Heretics, Schismatics, or Catholics?: Latin Attitudes to the Greeks in the Long Twelfth Century 0888442165, 9780888442161

Citation preview

STUDIES AND TEXTS 216

Heretics, Schismatics, or Catholics? Latin Attitudes to the Greeks in the Long Twelfth Century

SAVVAS NEOCLEOUS

1’0 N r I I I < ' A I

INSTITUTE Ol

M I'. I> I A I! V A I, STUDIES

Acknowledgements I 'ublic.il ion of this volume was made possible by funds generously provided by the Basilian bathers of the University of St Michael’s College.

/ ibraiy and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication I Hie I li'ictics, schismatics, or Catholics? : Latin attitudes to the Greeks in the long twelfth * enluiy / Savvas Neocleous. Names: Neocleous, Savvas, author. | Pontifical Institute ofMediaeval Studies, publisher. Seiles: Si tidies and texts (Pontifical Institute ofMediaeval Studies) ; 216. I >c'.i i ipl ion: Series statement: Studies and texts ; 216 | Includes bibliographical references and index.

Identifiers: Canadiana (print) 20190063769 | Canadiana (ebook) 20190064803 | ISBN 0780888442161 (hardcover) | ISBN 9781771104012 (PDF)

Subjei I··: I.( \SH: Orthodox Eastern Church - Relations - Catholic Church. | LCSH: Catholic ( ’hui-ch - Relations - Orthodox Eastern Church. | LCSH: Orthodox Eastern Church I '01 trines - History - To 1500. | LCSH: Catholics - Europe, Western - Attitudes I llstory - To 1500. | LCSH: Christian heresies - History - Middle Ages, 600-1500. | IA 'SI I : Byzantine Empire - Relations - Europe, Western. | LCSH: Europe, Western Relations - Byzantine Empire. | LCSH: Latin Empire, 1204-1261 - Civilization. | I < SI 1: Europe - Civilization - Byzantine influences. < l.i-.siIk at ion: LCC BX324.3 .N46 2019 | DDC 270.4 - dc23

IO 2019

Pontifical Institute ofMediaeval Studies 59 Queen’s Park Crescent East

I'oronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 2C4 www.pims.ca

MANUFACTURED IN CANADA

Baysdsd» StaatsbibKoihek München

Dedicated to my parents

Konstantinos and Despo with deep gratitude

for their loving support over the years

Contents

Abbreviations A Note on Transliteration, Capitalisation, and Translation Preface Introduction

x xiii xiv i

< ’HAPTER ONE

I rom Pope Gregory VII to the Eve of the Second Crusade

6

Pope Gregory VII’s Eastern Plan | 6 Alexios I and the Council ofPiacenza | 9 The Preaching of the First Crusade and the Eastern Christians | 12 Documents on the First Crusade and the Greeks | 16 The "Holy Empire” and the "Most Christian Emperor" | 25

Ethnic Stereotypes | 27 Guibert ofNogent and Eastern Christians | 29 Bohemond of Taranto, Pope Paschal II, and Religious Propaganda Against the Greeks | 3Ó Western Latin Theologians and the Greeks | 46 < 11 APTER TWO

I' roin the Second Crusade to the End of Manuel’s Reign The Second Crusade and the Greeks | 51 (~>do ofDeuil and the "Heresies" of the Greeks: Purification ofAltars and Rebaptism | 58 /ntermarriages between the Byzantine Imperial House and Latin Royal Houses | 66 Western Theologians and the Greeks: Anselm of Havelberg and I lis Antikeimenon | 69 I'hc Byzantine Empire and the Latin World in the 1160s and 1170s | 88 I In· Third I,oleran (. 'ouncll and the Byzantine Church | 93 I al in Inlei est tn ( I reek Pahistic in the 11 Sos and 1170s | 95

51

vili I Contents

CHAPTER THREE

The Last Two Decades ofthe Twelfth Century (1180-1198)

98

William of Tyre's Historia and Attitudes toward the Greeks in the

Latin Outremer | 98 Callingfor a New Crusade: King Henry II ofEngland’s Correspon­ dence with the Byzantine Emperor Isaakios II | 106 The German Emperor Frederick Barbarossa, Byzantine Aggression, and the Ideal of Christian Fellowship | 109 The Conquest of Christian Cyprus by the English Expedition ofthe Third Crusade | 120 Theological Differences at the End ofthe Century: The Case of Joachim ofFiore | 122 CHAPTER FOUR

From the Preaching of the Fourth Crusade to the Latin Conquest of Constantinople (1198-1204)

132

Pope Innocent III, the Byzantine Empire and Church, and the Pan­ Christian Crusade Against the Muslims I 132

Preparationsfor the Fourth Crusade and Pope Innocent’s Rejection

of Prince Alexios's Pleas for Help | 141 Prince Alexios's Overtures to the Crusadersfor Military Assistance | 145 The Diversion ofthe Fourth Crusade to the Byzantine Empire and

the Rhetoric of Church Union | 149 The Illegal Déchristianisation ofthe Greeks by the Crusader Clergy | 157 CHAPTER FIVE

Reaction to 1204 and Attitudes toward the Conquered Greeks: The Official Latin Church A Piece ofAnti-Greek Propaganda: Emperor Baldwin I of Constan­ tinople's Letter to the West I 163

Pope Innocent's Reaction to the Latin Conquest of Constantinople | 171 From Euphoria to Disillusionment: Innocent Ill’s Volte-Face on the Outcome of the Fourth Crusade | 183 A Point ofNo Return: Innocent Ill's Dread of a Restored Greek Constantinople | 187 Innocent III and Greek Monasticism and Ecclesiastical Hierarchy | 190

163

Contents | ix

CHAPTER SIX

Reaction to 1204 and Attitudes toward the Conquered Greeks: Evidence from Latin Writers

196

The Eyewitness Accounts of the Fourth Crusade | 196 Chronicling the Fourth Crusadefrom the Distance of Western Europe | 205 French Attitudes toward the Greeks after 1204: The Old French Translation of William of Tyre’s Historia | 225 The Crusader Conquest of Constantinople and the Latin East | 227

Western Theological Attitudes toward the Greeks after 1204 | 234

Conclusions and Epilogue

239

Appendix Bibliography I ndex

2-49 252

279

Abbreviations

Series CCCM

Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio Mediaevalis. Turnhout: Brepols, 1971-.

MGH

Monumenta Germaniae Histórica Concilia. Hanover: Hahn, 1893-.

Concilia Const. Diplomata

Ep. sei. Schriften

SS SS rer. Germ, in usum

scholarum SS rer. Germ. N.S.

Constitutiones et acta publica imperatorum et regum. Hanover: Hahn, 1893-. Diplomata. Hanover: Hahn, 1872-. Epistolae selectae. Berlin: Weidmann, 1916Schriften. Stuttgart: A. Hiersemann, 1952-. Scriptores (in Folio). Hanover: Hahn, 1826-. Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum schol­ arum separatim editi. Hanover: Hahn, 1871-. Scriptores rerum Germanicarum, Nova Series. Berlin: Weidmann, 1922-.

PG

Patrologiae cursus completus, series Graeca, ed. JacquesPaul Migne, 161 vols. Paris: Migne, 1837-1887.

PL

Patrologiae cursus completus, series Latina, ed. JacquesPaul Migne, 221 vols. Paris: Migne, 1844-1864.

RHCOc.

Recueil des historiens des croisades: Historiens occiden­ taux, ed. Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 5 vols. Paris: Imprimerie royale, 1844-1895.

RS

Rolls Series. Rerum Britannicarum medii aevi scriptores; or Chronicles and memorials of Great Britain and Ire­ land during the Middle Ages. Published by the authority ol the I ords ( oniinissioneis oí I lei Majesty's Treasury, lindel I he dll e< I Ion ol I he Mastei ol I he Rolls, 90 vols, ill

·,! London I Ollglliait, I HsH iHufi.

Abbreviations | xi

Primary Sources Albert of Aachen, Historia

Albert ofAachen, Historia lerosolimitana / History 0/ tin·

lerosolimitana

Journey to Jerusalem, ed. and trans. Susan B. Edgi ngl on

Oxford, 2007. Anselm of Havelberg,

Anselm of Havelberg, Dialogi, PL 18 8: 113 9 1248.

Dialogi Baldric of Bourgueil, Histo­ ria lerosolimitana

Fulcher of Chartres, Historia Hierosolymitana

Baldric of Bourgueil, The Historia lerosolimitana 0/ Baldric ofBourgueil, ed. Steven Biddlecombe. Wood bridge, 2014. Fulcher of Chartres, Historia Hierosolymitana, KI 1C Oi

3: 311-485. Paris, 1866.

Geoffrey of Villehardouin,

Geoffrey of Villehardouin, La conquête de Constantinople,

La conquête

ed. and trans. Jean Dufournet. Paris, 2004.

Gesta Francorum

[Gesta Francorum etaliorum Hierosolimitanorum. | The

Deeds of the Franks and the Other Pilgrims to Jerusalem, id and trans. Rosalind Hill. London, 1962). ( ! regory VII, Registrum

Gregory VII, Das Register Gregors Vil, ed. F.rii li < ’.r.p.ii, ■

vols. MGH, Epp. sel. 2. Berlin, 1920-1923. Guibert of Nogent, Dei gesta

Guibert of Nogent, Dei gesta per Francos, ed. K.B.t

per Francos

gens, CCCM 127A. Turnhout, 1996.

Gunther of Pairis, Hystoria Constantinopolitana

Gunther of Pairis, Hystoria Constantinopolitana, ed. I’eiei

1 listoria de expedítione Friderici imperatoris

1 Im

Orth. Hildesheim, 1994. [Historia de expeditions Friderici imperatoris. | Quellen . in

Geschichte des Kreuzzuges Kaiser Friedrichs 1, ed. Anton

Chroust, MGH, SS rer. Germ. N.S. 5: 1

115. Beilin,

1928.

Innocent III, Rcgistruui

Innocent III, Die Register Innocenz'llI, ed. Othmai 1 lageneder el al., 1 i vols. Gia/ and Cologne, 190.1 mi ·,

Joachim ol Flore, I rai talus

Join him ol Fiore, Trat lulus su/ni quotum ITuiigi'hu, rd

l i nrslo Biion.iliit 1. Koine, 1 0 JO

xii I Abbreviations

L’estoire de Eracles (Traduc­

tion de Guillaume de Tyr).

[L’estoire de Eracles empereur et la conqueste de la terre d'Outremer (Traduction de Guillaume de Tyr).] Guillaume

de Tyr et ses continuateurs: Texte français du XHIe siècle, ed. Paulin Paris, 2 vols. Paris, 1879-1880. Matthew Paris, Chronica Majora

Matthew Paris, Chronica Majora, ed. Henry Richards

Niketas Chômâtes, Chronike diegesis

Niketas Chômâtes, [Chronike diegesis,] Nicetae Choniatae

Odo ofDeuil, Deprofectione Ludovici

Odo ofDeuil, Deprofectione Ludovici VII in orientem, ed. and trans. Virginia Gingerich Berry. New York, 1948.

Orderic Vitalis, Historia ecclesiastica

Robert of Qari, La conquête

Robert the Monk, Historia Iherosolimitana

Luard, 7 vols., RS 57. London, 1872-1883.

Historia, ed. Jan-Louis van Dieten, Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 11. Berlin, 1975.

Orderic Vitalis, [Historia ecclesiastica,] The Ecclesiastical

History of Orderic Vitalis, ed. and trans. Marjorie Chibnail, 5 vols. Oxford, 1969-1980. Robert of Clari, La conquête de Constantinople, ed. and trans. Peter Noble. Edinburgh, 2005. Robert the Monk, The Historia Iherosolimitana of Robert the Monk, ed. D. Kempf and M.G. Bull. Wood­ bridge, 2013.

William of Newburgh,

William of Newburgh, Historia rerum Anglicarum, ed.

Historia rerum Anglicarum

Richard Howlett, RS 82, vol. 1. London, 1884.

William of Tyre, Historia

William of Tyre, [Historia rerum in partibus transmarinis gestarum,] Chronique, ed. R.B.C. Huygens, 2 vols.,

CCCM63-63A. Turnhout, 1986.

A Note on Transliteration; Capitalisation; and Translation Studies of Byzantium face a persistent problem: how to render Greek names. In this book I have adopted the approach of Anthony Kaldellis, a notable authority in the field. Accordingly, as a rule, I transliterate Byzantine names from the Greek rather than Latinise or Anglicise them, e.g., loannes instead ofJohn, Georgios instead of George, Theodoras instead of Theodore, Isaakios instead of Isaac, Nikephoros instead of Nicephorus, Komnenos instead of Comnenus, Eirene instead of Irene. This approach is intended to give the reader a more direct feel­ ing for the Byzantine Empire and its people. One exception to this approach is for individuals who are already well known by the English forms of their names, such as Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Athanasius of Alexan­ dria, Didymus, John II Komnenos - in doing so, I follow Kaldellis, who defines any individual whose name is used in two or more English book titles as “well known.”1 The words “catholic” and “orthodox” are not capitalised to avoid confusion with the modem terms Catholic and Orthodox. The Christians who are today defined as Roman Catholics and Greek Orthodox were known in the Middle Ages as Latins (or Latin Christians) and Greeks (or Greek Christians) respecI ively. In the long twelfth century - and in the context of this book - the term "catholic,” derived from the Greek word καθολικός (katholikos), meaning “uni­ versal,” designates all members of the singular body of the Christian Church, while the term “orthodox,” derived from the Greek word ορθόδοξος (orthodoxos),

refers to someone “following the right belief,” in other words, adhering to the correct Christian creed. Quotations from published modern translations are frequently silently cor­ rected and amended in light of my own close reading of the original texts. Unless otherwise noted, all translations are my own.

: Anthony K.iklelli·., S/kiiiii·. / ( lu/il, Kivu ■■ / Blooil: I'llC Rise mid I'il/lo/ l: ; (tiles (Constable, “The Fourth (Crusade,” in Crusaders and Crusading in the Twelfth Cen­ tury, ed. (files (Constable (Farnham, 1008), 321 -347, at 338. 6. < In is Wright, "On the Margins of (Christendom: The Impact of the (Crusades on Byzantium," in The ('rusildes and the Near I· a st, ed. (Conor Kostick (London, 201 1), 55 82, lit 60. I tana ( 'arli'Ii 111 Mum o, tian·. , / I'/fi'i \ of the Ciusadri< Written from the I loly I and ( Philadelphia, 1 H96), 1 u

Introduction | 3

more acute since the middle of the eleventh century/’ an allusion to the so-called schism of 1054.8 Two decades later, in his Histoire de l'Empire Byzantin, the French Byzantinist Charles Diehl argued that the diversion of the Fourth Crusade was the necessary consequence of the papacy’s hostility, the ambitions ofVenice, and the hatred of the entire Latin world for the Greeks.9 By the second half of the twentieth century the notion of Latin hatred for the Byzantines was deeply entrenched in historiography. In the 1960s, Charles M. Brand maintained that “the rising Western hostility for Byzantium... culminated in the diversion of the Fourth Crusade and the Latin capture of Constantinople,” while Jacques Le Goff, in his La civilisation de l'Occident médiéval, wrote of “accu­ mulated envy and rancour” of the Latins toward the Greeks which “culminated in the assault of 13 April 1204, an atrocious massacre of men, women and chil­ dren, and a pillage in which envy and hatred were finally sated.”10 In a similar vein, three years after Le Goffs statement, Speros Vryonis, in his 1967 Byzan­ tium and Europe, claimed that “the crusaders vented their hatred for the Greeks most spectacularly in the desecration of the greatest Church in Christendom ... The estrangement of East and West, which had proceeded over the centuries, culminated in the horrible massacre that accompanied the conquest of Con­ stantinople.”11 In his The Last Centuries ofByzantium, 1261-1453, first published in 1972, Donald Nicol pointed to a “growing hostility between the Byzantine East and the Latin West.... A climate of opinion had been created in Western Europe in which the eventual capture of Constantinople and conquest of the Byzantine Empire seemed a quite logical and natural development.”12 In the 1980s, Gerald Day wrote of a “gradually worsening animosity between the Greeks and Westerners that culminated in the Fourth Crusade,” while Steven Runciman stated: “so we come to the tragedy of 1204, the grand ambitious revenge of Venice on Byzantium, but a revenge that could not have been organised had it not

8. Walter Norden, Der Vierte Kreuzzug im Rahmen der Beziehungen des Abendlandes zu Byzanz (Berlin, 1898), 2. 9. (Tiarles Diehl, Histoire de l'Empire Byzantin (Paris, 1919), 169-170. 1 . ( Iharles Μ. Brand, “The Byzantines and Saladin, 1185-1192: Opponents of the third ( irusade,” Speculum 37 (1962): 167-181, at 180; Jacques Le Goff, La civilisation de l'( laident médiéval (Paris, 1964), 183, translation in Jacques Le Goff, Medieval Civilisation, 400 1500, trans.Julia Barrow (Oxford andNew York, 1988), 144-145. 1 1. Speros Vryonis, Byzantium and Europe (London, 1967), 152. 1 ■ I lon.ild Μ. Nicol, The Last Centuries of Byzantium, 1261 14.53, 2nd ed. (London, 1 nut), 4,7,

CHAPTER ONE

From Pope Gregory VII to the Eve of the Second Crusade

Pope Gregory VII's Eastern Plan

In his letter of 22 January 1075 to Abbot Hugh of Cluny, Pope Gregory VII enu­ merates the misfortunes of Christendom which were the cause of much distress to him. When the pope observed the regions of the west, north, or south, he could “scarcely find bishops who are lawful in respect of their succession and life, and who rule the Christian people from love of Christ and not from secular ambi­ tion.” As to the secular rulers of Christendom, Gregory doubted whether there were any of them “who place God’s honour before their own and righteousness before lucre.”1 What, however, caused the pope’s “immeasurable grief and uni­ versal sorrow” was that “by the devil’s prompting the Eastern Church has fallen away from the catholic faith, and through his members [i.e., the Saljüqs] the ancient enemy himself [i.e., the devil] is everywhere slaying Christians, so that those whom the head [i.e., the devil] kills in the spirit, his members punish in the flesh.”2 In other words, the pope was perturbed at the estrangement between the Roman and the Eastern Churches, and the slaughter of Christians in the East by the advancing Saljüq Turks. From Gregory’s standpoint, the Saljüqs were the members of a body, of which the head was the devil himself; the Eastern Chris­ tians’ alienation from the Church of Rome resulted in their spiritual annihilation by the devil and eventually their physical extermination by the Saljüqs. Gregory was well aware of the situation in the East at the time. Following the Byzantine defeat at the Battle of Manzikert in 1071, the Saljüq Turks

1. Gregory VII, Registrum, 1:189 (bk 2, no. 49); trans. H.EJ. Cowdrey in The Register of Pope Gregory VII (Oxford, 2002), 139. 2. Gregory VII, Registrum, 1: 189 (bk 1, no. 49); trans. Cowdrey, 139. Similar language is employed in I he pope’s summons of 16 I lecembei 1074 to "all the faithful." < Iregory VII, Regisll inn, 1 173 (bk 1, no ,7), I ran·. < 'owdrcy, 1 17 118.

From Pope Gregory VII to the Eve of the Second Crusade | 7

unleashed a flood of raids inAsia Minor. Between 1071 and 1081 the Saljuqs suc­ ceeded in establishing themselves in significant numbers over large areas ofAna­ tolia.3 Reports about the ravages of the Turkish invasions of Asia Minor soon spread throughout Western Europe.4 The pope was determined not to remain inactive in the face of the Turkish threat. He was much taken with the idea of mobilising a military force for the defence of the Byzantine Empire; thus he could project himself as a protector of all Christians and mend fences with both Con­ stantinople and the Eastern Churches.5 Over the course of 1074, Gregory sent several letters to princes throughout Western Europe endeavouring to drum up support for an expedition to assist the Eastern Christians against the Turks. In his letter of 2 February 1074 to Count William I of Burgundy (1057-1087), Gregory calls upon the count to support the "Christians [i.e., the Byzantines] who are grievously afflicted by the most fre­ quent ravagings of the Saracens and who are avidly imploring us [the Western­ ers] to extend them our helping hand.”6 A month later, on 1 March 1074, the pope made a general summons to Western Christians. The language employed was emotive. Having "learnt... that a race of pagans... strongly prevailed against the Christian empire [i.e., the Byzantine Empire],” Gregory instructs the Westerners, who loved God and acknowledged themselves to be Christians, to “grieve deeply for the pitiable plight of so great an empire and for so great a carnage of Christians [i.e., Byzantines].” The pope admonishes the Western Christians to imitate Christ: “the example of our Redeemer and the debt of fra­ ternal love demand of us that we lay down our lives for the liberation of our broth­

3. Michael Angold, The Byzantine Empire, 1025-1204: A Political History, 2nd ed. (Lon­ don and New York, 1997), 117-120. 4. Gregory VU’s response was elicited by reports transmitted to the West by common people, rather than diplomatic exchanges with the Byzantine government. See H.EJ. Cow­ drey, “Pope Gregory VU’s ‘Crusading’ Plans of 1074,” in Outremer: Studies in the History of the < rusading Kingdom ofJerusalem Presented to Joshua Prawer, ed. B.Z. Kedar, H.E. Mayer, and R.< C. Smail (Jerusalem, 1982), 27-40, at 30-31, 34-35; H.EJ. Cowdrey, “The Gregorian Papacy, Byzantium, and the First Crusade,” Byzantinische Forschungen 13 (1988): 145-169, at 154 155; H.EJ. Cowdrey, Pope Gregory VII, 1073-108$ (Oxford, 1998), 484. 5. Peter Frankopan, The First Crusade: The Callfrom the East (London, 2012), 97-98. See also Jonathan Flarris, "The ‘Schism’ of 1054 and the First Crusade,” Crusades 13 (2014): 1 20, esp. at 16 17. In his discussion of the events of 1054 and their aftermath, Harris cor­ n'd ly points out that "the reformed papacy showed every sign in the later eleventh century of wishing to normalize relations with the Byzantine emperor.... There is little sign of animos­ ity in the 1 elation·. between Rome and (Constantinople in the later eleventh century.” 0 (iregory VII, KegMfUflli 1: 70 71 (bk 1, no. jo); trans. < Cowdrey, 5 1.

8

| CHAPTER ONE

ers [i.e., the Byzantines]; because as he [Christ] laid down his life for us, we also should lay down our lives for our brothers.” Eventually, Gregory urges the West­ erners, “the wounds and the blood of brothers and the peril of this empire [i.e., the Byzantine Empire] may inspire you with due compassion, and... your valour may undergo a not unwilling toil in bringing reinforcements to your brothers.”7 In his letter of 7 December 1074 to King Henry IV of Germany (10531087), Gregory uses language similar to that of his summons of 1 March. What is more, the pope himself appeared determined to set an example to the whole of Western Christendom, declaring in the first person that “by all the means which I am able I should bring help to our brothers ... I would wish to lay down my life for these people.” In the same letter, Gregory reports to Henry that he had “sought to stir up Christians everywhere and to incite them to this purpose: that they should seek... to lay down their life for their brothers.”8 On 16 December 1074, the pope once again summoned the Western Christians to bring help to “our brothers who live across the sea in the Constantinopolitan Empire [i.e., the Byzantine Empire].” In Gregory’s eyes, by giving their lives for their fratres, the Westerns would “defend the heavenly Excellency [i.e., God]” and “show that they are the sons of God.”9 Using almost identical terms, Gregory made it clear to Countess Matilda of Tuscany (1076-1115), in a letter dated at the end of

December 1074, that the Westerners, by sacrificing themselves for the Eastern Christians, would die for Christ. Significantly, as the pope pointed out, although “it is a noble thing to die for our country, it is a far nobler and a truly praisewor­ thy thing to give our corruptible flesh for Christ, who is life eternal.” Even the pope himselfwas ready to act so - as he stated, “I would most gladly cross the sea, if need be to lay down my life for Christ.”10 Gregory’s plan for an expedition to the East seems to have had considerable appeal among Westerners. Already, by 2 February 1074 Countess Beatrice of Tuscany with her daughter Matilda and son-in-law Duke Godfrey IV of Lower Lorraine (1069-1076) were ready to support the papal project, while by 10 Sep­ tember, Count William VI of Poitou (1058-1086) expressed his eagerness to hasten to “the service of Saint Peter.”11 By the end of the year the pope seems to have had enough evidence to “believe that many knights support us in such a

7. Gregory VII, Registrum, 1: 75 (bk 1, no. 49); trans. Cowdrey, 55. 8. Gregory VII, Registrum, 1: 165-166 (bk 2, no. 31); trans. Cowdrey, 122-123. 9. Gregory VII, Registrum, 1: 173 (bl ( 19H0 ): 427-76, at 458 4 67J ( Christopher Tyerm.m, Gods Wur; A New I lislory n/1 In- ( in null's (London, 2006), 1 61 16 u Bi el I I id ward Whalen, "God'·. Will or Nol ? Bohemond ’·. i anipaign Against the Byzantine limpno ( 1 105 1 107),'' in 7'he ( iiisades Mi'ilieval W'nilil. in (nn/I lit, ed. Thomas I Madden, |ann··, I Naus, and Vim enl Ryan ( I ;ai id lain, 1010), III I 16.

20 I CHAPTER ONE

the imperial capital.04 Irrespective ofwhether it was Raymond or Bohemond sug­ gesting an assault on Constantinople, there appears to be unanimity in the chron­ icles concerning the reply from the rest of the leaders. The proposal was firmly rejected on the grounds that the Byzantines were Christians. The sense of Christian comradeship reasserted itself in the late summer of 1099, when a Pisan fleet of 120 ships, which had sailed on crusade under the com­ mand of Archbishop Daimbert of Pisa (1084/8-1105), arrived off the coast of Antioch. Confronted with Byzantine pressure to surrender Antioch, Bohemond immediately made an approach to Daimbert and the Pisan captains, seeking to secure naval support for an attack on the Byzantine town of Latakia, which lay approximately 100 km south of Antioch. The Pisan fleet had already attacked several Byzantine islands en route to Syria after it had been denied permission to winter on the Ionian islands, and therefore its commanders were not loath to believe Bohemond’s propaganda against the people of Latakia.64 65 The Norman’s propaganda, deplored by Albert as “something quite other than the truth,” led the Pisans to provide him with naval support for an attack on “a city inhabited by catholic Greeks [catholici Graeci],” catholici being a term derived from the Greek word καθολικός (katholikos'), meaning “universal,” and designating all members

of the singular body of the Church. In September 1099 Latakia was besieged by Bohemond and the Pisan fleet. In the meantime, following the battle of Ascalon on 12 August 1099, a considerable part of the crusader army, under Raymond of Toulouse, Robert Curthose of Normandy (1087-1106), and Robert II of Flan­ ders (1093-1111), began their march northwards. At Jabala the leaders discov­ ered that Bohemond had laid siege to Latakia. As Albert relates, they dispatched envoys to the Norman leader asking him “to withdraw from the siege of the. city and not to inflict any further injustice on Christians.” Additionally, the /princes reproached Daimbert for having “unfairly exerted force against Christian citi­ zens, namely those of Latakia.” When Bohemond rejected the other leaders’ demands, the latter prepared themselves forbattle while Daimbert, portrayed by 64. Fora detailed discussion of the two quotations from Albert ofAachen and Orderic Vitalis, see Savvas Neocleous, Ts the Contemporary Latin Historiography of the First Cru­ sade and Its Aftermath Anti-Byzantine’?” in Papers from the First and Second Postgraduate Forums in Byzantine Studies: Sailing to Byzantium, ed. Savvas Neocleous (Newcastle, 2009), 27-52, at 36-39. 65. John H. Pryor, “Water, Water Everywhere, Nor Any Drop to Drink: Water Sup­ plies for the Fleets on the First Crusade,” in Dei gesta per Francos: Études sur les croisades dédiées à Jean Richard / Crusade Studies in Honour ofJean Richard, ed. Michel Balard, Benjamin Z. Kedar, andjonathan Riley-Smith (Aidershot, 2001), 21-28, at 23- 24; Ralph-Johannes I,ilie, Byzantium and the C'.rusadcr Stales, icon 120./, trans. J.C. Morris and lean It Ridings (IIxford, . Puli her oft hailics, I llitoria I licrosolymltitnu 1.1 8, p. 45 1; trans. Ryan, z.| 1..

From Pope Gregory VII to the Eve of the Second Crusade | 25

war since 1119, the fleet attacked the islands on its return journey to Venice fol lowing the successful siege of Tyre.87 As Fulcher laments, the Venetians

threw down the walls [of the islands’ citadels], carried off the boys and gi 1 Is into miserable captivity, and took away with them money of all kinds. Bui since we could not change the fact on hearing of it we grieved in pity to 11 h depths of our hearts.... The Venetians had the purpose of avenging them selves; the emperor, of defending himself, which was, he says, more jusl However, the innocent, placed in the middle, suffer punishment for injus tices for which they are not to blame, and perish unjustly.88 In Fulcher’s eyes, the attack on Christians by a crusading fleet, regardless ol the relations between Byzantium and Venice, was a disgrace. Drawing upon Matthew 18:7, the Frankish historian bewails the fate of the inhabitants: “woe to the woi Id because of scandals! And woe also to them through whom scandals come II I he fault is the emperor’s then indeed he was governed wickedly; if the Venetians (hey have acquired damnation for themselves.”89

The "Holy Empire” and the “Most Christian Emperor"

On 1 March 1074, in his general summons to Western Christians, Pope Gregory VII had twice termed the Byzantine Empire as “the Christian empire | elms lianum imperium].”90*In the early decades of the twelfth century the Christian Byzantine Empire and its ruler still enjoyed immense prestige in Western ion sciousness. In his Gesta Roberti Wiscardi, completed around 1099, William ol Apulia (fl. late eleventh century), a south Italian ofNorman or Lombard origin, describes the Byzantine Empire as “holy empire [imperium sanctum]" lour limes.9' Likewise, in Books VII, X, and XI - written in the 1 1308 of his / hsto rm ccclesiastica, Orderic Vitalis also uses the same phrase lour times Io desi 1 ihe I lie empire of Constantinople and chastise those enemies who "dared Io raise .1

87. Thomas Devaney, '“Like an limber Buried in Ashes': The Byzantine Venetian < 'on lln I ol 1 1 19 11 ift,” in Crusades: Medieval Worlds in < 'on/liel, cd. Thomas I·', Madden, lames I Naus, and Vincent Ryan (Farnham, 2040), 117 147. 88. Fulcher ol (Ihartres, I listoria I lierosolymilana 1, p. 470; trans. Ryan, 17ft 27·· 89. Fulcher o! ( hartres, I listoria I licrosolymitana 1.4 1, p. 4701 tian·. Ryan, 17ft 90. (Iregory VII, Itryislnini, i:7$(bk 1, no. 49)1 trans < owdrey, 5$. 91 William ol Apulia, Ia e, •Jr dr HohnI (Iiiimaid 1 4 - ■, 1 .s 1 s, .· .|8 ·, 1 87, cd .11 id 11.111·. Marguei He Mathieu (I'aleimo, 1901), 1 > 4 11. s, 11 ft 1 .· ·, 1 $8 1 sq, 108 109

16 | CHAPTER ONE

hand against it/’ namely a supposed pretender to the Byzantine throne guilty of collaborationism with the “enemies of the [Byzantine] state ... [i.e.,] the treach­ erous Normans/’ the unruly soldiers of the Crusade of 11 o i, and Bohemond and his associates in the 1107 “crusade” against Byzantium.92 In a similar fashion, the re-worker ofAlexios’s letter to Robert the Frisian describes the Byzantine Empire as “the most holy empire of the Greek Christians [sanctissimum imperium christianorum Graecorum]”93

After the capture of Nicaea on i9june 1097, Stephen ofBlois (1089-1102), writing to his wife Adela, daughter ofWilliam the Conqueror (1066-1087), exalts the Byzantine ruler Alexios as a “venerable [venerabilis]” and “great [magnus]” emperor, asserting that “in our times ... there has not been a prince so distin­ guished for general integrity of character.”94 The anonymous clerical compiler of the Gesta episcoporum Tullensium, who completed his account following the death of Bishop Pibo ofToul (1070-1107), praises the Byzantine monarch as “the most glorious emperor of the Greeks [gloriosissimus Graecorum imperator].”9S96 Soon after 1125, Cerbano Cerbani, a Venetian cleric who had served as

interpreter or translator at the Byzantine court, commemorates Alexios as “a mag­ nificent emperor ofpious memory [piae memoriae magnificus Alexius imperator],” while Albert of Aachen, who completed his Historia lerosolimitana sometime between the 1120s and the 1140s, eulogises the Byzantine ruler not only as a “magnificent [magnificus],” “most renowned [nominatissimus],” and “glorious [g/oriosus],” but also as a “pious [pius],” “Christian [Christianas],” and even “most Christian [Christianissimus]” emperor.^"5 In a letter addressed to Alexios’s son and successor, John II (1118-1143), Peter the Venerable (d. 1156), abbot of the Benedictine abbey of Cluny, extolls the Byzantine ruler as “glorious and magnificent emperor of the city of Con­ stantinople” who basked in “the glory and name of the great Romanum imperium,” and was “exalted ... over all the princes of Christendom [super omnes Christiani nominis principes].”97 Orderic Vitalis portrays King Fulk ofJerusalem (1131-43) 92. Orderic Vitalis, Historia ecclesiastica 7.5,10.20,11.24, vols. 4: 14-15,5: 332-333,6: 102-103. 93. Hagenmeyer, ed., Epistulae et chartae, 130-131 (no. 1). 94. Stephen ofBlois, Epistolae 1, RHC Oc. 3: 885-890, at 886-887; trans. Krey, 100101. 95. Gesta episcoporum Tullensium 48, MGH, SS 8: 631-648, at 647. 96. Cerbano Cerbani, Translatio mirifici martyris Isidori a Chio insula in civitatem Venetam 2, RHC Oc. 5: 322-334, at 323; Albert ofAachen, Historia lerosolimitana 1.13,1.15, 2.16, 4.40, 8.3, pp. 28, 30, 84, 310, 588. 97. Peter the Venerable, The Letters of Peter the Venerable, ed < ¡lie·. < unstable (Cam bridge, MA, 1967), 1: 208 (no. 75).

From Pope Gregory VII to the Eve of the Second Crusade | 27

as describing John II as a “Christian emperor with great power [Christianas enim est imperator magnaeque potential].”9* Even those First Crusade chronicles -

mainly the Gesta Francorum and its derivatives - which fulminate against the Byzantine Emperor Alexios, denouncing him as “malicious [iniquus],” “most wicked [nequissimus],” or “perfidious [perfidus],” do not nevertheless challenge his Christianitas." It is worthwhile to note that the Greek patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem at the time of the First Crusade also received a favourable mention in the Latin historiography. The Patriarch of Antioch, loannes IV the Oxite (c. 1089-1100), is praised by Albert of Aachen as “a most Christian man [uir Christianissimus],” while the Patriarch ofJerusalem, Simeon II (c. 1084-1099), is lauded by the same chronicler as “a faithful servant of Christ [fidelis Christi seruus],” a “most Chris­ tian patriarch [Christianissimus patriarchal,” and “a very holy man [vir sanctissimus].”10° Differences between the Roman and Eastern Churches did in no way prevent Albert of Aachen from heaping praise on the two Greek prelates.

Ethnic Stereotypes

t he Westerners’ adherence to the ideal of Christian fraternity is not surprising given the circumstances surrounding the plea for the First Crusade made by I )i han II. The Byzantine people as a whole were clearly perceived by the West■ niers as their Christian brethren. Assessments of the Byzantines as “soft | mo/Zes],” “effeminate [ejfeminati],” “lazy [inertes],” or “crafty [versipelles]” are .mot her matter, and by no means call into question the Christian identity of the (¡reeks.98 101 These assessments are not only very scarce, given their rarity in the 100 99 98. Orderic Vitalis, Historia ecclesiastica 13.34, vol. 6: 508. 99. Gesta Francorum 1.3, p. 6; Robert the Monk, Historia Iherosolimitana 1.13, p. 12; 1 ¡ulbert ofNogent, Dei gesta per Francos 2.11, p. 128. 100. Albert of Aachen, Historia lerosolimitana 5.1, 6.39, pp. 338-339,452-453. 101. Albert ofAachen, Historia lerosolimitana 4.6,12.15, pp. 254-255,846-847. Gesta I nnuvrum 9.28, p. 67. Guibert ofNogent, Dei gesta per Francos 2.18, 3.4,6.3, pp. 135,142, 235; II .in . I,evine, 55,60, 108. Robert the Monk, Historia Iherosolimitana $.1,7.6, pp. 48,71; trans, '.ivi elenham, 137, 166. Orderic Vitalis, Historia ecclesiastica 10.12, vol. 5: 274-277. The accu«ulh m against the Greeks as “soft and effeminate” seems to have been of Eastern origin since, m the above sources, it is almost always put into the mouths ofMuslim rulers, namely the . il| ui| sultan ol Hum Qilij Arslan I (1092 1107) and the atabeg of Mosul, Kirbuga. See also Hi. I.ii.-i work Historia orlentalls ol James ol Vitry, bishop of Acre from I2i6through 1228, I10 deph is the Zengld ruler ol Syria Nur al Din (1146 1 174) as regarding the Greeks as ■ 'mH, , el illcininali lames ol Vitry, Historia orientalis 94, ed. and trans. |. Donnadieu 1 I 111 nhoiit, 1.00H), 4 >0 11 1

18 | CHAPTER ONE

large number ofLatin accounts of the First < rusade and its aftermath composed in the first four decades of the twelfth century, but also reflect generalised stereo­ types or, at the very most, a slight contempt, rather than specific identifiable crit­ icism, condemnation, or “anti Byzantine” sentiment.101 What is more, such assessments should not be given too much weight, as they were part of a grow­ ing body of ethnic stereotype·.: in the eleventh and especially twelfth centuries ethnic stereotypes became more elaborate and a literary tradition of loci com­ munes and cliches was developed I o characterise European ethnic groups in either a derisive or complimentary manner as a consequence of more direct contacts.102 103 In the emerging eleventh and twelfth-century tradition of ethnic stereotypes, the Greeks were prudent and eloquent but also soft and cowardly. A typical exam­ ple of this stereotypical image is found in Orderic Vitalis’s work. On 28 August 1137 the army of the Byzantine EmperorJ ohn II reached Antioch and began to lay siege to the city. Orderic quotes a follower of Raymond of Poitiers (1136-1149), prince ofAntioch, as declaring that “the Greeks are strong in wisdom [prudentia pol­ lent] and surpass all other nations in eloquence [eloquentia caeteris nationibus emi­ nent], but in difficult enterprises they lack daring and courage [audacia etfortitudine carent].”104 More importantly, however, stereotypes such as laziness, softness, and cowardice were by no means reserved for the Greeks. While Guibert of Nogent describes the Greeks as inertissimi, he relates that in his presence “a certain archdea­ con of Mainz,” a German, vilified [yilipenderit] the French as “idle [inertes]” and “feeble [marcidi]” and “derisively [irrisorie]” described them as Francones.105 Wal­ ter Map (d. c. 1209), a Welsh cleric and civil servant in the service ofKing Henry II ofEngland (1154-1189), describes not only the Greeks but also the Normans of Sicily as “useless in warlike matters [bellicis inepti].”106 Besides Greeks, both French and Flemings were dismissed as molies by other European groups while the people from Lombardy were deplored as “cowardly [imbelles],” as documented in a list of ethnic stereotypes in circulation at the University of Paris in the 1200s compiled by the historian and theologian James ofVitry (d. 1240).107 Finally, although the Vir102. For a detailed treatment of this issue, see Neocleous, “Contemporary Latin His­ toriography of the First Crusade,” 42-49. 103. Imago logy: The Cultural Construction and Literary Representation ofNational Char­ acters: A Critical Survey, ed. Manfred Beller and Leerssen Joep (Amsterdam and New York, 2007), 57,160,441-442. 104. Orderic Vitalis, Historia ecclesiastica 13.34, vol. 6; 504-505. 105. Guibert ofNogent, Dei gesta per Francos 2.1, p. 108. 106. Walter Map, De nugis curialium 5.5, ed. and trans. M.R. James, rev. C.N.L. Brooke and R.A.B. Mynors (Oxford, 1983), 450-451. 107. Janies ofVitry, IHstoria o11 temporaries in the West who cited the Pauline letter in defence of clerical mar1 i.ige, and Guibert mistakenly assumed that the same was true for “many [Eastern] 1 cgions.”124 Clerical marriage, in fact, remained a minor issue that divided the Western and Eastern Churches. Obviously, Guibert’s polemic against clerical mar1 i.igc was about protecting the Latins’ separate status with regard to clerical ■ 'lili.icy from those threatening it within their own Church. I lespite criticising the Easterners’ deviation “from faith in the Trinity” and clern al marriage, Guibert still acknowledges them as Christian brothers. The French d Lot of Nogent censures the Westerners comprising the first wave of crusaders 110 1 cached the Byzantine Empire - known as “the People’s Crusade” - for their I...... Ici ly conduct and pillaging at the shores ofBithynia in Byzantine Asia Minor. ■-1 lie 11 ironicler underlines, “those who had taken a vow to fight against the pagans c ni',hl with brutality against men of our own faith [contra nostraefidei homines], 1 imyiiig churches everywhere, and stealing the possessions of Christians [ Chris'' · Guibert even elaborates on statements demonstrating a strong sense of 1 1111 '.11.1 n comradeship found in the source he is re-writing, the Gesta Francorum. 1 In· (iislii Francorum records that after the surrender of the city of Tarsus to the • •i 1 ii.111 T.mcred by the local Christians in September 1097, following the flight of I mkish garrison, the Frankish Baldwin ofBoulogne-obviously envious of the ;" 1111.111 '·, success - demanded that both princes enter the city and plunder it. The • . 1.1 I nincorum records that Tancred replied “I have no wish to fight Christians ■ In c.lidiio.s nolo expoliare]” and departed Tarsus.126 Guibert elaborates on this 11.mi I

in (iuibert ofNogent, Dei gesta per Francos 1.2, p. 93; trans. Levine, 31. 1 · 1 (iuibert of Nogent, Dei gesta per Francos 1.2, p. 93; trans. Levine, 31. See Ni 1. I In· Impact of the Hirst Crusade on Western Opinion,” 167; Stefan Heid, Celibacy in ! . / .oly 1 him h: I'hc Beginnings of a Discipline of Obligatory Continence for Clerics in East >1 III. 1, 11.111·.. Michael |. Miller (San francisco, 2000), 41-52; Helen L. Parish, Clerical 1 , 1.1 111 tin· IVi'sl, 1. lino 1700 (I'.unham, 2009), 99, 114-115; Anne L. Barstow, Married in, "i.I the Ri'/nrniing I’apaiy: I'hc Eleventh Century Debates (New York and Toronto, . . I. I .. ■ 117 1 1 iulbeil ol Nogent, I >i'i geslii per I’rain os 1.9, p. 113; trans. Levine, 49. Im (oUii liiiiu oniin 1 io,pp, ;.| is

34 | CHAPTER ONE

statement by making the Norman prince declare "Our plan was to fight the Turks, not to rob Christians [id se habere propositi, impugnare utique Turcos, non spoliare Christianos]127 Guibert’s reference to the real objective of the crusade, which was to fight the Muslims and protect the Eastern Christians, is a further testiment to the chronicler’s adherence to the ideal of Christian fraternity. What is more, Guibert quotes Urban as proclaiming at Clermont that if among the Churches distributed throughout the whole world some deserve reverence before others on account of persons and on account of places,... on account of persons greater privileges are attributed to the apos­ tolic sees while on account of places the same degree of dignity which is granted on account of persons is also attributed to royal cities such as the city of Constantinople.128

The apostolic sees alluded to by Guibert are the three Petrine Patriarchates: Rome and Antioch, established by Peter, and Alexandria, founded by Saint Mark, a disciple of Saint Peter. In a letter to the Patriarch Eulogios ofAlexandria (581608), Pope Gregory the Great (590-604) describes the three patriarchates as seated on the same chair of Peter.129 In contrast, Constantinople was not an apos­ tolic see. Although the Second Ecumenical Council, which took place in Con­ stantinople in 381, had decreed in its third canon that the Church of Constan­ tinople should be ranked second in status after the Roman Church since Constantinople was the New Rome, the papacy, at least until the Fourth Coun­ cil of Constantinople (869-870), continued to recognise only the three Petrine patriarchates as genuine.130 Only in the ninth century did Pope Hadrian II (867872) acknowledge Constantinople in the second rank in the Church by approv­

ing the twenty-first canon of the controversial Fourth Council of Constantino­ ple which forbade offences against any of the five patriarchs, the patriarch of Constantinople being listed second after the pope of Rome.131 Even though Pope Leo IX (1049-105 4) revived the old Latin idea of the triarchy in the mid-eleventh century, the Decretum Gratiani - compiled and written around 1140 and super­ 127. Guibert of Nogent, Dei gesta per Francos 3.13, p. 163; trans. Levine, 70. 128. Guibert of Nogent, Dei gesta per Francos 2.4, p. 111; trans. Levine, 42. 129. Gregory I, Registrum Epistolarum, PL 77: 441-1328, at 898-900. 130. Norman P. Tanner, ed., Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1: Nicaea I - Lateran V (Washington, DC, 1990), 31-32; Jeffrey Richards, The Popes and the Papacy in the Early Middle Ages, 476-752 (London, 1979), 9. 131. Tanner, ed., Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 182· 183; Richard Janies Cleary, Pope Innocent III and the Greek ('hutch (1108 1116) (Rome, 1993), 33.

From Pope Gregory VII to the Eve of the Second Crusade | 35

seding all earlier collections of canon law of the Latin Church - formalised the theory of pentarchy, assigning the second rank in the Church to the see of Con­ stantinople, the “New Rome.”132 It is not unlikely that Pope Urban acknowledged the patriarchal dignity of the Church of Constantinople in his speech at Clermont, given his active policy of rapprochement with the Eastern Church. Robert the Monk, who was also pres­ ent at Clermont and was influenced by Urban’s speech, affirms that Constan­ tinople “should indeed be equal to Rome in the dignity of what it protects [i.e., I he sacred relics] and the excellence of its royal dignity,” even though Rome was st ill the “head and chief of all Christendom” as it “is elevated by the presence of the pope.”133 While the available corroborating evidence allowus to accept that I)rban said the words, or similar ones, attributed to him by Guibert, the fact that the Benedictine chronicler chose to record them attests to the fact that he aligned II i mself with the view that the Church of Constantinople enjoyed the same diguity as the apostolic sees. Guibert’s rendering of Urban’s speech concludes by asserting that “we owe the greatest reverence to that Church from which we 1 eceived the grace of redemption [gratia redemptionis] and the origin of all Chrisli.mity [totius origo Christianitatis].”134 This statement, if articulated at all by (I rban, must have referred to the Eastern Church in general rather than to Con­ st.mtinople, as Guibert records. This interpretation is supported by Baldric of I 'ol's redaction of Urban’s speech, according to which the pope declared to the .1 ·. .embled crowd at Clermont that the Eastern Church “is from which the joys of your whole salvation have come forth, which poured into your mouths the milk < il divine wisdom, which set before you the holy teachings of the Gospels.”135 Both Baldric’s version of Urban’s speech and especially Guibert’s redaction, Hi. “Secundum a Romano Pontifice Constantinopolitanus obtinet locum: Constantinop"Iil.in.ii· ciuitatis episcopum habere oportet primatus honorem post Romanum episcopum, pH ipler quod sit noua Roma.” Gratian of Bologna, Decretum 22.3 in E.A. Friedberg, ed., Cor/'ii'· un is canonici 1 (Leipzig, 1879), 75-76. “Constantinopolitana ecclesia secundum a Romana • '1'11111·! locum: Renouantes sancti Constantinopolitaniconcilii decreta, petimus, ut Constan.... ipolitana sedes similia priuilegia, que superior Roma habet, accipiat, non tamen ecclesirilli 1·. 1 ebus magnificetur, utilla; ut hec secunda post illam existens, prius quamAlexandrina • di·, numeretur; deinde Antiocena, et post earn lerosolimitana.” Gratian of Bologna, Decreiiuii · 1..6 in Friedberg, ed., Corpus iuris canonici 1, 75-76. 1 H. Robert the Monk, Historia lherosolimitana 2.20, p. 21; trans. Sweetenham, 102. 1 i|. < iuibert of Nogent, Dei gesta per Francos 2.4, p. 111; trans. Levine, 42. 1 is, Baldric of Bourgueil, Historia lerosolimitana 1, p. 9; trans. Krey, 19. In a similar in, Pope Paschal 11 (1099-1118), Urban Il’s successor, describes “theEastern Church [Ori■ "i.1I1·. 111 Icsiu (" as "our mother | mater nostra].” See Hagenmeyer, ed., Epistulae et chartae, 1 . (no. 1 y).

j6 I CHAPTER ONE

which substitutes the Eastern Church with the Church of Constantinople, clearly demonstrate that the Church of the Byzantine imperial capital enjoyed much esteem in Western consciousness at the turn of the twelfth century.136

Bohemond of Taranto, Pope Paschal II, and Religious Propaganda Against the Greeks

Although differences between the Churches of Rome and Constantinople in doc­ trine and practice clearly did not trouble the vast majority of Latin chroniclers in the first decades of the twelfth century, these differences were nevertheless exploited for political purposes by the Byzantine Empire’s enemies in the course of the cen­ tury, beginning with the Norman Bohemond of Taranto. In June 1098 Antioch was conquered as part ofthe First Crusade. Following its surrender, the city should have been restored to Alexios in accordance with the oaths the crusader leaders took to the Byzantine emperor upon arrival in Constantinople in 1096-1097.137 However, this was unfeasible since Alexios’s representative, Tatikios, was absent. Furthermore, at the end of May 1098, while the crusading army was still besieging the city, Bohemond had managed to secure the agreement of the other princes except Raymond of Toulouse to surrender the city to him unless the Byzantine emperor arrived to the crusaders’ aid and fulfilled all his obligations.138 Although Alexios never came to the crusaders’ relief in Antioch, the princes still respected their oaths to him. Raymond of Aguilers and Albert of Aachen explicitly state that the senior princes, namely Godfrey of Bouillon, Robert II of Flanders, and Robert Curthose of Normandy, “did not want to violate the treaty and solemn promise they had made to the emperor of Constantinople.”139 Therefore, to Bohemond’s disappointment, they dispatched Count Hugh ofVermandois (1085-1101) to Constantinople in earlyjuly 1098 to invite the Byzan­

tine ruler “to come and take over the city.”140 At first Alexios did not respond 136. Ni Chleirigh has argued that by attributing this speech to Pope Urban, “Guibert presented the case for the primacy of Rome.... Guibert argued that Rome, as the see of Saint Peter, inherited authority over the Eastern Patriarchates.” Ni Chleirigh, "The Impact of the First Crusade on Western Opinion,” 167. There is, however, no evidence to support this inter­ pretation. 137- John H. Pryor, “The Oaths of the Leaders of the First Crusade to the Emperor Alexius I Comnenus: Fealty, Homage - πίστις, δουλεία,” Parergon NS 2 (1984): 111-132. 138. Gesta Francorum 8.20, p. 45; Thomas Asbridge, The First Crusade: A New History (London and New York, 2004), 201-202, 204-205. 1 39. Albert of Aachen, I lisloriu lerosolimihimi 5.2, pp. 340 141. See also Raymond of Aguilers, I lisloriu I 'riimmum 14, eil. I''rani ej I rails. 11 ill and I I ill, 7s. 140 (,'ιι/,ι I mill mum in in, p, ■;

From Pope Gregory VII to the live / the Second ( 'rusade |

(7

at all.141 Despite this statement on the part of the crusade leaders, two months later, on 11 September 1198, a letter was sent from Antioch to Pope Urban invit­ ing him to Antioch to lead the crusade on to Jerusalem. The letter was composed in the names of all the important barons of the army, namely “Bohemond, Ray­ mond, Count of St Gilles, Godfrey, Duke of Lorraine, Robert, Duke of Nor­ mandy, Robert, Count of Flanders, Eustace, Count of Boulogne.”142 The letter reads that “although we [the crusaders] have triumphed over the Turks and the pagans we cannot do the same with the Greek, Armenian, Syrian and Jacobite heretics [haereticos autem, Graecos et Armenos, Syros, Jacobitasque expugnare nequivimus]” and invite the pope to “have us as your obedient sons in all legiti­ mate actions, eradicating and destroying all types of heresy [haereses] with your authority and our valour.”'43 At first sight, this denunciation of the Eastern Christians as haeretici comes as a surprise. On closer examination, however, it becomes obvious that Bohe­ mond, who claimed Antioch for himself, was behind the letter of 11 September 1 198, the author of the missive being undoubtedly a clerical adviser attached to I he Norman leader.144 The letter’s purpose was to poison the pope’s mind against 1 he Eastern Christians, and secure papal blessing for the creation of a Latin prin­ cipality centered on Antioch under Bohemond at the expense of the “heretical” indigenous Christians. The fact that the letter was composed at Bohemond’s behest is also demonstrated by the fact that the Norman’s first-person voice appears toward the beginning of the otherwise collective letter from the crusader barons, informing Urban that “I, Bohemond, persuaded a certain Turk to betray the city [Antioch] to me.”'45 In 2010, Nicholas L. Paul argued against the view that the letter was altered or wholly fabricated by Bohemond, suggesting that the phrase haereticos autem, Graecos et Armenos, Syros, Jacobitasque may have referred I < > t he crusaders’ coming fight for the cities of southern Syria which were under the control of the Fatimid Shi'ites [haeretici] and of local Christians [Graeci et Armeni, Syri, Jacobitaeque].146 This is an implausible interpretation. The term haeretici is never used to describe either the Shi ite or Sunni Muslims in crusade 141. Lilie, Byzantium and the Crusader States, 42. 142. Hagenmeyer, ed., Epistulae etchartae, 161-165 (no. 16); trans. Barber and Bate, 30-33. 143. Hagenmeyer, ed.,Epistulae et chartae, 164 (no. 16); trans. Barber and Bate, 32 33, 1 I I. Malcolm Barber argues that “Bohemond was the main author.” Barber and Bate, ed and trans., Letters from the East, 30. It is doubtful, however, whether the Norman wrote the letter himself. 145. "ego Bocmundus, conventione facta cum quodam Turco, qui ipsam mihi tradidil • ivilatem.” I lagennieyer, ed,, Epislulue el eharlae, 162 (no. io); trans, Barber and Bale, , 1 140 Nlchol.r. 1 Paul, A W.irloid's Wisdom: Literacy and Propaganda at the Time ol Hu· I n '.I < iusade, S’/ni 11 him H s ( 1 < 1 1 o) ',14 566, al s so

38 | CHAPTER ONE

sources, since Latin authors were completely uninterested in religious differences between the two Muslim sects. Besides, the crusader leaders in Antioch were well aware of the fact that southern Syria was under the control only of the Egyptians and not of the local Christians. Had southern Syria been under Christian control, the crusaders would not have had to fight for its liberation. Given the enthusiastic welcome and help the crusaders had hitherto received from the local Christians under Muslim rule, there seems to be no reason why the crusade leaders would have been hostile to them in their letter berating them as haeretici. The letter’s inviting Urban to come and lead the crusade himself - which was also used by Paul as evidence that the letter was not fabricated by Bohemond - is nothing more than a rhetorical device for courting the pope. In fact, the same device was later used in Bohemond’s letter of 1108 to Pope Paschal II (10991118) in which the Norman invited the pope to come and join the crusaders in

Dyrrachium.147 Bohemond’s letter of 11 September 1198 was destined for obliv­ ion. Fulcher of Chartres, who preserved the missive by including it in the first version of his Historia, composed between 1101 and 1105, decided to jettison it from his final redaction, completed between 1124 and 1127.148 Bohemond’s propaganda against the Eastern Christians, as seen in his letter of 11 September 1198, must have fallen on deaf ears, given Urban’s commitment to a rapprochement between the Western and Eastern Churches. The Norman, however, was determined not to give up. As discussed above, when, in the late summer of 1099, the Pisan fleet under the command of Daimbert of Pisa arrived off the coast of Antioch, Bohemond immediately approached Daimbert and the Pisan captains seeking their support for an attack on Byzantine Latakia.149 Albert of Aachen records that Bohemond “told them [the Pisans] all sorts of evil and severe slanders against the citizens of Latakia, and that they were criminal oppo­ nents of the Christians.”150 The same author has Daimbert report that Bohe­ mond propagated the lie “that the citizens of Latakia were false Christians [falsi Christiani], and always opposed to the Christian brothers [confratres], and... they had been in an extreme degree traitors of the pilgrims among the Turks and Sara­ cens.”151 The Greeks of Latakia were accused not only ofbeing/a/st Christiani but 147. Bohemond, Epistola ad Paschalem II papam, ed. in Walther Holtzmann, "Zur Geschichte des Investiturstreites 2. Bohemund von Antiochen und Alexios I,” Neues Archiv der Gesellschaftfür ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde so (193 s): 270-283, esp. at 280-282. The let­ ter is thoroughly discussed below. 148. Biddlecombe, "Introduction,” xlviii. 149. Lilie, Byzantium and the Crusader States, 62-63; Yewdale, Bohemond I, 87-88. 150. “Omne malum et grande nefas de ciuibus Laodicie referebat, et hos noxios Christianorum calumniatores.” Albert of Aachen, I tisloria leivsolimitana 6.55, pp. 476 -477. 151. Albert of Aachen, Historia leiosoliinihiiui .| 1 971 ), ! : 577 601 (nos. 272 274).

60 I CHAPTER TWO

Baldwin’s letter was nothing more than an apologia for the Latin conquest of Con­ stantinople where every possible accusation was brought forward against the Greeks to justify the conquest of the Christian capital of the Byzantine Empire by the cru­ sading armies.31 This notwithstanding, the use of rebaptism as an excusatio for the Latin conquest of Constantinople demonstrates that Latin Christians resented the Greek custom in question. The same is true for the Greek priests’ purification of altars on which their Latin counterparts celebrated mass. In his Historia orientalis, com­ posed in the Latin East between 1219 and 1226, James ofVitry complained that “the Greeks... regard all the Latins as excommunicates, it has been their custom to purify the altars on which Latins have celebrated the service before they celebrate their own mass.”32 The two Greek customs were considered so insulting by the Latins that Pope Innocent III ( 1198-121 ó), while accepting Greek “customs and rites” at the Fourth Lateran Council in November 1215, did not consent to these two practices since they “bring danger to souls and detract from ecclesiastical honour.”33 The Latins understandably felt insulted by the narrow attitude of an appar­ ently large number of Greek clerics on the issues of rebaptism and purification of the altars, even though, as will become clear below, these customs did not rep­ resent the official line of the Greek Church. Apart from Latin theologians like Anselm of Havelberg (d. 1158) and Hugo Eteriano, who had travelled to Con­ stantinople on diplomatic missions or spent time at the imperial court, Latins in the West must have hardly been aware of these two practises.3435 The Latins of Constantinople and the Latin East, on the other hand, were more familiar with the two Greek customs: the washing of altars applied only to the Latin East where certain churches were being shared by both the Latin and Greek communities, while intermarriages between Greeks and Latins were not infrequent in the Byzantine capital and the Latin Outremer.is The fact that intermarriages did

31. Savvas Neocleous, “Financial, Chivalric or Religious? The Motives of the Fourth Crusaders Reconsidered, ’’Journal ofMedieval History 38 (2012): 183-206, at 202; Andrea, ed. and trans., Contemporary Sourcesfor the Fourth Crusade, 98-99. 32. James ofVitry, Historia orientalis 75, ed. and trans. J. Donnadieu (Turnhout, 2008), 302-303. 33. Norman P. Tanner, ed., Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1: Nicaea I -Lateran V (Washington, DC, 1990), 235. See also Alfred J. Andrea, “Innocent III and the Byzantine Rite, 1198-1216,” in Urbs Capta: The Fourth Crusade and Its Consequences / La IVe Croisade et ses conséquences, ed. Angeliki Laiou (Paris, 2005), 111-122, at 112-115. 34. For a detailed discussion of Anselm of Havelberg’s work Antikeimenon, see below. 35. Ronnie Ellenblum, Frankish Rural Settlement in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem (Cambridge, 2003), 119-144; Andrew Jotischky, “Ethnographic Attitudes in the Crusader States: The Franks and the Indigenous Orthodox People,” in East and Wesl in the ( ’rusader

From the Second Crusade to the End ofManuel’s Reign | 61

occur, especially between Latin men and Greek women, means that laymen were not particularly offended by the fact that they had to undergo rebaptism before marrying a Greek woman. However, when Greco-Latin contact and pragmatic and cooperative relations turned to political conflict, as in the case of the Byzan­ tine Empire and the Principality ofAntioch, the two customs were seen in a more negative light. The hostile reports that arrived in France from Antioch on the eve of the Second Crusade must have been responsible for making the two Greek practices known among the French anti-Byzantine party, thus increasing its hostility toward the Greeks. The faction seems to have propagated the two customs to inflame anti-Greek sentiment among the French crusading army. Odo records that, “for these reasons [Greek rebaptism and altar purification] ... the Greeks had incurred the hatred of our men, for their error [error] had become known even among the lay people. Because of this they were judged not to be Chris­ tians, and the Franks considered killing them a matter of no importance.”36 This statement, contradicted by Odo himself elsewhere in his work, requires exami­ nation since its validity is questionable. In the course of a crusade, misunderstandings often arose and crusaders turned their arms against Latin Christians or even fellow crusaders. Contingents of the First Crusade had devoted themselves to an orgy of plundering and killing in Latin Hungary that prompted King Coloman (1095-1114) to respond with

harsh military reprisals while complaining to envoys of Godfrey of Bouillon that I he crusaders “returned evil to us for good; not only stealing gold and silver, horses and mules and herds from our territory, but even destroying our cities and castles and killing about four thousand of our men.”37 Odo admits that during the Second Crusade, German and French crusaders quarrelled over food supplies in I he Byzantine Empire. German crusaders “took arms against them [the Franks] and fell upon them furiously, and the Franks, likewise armed, resisted spirit-

Slales: Context, Contacts, Confrontations III, ed. Krijnie Ciggaar, Adelbert Davids, and Her­ man Teule (Leuven, 2003), 1-20, at 15; Savvas Neocleous, “Greeks and Italians in Twelfth< entury Constantinople: Convivencia or Conflict?” in Negotiating Co-Existence: Communities, i 'allures and Convivencia in Byzantine Society, ed. Barbara Crostini and Sergio La Porta (Trier, • οι 3), 221-250, at 227-228; Jonathan Phillips, “The Crusades and the Latin East: Recent 111 '.I oriographical Developments,” in Bilan et perspectives des études médiévales (1993-1998): Huioconference (Barcelone, 8-12 juin 1999) 7 Actes du Ile Congrès européen d’études médiévales, ed. Jacqueline Hamesse (Turnhout, 2004), 93-104, at 103. 16. Odo of Deuil, De profeclione Ludovici 3, pp. 56-57. 17. Albert of Aachen, I Ustoria lerosolimitana 2.3, pp. 64 -65.

61 | CHAPTER TWO

edly.”38 Half a century later, in late November 1202, during the stay of the armies of the Fourth Crusade in Zara, a “severe and fierce” fight broke out between the Venetian and Frankish crusaders. As the eyewitness historian Geoffrey of Villehardouin (d. c. 1213) records, “the fight was so fierce that there were but few streets in which battle did not rage with swords and lances and arrows. Many people were wounded and killed.... And the host narrowly escaped from being entirely lost.”39 Despite Odo’s assertion, there is no evidence in the sources for the Second Crusade that fights leading to serious casualties occurred between Greeks and Franks. Cases of plundering which Odo blames on “the arrogance and the drunk­ enness of fools” among the Franks should not surprise us given the make-up of the French crusading army and certainly are not evidence that the Franks did not consider the Greeks as Christians.40 On the contrary, as has been seen, Odo’s own work demonstrates that, in fact, apart from the anti-Byzantine faction, the majority of the Franks did regard the Greeks as Christians. The French king him­ selfwas doubtless flattered by the fact that while marching through the Byzantine Empire, “the congregations of the churches and the entire clergy always received him with due reverence and honour issuing forth from their cities with icons and other Greekparaphernalia.”4142 His chaplain Odo, who recorded this information, seems to have also been pleased with the welcome the French king received from the Greek clergy; the chronicler would have avoided mentioning it had Louis simply tolerated being welcomed by clerics whom he considered heretics. On 9 October 1147, on the Feast of Saint Dionysios (Saint-Denis, the first bishop of Paris), celebrated by Greeks as well as Latins, Manuel sent over to Louis a group of his clergy.41 The emperor must have sought not only to please and

38. Odo of Deuil, De profectione Ludovici 3, pp. 56-57. Odo allows that “the Germans were unbearable even to us [the French].” Odo of Deuil, De profectione Ludovici 3, pp. 42-43. The French crusaders’ sense of cultural difference with the Germans was such that the Ger­ man cardinal-bishop Theodwin of Santa Rufina, papal legate on the Third Crusade, “differ­ ing from the Franks in language and customs, was regarded [by them] as a barbarian,” accord­ ing to John of Salisbury. John of Salisbury, Historiapontificalis 24, ed. and trans. Chibnail, 55. 39. Geoffrey of Villehardouin, La conquête 88-90, pp. 82-83; Robert of Clari, La con­ quête is,pp. 18-19. 40. Odo ofDeuil, Deprofectione Ludovici 4, pp. 66-67. 41. Odo ofDeuil, Deprofectione Ludovici 3, pp. 44-45. 42. For the Feast of Saint-Denis and the liturgical relations between the monastery of Saint-Denis in Paris and the Byzantine world, see Henry Mayr-Harting, “Odo ofDeuil, the Second Crusade and the Monastery of Saint-Denis," in The Culture of Christendom: lissays in Medieval History in Memory ofDenis L.T. Bethel, ed. Marc Anthony Meyer (London, 1993), 225-241,31238 240.

From the Second Crusade to the End ofManuel's Reign | 63

impress his distinguished guest and his retinue but also to stress the religious affinity between Greeks and French. Odo recounts that the Byzantine clergy, “although [they] differed from ours as to the words and organ, ... made a favourable impression because of their sweet chanting; for the mingling ofvoices ... softened the hearts of the Franks. Also, they gave the onlookers pleasure by their graceful bearing and gentle clapping of hands and genuflexions.”43 The Greek clergy had succeeded in impressing the French crusaders. Odo could not hide his wonder, which he would have otherwise tried to conceal had he really considered the Greeks as heretics. It is also interesting to note that when Odo subsequently mentions that a number of Frankish crusaders of the rank and file, abandoned by the French king at Adalia, entered into the service of local Greeks or Turks, he asserts that "the Franks went safely among the unbelievers [infideles], who had compassion on them, avoiding their fellow-believers [sociifidei], who were so cruel to them.”44 The chronicler may have exaggerated the cruelty of the local Greeks in order to justify the fact that Franks entered into the service of infideles. More importantly, however, is that even while condemning the Greeks, Odo admits that they were socii fidei (fellows in faith) to the French. The contradiction is again apparent between this admission of societasfidei with the Greeks and Odo’s earlier accu­ sations of haereses against them. It is also noteworthy that the Frankish crusaders who were admitted within the walls of Constantinople visited - according to Odo - the churches of the city “out of faithful devotion [devotio fidelis],” not appearing to have been deterred by the theological differences between the Latin and Greek Churches.45 All things considered, the anti-Byzantine perspective shared by Godfrey of I Aingres and Odo of Deuil was out of line with the majority of the Frankish cru­ saders and not representative of Western Christians. The bishop of Langres repeatedly failed to convince his fellow crusaders of the validity of his arguments while Odo’s Deprofectione Ludovici VII in orientem not only never enjoyed much popularity, but was hardly known in the Middle Ages. Odo’s original Latin text survives only in a single manuscript, Montpellier, College of Medicine, 39. The manuscript dates to the late twelfth or early thirteenth century and contains a collection of historical items which, significantly, were often copied with the exception of Odo’s work.46 Between 1210 and 1230, an anonymous author in 43. Odo of Deuil, Deprofectione Ludovici 4, pp. 68-69. 44. Odo of Deuil, De profeel tone Ludovici 7, pp. 140-141. 45. Odo of Deuil, De proftetione Ludovici 4, pp. 66-67. .|6. Virginia < lingei■< I> Berry, "Introduction, in I>s>

From the Second Crusade to the End ofManuel's Reign | 71

dividing the two Churches. As will be seen, throughout the second half of the twelfth century, up to the reign of Pope Innocent III, from the papacy’s perspective, ecclesiastical union consisted in the Church of Constantinople’s acknowledging the supremacy of the pope and his role as the leader of the Church. The work that provides the greatest insight into the attitudes of twelfth-cen­ tury Western thinkers and theologians toward the Greeks is the Antikeimenon of Bernard of Clairvaux’s contemporary Anselm, bishop of Havelberg. Anselm has been praised as “one ofthe more remarkable historical thinkers of the twelfth cen­ tury,” while his Antikeimenon or Dialogi, written in 1149/50, has been described as “one of the most interesting and important texts of the whole medieval period.”76 Anselm’s treatment of the issues dividing the Latin and Greek Churches is thorough and, to use the words of a modern commentator, “unparalleled until, perhaps, the twentieth century.”77 Anselm addresses his work to Pope Eugenius III, who had requested of him a kind of handbook containing the theological debates that had taken place between Anselm himself and the Greeks in Con­ stantinople in 1136, while Anselm was in the imperial city as ambassador of the German Emperor Lothar III (1125-1137).78 Moreover, as Anselm states, his intention was also to satisfy questioners and sceptics among his confrères who repeatedly and persistently asked him “what our opinion should be, or what we should believe” about the Greeks who “disagree in regard to faith in the Holy Trin­ ity and the rite of the sacraments.” The same confrères found it “astonishing” that while “many thousands of Greek names are found in the catalogue of saints” and “many pontiffs of Greek birth sat upon the chair of the blessed Peter,” at the same time the Greeks “have so erred in the faith in the Holy Trinity that they state and believe that he Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and not at all from the Son.”79 76. Whalen, Dominion of God, 86; William P. Hyland, “Preface,” in Anselm of Havel­ berg, Anticimenon: On the Unity of the Faith and the Controversies with the Greeks, trans. Ambrose Criste and Carol Neel, with a preface by William P. Hyland (Collegeville, 201 o), vii. On Anselm of Havelberg in general, see Gillian R Evans, “Anselm of Canterbury and Anselm of Havelberg: The Controversy with the Greeks,” Analecta Praemonstratensia 53 (1977): 158175; Gillian R. Evans, “Unity and Diversity: Anselm of Havelberg as Ecumenist,” Acta Prae­ monstratensia 67 (1991): 42-52; Norman Russell, “Anselm of Havelberg and the Union of Churches,” Sobornost 1 (1979): 19-41; Jay T. Lees, “Confronting the Otherness of the ( ¡reeks: Anselm of Havelberg and the Division Between Greeks and Latins,” Analecta Prae­ monstratensia 68 (1992): 224-240. 77. Hyland, “Preface,” viii. 78. Anselm ofHavelberg, Dialogi, Prologus, cols. 1139-1140, Proemium secundi libri, i ol. 1 162; trans. Criste and Neel, 43 -44, 84. See also Lees, “Confronting the Otherness of the Greeks," 224. 79. Anselm ol I lavelberg, Dialogi, Proemium secundi libri, col. 1 161 ; trans. Criste and Neel, 81 8;.

72 I CHAPTER TWO

To satisfy Pope Eugenius and his confrères, Anselm, in Books II and III of the Antikeimenon, records the dialogues between a speaker whom he names as himself and a Byzantine, Archbishop Niketas of Nikomedia. The dialogues pur­ port to present a reconstruction of two actual public debates held in Constan­ tinople in 113 6.&° Modern scholars agree that the dialogues Anselm records are fictitious, even though they reflect the general tenor of the actual discussion between Anselm and Niketas of Nikomedia in 113 6.80 81 What is of utmost impor­

tance is the fact that through Niketas’s persona, the author Anselm, in fact, defends the Greeks against the accusations we have already encountered in cer­ tain twelfth-century sources such as Guibert of Nogent’s chronicle of the First Crusade, Bohemond’s letter of 1108, Rupert of Deutz’s works, and Odo of Deuil’s crusade chronicle. Book II ofAntikeimenon focuses closely on the procession of the Holy Spirit. In his prologue to the book, Anselm informs us that sceptics among his confrères acknowledged “that nothing forbids different customs in the one [Christian] faith [in unafide]”; different customs “could be tolerated with little scandal or danger ... so long as the unity of faith [unitas fidei] is preserved.” The Greeks’ rejection of the filioque, however, constituted a dissension regarding the faith. Did not this threaten “the unity of faith?”82 In Book II, the speaker Anselm asks his Greek interlocutor, Nicetas, “what greater blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is there than to believe and to teach that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son?” and goes on to assert that “such a blasphemy seems to pertain to the Macedonian heresy, which said that the Holy Spirit is a creature and not God.”83

As illustrated in the previous chapter, certain Latins, whom the speaker Anselm seems to represent, had likened the Greek rejection of the filioque clause to the Macedonian heresy, a likening eventually leading to the misconception already encountered in Guibert of Nogent’s chronicle that the Greeks believed that “the Holy Spirit is less than the Father and the Son.”84 To the speaker Anselm’s accu­ 80. Anselm of Havelberg, Dialogi, Prologus, cols. 1140-1141, Proemium secundi libri, col. 1162; trans. Criste and Neel, 44-45, 84. 81. Criste and Neel, “Introduction,” in Antieimenon, 1 -3 9, at 20-21 ; Tia M. Koibaba, “On the Closing of the Churches and the Rebaptism of Latins: Greek Perfidy or Latin Slan­ der?” Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 29 (2005): 39-51, at 43; Lees, “Confronting the Otherness of the Greeks,” 226-227. 82. Anselm of Havelberg, Dialogi, Proemium secundi libri, col. 1161; trans. Criste and Neel, 82. 83. Anselm of Havelberg, Dialogi 2.12, col. 1181; trans. Criste and Neel, 113. 84. Guibert of Nogent, Deigcsta per Francos 1.2, p. 92; trans. Robert Levine in The Deeds of God Through the Franks: /I Translation oj Guibert de Nogent’s Gesta Dei per Francos (Woodbridge, 1997), 11

From the Second Crusade to the End ofManuel’s Reign | 73

sation, the author Anselm exonerates the Greeks by having the speaker Niketas explain clearly that,

In no way do we offend the holy and undivided Trinity, but like good catholics we truly venerate it in the unity of its substance with the honour due its divinity.... Nor do we ... separate the Holy Spirit from the deity by calling him a creature as does Macedonius. Nor do we blaspheme by attacking the Holy Spirit like the Pneumatomachi. Indeed, we adore God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, three persons, one deity undivided in glory, honour, power, and substance.... Since we hold and teach such things about the Holy Spirit, we are confident that we are not guilty of any unfor­ givable blasphemy.85 In his clarification of the Greek Trinitarian position through the mouth of the speaker Niketas, the author Anselm recalls his namesake Anselm of Canterbury, who, in his De processione Spiritus sancti, completed half a century earlier, under­ lined that “although the Greeks deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son,” they nevertheless “believe about the triune and one God exactly the same thing as do we.... Indeed, the Greeks believe that God is one and unique and perfect, that He has no parts, and that He is as a whole whatever He is. They also confess that He is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”86 Later in Book II ofAntikeimenorl, to the speaker Anselm’s question, “do you believe that each of the persons of Holy Trin­ ity is the one true God, complete and perfect?” the speaker Niketas answers: “I do believe because I am catholic [catholicus sum]... and this is the correct faith of believers.” In response to the inquiry, “do you also believe the Holy Spirit is true God, whole and perfect, coequal and coessential with the Father and the Son?” the Greek interlocutor is made to reply: “what you have said is indeed the catholic faith [fides catholica], confirmed after the Macedonian heresy.” The catholicity of the Greeks is asserted and, at Niketas’ words, the speaker Anselm exclaims approvingly: “you believe well, you worship well, and you speak well [bene credis, bene adoras, bene dicis].”87

85. Anselm of Havelberg, Dialogi 2.13, cols. 1182-1183; trans. Criste and Neel, 114115. Pneumatomachi [Ttvevparogd^ot, “Spirit-fighters,”] is essentially another name for the Macedonians. See also The Oxford Dictionary ofthe Christian Church, ed. Frank Leslie Cross, 3rd rev. ed. Elizabeth A. Livingstone (Oxford, 1997), 1303. 86. Anselm of Canterbury, De processione Spiritus sancti 1, ed. F.S. Schmitt in Opera Omnia (Edinburgh, 1940), 2: 175-219, at 177-178; trans. Jasper Hopkins and Herbert l!i< hardson in ('omplcte Philosophical ami Theological Treatises of Anselm of Canterbury (Min­ neapolis, 2000), 466 5 1at 466, 467. 8". Anselm ol I lavelbei g, / iialogi · 1 >, < !. 1 198 1199; trans. < i isle and Neel, 138 140.

74 | CHAPTER TWO

As already mentioned, Latin interest in and translation of the Greek fathers had been growing in the West in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. To support the Latin position on thefilioque, the speaker Anselm bases his arguments on the same Greek fathers as Peter Abelard had used, namely Athanasius ofAlexandria, Cyril of Alexandria, John Chrysostom, and Didymus.88 Niketas asks Anselm whether he accepts the authority of the Greek doctors despite being a Latin, and at Anselm’s reply that he makes no distinction between Greek and Latin fathers since both were guided by the Holy Spirit’s inspiration, a delighted Niketas cries enthusiastically, “I seem to have found a Latin who is truly catholic. Would that more such Latins come to us in these times!... Often when they come, they act superior.... Never do they speak to us humbly and inclusively, but haughtily, intolerably.” Eventually, quoting the Latin doctors Augustine and Jerome as well as John 15:26 (“the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father”), Anselm satisfies Niketas by affirming that the Holy

Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, yet “strictly and principally from the Father [proprie et principaliter ex Patre],” while Niketas is made to allow that the Holy Spirit proceeds not only from the Father, but also from the Son “but not in a strict way [non tam proprie],” in other words not in the same way as from the Father. Having realised that the Greek and Latin positions are only apparently contradic­ tory, Niketas is portrayed as asserting that “nothing that foolish Greeks and arrogant Latins speak and argue about among themselves matters to us.”89 Clearly, through the speaker Niketas, the author Anselm condemns not only the foolishness of cer­ tain Greek ecclesiastics but also the haughtiness of certain Latin ones, both under­ mining the rapprochement between the Greek and Latin Churches. That Niketas of Nikomedia might eventually accept the Latin teaching about the procession of the Holy Spirit - even under the formula that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Son but not in the same way as from the Father - is an intriguing possibility. Byzantine scholars have drawn attention to Niketas (wrongly called “of Maroneia”), chartophylax of Hagia Sophia and subsequently archbishop of Thessaloniki, who, in the middle of the twelfth century, was not only prepared to accept the Latin clause but also wrote dialogues defending the Latin position.90 Evidence from Latin sources provides further support to the 88. Anselm of Havelberg, Dialogi 2.24, cols. 1202-1203; trans. Criste and Neel, 144146. See also Chapter 1 above. 89. Anselm of Havelberg, Dialogi 2.24-26, cols. 1203-1206, 1208; trans. Criste and Neel, 146-150,154. 90. Tia M. Koibaba, “The Orthodoxy of the Latins in the Twelfth Century,” in Byzan­ tine Orthodoxies, ed. Andrew Louth and Augustine Casiday (Aidershot, 2006), 199-214, at 208; Alessandra Bucossi, “Seeking a Way Out of the Impasse: The Filioque Controversy Dur ing John’s Reign,” in ¡ohn II Komncnos, limperor of Byzantium: hi the Shadow oj Father and Son, ed. Alessandra Bucossi and Alex Rodriguez Suarez ( London and New York, 1016), 1 > 1 134, at 1 in 131

From the Second Crusade to the End ofManuel's Reign | 75

hypothesis that Greek ecclesiastics like Niketas of Nikomedia were eager to accept the Latin teaching on the procession of the Holy Spirit. The German chronicler Arnold of Lübeck (d. 1211/14) provides a hitherto neglected theo­

logical debate between Bishop Conrad of Worms, Bishop Conrad of Lübeck, and Abbot Henry of Brunswick, on the one hand, and a group of “learned Greeks [litteratiores Graecorum],” on the other, during the visit of Duke Henry the Lion of Saxony (1142-1180) to Constantinople in 1172. To the Greeks’ arguments that “the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and not from the Son,” Abbot Henry responds: “do not err, oh, catholic and religious men [0 catholici et reli­ giös! viri], by stating that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and not from the Son, because it clearly proceeds from the Son as it proceeds from the Father. Denying this is heretical [hereticorum est]To defend his position, Abbot Henry, in the manner traditional for learned twelfth-century Latin theologians, not only makes use of biblical quotations, but also takes a scholarly pleasure in citing the Greek fathers Athanasius of Alexandria, Cyril of Alexandria, and John Chrysos­ tom. As recorded by Arnold ofLübeck, following Abbot Henry’s arguments, "the Greek masters [magistri Graecorum] were unable to contradict these [Greek] and other authorities, especially theirs, and conceded that the Holy Spirit pro­ ceeds from the Father and the Son.”91* The debate on the filioque, described by Anselm in his Antikeimenon as “fra­ ternal rather than contentious,” is followed a week later by a discussion on the Greeks’ practice of leavening Eucharistic bread and consecrating wine without water. At the beginning of the disputation, upon the speaker Anselm’s assertion that “all catholics [omnes catholici, i.e., Christians] must follow the law of the Holy Roman Church ... the mother of all Churches [mater omnium Ecclesiarum],” which “diligently uses unleavened bread in the sacrament,” the discussion imme­ diately switches to the issue of papal primacy. To uphold the dogma of “the pri­ macy of authority [auctoritatis primatus]” of the Roman Church, Anselm the debater’s ecclesiology draws on the Roman tradition of the primacy of Peter, “the prince of the apostles.” Matthew 16:18-19, John 21:17, and Luke 22:32, the three scriptural texts that refer to Christ’s commission to Peter par excellence, are explicil ly cited by Anselm the speaker to illustrate and support the dogma of the apos­ tolic primacy of Peter and, by extension, his successors, the popes.91 Moreover, al a time when the Decretum Gratiani formalised the pentarchic theory that accorded the second place in the Church to the see of Constantinople, Anselm the speaker tries to undermine Constantinople’s position by taking up the old I at in idea of the triarchy, namely the three petrine patriarchates of Rome, Alexan91. Arnold of Lübeck, Chronica Slavorum 1.$, MGH, SS 21: 100-250, at 119-120. 91, Anselm ol I lavelbei g, 1.1, 3.2, 3.4 5, 3.ft, 3.9 1 o, cols. 1 209, 121 1, 12131114, 1117, iiii 1 r 22) trans ( lisle and Neel, 1 s7, 1 s9, 10 1 1 ft.|, 1 ft8, 174 175.

76 | CHAPTER TWO

dría, and Antioch - Rome being “the first see” honoured by Peter “by the pres­ ence there of his body.”93 Anselm the debater’s diatribe is not aimed at the entire Eastern Church, but only at the Church of Constantinople. He makes clear that he does “embrace with due veneration the holy fathers who have ruled the Eastern Church [Orientalis Ecclesia] well” and acknowledges that “many of them were diligent stu­ dents and faithful champions of the catholic faith [catholica fides].” He asserts nonetheless that “some who have ruled this royal metropolis [regia metropolis, Constantinople] are known sometimes to have erred greatly in their belief.” To further discredit the Church of Constantinople, the debater Anselm concludes by trying to lay the usual accusation on the imperial capital’s see. In a tone reflect­ ing the attitudes of theologians such as Rupert of Deutz, the speaker Anselm states that “the Constantinopolitan Church was often spoilt [fermentata] by innu­ merable heresies.” Following a brief reference to heretics who served as bishops of Constantinople, such as Eusebius of Nikomedia (339-341), Macedonius (342-346, 351-360), and Eudoxius (360-370), as well as Archimandrite Eutyches (d. ca. 456), Anselm adds that “an infinite multitude of diverse heretics were always wont to spew the ferment of heretical depravity [fermentum haereticae pravitatis] in this place [Constantinople],” and rhetorically asks “who could count all the heretics and all their errors which existed in this city and spoiled [fermentaverunt] the holy and immaculate Church of God with false teachings?”94 Obviously, the debater Anselm tries not only to win the day by dredging up Constantinople’s heretical past in order to make Niketas feel guilt and shame, but also cannot resist a dig at the Greek use of leavened (fermentum') bread. In fact, by punning on the double meaning offermentum, Anselm the debater, as Rupert of Deutz before him, implicitly associates the use of leavened bread with heresy. The speaker Anselm rushes to add that in stark contrast to the Church of Constantinople, which had been contaminated by heresies, “the sacrosanct Roman Church, having preserved the purity of the faith, deserves by the Lord’s help to be the mother of all Churches.”95 Anselm’s defense of Roman primacy is asserted on three grounds: Petrine citations from the Scriptures, the non petrinity of the Church of Constantinople, and the Constantinopolitan see’s heretical past. Interestingly enough, however, to the old accusations of heresy levelled against the see of Constantinople by the debater Anselm, who takes the extrem­ 93. Anselm of Havelberg, Dialogi 3.5, cols. 1213-1214; trans. Criste and Neel, 163164. See also Chapter 1 above. 94. Anselm of Havelberg, Dialogi 3.4,6, cols. 1213, 1215-1216; trans. Criste and Neel, 162, 165-167. 95. Anselm of Havelberg, Diii/ogi 3.6,col. 1217; trans. Criste and Neel, ir>8.

From the Second Crusade to the End ofManuel’s Reign | 77

ist Latin view of the Greek Church, the moderate author Anselm allows his speaker Niketas to effectively defend Byzantium’s Church by retorting: stop reproaching us... about heresies. All wise men know that the truth and power of the good prevail over the lies and offenses of the wicked. Tell me, I ask you, where those heretics are now? They are not here, nor are their names heard anywhere in the East, rather catholics throughout the Orient offer God fitting homage with clear, sound faith.96

As regards the primacy of the Church of Rome, Niketas declares that “I nei­ ther deny nor reject the primacy [primatus] of the Roman Church.” While acknowledging the Petrinity of the patriarchates of Rome, Alexandria, and Anti­ och, Niketas nonetheless asserts, by invoking the third canon of the Ecumenical Council of 3 81, that “as old Rome long ago held primacy... this younger and new Rome [Constantinople] had primacy after it because of the dignity of empire,” a view already encountered in Guibert of Nogent’s chronicle. Unlike Guibert, however, Anselm is not willing to allow Constantinople’s claims and therefore invokes the epistle of Pope Leo I (440-461) who, although he had approved the doctrinal work of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451), had declined to ratify its twenty-eighth canon. This canon had confirmed that Constantinople not only ranked second to Rome but also enjoyed “equal privileges” [ίσα πρεσβεία] - it essentially attributed to Constantinople primacy throughout the hast, over Antioch and Alexandria, effectively reducing the status of the Church of Rome to that of the patriarchal see of the West. For Anselm, who echoes the

reforming papacy’s views of monarchical government of the Church, “the head of the Church on earth must be one - namely Rome - and not two.”97 Following the discussion on the Roman primacy, the speaker Anselm returns 10 the issue of leavening in the bread of the Eucharist, inviting Niketas to “let her 11 he Roman Church’s] great authority ... suffice for you to set aside the rite of leavened bread and adopt unleavened bread in the sacrifice.” For the Latin inter­ locutor, the use of leavened bread is tantamount to disobedience to the Roman < hurch and even schism. As he explains, “the Eastern Church separates itself from obedience to the sacrosanct Roman Church and from the unity of Rome’s great communion when it devises something new and singular rather than holds 96. Anselm of Havelberg, Din/ogi 3.11, col. 1224; trans. Criste and Neel, 178-179. 97· Anselm of Havelberg, Dialog! 3.7, 3.9, 3.12, cols. 1217, 1218, 1220-1221, 1224; luns. Criste and Neel, 169, 170, 173 174, 179; Tanner, ed., Decrees of the Ecumenical Counilh. 99 100. See also Richard Price and Michael Gaddis, ed., The Acts of the Council of Chal1 n/ail (l.ivei pool, 1005 ), 1: 71 71.

78 | CHAPTER TWO

to catholic custom, and it wounds itself with the sacrilege of schism [sacrilegium proprii scismatis] by using leavened bread in the preparation of the Lord’s Body

... by the institution of its own authority.”98 The accusation of scisma as defiance of Rome, levelled against the Greek Church by the speaker Anselm, was very seldom used in Western Europe or the Latin East in the twelfth century to describe the relationship between the Roman and Constantinopolitan Churches. In fact, throughout the late eleventh and twelfth centuries, this term was extensively employed by Latin authors to describe not the relationship between the Latin and Greek Church but the schisms caused in the Western Church by the anti-popes.99 A rare contempo­ rary use of the term “schism,” defined as the result of the Church of Constan­ tinople’s disobedience to Rome, is found in a letter of Pope Hadrian IV (11541159) to the Metropolitan Basileios of Ochrida. Hadrian begins his letter by asserting that, from the time when the see of Constantinople separated itself from the sacro­ sanct Roman and Apostolic Church ... and the children [i.e., the Greeks] seceded from obedience to the mother [i.e., Rome] and substituted unity with binarism, the successors of Peter before me strove with much labour and zeal to remove the schism [scisma] from the middle and to restore to the unity of the Church those who have been separated from it.100

Both Pope Hadrian and Anselm agreed that the Church of Constantinople was the one that withdrew from obedience to Rome, thus effecting a schism. However, while Anselm, being the exception rather than the rule, associated dis98. Anselm of Havelberg, Dialogi 3.3, 3.12, col. 1211,1228; trans. Criste and Neel, 159, 184.

99. Bernold of Constance, Chronicon, in Die Chroniken Bertholds von Reichenau und Bemolds von Konstannz, MGH, SS rer. Germ. N.S. 14: 383-540, at 436; Ekkehard of Aura, Hierosolomyta 9, RHC Oc. 5: 1-40, at 17; John of Salisbury, The Letters ofJohn of Salisbury, ed. WJ. Miller and H.E. Butler, rev. C.N.L. Brooke (Oxford, 1979), 2: 126-127, 228-229, 554-555 (nos. 171,186, 272). The use ofthe term scisma in reference to the result of the elec­ tion of an anti-pope is in agreement with J erome’s fourth-century definition of schism as sep­ aration from the Church on account of episcopal dissension, that is, dissension concerning episcopacy [scisma propter episcopalem dissensionem ab Ecclesia separetur], Commentariorum in Epistolam ad Titum, PL 26: 555-600, at 598. 100. Hadrian IV, De Ecclesia Graecorum cum Romana reconcilianda, PL 188: 1580-1581, at 1580. See also Walter Ullmann, "The Pontificate of Adrian IV,” Cambridge Historical Jour nal 11 (1955): 233-252, at 249; John G. Rowe, "Hadrian IV, the Byzantine Empire and the Latin Orient," Essays in Medieval I {¡story Presented to Bertie Wilkinson, ed. T.A. Sandquist and M.R. Powicke (Toronto, iuoo), 1 10, .it ii 14.

From the Second Crusade to the End ofManuel’s Reign | 79

obedience with the use of leavened bread, Pope Hadrian, just as the majority of Western ecclesiastics and theologians, wrote of secession and disobedience with­ out explaining what this meant or involved. Occasionally, as in the case of Pope Innocent III, it was even made clear that the purported disobedience had noth­ ing to do with “disparity in rites” and “diversity in doctrines.”101 Significantly, even though Hadrian talked of schism in his letter, he still addressed the Metro­ politan Basileios of Ochrida as his “venerable brother [venerabilisfrater]” and the Byzantine ruler as his “most beloved son, Manuel, the emperor of Constantino­ ple [dilectissimusfilius noster Emmanuel imperator Constantinopolitanus],” that is, in the same manner he would address a Latin ruler or Latin ecclesiastic in canon­ ical communion with Rome.102 Returning to Anselm’s Antikeimenon, in his lengthy response to the debater Anselm’s charge of schism, Niketas, listing the names of a series of Greek popes who governed the Church of Rome between the first and eighth centuries, argues that “in ancient times, the Roman Church was in concord with the Greeks, and the Greeks with the Roman Church” using leavened or unleavened bread indif­ ferently; “nor was any Greek or Latin scandalised when he wished to communi­ cate in either fashion ... when Greeks and Latins lived together in the city of Rome.” Gradually, however, “the Eastern Church ... abandoned unleavened bread in exclusive favour of... leavened bread.” The speaker Niketas takes his argument a step further by mentioning two contemporary congregations of Greek monks, namely the flourishing Greek monastery of Saint Caesarius within the walls of Rome and Grottaferrata outside the walls, which offered “leavened bread without any scandal to the Roman pontiff, or even the Latins among whom 1 hey live, and with whom they too take communion.” While this information must have become known to Anselm during his several sojourns in Italy, it was probably not available to the historical Niketas of Nikomedia. The speaker Nikel.is eventually excuses the Greeks for calling the Latins “unleavened heretics | azymitae haeretici (alppiref)]” on the grounds that “we do so under grave provo< ations” since “the Latins blaspheme our leavened bread [nostrumfermentum]... i ailing us heretics.”103 Although, as has been seen, many in the West did not reject the Greeks’ usage of leavened bread, there were still those few opinionated 1 heologians like Rupert of Deutz who considered the Greek practice as heretical. 101. Innocent HI, Registrant, 2: 388-389, 396-397 (nos. 200 (209), 202 (211)). See also Savvas Neocleous, “Guilty or Innocent? Pope Innocent Ill’s Perceptions and Attitudes l owards the Byzantines (1198-1204)," Studi Medievali 56 (2015): 555-594, at 565-566. 102. I iadrian IV, De licclesia (>raecorum cum Romana reconcilianda, PL 188: 1580. 103. Anselm ol I lavilberg, Dialog! 1.1 i, 3.14, cols. 1229, 1230 1231; trans. Criste and Ned, 180, 187 188 with nAo

80 | CHAPTER TWO

Against those theologians, Anselm the writer, through the mouth of Niketas, plays devil’s advocate for the Greek side. The speaker Anselm pronounces “I offer no disagreement” about what his Greek interlocutor avers “about the harmony of the ancient Latin and Greek sages, who perceived no scandal... in the offering of either unleavened or leav­ ened bread.”104 Nonetheless, he still endeavours to defend the unleavened bread, which the Roman Church ended up using, as the better ritual practice. The speaker Niketas is portrayed as eventually being convinced by the arguments of his Latin debater, but nevertheless Anselm the author, through the Greek char­ acter of his Antikeimenon, acknowledges that, the Greeks’ usage of leavened bread has been so long maintained that it could not be changed without great scandal to many, even to the entire people. Therefore it would be well to allow what has been done among us [the Greeks] for a long time, especially since leavened and unleavened bread are alike bread.... The integrity of the faith is preserved if either is offered nearly universally.... No danger to the right faith will arise whether we offer either unleavened or leavened bread.105

In his letter to Caecilius, De Sacramento calicis domini, Cyprian, bishop of Carthage (249-258), had asserted that “as many grains, collected, and ground, and mixed together into one mass, make one bread; so in Christ, who is the heavenly bread, we may know that there is one body, with which our [the faithful’s] number is joined and united.”106 Drawing on Cyprian’s imagery, Anselm makes the speaker Niketas declare that “the sacred host, whether of leavened or unleavened bread, is made of many grains gathered into one, so signifying the people of the whole Church [totius Ecclesiae populus] gathered into one and the same charity in Christ [una eademque caritas in Christo].”107 In a similar tone, when the speaker Anselm immediately afterwards criticises the Greeks’ consecratingpure wine while defend­ ing the Latin custom of mixing wine with water, the speaker Niketas declares that,

just as the host is made, whether leavened or unleavened, from many grains ofpure wheat, and as from many grapes together the wine is pressed, so from 104. Anselm of Havelberg, Dialogi 3.15, col. 1232; trans. Criste and Neel, 190. 105. Anselm of Havelberg, Dialogi 3.19, col. 1240; trans. Criste and Neel, 200. 106. Cyprian of Carthage, Epistolae, in Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down Io A.D. 325, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. S.D.I1. Salmond (Bullalo, i88i), 5: 362 (no. 62). 107. Anselm of I lavclberg, Dialogi 1.19, col. 1 i.|0; trans. ( riste ami Neel, 200.

From the Second Crusade to the End ofManuel’s Reign | 81

many throngs of Greeks and Latins let us constitute one Church, one in heart and in perspective, lest your unleavened or our leavened bread be a judge­ ment of damnation on us on the Lord’s day for our mutual conflict, since either form ofbread is instituted for our salvation.108

Although Anselm the author endeavours to demonstrate through his namesake speaker that the Latins’ customs of using unleavened bread and consecrating wine with water are the most authoritative ones, his Greek interlocutor’s call for con­ cord forms a greater impression on the reader, since, after all, the Greek customs pose “no danger to the right faith.”109 While the author Anselm eventually portrays Niketas as giving his assent to the Latin position on the filioque and usage of unleavened bread in the Eucharist, he nonetheless has his Greek interlocutor express his concern that the addition of thefilioque clause to the Creed and the use of unleavened bread could be the cause of “scandal among the ordinary folk or to those less informed.”110 Therefore, following the debates on both thefilioque and Eucharistic bread, the speaker Niketas is cited as urging that Greeks and Latins celebrate a general council ofthe Western and Eastern Churches by the author­ ity of the holy Roman pontiff and with the approval of our devout emperors. At such a council these and several other essential matters concerning God might be set forth... [so that] all of us in the Christian East might in unity with the Holy Roman Church... freely accept... that “the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son” ... [and] we [Greeks and Latins] who have always been one in our catholic faith [qui semperfuimus unum in catholicafide] might again have unity in the observance of the sacraments.111 Anselm the author closes his Antikeimenon with a discussion between his speaker persona and his Greek interlocutor about the Greek custom of rebaptising Latins who were to marry Greeks. The speaker Anselm represents the offended Latin who had been “amazed and disturbed” by the supposed custom, exclaiming that,

I would like to know exactly why you do this, if in fact you do. ... This is clearly a heresy like that of the former sect ofArians. We must then celebrate 108. 109. 110. 111. Neel, 1 $.s,

Anselm of Havelberg, Dialog! 3.20, col. 1245; trans. Criste and Neel, 207. Anselm of Havelberg, Dialog! 3.19, col. 1240; trans. Criste andNeel, 200. Anselm of Havelberg, Dialog! 2.27, cols. 1209-1210; trans. Criste and Neel, 155. Anselm of I lavelberg, Dialog! 2.27, 1.19, cols. 1209 1210, 1241; trans. Criste and mi,

8 2 | CHAPTER TWO

no councils with you, rather against you, and you must be condemned with­ out question or hearing. Whatever you do or say about it, this practice is utterly abominable, detestable, and execrable to both God and man. By it, you take the name of the Lord in vain, presuming to violate the invocation of Holy Trinity, in which we are baptised in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.... If such heretical corruption remains among the nation of the Greeks, that is, rebaptism in the Greek rite of those who come to them already baptised in the name of the Holy Trinity, how then, I ask you, can they be called Christians? Whoever accepts rebaptism denies the power of the Holy Trinity according to which all catholic baptism is done.112

The issue of rebaptism turns the hitherto "fraternal” discussions into a heated argument, with the enraged speaker Anselm directly accusing the Greeks of “a most flagrant heresy [manifestissima haeresis]” and denouncing their practice as "abominable, detestable, and execrable [abominabile, et... detestabile et exsecrabile],” thus recalling Odo of Deuil’s exclamation of “O dreadful thing! [pro nefasf],” in reference to the angry reaction that the Greek practice elicited among

the Latins.113 Through Niketas’s person, however, the author Anselm sets the record straight - or at least this is what he believes. Niketas asserts that the Latins "judge incorrectly, since they do not know the truth about this rite. May we Greeks, orthodox in our faith [orthodoxa Graecorumfides], never accept that any

Christian be baptised a second time in the name of Holy Trinity! To do this or to preach that it should be done is to fall into heresy.” As the speaker Niketas explains, “we do have certain rituals of purification by unction with sacred oil. When foreigners come to us - whether they are men or women wishing to pass over into our rite and our society - we anoint them with sacred oil because we do not know if they have earlier received the sacrament of unction.” Niketas’s expla­ nation is reasonable. The Greek ritual was justifiable given that, in contrast to the Greek Church, the Latin Church had separated chrismation from the infant baptismal rite. Niketas of Nikomedia concludes by assuring his Latin interlocu­ tor that “by no means do we rebaptise those who we are aware have already been baptised, nor do we even anoint those who, we have no doubt, have been already anointed.” Satisfied with Niketas’ elucidation, the speaker Anselm does “give thanks to God, who has removed this scandal from me and taken away that 112. Anselm ofHavelberg, Dialogi 3.21, cols. 1245-1246; trans. Criste and Neel, 208209. 113. Odo of Dcuil, Deprofectione Ludovici 3, pp. 56 57.

From the Second Crusade to the End ofManuel’s Reign | 83

reproach to the name ‘Christian’ of which I have heretofore suspected the wise nation of the Greeks [Graecorum sapientissima gens].’’114 The author Anselm had been informed on the issue of “rebaptism” by a mod­ erate Greek bishop. This, however, is not entirely accurate. Rebaptism of Latin Christians by Greek clerics, in fact, did occur, as has already been seen. It has been argued by modern commentators that the Greek custom of anointing with consecrated oil Latin Christians who were to marry Greeks may have seemed a form of rebaptism to the Westerners, whereas, in reality, rebaptism did not actu­ ally take place.115 It is, however, unreasonable to argue that Hugo Eteriano, who had the fullest knowledge of Greek practices from his position as theologian at Manuel’s court, mistook mere christmation as rebaptism, the latter involving washing of the whole body, or that a pope as learned as Innocent III, in the sev­ enteenth year of his pontificate, condemned at the Fourth Lateran Council a Greek practice that did not actually exist. In the late twelfth century, Theodoros Balsamon, the Greek patriarch-inexile of Antioch (1185-1191) who was no friend of the Latins, distinguished between heretics who had to be wholly rebaptised [άναβαπτίζεσθαι εξάπαντος] in order to be admitted to “the catholic Church” and “orthodox faith,” and other groups whose baptisms were valid and therefore only needed to receive chrism [τον άγιον μύρον τέλειοννται].116 Among those who needed to be rebaptised were the Eunomians because, according to Balsamon, they had been baptised with only one immersion.117 Balsamon did not specify whether the Latins had to be rebaptised or not. We know, however, that in the Middle Ages the Latins some­ times baptised with a single immersion.118 Aware of this, a number of twelfth­

century Byzantine writers maintained that Latin baptism was invalid.119 We can therefore safely conclude that extremist Greek ecclesiastics did require Latins who were to marry Greek Christians to be rebaptised. It seems, nonetheless, that the official Greek Church had not adopted a consistent line on the issue. Mod­ erate Greek clerics considered the Latin baptism as valid, and some of them may well have considered single immersion as not being a serious error. Others were aware of the fact that the triple immersion was still in use in the Latin Church. 114. Anselm of Havelberg, Dialogi 3.21-22, cols. 1246-1247; trans. Criste and Neel, 108, 210. 115. Koibaba, “On the Closing of the Churches,” 46. 116. Georgios A. Rhalles and Michael Potles, ed., Syntagma ton theion kai ieron kanonon (Athens, 1851-1859), 4: 473-474. 117. Ibid., 473. 11 8. Tia M. Koibaba, The Byzantine Lists: Errors of the Latins (Urbana, 2000), 43. 119. Kolbnba, "On the Closing of the Churches," 47.

84 |

CHAPTER TWO

When, during the second half of 1206, a number of meetings took place between the Latin patriarch of Constantinople Thomas Morosini (1204-1211) and a

group of Greek clergy, led by loannes and Nikolaos Mesarites, the patriarch asked the Greek spokesman whether he repudiated Latin baptism.120121 The Greek did not raise any objections to Latin baptism since the Latins “baptise in the name of the Father without beginning, and the Son, likewise without beginning, and the co-eternal Holy Spirit, and in three immersions [¿n't xpiff't KaraflaTmcqiotg]’’111 A second baptism would therefore have been a violation of Church canons and heretical. Moderate Byzantine clerics were content with the Latins merely receiv­ ing chrism. Niketas of Nikomedia was obviously one of them. At the end of their debate, the speaker Anselm and his Greek interlocutor renew their call for an ecumenical council. In stressing the need for “a general council” Niketas states that “we [Greeks and Latins] truly seem to differ some­ what not in great matters but in small things [non in magnis, sed in minimis]The speaker Anselm joins his voice with that of his Greek interlocutor “in calling for a general council [concilium universale] in which your [Niketas’s] wisdom, elo­ quence, holiness... and piety... may shine forth before the whole Church for the salvation and instruction of all.”122 Anselm’s treatise is a testament to the fact that in the mid-twelfth century the Greeks were still considered by learned Latin ecclesiastics as the Latins’ Christian brethren. The bishop of Havelberg’s adher­ ence to the notion that Greeks and Latins shared the one catholic faith becomes clearly evident even before the recording of the dialogues with Niketas of Niko­ media in Book II and III of the Antikeimenon. In Book I of his treatise, referring to monastic life in the Greek Church, the author Anselm records that,

In the Eastern Church... are various types of religious orders [diversa... gen­ era religiosorum]. They are in harmony in the one catholic faith [in una quidemfide catholica concordant], yet they differ greatly from one another in customs, pattern of life, dress, food, and practice of psalmody. When I was in Constantinople as the legate of Lothar... I was an avid observer and zeal­ ous investigator of different kinds of religious life. There I saw many forms of Christian religious practice [multi ordines Christianae religionis]. I saw

120. Nikolaos Mesarites, Disputatio, ed. in August Heisenberg, “Neue Quellen zur Geschichte des lateinischen Kaisertums und der Kirchenunion. II. Die Unionsverhandlungen vom 30. August 1206. Patriarchenwahl und Kaiserkronung in Nikaia 1208,” Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philos.-philol. und hist. KI. (1923): 15-25, at 20. 121. Ibid., 20. See also Koibaba, “On the Closing of the Churches,” 46. 122. Anselm of Havelberg, Dialog! 3.22, cols. 1247-1248; trans. (aisle and Neel, 210 211.

From the Second Crusade to the End ofManuel's Reign | 85

nearly seven hundred monks serving under the Rule ofblessed Antony [regula beatiAntonii (d. 356)] ... five hundred monks serving under the Rule of blessed Pachomius [regula beati Pacomii (d. 346)] ... [and] many commu­ nities under the Rule of blessed Basil the Great [regula beati Basilii Magni (d. 379)]. They are most learned men, serving faithfully [doctissimi viri devote militantes].113

Anselm was obviously familiar with the main founding figures of Eastern anchoritic monasticism as well as cenobitic monasticism, with its characteristic rule-based system. While there exist no rule collections associated with Antony, who was recognised as the founder of anchoritic monasticism, the Rules or pre­ cepts of Pachomius and Basil influenced the typika, or foundation documents, of the medieval Byzantine monastic tradition. The late eleventh and early twelfth centuries especially appear to have been the pinnacle of Basil’s prestige, coin­ ciding with the strongly pro-cenobitic monastic reform movement in Byzantium. Being Basilian in its inspiration, medieval Byzantine monasticism was long recog­ nised in the West as a legitimate monastic rule known as regula sancti Basilii. Despite, however, an oft-repeated desire for a revival of early ascetic practices on the part of medieval Byzantine monastic reformers, genuine Pachomian and Basilian traditions differed considerably from the medieval Byzantine monastic tradition, and, certainly, although the Byzantine monasteries portrayed in the later typika unknowingly followed many Pachomian and Basilian usages, the description of them, from Anselm’s Latin viewpoint, as following the Rules of Pachomius or Basil is inaccurate.123 124 It has been suggested that Anselm of Havelberg had written his Antikeimenon "in order to win Eugenius to a more conciliatory attitude towards the Greeks” since the pope was greatly alarmed at one of the stipulations of the treaty of 1148 between Conrad and Manuel.125 The alliance between the two emperors not only aimed to destroy Roger II of Sicily, the hated enemy of Conrad, Manuel, and the pope, but also to re-establish Byzantine power in southern Italy and Sicily.126 The latter clause was interpreted by Eugenius as posing a threat to the

123. Anselm of Havelberg, Dialogi 1.10,col. 1156; trans. Criste and Neel, 73. 124. John Thomas and Angela Constantinides Hero, ed., Byzantine Monastic Founda­ tion Documents: A Complete Translation of the Surviving Founders' Typika and Testaments (Washington, D.C., 2000) 1: 31-38, 81, 127, 875; Stephen J. Davis, Monasticism: AVery Short Introduction (Oxford, 2018), 24-25. 125. John (■. Rowe, "The Papacy and the Greeks (1122-1153) (Part II),” Church His­ tory 28 (1959): 110 : 75,

From the Second Crusade to the End ofManuel’s Reign | 91

Champagne (1181-1197) on the Third Crusade to Palestine, extolled the Byzan­ tine ruler as “the most noble emperor [nobilissimus imperator].”153 The chroni­ cler of the Fourth Crusade Robert of Clari, who obtained his information on Manuel from Frankish residents in Constantinople, lauded the Byzantine ruler as “a very worthy man and the most powerful of all the Christians [de tous les crestiens] there ever were and the most generous.”154 All these statements are an eloquent testiment to the fact that the Byzantine emperor was regarded by the Latins as a Christian ruler alongside the rest of the Christian monarchs, not as an alien heretic or schismatic. Manuel also enjoyed a high reputation in the eyes of the papacy and the papal curia. The Byzantine ruler had intervened in the conflict which had erupted in 1160 between Pope Alexander III and the German Emperor Frederick I by actively encouraging and supporting the coalition of the pope and the Lombard cities in their struggle against the German ruler. Negotiations were also opened between the Byzantine ruler and the pope for the union of the Western and East­ ern Churches. Notwithstanding the fact that the negotiations reached a dead­ lock, relations between Manuel and Alexander remained generally harmonious until the end of the emperor’s reign.155 On 29 January 1176, in response to an appeal from Manuel for Western military aid for the forthcoming Byzantine expe­ dition against the Turks of Iconium, Pope Alexander wrote to his legate in north­ ern France, Cardinal Peter of Saint Chrysogonus, instructing him “to promote his I Manuel’s] pious proposal,” by inducing King Louis VII, the French nobility, and “other faithful to God in the Kingdom of France... through solicitous admo­ nitions” to help “our dearest son in Christ [carissimus in Christo filius noster], the illustrious emperor of Constantinople” in his campaign against the sultan of Ico­ nium “for the exaltation of the Christian faith [nomenfidei christianae].” Manuel, the pope informed the king of France, had already recovered and rebuilt the fortress-city of Dorylaion, and made “the way safe for all Christians, both Latins and Greeks [omnes christiani tam Latini quam Graeci], who wish to visit the Sepul­ chre of the Lord.”156

153. Alberic of Trois-Fontaines, Chronicon, 848. 154. Robert de Clari, La conquête 18,pp. 20-21. 155. Jonathan Harris and Dmitri Tolstoy, “Alexander III and Byzantium,” in Alexander III (1159-81 ): The Art of Survival, ed. Peter D. Çlarke and Anne J. Duggan (Farnham, 2012), to 1 -313, at 308-311; Magdalino, The Empire ofManuel I Komnenos, 62-66, 83-95; Michael Angold, The Byzantine Empire, 1025 1204: A Political History, 2nd ed. (London and New York, 1997), 209-215. 156. Martin Bouquet, el al., ed., Recueil des historiens des Gaules et delà France, 15:952usI(no. ,85). See also Andrew I1 Slone, "Dorylaion Revisited: Manuel I Komnenos and the

92 I CHAPTER TWO

While presenting Manuel as a successful and devoted crusader, and thus a true Christian emperor fighting for the common faith of Greeks and Latins, Pope Alexander, at the same time, continued to invite the Byzantine ruler to strive for the union of the Churches of Constantinople and Rome. In a letter of Novem­ ber 1177 to Hugo Eteriano, Alexander instructed the Pisan theologian with the influential position at the Byzantine court to induce his “dearest son in Christ ... the illustrious and glorious emperor of Constantinople [Manuel]... through dili­ gent admonitions and exhortations” to show his “devotion and reverence to the sacrosanct Roman Church” by working for “the unity of his Church” with Rome “so that there might be one sheepfold and one shepherd.”157 As one shepherd tended the sheepfold, the pope, as supreme leader of the Christian Church, should be the pastor of the one sheepfold of Christ, namely both Western and Eastern Christians. As James ofVitryput it in his Historia orientalis a few decades later, Christ commissioned Peter to “‘feed my sheep’ [John 21:17], not ‘the Latins or the Westerners’ but simply ‘my sheep’ so that there might be one sheepfold and one shepherd.”158 At the papal curia, Cardinal Boso (d. 1178), thebiographer of Pope Alexan­ der, extolled Manuel as “the great and mighty emperor of Constantinople [magnus et excelsus Constantinopolis imperator]” and lamented the destruction of the Byzantine ruler’s army “by the sword of the infidels” at the battle of Myriokephalon in 1176. The cardinal not only sympathised but even identified with the Byzantines, since in his account of the battle he describes them as “our side [pars nostra],” in opposition to the “infidels.” When Emperor Frederick sued for peace with Pope Alexander - records Boso - the pope agreed to peace nego­ tiations on the condition that the emperor “grant it [peace] to all our allies,” including the Emperor Manuel “who stood firmly with us during the trials of the Church.”159 Notwithstanding the fact that Manuel died in 1180 without accom­ plishing the Church union Alexander had hoped for, he was nonetheless enshrined in the historical memory of the papacy as the Byzantine emperor pur

Refortifîcation of Dorylaion and Soublaion in 1175,” Revue des études byzantines 61 (2003): 183-199; Evangelos Chrysos, “1176: A Byzantine Crusade?” in Byzantine War Ideology Between Roman Imperial Concept and Christian Religion, ed. Johannes Koder and loannis Stouraitis (Vienna, 2012), 81-86; Lilie, Byzantium and the Crusader States, 211-212; Phillips, Defenders of the Holy Land, 229-230; Magdalino, The Empire ofManuell Komnenos, 95-97· 157. Alexander III, Rescriptum, PL 202: 229. 158. James ofVitry, Historia orientalis 75, ed. and trans. Donnadieu, 302 303. 159. Le Liber Pontificalis, ed. L. Duchesne, 2nd ser. (Paris, 1886-1892), 2: 415,434-4 3 5; ed. Peter Munz, trans. G.M. Ellis in Boso’s Life ofAlexander III, (Oxford, 1973), 69, 101.

From the Second Crusade to the End ofManuel’s Reign | 93

excellence, a paradigm for succeeding Byzantine rulers to copy. In a letter dated

21 February 1201, Pope Innocent III urged the Byzantine Emperor Alexios III “to imitate in word and deed the devotion to the Apostolic See of your illustrious predecessor, the Emperor Manuel of glorious memory.”160 Although Alexander doubtless resented the fact that Constantinople did not recognise the papacy’s (presumed) right of supreme authority over the entire Church, he nonetheless did not accuse the Byzantine emperor or Church as being schismatic or heretical. On the contrary, Manuel was still addressed by the pope as his “dearest son in Christ [carissimus in Christofilius noster]” just like the Latin rulers, while the Byzantine ruler’s expedition against the Turks of Iconium was sanctioned as a campaign aimed at “the exaltation of the Christian faith,” shared by both Greeks and Latins, even though Alexander must have been well aware that a successful war against Iconium would, in fact, exalt the power of the Byzan­ tine Empire and, by extension, the Church of Constantinople.161

The Third Lateran Council and the Byzantine Church

In Book III of his Antikeimenon, the author Anselm has Niketas of Nikomedia complain about the fact that the Church of Rome “celebrates a council with Western bishops but without us.”162 In fact, Greek bishops of southern Italy are known to have been present at papal councils in the twelfth century. The impor­ tant Lateran council of 1112 was attended by the Greek archbishops of Santa Severina and Rossano.163 However, representatives of the Church of Constan­ tinople do not seem to have been in attendance at the Roman councils. Niketas of Nikomedia is made to assert that “we are not discordant from the Roman Church regarding the catholic faith [catholica fides],” only to immediately enquire, “why, however, should we accept the decrees of a council we do not cel­ ebrate in our times along with Rome, when its decrees are written completely without our counsel, even without our knowledge?”164 Pope Alexander, who summoned the Third Lateran Council in 1178, was probably aware of this posi­ 160. Innocent III, Prima collectio decretalium: Alexio Constantinopolis imperatori, PL 216: 1182-1185, at 1185; Gesta Innocenta III 63, PL 214: 123; trans. James M. Powell in The Deeds of Pope Innocentai (Washington, DC, 2004), 93. 161. Alexander III, Rescriptum, PL 2021229; Bouquet, et al., ed., Recueil des historiens des Gaules et delà France, 15: 952-953 (no, 385). 162. Anselm of Havelberg, Dialog! 3.8, col. 1219; trans. Criste and Neel, 171. 163. ( iraham A. Loud, The l.atin ( 'hurch in Norman Italy (Cambridge, 2007), 204-205. 164. Anselm ol I lavelberg, Dialog! 3.8, col. 1219; trans. Criste and Neel, 171.

94 I CHAPTER TWO

tion, which may well have reflected the attitudes of a number of Latin ecclesias­ tics as much as being an actual complaint on the part of the Greeks. The First Lateran Council, the first general council to be held in the West, took place in Rome in 1123, before Anselm’s visit to Constantinople in 1136, while the Second Lateran Council met in 1139, after Anselm’s mission in the Byzantine capital but before the composition of the Antikeimenon. Alexander’s Third Lateran Council was held in 1179 and resembled the ancient councils more than it did Lateran I and II.165 Ecclesiastics from throughout the Latin world attended the council, as did some Greeks, since an invitation seems to have been extended to Greek bishops by the pope. According to the Anchin continuation of the chronicle of Sigebert of Gembloux, authored by the prolific historian Andreas, a monk of the monastery ofAnchin in Flanders and provost of the Bene­ dictine abbey of Marchiennes in Hainaut, “some bishops from Greece sent their legates there [to the Council].”166 This is a strong testiment to the fact that the Greek Church was still, at least to a certain extent, regarded as part of the Ecclesia catholica, the singular body of Christianity. Alexander’s initiative was to be followed by Innocent III, who invited Greek bishops, even those not under Latin dominions, to attend the Fourth Lateran Council.167 At the opening of the Third Lateran Council, Rufinus, then bishop ofAssisi, delivered a sermon which affirmed papal claims to monarchy in the Church, these claims being governed by divine decree, that is, by Christ’s solemn pledge to Saint Peter. According to Rufinus, the Church of Rome “is the mother of all Churches, and also the mistress of all of them” and “is truly called and is ‘one’.”168 Rufinus

explained that by no ordinances of the law, by no synodal statutes... did the Roman Church arrogate to itself the height of such privilege. Rather it was made the foun­ dation of all Churches by the will of the divine voice alone, when this divine 165. Tanner, ed., Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 206. 166. Continuatio Aquicinctina Sigeberti Gemblacensis, MGH, SS 6: 405-438, at4i7. 167. See Innocent Ill’s letter of early 1215 inviting Basileios Pediadites, the Greek met­ ropolitan bishop of Corfu, to the Fourth Lateran Council: Spyridon K. Papageorgiou, ed., 'Ιστορία τής ’Εκκλησίας τής Κερκύρας από τής συστάσεως αύτής μέχρι του ννν [History of the Church of Corfu: From its Establishment up to the Present] (Corfu, 1920), 31-33· See also Michael Angold, TheFourth Crusade: Event and Context (Harlow, 2003), 188. 168. “mater Ecclesiarum omnium, magistra quoque omnium, vere una vocatur et est.” Rufinus, Sermo habitus in Lateranensi concilio, ed. in Germain Morin, “Le discours d’ouverture du Concile Général du Latran ( 1179) et l’oeuvre littéraire du maître Rufin, évêque d’Assise,” Atti della Pontificia Accademia romana di archeologia, ser. 3, mem. 2 ( 1928): 113 133, at 1 16 120, esp. at 117 and 119.

From the Second Crusade to the End ofManuel’s Reign | 9 5

announcement to blessed Peter resounded: “You are Peter [Petrus], and on this rock [petra] I shall build my Church” [Matthew 16:18]; and again: “Feed my sheep” [John 21:17].169

This view of monarchical Church government, founded on Christ’s injunction to Peter, did not altogether reject the principle of pentarchy, at least theoretically. As Rufinus averred, five [Churches] were chosen beforehand ... which, endowed with higher privileges, have a right to primacy of rank [primatus dignitatis] over the other Churches: such is the metropolitan see of Antioch, that of Alexandria, also Byzantium, and Jerusalem as well; much more the one which should always be named with the most exalted words, that is the sacrosanct Roman Church. ... Most worthily it alone deserved to receive monarchy [monarchia] over all Churches.170

What is remarkable in this theory of “monarchical pentarchy” is that Constan­ tinople was still reckoned among the five major episcopal sees of Christendom (listed after the Petrine Patriarchates of Alexandria and Antioch) despite its use

of leavened bread, its rejection of the filioque, and even its purported “disobedi­ ence” to the Church of Rome. Unfortunately, there is no surviving evidence of the Greek delegates’ reaction to Rufinus’s proclamations or indeed of any of their activities at the Council. This notwithstanding, their sheer presence in the Latin assembly, which, significantly, anathematised the Cathars as heretics, testifies to the fact that the Greeks were viewed as neither heretics nor schismatics.171

Latin Interest in Greek Patristic in the 1160s and 1170s 1 n the twelfth century and particularly during Manuel’s reign, Latins from every corner of the Latin world flocked to the Byzantine Empire, where they were hired as mercenaries, traded as merchants, and held posts at the imperial court, serv­ ing as interpreters and advisers. Others, including princes, journeyed through the empire’s territories as pilgrims or crusaders, while Latin clerics and theolo­ gians with an interest in Greek patristic visited Constantinople in search of Greek 169. Ibid., 119. 170. Ibid., 116 117. See also Richard James Cleary, Pope Innocent III and the Greek (,'hurch (1198 1210) (Rome, 1 e< rm / the I'cumtnical 1'.ouncils, 206 107, 224 225.

96 I CHAPTER TWO

texts. There is no evidence that these Latins regarded the Byzantine Empire as anything other than another Christian state. Otherwise, they would most prob­ ably not have been there. The German theologian Hugh of Honau (d. after 118o), who visited Constantinople on two occasions in the 1170s, ascribed his interest in Greek texts to the fact that "all the teachings of the Latins flowed from the sources of the Greeks.”172 In 1167, the scholar and theologian William Medicus of Gap, the future abbot of Saint-Denis (1173-1186), visited Constan­

tinople and “brought back Greek books,” among them the Vita of Secundus the Philosopher, which he himself translated from Greek into Latin, and a manu­ script containing Michael Synkellos’s ninth-century encomium of Saint Diony­ sios the Areopagite, who was misidentified with his namesake Saint Dionysios (Saint-Denis), first bishop of Paris.173 Between 1169 and 1172 the encomium was translated into Latin by another monk of Saint-Denis, also called William the secretary and biographer of Abbot Suger (1122-1151)-, and was dedicated to Abbot Ivo II ( 1162-1172), while at around the same time Greek prayers were introduced in the liturgy of the monastery of Saint-Denis.174 As the twelfth century progressed, Latin interest in Greek patristic and Greek liturgy increased, while Latin visitors in the Byzantine Empire were not only keen to gather Greek books but also to discuss theological issues with the Greeks, as, for example, the clerics in the train of Henry the Lion in 1172. Interestingly, even 172. Hugh of Honau, Liber de diversitate naturae et personae 1.4, ed. in Nicholas Μ. Häring, “The Liber de diversitate naturae et personae by Hugh of Honau,” Archives d'Histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen-âge 37 (1962): 103-216, at 121. On Hugh of Honau’s missions to Constantinople, see Krijnie N. Ciggaar, Western Travellers to Constantinople: The West and Byzantium, 962-1204, Cultural and Political Relations (Leiden and New York, 1996), 89-90; Walter Berschin, Ελληνικά γράμματα και λατινικός Μεσαίωνας: από τον Ιερώνυμο ως τον Νικόλαο Κουσανό [Greek Letters and the Latin Middle Ages: From Jerome to Nicholas of Cusa], trans. D.Z. Niketas (Thessaloniki, 1998), 345-346. 173. Léopold Delisle, “Traductions de textes grecs faites par des religieux de Saint Denis au Xlle siècle,” Journal des savants (1900): 722-739, at 726-730. See also Ciggaar, Western Travellers to Constantinople, 97; Berschin, Ελληνικά γράμματα, 365-366; Mayr-Harting, “Odo of Deuil,” 239. On Saint Dionysios the Areopagite’s misidentification with Saint Dionysios of Paris, see John Laurence von Mosheim, Institutes ofEcclesiastical History, Ancient and Modern, trans. James Murdock (New Haven, 1832), 2: 98-99; Jelena Bogdanovié, “Rethinking the Dionysian Legacy in Medieval Architecture: East and West,” in Dionysius the Areopagite: Between Orthodoxy and Heresy, ed. Filip Ivanovic (Newcastle upon Tyne, 2011), 109-134,

at 116. 174. Delisle, “Traductions de textes grecs,” 730; Berschin, Ελληνικά γράμματα, 3,66; Mayr-Harting, “Odo of Deuil,” 239; Roberto Weiss, “Lo studio del greco all’abbazia di San Dionigi durante il Medio Evo,” Rivista distoria della chiesa in Italia 6 ( 1952): 426 438; Mary Brennan, Guide des études Érigéniennes: Bibliographie commentée des publications 1 930 1987 / A Guide to Eriugenian Studies: A Survey of Publications 1930 1987 (Fribourg, 1989), 19.

From the Second Crusade to the End ofManuel's Reign | 97

during the occupation of Thessaloniki by the Normans in 1185, as the archbishop of the city Eustathios relates, the Norman leader of the expedition not only “pre­ sented gold and silver to the tomb of Saint Demetrios” and returned to the Greeks their snatched “holy icons” and “valuable silver candle-holders carried in sacred processions,” but there were also “Latins [Normans] who entered into friendships with us [the Greeks, φίλιωθέντες ήμΐν], since we won over many of them [πολλούς] by discussing matters of religion [πραγματευόμενοι τα έκ Θεού].”175 Obviously, by the last decades of the twelfth century, there was still

much more to unite the Greeks and the Latins than to divide them.

175. husi.iihios ol Thessaloniki, Alosis, The Capture of Thessaloniki, trans. John R, Melville Jones (( anherra, 1 uHH), 11 r> 119,150 151.

Baynrluchw 8t«Nt>blbllothok

CHAPTER THREE

The Last Two Decades of the Twelfth Century

(1180-1198)

William of Tyre’s Historia and Attitudes toward the Greeks in the Latin Outremer

One of the Latin prelates attending the Third Lateran Council in 1179 was Arch­ bishop William of Tyre. Following his return to Jerusalem in 1180, he resumed writing his monumental work, Historia rerum in partibus transmarinis gestarum, which was eventually completed in 1184. In spite of the reliability of William’s narrative as a source ofhistorical information, the entire work is permeated by the author’s anti-Greek bias.1 For his narrative of the First Crusade, which occupies eight of the twenty-three books of his Historia, William of Tyre drew upon the accounts of the anonymous writer of the Gesta Francorum, Raymond ofAguilers, Fulcher of Chartres, Albert ofAachen, and Baldric of Doi, all written in the after­ math of the successful outcome of the crusading expedition.2 For these Latin authors, who hailed from Western Europe and were aware of the fact that one of the two main objectives of the crusading expedition to the East was to liberate the Eastern Christians, the Greeks were perceived as Christian brethren. Intriguingly, however, this was not the case for William of Tyre. For William, a Frank born in the crusader Kingdom ofJerusalem in the Latin East, the Greeks were not only “soft and effeminate,” “treacherous,” and “wicked”:3 normally the his­ 1. Savvas Neocleous, “Imaging the Byzantines: Latin Perceptions, Representations, andMemoty (c. 109S-C. 1230)” (PhD diss., University of Dublin, 2009), 100-102; Peter W. Edbury and John Gordon Rowe, William of Tyre: Historian of the Latin East (Cambridge, 1988), 130-150; Bernard Hamilton, “William of Tyre and the Byzantine Empire,” in Porphyrogenita: Essays and Literature ofByzantium and the Latin East in Honour ofJulian Chrysostomides, ed. Charalambos Dendrinos, et al. (Aidershot, 2003), 219-233. 2. Emily Atwater Babcock and A.C. Krey, “Introduction,” in A History of Deeds Done Beyond the Sea, trans. Emily Atwater Babcock and A.C. Krey (New York, 1943)1 1: 1 -49,at 29. 3. William of Tyre, I Hstoria 2.10, 2.19,17.16,22.12 (11), 22.13 (12), vols. 1: 173 174, 187, 2: 782, 1021, 1024.

The Last Two Decades of the Twelfth Century | 99

torian even refused to consider the Greeks as Christian brothers. The way William chose to adapt his sources on the First Crusade is an eloquent testiment to how sources and their texts could be manipulated to fit the prejudices of a cer­ tain author. The sense of Christian fraternity observed in the sources William of Tyre drew upon for his account of the First Crusade is eliminated in his narrative. The anonymous author of the Gesta Francorum had portrayed Bohemond of Taranto as instructing his men upon their arrival in the Byzantine Empire to behave cour­ teously and abstain from pillaging land belonging to Christians.4 Similarly, Baldric of Doi had quoted the Norman leader as warning his men not to plunder the homes of Christians, as this would be unlawful.5 This information is deliber­ ately omitted from William of Tyre’s Historia. Likewise, when in late April 1097 Count Raymond of Toulouse had suggested a crusader attack on Constantino­ ple, the rest of the crusade leaders, as the author of the Gesta Francorum, and after him Raymond of Aguilers, recounted, had argued that it would be inappropriate for them to fight Christians.6 In William of Tyre’s history, when the count of Toulouse suggests an attack on the Byzantine imperial capital, the other princes feel “that it was not a fitting time or place to demand revenge” and argue that “in pursuit of revenge, he [Raymond of Toulouse] should undo the work of many days and prove a hindrance to those who wished to proceed on the way of the Lord.”7 William consciously fails to relate that the crusader leaders abhorred the idea of fighting against Christians. William launches his most virulent diatribe against the Greeks toward the end of his work, in his account of the massacre of the Pisan and Genoese resi­ dents of Constantinople in 1182 which accompanied the armed coup which brought Andronikos I Komnenos (1183-1185) to the throne of Constantino­ ple.8 The evidence from William’s own work clearly demonstrates that the his­ torian was well aware of the fact that the massacre was the work of the usurper Andronikos’s Paphlagonian troops, who also enlisted the riotous and lawless

4. Gesta Francorum 1.4, p. 8. 5. Baldric of Bourgueil, Historia lerosolimitana 1, p. 18. 6. Gesta Francorum 2.6, p. 13; Raymond of Aguilers, Historia Francorum qui ceperunt lherusalem 2, ed. John France (PhD diss., University of Nottingham, 1967), 24. 7. William of Tyre, Historia 2.21 (20),vol. 1: 188-189; trans. Babcock and Krey in A I listory of Deeds Done Beyond the Sea, 1: 145. 8. Savvas Ncoclcous, "Greeks and Italians in Twelfth-Century Constantinople: Convivencia r Conflict?” in Negotiating Co-F.xisience: Communities, Cultures and Convivencia in Byzantine Society, ed. Barbara (Toslini and Sergio I ,a Porta (Trier, 2013), 221-250, at 229240.

100 I CHAPTER THREE

mob of Constantinople in the bloody attack.9 In contrast, the Greek nobles, civil servants, wholesale merchants and traders - some of them, in fact, being associ­ ated with the Italians by business and even marriage ties - not only did not par­ ticipate in the attack but are even reported by reliable sources to have offered refuge to the Pisans and Genoese.1011 From William’s perspective, nonetheless, the 1182 massacre of the Italian residents of Constantinople was an attack by all Greeks on all Latins. According to the historian, the motivation behind this atrocity was purely Greek hatred of the Latins. As he asserts, all the Greeks, nobles and ordinary citizens alike, ‘‘con­ ceived an insatiable hatred [odium insaciabile] toward us ... and were ever seek­ ing an opportunity... to destroy utterly the hated race of the Latins [invisus Lati­ norum populus] ... that in this way they might satisfy their inexorable hatred [odium inexorabile].”11 Despite William’s allegations, however, the reasons for the Greek mob’s participation in the massacre were far more complex than a Greek hatred of the Italians because they happened to be Latins. Andronikos’s coup was, in fact, accompanied by a propaganda campaign galvanising the Constantinopolitans against the Italians, who had supported his opponent, the Protosebastos Alexios. It was Andronikos’s demagogic and mendacious propaganda coupled with the appetite for plunder on the part of the attackers - essentially the disadvantaged and lower socio-economic groups of the Byzantine capital that triggered the attack on the Italians.12 The anti-Greek sentiment which permeates William’s whole work seems to mirror the religious antagonism that existed between Greek and Latin ecclesias­ tics in the Latin East.13 This is demonstrated in the historian’s account of the 9. Ibid., 232-233; William ofTyre, Historia 22.12 (11), vol. 2:1021-1023; trans. Bab­ cock and Krey, 2: 462-64. 10. Neocleous, “Greeks and Italians in Twelfth-Century Constantinople,” 226-228; David Jacoby, “The Byzantine Outsider in Trade (c. 900-c. 1350),” in Strangers to Them­ selves: TheByzantine Outsider, ed. Dion C. Smythe (Aidershot, 2000), 129-147, at 137. 11. William ofTyre, Historia 22.11 (10),vol. 2: 1021; trans. Babcock and Krey, 2: 461462. 12. For a detailed discussion of the so-called “1182 massacre,” see Neocleous, “Greeks and Italians in Twelfth-Century Constantinople,” 229-240, 249-250. 13. For this antagonism, see Bernard Hamilton, The Latin Church in the Crusader States: The Secular Church (London, 1980), 174-179, 181, 185-186; Johannes Pahlitzsch, “The Greek Orthodox Church in the First Kingdom ofJerusalem (1099-187),” in Patterns of the Past, Prospectsfor the Future: The Christian Heritage in the Holy Land, ed. Thomas Hummel, Kevork Hintlian, and Ulf Carmesund (London, 1999), 195-212, at 199-200, 204-209; Johannes Pahlitzsch, and Daniel Baraz, “Christian Communities in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem (1099-1187 CH)," in Christians and Christianity in the Holy Land: From the Ori­ gins Io the Latin Kingdoms, ed. Ora I ,imor and Guy (1. Stroumsa (Turnhout, 2006), 205-238, al 106 107, 109 110.

The Last Two Decades of the Twelfth Century | 101

massacre of 1182, where he declares that the Greeks’ “insatiable hatred toward us... rises to the height of indignation and is fuelled and intensified because of the difference between our [the Roman Church’s] sacraments [sacramenta.] and theirs [the Greek Church’s]” - this being a reference to the leavened-unleavened bread controversy. William immediately launches into a tirade of abuse against the Greeks: “they, arrogant [arrogantes] beyond measure and insolently sepa­ rated [per insolentiam separati] from the Church of Rome, look upon everyone who does not follow their foolish traditions [frivolae traditiones] as a heretic [haereticus].”14

In regard to the Greeks’ denunciation of the Latins as heretics, William of Tyre proceeds to declare that “it is they [the Byzantines] themselves ... who deserve the name of heretics, because they either create or follow new and per­ nicious beliefs contrary to the Roman Church and the faith of the apostles Peter and Paul.”15 The historian of Outremer also alleges that Greek priests and monks had participated in the massacre of the Italian residents of Constantinople, a statement that cannot be lightly dismissed as mere propaganda, since the pogrom undeniably gave the most fanatical of the Greek clergy the opportunity to satisfy their own near-hysterical hatred for the Latins and the Roman Church.16 This hatred would manifest itself again seven years later, during the passage of the German crusading expedition through Byzantine territory, as we shall shortly see. William relates with apparent satisfaction the sack of Greek towns and monasteries on the islands and coasts of the Marmara and the Aegean by the Pisan and Genoese residents of Constantinople who fled the city to escape the onslaught of 118 2. The historian records that “in retaliation for the blood of their brethren, they [the Italians] slew all those [Greek] pseudo-monks [pseudomonachi] and sacrilegious priests [sacrilegi sacerdotes] and burned the monas­ teries together with the refugees who had fled thither.”17 Indeed, the burning of churches and monasteries as well as of those who had taken shelter within the ecclesiastical buildings was more an act of revenge on the Greeks than a sign of Latin religious hatred for them. In Latin Western Europe, too, churches and cler­ ics were targeted and caught up in the general violence during wartime.18 14. William ofTyre, Historia 22.11 (10), vol. 2:1021; trans. Babcock and Krey, 2:461462. 15. William ofTyre, Historia 22.11 (10), vol. 2: 1021; trans. Babcock and Krey, 2: 462. 16. Neocleous, “Greeks and Italians in Twelfth-Century Constantinople,” 238-240. 17. William ofTyre, I lisloria 22.14 (13), vol. 2: 1025; trans. Babcock and Krey, 2:466. 18. lain A. Mai Innes, "'Shock and Awe’: The Use of Terror as a Psychological Weapon During I he Bruce Balliol ('.ivil War, 1 13 1 1338," in Ibig/aiid and Scotland in the Fourteenth ( ciiliny: New Pci >/>«·< lii'rs, ed Andy King and Mk h.iel A. Penman (Woodbridge, 2007), 4059, al 55, 57.

102 | CHAPTER THREE

Following the inglorious outcome of the Second Crusade in 1149, the Latin states of Syria became increasingly dependent on the Byzantine Empire.19 From the middle of the twelfth century the help of the Byzantine Empire was much needed for the survival of the crusader states in Outremer. Byzantium was the only Christian power which could protect them against growing Muslim aggression and expan­ sion. As has been seen, two ofthe Frankish kings ofjerusalem, Baldwin III and Amalric, married Greek princesses of the Byzantine imperial house to ensure Byzantine assistance. Similarly, Bohemond III of Antioch married a niece of the Byzantine Emperor Manuel. Byzantine military support and, more importantly, gold, how­ ever, did not come without a price. Byzantine influence on the Latin states of Syria increased without precedent in the last two decades of Emperor Manuel’s reign, with the Frankish states of the East becoming satellites of Constantinople. King Amalric ofjerusalem even became a vassal of the Byzantine emperor in 1171.20 Manuel replaced the Latin patriarch in Antioch with a Greek one, Athanasios III, in 1165, and sent a Greek patriarch, Leontios II, to Jerusalem in 1176/77.2122 Latin ecclesiastics, like William of Tyre, naturally felt their ruling position to be threatened and jeopardised by the installation of Greek patriarchs in their king­ doms. When the Greek Patriarch Leontios arrived in Palestine in the summer of 1177, he was not permitted to enter Jerusalem since such a visit was vehemently opposed by the Latin prelates. Although Leontios was eventually allowed to enter the city, presumably following the intervention of the Frankish king, his official status was not recognised and he was refused permission to officiate in the church of the Holy Sepulchre in his capacity as Greek patriarch. If we are to believe the author of the Vita of Leontios, written in the first decade of the thirteenth cen­ tury, the Latin Patriarch ofjerusalem, Amalric ofNesle (1158-1180), plotted an

attempt on the Greek patriarch’s life since the latter’s presence in Jerusalem was irksome to the Latin Church. Eventually, Leontios “considered it more profitable to sail away from there [Palestine], lest anything untoward be mischievously con­ cocted because of him between the orthodox Romans [i.e., Greeks] and Syrians on the one hand, and the Latins who rule there on the other.”22, 19. Ralph-Johannes Lilie, Byzantium and the Crusader States, 1096-1204, trans. J.C. Morris and Jean E. Ridings (Oxford, 1993), 142-221; Jean-Claude Cheynet, “Byzance et I’Orient latin: Le legs de Manuel Comnène,” in Chemins d’outre-mer: Etudes d’histoire sur la Méditerranée médiévale offertes à Michel Balard, ed. Damien Coulon, et al. (Paris, 2004), 1 : 115-125, esp. at 116-118,124-125. 20. Lilie, Byzantium and the Crusader States, 206-208. 21. Hamilton, The Latin Church in the Crusader States, 176; Pahlitzsch, “The Greek Orthodox Church,” 208 209. 22. Theodosios ( ioudeles, Vita / / eontios / Jerusalem 81, 85, 88, ed. and trans. Demeties Tsougaialds ( Leiden, I uu 1), 118 1 >, 114 1 IS, I 18 1 202 nH 1 anil 1184, 201 111185 8n, 20» IlHH.

The Last Two Decades of the Twelfth Century | 103

The Greek clergy, monks, and flock in general living in the crusader states remained loyal to the Greek patriarch exiled in Constantinople.23 Moreover, being cut off from the Byzantine Empire, the Greek clergy and monks in partic­ ular seem to have retained a chauvinistic sense of collective consciousness and identity vis-à-vis the surrounding Christian communities in the Latin Kingdom ofJerusalem. James ofVitry records that they felt hatred for both Jacobites and Armenians. Their feelings about the Latins, whom, as James ofVitry complained, they “regard... as excommunicates [excommunicati],” do not seem to have been very different.24 When William of Tyre repeatedly accused the Byzantine Greeks of hating the Latins in his work, he was undoubtedly influenced by his own expe­ rience with the Greeks of the Latin Kingdom ofJerusalem. The historian applied the negative image he held of the Greeks of Outremer to the Greeks of the Byzan­ tine Empire in general, with whom he otherwise had little experience. That said, it must be noted that William of Tyre’s anti-Greek perspective and, especially, religious hatred of the Greeks seems to have been out of line with the sentiments of the majority of the Frankish settlers of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem and must have been limited to certain ecclesiastical circles in the king­ dom.25 In fact, a completely different picture of attitudes toward the Greeks in the Frankish kingdom in Syria emerges when we examine the Old French text known by its nineteenth-century title as La Chronique d’Ernoul et de Bernard le Tré­ sorier.26 Although this vernacular text, which extends from the early days of the Latin Kingdom ofJerusalem up to 1232, was put together in northern France in the late 1220s and early 1230s, the original text for the pre-1187 period seems to have been composed in the Latin East in the late 1180s. Although this original account does not survive, scholars generally agree that the compiler of the Chronique d’Ernoul must not have modified his source material very much.27 What is of central importance in the context of the present discussion is that in contrast to the Latin Historia of Archbishop William of Tyre, this vernacular 23. Pahlitzsch, “The Greek Orthodox Church,” 205-206. 24. James ofVitry, Historia orientalis 75,76,79, ed. and trans. J. Donnadieu (Turnhout, 2008), 302-303, 308-309, 318-319. See also 75,pp. 298-299. 25. Savvas Neocleous, “Tyrannus Grecorum: The Image and Legend of Andronikos I Komnenos in Latin Historiography,” Medioevo Greco 12 (2012): 274-278, at 280-281. 26. La Chronique d’Ernoul et de Bernard le Trésorier, ed. Louis de Mas Latrie (Paris, 1871). 27. Peter Edbury, “Ernoul, Eracles andthe Beginnings of Frankish Rule in Cyprus, 1191 1232,” in Cyprus in Medieval Times: A Place of Cultural Encounter, ed. Sabine Rogge and Michael Grünbart (Minister, 2015), 29- 51, at 35-36; Peter W. Edbury, “NewPerspectives on the Old French Continuations of William of Tyre," Crusades 9 (2010): 107 136, at 108-109; Peter W. Edbury, "The Lyon I i ,n /«i U.S U6.

The Last Two Decades of the Twelfth Century | 105

fury upon the innocent Cypriots and ... perpetrated upon them and upon their wives and children outrages abominable in the sight ofboth God and men.”32 In William’s eyes, the Cypriots were Christian brethren. While emphasising that Cyprus “had a large faithful [fideles] population,” the historian of Outremer ful­ minates against Reynaid who “treated them as if they had been enemies of the faith [hastesfidei];” in other words, in a manner inappropriate for treating Chris­ tians.33 Interestingly, however, nowhere in his account is William referring to the Cypriots as Greeks. He refers to them consistently as Cyprii.34 William was undoubtedly well aware that the people of Cyprus spoke the Greek language and their autocephalous Church, in canonical communion with the Patriarchate of Constantinople, followed Greek customs and rites. However, the inhabitants of the island represented positive qualities and characteristics, which, from William’s perspective, were not typically associated with the Graeci he had personal experience with in the Latin Kingdom ofjerusalem. Stereotypes the historian had developed for the Greeks in his homeland in the Latin Out­ remer and readily applied to the Graeci of Byzantium did not seem to apply to the Greek population of Cyprus. Motivated to keep his stereotypes for the Graeci intact and safe in the face of evidence that challenged them, William subtyped the inhabitants of Cyprus into an individuated subcategory, referring to them using the ethnic name Cyprii. This enabled the historian to maintain his commonplace clichés about the Graeci. The contradiction, however, is apparent. While the Graeci are denounced as “heretics” as a result of the religious rivalry between Greek and Latin ecclesiastics in the crusader Kingdom ofjerusalem, the Greeks of Cyprus are described as “faithful.” Notwithstanding the fact that the Graeci were decried by William of Tyre as “heretics” and references to their Christian identity found in the sources of the First Crusade were removed (with the exception of the faith of the Cypriots, who were in any case subcategorised under the ethnonym Cyprii'), the historian of the Latin East nonetheless acknowledges on several occasions in his work, perhaps unwittingly, the fact that Greeks and Latins shared the same faith. Referring to the siege ofAntioch by Emperor John Komnenos in 1137 and the battles between the Byzantines and the Franks of the city, William asserts that “without regard to their [common] profession of faith [fidei professio], they fought with one another as with enemies.”35 With regard to Manuel’s campaign of 1176 against the Saljüqs of Iconium, William records that the Byzantine emperor “is fighting against the 32. 33. 34. 35.

William William William William

of Tyre, Historia of Tyre, / listaría ofTyre, Historia ol l yre, I li’.loria

18.10, vol. 2: 824; trans. Babcock and Krey, 2: 276. 18.10, vol. 2: 824; trans. Babcock and Krey, 2: 276. 18.10, 18.23, vol.1; 824, 845. 1 1 to, vol. 2: 070; trans. Babcock, and Krey, 2: 92.

106 | CHAPTER THREE

monstrous race of the Turks and their wicked leader, the sultan of Iconium, to extend the Christian name [christianum nomen].”36 This statement automatically acknowledges the Christianitas of the Byzantine ruler and the Christian identity of his state. William of Tyre’s reference to Manuel as “emperor of Constantino­ ple, of illustrious memory and loving remembrance of Christ” and the historian’s assertion, when referring to the emperor’s death, that he “rendered his soul to heaven” and that “his memory will ever be held in benediction by all the assem­ bly of the saints” are yet further admissions to the fact that the Greeks were Chris­ tians. Manuel was, after all, a Greek who belonged to the Greek Church.37

Callingfor a New Crusade: King Henry II ofEngland's Correspondence with the Byzantine Emperor Isaakios II

William of Tyre was perhaps fortunate to die a year before the destruction of the army of the Kingdom ofjerusalem at the battle of Hattin and the subsequent sur­ render of the city to Sultan Saladin on 2 October 1187. In Italy, according to leg­ end, Pope Urban III (1185-1187) died of grief upon receiving news of the dis­ aster in the East. His successor, Pope Gregory VIII (1187), issued an encyclical calling for a new crusade on 29 October 1187. The response was massive. In Jan­ uary 1188, Henry II of England and Philip II of France jointly took the cross, together with many of their prominent nobles.38 In February or March 1188, Henry sent his envoy Richard Barre to the courts of the Emperor Frederick I, Bela III of Hungary (1172-1196), and Isaakios II with letters requesting safe pas­

sage through their kingdoms and access to markets for the planned EnglishFrench expedition of the Third Crusade. The letters and replies have been pre­ served in Ralph of Diceto’s work.39 In his letter to the Byzantine sovereign, the king of England’s chancery was careful to address him appropriately as “glorious and most powerful prince Isaakios Angelos, emperor of the Romans by the Grace of God [Dei gratia Romanorum imperator], always August, crowned by God [a Deo coronato]Henry expressed his confidence that Isaakios’s “most great power 36. William of Tyre, Historia 21.11 (12), vol. 2: 977; trans. Babcock, andKrey, 2: 414. 37. William of Tyre, Historia 22.5, vol. 2: 1012; trans. Babcock, andKrey, 2: 452. 38. Christopher Tyerman, God’s War: ANew History of the Crusades (London, 2006), 366-399. 39. Ralph of Diceto, Ymagines Historiarum, in Radulfi de Diceto decani Lundoniensis opera historica I The Historical Works of Master Ralph de Diceto, Dean of London, ed. William Stubbs, RS 68.2: 1-174, at 51-54. See also the discussion in Savvas Neocl eons, “The Byzantines and Saladin: Some I hirther Arguments,” Al Masmj: Journal of the Medieval Mediter ranean 25 (2013): 204 iii,atii.| 215.

The Last Two Decades of the Twelfth Century | 107

... commendably watches over the defence of the catholic faith [ad defensionem fidei catholicae] and the honour of the Christian name [honorem Christiani

nominis] ” and his “glory... has desired to work for... the honour of the Most Holy

Church [ad sacrosanctae Ecclesiae honorem] and the exaltation of the Divine Prov­ idence [exaltationem divinaprovidentia].” Henry informed Isaakios’s “imperial majesty” that he and King Philip II of France intended to journey to Jerusalem in order to “serve Almighty God, to the confusion of the enemies of the Holy Cross in the Holy Land,” which should be “freed from the filth of the pagans.”40 The language of Henry IPs letter to Isaakios demonstrates that the king of England considered the Byzantine emperor as nothing less than a fellow Chris­ tian ruler “by the Grace of God” who was concerned with “the defence of the catholic faith,” to which he, obviously, belonged, and with “the honour of the Most Holy Church,” of which he was a member just like the rest of the Christian princes. The image of the Byzantine emperor as a crusader monarch was espe­ cially cultivated by Manuel in the later years of his reign. As part of this initiative, Manuel exchanged several delegations with Henry II between 1176 and 1178.41 In a letter to Henry dating to November 1176, the Byzantine emperor assured the king of England that “from the very earliest period of our coronation, our impe­ rial office nourished hatred in our heart against the Persians [the Muslims], the

enemies of God, when it beheld them vaunting over the Christians, triumphing over the name of God, and holding sway over the lands of the Christians.”42 Manuel further declared that “as to the exploits which were frequently performed by it [our imperial office], to their [the Muslims’] humiliation and loss, our impe­ rial office entertains a belief that the same have not escaped the notice of your [Henry’s] highness.”43 The crusading tone of this Byzantine propaganda aimed to boost the Byzantine ruler’s crusading profile in the West. A decade later, the effects of Manuel’s propaganda would be readily apparent in Henry Il’s letter to Isaakios. Isaakios’s response to Henry’s requests echoes Manuel’s reaction to the news of the Second Crusade. When Manuel was informed of the preaching of the Sec­ ond Crusade by Pope Eugenius, he replied with a letter of August 1146 in which he asserted that he had received, with great joy, the news of “the expedition pre­ 40. Ralph ofDiceto, Ymagines Historiarum, ed. Stubbs, 2: 52-53. 41. Alexander A. Vasiliev, “Manuel Comnenus and Henry Plantagenet,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 29 (192,9): 233-244, at 235-243. 42. Manuel’s letter to Henry is preserved in Roger of Hoveden’s Chronica: Roger of I loveden, Chronica, ed. William Stubbs, RS 51.2: 102-104; trans. Henry T. Riley in The Annals 0/ Roger de I loveden: < om/nising the I listory ofEngland, and of Other Countries ofEuropefrom Ah'), yjitoA.D. 1201 (London, 1853), 1:419-413. 4 v Roger ol I loveden, ( Inonii 11, ed. Stubbs, 2: 102; trans. Riley, 1:419.

1θ8 I CHAPTER THREE

pared for the benefit of the Christians and the destruction and annihilation of the godless enemies of God.”44 In the words of the Byzantine historian Choni­ ates, the Byzantine ruler “lavished high praise on their [the crusaders’] action and pretended to admire them for their pious intention/’ even though it was “with little sincerity.”45 Although Choniates, who was not always impartial toward Manuel, accuses the Byzantine ruler of hypocrisy, it must be emphasised that at least before the news of the participation of the Germans in the Second Crusade reached Constantinople, the emperor did not seem to have had any misgivings about the forthcoming expedition. In a letter of August 1146 to Louis, Manuel expressed his hostility toward the Turks of Iconium, with whom he was in war at the time, and even declared his intention for a joint Franco-Byzantine expedi­ tion against them.46 The Byzantine ruler seems to have been gripped by anxiety only upon being informed that the German King Conrad took the cross, con­ sidering the Germans a threat to his empire.47 The same is true for Isaakios and the German expedition of the Third Crusade. Before the news of the German participation in the Third Crusade arrived in Constantinople, Isaakios, like Manuel before him, welcomed the prospect of a new crusade and expressed Byzantine support and approval for the common cause of Christianity against Islam, his response recalling Manuel’s reaction to the news of the Second Cru­ sade. Isaakios favourably received Henry II of England’s request for “the coun­ sel and assistance of our [the Byzantine] empire against the Saracens for the serv­ ice of Almighty God.” The Byzantine ruler assured Henry that his intention was “very pleasing to God and our empire because it is praiseworthy and because all Christians [omnes Christiani] must praise and aid it.” Commending Henry’s “pru­ dence and probity,” Isaakios granted “safe passage and plentiful market” to the king and his army as well as valuable advice on Muslim tactics and strategy.48 44. Augustin Theiner and Franciscus Miklosich, ed., Monumento. spectantia ad unionem Ecclesiarum Graecae etRomanae (Vienna, 1872), 7 (no. 3). Also edited in Spyridon Lampros, “Αύτοκρατόρων του Βυζαντίου χρυσόβουλλα καί χρυσά γράμματα άναφερόμενα εις τήν ένωσιν τών εκκλησιών [Chrysobulls and Gold Letters of the Emperors of Byzantium Relating to the Union of the Churches],” Νέος Έλληνομνήμων ir (1914): 94-128, at 112-113. 45. Niketas Choniates, Chronike diegesis 2, p. 61; trans. HarryJ. Magoulias in 0 City of Byzantium: Annals ofNiketas Choniates (Detroit, 1984), 36. 46. Martin Bouquet, et al., ed., Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France, Nouvelle éd. (Paris, 1869-1904), 16: 9-10 (no. 26); Odo ofDeuil, De profectione Ludovici 3, pp. 5455·

47. Neocleous, “Imaging the Byzantines,” 114; Angeliki Laiou, "Byzantium and the Crusades in the Twelfth Century: Why Was the Fourth Crusade Late in Coming?” in Urbs Capta: The Fourth Crusade and Its Consequences/La IVe Croisade etses conséquences, ed. Ange lila Laiou (Paris, 2005), 17-40, at 29. 48. Ralph ofDiceto, Ymagines Historiarían, ed. Stubbs, 2: 5 i

The Last Two Decades of the Twelfth Century | 109

The German Emperor Frederick Barbarossa, Byzantine Aggression, and the Ideal of Christian Fellowship When the German Emperor Frederick I took the cross in March 1188, Isaakios was thrown into a state of panic and confusion.49 Since the Germans decided to travel by land to Palestine, the German emperor opened negotiations with the rulers whose realms his army was to pass through. One of those rulers was Isaakios. In late December 1188 or earlyjanuary 1189, a Byzantine embassy led by Isaakios’s logothete of the drome, loannes Doukas Kamateros, arrived at Emperor Frederick’s court at Nuremberg. loannes expressed Isaakios’s “suspi­ cions ... that the [German crusading] expedition to Jerusalem would [in fact] be a hostile invasion of his kingdom.”50 The German emperor’s negotiations with the Serbian and Saljuq rulers before setting out for his eastward journey height­ ened Isaakios’s suspicions and fears.51 Frederick agreed to free the Byzantines from their suspicions by the oath of three distinguished German princes. In return, the Byzantine envoys, on behalf of their ruler, pledged “true and firm friendship to the lord emperor [Frederick]” and vowed to provide the Germans with guides through the Byzantine Empire, make markets available, and ferry the crusaders across the straits to Asia Minor.52 Despite the exchange of mutual pledges, Isaakios, remaining suspicious of Frederick’s motives, determined to oppose the German crusading expedition by all means in his power.53 Isaakios’s sabotage of the German crusading expedition began once the Ger­ man crusaders entered the Byzantine Empire on 2 July 1188. Mounting tensions eventually flared into open conflict. On 27 July 1188, while Frederick was at Nish, Stephen Nemanja, Grand Zupan of Serbia, appeared before the German ruler. Stephen was struggling for independence from the Byzantine emperor, whose suzerainty he had until recently recognised.54 In an attempt to take advantage of the passage of the German crusading expedition, and capitalising on Byzantine49. Sawas Neocleous, “The Byzantines and Saladin: Opponents of the Third Cru­ sade?” Crusades 9 (2010): 87-106, at 101-102; Savvas Neocleous, “Byzantine-Muslim Con­ spiracies Against the Crusades: History and Myth,” Journal of Medieval History 36 (2010): 253-274, at 266. 50. HistoriadeexpeditioneFridericiimperatoris, 15; ed. and trans. Graham A. Loud in The Crusade of Frederick Barbarossa: The History of the Expedition of the Emperor Frederick and Related Texts (Farnham, 2010), 33-134, at4$-46. 51. Neocleous, “The Byzantines and Saladin: Some Further Arguments,” 213. 52. Historia de expeditione Friderici imperatoris, 16; trans. Loud, 46. 53. Neocleous, “Byzantine Muslim Conspiracies,” 266. 54. Paul Stephenson, Bv.iintinin’s Balkan Frontier: ), 9 I 101.

The Last Two Decades of the Twelfth Century | 127

if from unclean things.”12,6 Many Greeks undeniably resented the Latins and, indeed, a close investigation of Byzantine sources vindicates Joachim by reveal­ ing that in their writings Byzantine intellectuals propagated the idea that the Latins hated the Greeks.126 127 However, the Calabrian abbot was right not to gen eralise this attitude to all Greeks. Although plurimi, these Greeks still may not have represented the majority. Despite the fact that Joachim inveighed against the Church of Constan tinople and its patriarch and pummelled the “many Greeks” who loathed the Latins and avoided them, nonetheless his attitude toward the Greeks was noi necessarily one of intolerance and antagonism, as the above passages seem Io indicate. In his Liber de concordia, while condemning the former heresies of the patriarchs of Constantinople, Joachim relates that there were “among the people of the Greeks great hermits and abbots [inpopulo Graecorum magni heremitae et abbates] with many disciples in the monastic perfection [in monastica perftc hone],” who had sided with the Roman Church “in support of the catholic faith" [pro fide catholica] despite the persecution they had suffered at the hands oi heretics among the Greeks. Respectful of Eastern-rite monasticism, the Calabria n abbot placed Greek monasticism on a conceptual par with the Latin, praising “the life of the pious monks who shone” in both the Latin Rule of Saint Benedict (regula sancti Benedicti) and the Greek Rule of Saint Basil (regula sancii Basilli ). Joachim did not hesitate to acknowledge that “the regions of the Greeks" wci ■ endowed with “most holy hermits [heremitae viri sanctissimi]” and “monks ol holiness [monachi sanctitatis],” whose “high standards of life we are more able Io admire than to emulate.”128 While extolling the Greek hermits and monks, the Calabrian abbot is noi short of praise for “the catholic fathers of the Greeks and their priests of t hi* 11 igl 1 est order, who adhered firmly to the Roman Church in the midst of the sons of Belial.” These Greeks went over to the Latins, “with whom they were united in sound faith and devotion of spirit, and fought equally for the catholic faith | pro catholica fide].”129 It is interesting to note that Joachim’s commendation ol I lie Greek holy monks, hermits, and fathers, evokes not only the statement in Anselm 126. Joachim of Fiore, Tractates 3.16, p. 283; trans. Pellegrini and Potestà, 211. 127. Miovpdtpaiot (“haters of the Romans,” i.e., the Byzantines) is a novel adjective I lie twelfth-century Byzantine historians Eustathios of Thessaloniki and Niketas Cihoni.il>··. employed to describe the Latins. See Eustathios ofThessaloniki, The. Capture of Thessaloniki, ed. and trans.John R. Melville-Jones (Canberra, 1988), 128-129; Niketas ( ihoniales, < '.hronike diegesis 10, 17, pp. 301, 551; trans. Magoulias, 167, 302. 128. Joachim ol Fiore, Liberile Concordia 2.1.32, 3.2.3, 4.1.16, ed. Daniel, 1 u>, 191 193, 35 '■ 1 19

|o.u him ol Fiore, i.i/ir'i i/c I um i>rd/ 1,1'I .· 1 4 123; trans. Powell, 81, 87. loannes X answered Innocent Ill's letter in the spring of 1 200. 11 owe ver, the patriarch’s reply, which exists in its original (¡reek, seems never Io have arrived in Home. Allred |. Andrea, ed. and trans,, ('oiifi'iiipuiiiry Sonnes /or llr Ivurlll < rirnidr (I eulcn, 1000), h n 1 ·■ a hoi loannes X . reply, see loannes X ( amaleins, I plsloliK' ml hinoi cull tint III /hl/'ilUI, cd. Papadal 1. and I.ilhol, is |l

14° | CHAPTER FOUR

1198), while Innocent himself, whose confessor, Rainer of Ponza, was a very close friend ofjoachim, knew the Calabrian monk’s writings very well.28 Innocent’s letters of November 1199 closed with a threat. The pope warned Alexios and the patriarch that “we trust that things will not turn out differently, or [we] shall be compelled to proceed both against you... and the Church of the Greeks.”29 What exactly this threat entailed is not clear. Military action against Alexios does not seem to have been the pope’s intention: when the perfect oppor­ tunity subsequently arose to divert the Fourth Crusade to Constantinople to top­ ple Alexios and place his nephew Alexios, son of the deposed Byzantine emperor Isaakios II, on the throne of Byzantium, Innocent unequivocally rejected the plan.30 When the pope composed his letters of November 1199, he may well have had in mind to proceed to levy excommunication and interdict against the Byzantine ruler and the patriarch if the Greek Church did not show “the obedi­ ence and reverence” due to the Church of Rome. Excommunication and inter­ dict were powerful weapons in the hands of the papacy and Innocent in particu­ lar made extensive use of them during his pontificate: among those excommunicated by Innocent were Philip of Swabia (1196-1208), King John of England (1199-1216), and the German Emperor Otto of Brunswick (12091215).31 The Greek Church’s estrangement from Rome did not deter the papacy

from issuing excommunications against Byzantine rulers, a sentence that effec­ tively recognised that the excommunicated were in communion before their pun­ ishment. Alexios I had been excommunicated by Gregory VII, a sentence ulti­ mately lifted by Urban II in 1089, while in 1210 Innocent himself excommunicated the Greek ruler of Epiros Michael I Doukas (1205-1215).32

28. Felicitas Schmieder, “Two Unequal Brothers Split and Reunited: The Greeks in Latin Eschatological Perceptions of Politics and History Before and After 1204,” in Quarta Crociata: Venezia, Bisanzio, Impero Latino, ed. Gherardo Ortalli, Giorgio Ravegnani, and Peter Schreiner (Venice, 2005), 2: 633-652, at 637. 29. Innocent III, Registrum, 2: 389 (no. 200 (209)), 397 (no. 202 (211)); Gestalnnocentii III 60, 61, PL 214: 122; trans. Powell, 81, 88. 30. Jaroslav Folda, “The Fourth Crusade, 1201-1203: Some Reconsiderations,” Bysantinoslavica 26 (1965): 277-290, at 285-286; Queller and Madden, The Fourth Crusade, 3738; Phillips, The Fourth Crusade, 93-94. 31. Malcolm Barber, The Two Cities: Medieval Europe, 1050-1320, 2nd ed. (London and New York, 2004), 103,199,296; Elizabeth M. Hallam and Judith Everard, Capetian France 987-1328 (London, 2001), 169, 171. 32. Donald Nicol, “Byzantium and the Papacy in the Eleventh Century,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 13 (1962): 1-20, at 15. Michael I Doukas’s excomminication is men­ tioned in Innocent’s letter of 7 December 1210 to the Venetian patriarch oft lonstantinople: Innocent III, Rcgislrnni, 13: 275 (no. iH;. (184)).

From the Fourth Crusade to the Conquest of Constantinople j 141

Preparations for the Fourth Crusade and Pope Innocent’s Rejection of Prince Alexios’s Pleas for Help

In November 1199, the same month Innocent dispatched his letters to both the Byzantine emperor and the patriarch of Constantinople, recruitment of crusaders for the forthcoming Eastern expedition began in northern France. The first to take the cross were Counts Theobald III of Champagne (1197-1201) and Lou is I ofBlois (1191-1205) on 28 November. Many of their vassals followed their example. In February 1200, Count Baldwin IX of Flanders and many of his vas sals also vowed to crusade. In June, at a meeting between the principalleaders at Compiegne, they decided to take the sea route to the East, and to attack and con quer Egypt and use it as a base to recapture Jerusalem. Further, sixplenipoten tiary envoys were appointed to negotiate the crusaders’ transport with the Repub lie of Venice.33 While these developments were taking place in the West, Innocent kept negotiations with Alexios open. Despite Alexios’s evident unwillingness to contribute to the upcoming cru sade, the pope was determined not to give up trying to persuade the Byzantine ruler to participate in his Eastern expedition. In the decretal Solitae benignitatis affectu, dated 21 February 1201, Innocent complains to Alexios that he had invited him “to nothing other than the unity of the Church and aid for the land ol Jerusalem,” and urges the Byzantine ruler “to imitate in word and deed the devo tion to the Apostolic See of... Emperor Manuel.”34 Undoubtedly, what Innocent had in mind was Manuel’s support for the crusader states of Outremer and his negotiations with Pope Alexander III for the union of the Churches, as well as the ruler’s actively encouraging and supporting the coalition ofAlexander Ill and the Lombard cities in their struggle against Frederick I.35 Despite all his words and efforts, however, Innocent’s expectations of Alexios for ecclesiastical union and Byzantine support for the upcoming crusade were to meet with frustration. 33. Phillips, TheFourth Crusade, 46-50, 55; Tyerman, God’s War, 502-503, 510 s 1 1 34. Innocent III, Prima collectio decretalium: Alexio Constantinopolis itnperatori, 1’1, ■ 10 1185; Gesta Innocentii III 63, PL 214: 123; trans. Powell, 93. 35. For Manuel’s policy toward the crusader states, see Ralph-Johannes Lilie, Byzantium and the Crusader States, 1096-1204, trans. J.C. Morris and Jean E. Ridings (Oxford, 1993), i.| 2 221; Paul Magdalino, The Empire ofManuellKomnenos, 1143-1180 (Cambridge and New York, 1993)166-76; Angold, The Byzantine Empire, 215 221 ¡ Jonathan Phillips, liefenders / lhe I Inly Land: Relations Between the Latin Last and the West, 11 to 1187 (Oxford, 1996), 132 1 in, 1 si 1 59, 208-213. For Manuel's relations and negotiations with Pope Alexander, see Jonathan I lai ris and IIrnitri Tolstoy, "Alexandei HI and Byzantium,11 in Alexander III (1 i.su 81): The Ail a/ Siiriifoii/, ed. Peter 1 >.( lai lie and Anne | I higg.in (Farnham, 201 )), to I Hl,at 10H ill,Mag dalino, r/ir I tn/ini· nJ Manuel, 0 ■ 6f>, K | 95; Allgold, / lie Hyea/lline I 'niplte, law 11 ·,

142 I CHAPTER FOUR

In April noi, the six crusading delegates finalised arrangements with the doge ofVenice, Enrico Dandolo (1192-1205), for the transport of the crusading army to Egypt. The Treaty ofVenice specified a total of forty-five hundred knights and their horses, nine thousand squires, and twenty thousand foot sol­ diers, for whom a sum of eighty-five thousand Cologne marks was to be paid by April 1202, once the crusaders had assembled in Venice. The crusaders’ depar­ ture was planned for 29 June 1202. In the meantime, Count Theobald of Cham­ pagne died in May 1201, and the command of the whole crusading army was offered to the Italian Marquis Boniface ofMontferrat, who accepted the cross at Soissons in the late summer of 1201.36 The situation soon became even more complicated because of the young Alexios Angelos, Isaakios H’s son. In the second half of 1201, Prince Alexios escaped to Italy and thence to the court of the German King Philip of Swabia at Haguenau to appeal for aid in overthrowing his uncle Alexios III and restoring himself and his father to the Byzantine throne. Philip, brother-in-law of the young Alexios through his marriage to Alexios’s sister Eirene, was one of the two con­ testants for the German kingship and the Western Roman Empire - the rival claimant was Otto of Brunswick, who was supported by Pope Innocent.37 Impor­ tantly, during Christmas of 1201, both Prince Alexios and Boniface ofMontfer­ rat, leader of the forthcoming crusade and cousin and vassal of Philip of Swabia, appear to have been present at Philip’s court at Hagenau, where the scheme seems to have been hatched that the crusade be used to install Alexios on the throne of Constantinople.38 Two months later, in late February 1202, Prince Alexios visited Pope Innocent in an attempt to secure papal support for using the crusade to restore himself and his father to the Byzantine throne. Alexios’s appeal was rejected. Innocent remained committed to his policy of conciliation with Alexios III. The pope would by no means divert his crusade, to which he was so deeply dedicated, to place on the Byzantine throne a young prince, who, besides, was the brother-in-law of the excommunicated Hohenstaufen Philip of Swabia. When in March 1202 Boniface ofMontferrat went to Rome, he also tried to win papal support for a diversion to Constantinople. However, as in the case of Prince Alexios, he was met with a flat refusal.39

36. Phillips, The Fourth Crusade, 62-63, 79-81; Tyerman, God's War, 512-513, 517. 37. On the two contestants for the German kingship and the Western Roman Empire, see Barber, The Two Cities, 103. 38. See especially Folda, “The Fourth Crusade,” 285; Neocleous, “Financial, Chivalric, or Religious?” 189-190. 39. Ibid., 285-286; Queller and Madden, The Fourth Crusade, 37 18; Phillips, The Fourth Crusade, 93 -94.

From the Fourth Crusade to the Conquest of Constantinople | 143

The crusaders began arriving at Venice in the middle of the summer of 1202. However; when only one-third of the expected 33,500 crusaders had finally assembled there, they were left owing the Venetians 34,000 silver marks. At this stage, the doge exploited the Frankish crusaders’ outstanding debt to the advan­ tage ofVenice, suggesting that the French barons could postpone their payment if they helped the Venetians recapture the town of Zara on the Dalmatian coast from King Emeric of Hungary (1196-1204), a ruler who had also taken the cross

in 1200.40 The proposal for an attack on the Christian Zara aroused much dis agreement among the crusading army. Many crusaders, of all stations, abandoned the expedition.41 However, those Frankish leaders who were bound by the ear lier Treaty of Venice had no other choice but to accept Doge Dandolo’s pro posal.42 In the meantime, in September 1202, while the crusaders were in Venice, another development took place. Despite Innocent’s explicit opposition to a diversion to Constantinople, the recalcitrant Prince Alexios, with Philip of Swabia’s blessing and Boniface of Montferrat’s connivance, sent an embassy to the debt-laden French barons of the expedition and requested their support for his cause.43 In September-October 1202 the papal legate to the crusade, Cardinal Petei Capuano, having been rejected by the Venetians as legate, left Venice and returned to Rome, where he informed Innocent of the crusade’s plan to attack Zara. Further, he was instructed by the French leaders of the army to discover the pope’s wishes concerning Prince Alexios’s proposal.44 Meanwhile, in the a 11111 m 11 of 1202, Innocent received a letter from an alarmed Alexios III.45 The Byzantine ruler had learnt that Philip of Swabia had persuaded Boniface ofMontferrat to .ml Prince Alexios in seizing the Byzantine throne.46 The now-lost letter of Alexios III is summarised in the letter with winch Innocent answered the Byzantine emperor on 16 November 12O2.47 Alexios had

40. Phillips, TheFourth Crusade, 102-111; Tyerman, God's War, 525-528; NeoiIcons, “Financial, Chivalric or Religious?” 204-205. 41. On these desertions, see Queller and Madden, The Fourth Crusade, 62. 42. Neocleous, “Financial, Chivalric, or Religious?” 186-191,204 206. 43. Ibid., 190; Queller and Madden, The Fourth Crusade, 63 64; Folda, "The Fourth Crusade,” 287. ( 44. Queller and Madden, The Fourth Crusade, 63 64; Folda, "The Fourth Crusade," 287. 45. Dolger and Wirth, Regesten, 2: 335 336 (no. 1002). 46. Allred |. Andrea, "Pope Innocent III and I he Diversion of the Fourth ('rusade Army to Zara," Hvrantlnoslavha 33(1972)16 25, at 11 14. 47. hmm ent 111, Krriitrnni, 5 139 14 3 (no, 111 (1 21))| cd and trans, Andrea In ( on temporary Sauries jar the Fourth Crusade, · rm, at u i/ I'rnii gne, Abbot Arnald-Amalric of Citeaux and all other abbots of the Cistercian ordei, and to “all the Christian faithful [universi Christifideles].” Baldwin's letter w.r. .1 masterpiece of propaganda to legitimise the Latin conquest of Constantinople To pre-empt a negative reaction from the pope, the clerical authors ol the let lei mobilised all their rhetorical skill, asserting that “the hand of the I ,ord guided all of these events [manus Domini operetur hec omnia]” and “we [the crusader·. | do not wrongly lay claim to this victory for ourselves.... This was done by the laud 1. For a detailed narrative of events, see Jonathan Phillips, The Fourth ('rioiiilr and the Sack of Constantinople (London, 2004), 241-257. \ 2. Innocent III, Registrant, 7: 253-262 (no. 152); trans. Alli ed ). Andrea in ( ontenipo rary Sources for the Fourth Crusade (Leiden, 2000), 7 176, at 98 112. For an edition ol the other three letters, see Walter Prevenier, cd., De oorkonden tier graven van Vlaaniteien (1 idi 1200) (Brussels, 196.1 1971), 2: 577 603 (nos. 272 274). See also Benjamin I lendrickx, Ri^'x/rs dn ruiprrriirs/utiiis ai ronzès, 8 1 8.;; I h pl nu' i'hik',. hqwi Aiirlvoç | ( >11 / low the I al ins Prevailed Against I Is |, ed Ah hlushop Nil clou r. o Kalogeras (Leipzig, 1890), 1

168 I CHAPTER FIVE

furnishings were commonplace in medieval writing, and represented a propaganda element of chronicle reportage as well as epistolography.21 In contrast to what the Greek Latinophobic sources maintain, both before and after 1204 Westerners were obsessed with the relics housed in the churches and monasteries of the Byzantine Empire. Already in the early twelfth century the chroniclers of the First Crusade commended Constantinople as the largest storehouse of relics in the Christian world.22 This Western obsession with relics persisted well into the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries. The earliest Vita of Saint Christodoulos of Patmos, composed sometime between 1120 and 115 0 by loannes, bishop of Rhodes, who relied on the oral tradition surrounding the saint, speaks of a Latin who stopped on the island of Patmos on his way to a pilgrimage to Jerusalem in order to pray at the church of the saint. While venerating the saint, he cut off part of one of the saint’s fingers, which he kept as an invaluable treasure.23 Similarly, the encomium of Saint Christodoulos of Patmos, authored by the monk Theodosios Goudeles during the last decade of the twelfth century, presents King Philip II Augustus of France, on his return journey from the Third Crusade, as trying to purchase a part of the Byzan­ tine saint’s body, and, when this fails, enjoining one ofhis men to steal it.24 Although ii. Iain A. Maclnnes, ‘“Shock and Awe’: The Use of Terror as a Psychological Weapon During the Bruce-Balliol Civil War, 1332-1338,” in England and Scotland in the Fourteenth Century: New Perspectives, ed. Andy King and Michael A. Penman (Woodbridge, 2007), 4059, at 55. For epistolography, see, for example, the English Queen Eleanor ofAquitaine’s let­ ters to Pope Celestine III, in which she accuses German Emperor Henry VI of having usurped the Sicilian kingdom, despoiled churches, and oppressed the holy, not sparing monks, recluses, hermits, or nuns. Eleanor of Aquitaine, Epistolae ad Coelestinum, PL 206: 1265-1268. The queen’s vociferous protests against Henry’s claims on the Kingdom of Sicily and alleged sac­ rilegious actions were motivated less by high-mindedness than by expediency, for in fact the German emperor held her son Richard I, King of England, in prison. 22. Robert the Monk, Historia Iherosolimitana 2.20, p. 21; trans. Carol Sweetenham in Robert the Monk's History ofthe First Crusade (Aidershot, 2005), 101-102.Fulcher ofChartres, Historia Hierosolymitana 1.9, p. 3 31; trans. Frances Rita Ryan in A History ofthe Expedition to Jerusalem, 1095-1127 (Knoxville, i960), 79. 23. loannes of Rhodes, Βίος καί Πολιτεία του οσίου πατρός ήμών Χριστοδούλου [Life and Conduct of Our Blessed Father Christodoulos], in Ακολουθία ιερά τού οσίου και θεοφόρου Πατρός ημών Χριστοδούλου [Holy Service of Our Blessed and God-Bearing Father Christodoulos], ed. Kyrillos Voenes, 5 th ed. (Athens, 1957), 22-39, at 38. For the Vita of Saint Christodoulos of Patmos, see Symeon A. Paschalidis, “The Hagiography of the Eleventh and Twelfth Cen­ turies,” in The Ashgate Research Companion to Byzantine Hagiography, Vol. 1: Periods and Places, ed. Stephanos Efthymiadis (Farnham, 2012), 143-172, at 151. 24. Martin Hinterberger, “A Neglected Tool of Orthodox Propaganda? The Image of the Latins in Byzantine Hagiography,” in Greeks, Latins, and Intellectual History, 1204-1500, ed. Martin Hinterberger and Christopher Schabel (Leuven, 2011), 129-150, at 133 134. For Theodosios Goudeles’s encomium of Saint Christodoulos of Patmos, see Paschalidis, "The I lagiography ol the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries,” 151.

Attitudes toward the Conquered Greeks: The Official Latin Church | 169

parts of these vitae are certainly fictional, the raw material is doubtless drawn fron 1 reality. Indeed, their testimony is corroborated by Latin accounts: the Translatif mirifici martyris Isidori a Chio insula in civitatem Venetam, composed by the eye witness Venetian cleric Cerbano Cerbani, recounts the events surrounding the 111 ./, ed. Benjamin Arbel, Bernard Hamilton, and Davidjacoby (London, 1989), 45 2, at .| ’ 80. Innocent III, Registrant, 8: 130(110.71 (70)). Emphasis added. 81. While a number of texts of the Latin mass written phonetically in Creek chai .11 lei ·. with an interlinear Greek translation have been used as evidence for a programme ol Ion rd Latin proselytism, it has recently been rigorously proven by Brendan J. McGuire that I hrs, texts were created by Greek clerics rathetthan by Latin authorities and by no means sei vrd .1 proselytising function. Brendan J. McGuire, "Evidence lor Religious Accommodation in Latin (Constantinople: A New Approach Io Bilingual Liturgical Texts," journal / Medieval I ¡¡story 39 (2013): |.| 1 1 sr>, I or the (now disi redited) opposing view, see Andiea, "limoi cut 111 and the Byzantine Rile,' 119. H ,·. Petri I an k, I lie K nil/ledge < 'oill/’ililli’il ti> the < 'riMih/i'l (London, 200(1), Ho Hi I uni n cut 111, L’i eoli util, H 1 11 ( no 1 · · (1 1 .|

184 | CHAPTER FIVE

crusaders] and many natives [i.e., Latins of Outremer], deserted the province of Jerusalem and went to Constantinople.”84 In addition, at the battle ofAdrianople on 14 April 1205, the Latin conquerors of the Byzantine Empire were crushed by the Bulgarian Tsar Kalojan (1196-1207) and the Emperor Baldwin was cap­ tured, never to return to Constantinople.85 What is more, Cardinal Peter Capuano had dispensed from their crusading vow all crusaders who promised to remain in the Latin Empire for an additional year of service. The Fourth Cru­ sade was in fact over. At the same time, Innocent received horrific accounts of the three-day sack of Constantinople, which circulated “far and wide,” according to the pope’s own words.86 Innocent’s elation in the months immediately following the fall of Constantinople proved ill-founded and was to give way to scepticism, disappointment, and anger. Less than ten months after his initial euphoria, specifically in July 1205, Inno­ cent, in a staggering volte-face from his previous position, chides his cardinal legate Peter Capuano as well as Cardinal Soffredo of Santa Prassede for not hav­ ing “been mindful of and given careful thought to the purpose of your legation.” In what amounted to a complete reversal, Innocent reproachfully reminds his cardinals that they had been dispatched “not to capture [non ad capiendum] the empire of Constantinople but for the defence of the remnants of the Holy Land and for the restoration of what has been lost... not to seize temporal riches but to earn eternal riches.” The fact that Innocent’s delusional euphoria gave way to disappointment after a realistic evaluation of the new state of affairs is clearly evi­ dent in what the pope “report[s] with grief and shame: by that from which we appeared to have profited up to now we are impoverished, and by that from which we believed we were, above all else, made the greater we are reduced.”87 The pope’s high expectations from the Latin conquest of Constantinople finally proved to be a chimera. The disillusioned Innocent was not only worried about the future of the Holy Land; he also began to question what he had taken for granted immedi­ ately after the conquest of Constantinople, namely that the Churches of Con­ stantinople and Rome were now reunited. Having heard the full horrors of the sack of the Byzantine capital, the pope was wise enough to fully appreciate what this meant for his reunification plans. He rhetorically asks his cardinal legate Peter 84. Gesta Innocentii III9$, PL 214: 142; trans. Powell, 173. 85. Lock, The Routledge Companion, 87. 86. Innocent III, Registrum, 8: 246 (no. 134 (133)); trans. Andrea, 173. See also John C. Moore, Pope Innocent III (1160/61-1216): To Root Up and to Plant (Leiden, 2003), 157-

158· 87. Innocent III, Registrum, 8: 231-232 (no. 127 (126)); trans. Andrea, 165-166. Emphasis added.

Attitudes toward the Conquered Greeks: The Official Latin Church | 185

Capuano “how will the Greek Church, afflicted to some degree by persecutions, return to ecclesiastical unity and devotion to the Apostolic See, a Church which has seen in the Latins nothing except an example of affliction and the works ol Hell, so that now it rightly [merito] detests them more than dogs?”88 To the pope’s mind, the Byzantines were now fully justified in their aversion to (he Latins. The following quotation from the papal letter to Peter Capuano of 12 July 1205 is a telling comment on Innocent’s frustration:

For they, who were believed to be seeking things not for themselves but foi Jesus Christ, showed no mercy for reasons of religion, age, or sex, staining with the blood of Christians [Christianorum sanguis] swords that they should have used on pagans [pagani]. They committed acts of lewdness, adultery, and fornication in the sight of all, and they exposed both matrons and vii gin·., even those dedicated to God, to the filth of the lowborn. It was not enough forthem to empty the imperial treasuries and to plunder the spoils ol prim es and lesser folk, but rather they extended their hands to church tre.r.i 1 ■ h··. and, what was more serious, to their possessions, even ripping away silvet tablets from altars and breaking them into pieces among themselves, viola 1 ing sacristies and crosses, and carrying away relics.89

In late summer or early autumn of 1205, a disenchanted Innocent, replying to a now-lost letter from Boniface ofMontferrat, repeats almost verbatim hr. bit ter reproaches against the crusaders for their conduct after the fall ol ('oust an tinople, the result ofwhich was “that the Greek Church ... disdains returning to obedience to the Apostolic See.” He further reminds the marquis ol tin· cat het papal prohibition of invading or violating Christian territories and, relin mug to the diversion to Constantinople, severely reprimands the crusaders lor (he l.n I that “having no jurisdiction or power over the Greeks, [you] appear Io have i.v.hly turned away from the purity ofyour vow when you took up arms not against Sara cens but Christians [non contra Sarracenos sed contra Christianos], nol aiming, lo recover Jerusalem but to attack Constantinople.”90 The Greeks, who in the immediate aftermath of the Latin conquest of Constantinople were denoum ed as schismatics, were now, as before the fall of their capital, described as ( hi is 88. Innocent III, Registrum, 8: 232 (no. 127 (126)); trans. Andrea, 166. Uinph.i'.i·,

added. 89. Innocent III, Registrum, 8: 232 (no. 127 (126)); trans. Andrea, 166. I niph.isi·. added. Note that the theft ol relics that ensued during the capture ol < lonslantinople was roundly condemned hy the pope. Qo. Innocent 111, Rei;imii/ii, 8: 246 247 (no. 114 (1 t1)) 1 trans. Andrea, 1 · 1 l inpli.i si·, added.

186 | CHAPTER FIVE

tians. Innocent’s letter to Boniface did not reflect papal views alone. The author of the Gesta Innocentii, the work echoing the curial perspective, informs us that the pope “began very vehemently to doubt what he should do in so important a business [i.e., the outcome of the Fourth Crusade].... He had held diligent dis­ cussion not only with the cardinals but also with archbishops and bishops and other prudent men of whom there were then many from diverse parts at the Apostolic See.”9192 Innocent’s missive was obviously the result of discussions between the pope and several clerics from the Latin world, and therefore repre­ sented the opinion of a large group of Latin higher ecclesiastics. Despite his about-face in the summer of 1205 and his reproaches against the crusaders, Innocent never disputed that the outcome ofhis crusade was the result of Divine Providence - after all, to the medieval mind, God was the arbiter of human history. Even the disastrous outcome of the Second Crusade more than half a century earlier had been ascribed by a number of Western writers to the inscrutable Divine Will, the hidden ways of God.91 Using analogous language, Innocent tells Boniface of Montferrat that “the judgements of God have to this point been sometimes hidden.” This was clearly articulated in both the Old and New Testaments. Resorting first to the Psalms, the pope states that Divine Judge­ ments “are called by the prophet [David] ‘a great abyss’.” He then proceeds to quote a passage from Paul’s epistle to the Romans in which “the Apostle is forced to exclaim: ‘Oh, the depth of the riches of God’s wisdom and knowledge! How incomprehensible are His judgements and beyond understanding His ways!’.” Baffled by the outcome ofhis crusade and since he was unwilling to pass judge­ ment on what appeared to him to be the result of Divine Will, Innocent had recourse to the axiom that the workings of Divine Providence remain hidden from the understanding of humans. As he himself asserts, “we do not wish to judge rashly regarding such a profound judgement, especially when we are not fully informed regarding the truth of the matter.”93 Since he was not yet in a position to fathom God’s mysterious judgements, Innocent confines himself to speculating that “it appears to have been divine judgement that they [the Byzantines], who for so long have been mercifully tol­ 91. Gesta Innocentii III 93, PL 214: 142; trans. Powell, 166. 92. Bernard of Clairvaux, De consideratione ad Eugenium papam 2.1.1-2, in Sancti Bernardi Opera, ed. Jean Leclercq and Henri Rochais (Rome, 1963), 379-493, at 411; trans. “A Priest of Mount Melleray” in St. Bernard’s Treatise on Consideration (Dublin, 1922), 3435. Otto of Freising, Gesta Friderici I imperatoris 1.65, MGH, SS rer. Germ, in usum scholarum46: 91-93; trans. Charles Christopher Mierow and Richard Emery in The Deeds ofFred­ erick Barbarossa (NewYork, 1953), 103-106. 93. Innocent III, Registrum, 8: 247 (no. 134 (133)); trans. Andrea, 175. See also Psalms 36:6; Romans 11:33.

Attitudes toward the Conquered Greeks: The Official Latin Church | 187

erated and so often had been zealously admonished, not only by others but even by us,94 and who did not wish to return to the unity of the Church, and who did not want to impart any aid to the Holy Land, lost their place and people through I he agency of those [the crusaders] who equally sought both [objectives].” Union ol the Churches and assistance to the Holy Land were the two keystones of Inno cent’s negotiations with Alexios III. The pope convinced himself that since the Byzantines had failed to pursue the two objectives, they lost their empire "to those who equally sought both.” Having returned to the theme of the Byzantines' “just punishment,” Innocent hastened to explain that “they [the Byzantines | were fit to be justly punished because of the sin that they committed against God."9'' Although rebuking the crusaders, the pope, “putting aside unresolved issues,” i.e., divine judgements, and “having a healthy consideration equally... for the Holy Land as well as for the Apostolic See,” gives “an unambiguous response on... [one] matter”: what should be done with the conquered Byzantine Empire. Innocent enjoins Boniface “to hold and defend the land acquired through divine judgment and acquire land to be held and defended, ruling in justice t he people subject to you.”96 Despite his reproaches against the papal legates and the 1 ru sading nobles for the diversion of the Fourth Crusade, and despite his growing recognition that the Latin Empire drained the Holy Land of resources, Innocent was obviously not prepared to hand the conquered territories back to the (I reeks The pontiff seemed to still have a faint, or rather vain, hope that the conquest ol the Byzantine Empire, effected by Divine Providence, would ultimately lead lo the highly desired union of the Churches and the recovery of the Holy 1 ,and.

A Point ofNo Return: Innocent Ill's Dread of a Restored Greek Constantinople

In late 1207 or early 1208 Theodoras Laskaris (1205-1222), emperor ol Nicaea, one of the successor states of the Byzantine Empire, sent Innocent a lettei .While Theodoros’s letter does not survive, its contents can be gleaned from the papal reply.97 The Greek ruler criticised the crusaders for the fact that while I hey had taken the cross “pretending to hurry against the foreign nations to run Io I he aid 94. This is another reference to Innocent's earlier letters to Alexios III and I'aliian h Joannes X. 95. Innocent 111, Rcgislriun, 8: 147 (no. 134(135)); trans. Andrea, 174· 17$. lintpha sis added. 9ft. Innocent 111, RrgiUnini, 8: 148 (no. t |.| (I (t)); Iran·. Andrea, 17s. 97, Innocent III, Rcg/Unnn, 1 1: no 64 (no. 44 (47)).

188 | CHAPTER FIVE

or the assistance of the Holy Land... they turned their swords against Christians ... killing Christians, dishonouring virgins and polluting married women.” Falling back on the notion of Christian fraternity between Greeks and Latins, Theodoros asked the pope to push for a ceasefire and a cessation ofhostilities between him­ self and the Latin emperor since “love must always be flourishing among Chris­ tians.” In his reply, Innocent states that he did not excuse the Latins for their excesses, but expresses his firm belief that “the Greeks were punished through them [the Latins] by the just judgement of God, since they attempted to rend the seamless tunic of Christ.”98 As in his letter of late summer 1205 to Boniface, the pope asserts in his mis­ sive to Theodoros Laskaris that “the judgements of God are thus far hidden” and explains that “it often happens that through his [God’s] hidden judgement, which however is always very just, evils are punished through the agency of evils.” In other words, it was Divine Will that, through the evils committed by the cru­ saders, the evils of the Greeks be punished, namely that they did not want to receive “blessed Peter the prince of the apostles ... as pastor,” nor “to return to unity as often impressed upon by our predecessors and us,” nor "to provide help for the Holy Land.” Innocent concludes his letter by urging Theodoros to serve the Fleming Emperor Henry (1206-1216), Baldwin I’s successor, with due hon­ our. In this, the pontiff followed the example of the prophet Jeremiah, who coun­ selled the Israelites to serve the neo-Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar II (605562 BC) and live under him; since “the prophet advised the faithful people to

serve a faithless king, how much more advisable is for you [Theodoros] to serve the aforesaid emperor [Henry], to whom the Highest one gave the imperium and he is a Christian prince and a faithful.”99 The pope, for his part, promised to dis­ patch a legate to the East for the purpose of establishing peace between the Flem­ ing emperor and Theodoros. The analogy Innocent drew between the Greeks and “the faithful people,” i.e., the Israelites, and his exhortation to the former to follow the example of the latter clearly shows that the pope considered the Greeks as members of the faithful Christian community. While instructing Theodoros to subject himself to Henry, Innocent seemed to have believed that a restoration of the Byzantine Empire would immediately put an end to any prospect of ecclesiastical union and aid for the Holy Land. The outcome of the Fourth Crusade had created a situation from which there was no return. It had poisoned relations between the Latins and the former Byzantine establishment. The Byzantine secular and clerical elite, now in exile in Nicaea and Epiros, demonised the Latins, some of them even going as far as to propagate 98. Innocent HI, Registrant, 11: 61-63 (no. 44 (47)), 99. Innocent III, Registrant, 11: 63 (no. 44 (47)).

Attitudes toward the Conquered Greeks: The Official Latin Church | 189

the belief that the pope was the mastermind behind the conquest of Constan tinople.100 With Greekhatredforthe Latins, and the papacy in particular, reach ing its zenith after 1204, Innocent seems to have considered a restored Greek Constantinople as being even more hostile to the idea of Church union and help for the Holy Land than it had been before 1204. The pope, therefore, warned tin· Venetian patriarch of Constantinople on 7 December 1210:

if the Greeks should recover the empire of Romania [i.e., the empire of Con stantinople], they would almost completely impede aid for the Holy Land, lest through an occasion of this very aid [i.e., another crusade] they might again lose their place and people.... Even before the same empire had been transferred from the Greeks to the Latins, they [the Greeks] never wished to come to the aid of the Holy Land, despite being often advised and asked by us [to do so].... If they could exterminate the Latins, they would persist more steadfastly in the vice of their secession out of hatred for the Latins, whom even now they call “dogs” ... [and] they do not cease to grumble that the army of the Latins was diverted to capture Constantinople through the scheme of the Apostolic See.101

In 1234, thirty years after the Latin conquest of Constantinople, two Franciscans and two Dominicans took part in a synodal gathering at the residence of t In­ emperor of Nicaea in Nymphaion.102 When the Greeks excused their hostility to the papacy as the result of the events of 1204, the Latin friars protested that the crusading conquest of Constantinople had never received Innocent’s assent. It was the work of “laymen, sinners and excommunicates presuming on their own authority.”103 The friars spoke truly. Innocent had explicitly and genuinely st mg gled to deter his crusade from diverting to Constantinople. His attempts, how ever, had been in vain since he had lost all control over the expedition.

100. Neocleous, “Guilty or Innocent?” 555-556. 101. Innocent III, Registrant, 13: 275 (no. 182 (184)). 102. Joan M. Hussey, The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire, imbed. ( ( ixloi Id French Chronicles," 399 416; Noble, "Villehardouin, Robert de Clari and I lenri de Valeo ciennes,” 202 211; Angold, The Fourlh Crusade, 13, 15; Edgar I lolmes McNeal, "Introdui tion,” in I'he ('nnqiiest o/ (lonslanlinoplc, trans. Edgar I lolmes Mi Neal (New York, 19 to), 1 27, at 3 7, 1 2 1. c, Peter Noble, "Introduction," in /, > 1, at 212. 39. < hmthei oi I'an I·., / lyttoria ('onsluntinopolitiina 11, 19, 2.1,15, pp. 137, 138, 1 ft 1, 178, 1 Koi t ran·. Andrea, 9 1, 1 1 1, 1 1H, 130,

208 | CHAPTER SIX

rationalise and justify God’s effecting the conquest of Constantinople by the Latins, Gunther goes so far as to warn that it “would have been most disastrous ... had that people [the Greeks] been conquered by persons of another faith, hea­ then [gentiles] or heretic [haeretici], or ... had it been forced to convert to their error.” The major significance of this statement is that, in his attempt to justify the Latin conquest of Constantinople, Gunther indirectly acknowledges that although he considered the Greeks as rebels against the Roman Church, he nonetheless did not regard them as haeretici. The chronicler’s explicit admission that there was a fraternity between Greeks and Latins comes when he incites the crusaders to “break into the city [Constantinople] ... crush cowards ... instill ter­ ror,” but at the same time exhorts them “to spare the blood” and “remember they [the Byzantines] are brothers [firatres].”40 Following the conquest of Constantinople, thousands of relics housed in the churches and monasteries of the Byzantine capital were grabbed and shipped back to Western Europe.41 Although furtum sacrum - sacred theft - had a long history, there were doubts as to its legitimacy. Therefore, authors of translationes felt the need to provide some justification or explanation for relic thefts.42 Some ofthe West­ ern writings about the translation of relics from Constantinople to the West after 1204 are no exception. Back in the early twelfth century, even the ardently anti-Alexian Robert the Monk, when referring to Raymond of Toulouse’s proposal to attack Constantinople, averred that “there was no justification [non erat ratio] for sacking such a royal city [Constantinople] and so many churches consecrated to God, nor for burning so many holy relics or taking them from their resting-places.”43 Gunther, who, as we know, had read Robert’s Historia Iherosolimitana, felt obligated to justify the very actions for which “there was no justification,” accord­ ing to the most popular history of the First Crusade.44 In the defence of his Abbot Martin, who had transferred relics from Constantinople to Germany, the chron­ icler relates that, unlike other pilgrims "stealing gold, silver, and every sort of pre­ cious article,” Martin committed sacrilegium “in a holy cause [in re sacra]” only. 40. Gunther of Pairis, Hystoria Constantinopolitana 10,11,17, pp. 134, 138,155; trans. Andrea, 89, 91, 105-106. Emphasis added. 41. Thomas Madden, The New Concise History of the Crusades (Lanham, MD, and Oxford, 2005), 118. 42. Patrick J. Geary, Furta Sacra: Thefts of Relics in the Central Middle Ages, 800-1100 (Princeton, NJ, 1978), 132, 136, 142-143; David M. Perry, “Paul the Martyr and Venetian Memories of the Fourth Crusade,” in Remembering the Crusades: Myth, Image and Identity, ed. Nicholas Paul and Suzanne Yeager (Baltimore, 2012), 221-222. 43. Robert the Monk, I listeria Iherosolimitana 2.18, p. 20; trans. Carol Sweetenham in Robert the Monk's I listory oj the First ('.rnsade (Aidershot, 2005), 99. Emphasis added. 44. Andrea, “Tin· / listoria ('oiislaHliiiopolilmia," 280.

Attitudes toward the Conquered Greeks: Evidence from Latin Writers | 209

Having declared his conviction that the Byzantines “had shown themselves unworthy [indigni] ” of the relics, the chronicler goes on to assert that, as a result, “Divine Goodness [divina bonitas]” decided “that the Western Church, illumi­ nated by the inviolable relics ... should rejoice forever.” Later in his work, Gun­ ther returns to the same theme and after enumerating the relics transferred from Constantinople to the church at Pairis, avers that the capture of Constantinople “was done under the shelter of divine grace, in order that so many important, deeply venerated relics would arrive at our church.”45 Gunther’s fellow countryman, Abbot Otto (d. 1223), who continued the Chronica of Otto of Freising (d. 1158) at the monastery of Saint Blasien, less than two hundred kilometres from Pairis, viewed the translation in similar terms, obvi­ ously influenced by Gunther’s apologetic history which he had almost certainly read.46 After reporting that Martin carried back to the West “many relics of the saints” and “through these he greatly ennobled all of Germany,” Otto goes on to account for God’s punishing the Greeks “not through pagans but through Chris­ tians”: “this was made necessary by the merits of the saints, so that their magnificent relics would not be polluted by pagan hands. Rather, transferred to another place, they would be venerated with due honour by Christians.”47 In Otto’s opinion, the Greeks’ punishment by Christians and not heathens was also a sign that in “repay­ ing the proud with retribution the Lord of vengeance did not forget mercy in his anger,”48 a statement acknowledging that as Christians the Greeks were shown mercy by God and disciplined by Christians, recalling Gunther’s assertion that it would have been catastrophic had the Byzantines been conquered by gentiles or heretics. The main difference, however, is that Otto neither lists the alleged dis­ obedience of the Greeks to the Church of Rome, nor indeed any theological issues, as the reason for their punishment, nor makes any mention whatsoever of the sup­ posed union of the Churches effected after the conquest of Constantinople. The longest German account of the Fourth Crusade after that of Gunther is the narrative of a cleric of the cathedral of Llalberstadt in Saxony, known as the Anonymous of Halberstadt.49 The cleric’s purpose was to justify the actions of 45. Gunther of Pairis, Hystoria Constantinopolitana 11, 19, 24, pp. 137-138, 159, 177; trans. Andrea, 91, 109, 127. 46. Alfred/J. Andrea, “Introduction,” in The Capture of Constantinople: The “Hystoria Constantinopolitana" of Gunther of Pairis, trans. Alfred J. Andrea (Philadelphia, 1997), 3-62, at 15. 47. Otto of Saint Blasien, Chronica 49, MGH, SS rer. Germ, in usum scholarum 47: 81 82. Emphasis added. 48. Ibid., 81-82. 49. (lest a episcoporimi I lalberstadcnsium, MG 11, SS 23: 73 123; trans. Alfred J. Andrea in ('onlcin/’oriiry Sonn < ·· /oi lln Ivurlli 1 riiMii/c (Leiden, 2000), 239· 264.

210 | CHAPTER SIX

Conrad of Krosigk, bishop of Halberstadt, the highest ranking German cleric who took part in the Fourth Crusade and, like Martin, brought back to Germany sacred relics from Constantinople. For his story, written in late 1208 or early 1209 and incorporated into the final pages of the Gesta episcoporum Halberstadensium, the Anonymous of Halberstadt depended on the eyewitness account of Conrad.50 The most astonishing aspect of this account is that it fails to make the slightest reference to the submission of the Church of Constantinople to Rome when enumerating Prince Alexios’s commitments to the crusaders in return for placing him on the throne of Byzantium. Nonetheless, the anonymous author of the Gesta episcoporum Halberstadensium gives a taste of the controversy between Latins and Greeks in his description of an episode that occurred while the cru­ saders were tarrying on Corfu in April-May 1203. When the local Bishop Basileios Pediadites invited some of the Latin prelates for lunch, “they debated among themselves and especially disagreed over the issue of the primacy of the Roman See.” The Greek bishop commented with some sarcasm that “he knew of no other basis for the Roman See’s primacy or preference other than the fact that Roman soldiers had crucified Christ.”51 As this episode reveals, the papal claims to pri­ macy, or rather monarchy over the whole Church, remained the main obstacle to the relations between the Eastern and Western Church. Even though the Anonymous of Halberstadt himself makes no explicit ref­ erence to the rebellion or disobedience of the Church of Constantinople to that of Rome, he, later in his work, cites what purports to be a letter which the cru­ sading army sent to the pope, and which mentions the schism between the two Churches. The letter’s purpose was to secure papal favour for Bishop Conrad of Krosigk, who had been excommunicated by Pope Innocent before the crusade because of his refusal to abandon Philip of Swabia’s cause. To justify that Con­ rad of Krosigk “was deservedly worthy of apostolic [i.e., papal] favour,” the

authors of the letter stress the bishop’s achievement which was most likely to strike a responsive chord with the pope; they claim that as a result of Conrad’s painstaking efforts, the Greeks “have offered pleasing obedience to God and the Apostolic Holiness.... With the schism of the Greeks mightily crushed, Greece has returned to apostolic unity and ecclesiastical peace, as is fitting.”52 Following the Latin conquest of Constantinople and beginning with Inno­ cent’s letter to Emperor Baldwin in which the Greeks are described as schismat­ ics, the term “schism,” which had henceforth rarely been used to describe the relationship between the two Churches, began to appear more often in Latin 50. Andrea, “Essay on Primary Sources,’’ 306- 307. 5 1. Gesta episcoporum Halberstadensium, 1 1K; trans. Andrea, 154. 51. (¡esln episcoporum Hrtlbei'tiidnisiuni, 1 ly 1 io; trans. Andrea, 25H rfto.

Attitudes toward the Conquered Greeks: Evidencefrom Latin Writers | 211

texts, fully exploited for apologetic and propagandistic purposes. Oliver (fl. 11961227), magister scolarum in Paderborn in North Rhine-Westphalia, who wrote a number ofworks on the history of the Crusades and who was the most prominent German preacher and propagandist of the Fifth Crusade, records in his praise of Innocent’s papacy that “the schismatic city of Constantinople [Constantinopolitana civitas scismatica] was conquered in his days, and went over in the rule and power of the Christians [Christiani].”53 At first sight, it may seem that Oliver’s denunciation not only dismisses the Greeks as schismatics, but even challenges their own Christianity by recording that schismatic Constantinople fell into the hands of the Christians - as if the Greeks were not Christians. However, it should be stressed that Christiani is a term medieval historians and chroniclers, includ­ ing Oliver, often used to describe the crusaders, and it appears that this is the meaning the same author intended with reference to the events of 1204. Besides, Oliver did recognise the Greeks as Christiani elsewhere in his work.54 Oliver’s short passage on the conquest of Constantinople was subsequently quoted by the Parisian doctor of theology, Emo, who founded in 1213 a Premonstratensian monastery in the town ofWierum, near Groningen in Frisia. In his own work, known as the Emonis Chronicon, Emo copied a large part of Oliver’s chronicle. In his text, however, Emo substituted the phrase “the rule and power of the Chris­ tians [ Christiani]” with “the rule and power of the Latins [Latini],” so as to defuse any misreading as in the case of Oliver’s text; the Greeks, although schismatics, were still Christians.55 In his brief account of the events of 1204, Emo’s fellow Premonstratensian, the anonymous canon of the Premonstratensian abbey of Saint Peter on the Lauterberg, who composed the Chronicon Montis Sereni around 1224-1225, mentions the conquest of Constantinople in passing and goes on to relate in more detail the transfer of relics to Halberstadt by Conrad of Krosigk. Since Hal­ berstadt is only sixty kilometres away from Lauterberg, word had reached the anonymous canon of the abbey of Saint Peter about the sacred relics that had been acquired by Conrad and brought to the church of Halberstadt, where a day was set for their veneration and many faithful ran to the feast to see and touch the displayed relics. The anonymous author of the Chronicon Montis Sereni concludes his account by stating that “from that time on, namely of the capture of the afore­ said city [Constantinople], the Greeks returned to the communion [ad commuS3. Oliver Scholasticus, Historia regum Terre sancte 114, in Die Schriften des kolner Domscholasters, spdleren Blshofs von Paderborn und Kardinalbishofs von S. Sabina, ed. H. I foogeweg (Tubingen, 180.;), 80- 158, at 157. $4. Oliver Scliol.iNlii'tH, / listoria regum Terre sancte 5, 99, pp. 85, 146 -47. $$. Ilniu «»I Wii iuiii, < 'liiniiiion, MGI I, SS 23:465 $2$,at474 475.

212 | CHAPTER SIX

nionem] of the Roman Church.”56 Whether the return of the Greeks to the

Roman communion was the result of the capture of their imperial capital is not explicitly stated, but, more importantly, the Greeks are not denounced as heretics, schismatics, or rebels. This rather neutral stance toward them is in line with the account of the Anonymous of Halberstadt, which the anonymous canon of the nearby Premonstratensian abbey of Saint Peter’s may well have read. A number of German chroniclers were even sceptical about the outcome of the Fourth Crusade. Determined, as he states, to make the truth known to his contemporaries as well as to future generations, Arnold of Lübeck describes the outcome of the Fourth Crusade as “the new and wondrous deeds which were done through the work or through the permission of God.” As the chronicler pro­ ceeds to explain, although what was done by the Latins in Constantinople was “remarkable and worthy of narration, nonetheless, an appropriate outcome has not yet made clear whether these were the deeds of God or of men.”57 In other words, Arnold was unsure as to whether the conquest of Constantinople was the working of God himself or a human deed performed with God’s permission. To illustrate his position that “in the Church some things are often considered to happen more by God’s permission than by His working,” Arnold draws a paral­ lel between the Latins and the biblical Job, to whose affliction God consented after Satan asked for permission to test his faith.58 The implication is clear: like Job, the crusaders may well have fallen victim to evil, the conquest of Constan­ tinople being a divinely approved trial. While, as has been seen, both Gunther of Pairis and Otto of Saint Blasien appear to have approved of the Latin conquest of Constantinople and the sub­ sequent translation of relics to Germany by Abbot Martin, at least one of their fel­ low countrymen pointedly raised doubts about the legitimacy of the furtum sacrum that followed the capture of the Byzantine imperial capital. In his chron­ icle of the early thirteenth century, Provost Burchard of Ursberg invites his reader to judge himself whether the relics carried back to Pairis by Martin were stolen [furtivae], The chronicler immediately proceeds to pose a rhetorical question: “could the pope justify such a theft [rapina] carried out against a Christian peo­ ple [populus christianus, i.e., the Greeks], as the theft [furtum] of the people of Israel in Egypt was justified by divine authority?”59 Although Innocent had, in fact, condemned the crusaders for “violating sacristies and carrying away crosses, 56. Chronicon Montis Sereni, MGH, SS 23: 130-226, at 171. 57. Arnold ofLübeck, Chronica Slavorum 6.19, MGH, SS 21: 100-250, at 223. 58. Ibid., 223. Seejob 1-42. 59. Burchard of Ursperg, Chronicon, in /)/e profectione Ludovici 3,4, pp. 56-57,68-69. 77. Odo of Deuil, De projcctione Ludovici 4, pp. 78-79; Rigord ofSaint Denis, Histoire de Philippe Auguste i .;o, ed and liaos Charpentier, Pon, and Chauvin, 17ft 177. "8. Hemei ot '.alnl |.n oh, Annule··, Ml d I, SS I ft: ft$ I ft8o at A58.

218 I CHAPTER SIX

win. His account, therefore, reveals how ignorant chroniclers - and people in general - in the West were of the real course of events in the Byzantine Empire when they had not received firsthand reports. Reiner mentions Prince Alexios’s restoration to his throne with the help of the Venetians and Baldwin of Flanders, and his subsequent suffocation by people of his household. Following the emperor’s assassination, “the people of the city assembled... threw their lots three times and the triple lot felt on Count Baldwin. In every way he was able to, Bald­ win objected, but whether he wanted to or not, he was dragged offby the people and solemnly raised emperor.” Reiner knew nothing about the siege of Con­ stantinople in 1204 and thought that Baldwin was freely elected emperor by the Greeks themselves following the murder of Alexios IV. What is more, this fic­ tional story was “well known [notissimum]” as stated by Reiner.79 Although largely in the dark about the real course of events in 1203-1204, Reiner was aware that following his enthronement, Baldwin “sent letters and envoys to Flanders, France and Lotharingia, so that monks and clerics as well as laymen fit for battle ... would flock together to him, since he arranged to enrich all of them and change the rite of the Greeks to Latin.”80 Indeed, in the letter sent to the West after his coronation, Baldwin had reported in detail the events that led to the conquest of Constantinople and invited “nobles and commoners of every sort of class and of each sex” to come to the Latin Empire, promising to “furnish all whom the zeal for the Christian religion might bring to us, in accor­ dance with their status and their differences ofbirth, everything... that will enlarge their fortunes and increase their honours.” In addition, Baldwin asked Pope Inno­ cent to urge “ecclesiastical men of whatever religious order or rite” not only to encourage the people in the West “by means of public preaching and potent ser­ mons” to hasten to Constantinople, but also “to come in throngs to set up ... a [Latin] Church in places that are most pleasant and fruitful.”81 Had Reiner been aware of the version of Emperor Baldwin’s letter sent to Pope Innocent, the archbishop of Cologne, the abbot of Citeaux and all other abbots of the Cistercian order, and to “all the Christian faithful”, he would also have known the true course of events that led to the Latin conquest of Constan­ tinople. Besides, in Baldwin’s letter, there was no mention of Latinising the Greek Church, but only of establishing a Latin Church, obviously alongside the Greek one, in the Latin Empire of Constantinople, as was the norm in many other regions where the Greek and Latin rite Churches had co-existed for decades or even centuries. Apart from the aforementioned missive, Baldwin must have sent 79. Ibid., 658. 80. Ibid., 658. 81. Innocent II I, llcgislrum, 7: 160 101 (no. 151); trans. Andrea, 110.

Attitudes toward the Conquered Greeks: Evidence from Latin Writers | 219

also other letters to the West following his enthronement and Reiner seems to have heard of or read these letters, which must have asked for reinforcements for the Latin Empire of Constantinople without mentioning the events that led to i I s creation. As in Baldwin’s first missive, references in these letters to the estah lishment of a Latin Church in the Latin Empire of Constantinople were most likely understood as references to Latinising the Greek Church. The fallacy about the Latinisation of the Greek Church also found its way into the Philippide of William the Breton, who recorded that after Baldwin became ruler “of the noble empire of the Greeks, ... Greece handed over the reins of its government to I he Franks, [it] celebrating the sacraments of the Church according to our [the Latin] rite, abandoning the Greek [Church] law, and speaking the Latin idiom in most cities.”82 Reiner of Saint Jacob relates that Baldwin’s letters and envoys sent to Fram e and Flanders in 1204 resulted in a multitude of monks, clerics, and laymen tak ing the cross and travelling to Constantinople. Under the year 1205, Reiner refers to the crushing defeat of the Latins of Constantinople at the hands of the Bui garian Tsar Kalojan at the battle ofAdrianople on 14 April. Villehardouin in form·, us that after the disastrous battle, a number of crusading churchmen were seul by the crusader barons to France and Flanders to seek reinforcements; among them was Neveion ofSoissons.83 Neveion’s arrival in the West in 1205 is also recorded

by Reiner. Under the year 1207, which is in fact the year Neveion and his recru 11·, left for Constantinople, Reiner writes: “an innumerable multitude of cleric s, monks, and laymen, aroused by the zeal of faith and the urging of the bishop ol Soissons, departed for Greece.”84 The fact that the crusaders who were conscripted from France and Flan ders in 1205-1207 were used by Neveion for the reinforcement of the Latin conquerors of Constantinople and not for the recapture of the Holy Land was criticised by Reiner of Saint Jacob, who declares that “it must be known to the future generations and is known to the present that the cause of Greece mm h hindered the cause of the Eastern Church,” that is, in this context, the cause ol the Latin Church of the crusader states in the Levant.85 In fact, the I ,atin Empire 82. William the Breton, Philippide 6.54-58, in Œuvres de Rigord el de Guillaume le Hrelon, historiens de Philippe-Auguste, ed. H. François Delaborde (Paris, 1882-1885), 2: 155. 83. Geoffrey of Villehardouin, La conquête 388, pp. 248-249. 84. Reiner of Saint Jacob, Annales, 658-660. Cf. Anonymous of Laon, Chronicon mil versale Laudunensis, MGI I, SS 26: 442 457, at 453. The anonymous monastic author of I ,.1011 in Picardy briefly re lee. io "I he large departure ol I'ranks and Flemings tin the legions oft am stantinople, agaiir.i the ( m-el< Io the assistance of the I,at ins" without liirlhei elaboiation I'he departui e is eiKineousIv plai cd under the year 1 208 instead ol 1207. 8 s. Rein el ol ' ..ihil |,u ul 11111,1 h Oôo.

220 | CHAPTER SIX

of Constantinople not only absorbed military forces which could have other­ wise been used for the liberation of the Holy Land, but also drained the cru­ sader states of their own human resources. Robert of Auxerre reports that “when both pilgrims and natives went from Jerusalem to the Constantinopolitan regions, this land remained almost entirely destitute of men and military forces.”86 The problem did not go unnoticed by the papal curia. The wellinformed author of the Gesta Innocenta narrates that the Kingdom ofJerusalem was deprived of “a multitude not only of laity but also of clergy. ... Almost all foreigners [i.e., crusaders] and many natives [i.e., Latins of Outremer], deserted the province ofjerusalem and went to Constantinople.”87 Even Pope Innocent himself, although he saw in the outcome of the Fourth Crusade the achieve­ ment of the much-anticipated reunion of the Latin and Greek Churches, could not help but lament that following the Latin conquest of Constantinople, the Holy Land “remained destitute of men and military forces ... since all of its friends have abandoned it... and there is no one from among all of its loved ones who can console it.”88 While Robert ofAuxerre and Reiner of Saint Jacob complained that the Latin Empire of Constantinople had hampered help for the Holy Land, other coun­ trymen of theirs were openly critical of the outcome of the Fourth Crusade. In his Conseil Don a I’emperador, composed in June-July 1204, Raimbaut de Vaqueiras (fl. 1180-1207), a Provençal troubadour and participant in the Fourth Crusade, denounced the conduct of the crusaders in Constantinople and urged Baldwin I to hasten to the Holy Land, where the crusaders could be purged of their sins: “for he and we alike bear guilt for the burning of churches and the palaces, wherein I see both clerics and laymen sin; and if he does not succour the Holy Sepulchre and if the conquest does not advance, then our guilt before God will be greater still, for the pardon will turn to sin.” From Raimbaut’s perspective, the destruc­ tion not only of the churches but even of the palaces of the Greeks rendered the

crusaders guilty of sin, a testiment to the fact that the troubadour acknowledged the Greeks as fellow Christians, whose property had been wrongfully violated by crusaders. Raimbaut did not hesitate to point the finger at individuals on whom the responsibility would rest had the crusade not proceeded to Syria: “and Neveion [of Soissons] will be denounced, and the twelve electors [who chose Baldwin of Flanders as emperor of Constantinople] be blamed, if the Sepulchre 86. Robert of Auxerre, Chronicon, 269. 87. Gesta Innocenta III 95, PL 214: 142; trans. James M. Powell in The Deeds of Pope Innocent III (Washington, DC, 2004), 173. 88. Innocent III, Registrum, 8:231 (no. 127 ( 126)); trans. Andrea, 164.

Attitudes toward the Conquered Greeks: Evidencefrom Latin Writers I 221

remains in captivity; and the doge will be accused of deception if he is minded to turn him aside from his succour.”89 Like Raimbaut de Vaqueiras, the author of the vernacular La Chronique d'Ernoul et de Bernard le Trésorier, composed in northern France in the late 1220s and early 1230s, did not waver in his criticism of the Latin conquest and sack ol Constantinople. The span of the Chronique d'Ernoul extends from the founding of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem up to 1232, and while its northern Freni li author relied on a text written in the Latin East in the late 1180s for his acc 1 4, vol. ; 412,41$

228 | CHAPTER SIX

merit, the Franks of Outremer who were present at his coronation ceremony were particularly pleased with the new state of affairs in the Byzantine Empire, “just as if the Holy City [Jerusalem] had been restored to Christian worship.”118 Their

joy is understandable given their ethnic affinity with the Frankish crusaders of the Fourth Crusade. Besides, after the death of Emperor Manuel, whose finan­ cial and military support had been vital for the survival of the crusader states, the Byzantine Empire rapidly declined and was unable to continue assisting the Franks of Syria. Therefore, the changing of hands of the empire of Constantino­ ple raised high hopes for renewed support for the Latin East. The hopes of the Latins of Outremer, however, were soon to be dashed. The Latin Empire turned out to be another crusader state which struggled to survive in the midst of ene­ mies. As has already been seen, it was not only powerless to reinforce the cru­ sader states of Syria and Palestine, but also absorbed their resources. The outcome of the Fourth Crusade notwithstanding, relations between Latin and Greek clerics in Outremer remained as competitive and antagonistic as ever. In his Historia orientalis, composed between 1219 and 1226, James of Vitry, bishop of Acre, complains that the Greeks regarded the Latins as excom­ municates and purified altars on which Latin priests had celebrated. The bishop also accuses the Greeks of not showing any respect for the sacraments of the Latins; they did not even rise when Latin priests visited the infirm with Holy Communion. The reason for the Greeks’ contempt for the Latin sacrament was that while the Latins celebrated the Eucharist with unleavened bread [ex azymo], the Greeks used leavened [exfermentato], The Greeks, James ofVitry adds, also opposed the Roman Church in several other things.119 The Latin bishop’s griev­ ances against the Greeks are echoed in a letter which Brother Philip, prior of the Dominicans in the Holy Land, sent to Pope Gregory IX in 1237.120 Brother Philip complains that while the Jacobites and Maronites in the East had “returned to their obedience to the [Roman] Church,” the Greeks “alone persist in their wickedness, and everywhere secretly or openly oppose the Roman Church; they blaspheme [blasphemant] all our sacraments; and every sect foreign from their own they call corrupt and heretical [pravam appellant et haereticam].”121 Since the early twelfth century in the Frankish East, the Greeks’ contemp­ tuous behaviour toward the Latins and their sacraments had naturally excited the resentment of Latin prelates and ecclesiastics, and James of Vitry was no exception. The bishop of Acre concludes his tirade against the Greeks by 118. 119. 298-299, 120. 121.

Innocent III, Registrum, 7: 259 (no. 152); trans. Andrea, 108. James ofVitry, Historia orientalis 75, ed. and trans. J. Donnadieu (Turnhout, 2008), 302-303. Matthew Paris, Chronica Majora, 3: 396 199; trans. Giles, 1:56 58. Matthew Paris, Chronic« Majora, u 198; hans. Giles, i:s7·

Attitudes toward the Conquered Greeks: Evidencefrom Latin Writers | 229

denouncing them as “schismatics [schismatici] who withdrew from the authority

of the Holy Roman Church.”112 What is particularly worth noting, however, is that earlier in his work, the bishop of Acre provides valuable insight into the Greek attitude toward the filioque in a less censorious tone. He records that although the Greeks “deny that the Spirit proceeds from the Son ... the wiser among the Greeks do not deny this principle [i.e., the procession of the Spirit from the Son] despite the fact they do not admit the words proper, since nowhere among them is this formula ‘procedit a Filio’ admitted.”123 Even after the Fourth Crusade, the filioque was not unanimously rejected by the Greeks. The competitive and antagonistic relations between Latin and Greek clerics in Outremer are most evident when we compare the Old French Continuations of William of Tyre’s Old French translation. Of the forty-five manuscripts con­ taining the Old French Continuation, forty-one preserve an account for the period from 1184 to 1232 that is virtually identical to the narrative for the same period found in the northern French Chronique d’Ernoul. At some point the Chronique d’Ernoul’s material from before 1184 was jettisoned, while the text covering the period from 1184 to 1232 was appended to the end of the French translation of William’s work which, just as the original Latin text did, ends in 1184. The creation in France of the so-called Ernoul Old French Continuation can be dated to soon after 1232.124 While the northern French Chronique d’Ernoul and, by extension, the forty-one manuscripts containing the Ernoul Old French Continuation do not level a religious polemic against this Greeks, this is not the case with the Old French Continuations ofWilliam of Tyre produced in the Latin East. The Old French Continuations composed in Outremer are found in four of the forty-five manuscripts of the Old French Continuation and represent signif­ icant revisions of the Ernoul Old French Continuation. In brief, in the late 1230s or early 1240s, an author in the Latin Outremer took the Ernoul Old French Con­ tinuation and made several amendments to it. Less than a decade after its pro­ duction, further revisions and expansions to this revised Old French Continua­ tion generated, on the one hand, the Lyon-Florence Continuation, which survives in two manuscripts, and on the other, the Colbert-Fontainebleau Con­ tinuation, which has also come down to us in two manuscripts. Although the 122. James ofVitry, Historia orientalis 75, ed. and trans. Donnadieu, 302-303. 123. Ibid., 300-303. Cf. the Greek fathers’ έκ του I Ιατρός Sid τοϋ Ylov. 124. Peter W. Edbury, "New Perspectives on the Old French < Continuations ofWilliam of Tyre," Crusades 9 (2010): 107-136, at 108; Peter W. Edbury, "The I,yon lirnclts and the t )ld Freni h < Continuations < >1 William of Tyre," in Monljoie: Siu, lies in (rusade I lislory in I Ion our 0/ 11 iin·· I I ίί In 1 id Aliirri, ed. Benjamin Z. Kedai, Jonathan It dry Smith, and Hud oil I lie stand (Aldei shot, 1 oy ·), 1 w 1 s I, at 1 39 I .|OJ I'.dbui y, 'Tinoiil, I i,n /r·.," 11 j.|

230 I CHAPTER SIX

revised Old French Continuation does not survive, the common passages between the Lyon-Florence Continuation and the Colbert-Fontainebleau Con­ tinuation allow us to establish its text.125 The perceptions of and attitudes toward the Greeks in the Latin East in the second quarter of the thirteenth century as derived from the revised Old French Continuation, the Lyon-Florence Contin­ uation, and the Colbert-Fontainebleau Continuation are valuable to examine in this context. In contrast to the Ernoul Old French Continuation, the author of the revised Old French Continuation adopts a hostile stance toward the Greeks, especially in his account of the conquest of the Greek-populated island of Cyprus by King Richard I of England in 1191. In his narrative, the author of the revised Old French Continuation espouses the anti-Greek perspective of the French trans­ lation of the vehemently anti-Greek Historia ofWilliam of Tyre. The reviser con­ demns “the Greeks of Cyprus [les Griffons de Chypre]” as “evil [felons]” - a denun­ ciation of the Greeks that is also found toward the end of the Old French translation of William of Tyre - and deplores their conduct toward the ship­ wrecked crusaders in Richard’s army, asserting that the shipwrecked men “encountered greater cruelty among those who called themselves Christians [qui se disoient crestiens, i.e., the Greeks of Cyprus] than they would have found with the evil Saracens.”126 As the author of the revised Old French Continuation applied the hostile image of the Saracens to the people of Cyprus who maltreated shipwrecked crusaders, the Cypriots found themselves charged with one of the most serious accusations that could be made against Christians. The comparison of Christian opponents with the Saracens, the archetypal enemies, was not uncommon among Christian authors in the Middle Ages. In a Christendom riven by conflicts, the “worse than the Saracens” accusation made

125. Savvas Neocleous, “Imaging Isaak of Cyprus and the Cypriots: Evidence from the Latin Historiography of the Third Crusade,” Byzantion 83 (2013): 297-337, 304-305. Cf. Edbury, “New Perspectives,” 110-111; Edbury, “The Lyon Eracles,” 140-141, 143. For an edition of the Colbert-Fontainebleau Continuation, see L’estoire de Eracles empereur et la conqueste de la terre d’Outremer (Continuation de Guillaume de Tyr), RHC Oc. 2. For an edition ofthe Lyon-Florence Continuation, see La Continuation de Guillaume de Tyr (1184-1197), ed. Margaret Ruth Morgan (Paris, 1982). For a translation of the Lyon Continuation for the period 1184-1197, see Peter W. Edbury, ed. and trans., The Conquest ofJerusalem and the Third Crusade: Sources in Translation (Aidershot, 1996), 11-145. For a translation of Book XXV, paragraphs 22-26, of the Colbert-Fontainebleau Continuation, see Peter W. Edbury, ed. and trans., The Conquest ofJerusalem and the Third Crusade, 176-178. 126. L’estoire de Eracles (Traduction de Guillaume de Tyr) 22.9, vol. 2: 423; L’estoire de Eracles (Continuation de Guillaume de Tyr) 25.19 20, RHC Oc. 2: 161 162; I.a Continuation de Guillaume de Tyr 1 13 1 14, ed. Morgan, 1 i.| 117) trans Edbury, 101.

Attitudes toward the Conquered Greeks: Evidence from Latin Writers | 231

against the Christian enemy found great resonance in contemporary polemics.127 This charge had nothing to do with differences in doctrine and ritual, and was fre­ quently levelled by Latin Christians against other Latin Christians. The author of the revised Old French Continuation, however, does not stop here. Like William of Tyre, the anonymous Old French reviser may well have been a cleric, his account being yet another text mirroring the antagonism between Greek and Latin ecclesiastics in the Latin Outremer. The reviser does not fail to air his griev­ ances against the Greeks, asserting that “the Greeks regard the Franks as heretics [hereges],” a complaint which, as has already been seen, is echoed in several sources composed in the Latin East both before and after 1204.128 Going a step further, the Old French reviser avers that the Greeks even “reckon killing a Latin to be very pleasing in the sight of God.”129 This is surely a sensationalistic and lurid exaggeration from a biased author. There were Greek ecclesiastics, like Patriarch Dositheos, the Greek priests and monks who allegedly participated in the massacre of the Italian residents of Constantinople in 1182, the clerics and monks who attacked the German crusaders of the Third Crusade, and certainly Greek churchmen in the Latin East, whose antipathy toward the Latins bordered on hatred.130 These extreme anti-Latin sentiments, however, were by no means shared by all Greek ecclesiastics and definitely not the majority of laymen. Drawing on the revised Old French Continuation, the Lyon-Florence continuator not only repeats all the accusations made against the Greeks but goes as far as to add that it was God himself “who had brought King Richard” to Cyprus because he “wanted to plant here the good seed on the island. That is to say establish the Holy Church and Christianity of the law of Rome and to eradicate the evil root of the wicked Greeks [la mauvaise ratine desfelons Griffons].”131 Eventually, “with the help of God [par I’die de Dieu], the king subdued the whole lordship of Cyprus to his power and transferred it to the law of the Latins,” that is, to Latin Christendom.132

127. While there is no study on this topic for this period, for later centuries, see Nor­ man Housley, Religious Warfare in Europe, 1400-1536 (Oxford, 2002), 137-149. 128. L'estoire de Erodes (Continuation de Guillaume de Tyr) 25.21, RHC Oc. 2: 163; La Continuation de Guillaume de Tyr 115, ed. Morgan, 116-117; trans. Edbury, 102. See also William of Tyre, Historia 22.11 (10), vol. 2: 1021; trans. Babcock and Krey, 2: 461-462; L'estoire de Erodes (Traduction de Guillaume de Tyr) 22.9, vol. 2: 424. 129. L'estoire de Erodes (Continuation de Guillaume de Tyr) 25.21, RHC Oc. 2: 163. Lu Continuation de Guillaume de Tyr 11$, ed. Morgan, 116-117; trans. Edbury, 102. 130. Neocleous, “Greeks and Italians in Twelfth-Century Constantinople,” 238-240. 131. "la mauvaise sentence des felons Griffons,” in the Florence Continuation. La (Continuation de (itiilluumc de Tyr 1 17, ed. Morgan, 118 119; trans, Edbury, 103. 131. / .1 < 'onllniiiitlon tie (¡tdllaume de Tvr 1 1 8, ed. Morgan, 118, 111; trans, Edbury, lot 104.

232 I CHAPTER SIX

As in the case of the intense anti-Latin sentiments of certain Greek ecclesi­ astics, the extreme anti-Greek feelings of the Lyon-Florence continuator by no means reflected the sentiments of the majority of the Franks in the Latin Out­ remer. An eloquent testiment to this is the fact that the Lyon-Florence Continu­ ation survives in only two out of the forty-five manuscripts containing the Old French Continuation ofWilliam of Tyre’s Historia. In contrast to the Lyon-Flo­ rence Continuation, the Colbert-Fontainebleau continuator, although slavishly repeating the accusations made against the Greeks by the revised Old French Continuation, does not amplify them. Instead, for his expansion of the revised Old French Continuation’s account of the English conquest of Cyprus, he draws on a report written shortly after the events, which is very neutral toward the Greeks.133 The Colbert-Fontainebleau continuator even portrays King Richard as acknowledging the Christian identity of the Greek ruler of Cyprus during a meeting between the two men, despite the fact that the king of England is criti­ cal of him. Richard is quoted as saying to the Greek ruler: “Sir emperor, I am most amazed that you, who are a Christian [Crestien] and have seen the loss of the Holy Land,... have never sent counsel or aid there.”134 What scandalised the Colbert-Fontainebleau continuator’s Richard was precisely that the ruler of Cyprus was a Christian, and yet he had not helped the Holy Land as was his duty as a Christian ruler. Although the antagonism between the Latin and Greek Churches in the cru­ sader states remained as intense as ever after 1204, it was not necessarily felt by all the Latins from the West visiting Syria and Palestine - on the contrary, some of them enjoyed a very positive experience with the Greeks during their stay in Outremer. One interesting example in this context is the pilgrimage account left by Thietmar, a German cleric from Westphalia who was the leader of a pilgrim­ age to Palestine in 1217-1218.135 Near Madaba and Mount Nebo, Thietmar was showered with hospitality by the Greek monks of the area. There, as he records, there was “a beautiful monastery inhabited by Greek Christians [Christiani Graeci], where I... spent the night.” In a cavern near the town of Karak, the Ger­ man cleric was “hospitably received by a poor Greek woman” and “during the night the Greek bishop [episcopus Graecus] came from somewhere nearby.” The bishop, who is described as “grey-haired, venerable in character [persona vener133. Neocleous, “Imaging Isaak of Cyprus and the Cypriots,” 329. 134. L'estoire de Eracles (Continuation de Guillaume de Tyr) 25.23, RHC Oc. 2: 165; trans. Edbury, 177. 135. Thietmar, Peregrenatio, ed. in Ulf Koppitz, “Magistri Thietmari Peregrenatio: Pilgerreise nach Palästina und auf den Sina in den Jahren 1217/1218,” Concilium medii aevi 14 (2011): 121-221; trans. Dcnys Pringle in Pilgrimage to Jerusalem and the I loly Land, 11871291 (Farnham, 201 2), 95 133.

Attitudes toward the Conquered Greeks: Evidencefrom Latin Writers | 233

abilis] and reverend in appearance [facie reverendus],” brought Thietmar “gifts, bread and cheese, and blessed [benedixit] me in his own language.” At the foot of Mount Sinai the German cleric and pilgrim visited a church of the Virgin which had a bishop and monks, Greeks and Syrians, who are described as “religious men [viri religiosi].”li6

Thietmar explains to his readers that “in overseas parts,” i.e., in Syria and Palestine, “the rite of the Christians [Christianorum lex] is split into different sects [diversae sectae]”; the “Greeks and Syrians ... are opposed to the Latins. ... It is said [dicitur] of the Greeks that they believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds not from the Father and Son but from the Father alone.” The German’s being at pains to inform his readers of the different Christian confessions in the Holy Land and of the antagonism between Greeks and Latins there, as well as his introducing the Greek position on the procession of the Holy Spirit with dicitur (“it is said”), demonstrate that he must have become aware of these issues during his pilgrim­ age in the East.136 137 Even after the Fourth Crusade, knowledge of the theological differences and disputes between Greeks and Latins was far from a matter of course in Western Europe, even among clerical authors. Since Thietmar seems to have learned from hearsay - as dicitur shows - of thefilioque controversy, he had a discussion with a Greekbishop in the Holy Land on this issue. The German cleric recounts that the bishop “explained this matter to me and said that it was not like that, but that the Greeks believed in the same way as the Latins except that they consecrated leavened bread.” In addition, Thi­ etmar notes that “some people say that they [the Greeks] wash the altars after the celebration of the Latins.” However, the Greek bishop with whom the German cleric and pilgrim had discussed the issue, “openly denied this.”138 Clearly, the

bishop was one of the moderate Greek churchmen who not only disapproved of the practice ofpurifying altars on which Latin clerics had celebrated, but who also did not consider the filioque clause added to the Latin version of the Creed as an issue of major importance but rather as an insignificant clarification. The anonymous Greek bishop’s moderate attitude to the issue of thefilioque recalls the contemporary testimony ofJames of Vitry that not all the Greeks dis­ agreed with the Latins on the procession of the Spirit. Even after 1204, there were Greek ecclesiastics who adopted a very moderate stance toward the Latins, the most notable example being the canon lawyer and archbishop of Ochrida, Demetrios Chomatianos. Chomatianos avowed that “the Latins are not found to 136. Tliietinar, I’crcgrenatio 13 14, 18, ed. Koppitz, 157-158,163; trans. Pringle, 119120, 124. 137. Tliletin.ii, I'rn eiriiutio 18, ed. Koppitz, 172-173; trans. Pringle, 131. 1 I Iih-1iihii. I'm eiriiiillii 18, ed. Koppitz, 173; trans. Pringle, 131.

234 I CHAPTER SIX

diverge from the Greek dogmatic and ecclesiastical customs ... apart from the dogma of the procession of the Holy Spirit.” Therefore, according to the Greek canon lawyer, “it is not fitting to denounce the Latin rites and customs. They were never synodically debated nor were the Latins publicly condemned as heretics. But they eat with us and pray with us.” Chomatianos’s advice was that the Byzantines should “win over our brothers... for whom our common Saviour and Lord shed his blood.”139

Western Theological Attitudes toward the Greeks after 1204

In Western Europe, in the aftermath of the Fourth Crusade, attitudes toward the Greeks on theological grounds did not particularly harden. The Dominican scholastic Guerric of Saint-Quentin (d. 1245) recorded that “as for what is asked, whether it is permitted to prepare [the Eucharist] with leavened and unleavened bread, we say that it is permitted, nor are the Greeks to be con­ demned because they prepare it with leavened, but because they exclude that it can be prepared with unleavened.”140 In a similar vein, his contemporary William of Auvergne, bishop ofParis (1228-1249), in his De septem sacramentis libellus, did not reject the use of leavened bread, stating that the Eucharist “is

celebrated with both [leavened and unleavened] according to the custom of various Churches [consuetude diversarum Ecclesiarum]”·, yet “our Latin custom is more reasonable [rationabilior].”141 In his correspondence of 1232 to “his venerable brother [venerabilis frater] Germanos,” namely the Greek Patriarch of Constantinople (1222-1240) who 139. “Tινέςτών Λατίνων εύρίσκονται μή καθόλου διαφερόμενοιπρόςτάκαθ’ήμας έθη,τά τε δογματικά καί τά έκκλησιαστικά ... έξαιρέτως έπι τφ δόγματι τής τού άγιου Πνεύματος έκπορεύσεως”; Και μή προσήκον μέμψει Λατινικών τύπων τε και εθών ... ότι τε ... οϋ διεγνώσθησαν ταΰτα συνοδικώς· καί ούδ’αύτο'ι, ώς αίρεσιώται, απόβλητοι δημοσία γεγόνασιν αλλά καί συνεσθίουσιν ήμΐν κα'ι συνεύχονται.... Κερδήσαι... τούς άδελφούς, ύπέρ ών ό κοινός Σωτήρ κα'ι Δεσπότης ήμών τό έαυτοΰ αίμα έξέχεεν.” Georgios A. Rhalles and Michael Potles, ed., Syntagma ton theion kai ieron kanonon (Athens, 1852-1859), 5: 434, 435-436. 140. “Quod queritur, utrum de fermento et azimo licet conficere, dicimus quod licet, nec reprobantur Graeci quia de fermentato conficiunt, sed quia excludunt posse conficere de azimo.” Guerric of Saint-Quentin, Quaestio de controversia Graecorum et Latinorum, Prague, Narodni Knihovna Ceske Republiky, IV.D. 13, fols. 11 yvb-118rb, at fol. 118ra. Transcription of the Latin text and English translation, with minor amendments, from Christopher Schabel, “The Quarrel Over Unleavened Bread in Western Theology, 12341439,” in Greeks, Latins, and Intellectual History, 1104-1500, ed. Martin Hinterberger and Christopher Schabel (Leuven, 2011), 85-127, at 102 with 1144. 141. William of Auvergne, />i»hi/u ail ( ,'n eimimi IX papain, ed. Is oust .ml mo·. N. S.ilha·.,

23 6 I CHAPTER SIX

as the previously discussed letter of 1237 sent by Brother Philip, prior of the Dominican Order in the Holy Land, to Pope Gregory IX - which is also quoted by Matthew - gave the English chronicler a more complete picture of the Greeks. Matthew was critical of the Greeks for their “errors [errores]”: in their “foolish­ ness [desipientia] ... they assert that the Holy Spirit proceeds not from the Son, but from the Father alone... [and] they consecrate the Eucharist from fermented bread.” As Matthew adds, “in many points, too, they [the Greeks] contradict the Latins, and spurn them, condemning the Roman Church in several points, more, however, regarding its acts than its sayings [magis tamen eius facta quam dicta],” a statement demonstrating that the historian was aware of the fact that the dif­ ferences between the two Churches pertained more to practice and ritual than dogma.*146 Even though Matthew Paris deplored the Greeks’ rejection of the filioque, he was informed that this was based on the fact that “it is found in the Scriptures written, ‘The Spirit of truth which proceeds from the Father’,” a reference to John 15:26.147 Besides, despite his criticism of the Greek position on the procession of the Spirit and use of leavened bread, the English historian does not denounce the Greeks as heretics, as he does with the Nestorians, the Jacobites, and the Albi­ genses.148 When Matthew comes to describe “the heresy of the Nestorians,” he introduces it to his reader by stating that, “in the region of the East, there are some barbarous people [barbarae nationes] disagreeing [dissidentes] with the Greeks and Latins” - a phrase also used by James of Vitry when he comes to describe the Jacobites.149 The fact that Matthew as well as James group Greeks and Latins together - the Greeks being cited first - in opposition to the hereti­ cal Nestorians and the Jacobites demonstrates that, after all, the two historians considered the Greeks as orthodox. The Greeks are, nonetheless, described by Matthew as “schismatics [scismatici]” and the Greek patriarch of Constantinople

Μεσαιωνική Βιβλιοθήκη 2 (Venice and Paris, 1873), 39-46; Germanos II, Epistola ad cardi­ nales, ed. in Christos Arampatzis, “Ανέκδοτη επιστολή του πατριάρχη Κωνσταντινουπόλεως Γερμανού Β' προς τους καρδιναλίους της Ρώμης (1232) [The Unpublished Letter of Patri­ arch Germanus II of Constantinople to the Cardinals of Rome (1232)],” Έπετηρίς 'Εταιρείας Βυζαντινών Σπουδών $2 (2004-2006): 363-378. See also the discussion in Christos Aram­ patzis, “Ο Πατριάρχης Γερμανός Β' και η Λατινική Εκκλησία [Patriarch Germanos II and the Latin Church],” Βυζαντιακά io (2000): 243-264. 146. Matthew Paris, Chronica Majora, 3: 446-447; trans. Giles, 1: 97. 147. Matthew Paris, Chronica Majora, 3: 447; trans. Giles, 1: 97. 148. Matthew Paris, Chronica Majora, 2: 554-555, 3: 399-403,520; trans. Giles, 1: 5861, 157· 149. Matthew Paris, Chronica Mejora, 3: 399 .|oo; trans. Giles, 1: 58; James ofVitry, Historia orientalis 70, ed. and trans. Donnadieu, 30.1 305.

Attitudes toward the Conquered Greeks: Evidencefrom Latin Writers | i i ·

is condemned as “a degenerate son and an anti-pope [filius degener et Antipapa | for not recognising the Church of Rome as the Greek Church's “mother | inalci |" but only as “its sister [soror eius].” What is most astonishing, however, is t ha I 11 li­ the English chronicler largely excuses the Greeks for “not submitting thene.el ve·. to the Roman Church.” He attributes the fact that “the Greek Church rose ag.u n·.! that of Rome” to “the wickedness and oppression [malitia etoppressio | " ol the Roman Church, its “penances, usury [and] simony [poena, usura, simonia |." Allei citing Pope Gregory IX’s admonishing letters to Patriarch Germanos, Maiiln o concludes that “the Greeks, although they heard these salutary warning,·., paid no heed to them, nor did they submit themselves to the Roman Chun h, pci haps, either fearing its tyranny and avarice [tirannis et avaritia], or else, being contumacious.”150 Rather oddly, Matthew Paris dates “the schism and discord [.sn.siiin cl di·, cidium] between the Roman and Greek Churches” to “the time of this (in-gon [IX] ,”151 A plausible explanation is that the collapse of negotiations foi ( Inin h union between the Greek and Roman Churches in 1234 may have given 1e.i In the assumption that the schism occurred at that time.152 With the si hi-.ni inr. takenly assigned to the reign of Pope Gregory, apocryphal stories seem Io hat e begun to emerge as to its cause. Matthew records a fictional account I hal hl·, m well with his denunciation of the simony and avarice of the papacy. A< 101 dim·, in the story, a newly and canonically elected Greek archbishop went to Rome loin confirmed, “but could not obtain a hearing there, without a promise ol an immense sum of money..... He, detesting the simony of that men enary < 01111, went away without effecting his purpose, and told the circumstances Io all I In Greek nobility.” Because of this and other “similar cases, or worse one·, all ol them [the Greeks]... withdrew themselves from all subjection [·., ( /imn/i u Alii/nni, i | 'O| li.m·. < ill···., i lift li·

238 | CHAPTER SIX

the relations between the Greek and Latin Churches, especially their relation­ ship before 1204, thus defending the conquest of Constantinople as ending the schism, there was still widespread ignorance about the beginning and nature of the schism. The filioque debate and the Greek use of leavened bread were only rarely mentioned by chroniclers, while they were tolerated by theologians, who at worst described them as errors. After 1204, the main concern of the papacy and the chroniclers and theologians who echoed its views was, as before 1204, the Greek Church’s return to the obedience of the Roman Church, not Greek rite or doctrine. The fundamental difference, however, was that after 1204, and largely because of it, the status of the Greek Church was much more clearly defined: since it had defied the Pope, it was schismatic, but certainly not heretical.

Conclusions and Epilogue

In the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries, Greeks and Latins were members ol the same religious community, that is, Christendom. The ideal of Christian li a ternity between Latins and Greeks was shared by Latin rulers, nobles, clerics, and common people, and no real religious hatred for the Greeks existed in the Lahn world. The so-called “schism of 1054’seems hardly to have made anyimpai I on the Latins - if it did not go altogether unnoticed by them. Although the lei in scisma was widely used by Latin authors to describe the schisms caused in flu Western Church by the anti-popes of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, it w.r. only rarely employed to describe the relationship between the Churches ol Rome and Constantinople.12Similarly, while the charge ofscismaticus was routinely lev elled by Latin writers against the anti-popes and their supporters, it was not laid against the Greeks, who were at worst characterised as disobedient.1 Besides, in the Latin West of the twelfth-century, where no clear consensus existed of the definitions of orthodoxy and heresy, the Greeks were not viewed as heretic s by the majority of Latins.3 Even in March 1204 the Greeks were still silently recog nised as Christian brethren. The complete de-christianisation of their image by the crusading clergy came about only in April 1204 as a last resort with the aim of bolstering up the demoralised crusader army and convincing it of the legiti macy of attacking the Greeks. The fact, however, that no clerical account ol the 1. Bernold of Constance, Chronicon, in Die Chroniken Bertholds von Reichenau und Bernolds von Konstanz, MGH, SS rer. Germ. N.S. 14: 383-540, at 436; Ekkehard ol Ama, Hierosolomyta 9, RHC Oc. 5: 1-40, at 17; John of Salisbury, The Letters ofJohn oj Salisbury, ed. WJ. Miller and H.E. Butler, rev. C.N.L. Brooke (Oxford, 1979), 2: 126 127, 228 ' “n 554-555 (nos. 171, 186, 272). 2. Bernold of Constance, Chronicon, 453, 476, 540; John of Salisbury, Tin· lellers nJ John of Salisbury, ed. Miller and Butler, 2: 228-229, 376· 377, 396 397, 592 593 (no·,. 1 Hn, 219, 226, 277). 3. ( 'onstanl |. Mews, "A( 1 11‘.at ions off leresy and Error in I he Twelfth ( ent m y Si hoot. I he Witness oi Gei hoh ol Ren hei sberg and Ol to ol Preising,“ in I h irsy in Transition tian·· lornuny Ideas / I lei > -.y In Alri/ici'id lind I oily Modern /iiirn/X', cd Ian I limici, | oh n ( ’hi 1 .Ilan I am sen, and ( ai v I Nedei man ( Aide, shol, ,| 3 5 7, at | ·,

240 |

Conclusions and Epilogue

Fourth Crusade refers to this de-christianisation of the Greeks in defiance of papal policy and orders speaks volumes about its illegality. It was clearly a trans­ gression which the crusading clergy hoped would soon be forgotten. Most tellingly, the most outrageous aspect of the crusader conquest and sack of Con­ stantinople was precisely that the offenses were committed against fellow Chris­ tians, hence the need for a special plea in defence of the episode. Although a religious community, twelfth-century Christendom was not a uni­ fied political entity. A re-union ofthe whole of Christendom, including the Byzan­ tine Empire, behind the banner of the papacy through the crusading movement was what the reforming popes had dreamed of. Although a degree of unity was achieved during the course of a crusade, outside of the crusading movement the Christian world was still split into various ethnically and linguistically different units of power, one of them being the Byzantine Empire. Despite the fact that during a crusade, attacking and killing Christian brothers was deemed deplorable and could cause a scandal, outside of the crusades the various Christian units of power regu­ larly waged wars on and killed each other. The Latin states and statelets, especially those in the West, were in much more permanent contact amongst one another, contact that was frequently characterised by a long history of conflict and hatred. The kings of England and the Capetians were almost constantly engaged in wars against one another; hence the French and the English had more reasons to hate each other than to hate the Byzantines.4 Likewise, the bitter enmity between the French and the Germans that established itself in the early twelfth century and per­ sisted well beyond the Second World War was more intense and deeply ingrained than French or German animosity toward the Byzantines.5 The Lombard cities of northern Italy had ample grounds to detest the German emperors who threatened their autonomy, rather than the Greeks. The same is true of the people of Rome.6 4. William of Newburgh describes the French as “by nature aggressive and also arrogant [naturaferoces simul et arrogantes]William of Newburgh, Historia rerum Anglicarum: Liber II28, in The History ofEnglish Affairs, ed. and trans. P.G. Walsh and MJ. Kennedy (Oxford, 2007), 122-123. 5. See Chapter 1 regarding the German denunciation of the French as “idle [inertes],” “feeble [marcidi],” and Francones. Guibert of Nogent, Dei gesta per Francos 2.1, p. 108. Ger­ man condemnation of the English could also be strong. Otto of Saint Blasien regarded Richard I as aparadigm of “English perfidy [Anglica perfidia].” Otto of Saint Blasien, Chronica 36, MGH, SS rer. Germ, in usum scholarum 47: 5$. In his account of the Fourth Crusade, the anonymous monastic author of Laon in Picardy denounces “the malice of the Venetians [Venedorum maliciam],” by whom nostri, i.e., the French, “were deceived.” Anonymous of Laon, Chronicon universaleLaudunensis, MGH, SS 26: 442-457, at 453. 6. According to Ekkehard of Aura, the Investiture (Contest "made us [ the Germans | hateful [iwisi] and hostile | infcsti | to the Romans, and the Romans to us." Ekkehard ol Aura, Hierosolomyta 9, Rl IC Oc. 5: 17.

Conclusions and lipilogin

|

m

The Genoese, the Pisans, and the Venetians, rivals for commercial predominate · in Constantinople and the Levant, naturally looked at each other, r.iilmi (It.in al the Byzantines, with loathing. Any resentment the popes might have I> li .ir.nir.l the Byzantine emperors was by far surpassed by the papacy’s viscera I haliml v tin < m sades involved only a relatively small part of the Western world inollu-i ivonl·. ii was not a really full-scale contact-and was simply too temporary and ■.!>< » i li> ■ 11· ■ result in a universal and permanent Latin hatred ofthe Greeks. Besides, li.iin u > tions and epithets hurled at individual Byzantine rulers by Latin author, w. i. In m > means reserved for the imperatoresConstantinopolitam. Wh ile I'.kkeli.ml ol Aina . ■■>> demnedAlexios I as a “persecutor ofthe Church [Ecclesiaeperscctdoi \, "( )lt«> i>l I n , ing cast Roger II as an “enemy of the Church [Ecclesiae Iwstis |," ami Wlbali "I Stavelot and Korvey decried the same king of Sicily as an “enemy ol < !. See also I Randolph Daniel, "Abbui |oai him ol l'loie and lln· ( mn >1 '.ioli ol lhe lews,"m I ihn . and /in·. in the Middle I.·. mi./ Kt'iiiiis'.iiih < · « I ' » I «· \ · 11 I Ali Alii 11,1 r I .11 it I Si I ■..111 I . My·' i n ( I » · i « I » · 11, i < >· · | )( i · i, .il i i

242 I Conclusions and Epilogue

To claim that the Byzantine Empire was seen by the Latins “not as one more individual Christian power alongside a range of other individual powers, but as a partially alien outsider alongside a single Latin community” is to adopt the view­ point of the Byzantine intellectual elite, which saw twelfth-century Europe in terms of a united West versus Byzantium, going so far as to regard the crusades as a sinister plot against the Byzantine state.13 The notion of a unified Latin Chris­ tendom found expression in the use of the generic terms “Latins” [Λατίνοι], “Latin race” [Λατινικόν γένος, Λατίνη φυλή], and 'Western state” [έσπέριον κράτος],

which encompassed all those who unambiguously acknowledged the ultimate authority of Rome in spiritual affairs.14 However, the idea of the West as a single entity was a Byzantine misconception fostered by the political and ecclesiastical bureaucratic establishment of the Byzantine Empire. Despite the fact that with the crusading movement the Latin world achieved a degree of unity under the banner of the papacy, this loose unity hardly lasted as long as a crusade. While the Byzantines were members of a political and linguistic entity, the Latins were not. The Latin world was politically and linguistically fragmented, riven with strife, divisions and rivalry. Twelfth-century Christendom was not an entity consisting of two opposing groups, the Latins and the Greeks, but rather resembled a mosaic of ethnically and linguistically different powers with conflicting interests. The Byzantine Empire was one of these powers, a state firmly assimilated to the polit­ ical system of Christendom, a player in the intricate web of shifting alliances in twelfth-century Europe. Although the rhetoric of certain twelfth-century Latin authors catches the eye, it is neither representative of the Latin historiography and literature nor does it reflect general Latin public opinion. In an age when the printing press had not yet developed, only very limited copies of the “anti-Byzantine” texts could cir­ culate among the Latins. The costly manuscript, subject to slow circulation, did not guarantee the effective transmission of collective memory. Besides, the rate of literacy at the time was very low. Chronicles and reports in the Middle Ages were, as Chris Given-Wilson rightly puts it, “entirely unsuitable vehicles for influ­ encing contemporary audiences.”15 Information was normally obtained and cir­ 13. Savvas Neocleous, “Byzantine-Muslim Conspiracies Against the Crusades: History and Myth,” Journal of Medieval History 36 (2010): 253-274, at 266 Π94. Cf. Chris Wright, “On the Margins of Christendom: The Impact of the Crusades on Byzantium,” in The Cru­ sades and the Near East, ed. Conor Kostick (London, 2011), 55-82, at 60. 14. loannes Kinnamos, Epitome rerum ab loanne etAlexio Comnenis gestarum 2.12, ed. August Meineke (Bonn, 1836), 67; Niketas Choniates, Chronike diegesis 11, ιζ,ρρ. 350, 393. 15. Chris Given-Wilson, “Official and Semi-Official I {¡story in the I alter Middle Ages: The English Evidence in Context,” in The Medieval Chronicle V, ed. Erik Kooper (Amster dam and New York, 1008), 1 16, at

Conclusions and Epilogue | 243

culated orally. The oral tradition is doubtless powerful in shaping attitudes, per­ ceptions, and memory. However, both oral tradition and collective memory are bound to fade after several decades and vanish in a few more. On the whole, Byzantium just did not loom as large in the minds of the West­ erners as the West did in the minds of the Byzantines. The Byzantines never occu­ pied a prominent place in the collective memory of the vast West. It was rather the Westerners, and Latins in general, who had gradually taken up a significant place in the cultural memory of the Byzantines due to the influx of Latin merce­ naries, merchants, and civil servants into the twelfth-century Byzantine Empire; the passing of crusaders through the Byzantine territories; and the Norman inva­ sions of the empire. However, even though the Byzantines did not loom large in the minds of twelfth-century Latins (the exception being the Latin settlers of Outremer), when they did surface the general attitude of the Latins toward the

Greeks was essentially positive. The Byzantine Empire was seen by the majority of Latin Christians as an integral part of the Christian world, and certainly no decades of anti-Byzantine feeling and religious hatred informed the decision of the leaders of the Fourth Crusade to travel to Constantinople and eventually attack the Byzantine capital. To explain relations between the Byzantine Empire and the Latin world and to interpret twelfth-century texts in the light of the out­ come of the Fourth Crusade is a grave error. The same is true of trying to explain the diversion to, attack on, and sack of Constantinople by looking to the century and a half before 1204 in search of “anti-Byzantine” texts and passages. The out­ come of the Fourth Crusade is fully explained when we examine in detail the complex chain of events triggered by Prince Alexios’s escape to the West in the second half of 1201.16 As to the sack that followed the capture of Constantino­

ple, this was not the outburst of accumulated religious hatred toward the Greeks. Constantinople suffered no more than any other city in Latin Europe taken by assault. Both before and after 1204, Latins, especially laymen, were not particularly anxious or concerned about the theological differences between the Roman and Greek Churches. As we have seen in the historiography of the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries, Western travellers to the Byzantine Empire entered Greek churches to pray without any hesitation or reservation, and did not even have any misgivings about worshipping saints venerated by the Greek Church. Peace­ ful coexistence and cohabitation between Greeks and Latin settlers in the Byzan­ 16. Savvas Neocleous, “Financial, Chivalric or Religious? The Motives of the Fourth (irusaders Rei onsidered," Journal0/ Medieval History 38 (2012): 183-206; Thomas F. Mad­ den, "Vows and ('011I1.u I·. In (he Fourth (irusade: The Treaty of Zara and the Attack on Con­ stantinople In 1 in 1. Inh inational Ilislory Review 15(199 1): -1S9 -160.

244 I Conclusions and Epilogue

tine Empire was also a concrete historical reality. The differences between the Churches of Rome and Constantinople notwithstanding, Latins were not deterred from entering into marriages with the Greeks in the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries.17 Latin settlers in the Byzantine Empire also worshipped and prayed with the Greeks in Greek-rite churches, and invited Greek prelates to their churches to participate in ceremonies, and received communion with leav­ ened bread from them.18 Their dead were buried in Greek churches while both Greek and Latin clerics chanted the dirges.19 In brief, as the Old French transla­ tor ofWilliam of Tyre’s work notes, such a “great intimacy and great friendship”

17. loannes Kinnamos, Epitome rerum ab loanne et Alexia Comnenis gestarum 6.1 o, ed. August Meineke (Bonn, 1836), 281-282; trans. Charles M. Brand in Deeds ofJohn and Manuel Comnenus (New York, 1976), 210-211. William of Tyre, Historia 22.13 (12), vol. 2: 1024; trans. Emily Atwater Babcock and A.C. Krey in A History ofDeeds Done Beyond the Sea (New York, 1943), 2:464. Niketas Choniates, Chronike diegesis 10, p. 301; L'estoire deEracles (Tra­ duction de Guillaume de Tyr) 22.11, vol. 2: 427; Savvas Neocleous, “Greeks and Italians in Twelfth-Century Constantinople: Convivencia or Conflict?” in Negotiating Co-Existence: Com­ munities, Cultures and Convivencia in Byzantine Society, ed. Barbara Crostini and Sergio La Porta (Trier, 2013), 221-250, at 225-229. 18. Όΐς γάρ άλλήλους των παρ’ ήμΐν εκκλησιών οΰκ άπείργομεν ουδέ έξωθοΰμεν, αλλά συνεκκλησιάζομεν άλλήλοις καί συνευχόμεθα, τούτοις πάντως κα'ι συνενούμεθα.” Emperor Isaakios Il’s letter of 1193 to Pope Celestine III, in Georgios et Demetrios Tornikes, Lettres et discours, ed.Jean Darrouzés (Paris, 1970), 336-345, at 338-339. To the question ofwhether it was permissible for a Greek bishop to enter a Latin church when invited by the Latins, Demetrios Chomatianos responded that the Greek prelate could visit a Latin church unhesitatingly: “El πρόκριμα τώ άρχιερεΐ το είσέρχεσθαι είς τάς Λατινικάς εκκλησίας, και προσκυνεϊν, ήνίκα αν προσκληθείη παρ’ αυτών;... όθεν κα'ι είς τάς έκκλησίας αυτών προσκληθείς οΰτος άνενδοιάστως άφίξεται.” Georgios A. Rhalles and Michael Potles, ed., Syntagma ton theion kai ieron kanonon (Athens, 1852-1859), 5: 434. “Και ότι αΰτά τούτο το προσέρχεσθαι Λατίνους ήμΐν, κα'ι ξητεΐν της ένζύμου μεταλαμβάνειν άγιας προσφοράς έξ ήμών.” Rhalles and Potles, ed., Syntagma, 5: 435. 19. According to one of the canonical responsa of Metropolitan loannes of Kitros to the archbishop of Dyrrachium, it was not improper or dangerous to piety to bury Latins in Greek churches while both Greek and Latin clerics chanted the obsequies. “Οΰκ άπαδον τοίνυν, ουδέ τη ευσεβείς: όπωσοΰν λυμαινόμενον, το θάπτεσθαι Λατίνους έν ‘Ρωμάίκοΐς ναοΐς, κα'ι ψάλλεσθαι όμοθυμαδόν παρά τε 'Ρωμαίων και Λατίνων ιερουργών νεκριμαΐα Λατίνων και 'Ρωμαίων.” Rhalles and Potles, ed., Syntagma, 5: 404. The evidence provided by loannes of Kitros’s statement finds support in the archaeological and art historical evidence from the Frankish Morea, Crete, Cyprus, and the Latin East, which has shown that the two communi­ ties often shared the same burial places. See Eric A. Ivison, “Latin Tomb Monuments in the Levant 1204-ca. 1450,” in The Archaeology of Medieval Greece, ed. Peter Lock and Guy D.R. Sanders (Oxford, 1996), pp. 91-106; Ronnie Ellenblum, Frankish Hural Settlement in the Latin Kingdom ofJerusalem (Cambridge, 2003), 119 144.

Conclusions and Epilogue | 245

had grown up between Greeks and Latins in Byzantium that “it appeared as if they were one people of one land.”20 Neither the rift resulting from the Greek Church’s rejection of Rome’s supreme authority in the universal Church nor the theological divergence between the Greek and the Latin Churches made the majority of Latins per­ ceive the Greeks as infectious heretics or even schismatics before 1204. This is also largely true of the years after 1204. Despite the explicit definition of the Greeks as schismatics by the papacy following the events of 1204, and despite their defamation by certain Latin churchmen who aimed to justify the conquest of Constantinople and drum up support for the defence of the Latin Empire, inter-marriages continued not only between Greek and Latin commoners but also between members of the Latin powers and the Greek royal houses of Epiros and Nicaea. In 1209, the Fleming Emperor of Constantinople Henry of Hain­ aut concluded an alliance with the Greek ruler of Epiros, Michael I Doukas, which was sealed by the marriage of Henry’s brother Eustace to Michael’s daughter.21 Henry also negotiated a marriage between his niece, Maria of Courtenay, and the Greek ruler of Nicaea, Theodoros Laskaris, which eventu­ ally took place in 1219.22 It was not only the Latin Empire of Constantinople but other Latin states as well which entered into marriage alliances with the Greek successor state of Nicaea. In 1218 Theodoros Laskaris’s daughter, Maria, was married to the son and successor of King Andrew of Hungary, the future Bela IV (1235-1270).23 In 1226 the Greek emperor of Nicaea’s other daughter, Eudokia, was married to Duke Frederick II of Austria (1230-1246), making her the third Byzantine princess to marry into the Austrian house of Babenberg in less than eighty years, the first being Theodora Komnene, who married Henry II in 1148, and the sec­ ond, Theodora Angelina, who married Leopold VI in 1203.24 When this mar­ riage ended in failure, Eudokia married Anseau of Cayeux, a man of considerable 20. “... si avoient eues granz privetez et granz acointances a eus qu’il sembloit que ce fust uns pueples d’une terre.” L’estoire de Eracles (Traduction de Guillaume de Tyr) 22.11, vol. 2: 427. 21. Henry ofValenciennes, Histoire de I'Empereur Henri de Constantinople 689-694, ed. Jean Longnon (Paris, 1948), 118-121; Michael Angold, “The Latin Empire of Constantino­ ple, 1204-1261: Marriage Strategies,” in Identities and Allegiances in the Eastern Mediterranean after 1204, ed. Judith Herrin and Guillaume Saint-Guillain (Farnham, 2011), 47-68, at $o. 22. Angold, "The Latin Empire of Constantinople,” 52. 23. Zuzana Ors.igovi, "Maria Laskaris and Elisabeth the Cuman: Two Examples of Arpddian Qtiecnship" (master's thesis, Central European University, 2009), 22-23, 27-27. 24. Angold, I In- I at in Empire oftConstantinople,” 53.

246 I Conclusions and Epilogue

influence, who became regent of the Latin Empire in 1237.25 These marriages were arranged for political and diplomatic advantage. After all, marriage alliances between royal houses in medieval Christendom were always part of a process aimed at gaining political capital and prestige. The mere fact that the Greeks were part of this process bears testimony to their position not as heretical or schis­ matical outsiders but as equal Christian powers next to the other Christian states, both before and after 1204. Perhaps the most telling evidence about Latin attitudes toward the Greek rite and dogma involves the religious interaction which led to the assimilation of Frankish settlers into Greek society in former Byzantine lands. By the early four­ teenth century, the descendants of Latin settlers in the Principality of Achaea spoke Greek fluently and attended Greek churches where communion was cel­ ebrated in accordance with the Greek rite.26 Already in the thirteenth century, the Frankish rulers of the principality themselves were patrons not only of Frankish but also of Greek monasteries and churches, recalling the policies, a century before, of the kings of Sicily, who had granted concessions and donations to var­ ious Greek monasteries and churches.27 Similar phenomena are observed in the Frankish kingdom of Cyprus, where the descendants of the Frankish settlers were acculturated into the Greek Church of the island. As early as 16 May 1221 we find the papal legate Pelagius confirming donations of Latin lords in Cyprus to Greek churches and abbeys.28 A century and a half later, in a letter of 29 May 1368 to the Latin Archbishop Raymond ofNicosia, Pope Urban V (1362-1370) laments the fact that “a great part of the noble and plebeian [Latin] women” of Nicosia attended Greek churches and services celebrated according to the Greek 25. Ibid., S3; Georgios Akropolites, Chronike Syngraphe 47, ed. and trans. Spyros E. Spyropoulos (Thessaloniki, 2004), pp. 274-275; trans. Ruth Macrides in George Akropolites: The History (Oxford, 2007), 245. 26. Teresa Shawcross, “The Lost Generation (c. 1204-c. 1222): Political Allegiance and Local Interests Under the Impact of the Fourth Crusade,” in Identities and Allegiances in the Eastern Mediterranean After 1204, ed. Judith Herrin and Guillaume Saint-Guillain (Farn­ ham, 2011), 9-46, at 36-37; Teresa Shawcross, “Greeks and Franks after the Fourth Cru­ sade: Identity in the Chronicle ofMorea,” in Languages of Love and Hate: Conflict, Communi­ cation, and Identity in the Medieval Mediterranean, ed. Sarah Lambert and Helen Nicholson (Turnhout, 2012), 141-158, at 153. 27. Shawcross, “The Lost Generation,” 36-37; Vera von Falkenhausen, “The Greek Presence in Norman Sicily: The Contribution of Archival Material in Greek,” in The Society of Norman Italy, ed. Graham A. Loud and Alex Metcalfe (Leiden, 2002), 253-287, at 261, 264-265, 270. 28. Christopher Schabel and Nicholas Coureas, ed., The Cartulary of the ('.athedral of Holy Wisdom ofNicosia (Nicosia, 1997), 213,215 (no. 82).

Conclusions and Epilogue | 147

rite?9 Latins invited Greek priests to perform weddings, baptisms, and funerals, and well-off Latin families appropriated Byzantine iconography and Greek inscriptions for the decoration of their family chapels. In the fifteenth century, the Frankish kings of Cyprus themselves observed the liturgy at both Latin and Greek churches.29 30 Such was the degree of assimilation that in a letter sent to Archbishop Philippe de Coétquis of Tours in 1434, Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini, the future Pope Pius II (1458-1464), defined the boundaries of Latin Christendom, leav­ ing out the Franks of Cyprus, whom he described as being “more Greek than Roman [Christians] [taceo Ciprios magis Graece quam Romane sapientes].”3132 The mere fact that the process of acculturation in former Byzantine lands was allowed to proceed uninterrupted attests to the fact that the Greek dogma and rite were not viewed as heretical or erroneous by the majority of Latins. The perception of the Greeks as Christian brethren was particularly prevalent and representative of the attitudes of most Latin Christians before 1204 and even in its aftermath, despite the damage done by the politically motivated anti-Greek propaganda unleashed and disseminated by the clerics of the Fourth Crusade in order to legitimise the attack on Constantinople and its subsequent conquest. The fraternity and affinity between Greeks and Latins was stressed by twelfth century clerics and theologians such as Anselm of Canterbury, Bernard of Clairvaux, Anselm of Havelberg, William of Newburgh, and Pope Innocent III. More than seven centuries later, in 1964, the Second Vatican Council’s Decree on Ecu menism, Unitatis Redintegratio (Restoration of Unity), declared that “for many centuries the Church of the East and that of the West each followed their own ways although joined in a brotherly union of faith [Ecclesiae Orientis et Occiden tisper nonpauca saecula suam propriam viam, fraterna tamen communionefidei... coniunctae, secutae sunt].”31 This vision of ecumenism and notion of “brotherly

29. Schabel and Coureas, ed., The Cartulary ofthe Cathedral ofHoly Wisdom ofNicosia, 312-313 (no. 131); Christopher Schabel, trans., The Synodicum Nicosiense and Other Docu ments of the Latin Church of Cyprus, 1196-1373 (Nicosia, 2001), 371. 30. Antonis Pardos, “To ιδεολογικό και πολιτισμικό κρηπίδωμα της κυπριακής αντίστασης (ΐ2ος-ι6ος αιώνας) [The Ideological and Cultural Basis of Cypriot Resistance (i2th-ióth Century)],” in Κύπρος, σταυροδρόμι της Μεσογείου, ed. Nikos G. Moschonas (Athens, 2001), 108-152, at 133, 135; Andreas Stylianou and Judith A. Stylianou, The Painted Churches of Cyprus: Treasures ofByzantine Art, 2nd ed. (Nicosia, 1997), 90-92, 307, 345-346. 31. Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini, Der Briefwechsel des Eneas Silvius Piccolomini, ed. Rudolf Wolkan (Vienna, 1909 1918), 1: 86. 32. Pram isco Gil I lellin, ed. ('.oncilii Vatican! II synopsle in ordinem rcdieriis sihemata cum relationilms nei non /minim uraihmes uli/ne animadversiones: I )ei irtum dr no umenlsmo "I hii latis redintegratio" (V.iih .m, 1005), 110 111.

248 I Conclusions and Epilogue

union of faith” between Eastern and Western Christians were not products of the twentieth century, but have their precedent in the long twelfth century, recall­ ing Anselm of Havelberg’s words put into the mouth of Niketas ofNikomedia: "we [Greeks and Latins] have always been one in our catholic faith [semperfuimus unum in catholicafide].”33

33. Anselm of Havelberg, Dialog! 3.19, col. 1241; trans. Ambrose Criste and Carol Neel, with a preface by William I*. I lyland, in Anticimenon: On the Unity oj the Faith mid the Con troversies with the Greeks (< Collegeville, 1010), 101.

Appendix

Due to its complexity and the controversy surrounding its authorship and dating, the Old French chanson de geste known as the Chanson d’Antioche has been left to be discussed separately in this Appendix. Scholarship has traditionally consid­ ered this text as a quasi-diary of the First Crusade composed by an eyewitness crusader known as Richard le Pèlerin; toward the end of the twelfth century, another author, Graindor of Douai, reworked and edited Richard’s original text to turn it into a trilogy, along with the Chanson de Chétifs and the Chanson de Jérusalem. Eventually, in the first half of the thirteenth century, the trilogy, which narrates the events of the First Crusade from its beginning with Peter the Hermit to the battle of Ascalon, developed into the Old French Crusade Cycle, follow­ ing the addition of a number of other texts extending the story of the crusade from Godfrey of Bouillon’s ancestry to Sultan Saladin’s time.1 Careful examination and fresh study of the Chanson d'Antioche in the last four decades has led to three modern editions as well as an English and a French translation.2 Modern scholars have compellingly argued that the Chanson d'Antioche is actually made up of successive strata of source material compiled in Picardy, north-east France, at some point in the late twelfth or, more likely, the early thirteenth century. Therefore, the Chanson dAntioche cannot be treated as an independent eye-witness source for the First Crusade as it contains little reli­ able source material. Nonetheless, its historical value cannot be denied since this vernacular text provides significant insight into the perceptions, attitudes, and prejudices of its early thirteenth-century audience in north-eastern France.3 1. Susan B. Edgington and Carol Sweetenham, “Introduction,” in The Chanson d'Anti­ oche: An Old-French Account of the First Crusade, trans. Susan B. Edgington and Carol Sweet­ enham (Farnham, 2011), 1-97, at 3, 24-27,49-53. 2. La chanson dAntioche, ed. Suzanne Duparc-Quioc, 2 vols. (Paris, 1976); La chanson dAntioche, ed. Jan A. Nelson (Tuscaloosa, 2003); La chanson dAntioche, ed. and trans. Bernard (iuidot (Paris, 2011); The Chanson dAntioche, trans. Edgington and Sweetenham. See also the iinpoilanl '.indy ol Robert Francis Cook, "Chanson dAntioche,"chanson degcsle: Le Cycle de la C101 .ad, ·■ ·,

Narratio Floriacensis 40 n 155,43 Nebuchadnezzar II, neo-Babyloniaii 1 my. 188 Nelson, Jan A. 250 Nestorianism, Nestorians 29, 2 io Neveion ofChérisy, bishop ol Soisum·. 147, 155-156, 213, 219 220 Nicaea 17, 26, 32; empire of 187 180,

235, 245 Nicholas, saint 167 Nicol, Donald 3 Nikephoros III, Byzantine enipei 01 m Niketas, archbishop of Nikomedi.i 1

Matthew, precentor of Rievaulx 222-223 Matthew Paris, monk and chronicler 223-224, 228 ni20, 228 ni2i, 235-

77, 79-82, 84, 93, 248 Niketas Choniates, imperial olili ial and historian 67 n6i, 67 1162, 67 no i, 108, 114, 127 n 127, 167 n 19, 167 nio, i /o n30, 170 n3i, 202, 205, 242 n 14, 244 ni7 Niketas “ofMaroneia,” chartophylax ol

237 Maximus the Confessor, saint 49

Hagia Sophia 74 Nikolaos I, patriarch of Alexandria 194

Michael I Doukas, ruler of Epiros 24,

Nikolaos Mesarites, churchman 84

140, 245 Michael I the Syrian, Jacobite patriarch

Nikon Metanoeite, saint 169 Nish 109 Norbert ol Xanten, preai her and ‘.amt 4 8

Maronites 228

Martin, abbot of Pairis 159, 208-210, 212 Mas'üd I, Saljüq sultan of Iconium 54 Matilda, countess of Tuscany 8-9

of Antioch and historian 24 Michael VII Doukas, Byzantine emperor 9, 12, 135 Mi< had Kerotilarios, palliali h ol < 'on

st ant Inopie* 1 is, 107 n 1 9

Norden, Walter 2 Noi mainly, duchy ol 44 Noi mam. ol Sk lly 1 ', 20, 18, 80, 9 ■

Northampton i · 1

188 I Index

Nur al-Din, Zengid ruler of Syia 27 moi

Pepin, king of the Franks 67

Nuremberg 109

Petchenegs, semi-nomadic Turkic people

Nymphaion 189

151 Peter III, patriarch of Antioch 166

Odo of Deuil, royal chaplain and chroni­

Peter, saint 8, 34, 45, 5 b 55, 7b 75~76, 78, 86, 92, 94-95, 101, 124, 126, 128,

cler 29, 53-55, 57-59, 61-64, 72, 82, 123, 217 Old French Crusade Cycle 249 Old French Continuations and transla­ tions of William of Tyre: see under

William of Tyre Oliver, magister scolarum 211 Oradea 190 Orderic Vitalis, monk and historian 12

1126, 13, 19, 20 ηό4, 21-23, Μ n8i, 24 n82, 25-26, 27 Π98, 27 nioi, 28, 39 ni54, 40-41, 56 Otto, abbot of Saint Blasien and chroni­ cler 111, 209, 212, 240 ns Otto, bishop of Freising and chronicler

186 n92, 209, 241 Otto, bishop of Strasbourg 172 038 Otto of Brunswick, German Emperor 140, 142, 215 Outremer 52, 60, 98, 101-105, 126, 133, 141, 167, 184, 220, 227-229, 231-232,

243. See also Levant

Pachomius, saint: Rule of 85 Pairis Abbey 209, 212

Palermo 192 Palestine 15, 23, 32, 91, 102, 109, 120, 124, 146, 148, 223, 228, 232, 233 Papayianni, Aphrodite 2 PaschalII, pope 35 ni35, 36, 38-40,42-

46 Paschal III, anti-pope 173 n3 8 Passau 110, 117 Paul, Nicholas L. 37-38

Paul, saint 33, 86, 101, 128, 165, 186, 226 Paulicians 18 Pelagius, cardinal 246 Peloponnese, peninsula 199

130-131, 134-136, 139, 152, 164-165, 171, 175, 178, 188, 226, 235 Peter, Vlach chieftain 112 Peter Abelard, scholastic 49, 74, 87 Peter Capuano, cardinal 143, 183-185, 213 1160 Peter Lombard, scholastic 86-87 Peter of Amiens, crusader knight 197 Peter of Bracieux, crusader baron 205 Peter of Saint Chrysogonus, cardinal 91 Peter ofVaux-de-Cernay, monk 146 1156, 149 n7i Peter the Hermit, priest and preacher 22, 249 Peter the Venerable, abbot of Cluny 26, 50, 64-65 Philadelphia 115-116,120 Philip II Augustus, king of France 64, 8890, 106-107,121-122, 150,168, 216, 225 Philip, count of Swabia and German king

67, 140, 142-146,148, 153, 210, 215 Philip, prior of the Dominican Order 228, 236 Philippopolis 22, 111 Photian Schism 223 Photios, patriarch of Constantinople and saint 31 nn8 Picardy 69, 197, 219 084, 240 115, 249 Pibo, bishop of Toul 26 Piedmont 69 1172 Pilis 190 Piroska, Byzantine empress 66 Pisa 89, 113 1175; Pisans 20, 38, 59, 92, 99-101, 1 13, 225-226, 241; massacre of Pisans and (ienoese ol < ionstan linople ( 1 182) 99 101, 1 i s, 211

Index | 289

Pius II, pope 247 Pneumatomachi 73

Qilij-Arslân I, Saljüq sultan of Iconium 27 moi

Raimbaut de Vaqueiras, troubadour 220221 Rainaid ofDassel, archbishop of Cologne 172 1138 Rainer of Ponza, monk 140 Ralph, abbot of Coggeshall and chroni­ cler 90, 216 Ralph of Caen, cleric and chronicler 54 Ralph of Diceto, dean of St Paul’s cathe­ dral and historian 106, 107 n40, 108 1148 Raymond IV, count of Toulouse (of Saint Gilles) 18-21, 36-37, 99, 208 Raymond, Latin archbishop of Nicosia 246 Raymond of Aguilers, chaplain and

chronicler 18, 36, 98, 99 Raymond of Poitiers, prince of Antioch

28, 51-52, 55-56 Reggio Calabria 192

Reiner of Saint Jacob, monk and chroni­ cler 217-220 Renier, son of Marquess William V of Montferrat 67 Reynaid of Châtillon, acting prince of Antioch 104-105 Richard I, king of England 90, 118, 120122, 168 nzi, 230-232, 240 115 Richard, earl of Cornwall 223 Richard Barre, clergyman and Angevin agent 106 Richard de Templo, Augustinian canon and chronicler 121, 241

Richard le Pèlerin, crusader and < hroni cler 249 Rigord ol Saini Denis, monk and < liioni

< !er 90, 11 -i, 21 ft 217

Riley-Smith, Jonathan 4 Robert II, count ofFlanders 20-21, 36

37 Robert Curthose, duke ofNormandy 20

21, 36-37 Robert Guiscard, duke of Apulia 9 n 1 3 Robert ofAuxerre, Premonstratensian canon and chronicler 671161, 214 215, 217, 220 Robert of Qari, knight and chronicler o 1 039, 67 n6i, 69, 91, 147-148, 153 1188, 158-159, 161, 169 n27, 170, 19ft 19 , 199-204, 206, 213, 221 Robert ofSaintRemi, monk and chroni cler 12 n2Ó, 18, 22 073, 22 1175, 23, 2 · n99, 27 moi, 35, 168 1122, 208, 25 1 Robert ofTorigni, monk and chronii lei

90 Robert the Frisian, count of Flandei s 10, 16, 26 Roger I, king of Sicily 42 Roger II, king of Sicily 53-54, 64 ft 5, 8 s 86, 241 Roger, co-king of Sicily 67 Roger of Hoveden, Angevin clerk and

historian 90, 107 1142, 107 1143 Romania: empire of Constantinople 1 ·, 1,

189,193, 201, 223 Romanos IV, Byzantine emperor

39-40 Rossano, archbishopric of 93 Roussa 22 Roussillon, county of 15 Rufinus, bishop of Assisi 94 95, 129, 1 vs, 138 Runciman, Steven 3-4 Rupert, abbot of Deutz and theologian

46-48, 72, 76, 79, 125) 180

Saint Agatha oft iatania, monastery ol 44 Saint Blasien, njonastery ol 1 1 1, 209, 112, 240 115

290 | Index

Saint-Denis, monastery of 53, 64, 90, 96, 214, 216-217 Saint Jacob, monastery of 217, 219-220 Saint Peter’s, abbey of, on the Lauterberg 211-212 Saint-Victor, abbey of 17 Saladin, sultan of Egypt and Syria 106, 118,119, 249

Salem, monastery of 110 Saljüqs, Turkic people 6-7, 15, 27 nioi,

Tancred, king of Sicily 67

Tarsus 33, 51, 55 Tatikios, Byzantine general 36 Tedald, archbishop of Milan 1721138 Tegernsee, abbey of 88 Thebes 193, 204 Theobald III, count of Champagne 141142 Theodora Angelina, wife of Leopold VI

of Austria 67, 245

54, 105, 109, 116, 123, 227. See also Turks

Theodora Komnene, wife of Baldwin III

San Giovanni in Fiore, monastery of 123 Santa Severina, archbishopric of 93, 192 Savoy 69 072 Schieffer, Rudolf 4-5 Secunda pars historia 43

Theodora Komnene, wife of Bohemond III of Antioch 66

Secundus the Philosopher 96

Serbs, Slavic people 109-111 Serres 18 Sicily, island 28,42-44, 46, 53, 65 n$3, 85, 168 n2i, 180-182, 192, 246 Sihon, biblical Amorite king 119 Simeon II, patriarch ofjerusalem 27 Simon, abbot of Loos 156 Simon of Montfort, crusader baron 146

Soffredo of Santa Prassede, cardinal 184 Soissons 142; cathedral of 155-156, 213 Sparta 169

Stephen IV, king of Hungary 66 Stephen, count of Blois 26 Stephen Nemanja, Grand Zupan of Serbia 109-112,114 Suger, abbot of Saint-Denis 96

Swabians, native of Swabia 110 Sylvester I, pope 45, 124 Syria 11, 20, 23, 27 moi, 32, 37-39,102103, 120, 220, 223, 226, 228, 232-233 Syrians, also called Melkites, Byzantinerite Christians 23, 24, 37, 102, 233 Tancred, crusader prince and regent of Antioch 23 24, 33, 39, 54

ofjerusalem 66

Theodora Komnene, wife of Henry II of

Austria 66, 245 Theodoros I Laskaris, emperor of Nicaea

187-188, 245 Theodoros Balsamon, Greek patriarchin-exile of Antioch 83 Theodoros Mangaphas, governor of Philadelphia 115 Theodoros Skoutariotes, cleric and chronicler 11 Theodosios Coenobiarcha of Laberia, saint 192 Theodosios Goudeles, monk and writer 102 n22,168 Theodosius, Roman/Byzantine emperor 124 Theodwin of Santa Rufina, cardinal 62 n3 8 Theophylaktos, archbishop of Ochrid 87-88, 165 Thessaloniki 74, 97, 127 n 127, 201; Latin kingdom of 191 Thietmar, cleric and writer 232-23 3 Thomas Morosini, Latin patriarch of Constantinople 84, 177, 189 Thrace 112 Toulouse 222 translations! 126, 208 Trier 1 hronide, fourth continuation ol 162

Index I 29 i

Troyes 155-156 Turks/Turkish4, 6-7, 10-11, 15, 22, 33-

34; 37-38, 53; 55-56, 63, 91,93,106, 108, 115-116, 118, 227; Turcopoles, mercenaries of Turkish origin 251. See also Saljüqs

William VI, count of Poitou 8, 9 n 1 3 William VIII, Lord of Montpellier 66 William, archbishop ofTyre and hist«» rian 29, 66 056, 66 057, 66 1159, 67

nóo, 67 nói, 90, 98-106, 112, 117, 123, 133 nó, 225-227, 230 23 1 ; ()ld French Continuations: Colbert Fontainebleau Continuation of 110

Tyerman, Christopher 2 Tyre 25, 112

unleavened bread: see leavened/unleavened bread Urban II, pope 9-16, 27, 34-35, 37-38,

44; 140 Urban III, pope 106, 139 Urban V, pope 246

Vallombrosa, village of 15 Venice: maritime republic 3, 24-25,113

n75, 141-145, 157, 169; Treaty of 142-143, 146, 148; Venetians 24-26, 62, 90, 140 U32, 143, 150 1178, 160, 164, 169, 177, 181, 189, 192-193, 213, 216, 218, 240 ns, 241 Victor IV, anti-pope 88, 173 n38 Vienna 67,122 Vryonis, Speros 3 Walter Map, cleric and writer 28,128

Westphalia 211, 232 Whalen, Brett Edward 39 Wibald, abbot of Stavelot and Corvey 70 William I, count of Burgundy 7 William I of Champlitte, prince of Achaea 205 William V, marquess of Montferrat 67

Rayarlach· lilnntnhlbllothnk Ml».. 1»·»

230, 231 0128, 231 11129, 2.32; I'lnotd Old French Continuation of 21 9 no,

Lyon-Florence Continuation ol ; iy 232; Old French translation of in, 225-227, 229-231, 244-245 William, Augustinian canon of New burgh and historian 117 120,121, i p' 04, 247

William, monk and biographer of Abbot Suger of Saint-Denis 96 William Adgar, poet 204 William Medicus of Gap, abbot ol Sami Denis 96

William of Apulia, chronicler 25 William of Auvergne, bishop ol Pan·. ■ i 1 William of Malmesbury, monk and hi'.Io

rian 12, 13 n28,40 n 155, 203 io.| William the Breton, royal chaplain ami chronicler 122, 219 William the Conqueror, king ol England 26 Wright, Chris 2

Zara 62, 143, 145-146, 148 150,13s 156, 172, 174, 206- 207; Treaty of i.|H, 164, 198, 202, 216

Zengi, atabeg of Mosul and Aleppo 5 ;