The circulation of such misinformation and hard-edged accusations did not foreclose the possibility of reconciliation between the pope and emperor. To the contrary, by raising the public stakes in their confrontation, their propaganda seemed designed to build pressure for a negotiated settlement, each side seeking leverage to strike the best terms possible for their own set of interests. In September, after hearing about the pope’s judgment against him, Frederick sent a group of envoys to meet with the pope during a provincial synod at Perugia to explain the reasons for his delayed departure. Frederick later complained about the pope’s refusal to give his representatives a proper audience, despite the council’s collective urging that he do so. According to the emperor, Gregory met individually with each bishop present, intimidating them into silence before allowing the envoys to speak and then dismissing them out of hand.29 Such reluctance to deal with Frederick signaled to everyone that his reconciliation with the church would not come easily. On 18 November, after returning to Rome, Gregory seemed to reinforce this message, repeating his sentence of excommunication in the basilica of Saint Peter before a crowd of cardinals and other clergy. Yet the following month, the pope sent two cardinals, Otto, cardinal deacon of San Nichola in Carcere Tulliano, and Thomas of Capua, cardinal priest of Santa Sabina, to meet with the emperor at San Germano bearing a relatively conciliatory letter that expressed the pope’s despair about the current “scandal” in the church and the lamentable state of the Holy Land, along with hopes for the emperor’s speedy return to the church after he rendered sufficient satisfaction to God and justice to men.30
This posturing continued into the spring. On Maundy Thursday in 1228, a feast day traditionally linked with the excommunication and reconciliation of sinners, Gregory “publicly” reiterated the emperor’s anathema before the large crowds gathered for Holy Week in the Church of Saint Peter.31 Writing to the archbishops, bishops, and other clergy in Apulia that same month, instructing them to repeat and publicize this sentence on Sundays and feast days, the pope described how he had wielded the “medicinal sword of Peter” against Frederick in the “spirit of mildness,” pronouncing the sentence of excommunication for the benefit of the ruler’s soul, but also because the breaking of his crusader vow would cause a great “detriment to the faith and a grave scandal among the entire Christian people.” Frederick, however, “showing contempt for the keys of the church,” had ordered the divine mass to be celebrated—or rather profaned—in his presence. Gregory reiterated the terms of his excommunication and interdict: wherever the emperor went, there should be no celebration of the mass. Regardless of rank, anyone who celebrated the divine services in the ruler’s presence before his reconciliation with the church would lose his benefice. If the emperor continued to attend mass, thereby refusing to acknowledge his excommunicate status, the pope would proceed against him as a “heretic and despiser of the keys,” declaring all those who owed him fealty absolved from their oaths in accordance with canon law.32
By suspending the celebration of mass and certain sacraments in Frederick’s presence, halting liturgical action and imposing silences, forbidding the ringing of bells, and instructing those with special permission to celebrate mass to do so behind closed doors with lowered voices, the interdict publicized the pope’s judgment for those not exposed to his epistolary denunciations of the emperor. The papal interdict apparently had little impact in Germany, but its enforcement in the Regno clearly concerned Frederick. Writing to his officials in that kingdom, he declared his imperial duty to assure the proper performance of the “divine worship,” thereby avoiding a “human scandal.” He ordered them to inform all of the clergy under their authority that they must “publicly celebrate the divine offices in their churches,” or else he would revoke all of the worldly goods, properties, and incomes attached to their positions.33
Rituals remained a flashpoint in other dangerous ways. The pope found this out for himself a few days after Maundy Thursday when a group of Roman citizens stormed into the Church of Saint Peter and assaulted Gregory along with the other clergy present. The pope’s biographer, who probably witnessed the scene, insists that Frederick had turned the Romans against their bishop with his “bribes and lies.” The mob, casting aside their fear of God, interrupted the pope while he said mass at the high altar over Saint Peter’s remains, laying their “profane hands” on him and yelling “Crucify him!” much like those who crucified Christ. Other chroniclers agreed that the emperor lay behind this “sedition” in Rome. A few weeks later, the pope excommunicated the Romans and left for Perugia. He would not return to “the City,” as contemporary sources called Rome, for two years.34
Jerusalem Delivered—or Not
In the summer of 1228, the public crisis between the pope and emperor entered a new stage when Frederick departed for Jerusalem. From start to finish, controversy surrounded this unprecedented situation in the history of crusading, wherein an excommunicate emperor and crusader, openly at odds with the pope, set out to free Jerusalem. During the months that followed, messengers and letters circulated back and forth between Europe and the Holy Land as the pope, emperor, and their supporters tried to shape public opinion about the expedition. In this “game played for high stakes,” as one scholar has described Frederick’s volatile crusade, controlling public perceptions of the expedition overseas became nearly as important as maintaining control of the crusade or even the holy city of Jerusalem itself.35
Throughout the entire period of his anathema, Frederick had continued to make and publicize his plans to embark on crusade, despite his excommunicate status. In a letter sent to Italian communes the preceding April, the emperor drew a clear contrast between his commitment to freeing Jerusalem and the pope’s recent decision to speak against him on Maundy Thursday before the large crowds gathered for Holy Week. Rather than preaching about Frederick’s crusade and encouraging his listeners toward the “service of the cross,” the pope had raised the subject of Milan and other “traitors” to the empire, denouncing Frederick for not sufficiently compensating them after their recent rebellion. This revealed that Gregory did not have sufficient cause to judge him based on the “business of the Holy Land,” given Frederick’s past efforts toward that end and imminent departure overseas. Stressing his burning desire to fulfill his oath, as evident “before the entire world,” and accusing the pope of damaging the crusade by favoring traitors to his imperial rule, the emperor called for his loyal followers to support the upcoming expedition. In a similar letter sent from the imperial court in June, he described how he had again sent solemn envoys to the curia bearing the written “form of satisfaction” that he would make so that he might cross overseas with the pope’s blessing. Demonstrating his intransigence, Gregory rejected those terms but refused to explain what kind of satisfaction he would find acceptable to lift the ban. Frederick’s message was clear. Although the pope had unjustly opposed him at every turn, the emperor refused to turn aside from fulfilling his duties in the Holy Land.36
The emperor set sail in August 1228. The course of his crusade is well known. After various stops en route, including a five-week stay on Cyprus, he landed at Acre on 7 September 1228. In November, Frederick marched with a mixed army of crusaders, local Christian nobles, and members of the military orders to Jaffa planning to fortify the city, which was within striking distance of Jerusalem. Ships reaching the port resupplied the army by year’s end. Frederick, however, did not intend to free the holy city by military means, seeking instead to establish a truce with the Ayyubid sultan, al-Kamil. The Egyptian ruler had his own reasons for making such a deal, including political infighting with his brother and nephew, the sultans of Damascus. Negotiations had begun between the two even before the emperor left on his crusade. In February, they agreed to a ten-year peace: al-Kamil would restore Jerusalem to the emperor, along with