The Papacy and Crusading in Europe, 1198-1245 1441140166, 9781441140166

Table of contents :
Contents
Preface
Acknowledgements
Abbreviations
Introduction
Crusades Against Heretics
The ‘Political Crusades’
Papal Correspondence as Evidence for Policy
The Eleventh- and Twelfth-Century Background
1 Innocent III: The Early Years of the Albigensian Crusade
Controlling the Albigensian Crusade
Innocent III and Heresy
Innocent III and the Idea of ‘Internal’ Crusade
2 Honorius III: The Albigensian Crusade Continues
The Legacy of Innocent III
Honorius III’s Correspondence: Ideas and Language
Controlling the Albigensian Crusade
Honorius III and Crusading Against Heretics
The Objectives of the Albigensian Crusade
3 Gregory IX: The Authorization of Crusades against Heretics in Europe
Heretics and the Development of Canon Law
Gregory IX and ‘Internal’ Crusades
Controlling ‘Internal’ Crusades
Gregory IX’s Correspondence: Ideas and Language
Gregory IX and ‘Internal’ Enemies
The Development of ‘Internal’ Crusades
4 Popes and the First ‘Political Crusades’
Crusades Against Political Enemies
Papal Correspondence: Ideas and Language
The Development of ‘Political Crusades’
Conclusion
Appendix A: The Primary Sources
Appendix B: The Papacy and ‘Internal’ Crusades: The Current Debate
Bibliography
Index
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
Y
Z

Citation preview

THE PAPACY AND CRUSADING IN EUROPE, 1198–1245

This page intentionally left blank

The Papacy and Crusading in Europe, 1198–1245

Rebecca Rist

Continuum UK, The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SE1 7NX Continuum US, 80 Maiden Lane, Suite 704, New York, NY 10038 www.continuumbooks.com Copyright © Rebecca Rist 2009

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission from the publishers. First published 2009 British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN 978 1 44114 016 6

Typeset by Pindar NZ, Auckland, New Zealand Printed and bound by MPG Books Ltd, Cornwall, Great Britain

Contents

Preface

vii

Acknowledgements

xi

Abbreviations Introduction Crusades Against Heretics

xiii 1 3

The ‘Political Crusades’

12

Papal Correspondence as Evidence for Policy

16

The Eleventh- and Twelfth-Century Background

19

1 Innocent III: The Early Years of the Albigensian Crusade

45

Controlling the Albigensian Crusade

46

Innocent III and Heresy

54

Innocent III and the Idea of ‘Internal’ Crusade

62

2 Honorius III: The Albigensian Crusade Continues

81

The Legacy of Innocent III

83

Honorius III’s Correspondence: Ideas and Language

84

Controlling the Albigensian Crusade

92

Honorius III and Crusading Against Heretics

97

The Objectives of the Albigensian Crusade

106

3 Gregory IX: The Authorization of Crusades against Heretics in Europe 119 Heretics and the Development of Canon Law

121

Gregory IX and ‘Internal’ Crusades

125

Controlling ‘Internal’ Crusades

134

Gregory IX’s Correspondence: Ideas and Language

140

Gregory IX and ‘Internal’ Enemies

143

The Development of ‘Internal’ Crusades

147

4 Popes and the First ‘Political Crusades’

171

Crusades Against Political Enemies

175

Papal Correspondence: Ideas and Language

190

The Development of ‘Political Crusades’

196

Conclusion

219

Appendix A: The Primary Sources

229

Appendix B: The Papacy and ‘Internal’ Crusades: The Current Debate

235

Bibliography

241

Index

263

Preface

This study of papal crusading policy examines the relationship between the papacy and what I have termed ‘internal’ crusades during the period 1198–1245. An ‘internal’ crusade is defined in this work as a holy war which was authorized by the popes of the first half of the thirteenth century and which was fought within Christian Europe against those whom the papacy perceived to be foes of Christendom, for the recovery of Christian property or in defence of the Church or Christian people.1 For this holy war, combatants took vows to fight and were granted by the papacy the same plenary indulgence as was also being granted by popes during the first half of the thirteenth century to those who embarked on a crusade to the Holy Land. By granting the plenary indulgence for fighting, popes signalled that they regarded the wars which they authorized against heretics and political enemies as not only meritorious campaigns but as deserving the same spiritual privileges as crusades to the East. This study is therefore not concerned with those crusades which popes authorized against Muslim enemies in the East and Spain, nor with crusades authorized against pagans on the borders of Europe. Rather it focuses on crusades authorized by the papacy against heretical groups in Christian Europe and against political enemies whom popes often viewed as heretics. Yet, in spite of its undoubted Europe-wide significance and an increasing recognition that the period 1198–1245 marks the beginning of a crucial change in papal policy underpinned by canon law, the relationship between popes and the crusades which they authorized within Christian Europe during these years has attracted relatively little attention in modern British scholarship. This book discusses the development of crusades authorized within Europe throughout the period through analysis of the extensive source material drawn from enregistered papal letters, placing them firmly in the context of ecclesiastical legislation, canon law, chronicles and other contemporary evidence. It thereby seeks to contribute to our understanding of the complex politics, theology and rhetoric that underlay the papacy’s call for European crusades in the first half of the thirteenth century. The popes who authorized these ‘internal’ crusades between 1198 and 1245 were Innocent III (1198–1216), Honorius III (1216–1227), Gregory IX (1227–1241) and Innocent IV (1243–1254). The pontificate of Celestine IV (1241) was extremely short and there are no extant letters concerned with the

viii

P R E FAC E

authorization of such crusades during his brief period as pope. The date 1198 marks the beginning of the pontificate of Innocent III, an enthusiast for crusading who authorized the Albigensian Crusade against Cathars in the south of France. The year 1245 is where this study ends because the formal deposition of the emperor Frederick II at the First Council of Lyon, two years after the election of Innocent IV, was a significant milestone in the history of papal calls for crusades against the Hohenstaufen dynasty. The principal sources for this study of papal policy are the letters of the popes themselves authorizing and supporting crusades against those they deemed enemies of the Church. From these letters a picture can be constructed of how the popes regarded heretics and political opponents and how they viewed these enemies in the context of their authorization of crusades. The work explores whether the popes themselves thought that such ‘internal’ enemies should be treated in the same way as ‘extra-liminal’ enemies of the Church, in particular the majority of Muslims who lived outside Christian Europe. It asks whether the pronouncements of the different popes elected between 1198 and 1245 reveal the pragmatic policies of individual popes, or an overriding papal vision regarding the status and treatment of ‘internal’ enemies. It considers whether the papacy envisaged a theoretical hierarchy of crusades, and in particular the status which popes afforded crusades against heretics and political enemies compared with crusades against Muslims in the Holy Land. It analyses the extent to which popes deliberately branded political enemies as heretics in their correspondence in order to encourage crusading. It also considers the degree to which popes intimated by the grant of spiritual and material incentives that the crusades which they authorized within Europe were a priority, and examines whether they regarded them as spiritually less inherently meritorious enterprises than those to the East. Certain aspects of thirteenth-century papal policy with regard to crusading, in particular the bestowal of indulgences or the special privileges granted for the protection of persons and property by the Holy See for the duration of a crusade, continue to be popular subjects of crusade scholarship. 2 There has been, however, little recent detailed study of papal letters concerned with crusades within Europe and of ecclesiastical legislation about heretics and the Church’s political enemies which papal correspondence both reflected and helped to engender. A further aim of this study is therefore to investigate the amount of influence and control the popes of the first half of the thirteenth century were able to exert over the crusades which they authorized in Europe and to assess whether such crusades proved an effective vehicle for the pursuit of papal aims. It considers whether an increasing recognition by popes of the limited effect of crusading as a means of dealing with heretics was crucial in the development of inquisitorial processes in the south of France and Germany as an alternative way of coping with the problem of heresy.

P R E FAC E

ix

Innocent III and Honorius III authorized and promoted the Albigensian Crusade against heretics in the south of France. Gregory IX was concerned not only with this but also authorized crusades against groups accused of heresy in Germany, Hungary and Bosnia. The correspondence of all three popes comprised both ‘general’ letters addressed to the Christian faithful throughout the whole of France and other parts of Europe and letters addressed to specific kings, legates, prelates and to crusaders themselves. As well as investigating the formulation of the crusading indulgence, this study considers the rhetorical language of a long-established style of papal letter used to authorize crusades, and the use of metaphors, similes and formulaic phrases to describe heresy and heretics. And it assesses the correspondence of Innocent III relating to what has often been described as the first ‘political crusade’, which was directed against his opponent Markward of Anweiler, former imperial vicar of Sicily during the reign of the emperor Henry VI. It also examines letters of Gregory IX and Innocent IV which called for spiritual and military action against another emperor, Frederick II, as part of an attempt by these popes to weaken his authority and to defend the papal states. From an examination of their letters conclusions may be drawn about the use of the crusade by popes as a political weapon at the height of the medieval papacy’s temporal and political power. The study therefore allows for fresh insights into the characters and pontificates of some of the most influential popes of the High Middle Ages. In 1235 Gregory IX authorized a crusade to Constantinople against Orthodox Greek Christians and encouraged those who had not yet taken vows to go on his proposed crusade to the Holy Land to campaign on behalf of the Latin Empire instead.3 The Latin Empire comprised a group of extensive territories under Latin Christian rule which had been created after the conquest of Constantinople by the Venetians and soldiers of the Fourth Crusade in April 1204.4 Although it could be argued that, since it was authorized against fellow Christians, this crusade to Constantinople was also a crusade against ‘internal’ enemies – as distinct from a crusade against ‘external’ Muslims and pagans – it is not analysed in this book for the simple reason that Gregory IX did not regard the Orthodox Greeks against whom the crusade to Constantinople was launched as heretics but rather as schismatics who had long ago broken away from the authority of Rome. Furthermore, the crusade to Constantinople was not launched within Christian Europe, the frontiers of which were an extension of, yet based upon, those of the Roman Patriarchate. Rather it was authorized to defend those Latin Christians who lived well outside medieval Europe’s geographical, religious and psychological boundaries.

x

P R E FAC E

Notes 1 I have used the term ‘holy war’ here in a very broad sense to describe a war which is believed by its participants to be a military undertaking ordered by God which will contribute to the working out of His plan for salvation. See Alexander Bronisch, Reconquista und heiliger Krieg: die Deutung des Krieges im Christlichen Spanien von den Vestgoten bis ins frühe 12. Jahrhundert (Munster, 1998), pp. 201–34, especially pp. 221–9. 2 For the indulgence, see, for example, Nikolaus Paulus, Geschichte des Ablasses im Mittelalter vom Ursprunge bis zur Mitte des 14. Jahrhunderts 1 (Paderborn, 1922), pp. 120–31; Jonathan Riley-Smith, What were the Crusades?, 3rd edn (Basingstoke, 2002), pp. 57–62; Michel Villey, La Croisade. Essai sur la formation d’une théorie juridique (Paris, 1942), pp. 141–51. For special privileges, see Villey, La Croisade: Essai sur la formation d’une théorie juridique, pp. 151–8; Riley-Smith, What were the Crusades?, pp. 55–7; James Brundage, Medieval Canon Law and the Crusader (Madison, WI, and London, 1969), pp. 159–90. 3 For an in-depth discussion of Gregory IX’s crusade to Constantinople, see Michael Lower, The Barons’ Crusade: A Call to Arms and its Consequences (Philadelphia, 2005), pp. 4–5, 58–73, 149–57. 4 Michael Angold, A Byzantine Government in Exile: Government and Society under the Laskarids of Nicaea (1204–1261) (Oxford, 1975), p. 9; Michael Angold, Church and Society in Byzantium under the Comneni, 1081–1261 (Cambridge, 1995), p. 505; Michael Angold, The Byzantine Empire 1025–1204: A Political History, 2nd edn (London and New York, 1997), pp. 316–28.

Acknowledgements

I should like to thank my former PhD supervisor Jonathan Riley-Smith for his guidance and encouragement while writing this book. I am also extremely grateful to Malcolm Barber, Brenda Bolton, Norman Housley, Lindy Grant, Martin Brett, Eamon Duffy, Patrick Zutshi, Barbara Bombi, Laura Napran and Baerbel Brodt, who made invaluable comments and suggestions about the manuscript at various stages of composition. I owe a debt of gratitude to colleagues at the University of Reading, in particular Anne Mathers-Lawrence, Elizabeth Matthew, Margaret Yates, Francoise le-Saux and Frank Tallett who have given so much support. I am indebted to Adrian Hawley and John Creagh for their words of wisdom, my former schoolteacher Mary Schofield for first introducing me to medievalia, and Sophie Bennett, Lucy Brown, Andrea Ruddick and Leonie Hicks for their friendship. Finally I thank my family for their love and care and my parents John and Anna Rist, to whom the work is dedicated.

This page intentionally left blank

Abbreviations

Auvray

Bullarium 1 Comp.

2 Comp.

3 Comp.

4 Comp.

5 Comp.

Constitutiones

Die Register Innocent III

Gratian

Historia Diplomatica

Gregory IX, Pope, Les Registres de Grégoire IX, ed. L. Auvray, 4 vols, Bibliothèque des écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome (2nd series) (Paris, 1890–1955). Bullarium ordinis praedicatorum, 8 vols, ed. T. Ripoll and A. Brémond (Rome, 1729–1740). ‘Compilatio prima’, Quinque compilationes antiquae, Corpus iuris canonici, ed. E. Friedberg (Leipzig, 1882), pp. 1–65. ‘Compilatio secunda’, Quinque compilationes antiquae, Corpus iuris canonici, ed. E. Friedberg (Leipzig, 1882), pp. 66–104. ‘Compilatio tertia’, Quinque compilationes antiquae, Corpus iuris canonici, ed. E. Friedberg (Leipzig, 1882), pp. 105–34. ‘Compilatio quarta’, Quinque compilationes antiquae, Corpus iuris canonici, ed. E. Friedberg (Leipzig, 1882), pp. 135–50. ‘Compilatio quinta’, Quinque compilationes antiquae, Corpus iuris canonici, ed. E. Friedberg (Leipzig, 1882), pp. 151–86. Constitutiones et acta publica imperatorum et regum, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Legum Sectio IV, ed. L. Weiland (Hannover, 1896). Innocent III, Pope, Die Register Innocenz III, Publikationen des Österreichischen Kulturinstituts in Rom, ed. O. Hageneder, H. Haidacher and A. Strnad, vols 1– (Graz, Vienna and Cologne, 1964–). Gratian, ‘Concordia discordantium canonum’, Corpus iuris canonici, ed. E. Friedberg, Vol. 1 (Leipzig, 1879). Historia diplomatica Friderici Secundi, ed. J. L. A. Huillard-Bréholles, 6 vols in 12 (Paris, 1852–61).

xiv Horoy Layettes Mansi

MGH MGHS MGHSS

PL Potthast Pressutti RHGF

RIS

Rodenberg

Tautu Theiner

X

A B B R E V I AT I O N S

Honorii III romani pontificis opera omnia quae extant, ed. C. A. Horoy, 5 vols (Paris, 1879–82). Layettes du trésor des chartes, ed. A. Teulet et al., 5 vols (Paris 1863–1909). Sacrorum concilium nova et amplissima collectio, ed. G. D. Mansi, 56 vols (Florence, Venice and Paris, 1759–98, 1901–27). Monumenta Germaniae historica (Berlin and Hannover, 1826–). Monumenta Germaniae historica. Scriptores, ed. G. H. Pertz (Hannover, 1859–74). Monumenta Germaniae historica. Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum ex monumentis Germaniae historicis separatim editi, ed. O. HolderEgger (Hannover, Leipzig, 1841–). Patrologia cursus completus, Series Latina, comp. J. P. Migne (Paris, 1841–64). Regesta pontificum Romanorum, ed. A. Potthast, 2 vols (Berlin, 1874). Honorius III, Pope, Regesta Honorii Papae III, ed. P. Pressutti, 2 vols (Rome, 1888–95). Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France, Vols 18 and 19, ed. Dom Bouquet (Paris, 1878–80). Rerum Italicarum scriptores: raccolta degli storici italiani dal cinquecento al millecinquento, ed. L. A. Muratori (Milan, 1723–51); in new edn, ed. G. Carducci (Città di Castello, 1900–). Epistolae selectae saeculi XIII e regestis pontificum Romanorum, Vols 1–3, ed. C. Rodenberg, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, ed. G. H. Pertz (Berlin, 1883–94). Acta Honorii et Gregorii IX, ed. A. L. Tautu (Vatican City, 1950). Vetera monumenta historica Hungariam sacram illustrantia, 2 vols, ed. A. Theiner (Rome, 1859–60). ‘Liber extra decretalium’, Corpus iuris canonici, ed. E. Friedberg, Vol. 2 (Leipzig, 1881), pp. 5–928.

This page intentionally left blank

For my parents

Introduction

Carl Erdmann, one of the founding fathers of the modern study of crusading history, wrote in his influential work The Origin of the Idea of Crusade, published in 1935: There is no truth to the common opinion that the idea of crusade against heretics was a corruption of the Palestinian Crusade. On the contrary, such a crusade against heretics was envisioned from the start.1

He argued that although from late antiquity the Church had endorsed wars against heretics – regarded as an ‘internal’ threat to Christian society – much earlier than it had accepted those against ‘external’ pagans and Muslims, in the eleventh century popes realized that the idea of a crusade against heretics could not engender popular support. Erdmann declared that: In the eleventh century, the idea of a papal crusade against heresy, directed against a Christian prince, could not set in motion the mass of knights, nor could it win the support of the clergy as a whole.

He suggested that in order to become ‘a motive force in history’ the idea of crusade had to be transformed by the papacy and given a new goal: the recovery of the Holy Land. Erdmann claimed that this transformation was successfully achieved by Urban II (1088–1099) when he preached the First Crusade at Clermont in 1095. Erdmann’s definition of a crusade was that of any holy war authorized by the papacy. This definition has not been accepted by a number of more recent crusade historians who have argued that, besides their authorization by the papacy, other criteria, in particular the taking of crusade vows and the grant by popes of a plenary indulgence, were an essential part of crusading.2 Indeed papal authorization, the grant of the plenary indulgence and the taking of crusade vows by participants are the three criteria used in this study to define crusades in the first half of the thirteenth century as a particular type of holy war. Yet Erdmann’s work was groundbreaking because it helped to establish the idea that crusades authorized by the papacy within Europe were different from, and yet

2

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

fundamentally related to, crusades to the Holy Land. This idea was also present in the writings of earlier twentieth-century crusade scholars, most notably Pissard, who discussed the origins and development of the so-called ‘political crusades’ which took place in the thirteenth century.3 Papal fears about the spread of the Cathar heresy in Europe; the ability of successive popes to wield temporal power in the papal states; an increasing number of calls by these same popes for military action against their political enemies with a view to maintaining temporal power: all these factors combined to encourage popes in the first half of the thirteenth century to use the idea of a crusade, already employed against Muslims in the East, to authorize wars against enemies within Europe. In the thirteenth century the papacy was perceived by Christians throughout Western Europe as the ultimate spiritual authority on earth and was at the height of its temporal jurisdiction. Besides exercising lordship over territories stretching across central Italy, the popes saw it as part of the duty of the papal office to intervene directly in the political activities of princes.4 Innocent III was actively involved in politics, writing letters such as ‘Novit ille’ and ‘Per venerabilem’ in which he used legal arguments to claim the right, as the ultimate spiritual authority in Christian Europe, and indeed in the whole world, to intervene in temporal disputes – most famously and significantly in cases involving any ‘matter of sin’ (‘ratione peccati’).5 Despite their very different characters, concerns and ambitions, his successors on the papal throne, Honorius III (1216–1227), Gregory IX (1227–1241) and Innocent IV (1243–1254) – the pontificate of Celestine IV (1241) was very short and it is therefore very difficult to ascertain what direction his political activities might have taken – also participated fully in temporal affairs and in particular became embroiled in a long-running dispute with the German emperor Frederick II. Their claims for the papacy’s ultimate authority to intervene in the disputes of princes encouraged popes to call for crusades against their political enemies. These ‘political crusades’, and also those crusades that popes authorized against heretics, were, as we shall see, united by certain common features. This study is therefore about the ‘idea’ of crusade – in other words what the popes believed they were doing when they called for people to take up arms against heretics and enemies of the papacy. It proposes that this subject requires a fresh approach – a detailed examination of papal letters concerned with these crusades which are a unique and invaluable source of evidence for understanding papal thought. Papal correspondence included both those general letters addressed to all the Christian faithful that popes expected would be read out by the clergy in churches throughout Europe and even used as guides by crusade preachers, and many other letters which were despatched from the curia to individuals, in particular to the rulers of Europe and to the clergy.

INTRODUCTION

3

CRUSADES AGAINST HERETICS The period 1198–1245 was crucial for the development of crusading because for the first time popes began to authorize and promote crusades against heretics.6 This was a significant decision, since they had previously concentrated their energies on authorizing crusades against Muslims in the Holy Land and Spain, and to a much lesser extent, against pagans in the Baltic. Why did popes turn their attention to authorizing military action against a new target and how did papal crusading policy change and develop to include these new crusades? Although papal authorization of crusades against heretics only began in the thirteenth century, heresy had long been a great concern of the Church. In the eleventh century, reforming popes had been extremely anxious about simony (the buying and selling of ecclesiastical office), to the extent that Simonists were often branded as heretics.7 From the late eleventh to mid-twelfth century the Church was worried about specific heresiarchs – men such as Henry of Lausanne, Peter of Bruys, Eon de l’Etoile and Arnold of Brescia who preached unorthodox theology and attracted followers.8 But in the late twelfth and early thirteenth century fear of heresy centred on the Cathars, and to a lesser extent the Waldensians.9 The Cathars, a group of heretics who in their most extreme form espoused dualist beliefs, began to establish themselves in western Europe by the middle of the twelfth century and by the end of that century were found in Flanders, Germany, Italy and France. The Waldensians, followers of a certain Peter Waldo (d 1216), impugned the validity of sacraments administered by unworthy priests and decried the veneration of saints and relics. They, too, spread to southern France, Spain, northern Italy and Germany. The Third Lateran Council (1179) had voiced the Church’s increasing preoccupation with the activities of these heretics in the south of France, while specifically papal concern about these and other heretical groups had been expressed in the decree ‘Ad abolendam’ (1184) of Lucius III (1181–1185).10 In The Formation of a Persecuting Society, Robert Moore argued that the overriding reason why these heretics and other minority groups began to be persecuted from the eleventh century onwards was that majority society, and in particular a literate and therefore elite social group, could assert and consolidate its own power by defining itself against the ‘Other’.11 Yet this interpretation failed to take into account the papacy’s genuine fear about the effect the spread of heresy in Europe in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries would have on Christianity. Although historians dispute the actual numbers of heretics in the south of France, their correspondence leaves us in no doubt that popes were greatly alarmed and horrified by what they saw, correctly or incorrectly, as a real threat to the orthodox teachings of Catholic Christianity in the West. Papal fears were echoed by a large number of the Western European clergy in their preaching

4

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

and by canon lawyers and theologians in their writings. Some of these men may indeed have worried that, if heretics complained about the oppressive hierarchy of the Church, their own authority would be questioned. But for many clergymen their greatest concern was that the truth of Christianity, which they believed the Church had safeguarded for centuries, would be undermined by heretical doctrines. Hence their endorsement of the constitutions of Lateran III (1179) and of Lateran IV (1215) about heresy and their support for the preaching missions of Bernard of Clairvaux and Henry of Marcy to the south of France.12 It was not therefore surprising that the papacy showed ambivalence and even uncertainty in its attitude towards heretical groups. At times it sought to limit any damage to Christianity by pursuing a policy of deliberately encouraging heretics to be incorporated into the Church, while at the same time condemning them if they continued to follow their own doctrines.13 In particular, the Cathar heresy, especially in its absolute dualist form, was seen as a significant threat to Catholicism, because it was so radically opposed to Christianity.14 It was worrying and frustrating for popes to see southern Frenchmen and Italians, illiterate and ignorant of basic Catholic theology, seduced by what they considered to be irrational and pernicious ideas and indoctrinated into deliberately and provocatively anti-Christian beliefs. While, in order to cope with this problem of heresy, both ecclesiastical and secular legislation against heretics continued to grow during the twelfth and early thirteenth century, Christian society was becoming increasingly accustomed to frequent papal calls for crusades against Muslims. Since Urban II had preached the First Crusade at Clermont in 1095, there had been continuous crusade activity to the East.15 Even if they or their family members had not been on crusade themselves, many western Christians had heard tales of the crusader states and the activities of the military orders in the East to protect places of pilgrimage and to ensure the survival of a western presence in the places of Christ’s life and Passion. When popes called for fresh forces of crusaders they always began their general letters by recounting the current, often disastrous, situation in the East. Gregory VIII (1187) painted an apocalyptic picture of the loss of Jerusalem to Saladin in his general letter ‘Audita tremendi’ (1187), hoping by his passionate language to stir up a desire to crusade.16 Popes knew that the faithful regarded the fate of the Holy Land as integral to their own Christian identity and that they therefore wished to be kept abreast of events, even those developing in distant lands. In striking contrast, the idea of popes authorizing crusades against heretics was unfamiliar to Christians. But Innocent III, the first pope to authorize such a crusade, was fascinated by heresy and wished to define, to a much greater extent than his predecessors, what it meant to be a heretic. His decretal ‘Vergentis in senium’ (1199), addressed in the first instance to the clergy and people of Viterbo,

INTRODUCTION

5

and written in response to the growing problem of heresy in Italy, contained the famous simile of the heretic committing treason against God as a vassal might commit treason against his master. Innocent was here attempting to make heresy more understandable to the Christian faithful by using an analogy which would strike a chord with those who heard the letter delivered in the churches of Viterbo.17 Innocent was not employing this simile cynically. He truly believed that heresy was an iniquitous crime, and treason against God. Indeed his obsession with heresy – echoed in contemporary conciliar legislation – was apparent in his constant use of metaphors and similes in his correspondence to describe heretics and his insistence that those who supported them should also be punished. He understood that heresy could not grow unless it had active backing. He therefore emphasized that supporters of heretics were as pernicious to Christian society as the culprits themselves. Following Innocent’s lead, subsequent popes also sought to inspire the Christian faithful to take part in crusades against heresy. Here the enemy was not the hated Muslim infidel, who had at different times impeded pilgrimage, upset the Byzantine Empire, caused havoc in the crusader states or retaken Jerusalem, but rather heretical groups living within Christian Europe. To call for crusades against heretics seemed an obvious progression to many Christians, both clergy and laymen, since they viewed heretical beliefs as perverted and believed that heretics and their supporters disrupted and damaged the spiritual and temporal framework of medieval society. Yet in the absence of a tradition of crusading against heretics it was difficult for the papacy to justify and explain these crusades to Christians as pilgrimages – as the papacy had done for crusades to the Holy Land from Urban II onwards.18 It was not therefore surprising that popes deliberately used the same language when calling for crusades against this new enemy as they had always done when calling for crusades to the East. They wanted to reassure the faithful of the similarity of both enterprises. These popes had been trained as clergymen to honour tradition, to emphasize continuity, and to ensure that papal policy evolved slowly and deliberately. Believing that the wisdom of the Holy Spirit was gradually revealed to the Church throughout the ages, they were therefore extremely careful to follow the language of their predecessors when calling for crusades against a new enemy. And since some of these popes were also trained lawyers, their pronouncements deliberately reflected their understanding of canon law and were steeped in that tradition. Rather like artisans working for a major artist in a workshop, notaries and scribes at the curia drafted papal letters with the deliberate aim of reflecting continuity, not only between different popes but between themselves as secretaries. Papal correspondence was a highly formulaic creation of the curia reflecting a standard style of composition developed over many centuries – which only increased the popes’ natural conservatism. Indeed papal letters were carefully divided into

6

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

different sections, the arrenga, narratio and dispositio, and each section employed typical formulae.19 The narratio frequently contained parts of the original letter of petition which had been sent to the curia, while in the arrenga and the dispositio the pope might set out his personal views, but always in accordance with accepted theological and legal statements on the subject. So when thirteenth-century popes called for crusades against heretics they were not seeking to redefine crusading. Papal authorization, the taking of vows and the grant of the plenary indulgence all remained central to their idea of what constituted a crusade. Rather, popes were aiming to convince Christians of the need for crusades against a new type of enemy. The necessity for the continual presence of the military orders in the Holy Land was testimony to the difficulty of persuading crusaders to remain in the East. Now popes also wanted to persuade Christians to fight against heretics in Europe. They needed to reassure Christians that they would gain the same spiritual privileges, and that their enterprise was no less worthy than that against the infidel. This idea of crusading armies fighting within Europe rather than in the East was new and unfamiliar. Admittedly there were ongoing crusades in Spain and the Baltic, but these were far away, on the frontiers of Europe and against traditional targets – Muslims and pagans. Both the clergy and the laity must have wondered whether crusades against neighbouring heretics could really be as important as defending the places of Christ’s Passion and Resurrection in the Holy Land and what would be the practical as well as spiritual benefits of taking part in such ventures. In order to convince the Christian faithful that taking part in crusades within Europe was indeed worthwhile, popes deliberately employed the same language as they used when authorizing crusades against Muslims in the East. They knew that if there was to be any hope of involving large crusader armies, they had to sell the enterprise to the Christian faithful. It was very difficult to sustain a crusade against heretics for any long period. Indeed, despite the southern French clergy’s best efforts and in particular the decree of papal legates in 1210 that crusaders must do a minimum of forty days’ service to earn the plenary indulgence, Simon de Montfort, appointed leader of the Albigensian Crusade, struggled to maintain a standing army in the south of France.20 Yet although the idea of crusading against heretics was new, the papacy’s involvement in holy wars against its enemies – whether perceived or actual – was not. The idea of the Church threatened by heresy had its foundations in the fifth-century writings of the Church fathers and in the letters of papal predecessors. Canon law collections, and in particular Gratian’s ‘Concordia discordantium canonum’ of circa 1140 which recorded papal letters, conciliar legislation and the pronouncements of the Church fathers, revealed a long history of holy violence against heretics and schismatics.21 In particular, the Church’s early declarations about just violence, including letters of St Augustine of Hippo (384–430) about

INTRODUCTION

7

the correct treatment of Donatist heretics in Christian society, were carefully recorded in Causa 23 and 24 of the Decretum, and were highly influential in forming twelfth- and thirteenth-century popes’ beliefs about the treatment of heretics and the justification of force.22 The Donatists had challenged the spiritual authority of clergy who had been apostates under the persecution of the emperor Diocletian (303–305). This had led them to the belief that the particular character of the clergyman, rather than his office as priest, gave validity to the celebration of the Sacraments – a view refuted by the majority of orthodox Catholics and for which the Donatists suffered persecution by the Roman authorities. The dualist beliefs of the Cathars which confronted Christian Europe in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries presented major similarities to these Donatist beliefs as recorded in Gratian’s Decretum – which meant the Church already had examples and precedents to follow. So, when authorizing crusades to counter heresy, popes borrowed ideas from their predecessors’ long experience of authorizing crusades against Muslims in the East, as well as drawing on a wealth of material from canon law collections which justified military action not only against infidels but also against heretics. It was not surprising that Innocent led the way in authorizing these crusades against heretics. He was acutely aware that secular power had failed to deal with the problem of heresy in the south of France. His natural dynamism meant that he threw himself wholeheartedly into every concern of the Church, whether this was pastoral reform, the growth of canon law, the development of bureaucratic institutions at the papal curia, disputes between temporal lords, or the foundation of new religious orders.23 His authorization of the Fourth and Fifth crusades, his encouragement of crusading in the Baltic, his widening of the scope of crusading by allowing for the redemption and commutation of vows, his permitting crusaders to take part in campaigns even without the permission of their wives: all testify to his favouring crusading as a way of dealing with the Church’s – and therefore in his eyes Christianity’s – enemies. His decision to use crusades against heretics was innovative but not surprising, considering both his fascination with crusading and his firm belief that it could be effective in harnessing secular support for the papacy’s causes. Innocent wished to use such crusades to combat heretics and their supporters in the south of France. But he also had further aims for these crusades. He wanted to reassert the papacy’s authority over crusading after the disastrous events of the Fourth Crusade where he had lost control and been unable to prevent the diversion of the crusade armies to Zara and Constantinople.24 He wished, too, to show that the Church was unified in its struggle against heresy – a serious threat against which he believed the papacy must harness the help of temporal powers. He also felt the urgent need to assert the authority of the papacy in the French south, and ensure that throughout France the clergy refused to tolerate

8

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

heresy in their dioceses and parishes. An early manifestation of this latter policy at the beginning of his pontificate was his depriving bishops and clergy of their office when he believed they were doing little to tackle heresy in their areas of jurisdiction. Innocent’s subsequent decision to favour crusading against heretics, as well as teaching and preaching, was not therefore a radical departure but rather a continuation of these aims. Indeed, although the death of his legate Peter of Castelnau in 1208 was a catalyst for his decision to call for a crusade, he had already tried several years previously to secure the military involvement of the king of France and promised spiritual privileges to those who would fight against heretics.25 According to the Church’s teaching, rooted in pronouncements of the Church fathers and in particular St Augustine, violence was not intrinsically wrong but morally neutral; the legitimacy of its use in a just cause depended on the intentions of the participants.26 Believing that he was acting with right intention for the good of the ‘societas Christiana’, Innocent therefore saw no reason not to call for military action against heretics in the south of France. Yet although Innocent had the theory to back him up, he did not give enough serious consideration to what a crusade against heretics would entail and he made serious misjudgements about the long-term consequences of the campaign. Crusading might be successful when properly organized against Muslims in the East, but it would prove much less so against heretics who were sheltered and supported by local communities. Although he had no previous experience on which to base his conclusion, Innocent believed, as did his successor, Honorius III, that crusading was the right way to tackle heresy in the south of France. Added to this, Innocent was not a good judge of character, as his trust in Otto of Brunswick, claimant to the imperial throne in the early years of his pontificate had testified – and this was to cause him yet more difficulties when dealing with the leaders of the Albigensian Crusade.27 Furthermore, Innocent was impatient for quick results – he wanted to see the fruits of his work against heresy during his own pontificate. Preaching and teaching were long-term projects, part of a wider mission to impart to illiterate and ignorant people in the south of France the theology and beliefs of the Christian faith and to convince them that they made more sense than dualism. The process was a slow one since many were suspicious of the Church’s attempts to expound Christianity, and disillusioned with its hierarchical structure and close connections to temporal authorities. The preaching mission sent by Innocent early in his pontificate did not fare well, because the Cistercians were much too associated with the ruling classes and elites of northern France.28 Complex theology about the nature of the Sacraments expounded by senior clergymen lacked the mass appeal of the Christian message exemplified by the life of Jesus. By contrast, Dominic Guzman and his followers, who with Innocent’s blessing

INTRODUCTION

9

took over from the Cistercians in preaching in the south of France, were seen by their simple lifestyles to be living the apostolic life in the true spirit of the New Testament – something much favoured in an age fascinated by the idea of the poverty of Christ and enthusiastic to return to a literal interpretation of the words of the Gospels. Yet, even so, Innocent still wanted quicker results against heresy in the south of France and he came to believe these would best be achieved by means of a crusade. Indeed, Innocent wished to control closely the course of the crusade that he authorized in the south of France, just as he later also wanted to control every aspect of the planning of the Fifth Crusade to the East. He was dissatisfied with episcopal inquisitions, previously the main method of dealing with heretics, and realized that even if bishops had the inclination, they did not have the time to launch enquiries into heresy in their dioceses – a dissatisfaction later echoed by Gregory IX. Indeed, although episcopal inquisitions continued on a small scale during his pontificate, Gregory himself encouraged much of the work of enquiring into heresy to be done not by local bishops but by Dominican and Franciscan inquisitors.29 But, unlike his predecessor, Gregory soon also realized that crusading was not proving a very effective tool against heretics in the south of France and recognized that it was just as likely to drive heretical movements underground and encourage resistance as to deal with the problem effectively. Of course Gregory had the benefit of hindsight, since by the time he was elected in 1227, crusading had continued sporadically in the south of France for almost 20 years. The crusade leader Simon de Montfort, and following his death his son Amalric, had encountered continuous difficulty in raising sufficient numbers of troops – testimony to a lack of widespread support for the crusade.30 Furthermore, a great number of ‘bona fide’ Christians were inevitably killed when a town supposed to contain heretics was ransacked or burnt. Although some clergymen were more concerned about the fate of orthodox Christians than others – if Cesarius of Heisterbach is to be believed, the matter was of little concern to the papal legate Arnald Amalric – it is likely that the popes realized that such killings alienated the support of some Frenchmen.31 So Gregory and his papal successors turned to inquisition instead as a more effective method of dealing with heresy in the south of France.32 They understood the importance of encouraging local support against heretics and the need to set up inquisitorial procedures which would invite informers. Yet although Gregory increasingly favoured inquisitorial procedures in the south of France over crusades, he nevertheless granted indulgences for military campaigns against supposed heretics in other parts of Europe.33 His letters authorizing these ventures granted different grades of spiritual rewards for different campaigns. In several instances he eventually granted the plenary indulgence

10

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

for those who made a vow to crusade, just as he did for crusading to the East. As we shall see, he considered there to be a hierarchy with regard to military campaigns in terms of spiritual merit and that the highest form of military campaign that a pope could authorize was a crusade. Just as popes had their own agendas for authorizing these crusades against heretics, so the local clergy often had their own political as well as religious reasons for supporting them. Furthermore, the crusades were orchestrated to a great extent by local magnates embroiled in local politics; they appealed to the pope, often via the clergy, to validate their military action. Since the higher clergy and magnates often came from the same families and interrelated networks, they often shared common ‘political’ as well as ‘religious’ goals. And at times the clergy came under immense pressure to seek papal authorization for crusades against heresy.34 Yet these influences and pressures did not lessen the fact that, like the popes in Rome, the clergy, in particular the bishops, were themselves extremely worried about heretics in their dioceses. Papal authorization of crusades in the south of France encouraged the clergy to support military action against those perceived as the Church’s enemies. Perturbed by heresies in their local area – whether in Germany, Italy or Bosnia – the clergy were often heartened by the idea that they might persuade popes to authorize a crusade against particular heretical groups. And they were pleased that the laity was encouraged to join in the Church’s struggle to eradicate heretics by the papacy’s grant of spiritual privileges and in particular the crusade indulgence. So the interaction between the clergy and the papacy in its authorization of crusades was extremely complex. It is very difficult to determine from papal correspondence alone whether those accused of heresy, for example in Bosnia, were in fact heretics or merely ignorant Catholics.35 Indeed, the clergy were deeply disturbed not only by heretics who espoused dualistic beliefs but by the great ignorance of correct Catholic teaching which they found in their areas of jurisdiction. Certainly in the case of Bosnia, prelates may have considered ignorance of orthodox Catholic beliefs as much a threat to Christian society as dualism. It is therefore possible that when the clergy wrote letters to the papal curia in Rome they deliberately encouraged popes to think that ignorant Catholics were heretics in order to encourage them to authorize crusades. Certainly popes continued throughout the thirteenth century to grant the plenary indulgence for crusades within Europe and to state categorically that it was the same indulgence as granted for those to the Holy Land. This reflected their desire to emphasize that these crusades were not only holy but also meritorious – in other words, enterprises which would actually contribute to the salvation of their participants. Since it remained the standard by which all other crusades were judged, they continually referred to the Holy Land in the formulation of the

INTRODUCTION

11

plenary indulgence. Papal letters always described the plenary indulgence as the same as that which was granted for the Holy Land. By contrast, popes never stated that the plenary indulgence for a crusade against heretics was the same as that which was granted for a crusade in Spain or in the Baltic, although they granted the plenary indulgence for crusades in both these theatres of war. In other words, it was the example of the Holy Land crusade, rather than crusading in Spain or the Baltic, which popes continuously used to compare the different crusades and to reassure the Christian faithful of the holiness of their cause. Such a policy of deliberately invoking the Holy Land showed not only the importance that popes gave to it and their determination that it should remain at the fore, but also that they had understood what the Christian faithful wished either to read in their letters or hear preached. Popes were careful to emphasize the needs of the Holy Land even when they wished to prioritize other crusades. Indeed, as we shall see, although at the beginning of his pontificate Honorius III wished to promote the Albigensian Crusade and to refocus energies there, he was nevertheless careful to maintain his predecessor’s insistence that the Holy Land should not be forgotten and that nothing must jeopardize crusading in the East.36 It was also important for the popes to distinguish between a hierarchy of spiritual merit and a hierarchy of importance for crusading. Although the Holy Land crusade was the standard by which popes judged other crusades, they did not think that crusades to the East were of greater spiritual worth. By bestowing the same plenary indulgence for crusades against heretics as was bestowed for crusades against Muslims in the Holy Land, they emphasized that they were granting the same full remission of the temporal punishment owed for sin. Thus in theory the person who died crusading against heretics would go straight to heaven rather than spend time in purgatory, just like his counterpart crusading in the East. In terms of spiritual worth, the rewards were the same. Yet although popes made clear that there was no hierarchy of spiritual rewards, they certainly believed in the importance of prioritizing different crusades at different times. Sometimes popes wished the energies of Christian Europe to be focused on the Albigensian Crusade, sometimes on Spain, sometimes on the Baltic, sometimes on crusades against political enemies. They emphasized these priorities in their correspondence. Nevertheless, despite this ‘pluralism’ of approach, popes continued to remind the faithful of the need for the crusade to the Holy Land. As we shall discuss, Innocent III would even claim in a letter of 1213 to the dean of Speyer that the Holy Land crusade was of more merit than a crusade against heretics in the south of France.37 This has worried historians since it seems to contradict the fact that during his pontificate Innocent promised the same plenary indulgence for a number of different crusades, not just those to the East. In 1213, however,

12

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

he wanted to emphasize to the dean that the papacy’s priority was now the Holy Land crusade. He may also have wished to confirm that there was something particularly special about taking part in crusades to the East, an idea to which we shall return.

THE ‘POLITICAL CRUSADES’ When calling for crusades against heretics, popes feared that the spread and dominance of heresy in certain parts of Europe might undermine the Catholic faith. By contrast, when authorizing crusades against their political enemies, papal anxiety was focused on the survival and growth of the papal states, since these territories helped to protect the autonomy of the papacy and therefore allowed it to exploit what it believed to be its unique position as the spiritual leader of Christian society.38 It is still a matter of contention at what period the term ‘papal states’ may be used to describe those areas where the pope was traditionally overlord, but certainly by the beginning of the thirteenth century popes were great feudatories in central Italy.39 It is not surprising that popes sought to ensure the consolidation of these territories. In the eleventh and twelfth century Rome had often proved factious, and faction fighting among the Roman aristocracy meant popes often felt the need to escape to the surrounding countryside and to seek protection elsewhere. Long ago popes had realized that to ensure the papacy’s survival they needed a power-base in central Italy and champions of their cause. Indeed, in the eleventh century Nicholas II (1058–1061) had recognized that the Normans had come to stay in southern Italy and had deliberately sought them out as protectors of the papacy.40 The papal states, therefore, allowed popes to assert themselves as temporal lords in their own right, with all that entailed in terms of revenues and land. And by increasing the prestige of the papacy, the territories also increased popes’ bargaining power with temporal princes and magnates, who respected them as powerful lords as well as spiritual leaders. In an age where military strength was decisive, it was crucial for the papacy that popes be honoured like any other feudal lords and that they be seen by their enemies as able to harness military support from vassals and adherents who would fight on their behalf. In this sense the thirteenth-century papacy was not very different from the reform papacy of the eleventh century, which had relied on benevolent benefactors such as Mathilda of Tuscany for financial and, even more importantly, military support.41 Yet in calling for crusades specifically against political opponents who threatened the papal states, thirteenth-century popes were doing something new. Just as with the crusades against heretics, these popes needed to convince the

INTRODUCTION

13

Christian faithful of the legitimacy of authorizing a crusade against enemies close at hand rather than Muslims in the East. They realized that to encourage the faithful to take part in campaigns in Italy it was important to suggest that such opponents were as threatening as more traditional targets of crusades. And since they wished to stress continuity with their predecessors and to move cautiously, popes deliberately used the same language and expressions to describe crusades against political enemies as they used about crusades to the Holy Land. By deliberately referring to their enemies as heretics and worse than infidels, they emphasized continuity both with crusades to counter heresy and crusading to the East. They therefore described political enemies in their correspondence as being as dangerous as Saracens.42 Or they claimed that they were impeding help reaching the East, and thus, like the Muslims, intent on damaging the cause of the Holy Land.43 They stressed that political enemies were as important an enemy for Christians as the infidel: although they did not attack the places of Christ’s life and Passion, they were equally pernicious because intent on injuring the papacy and therefore the Church itself. Gregory IX and Innocent IV, as well as their supporters, frequently referred to Frederick II of Hohenstaufen as a heretic.44 Popes were well aware of what resonated with the Christian faithful and that Frederick was an easy target. He might co-operate with the Church in pursuing heretics, but he was nevertheless the subject of wild rumours about his intellectual interests and religious beliefs.45 It was felt by many that somehow he was not a true Christian emperor in keeping with his age. As we shall see, delaying the time of his departure on crusade in the 1220s only added to the doubts surrounding him, and Gregory IX used this to his advantage. So references to the Holy Land and the Muslim threat were a convenient way of harnessing military support for crusades against political enemies. Since both were part of God’s plan for salvation, popes saw no contradiction between helping the Holy Land and helping the papacy. The need to protect the papacy, the protector of the Church and therefore of Christianity itself, was as strong a reason to crusade, they believed, as the need to protect Christians from the infidel. Popes claimed that political enemies were directly impeding help for the Holy Land through their military presence in central and southern Italy. They also believed that political enemies were impeding it indirectly, since by seeking to encroach on papal territory they were undermining the power and authority of the pope, one of whose duties was to call for crusades. Popes feared Markward of Anweiler and Frederick II might damage the papacy’s territorial power base which buttressed their claim to ultimate spiritual authority in the ‘societas Christiana’. They were encouraged in this fear by many clergy who wished to see the papacy triumph over the empire. Indeed, even those clergy who traditionally supported the emperor in imperial–papal disputes and who pointed to the corruption and

14

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

bureaucracy of the curia nevertheless believed that since the papacy was the ultimate spiritual leader of the ‘societas Christiana’, the popes, as successors of St Peter, deserved a home in central Italy. When calling for crusades against political enemies, popes invoked the Theory of the Two Swords – a theory of the relation between spiritual and temporal power which had been propounded by Pope Gelasius I in the fifth century and expanded upon much more recently in the twelfth by, among others, Bernard of Clairvaux. According to Bernard’s interpretation of the Gelasian decree, the temporal sword was to be wielded for the good of the Church: Both swords, that is, the spiritual and the material, belong to the Church, however, the latter is to be drawn for the Church and the former by the Church. The spiritual sword should be drawn by the hand of the priest; the material sword by the hand of the knight, but clearly at the bidding of the priest and at the command of the emperor.46

Papal supporters claimed that when the pope had crowned Charlemagne in 800 this symbolized that Charlemagne was the new Constantine, anointed to protect and extend the faith under the guidance of St Peter – in other words under papal guidance – and that he and the Carolingian line would protect the Church ever after.47 Hence popes who called for crusades against their political enemies argued that these temporal lords should have used their military might not to invade or destabilize the papal states but to protect the papacy. They should have wielded the temporal sword on behalf of the Church as part of God’s plan that it flourish and so bear witness to the truth of Christianity. Popes acted in accordance with this idea when they authorized crusades against their political enemies. Certainly Innocent III called for a crusade against Markward because he believed that he posed a threat to the papal states. In his eyes Markward was worse than a Muslim because his military actions threatened the growth of areas of papal influence in central and southern Italy. And Gregory IX and Innocent IV, acting out of fear of Frederick II’s Italian policies, as much as out of a love for power, justified calling for a crusade against him by branding him a heretic. Popes worried, rightly or wrongly, that a strong German emperor must threaten the security of the papal states. The relationship between popes and German emperors had had a long and troubled history. During the late ninth and tenth centuries the papacy had been under the thumb of the great Roman families and its reputation had only eventually been rescued by the Ottonian emperors.48 But in the eleventh century reforming popes had tried to free themselves from the power not only of the Roman aristocracy but also the German empire.49 And in the twelfth, Alexander III had been constantly embroiled in disputes with Frederick I Barbarossa.50 This history of conflict only added to Innocent III’s mistrust of the German emperors and in particular the Hohenstaufen.

INTRODUCTION

15

It is easy to be cynical about such papal authorization of crusades to protect the papal states and the popes’ wish to remain a political as well as spiritual force in Christian Europe. But popes knew that if they were to exercise spiritual authority effectively in Europe they would at times need military help to secure their power base, and they saw nothing strange about harnessing that help by calling for a crusade. The power to authorize crusades, like the spiritual powers of interdict, excommunication and anathema, was vital to the papacy. By using these penalties of interdict, excommunication and anathema, popes kept a check on the ambitions of temporal lords when their interests did not favour the papacy or clashed with what they believed was for the good of the Church. Such penalties were taken seriously because the economic, social and political disadvantages which inevitably followed, deprived lords of the allegiance of their vassals and the backing of the clergy. They were also feared because they showed lords to be out of communion not only with the Church but with the papacy itself. However much men might criticise individual popes, papal taxation, or the bureaucracy of the papal chancery, nevertheless Christians in western Europe believed they owed some degree of loyalty to the papacy as their ultimate spiritual guide. Just like these spiritual penalties, crusading was yet another weapon in the papal armoury, since by calling for crusades popes could ensure that temporal lords were harnessed to the papacy’s service. Indeed, the popes were seen to be leading and inspiring the Christian faithful in a tangible and active way. The authority to call for crusades gained them respect in Christian Europe. Although some groups, such as certain troubadours in the south of France, claimed that the Holy Land crusade was being perverted by the use of crusade against heretics and political enemies, others saw it as a sign of the papacy’s strength.51 So much so that when Gregory IX authorized a crusade against Frederick II, the emperor was immensely troubled about the criticism he would receive.52 So, although popes undoubtedly authorized political crusades in order to increase their power in central and southern Italy and for temporal as well as spiritual advantages, this was no mere excuse to increase papal power. Of course different popes acted differently for more or less ‘holy’ or ‘pure’ reasons, but their actions were part of a theory about the role of the papacy in relation to temporal lords in Christian Europe and a belief that the military energies of these lords should be harnessed to support, not damage the Church. If lay rulers failed to support them, popes believed that it was not only the right but the duty of the papacy on behalf of the Christian faith to penalize them, whether this involved interdict, excommunication, anathema or calling for crusades. From the second half of the thirteenth century onwards the ‘political crusade’ would become an increasingly important weapon for popes.53 Indeed, some historians have argued that ‘political crusades’ would then become more important for the papacy than crusading to the Holy Land.

16

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

PAPAL CORRESPONDENCE AS EVIDENCE FOR POLICY Although the papacy was at the height of its temporal and political power in the thirteenth century, there is surprisingly little evidence for the workings of the papal chancery at this period. It seems, however, that during Innocent III’s pontificate a number of important reforms were made to improve the smooth running of the chancery.54 Papal letters were composed at the chancery which was presided over by the chancellor or vice-chancellor.55 Different types of letter were despatched from the curia: letters of protection, indults in response to petitions, replies to enquiries on points of law, mandates and correspondence concerning political and social problems.56 These letters can be divided into two groups. The first were ‘common letters’ issued in response to written petitions submitted to and approved by the curia. The second were ‘curial letters’ concerning matters to which the pope or his administration attached particular weight and which in some cases were issued on the pope’s own initiative.57 How often letters were read out to the pope himself before being dispatched remains a matter of great debate amongst historians.58 Certainly the art of letter-writing (ars dictaminis) was increasingly important for twelfth- and thirteenth-century medieval scribes.59 A scientific discipline which had originated in Italy, the ars dictaminis had already influenced the papal chancery by around 1100.60 During the twelfth century the chancery had evolved its own style of rhythmical prose, the cursus curiae Romanae.61 Albert of Morra, later Pope Gregory VIII (1187), is often credited with having put into writing certain rules for the composition of papal letters already being followed by the curia. Yet recent scholarship points to various formal statements of the rules being in circulation long before Albert is supposed to have written them down.62 In the thirteenth century ‘common letters’ had to be framed in accordance with this stilus curiae Romanae.63 Thomas of Capua, a hugely influential writer composing during Honorius III’s pontificate and at the beginning of Gregory IX’s, was the author of an Ars dictandi, a manual destined for the use of papal notaries and scribes.64 There were probably two major stages in the composition of those papal letters at the curia which were issued in response to petitions. The first was the drafting of a petition which was then presented to the pope. In other words, the original letter of the petitioner had itself to be redrafted at the curia as a formal petition, although there were exceptions to the rule – for example, a bishop might write to the pope on a point of law and one would not expect such a letter to be then recast as a petition. The second stage was when the actual papal letter was drafted on the basis of this petition and possibly read once more before the pope. The drafting of papal letters (the composition of the texts) was primarily the work of notaries65 – senior officials of the curia and confidential secretaries of

INTRODUCTION

17

the chancery, especially skilled in drawing up acts, in applying the rules of the cursus, in the composition of letters and in the collection of forms.66 Scribes were then responsible for engrossing the letters (copying out the texts) and received a fee from the petitioners for this, although they might also be rewarded for their services with a benefice or a canonry.67 Others involved in the production were the correctors, selected from among the scribes, whose duty was to see the correction of engrossments, to examine the language, to check for scribal errors, and if necessary to return the document to the original scribe for further attention. The bullatores’ job was to seal the letter once finished and to ensure that the proper tax was exacted for the document – to pay for the cost of the parchment, the lead, the silk and the hemp. 68 It seems that in the thirteenth century it was up to the vice-chancellor to revise the content of papal letters. He could do this either when the petition was drafted to be presented to the pope or when the fair copy of the letter was written. Letters despatched from the curia were therefore the result of careful planning, execution and literary skill on the part of a whole host of professional officials. The employment of these notaries, scribes, correctors and bullatores at the curia, the working conditions under which papal letters were composed and the particular political circumstances for which they were written, are all important considerations when assessing popes’ letters as evidence for papal policy. But the employment of the different officials means there is little means of judging whether a particular letter was drafted under a pope’s personal supervision, or whether the notaries were left a free hand to write using appropriate language and expressions. Furthermore, to what extent did the original petition become part of the papal letter? Did the pope accept petitions presented to the curia as they stood or did he model these petitions to suit his own policies? It is also difficult to assess how long a letter took to arrive at its destination once it had been despatched from Rome. And just as important as when it actually arrived, is when curial officials judged, rightly or wrongly, that the letter would reach its recipients. So to what extent and at what point in their creation the popes of the first half of the thirteenth century were personally involved in the production of their correspondence, whether they themselves actually composed the text of their letters or at least parts of them, and, if they did, then how many, remain complex questions of ongoing scholarly debate.69 Yet, although it is not possible to be entirely sure in what proportion pope, vice-chancellor and notaries composed the most important letters, it seems likely that the pope himself dictated some of them. So it is probable that the essence of the letter, even if not every word, came from the pope himself. There is, therefore, definite evidence of their own ‘voice’ in many of the papal letters. Indeed, a significant number have a highly personal flavour.70 Letters

18

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

of Innocent III show stylistic similarities with the theological works he wrote before becoming pope.71 And Patrick Zutshi has recently pointed to the active involvement of Honorius III and Clement IV (1265–1268) in the composition of certain letters at the curia.72 Indeed, one letter of 1267, which shows evidence of personal composition by Clement IV himself, is concerned with the triennial tenth which he conceded to Louis IX of France for his crusade to the East.73 Particularly elegant letters of Gregory IX and Innocent IV to the emperor Frederick II, justifying and propagating the temporal and spiritual power of the papacy, may also indicate papal involvement in their composition.74 Letters of Innocent IV, one of the greatest medieval canon lawyers, reflected his own judicial mentality as well as the influence of his new vice-chancellor Marino Filomarino di Eboli.75 Popes also probably took advice about the content of their correspondence from the cardinals. Indeed the phrase ‘from the advice of our brothers (‘de fratrum nostrorum consilio’), found in a number of letters, suggests that these letters resulted from decisions made in consultation with the cardinals in Consistory – as in the case of letters concerned with provisions for higher benefices or confirming elections.76 So although a lack of evidence means it is very difficult to construct exactly how notaries were employed at the papal chancery, how exactly letters to the Christian faithful were composed, plus the contribution of individual popes to the writing process, nevertheless, the popes’ own views, interests and ambitions can often be discerned in their correspondence. It seems likely that the pope would have been present at some point during the composition of general letters sent to the Christian faithful calling for crusades, even if he was not personally involved in the production of all letters to individual rulers and clergymen. Of course some letters are more informative about the individual policies of popes than others, particularly those less formulaic examples which not merely repeated stock phrases and sentiments but contained new and original material. Different popes favoured different scriptural passages and used different images to express themselves. Although the notaries involved in the production of the letters may also have inserted their own favourite biblical passages and metaphors, they could not have employed them without their master’s consent. Certainly papal letters display great continuity. Similar metaphors were employed by all the popes of the first half of the thirteenth century to describe heresy, for example as a disease. Yet there were subtle differences in the way these were employed. Innocent III elaborated on the standard metaphors, using them much more creatively than his successor, Honorius III. Although highly formalized, we can therefore glean much from their letters not only about the political and religious issues at stake during the period of their pontificates but about the ideas and characters of the popes themselves. Indeed, such subtle differences in language enable the historian to build up a

INTRODUCTION

19

much more complete picture of the characters and views of the popes than we get from chronicle and biographical accounts. Letters of Honorius III concerned with the establishment of the Dominican Order to preach and teach against heresy in the south of France illustrate that the papacy and the Dominicans had very similar aims during the first decade of the order’s existence.77 And, as we shall see, Honorius’s letters show him to be much more interested in the crusade against heretics in the south of France than the writings of contemporary chroniclers and biographers would suggest, such writers emphasized almost exclusively, in comparison to their depiction of his predecessor, Innocent III, and his successor, Gregory IX, his reputation as a man of peace: a picture endorsed by evidence that he was a bureaucrat at the papal curia and a meticulous compiler of the Liber censuum Romanae Ecclesiae.78 Yet although Honorius’s letters show he was cautious and keen to emphasize the importance of crusading to the Holy Land, they also show his commitment – possibly influenced by Cardinal Ugolino, later Gregory IX – to the crusade against heresy in the south of France, and that he pursued a much more complex policy there than might at first appear. Honorius’s case reinforces the obvious point that popes were individuals with their own aims and agendas. But the papacy was also an institution and popes were conservative creatures who deliberately sought to maintain that institution and to show continuity with their predecessors – in keeping with their belief that they were part of the great apostolic tradition. And of course the authorization and encouragement of crusading was only one of many concerns of thirteenth-century popes and their advisers and notaries at the curia. Letters concerned with crusades differed greatly in style. Some were extremely formulaic, drawing heavily on a well-established genre of ecclesiastical writing and expressing their message in conventional terms. Others were highly rhetorical, employing metaphors, similes and biblical quotations to express the popes’ belief that the launching of crusades was a moral obligation of the papacy.

THE ELEVENTH- AND TWELFTH-CENTURY BACKGROUND The papacy’s idea of launching crusades against enemies within Europe in the first half of the thirteenth century was based on much earlier foundations. Long before thirteenth-century popes called for ‘internal’ crusades, the papacy had sanctioned and even authorized wars against those deemed enemies of the Church, promising spiritual benefits for those who fought on its behalf. In the eleventh century a number of popes issued letters to the Christian faithful of Europe encouraging them to defend themselves against those believed

20

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

to be seeking to weaken the authority of the Church. In 1016 Benedict VIII (1012–1204) granted ‘the favour of apostolic blessing and absolution’ (‘apostolicae benedictionis et absolutionis munus’) for all those who worked as ‘the assistants and protectors’ (‘adjutores et defensores’) of the monastery of Cluny.79 Also in the eleventh century, popes began to encourage faithful Christians to take up arms against enemies of the papacy itself. One way of doing this was by granting absolution to soldiers on the eve of battle, usually after confession, thereby saving the penitent sinner from hell. In 1053 Leo IX recruited a band of German soldiers and led an army against Norman counts in southern Italy who threatened to invade papal territories.80 According to several contemporary sources, at the battle of Civitate the Pope not only absolved the soldiers of their sins but regarded those who died protecting the papacy as Christian martyrs.81 And Leo fulminated against his enemies in a letter to the Greek emperor Constantine IX Monomachus (1042–1055). He claimed that the Normans, more impious than pagans, had destroyed churches in southern Italy, and he declared that it was his aim to liberate Christians, whom he likened to Christ’s sheep, from Norman oppression.82 Again, this strongly suggests that Leo regarded the Civitate campaign against the Normans as a holy enterprise. Leo IX’s late-eleventh century successors continued to issue letters concerned with the Church’s enemies. Indeed, some of them seem to have viewed certain military campaigns of which they approved as meritorious activities which would contribute to the salvation of their participants.83 On several occasions Gregory VII (1073–1085) granted spiritual rewards for those who fought against his enemies. Most strikingly, following the Lenten Synod held in March 1080 and just before he excommunicated the emperor Henry IV for a second time, Gregory, invoking Sts Peter and Paul, granted absolution of all their sins (‘. . . absolutionem omnium peccatorum’) to all those who supported Rudolf of Swabia’s claims to the imperial throne. Gregory’s letter clearly stated: But in order that Rudolf, whom the Germans have chosen as their king in loyalty to you, may rule over and defend the German kingdom, I grant, allow and concede in your names, to all who faithfully support him, absolution of all sins, and relying on your assurance, I grant your blessing in this life and in the next.84

Then, according to the Life of Saint Anselm of Lucca composed by Archbishop Bardo of Mainz, in March 1085 Gregory exhorted his supporters to defend the lands of one of his greatest admirers, Countess Mathilda of Tuscany. In return, Bardo claimed that they were promised remission of their sins (‘in remissionem omnium peccatorum’) by the authority of St Anselm and the Pope:

INTRODUCTION

21

Our men were very much encouraged because our lord and bishop, Saint Anselm, sent them his blessing through our humble selves, instructing us especially in his orders, that if any had dealings with the excommunicate, we should first absolve them, and then bless them all together by his authority and that of the pope. We were to tell them for what reason and with what intention they should fight, and to lay the danger of the forthcoming battle on them for the remission of all their sins.85

This description suggests that Gregory viewed the defence of the countess’s lands as a positively meritorious activity.86 The phrase ‘for the remission of sins’ (‘in remissionem peccatorum’) was a general phrase which occurred more and more frequently in the eleventh century in many different contexts. It was intended to persuade individuals and groups to do something meritorious which would contribute to their salvation by assuring them that after death their suffering would be reduced and even in some cases cancelled altogether.87 Pope Alexander II (1061–1073) used the phrase in a letter concerned with the Barbastro expedition against Muslims in Spain in 1063 – although some recent historians have argued here that the Pope was addressing not military campaigners but pilgrims.88 Pisans campaigning at Mahdia in 1087 seem also to have been granted ‘the remission of their sins’ by Pope Victor II (c. 1018–1057), in return for fighting against Muslims in North Africa.89 Meanwhile, some of Leo IX’s successors were calling for crusades against Muslims in the East. First and perhaps most famously of all, according to the twelfth-century Historia peregrinorum, in 1095 Urban II (1088–1099) granted at the Council of Clermont that all those crusaders who made the journey to the East to win back Jerusalem from the infidel would acquire ‘remission of all their sins’ (‘omnium remissionem peccatorum’).90 Canon 2 of the Council decreed that whoever solely out of devotion and not for honour or to gain money, set out on the journey to Jerusalem, would be granted a reckoning of all his penances (‘iter illud pro omni poenitentia ei reputabitur’).91 Doing penance meant performing works of satisfaction which a priest would recommend to or even impose on the person who had confessed and been absolved of his or her sins. Many recent historians have discussed what Urban II’s grant must have meant in the context of the First Crusade and how it would have been interpreted by his successors who continued to call for aid to the Holy Land. It seems that for the journey to Jerusalem, Urban was not granting an indulgence which would have assumed that God would be repaid the debts of punishment which were owed on account of combatants’ recent sins, for which penance had not yet been performed, as well as any residue left over from earlier but insufficient penance.92 Such a spiritual privilege was only developed much later. It was during the pontificate of Innocent III that the Church would claim that, acting by virtue of the authority given it by Christ through St Peter, it could grant remission of

22

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

the temporal punishment owed for sin by drawing on a storehouse of merit which had been earned by the sacrifice which Christ had made for mankind on the Cross and also by the prayers and good works of the Virgin Mary and the saints in heaven. Rather, in 1095 Urban II enjoined on Christians a holy war of such intensity as to impose a penance so severe as to be entirely ‘satisfactory’, counterbalancing all previous sin and making good any previous unsatisfactory penance.93 So he was proposing that the First Crusade should be regarded as the most severe and meritorious form of penance imaginable. Indeed by the end of the eleventh century not just popes but also archbishops were beginning to promise definite spiritual rewards in return for military action on behalf of the Church. It is possible that as early as 1038 Archbishop Aimo of Bourges granted absolution to combatants who fought to enforce peace in the town.94 A few years before the Council of Clermont of 1095, Archbishop Rainald I of Reims granted absolution for those who helped to keep the peace in his province.95 In two letters of 1094 and 1095, Pope Urban II urged Count Robert of Flanders to help the newly-appointed bishop of Arras in France to regain lost Church possessions after a hotly disputed election ‘for the remission of your sins’ (‘in peccatorum tuorum remissionem’ and ‘pro vestrorum peccatorum remisione’).96 The same Archbishop Rainald I of Reims wrote a letter informing the clergy, nobility and people of Cambrai that since the lawful bishop could not, for the moment, be consecrated, episcopal authority was to be temporarily vested in the bishop of Arras. In this letter he summoned the people of Cambrai to fight against those he deemed schismatics and simoniacs for the remission of their sins: This however I urge on you most strongly for the remission of your sins. Bear in mind, my sons, that it is for this reason that you bear the sword. Consider, most dear ones, that this is the path to the celestial Jerusalem.97

Here the same phrase ‘for the remission of their sins’ (‘in remissionem peccatorum vestrorum’) was again used to persuade individuals to participate in a meritorious campaign. Twelfth-century popes also continued their predecessors’ calls on Christians to fight on behalf of the Church against enemies of the papacy and to promise spiritual rewards for their endeavours. The Benedictine historian Sigebert of Gembloux (circa 1035–1112), who wrote three treatises on the ongoing struggle between empire and papacy in the twelfth century, recorded a letter of 1103 in which Paschal II (1099–1118) appealed to Count Robert of Flanders to send soldiers against the people of Liège for the remission of their sins (‘in peccatorum remissionem’):

INTRODUCTION

23

We urge this on you and your knights for the remission of your sins and the special friendship of the Apostolic See, so that by these exertions and triumphs, with the Lord’s help, you may arrive at the heavenly Jerusalem.98

In the following year Paschal also urged his supporters in Bavaria and Swabia to take up arms ‘for the remission of their sins’ (‘in remissionem peccatorum’) against supporters of the emperor Henry IV whom he described as heretics. And in an undated letter to the knights of San Gimignano, Paschal wrote that he would absolve them from all sins (‘ab omnibus peccatis absolvat’) in exchange for undertaking military service against the emperor.99 Perhaps encouraged by the papacy’s success at Clermont in 1095 in launching the First Crusade, twelfth-century popes also began in particular to issue the promise of remission of sins for fighting on behalf of the Church to those who supported the papacy’s temporal and political claims to territories in central Italy. According to the twelfth-century Norman historian Falco of Benevento, Honorius II (1124–1130) rallied the Normans of Apulia at Capua in 1127 to take up arms against Count Roger I of Sicily, whose armies were threatening the papal territories, by detailing the wrongs done to St Peter. The Pope then: immediately granted them the following reward by divine authority and the merits of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the holy Apostles: that is to say, to those who undertook penance for their sins, and who died in the course of the campaign, he remitted all their sins; to those who survived, and confessed their sins, he remitted half.100

So here, according to Falco, the Pope deliberately made a distinction in the spiritual privilege granted between those who took part in the campaign and those who died while campaigning on behalf of the papacy. Then in 1130, at the beginning of the pontificate of Honorius II’s successor, Innocent II (1130–1143), the antipope Anacletus II was elected by a majority of cardinals and took charge of Rome.101 There are two recorded examples of spiritual rewards offered to those who fought against Anacletus.102 In a letter of 1132 the bishop of Sant’ Agata dei Goti brought news of the battle of Nocera to Innocent’s supporters in Rome. The bishop recounted that, when Count Roger II of Sicily attacked the papal army on a Sunday and forced it to fight, he himself had absolved the army from their sins (‘nos a peccatis . . . absolvimus’): We indeed . . . spoke publicly and in private with our men . . . imposing on them as penance that they should defend themselves for the honour of St Peter and in protection of the lands of the Roman Church, and that they should fight not for their own revenge or for money or booty, but in defence of the Church and of their shared freedom. In this way we absolved them of the sins which they had confessed, by the authority of

24

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

St Peter, of our lord Pope Innocent and of the entire Church, should they perish in this battle.103

Here, in contrast to the concessions made by Gregory VII in the eleventh century, great care was taken to link the absolution offered to the penitential system of confession – just as Urban II had done. Those who fought in the papal army were only absolved of their sins if they had confessed them first.104 Similarly, decrees of Church councils also began to grant spiritual rewards for military service on behalf of the papacy. In 1135 the Council of Pisa imposed a sentence of anathema on all those who served or traded with Count Roger II, king of Sicily from 1130 to 1154 and an important supporter of Anacletus II, describing him as ‘the tyrant Roger’. The council also specifically stated that the same remission of sins was to be granted for those who campaigned against Roger or Anacletus as Pope Urban II had granted for the First Crusade in 1095: to those who set out against him or Pierleone [the antipope Anacletus II] by land or sea to free the Church, and labour faithfully in that service, the same remission was granted, which Pope Urban decreed at the council of Clermont for all who set out to Jerusalem to free the Christians.105

It is not known whether the council intended that people who sought the indulgence should formally make a votive obligation and take the Cross, as did those who in the twelfth century were embarking on crusades to the Holy Land or Spain.106 What is clear, however, is that it was issuing ‘crusading’-type indulgences, such as had been granted for those who set out on the Jerusalem journey (‘iter’) in 1095, for those who waged war against the enemies of Innocent II. This idea of directing Christian armies against enemies within Christendom itself, rather than against ‘external’ Muslim foes, was particularly clearly expressed in a letter of Peter the Venerable (circa 1092–1156), abbot of the monastery of Cluny, a close friend of the papal curia and a noted twelfth-century theologian. Writing to Everard of Barres, master of the military order of the Templars, Peter stated: An essential aspect of your office as a knight, and the reason why you took up arms, is that you should protect the Church of God from its assailants . . . But perhaps you will say: we took up arms against the pagans, not against Christians. Well, who deserves to be attacked more by you or your people, the pagan who does not know God, or the Christian who acknowledges God with his words but fights against Him with his deeds?107

This was the most detailed justification thus far for directing Christian military force against other Christians rather than against ‘external’ pagans and

INTRODUCTION

25

Muslims.108 Another of Peter’s letters, to Pope Eugenius III (1145–1153), echoed Leo IX’s calls for military action against the Normans in Italy. Peter went so far as to describe as ‘false Christians, worse than the Muslims’ those who attacked the monastery of Cluny.109 Later in the twelfth century Alexander III (1159–1181) gave political backing to the newly formed Lombard League against the German emperor Frederick I Barbarossa (1152–1190). In his general letter ‘Non est dubium’ of 1170 Alexander threatened the spiritual penalties of excommunication and interdict against those who failed to co-operate in defending papal lands. Yet, despite his long conflict with Frederick I between 1160 and 1170, he never issued any type of indulgence in return for fighting against the emperor.110 This contrasted greatly with the behaviour of the thirteenth-century popes Gregory IX and Innocent IV who, as will be discussed in Chapter 4, granted the plenary indulgence for a crusade against Frederick II. Alexander may indeed have been uneasy at the idea of granting indulgences for fighting holy wars. In general, twelfth-century popes seemed willing to use spiritual incentives in their struggles against perceived enemies only at times of acute military need, usually when there was a conflict in southern Italy threatening the security of the papal states themselves, as had happened earlier in 1053 and 1127–28.111 During the pontificate of Alexander III a royal synod was held in 1164 at Trondheim, an archbishopric since 1153 and seat of King Magnus V of Norway (1156–1184). This synod ordered the country’s clergy to publicize that anyone who died fighting ‘in defence of the peace and the protection of the “patria”’ against Swedish pagans would be rewarded with the kingdom of heaven (‘regna celestia consequentur’).112 The Synod of Segovia, a council of the Church in Castile in 1166, again during Alexander III’s pontificate, offered an even greater incentive for military action. Canon 2 stated that it remitted ‘as much of his enjoined penance as he would gain from going to Jerusalem’ for anyone who fought for the king of Castile against his Muslim enemies when required.113 It is unclear, however, exactly what this meant. Some historians have argued that the canon referred to the traditional indulgence the papacy granted to those going to Jerusalem on pilgrimage rather than to a crusade indulgence in aid of Jerusalem and the Holy Land. But even if this was the case and the indulgence was therefore granted for the Jerusalem pilgrimage rather for a crusade, it was still a significant remission. Various twelfth-century archbishops and bishops also continued to authorize campaigns and promise spiritual rewards in return for military service. According to the twelfth-century Benedictine Guibert of Nogent, abbot of the abbey of Nogent-sous-Coucy, a campaign was launched in 1115 on behalf of the Church against the notorious magnate and powerful castellan Thomas of Marle. The archbishop of Reims and the bishops of the archdiocese absolved

26

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

men from their sins and ordered them to attack Thomas’s own castle of Crécy, assuring them that this would insure the salvation of their souls. Not long after, the bishop of Amiens gave assurance of eternal life to those who died besieging the castle at Amiens (belonging to Thomas’s father at this point) which was being held by one of Thomas’s associates.114 Then in 1148 the archbishop of Trier is recorded as rallying his troops to the cause of the liberty of the Church. He was described as administering a general confession, and granting them ‘an indulgence and remission of all your offences’ (‘indulgentiam et remissionem omnium delictorum vestrorum’) in the hope that those who died in the campaign would gain eternal life.115 Furthermore, in 1139 the archbishop of Auch published an edict relating to the last phase of the Peace and Truce of God Movement in France, a movement designed by the Church in the tenth and eleventh centuries to limit the damage of war arising from feuds in Christian society. This edict was similar to that of Canon 12 of the Second Lateran Council, also of 1139, which established rules governing the Truce of God and called for bishops to do all in their power to establish peace throughout Christian Europe. The edict of the archbishop of Auch seems to have granted a plenary indulgence (‘omnium peccatorum suorum indulgentiam’) for fighting against ‘routiers’: The prince, however, and all the faithful obedient to our orders, who contribute to the cause of peace by work or counsel, and who faithfully fight against the breakers of peace, and in particular against the pestilential bands of mercenaries, are not to doubt that, if they die in true penitence in this, the service of God, they will enjoy an indulgence of all their sins, and the fruit of an eternal reward, by the authority of God, of the lord pope, and of the universal Church. To others indeed, who take up arms against them and fight for their expulsion according to the advice of bishops or other prelates, we remit two years of enjoined penance; and if they remain there for a longer period, we commit to the discretion of the bishops, who are entrusted with the supervising of the matter, the granting of a larger indulgence according to their judgement.116

This decree of the archbishop of Auch was very similar to that issued by the archbishop of Reims shortly before the First Crusade of 1095. It had also been reiterated by clerical supporters of King Louis VI of France (1108–1137) who, as noted above, had fought against Thomas of Marle and at Amiens in 1115.117 Significantly, the provisions relating to the grant of indulgences in this decree of the archbishop of Auch of 1139 were very similar to those of Canon 27 of the Third Lateran Council of 1179, called by Alexander III. Canon 27 pronounced a sentence of anathema on heretics and their protectors in ‘Gascony, the Albigeois and the region of Toulouse and other places’ and denied them Christian burial. It prescribed the same penalties for employers of ‘routiers’ and summoned the

INTRODUCTION

27

faithful to defend Christians ‘for the remission of their sins’ (‘in remissionem peccatorum injungemus’). It also promised an indulgence for sins and the fruit of eternal reward (‘peccatorum indulgentiam et fructum mercedis aeternae’) to those who died in action in the south of France and guaranteed the same Church protection as that enjoyed by pilgrims to Jerusalem: ‘Indeed we receive under the Church’s protection those, who, with the ardour of faith, shall have taken up that labour in order to fight . . . just as those who visit the tomb of the Lord.’118 It is possible that Canon 27 of Lateran III was deliberately echoing the Auch decree of 1139. Yet despite the call for military action, at this point there was no suggestion of a crusade being authorized against heretics in the south of France. There was no mention of votive obligations, nor any apparatus in place for taking the Cross. It has even been suggested that Alexander III was not considering military action against the Cathar heretics at all, but rather that the coercive aspects of the canon referred only to ‘routiers’ and their employers.119 This seems unlikely, however, since the Pope had already backed an Anglo-French preaching tour against the Cathars in 1177–8 led by his legate Peter of San Crisogono and Henry of Marcy, abbot of Cîteaux.120 Furthermore, the Pope also supported a campaign in 1181 against Cathars, led by the same Henry of Marcy, now cardinal bishop of Albano. Indeed it is possible that Henry himself pressed for the formulation of Canon 27.121 While during the twelfth century certain popes continued to use such spiritual rewards to encourage Christians to take part in military campaigns against those whom they considered enemies of the Church, collections of legal texts and commentaries were multiplying across Europe. These texts and commentaries included material concerned with the authorization of military campaigns against heretics and political opponents of the papacy and were extremely important to popes, some of whom had themselves been trained in canon law. The twelfth-century Concordia discordantium canonum, popularly known as Gratian’s Decretum, compiled around 1140, probably at Bologna, during the pontificate of Innocent II, was a massive collection of texts concerned with Church discipline. It contained important texts from the Church fathers and other authorities dealing with the justification of violence in a good cause and the status of heretics, and also Muslims and Jews, in Christian society. The selection of texts itself depended heavily on the works of earlier canonists. Although the collection and commentary, as opposed to the texts it contained, had no formal standing in the Church, the Decretum was highly influential in moulding the attitudes of canon lawyers, senior churchmen and popes themselves. The first and shorter half of the work was grouped into ‘Distinctiones’ (distinctions), the second and longer into ‘Causae’ (cases). These ‘Causae’ were then divided into ‘Quaestiones’ (questions) and in response to these ‘Quaestiones’, excerpts known as ‘capitula’

28

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

cited authoritative texts – canons of Church councils, opinions of early Church fathers and papal pronouncements – and provided an intellectual framework within which their apparent contradictions could be resolved.122 Gratian’s Decretum was an immensely important text for both contemporary and later canonists.123 These included influential and widely read twelfth- and thirteenth-century figures such as Rufinus, Stephen of Tournai, Bernard of Pavia, Huguccio, Johannes Teutonicus and Hostiensis.124 In the twelfth century, for example, Huguccio (d 1210) wrote a commentary, the Summa super corpore decretorum, on the Decretum while another canonist, Bernard Balbi of Pavia (d 1213), composed glosses to it.125 Works such as the Glossa Palatina of Laurentius Hispanus and the anonymous twelfth-century texts composed in Paris and Cologne, the Summa Parisiensis and the Summa ‘Elegantius in iure divino’ seu Coloniensis, also gave thorough analyses of the Decretum.126 In the thirteenth century the Bolognese canonists Johannes Teutonicus (1170–1245) and Bartholomew of Brescia (d 1258) produced their Glossa ordinaria on the Decretum: Johnannes probably compiled his between 1215 and 1217, shortly after the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215, and it was subsequently re-edited and enlarged circa 1245 by Bartholomew.127 This revised and enlarged version became the standard exposition of the Decretum in the universities and possessed a special authority for later expositors and commentators. Furthermore, the Decretum was important not only for canon lawyers but also for twelfth- and thirteenth-century theologians who provided the intellectual and technical background for papal thought.128 In particular, canon lawyers and theologians drew on Causa 23 and Causa 24 of the Decretum because these cases comprised a systematic and easily accessible treatment of relevant theological texts, many from the Church fathers.129 Nevertheless, it is perhaps surprising that, although Gratian’s Decretum was compiled almost fifty years after the launch of the First Crusade in 1095, no section of the work was devoted specifically to crusading. Although Causa 17 was concerned with the canonical status and implication of vows, there was no mention of the crusade vow in particular. One important reason for this was that most of the texts cited in the Decretum were pre-twelfth century and that much of Gratian’s thinking was shaped by the earlier works of Anselm of Lucca and Ivo of Chartres, who were writing just before the First Crusade.130 Indeed although the adjective ‘crucesignati’ occurred in letters of popes recorded in the late twelfth- and thirteenth-century decretal collections known as the Quinque antiquae compilationes and Liber extra decretalium, even in these later works there were no special sections concerned with the crusades. There was no use of a Latin noun to designate a crusade, and legal questions relating to crusades were covered under ‘Titula’ (titles) on warfare and vows. Why this was the case is an extremely complex issue. It may suggest that

INTRODUCTION

29

even at this point in the late twelfth and thirteenth century the Church had no ‘official’ vocabulary to describe crusading.131 But it may be also due to the huge influence of the canonist Bernard Balbi of Pavia’s Compilatio prima, composed between 1187 and 1191, a collection of papal decretals which was designed in five books, each of which in turn was subdivided into titles. This became the model for all later major decretal collections, which were then also always organized in five books and given the same ‘Titula’.132 It could explain why we do not find specific crusading titles in the Quinque antiquae compilationes and the Liber extra decretalium, and why some of the decretals contained in these works concerning crusading were collected under different titles. Yet the lack of specific treatment of crusades did not stop Gratian’s Decretum becoming an important text for the later development of the idea of crusading. It did discuss the idea of just violence and just wars – and that in great detail – elaborating on earlier canonical traditions which stemmed back to the early Church.133 Indeed later thirteenth-century crusade preachers, who regarded crusades as one type of just war, frequently cited the Decretum in their crusade sermons. Causa 23 was particular pertinent to popes’ authorization of military campaigns against those perceived as enemies of the Church because it was concerned with whether violence could ever be considered just. This causa used as an example the case of a set of heretical bishops who began to force Catholics in their dioceses to espouse their beliefs with threats and torture.134 The Pope then ordered neighbouring bishops to defend the people from their heretical bishops and gave directions on how to force the latter to return to the faith. Next, the Catholic bishops sent soldiers to round up the heretics: a few were executed, some stripped of their possessions or ecclesiastical appointments and others imprisoned until under duress they returned to orthodox Christianity. The quaestiones or questions which followed this example provided the basic justification for the act of force. Quaestio 1 began by asking whether it was a sin to wage war. Quaestio 2 asked what type of war might be considered just, and how just wars had been waged in the Old Testament. Quaestio 3 asked whether it was right that injuries be avenged by force, Quaestio 4 whether waging war was legal. Quaestio 5 discussed whether it was a sin for a judge or minister to kill the guilty, Quaestio 6 whether evil men should be forced into good behaviour. Quaestio 7 asked whether heretics should be stripped of their possessions (including ecclesiastical goods), who might take possession of their property and indeed who rightfully could own another’s goods. Quaestio 8 discussed whether bishops or clerics, either on their own authority or under papal or imperial command, could bear arms. The complexity of the example and the number of these quaestiones highlighted the intricate problems connected with authorizing violence for the sake of what the Church considered a just cause. Many of the answers to the questions posed in the different excerpts – known

30

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

as capitula – derived from the writings of the early Church fathers, and in particular from the letters of St Augustine of Hippo (354–430). Causa 23 quoted a large number of Augustinian texts to demonstrate that war was not intrinsically sinful and that some wars were more just and moral than others. Although St Augustine emphasized the need for spiritual struggle against enemies,135 he also argued that it was not wrong to perform military service and that it was not sinful to kill if the war was waged with God’s authority.136 Capitulum 6 of Quaestio 1, an excerpt from a letter of St Augustine, declared: Among the true worshippers of God even wars themselves are ended peacefully, which are waged not out of greed or cruelty, but with a strong desire for peace, in order that evil men should be coerced and good men supported.137

Therefore wars which were waged to coerce the evil and alleviate the suffering of the good should be considered just. Indeed Capitulum 1 of Quaestio 2 of Causa 23 quoted St Isidore of Seville (560–636) who had also argued in favour of just wars:138 That war is just which is waged as a result of an edict concerning the recovery of possessions or warding off men . . .139

So, according to Isidore, a just war was a defensive operation, an argument which twelfth- and thirteenth-century popes emphasized when authorizing crusades, whether to the East or within Christian Europe. Similarly influential was Capitulum 41 of Quaestio 4 of Causa 23, a letter of St Augustine discussing whether the Church might seek the help of temporal powers against its enemies.140 Thus the idea of calling on secular powers to wage wars against the enemies of the Church, central to papal authorization of crusades in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, had, the popes believed, the sanction of Augustine. Indeed some of the texts cited in Causa 23 suggested that certain just wars could be positively meritorious, contributing to the salvation of their participants. Of particular importance were papal letters sanctioning wars for the defence of Rome and the papal territories against invaders. Capitulum 17 of Quaestio 8 of Causa 23 quoted a sixth-century letter of Gregory I the Great (590–604) encouraging a certain Roman general to prepare troops to defend Rome against the Lombards.141 Capitulum 7 of Quaestio 8 was a letter of Pope Leo IV (847–855) which ordered Christians to join forces for the defence of Italian ports against Saracen invaders advancing on Rome.142 In Capitulum 9 of Quaestio 8, Leo IV declared that God would reward with the Eternal Kingdom those who died in the defence of Christians.143 And Capitulum 46 of Quaestio 5 of Causa 23 quoted a letter of Nicholas I (858–67) assuring the army of the Franks that those who died

INTRODUCTION

31

in armed struggle against infidel Saracens would gain eternal reward.144 So Causa 23’s concern with just violence meant it was particularly pertinent to popes’ authorization of crusades against ‘internal’ enemies. It was also important in the development of the idea of ‘internal’ crusades because it contained texts about the status and treatment of heretics in Christian society. Quaestio 3 contained letters of St Augustine concerning the fifth-century Donatist heresy. Capitulum 3 declared that Catholics could legitimately ask lawful secular authorities for defence against heretics. And using imagery from the New Testament, Capitulum 4 declared that there was a great difference between the persecution of Donatist heretics and the persecution of Catholics. Whereas Catholics were followers of Christ, Donatists were like the followers of the High Priest whose servant’s ear had been cut off by St Peter:145 indeed, those who fought against heretics were like St Peter who, according to the Gospel, had drawn his sword to defend Christ.146 Certain capitula of Quaestio 4, again excerpts from letters of St Augustine, similarly referred to the Donatists. Capitulum 38 affirmed that heretics unwilling to renounce their heresy were if necessary to be saved from error by force.147 Capitulum 39 argued that heretics rightly suffered whatever punishments Catholics inflicted upon them for their spiritual benefit,148 and Capitulum 40 that it was reasonable for the Church to pursue heretics.149 Capitula 43 and 44 of Quaestio 5 stated that schismatics and heretics separated from the unity of the Church should be coerced by the secular authorities.150 Capitulum 47 of Quaestio 5 quoted a letter of Urban II (1088–1099), stating that those who, burning with the zeal of Mother Church, killed excommunicates were not to be punished as murderers, but that a suitable penance should be imposed on them which reflected their intentions.151 Quaestio 7 contained letters of St Augustine concerned with the insult (‘contumelia’) which the Church suffered from the Donatists.152 Capitulum 1 argued that earthly possessions were held either by divine or human law,153 and led on to a statement in Capitulum 2 that Catholics might own possessions belonging to heretics.154 Capitulum 3 argued that heretics who retained churches did so unjustly, since imperial decree ordered that they be handed back to Catholics. And Capitulum 4 stated that anyone who departed from the Church, Christ’s body, could not retain the ‘spirit of justice’ (‘spiritum iusticiae’).155 Causa 24 of the Decretum was also important for building a case for papal authorization of ‘internal’ crusades, because it dealt exclusively with those texts of the Church fathers concerned with jurisdiction over heretics.156 The example used was that of a bishop who had deprived priests of their office and declared them excommunicated.157 After his death the prelate was accused of heresy and he, his followers and family were officially condemned. Quaestio 1 asked whether a heretic could indeed deprive others of office or pronounce them

32

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

excommunicated; Quaestio 2 whether someone could be excommunicated after death; Quaestio 3 whether a man’s family should be excommunicated on account of his transgressions. The Dictum ante c.1 of Quaestio 1 declared: But that someone cannot be deposed or excommunicated by a heretic is easily shown. For every heretic either follows an already condemned heresy or fashions a new one. But the man who follows an already condemned heresy makes himself part of its condemnation.158

Forty-two capitula followed quoting a range of texts from St Augustine, from other fathers of the Church and from pronouncements of popes themselves, dealing with different aspects of heresy. Quaestio 1 presented texts which emphasized that whereas Catholics might associate with infidels, they should shun heretics to avoid corruption. Indeed, according to St Ambrose (339–97) Catholics should avoid all contact with heretics.159 St Augustine stated that, even if the heretics excommunicated one of their own for a grave crime, he should not be accepted by Catholics; Catholics should never receive anyone excommunicated by heretics, even if there seemed sufficient reason.160 While Pope Sixtus II (432–40) stressed that the faith of the Roman Church destroyed every heresy and favoured none.161 Quaestio 2 contained six capitula, texts on the Church’s spiritual powers over the living and the dead and in particular the spiritual power of excommunication. The Dictum ante c.1 of Quaestio 2 stated: . . . that indeed after his death no-one is able to be excommunicated or absolved is shown from the words of the Gospel which say ‘Whatever you shall bind on earth etc.’ He [Christ] said on the earth, not under the earth, showing that we can bind or loose the living for a variety of their merits; but concerning the dead we cannot bring a sentence.162

By contrast, according to Capitulum 6 of Quaestio 2, a decree of the Second Council of Constantinople called by the emperor Justinian (483–565) in 553, heretics should be excommunicated even after their death.163 Quaestio 3 comprised 40 capitula detailing the circumstances under which the sentence of excommunication should be applied. The first sentence of the Dictum ante c.1 declared: ‘That for the sins of some individual the whole family must be excommunicated is demonstrated by the examples of many’.164 Capitulum 39 of this quaestio was a long passage from the Etymologiae of Isidore of Seville describing the various heresies which had arisen in the Church since its founding.165 Simony (the buying and selling of ecclesiastical office), Arianism and Donatism were among the 68 named heresies, as well as Manicheism:

INTRODUCTION

33

The Manichees derived from a certain Persian, who was called Mani. This man introduced two natures and two substances, that is a good and a bad, and he asserted that souls proceed from God as if from some sort of fountain. They [the Manichees] reject the Old Testament, they accept the New in parts.166

This account accorded with later descriptions by chroniclers of absolute dualism, an extreme form of Catharism, which held that there were two gods who had created the world, a good god who was in charge of all things spiritual and an evil god who was in charge of all things material. This absolute dualism seems to have replaced mitigated dualism (a form of Catharism with more recognizable links to Christianity) in the south of France after the Cathar council of St Felix-deCaraman of 1167/1172. It was against this heresy that Innocent III, Honorius III and Gregory IX called for crusades in the first half of the thirteenth century.167 Certain capitula of Quaestio 3, in particular texts of St Jerome (347–419) and St Augustine, defined the nature of heresy itself. Capitulum 27 quoted St Jerome: ‘Heresy’ in Greek is connected with choice, evidently because each man chooses that discipline for himself which he thinks is better. Therefore the man who understands Scripture otherwise than in the sense inspired by the Holy Spirit, by whom it was written, although he has not left the Church, nevertheless can be called a heretic and he is from fleshly works, choosing those things which are worse.168

And Capitulum 28, St Augustine stated: He is a heretic who, for the sake of some temporal advantage and especially for his own glory and power either produces or follows false and new beliefs. But the man who believes such men is fooled by a certain impression of truth.169

Capitulum 26 quoted St Jerome’s distinction between schism and heresy: I judge this to be the difference between heresy and schism, that heresy is the holding of a perverse dogma, while schism, after episcopal withdrawal, equally separates one from the Church. Indeed in its origin it [schism] may be understood as different in some respects; but there is no schism which does not fashion some type of heresy for itself, in that it seems right to have departed from the Church.170

In these texts the Church fathers defined heresy as the holding of false beliefs. By contrast, they defined schism as merely separation from the Church, although this would inevitably lead to heresy. Such interest in the distinction between schism and heresy would continue to

34

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

be a subject of much discussion for twelfth- and thirteenth-century canonists. Commenting on the Decretum, one twelfth-century Summa, the ‘Elegantius in iure divino’ seu Coloniensis, the work of a French or German canonist writing in Cologne circa 1169, stated that there was no schism unless someone, having initiated a heresy, left the Church:171 Let what is said of the schismatic be said of the heretic. Moreover, he is a heretic, who departs from the truth of the Faith, but a schismatic is one who departs from Catholic unity and peace. Since, however, separation from Mother Church can neither be brought about without division nor division without separation, not undeservingly every schismatic is called a heretic.172

The thirteenth-century Spanish canonist Laurentius Hispanus (d 1248), commenting on the same passage of the Decretum, developed the argument further: C.24.q.3.c.26: Know that it is rightly called schism when someone who was in the Church departs from that part . . . because he misunderstands some article of faith . . . again note, that every schismatic is a heretic, but the converse is not the case . . .173

Another canonist, Bernard Balbi of Pavia (d 1213), also commenting on the same passage, argued that schism led to heresy: But schism . . . is different from heresy, undoubtedly in its beginning; but when it has grown, it begins to call its congregation the Church, and thus it is seen to fall into heresy and to sin in that article of faith, namely: I believe in the holy Catholic Church, see Causa 23 q.3. ‘about heresy’ (c.26).174

Here, then, were excellent examples of twelfth- and thirteenth-century canonists discussing and interpreting the Decretum in order to develop their own definitions of heresy and schism. As we have seen, texts quoted in the Decretum emphasized the need to fight in order to defend the Church from its enemies – a constant theme of thirteenth-century popes in their letters calling for ‘internal’ crusades.175 The belief that all enemies of the papacy were heretics accorded with traditional Church teaching. In the eleventh century, Pope Nicholas II (1058–1061) had declared that anyone who tried to seize the prerogative of the Roman Church (‘Romanae ecclesiae privilegium’), conferred by Christ, fell into heresy because his action injured Christ himself.176 And according to the eleventh-century theologian Peter Damian, a heretic was anyone who set aside the idea of papal privileges and did not show obedience or seek the advice of the apostolic see.177

INTRODUCTION

35

The popes of the first half of the thirteenth century were heavily influenced by such statements. Indeed, subsequent chapters will show that there was a marked similarity between this language found in patristic texts and in the writings of revered popes which were recorded in the Decretum, and that used by thirteenth-century popes in their letters authorizing and encouraging crusades. The different texts cited in Causa 23 described the enemies of the Church as ‘infideles’, ‘impii’, ‘iniqui’, ‘perditi’ and ‘perfidi’, all words later commonly used by popes in their letters authorizing ‘internal’ crusades.178 St Ambrose often referred to those who carried not physical but spiritual weapons as ‘Christi milites’ (‘soldiers of Christ’), a phrase which ironically was repeatedly used by these popes in their correspondence about those who did indeed take up physical weapons against heretics and political enemies of the papacy.179 Just as St Augustine emphasized the boldness of the Donatists, so Innocent III and his successors continued this theme in relation to Cathar heretics who, like the Donatists, were depicted as dualist Manichees.180 And the phrase ‘peccatis exigentibus’ – ‘as our (or ‘their’ – depending on context) sins require’ – which occurred in the Dictum ante c.1 of Quaestio 3 of Causa 24 and was common long before the composition of the Decretum, was used frequently in papal correspondence to describe mankind’s tendency to sin.181 Certain colourful metaphors and similes which occurred in excerpts of the Decretum, such as St Augustine’s use of the biblical image of Christians as Christ’s sheep or flock (‘oves Christi’ and ‘greges Domini’),182 reference made by St Augustine and Urban II to the Church as a mother (‘mater Ecclesia’ and ‘Catholica mater’),183 and St Augustine’s description of the celestial Jerusalem as a mother (‘mater vestra celestis Ierusalem’),184 were also employed by popes in their letters concerned with ‘internal’ crusades. In particular, metaphors and similes about medicine and disease were prominent in the Decretum. Capitulum 25 of Quaestio 4 of Causa 23, an excerpt from St Augustine, argued that evil men should be forced into goodness by medicinal severity.185 Capitulum 31 of Quaestio 23 of Causa 24, another excerpt from Augustine, likened heretics to those diseased: Those in Christ’s Church who hold some sick or corrupt opinion, if having been corrected . . . they resist stubbornly, and do not want to emend their pestiferous and death-bringing beliefs, but persist in defending them, then they are heretics.186

As we shall see in subsequent chapters, such metaphors and similes comparing heresy to a disease also occurred frequently in thirteenth-century papal correspondence concerned with ‘internal’ crusades, and perhaps most strikingly in the letters of Innocent III.

36

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

Notes 1 Carl Erdmann, Die Entstehung des Kreuzzugs Gedankens (Stuttgart, 1935), trans. M. W. Baldwin and W. Goffart, The Origin of the Idea of Crusade (Princeton, 1977). 2 For example, Jonathan Riley-Smith, What were the Crusades?, 3rd edn (Basingstoke, 2002), pp. 2–5. 3 Hippolyte Pissard, La Guerre sainte en pays chrétiens: essai sur l’origine et le développement des théories canoniques (Paris, 1912). 4 Peter Partner, The Lands of St. Peter: the Papal State in the Middle Ages and the Early Renaissance (London, 1972), pp. 259–60. 5 Brian Pullan, Sources for the History of Medieval Europe (Oxford, 1971), p. 68. 6 Colin Morris, The Papal Monarchy. The Western Church from 1050 to 1250 (Oxford, 1989), p. 1. 7 Herbert Cowdrey, Pope Gregory VII, 1073–1085 (Oxford, 1998), pp. 543–6. 8 Walter Wakefield and Austin Evans, Heresies of the High Middle Ages (New York, 1969), pp. 107–17, 118–21, 141–6, 146–50. 9 Malcolm Barber, The Cathars, Dualist Heretics in Languedoc in the High Middle Ages (Harlow, 2000), pp. 1–5; Gabriel Audisio, Waldensian Dissent: Persecution and Survival, c.1170–c.1570, trans. C. Davison (Cambridge, 1999), pp. 22–4. 10 Lucius III, ‘Ad abolendam diverarum’ (4 Nov. 1184), PL 201, cols 1297–1300. 11 Robert Moore, The Formation of the Persecuting Society: Authority and Deviance in Western Europe, 950–1250, 2nd edn (Malder, MA, 2006), pp. 4–5. There have been many criticisms of this account which Moore himself discusses in a bibliographical excursus to the second edition; see pp. 172–96. 12 For Henry of Marcy’s account of his preaching mission, see PL 204, cols 234–42. For the earlier preaching mission of Bernard of Clairvaux, see PL 182, cols 434–6; PL 185, cols 312–13; PL 185, cols 410–16. For the constitutions of Lateran III and IV, see Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils: Vol. 1: Nicaea I to Lateran V, ed. N. Tanner (London, 1990), pp. 211–15, 230–71. 13 For example, Alexander III and the Waldensians. For example, Lucius III in ‘Ad abolendam’; see Lucius III, ‘Ad abolendam diverarum’ (4 Nov. 1184), PL 201, cols 1297–1300. 14 For a description of the Cathar heresy, see Peter of les Vaux-de-Cernay, Historia Albigensis 1, ed. P. Guébin and E. Lyon (Paris, 1926), pp. 9–20. 15 Jonathan Riley-Smith, The Crusades: A Short History (London, 2001), pp. 37–9; pp. 88–9. 16 ‘Audita tremendi’ (29 Oct. 1187), ed. W. Stubbs, Chronicle of the Reign of Henry II and Richard I, Vol. 2, Chronicles and Memorials (London, 1867), pp. 15–19. 17 Innocent III, ‘Vergentis in senium’ (29 March 1199), PL 214, cols 537–9. See Walter Ullmann, ‘The Significance of Innocent III’s Decretal “Vergentis”’, Études d’histoire du droit canoniques dédiées à Gabriel le Bras (Paris, 1965), p. 729. 18 For example, Eugenius III had referred to the Second Crusade as a ‘sanctum opus’, ‘sanctum iter’ and ‘tam sanctum tamque prenecessarium opus et laborem devotionis’ in ‘Quantum praedecessores’ (1 Dec. 1145), 3rd edn, B. von Simson, Ottonis et Rahewina Gesta Friderici I Imperatoris, Bk 1 (Hannover and Leipzig, 1912), pp. 55–7, passim. 19 Diplomatica Pontificia, ed. P. Rabikauskas, 3rd edn (Rome, 1972), p. 43.

INTRODUCTION

37

20 Peter of les Vaux-de-Cernay, Historia Albigensis 1, ed. P. Guébin and E. Lyon, p. 187. 21 Gratian, ‘Concordia discordantium canonum’, Corpus iuris canonici 1, ed. A. E. Friedberg (Leipzig, 1879). 22 Gratian, ‘Causa 23’, ‘Concordia discordantium canonum’, Corpus iuris canonici 1, ed. A. E. Friedberg, cols 889–965; ‘Causa 24’, ‘Concordia discordantium canonum’, Corpus iuris canonici 1, ed. A. E. Friedberg, cols 965–1006. 23 There is a vast amount of recent secondary literature on Innocent III which is listed in the bibliography. For example, Helene Tillmann, Pope Innocent III, trans. W. Sax (Amsterdam, 1980); Jane Sayers, Innocent III: Leader of Europe, 1198–1216 (London, 1994); John Moore, Innocent III 1160/61–1216: To Root up and to Plant (Leiden, 2003); Innocenzo III: Urbs et Orbis, ed. A Sommerlechner (Rome, 2003). 24 Jonathan Philips, The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople (London, 2004), pp. 193–7. 25 For example, Innocent III, ‘Inveterata pravitatis haereticae’ (17 Nov. 1207), PL 215, cols 1246–1248, i.e. Register Innocenz III, 10, pp. 26 Gratian, ‘Concordia discordantium canonum’, C.23.q.1.c.5, col. 893; C.23.q.5.c.9, cols 933–4. 27 James Watt, ‘The Papacy’ in The New Cambridge Medieval History, Vol. 5, c.1198–c.1300, ed. D. Abulafia (Cambridge, 1999), pp. 130–31, 196–203. 28 Malcolm Lambert, Medieval Heresy: Popular Movements form the Gregorian Reform to the Reformation, 2nd edn (Oxford, 1992), pp. 96–7; Walter Wakefield, Heresy, Crusade and Inquisition in Southern France 1100–1250 (London, 1974), pp. 88–91. 29 Edward Peters, Inquisition (New York, 1988), p. 55. 30 Barber, The Cathars, pp. 122–9; William Sibly and Michael Sibly, The History of the Albigensian Crusade (Woodbridge, Suffolk, 1998), pp. 300–1. 31 Cesarius of Heisterbach, Dialogus miraculorum, trans. C. C. S. Bland and H. von E. Scott, ed. G. G. Coulton and E. Powers, Vol. 1 (London, 1929), pp. 345–6. 32 Bernard Hamilton, The Medieval Inquisition (London, 1981), pp. 13, 36–9. 33 Christoph Maier, Preaching the Crusades: Mendicant Friars and the Cross in the Thirteenth Century (Cambridge, 1994), pp. 32–62. 34 For example, the murder of Count Hermann II of Lippe by the Stedinger in 1229 exacerbated the conflict and propelled his brother, Archbishop Gerhard II, of Germany, to excommunicate them. This action turned out to be the prelude for a crusade; see p. 124. See also Maier, Preaching the Crusades, p. 52. 35 John Fine, The Bosnian Church: A New Interpretation (Boulder and New York, 1975), p. 136; F. Sanjek, Les Chretiens bosniques et le movement cathare, xiie-xiv siecles (Brussels and Paris, 1976), p. 68; Raoul Manselli, ‘Les “Chretiens” de Bosnie: le Catharisme en Europe orientale’, Revue d’historie ecclessiastique 72 (1977), pp. 13–14. 36 Honorius III, ‘Litteris tuis’ (1 Oct. 1219) Horoy 3, cols 299–301. 37 Innocent III, ‘Quod iuxta verbum’ (9 Sept. 1213), PL 216, cols 904–5. 38 Norman Housley, The Italian Crusades: The Papal-Avignon Alliance and the Crusades against Christian Lay-Powers, 1254–1343 (Oxford, 1982), p. 1. 39 Daniel Waley, The Papal State in the Thirteenth Century (London, 1961), pp. 68–90. 40 Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes (New Haven, 1997), p. 93.

38

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

41 For Mathilda of Tuscany and her circle of reformers, see Jonathan Riley-Smith, The First Crusaders, 1095–1131 (Cambridge, 1997), pp. 46–51. 42 For example, Innocent III described Markward of Anwelier as ‘another Saladin’ and ‘worse than the infidels’ in ‘Quod futura sint’ (24 Nov. 1199), Die Register Innocenz III, Vol. 2, p. 411 and p. 414. See also p. 196. 43 For example, Innocent III, ‘Si multitudinem et’ (10–15 August 1199), Die Register Innocenz III 2, pp. 311–12. 44 For example, Gregory IX, ‘Ascendit de mare’ (21 June 1239), Historia diplomatica 5, part 1, pp. 339–40. 45 Ernst Kantorowicz, Frederick II, 1194–1250 (New York, 1957), pp. 350–9. 46 Bernard of Clairvaux, ‘De consideratione’, PL 182, cols 776–7. See Bernard of Clairvaux, Five Books on Consideration. Advice to a Pope, trans. J. D. Anderson and E. T. Kennan (Kalamazoo, MI, 1976), Book 4, 3. 7, p. 118. 47 Duffy, Saints and Sinners, p. 77. 48 Ibid., pp. 82–4. 49 Morris, The Papal Monarchy, pp. 109–33. 50 Ibid., pp. 192–7. 51 For a discussion of this important subject which cannot be discussed in detail here, see, for example, Michael Costen, The Cathars and the Albigensian Crusade (Manchester, 1997), p. 150; Elizabeth Siberry, Criticism of Crusading 1095–1274 (Oxford, 1985), pp. 158–68; Jonathan Sumption, The Albigensian Crusade (London, 1978), p. 207. 52 Frederick cited his grievances against the papacy in an attempt to justify himself to various European magnates; see below p. 183; Matthew Paris, Chronica majora 3, pp. 563–5, 575–90. 53 Housley, The Italian Crusade, pp. 1–9 54 Selected Letters of Pope Innocent III concerning England 1198–1216, Medieval Texts and Studies, ed. C. R. Cheney and W. H. Semple (London, 1953), p. xviii; Patrick Zutshi, ‘Innocent III and the Reform of the Papal Chancery’, in Innocenzo III: Urbs et Orbis, ed. A. Sommerlechner (Rome, 2003), p. 101. 55 Honorius III never appointed a chancellor as Innocent III had done. See Jane Sayers, Papal Government and England during the Pontificate of Honorius II (1216–1227) (Cambridge, 1984), p. 25. 56 Selected Letters of Pope Innocent III concerning England 1198–1216, ed. Cheney and Semple, p. xix. 57 Patrick Zutshi, ‘The Personal Role of the Pope in the Production of Papal Letters in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries’, in Vom Nutzen des Schreibens: Soziales Gëdachtnis, Herrschaft und Besitz im Mittelalter, ed. W. Pohl and P. Herold (Vienna, 2002), pp. 226, 230. 58 According to a treatise ‘on the forms of petitions according to the procedure of the Roman curia’ dating from circa 1226, whereas petitions for letters of ‘simple’ justice were not read before the pope, petitions for letters of grace – including privileges, protections, confirmations and indulgences – all had to come before him for approval. See Sayers, Papal Government and England during the Pontificate of Honorius III (1216–1227), p. 21. 59 James Murphy, Rhetoric in the Middle Ages: A History of the Rhetorical Theory from Saint Augustine to the Renaissance (Tempe, AZ, 2001), pp. 194–268. For the main collection of

INTRODUCTION

60

61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69

70 71 72

73 74 75 76 77

78 79

39

the texts, see Ludwig Rockinger, Briefsteller und Formelbücher des elften bis vierzehnten jahrhunderts, 2 vols (Munich, 1864). Peter Herde, ‘Federico II et il Papato: la lotta della cancellerie’, Federico II e le nuove culture. Atti del XXXI convegno storico internazionale Todi, 9–12 Ottobre 1994 (Spoleto, 1995), pp. 70–1. Christopher Cheney, The Study of the Medieval Papal Chancery (Glasgow, 1966), p. 30. Murphy, Rhetoric in the Middle Ages, p. 250. Zutshi, ‘The Personal Role of the Pope in the Production of Papal Letters in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries’, p. 226. Herde, ‘Federico II e il Papato: la lotta delle cancellerie’, p. 72. Zutshi, ‘The Personal Role of the Pope in the Production of Papal Letters in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries’, p. 230. Sayers, Papal Government and England during the Pontificate of Honorius III (1216–1227), pp. 28–9. Ibid., pp. 41–6. Ibid., pp. 46–9. For an excellent recent discussion of this complex subject, see Zutshi, ‘The Personal Role of the Pope in the Production of Papal Letters in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries’, pp. 225–36. For some examples of the ongoing debate, see Hans Martin Schaller, ‘Die Kanzlei Kaiser Friedrichs II., Ihr Personal und ihr Sprachstil, Zweiter Teil’, Archiv für Diplomatik 4 (1958), 278–83; Hans Martin Schaller, Stauferzeit: Ausgewählte Aufsätze (Hannover, 1993), pp. 283–306; Wilhelm Imkamp, Das Kirchenbild Innocenz’ III. (1198–1216) (Stuttgart, 1983), pp. 71–104; Omnia disce: Medieval Studies in Memory of Leonard Boyle, O.P., ed. A. J. Duggan, J. Greatrex and B. Bolton (Aldershot, 2005), pp. 199–210. Zutshi, ‘The Personal Role of the Pope in the Production of Papal Letters in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries’, pp. 225–36. Christopher Cheney, ‘The Letters of Innocent III’, Medieval Texts and Studies (Oxford, 1966), pp. 28–9. Zutshi, ‘The Personal Role of the Pope in the Production of Papal Letters in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries’, pp. 231–3; Omnia disce, ed. Duggan, Greatrex and Bolton, pp. 209–10. Zutshi, ‘The Personal Role of the Pope in the Production of Papal Letters in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries’, p. 232. Herde, ‘Federico II e il Papato: la lotta delle cancellerie’, p. 70. Ibid., p. 86. Zutshi, ‘The Personal Role of the Pope in the Production of Papal Letters in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries’, p. 230. Patrick Zutshi, ‘Letters of Pope Honorius III concerning the Order of Preachers’ in Pope, Church and City: Essays in Honour of Brenda M. Bolton, ed. F. Andrews, C. Egger and C. M. Rousseau (Leiden, 2004), p. 286. James Powell, Anatomy of A Crusade 1213–1221 (Philadelphia, 1986), p. 110; Morris, The Papal Monarchy, pp. 214–17. Benedict VIII, ‘Liquidum est’ (1016), ‘Epistolae et decreta’, PL 139, col. 1604.

40

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

80 Norman Housley, ‘Crusades against Christians’, in P. W. Edbury (ed.), Crusade and Settlement: Papers read at the First Conference of the Society for the Study of the Crusades against Christian lay powers and the Latin East and presented to R. C. Smail (Cardiff: University College Cardiff Press, 1985) p. 17. 81 Paulus, Geschichte des Ablasses im Mittelalter vom Ursprunge bis zur Mitte des 14. Jahrhunderts 1, pp. 69–71; Bruno of Segni, ‘Liber de symoniacis’, Libelli de lite imperatorum et pontificum saeculis XI et XII conscripti 2, ed. E. Sackur, MGH, pp. 550–1; ‘Vie et miracles du pape Saint Léon IX’, ed. A. Poncelet, Analecta Bollandia 25 (1906), 291. See Housley, ‘Crusades against Christians’, p. 18; Jonathan Riley-Smith, The First Crusaders, 1095–1131, pp. 48–9; p. 73. 82 Wibert, ‘Vita Leonis IX’, Pontificum romanorum vitae 1, ed. J. M. Watterich (Leipzig, 1872), pp. 163–5. For a discussion of the Civitate campaign, see Paul Rousset, Les Origines et les caractères de la première croisade (Neuchâtel, 1945), pp. 44–9. 83 Housley, ‘Crusades against Christians’, p. 19. 84 Gregory VII (Synod of 7 March 1080), Registrum, ed. E. Caspar, 3rd edn (Berlin, Dublin and Zurich, 1967), 7, p. 486; For examples of Gregory’s letters, see ‘Super confusione’ (3 March 1075), Registrum 2, pp. 198–9; ‘Cum apud vos’ (28 Nov. 1078), Registrum 6, pp. 412–13; ‘Prudentie vestre ex’ (15 March 1081), Registrum 9, pp. 573–7. 85 Bardo, ‘Vita Anselmi episcopi Lucensis’, MGHS 12, p. 20. 86 Housley, ‘Crusades against Christians’, p. 19. 87 Norman Vincent, ‘Some Pardoners’ Tales: the Earliest English Indulgences’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 6th Series, 12 (2002), 23–58. 88 Marcus Bull, Knightly Piety and Lay-Response to the First Crusade: the Limousin and Gascony c.970–c.1130 (Oxford, 1993), p. 73; Riley-Smith, The First Crusaders, 1095–1131, pp. 49–50. 89 Herbert Cowdrey, ‘The Madia Campaign of 1087’, English Historical Review 92 (1977), 17. 90 Mansi, 20, col. 816; Hanz Hagenmeyer, Epistulae et chartae ad historiam primi belli sacri spectantes . . . Die Kreuzzugsbriefe aus den Jahren 1088–1100 (Innsbruck 1901), pp. 136–7; Housley, ‘Crusades against Christians’, p. 19; Jean Richard, ‘Urbain II, la predication de la croisade et la definition de l’indulgence’, Deus qui mutat tempora. Menschen und Institutionen im Wandel des Mittelalters, Festschrift für Alfons Becker zu seinem fünfundsechzigsten Geburtstag (Sigmaringen, 1987), p. 130. 91 ‘Historia peregrinorum’, Historia Occidentalis, Recueil des historiens des Croisades, (Paris 1844–1895) Vol. 3, p. 169. 92 Riley-Smith, The First Crusaders, pp. 68–9. 93 Jonathan Riley-Smith, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading (London, 1986), p. 28. 94 Heinz Hoffmann, Gottesfriede und Treuga Dei (Stuttgart, 1964), pp. 107–8; Erdmann, The Origin of the Idea of Crusade, pp. 63–4; George Duby, The Three Orders: Feudal Society Imagined, trans. A. Goldhammer (Chicago and London, 1980), pp. 185–91. 95 For the date 1083–1095, see Hoffmann, Gottesfriede und Treuga Dei, pp. 186–8. 96 Urban II, ‘Magna tibi exsultatione’ (31 March 1094), ‘Epistolae et privilegia’, PL 151, col. 385; ‘Pro charissimo fratre’ (11 March 1095), PL 151, col. 406. 97 ‘Epistolae Lamberti episcopi Atrebatensis et aliorum ad ipsum’, PL 162, cols 655–6. See Ernst-Dieter Hehl, Kirche und Krieg im 12. Jahrhundert. Studien zu kanonischen Recht und

INTRODUCTION

98

99

100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107

108 109 110

111 112 113 114 115 116 117

41

politischer Wirklichkeit (Stuttgart, 1980), pp. 13–14, note 49. For links between the Peace and Truce of God movement and the concept of Holy War, see Housley, ‘Crusades against Christians’, pp. 21–2. Sigebert of Gembloux, ‘Leodicensium epistola adversus Paschalem papam’, Libelli de lite imperatorum et pontificum saeculis XI et XII conscripti 2, ed. E. Sackur, MGH, p. 452. See Hehl, Kirche und Krieg im 12. Jahrhundert, pp. 13–14. Paschal II, ‘Dolemus graviter’ (2 Feb. 1104), Acta pontificum romanorum inedita 1, ed. J. von Pflugk-Harttung (Tübingen and Stuttgart, 1881), pp. 78–9; ‘Unam esse fidem’ (23 Nov. 1099–1115), ‘Epistolae et privilegia’, PL 163, col. 366. See Carlo Servatius, Paschalis II. (1099–1118): Studien zu seiner Person und seiner Politik (Stuttgart, 1979), pp. 252–61. Falco of Benevento, ‘Chronicon’, PL 173, col. 1199. Duffy, Saints and Sinners, p. 107. Housley, ‘Crusades against Christians’, p. 22. ‘Codex Udalrici’, ed. P. Jaffé, Biblioteca rerum Germanicarum V: Monumenta Bambergensia (Berlin, 1869), p. 443. Housley, ‘Crusades against Christians’, p. 23; Peter the Venerable, The Letters of Peter the Venerable, Vols 1–2, ed. G. Constable, Harvard Historical Studies 78 (Cambridge, MA, 1967). Dieter Girgensohn, ‘Das Pisaner Konzil von 1135 in der Überlieferung des Pisaner Konzils von 1409’, Festschrift für Hermann Heimpel 2 (Göttingen, 1972), pp. 1099–1100. Housley, ‘Crusades against Christians’, p. 23. Peter the Venerable, The Letters of Peter the Venerable 1, ed. Constable, p. 409. See also the note in Vol. 2, pp. 213–14. For the canonist Hostiensis’s treatment, see Housley, The Italian Crusades, p. 63. Housley, ‘Crusades against Christians’, pp. 23–4. Peter the Venerable, The Letters of Peter the Venerable 1, ed. Constable, p. 411. Alexander III, ‘Non est dubium’ (24 March 1170), Regesta pontificum Romanorum ab condita ecclesia ad annum post Christum natum 1198, 2, ed. P. H. Jaffé (Berlin, 1851), 2nd edn, ed. S. Loewenfeld (Leipzig, 1888), no. 11747. See Marcel Pacaut, Alexandre III, Étude sur la conception du pouvoir pontifical dans sa pensée et dans son oeuvre (Paris, 1956), pp. 200–3. Housley, ‘Crusades against Christians’, p. 24; Kennan, ‘Innocent III and the First Political Crusade’, 236–7; Riley-Smith, What were the Crusades?, pp. 60–1. Walther Holtzmann, ‘Krone und Kirche in Norwegen im 12. Jahrhundert’, Englische Analekten III, Deutsches Archiv für Geschichte des Mittelalters 2 (1938), 378. Peter Linehan, ‘The Synod of Segovia (1166)’, Bulletin of Medieval Canon Law 10 (1980), 35; 42; Housley, ‘Crusades against Christians’, p. 25; p. 34, note 88. Guibert of Nogent, Autobiographie, ed. E. -R. Labande (Paris, 1981), pp. 410, 412–14; Suger, Vie de Louis VI le Gros, ed. H. Waquet (Paris, 1929), pp. 172–8. Baldric of Bourgeil, ‘Gesta Alberonis archiepiscopi’, MGHS 8, p. 256. Gallia Christiana 1 (Paris, 1715), Instrumenta, p. 162. Housley, ‘Crusades against Christians’, p. 25. It is interesting to note that in 1120 a peace at Thérouanne, closely modelled on that of Archbishop Rainald, omitted the absolution granted by the archbishop.

42

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

118 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1: Nicaea I to Lateran V, ed. N. P. Tanner (London, 1990), p. 225. 119 Housley, ‘Crusades against Christians’, p. 26. 120 For Peter of Pavia’s account of the preaching mission, see PL 199, cols 1119–1124. For Henry of Marcy’s account, see PL 204, cols 234–42. For the earlier preaching mission of 1145 led by Bernard of Clairvaux, see PL 182, cols 434–6; PL 185, cols 312–13; PL 185, cols 410–16. 121 Cassandra Chideock, ‘Henry of Marcy, Heresy and the Crusade, 1177–1189’ (unpublished PhD dissertation, Cambridge, 2001), pp. 101–3. 122 The literature on Gratian is now enormous. See, for example, Peter Landau, ‘Gratian’, Theologische Realenzyklopedia 14 (Berlin, 1985), 124–30; Anders Winroth, The Making of Gratian’s Decretum (Cambridge, 2000); John Clarence-Smith, Medieval Law Teachers and Writers, Civilian and Canonist (Ottawa, 1975), pp. 19–20. 123 Othmar Hageneder, ‘Der Häresiebegriff bei den Juristen des 12. und 13. Jahrhunderts’, The Concept of Heresy in the Middle Ages (11th–13th C.), Proceedings of the International Conference, Louvain May 13–16, 1973 (Louvain, 1976), p. 42; Brundage, Medieval Canon Law and the Crusader. p. 39. 124 Clarence-Smith, Medieval Law Teachers and Writers, pp. 24–46, passim. 125 James Brundage, Medieval Canon Law (London and New York, 1995), pp. 215–16, 210–11. 126 Summa ‘Elegantius in iure divino’ seu Coloniensis, ed. G. Fransen and S. Kuttner, 4 vols, Monumenta iuris canonici, Corpus glossatorum (New York and Vatican City, 1969–90); Brundage, Medieval Canon Law and the Crusader, pp. 48–9, 86–8, 201; Brundage, Medieval Canon Law, p. 221; Hageneder, ‘Der Häresiebegriff bei den Juristen des 12. und 13. Jahrhunderts’, pp. 53–5. 127 John Teutonicus, Gratiani Decretum unacumque apparatu Johannis Theutonici atque additionibus Bartholomaei Brixiensis (Eggesteyn, 1472); Bartholomew of Brescia, Decretum cum apparatu Bartholomaei Brixensis (Basel, Fröben and Amerbach, 1500). See Brundage, Medieval Canon Law, pp. 207, 219–10; Brundage, Medieval Canon Law and the Crusader, p. 60. 128 Edward Peters, Inquisition (New York, 1988). 129 Ibid., p. 62. 130 For a summary of the sources of Gratian see Landau, ‘Gratian’, 126–7. 131 John Gilchrist, ‘The Papacy and War against the “Saracens”’, International History Review 10 (1988), 174–97. 132 Charles Duggan, Twelfth-Century Decretal Collections and their Importance in English History (London, 1963), p. 22. 133 Hehl, Kirche und Krieg im 12. Jahrhundert, pp. 64–108; Alfonso Stickler, ‘Il potere coattivo materiale della Chiesa nella riforma Gregoriana secondo Anselmo di Lucca’, Studia Gratiana 2 (1947), 235–85; Edith Pásztor, ‘Lotta per le investiture e “Ius belli”: la posizione di Anselmo di Lucca’, Sant’Anselmo, Mantova e la lotta per le investiture. Atti del convegno internazionale di studi, ed. P. Golinelli (Bologna, 1987), pp. 375–421. 134 Gratian, ‘Causa 23’, cols 889–965. 135 Gratian, C.23.q.5.c.8, cols 932–3. See Frederick Russell, The Just War in the Middle Ages, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 3rd Series, Vol. 8 (Cambridge, 1975), pp. 112–26.

INTRODUCTION

136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156

157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171

43

Gratian, C.23.q.1.c.5, col. 893; C.23.q.5.c.9, cols 933–4. Gratian, C.23.q.1.c.6, col. 893. Winroth, The Making of Gratian’s Decretum, p. 73. Gratian, C.23.q.1.c.1, col. 894. Gratian, C.23.q.4.c.41, cols 921–2. Gratian, C.23.q.8.c.17, col. 957. Gratian, C.23.q.8.c.7, cols 954–5. Gratian, C.23.q.8.c.9, col. 955. Gratian, C.23.q.5.c.46, col. 944. Gratian, C.23.q.3.c3, col. 897; C.23.q.3.c.4, col. 897. Gratian, C.23.q.3.c.4, col. 897. Gratian, C.23.q.4.c.38, cols 917–19. Gratian, C.23.q.4.c.39, cols 919–20. Gratian, C.23.q.4.c.40, cols 920–1. Gratian, C.23.q.5.c.43, col. 943; C.23.q.5.c.44, cols 943–4. Gratian, C.23.q.5.c.47, col. 945. Gratian, C.23.q.7.c.1, col. 950. For the word ‘contumelia’, see also C.24.q.1.c.38, col. 982. Gratian, C.23.q.7.c.1, col. 950. Gratian, C.23.q.7.c.2, col. 951. Gratian, C.23.q.7.c.3, cols 951–2; C.23.q.7.c.4, cols 952–3. Gratian, C.24, cols 965–1006, passim. For a comprehensive discussion of Causa 24, see Titus Lehnherr, Die Excommunikations-und Depositionsgewalt der Häretiker bei Gratian und den Dekretisten bis zur ‘Glossa ordinaria’ des Johannes Teutonicus (St Otilien, 1987). For a detailed discussion of the recensions of Gratian’s Decretum see Winroth, The Making of Gratian’s Decretum, pp. 34–76. Winroth, The Making of Gratian’s Decretum, p. 35. Gratian, C.24.q.1, d.a. c.1, col. 966. See Winroth, The Making of Gratian’s Decretum, pp. 35–6. Gratian, C.24.q.1.c.26, col. 976. Gratian, C.24.q.1.c.38, col. 982; C.24.q.1.c.39, col. 982. Gratian, C.24.q.1.c.10, col. 969. Gratian, C.24.q.2, d.a., c.1, col. 984; See Winroth, The Making of Gratian’s Decretum, p. 57. Gratian, C.24.q.2.c.6, cols 986–7. Gratian, C.24.q.3, d.a. c.1, cols 987–8. Gratian, C.24.q.3.c.39, cols 1001–1006. Gratian, C.24.q.3.c.39, col. 1003. Documents de l’Histoire du Languedoc (Toulouse, 1969), pp. 99–101. Gratian, C.24.q.3.c.27, cols 997–8. See Winroth, The Making of Gratian’s Decretum, p. 73; Edward Peters, Inquisition (New York, 1988), p. 61. Gratian, C.24.q.3.c.28, col. 998. Gratian, C.24.q.3.c.26, col. 997. It should be noted that this Summa seems to have had a limited circulation compared to other more widely read works. For other more widely read works of the period, see Stephan Kuttner, Repertorium der Kanonistik (1140–1234) (Vatican City, 1937).

44

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

172 Summa ‘Elegantius in iure divino’ seu Coloniensis 1, ed. Fransen and Kuttner, p. 118. 173 Laurentius Hispanus, ‘Glossa Palatina’, Biblioteca apostolica Vaticana, pal. lat. 658, fol. 72 rb.: A; Regin. lat. 977, fol. 209 rb.: B. See Hageneder, ‘Der Häresiebegriff bei den Juristen des 12. und 13. Jahrhunderts’, p. 53, note 35. 174 Bernard Balbi of Pavia, Summa decretalium, ed. E. A. T. Laspeyres (Regensburg, 1860; repr. Ganz, 1956), p. 215. See Hageneder, ‘Der Häresiebegriff bei den Juristen des 12. und 13. Jahrhunderts’, p. 53, note 35. 175 For example, Gratian, C.23.q.3.c.3, col. 897; C.23.q.3.c.4, col. 897; C.23.q.4.c.41, cols 921–2; C.23.q.8.c.9, col. 955; C.23.q.5.c.47, col. 945; C.23.q.4.c.39, cols 919–20. 176 Gratian, D.22, c.1, col. 73. 177 Peter Damian, ‘De privilegio Romanae Ecclesiae’, PL 145, col. 91; ‘Epistolae’, PL 144, col. 241. 178 Gratian, for example, ‘infidelium’, ‘pro inpiis’, C.23.q.4.c.41, col. 922; ‘inpii’, C.23.q.4.c.42, col. 922; ‘perditos filios’, C.23.q.4.c.43, col. 923; ‘infidelium’, C.23.q.4.c.17, col. 905; ‘inpiorum’, C.23.q.7.c.1, col. 950; ‘iniquos et inpios’, C.23.q.7.c.2, col. 951; ‘inpii’, C.23.q.7.c.4, col. 952. 179 Gratian, C.23.q.8.c.3, col. 954. For the concept of ‘militia Christi’, see the various studies in La Mendola. Militia Christi e Crociata nei secoli XI–XIII: atti della undecima settimana internazionale di studio: Mendola, 28 agosto-1 settembre 1989 (Milan, 1992). 180 Gratian, C.24.q.3.c.31, col. 998. 181 Gratian, C.24.q.3, d.a. c.1, col. 988. It was found, for example, in a letter attributed to Pelagius II (556–61) and more than once in works of Gregory I (590–604); Pelagius II, ‘Virtutum mater’ (c.585), ‘Epistolae et decreta’, Opera omnia, PL 72, col. 715; Gregory I, ‘Libri moralium xxxiv’, Opera omnia, PL 76, col. 1231; ‘In septem psalmos poenitentiales Expositio’, Opera omnia, PL 79, col. 572. See Siberry, Criticism of Crusading 1095–1274, pp. 69–89. 182 For example, Gratian, C.23.q.4.c.38, col. 918; C.23.q.7.c.1, col. 950. 183 For example, Gratian, C.23.q.4.c.39, col. 920; C.23.q.5.c.47, col. 945. 184 For example, Gratian, C.23.q.4.c.42, col. 922. 185 Gratian, C.23.q.4.c.25, cols 910–11. 186 Gratian, C.24.q.3.c.31, col. 998.

1

Innocent III: The Early Years of the Albigensian Crusade Innocent III, born Lothar of Segni in 1160/1, was descended on his father’s side from the Conti and on his mother’s the Scotti, both powerful noble Roman families who jostled with the Colonna, Orsini and Gaetani for position in the city of Rome.1 He became Pope at only 37 years of age and enjoyed a long pontificate of 18 years (1198–1216).2 Innocent was a man of many and varied talents, well-versed both in theology and canon law. He had studied at Rome, Paris and Bologna in his youth and was the author of sermons and three books of mystical theology: De contemptu mundi, De sacrificio missae and De quadripartita specie nuptiarum.3 He seems to have been greatly influenced by the reforming ideas of Peter the Chanter and his intellectual circle in Paris.4 As Pope he showed great enthusiasm for pastoral reform,5 and a particular interest in the workings of the papal chancery.6 Indeed Innocent’s pontificate reflected a rare combination of intellectual ability and boundless energy. His choice of the name Innocent may have been intended to recall Innocent I (401–17) who had emphasized the importance of the papacy’s role as the Church’s supreme source of law.7 It also confirmed Innocent’s commitment to unity and a desire to defend the Church against its enemies, following the example of another predecessor, Innocent II (1130–1143).8 For in the twelfth century the pontificates of Innocent II and Alexander III (1159–1181) had been weakened by the activities of antipopes. Under Innocent II the Council of Clermont of 1130 had been called to combat the election of Anacletus II as antipope, and thus to resist the threat of schism, while Canon 30 of the Second Lateran Council (1139) had declared Anacletus’ ordinations, alongside those of other heretics and schismatics, to be null and void.9 Although the threat of schism was resolved by the Peace of Venice of 1177, Alexander III then faced an ongoing struggle against further antipopes, backed by the German emperor Frederick I Barbarossa (c 1123–1190) – which made clear to his successors on the throne of St Peter that a strong papacy, able to wield both secular and spiritual authority, needed to be able to rely on the goodwill of temporal princes. Alexander continued to be anxious about schism in the Church and in 1179 Canon 2 of the Third Lateran Council named in particular three heresiarchs – Octavian, Guy of Crema and John of Struma – as schismatics: again, as at Lateran II, declaring their ordinations null and void.10 When Innocent III became Pope the concern

46

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

that he expressed to maintain the unity of the Catholic faith showed that he had taken to heart the history of these previous events and that the idea of Church unity was an important theme throughout his decision-making.

CONTROLLING THE ALBIGENSIAN CRUSADE11 Innocent’s zeal in authorizing the Albigensian Crusade reflected his generally ambitious plans to encourage crusades in the East, in Spain and in the Baltic area – and even against an important political enemy, Markward of Anweiler. His correspondence with the south of France also showed a particular concern about the problem of heresy in that region, a belief that crusading should be used to combat it, and a determination to control the course of the Albigensian Crusade once it was underway.12 In the early years of his pontificate Innocent had encouraged preaching and public disputations as his preferred means of tackling the problem of heresy in the south of France, sending a legation of 12 Cistercians in 1207 to preach and teach the Catholic faith.13 Even after he authorized the Albigensian Crusade, letters such as one of 1215, granting protection to the preacher Dominic of Guzman and his companions, showed that he had certainly not abandoned his endorsement of gentler methods of conversion.14 In authorizing crusades to the Holy Land, twelfth-century popes had never openly in their correspondence expressed a wish to convert Muslims, although the case was less clear cut with regard to crusades in Spain.15 But in contrast to crusades against Muslims, Innocent saw the crusade in the south of France as part of a wider programme of Church reform. His aims for the Albigensian Crusade, unlike the crusades which he authorized against Muslim enemies in the East, were therefore to foster adherence and allegiance to Christianity.16 He hoped that the crusade would not only destroy centres of Catharism but act as a warning to heretics to renounce their beliefs, discourage supporters from joining their ranks and bring all who had strayed back to the Christian faith.17 As part of this programme of reform, Innocent sent numerous legates to the south of France during the 18 years of his pontificate. Their remit was to confront heresy, to ensure that the southern French clergy carried out papal directives and generally to encourage the continuance of the crusade.18 His appointments included Rainier of Pons and his junior adviser Guy, John of St Paul, Peter of Castelnau, Raoul of Fontfroide, Arnald Amalric, Navarre of Acqs, a notary named Milo, Thedisius of Genoa, Hugh Raymond of Riez, Raymond III of Uzès, Raymond of Embrun, Guy of Vaux-de-Cernay, William of Paris, James of Vitry, Hugh of le Cour-Dieu, Fulk of Marseille and Peter of Benevento.19 Through these legates, Innocent hoped to maintain a clearly structured chain of command from the papal curia in Rome to crusade leaders and local bishops in the south

INNOCENT III

47

of France. Near the end of his pontificate, in 1214, he also sent another legate, Robert of Courçon, to France, but this time with a view to organizing the Fifth Crusade to the East.20 Innocent’s correspondence on heresy included numerous letters not only to these legates but also to the southern French bishops and to provincial councils, usually in response to their complaints and queries. Indeed the majority of his letters to the south of France were replies to petitions and demands. Yet he also hoped that through his correspondence he might keep a close eye on those leaders of the crusade whom he had authorized to fight on behalf of the Church. His letters reveal that he had four major objectives in mind when he authorized the Albigensian Crusade: first and foremost, to rid the south of France of heretics and those who supported them; second, to show that the Catholic Church was unified in its response to heresy; third, to assert and confirm the papacy’s authority over the Church in the south of France, and finally, to reassert the papacy’s authority over crusading itself, an authority which had been undermined in 1204 by the diversion of the Fourth Crusade to Constantinople. Although his letters were drafted by advisers and notaries at the papal curia, they nevertheless reveal unambiguously Innocent’s personal and deep concern to counter heresy, his passionate commitment to the Albigensian Crusade and his determination that the papacy should exert spiritual authority over those suspected of heresy.21 In particular, Innocent’s correspondence reveals his complex relationship with Count Raymond VI of Toulouse (1194–1222) whom he suspected of protecting and favouring heretics.22 In May 1207 he wrote to Raymond confirming the sentence of excommunication which his legate Peter of Castelnau had pronounced against the count earlier in the year and ordering him in the strongest possible terms to end his persecution of God’s Church.23 In August of the same year he sent a letter to the consuls of Montpellier discussing Raymond’s crimes against the Church, and in November he wrote to King Philip Augustus of France himself, promising for the first time to grant the same indulgence for those who took up arms against heretics as were granted to crusaders to the Holy Land.24 These letters of August and November 1207 emphasized the necessity of military action in the south of France to defend the Church. Then in January 1208 Peter of Castelnau was assassinated and the excommunicated Raymond was suspected of his murder. In March 1208, greatly grieved, Innocent sent letters to the prelates of the south of France, to Philip Augustus and to the consuls, barons and all the Christian faithful of the country, describing Peter’s death and calling for armed intervention.25 His belief that the murder of the legate had been carried out by one of Raymond’s vassals had confirmed and strengthened his decision to call for a crusade.26 Raymond’s previous refusal to comply with the peace initiatives of Peter of Castelnau provided Innocent with what he believed to be ample reason to call for

48

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

military action. His authorization of a crusade against Raymond was also part of a wider plan designed to replace lords suspected of favouring heretics with those who would co-operate with the Church against them. Raymond was an excellent target for the crusaders because he himself was suspected of leniency and because the south of France – particularly Toulouse – was regarded as a centre of heresy. Raymond, realizing that he had alienated the southern French clergy and greatly angered the Pope, took steps in June 1209 to placate them; he was reconciled at the Council of St Gilles and joined the crusader army.27 He thereby removed any threat to his own land and person and ensured that the leaders of the crusade could no longer use Innocent’s anger at the death of his legate, supposedly at Raymond’s hands, as a legitimate reason for hostility. Instead, the crusaders directed their campaign against Count Raymond Roger of Trencavel. Although again there was no reliable evidence that this count himself was a heretic, those who supported the crusade claimed that the lands of Raymond Roger were thickly settled with heretics.28 In July 1209, crusaders massacred the inhabitants of Béziers, and next besieged and captured Carcasonne. The territory of Raymond Roger was transferred into the victors’ hands. Following these victories, in August of the same year, Simon de Montfort, a baron originally from the Isle de France and earl of Leicester, was chosen to succeed Raymond Roger as Viscount of Béziers and Carcasonne,29 and became the leader of the crusade.30 So although anger at the death of his legate may have confirmed Innocent’s decision to call for this crusade against the Cathars, his reasons went much deeper. He was extremely dissatisfied with what had been achieved by preachers and public disputations in the south of France during the early years of his pontificate; indeed by 1200 he firmly believed that the Cathar heresy had spread to many parts of Western Europe. He had sent a number of legates to the south of France – led after 1203 by Arnald Amalric, abbot of Cîteaux – in an attempt to counter Catharism by peaceful means. But they had had little success in restoring orthodox Christianity to the area. The outlook for the Church had improved somewhat in 1206 when Bishop Diego of Osma and Dominic of Guzman, men who adopted an ‘apostolic’ lifestyle, joined forces with these legates. Dressed in simple robes, Diego and Dominic preached the Gospel, begged for their food and set out to prove to the people that the Cathars were not unique in their ability to imitate the life of Christ.31 Innocent’s letter of 1215, in which he granted to Dominic and his companions the papal protection which they had requested, is testimony to the fact that he continued throughout his pontificate to hope that preaching and teaching would still play a major role in the conversion of heretics.32 Yet his correspondence also reveals that by 1207 he was already impatient for quicker results than could be achieved by these gentler means alone. Certainly despite his appreciation that heresy was deeply rooted in the south

INNOCENT III

49

of France, Innocent’s letters showed that he had an unrealistic expectation of what a crusade could achieve. Although during his pontificate the Albigensian Crusade destroyed suspected centres of heresy such as Béziers and Carcassonne, it also drove the Cathars underground and increased the secrecy surrounding their practices.33 Innocent had not considered that although a crusade might be effective in dealing with ‘external’ Muslim enemies in the East, it might not be the best way to deal with ‘internal’ heretics in Christian Europe itself. Innocent’s correspondence also suggests that he hoped that the Albigensian Crusade would send clear signals to heretics in other parts of Europe that he was leading a Church unified against Catharism. Yet it was extremely difficult for the Pope in Rome to maintain control over the activities of crusaders and to keep abreast of the ever-changing political situation in the south of France.34 Between 1208 and 1213 numerous towns in the south were captured by the crusading army. Innocent tried to advise the crusade leaders on practical problems, to give support and encouragement to those who fought and to ensure the levy of a tax of a tenth on the clergy and laity of the south of France to finance the crusade.35 In November 1209 he reminded the prelates of Provence and Languedoc of the indulgences accruing to those who had taken the Cross, called for the levying of new troops,36 and encouraged the crusade leader Simon de Montfort to continue his campaign.37 He also gave instructions to the archbishop of Arles and his suffragans on how to finance the crusade.38 He urged crusaders not to desert their leader and instructed Simon himself that there should be an annual collection of three silver coins for the papacy from every home in those areas which the crusaders seized from heretics.39 Since he was far away in Rome, Innocent could not ensure that crusade leaders, local clergy or even his own legates would carry out his directives in the ways that he wished. But he made it clear in his letters when he was displeased with their activities.40 These directives with regard to crusading in the south of France were formed as a result of Innocent’s own initiative and derived from his own ideas on how to deal with heresy. But they were also affected by external pressures, in particular appeals from the southern French clergy and from the crusaders themselves. A good example of the complexity of the situation in the south of France is evident in Innocent’s response to the events of 1209. Late that year, Raymond of Toulouse, who in September had again been excommunicated at the Council of Avignon, travelled to Rome to try to reconcile himself once more with the Church. Raymond also wished to complain about orders he had received from the papal legates Arnald Amalric, Hugh Raymond and Thedisius of Genoa to the effect that he must cease imposing what they regarded as excessive road tolls in his territories.41 Writers who recorded the events of the Albigensian Crusade disagree as to how he was received in Rome: Peter of les Vaux-de-Cernay, a great supporter of the crusade and always eager to portray the count in the worst possible

50

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

light, asserted that Innocent was angry with Raymond; yet William of Tudela, also a supporter of the crusade, was rather less black and white in his depiction of events. He stated in his Chanson de la croisade Albigeoise that the count was made very welcome by the pope.42 This latter version accords with the tone of Innocent’s own letters of January 1210, sent to his legate Arnald Amalric, to his other legates Hugh Raymond and Thedisius, to the archbishops of Narbonne and Arles, to the bishop of Agen and to Raymond of Toulouse himself. All expressed a wish for the count of Toulouse to be reconciled to the Church.43 In two of these letters Innocent clearly stated that Raymond himself must be allowed to justify his actions.44 It seems, therefore, that Raymond’s embassy of 1209 had altered Innocent’s attitude towards both him and the people of Toulouse. In January 1210 Innocent instructed Arnald Amalric, Hugh Raymond and Thedisius to lift the interdict on the town of Toulouse in language indicating an unusually favourable attitude to the Toulousains.45 Yet despite Innocent’s clearly expressed wish in January 1210 for Raymond to be reconciled with the Church, subsequent letters show his influence with Innocent was short-lived and that the Pope once again allowed the leaders of the crusade, hostile to the count, to dictate policy. Innocent voiced no opposition when his legates excommunicated Raymond in February 1211 and in the same year at the Council of Montpellier placed Toulouse under interdict. Indeed in April 1211 he ordered the archbishop of Arles and his suffragans to publish the sentence of excommunication. In a somewhat softer tone a subsequent letter in August to Philip Augustus conceded that, although Raymond had failed to purge himself of his crimes, the Pope could not be sure that this was his own fault.46 Yet Innocent’s unwillingness to support the count against the wishes of the leaders of the crusade is suggested by the absence of any record of further letters to the south of France until May 1212. Nevertheless, the Pope’s unease about the activities of the crusaders induced him in May 1212 to remind Bishops Raymond of Uzès and Arnald Amalric, as well as his legates Hugh Raymond and Thedisius, of Raymond’s rights and to order them to seek reconciliation once more.47 As we have seen, Innocent had pressed for reconciliation between Raymond and the Church before,48 and in particular in a letter of 1209 in which he had rejoiced that the count had made his peace with the crusaders.49 So in May 1212 he reminded Hugh Raymond and Arnald Amalric that despite the count’s re-excommunication at St Giles and Avignon in 1209 and at the Council of Montpellier in 1211, Raymond himself had never been convicted of heresy.50 In a further letter, ‘Etsi resecundae sint’, of 1213 he even urged Arnald Amalric, Thedisius and Hugh Raymond to call for a council to listen to the proposals of Peter of Aragon who hoped to plead the count’s cause and facilitate a peace settlement.51 Innocent’s continuing concern for reconciliation was also apparent in letters to his legate Peter of Benevento

INNOCENT III

51

written in the months before the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215. He reminded Peter that whatever the sins of the count, the Church should not deny mercy to anyone who sought it, and he insisted that no final decision was to be made about Raymond until the council had delivered its verdict.52 These letters clearly show that the Pope continued to be more willing to show leniency toward the count than the leaders of the crusade. Another example of Innocent’s decision-making in the south of France can be seen in 1212 when he was confronted with another delegation, this time from Peter II of Aragon. That autumn envoys sent from Peter to Rome informed him of the king’s opposition to the recent military actions of the crusaders, gave his backing to Raymond of Toulouse and appealed for an end to the Albigensian Crusade.53 This was welcome news to Innocent who was now determined to launch a new crusade to the Holy Land – the Fifth Crusade. In 1213 he responded favourably to Peter’s envoys. He wrote on 15 January to his legate Arnald Amalric, archbishop of Narbonne since 1212, to announce his decision to end crusading in the south of France, and a few days later he ordered Simon de Montfort in no uncertain terms to take note of the king of Aragon’s complaints.54 As in 1209, however, subsequent letters from the papal curia showed Innocent bending once again to the wishes of the southern French clergy and those crusading in the south of the country. In January 1213 the Council of Lavaur, a local gathering of southern French clergy which had already responded unfavourably to petitions Peter had made for peace, rejected the king’s plans for a settlement. They also refused to lift the sentence of excommunication which had been placed on Raymond of Toulouse and sent a formal letter to the curia begging Innocent not to call off the crusade. Letters also came to Rome from the archbishop of Bordeaux, the bishop of Béziers, the archbishop of Aix-en-Provence and numerous other southern French clergy, all claiming that heresy was still rife in the south of France and it was therefore crucial for the well-being of the Church that the crusade against Cathar heretics continue.55 Innocent’s response was favourable to the wishes of the southern French clergy. Although in April 1213 he called for the Albigensian Crusade to be scaled down so as to concentrate on recruiting men for the Fifth Crusade to the Holy Land, he allowed men from the south of France to continue to take the Cross and to be granted the crusade indulgence:56 ‘We concede, however, that the remission of sins and the indulgences should remain for the people of the south of France’.57 So this concession had been won as a result of intense petitioning by French prelates and papal legates who had begged Innocent not to end the Albigensian Crusade.58 Furthermore, in a letter to Peter of Aragon in May that year, Innocent stated that should the people of Toulouse persist in their errors he intended to renew his promise of the crusade indulgence and make a general call for a new force of crusaders:59

52

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

But we do not want to hide from your Excellency that if the Toulousains and the nobles often mentioned should still also think to persist in their error, through the renewal of indulgences we will enjoin crusaders and other faithful people to stir themselves up so that, rising up to extirpate such a pest and trusting to divine help . . . they may go forward in the name of the Lord God of Hosts.60

Despite this warning, however, Peter repudiated his ties of allegiance to Simon de Montfort.61 On 12 September his forces met those of Simon at the battle of Muret and Peter was killed.62 It is clear, therefore, that lobbying by southern French prelates caused Innocent to alter his views radically between January and May 1213 to the extent that he withdrew support for Peter’s peace proposals.63 Even though in one letter he stated that a crusade to the Holy Land was of greater merit than the Albigensian Crusade, he did not try to prevent the resumption of hostilities by crusaders in the south of France.64 So Innocent’s policies were undoubtedly influenced by appeals from the ‘pro-crusading’ party. Nevertheless, his own influence on both crusaders and southern French clergy was not inconsiderable. The report of the Council of Lavaur and letters from the papal legates had begged him not to call a halt to the crusade. In particular, a letter from Hugh Raymond and Thedisius justifying their refusal to reconcile Raymond of Toulouse with the Church, showed that those guiding and encouraging the crusade felt that they needed to look to Innocent for validation of their actions.65 We conclude that the Pope was extremely sensitive to changing circumstances, as well as determined to carry out his own agenda: he tried to balance the wishes of both crusaders and their opponents while also pursuing his own understanding of how best to rid the south of France of heretics. Certainly the death of Peter II of Aragon at the battle of Muret in September 1213 eliminated Aragon as a threat to the crusaders and checked the pretensions of Aragonese kings north of the Pyrenees.66 As we have seen, the Pope’s desire to rid the south of France of heretics and his extreme anger at the death of his legate had originally strengthened his decision to call for military action.67 Yet, as we have also seen, in 1213 he had suddenly decided to suspend action against the Cathars, writing to Arnald Amalric that ‘the business of the Faith had sufficiently prospered’ in the south of France.68 This call for the crusade to be scaled down in order to encourage crusaders to go to the East signalled an important change in policy. His statement that ‘the business of the Faith in the south of France had sufficiently prospered’ reflected his desire to placate the southern French clergy by assuring them that he believed the crusade had been successful in rooting out heresy. But it also reflected his wish to concentrate on encouraging a new crusade to the Holy Land. In making this decision, Innocent was at odds with the views of southern French prelates, who wanted to continue the crusade against heretics

INNOCENT III

53

both for reasons of personal ambition and because they were genuinely concerned that heresy was still rife.69 In response to their concern that crusading had not so far solved the problem of heresy, the Council of Montpellier (1214–15), called by the newly appointed papal legate Peter of Benevento, decreed the setting up of inquisitions against heretics led by men specially chosen for the task. This idea was to be an alternative to allowing the problem of enquiring into heresy to remain in the hands of local bishops.70 Innocent’s correspondence to the south of France reveals not only complexities in his relations with the southern French clergy but also his unease at the course of action taken by the leaders of the crusade, Simon de Montfort and Arnald Amalric, and a deliberate attempt to reassert papal authority.71 His inability to prevent the diversion of the Fourth Crusade to Zara in 1202 and to Constantinople in 1204 had made him particularly aware of the difficulty in maintaining control over the activities of crusaders once he, or indeed any other Pope, had authorized a crusade. As we have seen, as early as 1210 he had sent letters reminding Hugh Raymond and Thedisius, as well as the archbishops of Narbonne and Arles, that Raymond of Toulouse must be given the opportunity to clear himself of the charges of heresy and of the murder of Peter of Castelnau. He alone would make a final judgement on Raymond’s fate.72 In 1212 he had instructed his legates Raymond of Uzès, Arnald Amalric, Hugh Raymond and Thedisius to try to reconcile Raymond to the Church, making it clear that he was becoming suspicious of the crusaders.73 By 1213 he had come to believe that the Albigensian Crusade was placing too much power in the hands of its leaders, particularly Simon de Montfort.74 Even in a flattering letter of 1215 to Simon, in which he endorsed the recommendations of the Council of Montpellier that he be made count of Toulouse, Innocent emphasized that a final decision on this matter would only be made after the count had presented his case at the Fourth Lateran Council.75 This dissatisfaction with Simon de Montfort became particularly obvious after 1213. In January of that year Innocent had ordered him to restore land taken from Peter of Aragon and to answer the king’s complaints.76 In the same month he wrote to Arnald Amalric, Thedisius and Hugh Raymond accusing both Simon and Arnald Amalric of trying to take control of lands where there was no suspicion of heresy.77 As we have seen, despite his withdrawal of support for the peace initiative of Peter of Aragon and the return of those who backed the crusaders’ cause to papal favour in May 1213, Innocent remained suspicious of Simon. In 1214 he made a point of telling him that his newly arrived legate, Peter of Benevento, was to act in the south of France ‘as our person’ (‘sicut personam nostram’).78 This phrase was traditionally used in papal letters to refer to the power and authority invested in a legate’s office, but Innocent may have chosen to use it here rather than the phrase ‘from our side’ (‘de latere nostro’),

54

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

more commonly found in papal correspondence, to signal not only the special authority he was granting his new legate, but to reassert papal authority over the crusade. Certainly in the past the Pope’s wishes had not always been obeyed as he would have liked, even by his legates. According to Peter of les Vaux-de-Cernay, Thedisius of Genoa, a notary who had begun his career in Languedoc as a secretary to the legate Milo, had in 1213 conspired with Arnald Amalric to ensure that Raymond of Toulouse’s excommunication was not lifted at Lavaur. This was despite the fact that Innocent had made it clear that he wished every effort to be made to reconcile Raymond with the Church.79 Innocent seems to have become aware that Thedisius, his former legate, had been too close a confidant of certain of the crusade leaders.80 Concern, therefore, about the activities of the leaders of the crusade, in particular in relation to the quarrel in 1215 between Simon de Montfort and Arnald Amalric over possession of the dukedom of Narbonne, and even about his own legates’ use of power, were important factors in the waning of Innocent’s enthusiasm for the Albigensian Crusade by the end of his pontificate.81 By contrast, his interest in a new crusade to the Holy Land grew in his latter years as Pope and he became personally involved in its preaching.82

INNOCENT III AND HERESY Innocent’s correspondence, with its colourful language yet meticulous attention to scriptural detail, reveals an emotional man whose enthusiasm for the Albigensian Crusade was part of an unprecedented encouragement for crusading in general. Throughout his pontificate he encouraged as many men as possible to take the crusade vow, allowing for the commutation, redemption or postponement of crusading vows and even declaring that crusaders might go on crusade without the permission of their wives.83 His strongly worded letters to the south of France reveal his continual preoccupation throughout his pontificate with heretics whom he believed were seeking to undermine Catholicism. For many clergy and laity this belief that the Church was constantly under threat from enemies seeking to destroy it had been confirmed by the loss of Jerusalem to Saladin in 1187 and by ongoing Muslim campaigns in Spain. These events were a source of grief and shame to the whole of Christian Europe. The Council of Montpellier of 1195, for example, had declared that the dress of Christians should be modest as befitted those mourning a double loss. Referring to Spain and the Holy Land it stated: ‘. . . since the Lord, just as it pleased Him, saddened the whole of Christendom in the loss of the land of Jerusalem and the invasion of that part of Spain with a double grief . . .’84 Innocent emphasized his own personal grief in 1215 by making the recovery of the Holy Land a central

INNOCENT III

55

concern of Lateran IV.85 In the case of the Holy Land and Spain, the enemies seeking to destroy the Church were Muslims because they were a threat to the crusader states in the East and to the Christian kingdoms of Spain. In the case of the south of France, the enemies were Cathar heretics whom both Innocent and the southern French clergy believed posed a threat to the Catholic faith itself. Maintaining the unity of the Catholic faith against the Cathar heresy in the south of France had been consistently a prime concern of the late twelfth- and early thirteenth-century papacy and important statements about heresy had been made by a number of Church councils in France. It continued to be a major preoccupation of Innocent III. At Rome the First Constitution of the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 restated the traditional doctrine of the Church that ‘Indeed the universal faith of the Church is one, outside of which absolutely no-one is saved.’86 This constitution therefore implied the importance of converting heretics for their own salvation. Innocent believed that, just as the military achievements of Muslim enemies in the Holy Land had undermined the prestige of the papacy, so ‘internal’ enemies in Europe might weaken Catholic unity. Fears about ‘external’ enemies in the East only increased Innocent’s sensitivity to ‘internal’ foes. Since, in his judgement, both sought to weaken Christianity, Innocent regarded the threat of ‘external’ and ‘internal’ enemies as closely connected and he made this clear in his correspondence.87 In a letter of 1198 to the archbishop of Auch he declared that Cathar heretics were attempting to fragment the unity of the Church.88 In 1199 he emphasized to his legate Rainier the need to refute Cathar beliefs in order that heretics would return to the Catholic faith.89 Writing to Raymond of Toulouse in 1207, Innocent reproved him for threatening Church unity by supporting heretics. In 1208 he congratulated Philip Augustus of France for rejecting heresy and putting his trust in the one holy, Catholic and apostolic Church.90 In his general letter ‘Vineam Domini Sabaoth’, convoking Lateran IV, he emphasized that the primary aims of the council were both to encourage all Christian peoples to aid the Holy Land and to strengthen the Catholic faith by eliminating heretics.91 Innocent frequently quoted or referred to biblical texts in these letters concerned with heresy in the south of France. In several he likened the heretics to the little foxes of the Song of Songs 2.15 which were destroying the vineyard of the Lord.92 In a letter of 1205 he emphasized that, like the metaphorical foxes of the Lord’s vineyard, the heretics had tails, thereby drawing attention to their ‘otherness’.93 He also likened them to wolves in sheep’s clothing (Matthew 7.15), to tares which polluted the corn and suffocated the purity of growing faith (Matthew 13.25–30),94 or to rough places which must be smoothed so that fruit-bearing vines might be planted in the vineyard of the Lord (Isaiah 5.7).95 In a letter of 1214 to the prelates and clergy of the provinces of Embrun, Aix-en-Provence, Arles and Narbonne announcing the arrival of his legate Peter of Benevento,

56

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

he compared the perversity of heretics with the black horse of the Apocalypse (Revelations 6.4–5).96 By contrast, he equated faithful Catholics with the Lord’s flock (Luke 12.32) and likened the Church’s struggle against heresy to a ship, the barque of St Peter, tossed on the waves by a storm (Mark 4.37–40).97 Innocent’s letters employed other metaphors for heresy, particularly those of illness and disease: it was a deviant virus, a sickness which spreads to the sound and healthy parts of a body, even a plague.98 One letter described it graphically as a putrid festering which infected a healthy body; another compared it to rotting teeth which must be extracted from the jaws of the Church; others likened it to a cancer, referring to common skin complaints such as sores, ulcers, tumours and scabs.99 This image of cancer was of course also frequently employed in conciliar legislation, for example, in the decrees of the Council of Tours of 1163 and by twelfth- and thirteenth-century polemicists. It was drawn from St Paul’s description of godless chatter as a ‘discourse which creeps in like a cancer’ (2 Timothy 2.17).100 Such metaphors emphasized the insidious nature of the Cathar heresy. By using biblical images of cultivation and planting, the Pope emphasized that carefully organized long-term measures were needed to combat heretical beliefs which he maintained were especially deeply rooted in southern French society.101 Several of his letters asserted that the Church must clear the rough ground from the vineyards of the Lord and plant useful greenery, or, using only slightly different language, must extirpate vice and plant virtues.102 In one letter, ‘Si tua regalis’ (1208), which, according to our evidence, was the only recorded letter sent to the south of France which drew a direct comparison between Muslims and heretics, Innocent emphasized that those who followed heresy were morally worse than the Muslims because they were more securely entrenched in Christian society (‘securius’).103 That claim followed the tradition of prominent Church authorities including Bernard of Clairvaux (1090–1153), who had stated that the heathen who openly combated the faithful were less dangerous to the Church than insidious ‘internal’ heretics. In similar vein, Peter the Venerable (1092–1156) had stated that he regarded heathens not only as less pernicious but also as less responsible than ‘internal’ enemies.104 And Causa 23 and Causa 24 of Gratian’s Decretum had emphasized that the Church’s struggle against heretics was more important than wars against heathens or infidels since their ‘internal’ position in Christian society meant they posed a more insidious threat.105 This letter of 1208 was written on hearing the news of the murder of Peter of Castelnau. According to Peter of les Vaux-de-Cernay, the Pope was extremely angry at the death of his legate and it is therefore difficult to gauge whether the statement comparing heretics unfavourably with Muslims represented his considered position or was merely written in frustration and exasperation. Yet certainly a letter to the Sicilians of 1199, describing Innocent’s political enemy

INNOCENT III

57

Markward of Anweiler as another Saladin and worse than an infidel, suggests he did indeed regard ‘internal’ enemies as a more dangerous threat to the Church, even than the Muslims who threatened the Holy Land, because they were morally more reprehensible.106 Yet by contrast, his letter of 1213 to Arnald Amalric, recently appointed archbishop of Narbonne, which called for an end to the Albigensian Crusade in order to encourage crusaders to fight in the Holy Land, suggested that at this point he regarded the infidel as a more immediate threat.107 Once again his correspondence suggests that Innocent adapted the rhetoric of his letters to suit the continuously changing political circumstances. It is therefore unclear from his correspondence as a whole whether Innocent believed heretics were more or less dangerous to the Church than ‘external’ Muslim enemies, whether he considered a crusade against heretics as important as against non-believers and indeed whether he held a considered position on the issue at all. It seems that he took a pragmatic approach to both heretics and infidels and varied his opinions according to political circumstances. Both the 1213 letter and the general crusading letter ‘Quia maior’ of the same year, concerned with the launch of a new crusade to the Holy Land, stated that the Albigensian Crusade should be halted because it had ‘prospered’ and there was no longer the same urgency for its continuance.108 Yet despite the fact that the crusaders had captured considerable land since 1213, heresy had not been eradicated in the south of France. ‘Quia maior’ also called for an end to crusades in Spain. Here Innocent’s claim about the success of crusading was justified because the victory of Alphonso of Castile and Peter of Aragon at the battle of Las Navas de Tolosa of 1212 had ended any significant threat of a Muslim empire in Spain. So in these two letters Innocent’s primary aim was not therefore to make a definitive statement to Christians about whether theoretically the infidel or the heretic posed a greater threat to the Church, but rather to emphasize his immediate concern about the Holy Land and his determination to launch a new crusade for its relief. If, however, it is difficult from his correspondence to discern Innocent’s private views of the degree of danger posed by both Muslims and heretics to Christianity, he was, nevertheless, clearly uncompromising in his view of heretics as inimical to the Church, to the papacy and to Christian society in general.109 Letters exhorting crusaders to stamp out heresy were colourful and emotive, frequently using violent phrases such as, ‘to exterminate wicked heresy’ (‘ad extirpandam hereticam pravitatem’),110 ‘to exterminate the followers of wicked heresy’ (‘ad exterminandum pravitiatis haereticae sectatores’)111 and ‘to subdue heretics’ (‘ad expugnandos haereticos’).112 Fearing the danger posed by heresy, Innocent often expressed himself in black and white language. The crusader Simon de Montfort was described in the highest terms as a ‘soldier of Christ’ (‘miles Christi’)113 and a ‘defender of the faith’ (‘defensor fidei’).114 This contrasted greatly with language

58

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

used of Raymond of Toulouse. On hearing the news of the murder of Peter of Castelnau, for example, the Pope had described Raymond as ‘pestilential’ (‘vir pestilens’) in no uncertain terms.115 Such harsh language was consistent with the uncompromising pronouncements of Church councils relating to heresy both earlier than and contemporary to Innocent’s pontificate. Canon 23 of Lateran II had condemned those who defended heretics, while the Councils of Montpellier of 1162 and 1195 had decreed that any secular prince who, having been warned by the Church, failed to exercise temporal jurisdiction against heretics, must be excommunicated.116 Letters from the Council of Lavaur of 1213 to both Peter of Aragon and to Innocent, and from the Pope’s legates Hugh Raymond and Thedisius, targeted Raymond of Toulouse, even though Innocent wished to see him reconciled to the Church. These letters justified their refusal to listen to Raymond’s peace proposals, strongly condemned heretics in general and, as we have noted, criticized Raymond even more harshly than the Pope himself.117 Indeed, in keeping with Innocent’s generally cautious attitude towards complaints and appeals made to him, his letters were more lenient to those accused of or condemned for heresy than his overall policy towards heretics might suggest. In 1204, Innocent called for an investigation into Archbishop Berengar of Narbonne who was accused of turning a blind eye to heresy in his province.118 But he urged his legates Arnald Amalric, Peter of Castelnau and Ralph of Fontfroide to set up an enquiry to investigate whether allegations that the archbishop had never visited his province or given spiritual leadership were true before any punitive action was taken. This was despite the fact that he himself had rebuked certain other bishops of the south of France as rich, idle, passive and unable to preach, and that he was eager to depose Berengar, who had shown little desire to fulfil his episcopal duties, including the rooting out of heretics and their supporters, in a province widely regarded as a centre of heresy.119 In all of these letters the Pope’s attitude towards heresy was consonant with his emphasis on the merciful nature of the Church towards repentant sinners.120 So in 1210 he wrote encouragingly to his legate Arnald Amalric, promising remission of sins for those fighting against heresy and urging him to absolve the people of Toulouse from blame for the misdeeds of their count.121 Or in 1214 he sought to reconcile the count of Comminges and the viscount of Béarn to the Church, declaring that those who knocked on the door with humility should not be denied reconciliation.122 Another letter of 1214 to Peter of Benevento again urged leniency towards the people of Toulouse – although it ended with a harsh reminder that, if they did not make amends for their past behaviour, severe action would be taken against them. Here of course the Pope was keen to stress that the Church’s mercy was not unconditional but dependent on the sincere rejection of heresy.123

INNOCENT III

59

Since those who did not do so were often protected by members of the local nobility, Innocent’s second major preoccupation in his letters concerned with heresy in the south of France was the need to curb these protectors. So in a letter of 1213 to Peter of Aragon revoking his support for the king’s peace initiatives, Innocent declared that those who protected and defended heretics were more dangerous than the heretics themselves.124 Writing in 1214 to his legate, Peter of Benevento, concerning the reconciliation of Toulouse to the Church, he took the same line.125 Such letters both reiterated and amplified the papal decree ‘Ad abolendam’ (1184) of Lucius III (1181–1185), who, with the agreement of the German emperor Frederick I Barbarossa, had called for the excommunication of those condemned as heretics throughout Europe, prescribed penalties for heretical clerics and laymen and established a procedure for the systematic inquisition of heretics by bishops.126 Furthermore, Constitution 3 of the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 emphasized and formalized Innocent’s position, since it stated that not only believers but also those who sheltered, defended or supported heretics should be excommunicated.127 This constitution echoed earlier Church rulings, in particular councils that had repeatedly emphasized the danger to the Catholic faith posed by heresy. The Councils of Toulouse (1056 and 1119), Reims (1148 and 1157), Tours (1163), Montpellier (1162 and 1195) and Avignon (1209) all legislated not only against heretics but also against their supporters.128 Certain of them – those of Toulouse (1119), Reims (1148), Tours (1163) and Montpellier (1162) – had been presided over by popes themselves, while those of Montpellier (1195) and Avignon (1209) were called by papal legates – which confirms that the conciliar legislation they enacted was directly influenced by papal attitudes and teaching and that these councils were conducted under the watchful gaze of the papacy. Indeed as early as 1049 the papal Council of Reims had excommunicated not only the ‘new heretics in areas of Gaul’ but also those ‘who should receive from them some gift or service, or should offer to them any protection or defence’.129 Canon 3 of the Council of Toulouse of 1119 had decreed that heretics and their defenders should be driven from the Church.130 Like ‘Ad abolendam’ of Lucius III, the Council of Montpellier of 1195 had decreed that it placed under anathema princes who refused to use their temporal authority against heretics.131 Canon 27 of Lateran III of 1179 had stated that heretics in Gascony, the territories of Albi and Toulouse, and other areas, as well as those who defended and received them, were to be placed under a sentence of excommunication.132 During Innocent III’s pontificate, the Council of Avignon of 1209 decreed that in each parish a priest and two, three or more authorized laymen ought to investigate both heretics and those who favoured or received them. They were then to report the heretics so that they might be punished according to ecclesiastical sanctions and all their goods confiscated.133 So Innocent’s own letters echoed the teaching of these

60

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

councils of the Church that Cathar beliefs had infiltrated the highest echelons of southern French society and that the heretics relied on a network of interrelated lords as their supporters, if not fellow-believers, making Catharism an extremely difficult enemy to overcome.134 A third preoccupation of Innocent’s letters to the south of France was the position of the Church vis-à-vis the secular world. They frequently invoked the theory – discussed by the twelfth-century canonist Gratian – of the right of the Church to use spiritual coercion (primarily the spiritual penalties of interdict and excommunication), and to authorize material coercion (physical force and violence), in order to secure obedience to legitimate commands.135 In a general letter of 1198 to the archbishops, barons and Christian faithful asking them to assist his legates Guy and Rainier, Innocent urged the legates to apply the spiritual sword (‘spiritualem gladium’) against heretics.136 In 1204 he begged Philip Augustus to use his secular power to assist his legates Peter of Castelnau and Ralph of Fontfroide and stated that God had specifically instituted both the priestly merit of spiritual authority and the kingly merit of secular power for the defence of the Church.137 Innocent therefore saw heresy not only as a stubborn error in doctrine but also as an attack on the Church, which must defend itself by all means at its disposal, both spiritual and secular, with the secular powers helping to enforce spiritual authority where necessary.138 Indeed Innocent’s emphasis on the Church’s need to call on secular authority for its protection showed his firm belief that the clergy must work side by side with the temporal powers to suppress heresy. His predecessors, in particular Leo IX (1049–1054) and Gregory VII (1073–1085), thinking that the secular powers had failed in their prime duty – to support the Church – had tried to free its ecclesiastical jurisdiction from their authority.139 Yet they too had continued to co-operate with and invoke secular powers for their own purposes. Thus Gregory VII relied on Matilda of Tuscany for military support and maintained friendly relations with William I of England (1028–1087). Later, papal calls for crusades became summons to secular powers to aid the Church: Urban II (1088–1099) and Eugenius III (1145–1153) both called upon the military forces of Europe to take part in the First and Second Crusades. In his decree ‘Ad abolendam’ Lucius III had co-operated with Frederick I Barbarossa to counter heresy in Europe. And during the pontificate of Alexander III the status of martyr afforded to Thomas Becket almost immediately after his murder, suggests that by the end of the twelfth century the papacy was beginning to secure popular recognition of the right of the Church to take charge of its own affairs. Yet as a cardinal in Celestine III’s pontificate, Innocent himself had seen the papacy paralysed in Rome by the physical power of the German emperor Henry VI (1165–1197) whose unexpectedly early death in 1197 made possible Innocent’s more effective papacy. His invitation to temporal powers to lend aid and support to southern

INNOCENT III

61

French churchmen against heresy implied that he no longer felt that the rights of the Church were threatened by temporal authority and that he was now sufficiently confident to ask for secular assistance. Yet, ironically, a fourth concern of Innocent III’s letters in the early years of his pontificate, and even after his authorization of the Albigensian Crusade, was the maintenance of peace in the south of France. Twelfth-century Church councils had long tried to promote peace in Europe by a variety of initiatives. In an attempt to discourage a cult of military prowess – an important element in the twelfth-century Peace and Truce of God Movement – the Second Lateran Council of 1139 and the Council of Reims of 1157 had legislated against tournaments. The Council of Montpellier of 1195 had enacted legislation to encourage truces between feuding overlords.140 Twelfth-century councils were also concerned to tackle growing disorder in the south of France resulting from the use of mercenaries or ‘routiers’ by powerful magnates, a concern expressed in Canon 27 of Lateran III (1179) which declared that these routiers ought to be subject to the same penalties as heretics.141 During the early years of his pontificate Innocent III cited such conciliar legislation to reinforce his own pronouncements about heresy. In a letter of 1204 to Arnald Amalric and his legates he referred to the decrees of the Third Lateran Council which concerned the excommunication of disturbers of the peace. In 1204 he emphasized that he was amplifying the mandate of his legates Peter of Castelnau and Ralph of Fontfroide in accordance with the tenor of the decrees of that council.142 He also emphasized his concern to continue to counter heresy by peaceful means, authorizing the diplomatic peace initiatives of Peter of Castelnau in 1206–7 and Milo in 1209.143 Milo himself described his legatine activity to Innocent as directed ‘against heretics and for the establishment of peace and quiet in the south of France’ and highlighted the importance of bringing ‘peace and reformed tranquillity’ to the area.144 Even during the Albigensian Crusade itself, southern French councils began to legislate more generally against disturbers of the peace, putting them in the same category as heretics. In 1209 the Council of Avignon stated that robbers and violators of the peace must be placed under anathema. In 1213 the Council of Lavaur told Peter of Aragon that Raymond of Toulouse ought not to be defended by the Church since he associated with heretics and law-breakers, and in 1214–15 the Council of Montpellier devoted ten canons to maintaining civil peace.145 Nevertheless, despite these initiatives, the maintenance of peace in the south of France remained secondary to Innocent’s preoccupation with countering heresy. It is significant that only one of the Pope’s own letters which we possess between 1198 and 1216 was concerned with the specific problem of disturbers of the peace in the south. This letter referred directly to Canon 27 of Lateran III which called for the excommunication of those ‘who should presume to employ or to favour

62

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

men of Brabant, Aragon, Navarre and Gascony’.146 So Innocent’s correspondence contrasted significantly with letters from the Council of Lavaur of 1213 to Peter of Aragon and from the legates Hugh Raymond, bishop of Riez, and Thedisius, and from various French prelates to the Pope himself. Their letters showed great concern about the disruptive activities of mercenaries in the south of France, which may well have seemed to them as great a threat as the heretics whom they believed were seeking to undermine orthodox Christianity.147

INNOCENT III AND THE IDEA OF ‘INTERNAL’ CRUSADE In his letter ‘Cum unus Dominus’ of 1198 to the archbishop of Aix-en-Provence and his suffragans, Innocent III encouraged all the Christian faithful in their dioceses to ‘gird themselves’ against heretics (‘contra hereticos accingantur’) and to aid his legates Rainier and Guy in their work against heresy.148 Also in 1198, in ‘Inter cetera que’, Innocent told the archbishop of Auch that the material sword might have to be used to coerce heretics and their supporters, thereby emphasizing that secular authority could be invoked to apply compulsion.149 Then in two letters to Philip Augustus, ‘Ad sponsae suae’ of 1204 and ‘Ne populus Israel’ of 1205, he again stressed the need for the material sword to help the spiritual. He attempted to persuade the king to oppose heretics and those who supported them in the south of France by the use of force.150 In all these letters Innocent used traditional military expressions and metaphors to foster the Church’s struggle against heresy. In ‘Ad sponsae suae’ and ‘Ne populus Israel’ he tried to persuade Philip Augustus to use his authority and influence as suzerain to compel local magnates to proscribe heretics and confiscate their goods. If any of the magnates should refuse to expel heretics from their territories, or to receive or favour them in any way, their goods were to be confiscated and their lands made part of the king’s domain. So it is clear that from all these letters that Innocent hoped in the early years of his pontificate for co-operation between the Church and secular authorities to stamp out heresy in the south of France by using military means if necessary. Yet he still did not envisage the idea that the papacy might authorize a crusade against heretics – which would have meant an army invading the lands of the king’s vassals and taking vows to fight in the name of the Church. In other words, he still had no plans for a crusade.151 Yet a close examination of Innocent’s grant of indulgences in his correspondence to the south of France shows how his policies with respect to crusading against heretics slowly developed.152 As we have shown, in ‘Cum unus Dominus’ of 1198, addressed to the archbishop of Aix-en-Provence and his suffragans, and in another letter, ‘Cum ad capiendas’, of the same year, but addressed more

INNOCENT III

63

widely to all the archbishops, bishops, prelates, magnates and faithful Christians of France, the Pope urged them to aid his legates Rainier and Guy in their work against heresy: . . . for (all) those who for the preservation of the Christian faith at such a critical moment which threatens the Church, shall have helped these men faithfully and devotedly we concede that indulgence for their sins which we grant as an indulgence to those visiting the thresholds of Blessed Peter and James.153

In these two letters Innocent granted the same indulgence to those who aided his legates in their work against heresy as to those who made a pilgrimage to Rome or Compostela.154 Rome and Compostela were the foremost places of Christian pilgrimage in Europe at this period. In the course of the thirteenth century, popes began to award exceptionally large indulgences to the greater Roman Basilicas and later popes, beginning with Boniface VIII, would formally declare that those who visited Rome for the Jubilee would gain the plenary indulgence.155 We have no other evidence for Innocent granting such a plenary indulgence for visiting Rome in 1200 and it is therefore unlikely that he was granting this here in these letters.156 Nevertheless, he was extremely keen to encourage and promote pilgrimages to Rome and Compostela by the grant of indulgences.157 Pilgrims to Rome accumulated these indulgences by moving from church to church, which meant that the amount of indulgence gained varied with the determination of each person.158 And those who travelled on pilgrimage to Compostela are recorded as usually receiving a remission of one-third of their enjoined penance.159 Innocent was therefore clearly stating that aiding his legates in their work against heresy was to be regarded as an act of great spiritual merit. Six years later, in his letter ‘Ad sponsae suae’ of 1204 to the king of France, Innocent called on Philip Augustus, or his son Louis, or indeed some other suitable person, as well as the counts and barons of France, to proscribe heretics and confiscate their goods.160 He now promised Philip Augustus that if he should give military assistance to the papal legates Arnald Amalric, Peter of Castelnau and Ralph of Fontfroide, he would obtain the same mercy for sins as was granted those who went on crusade to the Holy Land: Thus may it assist your Royal Greatness with our dear sons . . . the Cistercian abbot, and Peter and Ralph monks of Fontfroide, legates of the Apostolic See, whom we destine specially to this, that the material sword may be sanctioned to supply the defect of the spiritual sword, and you, besides the temporal glory which you will attain from so pious and praiseworthy a work, may obtain that pardon for sins, which we grant as an indulgence for those crossing the sea to bring aid to the Holy Land.161

64

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

And also in 1204, in ‘Etsi nostri navicula’, the Pope again enjoined his legates Arnald Amalric, Peter of Castelnau and Ralph of Fontfroide to impress upon the king, his son Louis, and the counts, viscounts and barons of France that they should proscribe heretics and confiscate their goods. In return they would gain the Holy Land crusade indulgence:162 . . . and enjoining them for the remission of their sins, since we want those who faithfully shall have laboured against the heretics to rejoice in the same indulgence as we grant as an indulgence for those crossing the sea for the aid of the Holy Land.163

Then in the following year (1205), in ‘Ne populus Israel’ to Philip Augustus, Innocent again called on the king or his son Louis, or some other suitable person, as well as the leaders of France, to proscribe heretics and confiscate their goods.164 Once more he urged the king to give military assistance to his legates and promised the same indulgence as for crusading in the East: But so that the defect of the spiritual sword may receive a supplement through the material [sword], let your Kingly Sublimity powerfully show help and favour to the aforementioned legates, so that besides gaining glory and honour among men from so commendable a work, you may deserve to obtain that pardon for sins which we have offered to be granted as an indulgence for all going to bring aid to the Holy Land.165

Thus, whereas in 1198 Innocent granted to those who aided his legates in their work against heresy the same indulgence as pilgrims gained from going to Rome or Compostela, in 1204 and 1205 he was promising the king of France the plenary Holy Land crusade indulgence for using force against heretics. He was deliberately comparing the king’s proposed intervention with a crusade to the East. Therefore between 1198 and 1204 his concern about heresy had grown significantly and by 1204 he had come to believe that force, as well as gentler methods of preaching and teaching to tackle heresy, was essential. Philip Augustus, however, had no wish to involve himself in coercing his magnates to take punitive action against heretics and did not respond to the Pope’s appeals. Yet Innocent became more and more convinced that military action was essential. In 1207, therefore, he issued another letter, ‘Inveterata pravitatis haereticae’, sent this time not only to Philip Augustus but collectively to the counts, barons, knights and all the Christian faithful in the kingdom of France, and also separately to other French magnates such as the duke of Burgundy.166 He now offered the Holy Land crusade indulgence to all those who would take arms to fight against heretics in the area of Toulouse:

INNOCENT III

65

Moreover we wish that all the goods of these heretics should be made public property, and both for you or for the one working in your person, or for the one expending the necessary help, and for the men of your land, who shall have taken up weapons against the perfidious in order to subdue them, let that remission of sins be effective which we have proclaimed is to be granted as an indulgence for those who work for the aid of the Holy Land . . .167

Here for the first time Innocent was addressing a much wider audience, since he was calling on the Christian faithful throughout the whole of France to take part in a military campaign against Cathar heretics on behalf of the Church. This call was repeated the following year, 1208, when, in response to the murder of Peter of Castelnau, Innocent wrote ‘Ne nos ejus’ to the southern French archbishops of Narbonne, Arles, Embrun, Aix-en-Provence and Vienne and their suffragans. He again promised an indulgence of the remission of their sins for all those who should fight against heretics:168 But for those who, inflamed with zeal for the orthodox faith to vindicate just blood which ceases not to clamour from earth to heaven until the God of Vengeances shall descend upon the earth, should manfully gird themselves against pestilential persons of this kind who at the same time together fight both peace and truth, you may securely promise the remission of their sins conceded by God and by His vicar, that a labour of this kind for the performance of the work may be sufficient for them on behalf of those offences for which they shall have obtained contrition of heart and true oral confession to the true God.169

And in ‘Etsi nostri navicula’, also of 1208, Innocent enjoined on bishop Ralph of Couserans and the papal legates Hugh Raymond of Riez and Arnald Amalric to urge Philip Augustus, his son Louis, the king’s counts, viscounts, barons and also other faithful Christians living in France to labour against heretics:170 . . . and enjoining them for the remission of their sins, since we want those who faithfully shall have laboured against the heretics to rejoice in the same indulgence as we grant as an indulgence for those crossing the sea for the aid of the Holy Land . . .

These words were exactly the same as those used by Innocent in ‘Etsi nostri navicula’ of 1204. Yet, unlike in his letters of 1204 and 1205, by 1207 and 1208 the Pope not only urged the king of France and his nobles to use force to deal with heretics but was now making a direct appeal to all faithful Christians to take up arms and to take the Cross to fight against heretics in the south of France on behalf of the Church.171 In ‘Etsi nostri navicula’ (1208) he not only promised the plenary indulgence but specified that those who had taken the vow to go on

66

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

crusade to the Holy Land should not be prevented from doing so by the campaign in the south of France: . . . provided that those who, having vowed themselves to aid the Holy Land, may follow through their vow faithfully, nor should the devotion of those wanting and being able to set out to the aid of that land be impeded through this . . .

Such a statement strongly suggests that by 1208 Innocent was expecting and indeed encouraging men to crusade both to the Holy Land and to the south of France. During subsequent years of his pontificate, Innocent continued to repeat his grant of spiritual rewards to those who had taken vows to crusade in the south of France, and he always described them in his letters as ‘signed with the Cross’ (‘crucesignati’). According to Peter of les Vaux-de-Cernay, in 1210 papal legates on their own initiative granted the same plenary indulgence for 40 days’ service fighting against heretics in the south as for those who went on crusade to the Holy Land.172 And while in 1213 Innocent wrote to Arnald Amalric urging the archbishop to conclude a peace,173 yet later in the same year, following the Council of Lavaur and intense petitioning by prelates of the south of France, he wrote ‘Is in cujus’ to Peter II of Aragon, threatening to grant new indulgences to ‘crucesignati’.174 Then in 1214 he ordered his newly appointed legate, Peter of Benevento, to rouse up ‘crucesignati’ and other Christian faithful to fight against heresy with the same incentives.175 The language of Innocent’s letters was therefore remarkably similar to that used by the Pope himself and his predecessors in encouraging the Christian faithful to embark on crusades against Muslim enemies in the East. Writing in November 1209 to the lords and consuls of Provence, the Pope enjoined them to kill any remaining heretics for the remission of their sins (‘in remissionem vobis peccaminum injungentes’).176 In the same month he again reminded the prelates of Provence that they had been granted remission of their sins for the campaign (‘remissionem peccaminum . . . indultam’), and he called on them to persuade the clerics of their dioceses to provide alms for the campaigns for the remission of their sins (‘in remissionem sibi peccatorum’).177 In 1215 he encouraged Simon de Montfort to undertake the custodianship of territories conquered by the crusaders again for the remission of his sins (‘in remissionem peccaminum iniungendo’).178 This phrase ‘for the remission of your sins’ (‘in remissionem peccaminum’), now being used by Innocent in his letters to the south of France, had been employed in many contexts by popes and clergy in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries and was derived from the Nicene Creed.179 A commonplace of ecclesiastical discourse, its aim was to persuade individuals and groups to do something meritorious which would contribute to their salvation. The phrase

INNOCENT III

67

did not on its own imply the grant of an indulgence but could do so in certain contexts, such as papal calls for crusades, where it was expressed with particular verbs in particular precise formulations.180 In enjoining crusaders in these letters of 1209 and 1215 to fight for the remission of sins, Innocent was reminding them of the spiritual rewards to be gained from crusading, and in particular of the plenary indulgence which he had specifically granted for military campaigns in the south of France from 1207 onwards. Indeed it was Innocent’s deliberate policy to employ the same terminology in letters to the south of France as he and earlier popes had used in their calls for crusades to the Holy Land. He therefore referred to those who laboured against heresy, whether by preaching or subsequently by campaigning, as ‘soldiers of Christ’ (‘Christi milites’ or ‘milites pro Christi’),181 and recruits of a Christian army,182 girded against those who perverted the Catholic faith,183 and armed against its subverters.184 And he added ‘in order to defend the honour of the Holy Trinity’ (‘ut defensuri Sanctae Trinitatis honorem’) – a specific reference to Catharism which denied the doctrine of the Trinity.185 Furthermore, by using phrases such as ‘the protection of the Christian knighthood’ (‘praesidia militiae Christianae’)186 and ‘the defence of faith’ (‘Fidei defensio concessa’), Innocent constantly evoked the need for the defence and protection of Christianity.187 Heretics were ‘those who attacked the Catholic faith’ (‘impugnatores catholice fidei’)188 and wrongly ‘fought like sons against their mother’ (‘pugnant quam filii contra matrem’).189 By contrast, Innocent described Simon de Montfort as a ‘defender of the Faith’ (‘catholice fidei defensor’),190 the Albigensian Crusade a ‘defence of faith’ (‘fidei defensio’),191 and he exhorted crusaders to persevere in protecting the south of France.192 So Innocent used the language of defence – which popes employed in their letters in the context of many different enemies and especially in the context of crusades against Muslims – to justify his authorization of crusades against heresy. His intent was to emphasize that just as the Holy Land needed defending against Muslims, so the Christian faith itself needed defending against heretics. There were many further similarities in the language for the two sets of crusades. As with crusades to the Holy Land, Innocent described the Albigensian Crusade as ‘the business of the Christian faith’ (‘fidei Christianae negotium’193/‘negotium fidei’194), a ‘pious work’ (‘pietatis opus’),195 and a ‘holy contest’ (‘ad agonem sanctae pugnae’).196 Crusaders were those who had chosen ‘to take up the sign of the living Cross’ (‘vivificae crucis characteram assumpserunt’).197 The Pope called on those wishing to fight to avenge ‘the injury done to Christ’ (‘injuria Jesu Christi’) – also a frequent phrase in letters calling for crusades to the East.198 The idea that Muslims in the Holy Land had injured Christ by their occupation of the places of His life and Passion was effective in encouraging crusaders to embark for the East. Now Innocent used the same idea about heretics, employing the traditional Christian idea of the Church as Christ’s body – derived from St Paul’s

68

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

doctrine of the mystical body of Christ (Ephesians 5.29) – to emphasize that the Church itself must also be protected. Such linguistic parallels suggest that Innocent regarded the Albigensian Crusade as an essentially similar enterprise to crusades to the East and hoped that the recipients of his letters would make a direct comparison between a crusade against heretics and a crusade against Muslim infidels. Realizing, however, that despite the teachings of the Church on the dangers posed by heretics, the Albigensian Crusade did not possess in popular imagination the prestige of a crusade to the Holy Land, Innocent used ‘traditional’ crusading rhetoric in the hope of engendering necessary enthusiasm for a holy war in the south of France. For the papacy, crusading to the Holy Land was the standard against which all other ‘external’ crusades and ‘internal’ crusades, including the Albigensian Crusade, were measured, and for this reason the Holy Land was frequently mentioned in grants of the crusading indulgence.199 Allusions might be direct, as in ‘Quia maior’ and ‘Cum jam captis’ (1213) in which he called for the Albigensian Crusade to be scaled down in favour of crusading to the East, or indirect as in ‘Si tua regalis’ (1208) which, as we have seen, compared heretics unfavourably with Muslims.200 In contrast to all these references or allusions to the Holy Land, Innocent mentioned crusades in Spain only once in his correspondence to the south of France. In ‘Etsi resecandae sint’ (1213) he encouraged Raymond of Toulouse to do penance for his sins either by fighting overseas in the Holy Land or in Spain: ‘Whether to go overseas, or to Spain, to the frontiers, to fight against the perfidy of the Muslim people.’201 Even here, however, by first referring to the crusade overseas, Innocent stressed the importance of the Holy Land. This accorded with the practice of contemporary conciliar legislation.202 Indeed, rather than stating that the indulgence for fighting heretics in the south of France was the same as that granted to those campaigning in Spain or the Baltic, Innocent always identified the crusading indulgence for the Albigensian Crusade as the same as that for crusaders in the Holy Land.203 Certainly, despite his undoubted enthusiasm for campaigns in Spain and the Baltic, Innocent never called for the Albigensian Crusade to be ended or curtailed in order that Europe’s military resources might be concentrated solely on these areas.204 By contrast, as we have seen, he called for both the Spanish and Albigensian Crusade to be halted in 1213 in order to concentrate on a new crusade to the Holy Land.205 And although in ‘Etsi resecandae sint’ (1213) he encouraged Raymond of Toulouse to go to the Holy Land or Spain to atone for his sins, he made no similar calls for Christians in the Levant or Spain to fight in France. Innocent clearly believed that recipients of his letters to the south of France were more likely to be inspired by comparisons with crusades to the Holy Land than by comparisons with other crusades elsewhere.

INNOCENT III

69

By granting this same indulgence for a crusade against heretics as for crusading to the East, Innocent seemed to identify the Albigensian Crusade as equally important as a crusade to the Holy Land.206 In ‘Etsi nostri navicula’ (1208) to Arnald Amalric he clearly stated: . . . we want those who shall have faithfully laboured against heretics to rejoice in the same indulgence as we grant for those crossing the sea for the aid of the Holy Land, provided that those who have made vows to aid the Holy Land shall follow through their vow faithfully and that the devotion of those who are willing and able to set out for the succour of that land [the Holy Land] should not be impeded for this reason . . . so that thus usefully it may be ensured that neither be gravely diminished by the other.207

This statement, that neither the Albigensian Crusade nor a crusade to the Holy Land should impede the other, might suggest that Innocent regarded the two as equally important. Indeed it would seem that his policy was only to give priority to the Holy Land when he was satisfied with his successes against the Cathars. So his letter ‘Cum iam captis’ (January 1213) to Arnald Amalric gave as his reason for ending the crusade that ‘through the grace of God the business of the Faith (in the south of France) had sufficiently prospered’, a claim which he repeated in his general letter ‘Quia maior’ (April 1213) calling for a new crusade to the Holy Land.208 The Albigensian Crusade, as also crusading in Spain, was to be shut down in favour of the new project. The ground for this closure was that the business of combating heresy in the south of France had sufficiently prospered and there was therefore no longer an urgent need for crusading there: And for the same reason we cancel the remission of sins and the indulgences which were hitherto conceded by us for those setting out to Spain to fight against the Moors or to the south of France to fight against the heretics . . .209

Yet a problem with such an interpretation is that both ‘Cum iam captis’ and ‘Quia major’ were issued in 1213, the year in which Peter of Aragon was killed by Simon de Montfort at the battle of Muret, and Innocent, having decided to launch the Fifth Crusade, authorized its preaching. By emphasizing the importance of the Holy Land and those who had already taken vows to go there, Innocent revealed that in 1213 his primary interest was now a crusade to the East. This is confirmed by the fact that, writing to Arnald Amalric in the same year, he declared that all energies should now be concentrated on the proposed venture to the East: ‘So that . . . in as much as we will be less occupied by other matters, we may exert ourselves the more effectively against the unbelief of the Saracen people . . .’210 As we have seen, he had decided to scale down the Albigensian Crusade in 1213 so that it would not be a distraction. It is highly probable, therefore, that, whether or not

70

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

he privately believed that the Albigensian Crusade had achieved its objectives, in 1213 Innocent claimed success in order that the faithful should concentrate their attention on his new crusade to the Holy Land. We must conclude yet again that between 1207 and 1216 Innocent was subjected to conflicting information and pressure as to the relative importance on the one hand of heresy in the south of France and the counts of Toulouse, and on the other, of events in the East. In response he emphasized the danger posed by both heretics and Muslims, changing his language to suit the immediate political circumstances. What is certainly clear is that throughout his pontificate Innocent never forgot the liberation of the Holy Land and that he always remained absolutely committed to crusades to the East. This commitment is particularly evident in another letter, also of 1213, in response to a letter from the dean of Speyer in which Innocent actually (and uniquely) affirmed that a crusade to the Holy Land was of greater merit than crusading against heretics in the south of France: . . . concerning those who, having taken up the sign of the Cross, have proposed to set out to the south of France against the heretics . . . we give the advice that such men should be zealously persuaded to take on the labour of the journey to Jerusalem, because it is agreed to be of greater merit . . .211

Of course it is difficult to conclude from this letter alone whether Innocent thought that in absolute terms the Holy Land crusade was really of greater merit, or whether he wished to indicate only that he believed it was more significant at this particular time.212 What is certainly clear is that now at least, in 1213, the Fifth Crusade was his first priority. In fact, that the Pope prioritized the Holy Land throughout his pontificate is not only suggested by this letter of 1213 when he was beginning to be actively engaged in launching the Fifth Crusade but also implied in a much earlier letter. As already noted, in his letter ‘Inveterata pravitatis haereticae’ of 1207 he had emphasized to Philip Augustus that he would grant him and his soldiers the same remission of sins if they should fight against heretics as for those crusading in the East. Yet he had also made clear that they must nevertheless constantly bear in mind the pressing needs of the Holy Land and ensure that their military activities against heretics in the south of France did not prevent its aid.213 Throughout his pontificate Innocent was driven by the idea of recapturing the Holy Land; the diversion of the Fourth Crusade to Constantinople only redoubled his resolve to ensure that the Fifth Crusade achieved its objectives. On Innocent’s death in 1216 the Albigensian Crusade had only partially achieved his aims and it was to lead to future problems for the papacy, which at its outset the Pope could not have foreseen. The activities of crusaders in the south of France changed the political landscape. Not only was the power of

INNOCENT III

71

Simon de Montfort hugely increased but the involvement of Philip Augustus, and particularly his son Louis VIII during the pontificate of Honorius III, led in time to a tightening of the hold of the French crown over the south.214 Innocent had hoped that the French crown’s involvement would make it easier for the clergy to crack down on heresy by co-ordinating spiritual and secular forces. But such a policy meant that eventually the southern French clergy came to rely heavily on the friendship of the French monarchy, in particular on Louis IX and Philip IV. As the next two chapters will show, the crusade policies of Innocent’s successors, Honorius III and Gregory IX, both benefited and suffered from this participation of the French crown in crusading in the south of France. Notes 1 Colin Morris, The Papal Monarchy. The Western Church from 1050 to 1250 (Oxford, 1989), p. 418; Horace Mann, Lives of the Popes in the Early Middle Ages from 590 to 1304, Vol. 11 (London, 1912), pp. 9–10; Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes (New Haven, 1997), pp. 110–11. 2 Walter Wakefield, Heresy, Crusade and Inquisition in Southern France 1100–1250 (London, 1974), pp. 86–7. 3 Morris, The Papal Monarchy, pp. 418–19; Mann, Lives of the Popes in the Early Middle Ages from 590 to 1304, 11, p. 22; John Baldwin, Masters, Princes and Merchants. The Social Views of Peter the Chanter and his Circle, Vol. 1 (Princeton, NJ, 1970), p. 343. There is a vast amount of recent secondary literature on the pontificate of Innocent III which cannot all be footnoted here but some of which is listed in the Bibliography: for example, Helene Tillmann, Pope Innocent III, trans. W. Sax (Amsterdam, 1980); Jane Sayers, Innocent III: Leader of Europe, 1198–1216 (London, 1994); John Moore, Innocent III 1160/61–1216: To Root up and to Plant (Leiden, 2003); Innocenzo III: Urbs et Orbis, ed. A Sommerlechner (Rome, 2003). 4 Baldwin, Masters, Princes and Merchants. The Social Views of Peter the Chanter and his Circle, 1, p. 317; Frederick Powicke, Stephen Langton (Oxford, 1928), pp. 56–62. 5 Morris, The Papal Monarchy. The Western Church from 1050 to 1250, pp. 433–8. 6 Patrick Zutshi, ‘Innocent III and the Reform of the Papal Chancery’ in A. Sommerlechner, Innocenzo III: Urbs er Orbis (Rome, 2003), pp. 84–101. 7 Duffy, Saints and Sinners, p. 31. 8 Horace Mann, Lives of the Popes in the Early Middle Ages from 590 to 1304, Vol. 9 (London, 1914), pp. 4–101; Mary Stroll, The Jewish Pope: Ideology and Politics in the Papal Schism of 1130 (London, 1987). 9 Mansi 21, cols 437–40; Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1: Nicaea 1 to Lateran V, ed. N. P. Tanner (London, 1990), p. 203. 10 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 1, ed. Tanner, pp. 211–12. 11 Wherever possible I have cited the recent but as yet unfinished edition of the Register of Innocent III (Die Register Innocenz III, Publikationen des Österreichischen Kulturinstituts in Rom, ed. O. Hageneder, H. Haidacher and A. Strnad, vols 1– (Graz, Vienna and Cologne, 1964–). For those letters which have not yet been re-edited I have cited the Patrologia cursus completus, Series Latina, comp. J. P. Migne (Paris, 1841–64).

72

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

12 For relatively recent accounts of Innocent III’s policies against heretics in the south of France and his authorization of the Albigensian Crusade, see Raymonde Foreville, Le Pape Innocent III et la France (Stuttgart, 1992), pp. 217–70; Marco Meschini, Innocenzo III et il negotium pacis et fidei in Linguadoca tra il 1198 e il 1215 (Rome, 2007), passim. 13 Malcolm Lambert, Medieval Heresy: Popular Movements from the Gregorian Reform to the Reformation, 2nd edn (Oxford, 1992), pp. 96–7; Wakefield, Heresy, Crusade and Inquisition in Southern France 1100–1250, pp. 89–91. 14 Innocent III, ‘Iustis petentium desideriis’ (8 Oct. 1215), Monumenta diplomatica S. Dominici, ed. V. Koudelka (Rome, 1966), p. 59. 15 Benjamin Kedar, Crusade and Mission: European Approaches toward the Muslims (Princeton, NJ, 1984), pp. 60–1; Robert Burns, Muslims, Christians and Jews in the Crusader Kingdom of Valencia: Societies in Symbiosis (Cambridge, 1984), pp. 83–5. 16 In the case of crusades to the Baltic, popes also openly expressed their hopes for the conversion of heathens. See, for example, Innocent III, ‘Suggestor scelerum serpens’ (30 Oct. 1209), PL 216, cols 117–18. 17 James Muldoon, Popes, Lawyers and Infidels: the Church and the Non-Christian World 1250–1550 (Philadelphia, 1979), p. 10. 18 Wakefield, Heresy, Crusade and Inquisition in Southern France 1100–1250, pp. 87–9. 19 For an excellent discussion of these legates and their sphere of influence, see Claire Dutton, Aspects of the Institutional History of the Albigensian Crusades (unpublished PhD dissertation, Royal Holloway and New Bedford College, University of London, 1993), pp. 67–135; Joseph Strayer, The Albigensian Crusades (New York, 1971), pp. 98–102. 20 Hans Mayer, Geschichte der Kreuzzüge (Stuttgart, 1965), trans J. Gillingham, The Crusades (Oxford, 1972), p. 218. 21 For Christian relations with heretics, see, for example, Muldoon, Popes, Lawyers and Infidels, pp. 3–5. 22 Elie Griffe, Le Languedoc cathare au temps de la croisade (1209–1229) (Paris, 1973), pp. 82–3. 23 Innocent III, ‘Si parietem cordis’ (29 May 1207), Die Register Innocenz III, 10, pp. 118–22. See William Sibly and Michael Sibly, The History of the Albigensian Crusade (Woodbridge, 1998), p. 314; Claude de Vic and Joseph Vaisette, Histoire générale de Languedoc 6, in revised edn by A. Molinier et al. (Toulouse, 1872), p. 249. 24 Innocent III, ‘Detestibile scelus’ (20 Aug. 1207), Bullaire du bienheureux Peter de Castelnau, ed. A. Villemagne (Montpellier, 1917), pp. 251–5; ‘Inveterata pravitatis haereticae’ (17 Nov. 1207), PL 215 cols 1246–8. See Raymonde Foreville, ‘Innocent III et la Croisade des Albigeois’, Paix de Dieu et guerre sainte en Languedoc au XIIIe siècle, Cahiers de Fanjeaux 4 (Toulouse, 1969), p. 185; Lambert, Medieval Heresy, p. 97; Wakefield, Heresy, Crusade and Inquisition in Southern France 1100–1250, p. 93. 25 Innocent III, ‘Ne nos ejus’ (10 March 1208), PL 215, cols 1354–8; ‘Si tua regalis’ (10 March 1208), PL 215, cols 1358–9; ‘Rem crudelem audivimus’ (10 March 1208), PL 215, cols 1359–60. 26 Malcolm Barber, The Cathars: Dualist Heretics in Languedoc in the High Middle Ages (Harlow, 2000) p. 3. 27 Sibly and Sibly, The History of the Albigensian Crusade, p. 317.

INNOCENT III

73

28 William of Tudela, La Chanson de la croisade Albigeoise 1, ed. E. Martin-Chabot (Paris, 1931), pp. 44–5. See Barber, The Cathars, p. 121. 29 Michel Roquebert, L’Épopée cathare, Vol 1: 1198–1212: l’Invasion (Toulouse, 1970), pp. 284–5. 30 Claire Taylor, ‘Pope Innocent III, John of England and the Albigensian Crusade (1209– 1216)’, in Pope Innocent III and his World, ed. J. C. Moore (London, 1999), pp. 216–17. 31 Bernard Hamilton, ‘The Albigensian Crusade and Heresy’, in D. Abulafia, The New Cambridge Medieval History, Vol. 5: c.1198–c.1300 (Cambridge, 1999), p. 165. 32 Innocent III, ‘Iustis petentium desideriis’, p. 59. 33 For the tenacity of the Cathar heresy in the south of France, see Malcolm Lambert, The Cathars. Dualist Heretics in Languedoc in the High Middle Ages (Oxford, 1998), p. 112. 34 Lambert, Medieval Heresy, p. 98. 35 Yves Dossat, ‘Simon de Montfort’, Paix de Dieu et guerre sainte en Languedoc au XIIIe siècle, Cahiers de Fanjeaux 4 (Toulouse, 1969), pp. 288–9. 36 Innocent III, ‘Gloriantes hactenus in’ (11 Nov. 1209), PL 216, cols 158–60. 37 Innocent III, ‘Habuisse bajulos Dominici’ (11 Nov. 1209), PL 216, cols 151–2; ‘Nuntios et apices’ (12 Nov. 1209), PL 216, cols 152–3. 38 Innocent III, ‘Gloriantes hactenus in’, cols 158–60. 39 Innocent III, ‘Devotionem vestram dignis’ (13 Nov. 1209), PL 216, col. 156; ‘Ut tuae nobilitatis’ (18 Dec. 1210), PL 216, col. 357. 40 For example, Innocent III, ‘Litteras tuas paterna’ (23 Jan. 1210), PL 216, cols 174–6. After the departure of many crusaders and the intervention of Peter II of Aragon, who as overlord of the Trencavel territories was unwilling to receive the homage of Simon de Montfort for territories which Simon had overrun, the winter of 1209–10 saw reverses for the crusaders. In the spring of 1210, however, now reinforced, they resumed their conquests, Peter of Aragon and Simon de Montfort being briefly united. 41 Peter of les Vaux-de-Cernay, Historia Albigensis 1, ed. P. Guébin and E. Lyon (Paris, 1926), pp. 140–1. 42 Peter of les Vaux-de-Cernay, Historia Albigensis 1, ed. Guébin and Lyon, pp. 142–3; William of Tudela, La Chanson de la croisade Albigeoise 1, ed. Martin–Chabot, p. 106. See Griffe, Le Languedoc cathare au temps de la Croisade (1209–1229), pp. 46–7. 43 Innocent III, ‘Accedentes ad presenciam’ (19 Jan. 1210), ed. C. de Vic and J. Vaisette, Histoire générale de Languedoc, Vol. 8, in revised edn by A. Molinier et al. (Toulouse, 1879), pp. 614–15; ‘Super quibusdam mandatorum’ (23 Jan. 1210), PL 216, cols 183–4; ‘Litteras tuas paterna’, cols 174–6; ‘Venians ad praesentiam’ (25 Jan. 1210), PL 216, cols 171–3. 44 Sibly and Sibly, The History of the Albigensian Crusade, pp. 317–18. 45 Innocent III, ‘Accedentes ad presenciam’, pp. 614–15. See Sibly and Sibly, The History of the Albigensian Crusade, pp. 318–20. 46 Innocent III, ‘Cum expectaverimus hactenus’ (15 April 1211), PL 216, cols 410–11; ‘Noverit regalis prudentia’ (25 Aug. 1211), PL 216, cols 524–5. 47 Innocent III, ‘Licet Raimundus Tolosanus’ (25 May 1212), PL 216, cols 613–14. 48 Foreville, ‘Innocent III et la croisade des Albigeoise’, pp. 205–6. 49 Innocent III, ‘Gaudemus in Domino’ (27 July 1209), PL 216, cols 100–1. 50 Innocent III, ‘Licet Raimundus Tolosanus’, cols 613–14.

74

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

51 Innocent III, ‘Etsi resecandae sint’ (18 Jan. 1213), PL 216, cols 739–40. See the Statutes of Gérone, Mansi 22, cols 673–6. 52 Innocent III, ‘Etsi Tolosanorum excessus’ (25 Jan. 1214), RHGF 19, pp. 589–90; ‘Accedens ad nostram’ (4 Feb. 1215), Layettes 1 (Paris, 1863), pp. 410–11. See Marie-Humbert Vicaire, Histoire de Saint Dominique (Paris, 1957), trans. K. Pond, Saint Dominic and his Times (London, 1964), pp. 191–2. 53 Pierre Belperron, La Croisade contre les Albigeois et l’union de Languedoc à la France (1209–1249), 2nd edn (Paris, 1945), pp. 255–8. 54 Innocent III, ‘Cum jam captis’ (15 Jan. 1213), PL 216, cols 744–5; ‘Ex parte charissimi’ (17 Jan. 1213), PL 216, cols 741–3. For a comprehensive description of the complex political and diplomatic manoeverings of 1213, see Roquebert, l’Epopée cathare Vol. 2: 1213–1216: Muret ou la dépossession (Toulouse, 1970), pp. 89–105. 55 Council of Lavaur, ‘Petitiones et preces’ (18 Jan. 1213), PL 216, cols 840–2; Council of Lavaur, ‘Ad agendas paternitatis’ (21 Jan. 1213), PL 216, cols 836–9; Letter of prelates at Lavaur and in particular Archbishop William of Bordeaux, ‘Ad agendas paternitatis’ (end Jan. 1213), PL 216, col. 839; Archbishop Bermond of Aix, ‘Compendiosa narratione beatitudini’ (end Jan. 1213), PL 216, col. 844; Bishop Bertrand of Béziers, ‘Cum ineffabili Dei’ (end Jan. 1213), PL 216, cols 843–4; Hugh Raymond and Thedisius, ‘Sanctitati vestrae insinuatione’ (Jan. 1213), PL 216, cols 833–5; Council of Orange, ‘Utinam infallibiliter et’ (20 Feb. 1213), PL 216, cols 835–6. See Belperron, La Croisade contre les Albigeois et l’union de Languedoc à la France (1209–1249), pp. 258–9. 56 Innocent III, ‘Quia major nunc’ (19–29 April 1213), Studien zum Register Innocenz III, ed. G. Tangl (Weimar, 1992), pp. 88–97. 57 Innocent III, ‘Quia major nunc’, p. 94. 58 Council of Lavaur, ‘Petitiones et preces’ (18 Jan. 1213), PL 216, cols 840–2; Council of Lavaur, ‘Ad agendas paternitatis’, cols 836–9; Letter of prelates at Lavaur and in particular Archbishop William of Bordeaux, ‘Ad agendas paternitatis’, col. 839; Bishop Bertrand of Béziers, ‘Cum ineffabili Dei’, cols 843–4; Archbishop Bermond of Aix, ‘Compendiosa narratione beatitudini’, col. 844; Council of Orange, ‘Utinam infallibiliter et’, cols 835–6. 59 Innocent III, ‘Is in cujus’ (21 May 1213), PL 216, cols 849–52. 60 Innocent III, ‘Is in cujus’, col. 851. 61 Peter of les-Vaux-de-Cernay, Historia Albigensis, 2, ed. Guébin and Lyon, pp. 106–9. 62 Damian Smith, ‘Peter II of Aragon, Innocent III and the Albigensian Crusade’, in A. Sommerlechner, Innocenzo III: Urbs er Orbis (Rome, 2003), p. 1049. 63 Sibly and Sibly, The History of the Albigensian Crusade, pp. 319–20. 64 Innocent III, ‘Quod juxta verbum’ (9 Sept. 1213), PL 216, cols 904–5. 65 Hugh Raymond and Thedisius, ‘Sanctitati vestrae insinuatione’, cols 833–5. 66 Austin Evans, ‘The Albigensian Crusade’, in A History of the Crusades, ed. K. Setton, Vol. 2: The Later Crusades, 1189–1311 (Madison, 1969), pp. 302–3. 67 Innocent III, ‘Ne nos ejus’ (10 March 1208), PL 215, cols 1354–8. See Lambert, Medieval Heresy, p. 97. 68 Innocent III, ‘Cum jam captis’, col. 744. 69 For example, Innocent III, ‘Cum jam captis’, cols 744–5. For the letter of the Council of Lavaur, see ‘Ad agendas paternitatis’ (21 Jan. 1213), PL 216, cols 836–9.

INNOCENT III

75

70 Mansi 22, cols 935–54. 71 Jane Sayers, Innocent III: Leader of Europe, 1198–1216 (London, 1994), p. 175. 72 Innocent III, ‘Veniens ad praesentiam’, cols 171–3. See Sibly and Sibly, The History of the Albigensian Crusade, p. 318. Peter of les Vaux-de-Cernay described crusaders as having completed their period of service in at least seven different places in his chronicle; see Peter of les Vaux-de-Cernay, Historia Albigensis 1, p. 187; Vol.2, p. 27, p. 122, p. 125, p. 142, p. 210, pp. 288–91. This indulgence for only forty days of fighting was also discussed by other contemporary chroniclers. See William of Tudela, La Chanson de la Croisade Albigeoise, ed. and trans. E. Martin-Chabot, 3 vols (Paris, 1930–1961), Vol.1, pp. 52–3; pp. 280–1; William of Puylaurens, Chronique 1203–1275, ed. and trans. J. Duvorney (Paris, 1976), pp. 72–3; ‘Roberti Autisiodorensis Chronici Continuatio II’, ed. O. Holder-Egger, MGHS 26 (Hannover, 1862), p. 283. For the significance of the forty-day service period see Claire Dutton, ‘Aspects of the Institutional History of the Albigensian Crusades, 1198–1229’ (Ph.D. dissertation, Royal Holloway and Bedford New College, University of London, 1993), pp. 211–18; Laurence Marvin, ‘Thirty-Nine Days and a Wake-up: The Impact of the Indulgence and Forty Days Service on the Albigensian Crusade, 1209–1218’, The Historian (2002), pp. 75–94. 73 Innocent III, ‘Licet Raimundus Tolosanus’, cols 613–14. 74 Innocent expressed some such fears in a letter; see Innocent III, ‘Ex parte charissimi’, cols 741–3. See Lambert, Medieval Heresy, p. 98. 75 Innocent III, ‘Nobilitatem tuam dignis’ (2 April 1215), Layettes 1, pp. 414–15. 76 Innocent III, ‘Ex parte charissimi’, cols 741–3. 77 Innocent III, ‘Etsi resecandae sint’, cols 739–40. 78 Innocent III, ‘Equo rufo de’ (17 Jan. 1214), RHGF 19, p. 588. See Sibly and Sibly, The History of the Albigensian Crusade, p. 319. 79 Peter of les Vaux-de-Cernay, Historia Albigensis 1, ed. Guébin and Lyon, pp. 165–9; Innocent III, ‘Etsi resecandae sint’, cols 739–40. For Thedisius’s justification of his actions, see ‘Sanctitati vestrae insinuatione’, cols 833–5. See Griffe, Le Languedoc cathare au temps de la croisade (1209–1229), pp. 48–9. 80 For example, Innocent III, ‘Is in cujus’, cols 849–52. 81 Dossat, ‘Simon de Montfort’, pp. 296–8. 82 Innocent III, ‘Quot et quanta’ (2 July 1215), RHGF 19, pp. 596–7. See Michele Maccarrone, ‘Studi zu Innocenzo III. Orvieto e la Predicazione della Crociata’, Italia sacra 17 (1943), 3–163. For details of the quarrel between Simon de Montfort and the archbishop of Narbonne, see Dossat, ‘Simon de Montfort’, pp. 293–8. 83 Innocent III, ‘Quod juxta verbum’, cols 904–5. See James Brundage, Medieval Canon Law and the Crusader (Madison and London, 1969), pp. 69–70. 84 Mansi 22, col. 670. 85 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 1, ed. Tanner, p. 230. 86 Ibid. 87 Innocent III, ‘Vineam Domini Sabaoth’ (19 April 1213), PL 216, cols 823–7. 88 Innocent III, ‘Inter cetera que’ (1 April 1198), Die Register Innocenz III 1, pp. 119–20. 89 Innocent III, ‘Licet solitae solitudinis’ (12 July 1199), Die Register Innocenz III, 2, pp. 237–8.

76

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

90 Innocent III, ‘Si parietem cordis’, pp. 118–22; ‘Si tua regalis’ (10 March 1208), PL 215, cols 1358–9. 91 Heinrich Bacht, ‘Zur Ekklesiologie des Lateranum IV’, in Testimonium Veritati, ed. H. Walther (Frankfurt am Main, 1971), pp. 114–15; Christine Thouzelier, Catharisme et Valdéisme en Languedoc à la fin du XIIe et au début du XIIIe siècle (Louvain, 1969), pp. 145–7, 155–6. 92 For biblical references, see the Biblia sacra iuxta Vulgatam versionem, 2 vols, 2nd edn, ed. R. Weber (Stuttgart, 1975). For example, Innocent III, ‘Ne populus Israel’ (7 Feb. 1205), Die Register Innocenz III, 7, pp. 372–4; ‘Cum jam captis’, cols 744–5. See Peter Biller, ‘Through a Glass Darkly: Seeing Medieval Heresy’, in The Medieval World, ed. P. Linehan and J. L. Nelson (London, 2001), p. 317. 93 For example, Innocent III, ‘Ne populus Israel’, cols 526–8; Constitution 3 of Lateran IV also used the same language about heretics. 94 For the metaphor of wheat and tares, see Lambert, Medieval Heresy, p. 92. 95 For example, Innocent III, ‘Equo rufo de’, pp. 587–8; ‘Cum oculos nostre’ (2 April 1215), Layettes 1, ed. Teulet, pp. 415–16; ‘Vergentis in senium’ (25 March 1199), Die Register Innocenz III, 2, pp. 3–5; ‘Postquam vocante Domino’ (11 July 1206), Die Register Innocenz III, 9, pp. 221–3. 96 Innocent III, ‘Equo rufo de’, pp. 587–8. 97 For example, Innocent III, ‘Ne populus Israel’, cols 526–8; ‘Postquam vocante Domino’, cols 940–1. 98 For example, Innocent III, ‘Hanc inter corporalia’ (23 Dec. 1198), Die Register Innocenz III, 1, pp. 722–3; ‘Inter cetera que’, pp. 119–20; ‘Religiosa fides et’ (3 Feb. 1209), PL 215, col. 1545. 99 Innocent III, ‘Etsi resecandae sint’, cols 739–40; ‘Cum tu frater’ (8 June 1204), Die Register Innocenz III, 7, pp. 135–7; ‘Gloriantes hactenus in’, cols 158–60. 100 Corpus documentorum inquisitionis haereticae pravitatis neerlandicae 1, ed. P. Fredericq (Gand, 1889), p. 39; Robert Moore, ‘Heresy as Disease’, The Concept of Heresy in the Middle Ages (11th–13th C.), Proceedings of the International Conference Louvain May 13–16, 1973 (Louvain, 1976), p. 3. 101 Wakefield, Heresy, Crusade and Inquisition in Southern France 1100–1250, pp. 71–7. 102 Innocent III, ‘Postquam vocante Domino’, pp. 221–3; ‘Vineam Domini Sabaoth’, cols 823–7. See Lambert, Medieval Heresy, p. 92. 103 Innocent III, ‘Si tua regalis’, col. 1359. See Foreville, ‘Innocent III et la Croisade des Albigeois’, p. 191. 104 The idea that heretics were more dangerous to the Church than ‘external’ enemies goes back at least as far as St Augustine. See, for example, Bernard of Clairvaux, ‘De Consideratione’ 1, Sancti Bernardi opera (1957–78), Vol. 3, ed. J. Leclercq, C. H. Talbot and H. M. Rochais, pp. 393–410; Bernard of Clairvaux, ‘Sermo 65’, Sancti Bernardi opera, 2, ed. Leclercq, Talbot and Rochais, p. 177; Peter the Venerable, The Letters of Peter the Venerable 1, ed. G. Constable, Harvard Historical Studies 78 (Cambridge, MA, 1967), pp. 407–11. 105 Gratian, cols 889–1006. See Yves Dossat, ‘La Croisade Albigeoise vue par les chroniquers’, Paix de Dieu et guerre sainte en Languedoc au XIIIe siècle, Cahiers de Fanjeaux 4 (Toulouse, 1969), p. 221.

INNOCENT III

106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117

118 119

120 121 122 123 124 125 126

127

128

77

Innocent III, ‘Quod futura sint’ (24 Nov. 1199), Die Register Innocenz III, 2, p. 411. Innocent III, ‘Cum jam captis’, cols 744–5. Innocent III, ‘Quia major nunc’, p. 88. John Gilchrist, ‘The Papacy and War against the “Saracens”’, International History Review 10 (1988), 194. For example, Innocent III, ‘Etsi nostri navicula’ (28 March 1208), Layettes 1, p. 318. For example, Innocent III, ‘Ut contra crudelissimos’ (9 Oct. 1208), PL 215, col. 1469. For example, Innocent III, ‘Quanto Montispessulani’ (1 March 1209), PL 216, col. 187. For example, Innocent III, ‘Nobilitatem tuam dignis’, p. 414. For example, Innocent III, ‘Gaudemus in Domino’ (2 April 1215), Layettes 1, p. 413. Innocent III, ‘Si parietem cordis’ p. 119. Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 1, ed. Tanner, p. 202; Mansi 21, cols 1159–60. Peter II of Aragon, ‘Quoniam sacrosancta mater’ (18 Jan. 1213), cols 839–40; Council of Lavaur, ‘Ad agendas paternitatis’, cols 836–9; Hugh Raymond and Thedisius, ‘Sanctitati vestrae insinuatione’, cols 833–5. Innocent III, ‘Quia omne caput’ (28 May 1204), Die Register Innocenz III, 7, pp. 119–22. Barber, The Cathars, p. 60; Brenda Bolton, ‘Tradition and Temerity: Papal Attitudes to Deviants, 1159–1216’, in D. Baker, ed., Schism, Heresy and Religious Protest, Studies in Church History 9 (Cambridge, 1972), p. 81; Lambert, Medieval Heresy, p. 103; Robert Moore, The Formation of a Persecuting Society: Power and Deviance in Western Europe, 950–1250 (Oxford, 1987), pp. 24–5; Wakefield, Heresy, Crusade and Inquisition in Southern France 1100–1250, pp. 65–6; Henry Warner, The Albigensian Heresy 1 (London and New York, 1922), pp. 27–8. In particular, see Innocent III, ‘Etsi resecandae sint’, cols 739–40; ‘Ex parte charissimi’, cols 741–3; ‘Accedens ad nostram’, pp. 410–11. Innocent III, ‘Litteras tuas paterna’, cols 174–6. Innocent III, ‘Etsi nobilium virorum’ (22 Jan. 1214), RHGF 19, p. 589. Innocent III, ‘Etsi Tolosanorum excessus’, pp. 589–90. Innocent III, ‘Is in cujus’, cols 849–52. Innocent III, ‘Etsi Tolosanorum excessus’, pp. 589–90. Lucius III, ‘Ad abolendam diverarum’ (4 Nov. 1184), PL 201, cols 1297–1300. See trans. in Edward Peters, Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe (Philadelphia, 1980), pp. 170–3. See Moore, The Formation of a Persecuting Society, p. 8; Norman Cohn, Europe’s Inner Demons: the Demonization of Christians in Medieval Chistendom (London, 1975), p. 42; Warner, The Albigensian Heresy, p. 48. Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 1, ed. Tanner, pp. 233–5. See Wakefield, Heresy, Crusade and Inquisition in Southern France 1100–1250, p. 74; Moore, The Formation of a Persecuting Society, p. 7. Mansi 19, cols 845–56; Mansi 21, cols 225–34; Mansi 19, cols 727–46; Mansi 21, cols 711–42; Mansi 21, cols 843–6; Mansi 21 cols 1159–60; Mansi 21 cols 1167–88; Mansi 22, cols 667–72; Mansi 22, cols 783–98. See Marie-Humbert Vicaire, ‘Les Cathars albigeois vus par les polémistes’, Cathars en Languedoc, Cahiers de Fanjeaux 3 (Toulouse, 1968), p. 113; Wakefield, Heresy, Crusade and Inquisition in Southern France 1100–1250, p. 83; Warner, The Albigensian Heresy, pp. 41–2.

78

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

129 Mansi 19, col. 742. See also Corpus documentorum inquisitionis haereticae pravitatis neerlandicae 1, ed. Fredericq, p. 8. 130 Mansi 21, cols 226–7. 131 Mansi 21, col. 1160. 132 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 1, ed. Tanner, pp. 224–5. See Foreville, ‘Innocent III et la Croisade des Albigeois’, pp. 188–9; Griffe, Les Débuts de l’aventure cathare en Languedoc (1140–1190), pp. 115–19; Warner, The Albigensian Crusade, pp. 46–8. 133 Mansi 22, cols 785–6. 134 Barber, The Cathars, p. 43; Wakefield, Heresy, Crusade and Inquisition in Southern France 1100–1250, p. 71. 135 Gratian, ‘Causa 23’, cols 889–965. See James Brundage, ‘Holy War and the Medieval Lawyers’, The Holy War, ed. T. P. Murphy (Columbus, 1976), p. 106; Jonathan Riley-Smith, The First Crusaders, 1095–1131 (Cambridge, 1997), p. 51. 136 Innocent III, ‘Cum ad capiendas’ (13 May 1198), Die Register Innocenz III, 1, p. 235. 137 Innocent III, ‘Ad sponse sue’ (28 May 1204), Die Register Innocenz’ III, 7, pp. 127–9. 138 Gratian, ‘Causa 23’, cols 889–965. See Othmar Hageneder, ‘Der Häresiebegriff bei den Juristen des 12. und 13. Jahrhunderts’, The Concept of Heresy in the Middle Ages (11th–13th C.), Proceedings of the International Conference Louvain May 13–16, 1973 (Louvain, 1976), p. 100. 139 Hageneder, ‘Der Häresiebegriff bei den Juristen des 12. und 13. Jahrhunderts’, p. 100. 140 Mansi 22, cols 667–72. 141 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 1, ed. Tanner, pp. 224–5. 142 Innocent III, ‘Quia omne caput’, pp. 119–22; ‘Litteras vestrae discretionis’ (6/7 Dec. 1204), Die Register Innocenz III, 7, pp. 291–3. 143 Sibly and Sibly, The History of the Albigensian Crusade, pp. 314–15. 144 Milo, ‘Postquam cum exercitu’ (Aug. 1209), PL 216, cols 125–6. See Sibly and Sibly, The History of the Albigensian Crusade, pp. 314–15. 145 Mansi 22, col. 791; Innocent III, ‘Petitiones et preces’ (18 Jan. 1213), PL 216, col. 840; Mansi 22, cols 935–54. 146 For example, Innocent III, ‘Nobilitatem tuam dignis’, pp. 414–15; ‘Gaudemus in Domino’, pp. 413–14. For the reference to Lateran III, see Innocent III, ‘Quia omne caput’, p. 119. 147 Peter II of Aragon, ‘Quoniam sacrosancta mater’, cols 839–40; Hugh Raymond and Thedisius, ‘Sanctitati vestrae insinuatione’, cols 833–5; Council of Lavaur, ‘Ad agendas paternitatis’, cols 836–9; Letters of prelates and in particular bishop William of Lavaur, ‘Ad agendas paternitatis’, col. 839; Bishop Bertrand of Bourges, ‘Cum ineffabili Dei’, cols 843–4; Archbishop Bermond of Aix, ‘Compendiosa narratione beatitudini’, col. 844; Council of Orange, ‘Utinam infallibiliter et’, cols 835–6. 148 Innocent III, ‘Cum unus Dominus’ (21 April 1198), Die Register Innocenz III, 1, p. 137. 149 Innocent III, ‘Inter cetera que’, pp. 119–20. 150 Innocent III, ‘Ad sponse sue’, pp. 127–9; ‘Ne populus Israel’, pp. 372–4. 151 For recent historians who have adopted this view, see Sibly and Sibly, The History of the Albigensian Crusade, p. 316, note 3. 152 For the influence of Peter the Chanter’s circle in Paris on the formulation of the crusade indulgence as granted by Innocent III, see Jessalynn Bird, ‘Innocent III, Peter the Chanter’s Circle, and the Crusade Indulgence: Theory, Implementation and Aftermath’, in A. Sommerlechner, Innocenzo III: Urbs et Orbis (Rome, 2003), pp. 503–27.

INNOCENT III

79

153 Innocent III, ‘Cum unus Dominus’, p. 137; ‘Cum ad capiendas’, p. 235. 154 For pilgrim indulgences, see Diana Webb, Medieval European Pilgrimage, c.700–c.1500 (Basingstoke, 2002), pp. 20–30. 155 Diana Webb, ‘Pardons and Pilgrims’, in Promissory Notes on the Treasury of Merits. Indulgences in Late Medieval Europe, ed. R. N. Swanson (Leiden and Boston, 2006), pp. 243–4. 156 Webb, ‘Pardons and Pilgrims’, p. 244. 157 Debra Birch, Pilgrimage to Rome in the Middle Ages. Continuity and Change, Studies in the History of Medieval Religion 13 (Woodbridge, 1998), p. 194. 158 Ibid., p. 195. 159 Webb, ‘Pardons and Pilgrims’, pp. 258–9. 160 Innocent III, ‘Ad sponse sue’, pp. 127–9. 161 Innocent III, ‘Ad sponse sue’, p. 129. 162 Innocent III, ‘Etsi nostri navicula’ (31 May 1204), Die Register Innocenz III, 7, pp. 122–6. 163 Innocent III, ‘Etsi nostri navicula’, p. 125. 164 Innocent III, ‘Ne populus Israel’, pp. 372–4. 165 Innocent III, ‘Ne populus Israel’, p. 374. 166 Innocent III, ‘Inveterata pravitatis haereticae’ (17 Nov. 1207), Die Register Innocenz III 10, pp. 254–7. 167 Innocent III, ‘Inveterata pravitiatis haereticae’, p. 256. 168 Innocent III, ‘Ne nos ejus’, cols 1354–8. 169 Innocent III, ‘Ne nos ejus’, col. 1356. 170 Innocent III, ‘Etsi nostri navicula’ (28 March 1208), Layettes 1, pp. 317–19. 171 Jean Simonde de Sismondi, History of the Crusades Against the Albigenses in the Thirteenth Century (London, 1826), pp. 11–14. For crusade sermons encouraging the crusade against the Albigensians, see Christoph Maier, Preaching the Crusades: Mendicant Friars and the Cross in the Thirteenth Century (Cambridge, 1994), pp. 170–1. 172 Peter of les Vaux-de-Cernay, Historia Albigensis 1, ed. Guébin and Lyon, p. 187. 173 Innocent III, ‘Cum iam captis’, cols 744–5. 174 Innocent III, ‘Is in cujus’, cols 849–52. 175 Innocent III, ‘Etsi Tolosanorum excessus’, pp. 589–90. 176 Innocent III, ‘Gloriantes hactenus in’, col. 160. 177 Innocent III, ‘Gloriantes hactenus in’, col. 159. 178 Innocent III, ‘Nobilitatem tuam dignis’, p. 414. 179 Innocent III, ‘Gloriantes hactenus in’, col. 160. 180 For example, Eugenius III used the phrase ‘peccatorum remissionem et absolutionem . . . concedimus’ to refer specifically to the crusade indulgence in his letter calling for the Second Crusade, ‘Quantum praedecessores’ (1 Dec. 1145), Ottonis et Rahewina gesta Friderici I Imperatoris 1, 3rd edn, ed. B. von Simson (Hannover and Leipzig, 1912), p. 57. 181 For example, Innocent III, ‘Ne nos ejus’, col. 1355; ‘Si tua regalis’, col. 1358; ‘Rem crudelem audivimus’, col. 1359; ‘Benedicti vos in’ (3 Feb. 1209), PL 215, col. 1546. 182 Innocent III, ‘Benedicti vos in’, col. 1546. 183 For example, Innocent III, ‘Fovere catholicos nobis’ (17 Dec. 1210), Layettes 1, p. 360. 184 Innocent III, ‘Habuisse bajulos Dominici’ (28 June 1210), PL 216, col. 283. 185 Innocent III, ‘Ut contra crudelissimos’, cols 1469–70.

80 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198

199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206

207 208 209 210 211 212 213

214

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

Innocent III, ‘Ut contra crudelissimos’, col. 1469. Innocent III, ‘Habuisse bajulos Dominici’, col. 283. For example, Innocent III, ‘Gaudemus in Domino’, p. 413; ‘Cum oculos nostre’, p. 416. Innocent III, ‘Ne populus Israel’, p. 374. Innocent III, ‘Gaudemus in Domino’, p. 413. For example, Innocent III, ‘Habuisse bajulos Dominici’, col. 283. Innocent III, ‘Devotionam vestram dignis’ (13 Nov. 1209), PL 216, col. 156. For example, Innocent III, ‘Ut hi qui’ (27 June 1210), PL 216, col. 283. See Foreville, ‘Innocent III et la Croisade contre les Albigeois’, p. 192. For example, Innocent III, ‘Cum jam captis’, col. 744. For example, Innocent III, ‘Litteras tuas paterna’, col. 174. Innocent III, ‘Religiosa fides et’ (3 Feb. 1209), PL 215, col. 1545. Innocent III, ‘Ut hi qui’, col. 283. Innocent III, ‘Inveterata pravitatis haereticae’, p. 256. For this phrase in a letter of Innocent III’s concerned with the East, see, for example, ‘Post miserabile Hierusolymitanae’ (15 August 1198), Die Register Innocenz III, 1, p. 499. For example, Innocent III, ‘Inveterata pravitatis haereticae’, pp. 254–7. Innocent III, ‘Quia maior nunc’, pp. 88–97; ‘Si tua regalis’, cols 1358–9; ‘Cum jam captis’, cols 744–5. Innocent III, ‘Etsi resecandae sint’, col. 740. For example, for the Council of Montpellier (1195), see Mansi 22, cols 667–72. Innocent III, ‘Etsi nostri navicula’, pp. 317–19. Innocent III’s delight at Peter II of Aragon’s and Alphonso of Castile’s victory at Las Navas de Tolosa in 1212 was recorded in his letter ‘Protector in se’ (July 1212), PL 216, cols 703–4. Innocent III, ‘Cum jam captis’, cols 744–5; ‘Quia major nunc’, pp. 88–97. For example, Innocent III, ‘Etsi nostri navicula’, pp. 317–19. The proclamation of Lateran IV which granted the same crusading indulgence for those who took the Cross against the Cathar heretics as for those who aided the Holy Land confirms this. See Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 1, ed. Tanner, p. 234. Innocent III, ‘Etsi nostri navicula’, p. 319. Innocent III, ‘Cum jam captis’, cols 744–5; ‘Quia major nunc’, pp. 88–97. See Foreville, ‘Innocent III et la Croisade des Albigeois’, p. 212. Innocent III, ‘Quia major nunc’, p. 94. Innocent III, ‘Cum jam captis’, col. 745. Innocent III, ‘Quod juxta verbum’, col. 905; the Latin is ‘cum illum majoris meriti esse constet’. For the ongoing debate on the relative importance of different crusades, see Norman Housley, The Later Crusades: From Lyons to Alcazar, 1274–1580 (Oxford, 1992), pp. 1–6. Innocent III, ‘Inveterata pravitatis haereticae’, pp. 254–7. For a discussion of earlier popes’ views of a ‘hierarchy’ of crusades, see Rebecca Rist, ‘The Development of the Idea of Crusade by the Papacy in the Twelfth Century’ (unpublished MPhil dissertation, Cambridge, 2000). Dossat, ‘Simon de Montfort’, p. 301.

2

Honorius III: The Albigensian Crusade Continues

Although, like Innocent III, Honorius III (1216–1227), born Cencio Savelli, came from an old Roman family and took the name of a relatively recent predecessor (Honorius II, 1124–1130), in contrast to Innocent, he was over 70 when he became Pope. From a modest background, he was at different stages in his career a canon at the church of Santa Maria Maggiore, a procurator for Cardinal Hyacinth of Santa Maria in Cosmedin, a papal chamberlain, cardinal-deacon of Santa Lucia in Orthea, head of the papal chancery (combining the two most powerful household offices of chamberlain and chancellor), chief papal negotiator with the emperor Henry VI, auditor at the papal curia, and cardinal-priest of Santi Giovanni e Paolo.1 Yet despite this previously conservative career as a diplomat, chamberlain and auditor, Honorius was no mere pen-pusher but a man of letters, who found time during his 11-year pontificate to put together a book of sermons which he had first delivered to the clergy and people of Rome when a cardinal,2 as well as an important collection of canon law, the Compilatio quinta.3 Despite these activities, however, some historians have argued that, elderly and suffering from bad health, Honorius was an indecisive Pope,4 a conclusion which owes much to the failure of the Fifth Crusade, during which he appeared to have been bumbling, incompetent and unable to control his legate in the East, Pelagius, cardinal bishop of Albano.5 Others have maintained that, although not lacking vigour, there was little of note in his character or new in his policies.6 Others again, contrasting him with Innocent III, have painted him as a ‘religious’ rather than a ‘political’ Pope.7 The Church historian Horace Mann claimed that ‘the pontificate of Honorius was literally an echo, a powerful echo indeed, but simply an echo, of that of his great predecessor’.8 Much more recently James Powell has argued that Honorius’s policies, particularly his dealings with Frederick II, were influenced not so much by his immediate predecessor but by those of Celestine III (1191–1198), by whom he had been promoted, and by Clement III (1187–1191).9 Nevertheless, despite such different opinions, the consensus among recent historians has been that Honorius was deeply committed to the recovery of the Holy Land and the crusade programme initiated by Innocent III and given universal backing in the West at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215.10 A major

82

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

problem for Honorius, however, was that he was left to oversee a real rather than potential crusade to the East and to put into practice the grand, visionary ideas of his predecessor for the Fifth Crusade. With respect to the Albigensian Crusade, Innocent’s sudden death also left Honorius having to face immediate unresolved practical difficulties. Significantly, the chroniclers of these events, on whom we rely extensively for our knowledge of the chronology of the Albigensian Crusade, made little reference to Honorius III’s pontificate or the crusade policies he pursued in the south of France.11 Peter of les Vaux-de-Cernay narrated events up to December 1218 in his Historia Albigensis, but did not mention Honorius. William of Tudela’s Chanson de la Croisade Albigeoise ended in 1213; the work’s anonymous continuator only referred to the Pope in the speeches of six protagonists in six laisses: 189, 191, 196, 202, 206, 208.12 William of Puylaurens mentioned Honorius only once, referring to the Pope’s allowing Dominic of Guzman to institute the Dominican Order in order to better deal with heresy in the south of France.13 Vincent of Beauvais devoted just part of one chapter of his enormous Speculum maius to the events of Honorius’s pontificate and gave no details about the Albigensian Crusade besides the death of Simon de Montfort during the siege of Toulouse.14 The accounts of the English chroniclers Roger of Wendover and in particular Matthew Paris are more useful: although Matthew drew extensively on Roger’s history, his narrative also provides invaluable additional information on the Council of Bourges (1225) and the siege of Avignon (1226).15 Furthermore, according to other chroniclers Honorius was a very different man from his predecessor and they particularly emphasized his peaceful temperament.16 Salimbene of Adam said he ‘lived peacefully’ (‘pacifice vixit’),17 John of God that ‘he governed the Church in peace’ (‘Ecclesiam in pacem gubernavit’),18 while another contemporary stated that ‘he fostered peace in his day’ (‘in diebus suis pacem fovit’).19 The Chronicle of Tours noted that he was a man ‘of singular piety and compassion’ (‘pietatis et misericordiae singularis’).20 As for Honorius himself, he declared that he wanted to pursue his policies with mildness rather than rigour (‘volo procedere mansuetudine potius quam rigore’).21 This reputedly peaceful temperament, however, was not particularly evident in Honorius’s letters to the south of France. Writing to Raymond Roger of Foix in 1217, the Pope declared that he wished to treat with the count in a spirit of gentleness (‘nos enim, volentes tecum procedere in spiritu lenitatis’), and referred to St Paul’s gentle admonishment of the faithful (1 Corinthians 4.21), as well as his appeal to religious leaders for tenderness (Galatians 6.1). Yet he also threatened that if the count did not obey his mandate and leave Toulouse he would incur both divine and earthly disfavour.22 The phrase ‘in spiritu lenitatis’, which appears in several letters, while a phrase carefully chosen to suggest papal clemency, neither signalled particular gentleness on the part of the new Pope nor a

HONORIUS III

83

softening of papal policy from that of his predecessor.23 Certainly in a letter of the same year to Raymond VII of Toulouse (1222–1249), Honorius warned him to bear in mind the misfortunes of his father Raymond VI and to cease from disturbing the ‘business of peace and faith’ in the south of France. The language was harsh and uncompromising, and the count described as ‘the imitator of paternal evil’ (‘paternae malitiae imitator’).24 In a general letter of 1223 to the soldiers and people of the county of Melgueil, Honorius also angrily rebuked them for breaking their allegiance to the bishop of Maguélone in favour of Raymond VII and threatened them with punishment unless they returned to obedience.25 All these letters repeatedly described the targets of the crusade in conventional terms as wicked,26 and as a pestilence.27 Heretics were sinners28 and perverters of the true faith29 who must be extirpated30 and destroyed.31

THE LEGACY OF INNOCENT III Despite their traditional format, there were certain obvious differences of style and language between Honorius’s letters to the south of France and those of his predecessor. Although both popes wished to be closely involved in action against heretics in the region, Honorius’s style was less emotional and rhetorical. Letters written at the beginning of his pontificate were in particular concerned with solving practical problems left unresolved on Innocent’s death. One such problem was that Innocent had promised to restore the castle of Foix to Count Raymond Roger of Foix, an old ally of Raymond VI of Toulouse, provided he could satisfy a special papal commission set up by Innocent to enquire into his orthodoxy.32 Honorius took note of Raymond Roger’s complaint which was that while the papal commission was considering its decision, Simon de Montfort, the crusade leader, continued to harry five castles still in Roger’s possession in a further attempt to blacken his reputation. And in accordance with Innocent’s wishes, in 1216 Honorius instructed the abbot of St-Thibéry, who had taken possession of the castle of Foix on the orders of Innocent’s legate, Peter of Benevento, to return it to Raymond Roger.33 The Pope also made it clear to Raymond Roger that he was restoring this castle to him on condition that he promised not to disturb the peace. If he reneged, the castle would return to the trust of the Church and he would have to pay the abbot 15,000 sous for the expenses its guardianship had incurred.34 In the following year, although Honorius warned Raymond Roger to leave the city of Toulouse, which he was supporting against the armies of Simon de Montfort, he again reassured him that the castle of Foix would be returned.35 Then in 1218 he instructed his legate, Cardinal Bertrand of San Giovanni e Paolo, by now in charge of overseeing the Albigensian Crusade,36 to proclaim that although the abbot of St-Thibéry had

84

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

acted correctly in the dispute, and in accordance with his wishes,37 following the findings of the commission, the abbot should now restore the castle to Raymond Roger.38 A second problem to be resolved at the beginning of his pontificate was the quarrel between Arnald Amalric and Simon de Montfort over the dukedom of Narbonne.39 In taking formal possession of Raymond VI’s lands and inheritance in accordance with the decision of the Lateran IV, Simon had assumed the title of duke of Narbonne as well as count of Toulouse. As archbishop of Narbonne, however, Arnald Amalric claimed special rights over the town and was supported by its inhabitants. In response to this claim, Simon had accused the town of heresy, demanded the demolition of its walls and entered it by force. Arnald Amalric had responded in turn by putting all the churches of Narbonne under interdict and imploring the Pope’s help. Innocent’s death on 16 July 1216 delayed a decision on this matter by the papal curia and the problem was therefore left to Honorius to resolve.40 Again, following Innocent’s wishes, in early 1217 Honorius ordered Cardinal Bertrand to reinstate Arnald Amalric in possession of the duchy of Narbonne.41 He also approved Arnald’s request that the walls of a church, destroyed on the orders of King Philip’s son, Louis, be rebuilt.42 Next he called the archbishop of Narbonne, the bishop of Elne and representatives of Simon de Montfort to Rome to resolve the whole affair and demanded that Simon cease his quarrel with Arnald Amalric.43 Honorius’s businesslike approach and determination to find practical solutions to these problems in the south of France were also apparent in 1219 when he ordered that those churches in the province of Narbonne which had been strengthened by the building of towers for their defence were now to be de-fortified.44 In a letter of the same year to Cardinal Bertrand he also acceded to Simon de Montfort’s request that certain chapels, which the count deemed to be too close to his castles for their safety, should be rebuilt in other places.45 So Honorius was certainly continuing his predecessor’s policy of backing Simon de Montfort against a resurgent house of Toulouse. Yet like Innocent he was not prepared to support the count’s activities unconditionally.

HONORIUS III’S CORRESPONDENCE: IDEAS AND LANGUAGE Honorius III’s correspondence concerned with crusading – both general letters to the faithful and directives to individuals to carry out specific mandates – followed a long-established style of papal letters which contained the usual, almost formulaic, passages of those of his predecessor. As with Innocent III, it is difficult to ascertain the extent to which Honorius allowed his notaries a free hand to

HONORIUS III

85

write his letters, albeit with appropriate language and expressions. Yet, also as with Innocent, since Honorius authorized and endorsed the composition of his letters, they are a particularly useful source of information about his crusading policies. The pragmatic nature of Honorius’s correspondence to the south of France means that we rarely find those flights of rhetoric so characteristic of his predecessor. Honorius’s letters only occasionally quoted from or referred to scripture when describing the Church’s struggle against heresy or exhorting the faithful to action. Such references usually occurred in general letters to the Christian faithful rather than in those to particular individuals, probably because particular legal judgements and instructions on lands and rights did not seem to him to merit such references.46 On occasion, however, Honorius’s correspondence did contain similar metaphors and similes to those of his predecessor.47 One general letter used a combination of familiar metaphors for heresy and its cure, namely those of disease, of medicine and of planting, to explain that the situation in the south of France had only recently improved.48 In particular, the biblical metaphor of planting was to reoccur in his correspondence.49 One letter likened heresy to an infection;50 another described the Church, the barque of Peter, as tossed on stormy waves.51 A few ‘new’ metaphors and similes, albeit couched in language traditionally employed by the curia, also appeared. The south of France was a piece of tarnished silver that a metal worker, for all his labour, was unable to free from rust;52 Raymond VII of Toulouse’s support of heresy was likened to a broken hand leaning on a reed staff.53 Although unlike Innocent’s letters, such metaphors and similes were infrequent, when they were used they were often piled one on another for maximum emphasis.54 In particular, the indulgence for those who went on the Albigensian Crusade was promised using the same phrases with which Innocent had authorized crusades to the East and which recently had reappeared in ‘Ad liberandam’, Constitution 71 of Lateran IV.55 Yet apart from such legally essential phrases to describe the indulgence, Honorius’s crusading letters to the south of France give little indication of a conscious theory of papal monarchy or of hierocratic beliefs. Only two letters refer to the Pope as Christ’s vicar, in possession of both the spiritual sword and the material sword, but handing over the latter to the temporal powers for the suppression of evil.56 The first letter, of 1222, addressed to Philip Augustus, emphasized that the secular powers must help the Church in the fight against heresy: ‘The secular power is obliged to restrain rebels with the material sword, whom the spiritual sword cannot restrain from their wickedness’.57 The second (1223), alluding to St Paul’s declaration that every person should be subject to the governing authorities (Romans 13), threatened that the sword of stern revenge (‘rigidae ultionis gladius’) would be raised against the people of Melgueil unless they returned to allegiance to their bishop. 58

86

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

Nevertheless, Honorius’s letters expressed many of the same ideas about heresy as those of Innocent and in very similar ways. This was partly because, as official pronouncements of the papacy, they contained the standard language of the papal curia. But it was also in large part because Innocent’s correspondence had such an enormous influence on that of his successors in terms of both substance and style. Honorius himself observed that he consulted Innocent’s letters: ‘Certainly we have observed it to be contained in the Registers of our predecessor, Innocent III of happy memory.59 This suggests that he – and probably therefore also his notaries – looked to Innocent’s letters for inspiration and guidance when writing his correspondence. As well as similarity of language, there was similarity of outlook. Only two of Honorius’s letters to the south of France made a direct comparison between Muslims and heretics. In a letter of 1218, instructing the archbishops of Vienne and Arles that half of the tax of the twentieth deputed for crusaders to the East should be conferred on Simon de Montfort for his campaign against the people of Toulouse, the Pope wrote that ‘since it is manifest that heretics are worse than Muslims, they must be opposed with no less zeal than the insolence of those [Muslims]’.60 A letter of 1219 to Pelagius concerning the despatch of money to aid crusaders in the Holy Land also made a comparison when it stated that ‘since the Albigensian heretics rise up against the Church, worse than the Muslims’.61 Such statements were in accordance with the teaching, by now familiar to the Christian faithful, that heresy posed a particular problem for the Church because it was an ‘internal’ menace within Christian Europe and a threat to the fundamental tenets of Christianity itself. As we have seen, Innocent himself had made a similar declaration in one of his letters in which he had stated that the followers of Raymond VI were worse than the Muslims because more deeply entrenched in Christian society (‘sectatores ipsius eo quam Saracenos securius quo pejores sunt illis’).62 It is perhaps surprising, however, that in calling for crusades against heretics, Honorius’s letters to the south of France did not refer in greater detail to the Fifth Crusade – which continued until September 1221 – nor make more comparisons between Muslims and heretics. Perhaps Honorius’s unease about the progress of the Fifth Crusade made him reluctant to discuss it in letters to France about the Albigensian Crusade. So, as with Innocent’s correspondence, it is difficult to deduce from Honorius’s statements much about the Pope’s personal views on heretics and Muslims or how much he linked these two enemies of the Church together in his mind. His correspondence, however, showed that Honorius had no general dissatisfaction with the idea of crusading as a way of dealing with ‘internal’ heretics.63 Honorius continued to call for crusades against heretics in the south of France. This was despite the fact that during Innocent’s pontificate, crusading there had failed in its aim to eradicate heresy. It was only Honorius’s successor, Gregory IX,

HONORIUS III

87

who gave official approval to a radical change in tactics on behalf of the Church, by overseeing the establishment of inquisitorial procedures authorized by the papacy both there and in other parts of Europe. Indeed, in response to the problem of continuing heresy, southern French Church councils by the end of Honorius’s pontificate and at the beginning of that of Gregory IX had already begun to legislate for different methods, principally those of enquiry, to deal with heretics. Yet the seeds of the inquisitorial process, first sown by Lucius III in ‘Ad abolendam’ (1184) – a decree calling for the extirpation of heretics – can be seen to be beginning to take root during Honorius’s pontificate.64 Thus at the end of a general crusading letter of 1217 he called for the bishops of France to hasten to help Simon de Montfort in his struggle against the people of Toulouse, adding that those who were lukewarm, or who secretly attempted to undermine papal orders, would not remain hidden: . . . because we have many eyes and ears, by which now we have begun to understand the cunning of others, through which they endeavour, as if through underground paths, to impede this business.65

His letters show that Honorius increasingly felt that one of the roles of the papacy was to be an all-pervasive presence watching over the beliefs and actions of all the faithful in Christian society – the ‘societas Christiana’.66 Certainly, Honorius’s noted gentleness, as recorded by contemporary chroniclers, was not particularly evident in his letters to the south of France. The language he used to refer to heretics and heresy was harsh, uncompromising and similar to that of his predecessor. Words and phrases used to describe heresy were forthright and colourful but, as with similar descriptions by Innocent, very general, and provided little guidance for the crusaders as to how heretics should be treated in individual cases nor indeed how campaigns were to be waged against them. The Cathars were described in the traditional language used by the Church of all heretics: their beliefs were unorthodox; the Church regarded them as rebels (‘rebelles’);67 their faith was an evil dogma;68 the arguments they employed against orthodox preachers and churchmen were untrustworthy.69 But the letters contained little about the Cathar faith itself: there was nothing about the dualistic nature of unmitigated Catharism, which had become the prevalent form of the heresy in the south of France following the Council of St Felix-deCaraman of 1167/1172; and there was no reference to the secret rite of initiation known as the ‘consolamentum’.70 Such lack of detail was not surprising: the principal purpose of Honorius’s letters was to encourage the faithful to fight against heresy, not to comment on the particular nature of the danger posed by Catharism. Innocent and Honorius both assumed that after a general letter had been read out to the faithful in the

88

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

churches, bishops, local prelates, Cistercians and increasingly the Mendicant Orders would then set about preaching sermons targeting specifically Cathar beliefs. Honorius did not see the purpose of his correspondence as primarily didactic. He realized the need both for experts in theology and those who could teach Catholic theology, since theological misunderstandings resulted in large part from ignorance among both clergy and laymen about Catholic teaching on the Sacraments and in particular the Eucharist, which the Cathars denied.71 Hence in 1216 Honorius sent letters to the Dominican prior of St-Romain in Toulouse, placing the church of St-Romain under papal protection and confirming the Dominican Order itself.72 But although he constantly decried heresy as an attack on Mother Church, he offered in return no comprehensive outline of the principal tenets of the Catholic faith in his letters to the south of France. This was despite his awareness – as his licensing of the Dominican Order revealed – that part of the reason for the spread of heresy was an insufficient understanding of the true faith. Perhaps he regarded statements issued by his predecessors concerned with condemning heresy and insisting on the unity of the Catholic faith – for example the decretal ‘Ad abolendam’ (1184) of Lucius III, and the decrees of Lateran IV (1215) presided over by Innocent III – as needing little further elaboration. Yet certainly, following Innocent III, Honorius used similar language in letters calling for crusades in the south of France as popes repeatedly used in encouraging crusades to the Holy Land. Both Innocent and Honorius described the crusades they authorized against heretics in terms of defence and protection. Phrases such as ‘for the defence of the Christian faith’ (‘pro defensione fidei Christianae’, ‘ad defensionem fidei christianae’,73 ‘pro defensione catholicae fidei’),74 ‘for the restoration of the Christian faith’ (‘in restaurationem fidei christianae’)75 and ‘for the aid of the faithful’ (‘ad subventionem fidelium’) emphasized that the purpose of a crusade against heresy was to defend orthodox Christianity and bring aid to beleaguered Christians.76 The only significant difference in language between letters concerned with the East and those concerned with heresy was that the professed aim of the latter was not the defence and liberation of Christ’s patrimony, the Holy Land, but rather the defence and liberation of the Church itself. Honorius’s letters frequently referred to the Church’s attempt to deal with problems in the south of France as ‘the business of peace and faith’ (‘negotium pacis et fidei’),77 or simply as ‘the business of faith’ (‘negotium fidei’).78 He referred to his predecessor’s ruling at Lateran IV concerning land taken from ‘heretics, believers, and those who favoured and received them’.79 And like Innocent, he was primarily concerned with the ‘negotium fidei’ – the problem of heresy – rather than the ‘negotium pacis’ – the problem of ‘routiers’. The latter problem was seldom addressed in Honorius’s letters – in contrast to the decrees of contemporary Church councils which continued to emphasize that those who

HONORIUS III

89

disturbed the peace were as much a problem for southern French society as the heretics themselves.80 One particular phrase which frequently occurred in Honorius’s correspondence was ‘exigentibus populi christiani peccatis’, as, for example, in a letter of 1223, ordering the archbishop of Sens to accept 5,000 pounds to be transferred to the crusade leader, who was by this point Amalric de Montfort.81 ‘Peccatibus exigentibus hominum’ and its variants was a standard rhetorical phrase used by medieval popes in their letters and preachers in their sermons to explain how people’s sins had brought troubles on themselves. The phrase ‘Exigentibus populi christiani peccatis’ also occurred in a letter of the same year to the abbots of St Victor in Paris and St Mary of Valles, which commanded that those in the provinces of Sens, Reims and Rouen, who had been previously exempted from paying a prescribed tax for crusading, must now pay the tax of a twentieth.82 A very similar phrase, ‘peccatis nostris exigentibus’, had also appeared in an earlier letter (1222) encouraging Philip Augustus to drive out heretics and their followers from his kingdom.83 Such phrases explained the collapse of the ‘negotium pacis et fidei’ as a direct result of men’s sins. In the twelfth century Eugenius III (1145–1153) had used the words ‘peccatis exigentibus’, in his general letter which called for the Second Crusade, to explain that the fall of Edessa was a punishment for sin, and the phrase subsequently appeared in later letters concerned with crusading in the East, as well as in various crusade sermons.84 So language traditionally used for letters encouraging the faithful to crusade in the Holy Land was now being employed by Honorius III for crusading in the south of France. This similarity between the language and ideas of Honorius and those of his predecessors, and in particular Innocent III, reveal the Pope’s wish to show his commitment to Innocent’s policies and a desire for a continuity of approach on the part of the papacy towards heresy. Indeed Honorius’s language in support of Simon de Montfort in 1217 and his praise for him after his death on 25 June 1218 was almost identical to that which had been used by Innocent. Simon was not only ‘vigorous’ (‘strenuus vir’),85 but an ‘athlete of Christ’ (‘athleta Christi’),86 and a ‘fighter for the Christian faith’ (‘fidem catholicam . . . propugnator’/‘catholicae fidei propugnator’).87 Yet although subsequent letters of Honorius backing Simon’s son Amalric de Montfort also showed a similar commitment and continuing support for the claims of the Montfort family to conquered territory in the south of France, the laudatory epithets lavished on Simon were not repeated. This was probably because Amalric was a much less able military commander than his father. His inability to counter the growing support for the counts of Toulouse and to prevent the loss of territories his father had won eventually forced him in 1224 to retire to Paris and cede his claims to Louis VIII – in return for which he was appointed constable of France in 1230.88 Another reason may be that Amalric was unable to arouse enthusiasm for the

90

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

crusade cause that his father had done. Honorius may have also become worried that Amalric was leading the crusade less for the cause of the Church than to revenge his father’s death and his own inheritance, which was in danger of being lost to Raymond VII and a resurgent house of Toulouse. Furthermore, Simon was held in special affection by the papacy for a special reason which Amalric could not hope to attain. Simon, having joined the Fourth Crusade authorized by Innocent III, had refused, unlike other crusaders, to be diverted by the Venetians to Zara and the sack of Constantinople, but instead had made his own way to the Holy Land. Yet, in encouraging Simon and Amalric de Montfort in their endeavours, neither Innocent III nor Honirius III described the Albigensian Crusade as a pilgrimage. This was despite the fact that papal letters authorizing the Baltic crusades, as well as the model sermons of contemporary and later preachers, showed that the idea of crusading as a form of pilgrimage had not died out. Certainly the idea of an armed pilgrimage, propagated by Urban II (1088–1099) and continued by his successors, remained strong in popular imagination. Thus an English rite for taking the Cross in 1220 referred to the Albigensian Crusade as a ‘peregrinatio’. Certainly the crusade preachers James of Vitry, Eudes of Châteauroux and Guilbert of Tournai all referred to crusades to the Holy Land as pilgrimages, while the Dominican Humbert of Romans followed his sermon Ad peregrinos quoscumque with his first crusade ‘model’ sermon Ad peregrinos crucesignatos, affirming that there were three types of pilgrimage on which the faithful Christian could embark: the general pilgrimage, the special pilgrimage and last, but not least, the crusader pilgrimage.89 But neither in Honorius’s letters nor in the correspondence of his predecessor was crusading in the south of France ever referred to as a ‘peregrinatio’ (‘pilgrimage’) or ‘iter sanctum’ (‘holy journey’) – phrases used frequently by twelfth- and thirteenth-century popes in letters authorizing and encouraging crusades to the Baltic as well as to the Holy Land.90 Rather it was described using other traditional phrases such as ‘the business of faith’ (‘negotium fidei’), ‘the business of peace and faith’ (‘negotium pacis et fidei’), ‘the business of Christ’ (‘Christi negotium’), or ‘the business of Jesus Christ’ (‘negotium Jesu Christi’). That the words ‘pilgrimage’ (‘peregrinatio’) and ‘holy journey’ (‘iter sanctum’) were not used in his letters for crusading in the south of France meant that although he bestowed on the crusade against heretics the same privileges as for crusading in the East, Honorius realized that, unlike in the case of papal calls for the latter, he could offer no obvious link between the Albigensian Crusade and the idea of pilgrimage. There may, however, have been another important reason for the absence of pilgrimage vocabulary in Honorius’s correspondence, namely the increasing formalization in canon law of the idea of crusade and the development of a specific terminology for crusading.91 Crusaders against both heretics in the south

HONORIUS III

91

of France and Muslims in the East were frequently referred to in papal letters as ‘crucesignati’ – those signed with the Cross.92 Indeed the word ‘peregrinatio’ was itself used relatively infrequently in Honorius’s correspondence to the south of France even to describe crusades to the East. The Pope more commonly referred to them simply as bringing ‘aid for the Holy Land’ (‘subsidium Terrae Sanctae’),93 while these crusaders were also referred to either as ‘signed with the Cross’ (‘crucesignati’),94 or, less formally, as those who fought for the Christian faith overseas (‘qui ultra mare pro fide Christi decertant’).95 Perhaps both Honorius and his predecessor Innocent were all too aware of the problems associated with the mass appeal of the idea of crusading as pilgrimage. Preaching the Fifth Crusade in the south of France had resulted in the popular movement of the Children’s Crusade of 1212.96 And the muster of Louis VIII’s crusade against heretics in 1226 was attended by the lame, crippled, blind and an army of women and children, drawn by an older tradition of crusade as a form of mass pilgrimage. These hoped to claim the indulgence as camp followers and were dispersed when the papal legate Cardinal Romano Bonaventura of Sant’Angelo dispensed their vows and sent them home.97 In the letters of Innocent and Honorius we therefore see the beginnings of, and some historians would argue a return to, a much broader idea of a crusade, not just as a ‘pilgrimage’, but as any war waged under the authority of the papacy on the Church’s behalf.98 It seems that popes were increasingly encouraging crusading as a specialized holy war waged by their friends and supporters rather than as a mass movement of the Christian faithful. As we shall see, they were later to use this idea when authorizing crusades against their political enemies, whose activities, they believed, threatened the security of the papal states. Popes were also increasingly aware of the need to encourage crusade preaching. Those who preached the Albigensian Crusade in France included Fouquet, bishop of Toulouse, James of Vitry, Philip the Chancellor and Eudes of Châteauroux.99 It is possible that crusade preachers used material from papal letters to explain the circumstances surrounding a crusade and to justify its launch, not only in the case of crusades to the East but also for the south of France.100 Yet the general absence of similes and metaphors in Honorius’s correspondence, and a lack of any significant correlation between those biblical quotations he did employ and those frequently used in model sermons of the period, suggest it is unlikely that his letters in particular were a regular source for preachers of the Albigensian Crusade. It seems more likely that such preachers drew on letters of Innocent III, which were much more rhetorical and contained many more imaginative metaphors and scriptural references. Indeed the practical rather than rhetorical nature of many of Honorius’s letters suggests that, unlike Innocent, he felt little need to use rhetoric to justify his authorization of campaigns or to encourage the idea of crusading against heretics. The fact that none of his letters concerned with

92

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

the south of France gave precise directions about preaching, nor even referred to any preachers by name, suggests that, like Innocent, Honorius left these men a free hand to preach as they saw fit. He preferred to concentrate his efforts on renewing papal authorization of crusades in the south and attempting to keep what control he could over the activities of the crusaders.

CONTROLLING THE ALBIGENSIAN CRUSADE A lack of information about Honorius’s pontificate in contemporary chronicles, in comparison with the pontificates of both his predecessor and successor, means that we rely heavily on the Pope’s own letters for evidence of how much control he was able to exert over the course of crusading in the south of France. His appointment in 1217 of Cardinal Bertrand of San Giovanni e Paolo to settle disputes between Simon de Montfort and Raymond Roger of Foix and between Simon and Arnald Amalric was an attempt to strengthen papal influence.101 Following the failure of Louis VIII’s expedition of 1219, Honorius relieved Bertrand of his legation and in the spring of 1220 replaced him as legate to France by Conrad of Urach, cardinal bishop of Porto and Rufino.102 In 1221 he also organized the establishment of a new Military Order modelled on the Templars and convoked the Council of Sens.103 In 1225, following the delegations of Raymond VII and Philip Augustus to Rome, he despatched yet another legate, Cardinal Romano Bonaventura of Sant’ Angelo, to the south of France to open negotiations for a new crusade. One of Romano’s first acts was to summon a council at Bourges attended by prelates or their representatives from all parts of France.104 Many of Honorius’s letters endorsing the activities of this particular legate suggest that the Pope had the utmost confidence in the abilities of Cardinal Romano. It was in 1224 that he informed Raymond VII that, in response to his letters and a delegation appealing to the Pope to listen to his cause, he was appointing Romano as his legate for France and in particular for the south.105 Further letters to the nobles and prelates of France proclaimed Romano’s nomination and commended him to Louis VIII.106 This unqualified backing mirrored Innocent’s support for Peter of Benevento: both men, appointed near the end of the popes’ respective pontificates to re-establish the papacy’s authority over the crusade, were warmly recommended to prelates and nobles and acted with full papal support. Romano was particularly zealous in pursuing the cause of crusading, and his decisive action at Bourges, which ensured the Church’s condemnation of Raymond VII, was reminiscent of the action of Innocent’s legate Thedisius who in 1210 had endorsed the refusal of the Council of St Gilles to pardon Raymond VI.107 In both cases the legates worked with southern French clergy against the interests of the counts of Toulouse. Yet whereas Thedisius seems to have acted contrary

HONORIUS III

93

to Innocent’s wishes in ensuring that Raymond VI’s excommunication was not lifted at Lavaur, there is no suggestion from Honorius’s letters, or indeed from the chronicles, that Romano acted against the Pope’s orders in condemning Raymond VII.108 It was much more difficult for Honorius to exert authority over the southern French clergy than over his legates – and his letters suggest that he used two main tactics. First, as we shall discuss later in detail, he called for the taxation of French prelates for crusading in the south of France. Secondly, he ordered his legates to call for Church councils which would legislate against heresy and confirm earlier rulings of the Church on this subject. Thus the Council of Sens (1223) was called by Conrad of Urach, the Council of Montpellier (1224) by Arnald Amalric, and the Council of Bourges (1225) by Romano.109 Other councils which the papal legates did not directly summon, they nevertheless attended. In particular, Romano played a prominent part in the royal Council of Paris, called by Louis VIII in 1225, as well as in the Council of Narbonne called by Archbishop Pierre Amiel in 1227.110 Yet, as well as confirming papal authority, Church councils also influenced the Pope’s own decisions. The hostility of the southern French clergy to Raymond VII, which was evident in conciliar legislation, mirrored their earlier dislike of his father. They were suspicious of Raymond’s claims that he was a persecutor of heretics and a true son of the Church, and even of his reconciliation in 1224 at the Council of Montpellier. The influence of the Montfort family in France in the 1220s encouraged Amalric in 1224 to write to the Council of Montpellier, begging the prelates assembled there not to come to terms with Raymond VII. When the clergy ignored his requests and drew up a provisional treaty with Raymond, Amalric protested to Rome.111 The presence of a royal embassy there, including not only Amalric’s uncle but a vociferous minority of southern bishops, who feared they would lose properties and influence gained in the crusade, persuaded Honorius and the College of Cardinals to pronounce against Raymond.112 Just as the Council of Lavaur of 1213 had been influential in changing Innocent III’s policy in favour of a revival of crusading in the south of France, so in 1225 southern French prelates now persuaded Honorius to continue to support the crusade.113 Furthermore, as well as seeking to control the actions of the southern French clergy, his legates, Simon de Montfort and subsequently his son Amalric, Honorius also hoped, like Innocent III, to involve the kings of France in the fight against heresy. His first letter to Philip Augustus, written in January 1218, begged him to help Simon against the people of Toulouse who were rallying to the aid of Raymond VI, recently returned to the south of France after a period crusading in Spain.114 Then, following Simon’s death, Honorius promised the plenary indulgence if Philip Augustus and his son Louis would take part in campaigning.115

94

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

In two more letters of September 1218 he also sought to assert papal authority. In the first he encouraged the king to help Amalric in his campaign against the people of Toulouse and placed the king, his men and his goods under the special protection of the Holy See.116 In the second he again tried to induce the king to help Amalric by negotiating that half the money collected for the Fifth Crusade should now be used for campaigning against heretics.117 Next, in a letter of 1219, Honorius attempted to persuade Philip Augustus that the five-year military truce which he had conceded to King John of England (1199–1216) should be extended to John’s son Henry III (1216–1272), also for five years. After this letter, however, no further correspondence between the Pope and the king of France was recorded at the curia in the papal Registers until 2 June 1221. On this date, Honorius wrote once more to Philip Augustus calling on him to start a new campaign against heretics.118 This call was repeated in February and May 1222, but despite Honorius’s best efforts the king was determined to remain aloof.119 Honorius’s letters to Philip’s son Louis were more fruitful. In 1218 he urged him to campaign and in 1219, having been given grudging permission by his father, Louis agreed.120 Some historians have argued that Louis was reluctant to undertake the expedition because he was annoyed at the Church’s opposition to his attempted conquest of England – a sinful action which had resulted in excommunication and financial penalties even after the Church had granted him absolution.121 Honorius suggested that Louis use the money owed to the Church as a recompense for his invasion, on a crusade against the house of Toulouse. He gave instructions to Philip Augustus about how a tenth of Louis’s revenues and a twentieth of the revenues of those who had supported him in the invasion of England – money originally designated for the Holy Land – should be spent.122 Those of Louis’s followers who personally undertook to journey to the Holy Land should retain their money for this expense; the others were to use it for a new crusade against heretics. Those who had incurred excommunication, not for joining the invasion themselves but for helping Louis with the enterprise in other less direct ways, were to be absolved from their sins if they would crusade against heretics and send men or money according to their financial means.123 These conditions, which reminded Louis of his recent military humiliation, may well have angered him. But he, and even his reluctant father, both seem to have believed that it would be unwise to ignore the Pope’s proposals for a crusade if they wished to preserve better relations with the Church: so Louis agreed to campaign in the south in 1219.124 Yet none of the Pope’s subsequent letters referred to the crusading expedition which captured Marmande but failed to take Toulouse – which suggests that Honorius was keen to draw a veil over its limited success. Nevertheless, the Pope continued trying to persuade Louis to crusade and in 1223 announced that he was satisfied with the proroguing of the

HONORIUS III

95

peace treaties between France and Henry III of England (d 1272), urging Louis, now king, to undertake a new campaign against heretics.125 The Pope’s letter proved more effective than those previously sent to Louis’s father and in 1224 Louis decided to embark on another crusading expedition. Later in the same year, however, Honorius ordered Louis to suspend operations, believing that the emperor Frederick II was now finally ready to lead a new crusade to the East.126 Honorius had become aware of the difficulty of waging crusades on two fronts at the same time, perhaps recognising the overriding wish of crusaders throughout Europe to go to the relief of the Holy Land after the loss of Damietta. This would certainly explain why earlier letters in 1222 calling for military help for Amalric de Montfort had failed to provoke the hoped-for response. Whatever Honorius’s view, one historian of the Albigensian Crusade has argued that the terms Louis imposed for participating in the crusade in 1224 suggest that he was reluctant to take the Cross and therefore he made the conditions of his participation as difficult as possible, stipulating that the crusade must meet its own expenses, that he was to be free to come and go as he chose and that he was to be allowed to annex any lands overrun by his army.127 Yet when Louis heard of Honorius’s sudden decision in April 1224 to reverse his policy and call for a postponement of the proposed crusade he was furious. According to one chronicler, on 5 May, the day fixed for the expedition’s departure, the king summoned Conrad, the papal legate, before the clergy and nobles in Paris and publicly washed his hands of the whole affair, telling him never to mention the subject again in his presence.128 Louis may not have been play-acting. There were good reasons why a crusade which may have seemed an unattractive enterprise in 1219 might have seemed much more attractive in 1224. First, Louis knew that the fact that Amalric de Montfort had made treaties of peace with the counts of Toulouse and Foix in January and had withdrawn from the south of France meant that any new crusading expedition would need a new leader.129 As king he may have also thought that leading a crusade would bring prestige to his new reign, signalling to nobles and prelates alike not only his genuine commitment to the causes of the Church but a break with the policies of his father who had opposed involvement. Probably he also hoped to restore his military reputation as a crusader after his unsuccessful crusade of 1219. Louis’s piety should also not be discounted as a further motivating force. As a young man he had made a vow to crusade against heretics. One of his first acts on becoming king had been to take 10,000 marks from the sum designated in his father’s will for pious works and send it to Amalric de Montfort for the defence of his castles.130 His desire to crusade in 1224, on which Honorius played, probably owed a great deal to his deep religious convictions and a sense of the worthiness of the Church’s cause, and he seems to have been genuinely astonished at the

96

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

Pope’s decision to suspend the crusade. Honorius, however, informed Louis that Frederick II had recently sent letters assuring him of his wish to embark on his long-promised crusading expedition to the East and that Frederick had urged him to renew the crusading indulgences and to hasten and facilitate the departure of crusaders there. So, as well as begging Louis to help this Holy Land project by renewing the truces between himself and Henry III of England, Honorius even demanded that he come to terms with Raymond VII.131 Those historians who have judged Honorius a weak and vacillating Pope argue that this decision to suspend the proposed crusade against heretics in 1224 was yet another instance of such vacillation. Honorius’s own justification of his decision was that his peaceful temperament led him to wish to avoid further bloodshed in the south of France.132 It is also possible that he had misgivings about Louis’s abilities to lead a crusade after his failure to take Toulouse in 1219 – although this seems unlikely seeing that Honorius had already renewed his appeal for a crusade in 1223. More probably the Pope was disillusioned by the failure of Amalric de Montfort’s campaigns, uneasy about the prospect of the French crown amassing too much power in the south of France, and eager to give Raymond VII another chance to reconcile himself with the Church. It seems that he was also worried about the diversion of crusading finances and wished to channel all available resources of European men, money and interest into the crusade which Frederick had promised to undertake to the East. By channelling such resources he would be seen to be faithfully continuing the policies of his predecessor, while also avenging the failure of the Fifth Crusade and reviving his own damaged reputation as a ‘crusading’ Pope. Certainly the enthusiasm with which Honorius greeted Frederick’s new proposals for the East shows that the failure of the Fifth Crusade had made him no more wary about the idea of encouraging crusades in the East than he had been at the beginning of his pontificate. Yet Honorius seems to have also remained firmly convinced that crusading was the best way to deal with heresy, and in 1225 he changed his mind again and allowed his legate to proclaim Raymond VII an excommunicate and to renew indulgences for crusading in the south of France.133 Various explanations have been offered for this second volte-face, some historians perceiving it as yet another instance of vacillation. But it is likely that the influence of the newly appointed legate, Romano of Sant’ Angelo, and the latter’s supposed closeness to Louis and his court was a significant factor in this subsequent decision in favour of the crusade in 1225 and that both Honorius and his legate were very much influenced by the wishes of southern French prelates.134 So by 1225 Honorius had decided to authorize a new crusade and appointed Romano to oversee military activities.135 Honorius had always stressed that he wished prelates convening French councils to involve the kings of France as much as possible in the Church’s struggle against heresy. Already in 1223 his

HONORIUS III

97

legate Conrad had convoked the Council of Sens to encourage Philip Augustus to intervene in the south. Now in 1225 the Council of Bourges, called by Romano, successfully persuaded Louis to act. In 1226 the king convoked a parliament at Paris and took the Cross, although he again imposed conditions for his participation. He was granted 100,000 pounds annually, to be taken from the tax of a tenth of the clergy’s income for the new crusade.136

HONORIUS III AND CRUSADING AGAINST HERETICS On first sight Honorius’s letters suggest that he maintained a policy towards crusading which followed closely that of his predecessor. From the beginning of his pontificate in 1216 until the disastrous capitulation by the crusaders at Damietta in September 1221, he issued letters calling on the Christian faithful to take part in the Fifth Crusade and supporting its progress. And he also seemed to follow Innocent in giving priority to the Fifth Crusade above other crusading enterprises. In 1219 he told Pelagius, his legate in Syria, that he had never urged anyone who had already taken a vow to crusade in the East to crusade in the south of France or, for that matter, in Greece: ‘Certainly we have not directed any men who are signed with the Cross for the aid of the Holy Land to go to the south of France or to Greece’.137 He also noted that, although he encouraged the faithful who were not yet crusaders to fight against Albigensian heretics, no crusader already vowed to service in the Holy Land should commute his journey: But since the Albigensian heretics, worse than the Muslims, rise up against the Church . . . through our letters we have encouraged the faithful who are not crusaders to go to its aid, having made it clear in these letters that no-one signed with the Cross to give help to the Holy Land should substitute his journey with another.138

He took a similar line in letters of June 1221 to the archbishops of Sens and of Rouen and their suffragans: ‘. . . we do not want the vows of those who are signed with the Cross for the aid of the Holy Land to be substituted for any reason’.139 Honorius constantly emphasized that it was of the greatest importance to him that nothing must impede crusading expeditions to the Holy Land. In one letter, ‘Ea tibi libenter’ (1218), he insisted that those who had taken vows to go to the East must fulfil them: ‘. . . we wish however those signed with the Cross for the aid of the Holy Land itself to cross over the seas in the next passage, since we do not want that cause to be impeded in any way’.140 Similarly in another, ‘Populus Israel a’, to the archbishops of Reims, Sens, Tours, Rouen, Lyon and Bordeaux, their suffragans, and abbots and other prelates of the Church in France, he advised those who had already taken vows to crusade in the East:

98

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

But you should prudently take care that you do not, on such a pretext, withdraw certain crusaders from aiding the Holy Land itself, since we do not want to impede in any way the business of the same Holy Land, to which we aspire with an ardent desire.141

And in a letter addressed to Cardinal Bertrand, ordering him to put the lands of James I of Aragon (1208–1276) under interdict, Honorius again emphasized the importance of the East, claiming that the king and his nobles were not only hindering Simon de Montfort, who was campaigning on behalf of the Church in the south of France and under the Church’s protection, but that they were also flouting the decrees of Lateran IV aimed at ensuring peace in the Christian world – and thereby preventing help reaching the Holy Land: And impeding, to the injury of the Crucified One, aid for the Holy Land, flouting the regulation of the General Council, which especially set forth a regulation for the help of the same Land, in order that peace, or at least truces, should be maintained through the whole Christian world for a period of four years . . .142

All these directives point to a conscious decision by Honorius to continue to prioritize crusading to the East. Two further considerations reinforce such a conclusion. The first is that it was only after the collapse of the Fifth Crusade and the recapture of Damietta in September 1221 that Honorius issued letters ordering a new tax of a twentieth to be levied on the clergy of the whole of France for crusades against heretics.143 The second is that only after having received letters from Frederick II assuring him that he was finally ready to embark on his long-promised expedition to the East, did Honorius in 1224 call on Louis VIII to come to terms with Raymond in order to facilitate the departure of crusaders to the Holy Land.144 A closer inspection of Honorius’s correspondence, however, reveals that the Pope’s attitude was more complex than it at first appears. In ‘Deo in cujus’, a general letter of 1218, addressed to Philip Augustus and the French bishops in response to their petitioning, Honorius ordered that, except for certain parties already involved in crusading to the East – namely those dioceses whose bishops were in the Holy Land, or whose bishops were about to set out to the Holy Land up to the next feast day of St John the Baptist, those bishops, nobles and others who were already signed with the Cross and had been granted a special concession, or those who had already paid the twentieth to crusaders – half of the tax of the twentieth of income imposed on the Church, which was to be collected for three years for the Fifth Crusade, should be used instead for crusading against heretics:145 Therefore, choosing a middle course as it were in this sort of dispute, we have thought

HONORIUS III

99

that provision should be made as follows . . . All the rest of the twentieth of the mentioned kingdom which remains . . . should be divided equally, with half destined for the aid of the Holy Land itself. The remainder, in accordance to your petition, should be expended on the aforementioned cause.146

Thus although Honorius allowed half of the twentieth collected in France for the Holy Land to be used for crusading against Toulouse, he was very careful to detail all the exceptions to this general rule, and to state that this half was not to be collected universally.147 The twentieth was a tax which Innocent had ordered in ‘Quia major’ to be collected for the Fifth Crusade over a period of three years, and which had subsequently been formally decreed in ‘Ad liberandam’, Constitution 71 of Lateran IV.148 This statement of Honroius in ‘Deo in cujus’ had therefore very serious implications. He was allowing the transfer of a general tax for crusading to another theatre of war – the south of France – and for a large subtraction from the crusade to the Holy Land. He was also ordering it to be levied in France, the country from which traditionally most crusaders wishing to go to the Holy Land had come. It was probably only possible for him to do this because of the legislation of Lateran IV, which had confirmed the grant of a plenary indulgence for crusades against heretics, thereby increasing the status of the Albigensian Crusade.149 He was even decreeing that, since in the south of France few crusaders had taken vows for the East, not just half but the whole of the twentieth raised in southern French dioceses should be committed to military activities against heretics: With regard to these matters, because in the provinces of Arles, Vienne, Narbonne, Auch, Embrun and Aix-en-Provence few are signed with the Cross to aid the Holy Land, we assign the twentieth of these provinces in its entirety to the cause mentioned . . . to be converted for the benefit of that cause.150

A further letter to the archbishops of Vienne and Arles repeated this injunction, confirming the concession and voicing Honorius’s particular concern with the south of France: Although, therefore, a twentieth of goods belonging to the Church was deputed for a certain time as aid for the Holy Land, we, however, noting into what confusion the cause of peace and faith is relapsing in the regions of the south of France . . . have taken care that the twentieth of your provinces be converted for the assistance of that cause . . .151

Thus the beginnings of a reversal in the fortunes of the crusaders against heresy

100

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

in late 1217 and early 1218 had convinced Honorius that they must be supported with renewed determination. Furthermore, Honorius’s letters show that throughout his pontificate he continued to encourage military campaigns against heretics in the south of France.152 His general letter ‘Populus Israel a’ of 11 August 1218 was addressed not only to the French archbishops and bishops but also to the German provinces and the province of Trent.153 So in significant contrast to Innocent’s promulgations after 1213, Honorius wanted others besides the southern French to take part in crusades against heretics. In 1221 he conceded to the archbishop of Rouen, as to the archbishop of Sens, and in 1222 to the archbishops of Bourges, Tours and Reims, the power to grant crusading indulgences.154 In one letter he stated that he was making an exception, albeit hesitantly (‘non sine conscientiae scrupulo’), in allowing the bishop of Châlons to retain money raised from the tax of the twentieth for the Holy Land for the purpose of crusading in the south. But this concession was quite apart from the half of the twentieth already conceded to Philip Augustus for the same purpose. Honorius insisted that in this case there were special reasons for meeting the bishop’s request: the bishop’s own financial means were failing, he was on the point of setting out on crusade and he had made a special appeal to the Pope.155 These letters arranging for a tax on the French clergy for crusades in the south of France, like much of the rest of his correspondence to the south, also reveal Honorius’s interest in solving the practical problems which had arisen from his predecessor Innocent’s implementation of crusading policies. Following Honorius’s decision in 1221 to levy another tax of a twentieth on the whole of the French clergy for a period of three years, many of his letters between 1221 and 1224 were concerned with the payment and collection of this tax.156 His earlier career as an administrator and financier, his compilation in 1192 of the Liber censuum Romanae ecclesiae – a book which listed churches, monasteries and lands owing dues to the see of Rome – and his service as a chamberlain (‘camerarius’) of the curia, would suggest that Honorius had a personal reason to be interested in the composition of this particular group of letters.157 It is evident from his correspondence that from early in his pontificate Honorius was encouraging crusades both in the south of France and in the East. And his transfer of a general tax from one theatre of war to another showed a deep commitment to crusading against heretics. Honorius’s commitment against heresy was also revealed in the large number of letters sent from the curia calling for aid for Simon de Montfort, and after his death for his son Amalric, against Raymond VI and, following his father’s demise in August 1222, Raymond VII.158 It is also apparent from his frequent reissuing of the crusade indulgence for all those who crusaded against heretics. Such letters had commenced in 1216, the first year of the pontificate.159 In December 1217, a

HONORIUS III

101

general letter to the prelates of the south of France enjoined them to aid Simon de Montfort, whether by fighting themselves or by donating their possessions and even their lands, for the remedy of their sins (‘iniungentes in vestrorum remedia peccatorum’).160 This letter, which did not specify a full or partial remission of sins, was followed up in January 1218 by another to the archbishop of Reims and his suffragans and to other French clergy, urging them to rally to Simon’s aid. It again contained the formulaic phrase ‘enjoining you for the remedy of your sins’ (‘injungentes in vestrorum remedium peccatorum’) and added more specifically that the clergy should grant a ‘sure’ (‘certa’) indulgence for sins: ‘. . . a sure indulgence of [their] sins having been conceded from your office to those same people as you shall have deemed to be expedient’.161 Or again, writing to Philip Augustus himself, Honorius urged the king ‘for the remission of his sins’ (‘in remissionem tibi peccaminum injungentes’) to encourage men who had not already taken vows to travel to the Holy Land, to give aid to the count instead.162 Of course such phrases as ‘et in tuorum remissionem peccaminum iniungentes’ and ‘et in remissionem vobis iniungimus peccatorum’ had been commonly employed in papal letters, including those concerned with crusades, prior to Honorius and even Innocent III.163 Further variations also appeared in the letters of Honorius including ‘ac iniungentes in vestrorum remedium peccatorum’, ‘ac iniungentes in vestrorum remedio peccatarum’, ‘ac iniungentes in vestrorum remedia peccatorum’ and ‘in satisfactionem vestrorum iniungimus peccatorum’.164 Some of these letters specifically stated that it was the plenary indulgence (‘plena venia’) which the Pope was granting for crusading.165 Three letters of August 1218 made clear that the same plenary indulgence laid down at Lateran IV and granted in letters of both Innocent III and Honorius himself for the Holy Land was to be granted for a new crusade against heretics.166 The first letter, which followed the death of Simon de Montfort on 25 June 1218 and was addressed to the archbishops and bishops of France and their suffragans, not only enjoined them to aid Simon’s son Amalric ‘for the remission of their sins’ (‘ac injungentes in vestrorum remedio peccatorum’) but also repeated word for word the statement of Lateran IV concerned with all aspects of the indulgence for the Holy Land: And so we, trusting in the mercy of almighty God and the authority of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul, by that power of binding and loosing that God has conferred upon us, although unworthy, grant to all those submitting to the labour personally or at their own expense full forgiveness of their sins, of which they freely make oral confession with contrite hearts, and as the reward of the just we promise them a greater share of eternal salvation. To those who do not personally campaign, but at least send out suitable men at their own expense according to their means and station in life, and similarly to those

102

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

who go personally although at another’s expense, we concede full forgiveness of their sins. We also wish and concede that all should share in this remission of sins who, according to the quality of their aid, and the depth of their devotion, donate a fitting proportion of their goods to the Holy Land or lend suitable counsel and aid. And to all setting out piously on this common work the Universal Synod imparts the aid of all its good works, so that it may worthily help them to salvation.167

Two other letters addressed to Philip Augustus and his son Louis similarly attempted to persuade them to support plans for a new crusade following Simon de Montfort’s death at Toulouse. Louis and those who should crusade with him were granted the same indulgence as that granted for the Holy Land: ‘By conceding that indulgence which was conceded to those setting out to aid the Holy Land, namely full mercy for sins concerning those who shall have been truly contrite and having confessed’.168 Again Honorius was making clear that he was granting the same plenary indulgence for crusading as had his predecessor. According to Peter of les Vaux-de-Cernay, during the pontificate of Innocent III those crusading in the south of France had expected to be granted this plenary indulgence for only 40 days’ service, and it is likely that this idea persisted throughout Honorius’s pontificate. When granting the plenary indulgence for the East, popes obviously expected crusaders to remain abroad for longer than 40 days. The stipulation of a plenary indulgence for only 40 days’ service in the south of France might therefore suggest that both Innocent and Honorius regarded crusades against heresy as more important than crusades to the Holy Land. Yet there is no evidence from their letters that either Pope ever specifically advocated a fixed time limit for participation in crusades in the south of France. Rather, the decision to grant the indulgence to those who completed at least 40 days’ service seems to have been made by papal legates in 1210 on their own initiative. It is therefore very difficult to determine from this decision of the legates alone whether Honorius himself personally believed crusading against heretics was of more or less importance than crusading in the East.169 Yet two further letters suggest that Honorius wished to put on record that he regarded a vow already made to go on crusade to Jerusalem as taking precedence over a similar vow for the south of France. In 1219 he granted the bishops of Toulouse and Carcassonne the power of liberating from excommunication all those charged with assault or arson, provided that they took up arms against the heretics of Toulouse. And he stated that anyone who had vowed to go on any crusade could commute their vow to fighting against Toulouse – except for those vowed to go to Jerusalem: We also concede that, if those bound by penitence, or by a vow to the labour of some pilgrimage, should want to go to the aid of the aforementioned faithful, let it be allowed

HONORIUS III

103

that you commute the pilgrimages of those men into a labour of this kind, provided that the Jerusalem pilgrimage is excepted, from which we want no-one to be excused for this reason who is bound to that.170

That a vow taken to go on crusade to Jerusalem was singled out showed that Honorius was careful to stress the Holy Land’s extreme importance.171 Yet in an earlier letter (1218) to the archbishop of Auch, he had made a special exception in absolving the archbishop from his vow to go to Jerusalem so that he could aid the new campaign against heresy: We thought that you ought to be absolved from the vow of the Jerusalem pilgrimage . . . in as much as you should take care that you zealously work for the recompense of the said vow concerning the cause of peace and faith, as is being enacted in the territories of Toulouse.172

Honorius had emphasized the exceptional nature of this concession. It was not because a crusade to Jerusalem was of more penitential worth than a crusade against the Cathars, but because he wished to show that he was following his predecessor’s policy, especially after 1213, of giving priority to the East. Certainly in both these letters the word ‘pilgrimage’ (‘peregrinatio’) seemed to refer to the crusade to the East rather than to a non-military pilgrimage to Jerusalem, which would have been extremely difficult to achieve given the political situation in the Holy Land in 1218 and 1219. So, while continuing his predecessor’s policy of stressing the importance of crusading to the Holy Land, Honorius showed his commitment to crusades against heresy by his granting of the plenary indulgence. He also did so by his support for the founding of an order of dedicated fighters in the south of France to combat heretics on the model of the Knights Templar. In a letter of February 1221 from Carcassonne a certain Peter Savary had proposed to the Pope that a new order should take vows to aid Amalric de Montfort and his heirs, and to seek out heretics and others who made war on the count.173 Honorius approved this proposal and in June wrote to his new legate Romano, allowing him to establish the Order of the Holy Faith of Jesus Christ. Its purpose was to fight heretics in the south of France as the Knights Templar fought Muslims in the East: . . . men who, just as the Templars fight against the Muslims in the eastern regions, may thus in these parts strive against heretical depravity for the cause of peace and faith, and for ecclesiastical liberty.174

A lack of further references to the order, however, in later papal letters probably

104

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

indicates that it failed to find enough support among the laity to get off the ground. It is clear, therefore, that Honorius’s crusading policy was complex and that a reassessment is needed of those of his letters which seem at first sight to give priority to the Fifth Crusade. Although Honorius was careful to emphasize that those who were already crucesignati – in other words vowed in favour of the Holy Land – must go to the East, he was still recommending that those who were not should take part in crusading in the south of France: But, since the Albigensian heretics, worse than the Muslims, rise up against the Church . . . through our letters we have encouraged the faithful who are not crusaders to go to its aid, having made it clear in these letters that no-one signed with the Cross to give help to the Holy Land should substitute his journey with another.175

Indeed, as we have seen, several other letters confirmed that those not already signed to go to the Holy Land might take part in crusades against the Cathars. ‘Ea tibi libenter’, a letter of 1218 to Philip Augustus of France, stated that such men should support Simon de Montfort: . . . we ask and we exhort you in the Lord, enjoining it upon you for the remission of your sins, that by means of the men of your kingdom who are not signed with the Cross for the aid of the Holy Land, you enable help to be brought vigorously and quickly to the aforementioned count.176

It remains an important question, therefore, as to how we should interpret Honorius’s statements emphasising that nothing must impede the Holy Land crusade. That he thought it necessary to emphasize the importance of the Fifth Crusade, for example in a general letter to prelates in France in 1218 calling for action against the people of Toulouse, perhaps suggests a certain special pleading: But you should prudently take care that you do not, on such a pretext, withdraw certain crusaders from aiding the Holy Land itself, since we do not want to impede in any way the business of the same Holy Land, to which we aspire with an ardent desire.177

And his statement that James I of Aragon’s support of the house of Toulouse was preventing help being given to the Holy Land – ‘and impeding, to the injury of the crucified One, aid for the Holy Land’ – appears to be little more than a justification for allowing his legate to act against the king and his nobles.178 James was only a boy at the time. After the death of his father Peter II of Aragon at the battle of Muret in 1213, he was released in April 1214 from the hands of Simon

HONORIUS III

105

de Montfort through the efforts of Innocent III and put under the protection of the Templars at Monzon. Honorius must have therefore known that in 1217 James was in no position to encourage his nobles to cause significant trouble for Simon de Montfort and his crusaders. His claim that the king and his nobles were preventing military help reaching the Holy Land would in future become a standard papal argument to explain and justify the authorization of ‘internal’ crusades. In the light of his continuing support for the crusade against heretics it is hard to avoid the conclusion that Honorius’s statement that nothing should impede the Fifth Crusade was not entirely in good faith. This is particularly likely because it was in fact contradicted by his urging those who had not already taken vows to take part in crusading not in the East but in the south of France. Nevertheless, his grant of the plenary indulgence confirms that, like his predecessor, crusading to the Holy Land was the yardstick by which Honorius judged the Albigensian Crusade. He was careful in his letters to France to echo Innocent’s crusading policy after 1213 that the crusade to the Holy Land had priority over other crusades and that he, too, conceived of a crusading ‘hierarchy’. Yet, despite appearing to follow his predecessor’s commitment to the East, Honorius’s taxation policies accorded ill with the idea that a crusade to the Holy Land had priority over the crusade against heretics. As we have seen, not only did he allow half of the tax of the twentieth levied on French clergy for the Fifth Crusade in 1218 to be diverted to crusading in France but he even allowed certain of the southern clergy to use the whole of the ‘Holy Land’ twentieth for three years for that purpose. Indeed, Honorius’s commitment to crusading against heresy was confirmed later in his pontificate when in 1222, after the collapse of the Fifth Crusade and the recapture by the Muslims of Damietta in 1221, he instructed Philip Augustus and his son Louis to levy a new tax of a twentieth on the entire clergy of France.179 In all of these letters to the south of France, Honorius never compared or even mentioned the Baltic and Spanish crusades. Although these may be significant omissions, it is nevertheless very difficult to attempt to gauge from his letters alone where Honorius, or indeed his predecessor Innocent, might have placed Baltic and Spanish ventures in a hypothetical crusade ‘hierarchy’. There was also no mention of crusading in the south of France in Honorius’s letters calling for crusades in Spain and the Baltic.180 The indulgence granted for crusading in these places, however, was certainly the same plenary indulgence as that granted for the Holy Land and decreed at Lateran IV in 1215. Crusades to the Holy Land were the yardstick by which both the Baltic and Spanish crusades were also judged and Honorius was always careful to be seen to be giving the Holy Land priority.181 Yet, although Honorius’s letters continued to suggest that the Holy Land crusade was at the top of his ‘to-do list’, he showed a particular interest in the crusade against heresy, thereby directing a much more ambitious policy with

106

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

regard to crusading than he has usually been credited with. In promoting crusading in France he knew that he was modifying his predecessor’s policy which after 1213 had prioritized the Fifth Crusade. It is difficult to determine whether, had Innocent lived to face the same political situation in the south of France as his successor, he too would have modified his own policy. On the one hand, as we observed in Chapter 1, Innocent’s letters show that he supported the Albigensian Crusade with great vigour. On the other hand, they also reveal that he was determined that the Fifth Crusade should become the focus of Christian Europe. But certainly Honorius was desirous of covering his tracks by reaffirming his predecessor’s commitment to the East. Indeed his letters suggest that he was well aware that support for the Albigensian Crusade would be likely to fuel the criticism in France that the papacy was calling for men and money to annihilate southern Frenchmen while in Egypt crusaders were struggling against the odds in the Nile delta.182 Honorius’s letters, therefore, were intended to convey to the faithful two messages: first, to indicate that, although the Fifth Crusade was a high priority for the papacy, it was not an exclusive one; second, that he was still committed to promoting crusading in the south of France. Following his predecessor, Honorius’s grant of the crusading indulgence for the Albigensian Crusade was still the same as that granted for the Holy Land.183 Crusading to the Holy Land continued to be the standard by which the Albigensian Crusade was judged. Yet although Honorius’s correspondence continued to emphasize the idea that the Holy Land was a top priority, he showed a very particular interest in the crusade against heresy.

THE OBJECTIVES OF THE ALBIGENSIAN CRUSADE Honorius had specific objectives for the south of France: to rid the south of heretics, to support Simon de Montfort and his son Amalric and their claims to territory won during crusading campaigns, and to curtail the power of Raymond VI and later Raymond VII of Toulouse. He failed in the first of these aims. The problem of heresy in the south of France had not been resolved by the end of his pontificate. Realizing that crusading had proved unsuitable for dealing with such an elusive enemy, Honorius’s successor, Gregory IX, oversaw the setting up of inquisitorial processes as an alternative approach. Indeed Honorius’s licensing of the Dominicans, who became the chief inquisitors in the south of France, had much greater consequences for the future than he himself could have envisaged. Yet Honorius’s policies failed to help Amalric de Montfort win back and retain his father’s territories. In January 1224 Amalric renounced his claims

HONORIUS III

107

and in 1239 the Church paid off his debts and he joined the Barons’ Crusade of Count Thibault of Champagne to the East.184 Indeed, Honorius’s letters suggest that by 1224 he was less determined to weaken the power of the counts of Toulouse than he had been earlier. He realized that Amalric’s surrender of his claims to the south of France benefited the French monarchy and he may have believed that it would be much more difficult for the papacy to intervene in the activities of the French crown than in those of the counts of Toulouse. Yet on the other hand he probably thought that the Church in the south of France was more likely to flourish with the backing of a strong centralized monarchy than under the influence of southern French magnates competing with each other for power in a continually unstable region. It was therefore probably Honorius’s decision in 1224 to concentrate energies once more on the Holy Land which was a primary explanation for his sudden, if temporary, reluctance for the proposed crusade of Louis VIII in the south and wish for a reconciliation between Louis and Raymond VII, rather than any great change of opinion by the Pope about the claims of the counts of Toulouse.185 Certainly compared with the terms of Lateran IV, the peace treaty which was finally made at Paris in 1229 during the pontificate of Gregory IX was very generous to Raymond VII of Toulouse. He was allowed to retain most of the lands that he had recovered from Amalric de Montfort, and although he lost land beyond the Rhône awarded to him at Lateran IV, even this was later regained.186 Indeed Raymond finished up in 1229 no worse off in terms of territory than he had been at the beginning of Honorius’s pontificate. So somewhat ironically, and in part as a direct result of Honorius’s policies, crusading in the south of France actually added to the Church’s difficulties. The tacit approval, if not active involvement, of Philip Augustus and the participation of Louis VIII in crusades against heretics and their aftermath helped to ensure that the kings of France did not participate in crusades to the Holy Land for three decades.187 And the reputation of the papacy, which suffered a severe blow from the failure of the Fifth Crusade in the Nile delta, was further damaged by the failure of crusades in the south of France to wipe out heresy. Indeed military defeats both in the East and in the south of France even changed the rhetoric of crusade preaching. Crusade sermons began to emphasize that the failure of expeditions recurred because God was allowing His enemies to triumph in the short term in order that Christians might save their souls by continuing to crusade.188 Yet the French crown gained in several ways from the papacy’s development of the idea of ‘internal’ crusades in the south of France. It gained financially, using the precedent of the Church’s levying of taxes on the clergy to its own advantage. In 1218, Honorius had promised to grant Philip Augustus half of the tax of the twentieth for the Holy Land Crusade paid by the French clergy to aid Amalric

108

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

de Montfort. In the future, French kings and princes began to demand such subsidies from the Church before agreeing to fight to defend its policies.189 By the end of the thirteenth century, the French monarchy was so used to receiving clerical subsidies that it began to regard them as part of its regular revenues. As a result of the established precedent, as well as a policy of the Crown of deliberate encroachment, income tax originally imposed on the clergy to pay for crusades began to be demanded by French kings for other types of campaigns.190 Secondly, French monarchs gained new authority in the south. For Louis VIII’s crusade in 1226, legates granted the same plenary indulgence for 40 days’ service which had been originally introduced in 1210. The length of service of 40 days may have reflected the amount of time lords traditionally asked of their vassals for service.191 Or it may have been a reminder of the Church’s 40 days of penance each Lent. Or perhaps it was a reference to the fact that whereas pilgrims were often awarded partial indulgences of 40 days for going on pilgrimages, in this case crusaders were being granted the plenary indulgence for only 40 days’ fighting.192 The xenophobic but nevertheless highly informative English chronicler Matthew Paris emphasized the power of the French monarchy when he wrote that men were driven to join Louis’s crusading army not by faith in God but by fear.193 The extent to which the papacy was willingly becoming reliant on the French monarchy to fight its battles in the south of France – a departure which had been foreshadowed by Innocent III in his letters to Philip Augustus – became strikingly apparent in 1224, when Louis requested that the papacy grant the same indulgence as that granted for the Holy Land as one of the conditions for his participation in crusading in the south.194 Innocent III’s calls for the appointment of new bishops to counter heresy in this area had had little effect and during Honorius’s pontificate it continued to be extremely difficult for bishops to recognize Cathar followers and their supporters. Busy with so many problems – including those concerned with crusading – they had little time to organize continuous and thorough searches. In general, however, the southern French bishops gained from the crusading policies of both popes. In the short term they increased their authority in the south by achieving their long-desired aim of discrediting the counts of Toulouse.195 In the long term they benefited from the enforcement of conciliar legislation enacted against heretics, from the establishment of the Dominican Order and from the setting up of inquisitions to help in the drive against heresy. Yet, during Honorius’s period as Pope, the idea of crusading against ‘internal’ heretics continued to be questioned. There was dissatisfaction at the beginning of his pontificate that men and money for the Holy Land were being diverted from the Nile expedition for crusading in France. The Albigensian Crusade was seen by some as a contributory reason for the failure of the Fifth Crusade in 1221. Some troubadours regarded the Albigensian Crusade as a ‘false’ crusade because

HONORIUS III

109

it ravaged the homes of French Christians while the Nile delta was abandoned to the Egyptian sultan.196 That the papal legates granted the same plenary indulgence as for crusading in the Holy Land in return for only 40 days’ service seemed to some a travesty of the idea of crusading.197 In 1221, for example, Honorius excommunicated and deprived of all ecclesiastical benefits a certain Adam of Aix along with others who had refused to pay the tax of the twentieth levied for the crusade against heretics; they claimed that it was not right for the Pope to spend the money originally levied for the Holy Land on such a cause.198 Furthermore, Innocent III had believed that the decision made in favour of Simon de Montfort at Lateran IV in 1215 would end disputes over the conflicting claims to territories in the south of France. He wanted an end to the Albigensian Crusade, at least at an ‘international’ level, so that he could concentrate on his planned crusade to the East. Yet his successor, who declared himself committed to maintaining his predecessor’s policies and ideals, continued to call for – indeed took steps to favour – crusading in the south of France. This was admittedly in part a response to the reversals in fortune of Simon de Montfort, but Honorius also seems to have been particularly interested in the crusade against heresy. Perhaps the elderly Honorius was influenced by Cardinal Ugolino, later Gregory IX, who both as cardinal and Pope pursued the Church’s policies against heretics with great vigour. But Honorius himself was also much more innovative in his policy-making in this area than historians have often supposed. Innocent III had left Honorius in a very difficult situation. He had to carry through the high-flown plans of his predecessor for the East, but at the same time to ensure the continuing success of the Church’s crusade against heresy. In response, he often emphasized that he was prioritizing the Holy Land while simultaneously calling for crusades in the south of France. By contrast, Gregory IX’s realization of the futility of crusades against heretics in the south was an important factor in his allowing Romano of Sant’ Angelo to arrange the Treaty of Paris in 1229 which formally ended the Albigensian Crusade.199 In the short term, Innocent’s crusading policies caused his successor Honorius serious practical problems of implementation; in the longer term they forced the papacy to think hard about the direction crusading was taking. Notes 1 For Honorius III’s career before becoming Pope, see Werner Malezcek, Papst und Kardinalskolleg von 1191 bis 1216: die Kardinale unter Coelistin III. und Innocenz III. (Vienna, 1984), pp. 111–13; Jane Sayers, Papal Government and England during the Pontificate of Honorius III (1216–1227) (Cambridge, 1984), pp. 1–6. 2 Felix Vernet, Etude sur les sermons d’Honorius III (Lyon, 1888), pp. 1–3.

110

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

3 Sayers, Papal Government and England during the Pontificate of Honorius III (1216–1227), p. 9. 4 For example, Peter Linehan, The Spanish Church and the Papacy in the Thirteenth Century (London, 1971), pp. 16–17. 5 Jorgen Clausen, Papst Honorius III. (1216–1227) (Bonn, 1895), p. 86. 6 Thomas Van Cleve, ‘The Fifth Crusade’ in A History of the Crusades, 2, ed. K. Setton (Madison, 1969), p. 384; Thomas Van Cleve, ‘The Crusade of Frederick II’ in A History of the Crusades, 2, pp. 431–2, 462. 7 Hans-Martin Schaller, Kaiser Friederich II (Göttingen, 1964), p. 34. 8 Horace Mann, Lives of the Popes in the Middle Ages from 590 to 1304, Vol. 13 (London, 1914), p. 20. 9 James Powell, ‘Honorius III and the Leadership of the Crusade’, Catholic Historical Review 63 (1977), 524–5, 528–9; James Powell, Anatomy of a Crusade 1213–1221 (Philadelphia, 1986), p. 110. 10 Ibid., p. 521. 11 For a comprehensive discussion of the vast number of chronicle sources for the Albigensian Crusade, see Kay Wagner, Debellare Albigenses. Darstellung und Deutung des Albigenserkreuzzuges in der europäischen Geschichtsschreibung von 1209 bis 1328 (Neuried, 2002). 12 William of Tudela, La Chanson de la Croisade Albigeoise, 3, ed. E. Martin–Chabot (Paris, 1957), pp. 28–9, 52–3, 102–5, 172–5, 214–15, 230–1. 13 William of Puylaurens, Chronique, ed. with French trans. J. Duvorney (Paris, 1976), p. 34. 14 Vincent of Beauvais, Speculum maius, 1 (Douai, 1624), col. 2472. 15 Roger of Wendover, Flores historiarum, 2, ed. H. G. Hewlitt, Rolls Series 84 (London, 1887), pp. 220–319, passim; Matthew Paris, Chronica majora, 3, ed. H. R. Luard, Rolls Series 57 (London, 1877; Kraus reprint, 1964), pp. 25–122. 16 Mann, Lives of the Popes in the Middle Ages from 590 to 1304, 13, pp. 20–1. 17 Salimbene of Adam, ‘Cronica’, MGHS 32, p. 36. 18 John of God, ‘Cronica’, MGHS 31, p. 324. 19 ‘Chronica monasterii Casinensis’, MGHS 34, p. 154. 20 ‘Cronica Turonensis’, MGHS 26, p. 476. 21 Pressutti, 1, p. 30. See Clausen, Papst Honorius III. (1216–1227), p. 10. 22 Honorius III, ‘Utilius tibi est’ (29 Dec. 1217), Horoy 2, cols 564–6. 23 For example, Honorius III, ‘Utilius tibi est’, col. 565. 24 Honorius III, ‘Licet pater tuus’ (29 Dec. 1217), Horoy 2, col. 564. 25 Honorius III, ‘Quod de libertatis’ (23 Dec. 1223), Horoy 4, cols 497–8. 26 For example, Honorius III, ‘Populus Israel a’ (3 Jan. 1218), Horoy 2, col. 574. 27 For example, Honorius III, ‘Cum reges et’ (14 Dec. 1223), Horoy 4, col. 486. 28 Honorius III, ‘Ad colligendum zizania’ (1 April 1219), Horoy 3, col. 185. 29 Honorius III, ‘Cum ad subventionem’ (22 Jan. 1219), Horoy 3, col. 104. 30 For example, Honorius III, ‘Cum reges et’, col. 485. 31 For example, Honorius III, ‘Populus Israel a’, col. 574. 32 For the actions of Raymond Roger and Simon de Montfort and details of the papal

HONORIUS III

33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46

47 48 49 50 51

52 53 54 55 56

57 58 59 60

111

commission, see, for example, Jonathan Sumption, The Albigensian Crusade (London, 1978), p. 190. Honorius III, ‘Noverit tua devotio’ (8 Dec. 1216), Potthast, no. 5383. Honorius III, ‘Cum olim a’ (8 Dec. 1216), Horoy 2, cols 118–19. Honorius III, ‘Utilius tibi est’, cols 564–6. Clausen, Papst Honorius III, p. 228. Michel Roquebert, L’Épopée cathare, 3 (Paris, 1989), p. 505. Sumption, The Albigensian Crusade, p. 190. Clausen, Papst Honorius III, pp. 228–9. Jean Simonde de Sismonde, History of the Crusades Against the Albigenses in the Thirteenth Century (London, 1826), p. 69. Honorius III, ‘Venerabile fratre nostro’ (7 March 1217), Horoy 2, cols 318–20. Honorius III, ‘Venerabilis frater noster’ (7 March 1217), Horoy 2, col. 321. Honorius III, ‘Licet quaestiones subortae’ (23 Oct. 1217), Horoy 2, cols 523–4; Sumption, The Albigensian Crusade, p. 191. Honorius III, ‘Praesentium auctoritate mandamus’ (15 March 1219), Horoy 3, col. 161. Honorius III, ‘Dilectus filius nobilis’ (17 March 1219), Horoy 3, cols 161–2. Honorius III, ‘Populus Israel a’ (11 Aug. 1218), Horoy 3, cols 10–12; ‘Populus Israel a’, cols 573–5; ‘Populus Israel a’ (30 Dec. 1217), Horoy 2, cols 567–9; ‘Cum dilectus filius’ (23 Oct. 1217), Horoy 2, cols 524–5; ‘Gratiarum omnium largitori’ (21 Jan. 1217), Horoy 2, cols 203–4: in this letter Honorius III granted to Dominic and his followers the office of Preachers of the Faith; ‘Mirabiles elationes maris’ (15 Feb. 1225), Horoy 4, cols 781–4. For details, see above pp. 55–7. Honorius III, ‘Multo sudore laboratum’ (19 Jan. 1217), Horoy 2, cols 189–91. Honorius III, ‘Mirabiles elationes maris’, cols 781–4. Honorius III, ‘Cum dilectus filius’, cols 524–5. Honorius III, ‘Mirabiles elationes maris’, cols 781–4. The image was originally biblical, for example, Jonah 1.4; Matthew 14.22–33. For biblical references, see Biblia sacra iuxta Vulgatam versionem, 2 vols, 2nd edn, ed. R. Weber (Stuttgart, 1975). Honorius III, ‘Multo sudore laboratum’, cols 189–91; ‘Mirabiles elationes maris’, cols 781–4. Honorius III, ‘Quod de libertatis’, cols 497–8. For example, Honorius III, ‘Multo sudore laboratum’, cols 189–91; ‘Mirabiles elationes maris’, cols 781–4. ‘Ad liberandam’, Constitution 71 of Lateran IV, Vol. 1: Nicaea I to Lateran V, ed. N. P. Tanner (London, 1990), pp. 267–71. For the theory of the two swords, see Walter Ullmann, The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages: A Study in the Ideological Relation of Clerical to Lay Power (London, 1955), pp. 417, 445. Honorius III, ‘Nosti fili carissime’ (14 May 1222), Horoy 4, col. 144. Honorius III, ‘Quod de libertatis’, cols 497–8. See Biblia sacra iuxta Vulgatam versionem, ed. Weber. Honorius III, ‘Iustis petentium desideriis’ (3 June 1220), Horoy 3, col. 445. Honorius III, ‘Cum haereticos deteriores’ (5 Sept. 1218), Horoy 3, col. 30.

112

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

61 Honorius III, ‘Litteris tuis’ (1 Oct. 1219), Horoy 3, cols 299–301. 62 Innocent III, ‘Si tua regalis’ (10 March 1208), PL 215, col. 1359. 63 See Canon 14 of the Council of Narbonne (1227), Mansi 23, col. 24. See also Canon 3 of the Council of Toulouse (1229), Mansi 23, col. 194. 64 Lucius III, ‘Ad abolendam diverarum’ (4 Nov. 1184), PL 201, cols 1297–1300. See trans. in Edward Peters, Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe (Philadelphia, 1980), pp. 170–3. 65 Honorius III, ‘Populus Israel a’, col. 569. 66 For the use of the term ‘societas Christiana’ from Gregory VII onwards, see Ullmann, The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages, p. 271. 67 Honorius III, ‘Multo sudore laboratum’, cols 189–91. 68 Honorius III, ‘Cum reges et’, cols 484–7. 69 For example, Honorius III, ‘Nosti fili carissime’, cols 144–6. 70 Documents de l’Histoire de Languedoc (Toulouse, 1969), pp. 99–105; Malcolm Barber, The Cathars, Dualist Heretics in Languedoc in the High Middle Ages (Harlow, 2000), pp. 76–81. 71 Miri Rubin, Corpus Christi: the Eucharist in Late Medieval Culture (Cambridge, 1991), pp. 320–2. 72 Honorius III, ‘Religiosam vitam eligentibus’ (22 Dec. 1216), Horoy 2, cols 141–4; ‘Nos attendentes fratres’ (22 Dec. 1216), Horoy 2, cols 144–5. 73 Honorius III, ‘Ad aures regias’ (13 Aug. 1218), Horoy 3, cols 14–15. 74 Honorius III, ‘Ecce super negotio’ (13 Dec. 1223), Horoy 4, col. 482. 75 For example, Honorius III, ‘Populus Israel a’, col. 574. 76 Honorius III, ‘Cum ad subventionem’, col. 104. 77 For example, Honorius III, ‘Cum olim a’, cols 118–19; ‘Cum haereticos deteriores’, col. 30. 78 For example, Honorius III, ‘De prudentia et’ (3 June 1221), Horoy 3, col. 839; ‘Cum venerabiles fratres’ (15 Nov. 1221), Horoy 4, col. 24. 79 Honorius III, ‘Iustis petentium desideriis’, cols 445–6. 80 For example, Canons 28–42 of the Council of Toulouse (1229), Mansi 23, cols 201–4. 81 Honorius III, ‘Sollicite intendentes ut’ (11 Dec. 1223), Horoy 4, col. 475. 82 Honorius III, ‘Sollicite intendentes ad’ (15 Dec. 1223), Horoy 4, col. 488. 83 Honorius III, ‘Nosti fili carissime’, col. 144. 84 For example, Eugenius III, ‘Quantum praedecessores’ (1 Dec. 1145), 3rd edn, ed. B. von Simson, Ottonis et Rahewina Gesta Friderici I Imperatoris, 1 (Hannover and Leipzig, 1912), p. 56. For example, Adrian IV, ‘Quantum strenui’ (13 Nov. 1157), ‘Epistolae et privilegia’, PL 188, cols 1537–8. See Elizabeth Siberry, Criticism of Crusading (Oxford, 1985), pp. 70–95. 85 Honorius III, ‘Populus Israel a’, col. 568; ‘Populus Israel a’, col. 573. 86 Honorius III, ‘Populus Israel a’, col. 10; ‘Ad aures regias’, col. 14. 87 Honorius III, ‘Populus Israel a’, col. 568; ‘Populus Israel a’, col. 574; ‘Cum vestra non’ (29 Dec. 1217), Horoy 2, col. 566; ‘Utilius tibi est’, col. 565. 88 Bernard Hamilton, ‘The Albigensian Crusade’, Historical Association Pamphlets, Gen. Ser. G 81–G 85, G 85 (London, 1974), p. 23; Sumption, The Albigensian Crusade, pp. 210–11. 89 For example, James of Vitry, ‘Item sermo ad crucesignatos vel signandos’ in Christoph Maier, Crusade Propaganda and Ideology: Model Sermons for the Preaching of the Cross

HONORIUS III

90

91

92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99

100 101 102 103 104

105 106 107 108 109 110

113

(Cambridge, 2000), pp. 118–19; Eudes of Châteauroux, ‘Sermo in conversione Sancti Pauli et exhortatio ad assumendam crucem’, in Maier, Crusade Propaganda and Ideology, pp. 138–9; Guilbert of Tournai, ‘Ad crucesignatos et crucesignandos sermo tertius’, in Maier, Crusade Propaganda and Ideology, pp. 204–7, 208–9; ‘Ad peregrinos crucesignatos’, in Maier, Crusade Propaganda and Ideology, pp. 210–15, passim. For example, Eugenius III had referred to the Second Crusade as a ‘sanctum opus’, ‘sanctum iter’ and ‘tam sanctum tamque prenecessarium opus et laborem devotionis’ in ‘Quantum praedecessores’, pp. 55–7, passim. Also, Innocent III referred to the Livonian Crusade as a ‘peregrinatio’ in ‘Suggestor scelerum serpens’ (30 Oct. 1209), Opera omnia, PL 216, col. 118. James Brundage, ‘“Cruce signari”: the Rite for Taking the Cross in England’, The Crusades, Holy War and Canon Law (Aldershot, 1991), p. 291; The Life of Marie d’Oignies by Jacques de Vitry, trans. M. H. King (Toronto, 1993), pp. 190, 221, note 6. For the use in Honorius III’s letters of the term ‘crucesignati’ to refer to crusaders against heretics in the south of France, see, for example, ‘Iustis petentium desideriis’, col. 445. For example, Honorius III, ‘Populus Israel a’, cols 574–5. For example, Honorius III, ‘De prudentia et’, col. 839. Honorius III, ‘Animo desideranti non’ (1 April 1219), Horoy 3, col. 187. For the Children’s Crusade, see Gary Dickson, ‘La Genèse de la croisade des enfants (1212)’, Religious Enthusiasm in the Medieval World (Aldershot, 2000), pp. 53–102. Sumption, The Albigensian Crusade, p. 216. Carl Erdmann, Die Entstehung des Kreuzzugs Gedankens (Stuttgart, 1935), The Origin of the Idea of Crusade, trans. M. W. Baldwin and W. Goffart (Princeton, NJ, 1977). Simonde de Sismondi, History of the Crusade against the Albigenses in the Thirteenth Century, p. 77. For details on the life of James of Vitry, see Maier, Crusade Propaganda and Ideology, pp. 8–9; for details on the works of Philip the Chancellor, see Maier, Crusade Propaganda and Ideology, p. 21; for details on the life of Eudes of Châteauroux, see Maier, Crusade Propaganda and Ideology, pp. 9–10. Christoph Maier, Preaching the Crusades: Mendicant Friars and the Cross in the Thirteenth Century (Cambridge, 1994), pp. 100–3, 117–18. Sumption, The Albigensian Crusade, p. 190. Clausen, Papst Honorius III, p. 233. Clausen, Papst Honorius III, p. 234; Sumption, The Albigensian Crusade, p. 206. Richard Kay, Councils and Clerical Culture in the Medieval West (Aldershot, 1997), pp. 63–79; Clausen, Papst Honorius III, pp. 241–2; Joseph Strayer, The Albigensian Crusades (New York, 1971), p. 128; Sumption, The Albigensian Crusade, pp. 214–15. Honorius III, ‘Venientes ad apostolicam’ (31 Jan. 1224), Horoy 4, col. 527. Honorius III, ‘Cum negocia qua’ (13 Feb. 1225), Potthast 1, no. 7358; ‘Mirabiles elationes maris’, cols 781–4; ‘Inter caeteros fratres’ (15 Feb. 1225), Horoy 4, cols 785–6. For the Council of Bourges, see Mansi 22, cols 1213–20. For Thedisius acting contrary to Innocent’s wishes, see Peter of les Vaux-de-Cernay, Historia Albigensis, 1, ed. P. Guébin and E. Lym (Paris, 1926), pp. 165–9. Mansi 22, cols 1211–14; Mansi 22, cols 1205–10; Mansi 22, cols 1213–20. Mansi 23, cols 9–12; Mansi 23, cols 19–26.

114 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118

119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136

137 138 139 140 141 142 143

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

Amalric de Montfort, ‘Cum vos zelo’ (1224), Mansi 22, cols 1205–10. Sumption, The Albigensian Crusade, p. 214. Mansi 22, cols 1205–10, 1213–20. Honorius III, ‘Ea tibi libenter’ (3 Jan. 1218), Horoy 2, cols 575–6. Honorius III, ‘Ad aures regias’, cols 14–15. Honorius III, ‘Ex eo conjicitur’ (5 Sept. 1218), Horoy 3, col. 28. Honorius III, ‘Deo in cujus’ (5 Sept. 1218), Horoy 3, cols 24–7. Honorius III, ‘Animo desideranti non’, cols 187–8; ‘Etsi cuncti debeant’ (2 June 1220/1221), Horoy 3, cols 444–5. Some historians have dated the letter 2 June 1220 but another letter of Honorius to his legate Conrad of 3 June 1221 suggests that it should rather be dated 2 June 1221; see Horoy 3, col. 830. Honorius III, ‘Quanto negotium fidei’ (1 Feb. 1222), Horoy 4, col. 83; ‘Nosti fili carissime’, cols 144–6. Honorius III, ‘Ad aures regias’, cols 14–15. Strayer, The Albigensian Crusades, pp. 116–17. Ibid., p. 117. Honorius III, ‘Deo in cujus’, cols 24–7. Strayer, The Albigensian Crusades, p. 117. Honorius III, ‘Dignas Deo laudes’ (13 Dec. 1223), Horoy 4, cols 483–4. Honorius III, ‘Petitionibus quas per’ (4 April 1224), Horoy 4, cols 589–90. Strayer, The Albigensian Crusades, p. 124. Philippe Mouskes, Chronique Rimée, 2, ed. Le Baron de Reiffenberg (Brussels, 1838), p. 447. See Sumption, The Albigensian Crusade, p. 213. Sumption, The Albigensian Crusade, p. 210. Charles Petit-Dutaillis, Étude sur la vie et le règne de Louis VIII (Paris, 1894), p. 186; Sumption, The Albigensian Crusade, p. 209. Honorius III, ‘Petitionibus quas per’, cols 589–90; ‘Petitionibus quas per’ (4 April 1224), Horoy 4, cols 593–7. Honorius III, ‘Petitionibus quas per’, cols 589–90; ‘Petitionibus quas per’, cols 593–7. Sumption, The Albigensian Crusade, p. 215. Matthew Paris, Chronica majora, 3, ed. Luard, pp. 105–11. For example, Honorius III, ‘Mirabiles elationes maris’, cols 781–4. Romano and the prelates of France, ‘Noverit universitas vestra’ (Jan. 1225–1226), Layettes 2, cols 69–70. See Simonde de Sismondi, History of the Crusade against the Albigenses in the Thirteenth Century, p. 108. Honorius III, ‘Litteris tuis’, col. 300. Ibid. Honorius III, ‘De prudentia et’, col. 839; ‘Divinas recensentes’ (3 June 1221), Horoy 3, col. 834. Honorius III, ‘Ea tibi libenter’, col. 576. Honorius III, ‘Populus Israel a’, col. 575. Honorius III, ‘Cum dilectus filius’, cols 524–5. Honorius III, ‘Cum venerabiles fratres’, cols 24–5; ‘Tua nobis fraternitas’ (16 Dec. 1221), Horoy 4, col. 51; ‘Ad audientiam nostram’ (23 Dec. 1221), Presutti 2, no. 3658; ‘Cum

HONORIUS III

144 145

146

147 148

149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156

157 158 159 160

115

auctoritate mandati’ (16 March 1222), Horoy 4, cols 117–18; ‘Cum quidam episcopi’ (13 May 1222), Horoy 4, cols 143–9; ‘Nosti fili carissime’, cols 144–6; ‘Sane significastis nobis’ (16 May 1222), Horoy 4, cols 146–7; ‘Non moveatur nostra’ (17 May 1222), Horoy 4, cols 147–8; ‘Licet tibi deferentes’ (17 May 1222), Horoy 4, cols 148–9; ‘Cum vicessima colligenda’ (19 May 1222), Horoy 4, col. 154; ‘Sollicite intendentes ut’, cols 475–6; ‘Sollicite intendentes ad’, cols 488–9; ‘Ex parte dilecti’ (4 May 1224), Horoy 4, cols 617–18. For further details, see Simonde de Sismondi, History of the Albigensian Crusades in the Thirteenth Century, pp. 87–9; Sumption, The Albigensian Crusade, pp. 206–8. Honorius III, ‘Petitionibus quas per’, cols 589–90; ‘Petitionibus quas per’, cols 593–7. The collection of the tax of the twentieth was in accordance with ‘Ad liberandam’, Constitution 71 of Lateran IV, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 1, ed. N. P. Tanner (London, 1990), pp. 267–71. Honorius III, ‘Deo in cujus’, cols 25–6. See Simonde de Sismondi, History of the Crusades against the Albigenses in the Thirteenth Century, p. 83; Austin Evans, ‘The Albigensian Crusade’, A History of the Crusades, ed. K. Setton, Vol. 2 (Madison, 1969), pp. 314–15; Strayer, The Albigensian Crusades, p. 116. Honorius III, ‘Deo in cujus’, cols 24–7. Innocent III, ‘Quia major nunc’ (19–29 April 1213), Studien zum Register Innocenz III, ed. G. Tangl (Weimar, 1929), pp. 88–97; ‘Ad liberandam’, Constitution 71 of Lateran IV, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 1, ed. Tanner, pp. 2267–71. Constitution 3 of Lateran IV, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 1, ed. Tanner, pp. 233–5. Honorius III, ‘Deo in cujus’, cols 26–7. Honorius III, ‘Cum haereticos deteriores’, col. 30. For example, Honorius III, ‘Deo in cujus’, cols 24–7. See Malcolm Lambert, The Cathars: Dualist Heretics in Languedoc in the High Middle Ages (Oxford, 1998), p. 115. Honorius III, ‘Populus Israel a’, cols 10–12. Honorius III, ‘Divinas recensentes’, cols 833–5; ‘De prudentia et’, cols 838–40; ‘Cum auctoritate mandati’, cols 117–18; ‘Etsi cuncti debeant’, cols 444–5. Honorius III, ‘Ad colligendum zizania’, Horoy 3, col. 186. Honorius III, ‘Cum venerabiles fratres’, cols 24–5; ‘Tua nobis fraternitas’, col. 51; ‘Ad audientiam nostram’, no. 3658; ‘Cum auctoritate mandati’, cols 117–18; ‘Cum quidam episcopi’, cols 143–9; ‘Nosti fili carissime’, cols 144–6; ‘Sane significastis nobis’, cols 146–7; ‘Non moveatur nostra’, cols 147–8; ‘Licet tibi deferentes’, cols 148–9; ‘Cum vicessima colligenda’, col. 154; ‘Sollicite intendentes ut’, cols 475–6; ‘Sollicite intendentes ad’, cols 488–9; ‘Ex parte dilecti’, cols 617–18. For details of these years, see Simonde de Sismondi, History of the Albigensian Crusades in the Thirteenth Century, pp. 87–9; Sumption, The Albigensian Crusade, pp. 206–8. Powell, Anatomy of A Crusade 1213–1221, p. 110; Colin Morris, The Papal Monarchy. The Western Church from 1050 to 1250 (Oxford, 1989), pp. 214–17. Clausen, Papst Honorius III, p. 236. The earliest letter we possess is Honorius III, ‘Cum olim a’, cols 118–19, to Count Raymond Roger of Foix. Honorius III, ‘Populus Israel a’, col. 568.

116

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

161 Honorius III, ‘Populus Israel a’, cols 574–5. 162 Honorius III, ‘Ea tibi libenter’, col. 576. 163 For example, Honorius III, ‘Nosti fili carissime’, cols 144–6; ‘Ex grandi indignatione’ (13 May 1222), Horoy 4, cols 142–3. 164 Honorius III, ‘Populus Israel a’, cols 573–5; ‘Populus Israel a’, cols 10–12; ‘Populus Israel a’, cols 567–9; ‘Non moveatur vestra’, cols 147–8. 165 The phrase ‘certa indulgentia peccatorum’ was also used; see Honorius III, ‘Populus Israel a’, col. 575. For an explanation of plenary and partial indulgences, see Cyrille Vogel, ‘Le Pelérinage penitentiel’, Revue des Sciences Religieuses 38 (1964), 113–53, passim. 166 ‘Populus Israel a’ (11 Aug. 1218), Horoy 3, cols 10–12; ‘Ad aures regias’ (two letters) (12 August 1218), Horoy 3, pp. 14–15. 167 ‘Ad liberandam’, Constitution 71 of Lateran IV, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 1, ed. Tanner, pp. 267–71. For the translation, see Jonathan Riley-Smith and Louise Riley-Smith, The Crusades, Idea and Reality, 1095–1274 (London, 1981), p. 129. For the letter, see Honorius III, ‘Populus Israel a’, cols 11–12. For details of this formulation of the indulgence, see Adolf Gottlobb, Kreuzzablass und Almosenablass: Eine Studie über die Früzheit des Ablasswessens, Kirchenrechtliche Abhandlungens, 30, ed. U. Stutz (Stuttgart, 1906), pp. 135–9; Nicolaus Paulus, Geschichte des Ablasses im Mittelalter vom Ursprunge bis zur Mitte des 14. Jahrhunderts, 1 (Paderborn, 1922), pp. 207–8. 168 Honorius III, ‘Ad aures regias’, col. 15. 169 For the service of 40 days, see Peter of les Vaux-de-Cernay, Historia Albigensis, 1, ed. Guébin and Lyon, p. 187. They may have also hoped that a period of forty days would remind crusaders of the forty days of Lent and therefore emphasise the penitential aspects of crusading. For more recent discussions of the length of military service see John Beeler, Warfare in Feudal Europe (Ithaca, London, 1971), pp. 29–30; Philip Contamine, War in the Middle Ages, trans. Michael Jones (Oxford, 1984), p. 79; p. 82; Susan Reynolds, Fiefs and Vassals: The Medieval Evidence Reinterpreted (Oxford, 1984), pp. 308–9; Laurence Marvin, ‘Thirty-Nine Days and a Wake-Up: The Impact of the Indulgence and Forty Days Service on the Albigensian Crusade, 1209–1218’, The Historian (2002), p. 86. 170 Honorius III, ‘Cum ad subventionem’ (22 Jan. 1219), Horoy 3, col. 105. 171 For details of the events of 1218–19, see C. L. de Vic, J. Vaisette, ed., Histoire générale de Languedoc, 6, in revised edn by A. Molinier et al. (Toulouse, 1872), pp. 514–34. 172 Honorius III, ‘Attendentes personam tuam’ (21 Dec. 1218), Horoy 3, col. 79. 173 Simonde de Sismondi, History of the Crusades Against the Albigenses in the Thirteenth Century, p. 87. 174 Honorius III, ‘Quam quidam Christianae’ (7 June 1221), Horoy 3, col. 844. 175 Honorius III, ‘Litteris tuis’, col. 300. 176 Honorius III, ‘Ea tibi libenter’, col. 576. See also similar exhortations in ‘Populus Israel a’, cols 568–9; ‘Populus Israel a’, cols 574–5. 177 Honorius III, ‘Populus Israel a’, col. 575. See also the similar statement in ‘Ea tibi libenter’, col. 576. 178 Honorius III, ‘Cum dilectus filius’, col. 524. 179 For the letter stirring Philip Augustus of France up for the campaign, see Honorius III, ‘Quanto negotium fidei’ (1 Feb. 1222), Horoy 4, col. 83. For the tax of the twentieth,

HONORIUS III

180 181 182

183 184

185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192

193 194 195 196

197 198 199

117

see Honorius III, ‘Nosti fili carissime’, cols 144–6. See Simonde de Sismondi, History of the Crusades against the Albigenses in the Thirteenth Century, p. 87. For a discussion of papal letters calling for crusades to Spain, see, for example, José Gaztambide, Historia de la Bula de la Cruzada en España (Vitoria, 1958), passim. For example, Honorius’s letter to Henry bishop of Gniezno concerning crusading to Prussia, Honorius III, ‘Litteras tam episcoporum’ (14 Feb. 1217), Horoy 2, cols 272–4. Such criticism was later levelled at the papacy. See ‘Ad audientiam nostram’, no. 3658; Michael Costen, The Cathars and the Albigensian Crusade (Manchester, 1997), p. 150; Siberry, Criticism of Crusading, pp. 158–68; Sumption, The Albigensian Crusade, p. 207. For example, Honorius III, ‘Ad aures regias’, cols 14–15. Sumption, The Albigensian Crusade, pp. 210–11; William Jordan, ‘The Representation of the Crusades in the Songs Attributed to Thibaud, Count Palatine of Champagne’, Ideology and Royal Power in Medieval France: Kingship, Crusades and the Jews (Aldershot, 2001), pp. 27–34; Michael Lower, The Barons’ Crusade: A Call to Arms and Its Consequences (Philadelphia, 2005), pp. 158–77. Honorius III, ‘Petitionibus quas per’, cols 589–90; ‘Petitionibus quas per’, cols 593–7. Hamilton, ‘The Albigensian Crusade’, pp. 23–4. Strayer, The Albigensian Crusades, p. 125. For example, James of Vitry, ‘Item sermo ad crucesignatus vel signandos’ in Maier, Crusade Propaganda and Ideology, pp. 116–17. Honorius III, ‘Deo in cujus’, cols 24–7. Strayer, The Albigensian Crusades, pp. 116–17. Paulus, Geschichte des Ablasses im Mittelalter, 1, p. 208. Diana Webb, ‘Pardons and Pilgrims’, in Promissory Notes on the Treasury of Merits. Indulgences in Late Medieval Europe, ed. R. N. Swanson (Leiden and Boston, 2006), p. 242. Matthew Paris, Chronica majora, 3, ed. Luard, p. 110. See Sumption, The Albigensian Crusade, p. 216. Sumption, The Albigensian Crusade, p. 213. Strayer, The Albigensian Crusades, p. 127. This is a very large subject which unfortunately cannot be discussed in detail here. For recent discussions, see, for example, Costen, The Cathars and the Albigensian Crusade, p. 150; Siberry, Criticism of Crusading, pp. 158–68; Sumption, The Albigensian Crusade, p. 207. Peter of les Vaux-de-Cernay, Historia Albigensis, 1, ed. Guébin and Lyon, p. 187. Honorius III, ‘Ad audientiam nostram’, no. 3658. Strayer, The Albigensian Crusades, p. 144.

This page intentionally left blank

3

Gregory IX: The Authorization of Crusades Against Heretics in Europe Hugolino dei Segni, later Pope Gregory IX (1227–1241), was a great-nephew of Innocent III and had a distinguished career before becoming Pope. Having studied law at Paris and Bologna, he was successively appointed papal chaplain, archpriest of St Peter’s, cardinal-deacon of the church of Sant’ Eustachio, and cardinal-bishop of Ostia and Velletri, as well as acting as papal legate in Germany during Innocent’s dispute with Markward of Anweiler and later during the struggle of Otto of Brunswick and Philip of Swabia for the imperial throne.1 In 1217 he was made a plenipotentiary legate by Honorius III, who entrusted him with preaching the Fifth Crusade in Lombardy and Tuscany, and in 1221 he was commissioned by the Pope to preach the crusade more generally in central and northern Italy. Enthusiastic about the new orders of friars, and personally close to St Francis, he was made official protector of the Franciscans in 1220–1. His close relationship with the Mendicants may have influenced his later enthusiasm for establishing inquisitorial procedures headed by Dominicans, especially since employing friars was a more structured way to pursue heresy than appointing individual fanatics, men such as Conrad Dorso, John the One-eyed and Conrad of Marburg who during the 1220s zealously undertook the discovery of heretics in the Rhine Valley.2 Gregory’s predecessor of the same name, Gregory VIII (1187), had managed during his short pontificate to establish peace with the emperor Frederick I (c 1123–1190) and had called on Christians to unite and crusade to the East to avenge the loss of Jerusalem. Gregory IX hoped similarly to improve the papacy’s relationship with Frederick II and ensure his participation in crusading to the Holy Land. Like other popes from the Conti family, Innocent III and Alexander IV (1245–1261), Gregory became deeply involved during his pontificate in the political struggles of the Hohenstaufen emperors. Yet he also found time to interest himself in canon law and to commission the authoritative collection of decretals later known as the Liber extra decretalium.3 Gregory also set a precedent in authorizing several new crusades against supposed heretics. Yet as his letters show, he was careful never to stray too far from his predecessors’ policies with respect to crusading. In assessing his long pontificate of 14 years, it is important to remember that he became Pope at the age of 82. His old age, combined with his constant and time-consuming involvement in

120

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

complex political manoeuvrings against Frederick II, probably encouraged his cautious approach to authorizing crusades against heretics in Europe. Although he was careful to appear to endorse Honorius III’s policies for the south of France, he was eager to end crusading there and explore other means of dealing with heresy. He was, however, undoubtedly influenced by the wishes of local political leaders and prelates in authorizing crusades against those suspected of heresy in Bosnia and Germany. Yet his caution when approving clerical appointments or issuing the crusade indulgence showed that he was very aware that the idea of crusading could be brought into disrepute and the prestige of the papacy seriously undermined if a crusade served to enhance too greatly the power of the local clergy. Indeed, sensitivity to criticism of the papacy’s authorizing of crusades may have been one reason for Gregory’s desire to establish inquisitorial processes to deal with heretics, alongside, and sometimes instead of, crusades. But, as we shall see, his call for a crusade against the Bulgarian king John Asen was certainly intended to remind all Christians that the papacy alone had the authority to authorize such campaigns.4 The Pope was therefore faced with a more complex situation than that of his predecessors when authorizing ‘internal’ crusades, since both temporal and ecclesiastical powers in Europe asked him for his approval of military ventures in very different places. He had to keep in communication with the legates whom he sent to these areas far away from Rome and ensure that crusaders and clergy followed his wishes. His authorization of crusades in areas where they had never been authorized before was a bold step. Not least for this reason he was very careful in his correspondence to be seen as maintaining the crusading policies of his predecessors by using similar language when granting the plenary indulgence for such campaigns. Gregory’s letters are our main source of evidence for his decisions about the authorization of these crusades. Yet chronicle and other narrative accounts of the different campaigns are also important where they discuss the parties who influenced and were influenced by Gregory in his decision-making and when they shed light on the direction of papal policy. The Chronica (Chronicle) of William of Puylaurens, a clerk from the Toulousain who wrote about events in the south of France from the longer perspective of the third quarter of the thirteenth century, recorded the last years of the Albigensian Crusade.5 And the thirteenth-century Cistercian monk Aubrey of Trois-Fontaines, writing from his monastery in Champagne, described a crusade authorized by the papacy against German heretics in 1233 and 1234. This same crusade was also recorded in the Annales Wormatienses (The Annals of Worms), a German work describing events in the town of Worms from the eleventh century onwards, as also in the anonymous Dominican Annales Erphordenses fratrum praedicatorum (The Annals of the Brother Preachers of Erfurt), the Gesta Treverorum continuata (The Continuous Deeds of the People of Trier) and the anonymous Franciscan Chronica

G R E G O RY I X

121

minor minoritae Erphordensis (The Lesser Chronicle of the Franciscans of Erfurt), all thirteenth-century compositions.6 Another chronicle, the Emonis chronica (The Chronicle of Emo), composed by an abbot of the monastery of Wittewierum in Gröningen (Holland) in the thirteenth century, recorded details of another crusade authorized by Gregory IX and led by the archbishop of Bremen against the Stedinger peasants of the Lower Weser in 1232 and 1233. The Historia monasterii Rastedensis (The History of the Monastery of Oldenburg), written by an anonymous Benedictine monk at the end of the thirteenth century, gave an account of the same campaign. This campaign was also recorded by the thirteenth-century Annales Stadenses (The Annals of Stadt), composed by a certain Abbot Albert of the monastery of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Stadt.7 There was also the anonymous thirteenth-century Gesta episcoporum Traiectensium (The Deeds of the Bishops of Utrecht) which referred to a further campaign from 1228 onwards preached by the bishop of Utrecht against the Drenther, a group of peasants in Frisia.8 By contrast, there were no chronicle accounts of crusades directed and preached against those accused of heresy in Bosnia or Hungary. Nor did any contemporary chronicles record the papal authorization of a campaign in Italy in 1227 against the magnate Ezzelino III da Romano, accused of heresy and of supporting heretics in his territories. For these crusades we are therefore reliant on papal correspondence alone.

HERETICS AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF CANON LAW There were a significant number of letters sent out by the curia during the pontificate of Gregory IX concerned with the authorization and encouragement of campaigns in Europe against those whom the Pope regarded as enemies of the Christian faith and labelled heretics. Gregory’s developed understanding of heretics and heresy was derived from the pronouncements and rulings of the Church fathers and his apostolic predecessors as recorded in Gratian’s Decretum, but also from collections of papal decretals made by canon lawyers in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, which were commonly referred to as Decretales extravagantes since they ‘wandered outside’ Gratian’s Decretum.9 Such collections multiplied rapidly in the last third of the twelfth century; of these the most influential, each containing five books, were compiled in the late twelfth and early thirteenth century and were known collectively as the Quinque compilationes antiquae. They became the standard source for papal decretals and were used as authoritative texts from the moment of their compilation until they were superseded by Gregory IX’s Liber extra decretalium. The canonist Bernard of Pavia, probably a former student of the influential canon lawyer Huguccio, assembled the earliest collection of this Quinque antiquae

122

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

compilationes, the Compilatio prima, between 1187 and 1191. It contained papal decretals up to and including Clement III as well as some pre-Gratian texts.10 Despite its name, the Compilatio secunda was the third of these compilations to be produced. Composed between 1210 and 1212 by John of Wales, it mainly drew on the decretals of the later twelfth-century popes. It covered the period between that discussed in the Compilatio prima and that in the Compilatio tertia, although more than a third of its decretals were attributed to popes earlier than Clement III and Celestine III, in particular Alexander III and Lucius III.11 The Compilatio tertia was the work of Pietro Collivacino, more commonly known as Peter of Benevento, a notary of the curia of Innocent III who had authorized the collection’s redaction.12 Completed in 1209, Innocent officially transmitted it to the University of Bologna in a letter ‘Devotioni vestri precibus’ formally sanctioning its use in ecclesiastical courts as well as in the schools. Whereas the Concordia discordantium canonum and earlier collections were private documents, the Compilatio tertia was the first papal endeavour to promulgate an official collection of ecclesiastical law, and its decretals were taken from the Registers of the first 12 years of Innocent III’s pontificate. The Compilatio quarta, a brief collection compiled in 1215/16 by John Teutonicus, mainly drew on material from the decrees of the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 and decretals of Innocent III issued after his twelfth year (1209–10), but also included 44 of his earlier letters.13 The Compilatio quinta was commissioned and promulgated by Honorius III who authorized its preparation by Tancred, another influential Bolognese professor.14 Regarded as an official collection of the Church, it contained Honorius’s own decretals and an imperial constitution of Frederick II addressed to that Pope.15 The importance of the Quinque compilationes antiquae was reflected in the number of summae, glossae and apparatus (collections of glosses) which analysed these collections. Bernard Balbi of Pavia, who compiled the Compilatio prima, wrote a commentary on it entitled the Summa decretalium,16 while the canonists Alanus Anglicus (1208–1238) and Ricardus Anglicus (d 1242) wrote apparatus to it.17 The Glossa ordinaria of Tancred (c 1185–1236) became the standard gloss of the Compilatio secunda until it was superseded.18 The canonists Laurentius Hispanus (d 1242), Vincentius Hispanus (d 1248) and Tancred all wrote apparatuses on the Compilationes Prima, Secunda and Tertia,19 and Johannes Teutonicus composed a gloss for the Compilatio Tertia.20 James of Albenga wrote an apparatus on the Compilatio quinta,21 while the anonymous collection of notabilia Potius utendum est summarized the decretals of compilations Prima, Secunda and Tertia.22 Bolognese canonists also made their own separate commentaries on papal pronouncements, such as the Quaestiones (c 1215) and the Summa (c 1215–17) of Damasus Hungaricus and the Quaestiones of Bernardus Compostellanus Antiquus.23 Even more influential on the development of canon law was the Liber extra

G R E G O RY I X

123

decretalium of Raymond of Peñafort which Gregory IX commissioned in 1230.24 Raymond was one of the many Bolognese authors to make constant use of the Quinque compilationes antiquae when composing his Liber extra decretalium and he maintained the arrangement of five books first used by Bernard of Pavia.25 Raymond’s earlier writings, including the Summa iuris canonici and the Summa de casibus penitentiae, had brought him to Gregory’s attention and in 1234 the Pope officially commended his new collection to the masters and students of Bologna.26 The Liber extra decretalium consolidated the Quinque compilationes antiquae, incorporated most of their contents, superseded them, and added some of Gregory’s own decretals. For these reasons it was frequently cited as the Liber ‘extra’.27 Although less bulky than Gratian’s Decretum, which it supplemented, it comprised over 30,000 words and its influence on later canon lawyers was immense: it was the subject of systematic exposition and study at Bologna and elsewhere. Thirteenth-century commentaries included the Summa super titulis decretalium of Geoffrey of Trani (d 1245), the late thirteenth-century Lectura of Bernard of Montemirat known as ‘Abbas antiquus’ (d 1296),28 and the Glossa ordinaria of Bernard of Parma (d 1266).29 These collections of canon law contained material highly pertinent to thirteenth-century popes wishing to authorize crusades to combat heresy. With the exception of the Compilatio secunda, the Quinque antiquae compilationes all contained capitula concerning the treatment and status of heretics in Christian society. Book 5 of the Compilatio prima contained Titulus 6 entitled De hereticis. This comprised 11 capitula of letters and rulings of popes and Church fathers. Capitula 6 and 7 were extracts from Canon 27 of the Third Lateran Council of 1179 and enjoined Catholic princes everywhere to repress heresy. Capitulum 10 was a letter of Alexander III written in 1163 and concerned with the growing problem of heresy in the south of France. Capitulum 11 was Lucius III’s decretal ‘Ad abolendam’ issued at Verona in 1184, the first medieval decree to declare heretics automatically excommunicated.30 Titulus 7, entitled De schismaticis et ordinatis ab eis et alienationibus factis, was concerned with schismatics, the status of those they ordained and the transference of their possessions. Capitulum 1 was an extract from the Gesta pontificum Romanorum recording the decision made by the eighth-century Pope Stephen III (768–72) with regard to the ordinations of the antipope Constantine. Capitulum 2 was Canon 2 of Lateran III which stated that the ordinances of heresiarchs and schismatics were null and void.31 Titulus 4 of Book 5 of the Compilatio tertia, entitled De hereticis, contained three decretals of Innocent III concerned with heresy. One of them was ‘Vergentis in senium’, a general letter of 1199 to the people of Viterbo which decreed that heretics and their heirs were to be deprived of all their property and goods.32 Titulus 5 of Book 5 of the Compilatio quarta, entitled De hereticis et Manicheis, was comprised of two capitula, Capitulum 1 being a letter of Innocent III of

124

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

1215 dealing with the political settlement of the south of France which had been formally established at the Fourth Lateran Council. Capitulum 2, Constitution 3 of Lateran IV, granted the plenary indulgence for those ‘signed with the Cross’ (‘cruce signati’) to fight against Cathar heretics in the region.33 Titulus 4 of Book 5 of the Compilatio quinta (De hereticis) was a long edict of Frederick II condemning various groups of heretics beginning with the Cathars.34 Titulus 7 of Book 5 of the Liber extra decretalium also consisted of sixteen texts concerned with heretics, seven of which – capitula 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 – dated from the period 1199–1234. Like the Quinque antiquae compilationes, these capitula contained a much broader discussion of heretics and heresy than those found in Gratian’s Decretum. Capitulum 8, Canon 27 of the Second Lateran Council of 1139, for example, declared that not only heretics but also those who received and favoured them were to be excommunicated and that heretics should be denied church burial or prayers for the dead.35 Capitulum 9 reproduced ‘Ad abolendam’36 while Capitulum 10, part of Innocent III’s decretal ‘Vergentis in senium’, pronounced that heretics and their heirs were to be deprived of all their property and goods and that these heretics should be treated in much the same way as those tried for treason.37 Capitulum 11, also an extract from ‘Vergentis in senium’, pronounced that advocates or notaries who favoured heretics or their defenders, as well as those who supported them in legal battles or wrote public documents on their behalf, should be suspended from office.38 Capitulum 13 comprised Constitution 3 of Lateran IV which excommunicated and anathematized every heresy to arise against the holy, orthodox and Catholic faith.39 Capitulum 15, an extract from a letter of Gregory IX, repeated that part of Constitution 3 of Lateran IV which decreed a sentence of excommunication on all heretics, and listed various types, including Cathars:40 We excommunicate and put under anathema . . . the Cathars, Patarenes, the Poor Men of Lyon, the Pasagini, Iosepini, the Arnaldists, Speronists and others by whatever name they may be described, who indeed have different faces, but who are bound together to each other by their tails . . .41

Titulus 8 of Book 5, entitled De schismaticis et ordinatis ab eis, comprised Canon 2 of Lateran III and a letter of Innocent III of 1203 declaring that those ordained by schismatics were to be shunned.42 Such documents were much discussed by thirteenth-century decretalists. Bernard of Parma’s Glossa ordinaria, for example, gave his own lengthy definition of a heretic. A heretic was anyone who perverted the Sacraments, such as a simoniac. He was anyone who broke away from the unity of the Church, or anyone who had been excommunicated. He was anyone who erred in his exposition of sacred scripture, created or followed a new sect, held different

G R E G O RY I X

125

beliefs than the Church concerning articles of faith, or espoused false beliefs concerning the Sacraments.43 In his Summa in titulis decretalium Geoffrey of Trani provided a similarly detailed account of the six types of people whom the Church should regard as heretical.44 A heretic could be a heresiarch who taught false doctrines, such as those of the early Church and their followers and imitators. Or he could be a man who understood scripture differently from the official and divinely inspired Church teaching. Or he could be someone, such as the simoniacs, who perverted the Sacraments. He could also be anyone who had serious doubts about the Catholic faith and could be persuaded to deviate from it by lightweight arguments. He might even be trying to lessen the special privilege of the Church of Rome by attempting to steal the Pope’s authority. Such texts show how broad definitions of heresy had become during the twelfth and thirteenth century, as well as the intense interest in heretics reflected in Gregory IX’s Liber extra decretalium. Gregory was to draw on this material for inspiration and guidance when authorizing crusades against heretics in Europe.

GREGORY IX AND ‘INTERNAL’ CRUSADES THE ALBIGENSIAN CRUSADE In a letter of March 1228, responding to an appeal of Louis IX of France, Gregory prolonged the legation of Cardinal Romano Bonaventura of Sant’ Angelo, who had originally been appointed for the south of France by Honorius III. He exhorted Louis’s mother, Blanche of Castile, widow of the crusader Louis VIII, to resume the crusade against the Cathars.45 He also sent two further letters to the south of France in 1228: to Cardinal Romano himself, emphasizing that he was to fulfil the same mandate as previously given him by Honorius; and to the French clergy, renewing Honorius’s crusading indulgence.46 That reissue proved unnecessary since all crusading activity ended the following year and at the Council of Paris (1229) Raymond VII of Toulouse was formally accepted back into the Church’s favour by Romano and pardoned by Louis IX.47 Nevertheless, in 1230 Gregory informed Frederick II that he wished imperial law to be temporarily superseded in Provence, nominally under the suzerainty of the emperor, to allow for the establishment of investigations into charges of heresy. Termination of the crusade did not end Gregory’s interest in countering heresy in the south of France, but rather signalled a change in the methods employed to eradicate it.48

126

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

THE HUNGARIAN CAMPAIGN OF 1228 Gregory issued four letters concerning a military campaign in Hungary against the Cumans, a nomadic and pagan Slavic tribe originally from Asia, often employed by local lords as mercenaries and against whom the king had recently campaigned.49 Since there is no evidence that vows were taken, it was not a crusade, yet it was a campaign approved by the Pope for which he granted an indulgence. In a letter of March 1228 to King Bela IV of Hungary (1235–1270), Gregory urged him to continue the work he had begun in converting the Cumans.50 He also congratulated Robert archbishop of Esztergom on his efforts to convert them and promised that those who fought to recover Christian territory, or who took up arms against those who opposed the Cumans’ conversion, should be granted an indulgence of two years.51 In a third letter to the canons of the newly-founded Cuman bishopric, Gregory declared that its recent episcopal elections were void because they had not been conducted according to canon law, stating that he intended to install his own candidate as bishop. 52 He also ordered the provincial prior of the Dominicans in Hungary to allow certain Dominicans, deemed suitable by Robert and by Theoderic, the newly appointed bishop and Dominican provincial of Hungary, to be sent to the Cumans to aid their conversion.53 Preaching missions followed but had little immediate success. The Cuman bishopric was short lived and the Mongol conquest of 1241 made its planned re-establishment impossible.

THE CRUSADE AGAINST THE STEDINGER In 1230 a Synod at Bremen condemned as heretics the Stedinger, a group of peasants who for many years had been in conflict with their lord, Gerhard II, archbishop of Bremen.54 This followed the murder in 1229 of the German noble Hermann II of Lippe, Gerhard’s brother.55 Six months later the archbishop travelled to Rome to seek the Pope’s permission to preach a crusade against them.56 Gregory seems to have been cautious about authorizing a crusade and his first response was to ask the provost of Münster to attest the Stedinger’s excommunication and the validity of the charges levied against them.57 Satisfied with the validity of the allegations, the Pope then wrote to Bishop John of Lübeck and to two prominent Dominicans in the archdiocese of Bremen, asking them to intervene and recall the Stedinger from heresy.58 Even when these peaceful initiatives failed, however, Gregory made no quick decision in favour of a crusade but requested bishops John of Lübeck, Gottschalk of Ratzeburg and Conrad of Minden to reinvestigate the charges.59 In October 1232, however, Gregory decided to delay no longer in authorizing military action,60 and he ordered the bishops of Minden, Lübeck and Ratzeburg to preach a campaign to the faithful in Paderborn, Hildesheim, Verden, Münster,

G R E G O RY I X

127

Osnabrück, Minden and Bremen.61 In January 1233 he instructed bishops Conrad of Paderborn, Conrad II of Hildesheim, Luderus of Verden, Ludulfus of Münster, and Conrad of Osnabrück to give whatever help they could to the bishops of Ratzeburg, Minden and Lübeck in their preaching.62 Then in June he granted the bishops of Minden, Lübeck and Ratzeburg the same indulgence for those who took part in crusading against the Stedinger as bestowed on those who went on crusade to the Holy Land.63 The recruitment of crusaders which followed this grant peaked in early 1234 with the support of Dominicans who travelled throughout the Rhineland, Westphalia, Holland, Flanders and Brabant urging men to take the Cross.64 The Annales Stadenses recorded that the idea of a crusade was received enthusiastically by the Germans, that fighting ensued and that many Stedinger were killed.65 The Emonis Chronica, however, suggested that the response of northern Germans was rather less impressive and that concern over whether preachers had the authority to preach a crusade discouraged many from joining the campaign.66 Whether Gregory was aware of such dissatisfaction or not, he seems to have continued to hope for a peaceful end to the conflict. In 1234 he urged his legate William of Modena to do all in his power to end the discord which had arisen between the archbishop, clergy and people of Bremen and the Stedinger.67 William seems to have had some diplomatic success and in August 1235 Gregory instructed the archbishop and chapter of Bremen to absolve the Stedinger from the sentence of excommunication which the archbishop had imposed in 1229, provided that in future they fully obeyed the Church’s mandates.68 It seems that Gregory was keen for the crusade to end and the dispute to be settled by diplomatic means.

CRUSADES AGAINST OTHER GERMAN HERETICS In the 1230s Gregory authorized a crusade in Germany against other heretics who were quite separate from the Stedinger peasants. An increasing number of imperial statutes and decrees had been promulgated against heretics during the 1220 and 1230s.69 In a letter to the archbishop of Marburg of 1224, Frederick II had ordered that his new imperial decree against heresy, which decreed burning or the loss of his tongue for anyone judged to be a heretic, should be published throughout Lombardy. Using this as a base, Gregory now promulgated new anti-heretical statutes with the same penalties in Lombardy and Rome, and in 1231 he authorized ‘Excommunicamus’, a general letter decreeing that all heretics be excommunicated and their property confiscated.70 He hoped that, although the emperor’s powers were not strong enough to create a legal framework allowing for the establishment of inquisitors in northern Italy, the imperial decree would nevertheless enable the secular authorities to operate voluntarily in combating heresy in towns throughout the country.71

128

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

Gregory, therefore, continued to endorse his predecessor Innocent III’s policy of advocating both spiritual and secular punishment for heretics. From as early as 1199, Innocent had argued in his decree ‘Vergentis in senium’, addressed to the people of Viterbo, that just as under Roman law traitors were punished for their treachery by confiscation of their possessions, so those convicted of heresy should have their property confiscated for betraying the majesty of God Himself.72 Yet Gregory’s interest in tackling heresy by establishing inquisitorial proceedings against heretics was not confined to Italy and from early in his pontificate he advocated the use of such processes in Germany. Conrad of Marburg, probably a secular priest rather than a Dominican and formerly the confessor of St Elizabeth of Thuringia, seems to have persuaded the Pope that there were organized groups of devil worshippers in Germany who had sold their soul to Lucifer.73 In response, in 1227 Gregory instructed Conrad to proceed diligently with an investigation into their activities.74 This was only the beginning of the matter. In 1231 he sent a letter ‘Ille humani generis’ to the prior and sub-priors of the Dominican convent at Freisach in which he linked the spread of heresy directly to the malice of Satan, complained that heretics were now openly and contemptuously teaching their errors, and declared that action must be taken against both the heretics themselves and their supporters.75 The same letter was later sent to Herzog Henry I of Brabant and Herzog Otto II of Bayern.76 In 1232 Gregory ordered Siegfried, archbishop of Mainz, to send religious men to all parts of his diocese to make enquiries concerning those suspected of heresy.77 If they should find any suspect guilty they were to proceed against him in accordance with the new set of inquisitorial statutes detailed in the papal decree ‘Excommunicamus’ which had been sent from the curia to the German archbishops in June 1231.78 In that year, too, Gregory first promised a series of partial indulgences to those who took part in a military campaign against heresy in Germany.79 It was only in 1233, however, that in response to the clergy’s continuing concern he began to consider calling for a crusade. In June he informed Conrad of Marburg that he was much disturbed at having received petitioning letters from the archbishop of Mainz and the bishop of Hildesheim ordering him to advocate the use not only of the spiritual but also the material sword, and promising the same plenary indulgence for those who should take up the Cross as was granted those who went on crusade to the Holy Land.80 That message was repeated a few days later in letters to Conrad of Marburg, the archbishop of Mainz and the bishop of Hildesheim, as also to the bishops of the province of Mainz, to Frederick II and to his son Henry.81 Then in October Gregory placed Landgrave Conrad of Thuringia under his protection in return for his having shown devotion to the apostolic see in defence of the Catholic faith – which suggests that the count had already responded to the Pope’s authorization of a crusade.82 Indeed Gregory

G R E G O RY I X

129

notified the bishop of Hildesheim of the landgrave’s action and ordered him to ensure he was not molested while on campaign.83 Following the Diet of Mainz (25 July 1233) of the same year, the archbishop of Mainz and a certain Bernard, a Dominican, reported to the Pope that Conrad of Marburg and the Franciscan Gerard of Lutzelkolb had been murdered by a faction of German noblemen.84 Conrad, zealous and fanatical about his cause, had made the tactical mistake of impugning the count of Seyn, a man powerful enough to force him to resign; indeed it was probably supporters of the count who had him murdered soon afterwards.85 Although Gregory appointed no new inquisitors in Germany, Conrad’s death propelled him to reiterate the commitment already made to a crusade against heretics.86 In October he instructed Archbishop Siegfried III of Mainz, the bishop of Hildesheim and the Dominican provincial prior of Germany, to proceed in accordance with Constitution 3 of Lateran IV and recent imperial statutes,87 expressed indignation at the cruel killings not only of Conrad but also of Gerard, and ordered the prelates to prepare for a crusade.88 Gregory’s dismay at the death of Conrad of Marburg recalled Innocent III’s anger at the murder of Peter of Castelnau. Shortly after each event both popes sent letters encouraging crusades, although, like Innocent, Gregory had in fact already granted a plenary indulgence for crusading before the death of his legate.89 Gregory wrote letters to the crusader Count Henry of Thuringia, to the bishop of Hildesheim and to the bishop-elect of Magdeberg, to Count Henry of Aschersleben, to Conrad Count Palatine of Saxony, to Duke Otto of Brunswick, to Marquess Henry of Minden and to Counts John and Otto of Brandenburg. In all these letters he promised papal immunity for those who took the Cross against heretics in Germany and placed crusaders’ possessions under the protection of the Holy See.90 Yet although, according to The Annales Erphordenses Fratum Praedicatorum, bishop Conrad of Hildesheim carried out the papal orders, the crusade never got under way.91 Rather, in February 1234 another diet at Frankfurt settled the problem peacefully.92

THE ‘CRUSADE’ AGAINST THE DRENTHER According to the Gesta episcoporum Traiectensium, Willbrand of Oldenberg, bishop of Utrecht, preached a military campaign with papal approval in Frisia in the late summer and autumn of 1228 and in the summer and winter of 1230. The crusade was directed against Drenther peasants who had murdered his predecessor, Bishop Otto II.93 The Gesta episcoporum Traiectensium states that at the time of his election to the see, Willbrand was at the court of Frederick II in Italy, that he had previously acted as imperial envoy to the curia and that he had earlier crusaded in the East.94 Willbrand’s distinguished political record

130

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

meant that he was in a strong position to request and obtain powers to preach the Cross, and he may have petitioned the Pope for these powers before returning to his bishopric in 1228. It still seems strange, however, that, in contrast with the cases of reported heretical activity in Germany, there is no evidence that Gregory had Willbrand’s allegations against the Drenther investigated.95 Possibly the long-standing reputation of his family as crusaders was a sufficient guarantee of his credentials, since his family had vigorously participated in crusades to the Holy Land and his father, Count Henry II of Oldenburg-Wildeshausen, had died in Syria in 1197.96 We possess, however, no papal letters relating to the Drenther and cannot be sure that the bishop received papal authorization. What we do know from The Gesta episcoporum Traiectensium is that the campaign’s success was limited and that it ended in September 1232 and was not renewed.97

CRUSADES AGAINST HERETICS IN BOSNIA Gregory’s predecessor Honorius III had issued a number of letters concerned with both heresy and ignorance of Catholic beliefs in Bosnia.98 In the later years of his pontificate he had called on the archbishop of Kalocsa to preach a crusade urging John III Doukas Vatatzes of Nicaea, the son of the exiled Nicaean emperor Theodore II Laskaris, to take part.99 Yet, on becoming Pope, Gregory gave no immediate attention to the Church in Bosnia: its needs were not his first priority. It seems that he only became concerned in 1232 after reports from Bosnia that its missionary bishop was the brother of a heresiarch, and, even more serious, that his own ordination was uncanonical. In a letter to Archbishop Ugrinus of Kalocsa, Bishop Stephen of Zagreb and the provost of the church of St Laurence in the diocese of Kalocsa, Gregory ordered an enquiry into the bishop of Bosnia and a report on its findings to be sent to Rome.100 The next year he told the Dominican John of Praeneste, his legate in Bosnia, that since the enquiry had established that the bishop held heretical doctrines, he was to be deposed and replaced.101 Following this decision, Gregory wrote to Matej Ninoslav, the Ban of Bosnia, stating that, as a reward for having abjured heresy, he and all his possessions were to be placed under the papacy’s protection.102 He ordered the Dominicans of Bosnia to ensure that the son of a certain Ubanus – named Priezdan – a relative of Ban Ninoslav, and held as a hostage for the latter’s acceptance of Catholicism, should be released.103 Gregory also informed Coloman, duke of Croatia and brother of the king of Hungary, that Ninoslav’s reaffirmation of his faith meant that he was to be allowed to pursue his own policies against heretics unhindered.104 These letters demonstrate that Gregory wanted the problem of heresy to be tackled within Bosnia by the Bosnian clergy. Between October 1233 and February 1234, however, influenced by Duke Coloman of Croatia, who wished to overrun Bosnia and proposed a crusade against Bosnian heretics, the Pope seems to have

G R E G O RY I X

131

changed his mind. He decided that he was not content that heresy be tackled internally,105 and ordered the archbishops, bishops, abbots and other prelates, as well as the Christian faithful in Carneola, Istria, Dalmatia, Bosnia, Croatia, Serbia and other parts of the Slavic world, to show kindness to his new legate, the Carthusian prior of the monastery of St Bartholomew of Trisulti, whom he now dispatched with a specific mandate to preach the Cross against heretics at the request of the Bosnians.106 He also urged Coloman of Croatia to gird himself for action in parts of Slavonia so that those infected by the stain of heresy might be converted,107 and he conceded to Coloman and his wife that, despite the interdict placed on Bosnia, their clergy should be allowed to celebrate Mass in areas which their army had overrun, provided the service was conducted quietly behind closed doors.108 Six further letters of 17 October 1234 show that Gregory was now determined to continue with the idea of a Bosnian crusade. He granted powers to the new bishop John of Wildeshausen, also provincial of the Dominicans in Hungary, to facilitate his preaching against heretics,109 and he placed Hungarians signed with the Cross and their possessions under the Church’s protection.110 He ordered the bishop of Zagreb to ensure that crusaders were protected,111 also placed the duke of Croatia under his protection and instructed the bishop to ensure that he and his possessions should not be harmed.112 He expressed his joy to John of Wildeshausen that he had been chosen by the legate John of Praeneste to be bishop of Bosnia and encouraged him to continue his zealous persecution of heretics.113 But the Bosnians were resentful of the appointment of a foreigner as their spiritual leader and John’s attempts to reform the Bosnian Church proved unsuccessful.114 After these letters, there seems to have been no further papal correspondence with Bosnia until late 1235. That August, however, Gregory approved the concession which had been made by Andrew II, king of Hungary and Croatia (1205–35), to his son Duke Coloman of the territory of Bosnia, thereby signalling that the papacy was prepared to accept Coloman’s disputed claim to the throne of Croatia and Hungary.115 In fact it was Bela IV, not Coloman, who in 1235 succeeded Andrew II on the throne.116 Gregory further sought to persuade John of Wildeshausen, who wished to resign his bishopric, to withdraw his resignation,117 and in August 1236 put Sibislav, the knez of Usora, a son of Stephen, former Ban of Bosnia, and all his goods under papal protection: a reward for having stood alone among the chieftains of Bosnia in remaining true to the Catholic faith.118 Gregory notified Robert, archbishop of Esztergom, Bartholomew, bishop of Pécs, and the provost of Esztergom of this favour,119 and at the same time also placed Ban Stephen’s widow under the Church’s protection.120 A new crusade began in 1237–8 and allowed Duke Coloman of Croatia to occupy major parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina.121 Gregory’s letter announcing

132

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

Coloman’s victory and granting the bishop of the Cumans power to establish and consecrate the Dominican Ponsa as the new bishop for Bosnia, with added jurisdiction over the province of Hum, suggests that his earlier attempt to persuade John of Wildeshausen to continue as bishop had been unsuccessful.122 In December, Gregory urged the archbishop of Esztergom, the archbishop of Cologne and their suffragans to use whatever money they could spare to help the bishop of Bosnia tackle heresy.123 He praised Coloman for his success and encouraged him to continue the crusade.124 Gregory continued to issue such letters concerned with crusading. He ordered the abbot of Várad to collect money from crusaders who had redeemed their vows for the use of the bishop of Bosnia,125 urging him to make sure that money, which a certain Jula, a ban of Coloman’s, had deposited with the Dominicans at Pécs to help the crusade, be assigned to the bishop. 126 He also instructed the prior and Dominican brothers of Pécs to send money, deposited with them by Ban Ninolav for the construction of a cathedral in Bosnia, to the same bishop. 127 Ponsa was entrusted with all legatine powers in the Bosnian diocese, securing him the same powers to combat heresy as had been awarded to his predecessor John of Wildeshausen.128 And in December 1239 Gregory ordered Ponsa, in his capacity as prior of the Dominicans in Hungary, to despatch friars to preach the Gospel in Bosnia, confirming to him and to the chapter of St Peter in Bosnia (the bishop’s see) the right to church possessions granted by Coloman and the crusaders – presumably goods seized during the campaign.129 In the same month Gregory again urged the prior and Dominican brothers of Bosnia to send Ban Ninoslav’s deposit to the Bosnian bishop and repeated his request to Ponsa to send brothers to preach the Gospel.130 As we see from papal correspondence, Gregory and the Dominicans were careful to ensure that crusading was followed by preaching and long-term pastoral care for the Bosnians.

THE CRUSADE AGAINST JOHN ASEN In 1238 Gregory sent letters to Hungary to preach a crusade against John Asen, king of the Vlachs and Bulgars and ruler of Bulgaria from 1218 to 1241. Although nominally a Catholic, John Asen, like the exiled Byzantine emperors in Epiros and Nicaea, had designs on Latin Constantinople.131 The Pope authorized this crusade after Asen’s renewal of his alliance with the exiled Greek emperor in Nicaea, John III Doukos Vatatzes (1221–1254).132 Already in 1235 Gregory had asked King Bela IV of Hungary, who had taken the Cross for the Holy Land some time before, to crusade instead on behalf of the Latin Empire, still threatened by exiled Byzantines seeking to re-establish Greek rule.133 In 1238 Gregory came to believe that an alliance between Asen and Vatatzes would threaten to thwart Bela’s proposed crusade in aid of John of Brienne (1170–1237), the new regent

G R E G O RY I X

133

emperor of Constantinople.134 As we have seen, Gregory was already in frequent communication with the Hungarian clergy – as in 1232 when he ordered an enquiry into the missionary bishop of Bosnia.135 In November 1235 he had granted the archbishop of Esztergom the privilege that he, or anyone acting on his behalf, might promulgate a sentence of excommunication or suspension without first acquiring a special mandate from the apostolic see.136 He had also urged the bishops and other prelates of the province of Esztergom to welcome and receive with kindness its visiting archbishop. 137 Next, in January 1238, Gregory wrote a long general letter to the archbishops of Esztergom and Kalocsa, to the bishop of Perugia, the Pope’s legate in Hungary, and to all the Hungarian bishops, promising a full indulgence for sins to those who crusaded against Asen.138 In a separate letter he urged the legate to encourage the king of Hungary to take such action.139 And in a number of letters he exhorted all the bishops of Hungary, his legate the bishop of Perugia (a former bishop of Bosnia), the bishop of Raab (Hungary), the bishop of Zagreb, the archbishop of Kalocsa and the archbishop of Esztergom to join the campaign.140 It seems that there was no further correspondence between the papal curia and royal or ecclesiastical dignitaries in Hungary until the summer, but in June 1238 Bela IV invaded Bulgaria and sought to establish ecclesiastical privileges for the regions of Bulgaria-Walachia and Severia.141 In response, Gregory called on the prelates of Hungary to organise a solemn procession and beseech God to help the Hungarian king,142 also urging Bela himself to carry the sign of the Cross before his army when going into battle and promising that he would concede a conquered Bulgarian kingdom to no other than Bela himself.143 He placed Bela, his kingdom and all his possessions under the protection of the apostolic see, and announced this privilege to the archbishop of Esztergom and to the bishop of Vác,144 conceding also to the king various canonical privileges with respect to the kingdom of Bulgaria and informing his legate of the concession.145 He then ordered the Dominicans and Franciscans to preach a crusade against Asen throughout Hungary,146 repeating this in a general letter to Hungary’s archbishops and bishops.147 Yet despite Gregory’s authorization, the crusade never took place. It seems that the mere threat of a campaign had the desired effect of forcing Asen back into an alliance with Bela – which allowed a Bulgaro-Hungarian force to muster in support of the Latin Empire which in 1239 was being threatened by the exiled emperors of Nicaea.148

THE MILITARY CAMPAIGN AGAINST ITALIAN HERETICS In the 1230s and 1240s anti-heretical fraternities came into existence in many northern Italian towns.149 As early as 1227, Gregory IX contacted the Order of the Militia of Jesus Christ, a quasi-military order recently founded in Italy

134

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

to fight heretics; he granted full remission of sins for those who faced danger of death from campaigning.150 Then in 1231 he granted the people of Padua an indulgence of three years if they would embark on military activity against Ezzelino III da Romano (1194–1259), Frederick II’s lieutenant in Lombardy.151 Although Frederick himself was very hostile to heresy in his own lands, Ezzelino seems to have given support to local heretics in territories under his control.152 The Pope warned him that he must renounce his evil heresy, crush the heretics and return to the true Church, ordering him to appear personally in Rome within two months of receiving his letter.153 Four years later, in 1235, Gregory again granted the brothers of the Militia of Jesus Christ in Parma a plenary indulgence for fighting against heretics, thereby according them crusader-like status.154 He told the bishop of Parma to ensure that the Militia was protected,155 and instructed the Master General of the Dominican Order and his friars to lend it encouragement and support.156 He placed the Militia under the special protection of the Holy See,157 and granted members and their wives a special dispensation that, although Parma was at this point under interdict, they might receive the Sacraments in certain exempted churches.158 He also approved and confirmed the statutes and regulations of the Militia.159 Yet despite such papal attempts to encourage military action and curtail his power, Ezzelino, together with the emperor Frederick II, occupied Vicenza in 1236 and Padua in 1237. Indeed, even after Frederick’s death Ezzelino remained an implacable enemy of the papacy. As a continuing supporter of Frederick II’s heir Manfred, he became a prime target of the papal campaign against the emperor in northern Italy – and from 1256 onwards, the papacy was to organize a crusade against him.160

CONTROLLING ‘INTERNAL’ CRUSADES Historians have sometimes argued that in calling for these ‘internal’ crusades, Gregory IX was an innovator. He deliberately took the idea, developed by his predecessor Urban II, of a crusade against Muslims in the East and, inspired by the example of Innocent III and Honorius III who had called for crusades against heretics in the south of France, began to authorize crusades against ‘internal’ enemies of the Church much more widely in order to promote papal dominance within Europe.161 Other historians have claimed rather that Gregory gave in to pressure from political and religious groups wishing to use crusading for their own ends and that his authorization of ‘internal’ crusades was therefore a sign of papal weakness rather than strength. They have argued that an important consequence of the Albigensian Crusade was to encourage both clergy and secular leaders in Europe to put pressure on the papacy to allow them

G R E G O RY I X

135

to crusade against their personal enemies. In the case of the Albigensian Crusade, Innocent III was able to control both the leaders of the crusade and magnates in the south of France by bringing their complaints to judgement at the Fourth Lateran Council. By contrast, Gregory IX was unable to control crusading in Europe and thereby significantly helped undermine the power and prestige of the papacy.162 Certainly Gregory’s letters suggest that he was influenced by and reacted to the political and religious realities that lay behind each campaign. They also show, however, that he often exerted a considerable influence over the different parties involved – legates, other churchmen, councils of the clergy, crusade preachers, those charged with setting up inquisitorial processes and local magnates – and that he responded flexibly to different circumstances. Not only was he versatile enough to be willing to change his mind about how best to tackle the problem of heresy but he was also wise enough to stress continuity with his predecessors by carefully utilizing their language in his calls for crusades. This mixture of flexibility and conservatism was particularly evident in his letters to the south of France, which suggest that he took great care there to follow the policies of his predecessor Honorius III. As we have seen, Gregory not only reissued the crusading indulgence at the beginning of his pontificate but reappointed Romano of Sant’ Angelo, originally appointed by Honorius in 1224 as legate for France and in particular the south, and made it clear that the legate was to continue his mission of countering heresy.163 This decision of Gregory to continue to support crusading in the south of France was probably encouraged by the draconian decrees of the Council of Narbonne of 1227 which contained five canons about how best to deal with heresy. These canons indicated different approaches. Canon 1 dealt with the excommunication of enemies of the Church; Canon 14 decreed that in every parish a body of men should be appointed to make enquiries concerning heretics and report their findings to the bishop; Canon 15 ordered those in positions of power to abjure heretics and their supporters; Canon 16 declared that heretics or those suspected of heresy should be removed from public office; while Canon 17 decreed that certain magnates – including Raymond VII of Toulouse and the count of Foix – were to be declared excommunicate.164 The promulgation of these decrees indicates that, despite the capture of Avignon during the crusade of Louis VIII, churchmen believed that heretics had not been eradicated from the south of France. A belief that not enough had been done to combat heresy may have encouraged Gregory to continue to support the crusade in the early years of his pontificate.165 Yet their continuing support for the preaching and teaching of Dominic Guzman in the south of France shows that Innocent III, Honorius III and Gregory IX viewed preaching and conversion, as well as crusading, as also

136

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

extremely important ways of dealing with heresy there. Indeed Gregory’s attitude towards crusading in the south of France was much more complex than at first appears. Although he renewed the crusade indulgence, thereby seeming to endorse Honorius’s policy of specifically encouraging crusading, he also called on Romano to try to find a happy outcome, implying that he hoped that the crusade would shortly end.166 Gregory may have been responding to the wishes of the French clergy who were increasingly looking for other methods, in particular inquisitorial procedures, to deal with heresy. The Council of Toulouse (1229), called by Romano, was presided over by the archbishop of Narbonne and many other bishops and prelates; it was also attended by many southern French counts including Raymond VII of Toulouse. Fifteen of its 45 canons were concerned with different ways of tackling the problem of heresy.167 Canon 1 stated that in each place a priest and three laymen should be appointed to enquire diligently into those suspected of heresy and to report suspects to the archbishop, the bishop, the lords of the area, or their bailiffs, thereby confirming and elaborating on Canon 14 of the Council of Narbonne.168 Canon 9 decreed that anyone who occupied another’s land could inquire into or capture heretics.169 Such legislation paved the way for the introduction of papal inquisitors such as Robert le Bougre in France and Conrad of Marburg in Germany.170 As well as responding to the concerns of the southern French clergy about heresy, Gregory also issued letters encouraging military action against the Cumans in Hungary. Yet by granting an indulgence of only two years for those who took part in the Hungarian campaign, Gregory showed that he had no wish to give it the status of a crusade. Nevertheless, he registered his approval of military action undertaken by the king of Hungary, who was eager to acquire new territory. By doing so he reminded the king of the papacy’s interest in the conversion of those areas of the Balkans which were still pagan.171 Furthermore, Gregory sent precise instructions concerning the despatch of Dominicans, already active as missionaries in Hungary, to preach the Gospel to the Cumans. He annulled the election result of the missionary chapter and made the decision, on hearing of the outcome of the episcopal elections of the Cuman bishopric, to establish his own candidate as bishop. All this suggests that he was determined not only to keep abreast of the military campaign once it was under way but also to further more peaceful missionary activity.172 Several years later, in Germany, Archbishop Gerhard II of Bremen excommunicated the Stedinger and declared them heretics at a diocesan synod in March 1231.173 Gerhard may have then asked the Pope for the grant of a crusading indulgence; both the archbishop and the synod seem to have been preparing for a crusade.174 Gregory, however, seems to have taken a much more cautious attitude than his archbishop and, despite the news of Hermann II of Lippe’s death, did not authorize a crusade immediately. Rather, he ordered the bishop of

G R E G O RY I X

137

Lübeck, the Dominican prior of Bremen and John of Wildeshausen to investigate allegations of heresy. Only in October 1232 did he authorize the preaching of a military campaign, which suggests that he waited on the results of the inquest before deciding on how to proceed.175 Indeed, as we shall discuss later, even after he had begun to encourage the campaign, he did not instantly grant the plenary indulgence.176 Gregory also showed caution in appointing the bishops of Lübeck, Minden and Ratzeburg in the archbishopric of Bremen to preach the crusade, rather than the archbishop of Bremen himself, thereby diminishing the latter’s power.177 In another move to control the activities of the archbishop, he called on him to lift the ban of excommunication imposed on the Stedinger.178 It seems, therefore, that although Gregory took the petitions of the archbishop seriously, he refused to be hurried into authorizing a crusade and, as with crusading in the south of France, was concerned that any campaigns that were launched should be carefully controlled.179 Gregory was also extremely cautious in his choice of legates, inquisitors and preachers. His appointment of the papal penitentiary John of Wildeshausen to investigate allegations of heresy was astute: as a deputy of Cardinal Otto of Sancti Nicolai in Carcere Tullio and a member of his legation to Germany and Denmark, John was well acquainted with the diocese of Bremen.180 Furthermore, Gregory appointed William of Modena as legate in 1234 to act as a mediator between the archbishop of Bremen and the Stedinger.181 He was even careful to limit the power of the German bishops, first allowing only the three bishops of Lübeck, Minden and Ratzeburg to preach the crusade, and only a few months later, in 1233, extending this privilege to five more bishops, those of Paderborn, Hildesheim, Münster, Verdun and Osnabrück.182 Gregory’s caution shows that he hoped to eradicate the problem of heresy in Germany by inquisitorial processes before calling for a crusade. This was the opposite of his policy towards heresy in the south of France where his first response on becoming Pope had been to continue his predecessors’ calls for crusading and to implement their policies. Yet it also seems that Gregory had learnt lessons from the papacy’s involvement in the south of France and that by the early 1230s had come to favour official enquiries rather than crusades as the best method of proceeding. Indeed, even many of the southern French clergy who had originally strongly supported the crusade now embraced the idea of official enquiries or inquisitions as the principal means of countering heresy. The papal inquisition evolved as a means of persecuting heresy through a system of special ecclesiastical tribunals and Gregory entrusted such enquiries into heresy to the mendicant orders.183 Nevertheless, despite his cautious approach, in 1231 Gregory sent a letter encouraging Conrad of Marburg to preach a military campaign against heretics.184 Conrad was later joined in his preaching by the Franciscan Gerard

138

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

Lutzelkolb, the Dominican mendicant friars Conrad of Tors and a certain John, and other local Dominicans and Franciscans.185 In 1232 the Pope gave the same encouragement to Siegfried, archbishop of Mainz, and in 1233 allowed Conrad of Marburg to recruit for the crusade by offering the same indulgences and privileges as those granted to crusaders to the Holy Land.186 By calling on specific persons to preach a crusade, a move which was becoming normal papal policy, Gregory hoped to assert even further his own authority over the local clergy. By encouraging magnates such as Landgrave Conrad of Thuringia to take the Cross, he also sought to assert more widely the papacy’s authority over the spiritual welfare of secular authorities.187 He had strong sympathy with those trying to tackle heresy and his anger at the news of the death of Conrad of Marburg added a personal dimension to his decision to confirm a crusade and to order local prelates to resume preaching the Cross.188 Anger, too, in this case at both the murder of Bishop Otto II and the quarrel of Egbert, prefect of Groeningen, with the leader of the Drenther, may have influenced the bishop of Utrecht to call for a crusade.189 Lack of evidence makes it very difficult to assess the amount of control, if any, Gregory was able to exert over the Drenther campaign. It is possible that the archbishop of Bremen’s hopes of obtaining the status of a crusade for his proposed war against the Stedinger was based on knowledge that the bishop of Utrecht had already obtained such status for his own campaign from the Pope.190 Certainly The Deeds of the Bishops of Utrecht described the first two indulgences granted for the Drenther campaign as ‘papal’. Yet this may have been merely a formulaic convenience, since it was popes, rather than bishops, who traditionally granted crusade indulgences.191 Indeed it is not certain that Gregory approved the campaign and The Deeds of the Bishops of Utrecht strongly suggests that it was the bishop, not the Pope, who originally authorized it, probably justifying his action on the grounds that the Drenther had defied his episcopal authority.192 Meanwhile, in Bosnia Gregory asserted papal control over the area by appointing two legates to oversee all activities against heretics: John of Praeneste, chosen in 1233 to remove the bishop of Bosnia, and Bernardo of Trisulti. Although Gregory’s letters suggest that he kept a careful watch over their activities, he seems to have trusted them to fulfil their delegations.193 In appointing as bishop of Bosnia in 1234 the scholar John of Wildeshausen, a noted linguist who had studied in Paris and Bologna, rather than a Bosnian, Gregory set a precedent.194 John was not, however, without practical experience in dealing with heresy, having served in Bremen, prior to his appointment in 1232 as master general of the Dominican friars in Hungary, and having acted as a papal delegate in the preparatory stages of the Stedinger crusade.195 In 1235 Gregory wrote encouraging him to continue as bishop after he had requested to be relieved of his duties following the onset of the crusade. It seems that John felt unsuited to his office – indeed he

G R E G O RY I X

139

lived in Hungary and probably never even visited Bosnia.196 Eventually, however, the Pope realized that he had made an unwise choice and in 1238 approved John’s replacement by a new bishop, Ponsa, himself a Dominican friar.197 The crusade, about which little is known, continued for a further four decades.198 So, just as Gregory eventually changed his mind in favour of authorizing an ‘internal’ crusade in Germany, he also altered his policies towards Bosnia in response to the complexity of the politics of the Balkans in the 1230s. In 1233 he wished to ensure that the problem of heresy in Bosnia remained a local one to be handled by Ban Ninoslav – despite being aware that Coloman, probably backed by the archbishop of Kalocsa, who claimed authority over the see in opposition to the archbishop of Dubrovnik, was seeking an excuse to reassert Hungarian authority.199 Yet in 1234 Gregory allowed Coloman to crusade.200 He had come to believe it was in the papacy’s best interest to take advantage of Croatian and Hungarian desires to overrun Bosnia to further reform and conversion. Thus his original concern about the orthodoxy of the bishop of Bosnia ended with his authorization of a full-scale Croatian and Hungarian assault on heretics. His letters of 1239, however, asking the prior of the Dominicans in Hungary to send friars to teach and preach the Gospel, suggest that he wanted not only to control the progress of the crusade but also to ensure that military campaigns were followed by pastoral work.201 As with heresy in the south of France and Germany, he believed that heresy in Bosnia needed to be countered by a variety of methods.202 Meanwhile in Hungary, Bela IV wished to remain on good terms with the ruler of Bulgaria, his brother-in-law, with whom he had in the past been friendly. Bela was also already having serious doubts about joining the Pope’s proposed crusade in support of the Latin Empire.203 Although, therefore, he calculated on benefiting from overrunning Bulgaria, it seems unlikely that he influenced Gregory’s decision to call for a crusade against John Asen. Gregory’s call on his legate in Hungary to incite Bela to campaign accorded with his decision to commission the bishops and Dominicans of Hungary, as well as the Franciscans in the archdiocese of Gran, to preach the Cross.204 The Pope had hoped that preaching a new crusade to the Latin East could commence once negotiations between himself and John Asen about the security of the Latin Empire had taken place. But the negotiations broke down and Asen renewed his alliance with the exiled Byzantine emperor John Vatatzes.205 Gregory’s response was to call for a crusade against an enemy whom he believed was impeding his plans for a crusade to the Latin East. He thereby not only asserted his own authority but signalled his anger at Asen’s continually changing religious allegiances between Greek Orthodoxy and Catholicism.206 He also wished to emphasize that he was no longer willing to tolerate rulers’ attempts to undermine the papacy’s traditional role in encouraging crusades. Indeed Gregory viewed Constantinople as an increasing concern

140

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

and between 1231 and 1234 continued to urge Hungarian prelates to encourage their nobility to commute vows taken to crusade to the Holy Land to its defence instead. In 1235 he even asked Bela, who had taken the Cross for the Holy Land, to redirect his crusade to support the Latin Empire against the threat of the re-establishment of Greek rule.207 Gregory also granted an indulgence to the brothers of the Militia of Jesus Christ in Parma to fight against Italian heretics. This grant, part of a wider effort by the Dominicans and Franciscans to support anti-heresy campaigns in Italy, was reminiscent of Honorius III’s licensing of the Order of the Holy Faith of Jesus Christ to combat heretics in the south of France.208 Both the Militia of Jesus Christ and the Order of the Holy Faith of Jesus Christ were based on the idea of the Order of the Knights Templar, privileged by Innocent II in the twelfth century.209 In order to ensure that the Militia of Jesus Christ in Parma was neither exploited nor unduly taxed, Gregory commended it to the bishop of Parma’s special care, urging its master general to ensure that all his brothers were well instructed both in their religious and their military duties.210

GREGORY IX’S CORRESPONDENCE: IDEAS AND LANGUAGE The length and style of Gregory IX’s letters relating to campaigns against those accused of heresy varied considerably. Some were very short, almost terse;211 others long and rhetorical, most strikingly ‘Lucis eterne lumine’ and ‘Littere vestre nobis’, which called for the preaching of a crusade against the Stedinger in extremely colourful language. That was possibly because the Pope knew that the case being made by the clergy against German heretics was weak; nevertheless he eventually decided to authorize a crusade against them.212 Some letters contained numerous biblical quotations and references. ‘Vox in Rama’, for example, cited texts such as Matthew 2.18, Jeremiah 4.19, Romans 8.22 and Lamentations 2.11 to emphasize the role of suffering as part of Christian life.213 Gregory lamented the Christians’ lack of zeal for their faith, comparing them unfavourably with the Israelites in the Old Testament who had fought against pagans (Exodus 32.28, Numbers 25.28, 3 Kings 18.40, 1 Maccabees 2.25), as with St Peter who had condemned Ananias and Sapphora for dishonest financial dealings (Acts 5).214 Yet the letter also emphasised that the Lord would ultimately save his people (Job 26.13, Isaiah 59.1).215 He would reprove the daughter of Jerusalem (Lamentations 2.13), smelt away the dross (Isaiah 1.25), and heal the wounds and sores of the wicked (Isaiah 1.6), (2 Timothy 2.9), (Jeremiah 51.8).216 ‘O altitudo divitiarum’, another letter also concerned with German heretics, cited similar passages and like ‘Vox in Rama’ quoted Lamentations 2.13, Isaiah 59.1, Isaiah 1.25, Isaiah 1.6, 2 Timothy 2.9 and Jeremiah 51.8.217 It began

G R E G O RY I X

141

with Romans 11.33–4, describing the amazing wisdom and knowledge of God, and continued with passages from the Old Testament (Amos 6.1 and 2 Kings 20.1) which warned against nations who remained at ease, unmindful of their sinfulness, and against false prophets (Matthew 24.24, 1 Corinthians 11.19).218 By contrast, faithful Christians had been anointed by God (John 2.27), and were the lamps of the Lord (Proverbs 20.27).219 And the letter ‘Miserias et erumpnas’, calling on the Christian faithful to take up arms against Bosnian heretics, also cited Amos 6.1 and 1 Corinthians 11.19 and used metaphors of cultivation (Isaiah 34.13, Jeremiah 1.10, Psalms 102.6) and disease (Deuteronomy 28.35) to describe the need to extirpate heresy,220 comparing Christians with the Israelites of the Old Testament who were prepared to fight to defend their faith (Ezekiel 2.5, 1 Kings 20.1).221 By citing such passages from scripture the Pope emphasized themes of lamentation, suffering and persecution for Christ as well as God’s vengeance and prevailing righteousness. That Amos 6.1, Isaiah 1.25, Isaiah 1.6, Isaiah 59.1, 1 Corinthians 11.19, 2 Timothy 2.9, Jeremiah 51.8 and Lamentations 2.13 were quoted in more than one letter suggests that Gregory thought these passages of scripture were particularly useful when exhorting Christians to crusade against heretics. It seems that notaries at the curia were very careful in their choice of biblical texts when composing letters concerned with ‘internal’ crusades. Indeed, the employment of similar rhetoric for these different crusades suggests that Gregory saw them all as fundamentally similar enterprises. Like his predecessors, Gregory also constantly invoked the metaphor of disease, describing those against whom crusades were launched as ‘infected with wicked heresy’ (‘heretica pravitate infectos’):222 thus Ban Ninoslav’s forebears were described as ‘infected with the vice of wicked heresy’ (‘vitio haereticae pravitatis infecti’).223 Bosnia’s magnates were identified as ‘infected with the stain of evil heresy’ (‘infectos macula haereticae pravitatis’),224 and the territory of John Asen as ‘infected’ and ‘replete’ with heresy (‘infecta . . . repleta’).225 Gregory frequently too employed the metaphor of medicine which had been used by his predecessors. In one letter to Bosnia he said that he hoped to give counsel to heretics, and to do this he was sending Bernardo, prior of the monastery of St Bartholomew of Trisulti, as his legate. He wrote that ‘since we want to be weak with the weak and to apply paternal counsel, let medicine be applied to these wounds so that . . . the swelling infection should undergo a cure’.226 Or again, in a letter about the Stedinger, he stated that, just as harsh medicines must be used to treat a serious wound, so military action must be taken against heretics and their supporters to prevent heresy spreading among the faithful: Because where light medicines do not avail, for so large and serious a disease there is need of recourse to stronger remedies. And hot irons have to be applied to wounds which do

142

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

not respond to poultices, so that they [the poultices] do not draw the healthy part away from the gangrened flesh in the case of amputations.227

This image in particular seems to have been a favourite, the Pope employing similar language in several other letters concerned with heretics in Germany.228 Heresy was a contagious leprosy and a cancer; heretics were pestilential.229 A related metaphor was that of purging and cleansing. Heresy must be destroyed so that ‘the glory of Catholic purity might shine forth’ (‘fulgeat gloria catholice puritatis’).230 Hence the Pope described the Bosnian Ubanus’s re-conversion to Catholicism as a move ‘from the uncleanness of wicked heresy to the purity of the Catholic faith’ (‘ab immunditia pravitatis haereticae . . . ad catholicae fidei puritatem’),231 and warned that both the south of France and Bosnia must be ‘purged of heretical filth’ (‘ad purgandam terram Albigensem ab heretica feditate’, ‘ad purgandam terram Bosne’).232 He insisted that areas supposedly peopled by heretics were ‘stained by wicked heresy’ (‘pravitatis haereticae maculis’),233 and even that faithful Christians themselves were stained by contagion (‘tot adversionum contagiis maculari’).234 Gregory’s correspondence also used biblical metaphors of planting and cultivation. One letter, quoting Jeremiah 1.10, compared the Bosnian legate Bernardo of Trisulti to a gardener: ‘Like a diligent cultivator of the Lord’s field let him tear up and destroy, scatter and disperse, build and plant, as the Lord has directed him.’235 Such metaphors were commonly used about legates in papal correspondence and were a common element of legatine commissions. Indeed the choice of a number of phrases from scripture occurred so frequently as to seem almost formulaic. Two letters to Bosnia comparing areas infected by heresy to desolate wasteland contained the same description, citing Isaiah 34.10–13 and Psalms 102.6: ‘Because now the whole earth like a land deserted and pathless is in mourning and languishes, with thorns and nettles filling it, and has become a lair for dragons and pasture for ostriches.’236 Indeed Innocent III had already used the same passage when urging a crusade in the Baltic.237 And in several letters Gregory quoted from Song of Songs 2.2 and Song of Songs 2.15, describing those who, though surrounded by heresy, remained true to the Catholic faith, as ‘like lilies among thorns’ (‘quasi lilium inter spinas’). Again, like Innocent III, he compared heretics with the little foxes in the Lord’s vineyard.238 So Gregory IX’s letters about ‘internal’ crusades contained many of the same metaphors, similes and scriptural passages as we noted in letters in which Innocent III and Honorius III called for crusades in the south of France.239 Much of his more rhetorical prose was strikingly similar to Innocent’s.240 It is likely that, although Gregory’s notaries drew on stock phrases in the composition of their letters, the correspondence of Honorius, and even more of Innocent, were especial sources of inspiration and guidance. Gregory wanted to show that, like

G R E G O RY I X

143

his immediate predecessors, he too endorsed the idea of ‘internal’ crusading, but that he no longer confined such crusades to the south of France. Certainly Gregory’s desire to emphasize continuity suggests that he was aware that, in authorizing crusades in parts of Europe where they had not been authorized before, he was doing something his predecessors had never attempted. Although crusades in the south of France had been launched from 1208 onwards, the idea of a papal crusade against heretics was still a relatively new concept for the faithful and provoked wider criticism than crusades against Muslims.241 Gregory probably felt compelled to reassure the recipients of his letters that, although he was authorizing many more ‘internal’ crusades, he was not changing, but merely extending, his predecessors’ policies. As we have seen, some of these letters of Gregory about ‘internal’ enemies, in particular those concerned with the Stedinger and other German heretics, quoted from scripture and were rhetorical rather than practical in nature. This might indicate that the Pope intended them to be used by preachers as a source of inspiration and as a useful guide for their own crusade sermons. The number of Gregory’s letters for each of the crusades authorized against heresy in Europe was, however, relatively small compared to the large number written by Innocent III and Honorius III about crusading in the south of France. And, with a few striking exceptions, many of Gregory’s letters were relatively unimaginative and of little particular literary merit, from which we should probably conclude that he did not wish them to be viewed primarily as preaching aids.

GREGORY IX AND ‘INTERNAL’ ENEMIES In ‘Supremus opifex qui’, a lengthy letter written in January 1238 to the king of Hungary concerning the preaching of the Cross against John Asen of Bulgaria, Gregory IX made a direct comparison between heretics, schismatics (Orthodox Greeks) and ‘pagans’, which in this case referred to Muslims: For of such a kind are heretics and schismatics, who refuse to be nourished by such a shepherd, and do not pay attention to his vicar. They are more treacherous than the Jews and more cruel than the pagans. For the Jews once fixed their Lord to the gibbet of the cross, but heretics continually crucify him in their own bodies, lacerating him with insults and reproaches; and whereas those men [the Jews], although under blind sin, believe that God the father created all things visible and invisible, these men [the heretics, in this case Cathars] believe that visible things were fashioned and created by the prince of darkness. The pagans also rage to inflict punishment upon and slaughter the bodies of Christians. But those men [heretics] steal and furtively remove in secret the souls of the faithful from Christ, destroying each man. But schismatics strive to rend

144

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

the seamless tunic of Jesus Christ, which, when His other garments had been divided, fell by lot to one man, in order that His Church represented by the tunic, which He put on like a garment, should be one.242

The language of the letter suggested that papal sensitivity to the threat not only of ‘external’ but also of ‘internal’ enemies to Christianity was increasing. Indeed Gregory’s attitude mirrored a growing belief among twelfth- and thirteenth-century churchmen of the hostility of heretics, ‘pagans’ (here meaning Muslims) and Jews living in Europe to the Christian faith.243 But his correspondence also showed a desire to emphasize that, although both heretics and schismatics were ‘internal’ enemies, they were nevertheless significantly different from each other. Heretics were dangerous not only because they dishonoured and blasphemed Christ but because they held beliefs, for example about the creation of the world, fundamentally at odds with Christian doctrine. Schismatics, by comparison – in this context the Greeks who followed the Orthodox faith – were dangerous because they sought to destroy Church unity. The identification of heretics in this particular letter as those who believed that the visible world was founded and created by the devil also suggests that Gregory thought that they were a type of Manichee.244 Previous letters of Innocent III and Honorius III calling for crusades against heretics in the south of France had deliberately compared heretics and Muslims, major ‘internal’ and ‘external’ enemies of the Church.245 Indeed, Honorius had claimed that heretics were morally worse than Muslims:246 ‘Since it is manifest that heretics are worse than Muslims, they must be opposed with no less zeal than the insolence of those [Muslims].’247 Gregory’s letter ‘Supremus opifex qui’, concerned with crusades within Europe, also directly compared heretics with ‘external’ Muslim enemies. Although from the evidence of one letter alone it is difficult to deduce Gregory’s personal views, it is clear that the description in ‘Supremus opifex qui’ accorded with traditional Church teaching and with the letters of Innocent III and Honorius III which treated heresy as particularly dangerous because it was an ‘internal’ threat to Christianity itself. ‘Supremus opifex qui’ also suggests that in his concern over John Asen, Gregory wished to convince the king of Hungary that he regarded heretics and schismatics as an even more serious threat to the Church than either Jews or Muslims living within Christendom. What would his predecessors have thought? Innocent III’s dissatisfaction with the outcome of the Fourth Crusade and his wish to be actively involved with the preaching and organization of the Fifth, shows that he regarded the authorizing of crusades to the Holy Land as one of his most important duties as Pope.248 Honorius III, although perhaps more interested in furthering crusading in the south of France, was certainly also committed to the Fifth Crusade.249 And the direct involvement of these popes in crusading

G R E G O RY I X

145

both to the Holy Land and in the south of France led them both to compare Muslims and heretics. Gregory’s priorities, however, were different. During the 1230s, like his predecessors, he had organized a crusade to the Holy Land. Yet he also believed that the precarious situation of the Latin Empire meant his first priority was to raise a relief force of crusaders to aid the emperor John of Brienne against the exiled John Vatatzes’s attempts to re-establish Greek authority and the Greek Orthodox Faith.250 It was for this reason that in ‘Supremus opifex qui’ he reminded the king of Hungary of the existence of Greek schismatics, whom he believed to be another immediate ‘internal’ threat to the Church. Yet because the language used to describe schismatics and heretics varied so little between papal letters, and even between these letters and contemporary chronicle accounts, it makes it very hard to gauge what heretical beliefs and practises really were, or even what the papacy supposed them to be. It is therefore difficult to assess from Gregory’s letters to Bosnia, written in response to information supplied him by the local clergy, whether most Bosnians were genuinely heretical, espousing some form of dualism, or merely ‘bona fide’ Catholics ignorant of many basic Church doctrines and practices.251 Even more difficult to determine are Gregory’s own views. In 1232 he set out the reasons for his decision to depose the bishop of Bosnia, describing him as a defender and favourer of heretics whose own brother was said to be a heresiarch. This suggests that he was primarily worried about the presence of heretics in Bosnia.252 Yet he also claimed that the bishop was elected by simony and was deeply ignorant of the rite of baptism. This indicates that he was also concerned not just about heresy but about a lack of understanding of the Catholic faith, about Bosnia’s pagan past and about the fact that the country before 1101 had been under Byzantine rule for over 80 years: all of which would undermine the Church’s missionary activities.253 Such concerns were very similar to those of his predecessor Innocent III who had recognized not only the need to defend the faith in the south of France against heretics but the sheer lack of understanding about the tenets of orthodox Catholic Christianity in that region. By contrast, Gregory’s letters calling for a crusade against the Stedinger give the clearest descriptions of heretical activities. In one letter he described the Stedinger as despising God and holding the Eucharist in contempt: But they themselves, in order that they may by a greater expression show that they are treacherous and despisers of divine power, while handling the viaticum of our salvation, by which life is bestowed and the death of sinners is abolished, a thing more horrible than is fitting to be expressed, sing demonic responses, make images of wax, and in their filth consult erroneous soothsayers, perpetrating other works of perversity . . .254

This resembled accounts of eleventh- and twelfth-century Wendish pagan

146

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

rituals, 255 and was repeated almost exactly in a further letter about the Stedinger: . . . if it shall have been agreed that those pestilential people, with demonic responses, images of wax and the detestable advice of soothsayers, as has been explained, have overstepped so gravely in the matter of the Eucharist . . .256

There was also a letter to Conrad of Marburg concerning other German heretics: ‘they sing demonic responses, they make wax images and in their filth they consult erroneous soothsayers, committing many other works of darkness’.257 Such descriptions suggest that when composing letters at the papal curia, notaries drew on traditional themes to describe supposed heretical practices. Likewise, charges brought against the Stedinger by the Bremen Provincial Synod of 1230 also included accusations of treating the Eucharist with contempt (‘corpus Domini horribilius, quam deceat exprimi, pertractasse’), chanting demonic formulas (‘querere responsa demonum’), making wax effigies (‘cereas imagines facere’) and consulting sorceresses (‘a pythonissis requirere consilium’).258 Indeed, as in Gregory’s correspondence and in letters circulated by the German archbishops, one of the charges brought against the Stedinger at Bremen was their contempt for Church doctrine (‘doctrinam sancte matris ecclesie vilipendere’).259 Since papal letters very often repeated the submissions made by the petitioner, the descriptions of Stedinger practices almost certainly came from Bremen itself. Presumably the descriptions in Gregory’s letters largely depended on what information was submitted and are therefore of limited use in ascertaining how much he knew about actual heretical beliefs and practises. Certainly such descriptions suggest that the Pope and the papal curia received stereotypical ideas about the activities of heretics, which may or may not have been true. ‘Vox in Rama’ was one such letter which contained a long colourful description, which may have originated from the Synod of Bremen, of a supposedly typical initiation ceremony of German heretics.260 Those who attended the ceremony were said to take part in the ritual kissing of animals such as a toad, goose or duck. Next the novice was confronted by an extremely pale, thin man who greeted him with a kiss. Following a shared meal a black cat was worshipped, prayers and ritual words were spoken and the initiates engaged in an orgy, sometimes involving homosexual acts. The letter also described the heretics’ beliefs and practices more generally, emphasizing again their contempt for the Eucharist: Each year at Easter they even receive the Body of the Lord from the hand of the priest, and, in contempt for the Redeemer, carrying it to their homes in their mouths they spit it into the latrine.

G R E G O RY I X

147

It added that the heretics believed that God threw Lucifer into hell, but that he, Lucifer, the true founder of the heavens, would one day return to glory: With respect to these things the most unhappy of all wretches, blaspheming the governor of the sky with polluted lips, assert in their delirium that the lord of the sky violently against justice and wickedly thrust down Lucifer into hell. But the wretches believe in him, and affirm that he is the creator of the heavens, and will still return to his glory when the Lord has been thrown down; with that same one, through him and not before him, they themselves hope to have eternal happiness. They say that all things pleasing to God ought not to be done; rather those things ought to be done which he hates.

Similar claims were found in chronicles with a missionary purpose and indeed closely resembled Peter of les Vaux-de-Cernay’s depiction of Cathar beliefs and practices in the south of France.261 There was similar material in French chronicles too, such as that of Aubrey of Trois-Fontaines, which emphasized Lucifer’s importance: ‘And there was beyond Cologne a certain synagogue of heretics, where an image of Lucifer used to give responses’.262 The same chronicle described heretics as ‘that pestiferous sect of Luciferians’ (‘ista pestifera secta Luciferianorum’).263 It is therefore possible that Gregory and those who drafted his letters were also drawing on chronicle descriptions of early Wendish paganism and witchcraft.264

THE DEVELOPMENT OF ‘INTERNAL’ CRUSADES As we shall see, Gregory granted different levels of indulgences for participation in different ‘internal’ campaigns. Yet when he specifically granted the plenary indulgence, he was deliberately signalling not only that they were spiritually meritorious but that they merited all the same privileges as the papacy bestowed on crusades to the East and were therefore also crusades. So, although he encouraged ‘internal’ campaigns to counter the threat of heretics, he had different motives for authorizing them and he might be subject to pressure from the localities where heresy was believed to flourish to upgrade meritorious campaigns to the status of crusades. Nevertheless, the Pope’s calls for crusades in the south of France and in Germany were a genuine response to what he believed to be deep-seated problems of heresy. Although he was concerned to keep control of the activities of local magnates and prelates, he was undoubtedly influenced by their appeals for papal approval. Similarly, his calls for crusades in Bosnia seem to have been motivated by genuine concern over unbelief and heresy, even though he knew that they were also politically advantageous to the duke of Croatia and, by extension,

148

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

to the Hungarian monarchy. It is more difficult, however, to determine the extent to which he believed that crusades against the Stedinger, as distinct from other German heretics, and against the Drenther, were directed solely with the aim of eradicating heresy; or whether he also had in mind other aims, in particular to support the authority of the clergy in Germany and Holland, as well as the work of the Domincans in Germany establishing inquisitorial processes. In the case of the proposed crusade against John Asen, Gregory used the terms ‘schismatic’ because his Bulgarian enemies were Orthodox and ‘heretic’ because there were not only pagan Cumans employed as mercenaries in the country but also supposedly groups espousing Bogomil-type heresies. But he also used such strong language because he believed that the Bulgarians were impeding the proposed crusade to the Holy Land. Since they were a threat to the needs of the Holy Land they were necessarily enemies of the Church.265 His complaint was not, therefore, that the king of Bulgaria and the Bulgarians espoused Catharism but rather that by renewing their alliance with John Vatatzes they were impeding a crusade in support of the Latin Empire.266 By doing so the Bulgarians were allying themselves with those who wanted to re-establish Greek rule over the Eastern Empire, hence collaborating with the Orthodox Church. Gregory used similar language to his predecessors to describe such crusades. He most commonly referred to the crusade as a ‘business’ (‘negotium)’,267 ‘so holy a business’ (‘tam sanctum negotium’),268 ‘so holy and pious a business’ (‘tam pium et sanctum negotium’),269 ‘the business of faith’ (‘negotium fidei’),270 or an ‘arduous business’ (‘arduum negotium’).271 Crusaders were designated ‘crucesignati’272 and also, more informally, as ‘those who had taken up the sign of the cross’ (‘qui . . . signum crucis asssumpserint’, ‘signo vivifice crucis assumpto’, ‘qui crucis assumpto caractere’).273 Only once did Gregory make a clear link between ‘internal’ crusades and pilgrimage, referring to a crusade in Bosnia as a ‘journey of pilgrimage’ (‘iter peregrinationis’).274 It was obviously much more difficult to use the idea of crusading as pilgrimage – employed successfully by his predecessors for the Holy Land – to encourage the faithful to take part in crusading in eastern Europe, where there were no cult centres comparable to Jerusalem. The imagery of Gregory’s letters also resembled that of his predecessors. In a letter to Hungarian prelates, referring to 1 Corinthians 9.24–5, Gregory exhorted them to become ‘athletes of Christ’: Placing your trust in the King of the skies, He who mercifully inspires us, put yourself forward as a strong athlete of Christ, girded to run in the splendid gleam of the armour of the Lord, to wage His war, who again promises the crown to those legitimately competing.275

Honorius III had used a similar image in a letter to the south of France.276

G R E G O RY I X

149

Gregory’s repetition of this imagery confirms that, although authorizing new crusades throughout Europe, he wanted to ensure that they were promulgated using traditional language. Papal letters had always evoked ideas of protection and defence as a justification for crusading. Crusaders were those who protected Christ himself and avenged the injury done to their Redeemer, and Gregory carefully maintained his predecessors’ claims that the purpose of crusades, both ‘external’ and ‘internal’, was to defend the Catholic faith.277 Nevertheless, except when specifically referring to the Holy Land indulgence, none of Gregory’s letters drew direct parallels between crusades against heretics and crusades authorized against ‘external’ enemies of the Church, whether contemporaneous or in the past. Since some contemporary chronicles made such comparisons, this omission was perhaps surprising. Emonis chronica stated about the crusades: ‘For the first was against the Muslims, the second against the Albigensian heretics, the third against the Stedinger.’278 Another chronicle, the Chronica Minor Minoritae Erphordensis, compared the crusade against the Stedinger with that against the Mongols: In the year of our Lord 1241 a foreign crowd, a most ferocious race of barbarians, dedicated to idolatrous cults, namely the Tartars, killed many thousands of Christians in Hungary and Poland. Against them Pope Gregory commanded that the Cross be preached; at the same time [he commanded that the Cross be preached] against the Stedinger, of whom five thousand and twenty-five men were killed by the sword by those signed with the Cross.279

So, unlike the Pope, some chroniclers directly compared crusades against ‘external’ enemies and crusades in Europe. Yet the language of Gregory’s correspondence concerned with ‘internal’ crusades was always very similar, even though they were authorized against different groups. All these groups were ‘heretics’ (‘heretici’).280 They were ‘perfidious’ (‘hereticorum perfidia’),281 ‘rebels’ (‘rebelles’)282 and ‘reprobates’ (‘reprobati’),283 who must be exterminated.284 The letters frequently identified them as subscribing to ‘a dogma of wicked heresy’ (‘dogmatum heretice pravitatis’);285 they ‘held in contempt the teachings of Mother Church’ (‘doctrina matris ecclesie penitus vilipensa’),286 and their activities injured Christ (‘inuria Redemptoris’, ‘contumelia Redemptoris’, ‘opprobrium Crucefixi’).287 The similarity of these descriptions with that used in the decrees of Church councils, in chronicle accounts and even in contemporary imperial statutes, reveals how conventional was the language used to describe heresy by both spiritual and temporal authorities.288 So, like Innocent III and Honorius III, Gregory too emphasized that both the material and spiritual sword ought to be wielded not only against heretics but also against those who received, defended or favoured them, in accordance with the teachings

150

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

of previous Church councils:289 Canon 23 of Lateran II had condemned those who defended heretics; Constitution 3 of Lateran IV had decreed that they should be excommunicated.290 Canon 46 of the Council of Montpellier of 1214–15 had declared that the possessions of both heretics and those who favoured, received or defended them ought to be confiscated.291 It is clear, therefore, that Gregory believed that the primary aim of ‘internal’ crusades was to crush those in rebellion against the Church and those who contradicted its teachings. Yet some of his letters, most obviously those to Bosnia, suggest that he also hoped that they would be an initial step, along with ongoing preaching, in a programme of reform and reconversion for Christian Europe.292 Following the success of the Bosnian crusade of 1238, he ordered the provincial prior of the Dominicans in Hungary to send to Bosnia certain friars ‘powerful in work and speech’ (‘potentes in opere et sermone’), as missionaries. Their aim would be to preach the Gospel (‘ad praedicandum inibi verbum dominicum et cultum divinum fortius ampliandum’) and thereby widen the boundaries of the Christian faith (‘in terre Bosne extirpari hereses, et fidei catholice inceperint funiculi dilitari’).293 Since in calling for crusades to the Holy Land or Spain, popes had never openly expressed a wish to convert Muslims, Gregory’s aims for crusades against heretics seem therefore to have been much more ambitious than the original papal concept of a crusade as promulgated by Urban II and his successors.294 Unlike the Muslims, who continued to resist all attempts by Christians to convert them by peaceful means or by violence, and indeed whom canon law decreed must not be converted by force, Gregory realized that heretics might be induced to reconvert. In this respect his idea of ‘internal’ crusades against heretics was closer to appeals made by his papal predecessors for crusades to the Baltic, since some of these popes had also expressed a wish for the conversion of pagans against whom they authorized crusades.295 Certainly Gregory continued his predecessors’ policy of issuing crusading indulgences. In June 1228 he conceded to his legate Romano the power to grant all the privileges and indulgences which the papacy traditionally granted to crusaders. He declared that his aim was to find a ‘happy outcome’ (‘felicem exitum’) to the problem of heresy in the south of France and that his legate’s decisions were to be observed inviolably: ‘with no privileges or indulgences standing in the way, if in any way they should appear to have been obtained from the Apostolic See’.296 In October he reaffirmed that those who crusaded in the south of France should receive the same plenary indulgence as had been previously granted by both Innocent III and Honorius III. Following the example of Honorius, he repeated the statement of Lateran IV concerned with all aspects of the indulgence which was to be granted to all those who confessed their sins:297 . . . we grant to all those submitting to the labour, personally or at their own expense, full

G R E G O RY I X

151

forgiveness of their sins, of which they freely make oral confession with contrite hearts, and as the reward of the just we promise them a greater share of eternal salvation . . ..298

In both these letters, therefore, Gregory endorsed the policies of Innocent and Honorius and his reissue of the crusading indulgence signalled his general support for the idea of a crusade against heretics. He thereby also showed that during his pontificate the papacy would continue to regard heresy and disorder in the south of France as a prime concern. In the same year Gregory also congratulated his legate Robert, archbishop of Esztergom, on his missionary work among the Cumans and promised a lesser indulgence of 100 days for those who helped construct churches and other buildings in Hungary for new converts: . . . we concede, that for the faithful, who personally shall have gone or shall have sent aid for the constructing there of churches and suitable buildings, an indulgence for sins [‘peccatorum indulgentiam’], which, however, shall not exceed a length of a hundred days.299

Furthermore, he promised that those who fought to recover Christian lands adjacent to Cuman territory which had been overrun by Seljuk Turks from Asia Minor, or who fought those who opposed converted Cumans, should be granted an indulgence of two years:300 And for those setting out to recover the lands of Christians near the Cumans, which the Sultan of Konya or other infidels have occupied, and for those men who take action both against those who fight converted Cumans and those who prohibit others from acceptance of the Christian faith, you may bestow a two-year remission [‘remissionem biennium’] – not, however, exceeding it, and in accordance with the disposition of the devotion, the amount of help and the labour which they shall have sustained on this account – and you may announce and cause to be announced an indulgence and remission of this kind [‘indulgentiam et remissionem huiusmodi’], where you think it useful.

So Gregory believed a major aim of Hungarian military action against the Cumans ought to be the recovery of Christian territory, and, as in his call to renew crusading in the south of France, he described the campaign as a defensive operation.301 He also stressed, however, that the indulgence he granted was not to exceed two years, which suggests that he was careful to make it clear that the campaign was not of equal status with the Albigensian Crusade. His caution may have been due in part to the fact that – in contrast to the Albigensian Crusade – he had no precedent for the grant of a plenary indulgence for Hungarian soldiers fighting Cumans. But he probably also wished to emphasize that although the

152

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

papacy regarded all conflicts against ‘internal’ enemies as meritorious, they were not all of equal merit, nor were they all crusades. Gregory also granted indulgences for the Stedinger campaign. In a general letter to the bishops of Linden, Lübeck and Ratzeburg of 1232 he enjoined them for the remission of their sins (‘in remissionem peccatorum iniungentes’) to lead the faithful of Paderborn, Hildesheim, Verden, Münster, Osnabrück, Minden and Bremen in a campaign to exterminate heretics, and gave specific instructions about the granting of spiritual indulgences to campaigners: To all who shall have come to your solemn preaching, we relax for them twenty days, and for the others who shall have undertaken that journey in their own person and at their own expense, and also those who shall have come there at others’ expense, we relax thirty days; indeed we relax fifty days of their enjoined penance for those about to remain there, according to the need of the business and your foresight. But for others, who shall provide from their own means to help the faithful, we grant an indulgence of the remission of their sins according to the quantity of subsidy and the degree of devotion. We concede pardon for all their sins, of which indeed they shall have been contrite and confessed, for all who shall have died [my emphasis] in the prosecution of that business.302

This passage therefore advocated a ‘hierarchy’ of indulgences for those who played various parts in the Stedinger campaign, with different indulgences of twenty days, thirty days, three years and five years; and to those who died, having been sorry and having confessed, a full remission of their sins. That a plenary indulgence was only granted for those who died fighting, rather than simply for those who took part, suggests that Gregory did not regard the campaign as of the same importance as that which had recently ended in the south of France – since for the Albigensian Crusade he had granted the same plenary indulgence as had been granted by his predecessors Innocent III and Honorius III. In 1233, however, Gregory seems to have changed his mind about the status of the Stedinger campaign. He now made a distinction between those who merely fought against heretics and those who vowed to take the Cross. Those who vowed to crusade were to be awarded the same plenary indulgence as those going to the Holy Land: Indeed Catholics, who, having taken up the sign of the Cross, shall have girded themselves to exterminate the same heretics, let them rejoice in that indulgence and be armed with that privilege, which are conceded to those going to the aid of the Holy Land.303

It is likely that this change in policy was the Pope’s response to the victories of the Stedinger in the winter of 1232–3 and their capture of the archbishop of

G R E G O RY I X

153

Bremen’s fortress at Slutter.304 He may also have been concerned to indicate that the campaign was of equal importance to that being contemporaneously preached against other heretics in Germany, thereby avoiding any diversion of resources from the Stedinger campaign.305 As discussed earlier, in 1231 Gregory had also promised a series of indulgences to those who took part in this other campaign against heresy in northern Germany: To all in each area who have gone to hear your preaching we relax twenty days; to those indeed who, in order to fight against heretics and their favourers, receivers and defenders in fortifications and castles and those who rebel otherwise against the Church, have spiritedly shown advice and help or favour, having trusted to the mercy of almighty God and the authority of the blessed Peter and Paul His apostles, we relax three years of the penalty enjoined on them; and if someone of these people by chance shall have died [emphasis added] for the prosecution of that business, we grant as an indulgence to them full pardon for all sins of which they shall have been contrite.306

And again in 1232 he promised a series of indulgences for those who helped in the enquiries which he had ordered the archbishop of Mainz to undertake into suspected heretical activity.307 In this letter, as in that of 1232 concerned with the Stedinger campaign, he presented the faithful with a ‘hierarchy’ of indulgences: those who listened to the sermons of preachers against heresy were to receive an indulgence of 20 days. Others, who gave help, advice or favour to combat heretics and their supporters, were to receive an indulgence of three years: Indeed for those men who shall have boldly offered advice, council or favour to fight heretics, their favourers, receivers and defenders, in fortifications and castles or others rebelling against the Church – for these, having trusted to the mercy of almighty God and to the authority of blessed Peter and Paul His apostles, we relax three years from the penance enjoined on them.308

Again, to encourage armed conflict, a full indulgence was granted for those who died fighting against heretics provided that they first repented of and confessed their sins. So, as with the Stedinger campaign, in 1233 the Pope increased the status of the campaign against these other German heretics. In June he enjoined the papal inquisitor Conrad of Marburg to do all he could to counter heresy for the remission of his sins and promised that those who took up the Cross should receive the same indulgence as that granted crusaders to the Holy Land: On those who, having assumed the character of the Cross, shall have girded themselves

154

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

to exterminate the same heretics, we bestow that indulgence and that privilege, which are conceded for those going to aid the Holy Land.309

And, as also in the case of the Stedinger campaign, Gregory was therefore making a distinction between those who merely fought in a military campaign against heretics and those who went on crusade. Whereas previously only those soldiers who died would merit the plenary indulgence, now all those who took the Cross would automatically receive it. So in 1233 Gregory emphasized that he now regarded the campaigns against both the Stedinger and other German heretics as full-blown crusades for which crusaders were to be granted the same plenary indulgence as for those who went to the East. Gregory repeated this grant of the indulgence in letters to the archbishop of Mainz, the bishop of Hildesheim, Conrad of Marburg, the bishops of the province of Mainz, Frederick II and his son Henry.310 In his letter to the archbishop of Mainz, the bishop of Hildesheim and the provincial prior of the Dominicans concerning the death of Conrad of Marburg, he also granted the same plenary indulgence for those who took part in the crusade. But he employed a slightly different formulation by describing it as the same indulgence as granted for the crusade to Jerusalem rather than to the Holy Land: . . . to all those truly penitent and confessed, who . . . shall have undertaken the labour in their own persons or at their own expense, we grant an indulgence of pardon for all their sins just as for those going to Jerusalem . . .311

So, as with the Stedinger campaign, although Gregory did not at first regard the campaign against German heretics as a crusade, later, in order to encourage the faithful to participate, he decided to grant the plenary indulgence for those who formally took the Cross. By comparison, the absence of papal letters concerned with a ‘crusade’ against the Drenther means that we do not know what kind of indulgence Gregory granted those who fought – if he did indeed grant an indulgence at all. Our only source for the campaign, the thirteenth-century Gesta episcoporum Traiectensium, recorded that those who gathered to take part in military action were spurred on by the exhortation of Willbrand, bishop of Utrecht, but also that the Pope had granted an indulgence: ‘. . . and in another part of the land certain Frisians from Friesland have come, roused through the indulgence of the lord pope and the exhortation of the lord bishop’.312 This description did not elaborate on whether or not the indulgence was the same as that conceded for crusading in the Holy Land. The Deeds of the Bishops of Utrecht, however, described the bishop as preaching that those who took part would receive a ‘certain’ – which would seem to suggest a plenary – remission of their sins:

G R E G O RY I X

155

And finally, after it had been much discussed by all, it was agreed on that the bishop personally would hurry to the Frisians, proclaim an indulgence and preach and should enjoin on them a journey against the Drenther . . . for the certain remission of their sins.313

So, according to Gesta episcoporum Traiectensium, whether or not Bishop Willbrand of Utrecht received authority from Rome to do so, he granted a full indulgence for the campaign. Constitution 3 of Lateran IV had stated that those who took part in a crusade against heretics were eligible for plenary indulgences and Constitution 62 recognized the power of bishops to grant indulgences for a limited period of one year in certain circumstances. Yet although the bishop may have cited such legislation in claiming the power to make the grant, it is unclear whether this would have been enough to persuade others that he had the authority to call for a crusade.314 Furthermore, the fact that Constitution 62 referred to short-term penances for jubilees or consecrations of new churches, rather than to plenary indulgences for military campaigns, implied that the bishop’s canonical basis for a claim of authority was weak.315 Nevertheless, it seems probable that those who listened to his sermons were persuaded that the indulgence promised for fighting was equal to that which popes conceded to crusaders to the Holy Land. In the case of Bosnia, by contrast, there was no doubt of the Pope’s eventual authorization of a crusade indulgence in 1234. At first, in 1233, he ordered his legate Jacob of Praeneste to depose the bishop of Bosnia and then enjoined him for the remission of his sins to ordain as bishops for the dioceses of Bosnia two, three or four suitable men learned in the law.316 The following year he conceded an indulgence of ten days for those who listened once a week to the preaching of the new bishop of Bosnia, John of Wildeshausen, against heretics.317 He also granted the bishop power to bestow in extremis the last rites and to absolve those who had been excommunicated for violent crimes against the clergy if they died while fighting: . . . for those who have incurred the noose of excommunication for arson and the violent laying on of hands against clerics or other religious persons, and go against the heretics settled in parts of Slavonia for the defence of the Faith and are about to die [emphasis added] at a fitting time in so happy a work, you may impose, according to the rite of the Church, the favour of absolution.318

These concessions showed the relative importance Gregory now attached to the campaign in Bosnia and reflected a concern that insufficient numbers would be willing to take part. Nevertheless, Gregory did not yet grant a plenary indulgence as a reward for the living.

156

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

Later in 1234, however, Gregory finally decided to give the Bosnian campaign the full status of a crusade by granting the plenary indulgence to those who took the Cross, just as he had done in the case of the Stedinger and other German heretics. In February he conceded to prelates and other Christian faithful the same indulgence as for those who went on crusade to the East: For those who . . . having assumed the character of the Cross, shall have girded themselves to exterminate heretics, we bestow that indulgence and that privilege, which are conceded for those going to aid the Holy Land.319

And in October he also conceded to the bishop of Bosnia the power of granting this same plenary indulgence for those who crusaded in Bosnia.320 After this, Gregory’s letters made no further reference to the plenary indulgence for Bosnia until 1238. In December of that year, however, the Pope renewed his call for men to take up arms against heretics and conceded to the recently elected Bishop Ponsa the same power to grant the indulgence as had been previously granted to John of Wildeshausen: ‘and finally on behalf of this business . . . we concede to you that power which our dear son brother John, your predecessor, is known to have held from the Apostolic See’.321 This letter showed more caution than previous correspondence, emphasizing that the degree of mercy for sins was to be dependent on the amount of help given and making no reference to the Holy Land. Yet that Gregory had stated that he conceded the same powers as he had previously granted to John of Wildeshausen – and we know from his letters to John that these were plenary – strongly suggests that he intended and expected Ponsa to grant the plenary indulgence. Likewise, in contrast to earlier Hungarian campaigns against the Cumans, in 1238 Gregory granted the plenary crusading indulgence for Hungarians and other Christian faithful who took up arms against the Bulgarian John Asen: ‘For those who with you shall have undertaken that labour in their own person and at their own expense, we grant as an indulgence full pardon for their sins.’322 He also clarified to his legate, the bishop of Perugia, that the indulgence to be conceded was the same plenary indulgence as that which, since the time of Innocent III, had been granted for those going to the aid of the Holy Land: . . . we bestow the indulgence, which was conceded to those going across the sea to aid the Holy Land, and we state that the land of that Asen is to be occupied by the aforementioned king and other Catholics . . .323

Gregory, too, emphasized in letters to the bishops of Hungary, including the archbishop of Esztergom, his legate the bishop of Perugia, the bishop of Raab, the bishop of Zagreb and the archbishop of Cologne, that he was granting the same

G R E G O RY I X

157

indulgence as for those crusading in the East.324 And he granted a similar indulgence in letters of 9 August to Bela IV, to the provincial prior of the Dominicans and the minister of the Franciscans of Esztergom, as well as to the archbishops and bishops of Hungary.325 Indeed on 8 August he conceded to Hungarian prelates who were helping to further Bela’s campaign that, in order to encourage the faithful, they should even be allowed, when preaching to the army, to grant a small indulgence of a few days to those who listened to their sermons.326 Meanwhile, a decade earlier, in 1227, Gregory had granted the brothers of the Militia of Jesus Christ in Italy a plenary indulgence for fighting against heretics: . . . for all the faithful and for those who persist in true penitence, who shall have faced danger of death for the Catholic Faith and the freedom of the Church, we grant as an indulgence a pardon for all their sins which the Lord conceded to us through St Peter . . .327

In 1231 he also granted the citizens of Padua an indulgence of three years to fight against Ezzelino da Romano: ‘To all who shall have genuinely proceeded against him shall be granted an indulgence of three years’,328 while only those who died merited the plenary indulgence. And in 1235 he reiterated to the brothers of the Militia his grant of a plenary indulgence for campaigning: For those who take up that labour for the defence of the Catholic Faith and the freedom of the Church . . . we grant an indulgence of all their sins of which they are truly contrite and confessed.329

We conclude, therefore, that although Gregory was willing to grant a plenary indulgence to members of a military confraternity for fighting against heretics, he was careful to grant only a limited indulgence of three years to the people of Padua, unless they actually died fighting. He was not willing to grant the latter the full crusading indulgence because at this point he had no wish to authorize a crusade in Italy. Indeed, the plenary crusade indulgence was not granted by the papacy to Italians taking the Cross against Ezzelino da Romano until 1256.330 When granting such indulgences, Gregory IX never made direct comparisons between crusades against ‘heretical’ groups in Europe and crusades against Muslims. Nor did his letters about ‘internal’ crusades mention contemporary crusading in Spain or the Baltic. It is therefore difficult to determine just how important he considered ‘internal’ crusades to be in relation to other crusading enterprises. Certainly, however, most of his letters granting a plenary indulgence for crusading in Europe deliberately used the same formulae as those of Innocent III and Honorius III stating that it was the same indulgence as that

158

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

granted for crusades to the Holy Land. There was therefore no change in the papal position, which had always regarded the Holy Land crusade as a standard by which other crusades were to be judged.331 Indeed, that Gregory bestowed the ‘Holy Land indulgence’ when he wished to signal the importance of a military campaign shows that he wished it to be recognized as a crusade not only by campaigners but also by theologians and canon lawyers who studied papal decretals. Gregory IX realized that, once he had taken the crucial step of authorizing new crusades in Europe, the best way to encourage them was to evoke images of the Holy Land.332 Like his predecessors, he regarded crusades to the Holy Land as a model for crusading in Europe. His correspondence suggests that he also conceived of a ‘hierarchy’ of ‘internal’ campaigns. Although he employed similar language in his letters to describe these campaigns, the type of indulgence he originally granted for fighting varied, although it was often eventually upgraded to the full crusade indulgence. Letters to the south of France promised the plenary indulgence for those who took part in the crusade against heretics there, and it was similarly granted for the crusade of 1234 against John Asen. By contrast, Gregory only granted an indulgence of two years for the campaign against the Cumans. For combating the Stedinger, German and Bosnian heretics, he increased the spiritual rewards for campaigning, until he finally granted for those who took the Cross the same plenary indulgence as was granted for the Holy Land. On the other hand, for combating heretics in Italy, the plenary indulgence for fighting was only granted by Gregory to one specific quasi-military fraternity. It was therefore not issued lightly. The precedent was the Albigensian Crusade. Yet unlike Innocent III and Honorius III who, once they had decided on military action in the south of France, seemed to grant the plenary indulgence without hesitation, Gregory was much more cautious about doing so elsewhere in Europe. Notes 1 Werner Malezcek, Papst und Kardinalskolleg von 1191 bis 1216: die Kardinale unter Coelistin III. und Innocenz III. (Vienna, 1984), pp. 126–33. 2 Edward Peters, Inquisition (New York, 1988), p. 55. 3 Horace Mann, Lives of the Popes in the Early Middle Ages from 590 to 1304, 10 (London, 1914), pp. 334–9; 13 (London, 1925), pp. 170, 206–8; James Brundage, Medieval Canon Law (London and New York, 1995), p. 215. 4 Christoph Maier, Preaching the Crusades: Mendicant Friars and the Cross in the Thirteenth Century (Cambridge, 1994), pp. 37–8. 5 William of Puylaurens, Chronique, ed. with French trans. J. Duvorney (Paris, 1976). 6 Aubrey of Trois Fontaines, ‘Chronica Albrici monachi Trium Fontium’, MGHS 23,

G R E G O RY I X

7 8 9 10

11

12 13

14 15 16

17 18 19 20

21 22 23 24 25

159

pp. 631–950; ‘Annales Wormatienses’, MGHS 17, pp. 34–73; ‘Annales Erphordenses fratrum praedicatorum’, MGHSS 42, pp. 72–116; ‘Gesta Treverorum continuata’, MGHS 24, pp. 368–414; ‘Cronica minor minoritae Erphordensis’, MGHSS 42, pp. 486–671. ‘Emonis chronica’, MGHS 23, pp. 465–523; ‘Historia monasterii Rastedensis’, MGHS 25, pp. 495–512; ‘Annales Stadenses’, MGHS 16, pp. 271–379. ‘Gesta episcoporum Traiectensium’, MGHS 23, pp. 400–26. John Clarence-Smith, Medieval Law Teachers and Writers, Civilian and Canonists (Ottawa, 1975), p. 32. James Brundage, Medieval Canon Law and the Crusader (Madison and London, 1969), p. 68; Clarence-Smith, Medieval Law Teachers and Writers, p. 33; James Brundage, Medieval Canon Law (London and New York, 1985), pp. 210–11; Stephan Kuttner, ‘The Barcelona Edition of Saint Raymond’s First Treatise of Canon Law’, Studies in the History of Medieval Canon Law (Aldershot, 1990), p. 64. Brundage, Medieval Canon Law and the Crusader, pp. 74–5; Brundage, Medieval Canon Law, p. 219; Kuttner, ‘The Barcelona Edition of Saint Raymond’s First Treatise of Canon Law’, p. 64. Brundage, Medieval Canon Law and the Crusader, pp. 76–7; Kuttner, ‘The Barcelona Edition of Saint Raymond’s First Treatise of Canon Law’, p. 64. Clarence-Smith, Medieval Law Teachers and Writers, p. 38; Brundage, Medieval Canon Law, pp. 219–20; Brundage, Medieval Canon Law and the Crusader, pp. 81–2; Kuttner, ‘The Barcelona Edition of Saint Raymond’s First Treatise of Canon Law’, p. 64. Brundage, Medieval Canon Law and the Crusader, pp. 83–4; Clarence-Smith, Medieval Law Teachers and Writers, p. 38; Brundage, Medieval Canon Law, pp. 227–8. Kuttner, ‘The Barcelona Edition of Saint Raymond’s First Treatise of Canon Law’, p. 64. Brundage, Medieval Canon Law, pp. 210–11; Clarence-Smith, Medieval Law Teachers and Writers, p. 33. For the works of Bernard Balbi of Pavia, see Brundage, Medieval Canon Law, p. 211; Othmar Hageneder, ‘Der Häresiebegriff bei den Juristen des 12. und 13. Jahrhunderts’, The Concept of Heresy in the Middle Ages (11th–13th C.), Proceedings of the International Conference Louvain May 13–16th 1973 (Louvain, 1976), p. 53, note 38. Brundage, Medieval Canon Law, pp. 206, 223–4. Ibid., pp. 227–8. Ibid., pp. 221, 228, 227–8; Brundage, Medieval Canon Law and the Crusader, pp. 78–9. John Teutonicus, Apparatus glossarum in compilationem tertiam, ed. K. Pennington (Vatican City, 1981), passim. See Clarence-Smith, Medieval Law Teachers and Writers, p. 38; Brundage, Medieval Canon Law, p. 220; Brundage, Medieval Canon Law and the Crusader, p. 81. Brundage, Medieval Canon Law and the Crusader, p. 84. Ibid., p. 85. Ibid., pp. 86–8, 201; Brundage, Medieval Canon Law, p. 221; Hageneder, ‘Der Häresiebegriff bei den Juristen des 12. und 13. Jahrhunderts’, pp. 53–5. Brundage, Medieval Canon Law, p. 215. Kuttner, ‘The Barcelona Edition of Saint Raymond’s First Treatise of Canon Law’, pp. 52–67; Brundage, Medieval Canon Law, pp. 222–3; Martin Bertram, ‘Die Dekretalen Gregors IX: Kompilation oder Kodifikation?’, Magister Raimundus: Atti del convegno per

160

26 27 28 29

30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

51 52 53 54

55

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

il IV centenario della canonizzazione di San Raimondo de Penyafort (1601–2001), ed. C. Longo (Rome, 2002), pp. 70–109. Brundage, Medieval Canon Law and the Crusader, p. 8. Clarence-Smith, Medieval Law Teachers and Writers, p. 39. Brundage, Medieval Canon Law, pp. 209, 212. Bernard of Parma also composed the ‘Casus longi’ on the ‘Liber extra decretalium’. Bernard of Parma, Casus longi decretalium (Strasbourg, 1498). See Brundage, Medieval Canon Law, p. 210. 1 Comp. 5.6, pp. 55–7. 1 Comp. 5.7, p. 57. 3 Comp. 5.4, p. 130. 4 Comp. 5.5.1, pp. 147–8. 5 Comp. 5.4, pp. 182–3. X.5.7.8, cols 779–80. X.5.7.9, cols 780–2. X.5.7.10, cols 782–3. X.5.7.11, cols 783–4. X.5.7.13, cols 787–9. X.5.7.1, col. 778. X.5.7.15, col. 789. X.5.8.1, col. 790; X.5.8.2, col. 790. Hageneder, ‘Der Häresiebegriff bei den Juristen des 12. und 13. Jahrhunderts’, pp. 45–6. Ibid., p. 47; Peters, Inquisition, p. 63. Gregory IX, ‘Negotium quod agitur’ (21 March 1228), Bullarium franciscanum pontificum, ed. G. C. Sbaralea (Rome, 1759), p. 37–8. Gregory IX, ‘Licet alia vice’ (June/July 1228), Auvray 1, cols 143–4; ‘Ardenti desiderio aspirantes’ (21 Oct. 1228), Auvray 1, cols 141–3. Gregory IX, ‘Ardenti desiderio aspirantes’, cols 141–3. For the Council of Paris (1228), see Mansi 23, cols 163–72; Gregory IX, ‘Venerabilem fratrem nostrum’ (10 Dec. 1230), Rodenberg, pp. 341–2. Nora Berend, At the Gates of Christendom: Jews, Muslims and ‘Pagans’ in Medieval Hungary c.1000–c.1300 (Cambridge, 2001), p. 31. Gregory IX, ‘Immensas gratiarum actiones’ (21 March 1228), Theiner 1, p. 87. See Nora Berend, At the Gates of Christendom, pp. 68–73; Nora Berend, ‘How many Medieval Europes? The “Pagans” of Hungary and Regional Diversity in Christendom’ in The Medieval World (London, 2001), ed. P. Linehan and J. L. Nelson, pp. 79–90. Gregory IX, ‘Gaudemus in Domino’ (21 March 1228), Theiner 1, pp. 87–8. Gregory IX, ‘Cumana ecclesia pastoris’ (21 March 1228), Auvray 1, col. 107. Gregory IX, ‘Cum venerabili fratre’ (21 March 1228), Theiner 1, p. 87. Maier, Preaching the Crusades, p. 52. For the German nobility of the area around Bremen and the counts of Lippe see Urkundenbuch zur Geschichte der Stadt Bremerhaven I. Lehe und Vieland im Mittelalter 1072–1500, ed. J. Bohmbach and B.-U. Hucker (Bremerhaven, 1982), pp. 21–6. Ibid.

G R E G O RY I X

161

56 ‘Historia monasterii Rastedensis’, p. 506. 57 Christian Krollmann, ‘Der Deutsche Orden und die Stedinger’, Alt-Preussiche Forschungen, Historische Kommission für ost-und-west-preussiche Landesforschung 14 (Königsberg, 1937), 5. 58 Gregory IX, ‘Si ea que’ (26 July 1231), Bremisches Urkundenbuch 1, ed. D. R. Emck and W. von Bippen (1873), pp. 196–7. 59 Krollmann, ‘Der Deutsche Orden und die Stedinger’, p. 5; Elizabeth Kennan, ‘Innocent III, Gregory IX, and Political Crusades: A Study in the Disintegration of Papal Power’, in G.F. Lytle, ed., Reform and Authority in the Medieval and Reformation Church (Washington, 1981), p. 25. 60 Gregory IX was in communication with the archdiocese of Bremen for other reasons besides the problem of heresy. In 1233, for example, he wrote a letter informing the bishop and scholasticus of Hildesheim that Cardinal Otto of San Nicolas in Carcere Tulliano, papal legate to Germany and Denmark, had appointed the Dominican prior and the dean and scholasticus of Bremen as general visitors in the diocese of Bremen to set up an inquiry into the provost of the church of Reepsholt concerning charges of simony. See Gregory IX, ‘Cum dilectus filius’ (4 June 1233), Auvray 1, cols 764–5. 61 Gregory IX, ‘Lucis eterne lumine’ (29 Oct. 1232), Rodenberg 1, pp. 393–4. 62 Gregory IX, ‘Clamante ad nos’ (19 Jan. 1233), Potthast 1, no. 9076. 63 Gregory IX, ‘Littere vestre nobis’ (17 June 1233), Rodenberg 1, pp. 436–7. 64 Maier, Preaching the Crusades, p. 55. 65 ‘Annales Stadenses’, p. 361. 66 ‘Emonis Chronica’, pp. 515–16. 67 Gregory IX, ‘Grandis et gravis’ (18 March 1234), Bermisches Urkundenbuch 1, ed. Ehmck and von Bippen, p. 215. 68 Gregory IX, ‘Ex parte universitatis’ (21 Aug. 1235), Potthast 1, no. 9992. See Maier, Preaching the Crusades, p. 52. 69 For a comprehensive list of these statutes and decrees, see Hans Köhler, Die Ketzerpolitik der deutschen Kaiser und Könige in den Jahren 1152–1254, Jenaer Historische Arbeiten 6 (Bonn, 1913), pp. 73–4. 70 Gregory IX, ‘Cum ad conservandum’ (March 1224), Rodenberg 1, p. 174; ‘Omnes heretici’ (Feb. 1231), Auvray 1, cols 352–3; ‘Excommunicamus’ (Feb. 1231), Auvray 1, pp. 351–2. 71 Maier, Preaching the Crusades, p. 168. 72 Innocent III, ‘Vergentis in senium’ (29 March 1199), Die Register Innocenz III, 2, pp. 3–5. See Albert Shannon, The Medieval Inquisition (Washington, DC 1983), pp. 128–9; Hoffmann Nickerson, The Inquisition: A Political and Military Study of its Establishment, 2nd edn (London, 1932), p. 206. 73 Bernard Hamilton, The Medieval Inquisition (London, 1981), p. 76. 74 Gregory IX, ‘Sollicitudinem tuam quam’ (12 June 1227), Rodenberg 1, p. 277. For the career of Conrad of Marburg as an inquisitor of heretics and Jews in Germany, see Alexander Patchovsky, ‘Zur Ketzerverfolgung Konrads von Marburg’, Deutches Archiv für die Erforschung des Mittelalters 37, part 2 (1981), 641–93. 75 Gregory IX, ‘Ille humani generis’ (27 November 1231), Acta imperii 1, ed. Winckelmann,

162

76

77 78

79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89

90 91 92 93 94

95 96

97 98

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

pp. 499–501. See Peters, Inquisition, p. 55; Dietrich Kurze, ‘Anfange der Inquisition in Deutschland’, in Die Anfange der Inquisition im Mittelalter mit einem Ausblick auf das 20 Jahrhundert und einem Beitrag über religiose Intoleranz im nichtchristlichen Bereich, ed. P. Segl (Cologne and Böhlau, 1993), p. 159. Gregory IX, ‘Ille humani generis’ (3 Feb. 1232), Bullarium ordinis Predicatorum, 1, ed. T. Ripoll, p. 37; Gregory IX, ‘Ille humani generis’ (4 Feb. 1232), in Ludwig Förg, Die Ketzerverfolgung in Deutschland unter Gregor IX. Ihre Herkunft, ihre Bedeutung und ihre rechtlichen Grundlagen, Historische Studien 218 (Berlin, 1932), pp. 96–8. Gregory IX, ‘Ille humani generis’ (29 Oct. 1232), Rodenberg 1, pp. 394–6. Gregory IX, ‘Ille humani generis’, pp. 394–6; ‘Solent heretici ad’ (25 June 1231), Acta imperii Selecta. Urkunden deutscher Könige und Kaiser 928–1398, ed. J. F. Böhmer (Innsbruck, 1870), pp. 665–7. Gregory IX, ‘Cum de summo’ (11 October 1231), Analecta Hassiaca, 1, ed. J. P. Kuchenbecker, Collectio 3 (Marburg, 1730), pp. 73–5. Gregory IX, ‘O altitudo divitiarum’ (10 June 1233), Rodenberg 1, pp. 429–30. Gregory IX, ‘Vox in Rama’ (11–14 June 1233), Rodenberg 1, pp. 432–5. Gregory IX, ‘Dignum est et’ (20 Oct. 1233), Rodenberg 1, pp. 450–1. Ibid., p. 451. Aubrey of Trois Fontaines, ‘Chronica Albrici monachi Trium Fontium’, pp. 931–2. Hamilton, The Medieval Inquisition, p. 76. Ibid., p. 76. Gregory IX, ‘Dolemus et vehementi’ (21 Oct. 1233), Rodenberg 1, pp. 451–2. See Maier, Preaching the Crusades, p. 57. Gregory IX, ‘Querit assidue perfidia’ (31 Oct. 1233), Rodenberg 1, pp. 455–6. A letter of Innocent III to King Philip Augustus of France issued before the death of Peter of Castelnau promised the same indulgence for those who took up arms against heretics as granted to crusaders going to the Holy Land, see above pp. 47, 64–5, 70. See Innocent III, ‘Inveterata pravitatis haereticae’ (17 Nov. 1207), Die Register Innocenz III, 10, pp. 254–7. Gregory IX, ‘Tam sinceritatis affectum’ (11 Feb. 1234), Rodenberg 1, pp. 466–7; ‘Tam sinceritatis affectum’ (11 Feb. 1234), Rodenberg 1, p. 467. ‘Annales Erphordenses’, p. 84. Maier, Preaching the Crusades, p. 57. ‘Gesta episcoporum Traiectensium’, pp. 417, 421, 422–3. See Maier, Preaching the Crusades, p. 167. ‘Gesta episcoporum Traiectensium’, pp. 415–16. Willbrand wrote a famous Itinerarum about his experiences in the East; see ‘Wilbrandi de Oldenborg Peregrinatio’, in Peregrinatores Medii Aevi Quattor, 2nd edn, ed. J. M. C. Laurent (Leipzig, 1873), pp. 159–90. Maier, Preaching the Crusades, p. 168. ‘Gesta episcoporum Traiectensium’, p. 416. See Maier, Preaching the Crusades, p. 168; Dieter Rüdebusch, Der Anteil Niedersachsens und den Kreuzzügen und Heidenfahrten, Quellen und Darstellungen zur Geschichte Niedersachsens 80 (Hildesheim, 1972), p. 45. ‘Gesta episcoporum Traiectensium’, p. 416. For his letters to Bosnia, see Honorius III, ‘Inter alias sollicitudinis’ (3 Dec. 1221), Horoy 4, cols 36–7; ‘Si zelus vos’ (5 Dec. 1221), Horoy 4, cols 40–1; ‘Super gregem dominicum’

G R E G O RY I X

99 100 101 102 103 104 105

106 107

108 109 110 111 112

113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128

163

(12 March 1222), Horoy 4, cols 110–11; ‘Per G. Spalatensem’ (27 July 1223), Horoy 4, cols 401–2. Honorius III, ‘Gratum gerimus et’ (15 May 1225), Horoy 4, cols 851–2; ‘Significavit nobis venerabilis’ (15 Jan. 1227), Horoy 5, col. 175. Gregory IX, ‘Graves et enormes’ (5 June 1232), Tautu, pp. 233–4. Gregory IX, ‘Humanae conditionis miseriam’ (30 May 1233), Tautu, pp. 268–9. Gregory IX, ‘Quos prosequitur Domini’ (10 Oct. 1233), Tautu, p. 271. Gregory IX, ‘Dilectus filius nobilis’ (10 Oct. 1233), Tautu, p. 273. Gregory IX, ‘Dilecto filio nobili’ (10 Oct. 1233), Tautu, p. 272. For further details, see John Fine, The Bosnian Church: A New Interpretation. A Study of the Bosnian Church and its Place in State and Society from the 13th to the 15th Centuries, East European Monographs 10 (Boulder and New York, 1975), p. 139. Gregory IX, ‘Miserias et erumpnas’ (13 Feb. 1234), Rodenberg, pp. 467–9. Gregory IX, ‘Si tue serenitatis’ (14 Oct. 1234), Theiner 1, pp. 128–9. It is generally assumed that by ‘Slavonia’ the Pope meant Bosnia and the surrounding area. But ‘Slavonia’ could also have referred to Slavdom in general or even in particular to Slavonia, north of the Sava. See Fine, The Bosnian Church: A New Interpretation, p. 139. Gregory IX, ‘Ut pro regis’ (16 Oct. 1234), Theiner 1, p. 129. Gregory IX, ‘Quod maius in’ (17 Oct. 1234), Tautu, p. 283. Gregory IX, ‘Sacrosancta Romana Ecclesia’ (17 Oct. 1234), Theiner 1, pp. 129–30. Gregory IX, ‘Cum dilectos filios’ (17 Oct. 1234), Theiner 1, pp. 129–30. Gregory IX, ‘Pro fidei meritis’ (17 Oct. 1234), Theiner 1, p. 130; ‘Cum illustrissimum in’ (17 Oct. 1234), Theiner 1, p. 130; see also under the incipit ‘Cum karissimum in’, Auvray 1, p. 1143. Gregory IX, ‘Exultamus in Domino’ (17 Oct. 1234), Theiner 1, p. 130. Maier, Preaching the Crusades, p. 58. Gregory IX, ‘Licet apostolicae sedis’ (9 Aug. 1235), Theiner 1, p. 133. Berend, At the Gates of Christendom, p. 120. Gregory IX, ‘Deputatus Iesu Christi’ (20 Sept. 1235), Theiner 1, p. 137. Gregory IX, ‘Quos in medio’ (8 Aug. 1236), Theiner 1, p. 147. Gregory IX, ‘Cum dilectum filium’ (8 Aug. 1236), Theiner 1, p. 147. Gregory IX, ‘Quos in medio’ (8 Aug. 1236), Theiner 1, p. 147; ‘Cum dilectam in’ (8 Aug. 1236), Theiner 1, p. 147. Franjo Sanjek, Les Chrétiens bosniques et le mouvement cathaire, XIIe–XIVe siècles (Brussels and Paris, 1976), p. 72. Gregory IX, ‘Inspirationis divine gratia’ (26 April 1238), Theiner 1, pp. 162–3. Gregory IX, ‘Ecclesiarum regimini presidentes’ (22/23 Dec. 1238), Theiner 1, p. 168; ‘Ecclesiarum regimini presidentes’ (22 Dec. 1238), Auvray 2, col. 1198. Gregory IX, ‘De superni regis’ (22 Dec. 1238), Theiner 1, p. 168. Gregory IX, ‘Gerentes in desideriis’ (22 Dec. 1238), Theiner 1, p. 169. Gregory IX, ‘Apud dilectos filios’ (22 Dec. 1238), Theiner 1, p. 169. Gregory IX, ‘Indignum se gratia’ (22 Dec. 1238), Theiner 1, p. 169; see in Potthast 1 as ‘Dux Bosniae indignum’, no. 10691. Gregory IX, ‘Sedi apostolice presidentis’ (23 Dec. 1238), Theiner 1, pp. 169–70.

164

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

129 Gregory IX, ‘Cum sicut ex’ (6/7 Dec. 1239), Theiner 1, p. 170; ‘Iustis petentium desideriis’ (7 Dec. 1239), Theiner 1, p. 172. 130 Gregory IX, ‘Indignum se gratia’ (27 Dec. 1239), Theiner 1, p. 173; ‘Cum sicut ex’ (6/7 Dec. 1239), Theiner 1, pp. 172–3. 131 Michael Angold, ‘Byzantium in Exile’, The New Cambridge Medieval History, Vol. 5 (Cambridge, 1999), p. 548. 132 Maier, Preaching the Crusades, p. 37. 133 Ibid., Michael Lower, The Barons’ Crusade: A Call to Arms and Its Consequences (Philadelphia, 2005), p. 60. 134 Maier, Preaching the Crusades, pp. 37–8. 135 See above p. 130 for details. 136 Gregory IX, ‘Fidem et devotionem’ (20 Nov. 1235), Theiner 1, p. 139. 137 Gregory IX, ‘Ad obedientiam et’ (20 Nov. 1235), Theiner 1, p. 140. 138 Gregory IX, ‘Supremus opifex qui’ (27 Jan. 1238), Theiner 1, pp. 159–60. 139 Gregory IX, ‘Devotionis tue litteras’ (27 Jan. 1238), Theiner 1, p. 161. 140 Gregory IX, ‘Sacratissimam Petri sedem’ (27 Jan. 1238), Theiner 1, p. 161; ‘Sacratissimam Petri sedem’ (27 Jan. 1238), Auvray 2, cols 876–7; ‘Sacratissimam Petri sedem’ (27 Jan. 1238), Auvray 2, p. 877. 141 Theiner 1, pp. 170–1. 142 Gregory IX, ‘Et sibi karissimus’ (8 Aug. 1238), Theiner 1, pp. 164–5. 143 Gregory IX, ‘In celorum rege’ (8 Aug. 1238), Theiner 1, p. 164; ‘Cum sicut nobis’ (9 Aug. 1238), Theiner 1, p. 166. 144 Gregory IX, ‘Cum de superni’ (9 Aug. 1238), Theiner 1, pp. 166–7; Theiner 1, p. 164. 145 Gregory IX, ‘Litteras quas nobis’ (9 Aug. 1238), Tautu, pp. 325–6; ‘Cum carissimus in’ (9 Aug. 1238), Tautu, p. 326. 146 Gregory IX, ‘Sicut littere karissimi’ (9 Aug. 1238), Theiner 1, p. 167. 147 Gregory IX, ‘Sicut littere karissimi’ (11 Aug. 1238), Theiner 1, p. 167. 148 Maier, Preaching the Crusades, p. 38. 149 Ibid., p. 76. 150 Gregory IX, ‘Egrediens hereticorum ab’ (22 Dec. 1227), Bullarium 1, p. 25. 151 Gregory IX, ‘Cum de summo’ (2 Sept. 1231), Italia sacra, ed. F. Ughelli and N. Coleti, Vol. 5 (Venice 1720), pp. 445–6. See Otto Volk, Die abendländisch-hierarchische Kreuzzugsideee (Halle, 1911), p. 116. 152 David Abulafia, ‘The Kingdom of Sicily under the Hohenstaufen and Angevins’, in The New Cambridge Medieval History, Vol. 5. c.1198–1245, ed. D. Abulafia (Cambridge, 1999), p. 504. 153 Gregory IX, ‘Utinam inspiceres nec’ (1 Sept. 1231), Acta imperii inedita, 1, ed. E. A. Winckelmann (Innsbruck, 1880), p. 499; ‘Tentare volumus varias’ (1 Sept. 1231), Potthast 1, no. 8792. 154 Gregory IX, ‘Est angelicus ad’ (18 May 1235), Bullarium 7, p. 11. See Volk, Die AbendländischHierarchische Kreuzzugsidee, p. 116. For the complex political and regional issues behind Ezzelino da Romano’s antagonism towards Gregory IX and the specific case of Parma see Luigi Canetti, Invenzione della Memoria. Il culto e l’immagine di Domenico nella storia dei primi fratri Predicatori (Spoleto, 1996), pp. 69–82.

G R E G O RY I X

155 156 157 158 159 160 161

162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170

171 172 173 174

175 176 177 178 179 180 181

165

Gregory IX, ‘Quos pietate sua’ (18 May 1235), Bullarium 7, p. 11. Gregory IX, ‘Experimentis multiplicibus informati’ (18 May 1235), Bullarium 7, p. 10. Gregory IX, ‘Sacrosancta Romana Ecclesia’ (18 May 1235), Bullarium 7, p. 10. Gregory IX, ‘Devotionis vestrae precibus’ (18 May 1235), Bullarium 7, p. 10. Gregory IX, ‘Quae omnium conditoris’ (24 May 1235), Bullarium 7, pp. 11–13. Trevor Dean, ‘The Rise of the Signori’, in The New Cambridge Medieval History, Vol. 5c.1198–1245, ed. D. Abulafia (Cambridge, 1999), p. 460. For a more detailed discussion of these arguments, see Elizabeth Kennan, ‘Innocent III, Gregory IX and Political Crusades: A Study in the Disintegration of Papal Power’, in G. F. Lytle, ed., Reform and Authority in the Medieval and Reformation Church (Washington, DC, 1981), p. 15. Kennan, ‘Innocent III, Gregory IX and Political Crusades’, pp. 34–5. Gregory IX, ‘Ardenti desiderio aspirantes’, cols 141–3; Honorius III, ‘Venientes ad apostolicam’ (31 Jan. 1224), Horoy 4, col. 527; Gregory IX, ‘Licet alia vice’, cols 143–4. Mansi 23, cols 21, 24–5. Mansi 23, cols 19–26. Gregory IX, ‘Licet alia vice’, cols 143–4. Mansi 23, cols 191–204, passim. Mansi 23, cols 194, 24–5. Mansi 23, cols 195–6. For the career of Robert le Bougre, see Charles Haskins, ‘Robert le Bougre and the Beginnings of the Inquisition in Northern France’, in C. H. Haskins, Studies in Medieval Culture (Oxford, 1929), pp. 93–244. For Conrad of Marburg, see Patchovsky, ‘Zur Ketzerverfolgung Konrads von Marburg’, 641–93. See also Hamilton, The Medieval Inquisition, pp. 72–81. Gregory IX, ‘Immensas gratiarum actiones’, p. 87; ‘Gaudemus in Domino’, pp. 87–8. Gregory IX, ‘Cum venerabile fratre’, p. 87; ‘Cumana ecclesia pastoris’, col. 107. Maier, Preaching the Crusades, p. 52; Rolf Köhn, ‘Die Verketzerung der Stedinger durch die Bremer Fastensynode’, Bremisches Jahrbuch 57 (1979), 32. Wilhelm von Bippen, Geschichte der Stadt Bremen, 1 (Bremen, 1891), p. 136; Hermann Schumacher, Die Stedinger. Beitrag zur Geschichte der Weser-Marschen (Bremen, 1865), p. 89, note 22. Gregory IX, ‘Lucis eterne lumine’, pp. 393–4. See Bremisches Urkundenbuck, 1, ed. D. R. Ehmck (Bremen, 1863), pp. 196–7. Gregory IX, ‘Littere vestre nobis’, pp. 436–7. Gregory IX, ‘Lucis eterne lumine’, pp. 393–4. Gregory IX, ‘Ex parte universitatis’, no. 9992. For the papacy’s attempt to regulate crusading, see Kennan, ‘Innocent III, Gregory IX and Political Crusades’, pp. 34–5. Gregory IX, ‘Si ea que’, pp. 196–7. See Maier, Preaching the Crusades, p. 53. Gregory IX, ‘Grandis et gravis’, p. 215. For a comprehensive account of the German mission of William of Modena see Gustav Donnar, Kardinal Wilhelm von Sabina, bischof von Modena 1222–1234, päpstlicher Legat in den nordischen Ländern (+1251) (Helsingfors, 1929).

166

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

182 Gregory IX, ‘Lucis eterne lumine’, pp. 393–4; ‘Clamante ad nos’, no. 9076. See Kennan, ‘Innocent III, Gregory IX and Political Crusades’, pp. 25–6. 183 Bernard Hamilton, The Medieval Inquisition (London, 1981), pp. 13, 36–9. For the use of inquisitorial records as a source for heresy see Catherina Bruschi and Peter Biller, ‘Texts and the Repression of Heresy: Introduction’, in Texts and the Repression of Medieval Heresy, ed. C. Bruschi and P. Biller, York Studies in Medieval Theology IV (Woodbridge, Suffolk, UK, 2003), pp. 3–22. 184 Gregory IX, ‘Cum de summo’, pp. 73–5. 185 Maier, Preaching the Crusades, p. 56. 186 Gregory IX, ‘Ille humani generis’, pp. 394–6; ‘O altitudo divitiarum’, pp. 429–32; ‘Vox in Rama’, pp. 432–5. 187 Gregory IX, ‘Dignum est et’, pp. 450–1. 188 Gregory IX, ‘Dolemus et vehementi’, pp. 451–2; ‘Querit assidue perfidia’, pp. 455–6. 189 ‘Gesta episcoporum Traiectensium’, pp. 412–26. 190 Maier, Preaching the Crusades, p. 52. 191 ‘Gesta episcoporum Traiectensium’, p. 417. See Kennan, ‘Innocent III, Gregory IX and Political Crusades’, p. 28. 192 Othmar Hageneder, ‘Die Häresie des Ungehorsam und das Entstehen des hierokratischen Papstums’, Römische Historische Mitteilungen 20 (1978), 42–4; Maier, Preaching the Crusades, p. 168. 193 Gregory IX, ‘Humanae conditionis miserae’, pp. 268–9; ‘Miserias et erumpnas’ pp. 467–9. 194 Gregory IX, ‘Quod maius in’, p. 283. For further details, see Maier, Preaching the Crusades, p. 58. 195 Fine, The Bosnian Church, p. 139. 196 Gregory IX, ‘Deputatus Iesu Christi’, p. 137. See Fine, The Bosnian Church, p. 139. 197 Gregory IX, ‘Ecclesiarum regimini presidentes’, p. 168. 198 Maier, Preaching the Crusades, p. 59. 199 Gregory IX, ‘Dilecto filio nobili’, p. 272. See Fine, The Bosnian Church, pp. 138–9. 200 Gregory IX, ‘Pro fidei meritis’, p. 130. 201 Gregory IX, ‘Cum sicut ex’, p. 170; ‘Indignum se gratia’, p. 173. 202 Gregory IX, ‘Cum sicut ex’, p. 170. 203 Maier, Preaching the Crusades, p. 38. 204 Gregory IX, ‘Sacratissimam Petri sedem’, cols 876–7; ‘Sicut littere karissimi’, p. 167. 205 Maier, Preaching the Crusades, p. 38. 206 Gregory IX, ‘Devotionis tue litteras’, p. 161. 207 Maier, Preaching the Crusades, p. 37. 208 See above p. 92. 209 Innocent II, ‘Omne datum optimum’ (1130), Papsturkunden für Templer und Johanniter, 2, ed. R. Hiestand (Göttingen, 1984), pp. 96–103. 210 Gregory IX, ‘Quos pietate sua’, p. 11; ‘Experimentis multiplicibus informati’, p. 10. 211 For example, Gregory IX, ‘Fidem et devotionem’, p. 139; ‘Devotionis tue litteras’, p. 161; ‘Sacrosancta Romana Ecclesia’, p. 10. 212 Gregory IX, ‘Lucis eterne lumine’, pp. 393–4; ‘Littere vestre nobis’, pp. 436–7. 213 Gregory IX, ‘Vox in Rama’, pp. 432–5. For biblical references, see Biblia sacra iuxta Vulgatam versionem, 2 vols, 2nd edn, ed. R. Weber (Stuttgart, 1975).

G R E G O RY I X

214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229

230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238

239 240 241 242 243

244

167

Biblia sacra iuxta Vulgatam versionem, ed. Weber. Ibid. Ibid. Gregory IX, ‘O altitudo divitiarum’, pp. 429–30. Biblia sacra iuxta Vulgatam versionem, ed. Weber. Ibid. Gregory IX, ‘Miserias et erumpnas’, pp. 468–9; Biblia sacra iuxta Vulgatam versionem, ed. Weber. Biblia sacra iuxta Vulgatam versionem, ed. Weber. Gregory IX, ‘Sollicitudinem tuam quam’, p. 277. Gregory IX, ‘Dilecto filio nobili’, p. 272. Gregory IX, ‘Cum dilectum filium’, p. 457; ‘Si tue serenitatis’, p. 129. Gregory IX, ‘Supremus opifex qui’, p. 160. Gregory IX, ‘Miserias et erumpnas’, p. 468. Gregory IX, ‘Littere vestre nobis’, p. 437. Gregory IX, ‘Vox in Rama’, pp. 432–5; ‘O altitudo divitiarum’, pp. 429–30. Gregory IX, ‘Querit assidue perfidia’, pp. 455–6; ‘Ille humani generis’, pp. 394–6. Cancer referred to a skin complaint rather than the illness; see Moore, ‘Heresy as Disease’, p. 3; Gregory IX, ‘Littere vestre nobis’, pp. 436–7; ‘Vox in Rama’, pp. 432–5; ‘Sedi apostolice presidentis’, pp. 169–70; ‘Sollicitudinem tuam quam’, p. 277. For example, Gregory IX, ‘Sedi apostolice presidentis’, p. 169; ‘Ecclesiarum regimini presidentes’, p. 168. Gregory IX, ‘Dilectus filius nobis’, p. 120. Gregory IX, ‘Ardenti desiderio aspirantes’, cols 141–2; ‘Exultamus in Domino’, p. 130. For example, Gregory IX, ‘De superni regis’, p. 168; ‘Sedi apostolice presidentis’, p. 170; ‘Inspirationis divine gratia’, p. 316; ‘Gerentes in desideriis’, p. 169. Gregory IX, ‘O altitudo divitiarum’, p. 429. Gregory IX, ‘Miserias et erumpnas’, p. 468; Biblia sacra iuxta Vulgatam versionem, ed. Weber. Gregory IX, ‘Exultamus in Domino’, p. 130; ‘Miserias et erumpnas’, p. 468; Biblia sacra iuxta Vulgatam versionem, ed. Weber. Innocent III, ‘Suggestor scelerum serpens’ (30 Oct. 1209), PL 216, cols 117–18. Gregory IX, ‘Cum dilectum filium’, no. 3273; ‘Quos in medio’, no. 3272; ‘Ille humani generis’, pp. 394–6; Biblia sacra iuxta Vulgatam versionem, ed. Weber. See Peter Biller, ‘Through a Glass Darkly: Seeing Medieval Heresy’, in The Medieval World, ed. P. Linehan and J. N. Nelson (London, 2001), p. 317. See above pp. 56, 84–5. See above pp. 54–62, passim. Elizabeth Siberry, Criticism of Crusading 1095–1274 (Oxford, 1985), pp. 158–68. Gregory IX, ‘Supremus opifex qui’, p. 160. For an example of a twelfth-century churchman writing about the Jews, see Peter the Venerable, Petri Venerabilis adversus Iudeorum inveteratam duritiem, ed. Y. Friedman (Turnhout, 1985), passim. For the interchangeable use of the terms ‘Manichee’, ‘Cathar’ and ‘heretic’ by medieval writers, see Nickerson, The Inquisition, p. 216.

168

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

245 Innocent III, ‘Si tua regalis’ (10 March 1208), Opera omnia, PL 215, cols 1358–9; Honorius III, ‘Cum haereticos deteriores’ (5 Sept. 1218), Horoy 3, cols 29–30; ‘Litteris tuis’ (1 Oct. 1219), Horoy 3, cols 299–301. 246 See above p. 86. 247 Honorius III, ‘Cum haereticos deteriores’, col. 29. 248 Michele Maccarrone, ‘Studi zu Innocenzo III. Orvieto e la Predicazione della Crociata’, Italia Sacra 17 (1943), 3–163. 249 Rebecca Rist, ‘Papal Policy and the Albigensian Crusades: Continuity or Change?’, Crusades 2 (2003), 99–108, passim. 250 Maier, Preaching the Crusades, pp. 34–43; Lower, The Barons’ Crusade, pp. 58–73. 251 Fine, The Bosnian Church, p. 136; Sanjek, Les Chrétiens bosniques et le mouvement cathaire, XIIe–XIVe siècles, p. 68; Raoul Manselli, ‘Les “Chrétiens” de Bosnie: le Catharisme en Europe orientale’, Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 72 (1977), 613–14. 252 Gregory IX, ‘Graves et enormes’, pp. 233–4. 253 Ibid. 254 Gregory IX, ‘Lucis eterne lumine’, p. 394. 255 Robert Bartlett, ‘The Conversion of a Pagan Society in the Middle Ages’, History 70 (1985), 185–201, passim; Richard Fletcher, The Barbarian Conversion: From Paganism to Christianity 371–86 a.d. (Berkeley, 1997), pp. 436–43, passim. 256 Gregory IX, ‘Littere vestre nobis’, p. 437. 257 Ibid., p. 436. 258 Köhn, ‘Die Verketzerung der Stedinger durch die Bremer Fastensynode’, 52–67. 259 Ibid., 40–2. 260 Gregory IX, ‘Vox in Rama’, pp. 432–5. See Norman Cohn, Europe’s Inner Demons: the Demonization of Christians in Medieval Christendom (London, 1975), pp. 48–9. 261 Peter of les Vaux-de-Cernay, Historia Albigensis, 1, ed. P. Guébin and E. Lyon (Paris, 1926), pp. 9–20. 262 Aubrey of Trois Fontaines, ‘Chronica Albrici monachi Trium Fontium’, p. 931. 263 Ibid. 264 Bartlett, ‘The Conversion of a Pagan Society in the Middle Ages’, pp. 185–201, passim; Fletcher, The Barbarian Conversion, pp. 436–3, passim. 265 For example, Gregory IX, ‘Sicut littere karisssimi’, p. 167; ‘Cum de superni’, pp. 166–7. 266 Maier, Preaching the Crusades, p. 37. 267 For example, Gregory IX, ‘Ardenti desiderio aspirantes’, cols 141–3; ‘Apud dilectos filios’, p. 169; ‘Sicut littere karissimi’, p. 167; ‘Litteras quas nobis’, pp. 165–6; ‘Immensas grationes actiones’, p. 87; ‘Gaudemus in Domino’, pp. 87–8. 268 For example, Gregory IX, ‘Miserias et erumpnas’, p. 469. 269 For example, Gregory IX, ‘O altitudo divitiarum’, p. 430. 270 For example, Gregory IX, ‘Indignum se gratia’, p. 173; ‘Indignum se gratia’, p. 169; ‘Dolemus et vehementi’, pp. 451–2. 271 For example, Gregory IX, ‘Sicut littere karissimi’, p. 167. 272 For example, Gregory IX, ‘Supremus opifex qui’, p. 875; ‘Gerentes in desideriis’, p. 169. 273 For example, Gregory IX, ‘Litteras quas nobis’, p. 166; ‘Sacrosancta Romana Ecclesia’, p. 129; ‘Vox in Rama’, p. 434; ‘O altitudo divitiarum’, p. 430.

G R E G O RY I X

169

274 Gregory IX, ‘Sacrosancta Romana Ecclesia’, p. 129. 275 Gregory IX, ‘In celorum rege’, p. 164; Biblia sacra iuxta Vulgatam versionem, ed. Weber. 276 For a description of Amalric de Montfort as an ‘athleta Christi’, see, for example, Honorius III, ‘Populus Israel a’ (11 Aug. 1218), Horoy 3, col. 10. 277 For example, Honorius III, ‘Ecclesiarum regimini presidentes’, p. 168. 278 ‘Emonis chronica’, pp. 516–17. 279 ‘Cronica minor minoritae Erphordensis’, p. 657. 280 For example, Gregory IX, ‘Ardenti desiderio aspirantes’, col. 143; ‘Littere vestre nobis’, p. 437; ‘Vox in Rama’, p. 432; ‘Exultamus in Domino’, p. 130; ‘Sicut littere karissimi’, p. 167. 281 For example, Gregory IX, ‘Cum dilectos filios’, p. 129. 282 For example, Gregory IX, ‘Lucis eterne lumine’, p. 394; ‘Licet alia vice’, col. 144; ‘Ad obedentiam et’, p. 140. 283 For example, Gregory IX, ‘Littere vestre nobis’, p. 436. 284 For example, Gregory IX, ‘Miserias et erumpnas’, pp. 468–9; ‘Littere vestre nobis’, pp. 436–7; ‘Vox in Rama’, pp. 432–5; ‘Exultamus in Domino’, p. 130; ‘Litteras tuas benigne’, no. 4993; ‘Cum illustrissimum in’, p. 130. 285 For example, Gregory IX, ‘Miserias et erumpnas’, p. 468. 286 For example, Gregory IX, ‘Littere vestre nobis’, p. 436; ‘Lucis eterne lumine’, p. 394. 287 For example, Gregory IX, ‘Ecclesiarum regimini presidentes’, p. 168; ‘O altitudo divitiarum’, p. 429; ‘Vox in Rama’, p. 433; ‘Littere vestre nobis’, p. 436. 288 For the use of conventional language and metaphors to describe heresy, see above pp. 54–6, 84–6. 289 For example, Gregory IX, ‘O altitudo divitiarum’, pp. 429–31; ‘Vox in Rama’, pp. 432–5. 290 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1: Nicaea I to Lateran V, ed. N. P. Tanner (London, 1990), pp. 202, 233–5. 291 Mansi 22, col. 950. 292 For example, Gregory IX, ‘Lucis eterne lumine’, pp. 393–4. 293 Gregory IX, ‘Cum sicut ex’, p. 170. 294 Benjamin Kedar, Crusade and Mission: European Approaches toward the Muslims (Princeton, NJ, 1984), pp. 60–1. 295 For example, Innocent III, ‘Suggestor scelerum serpens’, cols 116–17. 296 Gregory IX, ‘Licet alia vice’, cols 143–4. 297 Honorius III, ‘Populus Israel a’ (11 Aug. 1218), Horoy 3, col. 11; for ‘Ad liberandam’, Constitution 71 of Lateran IV, see Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 1, ed. Tanner, pp. 267–71. 298 Gregory IX, ‘Ardenti desiderio aspirantes’, col. 142. 299 Gregory IX, ‘Gaudemus in Domino’, pp. 87–8. 300 For the Seljukids, see Claude Cahen, Pre–Ottoman Turkey: A General Survey of the Material and Spiritual Culture and History c.1071–1330, trans. J. Jones-Williams (London, 1968), pp. 119–37. 301 For example, Gregory IX, ‘Ardenti desiderio aspirantes’, cols 141–3. 302 Gregory IX, ‘Lucis eterne lumine’, p. 394. 303 Gregory IX, ‘Littere vestre nobis’, p. 437.

170 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315

316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

‘Annales Stadenses’, p. 361. See Maier, Preaching the Crusades, p. 55. Maier, Preaching the Crusades, p. 55. Gregory IX, ‘Cum de summo’, pp. 74–5. Gregory IX, ‘Ille humani generis’, pp. 394–6. Gregory IX, ‘Ille humani generis’, p. 395. Gregory IX, ‘O altitudo divitiarum’, p. 430. Gregory IX, ‘Vox in Rama’, pp. 432–4. Gregory IX, ‘Querit assidue perfidia’, p. 456. ‘Gesta episcoporum Traiectensium’, p. 417. Ibid., p. 421; see also pp. 422–3, passim. Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 1, ed. Tanner, pp. 233–5, 263–4. The ‘Gesta episcoporum Traiectensium’ never referred to the Drenther as heretics. Although Spanish bishops issued crusade-type indulgences for fighting in the 1160s, see Peter Linehan, ‘The Synod of Segovia (1166)’, Bulletin of Medieval Canon Law 10 (1980), 35–6. Gregory IX, ‘Humanae conditionis miseriam’, pp. 268–9. Gregory IX, ‘Quod maius in’, p. 283. Ibid. Gregory IX, ‘Miserias et erumpnas’, p. 469. Gregory IX, ‘Exultamus in Domino’, p. 130. Gregory IX, ‘Sedi apostolice presidentis’, p. 170. Gregory IX, ‘Supremus opifex qui’, p. 160. Gregory IX, ‘Devotionis tue litteras’, p. 161; see also the letters ‘Sacratissimam Petri sedem’, p. 161; ‘Sacratissimam Petri sedem’, cols 876–7. Gregory IX, ‘Sacratissimam Petri sedem’, cols 876–7. Gregory IX, ‘Litteras quas nobis’, pp. 325–6; ‘Sicut littere karissimi’, p. 167. Gregory IX, ‘Et sibi karissimus’, pp. 164–5. Gregory IX, ‘Egrediens hereticorum ab’, p. 25. Gregory IX, ‘Cum de summo’, p. 446. Gregory IX, ‘Est angelis ad’, p. 11. Dean, ‘The Rise of the Signori’, p. 460. For example, Gregory IX, ‘Sicut littere karissimi’, p. 167. For example, Gregory IX, ‘Miserias et erumpnas’, pp. 468–9.

4

Popes and the First ‘Political Crusades’

Between 1198 and 1245, popes began to call for crusades in Europe against their most dangerous political opponents, those whom they believed threatened the security of the papal states in the centre of Italy.1 In 1198 Innocent III promulgated a crusade against Markward of Anweiler, a former seneschal of Henry VI who claimed sole regency of Sicily after the emperor’s death the previous year.2 Later, Popes Gregory IX and Innocent IV called for crusades against the emperor Frederick II of Hohenstuafen.3 Some historians have argued that the term ‘political crusade’ is a misnomer, because, since the papacy’s lands protected and therefore safeguarded that instution’s unique position in Christian Europe, from the papal viewpoint these crusades against Christian rulers were as closely related to the defence of the faith as those against heretics.4 Yet the crusades authorized against Markward of Anweiler and Frederick II may be appropriately termed ‘political’. Popes did not authorize these crusades primarily because they believed Markward and Frederick were heretics but because they regarded their military activites were a threat to the existence and security of the papal states and hence to the papacy itself. These activities of Markward of Anweiler and Frederick in Italy were recorded by a number of contemporary and also later medieval chroniclers and annalists. Unlike some of the crusades against heretics discussed in the previous chapter, in the case of the ‘political crusades’ there is plenteous chronicle evidence to support that of the papal letters. Unfortunately, however, two major contemporary chroniclers, the Englishmen Ralph of Diceto, whose Imagines historiarum (Images of Histories) ended in 1201) and Roger of Howden (d 1201/2), whose Chronica (Chronicle) covered the years 732–1201, did not record the beginnings of the political and territorial machinations of Markward of Anweiler.5 Nor did the thirteenth-century Cistercian Aubrey of Trois Fontaines, who wrote his Chronica from his monastery in Champagne, discuss Markward’s territorial ambitions.6 There were, however, two other contemporary accounts from Italy. The first was by Richard of San Germano (circa 1165–1244), a notary in the service of Frederick II, who began his Chronica in 1208. The second was by Salimbene of Adam, a Franciscan preacher and writer (1221– after 1287) – the son of Guido of Adam, a wealthy and influential figure in Parma and an experienced crusader – who began composing his Chronica in 1283/4.7 There was a long account of the

172

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

activities of Markward and the history of the Kingdom of Sicily in the anonymous biography entitled Gesta Papae Innocentii (The Deeds of Pope Innocent III).8 A number of chroniclers also recorded the long-running dispute between the papacy and Frederick II, among others the same Richard of San Germano, and a German, Burchard of Worms (circa 965–1025), deacon and treasurer of Mainz and later bishop of Worms, in which role he became an intimate of the emperors Otto III, Henry II and Conrad II.9 The English monk Roger of Wendover (date of birth unknown, died in 1236), from the abbey of St Albans, also narrated some of the more important events in his Flores historiarum (Flowers of Histories), begun circa 1231.10 Drawing on his work, Matthew Paris (1209–1259), another English Benedictine and a confrère from St Albans, gave an extensive but blatantly anti-papal account in his Chronica majora (Major Chronicle) (begun circa 1235) and in his Additiones (Additions) (begun circa 1250).11 Aubrey of Trois Fontaines, Roland of Padua (1200–1276) and later Andrew Dandolo (Doge of Venice 1343–1354) also referred to the papal–imperial dispute in their Chronica, and further details were recorded in the Breve chronicon de rebus Sicilis (Short History of Sicilian Affairs), composed by an anonymous Sicilian during Frederick II’s reign. This dispute between the emperor and Popes Gregory IX and Innocent IV was also discussed in various twelfth- and thirteenth-century annals from both Italy and Germany. From Italy we find accounts in the Annales Pisani (The Annals of Pisa) by Bernard of Moringen (c 1108–c 1188), the Annales Januae (The Annals of Genoa) and in the Annales Bolognesi (The Annals of Bologna), as well as in the Annales Placentini Gibellini (The Annals of a Ghibelline from Piacenza), and the Annales Placentini Guelfi (The Annals of a Guelf from Piacenza), composed by a notary Giovanni Codagnello. German annals included the Sancti Rudberti Salisburgensis Annales Breves (The Brief Annals of Saint Rudbert of Salzburg) and the Annales Scheftavienses maiores (The Greater Annals of the Monastery of Schäftlarn in the diocese of Freisung).12 Bartholomew of Neocastro (c 1250–1293) composed his Historia (History) around 1292 and recorded the conflict between Pope and emperor over Sicily after 1250.13 Two thirteenth-century works strongly favouring the papacy were the anonymous Vita Gregorii IX (Life of Gregory IX), an official biography of Gregory IX, possibly written by a certain John of Ferentino, and the Vita Innocentii IV (Life of Innocent IV) composed by the Franciscan Nicholas of Carbio, chaplain to Innocent and later bishop of Assisi.14 But it is above all from their correspondence that we gain an insight into the popes’ growing belief during the first half of the thirteenth century in the necessity of calling for ‘political crusades’ against their enemies. Innocent III’s letters about Markward of Anweiler revealed a zealous and enthusiastic Pope with supreme confidence in his own authority as a temporal as well as spiritual leader, prepared to take full responsibility for his guardianship of Henry VI’s son,

P O PE S A N D T H E F I R S T ‘ P O L I T I C A L C RU S A D E S’

173

the boy-king Frederick, willing to assume regency over the Kingdom of Sicily and even to grant the crusade indulgence against a primarily political rather than religious enemy.15 His letters show that Innocent regarded his dispute with Markward as extremely important for the future of papal authority in both spiritual and temporal matters, as well as demonstrating his continuing determination that no one and nothing should impede the Fourth Crusade to the East. Yet, after Markward’s death, popes increasingly regarded the emperor Frederick II himself as the real threat to papal authority. In contrast to Honorius III’s much more cautious and conciliatory letters, Gregory IX’s forthright and apocalyptic language about Frederick suggested not only that the political situation became much more critical during his pontificate but that his personality was much closer to that of his relative Innocent III.16 So, despite the similarity of the language the popes employed, again something of their individual characters can be gleaned from their letters. Certainly the colourful language of Innocent III’ and Gregory IX’s correspondence suggested more emotional personalities than Honorius III. Furthermore, their correspondence suggests that when calling for crusades against political enemies, popes sought to keep tight control and to assert personal authority. Innocent III’s letters referred to the despatch of legates to Sicily for the crusade which he authorized against Markward: to Gregory, cardinal deacon of Santa Maria in Portico,17 and Cinthius, cardinal priest of San Lorenzo in Lucina.18 He was extremely keen to keep Italian prelates and in particular the clergy of the Kingdom of Sicily and the people of Capua aware of his developing plans.19 And his general letters to the nobles of southern Italy and Sicily voiced continuing support for the young Frederick II, who was constantly identified in the standard diplomatic language of the papacy as ‘our dearest son in Christ’.20 He even attempted to control the allegiance of Muslims living in southern Italy. As regent for Frederick and overlord of Sicily he saw himself as the temporal guardian over all who lived in territories over which he was regent, including Muslims. And as Pope with ultimate spiritual jurisdiction over the ‘societas Christiana’ (‘Christian society’), he also regarded himself as the spiritual guardian of all Muslims (and also Jews) living within Christian Europe.21 When Honorius III succeeded Innocent on the papal throne he too employed legates in his diplomatic dealings with Frederick, now emperor, and with the emperor’s envoys.22 Like his predecessor, he kept a watchful eye on the activities of the Italian clergy, in particular with regard to church vacancies in the Kingdom of Sicily.23 Throughout his pontificate Honorius also maintained particular interest in the political activities of John of Brienne, titular king of Jerusalem,24 and in the various diplomatic struggles and machinations of the Lombard League in northern Italy.25 Yet it was the activities of the emperor Frederick which were of particular concern to him and his successor Gregory IX. The chroniclers Roger

174

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

of Wendover and Matthew Paris recorded that in 1229 Gregory even placed a special tax on the English clergy in order to fund his military campaigns against Frederick II.26 Gregory was determined to assert papal authority. He sought close control of the clergy,27 and in particular took an interest in the activities of the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, who in 1227 was encouraging a new crusade in the East,28 urging him to keep in constant contact through correspondence with the papal legates.29 As we shall see, Innocent IV also continued his predecessor’s taste for political wheeling and dealing, even sending legates to oversee the election of his preferred candidate, Henry Raspe, landgrave of Thuringia, to the German throne.30 Indeed, Henry Raspe himself wrote to the papal legate Gregory of Montelongo to declare his obedience and goodwill toward the papacy.31 And like all his predecessors who authorized crusades, Innocent wrote regularly to the clergy throughout Europe in an attempt to control the course of the ongoing crusade against Frederick.32 As these popes began to authorize crusades against political enemies, canon lawyers continued to explore various definitions of heresy and heretics.33 Their opposition to heresy and determination to expose the heretic was rooted in the decree ‘Ad abolendam’, issued at the Council of Verona of 1184, which had formulated a particular concept of heresy, namely that it was a falsely taught opinion concerning the theological nature of the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ.34 But in the thirteenth century there was an increasing desire among the clergy for clearer guidelines about the boundaries between orthodox Christianity and heresy. To address this desire, Constitution 1 of Lateran IV (1215), which began ‘we believe firmly and confess plainly’ (‘firmiter credimus et simpliciter confitemur’) was an extended profession of the Faith, influenced by the theological teachings of the Parisian schools and framed against a background of contemporary heterodoxy.35 Yet conceptions of heresy were continually changing and expanding, and papal decretals played an extremely important role in influencing the various modifications. Innocent’s decretal ‘Vergentis in senium’ of 1199, cited in Compilatio tertia, showed that the concept of heresy owed much to Roman law and the Roman idea of heresy as a public crime (‘crimen publicum’).36 Canon lawyers also began to explore the idea of heresy as a disavowal of papal jurisdiction and to add this to their definition: heresy was a refusal to accept the doctrines, commands and censures of the Church, a ‘contumacia’ (‘obstinacy’ or ‘defiance’) and a ‘pertinacia’ (‘perverseness’ or ‘stubbornness’). Influenced by these canonists, popes began to refer to those who in any way threatened the authority of the papacy, not least by invading the papal states or areas of papal influence, as heretics.

P O PE S A N D T H E F I R S T ‘ P O L I T I C A L C RU S A D E S’

175

CRUSADES AGAINST POLITICAL ENEMIES INNOCENT III AND THE CRUSADE AUTHORIZED AGAINST MARKWARD OF ANWEILER37 Markward of Anweiler’s determination to push his claims to the imperial regency aroused the opposition of the Council of Familiars, in whose hands the empress Constance, wife of Henry VI, had left the administration of the Kingdom of Sicily. At the time of Constance’s death the important members of this council were Archbishop Bartholomew of Palermo, Archbishop Caro of Monreale, Archbishop Matthew of Capua, Archbishop William of Reggio and Walter of Palear, bishop of Troia.38 Innocent III, guardian of, and regent for, the boy-king Frederick, was similarly horrified by Markward’s attempts to exploit the chaotic situation in southern Italy which had followed Henry’s death and reacted decisively. In March 1198 he wrote to the bishops of the March of Ancona, declaring that since Markward had dared to invade and overrun the patrimony of St Peter, they should announce that all who had sworn allegiance to him were absolved from their oaths by the authority of the apostolic see.39 In January 1199 he urged the people of Calabria and Apulia to remain loyal to the young Frederick, their anointed and consecrated king,40 and declared that anyone supporting Markward would be excommunicated and his lands placed under interdict.41 The same month he wrote to the Capuans that if the need arose for them to fight against Markward, whose military activities in the south of Italy, he claimed, were now even impeding crusaders from embarking on the Fourth Crusade, they would enjoy the same indulgence as the papacy traditionally granted for crusading against Muslims in the East.42 Meanwhile, at the end of 1198, Innocent had chosen Gregory, cardinal deacon of Santa Maria in Portico, as his legate to Sicily,43 and he had informed the Council of Familiars and the clergy of Sicily of his choice.44 He also urged the clergy of Sicily to welcome a legation of Octavian, cardinal-bishop of Ostia.45 In January 1199 Innocent again informed the Familiars of his decision to despatch Gregory to the island and ordered them to send as much money as they were able to pay for a crusading army to be deployed against Markward.46 Gregory delayed his departure and it was not until February 1199 that he actually received this authority from the Pope to take over the administration of Sicily.47 Innocent now described the military action which he proposed against Markward in his letters as a ‘negotium’/‘negocium’, just as he did crusading to the East.48 He showed great enthusiasm for his new plans. Yet, despite his abilities, his legate, Gregory, found co-operation with the Familiars extremely difficult, particularly since the chancellor of Sicily, Walter of Palear, resented his interference.49 Perhaps realising this, when Gregory finally left the island and returned to Rome, Innocent sent no further legate to succeed him, but allowed the Council of Familiars to

176

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

govern. This was despite the Pope’s obvious dissatisfaction with their rule,50 and increasing concern about the ambitions of Walter, who took ever more control over the administration of the kingdom.51 Yet although remaining suspicious of Markward’s territorial ambitions, Innocent seemed willing to leave open the possibility of negotiation with the former seneschal, just as in the south of France he remained willing to negotiate with Raymond VI of Toulouse. In May 1199 the newly elected German emperor, Philip of Swabia, informed Innocent of his recent election, requested that he refrain from preventing the military activities of Markward, with whom he was on friendly terms, and promised in return to travel to meet the Pope in Rome.52 Perhaps in response to this letter, in August Innocent made clear to the Sicilians the conditions under which Markward and his supporters might be absolved from the excommunication already proclaimed by the Familiars.53 In the same month Innocent wrote to Markward himself, ordering him to withdraw his claim to suzerainty over Sicily and cease military operations, but also agreeing to his demand for a personal audience and assuring him safe conduct to Rome.54 Nevertheless, by the end of 1199 Innocent’s attitude toward Markward had not softened.55 In September he put the Sicilian lands and possessions of Count Robert of Lecce under papal protection in order that he might join the proposed crusade against Markward.56 In the same month he informed the Sicilians that all peace negotiations had broken down, placed Markward under a sentence of anathema and again urged the Sicilians to take up arms on Frederick’s behalf.57 He even ordered the Familiars to ensure that enough gold was handed over to a papal money changer for the defence of the island.58 In October he appointed Count Roger of Chieti as Frederick’s deputy in Sicily.59 During October, however, Markward landed unopposed at Trapani, a harbour on the westernmost part of Sicily, and secured the alliance of the island’s Muslims.60 In response to this provocation, in November 1199 Innocent again granted all who crusaded against him the same plenary indulgence as for those fighting Muslims in the East and also promised to send troops.61 He declared his intention to send a second legate, Cinthius, cardinal of San Lorenzo in Lucina, accompanied by the archbishops of Naples and Taranto, with a large army to Sicily.62 He urged Muslims living in the centre of the island to maintain their loyalty to Frederick, assuring them that he would despatch an army commander for their relief,63 and again stating his intention to send Cinthius and the archbishops of Naples and Taranto to the island.64 These letters of late 1199 showed the Pope’s immense and continuing determination to encourage all Sicilians to resist Markward.65 And Innocent continued to send such letters about the defence of the Kingdom of Sicily throughout 1200 and 1201,66 urging both the Sicilians and also the Apulians to oppose Markward.67 In July 1200 a papal army defeated Markward at Monreale.68 But he himself

P O PE S A N D T H E F I R S T ‘ P O L I T I C A L C RU S A D E S’

177

escaped and by the end of the year his grip over the island had strengthened.69 In 1201, however, Markward faced military setbacks.70 Innocent now gave strict orders that no peace should be made with him, even if he were to be completely defeated.71 Yet he also urged Frederick to beware of the machinations of the chancellor of the kingdom, Bishop Walter of Troia, and instead to place his trust in Count Walter of Brienne,72 who had built up a papal army,73 and during 1201 led a series of campaigns against Markward’s supporters in southern Italy.74 Indeed, some crusaders who had originally taken vows for the Fourth Crusade fought under him in Apulia instead. Nevertheless, despite victories on the mainland, Markward remained in control of the island of Sicily itself, successfully besieging and capturing the capital Palermo in October 1201.75 Innocent for his part kept up the pressure in Italy. In one instance he instructed the podestà Gherardo, the consuls and the people of Pisa, to warn any of their fellow countrymen living in the Kingdom of Sicily against showing any kind of support for Markward.76 And he kept the clergy and people of Sicily informed of his alliance with Count Walter of Brienne, his ongoing campaign against Markward, and the simultaneous despatch of the cardinal legate Abbott Roffrid of Santo Marcellino and the papal marshal Jacob of Andria to the island.77 Innocent even urged a reluctant Walter of Brienne to embark for Sicily and begin a new campaign there against Markward. He assured him of the security of his newly won territory on the mainland, permitted him to decide for himself whether Marshal Jacob should accompany him to the island or remain behind to protect his mainland possessions, and offered to engage nobles on the mainland for a similar purpose, in particular Counts Robert of Chieti and Jacob of Tricarico.78 At the same time he informed Jacob of Andria of his orders to Walter to begin his campaign against Sicily and assigned to him a number of castles to safeguard Apulia should Walter decide to remain there.79 Innocent even promised to mortgage the income of the royal chamberlains of Apulia and the Terra di Lavoro to money changers, who in return would loan Walter the money he needed for the campaign.80 He ordered the two chamberlains to finance the campaign, but left them to decide exactly how to raise the money.81 Yet Innocent’s calls for Walter’s full-scale invasion of the island were never put to the test as, to his great relief and joy, Markward died suddenly that September.82 Nevertheless, these letters were highly significant for the future. Innocent had shown that he was more than willing to grant crusading privileges to assert papal authority over enemies in Christian Europe. As we have seen in previous chapters, this became apparent later in 1208 when he called for a crusade to counter heresy in the south of France, as also in 1215 when he threatened to authorize a crusade against English barons opposing his vassal King John.83 Innocent’s decision to authorize a crusade against Markward, on the grounds not of heresy but because

178

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

his military activities threatened the autonomy of the papal states and hindered the launch of a crusade to the Holy Land, marked a watershed for the papacy.

HONORIUS III AND DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH FREDERICK II84 In 1215 Innocent III helped facilitate the succession of Frederick, king of Sicily, to the imperial throne. Yet in 1239 one of his successors, Gregory IX, authorized a crusade against him. Between their two pontificates was that of Honorius III and it is important to determine this Pope’s relationship with Frederick in order to understand the extent to which the papacy’s relations with the emperor deteriorated. Despite encountering provocation from Frederick which his predecessor Innocent III might certainly have judged sufficient reason, Honorius never called for a crusade against the emperor during his 11-year pontificate. Yet letters of 1225, 1226 and 1227 showed increasing frustration with Frederick on a wide range of issues, not least his delay in setting out for the East. Although Frederick had taken the Cross at his coronation at Aachen on Easter Day 1215 – King John of England promised to crusade the same year – he had never fulfilled his promise.85 Then at his coronation in Rome on 22 November 1220 he had once more taken the Cross in the presence of Cardinal Ugolino, later Gregory IX, and made a vow to embark for the East in 1221. But again he had never fulfilled his obligation. Indeed, unable to muster a sufficient crusade force, in 1225 Frederick appealed to the curia for a delay, and a conference was held on 25 July at San Germano to ratify a treaty and arrange conditions for the crusade’s postponement.86 Honorius, however, had other even more significant grievances against the emperor than this failure to embark on crusade. The Pope summed these up in a letter of 1226 accusing Frederick of attempting to harm the Church which had always shown great kindness in protecting him. He reproached him on a number of counts: violent treatment of Sicilian bishops, treachery towards Count Thomas of Celano and other Italian nobles, ungrateful behaviour towards the titular king of Jerusalem, John of Brienne, and acts of aggression against the papal states.87 Honorius was alarmed by Frederick’s complete subjugation of Sicily between 1221 and 1223 and by his increasing high-handedness in Italy. He was also disturbed by Frederick’s marriage in 1225 to Isabella of Jerusalem, after which the emperor had claimed that his father-in-law John of Brienne no longer had any constitutional rights in the Latin Kingdom and had begun to appoint his own supporters to positions of influence in the East.88 In response to these growing concerns over Frederick’s military activities, in particular in Sicily, and his efforts to influence imperial elections there, Honorius and the Lombard League agreed on an alliance to protect themselves against any encroachment on their rights.89 Furthermore, his increasing worry about

P O PE S A N D T H E F I R S T ‘ P O L I T I C A L C RU S A D E S’

179

Frederick’s high-handedness not only in the Kingdom of Sicily but in northern and central Italy, and particularly in the papal states, is evident from his correspondence. In 1226 he complained that Tancred of Campiglia, an imperial vassal holding lands in Tuscany adjacent to papal territory, had seized his envoys travelling to and from Rome and he claimed that Tancred had forced them to make public certain of his private letters.90 Honorius ordered Frederick, who was returning to Sicily after an unsuccesful expedition against the Lombards, to act against this provocation which he believed to have had the emperor’s blessing.91 The Pope’s suspicions of complicity seemed to be confirmed when in the following month Frederick rewarded Tancred by declaring him heir to the castles of Faghina and Balni.92 In response, Honorius warned Frederick that he must take swift action against his vassal.93 Frederick’s strained relations with various northern Italian cities were yet another continual source of friction with the papacy. In 1226 he had summoned German and Italian princes and prelates to a diet at Cremona as part of a plan for a new crusade to extirpate heresy and restore imperial rights.94 Cremona was chosen partly because of its hostility to a group of cities under the leadership of Milan which were at odds with the emperor. In retaliation, and hoping to check Frederick’s march into Italy, representatives from Milan, Bologna, Brescia, Mantua, Padua, Vicenza and Treviso met in Mantua to re-establish the former Lombard League. After Frederick’s unsuccessful expedition to Lombardy in 1226, the League remained defiant, and following fruitless negotiations the emperor began his return journey to Sicily. Meanwhile Honorius’s letters suggest that, although tensions between himself and the emperor continued, the Pope had a certain amount of diplomatic success. In 1225 he informed Frederick that he had consecrated clergymen from the Kingdom of Sicily whom he deemed loyal to the papacy to fill the long-vacant bishoprics of Capua, Salerno, Brindisi, Cosenza and Aversa and called on the emperor to accept them and pay them due honour.95 Then in the autumn of 1226 he encouraged the Lombard League to dispatch envoys to Rome on the Feast of All Saints to arrange an agreement with Frederick.96 This was probably partly in response to a conciliatory letter from the emperor, who had agreed that the Pope should act as mediator between himself and the Lombards.97 For his part, Honorius ordered the bishops of Piacenza, Lodi and Parma to warn the Lombard League that it must carry out his mandate.98 In a further attempt to improve relations, Frederick declared that, although the Lombards were attempting to impede the imminent Diet of Cremona, he had decided to allow the Pope to arbitrate a concord between himself and the League. In a conciliatory gesture he even asked the Pope to persuade those who had taken vows to crusade to arrive at a time already specified in order to embark for the Holy Land.99 Honorius’s avoidance of direct conflict with the emperor bore fruit. In

180

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

November 1226 the Lombard League met in Bologna to establish procurators for peace and reconciliation with Frederick.100 In early January 1227 peace terms were formulated, and Honorius forwarded to Lombardy, as well as to the March of Ancona and Romagna, an agreement which had been drawn up between the Lombard League and the emperor.101 He also declared that Frederick had agreed to relax any bans and constitutions he had promulgated against the League. In return the cities of the League must grant the emperor four hundred soldiers over a period of two years to aid the Holy Land, end all vendettas against Frederick’s supporters, and remain in constant communication with the curia. Honorius despatched a copy of this letter to Frederick and called on both the emperor and the League to confirm the agreement.102 He also encouraged Frederick to make further overtures of peace to the rulers of Lombardy and the March of Ancona and Romagna,103 and assured these rulers that the 400 soldiers which they promised to send to the Holy Land would not embark unless the emperor also set sail.104 In February Frederick formally forgave the citizens and nobles of Lombardy and recalled all bans imposed in Italy, although he refused to cease military action against the marquis of Montferrat.105 In March, however, Honorius complained of the League’s procrastination in accepting the peace terms and urged haste in sending aid to the Holy Land, which suggests that he feared Frederick would use any delay as an excuse for yet another postponement of his expedition.106 Although the League eventually accepted the peace terms, Honorius died before receiving the final confirmation.107 The other major source of potential conflict between Pope and emperor concerned the titular king of Jerusalem, John of Brienne. Following his marriage to John’s daughter Isabella (otherwise known as Yolande), Frederick had insisted that John surrender his claims to Jerusalem.108 In contrast to this high-handedness, and as a mark of favour, in 1227 Honorius appointed John to the governorship of the whole patrimony of St Peter from Siena to Rome, except for the March of Ancona and the duchies of Spoleto, Reate and the Sabina.109 All those living in the patrimony were to show John humble obedience, and Frederick should receive him back into his favour. As a conciliatory gesture Honorius sent the abbot of San Martino in Viterbo as a mediator.110 Honorius was obviously concerned to maintain at least an appearance of concord between papacy and empire. In one letter of 1227 he declared to German, French, Italian and English bishops that he had placed the emperor and his son, as well as the empire and the Kingdom of Sicily, under his particular protection. They should promulgate sentences of excommunication and interdict against anyone opposing this decision.111 Honorius’s correspondence, therefore, shows that he was determined to explore every diplomatic avenue rather than risk enmity with the emperor. He had no desire to launch a military campaign, let alone a crusade, against Frederick II. Although his predecessor Innocent III had set a precedent by calling

P O PE S A N D T H E F I R S T ‘ P O L I T I C A L C RU S A D E S’

181

for a crusade against his enemy Markward of Anweiler, Honorius knew that it would be a far greater step for the papacy to call for a crusade against an emperor whose election it had supported. So, in contrast to his enthusiastic crusading policy in the south of France, Honorius was extremely circumspect in his dealings with such an important political figure as the emperor. Yet, despite his diplomatic efforts, the conflict between empire and papacy continued to grow.

GREGORY IX AND THE CAMPAIGN OF 1228 AGAINST FREDERICK II By promising a crusading indulgence for a campaign against Markward of Anweiler, Innocent III had paved the way for later popes to call for ‘political crusades’. Yet, despite his many complaints against Frederick, at the beginning of his pontificate Gregory IX was occupied with the launch of a new crusade to the Holy Land and refrained from calling for a crusade against the emperor. Letters of 1227 and 1228, however, reveal increasing tension. On his election in 1227 Gregory set about asserting his authority as Pope.112 Continuing his predecessor’s diplomatic activities, he ordered Frederick to set out to the Holy Land without delay and despatched both to him and to the Lombard League a copy of the League’s peace agreement which had been sent to Honorius.113 Yet although in May Frederick proceeded with plans for his new expedition to the East, plague at the port of Brindisi and delay in setting sail due to illness among his troops had meant that a number of crusaders had already left for the Holy Land without him, while others had returned home.114 Gregory received a letter from the patriarch of Jerusalem emphasizing the numbers who had abandoned the muster and in anger he transmitted this information in a general letter to the Christian faithful.115 The same year he despatched a further letter to various Italian bishops, reminding them that when Frederick had been elected as emperor he had promised to liberate the Holy Land.116 He now declared Frederick excommunicated, stating that the reason for such drastic action was the emperor’s failure to set out for the East in accordance with the time limit fixed at San Germano. In the same letter he blamed Frederick for failing to direct money to the Holy Land which had been raised from taxation and accused him of shirking his responsibility to take command of an army numbering a thousand men, whom the treaty had stipulated were to remain in the Holy Land for two years. Despite his anger, however, it seems that Gregory still wished to keep diplomatic avenues open. He emphasized that Frederick’s excommunication was not irrevocable and that the sentence could be overturned.117 Indeed, it seems that the real cause of the excommunication was not so much Frederick’s failure to set out for the East, but his persecution of certain Italian nobles who were feudatories of the Holy See. Gregory warned Frederick to make amends and

182

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

urged him to embrace once more the Church’s protection. Perhaps in response to these complaints, Frederick ordered his justiciars to cease oppressing the clergy of Scala and Salerno and declared that the immunities and privileges of these towns must be preserved.118 Yet his grievances against the Pope remained. In a letter to his subjects he contrasted the papacy’s disposition towards him before and after his taking the Cross, explained why he had been impeded from setting sail, and declared that Gregory had been unjust in his condemnation. He added that, although he was preparing to embark for the Holy Land towards the middle of the following May, he was willing to send envoys to meet the Pope at Ravenna.119 This stand-off between Pope and emperor continued. In March 1228, Gregory informed the clergy of Apulia that he had renewed Frederick’s excommunication, claiming that he had failed to comply with the Church mandates and that, despite his excommunication, he had ordered the celebration of mass.120 He pronounced that any places visited by Frederick were immediately to be placed under ecclesiastical interdict and told the clergy not only to promulgate the sentence of excommunication and interdict against him but to declare that Frederick would lose his rights as emperor if he remained intransigent. In April, Gregory warned the clergy of Sicily that they must grant money neither to the excommunicated emperor nor to his bailiffs.121 Even when Frederick finally departed for the East in June 1228, the Pope refused to recognize the campaign as a crusade.122 Although admitting that the emperor had set sail, he claimed he did not know his destination, absolved Frederick’s supporters, in particular the Sicilians, from their oath of fidelity and excommunicated them.123 He ordered that it be made known throughout Sicily that he believed Frederick had designs on southern Italy: Frederick claimed he had secretly entered the port of Brindisi, had issued letters with a view to usurping the patrimony of St Peter and had even decided to besiege Benevento. Gregory’s next step was to authorize a military campaign against Frederick. According to contemporary historians, this campaign of 1228 was fought in the south of Italy at the Pope’s instigation. Papal supporters wore the crossed keys of St Peter on their breasts, and the Pope levied a tithe for the campaign.124 This campaign, however, was not a crusade. Gregory’s letters calling for military action contained no traditional crusading language and once the campaign was under way he never referred to those who fought on behalf of the papacy as ‘crucesignati’ – which suggests that they did not wear crusader crosses.125 Furthermore, he never referred to a grant of the plenary indulgence for fighting, nor made any reference to the formal taking of vows. Yet the campaign was extremely significant because for the first time in the thirteenth century a Pope was actually authorizing a military campaign against a German emperor whose election the papacy had itself supported. Gregory

P O PE S A N D T H E F I R S T ‘ P O L I T I C A L C RU S A D E S’

183

informed the Lombard League that he had ordered both John of Brienne and Cardinal John of Colonna to confront Frederick on his return from the Holy Land, and he exhorted the Lombards to encourage their soldiers to persevere in the service of the Church and to supply them with ample stipends.126 In the autumn of 1228, Duke Reginald of Spoleto, Frederick’s regent in Italy, invaded the March of Ancona and the duchy of Spoleto in order to forestall the papal army. In response, Gregory complained not only of the duke’s invasion but also of his army’s occupation of fortified churches and of its mutilation of priests,127 demanding reparation within eight days on pain of excommunication.128 The Pope then turned to other means to carry on the campaign against Reginald of Spoleto, levying tithes in France, Sweden, Denmark and England. According to Matthew Paris, he called for the exaction of a tenth on all moveable property from the English clergy and laity – England was still technically at this time a feudal dependency of the Holy See. From this revenue he was able to levy and maintain two papal armies as well as mercenaries from France, England and Spain.129 The first, led by John of Brienne and John Colonna, had some success in opposing Reginald on the Italian mainland. The second, consisting mainly of troops from the papal states and commanded by the papal chaplain Pandulf, Counts Thomas and Roger of Celano and other Sicilian nobles, was less successful.130 Meanwhile, Frederick’s supporter Thomas of Acerra informed the emperor, who had returned to Sicily from the East, of events in Apulia.131 And Reginald promised special privileges to towns in Italy such as Osimo and Numana in return for their continued suppport of the emperor.132 In response, in September 1229 Gregory ordered the clergy to hasten to defend the Church against Frederick whom he now claimed was in alliance with Muslims in the East.133 According to one chronicler, he also used a widely circulating rumour of Frederick’s death there for propaganda purposes.134 Papal military successes in Italy enabled Gregory to extend his power over Sicily. He declared that Sicilians should recognise him as their immediate overlord, granted privileges to their towns, claimed the revenues of imperial taxes135 and ordered that imperial soldiers captured by his troops should be guarded but not harmed.136 A stream of letters of protection to cities in Italy which had abandoned their support for the emperor and returned to the allegiance to the papacy followed. This suggests that Gregory was now beginning to win back Italian favour.137 Yet support for the emperor rallied on his return from the Holy Land. German crusaders joined Sicilians in opposing the Pope and by 1229 Frederick had regained Sicily. John of Brienne’s army fled and by October there were no papal troops left in the kingdom.138 Frederick then approached Gregory with offers of peace through his imperial envoys Hermann of Salza and Thomas of Capua, cardinal priest of St Sabina. Negotiations began at San Germano and on 30 June 1230 a treaty was concluded at Ceprano.139

184

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

So, although Gregory had the precedent of Innocent III’s grant of the plenary indulgence for campaigning against Markward of Anweiler and he himself had renewed the plenary crusading indulgence for fighting heretics in the south of France, he did not choose in 1228 to authorize a crusade against Frederick II. This was reminiscent of the caution of Alexander III (1159–1181), who had remained unwilling to grant an indulgence for fighting against the emperor Frederick I – despite the fact that, according to the Council of Pisa (1135), his predecessor Innocent II had already set a precedent by granting an indulgence for crusading against the antipope Anacletus II.140 In his present dilemma, Gregory’s authorization of a military campaign, rather than a crusade, on behalf of the papacy, suggested a return to an earlier idea of holy war in the service of the Church which popes, particularly Leo IX and Gregory VII, had fostered in the eleventh century during the Investiture Conflict. In 1228 Gregory still believed that to authorize a crusade against an anointed and consecrated emperor would be too massive a step for the papacy to take, not least because his predecessor Innocent III had himself supported the young Frederick against the territorial ambitions of Markward of Anweiler with such vigour.

GREGORY IX, FREDERICK II AND THE CRUSADE OF 1239 In 1239, however, Gregory IX finally decided to authorize a crusade againt Frederick. A number of important changes in the political situation between Pope and emperor brought on this momentous decision. Between 1229 and 1239 the emperor had conducted military campaigns against the Lombards, though avoiding direct confrontation with the papacy and trying to maintain an appearance of friendship and co-operation.141 Yet tensions became apparent again in 1238 when Frederick tried to arrange a marriage between his son Enzio and Adelasia, countess of Turritana, recently widowed and heiress of several provinces in the kingdom of Sardinia. That was controversial, since her former marriage to Ubaldo Visconti, who had been reconciled to the Pope, had ensured her fealty to Gregory as overlord of the island.142 The Pope opposed the new marriage, fearing that Frederick’s influence in Sardinia would lead to its absorption into the empire.143 Instead he encouraged Adelasia to marry a man who would remain faithful to the apostolic see.144 His correspondence with her, however, failed to secure the desired effect and she married Enzio. Gregory was increasingly unhappy, however, not only about the political situation in Sardinia but also about Frederick’s victory in November 1237 over Milan and the Lombard League at Cortenuova. Indeed, despite the fact that soon after this victory Frederick began to lose military ground in Lombardy, the Pope remained concerned that the autonomy of the papal states themselves might be threatened. He had managed to secure reconciliation between the feuding cities

P O PE S A N D T H E F I R S T ‘ P O L I T I C A L C RU S A D E S’

185

of Genoa and Venice and concluded an alliance between them in September 1239.145 Both swore to act jointly against all those who disobeyed the spiritual authority of the pop. 146 – who seems to have hoped that the two would act in an offensive alliance against the Kingdom of Sicily. At the same time, the Pope and his allies tried to blacken Frederick’s character throughout Europe.147 In response, in a string of letters, Frederick cited his grievances against the papacy.148 He urged the cardinals in Rome to withdraw Gregory’s proposal for a sentence of excommunication against him, and refused point blank to make any concessions.149 He even claimed that the Pope, as successor of St Peter, was in all questions of Church policy and jurisdiction only the president and the executive officer of the cardinals who were his equals – but to no effect.150 Gregory in turn continued to complain of the emperor’s activities against him. In a long and highly emotional letter to the archbishop of Canterbury and the English clergy, he denounced Frederick,151 and on Palm Sunday 1239 renewed the excommunication of 1227, declaring that all who had sworn loyalty to the emperor were to be absolved from their oaths.152 He instructed the French clergy that the emperor’s excommunication be widely publicized and that all those crusaders to the Holy Land and others who were willing to support Frederick should be excommunicated.153 According to the admittedly partisan chronicler Matthew Paris, he also wrote to German prelates urging them to rise against Frederick and the ‘rebels against God and the Church’, absolving them from their oath of loyalty.154 He addressed a general letter to the archbishops and bishops of Christendom, to Louis IX of France and other European kings concerning the papal–imperial dispute.155 Not long after, he even informed Louis that he had deposed the emperor and chosen Count Robert of Artois, Louis’s brother, in his place.156 In letters to his legate Albert of Beham, archbishop of Passau, and to Philip of Assisi, papal nuncio in Germany, he emphasized Frederick’s recent excommunication and told them to dissolve all oaths of fidelity to the emperor and put all German territories which he visited under interdict.157 Then, in the spring of 1240, a group of German princes sent Conrad of Thuringia, the new master of the Teutonic Order, to the Pope with letters pleading for an end to such hostilities.158 Yet, although his henchmen Reginald of Ostia and John Colonna favoured a peace settlement, it seems that Gregory did not. Rather, he ordered towns to furnish troops to protect the Campagna and wrote to Raymond VII of Toulouse, Frederick’s ally, of his continuing opposition.159 Yet Gregory’s constant appeals to the German magnates to choose a new emperor and to the French monarchy to seize the imperial crown seem to have had little effect.160 Frederick continued his military activities against the Lombard communes, particularly Milan, and encouraged Enzio’s campaigns to regain control of the March of Ancona.161 He even ordered his justiciars in Sicily to impose subsidies on the clergy of the kingdom.162 Meanwhile Gregory of Montelongo,

186

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

Gregory’s chaplain and legate,163 had organized a fleet at Genoa, paid the Genoese to arm soldiers to fight for the Pope and arranged a pact between Genoa and the papacy.164 So the Pope remained committed to military action, despite his weakening position.165 Although Frederick eventually decided to sue for peace, he stated his unwillingness to conclude any truce which included the Lombards and complained at the military activity of John Colonna who had besieged and captured Ferrara.166 Gregory remained intransigent. Following his own agenda, he promptly summoned all European Christendom to a general council to be held in Rome at Easter 1241 at the Lateran.167 Early in 1241 he granted absolution to those from the March of Ancona who, having been excommunicated, wished to return to the favour of the Church, and also to the excommunicated patriarch of Aquileia.168 He permitted Jacob, bishop of Gubbio, to defend the Church’s fortifications and his own possessions against the emperor.169 Certainly by February 1241 Gregory regarded his campaign against Frederick as a crusade. Indeed according to the Vita Gregorii IX, as early as 1239 he had called on his followers to take up the Cross to fight against the emperor in defence of Sts Peter and Paul, whose relics he displayed to the people of Rome.170 Complaints followed from papal legates in Hungary that their attempts to gain recruits were hampered, since many Hungarians had taken a vow to go on crusade to the Holy Land. In response, in February 1241 Gregory took the significant step of granting his subdeacon, John of Civitella, the power to commute the vows of Hungarians signed with the Cross to aid the Holy Land to crusading instead against Frederick.171 So those who crusaded against Frederick were to be granted the same indulgences as defenders of the Holy Land. Gregory even suggested that crusade vows might be redeemed for appropriate sums of money, and authorized such redemptions in order to raise funds for the defence of the papal states. Indeed, despite the precarious political situation, Gregory continued to press ahead with his plans for a general council,172 and to encourage hostile activities against the emperor,173 while his legate Gregory of Montelongo likewise continued to urge the Lombard cities to combine forces to undermine his authority.174 But on 3 May 1241 Frederick succeeded in arresting papal supporters travelling to the general council, including Cardinal Otto of Sancti Nicolai in Carcere Tulliano and James of Palestrina. He seems to have mistreated the cardinals, flagrantly disregarding a decree of Honorius III which had declared any abuse of cardinals a crime against the majesty of the Pope himself.175 For his part, Gregory urged Italian towns to remain resistant to the emperor.176 In June he wrote a letter of consolation to the captured prelates – although he castigated Gregory of Montelongo for not having prepared a sufficient number of galleys, in accordance with his instructions, to accompany them and to ensure they were safe on their journey.177 Yet he also informed Bernhard III, duke of Corinthia,

P O PE S A N D T H E F I R S T ‘ P O L I T I C A L C RU S A D E S’

187

and King Bela IV of Hungary that he was still willing to receive Frederick back into favour if he should return to the Church humbly and peacefully.178 In July he sent another consoling letter to the captive prelates and in August urged the Genoese in particular to rise up and fight on behalf of the Church.179 By now, however, a victorious Frederick was advancing on Rome, and Gregory’s position was desperate.180 The College of Cardinals had split into two factions, John Colonna had deserted to Frederick, and Rome was besieged.181 Gregory died the same year without ever calling an end to the crusade.182

INNOCENT IV: THE CRUSADE AGAINST FREDERICK II CONTINUES Following Gregory IX’s death, Senator Matteo Rosso of the Orsini confined the cardinals in Rome to prevent them fleeing the political turmoil and to force them to elect a new Pope.183 They finally appointed the Milanese Geoffrey Castiglione as Celestine IV.184 Celestine IV was elderly, like his namesake Celestine III (1191–1198), and died within a year of taking office.185 After a vacancy of almost two years, on 25 June 1243, Sinibaldo Fieschi, cardinal priest of the church of San Lorenzo in Lucina, a Genoese with close family connections with Parma, where he had studied law, was unanimously elected as Pope Innocent IV.186 An able canon lawyer, elected at the young age of 36, he doubtless hoped to repeat the dynamic and highly productive pontificate of Innocent III. Yet despite Frederick’s early joy at his election and his declaration that Innocent’s new name was a sign that innocence would be protected during his time in office, the ensuing 11-year pontificate was overshadowed by conflicts with the emperor.187 Nevertheless, Innocent IV still found time to compile the canon law collection known as the Apparatus super quinque libris decretalium and took pains to patronize the humanities: he founded the University of Piacenza, granting it and the University of Toulouse all the privileges already enjoyed by the University of Paris.188 So in ‘Sumus orbis opifex’, a general letter of July 1243, Innocent confirmed his election and commended himself to the prayers of faithful Christians.189 Although he could have begun his pontificate by signalling a change of direction, he was determined to continue his predecessor’s policies. His vigorous letters revealed his immediate insistence on championing everywhere the rights of the Church and in particular on ensuring aid for the Latin Empire,190 as well as continuing missionary activity in Prussia and Hungary.191 At the same time, however, he was keen to resume negotiations with the emperor, urging his envoys at Frederick’s court to insist that he should maintain peace and make war on heresy rather than on the papacy.192 As a gesture of goodwill he ordered the rector of the March of Ancona to grant absolution to certain of Frederick’s supporters.193

188

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

Yet relations between Pope and emperor did not improve and Innocent seemed therefore determined to continue the crusade. Cardinal Rainer of Santa Maria in Cosmedin persuaded the pro-papal party of Viterbo, which had voluntarily submitted to Frederick, to attack the imperial faction in the city. Innocent told Rainer that although unwilling to become embroiled in this political situation, his concern had prompted him to send an even greater sum of money to aid the papal faction than he had originally intended.194 Rainer’s campaign was successful; Viterbo held out against Frederick and Innocent rejoiced in its rejection of imperial control.195 Yet although Frederick’s resentment at the loss of Viterbo was great, in 1244 he agreed to a peace settlement promoted by Louis IX of France, who himself had taken the Cross and hoped to lead a combined German and Italian, as well as French, crusading army to the East.196 For his part, in December 1243 Innocent had already made overtures, authorizing the archbishop of Bari to lift the sentence of excommmunication which had been placed on Raymond VII of Toulouse, Frederick’s ally.197 In return, Frederick must return all lands held by the Church and supporters of the papacy at the time of his excommunication.198 The Lombard League, however, was dissatisfied with the agreement, declaring that the Pope alone could resolve its conflict with the emperor, and Innocent then demanded the restoration of the Church’s lands as surety.199 For his part, Frederick refused to comply, but offered the immediate restoration of a part of the Church’s lands if Innocent would meet him in the Campagna. Innocent agreed to meet at Narni, but fled to Cività Castellana, Sutri, Civitavecchia and finally Genoa, where he summoned a general council – this time to meet on 24 June 1245.200 Innocent claimed that he was calling for this general council in order to assemble an army to aid the Holy Land and the Latin Empire and to prevent the incursions of Mongols and other non-believers. But he also declared that he wished to resolve the crisis between papacy and empire,201 and ordered all the higher ranks of the European clergy to attend.202 In answer to Frederick’s allegations that there was a papal conspiracy against him, he rejected all complaints that the Church had become arrogant and degenerate.203 When Frederick attempted to enlist the support of the patriarch of Antioch in peace negotiations, Innocent informed the patriarch that he had convened the general council and assured him that he would enter into negotiations provided that the emperor observed the peace treaties of the previous year, freed those of the papal party he had captured and returned territory seized from the Church.204 Yet despite these overtures, the mediation of the patriarchs of Antioch and also Aquileia proved unsuccessful; all diplomatic initiatives failed and the crusade continued. Cardinal Rainer urged that the general council, to meet in Lyon, must depose Frederick.205 Accordingly at the Council of Lyon – in a general letter of

P O PE S A N D T H E F I R S T ‘ P O L I T I C A L C RU S A D E S’

189

deposition of 17 July 1245 – the Pope stripped Frederick of his title of emperor and decreed that those who obeyed him were to be excommunicated.206 Next, he gave his support in several letters to the election of Henry Raspe, landgrave of Thuringia, as king of the Romans.207 According to Matthew Paris, he also urged the archbishop of Cologne and other German prelates and nobles to send money and military help to Raspe for his campaigns against Frederick’s son Conrad.208 In retaliation, Frederick continued to seek support from other European princes.209 The Council of Lyon, therefore, rather than ending the crusade, strengthened the Pope’s resolve. Indeed, after 1245, relations between Pope and emperor were to deteriorate further. Innocent rejected Frederick’s claim that he was trying to reduce the power of the clergy; he urged that they had always been subject to the Pope, and encouraged all Christians to take up arms against the emperor.210 He expressed joy over Sicilian resistance to Frederick and his desire that Sicilians should show favour to all those who fled to the Church’s protection.211 He also informed the faithful that he was preparing to send as legates to Sicily, Stephen, cardinal priest of Santa Maria in Trastevere, and Rainer, cardinal deacon of Santa Maria in Cosmedin.212 These men were also confirmed as his legates for the patrimony of Tuscany, the duchy of Spoleto, the March of Ancona and the whole Kingdom of Sicily;213 all Sicilians were to welcome and obey them.214 Innocent even allowed these legates to confer privileges in Sicily on those churches or persons who had shown special devotion to the apostolic see in opposing Frederick. Yet he also cautioned them to concede no spiritual or temporal privileges without first obtaining a papal mandate and to make no appointments to vacancies until the kingdom was again at peace.215 Meanwhile, against ongoing charges of heresy, Frederick had sent the archbishop of Palermo, the bishop of Pavia and the abbots of Montecassino, Cava and Casanova to the curia to testify to the Pope that they had examined his faith and were witnesses to his orthodoxy. Although the Pope declared the examination invalid, he promised to give Frederick an audience if he should meet him in peace.216 Yet, despite this promise, Innocent remained on the offensive, enjoining the senate of Rome and his new legates to welcome and take care of a number of nobles who had fled from Sicily,217 and warning the clergy and laymen of the patrimony of Tuscany, the duchy of Spoleto and the March of Ancona, who had opposed the papacy, that they must now comply with the mandates of his new legates.218 Once more he confirmed to the Sicilian nobles the despatch of Stephen and Rainer.219 He was wholly determined to ensure the loyalty of his clergy, telling the abbots of Kaiserheim and Wiblingen and the prior of Kaiserheim, for example, to make diligent enquiries about the bishop of Trento as to whether he had remained well disposed towards Frederick after his excommunication.220 And he enjoined the people of the March of Ancona, former partisans of Frederick,

190

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

as well as the people of Lombardy, to return to the Church and fight vigorously against the emperor.221 Indeed Innocent continued to authorize and uphold the crusade against Frederick until the emperor’s death in 1250.

PAPAL CORRESPONDENCE: IDEAS AND LANGUAGE As we saw in Chapter 1, Innocent III frequently cited scripture in letters to the south of France concerned with authorizing the Albigensian Crusade. Many of his letters about Markward of Anweiler also referred to scripture. ‘Is qui beatum’, his general letter of January 1199 to the clergy of Calabria and Apulia calling on the faithful to resist Markward and remain loyal to Frederick, emphasized traditional Christian themes: Christ’s authority (Matthew 8.23–7, Matthew 14.22–3, Luke 10.19, Ephesians 1.22), salvation (Luke 3.5, Isaiah 40.4, Job 5.11), the importance of prayer (Matthew 14.22–3, Luke 22.32), and the inevitability of divine retribution (Psalms 4.2, Psalms 85.17).222 Particularly prominent in this letter was his use of the allegory of the ship of the Church to support his pronouncement of excommunication and interdict on the former seneschal.223 Indeed, as always, Innocent’s correspondence, couched in the traditional and universal language of the curia, was rhetorical and colourful. The phrases ‘peccatis exigentibus’ and ‘exigentibus culpis’, referring to the direct result of men’s sins, occurred frequently, as they would also occur at a later date in his letters to the south of France.224 Innocent repeated again and again that curbing Markward’s territorial ambitions was necessary not only to defend the Kingdom of Sicily225 and the autonomy of the papal patrimony226 but to defend the Church itself.227 Mother Church must be supported,228 and faithful Christians defended.229 The honour of the apostolic see, as well as the safety of the boy-king Frederick and the Kingdom of Sicily, must be upheld.230 Markward and his supporters were not only persecutors and enemies of Sicily231 but enemies of God and the Church.232 Markward himself was portrayed as audacious,233 treacherous234 and tyrannical.235 In another letter, ‘Cum vos audivimus’, addressed to the Muslims of southern Italy, Innocent in familiar style likened Markward’s pernicious influence to a spreading cancer: Therefore by understanding, comprehend the truth; and while enduring with that accustomed constancy of fidelity of your ancestors and yourselves, do not put yourselves and your descendants under a yoke, which, although it should seem light to begin with, however in the end it would break the necks of those wearing it; and either there would be no place for penitence, or it would be useless, after the cancer had crept into the vital organs.236

P O PE S A N D T H E F I R S T ‘ P O L I T I C A L C RU S A D E S’

191

And elsewhere he compared the tribulations of the Christian faith with a ship tossed on the waves and in danger of sinking: That man [Christ] raised up blessed Peter when he was walking on the waves so that he should not be submerged, and asked on his behalf, in order that his faith should not dwindle, that his boat should not be allowed to be shipwrecked even though it was meanwhile being shaken by great waves. And turning the tempest to calm and the north wind to a west wind, he steered it marvellously with his powerful right hand, when it almost seemed to be submerged by the waves and to be conquered by the force of the winds . . .237

Here were many of the same metaphors which, as we have seen, he employed at a later date in his letters to the south of France.238 Honorius III also used similar language in his diplomatic dealings with Frederick and with the Lombard League. Imitating his predecessor and referring to passages of Isaiah which employed the image of the yoke of the Lord (Isaiah 9.4, 10.27, 14.25, 58.6, 58.9), he declared that in calling for crusades to the East he was imposing a great burden on Christians.239 Although his correspondence contained fewer scriptural quotations and was less rhetorical – with more traditional formulae than Innocent’s240 – he too frequently likened the Church to a mother.241 He emphasized the need for its defence to ensure ‘ecclesiastical liberty’,242 declared that God and Christ, the Crucified One, should be revered (‘pro reverentia Dei/Christi/Crucifixi’ 243), and employed the familiar phrases ‘peccatis exigentibus’, ‘fidelibus ibi exigentibus’ and ‘exigentibus meritis’ to describe men’s tendency to sin.244 Furthermore, in several letters he repeated the familiar metaphors of planting and cultivation:245 . . . How many and how great labours the Church will have lost if the vine, which it planted with much sweat and cultivated in bitterness, should be converted to other religious observances, since it is less expensive to produce no fruit than to produce weeds.246

By using the same metaphors as his predecessor, Honorius therefore continued to emphasize the papacy’s concern to eradicate both its religious and political enemies, albeit without actually resorting to authorizing a crusade. Gregory too emphasized the same traditional concerns in his correspondence: ecclesiastical liberty must be maintained;247 laws and statutes against heretics and their supporters must be upheld and observed;248 Mother Church must be nourished and protected by the faithful.249 Again, imitating Honorius, Gregory emphasized that he carried a heavy responsibility as head of the Christian faithful.250 He further developed the traditional image of Mother Church to

192

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

emphasize the close relationship Frederick had once enjoyed with the papacy: ‘The emperor, namely Frederick, whom, as if from his mother’s womb, she received on her knees, nursed at her breast, bore on her shoulders’.251 The Church was a mother weeping for her errant son.252 Yet in general, Gregory’s letters were more influenced by Innocent III than by Honorius III. Like Innocent’s correspondence, Gregory’s letters were full of references to scripture.253 So the image of the barque of St Peter tossed on the sea was a metaphor for the tribulations inflicted on the Church by its enemies: The spacious barque of Peter, positioned on the deep sea, or rather exposed to the swells of tempests, is so shaken by both winds and waves among the billows of the flooding water that it hardly ever allows its steersmen and rowers time to breathe.254

Other letters employed the familiar imagery of medicine: . . . reading over our letter he [Frederick] replies that since in his kingdom where no-one moves hand or foot without his command, the poison of heresy against the Catholic faith spreads more widely and the liberty of the Church lies as though utterly downtrodden, he was not trusted to apply the remedy of health to the head who had rendered the foot diseased by his contact.255

And: ‘Since pain and medicine for pain heals wounds, in a spirit of gentleness we have raised up against him the medicinal sword of St Peter’.256 As for the emperor Frederick himself, he was a heretic: For he impiously strives to maintain the treachery of the pagans in the renowned land consecrated with the blood of Christ; fury, seizing the temporal possessions of tyrants, exterminates justice and crushes the liberty of the Church; the madness of heretics tries to tear the tunic of Christ and to overturn the foundation of faith; the treacherous perversity of false brothers and sons shakes the internal organs and tears apart the flank of its mother.257

Here there was none of the conciliatory tone of many of his predecessor Honorius’s letters. Gregory continued to emphasize these same themes throughout his pontificate; the language remained similar in his earlier letters of 1227, 1228 and 1229 and in his later offerings from 1238 onwards. He continued to assert that the liberty of the Church must be preserved against its enemies,258 that its causes must be championed,259 that the survival of the Catholic faith was paramount,260 that the Church was mother to the Christian faithful,261 and that Frederick was a sinner.262 In his great general letter ‘Ascendit de mare’ of 1239 he made numerous

P O PE S A N D T H E F I R S T ‘ P O L I T I C A L C RU S A D E S’

193

references to scripture.263 He focused on the traditional themes of Jesus’s betrayal (Luke 22.21), God’s power (Jeremiah 51.25) and authority (Job 26.13), suffering for righteousness (Psalms 73.14), men’s wickedness (1 Maccabees 1.15, Jeremiah 51.23), and the need to proclaim one’s faith (Ezekiel 40.4). Again there was the familiar image of disease and healing:264 ‘it is better to resist beforehand than to find a remedy after he should have inflicted wounds’.265 Frederick was a mythical dragon, the beast of the Apocalypse (Apocalypse 13.1, 9.10): The beast of blasphemy rises from the sea replete with names, which with the feet of a bear and the mouth of a lion, raging and formed in the rest of its limbs like a panther, opens its mouth in blasphemies against the divine name and does not omit to attack with similar darts His tabernacle and the saints who dwell in the heavens . . . Cease to marvel if he shall have raised the point of the sword against us in injury, because now the name of the Lord rises up to destroy him from the earth; but rather that you may be able with open truth to resist the lies of that man and to confute the fallacies of that man with an argument of purity, look carefully at the head, middle and end of that beast Frederick called emperor, and as far as you find abominations in the words of that man and wickednesses, arm sound souls with the shield of truth against the treacheries of that man; noticing in what manner, with letters sent out through the diverse climates of the world, the said Frederick was seen to bespatter the sincerity of the Apostolic See and ourself with polluted narratives, the artificer of falsity, ignorant of modesty . . .266

This passage was reminiscent of Innocent’s ‘Quia maior’, the general crusading letter of 1215 calling for the Fifth Crusade to the East, which had likened Muhammad himself to the beast of the Apocalypse.267 Innocent IV’s correspondence continued the tone of these letters of his predecessors. The papacy’s enemies were the enemies of orthodox faith,268 faith and ecclesiastical liberty must be increased,269 the Catholic faith must be championed,270 and the Church must be defended.271 Innocent emphasized the same need to propagate Christianity,272 recover papal lands273 and bring unity to the Church.274 As in Innocent III’s letters and in those of Honorius and Gregory, the phrases ‘exigentibus meritis’ and ‘peccatis exigentibus’ were used frequently to describe men’s tendency to sin.275 The Church was a mother;276 while those who disobeyed her were opponents and rebels,277 attempting to crush her.278 Much of this rhetoric was aimed specifically at Frederick II. He was said to be contemptuous of the Church’s power and authority279 and the Catholic faith,280 perfidious,281 a persecutor of the Church,282 treacherous,283 impious, even another Nero.284 Like his predecesors Innocent, too, regularly cited scripture, sometimes quoting extensively to add greater weight,285 and using metaphors for further emphasis. In one letter he likened the archbishop of Reims and his suffragans

194

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

to shepherds of the Christian faithful in these words: ‘And thus you, brothers, who are deputed to guard the flocks of the Lord’.286 He also re-used the familiar metaphors of cultivation and planting in phrases such as: ‘With power united in those men that they may tear up and destroy, build and plant’.287 And the metaphor of medicine: The sick man, whom light medicines do not help . . . barks at the doctor with a bitter spirit, and not accepting that there is remedy in a violent cure, complains that he has been cruelly killed by the one who leaves him healthy.288

All this traditional language emphasized continuity with the policies of his predecessors. Innocent IV’s supporters, who backed the papacy against the empire, were influenced by such curial rhetoric and copied the Pope’s language. One employed the familiar image of the silversmith: We see this result that the silversmith cast in vain, because not even so has his [Frederick’s] evil been exhausted. Therefore he must be called tarnished silver, now thrown away by its master, all the more so because it has been produced with much labour and sweat. Nor did his [Frederick’s] excessive rust depart from him through the fire of tribulation and the continual sickness of so weak a body as he has. Rather, having been created anew for iniquity, he destroys the whole world.289

And he then re-employed the metaphor of medicine: ‘wounds must be cut out with iron, which do not respond to the medicine of poultices’.290 As we have seen, such images had frequently been invoked by Innocent IV’s forebear Innocent III in his correspondence to the south of France.291 Indeed often the language of papal supporters was even more violent than that of Innocent IV himself. Among other charges they accused Frederick of contempt for the keys of St Peter and the Sacraments, of following the beliefs of the Sadducees, and generally of conspiring to crush the Church.292 So popes of the first half of the thirteenth century were consistently careful to refer to ‘political’ crusades in the traditional, conservative language in which the papacy always described crusades against both heretics and Muslims. Innocent III’s rhetorical language for the crusade against Markward of Anweiler was extremely similar to that used from the beginning of the pontificate in calling for crusades in the Holy Land and from 1208 onwards in the south of France. Since crusades were traditionally described in papal letters as defensive operations, Innocent constantly emphasized the theme of defence: a crusade was needed to defend the Kingdom of Sicily,293 and to resist Markward.294 Markward and his followers were enemies of the Cross whose actions were injurious to

P O PE S A N D T H E F I R S T ‘ P O L I T I C A L C RU S A D E S’

195

the Crucified Christ,295 and temporal as well as spiritual force should be used against them.296 Not surprisingly, given his conservatism and caution, Honorius, too, continued to refer to crusading to the Holy Land in the same way as his predecessors. Crusaders to the Holy Land were ‘pilgrims’,297 the Holy Land crusade was the ‘negotium Terrae Sanctae’,298 or simply a ‘negotium’;299 the Christian faithful were one body.300 Gregory’s letters followed a similar pattern, continuing to refer to crusading to the Holy Land as a ‘negotium’,301 the ‘negotium Terrae Sanctae’,302 or a ‘negotium crucis’,303 and to describe crusaders there as ‘pilgrims’.304 The phrase ‘exigentibus culpis suis’ also recurred,305 as did many familiar references to the enemies of the Cross of Christ,306 to the image of Mother Church,307 and the idea of the Church’s enemies trampling on its liberty.308 Innocent IV continued in the same vain: the Christian people were one body,309 Christ’s faithful.310 Like Gregory, he too emphasized familiar themes: Mother Church,311 the enemies of the Crucified One,312 Church liberty,313 the defence of the Church,314 and man’s sinful state.315 Each Pope wished to emphasize to the faithful that they were as committed to authorizing crusades to the Holy Land as their predecessors. It is possible that these popes intended that their letters be used by crusade preachers. Innocent III’s letters against Markward in particular were replete with scriptural quotations and references. Deuteronomy was a particular favourite and there were references to God’s exhortation to the Hebrews to keep the Sabbath day holy (Deuteronomy 5.15) and to God’s righteous anger (Deuteronomy 2.15, 32.42).316 This extensive use of scripture and colourful language was unsurprising since Innocent himself was a great preacher, but it might also suggest that he intended that those preaching the crusade against Markward would draw on his letters for inspiration.317 Gregory’s correspondence was similarly colourful, and perhaps again intended to be a source of guidance for those preaching the Cross against Frederick. Innocent IV’s corespondence too was colourful and dynamic, though less biblical than that of his predecessor. The similarity between his language and that of his adherents and supporters was striking and suggests that his letters directly influenced their own compositions.318 Nevertheless, it remains difficult to ascertain the extent of the influence of the Pope’s rhetoric. Ironically, many of the words and phrases in his letters were also used in the correspondence of German magnates who supported the emperor. Indeed Frederick himself and subsequent German emperors employed remarkably similar language and rhetoric to that of the papal curia.319

196

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

THE DEVELOPMENT OF ‘POLITICAL CRUSADES’ The language of Innocent III’s letters suggests that he believed that since all opposition to the Church was itself heresy, Markward of Anweiler was a heretic. Like all ‘internal’ enemies, Markward sought to subvert the Catholic faith, yet he did so not by undermining Church doctrine like the Cathars but by undermining the temporal power of the papacy itself. Just as heretics must be extirpated because they threatened orthodox belief, so Innocent asserted Markward and his followers must be resisted because they undermined the loyalty and devotion of Sicilians and many other Christians to the papacy.320 Innocent emphasized the negative aspects of Markward’s character to impress on the recipients of his letters that the former seneschal was as dangerous a foe as any heretic. So as in his letters concerned with heretics in the south of France, he made much of Markward’s treachery,321 and audacity,322 towards the Sicilian kingdom, the boy-king Frederick and the Church itself.323 By comparing those who threatened the patrimony of St Peter and by extension the Church itself to Muslims who threatened the Holy Land, Innocent was also deliberately likening Markward and his supporters to enemies in the East. Indeed, by referring to pagans and Muslims in these letters, he deliberately invited comparison between Markward and his supporters and such non-Christians.324 In one letter, ‘Quod futura sint’, he described Markward as morally worse than the infidels,325 another Saladin326 and a confederate of Muslims.327 He warned that he might even join forces with Muslims in Sicily and southern Italy to oppress Christians.328 And in ‘Cum vos audivimus’, a general letter to the Muslim community of Sicily, he urged them to remain faithful to Frederick their overlord.329 He declared that even if Markward and his followers set off on crusade to the East, this would not be sufficient redress for the crimes which they had perpetrated.330 Honorius also continued to voice the same concern as Innocent had done before him, that aid for the Holy Land was being impeded by the papacy’s enemies.331 He now used this argument, which Innocent had previously used against Markward, against Frederick for having delayed in setting sail for the East. The claim that aid for the Holy Land was being impeded would become a standard argument used by popes in the second half of the thirteenth century to justify crusades against their enemies. Honorius had continually urged Frederick to act against heresy.332 But his successor Gregory turned the heresy charge against the emperor himself. Just as Innocent had made such comparisons with Markward of Anweiler, so Gregory compared Frederick with both heretics and infidels.333 Frederick was a heretic who showed contempt for the keys of the Church.334 Indeed, although Frederick was not formally deposed until 1245, Gregory constantly emphasized that he had no right to bear the title of emperor after his second excommunication in

P O PE S A N D T H E F I R S T ‘ P O L I T I C A L C RU S A D E S’

197

1239 and the crusade had been launched against him.335 Echoing language used by earlier popes to describe both Muslims in the East and heretics in Europe, he described Frederick as treacherous336 and a minister of deception,337 an enemy of God, contemptuous of both the Catholic faith,338 and of Christianity.339 Gregory was determined to prevent what he saw as the dangers posed to Christendom by both heretics and unbelievers and his descriptions of Frederick showed his determination to treat him like any other heretic. His letters alluded to the madness of heretics (‘insania hereticorum’) and the influence of pagans.340 They referred specifically to Muslims in standard papal language as the enemies of Christ’s cross (‘per manus inimicorum crucis Christi’).341 Just as Innocent had accused Markward of heresy, so too Gregory accused Frederick: . . . we are in possession of that man’s [Frederick II’s] words, propounding openly, namely that the whole world had been deceived by Jesus Christ, Moses and Mohammed, and that two of them had died in glory, but that Jesus himself was suspended on wood; above all he presumed to affirm with a clear voice, or rather to lie, that all who believe that God, who created nature and all things, was able to be born of the Virgin, are deceived. He confirms this heresy with this error of belief: that no one can be born of someone who does not himself proceed from having been conceived by the union of a man and a woman; and that man ought to believe nothing except what he is able to test naturally by force and by reason. They were able openly to acknowledge these and many other words and deeds by which he [Frederick II] has fought and continues to fight against the Catholic faith . . .342

Gregory was not alone in describing Frederick as irreligious. The contemporary thirteenth-century chronicler Aubrey of Trois Fontaines and the Vita Gregorii IX claimed that Frederick blasphemed.343 Whether such allegations were true or not, many believed them. Fear of invasion by infidel Mongols who in 1241–2 occupied Poland, large parts of Hungary and the borders of Bohemia and Saxony, causing great devastation, added even greater emotional weight to assertions that Frederick was an unbeliever.344 Innocent IV also continued his predecessor’s policy of stressing the need to eradicate heresy and hence to justify his continuation of the crusade against the emperor. He declared that Frederick should be using his imperial might, not against the Church but against heretics, schismatics and other enemies of orthodox faith, thereby showing himself its true son.345 Ecclesiastical unity must be maintained at all costs.346 Like Gregory before him, Innocent referred to Frederick and his supporters as the enemies of orthodox faith, castigated their heretical evil,347 and declared that as enemies of the Church they were opponents and rebels.348 Supporters of Innocent emphasized even more strongly than the Pope himself

198

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

that Frederick was an enemy of the Church. Following the Pope’s flight from Rome, one letter of 1245 described Frederick as consorting with Muslims and other barbarians, of acting in the manner of Muslims and of having slid into heresy,349 not to mention his being a tyrant and schismatic: . . . the tyrannical leader, the overturner of ecclesiastical dogma and religion, the perverter of faith, the teacher of cruelty, the defender of wickedness, the destroyer of the globe and the hammer of all the world . . .350

The letter even went on to compare him with both Lucifer and the precursor of the Antichrist.351 In similar vein another papal supporter declared that Frederick was a schismatic who had taken refuge with Muslims.352 As well as containing such graphic language, many of the papal letters also referred to the important penalties of excommunication and interdict. These were standard ecclesiastical penalties frequently used by medieval popes in a variety of situations to assert the Church’s spiritual, and increasingly from Innocent III’s pontificate onwards, secular authority over lay rulers.353 In one letter, ‘Is qui beatum’, Innocent informed the clergy of Calabria and Apulia: But since now finally on account of his excesses, he [Markward of Anweiler] has been bound by the chain of our excommunication with all his supporters and comrades, we wish nevertheless and we order under the same injunction, that he himself and all his accomplices should be publicly announced as excommunicated on each Sunday and on feast days, with tolling bells and extinguished candles. And all who shall have presumed to show him favour either in the occupation of the kingdom or in other ways, or shall have received letters or messengers of that man to the detriment of the king and the kingdom, or shall have presumed to appoint for him his own, you should bind with the same sentence . . .354

This was a standard description by the papal curia of the process of excommunication. In the same letter, Innocent asserted of Markward that: ‘He has been bound by us with all his supporters and participants with the chain of excommunication’. Other letters contained similar descriptions: ‘he has been bound with the chain of excommunication with all his supporters and participants’.355 Since Markward’s territorial ambitions must be prevented in order to ensure continuing devotion to the apostolic see,356 as well as Sicilian loyalty to Frederick and the papacy,357 Innocent specifically proclaimed in two letters an interdict on all lands which Markward entered.358 So in ‘Is qui beatum’ he stated: ‘All the towns, castles, houses and churches, to which perhaps he shall have come, you should declare in his presence to lie under a sentence of excommunication.’359 And in ‘Ad reconciliationem et’, he declared the terms under which Markward

P O PE S A N D T H E F I R S T ‘ P O L I T I C A L C RU S A D E S’

199

might be absolved from his excommunication, but warned that the same spiritual weapon might be used in the future.360 ‘Et optata regni’, another general letter, also referred to the proposed terms for Markward’s absolution.361 Two letters, however, invoked the use of an even more important spiritual weapon – the plenary indulgence. In January 1199, Innocent promised the clergy and people of Capua the same indulgence for expelling Markward from their territory as that which he accorded those who crusaded in the East: Therefore, guarding against a thing of that kind, we have powerfully directed our attention to your defence, and if indeed there was a need, we would concede that remission of sins, which we concede to all who gird themselves against the treachery of the Muslims to defend the eastern region, to all those who should fight against the violence of Markward and his men, because through him aid for the Holy Land is impeded.362

Then in November 1199 he informed the nobility and people of Sicily: For we have noted the treachery of Markward, who, since as we predicted he has not so far been able to prevail with Christians, strives with the Muslims to oppress Christians. We concede to all who proceed against those who remain in this wickedness that pardon for sins which we grant as an indulgence to those going across the sea for the defence of the Holy Land; for it will be more easily possible to bring aid to the Holy Land through Sicily; but if . . . it [Sicily] should come into the power of the Muslims, no confidence would remain in the recovery of the rest of the province of Jerusalem.363

Although Innocent did not use the words ‘plena venia’ here, his reference to the indulgence as the same as that granted for the Holy Land clearly indicated that it was plenary. And, as usual, the Holy Land was held up as the example for other crusades. He was emphasizing that if Sicily should fall to the Muslims, allegedly Markward’s confederates, there would be no hope of relieving the Holy Land. Innocent was also promoting the ‘political crusade’ by reminding the Sicilian faithful that it would be easier for them to campaign in their own country than to embark on a crusade to the East. By contrast, despite his growing frustration with Frederick, in particular at his failure to embark on his long-promised crusade, Honorius III never used the weapon of excommunication againt the emperor, nor placed an interdict on towns or territories which supported him, nor granted an indulgence for anti-imperial campaigns. Instead he urged the Lombard League and Frederick to make peace and called on Italian bishops to warn the League of the consequences if it failed to do so.364 Yet, in comparison to this forebearance and caution, Gregory IX excommunicated Frederick right at the beginning of his pontificate in 1227.365 Richard of San Germano described those who fought against the emperor on behalf of the

200

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

papacy as wearing the sign of the crossed keys (‘Papalis exercitus, qui clavium signa gerebat’), an emblem which might well have invited comparison with the cross worn by crusaders.366 Like other contemporary chroniclers, however, Richard identified the army as specifically papal (‘papalis exercitus’) and never referred to its combatants as ‘crucesignati’.367 Only much later, in 1239, was Gregory reported as having (unsuccessfully) called on the people of Rome to take up arms and the Cross: . . . if the pope . . . had not moved the people to pity, with a most worthy oration held even in the basilica of Saint Peter, by which he won over to his opinion those making a disturbance, so that he drove them to take up the Cross and arms for the Church of God.368

And in 1241 he even allowed Hungarian crusaders vowed to the East to commute their vows in order to crusade against the emperor – which shows that the Pope now certainly regarded his campaign against Frederick as a crusade.369 Indeed Gregory had already excommunicated Frederick for a second time in 1239 in his general letter ‘Excommunicamus’. This letter set out the different reasons for the excommunication, including the charge of heresy. It declared that all those who had sworn loyalty to the emperor on his coronation should be absolved from their oath of allegiance.370 Gregory also pronounced an interdict on the whole of Germany, making no exception for any special indulgences or privileges formerly granted.371 The excommunication had therefore serious repercussions not only for the emperor himself but also for his supporters in Gemany and Italy. Gregory’s letter to the people of Viterbo, which referred to the excommunication of the city’s leaders and the additional interdict placed on the commune for its alliance with an excommunicated emperor, was one example of the fall-out.372 Yet the Pope was always willing to absolve those who returned to the support of the Church.373 Innocent IV, too, realized the power of employing spiritual weapons, promising remission of sins for those who aided the papacy against the emperor. In 1246 he even enjoined German prelates to choose Henry Raspe as their new emperor and give him faithful asssistance ‘for the remission of their sins’ (‘in remissionem peccaminum’),374 and he urged the king of Bohemia to strive to ensure the election of a new emperor ‘for the remission of his sins’.375 He also promised spiritual privileges to those who opposed Frederick in Italy. In a general letter to the Sicilians he referred to the remission of penances (‘penarum remissio fieret vel plene redemptionis’) and declared that those who had sided with the emperor but returned to the allegiance of Mother Church would obtain remission of their sins (‘in remissionem vobis iniungimus peccatorum’).376 He enjoined the senate and people of Rome to rise up against Frederick for the same reward.377 And just

P O PE S A N D T H E F I R S T ‘ P O L I T I C A L C RU S A D E S’

201

as he encouraged in this way the nobles and people of the March of Ancona to fight against the emperor (‘in remissionem vobis peccaminum iniungentes’),378 so he employed similar language in his letters to the Lombards.379 Frederick himself complained that the Pope had offered the Lombard League the remission of all offences (‘remissionem omnium offensarum’) if they should take military action against himself, his nobles and the empire.380 The Holy Land remained important for all the popes. Innocent III granted the same plenary indulgence for a crusade against Markward of Anweiler as that which he conceded to those embarking on the Fourth Crusade.381 Crusaders who had vowed to go to the East fought with Walter of Brienne in Apulia in 1202. Yet, although Innocent regarded the two crusades to be of equal spiritual merit, he declared in his correspondence that a principal reason for calling a crusade against Markward was that he was impeding the crusade to the East, thereby signalling that the latter was his especial priority.382 The Holy Land was not merely an excuse to implement military action against political opponents nearer home. If Markward had been successful in his schemes entirely to overrun southern Italy and Sicily it would have been exceedingly difficult for crusaders bound for the East to set out from Italian ports. Yet Gregory was also undoubtedly anxious that Markward’s territorial ambitions threatened the safety of the papal states. His successor Honorius III never launched a crusade against Frederick II and it is therefore difficult to predict where he might have placed a ‘political crusade’ in a hypothetical crusading ‘hierarchy’. But he was certainly careful to follow his predecessor in asserting that the Fifth Crusade was a high priority and by constantly emphasizing the need to aid and liberate the Holy Land.383 He was very concerned with Frederick’s delay in setting out to the East and worried that his continual quarreling with the Lombard League would prevent him from fulfilling his long-promised crusading vow.384 That he was willing to authorize crusading against heretics in the south of France suggests that he was not as conservative and cautious as he has sometimes been depicted.385 Nevertheless, it was not Honorius but his successor Gregory who took the momentous step of calling for a crusade against the emperor himself. Gregory, too, emphasized the continuing need to bring aid to the Holy Land,386 which remained in the hands of pagans,387 and continued to consider its recovery a matter of extreme importance.388 His fury over Frederick’s delays in embarking for the East was one reason for his excommunication of the emperor in 1227.389 In later letters, too, he continued to refer to the ‘business’ of the Holy Land,390 the recovery of Jerusalem,391 and the need to aid the Holy Land,392 and he still expressed anger at the emperor over this issue.393 Yet despite his concern with the situation in the East, he was prepared in 1241 to commute the vows of Hungarian crusaders bound for the Holy Land for the sake of a crusade against Frederick.394 Indeed, by the end of his pontificate Gregory had begun to give

202

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

precedence to ‘political crusades’ even over crusading to the East. Similarly, although his successor Innocent IV too voiced concern over the situation in the Holy Land, he had other priorities.395 So, in practice, if not in theory, Gregory and Innocent began to regard crusades against their political enemies as equally important to crusading to the Holy Land. The idea that crusades to the East must always come first was beginning to change. As later popes became more and more concerned about threats to their own temporal authority in Italy, particularly with respect to the papal states, their hopes and fears for the Holy Land played a less important part in their policy-making. So using the same emotive language as their predecessors, Gregory IX and Innocent IV drew on the papacy’s recent experience in authorizing crusades against heretics to authorize crusades where the primary motive was to ensure the wellbeing of the papacy in Italy and in particular the papal states. They were strongly influenced by Innocent III and his precedent of calling for a crusade against Markward of Anweiler. Innocent III’s ideas about crusading profoundly affected the policies of later popes who realized that by issuing the crusade indulgence they were much more likely to be able to persuade their supporters to fight wars on behalf of the papacy other than those against the infidel or heathen. Yet, since authorizing such crusades was innovatory and might be controversial, Gregory IX and Innocent IV were careful to describe their political enemies as heretics and supporters of heresy, just as their predecessors had done during the Investiture Conflict of the eleventh century. They therefore deliberately branded political foes as heretics – ‘internal’ enemies who were by now a familiar target of crusading. Notes 1 Peter Partner, The Lands of St. Peter: the Papal State in the Middle Ages and the Early Renaissance (London, 1972), pp. 229–64; Daniel Waley, The Papal State in the Thirteenth Century (London and New York, 1961), pp. 31–67, 125–75. 2 Elizabeth Kennan, ‘Innocent III and the First Political Crusade: A Comment on the Limits of Papal Power’, Traditio 17 (1971), 233; Thomas Van Cleve, Markward of Anweiler: A Study of Hohenstaufen Policy in Sicily during the Minority of Frederick II (Princeton, NJ, and Oxford, 1937), passim; David Abulafia, Frederick II, A Medieval Emperor (London, 2002), pp. 83, 86, 140–9, 195–7. 3 Thomas Van Cleve, The Emperor Frederick II of Hohenstaufen: Immutator Mundi (Oxford, 1972), passim; Karl Hampe, Deutsche Kaisergeschichte in der Zeit der Salier und Staufer (Leipzig, 1943), pp. 232–94; Hippolyte Pissard, La Guerre sainte en pays chrétien: essai sur l’origine et le devéloppement des théories canoniques (Paris, 1912), pp. 123–33; Édouard Jordan, L’Allemagne et l’Italie au XIIe et XIIIe siècles (Paris, 1939), pp. 251–70; Abulafia, Frederick II, A Medieval Emperor, pp. 92–103, 380–9; Ernst Kantorowicz,

P O PE S A N D T H E F I R S T ‘ P O L I T I C A L C RU S A D E S’

4 5

6 7 8 9 10 11

12

13 14

15 16 17

203

Frederick II, 1194–1250 (New York, 1957), pp. 167–211; Joseph Strayer, ‘The Political Crusades of the Thirteenth Century’, in K. Setton, A History of the Crusades, Vol. 2: The Later Crusades, 1189–1311, pp. 354–6; Elizabeth Kennan, ‘Innocent III, Gregory IX and Political Crusades: A Study in the Disintegration of Papal Power’, in G. F. Lytle, ed., Reform and Authority in the Medieval and Reformation Church (Washington, DC, 1981), pp. 15–35. Norman Housley, The Italian Crusades: the Papal Angevin Alliance and the Crusades against Christian Lay Powers, 1254–1342 (Oxford, 1982), p. 1. Ralph of Diceto, Opera historica, ed. W. Stubbs, Rolls Series 68 (London, 1876), 2, pp. 3–174; Roger of Hoveden, Chronica, ed. W. Stubbs, Rolls Series 51 (London, 1868–1871), 4, pp. 3–190. Aubrey of Trois Fontaines, ‘Chronica Albrici monachi Trium Fontium’, MGHS 23, pp. 631–950. Richard of San Germano, ‘Chronica’, RIS 7, part 2, pp. 1–219; Salimbene of Adam, ‘Cronica’, MGHS 32, p. 19. The Deeds of Pope Innocent III by an Anonymous Author, ed. J. M. Powell (Washington, DC, 2004), pp. 17–55. Burchard of Worms, ‘Burchardi Chronicon’, MGHS 23, pp. 337–83; Richard of San Germano, ‘Chronica’, RIS 7, part 2, pp. 1–219, passim. Roger of Wendover, Flores historiarum, ed. H. G. Hewlett, Rolls Series 84 (London, 1886–1889; Kraus Reprint, 1965), 2, passim. Matthew Paris, Chronica majora, ed. H. R. Luard, Rolls Series 57 (London, 1877; Kraus Reprint, 1964), Vols 2, 3, 4, passim; Matthew Paris, Additamenta, ed. H. L. Luard, Rolls Series 57 (London, 1858), Vol. 6, passim. Aubrey of Trois Fontaines, ‘Chronica Albrici monachi Trium Fontium’, MGHS 23, pp. 631–950, passim; ‘Rolandinus Patavini Chronica’, RIS 8, part 1, passim; Andreae Dandali Chronicon, RIS 12, part 1, passim; ‘Cafari et continuatorum Annales Ianuae A 1099–1294’, MGHS 18, pp. 1–356, passim; ‘Breve chronicon de rebus Siculis’, Historia Diplomatica 1, part 2, passim; Annali Bolognese, ed. L.V. Savioli, 3 vols (Bassano, 1874–1895), passim; ‘Annales Sancti Rudberti Salisburgenses’, MGHS 11, passim; ‘Annales Scheftavienses maiores’, MGHS 17, pp. 335–43, passim; Bernard Marago, ‘Annales Pisani’, MGHS 19, pp. 236–66, passim; ‘Annales Placentini Gibellini’, MGHS 18, pp. 457–581, passim; ‘Annales Placentini Guelfi’, MGHS 18, pp. 411–56, passim. Bartholomew of Neocastro, Historia Siciliae ed. G. Paladino, passim. ‘Vita Gregorii IX’, Le Liber censuum de l’église romaine, Vol. 2, ed. P. Fabre and L. Duchesne, Bibliothèques des écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome (2nd series) (Paris, 1905), pp. 18–36, passim; ‘Vita Innocenti IV scripta a Fr. Nicolao de Carbio’, ed. F. Pagnotti, Archivio della Società romana di storia patria 21 (1898), pp. 76–120, passim. Innocent III, ‘Cum vos audivimus’ (25 Nov.–10 Dec. 1199), Die Register Innocenz III 2, pp. 421–3. Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes (New Haven, 1997), p. 297. Innocent III, ‘Constantiam tue mentis’ (end Dec. 1198), Die Register Innocenz III 1, pp. 831–2; ‘Preter generale debitum’ (end Dec. 1198), Die Register Innocenz III 1,

204

18

19

20

21 22 23

24 25

26 27 28 29

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

pp. 829–30; ‘Preter generale debitum (end Dec. 1198), Die Register Innocenz III 1, pp. 830–1; ‘Si diligenter attenditis’ (25 Jan. 1199), Die Register Innocenz III 1, pp. 802–6. Innocent III, ‘Universitatem vestram volumus’ (6 Nov. 1199), Die Register Innocenz III 2, p. 366; ‘Inter innumeras sollicitudines’ (1–7 Dec. 1199), Die Register Innocenz III 2, pp. 451–6. Innocent III, ‘At zizania non’ (2–3 March 1198), Die Register Innocenz III 1, pp. 56–7; ‘Is qui beatum’ (10–15 January 1199), Die Register Innocenz III 1, pp. 809–11; ‘Licet circa statum’ (10–25 Jan. 1199), Die Register Innocenz III 1, pp. 806–9; ‘Ad reconciliationem et’ (10–15 Aug. 1199), Die Register Innocenz III 2, pp. 306–11; ‘Inter innumeras sollicitudines’, pp. 451–6; ‘Cum defensio vestra’ (9 Oct. 1199), Die Register Innocenz III 2, pp. 349–50; ‘Tyrannidem quam olim’ (mid-Nov. 1200), Thuner, p. 53; ‘Preter generale debitum’, pp. 830–1; ‘Persecutionis olim olla’ (mid-Nov. 1198), Die Register Innocenz III 1, pp. 620–22; ‘Opera testimonium perhibent’ (15–31 May 1202), Die Register Innocenz III 5, pp. 67–70. For example, Innocent III, ‘Is qui beatum’, p. 810; ‘Satis hactenus manus’ (10–15 Jan. 1199), Die Register Innocenz III 1, p. 812; ‘Licet circa statum’, p. 807; ‘Si diligenter attenditis’, p. 804; ‘Ad reconciliationem et’, p. 310; ‘Quod futura sint’ (24 Nov. 1199), Die Register Innocenz III 2, p. 413; ‘Littere quae nobis’ (Aug.–Sept. 1199), Regestum Innocenti III papae super negotio Romani imperii, ed. F. Kempf, Miscellanea historiae pontificiae 12 (Rome, 1947), p. 41; ‘Et optata regni’ (1–15 Sept. 1199), Die Register Innocenz III 2, p. 333 (see as ‘Exoptata regni tranquilitas’, Potthast no. 841); ‘Cum vos audivimus’, p. 421; ‘Tyrannidem quam olim’, p. 53. Innocent III, ‘Cum vos audivimus’, pp. 421–3. Honorius III, ‘Non dubitat sicut’ (27 Jan. 1227), Rodenberg 1, pp. 256–7. Honorius III, ‘Certam nobis’ (25 Sept. 1225), Historia Diplomatica 2, part 1, pp. 522–3; ‘Certam nobis’ (27 Sept. 1225), Italia sacra 1, ed. F. Ughelli, 2nd edn, ed. N. Coleti (Venice, 1717), col. 490. See also Potthast 1, no. 7481; Richard of San Germano, ‘Chronica’, p. 122. See also Italia sacra 3, ed. Ughelli (Rome, 1647), cols 985–6. Honorius III, ‘Non dubitat sicut’, pp. 256–7. Honorius III, ‘Cum inter varias’ (Sept.–beg. Oct. 1226), Rodenberg 1, pp. 234–5; ‘Fraternitati vestre tenore’ (Sept.–beg. Oct. 1226), Rodenberg 1, pp. 235–6; ‘Eius locum licet’ (5 Jan. 1227), Rodenberg 1, pp. 246–8; ‘Inter cetera que’ (5 Jan. 1227), Rodenberg 1, pp. 248–9; ‘Eius locum licet’ (5 Jan. 1227), Rodenberg 1, p. 249; ‘Causam discordie nuper’ (5 Jan. 1227), Rodenberg 1, p. 250; ‘Cum in forma’ (5 Jan. 1227), Rodenberg 1, pp. 250–1; ‘Miramur nec satis’ (10 March 1227), Rodenberg 1, pp. 259–60; ‘Miramur nec satis’ (27 March 1227), Rodenberg 1, p. 263; Gregory IX, ‘Noverit tua serenitas’ (30 March 1227), Historia Diplomatica 3, pp. 6–7. Roger of Wendover, Flores historiarum, 2, ed. Hewlett, pp. 375–8; Matthew Paris, Chronica majora, 3, pp. 186–9. For example, Gregory IX, ‘Magnus Dominus et’ (19 May 1229), Rodenberg 1, pp. 305–6. Gregory IX, ‘Noverit universitas vestra’ (23 Dec. 1227), in Matthew Paris, Chronica majora, 3, ed. Luard, pp. 127–30. Gregory IX, ‘Sedes apostolica sicut’ (11 April 1239), in Matthew Paris, Chronica majora, 3, ed. Luard, pp. 569–73; ‘Cum Federicus dictus’ (7 May 1239), Historia Diplomatica 5, part 1, pp. 317–18; ‘Quia Fridericus dictus’ (23 Nov. 1239), in Albert of Beham, Litterae, ed.

P O PE S A N D T H E F I R S T ‘ P O L I T I C A L C RU S A D E S’

30

31 32 33

34

35 36 37

38 39 40

41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

205

C. Höfler, Albert von Beham und Regesten Papst Innocenz IV, Bibliothek des litterarischen Vereins in Stuttgart (Stuttgart, 1847), pp. 8–9; ‘Miratur fratrem venerabilem’ (23 Nov. 1239), Albert of Beham, Litterae, ed. Höfler, p. 9; ‘Memorat beneficia in’ (23 Nov. 1239), Albert of Beham, Litterae, ed. Höfler, pp. 9–10; ‘Rationalis spiritus exulanti’ (24 Nov. 1239), Albert of Beham, Litterae, ed. Höfler, pp. 6–8; ‘Percepto ex relatu’ (7 July 1240), Rodenberg 1, pp. 678–9; Gregory of Montelongo, ‘Sanctissimo in Christo’ (6 Jan. 1240), Historia Diplomatica 5, part 2, pp. 1061–2; ‘In Christi nomine’ (9 Dec. 1240), Historia Diplomatica 5, part 2, pp. 1062–6. Innocent IV, ‘Quia inter ceteros’ (21 April 1246), Constitutiones 2, p. 454; ‘Quia inter ceteros’ (21 April 1246), Constitutiones 2, p. 455; ‘Cupientes imperii negotium’ (22 April 1246), Constitutiones 2, pp. 455–6. For the election of Henry Raspe as emperor, see Matthew Paris, Chronica majora, 4, ed. Luard, pp. 544–5 Constitutiones 2, p. 457. For example, Innocent IV, ‘Litteras tuas solita’ (30 April 1245), Rodenberg 2, pp. 78–9. Othmar Hageneder, ‘Der Häresiebegriff bei den Juristen des 12. und 13. Jahrhunderts’, The Concept of Heresy in the Middle Ages (11th–13th C.), Proceedings of the International Conference Louvain May 13–16th 1973 (Louvain, 1976), pp. 72–103. X.5.7.9, col. 780. For Friedberg’s insertion of the decree from other sources rather than from the manuscript of the Liber extra decretalium itself, see his Introduction to Corpus iuris canonici, 2, pp. xliv–vii. Decrees of the Ecumencial Councils, Vol. 1: Nicaea I to Lateran V, ed. N. P. Tanner (London, 1990), p. 230. 3 Comp. 5.4.1, p. 130; X.5.7.10, cols 782–3. See John Watt, The Theory of Papal Monarchy in the Thirteenth Century: the Contribution of the Canonists (New York, 1965), pp. 212–14. The subject of Markward of Anweiler and his military activities is an extremely complex one. In this chapter I have concentrated solely on discussing those letters of Innocent III which showed his willingness to prevent Markward’s dominance in southern Italy and Sicily by authorizing a cruasade against him. Van Cleve, Markward of Anweiler, p. 124. Innocent III, ‘At zizania non’, pp. 56–7. Innocent III, ‘Is qui beatum’, pp. 809–11. See Norman Housley, ‘Crusades against Christians: Their Origins and Early Development, c.1000–1216’, in P. W. Edbury, Crusade and Settlement: Papers read at the First Conference of the Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East and Presented to R. C. Smail (Cardiff, 1985), p. 27. Innocent III, ‘Satis hactenus manus’, pp. 811–13. Innocent III, ‘Licet circa statum’, pp. 806–9. Innocent III, ‘Constantiam tue mentis’, pp. 831–2. Innocent III, ‘Preter generale debitum’, pp. 829–30; ‘Preter generale debitum’, pp. 830–1. Innocent III, ‘Persecutionis olim olla’, pp. 620–2. Innocent III, ‘Si diligenter attenditis’, pp. 802–6. Van Cleve, Markward of Anweiler, p. 125. Innocent III, ‘Si diligenter attenditis’, p. 804. Van Cleve, Markward of Anweiler, p. 126. Ibid., pp. 127–8.

206

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

51 Ibid., p. 127. 52 Innocent III, ‘Reverendo in Christo’ (18 May, 1199), Regestum Innocentii III papae super negotio Romani imperii, ed. Kemp, pp. 33–8. 53 Innocent III, ‘Ad reconciliationem et’, pp. 306–11. See Van Cleve, Markward of Anweiler, p. 128. 54 Innocent III, ‘Si multitudinem et’ (10–15 August 1199), Die Register Innocenz III 2, pp. 311–12. 55 Innocent III, ‘Littere quae nobis’, pp. 38–42. 56 Innocent III, ‘Devotionis et fidei’ (1–15 Sept. 1199), Die Register Innocenz III 2, p. 337. 57 Innocent III, ‘Et optata regni’, pp. 331–3; ‘Exoptata regni tranquilitas’, no. 841. 58 Innocent III, ‘In quot et’ (27 Sept. 1199), Die Register Innocenz III 2, pp. 342–3. 59 Innocent III, ‘Cum defensio vestra’, pp. 349–50. 60 Van Cleve, Markward of Anweiler, pp. 128–9. 61 Innocent III, ‘Quod futura sint’, pp. 411–14. 62 Innocent III, ‘Universitatem vestram volumus’, p. 366. 63 Innocent III, ‘Cum vos audivimus’, pp. 421–3. See Van Cleve, Markward of Anweiler, p. 129. 64 Innocent III, ‘Inter innumeras sollicitudines’, pp. 451–6. See Van Cleve, Markward of Anweiler, p. 129. 65 Van Cleve, Markward of Anweiler, p. 130. 66 Letters of Innocent III concerning the defence of Sicily written during the third year of his pontificate (1200–1201) can be found in Theiner, pp. 47–55, passim. Letters concerned with Sicily written during the fourth year of his pontificate (1201–1202) can also be found in Theiner, pp. 55–63, passim. 67 Innocent III, ‘Quantum apostolica sedes’ (3 Feb. 1200), Die Register Innocenz III 2, pp. 520–2; ‘Tyrannidem quam olim’, p. 53. 68 Van Cleve, Markward of Anweiler, p. 156. 69 Ibid., p. 158. 70 Ibid., p. 174. 71 Innocent III, ‘Prohibemus ut demanium’ (Oct. 1200), Historia diplomatica 1, pp. 57–8. See also Theiner, p. 52, and The Deeds of Pope Innocent III by an Anonymous Author, ed. and trans. Powell, pp. 38–9. 72 Innocent III, ‘Utinam puerilibus annis’ (3 July 1201), Historia diplomatica 1, pp. 79–85. See also The Deeds of Innocent III by an Anonymous Author, ed. and trans. Powell, pp. 41–5. 73 Van Cleve, Markward of Anweiler, p. 175. 74 Ibid., pp. 177ff. 75 Ibid., p. 188. 76 Innocent III, ‘Recepimus litteras quas’ (4 March 1202), Die Register Innocenz III 5, pp. 9–12. 77 Innocent III, ‘Opera testimonium perhibent’, pp. 67–70. 78 Innocent III, ‘Si naturam et’ (14 Sept. 1202), Die Register Innocenz III 5, pp. 165–7. See Van Cleve, Markward of Anweiler, p. 200. 79 Innocent III, ‘Gaudemus in Domino’ (14 Sept. 1202), Die Register Innocenz III 5, pp. 167–8.

P O PE S A N D T H E F I R S T ‘ P O L I T I C A L C RU S A D E S’

207

80 Innocent III, ‘Per hoc scriptum’ (14 Sept. 1202), Die Register Innocenz III 5, pp. 168–9; ‘Praesentium vobis auctoritate’ (14 Sept. 1202), Die Register Innocenz III 5, pp. 169–70. 81 Innocent III, ‘Praesentium vobis auctoritate’ (14 Sept. 1202), Die Register Innocenz III 5, p. 169. 82 Innocent III, ‘Benedictus Deus et pater’ (24 Sept. 1202), Die Register Innocenz III 5, pp. 172–3. 83 For his letter of 1208 calling for the crusade, see Innocent III, ‘Ne nos ejus’ (10 March 1208), PL, 215 cols 1354–8. 84 There is an enormous amount of literature on the increasing tensions between popes and Frederick II during the first half of the thirteenth century and the political machinations of the various parties involved. For a recent study, see, for example, Abulafia, Frederick II, passim. 85 Christopher Tyerman, The Invention of the Crusades (Basingstoke, 1998), p. 74. 86 Van Cleve, The Emperor Frederick II of Hohenstaufen, pp. 160–3. 87 Honorius III, ‘Miranda tuis sensibus’ (beg. May 1226), Rodenberg 1, pp. 216–220. 88 Peter Edbury, ‘The Crusader States’, The New Cambridge Medieval History, Vol. 5 c.1198–c.1300, ed. D. Abulafia (Cambridge, 1999), p. 598; Jonathan Riley-Smith, The Feudal Nobility and the Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1174–1277 (London, 1973), pp. 159–60. 89 Van Cleve, The Emperor Frederick II of Hohenstaufen, p. 172. 90 Honorius III, ‘Cum omnibus iniuriam’ (21 July 1226), Rodenberg 1, pp. 233–4. 91 Van Cleve, The Emperor Frederick II of Hohenstaufen, p. 187. 92 Historia Diplomatica 2, part 2, pp. 674–5. 93 Honorius III, ‘Hiis que tibi’ (20 Aug. 1226), Rodenberg 1, p. 234. 94 Van Cleve, The Emperor Frederick II of Hohenstaufen, pp. 167–8. 95 Honorius III, ‘Certam nobis’, pp. 522–3; ‘Certam nobis’, col. 490. See also Potthast 1, no. 7480. 96 Honorius III, ‘Cum inter varias’, pp. 234–5. 97 Historia Diplomatica 2, part 2, pp. 675–7. See Van Cleve, The Emperor Frederick II of Hohenstaufen, pp. 187–8. 98 Honorius III, ‘Fraternitati vestre tenore’, pp. 235–6. 99 Historia Diplomatica 2, part 2, pp. 678–80. 100 Rodenberg 1, pp. 240–1. 101 Honorius III, ‘Eius locum licet’, pp. 246–8. 102 Honorius III, ‘Inter cetera que’, pp. 248–9; ‘Eius locum licet’, p. 249. 103 Honorius III, ‘Causam discordie nuper’, p. 250. 104 Honorius III, ‘Cum in forma’, pp. 250–1. 105 Rodenberg 1, p. 258. 106 Honorius III, ‘Miramur nec satis’, pp. 259–60. 107 Rodenberg 1, p. 262. See Van Cleve, The Emperor Frederick II of Hohenstaufen, p. 189. 108 Van Cleve, The Emperor Frederick II of Hohenstaufen, pp. 165–6. 109 Honorius III, ‘Totum patrimonium quod’ (27 Jan. 1227), Rodenberg 1, pp. 257–8. 110 Honorius III, ‘Non dubitat sicut’, pp. 256–7. 111 Honorius III, ‘Sincera devotio quam’ (13 Jan. 1227), Rodenberg 1, pp. 255–6. 112 Gregory IX, ‘Alto illius qui’ (23 March 1227), Rodenberg 1, pp. 261–2.

208

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

113 Gregory IX, ‘Inter cetera que’ (26 March 1227), Historia Diplomatica 3, pp. 3–6; ‘Miramur nec satis’, p. 263. 114 Van Cleve, The Emperor Frederick II of Hohenstaufen, pp. 195–6, 202. 115 Gregory IX, ‘Noverit universitas vestra’, pp. 127–30. 116 Gregory IX, ‘In maris amplitudine’ (10 Oct. 1227), Historia Diplomatica 3, pp. 23–30. 117 Gregory IX, ‘Utinam imperialem celsitudinem’ (end Oct. 1227), Historia Diplomatica 3, pp. 32–4. 118 Historia Diplomatica 3, pp. 35–6. 119 Ibid., pp. 36–48. 120 Gregory IX, ‘Quanto nobilius membrum’ (end March 1228), Historia Diplomatica 3, pp. 52–5. 121 Richard of San Germano, ‘Chronica’, p. 150. 122 Van Cleve, The Emperor Frederick II of Hohenstaufen, pp. 206–7. 123 Gregory IX, ‘Ad vestram et’ (30 Aug. 1228), Historia Diplomatica 3, pp. 494–6; ‘Ad vestram et’ (20 Aug. 1228), Rodenberg 1, pp. 730–2. 124 Richard of San Germano, ‘Chronica’, pp. 152–3; Roger of Wendover, Flores historiarum, 2, ed. Hewlett, pp. 375–8; Matthew Paris, Chronica majora, 3, pp. 186–9. See Salvatore Sibilia, Gregorio IX, 1227–1241 (Milan, 1961), p. 99. 125 Abulafia, Frederick II, A Medieval Emperor, pp. 196–7. 126 Gregory IX, ‘Scitis et sicut’ (26 June 1229), Rodenberg 1, pp. 313–14. 127 Gregory IX, ‘Satis dominio tuo’ (7 Nov. 1228), Rodenberg 1, pp. 291–2. See Van Cleve, The Emperor Frederick II of Hohenstaufen, p. 209. 128 Matthew Paris, Chronica majora, 3, ed. Luard, pp. 186–9; Roger of Wendover, Flores historiarum 2, ed. Hewlett, pp. 375–8. See Van Cleve, The Emperor Frederick II of Hohenstaufen, p. 210. 129 Matthew Paris, Chronica majora, 3, ed. Luard, pp. 186–9; Roger of Wendover, Flores historiarum, 2, ed. Hewlett, pp. 375–8. 130 Van Cleve, The Emperor Frederick II of Hohenstaufen, p. 211. 131 Historia Diplomatica 3, pp. 112–15. 132 Ibid. 133 Gregory IX, ‘Cum Fredericus dictus’ (28 Sept. 1229), Rodenberg 1, pp. 322–3. 134 Van Cleve, The Emperor Frederick II of Hohenstaufen, p. 212. 135 Ibid., p. 213. 136 Gregory IX, ‘Magnus Dominus et’, pp. 305–6. 137 Gregory IX, ‘Sedes apostolica velut’ (19 May 1229), Rodenberg 1, pp. 307–8; ‘Sedes apostolica veluti’ (20 June 1229), Rodenberg 1, p. 310; ‘Sedes apostolica veluti’ (21 June 1229), Rodenberg 1, pp. 311–13; ‘Cum reducti sint’ (29 Aug. 1229), Rodenberg 1, p. 321; ‘Dilecti filii nobis’ (7 Sept. 1229), Rodenberg 1, pp. 321–2; ‘Cum civitatem vestram’ (19 May 1229), Rodenberg 1, pp. 306–7. 138 Van Cleve, The Emperor Frederick II of Hohenstaufen, pp. 228–9. 139 Van Cleve, The Emperor Frederick II of Hohenstaufen, p. 231. 140 ‘Codex Udalrici’, Biblioteca rerum Germanicarum Vol. 5: Monumenta Bambergensia, ed. P. Jaffé (Berlin, 1869), p. 443; Dieter Girgensohn, ‘Das Pisaner Konzil von 1135 in

P O PE S A N D T H E F I R S T ‘ P O L I T I C A L C RU S A D E S’

141 142 143 144 145 146 147

148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157

158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165

209

der Überlieferung des Pisaner Konzils von 1409’, Festschrift für Hermann Heimpel, 2 (Göttingen, 1972), pp. 1099–1100. See Housley, ‘Crusades against Christians’, pp. 22, 24. Kantorowicz, Frederick II, p. 371. Antiquitates Italicae medii aevi, 6, ed. L. A. Muratori (Milan, 1842; new edn, Milan, 1905–), pp. 19–20. Van Cleve, The Emperor Frederick II of Hohenstaufen, p. 417. Gregory IX, ‘Clare memorie viri’ (30 April/4 May 1238), Rodenberg 1, pp. 624–5; ‘De statu persone’ (31 May 1238), Rodenberg 1, pp. 628–9. Historia Diplomatica 5, part 1, pp. 390–4. Acta imperii inedita, 2, ed. E. A. Winckelmann (Innsbruck, 1885), pp. 689–90. Gregory IX, ‘Ascendit de mare’ (21 June 1239), in Matthew Paris, Chronica majora, 3, ed. Luard, pp. 590–608; ‘Sedes apostolica sicut’, pp. 569–73; ‘Cum Federicus dictus’, pp. 317–18; ‘Quia Fredericus dictus’, pp. 8–9; ‘Miratur fratrem venerabilem’, p. 9; ‘Memorat beneficia in’, pp. 9–10; ‘Rationalis spiritus exulanti’, pp. 6–8. Matthew Paris, Chronica majora, 3, ed. Luard, pp. 563–5, 575–90. Ibid., pp. 548–50. See also Historia Diplomatica 5, part 1, pp. 282–4; ‘Provocatio ad concilium Generale’, Constitutiones 2, pp. 289–90. Kantorowicz, Frederick II, p. 471. Gregory IX, ‘Ascendit de mare’ (21 June 1239), Historia Diplomatica 5, part 1, pp. 327– 40. Gregory IX, ‘Excommunicamus’ (20 March 1239), Historia Diplomatica 5, part 1, pp. 286–9. Gregory IX, ‘Cum nuper in’ (7 April 1239), Rodenberg 1, pp. 640–1. Matthew Paris, Chronica majora, 3, ed. Luard, p. 621. Gregory IX, ‘Ascendit de mare’, in Matthew Paris, Chronica majora, 3, ed. Luard, pp. 590–608; ‘Ascendit de mare’ (21 May 1239), Rodenberg 1, pp. 646–54. Gregory IX, ‘Noverit dilectus filius’ (27 Oct. 1239), in Matthew Paris, Chronica majora, 3, ed. Luard, pp. 624–5. Gregory IX, ‘Cum Federicus dictus’, pp. 317–18; ‘Quia Fridericus dictus’, pp. 8–9; ‘Miratur fratrem venerabilem’, p. 9; ‘Memorat beneficia in’, pp. 9–10; ‘Rationalis spiritus exulanti’, pp. 6–8. See Van Cleve, The Emperor Frederick II of Hohenstaufen, p. 435. Constitutiones 2, pp. 313–17. Gregory IX, Regesta imperii 5, part 3, no. 7300; Acta imperii inedita, 1, ed. Wincklemann, p. 530. Matthew Paris, Chronica majora, 3, ed. Luard, pp. 624–5. Van Cleve, The Emperor Frederick II of Hohenstaufen, pp. 436–6. Historia Diplomatica 5, part 2, pp. 1058–60. Sibilia, Gregorio IX, 1227–1241, pp. 202–3. Gregory of Montelongo, ‘Veniens Januam frater’, Historia Diplomatica 5, part 2, pp. 1061–2; ‘Cum Dominus Gregorius’, Historia Diplomatica 5, part 2, pp. 1062–6. Gregory IX, ‘ad petram’ (end Feb. 1240), Historia Diplomatica 5, part 2, pp. 776–9; ‘Quia precipue fidelium’ (20 June 1240), Acta imperii inedita, 1, ed. Winckelmann, p. 530; ‘Licet apostolice sedis’ (4 July 1240), Rodenberg 1, pp. 677–8; ‘Percepto ex relatu’, pp. 678–9;

210

166 167

168 169 170 171 172

173

174 175

176

177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

‘Exultamus pro vobis’ (beg. Aug. 1240), Historia Diplomatica 5, part 2, pp. 1021–2. See Van Cleve, The Emperor Frederick II of Hohenstaufen, p. 447. Historia Diplomatica 5, part 2, pp. 1014–17. Gregory IX, ‘Eterna providentia Conditoris’ (9 Aug. 1240), Rodenberg 1, pp. 679–80; ‘Super bases aureas’ (9 Aug. 1240), Rodenberg 1, p. 680; ‘Cum graves apostolice’ (9 Aug. 1240), Rodenberg 1, pp. 680–1. See Van Cleve, The Emperor Frederick II of Hohenstaufen, p. 447; ‘Existens in mari’ (18 May 1241), Rodenberg 1, pp. 716–17. Gregory IX, ‘Cum sicut de’ (18 Jan. 1241), Rodenberg 1, pp. 705–6; ‘Cum patriarcha Aquilegensis’ (28 Jan. 1241), Rodenberg 1, p. 706. Gregory IX, ‘Coram nobis et’ (18 Feb. 1241), Rodenberg 1, p. 707. ‘Vita Gregorii IX’, p. 34; ‘Liber de vita Christi ac omium pontificum qui hactenus ducenti fuere et. xx’, Platynae Historici, RIS 3, part 1, p. 234. See Kantorowicz, Frederick II, p. 516. Gregory IX, ‘Cum tibi duxerimus’ (12 Feb. 1241), Rodenberg 1, pp. 706–7. Gregory IX, ‘Si filius es’ (26 Feb. 1241), Rodenberg 1, p. 708; ‘Virum secundum eos’ (26 Feb. 1241), Rodenberg 1, pp. 708–9; ‘Intelleximus quod venerabilis’ (March 1241), Rodenberg 1, p. 709; ‘Gratum gerimus et’ (15 March 1241), Rodenberg 1, p. 710; ‘Cum sicut accepimus’ (15 March 1241), Rodenberg 1, p. 710; ‘Quia gratia nobis’ (19 March 1241), Rodenberg 1, p. 711; ‘Cum sicut ex’ (18 March 1241), Rodenberg 1, pp. 710–11. See Kantorowicz, Frederick II, pp. 542–3. Gregory IX, ‘Sua nobis capitulum’ (16 April 1241), Rodenberg 1, pp. 711–12; ‘Intenta misericordie studiis’ (10 May 1241), Rodenberg 1, p. 712; ‘Presentium tibi auctoritate’ (10 May 1241), Rodenberg 1, pp. 712–13. Van Cleve, The Emperor Frederick II of Hohenstaufen, p. 449. Honorius III, ‘Summi providentia principis’ (20 Nov. 1225), Rodenberg 1, pp. 207–9; Gregory IX, ‘Dolente referimus et’ (10 May 1241), Rodenberg 1, pp. 713–14; ‘Tacti sumus dolore’ (10 May 1241), Rodenberg 1, pp. 714–16. Gregory IX, ‘Attendentes grata obsequia’ (12 May 1241), Rodenberg 1, p. 716; ‘Existens in mari’ (18 May 1241), Rodenberg 1, pp. 716–17; ‘Ex parte tua’ (20 May 1241), Rodenberg 1, p. 718; ‘Attendentes grata obsequia’ (29 May 1241), Rodenberg 1, p. 718. Gregory IX, ‘Vix diebus istis’ (14 June 1241), Rodenberg 1, pp. 720–1. Gregory IX, ‘Nobilitatem tuam dignis’ (19 June 1241), Rodenberg 1, pp. 723–4; ‘Cum ad archana’ (1 July 1241), Rodenberg 1, pp. 725–6. Gregory IX, ‘Dolenda novi casus’ (31 July 1241), Rodenberg 1, pp. 726–7; ‘Experte devotionis’ (16 Aug. 1241), Rodenberg 1, pp. 727–8. Bartholomew of Brescia, ‘Post gloriosum triumphum’ (end June 1241), Historia Diplomatica 5, part 2, pp. 1146–8. Van Cleve, The Emperor Frederick II of Hohenstaufen, pp. 453–4. Kantorowicz, Frederick II, pp. 559–61. Horace Mann, Lives of the Popes in the Middle Ages from 590 to 1304, 13 (London, 1925), pp. 445–6. Kantorowicz, Frederick II, pp. 575–6. For Celestine III, see, for example, Horace Mann, Lives of the Popes in the Middle Ages from 590 to 1304, 10 (London, 1915), pp. 383–441.

P O PE S A N D T H E F I R S T ‘ P O L I T I C A L C RU S A D E S’

211

186 Mann, Lives of the Popes in the Middle Ages from 590 to 1304, 14, pp. 13–14; Van Cleve, The Emperor Frederick II of Hohenstaufen, p. 461. 187 Kantorowicz, Frederick II, pp. 578–81. 188 Mann, Lives of the Popes in the Middle Ages from 590 to 1304, 14, pp. 16–20. 189 Innocent IV, ‘Sumus orbis opifex’ (2 July 1243), Rodenberg 2, pp. 1–3. 190 Innocent IV, ‘Ad Constantinopolitani conservationem’ (13 July 1243), Les Registres de Innocent IV, ed. É. Berger, 3 vols, Bibliothèques des écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome (2nd Series) (Paris, 1884–1921), 1, pp. 6–7. 191 Innocent IV, ‘Iustis petentium desideriis’ (8 Oct. 1243), Rodenberg 2, pp. 25–6. 192 Innocent IV, ‘Litteras vestre benigne’ (26 Aug. 1243), Rodenberg 2, pp. 8–10; ‘Litterarum vestrarum serie’ (2 Sept. 1243), Constitutiones 2, p. 332. 193 Innocent IV, ‘Cum sicut te’ (26 Aug. 1243), Les Registres de Innocent IV, 1, ed. Berger, p. 18. 194 Innocent IV, ‘Tua sinceritas bene’ (7 Oct. 1243), Rodenberg 2, pp. 24–5. 195 Innocent IV, ‘Gaudium a nobis’ (18 Nov. 1243), Cesare Pinzi, Storia della città di Viterbo, illustrata con note e nuovi documenti in gran parte inediti, 1 (Rome, 1887), pp. 445–6. See also Acta imperii inedita, 1, ed. Winckelmann, pp. 546–4. 196 Van Cleve, The Emperor Frederick II of Hohenstaufen, pp. 473–4. 197 Innocent IV ‘Sperantes quod nobilis’ (2 Dec. 1243), Rodenberg 2, pp. 31–2. 198 Constitutiones 2, pp. 341–51. 199 Van Cleve, The Emperor Frederick II of Hohenstaufen, pp. 475–6. 200 Ibid., pp. 476–8. 201 Innocent IV, ‘Dei virtus et’ (3 Jan. 1245), Rodenberg 2, pp. 56–8. 202 Innocent IV, ‘Dei virtus et’, pp. 56–8; ‘Pro magnis et’ (31 Jan. 1245), Rodenberg 2, pp. 63–4. 203 Innocent IV ‘Eger cui levia’ (end 1245), Acta imperii inedita, 2, ed. Winckelmann, pp. 696–703. 204 Innocent IV, ‘Litteras tuas solita’, pp. 78–9. 205 Rainer of Viterbo, ‘Confusa est mater’ (July 1245), Acta imperii inedita, 1, ed. Winckelmann, pp. 568–70. 206 Innocent IV, ‘Ad apostolice dignitatis’ (17 July 1245), Rodenberg 2, pp. 88–94. 207 Innocent IV, ‘Quia inter ceteros’, p. 454; ‘Quia inter ceteros’, p. 455; ‘Cupientes imperii negotium’, pp. 455–6. 208 Matthew Paris, Chronica majora, 4, ed. Luard, pp. 544–5. 209 Historia Diplomatica 6, part 1, pp. 389–90, 390–3, 393–4, 394–5. 210 Innocent IV, ‘Agni sponsa nobilis’ (end March 1246), Historia Diplomatica 6, part 1, pp. 396–9. 211 Innocent IV, ‘Grandum super eo’ (before April 1246), Rodenberg 2, p. 124. 212 Innocent IV, ‘In omnem terram’ (26 April 1246), Rodenberg 2, pp. 126–7. 213 Innocent IV, ‘Dextera Domini faciente’ (April 1246), Rodenberg 2, pp. 128–9. 214 Innocent IV, ‘Nostra ferventer ad’ (end April 1246), Rodenberg 2, pp. 127–8. 215 Innocent IV, ‘Per speciales litteras’ (end April 1246), Rodenberg 2, p. 130; ‘Circa regnum Sicilie’ (end April 1246), Rodenberg 2, pp. 129–30; ‘Si circumspector Dominus’ (end April 1246), Rodenberg 2, p. 130.

212 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

Innocent IV, ‘Cum post latas’ (23 May 1246), Rodenberg 2, pp. 141–3. Innocent IV, ‘Ad mittem et’ (end April 1246), Rodenberg 2, pp. 131–2. Innocent IV, ‘Anxia corde dudum’ (end April 1246), Rodenberg 2, pp. 134–5. Innocent IV, ‘Illustravit super vos’ (end April 1246), Rodenberg 2, p. 135. Innocent IV, ‘Licet omnibus et’ (27 April 1246), Rodenberg 2, p. 136. Innocent IV, ‘Per industrie humane’ (end April 1246), Rodenberg 2, p. 133; ‘Ad mitem et’ (end April 1246), Rodenberg 2, p. 132. Innocent III, ‘Is qui beatum’, pp. 809–11. For example, Innocent III, ‘Is qui beatum’, pp. 809–11. For example, Innocent III, ‘Littere quae nobis’, pp. 39, 41. For example, Innocent III, ‘Et optata regni’, p. 333; ‘Inter innumeras sollicitudines’, p. 452; ‘Satis hactenus manus’, p. 813; ‘Tyrannidem quam olim’, p. 53. Innocent III, ‘Ad reconciliationem et’, pp. 308–9. For example, Innocent III, ‘Satis hactenus manus’, p. 812; ‘Licet circa statum’, pp. 807, 808. Innocent III, ‘Littere quae nobis’, p. 41. Innocent III, ‘Inter innumeras sollicitudines’, p. 452. Innocent III, ‘In quot et’, p. 343. For example, Innocent III, ‘Si diligenter attenditis’, pp. 805, 806; ‘Satis hactenus manus’, p. 812; ‘Licet circa statum’, p. 808; ‘In quot et’, p. 343. For example, Innocent III, ‘Satis hactenus manus’, p. 812; ‘Licet circa statum’, p. 808; ‘Si diligenter attenditis’, p. 805; ‘Quantum apostolica sedes’, p. 521. Innocent III, ‘Tyrannidem quam olim’, p. 53. Ibid., p. 53; ‘Littere quae nobis’, pp. 40, 41; ‘Quod futura sint’, p. 414; ‘Cum vos audivimus’, p. 422. Innocent III, ‘Quantum apostolica sedes’, p. 521; ‘Cum vos audivimus’, p. 421; ‘Tyrannidem quam olim’, p. 53; ‘Is qui beatum’, p. 810. Innocent III, ‘Cum vos audivimus’, p. 422. Innocent III, ‘Is qui beatum’, pp. 809–10. See pp. 55–6. Honorius III, ‘Miranda tuis sensibus’, p. 221. Honorius III, ‘Miranda tuis sensibus’, pp. 216–22; ‘Cum inter varias’, pp. 234–5. For example, ‘Honorius III, ‘Miranda tuis sensibus’, p. 217. For example, Honorius III, ‘Miranda tuis sensibus’, p. 219; ‘Eius locum licet’, p. 247. For example, Honorius III, ‘Certam nobis’, p. 523; ‘Eius locum licet’, p. 247; ‘Eius locum licet’, p. 249. For example, Honorius III, ‘Cum inter varias’, p. 235; ‘Non dubitat sicut’, p. 257; ‘Certam nobis’, col. 490. Honorius III, ‘Fraternitati vestre tenore’, pp. 235–6. Honorius III, ‘Miranda tuis sensibus’, p. 217. Gregory IX, ‘Ad vestram et’, p. 494; ‘Ad vestram et’, p. 731. Gregory IX, ‘Inter cetera que’, p. 4. Gregory IX, ‘In maris amplitudine’, pp. 24, 25, 27, 28, 30; ‘Utinam imperialem celsitudinem’, pp. 32, 33. Gregory IX, ‘Alto illius qui’, p. 2.

P O PE S A N D T H E F I R S T ‘ P O L I T I C A L C RU S A D E S’

251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261

262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276

277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288

213

Gregory IX, ‘In maris amplitudine’, p. 25. Gregory IX, ‘In maris amplitudine’, p. 27, 28. For example, Gregory IX, ‘Alto illius qui’, pp. 261–2. Gregory IX, ‘In maris amplitudine’, p. 24. Gregory IX, ‘Ascendit de mare’, pp. 331–2. Gregory IX, ‘Quanto nobilius membrum’, p. 52. Gregory IX, ‘In maris amplitudine’, p. 24. Gregory IX, ‘Excommunicamus’, p. 286, 287; ‘Licet apostolice sedis’, p. 677; ‘Percepto ex relatu’, p. 679; ‘Ascendit de mare’, p. 648. Gregory IX, ‘Eterna providentia Conditoris’, p. 679. Gregory IX, ‘Vix diebus istis’, p. 721. Gregory IX, ‘Cum nuper in’, p. 641; ‘Eterna providentia Conditoris’, p. 679; ‘Super bases aureas’, p. 680; ‘Cum graves apostolice’, p. 680; ‘Vix diebus istis’, p. 720; ‘Ascendit de mare’, pp. 646–7. Gregory IX, ‘Cum nuper in’, p. 640. Gregory IX, ‘Ascendit de mare’, pp. 646–54. Ibid. Ibid., p. 652. Ibid., p. 646. Innocent III, ‘Quia major nunc’ (19–29 April 1213), Studien zum Register Innocenz III, ed. G. Tangl (Weimar, 1929), pp. 90–1. Innocent IV, ‘Litteras vestre benigne’, p. 10. Ibid.; ‘Quia inter ceteros’, p. 454; ‘Anxia corde dudum’, p. 135. Innocent IV, ‘Ad Constantinopolitani conservationem’, p. 6. Innocent IV, ‘Agni sponsa nobilis’, p. 399. Innocent IV, ‘Ad Constantinopolitani conservationem’, p. 6. Innocent IV, ‘Litteras tuas solita’, pp. 78–9. Innocent IV, ‘Summus orbis opifex’, p. 2. Innocent IV, ‘Litteras vestre benigne’, p. 10; ‘Summus orbis opifex’, p. 1. Innocent IV, ‘Litteras vestre benigne’, p. 9; ‘Cum sicut te’, p. 18; ‘Agni sponsa nobilis’, pp. 397, 398; ‘Eger cui levia’, pp. 699, 701; ‘In omnem terram’, p. 126, 127; ‘Nostra ferventer ad’, p. 128; ‘Anxia corde dudum’, p. 134; ‘Per industrie humane’, p. 133. Innocent IV, ‘Ad Constantinopolitani conservationem’, p. 6; ‘Anxia corda dudum’, p. 135. Innocent IV, ‘Per industrie humane’, p. 133. Innocent IV, ‘Ad apostolice dignitatis’, p. 90; ‘Eger cui levia’, p. 698. Innocent IV, ‘In omnem terram’, p. 126; ‘Per industrie humane’, p. 133. Innocent IV, ‘Ad mittem et’, p. 131. Innocent IV, ‘In omnem terram’, p. 126. Innocent IV, ‘Dextera Domini faciante’, p. 128. Innocent IV, ‘In omnem terram’, p. 126. For example, Innocent IV, ‘Summus orbis opifex’, pp. 1–3. Innocent IV, ‘Summus orbis opifex’, p. 2. Innocent IV, ‘Agni sponsa nobilis’, p. 397. Innocent IV, ‘Eger cui levia’, p. 696.

214

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

289 Supporter of Innocent IV, ‘Iuxta vaticinium Ysaie’ (1245), Acta imperii inedita, 2, ed. Winckelmann, p. 712. 290 Ibid., p. 715. 291 See pp. 55–6. 292 Supporter of Innocent IV, ‘Iuxta vaticinium Ysaie’, pp. 709–17; ‘Aspidis ora ruperant’ (1245), Acta imperii inedita, 2, ed. Winckelmann, pp. 717–21. 293 For example, Innocent III, ‘Satis hactenus manus’, pp. 811–13; ‘Et optata regni’, pp. 331–3; ‘Inter innumeras sollicitudines’, pp. 451–6; ‘Tyrannidem quam olim’, p. 53. 294 Innocent III, ‘Si diligenter attenditis’, pp. 802–6; ‘Is qui beatum’, pp. 809–11. 295 Innocent III, ‘Quod futura sint’, pp. 411–14. 296 Innocent III, ‘Quantum apostolica sedes’, pp. 520–2; ‘Inter innumeras sollicitudines’, pp. 451–6. 297 Honorius III, ‘Cum omnibus iniuriam’, p. 233. 298 Honorius III, ‘Eius locum licet’, pp. 246–7; ‘Causam discordie nuper’, p. 250. 299 Honorius III, ‘Miramur nec satis’, p. 259. 300 For example, Honorius III, ‘Fraternitati vestre tenore’, p. 236; ‘Cum omnibus iniuriam’, p. 233. 301 Gregory IX, ‘Noverit universitas vestra’, p. 130; ‘Memorat beneficia in’, p. 10. 302 Gregory IX, ‘Excommunicamus’, p. 288. 303 Gregory IX, ‘Ascendit de mare’, p. 651. 304 Gregory IX, ‘Noverit universitas vestra’, p. 128; ‘Ascendit de mare’, p. 649. 305 Gregory IX, ‘Ad vestram et’, pp. 494, 731. 306 Ibid., pp. 495, 731. 307 For example, Gregory IX, ‘In maris amplitudine’, p. 24, 25, 27, 28, 30; ‘Utinam imperialem celsitudinem’, p. 33; ‘Cum nuper in’, p. 641; ‘Ascendit de mare’, pp. 646, 647, 649; ‘Eterna providentia Conditoris’, p. 679; ‘Super bases aureas’, p. 680; ‘Cum graves apostolice’, p. 680; ‘Vix diebus istis’, p. 720. 308 Gregory IX, ‘Ad vestram et’, pp. 494, 731. 309 Innocent IV, ‘Litteras vestre benigne’, p. 10; ‘Litterarum vestrarum serie’, p. 332; ‘Quia inter ceteros’, pp. 454, 455. 310 Innocent IV, ‘Ad Constantinopolitani conservationem’, p. 6. 311 Innocent IV, ‘Cum sicut te’, p. 18; ‘Agni sponsa nobilis’, pp. 397, 398; ‘In omnem terram’, pp. 126, 127; ‘Anxia corde dudum’, p. 134. 312 Innocent IV, ‘Innocentia vestre pia’ (16 Jan. 1245), Historia Diplomatica 6, part 1, p. 248. 313 Rainer of Viterbo, ‘Confusa est mater’, pp. 568, 569. 314 Innocent IV, ‘Agni sponsa nobilis’, p. 399. 315 Innocent IV, ‘Summus orbis opifex’, p. 2. 316 Innocent III, ‘Licet circa statum’, pp. 806–9; ‘Si diligenter attenditis’, pp. 802–6; ‘Et optata regni’, pp. 331–3; ‘Cum vos audivimus’, pp. 421–3. 317 For Innocent III and crusade sermons, see Christoph Maier, Preaching the Crusades: Mendicant Friars and the Cross in the Thirteenth Century (Cambridge, 1994), pp. 111–12. 318 Supporter of Innocent IV, ‘Iuxta vaticinium Ysaie’, pp. 709–17; ‘Aspidis ora ruperant’, pp. 717–21. 319 For example, Historia Diplomatica 3, pp. 35–6, 36–48; Constitutiones 2, pp. 341–51;

P O PE S A N D T H E F I R S T ‘ P O L I T I C A L C RU S A D E S’

320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329

330 331 332 333

334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348

215

Historia Diplomatica 6, part 1, pp. 389–90; Historia Diplomatica 3, pp. 35–6, 36–48; Historia Diplomatica 5, part 2, pp. 1058–60; Rodenberg 1, p. 144; Historia Diplomatica 5, part 2, pp. 1014–17; Regesta imperii: Vol. 5, Die Regesten des Kaiserreichs unter Philipp, Otto IV, Friedrich II, Heinrich (VII), Conrad IV, Heinrich Raspe, Wilhelm und Richard, 1198–1272, ed. J. Ficker (Innsbruck, 1881–2), Abt. 1, no. 3930; Constitutiones 2, pp. 341–51; Historia Diplomatica 6, part 1, pp. 389–90, 390–3, 393–4, 394–6; Constitutiones 2, pp. 448–9, 449, 452–3; Constitutiones 2, p. 458. Innocent III, ‘Littere quae nobis’, pp. 38–42; ‘Ad reconciliationem et’, pp. 306–11. Innocent III, ‘Littere quae nobis’, pp. 40, 41; ‘Et optata regni’, p. 332; ‘Quod futura sint’, p. 414. Innocent III, ‘Tyrannidem quam olim’, p. 53. Innocent III, ‘Quod futura sint’, p. 414; ‘Et optata regni’, p. 333. Innocent III, ‘Cum vos audivimus’, pp. 421–3. Innocent III,’Quod futura sint’, p. 414. Ibid., p. 411. Ibid., p. 414. Ibid., pp. 411–14. Innocent III, ‘Cum vos audivimus’, pp. 421–3. For Muslim communities in Sicily, see Jeremy Johns, Arabic Adminsistration in Norman Sicily: the Royal Diwan (Cambridge, 2002), pp. 284–300; Hiroshi Takayama, The Administration of the Norman Kingdom of Sicily (Leiden and New York, 1993), pp. 163–9; Julie Taylor, Muslims in Medieval Italy: the Colony at Lucera (Oxford, 2003), pp. 1–31. For example, Innocent III, ‘Si multitudinem et’, pp. 311–12. Honorius III, ‘Eius locum licet’, p. 249. Ibid. For a general flavour of the strength and colour of Gregory IX’s rhetoric against Frederick II, see, for example, Gregory IX, ‘Ascendit de mare’, p. 339, in which letter he described the emperor as rejoicing in calling himself the precursor of the Antichrist. Gregory IX, ‘Quanto nobilius membrum’, pp. 53, 54. For example, Gregory IX, ‘Licet apostolice sedis’, pp. 677–8. Innocent IV, ‘Ad mittem et’, p. 131. Innocent IV, ‘In omnem terram’, p. 126. Innocent IV, ‘Per industrie humane’, p. 133. Innocent IV, ‘In omnem terram’, p. 126. Gregory IX, ‘In maris amplitudine’, pp. 24, 28. Gregory IX, ‘Ad vestram et’, p. 495. Gregory IX, ‘Ascendit de mare’, pp. 339–40. Aubrey of Trois Fontaines, ‘Chronica Albrici monachi Trium Fontium’, p. 944; ‘Vita Gregorii IX’, p. 33. Gregory IX, ‘Post gloriosum triumphum’, pp. 1146–8. Innocent IV, ‘Litteras vestre benigne’, pp. 8–10. Innocent IV, ‘Summus orbis pontifex’, pp. 1–3. Innocent IV, ‘Litteras vestre benigne’, p. 10; ‘Cum post latas’, p. 142. Innocent IV, ‘Ad Constantinopolitani conservationem’, p. 6.

216 349 350 351 352 353

354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364

365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

Supporter of Innocent IV, ‘Iuxta vaticinium Ysaie’, pp. 709–17. Ibid., p. 709. Ibid., pp. 709–17. Supporter of Innocent IV, ‘Aspidis ora ruperant’, pp. 717–21. Innocent III, ‘Is qui beatum’, pp. 809–11; ‘Satis hactenus manus’, pp. 811–13; ‘Licet circa statum’, pp. 806–9; ‘Si diligenter attenditis’, pp. 802–6; ‘Ad reconciliationem et’, pp. 306–11; ‘Quod futura sint’, pp. 411–14; ‘Littere quae nobis’, pp. 38–42; ‘Et optata regni’, pp. 331–3. Innocent III, ‘Is qui beatum’, p. 811. Innocent III, ‘Satis hactenus manus’, p. 812; ‘Si diligenter attenditis’, p. 805; ‘Licet circa statum’, p. 809; ‘Quod futura sint’, p. 413. Innocent III, ‘Littere quae nobis’, pp. 38–42. Innocent III, ‘Ad reconciliationem et’, pp. 306–7. Innocent III, ‘Is qui beatum’, pp. 809–11; ‘Quod futura sint’, pp. 411–14. Innocent III, ‘Is qui beatum’, p. 811. Innocent III, ‘Ad reconciliationem et’, pp. 306–11. Innocent III, ‘Et optata regni’, pp. 331–3. Innocent III, ‘Licet circa statum’, p. 809. Innocent III, ‘Quod futura sint’, p. 414. Honorius III, ‘Cum inter varias’, pp. 234–5; ‘Fraternitati vestre tenore’, pp. 235–6; ‘Eius locum licet’, pp. 246–8; ‘Inter cetera que’, pp. 248–9; ‘Eius locum licet’, p. 249; ‘Causam discordie nuper’, p. 250; ‘Cum in forma’, pp. 250–1; ‘Miramur nec satis’, pp. 259–60; Gregory IX, ‘Noverit tua serenitas’, pp. 6–7. Gregory IX, ‘In maris amplitudine’, pp. 23–30; See also reference to this in ‘Ascendit de mare’, pp. 327–40. Richard of San Germano, ‘Chronica’, p. 153. See Van Cleve, The Emperor Frederick II of Hohenstaufen, p. 211. Richard of San Germano, ‘Chronica’, pp. 153, 157. ‘Liber de vita Christi ac omium pontificum qui hactenus ducenti fuere et. xx’, p. 234. Abulafia, Frederick II, A Medieval Emperor, p. 196. Gregory IX, ‘Excommunicamus’, pp. 286–9. Gregory IX, ‘Quia Fredericus dictus’, pp. 8–9. Innocent IV, ‘Gaudium a nobis’, pp. 445–6. Innocent IV, ‘Cum sicut te’, p. 18; ‘Litterarum vestrarum serie’, p. 332. Innocent IV, ‘Quia inter ceteros’, p. 454. Ibid., p. 455. Innocent IV, ‘In omnem terram’, p. 127. Innocent IV, ‘Ad mittem et’, pp. 131–2. Innocent IV, ‘Per industrie humane’, p. 133. Innocent IV, ‘Ad mittem et’ (end April 1246), Rodenberg 2, p. 132. Constitutiones 2, p. 348. Innocent III, ‘Licet circa statum’, pp. 806–9; ‘Quod futura sint’, pp. 411–14. Ibid.; ‘Tyrannidem quam olim’, p. 53. For example, Honorius III, ‘Miranda tuis sensibus’, pp. 216–12; ‘Cum inter varias’,

P O PE S A N D T H E F I R S T ‘ P O L I T I C A L C RU S A D E S’

384

385 386

387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394

395

217

pp. 234–5; ‘Non dubitat sicut’, pp. 256–7; ‘Sincera devotio quam’, pp. 255–6; Gregory IX, ‘Noverit tua serenitas’, pp. 6–7. Honorius III, ‘Cum inter varias’, pp. 234–5; ‘Fraternitati vestre tenore’, pp. 235–6; ‘Eius locum licet’, pp. 246–8; ‘Inter cetera que’, pp. 248–9; ‘Eius locum licet’, p. 249; ‘Causam discordie nuper’, p. 250; ‘Cum in forma’, pp. 250–1; ‘Miramur nec satis’, pp. 259–60; Gregory IX, ‘Miramur nec satis’, p. 263; ‘Noverit tua serenitas’, pp. 6–7. See James Powell, Anatomy of a Crusade 1213–1221 (Philadelphia, 1986), pp. 181–4. See pp. 81–109, passim. Gregory IX, ‘Inter cetera que’, p. 4; ‘Alto illius qui’, p. 262; ‘Ascendit de mare’, pp. 328, 329, 330; ‘Quanto nobilius membrum’, p. 53; ‘Ad vestram et’, p. 495; ‘Ad vestram et’, p. 731; ‘In maris amplitudine’, pp. 25, 27, 28, 29. Gregory IX, ‘In maris amplitudine’, p. 28. Gregory IX, ‘Utinam imperialem celsitudinem’, p. 32; ‘Ascendit de mare’, pp. 328, 329, 335–6. Gregory IX, ‘Noverit universitas vestra’, pp. 127–30. Gregory IX, ‘Excommunicamus’, p. 288. Gregory IX ‘Ascendit de mare’, pp. 328, 329. Ibid., p. 328; ‘In maris amplitudine’, pp. 25, 27, 28, 29. Gregory IX, ‘Excommunicamus’, pp. 286–9; ‘Cum nuper in’, p. 640. And in 1236 Gregory IX had commuted the vows of French knights from fighting the Muslims in the Holy Land to defending Constantinople against the Greeks. See Norman Housley, ‘The Thirteenth-Century Crusades in the Mediterranean’ in The New Cambridge Medieval History, Vol. 5, c.1198–c.1300, ed. D. Abulafia (Cambridge, 1999), p. 586. Innocent IV, ‘Dei virtus et’, pp. 56–8.

This page intentionally left blank

Conclusion

The first half of the thirteenth century was a time of immense growth for the papacy in both ecclesiastical jurisdiction and temporal power, and its cause was aided by a series of dynamic and able popes with relatively long pontificates. Between 1198 and 1245 four popes took the momentous decision to authorize crusades against heretics and political enemies, using particular language and rhetoric in their correspondence to disseminate their ideas throughout Christendom and to control the course of the crusades. Different concerns and priorities affected their decision-making and during their pontificates they often changed their minds as how best to encourage crusading. Yet through their letters we gain an invaluable insight into the characters and policies of some of the most influential men of the High Middle Ages. The devastating loss of Jerusalem in 1187 had heightened the concern of these popes to combat Muslims, regarded in the first half of the thirteenth century as the major ‘external’ enemy of Christendom because they threatened the Holy Land. Popes also continued to encourage crusading in the Iberian peninsula, but the decisive victory over Muslims in Spain at the battle of Las Navas de Tolosa in 1212 ensured that Innocent III did not feel the same urgency to prioritize Spanish crusading during the later years of his pontificate. Furthermore, although the Baltic crusades were increasingly important from Innocent’s pontificate onwards, they were fought on the outskirts of Christian Europe and popes never regarded them as central to the needs of Christendom. They therefore turned their attention to promoting and developing the idea of crusades against the Church’s enemies in Europe. Popes were extremely concerned with these ‘internal’ enemies. Although historians continue to debate the number of heretics in Europe in the thirteenth century and some have questioned whether the threat of heresy was as great as contemporaries claimed, popes certainly believed it a serious challenge to Church authority and ultimately the Christian faith, and that this threat was on a par to that posed by Muslims in the Holy Land. The concept of ‘internal’ enemies is not therefore merely a modern construct, a convenience used by recent historians to group together non-Christians living in Europe. It reflected an idea held to some extent by all the popes of the first half of the thirteenth century. These popes regarded heretics as dangerous enemies of the Church. The

220

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

historian Robert Moore has argued that in the eleventh and twelfth centuries deliberate and socially sanctioned violence began to be directed through established governments, as well as judicial and social institutions, including the papacy, against such heretics, as also against Jews, lepers and homosexuals, because their habits and practices set them apart from the Christian community.1 Moore rightly emphasized the need to focus on the attitudes of the majority society to understand the position of minorities. Yet the idea both of the interchangeability of persecuted outgroups, and that anti-outgroup imagery was created by societal elites to further their own power aspirations, are greatly exaggerated.2 Popes viewed heretics as enemies of the Church because they seemed to question the papacy’s claims to temporal jurisdiction and, even more subversively, its spiritual authority. They also genuinely believed that heresy posed a real and direct threat to the doctrines and teachings of the Catholic Church in which they firmly believed and which they regarded it was their ultimate duty to uphold. Papal attitudes towards these ‘internal’ enemies, whom popes compared and contrasted in their correspondence with ‘external’ Muslim enemies in the East and Spain, both reflected but also influenced the views of contemporary chroniclers and annalists who wrote about the crusades. Conciliar legislation and canon law similarly mirrored and even amplified the ideas expressed in papal letters and there was a clear correlation in language between these letters and Church decrees. Canon lawyers, the clergy, even the secular powers, looked to papal decretals for inspiration and guidance. Yet, despite occasional references to the crusade vow, the comparative lack of discussion about crusading in thirteenth-century collections of canon law suggests that canonists and theologians themselves were still unsure about defining, regulating and even defining crusades, whether ‘external’ or ‘internal’. Nevertheless, canon lawyers were developing their pronouncements on the treatment of heretics in Christian society at the very time that popes were beginning to call for ‘internal’ crusades. Innocent III, a great innovator, was the originator of this idea of crusading in Europe in the thirteenth century. Anger at the death of his legate Peter of Castelnau in 1208 encouraged him to authorize a crusade in the south of France, but as early as 1207 he had already granted the plenary indulgence for taking part in a military campaign. He had very specific aims for the crusade. As well as the destruction of heretics, he hoped to uphold the unity of the Church and encourage secular authorities to intervene on its behalf. He believed that as well as continuing to encourage preaching and teaching, these goals could be achieved much quicker by military means. Indeed, although Innocent eventually became somewhat disillusioned with the idea of crusading against heretics and wished instead to concentrate European military forces on the Fifth Crusade to the East, he nevertheless had set a precedent for papal calls for ‘internal’ crusades and

C O N C LU S I O N

221

thereby profoundly influenced the crusading policies of his successors. His immediate successor, Honorius III, seized the initiative, deciding to restart crusading in the south of France and even calling for the diversion of taxes originally intended for the crusade to the East. Yet he cautiously maintained the same language and rhetoric as his predecessor. In the long term the French monarchy was the principal gainer from these southern French crusades. This was in general advantageous to the papacy which preferred centralized power to the local authority of French counts, whose marauding and faction-fighting had brought chaos to southern French society to the detriment of ecclesiastical authority. Honorius’s crusading policies towards heretics in turn influenced his successor, Gregory IX, who responded by authorizing a series of crusades in Europe. Gregory, too, employed the language of his predecessors, emphasizing continuity with their policies. Bishops looked to the papacy to confirm their own calls for crusades, and, aware of this growing trend, Gregory was very cautious about their authorization. Yet by referring to all enemies of the Church against whom he authorized crusades as ‘heretics’, he blurred the distinction between those whose beliefs were heretical and those who were political enemies of the papacy. Furthermore, Gregory took the momentous step of authorizing a crusade against the anointed and consecrated emperor Frederick II, whom his predecessor Innocent III had supported throughout his pontificate. Indeed both Gregory and his successor Innocent IV became inextricably entangled with ‘political crusades’. Gregory imitated Innocent III’s authorization of a crusade against Markward of Anweiler by calling for a crusade against Frederick II. This call for a crusade against an emperor whom the papacy had previously favoured so highly was an extremely bold step that even Innocent III himself in similar circumstances might not have countenanced. Indeed Gregory’s calls for military action encouraged Innocent IV to prioritize the crusade against the emperor to such an extent that it even began to take precedence over ongoing calls for crusades to aid the Holy Land. This was ironic, since one of the reasons both Innocent III and Gregory IX had given for their authorization of ‘political crusades’, against both Markward of Anweiler and Frederick II, was that their activities were hindering the launch of crusades to the Holy Land. It was a big step for the papacy to authorize a crusade against a political enemy. It was an even bigger step to authorize one when that political enemy was an anointed and consecrated emperor. For this reason, popes exhausted peaceful diplomacy before they resorted to calling for a crusade. But whereas they came increasingly to prefer to deal with heretics by means other than crusading, principally by inquisition, over the next two centuries they deliberately encouraged ‘political crusades’. Since popes perceived their political enemies as a threat to papal power and authority, the cornerstone of Church unity, it was unsurprising that they described them as heretics in their correspondence. Indeed they realized

222

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

that by associating political enemies with heretics they could more easily justify their calls for crusades. It became standard papal rhetoric to describe political enemies as heretics, as it had been much earlier during the wars of the Investiture Conflict in the eleventh century. Nevertheless, despite the harsh rhetoric they employed against their enemies, popes often displayed less severe attitudes than the local clergy or secular leaders. Indeed, rhetoric often seemed to take precedence over practical advice, partly because the writing style of the curia, possibly developed during the pontificate of Gregory VIII, and which served as the model for epistolary correspondence throughout Europe, was extremely formulaic and stylized. During Innocent III’s pontificate the rhythmical style of papal letters became so perfect that forgeries could easily be detected: the thirteenth-century papal chancery allowed only three kinds of accented conclusions to clauses or sentences and restricted the use of the dactyl.3 Such restrictions and inflexibility did not encourage original thinking. But it acted to some extent as a check on the popes’ emotions and, by reminding them of the traditions of the Church, which it was their duty to uphold, of the importance of caution as well as continuity with their predecessors. Yet although trained lawyers and authors in their own right, popes perhaps did not always realize, or chose to ignore, the consequences of their powerful language. They might call for the extermination and expulsion of heretics in one letter, but follow this by another that not only called for leniency but rebuked crusaders and clergy for atrocities and excessive fervour. Innocent III expressed his anger at the alleged killing of Peter of Castelnau by Raymond VI of Toulouse, yet later called for gentler treatment of the count, reminding the southern French clergy that he had never actually been found guilty of heresy. And Gregory IX, although angered at the death of his legate Conrad of Marburg, still showed caution when authorizing a crusade against those accused of heresy in Germany. Popes called for these crusades against enemies in Europe using similar language as they employed when authorizing crusades against enemies in the East. They called for crusades to the East to defend the Holy Land, Christ’s patrimony, the crusader states and the holy places of pilgrimage. Using these crusades as their model, they too described crusades within Europe as primarily defensive operations. In particular they claimed that, just as the Muslim infidel threatened the Holy Land, so heretics were aggressors and rebels who undermined the Church’s traditional teaching that it alone had the power to interpret scripture and who questioned the Pope’s claim to be the head of Christian society. They also claimed that their political enemies threatened to undermine the papal states. So the idea of enemies living within Christian Europe was more than, as Moore suggested, a convenient way for the papacy to scapegoat the marginalized in society and assert power.4 Although we may deplore the methods of these popes, the spread of Catharism was a legitimate concern for the thirteenth-century Church,

C O N C LU S I O N

223

while political opponents such as Markward of Anweiler and later Frederick II threatened the papal patrimony on which they depended for their temporal and, ultimately, spiritual authority. Innocent III, Honorius III, Gregory IX, Celestine IV and Innocent IV were all from powerful Italian families. This increased their sensitivity to attacks on papal lands by hostile neighbours and to imperial claims to suzerainty over their feudatories. Nevertheless, they also correctly assessed that without temporal power the papacy would be unable to assert its spiritual authority. Yet, despite this papal commitment to authorizing crusades within Europe, there was no single overarching crusading policy between 1198 and 1245. Popes increasingly found that crusading was only helpful against certain types of enemy. It was useful against political opponents who attacked papal lands or areas of influence since popes could emphasize the necessity of defending the Church against aggressors. By contrast, Cathar heretics living within Christian society, yet defying the doctrines of the Church, were a more nebulous and so problematic target. Popes faced practical problems in implementing crusades against heretics. The spasmodic nature of crusading made it an ineffective long-term weapon against heresy, since once a campaign was over and crusaders had departed, groups of heretics were likely to re-form, sometimes with renewed determination and increased support. There was also the problem that the man or woman whom a crusader killed for the remission of his sins was often as likely to be a ‘bona fide’ Christian as a heretic. According to Cesarius of Heisterbach, admittedly a notable gossip, the French clergy, in particular Arnald Amalric, archbishop of Narbonne, were not particularly perturbed at the idea of such indiscriminate massacring.5 But the result was often increased sympathy for heretics and a tendency to drive heretical movements deeper underground. Indeed Gregory IX realized that heresy could be dealt with much more effectively by other means, principally by inquisition, and the period 1198–1245 saw a gradual but clear progression in papal policy, with crusades against heretics being superseded by the authorization of inquisitorial procedures. Papal policy, therefore, changed substantially between 1198 and 1245. During Innocent III’s pontificate the ‘internal’ crusade was an important weapon against heresy. Following Innocent’s example, Honorius III and Gregory IX authorized crusades against heretics not only in the south of France but in other parts of Europe. Later, using the same colourful language, Gregory IX and Innocent IV drew on the papacy’s experience in authorizing crusades against these heretics to launch crusades where the primary motive was political. Again they were influenced by Innocent III and his precedent of calling for a crusade against Markward of Anweiler, but went one step further in launching a crusade against the German emperor himself. By introducing the idea that crusades could be launched within Christian Europe, Innocent III therefore played a central role

224

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

in the development of these crusades. His policies profoundly affected those of later popes such as Gregory IX, who realized that by issuing the crusade indulgence they could persuade Christians to fight other wars besides those against the infidel or the heathen. Yet continuing calls for crusades to the East, combined with the increasing frequency with which popes called for crusades within Europe, meant they were faced with difficult choices as to which crusade they should give precedence. Although they never openly expressed to the faithful the idea of different levels of crusades in terms of importance, different popes had different priorities at different times. By calling for the Albigensian Crusade and granting to those who took part in it the same plenary indulgence as for crusading to the Holy Land, Innocent III sent a clear signal to Christians throughout Europe. His message was that by 1208 he regarded a crusade against heretics in the south of France to be as important as crusading against Muslims in the East. Later, however, his enthusiasm to launch the Fifth Crusade altered his priorities to the extent that in 1213 he even declared that the Holy Land crusade was more meritorious than crusading against heretics. Although Honorius III continued to uphold these policies of his predecessor and seemed to prioritize the Fifth Crusade over other crusading enterprises, he particularly favoured the crusade against heretics in the south of France. Possibly he was encouraged by his influential advisor Cardinal Ugolino, later Gregory IX, to view heretics as posing a greater threat to the Church than Muslims. Yet despite the fact that Gregory was particularly worried by the threat of heresy, once Pope he was extremely cautious in his calls for crusades against supposed heretical groups. Eventually his major preoccupation became the crusade against Frederick II – a priority taken up by Innocent IV with renewed vigour. Their authorization of these crusades did not discourage popes from also continuing vigorously to urge crusading to the Holy Land, but this meant they were faced with the practical problem of controlling both ‘external’ and ‘internal’ crusades simultaneously. Although crusades within Europe were much nearer to Rome than those in the East, popes were still far away from the action and it was difficult for them to prevent both secular leaders and local clergy obtaining unprecedented power as a result of their authorization. Their correspondence shows that popes realized they needed to maintain a fine balance, encouraging clergy and crusaders while preventing their crusading activities from getting out of hand. It was hardly surprising that they did not always achieve this aim. These popes used the crusade to the Holy Land as their model. The most obvious example of its use as a point of comparison and measurement for other military enterprises was the formulation of the crusading indulgence which promised the faithful full remission of sins as granted for crusades to the Holy Land. By contrast, the dearth of comparisons in papal letters concerned with

C O N C LU S I O N

225

‘internal’ crusades with those to Spain and the Baltic makes it difficult to clarify what popes believed their relationship to each other to be. This was despite the fact that in some ways these crusades, in particular to the Baltic, were closer to the concept of ‘internal’ crusades than those to the Holy Land, since they were tied to ideas of conversion and reconversion to Christianity which those against Muslims in the East were not.6 Yet lack of comparison in papal letters between ‘internal’ crusades and crusades to Spain and the Baltic reinforces the idea that the Holy Land crusade alone was the official yardstick by which crusades within Europe were judged. Indeed, Innocent III was fervently devoted to promoting the Holy Land crusade throughout his pontificate. In turn, Honorius III confirmed his predecessor’s policy, but in particular keenly promoted crusading in the south of France. Gregory IX and Innocent IV stressed the importance of the crusade to the Holy Land, but during their pontificates the political crusade against Frederick II became more and more important. Although popes never pronounced an official crusade ‘hierarchy’, the language of their letters and the grant of the plenary indulgence show that crusades within Europe were at least as important to them as crusades to Spain and the Baltic, and sometimes even as important as crusades to the Holy Land. Yet their correspondence also shows that popes did not believe that there was a difference between crusades in terms of penitential worth. From Innocent III onwards the crusading indulgence was always described in papal correspondence as the same for all crusades, whether to the East or within Europe: full remission of sins for those crusaders who took up the Cross. So although popes formed their own hierarchy of crusades in terms of importance at different times to suit various needs, there was never a papal hierarchy of merit for different crusades. Innocent III declared in 1213 that the Holy Land crusade was of more merit than crusading in the south of France, but this was an exceptional claim, an instance of his extreme zeal to see the Fifth Crusade succeed where the Fourth had failed. Therefore popes of the first half of the thirteenth century prioritized different crusades at different times, but the Holy Land crusade remained the standard by which all other crusades were judged. They believed that the highest form of ‘holy’ military campaign which could be authorized by the papacy was a crusade. They also believed it was crucial to show the papacy in control of the crusades which they authorized and that this authorization was an important part of the papacy’s role as the ultimate spiritual authority over all Christians. They wished to make clear to the faithful that despite frequent setbacks, including the failure of the Fourth Crusade to reach its original goal, they regarded it as of the utmost importance to rescue the Holy Land from the infidel. And they wished to emphasize that in the case of crusades within Europe it was the papacy which was leading the way in the Church’s struggle to combat heresy and that it would

226

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

not be intimidated by political enemies who sought to undermine the security of its territories. Indeed, to understand papal crusading policy between 1198 and 1245 it is important also to examine and assess the characters of these popes as well as the institution of the papacy itself. Despite couching their correspondence in traditional language to emphasize continuity with their predecessors, the popes were very different personalities. Analysis of the papal Registers reveals a mine of rich material in terms of language, images and ideas. Papal rhetoric made extensive use of scripture, in particular Old Testament texts, and popes used vivid biblical language to add dramatic weight to their words. Letters concerned with crusades within Europe represented popes’ different viewpoints and showed the direction and development of papal policy with regard to these crusades within each pontificate. Their characters, as much as the particular political and religious circumstances surrounding each crusade, affected their decisions at different times to promote certain crusades or to shut them down. Furthermore, besides difference of character, their family backgrounds, the age at which they became Pope and the varying lengths of their pontificates, deeply affected popes’ attitudes to crusading. Innocent III was bold and imaginative, but also impatient and burning with enthusiasm to authorize crusades to the East. His zeal for crusading led him to authorize the first ‘political crusade’ against Markward of Anweiler in 1198. It also led him to call for a crusade in the south of France against heretics in 1207, but later to scale it down in 1213 in favour of the Fifth Crusade. So Innocent III was innovative in his use of crusading, just as he was when dealing with so many other concerns of the Church. Honorius III and Gregory IX copied Innocent in expanding the uses of crusading to crush heretics, as they continued their predecessor’s policy of backing Dominican and Franciscan preachers against heresy. Honorius was a bureaucrat and diplomat. Yet he had a particular interest in combating heresy and called for crusading in the south to continue. So despite his more practical and prosaic nature, he was no more realistic about crusades against heresy than his predecessor. Both Innocent and Honorius failed to realize that crusading was not an effective weapon against heresy. Indeed on his accession Honorius renewed the crusade against heretics in the south of France, even though Innocent had deliberately sought to scale down activities there in order to encourage the Fifth Crusade. Honorius’s lack of understanding of the realities of crusade warfare is further borne out by his incompetent handling of that crusade, and in particular of his legate Pelagius. In contrast to Honorius, Gregory IX realized that inquisition was a better way of dealing with heresy in the south of France. This was partly because the crusade there often lacked adequate support, and partly because only two years into his pontificate a political settlement was reached in 1229 at the Peace of

C O N C LU S I O N

227

Paris. Nevertheless, alongside the establishment of inquisitorial processes, and in response to local pressures, he authorized crusades against heretics in other parts of Europe. Like Honorius he was greatly influenced by the crusade policies of Innocent III. Similarly, in the case of crusades against political enemies, the characters of individual popes influenced policy as much as particular events. Frederick II had caused significant problems for the papacy during the pontificate of Honorius III, but that Pope never called for a crusade against him. By contrast, Gregory IX’s exasperation with Frederick on a number of counts led him in 1239 to authorize a crusade – just as it had been Innocent III’s fury at the death of Peter of Castelnau which had been the catalyst to call for a crusade in the south of France. So Gregory displayed caution in calling for crusades against heretics but took the momentous step of calling for a crusade against an emperor. Celestine IV’s brief pontificate meant he had no time to develop a distinctive crusading policy. But the canon lawyer Innocent IV continued Gregory’s policies against Frederick, using the full force of canon law to justify his actions and in doing so was uncompromising and dictatorial. The original motive behind these calls for crusades against their political enemies was to ensure the safety of the papal states in central Italy. Popes regarded this as necessary if they were to continue to exercise meaningful spiritual authority in Christian Europe. At the time they believed that they were acting out of religious motives and in keeping with their authorization of crusades against Muslims, pagans and heretics. Yet to call for crusades against political enemies was a significant step which had long-term temporal as well as spiritual repercussions. From 1245 onwards these crusades were authorized not just against the Hohenstaufen but against other enemies whom popes could not claim were directly threatening the papal states. Furthermore, as ‘political crusades’ became increasingly important during the second half of the thirteenth century and beyond, they began to override papal emphasis on the importance of crusades to the Holy Land and even to change papal priorities. Due to the decisions of popes between 1198 and 1245 to authorize ‘internal’ crusades, by 1245 popes had a greatly expanded idea of the uses to which crusading might be put and this influenced both clerical and lay views of crusading. So crusades against ‘internal’ enemies were an important way in which popes could not only assert their temporal power and authority in Europe but also reaffirm to Christians their ultimate spiritual authority. Yet the development of the idea of crusade against ‘internal’ enemies meant that for some the idea of crusade began to fall into disrepute. This was not only when crusades to the East failed but also when crusades in the south of France threatened to divert men and money from the Fifth Crusade. Indeed, the decrees of French councils, which increasingly emphasized the need for inquisition to counter heresy, suggest that

228

T H E PA PA C Y A N D C R U S A D I N G I N E U R O P E , 1 1 9 8 – 1 2 4 5

even the southern French clergy, who had supported crusading in the south of France so strongly, began to question whether crusading was the most effective method of dealing with heretics. The period 1198–1245 was therefore a crucial one in which the idea of ‘internal’ crusade – a military venture authorized by the papacy for which vows were taken by ‘crucesignati’ and the full crusading indulgence granted, as distinct from merely a ‘holy war’ against ‘internal’ enemies – developed and changed. Although Gregory IX originally called for a campaign rather than a crusade against Frederick II, preferring to copy the cautious policy of his predecessor Alexander III, who had never gone so far as to call for a crusade against Frederick I Barbarossa, he eventually authorized a crusade against the emperor. The military campaigns of the Investiture Conflict, which popes had regarded as meritorious activities contributing to the salvation of their participants, were now succeeded by crusades as the principal means of dealing with the Church’s political enemies. Copying Innocent III, popes were careful to use the same traditional language to describe these crusades. But the use to which crusading was put was significantly expanded – so much so that after 1245 popes regularly called for crusades against their political enemies. These ‘political crusades’ were originally authorized to ensure the safety of the papal states, something which popes believed was essential if the papacy was to fulfil its function as the ultimate spiritual guide in Christian Europe. They were therefore conceived for spiritual motives; yet they became inextricably linked with temporal motivations. By 1245 the papacy had a much broader concept of the uses to which crusades could be put – which impacted on the concept of crusading itself. The die was cast: it was the ‘political crusade’ that would dominate the explosive politics of Dante and Petrarch’s Italy from 1250 to 1400. Notes 1 For example, Robert Moore, The Formation of the Persecuting Society: Authority and Deviance in Western Europe, 950–1250, 2nd edn (Malder, MA, 2006), pp. 5, 27–45, passim. 2 Robert Chazan, ‘The Deteriorating Image of the Jew – Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries’, Christendom and its Discontents, ed. P. Diehl and S. Waugh (Cambridge, 1996), p. 224, note 11. Robert Moore himself discusses recent criticisms of his account in a bibliographical excursus to the second edition of The Formation of the Persecuting Society; see pp. 172–96. 3 Horace Mann, Lives of the Popes in the Middle Ages from 590 to 1304, Vol. 10 (London, 1914), pp. 327–8. 4 Moore, The Formation of the Persecuting Society, pp. 60–5, passim, 118–23, passim. 5 Cesarius of Heisterbach, Dialogus miraculorum, trans. C. C. S. Bland and H. von E. Scott, ed. G. G. Coulton and E. Powers, Vol. 1 (London, 1929), pp. 345–6. 6 Benjamin Kedar, Crusade and Mission: European Approaches toward the Muslims (Princeton, NJ, 1984), pp. 60–1.

Appendix A: The Primary Sources

It is worth giving here a brief summary of the printed history of the papal letters analysed in the book. Many of the editions of the papal correspondence used in this work were made by historians of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and often the letters have not been re-edited. There is a recent edition by Hageneder, Strnad et al. Haidacher of the Register of Innocent III, although it is as yet unfinished.1 The other major source for Innocent’s Register remains the Patrologia Latina compiled by Migne in the nineteenth century,2 which drew on the earlier work of editors such as Baluze, la Porte du Theil and Bosquet.3 For the Registers of popes subsequent to Innocent, the book relies on the editions made by the Bibliothèque des écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome.4 Some of the letters are only calendared and not reproduced in full. For this reason other sources have also been used, for example the nineteenth-century editions of Rodenberg, and, for Honorius III, Horoy, as well as microfilms of papal letters from the Registers of the Vatican Archives held by the Seeley Library in the History faculty at the University of Cambridge.5 Calendars of papal letters, containing a short summary of a letter, the ‘incipit’, as well as information as to where editions of the letter can be found, are the work of the nineteenth-century editors Potthast, and, for Honorius III’s pontificate only, Pressutti.6 Potthast’s Regesta pontificum Romanorum provides a Latin abstract of those papal letters of the Vatican Registers which had been published at the time of his editing as well as others preserved in the archives of recipients from all over Europe.7 For several reasons, however, editions of the Registers only give an incomplete picture of papal correspondence. First, there is the problem of loss of material. In the case of Innocent III, large parts of the Register for the third year of his pontificate and the entire Registers for years 4, 17, 18 and 19 are missing. For year 17 this means a total loss of material, while years 4, 18 and 19 depend on the survival of a table of contents written on three parchment quires during the pontificate of Innocent VI (1352–1362).8 Secondly, the early editors of the papal Registers had incomplete source material at their disposal. Although, for example, Baluze’s edition of the Register of Innocent III, one of the major sources on which Migne draws, is more comprehensive than earlier editions, it is not necessarily reliable. Baluze did not have access to the Vatican Registers and either used the

230

APPENDIX A

work of earlier editors or relied on manuscript transcripts which he sometimes altered.9 Thirdly, there is the problem of how far the Registers themselves are reliable sources for understanding papal pronouncements since they contain copies of only a very small proportion of the letters issued by the Roman curia.10 The evidence from other sources shows that many important letters emanating from the papal chancery were not enregistered.11 An important reason for the low rate of registration may have been cost.12 Historians who have argued that at the beginning of the fourteenth century, the great age of papal Registers, there is trustworthy evidence for recipients paying for the enregistration of their letters, and that by contrast there is scant evidence for payment for registration prior to Clement V (1305–1314), nevertheless concede that quite possibly money did change hands in the earlier period.13 Furthermore, the Registers do not reproduce the original letters exactly. The protocol is sometimes abridged and different scribes had different practices of dating. The enregistered copy also presents other problems: if copied from a draft, the draft may have been retouched before engrossment; if of interest to canonists it may have been altered to make a better legal text. And the fact of registration does not itself prove that a letter was despatched: it might be unclaimed by petitioners, superseded by new orders or issued with instructions that it only be published under particular circumstances.14 The whole issue is further complicated by the fact that often rather than the petitioners going to Rome themselves, they increasingly employed proctors to represent their interests and set forth their case at the curia.15 Building up a picture of crusading policy from papal letters is therefore an extremely complex and difficult undertaking. Although this study is chiefly concerned with analysing papal correspondence, other sources including royal and imperial letters responding to papal demands, chronicles, crusade sermons, decrees of ecumenical and other church councils, as well as formal canon law, are discussed where they give context to and therefore increase understanding of the letters. Invaluable insights into papal policy are present in the works of preachers such as Caesarius of Heisterbach, James of Vitry, Eudes of Châteauroux, Philip of Grève and others who preached crusades within Europe. Contemporary chroniclers such as Peter of les Vaux-de-Cernay are another crucial source for understanding the papacy’s authorization of crusading. In dedicating the Historia Albigensis to Innocent III, Peter showed his appreciation of the important role he believed that the Pope played in the crusade against the Cathars. He gave detailed information concerning diplomatic relations between Innocent III, the clergy of the south of France and the major protagonists in the Albigensian Crusade such as Simon de Montfort, Peter II of Aragon and Raymond VI of Toulouse. He also recorded the actions of papal legates and the decisions of certain Church councils that took place under their

APPENDIX A

231

direction. Since legates were charged with carrying out the directives of the particular Pope by whom they were appointed, they played a central role both in confirming papal pronouncements and ensuring that they were put into action. They were always inextricably involved with the politics surrounding calls for crusades. Unfortunately there is not always chronicle evidence with which to contextualize and supplement papal correspondence. Although, for example, there are letters of Gregory IX concerned with preaching the Cross to encourage crusading against heretics in Hungary and Bosnia, there are no chronicles which give details about their authorization. Hence it is often necessary to rely almost entirely on the evidence of a few letters in order to determine whether the popes themselves acted on their own initiative in instigating crusades against heretics and political enemies, or whether rather it was the petitions of local groups who sought papal endorsement for their particular enterprise and whom the popes agreed to support, which generated the crusades. The works of twelfth- and thirteenth-century canon lawyers are a further important source for understanding papal crusading policy towards heretics and political enemies. Canonists’ theories about what constituted a holy and just war and their discussions of how heretics should be treated in Christian society both influenced but were also informed by papal attitudes and teaching. Particularly influential were Gratian’s twelfth-century Concordia discordantium canonum, the twelfth- and thirteenth-century canon law compilations known collectively as the Quinque antiquae compilationes, made respectively by Bernard of Parma, John of Wales, Pietro Collivaccino, Johannes Teutonicus and Tancred – private individuals, two of whom were commissioned by the papacy. Another highly influential text was the Liber extra decretalium, a decretal collection of the canonist Raymond of Peñafort commissioned by Gregory IX which drew on, but also superseded, the material of the Quinque antiquae compilationes. Other thirteenth-century legal texts which discussed, among many subjects, the treatment of heretics in Christian society, were the Glossae, which commented on the Liber extra decretalium and gave marginal cross-references to related texts and expositions of their difficulties. There were also a number of Summae, which dealt with issues of canon law more systematically and were published independently of the texts they examined.16 In the nineteenth century Emil Friedberg compiled complete editions of the Decretum, the Quinque antiquae compilationes, and Raymond of Peñafort’s Liber extra decretalium, and these are the editions used in this study.17 A lack of nineteenth- and twentieth-century editions of other important thirteenth-century texts of formal canon law concerned with heretics often means reliance on fifteenth- and sixteenth-century editions.18 With respect to conciliar legislation, a standard edition of collected texts used by historians remains Mansi’s

232

APPENDIX A

Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, published in the eighteenth century and based on the earlier collections of editors such as Labbé.19 There are also a number of much more recent editions of conciliar legislation pertaining in particular to the Lateran councils of the period, for example Alberigo’s Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, and also to Church councils held in the south of France.20 Notes 1 Innocent III, Pope, Die Register Innocenz III, Publikationen des Österreichischen Kulturinstituts in Rom, ed. O. Hageneder, H. Haidacher, A. Strnad et al., Vols 1– (Graz, Vienna and Cologne, 1964–). 2 Innocent III, Opera omnia, PL 214–16. 3 Selected Letters of Pope Innocent III concerning England 1198–1216, ed. C. R. Cheney and W. H. Semple, Medieval Texts and Studies (London, 1953), pp. xxxiii. 4 Bibliothèque des écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome (2nd Series) (Paris, 1890–1955). 5 Epistolae selectae saeculi XIII e regestis pontificum Romanorum, ed. C. Rodenberg, MGH, Epistolae saeculi XIII, Vols 1–3; Honorii III romani pontificis opera omnia quae extant, ed. C. A. Horoy, 5 vols (Paris, 1879–82). 6 Regesta pontificum Romanorum, ed. A. Potthast, 2 vols (Berlin, 1874); Regesta Honorii Papae III, ed. P. Pressutti, 2 vols (Rome, 1888–95). 7 Selected Letters of Pope Innocent III concerning England 1198–1216, ed. Cheney and Semple, pp. xxxi–xxxii. 8 The Letters of Innocent III, 1198–1216, concerning England and Wales, a Calendar with an Appendix of Texts, ed. C. R. Cheney and M. G. Cheney (London, 1967), pp. xxviii. 9 Selected Letters of Innocent III concerning England 1198–1216, ed. Cheney and Semple, pp. xxxii–xxxiii. 10 Jane Sayers, Papal Government and England during the Pontificate of Honorius III (1216–1227) (Cambridge, 1994), p. 67. 11 Peter Herde, ‘Federico II e il Papato: la Lotta delle cancellerie’, Federico II e le nuove culture (Spoleto, 1995), p. 76. 12 Sayers, Papal Government and England during the Pontificate of Honorius III (1216–1227), p. 74. 13 Geoffrey Barraclough, Public Notaries and the Papal Curia (London, 1934), p. 123; Reginald Poole, Lectures on the History of the Papal Chancery (Cambridge, 1915), pp. 134–5; Original Papal Letters in England 1305–1415, ed. P. Zutshi (Vatican City, 1990), pp. lxxxi–lxxxix. 14 Selected Letters of Pope Innocent III concerning England 1198–1216, ed. Cheney and Semple, p. xxx. 15 For the employment of proctors at the curia, see Peter Herde, Beiträge zum päpstlichen Kanzlei–und Urkundenwesen im 13. Jahrhundert, Münchener Historische Studine, Abteilung Geschichtl. Hilfswissenschaft, 1 (Kallmünz, 1961), pp. 125–48; Winifred Stelzer, ‘Beitrage zur Geschichte der Kurienprokuratoren im 13. Jahrhundert’, Archivum Historiae Pontificiae 8 (1970), 113–38; Peter Linehan, ‘Proctors representing Spanish Interests at the Papal Court,

APPENDIX A

16 17

18

19 20

233

1216–1303’, Archivum Historiae Pontificiae 17 (1979), 69–123; Sayers, Papal Government and England during the Pontificate of Honorius III (1216–1227), pp. 33–5. John Clarence-Smith, Medieval Law Teachers and Writers, Civilian and Canonists (Ottawa, 1975), pp. 15–16. Gratian, ‘Concordia discodatium canonum’, Corpus iuris canonici, ed. E. Friedberg, Vol. 1 (Leipzig, 1879); ‘Libe extra decretalium‘, Corpus iuris canonici, ed. E. Friedberg, Vol. 2 (Leipzig, 1881), pp. 5–928; Quinque compilationes antiquae, ed. E. Friedberg (Leipzig, 1882). For an example of some early editions of texts of formal canon law, see John Oates, A Catalogue of the Fifteenth-Century Printed Books in the University Library, Cambridge (Cambridge, 1954). Mansi, Vols 20–3; Sacrosancta concilia ad regiam editionem exacta quae nunc quarta prodit auctor studio, 10, ed. P. Labbé and G. Cosserti (Paris, 1671). For recent work on Church councils, see Jacques Berlioz, Identifier sources et citations, L’Atelier du médiéviste, 1 (Turnhout, 1994).

This page intentionally left blank

Appendix B: The Papacy and ‘Internal’ Crusades: The Current Debate The role played by the papacy in authorizing crusades continues to be a central topic of crusading scholarship. In particular, for the later half of the thirteenth century, there have been a number of influential works such as Maureen Purcell’s Papal Crusading Policy: The Chief Instruments of Papal Crusading Policy and Crusade to the Holy Land from the Loss of Jerusalem to the Fall of Acre, 1244–1291 and Norman Housley’s The Italian Crusades: The Papal-Angevin Alliance and the Crusades against Christian Lay-Powers, which have discussed papal policy with regard to crusading. The increasing formulization of the idea of crusade shown by the use of the technical term ‘crucesignati’, and the appearance of the crusading vow in crusade sermons, invite conclusions about the theological and legal background against which popes issued their appeals. Historians have discussed how popes of that age inspired, promulgated, organized and endeavoured to control the crusades which they authorized.1 Although the crusades to the East continue to be the main focus of crusade scholarship, a number of historians such as Roscher, Strayer, Kennan and Housley have bucked the trend. Instead they have examined the papacy’s momentous decision during the first half of the thirteenth century to authorize what scholars have termed the first ever ‘political crusades’ in Europe in order to defend the interests of the papal states in central Italy against the threat of invasion.2 Yet apart from these works, there is still comparatively little recent scholarship in English concerned with papal calls for anti-heretical crusades or crusades against political enemies during the first half of the century. Housley’s books on the ‘political crusades’, for example, deal with the second half of the thirteenth century and beyond and have not addressed the period 1198–1245.3 Similarly, although there are many recent books on the Albigensian Crusade, papal policy with respect to heretical activity in the south of France has not been the primary focus of these works, even though it was the popes themselves who authorized and sought to control crusading.4 Likewise, few historians have studied in detail the papacy’s call for crusades against those described as ‘heretics’ in other parts of Europe. One important exception has been Maier, whose book Preaching the Crusades: Mendicant Friars and the Cross in the Thirteenth Century analyses papal endorsement of Dominicans and Franciscans who preached the Cross against the Stedinger and Drenther peasants in Germany and against

236

APPENDIX B

other German, Bosnian, Hungarian and Lombard heretics.5 That papal policy towards early thirteenth-century crusades against ‘internal’ enemies is still in need of further study is partly due to the continuing influence of a ‘traditionalist’ or ‘exclusivist’ approach to the study of crusades. In general, historians with this approach have argued that contemporaries believed that the only true crusades were launched to defend the Holy Land. Significantly, although recent ‘pluralist’ or ‘inclusivist’ historians such as Riley-Smith have defined crusades much more broadly as any wars authorized by the papacy for which an indulgence was granted and vows were taken, they have nevertheless, with the notable exception of Housley, tended to focus on crusading to the East. By exploring papal crusading policy with respect to heretics and political enemies of the papacy this book seeks to contribute to this ‘pluralist–traditionalist’ debate concerning the relative merit of different crusades. There is still no consensus as to whether twelfth- and thirteenth-century ventures against nonChristians in places other than the Holy Land, for example against Muslims in Spain, were regarded by contemporaries as essentially connected to and qualitatively identical with crusades to the East. Recent pluralist historians hold that they were indeed viewed as essentially similar and that all such ventures should be classed as crusades.6 The traditionalist view still holds that crusades to the East held a special significance to contemporaries in respect of which all other ventures against infidels and pagans were measured.7 There is therefore as yet no agreement as to whether thirteenth-century ventures against Christians within Europe, whether those accused of heresy, or ‘political’ enemies of popes, were seen by contemporaries as qualitatively identical or fundamentally different from crusades to the Holy Land.8 Consideration of one particularly important contemporary viewpoint – that of the popes themselves who called for crusades – provides an important dimension to the ongoing debate. The majority of both pluralist and traditionalist crusade historians recognize the importance of papal authority for a crusade. An understanding of the views of popes is important for pluralists since they argue that a critical part of the definition of a crusade is that it is a war proclaimed, or at least supported, by the papacy. It is also important for the majority of traditionalists who, although believing that the popular response to papal calls for crusades to the Holy Land was significantly different from the popular response to their calls for other crusades, have nevertheless also now accepted a significant part of the pluralist position: that a crusade needed papal authorization to be a legitimate enterprise. Indeed, even influential traditionalists such as Mayer have argued that the popes themselves thought that their calls for crusades were qualitatively identical and suggested that they believed all crusades to be of the same importance.9 In the light of these complex and wide-ranging debates this book considers

APPENDIX B

237

the status given by popes to crusades against heretics and political enemies of the papacy in relation to crusades to the East.10 As both traditionalists and pluralists agree, popes did indeed grant the same spiritual rewards for both ‘internal’ crusades and crusades to the Holy Land. This is apparent from their emphasis on the grant of the plenary indulgence for crusades against heretics and political enemies. Indeed Gregory IX’s letters show that the grant of the plenary indulgence was used specifically to signify a crusade rather than merely a military campaign that had papal approval. Both Gregory IX and Innocent IV used their grant of the plenary indulgence to show that they were now upgrading a campaign to a crusade. The papacy’s desire to link ‘internal’ crusades and crusades to the Holy Land is also apparent in the similarity of the rhetoric found in papal correspondence concerned with ‘internal’ enemies with that concerned with ‘external’ enemies in terms of metaphors, similes and biblical texts. Yet it is generally agreed that traditionalist historians have sometimes failed to appreciate fully the significance of the fact that different popes had different priorities, depending on political circumstances. Pluralist historians have also perhaps not given enough thought to the complexities of papal policy and the importance of understanding the different personalities of the popes involved. Although popes granted the same plenary indulgence for different crusades, not just those against the Muslims, nevertheless they sometimes emphasized one crusade more than others to suit their own interests and those which they judged, however wisely or misguidedly, were in the interests of the papacy, the Church and Christianity. Hence in 1213 Innocent III called for crusading in the south of France to be scaled down in order to concentrate on the Fifth Crusade to the East.11 Yet, despite this pragmatic approach, the Holy Land crusade remained a standard against which popes judged other crusades. This book seeks to highlight the importance of studying the different policies of individual popes in order to understand the papacy’s continuing authorization of crusades during the first half of the thirteenth century. The historiography behind other aspects of this work is also complex. Heresy is always a popular subject and secondary material concerned with different aspects of the thirteenth-century Cathar heresy in the south of France – against which the Albigensian Crusade was authorized – is extremely plentiful. Besides works concerned with the beliefs of the Cathars, the origins of their beliefs and the history of the establishment of the inquisition in the south of France as an important method of countering the spread of heresy, there have been a number of recent studies of the Albigensian Crusade itself.12 By contrast there have been fewer recent studies of papal calls for crusades to be launched against other groups of heretics in Europe,13 although important works concerned more widely with the Church’s response to European heresy include those of Fine, Sanjek, and Kieckhefer.14 As already noted, despite fewer studies of the ‘political

238

APPENDIX B

crusades’ of the first half of the thirteenth century than of the second, there has nevertheless been some important work done on the earlier period by historians such as Strayer and more recently Kennan.15 And seminal works on the politics of the papal states, such as, for example, those of Partner and Waley, have discussed their growth and increasing importance as a power base in central Italy from which popes could authorize crusades against their enemies.16 Notes 1 Maureen Purcell, Papal Crusading Policy: The Chief Instruments of Papal Crusading Policy and Crusade to the Holy Land from the Loss of Jerusalem to the Fall of Acre 1244–1291 (Leiden, 1975); Norman Housley, The Italian Crusades: The Papal–Angevin Alliance and the Crusades Against Christian Lay-Powers, 1254–1304 (Oxford, 1982). 2 Helmut Roscher, Papst Innocenz III. und die Kreuzzüge, Forschungen zur Kirchen-und Dogmengeschichte, 21 (Göttingen, 1969); Joseph Strayer, ‘The Political Crusades of the Thirteenth Century’, in A History of the Crusades, ed. K. Setton, Vol. 2: The Later Crusades, 1189–1311 (Madison, 1969), pp. 343–75; Elizabeth Kennan, ‘Innocent III and the First Political Crusade: A Comment on the Limitations of Papal Power’, Traditio 17 (1971), 231–49; Elizabeth Kennan, ‘Innocent III, Gregory IX and Political Crusades: A Study in the Disintegration of Papal Power’, in G. F. Lytle, ed., Reform and Authority in the Medieval and Reformation Church (Washington, DC, 1981), pp. 15–35; Norman Housley, ‘Crusades against Christians: Their Origins and Early Development’, in P. W. Edbury, ed., Crusade and Settlement: Papers read at the First Conference of the Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East and Presented to R. C. Smail (Cardiff, 1985), pp. 17–36. 3 Norman Housley, The Later Crusades 1274–1580 (Oxford, 1992); Documents on the Later Crusades, 1274–1580 (Basingstoke, 1996); The Italian Crusades. 4 Mark Pegg, A Most Holy War. The Albigensian Crusade and the Battle for Christendom (Oxford, 2008); Laurence Marvin, The Occitan War: A Military and Political History of the Albigenisan Crusade, 1209–1218 (Cambridge, 2008); Malcolm Barber, The Cathars, Dualist Heretics in Languedoc in the High Middle Ages (Harlow, 2000); Michael Costen, The Cathars and the Albigensian Crusade (Manchester, 1997); Claire Dutton, ‘Aspects of the Institutional History of the Albigensian Crusades, 1198–1229’ (PhD dissertation, Royal Holloway and Bedford New College, University of London, 1993); Bernard Hamilton, ‘The Albigensian Crusade’, Historical Association Pamphlets, Gen Ser. G 81–G 85, G 85 (London, 1974), pp. 1–40; Malcolm Lambert, The Cathars (Oxford, 1998); Zoe Oldenbourg, Massacre at Montségur: A History of the Albigensian Crusade, trans. P. Green (London, 1961); Michel Roquebert, L’Épopée cathare, 4 vols (Paris, 1970–89); William Sibly and Michael Sibly, The History of the Albigensian Crusade (Woodbridge, 1998); Joseph Strayer, The Albigensian Crusades (New York, 1971); Jonathan Sumption, The Albigensian Crusade (London, 1978). 5 Christoph Maier, Preaching the Crusades: Mendicant Friars and the Cross in the Thirteenth Century (Cambridge, 1994). 6 Jonathan Riley-Smith, What were the Crusades? 3rd edn (Basingstoke, 2002); Elizabeth

APPENDIX B

7

8 9

10

11 12

13 14

15

16

239

Siberry, Criticism of Crusading 1095–1274 (Oxford, 1985); Housley, The Later Crusades 1274–1580. Hans Mayer, Geschichte der Kreuzzüge (Stuttgart, 1965), trans. J. Gillingham, The Crusades (Oxford, 1972). Mayer somewhat modifies his stance in Hans Mayer, The Crusades, 2nd edn (Stuttgart, 1972), trans. J. Gillingham (Oxford, 1988). Most recently Jean Richard, Histoire des Croisades (Paris, 1996), trans. J. Birrell, The Crusades c.1071–1291 (Cambridge, 1999). Housley, The Later Crusades 1274–1580, pp. 2–4. Hans Mayer did not in 1965 argue that all crusades were of the same importance, but later changed his opinion. For his previous position, see Hans Mayer, Geschichte der Kreuzzuge (Stuttgart 1965), trans. J. Gillingham, The Crusades (Oxford, 1972). For his more recent position, see Hans Mayer, The Crusades, trans. J. Gillingham (Oxford, 1988). Rebecca Rist, ‘The Development of the Idea of Crusade by the Papacy in the Twelfth Century’ (unpublished MPhil dissertation, Cambridge, 2000); Rist argued in this dissertation that in the minds of some of the popes who called for military action in the East, Spain and the Baltic, there was an idea of a hierarchy of crusades and that those to the East took priority of place. Innocent III, ‘Cum jam captis’ (15 Jan. 1213), PL 216, cols 744–5; ‘Quia major nunc’ (19–29 April 1213), Studien zum Register Innocenz III, ed. G. Tangl (Weimar, 1992), pp. 88–97. For example, Pegg, A Most Holy War; Marvin, The Occitan War; Barber, The Cathars. For a helpful overview of the large number of recent books and articles on the Cathar heresy and the Albigensian crusades, see Bibliografia della crociata albigesi, ed. M. Meschini (Florence, 2006). For example, Maier, Preaching the Crusades. John Fine, The Bosnian Church: A New Interpretation. A Study of the Bosnian Church and its Place in State and Society from the 13th to the 15th Centuries, East European Monographs 10 (Boulder and New York, 1975); Franjo Sanjek, Les Chrétiens bosniques et le mouvement cathaire, XIIe–XIVe siècles (Brussels and Paris, 1976); Richard Kieckhefer, The Repression of Heresy in Medieval Germany (Liverpool, 1979). Strayer, ‘The Political Crusades of the Thirteenth Century’, pp. 343–75; Kennan, ‘Innocent III and the First Political Crusade’, 231–49; Kennan, ‘Innocent III, Gregory IX and Political Crusades’, pp. 15–35. Peter Partner, The Lands of St. Peter: the Papal State in the Middle Ages and the Early Renaissance (London and New York, 1972); Daniel Waley, The Papal State in the Thirteenth Century (London, 1961).

This page intentionally left blank

Bibliography

This bibliography contains a list of the primary sources and secondary literature which I have cited in my footnotes. It also contains a large number of other works, both primary and secondary, which I frequently consulted when writing this book. MANUSCRIPT SOURCES Biblioteca apostolica Vaticana Laurentius Hispanus, ‘Glossa Palatina’, Biblioteca apostolica Vaticana, pal. lat. 658, fol.72 rb.: A; Regin. lat. 977, fol.209 rb.: B. Bibliothèque Municipale, Troyes Philip of Grève, ‘Sermo de crucesignatione contra Albigenses’, in Ms Troyes, Bibliothèque Municipale, 1099ff., 17r–18r.

PRINTED PRIMARY SOURCES Acta Honorii III et Gregorii IX, ed. A. L. Tautu (Vatican City, 1950). Acta imperii inedita saeculi, ed. E. A. Winckelmann, 2 vols (Innsbruck, 1880–5). Acta imperii selecta. Urkunden deutscher Könige und Kaiser 928–1398, ed. J. F. Böhmer (Innsbruck, 1870). ‘Acta pacis ad S. Germanum anno MCCXXX initae’, Die Briefe aus dem Legationsregister des Kardinalpriesters Thomas von Capua, Epistolae Selectae 4, ed. K. Hampe, MGH, pp. 1–115. Acta pontificum Romanorum inedita, ed. J. von Pflug-Harttung, Vol. 1 (Tübingen, Stuttgart, 1881). Aimé of Monte Cassino, Ystoire de li Normant, ed. O. Declarc (Rouen, 1892). Alan of Lille, Liber tertius contra Iudaeos, De fide catholica contra hereticos, PL 210, cols 399–422. Albert of Beham, Litterae, ed. C. Höfler, Albert von Beham und Regesten Papst Innocenz IV, Bibliothek des litterarischen Vereins in Stuttgart (Stuttgart, 1847). Alexander III, Pope, ‘Epistolae et privilegia’, PL 200. Alexander of Hales, Summa theologica, 4 vols (1924–48). Analecta Hassaiaca, ed. J. P. Kuchenbecker, Vol. 3 (Marburg, 1730). Andreae Dandali chronicon, RIS 12, part 1. ‘Annales Erphordenses fratrum praedicatorum’, MGHSS 42, ed. O. Holder-Egger, pp. 72–116. ‘Annales Placentini Gibellini’, MGHS 18, pp. 457–581. ‘Annales Placentini Guelfi’, MGHS 18, pp. 411–57. ‘Annales Sancti Rudberti Salisburgenses’, MGHS 9, pp. 758–810. ‘Annales Scheftarienses maiores’, MGHS 17, pp. 335–43.

242

BIBLIOGRAPHY

‘Annales Stadenses’, MGHS 16, pp. 271–379. ‘Annales Wormatienses’, MGHS 17, pp. 34–73. Annali Bolognesi, ed. L. V. Savioli, 3 vols (Bassano, 1874–95). Antiquitates Italicae medii aevi, Vol. 6, ed. L. A. Muratori (Milan, 1842; new edn, Milan, 1905–). Archives législatives de la ville de Reims, Collections de documents inédits sur l’histoire de France, Series 1, Histoire Politique 1, ed. P. Varin (Paris, 1840). Archivum fratrum praedicatorum (Rome, 1932). Aubrey of Trois Fontaines, ‘Chronica Albrici monachi Trium Fontium’, MGHS 23, pp. 631–950. Baldric of Bourgeil, ‘Gesta Alberonis archiepiscopi’, MGHS 8, pp. 234–60. Bardo, ‘Vita Anselmi episcopi Lucensis’, MGHS 12, pp. 1–35. Bartholomew of Brescia, Casus decretalium (Lyon, 1497). Bartholomew of Brescia, Decretum cum apparatu Bartholomaei Brixiensis (Basel, Fröben and Amerbach, 1500). Bartholomew of Brescia, Gratiani Decretum unacumque apparatu Johannis Theutonici atque additionibus Bartholomaei Brixiensis (Eggesteyn, 1472). Bartholomew of Neocastro, Historia Sicilia, ed. G. Palatino, RIS 13, Part 3. Benedict VIII, Pope, ‘Epistolae et decreta’, PL 139. Balbi Bernard, Notice de . . . summa magistri B. Papiensis . . . super capitula extravagantium . . . Notice biographique sur Bernard de Pavie . . . Notice de plusieurs lettres anecdotes du pape Innocent III, ed. F. J. G. La Porte de Theil (Paris, 1787). ——, Summa decretalium, ed. E. A. T. Laspeyres (Regensburg, 1860; repr. Graz, 1956). Bernard Marago, ‘Annales Pisani’, MGHS 19, pp. 236–66. ——, Gli annales Pisani di Bernardo Maragone: a cura di Michele Lupo Gentile, RIS, 6, part 2 (Bologna: N. Zanichelli, 1936). Bernard of Clairvaux, St, Five Books of Consideration. Advice to a Pope, trans. J. D. Anderson and E. T. Kennan (Kalamazoo, MI., Cistercian Publications, 1976). ——, Opera Sancti Bernardi, ed. J. Leclercq, C. H. Talbot and H. M. Rochais, 8 vols (Rome, 1957–78). ——, ‘Sermo mihi ad vos’ (1146), ed. in J. Leclercq, ‘L’Encyclique de Saint Bernard en faveur de la croisade’, Revue Bénédictine 81 (1971), 295–300. Bernard of Parma, Casus longi decretalium (Strasburg, 1498). ——, Gregori IX nova compilatio decretalium cum glossis Bernardi (Bottoni) Papiensis (Eggesteyn, c 1472). Bernard of Pavia, Bernardi Papiensis Summa decretalium: ad librorum manuscriptorum fidem cum aliis eiusdem scriptoris anecdotis, ed. E. A. T. Laspeyres (Regensburg, 1860; repr. Ganz, 1956). Bremisches Urkundenbuch, ed. D. R. Ehmck, Vol. 1 (Bremen, 1863). ‘Breve chronicon de rebus Siculis’, Historia Diplomatica, Vol. 1 (Paris, 1852), pp. 887–908. Brevis ordinacio de praedicatione crucis, Quinti belli sacri scriptores minores, ed. R. Röricht (Geneva, 1879). Bruno of Segni, ‘Libellus de symoniacis’, MGH, Libelli de lite imperatorum et pontificum saeculis XI. et XII. conscripti, Vol. 2, pp. 543–62. Bullaire du bienheureux Pierre de Castelnau, ed. A. Villemagne (Montpellier, 1917). Bullarium Franciscanum, ed. J. H. Sbaralea, Vol. 1 (Rome, 1759; repr. Assisi, 1983). Bullarium ordinis praedicatorum, ed. T. Ripoll and A. Brémond, 8 vols (Rome, 1729–40). Bullarium pontificum quod existat in archivo sacri ordinis conventus S. Francisci Assisiensis, ed. L. Alessandri and F. Penacchi, Archivum Franciscanum historicum, Vols 8–10 (Assisi, 1915–18).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

243

Burchard of Worms, ‘Burchardi et Cuonradi Urspergensium chronicon’, MGHS 23, pp. 333–83. ‘Cafari et continuatorum Annales Ianuae A 1099–1294’, MGHS 18, pp. 1–356. Cartulaire de Maguelonne, ed. J. Rouquette and A. Villemagne, 2 vols (Montpellier, 1913–14). Catalogue des actes de Philippe-Auguste, ed. L. Delisle (Paris, 1856). ‘Catalogue des actes de Raymond VI et de Raimond VII’, Histoire générale de Languedoc, Vol. 8, ed. C. L. Devic and J. Vaisette in revised edn by A. Molinier et al. (Toulouse, 1904), pp. 1940–2008. Catalogue des actes de Simon et d’Amauri de Montfort, Bibliothèques de l’École des chartes 34, ed. A. Molinier (Paris, 1874). Cesarius of Heisterbach, Dialogus miraculorum, trans. C. C. S. Bland and H. von E. Scott, ed. G. G. Coulton and E. Powers, 2 vols (London, 1929). ‘Chronica monasterii Casinensis’, MGHS 34, pp. 1–607. Chronicle of the Reign of Henry II and Richard I, ad 1169–1922, 2 vols, Chronicles and Memorials, ed. W. Stubbs, Rolls Series 49 (London, 1867). ‘Chronicon Turonensis’, Receuil des historiens des Gaules et de la France, Vol. 18, ed. M. Bouquet (Paris, 1879), pp. 290–320. Codex Theodosianus, 16, 8, 1–29, trans. P. Lang (Bern, Frankfurt am Main, New York and Paris, 1991). ‘Codex Udalrici’, Biblioteca rerum Germanicarum Vol. 5: Monumenta Bambergensia, ed. P. Jaffé (Berlin, 1869), pp. 1–469. Conciliorum oecumenicorum decreta, ed. G. Alberigo et al. (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1962). Constitutiones concilii quarti Lateranensis cum commentariis glossatorum, Monumenta. iuris canonici, Series A: Corpus glossatorum 2, ed. A. Garcia y Garcia (Vatican City, 1981). Constitutiones et acta publica imperatorum et regum, MGH, Legum Sectio IV, ed. L. Weiland (Hannover, 1896). Corpus documentorum inquisitionis haereticae pravitatis neerlandicae, ed. P. Fredericq (Gand, 1889). Councils and Synods, with other Documents Relating to the English Church, Vol. 1: 871–1204, ed. D. Whitelock, M. Brett and C. N. L. Brooke, 2 vols (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981); Vol. 2: 1205–1313, ed. F. M. Powicke and C. R. Cheney et al., 2 vols (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964). ‘Cronica minor minoritae Erphordensis’, MGHSS 42, ed. O. Holder-Egger, pp. 486–671. ‘Cronica Turonensis’, MGHS 26, pp. 458–76. Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1: Nicaea I to Lateran V, ed. N. P. Tanner (London, 1990). Decretales Gregorii pape IX suae integritati una cum glossis restitutae (Turin, 1584; repr. 1621). Decretales ineditae saeculi XII, Series B: Corpus collectionum, ed. S. Chodrow and C. Duggan, Vol. 4 (Vatican City, 1982). Documents de l’histoire du Languedoc (Toulouse, 1969). Eckbert of Schönau, Sermones contra Catharos, PL 215, cols 11–98. ‘Emonis chronica’, MGHS 23, pp. 465–523. ‘Epistolae Lamberti episcopi Atrebatensis et aliorum ad ipsum’, PL 162, cols 655–6. Epistolae selectae saeculi XIII e regestis pontificum Romanorum, ed. C. Rodenberg, MGH, ed. G. H. Pertz (Berlin, 1883–94). Eudes of Châteauroux, ‘Sermo contra hereticos de Albigensibus partibus’, Analecta novissima, ed. J. P. Pitra, Vol. 2 (Paris, 1888), pp. 332–3. Falco of Benevento, ‘Chronicon’, PL 153; cols 1150–1260. Foedera, ed. T. Rymer, Vol. 1 (London, 1704).

244

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Gallia christiana, Vol. 1: Instrumenta (Paris, 1715). Geoffrey of Villehardouin, La Conquête de Constantinople, historiens et chroniqueurs du Moyen Age: Robert de Clari, Villehardouin, Joinville etc., ed. A. Pauphilet and E. Pognon (Paris, 1958). ‘Gesta episcoporum Traiectensium’, MGHS 23, pp. 400–26. Gesta Innocentii PP III, PL 214, pp. xviii–ccxxviii. ‘Gesta Lodovici VIII Francorum Regis auctore Nicolao de Braia. Heroico carmine’, Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France 17, ed. M. Bouquet (Paris, 1878), pp. 311–45. Gesta regis Henrici Secundi Benedicti Abbatis, ed. W. Stubbs, 2 vols, Rolls Series 49 (London, 1867; Kraus Reprint, 1965). ‘Gesta Treverorum continuata’, MGHS 24, pp. 368–488. Gli Archivi e le biblioteche di Spagna, in rapporto alla storia d’Italia in generale e di Sicilia in particolare, ed. I. Carini, 2 vols (Palermo, 1884–97). Gratian, ‘Concordia discordantium canonum’, Corpus iuris canonici, ed. E. Friedberg, Vol. 1 (Leipzig, 1879). Gregory I, Pope, ‘In septem psalmos poenitentiales expositio’, Opera omnia, PL 79, cols 549–658. ——, ‘Libri moralium’, Opera omnia, PL 76, cols 1–782. Gregory VII, Pope, Registrum, ed. E. Caspar, 3rd edn (Berlin, Dublin and Zurich, 1967). Gregory IX, Pope, Commentaria in quinque libros decretalium, 7 vols and Index (Rome, 1661). ——, Commentaria . . . in singulis textus quinque librorum decretalium Gregorii IX, ed. E. Gonzalez Telles, 2 vols (Frankfurt am Main, 1960). ——, Les Registres de Grégoire IX, ed. L. Auvray, 4 vols, Bibliothèque des écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome (2nd series) (Paris, 1890–1955). ——, ‘Liber extra decretalium’, Corpus iuris canonici, ed. E. Friedberg, Vol. 2 (Leipzig, 1881), pp. 5–928. Guibert of Nogent, Autobiographie, ed. E.-R. Labande (Paris, 1981). Guy Terre, Summa de heresibus (Cologne, 1631). Héfèle, C., Histoire des conciles d’après les documents originaux, ed. and trans. H. Leclercq from 2nd German edn, Vol. 5, part 2 (Paris, 1913). Henry of Segusio, Summa aurea (Venice, 1605). Histoire des comtes de Toulouse, ed. G. Catel (Toulouse, 1623). Histoire générale de Languedoc, ed. C. L. Devic and J. Vaisette, in revised edn by A. Molinier et al., Vols 6–8 (Toulouse, 1872–79). Histoire générale de Languedoc, 16 vols, ed. Dom Vaisette (Toulouse: Private Edition, 1872–73). Historia diplomatica Friderici Secundi, ed. J. L. A. Huillard-Bréholles, 6 vols in 12 (Paris, 1852–1861). ‘Historia monasterii Rastedensis’, MGHS 25, pp. 495–511. ‘Historia peregrinorum’, Historia Occidentalis, Recueil des Historiens des Croisades (Paris 1844–1895), Vol. 3, pp. 169–229. Honorius III, Pope, Regesta Honorii Papae III, ed. P. Pressutti, 2 vols (Rome, 1888–95). Honorii III romani pontificis opera omnia quae extant, ed. C. A. Horoy, 5 vols (Paris, 1879–82). Hostiensis, Summa aurea (Venice, 1605). Innocent III, Pope, Die Register Innocenz III, Publikationen des Österreichischen Kulturinstituts in Rom, ed. O. Hageneder, H. Haidacher and A. Strnad, Vols 1– (Graz, Vienna and Cologne, 1964–). ——, Opera omnia, PL 214–16. Innocent IV, Pope, Apparatus decretalium (Venice, 1491).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

245

——, Apparatus super quinque libris decretalium (Turin, 1581). ——, Les Registres de Innocent IV, ed. E. Berger, 3 vols, Bibliothèque des écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome (2nd series) (Paris, 1884–1921). Italia sacra, 10 vols, ed. F. Ughelli, 2nd edn, ed. N. Coleti (Venice, 1717–22). Ivo of Chartres, Decretum beati Iuonis (Louvain, 1561). James of Vitry, ‘De sacramentis’, Historia occidentalis, ed. J. F. Hinnebusch, Spicilegium Friburgense 17 (Freiburg, 1972), pp. 192–246. ——, Exempla, ed. T. F. Crane (London, 1890). ——, Lettres, ed. R. B. C. Huygens (Leiden, 1960). ——, ‘Sermones vulgares’, Analecta novissima, ed. J. B. Pitra, Vol. 2 (Paris, 1888), pp. 344–461. Jerome, St, Commentaire sur Jonas, ed. Y.-M. Duval (Paris, 1985). John of God, ‘Cronica’, MGHS 31, pp. 301–24. John of Joinville, La Vie de Saint Louis, Collections des Études 13, ed. N. L. Corbett (Sherbrooke, 1977). John Teutonicus, Apparatus glossatorum in compilationem tertiam, ed. K. Pennington (Vatican City, 1981). ——, Gratiani Decretum unacumque apparatu Johannis Theutonici atque additionibus Bartholomaei Brixiensis (Eggesteyn, 1472). Layettes du trésor des chartes, ed. A. Teulet et al., 5 vols (Paris, 1863–1909). Le liber censuum de l’église romaine, ed. P. Fabré and L. Duchesne, 3 vols in 2, Bibliothèque des écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome (2nd series) (Paris, 1905–52). Les Statuts synodaux Français du XIIIe siècle, Collections de documents inédits, ed. J. Avril, 4 vols (Paris, 1971–95). Les Statuts synodaux Français du XIIIe siècle précédés de l’historique du synod diocesain, 2 vols, ed. O. Pontal (Paris, 1971–83). Les Statuts synodaux. Typologie des sources du Moyen Age Occidental II (Turnhout: 1975). ‘Liber extra decretalium’, Corpus iuris canonici, ed. E. Friedberg, Vol. 2 (Leipzig, 1881), pp. 5–928. ‘Liber de vita Christi ac omium pontificum qui hactenus ducenti fuere et. xx’, Platynae Historici, RIS, 3, part 1, pp. 1–420. Matthew Paris, Additamenta, ed. H. R. Luard, Rolls Series 57, Vol. 6 (London, 1858). ——, Chronica majora, ed. H. R. Luard, Vols 2–4, Rolls Series 57 (London, 1877; Kraus Reprint, 1964). Monumenta diplomatica S. Dominici, ed. V. Koudelka (Rome, 1966). Oldradus Pontanus Laudensis, Concilia aurea (Lyon, 1550). Original Papal Letters in England, 1305–1415, ed. P. Zutshi (Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostlica Vaticana, 1990). Ottonis et Rahewina gesta Friderici I Imperatoris 1, 3rd edn, ed. B. von Simson (Hannover and Leipzig, 1912). Papsturkunden für Templer und Johanniter, ed. R. Hiestand, Vol. 2 (Göttingen, 1984). Paschal II, Pope, ‘Epistolae et privilegia’, PL 163, cols 31–448. Pelagius II, Pope, ‘Epistolae et decreta’, Opera omnia, PL 72, cols 701–60. Perigrinationes Medii Aevi Quattor, ed. J. M. L. Laurent, 2nd edn (Leipzig, 1873). Peter Damian, ‘De privilegio Romanae Ecclesiae’, PL 145, cols 89–98. ——, ‘Epistolae’, PL 144, cols 205–498. ——, ‘Liber qui dicitur gratissimus’, PL 145, cols 99–160. Peter of les Vaux–de–Cernay, Historia Albigensis, ed. P. Guébin and E. Lyon, 3 vols (Paris, 1926–39).

246

BIBLIOGRAPHY

——, Histoire Albigeoise, ed. P. Guébin and H. Maisonneuve (Paris, 1951). ——, The History of the Albigensian Crusade, trans. W. A. and M. D. Sibly (Aldershot: Boydell and Brewer, 1999). Peter the Venerable, The Letters of Peter the Venerable, ed. G. Constable, Harvard Historical Studies 78 (Cambridge, MA, 1967), Vols 1–2. Philippe Mouskes, Chronique Rimée, ed. Le Baron de Reiffenberg, 2 vols (Brussels, 1836–8). Philip of Grève, ‘Sermo de crucesignatione contra Albigenses’ in Cole, P. J. The Preaching of the Crusades to the Holy Land, 1095–1270, Medieval Academy Books 98 (Cambridge, MA, 1991). Quinque compilationes antiquae, Corpus iuris canonici, ed. E. Friedberg (Leipzig, 1882). Ralph of Diceto, Opera historica, ed. W. Stubbs, 2 vols, Rolls Series 68 (London, 1876; Kraus Reprint, 1965). Raymond of Peñafort, Summa de paenitentia, ed. X. Ochoa and A. Riez (Rome, 1976). ——, Summa de poenitentia et matrimonio (Farnborough, 1967). Receuil des historiens des Gaules et de la France, Vols 18 and 19, ed. Dom Bouquet (Paris, 1879–80). Regesta imperii: Vol. 5, Die Regesten des Kaisereichs unter Philipp, Otto IV, Friedrich II, Heinrich (VII), Conrad IV, Heinrich Raspe, Wilhelm und Richard, 1198–1272, ed. J. Ficker (Innsbruck, 1881–2). Regesta pontificum Romanorum, ed. A. Potthast, 2 vols (Berlin, 1874). Regesta pontificum Romanorum ab condita ecclesia ad annum post Christum natum 1198, ed. P. H. Jaffé (Berlin, 1851); 2nd edn, ed. S. Loewenfield, 2 vols (Leipzig, 1885–8). Regestri dei Cardinali Ugolino d’Ostia e Ottaviano degli Ubaldini, ed. G. Levi (Rome, 1890). Regestum Innocenti III papae super negotio Romani imperii, ed. F. Kempf, Miscellanea historiae pontificiae 12 (Rome, 1947). Richard of San Germano, ‘Chronica’, MGHS 19, pp. 321–84. ——, ‘Chronica’, RIS 7, part 2, pp. 1–219. Robert of Cléry, La Conquête de Constantinople, historiens et chroniqueurs du Moyen Age: Robert de Clari, Villehardouin, Joinville etc., ed. A. Pauphilet and E. Pognon (Paris, 1958). ‘Roberti Autisiodorensis Chronicon’ ed. O. Holder-Egger, MGHS 26 (Hannover, 1862), pp. 219–276; ‘Continuationes I et II et Additamentum’, ed. O. Holder-Egger, MGHS 26 (Hannover, 1862), pp. 276–87. Roger of Hoveden, Chronica, ed. W. Stubbs, 4 vols, Rolls Series 51 (London, 1868–71; Kraus Reprint, 1964). Roger of Wendover, Chronica, Vol. 4, ed. H. O. Coxe (London, 1844). ——, Flores historiarum, ed. H. G. Hewlett, 3 vols, Rolls Series 84 (London, 1886–1889; Kraus Reprint, 1965). Roland Patavinus, Chronica, RIS, 8, part 1. Sacrorum concilium nova et amplissima collectio, ed. G. D. Mansi (Florence, Venice and Paris, 1759–98, 1901–27). Sacrosancta concilia ad regiam editionem exacta quae nunc quarta prodit auctor studio, Vol. 10, ed. P. Labbe and G. Cosserti (Paris, 1671). Salimbene of Adam, ‘Cronica’, MGHS 32, pp. 1–652. Selected Letters of Pope Innocent III concerning England 1198–1216, Medieval Texts and Studies, ed. C. R. Cheney and W. H. Semple (London, 1953). Sigebert of Gembloux, ‘Leodicensium epistola adversus Pascalem papam’, MGH Libelli de lite imperatorum et pontificum saeculis XI. et XII. conscripti, Vol. 2, pp. 449–64. ——, Liber decennalis, ed. J. Wiessenbach (Weimar and Böhlau, 1986). Studien zum Register Innocenz III, ed. G. Tangl (Weimar, 1929).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

247

Suger, Vie de Louis VI le Gros, ed. H. Waquet (Paris, 1929). Summa ‘Elegantius in iure divino’ seu Coloniensis, ed. G. Fransen and S. Kuttner, 4 vols, Monumenta iuris canonici, Corpus glossatorum, 4 vols (New York and Vatican City, 1969–90). The Deeds of Pope Innocent III by an Anonymous Author, ed. J. M. Powell (Washington, DC, 2004). The Letters of Pope Innocent III, 1198–1216, concerning England and Wales, a Calendar with an Appendix of Texts, ed. C. R. Cheney and M. R. Cheney (Oxford, 1967). The Summa Parisiensis on the Decretum Gratiani, ed. T. P. McLaughlin (Toronto, 1952). Urban II, Pope, ‘Epistolae et privilegia’, PL 151, cols 283–558. Vetera monumenta historica Hungariam sacram illustrantia, 2 vols, ed. A. Theiner (Rome, 1859–60). Vetera monumenta Slavorum Meridionalium historiam illustrantia, Vol. 1: 1198–1549, ed. A. Theiner (Rome, 1863). ‘Vie et miracles du pape Saint Léon IX’, ed. A. Poncelet, Analecta Bollandiana 25 (1906), pp. 258–97. Vie de Saint Louis le Gros par Suger suivie de l’Histoire du roi Louis VI, ed. A. Molinier (Paris, 1887). Vincent of Beauvais, Speculum maius, 4 vols (Douai, 1624; repr. Graz, 1954–5). ‘Vita Gregorii IX’, Le Liber censuum de l’église romaine, Vol. 2, ed. P. Fabre and L. Duchesne, Bibliothèque des écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome (2nd series) (Paris, 1905), pp. 18–36. ‘Vita Gregorii IX’, RIS, 3, part 1, pp. 577–88. ‘Vita Innocenti IV scripta a Fr. Nicolao de Carbio’, ed. F. Pagnotti, Archivio della società romana di storia della patria 21 (1898), pp. 76–120. Wibert, ‘Vita Leonis IX’, Pontificum Romanorum vitae, ed. J. M. Watterich (Leipzig, 1872), Vol. 1, pp. 93–177. William of Newburgh, Chronicles of William of Newburgh, ed. R. Howlett, Vols 1–2, Rolls Series 82 (London, 1884–5; Kraus Reprint, 1964). ——, The History of English Affairs, Bk 1, ed. P. G. Walsh and M. Kennedy (Warminster, 1988). William of Puylaurens, The Chronicle of William of Puylaurens: The Albigensian Crusade and its Aftermath, ed. W.A. Sibly and M.D. Sibly (Woodbridge, 2003). ——, Chronique, ed. with French trans., J. Duvorney (Paris, 1976). William of Tudela, The Song of the Cathar Wars: A History of the Albigensian Crusade, trans. J. Shirley (Vermont, 1996). ——, La Chanson de la croisade Albigeoise, ed. E. Martin-Chabot, 3 vols (Paris, 1931–57).

SECONDARY LITERATURE Abulafia, David, Commerce and Conquest in the Mediterranean, 1100–1500 (Aldershot: Variorum 1993). ——, Frederick II, A Medieval Emperor (London: Pimlico, 2002). ——, Italy, Sicily and the Mediterranean, 1100–1400 (London: Variorum Reprints, 1987). ——, Medieval Frontiers: Concepts and Practices, ed. D. Abulafia and N. Berend (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002). ——, Mediterranean Encounters, Economic, Religious, Political, 1100–1500 (Aldershot: Ashgate Variorum, 2000). ——, ed. The New Cambridge Medieval History, Vol. 5, c.1198–c.1300 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999). ——, Two Italies: Economic Relations between the Norman Kingdom of Sicily and the Northern Communes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977).

248

BIBLIOGRAPHY

——, The Western Medieval Kingdoms, 1200–1500: the Struggle for Dominion (London: Longman, 1997). Andrea, Alfred, ‘Innocent III, the Fourth Crusade and the Coming Apocalypse’, in The Medieval Crusade, ed. S. J. Ridyard (Woodbridge: Boydell, 2004), pp. 97–106. Angold, Michael, A Byzantine Government in Exile: Government and Society under the Laskarids of Nicaea (1204–1261) (London: Oxford University Press, 1975). ——, The Byzantine Empire 1025–1204: A Political History, 2nd edn (London and New York: Longman, 1997). ——, ‘Byzantium in Exile’, The New Cambridge Medieval History, Vol. 5 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp. 543–68. ——, Church and Society in Byzantium under the Comneni, 1081–1261 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995). Atlas of the Crusades, ed. J. S. C. Riley-Smith (London: Times Books, 1991). Audisio, Gabriel, Waldensian Dissent: Persecution and Survival, c.1170–c.1570, trans. C. Davison (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999). Avril, Joseph, ‘Conciles provinciaux et statuts synodaux’, in Les Conciles de la province de Tours (XIIIe–XVe) siècles, ed. J. Avril (Paris: Éditions du centre nationale de la recherche scientifique, 1987), pp. 472–7. ——, ‘Les Décisions des conciles et synodes’, in Jacques Berlioz, Identifier sources et citations. J. Berlioz avec la collaboration de Joseph Avril (Turnhout: Brepols, 1964), pp. 177–89. Bacht, Heinrich, ‘Zur Ekklesiologie des Lateranum IV’, Testimonium Veritati, ed. H. Walther (Frankfurt am Main: J. Knecht 1971), pp. 101–23. Baethgen, Friedrich, Die Regentschaft Papst Innocenz III. im Königreich Sizilien (Heidelberg: C. Winter, 1914). Baldwin, John, Masters, Princes and Merchants, Vol. 1 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1970). Barber, Malcolm, The Cathars, Dualist Heretics in Languedoc in the High Middle Ages (Harlow: Longman, 2000). ——, Crusaders and Heretics, 12th–14th Centuries (Aldershot and Brookfield, VT: Variorum, 1995). ——, The Trial of the Templars (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993). Barraclough, Geoffrey, Public Notaries and the Papal Curia (London: Macmillan, 1934). Bartlett, Robert, ‘The Conversion of a Pagan Society in the Middle Ages’, History 70 (1985), 185–201. Beeler, John, Warfare in Feudal Europe (Ithaca, London: Cornell University Press, 1971). Belperron, Pierre, La Croisade contre les Albigeois et l’union du Languedoc à la France (1209–1249), 2nd edn (Paris: Plon, 1945). Berend, Nora, At the Gates of Christendom: Jews, Muslims and ‘Pagans’ in Medieval Hungary c.1000–1300 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001). ——, ‘How many Medieval Europes? The “Pagans” of Hungary and Regional Diversity in Christendom’, in The Medieval World, ed. P. Linehan and J. L. Nelson (London: Routledge, 2001), pp. 77–92. Bériou, Nicole, ‘La Prédication de la Croisade de Philippe le Chancelier et d’Eudes de Châteauroux en 1226’, La Prédication en Pays d’Oc (xiie–début xve siècle), Cahiers de Fanjeaux 32 (Toulouse: Éditions Privat, 1947), pp. 85–109. Berlioz, Jacques, Identifier sources et citations, L’Atelier du médiéviste 1(Turnhout: Brepols, 1994). Bertram, Martin, ‘Die Dekretalen Gregors IX: Kompilation oder Kodifikation?’, Magister Raimundus: Atti del convegno per il IV centenario della canonizzazione di San Raimondo de Penyafort (1601–2001) ed. C. Longo (Rome, Istituto storico domenico, 2002), pp. 70–109.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

249

Biblia sacra iuxta Vulgatam versionem, 2 vols, 2nd edn, ed. R. Weber (Stuttgart: Würtembergische Bibelanstalt, 1975). Bibliografia delle crociate albigesi, ed. M. Meschini (Florence: Florence University Press, 2006). Bibliographia synodorum particularum, Monumenta iuris canonici, Subsidia 2, ed. J. T. Sawicki (Vatican City: S. Congregatio de Seminariis et Studiorum Universitatibus, 1967). Biget, Jean-Louis, ‘La Législation synodale: le cas d’Albi aux XIIIe et XIVe siècles’, L’Église et le droit dans le Midi, XIIIe–XIVe siècles, Cahiers de Fanjeaux 29 (Toulouse: Éditions Privat, 1994), pp. 181–213. Biller, Peter, ‘Through a Glass Darkly: Seeing Medieval Heresy’, in The Medieval World, ed. P. Linehan and J. L. Nelson (London: Routledge, 2001), pp. 308–26. Birch, Debra, Pilgrimage to Rome in the Middle Ages. Continuity and Change. Studies in the History of Medieval Religion 13 (Woodbridge: Boydell, 1998). Bird, Jessalynn, ‘Innocent III, Peter the Chanter’s Circle and the Crusade Indulgence: Theory, Implementation, and Aftermath’ in Sommerlechner, A. Innocenzo III: Urbs er Orbis (Rome: Societa romanà di storia patria: istituto storifico italiano per il Medio Evo, 2003), pp. 503–24. ——, ‘Reform or Crusade? Anti-Usury and Crusade Preaching during the Pontificate of Innocent III’, Pope Innocent III and his World, ed. J. C. Moore (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1999), pp. 165–85. Blumenthal, Uta-Renate, ‘Papal Registers in the Twelfth Century’, Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Medieval Canon Law (Cambridge, 23–27 July 1984), ed. P. Linehan (Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1988), pp. 135–51. Bohmbach, Jürgen and Hucker, Bernd-Ulrich, (ed.), Urkundenbuch zur Geschichte der Stadt Bremerhaven I. Lehe und Vieland im Mittelalter 1072–1500 (Bremerhaven: Stadtarchiv, 1982). Bolton, Brenda, Innocent III: Studies on Papal Authority and Pastoral Care (Aldershot: Variorum Ashgate, 1995). ——, ‘Qui fidelis est in minimo: The Importance of Innocent III’s Gift List’, Pope Innocent III and his World, ed. J. C. Moore (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1999). ——, ‘Tradition and Temerity: Papal Attitudes toward Deviants, 1159–1216’, in D. Baker, ed., Schism, Heresy and Religious Protest, Studies in Church History, Vol. 9 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972), pp. 79–91. Brooke, Rosalind, The Coming of the Friars (London: G. Allen and Unwin; New York: Barnes and Noble, 1975). Brundage, James, ‘“Cruce signari”: the Rite for Taking the Cross in England’, The Crusades, Holy War and Canon Law (Aldershot: Ashgate Variorum, 1991), pp. 289–310. ——, The Crusades, Holy War and Canon Law (London: Ashgate Variorum, 1991). ——, ‘Holy War and the Medieval Lawyers’, in The Holy War, ed. T. P. Murphy (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1976), pp. 99–140. ——, Medieval Canon Law (London and New York: Longman, 1995). ——, Medieval Canon Law and the Crusader (Madison and London: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969). Bruschi, Catherina and Biller, Peter, ‘Texts and the Repression of Heresy: Introduction’, in Texts and the Repression of Medieval Heresy, ed. C. Bruschi and P. Biller York Studies in Medieval Theology IV (Woodbridge, Suffolk, UK: York Medieval Press; Rochester, NY: Boydell and Brewer, 2003), pp. 3–22. Bull, Marcus, Knightly Piety and Lay-Response to the First Crusade: the Limousin and Gascony c.970–c.1130 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993).

250

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Burt, Donald, ‘Augustine on the Morality of Violence: Theoretical Issues and Applications’, Studia Ephemerides ‘Augustinianum’ no. 26, Vol. 3 (1987), 25–54. ——, ‘To Kill or Let Live: On Killing the Innocent’, Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 58 (1984), 112–19. Cahen, Claude, Pre-Ottoman Turkey: A General Survey of the Medieval and Spiritual Culture and History c.1071–1330, trans. J. Jones-Williams (London: Sidgwick and Jackson, 1968). Canetti, Luigi, Invenzione della Memoria. Il culto e l’immagine di Domenico nella storia dei primi fratri Predicatori, Centro italiano di Studi sull’ alto Medioevo Spoleto (Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sull’ Alto Medioevo, 1996). Canz, Oscar, Philip Fontana, Erzbischof von Ravenna: ein Staatsmann des XIII Jahrhunderts (Leipzig: Quelle und Meyer, 1910). Catalogue of Early Printed Books from the Libraries of Eminent Collectors, Sold May 1870 (London: Dryden Press, 1870). Chatelain, Emil, Mélanges offerts à M. Emil Chatelain par ses élèves et ses amis (Paris: Libraire Ancienne Honoré Champion, 1910). Chazan, Robert, ‘The Deteriorating Image of the Jew – Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries’, Christendom and its Discontents, ed. P. Diehl and S. Waugh (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 220–33. Cheney, Christopher, ‘The Letters of Innocent III’, Medieval Texts and Studies (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973), pp. 16–38. ——, Pope Innocent III and England (Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1976). ——, The Study of the Medieval Papal Chancery (Glasgow: Jackson, 1966). Chideock, Cassandra, ‘Henry of Marcy, Henry and the Crusade, 1177–1189’ (unpublished PhD dissertation, Cambridge, 2001). Christendom and its Discontents, ed. P. Diehl and S. Waugh (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). Christiansen, Eric, The Northern Crusades. The Baltic and the Catholic Frontiers 1100–1525 (London: Macmillan, 1980). Clarence-Smith, John, Medieval Law Teachers and Writers, Civilian and Canonists (Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, 1975). Clausen, Jorgen, Papst Honorius III. (1216–1227): Eine Monographie (Bonn: Verlag und Druck von P. Hauptmann, 1895). Van Cleve, Thomas, ‘The Crusade of Frederick II’, in A History of the Crusades, ed. K. Setton, Vol. 2 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), pp. 429–62. ——, The Emperor Frederick II of Hohenstaufen: Immutator Mundi (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972). ——, ‘The Fifth Crusade’, in A History of the Crusades, ed. K. Setton, Vol. 2 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), pp. 377–428. ——, Markward of Anweiler: A Study of Hohenstaufen Policy in Sicily during the Minority of Frederick II (Princeton, NJ and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1937). Cohn, Norman, Europe’s Inner Demons: the Demonization of Christians in Medieval Christendom (London: Chatto Heinemann for Sussex University Press, 1975). ——, The Pursuit of the Millenium: Revolutionary Millinarians and Mystical Anarchists of the Middle Ages, 2nd edn (London: Paladin, 1970). Cole, Penny, The Preaching of the Crusades to the Holy Land, 1095–1270 (Cambridge, MA: Medieval Academy of America, 1991). Cole, Penny, D’Avray, David and Riley-Smith, Jonathan, ‘Application of Theology to Current Affairs: Medieval Sermons for the Dead of Mansurah and on Innocent IV’, Historical Research 63 (1990), 227–47.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

251

Contamine, Philip, War in the Middle Ages, trans. Michael Jones (Oxford: Blackwell, 1984). Costen, Michael, The Cathars and the Albigensian Crusade (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1997). Cowdrey, Herbert, ‘The Mahdia Campaign of 1087’, English Historical Review 92 (1977), 1–29. ——, Pope Gregory VII (Oxford and New York: Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, 1998). Dean, Trevor, ‘The Rise of the Signori’, in The New Cambridge Medieval History, Vol. 5. c.1198–1245, ed. D. Abulafia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp. 458–78. The Deeds of Pope Innocent III by an Anonymous Author, ed. J. M. Powell (Washington DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2004). Delaborde, Henri-François, Oeuvres de Rigord et de Guillaume le Breton, Vol. 1 (Paris: Libraire Renouard, 1882). Delaruelle, Etienne, ‘Devotion populaire et hérésie au moyen âge’, in Hérésies et sociétés dans l’Europe pré–industrielle des 11e–18e siècles, ed. J. le Goff (Paris: Mouton, 1968). Denzinger, Heinrich, Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum, et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum, 11th edn, ed. C. Bannwart (Freiberg in Breisgau: Herder and Co, 1932). De Roover, Raymond, The Emergence of International Business 1200–1218, Vol. 2, Money, Banking and Credit in Medieval Bruges, A Study in the Origins of Banking (London and New York: Routledge, 1999). De Vic, Claude L. and Vaisette, Joseph, Histoire générale de Languedoc in revised edn by A. Molinier et al., Vols 6–8 (Toulouse: Édition Privat, 1872–1873). Dickson, Gary, Religious Enthusiasm in the Medieval World (Aldershot: Ashgate Variorum, 2000). Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, 7 vols, ed. R. Naz (Paris: Letouzey et Ané 1935–65). Diepernik, Frederick, ‘De Drenste opstand tegen het bisschoppelijke gezag in 1227’, Bijdragen van het Institut voor middleleeuwse geschiednis der Rijks-Universiteit te Utrecht 26 (1953), 1–36. Diplomatica Pontificia, ed. P. Rabikauskas, 3rd edn (Rome: Universita Gregoriana, 1972). Donnar, Gustav, Kardinal Wilhelm von Sabina, bischof von Modena 1222–1234. Päpstlicher Legat in den nordischen Ländern (+1251) (Helsingfors, 1929). Dossat Yves, ‘La Croisade Albigeoise vue par les chroniqueurs’, Paix de Dieu et guerre sainte en Languedoc au XIIIe siècle, Cahiers de Fanjeaux 4 (Toulouse: Éditions Privat, 1969), pp. 221–59. ——, Église et hérésie en France au XIIIe siècle (London: Variorum Reprints, 1982). ——, ‘Le prétendu Concile de Bourges et l’excommunication du comte de Toulouse à Viviers (Juillet 1240)’, Église et hérésie en France au XIIIe siècle (London: Variorum Reprints, 1982), pp. 461–71. ——, ‘Simon de Montfort’, Paix de Dieu et guerre sainte en Languedoc au XIIIe siècle, Cahiers de Fanjeaux 4 (Toulouse: Éditions Privat, 1969), pp. 281–302. Duby, George, The Three Orders: Feudal Society Imagined, trans. A. Goldhammer (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1980). Duffy, Eamon, Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997). Duggan, Charles, Twelfth-Century Decretal Collections and their Importance in English History (London: Athlone Press, 1963). Dumeige, Gervais, Histoire des conciles oecuméniques, Vol. 6 (Paris: Editions de l’Orante, 1965), Vol. 7 (Paris: Editions de l’Orante, 1966). Dutton, Claire, ‘Aspects of the Institutional History of the Albigensian Crusades, 1198–1229’ (PhD dissertation, Royal Holloway and Bedford New College, University of London, 1993).

252

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Duval, Yves-Marie, L’Extirpation de l’Arianisme en Italie du Nord et en Occident: Rimini (359/60) et Aquilée (381), Hilaire de Poitiers (d. 367/8) et Ambroise de Milan (d. 397.) (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998). Edbury, Peter, ‘The Crusader States’, The New Cambridge Medieval History, Vol. 5 c.1198–c.1300, ed. D. Abulafia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp. 590–606. Ehmck, Diedrich and Von Bippen, Wilhelm, Bremisches Urkundenbuch im Auftrage des Senats der Freien Hansestadt Bremen, Vol. 1: Urkunden bis 1300 (Bremen: C. D. Müller, 1873). Erdmann, Carl, Die Enstehung des Kreuzzugs Gedankens (Stuttgart W. Kohlhammer Verlag, 1935), The Origin of the Idea of Crusade, trans. M. W. Baldwin and W. Goffart (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1977). Evans, Austin, ‘The Albigensian Crusade’, in A History of the Crusades, ed. K. Setton, Vol. 2 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), pp. 277–324. The Experience of Crusading, Festschrift in Honour of Jonathan Riley-Smith, Vol. 1: Western Approaches, ed. M. Bull and N. Housley; Vol. 2: Defining the Crusader Kingdoms, ed. P. W. Edbury and J. Phillips (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003). Felten, Joseph, Papst Gregor IX (Freiburg im Breisgau and St. Louis, MO: Herder, 1886). Fine, John, The Bosnian Church: A New Interpretation. A Study of the Bosnian Church and its Place in State and Society from the 13th to the 15th Centuries (Boulder: East European Quarterly; New York: distrib. by Columbian Univ. Press, 1975). Fletcher, Richard, The Barbarian Conversion: From Paganism to Christianity 371–86 a.d. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997). Foreville, Raymonde, ‘Innocent III et la Croisade des Albigeois’, Paix de Dieu et guerre sainte en Languedoc au XIIIe siècle, Cahiers de Fanjeaux 4 (Toulouse: Édition Privat, 1969), pp. 184–217. ——, Lateran I, II, III et Lateran IV, Histoire des conciles oecuméniques, Vol. 6 (Paris: Éditions de l’Orante, 1965). ——, Le Pape Innocent III et la France (Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1992). ——, ‘Les Statuts synodaux et le renouveau pastoral du XIIIe siècles dans le Midi de la France’, Le Credo: la morale et l’inquisition, Cahiers de Fanjeaux 6. (Toulouse: Éditions Privat, 1971), pp. 119–50. Forey, Alan, ‘The Military Orders and Holy War Against Christians in the Thirteenth Century’, English Historical Review 104 (1989), 1–24. Förg, Ludwig, Die Ketzerverfolgung in Deutschland unter Gregor IX. Ihre Herkunft, ihre Bedeutung und ihre rechtlichen Grundlagen, Historische Studien 218 (Berlin: Emil Ebering, 1932). France and the Holy Land, ed. D. H. Weiss and L. Mahoney (Baltimore and London: The John Hopkins University Press, 2004). Frankfurth, Hermann, Gregorius de Montelongo: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte Oberitaliens in den Jahren 1228–1269 (Marburg: N. G. Elwert’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1898). Freed, John, The Friars and German Society in the Thirteenth Century (Cambridge, MA: Medieval Academy of America, 1977). Freedman, Paul, Church Law and Society in Catalonia, 900–1500 (Aldershot: Variorum, 1994). Gaudemet, Jean, ‘Aspects de la législation conciliare française au xiiie siècle’, La Formation du droit canonique médiéval (London: Variorum, 1980), pp. 319–40. Gaztambide, José, Historia de la Bula de la Cruzada en España (Vitoria: Editorial del Seminario, 1958). Gilchrist, John, The Church and Economic Activity in the Middle Ages (London and Melbourne: Macmillan; New York: St Martin’s Press, 1969).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

253

——, ‘The Papacy and War against the “Saracens”’, International History Review 10 (1988), 174–97. Girgensohn, Dieter, ‘Das Pisaner Konzil von 1135 in der Überlieferung des Pisaner Konzils von 1409’, Festschrift für Hermann Heimpel (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1972), Vol. 2, pp. 1063–1100. Gottlob, Adolf, Kreuzablass und Almosenablass: Eine Studie über die Frühzeit des Ablasswesens, Kirchenrechtliche Abhandlungen, Vols 30–1, ed. U. Stutz (Stuttgart: F. Enke, 1906). ——, Die päpstlichen Kreuzzugs-Steuern des 13. Jahrhunderts (Heiligenstadt and Eichsfeld: F. W. Cordier, 1892). Gougaud, Henri, La Chanson de la croisade albigeoise (Paris: Librairie général Française, 1989). Griffe, Elie, Les Débuts de l’aventure cathare en Languedoc (1140–1190) (Paris: Letouzeyer et Ané, 1969). ——, Le Languedoc cathare au temps de la croisade (1209–1229) (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1973). Hageneder, Othmar, ‘Der Häresiebegriff bei den Juristen des 12. und 13. Jahrhunderts’, in The Concept of Heresy in the Middle Ages (11th–13th C.), Proceedings of the International Conference Louvain May 13–16th 1973, ed. W. Lourdaux and D. Verhelst (Louvain: University Press, 1976), pp. 42–103. ——, ‘Die Häresie des Ungehorsam und das Entstehen des hierokratischen Papstums’, Römische Historische Mitteilungen 20 (1978), 29–47. Hagenmeyer, Hanz, Epistulae et chartae ad historiam primi belli sacri spectantes quae supersunt aevo aequales et genuinae: Die Kreuzzugsbriefe aus den Jahren 1088–1100; eine Quellensammlung zur Geschichte des ersten Kreuzzuges mit Erläuterungen (Innsbruck: Wagnerische Universitäts–Buchhandlung, 1901). Hames, Harvey, The Art of Conversion, Christianity and Kabballah in the Thirteenth Century (Leiden: Brill, 2000). Hamilton, Bernard, ‘The Albigensian Crusade’, Historical Association Pamphlets, Gen. Ser. G 81 – G 85, G 85 (London: Historical Association, 1974), pp. 1–40. ——, ‘The Albigensian Crusade and Heresy’, in D. Abulafia, The New Cambridge Medieval History, Vol. 5: c.1198–c.1300 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp. 164–81. ——, The Medieval Inquisition (London: Edward Arnold, 1981). ——, Monastic Reform, Catharism and the Crusades 900–1300 (London: Variorum, 1979). Hampe, Karl, Deutsche Kaisergeschichte in der Zeit der Salier und Staufer (Leipzig: Quelle and Meyer, 1943). ——, Geschichte Konradins von Hohenstaufen (Leipzig: K. F. Koehler, 1942). Haskins, Charles, ‘Robert le Bougre and the Beginnings of the Inquisition in Northern France’, in C. H. Haskins, Studies in Medieval Culture (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1929), pp. 193–244. ——, The Renaissance of the Twelfth Century (New York: Meridian, 1957). ——, Studies in Medieval Culture (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1929). Héfèle, Carl, Histoire des conciles d’ après les documents originaux, ed. and trans. H. Leclercq from 2nd German edn, Vol. 5, part 2 (Paris: Letouzey, 1913). Hehl, Ernst-Dieter, Kirche und Krieg im 12. Jahrhundert. Studien zu kanonischen Recht und politischer Wirklichkeit (Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1980). Herde, Peter, Beiträge zum päpstlichen Kanzlei–und Urkundenwesen im 13. Jahrhundert, Münchener Historische Studine, Abteilung Geschichtl. Hilfswissenschaft 1 (Kallmünz: Michael Lassleben, 1961), pp. 125–48. ——, ‘Christians and Saracens at the Time of the Crusades: Some Comments of Contemporary Medieval Canonists’, Studia Gratiana 12 (1967), 361–76.

254

BIBLIOGRAPHY

——, ‘Federico II et il Papato: la lotta della cancellerie’, Federico II e le nuove culture. Atti del XXXI convegno storico internazionale Todi, 9–12 Ottobre 1994 (Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sull’alto Medioevo, 1995), pp. 69–87. Hintze, Otto, Das Königtum Wilhelms von Holland (Leipzig: Verlag von Veit und Comp., 1885). Hoffmann, Hartmut, Gottesfriede und Treuga Dei (Stuttgart: A. Hiersemann, 1964). Holtzmann, Walther, ‘Kröne und Kirche in Norwegen im 12. Jahrhundert’, Englische Analekten III, Deutsches Archiv für Geschichte des Mittelalters, 2 (1938), 341–400. Housley, Norman, ‘Crusades against Christians: Their Origins and Early Development, c.1000–1216’, in P. W. Edbury ed., Crusade and Settlement: Papers read at the First Conference of the Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East and Presented to R. C. Smail (Cardiff: University College Cardiff Press, 1985), pp. 17–36. ——, Documents on the Later Crusades, 1274–1580 (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1996). ——, The Italian Crusades: The Papal Angevin Alliance and the Crusades against Christian Lay Powers, 1254–1342 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1982). ——, The Later Crusades: From Lyons to Alcazar, 1274–1580 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992). ——, ‘The Thirteenth-Century Crusades in the Mediterranean’, in The New Cambridge Medieval History, Vol. 5, c.1198–c.1300, ed. D. Abulafia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp. 569–89. Imkamp, Wilhelm, Das Kirchenbild Innocenz’ III. (1198–1216) (Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann, 1983). Innocent III and his World, ed. J. C. Moore (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1999). Italia sacra, ed. F. Ughelli, 2nd edn, ed. N. Coleti, 10 vols, (Venice: Sebatianus Coleti, 1717–22). Johns, Jeremy, Arabic Administration in Norman Sicily: the Royal Diwan (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002). Jordan, Édouard, L’Allemagne et l’Italie au XIIe et XIIIe siècles (Paris, 1939). ——, Les Origines de la domination angévine en Italie (Paris, 1909). Kantorowicz, Ernst, Frederick II, 1194–1250 (New York: Ongar, 1957; originally publ. London: Constable, 1931). Kay, Richard, ‘The Albigensian Twentieth of 1221–1223: An Early Chapter in the History of Papal Taxation’, Journal of Medieval History 6 (1980), 307–15. ——, Councils and Clerical Culture in the Medieval West (Aldershot: Variorum, 1997). Kedar, Benjamin, ‘Canon Law and the Burning of the Talmud’, Bulletin of Medieval Canon Law 9 (1979), pp. 79–83. ——, Crusade and Mission: European Approaches toward the Muslims (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984). Kempf, Friedrich, Papsttum und Kaiserstum bei Innocenz III (Rome, 1954). Kennan, Elizabeth, ‘Innocent III and the First Political Crusade: A Comment on the Limitations of Papal Power’, Traditio 17 (1971), 231–49. ——, ‘Innocent III, Gregory IX and Political Crusades: A Study in the Disintegration of Papal Power’, in G. F. Lytle, ed., Reform and Authority in the Medieval and Reformation Church (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1981), pp. 15–35. Kieckhefer, Richard, The Repression of Heresy in Medieval Germany (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1979). King, Margot, The Life of Marie d’Oignes by Jacques de Vitry (Toronto: Peregrina, 1993). Köhler, Hans, Die Ketzerpolitik der deutschen Kaiser und Könige in den Jahren 1152–1254, Jenaer Historische Arbeiten 6 (Bonn: A. Marcus und E. Webers Verlag, 1913). ——, Das Verhältnis Kaiser Friedrichs II zu den Päpsten seiner Zeit (Breslau: W. Koebner, 1888).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

255

Köhn, Rolf, ‘Die Verketzerung der Stedinger durch die Bremer Fastensynode’, Bremisches Jahrbuch 57 (1979), 15–85. Köster, Wilhelm, Die Kreuzablass im Kampfe der Kurie mit Friedrich II (Münster in Westfalen: Westfälische Vereinsdruckerei, 1913). Kriegel, Maurice, ‘Prémarranisme et Inquisition dans la Provence des XIIIe et XIVe siècles’, Provence historique 29 (1978), 312–23. Krollmann, Christian, ‘Der Deutsche Orden und die Stedinger’, Alt-Preussiche Forschungen, Histoire Kommission für ost-und-west-preussische Landesforschung 14 (Königsberg: Grafe und Unzer, 1973), pp. 1–13. Kurze, Dietrich, ‘Anfange der Inquisition in Deutschland’, in Die Anfange der Inquisition im Mittlelater mit einem Ausblick auf das 20 Jahrhundert und einem Beitrag uber religiose Intoleranz im nichtchristlichen Bereich, ed. P. Segl (Cologne: Böhlau, 1993), pp. 131–93. Kuttner, Stephan, ‘The Barcelona Edition of Saint Raymond’s First Treatise of Canon Law’, Studies in the History of Medieval Canon Law (Aldershot: Ashgate Variorum, 1990), pp. 52–67. ——, Gratian and the Schools of Law, 1140–1234 (London: Variorum, 1983). ——, History of Ideas and Doctrines of Canon Law in the Middle Ages (London: Variorum 1980), 2nd edn (London: Variorum, 1992). ——, Medieval Councils, Decretals and Collections of Canon Law: Selected Essays (London: Variorum, 1980) 2nd edn (London: Variorum, 1992). ——, Repertorium der Kanonistik (1140–1234) (Vatican City: Biblioteca apostolica vaticana, 1937). ——, Studies in the History of Medieval Canon Law (Aldershot: Variorum, 1990). Lambert, Malcolm, The Cathars: Dualist Heretics in Languedoc in the High Middle Ages (Oxford: Blackwell, 1998). ——, Medieval Heresy: Popular Movements from the Gregorian Reform to the Reformation, 2nd edn (Oxford: Blackwell, 1992). La Mendola. ‘Militia Christi’ e crociata nei secoli XI–XIII: atti della undecima settimana internazionale di studio: Mendola, 28 augosto–1 settembre 1989 (Milan: Vita e pensiero, 1992). Landau, Peter, ‘Gratian’, Theologische Realenzyklopädie 14 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1985), 124–30. Langmuir, Gavin, Toward a Definition of Anti-Semitism (Berkeley and Oxford: University of California Press, 1990). Lansing, Carol, Power and Purity. Cathar Heresy in Medieval Italy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998). Laurent, Johann, Willbrands von Oldenburg Reise nach Palestina und Kleinasien (Hamburg, 1859). Lea Henry, A History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages, 3 vols (New York and London, 1906). Leclercq, Jean, ‘L’Encyclique de Saint Bernard en faveur de la croisade’, Revue Bénédictine 81 (1971), 282–308. Lenherr, Titus, Die Excommunikations-und Depositionsgewalt der Häretiker bei Gratian und den Dekretisten bis zur ‘Glossa ordinaria’ des Johannes Teutonicus (St Ottilien: EOS Verlag, 1987). Lexicon des Mittelalters, 9 vols (Munich: Artemis, 1977–99). Linehan, Peter, ‘Proctors representing Spanish Interests at the Papal Court, 1216–1303’, Archivum Historiae Pontificiae 17 (1979), 69–123. ——, The Spanish Church and the Papacy in the Thirteenth Century, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 3rd Series, 4 (London: Cambridge University Press, 1971). ——, Spanish Church and Society 1150–1300 (London: Variorum, 1983).

256

BIBLIOGRAPHY

——, ‘The Synod of Segovia (1166)’, Bulletin of Medieval Canon Law 10, 31–44 (1980). Lloyd, Simon, English Society and the Crusade, 1216–1307 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1988). Lot, Ferdinand, L’Art militaire et les armées au moyen-âge, Vol. 1 (Paris: Payot, 1946). Lourdeaux, Willem and Verhelst, Daniel, The Concept of Heresy in the Middle Ages (11th–13th Centuries), Mediaevalia Lovaniensia, Series I, Studia IV (Leuven: University Press, 1976). Luchaire, Achille, Innocent III, 6 vols in 3 (Paris: Hachette et Cie, 1905–8). ——, Innocent III: La Croisade des Albigeois, 3rd edn (Paris: Hachette, 1911). Lunt, William, Financial Relations of the Papacy with England to 1327 (Cambridge, MA: Medieval Academy of America, 1939–62). Maccarrone, Michele, ‘Studi zu Innocenzo III. Orvieto et la Predicazione della Crociata’, Italia sacra 17 (1943), 3–163. MacCulloch, John, Medieval Faith and Fable (London: George G. Harrap, 1932). Madden, Thomas and Queller, Donald, The Fourth Crusade: the Conquest of Constantinople (Philadelphia: University of Pennslyvania Press, 1997). Magister Raimundus: Atti del convegno per il IV centenario della canonizzazione di san Raimondo de Penyafort (1601–2001), ed. C. Longo (Rome: Istituto storico domenicano, 2002). Maier, Christoph, ‘Crisis, Liturgy and the Crusade in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History 48 (1997), 628–57. ——, ‘Crusade and Rhetoric against the Muslim Colony of Lucera: Eudes of Châteauroux’s Sermones de rebellione Sarracenorum Lucherie in Apulia’, Journal of Medieval History 21 (1995), 343–85. ——, Crusade Propaganda and Ideology: Model Sermons for the Preaching of the Cross (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000). ——, ‘Mass, the Eucharist and the Cross: Innocent III and his Relocation of the Crusade’, Pope Innocent III and his World, ed. J. C. Moore (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1999), pp. 351–60. ——, Preaching the Crusades: Mendicant Friars and the Cross in the Thirteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994). Maleczek, Werner, Papst und Kardinalskolleg von 1191 bis 1216: die Kardinale unter Coelistin III. und Innocenz III. (Vienna: Verlag der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1984). Mann, Horace, Lives of the Popes in the Early Middle Ages from 590 to 1304, 18 vols (London: K. Paul, Trench, Trübner, 1902–32). Manselli, Raoul, ‘Les “Chrétiens” de Bosnie: le Catharisme en Europe orientale’, Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 72 (1977), 600–14. Markus, Robert, ‘Saint Augustine’s Views on the Just War’, Studies in Church History 20 (1983), 1–13. Marvin, Laurence, ‘Thirty-Nine Days and a Wake-up: The Impact of the Indulgence and Forty Days Service on the Albigensian Crusade, 1209–1218’, The Historian (2002), pp. 75–94. Mayer, Hans, Geschichte der Kreuzzüge (Stuttgart: Kollhammer, 1965), trans. J. Gillingham, The Crusades (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1972); 2nd edn, trans. J. Gillingham (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988). Medieval Studies: An Introduction, ed. J. M. Powell, 2nd edn (Syracuse, NY, Syracuse University Press, 1992). The Medieval World, ed. P. Linehan and J. L. Nelson (London: Routledge, 2001). Melloni, Alberto, Innocenzio IV. La Concezione e l’Esperienza della Cristianità come regimen unius personae (Genova: Marietti, 1990). Meschini, Marco, Innocenzo III e il negotium pacis et fidei in Linguadoca tra il 1198 e il 1215 (Rome: Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 2007).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

257

Molinier, Alberto, ‘Géographie de la province de Languedoc au Moyen Age’, Histoire générale de Languedoc (Osnabruck: Otto Zeller, 1973; originally publ.: Toulouse: Éditions Privat, 1872–1904), Vol. 12, pp. 265–319. Moore, John, Innocent III (1160/61–1216): To Root up and to Plant (Leiden: Brill, 2003). Moore, Robert, The Birth of Popular Heresy (London: Edward Arnold, 1975). ——, The Formation of the Persecuting Society: Authority and Deviance in Western Europe, 950–1250, 2nd edn (Malder, MA: Blackwell, 2006). ——, The Formation of the Persecuting Society: Power and Deviance in Western Europe, 950–1250 (Oxford: Blackwell, 1987). ——, ‘Heresy as Disease’, The Concept of Heresy in the Middle Ages (11th–13th C.), Proceedings of the International Conference Louvain May 13–16, 1973 (Louvain: University Press, 1976), pp. 1–11. ——, The Origins of European Dissent (Oxford: Blackwell, 1985). Morris, Colin, The Papal Monarchy: the Western Church from 1050 to 1250, Oxford History of the Christian Church (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989). Muldoon, James, Popes, Lawyers and Infidels; the Church and the Non-Christian World 1250–1550 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1979). Mundill, Robin, England’s Jewish Solution: Experiment and Expulsion, 1262–1290 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998). Murphy, James, Rhetoric in the Middle Ages: A History of the Rhetorical Theory from Saint Augustine to the Renaissance (Tempe, AZ: Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 2001). Nickerson, Hoffmann, The Inquisition: A Political and Military Study of its Establishment, 2nd edn (London: J. Bale, Sons and Danielsson, 1932). Niremberg, David, Communities of Violence; Persecution of Minorites in the Middle Ages (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996). Oates, John, A Catalogue of the Fifteenth-Century Printed Books in the University Library, Cambridge (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1954). Oldenbourg, Zoe, Massacre at Montségur: A History of the Albigensian Crusade, trans. P. Green (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1961). Omnia disce: Medieval Studies in Memory of Leonard Boyle, O.P., ed. A. J. Duggan, J. Greatrex and B. Bolton (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005). Oncken, Hermann, ‘Studien zur Geschichte des Stedingerkreuzzuges’, Jahrbuch für die Geschichte des Herzogtums Oldenburg, Vol. 5 (Oldenburg: Schriften des Oldenburger Vereins für Altertumskunde und Landesgeschichte, 1896), pp. 27–58. Pacaut, Marcel, Alexandre III, Etude sur la conception du pouvoir pontifical dans sa pensée et dans sa oeuvre (Paris: J. Vrin, 1956). Partner, Peter, The Lands of St. Peter: the Papal State in the Middle Ages and the Early Renaissance (London: Eyre Methuen, 1972). Pásztor, Edith, ‘Lotti per le investiture e “Ius Belli”: la posizione di Anselmo di Lucca’, Sant’ Anselmo, Mantova e la lotta per le investiture. Atti del convegno internazionale di studi, ed. P. Golinelli (Bologna: Pàtron, 1987), pp. 375–421. Patschovsky, Alexander, ‘Zur Ketzerverfolgung Konrads von Marburg’, Deutsches Archiv für die Erforschung des Mittelalters 37 (1981), 641–93. Paulus, Nikolaus, Geschichte des Ablasses im Mittelalter vom Ursprunge bis zur Mitte des 14. Jahrhunderts, 3 vols (Paderborn: Schöningh, 1922–3). Pegg, Mark, A Most Holy War. The Albigensian Crusade and the Battle for Christendom (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008).

258

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Pennington, Kenneth, Pope and Bishops: the Papal Monarchy in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1984). Peters, Edward, Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1980). Petit-Dutaillis, Charles, Étude sur la vie et le règne de Louis VIII (Paris: É. Bouillon, 1894). Pfeiffer, Nikolaus, Die Ungarische Dominikanerprovinz von ihrer Gründung 1221 bis zur Tartarenverwüstung 1241–1242 (Zürich: Doktordissertation, 1913). Philips, Jonathan, The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople (London: Jonathan Cape, 2004). Pinzi, Cesare, Storia dellà città di Viterbo, illustrata con note e nuovi documenti in gran parte inediti, 4 vols (Rome: Tipografia della Camera dei deputati, 1887–9). Pissard, Hippolyte, La Guerre sainte en pays chrétien: essai sur l’origine et le devéloppement des théories canoniques (Paris: A. Picard, 1912). Poole, Reginald, Lectures on the History of the Papal Chancery (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1915). Pope, Church and City: Essays in Honour of Brenda Bolton, ed. F. Andrews, C. Egger and C. M. Rousseau, The Medieval Mediterranean 56 (Leiden: Brill, 2004). Pope Innocent III and his World, ed. J. C. Moore (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1999). Powell, James, Anatomy of a Crusade 1213–1221 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1986). ——, ‘Honorius III and the Leadership of the Crusade’, Catholic Historical Review 63 (1977), 521–36. ——, Innocent III: Vicar of Christ or Lord of the World?, ed. and intro. J. M. Powell (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1994). Powicke, Frederick, Stephen Langton (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1928). Purcell, Maureen, Papal Crusading Policy: The Chief Instruments of Papal Crusading Policy and Crusade to the Holy Land from the Loss of Jerusalem to the Fall of Acre 1244–1291 (Leiden: Brill, 1975). Ranke, Leopold von, The Popes of Rome: Their Ecclesiastical and Political History during the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, trans. S. Austin, Vol. 1 (London, 1866). ——, Die Römischen Päpste in den letzten vier Jahrhunderten (Vienna: Phaidon-Verlag, 1934). Reynolds, Susan, Fiefs and Vassals: The Medieval Evidence Reinterpreted (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984). Richard, Jean, Histoire des Croisades (Paris: Fayard, 1996), trans. J. Birrell, The Crusades, c.1071–c.1291 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999). ——, ‘Urbain II, la prédication de la croisade et la définition de l’indulgence’, Deus qui mutat tempora: Menschen und Institution im Wandel des Mittelalters: Festschrift für Alfons Becker zu zeinem fünfundsechzigsten Geburtstag, ed. E.-D. Hehl, H. Seibert and F. Staab (Sigmaringen, 1987), pp. 129–35. Riley-Smith, Jonathan, ‘Crusading as an Act of Love’, History 65 (1980), 177–92. ——, ‘The Crown of France and Acre, 1254–1291’, France and the Holy Land, ed. D. H. Weiss and L. Mahoney (Baltimore and London: John Hopkins University Press, 2004), pp. 45–62. ——, The Crusades: A Short History (London: Athlone Press, 2001). ——, The Feudal Nobility and the Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1174–1277 (London: Macmillan, 1973). ——, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading (London: Athlone Press, 1986). ——, The First Crusaders, 1095–1131 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997). —— and Louise Riley-Smith, The Crusades, Idea and Reality, 1095–1274 (London: Edward Arnold, 1981).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

259

——, What were the Crusades? 3rd edn (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 2002). Rist, Rebecca, ‘The Development of the Idea of Crusade by the Papacy in the Twelfth Century’ (unpublished MPhil dissertation, Cambridge, 2000). ——, ‘Papal Policy and the Albigensian Crusades: Continuity or Change?’, Crusades 2 (2003), 99–108. Rockinger, Ludwig, Briefsteller und Formelbücher des elften bis vierzehnten jahrhunderts, 2 vols (Munich: Quellen und Erörterungen zur Bayerischen und Deutschen Geschichte, 1864). Roquebert, Michel, L’Épopée cathare, 4 vols (Paris: Édition Privat, 1970–89). Roscher, Helmut, Papst Innocenz III. und die Kreuzzuge, Forschungen zur Kirchen-und Dogmengeschichte, Vol. 21 (Göttingen: Vandenhoecku, Ruprecht., 1969). Rother, Aloysius, ‘Johannes Teutonicus (von Wildeshausen). Vierter General des Dominikanerordens’, Römische Quartalschrift für Christliche Altertumskunde und für Kirchengeschichte 9 (1895), 139–70. Rousset, Paul, Les Origines et les caractères de la première croisade (Neuchâtel: Bacconnière, 1945). Rubin, Miri, Corpus Christi: the Eucharist in Late Medieval Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991). Rüdebusch, Dieter, Der Anteil Niedersachsens and den Kreuzzugen und Heidenfahrten, Quellen und Forschungen zur Geschichte Niedersachsens 80 (Hildesheim: A. Lax, 1972). Russell, Frederick, The Just War in the Middle Ages, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 3rd Series, Vol. 8 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975). Russell, Jeffrey, Dissent and Reform in the Early Middle Ages (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1965). ——, A History of Witchcraft, Sorcerers, Heretics and Pagans (London: Thomas and Hudson, 1980). ——, ‘Interpretations of the Origins of Medieval Heresy’, Medieval Studies 25 (1963), 26–53. Rüthning, Gustav, Urkundenbuch von Süd-Oldenburg: Oldenburgisches Urkundenbuch: Im Auftrage des Staates herausgegeben von Oldenburger Verein für Altertumskunde und Landesgeschichte, Vol. 5 (Oldenburg: Druck und Verlag von Gerhard Stalling, 1930). Sanjek, Franjo, Les Chrétiens bosniques et le mouvement cathaire, XIIe–XIVe siècles (Brussels: Nauwelaerts; Paris: diffusion par Vander-Oyez, 1976). Sayers, Jane, Innocent III: Leader of Europe, 1198–1216 (London: Longman, 1994). ——, Papal Government and England during the Pontificate of Honorius III (1216–1227) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984). Schaller, Hans Martin, Kaiser Friedrich II (Göttingen, Musterschmidt-Verlag, 1964). ——, ‘Die Kanzlei Kaiser Friedrichs II., Ihr Personal und ihr Sprachstil, Zweiter Teil’, Archiv für Diplomatik 4 (1958), 264–327. ——, Stauferzeit: Ausgewählte Aufsätze (Hannover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung, 1993). Schneyer, Johannes, Geschichte der Katholischen Predigt (Freiburg: Seelsorge Verlag, 1969). ——, Repertorium der lateinischer sermones des Mittelalters für die Zeit von 1150–1350, 10 vols, Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie und Theologie des Mittelalters 43 (Munster: Aschendorff, 1976). Schumacher, Hermann, Die Stedinger. Beitrag zur Geschichte der Weser–Marschen (Bremen: C. E. Muller, 1865). Segl, Peter, ‘Einrichtung und Wirkungsweise der Inquisitio Haereticae Pravitatis im Mittelalterlichen Europa zur Einfuhrung’, in Die Anfange der Inquisition im Mittlelater mit einem Ausblick auf das 20 Jahrhundert und einem Beitrag über religiose Intoleranz im nichtchristlichen Bereich, ed. P. Segl (Cologne, Böhlau, 1993), pp. 1–38.

260

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Segl, Peter, ed., Die Anfange der Inquisition im Mittlelater mit einem Ausblick auf das 20 Jahrhundert und einem Beitrag über religiose Intoleranz im nichtchristlichen Bereich (Cologne, Böhlau, 1993). Selge, Kurt–Victor, ‘Die Ketzerpolitik Friedrichs II’, Probleme um Friedrich II, ed. J. Fleckenstein, Vorträge und Forschungen 16 (Sigmaringen: J. Thorbecke 1974), pp. 309–43. Servatius, Carlo, Paschalis II. (1099–1118): Studien zur seiner Person und seiner Politik (Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1979). Setton, Kenneth, A History of the Crusades, 2nd edn, 6 vols (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969–1989). Shahar, Shulamith, The Fourth Estate, A History of Women in the Middle Ages, trans. C. Galai (London: Metheun, 1983). Shannon, Albert, The Medieval Inquisition (Washington DC: Augustinian College Press, 1983; repr. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1991). Shirley, J., The Song of the Cathar Wars. A History of the Albigensian Crusade. William of Tudela and an Anonymous Successor (Aldershot: Scolar Press; Brookfield, VT: Ashgate, 1996). Siberry, Elizabeth, Criticism of Crusading 1095–1274 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985). Sibilia, Salvatore, Gregorio IX, 1227–1241 (Milan, 1961), p. 99. Sibly, William and Sibly, Michael, The History of the Albigensian Crusade (Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell Press, 1998). Simonde de Sismondi, Jean, History of the Crusades Against the Albigenses in the Thirteenth Century (London: Wrightman and Cramp, 1826). Smith, Damian, ‘Peter II of Aragon, Innocent III and the Albigensian Crusade’, in A. Sommerlechner, Innocenzo III: Urbs er Orbis (Rome: Societa romanà di storia patria: istituto storifico italiano per il Medio Evo, 2003), pp. 1049–64. Somerville, Robert, ‘The Council of Pisa, 1135: A Re–examination of the Evidence for the Canons’, Speculum 45 (1970), 98–114. Sommerlechner, Andrea, Innocenzo III: Urbs er Orbis (Rome: Societa romanà di storia patria: istituto storifico italiano per il Medio Evo, 2003). Stelzer, Winifred, ‘Beitrage zur Geschichte der Kurienprokuratoren im 13. Jahrhundert’, Archivum Historiae Pontificiae 8 (1970), 113–38. Stickler, Alfonso, Historia iuris canonici Latini: institutiones academiae, Vol. 1: Historia fontium (Turin: Auguste Taurinorum: Apud custodiam librariam Pontif. Athenaei Salesiani, 1950). ——, ‘Il potere coattivo materiale della chiesa nella riforma Gregoriana secondo Anselmo di Lucca’, Studi Gregoriani 2 (1947), 235–85. Strayer, Joseph, The Albigensian Crusades (New York: Dial Press, 1971). ——, ‘The Political Crusades of the Thirteenth Century’, in K. Setton, ed., A History of the Crusades, Vol. 2: The Later Crusades, 1189–1311, 2nd edn (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), pp. 343–75. Sumption, Jonathan, The Albigensian Crusade (London: Faber, 1978). Takayama, Hiroshi, The Administration of the Norman Kingdom of Sicily (Leiden and New York: E. J. Brill, 1993). Taylor, Clare, ‘Pope Innocent III, John of England and the Albigensian Crusade (1209–1216)’, Pope Innocent III and his World, ed. J. C. Moore (London: Ashgate, 1999), pp. 205–28. Taylor, Julie, Muslims in Medieval Italy: The Colony at Lucera (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003). Thouzelier, Christine, Catharisme et Valdéisme en Languedoc à la fin du XIIe et au début du XIIIe siècle, 2nd edn (Louvain: Éditions Nauwelaerts, 1969).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

261

——, Hérésie et héretiques: Vaudois, Cathares, Patarins, Albigeois, Storia e Letteratura, Raccolta di Studi e Testi, 116 (Rome: Edizioni Di Storia e Letteratura, 1969). ——, ‘La Légation en Lombardie du cardinal Hugolin (1221): un épisode de la cinquième croisade’, Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 45 (1950), 508–42. Tierney, Brian, ‘The Continuity of Papal Political Theory in the Thirteenth Century’, Medieval Studies 27 (1965), 227–45. Tillmann, Helene, Pope Innocent III, trans. W. Sax (Amsterdam: North Holland, 1980). Tyerman, Christopher, ‘The Holy Land and the Crusades of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries’, in P. W. Edbury, ed., Crusade and Settlement: Papers Read at the First Conference of the Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East and Presented to R. C. Smail (Cardiff: University College Cardiff Press, 1985), pp. 105–12. ——, The Invention of the Crusades (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1998). Ullmann, Walter, The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages: A Study in the Ideological Relation of Clerical to Lay Power (London: Methuen, 1955). ——, A Short History of the Papacy (London: Methuen, 1972). ——, ‘The Significance of Innocent III’s Decretal “Vergentis”’, Études d’histoire du droit canoniques dédiées à Gabriel le Bras (Paris: Sirey, 1965), pp. 729–41. Vernet, Felix, ‘“L’Affaire de Paix et de Foix” du midi de la France (1203–1215)’, Paix de Dieu et guerre sainte en Languedoc au XIIIe Siècle, Cahiers de Fanjeaux 4 (Toulouse: Édition Privat, 1969), pp. 102–27. ——, ‘Les Cathars albigeois vus par les polémistes’, Cathars en Languedoc, Cahiers de Fanjeaux 3 (Toulouse: Édition Privat, 1968), pp. 105–28. ——, Le Credo, la morale, et l’inquisition, Cahiers de Fanjeaux 6 (Toulouse: Édition Privat, 1971). ——, Etude sur les sermons d’Honorius III (Lyon, 1888). ——, Histoire de Saint Dominique (Paris, 1957), trans. Kathleen Pond, Saint Dominic and his Times (Darton: Longman and Todd, 1964). ——, ‘La Pastorale des moeurs dans les conciles languedociens (fin du XIe – début XIIIe siècles)’, Le Credo: la morale et l’inquisition (Toulouse: Édition Privat, 1971), pp. 85–117. Vidal, Henri, ‘Les Conciles méridionaux aux XIIIe et XIVe siècles’, L’Église et le droit dans le Midi, XIIIe–XIVe siècles, Cahiers de Fanjeaux 29 (Toulouse: Édition Privat, 1994), pp. 147–80. Villey, Michel, La Croisade: Essai sur la formation d’une théorie juridique (Paris: Librairie philosophique J. Vrin, 1942). Vincent, Norman, ‘Some Pardoners’ Tales: the Earliest English Indulgences’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 6th Series, 12 (2002), 23–58. Vogel, Cyrille, ‘Le Pélerinage pénitentiel’, Revue des Sciences Religieuses 38 (1964), 113–53. Volk, Otto, Die Abendländisch-hierarchische Kreuzzugsidee (Halle a.S.: C. A. Kaemmerer, 1911). Von Bippen, Wilhelm, Geschichte der Stadt Bremen, 3 vols (Bremen: C. Ed. Müller, 1891–1904). Von Schulte, Johann, Die Geschichte der Quellen und Literatur des kanonischen Rechts, 2 vols (Stuttgart: F. Enke, 1875–6; repr. Graz: Akademische Druck-u. Verlagsanstatt, 1956). Wagner, Kay, Debellare Albigenses. Darstellung und Deutung des Albigenserkreuzzuges in der europaischen Geschichtsschreibung von 1209 bis 1328, Politik im Mittelalter 4 (Neuried: Ars Una, 2002). Wakefield, Walter, Heresy, Crusade and Inquisition in Southern France 1100–1250 (London: G. Allen and Unwin, 1974). ——, ‘Some Unorthodox Popular Ideas of the Thirteenth Century’, Medievalia et Humanistica, New Series 4 (1973), 25–35. —— and Evans, Austin, Heresies of the High Middle Ages (New York: Columbia University Press, 1969).

262

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Waley, Daniel, The Papal State in the Thirteenth Century (London: Macmillan; New York: St Martin’s Press, 1961). Walther, Helmut, ‘Häresie und päpstliche Politik: Ketzerbegriff und Ketzergesetzgebung in der Übergangsphase von der Dekretistik zur Dekretalistik’, The Concept of Heresy in the Middle Ages (11th–13th C), Proceedings of the International Conference, Louvain May 13–16, 1973 (Leuven: University Press, 1976), pp. 104–43. Warner, Henry, The Albigensian Heresy, 2 vols (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge; New York: Macmillan, 1922–8). Watt, James, ‘The Papacy’, in The New Cambridge Medieval History, Vol. 5, c.1198–c.1300, ed. D. Abulafia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp. 107–63 ——, The Theory of Papal Monarchy in the Thirteenth Century: the Contribution of the Canonists (New York: Fordham University Press, 1965). Webb, Diana, Medieval European Pilgrimage, c.1100–c.1500 (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2002). ——, ‘Pardon and Pilgrims’, in Promissory Notes on the Treasury of Merits: Indulgences in Late Medieval Europe, ed. R. N. Swanson (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2006), pp. 241–75. Winckelmann, Eduard, Kaiser Friedrich II. Jahrbücher der deutschen Geschichte, 2 vols (Leipzig: Duncker und Humblot, 1889–97). Winroth, Anders, The Making of Gratian’s Decretum (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000). Zutshi, Patrick, ‘Innocent III and the Reform of the Papal Chancery’, in Innocenzo III: Urbs et Orbis, ed. A. Sommerlechner (Rome: Societa romanà di storia patria: istituto storifico italiano per il Medio Evo, 2003), pp. 84–111. ——, ‘Letters of Pope Honorius III Concerning the Order of Preachers’, in Pope, Church and City: Essays in Honour of Brenda M. Bolton, ed. F. Andrews, C. Egger and C. M. Rousseau (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2004), pp. 269–86. ——, ‘The Personal Role of the Pope in the Production of Papal Letters in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries’, in Vom Nutzen des Schreibens: Soziales Gëdachtnis, Herrschaft und Besitz im Mittelalter, ed. W. Pohl and P. Herold (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2002), pp. 225–36.

Index

Aachen 178 absolution 22, 24, 94 Ad liberandam 85 Ad peregrinos crucesignatos 90 Ad peregrinos quoscumque 90 Adam of Aix 109 Additiones of Matthew Paris 172 Adelasia, countess of Turritana 184 Agen, bishop of 50 Aimo of Bourges (Archbishop) 22 Aix-en-Provence 55, 99 Aix-en-Provence, archbishop of 51, 62, 65 Alanus Anglicus 122 Alberigo, James 232 Albert of Beham, archbishop of Passau 185 Albert of Morra 16 Albert, abbot of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Stadt 121 Albi 59 Albigensian Crusade viii, ix, 6, 8, 11, 45, 46, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 57, 61, 67, 68, 69, 70, 81, 82, 83, 85, 86, 90, 91, 95, 99, 105, 106, 108, 109, 120, 125, 134, 135, 151, 152, 158, 190, 224, 230, 235, 237 Alexander II (Pope) 21 Alexander III (Pope) 14, 25, 26, 27, 45, 123, 184, 228 Alexander IV (Pope) 119 Alphonso of Castile 57 Amiens 26 Amiens, bishop of 26 Anacletus II (Antipope) 23, 24, 45, 184 Andrew II of Hungary (King) 131

Annales Bolognesi 172 Annales Erphordenses fratrum praedicatorum 120, 129 Annales Januae 172 Annales Pisani of Bernard of Moringen 172 Annales Placentini Gibellini 172 Annales Placentini Guelfi 172 Annales Scheftavienses maiores 172 Annales Stadenses 121, 127 Annales Wormatiensis 120 Anselm of Lucca 28 Anti-Christ 198 Apocalypse 193 Apostolic See 23, 34, 63, 128, 133, 150, 156, 175, 184, 189, 190, 198 Apostolic Tradition 19 Apparatus super quinque libris decretalium of Innocent IV 187 apparatuses 122 Apulia 23, 175, 177, 182, 183, 190, 198, 201 Apulians 176 Aragon 52, 62 Arianism 32 Arles 55, 99 Arles, archbishop of 49, 50, 53, 65, 86, 99 Arnald Amalric (Abbot of Cîteaux, papal legate and archbishop of Narbonne from 1212) 9, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 57, 58, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 69, 84, 92, 93, 223 Arnaldists 124 Arnold of Brescia 3 Arras, bishop of 22 arrenga 6

‘ars dictaminis’ 16 Ars dictandi 16 Aubrey of Trois Fontaines 120, 147, 197 Auch 27, 99 Auch, archbishop of 26, 55, 62, 103 Aversa 179 Avignon 82, 135 Balkans 136, 139 Balni 179 Baltic 3, 6, 7, 11, 46, 68, 90, 105, 142, 150, 157, 219, 225 Baluze, Stéphane 229 Barbastro 21 Bardo of Mainz (Archbishop) 20 Bari, archbishop of 188 Barons’ Crusade 107 Bartholomew of Brescia 28 Bartholomew of Palermo (Archbishop) 175 Bartholomew of Pécs (Bishop) 131 Bavaria 23 Béarn, viscount of 58 Bela IV of Hungary (King) 126, 130, 131, 132, 133, 136, 139, 140, 157, 187, 144, 148 Benedict VIII (Pope) 20 Berengar of Narbonne, archbishop. 50, 53, 58, 65 Bernard Balbi of Pavia 28, 29, 34 Bernard of Clairvaux 4, 14, 56 Bernard of Montemirat (‘Abbas Antiquus’) 123 Bernard of Parma 123, 124, 231 Bernard of Pavia 122, 123 Bernard, a Dominican 129

264 Bernardo, prior of the monastery of Saint Bartholomew of Trisulti 138, 141, 142 Bernardus Compostellanus Antiquus 123 Bernhard III, Duke of Corinthia 187 Bertrand of San Giovanni e Paolo (Cardinal and legate) 83, 84, 92, 98 Béziers 49 Béziers, bishop of 51 Bibliothèques des écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 229 Blanche of Castile 125 Bogomil-type heresies 148 Bohemia 197 Bohemia, King of 200 Bologna 119, 123, 138, 179, 180 Boniface VIII (Pope) 63 Bosnia ix, 10, 120, 121, 130, 131, 132, 133, 138, 139, 141, 142, 145, 147, 148, 150, 155, 156, 231 Bosnia, bishop of 132, 138, 155, 156 Bosnians 131, 132, 145 Bosquet, François 229 Bourdeaux, archbishop of 97 Bourges 22, 92 Bourges, archbishop of 100 Brabant 62, 127 Bremen 121, 126, 127, 137, 138, 146 Bremen Provincial Synod (1230) 146 Bremen, Chapter of 127 Bremen, Dominican prior of 136–7 Brescia 179 Breve chronicon de rebus Sicilis (Short History of Sicilian Affairs) (anonymous) 172 Brindisi, 179, 181, 182 Bulgaria 132, 133, 139 Bulgarians 148 Bulgaria-Walachia 133 Bulgars 132 bullatores 17 Burchardt of Worms (Bishop) 172

INDEX

Burgundy, duke of 64 Byzantine emperors (exiled) 132 Byzantine Empire 5 Calabria 175, 190, 198] Cambrai 22 Campagna 185, 188 canon law vii, 5, 6, 7, 45, 27, 90, 121, 187, 220, 230, 231 canon lawyers 27, 28, 158, 174, 220, 230, 231 Canterbury, archbishop of 185 capitula 28, 123 Capua 23, 173, 179, 199 Capuans 175 Carcassonne 48, 49, 103 Carcassonne, bishop of 103 Carneola 131 Caro of Monreale (Archbishop) 175 Casanova, abbot of 189 Castile, King of 25 Catharism 2, 4, 33, 46, 48, 49, 55, 56, 60, 67, 87, 88, 147, 148, 222, 237 Cathars viii, 3, 7, 27, 33, 35, 48, 49, 51, 52, 55, 65, 69, 87, 88, 103, 104, 108, 124, 125, 143, 196, 223, 230, 237 ‘Causa 17’ 28 ‘Causa 23’ 7, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34, 35, 56 ‘Causa 24’ 7, 28, 35, 56 causae (cases) 27 Cava, abbot of 189 Celestine III (Pope) 60, 81 Celestine IV (Pope) vii, 2, 187, 223, 227 Cencio Savelli (Pope Honorius III) 81 Ceprano 184 Cesarius of Heisterbach 9, 223, 230 Châlons, bishop of 100 Champagne 120 chancellor 16, 81 chancery (papal) 15, 16, 17, 18, 81, 222, 230 Chanson de la Croisade Albigeoise, of William of Tudela and an anonymous continuator 50, 82

Charlemagne (German emperor) 14 Children’s Crusade 91 Christendom 54, 185, 186, 197, 219 Chronica majora of Matthew Paris 172 Chronica minor minoritae Erphordensis 121, 149 Chronica of Andrew Dandolo (Doge of Venice) 172 Chronica of Aubrey of Trois Fontaines 171, 172 Chronica of Burchardt of Worms 172 Chronica of Guido de Adam 171 Chronica of Richard of San Germagno 171 Chronica of Roger of Howeden 171 Chronica of William of Puylaurens 120 Chronicle of Tours 82 Church of Saint Laurence, provost of 130 Cinthius, cardinal priest of San Lorenzo in Lucina (Legate) 173, 176 Cistercians 8, 9, 46, 87 Cività Castellana 188 Civitate, battle of 20 Civitavecchia 188 Clement III (Pope) 81, 122 Clement IV (Pope) 18 Clement V (Pope) 230 Cluny 20, 24, 25 College of Cardinals 93, 187 Cologne 28, 147 Cologne, archbishop of 132, 156, 189 Coloman of Croatia (Duke) 130, 131, 132, 139, 147 Colonna 45 Comminges, count of 58 ‘common letters’ 16 Compilatio prima 29, 122, 123 Compilatio quarta 122, 124 Compilatio quinta 81, 122, 124 Compilatio secunda 122, 123 Compilatio tertia 122, 123, 174 Compostela 63, 64

INDEX

Concordia discordantium canonum (Decretum) of Gratian 6, 7, 27, 28, 29, 31, 34, 35, 56, 121, 122, 123, 124, 231 Conrad Dorso 119 Conrad II (German Emperor) 172 Conrad II of Hildesheim (Bishop) 127, 128, 129, 154 Conrad of Marburg 119, 128, 129, 137, 138, 146, 153, 154, 222 Conrad of Minden (Bishop) 126, 127, 137 Conrad of Osnabrück (Bishop) 127, 137 Conrad of Paderborn (Bishop) 127, 137 Conrad of Saxony (Count Palatine) 129 Conrad of Thuringia (Landgrave) 128, 129, 138, 185 Conrad of Tors (Dominican) 138 Conrad of Urach (Legate and cardinal bishop of Porto and Rufino) 92, 93, 95, 97 Conrad, son of Frederick II 189 Consistory 18 consolamentum 87 Constance 175 Constantine (Antipope) 123 Constantine I (Roman emperor) Constantine IX Monomachus (Greek emperor) 20 Constantinople ix, 7, 47, 53, 70, 90, 133, 139 Conti 45, 119 correctors 17 Cortenuova 184 Cosenza 179 Council of Avignon (1209) 49, 50, 59, 61 Council of Bourges (1225) 82, 92, 93, 97, Council of Clermont (1095) 1, 4, 21, 22, 23, 24, 45 Council of Familiars 175, 175, 175–6, 176

Council of Lavaur (1213) 51, 52, 58, 61, 62, 66, 93 Council of Lyon (1245) 188, 189 Council of Montpellier (1162) 58, 59, Council of Montpellier (1195) 54, 58, 59, 61 Council of Montpellier (1211) 50 Council of Montpellier (1214–1215) 53, 61 Council of Montpellier (1224) 93 Council of Narbonne (1227) 93, 135 Council of Paris (1225) 93 Council of Paris (1229) 125 Council of Pisa (1135) 24, 184 Council of Reims (1049) 59 Council of Reims (1148) 59 Council of Reims (1157) 59, 61 Council of Saint Gilles (1210) 92 Council of Sens (1221) 92 Council of Sens (1223) 93, 97 Council of St Felix-deCaraman (1167 / 1172) 87 Council of St Giles (1209) 48, 50 Council of Toulouse (1056) 59 Council of Toulouse (1119) 59 Council of Toulouse (1229) 136 Council of Tours (1163) 56, 59 Council of Verona (1184) 174 counts of Toulouse 70, 89, 93, 95, 107 Crécy 26 Cremona 179 Croatia 131 crucesignati 28, 66, 104, 124, 147, 228, 235 crusade preachers 2, 29 crusade sermons 89, 107, 235 crusader states 4, 5, 222 Cumans 126, 132, 136, 151, 158 curia 2, 5, 7, 10, 16, 17, 19, 24, 46, 47, 51, 81, 86, 122, 129, 133, 146, 195, 198, 230 curial letters 16 cursus curiae Romanae 16, 17

265 Dalmatia 131 Damasus Hungaricus 123 Damietta 95, 97, 98, 105 Dante 228 De contemptu mundi 45 De Montfort, Amalric 9, 89, 90, 93, 94, 95, 100, 101, 103, 106, 107, 107–8 De Montfort, Simon 6, 9, 89, 90, 93, 100, 101, 102, 104, 104–5, 105, 106, 109, 230 De quadripartita specie nuptiarum 45 De sacrificio missae 45 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils 232 Decretales extravagantes 121 Denmark 137, 183 Diego of Osma, bishop. 48 Diet of Cremona (1226) 179 Diet of Mainz (1233) 129 Diocletian (Roman emperor) 7 dispositio 6 distinctiones (distinctions) 27 Dominic of Guzman 8, 46, 48, 82, 135 Dominican inquisitors 9 Dominican Order 19, 82, 88, 108 Dominican Order, Master General of 134 Dominican provincial prior of Germany 129, 154 Dominicans 19, 88, 90, 106, 119, 120, 126, 127, 128, 130, 131, 132, 133, 136, 138, 139, 140, 148, 150, 157, 226, 235 Donatists 7, 31, 32, 35 Drenther 121, 129, 130, 138, 148, 154, 155, 235 dualism 8, 10, 33, 35, 145 Dubrovnik, archbishop of 139 Eastern Empire 148 Edessa 89 Egbert, prefect of Groeningen 138 Egypt 106 Egyptian sultan 109 Elne, bishop of 84 Embrun 55, 99 Embrun, archbishop of 65

266 Emonis chronica (The Chronicle of Emo) 121, 127, 149 England 94, 183 Enzio (son of Frederick II) 184, 185 Eon de l’Etoile 3 Epiros 132 episcopal inquisitions 9 Erdmann, Carl 1 Esztergom, province of 131, 133, 157 Etymologiae of Isidore of Seville 32 Eucharist 88, 145, 146 Eudes of Châteauroux 90, 91, 230 Eugenius III (Pope) 25, 60, 89 Everrard of Barres (Master of Templars) 24 exclusivists 236 Ezzelino III de Romano 121, 134, 157 Faghina 179 Falco of Benevento 23 Feast of All Saints 179 Ferrara 186 Fifth Crusade 7, 9, 47, 51, 69, 70, 81, 82, 86, 91, 94, 96, 97, 98, 99, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 119, 144, 201, 220, 224, 225, 226, 227, 237 Fine, John 237 First Crusade 1, 4, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 28, 60 Flanders 3, 127 Flores historiarum (Flowers of Histories) of Roger of Wendover 172 Foix, castle of 83 Foix, count of 95, 135 forty days’ service 66, 102, 108, 109 Fouquet, bishop of Toulouse 91 Fourth Crusade ix, 7, 47, 53, 70, 90, 144, 173, 175, 177, 201, 225 France ix, 8, 18, 22, 26, 63, 64, 65, 68, 87, 92, 98, 99, 105, 106, 107, 108, 125, 135, 183

INDEX

France, south of viii, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 19, 27, 33, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 109, 120, 123, 124, 125, 134, 135, 136, 137, 139, 140, 142, 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 158, 176, 181, 184, 191, 194, 196, 201, 220, 221, 223, 224, 226, 227, 228, 230, 232, 235, 237 Franciscan inquisitors 9 Franciscans 119, 133, 138, 139, 140, 157, 226, 235 Frankfurt 129 Franks 30 fraternaties 133 Frederick I Barbarossa (German emperor) 14, 25, 45, 59, 60, 119, 228 Frederick II of Hohenstaufen (German emperor) viii, ix, 2, 13, 14, 15, 18, 25, 81, 95, 96, 98, 119, 120, 122, 124, 125, 127, 128, 129, 134, 154, 171 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 221, 223, 224, 225, 227 Freisach 128 French monarchy 71, 107, 108, 185, 221 Friedberg, Emil 231 Friesland 154 Frisia 121, 129 Frisians 154, 155 Fulk of Marseille (Legate) 46 Gaetani 45 Gascony 59, 62 Gelasian decree 14 Gelasius I (Pope) 14 Genoa 185, 186, 188 Genoese 186 Geoffrey Castiglione 187 Geoffrey of Trani 123, 125 Gerard of Lutzelkolb (Franciscan) 129, 137–8

Gerhard II of Bremen (Archbishop) 126, 127, 136, 137, 138, 152–3 German heretics 127, 140, 143, 146, 148, 153, 154, 156, 158 Germany viii, ix, 3, 10, 120, 128, 129, 130, 136, 137, 139, 142, 147, 148, 153, 172, 185, 200, 235 Gesta episcoporum Traiectensium 121, 129, 130, 138, 154, 155 Gesta pontificum Romanorum 123 Gesta Treverorum continuata 120–1 Gherardo (Podesta) 177 Gilbert of Tournai 90 Glossa ordinaria of Bartholomew of Brescia 28 Glossa ordinaria of Bernard of Parma 123 Glossa ordinaria of Johannes Teutonicus 28 Glossa ordinaria of Tancred 122 Glossa Palatina 28 glossae 122, 231 Gottschalk of Ratzeburg (Bishop) 126, 127, 137, 152 Gran, archdiocese of 139 Gratian 6, 7, 27, 28, 29, 56, 60, 121, 123, 124, 231 Greece 97 Greeks ix, 143, 144 Gregory I the Great (Pope) 30 Gregory IX (Pope) vii, ix, 2, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 25, 23, 71, 86, 87, 106, 107, 109, 119–158, 171, 172, 173, 174, 178, 181–187, 191, 192, 193, 195, 196, 197, 199, 200, 201, 202, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 231, 237 Gregory of Montelongo (Chaplain and legate) 174, 186 Gregory VII (Pope) 20, 21, 24, 60, 184 Gregory VIII (Pope) 4, 16, 119, 222 Gregory, cardinal deacon of Santa Maria in Portico 173, 175

INDEX

Gröningen 121 Guibert of Nogent 25 Guy (Legate) 46, 60, 62, 63 Guy of Crema (Antipope) 45 Guy of Vaux-de-Cernay (Abbot) 46 Hageneder, Othmar 229 Haidacher, Hanz 229 Henry II (German emperor) 172 Henry II of OldenburgWildeshausen (Count) 130 Henry III of England 94, 95, 96 Henry IV (German emperor) 20, 23 Henry of Ascherleben (Count) 129 Henry of Lausanne 3 Henry of Marcy, abbot of Cîteaux and cardinal bishop of Albano 4, 27 Henry of Minden (Marquis) Henry of Thuringia (Count) 129 Henry Raspe (Landgrave of Thuringia) 174, 189, 200 Henry VI (German emperor) ix, 60, 81, 171, 172, 175 Henry, son of Frederick II 128, 154 Hermann II of Lippe (Count) 126, 136 Hermann of Salza (Count) 183 Herzegovina 131 Herzog Henry I of Brabant (Count) 128 Herzog Otto II of Bayern (Count) 128 Hildesheim 126, 152 Historia Albigensis of Peter les Vaux-de-Cernay 82, 230 Historia monasterii Rastedensis 121 Historia of Bartholomew of Neocastro 172 Historia peregrinorum 21 Hohenstaufen viii, 15, 119, 227 Holland 121, 127, 148 Holy Land passim Holy See viii, 94, 129, 134, 182, 183 Holy Spirit 5, 33

holy wars vii, 1, 68, 91, 22, 184, 228, 231 homosexuals 220 Honorius II (Pope) 23, 81 Honorius III (Pope) vii, ix, 2, 8, 11, 16, 18, 19, 33, 71, 81–109, 119, 120, 122, 125, 130, 134, 135, 136, 140, 142, 143, 144, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 157, 158, 173, 178–181, 186, 191, 192, 193, 195, 196, 199, 201, 221, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 229 Hostiensis 28 Housley, Norman 235, 236 Hugh of le-Cour-Dieu (Legate) 46 Hugh Raymond (Legate and bishop of Riez) 46, 49, 50, 52, 53, 58, 62, 65 Hugolino dei Segni (Pope Gregory IX) 119 Huguccio 28, 122 Hum (Province of) 132 Humbert of Romans 90 Hungarians 131, 186 Hungary ix, 121, 126, 131, 132, 133, 136, 138, 139, 149, 150, 151, 186, 187, 197, 231 Hyacinth, cardinal deacon of Santa Maria in Cosmedin 81 Iberian peninsula 219 Imagines historiarum (Images of History) of Ralph of Diceto 171 inclusivists 236 indulgences passim Innocent I (Pope) 45 Innocent II (Pope) 23, 24, 27, 45, 140, 184 Innocent III (Pope) vii, viii, ix, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 33, 35, 45–71, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 99, 100, 101, 102, 105, 106, 108, 109, 119, 122, 123, 124, 128, 129, 134, 135, 142, 143, 144, 145, 149, 150, 151, 152, 156, 157, 158, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175–178, 181, 184, 190, 192, 193, 194, 195,

267 196, 197, 198, 201, 202, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 230. Innocent IV (Pope) vii, viii, ix, 2, 13, 14, 18, 25, 171, 172, 174, 187–190, 193, 194, 195, 197, 200, 202, 221, 223, 224, 225, 227, 237, Innocent VI (Pope) 229 inquisitions viii, 9, 53, 59, 87, 108, 120, 135, 137, 221, 223, 227 inquisitors 127 Investiture Conflict 184, 202, 222, 228 Isabella of Jerusalem 178, 180 Isle de France 48 Istria 131 Italy 3, 5, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 20, 23, 25, 119, 121, 127, 129, 133, 157, 171, 172, 173, 175, 177, 178, 179, 182, 183, 200, 201, 202, 227, 228, 235, 237 Ivo of Chartres 28 Jacob of Andria (Papal marshal) 177 Jacob of Praeneste (Legate) 155 Jacob of Tricarico (Count) 177 Jacob, bishop of Gubbio 186 James I of Aragon 98, 104, 105 James of Albenga 122 James of Palestrina 186 James of Vitry (Legate and crusade preacher) 46, 90, 91, 230 Jerusalem 4, 5, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 35, 54, 70, 102, 103, 119, 140, 148, 154, 173, 178, 199, 201, 219 Jews 27, 143, 144, 220 Johannes Teutonicus 28, 122, 231 John (Dominican) 138 John Asen of Bugaria 120, 132, 133, 139, 141, 143, 144, 148, 156, 158 John Colonna 185, 186, 187 John I of England (King) 94, 177, 178 John III Doukas Vatatzes of Nicaea (Emperor) 130, 132

268 John of Brandenburg (Count) 129 John of Brienne (Regent Emperor of Constantinople and titular king of Jerusalem) 132–3, 145, 173, 178, 180, 183 John of Civitella 186 (Subdeacon) John of Cologna (Cardinal) 183 John of God 82 John of Lübeck (Bishop) 126, 127, 136, 137, 152 John of Praeneste (Dominican and legate) 130, 131, 138 John of St Paul (Legate) 46 John of Struma (Antipope) 45 John of Wales 122, 231 John of Wildeshausen (Bishop of Bosnia, Master General of the Dominican Friars, papal penitentiary and papal delegate) 131, 132, 137, 138, 139, 156 John Teutonicus 122 John the one-eyed 119 John Vatatzes 139, 145, 148 Josepini 124 jubilees 63, 155 Jula (Ban) 132 just wars 29, 30, 231 Justinian (Roman emperor) 32 Kaiserheim, abbot of 189 Kaiserheim, prior of 189 Kalocsa 130 Kennan, Elizabeth 235, 237 Kieckhefer, Richard 237 Knights Templar 103 La Porte de Theil, François Jean Gabriel 229 Labbé, Philippe 232 Languedoc 49 Las Navas de Tolosa (battle of) 57, 219 Lateran Councils 232 Lateran II 26, 45, 58, 61, 124, 150 Lateran III 3, 4, 26, 27, 45, 59, 61, 123, 124

INDEX

Lateran IV 4, 28, 51, 53, 55, 59, 81, 84, 85, 88, 98, 99, 101, 105, 107, 109, 122, 124, 129, 135, 150, 155, 174 Lateran palace 186 Latin Constantinople 132 Latin East 139 Latin Empire 132, 133, 139, 140, 145, 148, 187, 188 Latin Kingdom 178 Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem 174 Laurentius Hispanus 28, 34, 122 Lavaur 54 Lectura of Bernard of Montemirat 123 Leicester 48 Lent 108 Lenten Synod 20 Leo IV (Pope) 20, 21, 30, 60 Leo IX (Pope) 184 lepers 220 Levant 68 Liber censuum Romanae ecclesiae of Honorius III 19, 100 Liber extra decretalium of Gregory IX 28, 29, 119, 121, 123, 124, 125, 231 Liège 22 Life of Saint Anselm of Lucca 20 Lodi 179 Lombard cities 185, 186 Lombard League 25, 173, 178, 179, 180, 181, 183, 184, 188, 191, 199, 201 Lombards 30, 179, 183, 184, 186, 200 Lombardy 119, 127, 134, 179, 180, 184, 190 Lothar of Segni (Pope Innocent III) 45 Louis IX of France (King) 18, 71, 125, 185, 188 Louis VI of France (King) 26 Louis VIII of France (King) 63, 64, 65, 71, 84, 89, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 102, 105, 107, 108, 135 Lower-Weser 121 Lucifer 128, 147, 198 Luciferians 147

Lucius II (Pope) 59 Lucius III (Pope) 3, 59, 60, 87, 88, 123 Luderus of Verden (Bishop) 127 Ludulfus of Münster (Bishop) 127, 137 Lyon 188 Lyon I viii Lyon, archbishop of 97 Magdeburg, bishop elect of 129 Magnus V of Norway 25 Maguélone, bishop of 83 Mahdia 21 Maier, Christoph 235 Mainz, bishops of the province of 128, 154 Manfred of Hohenstaufen (German emperor) 134 Mani 33 Manichees 33, 35 Manicheism 32 Mann, Horace 81 Mansi, Giovan Dominico 232 Mantua 179 Marburg, archbishop of 127 March of Ancona 175, 180, 183, 185, 186, 188, 189, 201 Marino, Filomarino di Eboli 18 Markward of Anweiler ix, 13, 14, 46, 57, 119, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 181, 184, 190, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 201, 202, 221, 223, 226 Marmande 94 Marquis of Montferrat 180 Matej Ninoslav of Bosnia (Ban) 130 Mathilda of Tuscany (Countess) 12, 20, 21, 60 Matteo Rosso (Senator) 187 Matthew of Capua (Archbishop) 175 Matthew Paris 82, 108, 172, 173, 183, 185, 189 Mayer, Hanz 236 Melgueil 83, 85 Mendicant Orders 87, 119, 137 Metaphor 194 Migne, Jacques Paul 229

INDEX

Milan 179, 184, 185 Military Order of Templars 24 Military Orders 4, 6, 92 Milo (Notary and legate) 46, 54, 61 Minden 127, 152 Mohammed 197 Monastery of Saint Bartholomew of Trisulti 131, 141 Mongols 126, 149, 188, 197 Monreale 176 Montecassino, abbot of 189 Montfort family 89, 93 Montpellier 47 Monzon 105 Moore, Robert 3, 220, 222 Moors 69 Moses 197 Münster 126, 152 Münster, provost of 126 Muret, battle of 52, 69, 104 Muslims vii, viii, ix, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 21, 24, 25, 27, 46, 49, 54, 55, 56, 57, 66, 67, 68, 70, 86, 91, 97, 103, 105, 134, 143, 144, 145, 149, 150, 157, 173, 175, 176, 190, 194, 196, 197, 198, 199, 219, 220, 222, 224, 225, 227, 236, 237 Naples, archbishop of 176 Narbonne 54, 55, 99 Narbonne, archbishop of 136 Narni 188 narratio 6 Navarre 62 Navarre of Acqs (Legate) 46 Nero (Roman emperor) 193 Nicaea 132, 133 Nicene Creed 66 Nicholas I (Pope) 30 Nicholas II (Pope) 12, 34 Nile delta 106, 107, 108, 109 Ninoslav (Ban) 132, 139, 141 Nocera, battle of 23 Nogent-sous-Coucy 25 Normans 12, 20, 23, 25 North Africa 21 notabilia 122 Numana 183

Octavian (Antipope) 45 Octavian, Cardinal-bishop of Ostia 175 Order of the Holy Faith of Jesus Christ 103, 140 Order of the Knights Templar 140 Order of the Militia of Jesus Christ 133, 134, 140, 157 Orders, religious 7 Orsini 45, 187 Orthodox Faith 144, 145, 148 Osimo 183 Osnabrück 127, 152 Ostia 119 Otto II of Utrecht (Bishop) 129, 138 Otto III (Duke of Brunswick and German emperor) 8, 119, 129, 172 Otto of Brandenburg (Count) 129 Otto of Sancti Nicolai in Carcere Tulliano (Cardinal deacon) 137, 186 Ottonian emperors 14 Paderborn 126, 152 Padua 134, 157, 179 Palermo 177 Palermo, archbishop of 189 Palm Sunday 185 Pandulf (Papal chaplain) 183 Papal Crusading Policy. The Chief Instruments of Papal Crusading Policy and Crusade to the Holy Land from the Loss of Jerusalem to the Fall of Acre, 124–1291 235 papal Registers 94, 226 papal states ix, 12, 20, 23, 25, 184, 223, 235, 237 Paris 95, 97, 107 Parma 134, 140, 157, 171, 179 Parma, bishop of 134, 140 Partner, Peter 237 Pasagini 124 Paschal II (Pope) 22, 23 Patarenes 124 Patriarch of Antioch 188 Patriarch of Aquilea 186, 188 Patriarch of Jerusalem 181

269 Patrimony of Saint Peter 175, 180, 182 Patrologia Latina 229 Pavia, bishop of 189 Peace and Truce of God Movement 26, 61 Peace of Paris (1229) 226–7 Peace of Venice (1177) 45 Pécs 132 Pelagius (Legate and cardinal bishop of Albano) 81, 86, 97, 226 penances 21, 22, 23, 26, 108, 152, 155 Perugia, bishop of, legate in Hungary and former bishop of Bosnia 133, 156 Peter Damian 34 Peter II of Aragon 50, 51, 52, 53, 57, 58, 59, 61, 62, 66, 69, 104, 230 Peter of Benevento (Legate) 46, 50, 53, 55, 58, 59, 83, 92, Peter of Bruys 3 Peter of Castelnau (Legate) 8, 46, 47, 53, 56, 58, 60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 129, 220, 222, 227, Peter of les Vaux-de-Cernay 49, 54, 57, 66, 82, 102, 147, 230 Peter of San Crisogono (Legate) 27 Peter Savary 103 Peter the Chanter 45 Peter the Venerable 24, 25, 56 Peter Waldo 3 Petrarch 228 Philip II Augustus of France (King) 47, 50, 55, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65, 70, 71, 84, 85, 89, 92, 93, 94, 97, 98, 100, 101, 102, 104, 105, 107 Philip IV of France (King) 71 Philip of Assisi (Papal nuncio in Germany) 185 Philip of Grève 230 Philip of Swabia (German emperor) 119, 176 Philip the Chancellor 91 Piacenza 179 Pierleone (Antipope Anacletus II) 24 Pierre Amiel (Archbishop) 93

270 Pietro Collivacino (Peter of Benevento, notary) 122, 231 pilgrimages 4, 5, 25, 63, 90, 91, 102, 103, 108, 148, 222 pilgrims 27, 64, 108, 195 Pisans 21 Pissard, Hippolyte 2 pluralists 236, 237 pluralist-traditionalist debate 236 Poland 149 Ponsa (Dominican and bishop of Bosnia) 132, 139, 156 Poor Men of Lyon 124 Potius utendum est (anonymous collection) 122 Potthast, August 229 Powell, James 81 Preaching the Crusades: Mendicant Friars and the Cross in the Thirteenth Century 235 Pre-Gratian texts 122 Presutti, Pietro 229 Priezdan, son of Ubanus 130 proctors 230 Provence 49, 66, 125 Prussia 187 Purcell, Maureen 235 purgatory 11 Pyrenees 52 quaestiones (questions) 27, 29, 122 Quaestiones of Bernardus Compostellanus Antiquus 123 Quinque antiquae compilationes 28, 29, 121, 122, 123, 124, 231 Raab, bishop of 133, 156 Rainer, cardinal deacon of Santa Maria in Cosmedin 188, 189 Rainier of Pons (Legate) 46, 55, 60, 62, 63 Ralph of Couserans (Bishop) 65 Ralph of Fontfroide (Legate) 46, 58, 60, 61, 63, 64, Ravenna 182 Raymond III of Uzès (Bishop

INDEX

and legate) 46, 50, 53 Raymond of Embrun 46 Raymond of Peñafort 123, 231 Raymond Roger of Foix (Count) 82, 83, 84, 92 Raymond Roger of Trencavel (Viscount of Béziers and Carcasonne) 48 Raymond VI of Toulouse (Count) 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 58, 61, 68, 83, 84, 86, 92, 93, 100, 106, 176, 222, 230 Raymond VII of Toulouse (Count) 83, 85, 90, 92, 93, 96, 98, 100, 106, 107, 125, 135, 136, 185, 188 Reate, duchy of 180 Regesta pontificum Romanorum 229 Reginald of Ostia 185 Reginald of Spoleto (Duke) 183 Register of Innocent III 229 Registers, papal 86, 122, 229, 230 Reims 89, Reims, archbishop of 25, 26, 97, 100, 101, 193 Reinald I of Reims (Archbishop) 22 Rhine Valley 119 Rhineland 127 Rhône 107 Ricardus Anglicus 122 Richard of San Germagno 172, 199 Riley Smith, Jonathan 236 Robert of Artois (Count) 185 Robert of Chieti (Count) 176, 177 Robert of Courçon 47 Robert of Esztergom (Archbishop) 126, 131, 132, 133, 151, 156 Robert of Flanders (Count) 22 Robert of Lecce (Count) 176 Rodenberg, Carl 229 Roffrid of Santo Marcellino (Abbot) 177 Roger I of Sicily (Count) 23 Roger II of Sicily (Count) 23, 24

Roger of Celano (Count) 183 Roger of Wendover 82, 172, 173 Roland of Padua 172 Romagna 180 Roman Law 128, 174 Roman Patriarchate ix Romano (Legate) 103 Romano Bonaventura of Sant’ Angelo (Cardinal and legate) 91, 92, 93, 96, 97, 109, 125, 135, 136, 150 Rome 10, 12, 13, 17, 23, 45, 46, 49, 51, 55, 60, 63, 64, 81, 84, 88, 92, 93, 100, 120, 125, 126, 127, 130, 134, 175, 176, 178, 179, 180, 185, 186, 187, 189, 198, 200, 230 Roscher, Helmut 235 Rouen 89 Rouen, archbishop of 97, 100 routiers 26, 27, 61, 88 Rudolf of Swabia 20 Rufino 92 Rufinus 28 Sabina, duchy of 180 Sacraments 7, 8, 88, 124, 125, 134, 174, 194 Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio 232 Saint Sabina, church of 183 Saint-Romain, church of 88 Saint-Thibéry, abbot of 83 Saladin 4, 54, 57, 196 Salerno 179, 182 Salimbene of Adam 82 San Germano 178, 181, 183 San Gimignano 23 San Lorenzo in Lucina, church of 187 San Martino in Viterbo, abbot of 180 Sancti Rudberti Salisburgensis Annales Breves (The Brief Annals of Saint Rudbert of Salzburg) 172 Sanjek 237 Sant’ Agata dei Goti, cathedral of 23 Sant’ Eustachio, church of 119 Santa Lucia in Orthea, church of 81

INDEX

Santa Maria Maggiore, church of 81 Santi Giovanni e Paulo, church of 81 Saracens 13, 31, 69, 86 Sardinia, kingdom of 184 Satan 128 Saxony, duchy of 197 Scala 182 Scotti 45 scribes 16, 17 Second Council of Constantinople 32 Second Crusade 60, 89 secretaries 17 Seeley Library 229 Seljuk Turks 151 Sens 89, 97, 100 Serbia 131 Severia 133 Seyn, count of 129 Sibislav (Knez of Usora) 131 Sicilians 57, 176, 182, 183, 189, 196, 200 Sicily, Kingdom of ix, 171, 172, 173, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 182, 183, 185, 186, 189, 190, 194, 196, 199, 201 Siegfried III of Mainz (Archbishop) 128, 129, 138, 153, 154 Siena 180 Sigebert of Gembloux 22 similes 19 Simon de Montfort (Earl of Leicester and crusade leader) 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 57, 66, 67, 69, 70–71, 82, 83, 84, 86, 87, 92, 98 simoniacs 3, 22, 125 simony 3, 32 Sinibaldo Fieschi (Pope Innocent IV) 187 Sixtus II (Pope) 32 Slavonia 131, 155 Slutter 153 ‘societas Christiana’ 8, 13, 14, 87, 173 Spain vii, 2, 3, 6, 11, 21, 24, 46, 54, 55, 57, 68, 69, 93, 105, 150, 157, 183, 219, 220, 225, 236 Spanish crusades 68, 105

Speculum maius of Vincent of Bauvais 82 Speronists 124 Speyer 11, 70 Spoleto, duchy of 180, 189 St Albans 172 St Ambrose 32, 35 St Anselm 20, 21 St Augustine of Hippo 7, 8, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35 St Elizabeth of Thuringia 128 St Felix-de-Caraman (Council of) 33 St Francis 119 St Isidore of Seville 30, 32 St James 63 St Jerome 33 St John the Baptist 98 St Mary of Valles, abbot of 89 St Paul 20, 56, 67, 82, 85, 101, 153, 186 St Peter 14, 20, 21, 23, 24, 31, 45, 56, 63, 85, 101, 140, 153, 157, 185, 191, 192, 194, 186, 196 St Peter, basilica of 119, 200 St Peter, Chapter of (Bosnia) 132 St Victor in Paris, abbot of 89 Stedinger 121, 126, 127, 136, 137, 138, 140, 141, 143, 145, 146, 148, 149, 152, 153, 154, 156, 158, 235 Stephen (former Ban of Bosnia) 131 Stephen III (Pope) 123 Stephen of Tournai 28 Stephen of Zagreb (bishop) 130 Stephen, cardinal priest of Santa Maria in Trastevere 189 stilus curiae Romanae 16 storehouse of merit 22 Strayer, Joseph 235, 237 Strnad, Alfred 229 Sultan of Konya 151 Summa ‘Elegantius in iure divino’ seu Coloniensis 28, 34 Summa de casibus penitentiae 123 Summa decretalium 122 Summa in titulis decretalium of Geoffrey of Trani 125

271 Summa iuris canonici 123 Summa of Damasus Hungaricus 122–3 Summa Parisiensis 28 Summa super corpore decretorum 28 Summa super titulis decretalium of Geoffrey of Trani 123 Summae 122, 231 Sutri 188 Swabia 23 Sweden 183 Synod of Bremen 126, 146 Synod of Segovia 25 Syria 97, 130 Tancred (Canon lawyer) 122, 231 Tancred of Campiglia 179 Taranto, archbishop of 176 Tartars 149 Templars 92, 103, 105 Terra di Lavoro 177 Teutonic Order 185 The Deeds of Pope Innocent III (anonymous) 172 The Italian Crusades. The Papal-Angevin Alliance and the Crusades against Christian Lay Powers 235 Thedisius of Genoa (Legate) 46, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 58, 62, 92, 93 Theoderic, bishop and Dominican provincial of Hungary 126 Theodore II Laskaris (exiled Nicaean emperor) 130 Theory of the Two Swords 14 Thibaut of Champagne (Count) 107 Thomas Becket 60 Thomas of Acerra 183 Thomas of Capua, cardinal priest of Saint Sabina 16, 183 Thomas of Celano (Count) 178 Thomas of Marle 25, 26 Titula (titles) 28, 29 Toulousain, the 120 Toulousains 50, 52

272 Toulouse 48, 50, 51, 53, 58, 59, 64, 82, 83, 84, 86, 87, 88, 90, 93, 94, 96, 99, 102, 103, 104, 108 Toulouse, house of 84, 94, 104 Tours, archbishop of 97, 100 traditionalists 236, 237 Trapani 176 Treaty of Paris (1229) 109 Trent 100 Trento, bishop of 189 Treviso 179 Trier, archbishop of 26 Trondheim 25 troubadours 15, 108 Tuscany, patrimony of 119, 179, 189 Ubaldo Visconti (Count) 184 Ubanus (Bosnian) 142 Ugolino (Cardinal, later Pope Gregory IX) 19, 109, 178, 224 Ugrinus of Kalocsa (Archbishop) 130, 133, 139 University of Bologna 27, 45, 122 University of Paris 28, 45, 119, 138, 187 University of Piacenza 187 University of Toulouse 187

INDEX

Urban II (Pope) 1, 4, 5, 21, 22, 24, 31, 35, 60, 90, 134, 150 Utrecht 121 Vác, bishop of 133 Várad, abbot of 132 Vatican Archives 229 Vatican Registers 229 Velletri 119 Venetians ix, 90 Venice 185 Verden 126, 152 Verona 123 vice-chancellor 16, 17, 18 Vicenza 134, 179 Victor II (Pope) 21 Vienne 99 Vienne, archbishop of 65, 86, 99 Vincent of Beauvais 82 Vincentius Hispanus 122 Virgin Mary 22, 23, 197 Vita Gregorii IX of John of Ferentino 172, 186, 197 Vita Innocentii IV of Nicholas of Carbio 172 Viterbo 4, 5, 123, 128, 188, 200 Vlachs 132 vows vii, ix, 1, 6, 7, 10, 27, 28, 54, 65, 66, 69, 91, 95, 102, 151, 157, 182, 186, 220, 228

Waldensians 3 Waley, Daniel 237 Walter of Brienne (Count) 177, 201 Walter of Palear (bishop of Troia and Chancellor of Sicily) 175, 176, 177 Wendish paganism 145–6, 147 Westphalia 127 Wiblingen, abbot of 189 Willbrand of Oldenburg (Bishop of Utrecht) 129, 130, 138, 154, 155 William I of England (King) 60 William of Modena (Legate) 127, 137 William of Paris (Legate) 46 William of Puylaurens 82, 120 William of Reggio (Archbishop) 175 William of Tudela 50, 82 Wittewierum 121 Worms 120 Yolande (Isabella) 180 Zagreb, bishop of 131, 133, 156 Zara 7, 53, 90 Zutshi, Patrick, 18