Medieval

Medieval Encounters 24 (2018) 613–630 Jewish, Christian and Muslim Culture

Encounters
in Confluence and Dialogue

brill.com/me

“You are the Heretics!” Dialogue and Disputation

between the Greek East and the Latin West
after 1204
Jeff Brubaker
SUNY Geneseo
brubaker@geneseo.edu

Abstract

In the aftermath of the Fourth Crusade Byzantines and Latins engaged in numerous in-
stances of dialogue and negotiation intended to unite the Greek and Roman Churches.
The meeting between four mendicant friars and Patriarch Germanos II in Nicaea and
Nymphaion in 1234 is indicative of a continuous trend in Byzantine diplomacy going
back to the Komnenoi emperors that used ecclesiastical debate as a mechanism for
diplomatic gain. In the years after 1204, however, church-union negotiation took on
new purpose, serving to solidify Byzantine identity and resistance in the face of west-
ern invaders. Although the study of dialogue and disputation is enjoying a period of
renewed focus among western medievalists, the field of Byzantine Studies, with few
exceptions, has confined such material to the realm of theological research, neglecting
the importance of such encounters, especially in the period after the Fourth Crusade.
This study sets out to address why historians of Byzantium have been apprehensive
about embracing the sources that describe ecclesiastical dialogue, and show how they
can inform us about diplomacy, society and identity in the Eastern Mediterranean
world after 1204.

Keywords

disputatio ‒ Byzantine diplomacy ‒ Byzantine Studies ‒ Fourth Crusade ‒ John III

Vatatzes ‒ successor states ‒ Empire of Nicaea

Most contemporary discussions of “interfaith dialogue” have the tendency

to focus on relations between discrete religious communities, such as Jews,

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/15700674-12340033

Downloaded from Brill.com04/26/2019 12:22:07PM
via Binghamton University Libraries
614 Brubaker

Christians and Muslims. Less often considered are the subgroups within these
larger denominations and how they interacted and challenged one another.
Throughout the Middle Ages, the two halves of Christendom evolved diver-
gent customs in both dogma and practice, a split that became ever more
pronounced in the era of the Crusades. As trans-Mediterranean contacts in-
creased over the course of the twelfth century, Christians of the Greek East
and Latin West found more frequent occasion to discuss and argue over the
doctrinal and practical matters that divided them.1 Scholars have identified
three issues that were at the forefront of the debate between Byzantines and
Latins: the so-called filioque controversy regarding the procession of the Holy
Spirit, leavened or unleavened bread in the Eucharist, and the primacy of the
pope. This essay will look at the manner in which Christian intra-faith dialogue
was conducted in the aftermath of the Fourth Crusade.
The conquest of the ancient Byzantine capital of Constantinople by cru-
sader forces in 1204 was followed by the establishment of a new Latin empire, a
presence that dramatically altered the political, ethnic and religious landscape
of the Eastern Mediterranean. In place of the powerful and uniting influence
of the capital city, there emerged numerous regional powers and so-called
“successor states” claiming the imperial heritage of Byzantium. Even the Latin
empire of Constantinople, with the election of Baldwin of Flanders as its first
emperor, can be seen to follow certain Byzantine traditions in its presentation
of imperial power.2 The political consequences of the Fourth Crusade have
been the subject of much research, but the impact of the events of 1204 on
inter-church dialogue, or disputatio, has received less attention.
The consequences of the crusader conquest of Constantinople on ecclesias-
tical interactions between East and West were immediately evident in the years
following 1204. The possibility of church union, along with other concerns, had
frequently motivated Byzantine emperors and Roman popes to reach out to
one another in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. After 1204, however, these
overtures took on a new purpose and a new urgency. The best documented of
these meetings, the so-called disputatio of 1234 between a group of mendicant
friars and the Greek patriarch in Nicaea and Nymphaion, informs us not only

1  T. Kolbaba, The Byzantine Lists: Errors of the Latins (Chicago: University of Illinois Press,
2000), 12; D. Nicol, “The Byzantine View of Western Europe,” Greek, Roman and Byzantine
Studies 8 (1967): 315‒39 at 329; S. Runciman, “Byzantium and the Crusades,” in The Crusades:
the Essential Readings, ed. T. Madden (Oxford: Blackwell, 2002), 211‒20 at 212.
2  P. Lock, “Latin Emperors as Heirs to Byzantium,” in New Constantines: The Rhythm of Imperial
Renewal in Byzantium, 4th‒13th centuries, ed. P. Magdalino (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1994),
295‒304; F. Van Tricht, The Latin Renovatio of Byzantium. The Empire of Constantinople
(1204‒1228), English translation by P. Longbottom (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 61.

Medieval Encounters 24 (2018) 613–630

Downloaded from Brill.com04/26/2019 12:22:07PM
via Binghamton University Libraries
You are the Heretics ! 615

about the state of the schism, but also about the purpose and methods of de-
bate between East and West during a period of military occupation.
Historians have largely neglected the source material that survives from
encounters such as the meeting of 1234. Averil Cameron’s recent study of
Byzantine dialogues under the Komnenoi emperors of the twelfth century,
however, notes that the sources describing ecclesiastical debate between the
Greek and Roman Churches can in fact tell us much about the development
of Byzantine literature and cultural activity. Cameron observes that previous
studies of this material have been carried out almost exclusively by those in-
terested in the nuances of theological and religious development.3 As a con-
sequence, the majority of the work that has been done on Byzantine-Latin
dialogues is the “subject of generalizations rather than detailed analysis.”4
The reasons for this oversight may well have to do with the lack of proper
and available editions. Cameron’s discussion of Byzantine dialogues of the
twelfth century is filled with references to works for which there are no mod-
ern critical editions. Clearly, more effort needs to be given to the task of mak-
ing the sources for Byzantine dialogue available to a larger audience. There
also seems to be a disparity between how scholars of the medieval West study
dialogues and how a similar body of literature is approached and handled
by historians of Byzantium. A well-known example is the case of Anselm of
Havelberg (d. 1158). While Byzantinists have written relatively little about his
debate with Niketas of Nicomedia in Constantinople in 1136, the dialogue-trea-
tise that reconstructs the event, the Anticimenon, has enjoyed considerable at-
tention from historians of the medieval West.5 In his general[?] survey of the
schism of the churches, Henry Chadwick said of Anselm that he “play[ed] a
marginal role in east-west relations. Admittedly his record cannot be described
as an outstanding success. But he tried.”6 The implication is that church-union

3  A. Cameron, Arguing It Out: Discussion in Twelfth-Century Byzantium (Budapest: Central

European University Press, 2016), 10‒12. This tendency is also noted by A. Novikoff, “Towards
a Cultural History of Scholastic Disputation,” American Historical Review 117.2 (2012): 331‒64
at 331‒34.
4  Cameron, Arguing It Out, 10.
5  J. Lees, Anselm of Havelberg, Deeds into Words in the Twelfth Century (Leiden: Brill, 1998);
J. Lees, “Confronting the Otherness of the Greeks: Anselm of Havelberg and the Division be-
tween Greeks and Latins,” Analecta Praemonstratensia 68 (1992): 224‒40; B. Dunkle, “Anselm
of Havelberg’s Use of Authorities in His Account of the Filioque,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift
105.2 (2012): 695‒722; A. Novikoff, “Anselm of Havelberg’s Controversies with the Greeks:
A Moment in the Scholastic Culture of Disputation,” in Dialogues and Debate from Late
Antiquity to Late Byzantium, ed. A. Cameron and N. Gaul (New York: Routledge, 2017), 105‒122.
6  H. Chadwick, East and West: the Making of a Rift in the Church, from Apostolic Times until the
Council of Florence (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 228.

Medieval Encounters 24 (2018) 613–630 Downloaded from Brill.com04/26/2019 12:22:07PM

via Binghamton University Libraries
616 Brubaker

dialogue is only worth examination when it is successful—an achievement

which no such meeting can claim.
We are left with a scenario in which historians of the medieval West ex-
amine Latin texts, while those of the medieval East examine Greek texts. This
analysis is by no means improper, and indeed putting the sources of dialogue
in their own context does much to enhance our understanding of their im-
portance. But how can scholars expect to fully grasp the implications of the
Byzantine-Latin relationship without attempting to grasp some sense of the
alternate perspective? In a seeming replication of the challenges faced by me-
dieval disputants in church-union negotiations, modern scholars of the his-
tory of interfaith dialogue are presented with the awkward and difficult task
of evaluating the other side of the issue with minimal access to their point
of view.
A further challenge is posed by vocabulary, and specifically how best to cat-
egorize and describe instances of theological debate between the Greek and
Roman Churches. The Latin term disputatio presents certain problems for the
study of ecclesiastical dialogue in Byzantine Studies, but the word itself holds
certain advantages in describing these exchanges. It denotes an “argument” or
“discussion,” often in the form of debate or dialogue, but does not necessarily
indicate hostility between the parties involved.7 This allows one to study the
phenomenon of exchange between representatives of the two churches with-
out concepts of implied antagonism that might interfere with the objectivity
of our research.
Naturally, however, Byzantine authors of the early thirteenth century did not
use the Latin term disputatio to refer to these meetings, but employed a varied
Greek vocabulary to describe such discussions. Nicholas Mesarites describes the
discussions in late 1204 as διαλαλία, “discourse,”8 and διάλεξις, “conversation.”9
He is not consistent, however, in his label for these encounters. When discuss-
ing the meetings in 1206 and 1214, Mesarites identifies the exchange as an ἆθλος,
meaning “contest” or “spiritual struggle.”10 Patriarch Germanos II refers to the

7  O
 xford Latin Dictionary, ed. P. Glare, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012),
609‒610.
8  Nicholas Mesarites, “Der Epitaphios des Nikolaos Mesarites auf seinen Bruder Johannes,”
Neue Quellen zur Geschichte des lateinischen Kaisertums und der Kirchenunion, ed.
A. Heisenberg (1922), I, 48 line 22.
9  Nicholas Mesarites, “Der Epitaphios,” ed. Heisenberg, 69 line 23. Nicholas of Otranto also
used the term διάλεξις to describe church-union negotiations in 1206, Nicholas of Otranto,
Nikolaia Hidruntskago tri ealici, ed. Archimandrite Arsenij (Novgorod, 1896), 4.
10  Nicholas Mesarites, “Der Epitaphios,” ed. Heisenberg, 51 line 12; Nicholas Mesarites, “Der
Bericht des Nikolaos Mesarites über die politischen und kirchlichen Ereignisse des Jahres

Medieval Encounters 24 (2018) 613–630

Downloaded from Brill.com04/26/2019 12:22:07PM
via Binghamton University Libraries
You are the Heretics ! 617

Latin arguments made in 1234 as ὁμολογία, “confession.”11 The most enigmatic

identification is that of Nikephoros Blemmydes. He describes the 1234 meet-
ing as a κοινὸν ἀθροισμόν.12 It is possible to translate this as “public assembly,”
although Joseph Munitiz has opted for “public debate” in his translation of
the work of Blemmydes.13 In describing the disputatio with John of Parma in
1249/50, Blemmydes states that representatives of the Roman Church came
to a σύλλογος, “meeting,” in order to “defend their definition of faith.”14 In this
manner, Blemmydes gives a clear sense of combative tendencies in the dia-
logue over ecclesiastical matters, but it is not clear if this understanding of the
encounter was shared by his fellow disputants.
The lack of uniformity in the terminology used by Byzantine authors seems
to put those who study dialogue between the Greek and Roman Churches at a
disadvantage. Complicating the problem are the technical attributes of the dis-
putatio. Alex Novikoff and Olga Weijers have examined the resurgence of dis-
putation in the Latin West as a result of the rise of scholasticism in the twelfth
century.15 Novikoff credits Anselm of Canterbury with reviving the practice.16
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
century that the practice became fully explored and codified in Western edu-
cation. By about 1200, the disputatio had become a central component of me-
dieval university education.17

1214,” Neue Quellen zur Geschichte des lateinischen Kaisertums und der Kirchenunion, ed.
A. Heisenberg (1923), III, 19 line 15.
11  Germanos II, Εκθεσις, ed. F. Alter, Chronikon Georgiou Phrantze tou protovestiariou eis tes-
sara vivlia diairethen (Vienna, 1796), 139.
12  Nikephoros Blemmydes, Nicephori Blemmydae Autobiographia sive curriculum vitae, ed.
J. Munitiz (Turnhout: Brepols, 1984), Book 2, ch. 25, 57 line 5.
13  Nikephoros Blemmydes, A Partial Account, trans. J. Munitiz (Leuven: Spicilegium Sacrum
Lovaniense, 1988), 107.
14  Nikephoros Blemmydes, Autobiographia, ed. Munitiz, Book 2, ch. 50, 67 lines 1‒4; trans.
Munitiz, 119.
15  O. Weijers, In Search of the Truth: A History of Disputation Techniques from Antiquity to
Early Modern Times (Turnhout: Brepols, 2013); O. Weijers, La ‘disputatio’ dans les Facultés
des arts au moyen âge (Turnhout: Brepols, 2002); O. Weijers, “The Medieval Disputatio,”
in Traditions of Controversy, ed. M. Dascal and H. Chang (Amsterdam and Philadelphia:
John Benjamins Pub. Co., 2007), 141‒49; A. Novikoff, The Medieval Culture of Disputation:
Pedagogy, Practice, and Performance (Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press,
2013).
16  Novikoff, The Medieval Culture of Disputation, 34‒61; A. Novikoff, “Anselm, Dialogue, and
the Rise of Disputation,” Speculum 86 (2011): 387‒418.
17  Novikoff, The Medieval Culture of Disputation, 133‒47; Weijers, “The Medieval Disputatio,”
141‒49.

Medieval Encounters 24 (2018) 613–630 Downloaded from Brill.com04/26/2019 12:22:07PM

via Binghamton University Libraries
618 Brubaker

It is difficult, therefore, to separate the format and understanding of the uni-

versity disputatio from the practice of disputation in other aspects of medieval
argument, especially in the context of dialogue between Byzantine and Latin
clerics. Averil Cameron has questioned the validity of using the term “disputa-
tion” in a Byzantine context. She notes that their dialogues “lacked the tech-
nical features of disputation as developed in western scholasticism.”18 While
Cameron is certainly correct in this observation, historians of Byzantium need
not entirely abandon the term “disputation,” or even disputatio, when analyz-
ing theological debate between East and West. Alex Novikoff and others have
argued convincingly that the influence of the disputatio extended beyond the
scholastic circles of the universities, influencing various aspects of daily life.19
Thus, the idea and practice of disputation extended far outside the walls of
universities, and can be observed in a wide variety of argument and debate
in the medieval world. Episodes of ecclesiastical dialogue between clerics
of the Greek and Roman Churches, even those portrayed in texts written by
Byzantine authors, can be understood under the wider concept of disputation,
even if the disputants did not strictly adhere to the forms of disputatio prac-
ticed in the universities of the Latin West. Analyzing dialogue in this fashion
allows the historian to identify trends and answer questions, and pose new
questions that will help us to gain a greater understanding of the Byzantine-
Latin relationship.
In order to explore what the sources describing debate and dialogue can tell
us about Byzantine-Western relations in the aftermath of the Fourth Crusade,
I will extend some of the questions and themes of Cameron’s discussion of
twelfth-century dialogue into the early decades of the thirteenth century. It
would be intuitive to expect the frequency of church-union negotiation to de-
crease following the crusader conquest, but in fact the opposite phenomenon
is true. Instances of disputatio, in which the differences between the churches
are actively discussed, appear to increase in the years following 1204. In order
to understand why this might be, it is necessary to first give some context to the
events surrounding the Fourth Crusade.
The years following the capture of Constantinople by the crusaders were
chaotic, violent, and uncertain.20 Nevertheless, the almost constant state of
warfare between Greeks and Latins was punctuated by short periods of truce

18  Cameron, Arguing It Out, 46.

19  Novikoff, “Towards a Cultural History of Scholastic Disputation,” 335‒64.
20  S. Reinert, “Fragmentation (1204‒1453),” in The Expansion of Orthodox Europe: Byzantium,
the Balkans and Russia, ed. J. Shepard (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007), 308, refers to an “orgy of
violence” which dramatically dismembered the once unified Byzantine landscape.

Medieval Encounters 24 (2018) 613–630

Downloaded from Brill.com04/26/2019 12:22:07PM
via Binghamton University Libraries
You are the Heretics ! 619

and diplomatic dialogue.21 While the Latin newcomers proceeded to divide

Byzantine territory between them, a number of local Byzantine leaders orga-
nized resistance and assumed authority for themselves22 The most successful
of these were the so-called “successor states”: Epiros in the western Balkans,
Nicaea in the northwest region of Anatolia, and Trebizond on the eastern
reaches of the Black Sea coast.23 The most important of these new Byzantine
states for our purpose is the Empire of Nicaea, founded by Theodore I Laskaris,
the son-in-law of Alexios III Angelos, who had been the last universally rec-
ognized emperor of Byzantium before 1204. Perhaps Theodore I’s greatest
achievement was the elevation of Michael IV Autoreianos as patriarch of the
Greek Church, residing in exile in Nicaea while the Latin patriarchs occupied
Constantinople. The first act of the new patriarch was to crown Theodore I as
emperor.24
There are some examples of cooperation between the new Latin empire of
Constantinople and the Byzantines of Epiros and Trebizond. A letter dated to

21  S. Kyriakidis, Warfare in Late Byzantium, 1204‒1453 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 13.
22  G. Tafel and G. Thomas, Urkunden zur alteren Handles- und Staatsgeschichte der Republik
Venedig mit besonderen Beziehungen auf Byzanz und die Levante (Vienna, 1856), 1:444‒52,
464‒88; A. Carile, “Partitio terrarum imperii Romanie,” Studi Veneziani 7 (1965): 125‒305;
P. Lock, The Franks in the Aegean 1204‒1500 (New York: Longman, 1995), 40‒43; N. Chrissis,
Crusading in Frankish Greece: a Study of Byzantine-Western Relations and Attitudes,
1204‒1282 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2012), xxxi‒xxxii; Van Tricht, The Latin Renovatio of
Byzantium, 47‒53.
23  For Epiros, see D. Nicol, The Despotate of Epiros (Oxford: Blackwell, 1957); G. Prinzing,
“Epiros, 1204‒1261: Historical Outline—Sources—Prosopography,” in Identities and
Allegiances in the Eastern Mediterranean after 1204, ed. J. Herrin and G. Saint-Guillain
(Aldershot: Ashgate, 2011), 81‒99. For Trebizond, see A. Vasiliev, “The Foundation of the
Empire of Trebizond,” Speculum 11 (1936): 3‒37; M. Angold, “Byzantium in Exile,” in The
New Cambridge Medieval History V, ed. D. Abulafia (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1999), 543‒68 at 547. For Nicaea, see M. Angold, A Byzantine Government in Exile
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975); M. Angold, “After the Fourth Crusade: the Greek
Rump States and the Recovery of Byzantium,” in The Cambridge History of the Byzantine
Empire, c. 500‒1492, ed. J. Shepard (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 731‒58.
24  George Akropolites, Opera, I, ed. A. Heisenberg and P. Wirth, (Stuttgart, 1978), 11 lines
15‒18; trans. R. Macrides, George Akropolites. The History. Introduction, Translation and
Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 119; A. Karpozilos, The Ecclesiastical
Controversy between the Kingdom of Nicaea and the Principality of Epiros (1217‒1233)
(Thessalonike: Center of Byzantine Studies of the School of Philosophy, 1973), 21‒23;
Angold, “After the Fourth Crusade,” 734‒35; M. Angold, “Byzantine ‘Nationalism’ and
the Nicaean Empire,” Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 1 (1975): 49‒70 at 50; Reinert,
“Fragmentation (1204‒1453),” 309; R. Macrides, “From the Komnenoi to Palaiologoi:
Imperial Models in Decline and Exile,” in New Constantines: The Rhythm of Imperial
Renewal in Byzantium, 4th‒13th centuries, ed. P. Magdalino (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1994),
269‒82 at 280.

Medieval Encounters 24 (2018) 613–630 Downloaded from Brill.com04/26/2019 12:22:07PM

via Binghamton University Libraries
620 Brubaker

1210 from Pope Innocent III to Henry I of England mentions the submission
of the church of Epiros to Rome.25 The prospect of accepting papal author-
ity in Epiros came up again about a decade later.26 In each case, however, the
possibility of church-union with Epiros proved temporary and unattainable.
Moreover, very little source material survives to describe the dialogue and ex-
change of arguments that took place between the leaders of Epiros and the
papacy, whereas the bulk of surviving material describing church-union nego-
tiation in the early thirteenth century focuses on the Empire of Nicaea.
A useful starting point for an analysis of disputatio after 1204 is the testimony
of Nicholas Mesarites, a Greek cleric who remained in Constantinople when
the Latins took the city and established their own regime. Mesarites describes
numerous encounters between the Greeks of Constantinople and the new
Latin ecclesiastical hierarchy from 1204 to 1206.27 From this material, we can
gather that the papacy and his representatives expected the military victory
over Constantinople to translate to a spiritual victory over the Greek Church.
Nikolaos Chrissis has noted that the representatives of Pope Innocent III
apparently had no intention to discuss doctrine with the Greeks now living
under Latin rule. Instead, the pope anticipated a quick recognition of papal
­authority.28 The Greeks refused, citing, among other reasons, the Orthodox
concept of the pentarchy, which emphasized cooperation, not supremacy,
between the five patriarchal sees of Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople,
Jerusalem, and Rome.29
Mesarites describes a more substantive theological debate that took
place between himself and the papal legate, Cardinal Pelagius of Albano, in
Constantinople in 1214. Historians frequently note an incident at the beginning

25  O. Hageneder, et al., eds, Die Register Innocenz’ III, vol. 13 (Vienna: Verlang der
Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenshaft, 2015), 273‒75.
26  A. Tautu, ed., Acta Honorii III (1216‒1227) et Gregorii IX (1227‒1241) (Vatican: Typis
Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1950), no. 23, 41–no. 25, 44.
27  Nicholas Mesarites, “Der Epitaphios,” ed. Heisenberg, 48‒63; Nicholas Mesarites, “Die
Unionsverhandlungen vom 30. August 1206; Patriarchenwahl und Kaiserkrönung in Nikaia
1208,” Neue Quellen zur Geschichte des lateinischen Kaisertums und der Kirchenunion, ed.
A. Heisenberg (1923), II, 15‒25.
28  Chrissis, Crusading in Frankish Greece, 45‒51.
29  Nicholas Mesarites, “Der Epitaphios,” ed. Heisenberg, 56 lines 4‒20. For more on
Byzantine views of the pentarchy, see J. Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: a History of
the Development of Doctrine (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971‒1989), 2:164;
D. Geanakoplos, Byzantine East and Latin West: Two Worlds of Christendom in the Middle
Ages and Renaissance; Studies in Ecclesiastical and Cultural History (Hamden, Conn.:
Archon, 1966), 33‒34, 86; M. Cunningham and E. Theokritoff, “Who are the Orthodox
Christians? A Historical Introduction,” in The Cambridge Companion to Orthodox Christian
Theology, ed. M. Cunningham and E. Theokritoff (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2008), 1‒18 at 2.

Medieval Encounters 24 (2018) 613–630

Downloaded from Brill.com04/26/2019 12:22:07PM
via Binghamton University Libraries
You are the Heretics ! 621

of these negotiations in which Mesarites and Pelagius seem to argue over the
right of the pope to wear the color red, usually reserved for members of the
imperial Byzantine hierarchy. Pelagius insisted that the right of the pope
and his representatives to wear imperial trappings had been given to them
by Constantine I.30 George Akropolites, the chief Byzantine historian of the
period, also notes the legate’s use of imperial regalia.31 Few historians com-
ment more about this dialogue with Pelagius, probably because the account
of the meetings left by Mesarites appears to be largely derived from a twelfth
century work, the Sacred Arsenal by Andronikos Kamateros.32 The argu-
ments between representatives of Greek and Latin Churches described by
Kamateros took place about half a century before the work by Mesarites. The
result is a debate over the historical value of the thirteenth-century account
by Mesarites.33 To make matters worse, the only other author to give an ac-
count of this m
­ eeting—Nicholas of Otranto, who served as interpreter in both
1206 and 1214—offers little evidence as to which encounter he is describing.34
His account gives some indication of the theological issues debated at these
meetings, but with little or no context. Thus, the problems with sources that
emerge from instances of dialogue immediately following the Fourth Crusade
make it difficult to draw conclusions about the Byzantine-Latin relationship as
a whole, but the dependence on Kamateros does seem to highlight continuity
and, as Cameron and others would put it, “intertextuality” among spokesmen
for the Greek Church.35

30  Nicholas Mesarites, “Der Bericht,” ed. Heisenberg, 22 lines 16‒32. See also D. Angelov,
“The Donation of Constantine and the Church in Late Byzantium,” in Church and Society
in Late Byzantium, ed. D. Angelov (Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute Publications, 2009),
91‒157 at 105.
31  George Akropolites, ed. Heisenberg, 29 lines 15‒18, trans. Macrides, 154.
32  Andronikos Kamateros, Sacred arsenal, ed. A. Bucossi, Sacrum armamentarium. Pars
prima (Turnhout: Brepols, 2014).
33  Bucossi, Introduction, Sacred Arsenal, lvi–lvii; G. Spiteris, “I dialogi di Nicolas Mesarites
coi Latini: opera storica o finzione letteraria,” Orientala Christiana Analecta 204 (1977):
181‒86. Palau identifies fifteen paragraphs transcribed word for word by Mesarites
from the Sacred Arsenal, C. Palau, “ Nicholas Mésaritès: deux lettres inédites (Milan,
Ambrosianus F 96 Sup., ff. 15v‒16v),” in Manuscripta Graeca et Orientalia, Mélanges mo-
nastiques et patristiques en l’honneur de Paul Géhin, ed. A. Binggeli, A. Boud’hors and
M. Cassin (Leuven: Peeters, 2016), 192; C. Palau, “L’Arsenale Sacro di Andronico Camatero.
Il proemio ed il dialogo dell’imperatore con i cardinali latini: originale, imitazioni, arran-
giamenti,” Revue des études byzantines 51 (1993): 20‒36.
34  Nicholas of Otranto, ed. Arsenij.
35  Cameron, Arguing It Out, 31; see also I. Nilsson, “‘The Same Story, but Another’: A
Reappraisal of Literary Imitation in Byzantium,” in Imitatio—Aemulatio—Variatio, ed.
E. Shiffer and A. Rhoby (Vienna: Austrian Academy of Science, 2010), 195‒208.

Medieval Encounters 24 (2018) 613–630 Downloaded from Brill.com04/26/2019 12:22:07PM

via Binghamton University Libraries
622 Brubaker

It is not until the disputatio of 1234, therefore, that we have a wider array
of sources that describe the progress and content of ecclesiastical dialogue
between Byzantines and Latins in the thirteenth century. More material sur-
vives from before, during, and after this meeting than any other instance of
interfaith dialogue between the churches from the whole of the thirteenth
century. The genesis of these negotiations is a series of correspondence be-
tween Pope Gregory IX and Patriarch Germanos II, written between 1232 and
1234.36 Nikephoros Blemmydes, perhaps the most famous Byzantine philoso-
pher of the period, spoke on behalf of the Greek Church at the disputatio and
described his contribution in his autobiography.37 A treatise on the procession
of the Holy Spirit is also thought to be a result of his efforts at this meeting.38
Yet another document, the Απάντησις, purports to be the response of the Greek
patriarch, Germanos II, to the Latin arguments of 1234.39
The most important source for the dialogue of 1234, however, is the report
compiled by four friars—two Dominicans and two Franciscans—who rep-
resented the Roman Church during discussions held first at Nicaea and then
Nymphaion.40 Although not strictly structured as a “dialogue,” the report of
the friars is a detailed account of the course of the disputatio, including specif-
ic information such as setting and audience for the proceedings, as well as the
content of theological debate. Moreover, from what we know about the friars
themselves, we can gather that they were products, and perhaps even leaders,
of scholastic circles in western universities of the early thirteenth century, and
thus were well versed in the academic procedure of disputatio.
Gregory IX introduced these men to the patriarch as “men of virtue, il-
lustrious in the order of monks, famous for honest habit and gifted with the

36  Acta Honorii III et Gregorii IX, ed. Tautu, no. 179, 235‒39; no. 179a, 240‒49; no. 179b, 249‒52.
37  Nikephoros Blemmydes, Autobiographia, ed. Munitiz, Book 2, ch. 25, 57‒64; trans. Munitiz,
106‒114.
38  P. Canart, “Nicéphore Blemmyde et le mémoire adressé aux envoyés de Grégoire IX
(Nicée, 1234),” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 25 (1959), 319‒25. A newer edition of this
work is found in M. Stavrou, Nicéphore Blemmydès: Oeuvres théologiques (Paris, 2007),
1:184‒205.
39  The only edition of this work is preserved in the appendix of Chronikon Georgiou Phrantze
tou protovestiariou eis tessara vivlia diairethen, ed. F. Alter (Vienna, 1796), 140‒49. For more
on this text, see Angel A. Nikolov, “The Medieval Slavonic ‘Dossier’ of the Great Schism:
Historical Narrations and Lists of Latin Errors Among the Balkan Slavs,” in Contra Latinos
et Adversus Graecos, ed. A. Bucossi, forthcoming.
40  G. Golubovich, “Disputatio Latinorum et Graecorum seu Relatio apocrisiarorum Gregorii
IX de gestis Nicaeae in Bithynia et Nymphaeae in Lydia (1234),” Archivum Franciscanum
Historicum 12 (1919): 418‒70.

Medieval Encounters 24 (2018) 613–630

Downloaded from Brill.com04/26/2019 12:22:07PM
via Binghamton University Libraries
You are the Heretics ! 623

knowledge of the Sacred Scriptures.”41 Understanding who these men were is

crucial for understanding their report as a source for the disputatio of 1234.
Of two friars—the Franciscan Rodulphus of Remis, and the Dominican Peter
of Sézanne—we have little more than anecdotal information. Thomas of
Eccleston tells us little more about Rodulphus of Remis other than the fact
that he lived out his days in England.42 A description of Peter of Sézanne’s
activities while on the embassy to Nicaea is preserved by Gerard de Frachet.
Written in the first person, the account speaks of Peter converting a Muslim
to Christianity while in Constantinople, but gives no information about his
activities as papal envoy to the Greek Church.43
The friar about whom we know the most is Haymo of Faversham, an English
Franciscan famous for his piety and skill as a preacher. Thomas of Eccleston
gives a dramatic description of the response to Haymo’s Easter sermon at St
Denis in 1224.44 Before being elevated to the position of Minister General of
the Franciscan order, Haymo taught at the universities of Oxford, Paris, Tours,
Bologna and Padua, where he almost certainly utilized the tools of the dispu-
tatio in instruction.45
As magister theologiae in Paris, Haymo worked alongside Hugh of St Cher, a
prominent scholar and member of the Dominican Order who was also a mem-
ber of the embassy that went to Nicaea in 1234.46 It should be noted that the
Hugh named in the report of the friars is not explicitly identified as Hugh of
St Cher. The letter from Gregory IX introducing Hugh as a papal representa-
tive gives no further information as to the identity of this particular friar. The
association of “Hugh, papal representative in 1234,” and “Hugh of St Cher,” is
merely coincidental, but circumstantial evidence seems to indicate they were
in fact the same person. Hugh of St Cher was born in 1200 and studied at the
University in Paris. After joining the Dominican order in 1225, he taught at Paris

41  Acta Honorii III et Gregorii IX, ed. Tautu, no. 193, 267 lines 1‒3.
42  Thomas of Eccleston, Tractatus De Adventu Fratrum Minorum in Angliam, ed. A. Little
(Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1951), 73 lines 6‒8; trans. A. Little, The Coming
of the Friars Minor to England and Germany (London: J.M. Dent and Sons LTD, 1926), 88.
43  Gerard de Frachet, Vitae Fratrum Ordinis Praedicatorum necnon Cronica Ordinis, ed. B.
Reichert (Leuven: Charpentier & Schoonjans, 1896), 218‒20; trans. P. Conway, Lives of the
Brethren of the Order of Preachers (London: Aquin Press, 1955), 198‒201; also find the text
of this story in G. Golubovich, Biblioteca Bio-bibliografica della Terra Sancta e dell’ Oriente
Francescana (Florence: Collegio di S. Bonaventura, 1906‒23), 2:302‒303.
44  Thomas of Eccleston, ed. Little, 28; trans. Little, 40.
45  Thomas of Eccleston, ed. Little, 28; trans. Little, 40‒41.
46  M. Roncaglia, Les frères mineurs et l’eglise grecque orthodoxe au XIIIe siècle (1231‒1274)
(Cairo: Centre d’études orientales de la custodie franciscaine de la Terre-Sainte, 1954), 44.

Medieval Encounters 24 (2018) 613–630 Downloaded from Brill.com04/26/2019 12:22:07PM

via Binghamton University Libraries
624 Brubaker

from 1230‒1235.47 He is most noted for his Latin Concordance of the Bible,
compiled in 1240.48 Such a background fits the profile of someone we might
expect the pope to commission to debate theology with the Greek Church.
Identifying one of these four friars as the author of their report is exceeding-
ly difficult. In a statement of faith by the four friars, Rodulphus of Remis signed
the document by saying, “thus I write, and thus I believe.”49 The word subscribo
has prompted Girolamo Golubovich and others to identify Rodulphus as the
author,50 but we cannot discount the [more likely] possibility that the docu-
ment was the product of a group effort, and that the friars worked as a commit-
tee to produce the report.
What does the report of the report of the friars tell us about the method
and purpose of debate, and the status of the schism of the churches after the
Fourth Crusade? First, the document makes clear that church-union nego-
tiation was not solely an ecclesiastical matter, but was intertwined with the
political issues of the period. John III Vatatzes became emperor in Nicaea fol-
lowing the death of his father-in-law, Theodore I Laskaris, solidifying his posi-
tion by defeating the Latins in Anatolia in 1224.51 Following this victory, there is
little evidence for diplomatic contact between Vatatzes and the Latin empire
of Constantinople before the 1230s, suggesting that the arrival of the papal rep-
resentatives in Nicaea carried great diplomatic significance.
Renewed dialogue with the Latins, and with the papacy in particular sug-
gests that Vatatzes was exploring new opportunities to expand his influence
over Latin Constantinople. This has led many historians to argue that over-
tures to the papacy in the 1230s were the policy of the emperor, but not of the

47  J. Fisher, “Hugh of St Cher and the Development of Mediaeval Theology,” Speculum 31.1
(1956): 57‒69; F. Gigot, “Hugh of St-Cher,” The Catholic Encyclopedia (1910), 521.
48  New Catholic Encyclopedia, 2nd ed., 15 vols. (Washington, D.C., 2002), 7:193‒94.
49  J. Mansi, ed. Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio (Florence and Venice,
1759‒1798), vol. 23, col. 66: sic subscribo et ita credo.
50  Golubovich, “Disputatio Latinorum et Graecorum,” 4254‒26. See also Roncaglia, Les frères
mineurs et l’eglise grecque orthodoxe, 47‒48; R. Wolff, “The Latin Empire of Constantinople
and the Franciscans,” Traditio 2 (1944): 425‒26.
51  George Akropolites, ed. Heisenberg, 34‒36; trans. Macrides, 165‒66; Theodore
Skoutariotes, ed. K. Sathas, Μεσαιωνικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη (Paris, 1894), 7:469‒70; George of
Pelagonia, Life of Vatatzes, ed. A. Heisenberg, ‘Kaiser Johannes Batatzes der Barmherzige.
Ein mittelgriechische Legened,’ Byzantinische Zeitschrift 14 (1905): 164, 221‒24; Ephraem,
Historia Chronica, ed. O. Lampsidis (Athens: Apud Institutum Graecoromanae antiquita-
tis auctoribus edendis destinatum Academiae Atheniensis, 1990), vv. 7933‒7973; Philippe
Mouskes, Chronique rimée de Philippe Mouskes, ed. Le Baron de Reiffenberg (Brussels:
Hayez, 1838), 2:409 vv. 23195‒23206.

Medieval Encounters 24 (2018) 613–630

Downloaded from Brill.com04/26/2019 12:22:07PM
via Binghamton University Libraries
You are the Heretics ! 625

patriarch.52 Indeed, there is some evidence to suggest that Germanos II held

certain anti-Latin attitudes. In a letter to leaders of the Greek Church in Latin
Cyprus, dated to July 1229, the patriarch in Nicaea expressed displeasure with
those who had acknowledged the primacy of the pope.53 In an undated letter
to the monks of St John the Baptist at Petra, Germanos II referred to the Latins
as “godless” and “miserable.”54 Still, we must be cautious in characterizing the
Greek patriarch as entirely prejudiced, especially since some of these attitudes
may be a result of the failure of talks in 1234, rather than a cause. In any event,
the role of the emperor in the disputatio is indicative of the diplomatic aspect
of ecclesiastical dialogue in the early thirteenth century. This is no innovation.
Mesarites tells us that Theodore I Laskaris was very active in negotiations with
the representatives of the Roman Church in 1214/5, even meeting with them in
private.55 In 1234, the friars comment on their role in the diplomatic relation-
ship between Latin Constantinople and the Empire of Nicaea, stating that they
agreed to negotiate a truce with Vatatzes during their visit to the Byzantine
court.56
The friars tell us that, upon their initial arrival in the Empire of Nicaea, they
were promptly met by representatives of both patriarch and emperor.57 The
disputatio that followed took place in two phases: first at Nicaea in January
1234, and then at Nymphaion, from March to May 1234. Throughout the ne-
gotiations, the emperor plays a prominent role. Vatatzes makes numerous ap-
pearances in the report of the friars, and is present for most of the discussions
over theological debate. Of the thirteen separate instances of dialogue over
ecclesiastical matters described by friars, Vatatzes presides over eight separate

52  Wolff, “The Latin Empire of Constantinople and the Franciscans,” 225; J. Doran, “Rites
and wrongs: the Latin mission to Nicaea, 1234,” Studies in Church History 32 (1996): 132–33;
M. Angold, Church and society in Byzantium under the Comneni, 1081–1261 (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1995), 506; Chrissis, Crusading in Frankish Greece, 94;
L. Bréhier, “Attempts at reunion of the Greek and Latin Churches,” in Cambridge Medieval
History 4, ed. J. Bury (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1923), 607–608; J. Langdon,
“Byzantium in Anatolian Exile: Imperial Vicegerency Reaffirmed during Byzantino-Papal
Discussions at Nicaea and Nymphaion, 1234,” Byzantinische Forschungen 20 (1994): 213–22.
53  K. Sathas, Μεσαιωνικὴ Βιβλιοθήκη (Venice and Paris, 1872–1894), 2:16.
54  J. Gill, “An Unpublished Letter of Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople (1222–1240),”
Byzantion 44 (1974), 142 line 11 and 144 line 35.
55  Nicholas Mesarites, “Der Bericht,” ed. Heisenberg, 19 lines 18–22.
56  Golubovich, “Disputatio Latinorum et Graecorum,” ch. 16, 446 lines 11–17.
57  Golubovich, “Disputatio Latinorum et Graecorum,” ch. 1, 428 lines 6–9.

Medieval Encounters 24 (2018) 613–630 Downloaded from Brill.com04/26/2019 12:22:07PM

via Binghamton University Libraries
626 Brubaker

meetings. On six occasions, he even lends his voice to the dialogue, laying out
questions and clarifying matters for debate.58
The role of the emperor is not limited to his role in the theological discus-
sion. The friars tell us that Vatatzes frequently met with them, both while the
patriarch was present and outside of his company, to continue negotiations.
On 27 January, the last day of the first phase of negotiations in Nicaea, Vatatzes
invited the friars to his court, where they found Germanos II present, but
only as a passive observer. It was at this point that the emperor asked how the
churches of East and West might be reconciled, and whether the patriarch’s
“right” might be restored to him should union be achieved. The friars respond-
ed with cautious optimism, indicating that the pope would be open to further
negotiation.59 The Latin word ius, “right,” leaves this question open to inter-
pretation. Vatatzes may simply have been asking whether the Greeks would be
allowed to keep their customs and liturgy in the event of a restored union, but
several historians have argued that ius referred to the patriarch’s rightful see in
Constantinople.60 If so, then we might interpret the exchange as an offer from
the emperor to acknowledge papal primacy in exchange for the restoration
of Byzantine control over Constantinople. This conclusion presents important
implications for the purpose of ecclesiastical dialogue after 1204. We cannot
continue to understand these discussions merely as pertaining to theological
concerns: they must also be seen as belonging to the political sphere as well.

58  At Nicaea, the emperor clarified the question about additions to the creed on Thursday,
19 January, Golubovich, “Disputatio Latinorum et Graecorum,” ch. 5, 431 lines 13–17. He
entered debate about the Spirit of Truth on Saturday, 21 January, Golubovich, “Disputatio
Latinorum et Graecorum,” ch. 7, 435 lines 9–14. On Monday, 23 January, he warned the
friars against the use of syllogism, Golubovich, “Disputatio Latinorum et Graecorum,”
ch. 8, 435 line 37–436 line 5. Vatatzes recommended that the treatise on the procession
issue, composed by Blemmydes, be put aside on Wednesday, 25 January, Golubovich,
“Disputatio Latinorum et Graecorum,” ch. 12, 442 line 37–443 line 3. Finally, on that
same day, he engaged the friars in debate over Cyril of Alexandria’s ninth anathema,
Golubovich, “Disputatio Latinorum et Graecorum,” ch. 12, 443 lines 31‒37. On 28 April, at
Nymphaion, the friars recorded that Vatatzes began the day’s proceedings by defending
the wish of many Greek prelates to hear an account of what had been discussed at Nicaea,
Golubovich, “Disputatio Latinorum et Graecorum,” ch. 22, 453 lines 17–21.
59  Golubovich, “Disputatio Latinorum et Graecorum,” ch. 14, 444 line 41–445 line 12.
60  Wolff, “The Latin Empire of Constantinople and the Franciscans,” 226; J. Hussey, The
Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986), 215;
R. Spence, “Gregory IX’s Attempted Expeditions to the Latin Empire of Constantinople:
the Crusade for the Union of the Latin and Greek Churches,” Journal of Medieval History 5
(1979): 163–76 at 168; Doran, “Rites and Wrongs in 1234,” 138. The only historian to express
any reservations to this interpretation is Langdon, “Byzantino-Papal Discussions in 1234,”
213, who agrees that ius refers to the patriarch’s authority over Constantinople, but insists
that the term is limited to the issue of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, not political control.

Medieval Encounters 24 (2018) 613–630

Downloaded from Brill.com04/26/2019 12:22:07PM
via Binghamton University Libraries
You are the Heretics ! 627

Another encounter between the friars and Vatatzes, at Nymphaion on 3

May, during the second phase of the disputatio, is even more provocative. The
friars tell us that Germanos II was not present for the exchange in which the
emperor made a remarkable offer.

It is the custom of kings and princes, when there was disagreement be-
tween them over the castles or provinces, for example, that someone
should give up something which he considered his right, so that they can
reach peace through compromise. Thus it seems to me that it ought to
be done between your church and ours. There are namely two issues be-
tween us and you: first on the procession of the Holy Spirit; the other on
the body of Christ. If, therefore, you want peace, you ought to give up one
of these two. We will worship and hold your sacrament [i.e., azymes],
while you, on the other hand, give up to us your creed, and say with us
just as we say, just as we have in the decrees from the holy fathers and
their council. And the part you have added [i.e., filioque] you will say no
longer, because it is an offense to us.61

What should we make of this offer to accept leavened bread in exchange for
the abolition of the filioque in the creed? It is significant that the emperor
would compare the issues central to the schism of the churches to a dispute
over “castles or provinces.” It suggests that he approached the problem from a
very practical point of view, commensurate with his experience. The friars re-
fuse to entertain the proposal, but the episode is further evidence that histori-
ans must reconsider how we classify the disputatio. It is not merely an example
of theological debate, but also an instance of diplomatic initiative. Instances
like these show the full extent of the relationship between ecclesiastical and
political matters, and the inability of one side to be properly understood apart
from the other.
In addition to blurring the lines between sacred and secular, the dialogue
between Byzantine and Greek ecclesiasts in 1234 tells us much about the
concept of Byzantine identity in the period of exile that followed the Fourth
Crusade. Tia Kolbaba has noted that religion always played an important role
in serving to clarify “us versus them” in the relationship between Byzantines
and neighboring peoples.62 This aspect of Byzantine self-identification in

61  Golubovich, “Disputatio Latinorum et Graecorum,” ch. 26, 461 line 37–462 line 10.
62  T. Kolbaba, “Byzantine Perceptions of Latin Religious ‘Errors’: Themes and Changes from
850 to 1350,” in The Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim World, ed.
A. Laiou and R. Mottahedeh (Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks, 2001), 117‒43.

Medieval Encounters 24 (2018) 613–630 Downloaded from Brill.com04/26/2019 12:22:07PM

via Binghamton University Libraries
628 Brubaker

religious debate becomes even more pronounced after the crusaders oc-
cupy Constantinople, and is visible in the friars’ depiction of the disputatio
of 1234.
Several statements by the friars convey the fact that the ecclesiastical meet-
ings were of wide interest to the general public. As they approached Nicaea at
the beginning of 1234, the friars note that a large multitude of both clergy and
lay people had assembled to welcome them to the city, apparently seeking a
glimpse of the spokesmen from the Roman Church.63 The friars also tell us
that, on the final day of the proceedings at Nymphaion, “an abundant multi-
tude of lay people” had been invited to observe the meeting held at the home
of the patriarch. So many people had arrived that the setting could not accom-
modate the crowd, and the doors were left open so that those outside could
still listen to the arguments.64 The discussion on this final meeting became par-
ticularly heated, and the friars accuse Germanos II of stirring the anger of the
people against them.65 When the friars concluded that their Byzantine hosts
were being stubborn and unwilling to consider further arguments, the papal
representatives proclaimed “we found you heretics and excommunicates, and
as heretics and excommunicates we leave you.” To this, the patriarch’s clergy
and the assembled crowd shouted back “you are the heretics!”66 This exchange
is not emblematic of the tone of the disputatio of 1234 as a whole. Much of the
meeting was conducted with attention to polite etiquette. The incident here,
however, denotes a wider interest in the negotiations among the Byzantine
public, as well as an assertion of doctrinal correctitude over the beliefs of the
Latins.
Other incidents found in the report of the friars indicate an increasing
awareness of self-identity among the Byzantines after 1204. The dialogue in
Nymphaion on 26 April became particularly heated, with each side leveling
accusations against the other. For the first time during this disputatio, the
Byzantines used the events of 1204 to highlight Latin wrongdoings and the
evils of the Roman Church:

When your Latins seized Constantinople, they shattered churches, de-

molished altars, stealing gold and silver, throwing relics of the saints into
the sea, they trampled holy icons and they made churches into stables

63  Golubovich, “Disputatio Latinorum et Graecorum,” ch. 1, 428 lines 15‒19.

64  Golubovich, “Disputatio Latinorum et Graecorum,” ch. 27, 462 lines 30‒32.
65  Golubovich, “Disputatio Latinorum et Graecorum,” ch. 28, 463 lines 27‒29.
66  Golubovich, “Disputatio Latinorum et Graecorum,” ch. 28, 463 line 37–464 line 1.

Medieval Encounters 24 (2018) 613–630

Downloaded from Brill.com04/26/2019 12:22:07PM
via Binghamton University Libraries
You are the Heretics ! 629

for mules, so that the prophecy appeared fulfilled: God, gentiles came into
your inheritance, they defiled your holy temple, they laid low Jerusalem.67

The use of Psalms 79:1 to compare Constantinople to Jerusalem is part of a

larger trend identified by historians of the period of exile. Very early after 1204,
Byzantines reflecting on the crusader occupation of Constantinople came
to see the events of their time as a second Babylonian captivity, comparing
themselves and their leaders to the heroes of the Old Testament.68 Niketas
Choniates depicted Theodore I Laskaris as a new Zorobabel, the Jewish leader
in the book of Ezra who was chosen by God to return his people to Jerusalem.69
Jacob of Ochrid later used the same comparison for John III Vatatzes.70 That
such beliefs would be expressed in 1234—and to the degree that it was noted
by the friars, who were foreign to the rhetoric of the court at Nicaea—indicates
that some, if not all of the Byzantines present at that disputatio had become
increasingly aware of issues that separated them from the Latins. Again, this
trend is not new to Byzantium in the thirteenth century, but the role of in-
terfaith dialogue has yet to be fully addressed by historians who investigate
Byzantine identity and the Byzantine state after 1204.71

67  Golubovich, “Disputatio Latinorum et Graecorum,” ch. 20, 451 lines 29‒35.
68  D. Angelov, Imperial Ideology and Political Thought in Byzantium, 1204‒1330 (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2007), 99; D. Angelov, “Byzantine Ideological Reactions
to the Latin Conquest of Constantinople,” in Urbs Capta: the Fourth Crusade and Its
Consequences, ed. A. Laiou (Paris: Lethielleux, 2005), 297‒98; Angold, A Byzantine
Government in Exile, 29; H. Ahrweiler, “L’Expérience nicéenne,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers
29 (1975), 23‒40 at 25.
69  Niketas Choniates, Orationes et epistulae, ed. J. van Dieten (Berlin: Apud Walter de Gruyter
et Socios Berolini et Novi Eboraci, 1972), 128, 147, and 175. See also Skoutariotes, ed. Sathas,
466 line 28–467 line 26.
70  Jacob of Ochrid, Collectanea byzantina, ed. S. G. Mercati, vol. 1 (Bari: Dedalo, 1970), 83‒84.
71  G. Page, Being Byzantine: Greek Identity before the Ottomans (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2008), 94‒137; C. Roueché, “Defining Identities and Allegiances in
the Eastern Mediterranean after 1204,” in Identities and allegiances in the Eastern
Mediterranean after 1204, ed. J. Herrin and G. Saint-Guillain (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2011),
1‒5; C. Morrison, “Thirteenth-Century Byzantine ‘Metallic’ Identities,” in Liquid and
Multiple: Individuals and Identities in the Thirteenth-Century Aegean, ed. G. Saint-
Guillain and D. Stathakopoulos (Paris: Assoc. des Amis du Centre d’Histoire et
Civilisation de Byzance, 2012), 133‒64; D. Smythe, “Byzantine identity and Labeling
Theory,” in Byzantium, Identity, Image, Influence: XIX International Congress of Byzantine
Studies, University of Copenhagen, 18‒24 August, 1996, ed. K. Fledelius and P. Schreiner
(Copenhagen: Copenhagen National Committee for Byzantine Studies, 1996), 26‒36;
P. Magdalino, “Hellenism and Nationalism in Byzantium,” in P. Magdalino, Tradition and
Transformation in Medieval Byzantium (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1991), 1‒29; T. Shawcross, “The
Lost Generation (c. 1204‒c. 1222): Political Allegiance and Local Interests under the Impact

Medieval Encounters 24 (2018) 613–630 Downloaded from Brill.com04/26/2019 12:22:07PM

via Binghamton University Libraries
630 Brubaker

Historians who examine the sources for interfaith dialogue are accustomed
to finding certain patterns in the arguments of the disputants. However, of-
fers from the emperor to give up one theological concept for another, and
belligerent exchanges over alleged atrocities of the crusades are not what one
would expect to find in a typical disputation. Exchanges such as these do not
fit neatly into the category of syllogism or patristic reference in the context
of theological debate. They do not adhere to any criteria modern historians
might attempt to impose upon interfaith dialogue in the medieval world. They
challenge our preconceptions about the rules of interaction and exchange in
disputation while simultaneously offering clear examples of such exchanges.
We cannot overlook the instances of dialogue such as the disputatio of 1234
because of some imagined rules of technicality or etiquette, and must strive
to include such material into the larger genre of dialogue between Christian
groups of the medieval world.

of the Fourth Crusade,” in Identities and Allegiances in the Eastern Mediterranean after
1204, ed. J. Herrin and G. Saint-Guillain (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2011), 9‒37; A. Bryer, “The Late
Byzantine Identity,” in Byzantium, Identity, Image, Influence: XIX International Congress
of Byzantine Studies, University of Copenhagen, 18‒24 August, 1996, ed. K. Fledelius and
P. Schreiner (Copenhagen: Copenhagen National Committee for Byzantine Studies, 1996),
49‒50; E. Mitsiou, “Networks of Nicaea: 13th-Century Socio-Economic Ties, Structures
and Prosopography,” in Liquid and Multiple: Individuals and Identities in the Thirteenth-
Century Aegean, ed. G. Saint-Guillain and D. Stathakopoulos (Paris: Assoc. des Amis du
Centre d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance, 2012), 91‒104.

Medieval Encounters 24 (2018) 613–630

Downloaded from Brill.com04/26/2019 12:22:07PM
via Binghamton University Libraries