From marc@interlinx.qc.ca Wed Jan 6 18:12:49 1999 Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1998 01:30:45 -0500 From: Marc CarrierReply-To: BYZANS-L@showme.missouri.edu To: BYZANS-L@showme.missouri.edu Subject: Byzantine Ceremony and the Crusaders Dear list members, In response to some comments I have received over the last few weeks concerning the plausibility that Byzantine ceremony had an impact on the relations between the Empire and the Crusaders, I have decided to present a better and more complete explanation of the project I am now conducting. I thus intend to prove that my method of research and my conclusions are not as far fetched as some might think. Besides, new ideas are (or should) always be welcome in history, especially Byzantine history. Naturally, I hope and expect that those who are familiar with the subject might make comments on the statements that still seem implausible. First of all, I must state that I do not contradict the fact that the conflict between East and West at the time of the Crusades was above all and often political, sometimes religious, and even later economic. However, I find that most historians, although they briefly admit a cultural conflict, do not always examine it in depth. What I intend to expose is the conflict of cultures as a narrow explanation, a cause among many others. In no way do I intend to find an ultimate truth in my project, but rather an angle that some historians might have overlooked (although they are aware of it). The conflict had many causes, often due to misunderstandings. Cultural misunderstandings might just be one of them. This idea sprung from two sources. First, a book written by Basile G. Spiridonakis (B. G. Spiridonakis. 'Grecs, Occidentaux et Turcs de 1054 à 1453: Quatre siècles d^Òhistoire de relations internationales.' Thessalonique, Institute for Balkan Studies, 1990, 291 p.), in which he examines the cultural conflict between East and West. Indeed, Mr. Spiridonakis specialises in international history between East and West and also in Byzantine Hellenism and how it evolved after 1204. According to his research, the cultural impact between East and West and the sack of Constantinople made the Byzantines aware of their nationality and ultimately made them realise that they were no longer 'universal'. Second, the idea sprung from several Western chronicles, such as the ones of Odo of Deuil, Geoffroy of Villehardouin, Robert of Clari, William of Tyre and Liutprand of Cremona (although he is of the 10th century). In these chronicles, I was amazed at the cultural mockeries made by the chroniclers. Often (especially Odo of Deuil), the authors openly mock the Byzantine ceremonial. This, to me, is normal, since this is the part of Byzantine culture to which foreigners were most subject to when meeting high Byzantine officials and which would have surprised them the most (their reactions could either be positive or negative). After all, this is why they mention them in their chronicles, although not often in detail. I am not proposing that ceremonial was absent in the Western courts. However, we must admit that it was certainly less elaborate. The fact that the chroniclers do not write of the Byzantine ceremonial in detail shows that they most likely considered it to be superficial (although it certainly wasn't to the Byzantines). I will even propose that they did not understand it (or refused to understand it). I remember once reading in a source (unfortunately I can't remember which one) that the Byzantines preferred the Muslims to the Westerners, for the Muslims, like the Persians before them, understood the importance, the symbolism and the beauty of ceremonial and protocol. Another fact that we cannot neglect is that the Crusaders were not diplomats (at least not during the First crusade). Therefore, they often had little care for flattery. Unlike trained diplomats who knew to play along with the game, the Crusaders openly saw it for what it really was: hypocrisy, bribery and unnecessary flattery. And although some of them might have enjoyed the preferential treatment by the emperor (Stephen of Blois for example), the others despised the fact that they had to bow before this monarch and give fealty to him. To me, these reactions show a cultural misunderstanding. Not towards the ceremonial itself, but to the message that the ceremonial conveyed. Indeed, this message conveyed the Byzantine values. Ceremonial was therefore a form of propaganda. In the introduction of the Book of Ceremonies, Constantine Pophyrogenitos does admit that his aim is to once more impress foreign nations. This propaganda was naturally the Emperor's foreign propaganda. N. K. Koutrakou has examined such a theory in 'La propagande byzantine: persuasion et réaction (VIIIe ^Ö Xe siècles)', Athens, 1994, 459 p. The values are therefore that of the emperor (or of the aristocracy, which usually defined, especially in the 11th Century, what the imperial ideal should be). And what values were important to the Emperor and the aristocracy? Universality, beauty, symbolism, wealth, splendour, generosity, religion, marriage, family, militarisation (especially in the 11th century), etc. (these are only a few among many others). These are the values that the Westerner's were subject to when they met the emperor and witnessed other imperial ceremonies (I am ruling out religious ceremonies for this project). Of course, these values also existed in the West, but they had different shades of meaning. Also, to have them shoved in their faces would certainly have been frustrating to some Crusaders, especially the Byzantine claim to universality (Frederick Barberossa gives a good example of a negative reaction). I am therefore convinced that imperial values were present in the ceremonial. Using ceremonial as a tool for research is not new to many historians. Gilbert Dagron, for instance, examined through ceremonial how the emperor attempted to lay claim over the Church and to demonstrate his superiority over the Patriarch (G. Dagron. 'Empereur et prêtre: étude sur le 'césaropapisme^Ò byzantin.' Paris, Gallimard, 1996, 435 p.) Also, the fact that the ceremonial reflects imperial ideals is not surprising: the Book of Ceremonies was after all put together by an emperor. However, there are several important note to be made. First, I do not intend to use the Book of Ceremonies as a 'Bible'. After all, the De ceremoniis and the De Administrando were put together before the true conflict between East and West arose. However, Byzantine ceremonial was not static; although the core remained the same from the 10th century to the 12th, it was often adapted (slightly) to political or social situations. Therefore, I believe that some of the values of the 11th and 12th centuries might have been added to the ceremonial. Second, I do not wish to simply compare Byzantine values with Western ones (the scope of such a project would be incredible). I will rather limit my research to the Crusader perception of these values and attempt, in a limited way, to explain the reason for it. Now, whether the Crusaders understood the real cultural meaning of the Emperor's propaganda (for they had to decode it through the ceremonial) and reacted to it, or whether they were simply trying to be arrogant and racist toward the Greeks, I think none of us will never be able to answer. However, bringing up the idea and the possibility might only, according to me, bring up other theories and new debates. Third, I am not proposing that the Byzantines adapted their ceremony on purpose, simply to frustrate the Crusaders. As Tim Dawson pointed out, they did not act any differently with the Crusaders than with any other foreigner. This is exactly my point: Byzantines cared little about learning in depth about foreign cultures, since they were themselves 'universial'. They would not, therefore, have adapted their protocol to the Crusaders. And, keeping my previous line of thought, such negligence could have led to cultural misunderstandings (for example, you do not greet a Frank the same way you greet a Russian). Fourth, the fact that some Western countries might have 'borrowed' certains forms of Byzantine ceremonial is debatable, but if true, simply proves my point. If the Westerners were frustrated at the Byzantine pretensions, it is because they themselves have similar pretensions. Therefore, it would only be natural for them to include them in their own ceremonies. Finally, my project is but a 'prototype' to further research. Therefore, I intend to skim the surface of this subject (without, let us hope, affecting the quality of the project) by demonstrating only several of the main values conveyed by the Byzantines and the Crusader reactions to these. Also, I will not examine all of the tools of propaganda, such as coinage, imagery, etc. And, as a final note, I will probably not examine forms of address in official letters to foreign rulers, even though I do intend to briefly examine forms of address during official meetings with the emperor. If anyone wishes to comment on the above statements, please feel free to do so. I do not pretend to have the whole thruth on the matter and new input, either positive or negative, is always welcome. After all, debates and criticism is what drives historians to become better. Thank you, ******************************* Marc Carrier Étudiant 2e cycle Université de Sherbrooke ******************************* Marcus dixit, ergo verum est...