,
23 tweets,
6 min read
Read on Twitter
My interlocutor flounced off in a huff, but the two documents we were discussing show some really interesting things: about Byzantine-Venetian relations, medieval diplomacy in general, and how the Byzantines saw themselves.
The first was concluded in 1198 with Alexius III. He was the same emperor in charge when the Fourth Crusade showed up at Constantinople in 1203. He fled once it became clear that Venice and the crusaders wanted a fight. 
Back in 1198, however, he held the upper hand. Nevertheless, they granted Venice generally favorable terms in a new treaty: trade concessions throughout the empire and clarification of proper legal procedure for lawsuits between Venetians and Byzantines.
The other was a 1265 treaty under Michael VIII, who four years earlier had won Constantinople back from the crusaders. He had signed a major treaty with Genoa, Venice’s rival, which granted huge concessions (including the suburb of Galata) in return for naval aid.
But it quickly became apparent that the aid was not worth the price, especially since the Byzantines had recaptured Constantinople without Genoa’s help. The Genoese had moreover become troublesome, so Michael turned to Venice to counterbalance them.
But first, how did diplomacy work in the Middle Ages? It was complicated by distance and difference of language. In the case of Venice, the doge would send 2-3 plenipotentiaries to Constantinople with a letter of introduction, which detailed the scope of their mandate.
The ambassadors would translate this letter for the emperor, whose notaries would verify the accuracy of the translation. They would swear oaths to act in good faith, then set about negotiations with the emperor.
Once terms were agreed upon, the emperor would issue a chrysobull (golden bull): an official signed, sealed document that held the status of law. The chancery would draw it up in Greek, translate it into Latin, then have the Venetian envoys approve the translation.
Once both sides were satisfied, the ambassadors were sent back home to present the treaty to the doge. He and the councils would then ratify it and send a signed, sealed copy back to Constantinople. The treaty was henceforth in effect.
Translation was an especially sensitive matter during this process. Even the smallest word and title held significance: these were the details that kings, emperors, and princes staked their claims on and went to war over.
For the Byzantines, the emperor’s title was especially sensitive. The Byzantine Empire was the Roman Empire, which had existed uninterrupted since its founding. For purposes of prestige and future claims, it was important that its ruler be recognized as 'Emperor of the Romans'.
Starting especially in the 7th century, when the borders contracted & Greeks became the majority in the empire, the word ‘Roman’ changed meaning from ‘subject of the empire’ to simply ‘Greek’. Henceforth, non-Greek subjects weren’t called Roman. To illustrate, the empire ~800 AD.
In the 10th century, the pope addressed the emperor as “Emperor of the Greeks.” This nearly caused a diplomatic breach between Byzantium and Otto I of Germany, who had already made things tense by trying to revive Charlemagne’s (pope-granted) title of “Emperor of the Romans”.
The insult was not that he called them Greeks, but that he pointedly did NOT acknowledge his title as Emperor of the Romans. This was especially sensitive as Otto, while claiming the imperial title, was concurrently invading Byzantine possessions in Italy.
Which makes the way Venetian-Byzantine treaties were translated into Latin especially interesting. The Greek versions used ‘Romans’ in both the emperor’s title and to describe his subjects. In Latin, it was ‘Emperor of the Romans’, but his subjects were referred to as ‘Greeks’.
The Byzantine chancery was content to have ‘Roman’ translated as ‘Greek’ when describing the people of the empire, as that was an accurate description. When it came to the emperor, it was essential to uphold his claim to the Roman Empire; hence, ‘Emperor of the Romans’.
This is how things were formulated in nearly every treaty. But in 1265, Byzantium had just recently recovered Constantinople from the crusaders and Venetians subject to the Latin ‘Emperor of Romania’. The Byzantines were in a weak position, fighting on all fronts.
Various Turkish chieftains were biting off territory in Asia. In Europe, Bulgarians and crusader holdouts continued to threaten the empire. Meanwhile the Genoese were making hay of their trade monopoly, without lifting a finger to help the Byzantines. Michael needed help.
Which is why just 60 years after the sack of Constantinople, he turned to the same Venetians who instigated that sack. The Venetians, for their part, were true mercenaries, happy to play both sides. This meant maintaining relations with the crusader barons.
Since they naturally didn’t want to alienate the remaining crusader claimants to the empire, they refused to acknowledge Michael as ‘Emperor of the Romans’. Being pragmatic, Michael allowed his title to be rendered ‘Emperor of the Greeks’ in the Latin translation of their treaty.
For whatever reason, the doge did not ratify this treaty of 1265, likely because he was holding out for better terms. But Michael was a successful emperor and won back considerable territory. When Venice renegotiated in 1268, it was on considerably less favorable terms.
The Genoese would no longer be expelled from the empire and the Venetians would no longer receive their own quarter. Most tellingly, the Latin text refers to Michael as ‘Emperor of the Romans’. Byzantine fortunes were on the upswing; the balance had been restored.
All this is to say that diplomatic protocol, even on seemingly trivial points, tells us a lot: how different states saw one another, how the balance of power stood, and how states saw themselves. /END
