Jonas Thungren Lindbärg “A burdensome matter it is today to abandon the delicate and subtle customs of the Latin people, i.e. the Franks, and to return to the Between Old and New Rome dullness of the old Armenians.” Thus wrote the Armenian archbishop Nerses, not without a hint of Armenian and Bulgarian Contacts with the Papacy around 1204 sarcasm, when defending his endeavour to unite the Armenian Church with the Roman in the late twelfth century. What this old dullness was is less clear but it seems that Latin customs had indeed become both Jonas Thungren Lindbärg desirable and powerful, for this ecumenical endeavour met with success and only a handful of years later something similar occured in the Between Old and New Rome Old and New Between Balkans, when a newly founded Bulgarian empire submitted to the Roman Church as well. The rulers of these realms would not only profess their loyalty to the Roman Church but would also carry papal banners into battle and exchange letters with the pope. This study examines how these rulers used their relationships with the Papacy, as well as how the pope used his relationship with them. It is a study of ideas and of symbolic power, of how kingdoms and empires were imagined and expressed. It is a study of the new and the old, of two new power-centres emerging from the old peripheries of the crumbling Byzantine Empire, of leaders weaving together real and imagined histories with new influences in order to establish and profess their legitimate rule. ISBN 978-91-7911-504-3 Department of Culture and Aesthetics Doctoral Thesis in History of Ideas at Stockholm University, Sweden 2021 Between Old and New Rome Armenian and Bulgarian Contacts with the Papacy around 1204 Jonas Thungren Lindbärg Academic dissertation for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History of Ideas at Stockholm University to be publicly defended on Monday 14 June 2021 at 13.00 online via Zoom, public link is available at the department website. Abstract The aim of this thesis is to examine the use of symbolic power at the establishment of the Second Bulgarian Empire and the Cilician kingdom of Armenia, and to further explore and discuss problems of language, translation, ethnography, legitimacy, culture and distinctions between “East” and “West” through these cases. Despite their geographical distance and diverse histories, these regions are united through a past of Byzantine domination and by their entering into unions with the Roman Papacy at this time. The central source of the study is the correspondence between the pope and the rulers of Bulgaria and Armenia. Numerous other sources from and about them are used as well, including historical, theological and eschatological works. Employing the sociological concepts of category and groupness and cultural semiotic concept of repertoire, this dissertation analyses the establishment of these two powers as well as the eastbound ambitions of the Papacy. The study demonstrates that the cultural repertoire of Cilician Armenia was gearing westwards in this age, both through importing foreign items such as Latin titles and through stressing historical and legendary connections with the Roman Empire as a source of symbolic power. The repertoire of the Second Bulgarian Empire was very closely aligned with Byzantine ideas but went through changes too during this time, stressing the importance of Bulgarian history as a source of symbolic power as well as investing that history with connections to the Papacy in Rome. Many and sometimes contradictory ideas of Rome were at play. They could refer back to the ancient Roman Empire, to Byzantium or to the Holy Roman Empire, as well as to the city of Rome and its Papacy. Pope Innocentius III propagated a Rome that was Christian rather than imperial through the eastward expansion of the Roman Church and his engagement with temporal rulers. Armenia and Bulgaria played key roles not only as eastern bastions and possible helpers in crusades but also in showcasing the expansion of papal influence and an order in which the Holy Roman Empire was not exalted but one power among others. The Armenian king Lewon did not acknowledge Byzantium as Roman but showcased his relationship with the Holy Roman Empire as well as the Papacy, having use both for an imperial Rome with associations back to ancient legends and for the Papacy that put him in a better position to deal with Latin neighbours. The Bulgarian emperor Caloiohannes, by contrast, acknowledged Byzantium as Roman and would indeed emulate many Byzantine practices and hierarchies. While he turned away from Byzantium, he did not turn away from Byzantine ideas, bonding with the pope that he knew as the patriarch of Rome in order to be properly crowned emperor. The thesis also shows that there was no contradiction between the Vlach and Bulgarian elements in the foundation of the Bulgarian Empire, arguing that Vlachs and Bulgarians were not reified groups but categories employed for different political purposes. Vlach was a word used to brand someone as barbaric and illegitimate while Bulgarian could be connected with a glorious past and invested with groupness and symbolic power. Similar if not as striking processes can be observed in Armenia, where Lewon made sure to become part of the category of Roman Christian which he had in common with his Latin neighbours, using that to achieve goals that the more exclusive category of Armenian could not. Keywords: Bulgaria, Cilician Armenia, Cultural Semiotics, Cumans, Empire, Ethnicity, Frontier, Innocent III, Rome, Symbolic Power, The Byzantine Commonwealth, The Fourth Crusade, The Latin East, Vlachs. Stockholm 2021 http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:su:diva-192415 ISBN 978-91-7911-504-3 ISBN 978-91-7911-505-0 Department of Culture and Aesthetics Stockholm University, 106 91 Stockholm BETWEEN OLD AND NEW ROME Jonas Thungren Lindbärg Between Old and New Rome Armenian and Bulgarian Contacts with the Papacy around 1204 Jonas Thungren Lindbärg ©Jonas Thungren Lindbärg, Stockholm University 2021 ISBN print 978-91-7911-504-3 ISBN PDF 978-91-7911-505-0 Printed in Sweden by Universitetsservice US-AB, Stockholm 2021 To Johanna, The show must go on. Acknowledgements It is rather difficult to write a doctoral thesis, more difficult still to navigate the world of academia, at least it is for me. I wish to extend my heartfelt gratitude to all the teachers, colleagues and fellow students who have received me with kindness and made this venture as well as those before possible. I cannot name all that I ought to name but I will name a few. First and foremost I thank my supervisors, Professor Helena Bodin and Dr Linn Holmberg, for all of that sorely needed encouragement as well as for invaluable advice. I also thank Professor Bosse Holmqvist for believing in this project from the outset. I would also like to extend my gratitude to all participants in the research seminar of History of Ideas at Stockholm University. I wish to thank all those involved with the Latin seminar of Stockholm University. Even though I eventually ended up in another department I still feel that I have a home there. I would like to thank Professor Hans Aili in particular, for introducing me to the enchanted world of the Latin language as well as trusting me to become an amanuensis and introducing me to many of the oddities of this world. I wish to thank the Padus-Araxes Cultural Association for two unforgettable summer schools in Venice, especially my teachers Rosine Tachdjian and Sossi Sousanian who helped me with my first stumbling steps on my journey to learning Armenian. My heartfelt thanks also go to Haig, Aline and Zabel for kindly welcoming me into the fold. I am grateful to the Greek seminars of Stockholm and Uppsala, especially to Professor Ingela Nilsson, ever friendly and supportive. I am also grateful for the advice of the external reviewers for my final seminar, Professor Kurt Villads Jensen and Dr Olof Heilo. And last but not least, the municipal library of Filipstad deserves a special mention for complying with the most unusual requests during these strange and trying times. Contents List of Maps .................................................................................................... 1 Prelude ........................................................................................................... 2 Chapter One: Introduction .............................................................................. 3 1.1 The Byzantine Commonwealth and Ideal ................................................................. 5 1.2 Research Questions and Aims ............................................................................... 12 1.3 Theoretical Premises .............................................................................................. 14 1.3.1 Interpreting Ethnographic Discourse: Categories and Groupness ................. 15 1.3.2 Interpreting Culture: Polysystem Theory and Repertoire ............................... 20 1.3.3 Interpreting Legitimacy ................................................................................... 22 1.4 Sources .................................................................................................................. 24 1.4.1 The Letters and Writings of Innocentius III ..................................................... 24 1.4.2 Translation and Transliteration ....................................................................... 25 Chapter Two: The Eastbound Ambitions of Innocentius III .........................