H - I CJ /I UNIVER SI TY The International istory Review lOLUME XVII NUMBER 4 NOVEMBER 1995 THOMAS F. MADDE N E'­'l llllI : Ed\\,.lrd Ingr,u ll ｬＧｲｮ ｫ Ｇｾｯｬ＠ u i" IllIl' l'I"i,11 H l,tO I\ .n SmlO ll I ｲＮＱ ａｉｬ｜Ｌ [ IIII II II!." R . .1 II . Bllw'orth ｾ ＨＩｉｙ＠ ｾ ｮ＠ ｕｊｬ ｩ ｜Ｇｴ ｲｾ ｩ ｬ｜＠ Bll i\ RIl Roger OWl'1l (I­br\'ard) (;l'otirl:\' Parke l (Y.lk ) ｬｩｲｾｉ Ｇ＠ Ｑｬ＠ Rob \\'.:r (" lllllL(,m ) 'I k; li, " Ill yth ( 1 Ol'lII lt"') N ieh Stn 'mga;u d ({ :upt·n h.lgl' l1 ) I·micl' ＨＮ ｲｯ ｾ Ｇ＠ S t l' in (I l) tn ll t l)) . 'N idllll." '1 ,I riing (:\u ck lalld) \X. illi.lIl1 R. T holll p<;nn (India n,l) :\II.lre \\' llIk (\Vi'Cll lI,ill - M ;h li' 4.>Il) Rll hat J. Y" ung Ｈ ｗｬＱ ｬＱ ｩｰ ｜Ｎ ﾷ ｾＩ＠ ('\·t·,tt' rJI '\ustr.lli .l) P. r\ C ll tl l'Il;.I\.' I( .1I11bm lgL' ) I I. I I. ( pwdrt:\ iO xt()!'.l) Bn h'l: ( '11 1111Jlg' i NIlrr1 1\\ ", tn ll) 1101),:1'1 I I. 11·,'1'\\ It: IC.t1 g 1rv) 0),"111.11 1 I l ill llh' 1 (c..nit­toJ1 ) .\ \ il Iud H . Il ulil (N(ll'l h C.lrol illa) '\. S. ".lIi\,I·I'ONlln (York) I(,hll '\. I \ (I II ( 11 ll1 h Jis J ,1\ 1.111 \. :\111\\ .Inl (1 '111.11111) Gc: rhald 1.. \\ l'inhu'g (N o rth C lroli ll.l) ｲｶｉ＠ '\"1'­1 ." ﾷ ｜ ｾ . \ (;I "(' [ I ll il lII. '1 t: 1l' I1Ce J. Ollerhc:.ld 1111 b," (I II: I.indw\' 111<1111." I' I" ｾ｜ＧｉＮ ｬｲｴ＠ allll Edw.lrd \\ Ｎ ｉｾＧｴ＠ Itl' ｪ｜ ﾷ＠ ＨＮ Ｚ ｲ＠ Ｇ｜ ＱｴｾＬ＠ I hl' ｲｾ ｨ ｬＨ ｲ＠ '/ ;r, I"'nu, ,, ,",,n,t( lluhr , , ' HI'! " "'" h ＢＧ＠ ｉＢ＠ ｴ＠ ｬＧ ｦＩ ｲ ＠ｾ d hy SinHl!' Ip....'" ｕｬ 1\\ 1t ,Il!,l , I.he h· Ij pr th,,' " 1.'h'I ,d Sl· i ...·'h."l" ,IIld I h I1l1.lJ lI tp' '\ Ill·..." ..:reh COHIH. il tlt' ( , ,1I,I ...b . ,: 1,,, /<., , .-11' 1' ;· lIh h ,lh. ..t ' ll l.ln(: rl v i ll r d ,l"uolf"". . ｾ ＱＮｉｾ＠ Ｎ＠ Ｇ｜Ｑｬ ｾ ＱｉＧｴＮ＠ .IIHI N IH l·IHh,,·r. \ ni,ll" IPP"·.lrint­:. thl' ＱｾＬＧｬ＠ :1' ,fI ' ＱｾＬ｜ｴｲ［ ［ｴ ｵＱ＠ iII"f 1I1,tl' \c d 111 f li ,,'I'(I r", ,1 ·Ii'.-t u n , lu ,l .tllln" ,, : Ilt.llt1, ,' ,,11,1 I t. J il d u(' il ,J,·,,'d II' ( 1/'1, '1/ ( :,l lffj"' " ht' mil 11'''''ll:: '''t ­ll r clwl 11","01"1111: ( :dlli,," 11 11/1 \', 11"" ', lIIi,,.,':' 111 il,! ; . 1I'I I!I.JI ,i:;c- hJrlLi. . /; " 1"',1 11.­",,/ \It .ii" II 11,"'i·\''-''I''' :, , fI" tIl.I'/I'I,I", ｈ ｩ Ｂｴ ｾｬＡｲＢｉ＠ r ｴ ｾ Ｑ＠ /'ntt,c/;(.,J l.J,,·(.:IJ .., • . 111" , ,1.•', lHid ｬｩ ｩ ＯｬＧ ｨ ｾ ＬＮＧＢｰ ｦ Ｇｬ＠ t!f ｦＨｲ Ｉ ｬ＠ ｾ Ｇ＠ U, t ", W', ( :,,,,.ldillJl J'r I;.,./j,··,rl /,,­ f,­x IIIIt "";: ,,,,;,,1 H,U" dl ,\1'1'1' r tI· t'I:, ' ', . ,: 11..1 ric',ii,. , Ｑ ｾＧﾷＬＯｉ［ＮＺ＠ I!I II : n ,\I1anu \cri pu, "f 1Il'! W l ", ' tl q J I I "! , (J­,Jl' \\dht , , hnuld 11 , ｾＬﾷＱｴ＠ l t l I'rnf"\\t.t [­.JW ,1d lu :-! r ,IIIL /1" I" r, Hhl"1 til"" J fI.,rll,)' ｉ ｾ ＠Ｈ r :( w. "inlO Il 1, .1\\:1 l'll l\ l' r"' HY )Surfl .,ll\ Bruhll (.\lltllllh l.l. ( ' l ll, h.l.l \ ,,\ I ' f, . ,'\.. U 1/\111\1 dpt v' ill hl.' ｜Ｎ＠ Ｑ ｜Ｉ ｨ ｬ ､ｾＬｦｬＧＮ Ｑ＠ d ' IT I'" Ｈｕｉｬ＠ ｲ ｾＧｬｲｹ＠ lIIhkr (lHI,idl.'r,; (Juli ｨ ｾ＠ .IIItH lwr ｊｬ Ｇ＠ｾ ｬｉＱ ｬＧ＠ r I ｾＮ Ｂ＠ II' j. ' t ' d ll t(l I·.. puf, li,l tt'd ...1,\.\\ IIvf,,' I hr ' dito t j, ,hl' ti tl,4 1 ,uh t..: 1' 'If ｉ｣ｬ ｾ ｩＱ＠ ｴ !­:r,.It W ILiT ,1111 1 Ｌ Ｈ ｾ＠ ｉ＠ ｉ＠ I'hr: ...· ｉ Ｇｬ ｾｬ＠ Ｇ ｾ＠ Ｌ ｨ ＧＱ ｬＱ ｜ ｾ＠ 1;", 'lI b lllH h d ｜ Ｉｉ＠ ｾ＠ l't)JI'...... ｩＮｬ ｲｩ｜＠ Ｌ ﾷｉ ｾ＠ ｉｬ ｬｮ＠ ｬ ｨ ｣Ｎ Ｇｾ Ｎﾷ＠ ｬ＠ ｦ＠ , ht..'l·h, l ,\' P L"! ,m d '11l l1! ll t ｰ Ｌｬｾ＠ ｬ ﾷ＼ｴ＠ \\H h th .uh ll ­T.h: . .· d IHH l '" ,It ,he j: Il ,! \l.lIl l1,,,ript, wi li nt·t (­l l' n· :dfl lc." 1. L lI L' - ,I",,,, SlIb .rriptiolll .·l h l' li nt·' ,h",;1 Ad \'t'rtising, ,III" Bouk. fo r R", j"" ,1I,," I.1 l>.. :,' ' •. ''. h r l'rn)!" J Ｈ＠ Ｇ Ａ ｫｲｬ ｨＮ ｉｬ ｾＬ＠ I,HjI H,flllII ,d 111.,; ,'r , Il , :;'1 . ' UWHI [1.1'"'' ｬ ＧｬＱｪ｜＠ Ｇ＠ ＧｬｾＬ＠ Ihllll, ),' Bl'ill,h \. ﾷ ｴＩｨ ｬＬｾ＠ ＱＮｯ＠ t :.II I,h.l l \ ' , \ ［ｾ ｬ＠ Ｌ＠ I llllI\itlll ol1 ' lIh'"T:ptit '" \, I, )r Indl \i d lL!I u·" tlill y. 1" 1 ｾＢｬ ｲ＠ I H'I>u (u t hHn ' 'l tl·'l' rop tll.tl\ t, l,t ｾＨｊ ＢＺＧ＠ Ｌ ｕＬＧ＠ p,," ｾ＠ Ｂ＠ Ｇ ｕＧ＠ ( )' il 'ht\.' t :,lIl.1d., ｰ＠ ｬｾ＠ It l " L S, ( \ '.1 ｜Ｎ［ｾ＠ '"I' 'J., I'ITt 0 1 ｬｕ hql ll 'H ｬＧ ｜＠ ｊｉｬ 11\ d ll ', puhll L'H H ' Il IlU \' ht n:rr"d llt.. .,l 'tll rL"d ,III: '.', all oll' 1!1I: .1I1 ·" t hl' PII !))" i,I .! r.. ﾷｾｮＮＢＧ ."ttll ·] ' ' · ..· I 11I I .. ' :.'lI ｬ＠ Ｚ＠ ' : '(l' lI1 or ｴ ｲ Ｎ ｬ＠ ［ ｨ ｬ ｾｬｴｨＧ l ,(',II.· /lI N., lli' III ' .I"t· ｻ ､ Ｎ＠ 111 ＬＨ＠ If ;, ｻ ｜ ｴＨｬﾭ u r . 'tit vr h':l'lnr:rlr'lll' \ ol t l' l n;.:., Ｌｾ＠ Ih . ·t )« ( ' (r Pl n ( · ' ..... , 1 11· \. 2 1 i I\. irn.' '­'fI '.d ｜ｖｾﾷＧｉＮ＠ 1 , .1," )( 0. ( 'llt Hl t l" I1l h l l \ 1\ ... Jt .l \C I I.." r:I.J.lI.'.,t"l ... ho uld bt' 't'r n (t ) Ｈ＠ Ｇﾷｉｐｽ ﾷ ｬ＠ ｩ＠ ｾＮＺ［ｉ ＩＨ＠ , :I,tr,lfh' ( ' ,' lI fer ..! - \. .I,r.t­:rt Ｌ Ｇ＠ ｾｬＢＧ ＮＧｬ＠ ｴ＠ " .1(..'1)1 , :\1" Ｎｬ＠ ｬ＠ ｬｪｾｴｊ＠ ｉＮｊｾ｜＠ ｾ ｵｈ＠ ｾＺ＠ ｾ ｾｬｴ :1. / 1'11<'<;1 :f,()+ ) ＧＺＢ＠ ＱＭ Ｓ＠ ｾＨＧｉＺ＠ ( ,' \('0 .\) ｾＧｊｉ ·11·IIJII·/I " III'·II,.llIi.,r"r)' U ,·I·i.II ' ｉ｜Ｉ Ｇ Ｉ＠ ｾＮ＠ l'rllneJ ill \ IlIa.I., ｨｾＮ＠ (;.1".1.11.1 11 r "'.t I'ubl il ,1!1' 11l' Ｇ｜Ｑｾｬ＠ Ｍｈ ｾＮＩ ｉ Ｍｲ｜ｬＬＧＱ＠ ｲ ｬ ｬ｟ ｬ All IlIt'·" 11I1I'11.1 1 ｈＮ＠ ｬ ｾｨ l 'n lllil1 !, ｾＨＧｉ｜ｩ l' roduct ｾｫＢ＠ Ｎ Ｌﾷ ｩＧｉｊｾ｜Ｈｨ Ｈ ｏＨＬｬ＠ ｴ Ｌ＠ I{ nL"rn'.L __ !.ttl ( '- ,\,', n- ＮｬＷ Ｇ｜ｾｲＢｉＱｬ＼ｴ＠ '-In. ＭｾｘＧＩ＠ Ｍｾ Ｎ ｕｾ＠ I ioi O utside and Inside the Fourth Crusade on Byzantium and the West at a recent m eeting o f the Internatio nal Co ngress o n Medi eval Studies, th e second o f the three pan e ll ists read a p ap er on the B ulgari an ' e m peror' IO:lI1ni tsa, in w h ic h sh e p raised him for h is mi li ta ry ge n ius an d ill u\rrated it by his victory ove r an army o f t he Fo u rt h C rusad e. Alrho ugh the crusade was not the subj ect of the paper, the autbor did renl.lrk on w h at she saw as Ven ice 's cyn ical p e rversio n of a h o ly e nterp ri.'ie fo r its own purp oses. Afterwa rds, when the chairman as ked for co m men ts, and I challen ged thi s state m ent, the auth or b ecam e in dign ant, Rep eatedly sh e professed that sh e was fo llowing t he so urces, althou gh sh e W :1 S no t able to nam e any, As it happe ned , D o nald E, Q ueUer was presen t, He then rose and sp o ke as h e bas writte n: askin g sch olars to overc om e th eif p rej udices by examining th e even ts of th e Fou rth C rusade carefully, wi th de tachment, and from inside . When Q uell er sat down, the ch airm an sto od up and announced that h e w u uld now speak . An d , in deed h e did , w ith great passion. For th e next fi ve minutes, he exp lai n ed that th e very te rm 'Fo urth Cru sade ' w as inacc urate, as th e arm y fou gh t o nly C h ristian s, n ever killing a ｾ Ｑｉｧ ･＠ ｍｵｾ ｬｩｲｮ［＠ thaL the doge of Venice, Enrico Dandolo, had secretly plann ed to set C hri sti an knights against their E astern broth ers to slake a d(: sir(: fo r person al reve n ge and to feed th e Ven e tians ' hu n ger for ｾ ｰ ｯ ｩｬｳＮ＠ In respom c to his co nclusion, half o f t he ro o m broke into loud ap plause and Q ueJJ er sto od up again. (The o ri gin al p aper w as b y n ow fo rgotte n .) He re m ar k ed th at he saw that h e h ad fa lle n amon g ByzJlltin ists, add ressed the ｣ ｨ ｡ ｩｲｭ｡ ｮ Ｇ ｾ＠ p o ints, o r tr ied to do so , for th e ch aIrman ofte n interru pted him, an d wh en h e had fi n ished. sat down to j us t Ｓｾ＠ loud JP plause fi'om th e othe r h alf of t he roo m. T h e lines had b e(:n dra wn, th e leaders had led the way into ba ttl e, and th e ir f()ll o\'."ers join ed in the fra v . I n eed n ot relat(: all th;t was said. T empc rs b ccalTl.e so hea ted and voic es ｾｯ＠ louu th at it w as imp ossi bl e fo r an yo n e to be cl early h eard and th e c h airm J n , who should h ave kept ord er, ｜ Ｇｖ ｡ ｾ＠ am o n g th loud est and m m t ex cited . W hen a stu d e nt of J am es A. B ru ndag(: pOlllted out th at a crus ,ld e w as not a w ar aga imt ("ti m but rather a A ｲＺ Ｂｉ＠ T A SESS l ON f hr InrfTllari,' ,ra l l'Jisr",.}' R'·l'i" LI '. XV II , 4. NoVl:mber I \)Y5, pp. (j{) l -II X o. ｉＧ ｾｴＭ［＠ 070 7­ 5.13 2 ,C) T1". fll lcrr wrirlllal f /i, ro'1' 1­/., II '. All It ighe, R ."'l ' r vl: d . "i, Pwgatory and C rusade in Sf Gregory's T'rental 72 5 for one who had perpetuated th e fa mi ly'.; distincti on in a crusade. Moreo ve r, if J o h n B orton 's will is a reflec tio n of w ider practice, we may ass ume th at th e Carew dev o tion was observed at a c hantry altar, perhaps at on e o f th e fi ve in the church of St M ary of Carew w h ere the bmily's ancestral effigies rested. :;.: :;.: * Th e co rnbinatio n o f i ntercessions for the liberation of th e H o ly Land and for the soul in purgatory in the English ve rsion of St G rego ry' s Trenta l was a r esu lt of tw o concurrent thirteenth­century developments, th e inc reasingly penitenti al and devo tion al efficacy of crusading and th e steady popularization by preach ers of w ha t w as in truth a parado x o f faith: namely, that whil e the cleansing o f the so ul in the purgato rial experi ence was heLd to be essential for salv ation and could be achieved only through pain , the living w ere n o ne th e less earnestly enco uraged to offer praye rs for the dead with the specific intenti on o f alleviating th e ir torment. One mi ght wish fo r m o r e evidence about the ac tual celebration of the T rental withi n th e history of the medieval cult of intercess ion for th e dead,1 bu t its incorporation into the Sarum use, the testamentary requ es t of John Borton, and th e modified text in the Lau dian m anuscript, while not co ncl usive, do point to its continued appeal and suggest that late m edi eval En glish devoti o nal life was sufficiently imagin ative :lI1d ｣｡ｾｨｯｬｩ＠ by nature to gather i.n on e embrace th e h opes for personal salvation and. for the recovery of the H o ly Land. U lliversity of T oro nto 'lie Fourth Crrtsade 72 7 papally ｾ ｡ ｮ ｣ ｴｪｯｮ ｬｃ､＠ w ar against th e en em ies of the faith , the chai rman ｯｴｾ ｴＺ､＠ tha t he w as n o t ;\11 enem y of th e fa ith . Altho ugh there w as ｾ ｬ｜Ｑ＠ u nreal air abo ut it all , as if w e had all sudde nly become La tin crusa d e rs o r Gree k magnates , I began to fear that a fIght w o uld break OL1l. Fi nall y , whe n the noi se had reach ed deafen ing levels, a WOmaJ1 sitting in rhe co me r called ou t that, fascinating as the quarrel m ight be, she had com e to hear the third pap er. Silen ce d escen ded w ith a thud . '­ h e chairm an fu mbled through his pape rs and introd uced th e last speake r, w ho now scarcely had eno u gh time to scramble throu gh h er paper. T he audien ce sat in stony sil en ce . ｰｲ ｾ＠ ** The row illustra tes cle,lrly th lC di vision be tw ee n students o f the Fo urth C rusaue. It is n ot sim pl y a di v ision b e tween East and West. Some c rmad er<; ｳｵ ｾｰ ･｣ｴ ､＠ at th e time th at Ve nice had lI sed t.h e arm y for its pu rp()ses l and . in th e th irteenth c e ntury, so m e w estern l1ropca ns q llemo n ed til e cru sade' s san cti ty an d wo rried ove r its lega cy of destru cti.o n . 2 Simila rly , llJany m o dern historians o f wes tern Eu rope have taken th e side of Byzantium , blam in g Venetian gr eed . ｰｾ ｰ ｡Ｎｬ＠ a mbi t io n . o r H o h ens taufe n guile for di v e rting th e Fourth ｾ ｲｵ ｳｊ､･＠ fro m C air O to Co ns tantinople. Th e gulf tha t ｳ ･ ｰ ｡ｲ ｴ ･ ｾ＠ scholars sepa rates them not Just on groun ds of regiona.l o r re li giolls ｾ ｹ ｬｕｰ｡ ｴｨ ｹ＠ (altho ugh th ey do matter) . but sepa rates those w ho examine th e crusa de closely fi'om .in side and th ose w ho lo ok at it fi'o m outside, frolll a distan ce ..' Fro m a dist;lr1ce. the Fourth C ru sade loses much of its detail. b ut fits ne atly into the lan dscape of the previo us cen tu ry 's relatiou s betwee n 13yzan timn a.nd the West. Re uuifica tion of the Ch urch was a pap;] l priori ty . p art icularl y [or [\1 \1o ce n t III . Frede rick 1 B arb arossa h ad th reaten ed C on stant inople and hi s su ccessors h ad d reamed of its co nqu es t. Venice h ad been inj ured by the seizure o f its c iti zens a t Cons call ti nop lc and th eir B yzantin e proper ty in 1 17 1 , and w as w o rried ｾ ｬ｢ ｯ ｬ｜ｴ＠ the precario usll l::SS o f tbe arrangem ents g o vern in.g its trade at 0"'" II cd. ｬ Ｉ ＼ｬｓ ｣ｾ ｉ＠ Cuchin and f'.m ",t Lycm (p;m<, an J Irel1e tl. Ko tdc . 'AttI tud es [Ownrd, the Ve ncci.II " in Il le fUlIrth C rllq ck: T he W"'tcm SO LI reD' . I lIlwlIl/jo tl al lIi5("I')' Ikl!i,'Il', iv ( 19 M:!.). I E.g .. I' der ut Vaux­de­C" " 1:I)'. H)',I,'"" ｉ ｉ＠ Ｏ ｉ＾Ｈ ｾｎｵ［ｉ＾Ｎ＠ 1') l (J-JOl. i. I 0 7-g . !';LT .1 ' 0 I )olulJ E. QU L'lI cr 2 1­ H · 2 1 On tbe ｢ｴ ｾ＠ ｭ ｾ､ｩ ｾｶｯ ＠ｬ perI od, "'c tbe trueloll y imp ortlnt study by OIJtfy. ｓｬｮ ｾ＠ Po.im orl' uqlatory' . 3.l 1!­7H /)o<.<t/". bUI ""p. ciL 10 . ｔｨＧ ｪ ＧｐＢＨｾ＠ of Ihe A/ron. ｅ ＮｾＬ＠ . '\n}f)ld of Lii bed:, C llrm, i((1 Sfavo nm l. J' .TOIH III/(llIlil Grmtallidl' ｉ ｨ ｾ ｴ Ｈｊ ｴＧ［ Ｈ ｡ Ｌ＠ S (TipfOt1!S. 2 1: 2.40.. ' II i, the ｰ ｵ ｲｬ Ｂ Ｂ＠ ｾ＠ "fthi'. 1:>''')' to look ;1t n:cc nt ,c1lObr' lrip. Fo r QJI intn" lll n i()n I() e"rlicr ｾ ｴ ｬ､ｩ｣ｾ＠ (,f ti ll' Puu rt h C l'tl \,t d4..·. "t: t: A ugl.hU rJ Fro ]O\...·, U('r/,crriILf SlIr 1(/ d,t,Jla fi,'I 1I dt' fa /I ·c (rO iS{ltit' Ｇ ｉ ･ｾ＠ C " tl I "Hllilh'l'l.. (IJari,. ｊ ｉＩｾ＠ ｬ ｬ＠ Ｚ＠ [) o,," Id E. Ｈｾｵ･ｬ ｣ｲ＠ Jnd Susan J. Stratton . ' A CCJl\ury ofC omrove rsy on th e FOll rt h ＼Ｂ ｾｲＧｴ｜ ｾ､ ｣ ＧＬ＠ ｓＧ ｬｉ､ｩｻ ｾ ｟Ｈ＠ il1 .HI'di('J',lI mrJ U-f'Ild isi lUL,'C l lis /i'''ry. \I i Ｈ＠ ｉ ｾＨ ｩ ｾ Ｉ＠ Ｎ＠ 2. 3 5­77 ; Ｇｉ ｾｊ Ｇｃ＠ ut ili Co"") I" .j l <>f C'"}/oIIHl H"/' /'·. eli ]) un:llc! F. . Qu dlc r {N ew Yo rk, 1'.17 1l: Ch:n k , M fln nd. 'TIr " r ourth ｃｔｷ ｾ ＮＱ＠ ､ ｴＮＺ＠ ﾷ＠ ｾｏ ｬＱｃ＠ Itl'cl.: nt ｉ＠ ｬＱｴＧｲｰ ｲ ｬＢｴ＠ ｾ ｜ｴｩ ｯ ｮＢﾷＮ＠ \/('(Jicvt1lia cf IIII/llall /sl irtl, xi i Ｈ＠ Ｑ＠ Ｑｪ ｾ ＴＩＬ＠ Ｓ＠ Ｎ ｾ Ｍ ＴＵＮ＠ l The Fourth CrHSade Thomas F. Maddell 72 8 C onstantinop le th e reafte r. All of th ese facts make excell en t ante cede nts for t be ｣ ｯｮｱｵ ･ ｾ ｴ＠ of Co nstall(inopl c. If o ne k n ew no thing abo ut the F OUTth C ru sa de exce pt the outcome , on e co uld easily suppose th3.t, given th(> friction between th e Latin W e5t and the Gree k East, an attack on Co n stantinople was in evi table . Many scholars h ave ma ci(> ｴ ｨｩ ｾ＠ assu m ption, George Ostro go rsky for o ne, who ｾｴ｡･Ｕ＠ in A Histcny oj flu: Byzantil1e Stale (1952) that more th an a cen tury o f scho larl y debate abo ut the Fo urth C rusade is beside the p o int: ' Ill actual fact it [th e di versio n of the crusade 1p resents no pro blem . I t was th e almost il1 evitable result of early developm ents " Likewise, for John V . A . Fine, in The Late Medieval Balkans (19 87), ' it seem ed probable that it w as o nly a matte r of time b efore the West attacked schismatic and (pro bably more importa n t) wealth y C onstantin ople .':! And for R ob ert B rowning, in th e revised editjon of Th e Byza lltill c E mpire (1992), ' th e co m.i ng togeth e r of these various intcrGsts made it almost in evitable that the prop osed crusade w ou ld turn out to b e ,lll instru m ent for t be conquest of th e C h ristian east, and that th e M osl e m s wo uld b e q ui etly forgot te n .'3 Assu m ptions such as t hese release th e hi sto rian from th e responsibili ty of kn ow in g very much ab our the Fourth C rusade, as its outcome is suffi Cic ntly cxplained by long-te rm histOlical tre nds. And th e tre n ds tll em.<;e lves cause little controversy . T he task left undone, h owever, is to show h o w they influenced the aims , dec isions, and actions of the crusaders, a, they stru ggled to keep th ei r troubl ed ente rpri se intact. Alth ough Inn ocen t III d ream ed of the re unifi cation of the C hu rch and Philip of Sw abia w ant ed to help hi s young bro th e r-in-law, Alex.i us , to the throne of Byzantiu m , n either of them w as a cru sader. Venetians were . Venic e, th erefore, has long b een th e v ill ain of choic e w hen explain ing th e d iversio n o f th e crusa de from C airo to Constan tinopl e. A.'i V enic e had important and often strain ed relations w ith Byzantium , and as th e Ven e ti ans were sea fa ri ng merchan ts w ho traded w idl the Muslim states, it is no t surpris in g that they w ould fall unde r suspicio n of di verti ng the crllSa de from the des tru ctio n o f the infidels to th e subj ugation of th e ir fickle pa rtncr, th e Byzantine E m pire . Lastly, the Ven etians were unabashed cap ita li sts, wh ich hardly en dears them to many scho lars and lea ds some to assu m e th at Venetian entrepre neurialism is evidenc e eno ugh of greedy cynicis m and dirty tricks. , G eo ...", ｏ ｾｴ ｯｧＢ Joall Hu<scy with ｫｹＬ＠ I lislOry of III. 6YZ"" Iillf ｓｬ｡Ｌｾ＠ mill>. En)!" the ｾ ｉｬ､＠ ｇ｣ｲｭｾｮ＠ by the "uthor (New tlrullswick. N .J .. 19 , 6). 2 John v . A. Fine , TIll' LII" MrtlirlJ,ll &,II.:.IIIS: : 1 enri(1l1 SlIn'C'), fro m 1111" Lllr Orro",,,,, C."'1"('S1 (,\ un Arb"r. IS/H7), 60. ｾ＠ ｾ､ Ｎ＠ o f I!>P b) ｊ ｾｶｩ＼ｪｯｬ＠ Robert \:kowmng. n,,. ｦＺｪ ＩＧｾｭｬＢＬｲ＠ Eml,in' . rev. cd . (Was hiLlgton . 11)<)2). I ｾＮ＠ ｔｕｾＧＡｦｩＱ＠ CI"IlIII'1' I,' r/r,' 7 2 <) Suspic io ns are ｴ＠ ｳ＠ ｲ ｾｮ ｢ｲｴｨ ･ ｮ ･ ､＠ when one consi ders th e alleged cbaractn of Doge Enrico Da ndolo . A ccord.ing to Nicetas Chonia tes, a Uyz.mti ne senato r at C o ns tanti n ople duri ng th e cru sade , the blind and el de rl y do ge was ' .1 sl y ch eat wh o called himself wise r than th e ｜ＧＬｲｪｾ･＠ an d , madl y th IrS tin g after glory as ll O othe r , h e prefe rred death to allowin g th e R..o ma ns to escape t h e pe na lty for th e ir insultin g ｴｲ ･ ＮＱ＠ ｴ ｬＱ ･ｾｴ＠ of h is nation ' . Da ndolo , N ice tas r eports, had labo ured o ver -secret pl.1ns ' to lure o th e r Weste rners in to hi s p lot to d estroy yzantiu l11 , 1 The doge, ap parently, was not unique in Venice, for all Ven etians, N icetas a!>sures us , w ere ' vagabo nds', 'cunnin g of mjnd', 'a rroga nt J nd impu de nt'.2 They ha d been ' grad ually turning against ｴｨｾ＠ Roma ns, w aiting for th e o pportune mom e nt to even the score' . \ T h e anon Y11lom en try in tll(' C /lYon icle oj N(,lIgoro d, probably w ritten by a R ussian cleric at Constantin o ple in 1204, tells a differe nt story that reaches a similar con clusi o n : w be n an imperial soothsayer warned Manuel C omn en us in ll 72 that Dan do lo wo uld 'do much h arm to your Empire', Manu el gave o rders that DandoJo, w h o w as a Venetjan ambassado r to Co nstantin op le at th e time, should be blinded. As a resul t, 'this d oge bad planned ｭｾｕｬ ｹ＠ attacks on the to w n and all lIsed to ob ey him. '4 It is not surprising th at scholars trained in B yzan til1e b istory give great weight to tbe tC5timo ny of N ieetas C h oillates . His characterizJtion of th e Ve netians and h is assessm e nt of D a ndolo form th e foundation of ma ny accounts of the Fou rth Crusade, particul arl y those w ritten by schol ars w h o w o rk towards it fro m o utside . They foll o w N icetas in pointing to th e seizure of Venet ian resid ents at C onstantin ople and th eir goods in r J 71 as the spark tha t w oul d ignite the flamc of 1204. Al tb o ugh Venetian m e rchants h.ad been allow ed back to C o nstant in o ple , they had n o t yet been full y com p ensa ted for their lo sses, an d E mperors Isaac 11 (1 r85-95) and Alexius m (11 95 -[ 20 3) favoured th e Pisans, the Venetians' ri vals.s T h e anti-Latin p o grom at Constalltlnople in .I 182 is the se co nd evcnt frequ en tly cited as dem andi ng reve nge. As Sir Steven R un cim an I Nirc l." Ch " "i iH<' . J II 10n·d. cd. J an- Lo ui s D l cte n. i ll CO'P'I$ / 'Olll illll' /lis/oria( ByzdJHilldC (I3crir ll. l'I 7;i), xi. pl. I. ｓＳｾＬ＠ Enf(lish tra.llslation by Holrry J, Mlgl.1ul;;n, 0 C il)' ,'f BYZa/ll i"",: ; 1""aL, "/ "iktliJS O "'I/it/lc.' (D crro it. 1')H4), 21) .\. 2 N lcet". i-lislMI Il, 17 1 Ｎｾ＠ N icl'ta'i. j-fI'st,lrirJ, ｓＮｬｾ［＠ ｴｶ ｬ ｩＮｾｯ I ·11". ｃＺ Ｂｲｾ ｩＨｬ ｲ＠ ＬｾＩ＠ Ｌｖｾ xX\" ( I.l.l n d( >lI. I \II I) .. ｉｾＮ＠ Ｌ Ｂｴｦ ｵｬｩＺ ｳ＠ Ｎ＠ 8 )'.::.,J 1/1;/11 "129.5 Ｎ＠ 1" , 6-1./.71. tr;n" . R. Mic ir dl aJld N . Forbes. Camden T11 ird Scm',. , I) ollil ld M. Nic" I, ｪｉ ＩＧＺｾｬＯｴｦＢＱ＠ m,d [ 'l"IIi"t" (Camb ri dge. Thf)ll 1J" r. M.tddc n. 'Somt' r urtl1i.:·r ａ ｲ ｧｕ ｦＱｬｃ ｉｈ Ｇｾ＠ in ｊＩｌＧｦｾ＠ Cruq,It- ·. llyz"" 'inll , I,, ;i ( 11)')2), 4.\ .. - \. I <j XX) . 104-2 .1 : [)ol u lJ 1:;. ｊ＠ ｜［ｉｾＧ＠ of tlh ｖＧＺｉ＠ Ｈ Ｇ ｴｩ ｡ｮ ｾ＠ Oil QueU er Jlld the rnurrh Thomas F, 1\1adden 73 0 writes, ' th ere w as a massacre of the Latins in Constantinople (1 182) in whic h the V enetian s were the chief victirm and w hi ch Venice never forgot or forgave .. . So w e come to th e tragedy of 12 04, the grand ambitious revenge o f Venice on Byzantiurll.' l Hans Ebe rhard Mayer, in his excellent study of T7le C rusades, goes even furt her. claiming that Venetians 'su ffered time and again tro m violent ant.i­ Latin pogroms, mos t recently in lI82 '." While it is t1ir to point to th e events Of 11 7 1 as a cause of dispute betwee n Venice and Byzantium , the unshakeable belief among some scholars (and Runciman and M ayer are only the 1110st famo us) that rela t ions bet.ve en the tw o states gradually deteri orated to the point of war is mistak en. In f<lCt, on ly a handful of Ve netians we re p resent in Constantinople iJ1 IT 1\2 , as they were pro hibited at that tim e from doing business th ere.:; The massacre of P isans and G eno ese was a stroke of good fortun e fo r V enice, as it obli ged Andronicus I (1 r8 3­S) to turn to Venice during his short reign for military supp ort agains t th e N ormans, Geno ese , and P isans. Scholars w ho blam e Venice for th e div ersion of the Fourth C rusade find a more obvious target in Dandolo. Building on N icctas C honiates and the Ch ronicle of N Ollgoro d, they have dev ised a pe rso nality for the doge that goes far beyo nd the so urces. To Maye r, D andolo w as a man 'whose cool assessm ent of Realpolitik mea nt that he w as indi fre rent to th e em otion engendered by the crusading ideaI' .4 To O stIOgorsky, he was 'completely unm oved by th e genuine crusading spirit'; a man who realized th at th e 'perma nent securi ty of Venetian pre­eminence in the East could only b e obtained by destroyin g the Byzantin e Em pire' .5 Accordin g to A. A. Vasihev, 'when the maj esty, w eJfare, and b enefit of the Rep ubli c of St M ark were invo lved, Dandolo had no scru ples regarding th e means. Possessmg the art of dealing w ith men , as well as extrao rdinary w il l powe r and circurmpecti on, h e was a remarkabl e statesman , an in geni o us diploma t, and , at the same time, :m exp ert economist ... In th e mind of the keen ly disce rnin g and cleve r Da ndolo , a plan was rip eni ng to conqu er Byzan tium in order to I Steve n Ru ncim Jn , ' l3yz.1 ntlll m an d the Cru,adc'S', in 'i7Ie ,\[uti"g of TII'Q "florlds: CII/lll m/ ＧｊｉＮ ｾ＠ b.rw.en [Cast an d Wcsr (/urifl.g lI.e [>,'riod of Ihe C n lsades. cd. Vlad imir P. Co n and Cb rj stin e Ve=r Borns tein Ｈｋｾｬ｡ Ｇｮ ＺＱ ｺ ＨＩ ｯＬ＠ 19 R() , 22 . C fIIsades, rev . G ecrn.ln cd, 198 R, tmru. J o hn C illi.nghJnl (O xford. 2 H ans Eb erha rd Maycr, (990), 2 0 1. 3 Cha ri", M . Hr;md . U)'Z(I/II,'1I1tl COI![r,Jlm lir e Wes l (Ca mbridge, M,,, ., 19 M) , 190 ; Lo uis.: Buenger R obben. ·Ven.icc and rh e C Ws.ldC1>· , In A Hislof)' aftire Crusades. cd. Kcn nl!th M. Setton ｅｸ､ｬ n,,, (Madison, I \iSS), v. +011 • Mayer, Crust/des. 2 0 I . ｫｹＮ＠ B)'-"<1I lIi"" SI1tW, 4-13 ApPJrcnrJ y the te Jrs d1at D :1ndolo <hed dUring his cmotionn l 5 ｏ ｳ ｴｲｯ ｧｯｾ cro 'l;slIl g were pun: 5uh[crfugc. T lte Fmlrth Cr/lSCl de Ｎｾ ｌ｣ 731 ｵｲ･＠ dd initdy the O riental .na rker for Ve nic e ." Fin e agrees: 'He ｉｬｊｴ ｾ ､＠ th e ＱＳｹｺ｡ｮｴｩｾｳ＠ an d felt that Vene tia n trad e w as iJJ d:lnger ｡ｾ＠ lon g ｡ｾ＠ th e em pire surv.ived .'2 S? does C harles Brand: ' Dan dolo, w ho hated thl! Byzan twes , eaSIly Induced hi S fell o w ｲｯ ｷ ｬＱ ｳｮ ｷ ｾ＠ to j o in a crusade w h ich l1u ght be diverted against C o n stantlnople. '.l And 13 rownin g go es fu rthe r: 'The Do ge of Ve nice, Enrico D andol o. w ho ha d long smarted un der an in sult , rea l or ill1 :l,ri ned, w h.ich be had received in Consta ntinople years before, w as b no t in the leaS( intereste d ill o usting th e Moslems, w ith w h om Venic e ca rried on a lively an d profitabl e trade. But he was eager to elimi nate the empi re, \vhi ch he saw as the last obstacle to sec uring Ve netian su premacy 111 thc castern M editerranean .'­! NQ contel1lp ora ry scho lar has w ritte n as mu ch about D ando lo' s culpab ili ty ill the di versioll of the Fo urth C rusade as Donald M. Nico l. In his chapter in th e Cambridge McdiCl'al His(OIY an d ill his book 011 B y z allT iu lII r1l1d [/c ll ic(' (19 8R), N icol argues that Venetian greed and D alldol()\ desire fo r reve nge brou ght th e Fou rth C rusade to th e Uosporus. Lik e other 13yzantinists, N icol accepts N ic etas' assessm ent of D and ol o wllolcheartcdl y : 'the Greeks at th e time we re ri ght in suspe cting that it was Enric o Da ndolo w ho led th e crusaders to Constantinopl e and th en arranged thi ngs in such a w ay that th ey had a moral pretext fin conqu erin g it. ' Wh y did the G reeks perceive wh at Dandolo ' 5 triends and co mpatriots di d no e Sim ple enough. T h e doge ' hid his purpme under a cloak of piety. But C onstantinopl e was in his \l1lJ1d from the olltse t: s Like man y others, Nicol believes that D andolo harbo ured a Ｇ ｰ ･ｲ ｾｯｮ｡ ｬ＠ gru dge ' against I3yzantium for the loss of ｨｩ ｾ＠ eyesight: 'As his eyesigh t faded so his w its sbarpened and his ha tred of the Greeks became obsessive .'6 T he Ol Jf1 utlCture of th e ca ricature that is passed off as the personality of D a n dolo is o ne of the m os t fascin ating asp ec ts of the historiography of the Fo urth C rusade. H e has been described ill such col o urful terms as a 's ucce5sful buccan eer' and even a ' twelfth­ century version of the Ho meric Odysse u,,' .7 HistOrians ha ve gone L:l r b eyond IDan do lu l i A '\ . V,lSihc v. 1-1i5''''i' (!{I/W H Y:O <TIllill( ElllpiTt. j14 - 14,lJ, ill (W n v p hlrl 1l"­> , ＧＩｉ Ｉｾ Ｎ＠ J!;,)()2). 'l 45.2-3 . ｾ＠ r ill e . .\J",,<1', ,1 lJalkmr.s . IJI. '. LkJlld. H),:::.Jl1Ii,ml C """ '''I I, III' IV(,ll .20(" Ｂ ｾ Ｌ＠ IlY;:,/l lIi1lt' i .II'p il". I H7. I ｊｬｲ＼Ｑ｜Ｇｉ :l nJ Eng. ｴ＼ ｾｹ＠ cd {Madtson. (9).2; repro M. N,c,,] . 'T h,' FO llrth C r ll ' adc ""d the Creek DlJ d L u in ｅｮ ｬ ｰ ｩＧ ｾ［ ＠Ｎ JZo<j.­ r..:.6l·. ＨＬＧ Ｌ＠ Ｌｬｩ ｲ ＬＡｾ Ｌﾷ＠ I/,'Ji,'ml J-JIfI,''i'. iv , pt. , (CJ mb riti.gL·. 10M) . 2 75 - ))0 • •\1 1. ( N ,co ], lly,z'lIIli ll!/I "wi 1/'·/li••'. I I Y­20 . , Wrili" ln H. McNl·,11. 1/1'111 " " I'll" l-li ll,QI' Ｌ ｾＨ＠ ""'")Jr. / 08 1- 1797 (C hi .:ago, 1974), 24R -<j 11. 4..); W, lli ;nll itLhCOC J'ln vcr. II Siron l-li.' lor), ,!( I i'lIIe' (Ne w York. 1')0 <;), ｓ＠ ｾＮ＠ ; Ilull .d.J 732 Thomas F. IVfadde/l T he FOllrth Cmsade N icetas and the ChrO/ziclc of N OlJgorod , attributing to Dandolo motives and desires for w hi ch there is no ev iden ce. Each new description adds a bit more to the image, u ntil h e appea rs to be mo re a pres cient demon than a falli ble man. ! One w ould suppose , th ere fore, that an abundance of evidence exists on w hich to base detailed descriptions nOt onl y of his personal attributes but also of his clandestine designs. In fact . tbere is a dearth . Aside from the testimonies of N icetas and the author of the Chronicle of N OI!go rod (neith er of w ho m ever met Dandolo), the only contemp orary sources for Dandol o's character are participants in tbe Fou rth C rusa de. G eoffrey de Vill ehardouin, w ho knew him perso nally, describes him as 'an old man ' w ho 'could not sec, but w as very wi se, bra ve, and vigoroll s' .2 Ro bert o f C lari mention s him tw ice as 'a right w orthy 1I1an '3 An d Gunther of Pairis. w ho based his w ork on th e memory of hi s crusading abbot, praises Da ndolo for his intelligence and w isdom.·1 Although we may con clude that Gunther w as right on that score, gi ven D an dolo's actions during the Fourth Crusade, the real D andolo rem ains illusive. Venetian historians do nOt know with certainty w hen or w here be was born, because th e surviving archival evidence from twelfth­centu ry Venice is so fi­agmentary that D andolo is not mentioned in it lIntil he is in his fifties. W e know of a few embassies that he took part in, but very littl e about their purpose, and we can only gu ess at why the Venetians elected an old, blind man as doge in I T92. 5 In short, the so urc es tell us little ::tbout a man that som e modern historia ns preten d to know intimately. H ow are Dyzantinists able to penetrate to weil-guarded sec rets of th e heart, to clandestine phms, and ;mributcd co Dan dolQ. Ｇｲ ｾ｣ ｩ＠ ｌＧＱｬｴ＠ D3 11Jolo T heo rists ' I Prescience is Oti C o rche prin cipal ｊ｢ｬｩｴ･ｾ＠ prow D an dolo', >ul pabil iry by J5Scrtlllg w hat ｨｾ＠ 'probably knew' . For examp le, concerning the treaty of 11.0 1, ' [the Fnnkish envoysl esunutcd th at th ei r anny would n um ber well over 30,000 111e l'. 3 fi gure whicb the Doge probably knew to be wlrcdl i\rt(;'; Nico l. 13y':-"l/lilllll .1111/ Vellin', I :7. O n the T rea ty of Zara: 'Uando lo k.new quit" well thac the prince wo uld nevcr be able to fulfil Ins promises. Bu r he kep t Ius peace ': J ohn Godfrey. 1104 : nc Unho l y CnlSlll/t (Oxford, 1?80) . 80. '[ Uan doloJ m ust h ave knowll that no Byzan tine EllJl'cro r could fulfil th" prOlnises rhon AIe,'; us Angelos was maki ng' : N icol, 13)'./:III/li",,, .II/d Ve"icc. 1.14 . llrand conclu des, on rh e basis of itlsrru cti ollS rlu e Da ndo lo gave to envoys in (. 1197. that th e doge was ' foreseein g Ie is rcasotlablt! co thin k tha t he applied eh e <Jllle , kill ro It is reiaLionship with ebe "r"sadn<': Bralld. -Fo urth Crusade' , 35. 2 Geoffrey de ViUehardouin , La COllqllhc de Conslall/maple. cd. E. Fara.l (paris. 1<)38- 9). ii . 17 2, 'cc. 364 . .' R o bert of Cla ri. La COllq llJle de COl/slalll;'",plc, ed . Ph.i li ppe La uer (P"m, 1924) . sec. p. '0; sec. 9], p. 9 1. I Gunth er o f Pairis, ｦ Ｍ ｦｩ ｳ Ｏ ｾｲｩ｡＠ C..IISlillllill op,>lir"'Irt, "d. Palll R ial1f, in EXIII';(I., $.,UM L.OIIＹＰＴＩ Ｎ＠ i. 9 1. J/Olil iliopol;laliar (""neva md Palli. Ｑ＠ ｾＷＭＱ＠ '; Sec GiorgiO Cracco. s.v. 'Dan dolo . Enrico ' , Dizio/l{/Tl o lJioji'lI{ic(' dr/lli ltolim,i. xxx ii (Ro'u" . 1986). J' . 733 to dark desi res for revenge, whe n historians of Vcnice are sti Ll trying ro pit'cC toge ther the barest ou tline o f a life? Nor do es w hat little w e rhe myth. For example, he was not bliuded by Manuel kn ow ｾＧｯｮｊｩｲ｜ｕ＠ ＧＺｏ ｴｬ ｈＮＧｭｬｾ＠ or, for tha t marter, by any Byzantine . And he spent much of his <\dult life wo rk ing to maintain peac e betw een Venice and C(.l I1St:lntinople, rather than seek i.ng the ideal momen t for w ar.! ::: >.: * 1 he altermHive and more fruitful way to Jook at th e Fourth Crusade is l> bown to us bv Donal d E . QueUer, who loo ks from inside, rather than from ou tsi de, 'at th e dynamics at w o rk among the crusaders. Rather th ,lt1 acce pt N icetas ' judgem e nt. he turn ed to those w ho knew the Venetians and acc om panied th em o n th e crusade, and who conv inced him that no o ne could hav e - or had - foreseen, or guided to a p rede te rmined end, the even ts th at b efell the crusaders. Q u eUer ､ｩ ｾ ｲ ｣ ｧ｡ｲ､Ｌ＠ the schism of 1054, th e No rman attacks on The5salonika, and the repa ration pa)"ll ents still owed to Veni ce because the ｣ ｲｵ ｾ｡ ､･ ｲｳ＠ th emsdves paid no attention to them . T o u nderstand why the Fourth ｃｲｵｾ ｡､･＠ w ent to C onstantino pl e, one should tr::tve! with th e crusaders, whose actions were not determined by centuries-old events: th ey were an enthusiastic, but stru ggling, gro up preoccupied with the day-to-day problems th<lt continually threatened the survival of th eir enterprise. ' It would be exciting to regale the reader w ith a t.l le of a dark plot to conqUlT Constantin()plc con coc ted at H agenall by Philip of Swabi a, Bo niface of Montferrat , and the y ou ng Alexi lls, but 1 am abso lutely co nv in ce d that it W ;\S not so . A retelling of th e myth of the Venetians, w ho had no re ligion but pro tit an d the state, and of th e dev io us D andolo, w ho spun a w eb to entrap the naive northerners to ach ieve hi s ends, also would be intrigui ng, but it too is not true.' 2 T he truth wa, less fan tastic. Men w ith good intentions bu t diverse inte rests we re caugh t lip ill a chain o f even ts that led them step-b y-step to Byz-mtiuIll. They sail ed to the Bosporus to perform an act of C hristi:ll1 ch arity, th e enthrunement of Alexius TV. for a pro111lscd reward in mo ney :lnd reinforcements . The Venetians , Q ueller ma intained, were j us t as pious as th e north ern crusaders, and just as anxious to reach Eb'y tlt. Altho ugh Dandolo bad good reasons to take up th e offer made by Alexim, he W<l'i hardly alone in that and he never con templated the outnght co nquest of C onstanri nople itsdf. I Thfl tll.l\ F. l'v1..u.ldL'll. 'Ven ic\.' ,Ind C:o lI st.lIlt iIlOplL: in 11 7 1 .' 1IH.1 I f 71: i:nri cD J);uHlolo\ :\t titllLk ln w.; rJ .. BYl3lltlUlll ' . .\ltdit,.,r,mt'IJIt /-IiJl",ilaJ HCllj('w. viii ( 19,)3 ). 16f;-X 5. , 11011.11.1 C ｴｾ＠ ｌｬ｣ ｬＧｲ＠ nIl' h 'IIr,h en,sa,"': 171,' C""q"" " ,,{COllflJlIIlI/"I'/C, 12 01 - ' 1"4 (l' hd .Jlkll'hi ,l, ]'J 7';.I. ': 7 34 71011l a5 T he Fourth Cmsade F. i\!faddc ll Q u ell er 's Tile [7011 1'111 Crus ade (1 (77) quickly became the standard wo rk on th e subject and, in rhe last eigh teen years, ｨｩ ｾ＠ ve rsion of ｴｨｾ＠ 'th eory o f accidents' has been widely accepted by scholars . The judgement of J o na th:m Ri ley­S mith . in The Cmsades: A Short HisLO ry (.1.9 87) , is typ ical: ' Th e capture of Co nsta.ntinople seems to have been th e re.sult of a series of acciden ts ... T h ere is no need even to explain the cru sa d e in terms of th e long history o f bad re lati o ns b et wee n c rusaders and G reeks; it was a respoll$e to a reques t fi­om a B yza nti ne prince, made w hen the cru sa ders we re h eavily in deb t be.ca use o f an error of judgment on the part of the six d elegates w ho had ne gotiated on the il' behalf wi th Ve nice.'1 Som e Byzantinisrs, however, continue to reject Q u ell e r's thesis .2 In a historiographical artide published in 1984 , Charles B ra n d praises Th e Fou rth C rusade for th e d ep th of its scholarship and ､･｣ｬ ｡ｲ･ｾ＠ it th e standard w ork on th e subje ct, but cri ticizes it severe ly for its scope. Earlier, ill his excellent book. B YZ a/lli/.ml C OI'ljro llls Ihe W es l, B rand had e xamin ed the cru sade from outside, desc ribing it .IS a 'fa ilure of Byza ntine for e ign poLi cy' ,'; a nd in his articl e critici zes Queller for looking at it fr o111 lnside. Ind eed, Brand goes so far as to question Qu e ll e r' s moti ves for refnsing to repeat th e story of the rival ry betwee n the Latin W est and th e Greek East: 'His rQueller's'l stated reaso n is that there are already adequate books w hich w ill g ive the reader information on th ese matters. In reality, th e se omiss ioll s are intention al; they allow him to su stain his favored th esis. ' Bran d is convinc ed that the crusaders, swept up in a powert'Lll currellt of larger events th at led to the fall of C onstantinopl e, w ere not indep en dent actors. Quell e r's approach, tk e r e fore, distorts one's view o f the crusade: 'by rigoro usl y excludin g an y thorough djscussion of background, [QuellerJ m akes it ｾ･ ｬＱ＠ plausibl e that a simple sequence of challce events brou ght the Fourth Crusade to C onstantinoplc .'4 B rand is not alone in rej ec ting Queller's th esis; some do so by simple negle ct. Nicol fre quently cites Qudl er in B yzal1 lhtm and Vwice, but nowh ere takes ac count of his conclusio ns. s Runciman and B ro w ning simply ignore him. To disco ver John Godfrey's view of the Fourt h Crusade , one need 73 5 lo ok no further t han the ti de of J 204 : 'th e Urlholy Cnlsade, the p o pular work he publ ished in 198 0. Godfrey is llot a scho lar and his audience, he ｓｴＮ ｬｴ ･ｾＬ＠ is ｴｨｾ＠ general reader. I He has read Q uell er' s wo rk, bu t is 11l0re heav il y infl uenced by th e w ork of R unci m an, N icol (w ho rea d and com me nted on the manuscript b e fore publjcation), and Edw in Pc'<ll"i , U nlik e Qllc ller, G o dfrey sets the Fo urth Crusade sq uarely into the landscap e of previous and fu ture even ts. His narrative begins nine h undred yeJr<; e arlier, in the fourth ce ntury, w orks its way to the cnlS:lde itse lf only in C hapte r 5, and by C h ap ter 14 of r6 , h as passed on, T he n.:main d er {) f th e bo ok o ffers a superficial history o f the Latin : ll1 pire ilnJ the restored Byzanti n e E m pire up to 1453· At times Go d frey is insi gh tful and th e book is w ell w ri tte n, but it is p oo r histo ry . God fi'c y has read only a few of the ma nuscript so urces lpparen tl y in transb tio n ­ and he h as digested o n.ly a fraction of tbe li terature . H e relics heavily o n E dwi n Pears's The Fall of Constantinople ( I i{l)5), a bo ok criticized for its m any erro rs w hen it was publish e d o vt.'r a bundre d year; earli er.2 H e also reli es h eavily on R unciman's H i"1 M)' '!{ f ll( ' C wsndes ( 1954) , w h ich, w bile very reada bl e , is riddled w ith mistak es w h en deJ Ling with the Fourth C rusad e. G odfre) 's too tn o tes are fc 'o\'; his erro rs o f fac t m an y . T o give two yp ical exam p les: he cites Geo tlrey de V illehardouin in sup port of a claim that D an dolo was blinded in a b raw l, when V ille hardouin repo rts oilly that the­ blin dness res ulted fi.­o m a blow to tb e head. 3 The story of t he­ brawl COITH::S fro m R unciman , w h o cites IlO ev idence for it I Ag::t in citing V illeh a rdouiD. G odfi'cy states th at Alexius IV implored the crusade rs to leave his lands w hen th ey d e m ande d the ir final p;}ym e nt for placing him on the throne .' Neither V iLlehardo uin nor ,m y other source rec o rds ａｊ ｣ ｸ ｩ ｬＱ ｾ＠ ｉｖＧｾ＠ saying anythi ng of the kind. G C o dfi'l'Y even resu rrects th e proposit ion th at Veni ce had made a secret agn:ement with Egypt to d ive rt the crusade, a claim La id to res t by Cab rid Han()tallX Ｌｬｾ＠ lon g ago as I fj 77.7 As Go dfrey relies so heavily o n th e work. others , he is bOllnd to rep eat tb eir mistak l:!s . ff it seems un charitable to hold a pop ular work to the stcUldards of a or , .I"bll (;, , Jftc'Y , I ':". ): 1711' ( ',,/r,'l), Crusdd•.· (O xford. 1 ｾ Ｉｯ ＠Ｎ "U Ed Wi n ｉＧ Ｇｾｲ＼Ｎ＠ Iile /,,,1/ "I ｃ ＧｾＢｬＯｉ Ｏ＠ ｩ ＢｰｩＬ＠ (L0 ndon . 1 ｾ ｓ ｓ＠ ＠Ｚ N cw York . IHHr,j. ｾ＠ (; I)dlr"y. r Ｂｉ Ｏｲｾｩｦ＠ e ",1,,,(.:. ('4 : ViIleh.] rdnl.l in. CUll o/lIl'te dJ' C"IlS/mlliIlCll'ir. $"C. ' ' ' [ ''\'( 1) RUIICi1ll..i!I, A I/is/" f)' ＬｾｲＯ ｬｩ ｦ＠ Clll5lII/n (Cambridge . ｉ＠ ＡＩ＠ ｾＮｪｊ＠ Ｎ＠ iii. 1 q. 2 R iley­Smith, ＷＱＮ ｾ＠ CrIIsades: !:I Short HiS/orr (New Haven, Ｑ＠ ＼Ｉｾ ＷＩＬ＠ 130. 2 Th ere arc Byzanrinis[S, it is important to po int Oll t, w ho Jre convinced by Q ud ld s 3rgulllc nts. See, e .g. , Ml rk C. JJarru <i, . I7" L.ale BFa/Hille A mly: Am" ,HId SQ(iely, J204­ ' 45.1 Ｈ ｐｨ ｩｨ､ ｣ｬｰ ｨｩ ｾ＠ Ｎ＠ I Jon atha n 1991.) .6. ｾ＠ 113ran d, ｬＳ ｹｾ｡ＬＢ ＢＬ＠ Brand. 'fou.rth CO.?!rollls Ihe J.1 ｃ ｲｵ Ｌｾ､ ; N icol l DyZllu liw lI mill ｣ＧＬ＠ e</. 2 ]2. 38­9. ｉ ｾ Ｌ Ｌ ﾷ Ｌｪ ｦｬＡＮ＠ 12·4 ­43. , (; 'lclfrL ), (1 7 . I. ＨＬ ｾ＠ Ｎ＠ I 'II/r" iy CIIIS,II/", I 1(, . r, ()11 rhi, orrcl l ｴｮ Ｇ［ｩ ｾｊｮｬ ｬＧ＠ ｲＺＮｾ Ｉ ｯ ､＠ COtlVt' f,\ .1 11P I1, "CL' Th o m a... r. ｍｾ ､ ､ ｾ ｴｬＮ＠ 'Yo,",,"!' ｾ ｬｊ､＠ ｾ＠ｴ ｔ ｴ ｾＮ ｬｴｶ＠ of Z.11':I :.llhl tht.' AttJc k on CCH1\:LJntiIl o pit: ill I Clu rth Cru Ｌ ｈｨ ｾＧ＠ ｔｨ 1I1.1 /"'r 1<,1 '''''''''. ｾｶ＠ ( "NJ) . H;)­ SO. ­; !hld . Ｍ ＠ｾ \ t·c C.d'ri c\ ili"II',i'I'II'· i\' ( , S·nl. ｾ ＷＭ ｉ ｲｯ I l a ll o t"ltlX. Ｎ＠ Ｇｌ ｣ ｾ＠ ｖｾ Ｇｬｩｴ｣＠ ｬ ｬＢ＠ otH - lh· {r. lhi ｃｏ ｲｈ Ｚ ｲ ｾｬ｣ｴＢ＠ in th e J .;o.J.' . b llt'r ll dJ ii11It1J h Chrl'tH:l1tc L'Il ｉ ｾｏ ｬ＠ ＿＠ ＧＬ＠ U .(f'IIC 736 77lOl1Ia.s F IV1a dde/l w ork of scho larship , one has no choi ce as lo ng as sc ho b.rs w ho are conv inced of Veni ce 's comp li ci ty in t he d iversjon of th e Fourth C rusade look to Go dfrey as a counterpoise to Q uell er. In his chapter on the crusade in Byz antium ami Venice, Nicol cites Q ucller and G odfrey together. as if their work carri ed equal scholarl y weight. I In TmlOce nl lJl: Leader oj ErtfOpe, 11 98-1 216 ( 1994), Jane Sayers fai ls to cite Quell er; G od fi'ey's is the o nly mon o graph sh e do es cite .2 And Brand do es his best to ofTer an npolo gy fo r Go dfrey . Altho ugh he d ecl ares that the book's title is 'historical nonsense'. he proposes that Go dfrey 'sho uld be held guiltl ess' , owi ng to the 'e tfort of tho roughn ess' shown in th e bibliography of forty ti tl es and th e fe w addi ti onal w o rks cited in th e footnote s. By w ay of comparison , Q ueller's The FOllrtiz Crrtsade li sts 372 titles in the bibliograph y , and B rand's own Byz a/ltium OIifrol1ts th e VIlest, w ith a narro we r chro nological sc o pe t han , odfi'ey', w o rk, li sts 452 titles . Brand considers th e fact that Godfrey devOtes o nly one hundred pages to the eve nts of the crusade o ne o f his 'strong suits': he 'thus makes a genuine efIort to plac e tb e cru sade in a broad context' . Even B rand has to admit, however, that 'the d etails in hi s background material are often incorrect.' In concl usion . Brand enunc iates, perh aps w ithout kno w in g it. th e fundamental division among historian s of the Fourth Crusade: 'Godfrey deserves credit for attempting to situate the crusa de in a context of East­ W est relations on a broad scale . Queller's work will remain more valuable to the student and the scholar because of its effort at absolute precision in regard to the day­to­day events.' 3 It is not surprising that co nspira.cy theories permeate popular w orks like G odfrey 's: th ey are easi er to grasp and make a more dramatic story. Ernie Bradford's popularization Ti ,e SlIndered Cross: The Stor), oj the Fourth. Crusade (1967) is another excellent exampl e.­I A curso ry glance at a few guidebooks (am o ng the mos t w idely read form of ｨｩｳｴ ｯ ｲｩ＠ ｣ｾｴＱ＠ literature) confir ms th e trend. Frommer's ｔｯｴｬｲｩＯＬｾ＠ Cllide to Venice (19 87) states that ' E nrico Dando lo persuaded the Crusade to T he Fourth Cmsade 737 irs prima ry o bj ective in favo r of going to ｃｯｾｳ ｴ｡ｮｩｯ ｰｬ･ＮＧＱ＠ Thl: poplIl.lr j(litll KCllt's Verll c(' (1 988) te,lIs th e tounst: T hIS act [th e \t'iz lIre of V(.'I1l'ti.lll S in I 17 11 led to tbe I gt10 1111I11 01l S 4th C rusade, 111 whidl thl.! VenNians extl1lcted t heir revenge by di verting an invasio ll "un ' IroIn the Hol y Land to th e sac k ofCoTlS talltinopl e in 1 2 0 4 .'2 III the \I deo ""' ries Tllc Cl'tIsadcs by Te rry Jo nes, E nrico Dandolo is cast in ｴＧ ｾｴ＠ ｲｭ ｾ ｩ｢ ｬ｣＠ light. H e is the arc hitect of the di version of the the ､｡ｲ｜Ｂ FOllrrh C rusade, a m an d riven by greed and hate , (To b e fair, n o ｷ｣ｾ ｴ ･ｭ＠ [ uropl',U1 cOl1les o ut well in the series. ) ｑｵ･Ｑ ｫｲ Ｇｾ＠ wo rk . therefo re, can be said to have had great influence UpO ll cnlsade scho larship. less in flu ence on B yzantine sc holarship, and as vcr non e at all on pop ular w orks . W hat of textbo oksl To find out, I exami ne d the tre'n m ent of th e Fourth C ru sade in fo ur me dieval ｨｩ ｾｴｯｲｹ＠ texts and eight freshman surveys.3 N on e of tb e fonn er. all ,il:signcd to be used in upper­ level undergrad uate courses, rdies on ｣ｯ ｮ ｾｰｩｲ｡ ｣ｹ＠ th eory nor does any sin gle out the Venetia ns for special bLnn e. R. H. C. Dav is in A His tory oj M edieval E urope and David Nic ho bs in Th£' £ '.'(1/111/011 of rhe Medieva l World imply that Venic e and oth ers had SOllll'tiJ ing to gJin , but go no furth er. 4 Similarly , Edward ｐ･ｴ ｣ ｲｾ Ｇｳ＠ Erlrnpe and tlH' Middle Ages devo tes on ly two ｳ･ｮ ｴ ･ｮ｣ｾ＠ to th e crmadc and identitIes no villain. Th e best treatment o f th e four is C. W arren ｈｯ ｬｩ ｾｴ ･ ｲ｜＠ ,Uedieval Ellrope: A Sltort History. One might expect to find th e pop ular conspiracy theories preval ent in freshm an surveys, but that is no t the case. Most in troductory tex tbooks are w ritten today b y a battery of scho lars each concentrating on hi, own fIeld. As a re'ltt lt, th e fru l(S of spec iali zed resenrch are quickly integrated. Only mlc text OLlt of the eight exa mined attributed th e diversi o n o f the crmade to a ｖ･ ｮ ･ｴｾ ｊ ｬ＠ co mp iracy. " The otller seven ca n be divi de d into two gro ups. T hree app o rtio n n o blame, seeing th e di version l1lerl'lv as th e oLltc ome of a series of se parate d ec isions." T he other PO\t pO JH: e,,;,iI' h' I "'lIir... cd . Cb"dc J""; COt (N ew York. 19K7) . 2 1. KCl '[ , Jo/", Knrt'; I··,."i(!' (Lolldoll. 19IHI) . 7 . \ T il" mC'lhod 0 1 'ciceri,," ".1, h,lph:t2Jrd. I si mply ",cd tho$c b00k< th.lt luve ｢ ｾ ｬ Ｇ ｮ＠ 'cnt to me ICJr ｾｩＬ＠ .l i u.Jt H.1 1l IJ \ 'L.'I" the ｾ ｬ＠ ｬＧｴ＠ rhn.&.t: Vc ..lr.. ｔ ･ｸ ｴ｢ ｯｫｾ＠ tha t d.;) no t di . . rus\ the crus;ld c have been I 1,,1/1/11/1"'; ') "",,,,,, ? J"hll I Nicol. Byzalllirm, m,d Vell ire. I Z4 - 43 . 2Janc Sa yers . " IIIO(elll lIl: Lcadt r oJEuroPf, 1198'1 216 (London, 19!N). 204. This ioook is useful for those Interested In In nocent Ill's earlie r ble, papa l co urt po li tics. and the promu lg.1 tiof] of canon law. I lo we vc r, Innoce nt III himsclr believed dut his m ost impO rtant effort< we re d irccted .n reuniring th e churches and r eco nqu eri ng J erusa lem . Sayers treats these m atrer!> allllost as 3n afte rthough t. in a fi nal chapter entitled 'The Papacy and th e Wider Worl d' . Innoc ent III 's ncgo [iat ion.\ wi th the O rthodox chu rch before 1203 >rc ign o red. The Fourth Crusade, which consumed $0 Illuch of [he pope 's attention and effom. ranks a mere fo ur­ page dc,cnp[io\1 ( 1725) with important erro rs. 3 Brand, 'Fourth Crusade' . 39­4 1. ｾ＠ Erll k Br.dford. TIle SJIIldrn'd C m.u: .,.he SI(lry "f rllp FO ll rrh Cn,Jade (Englewood C li !I" I ｾＱ｜ ＸＩＬ＠ Tim book was a150 marketed under the [itle TI,e Grear Betrayal l ) I1Hllt·d . . "r 1 Jl.. H. c. I )" v;'. A I Ii.,,,,,)' .tledin'lIl Lllr,'pr'/;" "I (""Wlilli lifl!' II' Sf I." ,,(s, "­ Ild c'd, (Lon doll, ｉｾｍ＼Ｇ • .1.1.-1 I )Jvid N lclw la<, Jill' /;1" '/'''''''' "" ,h.. \/(,,1 ;N"'" I ['orld: SO(fd)'. Ｈ［ｏｖ ｾｔｉＯｪＨﾷＢ＠ ｲＬ＠ «lid 17,. 'H,\.,h I i'J r ,tn'lh , ｾｕ 15c1(1 (I.ondo n. 11) t)2 ) . 2.7Q. , I ;­Ilfl 111111t. ｲｨ ｯ ｊｬｾＧ＠ It. Mdltill. U"rp,HJ H. Ro <cll we;Il , Ji... P,, -ch ia H , iJ, ｮ ＨＩ ｉｬＢｩ ｾ＠ c. Smith, II,,· ｬ［ＱＬＯ ｉＧ ｾＧ＠ ,,( lill' 11 i"r il "x 'ugtn ,., . )" ')5 , ｾ ｑ ＮＱ＠ I ltlll,lhII\J\l.1l1. St"'"ll Ollll c nt , Fr,l1lk M . Turner, T'Ir!' Jh'.""rtI ｉＱ ｣ ｲ ｩｴＮＱｾｦ＠ S[h cd. (Engle­wood 'i\,,.i,'l y. (:I, IT,. J'1') . l .', 1 ­3' John I'. M , KJV, Bellnel I) . l-hI1, !ohll llu lkler. / 1 / fislfIT)' "f II 'f , til ｾ､ Ｎ＠ II" t"". 11)<) ,), ｾｎｯｬ ［＠ ｊｩＢＭ ｉ Ｇ＠ ｉ＠ ｾＧＢ＠ I Li p, hur. J.lIlit'e J. T"'l j, l' t ,01 ., " '" ,Id lILli,',), . 2 11d ... d. MIIIII\.·,'pc1h, \ t 1' lllI, JOI) ,,}, 3,"S. '''IIt 738 T homas F. .LVIa dden fo ur also apportion no blame . but do imply that the gr ee d of the V eneti an s influen ced the de cisioll to sail to C onstantino ple . I All eight con tain errors in the description o f the Fourth C rusad.e . he issue is not settl ed, no r, as Achille Luchaire lame nte d in 1907, is it likely ("ver to be. Luchaire \vas w rong, though, to call for an end to research b e cause 'scienc e has truly som e thing bette r to do than to discuss indefinitely an insoluble problern.'2 The Fourth Crusade has attracted a host of scholars w h o have shed furth e r Light on the event itself and the circumstances that surro unded it. Sin ce the pu bli cation of Qucll er's The Fourth Crusade, m any w orb have app eared that examin e in finer de tail the history o f th e enterp rise from inside. Here I shall point to a few o f particular importance . No other scholar has give ll as much atten tion to the less we Jlkno w n sources of mform ation on th e Fo urth C rusa d e as Alfr ed J. Andrea , who has produced the b est availabl e editi ons and translations of the D el/aslatio COll.statltil1 opolit(//l.a and An o ny mo us of Soissons' Dc terra Ih erosolirnitana 3 In an ingen ious :Lrticle . he ex plains the key ­ t he sym metrical structure by which events in th e first h alf are made to foreshad ow an d co ntrJ,st w ith events in the se cond ­ to u nlocking th e hidde n m ea nings of Gunth er of Pairis' H istoria Constantinopolilana, " w hich h e h as trans la ted in a forthcom ing edition . A n drea has also looked at particular even ts and at partic ular indivi dua ls. In an article w ritten w ith Ilona Motsiff, he exami nes th e ti ming: of Inn o cent HI's lett er prohibiting the attack on Zara as we ll as th e m eans by which it was transported to th e crusaders.' The lett er, w he n it clid arri ve , forc ed the crusaders to choo se between obedience to th e po pe ;md fulfilli ng th eir vow s to the Ven etians . T w o ind ividual crusaders h ave also co rn e under his scrutin y: A da m of Pe rseigne a nd C o nrad of K ros ig k; h h is I T h o mas F. X. Nob le, flo uy ｾ Ｎ＠ Strauss, D uane J. O , h elm , Kli m' n ｂ ｹｾ｡ｮｴｩｵＢＧ＠ N eusche l. WiJi i;LI'l1 B. ｃｯ ｨｾｮＮ＠ D avid D . ｒ Ｂ ｢ ｾｮ Ｇ＠ Ｌ＠ W" SI,''''' C ivi/iz alioll. TIlt! C arlli'/Il ilig I!.'cprrinw ll (Bo ,tO[1. 1<)'14), 41 6 : Anrhony Esler, >nit W.::slert [ Hiil,ld (E nglewood ClitlS. IY'N). 3 13 . L. S StJVrilllO, . TIlt' lVorld 10 150 0 .' A Global History , 6th cd. (En glewo od CliffS , 1'I9S) , ｝Ｎ ｏ ｾ ［＠ J. M . Roberts. HlStor), ,'f IiiI' Wcrid (O " foro. 1993). ｾ＠ 18. i Ac h.llk LuchJir<!. IIIHO{elil III: la ｱｬｾｉＢＧＱ＠ J ' Oril'l1' (Pari" 19° 7) . 97. 1 Al fred J A ndret1 , 'The UcvflSlilllO C msraHrin<>polilttna, A Spe cial Perspective o n th e Foun b C rusade: AIl Aruly, is . N ew Edi tio n. , Il d T r>I1lhtion ', i1ls/"ritcl l R £//rrlioll.<, x ix ( 1993) , ｩ ＰＷＭ Ｎ ｾ ＼Ｉ＠ Ｚ＠ Alfred J AndreJ m d Paul I. R achlin , ' Holy W 3r, Holy R elies. Ho ly Theft : T he An onymous "I' ｾ ｯ ｩ ｳｯｲｵ Ｇ＠ D c rerm Jilcrosolimilmlll : An Analysis , Edition, and T !'3mb ti o n'. HiSI<lrica.1 k cilwlOHS. x\ii[ ( 199 2), ' 4 7­ 75 Alfre d J ａ ｮ Ｈ ｊｲ ﾷ ｾＳ＠ Ｎ＠ 'Th e H isl,nia C " H; /(fU /III<lpo/ill1na: An Eorly Thi rt c<'nt h­ Cc11tury C incrd QI1 Loo b 3t ByZ.1IlOll m' , Arm/rein ｃ ｩ ｳｬＧｲＨ ｩ ｾｭ ｩ｡ Ｎ＠ xxxvi ( 1980) , : ()9 ­302. 5 Alfred J. An dre.1 .llld !I on., Mor>.i lT. ' Pope· InnOCe nt III .Illd the DivC1'<;ion of th l! Fourth Crusad e Army W VC1.llCe '. Byza.mi"o,laviw . """ iii Ｈ ｬｾ ｮＲ Ｉ Ｌ＠ ('­2 5. ｾ＠ Alfred ). A ndre• . 'Ad:ul1 of Perscignc m el th e Fo urt h C rusade' , C iI CQ II X , XXXVI Ｈ＠ Ｑ ｾ ＵＩ＠ Ｎ＠ 21 ­ 3 7 : idem . 'Co nrJ d of [("'<igk. ni \ho p () f I­la.lb cr,ra d!., CnJs"dcr, .ill O Mon k of Si ttlchc.nhadl: l­1i, -I T he FO llrtlt Crusade .mlck d 7 39 the l.ttter, a study of one of th e crusade's leadi ng b isho ps , is a >tory. Lastly, after meticulo usly exam ini n g al l of tb e ｃ ｉ ｾ ｴ ｡｣ｩｬ＠ ｳｯｵｮＺｴＧｾ＠ for th e cru sad e, he dL'i prOVes l.ll an oth e r artIcl e Qm:lkr\ cla Im tb a t Cisterc ian acco unts of the Fo urth C n lsade vvere J I.'\\ 0 11 or III inoh i :ll1 ti­ VelH.: ti a I1.' Other illlIlllin:mng '" ork Iu s bee n do n e rece n tl y on indiv idu al ｣ ｮｬｾ｡ ､ ｩＮＧｲ［＠ II.1I1s W . Kuhn sh ows th at H en ry o f Ulm en , w ho pi lfe red Tl'!i l ｾ＠ from Cons tantlllOp k after it:, £111, had agreed li ke othe r G e rmans 2 t() th e di ver; ion to C onstJn tin opk o u t o f lo ya lty to Philip o f Swab ia. 5i lll ibrl y. Moni qu C' Ze rn e r­C h a.rdav o in e ' s stu dy of Simon d e M o ntf()rt ,mel GUy of Vau x­de­ Cernay reveals th at Simon 's pa.rticip ation in the ａ ｬ ｢ ｩ ｧ｣ｄｾ ｩ ｡ ｬＱ＠ C rusade shap ed Peter of V:mx­ de­C ernay' s account of hi, ow n 'role III rOll rt h C rusade . 111 Pet er 's ｨｩ ｾ ｴＨＩ ｲｹ Ｌ＠ th e Fourth C rusade i!> portrayed as a slllfi.J 1 e n terprise w h ic h Simo n aban do ned, in contras t to ｾｊｮ｣ｴ ｩ ｴｹ＠ of the Al b igeD.'i ian C rusade, w h ich Sim o n le d. Further, c rner C h arci.wolll e pL1Ces Simo n' s acti o ns at Z ara in the contex t of th e Lugl:r power struc tu re o f the Frankish n o b ility , demons trating that ｨｩ ｾ＠ In flu e nce a!llong the leaders , n ever grear, de cl in ed after B on.iEace o f M onttcrrat and th e Ven e ti ans co ok up th e crosv; til traclll g th e life of th e papal legate , P et e r Capuan us, We rner l'vlale czek gives details of hli10 cent Il l's e ffo rts to se cu re a t ru ce between France and E ngland in preparation for th e crusa de . I H e then ｴＧｸ｡ｬＱ ｩｬ ･ｾ＠ Cap uan m 's actions a, papal lega te, and rightly concludes that he p b yed a llllllo r role 111 th e crusade , attrihutin g this to the po pe 's lIlac tio n , o wi n g to hIS fea.r o f dt·.c;troyi n g the cru sa de, an d to th e ｜ｖ ｉ ｕ ｬＮｊＡｮ ･ｾ Ｇ＠ of the VelJ etians . Maleczek's views of the F ourth Crusade \\ hi d l clmely rese m ble Capuall us's: a gre:n arm y led astray by Frankish ､ｴｾ ｮ｢ ｬＡ ｊＮ ｩ ･ｬＱ ｣･＠ an d Ve n etian gre ed ­ and o f Byzantium , h o wever, ar e di\rorted . I Ie portrays C on<;tantin oplc as a teetenn g relic, it'; inevitable coll'lp\c ｾ ｬＱ＠ ｩ ｮ ･ ｮｴ［＠ an d D ando lo , p erceivi.ng [h iOi , as de termine d th at it shou ld till to h llll rath e r than to an yon e else­> ­ an inte rpretatio n Ｇ ｴ＠ . '­1I[{1.h-rill (.'islNcinlsh'1 x llll Ｈ＠ Ｇ ｾＸ ＷＩＬ＠ [[ ­9 1. Li­dt.: \U' ,tk ..1 (' :I f\O', :r . ｉ＠ ｬ ｨ ＴＭ Ｇ ｾＧＺｓ＠ I \\I' n l J ·\ ,I Jn:.,. 'C islCrrlJ ll A U: <l u nt, " t' the Fourth C rw;\l d,': Were Th ey Anti ­V "nelI J!, ' ·. .. 1",1/(1" C'iJ,nrit'n, i'i, oJ., (I ,}KS) . J -4 I . unJ d ie LiI l1 bu rgc[ I Lth \ ｜ＩＬＮｬ ｯｪ ｲｾ ｵ ｾ＠ K u hn , 'Hc'i I1n ch \' 0 11 UI!l1 cn, dcr v ic He ｋ ｲ ｣ｵ ｺＮ ｬｾ＠ :-'I.Il"" lhd. ', / ,1/,,1"1r/i)i" 'f"ilI/rumi", I ""IJitW,'S(/lid ll <'. x ( I ｾ ｓＭｩＩ Ｎ＠ ('7­ 1U(>. \ I\.tofl i"llu: Ｏ Ｌ ｜Ｎｾｭ｣ｦＭＨ＠ 'f L; r JJ v o illl:. :l! ld ｈ ｩ Ｇ＠ Ａ ｾｬ＠ ｬＧ＠ P il­ ch:l l1 ­ PaJ!Oc, ' L.-:t ｣ｲｯｩ ｾ ［｝､ｌＧ＠ alb igio i'{e . UIl [L'\";l nchL': r.:.lppurt , CJll rL I I ｬｕｉｾ ｮ ｴＮＺ ｭ ･＠ t' t 1.1 Cf(lI ."I(.k ｬ ｊ｢ ｬＮ ｾｉｏ ｉｾ ｬ＠ ＧＬ＠ I« 'I 'II ( 111, /(1" ,/111, l lh': \ l1 Ｈ＠ Ｑ＠ ＹＱ ｾ ＲＩ＠ Ｌ＠ J ­ 1X: ih:\ 7 I\l\tlt H.-,UL (' ＬｾＯ Ｑｉｩ＠ i Ｂｊ､ｾ 'fl U ｾ＠ .. ( I, If­, i.I \ Olll C ","' 1't'lrl l ( ·" / 1IMmu · f...drd i ll df , r dr' ';"'/"111')..', ｸＮＧ ｾ ｩ＠ (I ')X(!) . I ｽｱＭ Ｉ＠ ' Ill 'f ｾ｢ ｪ ｾ｛ｬｃｫ M.il'"l° ·k.. Iii Ｌ＠ 'hi C ,lJlt mWH , j 'l l 'I °.lhl""lc ｟ ｾ ｵ ... (,UI d es U ;C!{/f V. H I:... Ｍ ｊ ｴ［Ｍ ｃ ｬＮＧＱｾ＠ l"l n .. dl( .UJj picrlCII /(rn 1.: ­;:: !I,,< , ｬｴ ｾ＠ ｴ Ａｬ＠ ＭｬＡ＠ ｃｬ Ｇ＠ ＯＨｾ ｾ ＨＧ＠ (lL ___ 1 ＨＩＱ＠ ｾ ｊ Ｈ ｫＧ＠ (J 2 1.J1 CV iL'IIIL\. 740 The FOllrth Cnlsade T homas F. Ma dden 74 1 Ｑｲｴｨ＠ｾ ｃｲ ｵ ｾ｡ ､ ･＠ Jppea rs in an earlier num b e r of th is journal. If s,:h nl ars ;\f(! to understand the transformatIOn o f the crusade fr om a rh3t enthrone d an d safeg u ard ed th e Byzantin e h t.' !H:vok nt ｲｯ｣ｬｾ＠ Em peror A\exius IV in to a co nq u ering army, th ey m Llst excha nge dctem1tn i'ilic reason in g :l11d genera h za tlO fl for detalle d exammatlo n of the cou rse o f eveIJlS and the interactio ns of all th e participan ts. One o f th e m ost irn partat1t attributes of th e crusad e was th e w eb of oaths and [J­ealil:s th.H bou nd iL W h en th ese are examin ed both indi vidually and ill rdation to one an o th e r, th e cr usade rs' reas o ns for attacking COllStallnn opk ,11"(' mad e clear. A centu ry of occasio nally impolite ｮ＠ Ro me and Byzantium did no t pu t the crusaders on the letters ｢ ｴＢｷｾ｣ wall , o f C: onstan tin o pk. T h e tru t h is ｾｩ ｭ ｰｬ ･ ｲ＠ and m ore immediate . W h en th e Byzantin es m urdered Alexills IV, they n o t only shocked the Ｈｲｵｾ［ｬ､･ ｲ ｳＧ＠ eh i \'a lri c sem ibili ties. th e y bro ught dow n the e n tire co ntractual struc ture o f th e crusade . W h ereas the rank­and­file wo uld den1.lll d to b e t.lke n to the H ol y Lan d , th e cru sade lea ders could n e ithn (ite lh e ir cont ractual o bligat io ns as the reaso n for d e laying rhL'ir J e pa rt ure. no r prov id e the n e cess ary fu nds. T he crus ad e rs attacke d Cons ta ntinople became they lacked a realis ti c alte rnative , an d the Latin cl L'rgy m ade a virtue o f n ecessity b y reforrl1ulatin g the crusade as a WJ r against murd erers. 1t is not S"uffic icn t, h o wever , o nl y to lo o k at th e crusaders, w ho bec.l llle after th e ir arri val on the I3osporus on ly lulf of the story . To I:xplain w h y chI.' Latin_ atlacke d C o n stantinople does n o t explain w hy t he Byzantin es ch ose to su rrende r it. T o u n d ersta.n d the crusade, sc h o lurs 1tccd to ""xamme th e G reeks' acti ons and th eir reactio ns to th e :trim ill the light of Byzant in e politi cal c ult ure . In Byzalltiul1I C IJI!k(J/IIS th e r'I'cst , Bra nd p rov ides a learne d acco unt o f the politics of th e 13yz..m tllle Empire bo th before au d dming the crusade. Sim ilarly , Nlculas Oiko lJ omidcs ｳ ｨ ｯｷｾ＠ h ow frag m ented the imp eri al system ha d bl: eo me by the rime t h e crLl sa d ers arri ved. 2 Co nstantino ple had dft'ctl vt' co n trol o ver on ly a fi­actiou of th e Empi.re, making it weaker ｪ ｯｬｾ＠ areas w ere unco nc erned abol1 t th e safe ty of th e th.ul lIsual. ｒ ･ ｢･ｬ (";lp ltal; llltleed, lll.my GreC'ks wo ul d mo ck the in habitants o f the c tplt.:d .lfi.cr the sL1rrender. Fn.>lll th e ｽ Ｇ＠ ｬ Ｇｲｾｰ｣ ｣ｴｪ ｜Ｇ･＠ o( Je<ln ­Cla ud e C h eYDc t 's Pot/ voir ct CM/ /t'S /tI/ W/1S ,1 By-zallce (1 ()i)O) ,.l whi ch examines the nlili tary an d p o pular 1 con tradi cted by both th e eve nts o f the crusade and rece nt Byzantine scho lars hi p. Lastl y, J ea n Longnon's stu dy of Les w mpagllolls de Vi llehardoui/l. (1978) catalogu es hun d reds of mostly French soldiers w bo too k up the cross. The book is a glossa ry of crusad ers, a.rranged by area of o rigin , w hi ch gives de tails of th6 r funi lies, their ro les in the crusa de, and, if they survive d , their late r uves . A ltho ug h L() n gnon reli es onl y o n p ublished so urces, his w ork w ill lo ng remain an essential reso urce fo r historians o f the Fourth C ru sade, and w ill pro vide a good Jum ping­ off point fo r scho lars delv ing deepe r into th e ｾ ｬｲ｣ ｨｩ ｶ｡ ｊ＠ reco rds fo r material on individual crusaders.l The Fo urth C rusade w as a naval expe dition, an d sea power helped to detennine its outcome, as John Pryor sh o w s 2 H avin g recor15tructed a th ree ­deck nav is ­ the ro un d­hulled sa iling ship used in the thirteenth centlllY by th e Ve netians primarily as a me rchant vessel, but pressed into serv ice to transport the army of th e FOLlrth C rusade ­ he gives us as co m plete a picture of th e crusad ers' tran sp ort as we aTe likely to get. H e does the same fo r horse transp o rts, fi r<; t develop ed by th e Byzanti n es bu t adop te d by Ve ni ce in th e early twelfth ce ntu ry . Tran sporting horses by sea was diffIcult and expensive: th ey had to be secured w ith straps a nd lifted w ith hoists to preve nt thell1 fj­om falling on the p itching deck, and they were dise mbarked by w ay of ramps that led d irec tl y onto the b each and allowe d the mounted knight to ride straight into battle. This fi n ding has particular sign ificance fo r th e F ourth C rusade . T h e Ve netians went to great t.rou bl e to build h o rse trans p o rts suited to assaulting the u no bstru c ted beach es they w o ul d find in Egypt, itself evide n ce of their original intention . The transports w ere useless at Co nsta nti n o ple , w hich w as protec ted by m assive sea walls. P ryo r's book, Geography) Te(h nology. and W ar (1 9 88), exam in es the routes ta ken by m edieval ships and the winds th ey had to contend vvith. Th e ro ute throu gh th e Adriatic and Aegean Seas £i­om Venice to C onstantino ple. w hich w as treac herous at points, pl aced the crusaders fJIm ly in the hands of the Ven etians . 3 My own co n tribution to the develo pm e nt of th e insi de view of the 1 Jea n Longlloll , US ｃＢＧｐｯＮｾＯｏｉｬｓ＠ de VilldlQraollitl : Red/<'rrhes .lur Ics (roiSf; dr III 1" atril11//l' croi.,,,,ie (G eneva, 1117$) . 2 J o hn H. Pryor, Ｇｔｲｾｮｳｰ ｯｮ ｡ｴｩｯ ｮ＠ of H one< hy Sea durio g the ErJ of th" ｃｲｵｾＢ ､ ｣ｳ Ｚ＠ Eigb th ; cntury [Q I1.Sj AD' , Monllcr's ll'fmor, lxviii (11)8.l), 9­ 30. I03 - Z6 Jtld 'T he Naval AJ'c hi tec lurc o( Trans po rt Sh ips: A Rcco.lStmcri o n o f Su mc Arch <'typcs for R ou.nd ­ HuJlcd S ai ling Ship, . .\,(,Iri/"" s Mirror, Ix" (I <)84) . I 7 1­: ｉｾ Ｌ＠ 275 ­92 , J63­k 3. ' John I­I. Pryor, GeoRrapi,y, Tt'. ilr IlOlo!l)', mill War (Camb ridge , 19S 8) . See ill", idem . ·W lIld, . WJves . and Rocks: The R o ule, and th e Perils :uo ng Them '. in ,'.I"n·/( /IIf· KJaus Fi cdla nd (C" log llt', 1<)89). 7 1­85 . A j /ll'dS Ｈｬｪ＠ Ｎ ｉＯＧ［ ｾｍＧｬｮｴＢ＠ cd. ｍｾＮｉＬｴＺ＠ 'V"w, .Hld C:U Iltr:J(I' ill =" NI(_­. ,J." ,( hkul1om idt . . . 'I ｊｾ＠ ""I Ｌｊ ｾﾷｲ｣Ｑ u,. r ou rth CrLl'.'ic' . 'H- ｉｰ ＨＧＩ｜＠ ｩ ｮ l' f"lIpirc,: t.h· N"'rw: : ＠ｾ prupu' dt.' b Ｂ＠ｾ ＠［ ..." ,." , " Ｑ ｾｉｊＧＱＢ＠ ,., ·"t" r.1Plh,,1S, 1, pt. I ａｴＨ Ic·lfl­l Ｇｬｊｵ､ｾ＠ ＨＬＧ Ｎｨ ｣ｾ＠ 11C'1 I ­I\S ｮ＠ de l' c rll r irc byz,ln ri l1 :l In vt: iHc tit: 12.04 POlliritJ UOHhlllia(', ｨｾｮＧｩ /)("11 11 \11' 1'/ ol",of",i""$ d ｬｪＩｴｾ Ｌ＠ ! t.)7Y) Ｇ ｴｬｲ ＨＧ＠ . .ｨＮＡｾ＠ in x r.J'I' Ｈ［ｬＯｊ (1}6.J- 11 I OJ (I) ｊｲ Ｎｾ ＯＱＮＧ＠ ｩ ｾＮ＠ Ct leo.; ＨＩｮｾ i "'fr;ldliIltM I I ()C)O). ｲｊ ｊ＠ ｬ＠ ｴＧ＠ d'h"des Thomas F Ma dden The Fourth C rusade rebelli ons against imp erial authority that b ec ame a regular and expec ted fea ture of life in Byzantium, th e FOllrth C rusad e becom es merely another palac e coup, an armed rebellion led by an imperial claimant and his me rcen ary army , If the Fourth C rusade resembled previous arm ed rebellions, the £act was not lost on the res idents of Constantinople in 1204 . On e of the most imp ortant, if least understood, gro ups at Constantinople in J 203 and 1204 was the Varangian Guard. T hese D anjsh and English m erc enari es w ere an unshak eable elite corps of fIghters sworn to protec t the person of the emperor. I3y 1203, they were ;] lso play ing a [110re imp()rtant role in palace politics - th eir approval was sought eve n before naming the emperor - som ething exploited on more than one occasion dming the crusaders' stay on the Bosporus. Although Sigfus Blandal's The Varallgians oj Byz antium is the first detailed mstory of the Guard, it does not adequately discu ss their role in th e ele vation of Alexius IV, the coup staged by Mourtzouphlus, or the surrender of the city] T we nty-fi ve years ago, 13enjamin Hendrickx wrote a number of important essa ys on Baldwin o f Flanders, a crusader magnate who became the first Latin emperor. Recently, he has turned his attention to the events at Constantinople before the Gil of the city. The visit of an African king to Constantinople during the crusaders' stay startled and amazed th em. In a parallel study of the shadowy figure of Alexi us V Mourtzouphlus, written with Corinna Matzukis, Hendrickx pieces together the little informa tion that su rvives to make a con vi ncing case for Mourtzouphlus' w hereabouts and sympathies before h e seized the throne. They argue that he w as not the leader of the anti-Latin faction at court, merely an opportunjst who exploited the peopl e's ha tred of the Latins to serve his own purposes .2 Similarly, in an analysis of th e three fires that raged across the city set by the crusaders, I show th e extent of th<e damage they inflicted, and the effect they had on the population,3 Th ey devastated one-sixth of the ci ty, making one-third of the inhabitan ts homeless. In the pitiful squalor of the camps of the ｨ ｏｉＱｴＮＧｬ･ｳｾＬ＠ Co nstan tin ople' s legendary will to resist an attack was 742 1 S. BliindJI. T7i( ｖ｡ｲｯｬｾｪｕ＠ ｾｲ ByzantiuII/, rev. 'llld trans. I3cltedikt Bened ih (C ambridge, 1978) 13enjJl1lin H endrick",: ' Lcs chartes de Baudouin de Flandrc eo mrnc <ouree po ur I' hi'loirc de ｮ ､･ｲ｣ｮ Ｌ＠ d t' vro mc Byzanec ', Byza",illa lThcSSJ lonika], i (1969), 59-&0; Bou dewign IX van ｖｬ｡ｾ keizer va n Ko nstanti nopel', OIl.S ｇ ･ｦｳｴｾ Ｏ ｩｪ ｫ＠ E!r. xliv (1970) , 227-32; ' R ech erches sur Ie> documents diplomatiqu.cs nOJ] comervcs cOllccmaIH 1.1 QUil tricrne C ro is.. de ct l'E m pirl' Luin de Constanti nople penda nt ks ｰ ｲ｣ｭｩ･ ｲ ｾ＠ annees de son exisre.n(e (1200- 1206)' , BYZilU(ina, ii (1 970 ), 1°7-84; 'A propos Ju nombrc ､ ｾ＠ troupes de b quatri;,r" e a oisade C [ de l'em pcrcur Haudouill I' , Byzalllilltl , iii ( 197 1), 29-40 ; ' Un rai Afric.l in j ConstantilJo pl e en 1203 ', BYZ(JIIIiII,'. xiji ( 198$ ), 95-8; w ith Corinna Matzukis, 'Alexios V Dou ka, M ourtzo uph lo>: I-lis Li fe , fl.. ciglJ , and Denlh (' - 1204)' . IId /elllka , x.-x.x i ( 197\1) , 10S- p. 3 T ho m as F. Madden . 'T be Fi.res of the: Fou rth Crusa de in COn5l Jnrinop k, 1203 - 1204 : A D amage Mcssment' , llyzafl lillisdlf ZtIIS,/nifi, lxxx iv- ,' (19,)2), 72-9 3 . 2 743 extinguished . ** * Tbw;, the Fourth C rusade presents historians with a problem similar to the one presen ted by tbe outbreak of the First World War in J 9I4· ｣ ｴ ｬｲ｡＠ Lauses - the impe rialism of capi talis m, the arms race, and m li W:IY timetables - however compelling, do not explain why the war bn)kc 'out w hen it did. To fi n d that out, detailed examination of the events of the J uly C risis is required. The two must then be connected. Simi lJIly, the diversion of the Fourth Crusade from Egypt to Comtantinople canno t be explained solely from outside, looking from :l ｊｩ ｾｬ｡ｊＱｃ･＠ at the tOllglll' dll ree. One must move inside, to examine the nw tives. the oppo rtu nities , the fears, and the decisions of the ullsader;, Medievalists naturally fav our Latin sources, 13yza ntinists just .1, natura ll y f.lVour Gree k on es , To find out more about w hat hap pened, h owever, we shall have to make more perceptive use of botb, rather than allOWing either of them to force us to take sides. And if we d t) choose to m ake use of our own late twen tieth-century categories of explanation , we should take heed of Donald E. Queller's \\i,1rnm g to beware of attribu ting our own motives to the crusaders by lll:1k lll g ViCli l1ls of th e Byzantines and a villain of Enrico Dandolo. ｾ ｌｲｬＱ Stlilrl LO lliS (rllivers ity