1. Ganshof, F. L., The Middle Ages: A History of International Relations (New York, 1970), pp. 136–137Google Scholar; Gaudemet, J., “Le rôle de la papauté dans le règlement des conflits entre Etats aux XIII^e et XIV^e siècles,” Recueil de la Société Jean Bodin pour l'histoire comparative des institutions 15 (1961), pp. 81–83.Google Scholar

2. The Biblical quotations from Psalms 33:15 (A. V. 34:14) and John 14:27 appear for example in Innocentii III Romani pontificis regestorum sive epistolarum, ed. Migne, J. P., Patrologio Latina cursus completus, vols. 214–217 (Paris, 1858, reprinted 1890), I, 355Google Scholar, hereafter Reg.; Potthast, A., Regesta Pontificum Romanorum I (Berlin, 1874), no. 351Google Scholar; and Reg. VI, 68; Potthast, no. 1921. The best edition of Book I of the register is now Hageneder, O. and Haidacher, A., eds., Die Register Innocens' III. (GrazKöln, 1964)Google Scholar, hereafter H. and H., Register.

3. Gaudemet, pp. 86–87. See also Luehaire, A., Innocent III (Paris, 1904–1908), 4:1–8Google Scholar; Tilimann, H., Papst Innocenz III. (Bonn, 1954), pp. 220–223Google Scholar; and Roscher, Helmut, Papst Innocens III. und die Kreuzzüge (Göttingen, 1969), esp. pp. 51–58.Google Scholar

4. For Innocent's intervention in the civil war sea Reg. I, 10 (H. and H., Register I/10); Potthast no. 4; also Reg. I, 271 (H. and H., Register I/271); Potthast no. 285; and Theiner, A., Vetera monumenta Slavorum meridionalium historiam illustrantia (Rome, 1863); 1:47Google Scholar, no. 19 (Potthast no. 977). 1:51, no. 156, 157. For Imre's crusading vow see ibid., 1:59, no. 112, 115; Potthast no. 1431, 1434; also Kempf, F., ed., Regestum Innocentii III papae super negtio Romani imperio (Rome, 1947), p. 194, no. 70Google Scholar; Potthaat no. 1736; and Chronica regia Coloniensis, ed. Waitz, G., Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Soriptores in usum scholarum (Hanover, 1880), pp. 168–169.Google Scholar

5. On Joannitsa's career see Slatarski, W. N., Geschichte der Bulgaren (Leipzig, 1918), pp. 99–113Google Scholar; and Wolff, R. L., “The ‘Second Bulgarian Empire.’ It's Origin and History to 1204,” Speculum 24 (1949), pp. 118–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6. Reg. II, 266. Dujčev, Ivan, “Innocentii III epistolae ad Bulgariae historiam spectantes.” Godishnik na Soffiiskya Universitet: 1st. - Fil. Fak. (Annuaire de l'université de Sofia, Fac. Hist.-Phil.), 38, no. 3 (Sofia, 1942), pp. 3–116Google Scholar, is the best modern edition of the papal correspondence with Bulgaria; see p. 21, no. 1; Potthast no. 931.

7. Reg. V, 115; Dujčev, p. 22, no. 2; and Reg. VI, 142; Dujčev, p. 30, no. 9.

8. For the importance of church reunion to Innocent see Tillmann, pp. 212–218, and de Vries, Wilhelm, “Innozenz III. (1198–1216) und der Christliche Osten,” Archivum Historiae Pontificae 3 (1965), pp. 87–126.Google Scholar

9. Ullmann, W., Principles of Government and Politics in the Middle Ages (London, 1961), pp. 82–83.Google Scholar

10. Reg. VI, 116; Duječev, p. 23, no. 3; Potthast no. 1775. For John's earlier activities see Reg. I, 525 (H. and H., Register, I/525); Potthast no. 566; also Reg. I, 526 (H. and H., Register, I/526); Potthast no. 567; and Reg. I, 535 (H. and H., Register, I/533); Potthast no. 578.

11. For John's activities in Bosnia see Reg. V, 110; Potthast no. 1768; and Reg. V, 141; VI, 212. For his stay at the Hungarian court see Reg. VI, 140; Dujčev, p. 29, no. 8.

12. Reg. VI, 140: “Unde recepi securitatem, quod si voluerit mittere nuntios ad sanctitatem vestram in eundo et redeundo nullam per totum regnum Ungarie et amicitie ipsius et parentele lesionem patientur.”

13. The date of John's arrival is deduced from Reg. VII, 5; Dujc'ev. p. 44, no. 16. See also my “Basil of Trnovo's Journey to Durazzo. A Note on Balkan Travel at the Beginning of the Thirteenth Century,” Slavonic and East European Review, no. 122 (01 1973), pp. 118–120.Google Scholar

14. Reg. VII, 6; Dujčev, p. 47, no. 18.

15. Innocent congratulated Imre on his Serbian victory in Reg. V, 18; Potthast no. 1797. Imre first added Serbia to his royal style in a charter of 1202; Fejér, G., Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus et civilis (Budapest, 1829–1844), 2:395Google Scholar; Szentpétery, L. and Borsa, I., Regesta regum stirpis Arpadianae critico-diplomatica (Budapest, 1923–1961), no. 197.Google Scholar

16. The son of the ban of Bosnia had been forced to give Imre personal assurances that the corrections instituted by the legate would be carried out: Reg. VI, 212; Szentpétery, no. 67.

17. At first Innocent addressed Joannitsa merely as “nobilis vir,” see Reg. II, 266; Dujčev, p. 21, no. 1; and Reg. V, 116; Dujčev, p. 23, no. 3. See Wolff, pp. 190, 193.

18. Reg. VII, 127; Dujčev, p. 59, no. 28. See also Stefan der Erstgekronte, “Das Leben des hl. Simeon Nemanja,” in Hafner, Stanislaus, Serbisches Mittelalter (Graz, 1962), pp. 108–109.Google Scholar

19. This is inferred from Reg. VI, 144; Dujčev, p. 33, no. 11; Potthast no. 1995.

20. Ibid. “Ad hec nobilitatem tuam monemus et exhortamur attentius, quatinus cum dilecto filio nobili viro Wlco pacis studeas federa reformare, ne occasione diseordie terra tua vel eius incurrat irreparabile detrimentum.”

21. Reg. VII, 6; Dujčev, p. 47, no. 18.

22. Ibid. “Et de confinio Hungarie, Bulgarie et Blachie relinquo iudicio sanetitatis tue, ut dirigas negocium istud recte et iuste, ut non habeat peccatum anima sanetitatis tu et ita habeat imperium meum iusticias Bulgarie et Blachie, quod rex Hungarie habeat iusticias Hungarie, et cessent occisiones christianorum in me et ipsum. Sciat autem sanctitas tua, quoniam v. episcopatus Bulgarie pertinent ad imperium meum, quos invasit et detinet rex Hungarie cum iustieiis ecelesiarum et episcopatus ipsi sunt annichilati, et si iustum est hoc fiat. Quiequid dicturus est presens nuncius imperil mel epicopus Brandizuberensis Blasius sanctitati tuo, habeas vera, quoniam ex parte mea dicet.”

23. In keeping with custom Bishop Blasius conveyed gifts from Joannitsa to Innocent consisting of gold coin, gold and silver plate, and fine cloth; ibid. This was his second appointment as Joannitsa's envoy to Rome. His first commission occurred while he was bishop-elect of Braničevo. At that time he travelled in company with the returning archpresbyter of Brindisi; see Reg. V, 115; Dujčev, p. 22, no. 2. He did not complete the journey, however, because of the “dangers of the roads,” Reg. V, 116; Dujčev, p. 23, no. 3; Potthast no. 1775.

24. Bishop Blasius is expressly credited by Innocent with having sought the papal banner bearing the symbols of the cross and keys which was sent to Joannitsa in 1204; see Reg. VII, 12; Dujčev, p. 53, no. 24. Although John the Chaplain's report is missing, there is no reason to doubt Wolff's assertion (p. 196) that it was probably satisfactory.

25. For the career of Cardinal Leo see the references in the Gesta Innocentii PP. III., in Migne, , P. L., 214Google Scholar, coll. cxxvi–cxxix and ccxli; and especially the forthcoming article by Bak, J. M., “Brancaleoni, Leone,” in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, 13Google Scholar. I am indebted to Dr. Bak for graciously providing me with a copy of his article while still in proof.

26. This letter, Reg. VII, 1; Dujčev, p. 34, no. 12; Potthast no. 2135, is one of a set of letters drafted on the same day and addressed to Bulgarian leaders. See Reg. VII, 2; Dujčev, p. 37, no. 13; Potthast no. 2137. Reg. VII, 3; Dujčev, p. 39, no. 14; Potthast no. 2138. Reg. VII, 7; Dujčev, p. 49, no. 19; Potthast no. 2139. Reg. VII 8; Dujčev, p. 50, no. 20; Potthast no. 2140. Reg. VII, 9; Dujčev, p. 51, no. 21; Potthast no. 2142. Reg. VII, 12; Dujčev, p. 53, no. 24; Potthast no. 2141. They appear not to have been sent from Borne to Trnovo directly but were entrusted to Cardinal Leo to present to the individual addressee upon his arrival in Bulgaria. It would have been senseless, for example, to send the letter that describes the symbolism of the papal banner before Joannitsa could see the banner which the cardinal was to bring him. In these letters Innocent refers to Joannitsa as rex and to the lands of the Bulgars and Vlachs as a regnum, but from the papal point of view the coronation at the hands of the legate acting for the pontiff was the constitutive act which entitled Joannitsa to be called rex. Until that happened Joannitsa was described (in September and October 1204) as dominus Bulgarorum et Blachorum and his his lands as provincia Bulgarorum; Reg. VII, 126: Dujčev, p. 57, no. 27; Potthast no. 2282; also Reg. VII, 127; Dujčev, p. 59, no. 28; Potthast no. 2283; and Reg. VII, 137; Dujčev, p. 64, no. 29; Potthast no. 2290. Joannitsa probably first learned of the pontiff's decision from his envoy Bishop Blasius who would have been eager to report the success of his mission.

27. Reg. VII, 13; Dujčev, p. 54, no. 25; Potthast no. 2143.

28. Reg. VII, 14; Dujčev, p. 56, no. 26; Potthast no. 2144.

29. The more southerly route would have been used by the archpresbyter of Brindisi. It was the route followed by Archbishop Basil of Trnovo; see my “Basil of Trnovo's Journey to Durazzo.” Innocent himself had earlier recommended travelling through Apulia; Reg. VI, 143; Dujčev, p. 32, no. 10; Potthast no. 1994.

30. Reg. VII, 127; Dnjčev, p. 59, no. 28.

31. Reg. VII, 126; Dujčev, p. 57, no. 27.

32. Ibid. The cardinal agreed to carry secretly a certain royal scriptum which the king would send to him at the frontier, and “after that he would work faithfully for the restoration of peace.” This royal Scriptum was probably a memorandum containing the essential elements of the Hungarian case against Joannitsa. It is unlikely that the cardinal contemplated employing its contents in his discussion with Joannitsa. Rather, he must have been expected to take the memorandum back with him to Rome after his visit in Trnovo. The memorandum was never sent.

33. Ibid. L. Tautu has identified the Bulgarian bishop mentioned here as Blasius of Braničevo, “Le Conflit entre Johanitsa Asen et Emeric roi de Hongrie (1202–1204), Mélanges Eugène Tisserant (Vatican City, 1964), 3:376.Google Scholar

34. If the legate had been travelling by land the location of this royal estate should be sought in the neighborhood of Valkovár and Bács, assuming an average speed of 30 miles per day.

35. Tautu, p. 376, states that the island referred to here was probably Ada-kaleh found near Orsova at the Iron Gates. He offers no arguments for this suggestion. Since there are numerous islands in the Danube and the district around the Iron Gates seems rather distant for the convenience of the Hungarian king who sponsored the proposal, this location seems unlikely.

36. Reg. VII, 126; Dujčev, p. 57, no. 27.

37. Most accounts treat the imprisonment of the legate as the natural outcome of Imre's hostility to Joannitsa, see Haluščynskyj, P. T., Acta Innocentii PP. III (1198–1216) (Vatican City, 1944), “Introductio,” p. 88Google Scholar; Wolff, p. 197; and Tautu, p. 369.

38. Luchaire, 5:110.

39. It would not have been unusual at the beginning of the thirteenth century for the pope to have instructed his legate verbally to deliver an oral message to the king. For general parallels in secular practice see Queller, Donald E., The Office of Ambassador in the Middle Ages (Princeton, 1967), pp. 7–8, 122Google Scholar; and Ganshof, p. 131.

40. Such precipitous behavior is consistent with Imre's actions in other circumstances; note for example his physical assault upon Bishop Boleslaus of Vác in 1199 as described in Reg. II, 96; Potthast no. 748. Compare the king's version of this event in Huillard-Bréholles, J. L. A., Examen des chartes de l'Eglise romaine contenues dans les rouleaux de Cluny (Paris, 1865), 75Google Scholar, no. xviii; Szentpétery, no. 187. Imre's clumsy, last-minute attempt to postpone the Bulgarian coronation appears to be a return to the delaying tactics which had often characterized his dealings with the papacy. Beyond the Serbian coronation mentioned here, see also his initial reluctance to proceed against the Bosnian heretics, inferred from Reg. III, 3; Potthast no. 1142; and Reg. V, 110; Potthast no. 1768; and also the effort to defer his cursading obligation in Reg. V, 103; Potthast no. 3820 (where the year is incorrectly given as 1209).

41. Reg. VII, 127; Dujc'ev, p. 59, no. 28. See Burian, M. L., “Die Krönung des Stephan Prvovenčani und die Beziehungen Serbiens zum römischeu Stuhi,” Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 23 (1933), pp. 148–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Hafner, S., “Das mittelalterliche Serbien zwischen Rom und Byzanz,” Veröffentlichungen des Verband österreichischer Geschichtsvereine 18 (1970), pp. 203–204.Google Scholar

42. Reg. VII, 127; Dujčev, p. 59, no. 28. “…intellecto tandem, quod hoc tue sublimitati plurimum displiceret, ob tui gratiam non sine quadam nostri confusione destitimus ab incoepto.”

43. This missing royal letter is mentioned as having been brought to Rome “per dilectum filium nobilem virum G. militem,” ibid. See Szentpétery, no. 212. We have here reconstructed the king's letter from the pope's itemized reply. Luchaire adapts it in the form of a dialouge between king and pope in Innocent III, 5:112–116. It is this letter that the author of the Gesta Innocentii termed “litterae excusatoriae,” P. L. 214, col. cxxix, cap. lxxix.

44. In the campaign against Otto IV, Imre's cooperation with his brother-in-law Ottokar of Bohemia is corroborated by Arnold, of Lüibeck, Chronica, M. G. H., SS., 21, p. 216Google Scholar. See also Gesta Episcoporum Haiberstadensium, M. G. H., SS., 23, p. 117.

45. Reg. VII, 126; Dujčev, p. 57, no. 27. Tautu published a modern French translation with notes in “Le Conflit entre Johanitsa Asen et Emeric,” pp. 375–378.

46. Innocent's statement reflects the accepted canonical view of the status of legates. See Gratian's, Decretum, p. 21, c. 2.Google Scholar

47. Reg. VII, 126; Dujčev, p. 57, no. 27.

48. Ibid. Luchaire observed that his postscript appeared in a form separate from the central text and possesses a confidential quality, 5:111.

49. Reg. VII, 127; Dujčev, p. 59, no. 28. The text of the letter to Imre has no date. Tautu's translation of this letter inexplicably omits three-quarters of a column of Migne's text, pp. 369–375.

50. Compare Queller, pp. 175–176; and Ganshof, p. 299.

51. Tristia, V, vi, 13.

52. Proverbs 1:17–19. Innocent quoted the same text in a letter reproving John of England for his opposition to the election of Stephen Langton; Cheney, C. R. and Semple, W. H., Selected Letters of Pope Innocent III Concerning England (London, 1953), p. 86, no. 29Google Scholar; Potthast no. 3111.

53. Reg. VII, 127; Dujčev, p. 59, no. 28. “… non posset ease mediator communis ad concordiam reformandam, ant index equalis ad controversiam dirimendam…”

54. Ibid. “Preterea non posset illum compellere ad faciendam concordiam vel iustitiam exhibendam, antequam iugum susciperet apostolice discipline nostroque se subiceret magisterio et precepto.”

55. Ibid. “Attende nichilominus diligenter, quale denique reputares, si nos impedire vdilemus, ne filius tuus carnalis coronari posset in regem, et tale nos reputare coguosce, si tu impedire coneris, ne filius noster spiritualis in regem valeat coronari…”

56. Reg. VII, 57; Potthast no. 2196.

57. Gesta Innocentii, P. L., 214, coll. cxxix-cxxx, cap. lxxx.

58. Fessler, I. A., Geschichte von Ungarn (Leipzig, 1867), 1:304Google ScholarHóman, B., Geschichte des ungarischen Mittelalters (Berlin, 1940–1943), 2:8Google Scholar; Haluščynskyj, pp. 88–89; and Tautu, p. 374, n. 24.

59. Reg. VII, 137; Dujčev, p. 64, no. 29.

60. Chronici Hungarici compositio saecuh XIV, in Szentpétery, I., ed., Scriptures rerum Hungaricarum (Budapest, 1937–1938), 1:463.Google Scholar

61. Reg. VII, 159; Potthast no. 2328.

62. Reg. VII, 231; Dujčev, p. 66, no. 31. See Wolff, pp. 197–198.

63. See Tautu, p. 381, for a review of the literature. See also his “Margherita di Ungheria Imperatrice di Bisanzio,” Antemurale 3 (1956), pp. 51–79.Google Scholar

64. Moravcsik, Gyula, “Pour une alliance byzantino-hongroise (seconde moitié du XIIe siécle),” in his Studia Byzantina (Amsterdam, 1967), pp. 309, 312Google Scholar. Moravesik restated his conclusions in Byzantium and the Magyars (Amsterdam, 1970), pp. 92–94.Google Scholar

65. Brand, C. M., Byzantium Confronts the West, 1180–1804 (Cambridge, Mass., 1968), pp. 80, 88–89, 96.Google Scholar

66. Tautu, , “Le Conflit entre Johanitsa Asen et Emeric,” p. 391Google Scholar. His argument that the contested area lay in large part north of the Danube is not persuasive.

67. Reg. VII, 5a; Dujčev, p. 46, no. 17; and Haluščynskyj, pp. 90–91.

68. Reg. VII, 5a; Dujčev, p. 46, no. 17. For the Byzantine-Hungarian plan for an attack on Vidin see Brand, p. 96.

69. King Imre's claim to the lands of Margaret's dowry was not strong. These lands were acquired through conquest and had not been regarded as integral parts of the Hungarian kingdom. After Isaac II's death early in 1204, the best claimant to the dowry would have been Margaret's son, Prince Kalojan. Of course Imre may have been acting in his nephew's behalf. Bulgarian occupation of this region took place during the last decade of the twelfth century. Joannitsa's countercharge that the Hungarian king 1180s and 1190s, despite the doubtful allegation that Imre still retained them. An obscure reference in Innocent's letter to Imre of November 9, 1202 reprimands the king for having borne arms against Christians after he had become a Crusader (that is, after 1200); Reg. V, 103; Potthast no. 3820; This may well refer to the Serbian campaign of 1202, but Fessler asserts that Imre also invaded Bulgaria at this time and conquered an unspecified region containing the five dioceses in Geschichte von Ungarn 1:297. It is conceivable that the Hungarians may have inflicted injury upon Joannitsa's lands as late as 1202, although it remains doubtful whether Imre would have led two separate campaigns, one into Serbia on Vukan's behalf and the other against Joannitsa directly.

70. Reg. VII, 127; Dujčev, p. 59, no. 28. “…ad terminandam discordiam, que vertitur inter ipsum et prefatum regem Ungarie, cognita plenius veritate, institia mediante, procedas, faciens quod decreveris per censuram ecclesiasticam, appellatione postposita, firmiter observari.”

71. Reg. VII, 230; Dujčev, p. 65, no. 30.

72. The correct date of Imre's death (November 30, 1204) is given in Chronicon Zagrebiense cum textu chronici Varadiennis ooflat in Szentpétery, Scriptores rerum Hungaricarum, 1:211. For Innocent's intervention in the ensuing domestic conflict see Reg. VIII, 36–42; Potthast no. 2473–2479.

73. Reg. VII, 230; Dujčev, p. 65, no. 30. Reg. VIII, 131; Dujčev, p. 70, no. 34. Reg. VIII, 132; Dujčev, p. 73, no. 35. Reg. IX, 198; Dujčev, p. 74, no. 36. See Slatarski, pp. 107–113.

74. Reg. VIII, 129; Dujčev, p. 69, no. 33. See Wolff, R. L., “The Latin Empire of Constantinople, 1204–1261,” in Setton, K. et al. , A History of the Crusades (Madison, Wise., 1969), 2:202–203.Google Scholar

75. H´man 2:12, 34, 111–112; and Slatarski, pp. 114, 124.

76. Reg. VII, 127; Dujčev, p. 59, no. 28. Innocent's correspondence contains several references to an exchange of royal devotio and papal delectio. See for example Reg. I, 271. (H. and H., Register, 1/1271): Potthast no. 285.

77. At the end of February 1203, somewhat more than three months after the fall of Zara and while the Venetians and the Crusaders still occupied the city, Innocent informed Imre that his vow could not be postponed; Reg. VI, 8; Potthast no. 1845.

78. Reg. VII, 127; Dujčev, p. 59, no. 28. “… quantumcunque sepedictum Joannitium diligamus, te tamen diligimus incomparabiliter magis.…”

79. How long the bad feeling between the Hungarian court and the Holy See would have persisted is problematic. The long-range effect of the papal shift in Balkan policy was negated by Imre's untimely death and by the virtual collapse of papal-Bulgarian amity.

80. In defending his authorization of the Bulgarian coronation Innocent adopted the historiographical perspective of the Bulgarian court. He stated that ancient Bulgarian kings had been crowned by papal authority, but that later the Bulgarians had lost the royal dignity. The princes Peter and Joannitsa, self-proclaimed descendants of earlier kings, attempted in the rebellion against the emperors of Constantinople merely to recover their patrimony. The coronation of Joannitsa was valid, therefore, only for the recovered lands which he held de jure: “Unde nos eum non super alienam terram, sed super propriam ad instar prodecessorum nostrorum regem intendimus coronare…” Reg. VII, 127; Dujčev, p. 59, no. 28.

81. Ganshof, p. 135 et passim.

82. For an instance where Innocent acted on the basis of information deliberately misrepresented to him by one of the parties to a dispute, see Moore, John C., “Count Baldwin IX of Flanders, Philip Augustus, and the Papal Power,” Speculum 37 (1962), pp. 79–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

83. In Hungary the Zara incident still rankled, as Imre's complaint testified. Innocent in Reg. VII, 127, defended his handling of the affair by observing that both the Venetians and the Crusaders had been anathematized for taking the city, although he seems to gloss over the subsequent absolution of the Crusaders. He had also refused to consecrate the Venetian patriarch-elect of Grado. He directed that a new archiepiscopal election for Zara take place under Hungarian auspices and that this archbishop-elect should bypass Grado by receiving consecration and the pallium directly from Rome. Since these spiritual penalties did not result in the return of Zara, Innocent's further pledge that should Joannitsa fail to settle his dispute with Imre, he would punish the Bulgarian leader in the same way he had punished the Venetians, must have been cold comfort to the Hungarian court. For the papal efforts to restore Zara to Hungary see Reg. V. 161; Potthast no. 1848, Reg. V, 162; Potthast no. 1849 Reg. VI, 99; and Reg. VI, 101; Potthast no. 1948. Reg. IX, 139; Potthast no. 2866; and Reg. XII, 83; Potthast no. 3780.