Variorum Revised Editions:

DENIS A. ZAKYTHINOS Le Despotat grec de Moree: Histoire politique Le Despotat grec de Moree: Vie et institutions

M.-M. ALEXANDRESCU-DERSCA La campagne de Timur en Anatolie (1402)

In the Variorum Collected Studies Series:

mOR SEVCENKO Ideology, Letters and. Culture in the Byzantine World

mOR SEVCENKO Society and Intellectual Life in Late Byzantium

DA VID JACOBY Societe et demographie a Byzance et en Romanie latine DAVID JACOBY Recherches sur la Mediterranee orientale du XIIe au XVe siecle Peuples, societes, economies

W. H. RUDT DE COLLENBERG Families de I'Orient latin, XIIe-XIVe siecles

ANTHONY LUTTRELL Latin Greece, the Hospitallers and the Crusades, 1291-1400

ELIZABEm A. ZACHARIADOU Romania and the Turks, 1300-1500

PAULWITTEK La formation de I'Empire ottoman

GEORGE T. DENNIS Byzantium and the Franks, 1350-1420

FREDDY THIRIET Etudes sur la Romanie greco-venitienne (Xe-XVe siecles)

BARISA KREKIC Dubrovnik, Italy and the Balkans in the Late Middle Ages

ALAIN DUCELLIER L' Albanie entre Byzance et Venise, Xe-XVe siecles

Studies in Late Byzantine History and Prosopography

Professor Donald M. Nicol

Donald M. Nic.QJ

Studies in Late Byzantine History and Prosopography

VARIORUM REPRINTS London 1986

British Library CIP data

Copyright 1986 by

Published in Great Britain by

Printed in Great Britain by

Nicol, Donald M. Studies in late Byzantine history and prosopography. - (Collected studies series; CS242) 1. Byzantine Empire - History I. Title 949,5'04 DF609

ISBN 0-86078-190-9

Variorum Reprin ts

Variorum Reprints 20 Pembridge Mews London Wll 3EQ

Galliard (Printers) Ltd Great Yarmouth Norfolk

VARIORUM REPRINT CS242

, ,'.

J

CONTENTS

Preface

II

III

IV

V

Kaisersalbung: The Unction of Emperors in Late Byzantine Coronation Ritual Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies II. Oxford, 1976

The Papal Scandal Studies in Church History XIII: The Orthodox Churches and the West, ed. Derek Baker. Oxford, 1976

Symbiosis and Integration. Some Greco-Latin Families in Byzantium in the 11 th to 13th Centuries Byzantinische Forschungen VII. Amsterdam, 1979

Refugees, Mixed Population and Local Patriotism in Epiros and Western Macedonia after the Fourth Crusade XVe Congres international d'etudes byzantines, Rapports 1. Histoire. Athens, 1976

The Relations of Charles of Anjou with N ikephoros of Epiros By zantinische Forschungen IV. Amsterdam, 1972 .

ix-x

37-52

141-168

113-135

3-33

170-194

vi vii

VI The Abdication of John VI Cantacuzene 269-283 XIII The Byzantine Family of Dermokaites. 1-11 Polychordia. Festschrift Franz Do/~er circa 940-1453 zum 75. Geburtsta~, ed. Peter Wir! , Byzantinoslavica XXXV. (= Byzantinische orschungen I1). Prague, 1974 Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1967

VII A Paraphrase of the Nicomachean XIV The Prosopography of the Byzantine

79-91 Aristocracy Ethics Attributed to the Emperor The Byzantine Aristocracy, IX to XIII John VI Cantacuzene 1-16 Centuries, ed. MichaelAngold. Byzantinoslavica XXIX. BAR International Series 221. Prague, 1968 Oxford: B.A.R., 1984

VIII The Doctor-Philosopher John Comnen XV Byzantium and Greece 2-20 of Bucharest and his Biography of InA/oural Lecture in the Koraes Chair the Emperor John Kantakouzenos 511-526 of odern Greek and Byzantine History,

Langulce and Literature, at Universi~ Revue des etudes sud-est europeennes IX. et Lon on King's College, October 1 71. Bucharest, 1971 ondon, 1971

IX Hilarion of Didymoteichon XVI Greece and Byzantium 1-18 and the Gift of Prophecy 186-200 The Twelfth StephenJ. Brad.emas, Sr., Lecture. ~zantine Studies! Etudes Byzantines V. Brookline, Mass.: Hellenic College Press, 1983

empe, Arizona, 1978

X Thessalonica as a Cultural Centre XVII Byzantium and England. 179-203

Balkan Studies XV. in the Fourteenth Century 121-131 Thessaloniki, 1974 'H 8Eaaal\ov(Kll f.LETatu 'AvaTol\ij~ KaL ':\WEUl~. llpaKT.Kci IuIWuLou TEuaapaKOVTaETllpO:OO~ Tij~ 'ETa,pE.:a~ MaKE6!mKliiv 11Touliliiv (1980).

Index 1-11 Thessaloniki,1982.

',iX Constantine Akropolites. A Prosopographical Note 249-256 Dumbarton Oaks P~ers XIX. Washington, D.e., 965

xn Philadelphia and the Tagaris Family 9-17 Neo-Hellenika I.

This volume contains a total of 330 pages. Amsterdam, 1970

'\' '1

PUBLISHER'S NOTE

The articles in this volume, as in all others in the Collected Studies Series, have not been given a new, continuous pagination. In order to avoid co~fusion, and to facilitate their use where these same studies have been referred to elsewhere, the original pagination has been maintained wherever possible.

Each article has been given a Roman number in order of appearance, as listed in the Contents. This number is repeated on each page and quoted in the index entries.

PREFACE

Most of the studies in this volume reflect their author's past and continuing interest in the prosopography and genealog.y of Byzantine families; in the life and work of that much-malIgned emperor and monk of the fourteenth century, John VI Cantac~zene; and in the last centuries of Byzantium in general. I claim no monopoly of any of these subjects, however; and it may be useful to record some of the more recent contributions made by others to some of the topics herein disclosed.

No. V has now been set more within its context by the publication of my own The Despotate of Epiros, 1267-1479. A Contribution to the history of Greece in the middle ages (Cambridge, 1984), in which, with the help of P. Sous tal and J. Koder, Nikopolis und Kephallenia (Tabula Imperii Byzantini, Ill: Vienna, 1981), I was able to correct some of my geographical errors. No. VI has been the subject of two articles on the chronology of the reign of John VI by Albert Failler in Revue des etudes byzantines, XXIX (1971) and XXXIV (1976), though he did not address himself to the mystery of the Genoese intervention in the affair. Almost simultaneously with the publication of no. VIII, E. Voordeckers published 'La "Vie de Jean ~antacuzene" par Jean-Hierothee Comnene', lahrbuch der Osterreichischen Byzantinistik, XX (1971), in which he showed that the text of the work is taken from Pontanus's Latin translation of the memoirs of John VI. In no. XI I was guilty of recording as unpublished a letter of Manuel Moschopoulos to Constantine Akropolites; it had in fact already been published by Ihor Sevcenko in Speculum, XXVII (1952), 136--140. The subject of Philadelphia (no. XII) has been greatly illumined by PeterSchreiner, 'Zum Geschichte Philadelpheias im 14. Jahrhunderts (1293-1390)" Orientalia Christiana Periodica, XXV (1969), 375-431. Alexander Kazhdan (in Byzantinoslavica, XXXVI (1975), 192) has noted two more eleventh-century members of the Dermokaites family (no. XIII) and added some bibliographical material to my own.

The last three studies here reproduced were delivered as lectures and are of a more discursive and perhaps entertaining nature. The last, on Byzantium and England, must now be complemented by the

x

works of Krijne Ciggaar, notably her dissertation on Byzance et I'Angleterre (Proefschrift: Leiden, 1977) and her article on 'England and Byzantium on the Eve of the Norman C

Manuel I having 'anointed' the Patriarch who anointed him this, is, as ostrogorsky remarks, clearly a metaphor or a play on words.' But is it so certain that the same is true when Choniates writes of Alexios III going to SI. Sophia 'that he might be anointed according to custom and be invested with the imperial regalia' ?'!t is said that the verb XP(f"lV is here used once again in a figurative sense, since the phrase 'according to custom' cannot literally refer to anointing, there being no evidence from the sources for the anointing of any of the predecessors of Alexios Ill. This is an argument ex silentio. It may perhaps be mere chance that no sources specifically report the anointing of any twelfth-century emperor before Alexios Ill.

After 1 ~o4, however, there seems to be no doubt that the practice was established as a part of the Byzantine coronation ritual. Theodore I Laskaris, founder of the Empire at N icaea, is said to have been anointed as well as crowned by Michael Autoreianos, whom he had appointed as Patriarch. The evidence for this fact comes not from the historian of Nicaea George Akropolites, but once again from Niketas Choniates.~ In the Silention which Choniates composed, and in his Speech on the proclamation of Theodore as Emperor, there are clear references to anointing. In the Silention there is mention of 'the Davidian unction' (Llav{iif"lov TO XP{o/Ja).6 In the Speech there is

und der Bulgarischen Herrscher hn Mittelalter', Bytantinobulgarica, 11 (1966), 145-68, con.tams s.everal maccuraCles and adds nothing new to the subject. The t~on?graph,cal eVidence for the me of unction is discussed by Ch. Waiter, 'The Slgmfic:'nce of Unction in Byzantine Iconography', below pp. 53-73.

3 Nlketas Chomates, HlStona (CSHB), p. 70 line 12: ... "pofJA~BI~ od. 6 M,xaljA "aTp,dpx~~ t{ arJTii~ TO. xpioaHa XPil Ta tepa toa'PIKdI'Ho.l'tAaBpa. The text, of thIS passage. is rendered with a significant difference by Isaac Habert, ~pXlepaTlKd . Liber PontificallS Eccl"iae Grateae (Paris, 1643), p. 6'7: . . . rQII1ULI(1aIlTOc,; avroJl t7rlllCW KVp{OV reP aVToKparop1KcP O'Tf'lPallcb,Uan DC; Kal xpi" Ta tepa toa'PIKdI'Ho.l'tAaBpa. '

4 Choniates, Hutoria, p. 603 line 7 : ... 6"OJ~ KaTa TO I'B,l'o. {Jao,Ata XP,oB" Iml 1I"f'pl,lJdAAnal Ta rou Kparovc; avp{Jo).a. (J: C::eorge ~kropolites, ed. A. Heisenberg, Georgii ACTopolitae Opera I

IpZlg, 1903, p. 11, writes onl~ of the proclamation and coronation' of ~~;:;~f ~ Angold, A Bytanhne Government in exile. Government and Society

6 r anho "INlCaea, 1'4-1.61 (Oxford, 1975), pp. 1.-13. . nlCe/ae C matat Oration" et Epi.lul d J . Fontium Historiae Byzantinae: Berlin a:J' ~ . Y A. van Dleten (COIYus '-'8: (6 f:leo~) TIj. Bepl'lj. 6pl'lj. Kai TO. rJ,,~p To~aA~~~ijA~~7T~~ la"ol~:~a~I::~

38

the expression: tc; (jaolAta XP{OVOIV avroKparopa.7 It is hard to see why the same Niketas. Ch(;mi~tes ~hould .~se the same ter":ls for unction metaphorzcally m hIS historical wrItmgs and literally In his rhetorical works. Ostrogorsky explained this discrepancy by supposing that Choniates was writing. his Histo? before anointing had become a part of the Byzantine coronation ntual, and his rhetorical works afterwards.s This supposition implies that both the Silention and the Speech were written after Theodore's coronation had taken place. But this now appears to be false. J. L. van Dieten in his recent edition of and commentary on the Speeches and Letters of Niketas Choniates dates the Speech in question to the summer of 1206, after the Emperor's return from battle, and the Silention to the beginning of Lent in the year I ~08.9 Both works were therefore composed before Theodore's coronation and the references to his anointing point to the future and not to the past. The evidence in fact suggests that Theodore Laskaris was already recognized as Emperor and had adopted the title of Basileus in some of his dominions by 1205, even though Akropolites describes him as Despot up to the time of his coronation, and even though he was not crowned until 1208. ID

As Akropolites relates, the coronation was performed by the Patriarch, whose appointment Theodore had secured in advance. The interpretation which Ostrogorsky put upon part of the letter that Theodore wrote to the Greek clergy on this subject has already been challenged by F. Doiger. " The Emperor there expresses the hope that a Patriarch will be

Trpoo/){a!JE'Vor;. de; TI)v fJaorAEiav TQVT'1V dll'1P7rdrcE'1 1fPIQ}1f~JI Aavi6E'lDV 1'() xpiol'a Kai TIj. dpxalpeoia. TavTi{ovoa. 6.,p~od

elected before Holy Week, the week in which it was the custom for the holy chrism of the myron (Tt) 6eiov Toii /Jvpov XP{o/Ja) to be prepared and consecrated by the Patriarch's hand. This statement does not, as Dolger pointed out, refer to the anointing of the Emperor ('die heilig~ Sal~ung mit ~em M yron ') b.u~ to the consecration of the chflSm ItSelf whICh was tradItIonally performed by the Patriarch once a year, in Holy Week. 12 The last such consecration should have occurred in I ~o 7, at which time there was no Patriarch. New chrism therefore had to be prepared in Holy Week of 1208, whether it was intended for baptism or for coronation. IS The holy chrism or myron was normally reserved for the sacrament of confirmation after baptism. Its use in the ritual of coronation will be discussed below. But it is clear that in I ~08 Theodore Laskaris was anxious to secure the appointment of a fully competent Patriarch with.out further delay so t!tat his own position as ~mperor could be given the proper blessmg of the Church; and If one is to take the words of Niketas Choniates literally in this context then the Patriarch's blessing was to include the anointing of the new Emperor. . It is ~ard to believe, however, that this part of the mau~rauon of an Emperor was an innovation in Byzantine pract~ce. The first properly constituted Emperor and Patriarch In exdc: after 1204 would surely have taken pains to see that everythmg was d.o?e according to the tradition, even perhaps to the extent of revlVlng customs that had long since lapsed in the

. 11. See .P. Menevizoglou, To ';4Y'ov Mupov tv Tii 'OpSo66{QJ 'AvaTo!,oil Eod~o,~( Avd!'OT~ B!aTd60>v.14: Thessaloniki. 1972), pp. 119f. andp=im;

L. P~bl, pu pOUV~Ir de consacrer le Saint Chreme', and 'Composition et consec~atlo? du SaIDt C~reme', EO, III (,899). 1-7, 12g-42; E. Hermann, 'Wann 'st d,e Chrysamwelhe zum ausschliesslichen Vorrecht der Patriarchen geworden" Sb ill p' . Id ". om v 4IIIIt 114 Prof. P. Nillov (Sofia, '940), pp. 50g-15; Ango ,op. CII., p. 43. Ch'5~t iSds~rely to the~ circumstances (the appointment of a head of the . ~. I an e preparation of the holy chrismlthat Michael Choniatesrefers ID IS etter to Basil Kamateros, w. Sp. P. Lambros, M,xa~! 'AoOI',vdTOV TO;' :::T;V TII _EO>(61"V~' 11 (Athens, ,88o), p. 258 lines 10-4: o{ov 6~ oduivo TO " a, TQJ BaolA.. oE'Pa!~v tlnS';va, Ti/ oaS' "I'at l,pOlouv" oal I'qotTl

"tnopiv TO l'paT'KOv XP(Ol'a 0 .. 6vv,;'0. tdllrEr .,.toSa, d "11 _ .... loG d Oo.,,~ , , ,AA T",.O TOV who "pOV E ..,. at ~lro!auE" .6 /Jao(!E'o. IEpd.EVl'a. Basil Kamateros

was uncle of the WIfe of Theodore Laskaris seems to ha d' d th ' Emperor to tak these measures. ' ve a v'se e

ceremonies of Constantinople, such as that of raising the Emperor on a shield at his proclamation. 14 .It is ~ven ~arder to believe, with Ostrogorsky, that the Byzantlnes In exile woul~ have adopted or imitated the practice of KaiJeTJalbung from their foreign rival and usurper in Constantinople. I., The anointing of Baldwin of Flanders at his coronation as Latin Emperor in St. Sophia in I ~04 is vividly described by Robert of Clari. 16 It was performed according to the usage established in western coronation ritual long before the thirteenth century.l! But this gives no ground for deducing that the anointing of Theodore Laskaris, heralded as early as 1205 by Niketas Choniates, was to be in imitation of that of Bald win. Nor is itat all certain that the practice of anointing was adopted or adapted in the Byzantine ceremony only after I ~04. Indeed there appear to be reasons for

'4. The first certainly attested case of an Emperor being raised on a shield in the thirteenth century is that ofTheodore 11 Laskaris in 1254. Akropolites, ed. Heisenberg, I, p. 105 lines .0--1; Nikephoros Gregoras, Bywntill4 Historia (CSHB), I, p. 55 lines '-3. Ostrogorsky's suggestion (op. cit., 255) that this ceremony was revived at Nicaea in imitation of the Schilderhebung of Bald win of Flanders at Constantinople in "04 is unacceptable. Neither Geoft'rey of Villehardouin nor Robert of Clari mentions any such ceremony at the coronation of Baldwin, despite the assertions of J. Longnon, L 'empire lalin de Constantinople et la principaute de Moree (Paris, 1949), pp. 50f., and others--most recently B. Hendricb, 'Les institutions de l'empire latin de Constantinople (1104-126,): Le pouvoir imperial', Byzantill4, VI (1974), 101-3. On the iconographical and other evidence for Schilderhebung and its revival in the thirteenth century see C. Waiter, 'Raising on a shield in Byzantine iconography', REB, XXXIII ('975), 315-56.

'5. Ostrogorsky, op. cit., 2 5f: 'Dennoch zeigen wohl die Q.uellenangaben, die wir anfOhren konnten, mit genOgender Sicherheit, dass die Sitte der Kaisersalbung im Kaiserreich von Nikaia bestanden hat .... Diese Sitte, die ~ich in der Geda.nke?ordnung .der Byzantiner so fest eingeRlgt hatte, war Jedoch ohne Zwelfel 111 Byzanz 111 Nachahmung abendUindischer Vorbilder entstanden' .

,6. Robert de Clari, La conquite de Constantinople, ed. P. Lauer (Paris, 1914), XC:VI, p. 95; ed. C. Hopf, in Chroniques grico-romanes inidites ou peu conn .... (Berhn, 1873), p. 74. Kalojan of Bulgaria was likewise anointed and crowned ~ccording to the Latin rite by the cardinal legate Leo of Santa Croce at Tmovo ID November 1204. See R. L. Wolft', 'The "Second Bulgarian Empire". Its Origin and History to 1204', SPeculum, XXIV 11949), 197; J. R. Sweeney, 'Innocent Ill, Hungary and the Bulgarian Coronation: A Study in Medieval Diplomacy', Church History, XLII (1973), 310--34 (especially 8'3-4 and references).

'7 See, e.g., H. A. Wilson, 'The English Coronation Orders' JuurrUJJ of TheoIot,ica/ Studies, 11 (190 I), 481-504. '

41

-I ted before Holy Week, the week in which it was the CUstom

: ~the holychrism of the myron (TO /ldov roil pupou xp{opa) to be ;epared and consecr~ted by. the Patriarch's hand .. This statement does not, as Dolger pomted out, refer to the anointing of the Emperor('die hej]jg~Sal~ungmit ~em Myron') but to the consecration of the chnsm I1self which was traditionally performed by t~e Patriarch once a year, i~ Holy Week. 12 .The last such consecrallon should have occurred In 120 7, at whICh time there was no Patriarch. New chrism therefore had to be prepared in Holy Week of 1208, whether it was intended for baptism or for coronation." The holy chrism or myron was normally reserved for the sacrament of confirmation after baptism. Its use in the ritual of coronation will be discussed below. But it is dear that in 1208 Theodore Laskaris was anxious 10 secure the appointment of a fully competent Patriarch with?ut further delay so t~at his own position as Emperor could be gIVen the proper blessmg of the Church; and if one is to take the ',I'ord~ of Nik.etas Choniates literally in this context then the Patriarch s blessmg was to mclude the anointing of the new Emperor. . It is ~ard to believe, however, that this part of the 1Oau~rallon of an Emperor was an innovation in Byzantine pract~ce. The first properly constituted Emperor and Patriarch m exile. after 1204 would ~urely have taken pains to see that everythmg was done accordmg to the tradition even erha t the extent of reviving customs that had long si~ce laC sed i~:h~

u. See P. Menevizoglou, To /tylOv Mu ov EV ' EkKA~ol~(AvdA .. ra BAard6"v. 14: Thessal~niki I;; ) Op806d{r 'AvaroAIK/i L. P~bl, :Ou pouvoir de consacrer le Saint Ch;e ," p~. ,~9 . and~aJJ!m; consecration du Saint Chreme' EO III (8 ) me, an omposlllon et 'WannistdieChrysamweihe ' , . I 99,1-7,129-4'; E. Hermann, geworden?', SborniA v pamet~: ;;:;,c~lesshchen Vorrechl der Patriarchen Angold,op.cil.,P'4S. . . Nlkov (Sofia, 1940), pp. 509-15;

18 I1 is surely 10 these cir ( ~hu~ and the preparation o~~!:;s::~ces the appointment of a head of the m hIS leuer 10 Basil Kamater d S Y chnsm) Ihat Mlchael Choniales refers X.",drov r~ E(j)(o~

elected before Holy Week, the week ~n whi.ch it was the custom for the holy chrism of the myron (nl OE"IOP TaU /iVPOU XP(O/ia) to be prepared and consecrated by. the Patriarch's hand .. T.his statement does not, as Dolger pOInted out, refer to the anoIntIng of the Emperor('die heilige Salbung mit ~em Myron') b.u~ to the consecration of the chrism itself which was tradlUonally performed by the Patriarch once a year, i~ Holy Week." .The .Iast such consecration should have occurred In 1207, at whICh tIme there was no Patriarch. New chrism therefore had to be prepared in Holy Week of 1208, whether it was intended for baptism or for coronation. IS The holy chrism or myron was normally reserved for the sacrament of confirmation after baptism. Its use in the ritual of coronation will be discussed below. But it is clear that in 1208 Theodore Laskaris was anxious to secure the appointment of a fully competent Patriarch without further delay so that his own position as Emperor could be given the proper blessing of the Church; and if one is to take the words of Niketas Choniates literally in this context then the Patriarch's blessing was to include the anointing of the new Emperor.

It is hard to believe, however, that this part of the inauguration of an Emperor was an innovation in Byzantine prac~ce, The first properly constituted Emperor and Patriarch m exile after 1204 would surely have taken pains to see that everything was d.o?e according to the tradition, even perhaps to the extent of revlVlng customs that had long since lapsed in the

10. See .P. Menevizoglou, To :

believing that the Byzant~ne. Kaisersalbung of the thirteenth nel'ther an imitation of western procedure nor a century was . . IS

recent innovation in the Byzantine ntual. . . On both of these points it is instru~tlve. to exam me t~e

evidence from the other Byzantine state m eXile after 1~04, m Epiros and Thessalonica. There the 9uest~on of crow,:ung an Emperor did not arise until the vICtonous campaigns of Theodore Komnenos Doukas had culminated in th~ capt.ure of Thessalonica from the Latins in 1224. However unlIkely It may be that the Emperors at Nicaea should conscio~sly ha~e adopted from their enemies any procedure affe~tln~ the.'r imperial status, it is still less probabl~ that their rival m Thessalonica would have followed their example; for the Greeks of Epiros were even more outspokenly anti-Latin than those of Nicaea. Theodore Doukas was crowned Emperor at Thessalonica some time after 1224. Nikephoros Gregoras reports that he assumed the imperial title and that he was 'anointed' by the then Archbishop of Bulgaria.'" Most of the

18. The sources make very little specific mention of anointing at any of the imperial coronations in Nicaea. George Akropolites says nothing about it. Gregoras, however, records that Theodore 11 Laskaris was anointed by the Patriarch: Gregoras, I, p. 5sline 23: d {Jao,A,evc; Trapa roj) 1rarpuipxov XPloOdC; .al ro arltpor; dva6qadl'fVOr;. Furthermore, the anointing of Michael VIII is clearly implied by Pachymeres (see below p. 46 and n. 30); and, for what it is worth, a short chronicle listing the Patriarchs between 1204 and 1254 says the same of John Vatatzes: {,mTa l'avo~A tl tp.Aoadtpor;, .al rq, Nlor; 'EHqvol'v~l'wv, II (1910), 27, p. 134. Nikephoros Blemmydes composed a poem in honour of the birth ofTheodore lI's son John Laskaris. In this he makes much play on the word 'anointed', implying that the new prince was already anointed by virtue ofhis descent from a line of anointed Emperors. Niceplwri Blemmydae Cumculum Vilae el Carmirra, ed. A. Heisenberg (Leipzig, 1896), p. 110 lines 8-9: XPlf7TOV "ar~p ICA'IPorJX'ICGJt; aordva{, adrOlcpaTClJp, I t" yap XPIUTOV Xp,aroc; eOTl' Kat oD xp.oror; I. rovrov. Angold, op. cit., p. 45.

19 Gregoras, I, p . 6 lines 6--8: aurioa 6~ .al pao.Adar; lavr~ "fp.ri8qo.v 6vopa, leal xp{na, /JarJlA,lI,mc; 1rapd rou r'l""'4v14 fI)1I rqc; BOIlAyap/ac; dpX""'O'07r~V 61186vovror;. For the date ofTheodore's coronation L. Stiemon 'Les origines du Despotat d'Epire (suite). La date du couronnement d~ Thi'odore Doukas', Acles du XII' Congre, Intt!7l6li07ral des Eludes Byzantiru" II (Belgrade, 1964), pp .. 197-202, proposed the end of .227 or early in ... 8. Some doubt about thIS. chronology .s expressed by Karpozilas, op. cit., p. 74, who ~ no~ argued In favour of the formerly accepted date of 1225: A. Karpozllos, The date of coronation ofTheadore Doukas Angelos', Byzantirra,

evidence lor Theodore's coronation, however, derives from the writings of John Apokaukos, Metropolitan of Naupaktos, and Demetrios Chomatianos, Archbishop of Ochrida, who himself performed the ceremony. Both of these learned prelates appear to have regarded the anointing of an Emperor as a normal and customary part of the Byzantine coronation ritual. Apokaukos, writing to Theodore after the capture ofThessalonica, laments the fact that his infirmity may cause him to miss the coronation and anointing of the new Emperor. 20 The decree promulgated by the synod of bishops at Ana at about the same time sets out the reasons why Theodore should be proclaimed, crowned and anointed as Emperor. The document specifically mentions three procedures-proclamation, coronation and unction.'1 And at the end of it the bishops of Epiros assert their right to acknowledge, crown and anoint Theodore as their sole Emperor."

The statements of Demetrios Chomatianos are still more revealing. He was delegated to perform the coronation ceremony after the Bishop of Thessalonica, Constantine Mesopotamites, had declined the honour." He claimed to be empowered to do so by virtue of the special privileges inherent in his office. One of the prerogatives of an Archbishop of Ochrida was, he declared, the right to crown and anoint Emperors. 24 Whatever the justice of this claim, which was said to

VI (1974), 251-6 .. Cf. D. M. Nicol, The Delpotate of EPiTo, (Oxford, 1957), pp. 65-6.

20. John Apokaukos, ed. V. G. Vasilievskij, 'Epirotica saeculi XIII', VV, III (1896), 288 lines 7-8: ... I'q6' IPOUOVTOV tAdua'l'f r~ 6vorvxql'a, ri>~ rij~ oij~ arerpqqJop(ac; d1Z'oAf"up8dllai!-lE'" Kai Tijt; xp(aCJJC;.

2 .. Ibid., .85 line '7: ... T~V dvaVdpfVU.V 6qAa6~ Kai UTfl'l'aTorpopiav Kai xpia.v .. ..

22. Ibid., p. 286 lines 8-11: ... Kal TOVTOV I'dvov {Jao.Ua 0I'OAOYOVl'fV, Kai Tovrov urctpOl'f" .al rovTov Xpi0l'fv. Cf. Nicol, D"polale of EPiTos, pp. 65~, 9 1-2.

23 Nicol, op. cit., p. 65. 24 Demetrios Chomatianos, ed. J. B. Pitra, Analecla Sacra el Clas,ica

Spicilegio. SO/elmemi Parala, VI (Paris and Rome, 1891), cols. 494-5. Cr. Akropohtes, ed. HelSenberg, I, p. 34 lines 1-5: d 6~ BovAvapia~dpXIf7rioKO"O~ tJ"I'~TplOr; r~ {Jao.AlKov 7rfp.6.660Ke. rovrov 6u16ql'a, cb~ trpaoKEV, a~r6vol'o~ OIV Kall'q6fVl f68vva~ drpffAWV 6ovva., Kal 61(\ ravra '{ovoiav tXflV {Jao.Uat; Xpiflv oV~Tfav .al OlrOV Kai6rc {JovAolTo. Gregaras, I, p. 26.

43

date back to the days of justinian, Chomatia~os clearly believed that the anointing of Emperors was an anClen.t and cust~mary

f the coronation ritual. That the Patriarch at Nlcaea, h:rr.n~nos n, who rudely challenged the claim, believed the

me is evident from the letter of protest that he wrote to ~homatianos after the event. The Patriarch asked f?r pro~f of a precedent for the coronation of an Emperor by an Archbishop Of Bulgaria'. But more particularly he quest~oned the nature of the oil and the chrism (myron) that Chomauanos had used for anointing Theodore. He objected that it could not possibly be the right stuff, since all the old stock of properly consecrated chrism in Thessalonica must long ago have been exhausted, and a new supply could only be prepared and blessed by a Patriarch.25 Germanos and Chomatianos were both sensitive about their status and their rights; but neither seems to have doubted that Byzantine Emperors had customarily been anointed at their coronations. There is no hint that this was an innovation, still less that it was a practice borrowed from the Latins. 26

On the other' hand Chomatianos, who was a more erudite canonist than the Patriarch, does appear to draw a distinction between anointing with oil and anointing with the myron. In his reply to the Patriarch he asks how it is that Germanos is not concerned to dispute the source of chrism prepared for baptism but only of that for the anointing of Emperors, 'judging all such preparations to be invalid unless they flow from the hand of the Bishop of Constantinople'. 'Everyone knows', he writes, 'that the anointing ,?f Emperors (11 {JaoIAI"" xp{ou;) is a part of the office of the hierarchy. In the event that an Emperor is not anointed by. the Pa~iarch: then the ri~al may be performed by any of the bishops Immediately subordinate to him .... On the other .hand it is not the prevailing custom that the man proclaimed ~ Emperor should b~ anointed with chrism (myron) but only WIth consecrated od. Nevertheless if we (in Thessalonica) had to anoint Emperors with chri~m we would

15 ~omatiano., ed. Pitra, cols. 484-5. .6. Ib.d., col. 490, where Chomatianos refers 10 'the ancient customs (~) in ~nstanti~le regarding the induction of Emperors and the deaion of Paaiarchs . (."".4 t. K ... Df ........ .,..61 .. c!pl' .. r .. Ill" er.; u ~lr/OrII;".."IAI ... , ."'"pax..,nae .; " .. TpldPl'(J1JI . ).

have no need of manufactured or synthetic stuff. . . . We could use that which flows in rivers from the tomb of the great martyr Demetrios .... But in any case even the manufacture of such myron from its many odoriferous ingredients is not, as you seem to think, your monopoly (as Patriarch) . . . for it can be prepared by any Orthodox bishop, as the 6th canon of the Council of Carthage decrees. . .'.27

The distinction that Chomatianos makes between oil (fAolov) and chrism (/lVpov) can hardly be dismissed as mere hair-splitting, eager though he was to score points off the Patriarch. He specifically emphasises that it was not the custom for Byzantine Emperors to be anointed with the myron but only with normally consecrated oil.2I In this respect it is possible that it was the Patriarch at Nicaea who was guilty of an innovation and perhaps of unwittingly adopting western practice. In English and French coronations, for example, unction had been

27. Ibid., cols. 493-4. Cf. Nicol, op. cit., pp. 93-4; Karpozilos, 'Ecclesiastical Controversy: : :', p. 84; Menevizoglou, op. cit., pp. 12g-40. Council ofCarthage, Canon VI, in G. A. Rhalles and M. Podes, ErJv.aypa .&lv lI

dministered in two fonns, oil and chrism, at least since the :ighth century.29 At all events, Byzantine texts relating to the coronation of Emperors in and after the mid-thirteenth ce?tury almost all tell of anointing 'with the myron' as an estabhshed custom. The practice is attested at least as early as the coronation of Michael VIII. Pachymeres reports that when the Patriarch Joseph made his will it was discovered that the document's references to the Emperor (Michael VIII) had omitted the important epithet lIyloe; which signifies that the Emperors have been anointed with the myron (cbe; XPIO(JtVTae; "vprp TOVe; /JaoIAcie;). Investigations revealed that the word had been included in the Patriarch's original draft but that it had been deliberately left out by the monks who copied it, since they were shocked at such hagiolatry of an Emperor whom they regarded as a heretic. The inference must be that Michael VIII was anointed with the myron at his coronation in December 1258.50 In the case of Michael VIII's son Andronikos 11, who was crowned as CO-Emperor in 1272, the evidence is lacking, although John Cantacuzene confidently describes Andronikos as 'one anointed by God'. 51 But the accounts oflater coronations leave no room for doubt. In 1294, for example, Michael IX P~laio!ogos was 'anointed with the holy myron' as co-Emperor WIth hIS father. 52 In 1325 Andronikos III was similarly anointed

"9. Cf. H. A. Wilson, 0p. dt., 48.f. 80. Pachymeres, D. Micluul. Palatowgo, p. 507 lines 3-4. For the date and

d~m.tanc~s see P. Wirth, 'Die Begrundung der Kaisermacht Michaels VIII. Pa~alO~ogo. ,JOBG, X ('96.), 85"11'; N.MphoroJ GregoraJ, RhomIJ.iJche GeJChicht. (HlJto~ R~al1!e), ii.bersetzt und erliiutert von J. L. van Dieten, I (Bibliothek der .grlechlSch~n ~re.:atur, 4: Stuttgart, '973), pp. '0'-2, 136-7. The ratnarc~ A~semo~ m hIS TtJtamtntum (MPG, CXL, 948-57) mentions only the coro~uon ofMlchael VIII and not, a. van Dieten implies (op. dt. P.237)

the Schlldtriltbung. ' ,

8" Jo~n C~tacuzenus, HiJtonat (CSHB), I, p. 45 line. 17-.8: rrpiiJTo. "t. JIdp I'd xc.pa 1(I"'1oal "ard: /Jao.AtOJt Kol rtP 6erp Kxp.opellov.. . .

SI. Pac~ymere., D. Andronico Palatologo, p. '96 lines 17-.8: Xp( .. 6' 6 "'p~~Xq~ Ttp 6.(tp. "dptp T6. T;;~ fJaolAEia~ ov"" .. doxo.Ta. L. G. Westerink, 'Le B~S1bkosdeMUlme Planude', BS,XXIX('968), p. 4slines "79-9"' 'D~6to< ~;( rra.6da~ cI~.~ l6o( lX'" ... adT(Ka. 6 "dAa. "d ... ~ Md. trro(JoV" ..

cupoio., lull 'ftp ICank 116povt; xplopaTI XP{CI ICal lITtffJI rip ortrpl . .. Kal 6 :.r~p tI< T6 .. Ka' fJaoIA

auvre8npevac; erJxac;', the Patriarch anoints the head of the Emperor, tracing the sign of the cross with the holy myron, and saying in a loud voice 'hagios'.S7 The author of the protocol on the coronation ofManuellI in 1391 describes how the Patriarch 'anoints (the Emperor) with the myron of spikenard and places a cap on his head' (Kalxp{n arJrov riiJ pvprp rou vap{)ov Kal rpoptVEl OIlrov KOVKovAIOV).S8 The Patriarch Antonios IV, in his celebrated letter to Basil I of Moscow in 1393, emphasizes that the Byzantine Emperor, though in straitened circumstances, is still the Emperor of all Christians, still elected and prayed for by the Church and anointed with the great myron. so Symeon of Thes~lonica, writing in the fifteenth century, devotes a chapter of hIS De. SaCTo .Templo ~o the metaphysical reasons why an Emperor IS anomted WIth the myron and inaugurated with prayers.o

I! w,:)\.~ld have been helpful if Symeon had commented upon t?e ~ngm as. we.1I a~ the metaphysics of this practice. One slgmficant ,Pomt m hIS account, however, is that the Patriarch traces the sIgn of the cross on the Emperor's head with the myron,

"'''"o~ h"Bvp06".,. edrvxijao., .b. 6t ao. ge6~ OdT6~ 6,,1 TO .. tept.,. T~' /loa.Ae{o~ tyxnp{(e ... Kol ~~.Iepl!. taTe"dv.,ae KOpV"~V . ... Gregoras, Ill, p. 104 I~nes 11-16,. says SImply. that the imperial crown was placed on Mat~ew s h~ad by h,s father, assmed, according to ancient custom, by the Patriarch Phdotheos who had recently succeeded Kallistos'. . 87 Pseu~?-Kodinos, Trailed" OffictS, ed.]. Verpeaux(Paris, '966), P.158 ~~ 19"'18. 0 6t troTp.dpxq~ xp{e. aTovpoe.6w~ T~' Ke"aA~. rov /loalAtOJ~ TiP I. e rp p6prp, t7"Aty",. peydAn TiJ ""'vii T6 4ylO~'. Ct: Cantacuzenus I P 198 IDes 8-10. I ,

l.tJ~seud~i~odinos, Cid. Verpeaux, Appendix VI ('Protocole anonyme du 9""5. W , 17 sur e couronnement de Manuelll'), p. 855 lines 5-7,

89 Miklo.ich and Muller, Acta.t Diplornata Gratea M.dii A.vi 11 .

~:~:.~::~ ~~7:::"!;;!;:~ x:~o;ov{av t~e. 6 /loa.Aeb, tropo * t~KA~;io: ~:i vel.a. /lofllAeb, Kal ad,oKpd;"'/.~~ ~;' Trp :eYdArp xp{ero. pdprp Ka{ xe.po (TO> ... E. Barker, Social and Palilieal TIuJ:PZ 7:' ;d" .... 6q1a6 w. Xp.fIT.o ..... '94-6, and]. W. Barker M4nwllI P~ rantium (Oxford, '948), pp. :!d~9!~~d::' C;~d:~~f~'!t Iran~!"tii~~r~!:~ ~fr: ~:;~~

40. S~ Th",lIiImimuu Archiepu:~ ,w, ." ~ mISunderstanding. T""/JIDIlIjwCMlStcratUmt) '" 'jmaOmnia,mMPG,CLV(D.SIJCJ'O ~~re1no&ra . Menev~ cagl:;uCXopLV!, 8.58: iha.lxplera.p6prp 6/laalAeb

Demetrios Chomatianos to the Patriarch of Nicaea some seventy years earlier and the references in Pachymeres to the anointing of Michael VIII seem to indicate that the practice of confirming Emperors with the myron was already introduced at Nicaea before 1261. Exactly when it became established procedure is not clear. But some explanation of the reasons for its introduction into the ceremony may at least be suggested.

L.-P. Raybaud proposed that the ceremony of anointing might have been introduced into the late Byzantine coronation ritual by usurpers of the throne as a means of sanctirying their actions. 43 This is an attractive theory, but the facts seem to be against it. John Cantacuzene was certainly glad to be able to say that he had been anointed as Emperor; and it seems probable that Michael VIII, as Raybaud says, was in the same case. But evidence exists, slight though it may be, that their predecessor, Theodore 11 Laskaris, was also anointed at his coronation; and he was no usurper." It is certain too that Theodore Komnenos Doukas was anointed as Emperor at Thessalonica, which takes the practic~ bac~ to the .first quarter of the thirteenth century. From the vlewpOl~t ofNlCaea Theodore was certainly a usurper. But he ,,:as not so m the eyes of those who proclaimed, crowned and anOl?ted him; .and they believed that they were acting in full accord with Byzantme tradition. So far therefore as concerns the anointing of ~~perors with oil there are grounds for thinking that the transItIon from the figurative to the literal sense of the verb xp(nv had occurred before 1204. The statement of Niketas Choniates about the coronation of Alexios Ill, cited above, should perhaps be taken to mean exactly what it says--that the Emper?r went in to St. Sophia 'that he might be anointed acco~dmg to custom and be invested with the imperial regalIa'."

If the ceremony of anointing with oil can be traced back to the twelfth century: t~en it becomes more possible to accept that it ~ay have been Imitated or adapted from the western coronation rItual. Some of the Emperors of the Komnenos dynasty were

48 Raybaud, op. elt., pp. 7'-8. 44 Gregoras, I, p. 55 line "8. 45 Nlketas Choniates HiJtoria 6 r .

Christo hilo 0 I '. ,p. 08 me 7 (cited above, n. 4). word. JCh p .u oU'boP' Cthlt., p. ' .. I,. argues for a literal interpretation of the

Ontates a out e anOlntmg of Alexios Ill.

50

much more prone to adopting Latin practices t.han were their successors at Nicaea. But anointing with the chnsm of the holy myron was, it appears, a later developm.e~t, and one that had a much deeper significance for the. relIgIOus character of th.e Byzantine coronation ce~emony. ~ t IS temptmg to s.uppose that It originated in the Empire at .Nlca~a and that It bec~me an established part of the coronatIon ntual after 1261, untIl m the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries it had become an indispensable element in the making of an Emperor. There is ~o evidence that it became so as a result of western mfluence or III imitation of Latin coronation ritual. The myron was applied, as Symeon of Thessalonica says, to the Emperor's head, not to his body; and the Emperor was anointed in the sign of the cross and acclaimed by the Patriarch and the people as 'holy'. Most probably the practice is to be seen as yet another manifestation of the increased influence and authority claimed and exercised by the Church in political affairs in the late Byzantine period.

The comparison that Demetrios Chomatianos makes of the anointing of Emperors with the unction of baptism may not be without its significance. Theodore Balsamon, writing about 1190, maintained that the act of anointing cleansed an Emperor from the sins that he had committed before his proclamation, just as the guilt of original sin is cleansed by the unction of baptism. Thus, in 969, the Patriarch Polyeuktos had contrived to cleanse John Tzimiskes even from the guilt of murder by anointing him as Emperor. 46 It is arguable that Balsamon was referring back to the tenth century the practice of his own day in the matter of anointing Emperors. But at all events the word that he uses is XP(u/la and not /lvpov--implying a-comparison with the unction of baptism and not with that of confirmation. The anointing of the Emperor's head with the holy myron was to enter the coronation ritual after Balsamon's time. The act seems to have been deliberately modelled on the chrismation or post-baptismal unction of a neophyte which, also administered in the sign of the cross, 'set the seal of the Holy Spirit' (ufPpayit;6rupciit;

46. Thodore Balsamon, CanoneJ, in MPG, CXXXVll, 1156: ... Elrc/ r~ xpio/Ja rov dyiov fJatrrio/Jaro~ rA IrP~ roDfo d/Japf"/Jafa dlraAdlp' .. Ird"QI~

IrvE'filJaror; ay{ov) on the newly-baptized person. So it is that Symeon of Thessa Ionic a explains it in the coronation ceremony by saying that the Patriarch 'sets the seal on the Emperor with the myron' (rip IJEV IJVPrp (J(ppay{(wv aorov). 47

As Pachymeres says in the case of Michael VIII the word hagiOJ in the Emperor's title was the guarantee that he had been anointed with the myron, which by the thirteenth century had already become a necessary element in his inauguration. 48 The repeated chanting of the word hagioJ by the Patriarch, the archdeacon and the people prescribed by the fourteenth - and fifteenth-century coronation formulae, as well as by Symeon of Thessalonica, acclaimed the anointed Emperor as one blessed and confirmed by the only authority higher than his own.4' Makarios of Ankyra goes so far as to say that his anointing with the myron made the Emperor, as the anointed of the Lord, not only holy (hagioJ) but also the equal of a bishop, a priest and a teach~r of the fait~.50 The Emperors were not now, as they had been In the past, Simply de facto the elect of God. Their power and their position was now seen to derive from the Church not merely by anointing with oil but by chrismation with the holy myron, ~hose manufacture was the monopoly of the Patriarch and whICh alone confirmed the reception of a true Christian by the Church.

University of London, King's College

47 Symeon of Thessalonica, op. cit., 353B. Chrismation with the holy ?"ron was performed separately to confirm the recantation and reception back mto th.e Church of certam types of heretics, categorized in Canon 95 of the Counc,lm Trullo: Rh.lIes and Podes, op. cit., 11, p. 530.

48. Pachymeres, De Michaele Palaeologo, p. 507. . 49 Pseudo-Kod~nos, ed. Verpeaux, pp. '.58 lines 'g-'9, 354 line 21-355

Itne 5 On the Slgmficance of the words (Jtppayl~, (Jtppayl(ru ibid p "3 n 1 Syme~n of The ssaloni ca, op. dt., 353C: ... Kal Td ::4Ylo~ dV~Kpd(;', ~ElKvD~ .iT; tIC ~ov ~)I~OV Ka9aycd(nal, ~ymeon ma,kes much the same point in his De sacris 11na/lombu, when contrastmg the ordmation of a bishop with the chrismation o an emperor: MPG, CLV, 4~ 7A: d I'

11

In earlier times the Byzantines were content to accept the verdict of their great patriarch Photios who in the ninth century had detected no more than five errors in the Roman creed and ritual. It was left to Michael Keroullarios to extend the list to the number of twenty-three, though he was provoked by the long catalogue of charges against his own church itemised by cardinal Humbert in 1054. Not all his co~leagues would agree that the Latins were so multifariously mis-gUIded. Peter of l .... doch sensibly concluded that most of the twenty-~ree alleged errors were trivial and probably the result of western Ignorance. The two most serious faults were again the addition to the creed and the use of unleavened bread. But neither he nor Keroullarios nor for that matter Photios regarded the primacy of Rome as a scandal.'

. The enc~clical ofKeroullarios was the first of many such documents. LIsts of Latm errors based upon it were multiplied and circulated; and amon~ ~rdmary people and the rabble of monks in Byzantium it was the tnv~~ that made the most exciting reading. All were agreed that the addItion of the Filioque to the creed was wrong, even if few could understand the theological. subtleties of the case. But it was easy enou~h to see that the Latms were at fault in such matters as the ma~nage of ~e .clergy and all too easy to be persuaded that they chrIstened theIr infants with saliva, ate the flesh of wol d ank th . d hd ves, r

elr ~wn un~e an was e their dirty trousers in tlleir cooking pots. !'- basIc text m the development of this form of anti-Latin literature IS the so-call~d Opu~culum contra Francos, or Treatise against the Franks an~ other Latln.s. This document, attributed by its manuscript and its ~ltO~O Ph~tlos, probably dates in reality from the eleventh century . a ss~mma~or of prejudice it has a lot to answer for. Its twent ~

:ght sections Itst a total of thirty-six Latin aberrations As usual t~ rst two cltarges, and therefore tile most serious, relate t~ the additio~ ~~e clans l'eglise byzantine a partir du IXe siecle '. . d uruon av~c Rome, au concile de Florence' DTC Jwqu a la demlere tentative [F.I Dvornik, Th. Idea of Apostolicity [in Byz:"ti~m ;\ I (1936) cols 357-77; A~drewl, Dumbarton Oaks Studies, 4 (Cambrid an t e Legend ~r the Apostle pnmaute ,omaine, Unam Sanetam 49 (P' l)' ~ass., 1958) and Byzance .t la Byzantine Theology'l. in J. Meye~dorff. ~~:m!~.J Meyendorff, 'St. Peter [in zme, The Primacy of Peter in the Orthodox Ch' h ' N. AfanasSlef, N. Koulom-

4, lMology. Historical Trends and Doctrinal ~rc ~ndon [963) pp 7-2 9 and, Byzantine The five complaints oCPhotios are contained ':5 . ew Y~rk: 1974). ~ [02, cols 721-42. Keroullarios's letter to Pet:S e;kl~ca~to the eastern patriarchs,

~20, cols 781-816. See [S,] Runciman The Baste: Se t,lO and Peter's reply are in the EMtem Churches dll,ing the Xlth and Xllth . hlSm. lA study of the pap"'y and

ce.tunesl (Oxford 1955) PP 52-4, 65-6.

142

The Papal scandal

to the creed and to the unleavened bread. But the Opusculum has nothing to say about the primacy of Rome. 5

When and how did the question of the prjmacy come to rate as a scandal? The Byzantine church had always accorded to the see of Rome a primacy of honour, with pride of place among the five patriarchates, the pentarchy of the oecumenical church, Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. The twenty-eightll canon of the coUllcil of Chalcedon had declared, to the satisfaction of the Byzantines at least, that the privileges of the bishop of Constantinople were equal to those of his colleague in Rome. The exalted rank of both sees was held to derive from the historical contingency that first one and then the other had been the capital city of the Roman empire in which the cllUrch was founded and had its being. The apostolic fOUlldation of the church of Rome was accepted as a fact as it was in the case of Antioch, though the apostolic succession of its bishops from saint Peter was another matter. The right of appeal to Rome by other sectors of the church was sometimes allowed, especially when it seemed convenient. But the Byzantines never agreed that the pope had a universal jurisdiction extending over the whole oikoumene. The only universal authority in the church was that of an oecumenical council at which all fIve patriarchs were present or represented. They believed that all bishops were equal. Some might be marginally more equal than others. But neither Rome nor Constantinople had a right to the supereminently unequal status claimed by the papacy.

Photios, who had a normal Byzantine respect for the primacy of the see ~f Rome, was concerned about the theological and other err.ors bemg propagated by its incumbents. If the pope was in error, as III .the ~atter of the Filioque, then clearly he must forfeit the respect ~or hIS pnmacy, as well as the respect and recognition of his colleagues m the pentarchy. To later Byzantine theologians the problem became m~re and more acute as they became aware of the ever more elaborate claIms put f~rward by the reformed papacy. It is no accident that the first Byzantme documents dealing specifically with the primacy of

& o.pus~ulum [c~ntra. F,anc~s, ed J. Hergenroether}, Monumenta gracca ad Photium tjus t hlSton.am pertinentia (Rawbon 1869) pp 62-71. It was translated into Latin b H qu .~ther1anus when he was. a,t the Byzantine court in 1178. The translati!n : incorporated b~ the Dorruruc~ Bartholomew of Constantinople into his T,actGl1U contra G,~cos ,in .J2.j2. For Its probable date and authorship see Beck, S S-[A. I Argynou, Remarques s~ quelques listes [grecques ~num~rant 1 .. hW!si .. ~tme!'l' BF 4 (Amsterdam 1972) PP 9-30, .sp PP 13-15.

143

11

11

Rome date from the early twelfth century. Prev!ous anti~Lati~ polemic had concentrated on the points of difference m doctrme, ntual. and custom. Such differences were magnified when the crusaders arnved in the east. Their greed, arrogance and cont?mpt fo~ the Greeks w.ere the worst possible advertisement for Latm Chnstlaruty. PhYSical contact with these barbarous foreigners fortified the worst fears and prejudices of the Byzantines. The lists ?f Latin aberrations g~ew longer and more detailed. A.new complamt.was ~at Roman pnests carried arms and took part m war, murdenng with one hand and celebrating the sacrament with the other.8 But the crusades also brought home to the Byzantines the full and tangible significance of the pope's claim to universal supremacy over the church. And it was to counter this claim that their theologians turned to producing what amount to pamphlets De primatu papae. Darrouzes has analysed a number of such tracts produced in the twelfth century; and, as he observes, a starting-point for Byzantine criticism of what seemed to be a new Roman conception of the primacy came in the pontificate of Urban IT, the prime mover of the first crusade. 7

In the course of the twelfth century then the question of the primacy of Rome in the church came to worry the Byzantines more than it had ever done before. It came indeed to constitute a major scandal or obstacle to understanding and union. The early crusades stoked the fires of prejudice on both sides. The fourth crusade in 1204 made them almost inextinguishable. Those at the receiving end of the fourth crusade found it hard to believe that its perpetrators were Christians at all. Contemporaries referred to them as 'the Latin dogs', the 'forerunners of antichrist'. The sack of Constantinople, the con~uest ~d dismemberment of the empire coloured all subsequent relatiOnships between Byzantium and the west, political, ecclesiastical ~d emotional. ~anatical ?~thodox propagandists who had always sazd that the Latms were VICIOUS were rriumphantly vindicated. Nor would the Byzantines believe that the crusaders had exceeded the orders of pope .Innocent m. For they knew quite well that the pope, though deplonng the savage~ of his soldiers in Constantinople. reg~ded the conquest ~f the City and the establishment of a Latin empire as part of God s plan for the reunification of Christendom

.~~ A~xi", od B. Leib, 3 vols. (Paris 1937-4S) bk X. cap 8, pp 218-ao. Kaoullarioa, US'".m p 64, 3 Th. pomt may lint have been made by MichaeI

, ..... __ ..... , PG 120, col '?93; but with the crwades it acquired g .... tet force. uonu....... La documentl , pp 47'-9.

The Papal scandal

d Rome The Byzantines were now to be treated to the practical un er . . ' application of the fully developed. theory of uruversal pap~l soverelgnry.

It may be instructive to ex.amme some of the: Byzantme statements b ut the primacy of Rome m and after the thirteenth century to see ~~at impact the disaster of the fourth crusade had on the thinking of its victims. I have consulted some twenty-five Greek documents on or about the subject written between 1204 and 1400. But there is much work to be done in this field. A surprising number of the relevant texts are still in manuscript or only partially edited or printed in Greek and Russian publications of such rarity. as to ~e almost inaccessible. In 1872 the learned Greek archlmandnte Andronikos Demetrakopoulos published a book entitled Orthodoxos Bel/as." This is a sort of Who's Who of all the Greeks who committed their anti-Latin arguments to writing from the time of Photios to the end of the eighteenth century. It is a work of patriotic devotion, pious erudition and profound prejudice. It was designed partly as a hellenic counterblast to the enormous compendium of Leo Allatius, De ecclesiae occidentalis atque orientalis perpetua consensione, published in 1648. Allatius, as a Greek uniate, had looked for the points of convergence between catholic and orthodox writers through the centuries. Demetrakopoulos looked for the points of divergence and considered AIlatius, a Greek from ehios, to have been a traitor to hellenism and a popish lackey. But his book remains a valuable guide through a still relatively unexplored field, for he took great trouble to search the libraries of Europe and often to list the manuscripts of the unpublished works of his anti-Iatin heroes. It is understandable that many of these works are to be found not in the Vatican but in the libraries of Orthodox countries, Greek. Slav, Roumanian or Russian. Whether Orthodoxos Hellas is a proper title for a compendium planned to perpetuate Greek Orthodox bigotry is a matter that I would rather not go into now. I am merely recording my debt to a learned Greek archimandrite who died in Germany just over a hundred years ago.

The fourth crusade was a shocking and bewildering experience for me Byzantines. But they must have seen it coming. The Greek parriarch of Constantinople at the time was John X Kamateros, Just A. K. DemetrakopouJos, 'Ope66o~os 'E~as ~'Ol "'pi ,/iIv 'ID~..,v ypalfiGV1"Co>V .cml<

Aa-dv",v Kal mpl";;;v avyypa~~c!rr.,v M/ilv (Leipzig 1872, repr Athens 1968). t Allatius, [Leonis Allatii De ecclesiae occ;dentalis QtqJ4e orientalis ptrpetua constnSione Lilni

''''1 (Cologne 1648) repr with an introduction by KaIlistos T. Ware (Gregg Inter-""tional Publishers 1970).

145

11

II

. he had engaged in a correspondence before the event, mIUII99-b 12tOilie primacy of the see of Rome. This in th Innocent a ou h W1 pope bl Thr h ut the twelfth century t ere seems to . If' marka e oug 0 b Itse IS re th' I exchange on the subject etween a pope be only o~e oh ~; Innperson~t's tWO letters to the patriarch John have

d a patnarc . oce 'I' h I I an k 11 B t the patriarch s rep les ave on y recent y long been nown. u I . lished 12 The second and longer of t le two sets out to questIOn

:;nc~~dent 'proposition that the see of Rome. enjoys not only . b I I't de of power and uruversal JUrISdIctIOn as the

prtmthacy fut la I so hP en hI : to whose fold the Greeks must return or moero. curce, ,. I' k h

. 'd tl e ark of salvation. Where m the gospe S, as S t e remam outs! e 1 . hid atriarch, 'does Christ say that the church of the Romans IS t e lea Pd' I other of all the churches? . . . There are five great an uruversa m . ' I . h churches which are dignified wIth patrtarchal rank, among w llC she is the first as among sisters of equal honour. The fn~e patnarchates are like the five senses, each performing a distinct function ... or hke a five-stringed instrument, each string with its own sound but capable of the harmonious music of salvation when struck by the plectrum of the Holy Spirit .... The primacy of honour accorded to the church of Rome comes not through Peter having been proclaimed bishop there or having died there, but because the city of Rome was once exalted by the presence of the emperor and the senate, neither of which is to be found there any more'. 13

There is nothing startlingly new in the patriarch's letters. He makes the following well-worn points: that the true head of the church is Christ; that the church on earth is governed by a pentarchy of patriarchs, among whom the bishop of Ron:~ has a pri~acy. of honour; that this primacy depends upon polmcal and histoncal circU1llStances; and that in any event there is a strong case for

10 Correspondence between pope Alexander III and the patriarch Michael of Anchialos. in 1I73. ed G. Hofmann. 'Papst und Patriarche unter Kaiser Manuel I Komnenos'. EEBS, 23 (1953) pp 74-82.

"Letters of Innocent III of II98 and II99, PL 214, cols 327-9, 758-65; ed [Po Th.] HlIuiCyrukyj, Acta Innccent;; III ("98-1Z16), P[ontificia] c[ommissio ad] rledigendumJ c[odicem] i[uris] c[anonici] o[rientalisl, Fontes ser Ill, 2 (Vatican City 1944) nos S, 9, pp 180-2, 187-95.

11 lA.] Papadakis and [Alice Mary] Ta!bot, 'John X Camaterus [confronts Innocent Ill: an unpublished corre.pondence'], BS, 33 (197)) pp 26-41 (Greek text, pp 33-41). See Grumel, Regestes, nos II94. 1I96, pp 190-3; [P.] Wirth, 'Zur Frage [eines politischen Engagements Patriarch Johannes' X. Kamateros nach dem vierten Kreuzzug'], BF, 4 (197') pp '39-52, P 244; A. Andrea, 'Latin evidence for tbe-acoeosion date of John X Carnzterus', BZ, 66 (1973) pp 354-8.

11 Papadakis and Talbot, 'John X Camaterus', pp 36-7, 40.

The Papal scandal . th church of Jerusalem first in time and rank and the

countlllg e. h d All this had been said before. Even the church of Antloc secon. b [. d Iy

m arison of the pentarchy to the five senses can e oun . as ear co p . h . f: t' t was made by a Latm to Illustrate as the runth century, w en m ac I h fir t

. f Rome among the other patriarchates as t e s the pnmacy 0 h f the church.14 What the patriarch John among the senses, t e eye 0 b L . d olitely emphasise to the pope is the difference etween ann ;~s d'reek interpretations of the word' catholic', since in the Orthodox

. h of the Christian churches, however humble, possesses the vIew eac b' h h same fulness. of grace and catholiciry and no one IS op, owever important his see, can monopolise the title of catholtc for any part

of the whole. to d d Four years after this letter was written the. crusaders ente~e an

sacked Constantinople. The patnarch was dnven out a~d hi~ place was taken by a Latin elected by the conquerors. In his e~le the patriarch John Kamateros wrote a bitter account of. the sufferlllgs of his ciry and the humiliation of his church. It survIves III an anonymous pamphlet entitled 'How the Latin prevailed over. us', ,which recent research has convincingly identified as the patnarch s own com-position. '6 He describes himself as a vagrant, without a city and without a throne. He deplores the horror of the conquest as an eye-witness, the plunder of churches an? the rerlac~ng of Greek priests by Latins. He recalls how he was Insulted III his own palace

14 Anastasius Bibliothecarius, Mansi, 16, col 7, cited by Dvornik, The Idea of Apostolicity. p 277. Compare Peter of Antioch's letter to the patriarch of Aquileia, PG 120. cols 757, 760.

16 Western sources record that in March 1203 the patriarch John with the emperor promised under oath to submit the church of Constantinople to Rome and to go and receive the pallium from the supreme pontiff. Hugh of Saint-Pol, Chronia regia colonensis, ed G. Waitz, MGH, SRG (Hanover 1880) p 208; Robert of Auxerre. Chronicon, MGH, SS, 26, P 270. The story, if not apocryphal, is surely exaggerated. C. M. Brand, Byzantium co~f,onts the West 118o-uo4 (Cambridge, Mass., 1968) pp 243-4, accepts it as evidence that the emperor and the patriarch 'sent their submissions to Innocent Ill'. But see the more cautious remarks of Grumel, Regestes. no II97. p 193, and Wirth, 'Zur Froge', pp 244-5.

11 Anonymous. ne-pt "TOO 6'1Too~ 'axvae xaS' 'I'\",wv 6 A

11

by the popc's legate to Constantinople. But above all he protests against the appointment of a Latin pattiarch in his place. There is an irony in this p~otest, since po?e Innocent III too was f~r from happy about the dectlOD of a VenetJan prelate as the first Latm patriarch of Constantinople in I2.04. But the pope was upset only about the method and the person of the appointment. What bewildered and angered the Greek patriarch was the pope's assumption that he was empowered. to make or to ratify such an appointment at all. By :what authonty could a pore of Rome elect or demote his colleagues In the pentarchy? Brooding on the enormity of this crime the patriarch lost whatever respect he may earlier have expressed for the theory of the primacy of Rome. He denies it categorically and goes fu~er by denyi~g also the primacy of Peter among the apostles. This absolute denIal of the primacy of Peter is, as Meyendorff' has remarked, an extteme case, unique in all Byzantine Iiterature,u To su~ extremes of irrational bitterness were the Byzantines driven by their tteatment at. the hands of the Latins. The pattiarch will allow to the see ~ ~. CIty of R~me only one mark of primacy and that is the SpeCIal pnvllege of bemg remembered as the city that murdered the holy apos~e Peter by.hanging him head downwards on a cross. nu: Gr~ m Constantinople continued to regard John Kamateros as thetr ~PJrJtJJaI head until he died in exile in May 1206. But even U;;der alien rule. they saw no good reason why they should not be a o,:"ed to appomt a new patriarch of their own faith and langua e Thetr clergy ap~roached the Latin emperor, Henry of Flanders~ ~ ::;: ~Ible man. B~t he could not grant permission unless

t wledged obedIence to the pope. They therefore wrote a eourteo~ letter to Innocent III asking him to let them elect their =::ar~ so that. a council of the church could be arranged to been broughpomts of dis~te between Greeks and Latins. For they had meth d f t up .to bdleve that a council was the proper and only

o 0 removmg scandals in the church d th . be represented until the had' ' .an etr case could not

y a patnarch of thetr own race and speech.18

It MeyendorK, 'St Peter', P 17. See Dvomik B I'Dnoc:eat m', attitude to the election of Tb' yzllllCtM 01 I. P'IIIfIIUII, P 141. On R. L Wolft; 'Politics in the Latin . oma. orosini as Latin patriarch see

u I (1954) pp :123-304. patrlarchate of Constantinople 1204-1261', DOP,

letter of the Greek clergy of C . ~ Bpilllphl .. for his ~ple to Innocent m: Greek text in Nh:hola. GIItIII,"" la 1okhtUt"'" /Grise_ !:,;,Jed ~.l ~berg, N .... Qu.II.n [ZIIt NIItD'- M.lII1illl"" mnm BruII, J"""""'). siJrdIommiCJII], I: [Dot Bpilllphl .. la

W (1920) .bh 5 pp 63-6.

IfS

The Papal scandal

Shortly afterwards Innocent III received a collective letter from: the Greek inhabitants of Constantinople. It followed much the same lines. They accepted the harsh fact of political subjugation to a Frankish emperor, with whom they were quite prepared to co-operate if only for survival. But in spiritual matters they too saw no reason why they should not have a patriarch and bishops of their own appointed in the time-honoured manner; and they called for an oecumenical council for the discussion of common problems, at which their patriarch would answer for them.19 Pope Innocent III never, it seems, deigned to answer these letters. It has been argued that by ignoring them he lost his chance of winning the allegiance of the church and people of Constantinople by making 'a grand conciliatory gesture'. 10 A new scandal or stumbling-block had now been seen to be erected in the field of ecclesiology, the papal scandal. A new Greek patriarch was in fact elected in 1208 but not at Constantinople. His see was at Nicaea, which was to become the capital of the Byzantine empire and church in exile until its emperor drove the Latins out of Constantinople in 1261. n

The primacy, or the overriding authority, of Rome as manifested in the fourth crusade and its consequences became the largest stumbling-block between Greeks and Latins in the years after 1204-In August and September 1206 a series of dialogues took place between the Latin patriarch Thomas Morosini and the brothers Nicholas and John Mesarites. Nicholas, a deacon and later to become bishop of Ephesos, condemned the Latin patriarch's appointment as uncanonical and argued strongly against the pope's power to make such appoint-ments.12 He refuted the claim that such authority stemmed from saint Peter. For Peter had never been bishop of Rome.

.. C,_orum.d I.noanti .... II1 [Po R. EplsloI. saip'" posl 'aptam .lAIinls c.....""'1I11Op01i ,.,._ Honri,o.Imper.,o,.). PG 140. cols :>93-8 (from]. B. Cotelerius, Etdl_ c...: Monu ... n'" (ParIS 1677-9~) 3, pp 514 $ltj). For the dating oftheseletten see HeiseDber

N .... . Qurllen, I. pp 13-14; Hoeck-Loenertz, Nilcoloos-Ntlclmlos. pp 49-51. g. Run~, The E.,/em Schism, pp 154-5. For a dUl'erent assessment of Innocent nr pr~ent see u.J Gill, 'Innocent m [and the Greeks: Aggressor or Apostle?'] u: RoI."ons btlw,,!, 11.." .and Wes/ in lhe Middle Ages, ed Derek Baker (Edinburgh I' ) pp ?S-IO~. It IS S1gnificanl that it was not until after the appointment of al.'Ju patnllch m U~4 ~t Innocent m officially accepted the second rank of Constantinople ofamong the p~tlal sees of the pentarchy. See the fifth C3DOI1 of the lateran collllCil

12.1 S, Man.n:, 22, col 99Q. .. See now M. Angold, A Byzan/lfll! Go..". ... nt in &ill Go"""""""."" Socii

lhe LtuIcorids of NI, ... , ,.0f-u61 (Oxford 1975). . ty ....... .. N'1Cb~ Mesarites, 'DU; l?isputation des Nikolaos Mesarita mic dem Kardinallegateu

Beneclikt and dem Iateinischcn Patriarcheu Thomas Morosini am 30. August zaall',

149

JI

Il

By trying thus to glorify Peter the Italians merely humiliate him. For they confine the teacher of the whole oikoumene to being bishop of one city. thinking to exalt themselves as his successor. Foolish of them. for it shows that they do not know whence or how the see of Rome came by its privileges. It was not through Peter ... but through the fact that Rome was the capital city and contained the senate when the grace of truth first dawned. If you Italians would consult the records you would find this documented and cease to stray from the truth ....

Nicholas then proceeds to compare the claims to primacy of Antioch and Jerusalem. though he weakens his case by bringing in the alleged sojourn of saint Andrew in Byzantium and his mythical foundation of the see of Constantinople. 'But'. he continues. 'if you come back at me with "Thou art Peter and upon this rock . . .... take note that ~~ was not said of the church of Rome. That is a Jewish ~r .of ~ a,nd debases the grace and divinity of the church by limitmg It to districts and ~unt~es instead of recognising its working thro?ghout the whole UDlverse. By confining the meaning of 'the rock t~ the chw:ch of Rome alone you force yourselves into a narrow mterpretatIon of the promise of Christ and the prophets. that the message of the apostles would reach the ends of the earth and the church .be ~ounded on a firm, ~o~. as one catholic and apostolic church IIISplred by the Holy SplClt- not a Petrine or Roman church not a, ~yzanttn: or Andreatic or Alexandrine or Antiochene 0; Palestunan or Asian or European or Libyan or Hyperborean Bosporan church: as empty-headed Roman ignorance would have it. but one extending over all the oi/eoumene to which the voice of the apostles anthed the power of the gospels' words went out. even to the limits of

world."'

ed Heisenberg. N... Quel"", . [Di Vi' L-'L. __ Prltri4nhmWRhl un4 Ktdstr. M '. t. ~lonsvtrlNUllH""\J"''' VDm jO. August 1206. (Greek text ) , ...... g In Niktri. ,..8). SBAW (1923) abh pp 3-aS NCLo~:- pp Is-as Meyendorf. 'St Peter'; PP 20-1; Hoeck-Loenertz Ni""' s-

.......... pp 41-4. .. Much of the text of the latter part of this dialo 'ed '

p 24 _ 1-31) appean almost verb' ,gue , Heisenberg. N ... Qu.II ... a. '1:0 tbooe who say that Rome is the :. ID '!" aoooymo~. pamphlet addressed b_ edited by M. GordiUo .Photi =. falsely ascnbed to Photio~ It has sit auctor opuscoli n ..... ~ , .. _~ et Romanus. Num Photius habendu.

'G ..... -TV.'~' &$ ~ 'P&1IIl 1JfIib'ro$ 8p6vosl' OCP 6 ( , pp 3-39 \ reek text PP II-17); earlier ed by [G,) RhaIIe5 and 19401 [tWmy1Ml 'rioI. Bd.,. Kalltp&\. Ka,o..,.) 4 (Athens 8) [M.l Potle Srn/.,"'" Photioo hu bom deoied by [F.) Dvornit 'I'M ~ S4 p~ 409-1S Its ascription to (Combridae 1948) pp US-'7' 'I'M 14r4 ,. on S,hum. (Hi'IIlry 4rUI Ltgend) ,,;....d. P 143; and by Darzouza. .fa AposJolkity. pp 247-S3; and By",_ ., '"

doc:umaJIs'. pp 8S-8. Hocck-Loencnz.

ISO

The Papal scandal

John Mesarites. in his dialogue with the Larin patriarch in September 1206. contended that the pope's jurisdiction was limited territorially like that of the other patriarchs and that he was never authorised to appoint bishops in places not subject to him; and again the plea was made for the right to elect a Greek patriarch of Constantinople.14

The papal legate who was present protested that it was absurd to imply that the pope's actions could be contrary to the canons. The Roman church. unlike that of Constantinople with its many deviations. had never held a wrong opinion or countenanced a heresy. His Greek audience were then quick to remind him of the case of pope Honorius who had been anathematised by the sixth oecumenical council in 681. This seems to be the first occasion on which the condemnation of Honorius was adduced as an argument against the primacy, or at least the infallibility. of Rome. It was an argument to be used with caution since, the eastem patriarchs, as the Byzanrines were always ready to adrrut, were far from blameless in the matter of heresy. os

A German chronicler of the fourth crusade records how the armada from Venice ~ut in at Corfu in 1203 on its way to Constantinople ~d that the bishop o~ the island invited some of the Latin clergy to dmner. ~e conversatIOn got round to the primacy of Rome and the ~r~k b,lshop gave it as his opinion that he could think of no JustIficatIOn for the see of Rome being specially privileged unless it were that Roman soldiers had crucified Christ.18 The story may be garbled or apocryphal. But it may well have been the same bishop of Corfu ~ho w.ro~e to pope Innocent m some ten years later. His name was Basil Pe~adlte~. In 1213 Innocent sent out invitations to the fourth lateran council which was to be held in two years time. They went

Nik.I s-Nektori.s. P 43 till describe it as waTschrinlich photlonmhen but it is P babl u to be dated, to the thirteenth century, ro y

John Mesantes. Di.logu. between the monks of Propontis and Mount St Awrentioo (led by John Mesantes) and the Latin patrian:h Thomas and c:ardinaI Benedict ::, ~~bet '~~ ed Heisenbetg. Neue Qr"rle I. PP S:&-63 (Greek text). ~

.. et oenertz, N .... I .. s-Nektatl.'. pp 44-9, DanouUs seem. to be at fault in writiog that 'La pIelIliae Cl ' le Honorius est invoqui par un Grec comme un ar 011 que cas du papa late as 13S7, U,) Darro..u. 'Conerence la ~ument cantle la primaun!' was as en .) REB SUI pnmaun! [du pape 1 Con"'n';n~1e

13S7 .19 (1961) [=Milmrges R.ym4rUljonl.) p 8:0 The f -~r. a~uced by John Mesuite. in 1206 and by the patriarch c;.m;. ~ hilo, ~us 11 latin patriarch of Constantinople ha no. m == to the

.. Anonym! H.lbmtmkmi, De .. ,ut 1~34- See, below P IS4-libel"" ed P D Want D!.~one In er.mam ., """",. reIi,.!""",, de er.rm. , . ,. . """ .... ",er .. ,1IIUIIrIIIin.pelildll4t (Geneva . , . lIullam aliam causam .. ocire primatus vel .' I. 1877) P 14' romani milites Chrlstum crucilixmmt'. prcrogatmun sedis ro_ nisi qllOd

ISI

11

po

Il

the archbish ,n bisho'" and abbots, Greek as well as Latin, to rs, r- . l'uThe nl G k tbr gh 'th nrovince of Constantmop e . 0 y ree ouout er . dbb bish ku to have replied was BaSlI of Corfu. Any ou t a out th op .ownfhis letter (and doubts have been expressed) is resolved e occaSJon 0 th f the ,... parin its opening remarks with e text 0 pope s mVltatton ::0 coun~. The Greek is a straight translation of the Latin. Basil's letter is little kuown and therefore perhaps worth quoting a~ length. IS

Your letter spoke of driving the beasts out of the vmeyard of the Lord of Hosts and of convening an oecumenical council according to the ancient custom of .the fathers. . ' ... An~ I applauded the intention of y?ur holiness,. filled as It .IS With apostolic zeal. But on consid~l~g whether I~ can b.e realISed my meagre intelligence fmds that It IS at present Impossible. For why I shall tell you. An oecumenical council is composed of a gathering of the five apostolic thrones and their dependent bishops. But if one of the thrones is vacant, and that one of the superior ones, how can such an assembly be called oecumenical? Your holiness surely knows the privileges of the throne of Constantinople . . . that it is granted equal honour and is in no way inferior to that of Rome. If this be so then your council will be substantially deficient if no patriarch of Constantinople is present. Now our see of Constantinople is still widowed; and with no patriarch having been proclaimed how can his synod go to Rome?l ... A regiment of troops cannot join batde

.. letter oflDnocent Ill. PLo .,6.

11

ID chb'sh bl'shops and abbots Greek as well as Latin. to ear lOPS. h nl G k throughout 'the province of Constantinople. 27 T e 0 y ree bish kn wn to have replied was Basil of Corfu. Any doubt about

th op .0 fhis letter (and doubts have been expressed) is resolved e occasIOn 0 f h ... . 'ts opening remarks with the text 0 t e pope s mVltatlon

oncompanng l . f h L' B '1' th '1 The Greek is a straight translation 0 t e atm. aSI s to e counCI . . 28

letter is little known and therefore perhaps worth quoting a.t length. Your letter spoke of driving the beasts out of the ~meyard of

the Lord of Hosts and of convening an oecumerucal counc!l according to the ancient custom of .the fathers. . ' ... And I applauded the intention of y?ur hohness . filled as It lS With apostolic zeal. But on conside~l~g whether I~ can be reahsed my meagre intelligence fmds that It IS at present Impossible. For why I shall tell you. An oecumenical council is composed of a gathering of the five apostolic thrones and their dependent bishops. But if one of the thrones is vacant. and that one of the superior ones. how can such an assembly be called oecumenical? Your holiness surely knows the privileges of the throne of Constantinople ... that it is granted equal honour and is in no way inferior to that of Rome. If this be so then your council will be substantially deficient if no patriarch of Constantinople is present. Now our see of Constantinople is still widowed; and with no patriarch having been proclaimed how can his synod go to Rome?29 ... A regiment of troops cannot join battle

.. Letter of Innocent Ill, PL, 216, col 826; Hal.Jcynskyj, At .. InnocentU Ill, no 206, p 444

.. Basil (pediadite.), utte, to tll< pop. (Innocent nI), ed Sp. K. Papageorgiou, 'l n.5.a51~s Eis ,~v lfpeajlv-rlpaV 'P"'.nv hmrolnw ,ov dOTOSnoov.

U At the time this letter was written (12.13 or 1214) there was a patriarch at Nicaea, Michael IV Autoreiano, (died.6 August U14), who was succeeded on.8 September '''14 by Theodore U Eimliko .. But the bishop of Corfu, whose political allegiance lay with the rival Byzantine n!gime in exile in Epiros, did not reoognise the claim of the patriardu at Nicaea to the titlt: of oecumenical. The Latin patriarchate of

Isa

The Papal scandal

without its colonel ... and it is the law of the church that bishops cannot act without their metropolitans nor metropolitans without their patriarchs.80 If then your holiness wishes a council to be canonically convened. let a patriarch first be canonically elected for Constantinople. that is to say by its own synod. just as the other patriarchs are elected and appointed by their own synods. Meanwhile. which of the Greek bishops will come to your council? Those whom your holiness has driven out? Will tile metropolitan of Athens come. whom your holiness has expelled from his see and replaced by another? What of the bishops of Thessalonica or Zarnata who have suJfered the same from your holiness-not to itemise each of the several bishops whom you have evicted. some of whom are still alive. wandering from place to place like refugees. living monuments of your unlawful behaviour. Thus you have sent adulterers among the undefiled churches of Christ. having divorced them from those to whom the Holy Spirit had united them .... So it is not possible for an oecumenical council to be held. since the Greek synod with their patriarch have been cast out by your holiness .... The body of Christians has Christ at its head; and the five patriarchs are the five senses around the head .... A body deprived of one of its senses is maimed. So also is the church if deprived of one patriarch. And since your holiness spoke of the beasts trying to trample on the vineyard of the Lord of Hosts you might have specifled the nature of the beasts ... For each wild animal has its own form of savagery. Arius fought one way. Sabellios anotller, Makedonios yet another .. , So also does the man who says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father. for he is in conflict with the creed as laid down by the seven councils ..

The taunt at the end of this letter shows that the questions of the primacy of Rome and of the pope's authority had not obscured the oldest scandal of all. the addition of the Filioque to the creed. The two matters were indeed inseparably connected. When in UI4 some papal legates asked Nicholas Mesarites what he regarded as the root cause of the schism he replied: 'The cause of the scandals is the fact that your part of the church has chosen to sow tares among the pure

Constantinople was vacant from July un (when Thomas Morosini died) until November UIS; but it i. improbable that Pediadites had this in mind.

ID This point i, also made in the letter of the Greek cleigy to Innooent m. eel Heisenberg, Neue Qu.Il .... 1. P 65.

IS3

11

---------------------------,........--11

wheat of apostolic and patristic doctrine .... And if you did not pretend to be deaf you would know that ~e tares are those w~c? you implanted in the creed ... by assertmg that ~~ .Holy Splrlt proceeds also from the Son. This is the reason for the dIVIsion between the churches:'

As time went on the Greek patriarchs at Nicaea confidently claimed the title and the authority of Constantinople. The patriarch Germanos IT in 1229 condemns the arrogance of the Latins in setting up the bishop of Rome in the place of Christ as head of all the churches-intolerable vanity in a race of men that has promoted so many crimes and errors, first among which is the addition to the creed . In a letter to some monks in Constantinople (recently published by Gill) Germanos warns them against being deceived into thinking that the heresy of the Latins is of small account, for it is in fact 'almost the recapitulation of all the heresies' that me devil has introduced into the church. Germanos took it upon himself to excommunicate all Greek priests in Constantinople who submitted to the obeclience of Rome. But he felt this to be more reasonable than the action of the Latins in imprisoning mose clergy who refused to submit. Writing to me Latin patriarch about 1234 Germanos appeals to him to show mercy to those priests incarcerated by his predecessor. 'Prison is for malefactors ... and mey have done no wrong .... They have done no more than obey the order of their own church. Eimer you should set them free or prove that they are violating the canons by not submitting to me church of Rome-me church which has altered the creed by adcling to it and which, for that reason alone, me Greeks should shun like me /lames' ... 11 Nicholas Mesarite Ne.e Q .. II .... 3. [Die &rich! des Ni""I s }ksariks .her die

p.Utisch .... M kirchliche. Ereigniss. des].I.res IZlfJ. SBAW (1923) abh 3 p 36. 11 Germano. n. Second 1etter to the Orthodnx inhabitants of Cyprus, PG 140. cols

613C-:uB. 617A-B. See Laurent. Rtgtsks. no I2S0. pp sl>-7. .. J. Gill, 'An unpublished lett.r of Gormanus, Patriarch of Constantinople (I2U-I240)',

B. 44 (1974) pp 138-SI. esp p 143 lines 18-30. .. Germanos n. letter to the Latin patriarch of Constantinople (Nioolas de Castro). ed Th.

Uspenskij. ObrlJZ .... i Ior'g. b.lgarskag. carslv. (Organi .. ti f Ih. SecoM Bulgarian Empire) (Odes .. 1879) appendix. pp 7S--8; partial edition by Demetra!topoulo '0pe680~ Was. pp 40-3. See Laurent. R.gtstts. no 1277. pp 83-S. See also Germanos D'.1etten of 1232 to pope Gregoxy IX and to the cardinals. ed A. L. Tiutu, Aa. Hmwrii III el Gregorii IX, PCRCICO. Fontes ser ID. 3: (19S0) no. 179'. 179b, pp _ 249-S" Laurent, Rtgtslts. nos I2S6. 1257- The Greek version of the latter muains unedited. Gormanos ther. gives a rather optimistic pictuxe of the nation. that ale in communion with the Greeks: Bthiopians, Syrians, Iberians, Lazi. Alan Goths, KIxazan, RIIIIians and BuIgarian ..... .t hi omne. tamquam matti no.trae obediunt Ec:cIeIiae, in mliqua orthodoxia inlmobileo hactenw manentes.

154

The Papal scandal

The Greeks bitterly resented me enforcement upon them of the Latin faith. When writing to Innocent ID they had asked: 'Why do you try to bully us like dumb beasts unquestioningly to change our ways rather than allowing us to speak and exchange reasoned argument wim you?" It was bad enough for mem to be made to take an oam of submission to a foreign patriarch but worse still when that patriarch was answerable to a pope who condoned what they had always thought to be a mistaken if not heretical addition to the creed. This was a matter which fundamentally affected the nature of aumority in me church. For, as the Byzantines never tired of reiterating, me Filioque had been accepted by one of me five patriarchs alone wimout me consent of his four colleagues, and the bishop of Rome had no licence to force me whole church to subscribe to an innovation introduced by his aumority alone. a.

Gradually the Byzantines of the thirteenm century were to discover mat the church of Rome was responsible for aumorising still further innovations or novelties (kainotomiaJ), which was me word regularly used for heresies. After me fourm crusade Greek pamphlets enumerat-ing me errors of the Latins proliferated. Some, especially, mose of a more popular nature, make no mention of me primacy of Rome.87 The longest list is that compiled by Constantine Stilbes, bishop of Cyzicus about 1204, who describes one hundred and four Latin aberrations, malpractices, or novelties. a8 Of particular interest in this work is me detailed catalogue of crimes committed by me crusaders in Constantinople, for all of which, says Stilbes, no penalty was

.. PG 140. col 296- This point is made in the letter oC an anonymous patriarch of Constantinople to a

patriarch of Jerusalem. ed A. N. Pavlov. Kritileskie .pyly p. istorij dre"'!ielej G ...... Russk.j p.lemiki pr.li. Lali.jam (Critical studies on the history of older Greco-RUISiao. polemic against the Latins) [Izvleteno iz XIX. ot~eta 0 prisuU.nij nagrad pfa UvarovaJ (St Petersburg 1878). suppl no 6. pp IS8-68. P 167: Th.r. was a time when he (the pop.) was our primate. when he was of the .. me mind and opinion. Let him give proof of his Iik .... mindedness in the faith and he shall have the primacy as of old when it was the faith that kept the ranks and not force and tyranny. Without this he will never get what he wants from Us'. The date and authorship of this letter. which dweUs mo~ on the primacy of Peter. i till uncertain. It was formerly attributed to the patriarch Nichola. III writing to Symeon n of Jerusalem about 108S-90 But Darrouu 'Le. dncuments. pp 43-51. argued for dating it in the thlxteenth century and ,ssigning it to Germano. 11 writing to Athanasios of Jerusalem between 1:&29 and IZ3S. More recenrly Laurent. Reg .. "s. p 109. has argued on internal evidem:c Cor placing it in the patriarchate of Joseph I about 1>73.

.. See Argyriou. 'Remarques sur quelques listes', PP .., stf.

.. U) Darroum, 'Le Memoire de [Constantinl Stilba (conlre Ieo Latins'], RBB, u (tgtl3) pp SO-lOO (Greek text and translation. pp 61-91).

ISS

11

Il

inlIicted upon them by their church. Whence one .must concl~de ~at their hierarchy favour such wickedness and are gwl~ of abettl.ng It. 39 On the primacy he is content to say that the Latms proclal~n and believe that the pope is not the successor of Peter but Peter himsel They put him above Peter and all but divinise him decla~~g him t? be lord of all Christendom; and they demand recogmtIon of his divinity on oath from the church universal and from every diocese everywhere.4 But Stilbes was ~ first to re~ord what was to ~e Greeks the curious novelty of mdulgences. The pope and theIr hierarchy'. he notes. 'absolve murder. perjury and other sins for the future and in time to come. which amounts to opening the door to every kind of impropriety "for those absolved. And what is even more laughable. they grant absolution to sinners for stated periods of years in the future. maybe two or three. or more or less. They play this game for the past as well. forgiving sins for stated periods of years. months or days. They cannot cite any justification for this practice in ecclesiastical law. uu1ess it be perhaps the quantity of gifts paid out to them by the recipients of this inefficacious absolution ... The same point was taken up later in the century by Meletios the Confessor in his still unpublished treatise Against the Latins. Meletios marvels at the claim of the Italian pope to be able to forgive sins not ouly in the past but also in the future. U

There were other mysterious Latin innovations which only slowly came to the notice of the Orthodox in the course of the thirteenth centoty and for which. when the union of the churches became a matter of political necessity as it did in the 1270S. they had to invent Greek words and phrases. The doctrine of purgatory. for instance. was patiendy, explained to them by a biliugual Franciscan called John Parastton; and in the profession of faith submitted to the pope before the second council of Lyons in 1274 the Greek words 1I'OIIpycrnbPIOV and Ka9CXf1T1'lPIOV make almost their first appearance. U

Dattollds, 'Le Wmoire de Stilbi;,', P 86. "00 P 6,. "Ibid P 69. .. Qa MdedoJ lOO Bock P 1\79; D. M. Nico~ 'The Byzantine reaction to the Second

Council of Lyons. 1374', SCH, 7 (1971) pp 13~; ePllcrlCllM"IICfI "",I 'HellCfl 'El"'uw".o .. 6E1a, 8, col 949; Argyriou, 'Remarques sur que1que. lUtes', pp 33--4.

.. Tbc Greek and Latin tats of MicbaeI vnr. profeasion of faith are prinled in lA. L.] 11II1II, (Aa. Urb.oti IY, CItmtmis W, Gregorii X (116'-1276)], PCRCICO Pontes .... m. 5, pt I: (1953) no 41, pp u6-33: p U9: . 'IfOIIpyaTfolplou, ~_ IOlI8afmIplou, IIIItd>r 6 ~ '1-11115 ~"'. 6~ ..... r ... purgatorii, hoc at atharterii ....... dmodum liater Jobanneo (Parutronl nobis noti6cavit . '). So .... forty years oodier Gearp Budmeo, bishop of CodiJ, while in l!aIy engaged in a discuaion on the

156

p

The Papal scandal

Similarly, the Greek words IlETOUC1looC1IS, I.\ETOUC1I00a9cn ,,!"ere coined (none too happily) at the same time to translate the LatIn te~ ~or transubstantiation, another novelty for the Greeks; and the de6nitI?n of the pope's plenitude of power (plenituJo ~otestatis) had ~ be clu~lly rendered in Greek as TO Tiis t~oUC1las 1TATJpoolla-for this concepnon toO was to the Greeks a novelty, or a srumbling-block. cc Every novelty, every innovation that they were obliged to accept heaped the scandal still higher, until it came to be known among them simply as 'the papal scandal'.

In 1261 the Byzantines recovered their capital of Constantinople. The Latin empire and the Latin patriarchate ceased to exist except in tide. But almost at once the restored Byzantine empire was faced with the threat of invasion from Italy, of a campaign for the restirution of the Latin regime which, so long as the Greeks remained in schism, could easily be qualified as a crusade. These were the political circumstance.s that dictated th~ long negotiatio~ .that led to the union of Lyons ID 1274. The basIS of those negotIatIons was a document delivered to the Byzantine emperor Michael vm by pope Clement IV in 1267. This contained a detailed profession of faith which the emperor must endorse before the pope would receive the Orthodox church and people back into the fold of Rome, thereby saving them from a crusade for the forcible salvation of their wayward souls. There were to be no discussions about matters of faith or doctrine. The pope expected the emperor simply to effect the reductio of the Greeks to Rome without further ado. U

The Byzantines understandably disliked this form of ultimatum. Their objections were clearly expressed by their patriarch Joseph in three documents of 1273: an apologia by way of a statement to the emperor,