A Byzantine-Style Imperial Ideology

Chapter 2 A Byzantine-Style Imperial Ideology

Our texts offer valuable insights on aspects of political life in mid-13th-century Constantinople, such as imperial ideology, elements of the mindset at the imperial court, factional strife among the metropolitan elite, and foreign policy. Of course, given the astrological nature of our sources these aspects are not elaborated upon. Our texts rather provide—mostly vague—clues that require reading between the lines and which only reveal their significance within the context of information provided by other available sources and existing historiography. In the past most authors have held the view that the Latin emperors adopted a number of external elements (for example, their official titles in charters and on seals, the use of Byzantine imperial costume, imitation of various imperial ceremonies, etc.) from their predecessors, but without grasping the ideology behind them: form without content.1 In the Latin empire’s opening decades (1204–1228) I have already suggested an alternative view based on a close reading of the variations and evolution in the imperial style and on an analysis of material in well-known sources that hitherto had been overlooked. I have indeed tried to show that Baldwin i and his successors did not only adopt formal elements, but understood and identified with the key elements of Byz- antine imperial ideology: the empire’s Roman character and the emperor’s status as Christ’s direct representative on earth, from which the related ideas of universalism and autocracy were derived, as well as the emperor’s position as defender of the Christian faith and Church. This view has been criticized by Michael Angold, who however does not engage my argumentation on this point.2 Recently, Stefan Burkhardt in his

1 See, in particular, Benjamin Hendrickx, “Les institutions de l’empire latin de Constantinople (1204–1261): Le pouvoir impérial (l’empereur, l’impératrice, les régents),” Byzantina 6 (1974) 135; Antonio Carile, “La cancellaria sovrana dell’Impero latino di Constantinopoli (1204–1261),” Studi Veneziani 2 (1978) 52; Peter Lock, “The Latin emperors as heirs to Byzantium,” in Paul Magdalino, ed., New Constantines. The Rythm of imperial renewal in Byzantium, 4th–13th cen- turies. Papers from the twenty-sixth spring symposium of Byzantine studies (St. Andrews, march 1992) (Cambridge, 1994), 295–304. 2 Van Tricht, The Latin Renovatio of Byzantium, 61–82. More recently: Filip Van Tricht, “Claim- ing the Basileia ton Rhomaion: A Latin imperial dynasty in Byzantium,” Medieval History Journal 20 (2017) 248–287; Michael Angold, Review of Van Tricht, The Latin Renovatio of Byz- antium, Speculum 88 (2013) 865–867. On Byzantine imperial ideology (with further refer- ences): Otto Treitinger, Die Oströmische Kaiser- und Reichsidee (Darmstadt, 1956), 34, 43–45;

204221 28 Chapter 2 article on rituals of power repeats once more that “there was nothing much Byzantine left by the Latin empire,” but he confines himself to a brief analysis of a limited number of well-known sources (for example, Villehardouin, Valen- ciennes, and a number of papal and Venetian documents) and misses much of the available and relevant material.3 A voice that concurs with my views is Teresa Shawcross, who states: “Not only the image, therefore, but also the practice of rulership which the crusaders associated with themselves, reveal a strong continuity between the previous imperial regime and their own.”4 The texts under discussion would appear now to support the view held by both Shawcross and myself that the Latin emperors, or at least Baldwin ii and his entourage, did take over the main tenets of Byzantine imperial ideology. A number of elements indicate that, like his Byzantine predecessors, Baldwin ii—assuming our texts reflect not only the opinion of our author but those of the emperor he served—saw his emperorship as universal and Roman in character. The idea of universalism is evident in the statement that our author considers the subject of the horoscope—Emperor Baldwin ii—to be the “plus haut segnor qui vive” and “li plus granz sires qui en son tens fust nez de fame.”5 The reigning emperor of Constantinople was thus unequivocally, in absolute terms and conforming to Byzantine tradition, awarded the highest authority. This implies that the authority of other rulers—both secular and ecclesiastical—was deemed inferior, with no reservations being made to the papacy or Baldwin’s imperial colleague in the West. This did not entail that all other rulers were considered to be directly subject to Baldwin’s authority, but

Louis Bréhier, Les institutions de l’empire byzantin (Paris, 1949; repr. 1970), 49–54, 345–353; Steven Runciman, The Byzantine Theocracy (Cambridge, 1977), 22–25; Dimiter Angelov, Impe- rial ideology and political thought in Byzantium 1204–1330 (Cambridge, 2007), 79–117. Specifi- cally on Byzantine universalism, somewhat nuancing earlier views: Anthony Kaldellis, “Did the Byzantine Empire have ‘Ecumenical’ or ‘Universal’ Aspirations?” in Clifford Ando and Seth Richardson, eds., Ancient States and Infrastructural Power: Europe, Asia, and America (Philadelphia, 2017), 272–300. 3 Stefan Burkhardt, “Court Ceremonies and Rituals of Power in the Latin Empire of Constanti- nople,” in Alexander Beihammer, Stavroula Constantinou, and Maria Parani, eds., Ceremonies and Rituals of Power in Byzantium and the Medieval Mediterranean: Comparative Perspectives, The Medieval Mediterranean 98 (Leiden, 2013), 290. In his recent monograph Burkhardt expresses the same view: idem, Mediterranes Kaisertums und imperiale Ordnungen, 375. 4 Teresa Shawcross, “Conquest Legitimized: The Making of a Byzantine Emperor in Crusader Constantinople 1204–1261,” in Jonathan Harris, Catherine Holmes, and Eugenia Russel, eds., Byzantines, Latins, and Turks in the Eastern Mediterranean World After 1150, Oxford Studies in Byzantium (Oxford, 2012), 214. 5 BnF, fr.1353, f. 4ra (=Appendix 1, v338, “the most exalted lord now living”) and f. 4rb (=Appendix 1, v356, “the greatest lord of his time born to a woman”).

204221