It is the peculiar distinction of Steven Runciman to have directed our attention to the importance of the twelfth century in the “hardening” of the schism between the Greek and Latin Churches. In the main, Runciman attributes this unhappy development to those tensions which arose between East and West as a result of the crusades and the establishment of the Latin States in Syria-Palestine. While it is not our intention to question Runciman's arguments, it may be suggested that there are other fruitful approaches to the problem of relations between Rome and Constantinople in the twelfth century which Runciman has touched on only in passing. In general terms, it is the purpose of this article to suggest that the development of the schism must also be understood within the context of a complex political drama, centred on southern Italy, in which the Papacy, the Normans, the Germans and the Greeks were the chief protagonists. Our investigation will be confined to the period extending from the signing of the Concordat of Worms in 1122 to the death of Pope Eugene III in 1153. The purpose of the opening section which follows is: 1) to describe the genesis of this web of conflicting aims and objectives; 2) to indicate in what ways the problem of church union had become woven into the fabric of these political developments; 3) to delineate the various responses, both ecclesiastical and political, which the Papacy made to these new developments in her relations with the Greeks prior to the Second Crusade.
1. Runciman, S., The Eastern Schism (Oxford, 1955), passim, esp., 100–101. See also Charanis, P., “Aims of the Medieval Crusades and how they were viewed by Byzantium,” Church History: Studies in Christianity and Culture, XXI (1952), 123–134. This excellent article is curiously absent from Runciman's bibliography.
2. The following abbreviations are used throughout this article: MGH SS = Monumenta G e r m a n i a e Historica, Scriptores, ed., G. H. Pertz and others; RHF = Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France, ed., M. Bouquet and others; RISS (old) = Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, ed., L. A. Muratori; RISS (new) = new edition of RISS (old) by G. Carducci and others; PL = Patrologiae Curus Completus, Series Latina, ed., J. P. Migne; RHCOc = Recueil des Historiens des Croisades, Histyriens Occidentaux, ed., under the direction of the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres; JL = Regesta pontificum Romanorum, ed., P. Jaffé, S. Loewenfeld and others; DR = Dölger, F., Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des oströmischen Reiches (being Reihe A, Abt. I of Corpus der griechischen Urkunden des Mittelalters und der neueren Zeil, 3 vols., Munich-Berlin, 1924–1932); MOIG = Mitteilungen des österreichischen Instituts für Geschichtsforschung; WE = Wibald of Corbie, Episolae, ed. Jaffé, P., in v. 1 of his Bibliotheca rerum Germaniearum (Berlin, 1864).
3. Principal sources for these events are: FuIc of Benevento, PL, 173, 1197–1205; Alexander Telesinus, RISS (old), V, 617–619; Romuald of Salerno, RISS (new), VII, I, 216–220, who garbles his report, hoping thereby to hide the true character of Norman aggression; JL, 8411, 8413 and I, p. 832. Indispensable for the history of the Normans in southern Italy are Caspar, E., Roger II. und die Gründung der normannisch-sicilischen Monarchie (Innsbruck, 1904); Chalandon, F., Histoire de la domination normande en Italic et en Sicile (2 vols., Paris, 1907); Curtis, E., Roger of Sicily and the Normans in Lower Italy. 1016–1154. (New York-London, 1912), a work leaning heavily upon Caspar and Chalandon; Cohn, W., Das Zeitalter der Normannen in Sizilien (Bonn, 1920).
4. Peter the Deacon, MGH SS, VII, 811; Bernard, Epistolae, 129, 139, PL, 182, 283–285, 293–295; Romuald of Salerno, RISS(new), VII, I, 221–222. The German sources are collected in Bernhardi, W., Lothar von Supplinburg (Leipzig, 1879), 421f. For further papal activity against Roger, see the sources for the council at Pisa, collected in Hefele, C. J., Histoire des Conciles, trans. and ed., Leclercq, H. (10 vols. in 19, Paris, 1907–1931), V, I, 706f; Kehr, P., Italia Pontificia (8 vols. in 10, Rome, 1906–1935), VIII, 39f. Note that for convenience I shall refer to all rulers of the Empire as “emperor” whether crowned as such or not.
5. The Italian sources reflect the tension between Pope and Emperor: Romuald, RISS(new), VII, I, 223–224; Peter the Deacon, MGH SS, VII, 820. However, Gleber, H., Papst Eugen III (Jena, 1936), 6–8, the best monograph on its subject, neglects to take this into consideration with the result that his presentation of papal-imperial relations with regard to the Normans in the middle of the twelfth century leaves something to be desired. Nor does Chalandon, op.cit., II, 71 emphasize this sufficiently. On the other hand, Haller, J., Das Papsttum. Idee and Wirklichkeit (5 vols., 2nd ed., Stuttgart, 1950–1953), III, 51, and Fliche, A., Foreville, R. and Rousset, J., Du premier Concile du Latran à l'Avènement d'Innocent III (being IX, I, ofHistoire de l'Eglise, ed., Fliche, A. and others, Paris, 1948), 67, are fully aware of the problem. In this, they follow Bernhardi, op.cit., 701, 715–732, 745–747, 755f. For the original papal treaty with the Normans in 1059, seeFliche, A., La réforme grégorienne (3 vols., Paris 1924–1927), I, 328–330, or, better, Gay, J., L'Italie méridionale et l'Empire byzantin (Paris 1904), 516–519. That Innocent was determined not to abandon his claims is clear front JL, 7848.x
6. Whether or not Roger enters the crosscurrents of German history at this point depends on our dating of the evideice in the following: Godfrey of Viterbo, MGH SS, XXII, 260–261; Hist. Welf. Weingart., MGH SS, XXI, 468; Ann. Herm. Altahenses, MGH SS, XVII, 381. See Rassow, P., Honor imperii (Monaco, 1940), 32f.
7. Bernhardi, W., Konrad III. (Leipzig, 1883), 179–181.
8. Fulc of Benevento, PL, 173, 1249–1253; JL, 8043. For a discussion of the treaty of San Mignano, see Kehr, P., “Die Belehnungen der süditalienischen Normannen fürsten durch die Päpste (1059–1192)”, Abd. d. Preuss. Akad. d. Wiss. Phil.-hist. Kl. (1934), 1–52, rf. here 42–43.
9. An echo of Conrad's resentment of Innocent's action may be seen in Bernard, Epistolae, 183, PL, 182, 345. For the dating of this letter, Bernhardi, , Konrad III., 180, and James, B. S., The Letters of St. Beriwrd of Clairvanx (London, 1953), 304–305.
10. Chalandon, op. cit., II, 108–112, exaggerates perhaps Roger's control of the Church in his realm. See Jordan, E., “La politique ecclésiastique de Roger Ier et les origines de ha ‘legation sicihienne,’” Moyen Age, ser. 2, XXIV (1922), 237–273, XXV (1923), 32–65. For continued trouble on the papal-Norman frontier, see John, of Salisbury, , Historia Pontificalis, XXXII, ed, Poole, R. L. (Oxford, 1937), 66–68.
11. Otto, of Freising, , Gesta Friderici, I, 25, MGH SS in usu schol., XLVI, ed., Waitz, G. (1912), 39. For general observations on Venetian policy, Ostrogorsky, G., A History pf the Byzantine State, trans., Hussey, J. (Oxford, 1956), 317.
12. The Roman revolt attracted considerable attention from contemporary writers, egs., Otto of Freising, Chronicon. VII, 27, MGH SS in usu schol., XLV, ed., A. Hofmeister (1912), 352–354; John of Salisbury, XXVII, 60; Godfrey of Viterbo, MGH SS, XXII, 261; Romuald of Salerno, RISS (new), VII, I, 227–228. A brief treatment of these developments may be found in Folz, R., L'Idée d'Empire en Ocident du Ve au XIVe siěcle (Paris, 1953), 102–109, and Gleber, op.cit., 5–33, whose treatment of Arnold of Brescia should be compared with Frugoni, A., Arnaldo da Brescia nelle fonti del Sec. XII (Roma, 1954). The bibliography on Rome in the Middle Ages is extensive. A good introduction to the literature may be found in Folz. Especially pertinent at this point are Graf, A., Roma nella memona e nelle imaginazioni nel Medio Evo (Torino, 1923), 54f; DupréTheseider, E., L'Idea imperiale di Roma nella tradizione de Medioevo (Milano, 1942), 37–41, 123–137; Brezzi, P., Roma e l'impero medievale (Bologna, 1948), 332–337; Schoenian, M. A., Der Idee der Volkssouveränität im mittelaltenlichen Rom (Leipzig, 1919), 46–62.
13. JL, 8714; Liber Pontificalis, ed., L. Duchesne (2 vols., Paris, 1886–1892), II, 386; Bernhardi, , Konrad III., 451–453.
14. Gleber, op.cit., 7–8, omits this, preseating an inadequate picture of the papal dilemma with Rome and Sicily. However, decisive evidence may be found in Romuald, RISS(new), VII, I, 227; Ex chronicig Haugustaldensibus, MGH SS, XXVII, 143; the chronicler of St. Mary's of Ferrara, ed., Gaudenzi, A., in Monumenti storici. Società napoletane di stone patria. Series I. Chronache (Naples, 1888), 27.
15. Lucius seems to have made a fruitless appeal to Conrad. See JL, 8684. As for his treaty with Roger, the account in Chalandon, op.cit., II, 113–115, is to be preferred to Gleber, loc.cit. That this treaty was but a temporary truce between deadly enemies is proved by the wording of JL, 8653, PL, 179, 905.
16. During the opening months of Eugene's reign, Bernard of Clairvaux attempted to assist the Pope in his relations with Conrad. See his Epistolae, 243, 244, PL, 182, 437–442. The dating of these letters has occasioned some discussion. Bernhardi, Konrad III., 459–460 and James, op.cit., 391–395, correctly place these letters here whereas Fliche, Foreville and Rousset do not, op.cit., 87, n. 8.
17. For Conrad's decision to go to the East, see WE, 33, pp. 111–112. An indispensable tool in using this great collection of letters is Zatschek, H., “Wibald von Stablo. Studien zur Reichskanzlei und Reichspohitik unter den älteren Staufern,” MOIG, Ergänzungsband, I (1928), 237–495, ref. here 325. See also Virginia E. Berry's treatment in her chapter on the Second Crusade in Setton, K. M., ed., A History of the Crusades, I: The First Hundred Years, ed., Baldwin, M. W. (Philadelphia, 1955), 476–477. Notable also is Constable, G. C., “The Second Crusade as seen by Contemporaries,” Traditio, IX (1953), 213–279, for its splendid bibliographical information, ref. here, 278–279. As Gleber, op.cit., 48, 53, reminds us, the papal crusade bulls Quantum praedecessores nostri and Divina dispensatione were directed to France and Italy respectively, and not to Germany.
18. See the sentiments attributed to him on his deathbed, Mans, P., “Die Musen des Kaiser Alexios I,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift, XXII (1913), 357–358, lines 328–329.
19. This continuity of policy is admirably treated by Ostrogorsky, op.cit., 337, and Lamma, P., Comneni e Staufer (2 vols., Rome, 1955–1957), I, 20f. Particularly illuminating in this regard were the attempts made to preserve Byzantine commercial supremacy on the sea by pursuing a policy of “divide and rule” with Genoa, Pisa and Venice. See DR, II, 1253, 1254, 1310, 1312, 1332. The sources and standard authorities are summarized in these entries. Significantly, in the opening years of his reign, John Comnenus tried unsuccessfully to reduce the great position which Venice occupied within Byzantine economy. See Chalandon, F., Jean Ccmnène (1118–1143) et Manuel Comnène (1143–1180) (being the second volume of Les Comnès, Paris, 1912), 156f; Kretsehmayr, A., Geschichte von Venedig (3 vole., Gotha, 1905–1920), I, 224–229; PR, II, 1304; Danstrup, J., “Manuel's Coup against Genoa and Venice in the Light of Byzantine Commercial Policy,” Classica et Medievalia, X (1949), 195–219, es., 203–204.
20. The Greeks perceived the dangerous character of Norman ambitions with great clarity. See Cinnamus, John, Epitoime Historiarum, II, 4, ed., Meineke, J. (Bonn, 1836), 37. For Roger's designs on the Latin Orient, see William, of Tyre, , Historia rerum in partibus transmarinis gestarum, XI, 29, XIV, 9, 20, RHCOc, I, 506, 619, 635–636. Gerone, F. treats the evidence dealing with Norman expansion in North Africa. See his L'opera politica e militare di Ruggiero II in Africa ed in Oriente (Catania, 1913), passim.
21. Considerable attention has been given to the relations between the empires of East and West in the High Middle Ages. Good bibliographical directions may be found in K. J. Heilig, “Ostrom und das Deutsche Reich um die Mitte des 12. Jahrhunderts,” in Mayer, T., Heilig, K. J., and Erdmann, C., Kaisertum und Herzogrgewalt im Zeitalten Friedrichs I., MGH Schriften, IX (Stuttgart, 1944) 1–271, rf. here 147–148, n.1; also Ohnsorge, W., Dais Zweikaiserproblem im früheren Mittelater (Hildesheim, 1947), 140.
22. These diplomatic exchanges are recorded, together with citation of the pertinent sources, in DR, II, 1309, 1313. The best treatment here remains Chalandon, Jean et Manuel, 164f. For an interesting account of the chief of the German delegation to Constantinople, see Dräseke, J., “Bisehof Anselm von Havelberg und seine Gesandtschnftsreisen nach Byzanz,” Zeitschrift für Kircheingeschichte, XXI (1900–1901), 160–185, and Schreiber, G., “Anselm von Havelberg and die Ostkirche,” Zcitschrift für Kirclsengeschichte, LX (1942), 357–411. Heilig, op.oit., 135, n.1 has good bibliographical directions for Anselm.
23. The treaty is found in Comnena, Anna, Alexiad, ed., Leib, B. (3 vols., Paris, 1937–1945), III, 125–137. Of especial merit are Heilig's comments on this treaty, op.cit., 125–128.
24. The best general account of John's dealings with Antioch is Cahen, C., La Syrie du Nord à l'Epoque des Croisades (Paris, 1940), 347–366. For a brief introduction to the relation between the Greeks and the Latin Orient, see LaMonte, John, “To what extent was the Byzantine Empire the Suzerain of the Crusading States?” Byzantion, VII (1932), 253–264.
25. DR, II, 1320–1322, 1338 lists the sources for the negotiations which culminated in the marriage of Irene and Manuel. Chalandon, Jean et Manuel, 169f, 209–211, 258–262 disentangles the evidence preserved chiefly by Otto of Freising, Chronicon, VII, 28, p. 355, and Gesta Friderici, I, 25, pp. 37–43. See also Cinnamus, II, 4, pp. 36–38 and Choniates, Nicetas, Histona. De Manuele Comneno, I, 2, ed., Bekker, I. (Bonn, 1835), 72–73. Some light on this evidence is east by Vernadskij, G., “Relations byzantinorusses an XIIe siècle,” Byzantion, IV (1927–1928), 269–279, esp., 272. For Manuel's abortive negotiations with Roger, see DR, II, 1331. This is recorded chiefly by Cinnamus, III, 2, pp. 91–92. See Chalandon's penetrating critique of this evidence in Domination normande, II, 127–129, and Jean et Manuel, 172–173, 258–259. The “difficulties” alluded to in the text were fundamentally a conflict in ideologies between German and Greek notions of empire. The Greek scorn for German “pretensions” may be seen in Cinnamus, V, 7, pp. 218–220, and the correspondence, preserved in Otto, supra, reveals the mutual fear, jealousy and suspicion of both parties. See Ohnsorge, W., ‘“Kaiser’ Konrad III.,” MOIG, XLVI (1932), 343–361, and his Zweikaiserproblem, 97f; Back, E., “Imperium Romanum,” Classica et Medievalia, VII (1945), 138–149; Dölger, F., “Die ‘Familie der Könige’ im Mittelalter,” in his Byzanz und die Europäische Staatenwelt (Ettal, 1953), 34–69.
26. Manuel's dramatie vindication of his rights over Antioch may be seen in Cinnamus, II, 1–3, pp. 29–35; Nicetas, De Manuele, I, 2, pp. 71–72; Michael, the Syrian, , Chronicle, ed., Chabot, J. B. (4 vols., Paris, 1899–1910), III, 267. Echoes of Byzantine dreams for an Empire “restored” in East and West may be found throughout the writings of the Greek historians. See Cinnamus, V, 7, VI, 9, pp. 218, 278. For his description of Roger as a “tyrant,” II, 4, p. 37; Nicetas, De Joanne VII, XI, XII, 36, 52, 56, De Manuele, II, 8, VII, 1–2, pp. 130–131, pp. 259–268. Writing as he did in the light of the disaster of 1204, Nicetas was deeply critical of Manuel's policies which, he felt, were instrumental in bringing about the debacle. Secondary treatments of Manuel's policies are numerous, from von KapHerr, H., Die abendländische Politik Kaiser Manuels (Strasburg, 1881), passim, esp., 109–116, to Heilig, op.cit., 150f; Ohasorge, Zweikaiserproblem, 90–91, 104; Lamma, op.cit., I, 45f. Manuel's “western flair” is excellently described in Diehl, Ch., La SoOiété byzantine à l'Époque des Comnènes (Paris, 1919), 13f.
27. Primary sources for the growth of anti-Byzantine sentiment in Western Europe are the Anonymi Gesta Francorum, ed., Bréhier, L. (Paris, 1924) and the Hierosolymita of Ekkehard, RHOOc, V, I.
28. See Runciman, op.oit., 110–113 for an excellent treatment of Anna.
29. Peter, the Deacon, , MGH SB, VII, 833.
30. DR, II, 1261–1264; JL, 6334, PL, 163, 388–389; JL, I, 747–748.
31. J. Dräseke, op.cit. (supra, n. 22), 164, suggested that the German representative in the East-West negotiations of 1135–1137, Anselm of Havelberg, was specially commissioned to discuss problems pertaining to church union. It is true that Anselm did discuss mooted points of faith and practise with an eminent Greek theologian. See his Dialogi, PL, 188. However, it is most unlikely that the Papacy was connected in any way with the negotiations of the two Empires at this time.
32. JL, 7883, PL, 179, 354–355.
33. The letters are printed in Theiner, A. and Miklosich, E., Monumenta spectantia ad unionem Ecclesiarum Graecae et Romanae (Vienna, 1872), 1–6. A more modern edition may be found in Lampros, Sp., “Autokratorōn tou Buzantiou chrusoboulla kai chrusa grammata anapheromena eis tēn henosin tōn ekklēsiōn,” Neos Hellēnomnēmōn, XI (1914), 109–11. They present serious difficulties in dating. DR, II, 1302–1303, dates them, 1124–1126, following Norden, W., Das Papsttum und Byzanz (Berlin, 1903), 90–91, and Chalandon, Jean et Manuel, 51. Runciman, op.cit., 114 continues this interpretation. However, I have followed J. Haller, op.cit., III, 499–500, and Ostrogorsky, op.cit., 341–342, who accept the dates 1139–1141 as does Ohnsorge, Zweikaiserproblem, 89–90. That John explains his delay in answering the first papal letter as caused by his wars on the Turks in the vicinity of Antioch suggests that the letter was written shortly after his return to Constantinople in 1139.
34. Theiner and Miklosich, op.cit., 2: “… hōe tou hēmeterou… kai autois tois christianikōtatois Latinois tois echeise,…”
35. Theiner and Miklosich, op.cit., 4: “Duo tauta diērēmena pragmata peri pasan tēn kath' hēmas politeian ho logos egnōrisen,…”
36. Can the phrase, Theiner and Miklosich, op.cit., 2, referring to the constitution of the Church, “… en tē petra tēs pisteōs dia tōn apostolōn” be accidental?
37. Ostrogorsky, op.oit., 341–342, rightly criticizes Chalandon's failure to perceive the political interests of John Comnenus in these negotiations. On the other hand, he falls to appreciate the motives behind Innocent's overtures towards Constantinople. He even neglects to note that it was Innocent who opened the negotiations. Lamma, op.cit., I, 28–30, uafortunately adds little to our understanding of these letters. Ohnsorge, , Zweikaiserproblem, 89–90, briefly refers to these exchanges, arguing that the Papacy was attempting to create a three-way affiance between itself, Conrad and Manuel, against Roger. This is a tantalizing suggestion. However, there is no evidence to support the notion that Innocent wished to become a third party in the East-West alliance, and secondly, it must not be forgotten that the concern of Innocent here was for something far greater than Byzantine support against Roger, i.e., the defence of the claims of the Roman Church against the Byzantine designs on Antioch and southern Italy.
38. Otto, of Freising, , Chronicon, VII, 28, 32, 33, pp. 354, 360–364.
39. Gleber, op.cit., 36–37, follwing Otto, Chronicon, VII, 32, recounts the visit to Eugene at this time by an embassy from the Armenian Church. His account should be compared with the analysis in Tournebize, F., Histoire politique et religieuse de l'Arménie (Paris, 1910), 236–239. It should be noted also that Ohnsorge, Zweikaiserproblem, 91, continues the interpretation mentioned above, supra, it. 37, intimating that Eugene had a hand in cementing the East-West alliance by approving of Manuel 's marriage to Bertha. Once again, there is no sufficient reason to represent the Papacy as party to these developments.
40. Gleber, op.cit., 36, Lamma, op.cit., I, 57, n. 1, and, to a lesser degree, Miss Berry in Setton, opcit., I, 466–467, tend to make the possibility of church union play too important a role in Eugene 's decision to summon the crusade.
41. The papal letter has vanished but the imperial reply remains, DR, II, 1348, dated August, 1146, printed in RHF, XV, 440 and in Theiner and Miklosich, op. cit., 6–8. For a general introduction to this letter and its companion piece (infra, n. 45), see Grumel, V., “Au seuil de Ia deuxième croisade: Deux lettres de Manuel Comnène an pape,” Études Byzantines, III (1945), 143–167.
42. Evidence for this intrigue may be found in Odo, of Deuil, , De profectione Ludovici VII in orientem, ed. and trans., by Berry, Virginia G. (New York, 1948), 10. See also Chalandon, , Domination normande, II, 131–132.
43. Norden, op.cit., 82–83.
44. For a general introduction to the Byzantine attitude towards the crusades, see Charanis, op pit., (supra, n. 1) and the lucid article by Lemerle, P., “Byzance et la eroisade,” Relazioni del X. Congresso internazionale di Scienze Storici. III: Storia del Medio Evo (Firenze, 1955), 595–620.
45. The text of this second imperial letter is in RHF, XV, 974–975. Essential for the understanding of this document is Ohnsorge, W., “Ein Beitrag zur Gesehichte Manuel I. von Byzanz,” Festschrift Albert Brackmann, ed., Leo, Santifaller (Weimar, 1931), 371–393.
46. There seems to be some uncertainty as to the number of papal legates who participated in the Second Crusade. Runeiman, S., A History of the Crusades (3 vols, Cambridge, 1951–1954), II, 284, n. 1, accepts as bona-fide legates only Theodwin and Guy. On the other hand, Berry, in Setton, op. cit., I, 480–481, accepts also Godfrey of Langres and Arnulf of Lisieux. Gleber, op.cit., 59, and Constable op. cit, 263–264 also suggest Bishop Alvis of Arms, making, in Constable's phrase, a “plethora of legates.” However, the evidence for Alvis' position as a legate is not of the best, and John of Salisbury seems to deny legatine status to Godfrey and Arnulf, XXIV, 54f. Perhaps it is therefore safer to agree with Runcimnn and accept only Guy and Theodwin as genuine legates of the Papacy. JL, 9095 and William of Tyre, XVII, I, RHCOe, I, 758–759, would support this decision.
47. JL, 9095, PL, 180, 1251–1252.
48. JL, 9110, PL, 180, 1262.
49. John of Salisbury, XXIV, 55–56, and Miss Berry's judgments on his evidence, in Setton, op.cit., I, 491.
50. As suggested by Norden, op.cit., 83–84, and Constable op.cit., 264.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.
* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.
Usage data cannot currently be displayed