Peter Wilkinson (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} pwilkinson) wrote,@ 2006-09-20 00:48:00 |
|
The Pope's grasp of historical context
When I heard that the Pope had been quoting a 14th century emperor inveighing against Islam, I immediately wondered which one? Most Christian medieval emperors were in practice at least as hostile to the Papacy as they were to Islam - had the Pope left himself open to some juicy counter-quotations?
I now learn that the Pope was quoting a Byzantine emperor, Manuel II - and despite Manuel being a heretic in Catholic eyes, the counter-quotations probably don't exist. Manuel had some very strong reasons for not insulting the Papacy.
And, assuming as seems to be the case that Manuel made his remarks during the 1390s, I can quite understand why Manuel would insult the Prophet in the way he did even if, in these rather easier (yes, easier) times, I regard the remarks as somewhere between hyperbolic and totally inaccurate. Islam has indeed often, even usually, been a religion of peace; but interpretations of the religious duty of jihad have varied and the then Ottoman sultan Bayezid interpreted it as that of attacking his Christian neighbours, including the last remnants of the Byzantine empire. A years-long siege of Constantinople left Manuel frantically touring western Europe (in the process becoming the only Byzantine emperor to visit England) trying to get troops to relieve his capital - with only very limited success in getting the troops and none in successful action against Bayezid.
Relief finally came from quite the opposite direction. Tamerlane apparently decided that Bayezid was insufficiently zealous as a Muslim and, attacking and capturing him, came close to destroying the Ottoman state. However, Tamerlane then went off to pursue jihad against Muslims elsewhere - and Manuel spent the next ten years complicating the resulting civil war between Bayezid's sons and the final ten years of his life blackmailing the winner with veiled threats to restart the civil war, by releasing from his custody one or another pretender to the Ottoman sultanate, should Constantinople ever be attacked. Manuel died, still emperor, in 1425 - Constantinople would not fall until 1453.
However, if Manuel saw Catholic Christians as a potential source of protection against the Turks, most of his subjects finally seem to have regarded the cure as worse than the disease. One of the contributory factors to eventual Ottoman success seems to have been that the children and grandchildren of Manuel's subjects, given just a two-way choice between submission to the Muslim Turk and submission to the Christian Pope, preferred submitting to the Turk - with, one is forced to conclude if one knows anything of the history of the late medieval eastern Mediterranean, very good reason.
So perhaps the Pope should, after all, have been more careful about who he quoted - as well as about the content of the quotation and the extent to which it could be regarded as representing his own views.
When I heard that the Pope had been quoting a 14th century emperor inveighing against Islam, I immediately wondered which one? Most Christian medieval emperors were in practice at least as hostile to the Papacy as they were to Islam - had the Pope left himself open to some juicy counter-quotations?
I now learn that the Pope was quoting a Byzantine emperor, Manuel II - and despite Manuel being a heretic in Catholic eyes, the counter-quotations probably don't exist. Manuel had some very strong reasons for not insulting the Papacy.
And, assuming as seems to be the case that Manuel made his remarks during the 1390s, I can quite understand why Manuel would insult the Prophet in the way he did even if, in these rather easier (yes, easier) times, I regard the remarks as somewhere between hyperbolic and totally inaccurate. Islam has indeed often, even usually, been a religion of peace; but interpretations of the religious duty of jihad have varied and the then Ottoman sultan Bayezid interpreted it as that of attacking his Christian neighbours, including the last remnants of the Byzantine empire. A years-long siege of Constantinople left Manuel frantically touring western Europe (in the process becoming the only Byzantine emperor to visit England) trying to get troops to relieve his capital - with only very limited success in getting the troops and none in successful action against Bayezid.
Relief finally came from quite the opposite direction. Tamerlane apparently decided that Bayezid was insufficiently zealous as a Muslim and, attacking and capturing him, came close to destroying the Ottoman state. However, Tamerlane then went off to pursue jihad against Muslims elsewhere - and Manuel spent the next ten years complicating the resulting civil war between Bayezid's sons and the final ten years of his life blackmailing the winner with veiled threats to restart the civil war, by releasing from his custody one or another pretender to the Ottoman sultanate, should Constantinople ever be attacked. Manuel died, still emperor, in 1425 - Constantinople would not fall until 1453.
However, if Manuel saw Catholic Christians as a potential source of protection against the Turks, most of his subjects finally seem to have regarded the cure as worse than the disease. One of the contributory factors to eventual Ottoman success seems to have been that the children and grandchildren of Manuel's subjects, given just a two-way choice between submission to the Muslim Turk and submission to the Christian Pope, preferred submitting to the Turk - with, one is forced to conclude if one knows anything of the history of the late medieval eastern Mediterranean, very good reason.
So perhaps the Pope should, after all, have been more careful about who he quoted - as well as about the content of the quotation and the extent to which it could be regarded as representing his own views.
