Download PDF | [Orthodox Christianity and Contemporary Thought] George E. Demacopoulos - Colonizing Christianity_ Greek and Latin Religious Identity in the Era of the Fourth Crusade (Fordham University Press, 2019).
193 Pages
This series consists of books that seek to bring Orthodox Christianity into an engagement with contemporary forms of thought. Its goal is to promote (1) historical studies in Orthodox Christianity that are interdisciplinary, employ a variety of methods, and speak to contemporary issues; and (2) constructive theological arguments in conversation with patristic sources and that focus on contemporary questions ranging from the traditional theological and philosophical themes of God and human identity to cultural, political, economic, and ethical concerns. The books in the series explore both the relevancy of Orthodox Christianity to contemporary challenges and the impact of contemporary modes of thought on Orthodox self-understandings.
INTRODUCTION
his book began as (and remains) a thought experiment. Its animating question is what happens if we apply the resources of colonial and postcolonial critique to texts about Christian difference that were produced in the context of the Fourth Crusade? It proposes that treating the Fourth Crusade as a colonial experience helps us to understand more fully the ways in which Latin Christians authorized the subjugation of Greek Christians, the establishment of Latin settlement in the Christian East, and the exceptional degree of resource extraction—both material and religious— from the region. It also explores in detail the ways in which the experience of colonial subjugation not only transformed the way that Eastern Christians viewed themselves and the Western Christian Other but also how the same experience opened permanent fissures within the Orthodox community, which struggled to develop a consistent response to aggressive demands for submission to the Roman Church. This internal fracturing has done more lasting damage to the modern Orthodox Church than any material act perpetrated by the crusaders.
This book is not a history of the Fourth Crusade. Nor does it propose to be any kind of comprehensive study of Eastern Christian/ Western Christian relations during the Middle Ages. In these regards, historiographers are likely to be disappointed. Rather, Colonizing Christianity offers a close reading of a handful of texts from the era of the Fourth Crusade in the hope of illuminating the mechanisms by which Western Christians authorized and exploited the Christian East and, concurrently, the ways in which Eastern Christians understood and responded to this dramatic shift in political and religious fortunes.
Although the book employs methodological resources that might appear unconventional, even esoteric to some readers, the argument of the book is straightforward. Namely, Colonizing Christianity maintains that the statements of Greek and Latin religious polemic that emerged in the context of the Fourth Crusade should be interpreted as having been produced in a colonial setting and, as such, reveal more about the political, economic, and cultural uncertainty of communities in conflict than they offer genuine theological insight. Given that it was in the context of the Fourth Crusade— and not the so-called Photian Schism of the ninth century, the so-called Great Schism of 1054, or any other period of ecclesiastical controversy— that Greek and Latin apologists developed the most elaborate condemnations of one another, it behooves historians (and those who care about Christian unity) to investigate anew the conditions that give rise to the most deliberate efforts to forbid Greek and Latin sacramental unity in the Middle Ages and to ask whether those arguments reveal genuine theological insight or simply convey political or cultural animosity in the guise of theological disputation.
The Fourth Crusade: A Very Quick History
There is, of course, no shortage of scholars who have studied the crusades either as a whole or individually.’ Indeed, new books about the Fourth Crusade or the subsequent Latin Empire of Byzantium appear regularly.’ In the chapters that follow, we will explore a variety of historical events and personalities in detail but, for now, we can sketch the general historical parameters of the Fourth Crusade, even though it is a rather complex story.
When Pope Innocent III ascended Peter’s throne in 1198, he almost immediately began planning for what was supposed to be the largest crusade to date.* Whereas many previous expeditions had been bogged down by proceeding along a land route through Central Europe and Byzantium, Innocent and the crusade leaders devised a plan to contract with the Republic of Venice and to set sail for Egypt, hoping to march from Egypt to Jerusalem. This was an expensive undertaking and Innocent did something no previous pope had done, which was to levy a tax against every diocese in the Christian West. But Innocent’s plans were stymied from the start—not only was he unable to raise the number of soldiers that he had hoped, but he and the crusade leaders also failed to obtain sufficient funding to meet their contractual arrangement with the Venetians. The Venetians refused to acquiesce without payment.
Against Innocent’s explicit warnings, the Venetians and the crusaders hatched a plan wherein the soldiers would lay siege to the Christian city of Zara (a break-away Venetian colony on the coast of modern-day Croatia) and the Venetians would agree to accept a delayed payment on the debt owed to them. Pope Innocent III had previously demanded that the crusaders not attack any Christian city. Furious with what had happened, Pope Innocent excommunicated the crusade leaders and all of their soldiers and sailors. It looked like the entire project might fall apart.
Meanwhile in Constantinople, in 1195, the Byzantine emperor, Isaac I Angelos was deposed, blinded, and imprisoned by his brother, Alexius III, in a palace coup. Isaac’s son, the eventual Alexius IV, managed to escape the city and in 1201 made his way to the West where he took shelter with his sister and brother-in-law, Philip of Swabia, one of the eventual leaders of the Fourth Crusade. Upon his arrival, the younger Alexius, attempted to convince Philip and other Western aristocrats to help him restore his father’s throne. But it was not until the ill-fated expedition to Zara and the uncertainty that it unleashed that Alexius was able to convince the crusade leadership to support his claim in Constantinople. But that support also came with a price—Alexius not only promised the crusade leaders a significant monetary payment, but he also promised to provide soldiers for their eventual attack on Egypt.
Despite the repeated warnings of further papal condemnation, the crusaders arrived on the outskirts of Constantinople in June of 1203. After a few weeks of sparring on the plains outside of the city and at the city’s harbor walls, Alexius III took flight in the middle of the night and the Byzantine aristocracy decided to restore the aged and blind Isaac II to the throne. By August, Alexius IV was crowned coemperor and he began the process of paying his debts to the crusaders. Alexius IV soon proved unable to provide everything that he promised and the crusaders grew frustrated with their situation.” When Alexius IV was murdered in yet another palace coup, the crusaders decided to take matters into their own hands.
On April 13, 1204, the crusaders defeated a demoralized Byzantine guard and seized the city for themselves. The scale of looting and rapine that is said to have followed is unlike anything else in the Orthodox Christian imagination.° The surprise and extent of the plunder deeply alienated local attitudes toward the Latins. But perhaps of equal importance to the present study is the fact that the crusaders transformed the very structure of Byzantine society by seizing control of both church and state and by often imposing a Western feudal structure throughout the Balkans that would serve as a beachhead for further Frankish and papal aspirations in the Christian East.
As we will see in the chapters that follow, the Franks carved the Byzantine Empire into a series of lesser kingdoms, principalities, duchies, and fiefdoms. Although remnants of the Byzantine political power would coalesce in independent Greek successor states—in Nicaea, in Epiros, and in Trebizond—those successor states were as likely to war with one another as they were to resist the crusaders. And, as we will see, in a great number of places, including Thrace, Thessaly, and the especially the Peloponnese, local Greek aristocrats were just as likely to swear allegiance to Frankish lords as they were to fight under the banner of the Greek leaders of Epiros or Nicaea. Even though the Nicaeans were able to reclaim Constantinople and its immediate vicinity in 1261, some of the Frankish and Venetian colonies lasted longer in the eastern Mediterranean than the Byzantine Empire, which ended in 1453.’
Not to be lost in this brief sketch of events are the efforts of Pope Innocent III and his successors to use the capture of Constantinople in 1204 as a means to govern the Greek Church on the papacy’s own terms. As we will see in Chapter 3, Innocent was quick to pardon the sins of the crusaders when he learned of the startling turn of events of 1204. And, as we will see in several chapters, the efforts of the Roman Church to force subservience to the papacy were met with stiff resistance not only from some of the indigenous Greek population but also from Frankish leaders in the East who were typically willing to tolerate religious independence of their subjects so long as that did not translate into political or economic independence.® Indeed, the interplay and tension between the expectations of those who remained in the West versus the reality of shared experience of Franks and Greeks in the East is one of the most fascinating dynamics of the history of the Latin Empire of Byzantium. But an even more important dynamic of Greek religiosity in the wake of the Fourth Crusade—and, frankly one of the reasons that postcolonial analysis is so appropriate to this history—is that the Greek Church fractured internally with respect to how best to respond to the demands placed upon it by Innocent II and his successors.
The Crusades as Colonialism and the Use of Postcolonial Critique
In his extensive introduction, Postcolonialism: A Historical Introduction, Robert Young boldly asserts that the “colonial” era belongs exclusively to the period between 1492 and 1945 and that it is structurally distinctive from imperialism.’ In large part, this insistence is grounded in a commitment to a very specific set of contemporary political and economic causes, all of which relate to the aftereffects of the decolonial process in Africa, Asia, and South America.'” And, in this way, Young’s assertions about the technical categories of colonialism, decolonialism, and postcolonialism reflect many of the assumptions of the most influential postcolonial theorists of the twentieth century, including Fanon, Said, Spivak, and Bhabha."
While a framework that situates colonialism strictly within the confines of Western European settlement in the tricontinental region in the age after Columbus may help to illuminate current political and economic structural injustices, there are substantial historical reasons for seeing the crusades as an essential precursor of later European colonial networks, if not an actual expression of colonialism as defined by Young and others.’? Indeed, some of the very characteristics that Young associates with the distinctiveness of colonization vis-a-vis imperialism—its peripheral nature, its economic emphasis, and its moral justification—were essential to the early crusader kingdoms in the eastern Mediterranean. As we will see in many chapters of this book, these aspects of colonialism were definitively operative for the Franks and Venetians who occupied Byzantium during the thirteenth century.
Given the fragmented nature of medieval political structures, including those of the Roman Church, it would be a gross mischaracterization to suggest that the Frankish involvement in various crusading expeditions was some kind of centralized expansion of authority (i-e., what Young labels “imperialism”). Even Venice, which did conduct its business in a more coherent and directed fashion, developed a system of operation in the Orient that was based upon trading partnerships rather than imperialism. What is more, the development of deposit and merchant banking (critical preconditions for colonial and modern capitalism) underwent key structural changes during the crusade era in order to fund expeditions and to accommodate the financial needs of soldiers in the crusader colonies. Even some Byzantine authors described Western settlers and merchants in the East as “colonists.”!> In sum, there are a great number of reasons to view the crusades as a kind of protocolonial endeavor that served as a model for subsequent European colonial expansion.
Perhaps just as important as the structural patterns of colonial activity, an analysis of thirteenth-century crusade discourse indicates a series of key components of a subsequent colonial discourse. For example, several chapters in Colonizing Christianity will investigate the ways that our texts attempt to counter those Western European voices who were critical of the (colonial) endeavor.'* Moreover, we will see how other aspects of crusader discourse, including orientalism and sexuality, anticipate the colonial discourse of later centuries. In short, there is little doubt that the Western European experience in the eastern Mediterranean from the eleventh century onward provided both the conceptual and the practical models for the European colonial expansion to the tricontinental regions in subsequent eras.”
As early as the 1970s, the eminent crusade historian Joshua Prawer was arguing that the best way to understand the crusades was to see them within the framework of subsequent European colonialism.'® Prawer, like all successful historians, spurred a number of responses and revisions but his willingness to treat the crusades as a colonial encounter has had a profound impact not only on the scholarship of the crusades, but on scholarship of the Middle Ages more generally.'? For example, it is now customary for elite scholars of Byzantine history such as Averil Cameron and Anthony Kaldellis to describe the Fourth Crusade as a colonial encounter.'® And, perhaps even more significantly, Kaldellis and Cameron have also turned to some of the insights of postcolonial critique to identify inherent biases such as “orientalisms” in Western historiography about Byzantium.” In this way, they follow other scholars of the Middle Ages who have successfully appropriated postcolonial critique to illuminate medieval encounters and discourses of Otherness.”
As much as possible, this book will seek to avoid an overly technical or overly theoretical use of postcolonial analysis. Rather, by framing the events of the Fourth Crusade as a kind of colonial encounter, it will draw from some of the basic insights of postcolonial critique to look in new ways at the discourse of Orthodox/Roman Catholic difference that took its mature form in the thirteenth century. As such, one of the most important conclusions of this study is that the development of the most vitriolic statements of Orthodox/Catholic religious polemic in the Middle Ages were based in political and cultural alienation, not theological development.”! Not only is this an important historical insight, it has genuine significance for those in the present day who are concerned with the cause of Christian unity.
Put another way, this book is designed to be something of a three-way bridge between ecclesiastical historians who adhere to more traditional historical-critical methods; scholars who believe that the resources of critical theory (including discourse analysis and postcolonial analysis) have much to offer our understanding of the past; and theologians and Christian leaders who believe that an honest accounting of history is directly relevant to the contemporary Church. To these ends, the initial chapters will engage a variety of well-tread postcolonial insights to ease the reader into the ideas and opportunities offered by postcolonial scholarship. Later chapters will delve into more complicated categories of analysis, such as ambivalence and hybridity, and engage individual theorists, like Homi Bhabha and Robert Young, to offer deeper layers of investigation.
At this point, allow me to identify three aspects of postcolonial insight upon which this book will frequently turn. First, drawing upon Edward Said’s contention that the “Orient” functions for Western authors as an epistemological system of representations that originates within the political, cultural, and economic imagination of the West,” several chapters will explore the dimensions of colonial discourse of crusader texts that sexualized the encounter with the Greek East, and authorized and/or celebrated its conquest. In other words, when the crusaders and bishops of Rome wrote about the Christian East in ways that licensed its domination, the Christian East they described was largely a construction of the Western imagination that served narrative and rhetorical purposes. It was never an objective accounting of Eastern Christian people or Eastern Christian theology.
Second, I will frequently draw upon Said’s contention that there is an intrinsic link between sexuality and the colonial condition, not only in terms of the power dimensions intrinsic to military conquest but also in the wide variety of narrative formulae employed by Western authors, including sexual fantasy, sexual threat, and the emasculation of Eastern men.*> Some scholars of Byzantium, such as Charis Messis, have begun to identify the ways in which anti-Greek religious polemics in the period relied upon accusations of Eastern effeminacy.”* I will take this analysis further (and include concerns over the production of “hybrid” children) to show how Latin and Greek authors in the era of the Fourth Crusade fixated on issues of sexual politics not only to authorize colonial exploitation but also to resist it. As we will see, the production of children of “mixed race,” which resulted from Latin settlement in the East, generated a great deal of concern but few consistent responses from writers of the period.
Third, an important insight of postcolonial critique concerns the question of whether or not a discursive opportunity exists for a colonized community.” In other words, does a community in a colonial or postcolonial condition possess its own, distinctive epistemic possibilities or are those possibilities forever framed by the shadow of its master? As we will see, through complicated and overlapping responses of acquiescence, assimilation, and resistance, Greek authors in the era of the Fourth Crusade not only renegotiated the boundaries of their political and religious communities, they simultaneously (but not always consistently) recalibrated ethical priorities in order to account for both the practical and the conceptual realities of Western settlers and the heavy hand of the Roman Church. Not only was the Orthodox narration of Self and Other that resulted an innovative narration, this narration varied considerably, with each voice longing in its own way for a return to the before. The fourth and fifth chapters, especially, will look at the ways by which Eastern Christian identity narratives not only account for the Latin Other but indirectly recognize the formation of ecclesiastical factionalism animated by alternative responses to the Western Christian Other.
Building on this final aspect of postcolonial critique, let me conclude my methodological overview with the recognition that we should not treat a society like Byzantium as a typical colonial “subaltern.” Although the term “subaltern” originated in a different analytical context, during the 1970s postcolonial theorists began to apply it to those peripheral populations whose lives were governed by hegemonic colonial power structures beyond their control.° For many theorists, one of the great tragedies of the colonial condition is the fact that the subaltern is so marginalized in the world of the colonial master that they come to embrace the colonizer’s outlook, including the notion that the colonizing civilization is more “advanced” or “modern” than the indigenous one.*”? While this phenomenon might adequately describe many examples of early-modern colonialism, it does not reflect the Byzantine situation in the wake of the Fourth Crusade, at least not without considerable clarification.
Unlike most of the tricontinental societies colonized by Western European powers in the early-modern era, Byzantium was a more “advanced” civilization than its colonial masters (i.e., the petty baronies of the Western Europe). It was not only more culturally sophisticated in terms of its art, literature, and politics, it was also the most powerful and most wealthy state in the Christian world. To be sure, it had fallen on hard times, but it was within living memory that the emperor Manuel II had manipulated the kings of Europe like pawns as he bought them off with his superior wealth.** Indeed, Byzantium had been until very recently the gold standard of Christian empire and Christian society. It is no wonder that Western leaders had, since the time of Charlemagne, aspired to see themselves as the equals of the Byzantines. The uniqueness of the Byzantine/crusader dynamics requires us to think carefully about the ways in which postcolonial critique does and does not prove fruitful in our analysis of the Fourth Crusade. Among other things, we must be cognizant of the fact that the Byzantine sense of cultural and religious superiority did not simply evaporate with the arrival of the crusaders. Moreover, we must also be alert to the fact that the crusader experience in Byzantium was rather different than what the British may have experienced in India centuries later.
Nevertheless, it is precisely because of these dynamics that a postcolonial examination of the texts surrounding the Fourth Crusade offers so much potential, not only for understanding the events and the transformation of Orthodox/Catholic religious identity, but also for understanding how a key example of premodern colonialism largely does (but partially does not) map onto the templates of subsequent colonial, decolonial, and postcolonial experiences. In Chapters 4 and 5, especially, we will explore how Greek authors in the wake in the Fourth Crusade never cede cultural, political, or religious superiority to the “barbarians” of the West but, at the very same time, these same authors desperately seek to narrate what it means to be Orthodox and Byzantine in the wake of the cataclysmic events of 1204. Indeed, these chapters demonstrate that the conditions, experience, and destructiveness of colonialism are powerfully operative in a society even when the elite members of that society appear to maintain an air of indignation and superiority.
The Chapters That Follow
In each of the chapters that follow, I connect what the text says about the Christian “Other” to the colonial, decolonial, or postcolonial conditions that frame the perspective. Each chapter focuses on a different author, typically a single text, and my choice of texts has been carefully selected so that I can engage as many different genres of medieval Christian writing as possible, including chronicle, hagiography, epistolary, and canonical interpretation. Chapters 1, 2, 3, and 6 engage texts that supported the Fourth Crusade in one way or another. Chapters 4 and 5 scrutinize Greek texts that provide alternative positions vis-a-vis the Roman Church in the wake of the Fourth Crusade.
Chapter 1 explores The Conquest of Constantinople by Robert de Clari, which is the lone surviving firsthand account of the Fourth Crusade composed by a rank-and-file Frankish soldier who participated in the endeavor. Chapter 2 examines the Hystoria Constantinopolitana by Gunther of Pairis, which is a hagiography celebrating the theft of Constantinopolitan religious treasure. Chapter 3 turns to the correspondence of Pope Innocent II, his interlocutors, and his successors in order to understand more fully the conditions that gave rise to the first papal pronouncements asserting that Greek theological error was so egregious that it warranted violence, occupation, and larceny. As we will see, that determination came only after the siege of Constantinople in 1204, and it was used to authorize new violence against those Greeks who refused to accept the authority of the Roman bishop. But we will also observe and interrogate the ways in which this discursive turn conveyed a deep ambivalence.
Chapters 4 and 5 turn to two very different kinds of Greek texts. Chapter 4 explores a pair of canonical opinions written by Demetrios Chomatianos, the archbishop of Ohrid in the 1220s. These texts draw sharp sacramental boundaries not only between Greek and Latin Christians, but more notably, between Greek Christians who hold differing opinions about the standing of Latins within the Church. Chomatianos opined, for the first time in history, that Greek Christians who failed to acknowledge the threat posed by Latin Christians should be barred from the sacramental rites of the Orthodox community. Chapter 5 explores aspects of George Akropolites’s History, which was a chronicle of the Byzantine successor state in Nicaea covering the years 1204—61. More than anything else, what we learn from Akropolites with respect to the concerns of this investigation is that there were a great number of Greek Christians who did not believe that the Latin Church should be sacramentally isolated from the Greek Church even if the Latins were an inferior race and their presence in the East had caused devastation to the Byzantine community.
Perhaps it is in Chapter 6, with an analysis of The Chronicle of Morea, where we find some of the most intriguing aspects of the colonial encounter of the Fourth Crusade. Although it has a very complicated textual history, The Chronicle of Morea tells the multigenerational story of the Frankish Villehardouin dynasty, which ruled the Peloponnese in the centuries after the conquest of 1204. This text reveals not only the way that colonizer and colonized eventually came to work alongside one another but also the way that the prolonged encounter between Greeks and Franks transformed the means by which both understood their sense of identity and religious commitments. It is precisely because of these aspects of this text—and the others on offer—that the insights of postcolonial analysis help us to understand the many complexities that they convey.
A Note about Translations and Terminology
Because this study is meant to reach an audience well beyond experts in the crusades or Byzantine ecclesiastical history, I have made every effort possible to put my analysis to texts that already have printed English translations. This was mostly but not entirely possible. At present, there is no English translation of Demetrios Chomatianos (the subject of Chapter 4), and while most of the papal letters referenced in Chapter 3 have an English translation, not all of them do. Wherever possible, references in the notes point to both the primary language edition and the modern English translation.
All scholars of “Byzantium” are confronted with the challenge of what to do about political and cultural nomenclature when they write about their field. As is generally well known, the “Byzantines” never self-described as Byzantines and they only very rarely referred to themselves as Greeks, Graeci. The inhabitants of the medieval Eastern Roman Empire always described themselves as Romans. The Latin term “Greek,” Graeci, was typically employed by Westerners as a derogatory term designed to undermine the East Roman claim of Roman-ness. For a variety of reasons well explained by Anthony Kaldellis in his magisterial Hellenism in Byzantium, the Byzantines began to (re-)appropriate the category of “Hellene” at roughly the same time as the crusades, but the reader should understand that their appropriation of “Hellene” was, to their understanding, very different from the Latin smear of Graeci.”°
Today, most scholars as well as popular opinion regularly use the terms “Byzantine” and “Byzantium” to refer to the post-Constantinian Eastern Roman Empire. Those words were first routinely employed by nineteenthcentury Western European historians who sought to differentiate the “real” Roman Empire from what was, to their minds, an Eastern and Christian aberration of empire that came afterwards. The decision to introduce those new terms was not an apolitical one, nor was it innocent. But it remains the common parlance. And, for that reason, this book will repeatedly use the words Byzantine and Byzantium, except in those instances when it becomes important to convey the precise claim of Roman-ness in a cited text or when there is a need to differentiate between those Greek-Romans who were loyal to the successor state of Epiros from those who were loyal to the successor state of Nicaea. Moreover, for convenience, I will routinely employ the word Greek and Greeks to refer to the indigenous population in the region. I, of course, do so in a nonderogatory fashion, similar to the way that it is used in contemporary speech.
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق