Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies Vol. 36 No.

1 (2012) 2037

The City and the Cross: the image of Constantinople and

the Latin empire in thirteenth-century papal crusading
rhetoric*
Nikolaos G. Chrissis
Royal Holloway, University of London / University of Birmingham

This paper examines the way papal rhetoric made use of the image and reputation of the
city of Constantinople in order to legitimise and incite support for its crusading calls for
the defence of the Latin empire after 1204. A number of relevant themes that reflect the
citys temporal and religious importance are explored, such as its wealth, its relics, its
imperial past and its patriarchal status as New Rome. The differences of emphasis and
occasional omissions of such arguments provide insights as to what was expected to
motivate the audience, while also revealing the papacys priorities.
Constantinople is arrogant in her wealth, treacherous in her practices, corrupt in her
faith; just as she fears everyone on account of her wealth, she is dreaded by everyone
because of her treachery and faithlessness.
Odo of Deuil, De profectione Ludovici VII in orientem1
For that city [Constantinople], not only superior for its monuments of the saints, but
also famed for the merit and renown of its founder, and particularly for the divine
revelation by which he transformed it from a very old little town into a city glorious

This paper is a revised and extended version of the communication presented at the International Medieval
Congress at Leeds (912 July 2007). I would like to thank the Royal Historical Society for providing a
Conference Grant on that occasion.
Abbreviations used (for editions of the papal registers):
Auvray = L. Auvray (ed.), Les Registres de Grgoire IX, 4 vols. (Paris 18961955).
Berger = E. Berger (ed.), Les Registres dInnocent IV, 4 vols. (Paris 18841911).
Guiraud = J. Guiraud (ed.), Les Registres dUrbain IV, 4 vols. (Paris 18921958).
Pressutti = P. Pressutti (ed.), Regesta Honorii papae III, 2 vols. (Rome 18881895).
R. I.
= O. Hageneder et al. (eds.), Die Register Innocenz III., 8 vols. so far (Vienna 1964).
1 Odo of Deuil, De profectione Ludovici in orientem, ed. and trans. V. Berry (New York 1948) 86/87:
Constantinopolis superba divitiis, moribus subdola, fide corrupta; sicut propter suas divitias omnes timet, sic
est dolis et infidelitate omnibus metuenda; cf. ibid., 6266/6367.
2012 Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies, University of Birmingham
DOI: 10.1179/030701312X13238617305572

21

Nikolaos G. Chrissis
in the sight of all the world and a second Rome, was worthy of having the whole
world come together to help it, if that were possible.
Guibert of Nogent, Dei Gesta per Francos2

These contradictory statements highlight the great ambivalence that western Europeans
seem to have felt towards the city of Constantinople throughout the twelfth century. It
was admired as a depository of relics and the site of magnificent buildings; yet it was also
regarded with contempt as the home of deceitful Greeks who impeded the defence of the
Holy Land. From 1204, however, Constantinople was actually in Latin hands. Its conquest
was the outcome of a diverted crusade;3 the preservation of this conquest became, in turn,
the aim of a series of other crusading expeditions. After some initial hesitation, the
papacy decided to support the Latin states that were set up in Greek lands after 1204 by
employing the most potent means at its disposal, the crusade. The first calls for crusaders
to come from the West and assist the stabilization and expansion of Latin rule in Romania
(i.e. the lands formerly constituting the Byzantine empire) were issued by the papacy soon
after the conquest,4 and were then periodically repeated throughout the thirteenth century
for example in 12235 by Honorius III and in 12359 by Gregory IX for the defence
of the Latin empire; and in 12624 by Urban IV, for its reconquest, following the Greek
recovery of Constantinople in 1261.5 The papacy had already deployed the crusade to
defend the expanding frontiers of Latin Christendom in the Holy Land, the Baltic, Spain
and elsewhere.6 However, there were at least two issues that made this case special: this
group of crusader states was established amid Christians even if heterodox schismatics and had the renowned imperial city of Constantinople at its head. The cumulative

2 Guibert of Nogent, Dei Gesta per Francos (et cinq autres textes), ed. R. B. C. Huygens (Turnhout 1996)
103: Urbs enim illa, non modo sanctorum illorum monimentis excellens sed et auctoris merito et nomine precluens, presertim cum ex revelatione superna ex vetustissimo oppidulo eam toti mundo spectabilem Romamque
secundam fecerit, universi, si fieri posset, orbis concursu et suffragio digna fuit; translation by R. Levine, The
Deeds of God through the Franks: a translation of Guibert de Nogents Gesta Dei per Francos (Woodbridge
1997) 37 (adapted).
3 The bibliography on the Fourth Crusade and its diversion is immense. The most recent overview of
historiography is: M. Balard, Lhistoriographie occidentale de la quatrime croisade, in A. Laiou (ed.), Urbs
Capta. The Fourth Crusade and its consequences (Paris 2005) 16174. See D. E. Queller and T. F. Madden,
The Fourth Crusade: the conquest of Constantinople, 2nd edn (Philadelphia 1997); J. Phillips, The Fourth
Crusade and the sack of Constantinople (London 2005); and M. Angold, The Fourth Crusade: event and
context (Harlow 2003).
4 E.g. R. I., VIII, nos. 70 (69) (c. 25 May 1204) and 131(130) (16 August 1205).
5 Although several works touch upon this issue, there has been no systematic examination of the application
of the crusade in Romania for the defence of the Latin Empire. This is the topic of my forthcoming monograph,
Crusading in Frankish Greece: a study of ByzantineWestern relations and attitudes, 12041282 (Turnhout
2012), which is based on my PhD thesis (Crusading in Romania; Royal Holloway, University of London
2008).
6 See indicatively J. Riley-Smith, What were the crusades? 3rd edn (Basingstoke 2002) 1222; N. Housley,
Contesting the crusades (Oxford 2006) 99121.

The City and the Cross 22

effect of these two points was among other things to leave a wide field open for
papal rhetoric. On the one hand, arguments had to be adduced for the legitimization of
the conquest and the defence of the Latin states; and on the other hand, Constantinoples
background, both temporal and religious, offered plentiful opportunities for rhetorical
themes and imagery to be invoked.
This paper explores how the papacy made use of themes and motifs associated with
the city of Constantinople, in order to justify its crusading calls and incite support for
the Latin empire. This will offer some insights into the audiences perceptions and the
Apostolic Sees wider considerations. As we will see, the arguments that the papacy put
forth reflected the aforementioned mixed feelings of admiration and dislike as well as the
dual importance of Constantinople, temporal and religious.

Helping the Holy Land and healing the Schism

There were two main arguments that the papal curia consistently used to justify its crusading policy for Latin Constantinople. On the one hand, through a continuing Latin occupation of Constantinople the liberation of the Holy Land could more easily be effected. On
the other hand, through the conquest of 1204, the patriarchate of Constantinople had been
brought back to obedience to the mother Church of Rome thus ending the Schism of the
Greek Church. Pope Innocent III (11981216) invoked those arguments already in the
early days after the Latin conquest. He granted crusading indulgences to those who would
help defend and preserve the Latin empire of Constantinople, since with the help of its
support the Holy Land might be more easily liberated from pagan hands. Furthermore,
the pope stated that the empire of the Greeks, which had turned away from obedience to
the Apostolic See, was transferred, by the just judgment of God, from the proud to the
humble, from the disobedient to the obedient, from schismatics to Catholics, so that it
might rise through the virtue of obedience to goodness, as through the sin of disobedience
it fell into evil.7 The same line of argument was followed by Innocents successors.8 Its
ultimate expression was realized by Gregory IX (122741) with his wide-reaching efforts
to organize a crusade in support of Constantinople. Gregory similarly made references to
helping the Holy Land and to the Eastern Schism, and even expanded this argument to

7 R. I., VII, 263, no. 153 (7 November 1204): ad defendendum et retinendum Constantinopolitanum imperium, per cuius subventionis auxilium Terra sancta facilius poterit de paganorum manibus liberari [. . .]
postquam regnum Grecorum ab obedientia sedis apostolice deviavit, de malo semper declinavit in peius, donec
a superbis ad humiles, ab inobedientibus ad devotos, a scismaticis ad catholicos iusto Dei iudicio est translatum,
ut per obedientie virtutem resurgat ad bonum, quod per inobedientie vitium defluxit ad malum; trans. A.
Andrea, Contemporary sources for the Fourth Crusade (Leiden 2000) 1145. Cf. also R. I., VIII, nos. 70 (69),
131 (130), IX, no. 45, etc.
8 For example, by Honorius III (121627): Pressutti, nos. 4353, 4355, 47534, 4758.