Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-hgkh8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T13:59:07.527Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Changing perspectives on 1054

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2016

J. R. Ryder*
Affiliation:
Wolfson College, Oxford

Abstract

In 2005, Tia Kolbaba published an article in Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies entitled ‘On the closing of the churches and the rebaptism of Latins: Greek perfidy or Latin slander?’ In it she argued that reports of Greek closure of Latin churches and rebaptism of Latins in the early 1050s were fabricated. This is in line with a strand of scholarship which plays down the provocative aspects of Greek activity in precipitating the crisis of 1054. This paper argues against that strand of scholarship, insisting instead that the sources contain sufficient evidence to indicate that Greek behaviour can indeed be interpreted as provocative.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies, University of Birmingham 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 BMGS 29/1 (2005), 39-51.

2 Kolbaba, ‘Closing of the churches’, 40-2.

3 Kolbaba, ‘Closing of the churches’, 42-8.

4 First published 2002; 2nd edn. (Köln, Weimar,Vienna 2004), used here.

5 Bayer, Spaltung der Christenheit, 63.

6 See esp. Michel, A., Humbert und Kerullarios: Quellen und Studien zum Schisma des 11. Jhs (Paderborn 1925, 1930)Google Scholar. A notable exception to this approach, other than the English treatments dealt with in this article, is Petrucci, E., ‘Rapporti di Leone IX con Constantinopoli’, Studi Medievali, Series 3, 14 (1973) 733831 Google Scholar, which frequently prefigures points made by Smith and Kolbaba.

7 See e.g. Bayer, A.Das sogannante Schisma von 1054’, in Bruns, P. (ed.), Vom Schisma zu den Kreuzzügen, 1054-1204 (Paderborn 2005) 2639 Google Scholar, at 27-30.

8 http://www.pbw.kcl.ac.uk. Thanks are due to the Leventis Foundation for funding my work as postdoctoral researcher on the project.

9 Smith, M. H., And Bread, Taking. Cerularius and the Azyme Controversy of 1054 (Paris 1978)Google Scholar.

10 Kolbaba, ‘Closing of the churches’, 41; Smith, And Taking Bread, 119-21.

11 Will, C., Acta et scritta quae de controversiis ecclesia graecae et latinae saeculo undecimo composita extant (Leipzig/Marburg 1861) 154 Google Scholar, col. A, ll. 9-13.

12 Will, Acta et scripta, 76, col. B, ll. 33-36; 80, col. B, l. 36-p. 81, col. A, l. 1. This letter was probably never sent, being replaced by a second, shorter, less critical letter (Will, Acta et scripta, 89–92). See esp. Krause, H.-G., ‘Das Constitumm Constantini im Schisma von 1054’, in Mordek, H. (ed.), Aus Kirche und Reich: Studien zu Theologie, Politik und Recht im Mittelalter (Sigmaringen 1983), 131-58Google Scholar.

13 Will, Acta et scripta, 126, col. B, l. 13-16.

14 Michel, Humbert und Keroullarios, I, Section III passim.

15 For various approaches to this, see Bayer, Spaltung der Christenheit, 84-6.

16 Smith, And Taking Bread, 39, with note 33.

17 Particularly Krause: see Krause, H.-G., ‘Über den Verfasser der Vita Leonis IX papae’, Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters 32/1 (1976) 54 Google Scholarf, note 22.

18 Tinnefeid, for example, argues that Michel’s conclusions are still valid, but emphasises that they are not intended to rule out Leo IX’s involvement. Tinnefeld, F., ‘Michael I. Kerullarios, Patriarch von Konstantinopel (1043-1058). Kritische Überlegungen zu einer Biographie’. JOB 39 (1989) 95127 Google Scholar, at 105 n. 66.

19 Kolbaba, ‘Closing of the churches’, 40.

20 Will, Acta et scripta, 177, col. A, ll. 5-7.

21 Even on the subject of the legates’ authenticity, where Peter is normally seen as sympathetic to Keroularios, it is possible that there is an ironic undertone. Keroularios described the legates to Peter as imposters working on behalf of Keroularios’ enemy, Argyros; the letters they bore were, according to him, forgeries perpetrated by Argyros. Both Smith and Petrucci argue that Keroularios genuinely thought this, and quite reasonably so; and that Peter evidently agreed with Keroularios. But Peter’s comments on this point are not worded as unambiguously as Petrucci and Smith believe: while commiserating, he expresses great surprise about what Keroularios has told him, wondering in hyperbole what Argyros could possibly have hoped to gain from this. See Will, Acta et scritta, 189-90.

22 See Michel, , Humbert und Kerullarios, I. 446-54Google Scholar and idem ‘Die Botschaft Petros’ III. von Antiocheia an seine Stadt über seine Ernennung’, BZ 38 (1938) 111-18.

23 Kolbaba, ‘Closing of the churches’, 41-2.

24 See Holtzmann, W., ‘Die Unionsverhandlungen zwischen Kaiser Alexios I. und Papst Urban II. im Jahre 1089’, BZ 28 (1928) 3867 Google Scholar.

25 Holtzmann, ‘Unionsverhandlungen’, 62-4.

26 Kolbaba, ‘Closing of the churches’, 41, with n. 11.

27 See Bayer, Spaltung der Christenheit, 113-16.

28 Kolbaba, ‘Closing of the churches’, 39 and 40.

29 Kolbaba, ‘Closing of the churches’, 39.

30 Kolbaba, ‘Closing of the churches’, 48.

31 Kolbaba, ‘Closing of the churches’, 42.

32 Kolbaba, ‘Closing of the churches’, 42-3.

33 Kolbaba, ‘Closing of the churches’, 43-5.

34 Kolbaba, ‘Closing of the churches’, 45-6.

35 Keroularios’ list of anti-Latin accusations mentions baptism by single immersion. Will, Acta et scripta, 182, col. A, ll. 9-12.

36 Kolbaba, ‘Closing of the churches’, 47-8.

37 Kolbaba, ‘Closing of the churches’, 47.

38 Kolbaba, ‘Closing of the churches’, 48.

39 See Will, Acta et scripta, 190-3.

40 That is, the issue of whether leavened or unleavened bread (azymes) should be used for the Eucharist. The Latins used unleavened bread (but generally accepted that leaven was also valid), while influential circles in the east were seeking to impose universal use of leaven. This was not just an east-west issue, since groups in the east, most notably the Armenians (see below), also used unleavened bread. The exchange of letters between Keroularios and Peter of Antioch hints at considerable diversity: Keroularios regarded Peter of Antioch as a sound ‘anti-azymite’, and asked Peter to inquire into practices in Alexandria and Jerusalem, where, according to Keroularios, the patriarchs not only tolerated azymite practices but also participated in them themselves. Will, Acta et scritta, 179.

41 See esp. Smith, And Taking Bread, 40.

42 Although the exact details are far from clear. See Avvakumov, G., Die Entstehung des Unionsgedankens. Die lateinische Theologie des Hochmittelalters in der Auseinandersetzung mit dem Ritus der Ostkirche (Munich 2002) 4649 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

43 See Avvakumov, Entstehung des Unionsgedankens, 83-5, which points particularly to the necessity for further research. Above all, when Byzantine anti-Armenian polemic developed is not clear. Smith develops a thesis that the Armenian side of the dispute was established well before the controversy with the Latins, and that the Greek polemicists of 1054 were drawing on already-assembled material (Smith, And Taking Bread, passim). This may be true, but it is not strongly supported as presented: the collections Smith considers early are generally regarded as later compilations. See Avvakumov’s catalogue of anti-azyme polemics from the 11th—13th centuries, Entstehung des Unionsgedankens, 91-103.

44 In Niketas’ case, various versions of similar texts are known; two are published together as the ‘Dialexis’ and ‘Antidialogue’, in Michel, , Humbert und Keroullarios, II, 298342 Google Scholar. For Leo of Ochrid, the central text is his letter to John of Trani (see below), but two other letters are also known. The attribution of the third letter is debated. See Avvakumov, Entstehung des Unionsgedankens, 97.

45 Smith, And Taking Bread, 108.

46 Smith, And Taking Bread, 86f, 121-4. See also above, note 22.

47 Smith, And Taking Bread, 86.

48 Smith, And Taking Bread, 39-45.

49 Text in Will, Acta et scripta, 51-64.

50 On this, see esp. Petrucci, ‘Rapporti’, 751-9.

51 Smith, And Taking Bread, 54.

52 A point made most forcefully by Avvakumov, Entstehung des Unionsgedankens, 68-74.

53 ‘sacellarius ipsius Michaelis, Constantinus, qui Latinorum sacrificium profanis conculcavit pedibus’. Will, Acta et scritta, 154, col. B, ll. 11-13.

54 Will, Acta et scritta, 172-84.

55 Will, Acta et scritta, 177, col. A, ll. 29-35.

56 For example, Keroularios and his associates are accused of ‘castrating their guests and making them priests or even bishops, like the Valesians’. Will, Acta et scripta, 153, col. В, l. 4–6.

57 Runciman is particularly dismissive of the charges made in the Excommunication ( Runciman, S., The Eastern Schism [Oxford 1955] 48 Google Scholar). However, the extended body of documentation from the controversies often sheds much light upon the way in which the specific charges in the Excommunication should be read.

58 This point is central to the arguments of Leo of Ochrid and Niketas Stethatos.

59 Smith, And Taking Bread, 121-2.

60 Smith, And Taking Bread, 122-3.

61 Michel, , Humbert und Keroullarios, ll, 322 Google Scholar, ll. 16-20.

62 See above, note 40.

63 Will, Acta et scripta, 172-84.

64 Will, Acta et scripta, 208-228,

65 αλλων ‘Ρωμαικων σφαλμάτων: Will, Acta et scripta, 179, col. A, ll. 24–7.

66 Will, Acta et scripta, 179-83.

67 Will, Acta et scripta, 177, col. A, ll. 22-178, col. A, l. 8.

68 See Tinnefeld, ‘Michael I. Keroularios’, passim.

69 See, for example, references from Michael Psellos’ (Michael 61) writings to Keroularios for the years 1054 onwards: ‘Michael 11’, Prosopography of the Byzantine World http://www.pbw.kcl.ac.uk 2006.2, accessed 9 September 2009. Psellos’ comments need to be treated with circumspection, taking into account both literary genre and Psellos’ personal involvement in events; but they nevertheless illustrate the kind of controversy surrounding Keroularios.

70 Something played down by Petrucci, who refuses to believe that Keroularios was motivated by concerns about the future of patriarchal authority in southern Italy in the event of a successful Byzantine-papal alliance against the Normans. Petrucci (1973) 767. On the situation in southern Italy, see Louth, A., Greek East and Latin West: The Church AD 681-1071 (New York 2007) 305-8Google Scholar.

71 Will, Acta et scripta, 178, col. A, l. 21-p. 179, col. A, l. 4.

72 This might explain Keroularios’ comment to Peter of Antioch: would that it [the bull of Excommunication] had never reached him (Will, Acta et scripta, 186, col. A, 1. 33-35): Keroularios’ comment may perhaps have been more than simply a pious exclamation, instead an expression of genuine annoyance at being forced to respond. I am grateful to Professor Michael Jeffreys for bringing this passage particularly to my attention. This reading might also shed some light on the letter of Leo of Ochrid itself. Keroularios himself denied outright writing any letter to the pope or any other western bishop (Acta et scripta, 179 ll. 27-33): perhaps the reaction it provoked in the west also interfered with his methods, and Keroularios’ protestations should be understood as either a) genuine or b) genuine irritation that a direct link had been made with his name.

73 And does seem to have assumed he had the right to impose Constantinopolitan norms upon them: writing to Peter of Antioch about ‘azymite’ deviations in Jerusalem and Alexandria, he clearly considers he has the right to dictate to those sees. See Will, Acta et scripta, 188.

74 See also Erickson, J. H., ‘Leavened and unleavened: some theological implications of the Schism of 1054’, St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 14 (1970) 324 Google Scholar.