No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 August 2013
The endeavours of Manuel I Comnenus (1143–1180) to obtain a papal coronation from Alexander III in the years 1167–1168, and to have himself recognised as Emperor in the West in place of the schismatic and simoniac Frederick Barbarossa, together with his offers in return to subject the Byzantine Church to the authority of the pope, make up one of the most curious episodes in twelfth-century diplomatic history. The story, as told by Cardinal Boso in his life of Alexander, is well known, and has been discussed by a number of historians. Boso relates that on two occasions Manuel sent an ambassador to the pope declaring his wish to unite the Greek Church (ecclesiam suam graecam) to that of Rome and proposing to do so, asking in return that the ‘crown of the Roman empire’ (Romani corona imperii) should be restored to him by the papacy, since Frederick (crowned in 1155) had so clearly shown himself to be unworthy of it. The first ambassador, identified as the sebastus Jordan, son of Robert of Capua, went to Alexander at Rome; on the second occasion the pope was at Benevento and the unnamed apocrisiarius conferred with him there. Manuel offered a great quantity of men and money, sufficient, his emissaries said, to reduce all Italy to the papal obedience, if his proposals were accepted; on both occasions, however, Alexander and his advisers, having considered the matter carefully, came to the conclusion that the emperor's plan was too doubtful and dangerous. Though cardinals were sent to Constantinople for further discussions, nothing came of it.
1 Liber Pontificalis, ii (ed. Duchesne, L., Paris, 1892), pp. 415, 419Google Scholar.
2 See von Kap-Herr, H., Die abendländische Politik des Kaisers Manuel (Strasbourg, 1881), pp. 86–87Google Scholar; Norden, W., Das Papsttum und Byzanz (Berlin, 1903), pp. 92–94Google Scholar; Chalandon, F., Jean II Comnène et Manuel I Comnène (Paris, 1912), pp. 565–566Google Scholar; Bréhier, L. in Cambridge Medieval History, iv (Cambridge, 1923), p. 602Google Scholar; Haller, J., Das Papsttum, iii (Stuttgart, 1952), pp. 194–195Google Scholar; Runciman, S.The Eastern Schism (Oxford, 1955), p. 120Google Scholar.
3 Johannes Cinnamus, the contemporary Byzantine historian of Manuel's reign, makes a very brief reference to the Emperor's attempts to get Alexander to crown him (Bonn ed., vi, 4, pp. 261–262). The pope, he says, had agreed to do this, but then the arrangements broke down over his stipulation that Manuel should reside in Rome. There is no confirmation of this in any other source; if, in fact, Alexander ever made such a condition, it is hard to believe that it was anything but a device for bringing the negotiations to an end.
4 Ohnsorge, W., Die Legaten Alexanders III im ersten Jahrzehnt seines Pontifikats (Hist. Stud., Heft 175. Berlin, 1928Google Scholar), Excursus 2: Die Datierung der byzantinischen und päpstlichen Gesandtschaften der Jahre 1167 und 1168, pp. 146–153.
5 Chronica Regia Coloniensis (ed. G. Waitz), p. 116; Rahewin (ed. G. Waitz and B. de Simson), p. 348; Otto of St. Blasien (ed. A. Hofmeister), p. 22.
6 P. Jaffé, Regesta Pontificum Romanorum, 11358-11359.
7 Choniates, Nicetas, De Manuele Comneno, Bonn, ed., vii, 1, p. 262Google Scholar: 
8 Cinnamus, iv, 14, p. 171; Annales Cameracenses, a. 1167, M.G.H., SS, xvi, 539.
9 Nicetas (ii, 8, p. 129) says that the period following the Italian war was one of counterfeit friendship (λυκοϕιλία) between Sicily and Byzantium. Certainly there is no sign in any of the sources of the goodwill (τὀ ϵὐμϵνές) with which, Cinnamus says, Manuel came to regard his former enemy (Cinn., iv, 15, p. 175).
10 He describes himself as ‘in arte medicina valde peritus’; Romuald of Salerno, Chronicon, ed. Garufi, C. A., RR. II. SS., new series, vii, part i, p. 253Google Scholar. Falcandus calls him ‘virum in fisica peritissimum’ (Liber de Regno Sicilie, ed. G. B. Siragusa, p. 122).
11 Rom. Sal., p. 253.
12 Chalandon, , Histoire de la domination normande en Italie et en Sicile (Paris, 1907), ii, 305–306Google Scholar; cf. Garufi's introduction to his edition of Romuald, pp. xv, xvii–xviii; Hillger, F., Das Verhältnis des Hugo Falcandus zu Romuald von Salerno (Halle, 1878), pp. 15–16Google Scholar.
13 Rom. Sal., pp. 254–255.
14 Chalandon briefly mentions it, but does not go into its implications at all in his book on John II and Manuel (pp. 570–571; cf. Domination normande, ii, 358–359, and Cambridge Med. Hist., v, 198–199). Also Vignati, C., Storia Diplomatica della Lega Lombarda (Milan, 1886), pp. 98–100Google Scholar.
15 Chalandon, Jean II et Manuel I Comnène, p. 212, n. 3; Du Cange, , Familiae Byzantinae (Paris, 1680), p. 187Google Scholar.
16 Chalandon, loc. cit.; E. Cognasso, ‘Partiti politici e lotte dinastiche a Bisanzio alia morte di Manuele Comneno,’ Mem. della R. Accademia delle Scienze di Torino, 1912, p. 214, n. 3.
17 Cinnamus, v, 5, pp. 214–215; Nic. Chon., iv, 1, p. 167. Cf. Hóman, B., Geschichte des ungarischen Mittelalters, i (Munich, 1940), pp. 395–396Google Scholar; Moravcsik, G., ‘Pour une alliance Byzantino-Hon-groise’, Byzantion, viii, 1933, pp. 556–557Google Scholar; Dölger, F., ‘Ungarn in der byzantinischen Reichspolitik,’ Ostmitteleuropäische Bibliothek, viii, Budapest, 1942, pp. 334–338Google Scholar.
18 Cinn., loc. cit.; Nic. Chon., iii, 4, p. 147; v, 8, p. 221.
19 Cinn., loc. cit.; Chon, Nic.. Thesaurus, xxv, 3Google Scholar (Migne, , Patrologia Graeca, cxl, 252Google Scholar). On the title δϵσπότης see Ostrogorsky, G., ‘Urum-Despotes,’ Byzantinische Zeitschrift, liv, 1951, pp. 448–460Google Scholar; Brehier, L., Les Institutions de l'empire byzantin (Paris, 1949), p. 140Google Scholar.
20 E.g. Chalandon, op. cit., p. 476; Ostrogorsky, G., Geschichte des byzantinischen Staates (2nd ed., Munich, 1952), p. 308Google Scholar; Hóman, p. 395; Jireček, C., Geschichte der Serben, i (Gotha, 1911), pp. 252–253Google Scholar.
21 As both Cinnamus and Nicetas make clear; Cinn. vi, 11, p. 287; Nic. Chon., v, 8, p. 221.
22 Rom. Sal., p. 255: ‘Hoc autem tempore Fredericus imperator Teutonicorum iterum Italiam intravit, et per partes Marchiae usque Anconam venit et earn obsedit.’
23 See von Giesebrecht, W., Geschichte der deutschen Kaiserzeit (Leipzig, 1880), v, 524Google Scholar.
24 For Cinnamus' mockery of Lothar's, and Frederick's, performance of the officium stratoris see v, 7, p. 219Google Scholar.
25 For the details of this see Ohnsorge, op. cit., Excursus I, ‘Die griechische Gesandtschaft nach Frankreich in den Jahren 1163–1164,’ pp. 125–145; Haller, , op. cit., iii, 173–176 and 508–509Google Scholar (a somewhat different interpretation). Alexander, then in exile at Sens, had urged Louis VII of France to fall in with Manuel's proposals; but when the French king suddenly withdrew from the whole scheme the pope had been unable to affect his decision.
26 See the letter sent by Manuel to William I after the Byzantine defeats in south Italy in 1156–1157, Cinn., iv, 15, p. 173: 
(i.e. Sicily) 
.
27 In proposing to receive the Romani corona imperii from papal hands Manuel was not, in his own eyes, committing himself to any papal theories about the nature, origins and transmission of the imperial power; certainly neither he nor his subjects would for a moment have accepted the idea that the Byzantine emperor—βασιλϵὺς τῶν 'Ρωμαίων—should derive his unique dignity from a coronation by the pope. But the western imperial title, however baseless might seem its pretensions and however ludicrous its arcana to Byzantine minds, had now been in existence for over three centuries, and since it was this title and all that pertained to it that Manuel was seeking to re-incorporate into his own imperial status he had, in approaching Alexander, to appear to take the institution at papal valuation. This he hoped would make possible the fulfilment of his plan, and ensure the recognition of his title in the West; to his own mind, however, receiving a crown from the bishop of the elder Rome would be simply a matter of practical convenience—a sort of secular οἰκονομία.
28 The exact force of indiscusso manente in this context is not easy to determine. Plainly the suggestion was discussed, for Romuald says that several missions went between the courts. ‘Undetermined’ is probably the nearest equivalent. Del Re, in his parallel Italian version of this portion of the Chronicon (Cronisti e Scrittori sincroni Napoletani, Naples, 1868, i, 31Google Scholar) translates ‘… indeciso rimanendo, per molte ragioni, il negozio del parentado.’
29 Vincent of Prague, a 1164, M.G.H., SS., xviii, 682; Ann. Pragenses, ibid., iii, 121.
30 Rahewin, p. 368; Cont. Zwetlensis prima, M.G.H., SS., ix, 538; Cinn. vi, 4, p. 262.
31 Cinn. v, 7, p. 218.
32 Cont. Zwetl. prima, loc. cit.
33 This is admittedly surmise; but if the earlier betrothal was not kept secret Manuel must have accompanied his offer to Palermo with some such assurance. If so, it was well founded, as events after the birth of Alexius II were to show. A question which suggests itself is—did Béla himself know anything of his prospective father-in-law's eagerness to break off his engagement and despatch his promised bride to Sicily? But he was only a boy in his middle 'teens at the time; and, in any case, the fact that his friendly feelings for Manuel and for Byzantium survived the arbitrary rupture of the betrothal a few years later (see Cinnamus' account of Bela's return to Hungary after his brother's death in 1172, vi, 11, p. 287, and, more generally, Moravcsik, Gy., ‘Pour une alliance byzantino-hongroise’, Byzantion, viii, 1933, pp. 555–568Google Scholar) would suggest that his affections had not been very heavily engaged. For Maria's reactions, see Nic. Chon., v, 8, p. 222. Ultimately married to Ranier of Montferrat, she was one of the victims of the butchery which followed Andronicus I's usurpation of the throne in 1183.
34 Rahewin, p. 349; Otto of St. Blasien, pp. 22–23. For a summary of Frederick's movements, see Giesebrecht, v, 531–537.
35 The enthusiastically imperialist Cologne Chronicler actually reports their conquest: ‘Imperator quarto Italiam ingressus … in brevi omnem Italiam, Lombardiam, et Apuliam sibi subiecit’ (Chron. reg. Colon., p. 117). This, of course, is quite wrong as regards the last item, but it sums up neatly what the pope, the Sicilian court and Manuel all feared might happen.
36 Cinn., vi, 4, pp. 261–262; Nic. Chon., vii, 1, p. 261.
37 What appears to be a confused reference to Manuel's dealings with the curia and the Sicilian during these years may be found in the so-called Annales Seligenstadenses, which Scheffer-Boichorst showed to be a wholly Italian compilation, Roman down to about 1140 and thereafter most probably written in Lombardy. (See Scheffer-Boichorst, P., ‘Uber die sogenannten Annalen von Seligenstadt und verwandte Quellen,’ Forschungen zur deutschen Geschichte, ix, Göttingen, 1869, pp. 383–396Google Scholar; the earlier part of the chronicle he showed to have a strong affinity with those of Monte Cassino and la Cava.) The passage in question (M.G.H., SS, xvii, 32) is under the year 1168 and runs: ‘Alexander Lombardiam ab imperatore avertit; coronam imperii modo regi Grecorum modo regi Siciliae promittit.’ This, of course, is the wrong way round; it was Manuel, not the pope, who was approaching the other two with his lavish promises. The author—or authors; Scheffer-Boichorst detected more than one hand at work—of the later part of this chronicle was a fervent supporter of Frederick and was out to discredit the cause of Alexander III as much as he could. In this instance it looks as though the annalist was aware of some sort of association or combination between the figures most concerned in Manuel's great scheme, and guessed the remainder of his story.
38 The letter written to Manuel by William of Pavia, Cardinal-Priest of San Pietro in Vincoli some four years earlier (probably late in 1162) is especially worthy of notice in this connection (Bouquet, M., Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France, xvi, no. clxxxiii, pp. 55–56Google Scholar). Some of the phraseology is remarkable; in his efforts to persuade the Byzantine emperor to come out openly in support of Alexander the cardinal referred tof the Western empire as a usurpation of rights properly belonging to Manuel and his predecessors. ‘Ex imperatoriis gestis et ipsorum augmentis operum cognoscentes quantis honoribus praedecessorum vestrorum reverentia christianorum omnium matrem, sacrosanctam Romanam ecclesiam sublimaverit, quantisque donaverit privilegiis, intuentes; et quanta eidem ecclesiae a barbarorum tyrannide fuerint inflicta gravamina, ex quo imperatorium nomen noscitur ab illis usurpatum; merito excellentiam vestram singulari quadam intentione diligimus, et imperium vestrum perpetua servari stabilitate optamus atque indeficientibus incrementis semper promoveri’ etc. The letter ends ‘Vestrae itaque sublimitatis et circumspectionis erit, si hoc vobis placet, semota procratinatione rescribere, et ut verbum istud, ad ecclesiae Dei exaltationem et imperatorii culminis solium communiendum propensius et extollendum, citius executioni mandetur, sollicitudinem atque operam vigilantius adhibite.’
39 Manuel was almost certainly committing as great an error if he believed that any considerable portion of the Byzantine Church could be brought to acquiesce in a plan which involved its being subjected to papal supremacy and regulation. The complex story of the emperor's subsequent attempts to influence the patriarch Michael III (1170–1178) and other churchmen in this regard cannot be considered here; the evidence is fragmentary and unsatisfactory, at times contradictory. For a brief summary see Norden, op. cit., pp. 96–102. Two recent contributions of considerable interest may be cited; Dondaine, A., ‘Hughes Ethérian et Léon Toscan,’ Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen age, xix, 1952, pp. 67–154Google Scholar; and Hofmann, G., ‘Papst und Patriarch unter Manuel Komnenos,’ Έπϵτηρὶς Έταιρϵίας Βυζαντινῶν Σπουδῶνν, xxiii, 1953, pp. 74–82Google Scholar.