¹ My debt to Angel Manrique will quickly become apparent. During the 1640's and 1650's there appeared the four volumes of his Cistercienses seu verius ecclesiastici Annales a condito Cistercio (Lyons, 1642–1659), a remarkable collection of materials gathered from catalogues of monasteries, registers of letters, and many other sources, relating to the history of the Cistercian Order from its beginning to 1236. It is invaluable to the scholar who is dealing with the history of the Cistercians during these years. Equally notable and helpful is the exhaustive collection of statutes of the Cistercian Chapter General made by Canivez, J. M. and published in eight volumes as Statuta Capitulorum generalium Ordinis Cisterciensis (Louvain 1933–1941). Another basic work for the historian of the Cistercians is Janauschek, L. 's descriptive catalogue of Cistercian monasteries, Originum Cisterciensium tomus I (Vienna 1877). It is most unfortunate that he did not complete his projected second volume, a catalogue of Cistercian nunneries. — The following abbreviations will be used in addition to those listed at the front of this volume: HF for the Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France (ed. Bouquet, M.; new ed. Delisle, L.; Paris 1869 ff.); Fontes III² for Haluščynskyj, T. Acta Innocentii pp. III (1198–1216) (Fontes, series III, v. II of Pontificia Commissio ad redigendum Codicem Iuris Canonici orientalis; Vatican City 1944); Fontes III³ for A. L. T≃utu, Acta Honorii III et Gregorii IX (series III, v. III of the same collection; Vatican City 1950); Cottineau for Cottineau, L. H., Répertoire topo-bibliographique des abbayes et prieurés (Mâcon 1935–1938); Manrique, Janauschek, and Canivez, Statuta for the works cited at the beginning of this note; Pressutti for Pressutti, P., Regesta Honorii Papae III (Rome 1888–1895). I am deeply grateful to Professor Robert Lee Wolff of Harvard University for his constant encouragement and helpful advice, and I am also indebted to Professor Giles Constable of Harvard University for many excellent suggestions; I am grateful also for the help of Dr. Speros Vryonis.Google Scholar

² Neither Jean Longnon, in his book L'empire latin de Constantinople et la principauté de Morée (Paris 1949), nor William Miller, in his book The Latins in the Levant: A History of Frankish Greece (1204–1566) (New York 1908), discusses the work of the Cistercians in Greece or the Latin Empire at any length. Gabriel Millet, in Le monastère de Daphni: Histoire, architecture, mosaïques (Paris 1899), devoted a part of his study to this subject, but his Traditio account is naturally focussed primarily on Daphni and can, even within its limits, now be expanded and improved. Walter Norden, in Das Papsttum und Byzanz: Die Trennung der beiden Mächte und das Problem ihrer Wiedervereinigung bis zum Untergange des Byzantinischen Reichs (1453) (Berlin 1903), concentrated primarily on the relations between the patriarchate and the papacy. In his article, ‘Die Kolonieen der römischen Kirche in den Kreuzfahrer-Staaten,’ Zeitschrift für die historische Theologie 26 (1856) 300–328, Heyd, W. mentions only a few of the Cistercian houses and does not discuss them at length. Robert Lee Wolff, in his articles, ‘The Latin Empire of Constantinople and the Franciscans,’ Traditio 2 (1944) 213–237; ‘The Organization of the Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople, 1204–1261: Social and Administrative Consequences of the Latin Conquest,’ Traditio 6 (1948) 33–60; and ‘Politics in the Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople, 1204–1261,’ Dumbarton Oaks Papers 8 (1955) 225–303, has made a valuable contribution to the political and ecclesiastical history of the Empire, but the role of the Cistercians was peripheral to his interests.Google Scholar

³ See Canivez, J. M., ‘Cîteaux (Ordre),’ DHGE 12. 898–902.Google Scholar

⁴ This treatise may be found in Sancti Bernardi Abbatis Opera Omnia I (ed. Mabillon, J., Paris 1719) 549–564.Google Scholar

⁶ Ibid. 547–548; Canivez, J. M. ‘Bernard de Clairvaux,’ DHGE 8. 618–619; Runciman, S., A History of the Crusades (Cambridge, Eng. 1952–1954) II 253; Manrique I 185–188.Google Scholar

⁶ Manrique II 29–31, 36–38, 41–45; Runciman, History II 252–253. For an excellent, fuller discussion of the part played by Bernard in the crusade, see Constable, G., ‘The Second Crusade as Seen by Contemporaries,’ Traditio 9 (1953) 244–254. 266–270. See also Fliche, A., ‘Bernard de Clairvaux,’ DHGE 8. 633–635.Google Scholar

⁷ Manrique III 205. The Cistercians in the Latin Empire Google Scholar

⁸ Janauschek 143; Cottineau II 2945. Google Scholar

⁹ Potthast 335, July 29, 1198: PL 214.334–336 (ep. i. 358). Manrique also prints the letter but he wrongly dates it 1199: Manrique III 333–334. See also Potthast 359, August 30, 1198: PL 214.317–318 (ep. i. 343) and Potthast 363, September 1, 1198: PL 214.318–319 (cp. i. 344). Google Scholar

¹⁰ Potthast 559, January 5, 1199: PL 214.470–471 (ep i. 508); Manrique III 349–350. See also Rinaldi, O., Annales Ecclesiastici ab anno MCXCVIII … (Lucca 1747) I 34 no. 84 and Canivez DHGE 12.926.Google Scholar

¹¹ For a discussion of Foulques’ work in preaching the Crusade, see Charasson, A., Un curé plébéien au xii ^e siècle … (Paris 1905); Gutsch, M. R. ‘A Twelfth Century Preacher — Fulk of Neuilly,’ in The Crusades and Other Historical Essays Presented to Munro Dana C. (ed. Paetow, L. J. New York 1928) 199–206; Ladner, G. ‘L'Ordo Praedicatorum avant l'Ordre des Prêcheurs,’ in Mandonnet, P. Saint Dominique (Paris 1937) II 39–40; McNeal, E. H., ‘Fulk of Neuilly and the Tournament of Ecry,’ Speculum 28 (1953) 371–375; Runciman, History III 109.Google Scholar

¹² The large problem of the usurpation by monks of the functions of the secular clergy has not yet been thoroughly investigated. For preaching by the regular clergy see Constable, , Traditio 9.276–278; for a survey of the broader problem see Berlière, U., ‘L'exercice du ministère paroissial par les moines dans le haut moyen-âge,’ Revue bénédictine 39 (1927) 227–250 and ‘L'exercice du ministère paroissial par les moines, du xii^e au xviii^e siècle,’ Revue bénédictine 39 (1927) 340–364. I am indebted to Professor Constable for these references.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^12a Until 1233 the sessions of the Chapter General began on September 13, the vigil of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross; in 1233 the day of meeting was apparently changed to September 12. The abbots were allowed to stay at Cîteaux for no more than three days: Canivez, Statuta I 30 no. LXXVI (1134) and I 368 no. 55 (1209) and I 369 no. 2 (1210); II 113–114 no. 13 (1233); I 49 no. 28 (1152) and II 49 no. 6 (1226). See also Canivez, J. M., ‘Cîteaux (Législation de l'ordre de). De 1098 à 1335,’ DDC 3.750.Google Scholar

¹³ PL 214. 375–376, November 5, 1198 (ep. i. 398). Ralph of Coggeshall made no mention of Foulques’ possessing any such authorization at the time of the meeting of the Chapter. Since Foulques himself took the Cross while he was at Cîteaux, it seems unlikely that he would have received such authorization prior to the meeting: Gutsch, ‘Fulk’ 202; Ralph of Coggeshall, Chronicon Anglicanum, HF 18.81, ed. Stevenson, J. (London 1875) 82–83; Robert of Auxerre, Chronologia, HF 18.263. Gutsch and Faral distinguish between the mandate ordering Foulques to preach the Crusade himself and the letter of November 5: Gutsch, ‘Fulk’ 202–203; Geoffroi de Villehardouin, Conquête de Constantinople (ed. Faral, E. Paris 1938–1939) I 4–5 n. 1. The first letter has been lost, but historians such as Charasson and McNeal have confused the two: Charasson, Un curé, 97, 99; Robert of Clari, The Conquest of Constantinople (tr. and ed. McNeal, E. H. New York 1936) 3 n. 3. In 1936, McNeal misinterpreted the statements of Villehardouin and the Devastatio Constantinopolitana: he stated that Foulques received ‘the papal authorization to preach the cross, at the hands of Cardinal Peter Capuano in November, 1198’: Robert of Clari, ed. McNeal 31 n. 3. Villehardouin says that Foulques received a mandate to preach the Crusade, ‘et aprés [Innocent] envoia un suen chardonal, maistre Perron de Chappes, croisié, et manda par lui le pardon tel con je vous dirai …’: Villehardouin 1–3 (I 2–5 Faral; 2–5 ed. N. de Wailly, 3rd ed. Paris 1882). According to the Devastatio, Foulques preached ‘cuius [i.e. Peter's] etiam auctoritate’: Devastatio Constantinopolitana, in Hopf, C., Chroniques gréco-romanes inédites ou peu connues … (Berlin 1873) 86. I believe that the most likely interpretation of these statements is that Foulques received a mandate prior to Peter's journey to France, but that when Peter did undertake his campaign there, he had general oversight over Foulques’ work. In a recent article, McNeal indicates that he now accepts Villehardouin's chronology of events: McNeal, Speculum 28.371. Peter could not have reached France before September, 1198: see Potthast 347, August 15, 1198: PL 214.310 (ep. i. 336); Potthast 348, (July 19-August 15) 1198: PL 214.319–320 (ep. i. 345); and Gesta Innocentii III, PL. 214. lxxxix.Google Scholar

¹⁴ See D. de Sainte-Marthe, Gallia Christiana in provincias ecclesiasticas distributa … (ed. Piolin, P., 2nd ed. Paris 1876) 4.591–594 and Charasson, Un curé 105 n. 1. At this time Garnier was in serious trouble. Having been accused of ‘dilapidatio et insufficientia’ by the dean and canons of Langres before the Archbishop of Lyons, he had appealed to the Pope and had been ordered to appear in Rome on September 29: Potthast 192, May 16, 1198: PL 214.163–164 (ep. i. 182). He went instead to the meeting of the Chapter General and sent two nuntii to Rome. Despite the fact that he took the Cross the Pope was angry at his conduct. He delayed giving sentence until December 24, however, in the belief that Garnier would either come to Rome or send a sufficient excuse for his conduct. He did neither, so on December 31, 1198 Innocent suspended him: Potthast 513, December 31, 1198 : PL 214.464–466 (ep. i. 504); see also Potthast 596, February 10, 1199: PL 214.505–506 (ep. i. 553). He was spared a trial before the Bishop of Paris, for he resigned his post voluntarily: Potthast 970, March 14, 1200: PL 217.58 (no. 30). He was buried at Clairvaux, perhaps after making a pilgrimage to the East: Gallia Christiana 4.593.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Manrique (III 386) states that the letters to the Cistercian abbots were written in the third year of Innocent's pontificate, that is, between February 23, 1200 and February 22, 1201, although he himself includes the letters in his account of the year 1202. It seems improbable that Innocent would have dispatched the Cistercians while he was in the midst of a serious quarrel with the Order, and between July, 1200 and April, 1201 relations between Innocent and the Cistercians were troubled: see 70–72 below. Also, the wording of these letters indicates that they were dispatched shortly after the general letters soliciting financial contributions, which were sent out late in 1199 and early in 1200: see below 70. I have been unable, however, to find any reference to them in Potthast or any copy of them in Migne among the letters of Innocent of this, or, indeed, of any other year. Hence I am unable to date them exactly. Google Scholar

¹⁶ See, respectively, Janauschek 50–51 and Cottineau II 2931–2932; Janauschek 18 and Cottineau II 2053–2054; Janauschek 63–64 and Cottineau II 3045; Janauschek 70 and Cottineau II 1813–1814; Janauschek 22–23 and Cottineau II 2464. Google Scholar

¹⁷ Janauschek 56; Cottineau II 2172–2173. For Martin's work in preaching the Crusade, see Gunther of Paris, Historia Constantinopolitana …, in Riant, P., Exuviae sacrae Constantinopolitanae … (2nd ed. Geneva 1877–1878) I 60–66 and Runciman, History III 109. Before setting off on the actual expedition, according to Gunther, Martin went to Cîteaux and obtained the official permission of the Order for his journey, ‘licet auctoritate pontificalis mandati tutus esset, cupiens tamen sancte professioni sue reverenciam exhibere’: Gunther 66. Gunther apparently refers to the letter printed by Manrique and discussed above in note 15, which does not, however, give specific authorization for the abbot to whom it was addressed to accompany the crusading army. Gunther must have interpreted it as he did in order to stress Martin's obedience to the regulations of the Order.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Manrique III 386; Gunther op. cit. 61. Google Scholar

¹⁹ Potthast 1409, (June) 1201; Theiner, A., Vetera monumenta Slavorum meridionalium historiam illustrantia I (Rome 1863) 58 no. 91.Google Scholar

²⁰ Villehardouin describes the meeting and lists some of the men who took the Cross there: Villehardouin 45 (I 46–47 Faral; 26–29 Wailly). Of the meeting and the papal letter Ralph of Coggeshall stated: ‘Similiter domnus Fulcho, ad capitulum praedictum cum literis domni papae adveniens, tres abbates a domno apostolico nominatos in comitatu suo suscepit …’: Ralph of Coggeshall HF 18.93, ed. Stevenson 129–130. The statute of the Chapter General of 1201 which authorizes four of the five abbots mentioned by Ralph to accompany the Crusaders refers to a ‘mandatum Summi Pontificis’: ‘Ad mandatum Summi Pontificis et ad preces Marchionis de … et Flandrensis et Blesensis comitum, conceditur ut de Sarnaio et de Persenia, et de Los et de Sacra Cella, abbates profiscentur cum cruce signatis …’: Canivez, Statuta I 270 no. 37. The phrase is vague, however, and the ‘mandatum’ could be either the general letter of November 5, 1198 which authorized Foulques to enlist monks and canons to preach, or a special mandate ordering certain specific Cistercian abbots to join him. See n. 13 above and n. 25 below. Ralph's list of three abbots originally contained the name of the abbot of la Columba in place of that of the abbot of Cercanceaux, but the words ‘abbatem de Columba’ ‘are struck out, and « de Sacra Cella » introduced by a different, but coeval hand, in the margin …’: Ralph of Coggeshall, ed. Stevenson 130 n. 1. The original reading is retained in HF 18.93, although the correction is mentioned in a footnote. The abbot of Cercanceaux went on Crusade, as will be seen, but I have seen no other reference to the participation of the abbot of la Columba in the Crusade itself or in the preparations for it. Furthermore, the Statuta of 1201 include the name of the abbot of Cercanceaux among the names of the abbots authorized to accompany the crusaders, but they do not refer to the abbot of la Columba: Canivez, Statuta I 270 no. 37. A possible explanation of Ralph's confusion is offered in n. 24 below. Google Scholar

²¹ Robert of Clari described the abbot as ‘moult sages hons et moult preudons’: Robert of Clari, Conquête de Constantinople (ed. Lauer, P., Paris 1924) 2.Google Scholar

²² A complete biography of Peter is given by Savio, F. in Gli antichi vescovi d'Italia dalle origini al 1300 descritti per regioni: Il Piemonte (Turin 1898) 210–214. See also Gabotto, F., ‘Un millennio di storia eporediese (356–1357),’ Eporediensia. vol. IV (1900) of Biblioteca della Società Storica Subalpina 74–79; and Wolff, R. L. Traditio 6.39–40; and Cahen, C., La Syrie du nord à l'époque des croisades et la principauté franque d'Antioche (Paris 1940) 616, 669.Google Scholar

²³ For the respective monasteries mentioned in this paragraph, see Janauschek 84 and Cottineau II 2258–2259; Janauschek 88 and Cottineau I 841; Janauschek 96–97 and Cottineau II 3308–3309; Janauschek 180 and Cottineau I 654; Janauschek 116 and Cottineau I 1652; Janauschek 11–12 and Cottineau I 1635. Google Scholar

²⁴ Ralph of Coggeshall, HF 18.93, ed. Stevenson 129–130. According to the Gesta Innocentii III (PL 214. xc-xci), late in 1198 or early in 1199, the Marquis of Montferrat, the Bishop of Cremona, Peter of Locedio and some nobles of Lombardy ‘devoverunt se ad obsequium C ucifixi.’ This should be differentiated from the actual taking of the Cross: both Villehardouin and Robert of Clari state that Boniface failed to take the Cross until September, 1201 at Soissons: Villehardouin 44 (I 44–45 Faral; 26–27 Wailly); Robert of Clari, ed. Lauer 4–6; see also Bréhier, L., ‘Boniface de Montferrat,’ DHGE 9. 959. Villehardouin states that at Soissons Boniface was led to the church by ‘dui blanc abé que il avoit amené de son païs.’ One was surely Peter of Locedio. Peter, however, was apparently not authorized to take the Cross until shortly thereafter, at the Chapter General of 1201: Canivez, Statuta 270 no. 37. The other may have been the abbot of la Columba, a house in the diocese of Piacenza, near Montferrat: Janauschek 45 and Cottineau I 841. Ralph of Coggeshall originally included the name of the abbot of la Columba in his list of the Cistercian abbots who joined Foulques’ band of preachers at the 1201 meeting of the Chapter General; only later was the list amended to read ‘the abbot of Cercanceaux.’ His mistake would have been natural had the abbot of la Columba been accompanying the Marquis of Montferrat, for Peter of Locedio, who is known to have been with Boniface, was indeed authorized to join the Crusaders at that meeting. See n. 20 above. For the chronology of events see Villehardouin 44–46 (I 44–47 Faral; 26–29 Wailly); see also Canivez, DHGE 12.926–927.Google Scholar

²⁵ In the Statuta it is stated that these men were sent and this action taken ‘ad mandatum Summi Pontificis et ad preces Marchionis de … et Flandrensis et Blesensis comitum’: Canivez, Statuta I 270 no. 37. This statement supports the view that Foulques’ papal mandate gave explicit orders to the three Cistercian abbots: see n. 20 above. The abbot of Locedio is not mentioned in the Statuta. Google Scholar

²⁶ Janauschek 6–7 and Cottineau I 897–898. Google Scholar

²⁷ Canivez, , Statuta I 268 no. 24; see 67 above. A false interpretation of the two visits of Foulques to the Chapter General has become a part of historical tradition as a result of Charasson's confused version of Ralph of Coggeshall's account of the episodes: Charasson, Un curé 103–105, 117–119. Charasson states that the refusal which Foulques actually received in 1198 occurred in 1199, and he says that Foulques had with him at that meeting the papal authorization to enlist recruits which he received after the Chapter General of 1198: see Charasson, , Un curé 103; above 65 and n. 13. As evidence he cites the phrase, ‘domnus Fulcho, ad capitulum praedictum cum literis domini papae adveniens,’ which is a part of Ralph's account of the 1201 incident: Ralph of Coggeshall HF 18.93, ed. Stevenson 129–130. Ladner and Constable follow Charasson, stating that the refusal occurred in 1199: Ladner, ‘L'Ordo Praedicatorum’ 40; Constable, Traditio 9.277. The fact that the Cistercians did not consent to send men with Foulques until he had received papal permission to recruit monks supports the argument of Ladner and Constable that papal authorization was necessary to preach the Cross. Charasson's version implies that the Cistercians deliberately defied a papal letter in 1199, which was not the case. Gutsch correctly differentiates the two episodes: Gutsch, ‘Fulk’ 202–203. Foulques deposited at Cîteaux the major part of the offerings which he had collected for the Crusade. After his death this money was taken to the Holy Land by two knights and some Cistercian brothers: Chronique d'Ernoul et de Bernard le Trésorier (ed. L. de Mas Latrie, Paris 1871) 337–338.Google Scholar

²⁸ On January 5, 1199 Innocent wrote to the Bishop of Syracuse and Abbot Luke of Sambucina, discussing plans to raise money for the Crusade: Potthast 559: PL 214.470–471 (ep. i.508): Manrique III 349–350. Google Scholar

²⁹ These letters were sent in December, 1199 and January, 1200 throughout Italy, Germany, France, Hungary, the Slavic lands, England, Ireland and Scotland: Potthast 915, December 30, 1199: PL 214. 835–836 (ep. ii. 272); and Potthast 936, January 5, 1200; and Potthast 922, December 31, 1199: PL 214.828–832 (ep. ii.270); and Potthast 914, December 28, 1199; and Potthast 934, January 1, 1200; and Potthast 923, (December 31) 1199; see also Gesta PL 214. lxxxix-xc. Later in 1200 Innocent sent a supplementary letter to the Archbishops, Bishops and other prelates of the churches of France, some of whom had promised a thirtieth at the Council of Dijon in 1199. He ordered them to join all clerics under their jurisdiction in paying a fortieth to support the Crusade, ‘prius tamen deductis usuris.’ He commanded the Cistercian abbot of Vaux-de-Cernay, who in 1201 would become a preacher of the Cross under Foulques, the Bishops of Paris and Soissons and the abbot of St. Victor to execute his orders governing the collection of this subsidy and other matters connected with the Crusade: Potthast 1045, (April-May) 1200: Gesta PL 214. cxxxii-cxxxviii. Google Scholar

³⁰ PL 214.830 (ep. ii.270); Gesta PL 214. CXXXIV. Only the letters to the Premonstratensians and the Cistercians have been preserved: Potthast 913, December 28, 1199: PL 214. 826–828 (ep. ii.268); and Potthast 937, January 5, 1200: PL 214.828 (ep. ii.269).Google Scholar

³¹ There is no direct evidence that these earlier negotiations took place, for the first papal letter dealing with the subject is the missive of December 28, 1199: Potthast 913: PL 214. 826–828 (ep. ii.268). There are, however, many indications that Innocent did in fact treat with the Cistercians during 1199. The letter of December 28 warns the Cistercians not to create a greater scandal (‘majus scandalum’) in the church and asserts that they have already acted in this matter in such a way as to give grounds for scandal: ‘… materiam scandali quod ex hoc contra vestrum ordinem est subortum …’ The letter which Innocent dispatched to the Premonstratensians was an exact copy of the letter which he sent to the Cistercians, except that the clause threatening suspension of privileges was omitted: PL 214.828, January 5, 1200 (ep. ii.269). The bitterness and seriousness of the threats are indeed hardly comprehensible unless one assumes that prior unsuccessful negotiations had taken place. Ralph of Coggeshall states that the quarrel extended over a two-year period. If his statement is accurate, it is evident that it must have begun early in 1199, for it was terminated by July, 1201. Ralph also states that Guy of Paré, the abbot of Cîteaux, was created Cardinal Bishop of Palestrina when he was in Rome discussing the subvention with Innocent. Although I have been unable to find positive evidence concerning the date of his appointment, most of the lists of the abbots of Cîteaux state that he was given the position in 1199, and there is conclusive evidence that he was a Cardinal before September, 1200: Ralph of Coggeshall, HF 18.94, ed. Stevenson 131; Chevalier, U., Répertoire des sources historiques du moyen âge … Bio-bibliographique II (2nd ed. Paris 1905–1907) 2012; Canivez, Statuta I 250 no. 6 (1200). Manrique states (III 345–346) that the quarrel began in 1199 but he does not give any grounds for his assertion.Google Scholar

³² Although both Caesarius of Heisterbach and Ralph of Coggeshall give accounts of this episode, it is still difficult to obtain a clear picture of the affair. Caesarius frames his exaggerated account around the miraculous intervention of Mary, and, for historical purposes, it is manifestly unreliable. For example, Caesarius makes no attempt to date the quarrel or its phases, stating simply that Innocent demanded the contribution ‘at the time when Baldwin of Flanders and the Crusaders were besieging Constantinople’; he says that Innocent asked the Cistercians for a fortieth; he asserts that Innocent was so furious ‘ut dignitatibus saecularibus indulgere proponeret, quatenus possessiones ordinis sibi usurparent’: Caesarius of Heisterbach, Dialogus miraculorum II (ed. Strange, J., Cologne 1851) 7–8. The narrative of Ralph of Coggeshall is obviously pro-Cistercian, but its exaggerations are less pronounced, and it is, in general, much more reliable. His chronology, however, seems to be confused, and some of his statements can be reconciled with surviving papal letters and the statutes of the Chapter General only with difficulty: Ralph of Coggeshall, HF 18.94, ed. Stevenson 130–133. HF omits a portion of the chronicle, and hence Stevenson's edition is preferable. Manrique unfortunately follows Caesarius’ account, although he supplements it with the papal letter of December 28, 1199: Manrique III 345–346, 350–351, 368–369. Canivez’ description of the quarrel in DHGE 12.926 is vague.Google Scholar

³³ Potthast 913, December 28, 1199: PL 214.826–828 (ep. ii.268). Manrique (III 346, 350) states incorrectly that the letter was dated November 1 but he does not maintain, as Potthast says he does, that it was written in 1200 instead of 1199; he discusses it in detail under the year 1200 because the Cistercians could not have received it until then. Google Scholar

³⁴ Potthast 1093, July 15, 1200. It seems much more likely that the intervention described by Ralph and Caesarius should have occurred at this time than at any other. Innocent's reversal of position is puzzling, for the Cistercians did not offer a contribution until 1201; Innocent sent no other general letter of protection for the Order until after the quarrel had been settled, and both Ralph and Caesarius state that such a letter was dispatched after the appearance of the Virgin was reported to Innocent. It is possible, however, that the intervention occurred later and that the resulting letters have been lost; it is also possible that Ralph and Caesarius may be referring simply to Innocent's of July, 1201 and may be exaggerating its significance. Google Scholar

³⁵ In the letter which he sent to the Premonstratensians on February 5, 1201 Innocent discussed the fiftieth which he was still demanding from them and the Cistercians: Potthast 1264, February 5, 1201: PL 214.934–936 (ep. iii.47). Google Scholar

³⁶ Potthast 1321, April 9, 1201. Google Scholar

³⁷ Potthast 1435, (July) 1201; Theiner, Vet. mon. Slav. I 59 no. 116. Google Scholar

³⁸ See 67 and 69 above. Google Scholar

³⁹ Canivez, , Statuta I 274 no. 51 (1201); I 290 no. 27 (1203); I 424 no. 32 (1214). Ralph of Coggeshall (ed. Stevenson 133) states that the Chapter General decided that the money should be collected only from the richer abbeys (‘ex ditioribus abbatiis’), but the statute of 1201 indicates that all Cistercian houses were expected to contribute to the donation.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Manrique (III 397) states that Hugh and Artandus, two brothers of Clairvaux, also took the Cross at some time prior to the departure of the Crusaders. Evidence that these brothers did participate in the Crusade is furnished by the lists of relics which they brought back to Clairvaux from Constantinople: see Riant, , Exuviae II 193 no. 3, 194–197.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Canivez, , Statuta I 282 no. 38.Google Scholar

⁴² Canivez, , Statuta I 294 no. 47. In April, 1202 Innocent III called upon the abbot of Cîteaux and the Bishop of Chalon-sur-Saône to act as his agents in releasing the abbot of the monastery of St. Seine-l'Abbaye (Cottineau II 2885) from his crusading vows, provided he made a suitable contribution to aid the campaign: Potthast 1660, April 9, 1202: PL 214.970 (ep. v. 16).Google Scholar

⁴³ Gunther op. cit. (n. 17 above) 72–73. See Frolow, A., Recherches sur la déviation de la iv ^e croisade vers Constantinople (Paris 1955) 44.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ The Anonymous of Halberstadt says that four Cistercian abbots, whom he fails to name, were influenced by Peter to stay with the army: Anonymus of Halberstadt, De Peregrinatione in Greciam et Adventu Reliquarum de Grecia Libellus, in Riant, Exuviae I 12. He states that they had been specifically designated by the Pope to guide the Crusaders. If Martin was one of these abbots, as he must have been, Gunther's ‘quibusdam aliis religiosis’ may be taken to include the other three, who must have been the abbots of Locedio, Loos and Vaux-de-Cernay. Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Gesta PL 214. cxxxix. The contents of the letter were not revealed to the Crusaders until immediately before the siege. See Faral, E., ‘Geoffroy de Villehardouin: La question de sa sincérité,’ Revue historique 177 (1936) 541.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ See above 68 and nn. 22 and 24. Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Bréhier, DHGE 9.961; Villehardouin, ed. Faral I 91 n. 2. Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Villehardouin 79 (I 80–81 Faral; 44–45 Wailly); see Faral, , Rev. hist. 177.572. This vague statement is in keeping with Villehardouin's failure to mention any incident revealing papal disapproval of the expedition until the Crusaders actually arrived at Zara. Since, as is shown by one of Innocent's letters, Peter Capuano told only some of the Crusaders about the papal prohibition at Venice, it is possible that Villehardouin did not know of the papal displeasure until the army arrived at Zara, or, if he did know of it, that he did not consider it important enough to mention until the prohibition became effective: Potthast 1848, (February) 1203; PL 214.1179 (ep. v. 161). It is strange, however, that he fails even to mention Peter's visit to the army at Venice. See Faral, , Rev. hist. 177.539–540.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ In the Gesta Innocentii III it is stated that Boniface was ‘a domino papa viva voce prohibitus’: Gesta PL 214.cxxxix. Bréhier (DHGE 9.961) accepts this and refers to ‘l'ordre formel du pape’. In view of the explicit statement it is difficult to assess Faral's (Rev. hist. 177.540) suggestion that it was Peter Capuano who forbade him to go to Zara. Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Villehardouin says that Guy merely mentioned the prohibition in his speech to the Crusaders, but Peter of Vaux-de-Cernay states that he read it to them: Villehardouin 83 (I 82–85 Faral; 46–49 Wailly); Peter of Vaux-de-Cernay, Hystoria Albigensis (ed. Guébin, P. and Lyon, E., Paris 1926) I 108–109. For confirmation of Peter's account, see Robert of Clari, ed. Lauer 14 and Potthast 1848, (February) 1203: PL 214.1179 (ep. v. 161). Villehardouin maintains that after Guy's speech the doge of Venice replied that an attack was necessary only because Simon's party had treacherously convinced the people of Zara that none of the Crusaders would follow the Venetians in besieging their city, thus encouraging them to resist: Villehardouin 83 (I 84–85 Faral; 46–49 Wailly). He called upon the Crusaders to aid him, reminding them of the promises which they had made at Venice. According to Peter, Guy was attacked by the Venetians and would have been killed, had not Simon protected him: Peter, op. cit. 109. See also Robert of Clari, ed. Lauer 14; Faral, Rev. hist. 177.540 and Manrique III 398.Google Scholar

⁵¹ See Frolow, , Recherches 44.Google Scholar

⁵² Villehardouin 63, 80–84 (I 66–67, 80–85 Faral; 38–39, 46–49 Wailly). See also Villehardouin, ed. Faral I 85 n. 4. Google Scholar

⁵³ Robert of Clari (loc. cit.) states that Simon and his party, including Guy, left the rest of the Crusaders immediately after the reading of the papal letter, before the attack on Zara. Peter of Vaux-de-Cernay (loc. cit.) maintains that they left immediately after the siege, although they did not participate in it. The Anonymous of Halberstadt agrees with Peter, although he fails to mention Simon, speaking of the departure of ‘quidam … abbaturn qui aderant’ and a band of pilgrims: Anonymous of Halberstadt, op. cit. (n. 44 above) 13. According to the Devastatio, it was the treaty with Alexius which provoked the break: Devastatio (n. 13 above) 88. Villehardouin asserts that they did not leave the army until April, 1203: Villehardouin 108–111 (I 110–113 Faral; 62–63 Wailly). Google Scholar

⁵⁴ See Chronique d’ Ernoul … (n. 27 above) 351 and also Riant, Exuviae I lvii. Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Villehardouin 95 (I 94–99 Faral; 54–55 Wailly). Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Villehardouin, ed. Faral I 91 n. 2. Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Runciman, , History III 115–116; Villehardouin 93 (I 92–95 Faral; 52–53 Wailly). See Villehardouin, ed. Faral I 94 n. 2.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Villehardouin 96–97 (I 96–99 Faral; 54–55 Wailly). For a summary of the testimony of the various sources concerning the opposition to this treaty, see Villehardouin, ed. Faral I 94–96 n. 3. Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Villehardouin, ed. Faral I 105 n. 3. Google Scholar

⁶⁰ For a discussion of the papal absolution of the Crusaders, see Faral, , Rev. hist. 177. 541–546.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Gunther, , op. cit. (n. 17 above) 74. See also Manrique III 398.Google Scholar

⁶² Innocent mentions only the Bishop of Soissons and Jean of Noyon, chancellor of Baldwin of Flanders, while Villehardouin names these two men and also two knights, Jean of Friaize and Robert of Boves: Potthast 1849, (February) 1203: PL. 214.1180 (ep.v.162); and Potthast 2125, (February 7–14) 1204: PL 215–262 (ep. vi. 232); Villehardouin 105 (I 104–107 Faral; 58–61 Wailly). The Bishop of Soissons is the only envoy named in the Gesta Innocentii III: PL 214.cxxxix. See Fontes III² 111. Google Scholar

⁶³ Guntherii … De expugnatione urbis Constantinopolitane … (ed. Riant, P., Geneva 1875) 80. See also Riant, Exuviae I lxxxii n. 2.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ PL 215.237, August 25, 1203 (ep. vi. 210); Fontes III² 572 no. 12. Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Robert of Clari, ed. Lauer 71. Google Scholar

⁶⁶ In a skirmish which occurred before the capture of Constantinople by the Latins, a precious icon was captured from Alexius V by Henry, brother of Baldwin of Flanders. Robert of Clari, Baldwin of Flanders and Ralph of Coggeshall report that the Crusaders decided to send the icon to Cîteaux, and Robert says that it was actually taken there: see respectively, Robert of Clari, ed. Lauer 65–68; PL 215.448 (ep. vii. 152); HF 18.101. In his Des dépouilles religieuses enlevées à Constantinople au xiii ^e siècle … (Paris 1875) 36–37 and 37 n. 1, Riant, P. states that the icon apparently never reached the West.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Villehardouin 206 (II 6–7 Faral; 120–121 Wailly); followed by P. d'Oultreman, Constantinopolis Belgica (Tournai 1643) 201 and by Longnon, Empire 49 n. 3. Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Gallia Christiana (n. 14 above) 3.303, followed by PL 217.120 n. 9.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Gunther, , op. cit. (n. 17 above) 79. Gunther asserts that Martin feared approaching disaster and was oppressed by the thought of the impious acts which had already been committed.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Ibid. 79–83. Faral has questioned the reliability of Gunther's account of the delegation to the curia and Martin's subsequent voyage to Syria: Faral, Rev. hist. 177.542–543 n. 2. It seems to me, however, that at least some of his objections can be answered, and that others should be modified. Gunther states that, after leaving Rome, Martin encountered Peter Capuano at Benevento: Gunther, op. cit. (n. 17 above) 79. Although Faral objects to the fact that Benevento does not lie on the route from Rome to Zara, this, I believe, presents no serious problem, since Gunther merely states that Martin and the other delegates went there after they had concluded their negotiations with Innocent. Although, as has been mentioned, Gunther exaggerates the importance of Martin's position in the mission, he does not say, as Faral maintains, that Martin was ‘le chef de l'ambassade, auquel le pape confia sa reponse.’ Gunther did not state that Peter Capuano was ‘en route pour Acre’ before the papal letter which assigned to him or his deputy certain duties in connection with the absolution of the Crusaders had been taken to Zara: Gunther simply says that he was ‘versus Achonem recto cursu transnavigare cupientem’: Gunther 79–80. Gunther's chronology is manifestly incorrect. Faral, however, not only questions it, but also suggests that Martin actually travelled with Soffredo of St. Praxedes rather than with Peter Capuano. The only evidence to support this suggestion is the fact that Soffredo left Italy before Peter did: the date of his departure is not known. I am therefore hesitant to accept Faral's hypothesis, especially in view of Gunther's explicit assertion that Martin journeyed to Acre with Peter. On the general problem of Gunther's reliability, see Riant, , Exuviae I lxxviii-lxxxvi.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Riant, , Exuviae I lxxxv.Google Scholar

⁷² Gunther, , op. cit. (n. 17 above) 104–107. See also Runciman, History III 123–124 n. 1. For a list of the relics which Martin brought to the West, see Gunther 121–122. For a broader discussion of the desire for relics as a factor motivating participation in the Crusade, see Frolow, , Recherches 7–8, 54–55, 58.Google Scholar

⁷³ Gunther, , op. cit. (n. 17 above) 109. ⁷⁴ Ibid. 119.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Letter of Baldwin of Flanders in PL 215.451 (ep. vii. 152); Manrique III 435. Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Potthast 2429, 2430, March 5, 1205: PL 215.555–559 (epp. vii. 1 and 2); Manrique III 448–449; Fontes III² 293–295 nos. 72 and 73. The abbot's companions were two laymen and the Cluniac abbot of Mount Thabor (Cottineau II 1909; cf. Janauschek li). Soffredo of St. Praxedes and Peter of St. Marcellus had had no success in settling the dispute, so it was entrusted to Peter and his colleagues. They, in turn, were unsuccessful, and Antioch was finally won by Leo for his nephew, Raymond Rupin, by strategem in 1216. Since the end of 1208 Peter of Locedio had been Patriarch of Antioch, and it is thought that he supported Leo in his plot to take the city. For a detailed discussion of this affair, see Cahen, , Syrie 590–623. See also also Wolff, R. L., ‘Baldwin of Flanders and Hainaut, First Latin Emperor of Constantinople: His Life, Death, and Resurrection, 1172–1225,’ Speculum 27 (1952) 288–289 and Fontes III² 37–43.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Potthast 2574, (August 16-September 7) 1205: PL 215.714 (ep. viii. 134); Fontes III² 308–309 no. 85. See Bréhier, L., DHGE 9.963 and Wolff, Traditio 6.37.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Potthast 3444, June 27, 1208: PL 215.1425 (ep. xi. 106); Fontes III² 349 no. 116. Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Canivez, , Statuia I 306 no. 3.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Originally no Cistercian was allowed to go to Rome except with a bishop who was a member of the Order: Canivez, Statuta I 30 no. LXXIV (1134). In 1157, however, it was decreed that, if an unforeseeable crisis occurred, a Cistercian might go himself or send a monk or conversus to Rome, provided he obtained the consent of the abbot of Cîteaux and the abbots of the first four houses of the Order, or at least two of them: ibid. I 65 no. 43. In 1187 the Chapter ordained that those who were to be sent to Rome should be men of known honesty, ‘ita quod scandalum super actibus eorum ultra non proferatur ad Capitulum’: ibid. I 106 no. 3. Cf. ibid. I 114 no. 22 (1189). Punishments for infractions of the regulations were prescribed in 1201: ibid. I 263–264 nos. 2–3; cf. ibid. I 284 no. 2 (1203).Google Scholar

⁸¹ The letter which Longnon (Empire 53) states Baldwin addressed ‘au pape, à la chrétienté tout entière, à l'abbé de Cîteaux et à l'archevêque de Cologne’ and for which he refers his readers to HF 18.520–523 is actually addressed, in general terms, ‘universis Christi fidelibus, archiepiscopis, episcopis, abbatibus, prioribus, praepositis, decanis, ceterisque ecclesiarum praelatis ecclesiarumque personis, baronibus, militibus et sargiantis, omnique populo christiano, ad quos pagina presens pervenerit.’ I have been unable to locate any letter to the abbot of Cîteaux to which Longnon may be referring. Google Scholar

⁸² PL 215.636–637 (ep. viii. 70); Fontes III² 304 no. 81; see Potthast 2512. Manrique indicates that Baldwin's request was prompted by the abbot of Locedio, but he gives no evidence to support his suggestion: Manrique III 449–450, followed by PL 215.637 n. 276. He also suggests that Baldwin asked Innocent for Cistercians especially, but, in order to prove this, he simply omits from the quotation the names of all Orders following the crucial Cisterciensi. Millet's suggestion that Baldwin requested the monks in order to gain favor with Innocent seems reasonable: Millet, Daphni 30, especially n. 5. Google Scholar

⁸³ Because it was assented to and confirmed by Soffredo of St. Praxedes, a terminus ante quem for the donation may be established. When, on July 12, 1205, Innocent III ordered Peter of St. Marcellus to leave Romania and return to Jerusalem, he said: ‘praedictus cardinalis Sanctae Praxedis, sicut accepimus, iter arripuerit redeundi …’: Potthast 2564, July 12, 1205: PL 215. 702 (ep. viii. 136 [misnumeration for 126]); Fontes III² 307–308 no. 84. I have found no reference to Soffredo's presence in the Latin Empire after this date. See Fontes III² 133, and, on the two cardinals more generally, Fontes III² 219–220. By May, 1206 Soffredo had arrived in Rome, for on May 4 and May 6 he witnessed papal bulls: Potthast p. 464. Peter of Locedio, the abbot to whom the gift was made, left the East late in 1205, for in that year he was made Bishop of Ivrea: Ughelli, F., Italia Sacra sive de episcopis Italiae et insularum adjacentium (2nd ed. Venice 1717–1722) 4.1070; Ceruti, A., ‘Un codice del monastero cistercense di Lucedio,’ Archivio storico italiano ⁴ 8 (1881) 377.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Of the monastery Innocent wrote in 1214 to Pelagius of Albano: ‘sicut et alia multa, juxta morem patriae, a jurisdictione quorumlibet ecclesiasticorum praelatorum exemptum fuerit ab antiquo et soli Constantinopolitano imperatori subjectum …’: Potthast 4879, January 12, 1214: PL 216.951 (ep. xvi. 162); Manrique IV 38–39 (misdated 1216); Fontes III² 452 no. 213. See Millet, , Daphni 30 n. 2.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Janauschek 218 and Cottineau I 779–780. See Manrique IV 49; Fontes III² 430 n. 1; Fontes III³ 174–175 n. 2. Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Tafel, G. L. F., De Thessalonica eiusque agro dissertatio geographica (Berlin 1839) 252 -254; Henri de Valenciennes, Histoire de l'Empereur Henri de Constantinople (ed. Longnon, J. Paris 1948) 63 n. 4; Buchon, J. A. C., Recherches et matériaux pour servir à une histoire de la domination française aux xiii ^e, xiv^e et xv^e siècles dans les provinces démembrées de l'empire grec à la suite de la quatrième croisade (Paris [1840]) part 2, 186 n. xi.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Potthast 4879, January 12, 1214: PL 216.951 (ep. xvi. 162); Manrique III 436 and IV 39; Fontes III² 452–453 no. 213. Manrique (IV 38) suggests that the flight may not have been voluntary. See Heyd, W., Zeitschrift für die historische Theologie 26.304, 308, 316.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Potthast 4491, May 25, 1212: PL 216.594–595 (ep. xv. 70); Manrique III 577; Fontes III² 429–430 no. 195. Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Gerland, E., Geschichte des lateinischen Kaiserreiches von Konstantinopel II (Homburg v. d. Höhe 1905) 194–195, 205–206.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ For evidence of the connection between Locedio and the family of the Marquis of Montferrat, see Ceruti, , Arch. stor. ital. ⁴ 8.373–378.Google Scholar

⁹¹ See sources cited in n. 88 above. Google Scholar

⁹² Potthast 4492, May 25, 1212: PL 216.594–595 (ep. xv. 70). Google Scholar

^92a ‘ … ablatis thesauro et omnibus aliis ipsius ecclesiae ornamentis … ’ Both thesaurus and ornamenta are vague words. Du Cange defines thesauri ecclesiastici as ‘Vasa sacra, aliaque pretiosior supellex ecclesiastica, gemmae et alia huiusmodi’: Du Cange 8.99. Martène includes among ornamenta ecclesiae such objects as chalices, candelabra, crosses, vestments and altar cloths: Martène, E. De antiquis Ecclesiae ritibus libri tres (Venice 1783) IV 78. For the similar phrase, monasterii ornamenta, see Canivez, , Statuta I 15 no. x.Google Scholar

⁹³ See Wolff, , Dumb. Oaks Pap. 8.260.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ In his letter to Pelagius (n. 84 above), Innocent stated that the monastery ‘tanta quondam bonorum omnium affluentia redundabat quod idem … ducentorum monachorum collegium sustentabat.’ Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Although Henry of Valenciennes described the monastery as ‘une riche abeye de moines gris,’ this statement cannot be taken at face value, for Henry's descriptions, while always colorful, were sometimes little more than stock phrases: Valenciennes, ed. Longnon 63. See Paris, G., ‘Henri de Valenciennes,’ Romania 19 (1890) 68 and Hopf, C. in Ersch, J. S. and Gruber, J. O., Allgemeine Encyclopädie der Wissenschaften und Künste (Leipzig 1818–1867) I part 85, 229, 232.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ See n. 84 above. In the letter Innocent did not, as Donovan, J. P. states in Pelagius and the Fifth Crusade (Philadelphia 1950) 16, simply order Pelagius to restore the Greeks, but left the decision to his discretion.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ On March 29, 1223 the Bishop of Negropont wrote to the abbot and brothers of Chortaiton, remitting the tithes owed by the monastery of St. Archangelus to the Bishop and chapter of Negropont and the church of Oreas, which had been united in 1222 to the bishopric of Negropont: Auvray, L., Les registres de Grégoire IX (Paris 1899–1910) 1619; Manrique IV 273; Wolff, Traditio 6.46–47. Recognitionis nomine, the abbot and monastery of Chortaïton were to pay an annual census of twelve pounds of wax to him and his chapter on the Feast of the Assumption of the Virgin. The Bishop promised to reimburse the church of Oreas.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ The year in which Otto made his donation is uncertain, but it seems likely that it was made in 1207: Janauschek 214; Millet, Daphni 31, especially nn. 4–5; Fontes III³ 24–25; Cottineau I 947. Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Janauschek 8 and Cottineau I 334. For evidence of the connection between the de la Roche family and Bellevaux, see Millet, , Daphni 28 n. 2; Gauthier, J. ‘Othon de la Roche, conquérant d'Athènes et sa famille: Matériaux archéologiques inédits,’ Académie des sciences, belles-lettres et arts de Besançon (1880) 143 n. 1; Gauthier, J., ‘Les inscriptions des abbayes cisterciennes du diocèse de Besançon,’ ibid. (1882) 299–336 nos. 38, 50, 54, 55, 56, 59, 76 and 92.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Janauschek 214 and Cottineau I 947. For the early history of Daphni, see Millet, , Daphni 3–24; Leake, W. M., Travels in Northern Greece (London 1835) II 385–386.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Millet, , Daphni 31. Millet refers to the catalogue as ‘Parisinus lat. 13823’; the reference to Daphni is to be found in fol. 17: Millet, Daphni 31 n. 4. Of this catalogue he states, ‘Bien que rédigée sans beaucoup de soin, elle mérite plus de confiance, car ses sources remontent au xv^e et même au XIII^e siècle, et l'on peut constater que, pour la Grèce, elle est plus sûre que les listes ébraciennes.’Google Scholar

¹⁰² See Gregorovius, F. A., Geschichte der Stadt Athen im Mittelalter I (3rd ed. Stuttgart 1889) 340.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Janauschek (215) has stated that St. Stephen was located ‘tria milliaria’ from Constantinople, evidently relying on the information given by Villehardouin that on June 23, 1203 the Crusaders stopped at an abbey called St. Stephen, three leagues from Constantinople, to hold a council, and surmising that this was to be the location of the future Cistercian monastery: Villehardouin 127 (I 128–129 Faral; 72–73 Wailly). Tisserant, however, has suggested that the monastery was located within the city: Tisserant, E., ‘La légation en Orient du franciscain Dominique d'Aragon (1245–1247),’ Revue de l'Orient chrétien 24 (1924) 343. He refers for evidence to a statement made by Anthony, Archbishop of Novgorod, in 1201, in which he mentioned the Church of St. Stephen Protomartyr: Anthony of Novgorod, Liber qui dicitur Peregrinus, seu descriptio ss. locorum caesareae civitatis, in Riant Exuviae II 228. Tisserant inferred that it was on this site that the Cistercians would found their monastery. This hypothesis involves the additional assumption that a new house was established and was attached to an existing church. Since there were no fewer than ten churches in Constantinople dedicated to St. Stephen Protomartyr, this suggestion is difficult to evaluate: Janin, R., La géographie ecclésiastique de l'empire byzantin, première partie: Le siège de Constantinople et le patriarcat oecuménique, III: Les églises et les monastères (Paris 1953) 488–493. Janin favors the site suggested by Janauschek: ibid. 493–494. In support of his theory he has noted that in a papal letter of November 17, 1223 St. Stephen is referred to as Constantinopolitane diocesis, while both St. Angelus and St. Mary de Percheio are said to be located simply in Constantinople: ‘Les sanctuaires de Byzance sous la domination latine (1204–1261),’ Études byzantines 2 (1944) 181; see nn. 210 and 211 below.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Janauschek 215. Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ For the history of St. Thomas of Torcello, see Janauschek 213 and Cottineau II 2904 (s. V. ‘San Tommaso de'Borgognoni’) and 3172 (s. v. ‘Torcello’); Ughelli, It. Sac. V 1379–1380; Santifaller, L., Beiträge zur Geschichte des lateinischen Patriarchats von Konstantinopel (Weimar 1938) 95–96.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Cornaro, F., Ecclesiae Torcellanae antiquis monumentis … illustratae I (Venice 1749) 219–220 B; Santifaller, Beitiäge 97. On Quirino see Wolff, R. L., ‘A New Document from the Period of the Latin Empire of Constantinople: The Oath of the Venetian Podestà,’ Annuaire de l'Institut de Philologie et d'Histoire orientales et slaves 12 (1952; published as Mélanges Henri Grégoire IV, Brussels 1953) 557 n. 1, 559.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ The approximate position of the Church of St. Herenus and thus of this piece of land may be deduced from the description of the plot in Cornaro, Eccl. Torc. I 220–221 and also from a document which describes a large donation of land by the Venetians to the Patriarch of Grado: Cornaro, F., Ecclesiae Venetae antiquis monumentis … illustratas III (Venice 1749) 86–88; Tafel, G. L. F. and Thomas, G. M. Urkunden zur älteren Handels- und Staatsgeschichte der Republik Venedig (Vienna 1856–1857) II 5–6 no. 164, February, 1206. This document indicates that the Church of St. Herenus was near the Gate of St. John de Cornibus, near the ‘Golden Horn and the Venetian quarter: see Janin, . Géographie, map no. 1, ‘Byzance-Constantinople, carte archéologique et topographique,’ G5. The Church of St. Irene of the Perama (ibid. 111–113) was located in this area, and it is possible that ‘Herenus’ may be a Latin variation of εἰϱήνη. See also Brown, H. F., ‘The Venetians and the Venetian Quarter in Constantinople to the Close of the Twelfth Century,’ Journal of Hellenic Studies 40 (1920) 71, 76–80 and the map on p. 74. It seems likely that, had the Cistercians been established at the monastery of St. Stephen when these donations were made to St. Thomas, some mention of the house would have been made. Hence I believe that St. Thomas probably took possession of St. Stephen after 1212. The evidence is, however, not conclusive. On February 3, 1218 Honorius III confirmed the right of St. Thomas to its ‘redditus et possessiones’ in the diocese of Constantinople: Cornaro, Eccl. Torc. I 230.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ See Wolff, , Dumb. Oaks Pap. 8 passim. Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ Ughelli, , It. Sac. 5. 1379.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ See Janauschek 213. Google Scholar

¹¹¹ Canivez, , Statuta I 481 no. 70. Apparently because the petition was presented by the Patriarch of Constantinople, Canivez assumes that the house must have been located at Constantinople, although he can find no trace of it there: Canivez, Statuta I 481 n. 5. It seems safe to assume that this monastery is, in fact, the monastery of Gergeri described below. Since at least part of Gergeri's lands was located ‘in Montana Nigra,’ the confusion of names is explainable: Cornaro, Eccl. Torc. I 229. In view of the later interest of the Patriarch in the Cretan house, it is not surprising that he would have sent such a preparatory petition to the Chapter General.Google Scholar

¹¹² The similarity between the two names, the coincidence of dates, and the later interest of the Patriarch of Constantinople in Gergeri make this hypothesis likely. Google Scholar

¹¹³ Cornaro, , Eccl. Torc. I 227 F-228; Santifaller, Beiträge 97, 99.Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ For a suggestion concerning the identity of these canons, see Santifaller, , Beiträge 102 n. 1.Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ Santifaller, , Beiträge 101–103 no. 3, May 30, 1218.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ ‘… locum … ubi caput valeant reclinare’: Potthast 7105, November 22, 1223; Pressutti 4573; Cornaro, Eccl. Torc. I 229. Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ Cornaro, , Eccl. Tore. 234–235; Santifaller, Beiträge 97, 99; Janauschek 213. For a reference to the donations by the two doges, see Cornaro, F., Creta Sacra (Venice 1755), II 20–21.Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ Canivez, , Statuta III 122–123 no. 40.Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ Janauschek 35 and Cottineau I 1383–1384. Google Scholar

¹²⁰ For these dates, see Longnon, , Empire 113, 164 and 166 and 166 n. 3. In March, 1216 Geoffrey, with the consent of his wife and son, made a donation of property in France to Clairvaux: Longnon, J., Recherches sur la vie de Geoffroy de Villehardouin suivi du catalogue des actes des Villehardouin (Paris 1939) 218–219 no. 116.Google Scholar

¹²¹ Cottineau II 2231 (s. v. ‘Patras’). Potthast 4123, November 5, 1210: PL 216. 341–342 (ep. xiii. 168); Manrique III 535; Fontes III² 525 no. 38. See Blanchard, C., Histoire de l'abbaye d'Haute-combe (Chambéry 1874) 142 -143 and Savio, F., ‘Di un ignoto monastero cisterciense in Costantinopoli,’ Rivista storica benedettina 7 (1912) 394.Google Scholar

¹²² On October 29 and October 31, 1210 Innocent III wrote to the Archbishop of Larissa and the Bishop of Zeitounion, ordering them to compel Geoffrey and certain other malefactors to put a stop to the evil practices of which the Archbishop of Patras had accused them, and giving them permission to use ecclesiastical censures to enforce his commands. The Archbishop had charged that Geoffrey and other Latins had seized possessions of the churches under his jurisdiction which the churches had held under the Greeks in return for annual payment of the acrosticon and had disposed of them in their own courts, forcing clerics to appear there to defend their property. He had stated that they had allowed no ecclesiastical business to be done without their supervision; that they had granted abbeys, churches and prebends to clerics and laymen indifferently; that they had not fulfilled their solemn promise to pay and have their subjects, both Greek and Latin, pay the tithes which were owed to their churches: Potthast 4121, October 31, 1210: PL 216.338–339 (ep. xiii 161); Fontes IIP 400–401 no. 171; see also Potthast 4113, October 29, 1210: PL 216.339–340 (ep. xiii. 163); Fontes IIP 524–525 no. 33. On November 5, Innocent ordered Geoffrey not to interfere with the fortifications which the Archbishop intended to build to defend his church from pirate raids: Potthast 4124, November 5, 1210: PL 216.342 (ep. xiii. 169); Fontes III² 526 no. 39. Since Innocent's letter to the monastery of Haute-Combe is dated November 5, it is probable that Geoffrey's request was made either concomitantly with or previous to the complaints and request of the Archbishop. The offer may have been made in order to ward off the anger which Geoffrey suspected his actions would arouse in Rome. It is also possible that the Archbishop had put pressure on him to take this action, perhaps to make reparation for his misdeeds: in his letter to Haute-Combe Innocent stated that Geoffrey's offer to build a new house had been made ‘ad suggestionem venerabilis fratris nostri Patracensis archiepiscopi, sicut ipse proposuit coram nobis.’ In addition, Geoffrey's lands were not included in the pact of Ravennika, which the barons of Northern Greece concluded with the Patriarch of Constantinople in May, 1210, to settle the problem of the restitution of church property. Geoffrey may have suspected that Innocent would be angered by his failure to accept this agreement: see Gerland, E., Neue Quellen zur Geschichte des lateinischen Erzbistums Patras (Leipzig 1903) 10; Miller, Latins 75–76, and Wolff, Dumb. Oaks Pap. 8.260–261. Millet incorrectly states that Geoffrey ‘fit sa demande de 1210 à la suite des réclamations d'innocent, touchant les biens d’église’: Millet, Daphni 30 n. 6. See Miller, , Latins 64–65, 76; E Gerland, Patras 11, 13, 16. The quarrel was not completely settled until 1223: see pp. 93f. and 100f. below. The first and second letters referred to above are addressed to the Bishop of ‘Cithoniensis,’ as is Potthast 4112, October 29, 1210: PL 216.339 (ep. xiii.162); Fontes III² 524 no. 32 and several other papal letters written in 1210. In order to locate this bishopric, I have assumed that ‘Cithoniensis’ is a variant of ‘Citoniensis,’ which is found in Potthast 4089, September 18, 1210: PL 216.330 (ep. xiii.151); Fontes III² 523 no. 26, and also of ‘Sithoniensis,’ which appears in Potthast 4490, May 25, 1212: PL 216.591 (ep. xv.69), in Potthast 4495, May 25, 1212: PL 216.596 (ep. xv.73) and in Potthast 4483, May 23, 1212: PL 216.597 (ep. xv.75). On the additional assumption that these readings are variants of ‘Sidoniensis’, I have translated ‘Cithoniensis’ as Zeitounion (‘Sidoniensis’): see Wolff, . Traditio 6.45, 54. Le Quien translates the term as Cythnos and states that this was a bishopric founded by the Latins on the island of Cythnos and was a suffragan bishopric of Athens: Le, M. Quien, Oriens Christianus III (Paris 1740) 871 no. xiv; followed by Gams, B. Series Episcoporum Ecclesiae Catholicae (Ratisbonne 1873) 431 and by Haluščynskyj, Fontes III² 353 and 656 s. v. ‘Cythnus.’ The evidence cited by Le Quien is not convincing. Furthermore, Innocent III did not include it in the list of the suffragan bishoprics of Athens in his letter of February 13, 1209: Potthast 3654; PL 215.1559 (ep. xi. 256); see Wolff, . Traditio 6.55, 58 and Longnon, J. ‘L'organisation de l’église d'Athènes par Innocent III,’ Mémorial Louis Petit (Archives de l'Orient chrétien I; Bucharest, Institut français d’études byzantines 1948) 336–346. Laurent argues that under the Latins Cythnos continued to be only ‘un simple titre épiscopal joint à celui de Céos’: Laurent, Y., ‘Cythnos,’ DHGE 13.1190–1191.Google Scholar

¹²³ Canivez, , Statuta I 397 no. 36.Google Scholar

^123a Canivez, , Statuta I 187 no. 37 (1195); II 74 no. 43 (1229); II 334–335 no. 2 (1249).Google Scholar

¹²⁴ See Blanchard, , op. cit. (n. 121 above) 572–573, 142–144 and Savio, F., loc. cit. (n. 121 above).Google Scholar

¹²⁵ Santifaller and Janin agree that the monastery should be called St. Angelus in Pera, and not St. Angelus in Petra: Santifaller, Beiträge 195, 302; Janin, Ét. byz. 2. 179–180; followed by Pressutti 5436, April 10, 1225; for the second form see Janauschek 35; Manrique IV 446; Pressutti 3914, March 29, 1222; Fontes III³ 134; Dalleggio, E. d'Alessio, ‘Les sanctuaires urbains et suburbains de Byzance sous la domination latine (1204–1261),’ Revue des études byzantines 11 (1953; published as Mélanges Martin Jugie) 52–53. Savio refers to the monastery as St. Angelus in Pietra but offers no evidence to support this location: Savio, F., ‘Crociati e cenobi Costantinopolitani nelle note marginali di un martirologio cisterciense,’ Rivista storica benedettina 7 (1912) 374. ‘Pera’ indicates that the house was on the Northern side of the Golden Horn. Janin has suggested that the name of the house indicates that it was dedicated to St. Michael and surmises that it was known as the monastery of St. Michael by the Greeks; he has found two Greek monasteries dedicated to St. Michael in the area known as ‘Pera’: Janin, Ét. byz. 2.179–180; Janin, Géographie 351–352, 357, 359–362; Janin, R., ‘Les sanctuaires byzantins de Saint Michel (Constantinople et banlieue),’ Échos d'Orient 33 (1934) 37–46. Even if it is assumed that the Cistercians occupied an old Greek house, it is impossible to determine which of these is our St. Angelus in Pera: see n. 130 below.Google Scholar

¹²⁶ Janauschek (219) refers to chronologies which identify St. Angelus as a daughter house of Haute-Combe, and Cottineau (II 2591) accepts the filiation, although Blanchard hesitates to do so: Blanchard, op. cit. (n. 121 above) 36. Support for the testimony of the chronologies is given by the fact that a martyrology compiled at St. Angelus found its way to Haute-Combe after the fall of Constantinople, presumably in the hands of monks of St. Angelus returning to their mother house: Savio, Riv. stor. ben. 7.374, 383. Google Scholar

¹²⁷ Le Mir suggests that the monastery was founded in 1199 near Constance (‘iuxta Constantiam’): Le, A. Mir, Chronicon Cisterciensis Ordinis (Cologne 1614) 187; cf. Blanchard, op. cit. (n. 121 above) 36. Manrique (III 348) flatly rejects his suggestion and postulates that some catalogues may have given this foundation date ob reverentiam antiquae Domus See ibid. III 464–465.Google Scholar

¹²⁸ Pressutti 3914, March 29, 1222: Manrique IV 446. For the dates of Pelagius’ legateship in the Empire, see Donovan, , op. cit. (n. 96 above) 15, 24.Google Scholar

¹²⁹ Millet and Janin accept 1214 as the date of occupation by the Cistercians: Millet, Daphni 31; Janin, Ét. byz. 2.178. The church was dedicated on November 8 and the monastery inaugurated on November 14: Savio, Riv. stor. ben. 7.377, 382. Since Pelagius probably arrived in Constantinople in October 1213, the dedication could have taken place either in 1213 or in 1214: Donovan, Pelagius 15; cf. Savio, Riv. stor. ben. 7.382 n. 2. Savio rejects the year 1215 as the foundation date of the house because he feels it ‘sommamente verosimile’ that Pelagius returned to Rome for the Fourth Lateran Council in November, 1215. There is no evidence that he did return to Italy, but, as will be shown in the following paragraphs, he threatened another house with subjection to St. Angelus before November, 1215, which indicates that the monastery had been dedicated before that year. Google Scholar

¹³⁰ Millet suggests that the house was an old Greek monastery, probably imperial, but his suggestion is based on the assumption that the phrase ‘tempore Graecorum … valde solemne,’ which is to be found in one of Honorius’ letters, refers to St. Angelus, whereas in actual fact it is used to describe Rufinianai: Millet, Daphni 30 n. 2; Pressutti 3914, March 29, 1222: Manrique IV 446–447; Fontes III³ 133 no. 97. Although historians have speculated on the part played by the Latin Emperor in the foundation of the house, there is no evidence that he actually gave the monastery to the Cistercians: Manrique III 348; Millet, Daphni 30 n. 5; Janauschek 219; Savio, Riv. stor. ben. 7.379, 382. Google Scholar

¹³¹ Janauschek 219; Savio, Riv. stor. ben. 7.382. Google Scholar

¹³² For the early history of Rufinianai, see the bibliographical references given by Wolff, R. L. in his article, ‘Romania: The Latin Empire of Constantinople,’ Speculum 23 (1948) 24 n. 111; to the materials which he cites should be added Duchesne, L., ‘Inscription chrétienne de Bithynie,’ Bulletin de correspondence hellénique 2 (1878) 292–295; Millet, Daphni 26, 30 n. 2; Pargoire, J., ‘Autour de Chalcédoine,’ Byzantinische Zeitschrift 11 (1902) 340–344.Google Scholar

¹³³ This area was probably won by Emperor Henry of Constantinople in the campaign of 1211–1212; it is a part of the territory which was awarded to the Latins by the treaty concluded ca. 1214 by Henry of Constantinople and Theodore Lascaris: Longnon, Empire 127–128; Miller, W., ‘The Empire of Nicaea and the Recovery of Constantinople,’ CMH 4.485; Gardner, A. The Lascarids of Nicaea (London 1912) 85–86; Wolff, R. L., The Latin Empire of Constantinople (1204–1261) (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University 1947) 429–433.Google Scholar

¹³⁴ ‘… nec expediret vobis imperii relinquere patronatum ut vos alterius potentis dominatui subderetis …’: Fontes III³ 134. My translation of this obscure phrase is loose. Google Scholar

¹³⁵ Manrique (IV 446–447) wrongly assigns the letter to the sixth year of the pontificate of Gregory IX and hence dates it 1232. Tisserant, Tautu and Savio correct Manrique's dating, but Janauschek accepts it without question: Tisserant, Rev. Or. chr, 24.344; Fontes III³ 133; Savio, Riv. stor. ben. 7.379–380; Janauschek 219. Because of the change in dating it is now possible to accept the date of 1224/5 which is given in the catalogue of Clairvaux as the foundation date of Rufinianai: Janauschek 219. The only complete and correct version of the letter is to be found in Fontes III³ 133–135 no. 97. See also Pressutti 3914, March 29, 1222; Santifaller, Beiträge 195 no. 56. Google Scholar

¹³⁶ See Wolff, , Dumb. Oaks Pap. 8.280.Google Scholar

¹³⁷ If Rufinianai were returned to the Patriarch, St. Angelus would be reimbursed for its loss: Fontes III³ 133–135. Google Scholar

¹³⁸ Janin asserts that it is possible that the house was never occupied by Cistercians: Janin, Ét. byz. 2.178. He does not, however, discuss any of the evidence cited below. Google Scholar

¹³⁹ The abbots of St. Stephen and Rufinianai, with other secular and ecclesiastical officials of Constantinople, witnessed a document on April 4, 1247, testifying that the papal emissary, Dominic of Aragon, had been prevented from leaving Constantinople by the dangers involved in a trip to the West at that time, and that he had been of great service to the Empire during his stay in Constantinople: Tisserant, Rev. Or. chr. 24.340; Wolff, Traditio 2.228–229. Google Scholar

¹⁴⁰ Canivez, , Statuta II 473 no. 58 and 473 n. 12.Google Scholar

¹⁴¹ Theodore Scutariotes, ‘Additamenta ad Georgii Acropolitae Historiam,’ in Georgii Acropolitae Opera I (ed. Heisenberg, A. Leipzig 1903) 287. See Pargoire, , Byz. Zeits. 11,343; Miller, CMH 4.498. Rufinianai was, of course, not in Constantinople, although it was near it.Google Scholar

¹⁴² See Longnon, , Empire 161; Miller, CMH 4.487; Gardner, Lascarids 137; Akropolita 38.Google Scholar

¹⁴³ Pargoire, , Byz. Zeits. 11.457–458; Miklosich, F. and J. Müller, Acta et Diplomata graeca medii aevi sacra et profana IV (Vienna 1871) 303–305.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁴ Potthast 5519C-25902, April 13, 1217; Potthast 5519e-25904, April 13, 1217; Pressutti 502, 503; Santifaller, Beiträge 189 no. 11; Fontes III³ 27–28 no. 10. Google Scholar

¹⁴⁵ Reg. Vat. 9 fol. 96r (epp. i. 381–382). Google Scholar

¹⁴⁸ See references in n. 144 above. Google Scholar

¹⁴⁷ Janin, , Ét. byz. 2.180.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁸ Janin, , Géographie 514 no. 3.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁹ For the Cistercian attitude toward nunneries and a general history of the foundation and spread of the Cistercian convents, see Boyd, C. E., A Cistercian Nunnery in Mediaeval Italy : The Story of Rifreddo in Saluzzo 1220–1300 (Cambridge, U.S.A. 1943) and especially her bibliographical note, 72 n. 1; see also Canivez DHGE 12.860–862, 951–956, who does not, however, discuss the Greek convents, although their names are included in a fourteenth-century list of the daughter nunneries of Citeaux which he does print. Not until ca. 1213 were the previously semi-autonomous Cistercian nunneries taken under the direct supervision of the Order: Canivez, Statuta I 405 no. 3. The influx of houses into the Order was evidently so great that in 1220 the admission of existing nunneries to the Order was banned: see Boyd, . Nunnery 87; Winter, F. Die Cistercienser des nordöstlichen Deutschlands (Gotha 1871) II 13; Canivez, Statuta I 517 no. 4. The prohibition was renewed in 1225 and in 1228: Canivez, Statuta II 36 no. 7 and 68 no. 16. In 1228 the Chapter General forbade the building of new Cistercian convents. St. Mary de Percheio may have been taken into the Order before 1220. If not, it must have been admitted either by special dispensation or in defiance of the law. The re-enactment of these laws suggests that they were not being obeyed. See Boyd, , Nunnery 98–99 for a discussion of the policy governing infractions of these rules.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁰ Millet says that the history of Percheio is known from two letters of Honorius: ‘Ann. Cist., 1222, xiii, 10 et 1234, ch. II (t. iv, p. 495)’: Millet, Daphni 26 n. 5. Actually Manrique prints three letters of Honorius concerning the nunnery: Millet's first reference is correct, but his second should read ‘1234, ch. II, 8 (t. iv, p. 473).’ The third letter may be found in Manrique IV 495. Millet believes that the occupation must have taken place in 1221, but Cistercians had been installed long enough to receive a letter of protection from the papacy in February, 1221: Millet, Daphni 31. Google Scholar

¹⁵¹ Manrique IV 240 and n. 152 below. Google Scholar

¹⁵² Janin believes, as do I, that de Perceul is a variant form of de Percheio: Janin, Ét. byz. 2.183. He rejects Riant's equation of Perceul and Παϱασκευή: Riant believed that the house was located at a place called St. Parasceve, which was located, according to Archbishop Anthony of Novgorod, ‘a Constantinopoli … pedibus iter … unius diei’: Riant, Exuviae I clxxv n. 4 and II 374; Anthony, op. cit. (n. 103 above) 230. This identification appears to be based solely on the similarity between the two names, for Riant gives no evidence to support his hypothesis. Janin attacks Riant on several grounds. First, all papal letters describe the house as lying in Constantinople proper; second, it is more likely that Percheio is derived from the name of the person for whom the quarter τὰ Σφωϱακίον was named. Although there is evidence that there was a church dedicated to the Virgin Mary in that quarter, there is no evidence that a nunnery was ever connected with it. Janin believes that the Greek name of the house, Ysostis, offers a more fruitful clue to its identity: Janin, Ét. byz. 2.184. He equates Ysostis and ψυχοσῶστις, the name of a monastery in Constantinople which could have been occupied by nuns. In support of Janin's hypothesis that the house was located within the city of Constantinople, it should be noted that the letter printed by Riant which mentions the convent de Perceul refers to the house simply as ‘Constantinopolis.’ Savio asserts that the name should be St. Mary de Petreio, although he can cite no evidence to support his assertion: he simply states his theory and rejects the other versions of the name: Savio, Riv. stor. ben. 7,384. Google Scholar

¹⁵³ The letter is printed in Pitra, J. B., Analecta novissima Spicilegi Solesmensis. altera continuatio I (Paris 1885) 577–578 no. xix. Punctuation is, however, haphazard, and the transcription of place-names does not always agree with my reading of the microfilms of the Registers of Honorius which are available in Widener Library at Harvard University. Any detailed analysis of the letter would require comparison of Pitra's text with the registers. Dalleggio d'Alessio recently published a list of the place-names mentioned in the letter, but this is also inaccurate and should be used only in conjunction with the actual Registers: Rev. des ét. byz. 11. 53–55. Parts of the letter are printed in Manrique IV 240, where it is incorrectly dated 1222. Horoy follows the dating and text of Manrique: Horoy, C. A. Honorii III Romani Pontificis Opera Omnia (Paris 1878–1880) IV 102–103 no. 124. See Potthast 6570, February 27, 1221; Pressutti 3123; Santifaller, Beiträge 193 no. 41. Potthast, following Manrique, included yet another abstract of the same letter under the year 1222, and he asterisked the 1221 citation to indicate lack of knowledge about the document: Potthast 6795, February 27, 1222; cf. Potthast p. vi. Janin implies that there were two separate charters, differing only in the fact that the first exempted the monastery from the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople and the second did not: Janin, Ét. byz. 2.182. This distinction is based only on the summaries in Potthast and has no basis in actual fact, for the letters must be the same one. There is no record of any such duplication in book VI of the Register of Honorius. Furthermore, on February 27, 1222 Honorius was at Anagni, whereas the document dated 1222 by Manrique and Horoy was written while he was at the Lateran: see Pressutti 3816. For information about three of thedonors mentioned in the letter, see Savio, , Riv. stor. ben. 7.386–389.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁴ This convent may have been the daughter house of Laurus, another Cistercian monastery in Greece: Janauschek lix. Google Scholar

¹⁵⁵ Manrique IV 494. Google Scholar

^155a ‘ Visitationis et ordinationis officium. ’ Concerning visitation, see 111–113 below. Ordinatio and its verbal form, ordinare, cannot be translated by a single English equivalent. In the Statuta they were used, generally, to mean ‘order,’ ‘reform,’ ‘arrange’ and were often used as synonyms for correctio and corrigere: see Canivez, , Statuta I 188 no. 42 (1195), I 406 no. 8 (1213), II 138 no. 51 (1234), and II 141 no. 19 (1235). The words were also used with these meanings in statutes dealing with the duties of the father abbot toward his daughter house. The Carta Caritatis forbade any father abbot who was visiting a daughter house ‘tractare aut ordinare aut contingere de rebus,’ against the will of the abbot and brothers of the house; in 1221 father abbots were commanded ‘ut in filiabus suis secundum modum et qualitatem possessionum ordinent, auctoritate Capituli, de numero personarum’; in 1240 the visitor was instructed to record ‘quae corrigenda et ordinanda statuent’; see, respectively, Canivez, Statuta I xxvii no. vm, II 1 no. 2, and II 216 no. 1. The Carta Caritatis also ordered the father abbot to undertake ‘omnem curam … ordinationis’ of any daughter house which lacked its own abbot. There is clear evidence that in this case the word was understood to be equivalent to administratio: Canivez, Statuta I xxix no. XXI; cf. III 24 no. 2 (1265) and DDC 3.755. The general duty of correction and reformation was clearly more important than the exceptional one of administering the house: see Canivez DDC 3.749–750.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁶ This letter is attributed to the pontificate of Gregory IX and is consequently dated 1234 by Manrique: Manrique IV 494. See also Savio, Riv. stor. ben. 7.385 n. 2; Horoy, Hon. Op. IV 417 no. 11; Potthast 7078; Pressutti 4487; Santifaller, Beiträge 197–198 no. 79; Garampi, G., Memorie ecclesiastiche appartenenti all’ istoria e al culto della Chiara B. di Rimini (Rome 1755) 367. In these works the letter is dated correctly.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁷ Pitra, , Analecta I 577–578 no. xix.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁸ See the letter dated September 4, 1238, printed in Riant, Exuviae II 119–121 no. 60; Tafel and Thomas, Urkunden II 346–349 no. 296; cf. Janin, Ét. byz. 2.182. According to a method of calculation arrived at by Wolff, R. L. this sum is the approximate equivalent of between $16,770 and $20,425, ‘with a purchasing power impossible to calculate, but immensely larger’ than that of current dollars: see Wolff, R. L., ‘Mortgage and Redemption of an Emperor's Son: Castile and the Latin Empire of Constantinople,’ Speculum 29 (1954) 52 and Wolff, Dumb. Oaks Pap. 8.243 n. 50. The abbess, together with Albertino Morosini, the Venetian podestà, Nicolò Cornaro, Pietro Ziani and several Genoese nobles, had lent money to the Empire, with the Crown of Thorns as security. In 1238 Nicolò Quirino lent the Empire the money to redeem the pledge.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁹ For evidence of another contact between the Cistercian Order and the ruling house of Achaia, see Canivez, , Statuta II 232 no. 15.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁰ Canivez, , Statuta II 47 no. 59.Google Scholar

¹⁶¹ Wolff, , Dumb. Oaks Pap. 8.274; Longnon, Empire 164–165; Miller, Latins 87–88; Gerland, Patras 18.Google Scholar

¹⁶² Longnon, , Empire 165–166.Google Scholar

¹⁶³ Janauschek 227. Google Scholar

¹⁶⁴ An early-fourteenth-century list of the nunneries which were or had been directly affiliated with Cîteaux is printed by Winter and by Canivez: Winter, Die Cistercienser III 175–183; Canivez, DHGE 12.860–862. This list, which was widely copied, contains the names of three daughter nunneries in Greece: no. 125, De Nicenal, in the diocese of Corinth; no. 126, De viridiario beate Marie, in the diocese of Modon; no. 127, De Parcheyo, in Constantinople. ‘De Parcheyo’ obviously refers to the house of St. Mary of Percheio in Constantinople, although Canivez wrongly gives as the correct name of the house ‘S. M. de Petreio’: Canivez, DHGE 12.862. ‘De viridiario beate Marie’ must be an alternative name for the house of St. Mary de Verge of Modon. I have been unable to find any information about the convent de Nicenal in Corinth. Google Scholar

¹⁶⁵ Miller, , Latins 113–114.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁶ Ughelli, , It. Sac. 7.706, a letter of Gregory X of July 11, 1272.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁷ P. A. de Tarsia, Historiarum Cupersanensinm libri III, in Graevius, J. G., Thesaurus antiquitatum et historiarum Italiae … 9.5 (Lyons 1723) 64F; Morea, D. and Muciaccia, F. Le pergamene di Conversano (Codice diplomatico Barese: Deputazione, R. di storia patria per le Puglie, N.S. 17; Trani 1942) ix-x.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁸ Morea-Muciaccia, , op.cit. 7 n°. 5, December 5, 1267; Ughelli, It. Sac. 7.706, misdated 1266.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁹ Morea-Muciaccia, , op. cit. 8–10 nos. 6–7, December 10, 1267; cf. x-xi and 10–11 no. 8.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁰ Potthast 20562, July 11, 1272: Ughelli, It. Sac. 7. 706–707, misdated 1271. Google Scholar

¹⁷¹ Potthast 20576, July 29, 1272: Ughelli, It. Sac. 7.707, misdated 1271; Morea-Muciaccia, op. cit. 20–21 no. 15, misdated 1271. Google Scholar

¹⁷² Morea-Muiaccia, , op. cit. 21–22 no. 16, November 12, 1271 (cf. xxxii); Ughelli, It. Sac. 7.707, dated November 1. Cf. Millet, Daphni 36.Google Scholar

¹⁷³ On the first two abbesses of St. Benedict, see de Tarsia, op. cit. 64E, 65D, E, F, and Morea-Muciaccia, op. cit. xxx-xxxvii. Google Scholar

¹⁷⁴ See the letter referred to in n. 172 above. The abbot of Daphni was to visit the house himself or appoint suitable visitors to inspect the convent; he was to correct all abuses and to provide confessors for the nuns; in addition, he was given full power to preside at elections and to institute and depose abbesses. This temporary appointment was apparently extended, for in 1283 Abbot Peter of Daphni visited the convent as he was returning to Greece from the Chapter General: Morea-Muciaccia, op. cit. 51–52 no. 31, March 25, 1283; Ughelli, It. Sac. 7. 711–712. Google Scholar

¹⁷⁵ Manrique III 577; Janauschek 219–220; Millet, Daphni 31. I do not consider the dates in the twelfth century which are recorded in some catalogues, since they are obviously errors: Janauschek 220. Google Scholar

¹⁷⁶ Janauschek lix, 220. Google Scholar

¹⁷⁷ See above 92. Google Scholar

¹⁷⁸ Manrique III 577; Janauschek 9, 219; Millet, Daphni 33. Google Scholar

¹⁷⁹ Millet, , Daphni 33 n. 3. Millet prints a portion of the charter and analyzes the dating of the charter.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁰ Janauschek 219. Google Scholar

¹⁸¹ Canivez says that the monastery was located in the diocese of Constantinople but gives no evidence to support his statement: Canivez, Statuta VIII 294. Google Scholar

¹⁸² Janauschek 219. Google Scholar

¹⁸³ Janin, , Ét. byz. 2.181. Here Janin states that this monastery must have been located εν τῷ Ἀνάπλῳ, i.e., on the European side of the Bosphorus, or in the village of Anaple itself. In Géographie 511–512 he is more sceptical and maintains that it is impossible at this stage to ascertain the exact location of the house. Janin and Millet accept 1214 as the foundation date of the abbey: Janin, Ét. byz. 2.180; Millet, Daphni 31.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁴ Canivez, , Statuta III 63 no. 18.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁶ ‘… ita ut suspectae mulleres excludantur’: Canivez, Statuta III 123 no. 50. Google Scholar

¹⁸⁶ Of the eight monasteries in Constantinople identified as having been occupied by Latins as a result of the Fourth Crusade, four were Cistercian: Janin, Ét. byz. 2.172. Google Scholar

¹⁸⁷ For a complete discussion see Wolff, , Dumb. Oaks Pap. 8.246–253.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁸ Potthast 5459b-25803, February 14, 1217; Pressutti 342. Google Scholar

¹⁸⁹ Abstracted in Potthast 5459c-25804, February 14, 1217; Pressutti 341. The complete letter is printed in Pitra, Analecta I 559–560 no. 3 and in Fontes III³ 25–26 no. 7. Google Scholar

¹⁹⁰ Fontes III³ 40 no. 21; Gregorovius, F., ‘Ιστοϱία τῆς πόλεως Ἀθήνών … III (trans. and ed. Lampros, S. P., Athens 1906) 9 no. 8. See also Pressutti 986, where the letter is incorrectly interpreted to say that the Patriarch had claimed direct jurisdiction over certain archbishops and bishops in the lords’ lands by virtue of the Crosses in the churches. In 1218, in a letter to John Colonna, Cardinal Priest of St. Praxedes and papal legate, Honorius noted that the leaders of the church of Constantinople had had the crosses placed in certain monasteries at the time of the schism in order that, hoc quasi titulo, they might keep them in perpetuity. See Wolff, , Dumb. Oaks Pap. 8. 253–254.Google Scholar

¹⁹¹ Wolff, , Dumb. Oaks Pap. 8. 254. Otto, Geoffrey and their men had agreed to return ot the churches under their jurisdiction all property which had been taken illegally from them. Otto signed the pact of Ravennika in 1210, and Geoffrey agreed to accept its provisions sometime before 1213. For Otto see Pressutti, 1816, January 19, 1219: Lampros, op. cit. (n. 190 above) 13–17 no. 11; and Pressutti 4480, September 4, 1223: Horoy, Hon. Op. IV 409–414 (ep. viii.10): Lampros, op. cit. 23–31 no. 18: PL 216.968–972. Although many scholars have stated that Geoffrey never accepted the pact, it is clear that he did so before 1213: see Gerland, , Patras 16 and Miller, Latins 76. In a letter of August 26, 1213, Innocent referred to a compositio regarding the restoration of church property which had been concluded between Geoffrey and his men, on the one hand, and the Archbishop of Patras, on the other: Potthast 4798, August 26, 1213: PL 216.898–899 (ep. xvi.98): Lampros, op. cit. 6–8 no. 6. In addition, in a letter of January 23, 1216, Innocent included the Archbishop of Patras among the ecclesiastics whose churches were protected by the pact of Ravennika: Pressutti 1816, January 19, 1219: Lampros, op. cit. 13–17 no. 11. Furthermore, on September 4, 1223 Honorius III wrote of Geoffrey, ‘… licet resignationem praedictam … dictus princeps se dixerit recepisse, quia tamen eam nullatenus effectui mancipavit …’: Horoy, Hon. Op. IV 411: Lampros, op. cit. 24. Despite their protestations, Otto and Geoffrey did not make good their promises. In the early part of 1212 Innocent dispatched many letters to check their greed and to protect the churches which they threatened: see Potthast 4426, April 9, 1212: PL 216.560 (ep. xv.22); and Potthast 4456,4457, and 4458, May 18, 1212: PL 216.590 (ep. xv.65, 66); and Potthast 4493, May 25, 1212: PL 216.595 (ep. xv. 71); and Potthast 4496, May 25, 1212: PL 216.598 (ep. xv. 77). On May 23, 1212 he ordered the Archbishop of Thessalonica and the Bishops of Gardiki and Zeitounion to enforce the restoration of church property, and, as a result of his mandate, they excommunicated Geoffrey and other nobles and placed a sentence of interdict on their lands. The Archbishop of Thessalonica asked the Pope to confirm their sentences, stating that Geoffrey and his men had harmed the church of Patras and taken its property unjustly. He also complained that both Geoffrey and Otto were infringing upon the rights of churches and were not allowing the churches to keep property which had been given, sold or bequeathed to them. Geoffrey and his men appealed to the Pope, however, and on August 26, 1213 Innocent decreed that the sentences of excommunication should be relaxed when Geoffrey and the other malefactors who had been excommunicated swore to obey ‘praecise mandatis quae ipsis per litteras aut legatum vel delegatum nostrum super hoc duximus facienda’: Potthast 4483, May 23, 1212: PL 216.597 (ep. xv. 75); Fontes III² 428–429 no. 194, and Potthast 4798, August 26, 1213: PL216.898–899(ep. xvi.98): Lampros, op.cit.6–8 no. 6: Gerland, Patras 16 n.3. On August 30, 1213 Innocent sent Pelagius of Albano as his legate to the Latin Empire: Potthast 4803: PL 216.902 (ep. xvi.105). Pelagius arranged several ‘compositiones minus utiles’ between the barons and churches in the Empire and Greece, and two of these applied to the lands of Otto and Geoffrey: ‘… quia tamen [resignationem praedictam] nullatenus effectui mancipavit, sed vobiscum compositionem iniit valde illicitam et penitus inhonestam Horoy, Hon. Op. IV 411: Lampros, op. cit. 24. On January 23, 1216 Innocent abolished these agreements and issued a new and expanded version of the pact of Ravennika, which was to apply to all lands citra Macram which had been or would be acquired. This area included the Archbishoprics of Thessalonica, Serrhae, Larissa, Neopatras, Thebes, Athens, Corinth and Patras: Potthast 1816, January 19, 1219: Lampros, op. cit. 13–17 no. 11. The strife between Otto, Geoffrey and the Church was not settled until 1223: see Wolff, , Dumb. Oaks Pap. 8.274, and, in addition to the sources there cited, the letters collected in Lampros, op. cit. 18–31 nos. 12–18.Google Scholar

¹⁹² Potthast 5456a-25797, February 11, 1217; Pressutti 332. For the complete Letter see Lampros, , op. cit. 8–9 no. 7. See Hefele, C. J. Histoire des conciles d'après les documents originaux V^a (trans. and ed. Leclercq, H., Paris 1913) 1369 canon 47 for the provisions of the Fourth Lateran Council regarding sentences of excommunication.Google Scholar

¹⁹³ ‘ … satisfactione non exhibita competenti neque prestito iuxta formam ecclesiae iuramento’: Pressutti 340, February 14, 1217.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁴ The Fourth Lateran Council provided that after a vacancy of three months the right of appointment should revert to the immediate ecclesiastical superior, who in turn would have three months in which to appoint before the right should fall to his immediate ecclesiastical superior: Hefele, Histoire V^a 1352 canon 23. Google Scholar

¹⁹⁵ Potthast 5459a-25802, February 14, 1217; Pressutti 340; Pitra, Analecta I 558–559 no. 2; Fontes III³ 24 no. 6. Google Scholar

¹⁹⁶ The Fourth Lateran Council forbade ecclesiastics to wear these capes within the church to divine services: Hefele, Histoire V² 1346 canon 16. Furthermore, no one who was in the priesthood or who held an office might wear them anywhere else, unless he wanted to disguise his habit because he feared danger. Thus, Honorius might be accusing the patriarchal legates of breaking this regulation, or he might be insinuating that they were not even officials or priests and were thus grossly unsuited for the duties with which the Patriarch was entrusting them. Cf. Du Cange 2.111. Google Scholar

¹⁹⁷ All the sources except Tautu, as well as my reading of the Vatican Registers, indicate that this verb should be ‘preponunt’ rather than ‘proponunt’, as Tӑutu reads the text: Fontes III³ 53. Google Scholar

¹⁹⁸ See Wolff, , Dumb. Oaks Pap. 8.253. The offense of laying violent hands on bishops must have come under the category of enormis excessus, for which absolution had to be obtained at Rome; absolution for similar offenses against other, presumably less important, ecclesiastics might be given by the Patriarch himself. See Wolff, , Traditio 6.42, especially n. 38; Wolff, Dumb. Oaks Pap. 8.231; PL. 215.576 (ep. viii. 20).Google Scholar

¹⁹⁹ See n. 194 above. Google Scholar

²⁰⁰ In interpreting this passage, I have followed the reading of Fontes III³ 54: ‘… dictus Wicardo, G. militi Thebano per ven. fratrem nostrum. archiepiscopum Thebanum vinculo excommunicationis suis exigentibus culpis adstricto beneficium absolutionis impendit.’ Although it differs from my reading of the Vatican Registers in that it reads ‘adstricto’ where the Registers have ‘adstrictus,’ it is the only interpretation possible if the passage is to be meaningful. Lampros, op. cit. (n. 190 above) 11 retains the reading ‘adstrictus.’Google Scholar

²⁰¹ The complete letter is printed by Lampros, op. cit. 10–12 no. 9 and in Fontes III_ε 53–55 no. 30. For abstracts see Rinaldi, , Ann. Eccl. I 438 nos. 26–28; Potthast 5885, where the letter is undated except for the statement that it was probably written at the beginning of August, 1218; Pressutti 1206, March 31, 1218; and Horoy, Hon. Op. III 5–6 no. 4. See Pressutti 1585, August 18, 1218 and Fontes III³ 62 no. 38 for another complaint about the Patriarch's illicit legates. For a discussion of the legates see Santifaller, , Beiträge 92–94.Google Scholar

²⁰² The sentences of excommunication and interdict resulted from the fact that the two lords and their followers still held ecclesiastical property ‘contra resignationem eorum factam apud Ravenicam confirmatam per felicis recordationis I. papam predecessorem nostrum et per eum postmodum sicut continetur in ejus litteris ampliatam’: Lampros, op. cit. 12–13 no. 10, January 21, 1219; abstracted by Pressutti 1819, see Longnon, , Empire 164. For additional information concerning Otto's hostility to the Church, see Miller, , Latins 69–70 and Gerland, Patras 12 n. 2 and n. 191 above. The strife between Otto and the Church was settled in 1223: Wolff, Dumb. Oaks Pap. 8.274.Google Scholar

²⁰³ Reg. Vat. 11² fol. 230^v-231^r (ep. vi. 351) Except for an incomplete abstract in Pressutti 3904, March 28, 1222, I have seen no other reference to this important letter, which is printed in full in the Appendix below, II. Google Scholar

²⁰⁴ Pressutti 5122, October 8, 1224, augmented by Reg. Vat. 13 fol. 6^v (ep. ix.26) for the phrase ‘octo ibi tantummodo claustralibus remanentibus.’ 205 For examples of proctorial insufficiency, see Decretales Gregorii IX 1.38.12, in Corpus Juris Canonici II (ed. Friedberg, E. Leipzig 1881); Aegidius de Fuscarariis, Ordo Judiciarius (ca. 1260) in Wahrmund, L., Quellen zur Geschichte des römisch-kanonischen Processes im Mittelalter (Innsbruck 1905–1911) 3.1 p. 34 ch. 20 and p. 29 ch. 15. For a provocative discussion of the sufficient mandate, see Post, G., ‘Plena Potestas and Consent in Medieval Assemblies: A Study in Romano-Canonical Procedure and the Rise of Representation,’ Traditio 1 (1943) 388–390. Aegidius describes the difference between the nuntius and the procurator in this way: ‘… nuntius debet formare verba in personam domini, non autem sui ipsius; alioquin domino tenetur mandati. Sed procurator debet formare in personam suam … Item nuntius non datur ad causas agendas vel defendendas, sed procurator sic Praeterea nuntius dicitur, qui mittitur sine mandato et sine litteris …’: Aegidius, op. cit. 23–24 ch. 13. The distinction is not, however, as clear as Aegidius makes it seem: see Post, , Traditio 1. 366–368 for instances in which the two terms were considered equivalent.Google Scholar

²⁰⁶ The letter is abstracted in Potthast 5825, May 29, 1218; Pressutti 1391; Manrique IV 144. For a complete transcription see the Appendix below, I. Google Scholar

²⁰⁷ The letter is attributed to the pontificate of Gregory IX and is consequently dated 1234 by Manrique (IV 484). Google Scholar

²⁰⁸ Janin maintains that this was a church taken over by the Latins after the occupation: Janin, Ét. byz. 2.169. He feels that it may have been attached to the monastery of Bethlehem which is mentioned in certain late sources: Janin, Géographie 68. Dadeggio, E. d'Alessio also considers the establishment a church : Rev. d'ét. byz. 11.51. However, because it was never specifically called an ecclesia in the letters of Honorius, and because the official referred to is a prior, it seems more likely that the establishment was a monastery, perhaps the monastery of Bethlehem described by Janin, than that it was a church. It was not a Cistercian house, as Wolff states in Dumb. Oaks Pap. 8.279.Google Scholar

²⁰⁹ Pressutti 4540, October 24, 1223; Manrique IV 484; Santifaller, Beiträge 198 no. 85. See Janin, , Ét. byz. 2.179; Wolff, Dumb. Oaks Pap. 8.279 and the letter which Honorius wrote on October 19,1223 to the prelates and chapters of the universitas Francigenarum of Constantinople, announcing his decision (Pressutti 4536; Horoy, Hon. Op. I 385). The Patriarch evidently had a right to a portion of at least part of the bequests, as the saving clause of the letter implies: ‘… firmiter inhibentes ne in predictis aliquid fraudulenter in preiudicium cathedralis ecclesie procuretur.’ Presumably the Patriarch had been extending his rights over a larger area than they actually covered and had been collecting not only the portions of bequests to which he was entitled but also other parts to which he had no claim. I do not agree with Wolff that these categories of objects and money were all he had taken: Wolff, Dumb. Oaks Pap. 8.279. Since Horoy does not transcribe correctly and fully the portion of the letter describing the various categories, I present it here (Reg. Vat. 12 fol. 113: ep. viii. 71): ‘Cum igitur Episcopus et Cardinalis predicti, sicut ex eorum interpretatione accepimus, non intellexerint quod de hiis que in ornamentis ecclesiasticis vel ad fabricam ecclesie reparatione indigentem, Capellaniam, aut ad ecclesie luminaria necnon et de hiis que pro anniversario, septimo, tricesimo aut vicesimo faciendis vel de hiis que personis specialiter, nisi forsan id fiat ecclesie ratione, a quocumque legantur, aliqua deberet solvi portio ecclesie Cathedrali, nos interpretationem eorum ratam habentes, secundum ipsam constitutionem prefatam precipimus observari, firmiter inhibentes ne in predictis aliquid fraudulenter in preiudicium cathedralis ecclesie procuretur.’ The text, even in the Registers, is not good: it seems clear that ‘aut ad’ should be inserted before ‘Capellaniam’ and that ‘die’ should be read with ‘septimo,’ ‘tricesimo’ and ‘vicesimo’: see Leclercq, H., ‘Défunts,’ DACL 4.1.453 and Janin, as quoted in the next note.Google Scholar

²¹⁰ Potthast 9325, November 17, 1223; Pressutti 4563; Santifaller, Beiträge 199 no. 88 and 204 no. 14; Manrique IV 473. The letters to the monastery of St. Stephen and the convent of Percheio are attributed to the pontificate of Gregory and hence dated 1234 by Manrique. Manrique does not mention the letter to St. Angelus. Potthast did not note that the letter was sent to St. Mary of Percheio and St. Angelus as well as to St. Stephen and he mistakenly changed the date to 1233: Potthast 9325, November 17, 1233. Santifaller, following Potthast, accepted 1233 as the year of the letter; he misread Potthast's November as October and hence dated the letter October 17, 1233: Santifaller, Beiträge 204 no. 14. Janin accepts Potthast's dating for the letter to St. Stephen but, like Santifaller, misread November as October: Janin, Ét. byz. 2.181–182. Janin and Santifaller both differentiate between Pressutti 4563 and Potthast 9325, but they are the same letter: there is no record of the letter as abstracted in Potthast 9325 in either book vii or book viii of Auvray's edition of the Registers of Gregory IX; the wording of the abstracts of Pressutti and Potthast is virtually identical. Janin gives a misleading paraphrase of the contents of the letter to St. Stephen: he says that the Pope ‘interdit d'exiger, même pour l'entretien de l’église, la chapellenie ou le luminaire religieux une partie de ce qui est donné pour les anniversaires et les 7^e, 30^e et 20^e jours.” See p. 104 and n. 209 above. Manrique, Pressutti and Potthast fail to note the presence of the saving clause in their abstracts of the letter. Google Scholar

²¹¹ Pressutti 4564, November 17, 1223; Santifaller, Beiträge 199 no. 89. Google Scholar

²¹² See Wolff, , Dumb. Oaks Pap. 8.236–242.Google Scholar

²¹³ Pressutti 4543, October 26, 1223. See Santifaller, , Beiträge 151, 162.Google Scholar

²¹⁴ See Santifaller, , Beiträge 157.Google Scholar

²¹⁵ Pressutti 5436, April 10, 1225; Santifaller, Beiträge 201 no. 101. An unsummarized passage of the letter is printed by Wolff. Dumb. Oaks Pap. 8.280 n. 151, who also gives a full account of the law suit. Google Scholar

²¹⁶ In his letter of November 16, 1224 Honorius referred to the sentences issued by the dean of Boukoleon and his co-judges; in that of November 25, 1224 to those of the dean of Blachernae and his co-judges: Pressutti 5166 and 5175. Thus, there must have been at least three judges, as was the customary practice. In view of the letters referred to in the next note and of the fact that the dean of St. George of the Mangana was included in the sentences of excommunication of the dean and canon of Heracleia, it seems reasonable to suppose that the dean of St. George of the Mangana was co-judge with the other two deans. Google Scholar

²¹⁷ On July 14, 1222 Honorius ordered the deans of Boukoleon, Blachernae and St. George of the Mangana to enforce the constitutiones pro ecclesiarum statu which had been issued by Pelagius of Albano and John of St. Praxedes: Pressutti 4085. As has been seen, one of the constitutiones concerned the administration of bequests to churches. It is possible that it was by virtue of the position given them by the letter of July 14 that the deans issued the sentences: in both letters Honorius stated that they were acting as delegates of the Apostolic See, and in the letter of November 25, 1224 he revoked the conservatoriae litterae which the papacy had sent to the deans, implying that the deans had misused them: Pressutti 5175; Reg. Vat. 13 fol. 17^v-18^r (ep. ix. 89). Although Honorius also refers to the dean and canon of Heracleia as delegati a nobis, I have been unable to find the letter which outlined their duties. Google Scholar

²¹⁸ Pressutti 5175, November 25, 1224. Google Scholar

²¹⁹ The following sentence is not included in Pressutti's abstract: ‘Ceterum quia de conservatoriis litteris quas dictis Decanis sedes apostolica destinavit intelleximus scandalum suboriri, ipsas ducimus revocandas’: Reg. Vat. 13 fol. 13^v (ep. ix. 65). Google Scholar

²²⁰ Pressutti 5166, November 16, 1224. Pressutti does not include the following sentence in his abstract of the letter: ‘Et si aliqui forte qui post dictas sententias celebrantes conscientiam lesam habent ad vos duxerint recurrendum, cum eis auctoritate apostolica dispensetis’: Reg. Vat. 13 fol. 18^r (ep. ix. 89). Google Scholar

²²¹ Auvray, , Reg. Greg. 3618 April 29, 1237; Fontes III³ 299–300 no. 223.Google Scholar

²²² For a full account of the case, see Wolff, , Traditio 6.46–47.Google Scholar

²²³ Auvray, , Reg. Greg. 2530 April 27, 1235; Fontes III³ 287–288 no. 211.Google Scholar

²²⁴ Auvray, , Reg. Greg. 4702 January 4, 1239; cf. Fontes III³ 346 n. 5.Google Scholar

²²⁵ Auvray, , Reg. Greg. 5308 November 16, 1240; Fontes III³ 344–346 no. 264.Google Scholar

²²⁶ The first three Villehardouins who ruled Achaia were buried in this church. Miller suggests (Latins 91) that Geoffrey I's church was only ‘a modest chapel’ and that Geoffrey II's brother, William, built the larger church in which the Villehardouins were actually buried; thus Miller reconciles the conflicting testimony of this letter and of the Chronicle of Morea, which states that William built the church. Google Scholar

²²⁷ Strehlke, E., Tabulae Ordinis Theutonici (Berlin 1869) 134 no. 134.Google Scholar

²²⁸ Ibid. 134–136 nos. 134–136; Potthast 10452, September 16, 1237. The Archbishop of Patras strongly opposed the transfer: he was angry because the preceptor of the Teutonic Knights had acted in 1236 as a collector of a special tax for the defense of the Frankish states: see p. 109 below. The Archbishop was angered by the tax and in retaliation delayed considerably the occupation of the hospital and church by the Teutonic Order: see Gerland, , Patras 19 and 19 n. 3.Google Scholar

²²⁹ For the churches of the Amalfitans in Constantinople, see Janin, , Géographie 582–583.Google Scholar

²³⁰ Potthast 16937, July 21, 1257: Ughelli, It. Sac. 7.223; Pansa, F., Istoria dell’ antica repubblica d'Amalfi (Naples 1724) I 137–138; Santifaller, Beiträge 216 no. 10. See Heyd, W., Histoire du commerce du Levant au moyen-âge (2nd ed. Leipzig 1885–1886) I 295 and Janin, Ét. byz. 2.179.Google Scholar

²³¹ Wolff, , Dumb. Oaks Pap. 8.263, gives a clear explanation of the terms citra Macram and ultra Macram: Macri served as ‘a boundary point between the Latin Empire proper and the Kingdom of Thessalonica … what lay ultra Macram and therefore in the Kingdom of Thessalonica from the point of view of a person writing in Constantinople, lay citra Macram from the point of view of a person writing in Rome; what lay citra Macram and therefore in the Latin Empire proper from the point of view of a writer in Constantinople, lay ultra Macram from the point of view of a writer in Rome.’ This order was certainly drafted and issued in Rome.Google Scholar

²³² See Berger, E., Les registres d'Innocent IV (Paris 1884) 94; Bourel, C. de la Roncière, J. de Loye, Coulon, A., Les registres d'Alexandre IV (Paris 1902) 1087.Google Scholar

²³³ William was leading the Crusade on behalf of his half-brother, Demetrius, the former king of Thessalonica: Longnon, Empire 162–163; Miller, Latins 81–85; see also Pressutti 5186, November 28, 1224, Fontes III³ 172–175 no. 128. Nicol, D. M. describes the dismal fate of the unsuccessful crusade in his book, The Despotate of Epiros (Oxford 1957) 60–64.Google Scholar

²³⁴ ‘ … ultra Maeram, tam in regia civitate quam extra imperatori Constantinopolitano:’ Pressutti 5186; Fontes III³ 174.Google Scholar

²³⁵ Pressutti 5186; Fontes III³ 172–175 no. 128. Google Scholar

²³⁶ Longnon, , Empire 172–175; Miller, Latins 89–90. See Potthast 10072, December 30, 1235: Manrique ΙV 504; Sbaralea, J., Bullarium Franciscanum (Rome 1759) I 180 no. 186. In December, 1235 the abbot of St. Thomas of Torcello, the mother house of St. Stephen, had been appointed coadjutor to aid William, a papal penitentiary, to raise French forces quickly for the relief of the Empire.Google Scholar

²³⁷ Miller, , Latins 89–90; Gardner, Lascarids 148–151.Google Scholar

²³⁸ Potthast 10279, December 23, 1236: Manrique IV 526–527. Google Scholar

²³⁹ Potthast 10280, December 23, 1236: Manrique IV 527; Fontes III³ 292–293 no. 217. See Gerland, , Patras 19 and 19 nn. 3 and 4.Google Scholar

²⁴⁰ See 101–102 above. Google Scholar

²⁴¹ Auvray, , Reg. Greg. 2671 July 12, 1235; ibid. 3214, July 27, 1236; ibid. 3583, March 30, 1237; ibid. 4390, May 26, 1238; ibid. 5204, June 1, 1240; ibid. 6085, July 8, 1241. Auvray 3583 and 4390 are also printed in Lampros, op. cit. (n. 190 above) 37–38, 40–42 nos. 24 and 26. Canivez describes these events but, since he does not take account of Auvray 6085, he states that the case was terminated when the property was awarded to Daphni in June, 1240: Canivez, J. M., ‘Daphni,’ DHGE 14.79.Google Scholar

²⁴² The influence of Burgundian architecture in Greece may be seen in the porch added to the monastery of Daphni by the Cistercians: Millet, Daphni 57–58; Longnon, Empire 118–119; Enlart, G., ‘Quelques monuments d'architecture gothique en Grèce,’ Revue de l'art chrétien ⁴ 8 (1897) 309–310.Google Scholar

²⁴³ See canon 12 of the Fourth Lateran Council for the praise bestowed by the Council upon the annual meetings of the Chapter General: Hefele, Histoire V² 1342. Google Scholar

²⁴⁴ For these provisions see, respectively, Canivez, Statuta I xxviii no. xv; ibid. I xxviii-xxix nos. XVI-XX; ibid. I 459 no. 49; ibid. I 468 no. 14.Google Scholar

²⁴⁵ Canivez, , Statuta I xxvii no. x, I 20–21 no. XXXIII. and I xxix no. XXI; Paris, J., Monasticon Cisterciense seu antiquiores ordinis Cisterciensis constitutiones (ed. H. Séjalon, Solesmes 1893) 322–323 no. 2.Google Scholar

²⁴⁶ Canivez, , Statuta I 49 no. 26; see Canivez, DDC 3.755.Google Scholar

²⁴⁷ Canivez, , Statuta I 468 no. 14; Paris, op. cit. 310 dist. v, no. 3.Google Scholar

²⁴⁸ Canivez, , Statuta I 459 no. 47.Google Scholar

²⁴⁹ See Millet, , Daphni 33 n. 4, where two charters sealed by the two abbots are printed.Google Scholar

²⁵⁰ Canivez, , Statuta II 236–237 no. 35; ibid. III 12–13 no. 18; Riant, Exuviae II 149 no. 97.Google Scholar

²⁵¹ Ughelli, , It. Sac. 7.707–708. I have been unable to determine whether he was the same Abbot John who was at Bellevaux in 1250.Google Scholar

²⁵² Canivez, , Statuta III 12–13 no. 18. In 1232 Syrian abbots were instructed to attend only every seventh meeting of the Chapter General: Canivez, Statuta II 103 no. 18. Cahen, Syrie 669 (note 22 above), relying on Janauschek 217–218, misdates the regulation as 1222.Google Scholar

²⁶⁸ See p. 95 and n. 179 above. Google Scholar

²⁵⁴ Canivez, , Statuta II 432 no. 39.Google Scholar

²⁵⁶ See 115 below. Google Scholar

²⁶⁶ The Chapter General defined the punishment for leviores culpae in this way: ‘Fratres qui in leviori culpa sunt, de labore remaneant propter satisfactionem, qui etiam cum satisfaciunt, toto corpore extenso prosternantur diebus quibus conventus prosternitur super formas, ceteris vero diebus stantes incurventur. Extra refectorium comedant in loco quo abbati visum fuerit; qui post refectionem servitorum neque ad biberes eant cum aliis, neque illi qui pro versu perdito in poenitentia sunt, sed post alios eant bibere in refectorio’: Canivez, Statuta I 28 no. LXV. See Canivez, J. M., DDC 3.780.Google Scholar

²⁵⁷ Canivez, , Statuta II 451 no. 12.Google Scholar

²⁵⁸ See Canivez, DDG 3.756; Canivez, Statuta II 85 no. 6 (1230), II 113 no. 10 (1233), II 168–169 no. 1 (1237), II 186 no. 4 (1238). For the complete provision of 1276 see Canivez, , Statuta III 151–152 no. 2. It reads, in part: ‘Multiplices et graves excessus monachorum qui mittuntur ad visitandum, quamvis visitatores non debeant nominari, ulterius ferre non valens Capitulum generale, statuit et ordinat idem Capitulum generale ut de cetero non nisi de quadriennio in quadriennium ad partes remotas transmittantur, et per illud quadrienniuin vicinis abbatibus committantur, qui manus suas taliter ab omni suspecto munere excutiant, ne manum ultionis in eos extendere oporteat Capitulum generale.’ Millet states that this statute authorized visitation by ‘une commission de moines … pour les filles éloignées, tous les quatre ans, à condition de les faire visiter dans l'intervalle par des abbés du pays’: Millet, Daphni 34. I believe that he misinterprets the clause, ‘per illud quadriennium vicinis abbatibus committantur’: first, he takes no account of the previous regulations of the Chapter General requiring neighboring abbots to accompany the visiting monks; second, the subject of the clause can only be monachi; third, annual visitation of Greek houses had not been required since 1217. Also, for later pronouncements confirming my interpretation, see Canivez, , Statuta III 378 no. 6 (1327) and III 380 no. 4 (1328).Google Scholar

²⁵⁹ Canivez, , Statuta III 154 no. 12 and 165 no. 12.Google Scholar

²⁶⁰ Ibid. II 89 no. 24.Google Scholar

²⁶¹ See n. 256 above. Google Scholar

²⁶² Canivez, , Statuta II 95 no. 24.Google Scholar

²⁶³ Ibid. II 236 no. 31.Google Scholar

²⁶⁴ Ibid. II 236 no. 35.Google Scholar

²⁶⁵ This phrase did not come to be an accepted and integral part of the querela formula until 1248, although there are scattered instances of the use of the similar phrase, in plenitudine potestatis, before that date: Canivez, Statuta II 147 no. 33 (1235) and II 254 no. 49 (1242). Google Scholar

²⁶⁶ Ibid. II 470 no. 38.Google Scholar

²⁶⁷ In MS de Fusiensis: see ibid. II 473 n. 12. Google Scholar

²⁶⁸ Ibid. II 473 no. 58.Google Scholar

²⁶⁹ Ibid. I 397 no. 36. See p. 86 above.Google Scholar

²⁷⁰ See the list referred to in n. 164 above: Winter, Die Cistercienser III 179 no. 63 and Canivez, DHGE 12.861. See also Chevalier, U., Répertoire des sources historiques du moyen âge: Topo-bibliographie II (Montbéliard 1903) 2665–2666 s. v. ‘Saint-Antoine-des-Champs’ and references in Canivez, Statuta VIII 447 s. v. ‘Sancti Antonii Parisiensis abb. monial. cist.’Google Scholar

²⁷¹ Manrique IV 341. Google Scholar

²⁷² Riant, , Exuviae II 144 no. 93; L. d'Achéry, Spicilegium sive collectio veterum aliquot scriptorum qui in Galliae bibliothecis delituerant III (ed. Baluze, S., Martène, E. L. F. G. de la Barre, Paris, 1723) 642. See Miller, . Latins 115; Lenormant, F., ‘Le monastère de Daphni, près d'Athènes, sous la domination des princes croisés,’ Revue archéologique n. s. 24 (1872) 237–238.Google Scholar

²⁷³ Riant, , Exuviae II 146 no. 95; d'Achéry, loc. cit Google Scholar

²⁷⁴ Riant, , Exuviae II 148 no. 96; d'Achéy, op. cit. III 641.Google Scholar

²⁷⁵ Wolff, R. L. (Speculum 29.65 n. 46) refers to the men as ‘two abbots of Cistercian houses in Greece’ although Bellevaux was in Burgundy. For other relics brought from Greece to Cistercian monasteries in the West, see the letter dated June 3, 1215 written by Hugh of Clairvaux, former abbot of St. Ghislain and chancellor of the Latin Empire, describing Henry of Constantinople's gift of a portion of the True Cross to Clairvaux: Riant, Exuviae II 99–100 no. 40. See also the list of relics brought by Hugh from Constantinople and the catalogue of those which Artandus, cellarer of Clairvaux, brought back to Clairvaux on his return from the Fourth Crusade: Riant, Exuviae II 193–197. Manrique (IV 201–202) prints a list of the relics acquired by Clairvaux before 1221.Google Scholar

²⁷⁶ See 111–112 above. Google Scholar

²⁷⁷ See p. 95 and n. 174 above. Google Scholar

²⁷⁸ Although Gergeri was occupied by Cistercians for several hundred years, it seems likely that St. Mary Varangorum had been abandoned at least by 1340: see n. 297 below. In 1340 Bartholomeo Gradenigo, doge of Venice, confirmed Venice's gift of Gergeri to St. Thomas of Torcello: Cornaro, Eccl. Torc. I 197; Santifaller, Beiträge 99. He failed even to mention St. Mary Varangorum. Had the Cistercians still been occupying the house, he would probably have confirmed that donation as well. There is no trace of the house after 1230. Google Scholar

²⁷⁹ See p. 90 above. Google Scholar

²⁸⁰ Auvray, , Reg. Greg. 1618 December 13, 1233.Google Scholar

²⁸¹ See Longnon, J., ‘La reprise de Salonique par les grecs en 1224,’ Actes du VI congrès internationale d'études byzantines I (Paris 1950) 141–146; Sinogowitz, B., ‘Zur Eroberung Thessalonikes im Herbst 1224,’ Byzantinische Zeitschrift 45 (1952) 28; Nicol, Epiros (n. 233 above) 63 and 73–74 n. 42.Google Scholar

²⁸² Auvray, , loc. cit. Google Scholar

²⁸³ Longnon, , Empire 220–222; Miller, Latins 102–118; Bury, J. B., ‘The Lombards and Venetians in Euboia I,’ Journal of Hellenic Studies 7 (1886) 326–328.Google Scholar

²⁸⁴ See p. 114 above. Google Scholar

²⁸⁵ See p. 90 and n. 139 and p. 114 above. Google Scholar

^285a See Canivez, DDC 3.762 and Canivez, Statuta I 137 no. 17 (1191). Google Scholar

^285b See n. 126 above. ²⁸⁶ Potthast 19468, November 26, 1265. Google Scholar

²⁸⁷ Garampi's statement that these events took place in 1275 is false and was made because of his dependence on the ‘MCCLXXV’ in the document which he prints: Garampi, op. cit. (n. 156 above) 365. This is obviously a slip of the pen for MCCLXV. Google Scholar

²⁸⁸ See Ughelli, , It. Sac. 2.424.Google Scholar

²⁸⁹ Garampi notes that, in the legend which he is discussing, the church is said to have been occupied ca. 1300 ‘da alcune digne et nobile Madonne de Francia’: Garampi, Memorie 367–368. He thinks it likely that the nuns who fled from Greece were French and that this statement refers to them; he feels, however, that it is possible that the nuns who came from Constantinople were Greek and had been replaced by French nuns by 1300. See ibid. 369–370 for evidence concerning the history of St. Mary in Muro in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Google Scholar

²⁹⁰ Garampi, , Memorie 365–366.Google Scholar

²⁹¹ Capasso, B., ‘Pianta della città di Napoli nel secolo XI,’ Archivio storico per le province napoletane 17 (1892) 874.Google Scholar

²⁹² Neither the account given by Ughelli, It. Sac. 6.103–104 nor that presented by S. d'Aloe in ‘Catalogo di tutti gli edifizi sacri della città di Napoli e suoi sobborghi …,’ Archivio storico per le province napoletane 8 (1883) 543, is trustworthy: Ughelli, for example, says that the house had formerly been Basilian and was Cistercian in 1203. See Capasso, , loc. cit. Google Scholar

²⁹³ Minieri, C.-Riccio, ‘II regno di Carlo 1° d'Angiò dal 2 Gennaio 1273 al 31 Dicembre 1283,’ Archivio storico italiano ⁴ 1 (1878) 232. This gift was confirmed in 1294 by Charles II of Anjou: Capasso, Arch. stor. prov. nap. 17.874–875 n. 5; Ughelli, It. Sac. 6.104.Google Scholar

²⁹⁴ Capasso, , Arch. stor. prov. nap. 17. 874–875. See also the account given by Savio, Riv. stor. ben. 7.385. Janin, following Du Cange, states that Ughelli, in his history of the Archbishopric of Naples, cites a document which proves that in 1334 there was a convent of Cistercian nuns in the district of Petrion in Constantinople: Janin, Ét. byz. 2.183. Janin suggests that ‘Petrion’ be changed to ‘Percheio’ but hesitates to accept the document, because he feels it most unlikely that the convent should have survived the defeat of the Latins. The document cited by Ughelli refers, of course, to the nuns of the Church of St. Mary of Perchelo: it is taken from the register of Robert of Naples and concerns the church established by the fugitive nuns at Naples.Google Scholar

²⁹⁵ See 94–95 above. Google Scholar

²⁹⁶ See Wolff, , Traditio 2.213–237; Tisserant, Rev. Or. chr. 24.336–355; Wadding, L. Annales Minorum seu Trium Ordinum a Francisco S. Institutorum 4 (ed. Fonseca, J. M., 3rd ed. Quaracchi 1931) 226–234 no. 203; 235–236 no. 210; 236–237 no. 211, Potthast 18605, 18606, 18607, 18608, July 28, 1263. Cf. Millet, Daphni 36–37 and Janin, Géographie 588–590.Google Scholar

²⁹⁷ The history of Daphni after 1277 is outlined by Canivez, J. M. in DGHE 14.80. See also Lenormant, Rev. archéol. n s. 24.279. Gergeri was still a daughter house of St. Thomas in 1340 and the foundation may have remained Cistercian into the fifteenth century; it is possible that it survived until 1669; Cornaro, Eccl. Torc. I 197; Santifaller, Beiträge 99–100.Google Scholar