Download PDF | (Translated Texts for Byzantinists, 12) Jeff Brubaker - The Disputatio of the Latins and the Greeks, 1234_ Introduction, Translation, and Commentary-Liverpool University Press (2023).
243 Pages
PREFACE
Tragically, in later times we grew apart. Worldly concerns poisoned us, weeds of suspicion increased our distance and we ceased to nurture communion. Pope Francis I, December 2021.
Toward the end of 2021, while I was completing work for the publication of this volume, Pope Francis I made a visit to Greece and Cyprus in an effort to bring the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox Churches closer together. The sentiment he expressed was conciliatory, lamenting the centuries of division within the Christian community. The most urgent headlines from the pope’s trip to the eastern Mediterranean, however, were not about the olive branch of reconciliation; rather, they focused on a small group of hecklers who had assembled to protest the pope’s visit. They accused Francis I of moving away from centuries of Christian orthodoxy, shouting ‘Heretic!’ at the pope.
These outbursts echo the result of a similar encounter between leaders from the Greek and Roman Churches that took place almost 800 years ago. Like the recent newspaper headlines describing the visit of the pope in 2021, the meeting of these clergymen in 1234 is frequently referenced by modern historians as a low point in the history of Christian relations. Rather than considering the origins of the meeting, or what the parties intended to accomplish, we rush to the ill-fated results and consider such encounters to always be inevitable failures.
The purpose of this text and translation is to shed greater light on the dialogue that took place so long ago. By examining the sources that have come to us from that meeting, and by making them accessible to a wider audience, we reach a fuller understanding of what the parties in the thirteenth century hoped to achieve. Approaching this material with an open mind, I hope the reader will conclude that no one in 1234 intended for their efforts to result in failure, and thus we might come to a fuller understanding of the events that followed. We cannot simply reject attempts to end the schism of the churches as hopeless, but must consider how the disputants viewed the problem, and what might have been gained by seeking a peaceful resolution to the issues that divided them.
One hesitates to begin expressing gratitude to those who have contributed to this volume for fear of leaving someone out, or, worse yet, failing to put into words how important one’s input was in bringing this project to fruition. Before beginning I must confess that all errors in the present translation remain entirely my own. This work owes much to Professor Michael Angold, who helped clarify the parameters of the present project from its inception over a cup of coffee while he waited to catch a train. He continued to support my efforts with advice and an early edition of his translation of the works of Nicholas Mesarites. The critiques and encouragement he has offered since that first conversation have been invaluable. Dr Philip Burton is largely responsible for any claim I might make today to being a competent translator. Indeed, he is nothing short of a wizard with Greek and Latin, and it was he who first helped me decipher the truly gruelling sections of the present text. I can only hope to replicate his patience and reassuring demeanour as a teacher. Much gratitude goes to Rev. Dr Joseph Munitiz, who gave freely of his time and expertise throughout this project. More than one source, buried in the libraries of Oxford, might have gone unexamined without his guidance. I am very grateful for his insights after reading through early drafts of this work. I must thank Professor Anthony Kaldellis, Dr Karl Bede Lackner, Professor Jonathan Shepard, Professor Leslie Brubaker, Professor Chris Wickham, Dr Alessandra Bucossi, and Professor Judith Herrin for their generosity and advice. J am especially grateful to Dr Tia Kolbaba and Professor Edward Siecienski for their suggestions, recommendations, and even their critiques through the translation and writing process. Special thanks go to Rev. Dr Judith Ryder, who patiently edited this work for Liverpool University Press. Her questions and comments have made this a better product.
Nothing I can say can accurately encapsulate the debt this project owes to my wife, Sarah. She was the one who offered constant encouragement, especially at times when this work seemed like it would never come to an end. Her patience and support are truly superhuman.
Finally, I must comment on the tremendous contributions of the late Dr Ruth Macrides, my great mentor and teacher. To say that she served as a model for my efforts does not do her justice. Fellow students of hers at the University of Birmingham will remember her encouraging words, her constant sense of humour, and her ability as an historian. While she never managed to instill in me a correct pronunciation of Byzantine Greek (a lost cause long before I met her), she taught me that there was much more to reading a source. [ will be forever grateful that she saw this project nearing its completion before leaving us so suddenly. I hope it makes her proud.
INTRODUCTION
The negotiations that took place in the early 1230s between Pope Gregory [X and Patriarch Germanos JJ are among the most important and well-documented attempts to bring about a union between the Western Roman and Eastern Greek Churches in the medieval period. This dialogue took place in the aftermath of the Fourth Crusade, which witnessed the sacking of Constantinople, the ancient capital of the Byzantine Empire, in 1204. In the decades that followed, often referred to as the period of ‘exile’ for the Byzantine regime in Nicaea, we find numerous examples of hostility and animosity between Greeks anc Latins. Expelled from his native city and recalling the sacking of Constantinople in 1204, Niketas Choniates refers to the Latins as ‘forerunners of Antichrist, chief agents and harbingers of his anticipated ungodly deeds.’ This adversarial relationship between east and west was not new in 1204. Byzantines and Latins frequently employed competing ecclesiastical and political claims to justify various instances of hostility in the centuries before the Fourth Crusade.” The Great Schism, the division between the Greek and Roman Churches, did not encourage good relations. The schism, often dated to 1054, more accurately reflects a growing rift between the two churches going back at least to the so-called Photian Schism of the ninth century, and possibly earlier.’
Antagonists in this growing division pointed to some common problems as cause for the schism, namely the filioque, the use of leavened or unleavened bread in the Eucharist, and the extent of the primacy of the pope over his fellow bishops.‘ There is little evidence, however, that a clear understanding of these complicated problems was held by more than the educated elite. The complex and nuanced issues of practice and doctrine argued over in the schism of the churches probably held little sway over the average Byzantine or Latin layman. The account of Odo of Deuil, which chronicles the journey of the French king Louis VII on the Second Crusade in the mid-twelfth century, gives several examples of hostility between the Latin crusaders and their Byzantine hosts. Although the author, trained as a cleric of St Denis, devotes a good deal of his attention to what he perceives to be the religious errors of the Greeks, his record of the Second Crusade suggests that it was a lack of provisions at fair prices for the travelling crusaders, rather than religious differences, that was a primary cause for conflict.°
It was not until the sacking of Constantinople by the crusaders in 1204 that the idea of the Great Schism, previously confined to circles of scholars and theologians, became a new reality visible to larger segments of society.° Various authors writing in the years after the Fourth Crusade attest to the increasing interest in ecclesiastical matters and the tension surrounding those issues.’ Nicholas Mesarites reports that arguments over religious doctrine and practice between Greeks and Latins held wide popular appeal in Constantinople shortly after 1204.3 In one anecdote he describes a Latin of apparently unremarkable lineage who was incensed by the diversity of robes worn by Greek clergymen.’ George Akropolites comments on the general anguish caused by ecclesiastical matters when Cardinal Pelagius, the new papal legate to Constantinople in 1213, closed churches and threatened Greek clergy who refused submission to the authority of elder Rome."°
All of this indicates a heightened tension and anxiety surrounding the Great Schism, adding new urgency to attempts to bring about a union of the churches in the early thirteenth century. No longer was this a problem confined to circles of scholars and theologians. The matter was made more pressing by the chaotic political situation that developed as a result of the Fourth Crusade. Throughout the eastern Mediterranean there were Byzantines and Latins living as neighbours and enemies, subjects and rulers. The prospect of ending the schism would have real political implications, affecting how the two groups related to one another on a geo-political scale. Before 1204 the Byzantines had entertained the prospect of healing the schism as a method for engaging papal support against enemies, or potential enemies, far away. After 1204 ending the schism had become a necessary and important means for countering the incursions of Latin enemies at home. For the Latins, obtaining the recognition of western practices and doctrines from the Greek Church might very well justify the expense and bloodshed of the conquest of Constantinople, and perhaps the crusading movement itself. Innocent III expresses this belief shortly after the Fourth Crusade, suggesting that the conquest of Constantinople might soon be followed by the liberation of Jerusalem.'' As the political stakes rose, so did the tensions in debates over the schism of the churches.!”
_ It might seem remarkable, in this context often characterized by rivalry between Greeks and Latins, that we find attempts at ecclesiastical cooperation and unity such as the negotiations of the 1230s." These episodes of repeated dialogue, culminating in the meetings of 1234, challenge the historical narrative of unremitting violence between the scattered Byzantine ‘successor states’ and the Latin invaders, most notably the Latin Empire of Constantinople, established by the crusaders in 1204. A greater focus on the sources describing the dialogue of 1234 creates a new paradigm in which the two sides emphasized diplomacy and theological debate, rather than violent force, as a means to solve the problems that divided them. That the negotiations of 1234 failed to bring about a union of the Greek and Roman Churches and resolve the animosity between Byzantines and Latins is less significant than the fact that both sides put forth honest efforts to reach a peaceful resolution. The potential benefits of a successful negotiation were highly sought after by both sides, and the eventual failure of these meetings held significant consequences for the ecclesiastical and diplomatic relationship between east and west.
1. Historiography
Modern scholars have tended to c’erlook the potential for success in the meetings of 1234, characterizing the encounter as a relatively insignificant negotiation that neither side took seriously. Such conclusions are common in the history of dialogues intended to bring about church union. Nearly a century ago Louis Bréhier described the history of attempts at church union as ‘one of continued mortification, repeated checks, and perpetual failures.’'* Such conclusions overlook the nuances of these meetings and the optimism for success exhibited by both sides before negotiations began. This is especially true of the meetings in 1234, which were the result of a long and serious correspondence between the heads of both churches. Even those scholars who have examined the events of 1234 specifically, however, have carried over Bréhier’s bleak and dismal outlook.’® Perhaps the most succinct estimation of the dialogue of 1234 is that of Michael Angold, who said simply that union negotiations were ‘doomed to fail’'© Each of these interpretations has tended to project the result of the meetings of 1234 onto the beginning, thus concluding that they never really had much chance of success and that the schism was destined to continue."’
The narrative of perpetual and unavoidable failure to end the schism maintained by modern scholarship may stem from a lack of emphasis on the sources that emerged from such proceedings — what we might refer to as the ‘disputatio genre.’'* Alex Novikoff has noted that textual evidence of disputations, although avidly studied by theologians, have been largely neglected by historians.'? Again, a comment by Louis Bréhier demonstrates this point perfectly. Bréhier said of the literature that emerged from the disputatio that ‘nothing can surpass the monotony of these erudite treatises on the Procession of the Holy Ghost, of these dialogues and contradictory debates, which repeat over and over again the same arguments and appeal continually to the same authorities.’”° It is true that such works tend to be repetitive, and this may be why they are often overlooked. Other historians, such as Alexander Vasiliev, have mined documents that describe religious dialogue for information on political developments and completely disregarded any evidence that might shed light on Byzantine—Latin social or cross-cultural interactions.”! The practice of making theological treatises and sources on doctrinal debate subservient to other, often more politically orientated material has become commonplace.
De-emphasizing the disputatio genre inherently distorts the historical narrative of Byzantine—Latin interaction. Several scholars have warned against the potential pitfalls of overlooking such material.”” Tia Kolbaba has shown that the sources describing ecclesiastical dialogue tell us much about cross-cultural contacts. She wrote that it will ‘sometimes be necessary to dip a toe into the deep waters of theological explanation.’ Averil Cameron’s recent examination of dialogues under the Komnenoi emperors of the twelfth century demonstrated that the sources describing ecclesiastical debate between the Greek and Roman Churches can in fact tell us much about the developm.nt of Byzantine literature and cultural activity. The consequence of historians neglecting this material, she explained, is that much of our understanding of these sources is reduced to mere generalizations.” This is especially true for our understanding of the turbulent years following the Fourth Crusade. It will be impossible to build a complete paradigm of the interactions between Byzantines and Latins without including all pertinent material and avoiding the generalizations that have characterized that material. Unfortunately, sources describing theological debate have been largely overlooked as a method of Byzantine diplomacy with Latin powers. Alexander Kazhdan’s nine techniques of Byzantine diplomacy, for example, include no mention of ecclesiastical dialogue.”? Even scholars who promote a balanced approach, advocating for an inclusive analysis of political and theological concerns in Byzantine—Latin diplomacy, have failed to take into account the instances of church-union negotiations that took place during the period of exile from 1204 to 1261. Aristeides Papadakis suggested that theological debate returned to east-west relations only under Michael VIII Palaiologos, with the union proclaimed at Lyons in 1274.*° This assertion completely disregarded the union negotiations of 1234 and other attempts under the Laskarid emperors in Nicaea, which formed the precedent for later talks.?’ In this way, Papadakis failed to properly address the theological encounters of the early thirteenth century and their significance in the relationship between Byzantines and Latins.
Few of these studies have given due attention to the correspondence between the pope and patriarch that forms the preliminaries to these negotiations and indicates the optimism held by both sides. By contrast, those historians who have examined the negotiations of 1234 have given the bulk of their focus to the report of the friars. This text, compiled by the very men who represented Gregory IX in 1234, gives an extraordinarily detailed account of the proceedings undertaken to bring union to the churches, but has also formed the basis for the ‘doomed to fail’ paradigm for this meeting. The friars’ final words to the gathered Greek clergy, ‘We found you heretics and excommunicates, and as heretics and excommunicates we leave you, have become synonymous with the meeting itself.”* It is the comment that many historians have most often used to characterize the negotiations as a whole, and thus readers neglect the nuances of the meeting. Some have even overlooked the possibility that the friars, whose report forms the main source for this encounter, may purposely have distorted the facts of the proceeding. The authors of this text almost certainly intended their words to explain to the pope why the meeting had failed. Depicting the patriarch and his Greek clergy as bigoted and prejudiced against them serves that purpose. Indeed, the whole document appears to have been written after the anticipated union of the churches had collapsed. Thus, the authors of the report purposely portrayed the negotiations as ‘doomed to fail, because that is precisely what happened. It is understandable that historians would take the lead from what is contained in the sources, but we must be aware of the intentions of the authors of this material and their purpose in writing, and in this way challenge the overarching negative narrative surrounding the meeting of 1234, and the disputatio genre as a whole.
The best method for countering this negative narrative and correcting the oversight of evidence from the early thirteenth century is to make the sources more available to a wider audience. As our own world becomes increasing secular, and scholars call into question our understanding of the roles of church and state in Byzantium, it is more important than ever that we remember the crucial role of ecclesiastical dialogue in the relationship between east and west. A close examination of this material demonstrates that the meetings of 1234 were .he result of a consistent and sincere correspondence between Gregory [X and Germanos II, and that both pope and patriarch approached church-union negotiation with high expectations.
2. Terminology
Classifying the encounter. between ecclesiasts of the Greek and Roman Churches in 1234 as a disputatio requires some qualification. The Latin term denotes an ‘argument’ or ‘discussion,’ often in the form of debate or dialogue, but does not necessarily indicate hostility between the parties involved.”? In its broadest form, the disputatio involved two disputants, or groups of disputants, one representing each side, offering arguments and counterarguments. This format of dialogue became popular with the rise of scholasticism in the Latin West and can be frequently observed in meetings between representatives of the Greek and Roman Churches.*° In many ways, identifying the first disputatio is as difficult a task as pinpointing the origin of the schism. Suffice it to say that, from the eleventh century, and especially under the Komnenoi emperors, who frequently entertained the prospect of church union as a means of advancing their foreign policy agenda with the papacy and other western powers, there are numerous examples of the disputatio between Byzantine and Latin scholars and theologians.*! These encounters were not always official. The disputants who took part were not always sanctioned by the pope or patriarch, and it was not always the case that the emperor or some other ruler was present. Still, every example of the disputatio between Byzantines and Latins pertained to the diplomatic sphere just as much as it did to religious matters.
The friars who represented Gregory IX in 1234 use the noun disputatio to refer to their meetings with Germanos II and his clergy on 14 occasions.
Still, some caution is called for if scholars are to use the word as a more general form of categorization for discussions of ecclesiastical schism and church-union negotiations. After all, Byzantine authors of the early thirteenth century naturally did not use the Latin term disputatio to refer to these meetings, but employed a varied vocabulary of Greek terms. Nicholas Mesarites describes the discussions in late 1204 as diadadia, ‘discourse,® and didAeéic, ‘conversation.”* Mesarites, in discussing the meetings in 1206 and 1214, identifies them as d@1oc, meaning ‘contests’ or ‘spiritual struggles.’*> Germanos II refers to the Latin arguments made in 1234 as duodoyia, ‘confession.*° The most enigmatic identification is that of Nikephoros Blemmydes. He describes the 1234 meeting as a xarvov aBpoioudv, ‘public assembly.”?” In describing the disputatio with John of Parma in 1249/50, Blemmydes states that representatives of the Roman Church came to a od//oyoc, ‘meeting,’ in order to ‘defend their definition of faith.’*® There seems to have been little or no uniformity in how Byzantine authors characterized episodes of dialogue with representatives of the Roman Church.
Another potential problem of terminology is that referring to these meetings as disputationes might be seen to suggest a specialized format or formal conduct that was observed by both sides. Averil Cameron has correctly noted that the meetings between Byzantine and Latin theologians lacked the technical features of disputation as developed in western scholasticism.”?? How then can we refer to church-union negotiation as a disputatio? Cameron’s concern is a result of the fact that the exercise of disputation was becoming formalized in the Latin West over the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Although instances of dialogue and disputation had their roots in the ancient and late antique periods, it was not until the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries that the practice became fully explored in western education. Anselm of Canterbury played a large role in reviving the practice in the Latin West.*° By about 1200 the disputatio had become a central component of medieval university education.*!
If we are to use the term disputatio to refer to a genre of literature or type of encounter between Byzantine and Latin ecclesiasts, it is necessary to separate the word from a sense of technical meaning. Thankfully, both Olga Weijers and Alex Novikoff have shown that the forms of such dialogue did not remam confined to the academic environment. Novikoff explained that the disputatio influenced various facets of medieval culture — namely poetry, polyphonic music, and Christian confrontations with Judaism.” The fact that current scholarship has not included Byzantine—Latin interactions and inter-Christian dialogue or negotiation between different Christian groups in its analysis of medieval disputation is most unfortunate.” Weijers concluded that, outside of the universities and academic circles of the Latin West, the word disputatio did not necessarily carry a technical meaning.** Furthermore, both scholars offered broad interpretations of the word disputatio that allow us to use it in the context of the meetings of 1234. Novikoff explained that the word might indicate a ‘discussion,’ ‘conversation,’ or the more intense ‘dispute’ or ‘debate,’ but in any case the word always refers to rational investigations and dialectical argumentation inherent in the term disputatio.® Weijers went further in explaining the wide range of possible interpretations of the word disputatio, indicating a ‘treatment’ or ‘public discussion.“° Such conceptualizations, coupled with the dizzying variety by which Byzantine authors characterized these encounters, allow us to categorize the dialogue and negotiations of 1234 as a disputatio, but only in the broadest and most liberal sense.
Another possible pitfall in the area of terminology is how to refer to the diplomatic office of the friars who represented Pope Gregory IX in 1234. The status of these representatives can tell us much about what the pope expected from the meetings, and perhaps why they failed to bring about the desired union of the churches. Ideutifying the precise diplomatic status of these friars, however, presents a problem. It is impossible to speak of them as ‘ambassadors’ of the Roman Church. Donald Queller has explained that this term is particularly hazardous because of modern implications of the office that did not apply in the early thirteenth century.*’ Thus, we must refer to the friars who took part in the disputatio in contemporary terms, namely nuncio or legatus. Alternative terms do exist. Apokrisiarios is a term that turns up during the negotiations of 1234.*° In their statement of faith regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit, the friars referred to themselves as ‘apokrisiarii of the lord pope Gregory, bishop of elder Rome.”? According to G. W. H. Lampe’s Patristic Greek Lexicon, an apokrisiarios can indicate either a messenger or a legate.*° Because of this inherent ambiguity, apokrisiarios should be understood as an all-inclusive diplomatic term and does not serve to delineate the power and authority of the friars as papal representatives. Another word to describe representatives, mpeoBedc, is sometimes used by Byzantine authors, most frequently by Nicholas Mesarites. Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott’s GreekEnglish Lexicon’! and Lampe’s Patristic Greek Lexicon” translate this word as ‘ambassador,’ but it can also have the meaning of ‘advocate,’ ‘agent, or ‘intercessor.’ Whereas other Byzantine authors employ zpeoPetc to describe the representatives of secular powers,” Mesarites uses the term in both a secular and ecclesiastical context, for the representatives of the Roman Church who arrived in Nicaea in 1214,>* and for himself as a representative of Theodore I Laskaris.* While the exact connotation of this word may be perplexing, this diplomatic term never surfaces in the context of the friars at the disputatio of 1234. Nuncio or legatus, therefore, offer us the clearest distinction of diplomatic authority for the friars as representatives of the papacy.
Richard Schmutz provided us with a thorough examination of the office of nuncio versus that of the legate, elucidating the differences between the two in medieval diplomacy.* He described the nuncio as a message-bearer, conveying the words and will of his principal without the authority to negotiate new agreements independent of prior instruction.°’ Donald Queller has gone even further, characterizing a nuncio as a ‘speaking letter.°® There are episodes of a nuncio stretching his authority into negotiation. A famous example of a nuncio overstepping his authority is reported in the account of Liudprand of Cremona. In 968 Liudprand was sent to Constantinople as an envoy of Otto I. There he met with the Byzantine emperor Nikephoros II Phokas, who pointed out that a previous nuntius from the west, Dominic the Venetian, had made promises on behalf of his principal that Otto J did not keep.°? Examples such as this help to clarify the boundaries of the authority granted to a nuncio. They could not bind their principal to new agreements. Strictly speaking, therefore, the nuncio was a mere representative whose responsibility rarely extended beyond delivering written or spoken messages.
The legate appears to have had a more dynamic and nuanced authority. Schmutz defined the legate as ‘a proctorial agent who exercised papal authority in the ordinary, ecclesiastical administration and, under special mandate, tn diplomacy.’°-He added that the key to identifying a legate versus a nuncio is best achieved via their mandate — usually included in a letter of recommendation given to the one who received the representative.°' In the absence of a mandate, however, Schmutz suggested looking to the ‘characteristic kinds of activity authorized by mandates’ to indicate the presence of a legate.” Thus, if the envoy acted as though he had the authority to negotiate, we must consider whether or not such authority had been granted by his principal, perhaps in spoken rather than written instruction.
Although they have much to say about the issue, it is surprisingly difficult to decipher the diplomatic status of the friars as papal representatives based on the sources surrounding the disputatio of 1234. The letter from Gregory [X to Germanos II, dated 18 May 1233, introduces the friars to the patriarch, serving to prove their credentials. The pope explains that their purpose is to ‘negotiate faithfully and discuss amicably’ with the patriarch, but he does not identify them as either nuncios or legatii.©° Both the terms appear prominently in the friars’ report describing the disputatio of 1234 (Source V). In chapter 2 the patriarch asks the representatives from Gregory IX ‘whether we were legates of the lord Pope, and whether we wished to accept the honour due to legates.”* To this the friars answer that they were simplices nuncios, ‘simple messengers,’ and that they did not wish to claim the honours due to legates.” The patriarch determines that even the lowliest messenger of the pope deserved ‘great reverence and honour.”° This episode has been enough to satisfy previous historians who investigated the disputatio, concluding that the friars held the position of a nuncio.*’ None of these scholars, however, have delved deeper into the report of the friars to clarify or corroborate their statement. Not long after their claim to be mere nuncios, the friars make a startling statement regarding the extent of their authority as papal representatives: ‘The contents of the lord Pope’s letters sufficiently explains our authority to you; and this we add, whatever we do well in this business the Roman Church will consider ratified and pleasing.’°* This response may indicate some authority to negotiate on behalf of Gregory [X, perhaps suggesting that the friars were indeed legates, despite their protestations to the contrary. Other evidence contained within the friars’ report suggests that their status as nuncios was not as straightforward as past scholars have argued.® All of this makes the terms we use to characterize the friars as papal representatives — be it as nuncio or legatus — very problematic.”
Finally, it may seem strange, especially to those in Byzantine Studies, to refer to the Western Church, the church presided over by the pope, as the ‘Roman Church.” Western medievalists may see this as a given, seeing as the pope, who occupied the seat of St Peter, resided in Rome. Byzantinists, however, would be quick to point out that the people we refer to as ‘Byzantines’ referred to themselves as ‘Romans’ throughout their history. Even during the period of so-called ‘exile, when a Latin regime occupied Constantinople from 1204 to 1261, the Byzantines continued to emphasize their Roman heritage.”! The fact that certain alternatives, such as ‘Hellene’ or ‘Greek,’ might have taken on a new significance during the period does not negate the Byzantines’ Roman identity.’”” In terms of ecclesiastical identity, however, and certainly in the context of the sources referring to the disputatio of 1234, ‘Roman’ refers explicitly to the Western Church of the Latins. The Byzantines refer to their own Church as the ‘Greek Church.’ This is by no means exclusive to the context of 1234. Paul Magdalino has pointed out that, ‘in all their writings concerning the Roman church, the Byzantines habitually described themselves as Ipatxoi in order to avoid confusion.” The terms ‘Roman Church’ and ‘Greek Church,’ therefore, should be considered an issue of simplification, and not as any form of concession to the pope.
3. Background
The years following the capture of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade were chaotic, violent, and uncertain. One historian has referred to the period from 1204 to 1261 as an ‘orgy of violence.’* The almost constant state of warfare between Byzantines and Latins was punctuated by short periods of truce and diplomatic dialogue. With the Byzantine capital under crusader occupation, a number of Greek and Latin polities emerged to fill the vacuum of power.” The most successful of these were the so-called ‘successor states, of which the most important for the purpose of the current study is the Empire of Nicaea. The Anatolian city of Nicaea became a focal point of resistance against the Latins under Theodore Laskaris, who had already risen to prominence before the Fourth Crusade through his marriage to Anna, the daughter of Alexios III Angelos.” Both Greek and Latin sources describe how Laskaris consolidated his position in Nicaea and the surrounding area no later than 1206.” To the west the Byzantine aristocrat Michael Doukas founded a rival successor state in Epiros that reached the apogee of its power under his brother Theodore Doukas, who liberated the city of Thessalonike from Latin contro] in 1224.’* Theodore Doukas had imperial ambitions that seriously threatened the claims of Theodore Laskaris and his successors in Nicaea.”
Although he had already proclaimed himself as emperor, Theodore Laskaris could not be crowned without the participation of a patriarch. The patriarch of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade was John X Kamateros, who escaped the sacking of the city and fled to Thrace.*” The death of Kamateros in 1206 presented Laskaris with an opportunity.®! George Akropolites explains that the notables of Nicaea assembled and appointed Michael IV Autoreianos the new patriarch of Constantinople on 20 March 1208. One of the first tasks for the new patriarch was the coronation of Theodore Laskaris as emperor on Easter Sunday, 6 April 1208.
It is difficult to overemphasize the importance of the coronation of Theodore Laskaris as Byzantine emperor. The events of 1208 effectively restored the twin pillars of Byzantium — the patriarch and the emperor — in exile.® Of course, their claims ran counter to those of a Latin emperor and a Latin patriarch in Constantinople. The crusader conquest of the city in 1204 was followed quickly by the coronation of the first Latin emperor, the count of Flanders and Hainaut, as Baldwin I.*4 He was crowned by the new Latin patriarch, the Venetian Thomas Morosini.®° Jt seems that Pope Innocent IJJ was initially unaware of the election of the Venetian to the patriarchate. He made no reference to the new patriarch in his first correspondence to the crusader army following their capture of Constantinople.®° When he did learn about the appointment of Morosini Innocent II] expressed displeasure at the manner of his election to the patriarchate.*’ Despite his concerns, however, the pope had little choice but to endorse the claims to ecclesiastical authority of Morosini.®* Nicholas Mesarites records multiple attempts by the Latin patriarch and other representatives of the Roman Church to gain the submission of the Greek clergy who remained in Constantinople.” In each of these meetings, Mesarites describes the Latin position regarding the Greek Church as an ultimatum. The Greek clergy were told to accept the authority of the pope and the Latin patriarch or face the consequences.” Rarely does Mesarites, or any other source, suggest that these meetings included an honest exploration of doctrinal issues dividing the Greek and Roman Churches, to say nothing of a possible compromise.
While the two parties fell short of a solution to the schism in the years immediately following the Fourth Crusade, attempts aimed at some form of ecclesiastical accommodation continued. The periodic cessation of hostilities provided new opportunities to attempt a union of the churches, as political and ecclesiastical matters went hand in hand. When Henry I, who took over as Latin emperor following the death of his brother Baldwin I in 1205, defeated the armies of Nicaea in 1211/2, it appears that negotiations toward a peace treaty overlapped with discussions of ecclesiastical matters.” Once again, the Greek Church was represented by Nicholas Mesarites, now metropolitan of Ephesos, who describes the encounter of 1214/15.°* The authenticity of this dialogue in the account of Mesarites has been called into question. Numerous scholars have noted the similarities between the arguments Mesarites describes and those found in the Sacred Arsenal, a text written about a half century earlier by Andronikos Kamateros.”’ Although the account of the meetings in 1214/15 by Mesarites indicates possible plagiarism, Averil Cameron and others have suggested that the author’s use of an earlier work may instead be characterized as ‘intertextuality, emphasizing continuity in how Byzantine intellectuals approached the problem of schism and perceived Latin religious errors.” Whatever the case, the meetings described by Mesarites again attest to the shared desire by both Byzantines and Latins to heal the schism.
The negotiations of 1214/15 were the last time a possible union of the Greek and Roman Churches was discussed during the reign of Theodore I Laskaris.” He was succeeded by his son-in-law, John III Vatatzes, on 15 December 1221.” The first decade of the new emperor’s reign is remarkable for its near total lack of interaction with his Latin neighbours or the papacy. There was no repeat of the negotiations toward church union that had been favoured by his father-in-law, and almost no evidence of diplomatic exchanges with the Latin Empire of Constantinople. The sole exception surrounded Vatatzes’ victory over a Latin army at Poimanenon in 1224. The Latin defeat and subsequent treaty reversed the earlier gains in Anatolia made by Henry I, ccufirming the Empire of Nicaea as the dominant force in the region.’ After this episode, however, Vatatzes again withdrew from interaction with the Latins.” The absence of diplomatic communication between Nicaea and the Latin West in this period is surprising and difficult to explain. John Langdon has argued that from 1225 to 1231 Vatatzes was engrossed in a large-scale conflict against the Seljuk Turks spanning the entire length of the eastern frontier of the Empire of Nicaea.” It is possible that this conflict monopolized the attention of the Byzantine emperor, making diplomacy with the Latins a lower priority.
The outburst of diplomatic activity between Vatatzes and various Latin powers in the early 1230s was the result of shifting foreign policy goals as well as an ecclesiastical crisis concerning the Greek subjects of the Latin kingdom on Cyprus. First, the war with the Seljuk Turks came to an end in late 1231 or early 1232, and the attention of the Turks was soon fixed on the Mongols invading from the east.' This allowed Vatatzes to focus on new opportunities for expansion across the Bosporos into Europe. The armies of Epiros had recently been defeated by the Bulgarians at Klokotnitza in 1230, creating a power vacuum in the Balkans and an opportunity for Vatatzes.
Second, the Greek subjects of the Latin regime on Cyprus began to appeal to Nicaea for protection from persecution. The island of Cyprus had been conquered by crusader armies in the late twelfth century, and by 1223 letters began to arrive in Nicaea from the island’s Greek residents, complaining about the harsh treatment they had endured from their Latin rulers.'°? In 1231, 13 Greek monks of the Kantara monastery in Nicosia were executed by the Latin authorities on Cyprus after they refused to cease their condemnation of the practices of the Roman Church.'” It appears that these monks had purposely sought conflict with the Latins, provoking the crisis in the hopes of martyrdom.’ Archbishop Neophytos, in a letter to the emperor in Nicaea, suggested that the monks themselves were to blame for their fate.
The incident on Cyprus held dangerous implications for the relationship between Latin rulers and their Greek subjects throughout the eastern Mediterranean, threatening new waves of religious violence. It is interesting that in 1232, almost immediately following this crisis, five Franciscan friars appeared in Nicaea, impressing upon the Greek patriarch the need for reconciliation and union.'°° How these friars came to be in Nicaea is something of a mystery. They may have been in the East on a mission to preach and convert, but most historians have concluded that they were returning from a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. The disagreement arises from a lack of clarity in the sources.'”’ Two documents attest to the arrival of the Franciscan friars in Nicaea in 1232. The first is a letter to the pope from Germanos JJ (Source J). The patriarch was clearly impressed by the friars’ piety, remarking on their ‘good companionship and unbreakable harmony ... as they proclaimed peace and good tidings between Greeks and Latins.”'°? Unfortunately, Germanos II gives little indication of the friars’ business in the East, saying only that they had run into ‘a particularly precarious situation’ and that the e.aperor John III Vatatzes had intervened to help them.'” Based on this evidence, it has been argued that the friars were harassed or even imprisoned by the Seljuk Turks while travelling through Anatolia, and were freed through the efforts of Vatatzes.
The second source mentioning the arrival of friars in Nicaea is an anonymous Greek chronicle. Until recently, this work was thought to survive only in aseventeenth-century edition by Leo Allatius.''! Alexander Beihammer and Chris Schabel, however, have concluded that the work copied by Allatius is found in a sixteenth-century manuscript, Parisinus Graecus 1286.''* The chronicle describes the friars in Nicaea immediately following an account of the execution of the Greek monks on Cyprus, suggesting a close relationship between the two. In this text, the Franciscans are depicted as papal ‘spies’ sent to the Empire of Nicaea, making their way with a pretense of going on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, but really there to speak with Germanos II.!° After speaking with the friars about the schism of the churches, the patriarch, ‘full of all love and humility,’ and with the approval of Vatatzes, initiated a correspondence with Gregory IX.'"*
This story presents very different implications for the mission of the five Franciscan friars in Anatolia. Whereas the letter from Germanos II indicates that their arrival and the subsequent reopening of union negotiations was a happy accident, the anonymous chronicle found in Allatius suggests otherwise. This work alleges that the friars’ appearance in Nicaea was very much the covert plan of Gregory IX. In this way, the pope could commence negotiations with the Empire of Nicaea, which posed an ever greater threat to the Latin Empire of Constantinople, without being seen to make direct overtures. The patriarch would make the first gesture to the pope, not the other way around.’!* The problem with this version of events is that it is too much predicated on the outcome of these negotiations. The anonymous chronicle speaks frequently of the tyranny and deception of the Latins, and the pope in particular, suggesting that the author of the work was aware of the negative outcome of church-union negotiations in the 1230s and projected that understanding onto his description of events." Whether or not we regard Gregory IX as a master of underhand diplomacy, the visit of the Franciscan friars to Nicaea prompted Germanos II to begin a correspondence with the pope regarding the union of the churches.'!”
4. Pope and Patriarch
The letters exchanged between Germanos II and Gregory [X between 1232 and 1234 are crucial for understanding how the two sides conceived of the Great Schism in the years after the Fourth Crusade. This correspondence conveys their ideas about how the schism came about, who was to blame, and how to fix the problem. In this way, the letters between pope and patriarch reflect their respective careers and priorities. The pontificate of Gregory IX was a mature expression of centuries of reform, making the papacy a force in political as well as ecclesiastical matters.''®* Gregory LX had spent nearly three decades as a cardina’ before becoming pope following the death of Honorius II] in 1227.''"? As the nephew of Innocent III, Gregory IX was especially influenced by his uncle’s concept of the plenitudo potestatis (plentitude of power), by which Christ had given both sacred and secular authority to Peter and his successors.'*° This frequently put Gregory IX at odds with secular rulers in the West.'?! Modern historians have characterized Gregory IX as more provocative than his uncle when it came to his relationship with kings and princes. Thomas Van Cleve described him as ‘knowing little of conciliation or of patience,’ and thus looking for conflict as soon as he became pope.!””
Gregory IX is best known for his frequent conflicts with the western emperor Frederick II Hohenstaufen.!” On 29 September 1227 the pope excommunicated Frederick II for the emperor’s continued failure to take up his promised crusade.'*4 While the emperor was away, Gregory IX attacked his territories in Italy.'”? Although the two reconciled in 1230, pope and emperor continued to be at odds.'*° Gregory IX continued to emphasize to Frederick that clerical authority superseded that of lay rulers, arguing that this had been established since the days of Constantine the Great.'’’? Gregory IX excommunicated the western emperor again in 1239, citing similar reasons.'** Confirming the place of the spiritual power over that of lay rulers, therefore, was a defining characteristic of his papacy.
Explaining the pope’s attitude toward the Greek Church is somewhat more difficult. There is no question that the pope supported the Latin Empire of Constantinople against its Byzantine neighbours. Like Innocent III, Gregory IX believed that the stability and preservation of the Latin regime was vital for the success of a crusade to the Holy Land.'”? He therefore directed new crusades to support the regime in Constantinople, and even permitted those who had already taken the cross to redeem their vows in Constantinople rather than Jerusalem.!°° Gregory IX was less consistent regarding the ecclesiastical situation in the East. During the incident that resulted in the martyrdom of the Cypriot monks, Gregory IX wrote to Eustorge, the Latin archbishop of Nicosia, taking a firm position against those Greeks who publicly denounced Latin practices. The pope instructed that such individuals be treated as heretics.’?! This was a break with Gregory IX’s predecessors, who had been content to refer to these individuals as ‘schismatics.’ It is important to realize, however, that the pope did not adopt such a harsh policy with the whole of the Grsek Church. Indeed, when considered in a wider context, his instruction regarding Cyprus in 1231 appears to be something of an anomaly. In southern Italy, for example, when the archbishop of Bari wanted to impose rebaptism in the Latin rite on the local Greek population, the pope sought out a dialogue on the issue. In a letter to the bishop in February 1232, Gregory IX recommended surveillance rather than outright violence to impose uniformity in the matter.°? We must conclude, therefore, that before 1234 Gregory IX was capable of some degree of tolerance with the Greek community, especially when their actions were relatively benign and did not challenge the doctrines, practices, and authority of the Roman Church.
The career of Germanos II displays a sharp contrast with that of Gregory IX. The future patriarch was born in Anaplous, on the European side of the Bosporos, in the second half of the twelfth century. Later in life he would defend his provincial origins as better than that of most Constantinopolitans.'*? Before the Fourth Crusade he served as a deacon in Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, and he fled the city some time after 1204. On 4 January 1223 he was elevated to the patriarchate of Constantinople in exile in Nicaea by John III Vatatzes.'** As patriarch, Germanos II was influential in both domestic and foreign affairs as a staunch supporter of the emperor. Michael Angold has demonstrated that Germanos I] was key in helping Vatatzes thwart an attempted coup by the brothers of his predecessor, thus consolidating the emperor’s power early in his reign.'*> When Theodore Doukas had himself crowned emperor in Thessalonike in 1224, the patriarch was quick to press the imperial rights of Vatatzes over any challengers.’°° Nikephoros Blemmydes adds that a synod of bishops in Nicaea sent a letter to Theodore Doukas, warning him to put aside his imperial claims.’?’ Thus, we must understand the patriarch as an advocate for the domestic interests of the emperor and a champion of the foreign policy of the Empire of Nicaea.'** As opposed to the antagonistic relationship that existed in the West between pope and emperor, Germanos JJ developed a cooperative and symbiotic relationship with the emperor in Nicaea.!°°
Several writings by Germanos II indicate his anti-Latin sentiments, but not to an extreme degree. The patriarch’s attitude against the Latins and their church seems to have intensified later in life, especially after the disputatio of 1234. In 1223 he encouraged the Greeks of Cyprus to continue resisting pressure to recognize papal authority, but he also advised caution.'*® Germanos JJ warned against measures intended to provoke the Latins.'*! Some years later, in 1229, his attitude towards the situation in Cyprus changed, probably as a result of complaints from other Greek communities living under Latin rule and facing similar pressure.'” Germanos JJ expressed anger that some Greeks on the island, including Archbishop Neophytos, had acknowledged the primacy of the pope.'” Apparently, Germanos II had come to consider that the archbishop and several of the Greek clergy on Cyprus had become too compliant with the Latins on the island.'** In one letier, Germanos JJ calls on the Orthodox of Cyprus to hold to the faith of their fathers and resist the Latins until death.'*° His instructions were apparently heeded by the 13 monks who sought martyrdom in 1231.
The anti-Latin attitude of Germanos JJ becomes more apparent later in his patriarchate. He expressed a growing distaste for the Latins and their practices and commented frequently on the distress caused him by the efforts of Latin missionaries.'*° In an undated letter to the monks of St John the Baptist at Petra, the patriarch referred to the Latins as ‘godless’ and ‘miserable.’'*’ He went on to explain to the monks that ‘the heresy of the Latins is almost the recapitulation of all the heresies that after the incarnate life on earth of Our Lord Jesus Christ have in the course of time been injected by the prince of evil into the holy and apostolic Church of God.’'*® Based on such evidence, we can surmise that Germanos !1 was, to say the least, cautious in his dealings with the Roman Church and concerned about papal attempts to assert its authority. At most, the patriarch was ‘anti-Latin’ in his demeanour, but less so before the disputatio of 1234.\°
Thus, the experiences and priorities of Gregory 1X and Germanos I] before 1234 appear remarkably opposed to one another. It is safe to say that the pope advocated for the rights of the Church over imperial authority, whereas the patriarch enjoyed more of a partnership with imperial authority. Clearly, the two men had very different reasons for engaging in the affairs of secular rulers. Gregory IX spent much of his papacy countering the moves of the greatest secular ruler in Western Europe, Frederick II, while Germanos II used the authority of his patriarchate to endorse and advocate the power of his emperor. In addition, the experiences of the two men indicate that it would be very difficult for them to reach a compromise on the issue of union, although not entirely impossible. Nothing suggests that they would absolutely refuse the opportunity to approach the topic with an open mind, especially if the opportunity featured the prospect of advancing their goals in other areas.
5. Sources
Understanding what the pope and patriarch hoped to gain is best achieved through the correspondence between them before the disputatio of 1234 took place. The tone of these letters is notably optimistic, with a clear expectation that real gains could be made toward bringing unity to the Churches. Germanos II begins the exchange by sending not one, but two letters to the leaders of the Roman Church, apparently carried west by the five Franciscans who visited Nicaea in 1232. One of these letters is addressed to the pope, preserved in the papal registers in both Greek and in Latin translation (Source I). The conciliatory tone of this letter stands in sharp contrast to the harsh advice he had given only a few years before to the Greeks of Cyprus resisting the persecutions of the Latins and their church. Germanos II refers to the Great Schism as ‘great and of long duration,’ adding that ‘there is no one who shows compassion for the bride of Christ wearing a torn garment.’°° He compares the division between the Greek and Roman Churches ty Old Testament examples of schism, namely Cain and Abel, Esau and Jacob, Judaea and Israel, Jerusalem and Samaria.'*! Regarding the origins of the schism, the patriarch explains that ‘contentious hands, indeed not those of soldiers, but ecclesiastic hands’ brought about the separation.'* Germanos II understood the sacking of Constantinople in 1204, therefore, as a symptom of the schism; a result rather than a cause. The real beginning of the division of the churches was brought about by ecclesiasts on both sides, thus it was up to ecclesiasts to heal the breach. The patriarch argues that this was possible by holding up disagreements over practice and doctrine to the ‘mirror’ of Scripture and the patristic writings.'°?
Such comments must have caused some excitement in Rome. They show that Germanos II was indeed open to the prospect of union. The patriarch’s positive outlook, however, did not prevent him from taking Gregory IX to task for what he considered to be the recent abuses of the Roman Church. Germanos II emphasizes the Latin persecution in Cyprus, which had produced ‘new martyrs.’’** The patriarch explains that bishops should be good shepherds, leading their flocks by example.' The implication being, of course, that the pope and his Latin bishops in the East were failing to provide that good example.
The second letter sent by Germanos II in 1232 is addressed to the Cardinals of the Roman Church (Source IJ).’° Again, the patriarch expresses his optimism that a gathering of learned churchmen could solve the problems presented by the schism:
For often God concealed from one what he revealed to another, and thus through counsel] he introduced what he has revealed to the public and gain is distributed to all the subject multitude. If there are many counsellors, and they are prudent and wise, how much profit, how much advantage to all governed [and] subject people!!*’
Germanos II continues by calling on the cardinals to give good advice to the pope, encouraging Gregory IX to compromise. ‘God alone is in want of nothing, nor needs help from anyone,’ he says, adding that ‘all men need the cooperation of one another even if they are exceedingly gifted with pride and wisdom.’'® As in his letter to the pope, Germanos II expresses his displeasure at the current division of the churches. He notes that, in the past, when Rome had been threatened by barbarian peoples, it was ‘liberated’ by the Greeks.!°? In his own day, however, Byzantines and Latins are ‘divided as enemies by bitter separation. We injure and are injured by one another and avoid communion with one another as if it were harmful to the soul.
These comments indicate once more that Germanos JI was sincere in his hopes for a successful negotiation that would bring about church union.
Although these letters convey a particularly optimistic hope for ending the schism, in neither does Germanos II come across as particularly naive. He is fully aware of the challenge posed and the difficulty in reaching a compromise. In the first letter to Gregory [X the patriarch acknowledges that both sides believed in the validity of their position: ‘We know that this is said by the church of the Greeks, and by that of the Latins; for no one is able to see genuine disgrace in his own face, if one does not look into a mirror.’!* In the letter to the Cardinals Germanos II goes so far as to suggest that the schism of the churches, deplorable as it was, may have been God’s will. He compares the division between the Greek and Roman Churches to the disagreements between the apostles Paul and Peter described in the New Testament.' The patriarch adds that their conflict was ‘not some sort of fight or ill-timed rivalry,’ but was intended to bring about a more profound accommodation appropriate to the time.'*? The argument, therefore, is that disagreement between Peter and ?aul was ordained by God in order to clarify the positions of the church. As the conflict between Peter and Paul was the will of God, so was the schism between the Greek and Roman Churches. However, this was only a temporary situation. While God might ordain that there be a schism at one time, he would surely ordain that the schism be healed in another. Such a statement, it seems, is the patriarch’s way of rationalizing the state of separation of the two churches. What had happened to divide them was ‘supposed’ to happen, and now the wise men from both sides were ‘supposed’ to come together to resolve the issue.
The letter to the cardinals is also significant for its insights into the patriarch’s view of papal-primacy. Germanos II refers to Peter as the ‘leader of the group of disciples of Christ, the rock of the faith, and asks that he be corrected if he did indeed fail to revere the pope’s apostolic tradition.'°* However, the patriarch notes that even Peter was capable of error, referring to the gospel story of the rooster’s crow shaking the foundation of Peter’s faith.’ The story served to show, according to the interpretation of Germanos II, that the pope was not infallible. Just as Peter needed the rooster’s crow to rouse his tested faith, the pope required the advice of sound and educated men, such as the cardinals, to avoid the wrongs that had brought about schism. Furthermore, the patriarch refrains from addressing Rome as the ‘mother church.’ The analogy of the Roman Church as a ‘mother’ and the Greek Church as a ‘daughter’ appears frequently in the writings of western theologians. In a letter to Michael VII in 1073 Pope Gregory VII described the relationship between Rome and the ecclesia Constantinopolitana ‘as daughter to mother.’ In 1199 Pope Innocent III called on the Greek ‘daughter’ church to return to her ‘mother’ in his letter to Patriarch John X Kamateros.'®’ This interpretation implies the primacy of Rome over all other churches, and ran counter to the eastern understanding of the hierarchical rule of the five senior patriarchs, or Pentarchy.'©® Germanos II rejects this analogy and deference to the popes, instead referring to elder Rome as the ‘elder sister’ of the Greek Church.’
The patriarch ends his message with a reference to the vast number of Christians who look to him for guidance. He refers to the Ethiopians, Syrians, Georgians, Lazi, Alans, Goths, Khazars, the ‘innumerable Russian peoples,’ and the ‘conquering kingdom of the Bulgarians.’ The comment is probably intended as a hint to the cardinals about what could be gained through an agreed union, but it may also be a veiled reference to political realities. After defeating Theodore Doukas and the armies of Epiros at Klokotnitza only two years before Germanos II wrote this letter, the Bulgarian regime had proved itself a particularly powerful force in the Balkans, One that could threaten the continued survival of Latin Constantinople.
By referring to the Bulgarians and their victories, therefore, Germanos JJ may well be making an implied threat, warning the cardinals that the prospects for the Roman Church in the East were about to decline dramatically and that they had better make the best of the current opportunity.
An unusual problem when considering these letters from Germanos II is posed by the work of Matthew Paris, an English chronicler of the thirteenth century. In his Chronica majora Paris includes a Latin translation of the patriarch’s letters to Gregory IX, but the text found in his work does not exactly match the text of the letters found in the papal register.'”* Aloysius Tautu offered some possible solutions to these anomalies, suggesting that Paris may have made his translation from a lost Greek original, or that the edition in the papal register omitted certain parts that Paris did not leave out when he made his Latin translation.!”°
This interpretation, that Matthew Paris had access to a now lost original version of the letters, is almost certainly incorrect. There is ample cause to doubt the authenticity of Paris’s version of these letters. Multiple scholars have called into question the reliability of Matthew Paris as a source. Richard Vaughan’s estimation of Paris was as a ‘careless, inaccurate, and frequently unreliable writer.'”* Bjérn Weiler has noted that Paris had a tendency to rewrite the letters that he copied into his chronicle, and Suzanne Lewis explained that Paris frequently altered texts to reflect his own opinions, feelings, and prejudices.'” The discrepancies that appear in the correspondence between pope and patriarch as preserved by the papal register versus those of Matthew Paris must be understood as interpolations by the English chronicler.'”°
Gregory [X’s response to the overtures from Germanos II reveal him to be open to discussions about a possible union of the churches (Source III). The letter, dated to 26 July 1232, responds to both the patriarch’s letter to the pope and to the cardinals.'”’ There is no indication that the cardinals sent a reply of their own. The pope addresses the issues raised by the patriarch in a point for point approach. He discusses the ‘mirror’ analogy mentioned by Germanos II — namely the gospels and the patristic writings — and remarks that the Roman Church found nothing contrary in this mirror when properly interpreted.'”® The pope stoutly defends his interpretation of papal primacy, agreeing with Germanos II that Christ will always be the head of the church, but adding that ‘the foundations of the church in the holy mountains and the citizens of heavenly Jerusalem are read to have been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets. Among these the first and principal is the most blessed Peter.’’”? The pope does not argue with Germanos IJ about the mother analogy of the Roman Church, but instead employs the analogy of the body to describe papal primacy. ‘Just as the multitudes of senses remain in the head,’ so the ‘orders of the faithful’ — priests, monks, and laity — rely on the papacy.'®° Gregory IX answers the patriarch’s charge about the fallibility of Peter. ‘In your letter, as if under a form of criticism, [was mentioned] that Peter was moved three times from the gates, being roused by the crowing of the rooster.’’*' The pope argues that the episode served to teach Peter to endure and to have pity, allowing him more easily to show the spirit of leniency to those returning to the unity of the church.'* In the same way, he proposes to welcome the Greek Church back into his flock. ‘If you, out of a sense of compassion, return to the primacy and judgment of the Apostolic See ... we will have compassion for your suffering and, with the Apostle, wil! commiserate in your pain.’ Gregory LX, in effect, argues that the failings of Peter and the papacy are not failings, but the hallmarks of mercy and forgiveness that he will use in pursuing union with Germanos II.
The papal response addresses the comments made in Germanos II’s letter about the conflict between Peter and Paul. Gregory IX indicates that what we perceive to be a conflict between the apostles has little in common with the current schism between the Greek and Roman Churches. Rather, theirs was a result of their differing missions. He points out that, while Peter preached to the Jews, Paul preached to the Gentiles, and thus was less bound by Judaic law.'** Any conflict between the two, therefore, must be understood as a result of their evangelical missions. Even if they did preach to different peoples, the two preached one church, and Gregory IX is adamant that Peter was at the head of that church.'® He argues that Peter’s authority ‘was clearly confirmed by the words of the Lord, and that he alone received the keys to the kingdom of heaven.'®° Moreover, the pope comments that ‘a body with nore than one head is monstrous and the one without a head is without a leader.’'*’ In other words, a union of the churches would be impossible without some acknowledgement of the primacy of Rome.
On this point, Gregory IX gives some indication of his view of the cause of the schism between the churches. He states that ‘the Lord foresaw that the Church of God would be crushed by tyrants, mangled by heretics and divided by schismatics, and thus gave authority to Peter.'8* The implication is that the Greek Church had been beset by troubles, largely of an internal nature. ‘Heretics and schismatics’ is almost certainly a reference to Byzantium’s long history of struggles with divergent groups and ideologies, while being ‘crushed by tyrants’ is probably an allusion to the role of the emperor in the ecclesiastical affairs of the Greek Church.'® The pope expands on this line of thought, discussing the comment by Germanos IJ about who was to blame for the schism:
When the Church of the Greeks withdrew from the unity of the Roman See, that which had been free at once lost the privilege of ecclesiastical liberty. It became the slave of secular power, so that, by the righteous judgment of God, she who refused to recognize the sacred primacy in Peter, reluctantly endured an earthly lord.'”°
Gregory IX is clearly under the impression that the patriarch, or his predecessors, would have happily acknowledged the primacy of Rome, thus ending the schism, had it not been for what he considered to be the ‘caesaropapist’ interference of the Byzantine emperor.'*! This idea appears to be contrary to historical precedent, as it was usually the emperor, not the patriarch, who sought ecclesiastical dialogue and improved relations with the Roman Church. Anthony Kaldellis has demonstrated that Patriarch Michael Kerularios was careful not to contradict the foreign policy goals of Constantine [IX Monomachos in his conflict with Cardinal Humbert in 1054.'°* It was probably the emperor Alexios J Komnenos, rather than the patriarch, who took the initiative to invite Peter Grossolano, archbishop of Milan, to discuss theological problems in Constantinople in 1112.!"? Even after the Fourth Crusade, Theodore J Laskaris was eager to meet with envoys sent by Cardinal Pelagius in Herakleia Pontike in 1214, despite the objections of Patriarch Theodore IJ Eirenikos.'™
With so many examples of the Byzantine emperor supporting negotiations toward church union, how do we account for Gregory IX’s harsh distrust of secular authority and concerns about caesaropapism in the East? The answer, almost certainly, can be derived from the pope’s own policies, specifically with respect to the emperor in the west, Frederick II. Since coming to the papal throne, Gregory [X had been at odds with the western emperor, pressing hiim to fulfill his crusader vow. When he finally excommunicated Frederick II in, 1227, the pope initiated a series of schemes to undermine. the emperor’s authority. He urged the clergy of the Kingdom of Sicily to stop paying taxes to the emperor, hired mercenaries and marshalled an army to attack his holdings in Italy, and attempted to threaten Frederick II’s position in Germany with the election of a rival king.'’”> The struggle confirmed Gregory IX in his determination that the power of kings and emperors was a threat to the church.'”° This undoubtedly skewed his view of the Byzantine emperor and his role in the Greek Church, as well as his approach to negotiating an end to the schism. The pope’s letter to Germanos II in 1232 ends, as one might expect, with areference to the story of the prodigal son,'*’ calling on the Greek Church to give up its errant ways and return to unity with Rome.'®
The final correspondence between pope and patriarch, dated 18 May 1233, was delivered by the friars who arrived for the disputatio in Nicaea in January 1234 (Source IV). Gregory [X expounds on two important concepts in this letter to the patriarch. The first reaffirms his belief that secular interference perpetuated the schism, while the second puts particular emphasis on the problem of leavened or unleavened bread in the Eucharist. In regards to secular interference, the pope, as Germanos II had already done, refers to Old Testament examples to demonstrate his point. The pope states that the schism of the Greeks was anticipated by that brought about under Jerobo’am, who ‘made Israel to sin’ as a result of political circumstances.'*? From the New Testament, Gregory IX points to the story of the two swords, which he interprets to be the material and the spiritual sword.?°° ‘When Jesus spoke to the disciples about the acquisition of the spiritual sword, they offered two in that place, which the Lord said are sufficient, clearly for the governance of the spiritual and the temporal crime.”°! The pope argues that both swords were bequeathed to the church, but, while one was to be employed by the church, the other was to be used for the church — ‘One [is to be wielded] by the priest, the other at the command of the priest by the soldier.’ This letter conveys to Germanos II the pope’s view that the secular ruler acts for the benefit of the church, and under its direction, the implication being that such an arrangement had been violated by the Byzantine emperors, and their actions required correction in order for union to be achieved.”
The other issue addressed by Gregory IX in this letter is the use of leavened versus unleavened bread, or azymes, in the Eucharist. The pope gives a very generous interpretation of the divergent views, which seems to offer an outline to a possible solution and indicates his willingness to compromise with Germanos IJ. He argues that differences in the Greek and Latin rite did not denote a different or alien sacrament, merely a different interpretation. Gregory IX employs as an analogy’ a story from the Gospel of John, in which the ‘younger disciple,’ presumably John, ran ahead of Peter to the tomb of Christ. Although he arrived first, John did not enter the tomb, whereas Peter entered and saw the funerary clothes set aside.?™ Gregory [X identifies John as the Greek Church, ‘running ahead to the tomb’ — in other words, running ahead to the faith.” The pope praises the Greeks, commenting that they rightly boasted a tradition of being among the first to adopt Christianity.°° The Latins, however, Gregory [X associates with Peter, ‘entering the tomb,’ and thus gaining a greater understanding of the faith.
But the Latin, following scripture, with the elder Peter, had earlier entered the tomb, from which proceeds spiritual meaning, and saw laying there the linens, which had covered the most holy Body, designating the Church, and he observed the separate napkin which had been over the head. Thus he chose to celebrate the more marvelous sacrament of the glorified body in the azymes of purity.7°”
Such an interpretation perpetuates the concept of the pope as the father figure, giving guidance to those under his authority. The Greeks in this comparison are not described strictly as being in error — both the Greeks and the Latins are associated with disciples, as shown in the gospels. Rather Gregory IX explains the divergence in practice as a problem of clarification. What the Greeks do is not wrong, but it can be more right. Indeed, Gregory IX goes on to comment that it did not matter if the bread used for the Eucharist was leavened or unleavened. He explains to Germanos II that “bread, simple before the sacrifice, is bread, but in truth when transubstantiation is brought about by the [pronouncement of] the words of the lord, it is not bread, and therefore it may be called neither leavened nor unleavened.””* This statement gives us a glimpse of what Gregory IX may have considered as a possible compromise. He is essentially offering to recognize the Greek use of leavened bread as an orthodox practice. The pope may have expected a similar gesture in return — that Germanos II and the Greek Church would announce that the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist was permissible. There is a clear connection between this offer and the circumstances surrounding the Cypriot monks who were executed in 1231. Latin authorities on Cyprus punished the monks not because of their own practice but because the monks themselves refused to cease their condemnation of the use of azymes in the Roman Church. Gregory IX could well have hoped that an agreement of mutual respect for the two different practices in the Eucharist would prevent similar incidents in the future, and allow for more positive relations between Greeks and Latins.
What conclusions can we draw from the correspondence between Gregory IX and Germanos II? Both emphasize the issue of papal primacy in their letters, and the patriarch had shown considerable generosity in his respect for the place of the papacy in church hierarchy. At the other church-union negotiations following the Fourth Crusade, the primacy of Rome had been a central topic. All indications suggest that the same would be true in the coming meeting in 1234. As we shall see, however, this was not to be the case. Another issue we might expect to be raised is that of secular authority over the Greek Church. The pope shows tremendous concern over the role of the emperor in church matters, thus we might expect the papal representatives to request that the ruler in Nicaea be excluded from the proceedings. Instead, John III Vatatzes plays an active role in the disputatio in Nicaea and Nymphaion, conversing often with Gregory [X’s envoys. Both Gregory IX and Germanos II allude to the situation in Cyprus and the Greek monks who were executed there in 1231 in their letters, but no source indicates that Cyprus itself was ever discussed at the meeting in 1234,
In many ways, the disputatio of 1234 appears disconnected from the exchange between pope and patriarch. In one crucial aspect, however, the talks that emerge from the correspondence very accurately reflect the will and intention of the two ecclesiastical leaders. Both the pope and patriarch mention the ‘mirror of scripture and patristic writings’ as a basis for correcting errant doctrines and practices. Each believed that an honest and faithful reading of the gospels and other texts would correct theological error and prove their own position to be orthodox. In other words, theological matters would be paramount in the coming disputatio.
The papacy had learned from the failure of the meetings in 1204 and 1206 that they could not force union upon the Greek Church. They were going to have to address the problem of the schism in theological terms. This is not to say that political matters do not appear in the talks at Nicaea and Nymphaion. In fact, political matters arise often in the report on the disputatio, but the discussions between the patriarch and the papal envoys concentrate on theological differences between the two churches, and in that way strive to bring union.
6. Who are the Friars?
Gregory IX’s final letter to Germanos JI introduces four friars as his representatives to the Greek Patriarch. They include two Dominicans, identified as Hugo and Peter, and two Franciscans, Haymo and Rodulphus. The pope describes them as ‘men of virtue, famous for their devotion, renowned for their moral reputat?vn and gifted with the knowledge of the Sacred Scriptures.”°* Because much was at stake in these negotiations, we can conclude that the pope had a great deal of faith in these friars to execute his policies and represent the theological as well as political interests of the Roman Church. Unfortunately, our information about these men ts incomplete. It is possible, however, to build profiles of these men, especially based on their status as friars. We know that the mendicant orders had been active in the East, making contacts and developing skills that would be of benefit in papal diplomatic dealings with Nicaea.?'° Gregory IX had sent friars as missionaries to numerous peoples in the East, including the Cumans,”” Ruthenians,”!? Nestorians,?" and Jacobites.”’* As we have already seen, the successful proselytizing missions of the mendicant friars in the Byzantine East had caused Germanos II some concern.”!> Western monastic orders were present in the region almost immediately after 1204.7'° Franciscan friars were active in the Latin Empire almost as soon as their order was recognized as the Order of the Friars Minor by Pope Innocent III in 1210.7!’ The images depicting St Francis of Assisi found in the Kalenderhane Camii in modern Istanbul represent the earliest known frescoes of the saint.7!* By 1220, the Franciscans had a house at Pera, and admiration for their ascetic way of life was spreading among the Greeks.*!? The Dominicans appeared in Latin Constantinople later.’”° Like the Franciscans, they were active in preaching to the Greek communities living under Latin rule. The anonymous Contra graecos, composed in 1252, is probably the work of a Dominican friar residing in the city for the purpose of encouraging the Greeks to accept the supremacy of the pope.””!
Their commitment to scholarship meant that the mendicant orders were quite capable of debating doctrinal matters with the theologians of the Greek Church.’ The thirteenth-century Franciscan chronicler Thomas of Eccleston states that it was only after succeeding in theological learning that members of his order went on to conduct the affairs of preaching.?” As Michael Angold explained, the mendicant orders ‘introduced a spirit of reasoned dialogue’ that the Greeks could appreciate.?** Several Dominican and Franciscan friars rose to prominent positions in the universities of Western Europe, especially at Oxford and Paris. Chris Schabel has conducted a thorough study of the internal debate around azymes and the Greek use of leavened bread in western universities.”*° A central academic focus of the orders was foreign languages.” The prominent English Franciscan Roger Bacon was a stroug advocate for linguistic study. He rated the study of languages as one of the principal aspects of the curriculum at Oxford”’’ and argued that learning the Greek language was necessary for correcting theological errors and preaching to the Greek people.?”? The bilingual ability of the friars — especially of the Franciscans — made them prime candidates for diplomatic service.?”
The diplomatic resumé of the Franciscans is particularly impressive.”°° Gregory IX is known to have employed the friars in his dealings with the western emperor.**! Matthew Paris writes that the friars of the Dominican and Franciscan orders had become the ‘selected agents and messengers’ of the pope, and that they were found in the service of kings.*? Using the friars as representatives to the Byzantine emperor was thus a natural extension of diplomatic activities already undertaken in the West. Franciscans played a significant and continuous role in communications between Nicaea and Latin Constantinople, as well as with the West, serving as representatives for both Latins and Byzantines.” Salimbene de Adam tells us that he once encountered a Franciscan friar, also named Salimbene, who had been born in Constantinople and was half-Italian and half-Greek. The Salimbene in question was in the West serving as a ‘messenger’ from Vatatzes.**4 Franciscans and Dominicans served as envoys and advisors to the Latin emperors John of Brienne and Baldwin IJ.” John of Brienne is considered to have been particularly attached to the Franciscans, and possibly joined the order before he died.”*° Both orders would continue to exert influence and serve in a diplomatic capacity in the years following 1261.” John Parastron, a Franciscan, served as an envoy from Michael VIJJ Palaiologos to Louis [X of France in 1270 and was the interpreter on the Byzantine delegation to Lyons in 1274.77* Another example of a bilingual friar is Simon of Constantinople, a Dominican who fled the city in 1261 for Negroponte and returned to the capital in 1299. He kept up a correspondence with numerous Byzantines, encouraging his Greek-speaking friends to learn Latin.”
All of this suggests that the friars who represented Gregory IX in 1234 had a great deal of training and were perhaps capable in the Greek language. Unfortunately, neither the letters of Gregory [IX nor the report written by the friars themselves confirm such a background for any particular individual. We are forced, therefore, to deduce the identity and background of each individual friar. We know least about the two Dominicans, Hugo and Peter of Sézanne. Both appear to have been of French origin. Hugo is a true mystery. The friars’ report gives no direct clues to his identity. However, a nutable Dominican with the same name, Hugo of St Cher, is known to have been active in academic circles in the early thirteenth century. He was born in 1200 and studied at the university in Paris. After joining the Dominican order in 1225, he taught in Paris from 1230 to 1235.7 Salimbene de Adam reports that ‘venerable Hugo’ was elevated to the post of cardinal bishop of St Sabine by Pope Innocent IV in the 1240s, after he had gained a reputation for his commentary on the Bible.**! While we cannot say with any certainty that this is the same Hugo who took part in the disputatio of 1234, he is just the sort of individual Gregory IX would have appointed to the embassy if his goal was to win over the Greeks, and the circumstantial evidence certainly fits."
The other Dominican, Peter of Sézanne, was a prior and lector who is depicted as a notable missionary. Gerard de Frachet preserves a description of Peter’s activities while on this mission, given in the first person, and apparently set in Constantinople in 1233 before the friars had reached Nicaea.” Peter states that he had travelled east ‘with other brothers from the lord pope, to settle, if possible, the controversy of the modern Greeks.’** In Constantinople, Peter encountered a Muslim man, described as ‘a religious man with political powers who dressed modestly.’*** After the man was imprisoned for blasphemy, Peter encouraged him to convert to the Christian faith. The individual in question was eventually baptized with the name Paul.**’ Even if we address this story of conversion with the appropriate caution, it still tells us much about the activities of the mendicant orders and about Peter of Sézanne himself. We can say with some assurance that he was an avid missionary.
Although we know more about the Franciscan friars who took part in the papal embassy to Nicaea in 1234, our knowledge is still quite limited. Rodulphus of Remis is thought to have been born in France, hence the name ‘Remensis,’ but he may have been raised in England.*** Thomas of Eccleston identifies Rodulphus as an Englishman who ‘came to England after many years of toil, and after giving himself to the contemplative life at Salisbury for a long space, made a happy end.’**? No additional information Is given.
The individual we know best of all the friars is Haymo of Faversham. Born in southern England, Haymo is the only one of the friars we know who did not have French origins.?°° Thomas of Eccleston regards Haymo as a man ‘of authority and renown.’*>! He writes that Haymo practised such severe penitence that he was left feeble and weak.?? In addition to his devotion and piety, Haymo was known for his skills as a preacher. Within the account of Thomas of Eccleston is a famous story in which Haymo, immediately after having entered the Franciscan Order, volunteered to preach to a large crowd that had gathered at St Denis on Easter Sunday, 14 April 1224.°* His words were so moving, Thomas of Eccleston tells us, that Haymo spent the next three days hearing the confessions of the entire congregation.
After returning to England as one of the first Franciscans in the country, possibly as early as September 1224,**° Haymo spent some time teaching at Oxford before going on to similar positions at Paris, Tours, Bologna, and Padua.”°° Haymo was made the provincial minister to England in 1239,?°’ and only about a year later was elevated to the post of minister general of the Franciscan order, following the death of Albert of Pisa.7® After a tenure as minister general in which he is thought to have done much to promote the study of theology as well as preaching,” Haymo died in 1244.76
Even with the sparse evidence we have for the careers of these men, it is clear that the papal representatives who championed the position of the Roman Church in the disputatio of 1234 had strong ties to both the academic and missionary activities of the mendicant orders. Still, we are left with certain questions regarding the conduct of the friars during the disputatio. For example, which of them spoke Greek? Nowhere in their report of the proceedings do the friars indicate that an interpreter was provided for them. It is difficult to imagine that the Greeks at Nicaea were unprepared for the Latin disputants, thus they almost certainly would have had capable interpreters on hand for the coming discussions. Such was the case for previous church-union negotiations. During the disputatio between Anselm of Havelberg and Niketas of Nicomedia in 1136, a Latin in the imperial service, Moses of Bergamo, was employed to translate for both sides.”°' The Latins provided their own interpreter in the person of Nicholas of Otranto on two occasions — the disputatio between Cardinal Benedict and the Greek clergy in Constantinople in 1206, and the proceedings in Constantinople and Herakleia Pontike in 1214—1215.? Yet the report of the friars does not indicate that they employed an interpreter, nor does it suggest that their hosts offered such a service, despite the fact that Latins were present and probably in the service of the Nicaean regime, and almost certainly bilingual. Thus, one or more of the friars must have had a strong knowledge of the Greek language, at least good enough to translate for the rest to understand.”” Their report on the disputatio never records a complaint about a lack of understanding, nor does it state inat the friars asked for an interpreter or for the discussions to be slowed down due to lack of comprehension. Instead, the friars’ report describes the linguistic competence of one or more of their number, referring to ‘one of our brothers, upon whom the Lord had bestowed favour in the literature of the Greeks.’?** Not only does this suggest that the friars came to Nicaea with their own interpreter, but we must consider that the phrase ‘one of our brothers’ does not preclude the possibility that more than one of the friars had a working knowledge of the Greek language.”?©
One episode in the report of the friars indicates that their skill and experience in the study of Greek texts was put to use even before they had reached Nicaea. The friars record that the Greek disputants were most perturbed when their Latin adversaries employed Greek patristic sources to endorse the positions of the western church.” While many, if not all of these writings were almost certainly available in the West, the friars themselves state that they obtained these and other Greek works in the libraries of Constantinople before their arrival in Nicaea. Indeed, the friars refer to a ‘plentiful multitude of Greek books’ they found in Constantinople and brought with them for the disputatio.*©’ The fact that Greek texts would have been available in Latin-occupied Constantinople should come as no surprise. It would have been a simple matter for the friars to have gained access to Greek patristic texts in the libraries of the churches and monasteries of Constantinople, preserved there long before 1204. The language of their report — stating that they found these works in Constantinople — would even suggest that the friars made a conscious choice to stop there before the disputatio began, identifying texts that would be useful and how they might be employed to refute the arguments of the Greeks.
The most profound example of the proficiency of the friars in the Greek language is their translation of documents composed during the talks in Nicaea and Nymphaion. The friars display an ability to translate texts both from Greek to Latin and from Latin to Greek. This is clearly visible in an early episode of the disputatio in Nicaea, after the friars have presented a set of reasons which support the Latin view on the procession of the Holy Spirit.2° When the Greek disputants ask that a list of the reasons be put in writing, the friars obliged them. Their report specifically states that the writing was first presented in Latin, and that the Greeks requested that ‘it be translated into Greek for them.’ Much is implied by this statement. Not only are the friars clearly capable of translating, but the fact that the Greeks ask them to provide a Greek translation suggests that they trust the linguistic ability of the friars.?”” When the Greeks.respond to this document with a treatise of their own, the friars set about translating that work from Greek into Latin.?”!
While all of this testifies to the competence of one or more of the friars with the Greek language, the evidence available does not allow us to definitively tdentify which of the friars performed the translation. One individual we can Safely rule out is Peter of Sézanne. In the story of his conversion of a Muslim in Constantinople, Peter himself remarks that he spoke to the man in question through ‘a companion who knew Greek and Latin.”” The implication, therefore, is that Peter himself was not bilingual. As for the other three, any or all could have had some ability to interpret. No evidence exists to allow us to rule out Rodulphus of Remis. If the Hugo who served as the papal representative in 1234 is the same Dominican whom Salimbene de Adam praised for his commentary on the Bible and who was promoted by the pope to Cardinal of St Sabine, it stands to reason that he would have had some familiarity with the Greek language. The long career of Haymo of Faversham in the universities of Western Europe — especially at Oxford, where Roger Bacon rated linguistic studies so important — is a strong indication that he would have been well versed in the Greek language. Unfortunately, the sources we have show only that languages were a major part of the curriculum only after Haymo’s tenure at Oxford. He may have been instrumental in bringing the study of languages to the English university. We simply cannot say with any certainty. Haymo’s time at the universities of France and Italy is another hint at his bilingual ability, but again we cannot say this definitively. All we can say with any certainty is that someone in the papal delegation in 1234 had an impressive understanding of the Greek language.
Another question surrounding the friars and their actions as papal representatives in 1234 concerns who wrote their report on the proceedings. It is entirely possible that the document was written by committee, as the report seems to reflect the common efforts of each of the four friars. Girolamo Golubovich, however, has insisted that it is necessary to identify a chief secretary or reporter among them.”’? While others have noted a strong possibility that one of the Franciscans was the definitive author,” Golubovich argued strongly that the report was composed by Rodulphus of Remis.*” The most convincing evidence to suggest that Rodulphus performed this function is derived from a statement on the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit put forward by the friars during the disputatio.*” At the end of the statement, in order to show that all agreed with the content and the argument, each one of the friars signed their name. Each friar identified himself as an apokrisiarios of Gregory IX, and three of the friars added that they ‘believed and felt” in agreement with the contents of the document.?”” The only friar to state otherwise was Rodulphus, who stated ‘thus I write, and thus I believe.*”* The word subscribo seems to demonstrate that it was Rodulphus who authored the statement of faith on the procession issue, and implies that it was he who was responsible for composing all other documents produced by the papal representatives, including the report given to Gregory IX describing the disputatio.
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق