PASCHAL II, BOHEMUND OF ANTIOCH AND THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE BY J. G. ROWE, S.B., M.A., B.D., Ph.D. DEAN OF ARTS, HURON COLLEGE, UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO A .L students of the medieval crusade are familiar with the ill-starred attack which Bohemund, Prince of Antioch, launched in 1107 from southern Italy against the western flank of the Byzantine Empire. The siege of Durazzo and Bohemund's subsequent defeat at the hands of the Emperor Alexius Comnenus have been examined in detail by many writers, the accounts of Chalandon and Yewdale being perhaps the best.1 Yet there are still some problems which deserve further examination, and chief among these is the role played by the Papacy in the creation of this abortive expedition. Most historians are persuaded that Pope Paschal II gave his 1 An essential bibliography for this article should include the following: B. Kulger, Boemund und Tanfoed, Fiirsten von Antiochien (Tubingen, 1862); E. Kiihne, Zur Geschichte des Furstentums Antiochia (Berlin, 1897) ; R. Rohricht, Geschichte des Konigreichs Jerusalem, 1100-1291 (Innsbruck, 1898), pp. 64-67; B. Gigalski, Bruno, Bischof von Segni (Miinster, 1898), pp. 56-59 ; F. Chalandon, Essai sur le regne d'Alexis ler Comnene 1081-1118 (Paris, 1900), pp. 217-53; W. Norden, Das Papsttum und Byzanz (Berlin, 1903), pp. 59-74, which should be consulted in conjunction with J. Haller's penetrating review, " Das Papsttum und Byzanz ", Historische Zeitschrift, xcix (1907, 1-34, esp. pp. 23-24); B. Monod, Essai sur les rapports de Paschal II. avec Philippe ler (1099-1108) (Paris, 1907), 45-47 ; W. B. Stevenson, The Crusaders in the East (Cambridge, 1907), pp. 79-80; A. Poncelet, " Boemund et St. Leonard ", Analecta Bollandiana, xxxi (1912), 24- 44; A. Jenal, " Der Kampf zum Durazzo (1107-8) mil dem Gedicht des Tor- tarius ", Historisches Jahrbuch der Gorresgesellschaft, xxxvii (1916), pp. 285-352 ; R. B. Yewdale, Bohemund I, Prince of Antioch (Princeton, 1924), passim, esp. pp. 106-34 with excellent bibliographical directions for the older material; R. Grousset, Histoire des Croisades (Paris, 1934-6), i. 413-29; W. Holtzmann, " Zur Geschichte des Investiturstreites 2. Bohemund von Antiochien und Alexios I ", Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft fur dltere deutsche Geschichtskunde, 1 (1935), 270-82; S. Runciman, A History of the Crusades (Cambridge, 1952-4), ii. 32-55; P. AlphandSry, ed. A. Dupront, La Chretiente et I'ldee de Croisade (Paris, 1954), pp. 152-3; K. M. Setton, ed., A History of the Crusades, I. The First Hundred Years, ed. M. W. Baldwin (Philadelphia, 1955), pp. 387-91 ; A. Waas, Geschichte der Kreuzzuge (Freiburg, 1956), i. 162-5. 165 166 THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY blessing to Bohemund's invasion.1 For example, Sir Steven Runciman judges Paschal to be a weak man who felt constrained to encourage Bohemund's desire to conquer the Byzantine Empire, thus hastening the development of that great tragedy of medieval Christendom, the schism between the Greek and Latin churches.2 Professor Harold Fink agrees although he is not so decided in his views. In the American History of the Crusades, Fink thinks it " likely " that Paschal " succumbed to the anti- Byzantinism of the day and fell in with Bohemund's plans ".3 On the other hand, the distinguished American medievalist Marshal W. Baldwin suggested years ago that Paschal was hoodwinked by Bohemund. The wiles of the guileful Norman prince prevented the Pope from perceiving the sinister meaning of his attempts to gather men in Western Europe for a new expedition which, although ostensibly destined for Jerusalem, was eventually transformed into an attack on the Byzantine 1 W. Holtsmann, ibid. pp. 270-1, declared that all historians agree that Paschal supported Bohemund in his plans to attack the Byzantine Empire. Certainly the following writers do: Rohricht, loc. cit., and Monod, loc. cit.; Yewdale, ibid. pp. 107-8, 115; Chalandon, ibid. pp. 242-3 ; Norden, ibid, pp. 71-72 ; Jenal, ibid. pp. 292-3,301 -3 ; O. Volk, Die Abendldndische-Hierarische Kreuzzugsidee (Halle diss., 1911), pp. 36-37 ; A. C. Krey, " A Neglected Passage in the Gesta and its bearing upon the Literature of the First Crusade ", in The Crusades and Other Historical Essays presented to Dana C. Munro, ed. L. J. Paetow (New York, 1928), pp. 57-78, esp. pp. 68-69 ; Grousset, ibid. i. 415-16; C. Erdmann, Die Entstehung des Kreuzzugsgedankens (Stuttgart, 1935), p. 365 ; R. Manselli, " Normanni d'ltalia alia prima Crociata : Boemundo d'Alta- villa ", lapigia, xi (1940), 45-79, 145-84, here, 176-9 ; A. Cartellieri, Der Vorrang des Papsttwns zur Zeit der ersten Kreuzziige, 1095-1150 (Miinchen-Berlin, 1941), p. 303 ; M. Villey, La Croisade. Essai sur la Formation d'une Thdorie Juridiqw (Paris, 1942), p. 229 ; G. M. Monti, La espansione mediterranea del Mezziogiorno d'ltalia e delta Sicilia (Bologna, 1942), p. 59 and L'ltalia e le crociate in Terra Santa (Napoli, n.d.), p. 98 ; P. Charanis, " Aims of the Medieval Crusades and how they were viewed by Byzantium", Church History, xxi (1952), 123-34, esp. p. 129 ; A. A. Vasiliev, History of the Byzantine Empire, 324-1453 (Madison, 1952), p. 410; G. Every, The Byzantine Patriarchate, 451-1204 (2nd edn., London, 1962), p. 166. Some writers ignore the problem : Gigalski, loc. cit., Stevenson, loc. cit., Alphandery, loc. cit., Wass, loc. cit. The same observation may be applied to L. Brehier, L'£glise et I'Orient au moyen age. Les croisades (4th edn., Paris, 1921), p. 85, and G. Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State, trans. J. Hussey (Oxford, 1956), p. 324. 2 Runciman, op. cit. ii. 47-48 and in his The Eastern Schism (Oxford, 1955), pp. 93-94. * Setton and Baldwin, op. cit. i. 391. PASCHAL II, BOHEMUND OF ANTIOCH 167 Empire. In short, Baldwin proposed that the Papacy never knowingly gave its official sanction to Bohemund's perversion of the crusade.1 The purpose of this essay is to give Baldwin's suggestion the thorough examination it deserves. This will require a rigorous critique of the evidence, presented in chronological fashion for the sake of clarity. An irrefutable defence of Baldwin's hypo thesis will not be forthcoming. The fragmentary nature of the evidence renders such a happy result impossible. It will suffice if I am able to cast some doubt on the current interpreta tion of an important event in the history of the Papacy in its relation to the crusade. I. Paschal II and the Byzantine Empire (1099-110}) It is a widely accepted opinion that Pope Urban II hoped that the Her Hierosolymitanum would have a beneficial effect upon relations between the Greek and Latin churches. A display of Latin courage and sacrifice in giving assistance to eastern Christ ians, hard pressed by the infidel, might bring forgetfulness of past estrangements and pave the way for a reconciliation based upon Byzantine acceptance of that papal supremacy which had so nobly demonstrated its generosity and zeal in the inauguration of the crusade.2 Although there were at the beginning some signs which augured good relations between the Byzantine Empire and the crusaders,3 Urban's hopes for reconciliation unfortunately did not 1 M. W. Baldwin," The Papacy and the Levant during the Twelfth Century ", Bull. Polish Inst. Arts and Sci. in America, iii, 2 (January 1945), 277-87, esp. p, 284. 2 B. Leib, Rome, Kiev et Byzance a la Fin du XIerne siecle (Paris, 1924), p. 181 ; P. Charanis, op. cit. p. 128; S. Runciman, Eastern Schism, pp. 61 f., 76-78. For detailed arguments see A. C. Krey, " Urban's Crusade Success or Failure", Amer. Hist. Rev., liii (1947-8), 235-50; J. H. Hill, "Raymond of Saint-Gilles in Urban's Plan for Greek and Latin Friendship ", Speculum, xxvi (1951), 265-76. Still useful are the critical comments of F. Duncalf in Setton and Baldwin, op. cit. i. 244 and the summaries in M. W. Baldwin, " Some Recent Interpretations of Pope Urban II's Eastern Policy", Cath. Hist. Rev., xxv (1939-40), 459-66. 3 For early co-operation and harmony between the Latins and Eastern Christians see H. Hagenmeyer, Die Kreuzzugsbriefe aus den Jahren 1088-1100: Epistulae et chartae ad historiam primi Belli Sacri spectantes (Innsbruck, 1901), 168 THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY materialize. As the crusaders advanced beyond Constantinople and closer to Jerusalem, mutual friendliness and helpfulness gradu ally disappeared beneath a rising tide of animosity and suspicion. The Greeks were naturally disturbed to see their countryside ravaged as if by an army of enemies, not friends.1 Worse still, a fundamental incomprehension of the purpose of the crusade left the Greeks with feelings of contempt for Latin ignorance and religious naivete as well as a predisposition to see in every Latin action the expression of a covert desire for the conquest of their Empire.2 These suspicions grew stronger when early manifesta tions of religious unity at Antioch and elsewhere were replaced by a Latin separatism which revealed itself in the introduction of the Latin hierarchy into Syria-Palestine, the expulsion of the Greek Patriarch John the Oxite from Antioch and a brief per secution of eastern Christians in Jerusalem.3 Contrary to an pp. 63-68, 138-40, 141-2, 144-9, 153-5, 166,254-69; Anonymi Gesta Francown, ed. L. Brehier, Histoire anonyme de la premiere croisade (Paris, 1924), p. 210; Fulcher of Chartes, Historia Hierosolymitana, ii. 3, ed. H. Hagenmeyer (Heidel berg, 1913), p. 368 ; Albert of Aachen, Liber Christiane Expeditione pro Ereptione, Emtmdatione et Restitutione Sanctae Hierosolymitane Ecclesiae, v. 1, vi. 39, in Recueil des Historiens des Croisades, Historiens Occidentaux, (RHCOc) (Paris, 1844-95), iv. 433, 489; Matthew of Edessa, Chronicle, as extracted in Recueil des Historiens des Croisades, Documents Armeniens (Paris, 1869-1096), i. 45, 52, 54-55,70-71. 1 The opinions of Anna Comnena are characteristic of her generation. See her Alexiad, x. 5, ed. and trans. B. Leib (Paris, 1937-45), ii. 206-7. 2 The hostile intentions of the Normans towards the Byzantine Empire were known to many Latin writers, among them Richard of Poitiers, Chronicon, in Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores, ed. G. H. Pertz and others (MGHSS) (Hanover, 1826- ), xxvi. 79, William of Malmesbury, Gesta Region, iv. 344, ed. W. Stubbs (London, 1887), ii. 390-1 and Gauffredus Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii Calabriae et Siciliae Comitis et Roberti Guiscardi Ducis fratris eius, iv. 24, ed. E. Pontieri, in L. A. Muratori, Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, ed. G. Carducci and others (RISS-2) (Gtta di Castello, 1902- ), V, i, p. 102. Anna's comments are well known, Alexiad, xiv, 4, iii, p. 160. For a resumS of Byzantine attitudes, see the article by Charanis, op. cit. passim. 3 For the introduction of the Latin episcopate see J. G. Rowe, " Paschal II and the Relation between the Spiritual and Temporal Powers in the Kingdom of Jerusalem", Speculum, xxxiii (1957), 470-501, esp. pp. 471 f., and "The Papacy and the Ecclesiastical Province of Tyre (1100-87)", BULLETIN, xhii (1960), 160-89, esp. pp. 162 f.; W. Hotzelt, Kirchengeschichte Palastinas im Zeitalter der Kreuzzuge (Koln, 1940), pp. 6-42; R. Rohricht, "Syria sacra , PASCHAL II, BOHEMUND OF ANTIOCH 169 agreement made between the Emperor Alexius and the crusaders, Antioch remained in Latin hands,1 and to this hostile action were added the vicious attacks on Greek islands in the eastern Mediterranean and the Aegean by the fleets of the Italian maritime cities.2 Confronted by these developments, the Greeks looked Zeitschrift des deutschen Paldstinavereins, x (1887), 1-48. For information on John IV the Oxite, consult M. LeQuien, Oriens Christianas (Paris, 1740), ii. 756-7 ; B. Leib, " Deux inedits byzantines sur les Azymites au d£but du Xllieme siecle ", Orientalia Christiana Analecta, II, 3, no. 9 (Rome, 1924), pp. 133-264 ; V. Grumel, " Les Patriarches d'Antioche du nom de Jean ", £chos d'Orient, xxxii (1933), 279-99. Later writers tend to gloss over the true reason for his expulsion from Antioch, see Orderic Vitalis, Historia Ecclesiastica, X, 2, eds. A. Le Prevost and L. Delisle (Paris, 1838-55), IV, pp. 141-2, and William of Tyre, Historia Rerum in Partibus Transmarinis Gestarum, vi, 23, RHCOc, I, 274. The Greeks continued to appoint Greek prelates to the sees of Antioch and Jerusalem. See V. Grumel, Les Regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constanti nople. I. Les Actes des Patriarches. Fasc. III. Les Regestes de 1043 a 1206 (Con stantinople, 1947), nos. 986, 1004,1038, 1041, etc. For signs of hostility between Eastern Christians and the crusaders, see Hagenmeyer, Epistulae, pp. 164, 176-7; Raymond of Aguilers, Historia Francorum, xxi, RHCOc, III, 302; Fulcher of Chartres, II, 8 pp. 395-6. 1 For the agreement between Alexius and the crusaders, see Runciman in Setton and Baldwin, op. cit. i. 284-91, supplemented by the articles by J. H. Hill (supra, p. 167, n. 2) and J. H. Hill and L. L. Hill, " The Convention of Alexius Comnenus and Raymond of Saint Gilles ", Amer. Hist. Rev., Iviii (1952-3), 322-7, and F- L. Ganshof, " Recherche sur le lien juridique qui unissait les chefs de la premiere croisade a 1'empereur byzantin ", Melanges offerts 6. M. Paul~E. Martin (Geneve, 1961), pp. 49-63. There is still no certain opinion as to the exact nature of the agreement between Alexius and Bohemund. For the conflict in opinion, see A. C. Krey, " A Neglected Passage ", passim; E. Jamison, " Some Notes on the Anonymi Gesta Francorum, with Special Reference to the Norman Contingent from South Italy and Sicily in the First Crusade ", in Studies in French Language and Medieval Literature presented to Professor Mildred K. Pope (Manchester, 1939), pp. 183-208, here 193-5; and Charanis, op. cit. p. 129. 2 For the attack of the Pisan fleet on Byzantine islands and then on Laodicea, see Annales Pisani and Gesta Triumphalia per Pisanos, RISS-2, VI, ii, pp. 7, 89, Albert of Aachen, vi. 55, RHCOc IV. 500-1, and Anna Comnena, Alexiad, XI, 10, III, pp. 41-46. Other attacks on Byzantine possessions are recorded in the Translatio S. Nicholai, IV-VII, RHCOc, V, i. 256-9, a report repeated in Dandolo, Chronicon, RISS-2, XII, i. 221-3. The triumphant record of Genoese expansion in the East may be read in the Liberatio Orientis of Caffaro, printed in the first volume of the Annales lanuenses, ed. L. T. Belgrano, being v. XI in the Fonti per la Storia d'ltalia (FSf) published by the Istituto Storico Italiano (Roma, 1887- ). The basic secondary work is C. Manfroni, " Le relazioni fra Genova, 1'Impero Bizantino e i Turchi ", Atti della Societa Ligure di Storia Patria, xxviii (Genova, 1896), 577-858, here, 587-8. 170 THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY more and more to the preservation of their Empire and its exalted traditions from Latin agression, and Byzantine policy towards the crusaders became increasingly compounded of evasion, deceit and hostility.1 As for the crusaders, the strain and suffering of the arduous journey, the sense of isolation and danger in an alien environment, the failure of the Greeks to deliver substantial aid as promised and then, despite these difficulties, the overwhelming, almost unbelievable success, combined to make the Latins more insistent on their superiority. Supernatural forces seemed to favour this development. Heavenly visitors in dreams and visions cast aspersions upon eastern Christians, and many crusaders were quick to follow their example.2 On a more earthly plane, it was increasingly bruited about that the Greeks were fickle and un reliable, men of little faith who had put obstacles in the path of the pilgrims. When the Crusade of 1101 perished in the moun tain passes of Asia Minor, those who survived, as well as many in the Latin Orient, needed a scapegoat to bear the blame for the fate of the unfortunate expedition. The Greeks were there, ready made for that burden.3 The Hierosolymita of Ekkehard still conveys the flavour of Latin hatred for the Greeks in its 1 Both Chalandon and Runciman interpret Byzantine policy in a sympathetic light. H. S. Fink, in Setton and Baldwin, op. cit. i 366-7, also does so, but with greater restraint. Yewdale, op. cit. p. 84, represents the traditional hostility of Western writers which derives from the Anonymi Gesta Francorum and Ekkehard (infra, p. 171, n. 1). Alexius Comnenus was perhaps too quickly disposed to regard the Latins as his enemies. This is revealed by his approach to the Fatimid Caliph of Egypt for co-operation against the crusaders, recorded in Raymond of Aguilers, XVI, XVII, RHCOc, III, 277, 286. See F. Dolger, Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des ostromischen Reiches (DR) (being Reihe A., Abt. I, Corpus der griechischen Urkwiden des Mittelalters und der neueren Zeit, Miinchen-Berlin, 1924-32), II, no. 1209, to Afdal, the vizier of the Caliph, dated June 1098. 2 Hagenmeyer, Epistulae, pp. 161-5, esp. pp. 164-5; Anonymi Gesta, ix. 128-32 ; Raymond of Aguilers, XI, XIII, RHCOc, III, 255-6, 262-4; John H. Hill and Laurita L. Hill, Raymond IV de Saint-Gittes (Toulouse, 1959), pp. 64-69, 85-86. 3 Chalandon, op. cit. p. 219, errs when he declares that the only real discord existed between Alexius and Bohemund and that (p. 239) "... les relations entre Byzance et les Iitats latins ftaient rest6s assez cordiales ". When the Crusade of 1101 met its end in a Turkish ambush, William of Aquitaine im mediately assumed the Greeks were guilty of treachery, Matthew of Edessa, RHC, Documents Armeniens, i. 56-60. PASCHAL II, BOHEMUND OF ANTIOCH 171 first burst of strength, and through Ekkehard the picture of the Emperor Alexius Comnenus as the enemy of the crusade, the ally of the infidel, and the persecutor of Christians passed into European history.1 To what extent did the Papacy share in this mounting Latin antipathy for the Byzantine Empire and its ruler? This is a difficult question to answer. For one thing, Alexius's ransoming of Prankish prisoners from the infidel attracted much attention in the West, and it is unlikely that this exhibition of goodwill completely escaped papal attention.2 For another, the Emperor had friends in southern Italy, notably the Abbot Oderisius of Monte Cassino, and letters remain to show that he had defended his treatment of the crusaders to the Abbot. We may safely assume that echoes of this skilful apologia reached the papal court. Paschal II was undoubtedly aware of his predecessor's conciliatory attitude towards the Greeks. He might therefore be inclined to appreciate the difficulties which Alexius had encountered in his dealings with the crusaders, realizing that Ekkehard, Hierosolymita, XXIII-XXVI, XXXIII, RHCOc, V, i. 29-32, 37-38. Hostility towards the Greeks may be traced through Bernold of Con stance, Chronicon, MGHSS, V. 466 and Richard of Poitiers, Chronicon, Recueil des Historiens des Gaules et de la France (RHF), xii. 412 : " Willelmus autem Dux Aquitanorum, dum cum magno exercitu ad eorum auxilium properaret, turpiter in Graecia a Turcis, amisso exercitu, superatur, consensu, ut aiunt, Alexii Imperatoris Constantinopolitani, eo quod strenuitati Francorum semper Graeci invidiant." Even Fulcher of Chartres, usually so impartial, echoes this senti ment, II, 38, p. 521. This conviction will find its way into the writings of Orderic Vitalis, x. 19, iv. 120 f., Otto of Freising, Chronicon, vii. 2, ed. A. Hof- meister, MGH, Scriptures rerum Germanicartm in usu scholarum (Hanover- Leipzig, 1912), pp. 310-12, and William of Tyre, ii. 5, xi. 6, RHCOc, I, 79-80, 460-2. The Anonymi Gesta and its continuators ring the changes on the theme of Alexius and the Greeks as traitors. For example, see Guibert of Nogent, Historia Hierosolymitana i. 1-5, RHCOc, IV, 124-31. For the growth of a Latin polemic against Greek faith and practice which preceded and accompanied the rising tension between the Greeks and the crusaders consult Leib, op. cit. pp. 298-307. 2 For these activities, consult The Damascus Chronicle, ed. and trans. H. A. R. Gibb (London, 1932), p. 42, and Anna Comnena, XI, 7, XII, 1, III, pp. 33, 54-56. See DR, II, no. 1216 (dated 1102), no. 1220 (dated 1104) and Chalandon, op. cit. pp. 237-8. Some Western writers knew of these and other conciliatory gestures, Albert of Aachen, ix. 39-40, RHCOc, IV, 649-50, and Orderic Vitalic, X, 22, IV, pp. 137-8. 172 THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY hatred for the Greeks might only be the flimsiest of camouflage for Latin folly and failure.1 On the other hand, there is nothing to suggest that Paschal gave Hugh of Lyons, the papal legate on the Crusade of 1101, any special instructions as to his relations with the Greeks.2 No evidence can be found which shows that the Papacy remon strated with the Italian maritime cities for their raids on Byzan tine possessions. Of course, we might inquire just what control the Papacy could be expected to exercise over these fleets whose marauding activities lay hidden beneath the excitement and exal tation of the crusade. When we consider the activities of Cardin al Maurice of Porto, papal legate to the Latin Orient in 1100, we find no indication that he questioned the expulsion of the Patri arch John the Oxite from Antioch. In all likelihood, the Cardinal judged that the matter must be allowed to rest since the Latins in the East clearly wished to be ruled spiritually by Latins.3 When another legate, the Cardinal Robert of Paris, arrived in 1 For the letters to Monte Cassino, see DR, II, nos. 1207-8, dated August-June 1097-8, Hagenmeyer, Epistulae, pp. 140-1, 152-3 and Peter the Deacon, Chronica Monasterii Casinensis, MGHSS, vii. 770. See also H. Bloch, " Monte Cassino, Byzantium and the West in the Earlier Middle Ages ", Dumbarton Oaks Papers, iii (1946), 166-224, here, 222. With her usual self-satisfaction, Anna Comnena relates Alexius's considerate treatment of the survivors of the Crusade of 1101, XI, 8,111, p. 38. It is appropriate to recall in this context, the letter of Bohemund and other crusaders, written in September 1099, to the Pope ; see Hagenmeyer, Epistulae, pp. 161-5, esp. pp. 164-5, where Bohemund announces that all have been defeated save the heretics and therefore : " tu vero debes separare ab iniusto imperatore, qui multa bona promisit nobis, sed minime fecit. Omnia enim mala et impedimenta quaecumque facere potuit, nobis fecit." 2 His appointment as legate and presence on the crusade are attested by P. Jaffe, Regesta pontificum romanorum, ed. S. Loewenfeld and others (JL) (Leipzig, 1885-8), no. 5824, and Denis de Samt-Marthe, Gallia Christiana ed. P. Piolin (Paris, 1870), iv. cc. 97-109, here, 105, 107. Diverse authorities accept this evidence, e.g., Monod, op. cit. pp. 10-15, Rohricht, Geschichte, p. 30, and J. L. Gate, " A Gay Crusader, William IX of Acquitaine ", Byzantion, xvi (1942-3), 502-26, here, 515. The most thorough examination of the chronology of Hugh s visit to the Holy Land remains W. Liihe, Hugo von Die und Lyon (Breslau, 1898), pp. 163-9. 3 For the identification of this cardinal consult H.-W. Klewitz, Die Entstehung des Kardinalskollegiums ", in Reformpapsttum und Kardinalkpuq} (Darmstadt, 1957), pp. 1-134, here, 116. For his mission see J. G. Rowe, " Paschal II ", pp. 478-484, and Caffaro, Liberatio Orientis, in FSI, xi. 113-14. PASCHAL II, BOHEMUND OF ANTIOCH 173 Jerusalem in 1102, he found the Patriarch Daimbert of Pisa arraigned by his enemies in a series of charges, one of which was that Daimbert had been directly involved in the murder of Greek Christians during the voyage of the Pisan fleet to the Holy Land in 1098-9. The cardinal eventually deposed Daimbert from his high office, but it is not clear that this particular accusation counted for much in shaping his decision.1 All this is prolegomena to one particular incident: the appear ance of Manasses of " Barzenona " before Paschal II. The Liber Christianae Expeditionis pro Ereptione Sanctae Hierosoly- mitanae Ecclesiae of Albert of Aachen tells us that anti-Byzantine feeling ran so high in the Latin Orient after the disasters of 1101 that King Baldwin I of Jerusalem sent an embassy to Alexius Comnenus to expostulate with him over his " hostile " treatment of the crusaders. The embassy was composed of Gerald, Archbishop of Mount Thabor, and one Manasses, described by Albert as Bishop of " Barzenona ". They arrived in Constanti nople in the early summer of 1102. After patiently enduring their reproaches, Alexius responded with a defence of his own conduct. The Emperor convinced Manasses, who in turn agreed to defend Alexius's reputation before the Pope when he returned to Western Europe. Unfortunately for Alexius, Manasses proved to be too clever by far. When he arrived at the papal court at Benevento in the fall of 1102 he denounced, not defended, the Emperor. According to Albert, his tirade was accepted without hesitation by the Pope, who encouraged Manasses to repeat his accusations to the Franks.2 1 Supra, p. 169, n. 2. Daimbert at first pleaded in his own defence that the Greeks were false Christians who persecuted pilgrims (Albert of Aachen, vi. 57, RHCOc, IV, 502). He later assumed the role of a mediator and blamed Bohemund for the attack on the Greeks (Albert, vi, 57,59, RHCOc, pp. 502,503-4, and Fulcher of Chartres, 1,33, pp. 326 f.). For his removal from office see Albert, viii. 45-7, ix. 16, RHCOc, IV, 584-5, 599-600. For further information on this important prelate, who was for a time Patriarch of Jerusalem, consult J. G. Rowe, "Paschal II", pp. 475-489. The Cardinal Robert is identified in Klewitz, ibid. p. 127. 2 DR, II, no. 1218; Albert of Aachen, viii. 41, 47-48, RCHOc, IV, 582, 584-5 : "... in amaritudinem animi Romam tendens, ipsum imperatorem crim- inatus est in ecclesia Beneventana; et ideo, assumptis litteris ipsius Apostolici, querimonia gravis apud omnes principes Galliae super ipso imperatore facta est." 174 THE JOHN RYLANDS LIBRARY With regard to Albert's historical reliability, the day is long passed when a von Sybel could reduce Albert's value to the level of anecdote, reminiscence and gossip. The tide of reaction against this attitude has been running strong since B. Kugler published his studies on Albert of Aachen. We now more correctly judge that while Albert preserved much legendary material, he also included in his work much of the highest historical value.1 Since, therefore, this account of the mission of Manasses has a certain verisimilitude, it is not surprising that many scholars have accepted it at face value.2 Certainly, from the standpoint of chronology, the story of Manasses is satis factory. It comes at the proper place in the narrative. It fits in with the general chronology of events in East and West during the year 1102. For example, Paschal II was in Benevento for the last five months of 1102, and thus the interview with the Pope becomes chronologically possible.3 On the other hand, much research has failed to shed any light on Manasses himself. Albert tells us nothing about him except to say that he was bishop of " Barzenona ", but the suggestion that this is Barcelona and that Manasses was bishop of that city has long been rejected.4 Albert's story is not corroborated by any other historical writer, and we must remember that there were many annalists in early twelfth century Europe who would have been only too eager to record anything derogatory of the Emperor Alexius. The story of Manasses is, therefore, for these reasons, open to question. 1 B. Kugler, Albert von Aachen (Stuttgart, 1885), the first of many publica tions on this subject. See also F. Kiihn, " Zur Kritik Alberts von Aachen ", Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft fur altere deutsche Geschichtskunde, xii (1887), 543-58, here 546, and for a modern opinion, C. Cahen, La Syrie du Nord a I'Epoque des Croisades (Paris, 1940), p. 12. 2 Norden, op. cit. p. 70 ; Yewdale, op. cit. p. 107 ; Leib, op. cit. pp. 273-4; Manselli, op. cit. p. 177 ; Runciman, History, ii. 35 and Eastern Schism, p. 93. Krey, " A Neglected Passage ", p. 68, has doubts and reservations. Chalandon, op. cit. p. 237, accepts the story in principle but is silent over Paschal's response to Manasses's attack on Alexius. But see infra, p. 189, n. 1. 3 For the papal itinerary, JL, i. 713. 4 Albert of Aachen, viii. 41, RHCOc, IV, p. 582: "... Manasses de Bar zenona, alii quoque episcopi Italiae ...." There is no trace of Manasses among the episcopal lists for Italy at this time. DR, II, no. 1212, and Chalandon, op. cit. p. 237 accepted Barcelona, but this cannot be sustained. See J. L. Gate in Setton and Baldwin, op. cit. i. 366, n. 37.