The Medieval History Journal
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Medieval History Journal Volume 20 Number 2 October 2017 Aims and Scope The Medieval History Journal was launched at the turn of the twenty- first century when the world of history was in a ferment, radically seeking a redefinition of the discipline. The MHJ is a peer reviewed journal and derives its distinctive profile from encompassing the entire medieval world in scope and its multi-disciplinary foci. For the MHJ, ‘Medieval History’ signifies open chronological and thematic boundaries to honour historical plurality. Its frequent special issues investigating a particular theme across regions have provided a space for comparative and transcultural conversations within scholarship. The Medieval History Journal Editorial Collective Sally K. Church University of Cambridge Rajat Datta Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi Ranjeeta Dutta Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi Thomas Ertl University of Vienna Suraiya Faroqhi İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Monica Juneja Heidelberg University Harbans Mukhia Formerly at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi Prasannan Parthasarthi Boston College, Boston Kim Siebenhüner Historisches Institut, University of Bern Advisory Board Maurice Aymard, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris Aziz Al-Azmeh, Central European University, Budapest Carlos Barros, University of Santiago de Compostela Caroline Walker Bynum, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, New Jersey Richard M. Eaton, University of Arizona, Tucson Alisa M. Ginio, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv Carlo Ginzburg, Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa and University of California, Los Angeles Sumit Guha, Rutgers University, New Jersey Irfan Habib, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh Chun-Chieh Huang, National Taiwan University, Taipei Gábor Klaniczay, Central European University, Budapest Christiane Klapisch-Zuber, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris Gabrielle Spiegel, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore Peer Vries, University of Vienna Wang Zhenping, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore The Medieval History Journal Volume 20 Number 2 October 2017 Special issue A World of Empires. Claiming and Assigning Imperial Authority in the High and Late Middle Ages Guest Editors: Chris Jones, Christoph Mauntel and Klaus Oschema Contents Articles Chris Jones, Christoph Mauntel and Klaus Oschema: Controversial Terminology: Medieval Perspectives on Claiming and Assigning Imperial Status 233 Filip Van Tricht: Claiming the Basileia ton Rhomaion: A Latin Imperial Dynasty in Byzantium (1204–1261) 248 Wolfram Drews: Imperial Rule in Medieval Spain: Christian and Islamic Contexts 288 Chris Jones: Undefined Terms: Empires and Emperors in Late Medieval French Thought 319 Christoph Mauntel: The ‘Emperor of Persia’: ‘Empire’ as a Means of Describing and Structuring the World 354 Maud Pérez-Simon: The Khan as ‘Meta-Emperor’ in Marco Polo’s Devisement du Monde 385 Klaus Oschema: No ‘Emperor of Europe’: A Rare Title between Political Irrelevance, Anti-Ottoman Polemics and the Politics of National Diversity 411 Visit mhj.sagepub.com Free access to Table of Contents and Abstracts. Controversial Terminology: Medieval Perspectives on Claiming and Assigning Imperial Status Chris Jones* Christoph Mauntel** Klaus Oschema*** In recent years, research on the concept of ‘empire’ has seen an upswing of interest in both Political Science and History. Definitions of ‘empire’ abound, as they do for words such as ‘discourse’, ‘performance’ and ‘culture’. Countless books and edited volumes concerning questions of ‘empire’ have been published since the turn of the century. On the most general level, however, the majority of studies on questions of ‘empire’ tend to neglect Acknowledgements: The contributions to the present volume result from two sessions at the IMC at Leeds in 2014, which were kindly sponsored by the Cluster of Excellence Asia & Europe in a Global Context at Heidelberg University. Christoph Mauntel and Klaus Oschema would like to acknowledge the support of the Cluster of Excellence. Their contributions incorporate research conducted as part of the project World Orders in Transcultural Perspective: Pre-modern Concepts of Continents and Empire funded by the Cluster from 2013 to 2016. We also like to thank Friederike Pfister (Bochum) for her valuable help with the material preparation of the manuscripts. *University of Canterbury, Department of History, Christchurch, New Zealand. E-mail: [email protected] **University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany. E-mail: [email protected] ***Ruhr University Bochum, Department of History, Bochum, Germany. E-mail: [email protected] The Medieval History Journal, 20, 2 (2017): 233–247 SAGE Publications Los Angeles/London/New Delhi/Singapore/Washington DC/ Melbourne DOI: 10.1177/0971945817718640 234 Chris Jones, Christoph Mauntel and Klaus Oschema the European Middle Ages. Medievalists continue to associate the Latin terms imperium and imperator primarily with the (Holy) Roman Empire. A closer examination of the existing material in Latin and the vernacular languages reveals that many late medieval authors were far from limited in their use of imperial terminology. This introductory essay establishes the historiographical context for an exploration of this terminology as it was employed in the Latin West in two instances. The first is imperial self- designation, cases where rulers explicitly adopted or avoided the language of empire in referring to themselves or their realms. The second is the use of imperial terminology by authors from Latin Europe to describe and characterise distant and foreign regions of the world. In 1533, the English Parliament declared the kingdom of England to be an ‘empire’.1 This did not lead the contemporary Tudor ruler, Henry VIII, to change his personal title to ‘emperor’ nor did the historical argument put forward in the Act in Restraint of Appeals become a reference point for a new way of presenting the English kingdom. In fact, it was never repeated by Henry’s government.2 For some, most notably the mid-twentieth century historian, G. R. Elton, the significance of the terminology could not be exaggerated: the use of ‘empire’ was an assertion of ‘national sovereignty’ and lay at the heart of a ‘Tudor revolution’ in government.3 Whether or not Elton’s controversial argument is accepted, the act’s drafters doubtless viewed a claim to imperial status as a means of asserting their ruler’s independence: popes might claim authority over mere kingdoms; an empire was another matter. But what exactly was understood by the word 1 Williams, English Historical Documents 1485–1558: 738 (no 96: ‘An act in restraint of appeals’ (St. 24 Hen. VIII, c. 12, 1533)): ‘Where by divers sundry old authentic histories and chronicles it is manifestly declared and expressed that this realm of England is an Empire, and so hath been accepted in the world, governed by one supreme head and king having the dignity and royal estate of the imperial crown of the same […].’ 2 Scarisbrick, Henry VIII: 315–16. But see the ‘Act of Supremacy’ (St. 26 Hen. VIII, c. 1, 1534) for an example of further reference to the ‘imperial crown’: Williams, English Historical Documents 1485–1558: 746 (no 100). 3 Elton, England under the Tudors: 160–62. More recent writers have downplayed the radical political agenda Elton identified in the preamble to this act. See, for example, Scarisbrick, Henry VIII: 313–15. For the context in which Henry ‘made governmental actions—statutes, for example—into rhetorical performances’, Sharpe, Selling the Tudor Monarchy: particularly 68–70. See also, Bernard, The King’s Reformation: 70, where a connection between the act’s terminology and propaganda is highlighted. The Medieval History Journal, 20, 2 (2017): 233–247 Controversial Terminology 235 ‘empire’? This collection of essays seeks to explore how Europeans in the later centuries of the Middle Ages came to understand this particular term and the ideas associated with it. The nature of Henry VIII’s ‘empire’ was clearly something of a pre- occupation for its ruler: in 1530, Henry had ordered his agents in Rome to scour the papal registers for references to his ‘authority imperial’.4 It is possible that the origins of what J. J. Scarisbrick termed Henry’s ‘innocent delusions of imperial status’ lay in Tudor perceptions of ancient British history. They certainly seem to have enjoyed a long pedigree: two decades before the breach with Rome, in 1513, the King had named a ship Henry Imperial and in 1525, he commissioned a seal that depicted the English king wearing a crown in the style of the contemporary Holy Roman Emperors.5 Significantly, Henry’s interest in the topic of empire was by no means anomalous. Throughout the preceding five centuries, Europeans had interpreted and re-interpreted the terminology of ‘empire’ in a wide variety of ways, many of which have been either overlooked or relegated to the status of mere curiosities. In recent years, research on the concept of ‘empire’ has seen an upswing of interest in both Political Science and History. Responding to a changed world order since the end of the Cold War, Antonio Negri and Michael Hardt published their widely read book Empire in 2000, which may be at least partly responsible for (re-)igniting the debate.6 Negri and Hardt defined an ‘empire’ as a political system that was based on ‘a series of national and supranational organisms united under a single logic of rule’.7 This approach certainly has the merit of casting