aware

Morosini’s that

Pope

Innocent III himself had expressed grave reservations about the

uncanonical

nature

of

Morosini’s

elevation,

and

had

eventually confirmed it with a great show of reluctance.212 The monks argued that they were forbidden by the apostolic and canonical tradition to commemorate a new patriarch, not only while their old patriarch was still alive, but also after his death, “until such time as we shall have another patriarch

according

to

the

holy

and

divine

canons

and

according to the ancient custom that prevails among us.”213

210

“Καλῶς ἐπράξατε ἑτέρου ἀναφορὰν µὴ ποιήσαντες, µέχρις ἄν ὁ πατριάρχης ὑµῶν ἔζη.” “Epitaphios,” 53. 211 “Ἐπεὶ δὲ ἐκεῖνος τῷ χρεὼν ἐλειτούργησεν, ὀφείλετε τῷ παρὰ τοῦ πάπα ἀποσταλέντι πατριάρχῃ ὑπακούειν καὶ τούτου ποιεῖν τὴν ἀναφοράν.” “Epitaphios,” 53. 212 Cf. Setton, Papacy, vol.1, and Wolff, “Politics in the Latin Patriarchate.” 213 “ἠµεῖς καὶ φθάσαντες εἴποµεν πρὸς σέ, ὦ δέσποτα, ὅτι ταῖς ἀποστολικαῖς καὶ κανονικαῖς ἐπόµενοι παραδόσεσιν οὔτε ἑτέρου ἀναφορὰν ἐποιησάµεθα, µέχρις ἂν ἐκεῖνος ἔζη, οὔτε µετὰ θάνατον αὐτοῦ ἑτέρου τινὸς ἀναφορὰν ποιῆσαι δυνάµεθα, µέχρις ἂν κατὰ τοὺς ἱεροὺς καὶ θείους κανόνας καὶ κατὰ τὸ κρατῆσαν εἰς ἡµᾶς ἀρχαῖον ἔθος πατριάρχην ἕτερον σχῶµεν.” “Epitaphios,” 53.

102

At this point, the participants in the conversation were

set

on

a

collision

course

with

one

another.

The

cardinal responded with a strongly worded declaration of papal supremacy, telling the monks, “your patriarch is none other than he whom the apostolic see has sent to you, the see that holds authority like that of Peter the first of the apostles, to bind and loose such things as it wills, and to appoint those whom it wills to the churches of the entire oikumene.”214

The cardinal then reminded the monks

that “Christ gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter alone.”215

The monks, rather than dispute this point,

asked the cardinal to prove that the see of Rome had the right

to

exercise

such

authority,

and

the

cardinal

responded with a rhetorical question: “Was not Rome the see of Peter, the first of the apostles?”216 Up to this point, the conversation had been somewhat predictable, and one might have expected it to proceed in a way

that

resembled

the

countless

other

disputations

on

papal authority that had taken place between Latins and

214

“οὗτος ἐστὶν ὁ πατριάρχης ὑµῶν καὶ οὐχ ἕτερος, ὅν ὁ ἀποστολικὸς θρόνος ὑµῖν ἐξαπέστειλεν, ὁ ἔχων ἐξουσίαν ὡς τοῦ Πέτρου τοῦ πρότου τῶν ἀποστόλων θρόνος λύειν καὶ δεσµεῖν, ὅσα καὶ βούλεται, καὶ εἰς τὰς ἁπανταχοῦ τῆς οἰκουµένης ἐκκλησίας χειροτονεῖν οὓς καὶ βούλεται.” “Epitaphios,” 53. 215 “µόνῳ γὰρ τῶν ἀποστόλων τῷ Πέτρῳ δέδωκεν ὁ Χριστὸς τὰς κλεῖς τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν.” “Epitaphios,” 53. 216 “οὐχὶ θρόνος ἐστὶ τοῦ Πέτρου τοῦ πρώτου τῶν αποστόλων ἡ ῾Ρώµη;” “Epitaphios,” 54.

103

Greeks

since

however,

took

the

eleventh

a

decidedly

century.217 bizarre

This

turn,

negotiation,

with

the

Greek

monks issuing a denial—without precedent in the Orthodox theological Rome.218

tradition—that

Peter

was

ever

the

bishop

of

Instead, the monks argued that the twelve apostles

never possessed sees of their own, having been sent out “into the entire world as ecumenical teachers by Christ the savior.”219

They supported their argument with a rhetorical

question of their own, asking how “those who had been sent out to the entire world to proclaim the saving kerygma” could possibly have been set to preside in one place.220 One can imagine the shock with which Cardinal Benedict sputtered

his

reply

to

this

argument;

invoking

the

traditional position of the East as well as the West, the cardinal

declared

that

he

must

show

the

monks

that

the

twelve apostles held sees of their own, “as did James who, being one of the twelve, held Jerusalem as his own see, as Peter held Rome, and as the others held others.”221

217

The

Cf. Deno Geanakoplos, Byzantium (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1984), 205-

207. 218

Cf. Francis Dvornik, The Idea of Apostolicity in Byzantium and the Legend of the Apostle Andrew (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1958). 219 “οὐχί, δέσποτα. οἱ γὰρ δώδεκα ἀπόστολοι οἰκουµενικοὶ διδάσκαλοι ἐξαπεστάλησαν εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουµένην παρὰ τοῦ σωτῆρος Χριστοῦ. διὸ καὶ οὐδὲ ἰδίους εἶχον θρόνους.” “Epitaphios,” 54. 220 “πῶς γὰρ ἠδύναντο ἐν ἑνὶ τόπῳ ὁ καθεὶς προκαθῆσθαι, τὴν οἰκουµένην πᾶσαν ἀποσταλέντες διδάξαι τὸ σωτήριον κήρυγµα;” “Epitaphios,” 54. 221 “οὐκ εἰσὶν ἀληθῆ ἃ λέγετε. ἔχοµεν γὰρ δεῖξαι ὑµῖν ὅτι καὶ οἱ δώδεκα ἀπόστολοι θρόνους εἶχον ἰδίους, ὡς καὶ ὁ ᾿Ιάκωβος εἷς ὢν ἐκ τῶν δώδεκα, ὅς καὶ ἴδιον θρόνον εἶχε τὴν τῶν ῾Ιεροσολύµων ἐκκλησίαν ὡς ὁ Πέτρος τὴν ῾Ρώµην καὶ ἕτεροι ἑτέρους.” “Epitaphios,” 54.

104

monks’ rejoinder, however, must have increased his shock tenfold, as they argued that Benedict “had erred due to a likeness of name,” and that the James who had been bishop of Jerusalem in apostolic times was not in fact one of the twelve apostles.222

The cardinal then invoked St. Paul’s

account of his trip to Jerusalem, where Paul “saw none of the apostles except James the brother of the Lord.”223

The

monks, however, argued that “James the brother of the Lord” was

not

one

of

the

twelve—rather,

he

counted

as

an

“apostle” only in a looser sense, being “numbered among the seventy.”224 of

the

Thus, the monks imply that James “the brother

Lord”

tradition

was

in

states—but

fact

that

the

he

bishop

was

not

of

one

Jerusalem of

the

as

twelve

apostles. At this juncture, Mesarites’ account switches from a simple

transcript

of

the

dialogue

to

an

account

of

the

action in the room; he states that all the Latins present began to insist that James was one of the twelve, while the Greek monks maintained the opposite, until the environment

222

“πεπλάνησαι, ὦ δέσποτα, ἐκ τῆς ὁµωνυµίας. οὐ γὰρ ὁ τὴν Ἱεροσολύµων ἐκκλησίαν κατακοσµήσας Ἰάκωβος εἷς ἦν ἐκ τῶν δώδεκα.” “Epitaphios,” 54. 223 “ἐκ τῶν δώδεκα ἦν ἀληθῶς. καὶ γὰρ καὶ ὁ ἀπόστολος Παῦλος φησι: ἕτερον δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων οὐκ εἶδον εἰ µὴ Ἰάκωβον ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου. µὴ γὰρ ὁ Παῦλος ψεύδεται;” “Epitaphios,” 54. 224 “οὐ ψεύδεται τὸ τοῦ κυρίου στόµα, ὁ Παύλος, ὦ δέσποτα. ἀπόστολος µὲν γὰρ ἦν ὁ Ἰάκωβος, ὁ τοῦ κυρίου ἀδελφός, οὐκ ἐκ τῶν δώδεκα δέ, ἀλλὰ συνηριθµεῖτο τοῖς ἑβδοµήκοντα.” “Epitaphios,” 54.

105

became extremely rancorous.225

In the midst of the chaos,

Mesarites says that the Latins brought forth “the gospelbook itself,” in order the read the passage beginning with “these

are

the

names

of

the

twelve

apostles.”226

This

exercise solved nothing, however—when they reached the name “James the son of Alpheus,” all the Latins insisted that he was identical to the “brother of the Lord,” while the Greek monks

insisted

otherwise.227

As

the

upshot

of

this

argument, the Greek monks reiterated their argument that Rome

was

never

the

throne

of

St.

Peter;

instead,

they

argued that Peter was present in Rome in order to deal with Simon Magus, and although he happened to be martyred there, he was never bishop of the city.228 of

chronology,

the

monks

argued

In a breathtaking twist that

St.

Peter

himself

appointed the first three popes of Rome, whom they name as Linus, Xystus (!), and Clement.229

Having St. Peter alive

during the reigns of his successors allowed the monks to

225

“Τῶν οὖν Λατίνων πάντων διισχυριζοµένων ἐκ τῶν δώδεκα εἶναι, τῶν δὲ µοναχῶν µὴ οὕτως ἔχειν εἰπόντων καὶ πολλοῦ θορύβου γενοµένου.” “Epitaphios,” 54−55. 226 “προεκόµισαν οἱ Λαντῖνοι ἴδιον εὐαγγέλιον ὥστε ἀναγνωσθῆναι τὴν περικοπὴν ταύτην: ‘τῶν δὲ δώδεκα ἀποστόλων εἰσὶ τὰ ὀνόµατα ταῦτα.’” “Epitaphios,” 55. 227 “καὶ ὅτε ἔφθασαν εἰς τὸ ‘Ἰάκωβος ὁ τοῦ Ἀλφαίου,’ ὕψωσαν πάντες τὰς ἑαυτῶν φωνὰς τοὺς µοναχοὺς ὡς δῆθεν καταδικάσαντες. Οἱ δὲ µοναχοὶ εἶπον πρὸς αὐτούς, ὅτι ἄλλος ὁ Ἀλφαίου καὶ ἄλλος ὁ ἀδελφόθεος.” “Epitaphios,” 55. 228 “διὸ καὶ ὁ ἀπόστολος Πέτρος οὐχ ὡς ἐπίσκοπος ἀπῆλθεν εἰς Ῥώµην, ἀλλ’ ὡς κατόπιν διώκων τὸν Σίµωνα µάγον καὶ τὰς ἐκείνου ἀνατρέπων διδασκαλίας κατήντησε µέχρι καὶ Ῥώµης αὐτῆς.” “Epitaphios,” 55. 229 “εἰ γὰρ ἦν θρόνος τοῦ Πέτρου, πῶς πρῶτος µὲν ὁ Λῖνος ἐπεσκόπησε τῆς Ῥώµης εἷς ὢν τῶν ἑβδοµήκοντα, δεύτερος δὲ µετ’ ἐκεῖνον Ξύστος, τρίτον δὲ κατέστησεν ἐπίσκοπον Ῥώµης ὁ απόστολος Πέτρος τὸν Κλήµεντα;” “Epitaphios,” 55.

106

make another point in support of their argument: how could one

of

the

“seventy”—apparently

the

monks

apply

this

designation to all three of the early popes that they name— be honored above Peter, who was the foremost of the twelve apostles?230 The cardinal in Mesarites’ account did not attempt to refute the Greeks point by point; instead, he simply asked incredulously if the upshot of the Greek argument is that Rome is not in fact the head of all the churches.

This

appears to begin a new section of the dialogue, in which Mesarites has the cardinal asking one-sentence questions, which provide the Greek monks the opportunity to expound their

position

at

great

length.

In

answer

to

Cardinal

Benedict’s question, the monks replied: Who says this, lord, that Rome is neither “head” nor “first”? Indeed, she is the head, but the head of all the churches under her, and the church of Alexandria is the head of all the churches under her, and the church of Antioch is the head of all the churches under her, and the church of Jerusalem is the head of all the churches under her, thus also is the church of Constantinople the head of all the churches under her according to the apostolic and conciliar canons.231 The monks went further, arguing that if any particular see could be called “first” or “mother” of the rest, it would 230

“καὶ πῶς προετιµήθη ὁ ἐκ τῶν ἑβδοµήκοντα ὢν τοῦ ἀποστόλου Πέτρου, τοῦ πρώτου τῶν δώδεκα . . . ;” “Epitaphios,” 55. 231 “τίς τοῦτο λέγει, ὦ δέσποτα, ὅτι οὐκ ἔστι κεφαλὴ ἢ πρωτὴ ἡ Ῥώµη; κεφαλὴ µὲν γάρ ἐστιν ἀλλὰ τῶν ὑπ’ αὐτὴν πασῶν ἐκκλησιῶν καὶ ἡ τῶν Ἀλεξανδρέων τῶν ὑπ’ αὐτὴν καὶ ἡ τῶν Ἀντιοχέων τῶν ὑπ’ αὐτὴν καὶ ἡ τῶν Ἱεροσολύµων τῶν ὑπ’ αὐτήν, ὥσπερ καὶ ἡ Κωνσταντινουπολιτῶν ἐκκλησία τῶν ὑπ’ αὐτὴν πασῶν ἐκκλησιῶν κατὰ τοὺς ἀποστολικοὺς καὶ συνοδικοὺς κανόνας.” “Epitaphios,” 56.

107

be

Jerusalem,

nevertheless,

“whence

they

came

specified

the

that

saving

the

kerygma”;

patriarchal

sees,

although referred to as “heads” of the churches under them, or “first” among their subject churches, should never be considered ”rulers” thereof.232 the

papacy’s

claim

of

titles

Moreover, they objected to such

as

“great

bishop,”

arguing that the pope should only be called “bishop of the first chair” with relation to Rome’s subject churches.233 They also added that the church of Constantinople merits equal honor with that of Rome.234 Cardinal

Benedict

then

asked

them

if

the

pope

had

power to judge all other prelates, to which they responded in the negative.

The monks explained that “according to

the canons,” all clerics were to be judged by their own bishops,

bishops

metropolitans themselves,

“by

whom

appointed.”235

in

turn

the they

by

council have

as

their and heads,

metropolitans, by by

the whom

and

patriarchs they

are

The Greeks then went on to elaborate on this

232

“πρώτη δὲ τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν οὐχ ὡς ἀρχαιοτέρα--πρώτη γὰρ καὶ µήτηρ τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν ἡ τῶν Ἱεροσολύµων ἐστὶν ἐκκλησία, ἐξ ἧς ἐξῆλθε τὸ σωτήριον κήρυγµα—ἀλλ’ ὡς πρώτη οὖσα καθέδρα.” “Epitaphios,” 56. 233 “διὸ καὶ ὁ τῆς Ῥώµης ἐπίσκοπος µόνον ἐπίσκοπος τῆς πρώτης καθέδρας λέγεται, οὐ µείζων ἀρχιερεύς, οὐ πρῶτος, οὐ µέγας ἀρχιερεύς, οὐκ ἄκρος ἀρχιερεύς, οὐ τοιουτότροπόν τι, ἀλλὰ µόνον ἐπίσκοπος τῆς πρώτης καθέδρας.” “Epitaphios,” 56. 234 “ἡ Κωνσταντινουπολιτῶν αὕτη ἐκκλησία . . . ταῖς ἴσιαις τιµαῖς ἐτιµήθη τῇ πρώτῃ Ῥώµῃ.” “Epitaphios,” 56. 235 “οὐχί, δέσποτα. ἀλλὰ κατὰ κανόνας οἱ µὲν κληρικοὶ πάντες ὑπὸ τῶν ἰδίων ἐπισκόπων κρίνονται, οἱ δὲ ἐπίσκοποι παρὰ τῶν µητροπολιτῶν, οἱ δὲ µητροπολῖται παρὰ τῆς συνόδου καὶ τῶν πατριαρχῶν αὐτῶν, οὕς καὶ κεφαλὰς ἔχουσι, παρ’ ὧν καὶ χειροτονοῦνται.” “Epitaphios,” 56.

108

argument,

citing

ecumenical

councils,”

jurisdictional placed

on

historical

a

model, roughly

precendents

all in

in

which

equal

the

and

support five

footing,

“seven

of

their

patriarchs

each

within his proper sphere of influence.236

the

being

are

supreme

The monk speaking

on behalf of the Greeks then concluded with a speech that stirred up trouble in quite an unexpected way: It is not at all difficult for us to demonstrate these things, but for you to accept them is extremely difficult and almost impossible. For we, who are going to demonstrate these things, do not have an emperor who agrees with us, so that canonical confirmation might be given to the things demonstrated by us, as happened in the seven ecumenical councils.237 Of course, the monk was referring to the Latin Emperor when he said “we do not have an emperor who agrees with us.” Mesarites, however, explains that whoever was interpreting for the Latins created havoc at this point in the council, by “cutting off” (ἀποκόψας) the phrase “who agrees with us” (ὁµόφρονα ἡµῖν) after the word “emperor.”238

Apparently, in his

haste, the translator quoted the monk as saying “we do not have an emperor,” giving the Latin contingent the false impression that the monk speaking “was in open rebellion

236

“Epitaphios,” 56−58. “ταῦτα δὲ δύσκαλον ἐστὶν ἡµᾶς µὲν ἀποδεικνύειν οὐδαµῶς, ὑµᾶς δὲ καταδέχεσθαι καὶ σφόδρα δύσκαλον καὶ σχεδὸν ἀδύνατον. οὐ γὰρ ἔχοµεν ἡµεῖς οἱ µέλλοντες ἀποδεικνύειν βασιλέα ὁµόφρονα ἡµῖν, ἵνα τοῖς παρ’ ἡµῶν κανονικῶς ἀποδεικνυµένοις ἐπιψηφίζηται ὥσπερ καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἑπτὰ οἰκουµενικαῖς συνόδοις συνέβαινε.” “Epitaphios,” 58. 238 “Epitaphios,” 58. 237

109

against the imperial authority and saying that he did not have an emperor at all.”239 Chaos immediately ensued.

An angry melee developed,

involving the Latins, “all talking at once and denying that the “ὁµόφρονα ἡµῖν” had been said,” the Greeks simultaneously protesting that it had been said, and the monk who had spoken

trying

desperately

“to

parties” with hand gestures.240

quell

the

speech

of

both

In the midst of the chaos,

the Greek monk was able to clear up his misunderstanding with the interpreter, who then informed the Latins that the monk had not in fact denied that there was an emperor.241 The damage was done however, and the proceeding quickly degenerated

as

Cardinal

Benedict

“decided

to

attack

the

patriarchs and archpriests and emperors and rulers and the whole laity,” calling them “disobedient and Pharisees and slanderers of the Latins,” this last charge arising from

239

“Τούτου τοῦ λόγου παρακούσας τις ἢ καὶ κακουργῶν τῶν παρὰ τοῖς Λατίνοις δοκούντων λογίων, τοῦ ‘οὐ γὰρ ἔχοµεν βασιλέα ὁµόφρονα ἡµῖν,’ καὶ τοῦ βασιλέως ὀνόµατος τὸ ‘ὁµόφρονα ἡµῖν’ ἀποκόψας ἐδόκει ἐπιλαµβάνεσθαι τοῦ διαλεγοµένου µοναχοῦ ὡς ἀντιτασσαµένου δηλονότι τῇ βασιλικῇ ἐξουσίᾳ καὶ βασιλέα µὴ ἔχειν λέγοντος.” “Epitaphios,” 58. 240 “και θορύβου πολλοῦ γενοµένου, τῶν µὲν Λατίνων συνηγορούντων τῷ ὁµοεθνεῖ καὶ τὸ ‘ὁµόφρονα ἡµῖν’ ἀρνουµένων λελέχθαι, τῶν δὲ Κωνσταντινουπολιτῶν προστιθέντων λελέχθαι καὶ τὸ ‘ὁµόφρονα ἡµῖν,’ ὁ διαλεγόµενος µοναχός, καταστείλας τῇ χειρὶ καὶ ἀµφοτέρων τὸν θροῦν.” “Epitaphios,” 58. 241 “ἀπῄτησε τὸν διερµηνευτὴν εἰπεῖν γεγωνοτέρᾳ τῇ φωνῇ, πῶς τὲ ἤκουσε παρ’ αὐτοῦ τὸν λόγον καὶ πῶς διηρµήνευσε. καὶ ὁ διερµηνευτὴς ἐλευθέρᾳ καὶ γνώµῃ καὶ φωνῇ ὡµολόγησε τὴν ἀλήθειαν καὶ ‘ὁµόφρονειν ἡµῖν µὴ ἔχειν βασιλέα’ ἔφη εἰπεῖν τὸν µοναχόν, οὐχί δε βασιλέα µόνον µὴ ἔχειν.” “Epitaphios,” 58−59.

110

the

fact

that

the

Greeks

call

the

Latins

“azymites

and

fighters against the Spirit . . . and also heretics.”242 The Greek monks responded in a curious fashion; rather than defend the polemical authors to whom Cardinal Benedict referred, they simply replied that it is “unjust to accuse men of things done by others.”243

They argued that the

Cardinal’s accusation about anti-Latin slanders was just as unfair as it would have been for the Greeks to slander the Latin

church

with

responsibility

for

the

sack

of

Constantinople: Nor do we, O lord, looking upon some of the out-ofplace deeds of your vulgar folk, dare to accuse you, the bishops of this people, of being the ones who did these very things and agreed with those who did them. For behold the holy icons suffered many dishonorable things from your people; is it therefore just to fold these things also around you, their masters? By no 244 means. The

meeting,

however,

was

unsalvageable

at

this

point;

after a last effort to convince the monks to submit to the

242

“Ταῦτα εἰπόντος τοῦ διερµηνευτοῦ, ὁ καδδηνάλιος ἀφέµενος τῆς εὐτάκτου διαλέξεως ἤρξατο καταδροµὴν ποιεῖσθαι τῶν πατριαρχῶν καὶ ἀρχιερέων, καὶ τῶν βασιλέων καὶ τῶν ἀρχόντων καὶ παντὸς λαϊκοῦ, καὶ ἀπειθεῖς καὶ Φαρισσαίαυς αὐτοὺς ἔλεγε καὶ διαβολεῖς τῶν Λατίνων, ὡς ἀζυµίτας δῆθεν καὶ πνευµατοµάχους τοὺς Λατίνους ἀποκαλοῦντας, ἀλλὰ καὶ αἱρετικούς, καὶ ἑτερ’ ἄττα συνεφόρει αἰτιάµατα.” “Epitaphios,” 59. 243 “οὐ δίκαιόν ἐστιν ἑτέρους αἰτιᾶσθαι ἐπὶ τοῖς παρ’ ἑτέρων γινοµένοις.” “Epitaphios,” 59. 244 “διὸ ουδὲ ἡµεῖς, ὦ δέσποτα, βλέποντές τινα ἄτοπα δρώµενα παρὰ τῶν ὑµετέρων χυδαίων λαῶν τολµῶµεν ὑµᾶς τοὺς επισκοποὺς τῶν τοιούτων λαῶν αἰτιᾶσθαι ὡς τὰ αὐτὰ καὶ δρῶντας καὶ φρονοῦντας ἐκείνοις. ἰδοὺ γὰρ αἱ ἅγιαι εἰκόνες παρὰ τοῦ ὑµετέρου λαοῦ πάντα τὰ ἄτιµα πάσχουσιν: ἆρα γοῦν δίκαιόν ἐστιν ὑποπτεύειν ταῦτα καὶ περὶ ὑµῶν τῶν διδασκάλων αὐτῶν; µὴ γένοιτο.” “Epitaphios,” 59.

111

Latin Patriarch, Cardinal Benedict arose, “full of anger,” and left.245 Despite the inauspicious outcome of the long September meeting,

Cardinal

Benedict—this

time

accompanied

by

the

Latin Patriach Morosini—held another meeting with the Greek monastic delegation the following month.

This negotiation

was shorter and even more acrimonious than the previous one, and the impasse was fundamentally the same, as the Cardinal demanded that the Greek monks acknowledge Morosini as patriarch, and they refused, arguing that they wanted a patriarch who had been chosen according to the canons and according to the customs in force since ancient times.246 When the monks asked the Cardinal to cite a single example in which the church of Constantinople had ever violated the canons, the Cardinal shot back, arguing that although the Roman church had never been heretical, every major heresy (he

cited

Arianism,

Macedonianism,

Nestorianism,

and

Monophysitism) had been associated with Constantinople.247 Of course, the Greeks responded with a classic polemical

245

“Epitaphios,” 60. “Ὁ καδδινάλιος: ‘ἐγὼ διὰ τοῦτο ἀπεστάλην παρὰ τοῦ πάπα, ἵνα ἀποκαταστήσω αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ αὐτοῦ ὡς κανονικῶς χειροτονηθέντα παρ’ ἐκείνου ἐπίσκοπον ὑµῶν.’ Οἱ µοναχοί: ‘τοῦτο ἀπόδειξον, δέσποτα, ὅτι κανονικῶς καὶ κατὰ τὸ κρατῆσαν ἔθος ἐν ἡµῖν ἀρχαῖον ἐχειροτονήθη, καὶ ἀρχεῖ ἡµῖν.’” “Epitaphios,” 60. 247 “οὐ δίκαιόν ἐστι λέγειν ὑµᾶς µὴ φρονεῖν καὶ ποιεῖν τὸν πάπαν ὀρθρῶς. οὐδέποτε γὰρ ἡ Ῥωµαίων ἐκκλησία ἐφρόνησε κακῶς. πᾶσαι γὰρ αἱ αἱρέσεις ἐξ ὑµῶν τῶν Κωνσταντινουπολιτῶν ἐξῆλθον, καὶ ἡ Ἀρείου καὶ ἡ Μακεδονίου καὶ ἡ Νεστορίου καὶ ἡ Ἐυτυχοῦς καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν, ἐξ ἡµῶν δὲ οὐδεµία αἵρεσις ἀνεφύη ποτέ.” “Epitaphios,” 60−61. 246

112

argument about Pope Honorius’ role in the seventh-century controversy over Monotheletism.248

Finally, when it was the

clear that the negotiation was going nowhere, the Cardinal asked

all

whether

the

they

speaking.249

Greeks

present,

concurred

with

both the

clerical

monk

who

and

lay,

had

been

Mesarites tells us that “with one voice” the

assembly of Greeks proclaimed their agreement, saying “each and every one of us speaks the same way.”250 could

do

little

but

declare

them

all

The Cardinal

disobedient

and

schismatic.251 It

is

in

the

sequence

of

events

that

immediately

follows that one can take the measure of the Greek monks’ commitment to accommodation at this juncture—as well as the limits of that commitment.

The accusation of disobedience

and obstinacy appears to have rankled and deeply offended

248

“πῶς τοῦτο λέγεις, ὦ δέσποτα; οὐκ ἀρχιερεὺς ὑµῶν ὁ Ὀνώριος ὁ Ῥώµης ἐπίσκοπος ἦν, ὃς καὶ καθῃρέθη καὶ ἀνεθεµατίσθη παρὰ τῆς ἕκτης οἰκουµενικῆς συνόδου βασιλεύοντος Κωνσταντίνου τοῦ Πωγωνάτου;” “Epitaphios,” 61. The monks here refer to the Third Council of Constantinople, which anathematized Pope Honorius I as a Monothelete in 680, more than forty years after his death. This anathema was apparently accepted by the papacy. The case of Pope Honorius provoked lively debate at the First Vatican Council, as the question of papal infallibility was being considered, but it seems that Honorius’ infamy was due to his failures and omissions rather than to any overtly heretical proclamations. For more context on Heraclius, Monotheletism, Pope Honorius and the Third Council of Constantinople, see Warren Treadgold, A History of the Byzantine State and Society (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1997), 300-307, 329. 249 “Πρὸς ταῦτα ὁ καδδηνάλιος ἀντειπεῖν µὴ ἔχων, κάτω νεύσας ἐφ’ ἱκανόν, ἀνανεύσας πάλιν εἶπε πρὸς ἅπαντας τοὺς συνηθροισµένους µοναχούς τε καὶ λαϊκούς, ‘ταῦτα, ἅ λέγει ὁ διαλεγόµενος µοναχὸς οὗτος, καὶ ὑµεῖς ὁµοίος καὶ φρονεῖτε καὶ λέγετε ἢ τοῖς παρ’ αὐτοῦ λεγοµένοις ἀπαρέσκεσθε; εἴπατε.’” “Epitaphios,” 61−62. 250 “Καὶ πάντων µιᾷ φωνῇ γεγωνότερον ἀνακραξάντων τὸ ‘πάντες καὶ ὅλοι τὸ λέγοµεν ἰδιωτικῶς.’” “Epitaphios,” 62. 251 “Καὶ ὁ καδδηνάλιος: ‘ὑµεῖς ὡς ὁρῶ πάντη ἐστὲ ἀπειθεῖς καἰ σκληροτράχηλοι καἰ αὐθάδεις καὶ οὔπω ἐταπεινώθητε ὥστε φρονῆσαι τὸ ὑµῖν συµφέρον.” “Epitaphios,” 62.

113

the Greeks; their speaker responded that if they had wished to be “disobedient,” they could have done what “the other Constantinopolitans” Lascaris,

with

the

did,

and

take

Empire

of

refuge

with

Trebizond,

Theodore

with

“barbarian coreligionists,” or even with the Turks.252

their “But

we did not [depart],” they argued, because they thought it “pleasing to God for us not to flee from you, who were sent by

God

to

be

our

teachers.”253

Therefore,

the

monks

explained, they were determined “to be content with the painful things that come to us from Him on account of our sins—but perish

not

the

on

account

thought!”254

of

our

faith

The

monks'

being

spokesman

erroneous; reached

a

rhetorical crescendo as he warmed to the subject; as his speech continued it delineated in precise terms the aims— and

limits—of

the

monk's

willingness

to

accommodate

themselves to the new situation: And therefore we remain, suffering myriad horrible things from your people on a daily basis, giving thanks to the holy God who is pleased that our sins should be thus expiated, with us being in want, every day, of the very food necessary to sustain us. We have been deprived of all of our possessions, but one 252

“Εἰ γὰρ ἦµεν τοιοῦτοι οἵους ἔφης ἀκατάδεκτοι, ἠδυνάµεθα καὶ ἡµεῖς ὡς καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ Κωνσταντινουπολῖται ἀπελθεῖν εἰς τὴν τοῦ Λάσκαρι χώραν τοῦ βασιλέως κῦρ Θεοδώρου τοῦ Κοµνηνοῦ καὶ εἰς τὴν τοῦ Κοµνηνοῦ κῦρ ∆αῒδ καὶ εἰς τὰς τῶν ὁµοπίστων ἡµῖν βαρβάρων χώρας, ἀλλὰ καὶ εἰς αὐτὴν τὴν τῶν Τούρκων, ὃ καὶ πολλοὶ πεποιήκασι φεύγοντες τὰς ἐξ ὑµῶν καθ’ ἑκάστην θλίψεις καὶ τοὺς καθηµερινοὺς θανάτους.” “Epitaphios,” 62. 253 “Ἀλλὰ τοῦτο οὐ πεποιήκαµεν, ἀναλογισάµενοι καλῶς, ὡς οἰόµεθα, ἀρεστὸν εἶναι θεῷ τὸ µὴ φεύγειν ἡµᾶς ἀφ’ ὑµῶν τῶν παρὰ θεοῦ ἀποσταλέντων παιδευτῶν ἡµῶν.” “Epitaphios,” 62. 254 “Οἰόµεθα, ἀρεστὸν εἶναι θεῷ . . . στέργειν τὰ παρ’ ἐκείνου ἐπερχόµενα ἡµῖν λυπηρὰ διὰ τὰς ἁµαρτίας ἡµῶν, οὐ διὰ τὴν κακοπιστίαν ἡµῶν. Μὴ γένοιτο.” “Epitaphios,” 62.

114

piece of wealth remains to us: that of our holy and Orthodox faith, which you cannot take away from us, no matter how many horrible things you visit upon us.255 This speech effectively brought negotiations between local Latin

clerical

authorities

Constantinople to an end.

and

the

Greek

monks

of

Cardinal Benedict and Patriarch

Morosini rose, and after Morosini had made a final speech, the two Latin prelates left the room.

THE The

letter

to

DUAL PATRIARCHATE PROPOSED

Pope

Innocent

proposing

a

dual

patriarchate for Constantinople emerged directly from the collapse of the above negotiations, and, notably, with the expressed endorsement of the Latin Emperor Henry.256

In

fact, the proposal of the dual patriarchate represents one of

the

most

breathtaking

attempts

at

ecclesiastical

accommodation in the annals of the period; breathtaking not only for its ambition and creativity, but also insofar as it involved the cooperation of Greek clerical leaders with Latin

lay

elites.

The

support

of

the

Latin

emperor

(identified in the text as Σιρ’ῥερὶν, or sire Henri), is of

255

“∆ιὸ καὶ καθ’ εκάστην ἡµέραν µυρία πάσχοντες δεινὰ παρὰ τοῦ ἔθνους ὑµῶν ὑποµένοµεν, εὐχαριστοῦντες τῷ ἁγίῳ θεῷ τῷ οὕτως εὐδοκήσαντι ἐξαλεῖψαι τὰς ἁµαρτίας ἡµῶν, ὑστερούµενοι καθ’ ἑκάστην καὶ αὐτῆς τῆς ἀναγκαίας τροφῆς. Πάντων γὰρ τῶν προσόντων ἡµῖν ἀπεστερήθηµεν, εἷς δὲ πλοῦτος ἡµῖν πρόσεστιν, ὁ τῆς εὐσεβοῦς ἡµῶν πίστεως καὶ ὀρθοδόξου, ὃν ὑµεῖς λαβεῖν ἐξ ἡµῶν οὐ δυνήσεσθε, κἂν µυρία ἐπινοήσητε λυπηρὰ καθ’ ἡµῶν.” “Epitaphios,” 62. 256 Mesarites, “Epitaphios,” 63.

115

course

cited

near

the

beginning

of

letter.257

the

Nevertheless, the author was clearly speaking on behalf of the subject Greek population of the Latin empire, and in doing so he did much more than beseech Pope Innocent to establish along

a

the

dual lines

crusaders;

patriarchate

at

of

and

indeed,

Antioch he

also

Constantinople Jerusalem

presented

modeled

under

a

the

startling

theological analysis of the condition of the Greeks under Latin

rule,

ecumenical

and

went

council,

on led

to

propose

by

the

the pope,

calling to

of

an

discuss

differences. The letter begins with a theological explanation of why it would be inappropriate to lament the Latin capture of Constantinople.

He tells Pope Innocent, “If we did not

know that the present life is a Passover for the future divine Sabbath, we would have sung you a mournful tragedy, and

with

long

people.”258

lamentations

wept

the

captivity

of

a

new

The author, instead, rejoices and gives thanks

to Christ, “who is with us, and again wished to suffer for us.”259

The parallel between Christ’s sufferings and the

257

The letter can be found in J.-P. Migne, Patrologiae cursus completus series Graeca, (hereafter PG), vol. 140 (Paris, 1865), 293-298, and in Mesarites, “Epitaphios,” 63 et seq. 258 “∆έσποτα, εἰ µὴ τὴν τοῦ µέλλοντος θείου Σαββάτου Παρασκευὴν τὴν παροῦσαν ζωὴν ἐγινώσκοµεν, γοερὰν ἂν ἐπλέξαµεν πρός σε τραγῳδίαν καὶ θρήνοις µακροῖς τοῦ νέου λαοῦ τὴν ἅλωσιν ὠδυράµεθα.” PG 140, 293. 259 “εὐχαριστοῦµεν δὲ καὶ αὐτῷ τῷ µεθ’ ἡµῶν, καὶ πάλιν ὑπὲρ ἡµῶν παθεῖν ἑλοµένω Χριστῷ.” PG 140, 293.

116

sufferings of the Greeks goes further: the author notes that Christ “was once again by his own will handed over, and

with

us

he

was

captured,

despoiled,

led

away

and

betrayed, and they cast his body to the ground and poured out his blood, and they trampled him under foot.”260 The parallel between the suffering of the Greeks and the suffering of Christ is a fascinating one which serves a variety of purposes; among them, it certainly claims the moral high ground for the Greek side. letter

does

not

turn

into

an

Nevertheless, the

anti-Latin

polemic

of

any

kind; on the contrary, the author continues his comparison by noting that Christ “endured all of these things in order that he might connect the two peoples, killing enmities, or rather that his body, having been rent in two, he might unite once again into one.”261

Interlacing quotations from

the Old and New Testaments, the author asks “Who is wise enough

.

.

.

who

is

suitable

enough

to

admire

God’s

providence toward us? . . . hence it is sweet for us to have been made captives, mild to suffer, dear and favorable to be led into captivity.

For how would we have made a

union with our brothers, with whom beforehand we did not

260

“ἀλλὰ καὶ πάλιν ἑκὼν παρέδοθη, καὶ σὺν ἡµῖν ἁλοὺς ἐσκυλεύθη καὶ ἀπηνέχθη καὶ παρέδοθη, καὶ τὸ σῶµα αὐτοῦ καὶ τὸ αἷµα πρὸς τὴν γῆν πεσὸν καὶ ῥυὲν ἐπατήθη.” PG 140, 293. 261 “καὶ πάντα ὑπέµεινεν, ἵνα τοὺς δύο συνάψῃ λαοὺς, ἀποκτείνας τὴν ἔχθραν, ἢ µᾶλλον τὸ εἰς δύο σχισθὲν αὐτοῦ σῶµα, ἑνῶσῃ πάλιν εἰς ἕν.” PG 140, 293.

117

bear

to

speak?”262

Thus,

from

the

perspective

of

the

anonymous Greek author, the sufferings of the Greek people at the hands of the Fourth Crusade and under Latin rule were ordained by divine providence, in order to facilitate a

reunion

of

perspective scholarly between

Eastern

presents

a

consensus, the

and

Western

fascinating

which

Latin

held

and

Christendom. counterpoint

that

Greek

the

churches

This to

old

relationship was

harmed

irreparably, rather than helped, by the establishment of the

Latin

contemporary

Empire.263 Greek

From

author,

the on

the

perspective other

of

hand,

this “many

patriarchs and emperors desired to see this day, but did not receive this favor,” while Pope Innocent on the other hand “after many generations has been found worthy of this favor, to unite East and West, and to become and be named as the thirteenth apostle.”264 The rhetoric in the letter’s first few sentences is thus extraordinary.

The author presented the establishment

262

“'Τίς σοφὸς, καὶ φυλάξει ταῦτα; Τίς ἱκανὸς,’ καὶ τὴν εἰς ἡµᾶς θαυµάσεται θείαν προµήθειαν; Ἐντεῦθεν ἡµῖν γλυκὺ τὸ ἁλῶναι, ἡδὺ τὸ παθεῖν, καὶ τὸ αἰχµαλωτισθῆναι φίλον καὶ χάριεν. Πῶς γὰρ ἐµέλλοµεν τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς ἡµῶν ἑνωθῆναι, οἷς οὐδὲ προσοµιλῆσαι πρὶν ἠνεσχόµεθα.” PG 140, 293. 263 Cf. Athanasios Papadopoulos-Kerameus, “Documents grecs pour servir à l’histoire de la quatrième croisade (liturgie et reliques) ,” in Revue de l’Orient Latin, vol. 1 (Paris, 1893), 542, and A. Heisenberg, “Die römische Messe in griechischer Übersetzung,” in 7eue Quellen zur Geschichte des lateinischen Kaisertums und der Kirchenunion, part II (London: Variorum Reprints, 1973), 12-15, Raymond Janin, “Les sanctuaires de Byzance sous la domination latine,” in Revue des Études Byzantines (Vol. II, 1944), Deno Geanakoplos, Byzantine East and Latin West: Two Worlds of Christendom in the Middle Ages (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1966). 264 “Πολλοὶ πατριάρχαι καὶ βασιλεῖς ἐπεθύµησαν ἰδεῖν τὴν ἡµέραν ταύτην, ἀλλὰ τὴν χάριν ταύτην ὀυκ ἔλαβον. Σὺ, δέσποτα, µετὰ πολλὰς γενεὰς ἠξιώθης ταύτης τῆς χάριτος, ἑνῶσαι τὴν Ἀνατολὴν καὶ τὴν ∆ύσιν, καὶ απόστολος τρισκαιδέκατος γενέσθαι καὶ ὀνοµάζεσθαι.” PG 140, 293.

118

of Latin rule in Constantinople as an act of God, ordained specifically so that Eastern and Western Christendom could be reunited.

Nevertheless, his purpose in writing was to

negotiate the specific terms of that reunion.

Taking the

union of churches as a foregone conclusion given the Latin occupation of Constantinople, the author’s aim was to win a hearing for the Greeks.

He therefore begged the pope to

avoid any attempt at coercion in religious matters, noting that

if

Jews.”265

coercion He

were

argued

permitted, that

“we

coercion

would and

baptize

punishment

the in

dogmatic matters were “absurd,” while persuasion was the course “of a good man and one who loves truth.”266

The

upshot of the argument was simple: the author expressed a hope that Pope Innocent would prohibit any force to be used to

make

the

Greeks

change,

but

would

rather

“admit

our

speeches, and engage in reason and negotiation with us.”267 The author expressed confidence that Pope Innocent was of the same opinion, and this led directly to the first major request: that the pope call an ecumenical council at which

265

“Οἶδας δὲ, τίµιε δέσποτα, τὸ παρὰ Θειοῦ δοθὲν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις φρόνηµα, καὶ ὅτι βουλοµένων, οὐ τυραννουµένων τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας µυστήριον. Εἰ γὰρ µὴ τοῦτο, καὶ αὐτοὺς τοὺς Ἑβραίους οὐχ ἑκόντας ἂν ἐβαπτίσαµεν.” PG 140, 293−296. 266 “ἐπεὶ τοιγαροῦν τὸ µὲν ἐπιτιµᾷν ἐν τοῖς δόγµασι καὶ βιάζεσθαι ἄτοπον . . . τὸ δὲ πείθειν χρώµενον ταῖς τῶν δογµάτων ἀρχαῖς ἀνδρὸς ἀγαθοῦ καἰ σέβοντος τὴν ἀλήθειαν.” PG 140, 296. 267 “πότερον ἕλοιο, δέσποτα τὸ βιάζεσθαι ἡµᾶς ἀνεξετάστως, ὡς ἄλογα, πρὸς µετάθεσιν, ἢ προσδέξασθαι τοὺς ἡµετέρους λόγους καὶ µεταδοῦναι λόγον ἡµῖν, ὡς γυµνασθῆναι καὶ γνωσθῆναι τὴν τῶν θείων πραγµάτων ἀλήθειαν;” PG 140, 296.

119

all

the

differences

between

East

and

West

might

be

discussed and mended. The proposal was simple: “since the gap between the Latins and the Romans, which dissolves the togetherness of the

one

church,

is

so

small,

order

that

an

ecumenical

council be gathered, and send legates of your majesty; let there

be

discussion,

controversies.”268

and

the

solution

of

the

The author expressed a willingness on

the part of the leading Greek clergy to travel anywhere that the pope wishes to designate “in east or west” as the site of the council.269 ecumenical

council

Requesting that the pope call an

was

certainly

extraordinary;

this

gesture alone, given the acknowledgement of papal authority that

it

implies,

may

be

seen

as

one

of

accommodation.

There is no reason to dismiss the request as insincere, especially

in

light

of

the

fact

that

it

was

backed

up

forcefully, with threats.

The author dexterously pointed

out

best

that

it

themselves

was to

in

the

come

to

interests

some

of

the

mutually

Latins

acceptable

accommodation with the Greeks, noting that “We (Greeks) see that

we

under

have

his

sire

shadow

Henri we

as

live,

our

autocratic

conduct

268

emperor,

commerce,

till

and the

“Τοίνυν ἐπεὶ µικρόν ἐστι τὸ µεταξὺ τῶν Λατίνων καὶ τῶν Ῥωµαίων µεταίχµιον, ὃ λύει τὴν τῆς µιᾶς Ἐκκλησίας συνέχειαν, θέλησον σύνοδον οἰκουµενικὴν ἀθροισθῆναι, ἐξαποστελεῖς δὲ τοποτηρητὰς τῆς σῆς µεγαλειότητος, καὶ λαληθήτω, καὶ λυθήτω πᾶν τὸ ἀµφισβητούµενον.” PG 140, 296. 269 PG 140, 296.

120

fields, shepherd flocks, and navigate the sea; without us, however, the plate would not be filled, nor the trough, nor would

bread

be

eaten,

nor

meat,

nor

fish,

nor

olive;

neither human life nor the state would continue.”270 message

was

clear:

the

author

sought

to

persuade

The Pope

Innocent that accommodation was a two-way street, rendered necessary for both sides by the situation; an imperious or intransigent attitude on the part of the papacy, on the other

hand,

would

potentially

provoke

the

Greeks

to

withdraw their allegiance from the Emperor Henry. In

the

letter,

the

discussion

of

the

proposed

ecumenical council eventually gave way to the Greeks’ next request, namely, the appointment of “a patriarch of the same understanding and the same voice” as themselves, who might receive their confessions.271 the

examples

there

is

one

of

Jerusalem

king,

there

and are

The author brought up

Antioch, two

where

bishops,

“although

one

for

the

Romans and one for the Latins, of the same opinion and language

with

them.”272

He

expressed

270

particular

concern

“Ἀλλά γε οἰόµεθα αὐθέντην ἔχειν τὸν βασιλέα ἡµῶν Σιρ’ῥερὶν, καὶ ὑπὸ τὴν σκιὰν τούτου ζῇν, καὶ θητεύειν καὶ γηπονεῖν, καὶ ποιµαίνειν, καὶ πλέειν θάλασσαν. Χωρὶς δὲ ἡµῶν οὐ πληρωθήσεται ἅλως, οὐδὲ ληνὸς, οὐδὲ βρωθήσεται ἄρτος, οὐ κρέας οὐκ ἰχθὺς, οὐδὲ λάχανον. Ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ ἀνθρωπίνη ζωὴ καὶ πολιτεία σταθήσεται.” PG 140, 296. 271 “Χρεία δὲ ἡµῖν καὶ πρὸ τῆς συνόδου ὁµογνώµονος πατριάρχου καὶ ὁµοφρώνου, διδάξαντος τὰ συνήθη καὶ µεταδώσαντος, καὶ ὑποδεξαµένου τὰς ἡµετέρας ἐξαγορείας.” PG 140, 296−7. 272 “∆ιὰ ταῦτα γὰρ καὶ εἰς τὴν Ἱερουσαλὴµ, καὶ εἰς τὴν Ἀντιόχειαν, ἑνὸς ῥηγὸς ὄντος, δύο ἦσαν ἀρχιερεῖς, καὶ εἰς τοὺς Ῥωµαίους, καὶ εἰς τοὺς Λατίνους, ὁµογνώµων αὐτοῖς καὶ ὁµόγλωττος, αὐτοῖς πάλιν ὅµοιος.” PG 140, 297.

121

over

the

issue

of

confession,

noting

that

it

was

inappropriate for clergy to be obliged to confess to their patriarch through an interpreter, and he specified that the Greeks wanted a new Greek patriarch appointed before the proposed ecumenical council would be called.273 The author also included some additional requests, specifically that in each province of the empire native bishops, from that specific province, be appointed.274 The letter’s peroration is among its most fascinating passages.

The author made it clear that his requests had

been endorsed by the Latin Emperor himself, noting that “our

divinely

commanded

us

promoted to

give

and

Christ-loving

benevolently

due

emperor

honor

to

has your

highness”275; he noted that the appropriate honor for a pope would be to have his name commemorated in the liturgy, with acclamations Innocent

the

equal pope

to of

those elder

given Rome,

the

emperor:

“For

many

years!”276

He

expressed the hope that the Byzantines would finally be able to offer this acclamation once the council had been held—a council “which will lead us to a perfect knowledge

273

“οὐδὲ γὰρ ἦν θεµιτὸν, δι’ ἑρµηνέως πρὸς ετερόγλωσσον πατριάρχην ἐξοµολογεῖσθαι τινα κρύφια, κἄν ἴσως καὶ ὁµογνωµοσύνη παρῆν.” PG 140, 297. 274 PG 140, 297. 275 “Ἐπεὶ δὲ ὁ θεοπρόβλητος καὶ φιλόχριστος ἡµῶν βασιλεὺς ὑπέθετο ἡµῖν, τὴν ἀνήκουσαν τιµὴν εὐµενῶς προσνεῖµαι τῷ ὕψει σου.” PG 140, 297. 276 “ταῖς βασιλικαῖς εὐφηµίαις ἰσόῤῥοπος, οὔτως ἐπὶ λέξεως ἔχουσα: Ἰνοκεντίου δεσπότου πάππα τῆς πρεσβυτέρας Ῥώµης, πολλὰ τὰ ἔτη.” PG 140, 297.

122

of sacred dogma.”277

Then, the author promised, Innocent

could expect liturgical commemoration from the ambo, during the anaphora, with the celebrant’s hat removed, not only from

the

Libyans,

Byzantines, the

but

Egyptians

also

and

“the

the

Ethiopians

Syrians,

the

and

the

Russians,

Alans, Goths, Iberians, and all nations who are joined to our teaching.”278 Thus,

the

proposal

of

the

dual

patriarchate

was

a

spectacular if ultimately doomed gesture whose context must not be forgotten: it emerged, with the endorsement of the Latin Emperor, only when other negotiations (particularly with Morosini and Cardinal Benedict) had failed. the

year

emerged,

in

which

Theodore

no

papal

response

Lascaris

seized

to the

this

During proposal

initiative,

consecrating a rival patriarch in Nicaea to whom much of the

Greek

clergy

transferred

their

allegiance,

rendering the idea of a dual patriarchate moot.

thus It is

therefore tempting to imagine the ways in which Innocent's vision for a reunion of East and West may have been brought to fruition, had the pope established a dual patriarchate in

Constantinople.

Nevertheless,

277

one

must

remember

the

“µέχρις ἂν τὸ Πνεῦµα τὸ ἅγιον σύνοδον συναγάγῃ, καὶ µυσταγωγήσῃ ἡµῖν τοῦ δόγµατος τὴν ἀκρίβειαν.” PG 140, 297. 278 “Τότε γὰρ γυµνῇ τῇ καφαλῇ ἐπὶ ἄµβωνος, καὶ ἐπ’ αὐτῆς τῆς ἀναφορᾶς, οὐ µόνον ἡµεῖς, ἀλλ’ Αἰθίοπες ἅµα καὶ Λίβυες, Αἰγύπτιοί τε καὶ Σύροι, ∆ῶσοι, Ἀλανοὶ, Γότθοι, Ἴβηρες, καὶ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη τὰ τοῖς δόγµασιν ἡµῶν ὑποκείµενα, τὸ σὸν ἀνακηρύξουσιν ὄνοµα.” PG 140, 297.

123

complexity of the situation: Innocent III had a difficult enough time as it was trying to maintain the obedience of the Latin clergy in that far-away city.

Innocent had to

contend with a Latin Patriarch whom Wolff quite correctly describes

as

“exceptionally

passionate

and

quarrelsome,”

and who was frequently “at odds with the Pope, with the papal legates, with the [Latin] Emperor, with the French clergy,

and

Venetians.”279

even

with

the

Podestà

of

his

own

fellow-

Considering the many “fundamental issues of

policy and principle” yet unsettled in the early years of the

Latin

unsettled

Patriarchate—and

throughout

the

many,

period”280--it

indeed, is

“remained

not

surprising

that Pope Innocent exercised caution in dealing with such an ambitious proposal—and one so infuriating to Morosini—as that of the dual patriarchate. Interestingly enough, Nicholas Mesarites was, at least in part, personally responsible for the consecration of the rival Nicene Patriarch.

It appears that when months had

passed and an answer from Pope Innocent had not arrived, Nicholas travelled to Nicaea in 1207 bearing three letters (one to Theodore Lascaris, one to his wife, and one to their

infant

279 280

son).

He

begged

Wolff, “Politics,” 232. Wolff, “Politics,” 232.

124

Theodore

to

have

a

new

Patriarch elected according to the canons, and in return promised Theodore that the Greeks of Constantinople would recognize him as legitimate basileus and autocrator.281 This suggestion came at a key time.

John Camaterus

had never travelled from Thrace to Nicaea, to give Theodore the imperial coronation that he craved. for

Theodore

was

distinguishing

What was at stake

himself

from

his

competitors in Epirus, Trebizond, and Bulgaria by laying decisive

claim

to

emperor-in-exile.

the

mantle

of

legitimate

Byzantine

We know that he responded to Mesarites’

invitation by hosting the synod in the spring of 1208, at which

Michael

further

know

Autoreianos that

was

Theodore

did

elected not

Patriarch.282

accept

the

We

imperial

coronation from Autoreianos until after Pope Innocent had rejected Theodore’s proposal of a permanent peace between the

Latin

Empire

and

the

Kingdom

of

Nicaea,

with

the

straits and the Aegean as a boundary; the pope instead had urged him to recognize Henry as his lord.283 Pope

Innocent's

refusal

to

recognize

the

Apparently

principle

of

Nicene independence was the final straw for Theodore; he decided to stake his own claim to the imperial title.

281

Only

The letters can be found in Heisenberg, 7eue Quellen zur Geschichte des lateinischen Kaisertums und der Kirchenunion (Munich, 1923), and are discussed in Gill, Byzantium and the Papacy, 35. 282 Gill, 35. 283 Gill, 35.

125

later on was the Lascarid state actually strong enough to engage in diplomatic and military battles with the other Greek

successor

states

(as

discussed

below

in

Chapter

IV).284 Pope Innocent, for his part, seems to have felt that the reunion of the Latin and Greek churches was a fait accompli

as

a

result

of

the

Latin

conquest.

Since

obedience to legitimate church authority was not something up for discussion, Innocent III saw little reason to invest further time and energy in working out a compromise with the

Greeks;

distinguished

in

this

from

his

respect

he

successors.285

must

certainly

Until

be

Innocent’s

death in 1216, the reform of the Western church and the recovery of Jerusalem would be the foremost priorities in papal policy.

The Fourth Lateran Council, held in 1215,

dealt almost exclusively with Western matters.

In matters

impinging on the East, its final session 1) reaffirmed the orthodoxy of the Filioque (although not in direct reference to the Greeks, but only in condemning Joachim of Fiore) 2) condemned

the

Greek

practice

of

ceremonially

purifying

altars on which the Latin liturgy had been celebrated, 3) adopted the second rank for Constantinople among the five

284 285

Gill, 35. Cf. Setton, The Papacy and the Levant, vol. 1, and Gill, Byzantium and the Papacy, 35-96.

126

patriarchates, which the papacy had resisted since it was first

proclaimed

at

Chalcedon

in

451,

4)

affirmed

the

toleration of a diversity of rites and languages in the celebration

of

the

liturgy,

5)

affirmed

the

ancient

prohibition on multiple bishops for the same see, and 6) affirmed the right of Greek clergy to be married.286

THE

RAVENNIKA:

STATUTE OF

A ROUGH SETTLEMENT

The failure of the proposed dual patriarchate, and the establishment of a rival patriarchate in Nicaea in 1208, created a situation in which the papacy had to make some provision

for

the

Innocent’s

policy

Ravennika,

which

Greek was was

clergy

under

expressed preserved

in in

Latin the

the

rule.

1210

Pope

pact

of

of

his

register

successor Honorius III; it describes itself as "a pact or agreement over all churches placed, or situated, or founded from Thessalonica all the way to Corinth, which has been entered

into

patriarch archbishops

of of

between the

the

church

Athens,

lord of

Larissa,

Thomas,

by

God's

Constantinople, and

Neopatras,

grace

and and

the the

bishops who are to be placed under them, and the barons to be declared below by their own names."287 286

The names signed

Gill, Byzantium and the Papacy, 36. “Hoc est pactum, sive conventio super universis ecclesiis positis, sive sitis, vel fundatis in Thessalonica usque Corinthum, quod intervenit inter dominum Thomam Dei gratia Constantinopolitanae 287

127

include Nameus Roffredus, conestabulus regni Thessalonici; Otto de Rocha, dominus Athenarum; Guido marchio; Ravanus, dominus

insulae

Albertinus Bertuldus,

de

Nigripontis; Canosa,

Nicolaus

de

Raynerius

Thomas

de

Sancto-Omer,

de

Stromomort, Guilelmus

de

Traval, comes Blanel,

Guilelmus de Arsa pro se et hominibus suis et vasallis.288 In

the

pact,

respect

"all

the

nobles

churches

of

Frankish

and

Greece

monasteries,

promised

to

possessions,

returns, movable and immovable goods, and all the rights of God."289

More specifically, the pact established that the

"said churches and monasteries, with all of the things that they have had and will have, and the persons who have been or

will

be

placed

in

them,"

would

be

recognized

in

perpetuum as entirely free from lay control of any kind, including ancient clerics,

taxes

Greek Latin

and

tolls.

land

tax,

and

Greek

The

which alike,

one

was

exception

to

whether

be of

was

the

paid

by

all

high

or

low

rank.290

Ecclesiae patriarcham et archiepiscopos Atheniensem, Larissensem, Neopatrensem, et episcopos infra ponendos, et barones inferius propriis nominibus declarandos.” Honorius III, Opera Omnia, vol. 4 (Paris: Bibliothèque Ecclésiastique, 1880), 414. 288 Honorius, 414. 289 “Omnes ecclesias et monasteria, possessiones, reditus, mobilia et immobilia bona, et universa jura Ecclesiae Dei.” Honorius, 414. 290 “Volentes et firmissime promittentes dictas ecclesias et monasteria, cum omnibus rebus suis habitis et habendis, et personas in eis positas et ponendas, . . . in perpetuum permanere ab omnibus angariis et parangariis, taliis, servitiis, et servitutibus universis, excepto acrostico tantum, quod eis debent cuncti sive Latini sive Graeci, tam in dignitatibus, quam in minoribus officiis et ordinibus constituti.” Honorius, 415.

128

THE

REIGN OF

HONORIUS III

The ever-changing political context in which the Latin Empire

and

times,

an

its

vassal

enormous

states

were

influence

on

situated

the

accommodation pursued by all sides.

modes

had, of

at

all

religious

The year 1216—which

saw the deaths of both Innocent III and Henry of Flanders— was therefore a pivotal year in the history of Greco-Latin accommodation;

although

Innocent

had

an

able

and

like-

minded successor in Honorius III (1216-1227), Setton could not be more correct in noting that "[w]ith the death of Henry d'Angre of Hainaut in June 1216, the strength and hope of the Latin Empire also expired."291

From this point

forward,

weakest

the

Latin

Empire

would

be

the

of

the

political entities in the region, surrounded by powerful enemies on all sides; the Bulgarian, Epirote, and Nicene factions could be kept at bay only with great outlays of diplomatic and military effort. agree

with

Setton

that

the

Indeed, one is forced to

very

survival

of

the

Latin

Empire "for two more generations" can be regarded as "one

291

Setton, 44.

129

of the most extraordinary facts in the Latin history of Greece."292 In this general atmosphere of decline, Pope Honorius tried desperately to exercise some sort of control over the Latin

church

of

Constantinople.

It

was

no

easy

task—

Honorius was faced with a situation in which there was a vacuum

of

political

leadership,

a

herd

of

unruly

Latin

feudal lords, and for several years an out-of-control Latin patriarch (Gervasius, whose chaotic reign lasted from 1215 to 1219).293

Despite the advanced age and infirmity that

often caused him to seek refuge at Anagni, Honorius III left

behind

a

massive

epistolary

corpus

related

ecclesiastical affairs of the Latin Empire.

to

the

Much of it

deals with issues which, strictly speaking, lie outside the scope of the present treatment, including the expropriation of Latin church property by the lords of Frankish Greece, and

the

jurisdictional

Gervasius.294 correspondence

Nevertheless, lies

overreaching

of

Patriarch

buried

Pope

Honorius'

evidence

of

within

the

ways

in

which

the

papacy sought to assure an accommodating stance towards the Greek

clergy

under

Latin

rule—even

at

the

expense

of

relations between the papacy and the Latin lords of Greece. 292

Setton, 44. Cf. Setton, 44-49. 294 Cf. Setton, 44-49. 293

130

One of the Latin lords that Pope Honorius rebuked most strongly was Geoffrey I of Villehardouin, prince of Achaia, who for "some twenty years" ruled "most of the Morea as an almost independent state."295 as

"an

able

and

Although Setton describes him

sagacious

prince"

who

"appears,

by

and

large, to have dealt justly with the native Greeks," it can hardly be denied that Geoffrey had a special penchant for angering the hierarchy of the Latin church; along with the prince of Athens Othon de la Roche, Geoffrey first incurred the sentence of excommunication from Patriarch Gervasius in 1217.296

Pope Honorius overturned the excommunication on

appeal,

and

rebuked

jurisdiction Nevertheless, investigate

as the the

Gervasius

Patriarch papal

exceeding

his

Constantinople.297

of

legate

situation,

for

that

Honorius

Giovanni

Colonna

sent of

to St.

Praxedis, appears to have renewed the excommunication in late

1218;

the

renewal

of

the

ban

was

confirmed

in

Honorius' letter dated January 21, 1219.298 The sentences of excommunication for both Geoffrey and Othon were imposed along with an interdict on their lands; their

principal

transgression

295

appears

to

have

been

the

Setton, 46. Setton, 46. 297 Setton, 46. These events occurred within the broader context of the dispute between Honorius and Gervasius over the geographical extent of the latter's authority. 298 Setton, 47. 296

131

seizure

of

property

Nevertheless,

one

claimed

finds

in

by

Pope

the

Latin

Honorius'

church.

correspondence

evidence that this was not the only point of controversy between the pope and the wayward lords; in fact, it appears that they had failed to conform to the broad policy of papally-endorsed religious accommodation that had sheltered the Greek lower clergy since the time of Pope Innocent III. An especially important letter is dated September 4, 1223, from Pope Honorius "to the archbishops and bishops" in the lands

belonging

to

Geoffrey

of

Villehardouin.299

The

purpose of the letter was to announce the lifting of the excommunication and interdict; it was a time of desperation for the embattled Latin Empire, and the pope hoped to bring Geoffrey

and

Othon

in

from

the

cold

after

nearly

five

years, in order to enlist them in the effort to defend Constantinople.300

Nevertheless, the letter also provides a

detailed rehashing of the crimes that had gotten him in trouble

in

the

first

place—principally

his

seizure

of

church property, but notably, as well, his treatment of the Greek clergy. The letter begins by noting that the "oversight of the Apostolic

See

has

been

established

299

Honorius III, Opera Omnia, vol. 4, 409. Cf. Setton, 48-49.

300

132

over

peoples

and

kingdoms . . . such that it sometimes uses rigor, sometimes mercy, and sometimes makes a middle way between them when the

circumstances

considered."301

of

times

and

places

have

been

The overarching goal of papal intervention

in this case was that "by a convenient dispensation those things that are Caesar's may be rendered unto Caesar, and those things that are God's to God."302

Enumerating the

many

princes

examples

of

the

"insolence

of

the

of

the

Empire of Romania," the letter notes that Geoffrey and his fellows had violated the pact of Ravennika in almost every imaginable way: they had conferred goods on churches only to

take

property

them of

away,

they

monasteries

had

and

siezed

churches,

and

retained

giving

it

the

out

to

whomever they wished, enjoying its fruits, and putting it to their own uses, and they had apparently made offerings to Greek prelates in order to obtain priestly ordination uncanonically for their favorites.303 litany

of

Geoffrey

offenses, with

the

however, curious

Pope offense

301

In addition to this Honorius of

also

retaining

charges Greek

“Sedis Apostolicae circumspectio constituta super gentes et regna ut . . . interdum rigore, interdum mansuetudine utitur, interdum consideratis circumstantiis temporum et locorum, medium faciens ex utroque.” Honorius, 410. 302 “Ut quae sunt Caesaris Caesari, et que sunt Dei Deo congrua dispensatione reddantur.” Honorius, 410. 303 “Ut nunc iidem (i.e. the princes) bona conferrent ecclesiis, et nunc ea ipsis auferrent pro suae libito voluntatis, et collata praecipue abbatiis juxta beneplacitum suum propriis usibus applicarent, ac Graeci prelati receptis muneribus indifferenter quoslibet ad sacerdotium promoverent, et dilectus filius nobilis vir G. De Villa Arduini princeps Achaiae innisus hujusmodi corruptelae abbatias et possessiones ecclesiasticas in suis manibus retinens, et fructus earum propriis usibus applicans, et quibus volebat pro libito tribuens.” Honorius, 410.

133

priests (papates) like serfs (rustici), in violation of the freedom guaranteed them by the pact of Ravennika.304 The letter goes on to note that Geoffrey had merited excommunication

through

these

and

offenses

nevertheless,

his

his

contumacious

resistance

emphasizing

the

to

Church's

persistence all

in

correction;

interest

in

the

salvation of each individual, and her practice of welcoming the humble and penitent back into the fold, Honorius lays out the conditions that Geoffrey must observe in order to remain in the good graces of the papacy.305 relate

to

the

treatment

of

the

Greek

Many of them

clergy;

Honorius

enumerates the ways in which the pact of Ravennika must be observed

in

families.

dealings In

the

with

first

the

Greek

place,

he

priests specifies

and

their

that

all

property which belonged to the church at the time of the coronation

of

Alexius

III

must

hands, free from lay control.306

remain

in

ecclesiastical

He then goes on to specify

that in a village of between 25 and 70 households, there should

be

two

papates,

"with

304

their

wives,

children

and

“Papates tamquam rusticos retineret.” Honorius, 410. “Quia monitus ab abolenda corruptela praedicta nolebat desistere, ipsum contingit excommunicationis laqueo innodari; sed tactus ab eo qui tangit montes et fumigant, seman datis Ecclesiae obtulit saniori usus consilio pariturum. Et quia humiliter redeuntibus non est Ecclesiae aditus praecludendus, juxta formam Ecclesiae intra castra ipsius obtinuit per humilitatem reduci, a quibus rejectus fuerat per contumaciam et contemptum.” Honorius, 410-411. 306 “Ut videlicet omnes ecclesiae vestrae, omnes possessiones suas, quas obtinent in praesenti, vel habuisse aliquando dignoscuntur a tempore coronationis Alexii Bambacoratii ab omni exactione, ac jurisdictione liberas habeant laicali.” Honorius, 411. 305

134

families

.

.

.

jurisdiction."307

utterly

free

and

immune

from

lay

The sons of Greek priests, however, would

be subject to lay jurisdiction if they had moved away from the

family

household.308

authorized

the

specifies

that

In

presence in

of

villages

larger more of

villages,

priests: between

Honorius

the 70

letter

and

125

households, there should be four papates, while in villages of more than 125 households, there should be six. single

village

specifies

that

cannot the

muster

population

25 of

households, small

villages

Where a Honorius can

be

added together, and that there should simply be two papates assigned

per

25

households--"rejoicing

in

the

above-

described liberty [from lay control]".309 Honorius thus insists that freedom from feudal duties be recognized as the right and prerogative of the Greek clergy of the Morea; however, Greek priests could claim this freedom only in the numbers specified: Honorius notes that

"Of

the

other

rural

papates

left

over,

they

shall

render all services and duties to laymen that have been 307

“In casali vero XXV et ultra usque ad LXX lares habenti, duo erunt papates cum uxoribus, filiis, et familiis . . . sub ecclesiarum dominio et a laicali jurisdictione omnino liberi et immunes.” Honorius, 411-412. 308 “Nisi forte filii manserint extra domos paternas.” Honorius, 412. 309 “Quod si larium numerus septuagenarium excesserit, in casali quatuor papates erunt in illo liberi et imunes cum singulis ennicariis, sicut superius est expressum. Quod si ultra centenarium et vigesimum quintum excesserit, numerus papatum excrescet in sextum. Et sic deinceps papates addentur cum libertate praescripta. At si casalis XXV lares non habeat, de vicinioribus casalibus seu locis tot adjungantur eidem, quod praefatus XXV numerus impleatur, et sic erunt duo papates in illo praescripta libertate gaudentes.” Honorius, 412.

135

part

of

custom

and

established

to

this

point

in

time,

except for one thing, that their temporal lord and his men shall not dare to lay hands on their persons, nor shall they permit the liturgy to be celebrated in the countryside contrary to the will of the Latin clerics."310

Thus, we can

see Honorius walking a tightrope here: he insists that a certain number of Greek clerics be allowed to function in the villages and towns of Greece, enjoying all the same privileges

and

immunities

as

the

Latin

clergy.

The

clerical freedom from feudal and manorial responsibilities is even extended to their spouses, children, and families, and it is made clear that the full weight of the Church's ban—excommunication

and

interdict—will

be

visited

upon

Geoffrey of Villhardouin or any other Frankish lord who insists their

on

molesting

ministry,

or

the

Greek

extorting

clergy,

feudal

interfering

service

from

with them.

Nevertheless, Honorius attempts not to push Geoffrey (or the

local

Latin

ecclesiastical

hierarchy)

too

far:

by

keeping the number of Greek priests who can "rejoice in the liberty" afforded by clerical status within certain limits, Honorius prevents priestly ordination from being used as an unlimited carte blanche to avoid military service. 310

The

“Caeterum reliqui rurales papates cuncta servitia et auxilia consueta et praestita hactenus laicis exhibebunt, eo tamen salvo, quod ipsorum dominus temporalis et sui in personas eorum manus mittere non audebunt, nec permittent, quod in terra contra Latinorum clericorum celebretur voluntatem.” Honorius, 412.

136

result is a rough compromise that balances Honorius' desire to court Geoffrey and his fellows with the pope's genuine pastoral concern for the Greek people and the legitimate privileges of their clergy. Honorius lays out a similar compromise regarding the urban papates of Latin Greece, stating that the "papates or Greek clerics of the cathedral churches who were living" in 1210, at the time of the Ravennika pact, "shall be entirely free,

as

is

expressed

above

regarding

the

others."311

Meanwhile, "concerning the remaining papates of the cities the

same

thing

should

be

observed

which

has

been

established concerning the rural ones," i.e. they should render

whatever

service

is

regularly

practiced

and

sanctioned by custom, and be exempt from physical coercion or

punishment.312

prelates

should

The not

letter

advance

goes laymen

on to

to

specify

holy

orders

that in

numbers that go beyond the ones established, or against the will of their lords, that papates enjoying freedom from feudal control should pay the traditional land tax, and

311

“Paptes vero seu clerici Graeci ecclesiarum cathedralium, viventes a tempore, quo mandatum Apostolicum emanavit, ad quod resignationem Ravenicae dictus princeps dicitur recepisse, erunt omnino liberi, ut de aliis superius est expressum.” Honorius, 411. 312 “Sed et circa reliquos papates civitatum illud idem servetur quod est de ruralibus ordinatum.” Honorius, 411-412.

137

that Geoffrey of Villehardouin and his Latin and Greek lay subjects should all pay their tithes.313 Honorius' fascinating

method

of

dealing

one—fascinating

for

with

the

Geoffrey

lengths

to

is

a

which

it

goes to accommodate the Greek clergy without upsetting the status quo too radically.

Although the pope places limits

on the numbers of Greek papates in the villages, and only extends

full

privileges

to

some

of

the

clerics

in

the

cities, it is worthy of note that the only changes he makes to the status quo are changes that favor the Greek priests. Honorius makes it clear that Geoffrey of Villehardouin was excommunicated in the first place, at least in part, for treating the Greek clergy like serfs in violation of the pact of Ravennika; the pope's letter demands that their freedom from all lay control and feudal duty be respected, as a condition of Geoffrey's absolution. Honorius

a

pope

who

was

willing

to

Thus, we see in press

Geoffrey—an

313 “Praelati quoque de laicorum hominibus contra voluntatem ipsorum tam in ecclesiis cathedralibus, quam in aliis civitatum, seu casalium de caetero aliquem non instituent, nec ad ordines promovebunt ultra papatum numerum praetaxatum. Sed et papates a jurisdictione liberi laicorum debitum, et antiquum acrosticum, si quod debent pro terris, quas nunc tenent, ex illis, quas a praedicto tempore tenuerunt, laicis sine difficultate persolvent. Saepedictus vero princeps et Latini sibi subjecti decimas integre solvent, et facient a Graecis sibi subditis, et non rebellantibus simili modo persolvi.” Honorius, 412. The issue of tithes was one that Honorius III frequently had to deal with in his efforts to force the Latin nobility of Greece into a more accommodating stance towards the Greek lower clergy. In an undated letter to his legate, Cardinal Giovanni Colonna of St. Praxedis, Pope Honorius dealt with a variety of problems, including 1) a tendency of Greek clerics to receive ordination from bishops who were not their own, 2) the practice of bishops, both Latin and Greek, of performing ordinations outside their dioceses, while receiving tithes from those places to the detriment of the local bishop, 3) the Greek practice of divorce, 4) layfolk working on Sundays and feast days, and 5) “certain barons and soldiers,” both Latin and Greek, refusing to pay tithes, and encouraging others to refuse as well. These types of letters reflect pastoral concerns not entirely dissimilar to those that preoccupied Honorius in the West.

138

important military ally at a time of crisis for the Latin Empire—rather hard, in order to obtain his cooperation with Honorius'

policy

of

generous

accommodation

toward

the

clergy of Greece. The evidence accumulated in this chapter provides some notion of the diversity of accommodation strategies that were pursued on all sides regarding the structure of the ecclesiastical

hierarchy

dependencies.

in

the

Latin

Empire

and

its

Generally speaking, the Latin ecclesiastical

authorities were willing to let the local Greek clergy keep churches, monasteries, and even dioceses so long as there was titular recognition of papal authority.

Lay leaders

often went further for one reason or another, defending the prerogatives

of

Greek

clerics

that

the

Latin

church

regarded as dissident, or even, in the case of Henry of Flanders, proposal

lending of

a

the

dual

including

those

most

religious

purity—also

weight

of

patriarchate. concerned pursued

a

his

authority The

with diverse

Greek

to

the

clergy—

canonicity collection

and of

strategies in which accommodation played an important part. As the Latin Empire began to weaken, however, the motives and modes of accommodation would begin to change radically.

139

Chapter IV: Theological and Political Accommodation as the Latin Empire began to decline

In his article “The Latin Empire of Constantinople and the Franciscans,” Robert Lee Wolff illustrates some of the ways in which mutual interest in theological accommodation was displayed by the papacy and Nicene elites in the 1230s. By this time, as Wolff correctly notes, the weakness of the Latin Empire itself had necessitated a change in papal aims and strategies, since the papacy “had ceased to look upon the

Latin

Empire

and

the

Latin

Patriarchate

of

Constantinople as effective unifying forces,” and had begun to favor direct union negotiations with the Lascarid state and church.314

On the Nicene side, Wolff agrees with Walter

Norden that the Emperor John Ducas Vatatzes was concerned about

the

arrival

of

the

aged

but

intimidating

Brienne as new Latin Emperor in 1231.315

John

of

Despite the fact

that both Emperor and pope favored the pursuit of church 314 315

Wolff, “Franciscans,” 224. Wolff, “Franciscans,” 224-225.

140

union, however, the Nicene patriarch at this time was the formidable Germanus, one of the most prolific anti-Latin theologians of the period.

Wolff, following Golubovich,

notes that Germanus may have been moved to cooperate in the union

negotiations

by

“the

suggestion

of

five

anonymous

Franciscans, who arrived by chance on the way home from the Holy Land” in 1232.316

Germanus was apparently so impressed

by the asceticism and holiness of these Franciscans that he composed a letter to Pope Gregory IX, expressing his wish that the schism finally be ended, since “no man will come to the bride of Christ clad as she is in a rent garment.”317 Thus began the correspondence between Pope Gregory and Patriarch Germanus, which, after two years, culminated in the

pope

sending

four

special

envoys

to

Nicaea:

two

Dominicans, Hugo and Peter, and two Franciscans, Aymon and Rudolf.318 which

The

exists

edition

was

friars in

left

several

published

by

an

account

of

manuscripts;

an

H.

Golubovich

in

their

mission

authoritative the

Archivum

Franciscanum Historicum in 1919 under the title Disputatio Latinorum

et

Graecorum;

principal

stages

of

the

the

text

friars’

recounts

mission:

the

their

three initial

reception in Nicaea, a brief return to Constantinople, and 316

Wolff, “Franciscans,” 225. Wolff’s translation of the Greek version taken from Golubovich, Biblioteca, II, 512, in “Franciscans,” 225. 318 Wolff, “Franciscans,” 225. 317

141

finally

their

participation

in

a

Nicene

which was held at Nymphaeum in Lydia. this

text

is

penetrating

and

church

council

Wolff’s analysis of

skillful,

but

nevertheless

tends to reflect his preoccupation with politics at the expense of theology. theological

Thus, it is important to examine the

reasoning

that

forms

the

substance

of

the

various negotiations. In fact, from a source-critical point of view, taking the theological reasoning as seriously as the friars did seems

to

be

the

only

responsible

approach

to

the

text.

Wolff sometimes seems to treat the theology as mere windowdressing, their

and

yet

Greek

the

counterparts,

relatio—theological emperor

for

John

friars to

orthodoxy

Vatatzes,

themselves—as

judge was

from

the

well

friars’

all-important.

however,

was

as

The

clearly

more

theologically flexible. These negotiations came at a critical juncture in the political history of the Nicene Empire.

What had started

out as a vulnerable state, threatened by the Latins on one side and the Turks on the other, had risen by the 1230s to a

position

region.319

of

almost

unchallenged

dominance

in

the

Having conquered enough land from the Turks to

become an actual threat to far-away Trebizond, the Nicene 319

Cf. Gill, Byzantium and the Papacy, 48-49.

142

Empire was acutely aware of Constantinople’s weakness, and the ambitions of its Epirote and Bulgarian rivals.320

Thus,

it makes sense that in the early 1230s, John Vatatzes would be interested in seeing if the theological gap between the Greeks and the papacy could be bridged, and Constantinople peacefully handed over. in

a

much

more

Whereas in 1208 Theodore Lascaris—

insecure

position

politically—seized

the

opportunity to outshine his Greek rivals as a champion of Orthodoxy

by

Vatatzes

took

Gregory

establishing

IX.

an He

the

rival

accommodating took

this

Patriarchate,

approach

approach

from

towards a

John Pope

position

of

decided political strength. The beginning of the friars’ relatio recounts their arrival in Nicaea, on the Sunday after the octave of the Epiphany in the year 1234.321 cordial

nature

of

their

The friars were struck by the

welcome,

and

with

the

generous

hospitality afforded them, as they were met outside the city by messengers, given a complete tour of Nicaea, and conducted to a lodging place, where they found “comforts for

our

corporeal

needs

320

abundantly

prepared.”322

Gill, 48-49. Golubovich, "Disputatio Latinorum et Graecorum seu Relatio apocrisariorum Gregorii IX de gestis Nicaeae in Bithynia et Nymphaeae in Lydia 1234," in Archivum franciscanum historicum XII (1919), 428. 322 “Sed antequam civitatem intraremus, plures nuntii Imperatoris nos salutantes et laetitiam cordis eius de adventu nostro nobis notificantes. Sed et nuntii ipsius Patriarche nobis pluries honorifice occurrerunt; et tandem ipsi canonici ecclesie maioris nobis longe a civitate occurrentes cum gaudio 321

143

Nevertheless, they hardly knew what to make of Nicene court protocol; on the day after their arrival, they were called into

the

presence

of

the

Patriarch

surrounded by attendant clergy.

himself,

who

was

The Patriarch asked them

if they were papal legates, and if they should therefore receive

the

honor

due

to

papal

legates.323

The

friars

responded that they were only messengers, and not legates, since they had not been sent to a council, but to the Patriarch himself.324 “honors”

that

the

They expressed the wish to avoid the Patriarch

was

offering

them.325

Nevertheless, the Patriarch insisted that even the least of the pope’s servants deserved “great reverence and honor,” and had the friars escorted back to their quarters by a retinue.326 The following day, they were led into the presence of the Nicene Emperor himself.

With the Patriarch and his

susceperunt, et unanimiter omnes cum honore et reverentia in civitatem introduxerunt. Et cum peteremus nos duci as maiorem ecclesiam, causa orationis, duxerunt nos ad aliam ecclesiam, ubi primum celebratum fuit concilium ostendentes nobis sanctos Patres, qui eidem concilio interfuerunt, in parietibus depictos. Deinde post multum civitatis circuitum, ad hospitium, quod dominus Imperator nobis honorifice preparari fecerat, comitantibus clericis et multitudine populosa, deduxerunt. In quo hospitio, quasi homines fatigati, solatia necessitatibus corporalibus habundanter preparata invenimus.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 428. 323 “Consequenter talem nobis fecit questionem: utrum essemus legati domini Pape, et honorem legatis debitum vellemus recipere?” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 428. 324 “Ad quam respondimus protestantes nos simplices nuncios esse, et honorem legatorum nolle recipere . . . iterum cum protestatione diximus nos non ad concilium sed ad ipsum Patriarcham esse destinatos.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 428-429. 325 “Considerantes etiam tantam cleri multitudinem, volentes vitare eorum astutias consuetas et fallacias.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 429. 326 “Nobis autem renuentibus oblatum honorem, magnam reverentiam et honorem etiam minimo nuncio domini Pape exhibendam esse protestatus est. Dum autem plurima verba ex utraque parte proferrentur in medium, tandem valedicto ei, ad supradictum hospitium nostrum honorifice a clero suo sumus reducti.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 429.

144

attendants

present,

the

friars

were

questioned

by

the

emperor as to their actual authority to make commitments on behalf of the pope.327 ratify

any

agreements

Their answer—that the papacy would or

commitments

that

they

made—was

apparently sufficient to quell Vatatzes’ anxiety, and the Greek

negotiators

therefore

their

negotiation.328

The

invited friars

the

did

friars

not

wish

to

begin

to

speak

first, declaring, “we have not been sent to dispute with you on any article of faith about which either the Roman church or we are in doubt, but rather that we might have an amicable meeting with you concerning those thing that are doubtful to you.

Therefore it shall be yours to show forth

your doubts, and it shall be ours to enlighten you”; the Greeks demurred, asking the friars to declare what those doubts might be.329

The friars then asked if the Greeks

could at least specify “what was the reason or cause” that led the Greek Church to withdraw itself from obedience to Rome.330

327

“Deinde proposita est questio de potestate nostra, ad quam sic respondimus: ‘Potestatem nostram tenor litterarum domini Pape vobis satis notificabit; et hoc addimus, quod quicquid super isto negotio bene fecerimus, ratum habebit et gratum Ecclesia Romana.’” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 429. 328 “Dixerunt, ‘igitur procedamus in negotio.’” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 429. 329 “Et cum multe proposite fuissent rationes hinc inde utrum ipsi vel nos inciperemus questionem, diximus, ‘Non missi sumus ad disputandum vobiscum super aliquo articulo fidei, de quo ambigat Ecclesia Romana vel nos, sed ut vobiscum amicabilem collationem habeamus super dubitabilibus vestris. Igitur vestrum erit illa ostendere, et nostrum erit illa per gratiam Dei elucidare.’ Ad quod ita responderunt: ‘Vos dicatis que sunt illa.’” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 429. 330 “Que fuit ratio, vel que causa, quare se subtraxit obedientie Ecclesie Romane?” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 429.

145

After much verbal sparring and maneuvering, the Greeks finally declared that their opposition to the Latin church rested

on

two

azymitism.331

principal

issues:

the

filioque

and

The friars appeared surprised, and could not

resist an initial exclamation of dismay that these issues were considered grave enough to justify “disobedience” to the Roman church.332 declared

that

Then, gathering themselves, the friars

since

this

theological

material

was

difficult, they would like to hold a liturgy the following day

to

invoke

the

Holy

Spirit,

“so

that

he

might

pour

himself into our minds through grace, and manifest to us the truth of his procession.”333

The Patriarch therefore

assigned the friars a church where they might hold a solemn liturgy the following day.334 In their account of the next day’s events, the friars left us with a fascinating anecdote that reveals much about the

situation

commitment

to

in

the

Nicene

dialogue.

Empire

The

and

friars

the

relate

Patriarch’s that,

the

following morning, when they went to the designated church 331

“Habito consilio, tale dederunt responsum: ‘Dicimus quod due sunt cause: una est de processione Spiritus Sancti, alia de Sacramento altaris.’” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 429. 332 “Ad hoc respondimus sic: ‘Si iste sunt cause et non alie, quare vos subtraxistis obedientie Ecclesie Romane, videamus si hee sint vel debeant esse sufficientes cause tante obedientie.’” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 429-430. 333 “Et addidimus: ‘Quoniam ardua est ista materia, et ad illam pertingere non poterit nostra parvitas, ubi sua inclinetur maiestas, crastina die vacabimus orationibus et missarum solempniis invocantes Spiritum Sanctum, ut seipsum per gratiam mentibus nostris infundat, et sue processionis veritatem nobis manifestet.’” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 430. 334 Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 430.

146

to

celebrate

Franks,

Mass,

there

appeared

and

diverse

Englishmen,

attending the Western liturgy.335

a

crowd

of

nations”

“Latins,

intent

on

In and of itself this

shows that there was a diverse population of Westerners resident

at

Nicaea;

beyond

that,

their

desire

to

take

advantage of this opportunity to attend a Latin liturgy is worthy of note.

After Mass, however, a certain Latin came

up to the friars “moaning and weeping,” because his Greek pastor had “placed him under a ban” as a punishment for attending the friars’ liturgy.336 this,

they

mourned

with

the

When the friars heard man;

two

of

interceded on his behalf with the Patriarch.

them

then

The friars

communicated to the Patriarch that this sentence was “an abominable church.”337

deed When

causing

injury

to

the

Patriarch

God

heard,

and he

the

whole

“wanted

to

dissimulate, rather than correct” the pastor in question, but when he saw how serious an injury the friars considered this,

he

accommodated

them

by

punishing

the

pastor

in

rather dramatic fashion: “he sent that pastor over to us with other clerics, who stripped the said pastor of his 335

“Mane autem facto, cum in dicta ecclesia celebraremus divina, convenerunt Latini, Francigene, Anglici et diverse nationes, ut divina audirent misteria.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 430. 336 “Finita autem missa, et divinis rite peractis, advenit ad nos quidam Latinus exultans et flens et dicens papatem suum eum supposuisse sententie, quia misse nostre interfuisset. Quo audito, doluimus.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 430. 337 “Et initio consilio, duos de Fratribus nostris ad Patriarcham transmisimus, illud tam abhominabile factum in iniuriam Dei et totius Ecclesie illatum ostendentes.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 430.

147

priestly garments, and led him, thus despoiled, through the town all the way back to the house of the Patriarch.”338 The friars, moved by the plea of his associates that the pastor had acted “from simplicity and not malice,” then interceded with the Patriarch so that “he might have pity on the simplicity of said pastor.”339 This incident is worthy of note for several reasons. First, it is apparent that the Latin faithful in Nicaea actually subject

attended to

Greek

considering advantage liturgy). friars

the

churches

pastors,

themselves of It

the is

interceded

Latins,

first perhaps in

while

of

the

at

(and

opportunity even

order

to

the

more get

Latins readmitted to his Greek church.

Greeks same

and time

therefore to

attend

noteworthy one

of

were still

taking a

Latin

that

their

the

fellow

This makes it clear

that the Latin friars had no objections to their faithful in Nicaea attending the Greek liturgy and receiving the sacraments

from

the

Greek

clergy;

they

regarded

the

sacraments of the Greeks as valid, and felt that it was their pastoral duty to secure access to those sacraments

338

“Quod audiens Patriarcha, dissimulare magis voluit quam corrigere. Attamen videns quod pro multa iniuria illud reputaremus factum, cum ceteris papatibus illum papatem ad nos transmisit, qui dictum papatem indumentis suis sacerdotalibus spoliaverunt, et ita exspoliatum per villam usque ad domum Patriarchae iterum deduxerunt.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 430. 339 “Et quia confessi fuerunt alii ex simplicitate non ex malitia hoc illum fecisse, ne immisericordes videremur in principio, rogavimus ipsum Patriarcham ut hav pena contentus, dicti papatis parceret simplicitati.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 430.

148

for

one

of

their

own

faithful.

Clearly,

the

Greek

clergyman in question did not have the same tolerant view of

the

friars’

liturgy

that

they

had

of

his.

Most

importantly, however, the Patriarch was willing (for the sake of accommodation with the friars) to punish the pastor in question, thus implying that it was acceptable for his subjects to attend the friars’ liturgy. The whole incident made enough of an impression on the friars

that

they

wanted

to

move

discussion

of

“the

Sacrament of the altar” to the top of the agenda, but the Greeks the

insisted

procession

“pertinaciously” of

the

that

they

Spirit.340

Holy

first

discuss

The

friars

acquiesced, and proposed, as a format for the discussion, that the Greek side ask questions and allow the friars to respond. ensued:

A bizarre but humorous sequence of events then the

Nicene

cartophylax

began

the

questioning,

asking the friars, “Do you believe that God is one in three divine persons?” the

questioner

unbegotten Spirit

who

After the friars’ affirmative response, then

Father,

the

proceeds

asked,

“Do

you

only-begotten from

the

340

believe

Son,

Father?”

and

in

the

the

Holy

The

friars

“Huius rei causa . . . voluimus primo agere de Sacramento altaris, ut sciremus quid sentirent de nostro Sacramento.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 430.

149

responded,

“We

believe,

and

we

tell

you

so.”341

This

response provoked a somewhat premature reaction from the cartophylax, who raised his hands up to heaven, “began to bless God in a loud voice, and when he had repeated the same words a second and third time, with us repeating the same response, added, ‘Here we find no controversy between you and us, may God be blessed through all things!’”342 It did not take long, however, for the nature of the misunderstanding

to

be

exposed.

The

confused

friars

responded, “If on this point you find no discord between the Roman church and the Greek, and through the grace of God we do not believe that you will find disagreement on the Sacrament of the altar; and there are no other causes of

the

church

schism of

withdrawn

than

the itself

these,

Greeks from

has

therefore become

obedience

unjustly and without cause.”343

without

cause

the

and

has

schismatic, to

the

Roman

church

After hearing this, the

Greek leaders huddled briefly, and the emperor himself came 341

“Surgens igitur Cartofilax eorum in medio, qui ecclesie patriarchalis dictus erat thesaurarius, et mandato tam Patriarche quam Imperatoris ita loqui exorsus est: ‘Creditis unum Deum esse in tribus personis?’ Respondimus: ‘Credimus.’ Et subjunxit: ‘Creditis Patrem ingenitum, Filium unigenitum, Spiritum Sanctum ex Patre procedentem?’ Respondimus: ‘Credimus, et dicitis vos ita.’” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 430. 342 “At homo ille, sicut videbatur mire simplicitatis, elevatis manibus ad celum, cepit grandi voce Deum benedicere, et cum secundo ac tertio eadem verba replicasset, nobis idem responsum iterantibus, adiunxit: ‘Hic nullam inter vos et nos invenimus controversiam; sit per omnia benedictus Deus!’” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 430-431. 343 “Ad hoc cepimus hoc modo respondere: ‘Si in isto articulo non invenitis discordiam inter Ecclesiam Romanam et Graecam, et per gratiam Dei in Sacramento altaris non credimus invenire discordiam; et alie cause non fuerunt cismatis ut iste: igitur sine causa facta est cismatica, et iniuste et sine causa se subtaxit obedientie Romane Ecclesie Ecclesia Grecorum.’” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 431.

150

back with a response: “We have heard that which you say as we do, but the lord Patriarch asks if you say something in addition,

because

something

to

the

we

have

symbol

heard

that

fathers in the council.”344

was

that

you

composed

have by

added

the

holy

The emperor added that it was

forbidden under pain of anathema to change the creed in any way, even by adding or changing a single letter, syllable, or

word.345

The

friars

asked

to

be

shown

where

this

prohibition could be found, at which point the Patriarch begged

to

adjourn

for

the

day,

promising

to

return

the

following day with his evidence.346 The following day, when the friars asked the Patriarch to fulfill his promise, he commanded one of his attendants to read from Cyril’s epistle to John the bishop of Antioch, wherein

Cyril

declares,

“we

have

spoken

of

the

Virgin

mother of God . . . adding nothing at all to the faith of the holy fathers who gathered at the Nicene synod: as we have preached, to suffice for all knowledge of piety, and

344

“Audimus quod vos dicitis sicut nos; sed querit dominus Patriarcha, si vos plus aliquid dicitis, quia audivimus quod vos addidistis aliquid Simbolo composito a sanctis patribus in concilio.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 431. 345 “Et prohibuerunt sub anathemate quod nemo auderet aliquid addere vel mutare vel litteram vel sillabam vel dictionem.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 431. 346 “Ad quod nos: ‘Ostendat nobis dominus Patriarcha illud scriptum.’ Tunc respondit Patriarcha et dixit: ‘Rogo caritatem vestram, ut hodie amodo parcatis mihi, quia fatigatus sum et infirmus: cras, Deo volente, convalescam et ostendam vobis illud quod promisi.’” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 431.

151

for the reprobation of every bad heretical opinion.”347

The

Patriarch then commented, “Here it is said that nothing must be added to the symbol of the holy fathers that was written at Nicaea.

Why then have you added?”348

The friars

were not impressed, noting that Cyril never said that no one should add anything, but only that he himself had not done so.349 The Patriarch insisted that Cyril’s letter proved his point, however, and asked his cleric to read further from the same text.

The second quotation was more direct; in it

Cyril condemns anyone who would alter the faith contained in the Nicene Creed.350

The friars were still not swayed;

they argued, in the first place, that they had not altered the faith of Nicaea in any way, and went on to turn the Greek argument on its head, saying “This authority is for us,

and

against

you

who

say

that

the

Spirit

does

not

proceed from the Son, which you will find said nowhere by

347

“De Dei . . . genetrice Virgine . . . dicimus . . . nichil omnino addentes sanctorum patrum, qui in Nicena synodo, edite fidei: sicut enim prediximus, ad omnem sufficere et pietatis cognitionem, et omnis heretice male opinionis reprobationem.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 431. 348 “Hic dicitur quod non est addendum symbolo sanctorum Patrum edito Nicee. Quare ergo addistis?” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 431. 349 “Ad quod respondimus hoc modo, ‘Non dicit hic Cirillus quod nemo addat, sed dicit breviter dicemus, nichil fidei patrum edite synodo 7icee addentes.’” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 431. 350 “Hiis dictis institerunt acrius ad probandum propositum, et revolventes in ea epistola, post non multa ceperunt legere, cuius lectionis talis fuit sententia: 7ullo autem modo moveri ab aliquibus definitam fidem, scilicet fidei symbolum, quod a sanctis nostris patribus, qui in 7icea convenerunt pro tempore; neque quidem permittimus nobismet vel aliis vel dictionem mutare eorum que ibi sunt posita, vel unam transgredi sillabam, memores illius qui dixit: 7e transgredieris terminos sempiternos quos constituerunt patres tui. 7on enim erant ipsi qui loquebantur, sed Spiritus Dei et Patris, qui procedit olim ex ipso. Est autem non alienus a Filio secundum essentie rationem.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 432.

152

your

saints

or

by

else.”351

anyone

The

Greeks

then

responded with a question, “we ask you if you have added anything to the creed.”352

The friars, “wishing to extract

from [the Greeks’] mouths the reason for our addition,” asked the Greeks to recite the Nicene Creed, knowing full well that the creed of Nicaea had been expanded at the Council of Constantinople.353

When the Greeks recited the

creed, including in it those clauses that had been added at Constantinople, the friars pounced: “If what you say is true,

that

your

saints

prohibited

anyone

to

add

to

the

Nicene Creed . . . who added or dared to add those things that were attached to the Nicene Creed at the Council of Constantinople?”354 The friars’ line of argumentation appeared to catch the Greeks off-guard; the friars avoided the pitfall of earlier generation of Latin polemicists, many of whom were not aware that the filioque was absent from the original Nicene creed.355

After a brief pause to gather their wits,

351

“Ad quod tale dedimus responsum: ‘De illa fide nichil mutavimus, nec transgressi sumus, nec sillabam, nec iota. Unde ista auctoritas pro nobis est, et contra vos, qui dicitis quod Spiritus non procedit a Filio, quod nusquam dictum a sanctis vestris vel quoquam invenietis.’” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 432. 352 “Videntes igitur quod non poterant suum ostendere propositum, talem nobis fecerunt questionem: ‘Querimus si vos aliquid addidistis simbolo.’” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 432. 353 “Diximus nos: ‘Legatur symbolum et scietis.’ Et cepit quidam legere symbolum Constantinopolitanum, quod erat factum in secundo concilio. Nos vero cogitantes rationem nostre additionis de suo ore extrahere.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 432. 354 “Si verum est quod dicitis, quod sancti vestri prohibuerunt quod nullus adderet simbolo Niceno nec mutaret vel transgrederetur aliquid, quis addidit aut ausus fuit adere ea que sunt apposita simbolo Niceno in Synodo Constantinopolitana?” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 432. 355 Cf. Cardinal Humbert’s 11th-century rant in Geanakoplos, Byzantium, no. 151 (208-209).

153

the Greeks responded that the portion of the creed attached by

the

second

ecumenical

council

was

not,

in

fact,

an

“addition,” but rather an expression of the truth contained in the original creed.356

The Greeks went on to argue that

an “expression of the truth” is not the same thing as an addition or a change to the creed, and is therefore not forbidden.357

This,

of

course,

played

right

into

the

friars’ hands; they were then able to argue, “according to the

reasoning

filioque

that

was

not

[the

an

Greeks]

addition

or

had a

given,”

change

to

that the

the creed

either, so long as it could be proven to be an “expression of the truth.”358

Thus, in discussing the filioque, the

friars

to

were

able

parry

successfully

the

charge

of

altering or adding to the creed, and to turn the discussion to the theological issue of whether or not the Holy Spirit does in fact proceed from both the Father and the Son. Well

prepared

for

discussing

this

subject—the

friars

mention later that they had brought “a copious multitude of Greek books” from Constantinople—they overwhelmed the Greek 356

“Unde tandem post multa consilia et subterfugia compulsi responderunt, quod not fuerat illud additio, sed veritatis expressio.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 432-433. 357 “Deinde interrogantibus nobis, utrum aliud esset simbolum a primo propter illam expressionem, responderunt quod idem fuit simbolum, non mutatum, quia vertatis expressio non facit aliud simbolum, neque mutat, neque facit additionem simbolo.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 433. 358 “Ex iam dictis habuimus nostram conclusionem ad nostrum negotium et dictum confirmandum, quia illa appositio quam dicunt nos fecisse, scilicet Filioque, non est additio aliqua, nec mutatio simboli, nec facit aliud simbolum, hoc probato tantum quod esset verum quod appositum est. Institerunt igitur querentes quid addidissemus simbolo. Et licet potuissemus respondisse bene et vere: ‘Nichil addidimus,’ secundum rationem quam nobis dederant.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 433.

154

representatives

with

quotations

from

Cyril

of

Alexandria

and the Athanasian creed, all of which supported the dual procession

of

the

Spirit.359

Holy

The

evening’s

conversation was thus brought to a close. The

following

day

was

Satuday,

a

day

of

fast

for

medieval Westerners; in their account, the friars express amazement

at

the

Greeks’

feasting,

concluding

“sabbatize in almost the same way as Jews.”360

that

they

The Greek

negotiators adopted a new strategy; rather than debate with the friars on the speculative theology of the Holy Spirit’s procession, they sought to turn the discussion back to the issue of the creed, asking the friars to explain who added the filioque to it, as well as when, where, and why.361

The

friars, being unprepared for this question, tried to turn the discussion back to speculative theology, demanding that the Greeks declare firmly if they believe that the Holy 359

“Respondimus: ‘Sancti vestri istud probent. Audiamus b. Cirillum in primo sermone de latria, ubi ita dicit: Spiritus Sanctus nullo modo mutabilis est; quod si mutabile, infirmitatis est, ipsa macula in divinam redunaret naturam, cum sit Dei Patris et utique Filii, qui substantialiter ex ambobus profunditur. Idem in epistola ad Nestorium, que sic incipit: Salvatore nostro dicante etc: Etsi est in ypostasi Spiritus propria, et intellegitur per se secundum quod Spiritus non est Filius; non est tamen alienus ab eo. Spiritus enim veritatis nominatus est, et est Christus veritas, et profunditur ab eo quemadmodum et a Deo Patre.’ Ad istas auctoritates responderunt quod profundi non est procedere. Sed b. Cirillus ipsos redarguit, dicens quid autem sit profundi. Nam idem Cyrillus in expositione symboli Niceni: Transigentes de Christo sermonem ter beati Patres sancti Spiritus memoriam faciunt. Credere enim dixerunt in eum tanquam in Deum Patrem et Filium, consubstantialis enim est ei et profunditur, id est, procedit. Item Athanasius in edictione fidei cuius initium est Credo in unum ingenitum Deum, in fine sic ait: Spiritus autem Sanctus processura ens Patris et ferentis Filii, per quem inplevit omnia. His autem auctoribus manifeste dicitur quod Spiritus Sanctus sit a Filio sicut a Patre.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 433-434. 360 “Sabbato distulerunt disputationem usque post prandium, quia sabbatizant fere more Iudeorum,” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 434. 361 “Dicite nobis: Quis apposuit, et quando, et ubi, et qua de causa fuit appositum quod vos dicitis in symbolo, scilicet Filioque?” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 434.

155

Spirit does not proceed from the Son.362

The Greeks were

unwilling to go this far, saying only that they did not believe in procession from the Son, while refusing to say that they believed in procession not from the Son.363

This

frustrated the friars, who conclude that the Greeks lacked the courage to confess their faith.364 The Greeks, however, insisted on a response to their original

questions

about

the

origins

of

the

clause.

The friars admit that, seeing how late it was,

filioque

they (the friars) tried to dissimulate long enough to delay their response until the following meeting, which would not be until Monday.

In this they were thwarted by the clever

Greeks, who lit candles and lamps throughout the palace, turning “the night into day.”365

Backed into a corner, the

friars settled on a bold response, declaring that Christ himself was the one who first added the filioque, in the sixteenth

chapter

of

John’s

362

Gospel,

where

he

told

the

“Et nos cognoscentes astutiam eorum, cum crederent nos nec scire nec posse respondere, cogitabant coram omni multitudine nos confundere, et sic pateret omnibus eos vicisse. Questionem quam fecerant, retorsimus super eos hoc modo: ‘Dixistis et bene, quod catholicum non decet fidem abscondere, sed palam confiteri quod credit. Ergo si creditis, quod non a Filio procedat Spiritus, tenemini nobis querentibus confiteri. Querimus igitur si creditis et dicitis quod non a Filio?’” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 434. 363 “Responderunt: ‘Non credimus quod a Filio.’ Et nos: ‘Hoc non querimus, sed si creditis quod dicitis quod non a Filio?’” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 434. 364 “Et cum hoc nollent manifeste confiteri, erant de verbo suo redarguti, quia quod credebant non erant ausi confiteri.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 434. 365 “Institerunt ergo questioni sue, ut responderemus. Nos videntes quia nox iam erat, tantam questionem inchoare credebamus non esse bonum. Proposuimus dissimulare et non tunc respondere. At ipsi institerunt; accendentes cereos et lucernas per palatium, nitebantur noctem in diem convertere.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 434.

156

disciples, “When the Spirit of Truth shall come, he shall teach you all truth.”366

They announced that they would

prove their point “through the Gospel, through the epistles of Paul, through the holy writings of your saints, and ours if

you

would

like

to

admit

them,

such

as

Augustine,

Gregory, Jerome, Ambrose, Hilary, and many others.”367

This

dramatic declaration apparently struck the whole assembly silent

for

several

moments;

finally

it

was

the

Emperor

himself who spoke, uttering the single word “Kalo.”368 The

Emperor

and

Patriarch

appointed

one

of

their

“philosophers” to deal with the friars’ arguments, which began

with

above:

Cum

veritatem.369

the

quotation

venerit

from

Spiritus

John’s

veritatis

Gospel docebit

mentioned vos

omnem

One of the friars then declared, “When he

said the Spirit of truth, he meant that the Holy Spirit proceeds from truth, and this we mean to prove.”370

366

The

“Nos igitur videntes omnium communem instantiam, tale dedimus responsum: ‘Ut sciatis quod fides Romane Ecclesie non querat subterfugium vel per altercationem, nec pudeat nos fidem nostram confiteri, hoc modo ad vestras questiones respondemus. Prima questio vestra fuit: Quis apposuit et dixit primo? Diximus quod Christus. Ubi? In Evangelio. Quando? Quando ait: Cum venerit Spiritus veritatis, docebit vobis omnem veritatem.’” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 434-435. 367 “Quare? Propter instructionem piorum et confusionem hereticorum qui hunc articulum negaturi erant; et quicumque istam fidem non habent, in via perditionis sunt. Et quod hoc sit verum quod diximus, probamus per Evangelium, per Epistolas Pauli per agiographa sanctorum vestrorum, et per nostros, si illos admittere velletis, ut Augustinum, Gregorium, Ieronymum, Ambrosium, Hylarium, et plures alios.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 435. 368 “His dictis obstupuerunt omnes. Et omnibus tacentibus, dixit Imperator grece: ‘Calo.’” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 435. 369 “Introduxerunt ibi quendam phylosophum causa respondendi, ut nostras impediret rationes.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 435. 370 “Et adiunxit, post consilium longum habitum cum suis sapientibus: ‘Ostendite nobis ubi in Evangelio dicitur illud, quod Spiritus Sanctus procedit a Filio.’ Et revolvens bibliam, unus cepit legere

157

friar

then

began

to

interrogate

the

Greek

philosopher,

asking him what spirit was referred to in the passage; the Greek, of course, responded that it was the Holy Spirit.371 The friar then asked him what the “truth” was that was referred to in the passage: “was it Christ, or not?”372 responded

in

the

negative;

when

pressed

on

whether

He the

“truth” in this passage referred to created or uncreated truth, he responded “created.”373

When the friars pointed

out that this was the heresy of the Macedonians, which had been

condemned

at

the

second

ecumenical

council,

he

retreated, “terrified,” and stammered that the “Spirit of truth” was the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Christ.374

The

friars then asked the man why the Holy Spirit was called the Spirit of Christ the Son of God; after conferring with his colleagues, he responded that it was because the Holy

illud Ioannis: Cum venerit Spiritus veritatis docebit vobis omnem veritatem. Et adiecit: ‘Cum dixit Spiritus veritatis, dixit quod Spiritus sanctus a veritate procedit, et hoc volumus probare.’” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 435. 371 “Et cepimus opponere hoc modo: ‘Spiritus, prout in hoc loco sumitur, pro quo spiritu supponitur?’ Respondit: ‘Pro Spiritu sancto.’” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 435. 372 “‘Item veritatis prout hoc sumitur, pro qua veritate, vel pro Christo vel non?’ Respondit ‘Multiplex est veritas, alia complexorum, alia incomplexorum, etc.’ ‘Et vos dicitis quod veritas prout hoc loco sumitur, dicitur multiplex, vel est multiplex?’ Et tunc respondit quod non. At nos: ‘Vel supponit Christum vel non?’ Respondit: ‘Non.’” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 435. 373 “Et nos contra: ‘Vel veritas, prout hic ponitur, supponit veritatem creatam vel increatam?’ At ille: ‘Creatam.’” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 435. 374 “Et nos diximus: ‘Ergo creaturam.’ Et adiecimus: ‘Ex hoc sequitur heresis Macedonii dapnata in secundo concilio.’ Et territus cepit concedere veritatem, dicens: ‘Spiritus veritatis, id est Spiritus sanctus, qui est Spiritus Christi.’” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 435.

158

Spirit was “consubstantial” with the Son.375

The friars

responded that this could not be a sufficient reason, since the Father is also consubstantial with the Son, and yet it would be incorrect to refer to the Father as “the Spirit of the Son.”376

This marked the end of the Saturday session;

the friars remark that by this time it was already the “second vigil of the night.”377 After a day off on Sunday, the friars returned to the imperial palace on Monday to resume disputations.

As soon

as discussions had begun, the Emperor himself intervened, asking the friars to show forth the truth with simplicity, instead

of

philosophy,”

proceeding for

“from

“syllogistically” such

contentions and quarrels.”378

kind

of

and

disputation

“with arise

The friars blamed the emperor

for sending “complex and sophisticated men” against them, but promised that if he wished “to know the truth simply,”

375

“Et nos: ‘Spiritus sanctus est et dicitur Spiritus Christi Filii Dei, ut vos profitemini, querimus qua de causa?’ At consilio habito, responderunt, quia eiusdem substantie est cum Filio.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 435. 376 “Ad hec diximus: ‘Si hec sufficiens ratio et recta, quare Spiritus sanctus dicitur Spiritus Filiii, quia consubstantialis ei, sed Pater est consubstantialis Filio, ergo Pater est et debet dici Spiritus Filii, quod falsum est. Ergo primum: unde illud sequitur, scilicet quod hec est causa quare dicitur Spiritus Filii, quia consubstantialis.’” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 435. 377 “Et hiis dictis, ab invicem discessimus, iam credimus quod venerat fere secunda vigilia noctis.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 435. 378 “Vacantibus nobis officio Dominica dominico, secunda feria secunde ebdomade, mane, accessimus ad disputationem ad palatium Imperatoris, et incipientes disputationem contra phylosophos suos, corripuit Imperator dicens: ‘Vestrum est simpliciter sine phylosophia monstrare veritatem questionis, nec vestrum est silogistice procedere: ex tali enim disputatione oriuntur contentiones et lites. Melius est ut simpliciter procedatis.’” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 435-436.

159

they would manifest everything as easily and briefly as possible.379

The Emperor responded with his laconic Kalo.380

The friars then argued that there are only three possible interpretations of the doctrine that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Son: 1) that this refers to the Spirit’s consubstantiality with the Son, 2) that the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of the Son because the Son sent the Holy Spirit

to

his

creatures,

proceeds from the Son.381 was

endorsed

by

the

and

3)

that

the

Holy

Spirit

The first of these three options

Greek

negotiator

at

the

previous

session, but the friars discarded it for the reasons given above.

As far as the second interpretation is concerned,

the friars point out that the Holy Spirit is referred to as “the Spirit of the Son from eternity,” but the Son did not send

the

Holy

Spirit

upon

the

world

from

eternity.382

Therefore, they argue that the only option left is to admit that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son. 379

When they

“Cui taliter respondimus: ‘Quoniam, ut dicit Apostolus, servum Dei non oportet litigare, nobis plus placet veritatem simpliciter monstrare, quam ad lites vel obviationes contendere: et dicere possumus cum Apostolo: Stulti facti sumus, vos coegistis nos, quoniam respondentes, non simplices sed multiplices et sophisticos dedistis. Set ex quo id vestra deposcit intentio, ut simpliciter veritatem veritatem cognoscatis, omnibus facillime et brevibus quasi demonstrando manifestabimus.’” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 436. 380 Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 436. 381 “Quesivimus nos heri a vestris phylosophis quare Spiritus sanctus dicitur Spiritus Filii ab eterno? Ad quam questionem tres tantum videntur cause posse assignari: vel quia eiusdem substantie, ut ipse vester sapiens respondit; vel quia mittit Filius Spiritum in creaturas; vel quia procedit ab eo.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 436. 382 “Quod non sit Spiritus Filii ab eterno, quia consubstantialis, videtur, quia simili ratione esset Pater Spiritus Filii, quoniam est ei consubstantialis. Item nec quia mittit eum in creaturas, quoniam Spiritus sanctus erat Filii ab eterno, set ab eterno non misit Filius Spiritum in creaturas: ergo ista non fuit causa quare dictus est Spiritus Filii ab eterno, quia ab eterno non misit eum Filius in creaturas. Restat igitur tertia ratio: quia procedit a Filio, ideo dicitur vere Spiritus Filii.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 436.

160

heard this reasoning, the Greeks asked for a copy of the argument written in Greek, as well as a two-day recess to deliberate; the friars therefore withdrew for the rest of Monday and Tuesday.383 As related by the friars, the sequence of events that began

Tuesday

evening

figures

among

the

more

bizarre

episodes in the entire text.

They relate that they were

called

Patriarch

to

the

house

of

the

sometime

Tuesday

evening, and that when they got there, the Patriarch read them a lengthy, rambling statement of his position, which the friars describe as “more ridiculous than true,” and shocking

in

its

puerility.384

The

friars

debated

among

themselves as to whether they should accept a copy of it; they were prepared to respond to it right away, but agreed to take a copy.385

The Greeks then invited them to withdraw

to their lodging, promising to send the text after them. What happened next is truly bizarre. 383

The friars relate

“Quam rationem cum audissent, petierunt ut copia huius rationis in scripto daretur eis. Quam primo datam in latino, in grecum petierunt sibi transferri. Et factum est ita. Petierunt postmodum indutias deliberandi super hac ratione, et habuerunt secunda et tertia feria indutias.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 436 384 “Circa horam vespertinam tertie ferie, missum est pro nobis ut iremus ad domum Patriarche; et accessimus. At ubi venissemus, clero suo adunato, precepit adduci scriptum magnum et prolixum, in quo dixit contineri tenorem sue rationis ad nostram oppositionem. Nos vero cognoscentes, quia simplicem rationem communiter loquentes proposueramus, quod ad contra nos scriberent non credebamus, set quod simpliciter veritati agnite acquiescerent. Set ex quo cognovimus illos malitiose procedere, voluimus rescriptum suum audire, in quo multas truphas audivimus et falsa et mendacia et multa puerilia, que sine admiratione audire non poteramus, quia plus erant ridiculosa quam vera.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 436437. 385 “Habito ergo consilio inter nos, utrum illud tam ridiculosum scriptum reciperemus, vel sine consilio scripti in crastino ad suum scriptum prout decuit responderemus (quia etiam tunc eramus ad ea que coram nobis recitaverant parati respondere), tunc, potius ad confusionem, quam ad nostrum solatium, quia nobis suum scriptum obtulerant, proposuimus accipere.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 437.

161

that no text arrived at their lodging until the whole night had passed, and when it did arrive the following morning, it

was

completely

different

from

the

listened to the previous evening.386

one

that

they

had

The following day,

more strangeness ensued, as the friars received messengers from the Patriarch and the Emperor telling them that no meetings

would

illness.387 messengers another

be

held

that

day

due

to

the

Patriarch’s

Later in the day, however, the Emperor sent inviting

session

of

them

to

the

theological

Patriarch’s

disputation.

house When

for they

arrived, they were asked if they had seen the text, at which the friars, in the presence of the whole assembly, accused the Patriarch of deception.388 The friars then explained that they had not yet had the

time

to

translate

the

document;

they

therefore

requested that one of the Greeks read it out, so that they could respond point by point.

The document was extremely

lengthy, and the friars provide us with a complete Latin

386

“Nobis itaque recedentibus, inierunt consilium et scriptum novum componerent, et mutatis pro maiori parte hiis que erant in primo scripto, nova et alia a recitatis paulo ante, consilio suorum sapientum, scripserunt, et tantam moram protraxerunt in scripture mutatione, ut quando debuimus lectos ingredi scriptum nobis transmiserunt, et quia tempus noctis transierat, translationi supersedimus usque in crastinum.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 437. 387 “Interim misit ad nos Patriarcha, ut parceremus ei, quia multum distemperatus erat, nec poterat illa die accedere ad disputationem.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 437. 388 “Sed postquam comederant, misit ad nos Imperator, ut ad domum Patriarche, causa disputationis, accederemus. Convenientibus itaque nobis ad domum Patriarche, fuit questio prima, an rescriptum suum vidissemus? Et coram omnibus dolum, quem moliti fuerant circa illud scriptum, recitavimus, necdum scriptam translationem asseruiumus, ut verum fuit.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 437.

162

translation.389 friars'

Effectively,

syllogism--that

it

there

is

are

a

response

only

three

to

the

possible

conclusions if the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Son ab aeterno, and that of the three, the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son is the only one that can serve as an acceptable explanation. The text begins by arguing that, unlike conclusions which

need

to

be

demonstrated,

the

first

principles

of

theology are indemonstrable, as is the case in the other sciences.390

For Christian theology, the text argues, the

indemonstrable first principles are the words of Christ, which

in

this

case

speak

of

proceeds from the Father.”391

“the

Spirit

of

truth

who

They argue that Christ spoke

“without syllogism,” and that the teaching he uttered had been

adhered

immemorial.392 Spirit

is

Christ,”

to

by

Fathers

Similarly,

referred

but

the

not

to

with

they

and point

in

Scripture

the

friars'

councils out as

since

that the

the

time Holy

“spirit

additional

words

of ab

389 As the friars explain, Tamen diximus: “Quia nolumus tempus cira illud scriptum consumere, legatur scriptum coram nobis [presumably in Greek, cf. Wolff “The Latin Empire and the Franciscans,”], et responsum dabimus.” Their Latin translation of the text, which they apparently found time to work on later, is found on pages 438-442 of Golubovich's edition. Unfortunately, as Golubovich notes, the original Greek is lost. 390 “Omne principium sive theologicum, sive physicum, sive mathmaticum, sive cuiuscunque scientie vel artis, non eget demonstratione.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 438. 391 “Principium autem orthodoxorum Christianorum fidei, et maxime quantum attinet circa veracem theologiam, a Deo dicta sunt verba Christi.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 438. 392 “Docuit nos Christus sine sillogismo, unde habet [Spiritus] existentiam, dicens: ‘Spiritus veritatis qui a Patre procedit. . . .’ Hoc dogma et Apostoli et omnes sancte synodi sine transgressione conservaverunt usque ad finem.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 438.

163

aeterno—instead, they argue that he should be called “the of

point.

The Greeks are trying to argue that the Holy Spirit

can

called

be

Christ

secula.”393

Spirit

ante

“the

Spirit

of

This

Christ”

is

on

an

the

important

following

grounds: that it is through Christ that the Holy Spirit was poured out upon God's creatures, rather than because of the Holy Spirit's procession.

Therefore, they note that in

scripture, God is called Rex ante secula, and conditor ante secula, even though calling him king and creator implies that there are subjects and creatures, who clearly did not exist ante secula.394 Spirit

is

called

Similarly, they argue that the Holy

the

Spirit

of

Christ

because

it

was

through Christ that he was poured out on creation, and that even though creation did not exist ante secula, one can still speak of the Holy Spirit as Spirit of Christ ante secula. In support of the second possible reason—namely, that the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of Christ because he is

consubstantial

with

the

Son—the

393

text

cites

ambiguous

“Dicimus ergo in primis: Qualis scriptura nominavit Spiritum sanctum Spiritum Christi ad eterno? Spiritum enim Christi novimus divinam Scripturam dicentem, set non cum additione, sicut vos dixistis: Spiritus Christi ab eterno; neque enim Christus, secundum quod Christus, coinprincipatum habet Patri et Spiritui, set secundum solam Deitatem; et Spiritus quidem ante secula, unctio vero recens, sicut Christus in semetipso recipiens illud Ysaie dixit: Spiritus Domini super me, propter quod unxit me.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 438-439. 394 “Verumtamen si et hoc dicatur, sic dici potest sicut intellegitur Rex ante secula, nondum super que regnaret introductis, et Conditor ante secula, nondum que condita sunt factis, et Benefactor [ante secula], nondum quibus benefaceret existentibus.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 439.

164

patristic support from Cyril of Alexandria and Basil the Great.395

The remainder of the text attempts to refute the

friars' reasoning from the previous sessions.396

As soon as

the reading of the text was finished, Vatatzes demanded that it be “dismissed,” as it would do nothing but give rise

to

contention.397

The

friars

refuse

to

take

the

emperor at his word, arguing that he condemned the text because he knew that the Greeks would not be able to defend it

against

the

interesting

arguments.398

friars'

issue

of

interpretation:

This one

creates

must

an

consider

Vatatzes' actions in light of his broader commitment to encourage some sort of theological compromise.

Throughout

the entire narrative, as the Greek theologians and Latin friars the

raise

two

dismantle Vatatzes

insurmountable

sides, those simply

it

is

theological

always

barriers. realized

the Here,

that

the

barriers

between

emperor

who

it

possible

text

is

tries

produced

by

to

that the

Greek delegation would have placed the quarrel beyond the point of reconciliation, if acknowledged as the official position of the Nicene church.

Given the high stakes, one

can see why he would wish to “dismiss” the text, and go on 395

Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 439. Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 439-442. 397 “Dimittatur illud scriptum, quia non generat nisi contentionem.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 396

442-443. 398

“Imperator vero ex quo audivit ipsos non posse scripta sua defendere, volens illorum protegere turpitudinem.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 442.

165

to

encourage

the

friars

to

show

the

truth

“through

the

writings of the saints.”399 Rather than insisting on grappling with the reasoning in the text—though this was undoubtedly what they wanted to do--the friars took up the emperor's invitation to find grounds

for

compromise

in

the

writings

of

mutually

venerated saints; one of them opened the “book of St. Cyril on the nine-fold anathema,” and “began to read in Greek.”400 The

text

from

relationship

St.

Cyril

between

the

of

Alexandria

Son

and

deals

the

with

Spirit,

the and

anathematizes anyone who distinguishes between the Son and Spirit by saying that Son did not have the power to act against demons or work miracles on his own, but only by an “outside power” given to him, from without, by the Holy Spirit.401

Cyril's text emphasizes that the Holy Spirit

should be described as “the Son's own Spirit, through which he worked divine signs.”402

Cyril went on in the quoted

section to explain that the Son possessed the Holy Spirit “as his own” (proprium) because of his relationship to the

399

“Procedamus in questione vestra, et ostendatis per sanctorum scripta hec esse vera que vos dicitis.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 443. 400 “Et continuo unus de Fratribus nostris, cui Dominus dederat gratiam in litteratura Grecorum, revolvit librum beati Kyrilli de IX anathematismo et incepit grece legere.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 443. 401 “Si quis dicit unum Dominum Iesum Christum clarificari a Spiritu tanquam aliena virtute, que per ipsum utentem et ab ipso accipientem operari posse contra spiritus immundos, et implere in homines divina signa . . . anathema sit.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 443. 402 “Si quis . . . non magis proprium eius Spiritum dicit, per quem operatus est divina signa, anathema sit.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 443.

166

Father,

in

which

he

was

like

the

Father

in

all

things

except actually being the Father.403 The Cyril's which

friars text,

one

appended

noting

person

of

an

argument

that

there

the

Trinity

being begotten, and proceeding.

were

of

their

only

two

exists

“from

own

to

modes

in

another”:

They asserted that since

it is impossible to deny that the Holy Spirit is clearly the Spirit of the Son, and he cannot be begotten of the Son (for

then

there

would

be

two

Fathers

and

two

Sons),

procession is only way to describe the relationship between the Holy Spirit and the Son.404 This citation from Cyril put the whole discussion of the Filioque to rest.

The emperor suggested that St. Cyril

may have spoken “more widely than was right” in his zeal to condemn heresy, but he quickly backed away from such an audacious

idea.405

The

friars

ended

the

discussion

by

asserting that St. Cyril's writings left no room for doubt— anyone who denied the dual procession of the Holy Spirit was anathema—and with that, the day's discussion ended. 403

“Omna existens quecunque Pater, excepto solo esse Pater, et proprium habens . . . Spiritum sanctum.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 443. 404 “In hac auctoritate Kyrilli dicitur Spiritum sanctum proprium Spiritum Filii, qui est ex Filio substantialiter; sed non potest esse Spiritus a Filio substantialiter nisi nascendo vel procedendo, quia non sunt plures modi in Trinitate essendi, unam personam ex altera. Set non potest esse ex eo per generationem, quia tunc esst duo Patres et duo Filii in Trinitate. Restat ergo quod sit ex eo per processionem.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 443. 405 “Et cum non haberent quid possent de iure contradicere, cepit eos excusare Imperator dicens, ‘Ibi locutus est Kyrillus contra hereticum, et ideo locutus est largius, quam ius erat.’” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 443.

167

Having exhausted the issue of the filioque, the friars wished

to

discuss

the

other

issue

that

the

Greeks

had

brought up at the beginning, namely, the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist.406 disputations, friars’

the

account,

After an entire day of fruitless

details the

of

which

Nicene

proposal to the Westerners.

are

Patriarch

absent made

from a

the

fateful

He observed that this question

of the Eucharistic species was a difficult one; not feeling qualified desired

to to

reply

to

confer

the

with

Western the

Orthodox

Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.407 the

friars

to

attend

a

council

arguments

alone,

Patriarchs

he of

He therefore invited

“around

the

middle

of

March”—i.e. in about two months’ time—so that the friars could hear the response of the Orthodox patriarchs to their arguments in defense of azymitism.408

The friars’ response

was a cautious rejection of the invitation; they observed that they had given sufficient notice that the papacy had not authorized them to represent the Western church at any council, or to any Patriarch other than that of Nicaea.409

406

Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 444. “Respondit [Patriarcha] dicens: ‘Ardue sunt hec questiones. Et habemus fratres nostros Patriarcham Ierosolimitanum, Alexandrinum, Antiochenum, sine quorum consilio non est nobis fas ad ita respondere.’” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 444. 408 “Convocabimus concilium circa medium martii. Rogamus vos ut intersitis illi concilio, et audietisquid respondebitur vobis super hiis que nobis proposuistis.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 444. 409 “Ad hec respondimus hoc modo: ‘Satis vobis notificavimus quod ad nullum concilium vel Patriarcham alium misit nos dominus Papa, cuius sanctitatis nos servi sumus.’” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 444. 407

168

Being

unwilling

to

exceed

their

mandate,

or

to

make

commitments prejudicial to the papacy, the friars advised the

Patriarch

write

when

it

to

have

was

the

council

without

completed.410

The

them,

friars

and

told

to the

Patriarch that they would remain in Constantinople at least until

the

middle

of

March

awaiting

his

reply

with

the

results of the council, “so that we might know what sure thing to relay, concerning this business, to him who sent us.”411 On Friday, the friars went to take their leave of John Vatatzes, who was also due to leave Nicaea the following day.412

They

were

surprised

to

find

the

emperor

and

patriarch together, and in their conversation, “the Emperor began to confer with us regarding the form under which the Patriarch and Church of the Greeks could be reconciled to the Roman Church.”413

The friars' response was that the

churches could be reconciled if the Greek Church believed what the Roman Church believed, and if it obeyed the Roman Church “in those things in which it obeyed prior to the 410

“Ideo nec audemus, nuc volumus nos ad aliqua supra mandatum suum extendere, que sint preiudicium sanctitatis sue vel Ecclesie Romane. Hoc tamen consulimus vobis, ut, convocatis fratribus vestris, bonum et efficax et maturum habeatis consilium de pace et reformatione Ecclesie.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 444. 411 “Et illud nobis Constantinopolim scribetis; ibidem nos credimus commorari ad petitionem vestram usque ad medium martium, et expectabimus vestrum responsum, ut sciamus quid certum possimus de isto negotio illi qui nos misit renunciare.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 444. 412 “Sexta autem feria, celebrata missa, accesimus ad curiam, ut licentiam acciperemus ab Imperatore, quoniam mane erat recessurus.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 444. 413 “Et inventis simul Imperatore et Patriarcha, cepit Imperator conferre nobiscum, sub qua forma posset Patriarcha et Ecclesia Grecorum reconciliari Ecclesie Romane.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 445.

169

schism.”414

The emperor’s response—which Wolff was quite

right to seize on as important—was to ask, “If the Lord Patriarch wished to obey the Roman Church, would the Lord Pope restore his right to him?,” his “right” being the see of Constantinople.415

This, of course, was not something

that the friars were in any position to guarantee, and so they responded with an ambiguous promise that the Patriarch “would receive more mercy than he believes, in the sight of the Lord Pope and the whole Roman Church.”416 Thus

ended

the

negotiations

of

January,

1234;

the

friars returned to Constantinople, where they were shocked to receive, around the middle of March, an invitation to attend

the

Nicene

Patriarch’s

council.417

The

friars

observe that “As though being forgetful of the agreement made among us at Nicaea, in every way he supposed in his letter that we were about to come there.”418

The friars

marveled at this, and wrote back to the Patriarch telling

414

“Ad quod tale dedimus responsum: ‘Hoc modo posset reconciliari, si crederet hoc quod credit Ecclesia Romana et predicaret (utrum cantaret vel non, non faceret magnam vim, credimus, Ecclesia Romana) [here the friars are speaking in reference to the filioque] et obediret ei eodem modo, et in illis in quibus obedivit ante cisma.’” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 445. 415 “Et adiecit Imperator: ‘Si dominus Patriarcha velit obedire Ecclesie Romane, restituet ei dominus Papa ius suum.’” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 445. 416 “Ad hec respondimus hoc modo: ‘Si Patriarcha obedientiam et ea que matri sue debet, solvat, credimus quod misericordiam maiorem invenit, quam credat, coram domino Papa et tota Ecclesia Romana.’” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 445. 417 “Circa medium vero martii misit nobis Patriarcha nuntium unum cum litteris suis rogans, ut accederemus ad Leschara quoddam Vatacii: ibi enim promisit coadunare prelatos et patriarchas suos, et convocare concilium.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 445. 418 “Et quasi inmemor conventionis facte inter nos Nicee, omni modo suppossuit in litteris suis, quod illuc eramus venturi.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 445.

170

him so.419

Nevertheless, they decided that they did not

want to lose the fruit of so much labor, and in their reply to the Patriarch they told him that they would delay their return to the papal court until the end of March, long enough for the Patriarch to hold the council and send them a report on its proceedings.420

They did receive a letter

from the Patriarch at the end of March, but contrary to their

expectations

it

was

a

renewed

attendance at the council.421 went

so

far

as

to

plea

for

their

The Nicene Patriarch even

write

to

the

friars’

respective

superiors, “promising that if we came to the council we would return to the curia with great joy.”422 received

a

letter

from

John

Vatatzes,

They also

begging

them

to

attend the council, and promising that if they did so he would take care of their passage back to Italy, returning them in the company of the envoys that he would be sending to

the

pope

after

the

successful

conclusion

of

the

council.423

The import of these letters was clear: both

emperor

patriarch

and

were

all

but

promising

that

this

council would result in a union of the churches. 419

“Nos itaque admirantes de tali mandato, rescripsimus quod super hoc admirati sumus quamplurimum . . .” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 445. 420 “Verumtamen ne labor noster fiat infructuosus . . . propter vestrum commodum usque ad exitum martii iterum expectamus.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 445. 421 Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 445. 422 “. . . promittens quod si veniremus ad concilium, cum magna letitia rediremus ad curiam.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 446. 423 Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 446.

171

In addition to the carrot being held out by the Nicene Emperor their

and

Patriarch,

decision

to

however,

attend

was

the

friars

influenced

by

remark the

that

extreme

weakness of the Latin Empire under John of Brienne: The land of Constantinople was as though destitute of all protection: the lord Emperor John was a pauper. All the mercenary soldiers were gone. The ships of the Venetians, Pisans, Anconians, and the other nations were prepared to leave, and certain of them had indeed already left. Considering therefore the desolate land, we dreaded the danger, for that land was situated in the midst of enemies. Asen the king of the Bulgarians from the north, Vatatzes from the east and the south, and Manuel from the West surrounded it.424 The situation is notable, and helps to explain the high level of interest in a religious settlement on the part of the Nicene elite (while at the same time shedding light on John

Vatatzes’

Constantinople submission):

question in

rather

the

about

the

event

than

risk

of

pope’s the

allowing

restoration Greek the

of

Church’s city

of

Constantinople to fall into the hands of one of their many competitors, the Nicene emperor and patriarch wanted to see if they could simply arrange to inherit the tottering Latin Empire by submitting to the papacy.

On the other hand,

elites in the Latin Empire saw in this council a glimmer of 424

“Preterea terra Constantinopolis quasi destituta fuit omni presidio: dominus Imperator Ioannes pauper erat. Milites stipendiarii omnes recesserunt. Naves Venetorum, Pisanorum, Anconitanorum, et aliarum nationum parate fuerunt ad recedendum, et quedam vero iam recesserant. Considerantes igitur terram desolatam, timuimus periculum, quia in medio inimicorum terra illa sita est. Arsanus rex Bachorum ab Aquilone, Vatatius ab Oriente et Meridie, Emmanuhel circundat eam ab Occidente.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 446.

172

hope for some kind of truce with Nicaea; the friars related that they were urged unanimously by John of Brienne and the chapter

of

Hagia

Sophia

participate.425

to

The

friars

therefore began their journey to Nymphaeum in Asia Minor on the last Sunday in March.426 On the Thursday before Palm Sunday the friars arrived at

Nymphaeum,

day.427

and

met

with

the

Patriarch

the

following

The friars requested that the business be expedited

as much as possible, and the Patriarch agreed, noting that his

prelates

would

want

to

return

to

their

quickly as possible “in these solemn days.”428

churches

as

It was not

to be, however; much to the friars’ frustration, the Greek clergy decided to put off the first sessions until after Easter, and it required some effort on the part of John Vatatzes to smooth things over with the Latin delegation.429 When the council finally did assemble on the Monday after Easter, the Nicene Patriarch infuriated the friars by declaring, “You know that we had a disputation on the Holy Spirit at Nicaea, but I was alone then.

Our prelates who

are now here would like to hear how the discussion went on

425

Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 446. Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 446. 427 Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 447. 428 Golubovich, “Disputatio,” “Paratus sum, et ecce prelati, qui convenerunt, similiter desiderant expediri, ut in diebus istis solempnibus possit esse in suis ecclesiis.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 447. 429 Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 447. 426

173

that question.”430

The friars note that they knew, at that

point, that the patriarch had not prepared a response to their

question

azymitism.431

about They

why

the

therefore

Greek

told

the

church story

condemns of

their

dealings with the Nicene Patriarch from beginning to end; “how there was a disputation at Nicaea,” after which “the Patriarch promised that he would send us a response around the middle of March to the question that we put to him regarding our Sacrament,” of “how many times he had changed our conditions,” and of how they came, “with no promise to compel” them, nor by command of their superiors, thinking nothing of the perils of the sea or the hardships of the journey, and motivated by nothing but a desire for peace between the churches.432

They concluded “we have to that we

might hear your response [on the question of azymitism]”.433 The Patriarch was either unprepared or unwilling to discuss azymitism, however, and it took tortuous negotiations to arrive at an agreement on the order with which the council would proceed: the Greeks agreed to withdraw and prepare a 430

“Notum est vobis, quod Nicee habuimus disputationem de Spiritu sancto, set tunc solus eram. Prelati nostri qui iam presentes sunt, libenter audirent, quomodo fuit processum in questione illa.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 448. 431 Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 447-448. 432 “Tunc cepimus narrare causam vie nostre, et quomodo Nicee fuit disputatum, et quomodo promiserat Patriarcha se missurum nobis circa medium martii responsum de questione facta ei de nostro Sacramento, et quotiens mutaverat conditiones nostras; et tunc coram illis comparere voluimus, nulla promissione compellente, vel precepto superioris, set sola gratia et amore pacis et concordie . . . non maris pericula, non laborem corporum, non tedium longe vie causabamur.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 448. 433 “Accessimus ut audiamus vestram responsionem.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 448.

174

response to the question “whether we can confect the body of Christ in unleavened bread, or not.”434

They only agreed

to do this on condition that the friars would reopen the discussion

on

the

Holy

Spirit

afterwards;

the

friars

agreed, but they note that by this time almost all trust for the Patriarch had evaporated.435 The council reconvened on Wednesday; the first speaker was

a

Greek

bishop

from

Paphlagonia,

who

accused

Pope

Innocent III of making the Latin and Greek Eucharist into two different sacraments.436

His accusation rested on the

contents of a letter from the pope that had been carried to Patriarch Germanus by the friars themselves; it included a passage in which Pope Gregory IX sought to legitimize both Latin and Greek traditions.437

The pope had compared the

two traditions to the two disciples that ran to the empty tomb of Christ, likening the Latin practice to the elder disciple,

Peter,

disciple, John.438 making

two

and

the

Greek

practice

to

the

younger

The Greeks therefore accused the pope of

sacraments

out

of

the

two

traditions.

The

friars, however, did not wish to get into an argument over how to interpret the pope’s words, telling the Greeks to

434

“Utrum possimus conficere corpus Christi in azimo, vel non?” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 449. Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 449. 436 Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 450. 437 Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 450. 438 Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 450. 435

175

ask the pope themselves if they had a question about his meaning.439 this

as

When the Greeks tried to insist, the friars saw

another

diversion

from

the

actual

theological

discussion of the Greek position on azymitism, and so they finally

brought

the

subject

up

themselves,

saying

“we

already conclude that you think badly of our Sacrament in unleavened

bread.”440

They

offer

six

reasons

for

this

conclusion: 1) the writings of the Greeks are filled with the condemnation of azymitism, 2) because the Greeks went to great lengths to avoid responding to this question, 3) because the Greeks are known to purify altars after a Latin priest has celebrated Mass on them, 4) because the Greeks compel Latins to abjure the sacraments of the Roman Church before admitting them to their own sacraments, 5) because they removed the Pope from their diptychs, which they do not

do

except

for

excommunicates

or

heretics,

and

6)

because the Greeks excommunicate the pope annually, which the friars claimed to know because somebody who heard it told them.441 The first to respond was the Nicene cartophylax, who strenuously

denied

the

sixth

439

charge,

cursing

whoever

Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 450-451. “Iam perpendimus quod male sentitis de Sacramento nostro in azimo.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 451. 441 Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 451. 440

176

misinformed the friars.442

As far as the other charges go,

the cartophylax told the friars that they should not be surprised that the Greeks do all of those things because of the widespread sacrilege committed during the Latin sack of Constantinople.443

This

is

a

fascinating

moment

in

the

proceeding; obviously the pope had been removed from the diptychs in Constantinople long before 1204, and possibly as

early

as

1009.444

What

is

perhaps

more

fascinating,

hwoever, is that Patriarch Germanus, who speaks next, does not comment on the cartophylax’s words, either to endorse them or to disagree; he simply breaks in to ask the friars, “if you marvel that we removed the pope from our diptychs, I ask why he removed me from his diptychs.”445

The friars

responded to the last objection first, noting that “the Lord Pope never removed you from his diptychs, because you were never there.

But if you seek from your predecessors,

you will read whether he removed you before you removed him.”446

Responding to the cartophylax’s charge, the friars

argue that those responsible for the sack of Constantinople

442

Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 451. Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 451. 444 Cf. the excellent study of Henry Chadwick, East and West: the Making of a Rift in the Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003). 445 “Si miramini quod Papam eiecimus de dipticis nostris, quero quare me eiecit de suis dipticis.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 451. 446 “Dominus Papa nunquam te eiecit de suis dipticis, quia tu nunquam eras. Set si de predecessoribus vestris queratis, vos legatis, utrum Papa vos, quam vos eum prius, eiecerit.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 451-452. 443

177

were “laymen, sinner, excommunicates, presuming to do such things

on

their

own

authority;

nor

must

that

which

is

presumed to have been done by certain wicked men be imputed to the whole church.”447

They contrast the Latin church’s

lack of responsibility for the sack with the Greek church’s responsibility for the various practices that the friars charge

them

with

(purification

of

altars,

demanding

the

abjuration of Latin sacraments, removal of the pope from the diptychs, etc.), which rests with their patriarchs and highest ranking figures.448

They dramatically inform the

the assembly that they will not return to “him who sent them” unless they find some willingness to amend on the part of the Greek prelates.449 That

same

evening,

the

friars

had

a

fascinating

conversation with the Emperor himself, which reveals John Vatatzes’ commitment to the continuation of negotiations at all costs.

The friars relate that they went to see the

emperor after dinner, “relating to him in order everything that had happened,” and asking him for an escort to conduct them out of his territory.450

The emperor, however, offered

eloquent apologies on behalf of his subjects, promised that 447

“Set hec si fuerunt facta, fecerunt viri laici, peccatores, excommunicati, propria auctoritate talia presumentes: nec imputandum est toti Ecclesie, quod a quibusdam iniquis est presumptum.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 452. 448 Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 452. 449 Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 452. 450 Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 452.

178

they would amend, and averred that if he had been present, the

discussion

direction.451

would

never

have

gone

in

a

contentious

He begged the friars to remain and continue

the discussion, so that they might return in “peace and love” after the business had been taken care of.452

He went

even further, however, explaining to the friars that his ships

were

already

prepared,

waiting

for

the

successful

conclusion of the council, so that they could return the friars to Italy in the company of his own messengers, who would go to the Pope and deliver gifts and homage.453

The

emperor hoped that the pope would “have [him] as a friend and a familiar and a son of his holiness.”454

The friars’

response was somewhat discouraging to the emperor: citing Genesis, in which God “looked upon Abel and his gifts,” the friars

explained

that

the

Lord

does

not

accept

men

on

account of their gifts, but accepts gifts on account of the men who offer them.455

They therefore told Vatatzes that

the pope would not receive him as a friend or as a son unless

he

was

first

united

to

the

Roman

Church

in

the

perfect unity of faith; neither his silver nor his gold could

buy

that

friendship,

451

Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 452. Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 452. 453 Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 452. 454 Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 452. 455 Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 452. 452

179

only

perfect

theological

agreement.456

This response is somewhat puzzling in its

apparent rejection of a peaceful overture, but what the friars

are

actually

doing

is

to

heighten

the

emperor’s

motivation to achieve a genuine theological settlement with them—no other acts of diplomacy can substitute for it. The

emperor’s

response

is

fascinating;

clearly

angered, he reminds the friars that many Byzantine emperors enjoyed

friendship

schism.457 Comnenus

with

the

papacy,

even

during

the

The two that he cites specifically are Manuel and

Theodore

Lascaris

(!).458

Nevertheless,

he

tells them that if they forbid his diplomatic mission, he will not send it.459

The friars protest that they are not

forbidding

advising

it,

only

against

it;

the

emperor’s

response is that he does not wish to entrust his ships to enemies.460 endured

for

Remarking in exasperation that the schism had 300

(sic)

years

and

could

not

be

solved

overnight, Vatatzes told the friars that he would try to expedite the theological discussion the following day, by asking the Greek clergy to respond to the friars’ questions about the Eucharist.461

456

Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 452. Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 452. 458 Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 453. 459 Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 453. 460 Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 453. 461 Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 453. 457

180

The following day was a Thursday; the friars report that nothing happened until the evening, when they received messengers from the Emperor and Patriarch inviting them to a meeting in the imperial palace the following morning. After

the

usual

posturing

and

quibbling,

the

Greek

delegation was finally persuaded to make a statement in reponse to the friars’ question about azymitism.462 bishop

of

Samatria

stood

up

as

spokesman

for

the

The Greek

contingent, and declared, “You ask if the Body of Christ can be confected in unleavened bread (in azymo), and we respond that this is impossible.”463 intended

import

of

these

words,

Wishing to clarify the

the

friars

asked

if

he

meant that it was illicit to consecrate unleavened bread, or if he meant that it was absolutely impossible.464

The

bishop responded that it was absolutely impossible, “for we know that the Lord made it in leavened bread, and passed it on

thus

to

the

apostles.”465

He

then

cited

the

first

epistle to the Corinthians, “I have received from the Lord that which I also handed down to you, that the Lord Jesus on

the

night

he

was

betrayed

took

arton,

etc.”466

The

bishop went on to argue that the Apostles passed on the

462

Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 453. Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 453. 464 Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 453. 465 Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 453. 466 Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 453. 463

181

tradition of leavened bread to the whole Church: Peter to Antioch,

John

to

the

churches

of

Asia

Minor,

Andrew

to

Achaia, James to Jerusalem, and Peter (via Clement) to the Church of Rome.467

The bishop therefore concluded that it

was absolutely impossible to confect the Eucharist in any bread other than the leavened bread that Christ himself used.468

The friars asked the rest of the Greek prelates

present if they would affirm this statement, and each did, declaring “This is our faith, and this we believe.”469

The

friars then asked the Greeks to put this declaration of their

faith

Greeks

asked

Filioque.470 again

the

in

writing,

the

and

friars

to

hand do

it

the

over same

to

them;

the

regarding

the

It was agreed that the two sides would meet following

day

and

hand

over

their

respective

written and signed statements; the Greeks’ on the Eucharist and the Latins’ on the Filioque. The following day, the two sides came together again, and the two statements were read aloud.

The Greeks’s was

brief; it simply stated their condemnation of azymitism, and appealed to the scriptures for support.471

The Latin

statement on the Filioque was rather lengthy, reiterating

467

Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 453-4. Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 454. 469 Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 454. 470 Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 454. 471 Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 454-455. 468

182

the basic theological reasoning of the earlier discussion on the subject, and including quotations of the Greek and Latin fathers.472

After the two statements had been read,

the friars spoke to the whole assembly, declaring, “You have

handed

heresy,

us

and

your

know

written

this,

that

statement, whoever

which

contains

believes

what

is

written in your document, the Roman Church holds such a man for

a

heretic.”473

possible

reasons

ignorance

and

Declaring for

the

malice—the

that

Greeks’ friars

there

are

holding

offered

only

such

to

show

two

views— their

interlocutors the truth, if indeed ignorance and not malice were

the

cause

of

their

heretical

convictions.474

Dramatically, the friars requested that the Old and New Testament be placed in the midst of the assembly to serve as “judges” between the two sides; however—quod mirabile est

dictu,

according

to

the

friars—neither

could

be

found.475 In the absence of the Testaments, the friars began by asking

the

Greeks

why

they

claim

unleavened bread at the Last Supper.476

472

that

Christ

used

The Greeks quoted

Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 455-458. “Dedistis nobis scriptum vestrum, quod continet heresim, et hoc scitote, quod quicumque credit quod scriptum est in carta vestra, pro heretico habet talem Ecclesia Romana.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 458. 474 Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 458. 475 Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 459. 476 Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 459. 473

183

the line from the Gosepl, “The Lord took arton, broke it, etc,” whereupon the friars broke in, asking “arton, what does this mean?”477

The Greeks responded that arton meant

“perfect bread, leavened bread, fermented bread.”478

The

Latins asked if “arton” always meant leavened bread, and the Greeks responded in the negative, noting that arton occurs sometimes on its own and sometimes with an ajective— e.g. the references to “unleavened arton” in Leviticus 7.479 The Greeks asserted that whenever arton occurs by itself, it means “leavened bread,” and that when it occurs with the adjective “unleavened,” this is a sort of oxymoron, like the phrase “dead man.”480

The Latins then pressed, asking

if arton should always be taken to mean “leavened bread” when it occurs by itself.481

The Greeks fudged, arguing

that whenever arton is placed by itself, it is “properly” taken to mean leavened bread, and “improperly” taken to mean unleavened bread.482 This

response

allows

the

friars

to

pounce,

arguing

that if arton by itself can sometimes mean leavened bread and sometimes unleavened bread, then there are no grounds for

making

a

distinction

between

477

Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 459. Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 459. 479 Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 459. 480 Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 459. 481 Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 459. 482 Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 459. 478

184

the

“proper”

and

“improper” uses of the term.483

The fact that arton is used

in Leviticus 7 to refer to unleavened bread is invoked by the friars in support of their argument, which holds that arton is basically the equivalent of the Latin panis and does not have any special connotation of being leavened.484 The friars then invoke the passage in the Gospel of Matthew which places the Last Supper “on the first day of the feast of unleavened bread.”485 commentary

for

effect,

the

Citing John Chrysostom’s friars

remind

their

interlocutors that on the feast of unleavened bread “it was forbidden for the Jews to have yeast or anything leavened in their houses or within their precints.”486

Quoting from

this specific prohibition in the twelfth chapter of the book of Exodus, the friars argue that “therefore Christ made his Pasch in unleavened bread, because he observed the law all the way to the end of his life, as Chrysostom and Epiphanius state.”487

He therefore “made his body from that

bread which he had.

And he did not have anything other

than

unleavened

bread,

therefore

483

he

made

his

body

from

Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 459. Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 459. 485 “Item invenimus in Levitico 7, ubi agitur de lege hostie pacificorum, arton azimum et arton fermentatum . . . [e]rgo vestra distinctio, quam fecistis de proprie et inproprie, nulla fuit.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 459. 486 “Ergo in illa vespera erat pascha Iudeorum, et fuit prohibitum Iudeis ut fermentum vel fermentatum non esset in domibus illorum vel in omnibus terminis.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 460. 487 “Ergo Christus pascha suum fecit in azimo, quia legem observavit usque ad ultimum vite sue, ut dicit Crisostomus et Epifanius.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 460. 484

185

unleavened bread.”488

To clinch the argument, the friars

then offered lengthy quotations from John Chrysostom and Epiphanius, demonstrating that Christ would have eaten his Passover meal on the evening of the feast of unleavened bread; the friars argue that he would therefore not have had any leavened bread available to him.489 By this point it was late on Saturday night, the two parties withdrew from one another, and the friars heard nothing about another session through Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday.490

Wednesday evening, the friars asked if they

could have permission to leave Nicene territory; what they received instead was an invitation to meet with the Emperor himself

on

Thursday,

to

hear

what

would

imperial offer of theological compromise.

be

a

stunning

What the Emperor

offered on Thursday was as follows: It is the custom of kings and princes, if there be discord among them over castles and provinces, that one should give away something of that which he calls his “right,” that thus they might be able to arrive, through “meeting in the middle,” at peace. Thus, it appears to me that this ought to happen between your church and ours. There are two issues between you and us: first, concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit, and second concerning the body of Christ. If, therefore, you would like peace, let ye dismiss one of these two things.491 488

Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 460. Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 460-461. 490 Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 461. 491 “Consuetuo regum et principum est, cum discordia fuerit inter eos super castris et proinciis, ut quilibet, de eo quod dixit ius suum, aliquid dimittat, ut sic pervenire possint per medium ad pacem. Sic michi videtur quod debeat fieri inter vestram Ecclesiam et nostram. Duo enim sunt inter nos et vos: 489

186

The

emperor

declared

that

the

Greeks

were

willing

to

venerate and accept the unleavened Eucharist of the Latins, and asked that the Latins, in return, abandon the Filioque, which he described as a scandal to the Greeks.492 argues,

without

explanation,

that

Vatatzes

“could

Wolff hardly

have intended [this compromise] seriously,” but it has been well documented how important Vatatzes deemed a theological settlement.493

In any case, the friars refused to budge,

saying “know that the Lord Pope and the Roman Church will not dismiss one iota from their faith.”494

Vatatzes' heart-

rending response shows his priorities clearly: “How, then, shall we be able to make peace?”495 The friars do not advise him to despair, even at this juncture, they are willing to explain in rather nuanced fashion the minimum that would be required for theological agreement.

They inform the emperor, first and foremost,

that the Greeks must confess that the Body of Christ can be confected leavened.496

just As

as far

validly as

in

the

unleavened

filioque

is

bread

as

concerned,

in the

friars insist that it is a truth of the faith which must be primum de processione Spiritus sancti; secundum de corpore Christi. Si igitur velletis pacem, vos dimittatis unum ex hiis duobus.” Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 461-462. 492 Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 462. 493 Wolff, “The Latin Empire of Constantinople and the Franciscans,” 240. 494 Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 462. 495 Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 462. 496 Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 462.

187

believed and preached among the people, while all writings to

the

contrary

are

condemned

and

burned;

nevertheless,

they insist that if the Greeks do not wish to recite the filioque

in

their

liturgy,

the

pope

would

not

compel

them.497

Needless to say, this proposal was indignantly

rejected, and in the catastrophic denouement of the council the friars had a difficult time getting out of the Nicene Empire; as it was they left behind almost all of their possessions.498

THE

LAST YEARS OF THE EMPIRE: THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION IN THE CAPITAL ITSELF

On the one hand, the decay of the Latin Empire was a catalyst for attempts at theological accommodation, as the Nicene Empire jockeyed for the favor of the papacy, and John

of

failing

Brienne state.

sought

to

Within

forestall

an

Constantinople,

attack

on

however,

his the

theological gulf separating the Latin and Greek communities appears to have widened, rather than the contrary, as the Latins grew politically weaker.

In a text dated to around

the year 1240, a Greek citizen in Constantinople by the name

of 497 498

Manuel

engaged

in

correspondence

on

theological

Golubovich, “Disputatio,” 462. The story is told in Wolff’s “The Latin Empire of Constantinople and the Franciscans,” 240 et

seq.

188

matters with a Franciscan friar.

The Franciscan apparently

began the correspondence by asserting ten theses or capita; the first two deal with the filioque, the third and ninth with azymitism, the fourth and fifth with Purgatory and the afterlife, the sixth with papal primacy, the seventh with baptism, the eighth with divorce, and the tenth with the consecration

Mass.499

at

The

first

two

state

the

Latin

position on the filioque quite simply: 1) that the Holy Spirit, in a metaphysical sense, does proceed both from the Father and from the Son, and 2) that it was appropriate for this

teaching

to

be

added

to

the

creed.500

The

third

heading emphasizes that the body of Christ may be confected using either leavened or unleavened bread; this reflects the

traditional

Western

position,

which

regarded

both

Byzantine and Latin practices as perfectly valid.501

The

ninth heading, however, asserts that Christ used unleavened bread at the Last Supper—a point which Greek theologians had disputed for centuries.502 a

controversy

relations existence

in of

that the the

would

The fourth heading reflects

have

thirteenth “cathartic

499

been

new

century, fire,”

i.e.

to

Greco-Latin

asserting of

the

Purgatory,

Migne, PG 140, 467-468. “Πρῶτον. Τό Πνεῦµα τὸ ἅγιον ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ Ὑιοῦ ἐκπορεύεται. ∆εύτερον. Εὐλόγως τὴν ἀναπτύξιν τῶν ῥηµάτων, ‘καὶ ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ,’ προστεθῆναι χρή.” PG 140, 469. 501 “Ἐν ἀζύµῳ καὶ ἐν ζύµῳ ἄρτῳ σιτίνῳ τὸ σῶµα τοῦ Χριστοῦ τελειοῦται.” PG 140, 469. 502 “Ὁ Χριστὸς ἄρτον ἄζυµον ἔδωκεν ἐν τῷ ∆είπνῳ.” PG 140, 469. 500

189

before the Last Judgment.503

The fifth point asserts that

the souls of the saints go straight to heaven—i.e. that they are exempt from the fires of Purgatory.504 point

asserts

that

the

pope

of

Rome

holds

The sixth the

“first

throne” in the ecclesiastical hierarchy.505 The

seventh

point

is

rather

interesting;

the

Franciscan asserted simply that the baptism of the Franks is one and the same as that of the Greeks.506

Baptism, like

the nature of the Eucharistic host, is an issue on which the Western Church saw both Latin and Greek practices as venerable

and

valid,

while

the

Greeks

were

rumored

to

rebaptize those who had received the sacrament from the Latins.

The eighth point deals with marriage.

Here, the

Franciscan asserts the traditional Latin position (derived from Augustine) that the man who has separated from his wife for a valid reason—i.e. for her infidelity—is still forbidden from marrying again.507 with

a

controversy

that—like

the

The tenth point deals issue

of

Purgatory—was

apparently a new source of disagreement in the thirteenth century, namely, the moment in the liturgy when the sacred

503

“Καθαρτικὸν πῦρ πρὸ τῆς κρίσεως πιστευτέον.” PG 140, 469. “Τῶν ἁγίων αἱ ψυχαὶ εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν εὐθὺς, εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν προσλαµβάνεσθαι, καὶ καθαρῶς τὸν Θειὸν θεωρεῖν δεῖ.” PG 140, 469. 505 “Πρῶτός ἐστι τῆς ἱερωσύνης θρόνος ὅ τῆς Ῥώµης πάππας.” PG 140, 469. 506 “Ἕν βάπτισµα Φράγγων καὶ Γραίκων.” PG 140, 469. 507 “Ὁ ἀπολύσας τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ µὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ ἢ γαµήσας ἄλλην, καὶ µετὰ λόγου πορνείας ἀπὸ τῆς πρώτης ἀποστὰς, µοιχᾶται.” PG 140, 469. 504

190

species are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ. The Greeks held that this occurred at the “epiclesis,” a prayer that is placed after the institution narrative in the

liturgy

of

St.

John

Chrysostom.

The

Franciscan,

however, asserts the traditional Western position that it is the institution narrative itself which confects the Body and Blood of Christ.508 In his indignant reply, Manuel attempts to deal with the Franciscan’s letter point-by-point.

At the beginning

of his response, however, he can hardly hold himself back from rhetorical invective, declaring “Your written letter has come to us and has shown everywhere the weakness of your understanding; among other things, your understanding of Greek grammar: you err in words, in letters, and in accent

marks,

established

far

and from

you

declare

something

theology.”509

true

He

which

is

calls

the

Franciscan’s conclusions “cacodox,” and “far removed from right doctrine.”510 Of majority

the

extant

deals

with

portion the

of

issue

508

Manuel’s of

the

apologia, Holy

the

Spirit’s

“Μόνον ὁ λόγος τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ‘Λάβετε, φάγετε, τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ σῶµα µου’ τέλειον σῶµα ποιεῖ, καὶ οὐδαµῶς τοῦ Χρυσοστόµου ἡ εὐχὴ ἡ λέγουσα, ‘καὶ ποίησον τὸν µὲν ἄρτον τοῦτον.’” PG 140, 469. 509 “Τὸ ἐπιστολαῖον σοῦ πρὸς ἡµᾶς ἐλθὸν γράµµα δέδειχειν ἀµωσγέπως γε τό τε βραχύτατον τῆς διανοίας τῆς σῆς πρὸς τε τὰ ἄλλα, καὶ πρὸς τὴν καθ’ Ἕλληνας γραµµατικήν, ἔν τε γὰρ λέξεσι καὶ ἀντιστοιχείοις καὶ προσωδίαις ἐσφαλµένον ἐστι, καὶ τὸ πόῤῥω δηλῶν καθεστάναι τῆς ἀληθοῦς θεολογίας.” PG 140, 472. 510 “ἐπιγράφεις αὐτὰ συµπεράσµατα, καὶ ορθόδοξα, κακόδοξα µᾶλλον ὄντα, καὶ τῆς ὀρθοδοξίας καὶ ἀληθείας ἀποπεπτωκότα.” PG 140, 472.

191

procession from the Father and the Son.

Like the Greek

monks of Constantinople, Manuel argued that this is not an issue that admits of compromise.

He begins by saying “we

declare your first question, which asserts that the Holy Spirit

proceeds

from

the

Father

blasphemous and heretical.”511

and

the

Son,

to

be

He goes on to elaborate a

theological distinction between the “sending out” (πέµψις) and the “procession” (ἐκπόρευσις) of the Holy Spirit.

He

cites

of

the

famous

passage

from

the

fifteenth

chapter

John’s Gospel, in which Christ says, “When the Paraclete shall come, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit

of

truth

who

proceeds

testify concerning me.”512 that

Christ

refers

to

from

the

Father,

he

shall

Manuel takes note of the fact

the

Holy

Spirit

as

the

one

who

“proceeds from the Father,” on the one hand, but on the other hand also says “I shall send” him.

This leads him to

conclude that as far as “procession,” or “mode of being,” is concerned, the Holy Spirit “possesses existence from the person of the Father, as from an immediate cause,” while as far

as

the

“sending”

of

the

Holy

Spirit

is

concerned,

“Father and Son together send the all-holy Spirit to the

511

“Τὸ πρῶτόν σου ζήτηµα, λέγον ὅτι τὸ Πνεῦµα τὸ ἅγιον ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ ἐκπορεύεται, βλάσφηµον καὶ αἱρετικὸν ἀποφαινόµεθα.” PG 140, 472. 512 “Ὅταν δὲ ἔλθῃ ὁ Παράκλητος, ὅν ἐγὼ πέµψω ὑµῖν παρὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς, τὸ Πνεῦµα τῆς ἀληθείας, ὅ παρὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται, ἐκείνος µαρτυρήσει περὶ ἐµοῦ.” John 15:26, PG 140, 472.

192

believers and those who are worthy of his grace.”513 assembles

a

wide

variety

citations

to

support

his

of

scriptural

argument,

and

which,

in

Manuel

patristic its

main

points, reflects the Eastern position that had been defined in opposition to the West as early as the ninth century. On the issue of unleavened bread, Manuel’s argument corresponds very closely to the Eastern polemical tradition going as far back as the ninth century, arguing that it is utterly impossible for the body of Christ to be confected in unleavened bread.

Dealing with the Franciscan’s third

and ninth points simultaneously, Manuel sets out to prove that Christ himself used leavened bread at the last supper, and

that

this

is

therefore

the

only

Christians celebrating the liturgy. Manuel

issues

a

self-serving

valid

practice

for

In the first place,

assertion

that

the

Gospel,

whenever it is discussing unleavened bread, always goes out of

its

way

Proceeding ignoring

to

mention

from

this

that

fact

that

the

obvious

that

this

is

bread petitio

is

unleavened.514 and

principii,

precisely

the

point

in

dispute, he argues that whenever “bread” in mentioned in an unqualified

way,

we

must

consider

513

that

bread

to

be

a

“Πέµψις δὲ καί ἐκπόρευσις οὐ ταὐτόν. ἡ µέν γὰρ ἐκπόρευσις ἔννοιαν ὑπάρξεως εἰσάγει, ἡ δὲ πέµψις ἀποστολῆς. καί κατὰ µὲν τὴν ἐκπόρευσιν τὸ Πνεῦµα τὸ ἅγιον ἐκ τῆς πατρικῆς ὑπόστασεως ὡς ἀπ’ αἰτίας ἀµέσως ἔχει τὸ εἶναι. κατὰ δὲ τὴν πέµψιν ὁ Υἱός συναποστέλλει τῷ Πατρί τὸ πανάγιον Πνεῦµα πρὸς τοὺς πιστοὺς καὶ τοὺς τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ ἀξίους.” PG 140, 472-473. 514 “Οὺκ οἶδας γὰρ ὅτι τὸ ἱερὸν Εὐαγγέλιον, ἔνθα ἦν ἄζυµα, καθαρῶς αὐτὰ ἄζυµα ἐπονοµάζει, ἔνθα δὲ ἦν ἄρτος, ἤγουν ἔνζυµον φύραµα, ἐµφανώς ἄρτον φησί.” PG 140, 477.

193

“leavened

mass.”

Therefore,

he

notes

that

the

Gospel

specifies that Christ was crucified on Passover, or “the feast of unleavened bread.”515

He observes, however, that

when eating with his disciples, Christ departed from the Jewish

practice

of

eating

the

Passover

meal

standing,

instead reclining with his disciples, and thus signaling an important

transition

dispensation liturgy.516

to

from

the

the

“mystical

Passover

meal

supper”

of

of

the

the

old

Christian

He argues, therefore, that when the Gospel text

mentions Christ taking “bread,” and blessing it, another departure since

from

the

text

unleavened, “leavened

Jewish does

Manuel mass,”

practice not

argues and

as

is

specify that

we

another

necessarily that

the

must

take

symbol

that

signified; bread it the

was as

a old

dispensation has been replaced by the new.517 Manuel’s

arguments

against

Purgatory

are

relatively

underdeveloped and unsophisticated—perhaps a sign of this issue’s novelty.

Manuel seems to associate the doctrine of

Purgatory with the Origenist heresy, which held that Hell

515

“∆ιὸ καὶ λέγεται, ‘Ἦν δὲ τὸ Πάσχα καὶ τὰ ἄζυµα.’” PG 140, 477. “Καὶ τὸ µὲν Πάσχα οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ὀρθοστάδην ἐσθίειν νενοµοθέτηνται. ὁ δὲ Κύριος προλαβὼν ἐν τῷ µυστικῷ δείπνῳ τὸ ἀληθινὸν Πάσχα τοῖς µαθηταῖς µυσταγωγῶν καὶ παραδιδοὺς ἀνακείµενος µετ’ αὐτῶν ἔσθιε, καθὼς τὸ ἱερὸν διέξεισιν Εὐαγγέλιον.” PG 140, 477. 517 “Ὀψίας δὲ γενοµένης ἀνέκειτο µετὰ τῶν δώδεκα. ἐσθιόντων δὲ αὐτῶν, λαβὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἄρτον, καὶ εὐλογήσας ἔκλασε καὶ ἐδίδου τοῖς µαθηταῖς. Καὶ δῆλον ἐντεῦθεν ὅτι τὸ Ἰουδαϊκὸν οὐκ ἦν Πάσχα, ἔνθα ἦσαν τὰ ἄζυµα, ἀλλὰ τὸ µυστικὸν καὶ ἀληθινόν.” PG 140, 477. 516

194

was not eternal.518 this

present

sins.519 the

life

He goes on to argue that the trials of are

sufficient

to

purge

men

of

their

He also comes up with a curious argument based on

notion

of

“eternity,”

arguing

that

the

notion

of

purgatory—which presumes some kind of “time” after death—is irreconcilable

with

the

idea

that

eternity, where there is no time.520

the

dead

go

into

Manuel clearly had

only a loose grasp on the notion of Purgatory as it was understood in the West. In

regard

to

baptism,

Manuel

takes

the

hard-line

position that Latin baptisms are invalid, explaining that “we admit baptism in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, administered with three immersions, according to the custom of the Apostles and Fathers, which is not the same as that which is practiced among you.”521 Aside

from

the

absence

of

a

triple

immersion

in

Latin

baptisms, Manuel seizes on the difference in the formula,

518

“Τοῦτο γὰρ τῆς Ὠριγένους αἱρέσεώς ἐστιν ἀποκύηµα, διὸ ὡς βλάσφηµον καὶ ἀντίθετον τῇ θείᾳ ἀληθείᾳ µακρὰν ἀπεῤῥίφη τῆς καθ’ ἡµᾶς ὀρθοδόξου ἁγίας Ἐκκλησίας, καὶ τοὺς οὕτω φρονοῦντας τῶ ἀναθέµατι ἐνδίκως ὑποβάλλοµεν.” PG 140, 480. 519 “Τοὺς ἔτι δὲ τῷ παρόντι περιοῦσι βίῳ ἐπιφεροµένους πειρασµοὺς τοῦ Θειοῦ συγχωροῦντος διά τινας ἁµαρτίας, καὶ µεθ’ ὑπονοµῆς ἀνεχοµένοις, καὶ εὐχαρίστως πρὸς Θεὸν ἀνακειµένοις, τούτους φαµὲν ἡµεῖς εἴναι ὥσπερ τι καθαρτήριον πῦρ.” PG 140, 480. 520 “Εἰ δ’ ἦν τοιοῦτόν τι πῦρ καθαρτήριον µετὰ θάνατον τῶν ψυχῶν πρὸ τῆς κρίσεως, ὡς φρονεῖτε ὑµεῖς κακῶς, αἱ ψυχαὶ δὲ πᾶσαι τῷ τοῦ χρόνου ἀπείρῳ µήκει ἐκαθάρθησαν ἂν, καὶ οὐδεµία ἐν τῷ τῆς κρίσεως εὐρέθη καιρῷ κολάσει ὑπόδικως. . . . Αἰώνιον δὲ τὸ µετέχον αἰῶνος. Αἰὼν δὲ οὔτε χρόνος οὔτε χρόνου τι µέρος.” PG 140, 480. 521 “Βάπτισµα δὲ τὸ εἰς Πατέρα, καὶ Υἱὸν, καὶ Πνεῦµα ἅγιον ἐν τρισὶ γινόµενον καταδύσεσι, καὶ κατὰ τὴν ἀποστολικὴν καὶ πατρικὴν ἱεροτυπίαν ἀπεκδεχόµεθα, ὅπερ οὐκ ἔστι ταὐτὸν τῷ γενοµένῳ ὑφ’ ὑµῶν.” PG 140, 480.

195

observing correctly that the Greeks traditionally baptized with a passive formula (the servant of God is baptized, etc.), while the Latins baptized with an active formula (I baptize you, etc.).

Manuel argues that the Greek formula

demonstrates a “spontaneous, free, and voluntary desire to be baptized on the part of the one coming to the font,” while the Latin formula shows “vanity” and “pride.”522

He

concludes by asking, “How therefore are they one and the same baptism, when you say and do these things?”523 The

dispute

difference

over

between

divorce

Latin

and

also Greek

reflects

an

practice,

age-old

which

is

rooted in different interpretations of Christ’s words on the subject in the nineteenth chapter of Matthew.524

Manuel

defends the Greek custom of allowing a husband to divorce his wife if she commits sexual sin, accusing the Latins of contradicting the words of Christ himself.525 whole,

Manuel’s

text

seems

to

indicate

a

Taken as a shift

in

the

dynamic between Latins and Greeks in by the year 1240—the Latin

Empire

undermining

some

had of

weakened the

substantially,

incentive

for

perhaps

compromise

among

Greek clerics subject to Latin rule. 522

“῾Ηµεῖς µὲν γὰρ λέγοµεν ‘βαπτίζεται ὁ δοῦλος τοῦ Θεοῦ’ δεικνύντες ἐντεῦθεν τὴν αὐθαίρετον καὶ ἐξ ἰδίας θελήσεως κίνησιν τοῦ βαπτιζοµένου πρὸς τὸ θεῖον βάπτισµα. ὑµεῖς δὲ ἀλαζόνως πῶς καὶ ὑπερηφάνως φατέ ‘βαπτίζω ἐγὼ τὸν δεῖνα’ ὅπερ οὐ τὸν αὐτὸν τῷ ἡµετέρῳ ἔχει σκοπόν.” PG 140, 480. 523 “Πῶς οὖν ἕν γένοιτ’ ἄν; ᾿Επισφαλῶς γὰρ τοῦτο καὶ ποιεῖτε καὶ λέγετε.” PG 140, 480. 524 PG 140, 480-481. 525 PG 140, 480-481.

196

In fact, of all the modes of accommodation, theolgical accommodation Vatatzes,

came

while

most

easily

remaining

to

the

political

most

elites

difficult

(if

like not

impossible) form of accommodation for the majority of monks and clerics. By the 1230s and 1240s this split had become very

clear.

Vatatzes

was

As

the

friars’

passionate

makes

relatio

about

making

plain,

some

sort

John of

settlement with the papacy, and was willing to make vast theological concessions in order to do so; for many of his clerical elites, however, the theological concessions that he had in mind were simply impossible.

Every time the

negotiations broke down in the 1234 council, it was the Emperor Vatatzes’

who

stepped

commitment

in to

and

tried

to

theological

salvage

things.

accommodation

in

exchange for political gains led him to sponsor further discussions between Greek and Latin clerics in the winter of 1249-1250, and to send an embassy to Pope Innocent IV with an ambitious union proposal (for the sake of which Vatatzes

was

even

willing

to

jeapordize

relationship with Frederick II).526 rendered

his

efforts

moot,

but

his

warm

John Vatatzes’ death it

is

not

clear

how

successful he would have been at forging an ecclesiastical union on the basis of theolgical compromise even had he 526

Cf. Gill, Byzantium and the Papacy, 89-95.

197

lived a decade longer; the emperor clearly underestimated the power of theological conviction among his own clergy.

198

Chpater 6: Conclusion

The history of religious interaction between Latin and Greek constituencies during the era of the Latin Empire has been

shown

to

be

complex,

influenced

by

the

rapidly

shifting political realities of the time, the personalities of major figures involved, and the preexisting estrangement between the Latin and Greek churches.

In the midst of all

that complexity, strategies of accommodation were developed and implemented by both sides; some of these strategies involved grand gestures, sweeping proposals, and impressive public

theater,

locally,

by

while

figures

others whose

were names

pursued are

privately

forever

lost

and to

history. The liturgical texts discussed in Chapter II represent an effort at accommodation that was apparently initiated by members of Constantinople's Greek clergy; their creation of texts that would allow Greek priests like themselves to become bi-ritual, offering services for the Latins at a time when Constantinople's native population was severely 199

reduced, may be read in a variety of ways.

In the first

place, knowledge of the context allows us to speculate as to their motivation: we must remember that in the aftermath of

the

Latin

conquest,

a

large

percentage

of

the

Greek

clergy fled—leaving behind a hard core of clerics who knew that flight was an option, but chose to stay and make the best of their new situation.

It was this constituency that

bandied words with Innocent III's legates and with Patriach Morosini, refusing to commemorate the Venetian Patriarch, and later begging Pope Innocent to allow the creation of a dual Patriarchate. liturgical Library

texts

emerged

It is not a stretch to suggest that the found

from

at

this

Chalki

and

constituency

in

the

as

Ambrosian

well—Orthodox

clergy who refused to abandon the capital, and yet could not

bring

Patriarch.

themselves

to

commemorate

an

uncanonical

It is by no means suggested, therefore, that

the creation of these liturgical texts was an effort to placate Morosini or Pope Innocent; one must remember that neither the papacy nor the local Latin church hierarchy is known to have encouraged the Greeks to adopt Latin rites. In fact, the contrary is true.

Rather, it seems reasonable

to suggest that the creators of these texts were motivated by pastoral concern for the new Latin population of the city.

In

fact,

pastoral

concern 200

seems

to

be

the

only

satisfactory reason for having Greek priests celebrate the Latin Mass—and not just any Greek priests, but specifically those for whom the texts were intended, i.e. ones who could not read Latin.

One must also keep in mind the generally

good relationship that prevailed between the Greek clergy and the Latin Empire's highest ranking layman in its early years, Henry of Flanders. Regarding hierarchy

in

the the

structure conquered

of

the

territory,

ecclesiastical both

Latins

and

Greeks made public, dramatic efforts at accommodating one another.

Beginning with Pope Innocent III, one observes an

accommodating

stance

in

papal

policy,

which

sought

to

secure the rights of the Greek clergy to possess churches, monasteries,

and

in

many

places

episcopal

sees.

Recognition of papal authority, which usually took the form of

very

simple

liturgical

commemoration,

would

generally

have been the only change to the status quo demanded after the Latin conquest, and the evidence indicates that this was a step that a great many Greek clerics and hierarchs were willing to take. hesitate

to

enforce

The popes, for their part, did not the

rights

of

the

Greek

clergy

by

excommunicating uncooperative Latins. On

the

other

side,

the

effort

of

Constantinople's

Greek monks to obtain a dual patriarchate, although it met 201

with failure, also represents an attempt at accommodation to the new situation; the proposal was not a random shot in the dark, but was based on the models offered by other conquered Latin territories in the Eastern Mediterranean, and was serious enough to earn the endorsement of the Latin Emperor Henry.

It was their failure to win the support of

the local Latin church authorities that led the monks to take

their

fight

up

the

ladder,

to

the

papacy

itself,

before events in Nicaea rendered it moot. As

the

appearance

Latin of

accommodation

a

Empire doomed

between

weakened state,

Latins

and

and

took

efforts Greeks

at

did

on

the

religious

not

weaken;

rather, they intensified, as the confident Vatatzes sought to use religious rapprochement as a carrot in negotiations with the papacy over the fate of Constantinople.

These

efforts culminated in the extraordinary events at Nymphaeum and Nicea, which revealed in crystal clarity the nature of the new situation—Greek political elites were willing to make religious concessions that their own clergy could not stomach, concessions that, in the eyes of the Greek clergy of

the

Nicene

Empire,

compromised

Orthodoxy

itself.

Nevertheless, this Lascarid religious policy, embraced by the

Palaeologoi,

would

eventually

win

out,

as

Michael

Palaeologus (and later John VIII) were able to persuade the 202

Greek hierarchy that the political interests of the Empire justified the vast religious concessions made at Lyons and Florence. Nicene

This approach is thus part of the legacy of the

era,

religious

history

Palaeologoi. course,

which

played of

the

a

significant

Byzantine

part

Empire

in

the

under

the

The ultimate victory of the Ottoman Turks, of

brought

an

end

to

the

context

from

which

those

great union councils sprung. It remains to assess what significance the history of accommodation might have for our understanding of the Latin Empire's

tragic

understanding

of

history,

and

medieval

more

broadly

Christianity.

for

Regarding

our the

first point, it should be clear that the history of the Latin Empire is far more complex than Wolff makes it out to be

when

he

describes

experiment."527

it

as

“an

ill-fated

colonial

Rather, the history of the Latin Empire is

one in which multiple factions, from multiple cultural and religious backgrounds, with differing interests at stake, sought to pursue those interests to the greatest extent that

they

were

able

to

under

the

making creative compromises to do so.

circumstances,

often

On the second issue,

if anything has become clear through this study, it has been that scholarship on the history of medieval religion— 527

Wolff, “Politics,” 295.

203

especially on the interactions between different Christian groups—must

be

careful

not

to

expect

the

kind

of

neat

confessional distinctions to which we are accustomed in a post-Reformation

world.

The

Latin-ruled

Eastern

Mediterranean was a place where Christians from a variety of

traditions—Greek,

forced to interact.

Armenian,

between

characteristic Reformation, Mediterranean

of

Lacking the kind of rigid

confessional Western

medieval found

Italian—were

The Latin Empire of Constantinople was

no exception to that trend. boundaries

Frankish,

Christianity

Christians

that

the

groups

in

divisions

that

are

after

the

the among

Eastern them

were

often permeable, negotiable, and susceptible of an almost infinite variety of qualifications and compromises.

The

Latin Empire of Constantinople is a unique laboratory for examining

the

way

in

which

compromises could play out.

204

those

qualifications

and

Primary Sources*

Baluze, Etienne, editor. Capitularia Regum Francorum, volume II. Paris: Francisci-Augustini Quillau, 1780. Golubovich, H. "Disputatio Latinorum et Graecorum seu Relatio apocrisariorum Gregorii IX de gestis Nicaeae in Bithynia et Nymphaeae in Lydia 1234." Archivum franciscanum historicum 12 (1919). Heisenberg, August. Editor. Neue Quellen zur Geschichte des lateinischen Kaisertums und der Kirchenunion. Munich: Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1923. Honorius III. Opera Omnia. Ecclésiastique, 1880.

Paris: Bibliothèque

________. I regesti del Pontifice Onorio III dall’anno 1216 all’anno 1227. Edited by P. Presutti. Rome, 1884. Hopf, Charles, ed. Chroniques gréco-romanes inédites ou peu connues. Paris, 1873. Mesarites, Nicholas. “Epitaphios.” In Neue Quellen zur Geschichte des lateinischen Kaisertums und der Kirchenunion. Munich: Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1923. Migne, J-P. Patrologiae cursus completus: series graeca. Paris, 1857-1866.

*

The reader should be advised that the limits imposed by dissertation formatting rules have prohibited the inclusion of a complete scholaraly bibliography in this space. For a complete list of relevant primary sources, source collections, and manuscript catalogues, the reader may contact the author directly at [email protected].

205

Secondary Sources* Angold, Michael. "Greeks and Latins after 1204: The Perspective of Exile." In Latins and Greeks in the Eastern Mediterranean After 1204, edited by Benjamin Arbel, Bernard Hamilton and David Jacoby, 63-86. London: Frank Cass, 1989. Codrington, Herbert William. The Liturgy of St. Peter. Münster: Verlag der Aschendorffschen Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1936. Du Cange, Charles du Fresne. Histoire de l'empire de Constantinople sous les empereurs français. Paris, 1657. Dvornik, Francis. The Idea of Apostolicity in Byzantium and the Legend of the Apostle Andrew. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1958. Finlay, George. A History of Greece from its Conquest by the Romans to the Present Time, B.C. 146 to A.D. 1864. Edited by Henry F. Tozer. Revised ed. 7 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1877. Geanakoplos, Deno. “Greco-Latin Relations on the Eve of the Byzantine Restoration: the Battle of Pelagonia, 1259.” In Dumbarton Oaks Papers, volume VII (1953). ___. Byzantine East and Latin West: Two Worlds of Christendom in the Middle Ages. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1966.

*

See note on page 205. Interested readers are invited to contact the author for a complete bibliography of relevant secondary materials.

206

Gerland, Ernst. Geschichte des lateinischen Kaiserreiches von Konstantinopel. Homburg vor der Höhe: Im Selbsverlag des Verfassers, 1905. Gill, Joseph. Byzantium and the Papacy 1198-1400. Brunswick, NJ, 1979.

New

Heisenberg, August. “Die römische Messe in griechischer Übersetzung.” In Neue Quellen zur Geschichte des lateinischen Kaisertums und der Kirchenunion. Munich: Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1923. Hopf, Carl. Geschichte Griechenlands vom Beginn des Mittelalters bis auf unsere Zeit. Leipzig: ErschGruber, 1867. Ilieva, Aneta. Frankish Morea, 1205-1262: Socio-cultural Interaction between the Franks and the Local Population. Athens: S. D. Basilopoulos, 1991. Janin, Raymond. “Les sanctuaires de Byzance sous la domination latine.” In Revue des Études Byzantines, volume II (1944). Lock, Peter. The Franks in the Aegean, 1204-1500. New York: Longman, 1995. Longnon, Jean. L'Empire latin de Constantinople et la principauté de Morée. Paris: Payot, 1949. ———. "The Frankish States in Greece, 1204-1261." In A History of the Crusades, edited by Kenneth M. Setton, 235-74. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1962. MacEvitt, Christopher. The Crusades and the Christian World of the East. Philadelphia: The University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007. Miller, William. The Latins in the Levant. A History of Frankish Greece (1204-1566). London, 1908. Panagopoulos, Beata Maria. Cistercian and Mendicant Monasteries in Medieval Greece. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979.

207

Papadopoulos-Kérameus, Athanasios. “Documents grecs pour servir à l’histoire de la quatrième croisade (liturgie et reliques).” In Revue de l’Orient Latin, volume I (1893). Richard, Jean. “The Establishment of the Latin Church in the Empire of Constantinople.” In MHR 4:1 (1989). Setton, Kenneth. The Papacy and the Levant, volume I. Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society, 1976. Treadgold, Warren. A History of the Byzantine State and Society. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1997. Wolff, Robert Lee. “The Latin Empire of Constantinople and the Franciscans.” Traditio, volume II (1944). ___. “The Organization of the Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople, 1204-1261: Social and Administrative Consequences of the Latin Conquest.” In Traditio, volume VI (1948). ___. "A New Document from the Period of the Latin Empire of Constantinople: The Oath of the Venetian Podestà." Annuaire de L'Institut de Philologie et d'Histoire Orientales et Slaves 12 (1953): 539-73. ___. "Politics in the Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople, 1204-1261." Dumbarton Oaks Papers 8 (1954): 225-303. ___. "The Latin Empire of Constantinople." In A History of the Crusades, edited by Kenneth M. Setton, 187-233. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1962.

208

Vita Auctoris Brendan J McGuire began his graduate studies at Saint Louis University in 2004 as a recipient of the Presidential Fellowship, and in 2006 received a graduate student induction into the University’s chapter of Phi Beta Kappa. He has presented research on East-West relations in the Middle Ages at various professional conferences. In 2007, he was appointed Visiting Lecturer in History at his undergraduate alma mater, Christendom College in Virginia, and joined the permanent faculty there as Assistant Professor in 2008. He resides in Front Royal, Virginia, with his wife Susan and their three children.

209