The Two Powers. Brett Edward WhalenЧитать онлайн книгу.
headed to the port by a hidden side street and on the third of May “secretly” set sail for Cyprus.53
Matthew observes that the patriarch’s letter, which was written to defame the emperor and reached “audiences around the west,” did considerable damage to Frederick’s reputation. Commencing his chronicle seven or eight years later, the English monk—whose colorful and opinionated historical works will feature throughout the rest of this book—offers another provocative story about the hatred that developed between the military orders and the emperor.54 According to Matthew, the Templars and Hospitallers sent a letter bearing their seals to al-Kamil, informing him that the emperor would soon be visiting the spot of Christ’s baptism at the Jordan, the perfect place to ambush and kill him. Repelled by this treachery and hoping to create confusion among the Christians, the sultan forwarded the letter to Frederick, complete with the identifying seals, and foiled the plot.55
Other chroniclers, however, celebrated the emperor’s remarkable achievement during this “year that will be long remembered by future generations.” Burchard of Ursburg writes that the pope “cast aside and despised” Frederick’s letters announcing the miraculous capture of Jerusalem to Christendom at large, while Richard of San Germano declares that things would have gone far better for the “business of the Holy Land” if the emperor had crossed over “with the grace and peace of the Roman church.” He added that al-Kamil almost hesitated to negotiate with Frederick at all, knowing about the great “hatred” that the church held for him. The anonymous author of the Brief Chronicle of Sicily, proclaiming “I who write this, I was there personally, and do not diverge from the path of truth,” layered his description of Jerusalem’s liberation with references to the Book of Revelation, lending an apocalyptic resonance to Frederick’s deeds. Even Roger of Wendover, who was not especially sympathetic toward the emperor in his chronicle, describes messages from God, marvelous signs, prophecies, and astrological predictions that foretold the holy city’s restoration “to the Christian people generally, specifically to Frederick the Roman emperor.”56
As for Pope Gregory, in still more letters sent to bishops, princes, kings, and communes around Europe during the summer of 1229, he made his perspective on Frederick’s crusade unmistakably clear. Referring to the letters written by Gerold of Lausanne and Hermann of Salza, the pope seemed especially concerned that false rumors and misinformation would reach Christian ears about the emperor’s actions overseas. He accused Frederick of four particular crimes, among others.57 First, Frederick had surrendered his armor and weapons to the sultan of Babylon, the “adversary of Christ,” renouncing the “arms of the Christian soldiers, the power of the sword taken from the altar of Saint Peter, assigned to him by Christ through his vicar for taking vengeance against malefactors and honoring the good, for defending and preserving the peace of Christ and the faith of the church.”58 By doing so, Frederick had effectively abdicated the imperial office. Second, his pact allowed the followers of “Machomet” to “preach and proclaim” their nefarious law in the city while it simultaneously imposed “silence on the herald of evangelical truth.” Third, he had left critical crusader castles and fortifications exposed to assault by the “pagans.” Fourth, he had bound himself under oath to fight on the sultan’s behalf against his enemies, including other Christians, meaning that he would have to take up arms against a future Christian army seeking to avenge Christ and cleanse the Holy Land of the nonbelievers. Frederick had committed nothing less than treason against the Lord, rendering him “infamous,” subject to spiritual and temporal judgment, and unworthy of any honor or sacraments. Far from bolstering his reign by going on crusade, the emperor had publicly disqualified himself from ruling at all.59
Battle for the Regno
During the period leading up to Frederick’s departure for Syria, Gregory’s confrontation with him had expanded into a new theater of accusations and counter-accusations over conditions in the Regno, that is, the kingdom of Sicily, Calabria, and Apulia. The emperor nominally held these territories as a “vassal” of Saint Peter, making the pope his direct temporal lord with regard to their holding. This legal dimension enabled Gregory to bring a different kind of public pressure to bear on Frederick, accusing him of being a malfeasant vassal, not just an emperor who had abdicated his Christian duties. As time passed, this battle for the Regno would eclipse the emperor’s unorthodox crusade as the primary site of contest between the two leaders.
Gregory’s general complaints about the Regno echoed earlier ones made by Honorius III during the closing year of his papacy about disturbances in the region that had revealed Frederick’s “ingratitude” toward the Roman church for the past and present benefits bestowed upon him. A “clamor” and “murmurs” had reached Gregory’s ears about injustices in the kingdom, about how the emperor had denied bishops access to their sees, assaulted the clergy, despoiled widows and orphans, and violated papal vassals and other nobles in the region who enjoyed the protection of the Apostolic See. People now mocked those securities, seeing the rich and powerful reduced to beggary and exile. As seen above, the pope also denounced Frederick for forcing clergy to celebrate the divine office despite the interdict, making him a “despiser of the keys” and possible heretic. Under these circumstances, Gregory threatened in the spring of 1228 that Frederick should rightly fear the possibility that the pope would deprive him of his “feudal right” to the kingdom of Sicily, which he held as a vassal of the Roman church.60
The tense situation in the Regno continued to escalate after the emperor left for the holy places. In August, consulting with a provincial synod in Perugia, Gregory followed through on his threat to absolve Frederick’s vassals in the Regno of their oaths of fealty to the Hohenstaufen ruler. As Gregory explained in letters addressed to “all the prelates of the church,” Frederick, in addition to violating his crusade vow and “sneaking” off to Syria, was guilty of abusing the Roman church and its territorial patrimony, “usurping the spiritual and temporal rights” of the Apostolic See, and attempting to subvert the church’s vassals through threats, lies, and bribes. The pope also accused him and his officials of allowing “Saracens”—in this case, meaning Muslim auxiliaries forcibly relocated to southern Italy and settled in Lucera after their rebellion in Sicily years earlier—to despoil churches and assault Christian clergy.61 Aware of Frederick’s efforts to counter papal messages, Gregory warned his audience not to believe any falsehoods they heard to the contrary, either sent in writing or told to them by the emperor’s messengers. In addition, Gregory excommunicated and anathematized anyone who “shows him help and favor against the Roman church, either attacking its patrimony or illicitly usurping the spiritual and temporal rights of the Apostolic See.” As always in such communications, instructions followed for the clerical recipients of these letters to publicize the contents in their cities and dioceses and enforce such papal judgments.62
Over the course of the fall, Gregory identified Raynald of Urslingen, Frederick’s vicar in the Regno, as a particular culprit in the effort to subvert the papal patrimony in Ancona, where the church’s enemies conspired “secretly” (occulte) and agitated “publicly” (publice) to corrupt papal vassals.63 In a letter sent to Raynald on 7 November, Gregory denounced his destruction, burning, and occupation of various places that belonged by right to the Roman church. Even worse, according to what “people were saying,” Raynald and his troops mutilated priests with unheard of sacrilege, allowing Saracens to crucify some clergy, blinding others. Now he had invaded Ancona, showing himself an “open enemy of the Apostolic See.” Gregory gave him eight days from receiving this letter to withdraw; otherwise, the pope had given firm commands for his papal chaplain Cinthius to excommunicate him and all of his followers publicly, passing a sentence of ecclesiastical interdict over his lands.64 In a letter written to the Genoese podesta and commune that same month, Gregory repeated his accusations about Raynald and the atrocities committed by his Saracen soldiers. When Raynald did not withdraw, Gregory excommunicated him, his brother Berthold, and his other supporters. Anyone supporting them would be excommunicated and deprived of their ecclesiastical fiefs or benefices. Only a year’s service in the Holy Land would be considered a sufficient form penance for absolution.65 Perhaps in response, Raynald ordered the expulsion of the Franciscans from the Regno, accusing them of bearing