p. 47

Perfidious and effeminate Greeks:

The Representation of Byzantine Ceremonial

in the Western Chronicles of the Crusades

(1096-1204)*

Marc Carrier,

University of Paris

Even though the antagonism between Greeks and Latins can be traced as far back as Antiquity, the 12^th century remains a crucial phase in the deterioration of relations between both cultures. The crusades brought Western Europe into vital contact with its Eastern counterpart, with the hope of renewing the ties of Christian fraternity and, most of all, of finding an ally against Islam. Instead, the first crusaders who set foot in Byzantium found a society and a culture that were alien to their own, and that were in fact quite far from sharing the same goals and ideals. Throughout the 12^th century, this contact not only revived old disputes and rivalries, but also brought the animosity down to a popular level. Although the schism between the Eastern and the Western churches already had a foundation in the previous century, it was only when countless throngs of pilgrims from all groups and social backgrounds clashed with the Byzantines that the rupture really took root, as much on a religious level than a cultural one. The sack of Constantinople by the crusaders in 1204 was the culmination of this unfortunate conflict, leading us in fact to believe that the crusades are better characterized by the failure of Greeks and Latins to find a common understanding than by the actual confrontation between Christians and Muslims themselves.

This article hopes to deal with this particular problem on a cultural level[1]. Furthermore, it aims to study a theme that is often recurrent in the Western chronicles of the crusades: the notion of the perfidious and effeminate Greek. This representation[2] of the Greeks was not new to the crusaders, since its origin can be traced as far back as Antiquity. Classical literature offers many examples of this anti-Greek sentiment, although one famous

p. 48

passage is often cited more than others: Virgil’s timeo Danaos et dona ferentes from the Aeneid, which denounces the treachery of the Greeks who captured Troy by means of a wooden horse[3]. We should also mention other passages from authors who emphasized the effeminate nature of the Greeks, due to their decadent way of life and many other vices[4]. Of course, the cultural background during the crusades was far from being that of 1^st century Rome, so that these accusations would at first seem to lose their meaning when applied to 12^th century Byzantines. Yet, the renown of Virgil and of other classical authors in the medieval world did allow certain prejudices to make their way into popular beliefs[5]. To the chroniclers of the crusades, classical references were used on occasion to criticize the Byzantines. However, the decadence and lack of honor of the Greeks had a different cultural significance, namely the incompatibility of Byzantines with the knightly values that were fostered by most crusaders. In fact, the ideals of chivalry, although still new in the early 12^th century, were to become one of the main driving forces of the crusader movement. A knight’s honor was above all a martial honor, based on courage, loyalty and manliness. This honor could also be aristocratic, even though a 12^th century knight was not necessarily a nobleman. Therefore, a knight’s honor was determined not only by his military feats, conduct and merit, but could also be measured by his social standing, ancestry or wealth. Although highly idealized, these were the standards by which most crusader leaders were meant to stand by and die for[6]. As these same crusaders quickly realized, however, the Byzantines did not necessarily share these ideals. Thus, classical references did find a meaning in the context of the crusades, since the crusaders considered the Greeks to be the antithesis of knightly values and were therefore deceitful and effeminate. These concepts of shame and dishonor consequently shaped the Western image of Greeks, an image that was spread mainly by the Normans who were constantly at heads with Byzantium throughout the 12^th century. It was not long before these prejudices found their way into crusader chronicles and eventually into popular beliefs.

To better understand this representation of the Greeks by the crusaders, we must obviously attempt to better understand the Byzantine sense of honor. Instead of being based on Germanic tradition, the honor of 12^th century Byzantines was truer to its Roman origin,

p. 49

being in fact more intellectual and hierarchical than it was martial[7]. Several Byzantine chroniclers, who considered that it was just as honorable to defeat an enemy through wisdom and deceit than it was through force of arms, corroborate this[8]. Naturally, this frame of mind was foreign to 12^th century crusader knights, for whom battle was the principal way to measure one’s honor. Furthermore, crusader leaders were often confronted with values characteristic of the Byzantine imperial court, since they more often than not dealt and negotiated directly with the emperor and his entourage. Byzantine courtly honor was distinctively hierarchical, so that one’s worth was mainly determined by his social rank and his ability to climb the empire’s administrative hierarchy, whether it be through cunning or other questionable means. This, in a crusader’s perspective, not only removed the right for a warrior to distinguish himself in battle by his courage and valor, but also cast distrust on the Byzantines’ sense of loyalty[9].

Clearly, the Byzantines did not satisfy crusader expectations of honor and this difference eventually made its way into relations between both parties. In fact, the leaders of the First Crusade quickly became weary of Byzantine promises and began to suspect treachery in each of their dealings. Crusaders even suspected the Greeks of cooperating with the Turks, a suspicion that on some occasions was not entirely unfounded[10]. Thus, the cultural gulf, fueled by political, religious and economic rivalry, eventually led Westerners to consider Greeks to be “the wickedest race of people.”[11] It is also interesting to note that by the end of the 12^th century, the ambiguous term of Grifon was increasingly applied to the Greeks[12]. Whether this designation was a simple deformation of “Greek” in old French (Griu), or whether it implied a more subtle cultural significance, has been the subject of

p. 50

discussion in the past. The fact is that Grifon might very well have become a play of words or a humorous alteration of Griu to Occidental writers, although we must also speculate about the representation of the mythical griffin in medieval minds, which was often considered as a greedy monster and the selfish guardian of great wealth[13]. As we will later discuss, crusader accusations towards the Byzantines often included the notion of thievery, which would lend credence to such an assumption. Whatever the case, the word certainly implied contempt and testifies to the tense interactions between Greeks and Latins by the end of the 12^th century[14].

Our present analysis does not however have the ambition of studying the cultural conflict between the crusaders and the Byzantines as a whole. Instead, it is our intention to narrow the problem down to a more specific manifestation of this cultural discord based on honor, namely the crusader representation of Byzantine court ceremonial. We need not stress the cultural value of Byzantine ceremonial and of the imperial ideology that is behind it, nor the impact that it had on crusader minds[15]. Our interest in it is emphasized by the fact that the monarchs and lords who led the crusades often came into vital contact with court ceremonial while negotiating passage through Constantinople and Byzantine territories. In fact, all diplomatic contact with the Byzantine emperor or his emissaries was inevitably carried out in a ceremonial manner. Furthermore, ceremonial of such symbolism and magnitude was unknown in 12^th century Europe, so that such a display of grandeur and opulence was without a doubt surprising and even exaggerated in crusader opinions.

Western chroniclers of the crusades bear testimony to this perception of Byzantine court ceremonial. To them, Byzantine court culture was impressive enough to be included in their accounts, as it satisfied Western expectations of an exotic and awe-inspiring oriental world. However, the ceremonial did also confirm Western preconceptions about Greeks, namely that they were effeminate and perfidious. Their treachery was in fact perceived in relation to the emperor, who was at the center of court ceremonial and whose every ritualistic gesture was considered insincere due to the machiavellian means of Byzantine diplomacy[16]. As to their lack of virility, it was mainly seen through other facets of the court ceremonial that supported the idea of a decadent civilization according to Western standards: eunuchs, rich and flamboyant attires, as well as laziness and excessive refinement. Thus, through the lens of Byzantine court ceremonial, we can hope to better

p. 51

understand the Western representation of Greeks and, on a larger scale, the cultural gulf that characterized their relationship throughout the crusades of the 12^th century.

In this perspective, the Latin chronicles of the first four crusades represent our principal sources for the present study[17]. Obviously, such a large corpus of chronicles is quite diversified and often conflicting in its opinions, depending on a chronicler’s background, loyalties and profession. Nonetheless, most chroniclers remain constant in their view for Western knightly values, regardless that they were ecclesiastics, European or native to the crusader states[18]. These chroniclers were also imbued with classical literary models, even though, as stated earlier, not all necessarily had access to the original works. In fact, some simply relied on popular maxims from classical literature that crept into anti-Greek sentiment[19]. Therefore, even these divergent chronicles can provide us with an impression of Western attitudes towards the Byzantines. Two chroniclers, however, offer us more insight than the others: Odo of Deuil († 1162), Louis VII’s chaplain during the second crusade, and William of Tyre (c. 1130-1185), archbishop of the same city and twice ambassador to Constantinople on behalf of the king of Jerusalem. These chroniclers were not only first-hand witnesses of Byzantine ceremonial and diplomacy, due to the importance of their positions, but also offer the most complete descriptions of the ceremonial by Westerners in the 12^th century.

In sum, our analysis wishes to cast a new approach on the cultural bitterness between Greeks and Latins during the crusades. Although some attempts have been made to offer new interpretations of the problem, little has been done regarding Western representation of Byzantine court ceremonial, at any rate for the 12^th century. By this, we do not intend to minimize the study of otherness during the crusades, since cultural questions have been the focal point of many recent studies[20]. The fact remains, however, that the representation of ceremonial has not yet been seriously considered as a window on

p. 52

conflicting values between both cultures[21]. How can we explain this absence in the modern historiography of the crusades? Most likely has it been surmised that Western chronicles offer too little details on Byzantine rituals to make a thorough enough study of the problem. Although this is true, our present research intends to deal with the representation of ceremonial as a whole, which is abundant in certain chronicles, and not on the representation of specific rituals, which are lacking even in Byzantine chronicles themselves. Another reason for criticism might be the scarce amount of first-hand witnesses among the chroniclers of the crusades, since access to the Imperial palace and its court ceremonial was limited to only a handful of lords and their entourage. This, however, is actually a benefit to our study, since cultural history often gains more from symbolic interpretations than from actual facts. In fact, in relation to Western mentality, a second-hand account can offer us more insight in the minds of the crusaders than factual interpretation. Although we will rely on chronicles that are as accurate as possible, such as those of Odo of Deuil or William of Tyre, all records can nonetheless be taken into account. In this way, we can hope to cast new light on this cultural breakdown in the 12^th century.

I. Byzantine court ceremonial

Before understanding crusader representation of the Greeks, it is only reasonable that we dedicate a few lines to better understanding their court ceremonial, their diplomacy and their imperial ideology. In fact, the Byzantines made little distinction between these fundamental elements of their civilization. Their empire - the only true Christian empire - was at the center of the world, serving as a beacon to all the barbarian nations that surrounded it. As for their emperor, he was God’s representative on Earth, the supreme monarch of worldly affairs. These beliefs were confirmed and maintained by a complex system of ceremonial and precedence in state affairs, which all contributed to a sense of “imperial mystery”[22]. The emperor’s magnitude and dignity was to be passed on not only to his subjects, but also to foreign nations who were, according to Byzantine ideology, also his subjects. The intricate system of precedence was thus transposed to other nations, so that a foreign monarch’s prestige was measured according to his rank in Byzantium’s world hierarchy[23]. Naturally, many monarchs viewed this policy with contempt, considering it a show of Byzantine arrogance, while other rulers of smaller kingdoms often strived to remain in the empire’s goodwill in order to ensure their survival. However, whatever a monarch’s position towards the empire’s notion of supremacy, each had to put up with it

p. 53

while negotiating with the emperor. In fact, the Byzantines made it a point to emphasize their claims through specific rituals in diplomatic encounters.

Throughout the centuries, the Byzantines had refined their diplomacy down to an art. Constant aggression from foreign nations and the geographical vulnerability of their frontiers had more than stressed the importance of diplomacy to ensure the empire’s survival. In such a context, information and disinformation were essential to the Byzantines, as well as other diplomatic maneuvers, such as dividing and conquering, or even outright deception. When these approaches failed, the Byzantines resorted to forming alliances against potential enemies or simply buying them out, war usually being the last recourse. Above all, however, Byzantine diplomacy relied on intimidation, not through force of arms, but by displaying the empire’s wealth and splendor. By elaborate ceremonies, the emperor often managed to impress, charm and coax foreign ambassadors to his bidding[24]. Such policies, in which the end often justified the means - to the emperor’s advantage, of course - tended to be quite successful and insured the empire’s survival until the 15^th century. On the other hand, Byzantine diplomacy was often frowned upon by many nations and the empire’s reputation was tarnished in the process.

The crusader leaders were by no means spared from such Byzantine policies. Since the crusaders often entered Byzantine territories as marauders, the emperor was naturally suspicious of their real intentions and used whatever maneuvers he could to ensure the safety of his realm. Open conflict not being a viable option, diplomacy and intimidation through ceremonial were therefore employed by the Byzantines to impress and intimidate their Christian counterparts. As the accounts of chroniclers of the crusades demonstrate, this Byzantine policy could sometimes have the desired effect of astonishment and wonder on Westerners. William of Tyre, for example, not only offers his readers with a surprisingly complete description of the reception of the king of Jerusalem, Amalric I, by Manuel I Comnenus in 1171, but does not neglect to emphasize the beauty and splendor of the imperial palace, nor the elegance of the court ceremonial[25]. In other circumstances, however, Byzantine diplomacy and court ceremonial could also be considered arrogant, perfidious and decadent. For example, the same William of Tyre, as we will later discuss, fails to mention details that in his opinion smacked of Byzantine imperialism and that could be considered humiliating to his king. Other chroniclers were even less courteous, choosing to openly criticize and ridicule Byzantine culture and traditions. Evidently, these examples emphasize the preordained clash of Byzantine culture with the crusader ideals of honor in the 12^th century.

II. The perception of perfidy in Byzantine court ceremonial

To medieval Europe, the Orient symbolized a utopia of wealth and refinement, of inaccessible wonders and mysteries. Confined to the farthest reaches of Europe, Byzantium not only became a bridge to the strange and outlandish worlds of Asia, but being a Christian

p. 54

empire, it also became a buffer state or rather a compromise that contained the better parts of both worlds. After all, the empire’s capital, Constantinople, contained some of the greatest treasures of the Christian world, as well as the most numerous and magnificent palaces and churches. As a matter of fact, Western travelers to Constantinople could not fail to notice and admire the splendors of the city and, for those who were allowed inside the palaces, the magnificence of the imperial court. Needless to say, the Byzantine emperor organized for his guests grandiose receptions on a scale that could barely be equaled in Western Europe. It is therefore not surprising that all the chroniclers of the crusades throughout the 12^th century agree that the kings and lords who entered the emperor’s presence were always received with much “honor”[26]. Even those chroniclers who limit themselves to the briefest descriptions of Byzantine court ceremonial use the adjective honorabilis to sum up the reception of their lord or king. Of course, this notion of honor did not necessarily refer to any military value or morality of the Byzantines, but to the social importance the emperor attributed to the crusaders and which measured a nobleman’s hierarchical prestige.

Stephen of Blois, one of the few lords of the First Crusade to be favorable to the Emperor Alexius I Comnenus, emphasizes the honors that were bestowed upon him in a letter he wrote to his wife in 1097:

“I arrived at the city of Constantinople with great joy, by the grace of God. The emperor received me like his own son with much kindness and honor, and enriched me with very many precious gifts. In this whole army of God’s and ours there is no duke or count or any other powerful person whom he trusts and favors more than me. Indeed, my love, his Imperial Dignity has in the past often advised me, and still does, that we should entrust one of our sons to him, whom he promised to treat with such outstanding honor that he should not miss us at all. Truly I tell you, in our day there is not another man in his likes living under heaven. For he is quite generous to all our leaders, he assists all the knights with gifts and refreshes all the poor with feasting.”[27]

Alas, this testimony by Stephen of Blois is unique and does not reflect the attitudes of the other leaders of the First Crusade towards Alexius. The chroniclers of the crusades did of course recognize the great honors that were bestowed by the Emperor upon their leaders, but this acknowledgment was always shadowed by suspicion of Greek treachery. After all, many crusader armies had come to blows with Alexius’ mercenaries,

p. 55

and this as soon as they had entered Byzantine territory. Raymond of Aguilers, among others, condemns the fact that the crusaders were harassed by the Emperor’s soldiers, especially since they were in Christian lands among fellow Christians. Furthermore, Raymond’s mistrust of the Greeks was fueled by the letters of peace and brotherhood sent to the leaders by Alexius, while the Emperor’s men continued to attack the crusaders.[28] Although the crusaders were not without blame in these quarrels with the imperial troops, the leaders nonetheless became weary of Alexius’ true intentions towards them. When the leaders eventually met the Emperor, it was only natural that they also suspect treachery behind the ceremonial’s polished and golden façade.

The emperor’s sincerity

As mentioned above, the chroniclers mostly questioned the emperor’s honesty, going so far as to cast doubt on the sincerity of his every word and action. According to his son-in-law, Nicephorus Bryennius, Alexius surpassed all others by his eloquence and the charm of his conversations, preferring to settle disputes with words rather than with force. By the time of the Second Crusade, Odo of Deuil actually considered that this trait was common to all Greeks, so that one should always remain cautious when dealing with them[29]. Although the Byzantines valued such a quality, the crusaders considered that a person’s worth and honor was better measured by his actions than by his words. Byzantine eloquence was therefore thought to be elusive, useless and even deceitful. Many chroniclers of the First Crusade were skeptical of Alexius’ flattery and persuasiveness[30]. As for Odo of Deuil, he considered that Manuel’s praise of Louis VII was so embellished that it could not be sincere, not to mention that such exaggerations were not worthy of an emperor, but of a buffoon. The repeated adulations by the emperor’s messengers were such that a Latin bishop even had to warn them to simply come down to the facts, for such flatteries were making the French king uncomfortable[31].

As a matter of fact, Latin suspicion of Greek eloquence was not entirely unfounded, although in some cases this would often be confirmed to the crusaders too late. Lying was not necessarily dishonorable in a Byzantine perspective, at any rate when concerning the empire’s standpoint towards other nations. After all, Byzantium considered itself hierarchically superior to its neighbors and believed that bending the truth to an inferior was acceptable for the empire’s interests, the same way that it was permissible for a

p. 56

parent to lie to a child to insure its well-being[32]. During the Fourth Crusade, Geoffroi of Villehardouin considered that the young Alexius IV, whom the crusaders had helped to seize power, ultimately forsook his promises towards his benefactors because of the arrogance and pride of his imperial office[33]. It is therefore not surprising that most crusaders and chroniclers quickly became wary of Byzantine faithfulness in diplomatic matters. This suspicion was no doubt apparent during the ritualistic exchange of kisses at the beginning of each diplomatic encounter, a medieval tradition which symbolized the good faith, sincerity and loyalty of each participant[34]. Skepticism was all the more obvious in the proposals of adoption made by Alexius and other emperors towards the crusader leaders. The Byzantine custom of adopting foreign rulers had the main purpose of including other nations in the imperial hierarchy, as well of pacifying potential foes with many honors and privileges. The crusaders however misinterpreted the emperor’s offer, believing them to be genuine manifestations of filial affection. Of course, subsequent events proved to disappoint this belief and only fueled distrust in the Byzantines[35]. Clearly, Latin and Greek suspicion of each other, although partly rooted in past experiences between both parties, was also based in cultural misunderstanding.

The pride of the crusader leaders

Another aspect we must consider is the perception of arrogance in court ceremonial, since in some cases it put into question the pride of the crusader leaders. During the First Crusade, Alexius demanded that the leaders swear an oath, for he was doubtful of the crusaders’ true intentions towards his empire. This oath, which was given and sealed by the leaders in a ceremonial setting, was denounced by several chroniclers, such as Guibert of Nogent: “The fact that we had been compelled by the puny Greeks, laziest of all people, to swear an oath would be our eternal shame.”[36] Obviously, it was considered dishonorable for a knight to swear an oath to someone who was himself without honor. This explains why Ralph of Caen and the anonymous author of the Gesta francorum were so harsh towards Bohemund of Tarento for swearing the oath to Alexius, while they praised Tancred for avoiding such humiliation by secretly crossing the Bosporus. In fact, the oath was so embarrassing to most leaders that some later justified their action on extreme necessity and the excuse that the expedition might have been compromised had they acted otherwise.

p. 57

Alexius’ dishonor would even justify the breaking of this oath by most leaders at a later date[37].

Although the oath taking was humiliating to many leaders, other rituals in diplomatic encounters could be even more so. This was the case with the prostration ritual and other submission ceremonies that everyone, including foreign leaders, had to perform in the emperor’s presence[38]. Such customs were not unknown in Europe, nor was the practice of submitting to a superior put in doubt by the crusaders. However, if the emperor’s honor was on trial, obedience towards him could be considered dishonorable. Furthermore, the submission ritual, which could imply three complete prostrations on the floor, was much more degrading than any other similar ritual in Europe[39]. In some cases, particularly when the emperor had the upper hand, humiliation through rituals could be significant. William of Tyre offers us a perfect example when describing the reception of the Prince of Antioch, Reynald of Châtillon, by his suzerain, Manuel I Comnenus, in 1159. Reynald, who had fallen into disgrace, was compelled to present himself to the emperor as a supplicant. As expected, the Byzantines made it a point for the event to be symbolic:

“For in view of the assembled legions, he is said to have appeared before the emperor barefooted and clothed in a woolen tunic short to the elbows, with a rope around his neck and a naked sword in his hand. Holding this by the point, he presented the hilt to the emperor. As soon as he had thus surrendered his sword, he threw himself on the ground at the emperor’s feet, where he lay prostrate till all were disgusted and the glory of the Latins was turned into shame.”[40]

Obviously, the pride of the Normans and of all Latins in the Near East was deeply wounded by this event. Reynald’s clothing is an indication of this unfortunate humiliation: first, the prince was deprived of the rich clothing worthy of his status, being forced to wear a coarse woolen fabric. The fact that he had to approach the emperor barefooted and in a sleeveless tunic was also degrading to the Prince’s honor. In fact, short sleeves were considered by the Byzantines to be immoral and impure, even humiliating in some cases[41].

p. 58

As for the rope tied around the neck and the sword surrendered by the hilt, they more than symbolized the Prince’s total submission to the emperor. It is fairly safe to assume that this event did nothing to improve the already tense relations between the inhabitants of the crusader states and the Byzantines.

William of Tyre also describes the reception in Constantinople of the King of Jerusalem, Amalric I, by Manuel in 1171. In this account, the Archbishop of Tyre however seems to remain silent on details that could harm his sovereign’s pride[42]. According to William, Amalric was introduced into the Chrysotriklinos, the imperial throne room and audience chamber. Rich curtains of great workmanship were set up to hide the Emperor on his throne as the King and his suite entered. Curtains had a specific function in Byzantine ceremonial, for they emphasized the mystery and wonder of the event while the ceremony’s last preparations were performed out of the audience’s sight. William explains that Amalric was invited alone behind these curtains, where Manuel rose from his seat to greet and embrace him. Since it was highly uncommon for a Byzantine emperor to rise before someone while in audience, such an honor being bestowed but rarely, William deduced that Manuel had chosen to do so behind the curtains so as to not be humiliated before his subjects. Of course, such an interpretation is rather questionable, given that Manuel undoubtedly had the upper hand over Amalric: the King, in fact, had come to Constantinople to ask for the Emperor’s help against the Egyptians, who posed a threat to his already precarious kingdom. We are thus led to believe the opposite of William’s account: the curtains had most likely served to hide Amalric from his suite as he paid homage to Manuel, a sight that would surely have wounded the King’s pride had his own subjects witnessed it[43]. William’s silences, or doubtful interpretations, were quite obviously meant to protect his kingdom’s sovereignty, which offers us interesting insight on Latin attitudes towards the subtleties of Byzantine ceremonial and diplomacy.

Once the usual formalities had been performed, William of Tyre goes on to describe that Amalric was given a throne to sit upon, although his chair was slightly lower than Manuel’s. The archbishop, a man of accuracy, allows himself to mention this particular

p. 59

Byzantine protocol, which demanded that an emperor be seated higher than all those in his presence. In fact, protocol during an audience usually prohibited anyone from sitting in the emperor’s presence, this privilege being granted to only the most important individuals[44]. William therefore understood the importance and honor of this permission even though his King was given lower precedence. In a feudal perspective, the empire was theoretically superior to the Kingdom of Jerusalem, so that such a practice would not be considered abnormal or humiliating to the Latins, although it probably suggested Byzantine arrogance. A similar example is given by Odo of Deuil: during Louis VII’s passage in Constantinople in 1147, the chaplain describes that the King was allowed to sit in Manuel’s presence. Odo however fails to mention if the two seats were of the same height and stature, an omission that is somewhat suspicious. John Cinnamus, who offers us the Byzantine perspective, states that only a simple chair had been provided to Louis, while Manuel was seated on a much elaborate and splendid throne[45]. Regardless of Cinnamus’ many biases, his interpretation seems more probable, since Byzantine protocol was fairly strict on such matters. Contrary to William of Tyre, Odo perhaps considered that such a detail was damaging to his sovereign’s dignity, so that he chose to overlook it.

The chroniclers of the Fourth Crusade surprisingly offer us a different interpretation of Byzantine ceremonial. Geoffroi of Villehardouin, who personally attended the audiences with the new Emperor Alexius IV and his father Isaac II, does not put as much emphasis on Byzantine arrogance as his predecessors did. Of course, the circumstances were much different than during the other crusades: the crusaders had assisted Alexius in regaining his rightful power and were thus his champions and in some cases even his friends. Furthermore, the political events and upheavals of the last few years had greatly weakened the imperial authority, which inevitably had an impact on Byzantine pretensions. This explains why Villehardouin and his fellow envoys could interact with the emperors in a more casual manner. The crusaders were even invited to discuss matters in private, away from the eyes and ears of the court[46]. Although this need for privacy can more likely be explained by Alexius and Isaac trying to avoid disapproval from the anti-Latin factions of the court, the fact remains that the crusaders were given more honors and liberty in the ceremonial setting. This familiarity not only softened the chronicler’s view of Byzantine ceremonial but, as we will discuss later, also led the envoys to transgress certain important protocols and trigger the Byzantines’ condemnation. Once the friendship between Alexius and the crusaders had collapsed, Villehardouin only then denounces the treachery and arrogance of the Greeks, who had turned hostile towards their benefactors[47]. Villehardouin and his contemporaries, it seems, still had a poor understanding of Byzantine policies and traditions.

p. 60

“Greek gifts”

The splendor and renown of Byzantium in the medieval world was due for the most part to the marvelous gifts and offerings the emperor would often distribute to foreign potentates and other visitors at his court. Byzantine presents, which surpassed all others in finesse and value, actually had the function of confirming the empire’s superiority towards other nations and, obviously, to gain their loyalty and friendship[48]. Although this Byzantine method was quite successful on the whole, the empire’s products being quite coveted and valued abroad, there was a drawback on the diplomatic level: over the centuries, many foreigners came to cast doubt on the sincerity of these presents, judging that they were merely a way of buying them out. 10^th century Russians, for instance, considered that Byzantine offerings concealed deceit and were always cautious in their dealings with the emperor[49]. Although some nations valued the Byzantines’ generosity, those who had frequent contact with them were often suspicious of their true intentions, fearing in fact that the Greeks were merely coaxing their victims through greed to do their biding or make agreements that would ultimately not be to their advantage.

The crusaders, of course, were prone to the same suspicions as their predecessors. In the opinion of the chroniclers, if the words and actions of the emperor could not be trusted, then the imperial gifts, given in a ceremonial context, couldn’t either. The chroniclers believed that the presents were a manifestation of Greek treachery and the tragedy was that many leaders fell into the trap as a result of their greediness. Apparently, the Byzantines were not blind to the avarice of the crusaders: Anna Comnena, for instance, believed that the Franks always had their mouths open wide in front of wealth[50]. Furthermore, Alexius I, who kept many Latins at his court, was most likely familiar with some of the values of Western aristocracy, namely that a sovereign’s wealth and generosity were the foundation of his power and authority[51] - it therefore only seemed normal that he should take advantage of this knowledge to gain the crusaders’ favor. The chroniclers of the First Crusade, on the other hand, considered that their leaders were compromising their honor by accepting bribes that eventually led them to swearing shameful oaths. It was therefore less the gifts that were condemned than the means by which their leaders fell prey to Byzantine deception. Some leaders were actually aware of this danger and attempted to avoid diplomatic and ceremonial encounters altogether: according to Albert of Aachen, Godfrey of Bouillon refused to meet with Alexius for many weeks while camping before Constantinople, the Duke wishing to remain sheltered from any Byzantine tricks by receiving whatever the Emperor had to offer at a distance[52]. This fear of “Greek gifts” is

p. 61

unmistakably a distant echo of Virgil’s epic, in which the offering of the Greeks had become the means to their perfidious intentions. This theme is recurrent in the accounts of later chroniclers: William of Tyre, for instance, mentions the timeo Danaos et ferentes passage twice in his chronicle, while Odo of Deuil declares that this proverb was often repeated even by laymen[53]. The reputation of the Greeks, passed down through Antiquity, was clearly well established during the crusades.

III. The perception of masculinity in Byzantine court ceremonial

The lack of masculinity of the Greeks, as seen through their laziness and decadence, was judged more severely by the chroniclers of the crusades than their perfidy. In fact, crusader knights considered ignavia to be worse than perfidia[54]. This lassitude of the Byzantines was mainly attributed to their military traits, namely that they were inferior to the Latins, lacked courage on the battlefield and often used dishonorable tactics in war[55]. The Greeks were also accused of avoiding hand-to-hand combat, the only way for a knight to measure his worth, and of using disloyal weapons, such as arrows[56]. Some chroniclers also disapproved of the excessive use of mercenaries by the Byzantines, a sign that the Greeks preferred to pass on the dangers of war to others as a result of their own lack of courage[57]. Without the martial attributes that were essential to knighthood, the honor of the Byzantines was seriously put into question. Furthermore, since a knight’s honor was closely associated to masculinity, Greeks were ultimately considered as effeminate.

The representation of Greeks as effeminate cannot be limited to their military traits alone. The moral and cultural decadence of the Byzantines was also a factor in the crusaders’ opinion. The notion of decadence was not new to the 12^th century: the Romans had long before held the belief that the Orient, bastion of the Hellenistic world, was corrupt and degenerate. According to them, the Greeks had not only softened from laziness and luxury, but had also lost their virility. The emperor Julian, in 363, actually depicted Antioch as a city of debauchery, where men had «not only their jaws shaved smooth but their whole

p. 62

bodies too, so that those who meet them may think them smoother than women.»[58] Although the crusaders followed the same tradition and came to consider all Easterners to be effeminate, including Syrians and Fatimids (the only exception seeming to be the Turks)[59], the Byzantines were targeted more than others. The excessive refinement and sophistication of the Byzantine civilization was at the base of this opinion; a life of luxury and comfort had deprived the Greeks of their valor, their strength and, ultimately, their manliness. Among others, Guibert of Nogent even believed that the Greeks were the laziest of all peoples on the sole basis of their wealth and opulence, while William of Apulia wrote several years earlier that the decadence of the Greeks could be explained by the fact that they neglected war and shamed themselves by disgraceful idleness[60]. As we will see, court ceremonial, which was the precise manifestation of Byzantine sophistication, also had a role in confirming this belief.

Eunuchs in Byzantine ceremonial

Byzantine ceremonial contained many aspects that could be perceived by crusaders as effeminate. Most of all was the abundant presence of eunuchs in the imperial court. For many centuries, the Byzantines had practiced the Oriental custom of castrating young men who were then destined to administrative functions; those who were fortunate enough to reside at the imperial court also had the utility of eliminating any contenders to the imperial throne. In societies of Germanic tradition, however, the source of a man’s virility, as well as part of his honor, was located in the male reproductive organs. A eunuch was therefore considered to be a man who had lost his reproductive capabilities and the aptitude to transmit his name, honor and genes to his progeny. Having no virility, a eunuch was therefore considered in Western European standards to be a man without honor[61].

There is no doubt that the crusaders who had the chance to visit the imperial palaces saw eunuchs. Eunuchs had an essential role in court ceremonies - in fact, the role of introducing foreign visitors into the emperor’s presence was often given to a eunuch[62]. Fulbert of Chartres, for example, estimated that at least twenty thousand eunuchs resided in Constantinople. Odo of Deuil also acknowledged their presence in several ceremonies,

p. 63

going so far as to admire the beauty of their voices when they sang. Roger of Hoveden, on the other hand, was less indulgent, seemingly appalled by the Greek custom of depriving men of their masculinity[63]. According to Guibert of Nogent, Alexius I even went so far as to command that each family in the empire have one of their sons castrated, which of course shocked the chronicler:

“He had issued another edict, ordering families with several sons to have one castrated, thus rendering their bodies, deprived of virility, weak and effeminate, no longer fit for military service. Even worse, they were cut off from producing progeny for the future, who might have been looked for as aid against their enemies. Therefore he who had brought destruction upon himself was now compelled to seek help from foreigners.”[64]

Obviously, Guibert established a correlation between eunuchs and the military inadequacies of the Greeks. As he mentions, the Byzantines not only condemned themselves to disaster by preventing men to reproduce and provide future generations with offspring, but also deprived these men of the right to become warriors and defend the empire. In Guibert’s perspective, this explained why the Greeks could not lead their own wars and always required the help of mercenaries, a fact that was dishonorable to Westerners.

Masculinity and Greek clothing

Another factor in the crusader image of effeminate Greeks can be attributed to the flamboyant costumes worn by Byzantines on ceremonial occasions. Byzantine costumes, by their extravagance and their wealth, often impressed strangers, but also produced contempt. Several centuries before the crusades, the ambassador Liutprand of Cremona was indeed highly critical of the Byzantines’ ceremonial clothing, going so far as to making a parallel between these and the lack of virility of the Greeks. While on excursion with the emperor, Liutprand describes the emperor’s effeminate garments: his hair was long and covered by a scarf, while his tunic was loose-fitting and long sleeved. Latins, on the other hand, had more elegant hairstyles and did not wear scarves like women, but hats instead[65]. This negative representation of Byzantine clothing can in part be explained by the tantrum that was caused when Liutprand insisted on wearing a hat on the expedition, which was prohibited in the emperor’s presence, and was invited to wear a scarf instead. In fact, Liutprand’s whole stay in Constantinople in 968 was marked by tense relations with the Byzantines, which explains his harsh attitude towards them.

In the 12^th century, clothing fashion in Byzantium and the West was of course different from the 10^th century. For example, Liutprand of Cremona describes Byzantine costumes with ample sleeves, while Odo of Deuil mentions for his own time period that the

p. 64

Byzantines preferred tight sleeves[66]. Furthermore, Western influences made themselves known in Byzantium by the end of the 12^th century, so that trousers and other kinds of breeches became common in Byzantine fashion[67]. Despite this, the chroniclers of the crusades still considered Greek garments to be eccentric and outlandish. Strangeness was not necessarily negative, however: the splendor and refinement of the imperial ceremonial dress was in fact unique in the known world and was quite admired by Westerners[68]. William of Tyre was impressed by the magnificence of the imperial dress, with all its incrusted pearls and gems. Benjamin of Tudela even considered that the everyday clothing of the Byzantines was rich and luxuriant; Greeks were actually similar to princes in their silk garments embroidered with gold. Odo of Deuil also acknowledged the wealth of Greek clothing, adding that they wore tight attire to move around unimpeded, as would athletes[69].

Exaggeration was however a cause for criticism among certain chroniclers. The same Odo of Deuil perceived the Emperor Manuel I Comnenus as an “idol” because of the excessive amount of gems that adorned his ceremonial dress. As to Albert of Aachen, he believed that the imperial attire was “poisoned”, its purpose being to distract the spectator and conceal the emperor’s perfidious intentions[70]. Nicetas Choniates, who was himself a Byzantine administrator, explains in his chronicle how German ambassadors criticized the imperial dress during an audience with Alexius III Angelus in 1196:

‘The Germans have neither need of such spectacles, nor do they wish to become worshipers of ornaments and garments secured by brooches suited only for women whose painted faces, headdresses, and glittering earrings are especially pleasing to men.’ To frighten the Romans they said, ‘The time has now come to take off effeminate garments and brooches and to put on iron instead of gold.’[71]

Paradoxically, this passage demonstrates how the Western representation of effeminate Greeks was not unknown to the Byzantines themselves. Certain clarifications are however required concerning the accounts of Latin chroniclers. After all, resplendent ceremonial dresses were also common in Europe, so that the crusaders were not necessarily rejecting the magnificence and dignity of the Byzantine costume. In fact, the emperor regularly sent ceremonial dresses as gifts to foreign monarchs and these silk outfits were highly prized. This was also true for the crusaders: Bohemund of Tarento, among others, had a pronounced taste for Byzantine cloth and broidery[72]. Following the fall of Constantinople in 1204, it was even common for the Latin emperors to wear the Byzantine

p. 65

ceremonial attire, a symbol of their new imperial authority[73]. Obviously, it was less the symbolic and political value of the costume that was condemned than its cultural significance.

To sum up, it is essential to point out that the representation of effeminate Greeks did not only derive from Byzantine court ceremonial, with all its eunuchs and exotic outfits. However, court ceremonial did support on some levels the crusader idea that Greeks were weak and cowardly in battle. Other explanations have also been suggested to explain this crusader mentality. Jean-Charles Payen, for example, hinted that the term femineus, often attributed to the Greeks, was in fact an accusation of homosexuality as a result of the legendary sensuality of Orientals[74]. Even though homosexuality could be tolerated in practice (not in theory) in Byzantium, this hypothesis seems improbable, for no mention of such practices was made by the chroniclers of the crusades[75]. Another explanation could be the surprising amount of women at the Byzantine court, coupled with the fact that women had a greater social status in Byzantium than in 12^th century Europe[76]. Then again, Byzantine protocol attempted to minimize contact between the ladies of the court and foreigners, so that we might even doubt if the crusaders were aware of their greater social standing[77]. All things considered, Byzantine ceremonial seems to better explain the crusader image of effeminate Greeks than any parallel with our own contemporary idea of what is womanly or not.

IV. Summary: crusader reactions towards Byzantine ceremonial

Until now our analysis has established that the crusaders usually preferred straightforwardness to the subtleties of Byzantine diplomacy, in which patience and smooth talk were essential. Obviously, the initial expectations of an exotic Oriental world rapidly made way to the cold reality of cultural rivalry between Greeks and Latins: the crusader chroniclers thus determined that Byzantine ceremonial could not be trusted, for it was clearly a curtain behind which the Greeks hid their cowardice and treacherous intentions. This representation of Greeks we have briefly outlined in this article, but we have failed to discuss what were the reactions of the crusaders towards a ceremonial system that they considered to be perfidious and effeminate. After all, a negative (or even positive) perception often entails a reaction, so that the response of the crusader leaders can give us as much information as the representation of the chroniclers. The question is, in fact, to determine whether the crusaders remained passive before Byzantine ceremonial, or whether they displayed their contempt for Byzantine culture in a more or less straightforward way. Although such a matter could give rise to another study in itself, we will nonetheless

p. 66

dedicate a few lines to better understanding what impact crusader attitude towards Byzantine ceremonial had on relations between Greeks and Latins in the 12^th century.

The accounts of the chroniclers usually depict two types of reactions from the crusader leaders who interacted with the emperor: either they transgressed the established protocol, or they simply attempted to avoid Byzantine ceremonial altogether. The problem mainly resides in the chroniclers’ frequent failure to mention their leaders’ attitude towards Byzantine ceremonial, although this can often be interpreted through their attitude and actions towards the emperor. Another obstacle is in establishing whether the crusaders transgressed protocol on purpose or by simple ignorance, since Byzantine rituals were more complex than any Western ones. On some occasions, however, crusader intentions were quite clear and it is these examples that offer us true insight on crusader attitudes towards Byzantine ceremonial.

Thus, the leaders who considered the ceremonial to be decadent and arrogant reacted in different and often outrageous ways. Anna Comnena recounts the famous case of a French knight, from the suite of Godfrey of Bouillon, who dared to sit on the imperial throne while in audience with Alexius I. After he had been reprimanded for his audacity and questioned on his motives, the knight simply retorted by putting into question the emperor’s honor[78]. Other examples of crusader arrogance abound. Tancred, for instance, snubbed the emperor’s gifts and demanded the imperial tent instead, a request that Alexius turned down angrily. Conrad III, five decades later, demanded that the imperial dromon be put at his disposal for his troops to cross the Bosporus, which again irritated Alexius’ grandson, Manuel I[79]. The princes of Antioch, who were always reluctant to recognize Byzantine suzerainty, also made it a point to highlight their hostility through the subtleties of ceremonial. For example, under some shady pretext, Raymond of Poitiers irrupted in the palace then occupied by John II Comnenus in Antioch, threw himself at the emperor’s feet, and thus deliberately eluded the established audience protocol that was so important to the Byzantines[80].

Byzantine ceremonial, which could be considered humiliating by the crusaders, was also a cause for reaction among certain leaders. Bohemund, who feared that Byzantine ceremonial would emphasize his disgrace after his surrender at Durazzo, actually dictated the terms on which he was to meet Alexius, terms that the Byzantines partially accepted[81]. During the Second Crusade, the meeting of Louis VII and Conrad III with Manuel generated other embarrassing situations; Conrad, for instance, refused to kiss Manuel’s knees, stating that it was unheard of for an emperor to bow to an emperor[82]. The leaders of the Fourth Crusade committed similar outrages, namely to accuse Alexius IV out loud before the whole Byzantine court, and then to confront the Emperor with an ultimatum. Such effrontery obviously raised the anger of all those present[83].

Finally, some leaders resorted to passive rather than open resistance by simply avoiding the ceremonial, such as Tancred and Godfrey of Bouillon during the First Crusade

p. 67

and Conrad III during the Second[84]. These leaders believed that the best way to preserve their own honor and avoid being trapped by the emperor’s gifts and other enticements was to bypass the ceremonial altogether. Tancred even went that far as to cross the Bosporus among his men in disguise, so as to not be forced by the Emperor to meet him and swear an oath before the crossing. Surprisingly, Tancred considered it was less humiliating to dress as a simple foot soldier than to submit to Alexius’ request, which tells us a lot about crusader attitudes towards the Greeks.

In conclusion, it is obvious that crusaders misunderstood - or understood too well - the importance and ideological significance that the Byzantines held for their court ceremonial. Those who attempted to elude the emperor quickly realized that one did not manage to avoid Byzantine ceremonial unless they avoided Byzantium altogether. As a matter of fact, Tancred, Godfrey and Conrad III were all compelled to submit to the emperor at one time or another. On the whole, however, the Byzantines did prove to be tolerant when faced with crusader misbehavior. After all, although some transgressions were serious enough to be punishable by death, the emperor never seems to have gone so far. At the most, he emphasized his displeasure with the crusaders and reduced whatever honors or gifts he had intended for them. This was the case for the King of Jerusalem, Baldwin III, who either by ignorance or open defiance dismounted his horse before Manuel had done so during a ceremonial procession. To emphasize his discontent, Manuel is simply said to have shown less honor and bestowed less gifts upon the king[85]. On one occasion only does a chronicler, in this case Villehardouin, assert that boastful crusaders left the emperor’s presence while fearing for their lives, but then again no harm was done to them[86]. Obviously, the emperor wished to maintain the crusaders’ goodwill as much as the crusaders needed Byzantine cooperation to cross the empire and mount a successful expedition in the Holy Land. For the sake of diplomacy, both parties were usually lenient towards one another and concessions were often made. Unfortunately, cultural, political and economic rivalries did eventually lead to tense relations and jeopardize the idea of Christian fraternity until 1204. The crusader representation of Byzantine ceremonial, even though it represents a mere facet of the 12^th century conflict between Greeks and Latins, nonetheless emphasizes the cultural antagonism between two factions of Christianity that had too high expectations for one another.

p. 68

* This article is based in part on my M.A. thesis entitled “L’image du Grec selon les chroniqueurs des croisades: perceptions et réactions face au cérémonial byzantin (1096-1204)”, University of Sherbrooke, June 2000. The full-text version of this same thesis is available at the following internet address: http://www.callisto.si.usherb.ca/~croisade/Byzance.htm. I wish to thank my colleague, Mr. Yves Gravelle, who was kind enough to read and comment the first version of this article.

[1] Much has already been written on the political and military aspects of the problem. Among recent studies, see K. Ciggaar, Western Travelers to Constantinople. The West and Byzantium, 962-1204: Cultural and Political Relations, New York: E. J. Brill, 1996; also Ralph-Johannes Lilie, Byzantium and the Crusader States 1096-1204, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993 [1988].

[2] The use of term ‘representation’ throughout this article, as opposed to that of ‘perception’, is attributed to the fine distinction between both words. Indeed, perception implies a more visual connotation, in that it derives directly from the senses and is the product of direct and physical observation. Representation, on the other hand, is not always ocular, being in some cases intangible, or rather the simple image or picture of something else. The term therefore suggests a more abstract meaning, since it involves mental imagery that is often associated with cultural symbolism. These collective images are unique to each culture, so that they present a window on the medieval mind, in this case the mentality of the crusaders. For the needs of our analysis, the term ‘perception’ thus appears less acurate than ‘representation’, which explains the preferred use of the latter.

[3] “I fear the Greeks, even when they bear gifts”, Virgil (transl. by H. R. Fairclough), Aeneid, Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press, 1999: II, 319.

[4] Among others, see Julian, ed. and transl. by W. C. Wright, “Misopogon” in The Works of the Emperor Julian, Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press, 1949 [1913]; II, 346: 443 and 352: 461.

[5] Although much has been written over the years concerning the influence of classical literature in the Middle Ages, Virgil, among other authors, was widely read in the 12^th century and often cited by medieval chroniclers. Whether these citations were taken out of their original context or not even copied from the original work itself, the fact remains that some of his assessments where known even to some lay people. According to Odo of Deuil, “the proverb ‘I fear the Greeks, even when they bear gifts’ has always been well-known, even among certain laymen”; Odo of Deuil (transl. by V. G. Berry), De profectione Ludovici VII in Orientem - The Journey of Louis VII to the East, New York: Columbia University Press, 1948: II, 27.

[6] This article does not intend to deal with every aspect of knightly honor in the 12^th century, given that the study of honor is complex and unique to each social group, as well as each region and time period. We will therefore limit ourselves to the main aspects of the topic, which were shared by most crusaders, and which are sufficient for our present analysis. Concerning recent studies on knightly values in the 12^th century, see J. Flori, Chevaliers et chevalerie au Moyen Âge, Paris: Hachette Littératures, 1998, as well as C. Morris, «Equestris Ordo: Chivalry as a Vocation in the Twelfth Century», Studies in Church History 15 (1978): 87-96.

[7] Until now, Byzantine honor has not been studied with much thoroughness, since the concept of honor is often absent in Byzantine literature. Some efforts have nonetheless been made to analyze this aspect of Byzantine culture. See P. Magdalino, «Honour Among Romaioi: the Framework of Social Values in the World of Digenes Akrites and Kekaumenos», in Tradition and Transformation in Medieval Byzantium, Aldershot: Variorum Reprints, 1991: III, 183-184. See also G. Dagron, “L’homme sans honneur ou le saint scandaleux”, Annales ESC 45 (July-August 1990), 4: 929-939.

[8] Anna Comnena (ed. and transl. by B. Leib), Alexiade, Paris: Les Belles-Lettres, 1967-1989, XV, iii, 2: 195; John cinnamus (transl. by J. Rosemblum), Chronique, Paris: Les Belles-Lettres, 1972, IV, 13: 116.

[9] Crusaders did not necessarily oppose the idea that honor could be based on a social standpoint, although it was not until the 13^th century that knighthood became a privilege of the European nobility. However, they did question the fact that merit was based on intellect rather than physical prowess, as it was common in the west.

[10] William M. Daly, “Christian Fraternity, the Crusaders, and the Security of Constantinople, 1097-1204: The Precarious Survival of an Ideal”, Mediaeval Studies 22 (1960): 72. Muslim chronicles often corroborate the crusader’s suspicions; Bahâ ad-Dîn. The Life of Saladin, London, 1897: 201 and 335; Ibn al-Qualânisî, transl. by H. A. R. Gibb, The Damascus Chronicle of the Crusades, London: Luzac & Co., 1932: 112.

[11] Gunther of Pairis (transl. by Alfred J. Andrea), The Capture of Constantinople: the Hystoria Constantinopolitana of Gunther of Pairis, Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press, 1997: 97; in the Itinerarium, the Greeks are a “perfidious people, wicked and altogether degenerate generation”, Richard Templo (transl. by Helen J. Nicholson), Chronicle of the Third Crusade. A Translation of the Itinerarium Peregrinorum et Gesta Regis Ricardi, Aldershot: Ashgate, 1997, I, 21: 57.

[12] Geoffroi of Villehardouin, La conquête de Constantinople, Paris: Garnier-Flammarion, 1969, xxxviii, 185: p. 79; Roger of Hoveden (transl. by Henry T. Riley), The Annals of Roger de Hoveden, New York: AMS Press, 1968 [1853]: II, 201; Continuation of William of Tyre (transl. by Peter W. Edbury), The Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade: sources in translation, Aldershot: Ashgate, 1996, 114: 101.

[13] Past research has revealed the cultural meaning behind the use of the word “Griffon” and ultimately the hostility between Greeks and Latins by the end of the 12^th century and afterwards. For different hypothesis on the etymology and significance of the designation, see Urban T. Holmes Jr., “Old French Grifaigne and Grifon”, Studies in Philology 43 (1946): 586-594 and A. A. Livingston, “Grifon Greek and Grifaigne Greek”, Modern Language Notes 22 (1907): 47-51. For more recent studies, see “Griffon” in A. J. Greimas, Dictionnaire de l’ancien français: le Moyen Âge, Paris, Larousse, 1992 [1979]: 300; see also “Griffon” in J. Chevalier, Dictionnaire des symboles, Paris: Robert Laffont, 1969: 392.

[14] The extent of the bitterness caused by the crusades is actually seen in the fact that, by the 13^th century, the term was no longer applied to Greeks alone, but to Muslims and all other Eastern peoples; Livingston, “Grifon Greek and Grifaigne Greek”: 48; Itinerarium, II, 12: 155, n. 45.

[15] G. Dagron offers an interesting cultural approach to the Byzantine ideology and ceremonial; Dagron, Empereur et prêtre: étude sur le 'césaropapisme’ byzantin, Paris: Gallimard, 1996.

[16] Quite often, the crusaders generalized their negative representation of the Byzantine emperor to the entire Greek population. After all, the emperor was the representative of his people and his policies reflected on the reputation of his nation. Chroniclers of the first crusade were in fact inclined to attribute blame to the emperor alone for sour relations with the crusaders, whereas later chroniclers believed that not only the emperor and his court, but all Greeks, were accountable.

[17] Among the Latin chroniclers that comment or hint to Byzantine court ceremonial in their accounts, we find the anonymous author of the Gesta francorum, Raymond of Aguilers, Peter Tudebode, Fulcher of Chartres, Guibert of Nogent, Orderic Vitalis, Ralph of Caen, Albert of Aachen, Odo of Deuil, Otto of Freising, William of Tyre and his continuators, Roger of Hoveden, Benjamin of Tudela, Robert of Clari and Geoffroi of Villehardouin. Since the chroniclers of the third crusade deal less with the Greeks, the crusader leaders usually choosing to avoid Byzantium, their accounts were not considered in our study. However, Byzantine chroniclers did retain our attention, namely Anna Comnena, John Cinnamus and Nicetas Choniates, as they often offer different interpretations to information stated in Western chronicles.

[18] Most of the chroniclers belonging to the clergy, although prone to include strong religious themes in their accounts, were nonetheless the offspring of great aristocratic families and were usually true the emergent ideals of knighthood; Morris, «Equestris Ordo… »: 90. and Flori, Chevaliers et chevalerie…: 114 and 173.

[19] The chroniclers of the crusades relied heavily on traditional knowledge, such as classical or biblical stereotypes, in their representation of Oriental cultures; see S. Loutchitskaja, «Barbarae Nationes: les peuples musulmans dans les chroniques de la Première Croisade», in Autour de la Première Croisade (ed. by M. Balard), Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 1996: 106-107. Besides, classical works such as the Aeneid were increasingly popular in the 12^th century, as shown by the number of manuscripts that date to that period; Birger Munk Olsen, «Virgile et la renaissance du XII^e siècle», in Lectures médiévales de Virgile, Rome: Collection de l’École française de Rome, 1985: 34 and 36.

[20] Ciggaar, Western Travelers to Constantinople…, 396 p.; Loutchitskaja, “Barbarae Nationes…”: 99-107. The historiography pertaining to cultural representation and otherness, especially when dealing with the first crusade and the Alexiad, is quite extensive, so that we will limit ourselves to mentioning the fairly recent article by R. D. Thomas, “Anna Comnena’s Account of the First Crusade”, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 15 (1991): 269-312.

[21] Only three articles briefly skim over the problem: J.-C. Payen, «L’image du Grec dans la chronique normande: sur un passage de Raoul de Caen», in Images et signes de l’Orient dans l’Occident médiéval, Aix-en-Provence: Éditions Jeanne Laffite, 1982: 269-280; J. Shepard, «When Greek meets Greek: Alexios Comnenos and Bohemond in 1097-1098», Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 12 (1988): 185-277; S. Runciman, «The Visit of King Amalric I to Constantinople in 1171», in B. Z. Kedar and al., Outremer: Studies in the history of the Crusading Kingdom of Jerusalem, Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi Institute, 1982: 153-158.

[22] In the 10^th century, state ceremonial was compiled and codified by the emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenetus (ed. and transl. by A. Vogt), Le livre des cérémonies, Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1939, 4 vols. See also N. Oikonomidès, Les listes de préséance byzantines des IXe et Xe siècles, Paris: Éditions du centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1972.

[23] G. Ostrogorsky, «The Byzantine Emperor and the Hierarchical World Order», The Slavonic and East European Review 35 (1956-1957): 1-14.

[24] A fairly recent symposium was held on Byzantine diplomacy: J. Shepard and S. Franklin, Byzantine diplomacy: Papers from the Twenty-fourth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Aldershot: Variorum, 1992. See also: Shepard, «Information, disinformation and delay in Byzantine diplomacy», Byzantinische Forschungen 10 (1985): 233-293; D. Obolensky, «The Principles and Methods of Byzantine Diplomacy», in Actes du XII^e congrès International d'Études Byzantines, Belgrade, 1963: I, 45-61.

[25] William of Tyre (ed. by R. B. C. Huygens), Willelmi Tyrensis Archiepiscopi Chronicon, Turnhout: Typographi Brepols Editores Pontificii, 1986, XX, 22-23: 940-945.

[26] Albert of Aachen, Historia Hierosolimitana, in Recueil des Historiens des croisades - Historiens Occidentaux (book 4), Paris: Les Belles-Lettres, 1879, VIII, 26: 575; Peter Tudebode, Historia de Hierosolymintano Itinere, in RHC - Hist. Occ. (book 3), Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1866, II, 2: 18; Raymond of Aguilers (ed. by Hill and Hill), Le «Liber» de Raymond d’Aguilers (Historia Francorum qui Caperunt Iherusalem), Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1969: II, 41; William of Tyre, II, 19: 186; Orderic Vitalis (ed. and transl. by M. Chibnall), The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978, IX, 14: 143 and X, 12: 277; Geoffroi of Villehardouin, xxxix, 186: 79.

[27] Ad urbem Constantinopolim cum ingenti gaudio, Dei gratia, perveni imperator vero digne et honeste et quasi filium suum me diligentissime susceptit et amplissimis ac pretiosissimis donis ditavit, et in toto Dei exercitu et nostro non est dux neque comes neque aliqua potens persona, cui magis credat vel faveat quam mihi. Vere, mi dilecta, eius imperialis dignitas persaepe monuit et monet, ut unum ex filiis nostris ei commendemus: ipse vero tantum tamque praeclarum honorem se ei attributurum promisit, quod nostro minime invidebit. In veritate tibi dico, hodie talis vivens homo non est sub caelo. Ipse enim omnes principe nostros largissime ditat, milites cunctos donis relevat, pauperes omnes dapibus recreat. Stephen of Blois (ed. by Heinrich Hagenmeyer), Epistulae et chartae, Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag, 1973: 138-140.

[28] Raymond of Aguilers, I: 38. It is important to note that suspicion was shared by both parties. Alexius was also doubtful of the crusaders’ true intentions, believing that the crusade was in fact a ruse to attack Constantinople. Alexius’ men had therefore received the order of escorting the army of pilgrims to the capital and to take whatever means necessary to prevent or quell any disturbances; Anna Comnena, X, ix, 1: 221.

[29] Nicephorus Bryennius (transl. by H. Grégoire), “Les quatre livres des histoires”, Byzantion 23 (1953): 522; Odo of Deuil, II: 27.

[30] Erat enim callidus et facundus largus et fallendi artifex ingeniosus; Orderic Vitalis, IX, 6: 47; Guibert of Nogent, Gesta Dei per Francos, in RHC - Hist. Occ. (book 4), Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1879, II, 12: 146; Robert Monachus, Historia Iherosolimitana, in RHC - Hist. Occ. (book 3), Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1866, II, 14: 746.

[31] See Odo’s account of this encounter with the Byzantine ambassadors at the end of this article; Odo of Deuil, II: 27.

[32] Anthropologists have often underlined social similarities between traditional Greek communities and their Byzantine ancestors; Magdalino, “Honour Among Romaioi…”: 184; “To take an example from contemporary ethnography, the Greek peasants whose concern for their honour is very great, regard deception involving a lie as perfectly legitimate and honourable behaviour”; J. Pitt-Rivers, “Honour and Social Status”, in J. G. Peristiany, ed., Honour and Shame: the Values of Mediterranean Society, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966: 27 and 33.

[33] Geoffroi of Villehardouin, xlv, 208: 86.

[34] In 12^th and 13^th century Europe, such kisses were often exchanged in rituals of homage and usually given on the mouth; Yannick Carré, Le baiser sur la bouche au Moyen Âge: rites, symboles, mentalités, à travers les images, XIe-XVe siècles. Paris: Le Léopard d’Or, 1992: 104, 141 and 198.

[35] Ralph of Caen, Gesta Tancredi, in RHC - Hist. Occ. (book 3), Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1866, X: 612; Peter Tudebode, II, 3: 19; Raymond of Aguilers, I: 38.

[36] Quod per Greculos istos, omnium intertissimos, iurare congeremur, nobis esset sempiterne pudendum; Guibert of Nogent, III, 4: 154; transl. by R. Levine, Gesta Dei per Francos / The Deeds of God through the Franks, Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 1997: 60.

[37] Ralph of Caen, XI: 612-613; Anonymous (ed. and transl. by L. Bréhier), Histoire anonyme de la première croisade / Gesta Francorum et aliorum Hierosolimitanorum, Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1964 [1924], II, 6: 31. On the different interpretations surrounding this particular oath, see Shepard, «When Greek meets Greek… »: 185-277.

[38] The prostration ritual, also known as Proskynesis, was performed even by the highest dignitaries of the empire. The practice, that could range from simple kneeling to completely stretching out on the floor, naturally triggered awkward situations when foreign monarchs visited the Byzantine court and refused to submit to the emperor. See Ciggaar, Western Travelers to Constantinople…: 54-55.

[39] Latin chroniclers, when describing Byzantine ceremonial, usually avoided to discuss embarrassing details concerning the proskynesis. This is the case in Albert of Aachen’s account of Godefroy of Bouillon’s reception by Alexius; Albert of Aachen, II, 16: 310.

[40] Nudis enim, ut dicitur, pedibus, indutus, laneis, manicis usque ad cubitum decurtatis, fune circa collum religato, gladium habens in manu nudum, quem mucrone tenens cuius capulum domino imperatori porrigeret, coram universis legionibus domino imperatori presentatus est ibique ante pedes eius ad terram prostratus, tradito domino imperatori gladio, tam diu iacuit, quousque cunctis vertertur in nauseam et Latinitatis gloriam verteret in obprobrium; William of Tyre, XVIII, 23: 845; transl. by E. A. Babcock and A. C. Krey, A History of Deeds Done Beyond the Sea, New York: Columbia University Press, 1943, XVIII, 23: 277. Although William did not witness this event, the humiliation of the prince of Antioch is confirmed by the Byzantine chronicler John Cinnamus, IV, 18: 123.

[41] A. P. Kazhdan and A. W. Epstein, Change in Byzantine culture in the eleventh and twelth centuries, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985: 78.

[42] Although an omission in an account is not necessarily proof of a chronicler’s subjectivity, William of Tyre was usually rigorous enough and sufficiently well informed on Byzantine court ceremonial for any oversight to catch our attention. On the different interpretations surrounding William’s account of Amalric’s visit to Constantinople, see Runciman, «The Visit of King Amalric I to Constantinople…»: 153-158, as well as a more recent analysis by Lilie, Byzantium and the Crusader States 1096-1204: 206-209. While much still has to be learned on Byzantine court ceremonial in the 12^th century, most of what we know comes from a 10^th century compilation made by the emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenetus (ed. and transl. by A. Vogt), Le livre des cérémonies, Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1939, 4 books. Even if Byzantine ceremonial was not static, the ritualistic basis usually remained the same throughout the centuries, so that we can safely assume that Constantine’s treaty was still considered a standard in the 12^th century. Besides his doubtful interpretations, William’s description is consistent with Constantine’s model and accurate enough so as to offer us interesting insight on Byzantine diplomacy in the late 12^th century.

[43] John Cinnamus, in fact, explains that the king of Jerusalem accepted Byzantium’s suzerainty in exchange for military assistance against Egypt; John Cinnamus, VI, 10: 181. It is obvious that we must remain as much skeptical of Cinnamus’ explanation than of William’s. However, Cinnamus’ account seems more plausible, for Amalric would certainly not have had any reason to make the voyage to Constantinople himself, unless it was necessary for him to take the feudal oath towards Manuel in person. Otherwise, he would have left the negotiations with the emperor to a trusted ambassador, especially since many of the kingdom’s barons considered that Amalric should not leave the country in such a dangerous situation; Lilie, Byzantium and the Crusader States 1096-1204: 204 and 208.

[44] Several decades before William, Odo of Deuil describes this Byzantine protocol in his account of a meeting between Louis VII and Greek ambassadors. To the Franks, it seemed rather strange that the envoys refused to sit down in the king’s presence, accepting only once they had been repeatedly invited to do so; Odo of Deuil, II: 27.

[45] An excerpt of Louis’ encounter with Manuel is given at the end of this article; Odo of Deuil, III: 59-61; John Cinnamus, II, 17: 64.

[46] Geoffroi of Villehardouin, xxxviii-xxxix, 185-189: 79-80.

[47] Geoffroi of Villehardouin, xlvi, 211-215: 88-89.

[48] L. Brubaker, «Material Culture and the Myth of Byzantium, 750-950», in G. Arnaldi and G. Cavallo, Europa Medievale E Mondo Bizantino: Contatti effettivi e possibilità di studi comparati, Rome: Nella Sede Dell’Istituto Palazzo Borromini, 1997: 33-41. See also Shepard, «Information, disinformation and delay… »: 243.

[49] Russian Primary Chronicle (transl. by S. H. Cross and O. P. Sherbowitz-Wetzor), Cambridge (Mass.): 88.

[50] Anna Comnena, X, v, 4: 207.

[51] Georges Duby, Féodalité, Paris: Gallimard, 1996: 54-55. On Alexius’ Latin councilors and his knowledge of Western customs, see Marquis de la Force, “Les conseillers latins du basileus Alexis Comnène”, Byzantion 11 (1936): 153-165.

[52] Albert even believed that the emperor’s gifts were as temporary as they were deceptive, for they inevitably returned into the imperial coffers when the crusaders were compelled to buy food and equipment for their journey at inflated prices; Albert of Aachen, II, 10: 306 and 15: 310-311.

[53] William of Tyre, XI, 6: 503 and XX, 2: 345; Odo of Deuil, II: 27.

[54] Payen, «L’image du Grec dans la chronique normande… »: 273.

[55] Despite this belief by the crusaders, Byzantine military science was in many ways superior to that of the West. For a recent reassessment of Byzantine warfare, see T. M. Kolbaba, «Fighting for Christianity: Holy War in the Byzantine Empire», Byzantion 68 (1998): 219; Anna Comnena and John Cinnamus also emphasize that the Latins were imprudent and refused to cultivate a disciplined art of war. Anna Comnena, XI, vi, 3: 28; John Cinnamus, II, 15: 61; See also André Tuilier, «Byzance et la féodalité occidentale: les vertus guerrières des premiers croisés d’après l’Alexiade d’Anne Comnène», in La guerre et la paix au Moyen Âge, Paris: Bibliothèque nationale, 1978: 41 and 50.

[56] Ralph of Caen, IV: 607-608; Raymond of Aguilers, I: 38; Albert of Aachen, IV, 28: 408; Odo of Deuil, III: 43; Although most chroniclers did not take the following into consideration, it is important to note that most mercenaries in the Byzantine army usually kept their traditional weapons. For example, the Petchenegs were usually quite skilled with bows and arrows, as well as long-range combat, a trait that the crusaders might have generalized to all Byzantines.

[57] Gesta francorum, I, 3: 17; Peter Tudebode, I, 6: 14; Raymond of Aguilers, II: 39 and IV: 37; Robert Monachus, II, 8: 743; Albert of Aachen, IV, 3: 390-391; A 12^th century Jewish traveler even remarked that the Greeks «hire from amongst all nations warriors called Barbarians [...], for the natives are not warlike, but are as women who have no strength to fight.»; Benjamin of Tudela (transl. by M. N. Adler), The Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela, New York: Philipp Feldheim Inc., 1907: 13.

[58] Julian (ed. and transl. by W. C. Wright), “Misopogon” in The Works of the Emperor Julian, Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press, 1949 [1913]; II, 346: 443 and 352: 461. This belief originated from the conservative Roman aristocracy, who feared the often volatile nature of oriental cities and therefore considered the amusements and entertainments of Easterners to be decadent and rebellious; B. Isaac, «Orientals and Jews in the Historia Augusta: Fourth-Century Prejudice and Stereotypes», in The Near East under Roman Rule: Selected Papers, Leiden: Brill, 1998: 273. Julian’s ascetic livelihood can also explain such a harsh position towards the Antiochese.

[59] Gesta francorum, III, 9: 51-53 and IX, 28: 149.

[60] Quia bellis otia semper postpositis studuere sequi, luxusque dolosi illecebris captos foedarat inertia turpis; William of Apulia (ed. and transl. by M. Mathieu), La geste de Robert Guiscard, Palermo: Istituto Siciliano di Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici, 1961, III, v. 1-6: 165; Guibert of Nogent, III, 4: 154-155.

[61] Flori, Chevaliers et chevalerie au Moyen Âge: 263; Pitt-Rivers, «La maladie de l’honneur »: 21 and 28; N. Gradowicz-Pancer, «'L’honneur oblige'. Esquisse d’une cartographie des conduites et stratégies de l’honneur aux Ve et VIe siècles», Revue belge de philologie et d’histoire, 74 (1996): 281; Ciggaar, Western Travelers to Constantinople…: 56.

[62] J. E. Dunlap, «The Office of the Grand Chamberlain in the Later Roman and Byzantine Empires», in Two Studies in later Roman and Byzantine administration, New York: The Macmillan Company, 1924: 166 and 202.

[63] Fulcher de Chartres, Historia Iherosolymitana, in RHC - Hist. Occ. (tome 3), Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1866, IX: 331-332; Roger of Hoveden, I: 526; Odo of Deuil, IV: 69.

[64] Quod de pluribus filiis unum eunuchizari, data precepti auctoritate, mandaverit et corpora marium ademptis virilibus enervia ac effeminata reddiderit, quae usibus militiae iam non habeantur utilia, immo ad detrimenti cumulum abscidatur in ipsis propago futura, cuius incrementis sperari valerent contra hostes auxilia; Guibert de Nogent, I, 5: 133; transl. by R. Levine, Gesta Dei per Francos / The Deeds of God through the Franks, Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 1997, I: 38.

[65] Liutprand of Cremona (transl. by B. Scott), Relatio de legatione Constantinopolitana / The Mission to Constantinople, London: Bristol Classical Press, 1993, 37: 42-44.

[66] Odo of Deuil, II: 27.

[67] According to Kazhdan and Epstein, trousers were already considered a symbol of masculinity at that period; Kazhdan and Epstein, Change in Byzantine culture…: 77.

[68] Ciggaar, Western Travelers to Constantinople…: 54; See also N. P. Kondakov, «Les costumes orientaux à la cour Byzantine», Byzantion 1 (1924): 7-49.

[69] William of Tyre, XXII, 4: 1011; Benjamin of Tudela: 12; Odo of Deuil, II: 27; William of Apulia even considered that Greek military weakness could be linked to their loose-fitting clothing, which was inconvenient in combat; William of Apulia, I, v. 227-228.

[70] Odo of Deuil, IV: 77, n. 34; Albert of Aachen, II, 10: 306.

[71] Nicetas Choniates (transl. by H. J. Magoulias), O City of Byzantium, Annals of Niketas Choniates, Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1984, VI: 477.

[72] Shepard, «When Greek meets Greek… »: 204, n. 58; William of Tyre, II, 15: 180; See also A. Muthesius, «Silken diplomacy», in Shepard and Franklin, Byzantine diplomacy…: 235-248.

[73] Robert of Clari (ed. and transl. by A. Micha), La conquête de Constantinople, Paris: Christian Bourgeois éditeur, 1991, xcvi: 208.

[74] Payen, «L’image du Grec dans la chronique normande… »: 274 and 279 n. 33.

[75] J. Boswell, Les unions du même sexe dans l’Europe antique et médiévale, Paris: Fayard, 1996: 244. As a matter of fact, the crusaders’ stay in Constantinople was too short for them to become aware of any homosexual practices.

[76] Kazhdan and Epstein, Change in Byzantine culture…: 101-103.

[77] Besides, little mention is made of women in the Western chronicles of the crusades, no doubt since the chroniclers were for the most part clergy men who usually avoided to write about them altogether; Ciggaar, Western Travelers to Constantinople…: 67-68; M. McCormick, Eternal Victory: Triumphal Rulership in Late Antiquity, Byzantium and the Early Medieval West, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986: 203.

[78] Anna Comnena, X, x, 6: 229.

[79] Ralph of Caen, XVIII: 42-45; John Cinnamus, II, 16: 62.

[80] William of Tyre, XV, 4: 678.

[81] Anna Comnena, XIII, ix, 4: 119.

[82] Ostrogorsky, «The Byzantine Emperor and the Hierarchical World Order»: 12.

[83] Geoffroi of Villehardouin, XLVI - XLVII, 215-216: 89.

[84] Ralph of Caen, XVII: 618; Albert of Aachen, II, 11-14: 306-309; Odo of Deuil, VI: 109; Otto of Freising (transl. by C. C. Mierow), The Deeds of Frederick Barbarossa, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1966, I, lxiv: 103.

[85] John Cinnamus, IV, 20: 124-125.

[86] Geoffroi of Villehardouin, XLVI - XLVII, 215-216: 89.