Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T19:53:48.823Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Rus Archbishop Peter at the First Council of Lyon

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 November 2019

ALEXANDER V. MAIOROV
ALEXANDER V. MAIOROV*
Affiliation:
Department of Museology, Institute of History, St Petersburg State University, Mendeleevskaia Linia 5, St Petersburg, Russia199053; e-mail: a.v.maiorov@gmail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The article establishes that the role of the Rus Archbishop Peter at the First Council of Lyon (1245) was not limited to conveying sensational information about the Tatars, as is usually believed. Peter was willing to resume negotiations between the Apostolic See and the rulers of the Byzantine (Nicene) Empire on the union of Churches, which continued with varying success throughout the thirteenth century. In the mid-1240s the Rus church hierarchs, who headed the Kiev (all Rus) Metropolitanate of the Byzantine Church, played an important, yet underestimated by researchers, role in establishing direct contacts between the Byzantine and Roman Churches and resuming negotiations for church unity.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Ecclesiastical History , Volume 71 , Issue 1 , January 2020 , pp. 20 - 39
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019

The most prominent historian of the mid-thirteenth century, Matthew Paris, the Benedictine monk of St Albans Abbey, Hertfordshire, in his Chronica majora, gave the most comprehensive record of the First Council of Lyon (the Thirteenth Ecumenical Council, according to the Roman Catholic Church). It included the texts of the council decrees and other documents which he obtained directly from English council participants, whose delegation was one of the most numerous, primarily from the members of St Albans Abbey who had been in Lyon.Footnote 1

Among other reports rendered – highly attractive to historians of Rus – is the account by the chronicler of the arrival in the West of a certain Rus archbishop Peter, who had been put to flight by the Tatars:Footnote 2

Whilst the die of fate was thus revolving the affairs of the world, a certain archbishop of Rus, named Peter, an honourable, devout, and trustworthy man, as far as could be judged, was driven from his territory and his archbishopric by the Tatars, and came into the Cisalpine provinces, to obtain advice and assistance, and comfort in his trouble, if, by the gift of God, the Roman Church and the kind favour of the princes of those parts could assist him.Footnote 3

Tractatus de ortu Tartarorum

Peter's account of the Tatars, in the form of detailed answers to pre-formulated questions which were of interest to the pope and the cardinals, had been recorded before the Council of Lyon was opened (Matthew Paris dated it to the year 1244). The account was distributed among council participants as a written record, the Tractatus de ortu Tartarorum.Footnote 4 Matthew Paris's mention that Peter, on his way from Rus, had crossed the Alps leads to the conclusion that Peter had been to Italy before he came to Lyon. Apparently, Peter's first contact with the Curia could have been in the autumn of 1244 while Innocent iv was staying in Genoa.Footnote 5

Apparently, the text of Tractatus de ortu Tartarorum had been at the Curia's disposal before Plano Carpini and other papal envoys were sent to the Mongols. In any case, Peter's account was a certain starting point for Carpini, who, in the course of his mission, aimed to check the archbishop's evidence. It is noteworthy that the papal envoy arranged his information in the same order as Peter had given his evidence. The nine chapters of Carpini's Ystoria Mongalorum generally correspond to the nine questions asked of the Rus archbishop.Footnote 6

The importance of the latter's evidence is proved by the fact that it was many times recorded and copied, and has survived as part of several medieval manuscripts, across various countries. In addition to the Chronica majora, Peter's account was included into the Annals of the Benedictine Abbey at Burton upon Trent, Staffordshire (The Burton Annals, late thirteenth century).Footnote 7 Recently, three other fourteenth-century manuscripts have been discovered which contain the treatise. Two of them – Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge, 162/83Footnote 8 and the so-called Courteney Compendium (Royal Library, Copenhagen, Acc. 2011/5)Footnote 9 – include a version which is very close to the text of the Burton Annals. The third one, Oberösterreichische Landesbibliothek, Linz, 446,Footnote 10 contains a special version of the treatise.Footnote 11

The origins of Archbishop Peter

Historians studying ‘the Russian episode’ at the First Council of Lyon were generally interested in two issues: (1) who was the Rus archbishop Peter; and (2) which Rus prince had sent him to the West. Based on the answers to these questions, three main hypotheses emerged. The first one suggests that Peter was the bishop of Halych (Galich), the envoy of Prince Daniel Romanovich. According to the second hypothesis, he was the hegumen Peter Akerovich from the Kievan (Kyiv) monastery of the Saviour at Berestovo, a protégé of Prince Mikhail Vsevolodovich of Chernigov (Chernihiv). The third hypothesis states that Archbishop Peter came from North-Eastern Rus and was sent to the West by the prince of Vladimir-Suzdal, Yaroslav Vsevolodovich.Footnote 12 The princes Daniel, Mikhail and Yaroslav were the three most powerful Rus rulers in the mid-thirteenth century.Footnote 13

The Linz manuscript, which was introduced into the discussion comparatively recently by Anti Ruotsala, seems to provide yet another answer to the first question. An early fourteenth-century codex of apparently Italian origin, it contains mainly copies of Thomas Aquinas's works with a later addition of two texts, including the document under discussion (lines 244–5). It is headed ‘[R]equisitus petrus archiepiscopus de belgrab in ruscia super facto tartarorum’ (‘Questioning Archbishop Peter from Belgrab in Rus about the Tatars’).Footnote 14

It has now been agreed in the contemporary literature that the Rus bishop who spoke at the First Council of Lyon was this previously unknown bishop from Belgorod near Kiev.Footnote 15 This conclusion has been further confirmed by Anti Selart, who has demonstrated that Belgorod was one of the most ancient and influential sees in Rus.Footnote 16

The Belgorod bishopric came first (‘α ’ὁ Πελογράδων’) among the eleven suffragan bishoprics of the Kiev (Rus) metropolis in the official list of metropolia and suffragan bishoprics of the Constantinople patriarchate compiled in the late twelfth century.Footnote 17 According to Aleksandr V. Nazarenko, the modest and politically undistinguished head of the Belgorod see (there was no princely throne in Belgorod) played an important role in the administration of the Church. As a vicar, he replaced the metropolitan of Kiev during his long absences from Rus, for example when the latter travelled to Constantinople. He also performed the metropolitan's duties when the metropolitan see was vacant.Footnote 18

(Arch)bishop Peter could have had personal contacts with any of the Rus princes who occupied the Kievan throne between the late 1230s and the early 1240s: Mikhail Vsevolodovich, Daniel Romanovich or Yaroslav Vsevolodovich. However, the timing of Peter's visit to the West (1244–5) favours Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, who most likely became the prince of Kiev for the second time in 1243, after he had visited Batu Khan and acknowledged his allegiance to him.Footnote 19 In any case, when Daniel Romanovich was passing through Kiev on his way to Batu's headquarters in the late 1245, Yaroslav ruled in Kiev via his boyar Dmitrii Yeikovich.Footnote 20

The purposes of the Rus bishop's visit to Lyon

According to Matthew Paris, Peter, having been expelled from Rus by the Tatars, arrived in the West seeking assistance, advice and refuge, and in the hope that the Roman Church and the western princes would agree to help him. Within that narrative, contemporary researchers saw Peter as a refugee, who had to hide in the West.Footnote 21 It is only natural to assume that he had had to leave his homeland shortly before Kiev was captured by the Tatars in December 1240 in order to save his life. But where had Peter spent the intervening four years? Sources do not answer this question, and thus seemingly contradict the view that Peter was a refugee from the Mongols.

The appearance of the Rus bishop in the West several years after the Mongols had conquered Rus, Poland and Hungary (Kiev and South Rus were in their hands but they had withdrawn their troops from Central Europe) requires reconsideration, as does established opinion concerning Peter and the reason for his visit to Lyon.

Some researchers have suspected that Peter was not fleeing the Mongols, but rather that he was sent to the West by them in order deliberately to carry misinformation to the Roman Church. Peter Jackson has recently proved such hypotheses. Archbishop Peter in his evidence tried to persuade the pope and the cardinals that the Mongols were kind (benigne) to ambassadors and did not harm them in any way.Footnote 22 The pope was so inspired by this new evidence, unknown when the Mongols had invaded Europe, that he immediately sent his envoys to them. Peter's assertions persuaded Innocent iv that the Mongols adhered to diplomatic etiquette, and that the pope's representatives would not be killed as had been the inhabitants of Poland and Hungary.Footnote 23

According to Jackson, the questions asked of Peter by the pope and cardinals had at least two remarkable consequences. The first was confirmation of the idea that the invaders were the forerunners of the end times as foretold by Pseudo-Methodius. The second was even more important: Innocent iv sent three separate legations to the Mongols in March 1245, i.e. a few weeks before the opening of the Council of Lyon. Those embassies headed for the regions where, as Peter stated, the main Mongol forces were concentrated.Footnote 24

Peter had not warned about one thing: when welcoming ambassadors, the Mongols saw their arrival as the expression of their willingness to submit to the power of the Mongols – the first step to acknowledging the supreme power of the Mongol khan. Without that step, it was impossible to make peace with the Mongols.Footnote 25

If the Rus archbishop Peter were indeed a secret agent of the Mongols, then it seems more probable that he went to the West on the instructions of the new prince of Kiev, Yaroslav Vsevolodovich. Yaroslav had just made a journey to Batu's camp and acknowledged his submission to the Mongols and thus made peace with them. It is quite probable that Batu would demand that his new vassal, who was appointed the senior prince in Rus, should induce other Christian rulers of the West (first of all, the pope) to send their representatives to the Mongols, which the latter understood as the first acknowledgement of political dependence. Prince Yaroslav, in his turn, may have commissioned the Belgorod bishop Peter to undertake this task: Peter was temporarily in charge of the metropolitan see in Kiev and was in fact the head of the entire Rus metropolis.

The surviving sources confirm the assumption that the role of the Rus archbishop Peter in Lyon (whatever his secret intentions were) was not limited to conveying new information about the Tatars.

The Burton Annals, the compiler of which used documents obtained mainly from the central royal authorities of England,Footnote 26 provide their own version of the ‘Investigation about the Tatars conducted in Lyon by the Pope’ (a fuller version than that of Matthew Paris), which contains important details clarifying the role of the Rus archbishop at the Council of the Roman Church:

Among other prelates of the world, the Ruthenian archbishop named Peter arrived at the council of Lyon. On return from the council some participants stated, that he knew neither Latin, nor Greek, nor Hebrew, and nevertheless, through an interpreter, brilliantly expounded the Gospel in front of the Holy Father. Being specially invited, he was present at the divine service together with the Holy Father and other prelates, wearing sacred vestments [like them], but of different appearance.Footnote 27

Researchers have in the past drawn attention to the unusual behaviour of the Rus archbishop as described in the English annals. Nikolai P. Dashkevich found it strange that the Rus archbishop ‘did his best’ when he said the Creed in front of the pope.Footnote 28 According to Stepan Tomashivs'kyi, at the Council of Lyon Archbishop Peter ‘passed a sort of theological examination’, and ‘one could guess that his statement of the Gospel also included matters of dogma’.Footnote 29 According to Heinrich Dörrie, the examination of Peter's knowledge of the Gospel may not have been a simple check, but rather aimed at establishing whether he interpreted the most important texts of the Gospel in the Greek Orthodox or in the Latin Christian sense.Footnote 30

Archbishop Peter's willingness to take a special examination in the knowledge of Gospel in front of the pope and cardinals and – more importantly – passing that amazing examination caused researchers to doubt Peter's adherence to Orthodoxy. According to Dashkevich, Peter might have been a non-canonical bishop of a part of Rus that ‘vacillated between Orthodoxy and the Latin Christian faith or was outside the House of St Vladimir's domain and bordered its eastern or southern part’.Footnote 31 According to Dörrie, Peter's behaviour at the Council of Lyon cannot but cast doubt on whether he was in truth a Greek Orthodox archbishop.Footnote 32

There are no grounds for considering Peter an outcast or impostor. In the surviving sources he appears as a lawful Rus cleric, whose status did not raise any doubts. Moreover, according to the formula in the Linz manuscript (‘archiepiscopus de belgrab in ruscia’), Peter was supposed to speak at the Council of Lyon as the temporary head of the entire Rus metropolis.

It is hardly to be expected that council members would examine a guest of such high standing in the knowledge of the Gospel only in order to verify his status or to make sure that the information that he provided with regard to the Tatars was trustworthy. If Peter's mission in Lyon was only to provide new information about the invaders, which did cause a real sensation in the West, the report in the Burton Annals would appear obscure and unnecessary. That report, puzzling as it is for contemporary historians, calls for a reconsideration of the role and tasks of the Rus archbishop in Lyon.

From the report in the Burton Annals it can be concluded that his ‘brilliant’ knowledge of the Gospel was the reason why Peter was invited to take part in a joint divine service with ‘the Holy Father and other prelates’. According to Tomashivs'kyi, that fact can be interpreted only as indicating Archbishop Peter's willingness to adopt Latin Christianity and to participate as a Latin Christian in the service and in church councils. Tomashivs'kyi also assumed that at the Council of Lyon, Archbishop Peter, after conversion to Latin Christianity, could be appointed as the new Latin archbishop (metropolitan) of Rus.Footnote 33 Some contemporary researchers share this view.Footnote 34

However, any conclusion about Peter's conversion to Latin Christianity seems premature. The Burton Annals testify against it by stating that during the Latin Christian service, where Peter participated together with the pope and cardinals, he was ‘wearing sacred vestments, but of different appearance’, i.e. different from the other prelates. Peter's liturgical garments were undoubtedly those of a bishop, but apparently of a Greek Orthodox, rather than a Roman Catholic one.

The Council of Lyon and church unity

The report in the Burton Annals about Peter's ‘brilliant’ knowledge of the Gospel, which he ‘expounded’ before the pope, suggests that at the Council of Lyon not only the Mongol threat was discussed in connection with the arrival of the Rus archbishop, but also some matters of dogma that were understood differently by the Roman and the Byzantine Churches and were the stumbling block in negotiations on church union.

These negotiations, which were started by the Nicene emperor and patriarch in 1232 and ended with the theological disputes in Nicaea and Nymphaion in 1234, failed mainly because the Greeks were unwilling to compromise on the matters of Filioque and the liturgical use of unleavened bread as suggested by Pope Gregory ix.Footnote 35 It is important to emphasise that both the initial rapprochement and the eventual failure had an immediate response in Rus.Footnote 36

In this connection the ‘brilliant statement’ of the Gospel and participation in the joint service with the pope and the cardinals may indicate that the Rus archbishop Peter (the apparent de facto temporary head of the Rus metropolis) served to declare to the Council of Lyon a willingness to overcome dogmatic disagreements and thereby to reunite with the Roman Church.

Just a few years later, at the initiative of Nicene authorities, another, more decisive attempt to unite the churches was made. At the Council of Nymphaion in 1249, and in the presence of delegates of Innocent iv, the Nicene emperor John iii Vatatzes offered recognition of papal plenitudo potestatis (the jurisdictional power of the pope in the ecclesiastical sphere) in exchange for a papal refusal to support the Latin empire and support for the return of Constantinople to the Greeks. The Greeks, however, maintained their refusal to recognise Filioque, and insisted on preserving the Byzantine Church office and recognising the ecumenical status of the Greek patriarchate.Footnote 37

It seems that the same position was held by the Rus delegate of the Council of Lyon, Archbishop Peter. He can hardly be assumed to be guided only by his personal sympathies for Latin Christianity. That was Tomashivs'kyi's idea: ‘Obviously, it was his [Peter's] personal choice’, and it was a choice in favour of Latin Christianity, ‘as the Council of Lyon was not concerned with the church union and did not have it on the agenda’.Footnote 38

Among the decrees of the First Council of Lyon there are indeed no decrees concerning a church union with the Greeks. Nevertheless, that issue, being of the highest importance for the Church, was undoubtedly among the major concerns of the council participants and was raised repeatedly at its sessions, first of all by the pope himself.

The main source of information about the proceedings of the Council of Lyon is the so-called ‘Brief report’ (Brevis nota), drawn up for Liber cancellariae apostolicae by a direct witness, an unknown cleric of the papal curia. That report must have been at Matthew Paris's disposal.Footnote 39 According to that source, at the first council session (28 June 1245) Innocent iv spoke of his five ‘griefs’ (dolores), similar to Christ's five wounds. The third one was the ‘Greek schism’ and the growing danger for Latin Constantinople caused by the successful advance of the Greeks. ‘Thirdly, over the schism of the Greeks, over how the Greek emperor Vatatzes and the breakaway Greeks have conquered and ruined the land almost to Constantinople, and one should fear for the city, unless they [the Latin defenders of Constantinople] receive urgent support from the Christians.’Footnote 40

According to Matthew Paris, Innocent iv, addressing the council delegates, included the church split among his five ‘greatest sorrows’ (‘dolores suos maximos’), the second after the Tatar threat. ‘Another was the schism of Romania, i.e. the Byzantine Church, which in our time, just a few years ago, broke away from its mother's breast, as if it was its stepmother.’Footnote 41 Those words (the authenticity of which is trustworthy) show that the pope perceived the separation of the Byzantine Church as a recent event, apparently connecting it with the failure of the church dispute in 1234. By minimising the scale of the problem, the Roman pontiff might have hoped for its comparatively quick and painless solution, which he would be able to offer to the council participants.

In any case, it is clear that the pope had put the issue of church schism, and possible ways to overcome it, on the Lyon Council's main agenda, which was announced at its first session. The issue was included among the five principal items on the agenda.Footnote 42

Innocent iv’s intention to discuss the issue of church union at the Council of Lyon is also evident from his letter to the Bulgarian king Koloman i Asen dated 21 March 1245 in which he urged Koloman to overcome the church schism and send his delegates to the council at Lyon.Footnote 43 A few days later the pope again called for church union, first of all addressing the Orthodox hierarchs of the Balkan countries. This is testified by the bull Cum simus super dated 25 March 1245, in which Innocent iv addressed his call for union with the Roman Church to the prelates of the Bulgarians, Vlachs, Serbs as well as Alans, Georgians, Nubians, Nestorians ‘and other Christians of the East’.Footnote 44

The pope's initial plan was probably to ensure that representatives of several Orthodox churches, authorised to discuss the issue of union with Rome, would take part in the Council of Lyon. However, for various reasons, that did not occur, and eventually only one hierarch – the Rus archbishop Peter – represented the Eastern Christians at the council. Therefore no comprehensive discussion of church union took place, but there was a short discussion with the Rus archbishop, which completely satisfied the pope and the cardinals.

In any case, the example of Archbishop Peter, who took part in a joint service in Lyon, could be used to demonstrate to all Eastern Christian hierarchs a possible way to eucharistic unity with Rome.

‘All Romania’ in Innocent IV's struggle with Frederick II

Although the Rus archbishop Peter was the single Orthodox hierarch in Lyon, he was not the only council participant who claimed that the Byzantine Church was ready for union with Rome.

Matthew Paris reports in his Chronica majora that the Emperor Frederick ii’s representative, the master and great justiciar of the imperial curia, Taddeus de Suessa, characterised as a ‘person of extraordinary wisdom and eloquence, the knight and the doctor of law’, stated at the preliminary session of the council (26 June) that Frederick was willing to make concessions for the sake of peace. The emperor was ready to fight the Tatars, Saracens and other church enemies personally and to go on an expedition to the Holy Land at his own expense. In addition Taddeus declared that Frederick was willing to return to the Church all the property that he had ever taken away from it.Footnote 45

Among Frederick's suggestions for peace, which council participants had made on his behalf, the most promising and attractive was perhaps the intention to bring the Greek Empire into unity with the Roman Church. It was no accident that Matthew Paris put it in first place among Frederick's other peace initiatives. According to that chronicler, ‘in order to come to terms with the pope and to return the previous friendship’, Taddeus de Suessa ‘confidently offered to restore the whole of Romania, i.e. the Greek empire, to unity with Rome’.Footnote 46

However, Innocent iv rejected all the emperor's offers as an attempt to avoid responsibility.Footnote 47 Then new menacing accusations against the emperor followed. After he was charged with heresy at the second council session on 5 July, Taddeus de Suessa said that Frederick ii had either to present himself at the council in person or send new plenipotentiaries in order to be fully able to defend himself.Footnote 48 The delegates agreed to postpone the third session, scheduled for 12 July, until the arrival of the emperor, who had just left Verona and was heading for Turin.Footnote 49

Apparently, it was a strong move by Frederick's supporters, who benefited from the delay.Footnote 50 David Abulafia argues that Innocent iv was trapped, and in early July, together with his counsellors, had to look for a way out. The pope understood that Frederick would be better off if he appeared in Lyon. The emperor's willingness to obey the ecclesiastical court would be a ‘propaganda coup’ and would make it extremely difficult to reject his proposals for peace.Footnote 51

Nor did the emperor's opponents sit on their hands. The main struggle took place in the interval between the second and the third sessions of the council, during secret meetings and negotiations between the pope and participants. In the course of these the pope could enlist the support of almost all voting prelates who agreed that Frederick should be dethroned.Footnote 52 According to the Brevis nota, the seals of archbishops and bishops who had given their consent were immediately affixed to the bull of deposition: when the bull was promulgated, there were about 150 seals hanging from it it.Footnote 53

Nevertheless, the record of 150 prelates allegedly supporting deposition was included in the Brevis nota at a later date, before it was incorporated into the Liber cancellariae apostolicae. As Michael Tangl has shown, the final report of the original version of Brevis nota said that the verdict announcing the deposition of Frederick at the end of the third session came as a complete surprise to some delegates. To justify Innocent's action, the papal vice-chancellor made changes in the original text, noting that on the eve of the decisive session the pope had enlisted the support of most prelates, who had affixed their seals to the bull of deposition.Footnote 54 Modern historians have come to the same conclusion. They believe that forty prelates at most may have supported the decision to depose Frederick, while other council delegates were presented with a fait accompli.Footnote 55

All possible means were used to prove the emperor's guilt and win the council delegates over to the pope's side. To persuade them that it was impossible to make peace with Frederick, a condemnatory memorandum was distributed, which must have been drawn up at the chancellery of Cardinal Rainer of Viterbo.Footnote 56 The accompanying letter alleged that the emperor had ordered that the roads which the cardinals, bishops or their envoys were supposed to use to come to Lyon should be blocked.Footnote 57 Besides, according to the Chronica majora, many of the council delegates who sympathised with Frederick sided with the pope when it had become known that the emperor, on hearing about the charges brought against him, refused to come to Lyon personally and stand before the council as a defendant.Footnote 58 Those were, of course, only rumours spread by Frederick's enemies.

Having secretly enlisted the support of some prelates, Innocent iv refused to wait until the emperor or his representatives arrived at Lyon. At the third and final session of the council (on 17 July) the bull deposing Frederick, as cast out by God for his sins and therefore unable to ‘reign and rule’, was read. Frederick ii was deprived of his imperial dignity and power over the empire and his kingdoms. The pope absolved all Frederick's subjects from their oath of loyalty, and forbade anyone in the future to obey him under the threat of excommunication.Footnote 59

The alliance between Frederick II and John III Vatatzes and the Greeks’ struggle for the return of Constantinople

In spite of the obvious propagandistic nature of Frederick ii’s promise to restore the unity of the Roman and the Byzantine Churches, there is no doubt that that bold statement was made at Lyon as a result of a preliminary agreement with the Nicene emperor John iii Vatatzes and with his consent.

Since the late 1230s the western and the eastern emperors had been allies and had conducted a concerted foreign policy. In his letter to Frederick ii on 17 March 1238, Pope Gregory ix expressed his grave concern over that union, in which he saw Frederick's intention to return Constantinople to the Greeks.Footnote 60 The union of the German and Nicene emperors manifested itself in joint military actions. According to the Ghibelline Annals of Piacenza, in spring 1238 ‘the warriors of the Greek emperor Vatatzes’ (‘milites Vatacii Grecorum imperatoris’) arrived at Lombardy to help Frederick ii’s army, and participated in the unsuccessful siege of Brescia (July–October).Footnote 61 The union manifested itself to the full when Vatatzes married Constance, Frederick's illegitimate daughter, in 1241.Footnote 62

In pursuit of his aim to bring Constantinople back under Greek control, Vatatzes constantly combined political pressure and military action against the Latin empire with diplomatic tricks and proposals to resume negotiation on church union. In the mid-1230s Vatatzes, officially excommunicated by the pope, had to make peace proposals to the Apostolic See via mediators. Paradoxically, one such mediator was Frederick ii, who was himself excommunicate. Assuming that role, Frederick acted in his own best interests, which were not always the same as Vatatzes's.

According to the Royal Chronicle of Cologne, a well-informed source, as these events were unfolding in the 1240s, among the most consistent supporters of Frederick ii at the Council of Lyon was the Latin emperor Baldwin ii, who sat to the right of the pope: ‘the emperor of Constantinople Baldwin and the count of Toulouse stood up for the emperor [Frederick] with insistent requests’.Footnote 63 This suggests that Frederick ii’s peace proposals, in particular those concerning church union, were well worked out. Whatever the agreements between Frederick and Vatatzes, they must have taken into account the interests of Baldwin ii. The confident tone of Taddeus de Suessa's speech at the Council of Lyon, observed by Matthew Paris, also indicates that his proposals were thoroughly prepared. After the emperor's representative made them at the preliminary session, he tried to direct the subsequent proceedings of the council along the prearranged lines, which would be advantageous for Frederick.

The Hungarian king Béla iv was another mediator in the relationship between the Nicene emperor and the Apostolic See. He was another important ally and related to Vatatzes.Footnote 64

It is known that in the late 1240 or early 1241, Béla told Gregory ix that the Nicene emperor and his subjects wished to return to the aegis of the Apostolic See. This is evident from the pope's reply of 10 February 1241, where he wrote, in particular, that ‘through Your mediation, the good man Vatatzes with all his lands and peoples, clergy and churches, which … are known to remain outside the unity of the Roman Church, upon reasonable, though belated, consideration, wished to return humbly to it as to the head and the mother of sheep’.Footnote 65

The death of Gregory ix (22 August 1241) and the subsequent papal vacancy postponed for a few years the start of a fresh round of negotiation on the union of Churches. The Council of Lyon gave a suitable opportunity for a new discussion of that issue. One way or another, all the leading political forces of Europe were interested in it. They included not only the pope, but also the western and the eastern emperors, although each of them pursued his own goals.

The role of the Rus hierarch in the ecumenical processes of the mid-thirteenth century.

The issue of the union of Churches raised at the very first session of the Council of Lyon was among Innocent iv’s most important priorities right through until the end of his pontificate.Footnote 66 Taddeus de Suessa undoubtedly knew the significance that the pope and other council participants attached to the issue, and he put it first among Frederick's peace proposals, thus strengthening the position of his suzerain.

In order to change the unfavourable development of the situation, the pope and cardinals went to considerable lengths to discredit Frederick and his peace proposals, putting into play, among other things, clearly planted evidence and disinformation.

In this an important role must have been played by Archbishop Peter, in his appearance before the council delegates and his ostentatious demonstration of his willingness for union with the Roman Church – unexpected by Frederick's supporters but prepared in advance by the pope.

At the Council of Lyon, Archbishop Peter was undoubtedly present as an official head of the Kiev (all Rus) metropolitanate of the Byzantine Church, or, more precisely, he was introduced as such to the delegates of the council. This is, above all, evident from the title ‘the archbishop of Rus’, which Peter did not bear at home but was given to him in the West. From the Roman Church's perspective, the title ‘archbishop of Rus’ (‘archiepiscopus Russiae, archiepiscopus de Russcia’) must have corresponded to the title of ‘the metropolitan of Rus’ (‘μητροπολίτης ή Ῥωσία’), used in the Byzantine Church.Footnote 67

Peter, however, was not the metropolitan of Kiev, but occupied the neighbouring see of Belgorod. No Rus sources used the title ‘archbishop’ with regard to Belgorod bishops. Nevertheless, one should take into consideration the special role that the Belgorod bishop played in the management of the Rus Church, in that he headed it when the metropolitan see in Kiev was vacant.

It can be rightly assumed that, after the escape or death of Metropolitan Joseph during the Mongol invasion of Southern Rus and the siege of Kiev (November–December 1240),Footnote 68 the bishop of Belgorod was to become the temporary head of the Rus metropolis and remain in that capacity until a new metropolitan was appointed by the patriarch of Constantinople (Nicaea), which took place no earlier than 1246, after Kirill, Daniel Romanovich's protégé, went to Nicaea.Footnote 69 Therefore, at the Council of Lyon, Peter was indeed present as the head of the Rus metropolis and was perceived by the participants as a high-ranking hierarch of the Byzantine Church.

If this is correct, then the willingness of Peter to compromise on controversial matters of dogma and his demonstrative participation in the festive service together with the pope and cardinals (no matter to what extent Peter's actions were sanctioned by the Nicene patriarch and emperor) must have persuaded the participants of the Council of Lyon that the Roman Church could end the schism and bring the Greeks back into unity using its own resources, that is, without resorting to the dubious help of Emperor Frederick.

The role of the Rus archbishop at the Council of Lyon was thus not only to bring sensational news about the Tatars, as is usually believed. The demonstration of a willingness to resume the dialogue of the Churches seems to have been of no less consequence. Peter's speech, with his ‘brilliant’ exposition of the Gospel, which is neglected in the main sources – the Brevis nota and the Chronica majora – was not supposed to take place at the plenary session before all the council delegates, but rather at a meeting of a narrower circle, most probably at a secret meeting with the pope and high-ranking prelates, which took place between the second and the third sessions. Matthew Paris, whose main informers were the delegates representing the abbot of St Albans, did not have all the information about those secret meetings. However, that information may have been available to the compiler of the Burton Annals, who used additional information obtained from the English royal archives, as well as the archives of the bishops of Coventry, Lichfield and Lincoln.Footnote 70

The strange behaviour, seemingly unacceptable for an Orthodox hierarch of the Rus, at the Council of Lyon appears to have aroused no mistrust or condemnation either in the West or in the East. It is noteworthy that Peter demonstrated willingness to reunite with the Roman Church on the eve of a new round of negotiations on church unity, which began after the patriarch of Nicaea officially addressed the pope in the spring of 1249. That negotiation led to further rapprochement between the Byzantine and the Roman Churches, which manifested itself, in particular, in the church union of Rus with Rome and the coronation of Daniel of Galicia.Footnote 71 Against that background, Peter's mission in Lyon seems to have been in a way an attempt to check the willingness of the new pontiff to resume church negotiations, as well as an attempt to discuss the possible conditions of the prospective union.

That first attempt was followed by others, which were also effected through intermediaries. A new mediator in the talks between the Nicene emperor and the Roman pontiff was the Hungarian queen Maria Laskarina, sister of Vatatzes's first wife. Queen Maria's efforts are directly evident from the letter that Innocent iv sent to her on 30 January 1247, in which he wrote: ‘Therefore, our dearest daughter in Christ, … we encourage and request Your Highness to send without delay to the aforesaid Vatatzes some envoys, men of prudence and discretion, so that the aforesaid Vatatzes, by virtue of their zeal and care, should return to the unity with Mother Church.’Footnote 72

The pope instructed Queen Maria in response to an earlier letter from her, in which she informed him that she was confident of the success of such talks or, at least, hoped for a favourable outcome. In any case, the pope praised the queen not only for her good intentions, but also, as it seems, for the efforts that she had already made, and their hopeful results that induced his optimism. ‘[Y]ou try and endeavour to the best of your ability, so that Vatatzes and his people returned to the bosom of the mother church, and we have truly rejoiced, having heard about it, and praise you for that.’Footnote 73

Maria's missing letter, which had been sent to the pope, probably in late 1246, must have contained information about a willingness to continue negotiation with the Roman Church. That information was delivered from Nicaea by the new Rus metropolitan Kirill. It is even more probable, if it is borne in mind that, according to the thirteenth-century Galician-Volhynian Chronicle, on his way to Nicaea (and, consequently, on his return journey to Hungary), Kirill was escorted by an honourable escort provided for his safety by King Béla.Footnote 74 Kirill must have left for Nicaea in early June 1246Footnote 75 and returned at the end of that year.

In can be assumed that the cause that the (Arch)bishop Peter had started in Lyon was continued through the effort of the Hungarian queen Maria, whose spouse Béla iv had previously acted as an intermediary in the talks between Vatatzes and Rome, and the mediation of the new metropolitan Kirill. Thus, in the mid-1240s, the Rus church hierarchs, who headed the Kiev (all Rus) metropolis of the Byzantine Church, played an important, though still underestimated by the historians, role in establishing direct contacts between the Byzantine and Roman Churches and in resuming negotiations for church unity.

Undoubtedly, this was encouraged by the foreign political relations and dynastic ties of the Rus princes, and primarily of the Galician-Volhynian prince Daniel Romanovich, who by the mid-1240s had become the strongest ruler in South Rus. In 1246 Daniel renewed his military and political alliance with Béla iv, cementing it with the marriage of his son Lev (Leo) to Princess Constance, Béla's daughter.Footnote 76 Moreover, Daniel Romanovich, like his father Roman Mstislavich, was the closest and most consistent ally of the Byzantine (Nicaean) Empire among the Rus princes.Footnote 77 Daniel's mother came from the Angelos family, which ruled in Constantinople in the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries.Footnote 78 Her influence on the foreign and domestic policies of the Galician-Volhynian princes can be observed over several decades.Footnote 79 Thus, Daniel Romanovich was an ally and a relative of both key participants in the negotiation for the union of the Roman and Byzantine Churches in the 1240s and 1250s, i.e. of the Hungarian king and the Nicaean emperor.

While Béla iv and Queen Maria were intermediaries in the negotiations for church union, Daniel Romanovich was apparently a direct participant. In 1246–8 Daniel was engaged in active correspondence with the Apostolic See, which is evident from the surviving letters to him and his brother Wasylco from Pope Innocent iv.Footnote 80 In his correspondence with the pope Daniel discussed the theological issues that caused the most serious problems between the Latins and the Greeks. In particular, in his reply to Daniel as of 27 August 1247, the pope wrote that

As we especially distinguish you among those who respect the church, so we, with God's help, are eager to listen to your requests and extend our kind benevolence on your wishes. Therefore, our dearest son in Christ, yielding to your requests, we allow by this letter the bishops and other presbyters of Rus to adhere to the customs related to [making the holy sacraments from] leavened dough, and to their other religious customs that do not contradict the Catholic faith, i.e. the faith of the Roman Church.Footnote 81

This seems to be the first time that Innocent iv expressed his attitude to the liturgical use of leavened bread. The pope's willingness to compromise on that key issue is likely to have promoted further negotiations on church union.

Footnotes

This study was carried out with the financial support of the Russian Science Federation (Российский Научный Фонд project), no. 16-18-10137-П.

References

1 Vaughan, Richard, Matthew Paris, 2nd edn, Cambridge 1979, 125ffGoogle Scholar; Hilpert, Hans-Eberhard, Kaiser- und Papstbriefe in den Chronica majora des Matthaeus Paris, Stuttgart 1981, 200ffGoogle Scholar; Roberg, Burkhard, ‘Zur Uberlieferung und Interpretation der Hauptquelle des Lugdunense I von 1245’, Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum xxii (1990), 31–67 at pp. 62–5Google Scholar.

2 See, for example, Senyk, Sophia, A history of the Church in Ukraine, I: To the end of the thirteenth century, Rome 1993, 429–32Google Scholar (with further literature).

3 ‘Et dum haec fatalis alea mundi resolvisset, quidam archiepiscopus de Russcia, Petrus nomine, vir, ut aestimari potuit, honestus, spiritualis, et fide dignus, a Tartaris exterminatus, ut archiepiscopatu suo, immo ab ipso [regno] fugiens et effugatus, ad partes se transtulit cisalpinas, consilium et auxilium et de sua tribulatione consolationem adepturus, si sibi, dante Deo, ecclesia Romana et principum clemems forte gratia subveniret’: Matthaei Parisiensis Chronica majora, ed. Luard, H. R., iv, London 1877, 386Google Scholar.

4 Bigalli, Davide, I Tartari e l'apocalisse: ricerche sull'escatologia in Adamo Marsh e Ruggero Bacone, Firenze 1971, 64–74Google Scholar; Bezzola, Gian Andri, Die Mongolen in abendländischer Sicht (1220–1270): ein Beitrag zur Frage der Völkerbegegnungen, Bern–Munich 1974, 113–18Google Scholar; Klopprogge, Axel, Ursprung und Ausprägung des abendländischen Mongolenbildes im 13. Jahrhundert: ein Versuch zur Ideengeschichte des Mittelalters, Wiesbaden 1993, 174–6, 192–3Google Scholar.

5 Wolter, Hans and Holstein, Henri, Lyon I et Lyon II, Paris 1966, 49Google Scholar.

6 Bezzola, Die Mongolen in abendländischer Sicht, 124ff; Schmieder, Felicitas, Europa und die Fremden: die Mongolen im Urteil des Abendlandes vom 13. bis in das 15. Jahrhundert, Sigmaringen 1994, 199 n. 8Google Scholar; Jackson, Peter, ‘Franciscans as papal and royal envoys to the Tartars, 1245–1255’, in Robson, Michael (ed.), The Cambridge companion to Francis of Assisi, Cambridge 2012, 224–39 at pp. 234–5Google Scholar.

7 Annales monastici, ed. Luard, H. R., i, London 1864, 271–5Google Scholar; ‘Ex annalibus Burtonensibus’, ed. Felix Liebermann and Reinhold Pauli, MGH, Scriptores, xxvii, Hannover 1885, 474–5; Dörrie, Heinrich, ‘Drei Texte zur Geschichte der Ungarn und Mongolen: die Missionsreisen des fr. Julianus O.P. ins Uralgebiet (1234/35) und nach Rußland (1237) und der Bericht des Erzbischof Peter über die Tartaren’, Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, I: Philologisch-historische Klasse vi (1956), 187–94Google Scholar.

8 <http://www.mirabileweb.it/manuscript/cambridge-gonville-and-caius-college-162-83-manuscript/17623>.

9 <http://www.kb.dk/manus/vmanus/2011/dec/ha/object78526/en/>.

10 <http://manuscripta.at/m1/hs_detail.php?ID=33997>.

11 Jackson, Peter, ‘The testimony of the Russian “Archbishop” Peter concerning the Mongols (1244/5): precious intelligence or timely disinformation?’, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society xxvi (2016), 65–77 at pp. 66–7Google Scholar.

12 See Ivan Paslavs'kyi, Український епiзод Першого Лiонського собору (1245 р.) [Ukrainian episode of the First Lyon Council (1245)], Lviv 2009, 12–49. See also Jerzy Strzelczyk, ‘Mongołowie a Europa: Stolica Apostolska wobec problemu mongolskiego do połowy xiii wieku’, in Jerzy Strzelczyk (ed.), Spotkanie dwóch światów: Stolica Apostolska a świat mongolski w połowie XIII wieku: relacje powstałe w związku z misją Jana di Piano Carpiniego do Mongołów [Meeting of two worlds: the Holy See and the Mongolian world in the mid-13th century: reports from the mission of Jan di Piano Carpini to the Mongols], Poznań 1993, 7–112 at pp. 65–8.

13 For a survey of the general political situation in Rus at this time see, for instance, Fennell, John, The crisis of medieval Russia, 1200–1304, 2nd edn, New York 2014CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 Ruotsala, A., Europeans and Mongols in the middle of the thirteenth century: encountering the other, Helsinki 2001, 154Google Scholar.

15 Ibid;Jackson, Peter, The Mongols and the West, 1221–1410, Harlow 2005, 87, 105Google Scholar.

16 Selart, Anti, ‘Архиепископ Петр и Лионский собор 1245 года’ [Archbishop Peter and the Council of Lyon, 1245], Rossica Antiqua 1 (2011), 100–13 at pp. 108–9Google Scholar.

17 Darrouzès, Jean (ed.), Notitiae episcopatuum ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae, Paris 1981, 367Google Scholar.

18 Aleksandr V. Nazarenko, ‘Архиепископы в русской церкви домонгольского времени’ [Archbishops in the pre-Mongolian Russian Church], Древняя Русь: Вопросы медиевистики [Old Russia: Questions on the Middle Ages] iv (2015), 67–76 at pp. 71–2.

19 Лаврентьевская летопись [The Laurentian Chronicle], ed. Karskii, Evgenii F., 3rd edn, Moscow 1997, 470Google Scholar.

20 Ипатьевская летопись [The Hypatian Chronicle], ed. Shakhmatov, Aleksei A., 3rd edn, Moscow 1998, 806Google Scholar; Kronika halicko-wołyńska. Kronika Romanowiczów / Chronica Galiciano-Voliniana (Chronica Romanoviciana), ed. Dariusz Dąbrowski and Adrian Jusupović, Kraków 2017, 288.

21 Ruotsala, Europeans and Mongols, 153; Jackson, The Mongols and the West, 87; Selart, Anti, Livonia, Rus’ and the Baltic Crusades in the thirteenth century, Leiden–Boston 2015, 211CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 Dörrie, ‘Drei Texte’, 194.

23 Jackson, ‘The testimony’, 73–5.

24 Annales monastici, i. 273. See also Jackson, ‘Franciscans as papal and royal envoys’, 225.

25 Jackson, ‘The testimony’, 65–77.

26 Hilpert, Kaiser- und Papstbriefe, 180.

27 ‘Examinatio facta de Tartaris apud Lugdunum per dominum papam. Inter ceteros mundi prelatos venit ad concilium Lugdunum archiepiscopus Ruthenus nomine Petrus, qui, prout quidam asserebant de concilio venientes, neque Latinam neque Grecam neque Hebraicam novit linguam et tamen per interpretem peroptime coram domino papa exposuit euangelium. Ipse etiam seorsum vocatus cum domino papa ceterisque prelatis in divinis, sacris vestibus indutus, set non eo modo quo ipsi, divinorum assistebat celebrationi’: Annales monastici, i. 272.

28 Dashkevich, Nikolai P., ‘Переговоры пап с Даниилом Галицким об унии юго-западной Руси с латинством’ [Negotiations of the popes with Daniel Galitsky on the union of southwestern Rus’ with the Latins], Киевские Университетские Известия [Kiev University News] viii (1884), 136–81 at pp. 148–9Google Scholar.

29 Tomashivs'kyi, Stepan, ‘Предтеча Iсидора: Петро Акерович, незнаний митрополит руський (1241–1245)’ [The forerunner of Isidore: Peter Akerovich, unknown Rus’ metropolitan (1241–1245)], Analecta Ordinis Sancti Basilii Magni ii (1926), 221–90 at pp. 257–8Google Scholar.

30 Dörrie, ‘Drei Texte’, 185.

31 Dashkevich, ‘Переговоры пап с Даниилом Галицким’, 150.

32 Dörrie, ‘Drei Texte’, 185.

33 Tomashivs'kyi, ‘Предтеча Iсидора’, 257–8.

34 I. Paslavs'kyi, Український епiзод, 50–82.

35 See Golubovich, Hieronymus, ‘Disputatio Latinorum et Graecorum seu Relatio apocrisiarorum Gregorii ix de gestis Nicaeae in Bithynia et Nymphaeae in Lydia (1234)’, Archivum Franciscanum Historicum xii (1919), 418–70Google Scholar. See also Gill, Joseph, Byzantium and the papacy, 1198–1400, New Brunswick, NJ 1979, 64–72Google Scholar; Hussey, J. M., The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire, Oxford 1986, 214fGoogle Scholar; Avvakumov, Georgij, Die Entstehung des Unionsgedankens: die lateinische Theologie des Hochmittelalters in der Auseinandersetzung mit dem Ritus der Ostkirche, Berlin 2002, 263–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Chrissis, Nikolaos G., Crusading in Frankish Greece: a study of Byzantine-Western relations and attitudes, 1204–1282, Turnhout 2012, 93–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36 See Maiorov, Alexander V., ‘Church-union negotiations between Rome and Nicaea and the Union of Rus’, 1231–1237’, Orientalia Christiana Periodica lxxxiv (2018), 385–405Google Scholar.

37 Gill, Byzantium and the papacy, 88–92; Franchi, Antonino, La svolta politico-ecclesiastica tra Roma e Bisanzio (1249–1254), Rome 1981, 167–79, 193–215Google Scholar; Chrissis, Crusading in Frankish Greece, 159–72.

38 Tomashivs'kyi, ‘Предтеча Iсидора’, 258.

39 Tangl, Michael, ‘Die sogenannte «Brevis Nota» über das Lyoner Concil von 1245’, Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung xii (1891), 246–53 at pp. 247fCrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hilpert, Kaiser- und Papstbriefe, 192–3.

40 ‘Tertio de scismate Grecorum, quomodo Vatacius imperator Grecorum, cum Grecis scismaticis occupaverant and destruxerant terram fere usque ad Constantinopolim et de civitate timeri poterat, nisi a Christianis velocem succursum haberent’: ‘Relatio de Concilio Lugdunensi’, ed. Weiland, Ludwig, MGH, Constitutiones et acta publica imperatorum et regum, ii, Hannover 1896, 514Google Scholar. See also Roberg, ‘Zur Uberlieferung und Interpretation’, 55–8.

41 ‘Alium, quem pro schismate Romaniae, id est, Graecae ecclesiae, quae nostris temporibus et paucis evolutis annis a gremio matris, suae, velut novercae, insolenter et insolerter decisa est et aversa’: Matthaei Parisiensis Chronica majora, iv. 434.

42 See Wolter and Holstein, Lyon I et Lyon II, 64–5; Bezzola, Die Mongolen in abendländischer Sicht, 112; Melloni, Alberto, Innocenzo IV: la concezione e l'esperienza della cristianità come regimen unius personae, Genoa 1990, 89Google Scholar.

43 Acta Innocentii PP. IV (1243–1254), ed. Haluščynskyj, Theodosius T. and Wojnar, Meletius M., Rome 1962, 46Google Scholar.

44 Ibid. 48–9.

45 Matthaei Parisiensis Chronica majora, iv. 432.

46 ‘Pro cujus pace et pristinae amicitae reformatione optulit pro domino suo confidenter ad unitatem Romanae ecclesiae totum Romaniae, id est, Graeciae imperium, revocare’: ibid.

47 Ibid. 432–4. See also Folz, August, Kaiser Friedrich II. und Papst Innocenz IV: ihr Kampf in den Jahren 1244 und 1245, Strassburg 1905, 65f.Google Scholar; Baaken, Gerhard, Ius imperii ad regnum: Königreich Sizilien, Imperium Romanum und Römisches Papsttum vom Tode Kaiser Heinrichs VI. bis zu den Verzichterklärungen Rudolfs von Habsburg, Cologne–Weimar–Vienna 1993, 299–300Google Scholar; and Stürner, Wolfgang, Friedrich II., ii, Darmstadt 2003, 533–4Google Scholar.

48 ‘Relatio de Concilio Lugdunensi’, 515; Matthaei Parisiensis Chronica majora, iv. 436.

49 Wolter and Holstein, Lyon I et Lyon II, 70; Stürner, Friedrich II., ii. 534–6.

50 van Cleve, Thomas Curtis, The Emperor Frederick II of Hohenstaufen, Immutatior Mundi, Oxford 1972, 486Google Scholar.

51 Abulafia, David, Frederick II: a medieval emperor, New York–Oxford 1988, 371Google Scholar.

52 Wolter and Holstein, Lyon I et Lyon II, 72; Stürner, Friedrich II., ii. 536.

53 ‘Relatio de Concilio Lugdunensi’, 516.

54 Tangl, ‘Die sogenannte «Brevis Nota»’, 251.

55 Baaken, Ius imperii ad regnum, 307–9.

56 Folz, Kaiser Friedrich II. und Papst Innocenz IV., 88–98; Hampe, Karl, ‘Über die Flugschriften zum Lyoner Konzil von 1245’, Historische Vierteljahrschrift xi (1908), 297–313Google Scholar.

57 Wolter and Holstein, Lyon I et Lyon II, 102–3.

58 Matthaei Parisiensis Chronica maiora, iv. 434–5.

59 ‘Bulla Depositionis’, ed. L. Weiland, MGH, Constitutiones et acta publica imperatorum et regum, ii. 508–12.

60 Acta Honorii III (1216–1227) et Gregorii IX (1227–1241), ed. Tàutu, Aloysius L., Rome 1950, 314–15Google Scholar.

61 ‘Annales Placentini Gibellini a. 1154–1284’, ed. Philipp Jaffé, MGH, Scriptores, xviii, Hannover 1863, 479. See also van Cleve, The Emperor Frederick II of Hohenstaufen, 414–16.

62 Kiesewetter, Andreas, ‘Die Heirat zwischen Konstanze-Anna von Hohenstaufen und Kaiser Johannes iii, Batatzes von Nikaia (Ende 1240 oder Anfang 1241) und der Angriff des Johannes Batatzes auf Konstantinopel im Mai oder Juni 1241’, Römische Historische Mitteilungen xli (1999), 239–50Google Scholar.

63 ‘Chronica regia Coloniensis (Annales maximi Coloniensis)’, ed. Georg Waitz, MGH, Scriptores Rerum Germanicarum, xviii, Hannover 1880, 287.

64 See Wertner, Mór, Az Árpádok családi törtenete [The family history of the Árpáds], Nagybecskereken [Zrenjanin] 1892, repr. Budapest 2010, 460–2Google Scholar; Zsoldos, Attila, Az Árpádok és asszonyaik: a királynéi intézmény az Árpádok korában [The Árpáds and their women: queenship in the age of the Árpáds], Budapest 2005, 190Google Scholar.

65 ‘Cum enim, sicut per easdem nobis litteras intimasti, Graecorum populum quas caliginosum montem gratiae suae radiis Dominus videatur adeo illustrare, ut tuo studio mediante nobilis vir Battacius, cum terris suis et populis, cleris et ecclesiis universis, qui, ut Effraim, quae dudnm velut columba seducta invocavit Aegyptum, extra unitatem Romanae Ecclesiae permansisse dinoscitur, ad eam, quasi ad caput et matrem ovium, sano, quamvis sero, usus consilio, desideret cum humilitate redire’: Acta Honorii III et Gregorii IX, 347.

66 See de Vries, Wilhelm, ‘Innozenz iv. (1243–1254) und der christliche Osten’, Ostkirchliche Studien xii (1963), 113–31Google Scholar; Gill, Byzantium and the papacy, 95–6; Hussey, The Orthodox Church, 216.

67 See Poppe, Andrzej, ‘The building of the Church of St Sophia in Kiev’, Journal of Medieval History vii (1981), 16, 51Google Scholar; Shchapov, Yaroslav N., Государство и церковь Древней Руси X–XIII вв. [The State and the Church of ancient Russia of the 10th–13th centuries], Moscow 1989, 24–6Google Scholar.

68 See Maiorov, Alexander V., ‘The Mongolian capture of Kiev: the two dates’, Slavonic and East European Review xciv (2016), 702–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

69 See Shakhmatov, Ипатьевская летопись, 809; Kronika halicko-wołyńska, 297.

70 Gransden, Antonia, Historical writing in England, c. 550 to 1307, London 1974, 408–9Google Scholar.

71 See Maiorov, Alexander V., ‘Ecumenical processes in the mid-13th century and the Union between Russia and Rome’, Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte cxxvi (2015), 11–34Google Scholar.

72 ‘Ut igitur, carissima in Christo filia, effectus huiusmodi negotii facilius subsequatur, Excellentiam Tuam requirimus et rogamus, quatinus aliquos nuntios, viros providos et discretos, ad praefatum Vatacium non differas destinare, quorum diligentiae studio et sollicitudinis industria praedictus Vatacius ad unitatem matris Ecclesiae revertatur’: Acta Innocentii PP. IV, 77.

73 Ibid.

74 Ипатьевская летопись, 809; Kronika halicko-wołyńska, 297.

75 Maiorov, Alexander V., ‘“Cum quodam rege Rucsie singelariter in prelio dimicans…”: был ли Даниил Галицкий участником битвы на Лейте?’ [‘“Cum quodam rege Rucsie singelariter in prelio dimicans…”: was Daniel of Galicia a participant in the Battle of Leitha?’], Древняя Русь: Вопросы медиевистики iv (2016), 35–51 at pp. 48–9Google Scholar.

76 Ипатьевская летопись, 809; Kronika halicko-wołyńska, 298. See also Maiorov, ‘“Cum quodam rege Rucsie singelariter in prelio dimicans…”’, 47–8.

77 See Maiorov, Alexander V., ‘The alliance between Byzantium and Rus’ before the conquest of Constantinople by the crusaders in 1204’, Russian History xlii (2015), 272–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and ‘Angelos in Halych: did Alexios iii visit Roman Mstislavich?’, Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies lvi (2016), 343–76Google Scholar.

78 See idem, ‘The daughter of a Byzantine emperor – the wife of a Galician-Volhynian prince’, Byzantinoslavica lxxii (2014), 188–233Google Scholar.

79 See idem, ‘The cult of St Daniel the Stylite among the Russian princes of the Rurik dynasty’, Slavic and East European Journal lix (2015), 345–66Google Scholar, and also ‘The Emperor Manuel's cross in Notre Dame: on its origin and path’, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies lvii (2017), 771–91Google Scholar.

80 For the latest review on this issue see Dariusz Dąbrowski, Król Rusi Daniel (ok. 1201–1264): biografia polityczna, Kraków 2012, 277–83 (with further literature).

81 ‘Cum te decetero specialem inter devotos Ecclesiae reputemus, petitiones tuas, quantum cum Deo possumus, libenter ad gratiam exauditionis admittimus et votis tuis favorem benevolum impertimus. Eapropter, carissime in Christo fili, tuis supplicationibus inclinati, episcopis et aliis presbyteris de Ruscia, ut liceat eis more suo ex fermentato conficere et alios eorum ritus, qui fidei catholicae, quam Ecclesia Romana tenet, non obviant, observare, auctoritate praesentium mdulgemus’: Acta Innocentii PP. IV, 87.