Andrea, 1993

Berghahn Books
"The Devastatio Constantinopolitana", A Special Perspective on the Fourth Crusade: An

Analysis, New Edition, and Translation
Author(s): Alfred J. Andrea
Source: Historical Reflections / Réflexions Historiques, Vol. 19, No. 1 (Winter 1993), pp.
107-129, 131-149
Published by: Berghahn Books
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41298961
Accessed: 20-06-2016 15:31 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/41298961?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Berghahn Books is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Historical
Reflections / Réflexions Historiques
This content downloaded from 128.223.86.31 on Mon, 20 Jun 2016 15:31:16 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
The Devastatio Constantinopolitana,
A Special Perspective
on the Fourth Crusade:
An Analysis, New Edition, and
Translation
Alfred J. Andrea
Over eight decades ago Achille Luchaire declared the question of the
diversion of the Fourth Crusade to Constantinople in 1203 to be an
insoluble problem on which historians should cease wasting their
energies.1 Happily scholars disregarded his judgment and advice. As
both Charles M. Brand and the team of Donald E. Queller and Susan J.
Stratton have demonstrated, the Fourth Crusade remains a focal point
of spirited controversy and productive scholarship.2 The past decade
and a half alone has seen two books and an impressive number of
1. Achille Luchaire, Innocent III: la question &' Orient (Paris, 1907), p. 97.
2. Charles M. Brand, "The Fourth Crusade: Some Recent Interpretations," Medievalia
et Humanistica 12 (1984): pp. 33-45; Donald E. Queller and Susan J. Stratton, "A Century
of Controversy on the Fourth Crusade," Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History 6 (1969):
pp. 235-277.
Alfred J. Andrea is a Professor of History at the University of Vermont. A brief synopsis of this
paper was presented at the Second International Conference of Crusade Historians , Jerusalem , 3 July
1987.
® 1993 HISTORICAL REFLECTIONS/REFLEXIONS HISTORIQUES, Vol. 19, No. 1
108 Historical Reflections/Riflexions Historiques
articles devoted to this crusade.3 Despite this outpouring of

scholarship, a good amount of work remains to be done, especially in
the arena of source analysis.4
The sources for the Fourth Crusade, particularly the Western sources,
are numerous and varied and have served as items of learned
explication for over a century. Even so, many of these texts still remain
poorly understood, undervalued and, therefore, underutilized. As
several recent studies have shown, historians have generally failed to
perceive fully the apologetical, philosophical, and literary purposes
which underlay Gunther of Pairis's Historia Constantinopolitana, the
anonymous Gesta episcoporum Halberstadensium, the De terra Iherosolimitana
of the so-called Anonymous of Soissons, and the lesser but still
important accounts of Alberic of Trois-Fontaines, Ralph of Coggeshall,
and Peter of Vaux de Cernay.5 The same is true for the anonymous
Devastatio Constantinopolitana, and it is time to correct that oversight,
since this eye-witness account offers a special perspective on the Fourth
Crusade.
The Devastatio (hereafter DC) exists in a single parchment codex at
Venice's Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana.6 The codex, which clearly is
3. Donald E. Queller, The Fourth Crusade: The Conquest of Constantinople, 1201-1204

(Philadelphia, 1977); John Godfrey, 1204: The Unholy Crusade (Oxford, 1980). In addition
to the studies listed by Brand, passim , and the several more recent articles referred to in
this paper, see also: Denis A. Zakythinos, "La conquista di Constantinopoli del 1204.
Venezia e la spartizione dell' Impero Bizantino," Storia della civiltb veneziana, Vittore
Branca, ed., 1 (Florence, 1979), pp. 297-305; R£gine Colliot, "Fascination de l'or & Byzance
d'apr£s le chroniqueur Robert de Clari," Senefiance 12 (1983): pp. 89-110; and Sylvain Patri,
"La relation russe de la Quatrdme Croisade," Byzantion 58 (1988): pp. 461-501.
4. Brand, "Interpretations," p. 34.
5. Alfred J. Andrea, "The Historia Constantinopolitana : An Early Thirteenth-Century
Cistercian Looks at Byzantium," Analecta Cisterciensia 36 (1980): pp. 269-302; idem,
"Cistercian Accounts of the Fourth Crusade: Were They Anti-Venetian?" ibid., 41 (1985):
pp. 3-41; idem, "Conrad of Krosigk, Bishop of Halberstadt, Crusader, and Monk of
Sittichenbach: His Ecclesiastical Career, 1184-1225," ibid., 43 (1987): p. 63; A. J. Andrea and
Paul I. Rachlin, "Holy War, Holy Relics, Holy Theft: The Anonymous of Soissons's De terra
Iherosolimitana : An Analysis, Edition, and Translation," Historical Reflections/Riflexions
Historiques 18 (1992): pp. 1-27. A new analysis and translation of Gunther of Pairis's Historia
Constantinopolitana will appear in the Cistercian Fathers Series of Cistercian Publications in
1994, and a new critical edition of that history is forthcoming in Corpus Christianorum.
6. Cod. Marc. Lat. 1990; numbered 398 by Antonio M. Zanetti, Latina et italica D. Marci
bMiotheca codicum manuscriptorum per titulos digesta (Venice, 1741), fol. 160.
Devastatio Constantinopolitana 109
the work of two hands/ dates probably from the late thirteenth or early
fourteenth century and contains: Ekkehard of Aura's Chronicon universale
ab orbe condito ad annum 1125 (fols. lr-247r); the so-called Annales
Herbipolenses 8 (fols. 247r-253r); the DC (fols. 253r-255r); and a short
account of the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 (fols. 255r-255v). Both
Ekkehard' s Chronicle and the Annales Herbipolenses ( Annals of Wiirzburg)
were copied by a single scribe, whereas a second and distinctly different
hand transcribed the DC and the note on the Fourth Lateran Council.
What is more, the Annals of Wiirzburg is a continuation of Ekkehard's
Chronicle, which also originated in the diocese of Wiirzburg, and follows
it without a break. The DC is, however, clearly not a continuation of the
Annals . Not only is there a break of almost half a century between the
two works,9 the DC' s very format differs substantially from that of the
preceding chronicles. Moreover, it is clearly set apart from the earlier
works by its boldly written title.10 The note on the Fourth Lateran
Council, however, follows the DC without any spatial separation or title.
Even though this short report on the council displays a comparable
preoccupation with numbers and other factual data and shares a
strikingly similar prose style, it is not at all likely that it is the work of
the author of the DC. The account appears in several thirteenth-century
chronicles-The Scottish Chronicle of Melrose, Burchard of Ursberg's
Chronicle, Roger de Wendover's Flowers of History, and Matthew Paris's
Chronica Major a}1 Of these four, the account of the Swabian
7. M. Kandel, "Quelques observations sur la Devastatio Constantinopolitana Byzantion

4 (1927-1928): p. 181, maintained that the entire codex was written by a single hand. Gose
analysis of both handwriting and the spelling leads me to a contrary conclusion.
8. So entitled by Karl Pertz, ed., M.G.H., SS., 16:1-9.
9. The Annals? last entry is dated 1158.
10. Fol. 253r. In the top margin of this same page a third hand has added: Coronica
captionis Constantinopolitanae.
11. The Cistercian Chronicle of Melrose incorporates this note into a somewhat fuller
treatment of the council: British Museum, Cottonian MS, Faustina B. IX, fols. 31v-32r
(previously numbered 30v-31r). No critical edition of this chronicle has yet been prepared.
A manuscript facsimile is available in The Chronicle of Melrose, Alan O. Anderson, Marjorie
O. Anderson, and William C. Dickinson, eds., (London, 1936). Burchard, Prae-
monstratensian canon of Ursberg, who flourished as an historian between roughly 1215
and 1230, presents almost word for word the same account as the Marciana codex:
Burchardi Praepositi Urspergensis Chronicon , Oswald Holder-Egger and Bernhard Von
Simson, eds., M.G.H., Script, rer. Germ., 16, 2nd ed. (Hanover, 1916), pp. 111-112. Roger
de Wendover, who composed his Flowers of History from about 1204 to c. 1231, employs
this little note as introduction to his much fuller account of the council: Roger de
Wendover, Flores historiarum, Henry G. Hewlett, ed., 3 vols. (London, 1886-1889), 2:155-
159. Matthew Paris, who succeeded Roger as St Albans abbey's premier historian,
110 Historical Reflections/Reflexions Historiques
churchman Burchard of Ursberg is closest to that of the Marciana codex.

Indeed, they are virtually identical.12 If one copied from the other, it
is likely that the scribe of the DCs codex copied from Burchard of
Ursberg, since Burchard' s brief and somewhat confused report on the
Fourth Crusade shows no knowledge of or indebtedness to the DC.13
We will never know exactly why this account of the Fourth Lateran
Council was appended to the DC, but one answer suggests itself. As we
shall see, the DCs overall tone is sardonic, and its message is negative.
This may have disturbed the compiler of the Marciana codex who
wished to see the hand of Providence in the Fourth Crusade. After all,
it was an article of faith that God often uses even sinners to accomplish
divine ends.14 It is possible that this person saw the little note on the
council as a fitting epilogue to the DC, insofar as it softened somewhat
the work's overall tone and message. The Fourth Crusade may have
ended with the commoners of the pilgrim army cheated by those who
had led them to Constantinople, but it also resulted in the installation
of a Latin emperor and a Latin patriarch in that once schismatic city.
The Fourth Lateran Council, the crowning achievement of Innocent Hi's
pontificate, witnessed a Latin patriarch of Constantinople and a legate
from the Latin emperor of Constantinople traveling to Rome to
incorporated Roger's account of IV Lateran into his Chronica majora: Matthew Paris,
Chronica majora , Henry Richards Luard, ed., 7 vols. (London, 1872-1883), 2:630-633.
12. There are three significant differences between the essentially same account given
by Roger and Matthew and the strikingly similar accounts that appear in this little post-DC
note and the chronicles of Melrose abbey and Burchard of Ursberg. These latter three
inform the reader that seventy-one prelates and metropolitans attended the council; Roger
and Matthew report the number as seventy-seven. Roger and Matthew also list the Latin
emperor of Constantinople first when they enumerate the major rulers who sent legates
to the council; the other three list the king of Sicily and Western Roman emperor-elect
first. Most significant of all, these three accounts lack a word supplied by Wendover and
Paris. The St Albans chroniclers write: "There was no exact count of the number of agents
representing absent archbishops, bishops, abbots, priors, and cathedral chapters."
Burchard, Melrose abbey's chronicle, and the Marciana codex leave out the word
procurators, resulting in a sentence that reads: "There was no exact count of the number
of absent archbishops, bishops, abbots, priors, and cathedral chapters." At the same time,
the Melrose abbey chronicle provides a fair amount of information regarding the council's
provisions for the Fifth Crusade, which Burchard and our codex do not mention.
13. Burchard of Ursberg, Chronkon , pp. 81-82.
14. So Innocent HI reminded Theodore Lascaris on 17 March 1208 when, in reference
to the Fourth Crusade, he wrote: "...the Greeks... are punished by the just judgment of
God... and the evil are punished through the agency of the evil... so that the evil lost in an
evil manner." PL 215: 1373-1374.
participate in a synod that the Roman Church considered ecumenical.

Seen from this perspective, some good had come out of evil.
This, of course, is speculation that rests upon no substantial
evidence; it is likely we will never know for certain why this note on the
council was included in the codex and how, if at all, it is related to the
DC. It is best, therefore, to concentrate on trying to unravel the mystery
of the Devastatio' s provenance and message. Gues within the DC make
those issues much easier to resolve.
One thing is certain. The DC manuscript is not an autograph. Several
orthographic errors, which are easily explained as simple misreadings
of unfamiliar names that appear in the now lost original, make this fact
clear enough: Blois is transcribed as Glois; the C of Cursac15 is
transformed into an L to make a nonsensical Lursac; Rainaldus becomes
Kaitialdus, R being misread as K and n as ti .
There is no doubt that Ekkehard's Chronicle and the Annals of
Wiirzburg share a northwest Bavarian provenance and were equally the
products of clerical authors. The DCs authorship and place of origin,
however, have long been subjects of dispute. This study will address
those dual issues and, in the process, deal with two far more significant
points- the author's perspective and the consequent peculiar value of his
account of the Fourth Crusade.
In 1859 Karl Pertz edited and published Ludwig Bethmann's
transcription of the DC in the Monumenta Germaniae historical and in
1873 Carl Hopf presented a corrected and certainly superior version of
the same text, although he chose to exclude the postscript on the Fourth
Lateran Council.17 In 1970, M.A.C. de Muschietti and B.A. Diaz
Pereyra offered a photo reproduction of Hopf s edition, along with an
annotated Spanish translation.18 Despite this recent reprinting, Hopf s
edition is difficult to locate and consequently underutilized. For that
reason, a new edition of the DC, with minor corrections to the texts
established by Pertz and Hopf, as well as an English translation of the
work, are appended to this study.
When historians have used the DC, they have generally mined it
only as a source of factual data, with which it abounds. Few have
15. A Latin shortened form of the Greek Kyrios Isaakios- Lord Isaac.
16. SS., 16:9-12.
17. Carl Hopf, Chroniques grtco-romanes incites ou peu connues (Berlin, 1873), pp. 86-92.
18. M.A.C. de Muschietti and B.S. Diaz Pereyra, " Devastatio Constantinopolitana:
Introduccibn, traducci6n y notes," Anales de historia antigua y medieval 15 (1970): pp. 171-
190. One must be careful in using the notes since they contain a number of factual errors.
attempted to understand its special viewpoint and, therefore, its full

historical value.
The DC is a brief, largely eyewitness account of the Fourth Crusade,
spanning the period from Cardinal Peter Capuano's preaching the Cross
in France in 1198, which the Devastatio misdates as 1202, to the division
of the spoils of Constantinople in the spring of 1204. The text's
straightforward, matter-of-fact style and its wealth of dates and similar
facts suggest that the author composed it from notes or a personal
journal. At the same time, the work's structural and thematic coherence
suggests that what we have is not a raw diary but a work of crafted
history. Its date of composition is, however, uncertain. The author sets
the opening scene by placing Cardinal Peter's arrival in France "in the
time when Innocent HI presided over the Roman Church."19 This
suggests he wrote after 16 July 1216, the death date of Pope Innocent,
but it is scarcely compelling evidence for a terminus ad quem.
Whenever he wrote, the author failed to give us his name, or it was
lost in transcription, and therein lies a problem. The author tells us
nothing about himself directly. What little we think we know about him
must be inferred from a careful reading of the text.
A number of scholars have attempted to identify the author's region
of origin and profession and, thereby, his perspective. Pertz classified
the work as a German source,20 and Carl Klimke, in the course of his
analytical overview of all of the major sources for the Fourth Crusade,
went further by characterizing it as the diary of a nieder siiddeutsch
cleric.21 Presumably he meant someone from the region around
Wurzburg on the Main. Klimke went on to note that the author
described the crusader campaign against Constantinople of winter and
spring 1204 in greater detail than the earlier siege of June/July 1203. He
argued this was significant insofar as Boniface de Montferrat played a
fuller role in that second confrontation. Klimke also concluded that the
DC's information on the expedition undertaken by Alexius IV, Henry of
Hainaut, and Boniface de Montferrat in pursuit of the fleeing Alexius in
had to have come from Montferrat's circle.22 Jules Tessier built on this
observation by noting that the author always refers to Boniface de
Montferrat as simply "the marquis," while using Christian names or
19. Fol. 253r (Hopf, 86): Anno ab incarnationi Domini M°C°CI°I domino Innocentio
Romane ecclesiae presidente.
20. SS., 16:1.
21. Carl Klimke, Die Quellen zur Geschichte des viertett Kreuzzuges (Breslau, 1875), p. 61.
22. Ibid., pp. 62-63.
titles combined with place names to identify every other character in his
story. Moreover, within these pages the marquis always appears as the
uncontested leader of the army. Tessier concluded that the work was
written as an official journal by either a German or, more likely, an
Italo-Lombard member of the entourage of Marquis Boniface, and this
author was probably a lay person.23
Almost half a century later M. Kandel offered additional observations
on the DC. He agreed with Tessier that the account was an official
journal but looked to the French circle of Baldwin of Flanders for its
source. Kandel compared the Devastatio with two known official
documents of the crusade, the encyclical letters of 1203 and 1204 which
the collective baronage and Emperor Baldwin respectively sent to the
West,24 and argued that the DC's author borrowed from both those
reports while composing his own account. Kandel also noted that all of
the information provided by the DC regarding the exploits of the
marquis of Montferrat is general in nature and was common knowledge.
To the contrary, he argued, the DC provides unique details of the
actions of Baldwin, count of Flanders, and his brother Henry of Hainaut.
Indeed, if the journal has any heroes, they are these two men.25
What then was the author's profession? Kandel admitted that the
evidence is perplexing. As Tessier had pointed out, such phrases as "we
struggled with the Greeks and drove them back from the walls"26
seem to indicate that he took an active part in the fighting. Moreover,
when recounting the story of the discord between the Venetians and the
pilgrim clergy, the author not only adopts a tone of detachment but also
refers to these clerics as "our clergy," apparently treating them as a class
to which he did not belong.27 At the same time, his use of Latin and,
more tellingly, his manner of dating according to the ecclesiastical
calendar suggest a clerical background. In the end, Kandel concluded
that the author was a French secular cleric, who traveled east in the
train of the count of Flanders. He variously functioned as warrior and
23. Jules Tessier, La Quatribne croisade: la diversion sur Zara et Constantinople (Paris,
1884), pp. 18, 21, 24-27.
24. The best editions of these letters are in W. Prevenier, ed., De Oorkonden der graven
van Vlanderen (1191- aanvang 1206), 3 vols. (Brussels, 1964), 2:542-45 (no. 260), 591-601 (no.
274).
25. Kandel, "Observations," pp. 180-187.
26. Fol. 255r (Hopf, 92):... cum Grecis dimicavimus et a muris eos repulimus.
27. Tessier, Quatri&me croisade , pp. 17-18.
journalist, as the occasion warranted, and ultimately served as one of

the Latin emperor of Constantinople's secretaries.28
An additional half century went by before another scholar reopened
the question of the DC's authorship. In 1981 Cynthia Arthur produced
a Master of Arts thesis at the University of Vermont in which she
argued that Kandel was correct in seeing close and more than
coincidental parallels between the DC and the two official crusader
letters to the West. Indeed, she argued that there were more similarities,
especially in language, than even Kandel had seen.29 Yet she rejected
Kandel's conclusions that the author was one of Baldwin's clerical
secretaries and that this was an official history of the crusade. Rather,
she saw the author as a lay Flemish notary in the employ of Henry of
Hainaut. Arthur speculated that this individual wrote the DC on his
own, probably while serving as a member of the civil service of the
Latin empire of Constantinople following Henry's ascension to the
throne in 1206.30
Arthur pointed out that the DC focuses on the individual actions of
only three crusaders, Boniface, Baldwin, and Henry, and Boniface's role
is treated in a cursory manner. Baldwin's obvious importance in the
crusade and his subsequent election as emperor made him an obvious
candidate for special mention, but it is less obvious why the author of
the DC spent ink on Henry. Arthur argued that Henry was not one of
the crusade's chief leaders, yet she saw the DC highlighting several of
his exploits and even including unique pieces of information concerning
his role in these events.31 She concluded that this strongly suggested
that the author enjoyed a special affiliation with Henry.
This presumed relationship with Henry meant that the author
ultimately had access to such official documents as the barons' encyclical
letters to the West. At the same time, however, it is clear to anyone
reading the DC carefully that the author is ignorant of the leadership's
private counsels and agreements. Kandel's theory that he was a
secretary to Baldwin just does not hold up when one realizes that this
author, who, as we shall see, was so preoccupied with contracts, gives
no details whatsoever of the crusade's three most important contracts:
28. Kandel, "Observations/' pp. 184, 187-188.

29. Cynthia Ruth Arthur, "The Destruction of Constantinople: A Translation with
Introduction and Commentary." Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Vermont, 1981,
pp. 27-35. Ms. Arthur (now Cynthia Arthur Hill) produced her thesis under the
supervision of Dr. Gerald W. Day.
30. Ibid., pp. 41-45.
31. Ibid., pp. 41-42.
the crusader-Venetian treaty of 1201; the compact entered into between

Alexius the Younger and the crusade army at Zara; and the March Pact
of 1204. Arthur argued that a secretarial relationship with Henry of
Hainaut, however, would not necessarily give the author access to these
baronial secrets, since Henry, in her estimation, held a relatively minor
position of leadership in 1203/1204. 32
At the same time, his origins in Hainaut (Hennegowen in Flemish)
gave this notary a special perspective. Hainaut/Hennegowen was a
French-speaking imperial county along Europe's Teutonic-Romance
linguistic border. As such, it provided the author, who Arthur believed
was a Francophone, a special perspective whereby he would be well
acquainted with both the French and Germanic crusade elements.33
This is a particular strength of the DC, and it is also one of the factors
which has so vexed scholars trying to identify its author's cultural
milieu.
Whatever his place of origin, Arthur had no doubt that he was a
person with a record keeper's way of seeing the world. At the heart of
her thesis stands the argument that this account, which is written in
simple, generally artless Latin, resembles an accountant's ledger more
than anything else. Its author is preoccupied with numbers, dates,
prices, payments, and losses. Throughout his work, for example, he
keeps careful account of the dwindling numbers of the crusaders, much
as any accountant would do. Looked at another way, the author
presents in an orderly, concise, and businesslike fashion only what he
believes to be the salient events of the crusade. Significantly, each of
those events revolves, in some manner or other, around a contract. In
Arthur's words, "the DC appears to be developed around the conception
of the crusading venture as a series of contractual agreements."34
Equally significant is the fact that Zara- the turning point of the crusade-
rs the point at which the contracts become more frequent and complex,
until finally the crusade ends with a rendering of accounts as the
crusaders divide the spoils of Constantinople. Furthermore, according
to Arthur, it is important to note that this account is devoid of all
religious trappings. There are no miracles, no biblical citations or
allusions, and no formulaic expressions of piety. Certainly there is no
attempt to place these events into some larger theological perspective.
If anything, the work's tone is businesslike. Its author has, in essence,
32. Ibid., pp. 14-15, 41-42.

33. Ibid., pp. 42-43.
34. Ibid., p. 9.
a practical view of the crusade, and it is the view of a person who

works with and is responsible for balancing facts and figures.35
This is not to say that this putative Flemish bookkeeper lacked piety
and sensitivity. Arthur argued that the author displays a decided
contempt for Italian greed and consequently castigates both the
Lombards and the Venetians for their lack of charity. Moreover, he
shows a great sympathy for the crusade's poorer elements, although he
does not identify with them, dealing instead with their trials in a rather
detached manner. All of this suggests that he was a north European and
held a middle social position.
Whatever his social rank might have been, Arthur certainly did not
see him as a cleric. She argued that his use of the ecclesiastical calendar
proves nothing, since it was commonly used by both laity and clergy.
Even his dating of two events by reference to the Introit antiphons Ad
te levavi and Iubilate 37 proves little, because the Emperor Baldwin's
letter of 1204 dates one of those same events, his coronation, as falling
on Iubilate Sunday,38 and Arthur had already concluded that the DC' s
author used Baldwin's letter.39
Even as Ms. Arthur was engaged in her research, Donald Queller
and Irene Katele were studying the Western sources for the Fourth
Crusade in order to evaluate their various attitudes toward the
Venetians. In the course of their analysis, Queller and Katele
acknowledged the DC's precision in its dating and ordering of events.
Without attempting to resolve the issue of its author's origins and
identity, they placed this history among the ranks of the crusade's anti-
Venetian accounts.40
This is the current state of scholarly opinion on the DC. Although I
find myself agreeing with many of Ms. Arthur's insights and believe
35. Ibid., pp. 4-13.

36. Ibid., pp. 21-22.
37. The DC tells us that the Greeks attacked the Latins in Constantinople on the
Monday after "Ad te levavi." This would be 1 December 1203. The first Sunday of Advent,
when Psalm 25 (24) is chanted as the Introit, fell on 30 November. Later the DC informs
us that Baldwin of Flanders was crowned emperor on the Sunday on which Iubilate is sung
(16 May 1204).
38. Baldwin's letter of May 1204, "to all the faithful of Christ," in Prevenier, Oorkonden,
2:601 (no. 274).
39. Arthur, Destruction , pp. 33-35, 43.
40. Donald E. Queller and Irene B. Katele, "Attitudes towards the Venetians in the
Fourth Crusade: The Western Sources," The International History Review 4 (1982): pp. 23-25.
Andrea, "Cistercian Accounts," passim , takes issue with several of their conclusions.
that she has produced the best and most complete analysis of the work
to date, I disagree with several of her conclusions and will argue the
following points. 1) The Devastatio' s author was a subject of the empire
and probably came from the German Rhineland. 2) His account does not
show any bias in favor of Boniface, Baldwin, or Henry, and it is not
likely that he traveled in the party of any of these leaders. 3) His work
is decidedly unofficial and shows no demonstrable use of any other
record or account-the encyclical letters of 1203 and 1204 included. 4)
Albeit unofficial, this story is, as Arthur has perceptively noted,
structured around a series of contracts; 5) This contractual schema does
not, however, lead to the inevitable conclusion that our author was
either a merchant or a notary. It is much more likely that he was a
secular cleric. This, in turn, suggests that he might well have been an
ecclesiastical administrator. 6) Even though he was a person who
probably was involved in ecclesiastical business, his perspective was
that of a pauper Christi, and his account betrays a decided bias against
the rich and mighty who sold out the crusade and "Christ's poor/' Let
us look at each of these points in turn.
Several clues suggest that the author lived within the boundaries of
the Western empire. In his opening lines the author uses the contest
between Philip of Swabia and Otto of Brunswick as one of two
chronological points of reference by which to set his story. More
significantly, when describing how the crusade army totally vacated
Constantinople in August of 1203, he states: "No one who might be
from the Roman empire stayed behind in the city."41 Such words
would not have been used by a Venetian or by subjects of the kings of
France and England. At the same time, it does not appear likely that the
author came from any region of imperial Italy, given the fact that he
mentions no Italian participant of the crusade, save the marquis. While
he identifies three Cistercian abbots-a Frenchman, a Fleming, and an
Alsatian- by their abbeys,42 he never directly mentions the Italian Peter
of Locedio, an intimate of Boniface de Montferrat, one of the leading
ecclesiastical figures on the crusade, and one of the few Cistercian
abbots who traveled all the way to Constantinople with the army.43
41. Fols. 254r-254v (Hopf, 89-90): Nullus tamen qui de Romano imperii esset, infra
civitatem remanere. Pertz and Hopf correct this to remaneret.
42. Guy of Vaux de Cernay, Simon of Loos, and Martin of Pairis.
43. Elizabeth A.R. Brown, "The Cistercians in the Latin Empire of Constantinople and
Greece, 1204-1276/ Traditio 14 (1958): pp. 68-69, 73-74, 77-80, deals with Abbot Peter's
crusade exploits and his subsequent adventures in the Levant.
There are, to be sure, several apparent clues that seem to indicate

our author was French. His narrative begins with the preaching of the
Cross in France, and when he lists the most important persons to vow
the crusade, he names Frenchmen first. Yet none of this supposed
evidence is compelling. Certainly his narrative begins in France; that is
where the crusade essentially began. What is interesting is that his date
for the French origins of the crusade is off by four years. Significantly,
it is one of only two seriously erroneous dates44 in a history filled with
dates and figures.
Other, I believe stronger, clues suggest that he was a Rhineland
German. Only four sources mention Abbot Martin of Pairis's
participation. Three are clearly German;45 the fourth is the DC. What
is significant about this is that apparently Dom Martin spoke only
Alsatian German and Latin and stuck very close to the German elements
of the army.46 Consequently, he was not overly visible to non-
Germans and was overlooked by all of the known French eyewitnesses.
Equally interesting is the DC's opening catalogue of important persons
who swore the Cross. Here the author identifies all but one by title and
place name. The sole exception is a German whom he simply identifies
as Count Berthold. The man was Berthold of Katzenellenbogen.47 This
strikingly different manner of treating Count Berthold suggests that
either the author did not know the count's place of origin or else he
enjoyed a certain familiarity with this noble from the Middle Rhine. The
latter seems all the more likely when we consider that not only did the
author of the DC know about Abbot Martin, who came from the Upper
Rhine, he also correctly noted in this same list of crusade leaders that
the bishop of Basle took the Cross. Luthold von Roetheln did, indeed,
swear the Cross in May of 1200, 48 but he never accompanied the main
44. The other major chronological error also involves "French" crusaders- Baldwin of
Flanders and Henry of Hainaut. See p. 120 below.
45. Gunther of Pairis, Historia Constantinopolitana, Paul Riant, ed., Exuviae sacrae
Constantinopolitanae, 2 vols. (Geneva and Paris, 1877-1878), 1:57-126 (Hereafter cited as HQ;
Otto of St. Blasien, Ad librum VII chronici Ottonis Frisingensis Episcopi continuatae historiae
appendix , M.G.H., SS., 21:331-32; Burchard of Ursberg, Chronicon, pp. 87-88.
46. Gunther of Pairis, HC, 105, 116, tells us that his abbot did not know the
commercial " romana lingua " that was used in the Levant; he was also able to communicate
with a Bohemian priest only through recourse to Latin. Throughout the pages of this
history, Abbot Martin travels and communicates almost exclusively with fellow Germans.
E.g., pp. 73, 80, 82-83.
47. Identified by Geoffrey de Villehardouin, La ConquHe de Constantinople , Edmond
Faral, ed., 2 vols., 2nd rev. ed. (Paris, 1961), 1:74, sec. 74.
48. Annales Marbacenses, M.G.H., SS., 17:170.
army of crusaders that embarked at Venice. In fact, no source places

him anywhere in the Levant during the period of the Fourth Crusade.
To the contrary, Gunther of Pairis tells us that when Abbot Martin
returned from crusade in June of 1205, the abbot visited Bishop Luthold
in Basle and presented him with a portion of his Constantinopolitan relic
booty.49 This strongly suggests that Luthold had not yet had an
opportunity to fulfill his crusade vow. In fact, it is far from certain that
he ever set out for the Holy Land. Since Luthold was clearly not a
member of the Fourth Crusade army, one assumes that the author of the
DC knew of Bishop Luthold' s vow only because of his knowledge of
Rhenish affairs.
There are also several linguistic clues. Tessier maintained that the
author's use of the appellation Stephanus de Percha, rather than Stephanus
de Pertico, for Stephen of Perche, indicated that he was not fluent in
French.50 Conversely, the author consistently refers to Henry of
Hainaut as Heinricus, rather than Henricus, thereby giving this
Francophone nobleman the German name of Heinrich. Also, when
Alexius the Younger arrives at Zara in 1203 he comes, according to the
DC, " de Alemannia ."51 The use of the term Alemannia indicates that
either the author was a Francophone (Old French Alemaigne) or, as I
prefer, he understood that Alemannia refers correctly only to the land of
Swabia, the region from which Alexius had traveled. This distinction
between Alemannia and Germania was often made by medieval German
authors with a Swabian connection, such as Otto of Freising and
Gunther of Pairis.52
Finally, the fact that the three other works that share the Marciana
codex with the DC all have southwestern German connections strongly
points to this region as the place where the collection was copied and
assembled.
When looked at in its totality, all of this evidence leads only to the
conclusion that the DC's author was German and probably hailed from
the Upper or Middle Rhine.
49. HC, 119.
50. Tessier, Quatritme croisade, p. 21.

51. Fol. 254r (Hopf, 88).
52. Otto of Freising, Gesta Friderici I. Imperatoris, 1. 8, Script, rer. Germ., 46
(1884), 20; Gunther of Pairis, Liguritius, 3, line 305, PL 212:370, and Erwin Assmann, ed.,
Gunther der Dichter, Ligurinus, 3:305, M.G.H., Script, rer. Germ., 63 (1987), 248.
Assmann, ibid., pp. 52-63, rejects the notion that Gunther, monk of Pairis, composed the
Ligurinus. I argue for Gunther of Pairis's authorship in my forthcoming study of the
Historia Constantinopolitana (note 5 above).
It is even more certain that he was not a partisan of Boniface de

Montferrat. His use of the simple title "the marquis" whenever he refers
to Boniface proves no special relationship. Boniface was the only
marquis with the crusade army and, consequently, Robert of Clari, who
certainly was not in Boniface's party, almost consistently refers to him
as simply "the marquis."53 In his letter of 1203 to Henry of Louvain,
Count Hugh of St. Pol also used this same piece of aristocratic
shorthand whenever referring to Boniface,54 and even Gunther of
Pairis, who never met or even saw the marquis, felt free to employ this
unadorned title.55 None of these authors had any fear that a reader
would not know who the marquis was. One also has to agree with
Kandel that, far from highlighting Boniface's deeds, the author simply
deals with the marquis in the most general manner and accords him no
more than the minimal recognition due the leader of the host.
Likewise, there is no good reason to see the DC's author as a client
of Count Baldwin of Flanders or his brother Henry. First of all, the DC
presents two glaring and, for it, rare misstatements concerning these
sibling crusaders. In the opening lines of his history this anonymous
Rhenish German states that both men assumed the Cross in 1202-an
error of two years56~and he confusedly notes that Baldwin, the
brother of the count of Flanders, died on Corfu.57 Both could, of
course, be transcriptional errors, but such a facile explanation is
unsatisfactory.58 In the second place, despite Kandel's arguments, I
fail to see where Baldwin of Flanders receives any special recognition in
this account, beyond what would be accorded one of the crusade's
leaders and the future Latin emperor of Constantinople. So far as Henry
53. Robert of Clari, La Conquite de Constantinople, Philippe Lauer, ed., (Paris, 1956),
passim. E.g., pp. 5-6, sec. 4.
54. Hugh of St. Pol, Epistola, Rec. hist. Gaules, 18:517-19.
55. HC, 103.
56. Fol. 253r (Hopf, 86). Villehardouin, Conquite, 1:10, sec. 8, informs us that Baldwin
and Henry swore the Cross on Ash Wednesday (23 February), 1200.
57. Fol. 254r (Hopf, 88). It is highly unlikely that Count Baldwin had a brother also
named Baldwin. We know of only three of his brothers, Henry, Eustace, and Philip, and
all three survived him. Philip remained in Flanders as regent and did not die until 1212;
Henry succeeded Baldwin as Latin emperor of Constantinople in 1206, and Eustace,
probably his half-brother, appears as late as 1207 in the battle lists against Ioannitsa and
Theodore Lascaris (Villehardouin, Conquite, 2:306, sec. 493, and passim).
58. One could choose to see the phrase "Balduwinus, frater comitis Flandrie, ibi
defunctus est" as an interpolation by a later editor, since it does make the sentence
ungraceful. However, the DC's author was not a polished stylist, and this awkward
sentence is consistent with the general quality of his prose.
is concerned, the DC does mention his going off to Adrianople with

Alexius IV and it, alone of all the sources, provides the motive for his
abandoning that campaign.59 It also mentions Henry's singular victory
over Mourtzouphlus, in which Henry captured an imperial crown, lance,
and icon of the Virgin.60 However, the DCs reporting of both of these
incidents is matter of fact and in no way does the author paint Henry
as an heroic figure. What is more, we would really have to wonder if
either of these incidents were left out of this account. The story of
Henry's campaign with Alexius and his early return to Constantinople
is, as we shall see, an integral part of the DCs structure. Henry's
victory of early February 1204 over Mourtzouphlus was such an
extraordinary event-defeating an ambush, routing a numerically
superior enemy, and capturing the imperialia- that a significant number
of other Latin writers celebrated it, and several who did so, notably
Alberic of Trois-Fontaines and Robert of Clari, went into far greater
detail than the DC. Were the author a partisan of Henry, we should
expect him to tell us about Henry's brave deeds in the July and April
assaults on Constantinople. In July of 1203 Henry consecutively
commanded two assault battalions, which performed crucial tasks;
in 1204 he was again in the thick of the fighting and commanded a key
element besieging the Blachernae Palace. Of all of this we read not
a word in the DC. In fact, as far as the author is concerned, in the
assault of 17 July 1203 it was the Venetians who played the key role,
and it is they who figure most prominently in his account of that battle.
If the author of the DC does not tell us all that much about Boniface,
Baldwin, and Henry, it is because he was far removed from them and
their councils. Consequently, he provides no meaningful details of the
crusade's three major treaties: the Crusader-Venetian pact, the treaty of
59. Fol. 254v (Hopf, 90): "Since, however, the emperor failed to pay what he had
promised Lord Henry, Henry immediately left him, returned to the army, and brought
back with him many of its knights and foot soldiers."
60. Fol. 255r (Hopf, 91). Villehardouin, Conquite, 2:28, sec. 228, states that
Mourtzouphlus lost the imperial standard and an icon of Our Lady. Gari, Conquite, 66-67,
sec. 66, lists Mourtzouphlus's losses as the icon, the imperial capel, which can mean either
helmet or crown, and his standard. Ralph of Coggeshall, Chronicon Anglicanum, Joseph
Stevenson, ed., (London, 1875), 149, notes that the imperialia which Morkulfus (sic) lost
consisted of a golden shield and the golden icon of Mary. Alberic of Trois-Fontaines,
Chronica , M.G.H., SS., 23:883, mentions only the icon. For Baldwin of Flanders's account,
see below.
61. Villehardouin, Conquite , 1:148, 172, 178-180, sees. 148, 170, 177; Clari, Conquite , 46-
50, sees. 45-48.
62. Villehardouin, Conquite , 2:48, 52, sees. 245, 250.
Zara, and the pact of 1204. This omission is especially significant in a

work preoccupied with contracts. Had he been Henry's secretary or
notary he undoubtedly would have provided his readers with suitable
details of these three treaties.
The author seems equally removed from other documentary sources
for the Fourth Crusade. Despite Kandel's and Arthur's best efforts, I fail
to see any striking parallels between the DC and the crusader letters of
1203 and 1204. The few parallels in subject matter and sequence that
exist are of the broadest sort, and they can be ascribed totally to the fact
that these accounts deal essentially with the same series of events. Even
then there are some significant differences. Consider Henry's capture of
the imperialia and the death of Alexius IV. The DC informs us that
Mourtzouphlus, with 15,000 soldiers, laid an ambush for Henry, who
was triumphantly returning from pillaging Philia. In the ensuing
skirmish the emperor was wounded, lost his horse, crown, lance and a
sacred icon, and escaped only by hiding in bushes. Upon his return to
the city that night, Mourtzouphlus hauled Alexius IV out of prison and
strangled him. 3 Baldwin's letter of 1204 gives a different story. At
some indeterminate time the emperor, leading as many as 1,000 troops,
attacked an unnamed group of crusaders who had gone far afield to
plunder food. At first contact the Greeks were routed and
Mourtzouphlus fled, tossing away his shield and arms, the imperial
standard, and a revered icon. Following this battle there are additional
skirmishes on both water and land until finally Mourtzouphlus holds an
unsuccessful peace parlay with Doge Dandolo in an attempt to persuade
the crusaders to leave. On the night following this aborted peace talk
Mourtzouphlus kills Alexius by strangling and bludgeoning him.64 As
one can see, these two accounts have virtually nothing in common.
One item which the DC does resemble is a single entry account book.
As Arthur has noted:
Perhaps the DC can be best described as a barren record of the

crusade, a record that presents essential information
unadulterated by interesting but inconsequential trivia. If looked
upon in this fashion, it can be compared to an accountant's
ledger, and indeed, if one gives close attention to the author's
preoccupation with numbers, statistics, prices, payments and
losses, the comparison becomes even more real. Throughout the
63. Fol. 255r (Hopf, 91-92).

64. Baldwin of Flanders, "Epistola," Oorkonden, 2:596-598.
account the author keeps track of the dwindling numbers of

crusaders, whether for reason of death, casualties, official leaves
or desertion. From his initial estimate at Venice through his
consistent citing of losses, the author also keeps a close record of
the number of ships in the fleet. He supplies us with a count of
the war machines. He observes transfers of important positions
or large sums of money. The author remarks on a variety of
transactions which involve the pledging of security, tribute, or
payment, and he consistently takes account of pledges of loyalty,
terms of capitulation and recipients of surrender motions.
The DC is a short work- five pages in manuscript-but among the

wealth of factual data contained therein are at least eight major
compacts and several lesser accords, and each of the major contracts is
entered into at a significant developmental moment in the story. Indeed,
individually and collectively they frame the action and define the
direction of the crusade's development. First there is the taking of the
crusade vow, and when several crusade leaders, most notably Fulk of
Neuilly and the count of Champagne, die before ever leaving Europe,
their vows or covenants are taken up by surrogates. A countercrusade
compact follows on the heels of this when the Lombard cities enter into
an agreement to hurry the pilgrims out of Lombardy.66 After
experiencing difficulties in Venice, the crusaders finally seem to be back
on track when two necessary accords are reached. The barons swear
allegiance to the marquis, and they also agree to remain dependent
upon the Venetians for a full year. Next come the treaty with Alexius at
Zara and the countercompact made by dissident elements in the army
who swear they will never go to Constantinople. As the army sails to
Constantinople, Alexius receives pledges of loyalty from Greeks along
the route. After capturing Constantinople for Alexius (18 July 1203), the
army receives both his oaths of help and security for those promises.
Thereafter, wishing to pursue the former emperor, the new emperor
reaches an understanding with certain elements of the army to help him
in this venture. His expedition is successful, at least to the point that he
receives pledges of homage from all of Greece. Lord Henry of Hainaut
and Alexius have a falling out, however, when the emperor fails to pay
what he had promised. Consequently Henry and a majority of the
65. Arthur, Destruction , pp. 12-13.
66. Of course, the Lombards did not see themselves as countercrusaders. They
simply, and prudently, wished to hurry along a foreign army. Thematically, however, this
policy becomes, for the DC, the first in a series of countercrusade actions.
crusaders campaigning with Alexius return to Constantinople early.

Eventually, of course, Alexius IV and the pilgrim army have a total
falling out and war ensues. The result is conquest of the city (13 April
1204), whereupon the Greeks fall at the feet of the marquis,
surrendering themselves into his hands. Following that, the army elects
Baldwin as emperor, thereby tacitly establishing a new contract. With
the crown of empire in Frankish hands, the Venetians seek to establish
their right to control the patriarchate, but this is voided when the
pilgrim clergy reserves the right of appointment to Hagia Sophia to the
papacy.
As already noted, the DC surrounds, illuminates, and enriches its
account of these various accords with a good deal of numerical detail.
As far as we can determine, its facts, figures, and dates are generally
reliable but not invariably so. We have already seen how the DC
seriously misdates earliest French interest in the crusade. Its author also
misplaces Holy Week of 1204 by a whole week. Although he correctly
notes that the Latins unsuccessfully assaulted the harbor walls of
Constantinople on 9 April (Idus Aprilis V), he errs in stating that this
was the Friday before the Lord's Passion.67 Good Friday fell on 23
April, not the sixteenth. This minor error is another indication that he
was working from notes and writing sufficiently long after the events to
be a bit confused about when Easter fell in 1204. Other minor factual
errors suggest the degree to which the DCs author was removed from
the councils of the crusade's leadership. His account of the legation
which Philip of Swabia sent to the army at Zara reveals his ignorance of
Alexius the Younger's earlier contacts with certain crusade leaders.68
Also other, more reliable sources make it clear that the crusaders did not
discover Emperor Isaac shackled in a prison within the Blachernae
Palace when they entered Constantinople in July of 1203. 69
Furthermore, Baldwin's estimate of 1000 soldiers lying in ambush for
67. Fol. 255r (Hopf, 92): In sexta feria ante passionem Domini, quae fuit Idus Aprilis
V°, naves producunt ad muros.
68. Fol. 254r (Hopf, 88). This is the initial mention of Alexius the Younger in the DC,
and the implication is that this overture was unexpected. Actually, Prince Alexius had
already met Boniface de Montferrat at Philip of Swabia's court at Hagenau in late 1201,
and in August of 1202 Alexius contacted a number of crusaders in Verona: Jaroslav Folda,
"The Fourth Crusade, 1201-1204: Some Reconsiderations," Byzantinoslavica 26 (1965): pp.
277-290. The basic source for these negotiations is Villehardouin, CotiquHe, 1:70-74, sees.
70-72.
69. Fol. 254r (Hopf, 89). Niketas Choniates, Historia, Jan-Louis van Dieten, ed., (Berlin,
1975), pp. 550-551, and Villehardouin, ConquHe, 1:184, sec. 182, make it clear that Isaac II
was already back on the imperial throne when the crusaders entered the city.
Henry seems a lot closer to the truth than the DC's 15,000, and some
have questioned the DCs estimate that the level of mortality among the
crusaders awaiting passage in Venice was so great that "the dead could
barely be buried by the living/'70 While this last item may be a case
of exaggeration, as a rule of thumb we can say that if the Devastatio' s
author witnessed or directly participated in an event, his reporting of it
contains facts and figures that have a high degree of reliability. The
more he depends on camp rumor, the less dependable his information.
This person from the ranks was, in all likelihood, a secular cleric and
probably a low-level ecclesiastical administrator. Certainly his use of the
ecclesiastical calendar and his reference to two Introit antiphons strongly
suggest a clerical background, and the fact that he lists churchmen first
in his catalogues of the French and German crusade leaders hints at a
clerical mind-set. However, anyone who sees him as a cleric must
address several vexing points raised by Tessier and Arthur. It is true
that our author employs a tone of detachment when dealing with the
dispute between the pilgrim clergy and the Venetians over the
patriarchate of Hagia Sophia. It is equally true that the supernatural
plays no role in this entire history. Moreover, the author never directly
mentions the schism that separated the Latin and Greek Churches
nor does he tell his readers of Alexius IV' s promise to return the Greeks
to Roman obedience-a curious but not unique oversight by a clerical
witness to the Fourth Crusade.72
These objections become far less telling when we perceive that the
author essentially adopted the Epistle of St. James, 2:5-7, as the thematic
70. Fol. 253v (Hopf, 87): inter quos adhuc crevit mortalitas mirabilis, ita ut a vivis vix
possent mortui sepeliri. For criticism, see Queller, Fourth Crusade , p. 48. Of course this is
a literary topos, but to dismiss this as evidence simply on that basis is to overlook the fact
that, until the twentieth century, disease was the greatest killer of soldiers.
71. However, after reporting Henry of Hainaufs abandonment of Alexius IV's
campaign in northern Greece, the author writes: "The marquis, along with a few
Christians [i.e., Latin crusaders], remained with the emperor." Possibly this strange turn
of phrase reflects a belief that the Greeks were not fully Christians, insofar as they were
schismatics.
72. Cf. Gunther of Pairis, HC, 78, 85, and Gesta episcoporum Halberstadensium, M.G.H.,
SS., 23:118, which mention the schism. However, the Anonymous of Soissons's De terra
Iherosolimitana et quomodo ab urbe Constantinopolitana ad hanc ecclesiam allate sunt reliquie, A.J.
Andrea, ed., in Historical ReflectionsIRtflexions Historiques 18 (1992): pp. 147-175 and Riant,
Exuviae, 1:3-9, which is based on the exploits of Nevelon of Chfcrisy, bishop of Soissons,
does not mention the schism, even though it belongs to the genre of relic translation
literature.
text around which he centered his history. As any reasonably well-

educated medieval cleric would know, this passage proclaims:
Did not God choose those who are poor in the eyes of the world
to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom he promised to those
who love him? Yet you treated the poor man shamefully. Are not
the rich exploiting you? They are the ones who hale you into the
courts and who blaspheme that noble name which has made you
God's own.73
In short, this cleric identified with the crusade's poorer elements- the
pauperes Christi-and he told his story from their perspective. Even as he
counted material losses and gains, his ultimate interest was the progress
of the pilgrimage undertaken by those who were "poor in the eyes of
the world."
This author has, as we have seen, been accused of being anti-
Venetian.74 If we examine the DC closely, we see that his rancor was
directed not so much against the Venetians as against all the rich and
mighty, Venetians, French nobility, and even avaricious clerics alike.
Contracts abound in this account and give it structure, but as we look
more deeply we see that the two core contracts, the crusade vow and
the implied compact between the pilgrim rank and file and their leaders,
are consistently violated, and in the end there is no proper balancing of
accounts. Therefore, the thematic argument of the DC is that the Fourth
Crusade was a series of broken promises, not only by Alexius IV but
also by the rich and powerful, and in the end both the crusade and the
poor of Christ were sold out.
Throughout the DC we see the wealth and success of the crusade's
leaders contrasted with the poverty and miseries of the commons. When
the count of Champagne dies, the marquis accepts his pilgrimage funds
and swears to carry out the count's intentions. Upon Master Fulk's
death, the "innumerable wealth" which Fulk had raised, "to pay for the
work of this holy army," passes into the receivership of two French
lords.75 Somehow, however, despite this reservoir of funds, the poor
suffer in the course of the crusade.
73. Translation according to The New American Bible (New York, 1970).
74. Note 40 above.
75. Fol. 253v (Hopf, 86-87): Cuius infinitam pecuniam domnus Odo Campaniensis et
ca stella nus de Colcith acceperunt...in opus huius sacri exercitus expendendum.
Their troubles begin in Italy. The Lombards hurry them along from
city to city, refusing to sell them provisions or to allow them to tarry
more than a night. The Venetians also refuse the pilgrims the hospitality
of their houses and force them to camp in tents on the Isle of St.
Nicholas. Here the Venetians inexplicably and quite arbitrarily hold the
pilgrims captive for four months while charging them an exorbitant price
for food. Such treatment drives the majority of the army to leave Venice,
seeking passage from other ports. Those who elect to remain in Venice
suffer an inordinately high mortality rate. Their misery is relieved when
Cardinal Peter arrives in Venice. He lifts their morale by his preaching
and dispenses the sick, the very poor, women, and similar unsuitable
pilgrims from their crusade vows. Having done this, he returns to
Rome, and once again the rank and file are in the control of the rich and
powerful. The marquis arrives and is confirmed as the army's leader.
The barons swear allegiance to him, and he and those same barons
swear to remain with the Venetians for a year, and again the
commoners' troubles begin.
The Venetians and the army finally set sail, and on their way to Zara
the Venetians force all of Istria, Dalmatia, and Slavonia to acknowledge
their overlordship and to pay tribute. Finally the host arrives at Zara
where, the DC pointedly notes, "their oath came to naught."76 The
phrase was unambiguous in its thirteenth-century context: the crusade
vow was violated by an enterprise that even it could not stop. No
reason is explicitly given for the army's siege and assault on the city,
although our author clearly implies that it was an integral part of the
Venetians' program of subjugating the northern and eastern Adriatic
coasts.
The citizens eventually surrender the city and all of their possessions
to the doge, who retains half for himself and his people and gives the
other half to the pilgrims. Both factions loot the city mercilessly and
then, as often happens to thieves, they have a falling out. The result is
almost one hundred dead crusaders and Venetians. Meanwhile, the
poorer elements are neglected. In the DC's words: "The barons kept the
city's goods for themselves, giving nothing to the poor. The poor
labored mightily in poverty and hunger."7 As a result, more than
several thousand leave the army at this juncture. Once again the
leaders' avarice, this time that of the barons, has led to a significant
76. Fol. 253v (Hopf, 87): Iadram navigaverunt, in qua iuramentum periit.
77. Fol. 253v (Hopf, 88): Bona ville barones sibi retinuerunt; pauperibus nichil
dederunt. Pauperes egestate et fame maxime laboraverunt.
thinning of the crusader ranks. The debits in the account ledger of our
clerical chronicler keep mounting.
When a messenger arrives at Zara from Alexius the Younger on 1
January 1203 the marquis and barons swear allegiance to him. Upon
learning of this new compact, the lower orders swear that they will
never sail to Greece, and consequently another large segment breaks off
and heads to Hungary.
Although reduced to dire straits at both Venice and Zara, obviously
many from the ranks still stay with the army and sail to Constantinople.
Even though ultimately Alexius and the Greeks break their promises,
success follows upon success for the crusaders. Henry of Hainaut, who
had broken off campaigning with Alexius because the young emperor
did not pay what he had promised, receives his recompense with his
extraordinary victory over Mourtzouphlus. But what about the
commoners?
When Constantinople is finally won, the Greeks surrender their
possessions into the marquis's hands. The army gathers together its
spoils, filling three very large towers with silver. The pilgrim barons
secure the imperial crown for one of their own, Baldwin of Flanders. "At
the same time/' the DC informs us, "the Venetians occupied the church
of the Holy Wisdom, saying: 'the empire is yours; we shall have the
patriarchate.'"78 While the Venetians and, presumably, the upper
elements of the pilgrim clergy bicker over this rich and holy spoil, the
ranks receive their share of the loot. Consider the chronicler's words:
Meanwhile, they began to divide the common booty, and to give,

almost like certain downpayments twenty marks to each and
78. Fol. 255r (Hopf, 92): Eodem tempore Veneti occupaverunt ecclesiam beatae Sophie,
dicentes: "Imperium est vestrum; nos habebimus patriarchatum."
79. I accept HopPs argument that, in the manuscript which we possess, milia is
erroneously substituted for marcas: p. 92, n. 3. Two Old French sources provide the same
figures of 20, 10, and 5 marks: L'Estoire de Eracles Empereur et la conqueste de la Terre
d'Outremer, RHC, OCC., 2:275; Ernoul et Bernard le Tresorier, Chronique, Louis de Mas
La trie, ed., (Paris, 1871), pp. 375-376. Villehardouin, Conquite, 2:58-60, sees. 254-255, notes
that 100,000 marks was distributed among the ranks according to the ratio 4:2:1 for
knights, mounted sergeants, and infantry respectively. If we assume that the sums
distributed were in 20, 10, and 5 mark shares and that there were three clerics and
mounted sergeants and six foot soldiers for every common knight, then this would mean
that about 12,500 rank and file crusaders received this booty. This figure easily falls within
the range of most modern estimates of the crusade army's size: Queller, Fourth Crusade,
p. 177, n. 59.
every knight, ten marks to each cleric and mounted sergeant, and
five marks to each foot soldier.80
With these words the Devastatio comes to an abrupt end. It is impossible

to avoid the conclusion that the phrase "almost like certain
downpayments" (quasi quedam preludia ) is intentional sarcasm and the
whole scene is constructed to serve as an ironic anticlimax. The account
has been closed but not balanced.
If the Devastatio has any villains, it is the rich and the mighty, be
they barons or Venetians. At each crucial juncture of the crusade-
Venice, Zara, and Constantinople- the poorer elements have been
exploited by their superiors, first the Venetians, then the barons, and
finally both the Venetians and the barons, who, in the division of the
spoils, treat the rank and file with contempt as they cheat and exploit
them. And in this exploitation a crusade compact has been violated. The
poor may have inherited the earth, but the rich have taken it away from
them. What is worse, the crusade has foundered upon the rock of greed.
What we have in the DC, therefore, is a source that does not present
the 1204 capture of Constantinople as an unalloyed victory and blessing.
Very much like Robert of Clari's account,81 it reflects dissatisfaction
from the ranks at the ways in which the lower elements were cheated
by their leaders. More significantly, it displays a marked degree of
negativity toward the outcome of the crusade. As such, it expresses the
reservations and disillusionment of at least one significant element of
the all too often overlooked rank and file of the Fourth Crusade.82
80. Fol. 255r (Hopf, 92): Interea ceperunt communia dividere, et quasi quedam
preludia XX milia unicuique militi dare, clerico et servienti equiti X milia, pediti V milia.
81. Clari, ConquHe, 79-81, 95-96, sees. 81, 98, complained bitterly that the crusade
leaders kept all gold, gems, fine clothes, and houses for themselves and only divided
common silver utensils among the ranks.
82. Donald E. Queller, Thomas K. Compton, and Donald A. Campbell, "The Fourth
Crusade: The Neglected Majority," Speculum 49 (1974): pp. 441-465, merits careful study
in this regard.
253r Devastatio Constantinopolitana1
Anno ab incarnatione2 Domini M° C° Q° I domino3 Innocentio

Romane ecclesiae presidente, Phylippo et Ottone pro imperio Romano
decertantibus, magister Petrus cardinalis transalpinavit in
Burgundiam,4 Campaniam, Franciam,5 [et] Flandriam. Nomen
crucis predicavit. Cuius etiam auctoritate magister Fulco,6 vir sancte
opinionis, finitimas regiones predicando circuivit. Multi fidelium
crucem acceperunt. Inter quos hii sunt primi: episcopus
Swessionensis, episcopus Trecensis, abbas Vallensis, abbas Losensis,
et alii quinque abbates Cisterciensis ordinis; comes Campanie, comes
Sancti Pauli,7 comes de Blois,8 comes Flandrie cum duobus suis
fratribus; theutonici episcopi Basilensis [etl Halverstatensis, abbas
Parisiensis,9 comes Bertoldus, et infinitiva multitudo tam
clericorum quam laicorum et monachorum.
253v Comes Campanie cum// omnia necessaria preparasset ad eundum
defunctus est. Cuius marchio accepit pecuniam et totum apparatum
viae illius, et iuravit quod ille voverat se executurum; unde ductor
statim exercitus est electus. Comes de Percha antequam iter arriperet,
obiit. Cuius crucem dominus11 Stephanus, frater eius, accepit.
Magister etiam Fulco cum esset in procinctu, mortuus est. Cuius
infinitam pecuniam domnus Odo Campaniensis et castellanus de
Colcith acceperunt, auctoritate regis Frantiae et sapientum, in opus
huius sacri exercitus expendendam.
1. In the top margin of fol. 253r another hand has written: Coronica captionis
Constantinopolitanae.
2. incarnatione] incarnationi MS
3. domino] domno P (Pertz)
4. Burgundiam] Burgundia MS
5. Franciam] Frantiam MS H (Hopf)
6. cuius-Fulco] cuius etiam magister auctoritate Fulco MS
7. Sancti Pauli] S. Pauli H P
8. Blois] Glois MS P
9. Parisiensis] Pariensis MS P
10. infinitiva] infinita P H
11. dominus] domnus P
Hie ergo exercitus cum de diversis mundi partibus in Longobardia

colligeretur. Longobardi habito consilio12 edictum fecerunt, ne quis
peregrinum hospitaretur amplius quam per unam noctem, et ne eis
victualia venderentur, et persecuti sunt eos de civitate in civitatem.
Preceperat quoque domnus papa passagium apud Venetias fieri. Quo
cum venissent, similiter eiecti sunt de domibus civitatis, et positi sunt
in insula beati Nicolai. Ibi fixis tentoriis expectaverunt passagium a
Kal. Iunii usque ad Kal. Octobris. Sistarius frumenti L solidis
vendebatur. Quocienscumque Venetis placuit, preceperunt, ut nullus
de prefata insula extraheret aliquem peregrinorum, et quasi captivis
per omnia eis dominantur. Crevit autem timor magnus in populo.
Unde multi in patriam redierunt; multi in Apuliam ad alios portus
cucurrerunt et transfretaverunt; minima pars ibi remansit, inter quos
adhuc crevit mortalitas mirabilis, ita ut a vivis vix possent mortui
sepeliri.
In festo beate Marie Magdalene domnus Petrus cardinalis Venetias
venit, et omnes peregrinos exortatione sue predicationis mirabili
modo comfortavit.13 Infirmos, pauperes et mulieres et omnes
personas inbecilles14 in patriam cum suis litteris remisit. Hoc facto,
ipse recessit et Romam rediit. In assumptione beate Marie marchio ad
exercitum venit et ductor exercitus est confirmatus. Barones ei omnes
iuraverunt. Marchio et omnes barones Venetis iuraverunt, se in
auxilio eorum staturos per unum annum. Inter hec naves parate sunt
et onerate. Fuerunt autem naves XLa, galie LXII, oxirii centum.
Cepit autem moveri Kal. Octobris. Cum de portu exirent, Viola
navis domni Stephani de Percha periit. Veneti cum peregrinis
ascendentes mare, in Ystriam venerunt. Triestum et Muglam ad
dedicionem compulerunt; totam Ystriam, Dalmatiam, Slaviniam
tributa reddere coegerunt. Iadram navigaverunt, in qua
iuramentum15 periit. In festo beati Martini portum Iadre intraverunt.
Iadram ex omni parte tam in terra quam in aqua obsederunt.
Machinas et magnellos amplius quam CL erexerunt et scalas et turres
ligneas et infinita bellica instrumenta. Murum etiam suffoderunt. Quo
viso, Iadrenses die XV civitatem reddiderunt, ita ut solis personis
salvis omnia sua ponerent in proprietate ducis Venetorum. Dux
12. habito consilio] omitted P

13. comfortavit] confortavit P H
14. inbecilles] imbecilles H
15. iuramentum] iumentum P
medietatem ville sibi et suis retinuit. Aliam medietatem dedit
peregrinis. Villam sine misericordia spoliaverunt.
Tercio die postquam Iadra intrata est, orta est seditio inter Venetos
et peregrinos. In qua seditione fere C homines occisi sunt. Bona ville
barones sibi retinuerunt; pauperibus nichil dederunt. Pauperes
egestate et fame maxime laboraverunt. Unde cum multum super
barones clamarent, impetraverunt naves, que ipsos in Anchonam
deferrent, et per licentiam mille discesserunt, praeter licentiam
quoque amplius quam mille (Fuit enim edictum, ne quis de exercitu
254r extrahere aliquem auderet). Ex oxoriis autem que istos// portabant,
duo perierunt. Exercitus apud Iadram hiemavit. Veneti muros et
domos civitatis ita funditus eiecerunt, ut16 una [rupes] super
alteram non remaneret. Cum naves essent in portu Iadre, tres ex
navigibus magnis perierunt.
In circumcisione venit nuntius regis Fhylippi cum litteris eius,
rogans marchionem et barones, ut sororium suum Alexim
imperatorem in negotio suo adiuvarent. Marchio cum omnibus
baronibus illi17 iuravit. Quod cum populus cognovisset, se videlicet
in Greciam iturum, convenerunt, et facta conspiratione iuraverunt, se
nunquam illuc ituros. Unde abbas Vallensis et domnus Symon de
Monteforti et Engelrant de Boves recesserunt cum magna multitudine
militum et aliorum, et venientes in Ungariam, a rege honorifice sunt
suscepti. In palmis Rainaldus18 de Monmiral19 in legatione in
Syriam missus est. Dominica secunda post pascha naves a Iadra
ceperunt exire. Eodem20 tempore venit Alexis imperator de
Alemannia. Omnes ville, civitates et castella de Arraguso usque
Corphu eum in pace receperunt. Apud Corphu congregatus est
exercitus. In pentecosten a Corphu recessit-Balduwinus, frater
comitis Flandrie, ibi defunctus est~et feliciter Constantinopolim venit,
et omnes insule per viam illi servierunt.
In Kal. Iulii naves Constantinopolim venerunt et vi applicuerunt,
imperatore cum toto suo exercitu contradicente. Imperator cum suis
fugit in civitatem; nos civitatem obsedimus. In octava apostolorum
Petri et Pauli castrum quod erat in portu ex opposito civitatis vi
16. ut] H reads ita ut in the MS and "corrects" it to ut. Actually, ita is crossed out in
the MS.
17. illi] ilia P

18. Rainaldus] Kaitialdus MS P
19. Monmiral] Monmirol P
20. eodem] et ex eodem H
cepimus, et vix aliquis eorum qui erant in castro aufugit. Peregrini ex

parte terrae civitatem obsederunt; Greci multociens cum21 eis sunt
congressi, et ex utraque parte multi ceciderunt interfecti. Interim
Veneti ex parte maris civitatem infestaverunt per machinas et
magnellos et balistas et arcus. In hac acie etiam mortui sunt multi,
tam Venetum quam Grecorum. Tunc Veneti scalas mirabiles in
navibus suis erexerunt, in qualibet navi unam, et applicantes naves
ad murum, per easdem scalas intraverunt. Grecos fugaverunt et
ignem miserunt, et magnam partem civitatis combusserunt et
spoliaverunt, et sic totum diem ilium expenderunt. Veniente nocte,
imperator collectis omnibus quos potuit habere, furtim fugit. Die
autem sequenti Greci se et civitatem reddiderunt in manus
peregrinorum. Peregrini portis apertis intraverunt, et venientes in
pallatium regium quod dicitur Blachernum,22 Cursac23 in vinculis
et carcere invenerunt, quem exoculatum frater ipsius ibi posuerat.
Cursac24 liberaverunt, et filio eius Alexi puero coronam
imposuerunt. Pro hoc magno beneficio Alexis iuravit quod per unum
annum totum pasceret exercitum, tam Venetos quam peregrinos.
Iuravit etiam quod, si apud Constantinopolim secum hiemare vellent,
ipse in proximo Martio venturo cum ipsis pergeret, accepta cruce cum
omnibus que habere posset. De his omnibus premissis obsides dedit.
Ita facta est concordia inter Grecos et Latinos.
Contigit autem in octava beate assumptionis Marie, quod orta est
rixa inter Grecos et Latinos. Ex utraque parte convolaverunt ad arma.
Crevit multitudo Grecorum; Latini cesserunt, et cum se aliter
defendere non possent, ignem apposuerunt. Hoc viso, multi de
exercitu advenerunt in auxilium Latinorum, et ignem
multiplicaverunt, et fere mediam partem civitatis destruxerunt et
spoliaverunt. Barones exercitus partes suas interposuerunt, et iterum
254v pacem fecerunt. Nullus tamen qui de Romano imperio// esset, infra
civitatem remaneret,25 nec etiam illi qui omnibus diebus vite sue ibi
habitaverant. Et factus est ex omnibus unus exercitus.
Interea Alexis novus imperator cogitavit persequi patruum suum,
quem ipse iam fugaverat de civitate, et magnum exercitum de Grecis
congregavit. Multa etiam dedit donativa et soldos, tam militibus
21. cum] eum P

22. Blachernum] Plachernum MS P H
23. Cursac] Lursac MS P
24. Cursac] Lursac MS P
25. remaneret] remanere MS
quam peditibus nostri exercitus, ut cum eo venirent. Ipse quoque

marchio ivit cum eo et domnus Heinricus, frater comitis Flandrie.
Itaque venerunt Andropolim. Cum autem imperator male persolvisset
quod promiserat domno Heinrico, ipse statim relicto eo rediit ad
exercitum, et reduxit secum multos tam militum quam peditum.
Marchio remansit cum paucis Christianis cum imperatore. Itaque
imperator, cum Grecis suis et cum eisdem Latinis qui cum imperatore
remanserant, totam Greciam26 perambulavit, et ab omnibus Grecis
universaliter est receptus et approbatus, et omnes primi Graciae
hominium ei fecerunt. Demum cum toto suo exercitu imperator
Constantinopolim revertitur, et cum maximo honore suscipitur, et que
promiserat peregrinis et Venetis cepit persolvere, tam in victualibus
quam in auro et argento.
Accidit autem secunda feria post "Ad te levavi" quod Greci iterum
contra Latinos in seditionem versi sunt infra Constantinopolim.
Concurrunt Greci. Faciunt insultum in Latinos; modo fugant, modo
fugiunt. Barones exercitus Latini de hoc malo contristantur.
Prohibent, ne quis ad auxilium illorum transeat, qui tam temere
contra Grecos arma moverant. Crevit itaque multitudo Grecorum;
Latinos opprimunt. Captos sine misericordia occidunt; occisos igne
comburunt. Nec etati nec sexui parcunt. Ex hoc facti Greci animati
Latinos iterum provocant; cum naviculis et barculis suis naves eorum
impetunt. Quod peregrini et Veneti moleste ferentes, galias et
barcas28 armant; Grecos impetunt. Greci fugiunt. Latini usque ad
murum civitatis Grecos persecuntur. Multos occidunt; multas naves
Grecorum in portu accipiunt multis mercibus oneratas et victualibus.
In die beati Iohannis Ewangelistae iterum peregrini et Veneti29
galias armant et barcas, et die iam lucescente sunt in portu apud
Constantinopolim, et multas iterum naves capiunt. Multi iterum hinc
inde occiduntur. In die circumcisionis Domini in primo sompno Greci
XV naves de suis congregant, et illas lignis conscisis, pice et oleo
impleverunt, et sic ignem apponunt,30 et sic ardentes usque ad
naves Venetorum dirigunt, ut eas sic igne comburerent. Una tantum
navis arsit. Sequenti die post epiphaniam Greci in equis exeunt de
civitate. Marchio cum paucis illis occurrit. Multi ex Grecis occisi sunt,
26. Greciam] Gretiam MS P

27. demum] H changes this to deinde.
28. barcas] batcas MS
29. et Veneti] omitted P
30. apponunt] apponentes H
et quidam ditissimi capti. Duo milites et unus scutifer ex parte

marchionis cadunt. Toto etiam tempore huius gwerrae, Veneti cum
peregrinis utramque ripam Brachii perambulant cum galiis et barcis,
et infinitas reducunt predas. Multa edificia ex utraque parte31 igne
destruunt. Finitima loca in circuitu usque ad duas dietas peregrini
circuierunt. Predas multas accipiunt; homines capiunt; armenta et
greges et omnia quae invenire possunt, secum portant, et multa
dampna Grecis faciunt.
Hoc videntes Greci, se scilicet et terram destrui suam,
imperatorem suum capiunt et in carcerem retrudunt, et Morsoflum
huius proditionis magne auctorem sibi preficiunt et regem constituunt
in palacio32 Blacherni. Interea pleps communis33 et vulgus de Sancta
255r Sophia alium sibi regem eligunt// Nicolaum congnomine34
Macellarium. Hunc Morsoflus congregatis totis viribus suis in ecclesia
beate Sophie [obsedit],35 et tandem cepit et decollavit, et solus
regnare cepit.
Interea etiam domnus Heinricus, frater comitis, cum multis tam
equitibus quam peditibus ad castrum quoddam quod Filea dicitur
perrexit, et illud cepit, et maximam inde predam reduxit, tam in
hominibus quam in aliis rebus. Cum autem reverteretur, predictus
Morsoflus cum XV milibus illi insidias posuerat, et congressus
pugnavit cum illo, et victus est, et plurimi Greci occisi sunt; et ipse
Morsoflus vulneratus est, et vix aufugit, et latuit inter spinas, et
perdidit equum et omnia imperialia, coronam scilicet et lanceam et
quandam ymaginem gloriose Virginis, que semper36 solebat reges
precedere in bello, tota de auro et lapidibus preciosis. Cum hac
victoria rediit domnus Heinricus ad exercitum. Morsoflus quoque de
nocte reversus est in civitatem, et extrahens Alexium imperatorem de
carcere, laqueo strangulavit.
Interea exercitus preparatur ad inpugnandam civitatem, et omnes
se et sua37 omnia receperunt in naves, ut navibus invaderent
civitatem. In sexta feria ante passionem Domini, quae fuit Idus Aprilis
31. ex utraque parte] parte ex utraque MS

32. palacio] palatio P
33. communis] comunis P H
34. congnomine] cognomine P H
35. obsedit] omitted MS, added P and H
36. semper] omitted P
37. sua] omitted P
V°, naves producunt ad muros,38 et assultum faciunt, et multi tam

ex nostris quam ex Grecis occisi sunt. Quia vero ventus erat nobis39
contrarius, qui nos a muris repellebat, retro abeuntes portum in quo
antea fuimus intravimus, et adventum boree expectavimus. Flare cepit
boreas pridie Idus Aprilis; nos iterum naves ad muros applicavimus et
cum Grecis dimicavimus et a muris eos repulimus, et intravimus
civitatem, et facta est maxima cedes Grecorum. Qui cum importune
nobis instarent, ignem misimus, et per ignem eos repulimus a nobis.
Veniente nocte Morsoflus fugit cum paucis.
Sequenti die Greci omnes ceciderunt ante pedes marchionis, et se
et sua omnia in manus eius reddiderunt. Tunc hospicia accepimus, et
Greci a civitate fugerunt. Omnia spolia et lucra nostra in commune
portavimus, et maximas tres turres argento implevimus. Tunc tractari
cepit de imperatore constituendo. Constituti sunt vi ex parte nostra,
et VI ex parte Venetorum, quibus data est potestas eligendi
imperatorem. Isti convenientes in octava pasche, coram omni
multitudine nostra et Venetorum eligunt et nominant imperatorem
Balduwinum, comitem Flandrie, qui ab exercitu approbatus est, et
proxima dominica sequente, qua canitur "Iubilate," est coronatus.
Eodem tempore Veneti occupaverunt ecclesiam beatae Sophie,
dicentes: "Imperium est vestrum; nos habebimus patriarchatum."
Factum est scisma inter clerum nostrum et Venetos; clerus noster
appellavit, et preordinationem ecclesie beate Sophie domno pape
reservavit. Interea ceperunt communia dividere, et quasi quedam
preludia XX marcas unicuiaue militi dare, clerico et servienti equiti
X marcas,41 pediti V marcas.
Anno ab incarnatione verbi M°CC°X°V. Celebrata est sancta et
universalis synodus Rome in ecclesia Salvatoris que Constantiniana
vocatur, mense Novembri, presidente domno Innocencio43 HI0
papa, pontificatus eius octavodecimo anno. In qua fuerunt episcopi
CCCCXH. Inter quos exstiterunt de precipuis patriarchis44 duo,
videlicet Constantinopolitanus et Ierosolimitanus. Antiocenus autem
38. quae-muros] quae fuit Idus Aprilis, quinque naves producunt ad muros P
39. erat nobis] nobis erat P H
40. marcas] milia MS P, m[arcas] H; HopPs argument, which I accept, is that the
original MS abbreviated marcas as M, which a later scribe misread as milia.
41. See above.
42. See above.
43. Innocencio] Innocentio P

44. patriarchis] pariarchis MS
gravi languore detentus venire non potuit, sed misit pro se vicarium
Anderanum episcopum. Alexandrinus vero sub Sarracenorum
dominio constitutes, fecit quod potuit, mittens pro se diaconum
germanum suum. Primates autem et metropolitanni45 LXXI.
255v Ceteri // abbates et priores ultra octingentos. Archiepiscoporum
vero, episcoporum, abbatum, priorum, et capitulorum absencium non
fuit certus numerus. Legatorum vero regis Sicilie in Romanorum
imperatorem electi, imperatoris Constantinopolitani, regis Frande,
regis Anglie, regis Ungarie, regis Ierosolimitani, regis Cypri, regis
Aragonie, necnon et aliorum principum et magnatum, civitatum etiam
aliorumque locorum ignes affuit multitudo.
45. metropolitanni] metropolitani P
The Devastation of Constantinople1
In the year of the Lord's Incarnation, 1202, when Lord Innocent2

was presiding over the Roman Church and Philip3 and Otto4 were
competing for the Roman empire,5 a cardinal, Master Peter,6 crossed
the Alps into Burgundy, Champagne, the lie de France, and Flanders
and preached the cause of the Cross. By his authority as well, Master
Fulk, a man of holy reputation, traveled about the neighboring regions
preaching. Many of the faithful accepted the Cross, among whom the
following are of primary importance: the bishop of Soissons,8 the
bishop of Troyes, the abbot of Vaux,10 the abbot of Loos,11 and five
other abbots of the Cistercian order,12 the count of Champagne,13
1. The following translation is the product of the collaborative efforts of Alfred J.

Andrea, Cynthia R. Arthur, and Gerald Day. Explanatory notes have been kept to a
minimum. For a coherent account of the events reported and even misreported by the DC,
see Queller, Fourth Crusade.
2. Innocent HI (r. 1198-1216): Alfred J. Andrea, "Pope Innocent III as Crusader and
Canonist: His Relations with the Greeks of Constantinople, 1198-1216" (Ph.D. diss.,
Cornell University, 1969), 2 vols.; Helmut Roscher, Papst Innocenz III. und die Kreuzzuge
(Gdttingen, 1969).
3. Philip of Swabia (1176-1208, r. 1207-1208) of the house of Hohenstaufen, son of
Emperor Frederick I (Barbarossa) and brother of Emperor Henry VI.
4. Otto IV (r. 1208-1214, d. 1218) of the house of Welf.
5. A struggle that spanned the period 1198-1207.
6. Peter Capuano, cardinal priest of San Marcello.
7. Fulk of Neuilly: M.R. Gutsch, "A Twelfth-Century Preacher-Fulk of Neuilly," in The
Crusades and Other Historical Essays Presented to Dana C. Munro, Louis Paetow, ed., (New
York, 1928), pp. 183-206; Edgar H. McNeal, "Fulk of Neuilly and the Tournament of Eery,"
Speculum 28 (1953): pp. 371-375; John M. O'Brien, "Fulk of Neuilly," Proceedings of the Leeds
Philosophical and Literary Society 13 (1969): pp. 109-148.
8. Nevelon de Chdrisy (r. 1176-1207): see Andrea and Rachlin, "Holy War," passim.
9. Gamier (r. 1193-1205).
10. Guy of Vaux-de-Cernay, a Cistercian abbey in the diocese of Paris.
11. Simon of Loos, a Cistercian abbey in the diocese of Tournai.
12. Only six Cistercian abbots embarked on the crusade. In addition to Guy, Simon,
and Abbot Martin of Pairis, who is mentioned below, they included Adam of Perseigne,
Peter of Locedio, and the abbot of Cercanceaux, whose name is unknown: Andrea,
"Historia Constantinopolitana," pp. 271-276; idem, "Adam of Perseigne and the Fourth
the count of Saint Pol,14 the count of Blois,15 the count of

Flanders,16 along with two of his brothers,17 the German bishops of
Basle18 and Halberstadt,19 the abbot of Pairis,20 Count Berthold,21
and a countless multitude of clerics, laity, and monks.
Just when the count of Champagne had completed all necessary
preparations for departure, he died.22 The marquis23 accepted the
count's money and all his equipment for the journey and swore he
would fulfill the counts vow. For that reason the marquis was
straightway elected leader of the army. The count of Perche died before
beginning his journey.24 His brother Lord Stephen accepted his Cross.
Also Master Fulk, when ready for battle, died.25 Lord Odo of
Champlitte and the castellan of Coucy received, by authority of the king
of France26 and his wise counsellors, Fulk's innumerable wealth to pay
for the work of this holy army.27
Crusade/' Ctteaux: Commentarii Cistercienses 36 (1985): pp. 21-37.

13. Thibaut III (r. 1197-1201): Ellen E. Kittell, "Was Thibaut of Champagne the Leader
of the Fourth Crusade?" Byzantion 51 (1981): pp. 557-565.
14. Hugh (1174-1205): Adam J. Gurien, "The Fourth Crusade Through the Eyes of
Hugh, Count of Saint Pol: Translation and Analysis of His Letter to A Fellow Warrior in
1203" (B. A. honors thesis, University of Vermont, 1987).
15. Louis (d. 1205).
16. Baldwin IX of Flanders and Baldwin IV of Hainaut (1172-1205): Robert Lee Wolff,
"Baldwin of Flanders and Hainaut, First Latin Emperor of Constantinople: His Life, Death
and Resurrection, 1172-1225," Speculum 27 (1952): pp. 281-322.
17. Henry and Eustace.
18. Luthold von Rdtheln (r. 1190-1213).
19. Conrad von Krosigk (r. 1201-1208): Andrea, "Conrad," pp. 11-91.
20. Martin, abbot of the Cistercian monastery of Pairis located in Alsace's Vosges
Mountains: Gunther of Pairis, HC, passim.
21. Berthold, count of Katzenellenbogen.
22. 24 May 1201.
23. Boniface I, marquis of Montferrat (r. 1192-1207).
24. Geoffrey of Perche died in April 1202.
25. May 1202.
26. Philip II (r. 1180-1223).
27. Ernoul, Chronique, 338 gives another story. Following Fulk's death, the wealth he
had collected for the Holy Land and crusade was entrusted to the Cistercians and was
transported to the East by monks from Citeaux. There it was used to repair the walls of
Tyre, Beirut, and Acre. Ernoul's version is preferable for several reasons: a severe
earthquake had recently hit that area of the Holy Land; at this period in the history of the
The Devastation of Constantinople 141
As this army, drawn from the diverse regions of the world, was
assembling in Lombardy, the Lombards, after deliberation, promulgated
an edict that no one should provide hospitality to a pilgrim beyond one
night or sell them provisions. Consequently, the Lombards hurried the
pilgrims along from city to city. Moreover, the lord pope had ordered
that passage be taken from Venice. When they arrived there, they were
likewise driven from urban dwellings and were placed on the isle of St
Nicholas.28 Here, after pitching their tents, they awaited passage from
1 June to 1 October [1202]. A sistarius19 of grain sold for fifty solidi.30
As often as it pleased the Venetians, they decreed that no one release
any of the pilgrims from the aforementioned island. Consequently the
pilgrims, almost like captives, were dominated by them in all respects.
Moreover, a great fear developed among the commons. Therefore, many
returned home; many others flocked into Apulia to other ports and
crossed the sea. A minority remained in Venice, among whom an
unusual mortality rate now arose. The result was that the dead could
barely be buried by the living.
On the feast of St Mary Magdalene,31 the lord cardinal Peter came
to Venice and, in a marvelous manner, raised the morale of all the
pilgrims by his enthusiastic preaching. He sent the sick, paupers,
women, and all feeble persons home, with letters from him. Having
done this, he departed and returned to Rome. On the feast of the
Assumption of Blessed Mary33 the marquis came to the army and was
confirmed as leader of the army. All the barons swore allegiance to him.
The marquis and all the barons swore to the Venetians that they would
remain in support of them for one year. While this was happening, the
crusade movement, crusaders were still expected to fund their own travel costs; and the
diversions to Zara and Constantinople were largely a consequence of the army's lack of
sufficient money.
28. Today known as the Lido.
29. About a pint.
30. Two and a half pounds-probably over a month's income for a Venetian middle
class family.
31. 22 July 1202.
32. Letters certifying that they were released from their sacred crusade vows. Without
such certification, they were liable to excommunication. The contrast is striking between
these people, who were legitimately dispensed from their vows, and those who were the
cause of the crusade vow's being broken at Zara.
33. 15 August 1202.
ships were prepared and loaded. There were 40 ships, 62 galleys, and
100 transports.
The fleet began to move out on 1 October. As they left the harbor,
Lord Stephen de Perche's ship, Viola, was lost. The Venetians, in
company with the pilgrims, made their way across the sea and arrived
in Istria.35 They forced Trieste36 and Mugla37 into submission; they
compelled all of Istria, Dalmatia,38 and Slavonia39 to pay tribute.
They sailed into Zara,40 where their oath came to naught. On the
feast of St Martin42 they entered Zara's harbor. They besieged Zara
from every side, both on land and water. They erected more than 150
machines and mangonels, as well as ladders, wooden towers, and
numerous instruments of war. They also undermined the wall. After the
citizens of Zara saw this, they surrendered the city on the fifteenth day,
with the result that, saving only their persons, they placed everything
they owned in the possession of the doge of Venice. The doge reserved
half of the town for himself and his own people; the other half he gave
to the pilgrims.43 They looted the city without mercy.
On the third day following entry into Zara, a quarrel arose between
the Venetians and the pilgrims, in which almost one hundred people
were killed. The barons kept the city's goods for themselves, giving
nothing to the poor. The poor labored mightily in poverty and hunger.
Consequently, when they complained greatly about the barons, they
managed to get ships to ferry them to Ancona,44 and one thousand
departed with leave and, in addition, more than a thousand without
leave (For there was an order that no one dare to release anyone from
34. This count of 202 ships is consonant with estimates provided by other sources:
Queller, Fourth Crusade , 58.
35. A northeastern Adriatic peninsula.

36. The greatest of Istria's port cities.
37. Also known as Muggia.
38. The middle region of the eastern Adriatic coast.
39. The northeast coastal region of the Adriatic.
40. Today Zadar in Croatia.
41. Literally, "where the oath perished." Undoubtedly a reference to their violating
their crusade oath, since Zara was a Roman Catholic city.
42. 11 November 1202.
43. Venice claimed Zara as rebel Venetian territory. Notwithstanding this claim, the
Venetians gave the crusaders the interior portion of the city for their use (and presumable
plunder) while they retained the harbor: Queller, Fourth Crusade, p. 65.
44. A port city on Italy's Adriatic coast.
the army). Out of the transports ferrying them, two were lost. The army
wintered over in Zara. The Venetians so completely razed the walls and
houses of the city that not one stone remained on another. While the
ships were in the harbor at Zara, three of the great vessels were lost.
On the feast of the Circumcision,45 a messenger arrived from King
Philip46 bearing a letter from him requesting that the marquis and the
barons assist his brother-in-law, Emperor Alexius,47 in his affairs. The
marquis, along with all the barons, swore allegiance to him. When the
rank and file learned of this, namely that they were to travel to Greece,
they gathered together and, after having made a compact, swore they
would never go there. As a consequence, the abbot of Vaux, Lord Simon
de Montfort, and Enguerrand de Boves49 left with a large multitude
of knights and others, and upon arriving in Hungary, they were
honorably received by the king.50 On Palm Sunday, Rainald de
Monmiral52 was sent to Syria on a legation. On the second Sunday
after Easter,53 the ships began to depart from Zara. At this same time
Emperor Alexius arrived from Swabia.54 All the towns, cities, and
castles from Ragusa55 to Corphu56 received him in peace. The army
rendezvoused at Corphu. On Pentecost,57 it withdrew from Corphu
(where Baldwin, the brother of the count of Flanders died) and arrived
at Constantinople without mishap, and all the islands along the way
became subject to it.
45. 1 January 1203.

46. Philip of Swabia who claimed the crown of Germany since 1198. See the opening
lines of the DC.
47. Actually Prince Alexius, the future Emperor Alexius IV (r. 1203-1204). Philip was
married to Irene, sister of Alexius and daughter of the deposed emperor of Constantinople
Isaac H (r. 1185-1195, 1203)
48. Simon IV (r. 1181-1218), future leader of the Albigensian Crusade.
49. Count of Boves since 1191.
50. Imre (r. 1196-1204).

51. 30 March 1203.
52. Cousin of the counts of Champagne and Blois, Rainald was a leading opponent
of the proposal to assist Prince Alexius.
53. 20 April 1203.
54. Alemannia. See p. 119 above.
55. Today the Croatian city of Dubrovnik.
56. Today known as the island of K£rkira, it is located off of the coasts of southern
Albania and northwest Greece.
57. 25 May 1203.
On 1 July the ships arrived at Constantinople and landed by force,

since the emperor58 opposed them with his entire army. The emperor
fled into the city with his forces; we besieged the city. During the octave
of the feast of the apostles Peter and Paul,59 we took by force a
stronghold located in the harbor opposite the city,60 and scarcely any
of those who were in the stronghold escaped. The pilgrims besieged the
city on the landward side. Many times the Greeks clashed with them,
and many fell slain on both sides. Meanwhile the Venetians harassed
the city from the seaward side with their machines, mangonels,
crossbows, and bows. In this engagement, as well, many died- Venetian
and Greek alike. Then the Venetians erected wondrous ladders on their
ships, one to a ship, and steering their ships up to the wall, they
entered the city by way of these same ladders. They routed the Greeks
and set a fire, and they burned and ruined a large part of the city, and
so they spent that whole day.61 With the coming of night, the emperor
gathered together everyone he could get and secretly fled. On the
following day,62 the Greeks surrendered themselves and the city into
the hands of the pilgrims.
Once the gates were thrown open, the pilgrims entered the city, and
when they arrived inside the royal palace which is called the Blachernae,
they discovered Lord Isaac63 shackled in prison. His brother64 had
blinded him and placed him there. They set Lord Isaac free and placed
a crown on his son, the boy Alexius. In return for this great favor,
Alexius swore he would feed the army-Venetians as well as pilgrims-
for one full year. He also swore that, if they wished to winter over with
him at Constantinople, the following March, after having assumed the
Cross, he would continue the journey with them, along with all the
materiel he could muster. He gave security for all of these promises.
Thus was harmony effected between Greeks and Latins.
58. Alexius III (r. 1195-1203), who had deposed his brother Isaac II.
59. 29 June-6 July.
60. The tower of Galata, situated across the harbor of the Golden Horn from
Constantinople.
61. 17 July 1203.
62. 18 July 1203.
63. Emperor Isaac II.
64. Emperor Alexius HI.
65. Now Emperor Alexius IV. He was solemnly anointed co-emperor on 1 August
1203, the feast of St Peter. It is difficult to believe that this date was chosen randomly.
Within the octave of the Assumption of Blessed Mary,66 however,

a riot happened to break out between the Greeks and the Latins. Both
sides flew to arms. The Greek mob grew, the Latins retreated, and,
since the Latins could not otherwise defend themselves, they set a fire.
When they saw the fire, many members of the army came to the aid of
the Latins, and they spread the fire and destroyed and gutted almost
half of the city.67 The army's barons stepped in and made peace again.
Yet no one who might be from the Roman empire68 stayed behind in
the city, not even they who had lived there every day of their lives.69
And one army was fashioned from all.
Meanwhile the new emperor Alexius decided to give chase to his
uncle, whom he had caused to flee the city, and he assembled a large
force of Greeks. He also offered substantial bonuses and money to our
army's knights and infantrymen for coming with him. Indeed, the
marquis himself accompanied him and Lord Henry, brother of the count
of Flanders. And so they arrived at Adrianople. Since, however, the
emperor failed to pay what he had promised Lord Henry, Henry
immediately left him, returned to the army, and brought back with him
many of its knights and foot soldiers. The marquis, along with a few
Christians, remained with the emperor. And so the emperor,
accompanied by his Greeks and the same Latins who had remained with
the emperor, traveled all around Greece and was universally received
and approved by all the Greeks, and all of the leaders of Greece paid
him homage. Eventually the emperor returned to Constantinople with
his entire army and was received with great ceremony, and he began to
pay off the pilgrims and the Venetians with the things he had promised-
-both foodstuffs and gold and silver.
66. 15-22 August 1203.

67. This August conflagration rates as one of the most destructive moments in
Constantinople's history.
68. I.e., a West European. This is a curious way of referring to Christians from the
West, especially since most of the crusaders were either Venetian or French, and neither
of those groups was subject to the authority of the Western emperor. See my comments
on p. 125, n. 71 above.
69. Largely resident merchants from the West, especially Genoese, Venetians, and
Pisans. These major seafaring powers of Italy had their own quarters in Constantinople's
harbor area. Villehardouin estimated that about 15,000 such resident aliens took refuge
with the crusaders: Conquite, 1:210, sec. 204.
70. Modern Edirne in Thrace, where Alexius HI had set up a rival court.
It happened, however, on the Monday after "Ai te levavi "71 that

within Constantinople the Greeks were again involved in sedition
against the Latins. The Greeks mobbed together. They attacked the
Latins, sometimes causing them to flee, at other times themselves
fleeing. The Latin army's barons were dismayed by this calamity. They
prohibited anyone from crossing over to aid those who had so rashly
taken up arms against the Greeks. Consequently the Greek mob grew
in size. They pressed upon the Latins. Those whom they captured they
killed without mercy and burned their corpses. They spared neither age
nor gender. Now frenzied by this, the Greeks again provoked the Latins
and attacked the Latin ships with their own boats and small craft. The
pilgrims and Venetians, annoyed by that, armed their galleys and
barques and attacked the Greeks. The Greeks fled. The Latins chased
the Greeks right up to the city wall. They cut many down; they captured
many Greek ships in the harbor which were laden with large quantities
of merchandise and food.72 On the feast day of St. John the
Evangelist,73 the pilgrims and Venetians again armed their galleys and
barques, and at daybreak were already in the harbor at Constantinople,
and again they captured many ships. Once again many were killed from
this point onward. In the evening of the feast day of the Lord's
Circumcision,74 the Greeks assembled fifteen of their own ships and
filled them with bundles of wood, pitch, and oil and set them on fire.
They steered them, so burning, straight toward the Venetian ships, in
order to set them on fire. Only one ship caught fire. On the day
following the feast of Epiphany,75 Greeks came out of the city on
horseback. The marquis met them with a few troops. Many of the
Greeks were killed and certain rich men were captured. On the
marquis's side two knights and a squire fell. During the entire time of
this battle, the Venetians, along with the pilgrims, traversed each bank
of the Brachii76 in galleys and barques and brought back countless
booty. They destroyed many buildings on each side with fire. The
pilgrims went around the surrounding regions within a circumference
71. 1 December 1203.
72. Since the Byzantine merchant marine was then a shadow of its former greatness,
one wonders how many "Greek" ships were actually captured.
73. 27 December 1203.
74. 1 January 1204.

75. 7 January 1204.
76. The peninsula arms of land on both sides of the Golden Horn: i.e., they sailed up
and down both shores of Constantinople's harbor.
of up to two days' journey. They took considerable booty; they captured

people; they carried back with them herds and flocks and everything
they could find and caused considerable loss to the Greeks.
When the Greeks saw this, namely that their land was being ruined,
they seized their emperor and threw him back into prison, and they
placed Mourtzouphlus,77 the author of this great treason, in charge
over themselves and set him up as king in the Blachernae palace.
Meanwhile the common folk and the crowd at Sancta Sophia elected
another king for themselves- Nicholas, surnamed Macellarius.79
Mourtzouphlus assembled all of his followers, besieged him in the
church of the Holy Wisdom,80 eventually captured and beheaded him,
and began to rule alone.
Meanwhile, Lord Henry, brother of the count [of Flanders],
accompanied by a large number of knights and footsoldiers, headed
toward a certain castle called Philia,81 captured it, and brought back
from it large numbers of both human and material prizes of war. As he
was returning, the aforementioned Mourtzouphlus laid an ambush for
him with 15,000 soldiers. Closing in, Mourtzouphlus fought him and
was defeated, and many Greeks were killed. Mourtzouphlus himself
was wounded and barely escaped. He hid in the brambles and lost his
horse and all his imperial symbols, namely his crown and lance and a
certain icon of the glorious Virgin composed totally of gold and precious
stones. By custom, it was always carried before the kings in battle. With
this victory to his credit, Lord Henry returned to the army.
Mourtzouphlus also returned to the city during the night, and, hauling
the emperor Alexius82 out of prison, he strangled him with a noose.
Meanwhile, the army prepared to attack the city, and all betook
themselves and all their possessions to the ships, so that they could use
the fleet to attack the city. On the sixth day before the feast of the
Lord's Passion,83 the fourth day before the Ides of April,84 they
77. Alexius Ducas, called "Mourtzouphlus," who reigned as Alexius V (r. 1204).
Alexius Ducas's nickname referred to his bushy, dark eyebrows that gave his face the look
of a condemned criminal whose face had been blackened prior to execution.
78. Installed as emperor on 5 February 1204.
79. Actually Nicholas Canabus.
80. Hagia (Sancta) Sophia.
81. On the Black Sea near the entry to the Bosporus.
82. Alexius IV. Emperor Isaac II had already passed away under mysterious
circumstances.
83. Good Friday fell on 23 April in 1204, considerably more than six days after 9 April.
brought the ships up to the walls and launched an assault. Many were
slain, both from our ranks as well as from those of the Greeks. Because
there was a contrary wind that kept driving us away from the walls, we
retreated, entered the harbor where we had been earlier, and awaited
the coming of the north wind. The north wind began to blow on the day
before the Ides of April;85 we again brought the ships up to the walls,
struggled with the Greeks, and drove them from the walls. We entered
the city and a tremendous slaughter of Greeks ensued. As for those who
attacked and harassed us, we set a fire and drove them back from us
with fire. With the coming of night, Mourtzouphlus fled with a few
followers.
On the following day,86 all the Greeks fell at the feet of the
marquis and surrendered themselves and all their possessions into his
hands. Then we took possession of places for lodging, and Greeks fled
the city. We brought all our spoils and riches together, and we filled
three large towers with silver. Then discussion began about selecting an
emperor. Six were appointed from our side and six from the Venetian
side, to whom was given the power of electing an emperor. They
convened within the octave of Easter,87 and, in the presence of our
whole group and that of the Venetians, they elected and named
Baldwin, count of Flanders, as emperor. He was approved by the army
and on the following Sunday, the one on which "Iubilate" is sung,
he was crowned. At the same time, the Venetians occupied the church
of the Holy Wisdom, saying: "The empire is yours; we shall have the
patriarchate." A schism arose between our clergy and the Venetians.89
84. 9 April 1204, which is the correct date for this assault.
85. 12 April 1204.
86. 13 April 1204.
87. 25 April-2 May.
88. 16 May 1204.
89. Realizing they would soon attack the city, the crusade leaders had drawn up a pact
in March 1204 that provided for the orderly division of Constantinople's spoils, once the
city was taken. The pact stipulated that the right of electing the patriarch of Constantinople
would devolve upon that party- the leadership of either the army or the Venetian navy-
which had failed to secure the election of one of its members as emperor. Notwithstanding
this claim on the patriarchate, the party that had secured the imperial throne would still
retain the right of election to churches that were located within the territory awarded it.
When Baldwin of Flanders was elected emperor, the Venetians elected Thomas Morosini,
a Venetian sub-deacon, as patriarch. The schism that the DC refers to was probably a
manifestation of the disaffection among members of the lower clergy within the army who
felt, rightly or wrongly, that the Venetians were denying them rightful access to their
share of Constantinople's many churches and other ecclesiastical treasures.
Our clergy appealed and reserved to the lord pope the right of
appointment to the church of the Holy Wisdom.9 Meanwhile, they
began to divide the common booty and to give, almost like certain
downpayments, twenty marks to each and every knight, ten marks to
each cleric and mounted sergeant, and five marks to each footsoldier.
In the year of the Incarnation of the Word, 1215, a holy, ecumenical
synod was held in Rome in the church of the Savior (the one that is
called the Constantinian church),91 in the month of November,92
under the presidency of Lord Innocent HI, in the eighteenth year of his
pontificate. Attending it were 412 bishops, among whom were two
major patriarchs, namely the patriarchs of Constantinople93 and
Jerusalem. The patriarch of Antiodi, held back by severe illness, could
not come but sent a deputy in his place, the bishop of Tortosa. The
patriarch of Alexandria, a subject of Saracen domination, did what he
could and sent in his place his brother, a deacon. There were seventy-
one primates and metropolitans. There were more than 800 additional
abbots and priors. There was no exact count of the number of absent
archbishops, bishops, abbots, priors, and cathedral chapters. An
enormous multitude of legates was present-legates from the king of
Sicily, who was the Roman emperor-elect,94 from the emperor of
Constantinople,95 the king of France, the king of England, the king of
Hungary, the king of Jerusalem, the king of Cyprus, the king of Aragon,
and from other princes and magnates as well, as well as from cities and
other places.
90. If such an appeal was made, there is no known evidence of it. Pope Innocent
apparently first learned of the March Pact from two Venetian envoys who were sent from
Constantinople to Rome in mid-summer of 1204. The envoys carried a copy of the pact,
along with a request from the crusade leaders that the pope ratify it. Innocent refused,
because the provisions regarding ecclesiastical property were uncanonical: PL 215:519-522.
Although the pope also declared Morosini's irregular election to be null and void, he then
appointed the Venetian churchman as patriarch out of his papal plenitude of power: PL
215: 516. For a fuller analysis, see Andrea, "Pope Innocent," pp. 373-385.
91. The church of St John Lateran.
92. 11-30 November.
93. When Thomas Morosini, first Latin patriarch of Constantinople, passed away in
1211, Venetian and French electors deadlocked, and a disputed election ensued, with two
claimants to the office. The council settled the dispute in favor of Gervase, archbishop of
Heraclea. He officially assumed the post before the council's last session on 30 November
and served until 1219. There was also a Greek patriarch of Constantinople in exile,
Theodore II (r. 1214-1216), who did not participate in the council.
94. Frederick II (r. 1215-1250), nephew of Philip of Swabia.
95. Henry (r. 1206-1216), brother of the deceased Emperor Baldwin.

Andrea, 1993

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Andrea, 1993

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Berghahn Books

"The Devastatio Constantinopolitana", A Special Perspective on the Fourth Crusade: An

on the Fourth Crusade:

An Analysis, New Edition, and

® 1993 HISTORICAL REFLECTIONS/REFLEXIONS HISTORIQUES, Vol. 19, No. 1

articles devoted to this crusade.3 Despite this outpouring of

3. Donald E. Queller, The Fourth Crusade: The Conquest of Constantinople, 1201-1204

7. M. Kandel, "Quelques observations sur la Devastatio Constantinopolitana Byzantion

churchman Burchard of Ursberg is closest to that of the Marciana codex.

participate in a synod that the Roman Church considered ecumenical.

attempted to understand its special viewpoint and, therefore, its full

journalist, as the occasion warranted, and ultimately served as one of

28. Kandel, "Observations/' pp. 184, 187-188.

the crusader-Venetian treaty of 1201; the compact entered into between

32. Ibid., pp. 14-15, 41-42.

a practical view of the crusade, and it is the view of a person who

35. Ibid., pp. 4-13.

There are, to be sure, several apparent clues that seem to indicate

army of crusaders that embarked at Venice. In fact, no source places

49. HC, 119.

50. Tessier, Quatritme croisade, p. 21.

It is even more certain that he was not a partisan of Boniface de

is concerned, the DC does mention his going off to Adrianople with

62. Villehardouin, Conquite , 2:48, 52, sees. 245, 250.

Zara, and the pact of 1204. This omission is especially significant in a

Perhaps the DC can be best described as a barren record of the

63. Fol. 255r (Hopf, 91-92).

account the author keeps track of the dwindling numbers of

The DC is a short work- five pages in manuscript-but among the

65. Arthur, Destruction , pp. 12-13.

crusaders campaigning with Alexius return to Constantinople early.

text around which he centered his history. As any reasonably well-

Meanwhile, they began to divide the common booty, and to give,

With these words the Devastatio comes to an abrupt end. It is impossible

Anno ab incarnatione2 Domini M° C° Q° I domino3 Innocentio

Hie ergo exercitus cum de diversis mundi partibus in Longobardia

12. habito consilio] omitted P

17. illi] ilia P

cepimus, et vix aliquis eorum qui erant in castro aufugit. Peregrini ex

21. cum] eum P

quam peditibus nostri exercitus, ut cum eo venirent. Ipse quoque

26. Greciam] Gretiam MS P

et quidam ditissimi capti. Duo milites et unus scutifer ex parte

31. ex utraque parte] parte ex utraque MS

V°, naves producunt ad muros,38 et assultum faciunt, et multi tam

42. See above.

43. Innocencio] Innocentio P

45. metropolitanni] metropolitani P

In the year of the Lord's Incarnation, 1202, when Lord Innocent2

1. The following translation is the product of the collaborative efforts of Alfred J.

the count of Saint Pol,14 the count of Blois,15 the count of

Crusade/' Ctteaux: Commentarii Cistercienses 36 (1985): pp. 21-37.

35. A northeastern Adriatic peninsula.

45. 1 January 1203.

50. Imre (r. 1196-1204).

57. 25 May 1203.

On 1 July the ships arrived at Constantinople and landed by force,

Within the octave of the Assumption of Blessed Mary,66 however,

66. 15-22 August 1203.

It happened, however, on the Monday after "Ai te levavi "71 that

71. 1 December 1203.

74. 1 January 1204.

of up to two days' journey. They took considerable booty; they captured