(The Medieval Mediterranean 114) Filip Van Tricht - The Horoscope of Emperor Baldwin II-Brill (2018)

The Horoscope of Emperor Baldwin II
The Medieval Mediterranean

Peoples, Economies and Cultures, 400–1500
Managing Editor
Frances Andrews (St. Andrews)
Editors
Tamar Herzig (Tel Aviv)

Paul Magdalino (St. Andrews)
Larry J. Simon (Western Michigan University)
Daniel Lord Smail (Harvard University)
Jo Van Steenbergen (Ghent University)
Advisory Board
David Abulafia (Cambridge)

Benjamin Arbel (Tel Aviv)
Hugh Kennedy (soas, London)
volume 114
The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/mmed

The Horoscope of Emperor
Baldwin II
Political and Sociocultural Dynamics in
Latin-Byzantine Constantinople
By
Filip Van Tricht
leiden | boston
Cover illustration: Natal chart of Emperor Baldwin II of Courtenay /BnF, fr. 1353, f. 4v.
With kind permission of the Bibliothèque nationale de France.
The Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available online at http://catalog.loc.gov
Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface.
ISSN 0928-5520
ISBN 978-90-04-37244-3 (hardback)
ISBN 978-90-04-38318-0 (e-book)
Copyright 2019 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi,
Brill Sense, Hotei Publishing, mentis Verlag, Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh and Wilhelm Fink Verlag.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,
without prior written permission from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided
that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite
910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change.
This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

To my sweet wife,
the love of my life
∵
Contents
Preface ix
Introduction 1
1 Manuscript Tradition, Authorship, Date & Aim 6
Part 1
Political Dynamics
2 A Byzantine-Style Imperial Ideology 27
3 Internal Rivalries at Court 50
4 Attempts at Geopolitical Restauration 81
Part 2
Cultural Dynamics
5 The Astrological Corpus: Western and Byzantine Influences 97
6 Literature and Sciences in Latin-Byzantine Constantinople 131
7 The Arts and Artistic Production in Latin-Byzantine

Constantinople 186
Conclusion 208
Part 3
Appendixes
1 Astrological poem 217

2 Horoscope of Baldwin II of Courtenay 228
3 Introductoire d’Astronomie: Selected Chapters 235
Bibliography 253
Index 292
Preface
This book started out as an article with only a limited scope. I originally in-
tended it as a short commentary on the potential of a little known corpus of
source texts. It was admittedly somewhat by chance that I myself came across
this astronomical/astrological material. While I immediately realized its rel-
evance for the study of various aspects of the geopolitical entity that has be-
come known in modern historiography as the Latin empire of Constantinople
(1204–1261), at the same time the “new” information these texts contain regard-
ing the political, social and cultural history of in particular Latin-Byzantine
Constantinople at first seemed rather modest (and in a way still does).
But gradually one thing led to another. The various in themselves small piec-
es of new information which I touched upon each seemed to require further
research and ample contextualization in order to let or make them truly speak.
The writing of this book in a way resembled a game of domino: one little block
making another one tumble and then yet another one and so forth. Ultimately
it seemed that this corpus of texts provided an ideal starting point for a more
comprehensive study of aspects of both the political and sociocultural life dur-
ing the later decades of Latin rule in Constantinople.
In that sense this book is the chronological follow-up to my study of the
empire of Constantinople under the Latin emperors during its first decades
(1204–1228). However, by giving a central place to a specific set of source ma-
terials my angle this time is different. While in my previous effort I adopted a
rigid systematic approach with a well-defined set of research questions and
a focus on institutions and prosopography, here my working method will be
more like that of a microstudy. The mentioned corpus of texts will function as
the glue holding everything together, while I address a wide variety of topics
and larger questions relating to Constantinopolitan Latin-Byzantine society.
It is my intended aim to in this way provide a complementary view to the
results I presented in my earlier work. Both books should be seen as two parts
of one whole, each with its own chronological and methodological focus.
This is also the place to express my gratitude to the Department of History at
the University of Ghent for providing research facilities, especially prof. dr.
Thérèse de Hemptinne and her husband prof. dr. Marc Boone. Gratitude also
to the recently departed prof. dr. David Jacoby from the Hebrew University of
Jerusalem—a true pioneer in the study of Latin Romania.
Of course I would also like to thank my dear ones, who unavoidably have
suffered most of the collateral damage associated with writing and finishing
x Preface
a book, such as an improper measure of absentmindedness during cosy fam-

ily moments and the misuse of our sanitary facilities in order to quietly read
books and articles.
First and foremost I thank my lovely wife Borg, who still struggles somewhat
to genuinely sympathize with the peculiar attraction medieval Constantinople
holds for her husband. I am fully aware that dedicating this work to her will not
be considered as sufficient compensation.
Secondly I am also grateful to my two children, “May the force be with you”
Stan (or Constantine the Great as I sometimes call him) and our valiant and
divine little princess Juno Guinevere, for the daily happiness they effortlessly
provide and who every holiday in France must undergo at least one lecture on
how this knight or that cleric of this castle or that abbey we visit also partici-
pated in the Fourth Crusade or later expeditions to Latin Romania. I also need
to thank our golden retriever Gonzo for the understanding she has shown me
for sometimes preferring to continue working on this study instead of perma-
nently petting her as evidently I should have done.
Finally, I must show my continuing gratitude to both my dear father, who
sadly passed away during the writing of this book and whom I miss dearly, and
my dear mother for the love, care and chances they have always provided me
with.
Filip Van Tricht

Melle, October 2018
Introduction
In April 1204 the Fourth Crusade army captured Constantinople. Count Bald-
win of Flanders and Hainaut was elected and crowned as emperor.1 In the
following months other parts of the Byzantine empire were conquered and
divided among the Crusade’s principal leaders and participants as feudal prin-
cipalities and baronies. Until around 1217 the new regime succesfully struggled
to assume a role as aspirant-hegemon in the Byzantine space, but from around
1218 decline set in with the kingdom of Thessaloniki, the Rhodopes region, the
principalities of Philippopolis and Adrianople-Didymoteichon, and the great-
er part of northwestern Asia Minor being lost by 1224/1227 to the rival rulers of
Epiros and Nicaea.2 The Byzantine capital and its hinterland remained under a
Latin imperial dynasty for three more decades until its capture by the Nicaean
emperor Michael viii Paleologos (1259–1282) in 1261. Other, initially feudally
dependent territories—such as the principality of Achaia, the duchy of Ath-
ens, the duchy of Naxos, and a number of Venetian possessions (among others
Euboia and Crete)—would manage to survive for centuries.
Although a substantial number of books and articles have been de-
voted to various aspects of its history, many facets of the Latin empire of
Constantinople—as it came to be called in modern historiography—still re-
main rather obscure or unexplored.3 This is especially true for the later decades.
1 The Fourth Crusade’s bibliography is very extensive. A number of recent studies: Donald E.
Queller and Thomas F. Madden, The Fourth Crusade. The Conquest of Constantinople, 2nd
ed. (Philadelphia, 1997); Michael Angold, The Fourth Crusade: Event and Context (Harlow,
2003); Jonathan Phillips, The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople (London, 2005).
Overviews of existing historiography: Donald E. Queller, The Latin conquest of Constantino-
ple (New York, 1971); Thomas F. Madden, “Outside and inside the fourth crusade,” Interna-
tional History Review 17 (1995), 726–743; Michel Balard, “L’historiographie occidentale de la
quatrième croisade,” in Angeliki E. Laiou, ed., Urbs Capta. The Fourth Crusade and its conse-
quences (Paris, 2005), 161–174. The crusade’s 800th anniversary also produced several collec-
tions of articles in the past decade: Angeliki Laiou, ed., Urbs Capta. The Fourth Crusade and
its consequences (Paris, 2005); Gherardo Ortalli, Giorgio Ravegnani, and Peter Schreiner, eds.,
Quarta crociata. Venezia, Bisanzio, Impero latino, 2 vols. (Venice, 2006); Thomas F. Madden,
ed., The Fourth Crusade: Event, Aftermath, and Perceptions. Papers from the Sixth Conference of
the Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East, Istanbul, Turkey, 25–29 August 2004,
Crusades, Subsidia 2 (Aldershot, 2008).
2 See my book on the empire’s early period: Filip Van Tricht, The Latin Renovatio of Byzantium.
The Empire of Constantinople (1204–1228), The Medieval Mediterranean 90 (Leiden, 2011).
3 Some recent authors and studies: Erica Gilles, “‘Nova Francia?’ Kinship and Identity among
the Frankish Aristocracy in Conquered Byzantium, 1204–1282,” PhD diss. (Ann Arbor, 2010);
© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��9 | doi:10.1163/9789004383180_002

2 Introduction
The most recent and virtually the only major contribution dealing specifically
with Latin-Byzantine Constantinople’s later years remains an article by Robert
Lee Wolff, who takes the mortgage of Philip of Courtenay, son and heir of Em-
peror Baldwin ii, to a number of Venetian merchants as a starting point to
discuss aspects of internal and external imperial politics from the late 1240s.4
Recently a number of valuable studies on the Latin empire and Latin Con-
stantinople have appeared, but these generally tend to treat the entire period
1204–1261 as an indivisible whole, with only modest attention being devoted
to the later decades. Among these: Erica Gilles studies Latin Constantinople
using the novel concept of settler identity;5 Nikolaos Chrissis focuses on pa-
pal crusading policy with regard to Latin Romania;6 Stefan Burkhardt’s mono-
graph introduces the theoretical concept of imperiale Ordnungen to analyze
Nikolaos G. Chrissis, Crusading in Frankish Greece. A Study of Byzantine-Western Relations

and Attitudes 1204–1282, Medieval Church Studies 22 (Leuven, 2013); Stefan Burkhardt, Medi-
terranes Kaisertum und imperiale Ordnungen. Das lateinische Kaiserreich von Konstantino-
pel, Europa im Mittelalter. Abhandlungen und Beiträge zur historischen Komparatistik 25
(Berlin, 2014). Various articles by Guillaume Saint-Guillain: Guillaume Saint-Guillain, “Deux
îles grecques au temps de l’empire latin. Andros et Lemnos au XIIIe siècle,” Mélanges de
l’école française de Rome. Moyen Âge 113 (2001) 579–620; idem, “Les conquérants de l’archipel:
l’empire latin de Constantinople, Venise et les premiers seigneurs des Cylades,” in Ortalli,
Ravegnani, and Schreiner, eds, Quarta crociata 1: 125–137; idem, “Comment les Vénitiens n’ont
pas acquis la Crète: note à propos de l’élection impériale de 1204 et du partage projeté de
l’Empire byzantin,” Travaux et Mémoires 16 (2010) 713–758. Some older but still influential
authors and works: Jean Longnon, L’empire latin de Constantinople (Paris, 1949); Robert L.
Wolff, Studies in the Latin Empire of Constantinople (London, 1976); Antonio Carile, Per una
storia dell’impero latino di Constantinopoli (1204–1261), 2nd ed., Il mondo medievale. Sezione
di storia bizantina e slava 2 (Bologna, 1978); David Jacoby, “The Venetian Government and
Administration in Latin Constantinople, 1204–1261: A State within a State,” in Ortalli, Raveg-
nani, and Schreiner, eds., Quarta crociata 1: 19–79 (with references to the author’s numer-
ous other articles); Benjamin Hendrickx, “Regestes des empereurs latins de Constantinople
(1204–1261/1271),” Byzantina 14 (1988) 7–221 (also with references to the author’s numerous
other contributions).
4 Robert L. Wolff, “Mortgage and Redemption of an Emperor’s son. Castile and the Latin Em-
pire of Constantinople,” Speculum 29 (1954) 45–84. With the term “Latin-Byzantine” I wish
to convey the notion that Constantinople in the period 1204–1261 can be characterized as
having a decidedly mixed identity (demography, government/administration, ecclesiastical
institutions, etc.). I use the term “Byzantines” as an equivalent of “East Romans,” referring to
people from lands belonging to (or claimed by) the Eastern empire and with a political or
religious attachment to its central authorities (emperor, patriarch). The term “Latins” refers
to people with roots in Western Europe and belonging to the Roman Church. See also my
discussion of the terms Romaios / Romanus in Chapter 6.
5 Gilles, “‘Nova Francia?’” 265–305.
6 Chrissis, Crusading in Frankish Greece (passim).
Introduction 3
the empire’s political structure.7 To my knowledge only David Jacoby made a

number of contributions specifically relating to the two decades leading up to
1261, studying the economic situation of the “Queen of Cities,” and in particu-
lar of its Venetian quarter.8
Partly this lack in our knowledge of later Latin-Byzantine Constantinople is
the consequence of meager sources. As is well known to students of the Latin
empire, sources are scant beginning in 1204, and the situation worsens for the
next decades, especially for the years after 1240 when only a limited number of
charters and a few scattered passages or references in various chronicles and
other types of sources are available. Sources originating in Constantinople or
in the empire itself are virtually non-existent.9 In this context it is remarkable
that a trio of closely related documents stemming from the immediate entou-
rage of Emperor Baldwin ii of Courtenay (1240–1273) has until now remained
virtually unused by scholars dealing with Latin Romania. The source material
in question consists of a horoscope, which presumes to predict the said emper-
or’s life and future, its versified résumé which starts off as a concise introduc-
tion to astronomy and astrology, and a longer prose treatise on astronomy and
astrology dedicated to and written on behalf of the same emperor. All three
texts are written in Old French.
In other academic fields however—literary history and the history of
science—a limited number of authors have devoted attention to the texts. To
my knowledge Paulin Paris was the first to signal their existence with his lem-
ma on the horoscope and its accompanying astrological treatise dedicated to
Baldwin ii in a volume of the encyclopedic Histoire Littéraire de la France (1847),
quoting passages from the horoscope’s versified summary.10 A few decades
later Paul Edouard Riant mentioned the horoscope in his overview of archival
7 Burkhardt, Mediterranes Kaisertum und imperiale Ordnungen, 374–375. See my review: F.

Van Tricht, in The Medieval Review, 15.09.21 (https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.
php/tmr/article/view/20017/26139).
8 See, for example, David Jacoby, “The Economy of Latin Constantinople, 1204–1261,” in
Laiou, Urbs capta, 195–214; idem, “Venetian settlers in Latin Constantinople (1204–1261):
Rich or Poor?” in Chrysa A. Maltezou, ed., Ricchi e poveri nella società dell’Oriente greco-
latino, Biblioteca dell’Instituto ellenico di Studi bizantini e postbizantini di Venezia 19
(Venice, 1998), 181–204; idem, “The Urban Evolution of Latin Constantinople (1204–1261),”
in Nevra Necipoglu, ed., Byzantine Constantinople: Monuments, Topography and Everyday
Life (Leiden, 2001), 277–297.
9 For a general overview of the available sources for the Latin empire: Van Tricht, The Latin
Renovatio of Byzantium, 4–12. See also Hendrickx, “Regestes des empereurs latins de Con-
stantinople” (passim).
10 Paulin Paris, “Astrologue anonyme,” in Histoire Littéraire de la France 21 (Paris, 1847),
423–433.
4 Introduction
materials available for students of the Latin Orient (1884).11 In the 1920s Pierre
Duhem wrote extensive commentaries on the texts in his monumental Le sys-
tème du monde.12 In 1973 Maxime Préaud edited both the horoscope and the
introductory astrological poem in the ephemeral journal on medieval astrol-
ogy and sorcery Anagrom.13 Stephen Dörr in 1998 edited part of the astronomi-
cal and astrological treatise, in the process also commenting on the horoscope,
and is in the process of preparing a complete edition.14 Jean-Patrice Boudet in
his 2008 article on princely horoscopes makes brief mention of Baldwin’s horo-
scope, but without offering any new insights.15 In 2010 Charles Burnett sum-
marily discussed the treatise in an article dealing with the translation of astro-
logical works in Byzantium.16 Recently the entire manuscript containing the
horoscope, the astrological treatise, and its versified introduction was made
available online through the Gallica database of the Parisian Bibliothèque na-
tionale, which is accessible to the general public.
In the present study I intend to use this “new” set of texts as a beginning
point to broaden our knowledge of various aspects of the history of 13th-century
Latin-Byzantine Constantinople. In the first chapter I propose a new date of
composition for the horoscope and the accompanying documents, identifying
them as originating in the Latin capital around 1260. This will be essential for
my further evaluation of the texts. In the process I will also discuss authorship,
context, and aim. The rest of the book is divided into two main parts, each treat-
ing a thematic domain for which these sources provide important new infor-
mation. The first part will deal with various aspects of imperial politics, with
the second chapter focusing on the nature of the Latin emperors’ and especial-
ly Baldwin ii’s political ideology. In the third chapter I investigate elements of
the internal politics, and factional strife in particular, at the Constantinopolitan
11 Paul E. Riant, “Inventaire sommaire des manuscrits relatifs à l’histoire et à la géographie

de l’Orient latin,”Archives de l’Orient latin 2 (1884) 147.
12 Pierre Duhem, Le système du monde. Histoire des doctrines cosmologiques de Platon à Co-
pernic (Paris, 1913–1959), 3:130–152, 8:399–416.
13 Maxime Préaud, “L’horoscope de Baudoin de Courtenay, empereur latin d’Orient,” Anag-
rom 3–4 (1973) 9–45.
14 Stephen Dörr, Der alteste Astronomietraktat in franzosischer Sprache: L’Introductoire
d’astronomie. Edition und lexikalische Analyse, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Romanische
Philologie 289 (Tübingen, 1998). The author has announced an edition of the entire trea-
tise in the series Classiques français du Moyen Âge (Champion).
15 Jean-Patrice Boudet, “Les horoscopes princiers dans l’Occident médiéval (XIIe-XVe siè-
cle), ” Micrologus 16 (2008) 373–395.
16 Charles Burnett, “Astrological Translations in Byzantium,” in Actes du symposium inter-
national “Le Livre. La Roumanie. L’Europe.” 4ème édition, 20–23 Septembre 2011 (Bucharest,
2012), 3:178–183.
Introduction 5
court during the reigns of John of Brienne and Baldwin ii. The fourth chap-
ter examines aspects of the empire’s foreign policies, focusing on the diplo-
matic relations with Alfonso x of Castile. The second part will treat cultural,
intellectual, and artistic life in the Queen of Cities on the verge of the Nicaean
(re)conquest of 1261, with the fifth chapter discussing possible Western and
Byzantine influences on our corpus of texts. Next I contextualize my findings
by analyzing cultural life in general in mid-13th-century Constantinople in the
sixth chapter, with a discussion of literature and science, and with painting in
the seventh chapter a picture of the arts under the Latin emperors.
In conclusion I synthesize the main insights that my analysis of this broad
selection of topics—dependent on the content and character of the corpus
of astrological texts—has yielded. In this way I hope to make a meaningful
contribution to our understanding of the nature of Latin-Byzantine Con-
stantinopolitan society as it developed after 1204. In three appendixes I pro-
vide an edition of both Baldwin ii’s horoscope, the verse introduction to the
astrological/astronomical treatise, and a partial edition of the treatise, focus-
ing on those chapters that are the most interesting from the perspective of the
Latin empire’s political and sociocultural history (as opposed to a history of
science approach).
Chapter 1
Manuscript Tradition, Authorship, Date & Aim
The combination of the interrelated horoscope, versified introduction, and

astrological treatise has, as far as I know, come down to us in only a single
manuscript, which has been dated to the last third of the 13th century.1 The
manuscript first contains the introduction, then the treatise, next four astro-
logical texts by three well-known Arabic scholars translated into Old French
(from the Latin versions of these texts), and lastly the horoscope.2 It seems
clear that the grouping of these texts in a single manucript was not haphazard
but purposeful, with the intention of presenting them as a unit. This is borne
out by the sequence of the texts: first the short introductory poem on both
astrology and on Baldwin’s horoscope (which explicitly refers to the following
text), secondly the original general treatise in prose on astronomy and astrol-
ogy, thirdly specialized translated texts on different aspects of the astrological
science (natal astrology, the influence of eclipses, the influence of conjunctions
of celestial bodies, etc.), and finally as a sort of culmination the horoscope it-
self and its interpretation, following the rules elucidated in the previous texts.
The preserved manuscript, nevertheless, does not appear to be the auto-
graph version. In the astrological prose treatise, in a number of places, remarks
in the same hand have been written in the margins. For example, concerning
three hypotheses explaining the retrogradation of planets the scribe notes in
the margin: ces opinions retornent tout a un. It seems unlikely that an author
1 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fr. 1353. See also Duhem, Le système du monde, 3:132;
Préaud, “L’horoscope de Baudoin de Courtenay,” 10; Dörr, Der älteste Astronomietraktat, 8–9.
2 The translated Arabic treatises contained in BnF, fr. 1353 are: (a) Li livres Abu Ali des nativ-
itez des enfenz de lor fortune (f. 66r-f. 80v), translated (probably) from the Latin translation
(1153) by John of Sevilla, an important member of what has been called the Toledo School
of Translators, entitled Albohali de judiciis nativitatum liber unus, originally written by the
Arabic scholar Abu Ali al-Khayyat (circa 770–835) under the title Kitab al-Mawalid (or “Book
of Nativities”); (b) Li epistles Messehala es choses de l’eclipse del Soloil et de la Lune es con-
junctions des planets (f. 80v-f. 83r), translated from Sevilla’s translation entitled Epistola de
rebus eclipsium et de conjunctionibus planetarum, originally composed by the Persian Jewish
scholar Masha’allah (circa 762–815); (c) Li livre des flors de Abumaxar (f. 83r-f. 94v), trans-
lated from Sevilla’s Albumasaris flores astrologiae, itself a translation of the Kitab tahawil sini
al-ʿalam (“Book of the revolutions of the world’s years”) by the Persian scholar Abu Maʿshar’s
(°787–†886); (d) the Livre des corruptions de l’air et de choses de l’air (f. 95r-f. 100v), an extract
from Abu Maʿshar’s Kitab al-Qiranat (“Book of conjunctions”), as translated by Sevilla (De
magnis conjunctionibus). See also Dörr, Der älteste Astronomietraktat, 20–21.

Manuscript Tradition, Authorship, Date & Aim 7
would make critical observations of this kind with regard to their own work.
Furthermore there are a number of unintentional repetitions of phrases which
make it likely that the version in the manuscript under consideration is not
the author’s autograph but rather a copy.3 Finally it should be noted that the
prose treatise on astrology—separately without the other texts—has also been
preserved in a 14th-century manuscript. It is this later version that contains
the title—Introductoire d’Astronomie—under which the treatise has become
known in modern historiography.4
None of these texts or manuscripts mentions the name of the author (or
translator), who therefore remains anonymous. Still they contain a number of
clues that enable us to sketch a rough portrait. The dedication of the astronomi-
cal treatise provides a good starting point. In the second chapter, our author
states that he has written the book “a le hennor del tres haut empereor B., par la
grace de Deu tres feel en Jhesu Christ, coroné de Deu, governeor de Romanie/
Romains et touz tems accroissant por cui nos commençons ce livre.”5 The fact
that the work commenced for Baldwin ii in itself suggests that our author had
a connection with the emperor. The use of imperial address confirms this: this
type of intitulatio is only to be found in documents emanating from the imperial
chancery itself. Other sources—for example chronicles, papal and other letters
or charters—invariably use titles such as imperator Constantinopolitanus or im-
perator Romaniae, or their French equivalents, but never the official title the
Latin emperors claimed for themselves. The title thus indicates that our author
was familiar with the workings of the imperial chancery or with the imperial
court at large, and must, somehow, have belonged to the emperor’s entourage.
This is confirmed by the fact that in the final segment of the preserved part of
the horoscope itself, Baldwin ii is repeatedly referred to as nostre segnor.6
3 Example of a marginal note: BnF, fr. 1353, f. 26r (“these opinions all come down to one”).
Example of an unintentional repetition: BnF, fr. 1353, f. 30v-f. 31r.
4 BnF, fr. 613, f. 87r-f. 133r. See also:Dörr, Der älteste Astronomietraktat, 8.
5 BnF, fr. 1353, f. 9r (= Appendix 3, Ch. 2, §8) reads de Romanie, but BnF, fr. 613, f. 88v reads
de Romains (“in honour of the very exalted emperor B., by the grace of God very faithful in
Christ, crowned by God, governour of Romania/the Romans, and always augmenting, for
whom we begin this book”). Almost from the start of Latin imperial rule in Constantinople
in 1204, the imperial chancery used both forms simultaneously with regard to the imperial in-
titulatio: Romains/Romanorum mostly in documents concerning the internal administration
or addressed to local or neighboring recipients, Romanie/Romaniae mostly in documents
addressed to Western recipients, a concession to—and clearly an innovation compared with
the Byzantine tradition before 1204—the dominant Western conception of the Byzantine
emperors in the context of the so-called two-emperors-problem (Van Tricht, The Latin Reno-
vatio of Byzantium, 72–77). See also below.
6 BnF, fr. 1353, f. 102vb (= Appendix 3, §14–15, “our lord”).
8 Chapter 1
A number of theologically tinged passages and occasional biblical referenc-

es in the astronomical treatise further indicate that our author was most likely
a cleric. He, for example, likens the body and soul of the members of the Sainte
Eglise to the dark and the bright side of the moon, with both the Holy Church
and its members receiving their light from the true sun Jesus Christ “en cui
nos vivons et somes ce que nos somes si cum dist li apostles.”7 We may, there-
fore, picture our author as holding a chancery position or a prebend in one of
the metropolitan churches where the emperor had benefices to bestow (such
as the palace churches: the Theotokos ton Blachernon church in the Blacherna
Palace and the Nea church in the Great Palace, known respectively as Sancta
Maria de Blacherna and Sanctus Michael de Bucca Leonis under Latin rule), or
a court title or combination of these. This ties in well with the current view on
court astrology in this period, in the West as in Byzantium: being an astrologer
in a ruler’s entourage not so much as a full-time profession, but rather as an
occupation in addition to other, more official functions.8
As regards our author’s geographic origins, a section in the astronomical
treatise on the eight climaz (or klimata) in which the world is divided, may
provide a clue. The chapter combines the geographical information on the kli-
mata in Martianus Capella’s De Nuptiis and in Abu Maʿshar’s Introductorium
Maius, but in two instances our author adds a single region, namely Flanders,
to the regions (or parts thereof) that these klimata comprise.9 This may simply
be a reflection of Baldwin ii’s personal connection with Flanders, but—given
his connection with the Constantinopolitan court—our author or his family
may well have shared such Flemish roots with the emperor. The Latin imperial
dynasty indeed had a close connection with Flanders. Marguerite, the mother
of the emperors Baldwin i (1204–1205) and Henry (1206–1216) and of e mpress
Yolande (1217–1219), was the sister of the Flemish count Philip of Alsace
(1168–1191). Marguerite and her husband, Baldwin v of Hainaut (1171–1195), had
succeeded the latter in Flanders in 1191. Emperor Baldwin i himself succeeded
7 BnF, fr. 1353, f. 29ra (“in whom we live and are what we are as the apostle says”). The reference
to Saint Paul (li apostles): 1 Cor 8, 6.
8 John D. North, “Scholars and Power: Astrologers at the Courts of Medieval Europe,” in Jo-
sep Batllo Ortiz, Pasqual Bernat Lopez, and Roser Puig Aguilar, eds., Actes de la vi Trobada
d’Historià de la Ciència i de la Tècnic (Barcelona, 2002), 22–23.
9 BnF, fr. 1353, f. 14vb (= Dörr, Der älteste Astronomietraktat, §18, p. 50). Martianus Capella, De
nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii, in James Willis, ed., Martianus Capella, Bibliotheca scriptorum
Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana (Leipzig, 1983), §876–877. Abu Maʿsar al-Balhi, Liber
introductorii maioris ad scientiam judiciorum astrorum. vol. 5/2: Texte latin de Jean de Séville
avec la Révision par Gérard de Crémone, ed. Richard Lemay (Napoli, 1995), 235–239.
his parents in both Flanders (1194) and Hainaut (1195).10 His brother Henry
held several fiefs situated in Flanders.11 The same holds true for their nephew
Robert of Courtenay (1221–1227).12 His brother Baldwin ii also had possessions
in Flanders, among others the town of Biervliet, although his main western
possessions (and of his parents) were the county of Namur and the lordship
of Courtenay. Nevertheless, on his seals he referred in Greek to his lineage as
Φλάνρας.13 In these emperors’ wake, a number of Constantinopolitan leading
families, barons and clerics, had Flemish origins. Some of them had arrived
with the crusader army in 1204, but others in later years; for example, in the
company of new emperors-elect coming to Constantinople from the West, or
in the context of crusading aid destined for Latin Romania.14
As regards social standing it is difficult to decide whether he belonged to
one of the leading Constantinopolitan lineages of (possibly) Flemish origin, or
was of a more modest origin and thanked his presence at Baldwin ii’s court not
so much to family status, but rather to personal achievement or competencies
leading the way to his acceptance as a familiaris of the emperor. A look into
our author’s educational background, which will necessitate a brief digression
on the educational context in Latin-Byzantine Constantinople in general, may
provide a starting point to explore this matter. The astronomical treatise makes
clear that our author had enjoyed a higher education. Throughout the work he
presents himself as familiar with the seven arz liberals (liberal arts). Indeed,
the study of astronomy and astrology—a science that he learned “des mellors
clers senz dotance qui soient ore coneu”—is determined as the completion of
an education in the liberal arts. Perhaps—if born in Flanders and moving to
Constantinople later—he had obtained a bachelor’s or master’s degree from
the relatively nearby university of Paris. If on the other hand he was born in the
Byzantine capital and spent his youth there, he perhaps was instructed in the
artes in one of the functioning major local ecclesiastical institutions, whether
a palace church or not.15
10 Robert L. Wolff, “Baldwin of Flanders and Hainaut, First latin emperor of Constantinople.
His life, death and resurrection, 1172–1225,” Speculum 27 (1952) 281–322.
11 Filip Van Tricht, “De jongelingenjaren van een keizer van Konstantinopel. Hendrik van
Vlaanderen en Henegouwen (1177–1202),” Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis 111 (1998) 198–202.
12 Filip Van Tricht, “Robert of Courtenay (1221–1227): an idiot on the throne of Constanti-
nople?” Speculum 88 (2013) 1022.
13 Jean Bovesse, “Notes sur Harelbeke et Biervliet dans le cadre de l’histoire des Maisons de
Namur et de France,” Bulletin de la Commission Royale d’Histoire 150 (1984) 460–462. On
Baldwin ii’s use of the term Φλάνρας, see also Chapter 2.
14 Van Tricht, The Latin Renovatio of Byzantium, 282–284.
15 See on the author’s familiarity with the liberal arts, for example in the verse introduction:
BnF, fr. 1353, f. 3rb (= Appendix 1, v107–113), “from without doubt the best clerics that are
10 Chapter 1
This suggestion warrants a short digression on the educational situation in

Constantinople in the years 1204–1261, a subject that has received little atten-
tion in modern historiography, no doubt due to the paucity of available sources.
Constantinides maintains the view that after 1204, higher education in Con-
stantinople came to an abrupt end. He cannot imagine any higher education
in the capital without the presence of patrons, the emperor and the patriarch,
both of whom had fled the city.16 Available source material, however, allows
for an alternative perspective. The contemporary chronicler and statesman
George Akropolites (1217–1282) in his chronicle testifies to the fact that decent
private teachers and public schools were certainly available in Constantinople
for the first two stages of the three-stage Byzantine education system, the hiera
grammata (primary education) and the enkyklios paideia (grammar, poetry, re-
thoric, and lower mathematics). The chronicler records that until his sixteenth
year he had enjoyed his grammar education in Constantinople and with regard
to the quality of the education he received he has nothing negative to add.17
Perhaps Akropolites attended the grammar school of Saint Paul attached
to the Orphanotropheion, patronaged by the Komnenoi emperors. Around
1206 it still appears to have existed: the funeral oration by Nicholas Mesarites,
by 1214 metropolitan of Ephesos in the Nicaean empire, for his brother John
(†1207), who was a monk, mentions one John Kontotheodoros as maistor of
this “first grammar school”—as it was commonly known—together with his
brother in the context of Church union discussions taking place in September
1206 with papal legate Benedict, cardinal of Saint Suzanna.18 Michael Angold
has pointed out that John Mesarites, in spite of his reputation as a champion
known today”); and in the Introductoire d’Astronomie: BnF, fr. 1353, f. 7ra (= Appendix 3,
Ch. 1, §1) and f. 62vb (= Appendix 3, Ch. 189, §1). It is to be noted that if our author was
born in Constantinople this does not exclude the possibility of a higher education in the
West. See for example, William of Tyre, who was born in Jerusalem, but studied in the
West for many years (see Chapter 6, note 96).
16 Costas N. Constantinides, Higher Education in Byzantium in the Thirteenth and Early Four-
teenth Centuries (1204–ca. 1310) (Nicosia, 1982), 6, 52.
17 Georgios Akropolites, Historia, ed. August Heisenberg, Georgii Acropolitae Opera 1
(Leipzig, 1903), §29. Constantinides, Higher Education in Byzantium, 1–2.
18 Nikolaos Mesarites, Die Disputation mit dem Kardinallegaten Benedikt und dem latein-
ischen Patriarchen Thomas Morosini am 30. August 1206, in August Heisenberg, ed., “Neue
Quellen zur Geschichte des lateinischen Kaisertums und der Kirchenunion 2/1,” Sit-
zungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-philologische
und historische Klasse (1923, 2. Abteilung), 15. See also Van Tricht, The Latin Renovatio of
Byzantium, 118–119. On the Orphanotreipheion in general: Raymond Janin, La Géographie
Ecclésiasique de l’Empire byzantin. Première partie: le Siège de Constantinople et le Patriar-
cat oecuménique. Tome 3: Les églises et les monastère, 2nd ed. (Paris, 1969), 567–568; Paul
Magdalino, The Empire of Manuel i Komnenos (1143–1180) (Cambridge, 1993), 330.
of the B yzantine cause, was rather close with the Latins and was prepared to
compromise.19 This may also have been true for his fellow debater maistor
Kontotheodoros. It is probably in this Saint Paul church that a Latin chapter
was instated after 1204: members of it having been mentioned in papal letters
from March 1208. Educational activity, in any case, seems to have continued
there: several Latin magistri are attested. There is no reason to think that Greek
educational activity therefore should have ceased: Kontotheodoros seems to
have still been in place in 1206 at the local grammar school. Byzantines with
the expertise to succeed Kontotheodoros were certainly available: the Latin
emperors all had educated Byzantines in their entourage as close collaborators
from which a new head of the school might have been chosen.20 Shortly after
the Nicaean reconquest of Constantinople in 1261, the grammar school in the
Orphanotropheion was reopened by Michael viii Paleologos.21 Taken together
with Mesarites’ and Akropolites’ post-1204 testimony this may be taken to in-
dicate continuity as an educational center in the preceding decades (though
perhaps not until 1261 or in a form recognizable or acceptable for the Nica-
ean Byzantines), although Mergiali—not familiar it seems with the passage by
Mesarites—does not take this possibility into consideration.
At sixteen then, in the 1230s, Akropolites’ father sent him to John iii Vatatzes’
(1221–1254) court to complete his schooling. This should, however, not be taken
to mean that in the Queen of Cities higher education was not available. Ak-
ropolites does not state or imply this. His father’s choice for Nicaea was prob-
ably rather politically than educationally motivated. In the 1230s the, at first,
promising Latin empire was in steep decline while Nicaea was now firmly on
the rise. Wishing to guarantee his talented son a bright future, he obviously
changed sides, betting on the winning horse. Indeed, a number of elements
indicate that higher education did not come to a full stop in 1204. The first
Latin emperor, Baldwin i, showed a keen interest in educational affairs, main-
ly from the perspective of establishing ecclesiastical union. At the emperor’s
request, Innocent iii, around May 1205, exhorted the magistri and scholares
of the U niversity of Paris to depart for Constantinople in order to reform the
literarum studium.22 The collège de Constantinople in Paris, a name it retained
until 1362, might have been founded as a byproduct of this initiative, possi-
bly to instruct young Byzantines and other Oriental christians in the Catholic
19 Angold, The Fourth Crusade: Event and Context, 195–196.

20 On these Byzantine collaborators: Van Tricht, The Latin Renovatio of Byzantium, 282–284 .
21 Sophia Mergiali-Falangas, “L’Ecole Saint Paul de l’Orphelinat à Constantinople: bref aper-
çu sur son statut et son histoire, ” Revue des Etudes Byzantines 49 (1991) 244–245.
22 Innocentius iii, Regesta, ed. Jacques-Paul Migne, Patrologia Latina 215 (Roma, 1855), n° 71,
col. 637.
12 Chapter 1
faith. The c ollege’s history however is obscure. Without original sources to pro-
vide information it has been conjectured that Baldwin i together with Inno-
cent III could have been instrumental in its foundation, but the later (titular)
Latin patriarch of Constantinople, Pietro Correr (1288–1302), has also been put
forward as the possible founder.23
In Constantinople a number of Western magistri attached to various met-
ropolitan ecclesiastical institutions are attested shortly after 1204. Although
some had probably come to Constantinople in the context of the Fourth Cru-
sade, others may have joined their countrymen at a later stage. Their presence
may indicate that Baldwin’s and Innocent’s appeal met with some success.
However, on the basis of the meager available source material it is difficult
to ascertain the educational responsibilities they may or must have had. The
papal registers mention a number of magistri, but invariably in the context
of local conflicts between clerics, which—not surprisingly—for the most part
arose in the first few, formative years after 1204.24 Nevertheless, it is probably
no coincidence that out of about twenty attested magistri attached to church-
es in Constantinople in the years 1204–1261, fifteen appear to have belonged to
three institutions which before 1204 had been part of the Patriarchal School
(Saint Sophia, probably Saint Paul in the Orphanotropheion and the Theotokos
Chalkoprateia church) that had been responsible for higher secular and reli-
gious education in the capital.25
In Saint Sophia itself we find in 1205, magister and canon Henry, recom-
mended by Pope Innocent to patriarch Thomas Morosini referring to his
knowledge (scientia), magister and canon Clemens in 1206–circa 1223, magis-
ter and patriarchal procurator B in 1210 (perhaps to be identified with magister
and canon Boniface mentioned in the same year, or with magister and canon
23 Charles Jourdain, “Un collège oriental à Paris au treizième siècle,” Revue catholique 20
(1862) 49–55. Marie-Henriette Jullien de Pommerol, “Les origines du collège de La Marche
à Paris,” in Caroline Bourlet, Annie Dufour, and Lucie Foster, eds., L’écrit dans la société
médiévale. Divers aspects de sa pratique du XIe au XVe siècle. Textes en hommage à Lucie
Fossier (Paris, 1991), 183–194. Andrew G. Traver, “Intellectual Relations Between the Latin
Empire of Constantinople and the University of Paris,” in Michael Aradas and Nicholas
C. Pappas, eds., Themes in European History: Essays from the 2nd International Conference
on European History Atiner. Athens Institute for Education and Research (Athens, 2005),
185–186. Hilde De Ridder-Simoens, “Mobility,” in idem (eds.), Universities in the Middle
Ages, A History of the University in Europe 1 (Cambridge, 1992), 284.
24 Constantinides does not provide any source reference for his statement that the Univer-
sity of Paris refused to cooperate with Baldwin (Constantinides, Higher Education in Byz-
antium, 32 n. 5).
25 Robert Browning, “The Patriarchal School at Constantinople in the Twelfth Century,” Byz-
antion 32 (1962) 171–178. Constantinides, Higher Education in Byzantium, 50–52.
Blasius from Piacenza, appointed in 1209), magister and imperial messenger G

in 1222, the magistri and canons Peter, Yves, and John in 1226, the magistri and
canons Frederick and Odo in 1237, and magister Rainald in 1264.26 In 1208–10
we find magistri Peter of Montigny, P (perhaps to be identified with Peter), C,
G, and an anonymous (perhaps to be identified with one of the former, though
not with Peter) as canons of a Latinized Saint Paul church. Given this concen-
tration of magistri it is tempting to identify this with the Saint Paul church
attached to the Orphanotropheion, although Janin—without argumentation—
opts for the Saint Paul church near the forum of Constantine.27 As just seen
this Saint Paul church in the Orphanotropheion, together with the patriarchal
church, had been one of the educational centers of the Patriarchal School (not
to be confused with the already mentioned grammar school in the same Or-
phanotropheion complex). In 1208, in another branch of the Patriarchal School,
the Theotokos Chalkoprateia church, we find an anonymous dean also with
the title of magister.28 In particular the simultaneous presence in Saint Paul
of three to five Western magistri and the concentration of magistri in Saint
Sophia indicates that educational activities were still being organized. This
26 Henry: Innocentius iii, Regesta, PL 215, n° 136, col. 715. Clemens: ibid., n° 133, col. 951
(1206); Honorius iii, Bullarium Hellenicum. Letters to Frankish Greece and Constantinople,
ed. William O. Duba and Christopher C. Schabel, Mediterranean Nexus 1100–1700 (Leu-
ven, 2015), n° 215, 258 (1223). B: Innocentius iii, Regesta, PL 216, n°44, col. 230. Boniface:
Honorius iii, Bullarium Hellenicum, n° 87, 184–185. Blasius: Innocentius iii, Regesta,
PL 216, n° 105, col. 122. G: ibid., n° 158 (possibly to be identified with Gilbert, representative
of the Constantinopolitan clergy in the same year, n°148). Peter, Yves, and John: ibid., n°
277. Frederick and Odo: Honorius iii et Gregorius ix, Acta, ed. Aloysius L. Tautu, Pontificia
Commissio ad redigendum Codicem Iuris Canonici Orientalis. Fontes. Series iii 3 (Città
del Vaticano, 1950), n° 219. Rainald: Urbanus iv, Les registres (1261–1264), ed. Jean Guiraud
and Suzanne Clémencet, Registres des papes du XIIIe siècle (Paris, 1900–1958), n° 1564.
27 Peter of Montigny: Innocentius iii, Regesta, PL 215, n° 59, col. 1378; n° 77, col. 1393; PL 216,
n° 19, col. 219. P: PL 215, n° 53, col. 1376. C: PL 215, n° 49, col. 1375. G: PL 215, n° 50, col. 1375;
n° 60, col. 1379; PL 216, n° 19, col. 219. Anonymous: PL 215, n° 59, col. 1378.
28 Innocentius iii, Regesta, PL 215, n° 59, col. 1378. The other attested magistri attached to
Constantinopolitan churches: magister W. Cocart, provost of Saint Trinity, attested in 1208
(PL 215, n° 37, col. 1363 and n° 78, col. 1395); magister Gilbert, canon of the Holy Apostles
Church, attested in 1211 (PL 216, n° 16, col. 392); magister G, canon of Sanctus Michael de
Bucca Leone (or Nea Church) in the Great Palace (or Boukoleon Palace) in 1221 (Honorius
iii, Bullarium Hellenicum, n° 107). Magistri are of course also attested in the Latin emper-
ors’ entourage, most of them no doubt were connected to the imperial palace churches
(see magister G). For example chancellor John of Noyon (Jean Longnon, Les compa-
gnons de Villehardouin. Recherche sur les croisés de la quatrième croisade, Hautes études
médiévales et modernes 30 (Geneva, 1978), 165–166); Amaury, provost of Arras (ibid., 192);
chancellor Warin, later archbishop of Thessaloniki (ibid., 187); Daniel of Ecaussines (Paul
E. Riant, Exuviae sacrae Constantinopolitanae (Geneva, 1876), 2: n° 23).
14 Chapter 1
may also have been the case in the Theotokos Chalkoprateia. With regard to
Saint Sophia, it is clear from a 1225 papal letter that a certain cancellarius W
was supposed to teach canon law there.29 That during Latin Constantinople’s
later years few magistri are attested, can easily be explained by the fact that
the number of papal letters dealing with the Queen of Cities drops drastically
during this period.
The three other churches that had been branches of the Patriarchal School
before 1204 appear not to have been occupied by Latin clerics: Saint Peter (near
Saint Sophia), Saint Theodore of Sphorakios, and the Christ tou Chalkitou
church.30 Whether higher education in any of these institutions was still being
organized after 1204 is difficult to determine, but higher education in any case
appears to have remained available for Byzantines in the capital. The near-con-
temporary scholar and chronicler George Pachymeres (1242–circa 1310), refer-
ring to events in 1261, praises one of Baldwin ii’s Byzantine confidants, phylax
John, as a pensive man whose thoughts easily penetrated the most profound
matters.31 This description, in my opinion, implies that John was not merely an
intelligent man, but a well educated intellectual. Indeed, John nicely fits Franz
Tinnefeld’s definition of the Byzantine intellectual: “any person who had a spe-
cial reputation for his/her erudition.”32 It seems logical then to assume that John
had enjoyed some form of higher education in Constantinople, perhaps in one
of the branches of the pre-1204 Patriarchal School or simply in a private context,
and perhaps, given his reputation, was somehow involved in the c ontinuation
29 W had obtained a prebend to do so around 1218–1221: Honorius iii, Bullarium Helleni-

cum, n° 262. Canon 11 of the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 confirmed that each cathe-
dral church should appoint a schoolmaster to instruct the clergy and poor scholars in the
liberal arts free of charge, and had prescribed that in addition each metropolitan church
schould provide a prebend for someone competent to teach theology as well. Whether
W’s appointment should be seen in this context is unclear (compare for example, James
A. Brundage, “Latin jurists in the Levant. The legal elite of the Crusader States,” in Maya
Shatzmiller, ed., Crusaders and Muslims in twelfth-century Syria, The Medieval Mediter-
ranean 1 (Leiden, 1993), 27–28).
30 Mergiali-Falangas, “L’école Saint Paul de l’Orphelinat à Constantinople,” 241; Raymond
Janin, “Les sanctuaires de Byzance sous la domination latine,” Etudes Byzantines 2 (1944)
134–184; Eugenio Dalleggio d’Allessio, “Les sanctuaires urbains et suburbains de Byzance
sous la domination latine, 1204–1261,” Revue des études byzantines 12 (1953) 50–61.
31 Georgios Pachymeres, Relations historiques, ed. Albert Failler, trans. Vitalien Laurent,
Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae. Series Parisienses 24/1-2 (Paris, 1984), lib. 2, §27,
200–201.
32 This wording somewhat recalls the description by our author of the artes liberales and
other sciences as parfonde clergie BnF, fr. 1353, f. 7ra (=Appendix 3, Ch. 1, §1). Franz Tin-
nefeld, “Intellectuals in Late Byzantine Thessalonike,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 57 (2003)
153.
of higher Greek/Byzantine education in the capital.33 If so, in view of his con-

nection to Emperor Baldwin ii, the imperial court might somehow have played
a part in this, and perhaps Latin and Byzantine higher education in the capi-
tal should not be seen as two separate worlds (see John Kontotheodoros at the
probably Latinized Orphanotropheion). With regard to the latter aspect, men-
dicant establishments in the capital should also be mentioned. As we shall see,
the metropolitan Dominican and Franciscan convents were indeed important
intellectual centers with ample room for Latin-Byzantine exchange, which
must have functioned as educational centers (given the emphasis on educa-
tion in the internal organization of both orders). By 1261, however, the old Pa-
triarchal School no longer existed in any form acceptable to the reconquering
Nicaeans. In this context, Michael viii Paleologos shortly after 1261 appointed
George Akropolites as head of a new imperial institution for secular higher edu-
cation. The Patriarchal School was reestablished in 1265 by patriarch Germanos
iii Markoutzas (1265–1266) with Manuel Holobolos as supervisor.34
Perhaps the author of the astronomical/astrological texts was, as I suggest-
ed for phylax John, part of a (hypothetical) metropolitan higher educational
organization whatever form it took, either based on the pre-1204 educational
centers of the Patriarchal School or some other imperial or private organi-
zational structure. Indeed, his astronomical treatise indicates that he surely
was a person interested in educating people and in divulging scientific knowl-
edge. Given his connection to Baldwin, he may have fulfilled his educational
responsibilities with some form of imperial patronage. Be all this as it may,
in the West a higher education was in this period more common for people
33 Around 1220, higher education was in any case available under the Latin emperors. In
the Skamandros or Troad region a certain Prodromos, supposedly hegoumenos of a local
monastery, taught arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, syllogistics, and physics. Nikephoros
Blemmydes (1197–1272), who left Nicaea because, as he himself states, higher (secular) ed-
ucation was at that time not available there, was one of his pupils, see Nikephoros Blem-
mydes, Autobiographia sive Curriculum Vitae necnon Epistola universalior, ed. Joseph A.
Munitiz, Corpus Christianorum. Series Graeca 19 (Turnhout, 1984), lib. 1, §46. Michael An-
gold has questioned Blemmydes’ statement, but without adducing convincing arguments
to disprove it (Angold, The Fourth Crusade: Event and Context, 207–209). See also Anna
Kladova, “The ‘Autobiography’ of Nikephoros Blemmydes. On the Issue of relations be-
tween Monasticism and Scholarship in Byzantium,” Scrinium 9 (2013) 253; John S. Lang-
don, John iii Ducas Vatatzes’ Byzantine Empire in Anatolian Exile, 1222–54. The Legacy of
His Diplomatic, Military and Internal Program for the “Restitutio Orbis” (Ann Arbor, 1980),
64–65. On private forms of education in Constantinople in the 12th century, see Magda-
lino, The Empire of Manuel i Komnenos, 329 (“much education at all levels was a matter
of informal classes in the homes of intellectuals”). Constantinides, Higher Education in
Byzantium, 8–9.
34 Constantinides, Higher Education in Byzantium, 32, 52.
16 Chapter 1
of (relatively) modest origin—the lower reaches of the feudal aristocracy or

the urban elites—rather than for people belonging to the upper reaches of
society, baronial and princely families, and both groups—feudal and urban—
were represented at princely courts.35 In Byzantium, on the other hand, both
the imperial aristocracy and the civil elite engaged in higher education for, as
Constantinides states, chief positions at court and in the Church required a
higher education.36 Such Byzantine social patterns may have influenced the
Latin elite. I will return to this idea further on.
The social status of our author remains obscure, although I am inclined to
ascribe to him relatively modest social origins. If I was to hazard an educated
guess as to the identity of our anonymous author, however, two persons who
belonged to the imperial entourage come into view. The first is Légiers, impe-
rial chancellor and dean of the patriarchal church of Saint Sophia. He is at-
tested only once in a 1246 charter donating—together with Stephen, treasurer
of Saint Sophia, and Walter, dean of the Theotokos Panachrantos church—a
relic from this latter church to imperial constable Geoffrey of Merry.37 The
second is magister Robert of Buccaleone. He is attested as caniclius—or epi
tou kanikleiou, a Byzantine chancery functionary—of titular Emperor Philip of
Courtenay (1273–1283) in 1277 and after the latter’s death became a familiaris
of Philip’s father-in-law Charles i of Anjou, count of Provence (1246–1285) and
king of Sicily (1266–1285).38 His surname—a reference no doubt to the imperial
Boukoleon palace in Constantinople (Bucca Leonis in Latin documents)—sug-
gests that he had already been in imperial service before the Nicaean take-over
of Constantinople in 1261. Nothing more is known concerning either function-
ary, so these attempts at identifying our author remain highly speculative.
35 Christine Renardy, Le monde des maîtres universitaires du diocèse de Liège 1140–1350. Re-
cherches sur sa composition et ses activités, Bibliothèque de la Faculté de Philosophie et
Lettres de l’Université de Liège 227 (Paris, 1979), 112. Jacques Pycke, Le chapitre cathédral
Notre-Dame de Tournai de la fin du XIe à la fin du XIIIe siècle. Son organisation, sa vie, ses
membres, Recueil de travaux d’histoire et de philologie de l’université de Louvain 30 (6e
série) (Louvain-la-Neuve, 1986), 86. Jean-Pierre Gerzaguet, L’Abbaye d’Anchin de sa fonda-
tion (1079) au XIVe siècle. Essor, vie et rayonnement d’une grande communauté bénédictine,
Histoire et civilisations (Paris, 1997), 115–119.
36 Constantinides, Higher Education in Byzantium, 1.
37 Riant, Exuviae Sacrae Constantinopolitanae, 2: n° 76. On Geoffrey of Merry, see Longnon,
Recherches sur la vie de Geoffroy de Villehardouin, 116–120.
38 Bianca Mazzoleni, ed., Gli atti perduti della cancellaria angioina tranuntati da Carlo de
Lellis, Regesta Chartarum Italiae 25 (Rome, 1939), 1: n° 204, p. 27 and n° 501, p. 622. On
the close connection from 1267 between Charles of Anjou and the titular Latin emperors,
see Jean Longnon, “Le rattachement de la principauté de Morée au royaume de Sicile en
1267,” Journal des Savants (1942) 134–143. Chrissis, Crusading in Frankish Greece, 204–217.
The date of our corpus of texts is of course essential in order to interpret

them correctly. The horoscope and the related horoscopic section in the intro-
ductory poem contain a number of elements that are useful in this respect. In
the introductory poem it is stated that at Baldwin’s birth (1217) three astrologers
composed his nativity chart and on this basis predicted his future. This account
must of course be a (at least partial) fiction since these predictions—as pre-
sented in the horoscope in our manuscript and in the versified introduction—
a bit too successfully foretell a number of events that we know, through other
historical sources, to have occurred during the emperor’s lifetime, for example
his well-known and repeated travels to the papal and French royal courts (1236–
1240 and 1244–1247/48), his marriage to a lady estroite des hauz rois d’Espagne,
a clear reference to Baldwin’s wife Mary of Brienne, daughter of Berengaria of
Leon/Castile and John of Brienne, king of Jerusalem (1211–1225) and emperor
of Constantinople (1229/1231–1237), and the mortgage of their son to a number
of merchants.39 According to North, nativities were usually cast at the time of
birth, but were not meant to be interpreted only once.40 This perhaps may also
have been the case for Baldwin’s nativity: originally composed in 1217 but then
(re)interpreted and reworked at later stages in his life.
Paris already reasoned that the horoscope—and the accompanying horo-
scopic section in the introductory poem—as it has come down to us needs to be
dated shortly after the most recent successfully predicted events. He has, in my
opinion, correctly identified these events with Philip of Courtenay’s redemp-
tion by Alfonso x of Castile (1258–1270) from a number of Venetian merchants
who held him in custody in the Serenissima and his subsequent stay at the Cas-
tilian court, where he was knighted by Alfonso. Thereafter, the horoscope drifts
from historical reality as we know it. However, Paris dated this redemption and
stay in 1269, assuming that Philip had only been redeemed in that year, and
thus he dated our texts in the following year 1270.41 Wolff has since convincing-
ly argued on the basis of a source not known to Paris that the mortgaged Philip
had already been redeemed before 1 May 1261. Indeed, in a charter bearing this
date Philip is mentioned as being present in Beauvais witnessing the transla-
tion of a number of relics in the company of, among others, the French king
Louis ix (1226–1270). Wolff’s terminus post quem for Philip’s redemption is
10 June 1259, the date of a charter mentioning Philip as still being in custody in
39 BnF, fr.1353, f. 4rb (=Appendix 1, v360, “descended from the exalted kings of Spain”).
40 North, “Scholars and power,” 20.
41 Paris, “Astrologue anonyme,” 494. Duhem took over Paris’ chronology (Duhem, Le système
du monde, 3: 132). Recently, Dörr—not familiar with either Wolff’s or Préaud’s subsequent
work—also adopted Paris’ date for the horoscope (Dörr, Der älteste Astronomietraktat, 8–9).
18 Chapter 1
Venice. This latter date can also serve as a secure terminus post quem for Bald-
win’s horoscope, since—if we are to believe our author—Philip’s redemption
was immediately followed by his stay at Alfonso’s court, where he was knighted.
This ceremony must then have taken place in September–December 1259 or in
1260, since a document not used by Wolff shows that by 31 August 1259 Philip
already had been r edeemed and as stated by May 1261 is attested in France.42
Wolff had dated Philip’s knighting—which, unfamiliar with Baldwin’s
horoscope, he only knew through chronologically confusing Castilian
chronicles—only roughly to before 1266 or perhaps before 1263, based on
his assessment of the diplomatic relations between Baldwin ii and Alfonso
x in this period.43 Préaud pointed out the implications of Wolff’s improved
chronology for the date of Baldwin’s horoscope, but also introduced another
terminus post quem unrelated to Philip’s stay at Alfonso’s court: he argues that
our a uthor’s mention of Yonites, Noah’s son not mentioned in the Bible, in the
versified introduction, and his qualification of the biblical ruler Nimrod as a
giant, may indicate that he had consulted the encyclopedic Le livres dou Tresor
by Brunetto Latini, which has been dated to around 1260–66. At the same time,
however, Préaud admits that the 12th-century author Petrus Comestor in his
Historia Scholastica (circa 1170–79) also mentions Yonites and qualifies Nimrod
as a gigas.44 In this context it seems evident that our author’s references to
Yonites and Nimrod do not result from any familiarity with Latini, but rather
from a familiarity with Comestor’s earlier work. The Historia was an instant suc-
cess in academic milieus and remained popular until the later Middle Ages.45
As a terminus ante quem, Paris used the date of Baldwin ii’s death (Octo-
ber 1273), which is not mentioned in the horoscope. Moreover, he argued that
composing a horoscope for a deceased emperor would not have made much
sense.46 This sounds acceptable, but—in view of our terminus post quem of 10
June 1259—it seems possible to advance a new terminus ante quem. Indeed,
there is a momentous event to which our author does not appear to allude
in any way: the fall of Latin Constantinople into Nicaean hands in July 1261.
42 On the date of 31 August 1259, see Chapter 4, p. 86–87.

43 Wolff, “Mortgage and redemption of an Emperor’s Son,” 54–55.
44 Préaud, “L’horoscope de Baudoin de Courtenay,” 10 and 13 (n. 19). For a recent edition of
Latini’s work, see Brunetto Latini, Li Livres dou Trésor, ed. Spurgeon Baldwin and Paul
Barrette (Tempe, 2003).
45 Petrus Comestor, Scolastica Historia: Liber Genesis, ed. Agneta Sylwan, Corpus Christiano-
rum Continuatio Mediaevalis 191 (Turnhout, 2004).
46 Paris assumed on the basis of the historiography of his time that Baldwin died in 1271
(Paris, “Astrologue anonyme,” 426). Since then it has been convincingly argued that the
emperor died two years later in October 1273 (Wolff, “Mortage and Redemption of an
Emperor’s Son,” 73).
Surely, if the Queen of Cities had already been conquered at the time of com-
position, our author would not have been able to leave it unmentioned if he
wished his talents as an astrologer to be appreciated. Préaud, however, is of
the opinion that our author does refer to Constantinople’s fall in the follow-
ing passage: “Nequident touz tems se gatient et se pein[a few illegible letters]
els garder li peres et li filz quar li signe meridian ne tienent pas la verite que
il prometent, quar il doit avenir que ambe.ii. les parties decevront et seront
deceu.”47 This reads as an obscure passage which is difficult to link to a particu-
lar event. At best our author predicts that the emperor and his son would suffer
setbacks (and apart from the 1261 disaster they both confronted a number of
major disappointments), but anything more cannot be deduced.
On the contrary, the combined reading of a number of references in both
the versified introduction and the actual horoscope implies that Constanti-
nople was still under Baldwin’s control when our texts were written. The intro-
ductory poem indeed states with regard to Baldwin that “en grant estroiceté de
terre/le maintendroit longuement Dex.”48 In connection with his wife Mary of
Brienne and their son Philip’s prolonged stay in the West the introduction tells
us that the same emperor “remandroit en sa cité / ou il auroit grant povreté.”49
The horoscope predicts that Mary and Philip—thanks to Alfonso x’s aid and
support—would eventually return to Baldwin, who meanwhile had apparently
resided in his capital and had not been forced to abandon it: “et repairera la
dame et li filz a son segnor”, and also: “la dame qui sera lonc tems senz son seg-
nor et après retournera o son fil”. The horoscope then goes on to predict that
the emperor three years after their return would be victorious against all his
enemies: “Baldwin sera en joie et en exaucement après les trois anz de lor retor
et metra souz pié touz ses anemis.”50
47 BnF, fr.1353, f. 102rb (=Appendix 2, §12, tentative translation: “Nevertheless all the time
there will be destruction, with the father and the son making great efforts to maintain
themselves, because the meridional signs do not hold the truth which they promise,
because it must happen that both parties will deceive and will be deceived”). Préaud,
“L’horoscope de Baudoin de Courtenay,” 10 and 44 (n. 215). The quoted passage follows a
passage that foretells the return of the emperor’s wife and son to him and his subsequent
victory over all his enemies during the next three years. The quoted passage is itself fol-
lowed by a further reference to these victories and the aid of one grant segnor de occident
(“great lord from the West”), a reference to Alfonso x.
48 BnF, fr.1353, f. 4ra (=Appendix 1, v351, “Left with only a small amount of land/God will
maintain him a long time”).
49 BnF, fr.1353, f. 4ra (=Appendix 1, v377, “will remain in his city / where he will know great
poverty”).
50 BnF, fr.1353, f. 102rb (=Appendix 2, §11–12, “and the lady and the son will return to her
lord”; “the lady will be a long time without her lord and afterwards will return with her
son”; Baldwin “will be in a state of joy and exaltation three years after their return and will
trample his enemies underfoot”).
20 Chapter 1
The versified introduction likewise contains the notion of imperial

r estauration: “quar ausit cum se il s’esvellast / resordroit il et ses empires / et
bien parroit li plus granz sires / qui en son tens fust nez de fame.” Taken togeth-
er these passages paint the following picture: the emperor will suffer poverty
and will see himself confined to Constantinople for a long time, but thanks to
divine aid he will stand firm; after his wife and son’s return to the capital he
will triumph over his enemies and recover (at least some of) the empire’s ter-
ritories that had been lost. If my argumentation regarding both the terminus
post quem and ante quem is correct, then our texts—at least the introductory
poem and the horoscope from which the various chronological elements were
taken—appear to have been written around 1260 (after June 1259 and before
July 1261).51 The astronomical treatise may have been written around the same
time, but it may just as well be that it had been completed earlier.
On the basis of Paris’ and Préaud’s date for our texts (circa 1270), a num-
ber of authors have theorized that these were drawn up as part of a dossier to
recruit aid for the reconquest of Constantinople and other parts of the Latin
empire. Emmanuel Poulle writes that:
on dispose là du dossier, entièrement en langue vulgaire, qui a, très

évidemment, été préparé à l’intention de l’empereur chassé de Constan-
tinople pour lui permettre d’organiser son action politique en tenant
compte de l’influence que les astres étaient censés exercer sur cette
action: nous avons là le premier témoignage, et il est remarquablement
circonstancié, d’aide scientifique à la décision, alors qu’on ne perçoit que
beaucoup plus tard, à compter du XVesiècle, et seulement au travers de
rares indices, combien les responsables politiques de la fin du Moyen
Âge et de la Renaissance ont été tentés d’avoir recours à ce mode très
moderne de gouvernement.52
Boudet in a similar vein states that our texts “s’insèrent dans un dossier
visant à organiser son (Baldwin’s) action.”53 Apart from the specific political
context—a plan for the reconquest of Constantinople after the 1261 debacle—
51 BnF, fr.1353, f. 4ra (=Appendix 1, v354–355, “From the moment he awakes/He will resus-
citate his empire”). An additional argument for this alternative date is that if they would
have been written around 1270, the focus in our texts on Alfonso x—as the supporter of
the Latin empire—would be peculiar in view of the fact that since 1267 Charles of Anjou,
king of Sicily, was Baldwin ii’s most valuable ally (see note 38).
52 Emmanuel Poulle, “Compte-rendu: Stephen Dörr, Der älteste Astronomietraktat,” Le
Moyen Âge 107 (2007) 224.
53 Boudet, “Les horoscopes princiers dans l’Occident médiéval,” 381.
I think Poulle and Boudet are correct that this dossier was, among other pur-
poses, composed to be used politically.
Of course, even before 1261 the empire was in dire need and external f inancial
and military support was welcome, but I do not think that our texts were com-
posed in an effort to convince potential Western allies to aid Baldwin’s ailing
empire. Several elements argue against such an interpretation. For example,
the two powers that in the past had repeatedly provided financial, diplomatic,
and other support—the papacy and the French king—are implicitly (if not
explicitly) criticized. The versified introduction states “mais ançois iroit secors
querre / cil sires (Baldwin) loing hors de sa terre / .ii. foiz iroit et revendroit /
mes petit secors i prendroit.” From the horoscope itself we learn that Baldwin
would travel (as indeed he did) vers France and vers l’Eglise de Rome to obtain
aid, but li Toreaus (the zodiacal sign Taurus) would give “a cel segnor pou de
aide de sez amis et ses grant viages li est autresit cum neient profitables.” Else-
where it is said that the loss of unspecified imperial territories would have as a
consequence that “li ami ne li aident mie.”54 This critique of earlier efforts and
of friends and allies would appear to be a rather poor strategy to recruit further
support. Instead, it is perhaps more probable that our texts served an internal
political purpose.
The empire’s situation in 1260 was difficult: Baldwin ii’s anti-Nicaean Pela-
gonia coalition had been defeated a year earlier (early summer 1259) and one
of his most valuable vassals, prince of Achaia William ii of Villehardouin, had
been captured by the Nicaean army together with many local lords. M ichael
viii Paleologos subsequently (1260) launched an offensive against Latin
Constantinople, besieging the city and its suburb Galata and, in the process,
conquered most remaining towns that had still been in Baldwin ii’s hand,
the most important of which was Salymbria.55 At about this critical time the
54 BnF, fr.1353, f. 4rb (=Appendix 1, v371–374, “But first he will search for aid/This lord far
from his land/Twice he will go and return/But to little avail”); f. 101rb (=Appendix 2, §2, “to
France” and “to the Church of Rome”; Taurus “will give this lord little aid from his friends
and his great travels likewise will not be profitable for him”); f. 102ra (=Appendix 2, §9, “his
friends do not help him”).
55 On Baldwin ii’s involvement—until now unnoticed by historians—in the Pelagonia co-
alition (concluded between the Latin emperor, prince William ii of Villehardouin, king
Manfred of Sicily, and Michael ii Doukas, ruler of Epiros), see Chapter 4, p. 82–85, and
Filip Van Tricht, De Latijnse Renovatio van Byzantium. Het keizerrijk van Konstantinopel
(1204–1261), (PhD diss., University of Gent, 2003), 2: 782–787. For the older view: Deno
J. Geanakoplos, “Greco-Latin relations on the eve of the Byzantine restoration: the bat-
tle of Pelagonia-1259,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 7 (1953) 127–134). See also for the years
1259–1260, idem, Emperor Michael Palaeologus and the West 1258–1282 (Cambridge,
Mass., 1959), 75–79. Peter Wirth, “Von der Schlacht von Pelagonia bis Wiedereroberung
Konstantinopels. Zur äusseren Geschichte der Jahre 1259–1261,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift
22 Chapter 1
essage informing Baldwin of his son Philip’s redemption by Alfonso x must

m
have arrived in the capital, together with the news—also (and uniquely) re-
ferred to in the horoscope—that the marriage negotiations that his wife, Em-
press Mary of Brienne, had been conducting with the Castilian king for their
son proved to be successful (“entrementres que la dame sera hors sera traitié
del mariage del fil”). A new and profitable alliance was in the making.56 These
tidings must have been received as a confidence inspiring message at a mo-
ment of dire need. Boudet, with respect to the French dauphin and later king
Charles v, has pointed out that it was in a time of crisis—the years 1456–58—
that “les pratiques divinatoires—astrologiques et géomantiques—se sont af-
firmées, dans son esprit, comme des instruments essentiels de conquête et
d’exercice de pouvoir.”57 The case may have been the same for Baldwin ii. For
a ruler with an apparently keen interest in astrology, and other occult disci-
plines, it must have been irresistible to consult with his experts to evaluate the
future of his empire in the context of this new bond with the Castilian king-
dom. The inevitably optimistic picture our source paints of this future (that
Baldwin “sera en joie et en exaucement après les trois anz de lor retor et metra
souz pié touz ses anemis”) was politically useful: it could obviously serve to
restore morale after earlier setbacks, especially the recent Pelagonia debacle.
This boost in morale through a favorable astrological judgement, accompa-
nied by a theoretical treatise substantiating astrology’s claims as a credible sci-
ence, seems to have not been aimed at a wider audience, but rather at an inner
circle of the emperor’s most trusted advisers, barons, vassals, and collabora-
tors. Indeed, apart from the political dimension, our author in the introduction
of the astronomical treatise (which may have been written somewhat earlier
than the other texts) tells his readers (and listeners) that he has written it in
defence of “la science de astronomie which is por ville et por neient tenue de
aucunes genz qui ont l’entendement si gros et si pesant des terrianes choses.”
In this context he fears that his work may attract “assez detraeors et envious
en ceste oeuvre.” Therefore, he implores “que ceste oeuvre ne soit balliee com-
mune ne abondonee a touz, mes a cels solement qui ont bon entendement et
soutil engin.” He has written the treatise “mie por les rudes ne por cels qui ont
55 (1962) 30–37. Beverly Berg, “Manfred of Sicily and the Greek East,” Byzantina 14 (1988)
276–279. Spyros Asonites, “Pelagonia 1259: Mia nea Theorisi,” Byzantiaka 11 (1991) 129–165.
Juho Wilskman, “The Campaign and Battle of Pelagonia 1259,” Byzantinos Domos 17/18
(2009–2010) 131–174.
56 BnF, fr.1353, f. 102rb (=Appendix 2, §11, “while the lady will be away the marriage of the son
will negotiated”).
57 Boudet, “Les horoscopes princiers dans l’Occident médiéval,” 383.
l’entendement gros, mes por cels qui ja soit ce qu’il ne soient fondé de parfonde
clergie, il ont neporquant l’entendement soutil.”58
Likewise, in view of the fact that astrology was without doubt a controversial
discipline, the versified introduction and the actual horoscope were probably
aimed at a restricted audience, and not at the Constantinopolitan or imperial
elite at large, part of which was (or in the past had been) critical of Baldwin’s
politics. It would have been unwise and unproductive to provide them with
ammunition that could be used to fuel their critique. Apart from this, the fact
that the treatise, as the cited passages show, has an obvious educational and
apologetic intention, as Paris recognized, may be interpreted as indicating that
it had been originally written as a separate work with its own purpose and
was only later combined with the introductory poem, the horoscope, and the
astrological translations to form one dossier promising a better future for the
empire.59
58 BnF, fr.1353, f. 7ra (=Appendix 3, Ch. 1, §1, “the science of astronomy” which is “held to
be worthless and inexistant by some people whose understanding of earthly matters is
mediocre and slow-witted”; “enough detractors and people envious of this work”; “that
this work may not be presented in public nor given over to all, but only to those who pos-
sess a good understanding and a refined intelligence”; “not for the ignorant or those who
possess a mediocre understanding, but for those who, although they may not be versed in
profound science, they nevertheless possess a refined understanding”). A similar passage
occurs near the end of the treatise: BnF, fr.1353, f. 62vb (=Appendix 3, Ch. 189, §1).
59 Paris, “Astrologue anonyme,” 428–429.
Part 1
Political Dynamics
∵
Chapter 2
A Byzantine-Style Imperial Ideology
Our texts offer valuable insights on aspects of political life in mid-13th-century

Constantinople, such as imperial ideology, elements of the mindset at the
imperial court, factional strife among the metropolitan elite, and foreign
policy. Of course, given the astrological nature of our sources these aspects
are not elaborated upon. Our texts rather provide—mostly vague—clues that
require reading between the lines and which only reveal their significance
within the context of information provided by other available sources and
existing historiography.
In the past most authors have held the view that the Latin emperors adopted
a number of external elements (for example, their official titles in charters and
on seals, the use of Byzantine imperial costume, imitation of various imperial
ceremonies, etc.) from their predecessors, but without grasping the ideology
behind them: form without content.1 In the Latin empire’s opening decades
(1204–1228) I have already suggested an alternative view based on a close read-
ing of the variations and evolution in the imperial style and on an analysis
of material in well-known sources that hitherto had been overlooked. I have
indeed tried to show that Baldwin i and his successors did not only adopt
formal elements, but understood and identified with the key elements of Byz-
antine imperial ideology: the empire’s Roman character and the emperor’s
status as Christ’s direct representative on earth, from which the related ideas
of universalism and autocracy were derived, as well as the emperor’s p osition
as defender of the Christian faith and Church.
This view has been criticized by Michael Angold, who however does not
engage my argumentation on this point.2 Recently, Stefan Burkhardt in his
1 See, in particular, Benjamin Hendrickx, “Les institutions de l’empire latin de Constantinople

(1204–1261): Le pouvoir impérial (l’empereur, l’impératrice, les régents),” Byzantina 6 (1974)
135; Antonio Carile, “La cancellaria sovrana dell’Impero latino di Constantinopoli (1204–1261),”
Studi Veneziani 2 (1978) 52; Peter Lock, “The Latin emperors as heirs to Byzantium,” in Paul
Magdalino, ed., New Constantines. The Rythm of imperial renewal in Byzantium, 4th–13th cen-
turies. Papers from the twenty-sixth spring symposium of Byzantine studies (St. Andrews, march
1992) (Cambridge, 1994), 295–304.
2 Van Tricht, The Latin Renovatio of Byzantium, 61–82. More recently: Filip Van Tricht, “Claim-
ing the Basileia ton Rhomaion: A Latin imperial dynasty in Byzantium,” Medieval History
Journal 20 (2017) 248–287; Michael Angold, Review of Van Tricht, The Latin Renovatio of Byz-
antium, Speculum 88 (2013) 865–867. On Byzantine imperial ideology (with further refer-
ences): Otto Treitinger, Die Oströmische Kaiser- und Reichsidee (Darmstadt, 1956), 34, 43–45;

28 Chapter 2
article on rituals of power repeats once more that “there was nothing much
Byzantine left by the Latin empire,” but he confines himself to a brief analysis
of a limited number of well-known sources (for example, Villehardouin, Valen-
ciennes, and a number of papal and Venetian documents) and misses much
of the available and relevant material.3 A voice that concurs with my views
is Teresa Shawcross, who states: “Not only the image, therefore, but also the
practice of rulership which the crusaders associated with themselves, reveal a
strong continuity between the previous imperial regime and their own.”4 The
texts under discussion would appear now to support the view held by both
Shawcross and myself that the Latin emperors, or at least Baldwin ii and
his entourage, did take over the main tenets of Byzantine imperial ideology.
A number of elements indicate that, like his Byzantine predecessors, Baldwin
ii—assuming our texts reflect not only the opinion of our author but those
of the emperor he served—saw his emperorship as universal and Roman in
character. The idea of universalism is evident in the statement that our au-
thor considers the subject of the horoscope—Emperor Baldwin ii—to be the
“plus haut segnor qui vive” and “li plus granz sires qui en son tens fust nez
de fame.”5 The reigning emperor of Constantinople was thus unequivocally,
in absolute terms and conforming to Byzantine tradition, awarded the highest
authority. This implies that the authority of other rulers—both secular and
ecclesiastical—was deemed inferior, with no reservations being made to the
papacy or Baldwin’s imperial colleague in the West. This did not entail that all
other rulers were considered to be directly subject to Baldwin’s authority, but
Louis Bréhier, Les institutions de l’empire byzantin (Paris, 1949; repr. 1970), 49–54, 345–353;
Steven Runciman, The Byzantine Theocracy (Cambridge, 1977), 22–25; Dimiter Angelov, Impe-
rial ideology and political thought in Byzantium 1204–1330 (Cambridge, 2007), 79–117. Specifi-
cally on Byzantine universalism, somewhat nuancing earlier views: Anthony Kaldellis, “Did
the Byzantine Empire have ‘Ecumenical’ or ‘Universal’ Aspirations?” in Clifford Ando and
Seth Richardson, eds., Ancient States and Infrastructural Power: Europe, Asia, and America
(Philadelphia, 2017), 272–300.
3 Stefan Burkhardt, “Court Ceremonies and Rituals of Power in the Latin Empire of Constanti-
nople,” in Alexander Beihammer, Stavroula Constantinou, and Maria Parani, eds., Ceremonies
and Rituals of Power in Byzantium and the Medieval Mediterranean: Comparative Perspectives,
The Medieval Mediterranean 98 (Leiden, 2013), 290. In his recent monograph Burkhardt
expresses the same view: idem, Mediterranes Kaisertums und imperiale Ordnungen, 375.
4 Teresa Shawcross, “Conquest Legitimized: The Making of a Byzantine Emperor in Crusader
Constantinople 1204–1261,” in Jonathan Harris, Catherine Holmes, and Eugenia Russel, eds.,
Byzantines, Latins, and Turks in the Eastern Mediterranean World After 1150, Oxford Studies in
Byzantium (Oxford, 2012), 214.
5 BnF, fr.1353, f. 4ra (=Appendix 1, v338, “the most exalted lord now living”) and f. 4rb (=Appendix
1, v356, “the greatest lord of his time born to a woman”).
A Byzantine-Style Imperial Ideology 29
rather that they—following the Byzantine hierarchy of states and/or family of

princes-theories—necessarily held a lower hierarchical rank.6
Apart from the universalist aspect, the attribution of a Roman character to
his empire is evident from Baldwin ii’s use of the imperial style. Our author
possibly used the term Romains (instead of Romanie) with respect to Baldwin’s
imperial title, but from a number of charters it is clear that the emperor—also
his son Philip and imperial bajuli or regents such as Philip of Toucy—and his
chancery after the Byzantine example continued to use the terms Romains or
Romanorum or Ῥωμαίων in the imperial style in charters and on seals, or the
term imperium Romanum in reference to his empire, as his (Latin) predeces-
sors had done. This was done in spite of the general non-recognition in the
West of the Roman character of the Byzantine empire in the context of the
pre-1204 papal translatio imperii theory and the related Zweikaiserproblem.
The papacy after 1204 adopted a divisio-imperii theory, but this did not lead
to the popes addressing the Latin emperors as Roman emperors. Neverthe-
less, the fact that they, like their Byzantine predecessors, could see themselves
as the direct successors—ruling from the very same capital (Nea Roma or New
Rome) and sitting on the same throne—of the famed Constantine the Great,
who in Western eyes without doubt was identified as a Roman emperor, must
have induced them to embrace and continue the Roman identity for their
emperorship and empire.7
6 Our author uses the term segnor for both secular and ecclesiastical lords, as is evident from
the following phrase in the astrological treatise: “La Lune quant ele est en .i. signe o Saturne ou
si ele est el quart ou el .x.me ou el .vii.me de leu ou Saturnes est, ele devee et contredit a parler a
hauz homes et a grant segneurs, si cum a primaz, a albez, a moines, a viscontes” (BnF, fr.1353,
f. 56rb). On the mentioned theories: André Grabar, “God and the Family of Princes presided
over by the Byzantine emperor,” Harvard Slavic Studies 2 (1954) 117–123; Van Tricht, The Latin
Renovatio of Byzantium, 393–394; Shawcross, “Conquest Legitimized,” 196.
7 Burkhardt does not take into account this key element in his discussion and conclusions
regarding the Latin emperors’ imperial ideology (Burkhardt, Mediterranes Kaisertum und
imperialen Ordnungen, 195–199). Some examples of the use of “Roman” terminology: Bald-
win ii: Maurice Van Haeck, ed., Cartulaire de l’abbaye de Marquette (Lille, 1937), 1:n° 77, p. 62;
Dieudonné Brouwers, ed., L’administration et les finances du comté de Namur du xii au XVe
siècles. Sources. ii: Chartes et règlements, Documents inédits relatifs à l’histoire de la province
de Namur (Namur, 1914), 1:n° 97, p. 59; n° 101, p. 63; n° 125, p. 76; Frédéric A. de Reiffenberg,
ed., Cartulaire de Notre-Dame de Namur (1200–1328), Monuments pour servir à l’Histoire
des provinces de Namur, de Hainaut et de Luxembourg 1 (Bruxelles, 1844), 9; Jules Borgnet,
ed., Cartulaire de la commune de Namur (Namur, 1871), 1:n° 13, p. 33; Emile Brouette, ed.,
Recueil des chartes et documents de l’abbaye du Val-Saint-Georges à Salzinnes (1196/97–1300),
Cîteaux–Commentarii Cistercienses. Studia et Documenta 1 (Achel, 1971), n° 77, p. 95. Phil-
ip of Courtenay: Gustave Schlumberger, Ferdinand Chalandon, and Adrien Blanchet, eds.,
Sigillographie de l’Orient latin, Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique 37 (Paris, 1943),
30 Chapter 2
The fact that, also like his predecessors, in some documents addressed to
Western rulers (such as the papacy, King Louis ix of France, or the French
queen-mother Blanche of Castile) or to be used in a Western context, the term
Romanorum/Romanum was replaced with Romanie—presumably in order
not to cause confusion or perhaps not to offend needed allies with ideological
concepts alien to them—shows that the use of terms like Romanorum was not
simply a case of formalism. On the contrary, the discriminate use of these terms
indicates that their ideological implications were well understood. B esides,
the term Romania quite simply meant “land of the Romans” and had been em-
ployed in Byzantine imperial correspondence as well to refer to the empire,
though not in the imperial style.8 Baldwin ii’s seals—more so than those of his
predecessors—reflected other elements of Byzantine imperial representation.
He styled himself Πορφιρογέννητος [sic], stressing that he had been born in the
imperial Porphyra palace as the son of a reigning imperial couple, his father
Peter of Courtenay and his mother Yolande of Flanders/Hainaut. His son Philip
would do likewise. In the Byzantine imperial tradition this title was an element
legitimizing the emperor’s rule and that of his lineage.
To the latter Baldwin referred as Φλάνρας (Flanders), no doubt in an effort
to capitalize upon the relative popularity of his predecessor and uncle Henry
of Flanders/Hainaut, brother of his mother Empress Yolande. More particu-
larly the porphyrogennetos title was a legitimizing element which his rivals
in Nicaea or Thessaloniki could obviously not claim convincingly, since the
n° 30–31, pp. 174–175. Philip of Toucy (regent in 1246): Eugène Tisserant, “La légation en
Orient du Franciscain Dominique d’Aragon,” Revue de l’Orient Chrétien 24 (1924), 340. On
the Latin emperors’ identification with Constantine the Great: Robert de Clari, La conquête
de Constantinople, ed. Philippe Lauer, Les classiques de l’histoire de France au moyen âge
(Paris, 1924), §96–97; Van Tricht, The Latin Renovatio of Byzantium, 90–91.
8 Some examples: Alexandre Teulet, ed., Layettes du Trésor des Chartes (Paris, 1866), 2:n° 2954,
n° 3123; Jean A.C. Buchon, Recherches et matériaux pour servir à une historie de la domination
française aux XIIIe, XIVe et XVe siècles dans les provinces démembrées de l’Empire grec à la suite
de la Quatrième Croisade (Paris, 1840), 1:153; Eloy Benito Ruano, “Balduino ii de Constantino-
pla y la orden de Santiago Un proyecto de defensa del imperio latino del Oriente,” Hispania 12
(1952) n° 3–4, pp. 30–35; Riant, Exuviae Sacrae Constantinopolitanae, 2:n° 79. See a detailed
discussion of Baldwin’s imperial title in the second part of my doctoral thesis: Van Tricht, De
Latijnse Renovatio van Byzantium, 2: 617–624. Michael viii Paleologos as emperor of Nicaea
was likewise prepared to compromise with regard to the formulation of his imperial title in
a Western context: in the Latin version of the Treaty of Nymphaion (1261) concluded with
Genoa, and also on the embroidered silk that was donated to the Superba on this occasion,
Michael is referred to as imperator Grecorum (Cecily J. Hilsdale, “The Imperial Image at the
End of Exile: The Byzantine Embroidered Silk in Genoa and the Treaty of Nymphaion (1261),”
Dumbarton Oaks Papers 64 (2012) 194–197). On the Byzantine use of the term Romania before
1204: Robert L. Wolff, “Romania: the Latin Empire of Constantinople,” Speculum 23 (1948) 1–32.
imperial capital where the Porphyra palace was situated was outside their
control, though this did not prevent the Nicean emperor Theodore ii Laskaris
(1254–1258) from doing so on some of his coins. As other authors such as
Schramm and P revenier have remarked, Baldwin abandoned the mainly West-
ern style iconography of his predecessors’ seals for a more decidedly B yzantine
one. Although the pre-1204 tradition of portraying a standing monarch on
the obverse with the reverse bearing an image of Christ was not adopted, the
enthroned emperor in Byzantine imperial robes on the obverse and the em-
peror on horseback—in the same robes—on the reverse are close to Byzantine
imperial iconographic representations found on materials other than seals.9
Another element pointing to a conscious identification with and adoption
of the Roman character of the Byzantine empire can be read in a short passage
in the astrological treatise. In this passage our author illustrates the astrologi-
cal concept of collection by discussing a specific astronomical constellation
and an adjoining question on whether, according to his birth chart, a child
would reign or not (“si cum se aucuns fait question en la nativité de aucun
enfant se il regnera”). The question is answered affirmatively in the sense that
the astronomical constellation discussed “demostroit que a ce que il regnast, il
covenoit que la segnorie del reiaume il eust par mains de Christus et de sena-
tours et de hauz homes.”10
This fragment is interesting in several ways. First, in the context of the entire
treatise it stands out. Although questions on the future of children or on the
reign of rulers are common in astrological literature, in our text it is the only
example of a prediction concerning a child and also the only one concerning
the reign of a ruler. All other questions in the treatise deal with themes such as
9 Schlumberger, Sigillographie de l’Orient latin, n° 11–16, pp. 170–172. Percy E. Schramm,

“Das lateinische Kaisertum in Konstantinopel (1204–1261) im Lichte der Staatssymbolik,”
in idem, Herrschaftszeichen und Staatssymbolik, Schriften der Monumenta Germaniae
Historica 13/3 (Stuttgart, 1956), 847–848. Walter Prevenier, “La chancellerie de l’empire
latin de Constantinople (1204–1261),” in Victoria D. Van Aalst and Krijnie.N. Ciggaar, eds.,
The Latin Empire. Some contributions (Hernen, 1990), 70. Van Tricht, The Latin Renovatio
of Byzantium, 93. André Grabar, L’empereur dans l’art byzantin. Recherches sur l’art officiel
de l’empire d’Orient, Publications de la Faculté des Lettres de l’Université de Strasbourg 75
(Paris, 1936), pls VII/1, IX/1. On Theodore ii Laskaris assuming the porphyrogennetos title:
Dimiter Angelov, “Theodore ii Laskaris, Elena Asenina and Bulgaria,” in Angel Nikolov
and Georgi Nikolov, eds., The Medieval Bulgarian and “the Others” [in Bulgarian] (Sofia,
2013), 275.
10 BnF, fr.1353, f. 45va (=Appendix 3, Ch. 131, §1, “as when someone with regard to a child’s
nativity interrogates whether he will reign”; “demonstrated that he would reign and that it
would happen that he obtained dominion of the realm by the hand of Christ and senators
and important men”).
32 Chapter 2
marriage, travel, or medical conditions. In addition, it is also the only detailed

birth chart mentioned in the treatise. These elements may be taken as an in-
dication that this particular question has some sort of special status within
our corpus. Furthermore, it is the only passage to somewhat surprisingly cite a
socio-political group called the senatours. The astrological questions in the rest
of the treatise show a rather typical Western concept of social stratification,
with kings (rois), princes (princes), counts (contes), viscounts (viscontes), and
barons (barons) among others, probably simply adopted from Western astro-
logical texts—mostly translations or adaptations of earlier Arabic authors—
which our author used as his sources.11
Secondly, when we relate this within the context of the entire treatise pecu-
liar passage to Baldwin’s personal situation it becomes evident that this type
of question must have been of particular interest to him. Indeed, the current
heir to the throne—Baldwin’s eldest son Philip—had lived for a long time in
an undesirable situation (his forced stay in Venice) and whether by the time
of his succession there would still be an empire left to rule was uncertain in
the geopolitical context of the late 1250s. His succession to his father’s throne
and the continuation of Courtenay rule in Constantinople must have seemed
precarious.12 I suggest that the prediction in the treatise—based on a spe-
cific birth chart (which by the way cannot be identified with Baldwin’s natal
chart)—may well have been intended to refer to Philip of Courtenay. He, as we
11 On the sources used by our authors: see below.

12 As a child Baldwin’s own situation had also been precarious, in particular after the child-
less death of his brother and emperor Robert of Courtenay in early 1227. Although Bald-
win, then ten years old, was the apparent heir to the throne, the Constantinopolitan
barons in the context of his minority brought in John of Brienne, former king of Jerusa-
lem (1211–1225), not just as temporary imperial regent but as lifelong crowned emperor
in his own right. In a pact drawn up in April 1229 between the barons and John, and rati-
fied by Pope Gregory ix, who had helped mediating the agreement, Baldwin’s hereditary
rights to the throne were recognized, but it is not difficult to see that the young heir
must inevidently have felt uncomfortable about the arrangement, in particular because
Emperor John had several sons with his third wife Berengaria of Leon-Castile. Although
these sons—Alphonse, Louis and John—were several years younger than him and were
provided for with (theoretically) sizeable inheritances in the pact, to Baldwin they nev-
ertheless must have seemed potential rivals: as always, it was to be expected that in the
end political realities would decide whether pacts were kept or broken. For the 1229 pact,
see Gottlieb L.F. Tafel and Georg M. Thomas, eds., Urkunden zur älteren Handels- und Sta-
atsgeschichte der Republik Venedig mit besonderer Beziehung auf Byzanz und die Levante,
Fontes Rerum Austriacarum, Diplomataria et Acta 12/14 (Vienna, 1856–1857), 2:n° 277;
Richard Spence, “Gregory ix’s attempted expeditions to the Latin empire of Constanti-
nople: the crusade for the union of the Latin and Greek churches,” Journal of Medieval
History 5 (1979) 163–176. Chrissis, Crusading in Frankish Greece, 89–91.
shall see, occupies a rather prominent role in Baldwin’s horoscope. This pre-
diction then must have been meant as a reassuring message to those at court
who were prepared to hear it. The key argument supporting this hypothesis is
that, in the astrological question under consideration, the child’s ascendant is
Libra (“la livre est ascendenz en sa nativité”), while in Baldwin’s horoscope his
son is said to have been born under the sign of Libra (“son fil qui est nez en la
Livre”). Libra (circa September 23—October 22) was thus Philip of Courtenay’s
ascendant sign (his father’s ascendant sign being Virgo). This fits in well with
indications that Philip was born in the latter half of 1242.13
Thirdly, apart from the personal element, the Byzantine—or Roman—
aspect in the fragment under discussion is evident. The mention of senatours
in the context of the accession of a ruler is indeed remarkable. It should be
clear that the idea of senators playing a role in the accession of a sovereign only
makes sense in a single context: a Byzantine (or Roman) one. In Byzantium a
remodeled version of the ancient Roman institution continued to exist until
the very end of the empire in the 15th century. For example, shortly before the
second fall of Constantinople to the crusaders in April 1204 the senate had been
instrumental in appointing Nicholas Kannabos as a rival emperor in an effort to
depose the unpopular Alexios iv Angelos (1203–1204), who had been brought to
power by the crusader army. Although sources on the senate’s functioning are
scarce, it, among others, possessed judicial power and also had a—mostly sym-
bolic—role in the proclamation of a new emperor. The senatorial class was still
very much in existence at the beginning of the thirteenth century. Senators—
mostly a conglomerate of high-ranking civil officials, the highest clergy, and
members of what may be called the Byzantine metropolitan aristocracy—
enjoyed for example the privilege of being judged by the imperial court.14
13 BnF, fr.1353, f. 45va (=Appendix 3, Ch. 131, §1) and f. 102rb (=Appendix 2, §12). With regard
to the date of Philip of Courtenay’s birth we know from an imperial letter from February
1242 that at this time Emperor Baldwin still had no heir (Buchon, Recherches et matériaux
pour servir à une historie de la domination française, 144–145). We also know that Philip
was knighted during his stay at Alfonso x of Castile’s court in late 1259 until 1260 (see
Chapter 1), a ceremony that normally did not take place before having turned eighteen.
It may then be concluded that he must have been born in the latter half of 1242, with the
period circa September 23–October 22 as a viable option.
14 Alexander Kazhdan, “Senate & Senator,” in idem, ed., The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium
(New York, 1991), 3:1868–1870. Phillips, The Fourth Crusade, 222–223. Bréhier, Les institutions
de l’empire byzantin, 185–190. Ruth Macrides, “The Competent Court,” in Angeliki .E. Laiou
and Dieter Simon, eds., Law and Society in Byzantium. Ninth-Twelfth Centuries, Dumbarton
oaks Research Library and Collection (Washington, 1994), 122. On the 1204 episode, see An-
thony Kaldellis, The Byzantine Republic. People and Power in New Rome (Cambridge, Mass.,
2015), 123–124 and 130. For a succinct evaluation of Kaldellis’ central thesis, see note 43.
34 Chapter 2
In the 13th-century West the expression senator was used in Rome as a title
for the head of the civil administration in the city of Rome: summus senator
or simply senator. In this context, among others, are the well-known examples
of Richard of Cornwall (1261) and Charles of Anjou (126–66, 1268–78, 1281–84),
who as foreign princes acquired this title. The title of senator was also used in
a number of self-governing cities, for example Cologne, to designate the mem-
bers of the municipal council belonging to the urban—largely non-noble—
elite.15 Clearly these options can not apply here, since in neither case did these
senators have any authority with regard to the accession of a new sovereign.
Furthermore, in medieval Arabic, Byzantine, or Western astrological texts I
have consulted—whether or not our author had access to them—I have not
found any reference to a similar prediction mentioning the involvement of
senators in the accession of a new sovereign.
Since the fragment probably has personal overtones, it is likely an original
contribution by our author within the framework of a largely compilatory
work. The passage thus may reflect the terms in which the accession of a new
sovereign—a new emperor—in Constantinople around 1260 was framed.
For our author, senators were clearly indispensable to the process, otherwise
he could have contented himself with something like “de barons et de hauz
homes,” as he does elsewhere when mentioning the upper social groups.
If so, the question arises who were meant literally with the term senatours.
As, to my knowledge, this is the only text referring to senators in the Latin
empire of C onstantinople, we have nothing to go on but the fragment itself.
The phrase “de Christus et de senatours et de hauz homes” is ambivalent in
that it is unclear whether the senators are to be distinguished from the hauz
homes, whether the senators are to be considered as a subgroup within the
hauz homes, or whether both are interchangeable terms.
In Byzantium the term senators was sometimes used solely in reference to
a group of high-ranking civil officials (as opposed to the military aristocracy),
15 In mid-12th-century Rome, the ancient senate was temporarily revived (with 56 mem-
bers) in the context of the anti-papal rebellion resulting in the Commune of Rome (start-
ing in 1144). After a compromise had finally been reached with the papacy in 1188 this
senate was reduced to a single or maximum two senators, who were yearly elected and
headed the city administration. The collective term senatus, nevertheless, remained in
use in charters and other documents. By the late 12th century their—claimed or actual—
competences did no longer include any matter related to the imperial election. See Carrie
E. Benes, “What spqr? Sovereignty and Semiotics in Medieval Rome,” Speculum 84 (2009)
876–883; Burkhardt, Mediterranes Kaisertum und imperialen Ordnungen, 62; Manfred
Groten, “Die mittelalterlichen Stadt als Erbin der antiken Civitas,” in Michael Bernsen,
Matthias Becher, and Elke Brüggen, eds., Gründungsmythen Europas in Mittelalter (Göt-
tingen, 2013), 27.
but it could also be used to refer to a group that included the highest
Byzantine aristocracy. Since we may ascribe a hierarchical order to the phrase
(starting with the highest power—Christ—and descending from there), I am
inclined to accept the latter option. We may then hypothesize that in Latin
Constantinople the highest civil officials, court dignitaries, noblemen, and per-
haps also the highest ecclesiastical functionaries were to be included. Presum-
ably persons of both Latin and Byzantine descent belonged to the senatorial
class, since persons from both groups held important positions in the impe-
rial entourage and administration, as, for example, members of the Toucy and
Cayeux families on the Latin side and the phylax John on the Byzantine side.
Besides, intermarriage among Latin and Byzantine aristocratic families was
not uncommon.16
That the senatorial body appears to be attested in Latin-Byzantine Con-
stantinople and that Latin nobles possibly saw themselves as senators in the
Byzantine-Roman tradition (as our author seems to have looked on them) is
remarkable, but not surprising. Byzantine institutions were continued and
from the first years after 1204 a number of Latin nobles are attested with Byz-
antine court titles: for example, protovestiarios (1205) and later sebastokrator
(1219) Cono i of Béthune, kaisar Narjot i of Toucy (around 1217–1238) and
his son kaisar Philip of Toucy (around 1250–1261), epi tou kanikleiou Robert of
Buccaleone (1277)), although for others only Western style court titles are attest-
ed.17 In this context the French version of the Chronicle of Morea character-
izes Anselin of Toucy—a son of Narjot i and a daughter of Theodore Branas,
feudal lord of Adrianople and Didymoteichon—who had become a prominent
16 On the mixed Latin-Byzantine composition of the imperial court and imperial elite under
the first Latin emperors: Van Tricht, The Latin Renovatio of Byzantium, 251–306. Specifi-
cally under Emperor Baldwin ii: idem, De Latijnse Renovatio van Byzantium, 2: 703–722.
17 On the continuation of Byzantine institutions under Latin rule, the Cistercian author
Gunther of Pairis, on the basis of an eyewitness-account by his abbot Martin, had the
following to say: “Leges et iura et cetere instituciones, que ab antiquo tam in urbe quam in
provincia laudabiles habebantur, ita, ut prius fuerant, consistere permisse sunt, que vero rep-
robabiles videbantur, vel correcte in melius vel penitus inmutate” (Gunther of Paris, Hystoria
Constantinopolitana, ed. Peter Orth, Spolia Berolinensia. Berliner Beiträge zur Mediävis-
tik 5 (Hildesheim, 1994), 163–164). See also Van Tricht, The Latin Renovatio of Byzantium,
103–144. Burkhardt’s succinct discussion of the Latin imperial court hierarchy based on
only a selection of the available evidence lead him to erroneous conclusions, for example,
regarding the Venetian podestà’s despotes title for which there is no evidence that it could
automatically be assumed by new podesta’s, or regarding his views on the absence of
eunuchs at the Constantinopolitan court (who at the Nicaean court appear to have been
absent as well, see Michael Angold, A Byzantine Government in Exile. The Empire of Nicaea
(Oxford, 1975)); part of the problem is the author’s reliance on older secondary literature
(Burkhardt, Mediterranes Kaisertum und imperialen Ordnungen, 200–205).
36 Chapter 2
baron in the principality of Achaia, where he resettled after Constantinople

had been lost in 1261, as knowing la langue et les manieres des Grex because he
was born in Romania. This suggests a profound familiarity with Byzantine—
i.e., imperial—traditions among members of the leading class who were of
Latin descent and were born in or around Constantinople. Among these was of
course also Emperor Baldwin ii himself. The existence of this social group ties
in well with the mention of a senatorial group in our fragment.18 How the term
“Roman” itself was used and interpreted by the new Latin metropolitan elite
will be analyzed in the discussion of historiographical literature originating in
Latin Constantinople (see Chapter 6).
Apart from the “Roman” element, the fragment in question in the phrase
“la segnorie del reiaume il eust par mains de Christus” contains also another
concept central to Byzantine imperial ideology. The idea that the sovereign
was crowned by God or Christ Himself was typically Byzantine and an aspect
of the close association between Christ and emperor in Byzantine imperial
ideology.19 The “crowned by God” topos was used by the Byzantine emperors
in the imperial style (θεόστεπτος) in charters and was also a common theme in
imperial iconography (coins, book illumination, mosaics, monumental paint-
ing, etc.), with which the Latin conquerors must have acquainted themselves
in the metropolitan palaces and churches.20 The first Latin emperor Baldwin i
of Flanders/Hainaut and all his successors, after the Byzantine model, adopted
the Latin a Deo coronatus formula in their own title.21 That this was more than
simple formalism is borne out by the fragment in question: the fact that the
18 Jean Longnon, ed., Livre de la Conquête de la Princée de l’Amorée. Chronique de Morée

(1204–1305) (Paris, 1911), §357 (“the language and the customs of the Greeks”). On Toucy:
idem, “Les Toucy en Orient et en Italie au XIIIe siècle,” Bulletin de la Société des Sciences
historiques et naturelles de l’Yonne 96 (1953–1956), 33–43. On Branas: Filip Van Tricht, “The
Byzantino-Latin Principality of Adrianople and the Challenge of Feudalism (1204/6–
1227/28): Empire, Venice and Local Autonomy,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 68 (2015), 325–342.
19 See references in note 2. Also Ioli Kalavrezou, “Helping Hands for the Empire: Imperial
ceremonies and the Cult of Relics at the Byzantine Court,” in Henry Maguire, ed., Byzan-
tine Court Culture from 829 to 1204 (Washington, D.C., 1997), 78–79.
20 Franz Dölger, Byzantinische Diplomatik. 20 Aufsätze zum Urkundenwesen der Byzantiner
(Ettal, 1956), 142–143.
21 Van Tricht, The Latin Renovatio of Byzantium, 62–71. It would, however, seem that the
iconographical Christ-emperor association was possibly too direct for the Latin emperors
to adopt: no coins or seals are known containing an image of the Latin emperor being
crowned by Christ (or with Christ on the obverse and the emperor on the reverse). See,
for example, Alan M. Stahl, “Coinage and Money in the Latin Empire,” Dumbarton Oaks
Papers 55 (2001) 197–206; Julian Baker, “Money and Currency in Medieval Greece,” in Nick-
iphoros I. Tsougarakis and Peter Lock, eds., A Companion to Latin Greece, Companion’s to
European History 6 (Leiden, 2014), 217–254.
typically Byzantine concept of the ruler being crowned by Christ appears in an

astrological treatise indicates that the idea must have formed an integral and
essential part of the Latin dynasty’s imperial ideology. The “crowned by God”
concept was alien to Western political ideology around 1200. Before then only
in a few limited contexts, and always with a clear and direct Byzantine connec-
tion, do we find traces of it in the West.22
A number of passages in our author’s versified introduction may likewise
suggest the adoption of the close association between Christ and emperor
from the Byzantine predecessors. Indeed, three elements in Baldwin’s biog-
raphy, as appearing in the horoscope, show a conspicuous similarity with
episodes in the life of Christ, which would not have escaped contemporary
readers or listeners. First is the presence of three astrologers considered to be
wise men (“.iii. esleu sage del art et bien creu”) around the time of Baldwin’s
birth who predict his future.23 This evidently recalls the passage in the gospel
of Matthew (Mt 2:1-12) where wise men (μάγοι or magi)—three in number
as ecclesiastical tradition has assumed because of the gifts of gold, frankin-
cense, and myrrh—visit Christ shortly after His birth. In the Christian—both
Western and Byzantine—astrological tradition the wise men were identified
as astrologers. They were in fact a key biblical argument used by those such
as the 12th-century Raymond of Marseilles in his apology of astrology as a
science (Liber cursuum planetarum) and by the Byzantine emperor Manuel i
Komnenos (1143–1180) in his famous letter in defence of astrology (probably to
be dated in the 1170s).24
22 Charlemagne at the time of his imperial coronation in 800 had introduced the formula in
his new imperial title (directly inspired by Byzantine custom), but his son and successor
Louis the Pious dropped it from his. Thereafter, the formula lived on in various laudes
regiae until the first half of the 12th century (Johanna Dale, “Inauguration and political
liturgy in the Hohenstaufen Empire, 1138–1215,” German History 34 (2016) 191–213). Visual
counterparts of the formula are known in Ottonian Germany and Norman Sicily. Holy
Roman emperor Otto ii (973–983) is depicted as being crowned by Christ together with
his wife, the Byzantine princess Theophanu, on the Byzantine-style ivory binding plaque
of the Magdeburg Codex (late 10th century). Holy Roman emperor Henry ii (1002–1024),
Otto’s relative and the last of the Ottonian dynasty is portrayed in a similar way in the
Bamberger Perikopenbuch (early 11th century): Gábor Klaniczay, Holy Rulers and Blessed
Princesses. Dynastic Cults in Medieval Central Europe (Cambridge, 2002), 116–117. In a con-
temporary Byzantine-style mosaic in the San Maria dell’Ammiraglio church in Palermo,
king of Sicily Roger ii (1130–1154) is also depicted as being crowned by Christ; the Byzan-
tine imperial iconography was explicitly aimed at the local Byzantine audience: Hubert
Houben, Roger ii of Sicily. A Ruler between East and West (Cambridge, 2002), 113–114, 135.
23 BnF, fr.1353, f. 4ra (=Appendix 1, v330–334, “three elected men wise in this art and credible”).
24 Raymond de Marseille, Opera omnia, Tome 1: Traité de l’astrolabe Liber cursuum planeta-
rum, ed. Marie-Thérèse d’Alverny, Charles Burnett, and Emmanuel Poulle (Paris, 2009),
38 Chapter 2
Secondly, Baldwin and his empire seem to undergo a kind of resurrection in

the following verses:
a pou d’avoir par son grant sens / en grant ennui et en grant guerre / en
grant estroicete de terre / le maintendroit longuement Dex / si qu’il ne
seroit hom mortex / qui de lui ne se mervellast / quar ausit cum se il
s’esvellast / resordroit il et ses empires.25
It is not too far-fetched to read into this passage an allusion to Christ’s death
and resurrection. The sovereign will awake (s’esvallast—implying that he had
been asleep, with sleep and death being closely related, as in 1 Thes 4:13-16),
and that he (and his empire) will revive (with the verb ressourdre or resordre
carrying the possible connotations of resuscitation and rebirth), a miracle in
the eyes of every mortal man (the word merveille carrying connotations of the
supernatural and the inexplicable) implying Baldwin was unlike other mortal
men. And as Christ through His Passion opened an entrance to the heavenly
kingdom for mankind, so the emperor through great difficulties will restore
the earthly (universal) kingdom. Apart from Christ’s resurrection, a Byzantine
eschatological tradition, which itself is of course also thematically related to
the evangelical resurrection accounts (but also to for example, the Nero Redivi-
vus legend), may also have served as inspiration for the cited passage.
In some versions of this so-called Last Emperor tradition the Last Emperor
(or one in a series of Last Emperors) awakes (from sleep, from drunkeness,
from a tomb, etc.) before he goes on to restore his empire in anticipation of
Christ’s second coming. This is the case in the Vision of Pseudo-Methodius
(7th century), the apocalypse of Andreas Salos (7th–10th centuries), the Sla-
vonic Vision of Daniel (9th century), and the Oracles of Leo the Wise (12th–
14th centuries). In some of these texts (Andreas Salos, the Centon of the Poor
Emperor in the Oracles of Leo the Wise) the emperor in question is represent-
ed as being poor (at the moment of his awakening). The poverty of Baldwin as
128–29, 156–59. Demetra George, “Manuel i Komnenos and Michael Glycas: A Twelfth-
Century Defence and Refutation of Astrology. Part 1,” Culture and Cosmos 5/1 (2001)
32–33. Marie-Thérèse d’Alverny, “Astrologues et théologiens au XIIe siècle,” in André
Duval, ed., Mélanges offerts à Marie-Dominique Chenu (Paris, 1967), 38. Paul Magdalino,
L’orthodoxie des astrologues. La science entre le dogme et la divination à Byzance, VIIe–XIVe
siècle, Réalités byzantines 12 (Paris, 2006), 113.
25 BnF, fr.1353, f. 4ra (=Appendix 1, v349–355, “in His great wisdom with little possessions/
in great difficulty and in great war/left with only a small amount of land/God will main-
tain him a long time/thus that there will be no mortal man/who does not marvel at him
because/from the moment he awakes/he will resuscitate his empire”).
emperor is emphasized in other passages, both in the verse introduction and

in the actual horoscope (see Chapter 3). The parallels are clear and it is in-
deed quite possible that our author was familiar with Byzantine eschatological
traditions. In 1208, chronicler and imperial cleric Henry of Valenciennes had
already gathered some knowledge concerning these traditions from Byzantine
contacts, some of whom seem to have identified Emperor Henry of Flanders/
Hainaut as possibly being the Last Emperor (or one of the Last Emperors).
Suggesting an identification of Baldwin ii with the Last Emperor (or one of
the Last Emperors), as our author seems to do, must in part have had a legiti-
mizing purpose: the legitimacy of an emperor who was deemed to have a part
to play in the eschatological scheme of things could hardly be questioned. In
this our author may have been influenced by contemporaneous apocalyptic
tendencies in both Western Europe and the Mediterranean that were stimu-
lated by upheavals such as the Mongol invasions, which had caused the Latin
empire direct and great harm.26
A third instance of association between Christ and emperor is to be found in
how Baldwin’s son is presented as a savior in the following verses: “mes par .i.
fil que il [Baldwin and his wife Mary of Brienne] auroient / rescous de povrete
seroient.”27 This could be read as a parallel to the role of Christ—the Son with-
in the Holy Trinity—as the Saviour of mankind. This may sound a bit forced,
but it is rather the representation of Philip of Courtenay as saving his father
26 dmf (Dictionnaire du Moyen Français) 2012. atilf cnrs–Université de Lorraine (http://

www.atilf.fr/dmf), lemmata “éveiller,” “ressourdre,” “merveille.” On the close association
between the concepts of sleep and death in medieval and earlier and later times: Christine
Pigné, “Hypnos et Thanatos: une association traditionelle renouvelée à la Renaissance,”
L’information littéraire 60 (2008) 21–34. On the Last Emperor tradition: Paul J. Alexander,
The Byzantine Apocalyptic Tradition (Berkeley, 1985), 151–184; Marie-Hélène Congourdeau,
“Les oracula Leonis,” in Cosimo D. Fonseca, ed., Gioachimismo e profetismo in Sicilia (secoli
xiii–xvi). Atti del terzo Convegno internazionale di studio Palermo-Monreale 14–16 ottobre
2005 (Viella, 2007), 79–91; idem, “Jérusalem et Constantinople dans la littérature apoca-
lyptique,” in Michel Kaplan, ed., Le sacré et son inscription dans l’espace à Byzance et en
Occident, Byzantina Sorbonensia 18 (Paris, 2001), 125–136; Petre Guran, “Historical Prophe-
cies from Late Antique Apocalypticism to Secular Eschatology,” Revue des Études Sud-Est
Européennes 52 (2014) 47–62. On Henry of Valenciennes and Emperor Henry: Van Tricht,
The Latin Renovatio of Byzantium, 467–469. On the apocalyptic tendencies caused by the
Mongol invasions: Peter Jackson, The Mongols and the West, 1221–1410 (Harlow, 2005), 145–
251. On the impact of the Mongol invasions on the Latin empire: see Chapter 3, note 44.
27 BnF, fr.1353, f. 4rb (=Appendix 1, v367–368, “But by a son that they will have/They will be
rescued from poverty”). In the actual horoscope Baldwin’s son Philip of Courtenay’s sign
Libra is likewise said to have a salvatory effect on Baldwin’s life: “por ce salve ce grant seg-
nor en la Livre” (BnF, fr.1353, f. 101vb (=Appendix 2, §7), “Therefore this great lord will be
saved in the sign of Libra”).
40 Chapter 2
(and mother, as well as the empire) that appears forced. In reality it was the
Castilian king Alfonso x who acted as “saviour” of both Baldwin and Philip by
redeeming the latter, who only later appears to have assumed an active politi-
cal role. Alfonso’s involvement does not go unmentioned, but in this passage
he is reduced to being merely an aid of Philip, as is clear from these lines which
follow: “que uns sires moult i aideroit / qui de lor parentez seroit.”28 In spite of
any reality, our author thought it important to picture the heir to the throne,
Philip, in the role of saviour. The Christ-emperor association as an element in
the prevalent imperial ideology provides a context within which our author’s
choice becomes understandable. But perhaps the theme of “the son” in com-
bination with other elements should be understood in another way. Possibly a
Joachimist influence may be discerned in our author’s work. It is crucial to note
that in the person of Benedict of Arezzo—provincial of R omania and one of
Saint Francis of Assisi’s companions—Franciscan influence in the entourage
of the Latin emperors John of Brienne and Baldwin ii was strong. Benedict was
a confidant of both emperors. He was John’s confessor and in that capacity was
instrumental in the emperor’s entry into the Franciscan order (through a pre-
dictive interpretation of John’s dreams). He also foretold certain events which
for Baldwin came to pass. Years later, around 1266–67, the emperor still spoke
highly of Benedict to Louis ix’s brother Charles of Anjou. Benedict’s obvious
interest in predicting the future seems to situate him in the group of Francis-
cans interested in the prophetic/eschatological writings of the theologian and
mystic Joachim of Fiore (†1202).29
A fundamental concept of Fiore’s teachings was that human history can be
divided into three epochs: the age of the Father (the Old Testament), the age of
the Son (between the advent of Christ and the time circa 1260), and the (final)
age of the Spirit after the time circa 1260, which following the coming of the
Antichrist would be the establishment of a new “Order of the Just” (along with
peace, concord, and divine universal love). In this final era, according to the
mentioned Franciscans and others, the mendicant orders were to play a crucial
role. In this the emphasis on the emperor’s poverty in our author’s writings
may be interpreted not only as a reference to the Last Emperor tradition (the
“poor emperor”), but also to the Franciscan (and Joachimist) ideal of poverty.
Emperor John’s entry into the Franciscan order shows that Benedict actively
28 BnF, fr.1353, f. 4rb (=Appendix 1, v369–370, “Hereby will greatly help a lord / Who will
belong to their parentage”).
29 On Benedict of Arezzo and the Franciscans in Latin-Byzantine Constantinople: Robert L.
Wolff, “The Latin Empire of Constantinople and the Franciscans,” Traditio 2 (1944) 216–
220; Girolamo Golubovich, ed., Biblioteca Bio-Bibliografica della Terra Santa e dell’Oriente
Franciscano. Serie 1 (Florence, 1906–13), 1:129–149.
(and successfully) promoted Franciscan ideals at the imperial court. The pov-
erty ideal may well have appealed to our author as useful in the context of the
empire’s and his emperor’s plight. A parallel between Joachimist thought and
our author is in the significance of the time circa 1260. If my dating of the com-
position of Baldwin’s horoscope holds true (in or around 1260), according to
our author the time around the said year would be the starting point for a peri-
od of imperial renewal and restauration. Indeed, it is clear from the horoscope
that Baldwin’s victory over his enemies is situated in the very near future (see
Chapter 4). A second parallel is that this post-1260 era would be eschatologi-
cal in nature, following our author’s references to the Last Emperor tradition.
A third parallel is that before the post-1260 period commences the focus will be
on “the son.” It was Baldwin’s son who, after having been redeemed from mer-
chants, would rescue his parents—and their empire—from poverty. I don’t
mean to claim that our author was a Joachimist (or that our author’s views
are entirely consistent with Joachimist prophecies), but it does seem possible,
influenced by Benedict of Arezzo or one of his Franciscan colleagues, that he
was familiar with Joachimist concepts and mixed elements that he deemed
useful from both Byzantine and Joachimist eschatological tradition.30
Returning to the Byzantine-inspired association between emperor and
God/Christ in our corpus of texts, this element may be in part responsible
for the conspicuous fact that no reference is to be found to crusade ideol-
ogy. Both the versified introduction, as well as Baldwin’s horoscope itself, re-
peatedly mention the emperor’s extensive travels to the West in search of
aid (1236–1239 and 1245–1249), but such Western aid for Constantinople is
never presented in terms of crusading (by references to crusading vows, the
crusade indulgence, the importance of Latin Constantinople for the protec-
tion of the Holy Land, etc.). Yet most of the military and financial support
that reached Latin Romania in the 1230s and 1240s had been the result of cru-
sade appeals by the successive popes Gregory ix (1227–1241) and Innocent
iv (1243–1254). This contradiction could be explained in the sense that the
fundamental dependence of the entire crusading concept upon the papacy
may have been acceptable from a practical point of view, but not from an
ideological one: a universal ruler crowned by God needed no reference to any
other (in casu papal) authority in the context of his efforts to gather Western
support. The fact that the crusade concept was alien to Byzantine culture may
30 On Joachimism and Joachimist Franciscans: Marjorie Reeves, The Influence of Prophecy

in the Later Middle ages. A Study in Joachimism (Oxford, 1969), 175–190. Harvey J. Hames,
Like Angels on Jacob’s Ladder. Abraham Abulafia, the Franciscans and Joachimism (Albany,
2007), 11–25.
42 Chapter 2
perhaps have been an influence. This hypothesis would imply that Baldwin
saw himself n ever as what has been called a “crusader emperor” or his empire
as a “crusader state.” Given the context within which he had to operate, cru-
sading inevitably was an important part of his political action, as it had been
for his predecessors, either as an instrument for obtaining Western aid or as
an instrument for demonstrating the emperor’s piety and the empire’s po-
tential as protector—or suzerain—of the Holy Land (Baldwin ii’s personal
participation in the 1249 Damietta campaign during the Seventh Crusade), but
it seems never to have been an integral component of the identity he ascribed
to his empire.31
The adoption of key elements of Byzantine imperial ideology—universalist
claim, Roman character, close association with Christ-emperor—by the Latin
emperors, and specifically by Baldwin ii, can be linked to the fact that Bald-
win’s court was not only composed of persons of Western descent, but also
of Byzantines, although the emperor chose to deny the use of Graeci as his
consiliarii in his correspondence with his wife’s xenophobic relative Blanche
of C astile, mother of Louis ix of France.32 Sources mention phylax John but a
number of others as well: Maximos Aloubardes and Nikephoritzes/Nikephoros,
both attested as imperial hupogrammateus or (under)secretary before 1261;33
31 Ioannis Stouraitis, “Jihad and Crusade: Byzantine Positions towards the Notions of Holy
War,” Byzantina Symmeikta 21 (2011) 11–63. On the place of crusading and the Holy Land
in the politics of Baldwin’s predecessors: Van Tricht, The Latin Renovatio of Byzantium,
95–99, 433–472. On crusader support for Latin Constantinople under Baldwin ii: Chrissis,
Crusading in Frankish Greece, 120–126, 155–159.
32 See Baldwin’s August 1243 letter to Blanche: André Duchesne, ed., Historiae Francorum
Scriptores (Paris, 1649), 5:423–424. Baldwin’s denial destined to soothe the French queen-
mother, a potential benefactor, can perhaps be seen in the context of earlier Byzantine
diplomacy and its role of disinformation and duplicity: Jonathan Shepard, “Byzantine
Diplomacy, a.d. 800–1204: Means and Ends,” in idem and Simon C. Franklin, eds., Byz-
antine Diplomacy (Aldershot, 1992), 41–71. Perhaps we could also see a link between
Baldwin’s untrue statement and the role attributed to the emperor of Constantinople as
“the arbiter of truth” in works of medieval French literature (such as the Franco-Italian
chanson de geste entitled Macaire/Macario), allowing him to twist the truth as he pleases:
Rima Devereaux, Constantinople and the West in Medieval French Literature, Gallica 25
(Cambridge, 2012), 118–119. See also Erica Gilles, “Men of France? Boundary Crossing in
Constantinople in the 1240’s,” in Katherine L. Jansen, G. Geltner, and Anne E. Lester, eds.,
Center and periphery: studies on power in the medieval world in honor of William Chester
Jordan, Later Medieval Europe (Leiden, 2013), 219.
33 Georgios Pachymeres, Relations Historiques, lib. 2, §36. Nikephoritzes (a diminutive
of Nikephoros) is no doubt to be identified with the Niquefores who sometime before
1261 functioned as imperial envoy to Otho of Cicon, lord of Karystos on Euboia (Riant,
Exuviae Sacrae Constantinopolitanae, 2: n° 93). Both are attested after 1261 being in the
service of Michael viii Paleologos: Franz Dölger and Peter Wirth, eds., “Regesten der
perhaps also deacon and epi ton deeseon Demetrios Pyrros (1240), although he
may have been connected to the Doukai’s imperial court in Thessaloniki;34 the
priest Demetrios, perhaps to be identified with the former, to whom Baldwin
ii shortly before 1261 gave instructions to build a Byzantine-style church dedi-
cated to Saint George;35 the Byzantine envoys whom Baldwin ii in 1259 sent
to Nicaea to negotiate a treaty;36 the Byzantine archontes who in July 1261 fled
the capital together with Baldwin ii after it had fallen to the Nicaean general
Alexios Strategopoulos.37 As mentioned, there were among the imperial elite a
number of mixed marriages and their offspring, with, for example, Anselin of
Cayeux marrying Isaac ii Angelos’ granddaughter Mary Angelos,38 and Philip,
Narjot ii, and Anselin of Toucy being sons of the daughter of the feudal prince
of Adrianople, Theodore Branas.39 Through these affiliations Byzantine politi-
cal ideas and traditions must have continued to find their way to the emperor’s
court, as they had done under Baldwin’s predecessors.40
Imperial ideas and politics, of course, were at the same time heavily imbued
with typically Western elements and concepts (such as the use of Western
eiserurkunden des Oströmischen Reiches von 565–1453.” 3. “Regesten von 1204–1282,”

K
2nd ed., in Corpus der Griechischen Urkunden des Mittelalters und der Neueren Zeit, Reihe
A: Regesten 1 (Munich, 1977), n° 1901a).
34 Cf Van Tricht, The Latin Renovatio of Byzantium, 126 (n. 88), and Jacoby, “The Greeks of
Constantinople under Latin Rule,” 60.
35 Corinna Matzukis, ed. and trans., The Fall of Constantinople, Fourth Crusade. A critical
edition with translation and historical commentary of the Codex 408 Marcianus Graecus
( ff. 1–13v) in the Library of St. Mark (Venice/Athens, 2004), 123–127. On this source, see
also Peter Charanis, “Les Brachea Chronika comme source historique. An important short
chronicle of the fourteenth century,” Byzantion 13 (1938) 335–337.
36 Georgios Pachymeres, Relations Historiques, lib. 2, §10. On the date: Dölger and Wirth,
Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des Oströmischen Reiches, n° 1867b.
37 Longnon, Chronique de Morée, §87.
38 Innocentius iv, Les registres (1243–1254), ed. Elie Berger, in Registres des papes du XIIIe siè-
cle (Paris, 1884–1921), n° 6862 and 7178. Alexander iv, Les registres (1254–1261), ed. Charles
Bourel de la Roncière, Registres des papes du XIIIe siècle (Paris, 1896–1959), n° 48. Mary
was a daughter of John Angelos (son of Isaac ii Angelos and Margaret of Hungary, sister
of king Andrew ii) and Mathilde of Courtenay (granddaughter of the imperial couple
Peter of Courtenay and Yolande of Flanders/Hainaut). See also Gordon McDaniel, “On
Hungarian-Serbian relations in the thirteenth century John Angelos and Queen Jelena,”
Ungarn-Jahrbuch 12 (1982–1983), 43–45. Michael Angold misses this marriage as well as
several others, leading him to questionable conclusions regarding the marriage strategies
of the Latin rulers, especially in Constantinople. Cf Michael Angold, “The Latin Empire
of Constantinople, 1204–1261: Marriage Strategies,” in Judith Herrin and Guillaume Saint-
Guillain, eds., Identities and Allegiances in the Eastern Mediterranean after 1204 (Farnham,
2011), 47–67, and Van Tricht, “Robert of Courtenay,” 1009–1015.
39 See reference in note 18.
40 See also note 17.
44 Chapter 2
style court titles along side Byzantine ones and Western aspects in the ico-
nography of imperial seals next to Byzantine ones). One example is the accep-
tance of the intervention of the papacy as an external power in internal church
affairs. It should, however, be remembered that this was something Michael
viii Paleologos, in an attempt to ward off the growing threat of an attack by
Baldwin ii and Charles i of Anjou, king of Sicily, also accepted with the Union
of Lyon in 1274. Even Manuel i Komnenos (1143–1180) had for a time consid-
ered recognizing papal primacy (and its consequences) in exchange for papal
recognition of the exclusivity of his (Roman) imperial title.41 Another e xample
is the feudal restructuring of the empire, with the creation of hereditary vas-
salitic relationships between emperor and local rulers, who enjoyed a large
measure of autonomy (including extensive judicial and fiscal prerogatives),
and with a “mixed council” of barons (magnates) and Venetian representa-
tives that at least theoretically had a large say in the imperial decision-making
process. This political system at first sight leaves little room for the Byzantine
idea of imperial autocracy. Of course growing feudal or other decentralizing
tendencies—with institutions such as the pronoia which is essentially feu-
dal in nature, with local archontes striving for regional autonomy, with entire
regions acquiring far-reaching autonomy (for example, Armenian Cilicia and
Latin Antioch), and with the Italian sea cities obtaining ever increasing com-
mercial, fiscal, judicial, and territorial privileges—had not been unknown in
Byzantium in the period leading up to 1204.42
Likewise, Byzantine imperial autocracy in practice was far from absolute.
Indeed, consensual decision making and collective consultation were very
much a part of Byzantine political reality and, to a point, also of Byzantine
state ideology. There was, for example, already an imperial council in the
12th century composed of members of the landed aristocracy and of the civil
bureaucracy, which played an important role in the imperial decision making
process. In addition, the senatorial body in theory always remained an instru-
mental factor in the appointment of a new emperor.43 Conversely—as in the
41 On the geopolitical context of the 1274 union: Geanakolpos, Emperor Michael Palaeolo-
gus and the West, 239–263; Chrissis, Crusading in Frankish Greece, 217–226. On the nego-
tiations between emperor Manuel i and Pope Alexander iii: Magdalino, The Empire of
Manuel i Komnenos, 83–92; Michael Angold, Church and society in Byzantium under the
Comneni (1081–1261) (Cambridge, 1995), 109–110.
42 See on the mix of Western and Byzantine elements in Latin imperial politics, on the
relationship with the papacy, and on the feudal restructuring of the empire: Van Tricht,
The Latin Renovatio of Byzantium, passim; Jean-Claude Cheynet, Pouvoir et contestations à
Byzance (963–1210), Byzantina Sorbonensia 9 (Paris, 1990), 427.
43 A succinct introduction concerning the debate on feudalism in Byzantium (with further
references): Peter Sarris, “Economics, Trade and ‘Feudalism,’” in Liz James, ed., A Compan-
ion to Byzantium (Chicester, 2010), 40–42. On collective decision-making in Byzantium:
case of his brother Robert—the autocratic ideal was not absent from Baldwin
ii’s rule either, although in many ways his actual grip on things was often tenu-
ous (being at times upstaged by subordinate feudal partners such as the prince
of Achaia or the Republic of Venice). This was equally the case for earlier and
later emperors of Constantinople in times of prolonged crisis when faced with
multi-faceted internal and external threats to their authority, as, for example,
the later Paleologan emperors.44
The constitutional pact of October 1205 between regent Henry of Flanders/
Hainaut and Venetian podestà Marino Zeno stipulated that any new emperor
was required to confirm this treaty by oath, with the inclusion of the preceding
pact of March 1204 concluded by the leaders of the Fourth Crusade (Doge En-
rico Dandolo, the counts Baldwin ix/vi of Flanders/Hainaut, Louis of Blois,
and Hugo iv of Saint-Pol), and the feudal repartition of the empire (the so-
called Partitio terrarum imperii Romanie).45 It is telling that in the Venetian
archives oaths in writing confirming these treaties to Venetian representatives
have been preserved for every single emperor (and for one regent at the time
of his appointment) except for Baldwin ii.46 It may be questioned whether
such a document ever existed. Given its importance in providing a legal basis
for the extensive Venetian rights and possessions in Romania, it is unlikely that
Demetrios Kyritses, “The Imperial Council and the Tradition of Consultative Decision-
making in Byzantium (eleventh to fourteenth centuries),” in Dimiter Angelov and Michael
Saxby, eds., Power and Subversion in Byzantium. Papers from the 43rd Spring Symposium of
Byzantine Studies, Birmingham, March 2010 (Farnham, 2013), 57–70; idem, “Political and
Constitutional Crisis at the End of the Twelfth Century,” in Alicia Simpson, ed., Byzan-
tium, 1180–1204: “The Sad Quarter of the Century?” International Symposium 22 (Athens,
2015), 97–111. Anthony Kaldellis (The Byzantine Republic, 110–111), argues that the Byzan-
tine (Roman) empire in essence was still a republic in the sense that only popular consent
could authorize the allocation of power. The author’s contribution is valuable in relativiz-
ing imperial autocracy and theocracy, but his proclamation of popular sovereignty as the
cornerstone of Byzantine politics remains unconvincing. See Yannis Stouraitis, Review of
Kaldellis, “The Byzantine Republic,” Journal of Hellenic Studies 136 (2016) 296–297.
44 On Robert see: Van Tricht, “Robert of Courtenay,” 1031. On the later Paleologan emperors
who were like Baldwin ii confronted with a gap between imperial ideology and actual
internal and external politics: Donald Nicol, The Last Centuries of Byzantium 1261–1453
(Cambridge, 1993), 251–339.
45 Tafel and Thomas, Urkunden, 1, n° 160, p. 573. In my book on the Latin empire I mistakenly
wrote that this obligation was included in the pact of March 1204 (Van Tricht, The Latin
Renovatio of Byzantium, 84). This is however not the case: the latter pact only stated that
the partition of the fiefs should be confirmed by the emperor by oath (Walter Prevenier,
De oorkonden van de graven van Vlaanderen (1191–aanvang 1206), Verzameling van de Akten
der Belgische vorsten 5 (Brussel, 1964–1971), 2:n° 267).
46 Tafel and Thomas, Urkunden, 2:n° 174 (Henry of Flanders/Hainaut in 1205), n° 249 (Peter
of Courtenay and Yolande of Flanders/Hainaut in 1217), n° 256 (regent Cono i of Béthune
in 1219), n° 260 (Robert of Courtenay in 1221), n° 270 (John of Brienne in 1231).
46 Chapter 2
such a document would have been lost. We may hypothesize that Baldwin,
against the background of Byzantine imperial ideology and its autocratic ele-
ment, had refused to formally confirm the said pacts by (written) oath. He may
have seen such an oath as irreconcilable with his Byzantine-influenced notion
of emperorship, although other elements may have played a role as well.47
Baldwin was in a position to act in this way. Unlike his predecessors prior
to his coronation as sole emperor in 1240 he had been the heir-apparent to
the throne for years (since the death of his brother Robert in early 1227), as
stipulated by the 1229 pact between John of Brienne and the Constantinop-
olitan barons and supported among others by the papacy. In addition he had
probably been crowned or proclaimed as co-emperor during his father-in-law
John of Brienne’s reign (sometime between 1231 and 1236). Venice could not
have blocked his coronation as sole emperor nor refused him as emperor for
not swearing the oath.48 This was all the more so because at the time of his
coronation in 1240 things were looking up from a geopolitical point of view:
Baldwin brought with him a sizeable army of crusaders which for the time
being made Venetian military support less of a necessity.49 Finally, the current
patriarch—who performed the imperial coronation—Nicolao della Porta of
Castell’Arquato near Piacenza (1234–1251) was, in spite of the stipulations of
the March pact of 1204, not Venetian. He probably was appointed directly by
Pope Gregory ix without Venetian involvement.50 In this context it should be
mentioned that a clear anti-Venetian stance is apparent in our collection of
astrological texts.
47 His brother Robert before him had likewise undertaken action to limit Venetian influence
and power (Van Tricht, “Robert of Courtenay,” 1030–1031).
48 In 1205, for example, the Venetians had still been in a position to extort—apart from an
oath in writing—the prestigious Hodegetria icon from Henry of Flanders/Hainaut be-
fore the Venetian patriarch Thomas Morosini crowned him: Robert L. Wolff, “A footnote
to an incident of the latin occupation of Constantinople. The church and the icon of
the Hodegetria,” Traditio 6 (1948) 319–328. On Baldwin ii’s coronation as co-emperor, see
Chapter 3, p. 61. Venice was no doubt not in a position to extract an oath from Baldwin
as co-emperor because of the arguments already stated (his status as heir-apparent) and
because the constitutional treaties provided no basis for such a demand. In any case such
a co-imperial oath should have been renewed at the time of Baldwin’s coronation as sole
emperor.
49 In this context it should be noted that Baldwin and his army did not travel from Venice
by sea (like his parents Emperor Peter of Courtenay and Empress Yolande of Flanders/
Hainaut had done in 1217 and his father-in-law John of Brienne in 1231), but—like his
brother Robert—took the overland route through Germany, Hungary, and Bulgaria. On
these expeditions, see (with further references) Chrissis, Crusading in Frankish Greece,
60–62, 91–92, and 125–126.
50 Robert L. Wolff, “Politics in the Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople,” Dumbarton Oaks
Papers 8 (1954), 289.
In other ways Baldwin ii could also act as an autocratic ruler, disregarding

the stipulations of the constitutional pacts of 1204 and 1205. For example, the
principality and later kingdom of Thessaloniki had been granted to Boniface
i of Montferrat and his heirs by virtue of the partition treaty and the pact of
March 1204. By the end of 1224 the entire kingdom had been conquered by the
Epirotes. A rescue expedition led by marquis William vi of Montferrat (1203–
1225) failed. Boniface’s son (by Margaret of Hungary, Isaac ii Angelos’ widow)
and heir to King Demetrios of Montferrat died childless in October 1230 in
Melfi in Southern Italy. He had been attempting to obtain aid from Emperor
Frederick ii, while his wife Hermingarde of La Roche, daughter of the first Lat-
in lord of Athens Otho i, sought refuge in Constantinople. In May 1240 Baldwin
ii granted the rights to the lost kingdom to Helena Angelos and her husband
Guglielmo i of Verona, tercierus (triarch) of Euboia, who no doubt had come to
Constantinople for the imperial coronation and participated in the emperor’s
subsequent Thracian campaign. The charter refers explicitly to the fact that
Helena was Demetrios’ niece (neptis). She was the daughter of John Angelos,
Demetrios’ half-brother, and Baldwin’s own niece Mathilde of Courtenay, but
was not related to the Montferrat family. Thus Baldwin granted Thessaloniki to
his own relative and completely negated the hereditary rights of Boniface i’s
grandson marquis Boniface ii of Montferrat (1225–1253), who had participated
personally in the 1224–1225 Thessalonican crusade. And although Baldwin ii’s
1240 grant does not seem to have inspired any specific action on Boniface’s
part to claim his heritage, occupied as he was by the Guelph-Ghibelline con-
flict, Thessaloniki was not forgotten in Montferrat. When, in 1284, Boniface ii’s
granddaughter Yolande of Montferrat married Emperor Andronikos ii Paleolo-
gos (1282–1328) her dowry was precisely the regnum Thessalonice.51
51 Loenertz, “Les seigneurs tierciers de Négrepont de 1205 à 1280,” n° 1, p. 268. On Hermin-

garde of La Roche, queen of Thessaloniki, see Van Tricht, The Latin Renovatio of Byzan-
tium, 193, 381–382. On Helena Angelos, see McDaniel, “On Hungarian-Serbian relations
in the thirteenth century: John Angelos and Queen Jelena,” 43–50, Walter Haberstumpf,
“Questioni prosopografiche e istituzionali circa il regno aleramico di Tessalonica nel sec.
xiii,” Bollettino Storico-Bibliografico Subalpino 87 (1989) 201–202, and Van Tricht, Op. cit.,
178. Guglielmo’s wife is in my view to be identified with John and Mathilde’s daughter
Helena who circa 1250 would marry the Serbian king Stephen Uros i (1243–1276). In this
way there is no need to “invent” a Montferrat family member as does Haberstumpf. On
the Monferrats and Thessaloniki, see Michael B. Wellas, Das westliche Kaiserreich und das
lateinische Königreich Thessalonike (Athen, 1987), 24–47, 137–151 (the author inter alia
convincingly dispels the idea found in older historiography that Emperor Frederick ii
obtained the rights to the Thessalonican kingdom from Demetrios and later granted them
to Boniface ii); Matgorzata Daborwska, “Is there any room for a Latin lady on the Bospo-
rus?” Byzantinoslavica 66 (2008) 229–239.
48 Chapter 2
A more drastic example of autocratic disregard for the constitutional trea-

ties is the bestowal for life of the feudal overlordship of the island of Euboia and
the ducatus (or duchy) of Naxos—and around the same time probably also the
duchy of Athens and the lordship of Bodonitza (both in any case before 1259)—
to prince of Achaia and imperial seneschal William ii of Villehardouin some-
where between 1248 and 1255. This was no doubt in recompense for the aid that
Achaia had repeatedly provided to Constantinople. Indeed, prince William’s
expedition in aid of Constantinople in 1248—referred to only in a letter by Wil-
liam of Autremencourt, lord of Salona—may well have been the context within
which the bestowal of overlordships took place.52 A second motivation may
have been the desire to impose some measure of unity in politically fragmented
southern Latin Greece. However, in doing so the emperor completely negated
the fact that the 1204 partition treaty had awarded Euboia to Venice, which
in 1211 had instated an official in the town of Negropont to actively exert the
Serenissima’s rights as local suzerain. The imperial bestowal of Achaian over-
lordship of Euboia was, however, not readily accepted by all parties involved. In
1255–1258 this lead to a regional conflict and war between Venice and William
ii and their respective allies, with Athens and Bodonitza, who by this time pos-
sibly also were William ii’s new vassals, supporting the Venetian cause.53
A phrase in the November 1248 letter by William of Autrementcourt, who
was a vassal of the duke of Athens and sided with him in the 1255–1258 con-
flict, perhaps sheds light on the motivations of these southern feudal lords.
In it the lord of Salona excuses himself vis-à-vis the bishop of Laon for not
being able to do him homage for the fiefs he held from him. He refers to his
participation in a recent campaign ad partes Constantinopolis, together with
the prince of Achaia (dominum principem), and to the difficult situation of the
terra Romanie. He concludes that the barones Romanie would not let him leave
the region in order to do homage in person to the bishop. The absence of any
mention of the emperor is somewhat conspicuous. It would seem that in Wil-
liam’s eyes a group of barons decided what was needed for the defence of the
empire. And indeed, according to the October 1205 treaty it was the emperor
together with what I have elsewhere termed the “mixed council,” composed
of non-Venetian magnates and Venetian representatives, that decided the
52 Guillaume Saint-Guillain, “Les seigneurs de Salona, un lignage picard en Grèce médiévale,”

Thesaurismata 44 (2014), 22–24, 49.
53 On the 1255–1258 conflict: Marino Sanudo Torsello, Istoria della Romagna, 99; Longnon,
Chronique de Morée, §222–223; Longnon, “Le traité de Viterbe entre Charles Ier d’Anjou
et Guillaume de Villehardouin (24 mai 1267),” 311; Hopf, “Urkunden und Zusätze zur
Geschichte der Insel Andros,” n° 8, p. 243; Jacoby, La féodalité en Grèce médiévale, 21–24,
190–192.
amount of military service owed to the emperor and what action needed to be
undertaken ad defendum et manutenendum imperium. Apart from some lim-
ited references during the Latin empire’s opening years (until 1207), however,
we find little or no trace of this “mixed council” effectively deciding imperial
defensive policy. This task rather appears to have been the prerogative of the
emperor and a personalized imperial council of barons and advisers.54 Wil-
liam’s phrase then may mean one of two things: either the barons from the
various regions of the empire had managed to (re)gain decisive influence in
the emperor’s council, or—and this seems more likely—it is a reflexion of
some southern barons’ view on how the balance of power between emperor
and barons should ideally be (and which found support in the constitutional
1204 and 1205 treaties). The fact that Baldwin did grant the feudal overlord-
ship of various regions in southern Greece to the prince of Achaia—despite
reservations from local princes and barons, which came to the fore during the
1255–1258 conflict—indeed seems to exclude the first possibility.
Ultimately prince William ii was victorious and thereby the imperial claim
to unilateral authority over the feudal superstructure of the empire also
prevailed. Baldwin ii in this way followed in the footsteps of his predecessors.
Emperor Henry, for example, in 1209 had recognized Geoffrey i of Villehar-
douin’s rule over Achaia (and had also granted him the imperial seneschal
title), even though the partition treaty had awarded the entire Peloponnese
to Venice. The Serenissima could do no more than try to salvage the situa-
tion by concluding her own agreement with Geoffrey. Evidently, for the Latin
emperors their personal will as God-crowned sovereigns was deemed to take
precedence over the constitutional treaties or other arrangements or interests.
In this way—and in line with the concept of Byzantine autocracy—in their
eyes the imperial will remained the ultimate source of authority, although, of
course, political realities had always to be taken into account in order to rule
more or less successfully.55
54 The phrase barones Romanie cannot be explained by Baldwin ii being absent from the
empire. By late 1248 the emperor, having returned from his second Western voyage, was
again ruling in person from the capital, as is attested by an imperial charter dated Con-
stantinople, 8 October 1248 (Teulet, Layettes du Trésor des Chartes 3: n° 3727, 50). See on
the “mixed council” and the emperor’s more personalized consilium: Van Tricht, The Latin
Renovation of Byzantium, 251–253.
55 See also Van Tricht, “Claiming the Basileia ton Rhomaion: A Latin imperial dynasty in
Byzantium,” 271–275.
Chapter 3
Internal Rivalries at Court
Apart from the adoption of key tenets of Byzantine imperial ideology, Bald-
win’s horoscope reflects other aspects of imperial thought at the Constantino-
politan court around 1260. The geopolitical reality of that time, and as it had
been since the late 1220s, was that an enormous gap existed between universal-
ist aspirations and the limited scope of the territories under Baldwin’s direct or
indirect control (through feudal ties). The imperial domain itself was confined
to the capital and its immediate hinterland in Thrace, with a number of rela-
tively remote feudal dependencies—such as the principalities of Achaia, the
lordship of Athens, the island of Euboia, the ducatus of Naxos, the Venetian
territories, but also the principality on Antioch (the symbolic gateway to the
East in Byzantine eyes, and in personal union with the county of Tripoli)—
making up the rest of the empire. The threat from the neighbouring empire of
Nicaea was always real and especially after the failure of the Pelagonia coali-
tion (1259) became acute, with another (unsuccessful) siege of Constantinople
undertaken in 1260 by Michael viii Paleologos.1
Baldwin’s horoscope makes no attempt to obscure the dire straits he and his
empire were in. On the contrary, the emperor’s financial problems and reduced
lands are repeatedly stressed, both in the introductory poem (“a pou d’avoir”
(v348), “grand estroiceté de terre” (v351), “auroient assez destroice et povreté”
(v365–366), “iroit moult a declin” (v375), “il remaindroit en sa cité / ou il auroit
grand povreté” (v377)), as well as in the actual horoscope (“les possessions de
l’empire qui sunt toloites par la lance de Mars […]; ce est par les batalles qui ap-
paroissent si forz par quoi li ami ne li aident mie par quoi la povreté li court sus
[…]; la Coe […] et Mars […] et Saturnus […] avoient force devant touz en gaster
ses richeces et sa peccune […]; les contraires planetes qui li avoient gastées les
1 See, in general, on geopolitical conditions during Baldwin’s reign: Longnon, L’empire latin
de Constantinople, 181–225; Geanakoplos, Emperor Michael Palaeologus and the West, 47–74;
Langdon, John iii Ducas Vatatzes’ Byzantine Empire in Anatolian Exile, 114–257. Van Tricht, De
Latijnse Renovatio van Byzantium, 2: 744–796. On the feudal link between Latin Constanti-
nople and Antioch, see: Van Tricht, The Latin Renovatio of Byzantium, 433–439. As additional
evidence may be mentioned that Patriarch Nicolao della Porta in 1245 at the Council of Lyon
mentioned Antioch as evidently being part of the Constantinopolitan empire (Matthaeus
Parisiensis, Chronica Majora, ed. Henry R. Luard, Rerum Brittanicarum Medii Aevi Scriptores
(London, 1874), 4: 431–432). On the Pelagonia coalition in 1259, see Chapter 4, p. 82–85.

Internal Rivalries at Court 51
possessions […]; lor povreté and leur soffraite”).2 As I have argued this perhaps
has something to do with the Byzantine eschatological tradition concerning a
poor Last Emperor and also with Franciscan and Joachimist influence, but the
remarkable repetitiveness implies that there may be more to it.
Our author’s intention seems clear: he attempts to turn a potential argu-
ment against Baldwin’s position as emperor into his favour.3 Indeed, the many
setbacks and difficulties Baldwin suffers are not to be interpreted as a sign of
a lack or loss of divine support. Rather, Baldwin’s survival in their face is to be
considered wondrous and as a token of unrelenting divine aid, which eventu-
ally will lead him to restore his empire (see the previously quoted passage: “a
pou d’avoir par son grant sens / en grant ennui et en grant guerre / en grant es-
troiceté de terre / le maintendroit longuement Dex / si qu’il ne seroit hom mor-
tex/qui de lui ne se mervellast / quar ausit cum se il s’esvellast / resordroit il et
ses empires”). This line of reasoning to legitimize one’s rule over an ailing em-
pire is not without parallel in Byzantine imperial thought. During the 7th–9th
centuries, in the context of continuing Islamic and Slavic large-scale assaults
and conquests (with Constantinople itself being besieged several times), the
concept of what Jonathan Shepard has called “survivalist imperialism” came
into existence. According to Shepard in that period:
there developed through the protracted state of emergency from the sev-
enth to ninth centuries a kind of ‘survivalist imperialism’ heavily imbued
with Christian teleology and rites of intercession. The ability of emperor
2 BnF, fr.1353, f. 4ra-rb (=Appendix 1, v348–377, “with few possessions,” “with little lands,” “they
will be in distress and in poverty,” “there will be great decline,” “he will remain in his city/
where he will know great poverty”), f. 101ra-rb and f.102rb (=Appendix 2, §2–3, §10, “the pos-
sessions of the empire that will be taken away by the lance of Mars,” “it is because of the bat-
tles which are so fierce that the friends do not help him, which will lead him to poverty,” “the
Tail […] and Mars […] and Saturn possess the force to first of all destroy his riches and his
finances,” “the opposing planets that have destroyed his possessions,” “their poverty,” “their
suffering”). In letters to King Louis ix of France and queen-mother Blanche of Castile, Bald-
win ii himself also stressed that he was oppressed by tanta inopiae et paupertatis angustia or
explicitly mentioned his multimodas paupertatis angustias (Duchesne, Historiae Francorum
Scriptores, 5:423–425).
3 See Burkhardt, “Court Ceremonies and Rituals of Power in the Latin Empire,” 287, who states
that any Byzantine emperor needed to live up to the imperial virtue of being—or pretend-
ing to be—victorious. In the West the ability to at least ensure the safety of the realm was
of course expected from sovereigns as well (Björn Weiler, “Describing Rituals of Successions
and Legitimation of Kingship in the West, ca. 1000–1150,” in Alexander Beihammer, Stavroula
Constantinou, and Maria Parani, eds., Ceremonies and Rituals of Power in Byzantium and the
Medieval Mediterranean: Comparative Perspectives, The Medieval Mediterranean 98 (Leiden,
2013), 138–139).
52 Chapter 3
and capital repeatedly to hold out against the earthly odds became cause
for wonder, praise and faith that attached to both the idea of empire and
the divine protectors who repelled all assailants of Constantinople. To a
remarkable extent, this served to shift attention from the emperor’s in-
ability to provide full security for many of his outlying possessions.4
Whether what we might similarly call our author’s—and no doubt also

Baldwin’s—survivalist imperialism was influenced by this earlier Byzantine
line of thinking, or rather should be considered an unrelated analogous de-
velopment (born out of similar circumstances), is impossible to say given the
paucity of available sources. The first option should however not be ruled out a
priori. As we shall see, Latin intellectuals in Constantinople, our author among
them, were interested in Greek and Byzantine literature and were in contact
with Byzantine intellectuals. In this way they may have acquainted themselves
with texts reflecting this earlier Byzantine survivalist imperialism.
The apologetic nature of our author’s survivalist imperialism is obvious,
but on another level—by adhering to a particular brand of astrology—our
texts also display a clear apologetic strand. That an emperor and people at his
court were interested in an occult science such as astrology is in itself not that
remarkable. Astrology’s popularity had been on the rise in segments of the in-
tellectual milieus in both East and West throughout the 12th century, although
it remained a controversial discipline. Together with other occult disciplines
(dream interpretation, eschatological prophecies, sorcery, dish-divining, ora-
cles, etc.) it was in particular much en vogue at the Byzantine imperial court,
as Paul Magdalino has shown. The Komnenoi and Angeloi emperors all made
use of astrologers and other occultists, and were criticized for it by some
chroniclers (such as Niketas Choniates). As mentioned, Manuel i Komnenos
authored a public defence of astrology, asserting that the discipline was com-
patible with Christian doctrine. It was explicitly directed at those who consid-
ered it a heretical art. Furthermore, Magdalino is of the opinion that astrology
constituted an important element of the Byzantine elite’s general culture.5
In the West the translations made on the Iberian peninsula of Arabic astro-
logical treatises into Latin from the beginning of the early 12th century onward
were a fundamental factor in a slowly reemerging popularity. But before the
4 Jonathan Shepard, “Emperors and Expansionism. From Rome to Middle Byzantium,” in Da-
vid Abulafia and Nora Berend, eds., Medieval Frontiers: Concepts and Practices (Farnham,
2002), 81.
5 Paul Magdalino, “Occult Science and Imperial Power in Byzantine History and Historiogra-
phy (9th–12th centuries),” in Paul Magdalino and Maria Mavroudi, eds., The Occult Sciences
in Byzantium (Paris, 2006), 141–160. Idem, L’orthodoxie des astrologues, 109–132. On Manuel’s
public defence of astrology: George, “Manuel i Komnenos and Michael Glycas,” 3–48.
end of the 13th century there are only a limited number of examples where
astrology (in more than rudimentary form or as more than astrological lore)
can be directly linked to princely courts. The English royal court in the second
half of the 12th century can tentatively be linked to persons with an interest
in astrology. Translator of Arabic material Adelard of Bath may have authored
ten horoscopes concerning political life during the reign of the king of England
Stephen of Blois (1135–1154); he dedicated his De opere astrolapsus to the young
Henry Plantagenet, duke of Normandy (1170–1183), and may have had a connec-
tion to his court (1151–1160). Roger of Hereford, appointed as itinerant justiciar
by Henry ii (1154–1189), composed a retrospective horoscope of the French and
later English queen Eleonore of Aquitaine. In France one isolated astrological
interrogation was made on behalf of the French king Philip ii (1186), probably
by his physician Robert of Fournival.
In northern Italy from around 1230 at the court of Ezzelino da Romano, lord
of the March of Treviso (1223–1259), several astrologers—including the famed
Guido Bonatti, author of the influential treatise Liber introductorius ad judi-
cia stellarum, not unlike our author’s Introductoire—are attested. In Rome at
the papal court scholars with a clear interest in astrology were also present—
such as Philip of Tripoli, translator of the Secretum Secretorum (circa 1230)—as
well as interests in other occult sciences. In the kingdom of Sicily there was
the successive presence of the scholars Michael Scot—who had previously
worked at the papal court of Honorius iii and wrote an astrological compila-
tion (Liber introductorius)—and Theodore of Antioch operating as astrologers
(among other functions) at the imperial court of Frederick ii of Hohenstaufen
(early 1220s–1240s). On the Iberian peninsula, Alfonso x of Castile inaugu-
rated a large-scale translation project of numerous Arabic astrological works
(1254–1284).6 In Latin Constantinople, itself, no interest in astrology has been
6 For the same period, a number of additional princely horoscopes are known, but in these
cases a link with the imperial or royal court is missing, for example a horoscope concerning
the birth of Holy Roman Emperor Frederick i Barbarossa’s first-born son (1164) by one Philip-
pus Ianuensis. See Stephen McCluskey, Astronomies and Cultures in Early Medieval Europe
(Cambridge, 1998), 140–145; Lynn Thorndike, “The Horoscope of Barbarossa’s First-Born,” The
American Historical Review 64 (1959) 319–322; North, “Scholars and Power: Astrologers at the
Courts of Medieval Europe,” 15–18; Boudet, “Les horoscopes princiers,” 376–382; idem, Entre
science et nigromance. Astrologie, divination et magie dans l’Occident médiéval (XIIe–XVe siècle)
(Paris, 2006), 168–203; David Abulafia, Frederick ii. A Medieval Emperor (London, 1992), 261–
263; Charles Burnett, “Michael Scot and the Transmission of Scientific Culture from Toledo
to Bologna via the Court of Frederick ii Hohenstaufen,” Micrologus 2 (1994) 119–120; Agostino
Paravicini Bagliani, “Federico ii e la Curia romana: rapporti culturali e scientifici,” in Pierre
Toubert and Agostino Paravicini Bagliani, eds., Federico ii e le scienze (Palermo, 1995), 439–
458; Otto Mazal, Geschichte der abendländischen Wissenschaft des Mittelalters (Graz, 2006),
1:119–120. A pseudonymous prophetic text produced and circulating at the papal court in the
54 Chapter 3
a ttested before Baldwin ii’s reign, but related occult disciplines have been:
eschatological prophesizing in the entourage of Emperor Henry of Flanders/
Hainaut and possibly also Emperor Peter of Courtenay, and dream interpreta-
tion in the entourage of Emperor John of Brienne, as with the Franciscan pro-
vincial Benedict of Arezzo. As already stated the latter as Baldwin’s confidant
foretold things that in the emperor’s eyes actually came to pass.7
While astrology was on the rise, at the same time ecclesiastical authorities
in both East and West showed concern. Celestial determinism, which was in-
herent to astrology, was considered to infringe on the fundamental notion of
man’s free will. In Byzantium influential 12th-century canonists John Zonaras
and Theodore Balsamon condemned any form of astrology in the strongest
terms, referring to ancient imperial and conciliar legislation as well as authori-
tative Church fathers John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nazianze, and Basil of Cae-
sarea. An anonymous monk of the Pantokrator monastery around 1170 wrote a
letter wherein astrology was denounced as heretical. It was this letter that in-
duced Manuel Komnenos to write his public defence, to which another monk,
Michael Glykas, wrote a sharp response. But while the official Church, as it
had done in the late Roman/early Byzantine period, continued to firmly reject
the validity of astrology as a science as well as the practice thereof, individual
churchmen—as did secular scholars—dabbled in the discipline, patriarchs
and metropolitans among them.8
In the West the Church’s official position was somewhat more nuanced.
Influential 13th-century theologians William of Auvergne (circa 1180–1249),
Albert the Great (circa 1200–1280), Thomas of Aquino (circa 1224–1274), and
Bonaventura (circa 1221–1274)—in line with ideas of the earlier theologian
Hugo of Saint Victor (circa 1130)—accepted that the heavily bodies exerted an
influence on the physical bodies of men, but not on the rational human soul.
The resulting individual inclinatio of the human body due to the constella-
tions of the stars and planets was even deemed to be decisive where there was
1240s, among other topics, specifically addresses the Latin empire’s fate: Christian Jostmann,
Sibilla Erithea babilonica: Papsttum und Prophetie im 13. Jahrhundert, Monumenta Germaniae
HIstorica: Schriften 54 (Hannover, 2006).
7 Dream interpretation under Emperor John of Brienne: Wolff, “The Latin Empire of Constan-
tinople and the Franciscans,” 216–220. Our author is also interested in dream interpretation:
BnF, fr. 1353, f. 8va-f. 8vb (=Appendix 3, Ch. 2, §6–7). Interest in eschatological traditions
under Emperor Henry and possibly Emperor Peter: Van Tricht, The Latin Renovatio of Byzan-
tium, 465–471. See also Chapter 6, p. 176–177.
8 Magdalino, L’orthodoxie des astrologues, 160–162. For a brief overview of the position of the
Church vis-à-vis astrology from the 2nd to the 5th century, see George, “Manuel i Komnenos
and Michael Glykas,” 8–13.
no primacy of the human intellect (ratio). Since according to the same theo-
logians the latter condition was applicable to most men (passion prevailing
over reason), the multitude was subject to their astral inclinations. Thomas
explains this was the reason why astrologers’ predictions were often correct.
Only the wise could dominate the stars, a position that excluded any kind of
absolute astral determinism. This was all the more so because William, Albert,
and Thomas did not allow for particular or individual astrological predictions,
only for predictions of a general kind and then only on the condition that they
had a conjectural character. In this way Thomas, and for example also John of
la Rochelle (circa 1200–1245) before him, considered it to be a grave sin to make
use of iudicia to predict things that depended on the human will. In line with
this bishop of Paris Stephen Tempier in 1270 and again in 1277 would see him-
self obliged to publish decrees condemning—among other ideas—anumber
of astrological propositions that implied complete astral fatalism which de-
nied the freedom of the human will, intellect, and soul.9
Against this background it becomes understandable that, as Pierre Duhem
has stated in his monumental ten-volume survey of Western cosmological the-
ories in the classical and medieval period, Western astrologers were not keen
to explicitly confess adhesion to absolute astral fatalism, although this was
to be found in much of the translated Arabic material on which they relied.
Although they may well have believed in such fatalism (or in any case in stron-
ger determinism than theologians would allow), they cautiously avoided the
issue in their astrological introductions.10 Likewise in Byzantium, Emperor
Manuel Komnenos in his public defence was prudent enough not to advocate
absolute fatalist astrology by expressly stating that God could of course always
suspend natural law (on which the motions of the heavenly bodies, and thus
astrological predictions, depended) in His desire to work miracles.11
9 Jacques Halbronn, “L’itinéraire astrologique de trois Italiens du XIIIe siècle: Pietro

d’Abano, Guido Bonatti, Thomas d’Aquin,” in Christian Wenin, ed., L’homme et son univers
au Moyen Age. Actes du 7e Congrès International de Philosophie Médiévale (30 août–4 sep-
tembre 1982) (Louvain-la-Neuve, 1986), 671–673. Jacques G. Bougerol, “La question De fato
au XIIIe siècle,” in Wenin, L’homme et son univer, 654–667. Tullio Gregory, “Théologie et
astrologie dans la culture médiévale: un subtil face-à-face,” Bulletin de la Société française
de Philosophie 84 (1990) 118–121. Thomas O’Loughlin, “Astrology and Thirteenth Century
Philosophy: A New Angle on Old Problems,” Milltown Studies 33 (1994) 94–102. Luis M.
Vicente Garcia, “Una nueva filosofia de la astrologia en los siglos xii y xiii. El impacto de
las traducciones del arabe y la postura de Santo Thomas de Aquino,” Revista Española de
Filosofiá 9 (2002) 258–262. Boudet, Entre science et nigromance, 205–255.
10 Duhem, Le système du monde, 8:399–400.
11 George, “Manuel i Komnenos and Michael Glykas,” 32–33.
56 Chapter 3
The author of our texts, as Duhem has convincingly argued, is however an

exception to the rule. In the versified introduction our author states: “quar se
le demande de enfant / ou de home ou de fame vivant / de sa fortune ou de sa
vie / en le astrolabe ne faut mie / se il est bons astrologiens / que tout ne voie
mals et biens.” This passage leads Duhem to conclude: “Une telle doctrine ne
proclame peut-être pas le fatalisme absolu; mais, à coup sûr, elle l’implique.”12
The astrological treatise itself also contains numerous passages positing—
by divine inspiration to be sure—that the celestial bodies govern all earthly
things, for example “Si devez donques savoir que .xiiii. manieres sunt de tote la
habitude des planetes. Et ces .xiiii. manieres demainent par mervellose lai et
par devine condition touz les faiz et les movemenz et les passions et les naisse-
menz et les corruptions des choses.” In two instances it is explicitly made clear
that the human soul and human thought—and thus human will—are subject
to the celestial bodies. The first passage reads “La force des estoiles qui est en
eles devinement assise s’en entre et se assemble plus tost et plus prestement
es choses qui plus lor sunt prochienes et plus semblables a ce qui apartient
a l’ame,” leading Duhem to state that the power of the stars sollicits the soul
itself with a particular intensity.13
The second passage reads “la devine force del celestial cercle esmuet le de-
mandeor a faire la demande et trait a soi et raporte l’entendement et la pensee
de lui par une similitude et une semblablete que il ont ensemble, quar si cum
j’ai dit meintes foiz le humaine condition ensuit ordeneement les affecz et les
cours et le ordenement des cercles et des cors et des estoiles celestiaus,” leading
Duhem to conclude that according to our author the stars generate thoughts in
man’s minds and force them to act upon these thougths.14 Our author’s astral
fatalism as he publicly propagated it in his works—and which ultimately was
12 BnF, fr.1353, f. 3vb (=Appendix 1, v205–210, “Because when one interrogates with regard to
a child/Or to a living man or woman/About his fortune or his life/It is in the astrolabe/
When one is a good astrologer/That one sees all that is bad and good”). Duhem, Le système
du monde , 403.
13 BnF, fr.1353, f. 42va (“You must thus know that there are fourteen conditions that planets
can have. And these fourteen conditions dominate by marvellous law and by divine dis-
position all facts and movements and passions and origins and destructions of things”), f.
63ra (=Appendix 3, Ch. 189, §2, “The power of the stars, which is divinely seated in them,
enters and concentrates itself sooner and faster in things that are more near to them and
that resemble more what belongs to the soul”). Duhem, Le système du monde , 415.
14 BnF, fr.1353, f. 63vb (“the divine power of the heavenly circle moves the interrogator to
execute the interrogation, and it attracts and then again returns his understanding and
thoughts by way of a similarity and a semblance which they have among themselves,
because, as I have said many times, the human condition orderly follows the effects and
the courses and the organization of the heavenly circles and bodies and stars”). Duhem,
Le système du monde, 416.
inspired by God—had in the context of Baldwin ii’s court at Constantinople

political advantage. It not only presented a much needed explanation for the
state the empire was in and had been in for years, but also exonerated the em-
peror from any responsibility for failing to remedy the situation and restore the
empire’s glory, despite various attempts to do so (inter alia the 1236–1241 cru-
sade and the 1257–1259 Pelagonia coalition). After the disaster at Adrianople in
April 1205 a traditional peccatis nostris exigentibus approach had been used as
explanation, but during the later years of Baldwin ii’s reign - after decades of
gradual decline - this obviously was no longer deemed expedient, opening the
way for other, more controversial explanations (but as we have seen not aimed
at the general public).15
The apologetic tenor of our author’s astrological trilogy (introductory poem,
treatise, horoscope)—with its accent on both astral fatalism and survivalist
imperialism—in combination with our author’s works being aimed at an inner
circle of members of the imperial entourage suggests that Baldwin ii’s rather
unsuccessful reign and politics (with its lack of a grandscale geopolitical/ter-
ritorial restoration) went not uncriticized and caused serious tensions at court
and elsewhere (William of Autremencourt, for instance). These tensions are
explicitly confirmed by two passages in Baldwin’s horoscope. The first reads:
Quar li signes de l’Escorpion, qui estoit en la .iii.ce meson, qui mostre bon
semblant el chief et en la coe porte le venin, est signe de aucun de ses
parenz ou de cels de sa meson, et ceaus qui li sunt tenu par fealté et par
sarrement, qui ovec ses fals parenz voellent procurer sa mort. Et porce
que li Escorpions est signe septentrionals, gart soit cist granz sires que
ce ne soit fait en cele partie del an vers mars, quant li Solauz, qui li est
contraires, a son exaucement el Mouton.16
The second reads:
Et por ce que la Coe et Jupiter et Venus sunt nomper, et Venus a sa meson

el Torel, et sunt en la .ix.me meson retrograde, segnefient .iiii. homes qui
15 On Baldwin ii’s role in the Pelagonia coalition, see Chapter 4, p. 82–85. A 1205 letter to
pope Innocent iii from imperial regent Henry of Flanders/Hainault: Michel-Jean-Joseph
Brial, ed., Recueil des Historiens des Gaules et de la France (Paris, 1822), 18: 526
16 BnF, fr.1353, f. 101rb (=Appendix 2, §3, “Because the sign of Scorpio—which was in the third
house, and which pretends to one’s face, but carries venom in its tail—is the sign of some of
his relatives or of those who belong to his house, and those who are bound to him by fealty
and by oath, who with his false relatives want to procure his death. And since Scorpio is a
septentrional sign may it be so that this is not done to this great lord during that part of the
year around March, when the Sun, which is opposed to him, has its exaltation in Aries”).
58 Chapter 3
seront gité de la compagnie de cel segnor desquel il aura soupeçon. Les

.ii. metra il bien hors, le tierz ne porra, ainz remeindra o lui par son vezie-
ment, et tracera touz jorz savoir se il li porra nuire. Quar li planete per,
la Lune et Venus, ne sueffrent mie o les planetes nompers, le Chief del
Dracon, Jupiter et Venus, dont cist .iii.ez sera dessevrez ausit de lui, et s’en
istra confus del exaucement de cel segnor, lequel il cuidoit vendre a autre
segnor comme degeté et envenimé.17
A little further it is specified that the four mentioned enemies are “anemi de
sa personne, and not li segnor des reaumes et des terres qui sunt contraires
a nostre empereor et a son empire.”18 Although both passages are—charac
teristically—obscure, it is tempting to try to identify these persons opposed
to Baldwin ii. There seems to be a major clue: the emperor’s enemies were
members of his family and appear to have usually resided in his company at
the imperial court.19 And since in both passages there is talk of a murder plot
17 BnF, fr.1353, f. 101rb-f. 101va (=Appendix 2, §4, “And because the Tail and Jupiter and Venus
are odd, and Venus has its house in Taurus, and they are retrograde in the ninth house,
they signify four men that wil be removed from the company of this lord and whom he
will be suspicious of. Two of them he will throw out, but he will not be able to throw out
the third as well. So this man will remain with him by sly ingenuity, and will look each day
for ways to harm him. Because the even planets—the Moon and Venus—cannot endure
with the odd planets—the Dragon’s Tail, Jupiter and Venus—therefore this third man
will also be separated from him, and he will leave confused by the exaltation of this lord,
whom he wanted to sell to another lord as expelled and empoisoned”).
18 BnF, fr.1353, f. 102vb (=Appendix 2, §14, “personal enemies,” “the lords of realms and lands
that oppose our lord and his empire”).
19 There is also some resemblance to a report in Akropolites’ chronicle which concerns an
attempt by Michael viii Paleologos to conquer Constantinople in 1260, whereby the em-
peror heavily relied on “one Anseau” who was captured in the battle of Pelagonia in 1259,
who was Michael’s distant relative and who in return for high honors and great gifts had
promised he would, after having been released, open several gates of Constantinople—
which were under his command—to Nicaean troops. Akropolites tells us next that after
setting him free Michael undertook a small-scale pretend-siege of Galata (late 1259–early
1260), but that in reality this was a ploy to move against Constantinople itself by getting in
contact with Anseau inside the capital. The latter however did not keep his promise, alleg-
edly because the archon of the city had taken the keys to the gates from him (Georgios Ak-
ropolites, Historia, §83). In spite of a superficial similarity to an element in the horoscope
(see the phrase “lequel il cuidoit vendre a autre segnor”) there are reasons to doubt the
veracity of this report. First of all, Akropolites was no eyewitness to the siege of Galata,
since at the time he himself was in captivity in Epiros. Secondly, he is the only chronicler
to present the Galata siege in this manner; both Pachymeres and Gregoras describe the
siege as a large-scale military operation against Constantinople which simply failed, with-
out any mention of treachery (Georgios Pachymeres, Relations historiques, lib. 2, §14, §17,
§20; Nikephoros Gregoras, Bizantina Historia, ed. Ludwig Schopen and Immanuel Bekker,
(procurer sa mort and envenimé) it may be surmised that the same cluster of
adversaries is suggested in both instances. Given meager source material not
many people in Latin-Byzantine Constantinople could count as Baldwin’s rela-
tives. In fact only a few families present there at the time were related to the
Courtenay family: the Béthune, the Cayeux, the Toucy, and the Brienne. As
for the Béthune, the family’s last known representative to have fulfilled any
important responsibilities in the imperial entourage, baron John of Béthune,
died—before Baldwin’s coronation as sole emperor—in Venice in 1239 on his
way to Constantinople, leading an expeditionary force for Baldwin ii’s planned
crusade. There is no evidence of any tensions between him—or his family—
and Baldwin ii or his predecessors.20
Similarly, relations between the Cayeux family and Baldwin appear to have
been cordial. Anseau i of Cayeux was a participant in the 1204 crusade and
achieved the post of regent of the empire in September 1238. His son Anseau
ii, who was married to Eudokia Laskaris (daughter of the Nicaean emperor
Theodore i (1205/1208–1221)), is mentioned second in the witness list of a 1240
imperial charter. Presumably in 1254 his son Anselin married Mary Angelos,
daughter of John Angelos (a son of Margaret of Hungary, widow of both Em-
peror Isaac ii Angelos (1185–1195 and 1203) and marquis Boniface of Montfer-
rat, lord of Thessaloniki (1204–1207)) and Mathilde of Courtenay, Baldwin’s
niece. Baldwin himself intervened with the pope to obtain a dispensation.
The same Anselin is attested in 1269 as imperial camerarius, indicating that
Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae (Bonn, 1829–1855), lib. 4, §1). Consequently, Ak-
ropolites’ Anseau functions a bit too ostensibly as an instrument to lift any blame for
the siege’s failure from Michael’s shoulders (his only—understandable—fault being his
gullibility vis-à-vis a Latin to whom he was related). This may indicate that the story was
concocted—either by Akropolites himself or by other people in Michael’s entourage from
whom the chronicler must have heard it. Nevertheless, even if there would be some truth
to the story, it would seem that the said Anseau never intended to effectively hand over
the city (or the emperor); he only used a ruse to obtain his freedom. In my forthcoming ar-
ticle on the 1259 Pelagonia coalition I will address the question whether the cited Anseau
is to be identified as Anselin of Toucy or Anselin of Cayeux (see Geanakoplos, “Greco-
Latin Relations on the eve of the Byzantine Restoration,” 139–140; Georgios Akropolites,
The History. Translated with an Introduction and Commentary, trans. Ruth Macrides, Ox-
ford Studies in Byzantium (Oxford, 2007), 369, n. 3).
20 On the Constantinopolitan branch of the Béthune family, in general: Longnon, Les com-
pagnons de Villehardouin, 145–146; Ernst Warlop, The Flemish Nobility before 1300 (Kortrijk,
1975–76), 2/1:667. On John: Philippe Mouskes, Chronique rimée, ed. Frédéric A. de Reiffen-
berg, Collection de Chroniques belges inédites (Bruxelles, 1938), 2:571, 615, 626, 632–633,
642–644.
60 Chapter 3
he remained in imperial favor.21 The relationship with the Toucy family also
appears to have been free of conflict. Both during Baldwin’s reign and before
they supplied several regents—Narjot i is attested in 1228–1231, 1238–1240 and
his son Philip, who, like his father, held the prestigious court title of kaisar,
in 1247. Philip’s brother Anselin participated in the battle of Pelagonia. Being
a Constantinopolitan baron he presumably did so as a member of an impe-
rial contingent. Philip and his brother Narjot ii followed Baldwin ii to king of
Sicily Charles i of Anjou’s court and obtained high positions there. Anselin,
who after 1261 through marriage became a prominent Moreote baron, acquired
large fiefdoms in Charles’ kingdom.22
Between Baldwin ii and the Brienne family, however, there was possible
tension from the beginning of their relationship in early 1229, when the Con-
stantinopolitan barons concluded an agreement with John of Brienne, former
king of Jerusalem (1210–1225), making him emperor for life. Guy Perry—John’s
most recent biographer—also recognized this possibility by stating that “the
potential for a fraught relationship certainly existed,” but concluded that
“there is no real evidence for trouble between John and his ward and successor
Baldwin.”23 However, on the basis of various source material not used by Perry
it seems useful to reexamine this conclusion. For Baldwin—who was about
twelve at the time (and fourteen when John finally arrived in Constantinople
in 1231)—this agreement must indeed have been difficult to accept. The agree-
ment would have caused anxiety about when he would be able to accede to
the throne. The agreement states that at the age of twenty (in 1237)—clearly
considered to be the age of majority, as was common—Baldwin would enter
into possession of most of the empire’s territories in Asia Minor, to be held in
fief from John.
So there was the possibility that Baldwin—in spite of being the rightful heir
and his parents and elder brothers having been deceased—would have to wait
many years past his majority to obtain his emperorship, and during this time
21 Mary Angelos was a sister of Helena Angelos, who herself had married tercierus of Euboia
Guglielmo i of Verona sometime before 1240. On the Constantinopolitan branch of the
Cayeux family in general: Longnon, Les compagnons de Villehardouin, 200. On Anseau ii
in 1240: Raymond-Joseph Loenertz, “Les seigneurs tierciers de Négrepont de 1205 à 1280,”
Byzantion 35 (1965) n° 1, 268. On Anselin in 1254: Innocentius iv, Les registres, n° 6862,
7178; Alexander iv, Les registres, n° 48; McDaniel, “On Hungarian-Serbian relations in the
thirteenth century,” 43–45. On Anselin in 1269: Mazzoleni, Gli atti perduti della cancellaria
angioina, 1:n° 740, 121.
22 Longnon, “Les Toucy en Orient et en Italie au XIIIe siècle,” 33–43.
23 Guy Perry, John of Brienne: King of Jerusalem, Emperor of Constantinople, c. 1175–1237 (Cam-
bridge, 2013), 164.
he would be subordinate to John as his vassal. According to one version of the

Old French continuation of William of Tyre’s chronicle, Baldwin was crowned
as co-emperor at the time of his wedding to Mary of Brienne (sometime be-
tween 1231 and 1236). If correct this information indicates that the terms of the
original pact were adjusted, no doubt under pressure from Baldwin and his
entourage. Secondly, a major part of the empire’s lands was to go to John’s own
heirs, who would hold these in fief from Baldwin. These would have included
either all territories in Asia Minor or the lands of the Doukai of Epiros (with
the exception of the kingdom of Thessaloniki), as well as that of Didymotei-
chon, Adrianople, Philippopolis, and the former lands, the Rhodopes moun-
tains with the towns of Melnik and Tsepaina, of imperial vassal and despotes
Alexios Sthlabos (Alexios disappears from the sources in the 1220s), and those
of the (recalcitrant) imperial vassal Strez in Macedonia († circa 1214), with the
exception of the parts held by Ivan ii Asen of Bulgaria. The choice between the
eastern or western lands was John’s.24
John’s wife Berengaria of Leon-Castile whom he married in 1224—sister
of the king of Castile (1217–1252), Leon (1230–1252), and Galicia (1231–1252)
Ferdinand iii—bore him one daughter Mary—married to Baldwin accord-
ing to the terms of the 1229 agreement—and three sons, Alphonse, Louis, and
John.25 The territorial arrangements in the agreement never came to anything
because, instead of reconquering lands for the empire, John of Brienne lost ter-
ritory. After a short and ineffectual campaign in Asia Minor at the outset of his
24 The text of the 1229 agreement between John and the Constantinopolitan barons in Tafel
and Thomas, Urkunden, 2:n° 273, 266–270. On Baldwin ii crowned as co-emperor at the
time of his wedding to Mary of Brienne (to be dated sometime between John of Brienne’s
own coronation in 1231 and Baldwin’s departure for the West in late 1236), see Louis de
Mas Latrie, ed., Chronique d’Ernoul et de Bernard le trésorier (Paris, 1871), 472: “Quant il ot
.i. pou sejorné en Constentinoble, si manda toz les chevaliers de la terre, et fist espouser
sa fille au valet qui empereres devoit ester, et le fist porter corone” (“After he had resided
for some time in Constantinople, he convoked all the knights of the land, and married his
daughter to the young man who was to be emperor, and he had him crowned”). Admit-
tedly the rendition of the 1229 agreement in the continuation is confused: John is incor-
rectly pictured as regent (not: emperor) for life, and Baldwin’s coronation is incorrectly
presented as a stipulation of the agreement. Nevertheless, the chronicler obviously knew
of Baldwin having been crowned emperor during John’s lifetime and with the latter’s con-
sent. A coronation—or perhaps only a proclamation—as co-emperor would then seem
a logical interpretation of this passage. Baldwin and Mary’s imperial coronation and unc-
tion is also mentioned in the verse introduction to the Introductoire: “endui porteroient
corone / et en une hore et en un point / sacré seroient et enoint” (“both will be crowned /
and at one time and in one place / they will be anointed”)(BnF, fr.1353, f. 4rb (=Appendix
1, v362–364). The passage no doubt refers to Baldwin’s coronation as sole emperor in 1240.
25 On this marriage and offspring: Perry, John of Brienne, 125–131 and 152.
62 Chapter 3
reign, Constantinople was besieged twice, in 1235 and 1236, by an allied N

icaean-
Bulgarian army. Virtually all remaining land outside Constantinople—both in
Thrace and in Asia Minor (including Nicomedia) slipped from the Latin em-
peror’s control.26 At one point during the 1235–1236 sieges, as the 14th-century
Venetian chronicler Andreas Dandolo informs us, John mortgaged the presti-
gious Crown of Thorns and various other Passion relics (no doubt predomi-
nantly to Venetians), being the capital and empire’s religious crown jewels.27 It
cannot have sat well with Baldwin to see his father-in-law seemingly squander
his inheritance. A number of barons who had opted for John in 1229 were prob-
ably having doubts as well.28
One of them may have been Narjot I of Toucy. In January 1234 Gregory ix
granted Narjot that no one could excommunicate him or place his lands under
interdict without manifest cause. Perry suggests this was possibly Narjot’s reac-
tion to earlier troubles with the by then deceased patriarch Simon of Maugas-
tel (1229–1233), who himself appears to have been close to Emperor John. Perry
notes the previous collaboration between Simon, as archbishop of Tyr, and
John, as king of Jerusalem. In the 1229 agreement with the Constantinopolitan
26 On the geopolitical evolution in these years: John S. Langdon, “The forgotten Byzantino-
Bulgarian assault and siege of Constantinople, 1235–1236, and the breakup of the entente
cordiale between John iii Ducas Vatatzes and John Asen ii in 1236 as background to the
genesis of the Hohenstaufen Vatatzes alliance of 1242,” Byzantina kai Metabyzantina 4
(1985) 105–135; Perry, John of Brienne, 172–180; Alexandru Madgearu, The Asanids: The Po-
litical and Military History of the Second Bulgarian Empire (1185–1280), East Central and
Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages 41 (Leiden, 2017), 199–219.
27 Andreas Dandolo, Chronica per extensum descripta, ed. Ester Pastorello, Rerum Italicarum
Scriptores, n.s. 12/1 (Bologna, 1958), 295. Dandolo’s information is corroborated by the
Flemish chronicler John Iperius. Although Dandolo does not explicitly state to whom the
relics were mortgaged, we know from subsequent documents concerning the Crown of
Thorns that Venetian representatives and merchants were the main providers of loans.
See also Jacoby, “The Venetian Government and Administration in Latin Constantinople,”
72–73. In the 14th century Empress Helena Kantakouzena likewise sold Passion relics to
a Florentine merchant (Antje Bosselmann-Ruickbie, “Contact between Byzantium and
the West from the 9th to the 15th Century and Their Reflections in Goldsmiths’ Works
and Enamels,”) in Falko Daim, Dominik Heher, and Claudia Rapp, eds., Menschen, Bilder,
Sprache, Dinge. Wege der Kommunikation zwischen Byzanz und dem Westen. Bd. 1: Bilder
und Dinge (Mainz, 2018), 85–86.
28 This in spite of the praises John of Brienne received in several sources for his staunch
defence of Constantinople against both John iii Vatatzes of Nicaea and Ivan ii Asen of
Bulgaria: Gregorius ix, Les registres, ed. Lucien Auvray, Suzanne Clémencet and Louis
Carolus-Barré, Registres des papes du XIIIe siècle (Paris, 1890–1955), n° 2877–2879; Philippe
Mouskes, Chronique rimée, 2:614–615. A later source also states that John guarded Baldwin
well: Guillaume de Nangis, Chronique latine de 1113 à 1300 avec les continuations de 1300 à
1366, ed. Hercule Géraud (Paris, 1843), 1:187.
barons, John appointed Simon as his representative with regard to allocating

his daughter Mary’s dower. Since we have no knowledge of Narjot infringing
on any ecclesiastical or patriarchal rights, the 1234 papal privilege might be
related to unidentified earlier tensions between Narjot and the imperial-patri-
archal tandem John and Simon.29
Against this background of potential tension and disappointment let us
consider a few scraps of information, some of which have escaped the atten-
tion of modern historians, in chronological order and how they may be inter-
preted. At the end of 1236 Baldwin ii, by this time presumably having been
appointed co-emperor (which in charters he issued in his western ancestral
lands was rendered by the title haeres imperii), departed for the West. This can
be deduced from the fact that, as Nikolaos Chrissis remarked, Baldwin in the
papal crusade bull Ad subveniendum imperio (8 December 1236) for the first
time appears as actively participating in the preparations for the expedition in
aid of Constantinople. This was not the case in the similar papal crusade bull
Ut Israel veteris issued one year earlier in December 1235. In a papal letter dated
a few days later (12 December 1236) Baldwin is depicted as planning to return
to his empire with Western aid and that no one was to force him to do anything
against his will.30 By March 1237 Baldwin was in his ancestral county of Namur,
where he—not without trouble—was invested as marquis and where he is-
sued several charters in favor of local religious institutions.31
Around 19–23 March 1237 John of Brienne died in Constantinople.32 Some
time before his death he had entered the Franciscan order, as Wolff has con-
vincingly demonstrated. Late 13th-century Franciscan sources relate how a
number of dreams and their predictive interpretation by his confessor, Bene-
dict of Arezzo, provincial of the Franciscans in Romania, persuaded John to as-
sume the mendicant habit.33 Following the news of John’s death, Holy Roman
emperor Frederick ii wrote an (undated) letter to the grand master of the Teu-
tonic Order Hermann of Salza stating that he had heard the news (“gravis ad-
modum et molestus rumor”) that his father-in-law (not referred to as emperor,
but only as rex Johannes) had died in less than prosperous circumstances (“in
statu minus prospero”), that he had been planning to have him brought to his
29 Gregorius ix, Les registres, n° 1746. Tafel and Thomas, Urkunden, 2:n° 273. Perry, John of
Brienne, 74, 137, 150, 163–164, 167.
30 The papal bulls and related pieces: Gregorius ix, Les registres, n° 2872–2979, n° 3395–
3397; Chrissis, Crusading in Frankish Greece, 99–105. Perry agrees that Baldwin must have
travelled to the West in late 1236 (Perry, John of Brienne, 152).
31 See, for example, De Reiffenberg, Cartulaire de Notre-Dame de Namur, n° 12, 141.
32 Perry, John of Brienne, 182. The author quotes necrologia citing various dates.
33 Wolff, “The Latin Empire of Constantinople and the Franciscans,” 218–220.
64 Chapter 3
court so that he could provide for him (“ipsius nobiscum habere presentiam
ut suo provideremus statui concedenter”), and that he is concerned about the
two sons of John residing in Venice (“quos audivimus esse Venetiis”), asking the
grand master to bring them to the emperor’s court.34
To my knowledge this information has not yet been used in the context of
the Latin empire. Perry knows about the advent of John’s sons to the West only
through the French early 14th-century chronicler Guillaume of Nangis, who
mentions that John sent Baldwin and his own three sons to the royal court in
France.35 Frederick’s contemporary letter suggests that the much later narra-
tive of Nangis does not tell the whole story: apparently only two sons came to
the West and for some time stayed in Venice, implying they did not directly
go to the royal French court where they eventually would.36 Another—until
now also unused—source clarifies how the two Brienne brothers came to stay
in Venice. The late 14th-century Flemish chronicler John Iperius, abbot of the
Benedictine abbey of Saint Bertin near Saint Omer, compiling various now lost
sources, in a chapter entitled Quomodo corona Domini spinea per S. Ludovicum
Parisiis est alata has the following to say:
Johannes Brennensis dudum rex Jerusalem per Fredericum imperatorem

nequiter expulsus postea in imperatorem Constantinopolitanum per pa-
pam promotus in possessionibus imperii sui veniens pauca inde recepit
emolumenta. Habuit autem de uxore sua filia Castellae regis filios duos
Johannem et Ludovicum et cum parum aut nihil haberet unde milites
suos stipendiarios sustentare posset magna compulsus egestate duos fili-
os suos pro decem millibus librarum pignori Pisanis obligavit; et post hoc
spineam coronam qua dominus noster Jesus Christus a judeis in passione
sua fuerat coronatus similiter Pisanis obligavit; quam coronam sanctus
Ludovicus rex Franciae consilo matris suae ducenta millia librarum rede-
mit a Pisanis et in Franciam transferre fecit.37
34 Jean-Louis-Alphonse Huillard-Bréholles, ed., Historia Diplomatica Friderici Secundi (Paris,

1852–61), 5/1: 109.
35 Guillaume de Nangis, Chronique latine, 187. Perry, John of Brienne, 152.
36 That at first only two sons came to the West finds confirmation in Jean of Joinville’s re-
port that when Empress Mary of Brienne—travelling from Constantinople to the West
in search for financial and military aid—briefly joined king of France Louis ix’s crusade
army on Cyprus her brother John was with her (Jean de Joinville, Vie de Saint Louis, ed.
Noel J. Corbett (Sherbrooke, 1977), §137–140); Wolff, “Mortgage of an Emperor’s Son,” 77,
n. 76.
37 Johannes Yperius, Chronicon Sythiense Sancti Bertini, ed. Edmond Martène and Ursin Du-
rand, Thesaurus novus anecdotorum 3 (Paris, 1717), 720–721 (“John of Brienne, after he had
been expelled as king of Jerusalem by emperor Frederick and after he had been promoted
Although Iperius is clearly wrong on several points (for example the Crown
of Thorns was not mortgaged to Pisans, or certainly not exclusively), the core
of the account is no doubt true: two of Brienne’s sons (though not John, who
stayed in Constantinople until 1248) were mortgaged to raise much needed
funds. Frederick’s contemporary letter makes clear they were not mortgaged
to Pisan, but rather to Venetian merchants (as later was Baldwin ii’s own son
Philip). Iperius’ information explains Frederick ii’s attempted intervention on
their behalf.
These scraps of partially new information raise a number of questions. One
question is why John of Brienne would have joined the Franciscan order at a
time when two of his young sons were in a less than satisfactory situation, be-
ing totally unprovided for. Brienne’s entry seems indeed completely contrary
to the noble or feudal mindset: one of the greatest concerns for any lord or
prince was to ensure that one’s children’s future was well provided for (for ex-
ample by assigning lands or arranging profitable marriages).38 We may also
wonder why John would have mortgaged two of his sons before, if we accept
Iperius’ chonology, mortgaging the Crown of Thorns and other precious relics
which at the time were still in the emperor’s possession. These considerations
combined with Frederick’s plan to bring John to his court (which indicates
Frederick was of the opinion that John before he died was no longer a reigning
prince and that his situation at the time of his death was not in accordance
with his status), raises the question whether the mortgage of his sons and his
entry into a convent were his own decisions.
Perhaps these arrangements might have been made fór him by Baldwin ii
and the Constantinopolitan barons, maybe aided by John’s confessor, the Fran-
ciscan provincial Benedict of Arezzo, for whom the emperor’s entry into the
young Franciscan order would have presented a personal success. They may
as emperor of Constantinople by the pope, did not, when he came into possession of his
empire, receive much income from it. However by his wife, the daughter of the king of
Castile, he had two sons, John and Louis, and since he had little or nothing to pay his mer-
cenary knights he, driven by great necessity, mortgaged his two sons for 200.000 pounds
to the Pisans; and after this he similarly mortgaged the Crown of Thorns, which our lord
Jesus Christ had been crowned with by the Jews during his Passion, to the Pisans; and this
crown Saint Louis, king of France, counseled by his mother, has redeemed from the Pisans
by paying 200.000 pounds, and he had it transferred to France”).
38 It is to be noted in this context that none of the lands assigned to John’s children in the
1229 agreement with the Constantinopolitan barons had been conquered by 1236–1237
(see references in Chapter 3, note 24). On providing for one’s children’s future by princes,
see, for example: Charlotte A. Newman, The Anglo-Norman Nobility in the Reign of Henry
i. The Second Generation (Philadelphia, 1988), 60–72; Judith A. Green, The Aristocracy of
Norman England (Cambridge, 1997), 19.
66 Chapter 3
have pressured Emperor John into mortgaging his two young sons before the
Passion relics, whose subsequent mortgage probably further angered Baldwin
and his entourage. An involuntary entry into a convent would in Frederick ii’s
eyes certainly have counted as a situation not in accordance with John’s royal/
imperial status. After all, in pre-1204 Constantinople unsatisfactory emper-
ors were regularly deposed and forced to enter a monastery and, as we have
seen, Baldwin and his entourage were strongly influenced by Byzantine impe-
rial traditions.39 In any case, there is a clear resemblance between the data in
Baldwin’s horoscope regarding his personal enemies (relatives, three or four
in number, two of them easily removed, a third some time later with more dif-
ficulty) and the way his brothers-in-law left the empire (John of Brienne’s sons
Alphonse and Louis as young boys around late 1236, mortgaged to Venice, and
the younger John in 1248 travelling to the West with his sister Empress Mary).
Our texts make no mention of the Brienne family, although there certainly
were opportunities to do so. For example, in the versified introduction Bald-
win’s wife Mary of Brienne is said to be “estroite des hauz rois d’Espagne.”40
So there is only a reference to her maternal parentage, but not to her paternal
ancestry. Of course, in our texts the Iberian connection was the most relevant,
given the allusions to the aid provided by Alfonso x of Castile. Nevertheless,
a simple reference to John mentioning his Jerusalem connection would have
boosted Baldwin’s wife’s standing. Although John was never king of Jerusalem
in his own right, he nevertheless—on the basis of the 1223 Ferentino agree-
ment concluded with Frederick ii under papal supervision—probably consid-
ered himself to be the rightful king of Jerusalem until the end of his life, in any
case until long after the Holy Roman Emperor had taken over his throne and
kingdom in 1225.41
The three Brienne brothers after having left Constantinople and settled in
France never again are mentioned in relation to the Latin empire. They played
no role at all in Baldwin’s various initiatives to gather support for his empire.
39 On the Byzantine practice of forcing deposed emperors to enter a monastery: Shmuel N.

Eisenstadt, The Political Systems of Empires (London, 1963), 54; Jonathan Harris, Constan-
tinople: Capital of Byzantium (London, 2007), 60.
40 BnF, fr.1353, f. 4rb (=Appendix 1, v360, “descended from the exalted kings of Spain”).
41 A 1230 charter mentions John, at the time present in French royal court circles, as still
acting with the title of king of Jerusalem. Mary’s brothers Alphonse, Louis, and John in
Castilian royal charters (1255–1274) were referred to as sons of the king of Acre. See Wolff,
“Mortgage and Redemption of an Emperor’s Son,” 76; Perry, John of Brienne, 136–139, 153,
156; Pierre-Vincent Claverie, Honorius iii et l’Orient. Etude et publication de sources, The
Medieval Mediterranean 97 (Leiden, 2013), 106–116. See, recently, Thomas W. Smith, “Be-
tween Two Kings: Pope Honorius iii and the Seizure of the Kingdom of Jerusalem by
Frederick ii in 1225,” Journal of Medieval History 41 (2015), 41–59.
In the context of the 1239–1240 crusade to Constantinople this is not surpris-

ing: being born around 1224–1230 they were still minors. Perhaps a more telling
episode concerns Louis ix’s first crusade in which Alphonse of Brienne, who in
the meantime through marriage had become count of Eu, participated. During
the army’s stay in Cyprus before the attack on Egypt, Empress Mary of Brienne,
then on her way to the West in order to raise money for the empire and ad-
minister her husbands western possessions (such as the county of Namur and
the lordship of Courtenay), arrived on the island and tried to recruit knights
willing to support her husband in Constantinople once Louis’ crusade would
be over. John of Joinville’s Vie de Saint Louis, our source for this anecdote, tells
us three hundred knights—himself included—were willing to do so if the king
of France would give his approval (and financial support). Nothing came of the
plan however and break: Join-ville, clearly concerned about a possible stain on
his knightly honour, is at pains to explain why. In this context, Alphonse had
not been among the potential volunteers for Constantinople. Indeed, Joinville
states that he has a letter by Alphonse in his possession testifying to the fact
that he at the time of Louis’ departure from the Holy Land in 1254 had un-
successfully asked the king, in the presence of the count of Eu, to enable him
and his comrades to fulfill their promise to the empress. The fact that Joinville
mentions Alphonse only as an incidental bystander (who could confirm his
account) indicates that the count of Eu had not been one of the volunteers in
the potential Constantinopolitan expedition.42
It is a fact that Alphonse and John in 1256 briefly supported their sister
Mary’s ultimately unsuccessful struggle to hold on to the county of Namur,
but—since King Louis and his brother Charles of Anjou were also involved—
their commitment primarily appears to have been related to the king’s am-
bition to maintain French royal influence in the region and not so much to
a desire to support the Constantinopolitan imperial couple, especially Bald-
win.43 With regard to an identification of Baldwin’s personal enemies in the
horoscope with the Brienne brothers we should also look at how young John
of Brienne’s departure from Constantinople in 1248 together with his sister
Mary may correspond with the data in our astrological text. As mentioned in
the cited passage from the horoscope, Baldwin’s third enemy would only be
42 Jean de Joinville, La Vie de Saint Louis, §137–140. On this episode, see also Benjamin Hen-
drickx, “Marie of Brienne’s visit to Cyprus in the context of her quest for assistance to
the Latin Empire of Constantinople,” in Nicholas Coureas and Jonathan Riley-Smith, eds.,
Cyprus and the Crusades (papers given at the international conference of the same name,
6–9 september 1994) (Nicosia, 1995), 59–68.
43 Wolff, “Mortgage and Redemption of an Emperor’s Son,” 76, n. 77.
68 Chapter 3
removed after what is called the emperor’s exaltation (“s’en istra confus del
exaucement de cel segnor”) and after he had somehow betrayed his sovereign
in a life-threatening way (“lequel il cuidoit vendre a autre segnor comme de-
geté et envenimé”).
The horoscope mentions the term exaucement (exaltation) in three in-
stances with regard to Baldwin: first it is said that his son (Philip) signifies son
premier exaucement. In a later passage it is said that Baldwin’s exaucement will
commence after his wife Mary has left son propre siege—clearly a reference to
her departure from Constantinople in 1248—and after the death of “.i. grant
home qui est vers Orient,” in my view to be identified with one of the Mon-
gol great khans, either Güyük Khan (†1248) or Möngke Khan (†1259). Yet in
another passage it is said that Baldwin would be en exaucement three years
after Mary’s return to Constantinople (thus after 1261).44 If Baldwin’s third en-
emy was the young John of Brienne then the exaucement causing John to leave
must have had something to do with Philip of Courtenay, since the other ex-
aucement postdates his departure from Constantinople together with his sister
44 BnF, fr.1353, f. 101ra and f. 102rb (=Appendix 2, §1 (“exaltation”), §4 (“her own seat”), §11 (“a
great man who is to the East”). Préaud, “L’horoscope de Baudoin de Courtenay,” 36, 42,
and 44. Préaud supposes that the grant home qui est vers Orient must be Nicaean emperor
John iii Vatatzes who died in 1254. Two objections however may be raised. First of all the
horoscope explictly states that Vatatzes’ dominions are situated to the South (devers midi)
and thus not to the East. Secondly, elsewhere the Nicaean emperor is named explictly and
without any title as Vataches and his segnorie is considered to have come about par ac-
cident, which makes it difficult to identify him with the apparently up to a point respected
eastern grant home in the other passage. In a 1247 document issued by then imperial
regent Philip of Toucy Vatatzes was named an inimicus Dei et ecclesie Romane, a depiction
hard to reconcile with a “great man” (Tisserant, “La légation en Orient du Franciscain
Dominique d’Aragon,” 340). The latter in my opinion can best be identified with one of
the Mongol great khans who died around or after the time of Mary’s departure, either
Güyük Khan (†1248) or Möngke Khan (†1259). Baldwin ii’s empire had suffered greatly
from the Mongol incursions in Europe and Asia Minor in 1241–1243, since these funda-
mentally upset the geopolitical balance in the region in favor of Nicaea (see also note 52).
Afterwards Baldwin tried to establish diplomatic contacts with the Mongol empire. See
on these contacts and especially on the ultimately negative consequences of the Mongol
invasions for the Latin empire, while favoring the geopolitical rise of Nicaea: Van Tricht,
De Latijnse Renovatio van Byzantium, 762–772, and recently John Giebfried, “The Mongol
Invasions and the Aegean World (1241–1261),” Mediterranean Historical Review 28 (2013),
129–139, who arrives at a similar conclusion. See also Jean Richard, “A propos de la mis-
sion de Baudouin de Hainaut: l’empire latin de Constantinople et les Mongols,” Journal
des Savants (1992), 115–121; Bernard Hamilton, “The Latin Empire and Western contacts
with Asia,” in Nikolaos G. Chrissis and Mike Carr, eds., Contact and Conflict in Frankish
Greece and the Aegean, 1204–1453, Crusades–Subsidia 5 (Farnham, 2014), 43–63; Aleksan-
dar Uzelac, “Baldwin of Hainaut and the ‘Nomadic Diplomacy’ of the Latin Empire [in
Serbo-Croatian],” Istorijski Casopis 61 (2012), 45–65.
Mary. As regards the threat against Baldwin’s life: several sources dated to the
end of 1243 and the beginning of 1244 mention the emperor as deceased. An
undated entry near the end of Philippe Mouskes’ chronicle, grouped together
with other entries that can be dated to the latter part of 1243, relates how news
of Baldwin’s death—no details or circumstances given—reached his brother-
in-law Geoffrey ii of Villehardouin, prince of Achaia, who immediately led a
great fleet to the imperial capital in order to assume the regency in the name of
his wife’s underage nephew Philip.45 Two letters of Innocent iv’s dated 23 April
1244, confirmations of Baldwin’s grants of the kingdom of Thessaloniki and the
principality of Prilep to Helena Angelos and her husband Guglielmo i of Ve-
rona, tercierus of Euboia, also mention Baldwin—and Guglielmo as well—as
being deceased.46
The papal chancery was clearly somewhat lagging behind the latest avail-
able information: Baldwin had been present at a peace conference attended by
the pope and representatives of Holy Roman emperor Frederick ii which took
place in Rome on March 31.47 Nevertheless, in early 1244 the papal court had
evidently been under the impression that Baldwin had died. Papal correspon-
dence dated mid-September 1243 still mentions him as being alive and a letter
by Baldwin himself to the French queen-mother Blanche of Castile is dated
August 5.48 This indicates that the rumor of Baldwin’s death must have origi-
nated somewhere in the second half of 1243. The question of context then re-
mains.49 The fact that Guglielmo i of Verona appears to have “died” at the same
time as Baldwin, indicates that some military expedition may be the basis. In
modern historiography no minor or major engagement is known for the year,
but an overlooked passage in the Old French chronicle by the Venetian Martin
da Canal, written in the years 1267–1275, may provide an answer. Da Canal after
having related a siege of Constantinople in 1235—clearly to be identified with
the Nicaean-Bulgarian assault in 1235–1236—states that un poi après and after
45 Philippe Mouskes, Chronique rimée, 2:697.

46 Loenertz, “Les seigneurs tierciers de Négrepont,” n° 1–2, 268–269.
47 A papal letter to Henry iv Raspe, landgrave of Thuringia, dated 29 April 1244, attests Bald-
win’s presence there (Carl Rodenberg, ed., Epistolae Saeculi xiii e Regestis Pontificum Ro-
manorum Selectae (ex Innocentii iv registro), Monumenta Germaniae Historica (Berlin,
1887), 2:n° 63, 46). On this peace conference: Abulafia, Frederick ii. A Medieval Emperor,
359–360.
48 Innocentius iv, Les registres, n° 122–123. Duchesne, Historiae Francorum Scriptores, 5:424.
49 Giebfried places Baldwin’s “death” in 1242 in the context of his confrontation with a
Mongol army in Thrace that same year (see also note 52). This is however a chronologi-
cal impossibility in view of the testimony provided by Innocent iv’s letters concerning
Baldwin in September 1243–April 1244, which Giebfried does not take into consideration
(Giebfried, “The Mongol Invasions and the Aegean World,” 132).
70 Chapter 3
li trives between Vatas and ciaus de Costantinople had ended, the Nicaean em-
peror undertook a new full-scale attempt to take the city with land and naval
forces. The Venetian podestà Giovanni Michiel, however, defeated the Nicaean
fleet and in this way, at least according to our Venetian chronicler, the city was
saved.50 The truce referred to is probably to be identified with the two-year
truce starting on 24 June 1241, which is mentioned by the contemporary Cister-
cian chronicler from Champagne, Aubry of Trois-Fontaines, who is generally
well-informed on matters regarding Latin Romania. No alternative identifica-
tion for the truce appears to be available.51 It would then seem the best solu-
tion to situate Vatatzes’ new offensive against Constantinople sometime after
24 June 1243, with the Nicaean emperor presumably trying to profit from the
defeat Baldwin suffered against the Mongols one year earlier.52
Vatatzes’ expedition in 1243 may provide a context within which the ac-
count found in the sources (Baldwin’s horoscope, Mouskes’ chronicle, and In-
nocent’s letters)—the emperor having died or having been poisoned or having
been the subject of a plot to deliver him (and the city) to a rival ruler—may
50 Martin da Canal, Les Estoires de Venise. Cronaca veneziana in lingua francese dalle origini
al 1275, ed. Alberto Limentani, Civiltà Veneziana–Fonti e Testi 12 (Florence, 1973), pt. 1,
§85–86.
51 Albericus Trium Fontium, Chronica, ed. Paul Scheffer-Boichorst, mgh SS 23 (Hannover,
1874), 949.
52 The single source available informing us of Baldwin’s personal confrontation with the
Mongols: Wilhelm Wattenbach, ed., Annales Mellicenses. Continuatio Sancrucensis, mgh
SS 9 (Hannover, 1851), 641. See also references to secondary literature in Chapter 3, note
44. Later Venetian sources—the unpublished so-called Cronaca di Marco from around
1292–1304 and Andreas Dandolo’s early 14th-century Chronica per extensum descripta—
date Vatatzes’ campaign and Michiel’s exploit respectively to the year 1241 and the 13th
year of doge Giacomo Tiepolo’s reign (6 March 1241–6 March 1242), but it would seem that
they confound a small Nicaean counter-campaign against some Latin fortresses in Op-
sikion designed to check Baldwin’s reconquest of eastern Thrace (see Georgios Akropo-
lites, Historia, §37) with Vatatzes’ later large-scale attempt against Constantinople. In any
case, the year 1241 is incompatible with Da Canal’s statement that Vatatzes’ new offensive
commenced after li trives had ended, since 1241 was precisely the year during which the
truce was concluded (Cronaca di Marco, in Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, Cod. Marc.
It., Cl. xi, n° 124 (6802), f°46r°; Andreas Dandolo, Chronica per extensum descripta, ed.
Ester Pastorello, Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, n.s. 12/1 (Bologna, 1958), 298). Michiel being
still in office in 1243 is not incompatible with Jacoby’s catalogue of Constantinopolitan
podestàs. It is true that he then would have served longer than the (more or less) official
two-year-term, but he would not have been alone in this respect (Jacoby, “The Venetian
Government and Administration in Latin Constantinople,” 73–75). That the Byzantine
chronicler Akropolites does not mention Vatatzes’ 1243 offensive against Constantinople
is not problematic: see Macrides’ comments on Akropolites’ reticence with regard to
Vatatzes’ military failures (Georgios Akropolites, The History, trans. Macrides, 89 and 100).
have originated. What happened exactly is of course impossible to reconstruct,

but an episode, for example, may be imagined with Baldwin going missing dur-
ing some kind of counterattack (possibly together with tercierus Guglielmo i
of Verona) or with Baldwin’s health suddenly failing him—possibly while
staying somewhere outside the capital—fuelling suspicions of poisoning and
betrayal. Whatever the context, the idea of the young emperor dying, or pos-
sibly having died, must have opened a succession debate. His son Philip was
only two or three years old at the time and for some barons another extended
minority succession may have been a less than enticing prospect.53 The young-
er John of Brienne (who by 1243 must have been near 18 years of age) or his
entourage—presumably former collaborators-confidents of his father such as
Peter of Altomanno or, as Perry has suggested, barons belonging to families
from the Brienne’s native Champagne—may have voiced his closeness to the
throne as son of his father-emperor John.54 It would indeed have been quite
natural in such a situation for an emperor’s son approaching adulthood to have
aspired to succeed, to the detriment of his infant nephew. This might explain
why Geoffrey ii of Villehardouin came to Constantinople to protect the rights
of his wife’s nephew (and naturally also these of his wife in the event the infant
did not survive): other barons—like the Cayeux or the Toucy who may have
been worried about losing their preponderant position and who were related
to the Villehardouin’s, or Empress Mary herself out of concern for her little
son’s future—may have invited him not only to counter military challenges,
but also to oppose John’s potential imperial ambitions.55
When Baldwin after all turned out not to have died, this must have been a
moment of frustration for the younger John and may have compromised his
53 Mouskes states that Philip was moult petit (Philippe Mouskes, Chronique rimée, 2:697).
See also Chapter 2, note 13.
54 On Peter of Altomanno and on John favoring Champenois at his court: Perry, John of Bri-
enne, 140, 143, 154–156, and 163–164. The specific Champenois the author cites, both Geof-
frey of Merry and Vilain of Aulnay, were already major Constantinopolitan barons before
John’s accession (Merry in 1219 was one of six barons named as witnesses to imperial
regent Cono i of Béthune’s confirmation of the constitutional pacts of 1204–1205: Tafel
and Thomas, Urkunden, 2: n° 256; Aulnay in 1228/29 was one of three Constantinopolitan
barons designated to negotiate the terms of the succession agreement with emperor-to-
be John of Brienne: ibid., n° 273). Champenois had always been an important element of
the imperial elite from the start of Latin rule in 1204, with for example imperial marshal
Geoffrey of Villehardouin and imperial cupbearer Milo le Bréban (Longnon, Les compa-
gnons de Villehardouin, 26–27, 49–51).
55 On the Toucy-Villehardouin connection, see Albericus Trium Fontium, Chronica, 939,
who mentions the marriage (in the 1230s it would seem) of a daughter of kaisar Narjot
i of Toucy with William ii of Villehardouin, the later prince of Achaia.
72 Chapter 3
position and future in Latin Romania. It is telling that the younger John of
Brienne, despite being the empress’ brother, is mentioned not one single time
in any of the available narrative or diplomatic sources in the context of the
Latin empire, although by the time he left in 1248 he must have been a young
adult in his early twenties. At that age—to name but one example—Henry
of Flanders/Hainaut was already established as a local lord and as a well-re-
spected baron already having assumed military and other responsibilities at
the court of his brother count Baldwin ix/vi of Flanders and Hainaut.56 If as
Robert Wolff hypothesized, the 24,000 hyperpera loan which Baldwin ii ob-
tained from Venetian merchants—which was the cause for Mary to leave Con-
stantinople as is apparent from an October 1248 charter by the Latin emperor,
whereby he authorizes his wife to sell or engage his western lands in order to
repay the loan—is identical to the loan for which Baldwin mortgaged his son
Philip, then it may perhaps be suggested that it was in this context that the
younger John of Brienne was forced to leave the Queen of Cities.
With his mortgaged little son residing in Venice it must have seemed to
Baldwin risky to allow John to stay on in Constantinople: in the event of the
emperor’s death—always a real possibility—John might (again?) try to seize
the throne, more so in view of the dire geopolitical circumstances. In this
context it should be remembered that our astrological treatise clearly reflects
Baldwin’s concerns about Philip’s chances to succeed him.57 If, on the other
hand, Philip’s mortgage would have taken place later than 1248—as Benjamin
Hendrickx has indecisively argued—then John’s departure with his sister may
have been caused by personal frustration, with Baldwin presumably unwilling
to grant a former emperor’s son a prominent status or lands (out of his own
diminishing domains or through a favorable marriage alliance with one of the
still prospering barons in southern Greece).58
Whether or not due to relations between John of Brienne (and his sons)
and Baldwin ii, the emperor’s horoscope in any case shows that internal di-
visions plagued the metropolitan elite. These divisions would appear to have
been limited to dynastic rivalry, but there may have been more to it than that.
In fact, internal divisions within the imperial elite were nothing new: these
56 Van Tricht, “De jongelingenjaren van een keizer van Konstantinopel,” 198–201.
57 On the 1248 date for the 24,000 hyperpera loan: Wolff, “Mortgage and Redemption of an
Emperor’s Son,” 52–54. Baldwin ii probably contracted the substantial loan in the context
of the 1248 campaign in the region around Constantinople after the emperor’s return of
his second western voyage (1244–1247/48) (see on this campaign Chapters 2 and 4).
58 Hendrickx, “Regestes des empereurs latins de Constantinople,” n° 261, 161–165; followed
by Gilles, Nova Francia, 285–286.
had been in place since the early 1220s with one group around the emperor
favoring balanced Latin-Byzantine cooperation and power-sharing, and the
other group distrusting this political option.59 The question can be asked
whether the opposition between these groups may not also have been a factor
in the (hypothetical) power struggle between Baldwin ii and his father-in-law
and his sons (and their entourage).
That Baldwin was pro-Latin-Byzantine cooperation is clear from Byzantines
being among his close collaborators, for which he was criticized by the French
royal court in the person of queen-mother Blanche of Castile, but also by his
interest in Byzantine imperial ideology and culture in general.60 But for his
father-in-law John of Brienne—the sole Latin emperor for whom this is the
case—there appears to be not a single piece of information linking him to the
Byzantine context within which he operated (no Byzantine collaborators, no
adoption of any Byzantine institutions or traditions).61 This may indicate that
with him the Western faction among the metropolitan barons temporarily
gained control over imperial affairs. With Baldwin ii then—as heir of both his
uncle Henry and his brother Robert, during whose reigns the Byzantine ele-
ment was most prominent at the imperial court—the other faction, including
the Toucy and the Cayeux, would have taken over again.62 The Western faction
then may have gradually rallied behind the younger John of Brienne as a pos-
sible claimant to the throne, especially by the time he was nearing adulthood.
These internal divisions within the imperial court elite, whatever their pre-
cise nature and to which our astrological corpus testifies, cannot have been
helpful to Baldwin ii’s efforts to restore his ailing empire. On the contrary, in
a geopolitical situation gradually growing worse internal unity and harmony
were evidently of the essence. Baldwin’s horoscope, however, also points to
further conflict and tension within the empire’s political fabric. With regard
to the emperor’s offspring our author states that “cil sires aura uncore .i. au-
tre fil qui sera contraires a touz mercheanz por la hautesce de son lignage
et s’esforcera dels hors bouter que il ne habitent o lui en une cité. Il edefiera
59 Van Tricht, The Latin Renovatio of Byzantium, 296–304. Idem, “Robert of Courtenay,”
1033–1034.
60 For the relevant correspondence with Blanche of Castile, see reference in Chapter 2, note
32.
61 See Longnon, L’empire latin de Constantinople, 171–176; Perry, John of Brienne, 157–188.
62 On the Byzantine influences under Henry and Robert: Filip Van Tricht, “‘La Gloire de
l’Empire.’ L’idée impériale de Henri de Flandre-Hainaut, deuxième empereur latin de
Constantinople (1206–1216),” Byzantion 70 (2000) 211–241. Idem, “Robert of Courtenay,”
1028–1031.
74 Chapter 3
c hasteaus ou il habitera et ne mie citez, et sera touz tems appareilliez a proie

et sera malls et destruieres de ses anemis.”63 This second son of Baldwin is
to my knowledge only mentioned in this source, together with two daughters
who likewise go unmentioned in existing historiography.64 Whether or not
this second son was indeed born to the emperor and whether or not he took
the political stand described is irrelevant to the matter at hand.65 The point
is that this passage shows a marked and vivid animosity vis-à-vis merchants,
which of course are to be identified with the Venetians in Constantinople. Our
text uses the same term mercheanz to describe the persons to whom Baldwin
mortgaged his son Philip. Through other sources we know these to have been
Venetian merchants.66
63 BnF, fr.1353, f. 101va (=Appendix 2, §5, “this lord will have another son, who will oppose all
merchants because of the exaltedness of his lineage and who will strive to expell them so
that they do not live with him in one city. He will build castles where he will live and no
cities, and he will always be prepared for plundering and he will be a mean destroyer of
his enemies”).
64 The passage with regard to these two daughters reads as follows: “après le fil devoit avoir
cil grant sires prochienement une fille laquele ne devoit mie vivre longuement por la Coe
del Dracon qui estoit en cele meesmes .v.te meson; et uncore en aura une autre por le
Soloil cheant en la Livre et cele fille vivra” (“after the son this great lord must next have a
girl that will not live a long time because of the Tail of the Dragon which is situated in this
same fifth house; and he will yet have another one because of the Sun descending in Libra
and this girl will live”—see reference in previous note). Whether his second son and two
daughters—assuming that our author’s prediction describes a historic reality—were all
conceived with his wife Mary remains unclear. Since they were only together in the years
1231–1236 (the exact date of the marriage is unknown, see Chapter 3, note 24), 1240–1243
and again around 1247/1248 as an adult married couple we should certainly consider the
possibility of bastard children. Baldwin’s daughter that survived may be identified with
the Catherina mentioned twice as a daughter of Baldwin ii of Constantinople in the Sicil-
ian royal registers (around 1267–1278). Nothing further seems to be known about her and
it can perhaps not be entirely excluded that the mentioned Catherina is in fact Philip of
Courtenay’s eponymous daughter and later titular Latin empress (1283–1307), who then
somehow was wrongly presented as Baldwin’s daughter in the register in question (Maz-
zoleni, Gli atti perduti della cancellaria angioina, 1:n° 5, 6 and n° 65, 11). That Baldwin
would have had more than a single son would seem to be confirmed by the fact that
Philip of Courtenay called himself his father’s primogenitus in a 1269 charter: if he did
not have a brother this mention would have been superfluous (Jean Du Bouchet, Histoire
généalogique de la maison royale de Courtenay–Preuves (Paris, 1661), 21).
65 The fact that this autre fil was Baldwin’s second son and that his brother Philip was prob-
ably born in around October 1242 (see Chapter 2, note 12) makes it rather improbable that
the cited passage (probably written around 1260) would describe actual events: at the
time of composition this second son could only have been seventeen or eighteen years of
age at most.
66 BnF, fr.1353, f. 4rb (=Appendix 1, v385). On these Venetian merchants: Wolff, “Mortgage
and Redemption of an Emperor’s Son,” 46–52.
Venice had acquired a large stake in the empire at the time of the Latin
conquest in 1204. The constitutional treaties of March 1204 and October 1205
had among other conditions awarded 3/8 of the empire’s territories (to be held
as fiefs from the emperor) along with the patriarchal throne to the Serenis-
sima. They had also granted the Venetian podestà in Constantinople and his
councillors a permanent seat on the imperial “mixed council,” and allocated
extensive commercial privileges. Although much of this remained theoretical
or would never be fully implemented, nevertheless Venice managed to acquire
an important position within the empire’s political (and economical) fabric.
By the time of Baldwin ii’s accession, Venice’s most important possessions and
dependencies included three eights of Constantinople, the island of Crete, the
island of Euboia (with its capital Negropont), and the coastal towns of Modon
and Koron in the Peloponnese.67 From the outset in 1204 there were regular
quarrels between the emperor and Venice regarding their respective territorial,
ecclesiastical, and other rights, with other feudal princes sometimes being in-
volved as well.68 Such tension and disagreement between major powers/part-
ners within a feudally organized empire are of course nothing exceptional, are
indeed to be expected, and evidently before 1204 the privileged Venetian posi-
tion within the Byzantine empire already regularly led to serious conflict and
dramatic incidents.69 But the cited passage indicates that Venetian-imperial
67 On the Venetian position in the Latin empire, see various contributions by David Jacoby,
who in my view for the period 1204–1261 generally tends to overestimate Venice’s role
and influence by stressing theoretical rights too much and by looking too little at actual
political realities: David Jacoby, “The Venetian Presence in the Latin Empire of Constan-
tinople (1204–1261): the Challenge of Feudalism and the Byzantine Inheritance,” Jahrbuch
der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 43 (1993) 141–201; idem, “The Venetian Government and
Administration in Latin Constantinople,” 19–79; idem, “La consolidation de la domina-
tion de Venise dans la ville de Négrepont (1205–1390),” in Chrysa A. Maltezou and Peter
Schreiner, eds., Bisanzio, Venezia e il mondo franco-greco (xiii–xv secolo) (Venice, 2002),
151–187. Interestingly, before 1204 the patriarchal throne of Constantinople had already
once been occupied by a patriarch of Venetian descent, Dositheos (1189–1191) (Alicia
Simpson, “Perceptions and Interpretations of the Late Twelfth Century in Modern Histo-
riography,” in Alicia Simpson, ed., Byzantium, 1180–1204: “The Sad Quarter of the Century”?,
International Symposium 22 (Athens, 2015), 16.
68 On imperial-Venetian tension and conflict in the period 1204–1228 (for example with re-
gard to their respective rights in the capital Constantinople, the kingdom of Thessaloniki,
the principality of Adrianople, the ducatus of Philippopolis, the principality of Achaia,
the principality of Epiros, etc.): Van Tricht, The Latin Renovatio of Byzantium, 215–219;
idem, “Robert of Courtenay,” 1030–1031; idem, “The Byzantino-Latin Principality of Adri-
anople and the Challenge of Feudalism,” 326–331. For John of Brienne’s difficult relation
with Venice: Perry, John of Brienne, 165–166.
69 On dissension in the Latin empire, see, for example: Van Tricht, The Latin Renova-
tio of Byzantium, 210–214; Thomas F. Madden, “The Latin Empire of Constantinople’s
76 Chapter 3
dissension transcended the level of rival interests of a purely political nature

(conflicting territorial or feudal claims, disputes about privileges, etc.).
The son’s opposition (sera contraires) to the Venetians—the mercheanz
(who had managed to gain control over his mortgaged elder brother)—is ex-
plained in terms of social class: he opposes them by reason of the hautesce de
son lignage. Put otherwise, the position that the Venetians had acquired within
the empire was in conflict with their social inferiority, and therefore ousting
them from cities—an action our author advocates—was perfectly legitimate
and advisable. Imperial-Venetian discord in the Latin empire thus needs not
only to be seen in terms of conflicting politics or competing authorities, but
also in terms of conflict between social classes: a feudal hereditary and landed
nobility with the imperial household at the top—including not only Latin bar-
ons, but also Byzantine magnates—versus the Venetian aristocratic families
whose fortunes were built on successful commercial entrepreneurship.70 This
fits in well with Baldwin ii not confirming the constitutional treaties from
1204–1205 vis-à-vis Venice. Other authors have also noted this social difference:
Elisabeth Crouzet-Pavan has pointed out that generally contemporary Western
(non-Venetian) sources describe le Vénitien only “comme un coureur de mers
et un marchand,” and Stefan Burkhardt refers to the Mentalitätsunterschied
between italienischen Kaufleuten and frankolombardischen Rittern.71 As mere
merchants or sailors none of the qualities conventionally attributed to the feu-
dal aristocracy (such as military bravery, vigorous action, or wise counseling)
were awarded to Venetians by Western chroniclers, although there were ex-
ceptions and by the mid-13th century Venetian well-to-do families—notably
some who had acquired lordships and fiefs in Latin Romania—were striving
Fractured Foundation: The Rift between Boniface of Montferrat and Baldwin of Flan-
ders,” in Thomas F. Madden, ed., The Fourth Crusade: Event, Aftermath, and Perceptions.
Papers from the Sixth Conference of the Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin
East, Istanbul, Turkey, 25–29 August 2004, Crusades–Subsidia 2 (Aldershot, 2008), 45–52.
On Venetian-Byzantine conflict before 1204: Ralph-Johannes Lilie, Handel und Politik
zwischen dem byzantinischen Reich und den italienischen Kommunen Venedig, Pisa und
Genua in der Epoche der Komnenen und der Angeloi (1081–1204) (Amsterdam, 1984), pas-
sim; Donald M. Nicol, Byzantium and Venice. A study in diplomatic and cultural relations
(Cambridge, 1988), passim.
70 On the similarities of values between the Western and Byzantine aristocracy in this peri-
od: Savvas Kyriakidis, Warfare in Late Byzantium 1204–1453, History of Warfare 67 (Leiden,
2011), 45–58.
71 Elisabeth Crouzet-Pavan, “Quand le doge part à la croisade …,” in Jacques Paviot and
Jacques Verger, eds., Guerre, pouvoir et noblesse au Moyen Âge. Mélanges en l’honneur de
Philippe Contamine (Paris, 2000), 174. Burkhardt, Mediterranes Kaisertum und imperialen
Ordnungen, 374.
to appropriate aspects of the feudal landed nobility’s way of life. Interesting

to note is that commerce and merchants were likewise generally looked down
upon by Byzantine aristocrats, though this did prevent some to invest in com-
mercial activities (such as for example Emperor Henry’s megas doux Philo-
kales, who was connected to the Venetian Navigaioso family).72
There is evidence that this class-based disdain of Venice and the accompa-
nying fundamental discontent concerning the Venetian position in the empire
date back to the early years of the Latin empire. Henry of Valenciennes, who
wrote a chronicle on Henry of Flanders/Hainaut’s reign for the years 1208–1209,
mentions Venice or Venetians not one single time, although he certainly had
opportunities to do so, for example in the context of naval military operations
or of the emperor visiting towns and regions theoretically belonging to the
Venetian three eights of the empire (including Adrianople, Euboia, Epiros, and
the Peloponnese).73 This is remarkable in view of the preeminent position the
72 One such exception—especially relevant for our topic—is Geoffrey of Villehardouin who
for example presents Doge Enrico Dandolo as sages et preuz et viguereus (Geoffroy de Ville-
hardouin, La conquête de Constantinople, ed. Edmond Faral, Les classiques de l’histoire de
France au moyen âge 18–19 (Paris, 1961), §364; see also Jean Dufournet, “Villehardouin
et les Vénitiens,” L’information litteraire pour l’enseignement 21 (1969) 8–9), though this
may be directly related to the chronicler’s clear intention of representing the Constanti-
nople campaign as a legitimate diversion of the crusade (and one for which he himself
was partly responsible): the Venetians playing a role impossible to neglect, one had no
choice but to present them in a positive light to the Western feudal audience at whom the
text was aimed. On Villehardouin’s intentions for writing his chronicle, see Phillips, The
Fourth Crusade, 48–49. One Venetian lineage that effectively gained entry into the impe-
rial aristocracy is the branch of the Sanudo family that acquired the ducatus of Naxos as
fief: Angelo Sanudo married a daughter of the Champenois Constantinopolitan baron
Macaire of Sainte-Mènehould (the wedding taking place during Baldwin ii’s reign in the
imperial palace in the capital) and Baldwin ii knighted his son Marco ii following the
fall of Constantinople in 1261 (Marino Sanudo Torsello, Istoria del Regno di Romania, ed.
Carl Hopf, Chroniques Gréco-Romanes inédites ou peu connues publiées avec notes et
tables généalogiques (Paris, 1873), 115). On the Byzantine aristocracy’s view of merchants,
see: Maria Gerolymatou, “L’aristocratie et le commerce (IXe-XIIe siècles),” Byzantina Sym-
meikta 15 (2002), 77–89; Gerasimos Merianos, “Literary Allusions to Trade and Merchants:
The ‘Great Merchant’ in Late Twelfth-Century Byzantium,” in Alicia Simpson, ed., Byzan-
tium, 1180–1204: “The Sad Quarter of the Century”?, International Sympsoium 22 (Athens,
2015), 224, 238–239. On Philokales, see reference in Chapter 6, note 33.
73 For example, when Emperor Henry with his army crosses the Bosphorus from Constan-
tinople to Asia minor in order to assist his vassal David Komnenos, ruler of Paphlagonia
(Henri de Valenciennes, Histoire de l’empereur Henri de Constantinople, ed. Jean Longnon,
Documents relatifs à l’histoire des croisades 2 (Paris, 1948), §552); in similar contexts Ville-
hardouin explicitly mentions that Venetian and Pisan ships were used (Geoffroy de Ville-
hardouin, La conquête de Constantinople, §468). Another example is Emperor Henry’s
stop at Raidestos, a coastal town in eastern Thrace belonging to Venice, on his journey to
78 Chapter 3
basic treaties of 1204–1205 had awarded to Venice. Other big players are duly
mentioned by the chronicler, for example the emperor’s loyal vassals Geoffrey
i of Villehardouin, prince of Achaia, Otho i of La Roche, lord of Athens, Alexios
Sthlabos, ruler of the Rhodopes region, David Komnenos, ruler of Paphlago-
nia, but also the rebel barons of Thessaloniki and the troublesome Michael
Doukas, ruler of Epiros.74 Just as our astrological author, Valenciennes, who
belonged to Emperor Henry’s immediate entourage, appears to have borne
an animosity against the Venetians, banning them from his chronicle. His aim
was to glorify Henry’s imperial rule and any mention of the lagoon merchant
city clearly did not fit this scheme. The prominent position of these merchants
within the empire was probably considered to be an embarrassment to Henry’s
imperial authority. More personal factors no doubt also played a role: the Vene-
tian patriarch Thomas Morosini had forced Henry to cede the precious Virgin
Hodegetria icon to him at the time of his coronation (August 1206) and podestà
Marino Zeno—and others after him—appear to have been keen on appropri-
ating certain imperial privileges.75
Again, this class-based attitude toward Venice and the unwillingness to
regard most Venetians as social equals cannot have furthered the empire’s in-
ternal strength, especially when it was most needed during the decades after
Thessaloniki: Valenciennes keeps quiet about the link with the Serenissima (Henri de Va-
lenciennes, La conquête de Constantinople , §563); again Villehardouin in similar contexts
does not fail to mention the Venetian connection (Geoffroy de Villehardouin, La conquête
de Constantinople , §386, §415). See on Villehardouin’s attitude toward Venice: Dufournet,
“Villehardouin et les Vénitiens,” 7–19.
74 Henri de Valenciennes, La conquête de Constantinople, §545–549, §551–553, §667–672,
§688–694.
75 On the Hodegetria incident: see reference in Chapter 2, note 48. On Zeno subscribing
with the imperial menologema to the constitutional pact of October 1205, together with
regent Henry: Tafel and Thomas, Urkunden, 1:n° 160, 574. It should be noted however
that at this time Henry was not yet emperor. Podestà Tiepolo’s imperial type of charter
(a chrysoboullos logos) from March 1220 also subscribed with the menologema—a com-
mercial pact with the sultan of Konya—occurred likewise at a time when there was no
reigning Latin emperor in Constantinople (ibid., 2:n° 258, 221–225)—this is probably no
coincidence. The 16th-century Venetian chronicle by Pietro Giustiniano relates that Ma-
rino Zeno also wore one red kampagion, a type of footwear which was reserved for the
emperors. It is however doubtful that there’s any historical truth to this latter statement:
Giustiniani’s chronicle belongs to a time when the idea of the Serenissima as the true
heir of the Byzantine emperors had been firmly established in Venetian political ideology
(see Serban Marin, “The Venetian Community—between Civitas and Imperium. A proj-
ect of the capital’s transfer from Venice to Constantinople according to Daniele Barbaro’s
Chronicle,” European Review of History 10 (2003) 81–102; Devereaux, Constantinople and
the West, 173). The kampagion-passage fits this context rather well. See also Jacoby, “The
Venetian P resence,” 148–149.
major territorial losses of the 1220s (the kingdom of Thessaloniki, the larger
part of northern Asia Minor). Of course, at times there certainly was a mea-
sure of cooperation between the Latin emperors and Venice, but this mostly
appears to have been the case in the context of urgent crises. For example, in
the 1230s Venetian naval power several times aided in relieving Constantinople
from successive sieges by John iii Vatatzes and his sometime ally tsar Ivan ii
Asen of Bulgaria.76 But in these situations the Serenissima surely was serving
her own interests, which happened to coincide temporarily with those of the
Latin emperor. These passing moments of joined interests in times of crisis
aside, the negative attitude must have been an important element preventing
a sustained and constructive political working relationship between the Latin
emperors and Venice. It is indeed striking that the Serenissima did not figure
significantly in any of Baldwin ii’s attempts to restore the empire to its former
glory.77 Inversely, no mention is made of the Latin emperor in Venice’s pro-
posal (circa 1260) to the rulers and barons of southern Greece to station and fi-
nance a permanent 1,000 man garrison in Constantinople, which may perhaps
be seen as an attempt to respond to existing baronial sensitivities (see William
of Autremencourt).78 More gravely, the emperor and Venice also entered into
open conflict with each other, albeit by proxy.
Sometime between 1248 and 1255, as we have seen, Baldwin ii made William
ii of Villehardouin feudal overlord for life of the tercieri of Euboia (and of the
duchy of Naxos, and probably of the duchy of Athens and the marquisate of
Bodonitza as well), on the one hand to reward a powerful and loyal vassal, but
76 Langdon, John iii Ducas Vatatzes’ Byzantine Empire in Anatolian Exile, 198–238.
77 Venice played only a marginal role in Baldwin ii’s crusade in the years 1238–1240. The im-
perial heir preferred to lead his main army overland to Constantinople through Hungary
and Bulgaria; Emperor Frederick ii’s obstruction (since he was at the time allied with Ni-
caea) of an advance guard of crusaders under John of Béthune, one of the Latin emperor’s
trusted barons, bound for Constantinople planning to sail from Venice no doubt played
some part in Baldwin’s decision (Michael Lower, The Barons’ Crusade. A Call to Arms and
Its Consequences (Philadelphia, 2005), 150–157; Chrissis, Crusading in Frankish Greece, 99–
133). With regard to Baldwin’s alliance with the sultanate of Konya in 1243, no mention is
made of Venice (Duchesne, Historiae Francorum Scriptores, 5:424). In Baldwin’s 1245–1246
project with the Military Order of Santiago again no mention was made of Venice (Beni-
to Ruano, “Balduino ii de Constantinople y la Orden de Santiago,” 3–36; Jean Longnon,
“L’empereur Baudouin ii et l’ordre de Saint-Jacques,” Byzantion 22 (1952) 297–299). Venice
does not seem to have played a role in Baldwin’s diplomatic contacts with the Mongols
either (see references in Chapter 3, note 44). The Serenissima also played no role in the
1258–1259 Pelagonia coalition (see Chapter 4, p. 82–85).
78 Walter Norden, Das Papsttum und Byzanz. Die Trennung der beiden Mächte und das Prob-
lem ihrer Wiedervereinigung bis zum Untergange des byzantinischen Reiches (1453) (Berlin,
1903), n° 13, 759.
80 Chapter 3
on the other to assure political unity of Latin Greece during a time when impe-
rial authority was weak (territorially, militarily, and financially). In doing so he
completely disregarded the 1204 partition treaty: this document had awarded
the island to Venice and various actions had since then been undertaken to ef-
fectively secure the Serenissma’s rights. Baldwin presumably never confirmed
the constitutional pacts of 1204–1205 as his predecessors had done. He prob-
ably did not consider himself necessarily bound to them, a position related not
only to the influence of Byzantine imperial ideology, but also to the class-based
attitude toward Venice. Then in 1255, in the context of a succession dispute,
the tercieri Guglielmo ii of Verona and Narzotto dalle Carceri refused to recog-
nize William’s competence in the matter and asked the Serenissima to support
them. Two years of fighting—involving also the duke of Athens and the mar-
quis of Bodonitza—followed and ended with the battle of Karydi in 1258, a de-
cisive military victory for Villehardouin.79 Although in this the imperial view of
southern Latin Romania prevailed, energy and resources had in the meantime
been wasted on internal strife rather than on improving the empire’s insecure
geopolitical position in the Byzantine space.
79 See references in Chapter 2, note 53.

Chapter 4
Attempts at Geopolitical Restauration
Apart from aspects of the empire’s internal politics (imperial ideology, divi-
sions within the Constantinopolitan court elite, problematic imperial-Venetian
relations) our astrological corpus also contains information regarding Baldwin
ii’s foreign politics, especially on relations with the Castilian court. The estab-
lished view on the Latin empire’s geopolitical position within the Byzantine
region (Balkan, Aegean, Asia Minor) under Baldwin ii is that Constantinople
and its dependencies were waiting to fall into the hands of the Nicaean em-
peror comme un fruit mûr, as Jean Longnon has so eloquently put it: a pas-
sive existence with an inevitable outcome.1 This, however, negates the fact that
on the diplomatic level the emperor and his entourage in the 1240s and 1250s
continued developing one project after another with a range of international
partners with the aim at maintaining and ultimately restoring his empire: the
1237–1240 crusade (with papal support), the alliance with Konya in the early
1240s, the Cuman alliance in the 1240s, the diplomatic relations with the Mon-
gols in the 1240s and 1250s (which appear to have inaugurated a “Black Sea
policy,” as John Giebfried has suggested, although this presumably was pre-
dominantly a Venetian attempt to dominate trade in the region), the project
involving the Order of Santiago in 1245–1246 (again with papal support), the
1248 campaign in the Constantinopolitan region, the re-establishment of
a more active imperial policy vis-à-vis the Latin Orient (Cyprus and Syria-
Palestine) in the context of the Seventh Crusade (1248–1254), a possible mar-
riage alliance with Trebizond in the 1250s (with the French king Louis ix
mediating), and the “grand alliance” between Achaia, Epiros, Sicily, and Con-
stantinople in 1257/58–1259.2 This dynamic diplomacy—although not always
1 Longnon, L’empire latin de Constantinople, 186. See also David Jacoby, “The Latin Empire of
Constantinople and the Frankish States in Greece,” in David Abulafia, ed., The New Cam-
bridge Medieval History: c. 1198–c. 1300, vol. 5 (Cambridge, 1999), 530. Burkhardt, Mediterranes
Kaisertum und imperialen Ordnungen, 331–332.
2 See the references in Chapter 3, note 77. There were of course diplomatic relations with other
powers as well, for example the royal courts of France, England, and Hungary. On the Black
Sea region: John Giebfried, “Crusader Constantinople as a Gateway to the Mongol World,” in
Proceedings of the The Third International Symposium on Crusade Studies held at Saint Louis
University from 28 February–1 March 2014 (forthcoming 2018). On the Cuman alliance, see
Francesco Dall’Aglio, “The Military Alliance between the Cumans and Bulgaria from the Es-
tablishment of the Second Bulgarian Kingdom to the Mongol Invasion,” Archivum Eurasiae
Medii Aevi 16 (2008–2009), 52–53. The author commits a number of inaccuracies, for example

82 Chapter 4
successful—corresponds with one of the six elements (namely “ein weiter

Horizont der politisch-diplomatischen Beziehungen ausserhalb des eigenen
Herrschaftsgebiet”) constituting what Burkhardt has called “das Machtspoten-
tial einer imperialen Ordnung (im Mittelmeerraum).”3
Some of these projects came close to realizing Baldwin’s goal, notably the
Pelagonia coalition which had presented a clear threat to Nicaea’s rising, but
altogether fragile dominance in the region. Baldwin’s participation in this
Baldwin ii did not marry a Cuman princess (though some of his barons did). On the 1248
campaign: Saint-Guillain, “Les seigneurs de Salona,” 22–24, 49. The author hypothesizes that
this campaign involved yet another siege of Constantinople by the Nicaean emperor John iii
Vatatzes. However, the only source informing us of this campaign (the November 1248 letter
concerning feudal matters by William of Autremencourt, lord of Salona, to his Western liege
lord, the bishop of Laon) only says that the prince of Achaia (domino principe) and southern
barons such as Autremencourt had recently participated pro negotio fidei et Ecclesie in a cam-
paign ad partes Constantinopolis and ad succurrendum imperii Romanie. This wording does
not imply that the campaign was a response to an immediate threat to the capital. On the
contrary, Baldwin ii in early 1248 had just returned from the West with new funds (among
others, the financial aid that had been decided at the 1245 Council of Lyons) to try to restore
his empire. Just as had been the case during the 1237–1240 crusade, Baldwin probably under-
took an expedition to recover lost territories with the support of a number of his barons from
southern Greece. One year earlier in 1247 Vatatzes had succeeded in recapturing a number of
Thracian towns in the vicinity of Constantinople (among them Tzouroulon, Vizye, Medeia,
and Derkos). Whether this presumed campaign met with any success is impossible to say,
but it would not seem unlikely that a number of places would have been temporarily recon-
quered. On Baldwin ii’s 1244–1247/48 western voyage: Chrissis, Crusading in Frankish Greece,
155–159. On Vatatzes’ 1247 Thracian campaign: Georgios Akropolites, Historia, §47; Demetrios
I. Polemis, “A Manuscript Note of the Year 1247,” Byzantinische Forschungen 1 (1966) 269–276.
On the empire’s involvement in the Seventh Crusade (with the imperial couple Baldwin ii
(Damietta) and Mary (Cyprus), the Toucy brothers Philip and Narjot ii (kingdom of Jeru-
salem/Acre), and prince of Achaia William ii of Villehardouin (Cyprus/Damietta): Jean de
Joinville, Vie de Saint Louis, §137–140 (Mary of Brienne), §148 (William ii of Villehardouin),
§495–498 (Narjot ii of Toucy); Martène and Durand, Thesaurus novus anecdotorum 4: 1042
(Baldwin ii); Teulet, Layettes du Trésor des Chartes 3: n° 3954 (Philip of Toucy); Van Tricht,
De Latijnse Renovatio van Byzantium, 2: 797–804. Baldwin ii and his wife Mary may well have
used their presence in the region to reinforce the ties—with inter alia Antioch-Tripoli and
Cyprus—that had been forged by the Emperors Baldwin i and Henry. In his Complainte de
Constantinople (1262) Ruteboeuf still considered Constantinople to be the “head” of the
Latin oriental “body,” while the Templar Ricaut Bonomel—writing from the perspective of
the Holy Land, where he was based—in his Ir’ e dolors s’es dins mon cor asseza (1265–1266)
deplored the lack of papal support for the cause of (Latin) Romania (Ruteboeuf, Oeuvres
complètes, vol.1, ed. Michel Zink (Paris, 1989), 356–357; Antoine De Bastard, “La colère et la
douleur d’un templier en Terre Sainte. I’re dolors s’es dins mon cor assez” Revue des langues
romanes 81 (1974) 357). On the possible marriage alliance with Trebizond: Jean de Joinville,
Vie de Saint Louis, §591–592. Van Tricht, De Latijnse Renovatio van Byzantium, 2: 776–777.
3 Burkhardt, Mediterranes Kaisertum und imperialen Ordnungen, 374.
Attempts at Geopolitical Restauration 83
elagonia coalition has gone unnoticed in modern historiography. In order to

P
put into context the Castilian project, on which our astrological corpus pro-
vides information, it will be necessary to briefly outline Latin Constantinople’s
involvement in this coalition, which illustrates the continuing vitality of Bald-
win ii’s diplomatic (and military) activity in the later 1250s. Several narrative
sources contain extensive reports: the different versions of the Chronicle of
Morea and the Byzantine chronicles by contemporary George Akropolites
(1217–1282), and the later George Pachymeres (1242–circa 1310) and Nikepho-
ros Gregoras (circa 1295–1360). All present the anti-Nicaean Pelagonia alli-
ance in the years 1258–1259 as a coalition between three partners: prince of
Achaia William ii of Villehardouin, king of Sicily Manfred of Hohenstaufen,
and Michael ii Doukas, ruler of Epiros. None mention Baldwin ii or Latin
Constantinople. Therefore modern authors have concluded that Baldwin and
Constantinople played no part in it, Geanakoplos going as far as to suggest that
it actually posed a threat to the Latin emperor.4 The authors of the cited sourc-
es, however, may have had their reasons for not mentioning Baldwin ii: the
Byzantine chroniclers may not have wanted to give the Latin emperor credit
for (co-)organizing a formidable mixed Latin-Byzantine anti-Nicaean a lliance,
while the anonymous author(s) of the Chronicle of Morea (late 13th/14th
century)—employing a regional perspective—consistently minimizes the po-
litical role of any Latin emperor within Latin Romania.
The following elements demonstrate that Baldwin wás implicated in the
Pelagonia alliance. Akropolites mentions that at the battle of Pelagonia (1259)
Anselin of Toucy was taken prisoner by the Nicaean forces together with
prince William.5 The Toucys were one of the most prominent lineages of Latin
Constantinople and were related to the imperial Courtenay family. The pres-
ence of such an important metropolitan baron at Pelagonia suggests that a
Constantinopolitan unit participated in the battle. It is hard to imagine that
Anselin’s choice to participate was strictly personal and isolated. There was a
family connection between Anselin and William ii (his sister had married the
prince, but by 1255 she had been deceased and the marriage was childless),
but before 1261 Anselin was firmly based in Constantinople. It was only after
Michael viii’s capture of the capital in 1261 that he relocated to Achaia, where
he married the widow of Otho of Durnay, lord of Kalavryta.6
4 Geanakoplos, Greco-Latin Relations on the eve of the Byzantine Restoration, 113.

5 Georgios Akropolites, Historia, §81.
6 For references on the Toucy family, see Chapter 2, note 18. Anselin’s brother Philip had mar-
ried Pontia of La Roche, daughter of Otho ii, lord of Argos and Nauplion in the Peloponnese
until 1251, when he sold his possessions to his brother Guy i of La Roche, duke of Athens, and
returned to France. It is possible that Philip acquired land in the principality of Achaia as
84 Chapter 4
Additionally, Matteo Spinelli’s Diurnali records that in August 1257 (or per-
haps 1258) Baldwin visited King Manfred at Bari in Apulia—near Spinelli’s
home village. Manfred controlled part of the Epirote coastline, including the
town of Dyrrachion. Around this time, marriage negotiations were being con-
ducted between the Epirote ruler Michael ii Doukas and prince William (who
married his daughter Anna) and between Michael and Manfred (who married
his daughter Helena). It is hard not to see Spinelli’s information on Baldwin in
this context. The authenticity of the source has, however, been much debated,
although Zazzaretta has argued convincingly in its favour. It has also been sug-
gested that Spinelli’s mention actually refers to Baldwin’s later visit to Manfred
in 1262 (after the loss of Constantinople), which is recorded in several other
sources. But diplomatic relations between Baldwin and Manfred in any case
predate 1262: Pachymeres informs us that at the time of the fall of Constantino-
ple in July 1261 a large Sicilian military ship (“τῷ ἐκ Σικελίας μεγίστῳ πλοίῳ,”
part of a fleet described as composed of νῆες μᾰκραί or war galleys) was present
in the capital, no doubt sent there by the Sicilian king.7
A third argument involves Akropolites’ contemporary report of a Latin
imperial embassy to Michael viii Paleologos shortly after the latter’s acces-
sion as (co-)emperor in early 1259. After having mentioned the various threats
confronting the Nicaean empire (including the marriage alliances of Michael
ii Doukas with both prince William ii and king Manfred, and—separately—
the Latins in Constantinople) and sending an army against the Epirote ruler,
the chronicler relates how Baldwin ii’s messengers, seemingly out of the blue,
came asking for something he qualifies as “ὐπέρογκα τινα ζητοῦντες καὶ
ἀτόπων ὄντα ἐγγύς”: the city of Thessaloniki and all the land up to the walls
of Constantinople (all of the Nicaean empire’s western territories). Akropo-
lites ridicules Baldwin’s request by having Michael viii reply to the demands
with grotesque excuses and finally counterdemanding half of the metropolitan
sales tax (kommerkion) and half of the profits of the metropolitan mint. The
Nicaean emperor interestingly concludes with the statement: “εί δ’ούν ἀλλ’
ἔστω μάχη.” In the next chapter the chronicler narrates Michael viii’s own
his wife’s dowry. The dowry could however also have consisted of only a sum of money and
other movables. On the marriage: Mazzoleni, Gli atti perduti della cancellaria angioina, 1: n°
219, 400. On Otho ii: JeanLongnon, “Les premiers ducs d’Athènes et leur famille,” Journal des
Savants (1973) 61–80.
7 The best edition—though not the most recent—remains Matteo Spinelli, Diurnali, ed. Her-
mann Pabst, mgh SS 19 (Hannover, 1866), 486. Also see Alessandro Zazzaretta, “Sui Diurnali
di Matteo Spinelli. Premessa per un riesame della questine spinelliana,” Archivio Storico Pug-
liese 23 (1970) 199–214; Georgios Pachymeres, Relations historiques, lib. 2, §27; Berg, “Manfred
of Sicily and the Greek East,” 272–273, 284–285.
failed diplomatic attempts to appease Michael ii, King Manfred, and prince
William. Thereafter follows his version of the Nicaean victory over the three
coalition partners at the Battle of Pelagonia (or Kastoria).8
Akropolites attempts to picture Baldwin’s embassy as an isolated and pre-
posterous affair having nothing to do with the alliance between Michael ii,
King Manfred, and prince William. His account, however, does not come
across as credible. Indeed, why would Baldwin—himself without any substan-
tial offensive forces at his disposal—at this time have made such extensive
demands of Michael viii? Demands that I assume were made in earnest by the
Latin emperor. There would appear to be only one sensible answer: because he
was part of the coalition which, before turning to war, attempted to achieve its
goal of reducing Nicaean power in western Romania by means of diplomacy.
Baldwin and his partners no doubt hoped that the threat of their combined
military strength would bring the new Nicaean emperor, whose accession was
not unproblematic (i.e., the casting aside of the underage emperor John iv Las-
karis (1258–1259)), to accept their terms. Michael viii refers to fighting that will
have to take place in case his demands are not met by Baldwin, but the only
fighting Akropolites mentions is the battle of Pelagonia. One of the elements
in this hypothetical pact between the four coalition partners may well have
been that Emperor Baldwin granted Thessaloniki in fief to Michael ii Doukas.
The defeat of the anti-Nicaean coalition at Pelagonia no doubt was a severe
blow for Baldwin, but again—as before after other projects had failed or ended
in disappointment—he did not resign himself to fate. On the basis of our cor-
pus one more project may be added to the list of Baldwin’s initiatives to restore
his empire. In our texts, apart from the imperial family (Baldwin, his wife Mary,
and their children, especially Philip), one other person occupies a prominent
place: Alfonso x of Castile, Baldwin’s wife’s nephew who in 1249 had married
the emperor’s own grandniece Violante of Aragon. Both the versified intro-
duction and Baldwin’s horoscope confirm that Alfonso, as Wolff has pointed
out by way of Marino Sanudo Torsello’s writings, was responsible for Philip of
Courtenay’s redemption from the Venetian merchants to whom he had been
mortgaged: “un sires (…) qui de lor parentez estoit (…) feroit a soi venir l’enfant
et tant lor (=a number of mercheanz) donroit mars et livres que li enfès seroit
8 Georgios Akropolites, Historia, §78 (“seeking excessive and almost absurd things” and “but if
otherwise, let there be battle”). The embassy in question is not mentioned by another source.
Macrides identifed it with an embassy described by Pachymeres, but this was obviously an-
other occasion, which took place after the battle of Pelagonia and a one-year-truce was con-
cluded between Baldwin ii and Michael viii (Georgios Pachymeres, Relations historiques,
lib. 2, §10; Georgios Akropolites, The History, trans. Macrides, 352–353).
86 Chapter 4
delivres et recevroit de cel segnor de chevallerie le hennor.”9 This sires can be

no other than Alfonso, since Wolff on the basis of several Castilian chronicles
has demonstrated that Philip was knighted by Alfonso. His aid, however, went
beyond redeeming Baldwin’s son: Empress Mary of Brienne in addition to
securing Alfonso’s support to liberate her son, also conducted negotiations
arranging a marriage alliance by which Philip was to wed a daughter of the
king. Wolff’s sources, however, give only approximate information as to when
Philip was redeemed and thus also to when this marriage pact was concluded:
on 10 June 1259 Philip was still in Venice, by 1 May 1261 he was in France, in the
interval he was liberated and knighted by Alfonso x.10
It still remained somewhat unclear whether the marriage alliance was
planned before or only after the fall of Constantinople (25 July 1261), depend-
ing on whether negotiations regarding Philip’s redemption and marriage were
conducted simultaneously or successively (so possibly only after 1 May or 25
July 1261). Indeed, it just might have been the fall of Constantinople that in-
duced Mary to further strengthen ties with Alfonso. Her husband Baldwin—
looking for means to recover his capital and empire—in any case followed
up on the marriage alliance by visiting the Castilian court in the spring of
1263.11 In this context a new piece of information sheds light on the matter.
The insert containing documents on Venetian affairs in the Levant (including
on the mortgage of Philip of Courtenay) in the Pacta Ferrariae volume in the
Archivio di Stato in Venice contains a copy of a charter that Wolff does not
appear to have consulted. Although the piece has been badly damaged and is
only partly legible its content is clear. Dated indictione secunda (1 September
1258–31 August 1259—the rest of the date is illegible) it states that in the du-
cal palace in the presence of Doge Rainerio Zeno and the major consilium one
Giovanni Ferro appeared, as representative of the Venetian merchants who
until that time had held Philip of Courtenay (“dominum Phylippum filium
excellentissimi domini Balduini imperatoris Constantinopolis”) in custody for
9 BnF, fr.1353, f. 102rb (=Appendix 1, v369–370, v388–392, “a lord (…) who belonged to their
parentage (…) would make the child come to him and would give them [a number of
merchants] so much marks and pounds that the child would be freed and would receive
the honour of knighthood from this lord”). On Violante of Aragon, great-granddaughter of
Empress Yolande of Flanders/Hainaut: Katalin Jankovits, “Violante de Hungría (Hungría,
c. 1216–Osca / Huesca, 1251) era hija del rey de Hungría Andrea ii y Yolanda de Courtenay,”
in Anna Tüskés, ed., Omnis creatura significans. Essays in Honour of Mária Prokopp (Esz-
tergom, 2009), 55–59.
10 Wolff, “Mortgage and Redemption of an Emperor’s Son,” 56–60. See also Chapter 1.
Alfonso x was the son of Ferdinand iii, king of Castile (1217–1252), Leon (1230–1252), and
Galicia (1231–1252), a brother of Mary of Brienne’s mother Berengaria of Leon/Castile.
11 Wolff, Op. cit., 71.
the loan that they had given the emperor. Ferro had presented Philip “sanum
et incolumen” and handed him over to the care of “Joanni de Brebareto [John
le Bréban] nuntio excellentissimi domini Alfons Dei gratia Romanorum regis
semper augusti,” who would bring Philip to the king. The state of the document
makes it impossible to decipher the financial arrangement, but it would seem
that Alfonso made a commitment to pay the merchants—a fact confirmed by
Marino Sanudo Torsello.12
This information allows us to date Philip’s release more precisely, namely
between 10 June and 31 August 1259. Combined with the knowledge that our
astrological corpus predates (circa 1260) the fall of Constantinople on 25 July
1261 and that it contains a clear reference to the project concerning Philip and
Alfonso’s daughter (“entrementres que la dame [= Empress Mary] sera hors,
sera traitié del mariage del fil”), it follows that the marriage alliance was be-
ing negotiated before Baldwin’s flight from his capital, possibly as early as the
summer of 1259.13 It also would appear that the scope of the negotiations was
much broader than Philip’s redemption and the accompanying marriage alli-
ance. With regard to Alfonso x, besides his aid in redeeming Philip, our corpus
has also the following to say: “.i. grant segnor [=Alfonso] devers occident par
cui cist sires [=Baldwin ii] et la dame et lor filz seront relevé de lor povreté et
de leur soffraite”;14 and further “il a grant compassion de la provreté de cele
haute dame et li done sovraineté”;15 and also “et repairera la dame et li filz a
son segnor [=Baldwin ii] qui sera en joie et en exaucement après les .iii. anz de
lor retor et metra souz pié touz ses anemis.”16 The combined reading of these
passages makes it hard to escape the conclusion that Alfonso was to play a ma-
jor role in the Latin empire’s projected restoration: not only would he redeem
Philip, he would in a general way also relieve the imperial couple’s financial
agony, restore their authority (sovraineté), and contribute to the empire’s re-
vival, possibly within a time limit of three years after the conclusion of the
12 Venice, Archivio di Stato di Venezia, Secreta, Pacta Ferrariae, f. 54r (“lord Philip, the son of
the most excellent lord Baldwin, emperor of Constantinople”; “healthy and unimpaired”;
“John le Bréban, messenger of the most excellent lord Alfonso, king of the Romans by the
grace of God, always augustus”). For Sanudo see reference in note 10.
13 BnF, fr.1353, f. 102va (=Appendix 2, §11, “while the lady will be away the marriage of the son
will negotiated”).
14 BnF, fr.1353, f. 102va (= Appendix 2, §12, “a great lord from the West by whom this lord and
the lady and their son will be delivered from their poverty and their suffering”).
15 BnF, fr.1353, f. 102va (=Appendix 2, §13, “he has great compassion for the poverty of this
exalted lady and he gives her sovereignty”).
16 BnF, fr.1353, f. 102rb (=Appendix 2, §11, “and the lady and the son will return to her lord,
who will be in a state of joy and exaltation three years after their return et will trample his
enemies underfoot”).
88 Chapter 4
agreement. It can hardly be a coincidence that the prediction about Baldwin’s

enemies being trampled underfoot is mentioned in connection to Mary and
Philip’s return from Alfonso’s court.
It would then seem that the projected marriage alliance was part of a deal
by which Alfonso was prepared to invest financially and probably also militar-
ily in the Latin empire. This was not the first time that a Castilian scheme to
save the empire was being arranged: around 1245–1246, Baldwin with papal
assistance had enlisted the aid of the Order of Santiago which would provide
troops in return for substantial territorial gains; the plan, however, fell through
because of the emperor’s financial problems. The fact that Alfonso, at the time
still infante, gave his consent to the project shows that he had been actively
involved. Whether or not the same order was involved in the 1259 reprise is im-
possible to say, but it may well be that they were consulted to provide troops.17
The family relation between Alfonso and Empress Mary, who was his father
Ferdinand iii’s niece, provides only one element explaining the Castilian’s king
willingness to aid Baldwin. More importantly, support for Latin Constantino-
ple would have fit Alfonso’s own imperial dreams. After the death of William
ii of Holland in 1256 he—through his mother Beatrice of Hohenstaufen, her-
self the daughter of German king Philip of Swabia and his wife Irene Angelos
(daughter of Emperor Isaac ii), a descendent of both a Western and Byzantine
imperial lineage—had been elected and recognized as rex Romanorum by part
of the German prince-electors as well as the city of Pisa, while another group
had opted for Richard of Cornwall, Henry iii of England’s younger brother.18
Acquiring the favour of the pope, who would perform the imperial corona-
tion, was crucial in order to realize one’s claims. The Latin empire’s survival
and restoration had in the past decennia always been an issue close to the pa-
pacy’s heart, even though some authors have argued—unconvincingly—that
Innocent iv (1243–1254) and Alexander iv (1254–1261) in the years 1249–1256
in negotiations with Nicaea about ecclesiastical union would have consid-
ered abandoning their support for the Latin emperor.19 Alfonso’s apparent
17 On the 1245–1246 project involving the Order of Santiago, see references in Chapter 3,
note 77.
18 Luca Demontis, Alfonso x e l’Italia. Rapporti politici e linguaggi del potere (Alexandria,
2012), 35–62.
19 Chrissis and others have argued that if John iii Vatatzes and, after him, Theodore ii, Las-
karis reunited the Byzantine Church with Rome, these popes in the context of a litigation
before the papal curia would have considered recognizing them as the legitimate em-
perors of Constantinople, to Baldwin ii’s detriment. But the 1249–1256 negotiations be-
tween the papal and Nicaean courts have been misinterpreted. In their correspondence,
both popes in essence presented the Nicaean emperors with one of the fundamentals of
illingness to invest in aid for Latin Romania around 1259 should be seen
w
against this background.The projected marriage alliance may also be viewed
from another angle: obviously Alfonso thought Philip, heir to the Constanti-
nopolitan throne, to be a good match for his daughter. Through this marriage,
his daughter (and Baldwin’s great-grandniece)—if all went well—would have
been crowned empress of Constantinople when Philip succeeded his father.
That this prospect appealed to Alfonso shows the significant prestige that the
imperial throne of Constantinople still enjoyed at this time in the eyes of the
crowned heads of Western Europe, in spite of the fact that by 1259/60 the ter-
ritories that the Latin emperor controlled had been greatly reduced, and that
he had been forced to accept an insufferable affront to his honor (i.e., Philip
being mortgaged to Venetian traders).
Alfonso may well have pictured the reunification of both Christian empires
under his dynasty, with he himself (and his son after him) ruling in the West
and his daughter (and his grandson) from Constantinople. In this respect it
might be said that in the Castilian king’s view the Latin empire’s Machtspo-
tential, to use Burkhardt’s terminology, remained intact in the sense that “das
zugeschriebene überragende militarische oder wirtschaftliche oder sakrale
Potential” was still very much alive. In the West the imperial city’s renown in-
deed remained extraordinary and continued to be a source of fascination.20
current papal political theory: if two princes claim the same imperial throne and both
recognize papal authority and belong to the Roman Church, it is up to the papacy to de-
cide who has the rightful claim. In the current geopolitical context neither John iii nor his
son Theodore ii could accept this basic assumption (as both popes surely knew) and the
negotiations dragged on without bearing fruit. For Innocent and Alexander, both deeply
engaged in an all consuming political struggle with the Hohenstaufen, this kind of diplo-
macy was—among other things—a cheap way to protect Latin Constantinople. While the
negotiations were ongoing Nicaean aggression against the city ceased, making financial or
military aid for the empire less urgent. For John iii, it may partly have been a ploy to evade
a new Latin invasion army: as we have seen Empress Mary of Brienne had assurances from
some 300 knights in Louis ix’s crusading army that they would come to her husband’s aid
after the royal expedition (which lasted from 1249 until 1254) had ended, if the French king
would agree to it and provide the financial means (see references in Chapter 3, note 42).
See Chrissis, Crusading in Frankish Greece, 146–175; Bernard Stolte, “Vatatzes versus Bald-
win. The Case of the Sovereignty of Constantinople,” in Victoria D. Van Aalst and Krijnie
N. Ciggaar, eds., The Latin Empire. Some contributions (Hernen, 1990), 127–132; Antonino
Franchi, “La svolta politico-ecclesiastica tra Roma e Bisanzio (1249–1254). La legazione di
Giovanni de Parma. Il ruole di Federico ii,” Picenum Seraphicum 14 (1977–1978), 208–214.
20 Devereaux, Constantinople and the West, 1:183–186, 192–197. Burkhardt, Mediterranes Kai-
sertum und imperialen Ordnungen, 374. Albrecht’s view that in the West the Constantino-
politan imperial throne held little appeal, or was not seen as higher than a royal crown,
should be discarded (Stefan Albrecht, “Das Griechische Projekt Andreas ii.,” in Neslihan
Asutay-Effenberger and Falko Daim, eds., Philopation. Spaziergang in kaiserlichen Garten.
90 Chapter 4
Even after Baldwin ii lost his capital in 1261, Alfonso’s interest in the Latin em-
pire did not wane and the projected marriage alliance was only abandoned
under the pressure of Clement iv, who by 1266 favored an alliance between
Baldwin ii and the new king of Sicily Charles of Anjou. A 1264 papal letter to
Alfonso’s brother Philip still mentions the former’s commitment to the nego-
tium Constantinopolitani imperii: at his brother’s request Felipe was to lead an
expedition “ad partes Romanie ad expugnandas Grecorum gentes scismaticas
[…] cum bellatorum honorabili comitiva.”21
Whether or not Alfonso’s support—whatever form it would have taken had
not the Nicaeans captured Constantinople in July 1261—would have substan-
tially redressed the geopolitical situation, is a matter of speculation. Alfonso
was, in any case, in a position to embark upon such expeditions: around the
same time he had organized a crusade against Salé (in North Africa in 1260),
against Niebla (on the Iberian peninsula in 1262) with papal support, and in
the 1270s Castilian troops being repeatedly sent to Italy in aid of his imperi-
al vicar William vii of Montferrat.22 The 1239/40 crusade had created much
needed breathing space by reconquering part of southern Thrace and a num-
ber of key strongholds, such as the fortified town of Tzouroulon, also by forging
Schriften über Byzanz und seinen Nachbarn. Festschrift für Arne Effenberger zum 70.
Geburtstag (Mainz, 2012), 265–266). At the Council of Lyon in 1245, Baldwin ii—for all to
see—solely sat at Pope Innocent iv’s right hand, a clear indication of the extraordinary
position he held among all secular princes and prelates, reminiscent of the role played
by Roman/Byzantine emperors during general councils (Ludwig Weiland, ed., Relatio de
Concilio Lugdunense, in mgh. Legum Sectio 4: Constitutiones et Acta Publica Imperato-
rum et Regum 2 (Hannover, 1896), 513).
21 Demontis, Alfonso x e l’Italia, 87, 348–349 (“the affair of the empire of Constantinople”
and “to the lands of Romania in order to fight the schismatic Greek people (…) with a
honorable company of combatants”). The author hypothesizes that Alfonso’s goal was
to place former Latin empress Berengaria of Leon-Castile or one of her sons by Latin
emperor John of Brienne on the Constantinopolitan throne, but offers no source-based
arguments supporting this statement (ibid., 236). As far as can be ascertained, Berengaria
died on 12 April 1237 (mentioned in the necrologium of the abbey of Maubuisson and in
Aubry of Trois-Fontaines’ chronicle), so she should be excluded (Perry, John of Brienne,
182). Wolff was not familiar with the cited 1264 document and erroneously hypothesized
that after 1261 Alfonso lost interest in the marriage alliance (Wolff, “Mortgage and Re-
demption of an Emperor’s Son,” 70–73). On the rapprochement between Baldwin ii and
Charles of Anjou, who in 1266 at Benevento had defeated and killed the Latin emperor’s
ally king Manfred of Sicily: Longnon, “Le rattachement de la principauté de Morée au
royaume de Sicile en 1267,” 134–143; Chrissis, Crusading in Frankish Greece, 204–207.
22 On these expeditions: Demontis, Alfonso x e l’Italia, 29–30 and 101; H. Salvador Martinez,
Alfonso x the Learned. A Biography, Studies in the History of Christian Traditions (Leiden,
2010), 159–163.
an alliance with neighbouring Cuman tribes.23 For the 1259 Castilian project
this kind of limited result could have been an achievable goal. Much depend-
ed on additional support. With regard to southern Latin Romania this would
probably have been no easy matter: the region had recently seen its fair share
of military action with the internal war of succession regarding Euboia (1255–
1258, with Venetian involvement) and the Pelagonia debacle (1259). Whether
Baldwin ii would have succeeded in gathering support from neighbouring
powers and one time allies, such as Hungary, Bulgaria, Serbia, the Cumans or
Konya, is hard to assess.
The Mongol invasion in the early 1240s had greatly destabilized the region
and was still recovering from the blow by 1259. For most of the powers men-
tioned it would seem that a neutral stand in the Latin-Nicaean conflict, or some
minimal form of aid, was the most realistic prospect. Nevertheless, it would ap-
pear that Michael ii Doukas, ruler of Epiros, may again have been on board.
Michael had recently been one of the allies in the Pelagonia coalition, which
in essence had lost the military confrontation with the Nicaean army due to
a lack of unified command.24 The fact that Urban iv in 1263 addressed him
as princeps Thessalonicae—along with William ii of Villehardouin, prince of
Achaia, and Venice—requesting their assistance to the Franciscan messengers
he was sending to Michael viii Paleologos (“qui pro imperatore Graecorum se
gerit”) to discuss ecclesiastical unity strongly suggests that Michael was situ-
ated in the Latin camp and had—at least formally—recognized papal author-
ity. If he had been a schismatic hostile ruler there would have been little point
for Urban to ask for his help.25
The fact that the pope recognized him as prince of Thessaloniki is a crucial
element. Michael never actually held the city and thus we may wonder why he
was addressed with this title—one not attested elsewhere. Donald Nicol, who
mistakenly states that Urban iv was requesting Michael’s support for the Latin
empire’s restoration, hypothesized that it should be seen as papal flattery.26
This seems unlikely: if flattery would have been the main consideration in the
choice of title, why then not flatter Michael by referring to his rule over towns
and lands he actually possessed, rather than highlighting the painful fact that
Thessaloniki had been lost for the Doukai of Epiros since 1246, when Michael’s
23 Lower, The Barons’ Crusade, 150–157. Giebfried, “The Mongol Invasions and the Aegean
World,” 130–131.
24 A lack of unified command probably played a major role in the Latin defeat at the battle
of Poimanenon in 1224 (Van Tricht, “Robert of Courtenay,” 1033).
25 Luke Wadding, Annales Minorum (Lyon, 1628), 2:n° 7, 257 (“prince of Thessaloniki” and
“who behaves himself as emperor of the Greeks”).
26 Donald M. Nicol, The Despotate of Epiros (Oxford, 1957), 194–19, n. 13.
92 Chapter 4
nephew Demetrios lost it to John iii Vatatzes?27 In the past popes had never,
of their own accord, bestowed titles upon rulers in Latin Romania that had
not been granted or recognized by the Latin emperors. Although in 1263 re-
lations between Baldwin ii and Urban iv were strained due to the former’s
dealings with the Hohenstaufen king Manfred of Sicily, from a papal point of
view only one secular authority could legitimately confer the authority of the
ruler of Thessaloniki: the Latin emperor.28 That Michael in Urban’s eyes was
indeed subject to a higher secular authority is apparent from the title used: he
is addressed as princeps (like that other imperial vassal, the prince of Achaia)
and not as rex Thessalonicae. Although within Latin Romania Thessaloniki had
the status of a kingdom feudally dependent on Constantinople, addressing Mi-
chael as king was clearly not an option for Urban: this would have suggested
his recognition as an independent ruler (to the detriment of the Latin emper-
or), and, moreover, there is no evidence of him ever having been crowned.29
On this basis it may be suggested that at some point Baldwin ii had granted
the rights over Thessaloniki to Michael, no doubt on the condition that he rec-
ognize Baldwin as his emperor and suzerain. The Pelagonia alliance, or the
Castilian project if Michael was involved, seems the most likely occasion. It
would thus seem that around 1258–1263 Epiros temporarily became part of the
empire ruled by the Latin emperors once again.30 For Michael, his regional
27 In the past popes addressed the Doukai of Epiros/Thessaloniki with non-territorial titles.
For example, in 1218 Honorius iii addressed Theodore Doukas, ruler of Epiros, although
he (temporarily) had recognized papal authority, only as nobilis vir Theodorus Comninus
dux (Honorius iii et Gregorius ix, Acta, n° 23–25); also in 1232 Gregory ix addressed Man-
uel Doukas, then ruler of Thessaloniki, styling himself Byzantine emperor, only as nobilis
vir Manuel Cominianus (ibid., n° 176). The reason was that their rule over these lands was
not recognized by the Latin emperors to whom their lands in theory belonged (at least as
being feudally dependent upon them).
28 See for example, the 1244 papal confirmation of Guglielmo i of Verona’s rights to the king-
dom of Thessaloniki, which had been granted to him by Baldwin ii in 1240 (Loenertz,
“Les seigneurs de Négrepont,” n° 1, 269). Guglielmo’s theoretical rights, however, never
materialized. On the relations between Baldwin ii and Urban iv around 1263: Chrissis,
Crusading in Frankish Greece, 194–204.
29 Boniface of Montferrat (1204–1207) likewise had never been addressed (or crowned) as
king (and had never assumed the title himself), although the principality was already
referred to as a kingdom (Benjamin Hendrickx, “Le royaume latin des Montferrat à Thes-
salonique (1204–1224): le roi et les institutions,” Ekklesiastikos Pharos 91 (2009) 249–251).
Crowning the king of Thessaloniki was the Latin emperor’s prerogative; in 1209 Emperor
Henry crowned Boniface’s young son Demetrios of Montferrat: Van Tricht, The Latin Ren-
ovatio of Byzantium, 87.
30 This had for example also been the case in 1209–1217 and Michael i Angelos—the
founder of the Epirote principality—after 1204 had originally been a member of Boni-
face of Montferrat’s entourage (Filip Van Tricht, “La politique étrangère de l’empire latin
autonomy of Thessaloniki, even under a Latin emperor, may well have seemed
preferable to whatever Nicaea had to offer: tighter control through more
centralized government and no substantial territorial gains. In addition to
Michael ii Doukas another possible party to the Castilian project might have
been Manfred of Sicily,31 as having been a partner in the Pelagonia coalition.
Afterwards he appears to have remained Baldwin’s ally, and possibly even his
vassal for the Byzantine territories he held (inter alia Dyrrachion in Epiros and
the island of Corfu). At the time of the Nicaean capture of Constantinople in
1261 at least one (large) Sicilian military ship, possibly part of a fleet, was pres-
ent in the capital, most likely sent by Manfred in Baldwin’s aid.32 This could
be seen in the context of the feudal auxilium obligation. After the loss of the
city, Baldwin enjoyed a prolonged stay at Manfred’s court (1261–1262), with the
emperor, until the Battle of Benevento in 1266, attempting to mediate in Man-
fred’s bitter conflict with the papacy, contingent on the Sicilian king promising
his support in organizing an expedition to regain Constantinople.33
At the same time Manfred’s relationship with Michael ii remained good.
Shortly after the battle of Pelagonia his troops aided in reconquering Epiros
from the Nicaean army stationed there. The Sicilian ruler continued to lend
military assistance until 1265, when his conflict with the papacy escalated—
whose cause was now championed by Louis ix of France’s brother Charles of
Anjou, count of Provence.34 The fact that Manfred and Alfonso x were political
rivals on the Italian peninsula need not per se have prevented their coopera-
tion in the matter of Latin Romania. As has been argued, both rulers remained
committed to the Constantinopolitan project in the years 1261–1266, and each
de Constantinople. Sa position en Méditerranée orientale problèmes de chronologie et

d’interprétation (1re partie),” Le Moyen Age 107 (2001) 232–234).
31 Venice could perhaps have been another partner in the Castilian project, but this seems
unlikely in view of the difficult relations between Baldwin ii and the Serenissima. After
1261, Baldwin and Venice did cooperate in an attempt to organize an expedition to retake
Constantinople (Wolff, “The Mortgage and Redemption of an Emperor’s Son,” 71–72).
32 See reference in note 7. One might see in this procurement of Sicilian naval assistance an
attempt to be less dependent upon Venice’s naval power. As we have seen in Chapter 2,
Baldwin’s relationship with the Serenissima was problemetic.
33 Manfred’s support for the Latin empire is inter alia to be seen in the context of his efforts
to reach a reconciliation with the papacy, see Wolff, “The Mortgage and Redemption of
an Emperor’s Son,” 66–70; Beverly Berg, “Manfred of Sicily and Urban iv: Negotiations
of 1261,” Mediaeval Studies 55 (1993) 116–132; Chrissis, Crusading in Frankish Greece, 188–
189, 204.
34 Nicol, The Despotate of Epiros, 187–189. Berg, “Manfred of Sicily and the Greek East,”
285–286.
94 Chapter 4
surely knew of Baldwin’s close dealings with the both of them.35 Wolff’s con-
tention that the Castilian policy (Alfonso x), attributed by the author to Mary
of Brienne, and the Sicilian policy (Manfred), attributed to Baldwin ii, were
necessarily incompatible with one another must in my view be discarded.36
In any case, the fact that Baldwin ii around 1257–1261 managed to mount
two major projects (the Pelagonia alliance and the Castilian expedition,
which by 1261 was still in its preliminary stages) to revitalize his empire and
redress the geopolitical balance in the region in his favour shows that striv-
ing for “sektorale Hegemonie in einem bedeutenden Teil des Mittelmeerrau-
mes”—another of Burkhardt’s six criteria defining the Machtspotential of an
imperiale Ordnung—was still the Latin emperor’s objective, and—if militar-
ily successful—surely was not unrealistic. Consequently, there is no reason to
conclude, as Wolff, Chrissis, Burkhardt, and others have done, that the Latin
empire in 1261 was moribund. It is only the bias of hindsight, combined with an
unfamiliarity with crucial source material, that led these authors to state that
Latin C
onstantinople’s fall was inevitable.37
35 On the rivalry between Alfonso x, king-elect of the Romans, and Manfred, king of Sicily, to
establish their political influence over northern Italy: Demontis, Alfonso x e l’Italia, 66–81.
36 Wolff, “The Mortgage and Redemption of an Emperor’s Son,” 73.
37 Robert L. Wolff, “The Latin Empire of Constantinople,” in Kenneth M. Setton, ed., A His-
tory of the Crusades, vol. 2 (Philadelphia, 1962), 230–233. Burkhardt, Mediterranes Kaiser-
tum und imperialen Ordnungen, 374. Chrissis, Crusading in Frankish Greece, 178.
Part 2
Cultural Dynamics
Chapter 5
The Astrological Corpus: Western

and Byzantine Influences
The astrological corpus of texts related to Baldwin ii of Courtenay—the

astronomical/astrological treatise, its versified introduction, and the emperor’s
horoscope—contains valuable and original information concerning political
life in mid-13th-century Constantinople, but also about cultural life (the arts
and sciences) in the Queen of Cities in this phase of her history. Assuming that
their date (in/around 1260) and place of origin (Constantinople) is correct—
the question is whether the mixed Latin-Byzantine environment within which
these documents were produced is reflected in them. The resulting picture of
cultural life in the city can then be supplemented by the data available in other
sources and in modern historiography. Until now it has been widely assumed,
either implicitly or explicitly, that after 1204 cultural life in the city virtually
came to a halt and was transferred, at least Byzantine cultural life, to various
regional centers (Nicaea, Epiros, Serbia, etc.).
Whether our corpus can be considered a product of the mixed Latin-
Byzantine environment within which its author lived and worked—that these
texts are a combination of typically Western and typically Byzantine elements—
it will be productive to look chiefly for Byzantine influences. Western elements
have already been delineated extensively by Duhem and Dörr in their respec-
tive discussions of our texts. These authors have identified in the Introductoire
d’Astronomie a number of sources used by our author that can be typified as
Western and which I will review briefly, adding my own findings.
1 Western Influences
A major Western source of information for the astronomical section of the trea-
tise was Martianus Capella’s De Nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii (probably 5th cen-
tury ad), an encyclopedic allegorical work discussing the seven artes liberales,
including among them astronomy. In the medieval West, Capella’s late Roman
compilation of classical scholarship was popular from the early Middle Ages
until around the 13th century and was copiously commented upon.1 Our author
1 Bruce S. Eastwood, Ordering the Heavens. Roman Astronomy and Cosmology in the C arolingian
Renaissance, Medieval and Early Modern Science 8 (Leiden, 2007), passim. David C. Lindberg,

98 Chapter 5
explicitly acknowledges his dependence on Capella by citing him 21 times as his

source of information. He adopts, among others, Capella’s partial heliocentrism
(with Venus and Mercury revolving around the sun, first proposed by Heraclides
Ponticus in the 4th century bc).2 In these passages he translates or paraphrases
Capella fairly literally, sometimes adding information from other authors’ work.
Our author also uses a number of other classical authors as minor sources of
information—works composed in Latin or available in Latin translation—all
familiar names in Western medieval intellectual milieus. Macrobius’ Commen-
tarii in somnium Scipionis (early 5th century) is cited five times. Our author in-
ter alia adopts his classification of dreams. In another passage, Marcus Tullius
Cicero’s opinion on the order of the planets (with the sun in fourth place), as
reported by Macrobius, is explicitly mentioned.3 A third late classical source is
Boethius’ Consolatio philosophiae. Our author in his cosmological introduction
mentions this 6th-century author’s opinion on God being form without mat-
ter.4 Furthermore, our author’s Introductoire contains a reference to Augustine
of Hippo (early 5th century), who—together with the Byzantine church father
John of Damascus—is quoted as stating that angels and spirits are able to fore-
see the future (insofar as God commands or allows this), an idea that is to be
found in his De diversis quaestionibus ad Simplicianum.5 Probably our author’s
The Beginnings of Western Science: The European Scientific Tradition in Philosophical, Reli-
gious, and Institutional Context, Prehistory to ad 1450, 2nd ed. (Chicago, 2007), 206–209.
2 For a partial survey of these citations, see Dörr, Der älteste Astronomietraktat, 11–15. Instances
in the unpublished part of the treatise: BnF, fr. 1353, f. 25ra (=Appendix 3, Ch. 86, §1), f. 26va
(=Appendix 3, Ch. 86, §13), f. 27ra, f. 28ra, f. 32ra, f. 34ra, f. 34va, f. 34vb. Compare with Martia-
nus Capella, De nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii, §816–878; in translation: Martianus Capella,
The Marriage of Philology and Mercury, trans. William H. Stahl and Richard Johnson, Martia-
nus Capella and the Seven Liberal Arts 2 (New York, 1977), §816–878. On the Introductoire’s
dependence on Capella, see also Duhem, Le système du monde, 3:137–152; Burnett, “Astrologi-
cal Translations in Byzantium,” 182.
3 BnF, fr. 1353, f. 8v (=Appendix 3, Ch. 2, §6–7), f. 26vb (=Appendix 3, Ch. 86, §15), f. 30va. For
a critical edition and translation of Macrobius’ work with an introduction on his life and
works, see Macrobius, Commentaire au songe de Scipion, ed. and trans. Mireille Armisen-
Marchetti, Collection des universités de France (Paris, 2001). On the reception of Macrobius’
Commentarii in the medieval period, see, for example, Eastwood, Ordering the Heavens, pas-
sim; Lindberg, The Beginnings of Western Science, 206–209. On the Introductoire’s depen-
dence on Macrobius, see also Duhem, Le système du monde, 3:137–152.
4 BnF, fr. 1353, f. 10ra (=Dörr, Der älteste Astronomietraktat, §3, 38). On this concept in Boethius’
Consolatio: John Marendon, Boethius, Great Medieval Thinkers (Oxford, 2003), 80–81. On
Boethius’ popularity during the Middle Ages: Lindberg, The Beginnings of Western Science,
206–209.
5 BnF, fr. 1353, f. 8va (=Appendix 3, Ch. 2, §5). Augustinus, De diversis quaestionibus ad Simpli-
cianum, ed. Almut Mutzenbecher, Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 44 (Turnhout, 1970),
lib. 2, §3.3. On the passage in question: Paula J. Rose, Commentary on Augustine’s De cura pro
mortuis gerenda: Rhetoric in Practice, Amsterdam Studies in Classical Philology 20 (Leiden,
2013), 463.
The Astrological Corpus 99
knowledge of the views of a number of early Greek philosophers (Thales,

Heraclites, Anaximenes, Anaximander, Epicuros) on the four elements (earth,
water, air, and fire) was derived from another work by Augustine, his most in-
fluential magnum opus De civitate Dei.6 Duhem hypothesized that our author
also made use of Calcidius’ commentary on Plato’s Timaeus (4th century ad),
which includes a partial translation of this dialogue, and possibly of Pliny the
Elder’s Historia naturalis in his discussion of the concept of epicycles in plan-
etary retrogradation.7 Finally, our author was familiar with the astronomical
and astrological corpus by Ptolemy (Klaudios Ptolemaios, 2nd century ad) and
also refers to the Aphorismi by Hippocrates (5th century bc), which had been
translated into Latin in the early medieval period.8
Besides these classical titles our author has used a number of works written
by post-classical, medieval Western scholars. In one passage, describing the
start dates of the four seasons, he refers to the early medieval and influential
Isidore of Sevilla’s De natura rerum (around 613).9 In a passage discussing sev-
eral types of shadow in order to assess the size of the moon, he names the
Carolingian commentator of both Capella’s De nuptiis and Macrobius’ Com-
mentarii, Remigius of Auxerre (9th century).10 There are two medieval authors
that our author has likely used, but whom he does not name. Duhem assumes
that our author used the Periphyseon (or De divisione naturae) by John Scot
Eriugena’s (9th century), as Remigius an exponent of the Carolingian Renais-
sance, in his description of a special type of fire existing in the heavenly spheres
which does not burn or destroy.11 Much more important is our author’s depen-
dence, with regard to the astronomical part of his Introductoire, on the work
of William of Conches, a scholar belonging to the school of Chartres in the
6 BnF, fr. 1353, f. 9va-f. 10 ra (=Dörr, Der älteste Astronomietraktat, §3, pp. 36–38). Augustinus,
De civitate Dei, ed. Bernhardt Dombart and Alfons Kalb, Corpus Christianorum Scholars
Version (Turnhout, 2014), lib. 6, §5; lib. 8, §2–5.
7 BnF, fr. 1353, f. 26va (=Appendix 3, Ch. 86, §13). Duhem, Le système du monde, 3:137–152.
Calcidius, Commentaire au Timée de Platon, ed. Béatrice Bakhouche, Histoire des Doc-
trines de l’Antiquité Classique (Paris, 2011), 1: §77–86.
8 BnF, fr. 1353, f. 8va (=Appendix 3, Ch. 2, §2).
9 BnF, fr. 1353, f. 32va. Isidore de Seville, De natura rerum. Traité de la nature suivi de l’Epitre
en vers du rois Sisebut à Isidore, ed. Jacques Fontaine, Bibliothèque de l’Ecole des Hautes
Etudes Hispaniques 28 (Bordeaux, 1960), §7, 202–203. Succinctly on Isidore’s life, works,
and influence (with further references): Lindberg, The Beginnings of Western Science, 157.
10 BnF, fr. 1353, f. 28va. On Remigius of Auxerre: Remigius Autissiodorensis, Commentum in
Martianum Capellam. Libri i–ix, ed. Cora E. Lutz, 2 vols (Brill, 1962–1965); Eastwood, Or-
dering the Heavens, 198–270; Michael Baldzuhn, “Remigius von Auxerre,” in Biographisch-
Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon 22 (Nordhausen, 2003), 1146–1149.
11 BnF, fr. 1353, f. 27rb. Duhem, Le système du monde, 3:143.
100 Chapter 5
first half of the 12th century. Various passages on the course, composition, and
properties of planets are clearly in part influenced by William’s Philosophia.12
In addition to these classical and medieval works originally written in
or translated into Latin, there is another category that must be treated as
Western. A number of astrological treatises originally written in Arabic by
(mostly) Muslim scholars were translated into Latin from the 12th century
on, making them accessible to Western intellectuals. The most important au-
thor in this respect is the Persian scholar Abu Maʿshar (9th century) or Albu-
maxar as he is named in our treatise. His Introductorium maius, as the Kitāb
al-mudkhal al-kabīr became known in the West, was a major influence and is
cited throughout the Introductoire. Abu Maʿshar is the most frequently named
author in the entire treatise (30 times; Martianus Capella is second with 21
citations). The Latin translation used was that of John of Sevilla around 1130.13
Also frequently cited is Masha’allah ibn Athari (or Messehala), an 8th-century
Persian Jewish astrologer. Several of his astrological works were also translated
into Latin by the same John of Sevilla.14 Another work often used is the Liber
novem iudicum, a Latin compilation of various Arabic astrological authori-
ties which took shape in a number of versions between circa 1150 and 1250.
Of these, our author cites Jergis (possibly 9th century, named 12 times), Abu
Yusuf Yaʿqub ibn Ishaq al-Kindi (or Alkindes, 9th century, named 11 times),
Sahl ibn Bisr (or Zael, 9th century, named 10 times), Umar al-Tabari (or Aomar,
12 BnF, fr. 1353, f. 25ra (=Appendix 3, Ch. 86, §1–planets as erratikes), f. 25ra-va (=Appendix 3,
Ch. 86, §2–5–on the planets as moving contrary to the motion of the firmament), f. 26rb-
va (=Appendix 3, Ch. 86, §9–13–on the retrogradation of planets), f. 26vb-f. 27ra (=Ap-
pendix 3, Ch. 86, §15–16–on the order of the planets). Cf Duhem, Le système du monde,
3:145; Guillelmus de Conchis, Philosophia, ed. Marco Albertazzi, Archivio medievale 10
(Lavis, 2010), lib. 2, §3, §9–10, §23, §26, §33–34, §36–37, §41. On the school of Chartres and
the study of astronomy and astrology there: Charles Burnett, “La réception des mathéma-
tiques, de l’astronomie et de l’astrologie arabes à Chartres,” in Aristote, L’école de Chartres
et la cathédrale (Chartres, 1997), 101–107.
13 For a partial overview of passages based on Abu Maʿshar, see Dörr, Der älteste Astronomi-
etraktat, 12–13; Duhem, Le système du monde, 3:148–149. See also Boudet, Entre science et
nigromance, 53–55. The manuscript containing Baldwin’s horoscope and the related verse
introduction and Introductoire also contains a French translation of the Latin translation
of Abu Maʿshar’s Kitāb taḥāwīl sinī al-ʿālam (known in Latin as Flores astrologiae).
14 For example: BnF, fr. 1353, f. 32ra-f. 35rb, f. 42rb-f. 46va (=Appendix 3, Ch. 126, §2). On the
influence of Masha’allah astrological works on the medieval West: Boudet, Entre science et
nigromance, 54–55. The manuscript containing Baldwin’s horoscope and the related verse
introduction and Introductoire also contains a French translation of John of Sevilla’s Latin
translation of Masha’allah’s work on eclipses, known in Latin as Epistola de rebus eclipsi-
um et de conjunctionibus planetarum (see Chapter 1, note 2, and also Burnett, “ Astrological
Translations in Byzantium,” 182).
8th century, named once), Abu Ali al-Khayyat (or Abenalaiat, 9th century, named
once) and a Pseudo-Aristotle. Two particular sections taken from the Liber
are Sahl’s Quinquaginta precepta and what has been called by Charles Burnett
a “hidden preface,” that references a work on talismans (Atalacim or Atalacym
after the Arabic at-Talasim), which our author, misinterpreting a passage in the
preface, incorrectly suggests was written by Ptolemy.15 Jergis’ Liber significatio-
num planetarum in duodecim domibus was used as well. To my knowledge the
earliest manuscript containing this Latin translation of Jergis’ book is dated to
the late 12th century (perhaps around 1180) or the early 13th century.16
In Duhem’s general assessment of the Introductoire’s quality as a work of
science, he concluded that although our author treats his subject matter with
clarity (unlike some of his sources), his work at the same time is rather outdat-
ed and backward: it could have been written around 1150. Duhem’s argument
is that he finds no traces of the Latin translations of scientific works that were
made in the second half of the 12th century—such as Aristotle’s Meteorologica
or De Caelo, or of Ptolemy’s Almagest, in spite of the fact that these became
influential during the 13th century.17 Our author would appear to have missed
these texts and the first stages of medieval Latin Aristotelianism, a lthough
Duhem admits that our author does possess a vague—but defective—notion
of some ptolemaic astronomical concepts. In my opinion Duhem has mis-
judged the Introductoire in this respect.18
15 The Quinquaginta precepta: BnF, fr. 1353, f. 59rb-f. 61va (=Appendix 3, Ch. 186, §1). On the
“hidden preface”: BnF, fr. 1353, f. 62v-f. 63r (=Appendix 3, Ch. 189, §1–3). In general on the
Liber novem iudicum’s influence on the Introductoire, see Burnett, “Astrological Transla-
tions in Byzantium,” 182–183. On the Liber novem iudicum itself, see Boudet, Entre science
et nigromance, 177. For an English translation of the text: Benjamin Dykes, trans., The Book
of the Nine Judges (Golden Valley, 2011); see also Charles Burnett, “A Hermetic Programme
of Astrology and Divination in mid-Twelfth-Century Aragon: The Hidden Preface in the
Liber novem iudicum,” in idem and William F. Ryan, eds., Magic and the Classical Tradi-
tion (London and Turin, 2006), 99–118.
16 BnF, fr. 1353, f. 56vb-f. 59rb. Compare: BnF, lat. 16208, f. 50va. On Jergis: Lynn Thorndike,
A History of Magic and Experimental Science (New York, 1923), 2:718–719; Benjamin Dykes,
The Book of the Nine Judges, 7. On the manuscripts of his Liber significationum planeta-
rum: Moritz Steinschneider, “Die Europaischen Ubersetzungen aus dem Arabischen bis
Mitte des 17. Jahrhunderts,” Sitzungsberichte der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien.
Philologisch-historische Klasse 151 (1905); Fritz S. Pedersen, The Toledan Tables. A Review
of the Manuscripts and the Textual Versions, Historisk-filosofiske skriften 24 (Copenhagen,
2002), 1:165–166.
17 On these translations: Boudet, Entre science et nigromance, 47–48.
18 Duhem, Le système du monde, 3:142–145. Duhem’s assessment of the Introductoire was,
among others, adopted by Mazal, Geschichte der abendländischen Wissenschaft, 122 (sehr
rückstandig and das Niveau des 13. Jahrhundert ist nicht erreicht). In general on the rise of
102 Chapter 5
First of all, the use of Jergis’ Liber significationum planetarum is already an

indication that our author may have used texts that became available in the
West well after 1150. The anonymous Latin translation as stated is not attested
in the manuscript tradition before the late 12th or early 13th century, although
of course an earlier manuscript may once have existed. Secondly, the Intro-
ductoire was conceived as an introduction in astronomy and astrology aimed
at a lay audience who had not enjoyed higher education, not as an exhaus-
tive treatment of the subject such as Aristotle’s and, especially, Ptolemy’s cited
works. Moreover, the astrological theories in the second part are the main fo-
cus of the Introductoire: astronomy is not treated or studied for its own sake.
Both these considerations go some way in explaining why our author relies
on works dealing with astronomy in an introductory and compilatory way, in-
stead of using more elaborate and detailed works. Indeed, at the University of
Paris—where in 1210 a local synod had still banned the teaching of Aristotle’s
works on natural philosophy (a position that received some measure of papal
support in 1231), and where in 1277 bishop Etienne Tempier condemned 219
propositions in reaction to what has been called “radical Aristotelianism.”—
until the early 1250s the arts faculty’s astronomy course still consisted of the
relevant chapter in Capella’s De nuptiis. It was not until 1255 that the faculty
officially established the study of Aristotle’s assembled works.19
But apart from this, there are elements in the Introductoire indicating that
our author was more familiar with Aristotle and Ptolemy’s oeuvre than Duhem
assumed. In any case, our author certainly grants both of these ancient phi-
losophers an important place in his work. With regard to Ptolemy, this is borne
out by the fact that as the first authority mentioned he occupies a prominent
place (“voel premierement commencier des paroles que Ptolemeus met el
prologue de son livre”).20 Ptolemy is quoted 9 times. Aristotle, on the other
hand, is one of the authorities our author cites most: 19 times; only Martianus
Latin Aristotelianism: Fernand Van Steenbergen, Aristotle in the West: The Origins of Latin
Aristotelianism (Louvain, 1955); Luca Bianchi and Eugenio Randi, Vérités dissonantes.
Aristote à la fin du Moyen Âge, Vestigia–Pensée antique et médiévale 11 (Fribourg, 1993);
Robert Pasnau, “The Latin Aristotle,” in Christopher Shields, ed., The Oxford Handbook of
Aristotle (Oxford, 2012), 665–689.
19 McCluskey, Astronomies and Culture in Early Medieval Europe, 197. On the Parisian bans:
Johannes M. Thijssen, Censure and Heresy at the University of Paris, 1200–1400 (Philadel-
phia, 1998), 40–55; Alain Boureau, “La censure dans les universités médiévales (note
critique),” Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales 55 (2000) 315–323. The bans also included
a condemnation of certain astrological propositions implying astral fatalism (see also
Chapter 3, p. 55).
20 BnF, fr. 1353, f. 7rb (=Appendix 3, Ch. 1, §2, “I would like to start with words that Ptolemy
wrote in the prologue of his book”).
Capella (21) and Abu Maʿshar (30) are more prominent.21 In the cited passage
by Ptolemy our author claims to be citing Ptolemy’s fundamental work on as-
tronomy, the Mathematike syntaxis or Almageste, as our author calls it and as it
was generally known in the Latin West. Ptolemy’s Syntaxis was translated into
Latin circa 1160 by an anonymous translator in Sicily (from Greek) and again in
1175 by Gerard of Cremona (from Arabic). It is, however, clear that our author
does not quote the prologue of the Almagest itself, but rather a passage from
the previously mentioned “hidden preface’” in the compilatory Liber novem
iudicum, which claims to reproduce Ptolemy’s prologue.
This being said, our author’s general statement about the divinely inspired
influence of the celestial bodies (and their movements) on the sublunary world
and creatures, inter alia the human body and soul, can still be considered to
be a paraphrase of Ptolemy’s views as expressed in the introductions to the Al-
magest and to the first and third books of the Tetrabiblos (or Quadripartitum in
Latin, translated in 1138 by Plato of Tivoli), Ptolemy’s astrological counterpart
to his astronomical work, with some Platonic influence mixed in (the affinity
between the human soul and the celestial spheres in his Timaeus), which our
author discusses more extensively elsewhere in his treatise (and explicitly at-
tributes to Plato).22 Our author also knew Ptolemy’s Handy Tables and explic-
itly names its author when he cites the extremal latitudes of the planet Venus
(8°56’). These tables will be discussed more extensively in a consideration of
possible Byzantine influences on the Introductoire.23 Finally, our author also
refers to pseudo-Ptolemaic works. He cites the Centiloquium (“si cum dist Pt-
holemeus en son Centilogue”), a pseudo-Ptolemaic work containing one hun-
dred astrological sentences which became widely available in the West through
a Latin translation (from the Arabic) made in the first half of the 12th century.
Furthermore, as we have previously seen, he adopts the “hidden preface” of
21 Dörr, Der älteste Astronomietraktat, §3 and §35. BnF, fr. 1353, f. 25va-f. 26ra (=Appendix 3,
Ch. 86, §6–7), f. 27ra-f. 27rb, f. 28vb-f. 29ra, f. 32ra, f. 32vb, f. 33vb, f. 34va, f. 35va-f. 35vb, f.
55rb, f. 56rb.
22 BnF, fr. 1353, f. 7rb (=Appendix 3, Ch. 1, §2), f. 63ra (=Appendix 3, Ch. 189, §2). Cf. Claudius
Ptolemaeus, Composition mathématique, ed. and trans. Nicolas Halma (Paris, 1927), 1:4;
Claudius Ptolemaeus, Tetrabiblos, ed. and trans. Frank E. Robbins, Loeb Classical Library
(Cambridge, 1964), lib 1, §1–3; lib. 3, §1–2. With regard to these passages, Duhem only
notes—correctly—that our author’s first passage does not correspond at all with the be-
ginning of the Almagest (Duhem, Le système du monde, 3:133). The passage in question in
Calcidius’ Latin translation of Plato’s Timaeus: Calcidius, Commentaire au Timée de Pla-
ton, 1: §41d-42e. On the date of the Latin translations of both works: Boudet, Entre science
et nigromance, 47, 53.
23 BnF, fr. 1353, f. 37vb. Claudius Ptolemaeus and Theon of Alexandria, Tables manuelles as-
tronomiques, ed. Nicolas Halma (Paris, 1825), 3:7–8.
104 Chapter 5
the Liber novem iudicum, which refers to a book on talismans entitled Atalacim
or Atalacym (after the Arabic al-Talasim), which our author as mentioned,
misinterpreting a passage in the preface, erroneously suggests was written by
Ptolemy.24
Concerning our author’s possible familiarity with Aristotle’s work, at the
outset of his work he succinctly introduces his readers to a number of meta-
physical and physical theories. Although for most of the cited classical Greek
authors our author is dependent upon Augustine’s De civitate Dei, it would
seem that this is not the case for what he has to say about Aristotle’s views.
Our author correctly mentions three of Aristotle’s basic concepts (“Aristotes
assena iii. principes des choses devant les elemenz”): the prime or unmoved
mover (“l’engigneor, ce est li maistres ovriers qui est Dex”), matter (“la matire,
c’est yle”) and nature (“l’ovreor ou l’instrument, ce est nature”). None of the
mentioned sources used by our author (Capella, Macrobius, Boethius, etc.)
contains this information or the reference to Aristotle. This suggests that our
author may have been familiar with Aristotle’s Physica, wherein these con-
cepts are introduced and which was translated into Latin before 1150.25 Apart
from this our author is also well aware of Aristotle’s theory about a fifth ele-
ment (called aether or quintessence), one of the most distinctive features of
his De caelo: “el quint leu resplendissant tornent entor li Solauz et la Lune et
les autres .v. planetes,” and “[Aristotes] disoit que li planete sunt en la quinte
essence que nos avons desus dite qui ne sueffre mi le temolte ne nule contra-
riete; and also: li cors sovrains […] en lor perdurable nature et en lor perdu-
rable essence.”26 In Aristotle’s view the celestial spheres were composed of
aether (imperishable, circular motion), while the sublunary realm was com-
posed of the four elements earth, water, air, and fire (perishable, rectilinear
motion).
24 BnF, fr. 1353, f. 8ra (=Appendix 3, Ch. 2, §3, “as Ptolemy says in his Centiloquium”). Com-
pare the Latin version of the Centiloquium (originally composed in Arabic): Pseudo-
Ptolemaeus, Liber centum verborum Phtolomei cum commento Haly (Venice, 1493), f.107r.
On the Latin translation of the Centiloquium attributed to Ptolemy: Boudet, Entre science
et nigromance, 53; Burnett, “The Hidden Preface in the Liber novem iudicum,” 105–106.
25 Dörr, Der älteste Astronomietraktat, §3, p. 39 (“Aristotle teached three principles of things
before addressing the elements”; “the engineer, that is the master workman which is God”;
“matter, which is hyle”; and “the worker or the instrument, which is nature”). Cf. Aristotle,
Physica, trans. R.P. Hardie and R.K. Gaye, The Works of Aristotle 2 (Oxford, 1930), passim.
On the Latin translation: Pasnau, “The Latin Aristotle,” 666.
26 BnF, fr. 1353, f. 10rb (=Dörr, Der älteste Astronomietraktat, §3, p. 39, “in the shining fifth
place the Sun and the Moon and the other five planets rotate”), f. 24va-f. 26ra (“[Aris-
totle] said that the planets are in the fifth essence, which we have described above and
which suffers no disorder or adversity” and “the sovereign bodies […] with their perennial
nature and their perennial essence”).
Duhem dismissed the idea that our author may have read Aristotle’s treatise
on the heavens, on the grounds that his views on the composition (and move-
ment) of the planets, which he explicitly refers to as being Aristotle’s views,
are not entirely in line with Aristotle’s actual views.27 Indeed, our author states
that according to Aristotle the planets are composed not only of a special kind
of fire (“uns autres feus qui est assoagenz et resplendissanz qui ne art ne ne
gaste nule chose, si cum est cil qui est des la Lune en amont ou il n’a nule re-
pugnance ne nule contrariete”), but also of limited amounts of water, and to a
lesser degree earth and air.28 This appears to contradict the De caelo where it
is implied that the planets—as part of the celestial realm and as eternal and
circularly moving bodies—are exclusively composed of aether, although Aris-
totle does not state this explicitly.29 It is clear that our author’s special kind of
fire is to be identified with the quintessence, since both share the same funda-
mental qualities: situated in the region from the moon upward and character-
ized as suffering nule contrariete. Our author identifies this kind of fire which
does not burn or destroy as one of the three types of fire Aristotle introduces
in his Topica (part of the Organon, available in a Latin translation by Boethius
and much used from the Carolingian era on): “Ces manieres de feu nos mostre
Aristotes la ou il dit qu’il sunt .iii. espices de feu, la lumiere, la flame et le char-
bon. La premiere est la desus, les autres .ii. avons nos ca desoz.”30 In equat-
ing aether with a kind of fire our author is merely following a well established
tradition also found in Macrobius, Capella, the Carolingian commentators, or
William of Conches—although none of these refer to Aristotle when discuss-
ing the element aether.31
The addition of varying amounts of water—and to some degree also earth
and air—to the composition of planets as our author states is not quite in
line with Aristotle in De caelo (and concisely repeated by him in his Meteorolo-
gia). Since the idea of the planets being composed of more than one element
27 Duhem, Le système du monde, 3:42–145.

28 BnF, fr. 1353, f. 27ra (all the planets, “another fire which is appeasing and shining, and which
does not burn or destroy anything, just as that [fire] situated upward from the Moon,
where there is no aversion nor adversity”) and f. 28vb-f. 29ra (the moon in particular).
29 Aristotle, De caelo, trans. John L. Stocks (Oxford, 1922), §268a-270b.
30 BnF, fr. 1353, f. 27rb (“These types of fire Aristotle shows us where he states that there
are three kinds of fire, light, flame and charcoal. The first is there above, the other two
we have here below”). Aristotle, Posterior Analytics. Topica, ed. Hugh Tredennick and
E.S. Forster, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge (Mass.), 1960), §134b. Pasnau, “The Latin
Aristotle,” 666.
31 Eastwood, Ordering the Heavens, 32, 183–187, 208–211. Guillelmus de Conchis, Philosophia,
lib. 2, §20, 106–107.
106 Chapter 5
is, however, nowhere explicitly contradicted, there remained room for inter-
pretation: i.e., mainly composed of aether (and moving in spheres of aether),
but also of other elements. And for our author it must have been obvious that
Aristotle never meant that—although situated in spheres composed of aeth-
er—the planets themselves were exclusively composed of this aether. For our
author a varied composition of the planets—resulting in variations in weight
(also attributed to Aristotle)—is simply a necessity, since according to his as-
trological theories these aspects (varying composition and weight) are essen-
tial elements in explaining their various influences on the sublunary realm.32
It would have been unthinkable for him that Aristotle may have thought oth-
erwise since—not noticed by Duhem—he considers the Greek philosopher to
have been a master astrologer. Indeed, our author quotes several astrological
texts that he attributes to Aristotle, one about the influence of the seven plan-
ets on such things as human appearance and character, and one zodiologium
(on the influence of the moon depending on its position vis-à-vis the zodiac
signs).33 These are evidently pseudo-Aristotelian writings, but the idea of the
planets being composed of various elements (aether and the sublunary) do
not exist in any such works I consulted (for example, the Liber novem iudicum,
or the Secretum secretorum, or the De mundo which include sections on as-
tronomy or astrology). This idea thus does appear to be an interpretation by
our author of the aether theory in the De caelo (and Meteorologia), probably
triggered by his identification of Aristotle as an astrologer.34
In relation to our author’s presentation and treatment of Aristotle’s astro-
nomical theories it must be said that in general he is not convinced by them.
32 The planets’ influence on the sublunary realm is variously thought to be related to

(a) properties such as being dry or moist, hot or cold, etc. (which in Aristotelian phys-
ics are directly related to the elements earth (cold and dry), water (cold and moist), air
(hot and moist) and fire (hot and dry), and (b) the ways whereby planets dominate one
another (which is dependent upon their weight). Aristotle, On Sophistical Refutations.
On Coming-to-be and Passing Away. On the Cosmos, ed. E.S. Forster and D.J. Furley, Loeb
Classical Library (Cambridge: Mass., 1955), §330a.
33 BnF, fr. 1353, f. 32ra-f. 35vb, f. 55rb-f. 55vb.
34 Pseudo-Aristotle, De mundo, trans. E.S. Forster and J.F. Dobson (Oxford, 1914). Steven
J. Williams, ed., The Secret of Secrets: The Scholarly Career of a Pseudo-Aristotelian Text
in the Latin Middle Ages (Ann Arbor, 2003). On a number of other astrological pseudo-
Aristotelian texts: Charles Burnett, “Arabic, Greek and Latin works on astrological magic
attributed to Aristotle,” in Jill Kraye, Charles B. Schmitt and W.F. Ryan, eds., Pseudo-Aristotle
in the Middle Ages. The “Theology” and other Texts (London, 1986), 84–96. On Aristotle’s
reputation as an astrologer: Simon de Phares, Le Recueil des plus célèbres astrologues, ed.
Jean-Patrice Boudet (Paris, 1997), 185; Charles Burnett, “Aristotle as an Authority on Judi-
cial Astrology,” in José Meirinhos and Olga Weijers, eds., Florilegium Mediaevale. Études
offertes à Jacqueline Hamesse à l’occasion de son éméritat (Louvain-la-Neuve, 2009), 41–62.
ristotle’s hypotheses regarding the planets moving in the same direction

A
as (and not contrary to) the firmament, regarding the planets moving with
different speeds (versus identical speeds), and regarding the nature of the moon
being fire (versus water and earth) are all treated as minority opinions (in one
instance called heresie).35 This may explain why our author does not dwell at
length on Aristotle’s astronomical theories. Disregarding them completely was,
however, evidently not an option either, probably in view of the fact that our
author did appreciate (Pseudo-)Aristotle as an astrologer and because by the
mid-13th century Aristotle’s status as a philosophical and scientific authority
had grown immensely. In spite of this rise of Aristotelianism, our author can be
considered as something of a Neo-Platonist, as Duhem remarked (regarding his
familiarity with pagan or Christian Neo-Platonists such as Capella, Macrobius,
Augustine, and Boethius). Hypotheses attributed to Plato are consistently pre-
ferred over Aristotle’s and he holds him in the highest regard (“Platons qui regar-
da plus hautement et plus soutilment” and “Platons qui fu hauz philosophes”).36
The analysis of Western influences on the Introductoire, including the pos-
sible influence of the Latin translations of Aristotle’s and Ptolemy’s works,
yields an important result when discussing possible Byzantine influences on
our corpus of texts. It is clear that our author, on the one hand, depends on
several major sources throughout his treatise (most importantly Martianus
Capella and Abu Maʿshar), but on the other hand for specific sections relies
on a number of secondary sources from which he extracts both substantial
portions (for example in the case of the pseudo-Aristotelian zodiologium or
Masha’allah’s writings) or at times small snippets of information, for example
the extremal latitude of Venus from Ptolemy’s Handy Tables, or the start dates
of the seasons from Isidore of Sevilla’s De natura rerum, or the three types of
fire from Aristotle’s Topica. It is to be expected that possible Byzantine textual
influences may take either of these forms.
2 Possible Byzantine Influences
Byzantine influence is, of course, beyond doubt: the texts contain the expres-
sion of concepts pertaining to Byzantine imperial ideology—such as the univer-
salist aspirations, the Roman character of the empire, and the close association
35 BnF, fr. 1353, f. 25va-f. 27ra (=Appendix 3, Ch. 86, §6–16), f. 28vb-f. 29ra.
36 BnF, fr. 1353, f. 9vb (=Dörr, Der älteste Astronomietraktat, §3, p. 38, “Plato who observed
more eruditely and more intelligently”), f. 32ra (“Plato who was a superior philosopher”).
Duhem, Le système du monde, 8: 403–411.
108 Chapter 5
between Christ and emperor—and possibly display a familiarity with certain

Byzantine eschatological traditions (e.g., the Last Emperor prophecies).37 But
whether astronomical or astrological ideas and texts belonging to Byzantine
culture impacted our corpus is here the question, as are possible channels
through which such Byzantine influence might have come about. There would
appear, theoretically, to be two main channels: by means of an acquaintance
with classical or medieval Greek texts not available in the West, and/or through
intellectual interaction with Byzantine scholars. This raises the question of lan-
guage.38 The consultation of Greek texts by our author presupposes either a
personal knowledge of Greek or—at least—the association of Latin scholars
in his social circle who knew Greek. A number of passages in the Introductoire
may perhaps be taken to indicate that our author knew Greek, although admit-
tedly the evidence is not conclusive.
For example, at one point our author explains the etymology of the word
“galaxy” (“gala est lait en grejois et xios cercles”).39 But there are two problems
in supporting the hypothesis of our author knowing Greek (assuming a copyist
did not commit a mistake): the Greek word for circle is not “xios” (but “κύκλος”
or “κίρκος”); and exactly the same explanation can be found in one of his Lat-
in sources, William of Conches’ Philosophia. This passage does not in itself
indicate a knowledge of Greek, but conversely it does not testify against such
knowledge: our author may simply have chosen to adopt Conches’ usage un-
critically.40 For his treatment of the star constellation known as Triangle, our
author uses the Greek name for this constellation (Deltaton), which he cor-
rectly translates as li Triangles. Moreover, our author also indicates the link
between this constellation’s name and the Greek letter delta (“si est diz delton
i. letre grejoise qui est faite comme triangle”). This could be taken to imply that
he was familiar with the Greek alphabet and perhaps a faint indication that he
could read—and perhaps write—Greek. However, This, however, would be
ill-founded. Gaius Julius Hyginus’ De astronomia (or Poeticon astronomicon), a
work in Latin discussing the mythological background of the star constellations
37 On the Last Emperor prophecies, see Chapter 2, p. 38–41.

38 In general on the liguistic situation in Latin Romania: David Jacoby, “Multilingualism and
Institutional Patterns of Communication in Latin Romania (Thirteenth–Fourteenth Cen-
turies),” in Alexander D. Beihammer, Maria G. Parani, and Christopher D. Schabel, eds.,
Diplomatics in the Eastern Mediterranean 1000–1500. Aspects of Cross-Cultural Communi-
cation, The Medieval Mediterranean 74 (Leiden, 2008), 27–48.
39 BnF, fr. 1353, f. 12ra (=Dörr, Der älteste Astronomietraktat, §11, p. 43, xios–“gala is milk in
Greek and xios is circle”). BnF, fr. 613, f. 91rb (xies).
40 Guillelmus de Conchis, Philosophia, lib. 2, §13. The same explanation also in Huguccio of
Pisa’s Magnae Derivationes (around 1190): Uguccione da Pisa, Die “Magnae Derivationes,”
ed. Claus Riessner, Temi e Testi 11 (Rome, 1965), 165.
written in the 1st century bc and very popular in medieval times, also contains
the Greek name and the same reference to the letter delta.41
When naming the constellation called li Serpenz our author adds “qui a nom
Ydrus que Hercules tua et est diz de ydros qui est aive en grejois por ce que cil
serpenz habite en aive.”42 Hyginus’ work here was our author’s source for the
mythological content, but there the Greek word ydrus is not mentioned. And
although the Greek word for water is usually ὕδωρ and the word ὕδρος itself
commonly means “water creature,” Hydros was the divine personification of
Water in Orphic cosmogony (not mentioned in Hyginus’ De astronomia or his
Fabulae). Furthermore, the adjective ὕδριος does mean “of water” and the pre-
fixes ὕδρο- and ὕδρα- are evidently often used in compound nouns referring to
water. In yet another passage concerning the phases of the moon, our author
uses a Greek term for the full moon: “pansilenos de pan [or πᾶν] qui est tout
et silen [or σέλας] qui est clartez.” Given our author’s probable familiarity with
Petrus Comestor’s Historia scholastica (see the mention of Noah’s son Yonites
and Nimrod as giant), this element too may have been taken from this source.
Also, in a passage, again without any mythological overtones, our author states
that “ylios [or ἥλιος] qui est Solauz en grejois,” which is obviously entirely cor-
rect.43 Finally, as already mentioned in our discussion of Aristotelian influence
our author correctly translates “yle”(or ὕλη) as matter, a term and translation
that he may also have adopted from William of Conches.
While there are a limited number of passages that may imply that our au-
thor knew (some) Greek (although this is by no means certain), there were
persons with a Western background present within his social circle who cer-
tainly knew Greek. We have for example already met Anselin of Toucy, a lead-
ing metropolitan baron of Latin-Byzantine descent, who knew Greek well, as
probably did Emperor Baldwin ii. There were also Latin scholars and intel-
lectuals in Constantinople who were familiar with the Greek language. The
anonymous Constantinopolitan Dominican who around 1252 composed a
41 BnF, fr. 1353, f. 12va (=Dörr, Der älteste Astronomietraktat, §14, p. 45–“delton is the name of
a Greek letter that resembles a triangle”). Gaius Julius Hyginus, De astronomia, ed. Ghis-
laine Viré, Bibliotheca Teubneriana (Leipzig, 1992), lib. 2, §19. On the popularity of Hygi-
nus’ work: Jane Chance, Medieval Mythography: From Roman North Africa to the School of
Chartres, ad 433–1177 (Gainesville, 1994), 50, 97.
42 BnF, fr. 1353, f. 12vb (=Dörr, Der älteste Astronomietraktat, §15, p. 46–“the Serpent which
is named Hydra and which Hercules killed, and the name is derived from ydros, which is
water in Greek, because this serpent lives in water”).
43 Pansilenos: BnF, fr. 1353, f. 29va (“pansilenos from pan which signifies all and silen which
signifies clarity”). Ylios: BnF, fr. 1353, f. 33ra (“ylios which is Sun in Greek”). For Petrus
Comestor’s Historia Scholastica, see Chapter 1, p. 18.
110 Chapter 5
theological treatise called Contra Graecos was obviously familiar with an im-
portant number of theological works which at that time were only available
in Greek, which either he himself or one of his fellow friars must have read.44
William of Moerbeke, the famed Dominican who translated many works by
Aristotle and his commentators directly from the Greek, must have resided
in Constantinople for at least some period of time.45 In general Berthold Al-
taner has stated that the events of 1204 must have led to an increase in the
Western knowledge of Greek (local lords and intellectuals, transfer of Greek
manuscript to the West).46
The question remaining is whether these Latins had Byzantine counterparts
who were familiar with French or other Western languages. This was most
surely the case. In general Laura Minervini has remarked on the use of French
and other Mediterranean languages in the Latin Orient (specifically Cyprus
and Syria-Palestine): “Nous avons de bonnes raisons de penser que, au Moyen
Âge, des langues comme l’arabe, le grec, le français et quelques vulgaires ital-
iens étaient connues et utilisées dans certains milieux, dans la Méditerranée
Orientale, avec différents niveaux de compétence, même par des locuteurs
non natifs.”47 Moreover, concerning the principality of Achaia around the turn
of the 13th/14th century, Gill Page has painted a picture of a multilingual soci-
ety with, for example, native Byzantine poets “who spoke and wrote vernacular
Greek and read some of the simpler texts in educated Greek but also under-
stood and read the French and Italian vernaculars.”48 With regard to Constan-
tinople itself the gasmouloi should be pointed out: the mixed offspring of
Latin-Byzantine relations and marriages, which increased substantially after
44 See Antoine Dondaine, “‘Contra Graecos.’ Premiers écrits polémiques des Dominicains
d’Orient,” Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 21 (1951), 321–446. Also see Andrea Riedl, “Das
Purgatorium im 13. Jahrhundert: Schlaglichter auf ein Novum der ost-westlichen Kontro-
verstheologie am Vorabend des ii. Konzils von Lyon (1274),” Annuarium Historiae Con-
ciliorum 46 (2014) 355–370.
45 Berthold Altaner, “Die Kenntnis des Griechischen in den Missionsorden während des 13.
und 14. Jahrhunderts,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 53 (1934), 447–454. See also: Jean
Richard, “L’enseignement des langues orientales en Occident au Moyen Age,” Revue des
études islamiques 44 (1976), 149–164.
46 Adriaan Pattin, “Pour la biographie de Guillaume de Moerbeke O.P.,” Angelicum 66 (1989)
390–402. Willy Vanhamel, “Biobibliographie de Guillaume de Moerbeke,” in Jozef Brams
and idem, eds., Guillaume de Moerbeke. Recueil d’études à l’occasion du 700e anniversaire
de sa mort (1286)(Leuven, 1989), 301–383. See also Chapter vi.
47 Laura Minervini, “Le français dans l’Orient latin (xiii e–xiv e siècles). Éléments pour la
caractérisation d’une scripta du Levant,” Revue de Linguistique Romane 74 (2010), 139.
48 Gill Page, “Literature in Frankish Greece,” in Nickiphoros I. Tsougarakis and Peter Lock,
eds., A Companion to Latin Greece, Brill’s Companions to European History 6 (Leiden,
2014), 314–320.
1204 and who after 1261 were to be found as soldiers in Michael viii Paleologos’
navy. D’Amato in a recent contribution highlights the fact that these gasmouloi
knew Western languages.49
At the imperial court several interpreters are attested. A certain Manuel
served as an interpreter for Emperor Henry, and Emperor Baldwin ii em-
ployed a Byzantine interpreter who translated letters from French or Latin
into Greek.50 The emperor’s two high-ranking secretaries Nikephoritzes/
Nikephoros and Maximos Aloubardes, having switched sides after 1261 were
used by Michael viii Paleologos as messengers to Pope Urban iv; Jacoby
hypothesized, correctly, that they were chosen for this mission because of a
fluency in Latin and/or Western vernaculars.51 Sometime before 1261, Nikepho-
ritzes (Niquephores) served as Baldwin’s messenger to Otho of Cicon, lord of
Karystos in Euboia. Otho belonged to a noble lineage from Burgundy and the
preserved imperial letter concerning the mission was written in French. This
suggests that Nikephoritzes knew French, though it does not necessarily mean
that the negotiations were exclusively conducted in French: Otho’s relative
John of La Roche, duke of Athens, for example is known to have paraphrased
in Greek a passage from Herodotos’ Histories during a military expedition in
1275. Although no scholarly activities are known for either Nikephoritzes and
Aloubardes, it seems reasonable to suppose that as imperial secretaries they
were highly educated intellectuals: before 1204 and in Nikaia this was often the
case as Constantinides has shown.52 For example, phylax John, since he too
was one of Baldwin’s direct collaborators, probably knew Western vernaculars
such as French and possibly Latin as well. It would thus seem that there were
present at Baldwin ii’s court Western and Byzantine functionaries or dignitar-
ies who were able to communicate with one another directly and who shared
49 Raffaele D’Amato, “The Last Marines of Byzantium. Gasmouloi, Tzakones and Prosalentai.
A Short History and a Proposed Reconstruction of their Uniforms and Equipment,” Jour-
nal of Mediterranean Studies 19 (2010) 221–223.
50 Innocentius iii, Regesta, PL 216, n° 35, col. 227. Van Tricht, The Latin Renovatio of Byzan-
tium, 130–131.
51 For source references concerning Nikephoritzes/Nikephoros and Aloubardes see
Chapter 2, note 33. See also Jacoby, “Multilingualism and Institutional Patterns of Com-
munication in Latin Romania,” 38.
52 Hendrickx, “Regestes des empereurs latins de Constantinople,” n° 275. Riant, Exuviae
sacrae Constantinopolitanae, 2:n° 93, 144–145. On Otho: Jean Longnon, “Les premiers ducs
d’Athènes et leur famille,” 76–77; Constantinides, Higher Education in Byzantium, 21–22.
On John of La Roche: Marino Sanudo Torsello, Istoria del Regno di Romania, 120–121; Ken-
neth M. Setton, The Papacy and the Levant (1204–1571). Volume 1: The Thirteenth and Four-
teenth Centuries (Philadelphia, 1976), 423.
112 Chapter 5
an interest in scholarly or intellectual pursuits. Such context can be expected

to have stimulated scientific and cultural exchange.
The existence—inter alia at court—of a group of Byzantines knowing West-
ern vernaculars implies that the fact that our author chose to write his treatise
in French (“me est priz talenz de espondre en romanz aucuns des secrez de
astronomie”) did not mean that Byzantines were meant to be excluded from
his intended audience, although they obviously were not his first intended
audience.53 Our author might have, for example, invited colleagues such as
phylax John to discuss his work, in either its preparatory or finishing stages.
Against such a background it is interesting to note an observation concern-
ing the Introductoire made by Charles Burnett: “Its form and its authorities
would have been very familiar to Byzantine astrologers.” Indeed, astrological
compendia using the works written by Masha’allah, Abu Maʿshar, and others
were well-known as a genre in Byzantium. A number of Byzantine astrologi-
cal compilatory works of a similar character dated to the 12th–14th centuries
have been preserved. Contemporary Byzantine scholars with an interest in
astrology would probably have voiced little or no objections to our author’s
approach. Moreover, with regard to Castile, Vicente Garcia has remarked that
astrology functioned as a point of contact between intellectuals of different
religions/cultures (Christian, Jewish, Muslim) and as “una especie de lengua
franca.” The same may have been true in Latin Constantinople.54 However, it is
hard to conclude that our author would have adopted the form of his treatise
directly or exclusively from Byzantine examples, since comparable original as-
trological compendia were being composed in the West from the middle of the
12th century, although before the middle of the 13th century only a few such
treatises are known.55
Regarding the question of language, we may wonder whether the Byzan-
tine cultural and specifically linguistic context perhaps influenced our author’s
choice to write his treatise in vernacular. With regard to imperial marshal Geof-
frey of Villehardouin’s La conquête de Constantinople—one of the first original
historical texts written in the French vernacular—Cyril Aslanov has suggested
53 BnF, fr. 1353, f. 7ra (=Appendix 3, Ch. 1, §1, “it is my intention to explain in the vernacular
some of the secrets of astronomy”).
54 Burnett, “Astrological Translations in Byzantium,” 183. David Pingree, “The Astrological
Translations of Masha’allah in Interrogational Astrology,” in Paul Magdalino and Maria
Mavroudi, eds., The Occult Sciences in Byzantium (Paris, 2006), 231–243. Vicente Garcia,
“Una nueva filosofía de la astrología en los siglos xii y xiii,” 255.
55 Boudet lists three such original works: Raymond of Marseilles’ Liber judiciorum (1141), the
anonymous Epitome totius astrologiae (1142), and Roger of Hereford’s Liber de quattuor par-
tibus de arte astronomice judicandi (around 1178) (Boudet, Entre science et nigromance, 56).
as much.56 The Introductoire is considered to be the first treatise on astrono-

my/astrology in French.57 In fact, if the proposed date here for the Introduc-
toire holds true (1259/1260) and possibly a few years earlier, it is singularly one
of the very first vernacular scientific works. Indeed, in the medieval West ver-
nacular translations of scientific works (in Latin, Greek, Arabic, or Hebrew)
only commence after 1250. The earliest center of such translations was Alfonso
x of Castile’s court, where these were being produced from the early 1250s on;
in France such translations followed a decade later.58
As we have seen, through his wife Mary of Brienne and Alfonso x’s wife Vio-
lante of Aragon, Baldwin was related to the Castilian royal lineage, and in the
mid-1240s and late 1250s there existed close diplomatic contacts between the
Constantinopolitan and Castilian courts. Given this context, our author—who
gives Alfonso a prominent place in Baldwin’s horoscope—may perhaps have
been influenced in part by the Castilian linguistic innovation. It is not to be
excluded that he might have had direct contact with the Castilian court (for
example, by serving as an imperial emissary or as a member of Baldwin’s or
Mary’s travelling party). But this does not detract from the fact that Aslanov’s
observation concerning Villehardouin’s chronicle may also be applied to the
56 Cyril Aslanov, “Aux sources de la chronique en prose française: entre déculturation et

acculturation,” in Thomas F. Madden, ed., The Fourth Crusade: Event, Aftermath, and Per-
ceptions. Papers from the Sixth Conference of the Society for the Study of the Crusades and
the Latin East, Istanbul, Turkey, 25–29 August 2004, Crusades–Subsidia 2 (Aldershot, 2008),
143–165.
57 Dörr, Der älteste Astronomietraktat, 1–3. Dörr still assumed the later date for our corpus of
texts (circa 1270) proposed by earlier authors.
58 Some references on the rise of the use of vernaculars in medieval scientific texts in the
West: Thomas F. Glick, Steven J. Livesey, and Faith Wallis, eds., Medieval Science, Tech-
nology and Medicine: An Encyclopedia (New York, 2005), 136–137; Mazal, Geschichte der
abendländischen Wissenschaft, 119–120; Erwin Huizenga, “Unintended Signatures: Middle
Dutch Translators of Surgical Works,” in Michèle Goyens, Pieter De Leemans, and An
Smets, eds., Science Translated. Latin and Vernacular Translations of Scientific Treatises
in Medieval Europe, Mediaevalia Lovaniensia. Series 1:Studia 40 (Leuven, 2008), 415–448;
Lluís Cifuentes, “Université et vernacularisation au bas Moyen Âge: Montpellier et les
traductions catalanes médiévale,” in Daniel Le Blévec, ed., L’université de médecine de
Montpellier et son rayonnement (XIIIe–XVe siècles). Actes du Colloque international
de Montpellier, 17–19 mai 2001, De diversis artibus 71 (Turnhout, 2004), 274–278. On West-
ern bilingualism versus Byzantine diglossia: Tivadar Palagyi, “Métaphraser et mettre en
roman: diglossie et bilinguisme à Byzance et en France au XIIIe siècle,” in Patrick Renaud,
ed., Les situations de plurilinguisme en Europe, Cahiers de la Nouvelle Europe. Collection
du Centre Interuniversitaire d’Etudes Hongroises 11 (Paris, 2014), 25–37. A more nuanced
view on Byzantine diglossia: Panagiotis A. Agapitos, “Grammar, Genre and Patronage in
the Twelfth Century: Redefining a Scientific Paradigm in the History of Byzantine Litera-
ture,” Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 64 (2014), 1–22.
114 Chapter 5
choice of language in the Introductoire. In Byzantium, in essence the same

language (Greek, despite a situation of diglossia) was used for both oral and
written communication, including scientific literature. The Constantinopoli-
tan and Castilian courts were alike in the sense that both were cosmopolitan
and multilingual in character. Similar contexts may have produced similar
outcomes, to be seen against the general background of an on-going process
of vernacularisation of the written word that had been underway in the West
from around the middle of the 12th century.
In any case, the question of language cannot be set apart from one of our
author’s stated intentions for writing the Introductoire. In his introduction he
states the following: “ceste oevre la quele je ne faz mie por les rudes ne por cels
qui ont l’entendement gros, mes por cels qui ja soit ce qu’il ne soient fondé de
parfonde clergie, ils ont neporquant l’entendement soutil.”59 It seems that the
intended audience implied here were the French- speaking lay members of
the Latin court elite, who in general—unlike many clerics—had not enjoyed
any formal higher education. In the medieval West, a basic introduction to the
seven liberal arts around the middle of the 13th century was still not ordinarily
a part of the secular aristocracy’s educational curriculum.60 A change, none
the less, was underway and there were of course individual exceptions. At the
royal—and in varying ways also the imperial—courts of Castile and Sicily con-
temporaries Alfonso x (el Sabio) and Emperor Frederick ii (Stupor mundi) not
only acted as patrons of scholars, but they also developed a direct personal in-
terest in matters of science and philosophy, following in the footsteps of their
Arabic and Byzantine predecessors and the culture of learning that had been
created in these regions. Somewhat earlier, both the English rulers Henry ii
(1154–1189) and Richard i (1189–1199) at the Plantagenet court had been known
for their erudition and personal interest in various scholarly disciplines.61
Clerics/scholars such as Vincent of Beauvais, in his De eruditione filiorum
nobilium (late 1240s, written for the children of Louis ix of France), and Jacob
of Maerlant (who had a connection with the comital court of Holland), in his
59 BnF, fr. 1353, f. 7ra (=Appendix 3, Ch. 1, §1, “this work which I compose not for the ignorant
or those who possess a mediocre understanding, but for those who, although they may
not be versed in profound science, they nevertheless possess a refined understanding”).
60 Nicholas Orme, From Childhood to Chivalry. The Education of the English Kings and Aris-
tocracy 1060–1530 (London, 1984), passim. Chris Given-Wilson, The English Nobility in the
Late Middle Ages (London, 1996), 209–218.
61 See, for example, Abulafia, Frederick ii. A Medieval Emperor, 257–268; Robert I. Burns,
“Stupor Mundi: Alfonso x of Castile, the Learned,” in idem, ed., Emperor of Culture: Al-
fonso x the Learned of Castile and His Thirteenth-Century Renaissance (Philadelphia, 1990),
1–13; Glick, Livesey, and Wallis, Medieval Science, Technology and Medicine, 387; Martin
Aurell, The Plantagenet Empire, 1154–1224 (Harlow, 2007), 94–101.
Heimelykheid der heimelykheden (around 1266, a translation/adaptation of the

pseudo-Aristotelian Secretum secretorum) and in his Arthurian romance Torec
(around 1262), advocated that nobles acquaint themselves with the liberal arts,
though in the case of Beauvais not without some ambiguity.62 In Byzantium
the situation was markedly different. An introduction to the seven liberal arts,
with a clear emphasis on grammar and rhetoric (which included literature and
philosophy), through the enkyklios paideia was without any reserves consid-
ered an integral component of the education of the members of the elite. In-
deed, Dion Smythe has pointed out that a lack of such literary, philosophical,
and rhetorical education was used as to mark outsiders.63
Perhaps our author’s Introductoire, among other things, should be seen as an
attempt to provide the Latin elite (specifically that part with no knowledge of
Latin or Greek) with an intellectual background that could match the Byzan-
tine elite’s, with in the first place the specific Byzantine context—and possibly
the educational trend with regard to the secular elite in the medieval West—
providing the inspiration. The incorporation of classical mythology while dis-
cussing various star constellations, not found in Capella and Abu Maʿshar, can be
seen in this light, albeit not exclusively.64 It is not to be excluded that our author
perhaps also wrote—or had the ambition to write—an introduction in vernac-
ular to other liberals arts. In any case, in the versified introduction to the treatise
he stresses the superior value of intelligence and knowledge over gold and other
riches (“el mont ne valt nul avoir/autant come sens et savoir”) and he considers
the study of astronomy as the coronation of one’s intellectual education.65
62 Frits Van Oostrom, Maerlants Wereld (Amsterdam, 1996), 415–422. Vincent of Beauvais, De
eruditione filiorum nobiliorum, ed. Arpad Steiner, The Medieval Academy of America 32
(Cambridge: Mass., 1938), §2, 9; §14, 52–53; §15, 56. Beauvais in connection with studying
the liberal arts on the one hand quotes the saying rex illiteratus est quasi asinus coronatus,
but on the other hand he also emphasizes that divina sapientia (or theologia)—the goal
of any study—can also be obtained without learning the liberal arts.
63 Michael Grünbart, Inszenierung und Repräsentation der byzantinischen Aristokratie vom
10. bis zum 13. Jahrhundert, Münstersche Mittelalter-Schriften 82 (Paderborn, 2015), 171–
183. Constantinides, Higher Education in Byzantium, 1. Dion C. Smythe, “Insiders and Out-
siders,” in Liz James, ed., A Companion to Byzantium (Chisester, 2010), 76–77.
64 BnF, fr. 1353, f. 12rb-f. 12vb (=Dörr, Der älteste Astronomietraktat, §14–15). Making reference
to classical mythology and history was a familiar feature of Byzantine literature (see for
example various contributions in Margaret Mullet and Roger Scott, eds., Byzantium and
the Classical Tradition (Birmingham, 1981)), although in the West the classical heritage,
including mythology, was up to a point also part of different, both Latin and vernacular,
literary genres (see, for example, Renate Blumenfeld-Kosinski, Reading Myth. Classical
Mythology and Its Interpretations in Medieval French Literature), Figurae: Reading Medi-
eval Culture (Stanford, 1998).
65 BnF, fr. 1353, f. 3rb (=Appendix 1, v77–78, “In this world no possession is as valuable as
intelligence and knowledge”).
116 Chapter 5
The influence of Byzantine educational and intellectual values may be ob-

served in Baldwin ii’s portrayal with regard to his personal talents. In our cor-
pus, Baldwin is characterized in two ways: as being wise and eloquent. In the
introductory poem it says: “et que nul de plus haut lignage / ne meaus emparlé
ne plus sage / ne troveroit l’en a son temps.” And in the actual horoscope: “Mais
Mercurius qui estoit amis del Soleil li aident en deniers et en richeces et en
facunde et en eloquence.”66 The idea of a wise ruler is in the genre of the so-
called mirrors for princes a cliché found in Byzantium as well as in Western
Europe (and outside the Christian world as well) that can be traced back to
the concept of the philosopher-king in Plato’s Republic, which was known in
the medieval West through Boethius’ Consolatio philosophiae, and to biblical
figures such as King Solomon.67
But the more specific emphasis on Baldwin’s rhetorical abilities (meaus em-
parlé, facunde, eloquence) would seem to point to Byzantium. Rhetorical skills
do not feature prominently in Western educational or princely literature (such
as Beauvais and Maerlant). In the West, in any case, not everyone was con-
vinced of Baldwin’s rhetorical skills. According to a contemporary chronicle
(written circa 1259–60) when the emperor visited the French royal court in the
1240s, queen-mother Blanche of Castile “le trouva enfantin en ses paroles, si li
desplut moult, car à empire tenir convient sage homme et vigreus.”68 The same
Blanche had in an earlier letter (1243) to Baldwin shown herself critical of his
use of Byzantines in his entourage.69 Perhaps her critical attitude concerning
Baldwin’s manner of speech is to be seen in the same light: not conforming to
the Western standard for princes, or more precisely as too foreign (or Byzan-
tine) to her liking.
In Byzantium, on the other hand, with regard to the (secular) elite, the de-
velopment of rhetorical abilities was at the very core of one’s education. Mag-
dalino and Thorndike have shown that in 12th-century Constantinople rhetoric
66 BnF, fr. 1353, f. 4rb (=Appendix 1, v345–347, “And in his time no one would be found who
belonged to a more exalted lineage, or was or wiser or more well-spoken”), f. 101rb (=Ap-
pendix 2, §3, “But Mercury with his friend the Sun help him with coin and riches and
rethorical skill and eloquence”).
67 See, for example, Linda T. Darling, “Mirrors for Princes in Europe and the Middle East: A
Case of Historiographical Incommensurability,” in Albrecht Classen, ed., East Meets West
in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Times: Transcultural Experiences in the Premodern
World, Fundamentals of Medieval and Early Modern Culture 14 (Berlin, 2013), 227–236;
Van Oostrom, Maerlants Wereld, 244–246.
68 Joseph-Jean De Smet, ed., Chronique de Flandres et des croisades, in Recueil des chroniques
de Flandre 3 (Bruxelles, 1856), 676–677 (“thought his words and speech childish, which
displeased her greatly, because ruling an empire requires a wise and vigorous man”).
was valued more and was far more omnipresent than philosophy, especially at
court.70 The fact that our author repeatedly presents Baldwin as an eloquent
man most likely reflects this typically Byzantine taste for rhetoric. In a Byzan-
tine source, Ephraim Aenios’ late 13th-/early 14th-century Historia chronica,
Baldwin is depicted in positive terms as a gentle (ἤπιος), moderate (μέτριος),
self-controlled (σωφρονικός), and graceful (χαρίεις) man.71 Speech being an es-
sential aspect of one’s appearance, it may be that grace applied to Baldwin’s
ability to express himself verbally. Rhetorical competence, as part of a general
gracefulness, would then seem to have been part of his public image in Byzan-
tine eyes as well. The development of this ability may have been a component
of his education, which would have been at least partially inspired by a Byzan-
tine model. From the age of 4 until 15 his education was supervised by persons
who all had strong Byzantine connections: his brother Emperor Robert (†1227),
his sister Mary († around 1228; Theodore i Laskaris’ widow), and regent (and
kaisar) Narjot of Toucy (1228–1231).72
Another element of possible Byzantine influence is the place of Ptolemy
within the Introductoire. From my earlier overview of the Western sources
used by our author it is clear that he intended to give his work a cosmopoli-
tan aspect. The authorities he explicitly cites (whether he used their original
works or not) are so-called Chaldean and Egyptian sources (unspecified),
classical Greeks (for example Thales, Anaximenes, Empedocles, Plato, and
Aristotle), as well as Romans (Marcus Tullius Cicero, Macrobius, Martianus
Capella), both Greek/Byzantine and Latin patristic authors (Augustine, Diony-
sius the A reopagite, John of Damascus), Persian and Arabic—both Jewish and
Muslim—authors (Masha’allah, Abu Maʿshar), and Western medieval authors
(Isidore of Sevilla, Remigius of Auxerre). Within this impressive multicultural
parade of astronomical/astrological authorities, however, one name stands
out: although Ptolemy is not the most frequently mentioned author (Ptolemy
9 times; Aristotle 19 times; Martianus Capella 21 times; Abu Maʿshar 30 times),
he nevertheless occupies a special place.
Ptolemy is not only the first authority our author refers to (at the very outset
of his work), but also near the end of his work—at the beginning of its final
section containing a short practical manual on correctly answering concrete
astrological questions—our author again refers to Ptolemy when he repeats
70 Magdalino, The Empire of Manuel i Komnenos, 330–356. See also Lynn Thorndike, “Rela-
tion between Byzantine and Western Science and Pseudo-Science before 1350,” Janus 51
(1964), 27.
71 Ephraem Aenius, Historia Chronica, ed. Odysseus Lampsides, Corpus Fontium Historiae
Byzantinae. Series Athenienis 27 (Athens, 1990), v7711–7712, v8159.
72 Van Tricht, “Robert of Courtenay,” 1029–1031.
118 Chapter 5
the crucial tenet of the astrological science (namely that the celestial bodies
affect the sublunary world), referring to him as the one “qui plus estudia
profondement et soutilla plus que philosophes de son tens.”73 Ptolemy’s pre-
eminence may be explained by the Byzantine context within which our author
was working. In the West, where Ptolemy’s main works—the Almagest and
the Tetrabiblos—were introduced through 12th-century Latin translations, his
influence, while important, was not as preponderant as it was in Byzantium.
The early 14th-century scholar and chronicler Nikephoros Gregoras for in-
stance remarked that Latin scholars made little use of Ptolemy in either of two
parts (astronomy and astrology), but rather put their faith in “the moderns”
(meaning authors such as Masha’allah and Abu Maʿshar).74
While discussing Western influences I have already briefly noted that our
author was familiar with Ptolemy’s Handy Tables. With explicit reference to
Ptolemy he correctly cites the Greek astronomer’s extremal latitudes of the
planet Venus (8° 56’).75 In the mid-13th century Ptolemy’s astronomical tables
were only very partially available in the West. In the 6th century a Latin transla-
tion and reworking of Theon of Alexandria’s “Little commentary” (4th century)
on Ptolemy’s tables was made (known as the Preceptum canonis Ptolomei), but
this text was incomplete in that the surviving copies include only some of the
tables. David Pingree in his edition lists six incomplete manuscripts (between
1000 and 1250), which all derive from a single defective copy of the original
text. The table containing the extremal latitudes of Venus is not mentioned
in the Latin version, neither in the few surviving tables nor in the commen-
tary (which includes many references to the tables).76 The astronomical tables
used in the West were derivatives of the Arabic Toledan tables (themselves
derived from Ptolemy’s tables), such as the tables of Marseille by Raymond
of Marseille (before 1140), the Latin translation of the Arabic Toledan tables
73 BnF, fr. 1353, f. 62vb (=Appendix 3, Ch. 189, §2, “who studied this more profoundly and
applied himself more to this than any other philosopher of his time”). See also the refer-
ences in notes 20–24.
74 Anne Tihon, “Astrological Promenade in Byzantium in the Early Palaiologan Period,” in
Paul Magdalino and Maria Mavroudi, eds., The Occult Sciences in Byzantium (Paris, 2006),
265. On Ptolemy’s influence on Byzantine astronomy/astrology: Paul Magdalino, “The
Byzantine Reception of Classical Astrology,” in Catherine Holmes and Judith Waring, eds.,
Literacy, education and manuscript transmission in Byzantium and beyond, (Leiden, 2002),
38. Nevertheless around 1190 theologian Alain of Lille, though no astronomer himself,
in his Anticlaudianus considered Ptolemy to be thé authority on astronomy (and Abu
Maʿshar on astrology): Vicente Garcia, “Una nueva filosofía de la astrología en los siglos
xii y xiii,” 251.
75 See references in note 23.
76 David Pingree, ed., Preceptum Canonis Ptolomei, Corpus des astronomes byzantins 8 (Lou-
vain-La-Neuve, 1997). See also Boudet, Entre science et nigromance, 38, 44–46.
by Gerard of Cremona (2nd half 12th century), the Alfonsine revision of the
Toledan tables (1250s), or the tables of Mechelen/Malines (circa 1285–95). But
none of these tables contains the value of 8° 56’ with regard to the extremal
latitudes of Venus; they all give different values. Nor does John of Sevilla’s Latin
translation of Abu Maʿshar’s Introductorium Maius, a source our author used
abundantly, contain this value.77 It follows that our author’s knowledge of Ve-
nus’ extremal latitudes cannot stem from either the Preceptum, the Western
tables, or the said Introductorium Maius. This makes it quite probable that our
author was familiar with the original Greek version of Ptolemy’s tables, which
he either consulted directly or through someone with whom he collaborated.
Ptolemy’s Handy Tables are not the only example of a source in Greek that
appears to have been used by our author. In a passage discussing the astro-
nomical concept of application, our author cites the following example:
si uns sers ou uns prisons s’en fuit et l’en trueve l’application de lonc et de
lé si que la Lune s’aproche et arrive a Jupiter del lonc et a Mars del lé, ou la
converse a Jupiter del lé et a Mars del lonc, ele rameine celui qui s’en fuit.
Et le applications qu’ele a a Jupiter oste et tolt la paor que li sers n’a garde
de son segnor, aincois li pardonera.
The two available manuscripts give different versions of the name of the as-
trological authority to whom this example is attributed: BnF fr. 1353 (13th cen-
tury) reads Duromes, while BnF fr. 613 (14th century) reads Dimogenes.78 The
first version of the name would seem to be a French rendition of Duronius or
Doronius, Latin forms of the name—deriving from a confusion in the Arabic
spelling of the name—of the well-known hellenistic astrologer, Dorotheus of
Sidon (1st century ad).
This Dorotheus is one of the nine so-called judges in a compilatory work
used by our author, the Liber novem iudicum. This text contains various chap-
ters on fugitive slaves, some of them ascribed to Dorotheus, but none relate
77 See a comparative table in José Chabas and Bernard R. Goldstein, eds., The Alfonsine
Tables of Toledo, Archimedes. New Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science and
Technology (Dordrecht, 2003), 164–165. See on the use of astronomical tables in the Latin
West in general: Boudet, Entre science et nigromance, 44–46; Abu Maʿsar al-Balhi, Liber
introductorii maioris, passim.
78 BnF, fr. 1353, f. 43ra (=Appendix 3, Ch. 126, §3, “if a serf or a prisoner escapes and one estab-
lishes complete application in this way that the Moon approaches and arrives at Jupiter
longitudinally and at Mars latitudinally, or the other way around at Jupiter latitudinally
and at Mars longitudinally, it returns [or: tortures] the one who escapes. And the applica-
tion which it has regarding Jupiter takes away and removes the fear that the serf guards
himself against his lord, and so he will pardon him”). BnF, fr. 613, f. 115vb.
120 Chapter 5
to the example given in the Introductoire.79 Dorotheus’ Carmen Astrologicum

however does contain such a passage. The Carmen’s original Greek version has
not been preserved, but we have at our disposal an Arabic translation (around
800) of the entire work from an earlier Persian translation. Apart from that,
large fragments of Dorotheus’ poem have been preserved in various later Greek
astrological works, most importantly in Hephaestios of Thebe’s Apotelesmati-
ka. In Latin only a few short fragments have been preserved, for example in the
compilatory Liber Hermetis, which according to David Pingree was translated
into Latin from Greek in the 13th century. The relevant passage is to be found
in both the Arabic translation and Hephaestios’ work, but to my knowledge no
Latin version is known.80
The Arabic version runs as follows:
If the Moon conjoins with Mars in longitude, then beating and impris-
onment will reach the runaway at that hour in this running away of his.
If the Moon is conjoining with Jupiter in latitude while Jupiter aspects
Mars, then it indicates that misfortune will reach the runaway because of
the Moon’s conjoining with Mars and fear of death will be immoderate
in him, but he will escape from this death because of Jupiter’s aspect of
the Moon.81
Hephaestios’ version describes similar astronomical constellations (though

more succinctly), with the first one causing the fugitive slave to suffer the whip
and torture, and the second causing him mortal fear and danger, but with Ju-
piter removing him from evil.82 Essentially, both these passages and the ex-
ample in the Introductoire tell an identical story: the Moon, Mars, and Jupiter
are the planets involved; the longitude (lonc) and latitude (lé) are prominent
astronomical elements; a fugitive slave meets a fate involving fear, torture, and
capture (the verb rameiner can mean both “to return to” (in this case to his
master) and “to torture”), but Jupiter nevertheless brings some measure of re-
lief (either escape from death, removal from evil, or relief from fear combined
with pardon by his lord).

80 Dorotheus Sidonius, Carmen Astrologicum, ed. David Pingree, Bibliotheca Scriptorum
Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana (Leipzig, 1976), xii–xiii. On the differences be-
tween Dorotheus’ astrological poem and the passages in the Liber novem iudicum attrib-
uted to him: Burnett, “The Hidden Preface in the Liber novem iudicum,” 102.
81 Dorotheus Sidonius, Carmen Astrologicum, v, §36, 310.
82 Dorotheus Sidonius, Carmen Astrologicum, 416.
In spite of the minor variations between the three versions, it would seem
safe to conclude that our author based himself on a version of Dorotheus’
work for the passage in question. Since this text was, as far as I can tell, ap-
parently not available in Latin and it may thus be tentatively assumed that it
was not known in the West (although it of course cannot entirely be excluded
that a Latin version of the fragment may have existed), and since it is unlikely
that our author would have used the Arabic translation (there is no indica-
tion that our author knew this language), it follows—also given the partially
Byzantine context within which he was working—that our author may well
have used a Greek version, either Dorotheus’ original text or a later adaptation,
such as the one by Hephaestios. In the 12th century, Byzantine intellectuals,
among them poet John Tzetzes and scholar and archbishop of Philippopo-
lis Michael Italos, were familiar with Dorotheus’ writings. That our author in
his treatise used a name (Duromes) derived from the Latin name (Duronius
or Doronius), rather than one derived from the Greek Dorotheos, need not be
problematic. Our author may well have realized that Dorotheos of Sidon and
the Duronius/Doronius in Latin translations of Arabic astrological texts—for
example Hugo of Santalla’s Liber Aristotilis (first half 12th century), which in-
cludes a list of Dorotheus’ works, including the Carmen Astrologicum—were in
fact one and the same person. And since he wrote with a Western audience in
mind he may have preferred to use a name perhaps more familiar.83
At the beginning of his treatment of planetary motion our author relates a
difference of opinion between Plato and Aristotle. Halfway through his pre-
sentation of the arguments of both philosophers he sums up the debate as
follows: “einsi disoit Aristote contre le opinion Platon qui disoit que lor na-
turels movement estoit contre le firmament et disoit que tuit li planete estoi-
ent d’une mesmes legerete et d’une meesmes isnelete.”84 So Plato (followed by
autres plusors philosophes) is said to believe that the movement of the planets
is contrary to the movement of the firmament and that all the planets move
with identical speed, while Aristotle in both matters would have been of the
contrary opinion. Several of our author’s known sources give one or both opin-
ions for these matters, for example Pliny the Elder, Martianus Capella, Macro-
bius, and William of Conches. However, the hypothesis concerning the planets
83 Dorotheus Sidonius, Carmen Astrologicum, xiii–xiv and 436–437. Hugo of Santalla, The
Liber Aristotilis, ed. Charles Burnett and David Pingree, Warburg Institute Surveys and
Texts 26 (London, 1997), 4, 15.
84 BnF, fr. 1353, f. 25va-f. 25vb (=Appendix 3, Ch. 86, §7, “this is what Aristotle said against the
opinion of Plato, who said that their natural movement was opposite to the movement
of the firmament and who also said that all the planets have the same lightness and the
same speed”).
122 Chapter 5
moving with the same speed is only to be found in Macrobius’ Commentarii in

somnium Scipionis and it does not contain the attribution of this hypothesis
to Plato: “omnium quidem par celeritas and constitit enim nullam inter eas
clerius ceteris tardiusve procedere.”85 Plato’s own Timaeus, which our author
probably knew through Calcidius’ partial Latin translation, certainly cannot
have served as a source: in this text Plato explicitly posits that Venus, Mercury,
and the Sun move at identical speed, while the other planets move at differ-
ent speeds.86 Mireille Armisen-Marchetti, in her edition of Macrobius’ Com-
mentarii, observes that the attribution of this thesis to Plato is to be found in
Simplikios’ commentary (6th century) on Aristotle’s De caelo.87 This is true in
the sense that Simplikios states that Plato was of the opinion that the motion
of all the planets is circular, uniform, and regular.88
In combination with Macrobius’ text this could easily be interpreted as mean-
ing that all planets move with identical speed. In no other classical or medieval
text have I found the attribution of this thesis to Plato. It follows that our author
may well have consulted Simplikios’ work. Simplikios’ commentaries on Aris-
totle’s writings were still being read in 12th/13th–century Byzantine intellectual
circles.89 In the West around this time two translations of Simplikios’ com-
mentary on De caelo were made into Latin. The first, partial one—containing
the passage in question—was made by theologian Robert Grosseteste (†1253),
bishop of Lincoln. It was composed certainly after 1235 and probably even after
1247. The translation was not widely disseminated.90 This leaves little room
for the possibility that our author, who was based at the imperial court far
away in Constantinople (although he may have accompanied Baldwin ii on
one of his voyages to the West), consulted Grosseteste’s translation. It is also
likely that Grosseteste obtained his copy of a Greek manuscript of Simplikios’
85 Macrobius, Commentaire au songe de Scipion, lib. 1, §14/26, 84 (“an equal speed for all”)
and §21/5, 123 (“it is so that none of them moves faster or slower than the others”).
86 Calcidius, Commentaire au Timée de Platon, 1:1, §36d, §38c-d, §39a-b, 168–171.
87 Macrobius, Commentaire au songe de Scipion, 196 (n. 459).
88 Alan C. Bowen, Simplicius on the planets and their motions: in defense of a heresy, Philoso-
phia antiqua 133 (Leiden, 2013), 136.
89 See various contributions in Ilsetraut Hadot, ed., Simplicius. Sa via, son oeuvre, sa survie.
Actes du Colloque International de Paris (28 Sept–1 Oct. 1985), Peripatoi. Philologisch-His-
torische Studien zum Aristotelismus 15 (Berlin, 1987). See also Elizabeth Jeffreys, John F.
Haldon, Robin Cormack, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies (Oxford, 2008),
717–718.
90 Fernand Bossier, “Traductions latines et influences du commentaire In de caelo en Occi-
dent (XIIIe–XIVe s.),” in Ilsetraut Hadot, ed., Simplicius. Sa via, son oeuvre, sa survie. Actes
du Colloque International de Paris (28 Sept–1 Oct. 1985), Peripatoi. Philologisch-Historische
Studien zum Aristotelismus 15 (Berlin, 1987), 289–293. James A. Weisheipl, “The Commen-
tary of Saint Thomas on the De caelo of Aristotle,” Sapientia 19 (1974) 11–13.
commentary from Latin Romania, quite possibly from Constantinople itself.

Grosseteste actively acquired various Greek manuscripts from the region.
It might then have been the case that our author, or another member of
the Constantinopolitan scholarly milieu with whom our author collaborated,
informed Grosseteste’s agent of the work. The second translation also has a
connection with Latin Romania. It was completed in 1271 by William of Mo-
erbeke, but already around 1265–66 he had translated a fragment which was
subsequently used by Thomas of Aquino.91 Before 1261 the Dominican scholar
must have sojourned or lived in Constantinople for at least some period of
time. Here the timeframe clearly contradicts the idea that our author, who in
my opinion wrote around 1260, might have used William’s translation. But the
fact that both authors—contemporaries and one-time Constantinopolitans—
appear to have been familiar with Simplikios’ commentary might be taken as
an indication that they were acquainted with each other. In any case, if the
cited passage reflects a knowledge of Simplikios’ commentary, we should con-
clude that our author—or collaborator—probably consulted the Greek text.
A fourth passage likewise may be taken to suggest the use of a Greek source.
Near the end of the treatise our author introduces his version of Sahl ibn Bisr’s
Quinquaginta Precepta as follows:
quar si cum dist Hermocrates quant le edifices est faiz de si grant matire
et de tante maniere cum l’en a assemblee et il covient assez remanoir de
la matire, mult doit estre loez cil qui tant de matire et si grant habun-
dance assembla por faire cel edifice, mes plus doit estre loez li maistres
ovriers et li maistres engignierres qui entre tantes choses et de tant mat-
ire sot eslire les mellors choses et les plus necessaires a faire le oevre.92
The attribution of this statement to one Hermocrates presents us with a puz-

zle. A first problem is that our second (later) manuscript of the Introductoire
attributes this passage to Hermes.93 No doubt the Greco-Roman mythical deity
91 Bossier, “Traductions latines et influences du commentaire In de caelo,” 298–306.

Weisheipl, “The Commentary of Saint Thomas on the De caelo of Aristotle,” 38–39. Peter
of Auvergne, Questions on Aristotle’s De Caelo. A critical edition with an interpretative essay,
ed. Griet Galle, Ancient and Medieval Philosophy 1 (Leuven, 2003), 29–30.
92 BnF, fr. 1353, f. 59rb-f. 59va (=Appendix 3, Ch. 186, §2, “because as Hermocrates says when
the building is made of so many materials in so many modes as have been assembled, and
it happens that some of the materials remain, then he who assembled that many materi-
als and such abundance in order to make this building must be praised, but even more to
be praised is the master-worker and the master-engineer who among so many things and
so many materials knew to select the best things and those most necessary to complete
the work”).
93 BnF, fr. 613, f. 128ra.
124 Chapter 5
Hermes Trismegistos is meant, a popular classical and medieval astrological

authority, which our author cites twice in his work (once as Termegistres and a
second time as Hermes).94
However, in the entire Corpus Hermeticum or affiliated texts such as the
Centiloquium Hermetis there seems to not be a single passage that even re-
motely resembles the cited fragment.95 It seems preferable, therefore, to opt
for the lectio difficilior of the earlier manuscript, because the later copyist
probably substituted an unfamiliar author (Hermocrates) with a familiar as-
trological authority with a similar name (Hermes), who is also cited elsewhere
in the treatise. Many centuries later we are faced with the same problem who
this Hermocrates might be. The only “Hermocrates” that a Western medieval
scholar having no access to Greek material may have known, is the eponymous
character in Plato’s Timaeus, the only dialogue available in Latin translation
during the early and high Middle Ages. Unfortunately, this Hermocrates does
not contribute much to the discussion and does not say anything resembling
the quoted passage.96
When we include material that at the time was only available in Greek our
problem remains unsolved. Plato’s character is also featured in the Critias, but
again this dialogue (a sequel to the Timaeus generally considered to be unfin-
ished or incomplete) contains no passage resembling the one in question.97
Plato’s Hermocrates character is presumed to be identified with a historical per-
son, the famed Syracusan general Hermocrates of Syracuse (5th century bc).
References to his feats of arms and several speeches have been recorded by vari-
ous classical Greek historians (Thucydides, Xenophon, Plutarchus, Polyaenus,
94 BnF, fr. 1353, f. 7 rb and f. 52vb (for the first reference see also Dörr, Der älteste Astrono-
mietraktat, §1, 31). These passages would seem to loosely refer to various precepts in the
Centiloquium attributed to Hermes Trismegistos, a text that was translated into Latin
(from an Arabic or Greek version) only around 1258–1266 at the court of Manfred of Sicily
(Matthias Heiduk, “Sternenkunde am Stauferhof. Das ‘Centiloquium Hermetis’ im Kon-
text höfischer Übersetzungstätigkeit und Wissensaneignung,” in Heinz Kriega and Alfons
Zettler, eds., In frumento et vino optima. Festschrift für Thomas Zotz zu seinem 60. Geburt-
stag (Ostfildern, 2004), 267–274). Although close diplomatic contacts existed from 1258
on between Baldwin ii and Manfred (continued after 1261), which may provide a context
within which our author became acquainted with the Latin Centiloquium, it is of course
also possible that he became familiar with this text through a Greek version. On the con-
tacts between Baldwin ii and Manfred: see references in Chapter 4, notes 33–34.
95 See the comprehensive compilation and English translation of trismegistic literature:
George R. Mead, Thrice-Greatest Hermes, 3 vols, Studies in Hellenistic Theosophy and Gno-
sis (London, 1906).
96 Calcidius, Commentaire au Timée de Platon, §20c-d.
97 Plato, Timaeus and Critias, trans. Robin Waterfield, Oxford World’s Classics (Oxford,
2008), §108a.
Polybius, Appianus, Diodorus Siculus), but in none of these works anything

resembling the cited passage can be found.98 The Syracusan general also fea-
tures in a 2nd–century Greek novel entitled Chaireas and Callirhoe by Chariton
of Aphrodisias. But this work, which has been preserved only in a single 13th-
century manuscript, does not contain anything like the cited passage either.99
A number of other people named Hermocrates are briefly attested in classical
and early Christian sources (for example a physician in Martialis’ epigrams,
a patient in Hippocrates’ De morbis popularibus, the sophist Hermocrates of
Phokaia mentioned by Philostratus, and martyr Hermocrates of Nicomedia),
but again none of them can be linked to the quoted fragment.
Only one option remains (assuming that our anonymous did not simply in-
vent the passage and attribution, a supposition for which there would appear
to be no ground whatsoever): our author consulted a text that has not been
preserved, written by (or attributed to) a certain Hermocrates or featuring a
character of the same name. This could have been a pseudo-Platonic dialogue,
which recuperated a marginal character in two of Plato’s authentic dialogues.
A more spectacular hypothesis would be that the fragment was adopted from
an authentic Platonic dialogue. Actually, the Timaeus and Critias are widely
seen as the first two parts of a trilogy that Plato envisioned, the last part of
which would have featured Hermocrates as the main protagonist. Given that
no other possible reference to such a dialogue appears to exist (leading to a
scholarly consensus that it was never written), such a hypothesis must be con-
sidered as tantalizing yet improbable.100
98 Thucydides, La guerre du Péloponnèse, ed. and trans. Jacqueline De Romilly, Louis Bodin,
and Raymond Weil, 5 vols, Collection des universités de France (Paris, 1953–1972). Xeno-
phon, Hellenika. Griechisch-deutsch, ed. Gisela Strasburger, Sammlung Tusculum (Düssel-
dorf, 2000). Polybius, Historiae, ed. and trans. William R. Patton, Franck W. Walbank, and
Christian Habicht, 5 vols, Loeb Classical Library (London, 2010–2012). Plutarch, Lives, vol.
3, trans. Bernadotte Perrin, Loeb Classical Library (London, 1916). Appianus, Histoire ro-
maine, ed. and trans. Paul Goukowsky, 12 vols, Collection des universités de France (Paris,
1997–2013). Polyaenus, Strategicon. Libri octo, ed. Eduard Von Wölfflin, Bibliotheca scrip-
torum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana (Leipzig, 1860). Diodorus Siculus, Biblio-
theca Historica, trans. Charles H. Oldfather, Loeb Classical Library (London, 1935).
99 Chariton, Callirhoe, ed. and trans. George P. Goold, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge,
1995).
100 On the projected Hermocrates dialogue: Kenneth Dorter, “‘One, two, three, but where
is the fourth?’ Incomplete mediation in the Timaeus,” in Zdravko Planinc, ed., Politics,
philosophy, writing: Plato’s art of caring for the souls (Columbia, 2001), 161–163; Diskin
Clay, “The Plan of Plato’s Critias,” in Tomás Calvo and Luc Brisson, eds., Interpreting the
Timaeus-Critias, International Plato Studies 9 (Sankt Augustin, 1997), 49–54; Jakob Eberz,
“Die Bestimmung der von Platon entworfenen Trilogie Timaios, Kritias, Hermokrates,”
Philologus 69 (1910) 40–50.
126 Chapter 5
A fifth fragment that may be based on a Greek source could be the zodi-
ologium, which our author has inserted in his treatise (in its entirety it would
seem). Of importance is the attribution of this text to Aristotle (“ci dirons
donques del effect de la Lune et de sa puissance second le naturel ordre des
signes si cum Aristotes en dist”).101 I have found no Latin zodiologium—
describing the influence of the moon according to the 12 zodiacal signs—that
matches our fragment. Some are similar but far from identical. Moreover, none
of these are attributed to Aristotle. To my knowledge only one Latin text of this
nature, edited by Charles Burnett (De luna secundum Aristotilem), is ascribed
to the philosopher, but it is somewhat different in character since the moon’s
influence in 28 celestial constellations is treated. Additionally, none of the ed-
ited Greek zodiologia are (virtually) identical with our fragment. Although no
Greek zodiologium seems to be ascribed to Aristotle, there is a lunarium—a
closely related genre. Both Burnett and Emanuel Svenberg are of the opinion
that all Latin zodiologia can be traced back to Greek prototypes, although they
are not exact translations. Our fragment, therefore, is either based on a Latin
text that has been lost (or remains to be discovered) or on a Greek one that
suffered the same fate. The current state of research does not allow to decide
between both hypotheses.
Another example of a passage that may be based on a Greek source con-
cerns the anonymous church father known as Pseudo-Dionysius (late 5th cen-
tury), who presented himself in his works as Dionysius the Areopagite (briefly
mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles as having been converted to Christianity
by Saint Paul), a misappropriation of identity which was uncritically accepted.
The fragment runs as follows:
Et ce sot bien li bons clers misires Sainz Denises li Aryopagites qui uncore
n’estoit convertiz quant nostres sires Jhesucriz fu crucefiez, quar il estoit
en mer en .i. vessel quant nostres sires trespassa et soufri mort por nos
que les tenebres furent sour terre. Et Sainz Denises sot porce que la Lune
estoit .xiiii.me que li eclipses n’estoit pas naturels, dum nos trovons que il
dist ou li sires del monde et des elemenz soeffre ou li element mentent.102
101 BnF, fr. 1353, f. 55rb-f. 55vb (“here we will thus discuss the effect of the Moon and its power
according to the natural order of the signs as Aristotle says”).
102 BnF, fr. 1353, f. 31ra (=Appendix 3, Ch. 93, §2, “And this knew well the good cleric my lord
Saint Dionysius the Areopagite, who had not yet been converted when our lord Jesus
Christ was crucified, because he was at sea aboard a ship when our lord passed away
and suffered death so that darkness fell over the earth. And Saint Dionysius knew that
the eclipse was not natural because the Moon was only on the fourteenth, and we find
this where he says that either the lord of the world and of the elements suffers or the
elements lie”).
This passage displays a clear resemblance to a fragment in the letter by Em-

peror Manuel i Komnenos written in defence of astrology:
Μετὰ δέ τινων χρόνων παραδρομὴν τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς Χριστοῦ ἀναλήψεως ὁ

πολὺς τὰ θεῖα Διονύσιος ὁ Ἀρεοπαγίτης οὐκ ἐντεῦθεν ἐποδηγήθη πρός
πίστιν; ἐπει γὰρ ἤκουε τοῦ μεγάλου Παύλου ἐν Ἀθήναις διδάσκοντος
περὶ τοῦ δι’ ἡμας ἐν σταυρῷ τεθνηκότος Χριστοῦ, καὶ τὸν καιρὸν τοῦ
πάθους ἠρώτησε καὶ ἀναποδίσας τὸν Χριστὸν αὐτὸν ἐκεῖνον εῖναι
ἐγνώρισε, καθ’ ὃν τὴν παρὰ φύσιν ἑώρα ἔκλειψιν· ἐπιστήμων γὰρ ῆν ὁ
ἀνὴρ καὶ ἀκριβῶς ᾔδει ὅτι τέσσαρες καὶ δεκαταίας οὔσης τῆς σελήνης
καὶ τοῦ ἡλίου μακρὰν τῶν συνδέσμων τυγχάνοντος οὐδέποτε ἡλιακὴ
γίνεται ἔκλειψις, ὁπόταν δὲ συνοδεύῃ τῷ ἡλίῳ ἡ σελήνη καὶ καθ’
ἑνὸς ῇ τῶν συνδέσμων. ἔνθεν τοι καὶ πρός τινα τῶν φίλων αὐτοῦ
συνοδοιποροῦντα τῷ τότε αὐτῷ· «ἢ θεὸς πάσχει ἢ υἱὸς θεοῦ καὶ
συμπάσχει τῷ πάσχοντι » εἴρηκεν, ῶς ἐκ ἐπιστολῆς μανθάνομεν, εὐθὺς
τῷ ἀποστόλῳ πειθήνιος γέγονεν, ἐντεῦθεν αἰσθόμενος ἀληθεύειν τὸν
κήρυκα.103
A number of similarities should be noted: a solar eclipse considered to be un-

natural; the 14th day of the lunar month as the date of Christ’s crucifixion; the
fact that the incident occurred during some journey; Dionysius’ statement
that God was suffering; the role the incident played in Dionysius’ conversion.
At the same time our author’s text contains a number of elements that are
not found in Manuel’s letter or our fragment: the sea and the ship are absent
in Manuel’s letter, as well as “the lying of the elements” phrase; Athens, Paul,
103 Manuel Komnenos and Michael Glykas, Disputatio, ed. F. Cumont and F. Boll, in Cata-
logus Codicum Astrologorum Graecorum 5.1 (Brussels, 1904), 115–116 (“After the passage
of some time from the resurrection of Christ, was not the great theologian Dionysius
the Areopagite guided toward his faith from these things? When he heard the great Paul
teaching in Athens about Christ who had died on the cross for us, he asked the time of the
passion, and upon cross-examining him, he recognized that that person was Christ Him-
self, because based upon the time, he knew that the eclipse was unnatural. For Dionysus
the Areopagite was a learned man and accurately knew that a solar eclipse can never take
place when the moon is fourteen days past the conjunction with the sun. It only occurs
when the moon conjoins the sun and it is located at one of the nodes. For this reason, you
know, he even said to one of his friends who was traveling with him at that time, ‘Either
God suffers or the son of God also suffers together with he who suffers.’ As we learn from
the letter, he immediately became a disciple of the apostle, perceiving from the clearly
unnatural eclipse of the sun that the herald was speaking the truth.”). English transla-
tion based on George, “Manuel i Komnenos and Michael Glycas: A Twelfth-Century
Defence and Refutation of Astrology,” 7. On Manuel’s defence of astrology, see references
in Chapter 2, note 24, and Chapter 3, note 5.
128 Chapter 5
and the final part of the suffering phrase in Manuel’s letter are absent in our
fragment. Manuel states that—at least part of his information derives from a
certain letter concerning Dionysius. This can easily be identified: the eclipse
incident is indeed recounted in Pseudo-Dionysius’ letter to Polykarpos, bishop
of Smyrna.104
This letter states that the author was with his sophist friend Appolophanes
near Heliopolis (κατὰ Ἡλιούπολιν—situated on the Nile near present-day Cai-
ro) when together they observed an eclipse which they considered to be su-
pernatural because it was not the appointed time for a conjunction of the sun
and moon. Dionysius concluded that only Christ could have been responsible
for such a supernatural occurrence. Thus the letter does relate the same inci-
dent referred to in Manuel’s letter and in the Introductoire. The κατὰ Ἡλιούπολιν
phrase may even explain why the Introductoire states that Dionysius witnessed
the eclipse from the sea on a ship, which is not found in Manuel’s letter. The
fact that Dionysius went from his hometown Athens to Egypt implied that
most probably he had travelled by water and since according to the letter he
had not yet arrived at his destination (κατὰ) when the eclipse took place, our
author may have assumed that at that time he was still on his ship at sea (per-
haps mistakenly assuming that Heliopolis was a coastal city). All other sources
concerning Dionysius’ trip to Egypt state that he witnessed the eclipse from
Heliopolis itself. Two characteristics in both Manuel’s letter and the Introduc-
toire are conspicuously absent in the letter: the mention of the date (the 14th
day of the lunar month) and the phrase about God suffering.
The entire Corpus Dionysiacum or commentaries such as the one by Maxi-
mos the Confessor (7th century) do not contain this phrase either, but the En-
conium Sancti Dionysii written by Michael Synkellos (†846) does—in contrast
to the later hagiographical work by Symeon Metaphrastes (late 10th century)
or the biographical notice in the Souda (circa 1000): Dionysius while witness-
ing the eclipse at Heliopolis is to have said that the unknown God was suffer-
ing in the flesh, which caused the entire world to be covered in darkness and
shaken by earthquakes.105 Synkellos’ Enconium thus would appear to be the
source for the God suffering phrase mentioned in Manuel’s letter and in our
104 Dionysius Areopagitae, Opera Omnia, ed. Balthasar Corderius, Patrologia Graeca 3 (Paris,
1857), col. 1081.
105 Michael Synkellos, Encomium Beati Dionysii Areopagitae, ed. Balthasar Corderius, Patrolo-
gia Graeca 4 (Paris, 1857), col. 627. For Maximos the Confessor’s commentary on the letter
to Polykarpos: ibid., col. 535–543. For the vita by Metaphrastes: Symeon Metaphrastes,
Vita et Conversatio Sancti Dionysii Areopagitae, ed. Balthasar Corderius, Patrologia Graeca
4 (Paris, 1857), cols. 589–608. For the biographical notice in the Souda: ed. Balthasar Cord-
erius, De Dionysio Areopagita ex Suida, in Patrologia Graeca 4 (Paris, 1857), cols. 607–612.
Introductoire. The “ou li element mentent” variation in the Introductoire may

likewise derive from a passage a little further in Synkellos’ text where Dionysius
is said to have encouraged Polykarpos to challenge Appolophanes to refute the
veracity of the phenomenon they had observed together.106 With regard to the
identical date for the crucifixion (the 14th) it would seem our author must have
based himself on either Manuel’s text or on another Byzantine/Greek source,
since it is in the Byzantine tradition that the crucifixion was dated 14 Nisan (af-
ter the Gospel of John), while in the Latin West it was dated 15 Nisan (after the
synoptic Gospels). The issue was controversial because it was directly related
to the issue of the use of leavened or unleavened bread during the Eucharist,
which in the wake of the 1054 Schism remained one of the major points of con-
tention between the Roman and Constantinopolitan Churches.107
Our author for the cited passage relating to Saint Dionysius appears to have
used the following sources: Manuel’s letter or another Greek/Byzantine source
for the date of the crucifixion; Manuel’s letter and/or Synkellos’ Enconium for
the “God suffering” phrase; the letter to Polykarpos for the travel-by-water-
reference; and one of these three sources for the other elements. Of these texts
the letter to Polykarpos had been first translated into Latin circa 838 by the ab-
bot of Saint Denis Hilduinus (as part of the entire Corpus Dionysiacum, a copy
of which was donated to the Carolingian emperor Louis the Pious (814–840) by
Byzantine emperor Michael ii (820–829)), a second time by John Scot Eriuge-
na in 865, and a third time around 1240–1243 by the bishop of Lincoln Robert
Grosseteste.108 The first two translations did not circulate widely and the third
was composed only some fifteen years before the Introductoire was written.
106 Michael Synkellos, Encomium Beati Dionysii Areopagitae, col. 630. In relation to the ref-
erence to sea and ship in the Introductoire it should briefly be remarked here that like
Manuel’s letter Synkellos does not mention travel by sea or ship either.
107 Phillip E. Nothaft, Dating The Passion. The Life of Jesus and the Emergence of Scientific
Chronology (200–1600), Time, Astronomy, and Calendars: Texts and Studies (Brill, 2012),
113–189. On the issue of the azymes: Georgij Avvakumov, “Der Azymenstreit–Konflikte
und Polemiken um eine Frage des Ritus,” in Peter Bruns and Georg Gresser, eds., Vom
Schisma zu den Kreuzzügen: 1054–1204 (Paderborn, 2005), 9–26.
108 Jean Leclercq, “Influence and noninfluence of Dionysius in the Western Middle Ages,”
in C. Luidheid and P. Rorem, eds., Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works, The Classics
of Western Spirituality (New Jersey, 1987), 25–32. James McEnvoy, Mystical Theology: The
Glosses by Thomas Gallus and the Commentary by Robert Grosseteste on De Mystica Theolo-
gia. Edition, Translation and introduction, Dallas Medieval Texts and Translations 3 (Leu-
ven, 2003), 56. Cecily J. Hilsdale, “Translatio and Objecthood: The Cultural Agendas of
Two Greek Manuscripts at Saint-Denis,” Gesta 56 (2017), 151–178. In general on the Latin
translations of Dionysius’ work in the medieval West: Pascal Boulhol, La connaissance de
langue grecque dans la France médiévale VIe–XVe s., Textes et documents de la Méditer-
rannée classique et médiévale (Aix-en-Provence, 2008), 69–77.
130 Chapter 5
Therefore it is not all that evident that our author would have been acquainted
with one of these translations. It would seem just as probable that he used the
original Greek version (explicitly referred to in Manuel’s letter).
Hilduinus also produced a Latin hagiographical account of Saint Dionysius’
life, called the Areopagitica, but it does not feature the God suffering phrase as
a conclusion to the eclipse incident. Instead, an alternative statement is put in
the protagonist’s mouth (“haec nox, quam nostris oculis novam descendisse
miramur, totius mundi veram lucem adventuram signavit, atque Deum huma-
no generi effulsurum serena dignatione dictavit”).109 In the later 12th century
William of London, a monk of Saint Denis, translated Synkellos’ Enconium into
Latin, which does contain the God suffering phrase. Parts of this translation
were also incorporated in a new vita of Saint Dionysius written around 1230 at
the same abbey. These texts, however, did not circulate widely either: before
1300 they are featured in only two 13th–century manuscripts of a compilation
of hagiographical materials concerning Saint Dionysius produced at Saint De-
nis.110 In any case, with regard to the crucifixion date our anonymous must
have consulted a Greek source, whether Manuel’s letter (no Latin translation
being available) or some alternative source.
109 Hilduinus, Areopagitica, ed. Jean-Paul Migne, Patrologia Latina 106 (Paris, 1864), col. 27
(“this darkness, which we were astonished to watch descending with our own eyes as an
exceptional phenomenon, signified that the true light of the entire world would come,
and it meant that God would shine for humanity with serene dignity”).
110 Boulhol, La connaissance de langue grecque dans la France médiévale, 73.
Chapter 6
Literature and Sciences in Latin-Byzantine

Constantinople
Our anonymous treatise in various ways (ideological, linguistical, educational,

textual influences) can be considered to be the product of the partially Byz-
antine context within which it was created. This prompts the question as to
how we should imagine Latin-Byzantine interaction in Constantinople in the
cultural or intellectual sphere. Our corpus of texts invites an evaluation of how
it relates to cultural and intellectual life in Constantinople under the Latin im-
perial dynasty. Cultural and intellectual life in the Queen of Cities in the period
1204–1261 has traditionally been neglected as a field of study, based on the—
implicit or explicit—assumption that after the cataclysmic events of 1204 (also
in view of the Latin empire’s dramatic political decline from the mid-1220s on)
such life must have been virtually non-existent. However, scattered references
in little noticed sources and in modern contributions would seem to suggest
that this picture is too bleak.
In order to address this question an overview of the known cultural produc-
tion in Constantinople in the period under consideration—literary, artistic,
and scientific—is needed, with a focus on the ethnic-cultural identities of the
authors/artists and their (intended) audiences. Also whether these cultural
products reflect the ethnic-culturally mixed social environment within which
they were produced. This overview is not intended to provide a comprehensive
treatment of these individual cultural products, but rather those elements that
seem relevant in the context of the present study. Consecutively in this chapter
I will treat literature (historical, lyrical, epical, etc.) and the sciences (natural
sciences, philosophy, and theology).
1 Historical Literature
To begin with literature, more specifically with historical writing, in this pe-
riod in Constantinople a number of remarkable works were produced, the
chronicles by imperial marshal Geoffrey of Villehardouin (La conquête de Con-
stantinople, covering the years 1198–1207 and composed around 1207) and by
imperial cleric Henry of Valenciennes (Histoire de l’empereur Henri de Con-
stantinople, for the period 1208–1209, written around 1209). These, together

132 Chapter 6
with Robert of Clari’s La conquête de Constantinople (likewise an eyewitness

account, written around 1205—with an appendix added in 1216 after the au-
thor’s return to his home region), are the first known original historical ac-
counts written in French prose. This literary phenomenon may perhaps partly
be explained by the Byzantine context these chroniclers were confronted with.
At about the same time French prose also started to be used in translations
of classical and medieval historical works originally written in Latin (or French
verse). The earliest such works are several translations of the so-called Pseudo-
Turpin. One version was written by Nicolas of Senlis and commissioned by
Yolande of Hainaut, Emperor Baldwin i’s aunt—married to count Hugo iv of
Saint-Pol (†1205), one of the Fourth Crusade’s principal leaders)—tentatively
dated to the opening years of the 13th century (1200–1205), although Yolande’s
date of death is unrecorded;1 another version written in 1206 was dedicated to
Renaud of Dammartin, count of Boulogne, who had knighted Emperor Henry.
Other works were the world history entitled Histoire Ancienne jusqu’à César
(written around 1208–1230 and dedicated to Roger iv of Fresnes, viscount of
Lille, who was married to Clémence of Armentières, who belonged to a fam-
ily attested in Emperor Henry’s entourage), the anonymous Faits des Romains
(written around 1213–1214 by an author from the region of the Île-de-France),
and the Histoire de Jules César by Jean of Thuin (a town and castle in the prince-
bishopric of Liège, where as young boys emperors Baldwin i and Henry had
found safe haven in a time of war) around 1215–1235.2
Before 1200, as for French vernacular, verse had been the means of expres-
sion for historical content, while vernacular prose—although Latin was the
primary means of the written word—was reserved for juridical texts, charters,
1 Yolande had obtained a Latin version of the Pseudo-Turpin at the death of her brother count
Baldwin v/viii of Hainaut/Flanders in 1195 with the request que par amor de lui gardast le
livre cum ele vivroit (“that she would keep the book as long as she lived because of the love
for him”). Nicolas of Senlis in the introduction to his translation then goes on to say that la
bone comtesse ha gardé le livre jusqu’a ore (“the good countess has kept the book until now”),
a phrase that would seem to indicate that Yolande had conserved the Latin manuscript for a
rather long time before she commissioned the translation, which makes a date after 1205 very
well possible (Hamilton M. Smyser, ed., The Pseudo-Turpin (Cambridge, 1937), 8).
2 Gabrielle M. Spiegel, “The Textualization of the Past in French Historical Writing,” in Elizabeth
Morrison and Anne D. Hedeman, eds., Imagining the Past in France. History in Manuscript
Painting, 1250–1500 (Los Angeles, 2010), 46. Catherine Croizy-Naquet, “L’histoire ancienne
jusqu’à César, les Faits des Romains. Entre sermon et chronique, entre histoire et roman,” in
Pierre Nobel, ed., Réception de l’Antiquité, Textes et cultures: réception, modèles, interférences
(Besançon, 2004), 103–118. Silvère Menegaldo, “César ‘d’ire enflamez et espris’ (v. 1696) dans
le Roman de Jules César de Jean de Thuin,” Cahiers de Recherches mediévales et humanistes 13
(2006), 59. Van Tricht, “De jongelingenjaren van een keizer van Konstantinopel,” 190.
Literature and Sciences 133
biblical translations, and homiletic works. Gabrielle Spiegel has proposed the
interesting theory that these earliest histories in French prose reflect an effort
by the anti-royalist Franco-Flemish aristocracy of feudal princes and barons,
who patronized these works, to redeem the present, with its threat of rising
royal power by means of a revitalized past. The innovative use of prose would
have been motivated by a desire to underscore the veracity and authority of
these historical narratives (and of their anti-royalist message). Spiegel, how-
ever, chose to omit the chronicles by Villehardouin, Clari, and Valenciennes
from her analysis because these texts give accounts of primarily military deeds
performed in distant lands.3
Her choice is unfortunate since her theory fails to apply to these original
works. In particular Clari and Valenciennes display no anti-royalist tendencies.
On the contrary, Clari—who considered himself one of the “poor knights”—
is critical of the feudal barons and princes, while Valenciennes’ text, as an
unambiguous panegyric of Emperor Henry, advocates firm imperial author-
ity. Recently Noah Guynn has attempted unconvincingly to extend Spiegel’s
conclusions to Villehardouin’s chronicle by ascribing anti-monarchical views
to it.4 The author sees Villehardouin’s account of the power struggle between
Emperor Baldwin i and marquis Boniface of Montferrat over Thessaloniki as
mirroring the conflicts between the French king and his aristocratic rivals.
Villehardouin, however, never takes sides in the conflict, in fact attributing the
blame for the discord to both parties (“cum malvais conseil orent et li uns et li
autres”).5
3 Gabrielle M. Spiegel, Romancing the Past. The Rise of Venacular Prose Historiography in
Thirteenth Century France, The New Historicism 23 (Berkeley, 1993), 3–6. Gillette Labory,
“Les débuts de la chronique en français (XIIe–XIIIe siècles),” in Erik Kooper, ed., The Medi-
eval Chronicle iii. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on the Medieval Chronicle
(Amsterdam, 2004), 1–26.
4 Jean Dufournet, “Robert de Clari, Villehardouin et Henri de Valenciennes, juges de l’empereur
Henri de Constantinople. De l’histoire à la légende,” in Mélanges Jeanne Lods. Du moyen
âge au XXe siècle, Collection de l’Ecole Normale Supérieure de Jeunes Filles 10 (Paris, 1978),
183–202. Peter Noble, “The importance of old French chronicles as historical sources of the
Fourth Crusade and the early Latin Empire of Constantinople,” Journal of Medieval History 27
(2001) 399–416. Noah D. Guynn, “Rhetoric and historiography: Villehardouin’s La Conquête
de Constantinople,” in William Burgwinkle, Nicholas Hammonde, and Emma Wilson, eds.,
The Cambridge History of French Literature (Cambridge, 2011), 102–110.
5 Geoffroy de Villehardouin, La conquête de Constantinople, §277–299 (“since both sides re-
ceived bad counsel”). Villehardouin is critical of both Baldwin (for ignoring the marquis’
request to let him first take possession of his fief Thessaloniki alone) and Boniface (for his
subsequent military attack against the emperor’s possessions because of this). On this con-
flict, see Madden, “The Latin Empire of Constantinople’s Fractured Foundation,” 45–52.
134 Chapter 6
While the decision to use prose by Villehardouin, Clari, and Valenciennes

cannot be seen in the context of an anti-monarchical attempt to reclaim the
present through historical literature, Cyril Aslanov has argued convincingly
that for these “crusader chronicles” the attempt to support the veracity and au-
thority of their vernacular accounts partially explains their innovative choice.
Aslanov’s second explanation for the use of prose in these chronicles is far
more interesting: he suggests that in Constantinople their confrontation with
the Byzantine historiographical tradition—with its general use of prose and
a version of the spoken tongue (diglossia in Byzantium versus bilingualism in
France)—inspired their choice. This ties in well with Sharon Kinoshita’s obser-
vation, with regard to Clari’s chronicle, that the chronicler’s innovative choices
stem from the “lived experience of the crusade”—causing the reshuffling of
convential categories.6
Among the ranks of the crusaders several men with an interest in culture
and, more specifically, in literature and historiography are clearly attest-
ed. For example, the Emperor Baldwin i and Henry’s father, count Baldwin
v/viii of Flanders/Hainaut, had commissioned a copy to be made of the Latin
Pseudo-Turpin chronicle, a biography of Charlemagne (and as mentioned later
translated into French at the request of his sister Yolande).7 Baldwin i is cred-
ited with commissioning a world history by the early 14th-century chronicler
Jacques of Guise, and Jean Renart’s romance L’Escoufle, written around 1200
and dedicated to el gentil conte en Hainaut (“the noble count of Hainaut”), was
probably written under his patronage.8 One of Baldwin and Henry’s most im-
portant dignitaries (and relative), protovestiarios, later sebastokrator, and re-
gent, Cono i of Béthune, was a famed trouvère, with at least one of his songs
containing references to classical history (L’autrier avint en chel autre païs, with
references to both Troy and Carthage). The crusade’s formal top commander
and later lord of Thessaloniki, marquis Boniface of Montferrat, was also a cul-
tured man, who had in his entourage several poets.9
6 Aslanov, “Aux sources de la chronique en prose française,” 143–165. Sharon Kinoshita, Medi-
eval Boundaries: Rethinking Difference in Old French Literature (Philadelphia, 2006), 142–144.
7 Adalbert Hämel, “Die Entstehungszeit der Aachener Vita Karoli magni und der Pseudo-
Turpin,” Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 32 (1942),
243–253. Jean-François Nieus, Un pouvoir comtal entre Flandre et France: Saint-Pol, 1100–1300
(Bruxelles, 2005), 139.
8 Wolff, “Baldwin of Flanders and Hainaut, First Latin Emperor of Constantinople,” 285–296.
Olivier Collet, “Littérature, histoire, pouvoir, mécénat: la cour de Flandre au XIIIe siècle,”
Médiévales 38 (2000), 102–103. Jean de Renart, Le Roman de la Rose ou de Guillaume de Dole,
trans. Jean Dufournet, Champions classiques. Série “Moyen âge,” Editions bilingues 24 (Paris,
2008), 13.
9 Cono de Béthune, Les chansons de Conon de Béthune, ed. Axel Wallensköld, Les classiques
français du moyen âge 24 (Paris, 1921), 17–18. Paolo Repetto, “I trovatori alla corte di Bonifacio
That such men would have shown an interest in Byzantine history and his-
toriography, influencing their own works is rather likely. It is certainly manifest
in Clari’s chronicle, which contains a long section on Byzantine history, includ-
ing the reigns of the emperors Manuel i Komnenos (1143–1180), Andronikos
i Komnenos (1182–1185), Isaac ii Angelos (1185–1195), and Alexios iii Angelos
(1195–1203). The sometimes fanciful nature of his account indicates, however,
that the chronicler probably relied on oral sources for his information.10 Valen-
ciennes does not integrate sections of Byzantine history into his work; in one
passage, however, he does—in line with Byzantine historiographical practice—
stress continuity with classical antiquity by subtly picturing his hero as the suc-
cessor to both the Macedonian king Alexander the Great and the R oman rulers
Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus and Julius Caesar.11 Villehardouin does not refer to
Byzantine history (at least to the period before Alexios iii), but that he was in-
terested in historical writings is attested to by Valenciennes, who portrays him
as referring to the “preudomes anciiens ki devant nous ont esté ki encore sont
ramenteu es livres des estores” in his speech to the imperial army before engag-
ing the Bulgarian tsar Boril (1207–1218) near Philippopolis in 1208.12
With regard to Valenciennes and Villehardouin, as imperial courtiers or
dignitaries and as having been members of the immediate entourage of the
crusade leaders, they well may have known for example Niketas Choniates,
who remained in service as logothetes ton sekreton after the re-establishment
of Isaac ii, together with his son Alexios iv, in 1203. During this period Villehar-
douin served several times as the crusader army’s messenger to the imperial
court and on one occasion mentions the presence of Isaac ii’s chancelier
I di Monferrato,” Rivista di Storia Arte Archeologia per le Province di Alessandria e Asti 109
(2000) 153–161.
10 Robert de Clari, La Conquête de Constantinople, §18–28.
11 Henri de Valenciennes, Histoire de l’empereur Henri de Constantinople, §570. On account
of Emperor Henry’s passage through the val de Philippe en route to Thessaloniki in late
1208 Valenciennes narrates that the valley was named after King Philip of Macedonia, that
Alexander the Great was born there, and that this was also the place where Pompeius
defeated Caesar. This last element may cause modern historians to frown, since Pompeius
and Caesar never fought a battle near Philippi and it was of course Caesar who eventually
defeated Pompeius. But Valenciennes’ mistakes can be explained: Pompeius did defeat
Caesar at Dyrrachion, shortly before the final battle, and a number of Roman authors—
for example Lucan in his Pharsalia, a popular work also in medieval times—do situate
their ultimate confrontation at Philippi, instead of Pharsalos (Timothy A. Joseph, Tacitus
the Epic Successor: Virgil, Lucan and the narrative of civil war in the Histories, Mnemosyne.
Bibliotheca Classica Batava 345 (Leiden, 2012), 58–62).
12 Henri de Valenciennes, Histoire de l’empereur Henri de Constantinople, §534 (“the valiant
men who came before us and who are still remembered in the history books”).
136 Chapter 6
(at a meeting attended by only this official, the emperor, his interpreter, and
the Latin messengers). Since the Western cancellarius and the Byzantine logo-
thetes ton sekreton can be equated (both seen as a sort of “chief minister”), it
seems safe to identify him with Choniates. Also, in 1206 Choniates returned to
Constantinople from Salymbria and lived there for six months, before eventu-
ally moving to Nicaea. The former logothetes seems to have tried to obtain a
position at the Latin emperor’s court, as he would later (also unsuccessfully) at
that of Theodore i Laskaris. In this context he may have (again) met—or possi-
bly approached—Villehardouin. Choniates likewise references Villehardouin
as the powerful Latin mariskalkos. Through Choniates, or Byzantine officials
and magnates who managed to enter the service of the Latin emperor (like
Constantine Tornikes and Theodore Branas, feudal lord of Adrianople), Ville-
hardouin and Valenciennes may have acquainted themselves with Byzantine
historiography and—in Villehardouin’s case—with a tradition of lay author-
ship in historical writing.13
A measure of Byzantine influence (prose, vernacular, lay authorship), al-
though indicating cross-cultural interest and contact, does not mean that we
should regard Villehardouin’s and Valenciennes’ work as “Byzantine chronicles.”
Only very few Byzantines would have been able to consult their works since they
were written in French. There are no traces of a Greek translation ever having
been made (as in the case of the Chronicle of Morea, although the question of
the priority of the French or Greek versions is still much debated). Even if on oc-
casion these texts might have been recited with simultaneous Greek translation
at the mixed Latin-Byzantine imperial court, the Byzantine audience reached
would have been very limited. Both Villehardouin and Valenciennes clearly
wrote their chronicle primarily for French-speaking audiences. Probably not
only for the Constantinopolitan French-speaking elite, but also for members of
their social class in their home regions. Legitimizing the Fourth Crusade and
the conquest of Constantinople appears to have been Villehardouin’s prime
concern, while Valenciennes’ panegyric seems—as Jean Longnon argued—in
part to have been written to promote Western emigration to Romania.14
Apart from the question of language, Villehardouin’s and Valenciennes’ gen-
eral outlook regarding the identity of the empire and its subjects is not very
13 Geoffroy de Villehardouin, La conquête de Constantinople, §186. Niketas Choniates, His-

toria, ed. Jean-Louis van Dieten, Corpus Fontium Historiae Bizantinae. Series Berolin-
ensis 11 (Berlin, 1975), 2:643. Alicia Simpson, Niketas Choniates. A Historiographical study
(Oxford, 2013), 19–21.
14 Peter Noble, “Villehardouin, Robert de Clari and Henri de Valenciennes. Their different
approaches to the Fourth Crusade,” in Eric Kooper, ed., The Medieval Chronicle. Proceed-
ings of the 1st International Conference on the Medieval Chronicle, Costerus New Series
120 (Amsterdam, 1999), 202–211. Henri de Valenciennes, Histoire de l’empereur Henri de
Constantinople, 9–11.
Byzantine at first sight. Although Valenciennes implicitly, and cautiously, ap-

pears to picture the lands of empereour de Constantinoble Henry, successor to
Pompeius and Caesar, as the Roman empire, he calls its Greek subjects Grifons
(and not Romaioi as they referred to themselves). Villehardouin likewise calls
the empire’s subjects Grieu and never explicitly qualifies the empire itself as
Roman, though the frequent references to Constantinople—the city of the
famed Roman emperor Constantine the Great—naturally must have evoked
the Roman imperial legacy in the eyes of both Villehardouin’s and Valenci-
ennes’ audience. This use of traditional Western terminology for the empire
or its inhabitants is perhaps to be expected, but it is a problematic issue since
in other contexts the empire’s Roman identity was explicitly espoused. In a
charter, Villehardouin styled himself Romanorum marescaulus, while the em-
perors themselves (Baldwin ii as well as his predecessors) also used the title
of imperator Romanorum (among others) and referred to their empire as the
imperium Romanum.15 This begs the question who or what were Romani in the
eyes of Villehardouin.
For the Byzantine elite their Roman identity was self-evident, but by 1204
“Romanness” was an ambiguous concept. Gill Page with regard to Byzantine
society has drawn attention to the distinction between political Roman iden-
tity and ethnic Roman identity. Yannis Stouraitis has argued that until 1204
official Byzantine political/imperial discourse left the concept of Roman
identity free of any ethnic connotations. From the perspective of the impe-
rial government anyone—foreigners and provincials (“uneducated” Greeks,
Armenians, Bulgarians, Slavs, etc.)—could become Roman by accepting impe-
rial authority, entering imperial service, or identifying with the principles of
Roman/Byzantine imperial rule (a non-static element). Villehardouin and his
companions could no doubt relate to such an interpretation of “Romanness,”
although they were of the opinion that some aspects of Byzantine imperial rule
needed reform. Following this Byzantine concept, which was not dissimilar to
some Western conceptions of the term, they probably saw the term Romani
(or Romaioi) as a political concept referring to those subjected to or recogniz-
ing the authority of the emperor. These subjects included various ethnicities
(both before and after 1204), such as Greeks, Bulgarians, Armenians, as well as
Latins.16
15 Auguste Longnon, Documents relatifs au comté de Champagne et de Brie 1172–1361, Collec-

tion de documents inédits sur l’histoire de France (Paris, 1901), 1:xiii (n. 2). Van Tricht, The
Latin Renovatio of Byzantium, 62–82. Our anonymous author also refers to Baldwin ii’s em-
pire as l’empire de Costantinoble, although as seen he possibly used the term Romains in the
dedication of his Introductoire to the emperor (BnF, fr. 1353, f. 102va (=Appendix 2, §13)).
See also Chapter 2.
16 Gill Page, Being Byzantine: Greek identity before the Ottomans (Cambridge, 2008),
47–50, 69–70. Ioannis Stouraitis, “Roman identity in Byzantium: a critical approach,”
138 Chapter 6
The particular use of the term Romaioi by part of the Byzantine, mostly Con-
stantinopolitan, elite to exclusively also refer to themselves in an ethnic sense
(in order to be a true Roman one needed in addition to the mentioned precon-
ditions to be born a Roman)—a notion of Romanness according to Stouraitis
that emerged in the 12th century among members of the literate elite—must
have been unacceptable to the new Latin rulers, since it inevitably diminished
their own Roman status. Indeed, for Villehardouin and and his companions be-
fore 1204 Romani must have been understood in a supranational cultural sense
as applying in the first place to themselves. That all Latini were in fact Romani
(due to markers such as a shared Latin language and Roman Christian faith)
was an opinion circulating in the West by the late 12th century, as for example
decretalist Huguccio of Pisa’s commentary on the Decretum Gratiani (circa
1187–1190) attests. The popularity of vernacular literature inspired by ancient
antiquity, such as the romans antiques and the renewed interest in classical sci-
ence and philosophy, must have reinforced such a view. Besides, the nominal
(secular) head of the Christian West was of course an imperator Romanorum
(as the one in Constantinople), which could be interpreted in the sense that
all his nominal subjects had to be members of the orbis Romanus or quite sim-
ply Romani. For the anonymous author of the late 11th–century description of
Constantinople Anonyme du Tarragonensis (and its late 12th–century copyist)
this orbis Romanus was not limited to the West, but obviously included Con-
stantinople and the so-called orientalis regnum (“oriental kingdom”).17
For Western chroniclers writing in a Byzantine context, the use of the term
“Roman” was consequently problematic (especially in terms of their audienc-
es). For the sake of clarity for this audience, the easier option was to avoid
the term altogether and employ (sub)national categories. Interesting in this
respect is that Villehardouin describes Philip of Swabia consistently as roi
d’Alemaigne and never as “king of the Romans,” which was his actual title.18
yzantinische Zeitschrift 2014 (107), 213–220. Yannis Stouraitis, “Reinventing Roman Eth-
B
nicity in High and Late Medieval Byzantium,” Medieval Worlds. Comparative & Interdis-
ciplinary Studies 5 (2017) 70–94. Anthony Kaldellis opposes Stouraitis’ view, but in my
opinion unconvincingly: Anthony Kaldellis, “The Social Scope of Roman Identity in Byz-
antium: An Evidence-Based Approach,” Byzantina Symmeikta 27 (2017), 173–210. On the
Latin restructuring of Byzantium, see references in Chapter 2, note 42.
17 Burkhardt, Mediterranes Kaisertum und imperiale Ordnungen, 70. On the two-(Roman)-
emperors-problem in the context of the events of 1204: Stelian Brezeanu, “‘Translatio Im-
perii’ und das Lateinische Kaiserreich von Konstantinopel,” Revue Roumaine d’Histoire 14
(1975), 607–617; idem, “Das Zweikaiserproblem in der ersten Hälfte des 13. Jahrhunderts,”
Revue roumaine d’histoire 17 (1978), 249–267; Krijnie N. Ciggaar, “Une description de Con-
stantinople dans le Tarragonensis 55,” Revue des études byzantines 53 (1995), 119, 134.
18 Geoffroy de Villehardouin, La conquête de Constantinople, §70 (“king of Germany”).
To be noted as well is the rising trend starting in the 12th century of Byzantine
Greek intellectuals (in particular in Nicaea) referring to themselves as Hel-
lenoi or Graekoi, a tendency not unrelated to a growing realization that Latins
claimed the Roman legacy as well and considered themselves to be Romans as
well, which caused these intellectuals to seek other designations to set them-
selves apart from these Latins. It was also after 1204 in Nicaea that, according to
Stouraitis, ethnic connotations were introduced in the imperial discourse on
Romanness (to distinguish “true Romans” from others).19
Along with the circumspect use of the term Roman for their intended audi-
ence, Villehardouin’s and Valenciennes’ texts contain other Western features,
such as the influence of epic tradition and chansons de geste noted by various
authors, although according to Peter Noble this should be evaluated as rather
slight.20 There are also elements more in line with Byzantine concepts. For ex-
ample, Valenciennes’ description of Alexios Sthlabos, the Bulgarian ruler of
the Rhodopes mountains who in 1208 decided to recognize Emperor Henry’s
authority and was granted the emperor’s daughter in marriage, as auques sau-
vages—which the chronicler attributes to the emperor himself when address-
ing his daughter about to wedded—relates to the Byzantine topos of qualifying
foreigners (or non-ethnic Romaioi) as barbaroi. Indeed, just as barbaros origi-
nally meant unintelligible (because speaking another language, hence uncul-
tured/uncivilized), so the qualification of sauvages has to do with the language
barrier between Sthlabos and Henry’s daughter (“car vous n’entendés son
langage [no doubt the Bulgarian language is meant], ne il ne reset point dou
vostre”).21
19 See, for example, Michael Angold, “Byzantine ‘nationalism’ and the Nicaean empire,” Byz-
antine and Modern Greek Studies 1 (1975), 49–70; Paraskevas Gounaridis, “‘Grecs,’ ‘Hellènes’
et ‘Romans’ dans l’état de Nicée,” in Vasiles Kremmydas, Chryssa Maltezou, and Nikolaos
M. Panagiotakes, eds., Aphieroma ston Niko Svorono (Rethymo, 1986), 1:248–257; Charis
Messis, “Lectures sexuees de l’alterite. Les Latins et identite romaine menacée pendant les
derniers siecles de Byzance,” Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 61 (2011), 151–154,
167; Elisabeth Malamut, “De l’empire des Romains à la nation des Hellènes. Evolution
identitaire des byzantins de la fin du XIe au XVe siècle,” in Nation et nations au Moyen Âge
(Paris, 2014), 165–179. Stouraitis, “Roman identity in Byzantium,” 215–217.
20 Peter Noble, “Epic heroes in thirteenth-century French chroniclers,” in Eric Kooper, ed.,
The Medieval Chronicle iii. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on the Medieval
Chronicle (Amsterdam, 2004), 135–145. See also, Mihai C. Bratu, L’émergence de l’auteur
dans l’historiographie médievale en prose en langue française (Ann Arbor, 2007), 121–126.
21 Henri de Valenciennes, Histoire de l’empereur Henri de Constantinople, §558 (“somewhat
uncivilized” and “because you don’t understand his language, and he does not understand
yours”). Hélène Ahrweiler, “Byzantine Concepts of the Foreigner: The Case of the No-
mads,” in idem and Angeliki E. Laiou, eds., Studies on the Internal Diaspora of the Byzan-
tine Empire, Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection (Washington, 1998), 1–16.
140 Chapter 6
Furthermore, features which are called classicizing with respect to the writ-
ings of Byzantine historians, such as their contemporary Georgios Akropolites,
are found as well in Valenciennes’ and Villehardouin’s work. Both authors, as
does Akropolites, make use of well-constructed speeches.22 And, as does Ak-
ropolites, Valenciennes opens his chronicle with a short prooimion stating his
intentions and guiding principles.23 Valenciennes includes a few references to
classical history, like Akropolites who—albeit sparingly—refers to a limited
number of classical authors such as Homer (and of course expresses himself in
pure classical Greek).24 One might, somewhat provocatively, suggest that the
chronicles by Villehardouin, Valenciennes, and Akropolites—with their com-
mon focus on political events and military exploits, and their use of a sober
matter-of-fact style—are not fundamentally all that different.
Apart from Villehardouin’s and Valenciennes’ chronicles (only covering the
period 1204–1209) no other historical works composed in Latin C onstantinople
are known. This prompts the question: were none ever written? Later early
14th-century chronicles specifically dealing with Latin Romania, in particular
the different versions of the “Chronicle of Morea” and Marino Sanudo Torsello’s
Istoria del Regno di Romania, do not contain any references of such works: suc-
cessive Latin emperors are hardly mentioned at all. The few details concerning
Baldwin ii—such as the selling of lead from palace roofs, or the marriage of
the dux of Naxos, Angelo Sanudo (1227–1262) in the imperial palace in Con-
stantinople—may be considered to stem from oral tradition. At the same time
they do not display any familiarity with the chronicles by Villehardouin or Va-
lenciennes either.25
In his edition/translation of the chronicles by Villehardouin and Valenci-
ennes, Natalis De Wailly has made a valuable suggestion concerning the so-
called Chronique dite de Baudouin d’Avesnes, an anonymous compilatory world
history available in three different versions focusing on the county of Hainaut
and its comital lineage (composed circa 1279–1284). Following an account of the
Fourth Crusade and the establishment of a Latin emperor in Constantinople,
22 Henri de Valenciennes, Histoire de l’empereur Henri de Constantinople, §534–538, §558–559,

§576–579. Geoffroy de Villehardouin, La conquête de Constantinople, §62–65, §213–214.
23 Henri de Valenciennes, Histoire de l’empereur Henri de Constantinople, §501–502.
24 Henri de Valenciennes, Histoire de l’empereur Henri de Constantinople, §570. Georgios
Akropolites, The History, trans. Macrides, 51–53.
25 Jean Longnon, ed., Livre de la Conquête de la Princée de l’Amorée. Chronique de Morée
(1204–1305) (Paris, 1911). John Schmitt, ed., The Chronicle of Morea, Byzantine Texts
(London, 1904). Alfred Morel-Fatio, ed., Libro de los fechos et conquistas del Principado
de la Morea, Société de l’Orient latin. Série historique 4 (Genève, 1885). Marino Sanudo
Torsello, Istoria del Regno di Romania, 99–170.
a paraphrase of Villehardouin’s chronicle (which itself is succeeded in one ver-

sion by a paraphrase of Valenciennes’ chronicle), the author adds a short con-
tinuation narrating the empire’s history up to John of Brienne’s accession in
1231. Concerning this continuation, De Wailly remarks whether this might be
an abrégé of either a more complete manuscript of Valenciennes’ chronicle or
of an unknown chronicle recounting the history of Latin Romania.26 De Wailly,
however, seems not to be aware that the data contained in this continuation
can in part be found in Philippe Mouskes’ Chronique rimée (circa 1243) and par-
tially also in the Chronique d’Ernoul (and the related Old French continuations
of William of Tyre’s Historia rerum in transmarinis partibus gestarum written
in the 1220s–1240s).27
That the author of the Avesnes chronicle would have combined data from
both the Ernoul chronicle and Mouskes’ Chronique rimée presents the difficulty
that the Avesnes chronicle contains a passage—concerning the marriage be-
tween Robert of Courtenay’s niece and the king of Serbia (Stephen I Nemanja)—
which is not to be found in the two other sources. The anonymous author then
for this single fragment would have had access to a third source. An option is
that our three chronicles used a common source. This however presents the dif-
ficulty that there is a limited overlap between Mouskes and the Ernoul chroni-
cle, while the Avesnes chronicle does not offer extra information apart from the
fragment on the Serbian marriage. On the other hand, the hypothesis of a com-
mon source would explain why both Mouskes and the Ernoul chronicle inex-
plicably call Emperor Henry Henri d’Angho/d’Angou, to my knowledge the only
two 13th-century sources to do so (together with the Avesnes continuation).28
The precise relationship between the sources is complicated by the fact that
Ernoul chronicle’s genesis itself is still rather unclear.29 In any case, two short
phrases in Mouskes’ chronicle seem to suggest that this author did use a written
26 Natalis De Wailly, La conquête de Constantinople par Geoffroi de Ville-Hardouin avec la con-

tinuation de Henri de Valenciennes (Paris, 1872), 423–424.
27 Philippe Mouskes, Chronique rimée, 2:309, 401–409, 620–621, 626, 630–634, 642–645, 662–
668, 673–674, 689. De Mas Latrie, Chronique d’Ernoul et de Bernard le trésorier, §30–33,
325–394. L’estoire d’Eracles empereur et la conqueste de la Terre d’Outremer, Recueil des
Historiens des Croisades publié par les soins de l’Académie des inscriptions et belles-
lettres. Historiens Occidentaux 2 (Paris, 1859), 243–295.
28 Philippe Mouskes, Chronique rimée, 2:402. De Mas Latrie, Chronique d’Ernoul et de Ber-
nard le trésorier, 377–378.
29 A new critical edition is underway under supervision of Peter Edbury. See the following
preliminary articles: Peter Edbury, “New Perspectives on the Old French Continuations
of William of Tyre,” Crusades 9 (2010), 107–113; Massimiliano Gaggero, “La Chronique
d’Ernoul: problèmes et méthode d’édition,” Perspectives médiévales 34 (2012) [url: http://
peme.revues.org/1608; doi : 10.4000/peme.1608].
142 Chapter 6
source for at least parts of his account of the history of Latin Romania: with re-
gard to the failed siege of Serres (usually dated in 1224) he states “par l’estorie sai
de fi,” and he introduces his account of Baldwin ii of Courtenay’s first trip to the
West in 1236 with the words “ce nos ensegne li escris.”30
Later chronicles produced in the home region of the first Latin emperors
(Flanders and Hainaut), genealogical histories of the comital lineages, con-
tain indications that they had at their disposal narrative sources specifically
dealing with the Latin emperors which have not been preserved. Jacques de
Guise in his Annales Hanoniae (late 14th century) refers readers who would
like to know more about the reigns of the emperors Baldwin i and Henry to
the gesta dictorum amborum imperatorum Balduini atque Henrici a Veneticis
confecta ubi amborum laudes solemniter extolluntor.31 None of the known Ve-
netian 13th- or 14th-century chronicles (such as the continuations of the Chro-
nicon Altinate, the Historia ducum Veneticorum, Martino da Canal’s Estoires de
Venise, the Marco chronicle (1292), Andreas Dandolo’s Chronica per extensum
descripta) fit such a description, since they contain very limited information
on the reigns of both emperors (especially Henry).32 This leaves the possibility
of one or more chronicles having been composed focusing on the reigns of the
emperors Baldwin i and Henry as subject matter that are no longer extant. The
nature or context of such hypothetical compositions (place, time, author) is,
of course, impossible to establish, but Emperor Henry did have several func-
tionaries and dignitaries with a—at least partial—Venetian background at his
court.33
30 Philippe Mouskes, Chronique rimée, 2:408 (“through the history I know this with certain-
ty”), 621 (“this teaches us the written work”).
31 Jacques de Guyse, Histoire de Hainaut traduite en français, avec le texte latin en regard, et
accompagnée de notes, ed. and trans. Agricol-Joseph Fortia-d’Urban (Paris, 1832), 14:3–5
(“the deeds of both cited emperors Baldwin and Henry, composed by Venetians, wherein
the glory of them both is exalted”).
32 Henry Simonsfeld, ed., Chronicon Venetum quod vulgo dicunt Altinate, mgh SS 14 (Han-
nover, 1883), 1–69. Henry Simonsfeld, ed., Historia Ducum Veneticorum a. 1102–1178, 1204–
1229, mgh SS 14 (Hannover, 1883), 72–97. Martin da Canal, Les Estoires de Venise. Andreas
Dandolo, Chronica per extensum descripta. For the Marco-chronicle or Cronaca di Marco,
see Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, Cod. Marc. It., Cl. xi, n° 124 (6802).
33 For example megas doux Philokales Navigaioso, lord of Lemnos, and notarius et iudex
Vivianus (Van Tricht, The Latin Renovatio of Byzantium, 112, 120–121). Guillaume Saint-
Guillain, with reference to Marco Pozza’s article on the Venetian Libri Pactorum, sees
Vivianus as a functionary in the Venetian ducal chancery (Guillaume Saint-Guillain,
“Venetian Archival Documents and the Prosopography of the Thirteenth-Century Byz-
antine World: Tracing Individuals Through the Archives of a Diaspora,” in Georg Christ,
Franz-Julius Morche, Roberto Zaugg, Wolfgang Kaiser, et al., eds., Union in Separation.
Diasporic Groups and Identities in the Eastern Mediterranean (1100–1800) (Rome, 2015),
Next there is the compilatory Cathalogus et cronica principum et comitum

Flandrie ac forestariorum, written shortly after 1423 and a part of the so-called
Flandria Generosa group of chronicles. This source also includes a section on
the reigns of both Baldwin i and Henry, known as the Balduinus Constantino-
politanus fragment. This text is an odd combination of historically accurate—
confirmed by contemporary eyewitness accounts such as Villehardouin’s
chronicle—details (such as the participants in Baldwin’s imperial election),
and a clearly fanciful rearranging of historical material (such as Baldwin’s con-
flicts with the emperors Alexios iii Angelos and Alexios v Doukas, Henry’s vic-
tory before Constantinople over the rex Valachiae et principes Coromanniae,
Armeniae et Syriae). It also contains information on these emperors’ rule not
found in any other source, but which nevertheless has a convincing ring to it
(such as the honor granted to certain nobles to wear footwear with specific mo-
tives, which was customary at the Byzantine court).34 In his critical analysis,
Carl Klimke discussed some similarities with imperial letters by Baldwin and
Henry, and also with the Chronique d’Ernoul (which he calls the Continuatio
Belli Sacri), but at the same time he pointed out many marked differences. He
concluded that a vernacular Reichsgeschichte des lateinischen Kaiser must have
formed the basis for this text (which he thought might also have been used by
the author of the Chronique d’Ernoul), although he remained puzzled by the
way the “Nachrichten sich immer weiter entfernen von wahrer Geschichte.”35
Paul Riant accepted Klimke’s conclusion and considered the Balduinus Con-
stantinopolitanus as “l’abrégé latin d’un text en langue vulgaire aujourd’hui
perdu.” According to this author the text must have been written before 1214,
but he does not give any arguments supporting this date.36 This hypothesis
65–66). The combined available data however in my view rather point to situating Vivi-
anus—at least temporarily—in a Constantinopolitan context. Cf Marco Pozza, “I Libri
Pactorum del comune di Venezia,” in Comuni e memoria storica. Alle origini del comune di
Genova, Atti della società ligure di storia patria. Nuove serie 42/1 (Genova, 2002), 199–201.
Idem, “I notai della cancellaria,” in Giorgio Tamba, ed., Il notariato veneziano tra x e xv sec-
olo (Bologna, 2013), 187–191. For another—probably also North Italian—imperial notary
and judge based in Constantinople for at least some: Gherardo Ortalli, Da Canossa a Tebe.
Vicende di una famiglia feudale tra xii e xiii secolo, Materiali e ricerche 9 (Padova, 1983),
n° 5, 60 (Lanfranchus, imperialis aule Romane et Constantinopolitane iudex ordinarius et
publicus notarius, in 1223 present at the papal curia). See also, Benjamin Hendrickx, “Les
institutions de l’empire latin de Constantinople: la chancellerie,” Acta classica 19 (1976),
130; Carile, “La cancellaria sovrana dell’Impero latino di Constantinopoli,” 47, 58.
34 Joseph-Jean De Smet, ed., Cathalogus et cronica principum et comitum Flandrie et Fores-
tariorum, in Recueil des chroniques de Flandre (Bruxelles, 1837), 1:136–137.
35 Carl Klimke, Die Quellen zur Geschichte des Vierten Kreuzzuges (Breslau, 1875), 36–42.
36 Paul E. Riant, Le changement de direction de la 4e croisade d’après quelques travaux récents
(Paris, 1878), 29–30.
144 Chapter 6
of a lost source sounds convincing, but both its date and character need to be
reconsidered. The preserved text’s striking divergences from the actual course
of events can only be explained by assuming that historical accuracy was never
intended and that quite some time had elapsed since both emperors’ reigns
(and also by the compilatory nature of the Balduinus text as we know it today).
The intention was obviously to write a panegyrical work: both Baldwin and
Henry are not only portrayed positively, but are glorified (see Baldwin’s ban-
quet attended by all the nobles from Greece, Thrace, Armenia, etc.; see men-
tion of Henry’s resounding victory). Furthermore, the text includes elements
referring to the Latin emperors’ Byzantine-influenced imperial ideology: Bald-
win is a true autokrator deposing and appointing his own officers (officiarii)
at will throughout the entire empire (in spite of the presence of local princi-
pes), which—clearly proclaiming universal rule—has a vast territorial extent
including formerly lost Byzantine lands such as Armenia and claimed Eastern
or “barbarian” lands such as Coromania (either the Chorasmian/Khwarezmian
empire or the land of the Cumans), Jossia (the land of the Goths), and Parte
nardia/Pinctanardia (either the Parthian empire or the land of the Patzinakoi
or Pechenegs, or perhaps both). To be noted is the use of classicizing or archaic
geographical terminology, a characteristic of Byzantine literature. A similar list
can, for example, be found in John Kinnamos’ description of prince of Antioch
Renald of Châtillon’s submission to Emperor Manuel i in 1158 (with ambas-
sadors of, among others, the Khwarezmians and the Medes being present).37
Next the Balduinus fragment describes the relationship between Bald-
win and Henry and their Greek partners and subjects in favourable terms,
which parallels the actual policy of the first (Baldwin i, Henry) and also
later (Yolande, Robert, Baldwin ii) emperors who strongly advocated Latin-
Byzantine cooperation. The collaboration between Alexios iv Angelos, who is
portrayed as pius (“pious”), and Baldwin is depicted in the most positive light.
The Graeci (Greeks) are depicted as first desiring and then effectively welcom-
ing Baldwin’s accession, since it liberated them from the tyrannical rule of
both Alexios iii and Alexios v (“liberati de misera servitude” [“liberated from
miserable servitude”]. Indeed, the emperor assigns “honestos viros et justos”
[“honest and righteous men”] and commands to uphold Byzantine law (“justis
legibus, privilegiis et consuetudinibus Atheniensium et Graecorum” [“the just
37 De Smet, Cathalogus et cronica principum et comitum Flandrie et Forestariorum, 132–139.

Iorga identifies Coromania as the land of the Cumans , Jossia as Gothia, and Partenardia
and Pinctanardia as the land of the Pechenegs, and (Nicolae Iorga, France de Constantino-
ple et de Morée (Bucarest, 1935), 36). Joannes Kinnamos, Epitome rerum ab Ioanne et Alexio
Comnenis Gestarum, ed. August Meineke, Corpus Historiae Byzantinae (Bonn, 1836), lib.
4, cap. 18.
laws, privileges and customs of the Athenians and the Greeks”]. At his funeral
service in Saint Sophia, Baldwin’s death is lamented by the people (populus)
of Constantinople “cum magno dolore et gemitu” [“with great sorrow and la-
ments”]. The people of Constantinople (Constantinopolitani) thereafter elect
Henry as emperor, who defeats an army composed of “malorum Christiano-
rum et Sarracenorum” [“bad Christians and Saracens”]. These mali Christiani
may of course have included Byzantines, but are not equated with them.38
With the negative stance regarding Venice another characteristic of the
Latin emperors’ actual policies is also present in the Balduinus text: in the ac-
count of the crusade, the Venetians function as the villains of the piece (having
been corrupted by the sultan’s gold) but then after the conquest of Constanti-
nople they are not mentioned: despite Venice obtaining three-eighths of both
the capital and the empire. This parallels their treatment by Valenciennes,
who manages to cite Venice or the Venetians not a single time in his entire
chronicle.39 The remarkable similarities between our fragment and the Latin
emperors’ actual policies allow us to hypothesize that a now lost panegyrical
text with an—at least partial—historical character was composed at the court
of one of the later Latin emperors, likely Baldwin ii (during whose reign the
events of 1204 were becoming a more or less a distant past), may have served
as a source for the author of the Balduinus Constantinopolitanus text. This text
may well have included an account of the Latin empire up until the time of
the reigning emperor. The fact that the Balduinus fragment stops with Henry
(whose reign is treated much more briefly already) can easily be explained by
the focus of the Cathalogus. This basically is a history of the Flemish counts
and, after Henry, the Constantinopolitan empire passed on to the Courtenay’s.
Various later chronicles thus point to the existence of now lost sources
narrating the Latin empire’s history, possibly written in Constantinople. Both
the first and later Latin emperors had displayed a vivid interest in recording
their achievements as manifested by several preserved, or in contemporary
sources referenced, imperial encyclicals, some of which were very elaborate
and sophisticated pieces.40 These hypothetical texts were no doubt composed
38 On the Latin emperors opting for Latin-Byzantine cooperation: Van Tricht, The Latin
Renovatio of Byzantium, 473–480; idem, “Robert of Courtenay,” 1025–1032.
39 My view on imperial-Venetian relations with references to other authors: Van Tricht, The
Latin Renovatio of Byzantium, 215–219; idem, “Robert of Courtenay,” 1030–1031.
40 For example the following encyclicals by Baldwin i and Henry: Hendrickx, “Regestes des
empereurs latins de Constantinople,” n° 6, n° 123. A summary of an imperial encyclical by
Baldwin ii retelling his conquest of the Thracian town of Tzouroulon in 1240 has been pre-
served in Matthaeus Parisiensis, Chronica Majora 4:54–55. See also, Phillips’ appreciation
146 Chapter 6
in a Western language (Latin or Old French vernacular). On the basis of later

Byzantine sources, a case can, however, also be made for the existence of a
Constantinopolitan historical account in Greek, specifically dealing with the
Latin emperors’ rule. The existence of a Greek version of the “Chronicle of
Morea” (late 13th/early 14th century), whether this was its original version or
not, indicates that such a proposition should not be rejected out of hand: Latin
rule could obviously be compatible with the writing and reading of history in
Greek. A copy of Niketas Choniates’ recent chronicle for instance circulated
in Latin Constantinople. In this context Herbert Hunger’s suggestion that the
anonymous and undated metaphrasis of Anna Komnena’s Alexiad, only pre-
served in a 1 7th-century manuscript, might have been produced as early as dur-
ing the period of Latin rule, also needs mentioning. The mixed Latin-Byzantine
imperial elite and court—with Latins knowing Greek, but presumably not
many being able to read or understand the classicizing literary language—
may provide a context that explains the production of such a metaphrasis. The
Latin patriarch of Antioch, Aimery of Limoges, around 1176–1177, requested
from his Pisan friend Hugo Etherien, who was an advisor to emperor Manuel
i Komnenos, a translation, among other things, of a Greek chronicle (from the
time that the “Greeks” had departed from the Roman empire), showing Latin in-
terest in the translation of Byzantine history. Previously we met duke of Athens
John of La Roche (1263–1280), who may have been familiar with Herodotos’
Histories (in Greek).41 Information concerning the Latin emperors and their
empire found in the (near) contemporary chronicles by Georgios Akropolites
of Baldwin’s 1204 letters to the West announcing the capture of Constantinople: “an im-
pressive array of biblical and rethorical apparatus” (Phillips, The Fourth Crusade, 275).
41 On the Chronicle of Morea: Teresa Shawcross, The Chronicle of Morea. Historiography
in Crusader Greece, Oxford Studies in Byzantium (Oxford, 2009). Critically reviewed in
Marie-Hélène Blanchet and Guillaume Saint-Guillain, “À propos d’un ouvrage récent sur
la Chronique de Morée. Contribution au débat,” Byzantion 83 (2013), 13–39. On Choniates’
chronicle: Jean-Louis van Dieten, “Die drei Fassungen der Historia des Niketas Choniates
uber die Eroberung von Konstantinopel und die Ereignisse danach,” in Ioannis Vassis,
Gunther S. Henrich, Diether R. Reinsch, eds., Lesarten: Festschrift fur Athanasios Kam-
bylis zum 70. Geburtstag (Berlin, 1998), 139–142. On the anonymous metaphrasis: Herbert
Hunger, ed., Anonyme Metaphrase zu Anna Komnene, Alexias xi–xiii. Ein Beitrag zur
Erschließung der byzantinischen Umgangssprache, Wiener Byzantinistische Studien 15
(Vienna, 1981), 15. A later date (1330s or 1340s) and context (textbooks for the young John
v Paleologos (°1332) has also been proposed: John Davies, “Anna Komnene and Niketas
Choniates ‘translated’: the fourteenth-century Byzantine metaphrases,” in Ruth Macrides,
ed., History as Literature in Byzantium: Papers from the Fortieth Spring Symposium of Byz-
antine Studies, University of Birmingham, April 2007, Publications of the Society for the
Promotion of Byzantine Studies (Farnham, 2010), 55–72. On patriarch Aimery of Lusig-
nan: Krijnie Ciggaar, “Manuscripts as Intermediaries. The Crusader States and Literary
Cross-fertilization,” in idem, ed. Adelbert Davids, and Herman G. Teule, East and West in
(†1282) and Georgios Pachymeres († circa 1307) probably derives both from
personal e xperience, oral sources, and a limited number of diplomatic doc-
uments.42 But the verse chronicle by Ephraim (late 13th/early 14th century),
whose main sources were Choniates and Akropolites, does contain two unique
details concerning the Latin emperors that cannot be found elsewhere. In
the positive character sketch of Baldwin i (pious and chaste), adopted from
Choniates, one entirely new element is introduced: the emperor is called the
“φύλαξ νόμων τε δικής” (“guardian of the laws and justice”). This portrayal of
a Latin ruler by a Byzantine author as the provider of justice and the protec-
tor of (Byzantine) law is striking. Evidently it parallels Baldwin’s image in the
Balduinus Constantintinopolitanus fragment where he is likewise pictured as
upholding the “leges, privilegii et consuetudines Atheniensium et Graecorum”
and as promoting justice. Baldwin ii is also characterized on two occasions
positively as a gentle (ἤπιος), moderate (μέτριος), self-controlled (σωφρονικός),
and graceful (χαρίεις) man.43 Both of these positive portrayals might stem from
a panegyrical-historical account in Greek written by a Byzantine member of
the emperor’s entourage, which was perhaps related to the (hypothetical) text
that may have served as a source for the Balduinus fragment.
Other indications for lost sources in Greek focusing on Latin imperial rule
in Constantinople can be found in the anonymous verse chronicle He alosis
tes Konstantinopoleos (late 14th century) and in Nikephoros Gregoras’ (circa
1295–1360) Rhomaike Historia. Gregoras’ chronicle contains a short passage,
not taken from his main sources for these years Akropolites and Pachymeres,
relating how Baldwin ii shortly before the Nicaean conquest of Constantinople
repeatedly heard a horse neighing in the Boukoleon palace. After some investi-
gation it was found that the sound appeared to be coming from a fresco depict-
ing Saint George, opposite the Theotokos Nikopoios chapel. The emperor was
very alarmed by this and took it to be a bad omen.44 He alosis tes Konstantino-
poleos narrates a somewhat similar story, presented as a miracle (θαῦμα), of how
Baldwin, after Michael viii Paleologos had come to power in 1258/59, while
inspecting the land walls near the Charisios (or Adrianople) gate repeatedly
experienced visions of Saint George approaching the gate, which contained a
the Crusader States. Context–Contacts–Confrontations, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta

75 (Leuven, 1996), 134–136.
42 George Akropolites, The History, trans. Macrides, 35–38. Pachymeres, Relations histo-
riques, lib. 1, §1.
43 Ephraem Aenius, Historia Chronica, v7198, v7711–7712, v8159.
44 Nikephoros Gregoras, Bizantina Historia, 1: lib. 8, cap. 5. On this sanctuary and its role in
imperial ceremonies: Pseudo-Codinus, Traité des Offices, ed. Jean Verpeaux, Le monde
byzantin 1 (Paris, 1966), 226–228. See also, Janin, La géographie ecclésiasique de l’empire
byzantin, 198–199.
148 Chapter 6
tiny cloister (στοά) dedicated to the saint. The emperor interpreted this as sig-
nifying the military saint’s support in the context of the serious Nicaean threat
to his capital. To give thanks and further secure Saint George’s continuing aid,
the emperor commissioned a priest in his entourage named Demetrios to con-
struct a church near the gate dedicated to the saint, which although small is
described as magnificent, rich in fine adornment and entirely built of marble.45
Both stories were obviously intended to create the view that Michael viii’s
conquest of Constantinople had been announced in advance, sanctioned by
the celestial powers in concert with Saint George (and the Theotokos). The
explicit connection made in these stories with specific monuments relates
them to prophetical and miraculous traditions as well as urban legends asso-
ciated with metropolitan buildings found in the Patria.46 The anecdote con-
cerning the Theotokos Nikopoios chapel may well have come into circulation
after the 1261 Nicaean conquest without much actual basis. But in the story
of Saint George approaching the Charisios gate there seems no reason to dis-
believe that a church dedicated to Saint George was actually built by Baldwin
ii. There must be a basis in fact if a 14th-century Byzantine author credited a
Latin emperor with constructing a sanctuary depicted as aesthetically beauti-
ful. The particular motivation for undertaking the construction of the church,
the “miraculous” occurrence, fits very well the emperor’s personality.
Baldwin’s horoscope and the astrological treatise dedicated to him attest to
his personal interest in predictive phenomena. A passage in Thomas Tuscus’
Gesta imperatorum et pontificum (circa 1280) supports this inclination. In the
context of Charles of Anjou’s impending victory at Tagliacozzo against Con-
radin (1268), it is said that Benedict of Arezzo, the Franciscan provincial of
Romania and John of Brienne’s confessor, who apparently had an interest in
predictive phenomena, correctly foretold Baldwin things concerning Romania
which afterwards came to pass.47 That the source of the Charisios gate anecdote
was part of a purely oral tradition, as editor Matzukis believes, seems unlikely,
since the He alosis tes Konstantinopoleos was composed well over a century
45 Matzukis, The Fall of Constantinople, 123–127. On earlier visions of Saint George ap-
pearing near the Charisios gate and another church in his honour built near the same
site: Raymond Janin, Constantinople byzantine. Développement urbain et répertoire
topographique, Archives de l’Orient chrétien 4 (Paris, 1964), 281. On the (impressive) Cha-
risios gate: Marios Philippides and Walter K. Hanak, The Siege and the Fall of Constanti-
nople in 1453. Historiography, Topography, and Military Studies (Farnham, 2011), 330–331.
46 See on the Patria: Gilbert Dagron, Constantinople imaginaire. Etudes sur le recueil des
Patria (Paris, 1984), 127.
47 Thomas Tuscus, Gesta Imperatorum et Pontificum, ed. Ernst Ehrenfeuchter, mgh SS
22 (Hannover, 1872), 523. See also, Wolff, “The Franciscans in the Latin Empire of
Constantinople,” 220–222.
after the time when the related events took place. A more probable option may
be that the anecdote was originally contained in a text composed in relation
to the foundation of the church. That such a document would have been com-
posed seems likely, as does the presumption that it would have contained bio-
graphical data concerning the founder’s life. Autobiographical introductions
to founders’ typika were not uncommon, as is attested, for instance, by Michael
viii’s typikon for his foundation of the Saint Demetrios monastery.48
It is possible that a foundation document for Baldwin’s church would have
been written in Greek (in addition to a Latin version), given the fact that the
construction of the church was bestowed upon a priest with a Greek name. In
other instances bilingual texts were being composed in Latin Constantinople.
The loss of Baldwin’s hypothetical autobiographical introduction/typikon (and
of the other possible historical accounts in Greek) should not surprise: after
1261 the preservation of such texts would not have been a priority, while a con-
scious damnatio memoriae may also be conceivable. Whether the Charisios
gate anecdote was known to the author of the He alosis tes Konstantinopoleos
chronicle through this hypothetical typikon, or through an intermediary such
as a collection of miracles attributed to Saint George, cannot be ascertained.49
2 Fictional Literature
Apart from the texts with a (sometimes partial) historical character other types
of literature were produced and consumed. Both lyrical poetry and chivalric
epics were being written or read or performed. At the Thessalonican court the
Provençals Raimbaut of Vacqueras and Elias Cairel, both originally members
of Boniface of Montferrat’s entourage, authored political sirventès addressed
48 On autobiographical data in typika in general: John Thomas and Angela Constantinides

Hero, Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents, Dumbarton Oaks Studies 35 (Washing-
ton D.C., 2001), 1237–1253. For Michael viii’s typikon for the Saint Demetrios monastery:
Henri Grégoire, “Imperatoris Michaelis Palaeologi de vita sua,” Byzantion 29–30 (1959–
60), 447–476.
49 That such a hypothetical miracles collection, authored then by a Byzantine writer after
1261, would have been the original source lying at the basis of the anecdote seems doubt-
ful in view of the fact that Emperor Baldwin ii and members of his entourage through
their actions are portrayed in a positive way as pious men. There was no reason for such
a writer to construe the story in this particular fashion, unless of course he for conve-
nience’s sake simply adopted it unaltered from an earlier source (the supposed typikon).
On damnatio memoriae after 1261: Sophia Kalopissi-Verti, “Aspects of Byzantine Art after
the Recapture of Constantinople (1261–c.1300): Reflections of Imperial Policy, Reactions,
Confrontation with the Latins,” in Fabienne Joubert and Jean-Pierre Caillet, eds., Orient &
Occident méditerranéens au XIIIe siècle. Les programmes picturaux (Paris, 2012), 56.
150 Chapter 6
to or mentioning the emperors Baldwin i (Conseil don a l’emperador by Vac-

queras) and Henry (No m’agrad iverns ni pascors by Vacqueras, Pus chai la fu-
elha del jaric by Cairel), also their sister Empress Yolande (Qui saubes dar lo
bon conseil denan by Cairel).50 These were probably known and performed in
Constantinople as well. The famed trouvère and imperial protovestiarios (and
later regent) Cono i of Béthune knew Raimbaut quite well. Sometime during
the Fourth Crusade or during the Latin empire’s early years (1201–1207) they
jointly composed a jeu-parti (Seigner Coines, jois e pretz et amors).51 It is possi-
ble that some of Cono’s songs were written while in Constantinople, although
none of them contain explicit references to his stay there.52 In one of the men-
tioned poems (No m’agrad iverns ni pascors), the Latin conquerors (Boniface
of Montferrat, Henry of Flanders/Hainaut, Hugo of Champlitte) are likened to
Alexander the Great among others such as Charlemagne and Roland. Another
(Qui saubes dar lo bon conseil denan) briefly portrays Empress Yolande as the
successor to Manuel Komnenos (Manuels emperaire). Both references can be
seen as references to the classical and Byzantine past of the region and hence
displaying a measure of interest.
A somewhat longer lyrical piece, Lai d’Aristote, may well have been written
in Constantinople, which in four of the five available manuscripts is attributed
to a certain Henris. Formerly identified as the Norman Henry of Andeli, it has
recently, convincingly but not yet definitively, been argued by François Zuffer-
ey that this Henris is no other than Henry of Valenciennes, the imperial cleric
who authored the chronicle discussed. The lay in question—characterized as
such in style but as a fabliau in content—has been dated around 1215–1225.53
Since there is no indication that Valenciennes ever returned to his Western
homeland, Latin Constantinople should be considered as the likely place of
composition. If so it would be tempting to see the classical setting as hav-
ing been inspired by the city’s Byzantine/Hellenic past and culture, a lthough
50 Vincenzo De Bartholomeis, ed., Poesie provenzali storiche relative all’Italia (Rome, 1931),
1:n° 36–37. Idem, “Un Sirventès historique d’Elias Cairel,” Annales du Midi 16 (1904), 468–
494. Hilde Jaeschke, “Der Trobador Elias Cairel,” Romanische Studien 20 (1921), 164–165.
51 Vincenzo De Bartholomeis, “De Rambaut e de Coine,” Romania 34 (1905), 44–54. Oskar
Schulz-Gora, “Die Tenzone zwischen Raimbaut und Coine,” Zeitschrift für romanische
Philologie 41 (1921), 703–710.
52 For a tentative relative chronology of Cono’s work, see Wallensköld, Les chansons de
Conon de Béthune, xviii–xix.
53 François Zufferey, “Henri de Valenciennes, auteur du Lai d’Aristote et de la Vie de saint
Jean l’Évangéliste,” Revue de linguistique romane 69 (2004), 335–358. Henri de Valenci-
ennes, The Lay of Aristote, ed. Leslie C. Brook and Glyn C. Burgess, Liverpool Online Series.
Critical Editions of French Texts 16 (Liverpool, 2011), 11–13.
a ncient history had already been very much part of Western literature, as for
instance the 12th-century romans antiques exemplify.
The lay has usually been interpreted as alluding to the anti-Aristotelian
stance taken by conservative scholars at the University of Paris, where the
teaching of Aristotle’s works on natural philosophy had been banned in 1210,
although by 1255 the study of Aristotle had become mandatory at the Paris arts
faculty. Such a critical attitude towards Aristotle was also present in Constan-
tinople. The anonymous author of our Introductoire d’Astronomie posits him
as an authority, but with regard to most matters Aristotle’s views (at one point
called “heresy”) are treated as minor opinions. If the lay was indeed written in
Constantinople it could be interpreted as having been inspired by contempo-
rary local politics. Indeed, it is hard not to relate the lay’s main message to the
actual situation at the imperial court under Emperor Robert of Courtenay. The
lay in essence narrates the story of the king of Greece and Egypt, Alexander,
who after great conquests in India falls passionately in love with a foreign lady,
leading him to spend all of his time with her and to neglect his barons and
knights. His tutor, the philosopher Aristotle of Athens, attempts to correct his
conduct and warns Alexander about the possible political consequences of his
behaviour, but seduced by the lady’s charms and made a fool by his desire he
ends up being shamed. Aristotle in a final address to Alexander, who chooses
to pursue his amorous devotion for his lady, concludes that whoever gives in to
passionate love or lust cannot escape without loss.
Two rather striking parallels with the Constantinopolitan court in the early
1220s can be identified. First, after securing the conquests of his uncle Henry
in northwestern Asia Minor (paralleling Alexander’s Indian conquests), Rob-
ert is initially engaged to princess Eudokia Laskaris, daughter of Theodore i of
Nicaea, but eventually marries somewhat secretively a lady of mixed Greek-
Latin descent (like Alexander’s foreign mistress), with whom he has become—
according to some of his barons—so infatuated that he is no longer interested
in the concerns of his knights, instead preferring to stay in his palace with his
love (matching Alexander’s neglect of his barons).54 Secondly, the relationship
between Alexander and Aristotle may very well mirror the one between the
Latin emperor (Robert) and Henry of Valenciennes, who like Aristotle was a
man of letters and, as an imperial cleric, may have been his lord’s confidant
and counselor.
The parallels would seem to point to the lay’s real gist: it may not just be a gen-
eral reflection on the dangers of passionate love or lust, but advice specifically
directed to Emperor Robert. The use of a work of literature as an instrument to
54 Van Tricht, “Robert of Courtenay,” 1004–1015, 1024–1029.

152 Chapter 6
advise or instruct a ruler is well-known (see for instance Vacqueras’ sirventès

Conseil don a l’emperador, or in general the mirrors for princes genre). Such
public advice for a ruler could be risky, especially as a member of his immedi-
ate entourage. In the lay the author makes use of an ingenious ploy in order
to defuse his lord’s possible anger: it is not Alexander (=Robert) who ends up
humiliated, but Aristotle (=Valenciennes). The joke is on the tutor and philoso-
pher (and thus indirectly on his hypothetical counterpart Valenciennes), who
however cleverly manages to use the disgrace he suffers to reinforce his advice:
giving in to passionate love is perhaps unavoidable (if even a wise old man can-
not resist), but in any case it will not be without consequences.
Lyrical works dating to the later decades of Latin imperial rule in Constan-
tinople are not known, but such literature no doubt remained part of cultural
metropolitan life. At the feudally dependent court of Achaia, which until 1261
entertained close political and family ties with Constantinople (marriage al-
liances between the Villehardouins and the Courtenays and Toucys), the pro-
duction and consumption of poetry during these years is attested. Among
others there are two songs ascribed to prince William ii of Villehardouin.
A luxurious songbook, probably commissioned by or presented as a gift to
this same prince, includes several songs by Cono i of Béthune, by other par-
ticipants of the Fourth Crusade, and by John of Brienne (composed before he
became emperor).55
Lyrical compositions in Greek may also have been produced. The existence
of a song in vernacular Greek featuring Emperor Henry of Flanders (in some
versions called Alexander of Flanders) is preserved in manuscripts from the
16th-century and has been studied extensively by Manousos Manousakas
in two successive articles. Given the subject matter and the relatively short
period of Latin rule in the capital, it may be surmised along with Borje Knös
and Gill Page that the original song must have been written not long after
the events to which it alludes (Henry’s marriage to a Bulgarian princess).
Moreover, since several versions have been preserved from different regions
55 Jean Longnon, “Le prince de Morée chansonnier,” Romania 65 (1939) 95–100. Page, “Lit-
erature in Frankish Greece,” 292–299. John Haines, “The Songbook for William of Ville-
hardouin, Prince of the Morea (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fonds français
844). A Crucial Case in the History of Vernacular Song Collections,” in: Sharon E. Gerstel
(ed.), Viewing the Morea. Land and People in the Late Medieval Peloponnese, Dumbarton
Oaks Byzantine Symposia and Colloquia (Washington D.C., 2013), 57–109. The latter au-
thor is not always well informed about the political background (for example: the prince
of Achaia was never imperial marshal, the 1267 treaties of Viterbo did not provide for
Charles of Anjou to become prince of Achaia, prince William ii never had any imperial
ambitions, etc.).
(Macedonia, Asia Minor, Cyclades), one could hypothesize that the original
song from which these all derive was produced in Constantinople (from where
it disseminated).56
Epic literature is also attested in Latin Constantinople. David Jacoby has
argued that a copy of Benoît of Saint-Maure’s Roman de Troie (around 1160)
was present in Constantinople around 1205. The presence of this roman an-
tique should not surprise since the matter of Troy particularly appealed to the
participants of the Fourth Crusade and later barons in the Latin Empire as a
means to legitimize their rule. In line with a popular Western mythological tra-
dition they saw themselves as descendants of the Trojans. Chronicler R obert
of Clari, for instance, refers to the Franks’ presumed Trojan roots (invoked by
baron Peter of Bracheux to the Bulgarian tsar Kaloyan (1197–1207) to justify
Latin rule). The interior of the archiepiscopal palace of Patras was decorated
with paintings depicting the history of Troy (presumably dated to the 13th or
14th century), and a prose version of the Roman de Troie was probably com-
posed in the Peloponnese in the later 13th century. Saint-Maure’s version of the
Trojan War was even translated into Greek.57
Further information on the circulation of epic literature in Western lan-
guages is almost entirely lacking, which is in large measure due to the general
paucity of available sources. The battle speech by imperial marshal Villehar
douin referring to livres d’estores would seem to suggest that epics were, quite
naturally, a part of cultural life among the Latin elite in the capital. The Roman
de Troie, the Roman d’Alexandre, or the Chanson de Roland were in his eyes no
doubt no less a livre d’estore than for example the mentioned vernacular trans-
lation of William of Tyre’s chronicle. Leonardo da Veroli, chancellor (or logo-
thetes) of the principality of Achaia, at the time of his death in Italy in 1281 had
with him a private library containing fourteen romances. The close political
56 Manousos I. Manousakas, “To elleniko demotiko tragoudi gia to Basilia Erriko tes
Phlantras,” Laographia 14 (1952), 1–52. Idem, “Kai Pali to Tragoudi gia to Basilia Erriko
tes Phlantras,” Laographia 15 (1954), 336–370. Borje Knös, L’histoire de la littérature néo-
grecque, Studia Graeca Upsalensia 1 (Stockholm, 1962), 107. Page, “Literature in Frankish
Greece,” 321.
57 Robert de Clari, La conquête de Constantinople, §106. Teresa Shawcross, “Re-inventing the
Homeland in the Historiography of Frankish Greece: the Fourth Crusade and the Legend
of the Trojan War,” Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 27 (2003), 120–152. David Jacoby,
“Knightly values and class consciousness in the crusader states of the Eastern Mediter-
ranean,” The Medieval Mediterranean 1 (1986), 170–173. In general on the political use of
origin myths: Thomas Foerster, “Political Myths and Political Culture in Twelfth Century
Europe,” in Hartwin Brandt, Benjamin Pohl, W. Maurice Sprague, and Lina K. Hörl, eds.,
Erfahren, Erzählen, Erinnern. Narrative Konstruktionen von Gedächtnis und Generation in
Antike und Mittelalter, Bamberger Historische Studien 9 (Bamberg, 2012), 83–115.
154 Chapter 6
and family contacts between Achaia and Constantinople (Veroli himself in

1252 married a daughter of the Constantinopolitan baron and one time regent
Narjot i of Toucy) no doubt also implied shared cultural practices, within the
broader common cultural background.58 Our astrological author himself was
probably not only interested in science, but also in literature. From the remark-
able versified introduction to his Introductoire we could infer that he was not
only a scholar but a competent poet as well. In that capacity he may well have
written lyrical or epical historical or fictional works, and like Veroli he also may
have been active in collecting literary works.
As regards the production of epic literature in Latin Romania attention
should be devoted to the cycle of the Sept Sages de Rome, in particular to its
first two continuations Marques de Rome and Laurin de Rome, dated around
the mid-13th century. Levente Selaf has remarked that from Marques de Rome
until the sixth and final continuation Roman de Kanor, Constantinople is por-
trayed as a center of power/authority/empire, as opposed to a devalorised
Rome. Selaf links this fact to the presumed patron of the final four continua-
tions (certainly the Roman de Cassidorus which is explictly dedicated to him),
Guy of Dampierre, count of Flanders and marquis of Namur (1251/1268–1305),
who was a grandson of Emperor Baldwin i.59 The positive portrayal of Con-
stantinople (as opposed to Rome) in both Marques and Laurin may likewise
be due to some connection with Latin Constantinople. Further research is
needed, but at least an author with some Constantinopolitan affiliation should
be considered. The strong links between the courts and nobility of Flanders
and Latin Constantinople in general, and the direct contacts between Bald-
win ii and Guy of Dampierre, who acquired the marquisate of Namur from the
former, should be taken into account.60
Latin Constantinople in any case up to a point inspired Western authors.
The continually besieged by infidels—and positively portrayed—Emperor
Hernis of Constantinople (likely the second Latin emperor Henry of Flanders/
Hainaut) in the popular Anglo-Norman romance Gui de Warewic (circa 1232–
1242) clearly refers to the Latin emperors, whose empire (after the late 1220s)
58 David Jacoby, “La littérature française dans les États latins de la Méditerranée orientale
à l’époque des croisades: diffusion et création,” in Essor et fortune de la chanson de geste
dans l’Europe et l’Orient latin. Actes du IXe Congrès international de la Société Rencesvals
pour l’étude des épopées romanes (Padoue-Venise, 29 août–4 septembre 1982 (Modena,
1984), 2:624–625.
59 Levente Seláf, “Constantinople et la Hongrie dans le Cycle des Sept Sages de Rome,” in
Emese Egedi-Kovács, ed., Byzance et l’Occident iii. Ecrits et manuscrits, Antiquitas–
Byzantium–Renascentia 23 (Budapest, 2016), 160–161.
60 Wolff, “The Mortgage and Redemption of an Emperor’s Son,” 62–64.
was in a state of almost permanent crisis, and who presented their conflicts
with neighbouring rulers as a defence of the Roman Church against pagans
and heretics. Emperor Baldwin ii around the time of the writing of this ro-
mance visited the kingdom of England (in 1238 and again in 1247). The positive
portrayal of Emperor Hernis perhaps suggests local sympathy for the cause of
the Latin empire, in contrast with the current view in historiography which
is mainly based on opposition by the English clergy against papal crusading
taxes and on Matthew of Paris’—a cleric—rather unfavourable depiction of
Baldwin in his chronicles. In the Arthurian romance Les Prophecies de Merlin,
composed by a Venetian around 1272–1279, the emperor instructs the pope to
pawn (“metre en gage”) his two children in order to raise money for the de-
fence of the Holy Land, a clear reference to either Emperor John of Brienne
or Baldwin ii whose children were effectively pawned to Venetian merchants.
The emperor character in Les Prophecies also refers to other near-contempo-
rary emperors, such as Frederick ii of Hohenstaufen.61
The chanson de geste La belle Hélène de Constantinople, situated in the early
Christian era, may also have some connection with Latin imperial rule in Con-
stantinople. Although the first preserved version probably dates to the later
part of the 13th century (circa 1260–1300) or the first half of the 14th century,
an earlier (now lost) version appears to have been written somewhere between
the 1230s and 1262. A number of content elements in the complex plot, in-
spired by a variety of sources, warrants attention. One of the protagonists is an
emperor of Constantinople named Antoine, who travels extensively through
Western Europe and repeatedly intervenes in its affairs, among other cases
to (twice) save the city of Rome from the Saracens at the pope’s request. The
emperor of Rome himself, called Richard, is virtually absent from the story.
This centrality of the emperor of Constantinople compared to the emperor of
Rome is remarkable and could be explained in the context of Latin emperors
61 Alfred Ewert, ed., Gui de Warewic, Roman du XIIIe siecle, Classiques français du moyen
âge 74/75 (Paris, 1932), 1:v2887–4520. Ewert’s dating has been challenged and an alterna-
tive date around 1205–1215 has been proposed, but in my opinion unconvincingly. I plan
to provide a detailed discussion of this topic in a future contribution on the relations
between Latin Constantinople and England. For a succinct overview of the debate, see
Judith Weiss, “The Exploitation of Ideas of Pilgrimage and Sainthood in Gui de Warewic,”
in Laura Ashe, Ivana Djordjevic, and idem, eds., The Exploitations of Medieval Romance
(Cambridge, 2010), 54–55 (n. 44). See also, David A. Trotter, Medieval French Literature
and the Crusades (1100–1300), Histoire des idées et critique littéraire 26 (Genève, 1988),
39–42; Velma Bourgeois Richmond, The Legend of Guy of Warwick (New York, 1996), 37–48.
Chrissis, Crusading in Frankish Greece, 120–123, 151–154; Anne Berthelot, Les Prophesies de
Merlin (Cod. Bodmer 116) (Cologne-Genève, 1992), 301. See also, Helen Nicholson, “Echoes
of Past and Present Crusades in Les Prophecies de Merlin,” Romania 122 (2004), 320–340.
Nicholson does not mention this reference to the Latin emperors.
156 Chapter 6
occupying the Eastern throne while extensively travelling through Western Eu-
rope (Robert of Courtenay’s voyage to Rome and Baldwin ii’s travels to France,
Flanders-Hainaut-Namur, England, Rome, Spain, etc.). A Hainaut origin which
editor Roussel attributes to the anonymous poet is complementary with such a
hypothesis: the Latin emperors belonging to the lineage of the counts of Hain-
aut (and Flanders).
The reversal of fortunes between the fictional emperor Antoine—a mighty
ruler coming to the aid of Rome and other parts of Western Europe—and the
real (later) Latin emperors requesting aid from the pope and other Western
rulers—is of interest. This storyline could be read as an implicit plea from the
author presumably from Hainaut to return favours and come to the aid of the
contemporary and beleaguered Latin emperor of Constantinople, whose pre-
decessors had once saved Rome and aided Western Europe. An inversion may
be read as well in the chanson. Emperor Antoine, together with the English
king Henry (one of the other protagonists, who marries Antoine’s daughter Hé-
lène), repeatedly visits and campaigns in Flanders, the home region of the Latin
emperors (together with inter alia Hainaut). But Antoine not only campaigns
there against the Saracens, he also christianizes the region by obtaining its r uler’s
conversion (count Maradin). In 1054, however, from a Western perspective
Constantinople had broken from the Roman mother Church (seen from a
Western perspective), and it would take a Flemish successor of Antoine, the
first Latin emperor Baldwin i of Flanders/Hainaut, to bring the Eastern empire
back to the fold.
Furthermore, the English-Constantinopolitan cooperation between An-
toine—who visits England personally—and Henry calls to mind the (only
modestly succesful) efforts of Baldwin ii—who visited the English court in 1238
and 1247—to enlist the help of the English king Henry iii (1216–1272) for his
ailing empire. It is always risky to look for references to specific historical facts
or circumstances in fictional literature, but it is difficult to escape the idea that
an attentive 13th-century audience—assuming the chanson already existed—
would not have noticed the parallels or inversions. Although the chanson is
composed of many other elements which have nothing to do with Constan-
tinople (one of which is the centrality and positive portrayal of the English
king versus the French king Clovis—still a pagan at first—who is relegated to
a minor role), the allusions to the Latin empire may indicate that the author
himself—apart from a seemingly pro-English outlook—had a connection with
Latin Romania, either through personal experience, family history, or a lineage
he served.62
62 Claude Roussel, ed., La belle Hélène de Constantinople, chanson de geste du XIVe siècle,
Textes littéraires français 454 (Genève, 1995), 9–26, 88–96. Philippe de Remi, Le roman
With regard to epic literature, attention should be given to the verse ro-
mances in vernacular Greek composed sometime after 1204. The 12th century
had witnessed a Byzantine revival of the genre of the Hellenistic novel. Four
such works composed by Constantinopolitan intellectuals connected to the
imperial court have been preserved. They are written in the learned classical
Greek used in virtually all Byzantine writing until then, whatever the genre.
An exception is the (probable) early 12th-century anonymous vernacular epic
Digenes Akrites, which should be considered an isolated effort to record a pre-
existing oral literary tradition. A limited number of satirical fragments, howev-
er, also used the vernacular for a comical effect. The post-1204 vernacular Greek
romances that followed the genre of these learned novels, both the original
and the translations/adaptations from Western models, have been the subject
of much debate. There are few certainties and no general consensus regarding
date, place, and the context within which they were composed. N evertheless
some findings now seem to be accepted quite generally.
The fact that all known post-1204 romances are in the vernacular, and all in
political verse, should be considered as a reflexion of a conscious literary in-
novation, not as the result of authors lacking the skills to express themselves
in the learned Greek language. While they are all written in the vernacular,
there are differences nevertheless in language register. The vernacular in three
original romances (Belthandros kai Chrysantza, Livistros kai Rhodamne, and
Kallimachos kai Chrysorroi) have been influenced by the learned Greek lan-
guage. Therefore a Constantinopolitan origin has been suggested. Kallimachos
has even been attributed to Emperor Michael viii’s nephew Andronikos Pa-
leologos, although not undisputed. The language of the translations/adapta-
tions from Western romances (Ho polemos tes Troados, Florios kai Platziaflora,
Imberios kai Margarona and Apollonios of Tyre) is less learned, and therefore
a provincial origin has been proposed. In any case, practically all of these ro-
mances show prominent Western influences. This is self-evident for the trans-
lations/adaptations, and in the original works the influence is manifested in
the use of terms and features derived from Western feudal and chivalrous so-
ciety, by story outlines with parallels in Western works, and by the fact that the
main characters in the stories are often Latins or persons with Grecisized Latin
names.63
de la Manekine, ed. Barbara N. Sargent-Baur (Amsterdam, 1999), 112. On the relationship

between Baldwin ii and Henry iii, see Chrissis, Crusading in Frankish Greece, 102–121.
63 An excellent and nuanced overview of the debate concerning the Greek medieval ro-
mances in René Bouchet, trans., Romans de chevalerie du moyen âge grec (Paris, 2007),
9–27. See for more extensive, often conflicting expositions (with references to further lit-
erature), Roderick Beaton, The Medieval Greek Romance, Cambridge Studies in Medieval
Literature 6 (Cambridge, 1989), 87–183; Panagiotis A. Agapitos and Ole L. Smith, The Study
158 Chapter 6
A number of these romances have been linked with the Latin principalities
in southern Greece. Imberios kai Margarona, a translation or adaptation of an
early Provençal or Catalan version of the 15th-century Pierre de Provence et la
Belle Maguelonne, with possibly also influences from a number of Italian po-
ems, seems to have a connection with the lordship and later duchy of Athens,
and more specifically with the Cistercian abbey of Daphni, although the Frank-
ish Pelopponese and Crete have also been suggested. Florios kai Platziaflora
has been associated with the principality of Achaia, although this hypothesis
assumes that Florios is an adaptation of the early 14th-century Italian Il Can-
tare di Fiorio e Biancifiore, and not of the original French Fleur et Blanchefleur,
a theory which is not universally accepted. The Greek translation of Benoît of
Saint-Maure’s Roman de Troie (Ho polemos tes Troados), was possibly, as argued
by Elizabeth Jeffreys, commissioned by the Achaian chancellor/logothetes with
pre-1261 Constantinopolitan connections Leonardo da Veroli (†1281). Kostas
Yiavis, while calling Jeffreys’ proposition convincing, nevertheless points out
that the translation might just as well have been commissioned by for example
Constantinopolitan merchants.64
It is often stated that the Constantinopolitan branch of these romances must
have been composed at the court of the first Paleologan emperors in the late 13th
or early 14th century. Livistros kai Rhodamne has, however, been dated by Pan-
agiotis Agapitos as having been written earlier at the Laskarid court in N icaea
(circa 1240–1260), his arguments being a strong indebtedness to 12th-century
Komnenian novels, stylistic resemblance with a Nicaean ceremonial poem
on the wedding of John iii Vatatzes and Constance of Hohenstaufen (circa
1244/45), and supposed similarities between Nicaean court ritual and the court
ritual portrayed in the romance, and between Theodore ii Laskaris’ (1254–1258)
imperial ideology and that in the romance.65 Agapitos’ redating is interesting,
of Medieval Greek Romance. A Reassessment of Recent Work (Copenhagen, 1992), 45–89;

Elizabeth Jeffreys, “Medieval Greek Epic Poetry,” in K. Reichl, ed., Medieval Oral Litera-
ture (Berlin, 2012), 459–477; Carolina Cupane, “In the Realm of Eros: The Late Byzantine
Vernacular Romance–Original Texts,” in idem and Bettina Krönung, eds., Fictional Story-
telling in the Medieval Eastern Mediterranean and Beyond, Brill’s Companions to the Byz-
antine World 1 (Leiden, 2016), 95–126.
64 Bouchet, Romans de chevalerie du moyen âge grec, 207–214, 265–272. Beaton, The Medieval
Greek Romance, 134–136. Elizabeth Jeffreys, “Byzantine Romances: Eastern or Western?” in
Marina S. Brownlee and Dimitri H. Gondicas, eds., Renaissance Encounters: Greek East and
Latin West, Medieval and Renaissance Authors and Texts 8 (Leiden, 2013), 221–237. Kos-
tas Yiavis, “The Adaptations of Western Sources by Byzantine Vernacular Romances,” in
Carolina Cupane and Bettina Krönung, eds., Fictional Storytelling in the Medieval Eastern
Mediterranean and Beyond (Leiden, 2016), 133–134, 148–149.
65 Panagiotis A. Agapitos, “The ‘Court of Amorous Dominion’ and the ‘Gate of Love’: Rituals
of Empire in a Byzantine Romance of the Thirteenth Century,” in Alexander Beihammer,
but it should be noted that 12th-century novels may just as well have been read
among the post-1204 Constantinopolitan Byzantine elite; that the raising of a
new emperor on a shield, the institution of co-emperorship, and other Byzan-
tine imperial rituals/practices were also known in Latin Constantinople; that
the idea of absolute autocracy or the supreme power of Love was a theme quite
common in romance literature and does not need to be interpreted politically;
and that—regarding chronology—a 14th-century work could just as well have
been influenced by a 12th-century novel as a 13th-century romance.66
In the absence of clear chronological clues with regard to dating the Constan-
tinopolitan romances, the question remains that if these were written, as had
their 12th-century predecessors, within the milieu of the Nicaean or Paleologan
imperial court, then why would they not have been written in the learned Greek
language, as were the Komnenian novels, which with regard to other elements
do appear to have served as a model for these later works. One must question
the change in social context responsible for the switch from learned to vernacu-
lar at the imperial court. Agapitos’ generic, but unsatisfactory, explanation is
that it was a consequence of what he calls the “disaster of 1204” (“large cracks in
the idealized Weltbild, widening of pre-existing artistic rifts”).67
In the second edition of Roderick Beaton’s study on the medieval Greek ro-
mances, with regard to Belthandros kai Chrysantza he reflects, among other
Stavroula Constantinou, and Maria Parani, eds., Court Ceremonies and Rituals of Power
in Byzantium and the Medieval Mediterranean, The Medieval Mediterranean 88 (Leiden,
2013), 389–416. See also: Idem, “Literature and Education in Nicaea: An Interpretative
Introduction,” in Pagona Papadopoulou and Alicia Simpson, eds., The Empire of Nicaea
Revisited (Turnhout, forthcoming). The author also is a bit optimistic concerning manu-
script production in Laskarid Nicaea (including manuscripts containing the 12th-century
Byzantine novels), which according to Giancarlo Prato is hardly attested at all. The manu-
scripts cited by Agapitos can not be dated to the years 1204–1261 or located in Nicaea with
any degree of certainty (Giancarlo Prato, “La produzione libraria in area greco-orientale
nel periodo del regno latino di Costantinopoli (1204–1261),” Scrittura e Civiltà 5 (1981) 105–
147; see also: Perez Martin, “The Transmission of Some Writings by Psellos in Thirteenth-
century Constantinople,” 159–174).
66 On the raising, without doubt on a shield, of Emperor Baldwin i (et li marchis Bonifaces de
Monferat l’enporte tot avant d’une part enz el mostier): Geoffroy de Villehardouin, La con-
quête de Constantinople, §261; Du Fresne du Cange, Histoire de l’empire de Constantinople
sous les empereurs français, 321; Longnon, L’empire latin de Constantinople, 50; Hendrickx,
“Les institutions de l’empire latin de Constantinople (1204–1261): Le pouvoir impérial,”
102–103. For a different opinion: Ionut A. Tudorie, “Old and New in the Byzantine Im-
perial Coronation in the 13th Century,” Ostkirchliche Studien 60 (2011), 81. On Baldwin ii
being probably crowned as co-emperor at the time of his wedding to Mary of Brienne
(which I already discussed in Chapter 3): De Mas Latrie, Chronique d’Ernoul et de Bernard
le trésorier, 472.
67 Panagiotis A. Agapitos, “Genre, structure and poetics in the Byzantine vernacular
romances of love,” Symbolae Osloenses 79 (2004), 49–52.
160 Chapter 6
things, on Agapitos’ proposal to date this romance in the later 13th century,
stresses the hybrid character, also highlighted by previous authors, of the
names of the principal characters—in particular basileus Rodophilos (=Rodul-
fus or Rudolf) and his younger son and heir Belthrandos (=Bertrand), both of
whom are identified as “Romans”—as well as its crusader geography (Anatolia/
Turkey, Tarsus, Antioch). On these reflections he concludes that consideration
should be given to the Latin empire of Constantinople (in the sense of, it would
seem, Constantinople and the adjoining region under the direct authority of
the Latin emperors) as the context—“with its byzantinizing veneer and Greek-
speaking population”—in which this romance was composed. An interesting
note is that the related name Radulfus ran in the imperial Courtenay family.68
Thus the romance Belthandros kai Chrysantza could have been written at
the Latin—and not the Paleologan—imperial court. Indeed, what other con-
text fits the production of a Greek novel about both a Roman emperor and his
heir with names that are Western in origin better? Put otherwise: who at the
Paleologan court after the 1204 trauma would have been charmed by a novel
featuring a clearly Western-sounding imperial dynasty. The same could be ar-
gued from a narrativistic point of view for the more sophisticated Livistros kai
Rhodamne, although this seemed not likely to Beaton. But again this is a very
Latin romance: the principal character Livistros is a prince from a fictional
Latin land (Livandros) who through marriage becomes king of a Greek land
(Argyrokastron). It is unlikely that anyone at the Laskarid or Paleologan court
would have been captivated by such an original story. A telling detail , with-
out attempting a thorough analysis here, may be the name of the confidant of
Livistros’ bride to be (Betanos). This un-Byzantine name closely resembles the
name of one of Latin Constantinople’s leading families which provided the
emperors with trusted advisers, the Béthune’s.69
68 Roderick Beaton, The Medieval Greek Romance. 2nd ed., rev. and exp. (London, 1996), 219–
220. Belthandros’ older brother—a minor character in the novel—is called Philarmos,
a variation of the name Philemon (which was known in both Western Europe and Byz-
antium). Chrysantza (or “golden flower”) could perhaps be reminiscent of the Capetian
coat of arms (with fleur-de-lys or); the Courtenay were as mentioned a younger branch of
the French royal lineage. Interesting also is that a number of (earlier) authors are of the
opinion that Belthandros must be a Greek translation of a lost Western original, see, for
example, Alexander A. Vasiliev, History of the Byzantine Empire, 324–1453 (Madison, 1952),
2:557–559. Baldwin ii’s uncle Robert, grand butler of France, had a son named Radulfus
or Raoul (†1270), who in 1265 would relocate to the kingdom of Sicily in the context of
Charles of Anjou’s expedition there (Maria E. Caffarelli, “Courtenay, Raoul de,” in Dizion-
ario biografico degli Italiani 30 (Rome, 1984), 498–499. Baldwin kept in contact with the
branches of the Courtenay family established in France: for example another nephew of
his, Robert of Tanlay/Courtenay, participated in the 1238–1240 crusade in aid of Constan-
tinople (Gregorius ix, Les registres, n° 4628).
69 It is noteworthy in this context that even Agapitos has concluded that Belthandros and
Livistros show the most tangible thematic and structural similarities to their French
The ethnic-culturally mixed Latin imperial court provided the ideal social
context for the decisive switch from learned to vernacular Greek in fictional
literature, romances in particular. Here Latin and Byzantine barons/magnates
and dignitaries/functionaries lived side by side during the entire period 1204–
1261. The Byzantine element was much more prominent than it ever was at the
Latin princely courts in southern Greece (or the Latin element at the Paleolo-
gan court after 1261, for example Andronikos ii’s second wife Yolande/Irene of
Montferrat, a distant relative of Baldwin ii).70 In Constantinople several lead-
ing Latin families—e.g., the Toucy’s and the Cayeux—intermarried with the
Byzantine elite (the Branai and the Laskarids). Through these marriages their
social networks within the capital must have included the metropolitan Byz-
antine elite who had chosen to stay after 1204 (Akropolitai, Angeloi, Matzukai,
Mesaritai, Philokalai, Tornikai, etc.). Similarities existed between the class eth-
ics and values of the Latin and Byzantine (military) aristocracies.71
While as I argued earlier some Byzantines learned Western languages,
members of prominent Latin families who were born in Constantinople cer-
tainly knew Greek. Anselin of Toucy, whose mother was a Branaina and whose
brother Philip was imperial regent for a time (as had been his father Narjot i),
according to the French version of the Chronicle of Morea, knew la langue et
les manieres des Grex because he was born in Romania.72 These mixed Latin-
Byzantine households must have been bilingual, and life at the imperial court
must equally up to a point have been bilingual, especially during the later de-
cades. It would follow that entertainment at court and in these households
must have been bilingual as well. Festive occasions where Western vernacular
c ounterparts (Panagiotis A. Agapitos, “In Rhomaian, Frankish and Persian Lands: Fiction
and Fictionality in Byzantium and Beyond,” in idem and Lars B. Mortensen, eds., Medieval
Narratives between History and Fiction. From the Centre to the Periphery of Europe, c. 1100–
1400 (Copenhagen, 2012), 306). Romina Luzi with regard to Livistros has also pointed out
the author’s mastery of Western courteous and fabulous elements, which are successfully
mixed with Byzantine elements (Romina Luzi, “Les romans paléologues: à la charnière de
plusieurs traditions,” in Emese Egedi-Kovács, ed., Byzance et l’Occident iii. Ecrits et manu-
scrits, Antiquitas–Byzantium–Renascentia 23 (Budapest, 2016), 75–76). In another con-
tribution Luzi misspells the name of Rhodamne’s confidant Betanos as Bretanos, while
trying to establish an onomastic link between the Livistros and George of Pelagonia’s (14th
century) hagiographical account of Emperor John iii Vatatzes’ life (idem, “Les lecteurs
des romans byzantins,” in Emese Egedi-Kovács, ed., Byzance et l’Occident iii. Ecrits et
manuscrits, Antiquitas–Byzantium–Renascentia 23 (Budapest, 2016), 287).
71 Kyriakidis, Warfare in Late Byzantium, 45–59.
72 See references in Chapter 2, note 18 (“the language and customs of the Greeks”). Michael
Angold underestimates the frequency of mixed marriages. The author misses a number of
instances in the available source material (Angold, “The Latin Empire of Constantinople,
1204–1261: Marriage Strategies,” 47–67).
162 Chapter 6
romances were read for mixed audience would likely have had simultaneous
Greek translations provided.
In the wake of such occasions, and against the background of the 12th-
century revival of the Hellenistic novel, Byzantines—those connected to the
imperial court or to these households—may have been inspired to translate
such romances and compose original ones partially modeled after these West-
ern works that were available in Latin Constantinople. The switch from learned
Greek to vernacular is understandable in this context: most autochthonous
Latins who knew Greek probably only knew vernacular Greek. It would have
been natural then for Byzantine authors writing for a mixed court or house-
hold, and perhaps with the 12th-century vernacular experiments in mind, to
have used the vernacular for their creations. In Baldwin ii’s entourage there
were certainly people who could have composed such a work (hupogrammate-
us Maximos Aloubardes and his colleague Nikephoritzes, phylax John, or priest
Demetrios (possibly to be identified with epi ton deeseon Demetrios Pyrros).73
Some members of the local Byzantine elite engaged in some kind of literary
activity, as is exemplified by the correspondence between megas doux Philo-
kales (1214), who was connected to the Venetian Navigaioso family, and an un-
named Constantinopolitan noble lady and the patriarchs of Nicaea Theodore
ii Eirenikos (1214–1216) and Germanos ii (1223–1240).74 People such as Philo-
kales and this anonymous lady who practiced epistolography might also have
engaged in other types of literature, either personally or as patron. From Latin
Constantinople this innovative development may have spread to southern
Latin Greece. In this hypothetical scenario the Achaian chancellor/logothetes
Leonardo da Veroli, who as mentioned has recently been suggested as the pa-
tron of the Greek translation of Benoît of Saint-Maure’s Roman de Troie (circa
73 See references in Chapter 2, notes 33–35. The context of the Latin imperial court in this
way resembled the Paleologan court, which as said is usually considered as the place
where these original vernacular romances originated. But the features (mixed composi-
tion of the court, presence of Western literature, Byzantines knowing Latin) which are
usally invoked to explain the composition of these romances were in my view more poi-
gnantly present at the Latin imperial court (Cf Dusan Popovic, “Discontinuity and Conti-
nuity of Byzantine Literary Tradition After the Crusaders’ Capture of Constantinople: The
Case of ‘Original’ Byzantine Novels,” in Vlada Stankovic, ed., The Balkans and the Byzantine
World before and after the Captures of Constantinople, 1204 and 1453 (Lanham, 2016), 26–27).
74 The letters of these Constantinopolitan inhabitants have not been preserved, but they
are referred to in the following patriarchal response letters: Vitalien Laurent, ed., Les re-
gestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople 1: Les actes des patriarches 4: Les regestes
de 1208 à 1309, Publications de l’institut français d’études byzantines (Paris, 1971), n° 1219,
n° 1233; Dondaine, “‘Contra Graecos.’ Premiers écrits polémiques des Dominicains
d’Orient,” 376–377.
1267–1281), could have been the agent bringing the development to the Ville-
hardouin principality. In 1252 Veroli married Constantinopolitan magnate Nar-
jot i of Toucy’s daughter Margaret, whose mother was a daughter of Theodore
Branas, feudal lord of Adrianople, and his wife ex-empress Agnes of France
(sister of Philip II August).75
3 Religious Literature and Theology
Various types of religious literature are also attested in Latin Constantinople.

The well-known transfer of numerous relics to the West after 1204 elicited a
number of texts. Apart from the many charters by Constantinopolitan eccle-
siastical or imperial authorities authenticating these relics, translation reports
were created. These reports were mostly written after the relics arrived at their
new homes.76 Hagiographical works, however, were also being composed in
the regia civitas. A 1215 letter by Angermer, lector of the episcopal church of
Chalcedon, to the bishop and chapter of Troyes in Champagne sheds some
light on this. The author, a Champenois who had been living in the Byzan-
tine capital well before 1204 and who had learned Greek, relates how—at the
request of bishop Hervé’s chaplain John, who arrived in Constantinople in
May 1215—he assembled a compendium on the life of Saint Helen of Athyra,
wherein he translated fragments of various Greek texts containing informa-
tion about the saint (probably including a vita attributed to John Chrysostom).
In order to do so, Angermer visited the ancient libraries of probably several
metropolitan churches. His biographical compendium, or perhaps rather his
compilatory vita, has however not been preserved.77
75 On this marriage: Innocentius iv, Les registres, n° 5647; Antoine Bon, La Morée Franque.
Recherches historiques, topographiques et archéologiques sur la principauté d’Achaïe (1205–
1430), Bibliothèque des Ecoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 213 (Paris, 1969), 127; Lon-
gnon, “Le rattachement de la Principauté de Morée au Royaume de Sicile en 1267,” 140.
76 See a number of charters and translation reports for the period from 1204 until the 1250s
in Riant, Exuviae sacrae Constantinopolitanae. In general on the transfer of relics to the
West: George P. Majeska, “The Relics of Constantinople after 1204,” in Jannic Durand and
Bernard Flusin, eds., Byzance et les reliques du Christ, Travaux et Mémoires 17 (Paris, 2004),
183–190.
77 Riant, Exuviae sacrae Constantinopolitanae, 2:n° 44, 105–106. On the cult of Saint Helen of
Athyra in Troyes: Giles Constable, “Troyes, Constantinople, and the relics of St Helen in
the thirteenth century,” in Pierre Gallais and Yves-Jean Riou, eds, Mélanges offerts ā René
Crozet (Poitiers, 1966), 1035–1042; Patrick J. Geary, “Saint Helen of Athyra and the cathe-
dral of Troyes in the thirteenth century,” The Journal of medieval and Renaissance studies
7 (1977), 149–168.
164 Chapter 6
It is quite possible that Angermer’s compilatory endeavor was not an isolat-

ed piece of work. It could be hypothesized that for the use of his own church,
with its own collection of saintly relics, this same cleric may have composed
hagiographical translations or adaptations as well. His knowledge of Greek
indeed may well be one of the reasons he obtained the position of lector in
Chalcedon: not only could he valorize the local episcopal archives and library,
but he could also provide fluent communication with the Byzantine clergy and
faithful. The situation in Constantinopolitan churches occupied by Latin cler-
ics, collegiate or not, may at least sometimes have been similar. Robert Nelson
has shown that Greek illuminated manuscripts were consulted and annotated
by Latins clerics during the period 1204–1261, for example at the Saint George
of Mangana monastery.78 Byzantine clerics perhaps assisted Angermer, and his
colleagues, with their research in the libraries.
Given the fact that he resided in Constantinople years before 1204, Angermer
certainly must have had a social network comprised of local Byzantines whom
he could consult. Latins appealing to Byzantines for assistance authenticating
relics are attested in charters.79 Further instances of Latin-Byzantine coopera-
tion in the religious sphere are attested. In any case, the daily religious life could
intersect the dogmatical and liturgical Latin-Byzantine divide. Angermer in the
cited letter mentions how the feast of Saint Helen of Athyra was celebrated by
the entire metropolitan province, less cheerfully, however, than before since
her relics had been taken away. Their removal, according to the lector, was re-
gretted by the entire province, which implies not only local Byzantines but also
the Latin newcomers (or pre-1204 residents such as Angermer) who had settled
there and clearly identified with their new home.
Dogmatic and liturgical differences between the Latins and Byzantines of
course were also a feature of intellectual life in the capital. The major debates
and negotiations concerning ecclesiastical union between the successive
popes and their representatives (legates or friars) and the Byzantine Constan-
tinopolitan clergy (1206) and later the patriarchs and emperors of Nicaea (1214,
1232–34, 1254–56), are well documented and have been studied quite thor-
oughly.80 The local Latin-Byzantine theological dialogue which continued in
78 Robert S. Nelson, “The Italian appreciation and appropriation of illuminated Byzantine

manuscripts, ca. 1200–1450,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 49 (1995), 212–213. On the Latin-
occupied churches: Janin, “Les sanctuaires de Byzance sous la domination latine,” 134–
184. See also Wolff, “Politics in the Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople,” 225–303.
79 See, for example, (in 1245): Riant, Exuviae sacrae Constantinopolitanae, 2:n° 76, 131–132.
80 Some studies (with references to further literature): Daniel Stiernon, “Le problème de
l’union gréco-latine vu de Byzance. De Germain ii à Joseph Ier (1232–1273),” in 1274, année
charnière. Mutations et continuités (Paris, 1977), 139–166; Joseph Gill, Byzantium and the
the capital after 1206, however, has by comparison been largely neglected. A
main exemplar in this regard is the Tractatus Contra Graecos, written in the
Dominican convent of Constantinople in 1252 and a major influence on later
14th-century treatises and on 15th-century ecclesiastical union negotiations.
Its author was a local mendicant who, in 1234, during the negotiations on ec-
clesiastical union in Nicaea and Nymphaion had been a member of the Latin
delegation, which was led by two Franciscans and two Dominicans sent from
the West by Pope Gregory ix.81
This treatise for the first time defended the Latin position with regard to
all the main contentions between the two Churches in a systematic way (the
filioque question, the issues of the azymes, papal primacy, and—a première—
the purgatory), and, a truly innovative element, largely based on a variety of
Greek sources that had not yet been translated into Latin—the Greek Church
Fathers (John Chrysostom, Athanasios, Cyril of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa,
etc.), the Greek translation of the Donatio Constantini by the 12th-century can-
onist and titular Byzantine patriarch of Antioch, Theodore Balsamon (con-
tained in his scholia on the Nomokanon by patriarch Photios i), fragments of a
letter attributed to John Chrysostom but actually written by the 12th-century
theologian and philosopher Theorianos (who conducted unionist negotia-
tions with the Armenian Church on behalf of Emperor Manuel i Komnenos),
a Greek treatise on the oecumenical councils, and a letter on the azymes issue
by the Byzantine patriarch of Constantinople in exile in Nicaea Germanos ii
(1223–1240) addressed to a noble Constantinopolitan lady.82
papacy, 1198–1400 (New Brunswick, 1979); Michel Stavrou, “Les tentatives gréco-latines de
rapprochement ecclésial au 13e siècle,” in Marie-Hélène Blanchet and Frédéric Gabriel,
eds., Réduire le schisme? Ecclésiologies et politiques de l’Union entre Orient et Occident
(XIIIe–XVIIIe siècle), Monographies du centre de recherche d’histoire et civilisation de
Byzance 39 (Paris, 2013), 41–56; John Zizioulas, “Efforts towards the Union of the Churches
after the Fourth Crusade,” in Angeliki Laiou, ed., Urbs capta. The Fourth Crusade and its
consequences (Paris, 2005), 345–354; Christian Gastgeber, “Die Eroberung Konstantino-
pels während des vierten Kreuzzuges und die Haltung von Papst Innozenz. iii,” in The-
odor Nikolau, ed., Das Schisma zwischen Ost- Und Westkirche 950 bzw. 800 danach (1054
und 1204), Beiträge aus dem Zentrum für ökumenische Forschung München (Münster,
2004), 43–71; Theodor Nikolau, “Vervollständigung des Schismas zwischen Ost- und West-
kirche im Jahr 1204 und die Anfänge des Uniatismus,” in idem, Das Schisma zwischen Ost-
Und Westkirche 950 bzw. 800 danach (1054 und 1204) (see previous reference), 73–95.
81 On these negotiations, see the contemporary report by the Latin delegation: Girolamo
Golubovich, “Disputatio Latinorum et Grecorum seu relatio Apocrisariorum Gregorii ix
de Gestis Nicaeae in Bithynia et Nymphaeae in Lydia,” Archivum Franciscanum Histori-
cum 12 (1919), 418–470.
82 A very valuable analysis of the treatise in Dondaine, “‘Contra Graecos.’ Premiers écrits
polémiques des Dominicains d’Orient,” 321–446. A non-critical edition is available in
166 Chapter 6
Antoine Dondaine has emphasized that the anonymous author of the trea-
tise must have been familiar with these Greek sources from years consulting
the libraries of the patriarchate and metropolitan monasteries, much like the
Chalcedonian lector Angermer and his colleague from the Mangana monas-
tery. Several passages in the treatise explicitly attest to this. Apart from the
abundant and innovative use of these sources, the treatise’s most striking char-
acteristic is that it was originally published as a bilingual work. Both Raymond
Loenertz and Dondaine have proved this beyond doubt. Fragments of the
Greek version have been preserved in other treatises and other elements also
point to its composition, although the complete Greek version of the Tractatus
has not been preserved.83 This last fact may be taken as meaningful, in the
sense that it is an indication that pre-1261 pro-Latin texts in Greek had slim
chances of survival in post-1261 Constantinople (see also the historical texts
whose existence I hypothesized). That the treatise was written in both Latin
and Greek shows that it was intended for a mixed audience. It was clearly in-
tended to also address the Byzantine community in Constantinople, presum-
ably not only the clergy but educated lay people as well.
This last intention can be confirmed by the fact that the author as one of
his sources used the letter by Nicaean patriarch Germanos ii to a Greek Con-
stantinopolitan lady (nobilis domina) who had consulted him on issues divid-
ing the Latin and Byzantine Churches. That Germanos’ reply was known by
our Dominican author suggests that there was some connection between the
Dominican convent and the lady in question, an indication of a shared social
network. Indeed, Dondaine suggested that the lady possibly chose to seek out
the Latin clergy’s opinion concerning the validity of the patriarch’s counterar-
guments. We don’t know this lady’s identity, but it seems safe to assume that
she belonged to the city’s elite and probably entertained close relations with
the Latin aristocracy (such as members of the Branas or Angelos families).
Peter Stevart and Jean-Paul Migne, eds., Tractatus Contra Errores Graecorum, Patrologia
Graeca 140 (Paris, 1887), 487–574 (a reimpression of Stevart’s 1616 edition). See also, Clau-
dine Delacroix-Besnier, “Les prêcheurs, du dialogue à la polémique (XIIIe–XIVe siècle),”
in Martin Hinterberger and Chris Schabel, eds., Greeks, Latins, and Intellectual History
1204–1500, Bibliotheca 11 (Leuven, 2011), 151–167; Andrea Riedl, “Das Purgatorium im 13.
Jahrhundert: Schlaglichter auf ein Novum der ost-westlichen Kontroverstheologie am
Vorabend des ii. Konzils von Lyon (1274),” Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum 40 (2014),
363–370. To be published in the near future is Riedl’s PhD dissertation on Latin-Byzantine
controversial theology, with a special focus on the 1252 treatise (in the De Gruyter series
Quellen und Forschungen zur Geschichte des Dominikanerordens).
83 Dondaine, “‘Contra Graecos.’ Premiers écrits polémiques des Dominicains d’Orient,” 328–
329, 351. Raymond Loenertz, “Autour du traité de fr. Barthélemy de Constantinople contre
les Grecs,” Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 6 (1936), 366–369.
The letter by megas doux Philokales (1214) to patriarch Theodore ii Eirenikos

should be seen in this context as well.84 In this way the 1252 treatise attests
to an interreligious dialogue in the capital between the two communities, the
scale or continuity of which is difficult to evaluate due to the paucity of the
source material. A local Byzantine contribution to this dialogue is found in a
manuscript containing an anecdotic note defending the Byzantine standpoint
on the issue of the azymes, which was composed in the context of the papal-
Nicaean negotiations on ecclesiastical union in 1214.85
During the first years after 1204, the initial despoliation and appropriation
of churches, the theft of relics, and the persecutive methods of some papal leg-
ates (Pelagius in 1213, who caused a number of monks to emigrate to Nicaea,
and to a lesser degree Giovanni Colonna in 1218) must have been an exacer-
bating factor in the relations between the religious communities. However, as
time passed and positive action was taken, such as Emperor Henry forcefully
opposing Pelagius’ coersive approach, relations may have gradually changed
into a pattern of accomodation, allowing for a more peaceful and respectful
dialogue. Reports of any serious Latin-Byzantine religious, or other, conflicts in
the capital in the later decades of Latin rule are largely lacking, certainly after
the mid-1230s. Elizabeth Fisher has proposed that the Byzantine Saint John
Prodromos monastery, which according to an undated letter from the Nicaean
patriarch Germanos ii (1223–1240), had successfully resisted “Latin vexations,”
may have been a point of contact between Latin and Byzantine monastic com-
munities.86 Against the background of the 1204 change in the political situ-
ation, with both secular and ecclesiastical power ultimately in Latin hands,
this dialogue convinced at least some Byzantines to embrace the Latin Church
(dogma, liturgy, papal obedience).

85 Athanasios Papadopoulos-Kerameus, “Documents grecs pour servir à l’histoire de la
Quatrième croisade (liturgie et reliques),” Revue de l’Orient latin 1 (1893), 540–555. Jo-
hannes M. Hoeck and Raymond-Joseph Loenertz, Nikolaos–Nektarios von Otranto. Abt
von Casole, Studia patristica et bizantina 11 (Ettal, 1965), 39–40.
86 On Pelagius and Colonna: Van Tricht, The Latin Renovatio of Byzantium, 314–321 (with
further references). On anti-Byzantine feelings among part of the Latin elite: Van Tricht,
“Robert of Courtenay,” 1031–1032. Around 1230 or 1234 Germanos had still appealed to the
Latin patriarch, either Simon of Maugastel (1227–1233) or Nicolao della Porta (1234–1251)
to set free emprisoned Byzantine clerics (Laurent, Les regestes des actes du patriarcat de
Constantinople, n° 1277). Elizabeth Fisher, “Manuel Holobolos and the Role of Bilinguals
in Relations Between the West and Byzantium,” in Andreas Speer, ed., Knotenpunkt Byz-
anz, Miscellanea Mediaevalia (New York and Berlin, 2012), 212. The author is in my view
wrong in following Janin’s hypothesis that the Saint John Prodromos monastery was oc-
cupied by Latin monks (see reference in Chapter 7, note 12). See also note 80.
168 Chapter 6
The number of Byzantines embracing the Latin Church is once again hard
to assess, but the priest Demetrios, who as a member of Baldwin ii’s entou-
rage received the assignment to build a church devoted to Saint George, may
serve as an example. The pauper mulier Constantinopolitana Theodora—who
around 1232 appealed to Gregory ix , which seems to indicate that she was not
without means, in order to divorce her husband B (who she accused of be-
ing a heretic)—may be another.87 One might perhaps doubt the sincerity of
such conversions, although for example in Antioch—Constantinople’s feudal
dependency—in 1246 the new, probably locally elected, Orthodox patriarch
David himself had recognized papal authority.88 The fact that B yzantines also
joined Western religious orders in any case points to convinction. The contem-
porary Italian chronicler Salimbene de Adam mentions a “lector Constantino-
politanus Thomas Grecus ex ordine Minorum qui sanctus homo erat et Grece
et Latine loquebatur,” whose surname indicates that he was a Byzantine Greek,
who acted as John iii Vatatzes’ messenger to Innocent iv in 1249. There was a
second messenger, also a Franciscan, who is described as “Grecus ex uno par-
ente et Latinus ex altera.” A partial Greek translation of the Franciscan Rule,
composed by a 13th-century Byzantine native, may well have been written by
this Thomas Grecus or one of his companions, as Elizabeth Fisher has argued.89
During the preparations of the Second Council of Lyons the Byzantine Con-
stantinopolitan Franciscan John Parastron/Parastos served as a messenger to
Emperor Michael viii (from 1270). Because of his conciliatory stance he be-
came so popular in the capital that after his death in 1275 Emperor Michael
and the uniate clergy petitioned his canonization in Rome.90 No doubt he had
87 Honorius iii et Gregorius ix, Acta, n° 182.

88 Lucas, hieromonachos of the Hagios Mamas-monastery for example claimed to have been
forced around 1234 by Dominicans to sign a written document confirming he accepted
the Latin position on the azymes issue. He (succesfully) appealed to the Nicaean patri-
arch Germanos ii to be forgiven. Basileios Gemistos, deacon of Saint Sophia, likewise
at one point appealed to Germanos to be forgiven after first having accepted the Latin
dogma. See Laurent, Les regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople, n° 1287, n°
1304. On Patriarch David, see: Bernard Hamilton, The Latin Church in the Crusader States.
The Secular Church (London, 1980).
89 Salimbene de Adam, Cronica, ed. G. Scalia, Corpus Christianorum. Continuatio Mediae-
valis (Turnhout, 1998), 1:489 (“Constantinopolitan lector Thomas the Greek, a Francis-
can who was a saintly man and who spoke Greek and Latin” and “Greek by one parent
and Latin by the other”). Sévérien Salaville, “Fragment inédit de traduction grecque de la
Règle de saint François,” Échos d’Orient 28 (1929), 167–172. Elizabeth Fisher, “Homo Byzan-
tinus and Homo Italicus in Late 13th-century Constantinople,” in Jan M. Ziolkowski, ed.,
Dante and the Greeks, Dumbarton Oaks Medieval Humanities (Washington D.C., 2014), 69.
90 Elizabeth Fisher, “Monks, Monasteries and the Latin Language in Constantinople,” in Ayla
Ödekan, Engin Akyürek, and Nevra Necipoglu, eds., Change in the Byzantine World in the
Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries (Istanbul, 2010), 392–393.
entered the Franciscan metropolitan convent before 1261. The Dominicans

also recruited local Byzantines. Marie-Hélène Congourdeau has convincingly
shown that frater Simon the Constantinopolitan was a Byzantine Greek. Born
around 1235 he entered the Constantinopolitan convent sometime before 1261.
After Michael viii’s conquest of the city he sought refuge in Euboia, but re-
turned to the capital in 1299. Four letters in Greek by him discussing the dif-
ferences between the Latin and Byzantine Churches, addressed to Emperor
Andronikos ii Paleologos (1282–1328) and various prominent Byzantine intel-
lectuals and dignitaries, have been preserved (while at least three others have
been lost). Members of the highest Byzantine aristocracy also entered Western
orders: in 1267 Demeta Paleologina – a relative of Emperor Michael VIII – is
attested as abbess of Sancta Maria de Verge near Modon in Achaia.91 A number
of Greek translations and transcriptions in Greek letters of the Latin liturgy
apparently made in early 13th-century Constantinople, may well have been
used by Byzantine clerics working in a Latin milieu (the imperial court, Latin
religious institutions, etc.), allowing them to fully understand the Latin liturgy,
and to read a Latin mass if they were not familiar with the Latin alphabet.92
4 Philosophy and Other Sciences
Switching from religious and theological literature to philosophy I would

like to argue here that the famed William of Moerbeke (†1286) began his ca-
reer as author of competent Latin translations of numerous works by classi-
cal Greek authors, which rapidly became influential, in Constantinople. Very
little is known about William’s early life. He is called both a Flemingus and a
91 Marie-Hélène Congourdeau, “Frère Simon le Constantinopolitain, O.P. (1235?–1325?),”

Revue des études byzantines 45 (1987), 165–174. Ferdinando Ughelli, ed., Italia Sacra, vol.
7 (2nd. ed., Venice, 1721), 706–709. On Demeta see also my forthcoming publication: Van
Tricht, “Being Byzantine in the post-1204 Empire of Constantinople: Continuity and
Change”.
92 Brendan McGuire’s analysis of the nature of these texts in my view convincingly shows
that these (especially the awkard transcription in Greek letters) could not exlusively have
been produced and/or used in the context of the discussions on ecclesiastical union of
1214 by the Byzantine delegation led by Nicholas Mesarites, as Loenertz and Hoeck had
suggested earlier. See Brendan J. McGuire, “Evidence for religious accomodation in Latin
Constantinople: a new approach to bilingual liturgical texts,” Journal of Medieval History
39 (2013), 342–356. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, “Documents grecs pour servir à l’histoire de
la Quatrième croisade,” 540–555. Hoeck and Loenertz, Nikolaos-Nektarios von Otranto,
39–40. See also, Jean Darrouzès, “Conference sur la primauté du Pape à Constantinople
en 1357,” Revue des études byzantines 19 (1961) 81. Fisher, “Homo Byzantinus and Homo
Italicus in Late 13th-century Constantinople,” 69.
170 Chapter 6
Brabantinus by several early 14th-century sources, which suggests that his sur-
name refers to the village of Moerbeke near Geraardsbergen situated near the
border between the county of Flanders and the duchy of Brabant (and not to
Moerbeke-Waas between Ghent and Antwerp, or Morbecque near Hazebrouck
in northern France). Possibly he can be identified with the lettered magister
Guilelmus, born in this region and mentioned by Thomas of Cantimpré (as the
source of an anecdote he relates), but this is by no means certain.93 In fact he
does not need to have been born there at all; his surname may indeed not point
to his place of birth, but to the lineage he belonged to.
A family of “Moerbeke” is attested among the vassals of the lords of Boe-
lare in the county of Flanders.94 Interesting in this context is that Gilles ii of
Trazegnies, who was married to the heiress of the lordship of Boelare, A leidis,
participated in the Fourth Crusade. He sailed from Apulia to Syria in 1202 and
died en route to Antioch shortly after.95 It is possible that members of the Mo-
erbeke family, not important enough to be mentioned by chroniclers of the
Fourth Crusade, accompanied their lord on this expedition and came to Con-
stantinople. William might then have been a scion of a branch of the fam-
ily that set itself up there, although this must remain speculation. It has been
hypothesized that William studied at the studium of the Dominican convent
of Cologne (with Albert the Great as lecturer), but since any evidence substan-
tiating this claim is lacking, this must remain speculative as well. In any case,
a Constantinopolitan birth does not exclude studies abroad, although William
may just as well have received his education in the Queen of Cities (in the Do-
minican convent or not).96
The earliest bits of information concerning William’s life are contained in
the explicits preserved in a number of manuscripts of his translations. Several
manuscripts contain an explicit to his translation of Alexander of Aphrodisia’s
commentary on Aristotle’s Meteorologica, stating that it was completed on 24
April 1260 apud Niceam urbem in Grecia. Most authors have identified this city
with Nicaea, the capital of the Laskarid empire in Bithynia—the term Grecia
could include Byzantine possessions in Asia Minor. Some have suggested that
Niceam is a corruption of Nicleam, which then should be identified with Amyk-
lai in the Peloponnese (also called Nikli, but in the papal registers normally as
93 Pattin, “Pour la biographie de Guillaume de Moerbeke O.P.,” 390–392.

94 Fernand Bossier, “Documents d’archives concernant une famille ‘de Moerbeke,’” in Jozef
Brams and Willy Vanhamel, eds., Guillaume de Moerbeke. Recueil d’études à l’occasion du
700e anniversaire de sa mort (1286) (Leuven, 1989), 385–400.
95 Longnon, Les compagnons de Villehardouin, 23–24.
96 Archbishop and chronicler William of Tyre is one example of a cleric born in the Latin
East (Jerusalem) who studied for many years (circa 1146–1165) in the West (Peter W.
Edbury and John G. Rowe, William of Tyre. Historian of the Latin East, Cambridge Studies
in Medieval Life and Thought, 4th series, 8 (Cambridge, 1988), 13–15).
Amiclensis). There is no reason, however, to suppose an error in the explicit

(which has been preserved in more than one manuscript), and although Nikli
was a fortified town—and an episcopal see until 1222, when it was allocated
to the bishopric of Sparta—a description as urbs seems excessive (civitas or
castrum would have been more suitable).97
A Florentine manuscript mentions that on 23 December 1260 (or perhaps
1259) William finished his translation of Aristotle’s De partibus animalium (or
according to Fernand Bossier possibly one of the other “animal books” by Ar-
istotle) in Thebes, which was part of the duchy of Athens and where there was
a Dominican establishment.98 There is a general consensus that both these
accomplished translations cannot have been William’s first efforts, and that by
this time he had already sojourned in Romania for a prolonged period of time.
Both Martin Grabmann and Antoine Dondaine, on the basis of the data men-
tioned, have hypothesized that William was based in Frankish Morea (Athens
by this time was feudally dependent on the princes of Achaia), Dondaine going
so far as to suggest that his presence in Nicaea should be seen as part of some
diplomatic mission with regard to the captivity of prince of Achaia William ii
of Villehardouin after the battle of Pelagonia in 1259.99
However, there is nothing to indicate that the Dominican convent of The-
bes by 1260 would have been a notable intellectual center, although every
Dominican convent was required to have its own lector who was responsible
for the theological education of his fellow friars (and interested outsiders as
well).100 Mentioned for the first time in a papal letter dated 1253, the convent
97 See for a discussion with further references: Vanhamel, “Biobibliographie de Guillaume

de Moerbeke,” 309. In 1245 Innocent iv confirmed the earlier allocation by papal legate
John Colonna of the bishopric of Nikli to Sparta (Innocentius iv, Les registres, n° 1385).
98 Vanhamel, “Biobibliographie de Guillaume de Moerbeke,” 310, 332–334. Pietro Rossi, “La
Translatio anonyma e la Translatio Guillelmi del De partibus animalium (analisi del libro
I),” in Jozef Brams and Willy Vanhamel, eds., Guillaume de Moerbeke. Recueil d’études à
l’occasion du 700e anniversaire de sa mort (1286) (Leuven, 1989), 223. Fernand Bossier, “Mé-
thode de traduction et problèmes de chronologie,” in Brams and Vanhamel, eds., Guil-
laume de Moerbeke (see previous reference), 289.
99 Martin Grabmann, Guglielmo di Moerbeke O.P., il traduttore delle opere di Aristotele, Mis-
cellanea Historiae Pontificiae 11/20 (Rome, 1946), 38–40. Antoine Dondaine, Secrétaires de
Saint Thomas, Publications de la Commission léonine pour l’édition des oeuvres de saint
Thomas d’Aquin (Rome, 1956), 196–197.
100 Nicholas Coureas nevertheless deduces from this sole explicit that the Thebes convent
was a center of scholarship aiming at the translation of Aristotle’s works (Nicholas
Coureas, “The Latin and Greek Churches in Former Byzantine Lands,” in Nickiphoros I.
Tsougarakis and Peter Lock, eds., A Companion to Latin Greece, Brill’s Companions to Eu-
ropean History 6 (Leiden, 2014), 177–178). On the general Dominican emphasis on learn-
ing and education, see, for example, William A. Hinnebusch, “The Dominican Order and
Learning,” in idem, The History of the Dominican Order, vol. 2: The Intellectual and Cultural
172 Chapter 6
may have been a fairly recent foundation. This contrasts with the Dominican
establishment in Constantinople: in existence by 1233 the Contra Graecos trea-
tise alone proves that this was a center of notable intellectual activity. The
anonymous author of the treatise was fluent in Greek and greatly interested in
Greek theological literature and, with the presence of Byzantine Dominicans
such as Simon the Constantinopolitan, there were people available who could
have instructed William in Greek and helped him with his research into Greek
philosophical literature. It stands to reason that for a translator in Latin Roma-
nia, the libraries of the Constantinopolitan ecclesiastical institutions would
have been the obvious place to look for copies of works to be translated, since
these no doubt possessed more extensive collections compared with those of
provincial establishments. Here too he could well have been assisted in his
research by Byzantine Greeks such as his fellow Dominicans.
Such metropolitan research could then have been augmented with forays
into provincial libraries when an opportunity presented itself. This is, in my
opinion, how the preserved explicits should be interpreted. Nicaea simply
cannot have been William’s habitual place of residence. Why would the same
not apply to Thebes? Perhaps William added these locations in the explicits
precisely because he was not working in his habitual environment. A number
of his early translations (before 1262) contain no information concerning the
location where they were produced, nor date.101 This of course could be due
to the vicissitudes in the preservation of the manuscripts, but could also be
explained by the assumption that they were created in what was his habitual
working place, presumably the Dominican convent in the capital. William’s
presence in Thebes and Nicaea might be explained in the context of the op-
eration of the Greek Dominican province, as purely intellectual enterprises, or
due to diplomatic missions, as Grabmann and Dondaine suggested with regard
to Nicaea.
Such missions need not have been an Achaian undertaking. Baldwin ii’s
grant of the kingdom of Thessaloniki to tercierus Guglielmo i of Verona and
Helena Angelos in 1240 or his hupogrammateus Nikephoritzes’ financial mis-
sion to Otho of Cicon, lord of Karystos, sometime before 1261, indicate that
the Latin emperor maintained active contacts with his southern vassals. This
Life to 1500 (New York, 1973), 3–18. Leonard Boyle, “Notes on the education of the Fratres
communes in the Dominican Order in the thirteenth century,” in Raymond Creytens and
Pius Künzle, eds., Xenia medii aevi historiam illustrantia oblata Thomae Kaeppeli O.P., Sto-
ria e letteratura 1 (Rome, 1978), 249–267. Marian M. Mulchahey, “First the Bow is Bent in
Study …”: Dominican Education before 1350, Studies and Texts 132 (Toronto, 1998).
101 See for these early translations (hypothetically dated based on aspects of the used method
of translation): Bossier, “Méthode de traduction et problèmes de chronologie,” 286–290.
is also borne out by Baldwin’s involvement in the 1259 Pelagonia alliance, to-
gether with the prince of Achaia, William ii of Villehardouin.102 There were
also diplomatic exchanges with Nicaea around 1260. Following Michael viii’s
failed offensive against Constantinople and Galata in late 1259–early 1260,
Baldwin ii unsuccessfully tried to negotiate a truce with Nicaea.103 Further-
more, the imperial authorities in Constantinople are known to have employed
Dominicans as envoys. For example, in 1238 knight Nicolas of Sorel and two
Dominican friars served as messengers of regent Narjot i of Toucy and the
Constantinopolitan barons to Venice with regard to the pawning of the Crown
of Thorns.104
The Dominicans knew to find imperial authorities when needed. In the
early 1230s, friar Peter of Sézanne, one of the envoys sent by pope Gregory ix
to discuss ecclesiastical union with the Nicaean authorities, contacted the im-
perial castellan of Constantinople to deal with a person described as a blas-
phemous Islamic monk (possibly a Muslim belonging to a Sufi congregation),
who allegedly was subsequently converted to Christianity. The incident is in-
teresting since it attests to a Muslim presence in Constantinople after 1204.
This presence hitherto has been questioned by scholars such as Stephen Rein-
ert and Glaire Anderson in view of the burning in 1203 of the Syrian Mitaton
(or quarter, including a space for prayer)— probably located near or along the
Golden Horn—by a group of crusaders, after the Constantinopolitan mosque
(Dar-el-Balat) near the Hippodrome had already been destroyed by the Byz-
antine population in 1201.105 Such a presence, however, should not be surpris-
ing given the diplomatic and commercial contacts with the Seljuk sultans of
Konya in the years 1204–1261.106
That there may have been a personal connection between William and
Baldwin ii, who both shared a Flemish background, can tentatively be inferred
from the translator’s possible whereabouts during the first years after 1260/61.
According to the available material, only one thing is certain: on 22 November
102 On my hypothesis concerning Baldwin’s involvement in the Pelagonia alliance, see

hapter 4, p. 82–85.
C
103 Akropolites, Historia, §83. On the siege of Galata, see also Chapter 3, note 19.
104 Teulet, Layettes du Trésor des Chartes 2: n° 2753, 395.
105 Golubovich, Biblioteca Bio-Bibliografica della Terra Santa e dell’Oriente Franciscano,
2:302–303. Stephen W. Reinert, “The Muslim Presence in Constantinople, 9th–15th Cen-
turies: Some preliminary Observations,” in Hélène Ahrweiler and Angeliki E. Laiou, eds.,
Studies on the Internal Diaspora of the Byzantine Empire (Washington D.C., 1998), 143–144.
Glaire D. Anderson, “Islamic Spaces and Diplomacy in Constantinople (Tenth to Thir-
teenth Centuries ce),” Medieval Encounters 15 (2009), 104–108.
106 On these contacts with the Latin emperors and the Venetian authorities in Constantinople:
Van Tricht, The Latin Renovatio of Byzantium, 371–377; Michael E. Martin, “The Venetian-
Seljuk Treaty of 1220,” English Historical Review 95 (1980), 321–330. See also Chapter 3, note 77.
174 Chapter 6
1267 he was at the papal court in Viterbo where he finished his translation of
Themistios’ commentary on Aristotle’s De anima, and he would thereafter re-
main connected to the papal curia.107 There are strong indications that before
that time he resided for a time in the kingdom of Sicily. This would seem to fol-
low from the clear link existing between William and his fellow translator Bar-
thelemy of Messina, who worked at the court of the king of Sicily Manfred of
Hohenstaufen (1258–1266). They in part used the same manuscripts and their
method of translation is so similar that is has been suggested that this was the
result of reciprocal influence or of a master-apprentice relationship. While ir-
refutable evidence of direct contact between both figures is lacking, the avail-
able data make such a personal relationship nevertheless very probable.108
If so, William and Baldwin ii after 1261 would have found themselves at the
court of the same ruler, king Manfred of Hohenstaufen, who in the following
years would try to appease the papacy with promises of aid to restore Latin
Constantinople.109 Interestingly enough William emerges at the papal court
in Viterbo (November 1267) around the time that Baldwin was reconciled with
the papacy, under whose auspices the Treaties of Viterbo (May 1267) to restore
Latin Constantinople were concluded, which also involved the new king of
Sicily, Charles of Anjou, and prince of Achaia, William ii of Villehardouin.110
Later William would become archbishop of Corinth (1278–1286), which could
show his continued attachment to Latin Romania where he again would ef-
fectively reside for some time so it seems.111 This conjecture of a shared
itinerary—Constantinople (in William’s case at the very least temporarily: it
is from a geographical ánd intellectual perspective rather inconceivable that
when he worked in both Thebes and Nicaea, he would not also have carried
out research in the capital), Sicily and Viterbo—seems plausible and could
107 Vanhamel, “Biobibliographie de Guillaume de Moerbeke,” 310–315. Pattin, “Pour la biog-

raphie de Guillaume de Moerbeke,” 392–395. It has been proposed that William arrived
at the papal court before 1267, but in the absence of any evidence substantiating such a
claim this must remain speculative.
108 Gudrun Vuillemin-Diem, “La liste des oeuvres d’Hippocrate dans le Vindobonensis phil. gr.
100: un autographe de Guillaume de Moerbeke,” in Jozef Brams and Willy Vanhamel, eds.,
Guillaume de Moerbeke. Recueil d’études à l’occasion du 700e anniversaire de sa mort (1286)
(Leuven, 1989), 161–162.
109 On Baldwin’s presence in Sicily after 1261 and his continuing support for Manfred’s cause
until 1266 (which earned him the enmity of the papacy), see references in Chapter 4, note 33.
110 On these treaties: Longnon, L’empire latin de Constantinople, 228–230; Steven Runciman,
The Sicilian Vespers. A History of the Mediterranean World in the later thirteenth century
(Cambridge, 1958), 135–140. Geanakoplos, Emperor Michael Palaeologus and the West
1258–1282, 138–140. Chrissis, Crusading in Frankish Greece, 204–207.
111 Pattin, “Pour la biographie de Guillaume de Moerbeke,” 393–395.
possibly be explained by assuming that William belonged to Baldwin’s social

network. A cleric named Guilelmus is attested in the emperor’s service in 1244,
when Innocent iv took him under his protection.112 It is possible, though unas-
certained, that this cleric might be identified with Moerbeke (supposedly born
around 1215).
In view of the earlier connections between the imperial court and the Do-
minicans, and of Baldwin’s interest in science (our astrological treatise being
dedicated to him), the idea of a personal connection between William and
Baldwin is not implausible. If so, William would have known the anonymous
author of our astrological treatise, with whom he shared an interest in the
occult sciences. William’s scholarly interests, as reflected in his translations,
indeed spanned a wide range of disciplines: philosophy (for example his
translations of Aristotle’s Politica, of Proclus’ Elementatio Theologica, and his
commentaries on various Platonic dialogues), mathematics (his translations
of several treatises by Hero of Alexandria and Archimedes), natural sciences
such as biology and astronomy (his translations of Aristotle’s Meteorologica,
De partibus animalium, De motu animalium, and De caelo), medicine (his study
and translations of works by Hippocrates and Galenus), but also astrology and
geomancy (an original treatise on geomancy and his translation of Ptolemy’s
Tetrabiblos).113
An interest in Greek medicine in Latin Constantinople can be demonstrated
by the Vienna Dioskorides codex (6th century), which contains a magnificently
illuminated copy of Pedanius Dioskorides’ De materia medica. Leslie Brubaker
has convincingly proposed that the additions to the manuscript in Latin in a
13th-century hand must date from the period 1204–1261. The manuscript did
not leave Constantinople before the 15th century and was likely destined for
imperial use.114 Our author himself possibly had an interest in medicine, as
his reference to and knowledge of Hippocrates’ Aphorismi would seem to sug-
gest.115 Excellent medical knowledge was available in the capital. A letter by the
Nicaean cleric Nicholas Mesarites to the Theotokos Evergetis monastery from
late 1207–early 1208 mentions his acquaintance Brachnos, a most esteemed
doctor, as still living in Constantinople. In the 1220s, Anseau i of Cayeux was
112 Innocentius iv, Les registres, n° 814.

113 On William’s treatise on geomancy: Thérèse Charmasson, Recherches sur une technique
divinatoire: la géomancie dans l’Occident médiéval, Hautes études médiévales et modernes
44 (Geneva, 1980), 157–167.
114 Leslie Brubaker, “The Vienna Dioskorides and Anicia Juliana,” in Antony Littlewood, Hen-
ry Maguire, and Joachim Wolschke-Buhlman, eds., Byzantine Garden Culture. Dumbarton
Oaks Studies (Washington D.C., 2002), 204–206.
115 BnF, fr. 1353, f. 8va (=Appendix 3, Ch. 2, §2). See also Chapter 5.
176 Chapter 6
shot through the neck by an arrow, but was nevertheless cured.116 Such profes-
sional expertise may well have continued to be available in the former xenon of
Saint Samson, which after 1204 became the headquarters of the Latin empire’s
own military hospital order of the same name.117
Interest in the occult sciences was likewise not limited to William. There is
of course our anonymous author’s astrological corpus and in a previous chap-
ter we already discussed indications that dream interpretation and prophetic/
eschatological literature were also en vogue at the Latin imperial court (as they
had been earlier at the Byzantine court), and in other segments of the met-
ropolitan society as well. In addition chronicler Aubry of Trois-Fontaines, for
instance, mentions how a bonus magister et sapiens, while visiting Constanti-
nople in the late 1230s, extracted a prophecy from a “demon” he subdued con-
cerning Baldwin ii’s future alliance with the Cumans against John iii Vatatzes
and Ivan ii Asen. The Franciscan traveller and missionary William of Rubrouck
visiting the capital and imperial court in 1253 familiarized himself with an Ar-
menian prophecy concerning the future fate of Constantinople and the Near
East (with a Latin-Armenian alliance in the context of the Mongol threat),
not only suggesting an interest in this sort of knowledge, but at the same time
attesting Latin-Armenian interaction and good mutual relations. The Arme-
nian presence in Constantinople had been reinforced by Henry of Flanders/
Hainaut in 1205, when he resettled Armenian families who hailed from the
Troad region.118 To be mentioned also are a number of Latin translations of
116 Brachnos: Nikolaos Mesarites, Reisebericht an die Monche des Evergetisklosters in Kon-
stantinopel, in August Heisenberg, ed., “Neue Quellen zur Geschichte des lateinischen
Kaisertums und der Kirchenunion 2/3,” Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-philologische und historische Klasse (1923, 2. Abteilung),
43–44. Cayeux: Akropolites, Historia, §24.
117 On this order: Van Tricht, The Latin Renovatio of Byzantium, 343–347; Dionysios Statha-
kopoulos, “Discovering a Military Order of the Crusades: The Hospital of St. Samson of
Constantinople,” Viator 37 (2006), 262–273. The latter author supposes that no doctors
were attached to the hospital in the Latin period, but a 1222 papal letter explicitly men-
tions that the brethren administred the necessaria to the poor and to the sick (Honorius
iii, Bullarium Hellenicum, n° 151). See, for example, in general on medieval hospitals in
Byzantium and Western Europe: Timothy S. Miller, The Birth of the Hospital in the Byzan-
tine Empire, 2nd ed. (Baltimore, 1997); Barbara S. Bowers, ed., The Medieval Hospital and
Medical Practice, avista Studies in the History of Medieval Technology, Science and Art
3 (Aldershot, 2007). Peregrine Horden, Hospitals and Healing from Antiquity to the Later
Middle Ages, Variorum Collected Studies (Aldershot, 2008). Specifically on the Byzantine
Saint Samson xenon: Timothy S. Miller, “The Sampson Hospital of Constantinople,” Byz-
antinische Forschungen 15 (1990), 101–135.
118 In Byzantium before 1204, see for example: Maria Mavroudi, “Occult Science and Society
in Byzantium. Considerations for Future Research,” in: Paul Magdalino and idem (eds.),
Byzantine prophetical/eschatological texts, allegedly taken from books termed

vasilografo (or “imperial scripture,” after the Greek basilographeion), that were
produced sometime during the 13th century. Some of these clearly refer to
the events of 1203/1204. It seems difficult not to see some kind of link with
Latin-Byzantine Constantinople. The interest of both chronicler and imperial
cleric Henry of Valenciennes and Franciscan provincial of Romania Benedict
of Arezzo in prophetical/eschatological material and in predictive phenomena
should be noted in this context.119
While the anonymous authors of our astrological corpus and the Contra
Graecos treatise, and presumably William of Moerbeke, were what may be
called resident scholars, Constantinople also attracted visiting Latin intel-
lectuals from the West. Several persons belonging to the circle around Robert
Grosseteste (†1253), bishop of Lincoln, author of a number of original scien-
tific treatises and translator of various Greek philosophical and religious works
into Latin, visited Latin Romania. John of Basingstoke, archdeacon of Leices-
ter, did so sometime before 1235. According to a report found in Matthew of
Paris’ Chronica Majora, based on magister John’s personal account, he studied
in Athens with a young woman named Constantina, the daughter of the lo-
cal archbishop. She is portrayed as a most eminent scholar who could explain
any difficult point of the trivium and quadrivium, and who could contradict
the knowledge he had gained during his earlier studies in Paris. She could also
predict disease, thunder, eclipses, and earthquakes. In Athens he also gained
knowledge ab peritis Graecorum doctoribus which until then had been unavail-
able for Latins. The account also states that Athens was the city were the Grae-
corum sapientes came to study.120
Charming as this story may be, some details do not seem credible. The de-
scription of Athens as the Greek center of learning in the opening decades
of the 13th century sounds anachronistic. In metropolitan Michael Choniates,
who had been sent from Constantinople, Athens did possess an intellectual
heavyweight at the turn of the 13th century, but after 1204 he retreated to the
The Occult Sciences in Byzantium (Paris, 2006), 74–79; Magdalino, “Occult Science and Im-
perial Power,” 159–162; Albericus Trium Fontium, Chronica, 949; Guillelmus de Rubruquis,
Itinerarium, ed. Anastasius Van den Wyngaert, Sinica Franciscana 1 (Florence, 1929),
§38, 322; Benjamin Hendrickx, “Les Arméniens d’Asie Mineure et de Thrace au début de
l’empire latin de Constantinople,” Revue des études arméniennes 22 (1990/91), 217–223.
119 Wolfram Brandes, “Kaiserprophetien und Hochverrat. Apokalyptische Schriften und Kai-
servaticinien als Medium antikaiserlicher Propaganda,” in idem and F. Schmieder, eds.,
Endzeiten: Eschatologie in den monotheistischen Weltreligionen (Berlin, 2008), 157–177.
120 Matthaeus Parisiensis, Chronica Majora, 5:284–287 (“from experienced Greek teachers”;
“Greek wise men”).
178 Chapter 6
island of Kea, later to return briefly to Athens (1216), and until his death in
1222 resided in the Saint John Prodromos monastery in Bodonitza, a town un-
der Latin rule. During this time he continued to correspond with a number
of educated Athenians, but these letters do not picture Athens as an ex-
ceptional center of learning, either before or after 1204, rather the contrary,
although Choniates from exile did try to make sure that good education re-
mained available.121 Martin Hellman’s evaluation of Athens’ portrayal by Paris
and Basingstoke, in my opinion, is accurate: “Diese könnte dann eher unter die
fantasievollen Vorstellungen über Athen gerechnet werden, die zu dieser Zeit
in England herrschten.”122 The character Constantina also seems problematic,
leading authors to express their doubts concerning her historicity.123 The name
Konstantina was not common for a Byzantine girl or woman at this time, al-
though to Western ears it probably sounded very Greek or Byzantine, since it
refers to both Emperor Constantine the Great and Constantinople.
Although some Byzantine ladies connected to the highest court elite were
highly educated (for example chronicler/historian Anna Komnena, daughter
of Alexios i), women teaching the trivium or quadrivium to men are not at-
tested in Byzantium at this time (or in the West for that matter).124 Moreover,
metropolitan Choniates, whose life is quite extensively documented, is not
known to have had any children. His Latin successor as archbishop of Athens
Berardus (Constantina is not explicitly identified as a Greek woman, although
Paris does seem to imply as much), as a Western cleric bound to stricter rules
of celibacy, is even less likely to have fathered a daughter (and to have brought
her with him to Romania).125 Given these elements Maria Mavroudi’s plea to
121 Michael Choniates, Epistulae, ed. Foteini Kolovou, Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae.
Series Berolinensis 41 (Berlin, 2001), n° 94–95, n° 102, n° 107, n° 110, n° 117, n° 124, n° 134–
137, n° 161, n° 165. Georg Stadtmüller, Michael Choniates, Metropolit von Athen, Orientalia
Christiana Analecta 33 (Rome, 1934), 154–212 (especially 19–193). Kenneth M. Setton, “Ath-
ens in the later XIIth century,” Speculum 19 (1944), 179–207. Shawcross, “The Lost Genera-
tion,” 82.
122 M. Hellman, “Review of: David A. King: The Ciphers of the Monks. A Forgotten Num-
ber-notation of the Middle Ages,” Archiv für Stenographie–Textverarbeitun–Bürotechnik
(2002), 88–90.
123 David A. King, The Ciphers of the Monks. A Forgotten Number-notation of the Middle Ages
(Stuttgart, 2001), 50.
124 See Maria Mavroudi, “Learned Women of Byzantium and the Surviving Record,” in De-
nis Sullivan, Elizabeth Fisher, and Stratis Papaioannou, eds., Byzantine Religious Culture.
Studies in Honor of Alice-Mary Talbot, The Medieval Mediterranean 92 (Leiden, 2012),
55–84.
125 On Michael Choniates, see the references in Chapter 6, note 120. On archbishop Berardus,
see Innocentius iii, Regesta, 215: col. 1130 (x, 35); col. 1432 (xi, 112); col. 1433 (xi, 113); col.
1468 (xi, 154); col. 1492 (xi, 179); col. 1549 (xi, 238); col. 1550 (xi, 244); col. 1551 (xi, 245 &
246); col. 1559 (xi, 256); 216: col. 201 (xii, 6); col. 299 (xiii, 103); col. 323 (xiii, 136 & 137);
accept Paris’ account is unconvincing. The author herself shows that after the
Alexandrinian Hypatia (†415) no female philosopher/lecturer is attested in the
Byzantine sources until the fall of the empire in 1453. Her argument that Paris
never fabricated misinformation is problematic, since with Basingstoke as the
basis of the report the chronicler may simply have accepted his account in
good faith.126 More likely Constantina should be regarded as a figment of Bas-
ingstoke’s imagination, with a possible (Orientalizing) intention to picture the
Byzantine East as an exotic place of wonder in order to capture the interest
of his listeners.127 The fact that Matthew of Paris devoted a chapter to Basing-
stoke’s life, and in essence to his voyage, proves that, at least, he captured the
chronicler’s interest.
In view of these reservations concerning the account of Basingstoke’s stay
in Athens, while he probably did visit the city (see the much debated simi-
larity between the ciphers that he claimed to have brought home to England
and those on a tablet from the 4th century bc found on the Acropolis), he
likely visited other places in Latin Romania, among them Constantinople, the
empire’s real cultural/intellectual center where manuscripts were to be found.
Basingstoke must have known this, or realized it after arriving in the region.
The capital presumably attracted a number of Western scholars looking for
Greek knowledge and manuscripts. Bishop Grosseteste, according to Matthew
of Paris, after Basingstoke informed him of the existence of the “Testament of
the twelve patriarchs,” sent a messenger in Graeciam to retrieve a copy of the
work, which he then translated in Latin. The English Franciscan scholar Roger
Bacon (†1292) in his Opus tertium states that Grosseteste had Greek grammar
books brought over de Graecia and a number of Greeks as well, who already
must have been cooperating with Latins. It is hard to imagine that the bish-
op’s envoys would not have visited Constantinople.128 The French chronicler
col. 471 (xiv, 112); col. 576 (xv, 44); col. 612–613 (xv, 100–101); Honorius iii et Gregorius ix,
Acta, n° 48–49, n° 93.
126 Mavroudi, “Learned Women of Byzantium and the Surviving Record,” 65–67.
127 Basingstoke’s inspiration may well have been the just mentioned Hypatia, about whose
life he could have read in the Historia Ecclesiastica Tripartita by Cassiodorus († shortly
after 580), which was well known in the medieval West, England included (Magnus Au-
relius Cassiodorus, Historia Ecclesiastica Tripartita, ed. Jean-Paul Migne, Patrologia La-
tina 69 (Paris, 1865), col. 1194–1195). See also, Max L. Laistner, “The Value and Influence of
Cassiodorus’ Ecclesiastical History,” Harvard Theological Review 41 (1948), 51–67; Désirée
Scholten, The History of a Historia. Manuscript Transmission of the Historia Ecclesiastica
Tripartita by Epiphianus-Cassiodorus, MA Thesis (Utrecht University, 2010).
128 Rogerus Bacon, Opus Tertium, in John S. Brewer, ed., Opera quaedam hactenus ined-
ita, Rerum Britannicarum medii aevi scriptores 1 (London, 1859), 91. See also, Francis S.
Stevenson, Robert Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln. A Contribution to the Religious, Political
and Intellectual History of the Thirteenth Century (London, 1899), 54, 224–226; Altaner, “Die
Kenntnis des Griechischen in den Missionsorden während des 13. und 14. Jahrhunderts,”
180 Chapter 6
illiam le Breton for the year 1209 records that recently (de novo—no doubt
W
after the conquest of 1204 which he mentions) several works (libelli) by Aristo-
tle had been brought to Paris from Constantinople.129 Such imports must have
stimulated an interest in the Queen of Cities as a repository of ancient Greek
knowledge. Chronicler Aubry of Trois-Fontaines similarly mentions a bonus
magister et sapiens who visited Constantinople in the late 1230s.130
Scholarly interest in philosophy and the sciences in Constantinople was
probably not limited to Latins. At the imperial court and in the Dominican con-
vent learned Byzantines were to be found as well, including phylax John and
Simon the Constantinopolitan. For some 13th-century manuscripts contain-
ing philosophical and scientific texts, Latin-Byzantine Constantinople should
be considered as a possible place of composition. One example might be Laur.
10.26—containing Michael Psellos’ (circa 1017/18–1078) commentary on Aris-
totle’s De interpretatione, Ammonios’ (circa 435/450–after 517) commentaries
on John Philoponos’ (circa 490–570), and Porphyrios’ (circa 233–301/305) com-
mentaries on Aristotle’s Categoriae—which has been dated to the years just
before or after 1261. For an anonymous treatise on the astrolabe, preserved in a
manuscript dated to the late 13th century, a possible Latin-Byzantine Constan-
tinopolitan provenance should be considered because of the strong interest in
astronomy at the Latin imperial court (not attested in Nicaea) and in view of the
fact that the treatise is probably a Greek translation of an Arabo-Latin treatise.131
It seems natural to assume that an intellectual exchange would have tak-
en place between Latins and Byzantines who shared both scholarly interests
and their work environment. As regards the author of our astrological corpus,
448–449; James McEnvoy, Robert Grosseteste, Great Medieval Thinkers (Oxford, 2000),
113–117.
129 Guillaume le Breton, Gesta Philippi Augusti, ed. Henri-François Delaborde, Oeuvres de
Rigord et Guillaume le Breton, vol. 1: Chroniques de Rigord et de Guillaume le Breton
(Paris, 1882), §155, 233.
130 Albericus Trium Fontium, Chronica, 949.
131 On the Psellos manuscript: Inmaculada Perez Martin, “The Transmission of Some Writ-
ings by Psellos in Thirteenth-century Constantinople,” in Antonio Rigo, ed., Theologica
Minora: The Minor Genres of Byzantine Theological Literature, Byzantios. Studies in Byzan-
tine History and Civilization 8 (Turnhout, 2013), 163–164. On the treatise on the astrolabe:
Anne Tihon, “Traités byzantins sur l’astrolabe,” Physis. Rivista internazionale di storia della
scienza 32 (1995) 325, 335–336; Elizabeth Fisher, “Arabs, Latins and Persians Bearing Gifts:
Greek Translations of Astronomical Texts, ca. 1300,” Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies
36 (2012), 166–167. For an overview of dated manuscripts for the period 1204–1261, see
Prato, “La produzione libraria in area greco-orientale,” 410–421. None of them mention
Constantinople as place of production, but this is true for Nicaea as well. The majority of
the manuscripts mention no place of production at all. See also Chapter 7.
yzantine colleagues may have acquainted him with certain works and dis-
B
cussed them with him. In this manner perhaps the Introductoire needs to be
seen as an “astrological bridge” between 12th- and late 13th/early 14th-century
Byzantium. It is well-known that up until 1204 there was a lively interest in as-
trology at the court of the Angeloi, Komnenoi, and previous imperial dynasties
(shared by some patriarchs and high ranking clerics). This interest, however, is
completely absent from the courts of the Nicaean and Thessalonican emperors.
Paul Magdalino has observed with regard to astrology in the first three quarters
of the 13th century that the astrologers, remarkably, were silent and that they
are almost completely absent from the works of other Byzantine authors.
Under John iii Vatatzes, higher education was organized in Nicaea, but as-
tronomy was no longer part of the curriculum. The closely related disciplines
astronomy and astrology possibly fell from grace due to the previous emperors
flirting with astrology, believed by some to be one of the causes of the 1204
debacle. For example Niketas Choniates, who spent his final years in Nicaea,
is very critical of astrology in his chronicle.132 Emperor Theodore ii Laskaris
(1254–1258) in one of his letters, while relating a scholarly debate that took
place at his court between Latin and Greek intellectuals (during a diplomatic
mission of marquis Berthold of Hohenburg, envoy of rex Romanorum and king
of Sicily Conrad iv of Hohanstaufen), stated that the Latins were victorious
only in the discipline of astrology, which he qualifies as defective.133 Only from
the late 13th century on (in any case after 1261) can a revival of astrology be wit-
nessed in Paleologan Constantinople, with intellectuals such as George Pachy-
meres, Theodore Metochites, and George Chioniades displaying an interest.134
Magdalino has suggested with regard to Nicaean scholar Nikephoros Blem-
mydes’ teacher Prodromos, that he possibly chose to remain in Latin territory
(the Troad region) because Westerners may have better appreciated his sci-
ence. Prodromos was well-versed in both astronomy and astrology and passed
on his knowledge to Blemmydes, as his manual on physics attests. Blemmydes
himself, presumably because of the critical reception, chose not to include
astronomy and astrology in the higher education program he introduced in
Nicaea.135 After 1204 other Byzantine scholars with an interest in astrology (and
132 See, for example, Niketas Choniates, Historia, 1:154, 221; 2:455–456, 519–520, 530, 558.
133 Theodore Doukas Laskaris, Epistulae ccxvii, ed. Nicola Festa (Florence, 1898), n° cxxv,
174–176. In another letter Theodore ii criticizes all occult sciences (ibid., n° cxxxi, 183–184).
134 Magdalino, L’orthodoxie des astrologues, 109–137. Tihon, “Astrological Promenade in Byz-
antium,” 165–181.
135 Magdalino, L’orthodoxie des astrologues, 135–137. Nikephoros Blemmydes, Epitome Physica,
ed. Jean-Paul Migne, Patrologia Graeca 142 (Paris, 1863), 1237–1248. On Prodromos: see
Chapter 1, note 33.
182 Chapter 6
other occult sciences) likewise may have opted for staying in Latin controlled
territories, Constantinople or elsewhere. George Chioniades († circa 1320) was
born in Constantinople (as physician and astronomer George Chrysokokkes
testifies in the preface to his Procheiros syntaxis of circa 1346–1347) probably
around 1240–1250, as Westerlink hypothesized, since he describes himself as
an old man in a letter written circa 1310–1314. Chioniades studied all the scienc-
es, especially medicine, mathematics, and astronomy/astrology, for which he
had a special interest. If he was born in the early 1240s there is a good chance
that he began his higher education in Latin Constantinople, where astronomy/
astrology was actively studied. After becoming a monk, he travelled to Trebi-
zond and in the early 1290s moved to Tabriz where he continued his study of
medicine and astronomy/astrology. He later translated a number of Persian
astronomical/astrological works into Greek.136
A 1252 astronomical treatise on Indian/Arabic mathematics, including a
section concerning the zodiac (used in the casting of horoscopes), may ten-
tatively be ascribed to a member of our hypothetical group of Constantinop-
olitan Byzantine scholars with an interest in astronomy/astrology. None of the
ten known manuscripts contains the name of its author, but its editor André
Allard considered it to be “un témoin capital de l’influence occidentale à Byz-
ance.” In the West, Indian/Arabic mathematics had been introduced from the
12th century and during the 13th century it became widely diffused, for exam-
ple through the influential Liber abaci written in 1202 by Leonardo Fibonacci
of Pisa, on which the 1252 Greek treatise was probably partially based. It seems
difficult not to see Latin Constantinople as a plausible milieu of composition
for this treatise, particularly in view of the fact that after 1261 Indian/Arabic
mathematics never really caught on in Byzantium. The Constantinopolitan
cleric and scholar Maximos Planudes (circa 1255–1305/10)—a well-known
Latinophile who translated several authors into Greek (Cicero, Boethius, Mac-
robius, Augustine, and others)—used the treatise as a source for his own work
on Indian/Arabic mathematics, but after that little interest in them was shown
by Byzantine intellectuals.137
136 L.G. Westerlink, ed., “La profession de foi de Grégoire Chionidès,” Revue des études byzan-
tines 38 (1980), 233–245. Fisher, “Arabs, Latins and Persians Bearing Gifts: Greek Transla-
tions of Astronomical Texts, ca. 1300,” 168–169. See also my discussion of the educational
situation in Constantinople after 1204 in Chapter 1.
137 André Allard, “Le premier traité byzantin de calcul indien: classement des manuscrits et
édition critique du texte, ” Revue d’histoire des textes 7 (1977), 57–64. On the 1252 treatise,
see also Magdalino, L’orthodoxie des astrologues, 148–149; Byden, “Strangle Them With
These Meshes of Syllogisms,” 133 n. 2.
There may have been a counterpart in Latin Constantinople to William of

Moerbeke’s translations of Greek science. Two Greek codices (Vat. gr. 12 and
Vat. gr. 1144) contain a partial translation of books iv and v on moral proverbs
from the Speculum doctrinale by the Dominican friar Vincent of Beauvais, the
third part of his compilatory magnum opus the Speculum maius, dedicated
to the French king Louis ix. Inmaculada Perez Martin has argued that the
translation was probably made by a Byzantine scholar who knew Latin, rather
than by a Latin scholar who knew Greek. The author favors an identification
of the translator with one of the Latinophile Byzantine intellectuals at the
court of Andronikos ii, though she recognizes that no stylistic grounds permit
an identification with either the well-known Maximos Planudes or Manuel
Holobolos. She proposes as translator the monk Sophonias, who under An-
dronikos ii converted to the Latin faith and who had a connection with the 1299
(re)established Dominican convent in Pera. The author does acknowledge the
possibility that the translation was made in the Constantinopolitan Domini-
can convent before 1261. But with the Speculum maius’ final date of composi-
tion (circa 1256–1259), she suggests this hypothesis less likely. However, by 1250
the Speculum doctrinale was already in circulation as a separate entity and a
part in existence by 1245 (incorporated in an early version of the Speculum
naturale). Given the frequent contacts between Constantinople and the West,
France and the French royal court in particular, the local Dominican convent,
a dynamic intellectual community, may well have obtained a copy before 1261.
Thus, a Byzantine Dominican friar, such as Simon the Constantinopolitan,
should be considered as a possible translator.138
Another Greek translation of a Latin philosophical work should perhaps
also be associated with Latin Constantinople. The text in question—the Di-
airesis of dialectical topoi—is thought to be a translation of an anonymous
contemporary Latin work on logic. The oldest manuscript has been dated to
the late 13th century. Börje Byden has argued that this text must have been
translated before Andronikos ii’s abrogation in 1283 of the 1274 ecclesiastical
union with Rome. Byden hypothesizes that the translator is to be found in the
138 Inmaculada Perez Martin, “El libro de Actor. Una traducción bizantina del Speculum
doctrinale de Beauvais (Vat. Gr. 12 y 1144),” Revue des études byzantines 55 (1997), 91–95,
100–101. See also W.J. Aerts, “Proverbial passages taken from Vincent of Beauvais’ ‘Specu-
lum Doctrinale’ translated into Medieval Greek: the methods of translation used by the
anonymous Greek author,” in idem, E.R. Smits, and J.B. Voorbij, eds., Vincent of Beauvais
and Alexander the Great. Studies on the “Speculum Maius” and its translations into medi-
eval vernaculars, Mediaevalia Groningana 7 (Groningen 1986), 141–176. Monique Paulm-
ier-Foucart and Serge Lusignan, “Vincent de Beauvais et l’histoire du Speculum Maius,”
Journal des Savants 1 (1990), 104–105.
184 Chapter 6
milieu around Manuel Holobolos and the Patriarchal School around 1265–1273.
George Pachymeres, who had been accepted as translator by editor Dimitrios
Nikitas (on the basis of an attribution in a 16th-century manuscript), is consid-
ered as a possible candidate by Byden, though Sten Ebbesen has formulated
grave doubts. In the absence of hard arguments, the identity of the translator
remains an open question. It is interesting that, although there are no obvious
contraindications, a date before 1261 is not even considered by any of these
authors. They implicitly seem to assume that scholarly activity was virtually
absent from Latin Constantinople.139 This, however, was not the case: Latins
and Byzantines (among others our author, friars at the Dominican convent,
and phylax John) engaged in intellectual activity and exchange. Latin Constan-
tinople, with its mixed Latin-Byzantine subcommunities (the imperial court,
the Dominican and Franciscan convents), would appear to have provided a
stimulating environment for the Greek translation of a contemporary Latin
work on logic.
Other possible proof of Byzantine scientific activity concerns the anony-
mous so-called Zonarae lexicon (or Lexicon Tittmannianum), formerly incor-
recly attributed to the 12th-century chronicler and theologian John Zonaras.
This lexicon has been dated convincingly by Klaus Alpers to the period between
1204 (see a reference to the post-1204 condition of the altar of Saint Sophia)
and 1253 (the date of the earliest manuscript, Vat. gr. 10). Alpers has, further-
more, identified Constantinople as its place of origin, given the wide-ranging
sources that only would have been available in the capital. On this basis, for the
two earliest known copies of the lexicon—Vat. gr. 10 from 1253 and the Scor.
Ψ.III.16 from 1256—a Constantinopolitan origin could then be considered,
in spite of Prato’s suggestion of a provincial origin. A possible sphragis might
indicate that the lexicon’s author was named Nikephoros. Alpers tentatively
suggested an identification with the Nicaean scholar Nikephoros Blemmydes
(1197–1272), but this can not be reconciled with the author’s affirmation that
the work could only have been written in Constantinople. A Nikephoros/Nike-
phoritzes was in Baldwin ii of Courtenay’s service as imperial undersecretary
(hupogrammateus). Such a profile would make him a plausible candidate as to
139 Börje Byden, “‘Strangle Them with These Meshes of Syllogisms!’: Latin Philosophy in
Greek Translations of the Thirteenth Century,” in Jan O. Rosenqvist, ed., Interaction and
Isolation in Late Byzantine Culture (Stockholm and New York, 2004), 135–136, 140–142, 152–
157. Sten Ebbesen, “Pachymeres and the Topics,” Cahiers de l’institut du moyen-âge grec et
latin 66 (1996), 169–185. Idem, “Greek and Latin Medieval Logic,” Cahiers de l’institut du
moyen-âge grec et latin 66 (1996), 67–95. Dimitrios Nikitas, ed., Boethius. De topicis differ-
entiis und die byzantinische Rezeption dieses Werkes, Corpus Philosophorum Medii Aevi.
Philosophi Byzantini 5 (Athens, 1990).
the lexicon’s authorship. The lexicon became the most widely distributed of
Byzantine lexica, its sources including the Suda, the Etymologicum genuinum,
various scholia collections (Homer, Gregory of Nazianze), Michael Psellos,
John Zonaras, Anastasios Sinaites, Stephen of Byzantium, Maximos the Con-
fessor, and John of Damascus. Assuming the post-1204 date to be correct, this
comprehensive lexicon would bear testimony to continued scientific work and
production under Latin rule.140
140 On the Zonarae Lexicon, see Herbert Hunger, Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der
Byzantiner, Handbuch der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft 9 (Munich, 1978), 2:42–43.
Klaus Alpers, “Zonarae Lexicon,” in Hubert Cancik and Helmuth Schneider, eds., Brill’s
New Pauly. Antiquity volumes (First published online 2006—http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1574-
9347_bnp_e12217830) consulted online on 26 April 2018. Iordanes Gregoriades does not
accept Alpers’ 1204 terminus post quem. The author however hardly engages Alpers’ ar-
gumentation, ignoring crucial elements such as the proposed link between the lexicon
and the Suda with regard to the entry mentioning the altar of Saint Sophia. His own at-
tempt to (re)attribute the lexicon to John Zonaras lacks substance, since the (limited)
influence of Zonaras’ works (especially on canon law) on the lexicon has long been rec-
ognized (Iordanes Gregoriades, “Tracing the hand of Zonaras in the Lexicon Tittmannia-
num,” Hellenika 46 (1996), 41–42). On Blemmydes, see Chapter 1, note 33. On Nikephoros/
Nikephoritzes, see Chapter 2, note 33. On the 1253 and 1256 manuscripts containing the
earliest copies of the lexicon, see Prato, “La produzione libraria in area greco-orientale,”
426–427.
Chapter 7
The Arts and Artistic Production in Latin-Byzantine

Constantinople
In current historiography, Latin Constantinople is generally not associated

with artistic accomplishments. On the contrary, most authors have stressed
the destructions that were caused by the fires that struck the city during the
successive sieges of 1203–1204, with the accompanying despoliation of church-
es and demolition of works of art. Furthermore, they have assumed a gen-
eral neglect of the city’s monumental secular and ecclesiastical architecture
in the period until 1261, supposedly caused by a lack of interest (or “cultural
level” in the words of Charalambos Bouras) by the Latin elite as well as a lack
of financial r esources.1 To be sure, the 1203–1204 conquest did involve large-
scale destruction and looting. Thomas Madden in a detailed study estimated
that approximately one sixth of the city burnt down, although—as I argued
elsewhere—this statement needs to be interpreted in the sense that one sixth
of the city to some degree suffered from the flames.2
1 See, for example, Thomas F. Madden, “The Fires of the Fourth Crusade in Constantinople,
1203–1204: A Damage Assessment,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 84/85 (1991–1992), 72–93; S uzanne
Dufrenne, “Architecture et décor monumental d’art byzantin à l’époque de l’empire latin de
Constantinople (1204–1261),” Byzantinische Forschungen 4 (1972), 64–75; Vassilios Kidonopou-
los, Bauten in Konstantinopel 1204–1328. Verfall und Zerstörung, Restaurierung, Umbau und
Neubau von Profan- und Sakralbauten, Mainzer Veröffentlichungen zur Byzantinistik 1 (Wi-
esbaden, 1994), 227–230; idem, “The urban Physiognomy of Constantinople from the Latin
Conquest through the Palaiologan Era,” in Sarah T. Brooks, ed., Byzantium, Faith, and Power
(1261–1557). Perspectives on Late Byzantine Art and Culture (New York 2006), 98–117; Paul Mag-
dalino, “Medieval Constantinople: Built Environment and Urban Development,” in Angeliki
.E. Laiou, ed., The Economic History of Byzantium From the Seventh through the Fifteenth Cen-
tury, Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection 39 (Washington D.C., 2002), 1:535–536;
Charalambos Bouras, “The Impact of Frankish Architecture on Thirteenth Century Byzantine
Architecture,” in Angeliki Laiou and R.P. Mottahedeh, eds., The Crusades from the Perspective
of the Byzantine and the Muslim World (Washington, 2001), 247–248; idem, “Architecture in
Constantinople in the Thirteenth Century,” in Panayotis L. Vocotopoulos, ed., Byzantine Art
in the Aftermath of the Fourth Crusade. The Fourth Crusade and Its Consequences. International
Congress, March 9–12, 2004 (Athens, 2007), 105–112. For a more fruitful comparative approach
with regard to the cultural/intellectual level of Latins and Byzantines: Sita Steckel, “Networks of
Learning in Byzantine East and Latin West: Methodological Considerations and Starting
Points for Further Work,” in idem, Niels Gaul, and Michael Grünbart, eds., Networks of Learning.
Perspectives on Scholars in Byzantine East and Latin West, c. 1000–1200 (Berlin, 2015), 185–234.
2 Madden, “The Fires of the Fourth Crusade in Constantinople,” 88–89. See my remarks in Van
Tricht, The Latin Renovatio of Byzantium, 24.

Arts and Artistic Production 187
A vivid eyewitness account of the plundering that went on in the streets,

palaces, and ecclesiastical institutions for three days is provided by chronicler
and government official Niketas Choniates. In his De signis he also composed
an often quoted list of bronze statues that were intentionally destroyed by the
crusaders, to be melted down to produce coin or through ideological consid-
erations. It should be noted that such destructions were not a Latin preroga-
tive. Titos Papamastorakis has rightly observed that the Byzantine populace in
1203–1204 played a part as well. In 1081, during Alexios i Komnenos’ military
coup, his troops and the metropolitan population had also engaged in large-
scale despoliation and violence during several days, including churches.3
With regard to the Nicaean (re)capture of the city in 1261, the major Byz-
antine chroniclers George Akropolites, George Pachymeres, and Nikephoros
Gregoras have all commented on the state of Constantinople at that time.
These reports, along with an analysis of Michael viii’s building and restora-
tion activities, with the inclusion of a few other sources, led Alice-Mary Tal-
bot and others to conclude, in line with anti-unionist patriarch Gregory ii of
Cyprus (1283–1289) I might add, that the Byzantine capital by 1261 had vir-
tually become a desolate place filled with ruins.4 But the matter is not that
straightforward, as I hope to show by a renewed analysis of the just mentioned
reports.
The earliest author, Akropolites, who had risen to the post of megas logo-
thetes by the time of Michael viii’s rule, and who visited Constantinople s hortly
after 1261, in fact includes in his account of the Nicaean conquest and the em-
peror’s entry into the city not a single remark concerning desolation, destruc-
tion, or depopulation. In the opening chapters of his work, in his description
of the 1204 conquest, he only and succinctly states that Constantinople at that
time befell the misfortunes of a fallen city (despoliation, destruction of homes,
killings and personal violence), without attempting to present these as ex-
traordinary in scale or in nature. Akropolites does mention that in 1261 kaisar
Alexios Strategopoulos set fire to the Venetian quarters by the seaside and then
to the campi of the other Latin nations. The sight of the city in flames discour-
aged the Latin fleet and army, which had hastily returned from Daphnousia,
from defending the capital. Talbot in her article on Michael viii’s restoration
3 Titos Papamastorakis, “Interpreting the De Signis of Niketas Choniates,” in Alicia Simpson

and S. Efthymiades, eds., Niketas Choniates. A Historian and a Writer (Geneva, 2009), 209–222.
Ferdinand Chalandon, Essai sur le règne d’Alexis Ier Comnène (1081–1118), Mémoires et Docu-
ments publiés par la Société de l’Ecole des Chartes 6 (Paris, 1900), 49–53 (with an account of
the 1081 events based on the chronicles by Anna Komnena and John Zonaras).
4 Alice-Mary Talbot, “The restoration of Constantinople under Michael viii,” Dumbarton Oaks
Papers 47 (1993), 243–262. For Bouras, see reference in note 1.
188 Chapter 7
or Bouras in his contribution on 13th-century Constantinople do not mention

this 1261 fire.5
The scholar and high-ranking imperial official Pachymeres (born around
1242 and present in Constantinople shortly after 1261) confirms that the Latin
residential and commercial quarters were set ablaze out of tactical consider-
ations. The chronicler with regard to the housing of the Nicaean aristocracy
observes that a good number of the pre-1204 habitations, not only ordinary
ones, still existed. After 1204 a fair share of private palaces and residences were
taken over by Latin barons, as Robert of Clari informs us, and during the first
decades these noblemen must have possessed from their newly acquired fiefs
the necessary means to maintain them properly. Pachymeres concludes that
nothing would have changed if the continuous wars had not forced the Latins
to, out of necessity, “touch” certain buildings, churches included.6
This observation finds confirmation in the by modern authors often repeat-
ed statement by Venetian crusade propagandist and chronicler Marino Sanudo
Torsello that Emperor Baldwin ii was obliged to sell the lead of the roofs of a
number of palaces, which presumably relates to the final years of Latin rule
when—after the 1259 battle of Pelagonia—the emperor’s territories had been
reduced to Constantinople and its immediate surroundings.7 Gregoras (circa
1295–1360), scholar and chartophylax under Andronikos ii, the chronicler most
influential to current historiography (Talbot and others), recounts that this
confinement, after Michael viii’s failed siege of Galata in late 1259–early 1260,
caused the Latins to obtain firewood from existing structures (even famous
ones). Extreme circumstances obviously required extreme measures, which,
however, had little to do with policy or artistic/cultural interests.
Gregoras goes on to say that in 1261 Strategopoulos set fire to the city in four
different places, and that by morning Baldwin ii saw that the flames surround-
ed the entire city and directly threatened the Blacherna palace, from which
he fled. In his treatment of Michael viii’s entry into the city, the chronicler
mentions that the emperor chose the Great Palace as his residence because
the Blacherna palace was filled with dust and ashes. This must have resulted
from Strategopoulos’ fires, which would then seem to relativize a statement
by Pachymeres that the Blacherna palace by 1261 had been covered with Latin
smoke and soot. Gregoras concludes that the city was a field of destruction
5 Georgios Akropolites, Historia, §4, §85, §88–89.

6 Georgios Pachymeres, Relations Historiques, lib. 2, §27, §30. Robert de Clari, La conquête de
Constantinople, §80.
7 Robert L. Wolff, “Hopf’s so-called ‘Fragmentum’ of Marino Sanudo Torsello,” Jewish Social
Studies 5 (1953), 150–158.
filled with ruins and rubble, and lists the reasons he sees for this: the 1203–1204
fires, general neglect and devastations by the Latins in the period 1204–1261,
and the 1261 fires. The earthquakes of 1231 and 1237 go unmentioned.8
Gregoras, compared with both Akropolites and Pachymeres, paints, with
reproach for the Latin rulers, the most damaging picture of the state of Con-
stantinople at the time of the Nicaean conquest. He was, however, not a con-
temporary, having not actually witnessed the state of Constantinople in 1261.
By the mid-14th century the city had experienced a series of post-1261 damag-
ing events (earthquakes in 1296, 1303, and 1323; fires in 1291, 1305, and 1320).9 His
evaluation (and those of modern authors based on it) of the impact on the city
of 58 years of Latin rule should in my view then rather be seen as a conscious
exaggeration which was intended to function, quite successfully, as anti-Latin
propaganda. The same could be said about the statement by the anti-unionist
patriarch Gregory ii.
David Jacoby has attempted to remediate the current view on the basis of a
detailed study of a number of inter alia Venetian notarial documents.10 Jacoby
has convincingly argued that political, economic, and demographic factors gen-
erally enabled the maintenance of public, institutional, and private buildings
in the Venetian quarter (which comprised three-eighths of the urban space),
and stimulated the construction of additional structures. A new fondaco was
built by the Venetian podestà, reflecting favourable economic and commer-
cial circumstances, and city walls were repaired.11 Jacoby’s overview also lists
a number of ecclesiastical structures where maintenance, restoration, and
renovation were carried out (although in the case of archeological finds secure
dates are often problematic), or which clearly possessed the means to do so.
8 Nikephoros Gregoras, Bizantina Historia, 1: lib. 4, cap. 1–2. Glanville Downey, “Earthquakes
at Constantinople and vicinity, a.d. 342–1454,” Speculum 30 (1955), 596–600.
9 Alice-Mary Talbot, “Building Activity in Constantinople Under Andronikos ii: The Role of
Women Patrons in the Construction and Restoration of Monasteries,” in Nevra Necipoglu,
ed., Byzantine Constantinople: Monuments, Topography and Everyday Life, The Medieval
Mediterranean 33 (Leiden, 2001), 329.
10 Jacoby, “The Urban Evolution of Latin Constantinople,” 277–297. Jacoby’s conclusions
were accepted by Ekaterini Mitsiou, who pleads to use the Byzantine narrative sources
and the generalizations therein with caution (Ekaterini Mitsiou, “Die Netzwerke einer
kulturellen Begegnung: byzantinische und lateinische Klöster in Konstantinopel im 13.
und 14. Jahrhundert,” in Klaus Oschema, Ludger Lieb, and Johannes Heil, eds., Abraha-
ms Erbe: Konkurrenz, Konflikt und Koexistenz der Religionen im europäischen Mittelalter
(Berlin, 2015), 359–374). Bouras does not mention Jacoby’s crucial study in his contribu-
tion on 13th-century Constantinopolitan architecture (see reference in note 1).
11 On the growth of the urban economy in the years 1204–1261: Jacoby, “Venetian Settlers in
Latin Constantinople (1204–1261): Rich or Poor?,” 181–204.
190 Chapter 7
This list includes, among others, the patriarchal Saint Sophia church (addi-
tion of flying buttresses and probably a bell tower as Vasileios Marinis suggests),
the Venetian Pantokrator complex (replacement of stained glass windows), the
imperial Theotokos ton Blachernon church (near the palace of the same name),
the Holy Apostles church—occupied by a Latin collegiate chapter—and the
Byzantine Saint John Prodromos monastery (where restoration works were
funded by John iii Vatatzes, sometime after the earthquakes in the 1230s), the
San Marco dell’Embolo church and the annexed Christ Pantepoptes monastery
(both owned by the Venetian San Giorgio monastery), the Franciscan church
at the site of the current Kalenderhane Camii (new frescoes and possibly a
bell tower), the Saint Samson complex (headquarters of a new military order
under the patronage of the Latin emperors), and the Cistercian Saint Mary of
Le Perchay monastery (which loaned the Latin emperor a substantial sum of
money in the 1230s).
In addition can be added that the dynamic local Dominican community
no doubt possessed an (unidentified) convent which would have been kept
in good condition; the Cistercian Sancta Maria Sancti Angeli monastery, tra-
ditionally situated in the Petra quarter (or possibly in Pera across the Golden
Horn), which was no doubt founded by Emperor Henry, as Clair has argued
convincingly, and which enjoyed the imperial patronage of his successors.12
Possibly also the Hagia Trias monastery (if actually located in Constantinople),
12 On the mentioned churches, see Janin, “Les sanctuaires de Byzance sous la domination
latine,” 134–184. On the Saint John Prodromos monastery, see idem, La géographie ecclé-
siasique de l’empire byzantin, 422, and Joseph Gill, “An unpublished letter of Germanus,
patriarch of Constantinople (1222–1240),” Byzantion 44 (1974) 139; the latter argues con-
vincingly against Janin that the Saint John Prodromos was not taken over by Latin clerics.
See also the references in Chapter 6, note 117 (Saint Samson) and Chapter 7, note 38 (Kal-
enderhane Camii). Specifically on the churches of the Cistercian and other Latin religious
orders in Constantinople, see also Nickiphoros I. Tsougarakis, The Latin Religious Orders
in Medieval Greece, 1204–1500, Medieval Church Studies 18 (Turnhout, 2012), 53–55, 61–67,
82–85, 106–108, 288, 293. Specifically on the Sanctus Angelus monastery and its location:
Romain Clair, “Les filles d’Hautecombe dans l’Empire latin de Constantinople,” Analecta
Sacri Ordinis Cisterciensis 17 (1961), 262–277; Raymond Janin, “Notes d’Histoire et de To-
pographie: l’abbaye cistercienne ‘Saint-Ange de Pétra’ (1214–1261),” Revue d’études byzan-
tines 26 (1968), 171–177. Cistercian sources situate the monastery in Petra, but two letters
in the papal registers throw some doubt on this localisation: the copy of a 1222 letter by
Honorius iii addressed to the monastery contains a scribal note changing Petra to Perra,
while in another (1225) the location reads Pera (Honorius iii, Bullarium Hellenicum, n°
135, n° 258). Whether the scribal note was indeed a correction or rather the introduction
of an error is difficult to assess. The monastery could thus have been located in either the
Petra quarter or in Pera. It was in any case not located in the Petrion quarter as I myself
erroneously stated earlier (Van Tricht, The Latin Renovatio of Byzantium, 216).
which was restored by Matthew Perdikares. Furthermore, it has been argued

that the bell towers, seen as a Western innovation, at the Theotokos Pammak-
aristos, Kilise Camii, and Chora churches are probably to be attributed to the
Latin period.13 John Thomas has remarked that due to the final 1219 compro-
mise concerning the ecclesiastical possessions in the empire, confirmed by
Emperor Robert in 1221, many (smaller) churches and monasteries may have
been better off than in the period before 1204.14
The building of entirely new churches, in particular by the Latin emperors
Henry and Baldwin ii, can also be attested. This disproves Jacoby’s statement
that “they disregarded the historical, symbolic and ideological dimension of
Constantinople as imperial capital, which the Byzantine emperors had deci-
sively promoted by public works and by the construction and embellishments
of churches and monasteries,” because “they lacked the imperial vision and
deep-seated convictions of their Byzantine predecessors” and because “the ab-
sence of resources prevented them anyhow from engaging in urban enterpris-
es,” although the author does admit that the first Latin emperors may still have
possessed the financial means to offer a display of riches befitting their status.
Henry indeed left his imprint on the city by founding a Cistercian monas-
tery (Sancta Maria Sancti Angeli), a military hospital order (based at the Saint
Samson complex), and by building a church dedicated to Saint Thorlac for the
benefit of the Scandinavian community.15 He may have patronized Byzantine
churches and monasteries in the capital as well, as he did in other parts of the
empire (on Mount Athos for example).16 In view of the close relationship be-
tween the imperial court and mendicant orders, the Latin emperors may also
have been instrumental in the foundation of the Franciscan and Dominican
convents in the capital, first mentioned in 1220 and 1232 respectively. Baldwin
ii had a beautiful Byzantine-style church dedicated to Saint George built in
the later part of his reign. The fact that he instructed a Byzantine Greek priest
13 Van Tricht, The Latin Renovatio of Byzantium, 126–127 (Hagia Trias). Vasileios Marinis,
Architecture and Ritual in the Churches of Constantinople (Cambridge, 2014), 97–98. Not
all authors accept the attribution of these bell towers to the Latin period (or the flying
butresses of Saint Sophia, or the stained glass in the Pantokrator): Bouras, “Architecture
in Constantinople in the Thirteenth Century,” 105–110. On Byzantine opposition against
Western-style bell towers before 1204: Alex Rodriguez Suarez, “Interacción entre latinos y
bizantinos en vísperas de la Cuarta Cruzada (1204): el testimonio de Teodoro Balsamón,”
Estudios bizantinos 4 (2016), 176–185.
14 John P. Thomas, Private Religious Foundations in the Byzantine Empire, Dumbarton Oaks
Studies 24 (Washington D.C., 1987), 246–247.
15 Andrea Van Arkel De Leeuw Van Weenen and Krijnie Ciggaar, “St. Thorlac’s in Constanti-
nople, built by a Flemish emperor,” Byzantion 49 (1979), 428–446.
192 Chapter 7
in his entourage (called Demetrios) may perhaps be seen as an indication that

the emperor also cared for Byzantine ecclesiastical institutions in his capital.
Interesting also is the earlier discussed passage in the Introductoire where our
author quotes a certain Hermocrates, from which one could perhaps deduce
an interest in architecture and building activities.17
The construction of (largely) Byzantine-style churches commissioned by
Latin patrons is also to be found in other parts of the Latin empire, for example
the Theotokos church at Merbaka in the principality of Achaia, probably built
by William of Moerbeke during his time as archbishop of Corinth (1278–1286),
or the katholikon of the Saint George monastery at Karditsa in the duchy of
Athens, where a community of Byzantine monks was established and which
was substantially renovated by the local lord Anthony le Flamenc (early 14th
century).18 Baldwin’s Saint George church is an indication that the financial
penury of the later emperors should be properly understood: they obviously
lack the means to recover their empire (for example, the vast sums needed
to assemble a mercenary army of any reasonable size and to put them in the
field for a number of years), but this does not imply that they lacked the more
modest necessary means to govern their city and engage in building activities
and cultural enterprises. A Western observer, the English chronicler Ralph of
Coggeshall, still described the Queen of Cities in the early 1220s as very rich
and prosperous.19
17 For the church dedicated to Saint George: see Chapter 6, p. 147–148. For the passage fea-
turing Hermocrates: see Chapter 5, p. 123–125.
18 Guy Sanders, “Use of Ancient Spolia to Make Personal and Political Statements: William
of Moerbeke’s Church at Merbaka (Ayia Triada, Argolida),” Hesperia 84 (2015), 583–626.
Sophia Kalopissi-Verti, “Monumental Art in the Lordship of Athens and Thebes under
Frankish and Catalan Rule (1212–1388): Latin and Greek Patronage,” in Nickiphoros I.
Tsougarakis and Peter Lock, eds., A Companion to Latin Greece, Brill’s Companion’s to
European History 6 (Leiden, 2014), 374–476. Conversely Byzantine churches showing
Western influence in architecture or decoration are also found in Latin Romania, for ex-
ample the Saints Peter and Paul church in Kalyvia Kouvara (Attica), founded in the early
1230’s by the Byzantine bishop Ignatios of Thermiai and Kea, and the Byzantine monastic
church of Omorphi Ekklesia (1289) in Galatsi (Athens) with portraits of again the Saints
Peter and Paul, but also a Cistercian monk and three Latin monastic saints (see Kalopis-
si-Verti, “Relations between East and West in the Lordship of Athens and Thebes after
1204: Archaeological and Artistic Evidence,” in Peter Edbury and idem, eds., Archaeology
and the Crusades. Proceddings of the Round Table, Nicosia, 1 February 2005 (Athens, 2007),
12–23).
19 Ralph of Coggeshall, Chronicon Anglicanum, ed. Joseph Stevenson, Rolls Series 66 (Lon-
don, 1875), 149. Baldwin ii’s sometimes desperate attempts to raise money from the late
1240s on (mortgaging his ancestral Western possessions, mortgaging his son, etc.) should
be seen in the context of the pressing military needs of the empire, and not so much as
There is also evidence that the Latin emperors managed to maintain the two
large palace complexes inside the Constantinopolitan walls, both the Great
Palace and the Blacherna palace. Indeed, at the time of the Nicaean conquest
in 1261 Baldwin ii resided at the Blacherna palace, while Michael viii chose
to reside in the Great Palace. Both palace complexes were obviously still in
shape to serve as places of residence. Pachymeres’ remark attributing damages
to the Blacherna of smoke and soot, for which the Latins were responsible,
is rather suspect when compared with Gregoras’ testimony regarding the 1261
fires. Also, Sanudo’s observation that Baldwin ii sold the lead from palace roofs
does not have to refer to either of these two palaces. He may have lifted this
lead from private palaces within Constantinople or one of the imperial pal-
aces in the immediate vicinity of the capital (such as the Philopation palace),
perhaps abandoned or partially destroyed by the 1231 and 1237 earthquakes.
Public works in the sense of military fortifications also seem to have been un-
dertaken on a fairly large scale.
In late 1259–early 1260, Michael VIII personally undertook a large-scale siege
of Galata, in preparation for an attack on Constantinople itself (thus copying
the crusaders’ strategy in 1203). The operation failed however. Akropolites
downplays the entire episode (obviously in order not to embarrass his admired
emperor/employer), but the more critical Pachymeres has left a more detailed
account. In his account, Galata at this time is described as a phrourion—the
equivalent of the term kastron which could signify a fortress, a citadel, or a forti-
fied town. It would seem that the latter meaning applies here, since the suburb
appears to have been partially or entirely ramparted.20 Indeed, Pachymeres’
report is focused on how the (unsuccessful) Nicaean efforts were concentrated
on attacking Galata’s walls. The same chronicler relates how in 1267, when the
Genoese quarter was relocated from Constantinople proper to Galata, the em-
peror had all its fortifications demolished, implying that they were extensive.21
When the crusader army attacked the place in 1203 it was only defended by a
small fort described by Villehardouin and others as the tower of Galata (la tor
de Galathas). The suburb was burnt down by the crusaders, which has led most
authors to assume that this tower too sustained heavy damages.22
an attempt to cover his ordinary expenses in Constantinople. On Baldwin’s loans and

mortgages, see Wolff, “Mortgage and Redemption of an Emperor’s Son,” 52–54.
20 G. Dimov, “The Notion of the Byzantine City in the Balkans and in Southern Italy–XI–XIIth
centuries,” Realia Byzantino-Balcanica 5282 (2012), 328–343. Kazhdan, ed., The Oxford Dic-
tionary of Byzantium, 2:1112.
21 Georgios Pachymeres, Relations historiques, lib. 2, §20, §35. See also Geanakoplos, Emperor
Michael Palaeologus and the West 1258–1282, 78.
22 Geoffroy de Villehardouin, La conquête de Constantinople, §159–162. In general on Galata:
Janin, Constantinople byzantine, 457–458.
194 Chapter 7
Between 1203 and 1259 Galata then must have been refortified with a for-
tress formidable enough to withstand a serious siege by the Nicaean forces,
and probably the suburb had become ramparted (as it had been in a more
distant past). Jacoby assumes that in 1261 Galata was still sparsely populated
due to the 1203 fire, but one of Baldwin ii’s trusted advisers was his familiaris
and vexilliferus Milo of Galata: it would seem that Galata before 1261 had again
become a settlement important enough to adopt as one’s surname. Donald
Nicol likewise considers Galata to have been a fortified suburb at this time,
and Raymond Janin, following François-Alphonse Belin and Gualberto Mat-
teucci, assumes that in the 1230s a new church and convent dedicated to Saint
Francis, described in later times as a large and beautiful domed structure, was
built there. Also, a Dominican convent with church (rebuilt and dedicated to
Saint Paul in the early 14th century, to be identified with the later Arap Camii
mosque), was probably established in Galata before 1260 (a tombstone was
found at the site dated to this year).23 Dating this Latin major (re)fortification
operation is speculative, but the period from the late 1220s on is most likely,
because it was only from that moment that the capital came under threat from
the Nicaean rulers.24 Outside the capital the Latin emperors restored or built
fortifications as well: for example in the town of Pamphylon in Thrace in 1208,
and at Aphameia in the direct vicinity of Constantinople sometime between
23 On Milo of Galata: Mazzoleni, Gli atti perduti della cancellaria angioina, 1: n° 418, 85. N
icol,
Byzantium and Venice, 190. David Jacoby, “The Jewish Community of Constantinople from
the Komnenian to the Palaiologan Period,” Vizantijskij Vremennik 55 (1998), 37. On the
Franciscan convent: Janin, La géographie ecclésiasique de l’empire byzantin, 595–596.
François-Alphonse Belin, Histoire de la Latinité de Constantinople (Paris, 1894), 187–188.
Gualberto Mateucci, Un glorioso convento francescano sulle rive del Bosforo. Il S. Francesco
di Galata in Constantinopoli, c. 1230–1697, Biblioteca di studi francescani 7 (Florence, 1967).
On the Dominican convent: Eugenio Dalleggio d’Alessio, Le pietre sepolcrali di Arab Giamí,
Atti della R. Deputazione di Storia Patria per la Liguria 5 (Genova, 1942), 9–10, 27 (n° 1);
Haluk Cetinkaya, “Arap Camii in Istanbul. Its Architecture and Frescoes,” Antiqua Anato-
lia 18 (2010), 170–171. Palazzo (who was not familiar with the 1260 tombstone) has argued
that the Dominican convent was only established in the early 14th century: Benedetto
Palazzo, L’Arap-Djami ou église Saint-Paul à Galata (Istanbul, 1946); followed by Tommaso
M. Violante, La provincia domenicana in Grecia, Dissertationes historicae 25 (Rome, 1999),
151. Düll does not accept Dalleggio’s 1260 date (Siegried Düll, “Die lateinischen Inschriften
aus Istanbul vor und nach der osmanischen Eroberung – Vorarbeiten für ein neues In-
schriftenprojekt in der Türkei,” in Walter Koch, ed., Epigraphik 1982 (Wien, 1983), 115. On
both churches, see also summarily Mitsiou, “Die Netzwerke einer kulturellen Begegnung,”
342–343.
24 See, for example, John iii Vatatzes’ sieges of Constantinople in 1235/1236 (see references
in Chapter 3, note 26).
1204 and 1260. Before 1204 in this village there had only been an imperial pal-
ace, but by 1260 it had been turned into a well fortified phrourion.25
All the examples of building activity (maintenance, restoration, embellish-
ment, new structures, ecclesiastical and secular, private and public) together
show that the bleak picture of Constantinopolitan architecture in this pe-
riod, depicted by Talbot and Bouras does not seem to reflect historical real-
ity. Kidonopoulos’ list of some twenty churches ruined under Latin rule may
seem impressive, but in any age Constantinopolitan churches and monuments
turned to ruins. For example, in the later 12th century Isaac ii Angelos (1185–
1195), according to Niketas Choniates, recycled materials from several neglected
or ruined churches along the shore and from many prominent buildings of the
imperial city, whose foundations afterwards remained a lamentable sight. Such
was the situation for the construction of a new tower at the Blacherna com-
plex. Isaac followed the same procedure, which clearly was not uncommon,
for the restauration of the Michaelion at Sosthenion. According to Choniates,
for that purpose the Mangana palace was destroyed and materials were taken
from the Great Palace. Under Isaac’s reign the capital was, furthermore, struck
by fire in 1192 and again in 1197.26 The hypothesis of a reasonable amount of
building activity (both private and public, imperial and Venetian, ecclesiasti-
cal and lay, Latin and Byzantine) has the advantage of solving a problem that
Bouras noticed, but could not address satisfactorily. The author observed that
there was a large degree of continuity in building practices and techniques
between the 12th and the late 13th/early 14th centuries. In his opinion this
pointed to the continuity of metropolitan workshops, but it seemed unlikely to
him that these would have moved from Constantinople after 1204 (to Nicaea,
Epiros), and then returned after 1261.
An obvious conclusion is that they never moved at all, no doubt because their
skills sufficiently remained in demand. Robert Ousterhout in 1999, comparing
the church at the site of the current Kalenderhane Camii (rebuilt and reno-
vated probably in the late 12th century) and the Theotokos of Lips monastery
25 Henri de Valenciennes, Histoire de Henri de Constantinople, §550, §554. See Georgios

Pachymeres, Relations historiques, lib. 2, §14. On Aphameia before 1204: Janin, Constanti-
nople byzantine, 380, 443. Perhaps Aphameia is to be identified with Mouskes’ castel de La
Flame (or de l’Aflame?) near Constantinople, mentioned in the context of the 1235 siege
of the capital (Mouskes, Chronique rime, 2:616).
26 Paul Magdalino, “Constantinopolitana,” in I. Sevcenko and I. Hutter, eds., aetos. Studies
in Honour of Cyril Mango (Stuttgart, 1998), 227–230. Kallirroe Linardou, “A Resting Place
for ‘The First of Angels’: The Michaelion at Sosthenion,” in Alicia Simpson, ed., Byzantium,
1180–1204: “The Sad Quarter of the Century?,” International Symposium 22 (Athens, 2015),
246, 250–252.
196 Chapter 7
(late 13th century), had arrived at the same conclusion, suggesting a continu-
ity in the workshop practices of the Byzantine capital.27 This should not sur-
prise: it is obvious from the accounts of both Clari and Villehardouin, a modest
knight and a prominent baron, that the Latins had great admiration for the
city’s monuments (palaces, churches) and works of art (including statues).28
So after the phase of conquest was over (with the fires and habitual looting and
destruction), while they still had the means (until the early 1230s and—in the
wake of the relatively successful 1238–1240 crusade, which reconquered part
of Thrace—again in the 1240s), it is apparent that they would have invested in
the maintenance and renovation of existing structures, and in the building of
new ones. To ascribe to these crusaders a low cultural level, as Bouras explicitly
does and as other authors implicitly do, seems rather uninformed.
Many of the leading princes and barons had a clear interest, for example, in
historical and romance literature and in poetry, and the first Latin emperor-
to-be Baldwin i before his crusade had already invested in new architectural
enterprises in his home region, such as the collegiate church of Our Lady in
Kortrijk/Courtrai (Flanders), located within the comital domain/castle, begun
in 1199. This was not only inspired by piety, but also by a desire to strengthen
the architectural representation of princely power in the urban space.29 Also,
in most other regions of Latin Romania architectural and other cultural en-
deavours have been attested in the period 1204–1261, in Latin as well as in
Byzantine milieus, including traces of cross-fertilization (with mixed work
forces serving a heterogeneous clientele) and continued Constantinopolitan
influence.30
27 Bouras, “Architecture in Constantinople in the Thirteenth Century,” 111–112. Robert Oust-

erhout, Master Builders of Byzantium (Princeton, 1999), 191–192.
28 Robert de Clari, La conquête de Constantinople, §82–92. Geoffroy de Villehardouin, La con-
quête de Constantinople, §128. See also Devereaux, Constantinople and the West, 113–118.
Ruth Macrides, “Constantinople: The Crusader’s Gaze,” in idem, ed., Travel in the Byzan-
tine World (Aldershot, 2002), 197–204.
29 Charles Mussely and Emile Molitor, eds., Cartulaire de l’ancienne église collégiale de Notre
Dame à Courtrai (Gand, 1880), n° 17, 17–19. Prevenier, De oorkonden van de graven van
Vlaanderen, 2: n° 287, 626–628.
30 See, for example, the following recent contributions: Heather E. Grossman, “Syncretism
Made Concrete: The Case for a Hybrid Moreote Architecture in Post-Fourth Crusade
Greece,” in Deborah Deliyannis and Judson Emerick, eds., Archaeology in Architecture. Pa-
pers in Honor of Cecil L. Striker (Mainz, 2005), 65–73; M. Acheimastou-Potamianou, “Mon-
umental Painting on the Aegean Islands in the Thirteenth Century: Rhodes and Naxos,” in
Panayotis L. Vocotopoulos, ed., Byzantine Art in the Aftermath of the Fourth Crusade. The
Fourth Crusade and Its Consequences. International Congress, March 9–12, 2004 (Athens,
2007), 25–30; Maria Panayotidi, “Les peintures murales de Saint-Georges de Lathrino à
Naxos,” Deltion tis Christianikis Archaialogikis Etaireias 16 (1991–1992), 139–154; Angeliki
Supporting this idea of maintenance, construction, and renovation under

Latin rule is the enkomion on Constantinople entitled Byzantios by Theodore
Metochites (circa 1307–1320), a high-ranking offical and scholar under Em-
peror Andronikos ii Paleologos. Although this eulogy was written following
(re)building and restauration activities under Michael viii—and (partly)
Andronikos II—had taken place, it is remarkable that the author does not
comment on any large-scale destruction or neglect during the period of Latin
rule. There are a few generic references to building initiatives by Androni-
kos and his father, and one allusion to the fact that the city had been under
Latin rule for some time (ἀποστατῶν). Mostly, however, Metochites’ picture of
Constantinople is one of impressive magnificence on a vast scale and of great
beauty of both public and private buildings, churches, charitable institutions,
and fortifications. This is to be expected in a city enkomion, but as this was an
oration probably delivered before the imperial court, the author presumably
could not venture too far from reality. Near the end he stresses the continu-
ity and durability of this magnificence throughout the history of the city until
the present day.31 From this it might be concluded that, overall, the period of
Latin rule, in spite of the destructive fires of 1203–1204, did not ruin the city: it
remained an unmatched and marvellous metropolis, which Metochites a few
decades later could praise abundantly and convincingly.
With regard to other forms of artistic production in the capital apart from
architecture, David Jacoby (along with Nino Chatzidakis) hypothesized that
the continued existence of Byzantine churches and monasteries and the
Mitsani, “Monumental Painting in the Cyclades during the 13th century,” Deltion tis Chris-
tianikis Archaialogikis Etaireias 21 (2000), 93–122; Maria Vassilaki, “Crete under Venetian
Rule. The Evidence of the Thirteenth Century Monuments,” in Panayotis L. Vocotopou-
los, ed., Byzantine Art in the Aftermath of the Fourth Crusade. The Fourth Crusade and Its
Consequences. International Congress, March 9–2, 2004 (Athens, 2007), 42–46. Amy Papal-
exandrou, “The Architectural Layering of History in the Medieval Morea. Monuments,
Memories and Fragments of the Past,” in Sharon E. Gerstel, ed., Viewing the Morea. Land
and People in the Late Medieval Peloponnese, Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Col-
lection (Washington D.C., 2013), 23–54; Sophia Kalopissi-Verti, “Monumental Art in the
Lordship of Athens and Thebes,” 326–368; Robert Ousterhout, “Architecture and Cultural
Identity in the Eastern Mediterranean,” in M ichael Borgolte and Bernd Schneidmüller,
eds., Hybrid Cultures in Medieval Europe (Berlin, 2010), 271; Maria Georgopolou, “Vernacu-
lar Architecture in Venetian Crete: Urban and Rural Practices,” Medieval Encounters 18
(2012), 447–480.
31 Theodore Metochites, Byzantios, or About The Imperial Megalopolis. Introduction, text and
commentary, ed. Irini Pougounia (Oxford, 2003), §4, §52–53, §55, §110. See also Andreas
Rhoby, “Theodoros Metochites’ Byzantios and other city encomia of the 13th and 14th
centuries,” in Ville de toute beauté. L’ekphrasis des cités dans les littératures byzantine et
byzantino-slaves, Dossiers byzantins 12 (Paris, 2012), 81–99.
198 Chapter 7
resence of affluent Byzantines—for example in the imperial government but

p
successful businessmen as well—must have implied continued artistic activity,
both production and training. Jacoby does, however, surmise that it must have
been on a much smaller scale than before 1204, this due to the exodus of part
of the metropolitan elite after the conquest, which in his eyes was not com-
pensated by the influx of the crusader (and later Latin) nobles and knights.32
However, the exodus of the Byzantine elite should not be exaggerated, espe-
cially during the first decades of Latin imperial rule.33 At the same time the
Latin immigration should not be underestimated either. Jacoby states that
the presumably 3,000 Latins (according to the French and Greek versions of
the Chronicle of Morea) who fled Constantinople when the city was captured
by Michael viii’s forces in 1261 must have represented the majority of the West-
ern population there.34
But according to Villehardouin in 1203 there were some 15,000 Westerners
living in Constantinople, who virtually all came to the crusaders’ camp after
the August fire.35 Although the Western population must have fluctuated in
the years 1204–1261—with for example the sieges in the 1230s inducing people
to flee and Baldwin ii’s 1238–1240 crusade providing new immigrants—there
is little reason to assume that under Latin rule this number would have fallen
drastically, not even by 1261 (note the growing commercial activity during the
later decades).36 Indeed, George Pachymeres informs us that after Strategop-
oulos’ dramatic conquest of the city, a mass of Latins remained in the capital.37
Naturally, far from all Latins had the chance, or perhaps even the wish, to flee.
Consequently, while the 1204 events no doubt to an extent did reduce the scale,
the remaining Byzantine elite and population combined with the new Latin
inflow (imperial court, barons and nobles, clerics, successful merchants) must
still have created a considerable demand for artistic production. The artistic
outings from this period that have been preserved (some securely dated, oth-
ers less so) may be taken to confirm this view. They are essentially comprised
32 David Jacoby, “Byzantine Culture and the Crusader States,” in Dean Sakel, ed., Byzantine
Culture. Papers from the Conference “Byzantine Days of Istanbu” May 21–23 2010 (Ankara,
2014), 205–206. See also the reference in Chapter 7, note 11.
34 Longnon, Chronique de Morée, §85. Schmitt, The Chronicle of Morea, v1314–1324. Jacoby,
“The Jewish Community of Constantinople,” 39, n. 55.
35 Geoffroy de Villehardouin, La conquête de Constantinople, §205.
36 On the negative demographic impact of the sieges in 1235–1236: Gualterius Cornutus, His-
toria susceptionis Corone Spinee, in Paul E. Riant, ed., Exuviae Sacrae Constantinopolitanae
(Geneva, 1876), 1:50. On the 1238–1240 crusade: Chrissis, Crusading in Frankish Greece,
120–126. On the economic situation, see references in Chapter 7, note 11.
37 Georgios Pachymeres, Relations historiques, lib. 2, §30.
of monumental, icon and miniature painting, but also sculpture and precious
metal work.
Of pivotal importance is the fresco cycle adorning the walls of a chapel,
which during the Latin period became dedicated to Saint Francis of Assisi,
located in the church today known as Kalenderhane Camii and during the
Byzantine period probably dedicated to the Theotokos Kyriotissa. The building
was no doubt occupied by Franciscans (although other suggestions have been
made), who are first attested in Constantinople around 1220. The frescoes have
been dated sometime between 1228 (when Francis was canonized) and 1261. In
1967 the cycle was discovered and intensively studied by Cecil L. Striker, but it
is Jaroslav Folda who in his synthesis on crusader art in the Holy Land in the
13th century has advanced a number of observations that are of the utmost im-
portance for our understanding of artistic life in Latin Constantinople. Folda
concludes that the decoration of the chapel was done by a mixed workshop
composed of both Latin (Italian) and Byzantine painters. A vaulted arch in
front of the apse of the chapel is decorated with frescoes of two Greek Church
Fathers in a purely Byzantine style, but with a Latin inscription, while the fres-
coes depicting the life of Saint Francis (the earliest in either East or West) have
been executed in what Folda calls the Franco-Byzantine style.
From the fact that these are accomplished frescoes in a fully formed original
style, Folda deduces that the workshop responsible must have already been
in existence for a longer period of time, and must have produced a range of
other works as well (although no other appear to have been preserved). In this
context it is interesting to recall the close links existing between the Francis-
can community and the imperial court. The author sees Latin Constantinople
as the most likely place of origin and development of this Franco-Byzantine
style, which is characterized by a combination of aspects of Western Gothic
and Byzantine painting. From there the style would have been exported to,
among others, the kingdom of Jerusalem and especially its capital Acre, where
a number of magnificent works in the same Franco-Byzantine style have been
preserved.38
38 Jaroslav Folda, Crusader Art in the Holy Land, from the Third Crusade to the Fall of Acre,
1187–1291 (Cambridge, 2005), 299–310. See also Cecil L. Striker and Y. Dogan Kuban, eds.,
Kalenderhane in Istanbul: The Buildings, Their History, Architecture, and Decoration
(Mainz, 1997). Rosalind B. Brooke, The Image of Saint Francis. Responses to Sainthood in the
Thirteenth Century (Cambrigde, 2006), 202–215. Brooke suggests John of Brienne might
have donated the church complex to the Franciscans, but it may just as well have been
for example Emperor Robert, regent/empress Mary of Courtenay, imperial heir Baldwin
ii, or the Latin patriarch. On the Kalenderhane frescoes, see also the remarks in Cathéri-
ne Jolivet-Levy, “La peinture à Constantinople au XIIIe siècle. Contacts et échanges avec
200 Chapter 7
Apart from the Byzantine artist(s) who apparently, and for some time, be-
longed to the workshop responsible for the Kalenderhane frescoes, other Byz-
antine painters are attested as well in Latin Constantinople, who may have
belonged to purely Byzantine workshops. This can be recovered from liter-
ary sources. The vita of Saint Sava written by Teodosije (late 13th century), a
monk of the Serbian Chilandar monastery on Mount Athos, informs us that
Sava brought painters from Constantinople, one “exceptionally gifted artist”
among them according to Dragan Vojvodic, to decorate the newly construct-
ed church of the monastery in Serbian Zica, founded circa 1207/1208 by Sava
and his brother, the first Serbian king-to-be Stephen i Nemanja. The complex
took some ten years to be built. This renders it likely that Sava recruited the
painters from the Queen of Cities in the context of his visit in 1219 to Nicaea,
where he conducted business with the Byzantine patriarch regarding the sta-
tus and organization of the Serbian Church. An earlier vita by Domentijan
(mid-13th-century) further mentions that in 1235, returning from a journey to
the Holy Land and shortly before his death, while staying at the Saint Andrew
metochion in Constantinople (a dependency of the Theotokos Evergetis
monastery outside the city walls), Sava conducted unspecified business with
local Byzantine artists, who are designated as “imperial masters.”39
These testimonies not only attest to the presence of Byzantine painters in
the capital, but also—and more importantly—to the fact that Constantinople
in this period remained a center, or perhaps rather the center, from where such
artists were being recruited by patrons from outlying regions of what has some-
times been called the Byzantine Commonwealth. Indeed, there is as far as I
know no evidence that Sava contacted artists from post-1204 Byzantine centers
such as Nicaea, Arta, Thessaloniki, or Trebizond (where local workshops ex-
isted), but twice he did so from Constantinople. In spite of the 1204 conquest, it
appears that he still regarded the metropolitan workshops as those where the
l’Occident,” in Fabienne Joubert and Jean-Pierre Caillet, eds., Orient & Occident méditer-
ranéens au XIIIe siècle. Les programmes picturaux (Paris, 2012), 27–28. On the close con-
nection between the local Franciscans and the imperial court, see references in Chapter
2, note 29.
39 Dimitri Obolensky, Six Byzantine Portraits (Oxford, 1988), 137, 167–168. Milka Canak-
Medic, Danica Popovic, and Dragan Vojvodic, eds., Zica Monastery (Belgrade, 2014), 520,
538–539. See also Van Tricht, The Latin Renovatio of Byzantium, 404–406. Jacoby, “The
Greeks of Constantinople under Latin Rule,” 65–66. The Theotokos Evergetis monastery
had been donated in 1206 by papal legate Benedict of Saint Suzanna to the Benedictine
monastery of Monte Cassino (confirmed by Honorius iii in 1217 and 1222), but obviously
the local Byzantine community was not displaced (Janin, La géographie ecclésiasique de
l’empire byzantin, 178–183; Mitsiou, “Die Netzwerke einer kulturellen Begegnung,” 341).
best artists were to be found.40 No doubt Sava was not the only one to think
so, and he was not the only prominent churchman within the wider Byzantine
space to visit Latin Constantinople either.
The Russian bishop Vladimir of Polotsk visited Constantinople in 1218, from
where he brought home items including several Passion relics which he pre-
sented to prince Constantine of Vladimir. Archbishop Anthony of Novgorod
may have done the same in 1210. Sava himself possibly acquired his impressive
collection of Passion relics—which were donated to the Zica monastery (pre-
sumably in late 1219)—from Constantinople as well. During the first decades
following 1204 the distribution of Passion relics—most of which were kept in
the Theotokos tou Pharou chapel in the Great Palace (which was not plundered
during the Latin capture of Constantinople)—remained predominantly in
the hands of the now Latin Constantinopolitan emperors. It is not unlikely
that Sava—and also bishop Vladmir—obtained at least part of his collection
through this conduit. The fact that the provenance of Sava’s relics is not stated
anywhere—for example in the donation charter (1219/20) or in any of the vitae
concerning Saint Sava—may indeed point in the direction of the Latin em-
perors. Any reference to such an association was presumably to be avoided for
an Orthodox Church leader, with the Serbian ambition for definitive political
autonomy a factor as well.41 In the early 1230s, bishop Marc of Preslav, acting
40 On local workships in Epiros and the Nicaean empire, see, for example, Panayotis L. Vo-
cotopoulos, “Art in Epiros in the Thirteenth Century,” in idem, ed., Byzantine Art in the
Aftermath of the Fourth Crusade. The Fourth Crusade and Its Consequences. International
Congress, March 9–12, 2004 (Athens, 2007), 57–62; Acheimastou-Potamianou, “Monumen-
tal Painting on the Aegean Islands in the Thirteenth Century: Rhodes and Naxos,” 25–30.
On the flourishing of fresco painting workshops in the duchy of Athens and the princial-
ity of Achaia from the first half of the 13th century on: Sophia Kalopissi-Verti, “The Impact
of the Fourth Crusade on Monumental Painting in the Peloponnese and Eastern Central
Greece,” in Panayotis L. Vocotopoulos, ed., Byzantine Art in the Aftermath of the Fourth
Crusade. The Fourth Crusade and Its Consequences. International Congress, March 9–12,
2004 (Athens, 2007), 82–88.
41 See (with further references) on bishop Vladimir and archbishop Anthony: Van Tricht, The
Latin Renovatio of Byzantium, 424–426. See on the Passion relics acquired by Saint Sava
(who did not visit Jerusalem, another possible place of origin for such relics, until 1229):
Danica Popovic, “Sacrae Reliquiae of the Saviour Church in Zica [in Serbo-Croatian],” in
Pod okriljem svetosti. Kult svetih vladara i relikvija u srednjovekovnoj Srbiji (Belgrade, 2006),
207–232; idem, “A staurotheke of Serbian provenance in Pienza,” Zograf 36 (2012), 163–164.
Teodosije in his vita for example does mention that Sava acquired a staurotheke with a
fragment of the True Cross from John iii Vatatzes, which he subsequently donated to the
Chilandar monastery on Mount Athos. The author obviously was of the opinion that a
“relic-association” with the Nicaean emperor (in the context of broader diplomatic rela-
tions) need not be problematic.
202 Chapter 7
as emissary of the Bulgarian tsar Ivan ii Asen (1218–1241), obtained from the
Latin authorities in Constantinople the relics of Saint Paraskeva.42 It would
seem that after 1204 the now Latinized Constantinopolitan court up to a point
continued to play its role as gift giver—with its connations of superiority vis-à-
vis the recipients—also within the so-called Byzantine Commonwealth.
High-quality icon painting also appears to be attested under Latin rule.
Two magnificent works of art have recently been convincingly attributed, on
both stylistic and technical grounds (chrysography), to Latin Constantinople
around 1260–1261 by Folda. These are the Kahn Madonna and the Mellon Ma-
donna, although earlier authors expressed different opinions both geographi-
cally (Italy) and chronologically (after 1261). Both icons are representations of
the Virgin with Child of the Hodegetria type. This was the most significant and
widespread Byzantine icon type of the Theotokos, inter alia because the pre-
served original, said to have been brought to Constantinople by Empress Pul-
cheria (399–453), was considered to have been painted by Saint Luke himself.
After 1204 this original model eventually came to be kept at the Pantokrator
complex, where the headquarters of the Venetian podestà and administration
were located.43 The Kahn and Mellon Madonna’s are executed in the innova-
tive Franco-Byzantine style and were probably done by two different artists.
According to Folda these were presumably Italians belonging to the same work-
shop and working for local Italian patrons. Venetian, Pisan, Tuscan, and other
merchant communities, with their own ecclesiastical institutions, emerge, but
also for example the Franciscans in the city, headed by the Italian provincial
Benedict of Arezzo, who as said maintained close contacts with the imperial
court, in particular with the emperors John of Brienne and Baldwin ii.44
42 Euthymius, patriarch von Bulgarien, Werke (1375–1393), ed. Emil Kaluzniacki (Vienna,
1901), 75–77. In Latin translation: Euthymios primas Bulgariae, Vita Sancti Parasceves
Virginis, trans. L.M. Rigollot, Acta Sanctorum. Auctaria Octobris 14 (Paris, n.d.), 165–167.
Ioannes C. Tarnanides, “Byzantine-Bulgarian ecclesiastical relations during the reigns of
Joannis Vatatzis and Ivan Asen ii, up to the year 1235,” Cyrillomethodianum 3 (1975), 34, 51.
Petre Guran, “La légitimation du pouvoir princier dans les hagiographies slavo-byzantines
(XIe–XIVe siècles),” ARCHÆUS. Etudes d’histoire des religions 4 (2000), 294–305.
43 On the Virgin Hodegetria icon attributed to Saint Luke after 1204: see references in Chapter
3, note 75.
44 Jaroslav Folda and Lucy J. Wrapson, Byzantine Art and Italian Panel Painting. The Virgin
and Child Hodegetria and the Art of Chrysography (Cambridge, 2015), 115–130. For a re-
view of differing opinions: Rebecca W. Corrie, “The Kahn and Mellon Madonnas and their
place in the history of the Virgin and Child Enthroned in Italy and the East,” in Maria
Vassilaki, ed., Images of the Mother of God. Perceptions of the Theotokos in Byzantium (Al-
dershot, 2005), 293–303; more succinctly in Jolivet-Levy, “La peinture à Constantinople au
XIIIe siècle,” 22.
In addition, a beautiful mosaic icon of the Virgin Hodegetria in the Franco-

Byzantine style has also been attributed to Latin Constantinople, probably to
be dated in the first decades after 1204. Folda has suggested it was produced by
an artist of Venetian heritage who had studied with Byzantine mosaicists. If
the attribution is correct, this mosaic icon proves that the art of mosaic contin-
ued to be practiced in Constantinople, even though to my knowledge no other
mosaics from the Latin period have been preserved or identified as such. Folda
further evaluates the icon as an impressive work of art, remarkable as it is the
earliest example of the divinely radiant Virgin using chrysography (which was
not known on Byzantine icons). This style of imagery influenced not only the
artists who produced the Kahn and Mellon Madonna’s, but also painters in
Pisa and Siena in the West.45 The continued presence of a Pisan community
in Constantinople after 1204 (with its own quarter and churches) and also that
of Sienese merchants (attested in particular in the 1250s) should be noted.46
Apart from artists of Western origin working in the newly developed
Franco-Byzantine style, Byzantine workshops producing high-quality, purely
Byzantine-style icons probably remained also active in the capital. This is
what Chatzidakis deduces from her analysis of icon painting in the Byzantine
space after the Latin conquest. She suggests that the remarkable continu-
ity between those icons produced in Constantinople around 1204 and those
produced in the capital shortly after 1261, implies not only “the continuity of
the activity of the Constantinople workshops, but also of the uninterrupted
evolution of their art, which created a new style of a very high standard and
with an impressive quality of style.”47 Quite possibly not only the production
of icons of sacred figures continued, but also that of painted imperial icons.
It is known that an imperial portrait (icon) of Henry of Flanders/Hainaut was
once kept at the Great Lavra monastery on Mount Athos. Whether this was
45 Folda and Wrapson, Byzantine Art and Italian Panel Painting, 97–99.
46 David Jacoby, “The Minor Western Nations in Constantinople. Trade and Shipping from
the Early Twelfth Century to 1261,” in Kostas Tsiknaknis and Gogo Varzelioti, eds., Galino-
tati timi sti Chrysa Maltezou (Athens, 2013), 326–327.
47 Nano Chatzidakis, “The Character of the Painting of Icons from Latin-held Areas,” in
Panayotis L. Vocotopoulos, ed., Byzantine Art in the Aftermath of the Fourth Crusade. The
Fourth Crusade and Its Consequences. International Congress, March 9–12, 2004 (Athens,
2007), 133–142. Chatzidakis’ view nuances the prevalent assumption that after 1204 Byz-
antine painters fled the capital; see, for example, Maria Panayotidi, “Thirteenth-Century
Icons and Frescoes at Catherine’s Monastery on Mount Sinai. Some Observations,” in Fa-
bienne Joubert and Jean-Pierre Caillet, eds., Orient & Occident méditerranéens au XIIIe
siècle. Les programmes picturaux (Paris, 2012), 87, 92, 97.
204 Chapter 7
sent from the capital (the imperial court) or was produced locally cannot be
ascertained.48
The presence of both monumental and icon painting workshops (Byzantine,
Western, or mixed) makes it probable that workshops producing illuminated
manuscripts likewise remained active in Latin Constantinople, as Chatzidakis
also surmised, although as Nelson argued the patronage of manuscript pro-
duction must have been somewhat disrupted by the events of 1204.49 In a 1944
article Kurt Weitzmann attributed a group of illuminated manuscripts to Latin
Constantinople. The author argued for a close stylistic similarity between the
portraits of the evangelists in these manuscripts and those in the so-called
Wolfenbüttel sketchbook. There is a relative consensus that the sketchbook
was produced in the 1230s, probably by a Venetian artist who had been study-
ing Byzantine models. In addition to this chronological argument, Weitzman
related the fact that some of the miniatures contain Latin scripts geographi-
cally to Constantinople. Furthermore, one of the manuscripts (Paris gr. 54) was
a bilingual Gospel book, which seemed to fit Constantinople under Western
rule (the mixed Latin-Byzantine communities in the Franciscan and Domini-
can convents, the mixed composition of the imperial court).50
Weitzmann hypothesized that his group of manuscripts was modeled after
10th century-models and was commissioned by, or adjusted for, Latin custom-
ers. Some authors have accepted Weitzmann’s conclusions, but others have
questioned them, proposing later dates and alternative places of origin for
these manuscripts, mostly relegating them to the later 13th century (in any
case after 1261) and the Paleologan imperial court. No consensus exists and
more research into the matter is needed.51 Apart from the Weitzmann group
(which according to some should not be considered as a group) a number
of manuscripts in the so-called decorative style (circa 1150–1250) studied by
Annemarie Carr have also been dated in the years following 1204, and attrib-
uted to Constantinopolitan artists. Although such Constantinopolitan artists
48 Paul Lemerle, André Guillou, Nicolas Svoronos, and Denise Papachryssanthou, eds., Actes
de Lavra iv, Archives de l’Athos 11 (Paris, 1982), 6. Van Tricht, The Latin Renovatio of Byzan-
tium, 89. See also Elisabeta Negrau, “The Ruler’s Portrait in Byzantine Art. A Few Observa-
tions regarding Its Functions,” European Journal of Science and Theology 7 (2011), 63–75.
49 Nelson, “The Italian appreciation and appropriation of illuminated Byzantine manu-
scripts,” 212–213.
50 Kurt Weitzmann, “Constantinopolitan Book Illumination in the Period of the Latin
Conquest,” Gazette des Beaux-Arts 25 (1944), 193–214.
51 An overview of the debate in Kathleen Maxwell, Between Constantinople and Rome: An
Illuminated Gospel Book (Paris gr. 54) and the Union of Churches (Farnham, 2014), 145–150.
Folda and Wrapson, “Byzantine Art and Italian Panel Painting,” xxiii.
could have migrated to other regions, here again we find a possible indication
for the continued activity of Byzantine metropolitan workshops producing il-
luminated manuscripts under Latin rule. At the middle of the 13th century,
circa 1250, one John Alexis, son of Michael Alexis, donated an evangeliary to
the Theotokos tes Varaggiotisses monastery (which could, however, have been
produced before 1204).52
Apart from painting, other arts were practiced in Latin Constantinople. The
goldsmith Gerard, a master of the Mosan school, executed a splendid golden
reliquary of the True Cross for Emperor Henry (the inscription on the reli-
quary, in itself an interesting encomiastic depiction of Henry’s dignity, reads:
“Condidit oc singnum Gerardi dextera dingnum/quod iussit/mondus rex
Francus duxque secondus Grecorum dictus Henricus ut oc benedictus/bello
securus semper maneat quasi murus. Amen”), which either before or after 1261
was transported to Venice where it came to be preserved in the treasury of
San Marco.53 The design of the reliquary is notable for its incorporation of
caryatids, which have been described as extremely original by art historian
Danielle Gaborit-Chopin, and which were perhaps inspired by the classical
legacy present in Constantinople or other regions of Latin Romania (such as
the Erechteion on the Acropolis in Athens). The presence of a Mosan gold-
smith working for the Latin imperial court is interesting in itself. Apparently,
Gerard migrated to Constantinople, probably sometime after 1204, either at
the emperor’s request (Henry continued his contacts with his home region)
or on his own initiative. He must have seen a viable future for himself in the
Byzantine capital, which points to a steady demand for precious metal work.
Another magnificent piece that has been attributed to the Latin imperial
court, though on more hypothetical grounds than the reliquary, is a silver plate
depicting the Ascension of Alexander the Great, a scene recounted in both
Greek and Western versions of the Alexander romance and a popular subject
in both Byzantine and Romanesque art. The plate which is datable to the early
52 Annemarie Carr, Byzantine Illumination, 1150–1250: The Study of a Provincial Tradition,

Studies in Medieval Manuscript Illumination 47 (Chicago, 1987), 81–103. Kathleen Max-
well, “The Afterlife of Texts: Decorative Style Manuscripts and New Testament Textual
Criticism,” in Lynn Jones, ed., Byzantine Images and Their Afterlives. Essays in Honor of
Annemarie Weyl Carr (Farnham, 2014), 32–36. On John Alexis: Janin, La géographie ecclé-
siasique de l’empire byzantin, 165–166.
53 Danielle Gaborit-Chopin, The Treasury of San Marco (New York, 1984), 244–251 (“The
hand of Gerard has made this venerable sign, which the pure [or: universal—if in this
instance we associate mondus/mundus with mundanus] king and second Frankish leader
of the Greeks named Henry commanded, so that this blessed sign—as if it were a wall—
would always keep him protected in war. Amen.”).
206 Chapter 7
13th century presents a mix of traditional Byzantine secular style and clear
Western elements (especially the enthroned Alexander). Two elements point
to Emperor Henry’s entourage. Associations between Henry—or Latin emper-
ors in general—and Alexander existed (such as Valenciennes’ chronicle and
possibly also his Lai d’Aristote, Cono of Béthune’s No m’agrad iverns ni pascors,
the mentioned song in vernacular Greek). In addition, one of the medallions on
the plate depicts how a spear-bearing horseman attacked by a mounted archer
is rescued by a rider with raised sword, a scene that mirrors rather strikingly
a passage in Valenciennes’ chronicle where Henry rescues one of his vassals
attacked by Cuman warriors in a similar manner.54 In Thessaloniki a jewel-
lery hoard has been found, presumably from the Latin period (before 1224),
containing metal work with a mix of Byzantine and Western characteristics,
alongside objects that are exclusively Byzantine or Western in style. As former
owner a member of the local Latin elite has been suggested.55
Finally, sculpture workshops remained part of the artistic infrastructure of
the capital, although the evidence is sketchy. The Dominican Saint Paul church
in Galata, for example, contained a beautifully sculpted Gothic marble tomb-
stone (dated 1260), decorated inter alia with the Agnus Dei carrying a cross-
standard, the family arms, and floral elements.56 Such sculpted tombstones
have also been preserved from other Latin regions, including the principality
of Achaia.57 The French artist—sculptor and possibly architect/engineer—
Villard of Honnecourt may have worked in the Byzantine capital. Villard’s
unique, partially preserved, sketchbook attests to a stay in Hungary. Imre Takács
has proposed that Villard belonged to emperor-elect Robert of Courtenay’s en-
tourage on his journey from the West to Constantinople, spending the winter
of 1220/1221 at the Hungarian court with his sister, Queen Yolande. Villard was
geographically connected to the Courtenay ancestral lands in France and he
may been involved in the creation of a fragmentarily preserved grave slab of a
knight’s tomb in the Cistercian monastery of Pilis, a royal foundation. The slab
is stylistically very similar to drawings in Villard’s sketchbook and may have
54 Helen C. Evans and William D. Wixom, eds., The Glory of Byzantium: Art and Culture of the
Middle Byzantine Era, a.d. 843–1261 (New York, 1997), n° 267, 399–401.
55 Bosselmann-Ruickbie, “Contact between Byzantium and the West,” 91–92. Idem, “A 13th
Century Jewellery Hoard From Thessalonica: A Genuine Hoard Find or an Art Dealer’s
Compilation?,” in Chris Entwistle and Noel Adams, eds., Intelligible Beauty. Recent Re-
search on Byzantine Jewellery, British Museum Publications 178 (London, 2010), 219–232.
56 Dalleggio d’Alessio, Le pietre sepolcrali di Arab Giamí, 27 (n° 1).
57 Antoine Bon, “Dalle funéraire d’une princesse de Morée (XIIIe siècle),” Monuments et mé-
moires de la Fondation Eugène Piot 49 (1957), 129–139.
contained the Courtenay coat of arms.58 If Takács is correct Villard must have
travelled with Robert all the way to Constantinople, which would confirm that
the city held a certain appeal in the eyes of Western artists as a place to work.
On the Byzantine side a tombstone containing a Greek inscription (including
a traditional curse formula, dated 1236) has been preserved. More important,
however, is a large ivory diptych of the highest quality—“brillament sculpté,
avec vigueur,” according to Jannic Durand—depicting the Nativity, Crucifixion
and eighteen prophets. The most likely hypothesis concerning its origin is that
it was produced in a Constantinopolitan workshop during the late Latin pe-
riod or the first years of Paleologan rule. Two similar diptychs—of which one
was previously attributed to a Veneto-Byzantine workshop—can be attributed
to the same workshop. They all share a unique combination of engraved and
raised inscriptions (in Greek), expert knowledge of both classical (Late An-
tiquity) and Western Romanesque models, and an expressive style prefiguring
characteristics of later Paleologan art (relief, movement, volume).59 Of course,
in general the building and restoration of churches in any case must have
necessitated a certain amount of sculptural production by either Western or
Byzantine artists.
58 Imre Takács, “The French Connection. On the Courtenay Family and Villard de Hon-
necourt à propos a 13th Century Incised Slab from Pilis Abbey,” in Jiri Fajt, and Markus
Hörsch, eds., Künstlerische Wechselwirkungen in Mitteleuropa (Ostfildern, 2006), 11–27.
The author’s attribution of the slab to Emperor Robert’s personal tomb is not convincing:
a contemporary source states that Robert died in Achaia (1227)—where his sister Agnes
reigned as princess together with her husband Geoffrey ii of Villehardouin—on his way
from Rome to Constantinople (Van Tricht, “Robert of Courtenay,” 1021). Takács’ hypothesis
concerning Villard and the Pilis grave slab has not been universally accepted: Elek Benkö,
“Abenteuerlicher Herrscher oder Gütiger Patron? Anmerkungen zu der Rittergrabplatte
aus dem Zisterzienserkloster Pilis,” Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungari-
cae 59 (2008), 469–483.
59 Igor Sevcenko, “A Byzantine Inscription from the Period of the Latin Domination in
Constantinople,” in Dickran K. Kouymjian, ed., Near Eastern Numismatics, Iconography,
Epigraphy and History. Studies in Honor of George C. Miles (Beirut, 1974), 383–386. Jannic
Durand, “Diptyque en ivoire byzantin du xiiie siecle representant la Nativite, la Crucifix-
ion et des prophètes,” La Revue des musées de France. Revue du Louvre 2013/3 (juin), 11–13.
Conclusion
The exploration and contextualization of our astrological corpus of texts has

led me to touch upon a broad range of topics, including internal and exter-
nal Constantinopolitan politics and various aspects of the sociocultural life in
the capital around the mid-13th century. It is time now to draw some general
conclusions from my findings. But here the following difficulty presents itself.
Many of my interpretations and suggestions must, necessarily, remain hypo-
thetical. This is in part due to the nature of available sources (for example the
astrological corpus itself), but also to the paucity of these sources. Indeed, one
really must scrape the barrel, so to speak, in order to gain some measure of
insight into the political and sociocultural life of Latin Constantinople. Many
hypotheses must remain unconfirmed, leaving many uncertainties, as there is
little chance in the years to come that new sources of any substantial scale will
be unearthed. Nevertheless, our astrological corpus proves that even a single
relatively neglected manuscript has the potential for us to rethink our concept
of Latin-Byzantine Constantinople.
Some might say that the paucity of the sources is evidence that nothing
much has been preserved because there simply never was nothing much to
preserve in the first place. Under the motto “absence of evidence is not to be
confused with evidence of absence” I would tend to disagree with such a prop-
osition. For the Byzantine space the source material is rarely extravagant and
the period of Latin rule in the capital especially can be considered to have
been prone to comprehensive losses, either because of general neglect, com-
plete indifference, or even conscious damnatio memoriae initiatives. Latin
Constantinople’s end was sudden and after July 25th 1261 few people would
have shown an interest in actively preserving the Latin legacy (at the impe-
rial court, in ecclesiastical institutions). This being said I would like to adopt
what I am calling a maximalist approach in formulating my conclusions, some-
what provocatively assuming that the hypotheses I have formulated are cor-
rect. By embracing such a polarizing perspective, I hope to stimulate further
debate.
The picture I may then paint of Constantinople around the mid-13th century
is that of a capital which managed to maintain or regain its vitality despite the
1204 debacle. The imperial city was not an overripe fruit fatalistically waiting
to be reaped by new conquerors. It was not a city dominated by an overriding
sense of passivity or apathy in all spheres of life, quite the contrary. The Latin-
Byzantine encounter in various ways led to a situation where Constantinople,
more than ever, became a laboratory for intensive transcultural exchange, an

Conclusion 209
exchange that might have resulted in a new hybrid Latin-Byzantine supra-

culture in the m aking had Latin rule not have been terminated so abruptly. On
the internal political level, Baldwin ii and his entourage adopted key tenets of
Byzantine state ideology mixed together with Western elements, Latin barons
and Byzantine dignitaries and functionaries made up the composition of the
imperial court, and Byzantine and Western institutions (court nomenclature,
feudal, fiscal) existed side by side.
However, the metropolitan governmental elite, especially after the death of
Emperor Henry, became internally divided on the question of Latin-Byzantine
power sharing. This divide may have been a factor in the (hypothetical) suc-
cession conflict between Baldwin ii and the Brienne family. Latin Constanti-
nople obviously did not remain free from serious power struggles. The prob-
lematic relationship with Venice is a further illustration. In addition, barons
in southern Greece may have advocated the view that the great barons rather
than the emperor should be at the core of imperial policy-making. Given the
fairly continuous climate of crisis this position should not come as a surprise
and could not have helped in the defense against the many external enemies.
Nevertheless with regard to external politics the ambition to restore the em-
pire’s geopolitical hegemony within the Byzantine space—including the Latin
Orient—was never abandoned. The 1259 Pelagonia coalition could have been
disastrous for the Nicaean empire and its ascending geopolitical power was
perhaps rather due to external factors. It suffered practically no impact from
the Mongol invasions, which severely affected all neighbouring states—among
them Hungary, Bulgaria, and the Sultanate of Konya—and Constantinople it-
self. That Nicaea’s internal strength may have been overrated would seem to
be confirmed by the fact that the restored Paleologan empire collapsed rather
quickly, and, as it turned out, irreversibly. The Pelagonia debacle was not the
end of the Latin emperors’ attempt to rebuild their empire. Quite the contrary,
it was immediately followed by yet another project, the Constantinopolitan-
Castilian alliance, which was in the making in the years 1260/61. The project
seemed promising and without the 1261 loss of Constantinople it could have
succeeded in restoring some of the Latin empire’s territories and geopolitical
standing.
When we look at the social fabric of Latin-Byzantine Constantinople the
importance of mixed marriages should be highlighted. These were not uncom-
mon within the top aristocracy and the court elite (Toucy-Branas, Cayeux-
Laskaris, Clermont-Angelos, Navigaioso-Philokales, etc.), as well as among
the commercial milieus and communities (the gasmouloi). These families and
their offspring must have formed a direct physical link between the Latin and
Byzantine components of both the metropolitan elite and the general pop-
210 Conclusion
ulation. This could lead to a partial adoption of the language, customs, and
values of the “other,” with Byzantines familiarizing themselves with Western
languages and Latins with Greek. And with Latins embracing Byzantine educa-
tional and intellectual values (for example, our anonymous author’s emphasis
on Baldwin ii’s rethorical qualities). Byzantines also entered Western r eligious
orders (Franciscans, Dominicans), while others resisted Latin religious influ-
ence (and could apparently do so without much consequence during the later
decades). Of course, metropolitan multiculturalism after 1204 was much more
than the Latin-Byzantine duality. The Latin component was diverse in itself
(French, Flemish, and Champenois nobles, knights, and soldiers; the Proven-
çal, Venetian, Pisan, Tuscan, Lombard trading communities which revitalized
the metropolitan economy together with Greek merchants and artisans),
while the Byzantine element was pluriform as well with inter alia Greeks, Ar-
menians, and Bulgarians. Apart from this I have adduced evidence that a Mus-
lim community remained present in the city as well.
This melting pot appears to have led to interesting developments in the
cultural sphere. Western chroniclers like Villehardouin and Valenciennes may
have been influenced by Byzantine historical writing. Classical influence,
possibly related to a degree to the Byzantine context, can be discerned in fic-
tional works of literature as well. Some Byzantine authors also might have
written accounts—historical or panegyrical—of Latin imperial rule. In the
literary sphere, Latin-Byzantine Constantinople, with its specific aristocratic
social fabric, may well have played an important role in the development of
the romance in vernacular Greek. In the sciences a flourishing of astronomy/
astrology is attested (testified by our corpus, which was influenced by both
Western and Greek/Byzantine sources, and possibly a Greek treatise), and
with William of Moerbeke a major contributor to the Latin translation move-
ment of classical Greek works. In theology the Latin-Byzantine divide pro-
vided opportunities for both parties to produce original works (the bilingual
and original Contra Graecos and a small Greek contribution on the azymes
issue). With the both comprehensive and popular Zonarae Lexicon, an impor-
tant Byzantine work of science was probably produced, which would indicate
that Byzantine intellectual life in Constantinople did not cease after 1204. A
number of elements point to a mixed Latin-Byzantine community of learning
coming into being. The significance of Latin-Byzantine Constantinople as an
intellectual center should indeed be considered. Although Emperor Theodore
ii in one of his letters showed himself dismissive of Latin learning (in the con-
text of the diplomatic mission of marquis Berthold of Hohenburg), in another
letter he stated: “τεκμαίρομαι γοῦν κἀκ τούτου ἀποχωρίσειν ἀφ’ ἡμῶν τὴν
Conclusion 211
φιλοσοφίαν (Ἑλλήνων γὰρ ἄυτη, παρ’ ὥν νῦν ὡς ἀλλοδαπὴ ἀτιμάζεται) καὶ

τοῖς βαρβάροις προσκολληθῆναι καὶ δοξάσαι ἀυτούς.”1
Artistic production in the capital did not come to a stop after 1204, despite
the losses sustained due to the circumstances of the successive sieges in 1203–
1204. The emperors, ecclesiastical institutions (especially the mendicant or-
ders it would seem), the Venetian community, and private individuals—both
Latin and Byzantine members of the metropolitan elite—invested in architec-
tural and other artistic enterprises. The capital, furthermore, appears to have
witnessed original artistic developments, such as the creation of the Franco-
Byzantine style in painting (monumental, icons) and the presence of mixed
Latin-Byzantine workshops. The continuation of purely Byzantine traditions
and practices in a number of artistic disciplines (monumental painting, icons,
architecture, mosaic, etc.) can likewise be argued (alongside purely Western
forms), including the preservation of a certain measure of metropolitan cen-
trality and influence vis-à-vis the larger Byzantine space.
A final observation is the centrality of the imperial court with regard to Con-
stantinopolitan dynamics after 1204. Many of the protagonists and projects
discussed were in some way connected to the imperial court: our anonymous
astrologer, Villehardouin, Valenciennes, quite possibly William of Moerbeke,
phylax John, the priest Demetrios (responsible for building Baldwin ii’s Saint
George church), possibly the author (Baldwin ii’s undersecretary Nikephoros/
Nikephoritzes?) of the Zonarae lexicon. The close links of the imperial court
with the Franciscans (provincial Benedict of Arezzo), who probably commis-
sioned the fresco cycle in the Kalenderhane Camii, and the Dominicans (the
Contra Graecos treatise), and the metal work and architectural enterprises
linked to the Latin emperors should also be recalled in this context. The impe-
rial network appears to have spanned a large part of the milieus engaging in
intellectual and/or artistic activities, an element of continuity with the pre-
1204 period.
The history of Constantinople in the years 1204–1261 was without doubt
characterized by a measure of political and cultural contraction and loss of
economic centrality, in particular from the 1220s on after the Latin empire
1 Theodore Doukas Laskaris, Epistulae ccxvii, n° 5, 8, v13–16 (“I cannot exclude in any case
that philosophy will leave us, because even though she belongs to the Hellenes, she is disre-
garded by them today. She will be loyal to the barbarians and bring them fame.”—translation
adopted from Ekaterini Mitsiou, “The Byzantines and the ‘others’: between ‘transcultural-
ity’ and discrimination,” in Christian Gastgeber and Falko Daim, eds., Byzantium as Bridge
between West and East: Proceedings of the International Conference, Vienna, 3rd-5th May 2012
(Vienna, 2015), 70.
212 Conclusion
lost its position of aspiring hegemon within the Byzantine space. Neverthe-
less, successive Latin emperors strove to maintain its ideological status as the
imperial city par excellence, in this sense always remaining a component to be
reckoned with. As other authors have demonstrated, its economy soon after
the conquest of 1204 was reactivated and partly reoriented. The city reinvented
itself as a workshop where—amidst conflict and tension—Latins and Byz-
antines could cooperate and interact in various ways (government, economy,
religion, culture), resulting in a partial blurring of identities and allegiances.
Apart from pragmatic and materialistic considerations, the foundation of this
transcultural openness and cooperation may have been the realization that
both parties had more in common than previously assumed. This point was
in any case stressed later by for example Demetrios Kydenos (†1398), mesazon
(or chief minister) under several Paleologan emperors in the 14th century, with
his emphasis on a shared Roman identity, a fundamental ecclesiastical unity,
strong traditions uniting both cultures, and earlier collaboration.2 The Latin-
Byzantine Constantinopolitan experiment however came to a halt when al-
most accidently, after many full-scale sieges had repeatedly failed, the Nicaean
general Alexios Strategopoulos with a small force managed to seize the Queen
of Cities in a nightly guerilla attack.
Conclusively the question may be asked how this pre-1261 experiment re-
lates to the well-known interest in Latin culture attested among a segment of
the Byzantine intellectual elite in the early Paleologan period, with scholars
such as Manuel Holobolos (circa 1245–1310/14), George Pachymeres (1242–cir-
ca 1310), Maximos Planudes (circa 1255–1305/10), and the so-called Paleologan
renaissance in general.3 Such a link has previously never has been made, no
doubt because until now intellectual and artistic life under Latin rule hardly
has been studied and was supposed to be virtually non-existent. It does not
seem implausible to tentatively suppose such a connection, although of course
other factors certainly played a role as well, such as—with regard to the new
2 Judith Ryder, “Byzantium and the West in the 1360’s: The Kydones Version,” in Jonathan Har-
ris, Catherine Holmes, and Eugenia Russel, eds., Byzantines, Latins, and Turks in the Eastern
Mediterranean World After 1150, Oxford Studies in Byzantium (Oxford, 2012), 351–354. Idem,
“Demetrius Kydones’ ‘History of the Crusades’: Reality or Rhetoric?,” in Nikolaos G. Chrissis
and Mike Carr, eds., Contact and Conflict in Frankish Greece and the Aegean, 12041453. Cru-
sades—Subsidia 5 (Aldershot, 2014), 97–114.
3 See, for example, the fundamental introductory article: Wolfgang O. Schmitt, “Lateinische
Literatur in Byzanz. Die Übersetzungen des Maximos Planudes und die moderne Forschung,”
Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 17 (1968), 127–148. See also Mitsiou, “Die Netz-
werke einer kulturellen Begegnung,” 344–348; Fisher, “Manuel Holobolos and the Role of
Bilinguals in Relations Between the West and Byzantium,” 210–216; idem, “Homo Byzantinus
and Homo Italicus in Late 13th-century Constantinople,” 63–82.
Conclusion 213
Byzantine interest in Latin culture—the debate on ecclesiastical union in the

lead-up to and aftermath of the Second Council of Lyons in 1274. Individuals
as, for example, Baldwin ii’s hupogrammateis Nikephoros/Nikephoritzes and
Maximos Aloubardes, who both after 1261 entered the service of Emperor Mi-
chael viii, provided a tangible link between the Latin imperial and Paleologan
courts. There may have been others in the artistic sphere. To be sure, all of
these matters are outside the scope of this book and deserve further study.
Part 3
Appendixes
∵
Appendix 1
Astrological Poem (Versified Introduction to the

Anonymous Introductoire d’Astronomie)
(f. 3ra) [D]ex qui fist toutes creatures
Qui ordena que lor natures
Fusent prises del firmament
De lui et de son movement
5 Et des estoiles qu’il i mist
Dont chascune par ordre gist
Et des planetes qui enz corent
Qui touz tems errent et laborent
Por sostenir toutes les choses
10 Qui el firmament sunt encloses
Changent et muent par raison
Les .iiii. tems et la saison
Et corent en bas et en haut
Or font le froit, or font le chaut
15 Or s’entre encontrent, or se jognent
Or se dessoivrent, or s’eslognent
Or sunt tardives, or se hastent
Or destruient choses et gastent
Or les croissent et monteplient
20 Or donent bien, or contredient,
Or font pluies, ore font venz,
Or font tonnairres, or tormenz
Or metent amont, ore aval
Quantque nos avons bien et mal
25 Par la vertu que Dex i mist
Quant le monde ordena et fist
Lors fist il home raisonable
* Edited after the sole known manuscript (late 13th century): BnF, fr. 1353, f. 3ra–f. 4rb. For an
extensive discussion of authorship, aim, date, manucript tradition and edition history, see
Chapter 1. In the following footnotes I provide a concise historical commentary with refer-
ences to the preceding chapters. For an astronomical/astrological commentary, see Maxime
Préaud’s edition.

218 Appendix 1
Quant l’arme i mist qui est durable

Et non pas touz jorz o le cors
30 Quar Dex volt qu’ele en eissist hors
Et por ce que hom raison a
Dex sapience li dona
Par quoi ces choses enqueist
Et encerchast et apreist
35 A conoistre son creator
Par le monde et par son ator
De lonc tens et de antiquité
Fu enquise la verité
Coment li firmamenz menoit
40 Ces choses ça jusque l’en voit
Par ceaus qui vivoient lonc tens
A cui touz jors croissoit li sens
Lonc tens i mistrent grant entente
Et en viellece et en jovente
45 En ce ot tout son tens aloé
Yonites, li filz Noé1
(f. 3rb) Li meins nez de touz ses enfanz
Puis que li deluges fu granz
Et que Noé del arche eissi
50 Ot il ce filz qui ot nom eissi
Cist trova le art de astronomie
Et i usa toute sa vie
Nemroth2 le jaiant en fist sage
Et fu forz rois de grant outrage
55 Venierres fu, moult sot de guerre
Et regna premeriens sour terre
Tharez, li peres Abrahan3
Ot puis en ceste art grant ahan
Et meint autre sage home après
1 Yonites (or Ionitus/Jonithes in other sources) is a son of the Old Testament patriarch Noah. In
the Bible he is however not mentioned among Noah’s sons. For our author’s probable source
on Yonites, see Chapter 1, p. 18.
2 Nimrod according to the Bible was the son of Cush, who was himself a great-grandson of
Old Testament patriarch Noah. His portrayal as a giant stems from extrabiblical sources. See
Chapter 1, p. 18.
3 Terah is named in the Bible as the father of patriarch Abraham.
Astrological Poem 219
60 Qui moult regardoient de près

Le cours del Soloil, de la Lune
Et des estoiles une et une
Et coment les choses chanjoient
Selonc le cours qu’eles coroient
65 Après en escristrent meint livre
Meint autre qui erent delivre
De touz les pensers terriens
Ne ne pensoient nule riens
Fors enquerre philosophie
70 Et ceste parfonde clergie
Mes ore dure poi l’arme et cors
Et por ce est perduz li tresors
Que Dex nos dona si tres grant
Que nule chose ne valt tant
75 Or, argent, pierres precioses
De lor valor est tout oisoses
Quar el mont ne valt nul avoir
Autant come sens et savoir
Mes li sens moult petit nos valt
80 Quar quant li sens vient li cors faut
Et ce que nos avons prochienes
Au cuer les cures terrianes
Et pensons a l’avoir de terre
Ne nos lesse le tresor querre
85 Que Dex nos envoia des cels
Par quoi li hom qui est mortels
Se il a droit entendement
Puet vivre perdurablement
Se il a Deu qui le forma
90 De cui l’ymage et la forme a
Puet rendre l’arme nete et pure
Si cum l’enseigne l’escriture
(f. 3rc) Et uncore assez de ceaus sunt
Qui lor cuer et lor entente ont
95 A savoir de meinte science
Por ateindre a la sapience
Et estre parfaiz en clergie
Mes n’i poent ateindre mie
Quar li cors nel puet endurer
220 Appendix 1
100 Ne vie de home tant durer

Mes assez sunt et sage et preu
Et bien tienent partout lor leu
Mes ne puet pas tout a consivre
L’arme el cors qui ne est pas delivre
105 Quar ele a au corps batalle
Si covient que aucune foiz falle
Quar cil qui s’est es arz lassez
Dom il set de plusors assez
Geometrie, arismetike
110 Gramaire, logike et musike
Quant il vient a l’astronomie
N’i soffiroit toute sa vie
Se il i entendoit dès enfance
Mes de mellors clers senz dotance
115 Qui soient ore coneu
Avons nos de cest art veu
O l’en pooit meins sens aprendre
Et bien savoient raison rendre
De meinte question parfonde
120 Et des estoiles et del monde
Coment il tornaie et coment
Vont li planete el firmament
Coment corent par chascun signe
Liquel vont droit par une ligne
125 Liquel vont tost, liquel sejornent
Liquel vont tort, liquel retornent
Et conoissent les bons del mals
Quant il annuncent voir ou faus
Quant li planete sunt en leu
130 Dunt la besogne viegne a preu
En signe ferm ou en movable
Sevent si la chose est estable
El signe ferm ou en le oblike
Conoissent par arismetike
135 S’ele ira ordeneement
Del planete sevent si il ment
Quant il le voient retrograde
Et fait lors bien del sain malade
(f. 3va) Et la besogne desavance
140 Et oste la bone esperance

Et quant il vait son droit chemin
Met la besogne a bone fin
Se bons planetes le reçoit
Qui en bon leu del cercle soit
145 Et quant il s’esmuet a delivre
Por la bon planete a consivre
El li mals planetes l’ataint
Adonques le sormonte et veint
Si que le bien qu’il cuidoit faire
150 Li tolt cil qui est de mal aire
Et autresit quant li mals vait
Faire mal li bons l’en retrait
Quant il se assemble a lui et joint
Einsit sunt regardé li point
155 Et regardent autre segré
Se il a ferme estoile el degré
Ou il est, qui ce qu’il velt faire
Li tolle par son mal afaire
Et gardent se il est en tele part
160 Que li Solauz le brulle et art
Quar lors est moult afebloiez
Et del bien faire desvoiez
Puis regardent en quele meson
Il doit meauz valoir par raison
165 Ou en l’angle, ou en succedent
Ou se il est en meson cheant
Quar li angle si sunt plus fort
La succedenz vient a bon port
La cheanz note meins de bien
170 La ne valt li planetes rien
Si li leus del cercle l’empire
Lors est plus mals que ne puis dire
Et de la Lune et del Soloil
Regarderont bien quel acoil
175 Et quel regard il s’entrefont
Si li uns et li autres sunt
Contraire ou se il sunt en lor cas
Quar tout i ce ne aide pas
A nul bon planete qui soit
222 Appendix 1
180 Quant li planetes nel reçoit

Et est en son cas ou contraires
Lors torne a mal touz li afaires
Mes se il sunt en exaucement
Et s’entre esgardent bonement
185 (f. 3vb) De tierz ou de sextil regart
Donc funt il bien ou tost ou tart
Selonc que li signe le dient
Qui tost ou tart le segnefient
Einsit encerchent li bon mestre
190 Des planetes le cours et le estre
Et covient bien savoir les tables
Por savoir les leus covenables
La ou il voient arriver
Les planetes a le aiver
195 Quar a ce doit metre grant peine
Li bons mestres qui bien se peine
Que primes son tacuin face
Par quoi set le terme, la face
L’exaucement et la meison
200 La triplicité par reison
Des planetes ou il demorent
Et par lesquels degrez i corent
Par quoi il sevent dont ce avient
Que a chascun planete apartient
205 Quar se l’en demande de enfant
Ou de home ou de fame vivant
De sa fortune ou de sa vie
En le astrelabe ne faut mie
Se il est bons astrologiens
210 Que tout ne voie, mals et biens
Quar tant tost prent le point et l’hore
Del signe ascendent senz demore
Quant il a le ascendent trové
Et le degré montant prové
215 Et fait .xii. mesons des signes
Li planetes qui est plus dignes
De face, de triplicité
De terme et d’autre dignité
Que l’en nome exaltation
220 En le hore de la question

Quant il a en le ascendent part
Bone meson et bon regart
De bon planete et receuz
N’est pas li maistres deceuz
225 Del bon estat et de la vie
Que toute verité n’en die
Mes se il velt après savoir
De la richece ou del avoir
Droit a la seconde se avance
230 Laquele est meson de substance
(f. 3vc) Et par les planetes saura
Se richeces ne avoir aura
La tierce meson li dira
Des freres coment en ira
235 Des cosins, des amis prochiens
Se il en vendra ou mals ou biens
La quarte de père ou de mère
Se la fortune en iert amère
De heritages, de chams, de terre
240 Se il en porra auques conquerre
La quinte meson est de filz
Se il en aura joie ou perilz
Se il en solaz, en luxure
En estrumenz metra sa cure
245 La .vi.me est de maladie
Se il en aura moult en sa vie
De sers, de bestes dunt l’en use
Et de vils genz que l’en refuse
La .vii.me est de mariage
250 S’il i aura prou ou domage
De fames, de naves, de pertes
Et de terres qu’en fait desertes
La .viii.me est de mort
De occision, de injure et tort
255 Et de choses qui de morz vienent
Et qui a tristece apartienent
La .ix.me est de longue voie
Se l’en aura duel ou joie
Et se l’en la porra parfaire
224 Appendix 1
260 Senz avoir ennui et contraire

La .x.me a princes et rois
Qui funt justices et font lois
En lor reaumes, en lor terres
Et funt sovent et pais et guerres
265 Et conquierent les segnories
Dont meint home perdent les vies
La .xi.me est meson de fortune
Si bons planetes et la Lune
Ilueques en bon signe corent
270 Amis l’exaucent et le hennorent
La .xii.me est meson de plor
Et de tristece et de paor
De malfaitors, de traison
Et de anemis et de prison
275 Icist sunt les .xii. manoirs
Ou li planete ont lor pooirs
(f. 4ra) Dont chascuns a .ii. aditees
Qui proprement li sunt donees
Fors soul le Soloil et la Lune
280 Dont chascuns de eaus n’en a qu’une
Saturnus qui les biens destorne
A l’Aquaire et le Capricorne
Jupiter qui mal ne set faire
A Pisces et le Sagittaire
285 Mars a de male estration
Le Mouton et l’Escorpion
Venus qui velt en joie vivre
Si a le Torel et la Livre
Mercurius qui est isneaus
290 Si a la Virge et les Gemeaus
La Lune el Cancre a mansion
Et li Solauz l’a el Lion.
Et chascuns de eaus a ses deporz
En sa meson et est plus forz
295 El ternaire et en l’exaucement
En la face, el terme ensement
Li Lions et li Sagittaires
Li Moutons, cist premiers ternaires
Est chauz et sès, orientals
300 Li Capricornes, li Toreaus

La Virge, cist sont froiz et sès
Vers midi, l’un de l’autre prés.
Li Gemel, Aquaires, la Livre
Sunt chaut et moete, bon por vivre
305 Vers occident est cist ternaires
A celui de midi contraires
Les Poissons et l’Escorpion
Le Cancre a septemtrion
Moete et froit d’une qualité
310 Por ce sunt dit triplicité
Mes de ce ne m’estuet plus dire
Quar bien ai traitié la matire
En cest livre,4 et tout l’errement
Des signes et del firmament
315 Des planetes et de lor cours
Et lor natures et lor tours
Lor regarz et lor aliances
Par quoi il font les demostrances
Des choses cum eles avienent
320 Qui de lor natures nos vienent
Et cil qui bien les cerchera
La certeineté trovera
(f. 4rb) Par quoi l’en le tendra por sage
Se oveques le art met grant usage
325 Quar por neient lira la letre
Si grant entente n’i velt metre
A savoir del tems la nature
Par quoi saura se il met cure
Des choses qui ça desouz sunt
330 Coment changent et coment vont
Si cum cil le nos ont apris
Qui de cest art orent le pris
De tels furent .iii. esleu
Sage del art et bien creu
335 Qui meinz livres orent cerchiez
N’orent pas le cors reverchiez
4 Verses 311–313 clearly show that the present poem was explicitly written as an introduction to
the prose Introductoire d’Astronomie. See also Chapter 1.
226 Appendix 1
Des anz, ne le cenz en cedive

Quar del plus haut segnor qui vive5
Virent en la nativité
340 Tretout le estre et la verité
De sa fortune et de sa vie
Coment iroit sa segnorie
Tant cum el siecle regnera
Tout virent quant qu’il en sera
345 Et que nul de plus haut lignage
Ne meauz emparlé ne plus sage6
Ne troveroit l’en a son tens
A pou d’avoir par son grant sens
En grant ennui et en grant guerre
350 En grant estroiceté de terre7
Le meintendroit longuement Dex
Si qu’il ne seroit hom mortex
Qui de lui ne se mervellast
Quar ausit cum se il s’esvellast
355 Resordroit il et ses empires
Et bien parroit li plus granz sires
Qui en son tens fust nez de fame
Virent qu’il auroit une dame8
Que l’en li donroit a compagne
360 Estroite des hauz rois d’Espagne,
Tres bele, tres chaste et tres bone
Endui porteroient corone
Et en une hore et en un point
Sacré seroient et enoint9
365 Et auroient assez detroice
Et povreté en lor joesnece
Mes par .i. fil10 que il auroient
5 The plus haut segnor qui vive in question is Latin emperor Baldwin ii of Courtenay (1240–
1273). See also Appendix 2 and my discussion in Chapter 1.
6 On the attribution of these qualities to Emperor Baldwin, see my discussion in Chapter 5.
7 On the Latin empire’s difficult geopolitical situation during Baldwin ii’s reign, see Chap-
ter 4.
8 The dame in question is Mary of Brienne, daughter of king of Jerusalem (1211–1225) and
Latin emperor (1229/1231–circa 1237) John of Brienne and his wife Berengaria, daughter
of the king of Leon and Galicia Alfonso ix (1188–1230) and Berengaria of Castile. See also
Chapter 4.
9 On Baldwin and Mary’s coronation(s), see my discussion in Chapters 2 and 3.
10 The son reffered to is Philip of Courtenay, who succeeded Baldwin as (titular) emperor
(1273–1283). See also Chapter 4.
Rescous de povreté seroient

(f. 4rc) Que uns sires11 moult i aideroit
370 Qui de lor parentez seroit
Mais ainçois iroit secors querre
Cil sires loing hors de sa terre
.ii. foiz iroit et revendroit
Mes petit secors i prendroit12
375 Ainçois iroit moult a declin
Mes la dame iroit en la fin13
Il remaindroit en sa cité
Ou il auroit grant povreté14
Et granz guerres et granz perilz
380 Par quoi seroit mis horz li filz15
Tendres et de petit eage
Et feroient moult lonc estage
La dame es parties de France16
Et li enfès toute s’enfance
385 Seroit de marcheanz tenuz,17
Tant que li tens seroit venuz
Que cil que je vos dis devant
Feroit a soi venir l’enfant
Et tant lor donroit mars et livres
390 Que li enfès seroit delivres
Et recevroit de cel segnor
De chevalerie le hennor18
Moult li aideroit bons eurs
Quar puis seroit preuz et seurs
11 The sires in question should be identified with King Alfonso x of Castile (1258–1270). See
also Chapter 4 for a discussion of Baldwin ii’s relationship with Alfonso x.
12 This passage clearly refers to Baldwin ii’s two extensive Western voyages in the years
1236–1240 and 1245–1248, which he undertook to recruit financial and military aid for his
ailing empire. On these efforts see also Chapter 4.
13 Mary of Brienne left Constantinople in 1248 for the West, where she administered Bald-
win ii’s ancestral possessions (inter alia the county of Namur) and served the empire’s
interests with various diplomatic activities. See also Chapter 4.
14 On the emphasis on Baldwin ii’s poverty, see my discussion in Chapter 2.
15 On Philip of Courtenay’s prolonged stay in Venice, mortgaged to a number of Venetian
merchants, see Chapter 4.
16 See note 13.
17 See note 15.
18 Alfonso x knighted Philip of Courtenay in late 1259 or in 1260. See my discussion in Chap-
ter 1.
Appendix 2
Horoscope of Baldwin ii of Courtenay
[1] (f. 101ra) Ou nom de nostre segnor Jhesucrist en l’an de sa incarnation .m.cc.
xviii., trespassez .m.cc.xvii. et parfaiz, el .xviii.me an et el .xx.me jor del mois de
decembre, après la .x.me hore de midi, c’est en la .iiii.te hore de la nuit, fu as-
cendenz li quinz degrez de la Virge, et li sires del ascendent, ce est Mercurius,
estoit en la quinte meson, dont Mercurius avoit sa joie et son exaucement en le
ascendent.1 Quar si exaucemenz est el quinzieme degré de la Virge, et la Lune
iert oveques lui en la .v.te meson, et li Solauz autresi el quint degré, et la Lune el
.xxiii.me degré et la Coe el .xix.me, et ce fu el Capricorne, dont nos jugeons que
cist granz sires qui lors nasqui aura bien et joie premierement par son fil.2 Quar
li Solauz, qui iert en la .v.te meson qui est meson de filz, liquels Solauz, si cum
il est exauciez el Mouton, et li est contraires, einsit chiet sa contrarieté en la
Livre, laquele est partie de sa fortune, et la Livre est signe masculins et mostre
son premier exaucement par le fil. Et li Solauz qui est de nuiz femele demostre
le devant dit fil qu’il sera relevez par une tres noble fame qui sera nee devers
Occident, et droitemenz li Occidenz est o le Occident, quar li Solauz, qui est de
nuiz feminins, est joinz o le signe de la Livre, qui est occidentals.3 Et la chiet de
sa contrarieté, quar la contrarietez del Soloil et de la Lune debotent le fil hors
de son estage et de sa meson.
[2] Mais li Solauz desoivre de lui par s’ardor la Lune et Martem, jasoit ce
que Mars tiegne la lance en la .iiii.te meson et Saturnes l’espee en la .iii.ce. Dont
Saturnus creint Martem por la lance et ambedui Saturnes et Mars creinient le
* Edited after the sole known manuscript (late 13th century): BnF, fr. 1353, f. 101ra–f. 102vb. For
an extensive discussion of authorship, aim, date, manucript tradition and edition history, see
Chapter 1. In the following footnotes I provide a concise historical commentary with refer-
ences to the preceding chapters. For an astronomical/astrological commentary, see Maxime
Préaud’s edition.
1 The mentioned date of birth corresponds with 20 December 1217.
2 The granz sires in question is Latin emperor Baldwin ii of Courtenay (1240–1273). The son
reffered to is Philip of Courtenay, who succeeded Baldwin as (titular) emperor (1273–1283).
See also Chapter 4.
3 The tres noble fame in question is Latin emperor John of Brienne’s (1229/1231–circa 1237)
daughter Mary of Brienne, who was both Baldwin ii’s wife and Philip’s mother. See also
Chapter 4.

Horoscope of Baldwin ii of Courtenay 229
Soloil en la .v.te. Dont ce que est esparpellié et degasté par Saturne en la .iii.ce
meson, et par Martem en la .iiii.te, c’est a dire li ami en la tierce qui por l’espee
en la .iii.ce, ce est por la batalle que il creinient qui lor estoit apparrissanz, et les
possessions del empire qui sunt toloites par la lance de Mars (f. 101rb), ce est
par les batalles qui apparroient si forz par quoi li ami ne li aident mie.4 Par quoi
la povreté li court sus. Et Saturnes, ce sunt li ami qui sunt en la tierce meson, se
taisent. Li Solauz qui veint les .ii., ce est Mars et Saturnes, o toute sa contrarieté
chiet en la Livre et se souzmet au fil en la Livre qui est partie de sa fortune,
par lequel fil et par laquele Livre la peccune et la monoie qui a esté accreue et
emprentee en la povreté doit estre solse.
[3] El li Solauz donoit a cel segnor grant richeces, lesqueles la Lune et la
Coe, qui estoient en cele meesmes meson, les esparpelloient et gastoient. Mais
Mercurius, qui estoit amis del Soloil, li aident en deniers et en richeces et en
facunde et en eloquence. Neporquant la Coe, qui estoit en la .v.te, et Mars en la
.iiii.te et Saturnus en la tierce avoient force devant touz en gaster ses richeces
et sa peccune. Quar li signes de l’Escorpion, qui estoit en la .iii.ce meson, qui
mostre bon semblant el chief et en la coe porte le venin, est signe de aucun de
ses parenz ou de cels de sa meson, et de ceaus qui li sunt tenu par fealté et par
sarrement, qui ovec ses fals parenz voellent procurer sa mort.5 Et porce que
li Escorpions est signe septentrionals, gart soi cist granz sires que ce ne soit
fait en cele partie del an vers marz, quant li Solauz, qui li est contraires, a son
exaucement el Mouton. Liquel Solauz est a la .v.te meson (de filz)6 appreins et
se dort senz touz biens et est appriens de plusors anemis repouz, au meins de
.iii., de Scorpion qui est aperz, de Saturne qui est plus aperz, de Sagittaire qui
est tres aperz, de Scorpion de venin, de Saturne de glaive, de Sagittaire de lance
ague. Li glaives aguz (repouz)7 est passez, la lance aperte remaint et li venins
repouz jusques a marz. Et lors commencera a delivrer de toute povreté et de
toute contrarieté.
[4] Et porce que la Coe et Jupiter et Venus sunt nomper, et Venus a sa meson
el Torel, et sunt en la .ix.me meson retrograde, segnefient .iiii. homes qui seront
gité de la (f. 101va) compagnie de cel segnor, desquel il aura soupeçon.8 Les .ii.
metra il bien hors, le tierz ne porra, ainz remeindra o lui par son veziement
et tracera touz jorz savoir se il li porra nuire covertement. Et neporquant il
ne li porra nuire, quar li planete per, la Lune et Venus, ne sueffrent mie o les
4 On these ami, see also §8–9 (inter alia in France and at the papal court).
5 On the (hypothetical) identification of these falz parenz, see Chapter 3.
6 In margin.
7 In margin.
8 On the (hypothetical) identification of these .iiii. homes, see Chapter 3.
230 Appendix 2
planetes nompers, le Chief del Dracon, Jupiter et Venus, dont cist .iii.ez sera des-
sevrez ausit de lui. Et s’en istra confus del exaucement de cel segnor, (lequel)9
il cuidoit vendre a autre segnor com degeté et envenimé. Neporquant, par le
otroi de Deu, la Lune et Venus, qui se concordent, meinent cel segnor en la
Livre, et li Solauz et Mercurius se concordent en ce et le meinent en la Livre,
qui est de meson de la partie de la fortune de cel segnor, quar il sunt ami li uns
vers l’autre.
[5] Et si devez bien noter ce que en la .v.te meson de filz furent trové .iii.
planetes, et la Coe fu la quarte, quar li Solauz, qui estoit la nuit .ii. foiz female,
demostroit que, après le [fi]l devoit avoir cil grant sires prochienement une
fille, laquele ne devoit mie vivre longuement, por la Coe del Dracon qui estoit
en cele meesmes .v.te meson.10 Et uncore en aura une autre por le Soloil cheant
en la Livre, et cele fille vivra.11 Et porce que la Lune est masles en cele meesmes
.v.te meson, demostre que cil sires aura uncore .i. autre fil qui sera contraires a
touz mercheanz por la hautesce de son lignage et s’esforcera dels hors bouter
que il ne habitent o lui en une cité.12 Il edefiera chasteaus ou il habitera et ne
mie citez, et sera touz tems apparelliez a proie et sera malls et destruieres de
ses anemis.
[6] Après se ensuit Aquaires en la .vi.te meson, delquel Saturnes est sires par
nature, mes par accident est Venus en cele meson. Ceste est la .vi.te meson de
enfermeté, cheent del ascendent, dont il estoit a avenir a cil segnor que après
autres maladies colerikes, por le Sagittaire qui est signes de feu, liquels, jasoit
ce que (f. 101vb) Saturnes soit en la .iiii.te et li Escorpions en la tierce, nepor-
quant, porce que li feus est plus legiers de touz les elemenz, se avenca ainz lo
eure de Saturne et fist premierement maladies colerikes, dont les escorcheures
del cuir et les taches li vienent por les taches del Escorpion et la chalor del Sag-
ittaire. Et après Saturnus, qui est en la .iii.ce meson, qui est froiz et sès, foldroie
en Aquaire qui est sa propre meson, qui est .iiii.te de lui et .vi.me et cheanz del
ascendent en cele meson qui est .iiii.te de lui, li done maladie quartaine de
quart en quart por la froidure et la secheresce, et la doble porce qu’il a Martem
9 In margin.
10 No other source informs us about this daughter of Baldwin ii, who apparently died when
still very young.
11 This daughter may be identified with the Catherina, who is mentioned as Baldwin ii’s
daughter in the Sicilian Angevin registers in the years 1267–1278. See also Chapter 3,
p. 74.
12 No other source explicitly informs us about this second son of Baldwin ii, though Philip
called himself primogenitus in a 1269 charter, which suggests that he did have a brother.
See also Chapter 3, p. 74.
compagnon en la .iiii.te. Quar Saturnus et Mars, quant il sunt ami, s’entre aid-
ent en prosperitez et en aversitez.
[7] Neporquant Mars li done une quartaine bastarde, Saturnus veraie, l’une
mue les hores del accession, l’autre non, et ce avient entor le .xxxv.me an de cel
segnor, quar a Saturne sunt doné .xxx. an et ad Venus en deussent estre doné
.viii. en la meson de maladie.13 Mes ele segnefie eissue de la maladie et ele
requiert del .v. signe second de lui .i. an, et de Lune qui est en cel quint signe .i.
autre an, et de Mercurio qui est en cele meesmes .v.te meson .i. an, et li Solauz
qui est en cele meesmes .v.te meson li aide. Quar li Solauz et Venus sunt ami
quant il ne sunt mie en .i. signe, et einsit Venus, qui est contraire ad Mercu-
rium, delivre cel segnor qui devroit estre malades entor le .xxxv.me an de .ii.
quartaines, et morir par droit si Venus ne l’asoajast et respassast. Et donques se
hast Venus de aler a la Livre qui est sa propre meson par nature, et por ce salve
ce grant segnor en la Livre, que la Livre est partie de sa fortune, et je di bien
partie, quar cum Venus deust estre sa fortune enterine, li est faite de fortune
partie por les planetes et les leus contraires, quar ostez .iii. de .xxxviii., lesquels
Venus en la .vi.me meson doit avoir si cum il est prové desus par arismetike
et par geometrie et par astro—(f. 102ra) logie, li en remainent .v. et .xxxx. de
Saturne, et einsit font le .xxxv.me an de sa maladie.
[8] Et porce que li oirres de Venus est lons de la .vi.me jusques a la .ix.me,
laquele segnefie lonc viager, devoit avenir a cel grant segnor, qu’il feroit moultes
longues voies, et Venus qui estoit loigtiene et estrange de sa meson envoiet cel
segnor en estranges terres.14 Neporquant en la gregnor partie il troeve segnors
et granz homes qui li sunt alié par lignage, dont a la parfin Venus, qui vient
après la longue voie en la .ix.me meson, trueve ilueques le Torel qui est sa pro-
pre mesons et li est aditee, et autresit cist granz sires qui est en viage de la .ix.me
meson trove en meinz leus de son veage parenz de cui la mesons li est ausit
cum la soe propre.
[9] Neporquant li Toreaus ou Jupiter est retrogrades, done a cele segnor pou
de aide de sez amis et ses granz viages li est autresit cum neient profitables. Et
jasoit ce que je sache bien raconter par la proprieté des signes les leus par ou il
devoit aler, nequident je m’en trespasse briefment que il ne ennuit a celui qui
cest escrit lira. Neporquant la mesons de Gemeaus, qui est .x.me, demostroit
qui li viages de cel segnor seroit vers France qui est en la partie de Occident,
13 No other source informs us about this illness. Baldwin ii was 35 years old around the year
1252. See also note 1.
14 This passage clearly refers to Baldwin ii’s extensive travels inter alia in the years 1236–1240
and 1245–1248. During these voyages he visited, among other places, the papal court, the
imperial court of Frederick ii of Hohenstaufen, the royal courts of France and England,
and his ancestral home lands in the northwest (Namur, Flanders, Hainaut, etc.).
232 Appendix 2
et li Toreaus qui est retrogrades demostroit qu’il retorneroit aucune foiz vers
Aquilon, et porce que l’Eglise de Rome qui est souz le Soloil et souz le signe
del Torel, segnefie que cil sires devoit aler vers l’Eglise de Rome et vers Aquilon
arriere, et li Toreaus qui est retrogrades en toutes choses li devee qu’il ne puet
faire ce que il velt ne mener a fin.
[10] Mes Jupiter qui est sires par nature de la .vii.me meson, qui est li Pois-
sons, segnefie que cist sires doit avoir compagne et fame de tres haut lignage,
et bele de face et chaste, senz luxure, quar li signes del Poissons, qui est froiz et
moetes, demostre la fame chaste.15 Mes porce que la meson de cel segnor est
chaude et moete, et la meson (f. 102rb) de sa fame froide et moete, ne morra li
uns guieres devant l’autre.16 Si devez bien noter ce que Jupiter ne est mie tro-
vez en sa propre meson, c’est es Poissons, mes en autre estrange et loigtiegne,
c’est en la .ix.me, qui est retrograda. Quar la dame devoit aler hors de son pro-
pre siège et de sa meson por les contraires planetes qui li avoient gastees ses
possessions.17
[11] Neporquant li salvemenz vient après, quar li Moutons, qui est en le
.viii.me meson de mort, qui est signes orientals, annunce salu et sauvement a
cel grant segnor par la mort de .i. grant home qui est vers Orient.18 Et ci com-
mence li saluz et le exaucement del segnor et de la dame, quar ausit que li
signes des Poissons, qui est moetes, se concorde au Torel ou Jupiter est, en la
.ix.me meson. Et einsi doit avenir que, entrementres que la dame sera hors, sera
traitié del mariage del fil qui est nez en la Livre, laquele est partie de la fortune
de cest grant segnor. Et repairera la dame et li filz a son segnor, qui sera en
joie et en exaucement après les .iii. anz de lor retor et metra souz pié touz ses
anemis.19
[12] Nequiedent touz tems se gatient et se peinent (…)20 els garder li peres
et li filz, quar li signe meridian ne tienent pas la verité que il prometent, quar
il doit avenir que ambe .ii. les parties decevront et seront deceu. Nequident li
15 For the identification of this fame de tres haut lignage, see Appendix 1, note 8.
16 This would turn out to be a correct prediction: Baldwin ii died around the end of the year
1273, while Mary of Brienne died around 1275.
17 Mary of Brienne left Constantinople in 1248 for the West, where she administered Bald-
win ii’s ancestral possessions (inter alia the county of Namur) and served the empire’s
interests with various diplomatic activities. See also Chapter 4.
18 The grant home qui est vers orient should in my view be identified with one of the Mongo-
lian great khans, either Güyük Khan (†1248) or Möngke Khan (†1259). See also Chapter 3,
note 44.
19 This passage refers to the projected marriage between Philip of Courtenay and a daughter
of Alfonso x of Castile (see also notes 17 and 21). In reality Mary and Baldwin would never
return to Baldwin ii in Constantinople. See also Chapter 4.
20 (…) = manuscript damaged: a few illegible letters.
Chief del Dracon qui s’en istra o victoire et o segnorie que cist sires aura, jasoit
ce que je ne voelle ore dire en conbien de tens ce sera fait et ja soit ce que je
le aperçoive bien et conoisse par la vertu de Deu, en tele maniere sera que li
Chiés del Dracon qui est occidentals demostre .i. grant segnor devers Occident
par cui cist sires et la dame et lor filz seront relevé de lor povreté et de lor sof-
fraite, et ce que li Poisson sunt senz lor planete qui est Jupiter, segnefie la dame
qui sera lonc tems senz son segnor, et après retournera o son fil qui est nez en
la Livre qui est partie de la fortune de cest grant segnor.21
[13] (f. 102va) Ici commence li chapitres qui pleinement parole del Chief
del Dracon. Quar a la parfin li Chief del Dracon, qui est amis de Jupiter, liquels
Jupiter est trovez en la .ix.me meson, qui est li Toreaus, jasoit ce que li Toreaus
soit retrogrades, et cil Toreaus est feminins de la nature de cele haute dame,
que segnefie ce autre chose fors le chief del segnor occidental que nos deismes
desus, qui relieve Jovem son ami i estant en povreté, ce est a dire que il a grant
compassion de la povreté de cele haute dame et li done sovraineté (…). Et
porce que la .xi.me meson est meson de fortune et la seconde meson est partie
de fortune, li Chiés del Dracon qui est en la .ix.me descent en avant en la meson
de cel grant segnor (…) acquerre (…) de peccune (…). Et li Chiés del Dracon est
el Cancre qui est signes septentrionalz, segnefie que cist sires a victoire sour
ses anemis qui sunt devers Midi.22 Quar cum la terre qui est li plus durable el-
emenz et li plus estable veinc et sourmonte touz les autres elemens par sa du-
rableté et par sa permenance quasi invertible et movable en regard de la terre,
autresit li Chiés del Dracon, qui est sires del Cancre, liquels Chiés est de nature
de terre, de ore en avant fait estable (…) et conferme l’empire de Costantinoble
par cest empereor (…).
[14] Li an convient (…) jasoit ce que il doivent estre selonc raison de phi-
losophie (…) selonc le petit sen que Dex m’a doné (…). Mes ce ne devons nos
mie trespasser que si cum chascuns des elemens a une qualité par nature et
l’autre par accident, autresit l’empire de nostre segnor (…) touz les jours qu’il
vivra aura, l’un avant, l’autre arrieres, .ii. anemis, dont nos parlasmes desus de
.iiii. (f. 102vb) anemis de sa persone, liquel sunt designé ne mie solement par
les .iiii. qualitez des elemenz qui segnefient plus basses choses, mes par les au-
tres choses que nos avons desus dites.23 Mes cil estoient anemi de sa persone,
cist sunt anemi del empire, dont nos volons dire et toucherons les batalles qui
se esleverent en noz tems contre nostre empereor (….) et contre son empire.
21 The grant segnor devers occident should be identified with King Alfonso x of Castile
(1258–1270). See also notes 17 and 19, and Chapter 4.
22 On these anemis qui sunt devers midi, see also §15.
23 On these .iiii. anemis de sa persone, see also §3–4.
234 Appendix 2
Donques, jasoit ce que aucun veullent segnefier les .iiii. devant diz bas homes
par les .iiii. planetes contraires qui estoient en la .v.te meson si cum je vos ai
toché desus briefment (…), neporquant par cels planetes et par lor mesons
sunt plus veraiement pris li segnor des reaumes et des terres qui sunt contrai-
res a nostre empereor et a son empire.
[15] El commencement, ce que devoit estre de la triplicité de nostre empe-
reor est trové que il li fu contraire. Quar li Toreaus, la Virge, li Capricornes sunt
de sa triplicité, qui sunt signe feminin et nocturne, froit et sec, de nature de
terre, melancolike et aigre savor, et sunt meridian. De laquele triplicité sunt
segnor Venus de jorz et la Lune de nuiz. Mars est lor parcoru (…) de (…). Cist
Toreaus, qui estoit compaing de nostre ascendent, c’est de la Virge, nos est faiz
retrogrades en la .ix.me meson, laquele est compagne en tems de la meson de
enmi le ciel, c’est de la x.me, vers Midi. Et porce qu’il est faiz retrogrades a nostre
segnor il segnefie le anemi devers Midi tres fort, ce est la segnorie que Vataches
tenoit en cele partie de Midi, et se il ne fust en cele partie retrogrades il eust
eu toute sa segnorie de la terre nostre segnor.24 Cist est premiers anemis, a cui
jasoit ce que li Toreaus li oiraiast la segnorie par accident, neporquant il la nos
donoit a nostre segnore par nature, quar il estoit de la triplicité del ascendent
de nostre segnor, quar il estoit de une nature o le signe de la Virge qui estoit
ascendenz de nostre tres haut segnor, et jasoit ce que li Toreaus fust alez en
meson estrange en (…).25
24 Vataches is to be identified with Nicaean emperor John iii Vatatzes (1221–1254). His im-
mediate successors in Nicaea were Theodore ii Laskaris (1254–1258) and Michael viii
Paleologos (1259–1282), who in 1261 conquered Constantinople.
25 Here our sole mansucript breaks off.
Appendix 3
Introductoire d’Astronomie: Selected Chapters
…
Fragment 1: Chapter 1
Ch’est .i. introductoires d’astronomie que .i. philosophes traita pour .i.
empereor de Romme et contient .2. livres1 (A Defense of Astrology in
the Vernacular)
[1] (f. 7ra) Por ce que la science de astronomie, la quele entre les .vii. arz liber-
als est une des principals et a cui li plus des autres servent et administrent, est
por ville et por neient tenue de aucunes genz qui ont l’entendement si gros
et si pesant des terrianes choses ou il s’aerdent que il ne poent rien entendre
des devines ne des cors ne des creatures celestiaus neis les sensibles choses
et ce que l’en voit as eauz, ne poent il aparcevoir si qu’il ne poent entendre le
ordenement des natures que Dex a fait en ses creatures. Me est pris talenz de
espondre en romanz aucuns des secrez de astronomie si cum li philosophe et
li autour en traiterent ça en arriere, qui estoient delivré des terriens pensers et
tote lor entente metoient en enquerre la verité de tote philosophie. Et por ce
que je auré assez detraeors et envious en ceste oevre, la quele je ne faz mie por
les rudes ne por cels qui ont l’entendement gros, mes por cels qui jasoit ce qu’il
ne soient fondé de parfonde clergie, il ont neporquant l’entendement soutil,
pri gie que ceste oevre ne soit balliee commune ne abandonee a touz, mes a
cels solement qui ont bon entendement et soutil engin.
[2] Et voel premierement commencier des paroles que Ptholomeus met el
prologue de son livre qui est apelez Almageste qui einsi commencent: Dex, li
* This text has been preserved in two manuscripts: BnF, fr. 1353 (f. 5r–f. 66r) and BnF, fr. 613
(f. 87r–f. 133r). The former is the earliest (late 13th century)—and without question best—
manuscript and has been used as the basis for this partial edition. Contentual variants are
reproduced in the footnotes. For an extensive discussion of authorship, aim, date, manucript
tradition and edition history, see Chapter 1. In the following footnotes I provide a concise
commentary relating to the elements and themes discussed in the preceding chapters. For
a more comprehensive astronomical/astrological commentary, see Stephen Dörr’s partial
edition.
1 This title only appears in the second manuscript (early 14th century): BnF, fr. 613, f. 87r.

236 Appendix 3
faisieres del monde, vit le ordre de descendre en totes choses del tres haut, ce
est de lui meismes a ses sovraines creatures et as sovrains cors et des sovrains
cors as choses et as creatures de ca desouz. Et por ce volt et ordena que sa
volentez descendist premierement de lui as cors et as creatures celestiaus et
d’ilueques as choses ça desouz, por la quele chose il balla par devin consuel
toute la (f. 7rb) region de la terre a l’arbitre del ciel et si cum li peres qui avoit
et a pitié de ses creatures, il balla et commist toutes le terrianes choses et lor
fortunes a la foi et a la porveance des creatures et des cors celestiaus. Quar
li maitres ovriers de toutes choses, qui avoit en l’oevre del ciel dignement et
devinement laboré, volt que devant totes les autres choses de ça desouz, einsi
cum il avoit etabli, le ciel el plus haut eust privilege et dignité sour totes les
choses terrianes. Et por ce, il li dona le don de tote beauté et li dona poessance
et vertu, por ce que il devoit estre uns governierres par desoz totes les choses
souzgietes. Il li dona movement raisonable. Il li dona vertu de lumieres et li
commist les natures et le muement des choses de ca desouz, autresi comme
a un governeour de sa volenté, por ce que nule chose ne defausist en si grant
ovrage cum est la machines, ce est la facons del monde, por la quele raison les
fortunes des choses mortels sunt diversefiees par l’aministrement del ciel. La
quele chose chascuns poet vooir et conoistre quar la raison de nostre vie et de
nostre croissement est iluecqes establie et fermee del tout en tout, quar si cum
dist Termegistres nos disons que la vie des choses de cest monde apartient a
Soloil et li norrissemenz des cors apartient a la Lune.
[3] Et ce meesmes enseigne la sentence de Platon qui dit que li sages for-
tunieres des choses vit que les unes choses devoient par lui estre criees et les
autres eissir des autres. Et toutes les choses estoient loing de parfection fors
tant cum eles poaient eissir de la loi de corruption et soi accompagnier as cho-
ses sovraines. Donques cum il laissast home en terre por achoison de lui, a cui
conoissance il devoit repairier comme a son commencement, et le eust faist de
doble maniere de substance, quar ce que nos somes nos somes une partie del
ciel et autre de la terre, quar Dex hennora et sozhauca le cors de l’arme celestial
qui est conformez a celestials choses et por ce establi qu’il fust menez et aid-
iez par .i. affect, ce est par un talent qui est affins de l’une et de l’autre clestial
chose, ce est de l’arme et del ciel a autre chose, ce est a la connoissance de son
commencement. Après un pou dist Platons que ceste fu unes des principals
ententions del criator si cum nostre entendemenz concoit et poet comprendre
que premierement homs coneust les unes choses par l’affinité qu’il avoit a eaus
et après par acuisement de engin et par sollicitude coneust les autres, par quoi
il se eslevast et soutillast a conoistre le commencement de totes choses.
[4] Et einsi parvint a ce que li home, quant il orent acostumé a esgarder
le ciel et les estoiles et aparcurent primes la force del celestial movement et
regarderent après la diverseté de l’oirre des planetes et des estoiles et virent
Introductoire d’Astronomie 237
que les unes se assembloient as autres en divers tems et que les unes sivoient
les autres, a la foiee les comprenoient et après aconsivoient les autres et après
la prise de celes sivoient les autres et aloient a eles, et virent les unes atendre
les autres et retorner a eles arrieres et de rechief dessevrer les unes des autres
et regarder les unes les autres proportionelment et par figure et a la foiee aler
aversement les unes encontre les autres et estre en contraire leu des autres. Et
virent que par tantes manieres de cours li roi de lor lumieres a la foiee se crois-
soient et estoient mué, a la foiee amenuisoient, a la foiee lor rais perissoient del
tout en tout quant a lor veue, a la foiee reprenoient de rechief lor resplendor.
Et de ces signes et de ces movemenz virent avenir les unes choses après les
autres et après se chanjoient li avenement des choses cum il eussent regardé
ces choses et autres, les queles par le don de Deu et par devin consuel et par la
grant volenté et par la longue entente il apristrent a conoistre.
[5] Tant perseverent et vellerent en la contemplation des choses que pre-
mierement virent le Soloil et la Lune, dum la conoissance fu plus legiere, et
après les autres planetes, qui sunt ordené les uns souz les autres en une (f. 7vb)
voie et en un sentier establi le quel il ne poent trespasser, ou il sunt posé des-
sembleblement entre le ciel et la terre et aparcurent qu’eles estoient maistres
et governarresses par la volenté del creator de l’artifice et de l’ovraigne des tar-
rianes choses. Quar quant li crierres del monde, si cum il est desus dit, balla et
commist la terre au ciel et vit que aucunes parties del ciel estoient loingtiegnes
des habitanz de terre, toute la poissance del ciel que il dona as cors celestiaus
et as estoiles es terrianes choses mist et ordena en un certain sentier, le quel
sentier il ordena et mist el milieu environ la terre en obliquant par les .ii. emis-
peres de tele laor cum il dut estre, si que il servist a l’un costé et a l’autre de la
terre. Et par l’aprochement et l’eslognement des planetes la diversetez del tems
et la qualitez des elemenz et des natures des choses se variassent par certaine
loi et par raison pardurablement, senz la quele loi la mortel nature ne pooit
durer qu’ele ne perist. Mes de ces choses vos lairons a tant qui sunt obscures,
quar tele est la nature de sapience que li fols corages la tient por neient et la
despit, mais ele despit plus lui et plus l’aville.
Coment art et science fu trovee (A Work of Science Dedicated to

Emperor Baldwin ii of Courtenay)
[1] (f. 7vb) Einsit poez savoir si cum vos avez entendu desus que de plusors foiz
que li hom virent et aparcurent et sentirent les natures des choses, vint de plu-
sors veues et de plusors sens un experiment, et quant il orent espermenté plu-
sors foiz les choses de plusors experimenz vint une memoire, et quant il orent
238 Appendix 3
plusors remembrances des choses qui avoient esté esperimentees par meintes
foiz de plusors memoires vint un universel, que tint cil qui enqueroient et en-
cerchoient la verité et sorent par experiment et par memoire de plusors sages
que einsit estoit universelment cum il estoit encerchié et que ce ne pooit fallir,
et cist universels fu commencement de art et de science.
[2] Mais por ce que, si cum dist Ypocras el commencement de ses au-
forismes, la vie de l’home est briés et les arz sunt longues et li experiment sunt
faillable, ne mie por ce que (f. 8ra) en eles les natures des choses ne poent
fallir, mais nostre vie ne soffist mie a eles comprendre ne entendre. Et por ce
est li jugemenz des natures griés, quar autresit come cil qui oevre de mede-
cine ne poet ovrer certainement, se il ne set bien la complexion et la nature
del cors ou il oevre et quel humor fait la corruption dum la maladie vient et
se il ne set les choses par quoi il dot ontreter et doner remede a la maladie et
quele proportion et en quele quantité il doit la choses doner qui en soi a la
medecine, neporquant il avient que il aide au malade ou par fortune ou par ce
que il comprent une partie de la verité, ja soit ce que il ne la compragne mie
toute. Einsi avient en ceste art de astronomie. Quar cum la fins en soit a faire
certains jugemens des fortunes des choses ca desouz et des natures et por quoi
eles se varient, nequedent la vie de l’home ne soffist mie a comprendre touz
les cours et les muemenz et les variations de celestiaus cors et des estoiles, por
quoi li hom ne soffist a faire certains jugemenz des fortunes et des variations
des choses qui avienent, mais totes voies selonc ce que le humaine raison poet
comprendre les natures des choses li sages hom poet moultes fois aidier par la
devine volenté o son soutil engin a conoistre le avenement et la variation et le
changement des bones fortunes et des males.
[3] Dum si cum dist Ptholomeus en son Centilogue li boens astrologiens
puet moult deveer de ce qui est a avenir a le home selonc le cours des estoiles
quant il set sa nature et sa complexion. Quar il garnist celui qui le mal doit
avoir et soffrir si qu’il le sueffre plus legierement. Et ce veons nos que uns mals
ne tient mie ivelment a .ii. homes qui ne sont d’une complexion ne d’une na-
ture. Dum quant li sages astrologiens se doute qu’il ne viegne mal a aucun, il
torne tant cum il puet sa complexion au contraire de la nature dum li mals
(f. 8rb) li doit avenir, si qu’il ne lui puet si grever cum se il li venoit desporveue-
ment. Quar quant aucuns enfès naist dum nos regardons la nativité, qui a bien
atempree complexion en nos veons que aucune enfermetez li doit avenir de
la nature Martis qui est chauz et sès, nos li tornerons sa complexion a froidure
par diete de froides choses si que l’enfermetez, quant ele li vendra, la tornera a
atemprance et autresi overra li astrologiens en ces autres planetes la ou il saura
que li mals devra venir de lor nature et de lor complexion.
[4] Et por ce dist Ptholomeus que li astrologiens doit avoir la science des
estoiles et de soi et de eles, quar cil qui velt conoistre les choses qui sunt a
a venit il li covient a ce que il ait la science aler par .ii. voies, l’une que il regart le
movement et le cours des estoiles et les oevres et les fortunes qui sunt avenues
par lor cours et regart les livres que li ancian escristrent de lors cours et ce que
il en a veu et prové en son tems. L’autre voie si est quant aucuns a ceste science
par devine inspiration et quant aucuns aura ces .ii. voies il sera entre les sages
tenuz por .i. des plus sages, quar cil qui a ceste science par devine inspiration
puet moult doner de verais jugemenz, dum nos ne poons trover ne les segnefi-
ances ne les raisons ne en natures ne en oevres ne es choses qui en avienent
ca desouz, mais ce que il dient lor ist des cuers par devine volenté et par devin
espir. Et dit li commentierres sor le Centilogue que de tels virent il assez en lor
tems, et ceste voie qui est si naite et si pure apelent li philosophe devine, et por
ce dist Ptholomeus que de cels qui sunt souz le cercle de la Lune, li un ont ceste
science par art et par doctrine, li autre l’ont par devine inspiration. Et cil qui
aura ces .ii. voies sera tenuz por voir disanz en ses jugemenz, et se il faut a une
de ces voies il ne sera mie tenuz si por sages.
[5] Dum il avient, si cum je vos dis desus, que nos qui somes occupé des
(f. 8va) terrianes choses ne poons mie si certainement voair ne doner verais
jugemenz comme cil qui les voient et les donent par devine inspiration, por
ce que la force et la vertu de l’arme raisonable et entendenz qui est aliee et
acompagniee as autres forces, c’est a le ire et la concupiscence qui nos alie as
terrianes et as mundaines choses, ne puet estre si delivré qu’ele voie si cler es
choses qui sunt a avenir, cum font cil qui sunt delivré de la concupiscence et
de la sollicitude des choses mondaines. Et por ce nos ne poons voair si aperte-
ment les choses come cil qui les voaient par devine inspiration. Et por ce dist
Ptholomeus que nos conaissons les choses de la mellor partie c’est de la vertu
raisonable de l’arme, et de tant comme l’arme et li esperit est plus dessevrez
des choses terrianes voit il plus cler, et por ce veons nos de aucuns hermites ou
de aucuns saint homes que il dient sovent les choses qui sunt a avenir, et au-
tresi aucuns frenetikes dient moult foiz voir et devinent por ce qu’il ne sevent
ou il sunt ne il ne usent mie des sens corporels, ainz usent solement de la force
et de la vertu de l’arme entendable. Et autresi li angele et li esperit, si cum dit
Augustins et Damascenes, second ce que la divine vertu lor en done puissance
conoissent les choses qui sunt a avenir, quar autrement n’en poent rien savoir
fors en tant cum il ont de la purté devine.
[6] Et autresi moultes foiz en nostre dormant nos veons aucunes choses
qui doivent avenir que nos veons par la pure vertu de l’ame, quant la vertus
entendable est bien purefiee des grosses fumositez por ce qu’ele est lores des-
sevree des sollicitudes terrianes. Quar li hom quant il dort puet voair et songier
en .v. manieres et por ce dist Macrobes que il sunt .v. manieres de songes, dum
les .ii. sunt fauses et ne sunt fors fantasies, les .iii. sunt veritables, quar quant li
hom a pensee et cure de la chose qu’il a veue le jor si en est empreinte la figure
240 Appendix 3
et la color de la chose en cele substance (f. 8vb) de air qui sert as .v. sens, c’est
au voair, a le oir, au gouter, a l’oudorer, au tochier et atrait l’ame la colour et la
figure de la chose qu’en a veue en se ymagination. Et por ce qu’ele ne l’oblie mie
si tost, li en vient cele fantasie qu’il semble a le home, quant il dort, qu’il voaie
la chose en tel figure et en tel colour cum il l’a le jor veue. L’autre maniere avi-
ent moultes foiz de la nature de la complexion de le home ou de la viande, quar
quant aucunes foiz l’une des humours del cors sormonte l’autres, quant il dort
selonc le hore ou le humor a sa segnorie, si semble a le home qu’il voie ymages
et choses d’icele colour, quar se la cole roge est achoison il songera volentiers
ymages et choses roges et se la melencolie est en cause si songera noires fig-
ures et noires choses et petites. Et se li flegmes sormonte si songera blanches
ymages et blanches choses et autresi quant il a mengié et est raempliz selonc
ce que la viande est colerike ou flegmatike ou de autre complexion. Selonc les
diverses fumositez songe diverse choses et toutes ces manieres ne sont fors
fantasies qui vienent de fumositez.
[7] Or sunt autres .iii. manieres de songes qui sunt veraies. Quar aucune foiz
la devine volentez mostre a celui qui est esperitels aucune chose en dormant
par aucun saint ou par aucune persone qui li semble qui parolt a lui et li mostre
la chose si cum ele doit avenir. Et ceste maniere apele Macrobes oracle. Aucune
foiz, si cum j’ai dit desus, la vertu raisonable de l’ame, quant ele est pure, voit
la chose devant soi quant li hom dort tout einsi cum ele doit avenir. Et ceste
maniere est apelee visions. Aucune foiz sunt mostrees a le home les choses
qui sunt a avenir par choses semblables, aucune foiz par choses contraires. Par
chose semblable, si cum se aucuns songe que il saine, segnefie amenuisement
de sa force ou amenuisement de amis. Par contraire, si comme se aucuns plore
ou a dolour en dormant, segnefie joie.
[8] Donques nos qui somes occupé des choses mondaines ja soit ce que (f.
9ra) nos ne puissons avoir les .ii. devant dites voies, se ne est par devine inspi-
ration par quoi nos puissons faire et doner parfaiz jugemenz, neporquant a le
hennor del tres haut empereor .B., par la grace de Deu tres feel en Jhesu Crist,
coroné de Deu, governeor de Romanie2 et touz tems accroissant, por cui nos
commencons ce livre, ce que nos avons oi et trait des livres des ancians par
quoi l’en puisse venir a faire parfaiz jugemenz et certains des fortunes et des
oevres que li ordenemenz et li cours des estoiles oevre ca desouz, nos vos es-
pondrons si briefment cum nos porrons et comme tele oevre le requiert, dum
la matire est si granz et si diffuse et que li ancien traiterent et mistrent en tems
2 BnF, fr. 613, f. 88v reads governement de Romains. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of the impe-
rial title mentioned here.
de volumes, par quoi cil qui Dex donra qu’il aura l’une voie et l’autre desus dite
porra jugier certainement et estre contez entre les sages.
[9] Et pri a touz cels qui cest livre liront que se il i trovent aucun defaut que
il le doient pardoner a mon povre sen et a mon rude engin, et se il i trovent
chose qui soit bone et digne de oïr que il le dognent a la grace de Deu de cui
touz li bien et tuit li sen et les bones paroles vienent come de celui qui est vive
fontaine de touz biens. Et por ce que li jugement ne poent estre fait ne doné
senz savoir la nature et la complexion et la variation del cours des estoiles, si
cum eles corent par le firmament, et li cours ne puet estre seuz senz ce que
l’en sache le ordenement del firmament, vos commencerons nos primes en la
premiere partie del livre de l’ordenement del firmament et emprès des cercles
coment li philosophe le deviserent par parties et des ymages des estoiles que
li philosophe ordenerent par le firmament et des signes que il deviserent el
zodiake et de lor montees et des climaz que li signe ont desouz eaus et de
l’alognement et de l’acorcement des jorz et des nuiz, et après des planetes et de
lor natures et de lor cours et de lor proprietez et de lor diversefiances et de lor
muemenz et coment li un se ont as autres et preent et donent fortunes li un des
autres, et après des jugemenz qui sont faiz selonc lor diversetez.
Li seconds livres des planetes (Plato and Aristotle on the Movement

of Planets)
[1] (f. 24vb) Li planete sunt les estoiles erratikes, aucuns (f. 25ra) les apelent
erratikes3 por ce que les errent par le ciel ca et la et que les ne vont mie droite
voie, mais si cum dist Martians4 eles doivent meauz estre dites planontes que
planetes quar ia soit ce qu’eles aient certaines lois et certains movemenz. Eles
font sovent errer la humaine raison en lor movement.
[2] Li planete sunt li Solauz et la Lune et li .v. autre que vos avez oi sovent no-
mer, Saturnus, Jupiter, Mars, Venus et Mercurius. Cist .vii. planete ne sunt mie
el firmament autresi cum les autres estoiles, ainz sunt lor cercles et lor regions
par desouz le firmament et lor espaces par ou il corent par desoz il firmament,
li un desoz les autres tant cum li uns de lor cercles est desouz l’autre si cum
3 For example, one of our authors’ identified sources: William of Conches († circa 1150). See
Guillelmus de Conchis, Philosophia, lib. 2, §3, §10.
4 The late Roman author Martianus Capella (5th century ad). See Chapter 5 for a discussion of
our author’s use of Capella’s De Nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii, an introduction into the seven
artes liberales.
242 Appendix 3
vous orrez après. Si a tele difference entre les estoiles fermes et les planetes
que li planete ont .i. naturel movement par quoi il vont contre le firmament et
.i. accidentel qui lor vient de l’embruiement del firmament qui oveques soi les
porte chascun jor environ la terre. Les estoiles fermes ne ont fors le movement
que les ont de ce que les vont o le firmament.
[3] Neporquant il en est .ii. opinions quar li un dient qu’eles ont autre propre
movement que del firmament, li autre dient qu’eles ne ont autre movement
fors del firmament o cui il sunt portees environ la terre, qu’eles sunt fichiees en
une partie del firmament ne ne se poent movoir en autre partie. Mais la raison
de nature vait encontre ceste opinion, quar cum eles soient de nature de feu
il covient par raison qu’eles aient autre movement que del firmament, quar
bien apart qu’eles sont mie fichiees el firmament cum la preciose pierre en
lanel ou cum uns clous en une roe, quar li firmamenz est de si clere nature et si
liquide que riens ni poet estre fichie en tele maniere. (f. 25rb) Se nos ne volions
dire que la desus fussent aives gelees cum cristal. Mes c’est repugnance de na-
ture que le aive soit plus haut del feu. Dum il est elz que nous consentons a phi-
losophes greus qui dient que les ont propre movement. Mes de ce movement i
a uncore doble sentence, quar li un dient qu’eles se movent reondement en un
meesmes leu si que par lor movement sunt sostenues et por ce apperent touz
tems en une partie del ciel. Li autre dient qu’eles se movent de leu en leu come
les planets, mes nos ne poens apercevoir lor movement quar eles metent tant
de tems a parfaire lor cercle que la vie d’un home ne soffist pas a apercevoir
un petit point de lor cercle. Li autre dient que li movemenz de ces estoiles fer-
mes ne puet estre sentiz ne aperceuz et metent tele raison quar quant aucune
chose est apercue qu’ele se muet si movemenz est aperceuz par autre chose qui
est prochiene qui ne se muet ou par autre chose qui se muet plus tardivement,
que cele quant l’en voit que la chose qui plus tart se muet ou qui ne se muet
est eslogniee ou trespassee de cele qui plus tost se muet, si cum vos veez en la
mer ou en aive corant que la nave qui plus tost court la trespasse. Et por ce que
desus les estoiles fermes n’a nule chose ne ferme ne i meins movable par quoi
lor movemenz soit sentiz et aperceuz, por ce disons nos qu’eles sunt fichiees et
fermes et qu’eles ne se movent quar jasoit ce qu’eles se movent lor movemenz
ne puet estre aperceuz.
[4] Des planetes poez apercevoir lor naturel movement quar une foiz aperent
en une partie del firmament, autre foiz en l’autre, .i. foiz plus amont, autre foiz
plus aval, autre foiz a destre, autre foiz a senestre. Le accidentel movement des
planetes est cil que il ont del firmament o cui il tornent une foiz jor et nuit, et
ceste est (f. 25va) le opinion de Platons5 qui dit que li planete corent contre
5 The opinion attributed here to the Greek philosopher Plato (4th century bc) stems from
a passage in his Timaeus dialogue (§36b-36d and §40b–c), which was explicated in later
le firmament par naturel movement, quar se li Moutons est en mi le ciel, li

Poissons, Aquaires et Capricornes vont en Occident entre le Moton et le Oc-
cident, et entre le Moton et Orient sunt li Toreaus, le Gemel et li Cancres, dum
li planetes qui est el Moton ne vait mie del Moton el Poisson, mes del Moton el
Torel et dilueques es Gemeaus et puis el Cancre et einsit vait en Orient contre
le firmament par naturel movement, et totes voies sunt reporté li planetes en
Orient ovecques par l’embruiement de son isnel cours. Aucuns demanderent
quelle necessitez et quels mestiers il fu que il alassent contre le firmament. Et
einsi redirent les sages que li firmamenz estoit de si grant isnelete et de si grant
cours et de si hastif que nule chose ne poist ne vivre ne durer se aucune chose
ne alast encontre qui le retardast. Et se li planete corussent ovec le firmament
de tant hastassent il plus son cours. Et fust plus ravissables dum la sapience
del criator establi que il alassent encontre le firmament por entemprer le grant
embruiement del firmament et le hastif cours, quar s’il coreust si hastivement
nule chose ne poist durer ne vivre el monde.
[5] Or demanderent aucun por quoi il fu donques mestiers que li planete
fussent porté arrieres o le firmament environ la terre. A ce redirent que si il ne
fussent porté arrieres o le firmament environ la terre chascun jor une foiz entre
jor et nuit il ne feissent pas le divers tems qui estoit necessaires as choses ter-
rianes autresi cum lor oirres estoit necessaires en obliquant par le firmament
por varier et diversefier la nature des .iiii. tems. Ceste fu le opinion de Platon et
de autres plusors philosophes.
[6] Aristotes6 fu de ces—(f. 25vb)—te opinion que li planete corent touz
tems oveques le firmament, ne n’ont autre naturel movement, quar il disoit
que li planete sunt en la quinte essence que nos avons desus dite qui ne sueffre
mi le temolte ne nule contrariete. Et se li planete alassent contre le firmament
il i eust temolte et contriariete. Dum il ne poaient avoir nul plus naturel move-
ment que aler chascun jor en occident autresi cum li firmamenz et revenir en
orient environ la terre.
[7] Et se tu demandes de Aristote dum se avient que li planete puis que il
corent o le firmament en Occident ne entrent es signes qui sunt devant en
Orient ainz entrent es signes qui sunt derrieres vers Orient. A ce respont Aris-
totes qu’il n’est mie voirs que li planete entrent es signes qui les sivent, mes li
commentaries, for example those by Calcidius (4th century ad) and by William of Conches
(† circa 1150), authors whose work our author was familiar with (see Chapter 5). Compare,
for example, Guillelmus de Conchis, Philosophia, lib. 2, §41. Guillelmus de Conchis, Glosae
super Platonem, ed. Edouard Jeauneau, Textes philosophiques du moyen âge 13 (Paris, 1965),
168, 171, 195.
6 On the difference of opinion regarding the motion and nature of the planets between Plato
and Aristoteles (4th century bc) which our author introduces and discusses here, see Chap-
ter 5.
244 Appendix 3
signe vienent a eaus. Quar faison raison que li Solauz soit el premier degré del
Moton, le Solauz et li firmamenz vont en Occident, et court tote jor et tote nuit
par cel degré jusque tant qu’il revient en Orient. Mes por ce que li firmamenz
est plus hastif qui li Solauz li est soutirez, quant il vient en Orient li premiers
degrez del Moton et cours ia par desus lui li seconz, et li autres—c’est li pre-
miers est ja devant. Et einsi court tote jor et toute nuit par ce second degré
tant qu’il revient en Orient et lors naist o lui li tierz degrez et li secondz est ia
devant por ce que li firmamenz est plus isneaus. Et einsi passent le Soloil tuit li
degré del zodiake. Einsi disoit Aristote contre le opinion Platon qui disoit que
lor naturels movement estoit contre le firmament et disoit que tuit li planete
estoient d’une mesmes legereté et d’une meesmes isneleté. Mes de tant cum
li un sunt plus bas del autres et lor cercles sunt plus brief metent il meins a
parfaire lor cercles et lor cours et le font en divers tems si cum li cercle sunt
plus grant et plus petit cum vos orrez après. Mais Aristote disoit le contraire
quar il (f. 26ra) disoit que de tant cum il sunt plus haut estoient il plus leger
et plus isnel, et de tant cum il estoient les passoit meins li firmamentz. Et por
ce dit l’en que il perfont lor cercles plus tart por ce que li firmamenz les passe
meins. Et li degrez met plus a passer le planete. Dum Saturnes por ce qu’il fu
plus legiers et plus isneaus s’en ala plus haut que tuit li autres planete. Et por ce
que il est plus isneaus le passe meins li firmamenz quar il ne le passe entre jor
et nuit que la trentieme partie d’un degré. La Lune qui est plus corpulente et
plus grief plus pres de la terre et a son cercle plus prochien de la terre. Et por ce
fut ele dite es fables des autors Proserpina, qui autre tant vaut a dire cum pres
rempanz, dum por ce qu’ele est plus grief et plus pesanz est ele plus tost passee
del firmament quar il la passe entre jor et nuit au meins .xii. degrez. Et einsi
la passent plus tost tuit li degre del zodiake, si qu’ele parfait tout son cercle en
meins d’un mois.
[8] Ceste fu l’opinions Aristote, mes la commune opinions des philosophes
dit ce que Platons en dit que il se movent et vont contre le firmament par na-
turel movement, jasoit qu’il soient ravi chascun jor o le firmament environ la
terre. Et ce est commun a touz les planetes. Et uncore ont autre communité li
.vii. planete que il se varient et se changent por diverses causes en divers tems,
quar li uns planetes mue sa colour et sa segnefiance et son propre effect que
il fait et ocure et es choses terrianes par la diunction et par la voisinance del
autre planete si cum Mars qui est roges et enflammez pert assez de sa rogeor et
torne plus a blanchor quant Venus li aproche. Et la malice de lui est atempree
par la procheinté et par la voisinance del benigne planete. Autresi Jupiter qui
est estoile clere cum or et est benigne et segnefiant de bien et de salu, la seg-
nefiance et la fortune qu’ele done as (f. 26rb) terrianes choses est corrumpue
par la voisinance de Saturne et de sa malice et sa color meesmes en oscursist.
[9] Li .v. planete ont uncore une communité de ce qu’il sunt stacionaire ou
retrograde. Ce n’ont mie li Solauz ne la Lune. Mes porce que de ce sunt plusors
opinions de lor stacion et de lor retrogradation, nos vos en dirons ce que plusor
autor en dient.
[10] Aucun distrent que quant li Solauz vient si pres d’un autre planete qu’il
li envoie el cors les rais de sa lumiere, par la grant vertu et par la grant force de
ses rais il le fait retorner de sa voie. Quant il ne pas est mie si prochiens que il
le puisse faire retorner par la force de ses rais au meins il le contraint a ester
qu’il ne voait avant et lorsest diz stationaires. Et quant il est si loing qu’il ne le
puet envoier la force de ses rais, lors vait li planetes sa voie et son cours et est
diz progressis.
[11] Li autre sunt de ceste opinion que li Solauz est de nature adtractive cum
li aimanz, dum quant li planete sunt mult prochien il les fait retorner, quant il
sunt un poi plus loing que il ne les puet faire retorner si les fait ester. Quant il
sunt bien loing si s’en puent aler lor voie.
[12] Li autre dient que il ne estoient nule foiz, mais il aperent aucune foiz es-
ter par ce que il sunt eslevé aucune foiz plus haut, aucune foiz sunt plus bas. Et
cele elevations et cele bassece avient de la disposition et del ordenement de lor
cercles. Aucun dient que ce avient de ce que li Solauz deseche aucune foiz plus
lor cors. Et lors sunt plus legier et montent plus haut. Et autre foiz ont plus de
humor et sont plus grief et lors descendent plus bas. Dum il avient que quant
il sunt eslevé ou abessie en droite maniere contremont ou contreval sunt dit
stationaire et se il sunt eslevé ou abessie en obliquant ou de travers lors sunt
dit retrograde ou progressif.
[13] Li autre i mistrent autre raison et distrent que li .iii. (f. 26va) plus haut
planete, Saturnes, Jupiter, Mars, ont chascuns .ii. cercles, .i. qui enclot la terre et
par celui corent naturelment contre lou firmament, un autre qui n’enclot mie
la terre qui est diz epicercles por ce que il est sour l’autre cercle. Et li planetes se
torne en cel epicercle aucune foiz en montant, aucune foiz en descendent. Et
quant il monte ou avale si semble ester. Quant il est en la gregnor bassece de cel
epicercle que il vait sa droite voie, si est diz progressis. Quant il est el plus haut
de son epicercle porce qu’il avale vers Occident, si est diz retrogrades. Autresi
cum si une tres grant roe tornait en l’air sour nos chies ou il eust atachie un
cierge ou une lampe et tornast vers occident. Quant il monteroit ou descen-
droit es costez de la roe il nos sembleroit qu’il estat et qu’il ne se meust. Quant
il seroit el bas de la roe il nos sembleroit que il alast vers Orient. Quant il seroit
el haut de la roe et il avaleroit sembleroit qu’il alast vers occident. Einsi sunt
diverses opinions de la station et de la retrogradation des planetes. Si eslisiez
la mellor ne porquant Martians s’acorde a cels qui dient que la stations et la
retrogradations des planetes est de la force des rais del Soloil.
246 Appendix 3
[14] Uncore ont li Solauz et la Lune une proprieté que li autre .v. n’ont mie,
quar jasoit que il se reponent aucunes foiz desoz la lumiere del Soloil et autre
foiz aperent. Ce ne est mie eclipses, ainz est naissemenz et couchemenz yl-
iakes. Et nos vos dirons après que ce est quant nos vos traiterons des .v. planetes.
[15] Uncore ont li Solauz et la Lune et li .iii. sovrain planete Saturnus, Jupiter,
Mars une communité que li autre .ii. Venus et Mercurius ne ont mie, quar lor
cercles par quoi il corent contre le firmament environent la terre. Li cercles de
Venus et (f. 26vb) de Mercure ne l’environent mie, ainz corent environ le Soloil
et ont lor centre de lors cercles el cors del Soloil. Mes Mercurius a le centre de
son cercle el mi leu del cors del Soloil, Venus l’a en la sovrainete del cors del
Soloil et por ce sunt il dit epicercle qu’il n’avirronent mie la terre si cum j’ai dit
desus des autres. Et de ceste intrication et envelopement de cercles est solue
une contrarietez qui est entre les philosophes, quar li Caldeu7 de cui sentence
fu Tulles et Cicero8 distrent que li Solauz est el quart leu et el mileu des plan-
etes. Li Egyptien a cui Platons se consent distrent que il estoit après la Lune et
Macrobes9 en met lor opinions et lor raisons, quar li Caldeu regarderent que
quant Venus et Mercurius sunt plus bas que li Solauz, il sunt vue plus aperte-
ment porce que li Solauz ne nos puet mie si repondre les choses qui sunt desoz
lui cum cum celes qui sunt desus. Dum selonc l’estat qu’il orent plus notable
et plus apparissant distrent qu’il estoient desouz le Soloil. Et porce que li So-
lauz qui est fontaine de toute chalor devoit estre el mileu si que par lui fust
atempree toute l’armonie, ce est la consonance celestial, si qu’il fust ivelment
governierres et atemprierres des choses desus lui et des choses desouz.
[16] Li Egyptien i mistrent autres raisons, quar li Solauz ne puet tant estre
hauz cum est Venus el haut de son cercle, ne Mercurius cum Venus. Et por ce
dient que li Solauz est plus bas que Mercurius et Mercurius que Venus. Et si i
mistrent autre raison por quoi il covint que li Solauz fust assis après la Lune,
quar la Lune si est froide et moete, li Solauz est chauz et ses. Et por ce covint
ce dient que li Solauz fust prochiens a la Lune que de sa chalor fust atempree
la froidure de la Lune et sa secherece fust atempree la grant humiditez de la
Lune, quar autrement la Lune qui est voisine et prochiene de la terre envoiast
en la terre les rais (f. 27ra) de sa lumiere destremprez de la grant humor et de la
grant froidure et destemprast la terre. Et uncore i avoient autre raison, quar la
Lune n’a point de lumiere de soi, aincois recoit toute la lumiere et la resplendor
7 The term Caldeu (Chaldeans) refers to ancient Babylonian or Mesopotamian astronomers/

astrologers, who were credited with important contributions in developing astrology as a sci-
ence. They are cited as a source throughout the treatise in a generic way. See also Chapter 5.
8 Marcus Tullius Cicero (†43 bc). See also Chapter 5.
9 Macrobius Ambrosius Theodosius (early 5th century), author of the in the middle ages influ-
ential Commentarii in somnium Scipionis. See also Chapter 5.
que ele a del Soloil. Dum il covenoit que li uns fust prochiens a l’autre senz ce
qu’il i eust nul meien entre .ii. Et ces diverses opinions avienent del intrication
et del enlacement del cercles de Venus et de Mercure si cum je vos ai dit desus.
De l’esclipse del Soloil (Pseudo-Dionysius as a Source)

[1] Si devez savoir que li eclipses, ce est li defauz de la lumiere del Soloil et de
la Lune, vient de l’obliquement et del tort oirre que il font par le firmament,
quar einsi cum je vos ai dit la Lune qui vait vagant et obliquant par totes les
.xii. lignes del zodiake et qui chascun mois revient et se conjoint au Soloil en
.i. meesmes degre. Se il avient qu’ele se joigne au Soloil en une meesmes ligne
einsit qu’ele soit droitement en une ligne entre le Soloil et la terre, ele recoit
les rais del Soloil en tele maniere que por le umbre del cors de la Lune li rai del
Soloil ne pueent venir a la terre einsi cum il soloient, ainz est la terre aumbree
qu’ele ne puet estre enluminee des rais del soloil si cum ele soloit. Et disons
que li Solauz sueffre eclipse, ce est a dire defaut, ne mie por ce que sa lumiere
ne sa resplendor li defalle, mes porce que si rai ne poent (f. 31ra) enluminer
la terre si cum il soelent, por le cors de la Lune qui est entre lui et la terre.
Nequedent li eclipses del Soloil ne puet estre generals porce que li umbres de
la Lune ne puet prendre tote la terre, qua ril vient en aguissant contreval, ne ne
porprent que la .xviii.me part de la terre si cum i lest dit desus. Et nos vos avons
mostré por quoi li umbres de la Lune vient en aguisant.
[2] Si devez savoir que li eclipses del Soloil ne avient par nature fors en la
.xxix.me Lune ou en la .xxx.me, c’est quant la Lune se joint en un meesme min-
ute oveques le Soloil. Et ce sot bien li bons clers misires Sainz Denises li Aryop-
agites10 qui uncore n’estoit convertiz quant nostres sires Jhesucriz fu crucefiez,
quar il estoit en mer en .i. vessel quant nostres sires trespassa et soufri mort por
nos que les tenebres furent sour terre. Et Sainz Denises sot porce que la Lune
estoit .xiiii.me que li eclipses n’estoit pas naturels, dum nos trovons que il dist
ou li sires del monde et des elemenz soeffre ou li element mentent.
[3] Et devez savoir que ia soit ce que li eclipses del Soloil aviegne en la
.xxix.me ou en la .xxx.me Lune. Nequident il n’avient mie totes les foiz qu’ele est
.xxix.me ou .xxx.me, quar ele se assemble o le Soloil se ele n’est droitement el
10 The anonymous church father Pseudo-Dionysius (late 5th century), known in medieval
times as Saint Dionysius the Areopagite. See my extensive discussion of this passage in
Chapter 5.
248 Appendix 3
mileu de la laor del zodiake ele ne puet empeeschier les rais del soloil que il ne
viegnent a la terre et ne puet faire eclipse.
[4] Et uncore quant ele est el mileu puet ele faire le eclipse en tout le cors
del Soloil ou en partie, quar quant ele est desouz le Soloil si droit (f. 31rb) en
la ligne del mileu qu’ele ne soit ne plus a destre ne plus a senestre lors aum-
bre tout le Soloil et fait le eclipse en tout le cors del Soloil. Et se ele est en tele
maniere el mileu que ele touche a la ligne neporquant ele est plus de l’une par-
tie que del autre ele ne aumbre mie tout le Soloil, ainz fait le eclipse en partie
del cors del Soloil.
[5] Et devez savoir quant vos veez le eclipse del Soloil porce que la Lune vait
par son naturel cours de Occident en Orient premierement quant ele a consuit
le Soloil, ele li tolt sa lumiere et defaut primes vers Occident, et le vait einsi
courant petit et petit jusques a tant que tote sa lumiere li defaut quant a nos-
tre veue, quar li Solauz en soi ne pert point de sa lumiere ne de sa resplendor.
Et quant la Lune le trespasse si recommence li Solauz a reprendre sa lumiere
primes devers Occident, autresi cum la nove Lune quant ele ist desoz le Soloil.
Et quant plus passe li Lune le Soloil plus reprent li Solauz de sa lumiere jusques
a tant que il apert touz et que il a tote sa lumiere.
[6] Et autresi cum li eclipses avient en nostre emispere ca desus avient il en
l’emispere desoz, mes les genz deca ne le poent veair. Or avez oi del eclipse del
Soloil.
Del acces (Dorotheus of Sidon as a Source?)

[1] (f. 42vb) Si acces del planete est en .i. des lintels, ce est une des mesons que
nos apelames angles ou en une des mesons qui est empres le lintel que nos
vos apelames succedenz as angles. Li reces est quant li planetes est en une des
mesons que nos apelames departanz des angles.
[2] L’aplications est quant li legiers planetes aproche au plus grief et au plus
pesant, einsi que li planete legiers soit en meins degrez que li pesanz, quar
quant andui li planete sunt en autant de degrez et de poinz li uns comme li
autres ou soient en .i. signe ou soient en .ii. li planetes est diz arrivez, ce est a
dire qu’il est conjoinz quant il sunt mesure en tele figuire que une droite ligne
puet estre menee par le mileu de l’un des planetes droit au mileu del autre.
Nequident Messehala dist que l’aplications est quant li legiers planetes cort
el .v. degre del signe et li griev el .x.me et durra l’aplications jusquez a tant que
li legiers aconsivra le grief. Et la tres bone applications est quant ele est de (f.
43ra) lonc et de le quar la promesse qu’ele fait ne puet estre casse ne vaine.
[3] L’applications de la besogne est quant li planetes aproche et arrive au

planete qui est sires de la meson del regne ou de la triplicité ou del terme ou
de la face. Et se li planete sunt autrement si ne sera point de application ne de
aprochement de la besogne, ne de l’oevre, quar ele ne promet nul effect ne nul
evenement de la chose, quar si cum dist Duromes11 si uns sers ou uns prisons
s’en fuit et l’en trueve l’application de lonc et de lé si que la Lune s’aproche et
arrive a Jupiter del lonc et a Mars del lé, ou la converse a Jupiter del lé et a Mars
del lonc, ele rameine celui qui s’en fuit. Et le applications qu’ele a a Jupiter oste
et tolt la paor que li sers n’a garde de son segnor, aincois li pardonera. Et porce
que vos entendez les manieres de aplication del lonc et del lé, si vos dirons ce
que Albumaxar12 dit de la conjunction del lonc et del lé et de la application
autresi del lonc et del lé, quar tout est en une maniere second Albumaxar. […]
De collection (The Use of the Term Senators)

[1] (f. 45rb) Collection de lumiere si est quant li planetes qui est sires del signe
ascendent et li sires de la besogne et de la chose que l’en demande se assem-
blent de diverse partie a .i. planete plus grief et plus pesant que il ne sunt, quar
einsi li grief planetes qui est gioinz as autres .ii. colt et aune lor rais de lor lumi-
ere en soi et se il est fortunez et il ne regarde aucun mal (f. 45va) planete qui li
recolpe sa lumiere ou la raivise si sera tres granz biens. Et se cil qui colt la lumi-
ere de l’un et de l’autre est mals planetes porce que il la rent de l’un a l’autre si
sera corrumpue la collections, si cum se aucuns fait question en la nativité de
aucun enfant se il regnera et vos trovez que la livre est ascendenz en sa nativité
et Venus estoit sires et duitres de celui qui la chose demande et estoit el .x.me
degré del Mouton, la Lune qui estoit sires del regne estoit el .xii.me degré del
torel, et ne regardoit mie Venerem, Jupiter si estoit el .xv.me degré del cancre et
en le angle de enmie le ciel a cui Venus venoit de .iiii.art regart la Lune de .vi.me,
et Jupiter colloit lor lumiere et lor force en la meson de la chose, demostroit
que a ce que il regnast, il covenoit que la segnorie del reiaume il eust par mains
de Christus et de senatours et de hauz homes.
11 BnF, fr. 613, f. 115v reads Dimogenes. The astrologer in question is to be identified with
the Hellenistic astrologer Dorotheus of Sidon (1st century ad), known as “Doronius” or
“Duronius” in Latin sources. See my discussion in Chapter 5.
12 The Persian astrologer Abu Maʿshar (9th century) who worked at the Abbasid court in
Bagdad and whose Introductorium Maius would become influential in Western Europe.
See also Chapter 5.
250 Appendix 3
Des .l. commandemenz qui sunt regles et leus en touz jugemenz (A

Quote from Hermocrates)
[1] (f. 59rb) En ceste partie de nostre livre vos volons dire de .l. commande-
menz qui sunt leus et regles que l’en doit regarder en touz jugemenz et en touz
questions si cum dit Zael13 puis que nos vos avons dit de la division de firma-
ment et des cercles et des ymages et des climaz et des signes et des planetes et
de lor movemenz et de lor segnefiances et de lor proprietez que il ont par soi et
li un o les autres et des tesmoingz del Soloil et de la Lune et des duitres qui la
besogne meinent et segnefient, porce que il ne pere que nos issons de la matire
en contant tantes paroles vos volons ici mostrer certaine voie a jugemenz de
astronomie et vos volons eslire des choses desus escrites toutes les plus precio-
ses et les mellors et celes qui sunt necessaires.
[2] Et porce que la granz prolixitez et li montepliemenz de paroles ennuie
a multes genz vos metrons .l. commandemenz que chascuns astrologues doit
garder en faisant jugemenz, quar si cum dist Hermocra—(f. 59va)—tes14 quant
le edifices est faiz de si grant matire et de tante maniere cum l’en a assemblee
et il covient assez remanoir de la matire mult doit estre loez cil qui tant de mat-
ire et si grant habundance assembla por faire cel edifice, mes plus doit estre
loez li maistres ovriers et li maistres engignierres qui entre tantes choses et de
tant matire sot eslire les mellors choses et les plus necessaires a faire le oevre.
Or devez donques savoir que .l. commandemenz sunt dum toute la certaine
raison de jugier ist.
Del cercle celestial comment lez choses sa desouz pregnent de luy lor
natures (Appreciation of Ptolemy’s Work)
[1] (f. 62vb) Mes porce que mult de ceaus qui s’estudient es arz liberals et
voelent conoistre les causes et les comencemenz des choses i errent meintes
foiz par ce que il ne pueent ne ne voelent metre cure et diligence en la verite en-
querre, meesmement en ceste art de astronomie la quele lor est meins coneue
et meins entendable come cele qui ne se demostre mie as rudes mes a ceaus
qui sunt de soutil engin si cum je dis el commencement de mon livre, por ce
13 Sahl ibn Bisr (9th century), author of the Quinquaginta precepta. See Chapter 5.
14 BN fr 613, f. 128r reads Hermes. On the identification of this source see my extensive dis-
cussion in Chapter 5.
dient il que ceste arz est vaine et senz verite et est de vaines choses et de men-
çonges cum cil qui ne pueent la verité entendre et porce vos voel je mostrer au
plus entendablement que je porte la maniere et la raisons des questions et des
demandes comment eles doivent estre faites et coment l’en doit encerchier de
la chose demandeee selonc les .xii. mesons, quar Hermes,15 qui fu uns des plus
sages de ceste art après Abindemon16 le plus ancian prince de astronomie, la
ou il parole en ses treciez del cercle celestial et del movement del firmament
espont et mostre par queles manieres de movemenz li cercles atrait les affecz
et les talenz des choses et destorne les faiz et ordene les fortunes.
[2] Le Ptholomeus17 qui plus estudia profondement et soutilla plus que phi-
losophes de son tens dit que li affect des choses ont lor commencement des
estoiles en tele maniere que les substances et (f. 63ra) li cors ca desouz de cest
monde respondent as sovraines natures par le ivel consonance par quoi il se
acordent esemble dont si cum il est dit el commencement del livre qui a nom
Atalacym.18 La force des estoiles qui est en eles devinement assise s’en entre et
se assemble plus tost et plus prestement es choses qui plus lor sunt prochienes
et plus semblables a ce qui apartient a l’ame second le aptitude et la habilité
de la nature et second ce que eles poent recevoir des manieres de formes. Et
ce poens nos aparcevoir que li cors celestial et les estoiles ont en eles la cause
et le naissement assis devinement par quoi il movent generalment toutes les
choses qui sunt desouz eles. Et cist movemenz est en .ii. manieres. L’une que
les choses qui n’ont ame il gardent et norrissent en l’estat ou eles sont faites et
concriees. L’autre par qu’il governent et atemprent l’engendreure des cors qui
ont ame et le proces de generation par l’affinite et par la voisinance qu’il ont a
eles.
15 The Greco-Roman deity Hermes Trismegistos. The so-called Corpus Hermeticum, a collec-
tion of anonymous hermetic text written by Hellenistic Greek authors, was attributed to
him. See also Chapter 5.
16 Abidemon, mentioned by Abu Maʿshar (see note 12) as an ancient “king of the Indians”
(see Herman of Carinthia, De essentiis. A critical edition with translation and commentary,
ed. Charles Burnett (Leiden, 1982), 247).
17 Klaudios Ptolemaios (or Ptolemy; 2nd century ad), author of, among other works,
inter alia the so-called Almagest (astronomy) and the Tetrabiblos (astrology). See also
Chapter 5.
18 Or at-Talasim: an unidentified book on talismans mentioned in the so-called hidden pref-
ace of the Liber novem iudicum, that was our author’s source for much of this chapter
(189). By suggesting this book was composed by Ptolemy our author interprets the pas-
sage in the preface erroneously, since there the work on talismans is said to be written
by the author of the Liber himself. See Burnett, “The Hidden Preface in the Liber novem
iudicum,” 105–106, and also Chapter 4.
252 Appendix 3
[3] Et porce que ce apartient a autre speculation a veair et a regarder la con-

junction de la force qui est en eaus assise par vertu devine coment ele est tre-
sportee es cors ca desouz nos ne entendons ore a mostrer fors ce qui apartient
a nos, c’est a dire le effect et la diversefiance que li cors celestial font es choses
ca desouz par quoi nos puissons rendre certains jugemenz des diverses choses
et de diverses fortunes qui ca desouz avienent. Et porce avons nos traitie et
compilee ceste partie de astronomie de touz les anciens escriz que nos avons
oiz et veuz ou nos avons mis touz les secrez qui apartienent a faire jugemenz
des divers avenemenz des choses et diverses fortunes qui ca desouz avienent et
doutons que cist traitiez ne viegne es mains de aucunes genz qui blasmenet les
autrui escriz quant il ne les poent entendre et en rechignent et s’en escharnis-
sent. Et porce (f. 63rb) prions que cist traitiez ne soit abandonez comuns a
teles genz si cum nos deismes desus.
Bibliography
1. Primary Sources
Archival Sources
Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fr. 613.
Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, fr. 1353.
Venice, Archivio di Stato di Venezia, Secreta, Pacta Ferrariae.
Venice, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, Cod. Marc. It., Cl. XI, n° 124 (6802).
Published Sources
Abu Maʿsar al-Balhi, Liber introductorii maioris ad scientiam judiciorum astrorum, ed.
Richard Lemay, 6 vols. (Napoli, 1995).
Albericus Trium Fontium, Chronica, ed. Paul Scheffer-Boichorst, MGH SS 23 (Han-
nover, 1874).
Alexander IV, Les registres (1254–1261), ed. Charles Bourel de la Roncière, 3 vols., Regis-
tres des papes du XIIIe siècle (Paris, 1896–1959).
Andreas Dandolo, Chronica per extensum descripta, ed. Ester Pastorello, Rerum Itali-
carum Scriptores, n.s. 12/1 (Bologna, 1958).
Appianus, Histoire romaine, ed. and trans. Paul Goukowsky, 12 vols., Collection des uni-
versités de France (Paris, 1997–2013).
Aristotle, De caelo, trans. John L. Stocks (Oxford, 1922).
Aristotle, On Sophistical Refutations. On Coming-to-be and Passing Away. On the
Cosmos, ed. E.S. Forster and D.J. Furley, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, Mass.,
1955).
Aristotle, Physica, trans. R.P. Hardie and R.K. Gaye, The Works of Aristotle 2 (Oxford,
1930).
Aristotle, Posterior Analytics. Topica, ed. Hugh Tredennick and E.S. Forster, Loeb Classi-
cal Library (Cambridge, Mass., 1960).
Augustinus, De diversis quaestionibus ad Simplicianum, ed. Almut Mutzenbecher, Cor-
pus Christianorum Series Latina 44 (Turnhout, 1970).
Augustinus, De civitate Dei, ed. Bernhardt Dombart and Alfons Kalb, Corpus Christia-
norum Scholars Version (Turnhout, 2014).
Berthelot, Anne, ed., Les Prophesies de Merlin (Cod. Bodmer 116) (Cologne-Geneva,
1992).
Boethius, De topicis differentiis und die byzantinische Rezeption dieses Werkes, ed. Dimi-
trios Z. Nikitas, Corpus Philosophorum Medii Aevi. Philosophi Byzantini 5 (Athens,
1990).
Borgnet, Jules, ed., Cartulaire de la commune de Namur, vol. 1 (Namur, 1871).
254 Bibliography
Bouchet, René, trans., Romans de chevalerie du moyen âge grec (Paris, 2007).
Brial, Michel-Jean-Joseph, ed., Recueil des Historiens des Gaules et de la France 18 (Paris,
1822).
Brouette, Emile, ed., Recueil des chartes et documents de l’abbaye du Val-Saint-Georges à
Salzinnes (1196/97–1300), Cîteaux–Commentarii Cistercienses. Studia et Documenta
1 (Achel, 1971).
Brouwers, Dieudonné, ed., L’administration et les finances du comté de Namur du XII
au XVe siècles. Sources. II: Chartes et règlements, 2 vols., Documents inédits relatifs à
l’histoire de la province de Namur (Namur, 1914).
Brunetto Latini, Li Livres dou Trésor, ed. Spurgeon Baldwin and Paul Barrette (Tempe,
2003).
Buchon, Jean A.C., Recherches et matériaux pour servir à une historie de la domination
française aux XIIIe, XIVe et XVe siècles dans les provinces démembrées de l’Empire grec
à la suite de la Quatrième Croisade, 2 vols. (Paris, 1840).
Calcidius, Commentaire au Timée de Platon, ed. Béatrice Bakhouche, 2 vols., Histoire
des Doctrines de l’Antiquité Classique (Paris, 2011).
Chabas, José, and Bernard J. Goldstein, eds., The Alfonsine Tables of Toledo, Archimedes.
New Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology (Dordrecht,
2003).
Chariton, Callirhoe, ed. and trans. George P. Goold, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge,
1995).
Claudius Ptolemaeus, Composition mathématique, ed. and trans. Nicolas Halma, 2 vols.
(Paris, 1927).
Claudius Ptolemaeus, Tetrabiblos, ed. and trans. Frank E. Robbins, Loeb Classical Li-
brary (Cambridge, 1964).
Claudius Ptolemaeus and Theon of Alexandria, Tables manuelles astronomiques, ed.
Nicolas Halma, 3 vols. (Paris, 1825).
Cono de Béthune, Les chansons de Conon de Béthune, ed. Axel Wallensköld, Les clas-
siques français du moyen âge 24 (Paris, 1921).
Corderius, Balthasar, ed., De Dionysio Areopagita ex Suida, Patrologia Graeca 4 (Paris,
1857).
Darrouzès, Jean, “Conférence sur la primauté du Pape à Constantinople en 1357,” Revue
des études byzantines 19 (1961), 76–109.
De Bartholomeis, Vincenzo, “Un Sirventès historique d’Elias Cairel,” Annales du Midi
16 (1904), 468–494.
De Bartholomeis, Vincenzo, ed., Poesie provenzali storiche relative all’Italia, 2 vols.
(Rome, 1931).
De Bastard, Antoine, “La colère et la douleur d’un templier en Terre Sainte. I’re dolors
s’es dins mon cor assez” Revue des langues romanes 81 (1974) 343–373.
De Mas Latrie, Louis, ed., Chronique d’Ernoul et de Bernard le trésorier (Paris, 1871).
Bibliography 255
De Reiffenberg, Frédéric A., ed., Cartulaire de Notre-Dame de Namur (1200–1328), Monu-

ments pour servir à l’Histoire des provinces de Namur, de Hainaut et de Luxem-
bourg 1 (Brussels, 1844).
De Smet, Joseph-Jean, ed., Cathalogus et cronica principum et comitum Flandrie et Fore-
stariorum, Recueil des chroniques de Flandre 1 (Brussels, 1837).
De Smet, Joseph-Jean, Chronique de Flandres et des croisades, Recueil des chroniques
de Flandre 3 (Brussels, 1856).
De Wailly, Natalis, La conquête de Constantinople par Geoffroi de Ville-Hardouin avec la
continuation de Henri de Valenciennes (Paris, 1872).
Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica, trans. Charles H. Oldfather, Loeb Classical Li-
brary (London, 1935).
Dionysius Areopagitae, Opera Omnia, ed. Balthasar Corderius, Patrologia Graeca 3–4
(Paris, 1857).
Dölger, Franz, and Peter Wirth, eds., Regesten der Keiserurkunden des Oströmischen
Reiches von 565–1453. 3: Regesten von 1204–1282, 2nd ed., Corpus der Griechisch-
en Urkunden des Mittelalters und der Neueren Zeit, Reihe A: Regesten 1, (Munich,
1977).
Dorotheus Sidonius, Carmen Astrologicum, ed. David Pingree, Bibliotheca Scriptorum
Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana (Leipzig, 1976).
Dörr, Stephen, Der alteste Astronomietraktat in franzosischer Sprache: L’Introductoire
d’astronomie. Edition und lexikalische Analyse, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Ro-
manische Philologie 289 (Tübingen, 1998).
Duchesne, André, ed., Historiae Francorum Scriptores, 5 vols. (Paris, 1636–1649).
Dykes, Benjamin, trans., The Book of the Nine Judges (Golden Valley, 2011).
Ephraem Aenius, Historia Chronica, ed. Odysseus Lampsides, Corpus Fontium Histo-
riae Byzantinae. Series Athenienis 27 (Athens, 1990).
Euthymius, patriarch von Bulgarien, Werke (1375–1393), ed. Emil, Kaluzniacki (Vienna,
1901).
Euthymios primas Bulgariae, Vita Sancti Parasceves Virginis, trans. L.M. Rigollot, Acta
Sanctorum. Auctaria Octobris 14 (Paris, n.d.).
Ewert, Alfred, ed., Gui de Warewic, Roman du XIIIe siecle, Classiques français du moyen
âge 74/75 (Paris, 1932).
Gaius Julius Hyginus, De astronomia, ed. Ghislaine, Viré, Bibliotheca Teubneriana
(Leipzig, 1992).
Geoffroy de Villehardouin, La conquête de Constantinople, ed. Edmond Faral, Les clas-
siques de l’histoire de France au moyen âge 18/19 (Paris, 1961).
Georgios Akropolites, Historia, ed. August Heisenberg, Georgii Acropolitae Opera 1
(Leipzig, 1903).
Georgios Akropolites, Historia, The History. Translated with an Introduction and Com-
mentary, trans. Ruth Macrides, Oxford Studies in Byzantium (Oxford, 2007).
256 Bibliography
Georgios Pachymeres, Relations historiques, ed. Albert Failler and trans. Vitalien Lau-
rent, 2 vols., Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae. Series Parisienses 24/1–2 (Paris,
1984).
Gill, Joseph, “An unpublished letter of Germanus, patriarch of Constantinople (1222–
1240),” Byzantion 44 (1974), 138–151.
Golubovich, Girolamo, “Disputatio Latinorum et Grecorum seu relatio Apocrisari-
orum Gregorii IX de Gestis Nicaeae in Bithynia et Nymphaeae in Lydia,” Archivum
Franciscanum Historicum 12 (1919), 418–470.
Golubovich, Girolamo, ed., Biblioteca Bio-Bibliografica della Terra Santa e dell’Oriente
Franciscano. Serie 1, 5 vols. (Florence, 1906–1927).
Grégoire, Henri, “Imperatoris Michaelis Palaeologi de vita sua,” Byzantion 29/30
(1959–60), 447–476.
Gregorius IX, Les registres, Lucien Auvray, ed. Suzanne Clémencet and Louis Carolus-
Barré, 4 vols., Registres des papes du XIIIe siècle (Paris, 1890–1955).
Gualterius Cornutus, Historia susceptionis Corone Spinee, in Paul E. Riant, ed., Exuviae
Sacrae Constantinopolitanae (Geneva, 1876).
Guillaume de Nangis, Chronique latine de 1113 à 1300 avec les continuations de 1300 à 1366,
ed. Hercule Géraud, 2 vols. (Paris, 1843).
Guillaume de Breton, Gesta Philippi Augusti, ed. Henri-François Delaborde, Oeuvres
de Rigord et Guillaume le Breton. Vol. 1: Chroniques de Rigord et de Guillaume le
Breton (Paris, 1882).
Guillelmus de Conchis, Glosae super Platonem, ed. Edouard Jeauneau, Textes philos-
ophiques du moyen âge 13 (Paris, 1965).
Guillelmus de Conchis, Philosophia, ed. Marco Albertazzi, Archivio medievale 10
(Lavis, 2010).
Guillelmus de Rubruquis, Itinerarium, ed. Anastasius Van den Wyngaert, Sinica Fran-
ciscana 1 (Florence, 1929).
Gunther of Paris, Hystoria Constantinopolitana, ed. Peter, Orth, Spolia Berolinensia.
Berliner Beiträge zur Mediävistik 5 (Hildesheim, 1994).
Hendrickx, Benjamin, “Regestes des empereurs latins de Constantinople (1204–
1261/1271),” Byzantina 14 (1988), 7–221.
Henri de Valenciennes, Histoire de l’empereur Henri de Constantinople, ed. Jean Long-
non, Documents relatifs à l’histoire des croisades 2 (Paris, 1948).
Henri de Valenciennes, The Lay of Aristote, ed. Leslie C. Brook and Glyn C. Burgess,
Liverpool Online Series. Critical Editions of French Texts 16 (Liverpool, 2011).
Herman of Carinthia, De essentiis. A critical edition with translation and commentary,
ed. Charles, Burnett (Leiden, 1982).
Hilduinus, Areopagitica, ed. Jean-Paul Migne, Patrologia Latina 106 (Paris, 1864).
Honorius III, Bullarium Hellenicum. Letters to Frankish Greece and Constantinople,
ed. William O. Duba and Christopher C. Schabel, Mediterranean Nexus 1100–1700
(Louvain, 2015).
Bibliography 257
Honorius III and Gregorius IX, Acta, ed. Aloysius L. Tautu, Pontificia Commissio ad
redigendum Codicem Iuris Canonici Orientalis. Fontes. Series III 3 (Vatican City,
1950).
Hugo of Santalla, The Liber Aristotilis, ed. Burnett, Charles and David Pingree, Warburg
Institute Surveys and Texts 26 (London, 1997).
Huillard-Bréholles, Jean-Louis-Alphonse, ed., Historia Diplomatica Friderici Secundi, 7
vols. (Paris, 1852–1861).
Hunger, Herbert, ed., Anonyme Metaphrase zu Anna Komnene, Alexias XI–XIII. Ein
Beitrag zur Erschließung der byzantinischen Umgangssprache, Wiener Byzantinis-
tische Studien 15 (Vienna, 1981).
Innocentius III, Regesta, ed. Jacques-Paul Migne (ed.), 4 vols., Patrologia Latina 214–217
(Roma, 1855).
Innocentius IV, Les registres (1243–1254), ed. Elie Berger, 4 vols., Registres des papes du
XIIIe siècle (Paris, 1884–1921).
Isidore de Seville, De natura rerum. Traité de la nature suivi de l’Epitre en vers du rois
Sisebut à Isidore, ed. Jacques Fontaine, Bibliothèque de l’Ecole des Hautes Etudes
Hispaniques 28 (Bordeaux, 1960).
Jacques de Guyse, Histoire de Hainaut traduite en français, avec le texte latin en regard,
et accompagnée de notes, ed. and trans. Agricol-Joseph Fortia-d’Urban, 19 vols. (Par-
is, 1826–1838).
Jean de Renart, Le Roman de la Rose ou de Guillaume de Dole, trans. Jean Dufournet,
Champions classiques. Série “Moyen âge.” Editions bilingues 24 (Paris, 2008).
Joannes Kinnamos, Epitome rerum ab Ioanne et Alexio Comnenis Gestarum, ed. August
Meineke, Corpus Historiae Byzantinae (Bonn, 1836).
Johannes Yperius, Chronicon Sythiense Sancti Bertini, ed. Edmond Martène and Ursin
Durand, Thesaurus novus anecdotorum 3 (Paris, 1717).
Laurent, Vitalien, ed., Les regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople 1: Les
actes des patriarches 4: Les regestes de 1208 à 1309, Publications de l’institut français
d’études byzantines (Paris, 1971).
L’estoire d’Eracles empereur et la conqueste de la Terre d’Outremer, Recueil des Histo-
riens des Croisades publié par les soins de l’Académie des inscriptions et belles-
lettres. Historiens Occidentaux 2 (Paris, 1859).
Longnon, Antoine, ed., Documents relatifs au comté de Champagne et de Brie 1172–
1361, Collection de documents inédits sur l’histoire de France, 3 vols. (Paris,
1901–1914).
Longnon, Antoine, Livre de la Conquête de la Princée de l’Amorée. Chronique de Morée
(1204–1305) (Paris, 1911).
Macrobius, Commentaire au songe de Scipion, ed. and trans. Mireille Armisen-
Marchetti, Collection des universités de France (Paris, 2001).
Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus, Historia Ecclesiastica Tripartita, ed. Jean-Paul Migne,
Patrologia Latina 69 (Paris, 1865).
258 Bibliography
Manuel Komnenos and Michael Glykas, Disputatio, ed. F. Cumont and F. Boll, C atalogus
Codicum Astrologorum Graecorum 5.1 (Brussels, 1904), 108–140.
Marino Sanudo Torsello, Istoria del Regno di Romania, in Carl Hopf, ed., Chroniques
Gréco-Romanes inédites ou peu connues publiées avec notes et tables géné-
alogiques (Paris, 1873), 99–170.
Martianus Capella, De nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii, in James Willis, ed., Martianus
Capella, Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana (Leipzig,
1983).
Martianus Capella, The Marriage of Philology and Mercury, trans. William H. Stahl and
Richard Johnson, Martianus Capella and the Seven Liberal Arts 2 (New York, 1977).
Martin de Canal, Les Estoires de Venise. Cronaca veneziana in lingua francese dalle orig-
ini al 1275, ed. Alberto Limentani, Civiltà Veneziana–Fonti e Testi 12 (Firenze, 1973).
Matthaeus Parisiensis, Chronica Majora, ed. Henry R. Luard, 7 vols., Rerum Brittani-
carum Medii Aevi Scriptores (London, 1872–1880).
Matteo Spinelli, Diurnali, ed. Hermann Pabst, MGH SS 19 (Hannover, 1866).
Matzukis, Corinna, ed. and trans., The Fall of Constantinople, Fourth Crusade. A criti-
cal edition woth translation and historical commentary of the Codex 408 Marcianus
Graecus ( ff. 1–13v) in the Library of St. Mark (Venice/Athens, 2004).
Mead, George R., Thrice-Greatest Hermes, 3 vols., Studies in Hellenistic Theosophy and
Gnosis (London, 1906).
Michael Choniates, Epistulae, ed. Foteini Kolovou, Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzan-
tinae. Series Berolinensis 41 (Berlin, 2001).
Michael Synkellos, Encomium Beati Dionysii Areopagitae, ed. Balthasar Corderius, Pa-
trologia Graeca 4 (Paris, 1857).
Morel-Fatio, Alfred, ed., Libro de los fechos et conquistas del Principado de la Morea,
Société de l’Orient latin. Série historique 4 (Geneva, 1885).
Mussely, Charles, and Emile Molitor, eds., Cartulaire de l’ancienne église collégiale de
Notre Dame à Courtrai (Gand, 1880).
Nikephoros Blemmydes, Autobiographia sive Curriculum Vitae necnon Epistola univer-
salior, ed. Joseph A. Munitiz, Corpus Christianorum. Series Graeca 19 (Turnhout,
1984).
Nikephoros Blemmydes, Epitome Physica, ed. Jean-Paul Migne, Patrologia Graeca 142
(Paris, 1863).
Nikephoros Gregoras, Bizantina Historia, ed. Ludwig Schopen and Immanuel Bekker, 3
vols., Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae (Bonn, 1829–1855).
Niketas Choniates, Historia, ed. Jean-Louis van Dieten, 2 vols., Corpus Fontium Histo-
riae Bizantinae. Series Berolinensis 11 (Berlin, 1975).
Nikolaos Mesarites, Die Disputation mit dem Kardinallegaten Benedikt und dem latein-
ischen Patriarchen Thomas Morosini am 30. August 1206, in August Heisenberg, ed.,
“Neue Quellen zur Geschichte des lateinischen Kaisertums und der Kirchenunion
Bibliography 259
2/1,” Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-

philologische und historische Klasse, 2. Abteilung (1923a), 15–25.
Nikolaos Mesarites, Reisebericht an die Monche des Evergetisklosters in Konstantinopel,
in August Heisenberg, ed., “Neue Quellen zur Geschichte des lateinischen Kaiser-
tums und der Kirchenunion 2/3,” Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-philologische und historische Klasse, 2. Abteilung
(1923b), 35–46.
Pedersen, Fritz S., ed., The Toledan Tables. A Review of the Manuscripts and the Textual
Versions, Historisk-filosofiske skriften 24 (Copenhagen, 2002).
Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Athanasios, ed., “Documents grecs pour servir à l’histoire de
la Quatrième croisade (liturgie et reliques),” Revue de l’Orient latin 1 (1893), 540–555.
Peter of Auvergne, Questions on Aristotle’s De caelo. A critical edition with an interpreta-
tive essay, ed. Griet, Galle, Ancient and Medieval Philosophy 1 (Louvain, 2003).
Petrus Comestor, Scolastica Historia: Liber Genesis, ed. Agneta Sylwan, Corpus Christia-
norum Continuatio Mediaevalis 191 (Turnhout, 2004).
Philippe de Remi, Le roman de la Manekine, ed. N. Barbara Sargent-Baur (Amsterdam,
1999).
Philippe Mouskes, Chronique rimée, ed. Frédéric A. de Reiffenberg, 2 vols., Collection
de Chroniques belges inédites (Brussels, 1938).
Pingree, David, ed., Preceptum Canonis Ptolomei, Corpus des astronomes byzantins 8
(Louvain-La-Neuve, 1997).
Plato, Timaeus and Critias, trans. Robin Waterfield, Oxford World’s Classics (Oxford,
2008).
Plutarch, Lives, vol. 3, trans. Bernadotte Perrin, Loeb Classical Library (London, 1916).
Polemis, Demetrios I., “A Manuscript Note of the Year 1247,” Byzantinische Forschungen
1 (1966) 269–276.
Polyaenus, Strategicon. Libri octo, ed. Eduard Von Wölfflin, Bibliotheca scriptorum
Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana (Leipzig, 1860).
Polybius, Historiae, ed. and trans. William R. Patton, Franck W. Walbank, and Christian
Habicht, 5 vols., Loeb Classical Library (London, 2010–2012).
Préaud, Maxime, “L’horoscope de Baudoin de Courtenay, empereur latin d’Orient,”
Anagrom 3–4 (1973), 9–45.
Prevenier, Walter, ed., De oorkonden van de graven van Vlaanderen (1191–aanvang 1206),
3 vols., Verzameling van de Akten der Belgische vorsten 5 (Brussels, 1964–1971).
Pseudo-Aristotle, De mundo, trans. E.S. Forster and J.F. Dobson (Oxford, 1914).
Pseudo-Codinus, Traité des Offices, ed. Jean Verpeaux, Le monde byzantin 1 (Paris, 1966).
Pseudo-Ptolemaeus, Liber centum verborum Phtolomei cum commento Haly (Venice,
1493).
Ralph of Coggeshall, Chronicon Anglicanum, ed. Joseph, Stevenson, Rolls Series 66
(London, 1875).
260 Bibliography
Raymond de Marseille, Opera omnia, Tome 1: Traité de l’astrolabe Liber cursuum

planetarum, ed. Marie-Thérèse d’Alverny, Charles Burnett, Emmanuel Poulle (Paris,
2009).
Remigius Autissiodorensis, Commentum in Martianum Capellam. Libri I-IX, ed. Cora E.
Lutz, 2 vols. (Brill, 1962–1965).
Riant, Paul E., Exuviae sacrae Constantinopolitanae, 2 vols. (Geneva, 1876).
Riant, Paul E., “Inventaire sommaire des manuscrits relatifs à l’histoire et à la géogra-
phie de l’Orient latin,” Archives de l’Orient latin 2 (1884), 131–204.
Robert de Clari, La conquête de Constantinople, ed. Philippe Lauer, Les classiques de
l’histoire de France au moyen âge (Paris, 1924).
Roussel, Claude, ed., La belle Hélène de Constantinople, chanson de geste du XIVe siècle,
Textes littéraires français 454 (Geneva, 1995).
Ruteboeuf, Oeuvres complètes, ed. Michel Zink, 2 vols. (Paris, 1989–1990).
Salimbene de Adam, Cronica, ed. G. Scalia, 2 vols., Corpus Christianorum. Continuatio
Mediaevalis (Turnhout, 1998).
Schlumberger, Gustave, Ferdinand Chalandon, and Adrien Blanchet, eds., Sigillogra-
phie de l’Orient latin, Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique 37 (Paris, 1943).
Schmitt, John, ed., The Chronicle of Morea, Byzantine Texts (London, 1904).
Sevcenko, Igor, “A Byzantine Inscription from the Period of the Latin Domination
in Constantinople,” in Dickran K. Kouymjian, ed., Near Eastern Numismatics, Ico-
nography, Epigraphy and History. Studies in Honor of George C. Miles (Beirut, 1974),
383–386.
Simon de Phares, Le Recueil des plus célèbres astrologues, ed. Jean-Patrice Boudet, 2
vols. (Paris, 1997–1999).
Simonsfeld, Henry, ed., Chronicon Venetum quod vulgo dicunt Altinate, MGH SS 14
(Hannover, 1883a).
Simonsfeld, Henry, Historia Ducum Veneticorum a. 1102–1178, 1204–1229, MGH SS 14
(Hannover, 1883b).
Smyser, Hamilton M., ed., The Pseudo-Turpin (Cambridge, 1937).
Stevart, Peter, and Jean-Paul Migne, eds., Tractatus Contra Errores Graecorum, Patrolo-
gia Graeca 140 (Paris, 1887).
Symeon Metaphrastes, Vita et Conversatio Sancti Dionysii Areopagitae, ed. Balthasar
Corderius, Patrologia Graeca 4 (Paris, 1857).
Tafel, Gottlieb L.F., and Georg M. Thomas, eds., Urkunden zur älteren Handels- und
Staatsgeschichte der Republik Venedig mit besonderer Beziehung auf Byzanz und die
Levante, 3 vols., Fontes Rerum Austriacarum. Diplomataria et Acta 12–14 (Vienna,
1856–1857).
Teulet, Alexandre, ed., Layettes du Trésor des Chartes, 4 vols. (Paris, 1863–1875).
Theodore Doukas, Laskaris, Epistulae CCXVII, ed. Nicola Festa (Florence, 1898).
Theodore Metochites, Byzantios, or About The Imperial Megalopolis. Introduction, text
and commentary, ed. Irini Pougounia (Oxford, 2003).
Bibliography 261
Thomas, John, and Angela Constantinides Hero, eds., Byzantine Monastic Foundation
Documents, Dumbarton Oaks Studies 35 (Washington, D.C., 2001).
Thomas Tuscus, Gesta Imperatorum et Pontificum, ed. Ernst Ehrenfeuchter, MGH SS
22 (Hannover, 1872).
Thucydides, La guerre du Péloponnèse, ed. and trans. Jacqueline De Romilly, Louis Bodin,
and Raymond Weil, 5 vols., Collection des universités de France (Paris, 1953–1972).
Ughelli, Ferdinando, ed., Italia Sacra, vol. 7 (2nd. ed., Venice, 1721).
Uguccione de Pisa, Die “Magnae Derivationes,” ed. Claus Riessner, Temi e Testi 11 (Rome,
1965).
Urbanus IV, Les registres (1261–1264), ed. Jean, Guiraud and Suzanne Clémencet, 4 vols.,
Registres des papes du XIIIe siècle (Paris, 1900–1958).
Van Haeck, Maurice, ed., Cartulaire de l’abbaye de Marquette, 3 vols. (Lille, 1937).
Vincent of Beauvais, De eruditione filiorum nobiliorum, ed. Arpad, Steiner, The Medi-
eval Academy of America 32 (Cambridge, Mass., 1938).
Wadding, Luke, ed., Annales Minorum, 8 vols. (Lyon, 1625–1654).
Wattenbach, ed., Annales Mellicenses. Continuatio Sancrucensis, MGH SS 9 (Hannover,
1851).
Weiland, Ludwig, ed., Relatio de Concilio Lugdunense, MGH. Legum Sectio 4: Constitu-
tiones et Acta Publica Imperatorum et Regum 2 (Hannover, 1896).
Westerlink, L.G., “La profession de foi de Grégoire Chionidès,” Revue des études byzan-
tines 38 (1980), 233–245.
Wolff, Robert L., “Hopf’s so-called ‘Fragmentum’ of Marino Sanudo Torsello,” Jewish
Social Studies 5 (1953), 150–158.
Xenophon, Hellenika. Griechisch-deutsch, ed. Gisela Strasburger, Sammlung Tusculum
(Düsseldorf, 2000).
2. Secondary Sources
Abulafia, David, Frederick II. A Medieval Emperor (London, 1992).

Aerts, W.J., “Proverbial passages taken from Vincent of Beauvais’ ‘Speculum Doctrinale’
translated into Medieval Greek: the methods of translation used by the anonymous
Greek author,” in idem E.R. Smits, and J.B. Voorbij, eds, Vincent of Beauvais and Al-
exander the Great. Studies on the ‘Speculum Maius’ and its translations into medieval
vernaculars, Mediaevalia Groningana 7 (Groningen, 1986), 141–176.
Agapitos, Panagiotis A., “Genre, structure and poetics in the Byzantine vernacular ro-
mances of love,” Symbolae Osloenses 79 (2004), 7–101.
Agapitos, Panagiotis A., “In Rhomaian, Frankish and Persian Lands: Fiction and Fic-
tionality in Byzantium and Beyond,” in idem and Lars B. Mortensen, eds., Medieval
Narratives between History and Fiction. From the Centre to the Periphery of Europe, c.
1100–1400 (Copenhagen, 2012), 235–367.
262 Bibliography
Agapitos, Panagiotis A., “The ‘Court of Amorous Dominion’ and the ‘Gate of Love’:
Rituals of Empire in a Byzantine Romance of the Thirteenth Century,” in Alexander
Beihammer, Stavroula Constantinou, and Maria Parani, eds., Court Ceremonies and
Rituals of Power in Byzantium and the Medieval Mediterranean, The Medieval Medi-
terranean 88 (Leiden, 2013), 389–416.
Agapitos, Panagiotis A., "Grammar, Genre and Patronage in the Twelfth Century: Re-
defining a Scientific Paradigm in the History of Byzantine Literature," Jahrbuch der
Österreichischen Byzantinistik 64 (2014), 1–22.
Agapitos, Panagiotis A., "Literature and Education in Nicaea: An Interpretative Intro-
duction," in Pagona Papadopoulou and Alicia Simpson, eds., The Empire of Nicaea
Revisited (Turnhout, forthcoming).
Agapitos, Panagiotis A., and Ole L. Smith, The Study of Medieval Greek Romance.
A Reassessment of Recent Work (Copenhagen, 1992).
Ahrweiler, Hélène, “Byzantine Concepts of the Foreigner: The Case of the Nomads,” in
idem and Angeliki E. Laiou, eds., Studies on the Internal Diaspora of the Byzantine
Empire, Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection (Washington, 1998), 1–16.
Albrecht, Stefan, “Das Griechische Projekt Andreas II,” in Neslihan Asutay-Effenberger
and Falko Daim, eds., Philopation. Spaziergang in kaiserlichen Garten. Schriften über
Byzanz und seinen Nachbarn. Festschrift für Arne Effenberger zum 70. Geburtstag
(Mainz, 2012), 257–271.
Alexander, Paul J., The Byzantine Apocalyptic Tradition (Berkeley, 1985).
Allard, André, “Le premier traité byzantin de calcul indien: classement des manuscrits
et édition critique du texte, ” Revue d’histoire des textes 7 (1977), 57–64.
Altaner, Berthold, “Die Kenntnis des Griechischen in den Missionsorden während des 13.
und 14. Jahrhunderts,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 53 (1934), 436–493.
Anderson, Glaire “Islamic Spaces and Diplomacy in Constantinople (Tenth to Thir-
teenth Centuries C.E.),” Medieval Encounters 15 (2009), 86–113.
Angelov, Dimiter, Imperial ideology and political thought in Byzantium 1204–1330 (Cam-
bridge, 2007).
Angelov, Dimiter, “Theodore II Laskaris, Elena Asenina and Bulgaria,” in Angel Niko-
lov and Georgi Nikolov eds., The Medieval Bulgarian and “the Others” [in Bulgarian]
(Sofia, 2013), 273–297.
Angold, Michael, A Byzantine Government in Exile. The Empire of Nicaea (Oxford,
1975a).
Angold, Michael, “Byzantine ‘nationalism’ and the Nicaean empire,” Byzantine and
Modern Greek Studies 1 (1975b), 49–70.
Angold, Michael, Church and society in Byzantium under the Comneni (1081–1261)
(Cambridge, 1995).
Angold, Michael, The Fourth Crusade: Event and Context (Harlow, 2003).
Bibliography 263
Angold, Michael, “The Latin Empire of Constantinople, 1204–1261: Marriage Strate-

gies,” in Judith Herrin and Guillaume Saint-Guillain, eds., Identities and Allegiances
in the Eastern Mediterranean after 1204 (Farnham, 2011), 47–67.
Aslanov, Cyril, “Aux sources de la chronique en prose française: entre déculturation
et acculturation,” in Thomas F. Madden, ed., The Fourth Crusade: Event, Aftermath,
and Perceptions. Papers from the Sixth Conference of the Society for the Study of the
Crusades and the Latin East, Istanbul, Turkey, 25–29 August 2004, Crusades–Subsidia
2 (Aldershot, 2008), 143–165.
Asonites, Spyros, “Pelagonia 1259: Mia nea Theorisi,” Byzantiaka 11 (1991), 129–165.
Aurell, Martin, The Plantagenet Empire, 1154–1224 (Harlow, 2007).
Avvakumov, Georgij, “Der Azymenstreit - Konflikte und Polemiken um eine Frage des
Ritus,” in Peter Bruns and Georg Gresser, eds., Vom Schisma zu den Kreuzzügen:
1054–1204 (Paderborn, 2005), 9–26.
Baker, Julian, “Money and Currency in Medieval Greece,” in Nickiphoros I. Tsougarakis
and Peter Lock, eds., A Companion to Latin Greece, Brill’s Companion’s to European
History 6 (Leiden, 2014), 217–254.
Balard, Michel, “L’historiographie occidentale de la quatrième croisade,” in Angeliki E.
Laiou, ed., Urbs Capta. The Fourth Crusade and its consequences (Paris, 2005), 161–174.
Beaton, Roderick, The Medieval Greek Romance, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Litera-
ture 6 (Cambridge, 1989).
Beaton, Roderick, The Medieval Greek Romance, 2nd ed., rev. and expanded (London,
1996).
Belin, François-Alphonse, Histoire de la Latinité de Constantinople (Paris, 1894).
Benes, Carrie E., “What SPQR? Sovereignty and Semiotics in Medieval Rome,” Specu-
lum 84 (2009), 874–904.
Benito Ruano, Eloy, “Balduino II de Constantinopla y la orden de Santiago Un proyecto
de defensa del imperio latino del Oriente,” Hispania 12 (1952), 3–36.
Benkö, Elek, “Abenteuerlicher Herrscher oder Gütiger Patron? Anmerkungen zu der
Rittergrabplatte aus dem Zisterzienserkloster Pilis,” Acta Archaeologica Academiae
Scientiarum Hungaricae 59 (2008), 469–483.
Berg, Beverly, “Manfred of Sicily and the Greek East,” Byzantina 14 (1988), 263–289.
Berg, Beverly, “Manfred of Sicily and Urban IV: Negotiations of 1261,” Mediaeval Studies
55 (1993), 116–132.
Bianchi, Luca, and Eugenio Randi, Vérités dissonantes. Aristote à la fin du Moyen Âge,
Vestigia–Pensée antique et médiévale 11 (Fribourg, 1993).
Blanchet, Marie-Hélène, and Guillaume Saint-Guillain, “À propos d’un ouvrage récent
sur la Chronique de Morée. Contribution au débat,” Byzantion 83 (2013), 13–39.
Blumenfeld-Kosinski, Renate, Reading Myth. Classical Mythology and Its Interpretations
in Medieval French Literature, Figurae: Reading Medieval Culture (Stanford, 1998).
264 Bibliography
Bon, Antoine, “Dalle funéraire d’une princesse de Morée (XIIIe siècle),”. Monuments et
mémoires de la Fondation Eugène Piot 49 (1957), 129–139.
Bon, Antoine, La Morée Franque. Recherches historiques, topographiques et ar-
chéologiques sur la principauté d’Achaïe (1205–1430), Bibliothèque des Ecoles fran-
çaises d’Athènes et de Rome 213 (Paris, 1969).
Bosselmann-Ruickbie, Antje, “A 13th Century Jewellery Hoard From Thessalonica:
A Genuine Hoard Find or an Art Dealer’s Compilation?,” in Chris Entwistle and
Noel Adams, eds., Intelligible Beauty. Recent Research on Byzantine Jewellery, British
Museum Publications 178 (London, 2010), 219–232.
Bosselmann-Ruickbie, Antje, “Contact between Byzantium and the West from the 9th
to the 15th Century and Their Reflections in Goldsmiths’ Works and Enamels,” in
Falko Daim, Dominik Heher, and Claudia Rapp, eds., Menschen, Bilder, Sprache,
Dinge. Wege der Kommunikation zwischen Byzanz und dem Westen. Bd. 1: Bilder und
Dinge (Mainz, 2018), 73–104.
Bossier, Fernand, “Traductions latines et influences du commentaire In de caelo en
Occident (XIIIe–XIVe s.),” in Ilsetraut Hadot, ed., Simplicius. Sa via, son oeuvre, sa
survie. Actes du Colloque International de Paris (28 Sept–1 Oct. 1985), Peripatoi. Philol-
ogisch-Historische Studien zum Aristotelismus 15 (Berlin, 1987), 289–325.
Bossier, Fernand, “Documents d’archives concernant une famille ‘de Moerbeke,’” in
Jozef Brams and Willy Vanhamel, eds., Guillaume de Moerbeke. Recueil d’études à
l’occasion du 700e anniversaire de sa mort (1286) (Louvain, 1989a), 385–400.
Bossier, Fernand, “Méthode de traduction et problèmes de chronologie,” in Jozef Brams
and Willy Vanhamel eds., Guillaume de Moerbeke. Recueil d’études à l’occasion du
700e anniversaire de sa mort (1286) (Louvain, 1989b), 257–294.
Boudet, Jean-Patrice, Entre science et nigromance. Astrologie, divination et magie dans
l’Occident médiéval (XIIe–XVe siècle) (Paris, 2006).
Boudet, Jean-Patrice, “Les horoscopes princiers dans l’Occident médiéval (XIIe–XVe
siècle),” Micrologus 16 (2008), 373–395.
Bougerol, Jacques G., “La question De fato au XIIIe siècle,” in Christian Wenin, ed.,
L’homme et son univers au Moyen Age. Actes du 7e Congrès International de Philoso-
phie Médiévale (30 août–4 septembre 1982) (Louvain-la-Neuve, 1986), 654–667.
Boulhol, Pascal, La connaissance de langue grecque dans la France médiévale VIe–XVe s.,
Textes et documents de la Méditerrannée classique et médiévale (Aix-en-Provence,
2008).
Boureau, Alain, “La censure dans les universités médiévales (note critique),” Annales.
Histoire, Sciences Sociales 55 (2000), 313–323.
Bourgeois Richmond, Velma, The Legend of Guy of Warwick (New York, 1996).
Bovesse, Jean, “Notes sur Harelbeke et Biervliet dans le cadre de l’histoire des Maisons de
Namur et de France, ” Bulletin de la Commission Royale d’Histoire 150 (1984), 453–474.
Bowen, Alan C., Simplicius on the planets and their motions: in defense of a heresy, Phi-
losophia antiqua 133 (Leiden, 2013).
Bibliography 265
Bowers, Barbara S., ed., The Medieval Hospital and Medical Practice, AVISTA Studies in
the History of Medieval Technology, Science and Art 3 (Aldershot, 2007).
Boyle, Leonard, “Notes on the education of the Fratres communes in the Dominican
Order in the thirteenth century,” in Raymond Creytens and Pius Künzle, eds., Xenia
medii aevi historiam illustrantia oblata Thomae Kaeppeli O.P., Storia e letteratura 1
(Rome, 1978), 249–267.
Brandes, Wolfram, “Kaiserprophetien und Hochverrat. Apokalyptische Schriften und
Kaiservaticinien als Medium antikaiserlicher Propaganda,” in idem and F. Schmie-
der, eds., Endzeiten: Eschatologie in den monotheistischen Weltreligionen (Berlin,
2008), 157–200.
Bratu, Mihai C., L’émergence de l’auteur dans l’historiographie médievale en prose en
langue française (Ann Arbor, 2007).
Bréhier, Louis, Les Institutions de l’Empire byzantin (Paris, 1949; repr. 1970).
Brezeanu, Stelian, “‘Translatio Imperii’ und das Lateinische Kaiserreich von Konstanti-
nopel,” Revue Roumaine d’Histoire 14 (1975), 607–617.
Brezeanu, Stelian, “Das Zweikaiserproblem in der ersten Hälfte des 13. Jahrhunderts,”
Revue roumaine d’histoire 17 (1978), 249–267.
Browning, Robert, “The Patriarchal School at Constantinople in the Twelfth Century,”
Byzantion 32 (1962), 167–201.
Brubaker, Leslie, “The Vienna Dioskorides and Anicia Juliana,” in Antony Littlewood,
Henry Maguire, and Joachim Wolschke-Buhlman, eds., Byzantine Garden Culture.
Dumbarton Oaks Studies (Washington, D.C., 2002), 189–214.
Brundage, James A., “Latin jurists in the Levant. The legal elite of the Crusader States,”
in Maya Shatzmiller, ed., Crusaders and Muslims in twelfth-century Syria, The Medi-
eval Mediterranean 1 (Leiden, 1993), 18–42.
Burkhardt, Stefan, “Court Ceremonies and Rituals of Power in the Latin Empire of
Constantinople,” in Alexander Beihammer, Stavroula Constantinou, and Maria
Parani, eds., Ceremonies and Rituals of Power in Byzantium and the Medieval Medi-
terranean: Comparative Perspectives, The Medieval Mediterranean 98 (Leiden,
2013), 277–290.
Burkhardt, Stefan, Mediterranes Kaisertum und imperiale Ordnungen. Das lateinische
Kaiserreich von Konstantinopel, Europa im Mittelalter. Abhandlungen und Beiträge
zur historischen Komparatistik 25 (Berlin, 2014).
Burnett, Charles, “Arabic, Greek and Latin works on astrological magic attributed to
Aristotle,” in Jill Kraye, Charles B. Schmitt, and W.F. Ryan, eds., Pseudo-Aristotle in
the Middle Ages. The “Theology” and other Texts (London, 1986), 84–96.
Burnett, Charles, “Michael Scot and the Transmission of Scientific Culture from Toledo
to Bologna via the Court of Frederick II Hohenstaufen,” Micrologus 2 (1994), 101–126.
Burnett, Charles, “La réception des mathématiques, de l’astronomie et de l’astrologie
arabes à Chartres,” in Aristote, L’école de Chartres et la cathédrale (Chartres, 1997),
101–107.
266 Bibliography
Burnett, Charles, “A Hermetic Programme of Astrology and Divination in mid-Twelfth-

Century Aragon: The Hidden Preface in the Liber novem iudicum,” in idem and
William F. Ryan, eds., Magic and the Classical Tradition (London and Turin, 2006),
99–118.
Burnett, Charles, “Aristotle as an Authority on Judicial Astrology,” in José Meirinhos
and Olga Weijers, eds., Florilegium Mediaevale. Études offertes à Jacqueline Hamesse
à l’occasion de son éméritat (Louvain-la-Neuve, 2009), 41–62.
Burnett, Charles, “Astrological Translations in Byzantium,” Actes du symposium inter-
national ‘Le Livre. La Roumanie. L’Europe.’ 4ème édition, 20–23 Septembre 2011 (Bucar-
est, 2012), 3:178–183.
Burns, Robert I., “Stupor Mundi: Alfonso X of Castile, the Learned,” in idem, ed., Em-
peror of Culture: Alfonso X the Learned of Castile and His Thirteenth-Century Renais-
sance (Philadelphia, 1990), 1–13.
Bouras, Charalambos, “The Impact of Frankish Architecture on Thirteenth Century
Byzantine Architecture,” in: Angeliki Laiou and R.P. Mottahedeh (eds.), The Cru-
sades from the Perspective of the Byzantine and the Muslim World (Washington,
2001), 247–262.
Bouras, Charalambos, “Architecture in Constantinople in the Thirteenth Century,” in
Panayotis L. Vocotopoulos, ed., Byzantine Art in the Aftermath of the Fourth Crusade.
The Fourth Crusade and Its Consequences. International Congress, March 9–12, 2004
(Athens, 2007), 105–112.
Byden, Börje, “‘Strangle Them with These Meshes of Syllogisms!’: Latin Philosophy in
Greek Translations of the Thirteenth Century,” in Jan O. Rosenqvist, ed., Interaction
and Isolation in Late Byzantine Culture (Stockholm and New York, 2004), 133–157.
Canak-Medic, Milka, Danica Popovic, and Dragan Vojvodic, eds., Zica Monastery (Bel-
grade, 2014).
Carile, Antonio, Per una storia dell’impero latino di Constantinopoli (1204–1261), 2nd ed.,
Il mondo medievale. Sezione di storia bizantina e slava 2 (Bologna, 1978a).
Carile, Antonio, “La cancellaria sovrana dell’Impero latino di Constantinopoli (1204–
1261),” Studi Veneziani 2 (1978b), 37–73.
Carr, Annemarie, Byzantine Illumination, 1150–1250: The Study of a Provincial Tradition,
Studies in Medieval Manuscript Illumination 47 (Chicago, 1987).
Cetinkaya, Haluk, “Arap Camii in Istanbul. Its Architecture and Frescoes,” Antiqua Ana-
tolia 18 (2010), 169–188.
Chalandon, Ferdinand, Essai sur le règne d’Alexis Ier Comnène (1081–1118), Mémoires et
Documents publiés par la Société de l’Ecole des Chartes 6 (Paris, 1900).
Chance, Jane, Medieval Mythography: From Roman North Africa to the School of Char-
tres, A.D. 433–1177 (Gainesville, 1994).
Charanis, Peter, “Les Brachea Chronika comme source historique. An important short
chronicle of the fourteenth century,” Byzantion 13 (1938), 335–362.
Bibliography 267
Charmasson, Thérèse, Recherches sur une technique divinatoire: la géomancie dans

l’Occident médiéval, Hautes études médiévales et modernes 44 (Geneva, 1980).
Chatzidakis, Nano, “The Character of the Painting of Icons from Latin-held Areas,” in
Panayotis L. Vocotopoulos, ed., Byzantine Art in the Aftermath of the Fourth Crusade.
The Fourth Crusade and Its Consequences. International Congress, March 9–12, 2004
(Athens, 2007), 133–142.
Cheynet, Jean-Claude, Pouvoir et contestations à Byzance (963–1210), Byzantina Sorbo-
nensia 9 (Paris, 1990).
Chrissis, Nikolaos G., Crusading in Frankish Greece. A Study of Byzantine-Western Rela-
tions and Attitudes 1204–1282, Medieval Church Studies 22 (Louvain, 2013).
Cifuentes, Lluís, “Université et vernacularisation au bas Moyen Âge: Montpellier et les
traductions catalanes médiévale,” in Daniel Le Blévec, ed., L’université de médecine
de Montpellier et son rayonnement (XIIIe–XVe siècles). Actes du Colloque internation-
al de Montpellier, 17–19 mai 2001, De diversis artibus 71 (Turnhout, 2004), 273–290.
Ciggaar, Krijnie N., “Une description de Constantinople dans le Tarragonensis 55,” Re-
vue des études byzantines 53 (1995), 117–140.
Ciggaar, Krijnie N., “Manuscripts as Intermediaries. The Crusader States and Literary
Cross-fertilization,” in Adelbert Davids idem, and Herman G. Teule, eds., East and
West in the Crusader States. Context–Contact –Confrontations, Orientalia Lovanien-
sia Analecta 75 (Louvain, 1996), 131–151.
Clair, Romain, “Les filles d’Hautecombe dans l’Empire latin de Constantinople,” Ana-
lecta Sacri Ordinis Cisterciensis 17 (1961), 262–277.
Claverie, Pierre-Vincent, Honorius III et l’Orient. Etude et publication de sources, The
Medieval Mediterranean 97 (Leiden, 2013).
Clay, Diskin, “The Plan of Plato’s Critias,” in Tomás Calvo and Luc Brisson, eds., In-
terpreting the Timaeus-Critias, International Plato Studies 9 (Saint Augustin, 1997),
49–54.
Collet, Olivier, “Littérature, histoire, pouvoir, mécénat: la cour de Flandre au XIIIe siè-
cle,” Médiévales 38 (2000), 87–110.
Congourdeau, Marie-Hélène, “Frère Simon le Constantinopolitain, O.P. (1235?– 1325?),”
Revue des études byzantines 45 (1987), 165–174.
Congourdeau, Marie-Hélène, “Jérusalem et Constantinople dans la littérature apoca-
lyptique,” in Michel Kaplan, ed., Le sacré et son inscription dans l’espace à Byzance et
en Occident, Byzantina Sorbonensia 18 (Paris, 2001), 125–136.
Congourdeau, Marie-Hélène, “Les oracula Leonis,” in Cosimo D. Fonseca, ed., Gioachi-
mismo e profetismo in Sicilia (secoli XIII–XVI). Atti del terzo Convegno internazionale
di studio Palermo-Monreale 14–16 ottobre 2005 (Viella, 2007), 79–91.
Constable, Giles, “Troyes, Constantinople, and the relics of St Helen in the thirteenth
century,” in Pierre Gallais and Yves-Jean Riou, eds., Mélanges offerts ā René Crozet
(Poitiers, 1966), 1035–1042.
268 Bibliography
Constantinides, Costas N., Higher Education in Byzantium in the Thirteenth and Early
Fourteenth Centuries (1204–ca. 1310) (Nicosia, 1982).
Corrie, Rebecca W., “The Kahn and Mellon Madonnas and their place in the history of
the Virgin and Child Enthroned in Italy and the East,” in Maria Vassilaki, ed., Images
of the Mother of God. Perceptions of the Theotokos in Byzantium (Aldershot, 2005),
293–303.
Coureas, Nicholas, “The Latin and Greek Churches in Former Byzantine Lands,” in
Nickiphoros I. Tsougarakis and Peter Lock, eds., A Companion to Latin Greece, Brill’s
Companions to European History 6 (Leiden, 2014), 145–184.
Croizy-Naquet, Catherine, “L’histoire ancienne jusqu’à César, les Faits des Romains.
Entre sermon et chronique, entre histoire et roman,” in Pierre Nobel, ed., Récep-
tion de l’Antiquité, Textes et cultures: réception, modèles, interférences (Besançon,
2004), 103–118.
Crouzet-Pavan, Elisabeth, “Quand le doge part à la croisade …,” in Jacques Paviot and
Jacques Verger, eds., Guerre, pouvoir et noblesse au Moyen Âge. Mélanges en l’honneur
de Philippe Contamine (Paris, 2000), 67–74.
Cupane, Carolina, “In the Realm of Eros: The Late Byzantine Vernacular Romance–
Original Texts,” in idem and Bettina Krönung, eds., Fictional Storytelling in the Medi-
eval Eastern Mediterranean and Beyond, Brill’s Companions to the Byzantine World
1 (Leiden, 2016), 95–126.
Daborwska, Matgorzata, “Is there any room for a Latin lady on the Bosporus?”, Byzan-
tinoslavica 66 (2008), 229–239.
Dagron, Gilbert, Constantinople imaginaire. Etudes sur le recueil des Patria (Paris,
1984).
Dale, Johanna, “Inauguration and political liturgy in the Hohenstaufen Empire, 1138–
1215,” German History 34 (2016), 191–213.
Dall’Aglio, Francesco, “The Military Alliance between the Cumans and Bulgaria from
the Establishment of the Second Bulgarian Kingdom to the Mongol Invasion,”
Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi 16 (2008/2009), 29–54.
Dalleggio d’Alessio, Eugenio, Le pietre sepolcrali di Arab Giamí, Atti della R. Deputazi-
one di Storia Patria per la Liguria 5 (Genova, 1942).
Dalleggio d’Alessio, Eugenio, “Les sanctuaires urbains et suburbains de Byzance sous la
domination latine, 1204–1261,” Revue des études byzantines 12 (1953), 50–61.
D’Alverny, Marie-Thérèse, “Astrologues et théologiens au XIIe siècle,” in André Duval,
ed., Mélanges offerts à Marie-Dominique Chenu (Paris, 1967), 31–50.
D’Amato, Raffaele, “The Last Marines of Byzantium. Gasmouloi, Tzakones and Pro-
salentai. A Short History and a Proposed Reconstruction of their Uniforms and
Equipment,” Journal of Mediterranean Studies 19 (2010), 219–248.
Darling, Linda T., “Mirrors for Prices in Europe and the Middle East: A Case of His-
toriographical Incommensurability,” in Albrecht Classen, ed., East Meets West in
Bibliography 269
the Middle Ages and Early Modern Times: Transcultural Experiences in the Premod-
ern World, Fundamentals of Medieval and Early Modern Culture 14 (Berlin, 2013),
227–236.
Davies, John, “Anna Komnene and Niketas Choniates ‘translated’: the fourteenth-
century Byzantine metaphrases,” in Ruth Macrides, ed., History as Literature in
Byzantium: Papers from the Fortieth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Univer-
sity of Birmingham, April 2007, Publications of the Society for the Promotion of Byz-
antine Studies (Farnham, 2010), 55–72.
De Bartholomeis, Vincenzo, “De Rambaut e de Coine,” Romania 34 (1905), 44–54.
Delacroix-Besnier, Claudine, “Les prêcheurs, du dialogue à la polémique (XIIIe–XIVe
siècle),” in Martin Hinterberger and Chris Schabel, eds., Greeks, Latins, and Intel-
lectual History 1204–1500, Bibliotheca 11 (Leuven, 2011), 151–167.
Demontis, Luca, Alfonso X e l’Italia. Rapporti politici e linguaggi del potere (Alexandria,
2012).
Devereaux, Rima, Constantinople and the West in Medieval French Literature, Gallica 25
(Cambridge, 2012).
Dölger, Franz, Byzantinische Diplomatik. 20 Aufsätze zum Urkundenwesen der Byzan-
tiner (Ettal, 1956).
Dondaine, Antoine, “‘Contra Graecos’. Premiers écrits polémiques des Dominicains
d’Orient,” Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 21 (1951), 321–446.
Dondaine, Antoine, Secrétaires de Saint Thomas, Publications de la Commission léo-
nine pour l’édition des oeuvres de saint Thomas d’Aquin (Rome, 1956).
Dorter, Kenneth, “‘One, two, three, but where is the fourth?’ Incomplete mediation in
the Timaeus,” in Zdravko Planinc, ed., Politics, philosophy, writing: Plato’s art of car-
ing for the souls (Columbia, 2001), 160–178.
Downey, Glanville, “Earthquakes at Constantinople and vicinity, A.D. 342–1454,” Specu-
lum 30 (1955), 596–600.
Du Bouchet, Jean, Histoire généalogique de la maison royale de Courtenay–Preuves
(Paris, 1661).
Dufournet, Jean, “Villehardouin et les Vénitiens,” L’information litteraire pour
l’enseignement 21 (1969), 7–19.
Dufournet, Jean, “Robert de Clari, Villehardouin et Henri de Valenciennes, juges de
l’empereur Henri de Constantinople. De l’histoire à la légende,” Mélanges Jeanne
Lods. Du moyen âge au XXe siècle, Collection de l’Ecole Normale Supérieure de
Jeunes Filles 10 (Paris, 1978), 183–202.
Dufrenne, Suzanne, “Architecture et décor monumental d’art byzantin à l’époque de
l’empire latin de Constantinople (1204–1261),” Byzantinische Forschungen 4 (1972),
64–75.
Du Fresne du Cange, Charles, Histoire de l’empire de Constantinople sous les empereurs
français (Paris, 1657).
270 Bibliography
Duhem, Pierre, Le système du monde. Histoire des doctrines cosmologiques de Platon à

Copernic, 10 vols. (Paris, 1913–1959).
Düll, Siegried, Düll, “Die lateinischen Inschriften aus Istanbul vor und nach der os-
manischen Eroberung – Vorarbeiten für ein neues Inschriftenprojekt in der Türkei,”
in Walter Koch, ed., Epigraphik 1982 (Wien, 1983), 101–118.
Durand, Jannic, “Diptyque en ivoire byzantin du xiiie siecle representant la Nativite, la
Crucifixion et des prophètes,” La Revue des musées de France. Revue du Louvre 2013/3
(juin), 11–13.
Eastwood, Bruce S., Ordering the Heavens. Roman Astronomy and Cosmology in the Car-
olingian Renaissance, Medieval and Early Modern Science 8 (Leiden, 2007).
Ebbesen, Sten, “Greek and Latin Medieval Logic,” Cahiers de l’institut du moyen-âge
grec et latin 66 (1996a), 67–95.
Ebbesen, Sten, “Pachymeres and the Topics,” Cahiers de l’institut du moyen-âge grec et
latin 66 (1996b), 169–85.
Edbury, Peter, “New Perspectives on the Old French Continuations of William of Tyre,”
Crusades 9 (2010) 107–113.
Edbury, Peter W., and John G. Rowe, William of Tyre. Historian of the Latin East, Cam-
bridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought. Fourth Series 8 (Cambridge, 1988).
Eisenstadt, Shmuel N., The Political Systems of Empires (London, 1963).
Evans, Helen C., and William D. Wixom, eds., The Glory of Byzantium: Art and Culture
of the Middle Byzantine Era, A.D. 843–1261 (New York, 1997).
Fisher, Elizabeth, “Monks, Monasteries and the Latin Language in Constantinople,” in
Ayla Ödekan, Engin Akyürek, and Nevra Necipoglu, eds., Change in the Byzantine
World in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries (Istanbul, 2010), 390–395.
Fisher, Elizabeth, “Manuel Holobolos and the Role of Bilinguals in Relations Between
the West and Byzantium,” in Andreas Speer, ed., Knotenpunkt Byzanz, Miscellanea
Mediaevalia (New York and Berlin, 2012a), 210–222.
Fisher, Elizabeth, “Arabs, Latins and Persians Bearing Gifts: Greek Translations of As-
tronomical Texts, ca. 1300,” Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 36 (2012b), 161–177.
Fisher, Elizabeth, “Homo Byzantinus and Homo Italicus in Late 13th-century Constan-
tinople,” in Jan M. Ziolkowski, ed., Dante and the Greeks, Dumbarton Oaks Medieval
Humanities (Washington, D.C., 2014), 63–82.
Foerster, Thomas, “Political Myths and Political Culture in Twelfth Century Europe,”
in Hartwin Brandt, Benjamin Pohl, W. Maurice Sprague, and Lina K. Hörl, eds.,
Erfahren, Erzählen, Erinnern. Narrative Konstruktionen von Gedächtnis und Genera-
tion in Antike und Mittelalter, Bamberger Historische Studien 9 (Bamberg, 2012),
83–115.
Folda, Jaroslav, Crusader Art in the Holy Land, from the Third Crusade to the Fall of Acre,
1187–1291 (Cambridge, 2005).
Folda, Jaroslav, and Lucy J. Wrapson, Byzantine Art and Italian Panel Painting. The Vir-
gin and Child Hodegetria and the Art of Chrysography (Cambridge, 2015).
Bibliography 271
Franchi, Antonino, “La svolta politico-ecclesiastica tra Roma e Bisanzio (1249–1254).

La legazione di Giovanni de Parma. Il ruole di Federico II,” Picenum Seraphicum 14
(1977/1978), 193–214.
Gaborit-Chopin, Danielle, The Treasury of San Marco (New York, 1984).
Gaggero, Massimiliano, “La Chronique d’Ernoul: problèmes et méthode d’édition,” Per-
spectives médiévales 34 (2012) [URL: http://peme.revues.org/1608 ; DOI: 10.4000/
peme.1608].
Gastgeber, Christian, “Die Eroberung Konstantinopels während des vierten Kreuzzug-
es und die Haltung von Papst Innozenz. III,” in Theodor Nikolau, ed., Das Schisma
zwischen Ost- Und Westkirche 950 bzw. 800 danach (1054 und 1204), Beiträge aus dem
Zentrum für ökumenische Forschung München (Münster, 2004), 43–71.
Geanakoplos, Deno J., “Greco-Latin relations on the eve of the Byzantine restoration:
the battle of Pelagonia–1259,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 7 (1953), 99–141.
Geanakoplos, Deno J., Emperor Michael Palaeologus and the West 1258–1282 (Cam-
bridge, Mass., 1959).
Geary, Patrick J., “Saint Helen of Athyra and the cathedral of Troyes in the thirteenth
century,” The Journal of medieval and Renaissance studies 7 (1977), 149–168.
George, Demetra, “Manuel I Komnenos and Michael Glycas: A Twelfth-Century De-
fence and Refutation of Astrology. Part 1,” Culture and Cosmos 5.1 (2001), 3–48.
Georgopolou, Maria, “Vernacular Architecture in Venetian Crete: Urban and Rural
Practices,” Medieval Encounters 18 (2012), 447–480.
Gerolymatou, Maria, “L’aristocratie et le commerce (IXe–XIIe siècles),” Byzantina Sym-
meikta 15 (2002), 77–89.
Gerzaguet, Jean-Pierre, L’Abbaye d’Anchin de sa fondation (1079) au XIVe siècle. Essor, vie
et rayonnement d’une grande communauté bénédictine, Histoire et civilisations (Paris,
1997).
Giebfried, John, “The Mongol Invasions and the Aegean World (1241–1261),” Mediter-
ranean Historical Review 28 (2013), 129–139.
Giebfried, John, “Crusader Constantinople as a Gateway to the Mongol World,” Pro-
ceedings of the The Third International Symposium on Crusade Studies held at
Saint Louis University from 28 February–1 March 2014 (forthcoming 2017).
Gill, Joseph, Byzantium and the papacy, 1198–1400 (New Brunswick, 1979).
Gilles, Erica, “Nova Francia”? Kinship and Identity among the Frankish Aristocracy in
Conquered Byzantium, 1204–1282, PhD diss. (Ann Arbor, 2010).
Gilles, Erica, “Men of France? Boundary Crossing in Constantinople in the 1240’s,” in
Katherine L. Jansen, G. Geltner, Anne E. Lester, eds., Center and periphery: studies
on power in the medieval world in honor of William Chester Jordan, Later Medieval
Europe (Leiden, 2013), 211–222.
Given-Wilson, Chris, The English Nobility in the Late Middle Ages (London, 1996).
Glick, Thomas F., Steven J. Livesey, and Faith Wallis, eds., Medieval Science, Technology
and Medicine: An Encyclopedia (New York, 2005).
272 Bibliography
Gounaridis, Paraskevas, “‘Grecs’, ‘Hellènes’ et ‘Romans’ dans l’état de Nicée,” in Vasiles

Kremmydas, Chryssa Maltezou, and Nikolaos M. Panagiotakes, eds., Aphieroma
ston Niko Svorono (Rethymo, 1986), 1:248–257.
Grabar, André, L’empereur dans l’art byzantin. Recherches sur l’art officiel de l’empire
d’Orient, Publications de la Faculté des Lettres de l’Université de Strasbourg 75
(Paris, 1936).
Grabar, André, “God and the Family of Princes presided over by the Byzantine em-
peror,” Harvard Slavic Studies 2 (1954), 117–123.
Grabmann, Martin, Guglielmo di Moerbeke O.P., il traduttore delle opere di Aristotele,
Miscellanea Historiae Pontificiae 11/20 (Rome, 1946).
Green, Judith A., The Aristocracy of Norman England (Cambridge, 1997).
Gregoriades, Iordanes, “Tracing the hand of Zonaras in the Lexicon Tittmannianum,”
Ellinika 46 (1996), 27–50.
Gregory, Tullio, “Théologie et astrologie dans la culture médiévale: un subtil face-à-
face,” Bulletin de la Société française de Philosophie 84 (1990), 101–130.
Grossman, Heather E., “Syncretism Made Concrete: The Case for a Hybrid Moreote
Architecture in Post-Fourth Crusade Greece,” in Deborah Deliyannis and Judson
Emerick, eds., Archaeology in Architecture. Papers in Honor of Cecil L. Striker (Mainz,
2005), 65–73.
Groten, Manfred, “Die mittelalterlichen Stadt als Erbin der antiken Civitas,” in Michael
Bernsen, Matthias Becher, and Elke Brüggen, eds., Gründungsmythen Europas in
Mittelalter (Göttingen, 2013), 21–34.
Grünbart, Michael, Inszenierung und Repräsentation der byzantinischen Aristokratie
vom 10. bis zum 13. Jahrhundert, Münstersche Mittelalter-Schriften 82 (Paderborn,
2015).
Guran, Petre, “La légitimation du pouvoir princier dans les hagiographies slavo-byz-
antines (XIe–XIVe siècles),” ARCHÆUS. Etudes d’histoire des religions 4 (2000),
248–324.
Guran, Petre, “Historical Prophecies from Late Antique Apocalypticism to Secular Es-
chatology,” Revue des Études Sud-Est Européennes 52 (2014), 47–62.
Guynn, Noah D., “Rhetoric and historiography: Villehardouin’s La Conquête de Con-
stantinople,” in: William Burgwinkle, Nicholas Hammonde, and Emma Wilson
(eds.), The Cambridge History of French Literature (Cambridge, 2011), 102–110.
Haberstumpf, Walter, “Questioni prosopografiche e istituzionali circa il regno alerami-
co di Tessalonica nel sec. xiii,” Bollettino Storico-Bibliografico Subalpino 87 (1989),
201–209.
Hadot, Ilsetraut, ed., Simplicius. Sa via, son oeuvre, sa survie. Actes du Colloque Interna-
tional de Paris (28 Sept–1 Oct. 1985), Peripatoi. Philologisch-Historische Studien zum
Aristotelismus 15 (Berlin, 1987).
Haines, John, “The Songbook for William of Villehardouin, Prince of the Morea (Paris,
Bibliothèque nationale de France, fonds français 844). A Crucial Case in the History
Bibliography 273
of Vernacular Song Collections,” in Sharon E. Gerstel, ed., Viewing the Morea. Land
and People in the Late Medieval Peloponnese, Dumbarton Oaks Byzantine Symposia
and Colloquia (Washington, D.C., 2013), 57–109.
Halbronn, Jacques, “L’itinéraire astrologique de trois Italiens du XIIIe siècle: Pietro
d’Abano, Guido Bonatti, Thomas d’Aquin,” in Christian Wenin, ed., L’homme et son
univers au Moyen Age. Actes du 7e Congrès International de Philosophie Médiévale (30
août–4 septembre 1982) (Louvain-la-Neuve, 1986), 668–674.
Hämel, Adalbert, “Die Entstehungszeit der Aachener Vita Karoli magni und der Pseu-
do-Turpin,” Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 32
(1942), 243–253.
Hames, Harvey J., Like Angels on Jacob’s Ladder. Abraham Abulafia, the Franciscans and
Joachimism (Albany, 2007).
Hamilton, Bernard, The Latin Church in the Crusader States. The Secular Church (Lon-
don, 1980).
Hamilton, Bernard, “The Latin Empire and Western contacts with Asia,” in Nikolaos G.
Chrissis and Mike Carr, eds., Contact and Conflict in Frankish Greece and the Aegean,
1204–1453, Crusades–Subsidia 5 (Farnham, 2014), 43–63.
Harris, Jonathan, Constantinople: Capital of Byzantium (London, 2007).
Heiduk, Matthias, “Sternenkunde am Stauferhof. Das “Centiloquium Hermetis” im
Kontext höfischer Übersetzungstätigkeit und Wissensaneignung,” in Heinz Kriega
and Alfons Zettler, eds., In frumento et vino optima. Festschrift für Thomas Zotz zu
seinem 60. Geburtstag (Ostfildern, 2004), 267–274.
Hendrickx, Benjamin, “Les institutions de l’empire latin de Constantinople (1204–
1261): Le pouvoir impérial (l’empereur, l’impératrice, les régents),” Byzantina 6
(1974), 85–154.
Hendrickx, Benjamin, “Les institutions de l’empire latin de Constantinople: la chancel-
lerie,” Acta classica 19 (1976), 123–131.
Hendrickx, Benjamin, “Les Arméniens d’Asie Mineure et de Thrace au début de
l’empire latin de Constantinople,” Revue des études arméniennes 22 (1990–91)
217–223.
Hendrickx, Benjamin, “Marie of Brienne’s visit to Cyprus in the context of her quest for
assistance to the Latin Empire of Constantinople,” in Nicholas Coureas and Jona-
than Riley-Smith, eds., Cyprus and the Crusades (papers given at the international
conference of the same name, 6–9 september 1994) (Nicosia, 1995), 59–68.
Hendrickx, Benjamin, “Le royaume latin des Montferrat à Thessalonique (1204–1224):
le roi et les institutions,” Ekklesiastikos Pharos 91 (2009), 248–262.
Hilsdale, Cecily J., “The Imperial Image at the End of Exile: The Byzantine Embroi-
dered Silk in Genoa and the Treaty of Nymphaion (1261),” Dumbarton Oaks Papers
64 (2012), 151–199.
Hilsdale, Cecily J, “Translatio and Objecthood: The Cultural Agendas of Two Greek
Manuscripts at Saint-Denis,” Gesta 56 (2017), 151–178.
274 Bibliography
Hinnebusch, William A., “The Dominican Order and Learning,” in idem, The History of
the Dominican Order. Volume 2: The Intellectual and Cultural Life to 1500 (New York,
1973), 3–18.
Hoeck, Johannes M., and Raymond-Joseph Loenertz, Nikolaos - Nektarios von Otranto.
Abt von Casole, Studia patristica et bizantina 11 (Ettal, 1965).
Horden, Peregrine, Hospitals and Healing from Antiquity to the Later Middle Ages, Vari-
orum Collected Studies (Aldershot, 2008).
Houben, Hubert, Roger II of Sicily. A Ruler between East and West (Cambridge, 2002).
Huizenga, Erwin, “Unintended Signatures: Middle Dutch Translators of Surgical
Works,” in Michèle Goyens, Pieter De Leemans, and Smets An, eds., Science Trans-
lated. Latin and Vernacular Translations of Scientific Treatises in Medieval Europe,
Mediaevalia Lovaniensia. Series 1: Studia 40 (Louvain, 2008), 415–448.
Hunger, Herbert, Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner, 2 vols., Handbu-
ch der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft 9 (Munich, 1978).
Iorga, Nicolae, France de Constantinople et de Morée (Bucarest, 1935).
Jackson, Peter, The Mongols and the West, 1221–1410 (Harlow, 2005).
Jacoby, David, La féodalité en Grèce médiévale. Les “Assises de Romanie,” sources, ap-
plication et diffusion, Documents et recherches sur l’économie des pays byzan-
tins, islamiques et slaves et leurs relations commerciales au moyen âge 10 (Paris,
1971).
Jacoby, David, “La littérature française dans les États latins de la Méditerranée orien-
tale à l’époque des croisades: diffusion et création,” Essor et fortune de la chanson de
geste dans l’Europe et l’Orient latin. Actes du IXe Congrès international de la Société
Rencesvals pour l’étude des épopées romanes, Padoue-Venise, 29 août–4 septembre
1982 (Modena, 1984), 2:617–646.
Jacoby, David, “Knightly values and class consciousness in the crusader states of the
Eastern Mediterranean,” The Medieval Mediterranean 1 (1986), 158–186.
Jacoby, David, “The Venetian Presence in the Latin Empire of Constantinople (1204–
1261): the Challenge of Feudalism and the Byzantine Inheritance,” Jahrbuch der Ös-
terreichischen Byzantinistik 43 (1993), 141–201.
Jacoby, David, “Venetian settlers in Latin Constantinople (1204–1261): Rich or Poor?,” in
Chrysa A. Maltezou, ed., Ricchi e poveri nella società dell’Oriente greco-latino, Biblio-
teca dell’Instituto ellenico di Studi bizantini e postbizantini di Venezia 19 (Venice,
1998a), 181–204.
Jacoby, David “The Jewish Community of Constantinople from the Komnenian to the
Palaiologan Period,” Vizantijskij Vremennik 55 (1998b), 31–40.
Jacoby, David, “The Latin Empire of Constantinople and the Frankish States in Greece,”
in David Abulafia ed., The New Cambridge Medieval History 5: c. 1198–c. 1300 (Cam-
bridge, 1999), 525–542.
Bibliography 275
Jacoby, David, “The Urban Evolution of Latin Constantinople (1204–1261),” in Nevra Ne-
cipoglu, ed., Byzantine Constantinople: Monuments, Topography and Everyday Life
(Leiden, 2001), 277–297.
Jacoby, David, “La consolidation de la domination de Venise dans la ville de Négrepont
(1205–1390),” in Chrysa A. Maltezou and Peter Schreiner, eds., Bisanzio, Venezia e il
mondo franco-greco (XIII–XV secolo) (Venice, 2002), 151–187.
Jacoby, David, “The Economy of Latin Constantinople, 1204–1261,” in Angeliki Laious,
ed., Urbs Capta. The Fourth Crusade and its consequences (Paris, 2005), 195–214.
Jacoby, David, “The Venetian Government and Administration in Latin Constantino-
ple, 1204–1261: A State within a State,” in Gherardo Ortalli, Giorgio Ravegnani, and
Peter Schreiner, eds., Quarta crociata. Venezia, Bisanzio, Impero latino, 2 vols. (Ven-
ice, 2006), 1:19–79.
Jacoby, David, “Multilingualism and Institutional Patterns of Communication in Latin
Romania (Thirteenth-Fourteenth Centuries),” in Alexander D. Beihammer, Maria G.
Parani, and Christopher D. Schabel, eds., Diplomatics in the Eastern Mediterranean
1000–1500. Aspects of Cross-Cultural Communication, The Medieval Mediterranean
74 (Leiden, 2008), 27–48.
Jacoby, David, “Byzantine Culture and the Crusader States,” in Dean Sakel, ed., Byzan-
tine Culture. Papers from the Conference ‘Byzantine Days of Istanbul’ May 21–23 2010
(Ankara, 2014), 197–206.
Jaeschke, Hilde, “Der Trobador Elias Cairel,” Romanische Studien 20 (1921), 149–165.
Janin, Raymond, “Les sanctuaires de Byzance sous la domination latine,” Etudes Byzan-
tines 2 (1944), 134–184.
Janin, Raymond, Constantinople byzantine. Développement urbain et répertoire
topographique, Archives de l’Orient chrétien 4 (Paris, 1964).
Janin, Raymond, “Notes d’Histoire et de Topographie: l’abbaye cistercienne ‘Saint-Ange
de Pétra’ (1214–1261),” Revue d’études byzantines 26 (1968), 171–177.
Janin, Raymond, La Géographie Ecclésiasique de l’Empire byzantin. Première partie:
le Siège de Constantinople et le Patriarcat oecuménique. Tome 3: Les églises et les
monastère, 2nd ed. (Paris, 1969).
Jankovits, Katalin, “Violante de Hungría (Hungría, c. 1216 - Osca / Huesca, 1251) era hija
del rey de Hungría Andrea II y Yolanda de Courtenay,” in Anna Tüskés, ed., Omnis
creatura significans. Essays in Honour of Mária Prokopp (Esztergom, 2009), 55–59.
Jeffreys, Elizabeth, John F. Haldon, Robin Cormack, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Byz-
antine Studies (Oxford, 2008).
Jeffreys, Elizabeth, John F. Haldon, Robin Cormack, “Medieval Greek Epic Poetry,” in
Karl Reichl, ed., Medieval Oral Literature (Berlin, 2012), 459–484.
Jeffreys, Elizabeth, John F. Haldon, Robin Cormack, “Byzantine Romances: Eastern
or Western?,” in Marina S. Brownlee and Dimitri H. Gondicas, eds., Renaissance
276 Bibliography
E ncounters: Greek East and Latin West, Medieval and Renaissance Authors and Texts
8 (Leiden, 2013), 221–237.
Jolivet-Levy, Catherine, “La peinture à Constantinople au XIIIe siècle. Contacts et
échanges avec l’Occident,” in Fabienne Joubert and Jean-Pierre Caillet, eds., Orient
& Occident méditerranéens au XIIIe siècle. Les programmes picturaux (Paris, 2012),
21–40.
Joseph, Timothy A., Tacitus the Epic Successor: Virgil, Lucan and the narrative of civil
war in the Histories, Mnemosyne. Bibliotheca Classica Batava 345 (Leiden, 2012).
Jostmann, Christian, Sibilla Erithea babilonica: Papsttum und Prophetie im 13. Jahrhun-
dert, Monumenta Germaniae HIstorica: Schriften 54 (Hannover, 2006).
Jourdain, Charles, “Un collège oriental à Paris au treizième siècle,” Revue catholique 20
(1862) 49–55.
Jullien de Pommerol, Marie-Henriette, “Les origines du collège de La Marche à Par-
is,” in Caroline Bourlet, Annie Dufour, and Lucie Foster, eds., L’écrit dans la société
médiévale. Divers aspects de sa pratique du XIe au XVe siècle. Textes en hommage à
Lucie Fossier (Paris, 1991), 183–194.
Kalavrezou, Ioli, “Helping Hands for the Empire: Imperial ceremonies and the Cult of
Relics at the Byzantine Court,” in Henry Maguire, ed., Byzantine Court Culture from
829 to 1204 (Washington, D.C., 1997), 53–79.
Kaldellis, Anthony, The Byzantine Republic. People and Power in New Rome (Cambridge,
Mass., 2015).
Kaldellis, Anthony, “The Social Scope of Roman Identity in Byzantium: An Evidence-
Based Approach,” Byzantina Symmeikta 27 (2017a), 173–210.
Kaldellis, Anthony, “Did the Byzantine Empire have ‘Ecumenical’ or ‘Universal’ Aspira-
tions?,” in Clifford Ando and Seth Richardson, eds., Ancient States and Infrastruc-
tural Power: Europe, Asia, and America (Philadelphia, 2017b), 272–300.
Kalopissi-Verti, Sophia, “The Impact of the Fourth Crusade on Monumental Painting
in the Peloponnese and Eastern Central Greece,” in Panayotis L. Vocotopoulos, ed.,
Byzantine Art in the Aftermath of the Fourth Crusade. The Fourth Crusade and Its
Consequences. International Congress, March 9–12, 2004 (Athens, 2007), 82–88.
Kalopissi-Verti, Sophia, “Relations between East and West in the Lordship of Athens
and Thebes after 1204: Archaeological and Artistic Evidence,” in Peter Edbury and
idem, eds., Archaeology and the Crusades. Proceddings of the Round Table, Nicosia, 1
February 2005 (Athens, 2007), 1–33.
Kalopissi-Verti, Sophia, “Aspects of Byzantine Art after the Recapture of Constantino-
ple (1261–c.1300): Reflections of Imperial Policy, Reactions, Confrontation with the
Latins,” in Fabienne Joubert and Jean-Pierre Caillet, eds., Orient & Occident méditer-
ranéens au XIIIe siècle. Les programmes picturaux (Paris, 2012), 41–64.
Kalopissi-Verti, Sophia, “Monumental Art in the Lordship of Athens and Thebes under
Frankish and Catalan Rule (1212–1388): Latin and Greek Patronage,” in Nickiphoros
Bibliography 277
I. Tsougarakis and Peter Lock, eds., A Companion to Latin Greece, Brill’s Companion’s
to European History 6 (Leiden, 2014), 326–368.
Kidonopoulos, Vassilios, Bauten in Konstantinopel 1204–1328. Verfall und Zerstörung,
Restaurierung, Umbau und Neubau von Profan- und Sakralbauten, Mainzer
Veröffentlichungen zur Byzantinistik 1 (Wiesbaden, 1994).
Kidonopoulos, Vassilios, “The urban Physiognomy of Constantinople from the Latin
Conquest through the Palaiologan Era,” in Sarah T. Brooks, ed., Byzantium, Faith,
and Power (1261–1557). Perspectives on Late Byzantine Art and Culture (New York,
2006), 98–117.
King, David A., The Ciphers of the Monks. A Forgotten Number-notation of the Middle
Ages (Stuttgart, 2001).
Kinoshita, Sharon, Medieval Boundaries: Rethinking Difference in Old French Literature
(Philadelphia, 2006).
Kladova, Anna, “The ‘Autobiography’ of Nikephoros Blemmydes. On the Issue of re-
lations between Monasticism and Scholarship in Byzantium,” Scrinium 9 (2013),
229–254.
Klaniczay, Gábor, Holy Rulers and Blessed Princesses. Dynastic Cults in Medieval Central
Europe (Cambridge, 2002).
Klimke, Carl, Die Quellen zur Geschichte des Vierten Kreuzzuges (Breslau, 1875).
Knös, Borje, L’histoire de la littérature néo-grecque, Studia Graeca Upsalensia 1 (Stock-
holm, 1962).
Kyriakidis, Savvas, Warfare in Late Byzantium 1204–1453, History of Warfare 67 (Leiden,
2011).
Kyritses, Demetrios, “The Imperial Council and the Tradition of Consultative D ecision-
making in Byzantium (eleventh to fourteenth centuries),” in Dimiter Angelov
and Michael Saxby, eds., Power and Subversion in Byzantium. Papers from the 43rd
Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Birmingham, March 2010 (Farnham, 2013),
57–70.
Kyritses, Demetrios, “Political and Constitutional Crisis at the End of the Twelfth Cen-
tury,” in Alicia Simpson, ed., Byzantium, 1180–1204: ‘The Sad Quarter of the Century’?,
International Symposium 22 (Athens, 2015), 97–111.
Laiou, Angeliki, ed., Urbs Capta. The Fourth Crusade and its consequences (Paris, 2005).
Laistner, Max L., “The Value and Influence of Cassiodorus’ Ecclesiastical History,” Har-
vard Theological Review 41 (1948), 51–67.
Langdon, John S., John III Ducas Vatatzes’ Byzantine Empire in Anatolian Exile, 1222–54.
The Legacy of His Diplomatic, Military and Internal Program for the “Restitutio Orbis”
(Ann Arbor, 1980).
Labory, Gillette, “Les débuts de la chronique en français (XIIe-XIIIe siècles),” in Erik
Kooper, ed., The Medieval Chronicle III. Proceedings of the 3rd International Confer-
ence on the Medieval Chronicle (Amsterdam, 2004), 1–26.
278 Bibliography
Leclercq, Jean, “Influence and noninfluence of Dionysius in the Western Middle Ages,”
in C. Luidheid and P. Rorem, eds., Pseudo-Dionysius: The Complete Works, The Clas-
sics of Western Spirituality (New Jersey, 1987), 25–32.
Lemerle, Paul, André Guillou, Nicolas Svoronos, and Denise Papachryssanthou, eds.,
Actes de Lavra, 4 vols., Archives de l’Athos (Paris, 1970–1982).
Lilie, Ralph-Johannes, Handel und Politik zwischen dem byzantinischen Reich und den
italienischen Kommunen Venedig, Pisa und Genua in der Epoche der Komnenen und
der Angeloi (1081–1204) (Amsterdam, 1984).
Linardou, Kallirroe, “A Resting Place for ‘The First of Angels’: The Michaelion at Sosthe-
nion,” in Alicia Simpson, ed., Byzantium, 1180–1204: ‘The Sad Quarter of the Century’?,
International Symposium 22 (Athens, 2015), 245–259.
Lindberg, David C., The Beginnings of Western Science: The European Scientific Tradition
in Philosophical, Religious, and Institutional Context, Prehistory to A.D. 1450, 2nd ed.
(Chicago, 2007).
Lock, Peter, “The Latin emperors as heirs to Byzantium,” in Paul Magdalino, ed., New
Constantines. The Rythm of imperial renewal in Byzantium, 4th–13th centuries. Papers
from the twenty-sixth spring symposium of Byzantine studies, St. Andrews, march 1992
(Cambridge, 1994), 295–304.
Loenertz, Raymond-Joseph, “Autour du traité de fr. Barthélemy de Constantinople con-
tre les Grecs,” Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 6 (1936), 361–371.
Loenertz, Raymond-Joseph, “Les seigneurs tierciers de Négrepont de 1205 à 1280,” Byz-
antion 35 (1965), 235–276.
Longnon, Jean, “Le prince de Morée chansonnier,” Romania 65 (1939), 95–100.
Longnon, Jean, “Le rattachement de la principauté de Morée au royaume de Sicile en
1267,” Journal des Savants (1942), 134–143.
Longnon, Jean, L’empire latin de Constantinople (Paris, 1949).
Longnon, Jean, “L’empereur Baudouin II et l’ordre de Saint-Jacques,” Byzantion 22
(1952), 297–299.
Longnon, Jean, “Les premiers ducs d’Athènes et leur famille,” Journal des Savants (1973),
61–80.
Longnon, Jean, Les compagnons de Villehardouin. Recherche sur les croisés de la
quatrième croisade, Hautes études médiévales et modernes 30 (Genève, 1978).
Lower, Michael, The Barons’ Crusade. A Call to Arms and Its Consequences (Philadel-
phia, 2005).
Luzi, Romina, “Les romans paléologues: à la charnière de plusieurs traditions,” in
Emese Egedi-Kovács, ed., Byzance et l’Occident III. Ecrits et manuscrits, Antiquitas–
Byzantium–Renascentia 23 (Budapest, 2016a), 71–87.
Luzi, Romina, “Les lecteurs des romans byzantins,” in Emese Egedi-Kovács, ed., Byz-
ance et l’Occident III. Ecrits et manuscrits, Antiquitas–Byzantium–Renascentia 23
(Budapest, 2016b), 281–293.
Bibliography 279
Macrides, Ruth, “The Competent Court,” in Angeliki .E. Laiou and Dieter Simon, eds.,
Law and Society in Byzantium. Ninth-Twelfth Centuries, Dumbarton oaks Research
Library and Collection (Washington, 1994), 117–129.
Madden, Thomas F., “The Fires of the Fourth Crusade in Constantinople, 1203–1204:
A Damage Assessment,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 84/85 (1991/1992), 72–93.
Madden, Thomas F.,“Outside and Inside the Fourth Crusade,” International History Re-
view 17 (1995), 726–743.
Madden, Thomas F., “The Latin Empire of Constantinople’s Fractured Foundation: The
Rift between Boniface of Montferrat and Baldwin of Flanders,” in idem, ed., The
Fourth Crusade: Event, Aftermath, and Perceptions. Papers from the Sixth Conference
of the Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East, Istanbul, Turkey, 25–29
August 2004, Crusades–Subsidia 2 (Aldershot, 2008), 45–52.
Madden, Thomas F., ed., The Fourth Crusade: Event, Aftermath, and Perceptions. Pa-
pers from the Sixth Conference of the Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin
East, Istanbul, Turkey, 25–29 August 2004, Crusades–Subsidia 2 (Aldershot, 2008).
Magdalino, Paul, The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos (1143–1180) (Cambridge, 1993).
Magdalino, Paul, “Constantinopolitana,” in I. Sevcenko and I. Hutter, eds., AETOS.
Studies in Honour of Cyril Mango (Stuttgart, 1998), 220–232.
Magdalino, Paul, “Medieval Constantinople: Built Environment and Urban Develop-
ment,” in Angeliki E. Laiou, ed., The Economic History of Byzantium From the Seventh
through the Fifteenth Century, Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection 39
(Washington, D.C., 2002a), 1:529–537.
Magdalino, Paul, “The Byzantine Reception of Classical Astrology”, in Catherine
Holmes and Judith Waring, eds., Literacy, education and manuscript transmission in
Byzantium and beyond, (Leiden, 2002b), 33–57.
Magdalino, Paul, L’orthodoxie des astrologues. La science entre le dogme et la divination
à Byzance, VIIe–XIVe siècle, Réalités byzantines 12 (Paris, 2006a).
Magdalino, Paul, “Occult Science and Imperial Power in Byzantine History and Histo-
riography (9th–12th centuries),” in idem and Maria Mavroudi, eds., The Occult Sci-
ences in Byzantium (Paris, 2006b), 119–162.
Majeska, George P., “The Relics of Constantinople after 1204,” in Jannic Durand and
Bernard Flusin, eds., Byzance et les reliques du Christ, Travaux et Mémoires 17 (Paris,
2004), 183–190.
Malamut, Elisabeth, “De l’empire des Romains à la nation des Hellènes. Evolution
identitaire des byzantins de la fin du XIe au XVe siècle,” Nation et nations au Moyen
Âge (Paris, 2014), 165–179.
Manousakas, Manousos I., “To elleniko demotiko tragoudi gia to Basilia Erriko tes Ph-
lantras,” Laographia 14 (1952), 1–52.
Manousakas, Manousos I., “Kai Pali to Tragoudi gia to Basilia Erriko tes Phlantras,” Lao-
graphia 15 (1954), 336–370.
280 Bibliography
Marendon, John, Boethius, Great Medieval Thinkers (Oxford, 2003).

Marin, Serban, “The Venetian Community—between Civitas and Imperium. A project
of the capital’s transfer from Venice to Constantinople according to Daniele Bar-
baro’s Chronicle,” European Review of History 10 (2003), 81–102.
Marinis, Vassileios, Architecture and Ritual in the Churches of Constantinople (Cam-
bridge, 2014).
Martin, “The Venetian-Seljuk Treaty of 1220,” English Historical Review 95 (1980),
321–330.
Mateucci, Gualberto, Un glorioso convento francescano sulle rive del Bosforo. Il S. Fran-
cesco di Galata in Constantinopoli, c. 1230–1697, Biblioteca di studi francescani 7
(Florence, 1967).
Mavroudi, Maria, “Occult Science and Society in Byzantium. Considerations for Fu-
ture Research,” in Paul Magdalino and idem, eds., The Occult Sciences in Byzantium
(Paris, 2006), 39–95.
Mavroudi, Maria, “Learned Women of Byzantium and the Surviving Record,” in Denis
Sullivan, Elizabeth Fisher, and Stratis Papaioannou, eds., Byzantine Religious Cul-
ture. Studies in Honor of Alice-Mary Talbot, The Medieval Mediterranean 92 (Leiden,
2012), 55–84.
Maxwell, Kathleen, Between Constantinople and Rome: An Illuminated Gospel Book
(Paris gr. 54) and the Union of Churches (Farnham, 2014a).
Maxwell, Kathleen, “The Afterlife of Texts: Decorative Style Manuscripts and New Tes-
tament Textual Criticism,” in Lynn Jones, ed., Byzantine Images and Their Afterlives.
Essays in Honor of Annemarie Weyl Carr (Farnham, 2014b), 11–38.
Mazal, Otto, Geschichte der abendländischen Wissenschaft des Mittelalters, 2 vols (Graz,
2006).
Mazzoleni, Bianca (eds.), Gli atti perduti della cancellaria angioina tranuntati da Carlo
de Lellis, Regesta Chartarum Italiae 25 (Roma, 1939).
McCluskey, Stephen, Astronomies and Cultures in Early Medieval Europe (Cambridge,
1998).
McDaniel, Gordon, “On Hungarian-Serbian relations in the thirteenth century: John
Angelos and Queen Jelena,” Ungarn-Jahrbuch 12 (1982/1983), 43–50.
McEnvoy, James, Robert Grosseteste, Great Medieval Thinkers (Oxford, 2000).
McEnvoy, James, Mystical Theology: The Glosses by Thomas Gallus and the Commentary
by Robert Grosseteste on De Mystica Theologia. Edition, Translation and introduction,
Dallas Medieval Texts and Translations 3 (Louvain, 2003).
McGuire, Brendan J., “Evidence for religious accomodation in Latin Constantinople:
a new approach to bilingual liturgical texts,” Journal of Medieval History 39 (2013),
342–356.
Menegaldo, Silvère, “César ‘d’ire enflamez et espris’ (v. 1696) dans le Roman de Jules
César de Jean de Thuin,” Cahiers de Recherches mediévales et humanistes 13 (2006),
59–76.
Bibliography 281
Merianos, Gerasimos, “Literary Allusions to Trade and Merchants: The ‘Great Merchant’
in Late Twelfth-Century Byzantium,” in Alicia Simpson, ed., Byzantium, 1180–1204: ‘The
Sad Quarter of the Century’?, International Sympsoium 22 (Athens, 2015), 221–243.
Mergiali-Falangas, Sophia, “L’Ecole Saint Paul de l’Orphelinat à Constantinople:
bref aperçu sur son statut et son histoire, ” Revue des Etudes Byzantines 49 (1991),
237–246.
Messis, Charis, “Lectures sexuees de l’alterite. Les Latins et identite romaine menacée
pendant les derniers siecles de Byzance,” Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinis-
tik 61 (2011), 151–70.
Miller, Timothy S., “The Sampson Hospital of Constantinople,” Byzantinische Forschun-
gen 15 (1990), 101–135.
Miller, Timothy S., The Birth of the Hospital in the Byzantine Empire, 2nd ed. (Balti-
more, 1997).
Minervini, Laura, “Le français dans l’Orient latin (XIII e-XIV e siècles). Éléments pour
la caractérisation d’une scripta du Levant,” Revue de Linguistique Romane 74 (2010),
119–198.
Mitsani, Angeliki, “Monumental Painting in the Cyclades during the 13th century,” Del-
tion tis Christianikis Archaialogikis Etaireias 21 (2000), 93–122.
Mitsani, Angeliki, “Die Netzwerke einer kulturellen Begegnung: byzantinische und
lateinische Klöster in Konstantinopel im 13. und 14. Jahrhundert,” in Klaus O
schema,
Ludger Lieb, and Johannes Heil, eds., Abrahams Erbe: Konkurrenz, Konflikt und Ko-
existenz der Religionen im europäischen Mittelalter (Berlin, 2015a), 359–374.
Mitsani, Angeliki, “The Byzantines and the ‘others’: between ‘transculturality’ and
discrimination,” in Christian Gastgeber and Falko Daim, eds., Byzantium as Bridge
between West and East: Proceedings of the International Conference, Vienna, 3rd–5th
May 2012 (Vienna, 2015b), 65–74.
Mulchahey, Marian M., ‘First the Bow is Bent in Study …’: Dominican Education before
1350, Studies and Texts 132 (Toronto, 1998).
Mullet, Margaret, and Roger Roger Scott, eds., Byzantium and the Classical Tradition
(Birmingham, 1981).
Negrau, Elisabeta, “The Ruler’s Portrait in Byzantine Art. A Few Observations regarding
Its Functions,” European Journal of Science and Theology 7 (2011), 63–75.
Nelson, Robert S., “The Italian appreciation and appropriation of illuminated Byzan-
tine manuscripts, ca. 1200–1450,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 49 (1995), 209–235.
Newman, Charlotte A., The Anglo-Norman Nobility in the Reign of Henry I. The Second
Generation (Philadelphia, 1988).
Nicholson, Helen, “Echoes of Past and Present Crusades in Les Prophecies de Merlin,”
Romania 122 (2004), 320–340.
Nicol, Donald M., Byzantium and Venice. A study in diplomatic and cultural relations
(Cambridge, 1988)
Nicol, Donald M., The Last Centuries of Byzantium 1261–1453 (Cambridge, 1993).
282 Bibliography
Nieus, Jean-François, Un pouvoir comtal entre Flandre et France: Saint-Pol, 1100–1300

(Brussels, 2005).
Nikolau, Theodor, “Vervollständigung des Schismas zwischen Ost- und Westkirche im
Jahr 1204 und die Anfänge des Uniatismus,” in idem, Das Schisma zwischen Ost- Und
Westkirche 950 bzw. 800 danach (1054 und 1204), Beiträge aus dem Zentrum für öku-
menische Forschung München (Münster, 2004), 73–95.
Noble, Peter, “Villehardouin, Robert de Clari and Henri de Valenciennes. Their differ-
ent approaches to the Fourth Crusade,” in Eric Kooper, ed., The Medieval Chronicle.
Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on the Medieval Chronicle, Costerus
New Series 120 (Amsterdam, 1999), 202–211.
Noble, Peter, “The importance of old French chronicles as historical sources of the
Fourth Crusade and the early Latin Empire of Constantinople,” Journal of Medieval
History 27 (2001), 399–416.
Noble, Peter, “Epic heroes in thirteenth-century French chroniclers,” in Eric Kooper,
ed., The Medieval Chronicle III. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on the
Medieval Chronicle (Amsterdam, 2004), 135–145.
Norden, Walter, Das Papsttum und Byzanz. Die Trennung der beiden Mächte und das
Problem ihrer Wiedervereinigung bis zum Untergange des byzantinischen Reiches
(1453) (Berlin, 1903).
North, John D., “Scholars and Power: Astrologers at the Courts of Medieval Europe,” in
Josep Batllo Ortiz, Pasqual Bernat Lopez, and Roser Puig Aguilar, eds., Actes de la VI
Trobada d’Historià de la Ciència i de la Tècnic (Barcelona, 2002), 13–28.
Nothaft, Phillip E., Dating The Passion. The Life of Jesus and the Emergence of Scientific
Chronology (200–1600), Time, Astronomy, and Calendars: Texts and Studies (Brill,
2012).
Obolensky, Dimitri, Six Byzantine Portraits (Oxford, 1988).
O’Loughlin, Thomas, “Astrology and Thirteenth Century Philosophy: A New Angle on
Old Problems,” Milltown Studies 33 (1994), 89–110.
Orme, Nicholas, From Childhood to Chivalry. The Education of the English Kings and
Aristocracy 1060–1530 (London, 1984).
Ortalli, Gherardo, Da Canossa a Tebe. Vicende di una famiglia feudale tra XII e XIII seco-
lo, Materiali e ricerche 9 (Padova, 1983).
Ortalli, Gherardo, Giorgio Ravegnani, and Peter Schreiner, eds., Quarta crociata. Vene-
zia, Bisanzio, Impero latino, 2 vols. (Venice, 2006).
Ousterhout, Robert, Master Builders of Byzantium (Princeton, 1999).
Ousterhout, Robert, “Architecture and Cultural Identity in the Eastern Mediterranean,”
in Michael Borgolte and Bernd Schneidmüller, eds., Hybrid Cultures in Medieval Eu-
rope (Berlin, 2010), 261–275.
Page, Gill, Being Byzantine: Greek identity before the Ottomans (Cambridge, 2008)
Bibliography 283
Page, Gill, “Literature in Frankish Greece,” in Nickiphoros I. Tsougarakis and Peter

Lock, eds., A Companion to Latin Greece, Brill’s Companions to European History 6
(Leiden, 2014), 314–320.
Palagyi, Tivadar, “Métaphraser et mettre en roman: diglossie et bilinguisme à Byzance
et en France au XIIIe siècle,” in Patrick Renaud, ed., Les situations de plurilinguisme
en Europe, Cahiers de la Nouvelle Europe. Collection du Centre Interuniversitaire
d’Etudes Hongroises 11 (Paris, 2014), 25–37.
Palazzo, Benedetto, L’Arap-Djami ou église Saint-Paul à Galata (Istanbul, 1946).
Papalexandrou, Amy, “The Architectural Layering of History in the Medieval Morea.
Monuments, Memories and Fragments of the Past,” in Sharon E. Gerstel, ed., View-
ing the Morea. Land and People in the Late Medieval Peloponnese, Dumbarton Oaks
Research Library and Collection (Washington, D.C., 2013), 23–54.
Panayotidi, Maria, “Les peintures murales de Saint-Georges de Lathrino à Naxos,” Del-
tion tis Christianikis Archaialogikis Etaireias 16 (1991/1992), 139–154.
Panayotidi, Maria, “Thirteenth-Century Icons and Frescoes at Catherine’s Monastery
on Mount Sinai. Some Observations,” in Fabienne Joubert and Jean-Pierre Caillet,
eds., Orient & Occident méditerranéens au XIIIe siècle. Les programmes picturaux
(Paris, 2012), 87–102.
Papamastorakis, Titos, “Interpreting the De Signis of Niketas Choniates,” in Alicia
Simpson and S. Efthymiades, eds., Niketas Choniates. A Historian and a Writer (Ge-
neva, 2009), 209–222.
Paravicini Bagliani, Agostino, “Federico II e la Curia romana: rapporti culturali e scienti-
fici,” in Pierre Toubert and idem, eds., Federico II e le scienze (Palermo, 1995), 439–458.
Paris, Paulin, “Astrologue anonyme, ” in Histoire Littéraire de la France 21 (Paris, 1847),
423–433.
Pasnau, Robert, “The Latin Aristotle,” in Christopher Shields, ed., The Oxford Handbook
of Aristotle (Oxford, 2012), 665–689.
Pattin, Adriaan, “Pour la biographie de Guillaume de Moerbeke O.P.,” Angelicum 66
(1989), 390–402.
Paulmier-Foucart, Monique, and Serge Lusignan, “Vincent de Beauvais et l’histoire du
Speculum Maius,” Journal des Savants 1 (1990), 97–124.
Perez Martin, Inmaculada, “El libro de Actor. Una traducción bizantina del Speculum doc-
trinale de Beauvais (Vat. Gr. 12 y 1144),” Revue des études byzantines 55 (1997), 81–136.
Perez Martin, Inmaculada, “The Transmission of Some Writings by Psellos in Thir-
teenth-century Constantinople,” in Antonio Rigo, ed., Theologica Minora: The Minor
Genres of Byzantine Theological Literature, Byzantios. Studies in Byzantine History
and Civilization 8 (Turnhout, 2013), 159–174.
Perry, Guy, John of Brienne: King of Jerusalem, Emperor of Constantinople, c. 1175–1237
(Cambridge, 2013).
284 Bibliography
Philippides, Marios, and Walter K. Hanak, The Siege and the Fall of Constantinople in
1453. Historiography, Topography, and Military Studies (Farnham, 2011).
Phillips, Jonathan, The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople (London, 2005).
Pigné, Christine, “Hypnos et Thanatos: une association traditionelle renouvelée à la
Renaissance,” L’information littéraire 60 (2008), 21–34.
Pingree, David, “The Astrological Translations of Masha’allah in Interrogational Astrol-
ogy,” in Paul Magdalino and Maria Mavroudi, eds., The Occult Sciences in Byzantium
(Paris, 2006), 231–243.
Popovic, Danica, “Sacrae Reliquiae of the Saviour Church in Zica [in Serbo-Croatian],”
in Pod okriljem svetosti. Kult svetih vladara i relikvija u srednjovekovnoj Srbiji (Bel-
grade, 2006), 207–232.
Popovic, Danica, “A staurotheke of Serbian provenance in Pienza,” Zograf 36 (2012),
157–170.
Popovic, Dusan, “Discontinuity and Continuity of Byzantine Literary Tradition After
the Crusaders’ Capture of Constantinople: The Case of ‘Original’ Byzantine Novels,”
in Vlada Stankovic, ed., The Balkans and the Byzantine World before and after the
Captures of Constantinople, 1204 and 1453 (Lanham, 2016), 23–30.
Pozza, Marco, “I Libri Pactorum del commune di Venezia,” in: Comune e memoria stor-
ica. Alle origini del commune di Genova, Atti della società ligure di storia patria. Nu-
ove serie 42/1 (Genova, 2002), 195–211.
Pozza, Marco, “I notai della cancellaria,” in Giorgio Tamba, ed., Il notariato veneziano
tra X e XV secolo (Bologna, 2013), 177–204.
Prato, Giancarlo, “La produzione libraria in area greco-orientale nel periodo del regno
latino di Costantinopoli (1204–1261),” Scrittura e Civiltà 5 (1981), 105–147.
Prevenier, Walter, “La chancellerie de l’empire latin de Constantinople (1204–1261),” in
Victoria D. Van Aalst and Krijnie N. Ciggaar, eds., The Latin Empire. Some contribu-
tions (Hernen, 1990), 63–81.
Pycke, Jacques, Le chapitre cathédral Notre-Dame de Tournai de la fin du XIe à
la fin du XIIIe siècle. Son organisation, sa vie, ses membres, Recueil de travaux
d’histoire et de philologie de l’université de Louvain 30, 6e série (Louvain-la-Neuve,
1986).
Queller, Donald E., The Latin conquest of Constantinople (New York, 1971).
Queller, Donald, and Thomas F. Madden, The Fourth Crusade. The Conquest of Constan-
tinople, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia, 1997).
Reeves, Marjorie, The Influence of Prophecy in the Later Middle ages. A Study in Joachi-
mism (Oxford, 1969).
Reinert, Stephen W., “The Muslim Presence in Constantinople, 9th–15th Centuries:
Some preliminary Observations,” in Hélène Ahrweiler and Angeliki E. Laiou, eds.,
Studies on the Internal Diaspora of the Byzantine Empire (Washington, D.C., 1998),
125–150.
Bibliography 285
Renardy, Christine, Le monde des maîtres universitaires du diocèse de Liège 1140–1350.

Recherches sur sa composition et ses activités, Bibliothèque de la Faculté de Philoso-
phie et Lettres de l’Université de Liège 227 (Paris, 1979).
Repetto, Paolo, “I trovatori alla corte di Bonifacio I di Monferrato,” Rivista di Storia Arte
Archeologia per le Province di Alessandria e Asti 109 (2000) 153–161.
Riant, Paul E., Le changement de direction de la 4e croisade d’après quelques travaux
récents (Paris, 1878).
Riedl, Andrea, “Das Purgatorium im 13. Jahrhundert: Schlaglichter auf ein Novum der
ost-westlichen Kontroverstheologie am Vorabend des II. Konzils von Lyon (1274),”
Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum 40 (2014), 363–370.
Richard, Jean, “L’enseignement des langues orientales en Occident au Moyen Age,”
Revue des études islamiques 44 (1976), 149–164.
Richard, Jean, “A propos de la mission de Baudouin de Hainaut: l’empire latin de Con-
stantinople et les Mongols,” Journal des Savants (1992), 115–121.
Rhoby, Andreas, “Theodoros Metochites’ Byzantios and other city encomia of the 13th
and 14th centuries,” in Ville de toute beauté. L’ekphrasis des cités dans les littératures
byzantine et byzantino-slaves, Dossiers byzantins 12 (Paris, 2012), 81–99.
Rodriguez Suarez, Alex, “Interacción entre latinos y bizantinos en vísperas de la Cuarta
Cruzada (1204): el testimonio de Teodoro Balsamón,” Estudios bizantinos 4 (2016),
176–185.
Rodenberg, Carl, ed., Epistolae saeculi XIII e regestis Pontificum Romanorum selectae (ex
Innocentii IV registro), vol. 2, Monumenta Germaniae Historica (Berlin, 1887).
Rogerus, Bacon, Opus Tertium, in John S. Brewer, ed., Opera quaedam hactenus inedita,
Rerum Britannicarum medii aevi scriptores 1 (London, 1859).
Rose, Paula J., Commentary on Augustine’s De cura pro mortuis gerenda: Rhetoric in
Practice, Amsterdam Studies in Classical Philology 20 (Leiden, 2013).
Rossi, Pietro, “La Translatio anonyma e la Translatio Guillelmi del De partibus anima-
lium (analisi del libro I),” in Jozef Brams and Willy Vanhamel, eds., Guillaume de Mo-
erbeke. Recueil d’études à l’occasion du 700e anniversaire de sa mort (1286) (Louvain,
1989), 221–294.
Runciman, Steven, The Sicilian Vespers. A History of the Mediterranean World in the
later thirteenth century (Cambridge, 1958).
Runciman, Steven, The Byzantine Theocracy (Cambridge, 1977).
Ryder, Judith, “Byzantium and the West in the 1360’s: The Kydones Version,” in Jona-
than Harris, Catherine Holmes, and Eugenia Russel, eds., Byzantines, Latins, and
Turks in the Eastern Mediterranean World After 1150, Oxford Studies in Byzantium
(Oxford, 2012), 345–366.
Ryder, Judith, “Demetrius Kydones’ ‘History of the Crusades’: Reality or Rhetoric?,” in
Nikolaos G. Chrissis and Mike Carr, eds., Contact and Conflict in Frankish Greece and
the Aegean, 1204–1453. Crusades–Subsidia 5 (Aldershot, 2014), 97–114.
286 Bibliography
Saint-Guillain, Guillaume, “Deux îles grecques au temps de l’empire latin. Andros et

Lemnos au XIIIe siècle,” Mélanges de l’école française de Rome. Moyen Âge 113 (2001),
579–620.
Saint-Guillain, Guillaume, “Les conquérants de l’archipel: l’empire latin de Constan-
tinople, Venise et les premiers seigneurs des Cylades,” in Gherardo Ortalli, Giorgio
Ravegnani, and Peter Schreiner, eds., Quarta crociata. Venezia, Bisanzio, Impero la-
tino, 2 vols. (Venice, 2006), 1:125–137.
Saint-Guillain, Guillaume, “Comment les Vénitiens n’ont pas acquis la Crète: note à
propos de l’élection impériale de 1204 et du partage projeté de l’Empire byzantin,”
Travaux et Mémoires 16 (2010), 713–758.
Saint-Guillain, Guillaume, “Les seigneurs de Salona, un lignage picard en Grèce
médiévale,” Thesaurismata 44 (2014), 9–49.
Salvador Martinez, H., Alfonso X the Learned. A Biography, Studies in the History of
Christian Traditions (Leiden, 2010).
Sanders, Guy, “Use of Ancient Spolia to Make Personal and Political Statements: Wil-
liam of Moerbeke’s Church at Merbaka (Ayia Triada, Argolida),” Hesperia 84 (2015),
583–626.
Sarris, Peter, “Economics, Trade and ‘Feudalism,’” in Liz James, ed., A Companion to
Byzantium (Chicester, 2010), 25–42.
Schmitt, Wolfgang O., “Lateinische Literatur in Byzanz. Die Übersetzungen des Maxi-
mos Planudes und die moderne Forschung,” Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzan-
tinistik 17 (1968), 127–148.
Schramm, “Das lateinische Kaisertum in Konstantinopel (1204–1261) im Lichte der Sta-
atssymbolik,” in idem, Herrschaftszeichen und Staatssymbolik, Schriften der Monu-
menta Germaniae Historica 13/3 (Stuttgart, 1956), 837–868.
Schulz-Gora, Oskar, “Die Tenzone zwischen Raimbaut und Coine,” Zeitschrift für ro-
manische Philologie 41 (1921), 703–710.
Seláf, Levente, “Constantinople et la Hongrie dans le Cycle des Sept Sages de Rome,” in
Emese Egedi-Kovács, ed., Byzance et l’Occident III. Ecrits et manuscrits, Antiquitas–
Byzantium– Renascentia 23 (Budapest, 2016).
Setton, Kenneth M., “Athens in the later XIIth century,” Speculum 19 (1944), 179–207.
Setton, Kenneth M., The Papacy and the Levant (1204–1571). Volume 1: The Thirteenth and
Fourteenth Centuries (Philadelphia, 1976).
Shawcross, Teresa, “Re-inventing the Homeland in the Historiography of Frankish
Greece: the Fourth Crusade and the Legend of the Trojan War,” Byzantine and Mod-
ern Greek Studies 27 (2003), 120–152.
Shawcross, Teresa, The Chronicle of Morea. Historiography in Crusader Greece, Oxford
Studies in Byzantium (Oxford, 2009).
Shawcross, Teresa, “Conquest Legitimized: The Making of a Byzantine Emperor in
Crusader Constantinople 1204–1261,” in Jonathan Harris, Catherine Holmes, and
Bibliography 287
ugenia Russel, eds., Byzantines, Latins, and Turks in the Eastern Mediterranean
E
World After 1150, Oxford Studies in Byzantium (Oxford, 2012), 181–220.
Shepard, Jonathan, “Byzantine Diplomacy, A.D. 800–1204: Means and Ends,” in idem
and Simon C. Franklin, eds., Byzantine Diplomacy (Aldershot, 1992), 41–71.
Shepard, Jonathan, “Emperors and Expansionism. From Rome to Middle Byzantium,”
in David Abulafia and Nora Berend, eds., Medieval Frontiers: Concepts and Practices
(Farnham, 2002), 55–82.
Simpson, Alicia, “Perceptions and Interpretations of the Late Twelfth Century in Mod-
ern Historiography,” in idem, ed., Byzantium, 1180–1204: ‘The Sad Quarter of the Cen-
tury’?, International Symposium 22 (Athens, 2015), 13–34.
Smith, Thomas W., “Between Two Kings: Pope Honorius III and the Seizure of the
Kingdom of Jerusalem by Frederick II in 1225,” Journal of Medieval History 41 (2015),
41–59.
Smythe, Dion C., “Insiders and Outsiders,” in Liz James, ed., A Companion to Byzan-
tium (Chisester, 2010), 67–80.
Spence, Richard, “Gregory IX’s attempted expeditions to the Latin empire of Constan-
tinople: the crusade for the union of the Latin and Greek churches,” Journal of Me-
dieval History 5 (1979), 163–176.
Spiegel, Gabrielle M., Romancing the Past. The Rise of Venacular Prose Historiography in
Thirteenth Century France, The New Historicism 23 (Berkeley, 1993).
Spiegel, Gabrielle M., “The Textualization of the Past in French Historical Writing,” in
Elizabeth Morrison and Anne D. Hedeman, eds., Imagining the Past in France. His-
tory in Manuscript Painting, 1250–1500 (Los Angeles, 2010), 43–52.
Stadtmüller, Georg, Michael Choniates, Metropolit von Athen, Orientalia Christiana
Analecta 33 (Rome, 1934).
Stahl, Alan M., “Coinage and Money in the Latin Empire,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 55
(2001), 197–206.
Stathakopoulos, Dionysios, “Discovering a Military Order of the Crusades: The Hospi-
tal of St. Samson of Constantinople,” Viator 37 (2006) 255–273.
Stavrou, Michel, “Les tentatives gréco-latines de rapprochement ecclésial au 13e siècle,”
in Marie-Hélène Blanchet and Frédéric Gabriel, eds., Réduire le schisme? Ecclésiologies
et politiques de l’Union entre Orient et Occident (XIIIe–XVIIIe siècle), Monographies du
centre de recherche d’histoire et civilisation de Byzance 39 ( Paris, 2013), 41–56.
Steckel, Sita, “Networks of Learning in Byzantine East and Latin West: Methodologi-
cal Considerations and Starting Points for Further Work,” in Niels Gaul idem, and
Michael Grünbart, eds., Networks of Learning. Perspectives on Scholars in Byzantine
East and Latin West, c. 1000–1200 (Berlin, 2015), 185–234.
Steinschneider, Moritz, “Die Europaischen Ubersetzungen aus dem Arabischen bis
Mitte des 17. Jahrhunderts,” Sitzungsberichte der Akademie der Wissenschaften in
Wien. Philologisch-historische Klasse 151 (1905).
288 Bibliography
Stevenson, Francis S., Robert Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln. A Contribution to the Re-
ligious, Political and Intellectual History of the Thirteenth Century (London, 1899).
Stiernon, Daniel, “Le problème de l’union gréco-latine vu de Byzance. De Germain II à
Joseph Ier (1232–1273),” 1274, année charnière. Mutations et continuités (Paris, 1977),
139–166.
Stolte, Bernard, “Vatatzes versus Baldwin. The Case of the Sovereignty of Constanti-
nople,” in Victoria D. Van Aalst and Krijnie N. Ciggaar, eds., The Latin Empire. Some
contributions (Hernen, 1990), 127–132.
Stouraitis, Ioannis, “Jihad and Crusade: Byzantine Positions towards the Notions of
Holy War,” Byzantina Symmeikta 21 (2011), 11–63.
Stouraitis, Ioannis, “Roman identity in Byzantium: a critical approach,” Byzantinische
Zeitschrift 107 (2014), 175–220.
Stouraitis, Ioannis, “Reinventing Roman Ethnicity in High and Late Medieval Byzan-
tium,” Medieval Worlds. Comparative & Interdisciplinary Studies 5 (2017), 70–94.
Striker, Cecil L., and Y. Dogan Kuban, eds., Kalenderhane in Istanbul: The Buildings,
Their History, Architecture, and Decoration (Mainz, 1997).
Takács, Imre, “The French Connection. On the Courtenay Family and Villard de Hon-
necourt à propos a 13th Century Incised Slab from Pilis Abbey,” in Jiri Fajt, and
Markus Hörsch, eds., Künstlerische Wechselwirkungen in Mitteleuropa (Ostfildern,
2006), 11–27.
Talbot, Alice-Mary, “The restoration of Constantinople under Michael VIII,” Dumbar-
ton Oaks Papers 47 (1993), 243–262.
Talbot, Alice-Mary, “Building Activity in Constantinople Under Andronikos II: The
Role of Women Patrons in the Construction and Restoration of Monasteries,” in
Nevra Necipoglu, ed., Byzantine Constantinople: Monuments, Topography and Every-
day Life, The Medieval Mediterranean 33 (Leiden, 2001), 329–343.
Tarnanides, Ioannes C., “Byzantine-Bulgarian ecclesiastical relations during the reigns
of Joannis Vatatzis and Ivan Asen II, up to the year 1235,” Cyrillomethodianum 3
(1975), 28–52.
Thijssen, Johannes M., Censure and Heresy at the University of Paris, 1200–1400 (Phila-
delphia, 1998).
Thomas, John P., Private Religious Foundations in the Byzantine Empire, Dumbarton
Oaks Studies 24 (Washington, D.C., 1987).
Thorndike, Lynn, A History of Magic and Experimental Science (New York, 1923).
Thorndike, Lynn, “The Horoscope of Barbarossa’s First-Born,” The American Historical
Review 64 (1959), 319–322.
Thorndike, Lynn, “Relation between Byzantine and Western Science and Pseudo-
Science before 1350,” Janus 51 (1964), 1–48.
Bibliography 289
Tihon, Anne, “Traités byzantins sur l’astrolabe,” Physis. Rivista internazionale di storia
della scienza 32 (1995), 323–357.
Tihon, Anne, “Astrological Promenade in Byzantium in the Early Palaiologan Period,” in
Paul Magdalino and Maria Mavroudi, eds., The Occult Sciences in Byzantium (Paris,
2006), 265–290.
Tinnefeld, Franz, “Intellectuals in Late Byzantine Thessalonike,” Dumbarton Oaks Pa-
pers 57 (2003), 153–172.
Tisserant, Eugène, “La légation en Orient du Franciscain Dominique d’Aragon,” Revue
de l’Orient Chrétien 24 (1924), 336–355.
Traver, Andrew G., “Intellectual Relations Between the Latin Empire of Constantino-
ple and the University of Paris,” in Michael Aradas and Nicholas C. Pappas, eds.,
Themes in European History: Essays from the 2nd International Conference on Euro-
pean History Atiner. Athens Institute for Education and Research (Athens, 2005),
183–190.
Treitinger, Otto, Die Oströmische Kaiser- und Reichsidee (Darmstadt, 1956).
Trotter, David, Medieval French Literature and the Crusades (1100–1300), Histoire des
idées et critique littéraire 26 (Geneva, 1988).
Tsougarakis, Nickiphoros I., The Latin Religious Orders in Medieval Greece, 1204–1500,
Medieval Church Studies 18 (Turnhout, 2012).
Tudorie, Ionut A., “Old and New in the Byzantine Imperial Coronation in the 13th
Century,” Ostkirchliche Studien 60 (2011), 69–109.
Uzelac, Aleksandar, “Baldwin of Hainaut and the ‘Nomadic Diplomacy’ of the Latin
Empire [in Serbo-Croatian],” Istorijski Casopis 61 (2012), 45–65.
Van Arkel De Leeuw Van Weenen, Andrea, and Krijnie Ciggaar, “St. Thorlac’s in Con-
stantinople, built by a Flemish emperor,” Byzantion 49 (1979), 428–446.
van Dieten, Jean-Louis, “Die drei Fassungen der Historia des Niketas Choniates uber
die Eroberung von Konstantinopel und die Ereignisse danach,” in Ioannis Vassis,
Gunther S. Henrich, Diether R. Reinsch, eds., Lesarten: Festschrift fur Athanasios
Kambylis zum 70. Geburtstag (Berlin, 1998), 137–160.
Vanhamel, Willy, “Biobibliographie de Guillaume de Moerbeke,” in Jozef Brams and
idem, eds., Guillaume de Moerbeke. Recueil d’études à l’occasion du 700e anniversaire
de sa mort (1286)(Leuven, 1989), 301–383.
Van Oostrom, Frits, Maerlants Wereld (Amsterdam, 1996).
Van Steenbergen, Fernand, Aristotle in the West: The Origins of Latin Aristotelianism
(Louvain, 1955).
Van Tricht, Filip, “De jongelingenjaren van een keizer van Konstantinopel. Hendrik van
Vlaanderen en Henegouwen (1177–1202),” Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis 111 (1998),
187–220.
290 Bibliography
Van Tricht, Filip, “‘La Gloire de l’Empire.’ L’idée impériale de Henri de Flandre-Hainaut,
deuxième empereur latin de Constantinople (1206–1216),” Byzantion 70 (2000),
211–241.
Van Tricht, Filip, “La politique étrangère de l’empire latin de Constantinople. Sa po-
sition en Méditerranée orientale problèmes de chronologie et d’interprétation
(1er partie),” Le Moyen Age 107 (2001), 219–238.
Van Tricht, Filip, De Latijnse Renovatio van Byzantium. Het keizerrijk van Konstantinopel
(1204–1261) PhD diss., 2 vols. (Universiteit Gent, 2003).
Van Tricht, Filip, The Latin Renovatio of Byzantium. The Empire of Constantinople (1204–
1228), The Medieval Mediterranean 90 (Leiden, 2011).
Van Tricht, Filip, “Robert of Courtenay (1221–1227): an idiot on the throne of Constan-
tinople?,” Speculum 88 (2013), 996–1034.
Van Tricht, Filip, “The Byzantino-Latin Principality of Adrianople and the Challenge
of Feudalism (1204/6–1227/28): Empire, Venice and Local Autonomy,” Dumbarton
Oaks Papers 68 (2015), 325–342.
Van Tricht, Filip, “Claiming the Basileia ton Rhomaion: A Latin imperial dynasty in
Byzantium,” Medieval History Journal 20 (2017), 248–287.
Vasiliev, Alexander A., History of the Byzantine Empire, 324–1453, 2 vols. (Madison, 1952).
Vassilaki, Maria, “Crete under Venetian Rule. The Evidence of the Thirteenth Century
Monuments,” in Panayotis L. Vocotopoulos, ed., Byzantine Art in the Aftermath of the
Fourth Crusade. The Fourth Crusade and Its Consequences. International Congress,
March 9–12, 2004 (Athens, 2007), 42–46.
Vicente Garcia, Luis M., “Una nueva filosofia de la astrologia en los siglos XII y XIII. El
impacto de las traducciones del arabe y la postura de Santo Thomas de Aquino,”
Revista Española de Filosofiá 9 (2002), 249–264.
Violante, Tommaso M., La provincia domenicana in Grecia, Dissertationes historicae
25 (Rome, 1999).
Vocotopoulos, Panayotis L., “Art in Epiros in the Thirteenth Century,” in idem, ed., Byz-
antine Art in the Aftermath of the Fourth Crusade. The Fourth Crusade and Its Conse-
quences. International Congress, March 9–12, 2004 (Athens, 2007), 57–62.
Vuillemin-Diem, Gudrun, “La liste des oeuvres d’Hippocrate dans le Vindobonensis
phil. gr. 100: un autographe de Guillaume de Moerbeke,” in Jozef Brams and Willy
Vanhamel, eds., Guillaume de Moerbeke. Recueil d’études à l’occasion du 700e anniver-
saire de sa mort (1286) (Louvain, 1989), 135–171.
Warlop, Ernst, The Flemish Nobility before 1300, 2 vols. (Kortrijk, 1975/76).
Weiler, Björn, “Describing Rituals of Successions and Legitimation of Kingship in the
West, ca. 1000–1150,” in Alexander Beihammer, Stavroula Constantinou, and Ma-
ria Parani, eds., Ceremonies and Rituals of Power in Byzantium and the Medieval
Mediterranean: Comparative Perspectives, The Medieval Mediterranean 98 (Leiden,
2013), 115–140.
Bibliography 291
Weisheipl, James A., “The Commentary of Saint Thomas on the De caelo of Aristotle,”
Sapientia 19 (1974), 11–34.
Weiss, Judith, “The Exploitation of Ideas of Pilgrimage and Sainthood in Gui de Ware-
wic,” in Laura Ashe, Ivana Djordjevic, and idem, eds., The Exploitations of Medieval
Romance (Cambridge, 2010), 53–56.
Weitzmann, Kurt, “Constantinopolitan Book Illumination in the Period of the Latin
Conquest,” Gazette des Beaux-Arts 25 (1944), 193–214.
Wellas, Michael B., Das westliche Kaiserreich und das lateinische Königreich Thessalon-
ike (Athens, 1987).
Wilskman, Juho, “The Campaign and Battle of Pelagonia 1259,” Byzantinos Domos 17/18
(2009/2010), 131–174.
Wirth, Peter, “Von der Schlacht von Pelagonia bis Wiedereroberung Konstantinopels.
Zur äusseren Geschichte der Jahre 1259–1261,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 55 (1962),
30–37.
Wolff, Robert L., “The Latin Empire of Constantinople and the Franciscans,” Traditio 2
(1944), 213–237.
Wolff, Robert L., “A footnote to an incident of the latin occupation of Constantinople.
The church and the icon of the Hodegetria,” Traditio 6 (1948a), 319–328.
Wolff, Robert L., “Romania: the Latin Empire of Constantinople,” Speculum 23 (1948b),
5–11.
Wolff, Robert L., “Baldwin of Flanders and Hainaut, First latin emperor of Constanti-
nople. His life, death and resurrection, 1172–1225,” Speculum 27 (1952), 281–322.
Wolff, Robert L., “Mortgage and Redemption of an Emperor’s son. Castile and the Latin
Empire of Constantinople,” Speculum 29 (1954a), 45–84.
Wolff, Robert L., “Politics in the Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople,” Dumbarton
Oaks Papers 8 (1954b), 228–303.
Wolff, Robert L., “The Latin Empire of Constantinople,” in Kenneth M. Setton, ed.,
A History of the Crusades, vol. 2 (Philadelphia, 1962), 187–233.
Wolff, Robert L., Studies in the Latin Empire of Constantinople (London, 1976).
Yiavis, Kostas, “The Adaptations of Western Sources by Byzantine Vernacular Romanc-
es,” in Carolina Cupane and Bettina Krönung, eds., Fictional Storytelling in the Medi-
eval Eastern Mediterranean and Beyond (Leiden, 2016), 127–155.
Zazzaretta, Alessandro, “Sui Diurnali di Matteo Spinelli. Premessa per un riesame della
questine spinelliana,” Archivio Storico Pugliese 23 (1970), 199–214.
Zizioulas, John, “Efforts towards the Union of the Churches after the Fourth Crusade,”
in Angeliki Laiou, ed., Urbs capta. The Fourth Crusade and its consequences (Paris,
2005), 345–354.
Zufferey, François, “Henri de Valenciennes, auteur du Lai d’Aristote et de la Vie de saint
Jean l’Évangéliste,” Revue de linguistique romane 69 (2004a), 335–358.
Zufferey, François, “Henri de Valenciennes, auteur du Lai d’Aristote et de la Vie de saint
Jean l’Évangéliste,” Revue de linguistique romane 69 (2004b), 335–35.
Index
Abu Maʿshar 6n2, 8, 100, 103, 107, 112, 115, Andronikos ii Paleologos, Byzantine
117–119, 249 emperor 47, 161, 169, 183, 188, 197
Achaia Angelos
Principality of 1, 45, 49–50, 77, 81, 110, Family 166, 209
152, 158, 206 Helena 60n21, 69, 172
See also Hugo of Champlitte, Geoffrey i Irene 88
of Villehardouin, Geoffrey ii of John 59
Villehardouin, William ii of Mary 43
Villehardouin, Leonardo da Veroli, Angelo Sanudo, duke of Naxos 77n72, 140
Corinth, Kalavryta, Merbaka, Koron, Angermer, lector of Chalcedon 163–164, 166
Modon Anthony, archbishop of Novgorod 201
Adrianople Antioch
Principality of 1, 61, 77 Principality of 44, 50, 82n2, 159
See also Theodore Branas Theodore of 53
Agnes of France, Byzantine Aphameia 194
empress 163 Aquino, Thomas of 54, 123
Akropolites, George 10–11, 15, 140 Aragon, Violante of 85, 113
Albert the Great 54, 170 architecture 186–197
Alexander iv, pope 88 Arezzo, Benedict of 40–41, 54, 63, 148, 177,
Alexander the Great 135, 150–152, 205 201, 211
Alexandria Armenia 144, 176
Cyril of 165 Armentières, Clémence of 132
Theon of 118 Aristotle 101–102, 104–107, 117, 121–122, 126,
Alexios i Komnenos 187 150–152, 174–175, 180, 243–246
Alexios iii Angelos, Byzantine emperor 135, See also Pseudo-Aristotle
143–144 Arta 200
Alexios iv Angelos, Byzantine emperor 33, Asia Minor 1, 61–62, 79, 153, 159
135 See also Chalcedon, Cilicia, Galata,
Alexios v Doukas, Byzantine emperor Skamandros, Nicaea, Nicomedia,
143–144 Paphlagonia, Troad
Alexios Sthlabos, ruler of the Rhodopes astronomy and astrology 21, 33, 126, 175–176,
region 61, 78, 139 181–182
Alexis, John 204 See also Abu Maʿshar, Al-Kindi, Al-Tabari
Alfonso x, king of Castile 5, 17–18, 20n51, Umar, Marcianus Capella, Masha’allah
21–22, 33n13, 40, 53, 66, 85–94, 113–114, ibn Athari, Ptolemy, Sahl ibn Bisr,
227, 232–233 Simplikios
Al-Khayyat, Abu Ali, Persian scholar 6n2, Athens
101 City of 128, 144, 177–179
Al-Kindi, Yusuf Yaʿqub ibn Ishaq 100 Duchy of 1, 48, 50, 80, 158
Al-Tabari Umar 100 See also Otho i of La Roche,
Aloubardes, Maximos 42, 111, 162, 213 Hermingarde of La Roche, John of La
Altomanno, Peter of 71 Roche, Berardus, Michael Choniates,
Andronikos i Komnenos, Byzantine Daphni, Thebes
emperor 135 Athyra 153–164
Index 293
Augustine of Hippo 98–99, 104, 107, 117, 182, Boniface i , marquis of Montferrat and lord
239 of Thessaloniki 47, 59, 92n29–30, 133,
Aulnay, Vilain of 71n54 135, 149
Autremencourt, William of, lord of Boniface ii, marquis of Montferrat 47
Salona 48, 79, 82n2 Boril, tsar of Bulgaria 135
Auvergne, William of 54 Boulogne 132
Auxerre, Remigius of 99, 105, 117 Bracheux, Peter of 153
Brachnos, doctor 175
Baldwin i of Flanders/Hainaut, emperor of Branas, Theodore, lord of Adrianople 35, 43,
Constantinople 1, 8–9, 11, 27, 36, 45, 136, 161(daughter), 166, 209
72, 82n2, 132–134, 142–145, 147, 154, 156, Brienne
191 Alphonse 32n12, 61, 64–67, 72,
Baldwin ii of Courtenay, emperor of 90n21
Courtenay 2, 7, 9, 15, 17–23, John (the younger) 32n12, 61, 64–67, 72,
28–33, 36–40, 42–45, 48–51, 54, 90n21
57–65, 68–69, 71–74, 76, 79, 81–94, Louis 32n12, 61, 64–66, 72, 90n21
109, 111, 113, 116, 137n15, 140, 142, See also John of Brienne, emperor of
147, 154–156, 161–162, 172–176, 184, Constantinople; Mary of Brienne,
187, 191, 193, 201, 209–210, 213, empress of Constantinople
226–234, 240 Buccaleone, Robert of, epi tou kanikleiou
Baldwin v/viii, count of Hainaut and 16, 35
Flanders 8, 132n1 Bulgaria 61–62, 69, 91, 152, 209
Balsamon, Theodore 54, 165 See also Kaloyan, Boril, John ii Asen, Marc,
Basingstoke, John of 177–179 bishop of Preslav
Bath, Adelard of 6
Beauvais Caesarea, Basil of 54
City of 17 Caesar, Julius 135, 137
Vincent of 114–116, 183 Cairel, Elias 149–150
Benedict, cardinal of Saint Suzanna 10 Calcidius 99, 105, 122
Berardus, archbishop of Athens 178 Capella, Martianus 8, 97, 99, 102–105, 107,
Berengaria of Leon/Castile, queen 115, 117, 121, 241, 245
of Jerusalem and empress of Carthage 134
Constantinople 17, 61, 86n10, 90n21 Castile
Béthune Kingdom of 81, 112, 118, 156, 209
Family 159 Philip of 90
Cono i of, imperial regent 35, 71n54, 134, See also Ferdinand iii, Alfonso X, Blanche
150, 152, 205 of Castile, Berengaria of Leon/Castile
John of 59 Châtillon, Renald of
Biervliet 9 Cayeux
Blanche of Castile, queen of France 30, 42, Family 35, 71, 73, 161, 209
73, 116 Anseau of 59, 175
Blemmydes, Nikephoros 14n33, 181, 184 Anselin of 59
Bodonitza Chalcedon 163–164
Marquisate of 48, 80 See also Angermer
Saint John Prodromos monastery 178 Chaldeans 117, 246
Boethius 98, 104–105, 107, 116, 182 Champagne 71
Bonatti, Guido 53 See also Aulnay, Brienne, Merry, Troyes,
Bonaventura 54 Villehardouin
294 Index
Charlemagne, Carolingian emperor 37n22, Mangana palace 195

134, 150 Michaelion (Sosthenion) 195
Charles of Anjou, count of Provence and king Mitaton 173
of Sicily 16, 20n51, 34, 40, 44, 60, 67, Nea church (Constantinople) 8
90, 93, 148, 174 Orphanotropheion 10–13, 15
Chionides, George 181–182 Pantokrator monastery 54, 190, 201
Choniates Patriarchal School 12–15, 184
Michael 177–178 Porphyra palace 30–31
Niketas 51, 135–136, 181 Saint Andrew metochion 200
Chrysostom, John 54, 163, 165 Saint George church 43, 148, 191–192
Cicero, Marcus Tullius 98, 117, 182, 246 Saint George of Mangana
Cicon, Otho of, lord of Karystos 111, 172 monastery 164, 166
Cilicia, kingdom of Armenian 44 Saint John Prodromos 167, 190
Cistercians 158 Saint Mary of Le Perchay monastery
See also Constantinople, Daphni, Pilis (Cistercian) 190
Clari, Robert of 132–135, 153 Saint Paul, church and grammar school of
Clement iv, pope 90 (Constantinople) 10–13
Colonna, Giovanni 167 Saint Peter church 14
Comestor, Petrus 18, 109 Saint Samson complex 176, 190–191
Conches, William of 99 –100, 105, 108–109, 121 Saint Sophia church 12–13, 145, 168n88,
Conrad iv of Hohenstaufen, rex 184
Romanorum 181 Saint Theodore of Sphorakios church 14
Conradin of Hohenstaufen, king of Saint Thorlac 191
Sicily 148 Sancta Maria Sancti Angeli monastery
Constantina, Athenian philosopher 177–179 (Cistercian) 190–191
Constantine the Great, Roman emperor 29, San Marco dell’Embolo 190
137, 178 Theotokos Chalkoprateia church 12–13
Constantinople Theotokos Evergetis monastery 200
City of 110 Theotokos Nikopoios chapel 147–148
Blacherna palace (Constantinople) 8, Theotokos of Lips monastery 195
188, 190, 192 Theotokos Pammakaristos church 190
Charisios gate 147–148 Theotokos Panachrantos church 16
Christ Pantepoptes church 190 Theotokos tes Varaggiotisses
Christ tou Chalkitou church 14 monastery 204
Chora church 191 Theotokos ton Blachernon church
Dar-el-Balat mosque 173 (Constantinople) 8, 190
Dominican convent 15, 165–166, 172, Theotokos tou Pharou chapel 201
183–184, 191 Venetian quarter 187, 189–190
Genoese quarter 193 See also Galata
Great or Boukoleon Palace Corfu 93
(Constantinople) 8, 16, 147, 188, 190, Corinth 174
192, 195 Correr, Pietro, Latin patriarch of
Hagia Trias monastery 190 Constantinople 12
See also Demetrios Pyrros Council of Lyons i 82n2
Holy Apostles church 190 Council of Lyons ii 168, 212
Kalenderhane Camii (Franciscan Courtenay
convent) 15, 184, 190–191, 195, 198–199, Family and lordship of 9, 67, 152
211 Catherina of 74n64, 230n11
Index 295
Mathilde of 47, 59 England 81n2, 154–156

unnamed son of Baldwin ii 74, 76, See also Stephen of Blois, Henry i, Henry
230n12 ii, Henry iii, Eleonore of Aquitaine,
See also Peter of Courtenay, Robert of Richard i, Adelard of Bath, John of
Courtenay, Baldwin ii of Courtenay, Basingstoke, Roger of Hereford, Robert
Philip of Courtenay Grosseteste
Cremona, Gerard of 103, 118 enkyklios paideia 10
Crete 75, 158 Epiros
crusades 42, 46–47, 57, 63, 67, 81, 195 Principality of (Empire of Thessaloniki)
See also Fourth Crusade, Seventh Crusade, 1, 30, 43, 61, 77, 81, 92, 97, 181
Holy Land See also Michael i Doukas, Michael ii
Cumans 81–82, 91, 144, 176, 205 Doukas, Arta, Dyrrachion
Cyclades 153 Etherien, Hugo 146
See also Naxos Euboia 47–48, 50, 75, 77, 91, 111
Cyprus 64n36, 67, 81 See also Karystos, Negropont
Damietta 42, 82n2 Ferdinand iii, king of Castile, Leon and

Dandolo, Enrico, doge of Venice 45 Galicia 61, 86n10, 88
Daphni, abbey of (Cistercian) 158 Ferro, Giovanni 86
Daphnousia 187 feudalism 44, 93
Da Romano, Ezzelino 53 Fiore, Joachim of 40
David Komnenos, ruler of Flanders 8, 30, 143, 154, 156
Paphlagonia 77–78 See also Baldwin v /viii of Hainaut/
David, Byzantine patriarch of Antioch 168 Flanders, Baldwin I of Flanders/
Demetrios of Montferrat, king of Hainaut, Guy of Dampierre, Baldwin
Thessaloniki 47, 92 ii of Courtenay, Henry of Flanders/
Demetrios, priest 43, 148, 162, 168, 211 Hainaut, Yolande of Flanders/Hainaut,
Derkos 82n2 Robert of Courtenay, William of
Dionysius the Areopagite Moerbeke, Béthune, Kortrijk
See Pseudo-Dionysius Fournival, Robert of 53
Dioskorides, Pedanius 175 Fourth Crusade 1, 140, 150, 152, 170
Dominicans 168n88, 173, 210–211 France 21, 64, 81n2
See also Albert the Great, Simon the See also Charlemagne, Philip ii August,
Constantinopolitan, Peter of Sézanne, Louis ix, Paris, Blanche of Castile,
Thomas of Aquino, William of Agnes of France, Champagne
Moerbeke, Constantinople, Thebes Franciscans 40–41, 51, 63, 210–211
Doukas, Anna 84 See also Benedict of Arezzo,
See also Michael I, Michael ii Bonaventura, John Parastron, Thomas
Durnay, Otho of, lord of Kalavryta 83 Grecus, William of Rubrouck,
Dyrrachion 84, 93, 135n11 Constantinople, Joachimism
Frederick ii of Hohenstaufen, Holy Roman
ecclesiastical union 11, 88, 156, 164–169, 173, emperor 47, 53, 63–64, 69, 114, 155
183, 212 Fresnes, Roger iv of 132
See also Council of Lyons ii
education 11–15, 114–116, 177–178, 181 Galata
Egypt 67, 117, 128, 151, 246 Milo of 193
Eleonore of Aquitaine, queen of France and Constantinopolitan suburb 21, 58, 173,
England 53 183, 188, 193
296 Index
gasmouloi 110, 209 Hermocrates 123–125, 250

Gemistos, Basileios 168n88 Herodotos 111, 146
Gerard, goldsmith 204–205 Hervé, bishop of Troyes 163
Geoffrey i of Villehardouin 78 Hilduinus, abbot of Saint Denis 128–129
Geoffrey ii of Villehardouin, prince of Hippocrates 99, 125, 175, 238
Achaia 69, 71 Hohenstaufen, Constance of 158
Germanos ii, Byzantine patriarch of Holland, county of 114
Nicaea 162, 165–167 Holobolos, Manuel 35, 183–184, 212
Germanos iii, Byzantine patriarch of Holy Land 42, 67, 81
Constantinople 15 See also Antioch, Tripoli, Cyprus, John
Glykas, Michael 54 of Brienne, crusades
Gothia 144 Holy Roman Empire See Otto ii, Henry ii,
Grecus, Thomas 168 Frederick ii, Conrad iv, Alfonso x,
Greece 144, 151 Richard of Cornwall
See also Achaia, Athens, Bodonitza, Epiros, Honnecourt, Villard de 206
Thebes, Thessaloniki Honorius iii, pope 53
Gregory ii of Cyprus, Byzantine patriarch of hiera grammata 10
Constantinople 187, 189 historiography 131–149
Gregory ix, pope 32n12, 41, 46, 165, 168, Hohenburg, Berthold of 181, 210
173 Hugo iv, count of Saint-Pol 45, 132
Grosseteste, Robert, bishop of Lincoln 122– Hugo of Champlitte, prince of Achaia 150
123, 128, 177, 179 Hungary, Kingdom of 81n2, 91, 206, 209
Guglielmo i of Verona, triarch of Euboia 40, See also Margaret of Hungary, Yolande of
60n21, 69, 71, 80, 92n28, 172 Courtenay, Pilis
Guglielmo ii of Verona, triarch of Euboia 80 Hyginus, Gaius Julius 108
Guy of Dampierre, count of Flanders and
marquis of Namur 154 icons 46, 78, 62, 65, 173, 201–203
Güyük Khan, great khan 68, 232n18 identity 137–139
Innocent iii, pope 11
Hainaut Innocent iv, pope 41, 59, 69, 88, 175
County of 140, 142, 156 Isaac ii Angelos, Byzantine emperor 43, 47,
Yolande of 132 59, 88, 135, 194–195
See also Baldwin v /viii of Hainaut/ Italos, Michael, archbishop of Philippopolis
Flanders, Baldwin i of Flanders/ Ivan ii Asen, tsar of Bulgaria 61–62, 69–70,
Hainaut 79, 176, 201
Henry i, king of England 53
Henry ii, Holy Roman emperor 37n22 Jergis 100–102
Henry ii, king of England 53, 114 Jerusalem, kingdom of 81
Henry iii, king of England 88, 156 See also John of Brienne
Henry of Flanders/Hainaut, emperor John iii Vatatzes, emperor of Nicaea 11,
of Constantinople 8–9, 39, 45, 54, 69–70, 79, 82n2, 89n19, 92, 158, 168, 176,
72–73, 77–78, 82n2, 111, 132–134, 141–145, 180, 234
150, 152, 154–155, 167, 176, 191, 203–205, John of Brienne, king of Jerusalem and
209 emperor of Constantinople 5, 17,
Hereford, Roger of 53 32n12, 40, 46, 54, 60–66, 71, 73, 90n21,
Hermes Trismegistos 123–124, 251 141, 148, 152, 155, 202, 209
Hermingarde of La Roche, queen of John of Damascus 98, 117, 185, 239
Thessaloniki 47 John of La Roche, duke of Athens 111, 146
Index 297
John, phylax 14–15, 35, 112, 162, 180, 184, 211 Macrobius 98–99, 104–105, 107, 117, 121–122,
Joachimism 40–41, 51 182, 239–240, 246
See also Joachim of Fiore Manfred of Hohenstaufen, king of
Sicily 21n55, 82–85, 92–94, 174
Kalavryta 83 Manuel i Komnenos, Byzantine
Kaloyan, tsar of Bulgaria 153 emperor 37, 44, 51, 54–55, 127–130,
Kannabos, Nicholas 33 135, 144, 146, 150, 165
Karystos 111 Manuel Doukas, emperor of
See also Otho of Cicon Thessaloniki 92n27
Komnena, Anna 146, 178 Manuel, interpreter 111
Kontotheodoros, John 10–11, 15 Marc, bishop of Preslav 201
Konya, Sultanate of 78n75, 91, 173, 209 Marco ii Sanudo, duke of Naxos 77n72
Koron 75 Margaret of Hungary, Byzantine
Kortrijk (Courtrai) 196 empress 47, 59
Kydenos, Demetrios 212 Marguerite of Alsace, countess of
Flanders 8
Laskaris Marseille, Raymond of 37, 118
Eudokia 59, 151, 209 Mary of Brienne, empress of
See also Theodore i Laskaris, Theodore ii Constantinople 17, 19–20, 22, 39, 61,
Laskaris 63–64, 66–69, 71–72, 82n2, 85–89, 117,
Last Emperor prophecy 38–39, 108 226–228, 232
Latini, Brunetto 18 Masha’allah ibn Athari 6n2, 100, 107, 112,
Le Bréban 117–118, 248
John 87 Maugastel, Simon of, Latin patriarch of
Milo Constantinople 62–63, 167n86
Légiers, imperial chancellor and dean of Saint Maximos the Confessor 128, 185
Sophia 16 Mechelen, tables of 119
liberal arts 9, 115, 177, 220, 250 Medeia 82n2
See also education medicine 175–176
Liège 132 Melnik 61
Lille 132 Merbaka 192
Limoges, Aimery of, Latin patriarch of Merry, Geoffrey of 16, 71n54
Antioch 146 Mesarites
linguistical situation 109–112 John 10
literature 149–163 Nicholas 10–11, 175
London, William of 130 Messina, Barthelemy of 174
Louis ix, king of France 17, 21, 30, 64, 67, 81, metal work 205, 211
89n19, 114, 183 Metaphrastes, Symeon 128
Louis, count of Blois 45 Metochites, Theodore 181, 196
Louis the Pious, Carolingian Michael i Doukas, ruler of Epiros 78,
emperor 37n22, 128 92n30
Lucas, hieromonachos of Saint Michael ii, Byzantine emperor 128
Mamas 168n88 Michael ii Doukas, ruler of Epiros 21n55,
82–85, 91, 93
Maerlant, Jacob of 114–116 Michael viii Paleologos, Byzantine
Macedonia 61, 153 emperor 1, 11, 15, 21, 30n8, 44, 50,
See also Kingdom of Thessaloniki, 58n19, 83, 91, 111, 147–148, 157, 168–169,
Rhodopes region 173, 187–188, 193, 197, 213
298 Index
Michiel, Giovanni, Venetian podestà 70 Urban iv, Clement iv, Pelagius,

Modon 75 Giovanni Colonna, ecclesiastical union
Moerbeke, Wiliam of 110, 123, 169–177, 183, Parastron/Parastos, John 168–169
192, 210–211 Paris
Möngke Khan, great khan 68, 232n18 Abbey of Saint Denis 128–129
Mongolian empire 39, 81, 176, 209 See also Hilduinus, William of London
See also Güyük Khan, Möngke Khan College of Constantinople 11
Montigny, Peter of 13 University of 9, 11, 151
Morosini, Thomas, Latin patriarch of passion relics 62
Constantinople 12, 46n48, 78 Paphlagonia 77n73
mosaics 36, 202, 211 Parthian empire 144
Mount Athos 191, 198, 203 Pechenegs 144
Pelagius, papal legate 167
Namur, county of 9, 63, 67, 154, 156 Pelagonia alliance 21, 50, 57–58, 60, 82–85,
Narzotto dalle Carceri, triarch of Euboia 80 91, 171, 173, 209
Navigaioso family 162, 209 Peloponnese See Achaia
Naxos Peter of Courtenay, emperor of
Duchy of 1, 48, 50, 77n72 Constantinople 30, 54
See also Angelo Sanudo, Marco ii Sanudo Pharsalos 135n11
Nazianze, Gregory of 54, 185 Philip ii August, king of France 53
Negropont 75 Philip of Alsace, count of Flanders 8
Nicaea Philip of Courtenay, emperor of
Empire of 1, 11, 30, 43, 50, 69, 82–85, 88, Constantinople 2, 16–17, 19–22, 29,
91–93, 97, 139, 164, 170, 172, 174, 180, 32–33, 39–40, 65, 68–69, 71–74, 85–89,
199–200, 209 226–228, 230n12, 232n19
See also John iii Vatatzes, Theodore ii Philip of Macedonia 135n11
Laskaris, Michael viii Paleologos, Philip of Swabia, rex Romanorum 88, 138
George Akropolites, Nikephoros Philippi 135n11
Blemmydes Philippopolis, Principality of 1, 61, 135
Nicomedia 62 Philokales, megas doux 77, 162, 167, 209
Nikephoritzes (or Nikephoros), philosophy 169–175, 180–181
hupogrammateus 42, 111, 162, 172, 184, Piacenza, Blasius of 12
211, 213 Pilis, monastery of (Cistercian) 206
Nimrod, biblical ruler 18, 109, 218 Pisa
Nyssa, Gregory of 165 City of 77n73, 88, 202
Huguccio of 108n40, 138
occult sciences 175–177 Fibonacci of 182
Otho i of La Roche, lord/duke of Athens 47, Planudes, Maximos 182–183, 211
78 Plato 99, 107, 116–117, 121–122, 124–125, 236,
Otto ii, Holy Roman emperor 37n22 242–246
Pliny the Elder 99, 121
Pachymeres, George 181, 184, 211 Pompeius, Gnaeus 135, 137
painting (monumental, icon, Porta, Nicolao della, Latin patriarch of
illumination) 198–203 Constantinople 46
Paleologos, Andronikos 157 Prilep 69
Pamphylon 194 Prodromos, scholar 14n33, 181
papacy 21, 30, 46, 81, 174 Psellos, Michael 180, 185
See also Innocent iii, Honorius iii, Pseudo-Aristotle 101, 106–107
Gregory ix, Innocent iv, Alexander iv, Pseudo-Dionysius 117, 126–130, 247–248
Index 299
Pseudo-Ptolemy 103–104 Sézanne, Peter of 173

Pseudo-Turpin 132, 134 Sicily, Kingdom of 53, 81, 174
Ptolemy (Klaudios Ptolemaios) 99, 101–103, See Roger ii, Frederick ii of
107, 117–119, 175, 235, 238–239, 250–252 Hohenstaufen, Conrad iv, Conradin,
See also Pseudo-Ptolemy Manfred of Hohenstaufen, Charles
Pyrros, Demetrios 42, 162 of Anjou, Barthelemy of Messina
Sidon, Dorotheus of 119–121, 248–249
Raidestos 77n73 Siena 202
Renart, Jean 134 Simon the Constantinopolitan 169, 172, 180,
Renaud of Dammartin, count of 183
Boulogne 132 Simplikios, philosopher 122–123
rethoric 116–117, 210 Skamandros region 14n33
Rhodopes region 1, 61, 139 Sophonias, monk 183
See also Melnik, Tsepaina Sorel, Nicolas of 173
Richard i, king of England 114 Stephen i Nemanja, king of Serbia 141, 199
Richard of Cornwall, rex Romanorum 34, 88 Stephen of Blois, king of England 53
Robert of Courtenay, emperor of Strategopoulos, Alexios 43, 188, 212
Constantinople 9, 32n12, 45–46, 73, Strez, ruler of Prosek 61
117, 141, 144, 151–152, 156, 191, 206 Synkellos, Michael 128–129
Roger ii, king of Sicily 37n22
Rubrouck, William of 176 Tempier, Stephen, bishop of Paris 55, 102
Russia See Anthony, archbishop of Novgorod; Terah, father of Abraham 218
Vladimir, bishop of Polotsk Teutonic Order 63
Thebes
Sahl ibn Bisr 100–101, 123, 250 Dominican convent 171–172, 174
Sainte-Mènehould, Macaire of 77n73 Hephaestios of 120
Saint-Maure, Benoît of 153, 158, 162 Theodore i Laskaris, emperor of Nicaea 59,
Saint Samson, Order of 176, 190–191 117, 136, 151
Saint Sava 200–201 Theodore ii Eirenikos, Byzantine patriarch of
Saint Victor, Hugo of 55 Nicaea 162, 167
Salona, lordship of 48 Theodore ii Laskaris, emperor of Nicaea 31,
Salymbria 21 89n19, 158, 181, 210
Salza, Hermann of 63–64 Theodore Doukas, emperor of
Santalla, Hugo of 121 Thessaloniki 92n27
Santiago, Order of 81 theology 163–169
science Thessaloniki
See medicine, liberal arts, occult sciences, City of 43, 135n11, 200, 205
philosophy, theology Kingdom of 1, 47, 61, 69, 78–79, 85, 91–92,
Scot Eriugena, John 99, 128 133, 172
Scot, Michael 53 See also Boniface of Montferrat,
sculpture 206–207 Demetrios of Montferrat, Guglielmo i
senate / senators 32–34, 249 of Verona, Theodore Doukas, Manuel
Senlis, Nicolas of 132 Doukas, Epiros
Serbia 91, 97, 199 Thrace 47, 50, 62, 82n2, 144, 195
See also Stephen i Nemanja, Saint Sava, See also Adrianople, Aphameia, Athyra,
Zica Derkos, Medeia, Pamphylon, Raidestos,
Seventh Crusade 42, 81 Salymbria, Tzouroulon, Vizye
Sevilla, Isidore of 99, 107, 117 Thuin, Jean of 132
Sevilla, John of 6n2, 100, 118 Tiepolo, Giacomo, Venetian podestà 78n75
300 Index
Tivoli, Plato of 103 vernacular 110–115, 132, 134, 136, 138, 143, 146,
Toledo, tables of 119 152–153, 157–162, 187
Toucy Veroli, Leonardo da 153–154, 158, 162–163
Family 71, 73, 152, 154, 209 Villehardouin
Anselin 35–36, 43, 59–60, 83, 109, 161 Family 152
Narjot i, imperial regent 35, 60, 62, 117, Geoffrey of, imperial marshal and
161, 173 chronicler 28, 71n54, 77n72, 112, 131,
Narjot ii 43, 60, 82n2 133, 135–140, 153, 210–211
Philip of, imperial regent 29, 35, 43, 60, See also Geoffrey ii of Villehardouin,
82n2, 161 William ii of Villehardouin
Trebizond, Empire of 81, 200 Viterbo 174
Tripoli Vizye 82n2
County of 50, 82n2 Vladimir, bishop of Polotsk 201
Philip of 53
Troad region 14n33, 176, 180 Walter, dean of Theotokos Panechrantos
Troy 134, 153, 158 William, archbishop of Tyre 10n15, 61, 141,
Troyes 163 153, 170n96
Tsepaina 61 William ii of Villehardouin, prince of
Tzetzes, John 121 Achaia 21, 48–49, 79–80, 82–85, 91,
Tzouroulon 82n2, 90 152, 171, 173–174
William vi, marquis of Montferrat 47
Urban iv, pope 91–92 William vii, marquis of Montferrat 90
Vacqueras, Raimbaut of 149–150, 152 Yolande of Courtenay, queen of

Valenciennes, Henry of 28, 39, 77–78, 131, Hungary 206
133, 135–137, 139–140, 145, 150–152, 177, Yolande of Flanders/Hainaut, empress of
205, 210–211 Constantinople 8, 30, 144, 150
Venice Yolande/Irene of Montferrat, Byzantine
City of 64, 142, 145, 155, 203 empress 47, 161
Republic of 32, 45–46, 48–49, 59, 62, Yonites, son of Noah 18, 109, 218
75–81, 86, 91, 173, 209
Merchants 17, 62n27, 72, 74, 78, 86, 155, Zeno, Marino, Venetian podestà 45, 78n75
202, 211 Zeno, Rainerio, doge of Venice 86
See also Enrico Dandolo, Rainerio Zeno, Zica monastery 200–201
Marino Zeno, Giacomo Tiepolo, Zonaras, John 54, 184–185, 210
Giovanni Michiel, Thomas Morosini, Zweikaiserproblem 29
Giovanni Ferro, Naxos

(The Medieval Mediterranean 114) Filip Van Tricht - The Horoscope of Emperor Baldwin II-Brill (2018)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

(The Medieval Mediterranean 114) Filip Van Tricht - The Horoscope of Emperor Baldwin II-Brill (2018)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(The Medieval Mediterranean 114) Filip Van Tricht - The Horoscope of Emperor Baldwin II-Brill (2018)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Horoscope of Emperor Baldwin II

The Medieval Mediterranean

Frances Andrews (St. Andrews)

Tamar Herzig (Tel Aviv)

David Abulafia (Cambridge)

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/mmed

Filip Van Tricht

The Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available online at http://catalog.loc.gov

Copyright 2019 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

1 Manuscript Tradition, Authorship, Date & Aim 6

2 A Byzantine-Style Imperial Ideology 27

3 Internal Rivalries at Court 50

4 Attempts at Geopolitical Restauration 81

5 The Astrological Corpus: Western and Byzantine Influences 97

6 Literature and Sciences in Latin-Byzantine Constantinople 131

7 The Arts and Artistic Production in Latin-Byzantine

1 Astrological poem 217

a book, such as an improper measure of absentmindedness during cosy fam-

Filip Van Tricht

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���9 | doi:10.1163/9789004383180_002

Nikolaos G. Chrissis, Crusading in Frankish Greece. A Study of Byzantine-Western Relations

the empire’s political structure.7 To my knowledge only David Jacoby made a

7 Burkhardt, Mediterranes Kaisertum und imperiale Ordnungen, 374–375. See my review: F.

11 Paul E. Riant, “Inventaire sommaire des manuscrits relatifs à l’histoire et à la géographie

Manuscript Tradition, Authorship, Date & Aim

The combination of the interrelated horoscope, versified introduction, and

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���9 | doi:10.1163/9789004383180_003

A number of theologically tinged passages and occasional biblical referenc-

This suggestion warrants a short digression on the educational situation in

19 Angold, The Fourth Crusade: Event and Context, 195–196.

Blasius from Piacenza, appointed in 1209), magister and imperial messenger G

29 W had obtained a prebend to do so around 1218–1221: Honorius iii, Bullarium Helleni-

of higher Greek/Byzantine education in the capital.33 If so, in view of his con-

of (relatively) modest origin—the lower reaches of the feudal aristocracy or

The date of our corpus of texts is of course essential in order to interpret

42 On the date of 31 August 1259, see Chapter 4, p. 86–87.

The versified introduction likewise contains the notion of imperial

on dispose là du dossier, entièrement en langue vulgaire, qui a, très

­ essage informing Baldwin of his son Philip’s redemption by Alfonso x must

A Byzantine-Style Imperial Ideology

Our texts offer valuable insights on aspects of political life in mid-13th-century

1 See, in particular, Benjamin Hendrickx, “Les institutions de l’empire latin de Constantinople

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���9 | doi:10.1163/9789004383180_004

rather that they—following the Byzantine hierarchy of states and/or family of

9 Schlumberger, Sigillographie de l’Orient latin, n° 11–16, pp. 170–172. Percy E. Schramm,

marriage, travel, or medical conditions. In addition, it is also the only detailed

11 On the sources used by our authors: see below.

baron in the principality of Achaia, where he resettled after Constantinople

18 Jean Longnon, ed., Livre de la Conquête de la Princée de l’Amorée. Chronique de Morée

typically Byzantine concept of the ruler being crowned by Christ appears in an

Secondly, Baldwin and his empire seem to undergo a kind of resurrection in

emperor is emphasized in other passages, both in the verse introduction and

26 dmf (Dictionnaire du Moyen Français) 2012. atilf cnrs–Université de Lorraine (http://

30 On Joachimism and Joachimist Franciscans: Marjorie Reeves, The Influence of Prophecy

­ eiserurkunden des Oströmischen Reiches von 565–1453.” 3. “Regesten von 1204–1282,”

In other ways Baldwin ii could also act as an autocratic ruler, disregarding

51 Loenertz, “Les seigneurs tierciers de Négrepont de 1205 à 1280,” n° 1, p. 268. On Hermin-

A more drastic example of autocratic disregard for the constitutional trea-

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��9 | doi:10.1163/9789004383180_002

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��9 | doi:10.1163/9789004383180_003

essage informing Baldwin of his son Philip’s redemption by Alfonso x must

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��9 | doi:10.1163/9789004383180_004

eiserurkunden des Oströmischen Reiches von 565–1453.” 3. “Regesten von 1204–1282,”

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��9 | doi:10.1163/9789004383180_005

c hasteaus ou il habitera et ne mie citez, et sera touz tems appareilliez a proie

to appropriate aspects of the feudal landed nobility’s way of life. Interesting

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��9 | doi:10.1163/9789004383180_006

elagonia coalition has gone unnoticed in modern historiography. In order to

de Constantinople. Sa position en Méditerranée orientale problèmes de chronologie et

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��9 | doi:10.1163/9789004383180_007

ristotle’s hypotheses regarding the planets moving in the same direction

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��9 | doi:10.1163/9789004383180_008