No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The City and the Cross: the image of Constantinople and the Latin empire in thirteenth-century papal crusading rhetoric*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 January 2016
Abstract
This paper examines the way papal rhetoric made use of the image and reputation of the city of Constantinople in order to legitimise and incite support for its crusading calls for the defence of the Latin empire after 1204. A number of relevant themes that reflect the city’s temporal and religious importance are explored, such as its wealth, its relics, its imperial past and its patriarchal status as New Rome. The differences of emphasis and occasional omissions of such arguments provide insights as to what was expected to motivate the audience, while also revealing the papacy’s priorities.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies, University of Birmingham 2012
Footnotes
*
This paper is a revised and extended version of the communication presented at the International Medieval Congress at Leeds (9-12 July 2007). I would like to thank the Royal Historical Society for providing a Conference Grant on that occasion.
Abbreviations used (for editions of the papal registers):
Auvray = L. Auvray (ed.), Les Registres de Grégoire IX, 4 vols. (Paris 1896–1955).
Berger = E. Berger (ed.), Les Registres d’Innocent IV, 4 vols. (Paris 1884–1911).
Guiraud = J. Guiraud (ed.), Les Registres d’Urbain IV, 4 vols. (Paris 1892–1958).
Pressutti = P. Pressutti (ed.), Regesta Honorii papae III, 2 vols. (Rome 1888–1895).
R. I. = O. Hageneder et al. (eds.), Die Register Innocenz’ III., 8 vols, so far (Vienna 1964–).
1 Odo of Deuil, De profectione Ludovici in orientem, ed. and trans. V. Berry (New York 1948) 86/87: ‘Constantinopolis superba divitiis, moribus subdola, fide corrupta; sicut propter suas divitias omnes timet, sic est dolis et infidelitate omnibus metuenda’; cf. ibid., 62-66/63-67.
References
1 Odo of Deuil, De profectione Ludovici in orientem, ed. and trans. Berry, V. (New York 1948) 86/87 Google Scholar: ‘Constantinopolis superba divitiis, moribus subdola, fide corrupta; sicut propter suas divitias omnes timet, sic est dolis et infidelitate omnibus metuenda’; cf. ibid., 62-66/63-67.
2 Guibert of Nogent, Dei Gesta per Francos (et cinq autres textes), ed. Huygens, R. B. C. (Turnhout 1996) 103 Google Scholar: ‘Urbs enim illa, non modo sanctorum illorum monimentis excellens sed et auctoris merito et nomine pre-cluens, presertim cum ex revelatione superna ex vetustissimo oppidulo earn toti mundo spectabilem Romamque secundam fecerit, universi, si fieri posset, orbis concursu et suffragio digna fuit’; translation by Levine, R., The Deeds of God through the franks: a translation ofGuibert de Nogent’s ‘Gesta Dei per Francos’ (Woodbridge 1997) 37 Google Scholar (adapted).
3 The bibliography on the Fourth Crusade and its diversion is immense. The most recent overview of historiography is: Balard, M., ‘L’historiographie occidentale de la quatrième croisade’, in Laiou, A. (ed.), Urbs Capta. The Fourth Crusade and its consequences (Paris 2005) 161-74Google Scholar. See Queller, D. E. and Madden, T. F., The Fourth Crusade: the conquest of Constantinople, 2nd edn (Philadelphia 1997)Google Scholar; Phillips, J., The Fourth Crusade and the sack of Constantinople (London 2005)Google Scholar; and Angold, M., The Fourth Crusade: event and context (Harlow 2003)Google Scholar.
4 E.g. R. I., VIII, nos. 70 (69) (c. 25 May 1204) and 131(130) (16 August 1205).
5 Although several works touch upon this issue, there has been no systematic examination of the application of the crusade in Romania for the defence of the Latin Empire. This is the topic of my forthcoming monograph, Crusading in Frankish Greece: a study of Byzantine-Western relations and attitudes, 1204-1282 (Turnhout 2012), which is based on my PhD thesis (Crusading in Romania; Royal Holloway, University of London 2008).
6 See indicatively Riley, J.-Smith, What were the crusades? 3rd edn (Basingstoke 2002) 12–22 Google Scholar; Housley, N., Contesting the crusades (Oxford 2006) 99-121Google Scholar.
7 R. I., VII, 263, no. 153 (7 November 1204): ‘ad defendendum et retinendum Constantinopolitanum imperium, per cuius subventionis auxilium Terra sancta facilius poterit de paganorum manibus liberari [...] postquam regnum Grecorum ab obedientia sedis apostolice deviavit, de malo semper declinavit in peius, donec a superbis ad humiles, ab inobedientibus ad devotos, a scismaticis ad catholicos iusto Dei iudicio est translatum, ut per obedientie virtutem resurgat ad bonum, quod per inobedientie vitium defluxit ad malum’; trans. Andrea, A., Contemporary sources for the Fourth Crusade (Leiden 2000) 114–5Google Scholar. Cf. also R. I., VIII, nos. 70 (69), 131 (130), IX, no. 45, etc.
8 For example, by Honorius III (1216-27): Pressutti, nos. 4353, 4355, 4753-4, 4758.
9 E.g. Auvray, no. 3395 (8 December 1236): ‘Ad subveniendum imperio Constantinopolitano [...]; in cujus exterminio corpus orientalis Ecclesie in gravium frusta scismatum scinditur, ac subsidium Terre Sanete plurimum impeditur; in cujus exterminio ager dominicus diversarum heresum spinis occupatur et tribulis, et omnium Latinorum timetur periculum in partibus habitantium Orientis’. Cf. Auvray, nos. 2872, 2909, 3409, 3907, etc. For Gregory’s crusading efforts in Romania (and the introduction of the argument of heresy) see: Spence, R., ‘Gregory IX’s attempted expeditions to the Latin Empire of Constantinople: the crusade for the Union of the Latin and Greek Churches’, Journal of Medieval History 5 (1979) 163-76CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lower, M., The Barons’ Crusade: a call to arms and its consequences (Philadelphia 2005) esp. 58-157Google Scholar; see also chapter 3 of my PhD thesis and my forthcoming book (note 5, above); and Chrissis, N. G., ‘A diversion that never was: Thibaut IV of Champagne, Richard of Cornwall and Pope Gregory IX’s crusading plans for Constantinople, 1235-1239’, Crusades 9 (2010) 123-45Google Scholar.
10 Delorme, F. M., ‘Bulle d’Innocent IV en faveur de l’empire latin de Constantinople’, Archivum Franciscanum Historicum 8 (1915) 307–10Google Scholar: ‘quod per imperii prefati suceursum catholice fidei et ecclesiastice libertatis augmentum necnon Terre Sanete liberatio specialiter procurantur’; cf.Tanner, N. (ed.), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 2 vols. (London 1990) I, 295-6Google Scholar.
11 Guiraud, II (Registre Ordinaire), no. 131: ‘ut civitatem tam inclitam et famosam tamque insignem et amabilem [Romana mater ecclesia] obtineret [...] Innocentius papa tertius predecessor noster, illam imperialem urbem ad unitatem catholicam conquisivit [...] quod per imperii prefati suceursum catholice fidei et ecclesiastice libertatis augmentum necnon et Terre Sanete liberatio specialiter procurantur’.
12 See e.g.: Harris, J., Byzantium and the crusades (London 2003) 90-1Google Scholar, 100, 127-42, 146-51; idem, ‘Collusion with the infidel as a pretext for western military action against Byzantium (1180-1204)’, in S. Lambert and H. Nicholson (eds.), Languages of love and hate: conflict, communication and identity in the medieval Mediterranean (Turnhout, forthcoming); Daly, W. M., ‘Christian fraternity, the crusaders and the security of Constantinople, 1097-1204: The precarious survival of an ideal’, Mediaeval Studies 22 (1960) 43–91 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schmandt, R. H., ‘Public opinion, the Schism and the Fourth Crusade’, Diakonia 3 (1968) 284–99Google Scholar; Arbagi, M., Byzantium in Latin Eyes, 800-1204 (PhD thesis, Rutgers University 1969) 193–204 Google Scholar, 230-41 (misnumbered as 224-35[bis]).
13 Odo of Deuil, De profectione, 68-70/69-71: ‘Addebat etiam quod ipsa rem Christianitatis non habet, sed nomen, et, cum deberet per se Christianis auxilium ferre non alios prohibere, ante paucos annos imperator Antiochenum principem aggressus est expugnare. [...] Cumque deberet sumptis Christianorum copiis pagano-rum viciniam propulsare, illorum auxilio nisus est Christianos exterminare’; see also Phillips, J., ‘Odo of Deuil’s “De profectione Ludovici VII in orientem” as a source for the Second Crusade’ in Bull, M. and Housley, N. (eds.), The experience of crusading, I (Cambridge 2003) 80–95 Google Scholar at 85-90.
14 R. I., VII, 259-60, no. 152: ‘quam si civitas sancta Christianis esset cultibus restitua, cum ad confusionem perpetuam inimicorum crucis sanete Romane ecclesie terreque Ierosolimitane sese regia civitas devoveret, que tamdiu iam potenter adversaria stetit et contradixit utrique. Hec est enim, que [...] cum infidelibus ausa est sepius amicitias firmare ferales [...]; quid econtrario fecerit peregrinis, magis edocere sufficiunt in omni Latinorum gente exempla quam verba. Hec est, que in odium apostolici culminis apostolorum principis nomen audire vix poterai’; translation by Andrea, Contemporary Sources, 108 (adapted). The same arguments were used, at one point or other, by practically all the leaders of the Fourth Crusade; e.g., by Doge Enrico Dandolo: R. I., VII, no. 202. Cf. Gunther of Pairis, Hystoria Constantinopolitana, ed. Orth, P. (Hildesheim 1994) 138 Google Scholar.
15 R. I., VIII, 241, no. 132 (131): ‘presertim cum ob ecclesie tantum unitatem reformandam et Terre sanete subventionem laboremus, quorum unum eatenus pendet ex altero’.
16 Cf.Riley-Smith, J., The First Crusade and the idea of crusading (London 2003) 145 Google Scholar: ‘The Greek capital, Constantinople, was, to Robert [the Monk] and Guibert [of Nogent], owed reverence as a royal city and as an apostolic see’.
17 See e.g. Ducellier, A., ‘Une mythologie urbaine: Constantinople vue d’Occident au Moyen Âge’, Mélanges de l’école française de Rome: Moyen Age, 96/1 (1984) 405–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar, with particular emphasis on Constantinople’s relies and wealth.
18 Ciggaar, K. N., Western travellers to Constantinople. The West and Byzantium 962-1204: cultural and political relations (Leiden 1996) esp. 45–77 Google Scholar; R. Macrides, ‘Constantinople: the crusaders’ gaze’, in eadem (ed.), Travel in the Byzantine world (Aldershot 2002) 193-212; Ducellier, ‘Mythologie’, esp. 407-15. Cf. Odo of Deuil, De profectione, 70: ‘Nunc autem urbem Christianorum ditissimam expugnare possumus et ditari’.
19 Robert of Clari, La Conquête de Constantinople, ed. Lauer, P. (Paris 1924) 80-1Google Scholar [= ed. P. Noble (Edinburgh 2005) 98], par. 81: ‘mais puis que chis siecles fu estorés, si grans avoirs, ne si nobles, ne si rikes, ne fu veus, ne conquis, ne au tans Alixandre, ne au tans Charlemaine, ne devant ne aprés; ne je ne quit mie, au mien ensient, que es quarante plus rikes chités du monde eust tant d’avoir comme on trouva u cors de Constantinoble’; trans. McNeal, E. H., Robert of Clari, The Conquest of Constantinople (Toronto 1996) 101 Google Scholar. Cf. Geoffrey of Villehar-douin, La Conquête de Constantinople, ed. Farai, E., 2 vols. (Paris 1961) II, 58-60/59-61, 52/53 Google Scholar (pars. 254 and 250) and I, 130/131, 194/195 (pars. 128, 192).
20 R. I., VII, 260, no. 152: ‘apostolice sanctitati devotos vestri precipue incolas Occidentis nobiles et ignobiles [...] ad veras immensasque divitias capescendas temporales pariter et eternas salutatoribus monitis accendatis, proposita venientibus omnibus apostolica indulgentia nobis et imperio nostro aut temporaliter aut perpetuo fideliter servituris. Universis enim Deo dante sufficimus, quos nobis Christiane religionis zelus adduxerit, universos volumus simul et possumus secundum status suos varietatemque natalium et augere divitiis et hono-ribus ampliare’; emphasis my own, amending the partially misleading translation of Andrea, Contemporary sources, 110.
21 R. I., VIII, no. 70 (69); cf. no. 72 (71).
22 Wolff, R. L., ‘Mortgage and redemption of an emperor’s son: Castile and the Latin empire of Constantinople’, Speculum 29 (1954) 45–84 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, ‘The Latin empire of Constantinople, 1204-1261’, in K. M. Setton (ed.), A History of the Crusades, 6 vols. (Madison 1969-89) II, 187-233 at 225, 229.
23 Berger, no. 33: ‘que quondam opulentissima et princeps provinciarum adjacentium preminebat [...]; nunc imperio Constantinopolitano turbato pene usque ad inanitionem extremam misere ac miserabiliter est deducta’; trans. Gill, J., Byzantium and the Papacy, 1198-1400 (New Brunswick 1979) 79 Google Scholar; cf. Auvray, no. 6035.
24 For an overview of major works on relics see the introduction of Bozóky, E. and Helvétius, A.-M. (eds.), Les reliques: Objets, cultes, symboles (Turnhout 1999) 11–16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
25 Riley-Smith, Idea of Crusading, 145. See in general, Riant, P., Exuviae sacrae Constantinopolitanae, 2 vols. (Geneva 1877-1904 Google Scholar [repr. Paris 2004]); Ciggaar, Western Travellers, 47-9, 52-3, 81-2, passim; Harris, J., Constantinople: capital of Byzantium (London 2007) 15–17 Google Scholar; Ducellier, ‘Mythologie’, esp. 406-7, 411, 415-21.
26 Klein, H. A., ‘Eastern objects and western desires (relies and reliquaries between Byzantium and the West)’, DOP 58 (2004) 283–314 Google Scholar (quotation at 284); Mergiali-Sahas, S., ‘Byzantine emperors and holy relics: use and misuse of sanctity and authority’, JÖB 31 (2001) 41–60 Google Scholar. For Louis VII: Kinnamos, John, Epitome, ed. Meineke, A (Bonn 1836) 83 Google Scholar; trans. Brand, C. M., Deeds of John and Manuel Comnenus (New York 1976) 69 Google Scholar. For Amalric: William of Tyre, Historia rerum in partibus transmarinis gestarum, ed. Huygens, R. B. C. (Turnhouti 1986) 994-5Google Scholar.
27 Villehardouin, , Conquête, I, 194/195 Google Scholar (par. 192): ‘Des saintuaires ne convient mie a parler, que autant en avoit il a ice jor en la ville cum el remanant dou monde’; cf. Robert of Clari, Conquête, pars. 81-92 (ed. Lauer, 80-90; ed. Noble, 98-110).
28 See e.g. Riant, Exuviae; Klein, ‘Eastern objects’, 300-8, 313-14; M. Barber, ‘The impact of the Fourth Crusade in the West: the distribution of relics after 1204’, in Laiou, Urbs Capta, 325-34; Angold, Fourth Crusade, 227-40.
29 E.g. Gunther of Pairis, Hystoria Constantinopolitana, 177: ‘Nemo igitur fidelis aliud vel credere debet vel eciam opinari quam hoc actum esse divine gracie respectu, ut tot et tante tam celebres reliquie [...] ad nostram pervenirent ecclesiam’; cf. Otto of St. Blaise, Chronicon, in MGH SS, XX, 332 Google Scholar. See Swietek, F.R., ‘Gunther of Pairis and the Historia Constantinopolitana’, Speculum 53 (1978) 47–79 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 62-79.
30 Frolow, A., Recherches sur la déviation de la quatrième croisade vers Constantinople (Paris 1955)Google Scholar.
31 Barber, ‘Distribution’, 333; Morris, C., The papal monarchy: the western church from 1050 to 1250 (Oxford 1989) 15–16 Google Scholar, 291-3.
32 Baldwin I had already sent some relics to King Philip II Augustus of France in 1205 [ Riant, , Exuviae, II, 64 Google Scholar; Hendrickx, B., ‘Régestes des empereurs Latins de Constantinople (1204-1261/1273)’, Byzantina 14 (1988) 7-221Google Scholar at 35-6, no. 38]. Henry made several such grants: in March 1206 to his brother, Philip of Namur; in July 1207 to Simon de Beaumont; in April 1208 to Archbishop Renaud II of Lyon; and in August 1208 to the church of Liessies in Hainault [ Riant, , Exuviae, II, 74–82 Google Scholar (nos. 23, 27, 30 and 32); Hendrickx, ‘Régestes’, nos. 53, 75, 86, 87]; cf. also the relics brought to the West by Bishop Nivelon of Soissons in 1205 ( Riant, , Exuviae, II, nos. 4 Google Scholar, 15, 16, 18, 24). All these cases are directly or indirectly linked to calls for assistance (monetary or military) from the West. Cf. Klein, ‘Eastern objects’, 302, 303, 306-8.
33 Hendrickx, ‘Régestes’, nos. 191-7, 233; Riant, , Exuviae, II, nos. 59–63 Google Scholar, 79; Wolff, ‘Mortgage’, 52-3. Cf. other cases where Baldwin II donated relics to western recipients, e.g. to Count Robert of Artois, in June 1249, while at Damietta (Hendrickx, ‘Régestes’, no. 254).
34 Geary, P., Furta Sacra: thefts of relics in the central Middle Ages (Princeton 1978) 134-6Google Scholar, 40-50 at 47; Herrmann-Mascard, N., Les reliques des saints: Formation coutumière d’un droit (Paris 1975) 84–5Google Scholar, 178-82; Snoek, G. J. C., Medieval piety from relics to the Eucharist (Leiden 1995) 17–24 Google Scholar.
35 See e.g. Boiron, S., ‘Definition et statut juridique des reliques dans le droit canonique classique’, in Deuffic, J.-L. (ed.), Reliques et sainteté dans l’espace médiéval (Paris 2006) 19–31 Google Scholar; Herrmann-Mascard, Reliques, 182-9, 346-54. Cf. Snoek, Medieval piety, 10-17, 24-7.
36 Tanner, Decrees, 263 (no. 62); Barber, ‘Distribution’, 334; Herrmann-Mascard, Reliques, 100-4, 108-12, 182-9, 214-6.
37 Herrmann-Mascard, Reliques, 341-102, esp. 348-58, and 394-9; Boiron, ‘Definition et statut’, 27-31.
38 See, e. g., the report composed in the papal curia in December 1452, published in Hankins, J., ‘Renaissance crusaders: Humanist crusade literature at the age of Mehmed II’, DOP 49 (1995) 111–207 Google Scholar at 148-68 (reference to relics at 166; cf. ibid., 180, 188-9, 191).
39 See e.g. Mango, C., Byzantium. The empire of New Rome (London 1980) 207-8Google Scholar; Sherrard, P., Constantinople: iconography of a Sacred City (London 1965) 79-123Google Scholar (esp. 84-90, 94–5); Dagron, G., Naissance d’une capital: Constantinople et ses institutions de 330 à 451 (Paris 1974) 405-9Google Scholar; Alexander, P. J., ‘The strength of empire and capital as seen through Byzantine eyes’, Speculum 37 (1962) 339-57CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 346-7; Kazhdan, A. P. and Epstein, E.W., Change in Byzantine culture in the eleventh and twelfth centuries (Berkeley 1985) 255 Google Scholar (appendix, no. 35); Fenster, E., Laudes Constantinopolitanae (Munich 1968) 102 Google Scholar, 106, 109, 114-5, 121, 139, 159-60, 177, 214, 250, 284, 317, 322-3. The term was used by various authors, such as John Mauropous, Michael Psellos, George Tornikios, Niketas and Michael Choniates, Andrew Libadenos, and Joseph Bryennios.
40 E.g. R. I., VIII, 108-9, no. 64 (63): ‘Cum igitur per mirabilem imperii huius translationem ad recuperationem terre illius viam vobis Dominus dignatus fuerit aperire ac detentio huius [imperii Constantinopolitani] quasi restoratio sit illius [Terre Sanete], monemus ...’.
41 Theiner, A., Vetera monumenta historica Hungariam sacram illustrantia, 2 vols. (Rome 1859-1860) I, 102-3Google Scholar, no. 177: ‘Unde cum per subventionem ac defensionem ipsius Imperii pro certo speretur terre sanete subsidium preparan, quicumque pro reverentia lesu Christi pie suspirat ad liberationem illius, ad istius quoque defensionem debet efficaciter aspirare’.
42 See e.g. Riley-Smith, Idea of crusading, 147; Schein, S., Gateway to the Heavenly City: crusader Jerusalem and the Catholic West (1099-1187) (Aldershot 2005)Google Scholar.
43 It can be noted here, nevertheless, that the parallelism between Constantinople and Jerusalem appears to have been invoked, or at least alluded to, during the Renaissance in the context of stirring up support for an expedition against the Ottoman conquerors of the city. See: Vickers, M., ‘Mantegna and Constantinople’, The Burlington Magazine 118/883 (Oct. 1976) 680-7Google Scholar; Whitfield, J. H., ‘Mantegna and Constantinople’, The Burlington Magazine 119/886 (Jan. 1977) 41 Google Scholar; cf.Manners, I. R., ‘Constructing the image of a city: the representation of Constantinople in Christopher Buondelmonti’s Liber Insularum Archipelagi’, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 87 (1997) 72-102CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 96.
44 For Constantinople as New Rome, see e.g.: Ahrweiler, H., L’idéologie politique de l’empire byzantin, (Paris 1975) 10–13 Google Scholar, 16, 65, 110; Sherrard, Constantinople, 37-76 and lllff; Dagron, G., ‘Représentations de l’ancienne et de la nouvelle Rome dans les sources byzantines des VlIe-XIIIe siècles’, in Roma, Constantino-poli, Mosca: Da Roma alla Terza Roma (Naples 1983) 295–306 Google Scholar; idem, Naissance, 43-7; F. Dölger, ‘Rom in der Gedankenwelt der Byzantiner’, in idem, Byzanz und die europäische Staatenwelt (Ettal 1953) 70-115, esp. 83-98; Fenster, Laudes Constantinopolitanae, 20-96, 316-9, passim (see index at 377).
45 See e.g. Folz, R., L’idée d’Empire en Occident du Ve au XIVe siècle (Paris 1953) 25–35 Google Scholar, 58-63, 73-132; Canning, J., A history of medieval political thought, 300-1450 (London 1996) 67–81 Google Scholar.
46 Vitalis, Orderic, The Ecclesiastical History, ed. Chibnall, M., 6 vols. (Oxford 1969) II, 205 Google Scholar; Odo of Deuil, De profectione, 57.
47 E.g. Albert of Aachen, Historia lerosolimitana. History of the journey to Jerusalem, ed. Edgington, S. (Oxford 2007) 10 Google Scholar: ‘imperatoriam urbem Constantinopolim’; cf. Urban IV calling Constantinople ‘urbem imperialem’: Guiraud, II (Registre Ordinaire), no. 131. See also the appellation ‘urbs regia’ which, in my view, in such cases is more appropriately translated as ‘imperial’ rather than ‘royal’; e.g. Vitalis, Orderic, Ecclesiastical History, II, 203 Google Scholar; III, 65.
48 See above, note 2; cf. Alberic of Trois-Fontaines, Chronica, in MGH SS, XXIII, 882 Google Scholar: ‘Roma Secunda’.
49 Otto of Freising, Chronica swe historia de duabus civitatibus, ed. Hofmeister, A. (Hannover 1912)Google Scholar in MGH Script. Rer. Germ., XLV, 191, book IV.5: ‘regia urbs vel Neoroma’.
50 Gunther of Pairis, Hystoria Constantinopolitana, 151: ‘[Constantinus] iussit earn et ampliari loco et muris ac turribus emuniri, ecclesiis ceterisque edificiis exornari, donee in earn quam nunc habet, pulchritudinis eleganciam iuvenescens Rome similis, ut aiunt, redderetur. Unde et ipsa urbs quandoque altera Roma dicta est et terra ei adiacens hodieque Romania vocitatur’; trans. Andrea, A., The Capture of Constantinople: The Hystoria Constantinopolitana of Gunther of Pairis (Philadelphia 1997) 102 Google Scholar.
51 Guibert of Nogent, Dei Gesta per Francos, 111: ‘Si inter aecclesias toto orbe diffusas aliae pre aliis reverendam pro personis locisque merentur — pro personis inquam, dum apostolicis sedibus privilegia maiora traduntur, pro locis vero, dum regiis urbibus eadem quae personis dignitas, uti est civitas Constantinopolitana, prebetur’; translation by Levine, The Deeds of God, 42 (amended); I have translated ‘urbem regiam’ as ‘imperial city’ — see above, note 47.
52 That is to say, a general notion of ‘imperial’ status, regardless of the papacy’s rejection of the Byzantine claim on the sole Roman imperial office (on which, see the works cited above, note 45).
53 The patriarchal status of Constantinople had been declared in canon 3 of the First Council of Constantinople (381); it was repeated and extended in the — rejected by Rome — canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon (453): Tanner, , Decrees, I, 32 Google Scholar, 99-100. See in general: Dagron, Naissance, 454–87; Dvornik, F., Byzantium and the Roman Primacy (New York 1966)Google Scholar; idem, The idea of Apostolicity in Byzantium and the legend of the Apostle Andrew (Cambridge Mass. 1958); M. V. Anastos, ‘Constantinople and Rome: a survey of the relations between the Byzantine and the Roman Churches’, published as study no. VIII in idem, Aspects of the Mind of Byzantium, ed. S. Vryonis and N. Goodhue (Aldershot 2001) 1-119, esp. 11-17, 55-9; Peri, V., ‘La Pentarchia: istituzione ecclesiale (IV-VII sec.) e teoria canonico-teologica’, in Bisanzio, Roma e l’Italia nell’Alto Medioevo (Spoleto 1988) 209–311 Google Scholar; Gahbauer, F. R., Die Pentarchietheorie: ein Modell der Kirchenleitung von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart (Frankfurt 1993)Google Scholar. For Anselm’s discussions with Niketas: Anselmi Havelbergensis Dialogi, MPL, CLXXXVIII, 1139-1248 at 1214A-C; Papadakis, A., The Christian East and the rise of papacy: the church 1071-1453 AD (Crestwood NY 1994) 154-63Google Scholar, esp. 156-7. For pentarchie canons in Gratian’s Decretum (c.1140): Corpus Juris Canonici, ed. Friedberg, A., 2 vols. (Leipzig 1879-81) I, 72–76 Google Scholar (D.22); Andrea, Contemporary sources, 136 note 546.
54 Precedence of honour was always accorded to Rome; according to Orthodox ecclesiology, the rank of the other patriarchates was eventually established as follows: Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem (see e.g. Tanner, Decrees, 182). See below, notes 55 and 58, for the occasions where Innocent III acknowledged this ranking. On the post-1204 stance of the papacy towards the patriarchate of Constantinople, see also Duba, W. O., ‘The status of the patriarch of Constantinople after the Fourth Crusade’, in Beihammer, A. D., Parani, M. G. and Schabel, C. D. (eds.), Diplomatics in the eastern Mediterranean 1000-1500 (Leiden 2008) 63–91 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The present paper was initially prepared before Duba’s paper was published, but our conclusions are mostly in agreement.
55 R. I., VII, 356-7, no. 203 (21 January 1205): ‘Ecce ergo socii nostri veniunt, ut adiuvent nos, quia Grecorum ecclesia redit ad obedientiam apostolice sedis, ut eorum adiuta subsidio liberet duas eius sorores, Alexandrinam videlicet et Ierosolimitanam ecclesias, que captive tenentur sub iugo regis Egipti et invite serviunt Pharaoni. Ceterum licet quinqué sint patriarchatus in orbe, Romanus scilicet, Constantinopolitanus, Alexandrinus, Antiochenus et Ierosolimitanus’; trans. Andrea, Contemporary sources, 136.
56 R. I., VIII, 270, no. 154 (153): ‘licet Constantinopolitana ecclesia inter ceteras sit ultima tempore, ipsa tamen inter eas est precipua dignitate, ut, sicut Constantinopolis dicta est Nova Roma, sic Constantinopolitana ecclesia secunda sit a Romana prelata per matris gratiam ceteris sororibus suis privilegio dignitatis’; trans. Powell, J. M., The Deeds of Pope Innocent III (Washington 2004) 193 Google Scholar (adapted).
57 R. I., IX, 251, no. 140: ‘quia inter quator patriarchales ecclesias Antiochenam, Alexandrinam, Ierosolimitanam et Constantinopolitanam, [...] quas apostolica sedes in medio habens quasi filias amplectitur spéciales, cui eedem sunt in circuitu quasi famule obsequentes, ipsa Constantinopolitana post apostolicam sedem excellentia preminet dignitatis’ (emphasis my own).
58 Tanner, Decrees, 236: ‘Antiqua patriarchalium sedium privilegia renovantes, sacra universali synodo approbante sancimus, ut post Romanam ecclesiam, quae disponente Domino super omnes alias ordinariae potestatis obtinet principatum, utpote mater universorum Christi fidelium et magistra, Constantinopolitana primum, Alexandrina secundum, Antiochena tertium, Hierosolymitana quartum locum obtineant, servata cuilibet propria dignitate’. See Papadakis, Christian East, 208-9; Foreville, R., Latran I, II, III et Latran IV (Paris 1965) 255-6Google Scholar, 292-3.
59 R. I., VIII, 32, no. 19: ‘Prerogativa dilectionis et gratie, quant apostolica sedes exhibait ecclesie Bizanzene, cum earn in patriarchalem sedem erexit, ecclesiastice plenitudine potestatis [...] Licet autem eadem ecclesia interdum ab obedientia sedis apostolica declinant, quia tamen ad earn per Dei gratiam humiliter est reversa, tuis precibus annuentes eandem ecclesiam, cui Deo actore preesse dinosceris, sub beati Petri et nostra protectione suscipimus’ (emphasis my own). Cf. Duba, ‘Status’, 77-8.
60 E.g. R. I., VIII, 130, no. 71 (70); IX, no. 148.
61 E.g. R. I., VIII, 39, no. 26; and no. 154 (153); MPL, CCXVI, 902-3, no. 105.
62 Duba, ‘Status’, 72, 78-83.
63 Berger, no. 22: ‘consideramus [...] confusionis (sic) Apostolice Sedis et totius Christianitatis opprobrium ac nostrum detrimentum, cum status noster ab imperio dependeat memorato, si (quod absit) pro necessariorum defectu Christiane dignitatis et religionis honorem, recedente catholico defensore de illis partibus, aboleri con-tingeret et prefati statum imperii immutari’ (emphasis my own); Berger no. 6829 (instructions for the preaching of a crusade in defence of the Latin empire): ‘per imperil prefati succursum catholice fidei et ecclesiastice libertatis augmentům specialiter procurantur’.
64 Tanner, Decrees, 295: ‘quia tarnen ecclesiae corpus ex membri causa cari, videlicet imperii praefati caren-tia, notam probrosae deformitatis incurreret, et sustineret debilitatis dolendae jacturam’. Cf. the crusade bull Inter cetera desiderabilia, in Delorme, ‘Bulle d’Innocent IV’, 309; and Berger, no. 6829.
65 R. I., VII, 261, no. 152: ‘in civitate Constantinopolitana veteribus honorata conciliis vestra paternitas generale concilium convocarci beatissime persone vcstre presentia confirmandum novamque Romam veteri couniret sanctionibus sacris ac perpetuo valituris’; trans. Andrea, Contemporary sources, 110 (adapted).