The ‘Other’, Identity, and Memory in Early Medieval Italy [1 ed.] 0367625377, 9780367625375, 9781003109617

Citation preview

The ‘­Other’, Identity, and Memory in Early Medieval Italy

The political fragmentation of I­taly—​­created by Charlemagne’s conquest of a part of the Lombard Kingdom in 774 and the weakening of the Byzantine Empire in the eighth and ninth ­c enturies—​­, the conquest of Sicily by the Muslims in the ninth century, and the Norman ‘­conquest’ of southern Italy in the second half of the eleventh century favored the creation of areas inhabited by persons with different ethnic, religious, and cultural background. Moreover, this period witnessed the increase in production of historical writing in different parts of Italy. Taking advantage of these features, this volume presents some case studies about the manner in which ‘­others’ were perceived, what was known about them, the role of identity, and the use of the past in early medieval Italy (­­ninth–​­eleventh centuries) focusing in particular on how early medieval Italian authors portrayed that period and were, sometimes, influenced by their own ‘­present’ in their reconstruction of the past. The book will appeal to scholars and students of otherness, identity, and memory in early medieval Italy, as well as all those interested in medieval Europe. Luigi Andrea Berto is professor of Medieval History at Western Michigan University, USA. His research focuses on Medieval Italy and the Mediterranean, with a special interest in the use of the past in the medieval and modern periods, and the relationships between Christians and Muslims.

Studies in Medieval History and Culture Recent titles include

Authorship, Worldview, and Identity in Medieval Europe Edited by Christian Raffensperger Marian Devotion in the Late Middle Ages Image and Performance Edited by Gerhard Jaritz and A ­ ndrea-​­Bianka Znorovszky Food Consumption in Medieval Iberia A ­Socio-​­economic Analysis, ­13th-​­15th Centuries Juan Vicente García Marsilla Fragmented Nature: Conceptions of the Natural Order in the European Middle Ages Edited by Mattia Cipriani and Nicola Polloni Adam of Bremen’s Gesta Hammaburgensis Ecclesiae Pontificum Origins, Reception and Significance Edited by Grzegorz Bartusik, Radosław Biskup and Jakub Morawiec Making Miracles in Medieval England Tom Lynch The Friar and the Philosopher William of Moerbeke and the Rise of Aristotle’s Science in Medieval Europe Pieter Beullens The ‘­Other’, Identity, and Memory in Early Medieval Italy Luigi Andrea Berto For more information about this series, please visit: https://­w ww.routledge. com/­­Studies-­​­­in-­​­­Medieval-­​­­History-­​­­and-​­Culture/­­book-​­series/­SMHC

The ‘­Other’, Identity, and Memory in Early Medieval Italy

Luigi Andrea Berto

First published 2023 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2023 Luigi Andrea Berto The right of Luigi Andrea Berto to be identified as author of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library ­C ataloguing-­​­­in-​­Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: ­978-­​­­0 -­​­­367-­​­­62537-​­5 (­hbk) ISBN: ­978-­​­­0 -­​­­367-­​­­62539-​­9 (­pbk) ISBN: ­978-­​­­1-­​­­0 03-­​­­10961-​­7 (­ebk) DOI: 10.4324/­9781003109617 Typeset in Times New Roman by codeMantra

Contents

List of abbreviations Acknowledgments Preface

vii ix xi

1 The Muslims in the historical works of early medieval southern Italy

1

2 The image of the Byzantines in the chronicles of early medieval southern Italy

28

3 Among two empires and dangerous neighbors: Byzantines, Franks, Lombards, and Muslims in ­ninth-​­century Naples

63

4 Invaders, dangerous allies, and hated neighbors: N ­ inth-​ ­century southern Lombard views of the Franks and the Neapolitans 82 5 The Venetians and the ‘­other’ in the early Middle Ages: Definitions and perceptions

94

6 History and ethnic pride in southern Italy at the end of the ninth century

107

7 A difficult memory to manage: Narrating the relationships between bishops and dukes in early medieval Naples

138

8 Oblivion, memory, and irony in ­ninth-​­century Montecassino 153

vi Contents

9 Old and new invaders: Lombards and Franks in Italian Carolingian memory Bibliography Index

164 191 205

Abbreviations

MGH

Monumenta Germaniae Historica

Acknowledgments*

I wish to thank Michael Greenwood for accepting to publish this volume, the staff at Routledge, Adam Matthews, Madison Prall, Susan Shapiro, Stephanie Falkowski and Matthew Trojacek for their help. The preparation of this book has been funded by The Burnham – MacMillan History Department Endowment of Western Michigan University and a Western Michigan University College of Arts and Sciences Discovery and Dissemination Award.

* Earlier versions of the chapters of this book have already been published: Chapter 1 in Viator. Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 45, 3 (2014), pp. 1–24; Chapter 2 in Mediterranean Studies, 23, 1 (2015); Chapter 3 in L. A. Berto, Making History in Ninth-Century Northern and Southern Italy (Pisa, 2018), pp. 136–46; Chapter 4 in Berto, Making History in Ninth-Century Northern and Southern Italy, pp. 58–60, 99–109; Chapter 5 in L. A. Berto, Early Medieval Venice: Cultural Memory and History (Abingdon - New York, 2020), pp. 23–7, Chapter 6 in Berto, Making History in Ninth-Century Northern and Southern Italy, pp. 77–97, 110–11; Chapter 7 in Viator. Medieval and Renaissance Studies 39, 2 (2008), pp. 49–63 and Berto, Making History in Ninth-Century Northern and Southern Italy, pp. 121–36; Chapter 8 in Viator. Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 38, 1 (2007), pp. 45–61 and Berto, Making History in Ninth-Century Northern and Southern Italy, pp. 49–56; Chapter 9 in Berto, Making History in Ninth-Century Northern and Southern Italy, pp. 11–16, 25–34, 37.

Preface

The political fragmentation of I­taly—​­created by Charlemagne’s conquest of a part of the Lombard Kingdom in 774 and the weakening of the Byzantine Empire in the eighth and ninth ­c enturies—​­, the conquest of Sicily by the Muslims in the ninth century, and the Norman ‘­conquest’ of southern Italy in the second half of the eleventh century favored the creation of areas inhabited by persons with different ethnic, religious, and cultural background. Moreover, this period witnessed the increase in production of historical writing in different parts of Italy. Taking advantage of these features, this volume presents some case studies about the manner in which ‘­others’ were perceived, what was known about them, the role of identity, and the use of the past in early medieval Italy (­­ninth–​­eleventh centuries) focusing in particular on how early medieval Italian authors portrayed that period and were, sometimes, influenced by their own ‘­present’ in their reconstruction of the past. This book is based on source analysis and therefore will examine what the primary sources say, accounting for continuities as well as discontinuities among the topics considered, and it will not let theories drive the examination of the sources. Consequently, overviews of theories taken from other disciplines or employed by historians to analyze the modern era will not be present in this volume.

1 The Muslims in the historical works of early medieval southern Italy

A century after the Iberian Peninsula, Italy too became the target of Muslim campaigns. Sicily was first invaded in 827, was completely subdued during the ninth century, and remained under Muslim rule until the arrival of the Normans in the second half of the eleventh century. The situation was different on the Italian mainland, where there was no durable Muslim dominion. For example, the two small emirates of Bari and Taranto were established in the 840s and lasted for about t­ wenty-​­five/­thirty years, while the Muslim base at the mouth of Garigliano River lasted from 880 to 915. The southern part of the Italian Peninsula was, however, the target of Saracen1 raids and Muslims were also employed as mercenaries in various wars among the Christian rulers of southern Italy.2 In this chapter, I will examine how the Muslims were depicted in the chronicles of early medieval southern Italy (­­ninth–​­tenth century) and in particular explore if the authors of these texts perceived the Saracens as ‘­others’. In order to have a clear understanding of these perceptions, I will make some comparisons with the perception the same authors had of the ‘­bad’ Lombards, Franks, and Byzantines. As we are left only with historical texts from the mainland of southern Italy, it is possible to analyze the point of view of those affected by the Muslim incursions and not of those who were subjected to their domination. The southern Italian historical works composed in this period are: the Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis (‘­Chronicles of Saint Benedict of Cassino’) is an anonymous work made up of three separate sections, which were likely written by three different monks of the abbey of Montecassino and included in a manuscript composed at the beginning of the tenth century.3 The only relevant part for the present analysis is the second section4 which describes the period between the murder of the Prince of Benevento, Sicard (­839), and the 860s5 and focuses on events occurred in or around Montecassino. Its author either was coeval to that period or reported the testimony of a witness who had lived in those years.6 The Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium (­Little History of Benevento’s Lombards), written toward the end of the ninth century by the Cassinese monk Erchempert, survives in a single late ­thirteenth-​­c entury/­early ­fourteenth-​­c entury manuscript and

DOI: 10.4324/9781003109617-1

2  Muslims in the historical works of early medieval southern Italy covers a period extending from the end of the Lombard Kingdom in 774 to c. 889. Although Erchempert was a Cassinese monk, his narration does not focus on his own monastery, but on the secular Lombard rulers of southern Italy. His goal was to explain the causes of the Lombards’ decline, so that they could serve as an example to future generations.7 John the Deacon’s Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum (‘­Deeds of the Neapolitan Bishops’)—​ l­ ikely composed between the end of the ninth century and the beginning of the ­tenth—​­is the continuation of a text narrating the biographies of the first ­thirty-​­n ine bishops of Naples.8 This work details events ranging from the beginning of Paul II’s episcopate (­762/­­763–​­766) to Bishop Athanasius’s death (­d. 872) and is preserved in a ­m id-­​­­tenth-​­c entury manuscript.9 Although the main subject of John the Deacon’s work is the bishops of Naples, the author also mentioned episodes of Byzantine history and was familiar with the main historical events that had occurred in Italy during this time.10 The Chronicon Salernitanum (‘­Chronicle of Salerno’) is an incomplete text, was composed by an anonymous a­ uthor—​­perhaps a ­monk—​­11 and is only transmitted in the same manuscript reporting Erchempert’s work. It narrates events that took place between the second half of the eighth century and 974 and deals primarily with the principalities of Salerno and Benevento.12 This text ends abruptly with the Prince of ­Capua-​­Benevento, Pandolf, about to besiege Salerno where there were some Amalfitans and Salernitan supporters of the uncle and cousin of the Prince of Salerno, Gisulf (­­943–​­978), who had been deposed by his relatives. It is not known when the work was completed,13 but the deep sympathy of the chronicler for the Prince of Salerno Gisulf when he described his deposition and the harsh way he condemned that ruler’s kinsmen, who had betrayed him, seems to indicate that he witnessed those tragic events.14 I will also consider the n ­ inth-​­and t­ enth-​­century episodes mentioned in the southern Italian Jewish family h ­ istory—​­known as the Chronicle of Aḥimaʻaz—​­which was written by Aḥimaʻaz ben Paltiel (­c. ­1017–​­1060) in 1054. The author began his narrative by tracing the origin of his family in Oria (­Apulia) to Jews who had come to Italy with the captives the son of the Roman Emperor Vespasian, Titus, brought from Jerusalem.15 Yet Aḥimaʻaz’s chronicle is mainly composed out of the history of his ancestors from the ninth century to his own times.16 Before examining these texts, it is necessary to point out that, although the chroniclers from southern Lombardy did not explicitly state that they were Lombards and did not define their adversaries as the ‘­others’, these concepts are in some cases not taken for granted. The author of the second part of the Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis and Erchempert in fact employed terms such as ‘­we’, ‘­ours’, and ‘­our people’ when they reported episodes in which the Lombards faced their enemies.17 In this way, these chroniclers, who, unlike the Salernitan author, were coeval with some of those conflicts, remarked their vivid participation to the events, that they were narrating, their belonging to the Lombard people as well as the otherness of those peoples.18

Muslims in the historical works of early medieval southern Italy  3 The chroniclers never explicitly reported that the Muslims belonged to a different religion and were therefore special enemies. Yet, their use of the word ‘­Christians’ in descriptions of battles with the Saracens,19 the definition employed for them (‘­pagans’,20 ‘­prophanes’,21 ‘­gentiles’,22 and ‘­infidels’23) as well as the Salernitan author’s utilization of the term ‘­sin’ to refer to the help the Neapolitans gave to the Muslims24 clearly indicate that the chroniclers and probably many Lombards were aware of this.25 The theory that alliances made with the Saracens in that period were not considered impious because of insufficient knowledge about the Islamic faith, therefore, has no basis.26 The viewpoint of the author of the second part of the Cronicae sancti Benedicti Casinensis was that of a monk highly interested in events that had concerned his world, i.e. the monastery of Montecassino. The deep connection between this chronicler and his abbey is also discernible in the way he portrayed the Muslims who had tried to loot Montecassino. This narrative is, in fact, characterized by a very strong tone that is not encountered in the works of the other early medieval southern Italian chroniclers. In the description of the capture of Bari (­840s)­27 by Saracen troops the Prince of Benevento, Radelchis (­­839–​­851), recruited to defend that city, the author called the Muslims ‘­iniqui’ (­iniquitous)­28 and added that they had performed this deed through treachery which is identified as one of their typical customs.29 This is one of the few ­non-​­Cassinese episodes and its presence is almost certainly due to the fact that many of the raids that threatened Montecassino came from this city. The tone becomes much more hostile when the Saracens, after sacking St. Peter in Rome, tried to attack Montecassino as well. The Lord, however, intervened by kindling a violent storm that flooded a river, thereby preventing the Muslims from reaching the Abbey.30 Describing their anger at being unable to reach their objective, the Cassinese monk portrayed them as madmen and remarked that, as was typical of their barbarity, the Muslims had chewed their fingers, grounded their teeth, and run up and down in search of a point from which they could cross the river that, until a moment before, could have been forded without any problem.31 Moreover, they set fire to some cells so as not give up to their usual mischief.32 The sheer disgust for the Muslims becomes particularly intense when the author wrote about the last Emir of Bari, Sawdān.33 Such rancor is explained by the aggressive nature attributed to this Muslim leader. It was for good reason that he was dubbed ‘­the enemy of all’.34 In fact, he was guilty of attacking both the abbey of St. Vincent at Volturno and that of Montecassino. St. Vincent’s sack happened during Lent, when the monks of Montecassino had gone to visit their brothers there. The chronicler emphasized that the Muslims had destroyed everything and thrown the supplies of the monastery into the river. Then, after they had ransacked every nook and cranny, they found and stole the vestments and church plates. The anonymous author did not comment on this, but, by including this incident, he alluded to

4  Muslims in the historical works of early medieval southern Italy the Saracens’ greed. The very fact that they were not in search of f­ ood—​­they threw it into the r­ iver—​­shows that their sole purpose was to steal precious objects. The Muslims are never referred to as infidels or pagans in this work, so it might seem that the chronicler overlooked the fact that they were enemies of the Christian faith.35 Yet, during the sack of the monastery of St. Vincent, this was implied. The author wrote of how the ‘­the most nefarious’ Sawdān had drunk from the sacred chalices and used the incense burners.36 Such an insulting gesture could only have been carried out by an adversary of the Christian religion. Another noteworthy episode relates how the Saracens killed an old man who had not indicated the right path to them during one of their expeditions.37 Again, there is not any overt criticism, but the detail emphasized the brutality of the Saracens, who would stop at nothing. The level of sharp animosity connected with Sawdān had already been outlined in an earlier passage in which he is mentioned for the first time. The emir of Bari is defined as ‘­most impious’, ‘­most cruel thief’, ‘­p estiferous’, and ‘­cruel tyrant’,38 but above all he is depicted as a type of bloodthirsty monster. Such a s­ pine-​­chilling description is not present in any other account by early medieval Italian authors. The Cassinese chronicler even reported that, on one of Sawdān’s expeditions, not a single day had passed in which he did not kill at least 500 men, and he portrayed him as sitting on a pile of bodies, eating ‘­like a putrid dog’.39 The chronicler, however, did not depict all the Saracens in a negative light. For example, he narrated that, during a previous bloody and destructive raid of Massar’­s —​­a Muslim chieftain who had occupied ­Benevento—​­40 the Saracen leader had reached the gates of Montecassino and ordered them to be locked so that his men could not enter. The author added that Massar had personally chased one of his dogs that had caught a goose belonging to the Abbey. Once he had seized the dog, he forced it to abandon its prey by beating it with a stick. The uncharacteristic behavior of this Saracen chieftain is attributed to divine intervention rather than to Massar’s own desire to respect a holy place like Montecassino.41 It is, nevertheless, revealing that a little later we are told that this Muslim leader refused to take advantage of a recent earthquake and sack Isernia. He is supposed to have said that the ‘­Lord of all’ had already expressed his anger in that place and saw no reason for further violence.42 Such examples show that the Cassinese chronicler was capable of respect for his adversaries. The author, moreover, ascribed to Massar deep religiosity and other humanitarian qualities, which would be difficult to distinguish during wartime events of any period. Therefore, it is doubly significant that he chose to write them down. In connection with this, the expression ‘­the Lord of all’ Massar used is very relevant because it implies the existence of a single divine entity common to both Christians and Muslims.43 This is a very remarkable detail if one considers that in that period many Europeans believed that the Saracens were pagans.44

Muslims in the historical works of early medieval southern Italy  5 Nonetheless, one should bear in mind that everything is still perceived from a strictly Cassinese point of view. The difference between Massar and Sawdān is that the former did not do any damage to the monks of Montecassino. If the stories of any of his victims (­among whom many were churchmen, according to the same chronicler)­45 had been taken into account, then his characterization would probably have been worse. That Louis II had Massar executed after his capture indicates how dangerous he was considered to be.46 Let us return to the story of Sawdān, at the point where he is portrayed eating atop a pile of cadavers. This incident is recounted in connection with a victory of his near Naples, so it is not directly concerned with the threat he posed to Montecassino. It is possible, however, to deduce that this i­ mage—​ ­the ingestion of nutrients, a primary requirement of life, taking place in the face of d ­ eath—​­is one in which impurity, that is chaos, is an important element.47 It could, therefore, be a metaphor for his excessively violent behavior in comparison to his predecessors and the danger he accordingly represented.48 No condemnation appears in this text about the use of Muslim mercenaries by the Christian lords. The chronicler nevertheless criticized the behavior of the Prince of Salerno, Siconolf (­­839–​­849), who had taken a great deal of precious objects and money from the monastery of St. Benedict to pay the Saracens from Spain he had employed in the conflict against the Prince of Benevento, Radelchis. The author gave a meticulous list of all these treasures, which demonstrates how much he wished to emphasize this incident.49 The chronicler explained that Siconolf had thus doomed his soul to hell with this ­deed—​­‘­iugulavit animam suam’ (­he cut the throat of his soul) is the exact and very graphic phrase. In fact, he went on to say that Siconolf’s actions were useless since he subsequently won no more battles.50 Here, the chronicler was implying that the prince of Salerno had been under a curse of some kind, and so doomed to fail. Having utilized the treasure of Montecassino to pay the Muslims was without a doubt a grievous act, but the lack of any general condemnation of the employment of Saracen mercenaries in the conflicts among Christians is a reasonable indicator that the Cassinese monk might have thought it was less reprehensible than the offense and damage done to his monastery. The blame placed on lay lords, who were busier fighting each other than defending their subjects from Muslim raids, is also found in the description of a clash with the Saracens. After one of Sawdān’s terrible expeditions, the Christians tried to counter attack,51 but in this case the words of the chronicler are as sarcastic as they were harsh in depicting the emir of Bari. The author emphasized that the Lombards, at last, had seemed to be waking from a long sleep, but this awakening had been beset with countless ‘­m iseriae’ (­m iseries). Their intentions may have been praiseworthy, but were useless due to their unending internal problems. The Christians faced their enemy ‘­non uno agmine, non una eademque intentione’ (­neither in unified ranks,

6  Muslims in the historical works of early medieval southern Italy nor under one leadership)­52 and paid dearly as a consequence of that rift. According to the chronicler, when they saw the Christians in the distance, the Muslims laid down on the ground to rest since it was getting dark. The Christians, on the other hand, went straight onto the battlefield despite the unfavorable conditions and the fatigue from their long journey. The Saracens were already organized into unified ranks and rose up to attack the Lombards, who fled almost as soon as they had arrived. The chronicler then pointed out the seriousness of this defeat for the Lombards, many of whom had been killed by Muslim swords as they fled, while others perished as their fellow soldiers trampled them.53 The author’s insistence on the ordered mode of attack by the ­Saracens—​­‘­uno agmine’ (­in one unified rank)—​­compared to the Lombards’ disorganization is probably a metaphor describing the overall picture of southern Italy at that time, when the Muslims were taking advantage of divisions between Christian factions and easily becoming the dominant power. In order to understand how the Saracens were perceived, it is worth noting that the chronicler never mentioned the losses the Lombards inflicted on the Muslims in battle; he instead indulged in detail when their enemies were Neapolitans, the Lombards’ traditional enemy. However, even in this case, the chronicler did not pass up an opportunity to criticize the Lombards’ behavior. He snuffed out enthusiasm for a victory on the Neapolitans, making the Emir of Bari, Sawdān, saying that tow and wadding had been fighting against each other.54 The comparison with such crude materials clearly indicates the opinion that the chronicler had of this success. In fact, although the odious Neapolitans had been beaten, the real enemies, namely, the Muslims, were still at large and taking advantage of the wars among the Christians. These nuances are absent in Erchempert’s chronicle. In this work, the accounts of the Saracens’ raids mainly served to demonstrate the serious responsibility of the Lombard aristocracy, which was unable to remain united and divided the Principality of Benevento among various local lords who were constantly fighting one another. The devastations the Muslims inflicted on southern Lombardy were therefore the result and not the cause of his homeland’s drastic decline. Their conquest of Bari was, for example, due to the thoughtlessness of the Prince of Benevento, Radelchis, who was hoping to use the Saracens against his enemies and instead lost that city and, above all, caused the ruin of its inhabitants; some of them were killed, while the others were taken captive.55 This chronicler utilized a harsh language when writing about the Muslims, like the verbs ‘­depopulare’ (­to devastate)­56 and ‘­laniare’ (­to maul, to tear apart)­57 and the term ‘­efferitas’ (­ferocity).58 Describing the effects of their expeditions, he emphasized that they had destroyed everything down to the roots,59 so that not a germ of life remained after their passage,60 while on another occasion nothing had survived but brambles61; Calabria was depopulated as it had been after the Noachian flood.62 The author also defined

Muslims in the historical works of early medieval southern Italy  7 them as a ‘­nefanda gens’ (­nefarious people)­63 and pointed out that the Muslims were by nature shrewder and were more skilled than others in committing evil,64 and grew rich by selling the Lombards they had captured.65 Equally significant is his comment on the havoc the Saracens committed in the lands of their former allies, the Neapolitans. Erchempert remarked that the words of Solomon had thus come true: ‘­W ho will medicate the enchanter once the serpent has struck?’66 He equated them with diabolical creatures, saying that, after the fall of Bari in 871 to Emperor Louis II, Satan realized that his people, the Saracens, had lost, and that Christ was winning, so the devil began to sow discord among the Christians. Concerning the last Emir of Bari, Sawdān, Erchempert employed a very harsh language, calling him ‘­nequissimus ac sceleratissimus’ (­most dissolute/­ evil and most wicked),67 ‘­efferus rex’ (­ferocius king),68 and ‘­omnium hominum flagitiosissimus’ (­the most infamous of all the men)­69 and ascribed to him the entire gamut of cruel acts that could be committed in war. It was he who conducted the expedition that put Benevento to fire and sword and left no breath of life. On account of Sawdān’s ‘­efferitas’, the Franks intervened in defense of the Lombards,70 and no place was ever safe from his ‘­efferitas’ after he defeated the Franks and Beneventans.71 The emir of Bari, moreover, had his prisoners cruelly killed.72 The author’s hatred toward this character is further shown when he maintained that God had decided to punish Emperor Louis II because this ruler did not execute Sawdān after the fall of Bari. According to Erchempert, Louis II forgot the example of the Jewish King Saul, who did not follow the prophet Samuel’s order to kill all the Amalekites, including their king.73 In this way, the Muslim leader and his people were compared to an enemy of the ‘­Chosen People’, whose complete elimination God himself had ordered. The Saracens, however, do not appear as the embodiment of evil in the Little History of Benevento’s Lombards. Though describing a period of very serious crisis, strongly characterized by defeats and violence, Erchempert, in fact, made important distinctions. For example, he never accused the Franks of having been one of the causes of the serious crisis of Southern Lombardy, but the fact that Erchempert compared them to locusts and called them ‘­barbarians’, definitions that clearly remind terrible devastations and that he did not employ for the Muslims,74 whose raids are a constant element in several parts of his work, seems to show that the Franks were in reality considered a more terrible enemy. They represented a graver danger because their objective was to conquer the Principality of Benevento, while the Saracens only wanted to loot that region.75 The harsh invective Erchempert directed against the Byzantines is relevant as well. He narrated that the Muslims had defeated one of their fleets because God wanted to punish those people who in spirit and custom were equal to beasts. The chronicler added that the ‘­Greeks’ were Christians in theory, but were worse than Muslims in practice. In fact, they often captured the Lombards and sold them to the Saracens.76 What is most significant is that the people

8  Muslims in the historical works of early medieval southern Italy assigned the worst characteristics are not Muslims, but the Christian lords. He remarked that the majority of them had not respected even the minimal degree of order necessary for peaceful coexistence.77 Another important detail for understanding Erchempert’s sentiments (­and probably also those of many of his compatriots) toward the adversaries of the Lombards, is the fact that, although the author mentioned several Lombard victories over the Muslims, the only time that he lingered over macabre details is on occasion of a Beneventan victory over the ­Neapolitans—­​­­pluri-​­secular enemies of the Lombards.78 The anonymous Salernitan chronicler also showed that the Saracens were fearsome foes. They are the only ones compared to locusts.79 The Muslim lord to whom the Sicilian man turned to avenge his wife dishonored by a Byzantine officer is called ‘­barbarus’ (­barbarian).80 The Salernitan author emphasized the wickedness of the Muslims, stating that several Saracens had gone to Salerno in peace, but in reality planned to take over the city.81 Besides raping several Salernitan girls, one of their leaders is said to have blasphemously committed such a crime on the altar of a church, in a clear sign of disrespect for the Christian religion.82 Hostility toward the Muslims also appears in an episode where one of their ambassadors was hosted in the residence of the bishop of Salerno, who for this reason became very sad and left his city. The bishop returned to Salerno only after having been begged for a long time and having received assurance that he would be given another residence; he in fact did not want to live in the previous place after what happened. The fact that the Muslim was a representative of Satan seems to suggest that the chronicler or his source had corrupted the name of the emir of Bari, Sawdān; it was in fact a grave offense that an ambassador of Satan had been hosted in the house of the main representative of the Christian religion in Salerno; it was moreover unthinkable that the bishop could still live in that place.83 Like Erchempert, the Salernitan chronicler mentioned Frankish attempts to seize the Principality of Benevento between the end of the eighth century and the beginning of the ninth century. Nevertheless, although he did not fail to describe the violence that characterized the Frankish expeditions, he did not show a bitterness toward them comparable to that of Erchempert. He did, however, report that the Beneventan bishops had gone to the ‘­nefarious’ Charlemagne to try to placate ‘­h is most cruel wrath’84 and added that, during the rule of the Prince of Benevento, Grimoald IV (­­806–​­817), the Franks had destroyed everything with fire and rapine.85 He also called them ‘­haughty people’86 and emphasized their wrongful behavior when, not tolerating the humiliation of seeing one of their compatriots defeated in a duel with a Beneventan, they had killed the victor with an arrow.87 Yet the anonymous chronicler also stated that Charlemagne did not heed his advisors, who had suggested to him that he punish Paul the Deacon for having made more than one attempt on his life,88 that the Beneventan bishops had convinced the Frankish sovereign to abandon his intention to occupy their

Muslims in the historical works of early medieval southern Italy  9 Principality,89 and, in addition, that in the end he became a monk, showing great humility.90 The Salernitan author, however, proved to be like Erchempert in that he expressed hatred for the Neapolitans. Narrating a battle between the latters and the Salernitans, led by Prince Guaifer (­­861–​­880), he actually stated that, among the few surviving Neapolitans who had been captured, there had been a little boy who begged for mercy but the Salernitan ruler ordered one of his men to kill him; the chronicler s­ pecified—​­the only time that the author inserts this type of ­clarification—​­that the Neapolitan had been struck with such force that his head split in two, then ended the account remarking that Guaifer had returned to Salerno ‘­w ith great joy’.91 Much like that Erchempert, the Salernitan chronicler reported that not only Muslims but also Lombards caused deaths and destructions. The Saracen ruler who tried to rape a Christian girl on a church altar during the siege of Salerno was defined as ‘­tirannus’,92 but the number of Christians who deserved this epithet is certainly greater.93 The same detail is found in the terminology the author employed to describe violent acts committed by Saracens and Christians.94 A negative character comparable to the Bishop of Capua, Landolf, as described by Erchempert cannot be found in the Chronicon Salernitanum, but the wicked acts that, according to its author, Prince Sicard carried out are certainly comparable to those of the worst Saracen leader.95 Unlike the two Cassinese authors, the Salernitan chronicler lived in a period when the Muslims no longer represented a danger. This detail, and the fact that he was strongly affected by the betrayal of Prince Gisulf’s relatives, who had repaid the trust and generosity of their prince by deposing him, probably influenced the way this author narrated several episodes concerning the Muslims. One example is found in the demise of Apolaffar,96 a Saracen in the service of the Prince of Benevento, Radelchis. Apolaffar was handed over to Guy of Spoleto, who was besieging Benevento with the Salernitans because the Muslim had humiliated Guy in combat and the Spoletan promised to raze the city to the ground if the Beneventans did not give him the Saracen. Radelchis had Apolaffar taken while he was sleeping, after which the prince’s men escorted the Muslim to the city gates just as they had found him, i.e. barefoot. To Radelchis asking why they were carrying him without shoes, Apolaffar answered, spitting: ‘­You do not care about my head and you ask about my feet?’ making the prince blush with shame.97 Although Apolaffar had gravely offended the honor of Guy of Spoleto, the anonymous Salernitan chronicler seems to recognize implicitly that, after all, he had been the victim of a broken agreement, therefore giving him the moral satisfaction of shaming the one who betrayed him.98 The chronicler also reported several examples of Muslims who had been extremely grateful for the benevolent attitude expressed toward them. The Emir of Bari, Sawdān, who had been taken under the protection of

10  Muslims in the historical works of early medieval southern Italy the Prince of Benevento, Adelchis, after the fall of Bari, suggested to the ­prince—​­evidently against his own i­nterests—​­that he did not arrest and chase Louis II out of Benevento, because the Muslims would attack him immediately. When Adelchis responded that the plan had already been revealed to many people, Sawdān demonstrated his ­intelligence—​­the author called him ‘­sagacissimus’ (­most sagacious)— ​­advising the Beneventan ruler to bring what he had begun to a close, since there was a risk that the plot would be discovered.99 The Saracen Arrane returned the Prince of Salerno Guaifer’s act of friendship. Having met Arrane in the town square at Salerno, Guaifer immediately agreed to the Muslim’s request to give him his turban.100 In return, Arrane later informed Guaifer, through an Amalfitan, that a Saracen fleet was arriving from Africa to assault Salerno; Arrane even supplied the prince with precise directions on how to improve the city’s fortifications.101 In another, equally relevant episode, the chronicler stated that the Salernitans had not respected an agreement drawn up with the Muslims and secretly took up arms to attack them. The Saracens, however, turned to Jesus, stating that they would recognize him as king of heaven and of earth and the lord of all creation if he would destroy the perjurers. God, as a just judge, did not give victory to the Christians because they had gone back on a promise they made.102 With these examples,103 the Salernitan chronicler showed that an act of benevolence or a simple gesture of friendship, like that of Prince Guaifer, could be paid back in an infinitely greater way. Furthermore, the fact that in his work only some Muslims behaved in this way represents an implicit accusation about the conduct of the Christians. This is especially clear in the case of one of the main duties the chronicler perceived as essential, that is upholding an oath sworn with any person whatsoever, which he perceived as indispensable if anarchy and the loss of God’s favor were to be avoided. The Salernitans lost against the Muslims because they had not respected their pact of n ­ on-​­aggression; the fact that it was clearly the will of God and the particular that the infidels won that battle rendered their defeat even more significant. The anonymous author also lingered over the heavy and ignominious routs the warriors of the cruel Prince of Benevento, Sicard, and those of the Salernitan ruler Peter suffered against the Muslims.104 The latter, in particular, had sworn to the dying Prince Siconolf that he would take care of his son Sico, but he first stripped him of power and then poisoned him.105 Here, the author probably wished to point out that victory could not be obtained if a wicked ruler led the troops. The Muslims are, on the other hand, the instrument through which God carried out his vengeance when the Lombards attacked their ally Louis II. In this case, the chronicler made no reference to a broken treaty with the emperor, but the providential interpretation of the siege of Salerno by the Muslims, led by the cruel Abdallah, is clear. The Salernitan author stated that

Muslims in the historical works of early medieval southern Italy  11 God, not wishing his people to be damned, had sent the Saracens against the Salernitans, until the Muslims avenged the offenses made against Louis II who had saved the Lombards. In this passage, they are compared to the ancient Jews, when they strayed from the Lord.106 The hardships endured during the siege therefore represented for the Lombards the penance needed to cleanse themselves of the sin that they had committed and, moreover, were an opportunity to prove the strength of their faith. In fact, when the Salernitans proved themselves good Christians, they were rewarded without exception. This happened, for example, in the case of a girl who resisted a Saracen leader, stating she preferred death to being raped on the altar of a ­church—​­God saved her, making a beam fall on the Muslim. This also occurred in the two confrontations with the Saracens where the Salernitans were completely victorious thanks to divine protection. The outcome is obviously greater as the opponent becomes more terrible. After the example of the young woman who had to confront a libidinous monster, a Christian fighter also had to face a kind of monster, who in theory appeared much stronger than him. The Salernitan Peter was challenged by a Saracen who had even three testicles and who held in his hand as many as six spears and wore armor and a helmet, while nothing is mentioned about the Christian’s weapons. The Salernitan, trusting in divine mercy, was however able to avoid the blows of his adversary and, having called on God and the holy martyrs to whom the nearby church was dedicated, struck the Saracen dead with his spear.107 In the subsequent duel, the enemy appeared a little more normal, but nevertheless it involved the most courageous of the Muslims, endowed with ‘­a great height’. The Lord however was on the side of the Salernitan Landemarius and did not permit the Saracen’s strong blow to reach the Christian, who took an opportunity to spear his adversary.108 Proof of even greater courage is shown by another Lombard, who, trusting in the help of the Lord, jumped down from Salerno’s walls, and, killing the Muslims left and right, used an axe to destroy a war machine with which the enemy was going to demolish the city’s main defenses.109 Once the people atoned for their sin, God forgot his rage and restored proper favor to the Salernitans. He punished his faithful when they sinned, so that they would understand the proper penance, and he pardoned them when they acknowledged their sins.110 Right when the Salernitans, forced by famine to eat cats and mice, decided to surrender to the Saracens if God would not help them,111 it happened that the Amalfitans, although at peace with the Muslims, remembered the friendship that bound them to the Salernitans and decided to send supplies, urging them to resist.112 Louis II then decided to intervene against the Saracens,113 who suffered a heavy defeat.114 In the period described in John the Deacon’s Deeds of the Neapolitan Bishops (­762/­­763–​­872) the Neapolitans, too, confronted the Muslims, but hostility did not always characterize the relationships with the Saracens. As John the Deacon himself narrated, the Neapolitans, for example, had asked their

12  Muslims in the historical works of early medieval southern Italy help when the Prince of Benevento, Sicard, besieged Naples.115 It is probably for this reason that the Saracens were not portrayed in an overly negative light in the Deeds of the Neapolitan Bishops. Although this author recounted that, during their raids, the Muslims had plundered and destroyed,116 the only really pejorative references to them are contained in a hint at their ferocity which had provoked numerous massacres in southern Italy during the Duke of Naples Gregory’s rule (­­864–​­870),117 and the use of the definition ‘­paganissimi (­most pagan)’.118 John the Deacon never recounted that the Muslims had attacked Naples; perhaps, this represents another reason for which he did not employ a harsh terminology for the Saracens comparable to which he utilized for the iconoclast Byzantine Emperor Constantine V (­­741–​­775) and the Lombard rulers Sico and Sicard, who had tried to conquer Naples in the 820s and 830s.119 The fact that the author was probably not contemporary to the period narrated in this work and the relative good relationships between the Neapolitans and Muslims in the ninth century could explain the lack of disparaging language. However, it is also possible that John the Deacon was reticent about this delicate topic for Naples.120 It is relevant to note that some clashes between the Neapolitans and the Saracens that the author reported probably took place while the Muslims were raiding the outskirts of Naples. The verb utilized to describe the purpose of the Saracens’ a­ ction—​­‘­latrocinari (­to engage in brigandage)’—​­121 might suggest that the Muslims considered the region surrounding Naples as an area to be pillaged rather than to be conquered. Perhaps for this reason, they were considered less dangerous than the Lombards. In the ninth and tenth centuries, Aḥimaʻaz’s ancestors lived in Oria (­Apulia) and this Jewish author mentioned the Muslim presence in southern Italy in the history of his family. In his brief overview of their conquests and campaigns, Aḥimaʻaz emphasized the heavy destructions the Saracens inflicted on that part of the Italian peninsula.122 The creation of the Emirate of Bari affected his family’s hometown as well, and Aḥimaʻaz recounted the interactions that two of his ­relatives—​­Shephatiah and A ­ haron—​­had had with the Emir of Bari, Sawdān. The chronicler’s goal was to praise the cleverness and the wisdom of his ancestors. In his narrative, however, this Muslim leader emerged as a figure with some nuances. Aḥimaʻaz portrayed Sawdān as a cunning man who, wishing to take Oria by surprise and to plunder it, had pretended to seek peace with its inhabitants.123 Moreover, the Saracen chieftain forced Shephatiah, who had been sent to Bari as ambassador of Oria’s governor and had discovered Sawdān’s real intentions, to stay in Bari until almost Sabbath so that he could not return home and reveal the Muslim plans. A little before the beginning of the holy Jewish day, the emir allowed Shephatiah to go back to Oria believing that observation of the Sabbath would delay the Jew on his travels.124 However, with God’s help, Shephatiah reached Oria, and its forewarned inhabitants prepared for the Muslim army’s arrival.125 Sawdān, on the other hand, is said to have appreciated Aharon’s wisdom so much that the Muslim’s ‘­love for him was wonderful, more than the love

Muslims in the historical works of early medieval southern Italy  13 for women’126 and that he made many efforts to prevent the learned Jew from returning to Israel.127 A similar relationship was later created between Paltiel and the Muslim leader a­ l-​­Mui’z.128 This Saracen ruler brought havoc to southern Italy and conquered Oria, but honored Shephatiah’s descendants and took Paltiel as his counselor who quickly became the Muslim ruler’s most powerful courtier.129 One must note that, according to Aḥimaʻaz’s chronicle, the worst enemies of the Jews in that period were not the Muslims but some Byzantine characters. Emperor Basil (­­867–​­886)—​­defined as ‘­man of evil, a treacherous murderer’—​­130 had, in fact, issued an edict forcing the Jews to convert to Christianity;131 the sovereign’s attempts to convince Shephatiah to abandon Judaism were labelled as ‘­fury and ill intent’.132 In this case, too, Shephatiah saved his town’s ­co-​­religionists. As compensation for curing Basil’s daughter, possessed by an evil spirit,133 the emperor did not accept Shephatiah’s request to annul his edict against Judaism, but allowed the Jews of Oria to practice their religion.134 Although Aḥimaʻaz recounted that Basil’s son and successor, Leo VI (­­886–​­912), had rescinded his father’s edict,135 he also narrated that some Byzantines had kept their antipathy toward Jews. When Paltiel became ­al-​­Mui’z’s master of palace and an ambassador from Constantinople discovered this, he insolently declared that he would go back to his city ‘­rather than meet with a Jew so as to speak with the king’.136 To conclude, all the early medieval southern Italian chroniclers perceived the Muslims as dangerous ‘­others’ who had greatly harmed their land. Yet, all their works show that the Saracens were not depicted as the embodiments of evil or the worst enemies of the Lombards, Neapolitans, and Jews.137 In fact, other peoples, such as the Franks and the Byzantines in two of the Lombard chronicles, the Byzantines in the Jewish family history, and the Lombards and the iconoclast Emperor Constantine V in the Deeds of the Neapolitan Bishops, are portrayed in a far worse way. It is also worth noting the fact that the most dangerous enemies of the Lombards were some of their own lords whose cruel behavior and selfishness created the ideal situation for the success of the Muslim raids. Moreover, in spite of having been composed in territories not under Saracen control, these chronicles demonstrate that the Muslims were not a distant and unapproachable other.138 This kind of perception, therefore, seems to be the product of a world in which the interactions between Christians and Muslims were not monochrome.139 Indeed, there was a time for war,140 but, sometimes, also a time for different kinds of contacts.141

Notes 1 The term Saracen was the most common word used by early medieval southern Italian authors to refer to Muslims. For all the definitions utilized in early medieval Italy, see L. A. Berto, Christians and Muslims in Early Medieval Italy: Perceptions, Encounters, and Clashes (­Abingdon and New York, 2020), p­p. ­16–​­17. In this book, Saracen will be used as a synonym for Muslim.

14  Muslims in the historical works of early medieval southern Italy 2 For a summary of events and relevant bibliography, see A. Metcalfe, The Muslims of Medieval Italy (­Edinburgh, 2009), p­p.  ­1–​­24, and Berto, Christians and Muslims in Early Medieval Italy. For the history of continental southern Italy in this period, see the essays collected in Storia del Mezzogiorno, II. Il Medioevo, 1 (­Naples, 1988), B. K. Kreutz, Before the Normans. Southern Italy in the Ninth and Tenth centuries (­Philadelphia, 1991), and the historical overviews in ­Chapters 2 and 6 of this book. 3 For further information and bibliography on these texts and the codex, see Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, ed. L. A. Berto with an appendix of W. Pohl (­Florence, 2006), pp. v­ ii–​­xli; and C ­ hapter 8 of this book. 4 The first part is a brief overview of events in southern Italy between the Lombard invasion at the end of the sixth century and Emperor Louis II’s campaign against the Saracens in ­866–​­867, while the third is a brief summary of Montecassino’s history composed of passages from Paul the Deacon’s Historia Langobardorum and a chronological table. 5 This part ends with the description of a raid by the Emir of Bari, Sawdān. The author did not report any date for this episode, but in the previous chapter he recounted that the Bishop of Capua, Landolf, had taken control of Capua (­c. 863). Cf. N. Cilento, Le origini della signoria di Capua nella Longobardia minore (­Rome, 1966), ­p. 105. 6 This view was also shared by G. Falco, ‘­Due secoli di storia cassinese’, in Id., Albori d’Europa (­Rome, 1947), p ­ . 248. 7 The edition and English translation of this work can be found in Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, in The Little History of the Lombards of Benevento by Erchempert: A Critical Edition and Translation of ‘­Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium’, ed. L. A. Berto (­Abingdon and New York, 2021). On Erchempert, his work, and relevant bibliography, see ­Chapter 6 of this book. 8 The first part stops with the biography of Calvus (­d. 762). 9 This work has been edited in John the Deacon, ‘­Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum’, in Storia dei vescovi napoletani (­I ­secolo – ​­876) / Gesta Episcoporum Neapolitanorum, ed. L. A. Berto (­Pisa, 2018), p­p.  ­72–​­111. My new edition and English translation of this work is forthcoming. 10 For further information about this text, its author, and relevant bibliography, see Berto, Making History, C ­ hapter 11, and C ­ hapter 7 of this book. 11 The only autobiographical note is a reference to his ancestor, Radoald, who was among the young Beneventans and Salernitans who followed Abbot Alfanus to Naples, forced to leave because of fierce opposition from Roffredus, advisor of Prince Sicard of Benevento (­­832–​­839). Chronicon Salernitanum: A Critical Edition with Studies on Literary and Historical Sources and on Language, ed. U. Westerbergh (­Stockholm, 1956), chapter 68. Huguette ­Taviani-​­Carozzi has argued that the author is Radoald, abbot of the monastery of St. Benedict of Salerno, whose presence is attested in 986 and 990. H. Taviani-​­Carozzi, La principauté lombarde de Salerne (­IXe –​­X Ie siècle): Pouvoir et société en Italie lombarde méridionale (­Rome, 1991), p­p. ­85–​­91. This is not the place to discuss the French historian’s assumptions point by point. It suffices to observe that the identification of the sculdais Radoald, who lived under Prince Guaimar of Salerno (­­880–​­900) and who is said to have prevented the city from falling to the Saracens, with the name of the ­w riter—​­the fundamental point of this theory, according to which the author would have kept the name of his ancestors and therefore would have been recognizable as Abbot Radoald only because the author praised ­h im—​­is hardly logical. It makes little sense to think that a chronicler who reported a relationship with someone who did nothing remarkable would not point to a

Muslims in the historical works of early medieval southern Italy  15 relationship with a Salernitan hero. Against T ­ aviani-​­Carozzi’s hypothesis are S. Palmieri, ‘­L’identità del cronista salernitano’, Rassegna Storica Salernitana, n. s. XI, 1 (­1994), p­p. 225, 232, and P. Delogu, ‘­La conquista dell’Italia meridionale come ideologia storiografica’, Rassegna Storica Salernitana, n. s. XI, 2 (­1994), p­p. ­213–​­14. Consequently, in this work I will refer to the author of the Chronicon Salernitanum as the anonymous Salernitan chronicler. 12 On this chronicle in general, see M. Oldoni, Anonimo salernitano del X secolo (­Naples, 1972). 13 Unfortunately the only chronological information that the author provided on the period of composition leaves a wide degree of uncertainty. The fact that, narrating the murder of Prince Adelchis of Benevento (­­853–​­877), he specified that the grass had not grown where the prince’s blood had been spilled until his time, that is, a hundred years l­ater—​­Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter ­123—​­, is not a definitive way to determine the date of composition. The calculation of years could be ­i ncorrect—​­i n the Chronicon chronological references are very ­rare—​ ­and, even if correct, would only mean that in 977 the author was describing the incident, not that he had finished his chronicle; this episode is in folium 77r and the Chronicon ends in folium 104r. Nicola Cilento and Massimo Oldoni have no doubt about this and maintain that the work was written between 974 and 978. N. Cilento, ‘­L’Anonimo di Salerno’, in Id., Italia meridionale longobarda, ­p. 97, and Oldoni, Anonimo salernitano, ­p. 33. The possibility that the calculation is not exact has been considered by Antonio Carucci. Il Chronicon Salernitanum (­sec. X), Italian translation by A. Carucci (­Salerno, 1988), ­p. 206, note 120. 14 For example, the author explained that he was going to recount that episode ‘­w ith sadness’. Chronicon Salernitanum, ­chapter 174. 15 R. Bonfil, History and Folklore in a Medieval Jewish Chronicle: The Family Chronicle of Aḥimaʻaz ben Paltiel (­Leiden, 2009), chapter 2, p­p. ­232–​­35. 16 This work is preserved in a manuscript discovered in the Cathedral Library of Toledo in the nineteenth century. For further information about this text, relevant bibliography, its edition and its English translation, see Bonfil, History and Folklore. Another English translation can be found in The Chronicle of Ahimaaz, translated with an introduction and notes by M. Salzman (­New York, 1924). It has also been translated into Italian. Libro delle discendenze: vicende di una famiglia ebraica di Oria nei secoli I­ X – ​­XI, translated by C. Colafemmina (­Cassano Delle Murge, 2001). On Jews in that part of Italy, see V. Von Falkenhausen, ‘­The Jews in Byzantine southern Italy’, in Jews in Byzantium: Dialectics of Minority and Majority Cultures, eds. R. Bonfil, O. Irshai, G. G. Stroumsa, and R. Talgam (­Leiden, 2012), p­p. ­271–​­96. 17 This terminology is above all utilized by Erchempert, Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, II, 2: ‘­Ab hac gravis vel fortis Saracenorum vastatio †† ut in nos utique sic nimium saeviret’. In reality it is not clear if ‘­nos’ in this passage is referred to the Lombards or the monks of Montecassino. Since this chronicle is not a history of the monastery of Saint Benedict, the second hypothesis is more likely. Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, ­chapter 6: ‘­Frequenter autem Karlus cum cunctis liberis, quos iam reges constituerat, et cum immenso bellatorum agmine Beneventum preliaturus aggreditur; set, Deo decertante pro nobis, sub cuius adhuc regimine fovebamur’. Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, ­chapter  17: ‘­Siconolfus… contra Agarenos Radelgisi Libicos Hismaelitas Hispanos accivit, hisque invicem intestino et extero altercantibus bello, ultramarina loca captivis nostre gentis diversi sexus et etatis fulciebantur’. Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, ­chapter 27: ‘­Nam octavo Ydus Maias quo beati Michahelis archangeli sollempnia nos sollempniter celebramus, quo etiam die priscis temporibus a

16  Muslims in the historical works of early medieval southern Italy Beneventanorum populis Neapolites fortiter cesos legimus’. Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, ­chapter 57: ‘­De nostris unus solummodo Onericus nomine, et, ut fertur, a suis extinctus est’. Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 75: ‘­Sicuti enim Neapolites vastantur, qui vastarunt, ita et nos forsan devorabimur, qui nunc devorantes sumus’. Stefano Gasparri’s claim that, after the fall of the Lombard Kingdom in 774, only a ‘­Lombard legitimism’ and ‘­political institutions’ survived in southern Lombardy is therefore completely misleading. S. Gasparri, Prima delle nazioni. Popoli, etnie e regni fra Antichità e Medioevo (­Rome, 1997), p­p. ­204–​­07. Some observations about this topic, based on source analysis and not on ­pre-​­conceived theories, can be found in L. Capo, ‘­La polemica longobarda sulla caduta del ­ hapter 6 of this regno’, Rivista Storica Italiana, CVIII, 1 (­1996), p­p. ­8 –​­12, and C book. 18 As far as I know, this kind of study has never been made for the early medieval Italian chroniclers. Here, I limit myself to point out that, by using the search engine available in the website of the MGH (­http://­w ww.dmgh.de/) it emerges that in his Historia Langobardorum Paul the Deacon never employed this kind of terminology. This detail emphasizes the originality of these authors, who knew that work. Very similar terms are, on the other hand, utilized in the text, written in Greek, that narrates the biography of Saint Nilus of Rossano (­Calabria); they are above all employed on occasions of contacts with ‘­non Greeks’. On this, see A. ­Peters-​­Custot, ‘­L’identité des Grecs de l’Italie méridionale byzantine’, Nea Rhome. Rivista di ricerche bizantinistiche, 3 (­2006), p­p. ­204–​­05. Among the studies devoted to ­non-​­Italian texts, an important analysis, that pays attention to the use of this kind of language, is H. M. Thomas, The English and the Normans: Ethnic Hostility, Assimilation, and Identity, ­1066 – ​­c. 1220 (­Oxford, 2003), passim. 19 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapters 16, 57, 75, and 77. Erchempert also employed this word to explain that a location had not been destroyed by the Muslims, but ‘­Christianorum fraude’. Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 44; Chronicon Salernitanum, chapters 111, 112 (­three times) 113 (­three times) 114, 118, 126 (­twice), 134 and 139 (­three times). 20 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 16; Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 118; John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporun Neapolitanorum, chapter 60. 21 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapters 19 and 35; Chronicon Salernitanum, chapters 113, 114, and 126. 22 Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 112. 23 The Salernitan chronicler employed this definition for the last Emir of Bari, Sawdān. This author narrated that, although this Muslim leader was an infidel, he had not harmed the Prince of Benevento Adelchis’s daughter, who had been given to him as a hostage. Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 108: ‘­Habuerat… eam obsidem, et minime, licet infidelis fuisset, adhuc contaminarat’. This term is utilized for the Saracens in the letter of Emperor Louis II to the Byzantine Emperor Basil as well. Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 107, ­p. 119: ‘­Nam infidelibus arma et alimenta et cetera subsidia tribuentes, per tocius imperii nostri litora eos ducunt, et cum ipsis tocius beati Petri apostolorum principis territorii fines furtim depredari conantur, ita ut facta videatur Neapolis Panormus vel Africa… Ergo si societatem non dissolverint infidelium secundum apostolum, qui precipit dicens: “­Nolite iugum ducere cum infidelibus”.’ 24 Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 107: ‘­ Sed imminente peccato, Neapolim Agarenos suscipiunt alimentaque illis nimirum prebunt’.

Muslims in the historical works of early medieval southern Italy  17 25 For the Salernitan chronicler, this detail has been also noted by P. Delogu, Mito di una città meridionale (­Salerno, secoli ­VIII-​­XI) (­Naples, 1977), p ­ . 87, note 79. M. G. Stasolla, on the other hand, maintains that the use of the term ‘­i nfidel’ in these sources indicates that Muslims were considered members of ‘­one the many Eastern Christians sects’. M. G. Stasolla, ‘­Gli Arabi nella penisola italiana’, in Testimonianze degli Arabi in Italia (­Rome, 1988), ­p. 80. 26 N. Cilento, ‘­Le incursioni saraceniche nell’Italia meridionale’, in Id., Italia meridionale longobarda (­­Milan-​­Naples, 1971, 2nd ed.), p­p.  ­143–​­44. Mentioning a study by Monneret de Villard, Cilento maintains that Western Europeans believed that the Muslims were Arian Christians. This view is shared by A. G ­ aldi –​ ­E. Susi, ‘­Santi, navi e Saraceni. Immagini e pratiche del mare tra agiografia e ­ I–​­XI)’, in Dio, il storia dalle coste campane a quelle dell’Alto Tirreno (­secoli V mare e gli uomini, Quaderni di storia religiosa, 15 (­Verona, 2008), p ­ . 66. None of the authors examined in this chapter ever said this. In general for what Christians in early medieval Italy knew about the Muslims, see Berto, Christians and Muslims in Early Medieval Italy, chapter 2. 27 The Muslims ruled Bari from probably 847 to 871. G. Musca, L’emirato di Bari. ­847–​­871 (­Bari, 1967, second edition); Metcalfe, The Muslims of Medieval Italy, p­p. ­18–​­21. 28 Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, II, 2: ‘­Horum iniquorum primus venientum vocabatur Kalfon rex’. 29 Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, II, 2: ‘­In tempesta videlicet noctis hora more solito nominatam rapuerunt civitatem’. 30 Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, II, 5: ‘­Tum subito inmanis facta est pluvia, coruscationes et tonitrua tam vehementia, ita siquidem ut etiam Carnellus fluvius ultra terminos excrescens redundaret. Et quem pridie adversarii transire poterant pede, sequenti videlicet die, divina coherciti repulsione, neque ripam attingere valebant fluvii. Nitebantur quolibet fluvium transmeare modo, sed dum nullus adesset eis ad cęnovium transmeandi aditus.’ 31 Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, II, 5: ‘­Nitebantur quolibet fluvium transmeare modo, sed dum nullus adesset eis ad coenovium transmeandi aditus. Sicut est illorum dira barbaries, digitos corrodentes manuum fremebantque seu stridebant dentibus, huc illucque furibundi discurrentes’. 32 Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, II, 5. The chronicler also narrated that the Muslims could not celebrate their successes because at the very moment in which they saw their homeland, a violent storm broke out, leading to the shipwreck of the Saracen fleet and the death of all the Muslims. Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, II, 5. For an analysis of this account, see C ­ hapter 8 of this book. 33 In the Latin sources he is called Saudan, Saugdan, or Seodan. 34 Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, II, 32: ‘­omnium contrarius hostis’. 35 This detail is present in both the works of Erchempert and the anonymous Salernitan chronicler. 36 Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, II, 28: ‘­Saraceni vero omne demolierunt monasterium, confringentes omnia, frumenta et legumina in flumine proicientes. Et dum huc illucque foderent, plurimum absconsum reppererunt thesaurum, coronas videlicet, ministeria sacra et quotquot valuit esse ecclesiasticus honor. Nefandissimus autem Seodan rex in sacris calicibus bibebat et cum turibulis aureis incensum sibi fieri iubebat.’ 37 Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, II, 32: ‘­senem ante cancellos interfecerunt, qui eorum fallitus est viam’. 38 Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, II, 25. 39 Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, II, 25: ‘­Nullus omnino preteribat dies, quod ad quingentos et eo amplius non interficeret homines et hoc pars Dei esse

18  Muslims in the historical works of early medieval southern Italy dicebat, ut illud compleretur evangelicum: Omnis qui interficit vos arbitratur se obsequium prestare Deo. Nam sevus ille tyrannus super cadavera mortuorum sedens, edebat tamquam unus putridus canis.’ The author, however, used also a surprisingly ironic tone with the regard to Sawdān, named ‘­our benefactor’. Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, II, 32: ‘­Item benefactor noster, id est omnium contrarius hostis, Seodan venit in Benafrum’. This point has also been outlined by Falco, ‘­Due secoli di storia cassinese’, ­p. 249, and Cilento, ‘­I cronisti della Longobardia minore’, p ­ . 82. De Angelis, on the other hand, does not see any ironic tone in this statement. He believes that it expresses the Cassinese viewpoint of the actions of the emir, who had sacked the areas surrounding Montecassino, but he had spared the monastery of St. Benedict. T. De Angelis, ‘­Capua e i Capuani: tra tradizione ed innovazione nella storiografia altomedievale della “­Langobardia Minor”’, in ‘­Felix Terra’. Capua e la Terra di Lavoro in età longobarda, ed. F. Marazzi (­Cerro al Volturno (­IS), 2017), p­p. ­172–​­73. However, as it has already been emphasized, the chronicler wrote that God had saved Montecassino from Sawdān. 40 On Massar, see Musca, L’emirato di Bari, p­p. 25, ­29–​­30, 38. It is believed that this name is the Latinization of either Abū Ma’sar or Abū Ma’shār. Musca, L’emirato di Bari, ­p. 196; Metcalfe, The Muslims of Medieval Italy, ­p. 18. 41 Cronicae sancti Benedicti casinensis, II, 8: ‘­Quandoque pervenit secus almi Benedicti monasterium. Cuius adeo ita divinitus mens immutata est, et, dum unus eius canis vellet in pratis unam comprehendere aucam, per semed ipsum cum flagello cucurrit et eadem de ore captoris expulit abem. Cumque ante ianuas assisteret monasterii, protinus portas claudere iussit, ne subsequentes introire magaritę presumerent.’ 42 Cronicae sancti Benedicti casinensis, II, 10: ‘­Quod dum Massaro nuntiatum fuisset, ut ruinosam depredaret Iserniam ait enim: ‘­Dominus omnium illuc iratus est et ego peramplius desebiam? Non utique ibo!’’ G. Zornetta has mistakenly stated that Massar wanted to sack St. Vincent at Volturno and that he changed his mind because of an earthquake. G. Zornetta, Italia meridionale longobarda. Competizione, conflitto e potere politico a Benevento (­secoli V ­ III–​­IX) (­Rome, 2020), ­p. 236, note 74. 43 The fact that the chronicler does not express a ‘­general horror’ with regard to the Muslims has also been observed by N. Cilento, ‘­I cronisti della Longobardia minore’, in Id., Italia meridionale longobarda (­Milan and Naples, 1971, 2nd ed.), ­p. 82; Stasolla, ‘­Gli Arabi nella penisola italiana’, ­p. 85; and J. Kujawinski, ‘­Le immagini dell’altro nella cronachistica del Mezzogiorno longobardo’, Rivista Storica Italiana, 118, 3 (­2006), p­p. ­777–​­78 (­this article was originally published in Quaestiones Medii Aevi Novae 10 (­2005), p­p. ­229–​­71). These scholars, however, do not consider the implications of the expression ‘­Lord of all’. 44 In general, on the way Christians perceived Muslims in the Middle Ages, see J. V. Tolan, Saracens. Islam in the Medieval European Imagination (­New York, 2002), who, however, has not examined any early medieval Italian source. 45 Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, II, 8. 46 Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, II, 14. 47 In the analysis of this account I have found particularly helpful the ideas expressed about the connection between disorder and impurity in M. Douglas, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (­London and New York, 1986, first edition 1966). 48 It is likely that on several occasions Montecassino was able to avoid to be sacked by the Muslims by giving tributes to them and that Sawdān probably tried to obtain more money. Cf. Musca, L’emirato di Bari, ­p. 66; Kreutz, Before the Normans, ­p. 38.

Muslims in the historical works of early medieval southern Italy  19 49 Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, II, 7. 50 Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, II, 7: ‘­abhinc nullum ei amplius evenit triumphum victorię.’ 51 Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, II, 25. It is believed that this battle occurred in 860, and that it represented the attempt of the Duke of Spoleto, Lambert, and his allies to stop Muslim raids. Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 29. B. Ruggiero, ‘­Il ducato di Spoleto e i tentativi di penetrazione dei Franchi nell’Italia meridionale’, in Id., Potere, istituzioni, chiese locali: Aspetti e motivi del Mezzogiorno medioevale dai Longobardi agli Angioini (­Spoleto, 1991), ­p. 28. 52 Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, II, 26. 53 Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, II, 26: ‘­Tandem quasi e gravi somno evigilantes, sed gravati atque prepediti nimiis miseriis Wandelpert et Maielpotus gastaldius et Garard comes cum plurimis aliis nobilibus properaverunt Beneventum, ut communi consilio ulciscerent se de Saracenis. Salubre quidem fuit consilium, sed inutilis ordo. Non uno agmine, non una eademque intentione per cohortes incedebant, sed divisi ab alterutro inhordinate proficiscebant. Igitur propinquaverunt secus Saracenos ad Arium. Quod hi cernentes, se protinus straverunt in terram. Iamque sol ad occasum tendebat. Hi vero qui a Benevento venerunt, sicuti fuerant lassi et nimium equidem fatigati sitientesque valde, continuo in aciem introierunt. Ilico Saraceni subito erecti, ut erant in uno agmine conglobati, repente irruerunt super eos. Hi vero terga vertentes, fugere cęperunt. Plurimi interempti a gladiis, nonnulli cadentes, in alterutrum inpingentes, prefocabantur. Alii in fossatis, sepibus et cavernis terre inlesi a gladiis, sed pre siti mortui, inveniebantur. Saraceni autem victores effecti, cęptum peregerunt iter.’ 54 Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, II, 22: ‘­Quod ex utroque latere Seudan audiens factum, irrisit, dicens: ‘­Stuppa cum tomentis pariter iuncta fecerunt bellum’’. 55 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 16: ‘­Hiis quoque diebus Pando quidam Barim regebat, qui iussis optemperans Radelgisi, Saracenorum phalangas in adiutorium accitas iuxta murum urbis et oram maris locavit commorandas… intempesta noctis, christicolis quiescentibus, per abdita loca penetrant urbem, populumque insontem partim gladiis trucidarunt partim captivitati indiderunt.’ 56 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapters 20, 29, 35 (­twice), 39, 47, and 54. 57 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 51. 58 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 29 (­twice). 59 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 35. 60 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 29. 61 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 51. 62 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 35. 63 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 15. 64 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 16: ‘­Hii autem, ut sunt natura callidi et prudentiores aliis in malum’. Erchempert made this observation narrating how the Saracens, hired by Prince Radelchis, had taken possession of Bari. Using the erroneous translation by Joan Rowe Ferry (­unpublished PhD dissertation, Rice University 1995)— ​­‘­natura callidi’ (­by nature clever)—​­C. Heath maintains that Erchempert provided a positive evaluation of those Muslims. Moreover, I do not believe that the reference to the use of Saracen troops by the Lombard rulers means that the chronicler wished to

20  Muslims in the historical works of early medieval southern Italy praise their ‘­martial qualities’ as this scholar argues. C. Heath, ‘­Third/­Ninth century Violence: “­Saracens” and Sawdān in Erchempert’s Historia’, ­Al-​­Masaq: Journal of the Medieval Mediterranean, 27, 1 (­2015), ­p. 34. 65 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 17. 66 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 77: ‘­Set Capuani praevalidiores effecti, per se et cum saracenis graviter Neapolim circumquaque vastantes lacerant, ut ignis consumantes omnia, aequo Dei iudicio, ut qui Saracenis innumerabiles christicolas gladiis et captivitatibus tradidit bonisque eorum ditatus est, non immerito ab his flagelletur, rodatur et depraedetur, ut Salomon ait: Quis medebitur incantatori a serpente semel percusso?’ 67 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 29. 68 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 33. 69 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 37. This definition is also used in II Mac 7,34. 70 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 29. 71 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 29: ‘­Qua de re audaciam ex illo die potiorem sumens, Beneventum eiusque confinia funditus delevit, ita ut nullus locus preter urbes precipuas eius efferitati evaderet’. 72 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 29. 73 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 37: ‘­capta Bari et Saugdan, omnium hominum flagitiosissimo, non iuxta voluntatem Domini eum protinus, ut dignum erat, crudeliter interfici fecerit. Oblitus videlicet, quid Samuel coram Saule de Agath, pinguissimo rege Amalechitarum, egerit, quomodo eum in frusta discerpi fecerit’ (­1. Reg. 15). 74 At the time of their conquest of Sicily the Muslims are compared to a swarm of bees, a metaphor certainly less strong than that of locusts. Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 11: ‘­Circa hec tempora gens Agarenorum a Babilonia et Africa ad instar examinis apum manu cum valida egrediens, Siciliam properavit, omnia circumquaque devastans’. 75 For further information on how Erchempert depicted the Franks, see C ­ hapter 4 of this book. 76 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 81. For further information on the manner Erchempert portrayed the Byzantines, see ­Chapter 2 of this book. 77 For the way Erchempert depicted them, see ­Chapter 6 of this book. 78 For the way the chronicler portrayed the Neapolitans, see ­Chapter  4 of this book. 79 Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 93. The Byzantines are compared to locusts in the letter to Emperor Basil. Chronicon Salernitanum, p ­ . 115. In this case, however, the reference is made to indicate their large numbers. 80 Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 60. In this regard, it is important to point out that ‘­barbarus’ is never utilized to define the improper conduct of the Muslim rex, a fact that would suggest that the anonymous Salernitan chronicler was probably using it to refer to his African origins. 81 Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 151. 82 Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 112: ‘­Tirannus ille Agarenorum rex sanctissima hede beatorum Fortunati videlicet, Gagi et Anthes cum suis satellitibus degebat, atque in luxuriis et variis inquinamentis fervebant, in tantum ut ille Abdila thorum sibi parari iusserat super sacratissimum altare, ibique puellas quas nequiter depredaverat deludebat.’ 83 Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 99: ‘­Set cum sepissime legati Agarenorum Salernum venissent, dum iam dicto Sico Petroque rectore Salernitanis simul preessent, accidit, ut unum eminentissimum Agarenum fuisset missus a Satan

Muslims in the historical works of early medieval southern Italy  21 domino Salernum. Sed cum Salernum venisset, cum magna sublimitate eum susceperunt; at episcopium illum miserunt, quatenus in domo, ubi Bernardus presul morare solitus, erat, degeret. Dum fuisset nimirum factum, ipso presul exinde mox valde ingemuit, atque ex intimo cordis anelitum trahens, tandem deintus vulnus foras erupit, et quasi pro causa dictis principibus Romam properavit... Tandem exoratus ab omni populo Salernitano et plus nimirum a clero, illis epistolam in hunc modum misit: “­Si illuc me habere cupitis, edem mihi aliam in loco alio edificate, quia post hec minime ubi moravi iam habito”.’ 84 Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 10: ‘“­b eatissimi patres, iniamus consilium, qualiter e nostris finibus nefandum Karolum evellamus”. Et consilium inierunt, quatenus iram eius sevissimam blandirentur’. 85 Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 38: ‘­Per idem tempus Francorum exercitu Beneventani finibus adiit, et quicquid repperiri potuit incendiis rapinisque demoliti sunt’. 86 Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 39: ‘­i niamus consilium, qualiter ex nostris finibus superba gens protinus evellamus’ 87 Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 40. 88 Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 9. 89 Chronicon Salernitanum, chapters ­10–​­12. 90 Chronicon Salernitanum, chapters ­31–​­33. Huguette ­Taviani-​­Carozzi, however, while pointing out that the chronicler inserted episodes about Charlemagne the monk for edification, believes that they are on the verge of ­derision—​­especially the one where Charlemagne offered all his clothes to a thief so that they would not steal the sheep of his monastery, and when he found himself completely naked, attacked the robber and took his loincloth because he was ashamed, and the other story where he carried a lame sheep on his shoulders a long distance and was covered in mud. ­Taviani-​­Carozzi, La principauté lombarde de Salerne, p­p. ­71–​­72. It does not seem to me that this is the intent, and in this regard I should note that in the Chronicle of Novalesa, written about seventy years after the Chronicon Salernitanum, the following episode is told. The legendary Waltarius, having become old, entered the monastery of Novalesa and one day was sent by the abbot to make some robbers return the goods they had stolen from the abbey. He asked the abbot if he should give the robbers his breeches in addition to all his other clothes if the robbers demanded them, and the abbot replied that he would already show great humility by offering them all his other garments. Waltarius then went to the thieves, refused to give them his breeches, and, when the bandits began to use violence, he killed them. Cronaca di Novalesa, ed. G. C. Alessio (­Turin, 1982), II, 11. 91 Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 127: ‘­Sed dum unum adolessentulum inter eos comprehendissent, ille adolescens veniam postulabat; at princeps cuidam suo fideli verba depromsit, ut cicius eum de hac instabili luce extinguere. Statim cum ingenti virtute per medium celebro mucrone percussit, ita ut pars capitis dextro, parte levo humero superiaceret, et iam exanimatum corruit miserabile corpus; et sic magno tripudio Salernum regressus est.’ 92 Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 112 (­four times). The leader of the Saracens of Garigliano is described in the same way, but I have not taken this into account because it is a passage taken verbatim from Erchempert’s chronicle. Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 142. Cf. Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 79. 93 It is used for the king of the Lombards, Desiderius, Prince Grimoald IV of Benevento, Sicard, the counselor of Prince Sicard of Benevento, the princes of Salerno Ademar and Dauferius, and Landolf, Prince Gisulf of Salerno’s cousin. Chronicon Salernitanum, chapters 9, 39, 68, 101, and 180.

22  Muslims in the historical works of early medieval southern Italy 94 It is utilized twice (­Chronicon Salernitanum, chapters 118 and 151) for the Saracens, three times for Prince Guaimar of Salerno (­Chronicon Salernitanum, chapters 148 and 155 [twice]) and twice for King Berengar II (­Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 169 [twice]); ‘­ira sevissima’ on the other hand is used only for Charlemagne (­Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 10) and Prince Sicard of Benevento (­Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 64). The Muslim ruler Abdila violated girls whom he had captured nequiter (­Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 112); his successor Abelmec, although frightened by the defeat his warriors suffered against the Franks, ‘­ab solita vergens nequicia immo et sevicia’. Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 118. Sicard is especially nequicia plenus (­Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 69) and Prince Atenolf was expelled from Benevento ‘­propter suas nequicias suaque crudelitate’ (­Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 159); the same words are employed, with the addition of superbia, to explain that Landolf, son of Prince Atenolf, was expelled from Capua (­Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 175)—​­he was sent out of Capua for the same reason (­Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 175). The chronicler stated that on one occasion the Saracens ‘­terram crudeliter laniabant’ and that one of their leaders had been a ‘­crudelissimus tirannus’—​­the fact that both these examples are in paragraphs taken verbatim from Erchempert makes them less significant, ­however—​­Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapters 51 and 79; the Byzantine patrician Eugenius was taken by his men and sent to Constantinople because of his crudelitas. Theophano, wife of Emperor Nicephorus, was crudelissima and, because she was in love with John Tzimiskes, killed her husband crudeliter with John’s help. Chronicon Salernitanum, chapters 129, 142*, 173 and 174. Turning to the Lombards, however, Grimoald IV was a ‘­crudelis tirannus’, while his assassin Angelmond was a ‘­crudelissimus vir’. Chronicon Salernitanum, chapters 39, 50. For other examples of cruel Lombard rulers, see Chronicon Salernitanum, chapters 159, 175, 180, 181 and 181*. Nefandus is utilized for the Saracens (­Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 72) but also for Charlemagne (­Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 10), the Byzantines (­chapters 147 and 158), Bishop Athanasius II of Naples (­Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 150), and his partners Lando and his children (­Chronicon Salernitanum, chapters 176 [twice], 177, 181, and 183). Landolf and his son by the same name are defined as inquissimi several times. Chronicon Salernitanum, chapters 181, 181* and 183. 95 Sicard in fact inflicted great suffering on his subjects, dishonored many women, allowed his advisor Roffredus to pursue personal vendetta that caused chaos within the Principality of Benevento, and was guilty of perjury, having Abbot Alfanus hanged even though he had promised him immunity. For Sicard’s character, see Oldoni, Anonimo salernitano, p­p. ­149–​­52. Massimo Oldoni, however, states that the Saracens are depicted as ‘­Evil incarnate’, while the ‘­Evil of the Lombard princes is more domestic and more comprehensible’. Oldoni, Anonimo salernitano, ­p. 148. 96 It is believed that this name is the Latinization of Abū Ja’far. Metcalfe, The Muslims of Medieval Italy, p­p. ­17–​­18. 97 Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 83: ‘­Die autem alia in stratu in quo Apolaffar dormiebat armatos milites misit, eumque comprehenderunt, et ad portam civitatis eum nudis pedibus detulerunt. Dum eum nudis pedibus Radelchisi vidisset, mox talia verba depromsit, ad suos inquid: ‘­Nudis pedibus eum deferitis?’ At Apolaffar verso capite, torboque aspectu promsit talia dicta, sputo contra Radelchisim proiecit, inquid: ‘­Non habes curam de capite meo, de pedibus meis perquiris?’. At ille cum rubore mox inde se movit, et ipsum Apolaffar cum omnibus suis subditis ad Guidonem silicet misit; ille vero statim eos puniri iussit.’

Muslims in the historical works of early medieval southern Italy  23 98 Massimo Oldoni offers a completely different interpretation of this episode, seeing only the expression of Saracen malignancy, an interpretation that does not always capture the nuances of the ­narrative—​­for Oldoni, the Salernitan chronicler’s narrative is always a black and white story. The Italian scholar believes that Apolaffar was just a cursing infidel and a perjurer because he had joined the adversaries of the Prince of Salerno, Siconolf. Oldoni, Anonimo salernitano, p­p. ­134–​­37. 99 Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 109: ‘­antequam Adelchis memoratus princeps eum apprehenderet, consilio exinde expetit a predicto Sagdane, Agarenorum rege, qui tunc in carcere tentus erat, utrum apprehenderet et ex sua urbe eiceret imperatorem an non, ipse prediceret. Cui Sagdan: ‘­Nequaquam talia facito, quia, quantum conicere valeo, minime me Agareni pretermictunt, sed indesinenter perquirunt’. Ad hec princeps: ‘­Confiteor, quia pluribus predicta re innotuit’. At Sagdan ut erat sagacissimus, in hunc modum verba depromsit: “­Quod inchoasti perfice, ne forte consilium promulgetur”.’ 100 Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 110: ‘­princeps Guaiferius valneum pergeret; set dum regredi una cum suis palacium maluisset, quidam Agarenus in foro Salernitane civitatis residens, Guaiferium acclamat, inquid: ‘­Da mihi obsecro tegumentum, quod tuo capite geris’. At ille protinus suo capite denudato, ilico Agareni fasciolum condonavit.’ 101 Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 110: ‘­Dum autem iam factum Agarenum Africam proprium solum adiret, et cerneret omnis navalis exercitus altrinsecus ad pugnam se prepararet, quatenus Italiam pergeret, et nominative castrametatus Salernum moraret eamque diversis machinis expugnaret, et dum illuc Amelfitani adessent, ipse Agarenus uni illorum talia verba depromsit: ‘­Vidistine Gaiferium Salernitanorum princeps aut scis eum?’ Cui Amelfitanus: ‘­Et scio eum et crebrissimo quando illuc sum, ante illius optutum assisto’. Idem ipse Agarenus: ‘­Per filium Marie te obtestor, quem ut Deum colitis, ut fideliter meis dictis illius innuas, ut omnimodis undique urbem suam rehedificari faciat, et antemuralem illum qui est iuxta mare, sine mora in altum elevet, aliam turrem in uno capite et  aliam in alio, simulque et in medium non exiguas faciat; et preparet se ad prelium, quia omnis ex multitudine quam cernis, illuc properat. Et si te percontat, quis tibi talia intimavit, illi dicito quia Agarenus cui fasciolum condonasti, ipse talia verba depromsit tantum incunctanter credat’. Vocabatur Agarenus ille nomen Arrane.’ With regard to this character, Massimo Oldoni seems so concerned with presenting the Muslims as absolutely evil that he misunderstands this episode. He argues that the way in which Arrane addressed the Amalfitan whom he asked to bring a message to Prince G ­ uaifer—​­’Per filium Marie te obtestor, quem ut Deum colitis’—​­represents blasphemy, but, in reality, it is a supplication intended to get the Amalfitan to believe him so that Salerno could be saved. Oldoni also thinks that this character was Arrane the ‘­tirannus crudelissimus’, who is found in an episode taken verbatim from Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 79, cf. Chronicon Salernitanum, chapters 142*, 150,—​­which nowhere indicates that this is the same p ­ erson—​­and confuses his generosity as a sign of strength. Oldoni, Anonimo salernitano, p­p. ­139–​­40. Paolo Delogu has, on the other hand, acknowledged that Arrane generously returned the gift of Prince Guaifer ‘­readily and cordially’. Delogu, Mito di una città, ­p.  87. Stefano Palmieri has also mentioned this episode to show that it was not uncommon for a Muslim to move peacefully through Salerno, and that the relationship with the Muslims should not be examined solely from the perspective of conflict. S. Palmieri, ‘­Un esempio di mobilità etnica altomedievale: i saraceni in Campania’, in Montecassino dalla prima alla seconda distruzione.

24  Muslims in the historical works of early medieval southern Italy Momenti e aspetti di storia cassinese (­secc. V ­ I–​­IX). Atti del II convegno di studi sul medioevo meridionale (­Montecassino, 1987), p ­ . 609. 102 Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 126: ‘­et undique ut diximus prefatam urbem affligebant, in tantum ut altrinsecus inter se fedus inirent, Agareni silicet et Salernitani. Sed Salernitani non probum consilium inierunt; clam armis tulerunt, et ubi Agareni sine excitacione degebant, audaciter animo properarunt, quatenus prophanos potenter acterrerent. Sed iustus iudex Dominus minime christiani victoriam tribuit, eo quod obliviscerent iusiurandum quod Agareni iuraverant. Nam Agareni protinus sedulam ubi indita erat Sanctissimam et inseparabilem Trinitatem, lancea nexerunt, et in hunc modum promserunt: ‘­O Iesu Marie filius, in hoc cognoscimus veraciter, si Celum terramque regis et dominus tocius creature, si isti periuri potenter prosternis’. Et continuo quamvis exigui illis obviam exierunt bellumque inchoaverunt. Sed ilico Salernitani terga dederunt, et partim percussi in mare se necaverunt, partimque gladio ceciderunt; reliqui, quamvis confusi, per devia silvasque propria adierunt. Ibi magna pars Salernitanorum interiit.’ It is worth noting that the fact that the Saracens won despite their small numbers is emphasized. Usually, this detail is applied to the victories of the Salernitans to highlight their courage. I believe that all these details clearly show the author’s position on this episode and refute Paolo Delogu’s position, who places importance solely on the fact that the chronicler defined the Salernitans’ aggression against the Saracens as ‘­non probum consilium’, and who argues that the chronicler wanted to express ‘­the need to moralize the use of cunning, without condemning it’. Delogu, Mito di una città meridionale, ­p. 86. 103 The only exception to this pattern is represented by the brief positive evaluation expressed for the successor of the cruel Abdallah. Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 112: ‘­Agareni ilico regem procreaverunt nomine Abemelec: licet fuisset enuchus, erga res humanas audas fuit et sagax’. 104 Sicard’s warriors foolishly fell into ditches, that the Saracens had prepared, and were massacred. Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 72. Peter’s troops were deceived by one of the Muslims’ usual tricks: fighting a little, retreating, and then suddenly attacking the enemy when least expected. The defeat was made more disastrous since the Muslims terribly sacked the principalities of Benevento and S ­ alerno—​­it is here that the Saracens are first described as ­locusts—​ s­ laughtering men, carrying their wives and children off in slavery, and forcing the survivors to flee to the mountains. Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 93. 105 Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 94. 106 Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 111. 107 Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 113. Massimo Oldoni does not consider the clashes between the Salernitans and Saracens as a whole; he believes that the reference to the man with three testicles and the challenge to discover the Agarenorum virtutes represent a game of malice of the author, who wanted to show that only that is the virtus of the Saracens and that therefore ‘­having been condemned to flesh and lust, these Muslims are too easily condemned en masse’. Oldoni, Anonimo salernitano, p­p. ­142–​­43. An aspect of derision and criticism is certainly present, but the main message is the description of the Salernitans’ journey to cleanse themselves of sin. 108 Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 114. 109 Chronicon Salernitanum, chapters 113, 127. 110 Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 114. 111 Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 115. 112 Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 116. 113 Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 117.

Muslims in the historical works of early medieval southern Italy  25 114 Chronicon Salernitanum, chapters ­117–​­19. God knew, moreover, to show mercy when the Christians were without sin and called for his help. During a terrible Saracen raid, God made it only rain on the castle that the besieging Muslims had deprived of water. Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 139. 115 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 57. 116 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 54: ‘­Impavidi grassantes, totam divastabant Siciliam’. John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 60: ‘­A fricani in forti brachio omnem hanc regionem divastare cupientes, Romam supervenerunt, atque iaculato de caelo iudicio, ecclesias apostolorum et cuncta quae extrinsecus repererunt lugenda pernicie et horribili captivitate diripuerunt’. John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 61: ‘­Propter catervas Sarracenorum Apuliae sub rege commanentes et omnium fines depopulantes’. 117 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 64: ‘­Praeterea, mortuo Sergio consule, et Gregorio, filio eius, ducatum regente, Saracenorum ferocitas ita in his praevaluit regionibus, ut multarum urbium atque castrorum cotidianum fieret excidium’. 118 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 60. ­ hapter 3 of this book. 119 For further information about this point, see C 120 For further information about this point, see C ­ hapter 3 of this book. 121 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 60. 122 Bonfil, History and Folklore, chapter 19: ‘­They (­the Muslims) devastated Calabria, terrified their cities, made desolate their lands, seized their castles, passed through Apulia, there they were victorious, and combined forces, shattered their strength, captured many cities, pillaged them and spoiled them’. 123 Bonfil, History and Folklore, chapter 20. 124 Bonfil, History and Folklore, chapter 21. 125 Bonfil, History and Folklore, chapters ­21–​­22. When Sawdān arrived in Oria, he discovered that his plan failed. Moreover, he was unable to execute Shephatiah for disrespecting the Sabbath because the wise and pious Jew had returned home before nightfall. Bonfil, History and Folklore, chapter 23. 126 Bonfil, History and Folklore, chapter 24. 127 Bonfil, History and Folklore, chapters ­25–​­26. Thanks to God’s intervention, this attempt was unsuccessful. Taking into consideration only this part of the Jewish chronicler’s account, Di Branco maintains that the emir of Bari proved to be ‘­respectful toward the Jewish community’. M. Di Branco, 915. La battaglia del Garigliano. Cristiani e musulmani nell’Italia medievale (­Bologna, 2019), p­p. ­67–​­68. 128 It is believed that this character should be identified with the Fatimid ruler Abu Tamim Maad who did not pillaged Oria. Aḥimaʻaz likely made some confusion about these events. 129 Bonfil, History and Folklore, chapters ­44–​­46. 130 Bonfil, History and Folklore, chapter 11. This information is correct. Basil ascended the throne after having Emperor Michael III murdered. The Jewish chronicler also called Basil ‘­worshipper of images’ and described him as an arrogant and violent person. Bonfil, History and Folklore, chapters ­11–​­15. Moreover, he emphasized that the Byzantine ruler had wanted to oblige the Jews to accept ‘­a hopeless faith’. Bonfil, History and Folklore, chapter 11. Aḥimaʻaz employed harsh language toward Basil also when he recorded his death. Bonfil, History and Folklore, chapter 17. 131 Bonfil, History and Folklore, chapter 11. Basil’s decree is recorded in several sources. Von Falkenhausen, ‘­The Jews in Byzantine Southern Italy’, ­p. 281. In general, on the persecution of the Jews in the Byzantine Empire in this period,

26  Muslims in the historical works of early medieval southern Italy see A. Sharf, Byzantine Jewry from Justinian to the Fourth Crusade (­London, 1971), p­p. ­86–​­92. 132 Bonfil, History and Folklore, chapter 16. 133 Bonfil, History and Folklore, chapter 14. 134 Bonfil, History and Folklore, chapter 15. 135 Bonfil, History and Folklore, chapter 18. 136 Bonfil, History and Folklore, chapter 47. Paltiel subsequently taught the arrogant Byzantine a tough lesson. Bonfil, History and Folklore, chapter 47. 137 This happens both in the description of the Muslims as a people and in the portrayal of particular Saracen leaders. 138 In a brief overview devoted to this topic B. Kreutz has, on the other hand, argued that southern Italian chroniclers ‘­consistently referred to the Muslims invaders as pagan monsters’. Kreutz, Before the Normans, p ­ .  50. In a section of his article, titled ‘­Inventing the Saracens’, where he also mentions two early medieval southern Lombard chronicles, Alessandro Vanoli states that early medieval Christian authors always portrayed the Muslims in a very negative way. It is clear that he did not read all the texts and based his conclusions on a couple of excerpts from those works. He probably found them in a collection of essays to which he had contributed (­see Mediterraneo medievale, ­p. 7, note 25, and ­p. 13, note 51). If so, he ‘­forgot’ to read the remaining part of the essay which emphasizes that the image of the Muslims in those texts contains some nuances. A. Vanoli, ‘­La riconquista e l’invenzione dei mori’, GriseldaOnline (­November 2004), p­p.  ­1–​­2. http://­w ww.griseldaonline.it/­p ercorsi/­4vanoli.htm (­accessed on September 11, 2011). He followed the same methodology in A. Vanoli, ‘­Musulmani e accusa di idolatria al tempo di Leone IX (­­1049–​­1054)’, in La reliquia del sangue di Cristo: Mantova, l’Italia e l’Europa al tempo di Leone IX (­Verona, 2012), p­p. 378 and 385, note 35. Without taking into consideration the fact that John Tolan’s book on the image of the Muslims in medieval Europe did not examine Italian primary ­sources—​­Tolan, Saracens—​­, Clemens Gantner, whose essay was on the papacy and the Muslims during the ninth century, has based his conclusion that the ‘­general picture of the Saracens … was quite consistent throughout the Early Middles Ages’ on that work. C. Gantner, ‘­New Visions of Community in N ­ inth-​ ­Century Rome: The Impact of the Saracen Threat on the Papal World View’, in Visions of Community in the ­Post-​­Roman World: The West, Byzantium and the Islamic World, (­­3 00–​­1100), eds. W. Pohl, C. Gantner, and R. Payne (­Farnham, 2012), p ­ . 413, note 48. The same use of Tolan’s misleading generalizations can be found in S. Whitten, ‘­Franks, Greeks, and Saracens: Violence, Empire, and Religion in Early Medieval Southern Italy’, Early Medieval Europe, 27, 2 (­2019), ­p. 264. 139 Aḥimaʻaz’s family history, on the other hand, suggests the existence of relationships between Muslims and Jews in early medieval southern Italy, which share some similarities with those that occurred in medieval Iberia. On this topic and relevant bibliography, see, for example, R. Brann, Power in the Portrayal: Representations of Jews and Muslims in ­Eleventh-​­and ­Twelfth-​­Century Islamic Spain (­Princeton, 2002). 140 The overtones of religious warfare, that the Italian Carolingian chronicler Andreas of Bergamo utilized in his description of a battle between the forces of Emperor Louis II and the Muslims in southern Italy, are absent in these southern Italian texts. This represents another relevant feature characterizing the way the Muslims were perceived in southern Italy. Cf. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, in Italian Carolingian Historical and Poetic Texts, edition and English translation by L. A. Berto (­Pisa, 2016), chapter 18.

Muslims in the historical works of early medieval southern Italy  27 141 This is proved also by other sources. Berto, Christians and Muslims in Early Medieval Italy, chapters 4 and 11. I wish to end this chapter with some brief methodological observations. First, it is clear that, for the area and the period I have examined here, the ­so-​­called ­post-​­colonial theories are not only useless but counterproductive. I am aware that this study analyzed a limited number of sources and I certainly do not want to extend my conclusions for Italy to other periods or regions of Europe. It is my opinion, however, that within medieval Europe there were different ways to perceive the Muslims, not only one as maintained by studies that have utilized that historiographical approach; see for example, Tolan, Saracens. Europe in the Middle Ages, like in other periods, was a very diverse place and I believe that the task of the historian is to acknowledge continuities as well as discontinuities in all fields and not allow preconceived theories to drive our reading of the sources. Much more work remains to be done in this field.

2 The image of the Byzantines in the chronicles of early medieval southern Italy

The differing length of Byzantine rule in northern as opposed to southern Italy constitutes one of the main differences between these two parts of the Peninsula during the early Middle Ages.1 As a consequence, the sources covering the imperial presence in the South outnumber and exceed in variety those describing the Byzantines in the North. The goal of this chapter is to take advantage of this particularity and to study how the neighbors of the Greeks,2 as well as those who put an end to their domination in southern Italy, described their adversary in their chronicles, the main sources for the history of this period. I do not intend to analyze the characteristics of the relations between Lombards, Normans, and Byzantines,3 but will rather examine the features that the Lombards and Normans attributed to the latter, thus enhancing our understanding of how Western Europeans perceived the Byzantines in the Middle Ages.4 The primary sources examined in this chapter were written in different periods and contexts, their authors had very different writing styles, and the question of how the Byzantines were perceived by their enemies has never been properly explored within all the early medieval southern Italian texts. I will therefore study each in turn and then compare similarities and differences. For the sake of clarity, before considering the chronicles, I shall provide an overview of early medieval southern Italian history focusing on the Lombards, the Normans, and the Byzantines.

Historical background The invasion of Italy by the Lombards in 568/­569 ended the recently established Byzantine rule over the Peninsula. The Lombards, however, could not conquer the whole of Italy; in the South, most of the Campanian coast, Apulia, Calabria, and Sicily, in fact, remained under Constantinople’s control. The remainder of southern Italy became a district of the Lombard Kingdom, which was called Duchy of Benevento. Although the dominion of the Lombards in Italy was technically ended by the conquest of their capital Pavia by Charlemagne in 774, the Beneventan Lombards resisted subjugation by the Frankish king. Moreover, the Duke of Benevento Arechis II

DOI: 10.4324/9781003109617-2

Byzantines in the chronicles of early medieval southern Italy  29 (­­758–​­787), underscoring his autonomy, assumed the title of prince and began to govern as an independent ruler. Arechis II’s successors were successful in maintaining the independence of the Principality of Benevento. By taking advantage of the Byzantines’ problems with the Muslims and Bulgars, they seized most of Apulia and northern Calabria. Meanwhile, the Neapolitans were also able to create an independent political entity. The Muslims, too, profited from the weakness of Constantinople and conquered Sicily. Having avoided subjugation, the Beneventan factions began to clash with each other. The situation became so serious that a d ­ ecade-​­long civil war erupted following the murder of Prince Sicard in 839. Upon Sicard’s death, Radelchis (­­839–​­851) became prince of Benevento, but a number of Lombards, who opposed the new ruler, took refuge at Salerno. These dissidents liberated Siconolf, who had been imprisoned by his brother Sicard and kept in captivity by Radelchis and then proclaimed him prince. The use of Muslim mercenaries by both parties aggravated the struggle. On various occasions, the Saracens profited from the Lombards’ weakness by establishing their own dominion. For example, the Muslims, responsible for the defense of Bari, seized the city and founded an Emirate there (­ca. 847). The partition of the Principality brought an end to the conflicts between Benevento and Salerno (­ca. 849), but it did not signal the return of peace to southern Italy. The long war had, in fact, greatly weakened the Beneventans; the Salernitans, and various local lords, who often controlled only a fortification or a town and its surrounding area, exploited this weakness in order to become independent. The Muslims obviously took advantage of this situation, conducting ever more daring raids. In 866, Emperor Louis II organized a large expedition against the Saracens and in 871 succeeded in conquering the Emirate of Bari with the assistance of a Byzantine fleet. This victory was extremely significant since it seemed that the emperor had paved the way for a complete expulsion of the Muslims from southern Italy. The sovereign had not, however, considered the political situation of the area nor the Lombards’ overwhelming desire for independence. With the disappearance of the Emirate of Bari, the Lombards considered their greatest enemy to be Louis II himself. The Prince of Benevento, Adelchis (­­854–​­878), therefore decided to imprison the Frankish sovereign, releasing him only after having extracted the promise that Louis II would no longer go to southern Italy on his own initiative. In the last two decades of the ninth century, a new positive trend within the Byzantine Empire led to the reconquest of Apulia and part of ­Calabria—​­the imperials even occupied Benevento for a few years (­­891–​­895). Bari became the capital of the imperial district in southern Italy. Although the tenth century was not a very peaceful period for southern Italy, the status quo reached at the end of the ninth century did not change much during that period. Southern Italian political landscape completely mutated in the eleventh century, however, with the arrival of new protagonists, the Normans. By the

30  Byzantines in the chronicles of early medieval southern Italy 1090s, they were in fact able to conquer most of southern Italy, thus putting an end to the ­c enturies-​­long rules of Lombards, Byzantines, and Muslims in that region. This conquest was not, however, accomplished through either a massive migration of peoples or a few military campaigns. From the beginning of the eleventh century onwards, small groups of warriors, mostly from Normandy, moved to that part of the Italian Peninsula seeking their fortune at the service of the local lords. Taking advantage of the region’s numerous conflicts and the weakness of their employers, some Normans acquired more and more power within southern Italy. The way in which the first Norman received a lordship in that region is emblematic of this process. In ca. 1030, the duke of Naples gave the town of ­Aversa—​­located a few miles north of ­Naples—​­and his sister in marriage to the Norman Rainulf in order to oppose the expansionist policy of the Lombard Prince of Capua. Rainulf, after his wife’s death, believing that it was more convenient for him to be allied to the Capuan lord, married the niece of the latter. At this point, Rainulf was no longer the client of the duke of Naples, but was now acting as a lord in his own right. By a similar process, two Norman brothers, William and Drogo of Hauteville, after serving in the army of the prince of Salerno and assisting the Byzantines in their expedition against the Muslims in Sicily, created their own dominion in the Apulian city of M ­ elfi—​­located ca. 65 miles west of B ­ ari—​­by fighting against the imperials in the 1040s. Seeking legitimization and support, they recognized the lordship of the prince of Salerno, who, in return, granted William the title of count and gave him his niece in marriage. At the death of William, Drogo became the new leader and consolidated his position by marrying the sister of the Prince of Salerno. The accomplishments of these Norman leaders induced other Normans to move to Italy. The most successful of the Normans was Robert of H ­ auteville—­​­­half-​ b ­ rother of Drogo and known by the nickname Guiscard (‘­The Cunning’). Drogo sent him to Calabria, where Robert was able to carve his own dominion thanks to his martial skills and ruthlessness. Following in his ­half-​ b ­rothers’ footsteps, Robert also employed marriages to strengthen his power. His first spouse was the aunt of the Norman lord of a Campanian town, from whom he received a dowry of 200 knights and had a son named Bohemond. Robert later secured an annulment of this marriage and wedded the sister of the prince of Salerno. The couple had a son named Roger Borsa. Robert Guiscard was also a good diplomat. In 1059, he became a vassal of the pope, thus obtaining papal legitimization for his rule over Apulia, Calabria, and Sicily. Capitalizing on the imperial defensive campaigns against the Turks in Anatolia, Robert completed the conquest of Italian Byzantine territories with the seizure of Bari in 1071. Robert’s attempts to take possession of Constantinople’s lands in the southern Balkan Peninsula (­­1081–​ 1­ 085), on the other hand, eventually proved unsuccessful. Moreover, he died of disease in Cephalonia while he was trying to take that island on July 1085. His heir, Roger Borsa, whose right to rule was challenged by Bohemond and

Byzantines in the chronicles of early medieval southern Italy  31 other Norman lords, preferred not to continue his father’s aggressive policy toward Constantinople. The subjugation of Sicily (­c. 1­ 061 – c. ​­ 1090) was not carried out by Robert Guiscard, but by his younger brother Roger. Having arrived in southern Italy in c. 1057, Roger decided to focus on Sicily after some dissensions with Robert about the division of Calabria between them. Except for the cities of Naples and Amalfi, by the end of the eleventh century the Norman lords controlled the whole of southern Italy.5

The chroniclers of the southern Lombards Erchempert, Little History of Benevento’s Lombards Erchempert’s incomplete chronicle,6 the Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium (­Little History of Benevento’s Lombards),7 was probably composed toward the end of the ninth century. It covers a period extending from the end of the Lombard Kingdom in 774 to c. 889. Notwithstanding the fact that Erchempert was a monk from the monastery of Montecassino,8 his narration focuses on the secular Lombard rulers of southern Italy. His goal was to narrate the causes of the Lombards’ decline, so that they could serve as an example to future generations.9 Erchempert mentioned the Byzantines several times in his work,10 but revealed his judgment of them only in the penultimate chapter. Having described the defeat of an imperial fleet by Muslims in the Strait of Messina and the widespread terror this rout had provoked among the inhabitants of the neighboring cities of Reggio Calabria and Messina,11 the chronicler discussed the motives that had induced God to allow such a disaster. In his opinion, the Greeks deserved the heavenly punishment because of their bestial behavior: the Byzantines were Christians in theory, but were worse than Muslims in practice. In fact, they often captured the Lombards and sold them to the Saracens.12 Unfortunately, there is no information regarding the date of the composition of this chronicle. Historians can only speculate that Erchempert wrote the last part of his work during or immediately after the period in which Constantinople ruled Benevento (­­891–​­895).13 Such a chronology would explain why he expressed his bitter feelings toward the Byzantines only in the last part of his chronicle.14 His acrimonious remark toward the Greeks, therefore, should be interpreted not as mere residue of traditional Lombard hostility, but rather as the result of his disappointment caused by an unhappy event for the Lombards in southern Italy. For example, it is worth noting that in an earlier episode in which Erchempert had a personal bad experience with some Byzantines (­a group of Greeks, probably serving in the Neapolitan army, had sequestered his horse and his belongings and forced him to walk for several miles), he did not make any negative comments about them.15 A similar absence of negative remarks is also noticeable in the description of the end of the marriage between the Prince of Benevento, Grimoald III (­­787–​­806), and the Byzantine

32  Byzantines in the chronicles of early medieval southern Italy princess, Wantia,16 and in the accounts of the numerous clashes between the Lombards and the Byzantines.17 Moreover, Erchempert recounted a few positive narratives about the Greeks. He lauded the Byzantine aid given to the Prince of Salerno, Guaimar (­­ 880–​­ 900), whose lands had been devastated by Muslim raiders.18 According to the chronicler, the Byzantine sovereign ‘­benigne’ (­benignly) welcomed Guaimar in Constantinople and awarded him the prestigious title of patrician.19 Erchempert also described how the ‘­pious’ Emperor Basil (­­867–​­886) had honorably welcomed the Prince of Benevento, Gaideris (­­878–​ 8­ 81), who had been overthrown by his subjects and to whom the sovereign had given rich gifts and a town in which to reside.20 The only episode of Byzantine history recorded in the Ystoriola is about Basil and his children. In the account of Pope John VIII’s reinstatement of the Patriarch of Constantinople, Photius, Erchempert introduced that episode, saying that, at the death of Emperor Basil, his two sons succeeded him. A third son became patriarch of Constantinople because Photius was deprived of that office.21 Erchempert did not, therefore, express generalized hostility toward the Byzantines, and he freely acknowledged cases of cooperative relationships between Constantinopolitan and Lombard rulers.

The Continuation of the Vatican Codex The hatred for the Greeks is, however, clearly linked to the Byzantine domination over Benevento in a brief anonymous text, the ­so-​­called Continuatio codicis Vaticani (­Continuation of the Vatican Codex), also known as Chronicle of the years 8­ 92–​­897 because it describes events ranging from 892 to 897. This text, which survives in only a single copy and is in the same manuscript that contains Erchempert’s chronicle but clearly by a different author, was probably written shortly after the year 897.22 The description of the Byzantine rule over Benevento (­­892–​­895) represents the core of the work. The imperial conquest of that city was not recounted. Yet, the author began his account mentioning the locusts’ devastations in southern Italy and the appearance of a comet;23 both of these signs were traditional omens foretelling calamities. The catastrophic event was obviously the Byzantine rule over Benevento, which, although it lasted for only a few years, ended the ­c enturies-​­long Lombard domination over Benevento. Other foreboding signs were seen during that painful time for the Beneventans, and the chronicler provided detailed descriptions of them. For example, at one point torches materialized in the sky in all four cardinal directions. It is also noteworthy that the most frightening of these fireballs, which preceded the decision of the Byzantine commander George to besiege the Lombard city of Capua, had the shape of a dragon and crossed the sky from east to w ­ est—​­a clear indication of the terrifying threat coming from Constantinople.24 Palpable disasters followed these phenomena: a very strong earthquake in Apulia and Samnium, a devastating fire in Benevento,

Byzantines in the chronicles of early medieval southern Italy  33 and, after the appearance in the sky of a ‘­long flame’, an unspecified calamity that destroyed the harvests in all Beneventan territories.25 These events further forewarned of an impending period of catastrophe for the Lombards. The anonymous author not only stressed the harshness of the Byzantine rule but also underscored the injustices and immoral acts perpetrated by the Greeks during that time, thus presenting them as persecutors and delegitimizing their rule over the Lombards. Described as both true disciples of Satan and people without even an ounce of goodness,26 the Byzantines were portrayed as having no honor, never telling the truth, never keeping their word, and treating the Beneventans worse than their servants, oppressing them in many different ways.27 They were described as committing robbery, perjury, and different kinds of fornication simply to amuse themselves.28 If any victims of their violent acts dared to protest, they were forced to turn back in tears on account of the slaps, punches, and lashes received.29 According to the chronicler, the Greeks were planning to carry off all Beneventans in chains, just as King Antiochus IV (­ca. 2­ 15–​­164 BCE) had tried to do to the inhabitants of Jerusalem in ancient times. This comment is particularly important because it explicitly compared the imperial troops of the late ninth century to the persecutors of the chosen people of Holy Scriptures. The fact that Antiochus was identified as a ‘­rex eorum (­k ing of theirs)’, that is, of the Greeks, not only reinforced this comparison but also underscored the long history of the Greeks’ vile customs.30 The anonymous chronicler also depicted the Byzantines as fearful and militarily inept. Having learned that the Spoletans were about to attack Benevento, Theodorus, the local imperial commander, was struck by ‘­n imio timore’ (­a great fear),31 and eventually the imperial ­troops—​­derogatorily defined as a ‘­Graia turba’ (­Greek crowd, mob)—​­silently abandoned the city.32 A particularly valuable comment from the author is his explanation that the arrival of the Spoletans was a sign of ‘­divina providentia’ (­divine providence) triumphing over ‘­humana malitia’ (­human malice).33 God was certainly not on the Greeks’ side, and their temporary success over the Lombards was not due to their ­valor—​­Theodorus feared the Beneventans very much34 —​­but to their great number, as the author implied by using the derogatory term ‘­turba’. The chronicler implicitly highlighted the scant military skill of the imperial troops reporting that, after having left Benevento, the Byzantines had continued to threaten the city, but had not dared to approach its walls since the townspeople were under the ‘­sollicita cura’ (­solicitous care) of Benevento’s bishop.35 Finally, it is particularly noteworthy that this chronicler also mentioned that the hatred for the Greeks had been so intense that all inhabitants of southern Italy conspired against them.36 His remarks about the Byzantines were therefore not just a reaction to the fact to their rule over Benevento but also represented how, at least according to this author, they were perceived in southern Italy.

34  Byzantines in the chronicles of early medieval southern Italy

The Salernitan Chronicle The Salernitan Chronicle is an anonymous and incomplete text that has no dedication and was probably composed in 977 or a short while later. It narrates events that took place between the second half of the eighth century and 974 and deals primarily with the principalities of Salerno and Benevento. The author of the chronicle is assumed to have been a monk, but he never mentioned his monastery and appears to have known the secular world rather well. It is probable that he frequented the court of Gisulf, the Prince of Salerno (­­943–​­978).37 Unlike the previous two chroniclers, the anonymous author of the Salernitan Chronicle preferred to express his acrimony toward the Greeks not by using invectives and insults, but through ridicule.38 He creates an image of the Byzantines that portrays them as a people of limited intelligence and scant military abilities. For example, the anonymous chronicler of Salerno assigns responsibility for the Muslim invasion of Sicily to the island’s imperial commander. The officer, whom the author always calls Greculus (­little Greek)—​­a diminutive indicating the chronicler’s desire to point to his limited ­aptitude—​­is said to have been bribed to abduct the beautiful wife of a Sicilian called Eufimius. Irate with the ignominy he had suffered, the Sicilian man reportedly threatened to dishonor the wives of many other people. In order to enact his plan, he went to Africa and asked the Muslims for help. The Saracens promptly agreed to offer assistance and invaded Sicily, spreading death and destruction. The author’s commentary on these tragic events is a clear criticism of the Byzantine commander who failed to consider the reaction of the dishonored husband and, therefore, provoked the ruin of the rich island: Because of a single young woman, many others were made widows. And those who once banqueted and feasted had to pour out innumerable tears because of a Greculus.39 It is probably not by chance that the Salernitan author mentioned the limited martial skills of the Byzantines when he described the short period of imperial rule over the Principality of Benevento (­­891–​­895). The author seems to imply that this domination was not the result of military strength. For example, the Byzantines conceived a deceitful plan when trying to seize control of Salerno itself.40 Allegedly, they spread the news that they wanted to destroy the Muslim base on the Garigliano river, when in actuality they intended to assault Salerno by night with the aid of two Salernitans who had agreed to open the city gates. Even though the traitors successfully accomplished their part of the mission, the Byzantine plan failed miserably. In fact, George, the imperial commander, was reported to have been intimidated and to have fled with his men. The reason for this was that the bishop of Benevento, who was with George and did not know the latter’s plans, said that the Byzantines would all have been killed if they had entered Salerno.41

Byzantines in the chronicles of early medieval southern Italy  35 George’s alleged stupidity was also demonstrated remarkably well on a further occasion. During the siege of Benevento waged by Salernitans and Spoletans, he purportedly summoned the Beneventans to help him defend the city and then naively allowed them to take control of the city gates and walls. In this way, he was the cause for his own defeat, since the Beneventan troops subsequently opened the city gates to the besiegers.42 In the account of the battle between the Salernitans led by Prince Guaimar II (­­900–​­943) and the Byzantines, the imperial troops are described as presumptuous and certain that their numerical superiority over the Lombards would ensure victory.43 The triumph, however, went to the Salernitans who, remembering their ancestors’ example, did not tremble in the face of the large enemy army. Instead, they displayed great vigor and military prowess.44 Not only were the Greeks defeated, but their commander even had to beg the prince of Salerno to stop killing the fleeing imperial troops.45 The fact that he asked for mercy with ‘­crine solutus’ (­untied hair) might represent one more vilification of the Byzantines, since this way of begging was sometimes associated with women.46 It is also relevant that on the night before the battle, the Lombard victory was reportedly prophesied by the Virgin Mary, who appeared to Guaimar II in a dream.47 Worthy of note is that Mary, for whom the Byzantines had a special veneration,48 predicted the Lombards’ victory. The chronicler thus wished to imply that God was not on the Greeks’ side on that occasion. The Salernitan chronicler also emphasized that the Byzantines had ruled Benevento harshly and that this had been a typical characteristic of their behavior.49 Moreover, he pointed out that Eugenius, the commander of the imperial troops in Apulia, had been so cruel that his own soldiers decided to depose him.50 The accusation of cruelty is also leveled against the ‘­crudelissima’ (­most cruel) Empress Theophano, who, having fallen in love with John Tzimiskes, murdered her husband in 969.51 Not only are the Greeks depicted in the Salernitan Chronicle as incapable in military affairs, but their leaders are said to have undertaken shameful actions. According to the chronicler, during the rule of Arechis II, the Lombard Prince of Benevento (­­758–​­787), the patriarch of Constantinople took his own niece as his mistress, whom he concealed at home by c­ ross-​­dressing her and making her appear as a eunuch. On his deathbed, the patriarch advised his fellow citizens to elect this ‘­eunuch’ as his successor. The suggestion was accepted and the woman held the patriarchate for about a year and a half. The Devil helped to put an end to this scandalous situation, as he appeared to Arechis II in a dream and praised his own deeds in Constantinople. The prince of Benevento promptly sent legates to the imperial capital and they uncovered the true identity of the patriarch.52 The mention of Satan seems to indicate that the chronicler wished to demonstrate how easy it had been for the devil to act in Constantinople. Although the author did not make any explicit comments, it is obvious that he wanted to denigrate the Byzantines by showing that they had remained unaware of having a woman as patriarch.53

36  Byzantines in the chronicles of early medieval southern Italy With regard to the Byzantine Emperor Alexander (­­912–​­913), the anonymous chronicler of Salerno related: ‘­He became so proud that he opposed not only men, but also God’.54 In Constantinople, there were some ancient Roman statues, each of which had a bell on its neck and represented a populace subject to the Romans. Whenever any of these peoples rebelled, the corresponding statue vibrated, thus making the bell ring. In this way, the Romans were aware of all revolts and could swiftly send troops to suppress them.55 Alexander claimed that the Roman emperors had been glorious when those statues had been venerated and, to follow their example, ordered that they be dressed in silk.56 God, however, punished the Byzantine emperor for his pride and for his excessive worship of these statues. The very next night, Alexander dreamt that a man claiming to be Peter, the Prince of the Romans (­i.e. Saint Peter), violently injured his chest. The emperor immediately awoke in severe pain, began vomiting blood, and died soon afterward.57 The fact that this episode is reported immediately after a passage taken from Erchempert’s chronicle, in which it is narrated that Pope Nicholas (­­ 858–​­ 867) had excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople, Photius,58 seems to suggest that the ­anti-​­Byzantinism of the author reflected both the fact the Byzantines usurped the role of ‘­heirs’ of the Roman Empire and the n ­ ever-​­alleviated religious confrontation between Rome and Constantinople.59 The manner in which the Salernitan author criticized the Byzantine emperor is quite similar to that used by Anastasius Bibliothecarius with regard to Emperor Basil in a letter written on behalf of the Carolingian Emperor Louis II.60 For this reason, it is not surprising that the chronicler decided to include this epistle in his work.61 In addition to emphasizing legitimacy of the Frankish sovereign’s imperial title and the fact that the Greeks should not be considered heirs of the Roman Empire,62 this letter claims that the Byzantines have abandoned religious orthodoxy63 and have proven themselves militarily inept. In fact, during the siege of Bari, despite being as numerous as ‘­bruchi’ (­g rubs)­64 assaulting the city like ‘­locusts’, they are reported to have shown strength only during their first attack on the city walls; afterward they simply withdrew, thus demonstrating their pusillanimous character.65 Moreover, the imperial troops proved to be dishonest because, while going toward Bari, they plundered the lands of the Slavic allies of Louis II.66 The only occasion in which the author did not show animosity toward the Byzantines is when he talked of Nicephorus Phocas, Byzantine emperor from 963 to 969, whom he depicted as a good and just man who obeyed the laws and as an able soldier.67 This might be due to the military abilities of this ­soldier-​­emperor who succeeded in bringing back under imperial control some of the lands the Muslims had conquered in the preceding centuries. Military virtues were in fact highly appreciated in the warlike Lombard society.

Byzantines in the chronicles of early medieval southern Italy  37

The chroniclers of southern Italy’s Normans68 William of Apulia, The Deeds of Robert Guiscard The Gesta Roberti Wiscardi (­The Deeds of Robert Guiscard) by William of Apulia was written in verse and was probably composed between 1097 and 1099. It starts with the description of the arrival of the first Normans in southern Italy at the opening of the eleventh century and ends with the death of Robert Guiscard (­1085). Unfortunately, only the name of its author is known; we cannot even be certain that he was a churchman. What we do know is that, at the beginning of his work, the author, who defined himself as the ‘­vates’ (­poet) of Roger Borsa, Robert Guiscard’s son, stated that Roger and Pope Urban II had asked him to write it and that he dedicated the text to Roger at the end of it.69 This might suggest that William of Apulia was a member of Roger’s entourage.70 At the end of the ninth century, the Byzantines ­re-​­conquered a significant portion of the territories they had lost in continental southern Italy, which is why they were the main adversaries of the Normans.71 It is not by chance, therefore, that already at the beginning of his work, William of Apulia portrays the Byzantines in a negative manner. Particularly revealing is the episode in which the Lombard Arduin is reported to have incited the Normans from Aversa to fight with him against the imperial troops in Apulia. Arduin reprimanded the Normans for having left such a rich country in the hands of the Greeks, accusing the latter of being an effeminate and fearful people who were perpetually dedicated to wine and food and who often fled in front of only a handful of adversaries. Furthermore, according to William’s description, the Byzantines were so incompetent in military affairs that they even dressed in heavy clothing that hindered their ability to fight. He [Arduin] hurried to Aversa and told the Normans all that had happened to him, blaming them sternly for permitting the effeminate Greeks to possess a land as valuable in so many ways as Apulia, when the latter were a cowardly people lost in drunken debauches, who often fled before a handful of enemies. He also claimed that they were burdened by their clothing and unfit for battle.72 The characteristic of the Byzantines that the author is most eager to promote, however, is their presumed cowardliness.73 It is a trait that he emphasized already in the first episode involving the Greeks, in which the Normans easily defeated the imperial troops having discovered that they were not ‘­audaces’ (­courageous), but simply ‘­fugaces’ (­apt to flee).74 This was a battle allegedly fought between a few Normans and many Byzantines and the latter are said to have fled in such haste and disorder that they lost more men by drowning in the nearby river than by the swords of the Normans, while their general simply took refuge with a few men on the top of the highest mountain in the

38  Byzantines in the chronicles of early medieval southern Italy region.75 Not long after, the imperial troops were again on the flight and this time their commander barely managed to avoid being captured.76 Later in the chronicle, the author of The Deeds of Robert Guiscard reverts to the theme of alleged Byzantine cowardice presenting a speech that the Byzantine general Exaugustus gave in front of his troops. Exaugustus is reported to have urged his soldiers to remember that they were men, not women, and, therefore, not supposed to abandon the battlefield. He also incited them to remember the example of their ancestors who, led by Achilles, had killed Hector and destroyed Troy and, under Alexander the Great, had ruled all over the world while nobody dared to oppose them: Exaugustus addressed the troops who had been entrusted to him as follows: ‘­Have pride in your manhood, and don’t allow yourselves to have the hearts of women! What cowardice makes you always run away? Remember your f­ ore-​­fathers whose courage made the whole world subject to them. Hector, the bravest of men, fell before the arms of Achilles. Troy was reduced to flames by the Mycenean fury. India knew of the gallantry of Philip. Did not his son Alexander through his bravery make the strongest of kingdoms submit to the Greeks? The West and indeed every part of the world was once in fear of us. What people, hearing the name of the Greeks, dared to stand before them in the field? Towns, fortresses and cities could scarcely render their enemies safe from their power. Be valiant, I pray you, remember the courage of your ancestors, and do not disgrace them by placing your trust in your feet! He who dares to fight like a man will overcome the strength of the enemy. Try to follow in the footsteps of your ancestors, and abandon now any idea of flight. All the world should know that you are men of courage. One should not fear the Frankish people in battle, for they are inferior both in numbers and in courage’.77 As Kenneth Baxter Wolf has pointed out, this survey of Greek history acknowledges the decadence of the ancient Greeks’ heirs by emphasizing how far they have fallen from their ancestors’ greatness.78 The ensuing battle near Montepeloso (­Basilicata) in ca. 1041 had an unhappy outcome for the Byzantines, who suffered what was, up until that point, their worst defeat by the Normans. During the fight, Exaugustus himself was captured and then brought in chains to Benevento in a kind of triumph.79 These two elements of the narration serve the purpose of legitimizing the rule of the Normans, who are portrayed as justly succeeding the degenerate Byzantine rule in southern Italy.80 Another story that reflects poorly on the Byzantines is that of the imperial commander Maniakes who, as soon as he heard of the Normans’ arrival, hastened to lock himself in the city of Taranto without even disassembling his camp.81 Furthermore, the Byzantines, who fled from the troops of Robert Guiscard’s son during the Norman campaign in the Balkans (­­1081–​­1085),

Byzantines in the chronicles of early medieval southern Italy  39 are effectively depicted as ‘­trepidi hostes’ (­craven enemies) and compared to skylarks, fleeing in front of a s­ parrow-​­hawk.82 Seeing the hills swarming with this great army, Bohemond believed that the Empire’s ruler was present in person. He charged [against him] and pursued his craven enemies, as a ­sparrow-​­hawk does skylarks. The Greek army turned tail in the face of his men, but a dust storm enveloped both sides so thick that neither could see where the other was. The defeated Greeks sought refuge in the depths of the forest.83 A similar metaphor is used in the description of a naval battle, in which the Byzantines left their allies, the Venetians, to fight alone against the Norman fleet. It is said, in fact, that they escaped like birds and rabbits before an eagle.84 Again, this time on occasion of the Balkan campaign, William of Apulia noted that the imperial troops had, as usual, taken to their h ­ eels—​ ‘­­fugacibus pedibus’ (­w ith fleeing feet)—​­to the city of Larissa, from which Emperor Alexius no longer dared to venture forth, because of the numerous defeats he had already suffered at the hands of the Normans.85 William of Apulia also represented the Byzantines as cruel and greedy. A man from Apulia, named Melus, was forced to abandon his house because of the ‘­feritas’ (­ferocity) of the Byzantines.86 The worst description is, however, reserved for the general Maniakes, who was ‘­nequitia plenus’ (­fi lled with wickedness), ‘­dira feritate redundans’ (­overflowing with dire ferocity), and who had no positive feature, except his physical appearance.87 Maniakes allegedly sent his ‘­iniqui’ (­iniquitous) soldiers against all cities that had established treaties with the Normans and ordered that numerous members of the population be hanged and decapitated.88 He is also said to have commanded the killing of 200 peasants including old people, children, monks, and priests.89 Moreover, the Byzantine commander, here called ‘­tyrant’, accomplished a crime of ­unheard-​­of cruelty; he, in fact, ordered children to be buried with their heads exposed.90 Nobody could obtain mercy from such an ‘­iniquus’ (­iniquitous).91 When his rival, Constantine IX (­­1042–​­1055), ascended to the throne, Maniakes ordered his soldiers to hail himself as emperor.92 Then he imprisoned an imperial envoy who was bringing gifts to the Normans for the establishment of peace. The Byzantine general not only tortured the envoy in various ways, but also had him killed in a sadistic manner, filling his nose, ears, and mouth with horse dung.93 Determined to show that what he was narrating was true not only of the imperial troops with whom the Normans had fought, but also of their rulers, William of Apulia presented the Byzantine emperors as cowardly and incompetent. For example, William wrote that Emperor Michael VII (­­1071–​ 1­ 078) and his brother Constantine, preferring to lead an easy and luxurious life, had neglected military affairs to such an extent that they did not send troops against the ‘­nefarious’ Turks who were looting Asia Minor.94 It is

40  Byzantines in the chronicles of early medieval southern Italy worth noting that the victims of the Turkish ­raids—​­very likely Byzantine ­subjects—​­are not called Greeks, but Christians.95 This, of course, made the Byzantine rulers appear in an even worse light because they remained inactive even when confronted with the enemies of Christ. In this part of his narration, the author of The Deeds of Robert Guiscard perhaps exaggerated, but it should be mentioned that Byzantine authors severely criticized Michael VII and Constantine as well.96 William of Apulia added that the two brothers had been ready to do whatever was necessary to preserve their power. They asked some bishops, who were unaware of the emperors’ real intentions, to mediate an agreement with their stepfather, Romanus IV. The latter, after being captured by the Turks, allied himself with his former enemies, since his stepsons refused to recognize the favorable peace treaty he had signed with the Turks. Michael VII and his brother did not honor the agreement with their stepfather, however, and had Romanus IV blinded and sent to a monastery.97 Shortly thereafter, the two brothers had to pay a heavy price for this act. After Romanus IV was eliminated, the Turks took control over the whole eastern part of the Byzantine Empire.98 The subsequent Byzantine Emperor, Nicephorus III (­­1071–​­1081), is likewise depicted as lacking military competence. He is presented as intelligent and cautious against hidden dangers, but overly fearful, and not only slothful in war but actually unwarlike.99 Nevertheless, not all Greeks were described in such a negative way. William of Apulia presented a certain Stephen Pateranus, envoy of Emperor Romanus IV, as a just and generous man, worthy of praise, except for attempting to have Robert Guiscard killed.100 Furthermore, sensible to the value of military skills, the chronicler noted that there had been some courageous commanders even among the Byzantines. Concerning Romanus IV (­­1068–​­1071), who, according to William, was forced by the senate to marry Eudocia, the mother of Michael VII and Constantine, precisely to rectify the situation created by her sons,101 the author recounted that he had been a brave military leader, who was heavily involved in the war with the Turks, and that he had been more concerned for the lives of his soldiers than for his own life.102 The author also presented Romanus IV as an astute tactician, who, once having understood that the enemy decisively outnumbered his own troops, had all the Byzantines’ precious objects spread throughout the camp so that the Turks would be preoccupied with collecting them and not with pursuing the imperial troops.103 That William is the only author to mention this story104 makes his account even more noteworthy. He did not blame Romanus IV for having lost the ­battle—​­the catastrophe at Manzikert in 1­ 071—​­, but he pointed out that the emperor had personally taken part in the fight and had been captured only after he had been wounded by an arrow.105 That William highlighted the cruelty of Michael VII toward his ‘­innocent’ stepfather, who had been dethroned and sent to monastery, further shows the high esteem the author had for Romanus IV.106

Byzantines in the chronicles of early medieval southern Italy  41 The other ­warrior-​­emperor whom William celebrated is Alexius Comnenus (­­1081–​­1118). William wrote that, when Alexius had still been a general, Nicephorus ­III—​­described as unfit for ­war—​­was reigning in Constantinople. The latter was sustained by Alexius, who was astute, courageous, and of noble birth and who never refused to fulfill the orders of the emperor.107 Indeed, he defeated two noble Byzantines, Basiliakos and Bryennios, who had dared to oppose Nicephorus III.108 In the case of Basiliakos, Alexius simulated retreat, leaving his camp full of provisions and furnishings. Basiliakos fell into the trap; he believed the enemy had fled in fear of his troops and went to bed drunk. Alexius attacked under the cover of night and obtained an easy victory.109 But this was not Alexius’s only success; through astuteness in battle, he managed to inflict defeat on many more of the emperor’s enemies. Alexius’s cleverness is also shown through his behavior toward Robert Guiscard’s daughter,110 whom he treated honorably in hopes of preventing her father from attacking the Balkan provinces of the Empire.111 The only negative note expressed about Alexius Comnenus occurs on occasion of his victorious entry into Constantinople, when he let his troops loot the city for three days and as a result, his a­ llies—​­the ‘­atroces’ (­cruel) Turks whom he had taken with him to intimidate his ­opponents—​­did not hesitate to violate the sacred places in the capital with their ‘­manus nefandae’ (­nefarious hands).112 Yet Alexius Comnenus is described as an able and successful commander and courageous soldier only prior to his clashes with Robert Guiscard. Afterward, he is often presented as the general of a massive army,113 who, on one occasion, was even forced to retreat wounded and thus led to cry over the fact that he had lost to someone inferior to him both in riches and in number.114 This change in attitude of the chronicler toward Alexius creates a particular image of Robert Guiscard. Not only had the Norman leader defeated a more numerous army (­as was often the case in the stories previously related), but also an army that was led by an able and valorous commander.115 That William of Apulia attributed some positive characteristics to Alexius has been emphasized also by Emily Albu, who, nevertheless, states that William’s positive description of Alexius exceeded the chronicler’s desire to find a worthy opponent for Robert Guiscard, who, in her opinion, looks ‘­foolish in comparison’ to Alexius. According to Albu, William was opposed to Guiscard’s expedition against the Byzantines, and for this reason, the chronicler’s ‘­sympathies shaded away from Guiscard’. It is true that William of Apulia described the Normans’ discontent before they left Italy, and Robert Guiscard’s lack of success in attempting to utilize the false emperor Michael to gain the support of the inhabitants of Dyrrachium (­the ­modern-​ d ­ ay Albanian city of Durrës), but this does mean that the chronicler was sympathetic to Byzantium. Albu also misinterprets the way in which the chronicler depicted Alexius because she does not take into account the manner in which William

42  Byzantines in the chronicles of early medieval southern Italy described the Byzantine emperor and his troops during the campaign in the Balkans. As I have just pointed out, William emphasized that the ­Byzantines—​­Alexius i­ ncluded—​­had behaved as cowards in battle, as usual. Albu’s misinterpretation of William’s view of Alexius is based on her larger claim that William’s prevailing view of Byzantines is not negative. My analysis clearly demonstrates, however, that the reverse is true; William’s positive descriptions of the Byzantines are rare and have a ­well-​­defined objective in The Deeds of Robert Guiscard. Albu claims that William ‘­makes Byzantium the only true Empire and the spiritual and political mistress of the western world’ because he described the German emperor as the ‘­rex Alemannicus’ (­A leman king), while he referred to the Byzantine emperor as ‘­i mperii rector Romani’ (­r uler of the Roman Empire).116 William certainly believed that the Byzantine rulers were emperors, but his statement about the title of the German sovereign does not represent a Byzantine view, as Albu argues.117 In fact, by using the term ‘­rex’, William was following the way in which the supporters of papal superiority over emperors and kings defined the German sovereign, who was not considered to be the legitimate emperor because he opposed the pope. Since one of The Deeds of Robert Guiscard’s addressees was Pope Urban II (­­1088–​­1099), it is not surprising that the German sovereign was defined in this manner.118 Paul Brown, who maintains that William of Apulia had the same views of the Byzantine ‘­faction’ supporting a military leadership, agrees with Albu’s main points. Brown also ignores the different ways in which William of Apulia portrayed Alexius Comnenus and notes only a minor success that Alexius obtained against the Normans in the Balkans. On this occasion, Alexius led a great army against the Norman camp, taking advantage of the fact that the bulk of the Norman troops, commanded by Bohemond, the first son of Robert Guiscard, were off chasing the Byzantine troops he had just defeated. Thus, Alexius was able to take the Norman camp only because most of the Normans were away. Bohemond, who had a smaller but braver army than the Byzantines, returned to defeat the Greeks again. The imperial troops quickly fled back to the city of Larissa, whose walls the emperor himself did not dare to leave. The fact that the chronicler stated that ‘­A lexius innumera cum gente venit, pugnamque virilem contra Normannos exercuit’ (­came with innumerable people and conducted a virile battle against the Normans)­119 does not constitute an appreciation of the Byzantine Emperor, as Paul Brown claims. The word ‘­virilis’ (­v irile) in this passage in fact refers to ‘­pugna’ (­battle), and not to Alexius. Moreover, Alexius is depicted at the head of ‘­innumerable people’, a detail that Brown has not noticed.120 To conclude with William’s chronicle, I would like to make another observation. During one heavily contested battle against the Byzantines in the Balkans, Robert Guiscard urged his men not to give up the struggle and provided an example himself: he assaulted the enemies, entrusting himself to the banner of St. Peter that the pope had given him.121 Explaining this

Byzantines in the chronicles of early medieval southern Italy  43 detail as an attempt by the author to present the Norman war against the Byzantines as a holy war122 seems exaggerated to me,123 as William never stated that the Greeks were not following Roman doctrine.124 At the same time, no one would dispute the chronicler’s desire to show that, during that specific war, God was on the Normans’ side. Geoffrey Malaterra, The Deeds of Count Roger of Calabria and Sicily and of His Brother Duke Robert Guiscard Geoffrey ­Malaterra—​­a monk who came to Italy from beyond the Alps, probably from ­Normandy—​­is the author of De rebus gestis Rogerii Calabriae et Siciliae Comitis et Roberti Guiscardi ducis fratris eius (­The Deeds of Count Roger of Calabria and Sicily and of His Brother Duke Robert Guiscard) and probably wrote his chronicle at the end of the eleventh century. The Deeds of Count Roger begins with a brief overview on the Normans and on the manner in which they managed to establish themselves in Normandy and then continues with the deeds of Tancred of Hauteville, the father of Roger and Robert Guiscard. The work then describes how the two brothers moved to southern Italy and conquered it. The chronicle concludes with a visit of Pope Urban II to Roger, during which the Norman ruler and his heirs were nominated ‘­legati’ (­legates or representatives) of the Roman Church. It is likely that Geoffrey was in Roger’s court because he mentioned that the composition of the chronicle had been ordered by Robert Guiscard’s brother.125 Malaterra’s work is mainly concerned with the deeds of Roger in Sicily, and therefore, in this text, the chief adversaries of the Normans are the Muslims, not the Greeks. However, since his chronicle opens with the arrival of the Normans in Italy, some references to the Byzantines do occur. Although Geoffrey’s tone is less offensive than that used by William of Apulia, his account does include some of the same accusations as those expressed against the Byzantines in The Deeds of Robert Guiscard. Malaterra remarked that, during the Byzantine general Maniakes’s campaign in Sicily (­­1038–​­1040), his imperial troops had showed so little military valor in their first clash with the Muslims that they abandoned the battlefield and left the Normans, who had been serving in their contingent, to fight the Saracens alone.126 The Byzantines feared the Normans so much that, shortly before the battle at the river Olivento (­1041), their commanders did not dare to reveal to their soldiers the impressive feat by a Norman, who had knocked down the imperial envoy’s horse by the force of his fist alone.127 The scared generals feared that reporting the incident would cause morale to plummet.128 After two disastrous defeats, the imperial troops refused to face the Normans unless they had the protection of their fortifications.129 Geoffrey, unlike William of Apulia, never accused the Byzantines of being effeminate. But he did state that at the battle of Montepeloso (­1041), Doukeianos, the commander of the imperial army, had died like an ox, while fleeing, i.e. like an animal with no masculinity, capable only of servile

44  Byzantines in the chronicles of early medieval southern Italy deeds and good only as butcher’s meat. This description becomes even more powerful when compared to the description of William of Hauteville, the ‘­Iron Arm’,130 who, in the same battle, fought like a lion, putting the enemy troops to flight despite having a high fever. William at that time suffered from a type of quartan fever, the seriousness of the illness preventing him from participating in the battle. Reclining nearby he awaited its outcome. But when he saw that his men were fighting less valiantly and indeed were about to give way, his indignation and anger made him forget all about the illness with which he had been stricken. He took up his arms and, raging like a lion, headed right into the midst of the enemy forces. Reviving his men with words of encouragement and at the same time attacking most valiantly, William put the enemy to flight; the [Greek] commander Doukeianos, who was a coward, was killed almost like an ox.131 The difference between the Normans and the Byzantines is made clear when Malaterra recounted the deposition of Emperor Michael VII, whose only fault had been the desire to marry off his son to Robert Guiscard’s daughter. The Byzantines are said to have feared that any offspring of such a marriage would have aided the Normans in subduing them, since they were more dedicated to basking in pleasures than preparing for war. The Greeks were afraid that if imperial heirs were born to a Norman woman and allowed to grow up in the palace, our people [the Normans] would then have an opportunity to succeed to the throne, and their people [the Greeks], given by custom to delights and pleasures more than to the study of war, would be overrun, subjugated by the vigor of our people.132 Malaterra also emphasized the Byzantines’ cravenness and perfidiousness by stating that they undertook military action only when they outnumbered their enemies or behaved as traitors. For example, the ‘­Greek’ inhabitants of a Sicilian town forgot very quickly that Roger had liberated them from the Muslims and, unhappy to have his warriors in their town and afraid for their wives, waited for the Norman leader’s departure before assaulting his wife, who had been left there with only a few men.133 In order to confirm the impression of the Byzantines’ limited military abilities and outright stupidity, the author presented an episode in which the imperial fleet, which had been sent to aid the defenders of Bari (­who were being besieged by Robert Guiscard), had run across the Norman fleet. The Byzantine ships greeted the Normans warmly, believing that they were the fleet of Bari coming to greet its liberators. This was a mistake for which the Byzantines paid a heavy price, since they lost Bari in addition to their vessels. The citizens of Bari themselves are said to have contributed to the fall of the city because they thought that no more aid was coming and hence gave

Byzantines in the chronicles of early medieval southern Italy  45 134

up the fight. While the veracity of this episode has been questioned,135 it does not seem a completely unrealistic event. However, what is of interest to us is not the reliability of the account, but the fact that Geoffrey Malaterra, in spite of not making any explicit comments regarding the Byzantines and limiting himself to a description of events, makes it clear through the manner of his presentation that the Greeks should be viewed as inept. Malaterra employed the same technique in a similar example. As we have already seen, some G ­ reek-​­Sicilians dared to attack Roger’s wife only when he was away. Not only this, but the Greeks even asked the Muslims for help. Consequently, Roger found himself on the defensive and was besieged in a town. However, the temperature having diminished, the besieging Greeks and their allies drank wine in order to keep themselves warm and hence fell asleep. Roger then exploited the favorable circumstances, attacked the enemy camp, broke the siege, and obtained a great victory.136 The Greeks, therefore, demonstrated their treachery and military ineptitude. To complete the negative picture of the Byzantines, Geoffrey also described their greedy behavior. During the campaign in Sicily led by Maniakes against the Saracens, the Byzantines refused to share the booty with their Norman allies, even though the merit of the victory belonged to the Normans alone. The imperial troops joined the battle only when the enemies were already fleeing and did nothing except to collect the plunder: The Greeks, arriving at the battlefield while our men were still pursuing the enemy, seized the spoils and divided them amongst themselves, reserving no portion for our men, who were the ones who had wrested them from the enemy.137 Furthermore, their commander proved to be especially cruel, since he is said to have ordered the beating of Arduin, a northern Italian fighting with the Normans, who had dared to ask for a share of the booty.138 Soon after this episode, the author described the occasion during which a Norman had killed the splendid horse of the imperial envoy by punching it, but then presented him with an even more beautiful one,139 thus showing that the Normans were not only formidably strong, but also remarkably generous.140 The account in which Michael VII’s son was ‘­turpiter’ (­dreadfully) made a eunuch in order to prevent him from having a child from Robert Guiscard’s daughter is another example of Byzantine cruelty.141 Moreover, this adverb expresses Geoffrey’s disgust, probably influenced by the horror that this punishment provoked among the Normans, for whom war and virility had a fundamental importance.

Amatus of Montecassino, The History of the Normans Amatus, a monk of Montecassino, wrote The History of the Normans between 1078 and 1086. His work, dedicated to the Abbot of Montecassino,

46  Byzantines in the chronicles of early medieval southern Italy Desiderius, begins with a survey of the Norman deeds in England, Spain, and the East, and then moves on to the Normans in southern Italy, mainly focusing on Richard of Capua and Robert Guiscard. It ends with the death of the former (­1078). Unfortunately, we do not have the original Latin text of Amatus’s chronicle, but only a French translation of it, made in Naples at the beginning of the fourteenth century.142 The theme of the limited military abilities of the Byzantines is also present in Amatus’s work. Narrating the preparations for the Sicilian campaign of Maniakes, this chronicler wrote that the ‘­fieble main’ (­weak hand) of the Greeks could not cope with the Muslims’ insolence and hence the Byzantine emperor had to humiliate himself by asking Guaimar IV, the Prince of Salerno, for help. Guaimar IV is said to have sent 300 Normans to aid the imperial troops.143 Not surprisingly, the author described their presence as decisive in leading to the victory, which the numerous Greeks proved unable to obtain by themselves: To tell the truth, the strength and prowess of this small band of Normans quite outstripped the multitude of the Greeks.144 The chronicler, however, went further than this and in the following paragraph recounted that the empress of Constantinople had driven her husband away and invited Maniakes to Constantinople to marry her. The general left the newly ­re-​­conquered parts of Sicily, sent the Normans back to Guaimar IV, and sailed to Constantinople where he found the two spouses reconciled. In this way, the capriciousness of a woman and the ambitions of a general ruined all the achievements in the campaign against the Muslims who retook the territories they had lost.145 As did William of Apulia, Amatus compared the Byzantines to women and pointed out that they had been easily turned to flight. For example, Amatus has Arduin tell the Norman Count of Aversa, Rainulf Drengot, that the Byzantines are like ­women—​­‘­homes feminines, c’est à homes comme fames’ (­effeminate men, that is, to men who are like women).146 He thus managed to convince the Norman to join him in a war against the Byzantine Empire.147 During the campaign in Apulia, then under imperial rule, the Normans were able to obtain large amounts of booty without fighting, because the inhabitants of that region were weak and afraid of the Norman knights who had appeared for the first time in that area.148 The imperial officer Ducilianus tried to fight the invaders with a large force of soldiers, who are again compared to women,149 but was easily routed.150 All successive Byzantine reinforcements to the area were similarly defeated, despite the huge amount of money spent in order to obtain larger and larger armies.151 On another occasion, the imperial troops were able to defeat the Normans only after losing five battles, and only as a result of their innumerable number.152 Byzantine deficiency in military affairs is once more emphasized through the story of the Norman ­Ursel—​­i.e. Roussel de Bailleul (­d. ca. 1077)—​­, who

Byzantines in the chronicles of early medieval southern Italy  47 served in the imperial army against the Turks in Anatolia and then took part in the clash over the imperial throne. Amatus recounted that the Greeks had paid the Turks to kidnap Ursel, stating that such behavior was typical of the Byzantines, who were used to obtaining victory through betrayal. Since the Greeks had the habit of defeating their enemies through malicious ratiocination and subtle treachery, they wrote to the Turks who were allied by treaty to Roussel and requested that he be betrayed by them. For this purpose they gave the Turks large amounts of gold.153 As did William of Apulia and Geoffrey Malaterra, Amatus also described the Byzantines’ greed during Maniakes’s campaign in Sicily. Amatus’s version is different in detail, as he stated that Maniakes had stolen a horse from Arduin which the latter had previously taken away from the Muslims,154 but the role played by the imperial troops is the same. The chronicler also blamed the Byzantines for being cruel, because they, following their ‘­p essime costumance’ (­evil custom), had stripped and beaten Arduin.155

Conclusions Undoubtedly, the first conclusion to be drawn from this analysis is that, except for some rare positive depictions of some Byzantine ­soldier-​­emperors, the Lombard and Norman sources constructed an extremely negative image of the Greeks and therefore we can state that the hostility of the Western Europeans toward the Byzantines did not originate with the crusades.156 We can record only a few examples before the twelfth century, but when these two groups met, there was, as this analysis emphasizes, almost always some tension.157 This negative image is further strengthened by the fact that the other major group confronted by the Lombards and the ­Normans—​­the ­Muslims—​­are not represented in an unequivocally negative way.158 The second conclusion is that a number of different characteristics were attributed to the Greeks.159 If we leave aside Erchempert, who devoted very little space to the Byzantines, our authors agree on only one point: that the Byzantines were militarily inept and perfidious. It is important to underline the different ways in which the chroniclers constructed these traits. For example, William of Apulia is the only author who heavily stresses the effeminate character of the Greeks, portraying them as a people not only dedicated to food and drink, but unable even to dress properly for combat.160 Undoubtedly the effeminacy of the Byzantines as well as their other shortcomings were chosen because they were the exact opposite of what the Normans considered virtuous and worthy, namely, being virile, courageous, and of simple costumes. Apart from this, one can also see an attempt to d ­ e-​­legitimize Byzantine authority over southern Italy. After all, it was the Normans who were the aggressors, adventurers who had no legal claim over the land they came to rule. In this regard, it is worth remembering that the one who provides

48  Byzantines in the chronicles of early medieval southern Italy the most detailed descriptions, William, probably used to visit the court of Robert Guiscard, who ruled over former Byzantine lands in Italy and whose political ideas could have influenced the chronicler. It is through the same critical lens that we should read the passages concerning the cruelty of the Byzantines. After all, a polity cruel to its own members was not worthy of existence and could legitimately become an object of conquest. Similar accusations can also be found in the works of Geoffrey Malaterra and Amatus, but it is in The Deeds of Robert Guiscard that one finds the most vivid descriptions. On the other hand, the reasons for the Lombards’ acrimony toward the Byzantines were different. Besides the traditional rivalry between two neighboring peoples with different cultures who periodically confronted each other for over three centuries, the Lombard chroniclers’ frequent denigration of the Greeks can be attributed to the fact that their works were written in a period in which the Byzantines, taking advantage of the divisions among the Lombards, were able to become a dominant force in southern Italy again. The Lombards, probably missing the old glorious times of the Principality of Benevento, when they had controlled most of southern Italy, could only malign the Byzantines, emphasizing that they owed their successes merely to their large armies, rather than their skill, courage, or worthiness.

Notes 1 Byzantine control in northern Italy was over as early as the ­m id-​­eighth century, while it ended in the south of Italy only with the Norman conquest of Bari in 1071. 2 Greeks is the most common name used in medieval Western European sources for the Byzantines. 3 This approach can be found, for example in Th. Brown, ‘­Ethnic Independence and Cultural Deference: The Attitude of the Lombard Principalities to Byzantium c. ­876–​­1077’, in Byzantium and its Neighbours from the m ­ id-​­9th till the 12th Centuries, ed. V. Vavřínek = Byzantinoslavica. Revue internationale des études byzantines, 54 (­1993), p­p. ­5 –​­12, and W. McQueen, ‘­Relations between the Normans and Byzantium, ­1071–​­1112’, Byzantion, 56 (­1986), p­p. ­427–​­76. 4 For examples of similar studies, see J. France, ‘­Byzantium in Western Chronicles before the First Crusade’, in Knighthoods of Christ: Essays on the History of the Crusades and the Knights Templar, Presented to Malcolm Barber, ed. N. Housley (­A ldershot, 2007), p­p. ­3 –​­16; P. Lamma, ‘­Il mondo bizantino in Paolo Diacono’, in Id., Oriente e Occidente nell’alto Medioevo. Studi storici sulle due civiltà (­Padua, 1968), p­p. ­197–​­214; L. A. Berto, Early Medieval Venice: Cultural Memory and History (­Abingdon and New York, 2020), p­p. ­61–​­65; J. Flori, ‘­Quelques aspects de la propaganda a­ nti-​­byzantine dans les sources occidentals de la première croisade’, in Chemins d’­O utre-​­Mer. Etudes d’histoire sur la Méditerranée médiévale offertes à Michel Balard (­Paris, 2004), p­p. ­333–​­44; A. Jotischky, ‘­The Frankish Encounter with the Greek Orthodox in the Crusader States’, in Tolerance and Intolerance: Social Conflict in the Age of the Crusades, eds. M. Gervers and J. M. Powell (­Syracuse, 2001), p­p. ­100–​­17; M. Carrier, ‘­Perfidious and Effeminate Greeks: The Representations of Byzantine Ceremonial in the

Byzantines in the chronicles of early medieval southern Italy  49 Western Chronicles of the Crusades (­­1096–​­1204)’, Annuario dell’Istituto Romeno di Cultura e Ricerca Umanistica di Venezia, 4 (­2002), p­p. ­47–​­68. 5 In general on the Byzantines in Italy, see G. Ravegnani, I Bizantini in Italia (­Bologna, 2004), S. Cosentino, Storia dell’Italia bizantina (­­VI–​­XI secolo). Da Giustiniano ai Normanni (­Bologna, 2008), and Th. Brown, ‘­Byzantine Italy, c. ­680 – ​­c. 876’, in The New Cambridge Medieval History. Volume II: c. ­700 – ​­c. 900, ed. R. McKitterick (­Cambridge, 1995), p­p.  ­320–​­48. For southern Italy in particular, see V. Von Falkenhausen, La dominazione bizantina nell’Italia meridionale dal IX all’XI secolo (­Bari, 1978), and G. A. Loud, ‘­Byzantium and Southern Italy (­­876–​­1000)’, in The Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire, ed. J. Shepard (­Cambridge, 2008), p­p. ­560–​­82. On the history of the Lombards in southern Italy, see Zornetta, Italia meridionale longobarda; P. Delogu, ‘­Il principato di Salerno. La prima dinastia’, in Storia del Mezzogiorno; and Kreutz, Before the Normans. On the Norman conquest, see H. Taviani-​­Carozzi, La terreur du monde. Robert Guiscard et la conquête normande en Italie (­Paris, 1996), and G. A. Loud, The Age of Robert Guiscard: southern Italy and the Norman Conquest (­Harlow, 2000). 6 Another ­chronicle—​­the Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis—​­was written before Erchempert’s work, but does not ever mention the Byzantines. 7 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium. 8 The abbey of ­Montecassino—​­founded by Saint Benedict in the ­520s—​­is located ca. 70 miles ­south-​­east of Rome, and about 38 miles ­north-​­west of Capua (­distances are expressed as the crow flies). 9 On Erchempert, his work, and relevant bibliography, see ­Chapter 6 of this book. 10 The author usually called them Greci (­Greeks), but he also used the definition Achivi (­Achives). Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapters 5, 81. 11 According to Erchempert’s account, they were so terrorized that they decided to abandon their cities and not to fight against the Saracens anymore. Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 81: ‘­Per idem tempus Greci navaliter a Constantinopolim ad Regium tellurem adventantes, ex diverso et Hismaelite ab Africa et Sicilia properantes, utrique iuncxerunt se inter Messanam, urbem Sicilie, et Regium et confligentes parumper mutuo. Victi sunt Greci tantoque metu territi sunt reliqui Achivi, qui remanserunt, ut tam viri quam femine et parvuli, relictis utriusque civitatibus cum omnibus, subsidium adepti sunt, nemine contrahens bella.’ As one can see, the inhabitants of Reggio were not ‘­deeply afraid of Byzantine ­re-​­conquest of the city’ as Sarah Whitten has maintained. Whitten, ‘­Franks, Greeks, and Saracens’, ­p. 260. 12 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 81: ‘­Set, ut talia permiserit divina equitas illi beluine gentis, econtra narrabo brevius. Achivi autem, ut habitudinis similes sunt, ita animo equales sunt bestiis, vocabulo christiani, set moribus tristiores Agarenis. Hii videlicet et per se fidelium omnes predabant et Saracenis emebant et ex his alios venales oceani litora farciebant, alios vero in famulos et famulas reservabant. Talia et his similia animadvertens Deus, tradidit illos in opprobrium et in devorationem, ut pereant et recogitent et intelligant, quia in operibus suis diris Deum iaculati sunt.’ Erchempert spoke of fideles (­the faithful), not explicitly of Lombards, but it seems quite obvious that his reference concerned the Lombards. By using this term, the author clearly emphasized the religious connotation of the sin committed by the Byzantines. Several scholars have noticed Erchempert’s remark, but, with the exception of Kujawinski, ‘­L e immagini dell’altro’, p­p. ­784–​­85, they have neither contextualized it nor compared it with the other references to the Greeks in his chronicle. For example, see M. Micucci, ‘­La vita di Benevento nella visione di Erchemperto’, Archivio storico per le provincie napoletane 35 (­1955), ­p.  12; Brown, ‘­Ethnic Independence and Cultural Deference’, ­p.  9; H.

50  Byzantines in the chronicles of early medieval southern Italy ­Taviani-​­Carozzi, ‘­La vision imperiale de l’Occident médiéval: un témoignage lombarde du Xe siècle’, in Histoire et société. Mélanges offerts à Georges Duby. Volume III. Le moine, le clerc et le prince (­­A ix- ­​­­en-​­Provence, 1992), ­p. 182; Ch. Wickham, ‘­­Ninth-​­century Byzantium through Western Eyes’, in Byzantium in the Ninth Century: Dead or Alive?, ed. L. Brubaker (­A ldershot, 1998), p ­ .  251, note 16; S. Efthymiadis, ‘­Chrétiens et Sarassins en Italie méridionale et en Asie Mineure (­­IXe – ​­XIe siecle). Essai d’étude comparée’, in Histoire et culture dans l’Italie Byzantine. Acquis et nouvelles recherches, eds. A. Jacob, J.-​­M. Martin, and G. Noyé (­Rome, 2006), ­p. 598; A. ­Peters-​­Custot, ‘­L e barbare et l’étranger dans l’Italie méridionale ­pré-​­normande (­­IXe-​­Xe siècles): l’Empire à l’épreuve de l’altérité’, in Le barbare, l’étranger. Images de l’autre (­­Saint-​­Etienne, 2005), ­p. 158, note 69. Francesco Borri mistakenly states that Erchempert often compared the Byzantines to the Muslims. F. Borri, ‘­Gli Istriani e i loro parenti. ‘­Φράγγοι’. Romani e Slavi nella periferia di Bisanzio’, Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik, 60 (­2010), p ­ .  9, note 57. W. Pohl, ‘­Historiography of Disillusion: Erchempert and the History of ­Ninth-​­Century Southern Italy’, in Historiography and Identity III: Carolingian Approaches, eds. R. Kramer, H. Reimitz, and G. Ward (­Turnhout, 2021), ­p. 336. Mistranslating and therefore misunderstanding that passage, Paul Brown has stated: ‘­In his Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium (­HLB) the monk conceded that while they may be ‘­of similar condition [to us]’ and are certainly ‘­Christians by name’, they are nonetheless ‘­more sorrowful in their way of life’ (­moribus tristiores) than the Muslims. So Paul [the Deacon]’s covetous and heterodox interlopers were later lumped together by Erchempert with that other, most unwelcome people in the s­ outh – the ​­ Muslims. Like the HL [Historia Langobardorum], the HLB conveyed the idea that an alliance with Byzantium was not to be sought.’ P. Brown, ‘­Perceptions of Byzantine Virtus in southern Italy, from the Eighth to Eleventh Centuries’, in Questions of Gender in Byzantine Society, eds. B. Neill and L. Garland (­Farnham, 2013), p­p. ­15–​­16. Another misunderstanding of this passage can be found in Whitten, ‘­Franks, Greeks, and Saracens’, p ­ . 260: ‘­The Greeks living in Reggio, who had previously been under Saracen rule, were still Christian but had started to behave as beasts and Hagarenes’. 13 On this period, see Kreutz, Before the Normans, p­p. ­65–​­67. 14 According to Jakub Kujawinski, these bitter feelings were due to the fact that in the last part of his work Erchempert described several clashes between the Lombards and the Byzantines. Kujawinski, ‘­Le immagini dell’altro’, p ­ . 785. However, in those chapters the author did not make any comments about the Greeks. 15 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 61: ‘­A quo reversi dum Capuam repeteremus, a Grecis capti exutique sumus et exequitati. Ablatisque equis et spoliis et ministris cunctis, homines argento redempti sunt; equos recollegimus VI. Ego autem solus cum preceptore pedestre remansi’. Although Erchempert had a bad experience on that occasion, he did not say that he had had ‘­a bad memory’ of the Greek soldiers, as Jakub Kujawinski has claimed. Kujawinski, ‘­Le immagini dell’altro’, ­p. 785. Quite different is the opinion of Thomas Brown, who has stated that Erchempert’s attitude toward the Byzantines stems from the fact that this chronicler ‘­is a particularly colourful and paranoid historian desperate to find scapegoats for the political and military disasters which had overtaken his beloved race’. Brown, ‘­Ethnic Independence and Cultural Deference’, p ­ . 9. 16 The chronicler reported only that their love had turned into hatred for unknown reasons. Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 5. Wantia was the s­ister-­​­­in-​­law of Emperor Constantine VI. Von Falkenhausen, La dominazione bizantina nell’Italia meridionale, ­p. 16, and A. Bedina,

Byzantines in the chronicles of early medieval southern Italy  51 ‘­Grimoaldo, principe di Benevento’, in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, 59 (­Rome, 2002), ­p. 673. 17 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapters 38, ­56–​ ­58, 60, 67, ­70–​­73, 76, 79, 80. 18 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 54: ‘­Eodem tempore Guaimarius, supradictus princeps, cum nimium affligeretur ab Athanasio episcopo cum Saracenis essetque ex toto depopulata tellus ipsius, ita ut capi possit nisi divina pietas restitisset, ad Grecorum se contulit suffragium; a quibus nobiliter est adiutus. Nam et auro et frumento adiutus est et auxiliatoribus stipatus, qui custodirent urbem et populum eius; quod actenus servatur, ut dictum est.’ 19 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 67: ‘­A nte hoc sane tempus Guaimarius princeps Constantinopolim ad augustorum vestigia confisus accessit; a quibus benigne susceptus est et patritius ab eis factus, cum honore ad propria remissus est’. 20 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 48: ‘­Gaideris vero Francis traditus in custodia, fuga lapsus pervenit urbem Barensem, quo morabantur Greci. A quibus misus est urbem ad regiam Basilio pio augusto, a quo honoratus ditatusque donis imperialibus, Oeream urbem accepit ad convivendum’. Basil is also described as serenissimus Augustus (­most serene Augustus). Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 52. The friendly feelings of Erchempert for Basil have also been noticed by Taviani-​­Carozzi, La principauté lombarde de Salerne, ­p. 42. 21 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 52. 22 For general information on this work and relevant bibliography, see Berto, Making History, p­p. ­113–​­16. 23 Continuatio codicis Vaticani, ed. G. Waitz, in MGH, Scriptores rerum Langobardicarum et Italicarum saec. VI– ​­IX (­Hannover, 1878), ­p. 495. The comet’s appearance is also emphasized by Kujawinski, ‘­Le immagini dell’altro’, p­p. ­791–​­92. 24 Continuatio, ­p. 495: ‘­Cui quidem Sybaticio successor extitit Georgius patricius. Quo Beneventi commorante, post non multum tempus fax terribiliter a parte meridiana longo tractu effulsit. Dehinc post dies octo similiter fax ab Oriente emicuit pene usque occidentem, que postquam desinere ceperat, facta est velud species draconis aut licterae. Deinceps hierat ad obsidendum idem patricius Capuam; eoque ibi consistente, denuo fax a meridiana plaga cucurrit, et post modicum ab aquilone, et post paululum ab oriente, et post aliquot dies ab occidente; quater enim illis diebus effulserat.’ The torch coming from the east reappeared again when Barsaci replaced Patrician George. Continuatio, ­p. 496. 25 Continuatio, ­p.  496: ‘­Postea quidem multotiens apparuere eadem signa facularum per diversa loca; sed terribilius illud non fuit, quam quod in Apulia apparuerat; flamma enim longa ardere visa est ab hora secunda pene usque horam diei a tertiam. Demum vero secuta est plaga camparum, quae cunctas teneras fruges, etiam et frondes arborum in quibusdam locis funditus absumpserunt per Beneventanam provinciam.’ Another ­calamity—​­a flood caused by heavy ­rainfall—​­also struck the area when the Byzantines, having abandoned Benevento, continued to threaten the city. Continuatio, ­p. 497. Cf. Kujawinski, ‘­Le immagini dell’altro’, p­p. ­792–​­93. 26 Continuatio, ­p. 496: ‘­n il in eos esse boni; nisi quod Christus odiit quod Satanas diligit, cuius discipuli sermone et opere comprobantur’. 27 Continuatio, ­p. 496: ‘­Beneventi quidem eius cives veluti proprios servulos tractabant minis, verberibus, angariis diversis, terroribus assiduis, nulli honorem reverentiamque servantes, nulli credentes, nulli umquam veritatem dicentes nullique fidem custodientes’.

52  Byzantines in the chronicles of early medieval southern Italy 28 Continuatio, ­p. 496: ‘­Periuria quoque seu adulteria puplica vel privata et diversas fornicationes et multimoda furta pro ludo habebant’. 29 Continuatio, p ­ .  496: ‘­si quando vero aliquis violenciatus ad eos proclamare presumpsisset, pugnis, alapis, taureis fustibusque cesus recedebat plorans, ut darum fieret, nil in eos esse boni’. 30 Continuatio, ­p. 496: ‘­Ad ultimum preterea certius disponebant, universos Beneventi cives et reliquos istius patriae ferreis vinculis necti et eos de sua regione transferre, sicuti olim, nequissimus rex eorum Anthiochus dolose agere voluit Hierosolimitis’. These aspects of the Continuatio are also emphasized by Kujawinski, ‘­Le immagini dell’altro’, p ­ . 792. 31 Continuatio, ­p. 496. 32 Continuatio, ­p. 496. 33 Continuatio, ­p.  496: ‘­Sed aliter hinc divina providentia quam humana malitia disposuerat’. 34 Continuatio, ­p. 496: ‘­Theodorus ad eum miserat, postulans, ut sibi saltem mitteret solacium ad Beneventi menia conservanda, seu Langobardos capiendos secum morantes, quos valde pavebat’. 35 Continuatio, p ­ . 497: ‘­Beneventum interea regimine prephati Petri pontificis gubernabatur, cui eam ipse marchio reliquerat; quam Argiva falanx seu latronum manus assidue incursabat; tamen prope Beneventi menia minime accedebant, quia sollicita cura ipsius presulis undique plurimumque insistebat, ne in probis suis civibus dampna inferrent.’ ­ .  496: ‘­Ideoque in ipsorum odium fere omnes cultores Apuliae, 36 Continuatio, p Samnii, Lucaniae, Campaniae conspiraverunt’. 37 On this chronicle in general, see the observations made in ­Chapter  1 of this book. 38 The only insulting epithet addressed to the Byzantines is nefandus (­nefarious, abominable). Chronicon Salernitanum, chapters 145, 147, 158. 39 Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 60: ‘­ Pro una denique puella sunt aliorum multeque denique viduate. Et qui antea omnes in unum inter se epulabant et exultabant, post modum pro unum Greculum immensas lacrimas effundebant’. As Kujawinski has noted, the description of the Prince of Benevento Sico’s reaction to this episode is also worthy of note. Having heard these events, this Lombard ruler, according to the chronicler, became very sad and decided not to wear his crown anymore because he predicted that very bad events were going to happen to the Lombards. In this way, the Salernitan author further emphasized the tragic consequences that the vile deed of the ‘­little Greek’ had produced. Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 60; see Kujawinski, ‘­Le immagini dell’altro’, ­p. 803, note 93. 40 This is not the only part of the work where the Byzantines are blamed for using treacherous tactics. Cf. Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 172. 41 Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 145. 42 Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 147. 43 Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 158. A similar attitude can also be found in the description of the conquest of Benevento by the imperial troops. Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 143. The same explanation is also used for other Byzantine victories. Chronicon Salernitanum, chapters ­171–​­72. 44 Some characteristics of this battle and the number of ­Salernitans—­​­­300— r​­ emind us of the famous Battle of Thermopylae (­480 BCE), in which 300 Spartans led by King Leonidas successfully faced an enormous Persian army for several days. We cannot be certain that the chronicler wished to refer to that specific battle, but if so, then he implied that the Byzantines were barbarian invaders, just as the Persians had been. Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 158.

Byzantines in the chronicles of early medieval southern Italy  53 45 Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 158. 46 See, for example C. H. Cosgrove, ‘­A Woman’s Unbound Hair in the ­Greco-​ R ­ oman World with Special Reference to the Story of the “­Sinful Woman” in Luke 7:­36-​­50’, Journal of Biblical Literature, 124, 4 (­2005), p­p.  ­675–​­92. For a ­tenth-​­century example of a woman begging for mercy with untied hair, see Liudprand of Cremona, Antapodosis, in Id., Opera omnia, ed. P. Chiesa, Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio Mediaevalis, 156 (­Turnhout, 1998), book IV, 10. Of course, this is only a supposition; the author might have only wanted to underline either the disordered flight from the battlefield of the Byzantine commander or his grief over the lost battle. 47 Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 158. 48 On this topic, for example, see L. ­Brubaker—​­M. B. Cunningham, The Cult of the Mother of God in Byzantium: Texts and Images (­Farnham, 2012). 49 Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 143. 50 Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 173. 51 Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 174. 52 Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 16. The chronicler did not add anything else. The fate of the woman and the name of her successor are, therefore, unknown. 53 It is also worth noting that the legendary personage of a female pope, called Joan, whose story resembles that of the female patriarch (­this has been also noticed by Taviani-​­Carozzi, ‘­La vision imperiale de l’Occident médiéval: un témoignage lombarde du Xe siècle’, ­p. 183), has been placed in the second half of the ninth century. There is no way to know if the Salernitan chronicler was aware of this legend, but it is interesting that his female patriarch ruled at the end of the eighth century. If he knew of the legend regarding Joan, he may have wished to emphasize that this kind of infamy had first been known to the Byzantines. In general on Pope Joan, see A. Boureau, The Myth of Pope Joan (­Chicago, 2001). 54 Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 131: ‘­in magna superbia est elevatus, et non tantum coram hominibus sed eciam contra Deum conabatur se iactitaret’. 55 This story is mentioned in several texts dating from the eighth to the fourteenth century. Oldoni, Anonimo salernitano del X secolo, p ­ . 110, note 189. 56 Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 131. 57 Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 131. Cf. Taviani-​­Carozzi, ‘­La vision imperiale de l’Occident médiéval: un témoignage lombarde du Xe siècle’, p­p. ­182–​­83. 58 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 52; Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 131. For an overview of this episode, see M. McCormick, ‘­Western Approaches (­­700–​­900)’, in The Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire: c. ­500 – ​­1492, ed. J. Shepard (­Cambridge, 2008), p­p. ­420–​­21. 59 Kujawinski, on the other hand, believes that in this passage the chronicler only accuses the Byzantine emperor of the ‘­usurpation of the Romaness’, while A. ­Peters-​­Custot thinks that the Salernitan author wanted to emphasize that the successors of the Romans were not the Byzantines, but the popes. Kujawinski, ‘­Le immagini dell’altro nella cronachistica del Mezzogiorno longobardo’, p ­ . 801; ­Peters-​­Custot, ‘­L’identité des Grecs de l’Italie méridionale byzantine’, ­p. 199. 60 On this point see G. Arnaldi, ‘­A nastasio Bibliotecario’, in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, 3 (­Rome, 1961), ­p. 33. 61 Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 107. On this see Oldoni, Anonimo salernitano, ­p. 114. 62 The chronicler emphasized this particular by referring to the Byzantine sovereigns as imperatores Grecorum (­emperors of the Greeks) and imperatores Constantinopolitani (­Constantinopolitan emperors). Chronicon Salernitanum, chapters 107, 147. On the letter of Louis II to Basil, see G. Arnaldi, ‘­Impero d’Occidente e impero d’Oriente nella lettera di Ludovico II a Basilio I’, La Cultura, 1 (­1963),

54  Byzantines in the chronicles of early medieval southern Italy p­p.  ­404–​­24; Taviani-​­Carozzi, ‘­La vision imperiale de l’Occident médiéval: un témoignage lombarde du Xe siècle’, p­p.  181, 1­ 85–​­89; S. C. Fanning, ‘­Imperial Diplomacy between Francia and Byzantium: The Letter of Louis II to Basil I in 871’, Cithara, 34 (­1994), p­p. ­3 –​­17; and Kujawinski, ‘­Le immagini dell’altro nella cronachistica del Mezzogiorno longobardo’, p­p. ­800–​­02. 63 Chronicon Salernitanum, ­p. 114. 64 Chronicon Salernitanum, ­p. 115. 65 Chronicon Salernitanum, p­p. ­115–​­16. 66 Chronicon Salernitanum, p­p. ­117–​­18. 67 Chronicon Salernitanum, chapters ­173–​­74. 68 Besides the three chronicles I shall examine in this section, there are other historical narrative texts. However, the Annals of Bari, which covers the period ­605–​­1042, are not useful for my analysis since they are very concise. Lupus Protospatarius’s Annals have the same characteristics. Moreover, the latter work was composed after 1102 and this chapter only takes into consideration early medieval works, i.e. written before 1100. 69 William of Apulia, Gesta Roberti Wiscardi, ed. M. Mathieu (­Palermo, 1961), prologue, lines 6­ –​­13, book V, lines 4­ 10–​­14. Paul Brown, who, as we shall see, believes that this chronicler was ­pro-​­Byzantine, neglects to mention the reference to Robert’s son in the prologue and states that Roger’s patronage ‘­is only alluded to in the closing lines of the poem’. P. Brown, ‘­The Gesta Roberti Wiscardi: A “­Byzantine” History?’ Journal of Medieval History, 37, 2 (­2011), ­p. 164. 70 In general, on this author and his work, see William of Apulia, Gesta Roberti Wiscardi, p­p. ­11–​­15; K. B. Wolf, Making History: The Normans and their Historians in ­Eleventh-​­Century Italy (­Philadelphia, 1995), p­p. ­123–​­25; F. Panarelli, ‘­Guglielmo Appulo’, in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, 60 (­Rome, 2003), p­p. ­794–​­97; N. Webber, The Evolution of Norman Identity, ­911–​­1154 (­Woodbridge, 2005), p­p.  ­56–​­58; E. Johnson, ‘­Normandy and Norman Identity in Southern Italian Chronicles,’ ­Anglo-​­Norman Studies, 27 (­2005), p­p. ­87–​­89; P. Toubert, ‘­La première historiographie de la conquête normande de l’Italie méridionale (­XIe siècle)’, in I caratteri della conquista normanna. Diversità e identità nel Mezzogiorno (­­1030–​­1130), eds. R. Licinio and F. Violante (­Bari, 2006), p­p. ­18–​­20. The translation into English of William of Apulia’s work used in this chapter with a few modifications is William of Apulia, The Deeds of Robert Guiscard, unpublished translation by Graham Loud. 71 Unfortunately, it is not possible to make a comparison with the ­eleventh-​­century Byzantine chroniclers since they say very little about the Normans. More information can be found in the works of t­welfth-​­century Byzantine authors, who point out not only the brutality of the Normans, but also their valor and military skills. For example, see C. Asdracha, ‘­L’image de l’homme occidental à Byzance: le témoignage de Kinammos et de Choniatès’, Byzantinoslavica, 44, 1 (­1982), p­p. ­31–​­40; M. Balard, ‘­Les Normands vus par le chroniquers byzantins du XIIe siècle’, in Les Normans en Méditerranée dans le silloge des Tancrède, eds. P. ­Bouet  – ​­F. Neveux (­Caen, 1994), p­p.  ­225–​­34; and F. Burgarella, ‘­Echi delle vicende normanne nella storiografia bizantina dell’XI secolo’, in Categorie linguistiche e concettuali della storiografia bizantina (­Naples, 2000), p­p. ­177–​­231. In general, on the image of Westerners in Byzantine sources, see D. M. Nicol, ‘­The Byzantine View of Western Europe’, in Id., Byzantium: Its Ecclesiastical History and Relations with the Western World (­London, 1972), essay I. 72 William of Apulia, Gesta Roberti Wiscardi, book I, lines 2­22–​­28: ‘­Aversam properat. Normannis omnia narrat / Quae sibi contigerant, vehementer et increpat illos, / Appula multimodae cum terra sit utilitatis, / Femineis Graecis cur permittatur haberi, / Cum genus ignavum sit, quod comes ebrietatis / Crapula

Byzantines in the chronicles of early medieval southern Italy  55 dissolvat, minimo saepe hoste fugatos / Vestituque graves, non armis asserit aptos.’ William continues the narration as follows: ‘­Normanni, quamvis Danaum virtute coacti / Appula rura prius dimittere, rursus adire / Hoc stimulante parant, numero cum viribus aucto’. The expression Danaum virtute does not, however, negate the previous statement about the effeminacy of the Byzantines as argued by Paul Brown, who takes into account only those two words and erroneously translates them as ‘­by the manliness of the Greeks’. Brown, ‘­The Gesta Roberti Wiscardi: A “­Byzantine” History?’, ­p. 176. The chronicler, in fact, explained that, ‘­although they had previously been forced to leave Apulia by the virtus of the Greeks’, Arduin’s speech had encouraged the Normans to return there again. Virtus can have several meanings: it can mean virtue, and valor, but also strength, authority, etc. (­for some examples of the different meanings that early medieval Italian chroniclers gave to this word, see Berto, Early Medieval Venice, chapter 2). This passage therefore probably contains an allusion to the Byzantines’ military power, but certainly not to their virility. Brown also mistranslates and therefore misinterprets another part of the speech. He believes that the sentence, Vestituque graves, non armis asserit aptos, is a reference to the heavily armoured Byzantine cavalry and that William was contrasting the Byzantine soldiers with the ‘­the less encumbered Norman counterpart’. Brown, ‘­The Gesta Roberti Wiscardi: A ‘­Byzantine’ History?’, p­p. ­177–​­78. If one reads the entire passage, however, it is clear that graves does not refer to vestitu and armis—​­Brown translates this part into ‘­heavy clothing and arms’—​­, but to the ‘­effeminate Greeks’ mentioned at the beginning of the sentence. Also aptos, that Brown has forgotten to take into consideration, refers to them. The Byzantines therefore were vestitu graves (= ‘­heavy because of their clothing’ or ‘­burdened by clothing’), and non armis aptos (= ‘­unfit’ or ‘­unsuitable’ ‘­for arms’, i.e. for war or battle). 73 This is a point Paul Brown has not taken into due consideration in his analysis of Arduin’s speech. Wishing to prove at any cost that William of Apulia was ­pro-​­Byzantine, Brown dismisses the relevance of this passage stating that it was probably taken from a local source and the fact that the speech is attributed to a Lombard makes it ‘­of little use when attempting to discern Norman perceptions’. This is not the place for discussing how this chronicler employed his sources, but it is quite clear that William of Apulia was a very skillful writer and did not limit himself to assembling sections taken from other works. We can argue forever whether or not he was a Norman and wrote for a Norman audience, who shared his views. What is important here is that the main objective of this speech is to depict the Greeks as cowards and that this is a recurring theme in William’s work. 74 William of Apulia, Gesta Roberti Wiscardi, book I, line 79. 75 William of Apulia, Gesta Roberti Wiscardi, book I, lines 2­ 75–​­89. 76 William of Apulia, Gesta Roberti Wiscardi, book I, lines ­300–​­09. 77 William of Apulia, Gesta Roberti Wiscardi, book I, lines 3­ 50–​­72: ‘­Exaugustus eos, quorum sibi tradita cura est, / Taliter alloquitur: ‘­Prudentia vestra virili / Condicione vigens, non vos permittat habere / Cor muliebre, viri. Quae vos ignavia semper / Cogit inire fugam? Memores estote priorum, / Quorum strenuitas totum sibi subdidit orbem. / Hector Achilleis fortissimus eccidit armis. / Troia Michaenei ruit ignibus usta furoris. / Philippi quantus fuerit vigor, India novit; / Huius Alexander proles fortissima nonne / Fortia multorum subiecit regna Pelasgis? / Partibus occiduis Graecorum fama timori / Omnibus et mundi regionibus esse solebat. / Quae gens audito Graecorum nomine stare / Audebat campo? Vix oppida, castra, vel urbes / Reddebant tutos ab eorum viribus hostes. /

56  Byzantines in the chronicles of early medieval southern Italy State, precor, validi, memores virtutis avitae, / Degeneresque pedum non vos fiducia reddat. / Hosti adimit vires, qui stare viriliter audet. / Procurate sequi vestigia prima parentum, / Iam fuga displiceat; totus vos sentiat orbis / Fortes esse viros. Non est ad bella timendus / Francorum populus, numeroque et viribus impar’. 78 Wolf, Making History, p­p. ­129–​­30. ­Marie-​­Agnès ­Lucas-​­Avenel has correctly emphasized the author’s irony displayed in these words; M. A. ­Lucas-​­Avenel, ‘­Les ‘­Gesta Roberti Guiscardi’ de Guillaume de Pouille: études de quelques éléments épiques’, in De part et d’autre de la Normandie médiévale: recueil d’études en hommage à François Neveux. = Annales de Normandie: Cahiers, 35 (­2009), p­p. ­58–​­59. I believe that Paul Brown misinterprets this passage when he argues that the main purpose of the speech was to point out that, when the Byzantine Empire was ‘­under good leadership, it was a dangerous adversary’ and that this is a recurrent theme in William of Apulia’s work. Brown, ‘­The Gesta Roberti Wiscardi: A “­Byzantine” History?’, ­p. 172. 79 William of Apulia, Gesta Roberti Wiscardi, book I, lines ­390–​­95. 80 This opinion is also shared by Wolf, Making History, p­p. ­129–​­30. 81 William of Apulia, Gesta Roberti Wiscardi, book I, lines 5­ 30–​­35. 82 William of Apulia, Gesta Roberti Wiscardi, book V, lines ­34–​­40: Non modicum spectans Buamundus collibus agmen, / Imperii pariter rectorem credit adesse. / Irruit et trepidos hostes, ut nisus alaudas, / Insequitur. Populo Graecorum exercitus huius / Terga dat, at tantus contexit pulvis utrumque, / Ut neuter videat quorsum pars altera tendit. / Abdita silvarum victi petiere Pelasgi. 83 Paul Brown, wishing to prove at any cost that William is p ­ ro-​­Byzantine, does not see the derogatory aspects of this account and maintains that this passage is a reference to Homer’s description of the duel between Menelaus and Paris in which Aphrodite rescued the latter by ‘[wrapping] him in swirls of mist’ and therefore ‘­Alexius, representing Paris, is saved from Bohemond (­Menelaus) by none other than a providential shroud’. Brown, ‘­The Gesta Roberti Wiscardi: A “­Byzantine” History?’, ­p. 169. I do not think that there are any similarities between the two texts; the fact that, shortly before, the chronicler said that Achilles, the destroyer of Troy, was born near the battle site, does not constitute a proof that he referred to the Iliad in the following lines. William of Apulia, Gesta Roberti Wiscardi, book V, line 29. William is clearly exalting Bohemond and giving an unflattering image of the Byzantines. Being saved from a complete route thanks to dusty clouds, raised by ­troops—​­no reference to the fact that they were ‘­providential’—​­, is not certainly a positive compliment and is undoubtedly very different from being rescued by a mist sent by a goddess. Moreover, Aphrodite’s rescue in the Iliad is not meant as something very positive, since Paris clearly could not defend himself against Menelaus. I wish to thank Susan Shapiro for pointing this out to me. 84 William of Apulia, Gesta Roberti Wiscardi, book V, lines 1­ 79–​­84. 85 William of Apulia, Gesta Roberti Wiscardi, book V, lines 6­ 5–​­69. 86 William of Apulia, Gesta Roberti Wiscardi, book I, line 20. 87 William of Apulia, Gesta Roberti Wiscardi, book I, lines 442, 445 88 William of Apulia, Gesta Roberti Wiscardi, book I, lines ­446–​­50. 89 William of Apulia, Gesta Roberti Wiscardi, book, I, lines ­457–​­59 90 William of Apulia, Gesta Roberti Wiscardi, book I, lines ­451–​­54. 91 William of Apulia, Gesta Roberti Wiscardi, book I, line 460. The Annals of Bari also described Maniakes as ‘­i niquus’ and mentioned his violent behavior toward the Apulians. Annales Barenses, ed. G. Pertz, in MGH, Scriptores, V (­Hannover, 1844), p­p. ­55–​­56.

Byzantines in the chronicles of early medieval southern Italy  57 92 William of Apulia, Gesta Roberti Wiscardi, book I, lines ­468–​­77. 93 William of Apulia, Gesta Roberti Wiscardi, book, I, lines ­486–​­90. Another scene invoking smell hints at William of Apulia’s acrimony toward the Greeks. In his narration of a battle during Robert Guiscard’s Balkan campaign, the author stated that the Normans had killed many noble Byzantines and had not remained for long in their camp because of the stench of the still unburied corpses. William of Apulia, Gesta Roberti Wiscardi, book IV, lines ­434–​­37. Since this is the only time that he mentioned this kind of details, he probably wished to emphasize the great victory of the Normans as well as the terrible fate of their enemies. 94 William of Apulia, Gesta Roberti Wiscardi, book III, lines 1­ –​­13. 95 William of Apulia, Gesta Roberti Wiscardi, book III, lines 8­ –​­11. 96 Cf. G. Ostrogorski, History of the Byzantine State, translated by J. Hussey (­New Brunswick, 1969), p­p. ­346–​­48; M. Angold, ‘­Belle Époque or Crisis? (­­1025–​­1118)’, in The Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire: c. ­500 – ​­1492, ed. J. Shepard (­Cambridge, 2008), p­p.  ­600–​­01; Brown, ‘­The Gesta Roberti Wiscardi: A “­Byzantine” History?’, p­p. ­173–​­74. William of Apulia was clearly well informed about Byzantine history. Cf. M. Angold, ‘­K nowledge of Byzantine History in the West: The Normans Historians (­Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries)’, ­Anglo-​ ­Norman Studies, 25 (­2003), p­p. ­24–​­25. 97 William of Apulia, Gesta Roberti Wiscardi, book III, lines 6­ 9–​­92. 98 William of Apulia, Gesta Roberti Wiscardi, book III, lines 9­ 2–​­100. This digression on Byzantine history also serves the purpose of exalting the ­French—​ ­ auls—​­, by whose efforts the Turks were defeated, the eastern lands c­ alled G liberated, and the routes to the Holy Sepulcher reopened after a long period of inaccessibility (­a clear reference to the First Crusade). William of Apulia, Gesta Roberti Wiscardi, book III, lines ­98–​­105. 99 William of Apulia, Gesta Roberti Wiscardi, book IV, lines 7­ 7–​­80. 100 William of Apulia, Gesta Roberti Wiscardi, book II, lines ­543–​­45. 101 William of Apulia, Gesta Roberti Wiscardi, book III, lines 1­ 4–​­17. 102 William of Apulia, Gesta Roberti Wiscardi, book III, lines ­18–​­22, ­33–​­35. 103 William of Apulia, Gesta Roberti Wiscardi, book III, lines ­33–​­49. 104 On this detail, see William of Apulia, Gesta Roberti Wiscardi, ­p. 294; and M. Mathieu, ‘­Une source negligée de la bataille de Mantzikert: les ‘­Gesta Roberti Wiscardi’ de Guillaume de Apulie’, Byzantion, 20 (­1950), p­p. ­89–​­103. 105 William of Apulia, Gesta Roberti Wiscardi, book III, lines ­52–​­55. 106 William of Apulia, Gesta Roberti Wiscardi, book, IV, lines ­1–​­4. 107 William of Apulia, Gesta Roberti Wiscardi, book IV, lines 7­ 7–​­87. 108 William of Apulia, Gesta Roberti Wiscardi, book IV, lines 8­ 7–​­90. 109 William of Apulia, Gesta Roberti Wiscardi, book IV, lines 9­ 3–​­119. 110 She had been sent to Constantinople to marry Michael VII’s son; cf. Loud, The Age of Robert Guiscard, p­p. ­212–​­13. 111 William of Apulia, Gesta Roberti Wiscardi, book IV, lines 1­ 55–​­58. 112 William of Apulia, Gesta Roberti Wiscardi, book IV, lines 1­ 50–​­54. 113 William of Apulia, Gesta Roberti Wiscardi, book IV, lines ­274–​­75, ­322–​­23, ­343–​ 4­ 5, 372, book V, lines 5, ­30–​­31, 44. 114 William of Apulia, Gesta Roberti Wiscardi, book IV, lines ­420–​­24. Later Alexius did not dare to leave the city of Larissa as a result of the many defeats he had already suffered at the hands of the Normans. William of Apulia, Gesta Roberti Wiscardi, book V, lines ­68–​­69. 115 This opinion is shared by Wolf, Making History, ­p. 134. 116 William of Apulia, Gesta Roberti Wiscardi, book IV, lines 5­ 66–​­68. 117 The views of this scholar are presented in E. Albu, The Normans in their Histories: Propaganda, Myth, and Subversion (­Woodbridge, 2001), p­p. ­130–​­31, ­134–​­36.

58  Byzantines in the chronicles of early medieval southern Italy 118 This point has been emphasized also by Toubert, ‘­La première historiographie de la conquête normande de l’Italie méridionale (­XIe siècle)’, p­p. ­30–​­32. Annick ­Peters-​­Custot, who believes that William of Apulia depicts the Greeks in a negative light, maintains that, when William attributed the title of rex to the German sovereign, he was following a ‘­Byzantine political tradition’. A. ­Peters-​ C ­ ustot, Les Grecs de l’Italie méridionale p­ ost-​­byzantine (­­IXe-​­XIVe siècle). Une acculturation en douceur (­Rome, 2009), p ­ . 36, note 125. 119 William of Apulia, Gesta Roberti Wiscardi, book V, lines 3­ 0–​­69. 120 Brown, ‘­The Gesta Roberti Wiscardi: A “­Byzantine” History?’, p­p. ­173–​­78. The conclusions of Albu and Brown concerning Alexius’s portrayal in The Deeds of Robert Guiscard are also shared by Peter Frankopan, who, like those two scholars, takes only part of William’s chronicle into consideration. Frankopan hypothesizes that this chronicle was composed during a supposedly ‘­g ilded period of c­ o-​­operation and rapprochement between the papacy and Constantinople, and for that matter between Byzantium and southern Italy’, and that this atmosphere influenced William of Apulia. P. Frankopan, ‘­Turning Latin into Greek: Anna Komnene and the Gesta Roberti Wiscardi’, Journal of Medieval History, 39, 1 (­2013), p­p.  ­94–​­99. While exigencies of space do not permit an exhaustive analysis of this scholar’s view, it should be noted that, besides not examining the entire source, he also misreads it. Frankopan maintains that William of Apulia’s tone is diplomatic from the beginning of his work: ‘­Rather than state that it was the Byzantines who had been conquered by the Normans, the author said that it was the Latins who had been defeated. Likewise the territory over which the Normans established themselves was not Byzantine, or Greek, rather it was Italian. Frankopan, ‘­Turning Latin into Greek: Anna Komnene and the Gesta Roberti Wiscardi’, p­p. ­97–​­98. Frankopan supports his view by quoting the following passage: ‘­Dicere fert animus, quo gens normannica ductu / Venerit Italiam, fuerit quae causa morandi, / Quosve secuta duces Latii sit adepta triumphum’. William of Apulia, Gesta Roberti Wiscardi, prologue, lines ­i ii–​­v. First, it is necessary to emphasize the ambiguity of those lines. The word, Latii is almost certainly not a nominative meaning ‘­Latins’, but is likely the genitive of ‘­Latium’, probably used as a synonym for southern Italy. A possible translation of that passage is: ‘­It is my intention to recount by whom the Norman people was led when it came to Italy, why it came to stay there, and under which leaders it obtained the victory in Latium’ (­or ‘­under whom it won the dukes of Latium’). In fact, immediately after the prologue, the chronicler explained: ‘­Postquam complacuit regi mutare potenti/­Tempora cum regnis, ut Graecis Apula tellus/­Iam possessa diu non amplius incoleretur, / Gens Normannorum feritate insignis equestri/­Intrat, et expulsis Latio dominatur Achivis’. (­A fter it had become pleasing to the Mighty King, who orders the seasons as well as Kingdoms, that the Apulian territory, for so long possessed by the Greeks, should no longer be occupied by them, the people of the Normans, distinguished by their warlike knights, should enter and rule Latium, after expelling the Achivi [=Greeks]). William of Apulia, Gesta Roberti Wiscardi, book, I, lines ­1–​­6. As one can see, these verses clearly say that the Norman people expelled the Achivi, i.e. the Byzantines, and that they ruled in Latium, i.e. southern Italy, and also that the ‘­powerful king’, i.e. God, wanted this to happen. Thus, there is no indication of a diplomatic tone toward the Byzantines. 121 William of Apulia, Gesta Roberti Wiscardi, book IV, lines ­407–​­13. 122 For example, see C. Erdmann, ‘­Kaiserliche und päpstliche Fahnen im hohen Mittelalter’, Quellen und Forschungen, 25 (­­1933–​­1934), ­p.  6; H. Grégoire, ‘­La base historique de l’épopée médiévale’, in Europa und der Nationalismus (­­Baden-​­Baden, 1950), ­p. 10.

Byzantines in the chronicles of early medieval southern Italy  59 123 In general on this issue, see J. ­Riley-​­Smith, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading (­Philadelphia, 1986), p­p. ­5 –​­7, F. Cardini, ‘­I Normanni e le crociate’, in I Normanni popolo d’Europa ­1030 – ​­1200, ed. M. D’Onofrio (­Venice, 1994), p­p. ­357–​­58, and M. Gallina, ‘­La “­precrociata” di Roberto il Guiscardo: un’ambigua definizione’, in Il Mezzogiorno ­normanno-​­svevo e le Crociate. Atti delle XIV Giornate n ­ ormanno-​­sveve (­Bari, 1­ 7–​­20 ottobre 2000), ed. G. Musca (­Bari, 2002), p­p. ­29–​­47. 124 As is also pointed out by France, ‘­Byzantium in Western Chronicles before the First Crusade’, ­p. 13. There is only one mention of the Byzantine heterodoxy and it is on occasion of the presence of Monophysites in their army, who, according to Marguerite Mathieu, the editor of William’s chronicle, were Armenians. See William of Apulia, Gesta Roberti Wiscardi, book I, lines 3­ 34–​­39, and page 271. 125 In general on this author and his work, see Wolf, Making History, p­p.  ­144–​ 4­ 7; F. Panarelli, ‘­Goffredo Malaterra’, in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, 57 (­Rome, 2001), p­p. ­541–​­45; Webber, The Evolution of Norman Identity, p­p. ­56–​­58; and Johnson, ‘­Normandy and Norman Identity in Southern Italian Chronicles’, p­p. ­95–​­97. The edition of this text can be found in Geoffrey Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii Calabriae et Siciliae Comitis et Roberti Guiscardi ducis fratris eius, ed. E. Pontieri, Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, Series Secunda, V, I (­Bologna, ­1925–​­1928). For its English translation, see Geoffrey Malaterra, The Deeds of Count Roger of Calabria and Sicily and of His Brother Duke Robert Guiscard, trans. K. B. Wolf (­A nn Arbor, 2005). 126 Geoffrey Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, I, 7. 127 Geoffrey Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, I, 9. 128 Geoffrey Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, I, 9. 129 Geoffrey Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, I, 10. Although Geoffrey referred to the inhabitants of Calabria (­which was a part of the Byzantine Empire before the Norman conquest), as ‘­Calabrenses’ (­Calabrians) and not as ‘­Greci’, he often depicts the former in a way that is similar to the manner he portrays the Greeks. For example, he calls the Calabrians a formidolissimum (­most fearful) and perfidissimum (­most perfidious) people. Geoffrey Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, I, 17, 28. 130 William was a son from Tancred of Hauteville’s first marriage, while Robert Guiscard and Roger were sons from Tancred’s second marriage. See the genealogical table of the Hauteville family in Loud, The Age of Robert Guiscard, ­p. 299. 131 Geoffrey Malaterra, The Deeds of Count Roger of Calabria, p­p. ­58–​­59. Geoffrey Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, I, 10: ‘­Willelmus quartanae febris typo laborabat et prae nimia infirmitate, qua premebatur, certamini interesse non poterat: sed procul jacens, exitum rei expectabat. Cum videret jam suos minus fortiter agere et pene deficere, indignatione et ira infirmitatis, qua premebatur, oblitus, arma corripiens, sese, quasi leo furibundus, hostium medium dedit, suosque, verbis exhortatoriis recreans, fortiter agendo, hostes in fugam vertit, duce Duceano, duce exercitus, qui caudatus erat, quasi bove interfecto.’ Cf. Wolf, Making History, ­p. 150. 132 Geoffrey Malaterra, The Deeds of Count Roger of Calabria, ­p.  144. Geoffrey Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, III, 13: ‘­Timebant denique Graeci, ne si ex nostrae gentis uxore haeredes procreati in palatio subcrescerent, occasio liberius illuc accedendi nostrae genti daretur; et gens, deliciis at voluptatibus, potiusquam belli studiis ex more dedita, nostrorum strenuitate subjuvata conculcaretur’. 133 The chronicler describes the Greeks as a ‘­semper genus perfidissimum’ (­a people who is always very perfidious/­treacherous). Geoffrey Malaterra, De rebus gestis

60  Byzantines in the chronicles of early medieval southern Italy Rogerii, II, 29. As M ­ arie-​­Agnès L ­ ucas-​­Avenel has noticed, Geoffrey referred to the ­Greek-​­Sicilians as ‘­Christians’ when they had been in favor of Roger, while describing them as Greeks when they had been hostile and treacherous toward the Norman leader. M. A. ­Lucas-​­Avenel, ‘­Les populations de Sicile et les conquérants normands vus par Geoffroi Malaterra’, in De la Normandie à la Sicile: réalités, représentations, mythes, eds. M. Colin and M.-​­A. ­Lucas-​­Avenel (­­Saint-​­Lô, 2004), p ­ . 54. In this way, the chronicler emphasized that these were the key characteristics of the Greeks. 134 Geoffrey Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, II, 43, 51. ­ . 172. 135 J. J. Norwich, The Normans in the South, ­1016-​­1130 (­London, 1967), p 136 Geoffrey Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, II, 30. 137 Geoffrey Malaterra, The Deeds of Count Roger of Calabria, ­p.  56. Geoffrey Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, I, 7: ‘­A ntequam Graeci ad locum certaminis perveniant: fortiter agendo, plures sternit, reliquos fugat, victor efficitur. Graeci ad locum, in quo certatum erat, pervenientes, nostris hostes insequentibus, spolia diripiunt, inter se dividunt, nulla portione nostris, qui ab hoste excusserant, reservata’. 138 Geoffrey Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, I, 8. 139 Geoffrey Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, I, 9. 140 As Andrew Cowell has emphasized, this gesture can be also interpreted as ‘­a challenge and insult’. A. Cowell, The Medieval Warrior Aristocracy: Gifts, Violence, Performance and the Sacred (­Cambridge, 2007), p ­ . 38. 141 Geoffrey Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii, III, 13. 142 In general on this author and his work, see V. D’Alessandro, Storiografia e politica nell’Italia normanna (­Naples, 1978), p­p. ­51–​­54; Wolf, Making History, p­p. ­88–​­89; G. A. Loud, ‘­A matus of Montecassino and His “­History of the Normans”’, in Mediterraneo, Mezzogiorno, Europa. Studi in onore di Cosimo Damiano Fonseca, eds. G. Andenna and H. Houben (­Bari, 2004), p­p.  ­715–​­26; and Amatus of Montecassino, The History of the Normans, translated by P. N. Dunbar with notes and introduction by G. H. Loud (­Woodbridge, 2004), p­p. ­1–​­38. The edition of this text can be found in Amatus of Montecassino, Ystoire de li Normant, ed. V. de Bartholomeis (­Rome, 1935). Another edition in Amatus of Montecassino, Ystoire de li Normant, ed. M. ­Guéret-​­Laferté (­Paris, 2011). For the English translation of this chronicle, see Amatus of Montecassino, The History of the Normans. 143 Amatus of Montecassino, Ystoire de li Normant, II, 8. 144 Amatus of Montecassino, The History of the Normans, ­p. 66. Amatus of Montecassino, Ystoire de li Normant, II, 8: ‘­Et, à dire la verité, plus valut la hardiece et la prouesce de ce petit de Normans que la moltitude de li Grex’. Cf. Wolf, Making History, ­p. 94, and Loud, ‘­A matus of Montecassino and His “­History of the Normans”’, ­p. 720. 145 Amatus of Montecassino, Ystoire de li Normant, II, 10. 146 Amatus of Montecassino, Ystoire de li Normant, II, 17. 147 Amatus of Montecassino, Ystoire de li Normant, II, ­17–​­18. 148 Amatus of Montecassino, Ystoire de li Normant, II, 20. 149 Amatus of Montecassino, Ystoire de li Normant, II, 21. The chronicler utilized this comparison also in Amatus of Montecassino, Ystoire de li Normant, I, 21. 150 Amatus of Montecassino, Ystoire de li Normant, II, 21. In this passage, the difference between the Normans and the Byzantines is also emphasized by the following story. When the Byzantines hesitated to join battle, seeing no honor in attacking enemies ‘­p etit de gent et povre’ (­so few in number and poor), the Normans reply: ‘­se tu non daingnes venir sur nouz, certement irons sur toy à bataille, quar plus nouz confidons de la misericorde de Dieu que de la multitude

Byzantines in the chronicles of early medieval southern Italy  61 de la gent’ (­if you do not deign to attack us, we shall certainly attack you because we trust in God’s mercy more than in multitudes of soldiers). Moreover, Amatus mentioned shortly afterward that God had been on the Normans’ side. Amatus of Montecassino, Ystoire de li Normant, II, 23. Cf. Wolf, Making History, p­p. ­95–​­96. 151 Amatus of Montecassino, Ystoire de li Normant, II, ­22–​­26. 152 Amatus of Montecassino, Ystoire de li Normant, I, ­21–​­22. 153 Amatus of Montecassino, The History of the Normans, ­p. 49. Amatus of Montecassino, Ystoire de li Normant, I, 15: ‘­Et, qué li Grex, molt de foiz, par maliciouz argument et o subtil tradement avoient usance de veinchere lor annemis escristrent à li Turchi. Avec ceauz estoit sous par Urselle quar il lui estoient traitor. Et par domps de molt or.’ Probably to add authority to this statement, the medieval translator of Amatus’s original Latin text also urges the reader to remember that Troy had also been conquered through treachery (­the Trojan Horse). Amatus of Montecassino, Ystoire de li Normant, I, 15: ‘­Qui bien cherchera li autour et l’ystoire, especialment de Troya, trovera que li Gres ont plus souvent vainchus per malice et par traison que vaillantize’. Amatus of Montecassino, The History of the Normans, ­p. 49: ‘­W hoever will search through the authors and history, especially the history of Troy, will find that the Greeks have more frequently conquered through malice and treason than through valour’. 154 Amatus of Montecassino, Ystoire de li Normant, II, 14. 155 Amatus of Montecassino, Ystoire de li Normant, II, 14. 156 The opposing argument has been expressed by several scholars who did not carefully examine the early medieval southern Italian chronicles. For an example, see France, ‘­Byzantium in Western Chronicles before the First Crusade’. Peter Frankopan believes that there was a ‘­shift in attitudes’ against the Byzantines at the beginning of the twelfth century. P. Frankopan, The First Crusade: The Call from the East (­London, 2012), p­p. ­186–​­205. As for Geoffrey Malaterra and William of Apulia, Frankopan follows Paul Brown’s conclusions, maintaining that the works of those two authors ‘­were written before the spectacular ­fall-​­out between Byzantium and the Crusaders had worked their way west; as such neither is distorted by the recriminations of Alexios and by the ­anti-​­Byzantine bias which characterise the Western sources following the siege of Antioch [­late-­​­­Summer–­​­­early-​­Fall 1097] and the aggressive fanning of propaganda by Bohemond in ­1107–​­1108 in his attempts to win support for a major offensive against Epirus’. Frankopan, ‘­Turning Latin into Greek: Anna Komnene and the Gesta Roberti Wiscardi’, ­p. 82. 157 Another relevant example of this kind of hostility before the First Crusade can be found in the works of Liudprand of Cremona. On this topic, see G. Gandino, Il vocabolario politico e sociale di Liutprando di Cremona (­Rome, 1995), p­p. ­233–​ ­35, ­266–​­68; see also The Complete Works of Liudprand of Cremona, trans. by P. Squatriti (­Washington, DC, 2007), p­p. ­29–​­37, ­238–​­82. 158 For the image of the Muslims in the Lombard chronicles, see ­Chapter 1 of this book. For the depiction of Muslims by the chroniclers of southern Italy’s Normans, see Wolf, Making History, ad indicem; M. A. ­Lucas-​­Avenel, ‘­L’immagine dei Saraceni nelle cronache “­normanne” dell’XI secolo’, in Mezzogiorno e Mediterraneo, territori, strutture, relazioni tra antichità e medioevo, eds. G. Coppola, E. D’Angelo, and R. Paone (­Naples, 2006), p­p.  ­233–​­46; T. Smit, ‘­Pagans and Infidels, Saracens and Sicilians: Identifying Muslims in the ­Eleventh-​­Century Chronicles of Norman Italy,’ Haskins Society Journal: Studies in Medieval History, 21 (­2009), p­p. ­67–​­86; J. Hysell, ‘­Pacem Portantes Advenerint: Ambivalent Images of Muslims in the Chronicles of Norman Italy’, Al Masaq: Islam and

62  Byzantines in the chronicles of early medieval southern Italy the Medieval Mediterranean, 24, 2 (­2012), p­p. ­139–​­56; and the observations of Toubert, ‘­La première historiographie de la conquête normande de l’Italie méridionale (­XIe siècle)’, p­p. ­37–​­39. For the image of the Muslims in all early medieval Italian sources, see Berto, Christians and Muslims in Early Medieval Italy, chapters ­2 –​­4. 159 Worthy of note is, however, that, unlike later authors, none of the early medieval southern Italian chroniclers express any explicit religious hostility toward the Greeks. On this see, for example, France, ‘­Byzantium in Western Chronicles before the First Crusade’, ­p. 13. 160 According to N. Cilento, ‘­I Greci nella cronachistica longobarda e normanna’, in Il passaggio dal dominio bizantino allo Stato normanno nell’Italia meridionale (­Taranto, 1977), ­p. 132, the comparison with women can be understood as ‘­the recognition, even though somewhat ambiguous, that the Normans found themselves before people belonging to a superior, elegant, and sophisticated civilization’. In my opinion, the chroniclers of the Normans simply wanted to denigrate the Byzantines, as I have shown.

3 Among two empires and dangerous neighbors Byzantines, Franks, Lombards, and Muslims in ­ninth-​­century Naples ­Ninth-​­century southern Italy was one of the most diverse regions in the Mediterranean and in Europe. With the Byzantines occupied with campaigns against the Muslims and Bulgars, the Campanian cities of Naples, Amalfi, and Sorrento were able to forge independent duchies while the Saracens conquered Sicily. In light of the political fragmentation of the southern Lombards, the Muslims also established small dominions in the South of the Italian Peninsula, which they used for effecting raids in that area. Meanwhile, after subduing the northern and central parts of the Lombard Kingdom, the Franks attempted to extend their influence over southern Italy.1 This chapter seeks to examine how the Neapolitans depicted Byzantines, Franks, Lombards, and Saracens and what they knew about them2 in the ninth century when ­Naples—​­the most important Campanian ­city—​­strove to maintain its independence from external aggression.3 I shall thus offer a contribution to the study of the way the ‘­other’ was perceived and of the circulation of news in the Mediterranean during the early Middle Ages.4 The principal resource for this analysis is the Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum (­Deeds of the Neapolitan Bishops) by John the D ­ eacon—​­the main source for the history of Naples during this period.5 This ­work—​­probably composed between the end of the ninth century and the beginning of the ­tenth—​­is the continuation of an anonymous text narrating the biographies of the first ­thirty-​­nine bishops of Naples6 and details events ranging from the beginning of Paul II’s episcopal tenure (­762/­­763–​­766) to Bishop Athanasius’s death (­d. 872). Although the main subject of John the Deacon’s work is the bishops of Naples, the author also related episodes of Byzantine history and was familiar with the main historical events that had taken place in Italy during this time.7 For the sake of clarity, I will provide an overview of the history of Naples in this period and the relationships between Neapolitans, the two Empires, and its dangerous neighbors. Like other cities on the Campanian coast, Naples was never conquered by the Lombards. Her massive fortifications as well as the Lombards’ lack of a fleet with which to blockade the flow of supplies by sea rendered vain all the enemies’ attempts to take possession of her. The scarcity of sources prevents

DOI: 10.4324/9781003109617-3

64  Among two empires and dangerous neighbors us from reconstructing the history of the city in the seventh century, but, as happened in the other parts of Italy under Byzantine rule, imperial officials likely governed Naples. The way Naples achieved autonomy from Constantinople differs from the areas of northern and central Byzantine Italy. When Emperor Leo III promulgated an edict against the worshiping of holy images, the Neapolitans did not follow the example of the Pentapolis and of the Venetian Lagoon troops, who rebelled against, and killed the exarch of Ravenna.8 The loyalty of the Neapolitans to Constantinople was such that the Byzantine officer, who had been sent to replace the murdered exarch, decided to land at Naples.9 The need to have military assistance from the Byzantines in order to contain the Lombard expansionism ensured that the Neapolitans continued to support the religious policy of the Byzantine emperors. In 762/­763, at a moment of particular tension between Rome and Constantinople, the Neapolitan leaders again gave proof of fidelity by refusing Bishop Paul II permission to return to their city because he had gone to Rome to be consecrated by the pope.10 That this was a formal gesture, intended to satisfy the imperial authorities, is confirmed by the particular that the bishop was allowed to reside in the church of St. Januarius, situated a little outside Naples’ walls, and to ­re-​­enter the city after two years.11 The loyalty of the Neapolitans to the emperor was thus not put in doubt. Shortly after, however, they began to act autonomously from Constantinople taking advantage of the fact that the Byzantines were fully occupied against the Muslims and the Bulgars. Proof of such autonomy can be found in Duke Stephen’s attitude, who declared himself a faithful subject of the Empire, while seeking simultaneously to establish a dynasty at Naples and to take control of the Neapolitan Church. On Bishop Paul II’s death (­766),12 Stephen became bishop of Naples, whilst his son Gregory replaced him as head of the Duchy. Upon Gregory’s death in 794, Stephen governed Naples for six months before passing it to his ­son-­​­­in-​­law, Theophylact, which indicates that Stephen continued to exert a noticeable influence over Neapolitan political life.13 On his death in 794,14 Duke Theophylact and his wife Eupraxia managed to elect to the episcopal office their candidate, Paul, a layman, thus emphasizing once again the power that the rulers of Naples exerted over the Neapolitan Church.15 It is however unclear whether Stephen’s plans to create a dynasty were ever realized; of Theophylact’s successor,16 only his name, Anthimus, is known.17 On Anthimus’s death in 818, the Neapolitans could not manage to reach agreement on the nomination of his successor and, according to the Neapolitan chronicler John the Deacon, preferred to be governed by a foreigner. As a result, Naples was ruled by two Byzantine officers probably sent by the Sicilian strategos. Yet the Neapolitan acquiescence to imperial officers did not last long: in 821, the Neapolitans drove out the second imperial officer, and elected Duke Stephen, grandson of the Bishop Stephen II.18 During Stephen’s rule, the Beneventans19 resumed their previous hostility toward the Neapolitans. The city did not fall,20 but the fight with the

Among two empires and dangerous neighbors  65 Lombards was fatal to the duke, who was assassinated in 832 by some Neapolitans in league with the prince of Benevento.21 One of the conspirators, Bonus, assumed the ducal office after eliminating his accomplices.22 Probably prompted by the need to reinforce his position, the new duke attempted to take possession of the Neapolitan Church’s properties. Such an attempt was, however, opposed by Bishop Tiberius, who, as consequence, was imprisoned by Bonus and replaced with a deacon named John. This situation persisted under the rule of Bonus’s son, Leo (­834), and his ­father-­​­­in-​­law, Andreas, ending only on the death of Tiberius (­841).23 Following the murder of Andreas by a Frank, who unsuccessfully tried to take control of Naples,24 the next duke to be elected to office was Sergius (­839/­840), who began a dynasty that was to last until the conquest of Naples by the Normans in 1139.25 The main factors that allowed the new duke to consolidate his power and then to pass it on to his son Gregory were: the desire of the Neapolitans to avoid reliving the period of chaos that characterized the third decade of the ninth century; the end of attempted conquests by the Lombards, gravely weakened by their civil war, and by the Principality of Benevento’s division into two parts; and the fact that Sergius was able to rule the Duchy for a long period (­­840–​­864). Also important were the friendly relations he established with Emperor Lothar and his son Louis II, to whom he lent military support during the conflict against the Muslims.26 Relevant to the internal peace of the Neapolitan Duchy was also the solution of the problem of the bishopric when Tiberius died in 841 and John IV was able to retain his office. Upon John’s death in 849, the duke managed without difficulty to get his ­twenty-­​­­one-­​­­year-​­old son, Athanasius, a deacon for only a little more than a year, elected bishop of Naples, and thereby assure himself effective control over the Church of Naples.27 Sergius did not limit himself exclusively to reinforcing his power within Naples; he also sought to profit from the divisions among the Lombards in order to take possession of some of their territories. The decision to enter into open conflict with the Capuans28 ultimately proved to be fatal. In 859, the Neapolitans, in fact, suffered their heaviest defeat; the prisoners captured by the Capuans included even Caesarius, Sergius’s son. This humiliating rout must have been an incredibly harsh blow for the Neapolitans, who were never again able to mobilize against the Lombards.29 The weakening of Neapolitan military strength influenced the conduct of Gregory, who, on succeeding his father Sergius in 864, decided to follow a policy of ­non-​ i­ntervention in the complex relations between the Lombards of southern Italy and Emperor Louis II. It was instead Bishop Athanasius who enjoyed very friendly relations with Louis II, and who probably wanted Naples to declare itself openly in favor of the emperor.30 A different way of interpreting Neapolitan policy regarding the Franks manifested itself clearly under the rule of Sergius II, who succeeded his father Gregory in 870. The new duke ordered the imprisonment of his uncle Athanasius, then decided to establish treaties with the Muslims, thus ensuring that Naples would not be

66  Among two empires and dangerous neighbors attacked by the Saracens, but, at the same time, earning the city its excommunication by the pope.31

The Byzantines The Church of Naples has a central role in John the Deacon’s work and his criticism of those who dared to damage it is particularly harsh. It is not therefore surprising to find out that the ­anti-​­hero of the Gesta is the iconoclast Emperor Constantine V (­­741–​­775). During his reign, the Neapolitan rulers refused Bishop Paul II permission to return to Naples because he had gone to Rome to be consecrated as bishop by the pope. John the Deacon did not blame his compatriots, justifying their behavior by explaining that, during this period, the Neapolitans were under Byzantine rule. He considered Constantine V the sole person responsible for that disagreeable situation caused by the conflict over the cult of images between Rome and Constantinople. John the Deacon did not hide his thoughts about that dispute and defined it as ‘­detestabilis imaginum altercatio (­detestable quarrel of the images)’ and, moreover, imputed it to the ‘­fedissima amentia (­most repellent madness)’ of the Byzantine sovereign.32 The author’s rancor toward Constantine V was such that he stated that, inspired by the devil, the emperor had planned to seize even Rome and was prevented from carrying it out only by his death. John the Deacon added that the emperor had been condemned to the flames of hell as well.33 In the Gesta, other persons are portrayed as madmen, but the reference also to the devil and to this kind of punishment occurred only for Constantine V. That Naples remained without a bishop for more than two years must still have been an unpleasant memory at the time of John the Deacon. Moreover, the suspicion that the Neapolitans supported the heretical positions of the iconoclasts had to be expunged. The need of finding a scapegoat very likely induced the Neapolitan chronicler to put the blame squarely on Constantine V. In the author’s times, Byzantine rule over Naples was a distant memory and the religious policy toward the cult of images of that sovereign caused considerable turmoil in the Campanian city. Therefore, the author probably thought that the son of Leo III deserved to be stigmatized and that this could be done without displeasing anyone in Naples. Additionally, it was probably necessary to provide an image of Constantine V that contrasted with the favorable Neapolitan depiction of this emperor as a hero who killed a ferocious lion and even a dragon. In the first part of the Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, composed during a period in which the relationships between Naples and Constantinople were still strong, a ­pro-­​­­Constantine-​­V source was employed using this image.34 John the Deacon’s hostility to iconoclasm is not expressed exclusively in his observations on Constantine V. With a tone that is less harsh, he related that John Niustetis, who had been elected patriarch by the i­conoclasts—​ d ­ efined as ­heretics—​­had tearfully recognized the error of his ways on his deathbed.35 The chronicler also recounted the results of the council of

Among two empires and dangerous neighbors  67 Nicaea (­787), where the cult of the holy images had been r­ e-​­established.36 Narrating how two iconoclast leaders were excommunicated, he referred to them as ‘­heresiarcae eius impietatis (­heresiarchs of that impiety)’.37 His acrimony toward Byzantine characters is, nevertheless, unique to this part of the Gesta and is only directed against the supporters of iconoclasm.38 Although the other events concerning their history are not seen as positive, he does not seem to want to present the Greeks39 in an unfavorable light. On the whole, John the Deacon, who does not directly pass judgment on the Byzantines as a people, did not have a negative attitude toward them.40 He probably did not have much information about the events he recorded, but nevertheless, he did make some observations. For example, after relating that Empress Irene ordered that her son Emperor Constantine VI (­­780–​­797) be blinded and that she was subsequently deposed by Nicephorus (­­802–​­811) and sent into a monastery, the chronicler described the new emperor’s military campaign against the Bulgars. This description seems to express veiled criticism of the campaign. According to John the Deacon, although Nicephorus had managed to push the enemy into a narrow location, the Bulgars were driven by desperation and c­ ounter-​­attacked, killing many Byzantines along with their sovereign.41 Of course, the Neapolitan author could have found these details in a source unknown to us, but the Byzantine chronicler Theophanes, who lived at the time of that episode and was highly critical of this emperor, presented a different picture. When reporting this rout, he wrote that it was only after the emperor had refused the Bulgars’ peace offer that the Bulgar ruler trapped the invaders by securing ‘­the entrances and exits of his country with wooden barriers’.42 As for the brief account of the way Leo V (­­813–​­820) became emperor, the Byzantine sources seem to confirm John the Deacon’s account.43 The same can be said for the more detailed account of Leo V’s murder and Michael II’s (­­820–​­829) acquisition of the imperial crown.44 In this case, however, John the Deacon’s version displays a taste for the anecdote and mentions details not present in the Byzantine sources. According to the Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, Leo V ordered a certain Michael to be arrested for plotting to kill the emperor, but delayed his execution because it was Christmas. The prisoner told his accomplices that he would reveal their names on the following ­day—​­the message he sent them is reported only in the Neapolitan source. Frightened by this threat, on the day of Saint Stephen, the accomplices killed Leo V and elected Michael emperor.45 The shift in power that occurred in Constantinople on that occasion had some effects in the West as well, and it was probably for this reason that John the Deacon was informed about the events that followed. He described how some Syracusans, led by a certain Euthimius,46 had rebelled against Michael II and killed Patrician Gregory. The emperor sent an army to Sicily, which defeated the Syracusans. Euthimius escaped to Africa, where he asked for help from the Saracens. Agreeing to aid the rebel, the Muslims

68  Among two empires and dangerous neighbors defeated the imperial troops, devastated Sicily, and took possession of Palermo.47 The Neapolitan author, however, did not dwell on this event,48 which had marked the beginning of Sicily’s conquest by the Muslims and of the Saracen raids in the southern part of the Italian Peninsula.49 He instead continued his narration, reporting that a certain Thomas had convinced the Muslims that he was Constantine VI, Empress Irene’s son. Relating how they then assembled an army and besieged Constantinople, John the Deacon observed that God, ‘­qui delusores deludet (­who deceives the deceivers)’, had made sure that Thomas was punished for what he had done. Imperial troops succeeded in defeating the Muslims and capturing the pseudo Constantine, who was executed.50 He added that Thomas had thus not obtained a kingdom, but hell.51 With regard to these two episodes, one notes that, although they are essentially correct, there is some chronological confusion. The Sicilian revolt and the beginning of the conquest of Sicily by the Muslims occurred in 827 and, therefore, not immediately after Michael II seized power (­820).52 It is, in fact, Thomas’s attempt to take possession of Constantinople that occurred shortly after Michael II had become emperor.53 John the Deacon was not contemporary with these episodes and this may explain the confusion in his text. Nevertheless, the account’s structure suggests that on this occasion he or his source sided with the Byzantines. He, in fact, related that imperial troops had been defeated in Sicily and that the Muslims had invaded a part of the island. Yet he also narrated that, when the Saracens had dared to attack the capital of the Empire, they had been heavily defeated and the false emperor, who had led them into this enterprise, had been executed and had been condemned to pay for these misdeeds in the afterlife as well. This passage is also important since it is the last reference to Byzantine history in the Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum. From this period until the early 870s, the imperials lost direct control of almost all southern Italy.54 Indeed, it is likely that Byzantine relations with Naples diminished, or even stopped entirely. As a result, the Neapolitans received little or no news about Constantinople.

The Lombards John the Deacon strove to provide his readers with a nuanced view of the Lombards. The first person he discussed was Desiderius (­­757–​­774), the last king of the Lombards, who had attempted to conquer Rome. He depicted this ruler as obstinate and ferocious in his actions against the pope,55 revealing his distaste for the Lombards, who had invaded a large part of Italy at the end of the sixth century. However, his portrayals were not entirely negative. He reported that the Prince of Benevento, Arechis II (­­758–​­787), had donated many estates and a precious mantle for the altar of St. Januarius, noting that these were only some of the many good deeds this ruler had performed for the benefit of that church.56 In the context of this work, in

Among two empires and dangerous neighbors  69 which only the bishops and a Neapolitan duke are described as supporting the Neapolitan churches,57 the details concerning this Lombard ruler have a particular relevance, given that the Lombards were traditionally enemies of the Neapolitans.58 Although John the Deacon did not mention this, the Neapolitans probably also had a positive image of Arechis II because of the policy of peace pursued by the prince of Benevento toward Naples.59 John the Deacon’s tone toward the Beneventan rulers Sico (­­817–​­832) and Sicard (­­832–​­839), who had tried to conquer the Neapolitan Duchy in the 820s and 830s, is, on the other hand, negative. For example, he asserted that the Beneventans had been guided by the devil when they had killed their prince, Grimoald IV (­­806–​­817), and elected Sico.60 John the Deacon did not accuse the latter of anything directly, but the reference to the devil suggests that he viewed those events negatively. The Neapolitan chronicler presented Sico as a petty and evil man, who, motivated by jealousy of the Duke of Naples, Stephen II (­­821–​­832), wanted to subjugate Naples to his ‘­pessimus dominatus’ (­w ickedest rule). The prince decided to besiege the city of Naples, causing much suffering to the residents, but did not succeed in taking possession of it.61 Sico is portrayed as sneaky in pretending to make peace with Stephen II while bribing some Neapolitans to assassinate the duke.62 John the Deacon adopted a harsher tone with regard to Sicard, who repeatedly attacked the Duke of Naples, Andreas (­­834–​­839). Sicard is depicted as a coward and madman. The chronicler observed that the Beneventan ruler had promptly put an end to hostility when Andreas asked the Saracens for help; Sicard became frightened and immediately signed a peace treaty with the Neapolitans, which he did not keep after the departure of the Muslims.63 Moreover, he described the Beneventan prince’s actions against the Neapolitans as a persecution and a ‘­vesanus furor (­mad fury)’ that had to be cured. For this reason, the duke of Naples asked the Frankish King Lothar to intervene.64 Yet, there is no mention of the theft of saints’ bodies by Sicard, which the Neapolitan hagiographer John the Deacon, whom it is believed to be also the author of the second part of the Gesta,65 reported in the Translatio Sancti Sosii.66 This detail seems to indicate that it is unlikely that the chronicler of the Gesta preferred not to report this episode because he believed it not to be edifying for the history of Naples. Unless one wants to explain this discrepancy by maintaining that John the Deacon was not aware of these events when he wrote the biographies of the Neapolitan ­bishops—​­an explanation I believe to be very ­unlikely—​­this could be evidence that the author of the Gesta and the hagiographer of the Translatio sancti Sosii are two different persons.

The Muslims During the ninth century, the Neapolitans had to confront the Muslims as well. However, relationships with the Saracens67 were not always characterized by hostility. As already emphasized, the duke of Naples, Andreas,

70  Among two empires and dangerous neighbors asked their help when the Prince of Benevento, Sicard, besieged Naples and John the Deacon did not make any comment on the use of Muslim troops by the Neapolitans.68 This is probably the reason why the Saracens are not described in a particularly negative way in the Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum. Although the Neapolitan author recounted the destructions caused by the Muslims during their raids in southern Italy,69 the only seriously pejorative references to them are contained in hints of their ferocity, which provoked numerous massacres in that part of the Italian Peninsula during Duke Gregory’s rule (­­864–​­870).70 John the Deacon also used the term ‘­paganissimi’ (­most pagan) for the Muslims,71 thus indicating that, like the other early medieval southern Italian chroniclers,72 he was aware that the Saracens belonged to a group with a different religion. He never mentioned a Muslim attack against Naples and, therefore, unlike the Lombards, the Saracens never represented a threat for the Neapolitans. This is probably why John the Deacon did not utilize terminology for the Muslims comparable to that used for the Lombard rulers Sico and Sicard. This may also be due to the limitations of the sources available to the author. However, it could also be argued that if the author of the Gesta is identifiable as the same John the Deacon who wrote hagiographical texts at the beginning of the tenth century, his attitude toward the Saracens changed substantially in the Translatio sancti Severini where they are portrayed very negatively.73 In this work, the hagiographer described a Muslim campaign that had occurred at the beginning of the tenth century, i.e. during his lifetime. Perhaps John the Deacon wrote the Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum before this event. The fact that he was not contemporary to the period discussed in this work, combined with the relatively good relations that existed between the Neapolitans and Saracens in the ninth century, could explain the absence of disparaging language for the Muslims in the work.74 It is also possible that John the Deacon was reticent about writing on this delicate topic for a Neapolitan audience. The tone is, on the other hand, harsher in the anonymous biography of the Neapolitan Bishop Athanasius (­­849–​­872), who opposed the friendly policy of his nephew, Duke Sergius II, toward the Saracens.75 It is important to note that some clashes between the Neapolitans and the Muslims reported in the Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum probably took place while the Saracens were raiding the outskirts of Naples. The verb used to describe the Muslims’ ­purpose—​­‘­latrocinari’ (­to engage in brigandage)­76 —​­seems to indicate that they considered the region surrounding Naples as an area to be pillaged rather than to be conquered. Perhaps they were considered less dangerous than the Beneventans for this reason. Another feature that distinguished the Saracens from the other peoples described in the Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum was their large number. However, the author did not provide any precise figures. For example, he recounted that the Muslims had stormed Sicily ‘­cum magno navium apparatus (­with a great fleet of ships)’77 and spoke of the ‘­multorum naves Sarracenorum (­ships of many Saracens)’ that had arrived in Italy to raid the country.78

Among two empires and dangerous neighbors  71 His reference to their large number was probably a way of justifying the ease with which the Muslims carried out their exploits in southern Italy. It also permitted John the Deacon to emphasize the success of Duke Sergius, who, along with the people of Amalfi, Gaeta, and Sorrento, was the only one able to defeat the Saracens during the raid in which they plundered the basilica of St. Peter in Rome.79 The Neapolitan ruler relied exclusively on the mercy and protection of God and the prayers of his bishop, and not ‘­in multitudine populorum (­on the multitude of peoples)’.80 Brute force was, therefore, overcome, in John the Deacon’s view, because the Lord looked after the duke of Naples. God did not, however, protect Rome when the Muslims raided it,81 and evidently He was not with the Franks shortly afterward, when they were defeated by the Saracens.82 The Franks’ defeat by the Muslims is the only battle for which John the Deacon provided details and is important for a couple of reasons. It allowed the chronicler to stress that, in the general disaster of the Saracen attacks, only the Neapolitans succeeded in achieving positive results. Moreover, the Northerners were saved from a complete rout thanks to the intervention of Duke Sergius’s son, Caesarius, who stopped the Saracens from chasing the Franks. But the Saracens came out from their hideout and, because God was irate, they first struck the standard bearer of the Franks; as he was slayed, all the Franks turned their backs and many of them were killed. And if Caesarius, Duke Sergius’s son, who came with the ships of the Neapolitans and the Amalfitans, would not have begun to fight with the Saracens on the coast, they would not have given up chasing the Franks at all.83 Although John the Deacon did not explicitly praise the actions of his fellow citizen, his use of the word ‘­nisi’ (­literally, ‘­if not’) before the name Caesarius in the description of the Neapolitan intervention clearly expresses approval of Caesarius’s actions.

The Franks The way the Neapolitan author narrated the clash between the Franks and the Muslims is also relevant. According to John the Deacon, the Franks were clearly unaware of the Saracens’ military strategy, which involved concealing their best warriors at first to bring them out for the fight in the end. The Franks first stormed the enemies they saw. Then, when they were exhausted, the expert Muslim fighters appeared, and attacked and slaughtered them. While avoiding direct criticism against the Franks, John the Deacon showed disapproval of their incompetence in his wording. ‘­Viriliter’ (­in a virile way) is the adverb he used to describe the initial assault of the Franks on the Saracens, emphasizing their use of brute force

72  Among two empires and dangerous neighbors while leaving unstated their deficient astuteness. He also pointed out that the Franks had shown as much impetuosity in their attack as in their flight; as soon as the Muslims came out into the open and killed their standard bearer, they fled.84 This was probably also a way to praise the Neapolitans. John the Deacon seems to contrast the incompetence of the Northerners with the sensible conduct of his compatriot Caesarius. On that occasion, the Neapolitan leader went by ship with other seafarers from Amalfi to Gaeta, which was being besieged by the Saracens. He stayed in the city’s port, acting more like a guard than a fighter, and, with God’s protection, said John the Deacon, succeeded in withstanding his enemies. He noted that the Lord had then rewarded these tactics by causing a storm. The Muslims’ vessels were shipwrecked, and the terrified Saracens themselves were forced to beg the Neapolitans for peace.85 John the Deacon’s description of the assistance that the Frankish ruler Lothar provided against the Lombards in the late 830s was neutral in tone. This may have been because Contard, the commander of the Franks, ended up killing the duke of Naples and attempting to seize power.86 On the other hand, the Neapolitan author made some brief positive comments about Louis II’s intervention against the Saracens in southern Italy, thus indicating his appreciation for this ruler’s efforts.87

The Popes As for the popes, John the Deacon was exclusively interested in the two great episodes from the second half of the eighth century, namely Charlemagne’s intervention in defense of the pontiff threatened by the Lombards, and the Frankish ruler’s imperial coronation by Pope Leo III. In the first episode, the Neapolitan chronicler showed his support for Charlemagne’s actions stating that the Frankish sovereign had been pious and that the Lombard King, Desiderius, had arrogantly refused to listen to the Frankish ruler’s warnings.88 John the Deacon probably had only oral sources at his disposal, and this might explain why he confused two different events. He wrote that Pope Stephen II (­­752–​­757) had gone to Charlemagne to request his help. In fact, this pontiff did cross the Alps, but that was in the days of Charlemagne’s father, Pippin III. It was Pope Hadrian (­­772–​­795), who requested Charlemagne’s help against the Lombards, but this pontiff did not visit the Frankish court.89 The Neapolitan author was, on the other hand, more precise in describing the attack on Pope Leo III (­­795–​­816) and the subsequent intervention by Charlemagne on behalf of the pontiff. He reported that some evil men had captured the pope with the intention of blinding him, but, because of an argument among the conspirators, only one of the pontiff’s eyes was slightly wounded.90 Unlike Leo III’s biography, where it is narrated that the pope miraculously recovered after his adversaries tore out his eyes and tongue,91

Among two empires and dangerous neighbors  73 John the Deacon, therefore, provided a more realistic version, in line with the tone of his work in which miracles are almost absent. The chronicler then continued by relating how the pope had managed to escape and had gone to Charlemagne, offering him the imperial crown if he defended him against his enemies. The Frankish sovereign agreed, went to Rome with a large army, and seized the city; then the pontiff crowned him and took revenge against his adversaries.92 This account clearly highlights the exchange of favors between Charlemagne and Leo III. John the Deacon’s version of the events therefore casts shadows on the validity of the imperial coronation in a way that is much clearer than that in the work of the coeval Byzantine chronicler Theophanes, who asserted that the pope had made Charlemagne emperor as a reward for Frankish assistance.93 In fact, Constantinople did not recognize the Frankish ruler’s imperial title. Without knowing John the Deacon’s sources, it is impossible for us to determine whether he chose to narrate this episode in this manner or simply copied it from a source unknown to us. To conclude, John the Deacon did not display a monolithic image of the ‘­other’ in his work. His depictions of various peoples were nuanced and reflected the changeable nature of Neapolitan relations with the two Empires and their neighbors. Although the Neapolitans secured independence from Constantinople, they seem to have considered themselves to be members of the Byzantine koiné.94 Consequently, the author of the Deeds of the Neapolitan Bishops demonstrated his knowledge of the Byzantine emperors before the Empire’s withdrawal from southern Italy. John the Deacon was critical only when the Byzantines troubled the Neapolitan Church. He acknowledged the precious alliance between the Franks and Naples, yet he did not shy away from mentioning some of their ‘­not impeccable’ deeds. The Lombards, on the other hand, had been dangerous neighbors, yet John the Deacon did not hide the fact that one of their leaders, Arechis II, was friendly toward Naples. Finally, the absence of harsh language used toward the Saracens in John’s work probably reflects the good relations that the Neapolitans sometimes enjoyed with them during the ninth century. It could also have stemmed from the fact that the Saracens did not attack Naples during this period. The Deeds of the Neapolitan Bishops therefore represents an invaluable source for understanding the complex history of early medieval southern Italy.

Notes 1 In general for the history of southern Italy during this period and relevant bibliography, see the overviews in ­Chapters 2 and 6 of this book. 2 I will take into consideration the information about these peoples and individuals belonging to these populations. A version of the section about the Muslims is also present in ­Chapter 1 of this book. 3 The choice to focus on Naples is dictated by the sources which do not allow this kind of study for the other city states of the lower Tyrrhenian Sea (­Gaeta,

74  Among two empires and dangerous neighbors Amalfi, and Sorrento) in this period. For an overview on these cities, see Kreutz, Before the Normans, ad indicem. 4 For some examples of this kind of studies on early medieval southern Italy, see Kujawinski, ‘­Le immagini dell’altro nella cronachistica del Mezzogiorno longobardo’; and ­Chapters  1 and 2 of this book. In general, on circulation of persons and news in the Mediterranean during the early Middle Ages, see the appendices in M. McCormick, Origins of the European Economy: Communications and Commerce AD ­3 00–​­9 00 (­Cambridge, 2002). 5 I will also use the information provided in the other Neapolitan narrative source for the ninth century, that is the anonymous biography of Bishop Athanasius (­849–​­872)—​­probably composed shortly after his d ­ eath—​­which only focus on the biography of that bishop. 6 The first part stops with the biography of Calvus (­d. 762). 7 For further information concerning this text, its author, and relevant bibliography, see C ­ hapter 7 of this book. 8 Brown, ‘­Byzantine Italy, c. ­680 – ​­c. 876’, ­p. 325. In particular on Venice in this period, see M. ­Pavan – G. ​­ Arnaldi, ‘­Le origini dell’identità lagunare’, in Storia di Venezia, I: ­Origini-​­Età ducale, eds. L. Cracco Ruggini, M. Pavan, G. Cracco, and G. Ortalli (­Rome, 1992), p­p. ­432–​­35. 9 G. Cassandro, ‘­Il ducato bizantino’, in Storia di Napoli, II, 1 (­Naples, 1969), ­p. 39; F. Luzzati Laganà, ‘­Il ducato di Napoli’, in Il Mezzogiorno dai Bizantini a Federico II, Storia d’Italia, directed by G. Galasso, III (­Turin, 1983), ­p.  331; ​­ 876’, ­p. 341. Brown, ‘­Byzantine Italy, c. 6­ 80 – c. 10 Cassandro, ‘­Il ducato bizantino’, p­p. ­40–​­41; P. Bertolini, ‘­La Chiesa di Napoli durante la crisi iconoclasta. Appunti sul codice Vaticano Latino 5007’, in Studi sul Medioevo cristiano offerti a Raffaello Morghen (­Rome, 1974), p­p. ­101–​­03; F. Luzzati Laganà, ‘­Tentazioni iconoclaste a Napoli’, Rivista di studi bizantini e neoellenici, n. s., XXVI (­1989), p­p. ­99–​­115; V. Von Falkenhausen, ‘­La Campania tra Goti e Bizantini’, in Storia e civiltà della Campania. Il Medioevo, ed. G. Pugliese Caratelli (­Naples, 1992), ­p. 21. 11 Cassandro, ‘­Il ducato bizantino’, ­p.  41; Luzzati Laganà, ‘­Il ducato di Napoli’, ­p. 331. 12 P. Bertolini, ‘­La serie episcopale napoletana nei sec. VIII e IX. Ricerche sulle fonti per la storia dell’Italia meridionale nell’alto Medioevo’, Rivista di Storia della Chiesa in Italia, XXIV, 2 (­1970), p­p. ­390–​­93. 13 Cassandro, ‘­Il ducato bizantino’, p­p.  ­41–​­43; C. Russo Mailler, ‘­Il ducato di Napoli’, in Storia del Mezzogiorno, II. Il Medioevo, 1, p­p. ­359–​­60. 14 Bertolini, ‘­La serie episcopale napoletana nei sec. VIII e IX’, p­p. ­405–​­09. 15 Cassandro, ‘­Il ducato bizantino’, p ­ . 50. 16 Teophylact died in 801. ­ . 50. 17 Cassandro, ‘­Il ducato bizantino’, p 18 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapters 50, 53. 19 With the conquest of Pavia in 774, Charlemagne put an end to Lombard domination in Italy. Yet, the Franks were unable to seize the southern part of the Lombard Kingdom, known as the Duchy of Benevento, that became an independent Principality. Kreutz, Before the Normans, p­p. ­6 –​­9. 20 Cassandro, ‘­Il ducato bizantino’, p­p. ­54–​­56. Russo Mailler, ‘­Il ducato di Napoli’, ­p.  362; G. Vitolo, Città e coscienza cittadina nel Mezzogiorno medievale (­secc. IX–​­XIII) (­Salerno, 1990), ­p. 13. 21 Russo Mailler, ‘­Il ducato di Napoli’, ­p. 362. 22 Cassandro, ‘­Il ducato bizantino’, ­p. 56; Russo Mailler, ‘­Il ducato di Napoli’, p ­ . 362. 23 Cassandro, ‘­Il ducato bizantino’, ­p.  56; P. Cammarosano, Nobili e re. L’Italia politica dell’alto medioevo (­Rome and Bari, 1998), ­p. 170.

Among two empires and dangerous neighbors  75 24 Cassandro, ‘­Il ducato bizantino’, p­p. ­65–​­66; Russo Mailler, ‘­Il ducato di Napoli’, ­p. 364. 25 Cassandro, ‘­Il ducato bizantino’, p­p. ­66–​­68; Russo Mailler, ‘­Il ducato di Napoli’, ­p. 364. 26 Cassandro, ‘­Il ducato bizantino’, p­p. ­68–​­71; Russo Mailler, ‘­Il ducato di Napoli’, p­p. ­365–​­66. 27 Cassandro, ‘­Il ducato bizantino’, p­p.  ­68–​­69; P. Bertolini, ‘­Atanasio, santo’, in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, 4 (­Rome, 1962), p ­ . 508. 28 After the division of the Principality of Benevento, the Lombard gastaldate of Capua became an independent political entity. 29 Cassandro, ‘­Il ducato bizantino’, p­p. ­78–​­80; Russo Mailler, ‘­Il ducato di Napoli’, p­p. ­366–​­67. 30 Cassandro, ‘­Il ducato bizantino’, p­p. ­82–​­84. 31 Bertolini, ‘­Atanasio, santo’, p­p. ­508–​­09; Cassandro, ‘­Il ducato bizantino’, p­p. ­84–​ ­86; Russo Mailler, ‘­Il ducato di Napoli’, p­p. ­367–​­68; Kreutz, Before the Normans, ­p. 73. 32 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 41: ‘­Sed propter detestabilem imaginum altercationem, quae inter apostolici tramitis auctoritatem et fedissimam Constantini imperatoris Caballini vertebatur amentiam, novem sunt menses elapsi, in quibus non potuit consecrari; quia tunc Parthenopensis populus potestati Graecorum favebat. Attamen hic cum cuperet praedicto papae quasi amicus de talibus aliquo modo suffragari, clanculo Romam perrexit. Qui statim consecratus episcopus, Neapolim est directus, sed propter Graecorum conexionem noluerunt illum recipere.’ 33 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 43: ‘­ Huius denique temporibus Constantinus Caballinus, diabolica instigatus supervia cum Romam dominaturus venire conaretur, vitam cum regno amisit, clamans et heiulans, se vivum perpeti tartareas poenas’. 34 Some folios of the only medieval manuscript reporting the Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum about this period have been torn out. Fortunately, a part of this story has survived. Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum prima pars, in Storia dei vescovi napoletani, chapter 39: ‘­Hunc aiunt Constantinum robustiorem fuisse virum, qui leonem ferocissimam bestiam pugnando occidit et draconi se opposuit et ipsum interemit. Nam dum quadam aqueductum sua magnitudine detineret et multos fetore suo perimeret nullumque alium consilium repperiret, semet ipsum pro omnibus Constantinus periculo dedit, statuens semet ipsum cum dracone conflicturus. Factaque sibi loricam falcatam, quem novaculis acutissimis ex omni parte munivit, atque ad locum, ubi ille teterrimus draco quiescebat, devenit. Nihil cunctatus, relictos suos, ad eum solus introiit.’ This rare positive portrayal of Constantine V probably survived the destructions by the adversaries of iconoclasm because Naples was on the periphery of the Byzantine Empire and later became an independent state. In a chronicle written in A ­ rmenia—​­another area placed on the Byzantine f­rontier—​­it is reported that the emperor had killed a lion. Histoire des guerres et des conquêtes des Arabes en Armenie par l’eminent Ghévond, vardabed arménien, écrivain du huitième siècle, translated by G. V. Chahnazarian (­Paris, 1856), ­p. 138. On this, see, also S. Gero, ‘­The Legend of Constantine V as ­Dragon-​­Slayer’, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 19 (­1978), p­p.  ­155–​­59; I. Rochow, Kaiser Konstantin V. (­­741–​­775): Materialen zu seinem Leben und Nachleben (­Frankfurt am Main, 1994), ­p. 127, and A. Acconcia Longo, ‘­Costantino V a Napoli’, Rivista di studi bizantini e neoellenici, 49 (­2012), p­p. ­221–​­38. 35 John the Deacon, Gesta Episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 45: ‘­His igitur diebus Iohannes, cui cognomen Niustetis erat, consecratus patriarcha ab

76  Among two empires and dangerous neighbors hereticis, suis complicibus, caelesti respectu ad sanctam matrem ecclesiam reversus est. Ibique multis lacrimis et gemitibus se errasse confitens, vitam cessit’. In this account there is some confusion. According to Byzantine sources, the Patriarch of Constantinople, Paul IV, repented for not having opposed iconoclasm and entered a monastery shortly before dying. W. Treadgold, The Byzantine Revival: ­780–​­842 (­Stanford, 1988), ­p. 75. Niustetis seems to be a transliteration of Νηστευτής (‘­the fasting one’), the nickname with which the Patriarch of Constantinople, John IV (­­582–​­595), was known. It is not clear why John the Deacon made this mistake. ​­ Haldon, Byzantium in the Icono 36 On the council of Nicaea, see L. ­Brubaker – J. clastic Era c. 6­ 80–​­850: A History (­Cambridge, 2011), p­p. ­260–​­76. 37 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 45: ‘­Eodemque tempore sub Constantino augusto, Leonis filio, et Hereni matre eius, Adriano scilicet apostolicae sedis praesule, in Nicea multorum episcoporum actum est concilium. In quo praesentibus Romanae sedis apocrisiariis, residentibus etiam praedictis imperatoribus cum Tarasio patriarcha, sinodali traditione sanxerunt, ut sanctae imagines in honore pristino religiosius venerentur, anathematizantes Anastasium et Constantinum, eiusdem impietatis heresiarchas.’ 38 Noteworthy is the fact that, when John the Deacon narrated that the iconoclast Leo had taken possession of the imperial seat, he called the usurper heretic, but did not add anything else, probably because, in this case, iconoclasm did not concern Naples. John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 49: ‘­Eodem quoque tempore Niciforius, vir liberalibus apprime eruditus artibus, patriarcha Constantinopolitanus est sublimatus, nec multo post Leo spatharius yconomichus hereticus contra Michahelem augustum, qui eum suis pręfecerat exercitibus conspiravit. Michael resistere non valens, timore perterritus, habitum sanctę conversationis quęsivit; quo accepto, in monasterio vitam excessit.’ 39 The Neapolitan author always called the Byzantines Greci. John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapters 41 (­twice), 50, 54 (­three times). 40 This kind of criticism can be found in some early medieval Italian chronicles. See for example, Lamma, ‘­Il mondo bizantino in Paolo Diacono’, p­p. ­197–​­214, and ­Chapter 2 of this book. 41 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 47: ‘­ In ipsis denique temporibus Hereni imperatrix Constantinum augustum, filium suum, lumine privavit; et ipsa non multo post a Niceforo capta in monasterio vitam finivit. Hic etenim Nicephorus, cum vellet Bulgarorum sibi subiugare provinciam, multos affectos depredationibus, ad postremum in artissimis locis fugatos, possidebat. Sed quia periculosa est desperatio, subito Vulgari irruentes, cum multis aliis ipsum peremerunt.’ 42 The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor: Byzantine and Near Eastern History AD ­284–​­813, translated with introduction and commentary by C. Mango and R. Scott with the assistance of G. Greatrex (­Oxford, 1997), p ­ . 673. 43 Before narrating this event, John the Deacon correctly reported that Nicephorus had been elected patriarch of Constantinople. John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 49. Cf. Theophanes Continuatus, Chronographia, in Theophanes Continuatus, Joannes Cameniata, Symeon magister, Georgius Monachus, ed. I. Bekker (­Bonn, 1838), p­p. ­15–​­16. This episode is also mentioned in other western European sources. Annales regni Francorum, in Annales regni Francorum et Annales qui dicuntur Einhardi, ed. F. Kurze, MGH, Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum separatim editi (­Hannover, 1895), ­p. 139; John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, ed. L. A. Berto (­Bologna, 1999), book II, chapter 30.

Among two empires and dangerous neighbors  77 44 For the way the Byzantine sources reported this episode, see Treadgold, The Byzantine Revival, ­p. 224. 45 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 54: ‘­Per idem tempus Leo Constantinopolitanus imperator quendam Michahelium, suae necis consiliatorem, in vigiliis dominicae nativitatis comprehendit. Cuius cum distulisset propter eandem festivitatem vindictam, ille suis misit coniuratoribus, dicens: ‘­Crastino ante tribunal examinis cunctos vos singillatim nominabo.’ Tum illi timore perculsi, in sancti Stephani protomartyris vicina sollemnitate eundem Leonem, matutinas referentem laudes, gladio percusserunt. Et statim excussum de carcere Michahelium augustali diademate coronarunt.’ 46 The other sources call him Euphemios and Eufimius. V. Prigent, ‘­La carrière du tourmarque Euphèmios, basileus des Romains’, in Histoire et culture dans l’Italie byzantine. Acquises et nouvelles recherches, eds. A. Jacob, J.-​­M. Martin, and G. Noyé (­Rome, 2006), p­p. ­279–​­317; Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 60. 47 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 54: ‘­Adversus hunc Michahelium Syracusani cuiusdam Euthimii factione rebellantes, Grigoram patricium interfecerunt. Idcirco praefatus augustus magnum contra eos vexavit exercitum, cuius pluralitate Syracusani fugere sunt compulsi. Ille quoque Euthimius Africam cum uxore et filiis petens, Arcarium ducem Saracenorum cum magno navium apparatus super eosdem Grecos adduxit. Cui Greci resistere non valentes, claustra eiusdem petierunt civitatis, et coangustati valde, quinquaginta milia solidorum persolverunt ei in tributum. Ex illo iam die impavidi grassantes, totam divastabant Siciliam. Ad postremum vero capientes Panormitanam provinciam, cunctos eius habitatores in captivitatem dederunt. Tantummodo Lucas eiusdem oppidi electus et Symeon spatharius cum paucis sunt exinde liberati.’ 48 For the manner in which the other Christian sources described this episode, see L. Gatto, ‘­L’eco della Conquista araba della Sicilia nelle fonti cristiane’, Quaderni Catanesi di Studi classici e medievali, I, 1 (­1979), p­p. ­25–​­79 (­reprinted in Id., Sicilia medievale (­Rome, 1992), p­p. ­175–​­96) and Berto, Christians and Muslims in Early Medieval Italy, p­p. ­11–​­12. 49 For an overview of these events, see Kreutz, Before the Normans, p­p. ­18–​­22; Metcalfe, The Muslims of Medieval Italy, p­p.  ­7–​­24; A. Feniello, Sotto il segno del leone. Storia dell’Italia musulmana (­Rome and Bari, 2011), p­p. ­22–​­25. 50 Unlike the Byzantine sources that recounted that Thomas’s hands and feet had been cut and he had been impaled, John the Deacon narrated that the rebel had been tied up to the bowed branches of two trees, which, after being released, had quartered him. Theophanes Continuatus, Chronographia, p­p.  ­68–​­71; John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 54: ‘­Denique in ipsis temporibus quidam Thomas simillimus Constantini imperatoris, filii Herini, spe vana illeetus, adeo Hismahelitas illusit, se Constantinum asserendo, ut permissu regis eorum coacto magno exercitu Constantinopolitanam obsideret urbem. Sed Dominus, qui delusores deludet, reddidit illi secundum adinventionem suam. In ipso enim procinctu ancipiti victores reddidit Grecos atque in manus eorum eundem dolosum tradidit. Quo capto, ilico inclinatis duarum arbuscularum cacuminibus eum crurum tenus ligaverunt, eisque dimissis et in partes suas revertentibus, divisus est per medium.’ 51 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 54: ‘­pro regno consecutus est perpetuum incendium’. 52 It has been also argued that either John the Deacon or his source conflated two different Sicilian revolts. Cf. Prigent, ‘­La carrière du tourmarque Euphèmios’. 53 Thomas besieged Constantinople between the end of 821 and the beginning of 823. The best study on Thomas is still P. Lemerle, ‘­Thomas le Slave’, Travaux et Memoires, 1 (­1965), p­p. ­255–​­97. In particular, for the relations between Thomas

78  Among two empires and dangerous neighbors and the Muslims, see H. Köpstein, ‘­L’usurpateur Thomas et les Arabes’, ­G raeco-​ ­Arabica, 4 (­1991), p­p. ­127–​­40. 54 For an overview of the Byzantine presence in this area during the early Middle Ages, see Von Falkenhausen, La dominazione bizantina nell’Italia meridionale dal IX all’XI secolo; and Brown, ‘­Byzantine Italy (­­680–​­876)’, p­p. ­433–​­64. 55 Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 43: ‘­Per idem vero tempus domnus Stephanus iunior apostolicus, Desiderio Langobardorum rege Romanae sedi infenso, ad Carolum pium Francorum imperatorem properavit, qui cum summa reverentia susceptus, quanta et qualia Romano privilegio non cessaret Desiderius inferre, potestati eius suggessit. De quibus statim Carolus, sua missa legatione, Desiderium ammonuit. Sed ille feroci pectore talia spernens, coepto permanebat in malo. Unde postea miser, perdito regno, in exilio vitam finivit.’ 56 Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 44: ‘­Sub eodem quoque antistite Arechis Beneventanus princeps inter multa alia optulit in ecclesia sancti Ianuarii per praecepti seriem locum qui Planuria nominatur cum omnibus rebus et super altare ipsius ecclesiae pretiosissimum cooperuit mantum’. 57 Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 50. 58 On the other hand, the author of the biography of Bishop Athanasius always made negative remarks about the Lombards. Vita s. Athanasii, in Vita et Translatio s. Athanasii Neapolitani episcopi (­BHL 735 e 737) sec. IX, ed. A. Vuolo, Istituto storico italiano per il Medioevo. Fonti per la storia dell’Italia medievale. Antiquitates 16 (­Rome, 2001), chapters 1, 2, 4, 8. 59 Cassandro, ‘­Il ducato bizantino’, p­p. ­41–​­43; Russo Mailler, ‘­Il ducato di Napoli’, p­p. ­360–​­61. 60 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 51: ‘­Interea Beneventani, antiqui hostis instinctu, Grimohaldum principem suum, pene exanimem in lecto languentem, peremerunt, et Siconem Furoiuliensem, qui puerulus illuc cum sua matre venerat accolas, ducem fecerant’. 61 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 53: ‘­Cuius (­Duke Stephen II) invidia commotus Sico Beneventanorum princeps, multa mala, nunc obsidendo, nunc depredando, Parthenopensis irrogavit civitati, cupiens eam aliquo modo suo pessimo dominatui subiugare’. 62 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 53: ‘­Sed cum exinde non valeret ad effectum sui venire, impios cives eiusdem urbis, datis multis muneribus, misit in letale consilium ipsius ducis’. 63 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 57: ‘­Pro quibus commotus Andreas dux, directo apocrisario, validissimam Sarracenorum hostem ascivit. Quorum pavore Sichardus perterritus, infido cum illo quasi ad tempus inito foedere, omnes ei captivos reddidit. Nec multo post repedantibus ipsis Saracenis, dirupit pacem et ampliavit adversus Neapolim inimicitias.’ 64 Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 57: ‘­Mox autem Andreas consul Franciam direxit, deprecans domnum Lhotharium, ut saltem eius preceptione a tantis malis sopiretur Sichardus. Quapropter misit ille Contardum fidelem suum, ut, si nollet cessare persequi Parthenopensem populum, vesanum eius furorem ipse medicaretur’. Frankish intervention proved to be useless since Sicard was killed by some Beneventans. John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 57. There is no mention of either the ingenuity of the Neapolitans who, during the siege on Naples, cunningly managed to avoid the conquest of their city, or the theft of Saint Januarius’s relics by the Lombards. The first episode is reported by the Lombard authors Erchempert and the anonymous chronicler of Salerno, while the second is mentioned by Sico’s epitaph and the Salernitan author. Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 10; Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 64; Epitaphium Siconis

Among two empires and dangerous neighbors  79 Principis, in MGH, Poetae Latini aevi Carolini, II, ed. E. Duemmler (­Berlin, 1884), ­p. 651, lines ­49–​­50; Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 57. 65 D. Mallardo, ‘­Giovanni Diacono napoletano. I. La Vita’, Rivista di storia della Chiesa in Italia, II, 3 (­1948), p­p. ­317–​­37. 66 This text was composed at the beginning of the tenth century. John the Deacon, Translatio sancti Sosii, ed. G. Waitz, in MGH, Scriptores rerum Langobardicarum et Italicarum saec. ­VI– ​­IX (­Hannover, 1878), p ­ . 460. 67 As the other early medieval Italian chroniclers, John the Deacon mostly defined them as Saraceni [John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapters 54, 57 (­twice), 60 (­twice), 61, 64, 65 (­twice)], more rarely as Hismaeliti (­John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapters 54, 60, 61, 65), and Agareni (­John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapters 64, 66). Only at one point in his work did he name them using geographical r­ eferences —​ ­Palermitani and Africani. John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 60. 68 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 57. 69 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 54: ‘­Impavidi grassantes, totam divastabant Siciliam’. John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 60: ‘­A fricani in forti brachio omnem hanc regionem divastare cupientes, Romam supervenerunt, atque iaculato de caelo iudicio, ecclesias apostolorum et cuncta quae extrinsecus repererunt lugenda pernicie et horribili captivitate diripuerunt’. John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 61: ‘­Propter catervas Sarracenorum Apuliae sub rege commanentes et omnium fines depopulantes’. 70 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 64. 71 This definition is used in the description of Muslims’ joy after having defeated the Franks, who wanted to punish them for having pillaged the basilica of St. Peter in Rome. John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 60. 72 See ­Chapter 1 of this book. 73 For example, John the Deacon, Translatio sancti Severini, ed. G. Waitz, in MGH, Scriptores rerum Langobardicarum et Italicarum saec. V ­ I– ​­IX (­Hannover, 1878), ­p. 452: ‘­ratum fuit, quantum competens videbatur, referre, quod nefandissimus Africanorum rex verbis seu factis in nostrae religionis exercuit populum’. John the Deacon, Translatio sancti Severini, chapter 1: ‘­Post immanissimas itaque strages, quas passim tota urbe nefandissimi hostes dederunt, ad diripiendum solita rapacitate conversi, pene ad decem et septem milia hominum omnis conditionis latitantes invenerunt, inter quos etiam cygneo capite ipsum episcopum rubore decorum miserabiliter, utpote paganissimi, abduxerunt.’ John the Deacon, Translatio sancti Severini, chapter 3: ‘­Nam scelestissimus rex postquam universos mares et feminas, infantes etiam trucidavit, quin immo et postquam totam illam civitatem incendio iussit absumi, saeviens adhuc inexplebilis belua’. 74 As has already been noted, in one of his rare excursus outside the history of Naples, John the Deacon indulged on the punishment inflicted on Thomas the Slav, who, by exploiting his resemblance to the son of the Byzantine Empress Irene, had convinced the Muslims to help him to seize the imperial throne. This is not an episode of Neapolitan history, but the description of the ­punishment—​ ­the only time that a detail of this kind is ­cited—​­and his damnation to hell implicitly highlight that for some Neapolitans too the alliances with the Muslims were believed to be reprehensible. John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 54. 75 The anonymous author emphasized the cruel and violent nature of the Muslims. Vita s. Athanasii, chapters 5, 7, 8.

80  Among two empires and dangerous neighbors 76 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 60. 77 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 54. 78 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 60. Other examples in John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapters ­60–​­61. 79 The Saracens had been defeated by Sergius before they pillaged St. Peter, while his son Caesarius overcame them after that event. John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 60. 80 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 60. 81 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 61. 82 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 61. 83 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 61: ‘­At illi de latibulo exilientes, irato Deo, primum ipsorum percutierunt signiferum; quo perempto, cunctis terga vertentibus, validissime occidebantur; et nisi Cesarius, filius Sergii ducis, qui cum navigiis Neapolitanorum et Amalfitanorum venerat, litoreum conflictum cum eis coepisset, nullatenus a persequendo recedebant.’ 84 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 61. 85 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 60. Strangely, neither John the Deacon nor other medieval Neapolitan authors reported the other victory Caesarius had obtained at Ostia at about 849 against the Muslims planning to attack Rome. This Neapolitan success is, on the other hand, mentioned in the Liber pontificalis and was painted by Giulio Pippi and Raphael at the end of the fifteenth century. The fresco can still be seen in the Vatican. Liber pontificalis, ed. L. Duchesne (­Paris, 1892), II, p­p. ­117–​­19; P. Bertolini, ‘­Cesario’, in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, 24 (­Rome, 1980), p­p. ­207–​­08. 86 Also this episode is described in an annalistic way. However, as already emphasized, the Neapolitan author explained the reason behind the Frank’s action, saying that the duke of Naples convinced him to remain in the city by offering his own daughter in marriage, but then delayed the marriage. The Frank killed the Neapolitan ruler because he feared that he did not want to keep his promise. John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 57. 87 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 61: ‘­ Eodem quoque anno supplicatione huius Sergii principumque Langobardorum direxit Lhotharius imperator filium suum Lhodoguicum, bonę adolescentię iuvenem, propter catervas Saracenorum Apulię sub rege commanentes et omnium fines depopulantes. Qui adveniens, cęlesti comitatus auxilio, ex illis Hismahelitis triumphavit. Et sagaciter ordinans divisionem Beneventani et Salernitani principum, victor reversus est’, chapter 64: ‘­Idcirco Lhodoguicus imperator supplicatione commotus Langobardorum, ad eorum liberationem validum movit exercitum, asserens se rationem redditurum, si, pro quibus Christus descendit de sinu Patris subiens corpoream mortem, non eos a paganissimo iugo liberaret oppręssos… Beneventi itaque commorans, magnam de cęlo accepit victoriam, ita enim ut, Agarenis fame et gladio interemptis et rege eorum Seudan capto, civitates, quas coeperant, auferret et in pristinum revocaret dominium’, chapter 65: ‘­Unde pius commotus augustus armatam direxit multitudinem, ut Domino protectore bellum inirent adversus illos. Qui celeriter venientes, atque plurima cede Saracenos prostrantes, triumpho de cęlo donato, victoriosissimi repedarunt’. 88 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 43. 89 For these events, see P. Delogu, ‘­Lombard and Carolingian Italy’, in The New Cambridge Medieval History, Volume II c. ­ 700–​­ c. 900, ed. R. McKitterick (­Cambridge, 1995), p­p. ­299–​­303. 90 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 48: ‘­Sub eodem quoque tempore conspirantes viri iniqui contra Leonem tertium Romanae sedis antistitem, comprehenderunt eum. Cuius cum vellent oculos eruere, inter ipsos tumultus, sicut assolet fieri, unus ei oculus paululum est laesus’.

Among two empires and dangerous neighbors  81 91 Liber pontificalis, II, p­p. ­4 –​­5. 92 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 48: ‘­Hic tamen fugiens ad Carolum regem, spopondit ei, ut, si de suis illum defenderet inimicis, augustali cum diademate coronaret. Carolus autem optatam audiens promissionem, e vestigio cum magno apparatu hostium proficiscens, urbemque capiens, illum in suam revocavit sedem. At ille statim Carolum coronavit et dignam ultionem in suos exercuit inimicos.’ 93 The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor, ­p. 649. For the version of this episode, reported in the other sources, see R. Folz, The coronation of Charlemagne: 25 December 800 (­London, 1974). 94 On this, for example, see J.-​­M. Martin, ‘­Hellénisme politique, hellénisme religieux et ­pseudo-​­hellénisme à Naples (­­VIe-​­XIIe siècle)’, Nea Rhome. Rivista di ricerche bizantinistiche, 2 (­2005), p­p. ­59–​­77.

4 Invaders, dangerous allies, and hated neighbors ­Ninth-​­century southern Lombard views of the Franks and the Neapolitans Like the other inhabitants of southern Italy, the southern Lombards were also the target of the Muslim raids during the ninth century, but the Saracens were not the only people the Lombards had to confront in that period. They had to face the Franks’ attempts to conquer their homeland between the end of the eighth and the beginning of the ninth century. Emperor Louis II (­­855–​­875) was considered a dangerous ally because he often protected the Lombards from the Muslims, but at the same time, he was suspected of wanting to subdue southern Italy himself. Moreover, the plurisecular tensions between the southern Lombards and the Neapolitans continued. The situation for the former worsened in the second half of the ninth century because, taking advantage of the end of the Lombards’ unity, the Neapolitans often attacked them.1 The goal of this chapter is to examine how the ­ninth-​­c entury southern Lombard ­chronicles—​­Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis2 and the Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium by Erchempert3 —​­portrayed the Franks and the Neapolitans. It is difficult to interpret the authors of the Cronicae’s view of Emperor Louis II and the Franks because events in the first two parts of the chronicle go up to 867. If the Cronicae included the period to 871, it would contain important information on this topic, as that was the year in which the emperor, after getting rid of the emirate of Bari, was imprisoned by the Prince of Benevento, Adelchis. The chroniclers employed an annalistic approach when they reported Louis II’s successes against the Saracens.4 This could imply that they, along with many Lombards, suspected the emperor of planning to expand his rule over all of southern Italy. Nevertheless, there are some details that do not fit such a hypothesis. The first part of the Cronicae reports Louis II’s capitulary describing the organization of the expedition against the Saracens in 866/­ 867.5 This kind of document is not found in any other early medieval chronicle. It may have been added in order to underscore the commitment Louis II had made to the campaign against the Saracens.6 The author of this section also stressed that the sovereign had been able to go to Benevento thanks to God’s aid.7 This cannot be overlooked, especially since Louis II is the sole layman to whom something of that sort happens. Moreover, the author of

DOI: 10.4324/9781003109617-4

Invaders, dangerous allies, and hated neighbors  83 the first section attributed the title of ‘­dominus’, which was given to anyone of official standing in public and private documents of the time, only to the Abbot of Montecassino, Bertharius (­­856–​­883), and Louis II.8 This indicates that the chronicler of Montecassino perceived them as the only two individuals worth noting during that period.9 All the different feelings the southern Lombards had for the Franks and their rulers can be seen in Erchempert’s chronicle. For instance, although the conquest of the Lombard Kingdom by the Franks occurred a century before the composition of his work, the chronicler showed that the memory of their attempts to take over Benevento was still alive. He pointed out that Charlemagne had gone with an immense army against Benevento numerous times10 and that the Prince of Benevento, Arechis II, had been obliged to come to an agreement with them since they had been destroying everything down to the roots like locusts.11 Arechis II’s son, Grimoald III, likewise had to fight against them and repeatedly encountered setbacks because he could not tame the ‘­efferitas (­ferocity)’ of those ‘­barbarians’.12 Erchempert never accused the Franks of having been one of the causes of the serious crisis of southern Langobardia. Yet the fact that they were compared to locusts and called ‘­barbarians’, definitions that clearly invoked a sense of terrible devastations, and that he did not employ for the Muslims,13 whose raids are a constant element in several parts of his work, indicates that Erchempert considered the Franks as a more terrible enemy. They represented a graver danger because their objective was to conquer the Principality of Benevento, while the Saracens only wanted to loot that region. The chronicler’s unfavorable sentiments toward the Franks are also apparent in the remaining part of his work. Stating that, during the conflict in the 840s between the Prince of Benevento, Radelchis, and the Prince of Salerno, Siconolf, the Duke of Spoleto, Guy, who was of Frankish origins,14 preferred to help the former and not his b ­ rother-­​­­in-​­law Siconolf, the chronicler specified that Guy had thus subordinated the bonds of kinship to the bonds of money, which the Franks yielded to more than anyone.15 The chronicler even called in the forces of evil when he explained the imprisonment of Emperor Louis II by the Prince of Benevento, Adelchis. The prince was forced to take this step as a precaution because the Franks, inspired by the devil, had begun to cruelly oppress and ­p ersecute—​­a verb never used for the ­Saracens—​­the Beneventans.16 Although Erchempert did not mention that Guy II of Spoleto was a Frank, it is still worth noting that he accused him of being responsible for the Muslims’ plundering of Benevento and this area’s fall to the Byzantines, since Guy II had preferred to abandon the land he governed to satisfy his thirst for power across the Alps, where he was hoping to acquire the imperial crown.17 The only exception is Louis II,18 about whom the Lombards had contrasting feelings because this sovereign often protected them from the Muslims and eliminated the emirate of Bari; however, Louis II was suspected of wanting to subdue southern Italy.19 Even though Erchempert did not make

84  Invaders, dangerous allies, and hated neighbors any reference to these suspicions,20 his work reflects such an attitude toward the emperor.21 He defined him as ‘­piissimus (­most pious)’,22 emphasized his clemency and his ‘­solita misericordia (­usual mercy)’23, and, at the death of the sovereign, he pointed out that Louis II had been of ‘­diva memoria (­divine memory)’.24 Moreover, Erchempert mentioned Louis II’s expeditions against the Muslims. Yet, except for the first one,25 those campaigns were described in a rather brisk and cold way, including his most significant ­success—​­the conquest of Bari and the capture of the cruel emir S ­ awdān—​­,26 perhaps because Erchempert believed that they had not brought peace in the South.27 However, the tone changes in the description of the imprisonment of Louis II by the Prince of Benevento, Adelchis, shortly after the elimination of the emirate of Bari. This was a very embarrassing episode because it highlighted the ingratitude of the Lombards, who had captured the emperor immediately after that he had saved them from the Muslims of Bari. Erchempert defined the sovereign as ‘­sanctissimus (­most holy)’ and ‘­salvator (­savior)’ of the Principality of Benevento and reported the biblical phrase ‘­percute pastorem et dispergentur oves gregis (­strike the shepherd and the sheep of the flock will be scattered’.28 Yet, at the same time, he explained that Adelchis had been pushed into this gesture, because the Franks, inspired by the devil, were persecuting and cruelly oppressing the Beneventans.29 The emperor therefore saved Benevento, but his men acted as enemies. Louis II is not reproached for their behavior and Erchempert significantly defined him as ‘­innocent’ when he was liberated thanks to the intervention of God.30 In addition, he pointed out that the sovereign had been so dear to the Lord that such liberation occurred only forty days after the misdeed, while in the case of Christ ­forty-​­two years had passed to avenge his death.31 The author still felt the need to explain how it had been possible that God had permitted this. In fact, he added that he desired to mention two of the many reasons. The first was that when Louis II had gone to Rome to reinstate two bishops excommunicated by Pope Nicholas, the emperor had some Roman ecclesiastics beaten, had Rome pillaged, and, if God had not impeded him, would have deposed even the pope.32 The second regarded the capture of the emir of Bari. Louis II had not executed him immediately, thus going against God’s will and forgetting that the Jewish prophet Samuel had ordered to kill the king of the Amalekites, who had been saved by Saul, and what a prophet had said to a sovereign on the subject of his wish to free a man worthy of death.33 Therefore, Louis II was himself marked with a few faults. These comments could indicate that Erchempert thought that not even Louis II had been perfect, perhaps because he was of Frankish origins.34 His explanations nevertheless seem to originate above all from the desire to furnish a justification for the reprehensible imprisonment of the emperor.35 Erchempert concerned himself principally with the Frankish presence in southern Italy. He, nevertheless, was aware of what had happened beyond the Alps. Immediately after having recounted that the Neapolitans

Invaders, dangerous allies, and hated neighbors  85 had asked for the help of the Franks against the Lombards, the chronicler did not limit himself in explaining that, in that period, the son of Charlemagne, Louis the Pious,36 had been the leader of the Franks. In fact, he also reported a brief synthesis of the conflicts that had broken out between this sovereign and his sons by his first marriage, when the emperor had a male son, Charles the Bald, by his second wife and decided that also this child would have a part of the Empire.37 In the following chapter, Erchempert mentioned the death of Louis the Pious, emphasizing that he had been the second to govern the Empire in Gaul and the manner in which the Empire had been divided among his sons, Lothar, Louis, and Charles, specifying correctly that he had had this last son by another wife.38 His name was successively mentioned when the chronicler narrated that ‘­Carlus filius Iuditte (­Charles, the son of Judith)’ had assumed the imperial scepter at Rome.39 Precise information on the political situation and the offspring of Emperor Lothar are reported when Erchempert mentioned the passing of this sovereign.40 In this way, the author introduced Louis II, son of Lothar.41 As for the Neapolitans, the author of the Cronicae’s second section did not express his hatred either with scorn or by demonization. Instead, he simply showed satisfaction when able to narrate the massacre that had been inflicted upon them.42 He highlighted that the Capuans had defeated the Neapolitans on the day of the Archangel Michael who had brought them the victory. A lot of Neapolitans fell to Capuan swords and many others were captured; one of the captives was Caesarius, son of their duke, who was fettered and taken to Capua. Only a very small number returned to their city in a pitiful state. Finally, the chronicler stressed that this had been the second occasion in which the Neapolitans had suffered such a humiliating setback against the Lombards.43 Evidence of bias toward the Neapolitans is present in the first section of the Cronicae as well. Describing the Lombard conquest of southern Italy under the leadership of the Archangel Michael, the author maintained that the Lombards had converted the Neapolitans to Christianity, thus defaming these traditional adversaries of the Lombards.44 The chronicler, however, did not invent this detail completely. Indeed, he was very likely referring to the Liber de apparitione S. Michaelis in monte Gargano, an account from the Lombard era of either an episode of the ­Gothic-​­Byzantine war or a battle between Lombards and Byzantines in the second half of the seventh century. According to this work, Saint Michael forced the pagan Neapolitans to flee, granting the Beneventans and Sipontans victory.45 Erchempert did not express any negative judgment on the Neapolitans as a people. Yet, except for a reference to their ingenuity thanks to which they were able to avoid being conquered by the ­Lombards—​­a compliment nevertheless expressed to prove the stupidity of the hated Prince of Benevento, Sico46 —​­the manner in which he narrated the episodes regarding the Neapolitans clearly indicates the acrimony that the chronicler nurtured for that population.

86  Invaders, dangerous allies, and hated neighbors In the account of the Prince of Benevento Grimoald IV’s victory over the Neapolitans, Erchempert revealed his satisfaction for that event by pointing out the great number of Neapolitans killed in that conflict. He also explained that the carnage had been of such proportions that to clean from their blood the pond adjacent to the place, in which the battle had happened, more than seven days were necessary. Moreover, he added that in his times it was still possible to see the graves of the Neapolitans fallen on that occasion.47 He also ridiculed the masculinity of the duke of Naples by pointing out that the wives of the killed Neapolitans had chased and harshly reproached their ruler and his Lombard ally because they had dared to fight against Grimoald IV.48 Being chased and insulted by women must have indeed constituted a terrible shame for warriors.49 The chronicler did not forget to be an ecclesiastic and stigmatized the adversaries, emphasizing that they had had no respect for God because they had attacked when ‘­we solemnly celebrate the feast of the blessed Archangel Michael’. The reference to ‘­we celebrate’ emphasizes even more the impiety done by the Neapolitans50 and at the same time exalts the religiosity of the Lombards. This was not after all a novelty. Like the author of the second part of the Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis,51 Erchempert ‘­turned the knife in the wound’, adding that even in ancient times, the Neapolitans, demonstrating a lack of respect for Saint Michael,52 had assailed the Lombards and had been defeated on the day of Saint Michael.53 Erchempert expressed his hostility for the Neapolitans, also highlighting that they had made alliances with the Muslims and employed Saracen troops against the Lombards. For example, he opposed the behavior of the Prince of Salerno, Guaifer, with that of the Duke of Naples, Sergius II. The former in fact immediately obeyed the request of Pope John VIII to break every alliance with the Muslims, while the latter not only refused to do so but after being excommunicated for this reason, also attacked Salerno.54 The author instead utilized heated tones for the B ­ ishop-​­Duke of Naples, Athanasius II. He was contemporary with Erchempert and, as the chronicler narrated, had imprisoned and blinded his brother, Duke Sergius II, and he had seized power in Naples.55 The author of the Ystoriola openly criticized the Neapolitan prelate for the use of Muslim and Byzantine troops with which Athanasius II had sown death and destruction in the southern Langobardia. For example, during an expedition against the Lombards, the ‘­Greci’, recruited by the bishop, and the Neapolitans ‘­devoured everything down to the roots everywhere’,56 while, on another occasion, they cut all the trees near Capua.57 The Muslims, whom Athanasius II had placed outside the walls of Naples, destroyed the territories of Benevento, Spoleto, and Rome, sacking ‘­all the monasteries and the churches of every city, fortified place, village, mount, hill, and island’. Moreover, they also burned the abbey of Montecassino and St. Vincent at Volturno.58 On another occasion, the employment of Muslims on the part of the Neapolitan bishop is defined as ‘­nefandum scelus (­nefarious wickedness)’.59 The

Invaders, dangerous allies, and hated neighbors  87 Neapolitan bishop also dared to attack Capua with an army composed of Neapolitans, Muslims, and Byzantines during Lent, thus demonstrating himself worthy of his predecessors who had wanted to fight the Capuans on the day of the feast of Saint Michael.60 Erchempert emphasized his condemnation of this behavior, explaining that in that period, the Christians mourn the evil deeds they made and ask for help from God to sin no more.61 According to the chronicler, on the occasion of another assault on the same city, Athanasius II would have gathered an army, composed in the same manner, under inspiration from the devil.62 When the bishop of Naples, too, discovered how unfaithful the Muslim troops could be, Erchempert maliciously pointed out that ‘­by the just decision of God’ the Saracens had sacked the territory surrounding Naples.63 After narrating a similar episode, the author sarcastically pointed out ‘­Who will medicate the enchanter once the serpent has struck?’64 He also added that in that way, by just, divine judgment, he who had killed and imprisoned many Christians and had enriched himself with their goods had been punished.65 According to Erchempert, Athanasius II also excelled in creating discord and in lacking respect for promises and peace agreements, thus demonstrating to be like the ­Bishop-​­Count of Capua, Landolf.66 For example, when Athanasius II perceived his Capuan ally, Pandonolf, as too powerful, he abandoned him and gave his support to the adversaries of that Capuan lord.67 On another occasion, he feigned to make peace with the Capuans, after which he assailed Capua with the Byzantines and the Muslims;68 the peace that he had sworn to maintain with Atenolf instead did not last even twelve days.69 The use of the expression ‘­resort to the usual arms’ in the account of another lack of respect for the promise of peace70 indicates that Erchempert believed that such behavior had been a characteristic trait of Athanasius II.71 Even if the chronicler did not display a hatred for Athanasius II equal to that held for Bishop Landolf, he stigmatized the Neapolitan prelate by attributing infamous deeds to the former that were not mentioned for the latter. Beside the observations already made on the use of the Muslims, Erchempert in fact explained that Athanasius II had been so evil that, to weaken the Capuans and to convince Lando II to actuate his plans, he had not hesitated to give his niece, who was still a ‘­lactantis (­suckling)’, i.e. very young, in marriage to him.72 With the ‘­tongue of a serpent’, the Neapolitan bishop then incited Lando II to capture his relatives. When he understood that the latter would not have followed his suggestion, Athanasius II turned to another Capuan, seeking to convince him to put into action that ‘­venomous’ plan.73

Notes 1 For an overview of the history of this period, see the introduction of C ­ hapter 6 of this book. 2 On this work, see ­Chapter 8 of this book.

88  Invaders, dangerous allies, and hated neighbors 3 On this chronicle, see ­Chapter 6 of this book. 4 Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, I, 10: ‘­Et ecce congreditur cum Saracenis, tropeum primitus bellicans sumpsit ex eis victoriae ac demum omnia illorum capiens castra. Sole tantum illis civitates remanserunt, Barim scilicet necnon atque Tarantum. Nam omnium quidem eorum gloria, munitissima capta est urbs Materia, quaeque igne ferroque ad nichilum redacta est.’ Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, II, 14: ‘­Veniens Barim et in quantum possibilitas fuit totis viribus cum Saracenis dimicabit. Post complures autem dies venit Beneventum. Igitur sabbato vigilia sanctum pentecosten infra Beneventanam urbem interempti Saraceni, Radelchisi principatum gerens, Massari capitur, ad imperatorem adductus capite plectitur. Hludowicus exin repedavit in patriam.’ 5 Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, I, 7. 6 Walter Pohl argues that the capitulary was copied because it contains ‘­several clauses on the conduct of Frankish troops on the march, forbidding plundering and requisitioning; this was useful as long as these Frankish troops were anywhere near Montecassino’s possessions’. W. Pohl, ‘­History in Fragments: Montecassino’s Politics of Memory’, Early Medieval Europe, 10, 3 (­2001), ­p. 357; W. Pohl, Werkstätte der Erinnerung. Montecassino und die Gestalgung der langobardischen Vergangeheit (­Vienna and München, 2001), p ­ . 88. On the other hand, A. Pratesi maintains that it was added by the person who put the various fragments of the Cronicae together. A. Pratesi, ‘­La “­Chronica Sancti Benedicti Casinensis”’, in Montecassino dalla prima alla seconda distruzione. Momenti e aspetti di ​­ ed. F. Avagliano (­Montecassino, 1987), ­p. 343. storia cassinese (­secc. VI – IX), 7 Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, I, 9: ‘­Mense autem decembrio, Dei omnipotentis opitulante gratia, ingressus est Beneventum’. 8 Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, I, 1, 8. 9 Something similar was done by the Venetian chronicler John the Deacon. L. A. Berto, The Political and Social Vocabulary of John the Deacon’s ‘­Istoria Veneticorum’ (­Turnhout, 2013), p­p. ­16–​­38. 10 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 2. 11 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 2: ‘­Super Beneventum autem Gallico exercitu perveniente, praedictus Arichis viribus quibus valuit primo fortiter restitit, postremo autem, acriter praeliantibus, universa ad instar locustarum radice tenus corrodentibus’. It is important to note that Erchempert did not explicitly state that the Franks had acted like locusts, because the subject of praeliantibus and of corrodentibus is implied. The Italian translation of Erchempert’s work by Italo Pin seems to refer to the fact that the subject is the soldiers of both armies. Storia dei Longobardi di Benevento di Erchemberto, appendix of Paolo Diacono, Storia dei Longobardi, Italian translation by I. Pin (­Pordenone, 1990), p ­ . 186: ‘­W hen the army of the Franks reached Benevento, Arechis II at first resisted with the forces that he could, but in the end, because the soldiers fought bitterly they destroyed everything to the root like locusts’. Arturo Carucci, on the other hand, while not translating the passage literally, believes that the Franks are the subject. Erchempert, Storia dei longobardi (­sec. IX), Italian translation by A. Carucci (­Salerno and Rome, 1995), ­p. 16: ‘­W hile, in the meantime, the Frankish army approached Benevento, Arechis II first resisted valiantly with the forces available to him, and then, advancing them like a mass of locusts that destroys everything to the roots’. Since the Franks attacked and the Beneventans defended, it is more likely that Erchempert was referring to destruction wrought by Charlemagne’s soldiers. This view was shared by Falco, ‘­Erchemperto’, p­p. ­276–​­77. 12 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 5: ‘­efferitatem tamen supradictarum barbararum gentium sedare minime quivit’.

Invaders, dangerous allies, and hated neighbors  89 13 In the description of their conquest of Sicily they are compared to a swarm of bees, a metaphor certainly less strong than that of locusts. Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 11: ‘­Circa hec tempora gens Agarenorum a Babilonia et Africa ad instar examinis apum manu cum valida egrediens, Siciliam properavit, omnia circumquaque devastans’. 14 Guy went to Italy in the 830s, married Siconolf’s sister and was duke of Spoleto from 842 to c. 860. T ­ aviani-​­Carozzi, La principauté lombarde de Salerne, p­p. ­340–​­43; T. Di Carpegna Falconieri, ‘­Guido, duca di Spoleto e marchese di Camerino’, in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, 61 (­Rome, 2003), p­p. ­352–​­54. For the hypothesis that it was Siconolf who married one of Guy’s sisters, see A. Thomas, Jeux Lombards. Alliances, parenté et politique mèridionale de la fin du VIIIe siècle à la conquête normande (­Rome, 2016), p­p. ­122–​­23. 15 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 17: ‘­Erat autem idem Guido dux Spolitensium, Siconolfi cognatus, pro cupiditate tamen pecuniarum, quibus maxime Francorum subicitur genus, posposito vinculo parentali, in adiutorium ilico profectus est Radelgisi’. 16 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 34: ‘­Quibus ita patratis, ut superius promissa promam, videns diabolus suos eliminari Christoque universa restauri, principia recolens et dampna inferni dolens, suo instincto ceperunt Galli graviter Beneventanos persequi ac crudeliter vexare’. 17 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 79: ‘­ Cognoscens autem Guido Carlum augustum seminecem iacere, cupiditate regnandi devictus deceptusque a contribulibus suis, relinquens Beneventanam provinciam sibi subacta et Spolitensium ducatum, abiit Galliam regnaturus. Beneventi quidem tellus a Grecis capitur, Spoletium depredatur ab Agarenis, ipse autem manet invisus et inauditus.’ On Guy II, see T. Di Carpegna Falconieri, ‘­Guido, duca di Spoleto, marchese di Camerino, re d’Italia, imperatore’, in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, 61 (­Rome, 2003), p­p. ­354–​­61. 18 Erchempert never defined Louis II as Frank, but he knew that Louis II had been the son of Emperor Lothar, and described him at the head of Frankish troops. Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapters 19 and 34. There is no proof to hold that the chronicler believed that Louis II had abandoned his Frankish origins and had been becoming ‘­Italian, that is Lombard’ as claimed by Micucci, ‘­La vita di Benevento nella visione di Erchemperto’, ­p. 11. 19 In general, on the campaigns of Louis II in the South, see Musca, L’emirato di Bari, p­p. ­38–​­42; Kreutz, Before the Normans, p­p. ­28–​­47. 20 He recounted that, when Louis II had accepted to defend the Lombards from the Muslims in spite of having been imprisoned for forty days by the prince of Benevento, the emperor had sought to conquer Benevento. Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 36. ­ aviani-​­Carozzi has pointed out the appraisal of Erchempert for Louis 21 Huguette T II is ‘­very nuanced’. ­Taviani-​­Carozzi, La principauté lombarde de Salerne, ­p. 58. According to Thomas, the contrasting feelings of Erchempert toward Louis II were due to the multiple identities of the author. ‘­On one hand he was Lombard and Beneventan and on the other hand he was a monk of Montecassino, a monastery that had always been protected by the Carolingians’. A. Thomas, ‘­L’image de la nation lombarde dans la Petite Historie des Lombards de Benevent: dissolution et mutation d’une identité nationale’, in Nation et nations au Moyen Âge (­Paris, 2014), p ­ . 59. Maria Micucci does not see these nuances and maintains that Erchempert was ‘­enthusiastic for the enterprise of Louis II’. Micucci, ‘­La vita di Benevento nella visione di Erchemperto’, ­p. 11. 22 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapters 20, 30. The chronicler employed this adjective also for the Prince of Benevento,

90  Invaders, dangerous allies, and hated neighbors Radelgarius, the Byzantine Emperor Basil, and Pope Stephen V, but he used the superlative of it only with Louis II, thus creating a sort of ranking of persons who had earned his esteem. Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapters 19, 48, 65. 23 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 33. 24 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 36. It is worth noting that the only other person for whom Erchempert used this expression is the Prince of Benevento, Grimoald III, whom he described very positively. Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 7. 25 According to Erchempert, Louis II decided to help the Lombards for ‘­the love of God’ and despite being very young. Yet the chronicler then recounted only that the sovereign had driven away the Muslims and he had had them killed. Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 19. 26 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 33. Immediately before the conquest of Bari, Erchempert described the undertakings of Louis II in Apulia with the same detached style. Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 33. After having been liberated, the emperor went to help Salerno, which was assailed by the Muslims, and his army killed ca. 9,000 Saracens. Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 35. 27 Erchempert’s praises for Louis II have been highlighted by J. Kujawinski, who has not however noted the annalistic style with which the chronicler described ­ . 783. the successes of this sovereign. Kujawinski, ‘­Le immagini dell’altro’, p 28 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 34. 29 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 34. 30 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 35. 31 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 35. The anonymous biographer of the Neapolitan Bishop Athanasius, too, mentioned these details. He explained however that in that way God had wanted to avenge the outrages to Louis II and to the Neapolitan prelate who was imprisoned by his nephew, the duke of Naples. Vita s. Athanasii, chapter 8. Antonio Vuolo, who believes that the hagiographical text was composed a few years after the death of Bishop Athanasius (­d. 872), maintains that this indicates that Erchempert copied this part from the biography of Athanasius. Vita s. Athanasii, p­p. ­51–​­54. Corinna Bottiglieri agrees with this point. C. Bottiglieri, ‘­Cultura e culture nella Capua longobarda’, in ‘­Felix Terra’. Capua e la Terra di Lavoro in età longobarda, ed. F. Marazzi (­Cerro al Volturno (­IS), 2017), ­p. 153. Yet, it is also possible that the chronicler and the hagiographer obtained this information from another source. Moreover, Erchempert is more detailed than Athanasius’s biographer. 32 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 37. 33 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 37. 34 Giorgio Falco, on the contrary, believes that Erchempert had a ‘­constant reverence’ toward Louis II. Falco, ‘­Erchemperto’, p­p. ­280–​­81. 35 Falco, ‘­Erchemperto’, p­p. ­283–​­84. J. Kujawinski has highlighted ‘­the difficulty’ in which the chronicler found himself in recording this episode. Kujawinski, ‘­Le immagini dell’altro’, p ­ . 783. 36 Erchempert reported that this sovereign had been defined as Almus, a denomination also present in the biography of the Bishop of Naples, Athanasius. The editor of this text hypothesizes that Erchempert used this work as a source. Vita s. Athanasii, chapter 2, ­p. 120. 37 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 10. For further information on these events, see J. L. Nelson, Charles the Bald (­London and New York, 1992), p­p. ­76–​­80.

Invaders, dangerous allies, and hated neighbors  91 38 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 11: ‘­Inter hec moritur Lodoguicus, qui secundus in Gallia augustali preerat imperio, Lutharius supradictus illius regni heredes effectus est atque ab hoc Francorum divisum est regnum, quoniam Lutharius Aquensem et Italicum, Lodoguicus autem Baioarium, Karlus vero, ex alia ortus genitrice, Aquitaneum regebat imperium.’ 39 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 39. 40 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 19. The manner in which Erchempert reported this event seems to allude to the fact that the Empire had still been united, but in reality the brothers of Lothar, Louis the German and Charles the Bald, had governed as independent sovereigns. 41 In this chapter, Erchempert recounted that Louis II had consented to the requests for help of the Lombards in southern Italy against the Muslims and then ordered the Principality of Benevento to be divided into two parts. Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 19. Although this decision was the fruit of the initiative of this sovereign, I maintain that in the chronicle there is no evidence to believe that Erchempert placed this episode in the context of the partition following the death of Lothar to highlight that the division of the Principality was the result of a tradition foreign to the Lombards as maintained by ­Taviani-​­Carozzi, La principauté lombarde de Salerne, ­p. 58. 42 A similar stance can be found in the works of the other Lombard chroniclers. Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 8, and Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 127. 43 Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, II, 22: ‘­Per idem tempus Neapolites audacter super Capuanos venire in bellum conati sunt, eo siquidem die quo beati Michaelis est festivitas. Huius Langobardi auxilio freti exierunt adversus Querites et tanta in illis cęda bachati sunt, ut plurimi ex eis gladio fuissent peremti multique capti, nonnulli in fluvio se proicientes; residui, vero perpauci, vulnerati in urbe reversi sunt suam. Cesarius autem, magistri militis filius, capitur, Capuaque adductus, ferro in compedibus habetur. Secunda Neapolitis hęc ruina extitit similis, quo olim in Gargano cum beato Michahelo archangelo agere temptaverunt.’ 44 Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, I, 4: ‘­Horum autem princeps militie celestis exercitus Michahel extitit archangelus. Neapolites ad fidem Christi perducti’. 45 Liber de apparitione S. Michaelis in monte Gargano, ed. G. Waitz, in MGH, Scriptores rerum Langobardicarum et Italicarum saec. V ­ I–​­IX (­Hannover, 1878), ­p. 542. 46 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 10. According to the anonymous Salernitan chronicler, the Neapolitans were able to avoid the fall of their city thanks to their cunning also during an attack by Prince Sicard, son of Sico. Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 64. 47 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 8: ‘­Tantam denique hostium stragem cepto bello mari terraque fecit, ut fretum adiacens vix per septem et eo amplius dies cruore occisorum purgaretur; in terra vero tumuli nunc usque interfectorum conspiciuntur cadaverum et, ut ab eisdem incolis referentibus compertus sum, quinque milia fere hominum eadem tunc in acie occubuere.’ It is worth noting that this is the only time that the chronicler mentioned these details. Even though with less ardent tones, the theme of a great massacre that the Lombards inflicted on the Neapolitans is also present in Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 27. 48 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 8: ‘­Nam egresse coniuges virorum peremptorum gladiis insequebantur eos, dicentes: ‘­Reddite nobis, o caduci viri, propi tori, quos nequiter interfecistis! ‘­Quare, inquit, ‘­adversus prelium insurgere conati estis, quem pro certo invictum scitis?’’

92  Invaders, dangerous allies, and hated neighbors 49 Nicola Cilento has instead provided a literal interpretation of this passage. In fact, he maintains that this account reveals a more authentic witness of that time which underscores the ‘­pain and hardness of living in that past’, and which is completely different ‘­from the encomiastic tone of the epitaphs’. N. Cilento, ‘­La cultura e gli inizi dello studio’, in Storia di Napoli, II, 1 (­Naples, 1969), ­p. 550. This episode has been examined also by Thomas Granier, who has however only noted that Erchempert made a terrible description of the Neapolitans narrating that Grimoald IV had not reported any loss and the Neapolitans had been forced to pay a tribute. T. Granier, ‘­Napolitains et Lombards aux VIIIe -​­XIe siècles. De la guerre des peuples à la ‘­g uerre des saints’ en Italie du sud’, Mélanges de l’Ecole Française de Rome, 108, 2 (­1996), p ­ . 431. 50 Such particularity has been noted also by Granier, ‘­Napolitains et Lombards aux VIIIe –​­XIe siècles’, ­p. 430. 51 Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, II, 22. 52 The Lombards had a special veneration for Saint Michael. On this subject, see Culto e insediamenti micaelici nell’Italia meridionale fra tarda antichità e Medioevo, eds. C. Carletti and G. Otranto (­Bari, 1994). 53 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 27: ‘­quo beati Michahelis archangeli sollempnia nos sollempniter celebramus, quo etiam die priscis temporibus a Beneventanorum populis Neapolites fortiter cesos legimus, hac ergo die, nullum honorem dans Deo, misit duos liberos suos, Gregorium magistrum militum et Cesarium’. 54 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 39: ‘­Sergius vero magister militum, consilio Adelgisi et Lamberti deceptus, noluit se ab illis alienare. Qui statim anathematizatus est et cum Guaiferio belliierare cepit’. In this case, Erchempert limited himself to reporting the events without pronouncing any condemnation, as if he wished to indicate that the simple narration of them was sufficient to underscore the impiety of the Neapolitans. 55 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 39. 56 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 60: ‘­Nam iuxta Sicopolim Greci cum Neapolitibus et Pandonolfo residentes, omnia circumquaque stirpitus devorabant’. 57 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 70: ‘­Moxque, sine delatione, cunctum equitatum et pedestrem exercitum mittens, omnia sata Capue succidi exterminarique fecit funditus’. See also Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 44. A detail also highlighted by Granier, ‘­Napolitains et Lombards aux VIIIe -​­XIe siècles’, ­p. 418. 58 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 44: ‘­cum Saracenis pacem iniens ac primum infra portum equoreum et urbis murum collocans, omnem terram Beneventanam simulque Romanam necnon et partem Spoletii dirruentes cunctaque monasteria et ecclesias omnesque urbes et oppida, vicos, montes et colles insulasque depredarunt. A quibus etiam sanctissimi Benedicti cenobia decentissima, toto orbe veneranda, et sancti Vincentii martiris monasterium igne exusta sunt, aliaque innumerabilia.’ 59 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 56. 60 This fact has been also noted by Granier, ‘­Napolitains et Lombards aux VIIIe –​ ­XIe siècles’, ­p. 430. 61 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 57. 62 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 73: ‘­Cum non multo post, fustigante inimico humano generi, collecto Athanasius multitudine exercitu, mixto Grecorum, Neapolitensium et Hismaelitarum, equitantium et pedestrium, misitque illos adversus Capuam pugnaturus’. The use of Muslim and Byzantine troops is also described in Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapters 51, 56, 58, 67, 71, 72.

Invaders, dangerous allies, and hated neighbors  93 63 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 49: ‘­Hiis diebus idem presul missi apocrisariis Siciliam, Saracenis ad radicem montis Besubii residentibus Suchaymum regem exposcit illisque veniens prefecit. Set, iusto Dei iudicio, primo omnium super eum insurgens, cepit Neapolim graviter affligere et devorare omnia exterius ac puellas, equos et arma vi expetere.’ Cf. Granier, ‘­Napolitains et Lombards aux VIIIe -​­XIe siècles’, ­p. 432. 64 The author used the phrase recorded in Eccles 12. 13. 65 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 77: ‘­Atenolfus ergo cum Athanasio pacem interim custodita fere bis senis diebus, scisso foedere utraque pars ad predam prorupit. Set Capuani prevalidiores effecti, per se et cum Saracenis graviter Neapolim circumquaque vastantes lacerant, ut ignis consumantes omnia, equo Dei iudicio, ut qui Saracenis innumerabiles christicolas gladiis et captivitatibus tradidit bonisque eorum ditatus est, non immerito ab his flagelletur, rodatur et depredetur, ut Salomon ait: “­Quis medebitur incantatori a serpente semel percusso?”’ 66 For the way, Erchempert portrayed the Bishop of Capua, Landolf, see ­Chapter 6 of this book. 67 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 49. 68 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 56. 69 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 75. 70 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 50: ‘­Athanasius ad solita recurrens arma, simulavit universos fratrueles pacisci’. 71 Of the same opinion is Granier, ‘­Napolitains et Lombards aux VIIIe -​­XIe siècles’, ­p. 428. Describing a similar behavior on the part of the prelate of Capua, Landolf, Erchempert employed the expression ‘­consueta vitia’. Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 26. 72 I believe that A. Thomas has misread this passage. According to this French scholar, the niece of Athanasius II recently lost her husband and had a baby whom she was still ­breast-​­feeding. Thomas, Jeux Lombards, ­p. 193. 73 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 53: ‘­Interea Athanasius solita fraude cupiens supradictos fratres sequestrare ab invicem, hinc Landoni seniori, filio videlicet Landonis, singularis et prestantissimi viri, neptem suam adhuc lactantem in coniugium cessit, ob hoc, ut filia feminarum illaquearet eum. Adscitoque eum, monuit serpentino ore, ut confratueles suos caperet ut, quod magis ambiebat, occidere; scilicet ut inter se rixantes aut omnino interirent aut deficerent et ille Capuam caperet. Et, quoniam Lando, licet segnitie torpore naturaliter frueretur, immobilis et constans persistebat re inchoata, hoc advertens Athanasius doluit, protinus consilium repperit sibi adcommodantissimum tunc, set non in longum perniciosius. Competenti etenim festinatione inter ista Atenolfum ascivit eique secretius infit: ‘­Ex omni gente Longobardorum Capuam elegi mihi habilem et, e Capuam gentem vestram et ex omnibus fratribus tuis, te solummodo pretuli, consentientem mihi et in cunctis optemperante, virum industrium. Idcirco, si meis verbis aures tuas adcommodaveris, in cunctis prosperaveris.’ At ille cunta se patrare respondit imperata. Cui ille: ‘­Cape filios Landonis et esto tu solus imperans Capuam, sicut avus tuus singulariter imperasse dignoscitur.’ Ille vero hoc fratrum consilio distulit. Qui reversus rem venenose inscitam propriis innuit fratribus.’ The fact that Athanasius II did not respect the pacts has also been briefly noted by Granier, ‘­Napolitains et Lombards aux VIIIe –​­XIe siècles’, ­p. 415.

5 The Venetians and the ‘­other’ in the early Middle Ages Definitions and perceptions

In the early Middle Ages, the inhabitants of the Venetian lagoons underwent huge changes. Indeed, the Venetians were able to acquire complete independence and emerged as the major power in the Adriatic Sea. Moreover, in this period they avoided absorption by neighboring rulers, such as the Carolingians and the Ottonians, and prevented serious destruction by raiders (­Muslims and Slavs), all the while progressively extending their trading activities to most of northern Italy and the eastern Mediterranean.1 The goal of this chapter is to examine the ethnic definitions early medieval Venetian authors used for the peoples with whom the Venetians interacted and how they portrayed them. For the early medieval Venetian period, two narrative texts are available. The most relevant is a chronicle, the Istoria Veneticorum (­History of the Venetians), which is attributed to John the Deacon, chaplain and ambassador of Duke Peter II Orseolo (­­991–​­1008), and reports events beginning from the Lombard invasion of Italy in 568/­569, that forced a part of the northeastern Italian population to flee to the Venetian lagoons, up to Peter II Orseolo’s rule (­­991–​­1008).2 There is also a hagiographical text, the anonymous Translatio Marci Evangelistae Venetias (­Transfer of Mark the Evangelist to the Venices), which recounts the transfer of Saint Mark’s remains from the Egyptian city of Alexandria to Venice3 by some Venetian merchants in ca. 827/­828.4 Like most of the medieval European authors, John the Deacon called the Byzantines ‘­Greci (­Greeks)’,5 though they considered themselves to be the heirs of the ancient Romans and therefore called themselves Romans. In this regard, it is worthy of note that in the Translatio Marci it is stated that the Byzantine Emperor Leo V (­­813–​­820) ruled the ‘­Romanum imperium (­Roman empire)’.6 This might suggest that the author of this text acknowledged that legacy and therefore had friendly feelings toward the Byzantines.7 Yet, this hypothesis cannot be proven because the hagiographer never mentioned the Byzantines as a people. The possibility should not be ruled out that the author of the Translatio Marci believed that the Byzantines were ‘­Greeks’ but nevertheless called the Byzantine Empire ‘­Roman’. The Venetian chronicler qualified two characters as ‘­Greci’, that is, John Philagathos, who usurped the papal throne, described as ‘­Iohannes Grecus’

DOI: 10.4324/9781003109617-5

The Venetians and the ‘other’ in the early Middle Ages  95 8

(­John the Greek), and the Byzantine princess Mary, wife of John Orseolo, Duke Peter II Orseolo’s son, indicated after her wedding as ‘­Maria greca’ (­Mary the Greek)­.9 In the latter case, this adjective was probably used to distinguish her from her ­mother-­​­­in-​­law,10 who had the same name. John the Deacon also expressed an evaluation about some Byzantines. Narrating that they had discovered the identity of the German Emperor Otto II, when he took refuge without revealing who he was in one of their ships after his defeat at the hands of the Muslims, the chronicler stated that they had been ‘­ingenio peritissimi (­very intelligent)’.11 No comment is, on the other hand, expressed toward the Franks (­always called ‘­Franci’). Pippin, who tried to conquer Venice in 810, is not indicated as either a Frank or the son of Charlemagne.12 As already emphasized, the Muslims were among the main adversaries whom the Venetians confronted during the early Middle Ages, but the relationships with them were not always bellicose. Indeed the Venetians also traded with them.13 Both the hagiographer and the chronicler always defined the Muslims as ‘­Saracens’. On one occasion, the former also explained that they were the children of Ishmael, who were also called Saracens.14 In this way, he proved to be familiar with the belief that the Muslims descended from Ishmael, the son whom Abraham had by Agar, Sarah’s handmaid.15 Neither the author of the Translatio Marci nor John the Deacon ever explicitly wrote that the Muslims belonged to a different religion and had, therefore, been special enemies. Yet John the Deacon’s use of the word ‘­Christians’ in the descriptions of battles with the Saracens,16 and the fact that both authors labeled the latter as ‘­pagans’,17 indicate that they were aware of this.18 With the intent to justify the lawfulness of the theft of Saint Mark’s relics and to highlight the fact that the Venetians had been in Alexandria, i.e. in Muslim territory, by chance, and not because of familiarity with those places, where it was forbidden to go for trade,19 the author of the Translatio Marci portrayed the Muslims negatively. He emphasized that the ‘­pagan sons of Ishmael’ had cruelly devastated and occupied Egypt20 and he called them ‘­nefandi’ (­nefarious),21 ‘­p erfidious’,22 and, as already pointed out, pagans.23 The Muslim ruler, who ordered the removal of precious marbles from the Egyptian churches for his palace, is called ‘­paganus regulus’ (­pagan little king)­24 —​­a diminutive clearly used in a derogatory ­sense—​­and ‘­i mpius’, while his action is defined as a ‘­p ersecution’,25 a term that recalled the persecutions of the ancient Romans against the Christians. Noteworthy, in this regard, is the detail that the author highlighted the similarities between the distant period of the Roman persecutions and what had been happening in Egypt in 827/­828. In order to persuade the Christian custodians of the Alexandrian church, where the relics of Saint Mark were kept, to give their consent to the transfer of the saint’s remains to Venice, two Venetian merchants reminded them that, according to God, one had to flee when the persecutions raged and that the evangelist himself had abandoned Alexandria when there had been persecution in that city.26

96  The Venetians and the ‘other’ in the early Middle Ages The hagiographer also recounted that the emissaries of the Saracen ruler had cruelly whipped a guardian of another church in Alexandria because he had destroyed a marble slab rather than leave it to the Muslims, and the custodians of the relics of Saint Mark had feared that the same thing might happen to them.27 Despite the clear negative image of the Muslims drawn by this author and the insistence on the fact that the Venetian ships had been in Alexandria by accident, the Translatio Sancti Marci actually shows that the Venetians had a good knowledge of Muslim customs. Indeed, the author explained that two Venetians had hidden the relics of Saint Mark under pork, a food forbidden by the Koran. In that passage, written in Latin, even the Arabic word canzir is quoted, explaining that it means pig and that the horrified Saracens said it as soon as they saw what the Venetians were carrying to their ship. Then the Venetians… took Saint Mark’s body and put it into a basket, covering it with leaves, such as cabbage and other vegetables, and above it put pig meat. As they rushed to the ship, some Saracens approached them to see what they were carrying. But as soon as they saw pig meat, which was a dirty thing for them, they started screaming: ‘­Canzir! Canzir!’, that is: ‘­Pig! Pig!’, and they moved away spitting.28 In the accounts of the ­n inth-​­century battles between Venetians and Muslims, John the Deacon portrayed the Saracens neutrally. However, he employed a negative term, ‘­i mpietas (­i mpiety)’, in the narration of the Muslims’ failed attempt to take one of the Venetian duchy’s cities.29 In contrast, the chronicler made use of far more hostile terminology for the Muslims when recounting the expedition against the Saracens besieging Bari in 1002, presumably in order to aggrandize Peter II Orseolo’s feat. On that occasion, the Venetian duke fought against that ‘­most wicked people’30 and freed the Baresi from the ‘­harshness/­cruelty’ and ‘­p ersecution’ of those ‘­pagans’31 who had cruelly devastated the area surrounding the Apulian city.32 The use of this type of terminology was also likely due to the Venetian author’s feelings toward the Muslims. Indeed, in narrating Emperor Otto II’s defeat against the Saracens in Calabria in 982, John the Deacon employed terms that are not only negative, but emphasize the fear that the Muslims spread in Italy in the early Middle Ages. He characterized them as ‘­formidolosa gens’ (­terrible people), ‘­pagans’, and ‘­barbarians’: moreover, he designated a Muslim group of soldiers as a ‘­tetra cohors’ (­dreadful cohort).33 In point of fact, the adjectives ‘­formidolosa’ and ‘­tetra’ only appear in this particular episode of the Istoria Veneticorum, which serves to further highlight how dangerous the Muslims were perceived to be. The word ‘­barbarians’ is, on the other hand, also utilized for the Lombards when John the Deacon briefly narrated that the Venetians had fought with that people in the late sixth and seventh centuries.

The Venetians and the ‘other’ in the early Middle Ages  97 And because these peoples complained about the fact that their fatherland had been completely occupied by barbarians, very many conflicts occurred between the two sides to the point that they often fought, causing suffering and destruction to each other.34 The acridity toward the people that had forced some of the inhabitants of northeastern Italy to take refuge into the islands of the Venetian lagoons in 569 evidently remained in the memory of the Venetians.35 The chronicler always called ‘­Lombards’ the inhabitants of the Italian Kingdom, i.e. the northern and central part of the Lombard Kingdom,36 never ‘­Italici’. He however utilized the adjective ‘­Italicus’ for the king of Italy,37 and the lords of the Italian Kingdom with whom Duke Peter II Orseolo always tried to have good relations and who elected Otto III king of Italy.38 Other adversaries that left their mark in Venetian memory were the Hungarians who had attacked the Venetian duchy in ca. 899 and destroyed several Venetian towns. John the Deacon called them ‘­pagans’ and ‘­most cruel people’.39 Worthy of note is the fact the chronicler defined their raid as a ‘­persecution’,40 as he likewise did with the Muslims who had besieged Bari in 1002.41 In the case of the Hungarians, John the Deacon did not deliberately invoke the trope of Christian persecution by explicitly calling the Hungarians’ victims ‘­Christians’, yet associating the terms ‘­pagans’ and ‘­p ersecution’ was likely aimed at inviting the readers of the Istoria Veneticorum to remember the persecution the Christians had suffered at the times of the pagan Romans. The fact that no early medieval Italian chronicler employed the word ‘­p ersecution’ to describe Muslim and Hungarian aggression42 indicates that his use of this word was not a topos in his work and this makes its utilization by John the Deacon more significant. The adversaries whom the Venetians confronted the most often were the Slavs living on the other side of the Adriatic Sea. The first with whom the Venetians dealt were the Narentans who had settled at the mouth of the Narenta/­Neretva River and on the neighboring islands43; the first encounter with them took place in the early 830s.44 John the Deacon identified them as Narentans and Narentan Slavs,45 while the Slavs of the other areas are generically indicated as ‘­Slavs’ in the ­ninth-​­century episodes.46 The first time the label ‘­Croats’ appears is when it is narrated that the son of the Venetian Duke Ursus Particiaco (­­911–​­931) was captured while passing through the Croats’ territory; the ruler who did that is however identified as ‘­dux Sclavorum (­duke of the Slavs)’.47 In the events contemporary with him, the chronicler then utilized the definitions Croat Slavs and Croats.48 The lack of primary sources makes it impossible to determine when the term ‘­Croats’ began to be utilized and therefore when a population started to call itself in this way and to be thus defined by others. Worthy of note is the fact that John the Deacon used the definition ‘­Croats’ for the first time in an episode that had occurred in early tenth century,49 i.e. when a ruler assumed the title king of the Croats for the first time.50

98  The Venetians and the ‘other’ in the early Middle Ages Remaining on the topic of the definitions used for the peoples of Dalmatia, in the Istoria Veneticorum there is a ­n inth-​­century episode in which it is reported that the Venetian Duke Peter (­­836–​­864) went to Sclavenia, where he made peace with Mislav, the prince of that land, and ‘­deinde pertransiens ad Narrantanas insulas, cum Drosaico, Marianorum iudice, similiter fedus instituit (­he then went to the Narentan islands and made a similar pact with the iudex of the Marians, Druzec)’.51 According to Roberto Cessi, the ‘­Mariani’ were the Narentans.52 The chronicle’s passage is not however clear, because it is not possible to tell whether the author wished to state that the duke had crossed the Narentan islands, as the verb ‘­pertransire’ would seem to indicate or whether he had traveled to them. In my opinion, the first hypothesis is the more likely one and therefore the ‘­Mariani’ were not the Narentans. Giovanni Monticolo has maintained that they were the inhabitants of Maronia, a Latinized version of ‘­Παραθαλασσία’, which in Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus’s De administrando imperio indicates one of the ‘­župe’ (­counties) of Croatia.53 Monticolo’s hypothesis is supported by the fact that in a synod in the middle of the eleventh century a zone is described in this ­way—​­‘­Maronia, usque ad confinia Zagabriae, totamque Maroniam’54 —​­and that in the same period there were also people who were called ‘­Mariani’ and ‘­Marani’.55 Another passage of the chronicle contains relevant information about the Venetians’ perception of the ethnic composition of the inhabitants of Dalmatia. In the description of the people who had gone to the Dalmatian town of Ossero/­Osor56 to celebrate the arrival of the Venetian fleet under the command of Duke Peter II Orseolo in 1000, John the Deacon wrote: Sailing over the vast sea, the Venetians were then pushed on to the city of Osor where not only the citizens, but, in fact, everyone from the nearby castles, both Romans and Slavs, went to meet the duke. They were happy to be gone to see the arrival of such an important guest.57 On the basis of this differentiation, it would seem that for the Venetian chronicler the inhabitants of that part of Dalmatia were either Slavs or Romans, that is, of Latin origin. In this way, perhaps he also wished to point out that this region, located at the western extremity of the Byzantine Empire, had no ‘­Greek’ heritage.58 John the Deacon described the Slavs as ‘­­most-​­wicked peoples’, who, along with the Dalmatians, sacked Istria in the ­870s–​­880s.59 The same adjective is utilized for Domagoj, one of their rulers of that period, yet the chronicler did not mention any venture of his which could justify this judgment.60 ‘­By deceit’ was, on the other hand, the manner in which the Slavic Duke Michael captured the son of the Venetian Duke Ursus Particiaco (­­911–​­931), who was passing through the Croats’ territory while returning from Constantinople.61 John the Deacon almost always portrayed the Slavs performing acts of piracy and it is therefore not surprising that they were the only adversaries

The Venetians and the ‘other’ in the early Middle Ages  99 of the Venetians to be defined as ‘­marauders’.62 The chronicler, unsurprisingly, justified Duke Peter II Orseolo’s expedition to Dalmatia in 1000 as an action aimed to eradicate this problem.63 John the Deacon’s opinion of this population emerges clearly in his description of the inhabitants of the Lagosta/­Lastovo Island, which Peter II Orseolo conquered on that occasion. He called them ‘­dishonest’ and stressed that ‘­rabies/­fury’ had guided their actions: ‘[Peter II Orseolo] tried to attack the dishonest inhabitants of the island of Lastovo. Because of that people’s fury, the Venetians, who had sailed in those places, were deprived of their goods and were often left naked’.64 Particularly relevant in this passage is the chronicler’s use of the word ‘­rabies’65 because it hints at a bestial behavior not driven by the human mind, even if this only resulted in the theft of property and not in the killing of those who sailed in those places. In spite of this, the behavior of the Slavs, who, according to John the Deacon, lived by plundering the fruits of the Venetians’ work,66 was likely regarded similarly by the chronicler’s countrymen. The fact that precisely the impediments inflicted upon the Venetian ­trade-​­activities were those that inspired John the Deacon’s harshest condemnation of the Slavs emphasizes the importance that trade had for Venetian society. The emphasis of the Venetian chronicler, who was not a merchant, on this detail further delineates the relevance of this aspect for the Venetian mentality.67 The chronicler presented the decision of Duke Peter II Orseolo not to pay the usual tribute to the Croats anymore as liberation from ‘­oppression’.68 The Venetians must have similarly perceived that tribute which was a kind of tax on their trading activities. ‘­The surplus of hatred between the Venetians and Slavs greatly increased’ is the significant expression John the Deacon used for describing the ensuing tensions between the two peoples after the Venetians’ militant response to the Croats’ ‘­harassments’.69 The manner in which the Slavs treated the Dalmatians and which also induced Duke Peter II Orseolo to lead an expedition against them was called ‘­harshness of the Slavs’70 and ‘­hardness of the Slavs’.71 By commenting on a peace agreement that occurred in the 830s with the Narentan Slavs with the remark that ‘­this, however, did not last at all’,72 John the Deacon seemed to indicate the futility of such actions, adding shortly, thereafter, that the Narentans had killed some Venetian merchants.73 The only manner of solving the problems caused by the Slavs was therefore that adopted by Peter II Orseolo, that is, to destroy their bases. Unlike the Germans as people, whom John the Deacon called ‘­Teutonici’74 —​­ he was the first medieval Italian chronicler to use this ­label—​­,75 the Venetian chronicler expressed some evaluations about the German ruler Otto II (­d. 983). He defined his action against Venice using the terms ‘­harshness’ and ‘­hardness’, which are identical to those utilized for the Slavs during the Venetian expedition to Dalmatia in 1000: ‘­Meanwhile, the emperor persevered in his siege of the Venetians with such harshness

100  The Venetians and the ‘other’ in the early Middle Ages and hardness that they could not placate him either with pleas or any kind of gift’.76 John the Deacon, perhaps, meant to suggest that the German ruler was to be considered as an opponent equal to the Slavs. It is noteworthy that, as with the damage done by the inhabitants of Lagosta/­Lastovo, the damage Otto II inflicted on the Venetians was of an economic nature. Indeed, the emperor imposed an embargo on Venice.77 John the Deacon never gave accurate descriptions of the Venetians’ enemies’ cruelty, and the figure of the ­anti-​­hero, i.e., an adversary with extreme negative connotations, is absent in his work. However, he always portrayed the Muslims and the Slavs as engaging in looting and ravaging. For example, the Muslims, after having defeated the Venetian fleet near Taranto in ca. 841, sailed up the Adriatic, and: did not hesitate to go as far as the city of Ossero, which they destroyed with fire on the second days of Easter. They then went to the city of Ancona and set fire to it in the same way, taking away many captives with them.78 Shortly thereafter, ‘­the Saracens also dared to go to Rome and sack the church of St. Peter, but, as they arrived at the church of St. Paul, they were almost all killed by the Roman citizens’.79 Around 872, they ‘­pillaged some cities of the Dalmatias, and also invaded Brač, a city of that province’, and ‘­after sacking the cities about which we had said, the aforementioned Saracens returned home with an inestimable amount of booty’.80 In 875, the Saracens ‘­plundered the village of Comacchio’.81 In 1002, the Muslims besieged Bari and John the Deacon emphasized that they had ‘­invaded the surrounding places [of Bari] and cruelly subjugated them’.82 The Slavs were described engaged in the same activities. In the 840s, they ‘­plundered the fortified center of Caorle’83; thirty years later, ‘­the ­most-​ w ­ icked peoples of the Slavs and the Dalmatians began to pillage the province of Istria. They devastated four cities’.84 Just before the expedition of Peter II Orseolo to Dalmatia, the Venetian chronicler narrated that ‘­the princes of the Croats and the Narentans often afflicted them [the Zarans] to the point that the Narentans captured forty of them and took them away in chains’.85 Fires, thefts, destruction, murders, and the capture of prisoners, in short, the entire range of horrors that could happen in wartime, are all recorded in the account of the raid in northern Italy and in Venice by the Hungarians in ca. 899. This represents a sign of the painful legacy that those raiders left in the memory of the Venetians. The pagan and very cruel people of the Hungarians came to Italy, laid waste to everything through fire and plunder, killed a multitude of men, and also took numerous captives… ravaging everything as far as the mountain of Jupiter. They also entered the Venices with horses and

The Venetians and the ‘other’ in the early Middle Ages  101 boats made of hides: first, while the population was fleeing, they destroyed Cittanova with fire, then torched Equilo, Fine, Chioggia, and Cavarzere and devastated the coastal areas.86 In conclusion, in spite of his negative portrayal of the Muslims, the author of the ‘­Translatio Marci’ provided important information about the relationships the Venetians had had with that people. The ‘­ethnic labels’ John the Deacon used in his chronicle provide relevant information about the peoples with whom the Venetians had contact, especially those living in Dalmatia. As for the adversaries of his homeland, the Venetian chronicler did not fail to ascribe negative connotations to them, making sure to differentiate them according to whom they had been and, above all, to what kind of problems they had caused to the Venetians.

Notes 1 For Venice in the early Middle Ages, see Storia di Venezia, I: ­Origini-​­Età ducale, eds. L. Cracco Ruggini, M. Pavan, G. Cracco, and G. Ortalli (­Rome, 1992), and Berto, Early Medieval Venice. 2 For further information about this chronicle and its author, see John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, ed. L. A. Berto, Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medio Evo. Fonti per la Storia dell’Italia medievale, Storici italiani dal Cinquecento al Millecinquecento ad uso delle scuole, 2 (­Bologna, 1999), p­p.  ­7–​­25; Berto, The Political and Social Vocabulary, pp. ­v ii–​­xv, and L. A. Berto, ‘­Iohannes Diaconus Veneticus (­Istoria Veneticorum)’, in La Trasmissione dei testi latini del Medioevo. Medieval Latin texts and their Transmissions. TE.TRA. 6, eds. L. ­Castaldi – V. ​­ Mattaloni (­Florence, 2019), p­p. ­396–​­400. 3 I use ‘­Venice’ as synonymous with the Venetian duchy, as opposed to the city of Venice. In the early Middle Ages, the central part of the modern city of Venice was called ‘­Rivoalto’, where, after 810/­811, the duke established his headquarters. For a discussion of this terminology, see G. B. Monticolo, ‘­Intorno al significato del nome Venecia nella Cronaca veneziana di Giovanni Diacono’, Nuovo Archivio Veneto, 3 (­1892), p­p. ­379–​­86; G. Ortalli, ‘­I cronisti e la determinazione di Venezia città’, in Storia di Venezia, II: L’età del comune, eds. G. ­Cracco – G. ​­ Ortalli (­Rome, 1995), p­p. ­761–​­82; and Berto, The Political and Social Vocabulary, p­p. ­141–​­45. The mistaken use of the definition ‘­city of Venice’ for the early Middle Ages is unfortunately still present in scholarly works. For example, see V. ­West-​­Harling, ‘­Introduction’, in Three Empires, Three Cities: Identity, Material Culture and Legitimacy in Venice, Ravenna and Rome, 7­ 50–​­1000, ed. V. W ­ est-​ ­Harling (­Turnhout, 2015), p­p. ­15–​­19. 4 At the present time, there is no agreement among scholars regarding the date of composition of this work. R. Dennig Zettler maintains that it was written soon after the transfer, perhaps by an eyewitness, while G. Cracco thinks that the text was composed between 971 and 976 as a polemic against Duke Peter IV Candiano; E. Colombi shares the latter’s opinion. R. Dennig ­Zettler – ​­A. Zettler, ‘­La traslazione di san Marco a Venezia e a Reichenau’, in San Marco, aspetti storici e agiografici, ed. A. Niero (­Venice, 1996), p­p. ­692–​­93; G. Cracco, ‘­I testi agiografici: religione e politica nella Venezia del Mille’, in Storia di Venezia, I: ­Origini-​­Età ducale, eds. L. Cracco Ruggini, M. Pavan, G. Cracco, and G. Ortalli (­Rome, 1992), p­p. ­939–​­40; E. Colombi, Storie di cronache e reliquie nella ‘­Venetia’ altomedievale, Antichità Altoadriatiche, Monografie, 6 (­Trieste, 2012), ­p. 78. For

102  The Venetians and the ‘other’ in the early Middle Ages the weak foundations of Cracco’s hypothesis, see L. A. Berto, ‘­I musulmani nell’agiografia altomedievale della Toscana e dell’Italia settentrionale’, Hagiographica, XXV (­2018), p­p.  ­106–​­09. Paolo Tomea has expressed doubts about both hypotheses. P. Tomea, ‘­L’agiografia dell’Italia Settentrionale, ­950–​­1130’, in Hagiographies: histoire internationale de la littérature hagiographique latine et vernaculaire en occident des origines à 1550, ed. G. Philippart, 3 (­Turnhout, 2001), ­p. 126, note 61. 5 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 34, III, 26, IV, 6, 23, 41, 43, 44, 72, 73, 75. John the Deacon also used the definition ‘­Eolica lingua’ as a synonym for ‘­Greca lingua’ which is utilized as well. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 3, II, 55. 6 Translatio Marci Evangelistae Venetias, in E. Colombi, Storie di cronache e reliquie nella ‘­Venetia’ altomedievale (­Trieste, 2012), chapter 8. 7 Because Duke John II (­­829–​­836) and especially his father, Duke Agnellus (­­810–​ ­827), and his brother, Duke Justinian (­­827–​­829), had good relationships with the Byzantines, the use of this terminology could also constitute evidence in favor of the fact that the Translatio Marci was composed not longer after the transfer of Saint Mark’s relics to Venice in 827/­828. 8 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 41, 43, 44. 9 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 73, 75. 10 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 77. 11 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 23: ‘­Fertur namque quod per triduum illum vinctum custodirent, et quamquam ipse imperatorem se fore omnino denegaret, tamen Greci, ingenio peritissimi, nescio quibus inditiis, eum agnoscere potuerunt.’ (­It is said that they kept him in chains for three days and, although he denied being the emperor, the Greeks, who were very i­ ntelligent – ​­I do not know what clues they used to recognize ­h im – ​­were nevertheless able to identify him). The part about the ‘­Greeks’ is a revised version of Berto, The Political and Social Vocabulary, p­p. ­239–​­40. 12 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 27: ‘­foedus quod Veneticorum populos olym cum Italico rege habebat, illo tempore, Pipino agente rege, disruptum est et hisdem rex ingentem exercitum Longobardorum ad Veneticorum provinciam capiendam promovit.’ (­Meanwhile the treaty which the people of the Venetians once had with the Italian king was broken because of King Pippin, who had a large army of Lombards move forward in order to seize the province of the Venetians.) 13 Berto, Christians and Muslims in Early Medieval Italy, p­p. ­12–​­17. 14 Translatio Marci Evangelistae Venetias, chapter 1: ‘­fi liis Ismahel, qui alio nomine Saraceni vocantur’. 15 For the way the other early medieval Italian authors defined the Muslims, see Berto, Christians and Muslims in Early Medieval Italy, p­p. ­16–​­17. 16 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 51, III, 6, 15, IV, 22, 66. 17 Translatio Marci Evangelistae Venetias, chapters 1, 1­ 1–​­13; John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 66. 18 Many Venetians probably knew this. This is suggested by the fact that, when Duke Peter IV Candiano (­­959–​­976) forbade the sale of weapons and timber to the Muslims, he emphasized that these actions were a sin and called ‘­pagans’ the Saracens. Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia anteriori al Mille, ed. R. Cessi, 2 vols. (­Padua, 1­ 942–​­1943), II, number 49, p­p. ­87–​­88. For a comparison with other early medieval Italian texts, see ­Chapter 1 of this book and Berto, Christians and Muslims in Early Medieval Italy, chapter 2. 19 According to the author, the Venetian Duke Justinian (­827/­­828–​­829) issued that prohibition obeying the orders of the Byzantine emperor. Translatio Marci Evangelistae Venetias, chapter 8. 20 Translatio Marci Evangelistae Venetias, chapter 1.

The Venetians and the ‘other’ in the early Middle Ages  103 21 22 23 24

Translatio Marci Evangelistae Venetias, chapter 9. Translatio Marci Evangelistae Venetias, chapter 10. Translatio Marci Evangelistae Venetias, chapters 1, ­11–​­13. Translatio Marci Evangelistae Venetias, chapters 9 (‘­ regulus’), 12 (‘­ paganus regulus’). 25 Translatio Marci Evangelistae Venetias, chapter 10. 26 Translatio Marci Evangelistae Venetias, chapter 11. 27 Translatio Marci Evangelistae Venetias, chapter 12. 28 Translatio Marci Evangelistae Venetias, chapters 1­ 3–​­14: ‘­Venetici… tulerunt corpus et submittentes in sportam operuerunt illud ex foliis olerum, videlicet cauli et ceterarum, ac desuper carnes porcinas imposuerunt. Cumque ad navim pergentes incederent, accedebant Saraceni quos obviabant ut cernerent quod portabant. Sed cum viderent carnem porcinam, quam ipsi abominantur, clamabant dicentes: ‘­Canzir, Canzir!’, id est ‘­Porcus, porcus!’, et exspuentes elongabantur.’ 29 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 12: ‘­Circa hec tempora Sarraceni advenientes, Gradensem urbem capere conati sunt. Sed civibus fortiter decertantibus, Sarracenorum impietas non prevaluit.’ (­A round these times, the Saracens arrived and attempted to capture the city of Grado. However, the impiety of the Saracens did not prevail because the citizens of Grado fought fiercely.) The chronicler utilized the same word when he narrated that Emperor Louis II had conquered the Muslim emirate of Bari in 871. ‘­Reddita est illis impietas quam cristianis civibus olim intulerat (­the impiety, which they had previously brought onto the Christian citizens, was given back to them.)’ John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 6. 30 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 67: ‘­nequissimam gentem’. 31 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 66, 67: ‘­domnus dux quomodo urbem a paganorum severitate tueri quivisset pertractare cepit… Tercię noctis in silentio paganorum aufugit exercitus… eos liberavit ab inimicorum persecutione’. 32 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 67. ‘­qui finitimarum loca crudeli iure mancipando possidebant (­who had invaded the surrounding places and cruelly subjugated them)’. 33 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 22, 23: ‘­ Sarracenorum formidolosam gentem  … tetra cohors  … paganorum moltitudo  … barbarorum acies’. The Muslims are defined as barbarians also in the document with which Duke Peter IV Candiano (­­959–​­976) forbade the sale of weapons and timber to the Saracens. Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia anteriori al Mille, II, number 49, p­p. ­87–​­88. 34 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 1: ‘­Et quoniam omnino patrios fines dolebant a barbaris possidere, maxima inter utrasque partes iurgia versabatur ita ut inter se vicissim molestias et depopulationes conferre decertarent’. 35 The Lombards are also portrayed as ‘­infanda gens (­nefarious people)’, but in this case the chronicler mentioned a speech of the ­late-­​­­sixth-​­century Patriarch Helyas, which was probably copied ­word-­​­­for-​­word. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, I, 11. 36 For example, see John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 27, IV, 55, 64. 37 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 27. 38 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 31, 39. 39 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 37: ‘­Interea Ungrorum pagana et crudelissima gens Italiam veniens’. 40 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 37: ‘­Fuit namque hec persecucio in Italia et Venetia anno uno’. 41 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 67. 42 The ­n inth-​­century chronicler Erchempert only used this word for the attacks of Charlemagne’s son, Pippin, against Benevento and of the Bishop of Naples,

104  The Venetians and the ‘other’ in the early Middle Ages Athanasius II against the Capuans. Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapters 6 and 71. 43 In general on the Narentans and their relations with the Venetians, see J. Hoffmann, ‘­Venedig und die Narentaner’, Studi Veneziani, 11 (­1969), p­p. ­3 –​­41, and Berto, The Political and Social Vocabulary, p­p. ­227–​­28. 44 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 40. 45 In some passages, after using these labels, the author only called them Slavs. Berto, The Political and Social Vocabulary, p­p. ­227–​­28. 46 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 51 (­p erhaps these Slavs were Narentans), III, 2, 7, 14, 16, 21. 47 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 40: ‘­Qui dum Chroatorum fines rediens transire vellet, a Michahele Sclavorum duce fraude deceptus (­Going back, he wanted to pass through the territories of the Croats. He was captured, by deceit, by the Duke of the Slavs, Michael)’. 48 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 31, 40, 45, 49; Berto, The Political and Social Vocabulary, ­p. 229. 49 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 40. 50 In 925, Tomislav assumed the title king of the Croats which Pope John X recognized, while in 986 the Byzantine Emperor Basil II sent the royal insignia to Držislav. F. Dvornik, The Slavs: Their Early History and Civilization (­Boston, 1956), ­p. 135. The part about the Croats is a revised version of Berto, The Political and Social Vocabulary, ­p. 229. 51 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II. 49. 52 R. Cessi, ‘­Venezia e i Croati’, in Italia e Croazia (­Rome, 1942), ­p. 322. 53 La cronaca veneziana di Giovanni Diacono, in Cronache veneziane antichissime, ed. G. Monticolo, Fonti per la storia d’Italia, 9 (­Rome, 1890), p ­ . 113, note 6; Constantinus Porphirogenitus, De administrando imperio, eds. G. Moravcsik – ​­J. H. Jenkins (­Washington, DC, 1967), p­p. ­144–​­45. 54 Documenta historiae Croaticae periodum antiquum illustrantia, ed. F. Racki, Monumenta spectantia Historiam Slavorum meridionalium, 7 (­ Zagreb, 1877),­ p. 200. 55 Documenta historiae Croaticae periodum antiquum illustrantia, ­p. 111. ­Jean-​­Marie Martin has noted their presence in a donation made by a man from Split to the Benedictine monastery of S. Maria di Tremiti. However, unaware of Monticolo’s hypothesis, the French scholar maintains that Mariani was the way in which the inhabitants of a single island where identified. J.-​­M. Martin, La Pouille du VIe au XIIe siècle (­Rome, 1993), ­p. 505. The part about the ‘­Mariani’ is a revised version of Berto, The Political and Social Vocabulary, ­p. 228. 56 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV. 48: ‘­Deinde vastum velificando aequor Absarensem ad urbem delati sunt; ubi non modo cives, verum omnes de finitimis tam Romanorum quam Sclavorum castellis convenientes, tanti ospitis adventum se praevenisse gaudebant’. 57 As one can see, this passage does not indicate that there was a ‘­g reat compenetration of populations called Romani and Sclavi along the Dalmatian coast’ as Francesco Borri maintains. Misreading the comment I have made in my book on John the Deacon’s vocabulary about the Venetian author’s use of ‘­Romani’ (­T he Political and Social Vocabulary, p ­ .  226), this scholar has also mistakenly stated that I believe that the utilization of that term was a literary device of the chronicler and not ‘­the description of a possible contemporary reality’. Borri, ‘­Gli Istriani e i loro parenti’, ­p. 13. Borri’s hypothesis that the ‘­Romani’ were the elites of Dalmatia is not based on any evidence. 58 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 14: ‘­Tunc Sclavorum pessime gentes et Dalmacianorum Ystriensem provinciam depredare ceperunt’. 59 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 16: ‘­Domogoi Sclavorum pessimo duce’.

The Venetians and the ‘other’ in the early Middle Ages  105 60 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 40: ‘­Qui dum Chroatorum fines rediens transire vellet, a Michahele Sclavorum duce fraude deceptus (­He was captured, by deceit, by the Duke of the Slavs, Michael)’. Since the Venetians did not have a colonial empire either in Croatia or Dalmatia and paid tributes to the Croats before the rule of Peter II Orseolo, I believe that considering John the Deacon’s descriptions of the Slavs as ‘­a Venetian colonial discourse of domination over ‘­fi lthy barbarians’’ as Danjiel Džino argues, is misleading and anachronistic. Moreover, the Venetian chronicler never defined the Slavs as ‘­fi lthy barbarians’. Džino, Becoming Slav, ­p. 195. 61 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 7: ‘­predones Sclavi’ (­Slavic marauders). Unlike for the Muslims, John the Deacon never utilized the word ‘­moltitudo (­multitude)’ for the Slavs. This detail indicates that the Venetian paid attention to what he wrote, and did not use the stereotype that the enemy is always a ‘­multitude’. 62 With regard to this event, it is worth noting that Peter II Orseolo did not hesitate to utilize the same methods as his adversaries. John the Deacon, in fact, narrated that the duke had captured forty Narentans, who were returning from Apulia, where they had gone to trade. Peter II Orseolo then sought to strike the mercantile activities of his enemies and used the prisoners as a means of imposing his conditions to his adversaries. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 49, 52. 63 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 53: ‘­Ladestine insulae habitatores agredi conatus est; a quorum rabiae Venetici illa per navigantes loca propriis facultatibus privati, nudi sepissime evaserunt’. 64 The chronicler used the term ‘­rabies’ only on one other occasion, i.e. when he explained that at the end of the sixth century, the patriarch of Aquileia had left Aquileia, because he feared the ‘­rabies Langobardorum’. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, I, 4: ‘­Aquilegensi quoque civitati eiusque populis beatus Paulus patriarcha preerat, qui Langobardorum rabiem metuens, ex Aquilegia ad Gradus insulam confugit (­The blessed Patriarch Paul presided over the city of Aquileia and its people. Fearing the fury of the Lombards, he fled from Aquileia to the island of Grado.)’ This episode is nevertheless insignificant, since it was probably taken from the Translatio Sancti Marci (­for the relationship between the Istoria Veneticorum and the Translatio Sancti Marci, see p­p. ­13–​­15 of the introduction to the edition of the work by John the Deacon). Something similar is also reported in the Historia Langobardorum of Paul the Deacon, who however wrote ‘­Langobardorum barbariem’. Paul the Deacon, Historia Langobardorum, eds. L. Bethmann and G. Waitz, in MGH, Scriptores rerum Italicarum, II, 10. 65 In reality, the Narentans practiced both piracy and trade, as shown in the example already cited in which Peter II Orseolo ordered to capture the Narentans, who were returning from Apulia, where they had gone for trade. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 49. 66 It is also worth remembering that John the Deacon specified that, when the Slavic Duke Michael had captured the son of the Venetian duke, he had deprived him of all his goods. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 40. John the Deacon’s use of the term ‘­p ertinatia’ only for the inhabitants of Lagosta/­Lastovo is another indication of the bad opinion the Venetian author had of them. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 54. 67 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 31: ‘­dux a Croatorum Sclavorum oppressione suos potenter liberavit’. 68 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 40: ‘­Circa haec namque tempora Croatorum iudex propter interdictum sibi censum a duce in Veneticos lesionis molestiam exercere conatus est. Unde domnus dux sex naves praeparatas illuc mittens, quibus Badovarius, cognomento Bragadinus, prefuit. Qui unam

106  The Venetians and the ‘other’ in the early Middle Ages illorum civitatem, quae Issa nominabatur, conprehendens utriusque sexus captivos ad Veneciam deportavit. Et ex hoc maioris odii cumulum inter Veneticos et Sclavos pululavit.’ 69 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 45: ‘­ eos a Scavorum severitate liberaret’. 70 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 55: ‘­ad debellandam Sclavorum duriciam’. John the Deacon used this expression to explain to Emperor Otto III the motive for Peter II Orseolo’s expedition in Dalmatia. 71 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 40: ‘­l icet minime perdurasset’. 72 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 46. 73 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 36, 44. 74 Liudprand of Cremona utilized the term ‘­Teutonici’ along with ‘­Franci’ to distinguish them from the western Franks. Gandino, Il vocabolario politico e sociale, p­p. ­258–​­59. It is believed that ‘­Teutonici’ was a more elegant and learned version of ‘­Teutisci’, a term that is instead found in Italian archival documents prior to the period in which John the Deacon lived. A. Castagnetti, ‘­Teutisci’ nella ‘­L angobardia’ carolingia (­Verona, 1995), p­p. ­102–​­03. 75 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 26: ‘­Imperator autem in tanta severitate et duricia ad Veneticorum districtionem perseverabat, quo nec precibus nec quibuslibet muneribus eum placare valerent’. The word ‘­severitas’ is also utilized to indicate the behavior of the bishop of Belluno, who did not want to return a territory that belonged to the Venetians, and the deeds of the Muslims who besieged Bari in 1002. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 37 and 66. 76 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 24. 77 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 51: ‘­ad Absarensem civitatem usque pertingere non dubitaverunt et in feria secunda Pasce incendio eam devastantes, ad Anconam civitatem transierunt, quam similiter igne concremantes, multos captivos exinde secum detulerunt’. 78 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 51: ‘­predicti Sarraceni etiam Romam ausi sunt adire ecclesiamque sancti Petri depredare’. 79 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 7: ‘­quasdam Dalmaciarum urbes depopulati sunt pariterque etiam Braciensem eiusdem provincie urbem invaserunt … urbibus quas diximus devastatis, cum inestimabili preda ad propriam sunt reverse’. 80 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 12: ‘­Cumaclensem villam depopulati sunt’. 81 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 67: ‘­fi nitimarum loca crudeli iure mancipando possidebant’. 82 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, II, 51: ‘­ Caprulensem  … castrum depredaverunt’. 83 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 14: ‘­Sclavorum pessime gentes et Dalmacianorum Ystriensem provinciam depredare ceperunt. Quattuor videlicet urbes ibidem devastaverunt’. 84 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, IV, 45: ‘­ quos Croatorum ac Narentanorum principes crebro affligere solebant in tantum ut Narrentani horum quadraginta compraehendentes, secum vinctos deportaverunt’. 85 John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, III, 37: ‘­Interea Ungrorum pagana et crudelissima gens Italiam veniens, incendiis et rapinis cuncta devastans maximamque multitudinem hominum interficiens, nonnullos etiam captivos reservavit  … et usque ad montem Iob, depopulantes cuncta. Sed ad Venecias introgressi cum aequis adque pelliciis navibus, primo Civitatem novam fugiente populo igne concremaverunt, deinde Equilum, Finem, Cloiam, Caputargelem incenderunt litoraque maris depopulaverunt.’

6 History and ethnic pride in southern Italy at the end of the ninth century

I will recount not their (­the Lombards of Benevento) rule, but their end, not their happiness, but their misery, not their triumph, but their ruin, not how they advanced but how they declined, not how they conquered others but how they were conquered by others. Drawing forth great sighs from the depth of my heart, I will pursue this subject so that this might be an example to posterity.1

With this clear statement of purpose, which is without parallel in the works of the other early medieval Italian chroniclers,2 the Montecassino’s monk Erchempert began the Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium (­The Little History of Benevento’s Lombards) (­c. ­774–​­889), likely composed in the late ninth century, when the Cassinese community was forced to move to Capua3 upon the destruction of its monastery by the Muslims in 883. The author therefore wished to communicate his intense unease with the desperate situation his homeland was facing at that time. Yet, the hope, he placed in the lesson future generations could draw from this crisis, shows that his pessimism was not absolute and that, following the dictum historia magistra vitae, he believed that even a history characterized by death and violence could prove instructive. The objective of this chapter is to analyze how Erchempert tried to achieve his goal and to offer an explanation on why he did not express a generalized criticism toward all the southern Lombard elites. Moreover, it will prove that Erchempert’s attachment to his people and his pride of being Lombard sometimes led him to stray from his intended narrative of failures and catastrophes. In this way, I hope to shed some light on a ­little-​­known author whose work has been mainly used for the information it contains and more in general to provide a contribution to the different ways history was written and the past was employed in the early Middle Ages. For the sake of clarity, before examining Erchempert’s chronicle, I shall provide an overview of southern Lombards’ history from 774 to the end of the ninth century and some information about the author and his work.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003109617-6

108  History and ethnic pride in southern Italy

Southern Lombard Italy (­c. ­774–​­900) With the conquest of Pavia in 774, the King of the Franks, Charlemagne, put an end to Lombard domination in Italy. However, the Frankish ruler was unable to seize the southern part of the Lombard Kingdom, known as the Duchy of Benevento whose territory extended over the greater part of the South of Italy. Owing to armed resistance, and then a treaty, which, in theory, recognized the dependence of the Beneventan Lombards from Charlemagne, the Duke of Benevento, Arechis II, was able to prevent the expansion of the Franks into southern Italy. Moreover, Arechis II, underscoring his autonomy, assumed the title of prince and began to act as an independent ruler.4 Upon Arechis II’s death, his son, Grimoald III (­­787–​­806), initially followed his father’s policy, but later openly rebelled against the Franks, leading to a frontier war, which concluded with the maintenance of the ‘­status quo’. Clashes continued under his successor, Grimoald IV (­­806–​ 8­ 17), until about 812 when the spheres of influence of the Byzantines and the Franks were definitively settled.5 Having passed the danger of subjugation, the Beneventans were forced to confront a problem that would prove to be much more serious for the internal stability of the Principality, namely, the struggles among various factions that seemed to have been suspended during the course of the clashes with the Franks. In 817, Prince Grimoald IV, after escaping a conspiracy that the Beneventan noble, Dauferius, had organized with the probable support of the Neapolitans,6 was murdered.7 The new ruler of Benevento, Sico (­­817–​­832), was not a native of that area and probably relied upon one of the Beneventan aristocratic factions to strengthen his position; his allies profited from the situation by attempting to eliminate their adversaries. This fostered strong internal tensions and continual clashes, which became bitterer during the rule of Sico’s son, Sicard (­­832–​­839), who, perhaps in order to obtain the abbey of Montecassino’s estates in usufruct, imprisoned Abbot Deusdedit. The conflict was so extreme that even Sicard’s murder could not bring peace. On the contrary, the situation worsened, reaching a point of outright civil war. Upon Sicard’s death, Radelchis became prince of Benevento, but a number of Lombards, who were in disagreement with the new ruler, took refuge at Salerno. The dissidents liberated Siconolf, who had been imprisoned by his brother Sicard and kept in captivity by Radelchis, and then proclaimed him prince.8 With the support of all those who wanted to make themselves independent from the prince of Benevento9 Siconolf waged a war on Radelchis that lasted until 849.10 The use of Muslim mercenaries by both parties aggravated the struggle. On various occasions, the Saracens profited from the Lombards’ weakness by establishing their own domination. For example, Massar, who was likely the commander of Prince Radelchis’s Muslim troops, even took possession of Benevento and began pillaging the surrounding territories. Several Saracens, responsible for the defense of Bari, seized the city and founded an Emirate there.11

History and ethnic pride in southern Italy  109 In the meantime, the Muslim raids became ever more audacious and dangerous, and, in 846, the basilica of St. Peter in Rome, which was then situated outside the city walls, was sacked. The powerful impression this event created resonated throughout Europe, and the Franks and the subjects of the Italian Kingdom, led by their King, Louis II, decided to intervene in southern Italy. The sovereign managed to eliminate Massar and restore Benevento to Radelchis.12 Louis II realized the tragic consequences that the civil war was entailing. In 849, therefore, he exerted considerable influence in order to ensure that the Principality was split into two parts: the Principality of Benevento and the Principality of Salerno.13 The partition of the Principality brought an end to the conflicts between Benevento and Salerno, but it did not represent the return of peace to southern Italy. The long war had, in fact, greatly weakened the two adversaries, and various local lords, who often only controlled a fortification or a town and its surrounding area, exploited this weakness in order to become independent. The most powerful territory was the County of Capua. After some internal struggles, the Bishop of Capua, Landolf, assumed its control in c. 863.14 The Muslims obviously took advantage of this situation, effecting ever more appalling raids. Eventually, the Prince of Benevento, Adelchis, was obliged to draw up a peace treaty with the emir of Bari, paying him tribute and consigning him several hostages.15 The monasteries of Montecassino and St. Vincent at Volturno were also forced to pay heavy tributes in order to avoid being sacked.16 Louis II’s interventions were unsuccessful because he never managed to obtain the support of all the Lombards of southern Italy. Difficulties in forming a common front were further fuelled by suspicions regarding the Frankish sovereign who was believed to harbor hegemonic aims over southern Italy.17 In 866, Louis II organized a large expedition against the Saracens and in 871 succeeded in conquering the Emirate of Bari with the assistance of a Byzantine fleet.18 This victory was extremely significant, as much from a strategic point of view as from a psychological one, and it seemed that the emperor had paved the way for the Muslims to be completely expelled from southern Italy. The sovereign had not, however, considered the political situation of the area nor the Lombards’ overwhelming desire for independence. With the disappearance of the Emirate of Bari, the greatest enemy of the Lombards was, in fact, Louis II himself. The Prince of Benevento, Adelchis, therefore decided to imprison the Frankish sovereign, releasing him after having extracted the promise that he would no longer go to southern Italy on his own initiative. This episode represented a harsh blow to the prestige of the emperor, who, with the exception of an expedition to aid Salerno, when the city was besieged by the Saracens, was never able to interfere in the South again.19 The death of Louis II in 875 opened up a grave crisis in the Italian Kingdom, after which no other sovereign had the necessary force at his disposal to continue Louis II’s policy regarding southern Italy.

110  History and ethnic pride in southern Italy In the last two decades of the ninth century, a new positive trend within the Byzantine Empire led to the reconquest of Apulia and part of Calabria, preventing the r­ e-​­establishment of strong Saracen bases in the lower Adriatic.20 Nevertheless, the weakness of the Lombards and of the small Duchies along the Campanian coast facilitated the continuation of Muslim incursions along the Tyrrhenian shore and the interior until the beginning of the tenth century. It is not a coincidence that during this period both St. Vincent at Volturno (­881) and Montecassino (­883) were destroyed.21 Given that Erchempert above all narrated events about Benevento and Capua, I believe that it is appropriate to conclude this brief overview, by describing some key events concerning this area in the last twenty years of the ninth century. In 879, the death of the ­Bishop-​­Count of Capua, Landolf, provoked a new series of struggles among his heirs, which were made harsher and more complicated by the expansionistic policy of the ­Bishop-​­Duke of Naples, Athanasius II, and the intervention in southern Italy of Pope John VIII. After the ephemeral rules of Pandonolf (­­879–​­882) and Lando III (­­882–​­885), Atenolf took control of the power in Capua and, thanks to his skills and shrewdness, managed to consolidate his position to the point that in 900 he was able to take possession of Benevento.22 This was made possible by the further crisis of the Beneventans, who, after the failed attempts of their Prince Aio (­­885–​­891) to challenge the Byzantines in Apulia, had been ruled by lords who had been either too weak or had other priorities for preserving their control of the Principality of Benevento: Aio’s son, Ursus (­­891–​­892), the Byzantines (­­892–​­895), and the lords of Spoleto (­­895–​­900).23

Erchempert and his chronicle The only certain biographical information about Erchempert is present in his chronicle where he mentioned himself in some events taking place in the 880s and indicating that he was personally in contact with the violence characterizing that period. Erchempert did not always spend his life in a monastery, but rather he acted as a representative of Montecassino in Naples and Rome.24 He cannot therefore be considered as a marginal and isolated author. The Little History of Benevento’s Lombards, which is unfinished, has no dedication, is not based on any written source known to us and survives in a ­late-­​­­thirteenth-​­c entury/­early ­fourteenth-​­c entury manuscript and in some early modern copies of this codex, is the main narrative source for the history of the southern Lombards between 774 and 88925 and focuses mainly on the Principality of Benevento and the County of Capua; references to the Principality of S ­ alerno—​­created after the division of the Principality of Benevento into two parts in ­849—​­are rare.

The ‘­bad’ Lombard rulers Although the Ystoriola opens with the conquest of the Lombard Kingdom by Charlemagne, Erchempert’s depiction of his people’s decline and his

History and ethnic pride in southern Italy  111 criticism of the Lombard elites began with the Prince of Benevento, Sico (­­817–​­832). According to the chronicler, Sico took power after killing the previous ruler, Grimoald IV (­­806–​­817).26 Erchempert’s critical approach continued with Sico’s son, Prince Sicard (­­832–​­839), and most of the Capuan dynasty’s members, who, following the division of the Principality of Benevento into two parts in 849, had acted as independent rulers, causing a series of conflicts that further weakened the southern Lombards. I will return to the period prior to Sico’s rule later, but presently attention must be given to Erchempert’s stigmatization of these characters. This theme constitutes the core focus of what the chronicler anticipated in the introduction of his work. Erchempert portrayed these rulers in such a way as to make clear that many of them had broken all the rules necessary for peaceful coexistence. In the first place, some of the rulers are mentioned only for having oppressed their subjects. For example, Erchempert highlighted that Sico had ‘­p ersecuted’ the Beneventans ‘­bestiali efferitate (­w ith bestial ferocity)’,27 while Sicard had been a false, turbulent, petulant, and arrogant man28 who had treated the Lombards as cruelly as his father had had before him.29 Moreover, Sicard ordered the seizure of a great quantity of properties belonging to churches and monasteries as well as the deposition and arrest of the abbot of Montecassino.30 Those who did not enjoy the protection of the nobles were easily murdered.31 The same behavior characterized the sons of the Gastald/­Count of Capua, Landolf the Elder.32 In these criticisms, Erchempert employed terminology with extreme care. Violent behavior such as that just described was particularly reprehensible precisely because it was performed by Lombard rulers. This is evidenced by the fact that, although the terms ‘­efferitas’ and ‘­laniare’ were used to describe the Muslims as well,33 the noun ‘­ingluvies’, the adjectives ‘­bestialis’, ‘­ferina’, and ‘­beluina’ (­all meaning bestial), and the verb ‘­p ersequi’ (­to persecute) were employed exclusively to describe the actions of the Lombard rulers mentioned above.34 The Lombards were victims of not only their rulers’ tyranny but also of their shortsightedness. For instance, the chronicler pointed out that the inhabitants of Bari had been the ones who paid the greatest price for the decision of the Prince of Benevento, Radelchis, to hire Muslim mercenaries. These Saracens are reported to have seized the very city they were hired to protect, committing many atrocities in the process. Erchempert called the citizens of Bari ‘­populus insons (­innocent people)’, pointing out that those who had done no wrong were the ones who suffered from the Lombards’ alliance with the Muslims, a population that, in Erchempert’s view, was always prone to evil.35 The theme of the Lombard rulers’ poor judgment recurs several times in his work. Another notable example is the chronicler’s statement that a great number of men died because the Bishop of Capua, Landolf, never recognized the authority of Guaifer as prince of Salerno (­­861–​­880).36 This state of perpetual conflict among the Lombard rulers led, not only to the lack of effective leadership, but also to debilitating divisions among

112  History and ethnic pride in southern Italy the Lombard people. In Erchempert’s view, this situation led to a disregard for any type of rule, ultimately resulting in the dissolution of society. As an example of this political fragmentation, he described the war between the Prince of Benevento, Radelchis, and the Prince of Salerno, Siconolf. During the daily clashes between the two rulers, emphasized the chronicler, there had been such chaos that anyone who had been unsatisfied with his own lord’s application of justice simply traveled to the opposing side. In fact, so many robberies and ‘­incestuous fornications’ occurred that everyone seemed predisposed to evil and came to resemble sheep without a shepherd.37 Those who profited most from the prolonged hostilities between Radelchis and Siconolf were the Muslim troops, employed by both sides. According to Erchempert, they wrought destruction across the territory of Benevento and had no regard for the Lombard nobles, going as far as to whip them like ‘­inepti servuli (­incompetent little servants)’.38 This was an extremely offensive comparison and clearly illustrates the poor opinion that Erchempert held of the elites of his homeland. In this way, he equated those who occupied the highest ranks of the social ladder not only with the servants who were at the bottom of it, but even with incompetent servants, i.e. the worst of the ‘­last’.39 The members of the ruling family of Capua excelled in promoting civil discord. Although Erchempert did not say that they had been responsible for the civil war between Radelchis and Siconolf, he nevertheless expressed his strong disapproval of them. He pointed out that, before dying, Landolf the Elder, the founder of the Capuan dynasty, had told his sons to act in such a way that there would never be peace between Benevento and Salerno. Landolf’s point was that the Capuans would be able to take great advantage of this discord. Landolf’s sons obeyed their father and his instruction became the perennial duty of their heirs. Erchempert ended his condemnation of the Capuans’ behavior by noting that they had gone against the teachings of Jesus, who had left his disciples a message of peace: ‘­I give you my peace, I leave you my peace’.40 Another element in the disruption of southern Italy was the frequency with which oaths and agreements were broken. They were broken so frequently that the author described it as a characteristic trait of numerous Lombard rulers and aristocrats. Erchempert’s belief in the destructive nature of such treacheries is evident in his description of a betrayal that took place on occasion of the division of the Principality of Benevento, an event which resulted in the collapse of southern Lombard political unity. Prince Radelchis sent Ademarius to Salerno to convince the Beneventans, who had occupied Salerno in support of Siconolf, to swear fidelity to him. Instead, Ademarius abandoned his lord, allied with his adversaries, and urged them to continue their revolt against Radelchis. Ademarius even set an ambush for Radelchis, who barely escaped with his life, losing a great number of men and much property in the process. Not long afterward, Siconolf became the first Prince of Salerno, and Erchempert pointed out that Ademarius’s

History and ethnic pride in southern Italy  113 treachery had thus helped to bring about the greatest division in Benevento since the arrival of the Lombards.41 Another example of the Lombard rulers’ disregard for agreements and oaths occurred about twenty years later, when the Bishop of Capua, Landolf, and his brother Pando captured the Prince of Salerno, Ademarius. After imprisoning Ademarius, Landolf and Pando put Guaifer in power, and they swore a solemn oath to him. But, not much later, outlined the chronicler, Landolf and Pando, sliding back to their ‘­usual vices’, had betrayed Guaifer as well.42 The citizens of Capua also broke their oaths to Louis II and suffered negative consequences. The Capuans urged Louis II to come to southern Italy to fight the Muslims and they promised to come out in force to help him. But when he arrived, the Capuans shut themselves in their city and refused to give Louis II any assistance. This action led to the failure of the campaign against the Saracens.43 The Count of Capua, Atenolf, is also singled out for his many disingenuous oaths. Atenolf declared himself ready to serve the pope, promising to return some citizens of Gaeta that he had imprisoned and to help in the conflict against the Muslims of ­Garigliano—​­a task, Erchempert pointed out, that Atenolf had never carried out.44 Furthermore, Atenolf seized all the possessions of Montecassino at C ­ apua—​­including Erchempert’s own cella.45 This information shows how the author participated directly in the events he recounted and even suggests what may have led him to report unflattering details about Atenolf. Disregard for oaths also occurred among relatives. For example, Landolf and Pando failed to remain faithful to the oath they had made to their brother, the Count of Capua, Lando, just before he died. They pledged to take care of Lando’s son, but, instead, they greedily robbed him of his inheritance and expelled him from Capua.46 The chronicler presented the Bishop of Capua, Landolf, as a true master in treacherous activities. Indeed, the Capuan prelate broke promises he had made to the Prince of Salerno, Guaifer, three times; Erchempert remarked that Landolf’s betrayal was difficult to believe.47 Betrayals did not however characterize only the Capuans. For example, an expedition of Prince Aio against the Byzantines and the Neapolitans, who were besieging Capua, was nullified because the Beneventan Dauferius had warned them of the Beneventan ruler’s arrival.48 On the subject of peace agreements, the chronicler even seemed sarcastic; when describing a recent event, he noted that a very solid agreement between Atenolf and the Bishop of Naples, Athanasius II, had been reached and that it had not even lasted for twelve days.49 According to Erchempert, not only ordinary citizens, but even the members of the ruling families themselves were victims of this treachery and violence, a clear sign of the decay and disorder of society in this period. For instance, the evil Sicard exiled his brother;50 the sons of Landolf the Elder,

114  History and ethnic pride in southern Italy the Gastald/­Count of Capua, seized a town from one of their relatives, whom they exiled along with two of his sons, killing two others;51 Dauferius took part in the assassination of his f­ ather-­​­­in-​­law, the Prince of Benevento, Adelchis, since Dauferius was greedy and wished to replace him.52 Because these aristocrats held such great power, their disputes frequently turned into clashes that harmed their subjects. For example, the conflict between the sons of Landolf and the sons of Lando involved the entire population of Capua, a part of which sided with the former, while the other part with the latter; a violent clash followed, with grave consequences.53 Pandonolf, having divided the Capuan territory with his many cousins, later led a bitter fight against them. Erchempert called it an ‘­insane civil war among brothers’,54 remarking that Pandonolf had pursued his adversaries ‘­bestiale efferitate (­w ith bestial ferocity)’.55 Erchempert’s harsh judgment of Pandonolf may have been influenced by the fact that this Capuan ruler had seized the chronicler’s possessions and had forced him to travel to Capua on foot.56 I would argue, however, that personal grievances were not his only motives. Erchempert’s harsh vocabulary was probably also due to the fact that Pandonolf had attacked an ecclesiastic (­he had expelled the bishop of Capua, who was one of his cousins),57 and he was the only Capuan not to submit to the Prince of Salerno, Guaifer.58 He therefore represented a strongly disruptive element in the attempt to recreate Lombard unity in southern Italy. Pandonolf also allied with the Bishop of Naples, Athanasius ­II—​­one of the Lombards’ worst ­enemies—​­59 thus extending the size of the conflict.60 In this context, it is not surprising to discover that numerous Lombard rulers were portrayed as l­ess-­​­­than-​­brilliant military leaders. For example, Erchempert explained that Sico had clashed with the Neapolitans on various occasions but with results completely different from those of his brave predecessor Grimoald IV. During a Lombard siege of Naples, the Beneventan troops succeeded in creating a breach in the city walls and were about to enter, but the duke of Naples convinced the Lombard prince to postpone his entrance into the city until the following day. During the night, the Neapolitans repaired the wall and thereby nullified the initial success of the Lombards.61 Sico, therefore, proved to be of little intelligence. Because Erchempert considered him as one of the worst princes Benevento had ever had, whose rule had represented the beginning of a dark period of Beneventan history, the author did not miss the opportunity to point out his lack of martial skills. The fact that Erchempert displayed Sico’s ineptitude against the N ­ eapolitans—​­the traditional enemies of the Beneventan ­Lombards—​­undoubtedly constituted an additional mark against him. The rulers’ responsibility for the disunity of the Lombards and the disastrous effects of the leaders’ continual divisions are such a constant feature of the Ystoriola that Erchempert highlighted this theme even when explaining that, after the death of Prince Radelchis, Adelchis, a very mild man, beloved by all, had taken his place, and that better times seemed to lie ahead.

History and ethnic pride in southern Italy  115 He made the point that, contrary to expectations, because factionalism had continued to characterize the land of the Lombards, Adelchis had been pushed more toward ruin than toward salvation.62 In this climate of disorder where no rule was respected, it was to be expected that ecclesiastics themselves would become involved in conflicts. Probably the fact that their duty consisted in counseling the laity and acting as an example of perfect behavior to their flock made it inevitable that one of them would be used by Erchempert as an example of the antihero par excellence. The man Erchempert chose to play this role was the prelate of Capua, Landolf. According to the chronicler, Landolf was ‘­monachorum quoque infestor et predator (­an attacker and plunderer of monks)’ who was accustomed to say: ‘­Quociens monachum visu cerno, semper mihi futura dies auspicia tristia subministrat (­W henever I see a monk, this always brings me gloomy omens in the days to come)’. As part of his litany of Landolf’s misdeeds, Erchempert claimed that Landolf ‘[monachos] velud nefandissimos hostes execrabat et persequebatur (­had hated and persecuted monks as most impious enemies)’.63 The use of the verb persequi in this passage placed the bishop’s misdeeds on the same level as those of Sico and Sicard, the wicked princes of Benevento, who had also harmed monks. The fact that Erchempert described the highest lay and ecclesiastical authorities as persecutors of monks (­as well as of their own subjects) was a clear sign that he was trying to portray the total decomposition of southern Lombard society. The chronicler’s disdain for Landolf was so great that he interrupted his narrative and dedicated an entire section to Landolf’s faults and the infamies he had committed. Erchempert did not utilize this narrative device for anyone else. In addition to describing the bishop of Capua as a violent, clever, rude, extremely ambitious, and exceptionally arrogant man,64 he highlighted that Landolf had always devoted himself to sowing the seeds of discord and to thwarting any type of agreement.65 Landolf always lied to the Prince of Salerno and refused to recognize him, not only as his lord, but even as his equal. Erchempert remarked that the bishop of Capua had thus acted contrary to the precepts of Holy Scriptures, which state that one must remain subject to the power of superiors since their authority comes from God; therefore, he who resists authority opposes God himself.66 In addition to resentment toward the bishop’s actions against his fellow brothers, the grounds for this accusation against L ­ andolf—​­the only time this sort of reproach is found in the c­ hronicle—​­show that the chronicler saw disobedience of authority as the main cause of the current state of anarchy, seen as the breakdown of the divine order. As bishop, Landolf should have been a leader and a role model for his flock in the correct application of the laws of God. For this reason, his behavior was doubly reproachable.67 Landolf’s destiny to destroy his people was foreseen even before his birth. While pregnant with Landolf, his mother dreamed of giving birth to a torch that destroyed all of Benevento. His father immediately interpreted the dream as a premonition of the disasters that the future bishop of Capua

116  History and ethnic pride in southern Italy would bring upon his fellow citizens.68 This episode is also relevant for the inversion it presents. In hagiography, the dream or vision of the pregnant mother serves the purpose of informing her that she carried in her womb a son who would become an extraordinary man.69 However, in the case of Landolf, who was the antithesis of a saint, the same means, i.e. the dream, served to communicate a message completely opposite to the usual one. With this episode, Erchempert may also have wished to imply that, since in his times the opposite of what should happen in a peaceful society took place, mothers too had premonitions opposite to the usual ones. In the same spirit, there is also an allusion to Landolf’s sexual transgressions with ‘­semiviri’ (­­half-​­men)—​­probably homosexuals or ­eunuchs—​­a vice much more serious and opposite to the ‘­normal’ one of having sexual relations with women. Erchempert noted the seriousness of such behavior by explaining that in this way Landolf had fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah, according to which effeminate men would rule.70 Not only was Landolf’s birth singled out as especially ominous, but his evil destiny in the afterlife was noted as well. The bishop of Capua is, in fact, the only character in the chronicle to be doomed to hell. Erchempert’s harsh judgment of Landolf was probably inspired by the fact that the bishop of ­Capua—​­though he was an ­ecclesiastic—​­had behaved like the worst secular lord, as well as by the way that Landolf had behaved toward the monks of Saint Benedict. Erchempert pointed out Landolf’s mistreatment of the monks by noting that on the day of Landolf’s death, the prelate had been waiting for horses from the priests of Montecassino so that he would not fall into the abyss without his steeds.71 The chronicler thus implied that what the bishop of Capua had taken from St. Benedict had become the instrument of his perdition, implicitly highlighting the intangibility of everything belonging to a sacred place like Montecassino. In this observation, he also made a further criticism of the bishop, since in the final moment of his life his ­horses—​­the possession of which was one of the most characteristic aspects of the medieval aristocracy,72 from which Landolf had taken all the worst ­characteristics—​­73 were presented as inseparable from him. The chronicler did not miss the opportunity to note that the effects of Landolf’s wickedness had lasted even after his death, making him a monumental force of evil. The day before his death, Landolf divided Capua among the sons of his three brothers in such a way that ‘­gladius rixae (­the sword of dissent)’ would never be absent among them.74 Considering Erchempert’s goal of recording the history of the Lombards of Benevento, his exclusion of the most disastrous event for the Cassinese community in that period, i.e., the destruction of Montecassino by the Muslims in 883, during which even the abbot was killed, is surprising.75 This episode could have provided the author with a further opportunity for stigmatizing the Lombard rulers, since it was their behavior that allowed the most important monastery of southern Italy, as well as the birthplace of Western monasticism, to be desecrated. At the beginning of the twelfth century, the

History and ethnic pride in southern Italy  117 Cassinese author Peter the Deacon wrote that ‘­Deacon Erchempert’ had composed a text about the destruction of Montecassino by the Muslims.76 Scholars doubt the existence of other historical works by Erchempert, yet, even if he had written such a text, the fact that this episode was omitted in the Ystoriola seems very strange.77 An analysis of the only medieval manuscript of Erchempert’s chronicle excludes the possibility that a part of it was lost. A possible explanation could be that the Cassinese community was so shocked by that terrible event that it preferred not to mention it,78 and it took more than two centuries ‘­to digest it’ and to acknowledge it.79

Not only criticisms Although Erchempert did not hide the Lombard rulers’ responsibility for what happened in southern Italy, it is necessary to point out that he did not express generalized criticisms of them. Indeed, he did not reproach the three princes who had governed Benevento after Sicard (­i.e. Radelchis, Radelgarius, and Adelchis) and very succinctly mentioned some generic positive characteristics about them.80 This may suggest that he believed that, even though they had been ‘­good men’, the power they had acquired had been so scanty that there had been no possibility of them doing anything meritorious.81 Yet Erchempert did not describe the subsequent rulers of Benevento, namely, Gaideris (­­878–​­881), Radelchis II (­­881–​­884), and Aio (­­884–​­891), in this way.82 The first two were dull figures who were in office for only a brief period. Aio, on the other hand, tried to renew the power of Benevento, fighting against the Byzantines in Apulia. His attempt failed because he lacked sufficient forces and because his allies did not come to his aid.83 For this reason, Erchempert remarked that Aio had been ‘­partim imbecillis, partim robereus (­partly weak, partly strong)’ both before and after he had become prince of Benevento.84 Erchempert was equally laconic about the rulers of Salerno. He did not direct any criticism at Ademarius, who had taken power in Salerno at the expense of the rightful claimant, Siconolf’s son. On the contrary, when reporting that Emperor Louis II had granted Ademarius the Principality of Salerno, he stated that Ademarius had been a ‘­very strong and illustrious man’.85 Erchempert did not, however, praise the strength and power of Guaifer (­­861–​­880), Ademarius’s successor. Erchempert referred to Guaifer as ‘­christus Domini (­the Lord’s anointed)’, explaining that this prince of Salerno had not acted energetically against the Capuan rebels86 because he had not wanted to shed Christian blood without due cause. The chronicler also added that the attack against Guaifer had been thwarted by the intervention of God.87 This particular justification for Guaifer’s inactivity, which gave the Capuans free rein, was probably due to the good relations existing between this prince of Salerno and Montecassino.88 Erchempert attributed positive qualities to a few members of the Capuan territory’s ruling family as well. Although their demands for autonomy

118  History and ethnic pride in southern Italy contributed to the political fragmentation of the Lombards in southern Italy, Erchempert did not express blanket condemnation of them. Indeed, in introducing Landolf the Elder, the chronicler wrote that he had been ‘­v ir quippe ad bella promtissimus debellator (­a bellicose man who was always ready for war)’,89 and that his sons had been ‘­v iros singularis prudentia virtutisque (­men provided with extraordinary prudence and great courage)’.90 They were therefore valiant men, but, as it has already been emphasized, this does not mean that they all possessed high moral qualities and cared about the ­well-​­being of the Lombards. In fact, only one of them, Lando, who succeeded his father as leader of Capua, is later mentioned in a positive light, probably because he had been a patron of Montecassino.91 The chronicler praised him in a brief comment.92 He also reported that Lando had wisely refused to follow the example of his brothers, who had left their fortified town, located on a hill. Lando’s brothers haughtily claimed that they were not goats and should go down to let everyone see that they were powerful and not weak. The count of Capua did not consent to leave because he considered it a folly to abandon their fortified center during such a turbulent period.93 Erchempert made no comment, but Lando’s prediction had proved to be correct. Since his brothers refused to submit to the Prince of Salerno, Guy of Spoleto, who was allied to the latter, attacked the new Capua and compelled the Capuans to recognize the authority of the Salernitan lord.94 Immediately after narrating that the Count of Capua, Atenolf, had forced the monks of Montecassino to take an oath signing over the properties he had confiscated from them, even though those properties had been granted by the Frankish sovereigns, the chronicler explained that Atenolf had thus shown himself to be wiser and more powerful than all his predecessors. This evaluation, probably expressed with a touch of irony, suggests that Erchempert may have feared retaliation and did not want to go too far regarding the Capuan ruler, who was at the height of his power when the chronicler composed his work. This is confirmed by the fact that Erchempert did not express any criticism of Atenolf when he recounted that the Capuan lord had seized all of Montecassino’s properties at Capua and Erchempert’s cella.95 As has been previously mentioned, in his prologue the author stated that he did not want to narrate the successes of the Lombards, but rather the manner in which they had been defeated.96 This fact might lead one to think that pessimism is omnipresent in the Ystoriola, that this work is characterized exclusively by the narration of the Lombards’ defeats, and that Erchempert neglected to mention any of their victories or the good qualities of their rulers in order to emphasize the terrible crisis of his homeland. When we look closely at the text, however, we see that the positive aspects of Lombard rule were not overlooked. In fact, Erchempert did not miss an opportunity to point out his compatriots’ rare successes. Above all, he indulged in a somewhat nostalgic remembrance of the early period (­­774–​­806),

History and ethnic pride in southern Italy  119 when the first princes of Benevento had succeeded in contending quite effectively with a powerful enemy such as the Franks,97 led by Charlemagne and his son Pippin.98 Erchempert described Arechis II, the founder of the Principality of Benevento (­­758–​­787), as a perfect ruler,99 who could be compared to the best Lombard kings and who had all the credentials for creating an independent Principality.100 In addition to presenting Arechis II as a ‘­v ir christianissimus et valde illustris (­most Christian and very illustrious man)’101 and reporting that he had ordered the construction of monasteries and churches,102 the chronicler pointed out that the first prince of Benevento had had the foresight to draw up a peace treaty with the Neapolitans, making concessions to them so that they would not ally with the Franks.103 Furthermore, because he was a strong warrior, Arechis II was able to resist the innumerable army of Charlemagne. His martial gifts did not, however, mean that he forgot his responsibilities as a ruler. In fact, Arechis II held his people so much in his heart that, when the Frankish invaders were destroying Benevento like locusts, he agreed to make a deal with them, giving his own children as hostages in return for peace. Thus Arechis II put the good of his homeland and his subjects before that of his own family.104 According to Erchempert, fear of the Franks motivated Arechis II’s decision to build the fortified city of Salerno, but the chronicler added that the prince had acted wisely, since he protected himself against a possible future invasion by ordering the construction of a very ­well-​­fortified city.105 In my view, Erchempert believed that Arechis II’s main gift had been wisdom and that this ruler had saved the southern Lombards. The basis for my claim is the fact that, at the end of the section devoted to this prince, Erchempert stated that Arechis II had ordered the construction of the church of ‘­Agia Sophia’, explaining that these two Greek words mean ‘­Holy wisdom’, and the church of the Saint Savior.106 Arechis II’s son and successor, Grimoald III (­­787–​­806), displayed cleverness, valor, and, above all, the wish to defend the Lombard identity. As noted above, Grimoald III lived for a few years at Charlemagne’s court, since his father had given him to Charlemagne as a hostage. After pretending to recognize the Franks’ authority in order to go back to his homeland and become prince,107 Grimoald III engaged in a lengthy fight against Charlemagne’s son Pippin and managed to avoid being conquered.108 Particularly noteworthy is Grimoald III’s response to the Frankish sovereign, who called on him to submit to his authority, just as his father, Arechis II, had done to King Desiderius. Grimoald III replied that, since he had been born to free parents, he would always be free.109 Erchempert thus seems to have made himself the spokesman for the petitions for liberty by the Lombards of southern Italy against any foreign interference. The words of the prince of Benevento clearly highlight the importance of liberty, which should not be constrained by any type of bond.110 The Lombards’ love of liberty constituted the chief component of

120  History and ethnic pride in southern Italy southern Lombards’ identity and ­self-​­image,111 a fact which had also been frequently noted by Paul the Deacon in his History of the Lombards—​­a work Erchempert knew well. On several occasions, Paul the Deacon in fact stressed the need of fighting for this ideal, arguing that it was better to die with weapons in hand than to live as subjects.112 It is worth noting that one of these examples concerns Grimoald, a duke of Benevento who would later become king of the Lombards (­­662–​­671).113 The Avars captured Grimoald and his brothers, but they managed to escape. When their enemies were pursuing them, one of Grimoald’s brothers, fearing that Grimoald would not be able to ride his horse because of his young age, wanted to kill him, claiming that death would be preferable to the life of a slave. Grimoald, however, convinced his brother that he could ride. When an Avar caught up with him, Grimoald succeeded in killing him and returning to his homeland.114 The importance of preserving Lombard identity was also recorded in another significant anecdote that Erchempert related. He noted that, of the two promises Grimoald III had made to Charlemagne in exchange for his freedom (­to have the name of the Frankish ruler written on Beneventan charters and coins115 and to have the beards of the Beneventans shaved), Arechis II’s son had kept only the first.116 Unlike the first, the second promise was intimately connected to the core of the Lombard identity; as emphasized in the account of the Lombards’ origins, their name meant ‘­long beards’.117 The next prince of Benevento, Grimoald IV (­­806–​­817), also displayed martial skills.118 He succeeded in defeating the hated Neapolitans, who had given refuge to a Lombard after his failed attempt to assassinate the ruler of Benevento.119 The chronicler’s tone is almost that of an epic and his description of some of the details of the battle reveals his great satisfaction with the Lombard victory over the Neapolitans, who, in Erchempert’s own time, caused much trouble to the Lombards. As already observed, he, in fact, reported the great number of Neapolitans killed,120 adding that the Lombards had carried out so great a slaughter of their enemies that it had taken more than seven days for the adjacent waters to be cleared of their blood, and that in his time the tombs of the fallen Neapolitans could still be seen.121 Only the Lombard traitor and the leader of the Neapolitans succeeded in escaping. Grimoald IV, whom no one could resist, followed them to one of Naples’s gates, which he struck with his lance.122 This powerful image highlights Grimoald IV’s extreme courage; indeed, it sets a single man up against an entire city.123 Also relevant are the words of the wives of the Neapolitans killed in the battle: pursuing the Neapolitan duke and his Lombard ally who had led their husbands to their deaths, they blamed them for their loss, since they had dared to fight against a man known to be undefeatable.124 Thus, the enemies themselves recognized the great valor of the Beneventan ruler.125 The first three princes of Benevento therefore demonstrated that they were good rulers and military leaders. It is significant that this positive series was interrupted by Sico, who participated in Grimoald IV’s assassination,126 and, as already noted, was

History and ethnic pride in southern Italy  121 notorious for the bestial way he persecuted his subjects.127 Erchempert made no comment on the violent manner in which Sico had become prince, but a turning point occurs in this part of the work and the chronicler began to enumerate the series of misfortunes that he had mentioned in the prologue.128 Relevant here is the existence of two different memories about these two princes. The anonymous Salernitan chronicler of the tenth century judged Sico positively,129 while he described Grimoald IV as a valiant warrior but also as a tyrant.130 These discrepancies can be attributed to the fact that Erchempert was probably acting as a spokesman of the traditional Beneventan aristocracy, which blamed the decline of its homeland on the arrival of outsiders such as Sico.131 The Salernitan chronicler, on the other hand, was probably writing in the tradition of the opposing faction, which had moved to Salerno whose first prince had been one of Sico’s sons.132 The fact that Sico’s rise to power coincided with the beginning of the ‘­black period’ for the southern Lombards does not mean that from this point on Erchempert no longer narrated any victories of the Lombard rulers. When they had been victorious against the Lombards’ external enemies, namely, the Neapolitans and the Muslims, Erchempert’s ‘­Lombard spirit’ emerged and he was even willing to set aside his acrimony for the Capuans to describe their successes. For example, he recounted that Siconolf, who had brought about the division of the Principality of Benevento by becoming prince of Salerno, had defeated the Muslims of Bari. These Muslims, despite having taken the Apulian city from the Beneventans by deceit, continued to be used as mercenaries by the Prince of Benevento, Radelchis. Erchempert explained that, although there had been a multitude of Saracens, Siconolf had inflicted such a defeat on them that only a few Muslims had managed to survive. The author also expressed his satisfaction at the victory over the Saracens by indulging in the detail that their leader had fled dishonorably and had to return to Bari on foot, since he had exhausted his horse during his flight,133 a clear sign of the fear that the ruler of Salerno had inspired in him.134 Siconolf also succeeded in salvaging the fate of a battle in which his troops had been defeated by the assault of Radelchis’s Beneventans; with a few men he courageously attacked the victorious Beneventans, who were pursuing his routed soldiers, and he personally killed many of them with his own sword and put the rest to flight.135 Erchempert’s leniency toward Siconolf, and his praise of Siconolf’s valor, may have been due to the fact that he was, after all, the rightful heir of the Principality of Benevento,136 and that the blame for its division laid with his brother Sicard, who had had him exiled.137 As for the Capuans, Erchempert narrated that Lando II of Capua, ‘­c eu leo fervidus (­like an impetous lion)’,138 had boldly attacked 7,000 Neapolitans and Amalfitans who had been en route to Capua and achieved a crushing victory over them, capturing 800 men, including the son of the Neapolitan ruler.139 He also recounted another victory of Lando II, although this success had been on a more modest scale. While the tone was less triumphant,

122  History and ethnic pride in southern Italy the chronicler nevertheless noted that this C ­ apuan—​­again like a l­ ion—​­had attacked the Muslims and exterminated them, to the extent that only 5 out of 120 Saracens had survived.140 Erchempert’s ­pro-​­Lombard sentiments stand out even more with regard to the hated Atenolf. Although elsewhere Erchempert described the Capuan ruler’s deceptions and his confiscations of property from the Benedictine monks, the chronicler gleefully reported Atenolf’s victory over the army of the Bishop of Naples, Athanasius II, noting that Atenolf had succeeded in completely defeating his enemy. The count of Capua was also described as returning victorious to his camp with great plunder, a detail not reported by the author at any other point in his work. Erchempert presented this success as a true turning point, marking the ascent of Atenolf’s power and the beginning of Athanasius II’s decline.141 Erchempert almost seemed to forget who the author of this victory had been, and in the following chapter, he described how this Capuan ruler had been able to take full control of the area around his city.142 Moreover, the chronicler added in triumphal tones that from this point on, the Lombards, who had governed for over 300 years through laws, had gone back to dominating those who, with the Muslims’ assistance, had been successful for only a few days.143 The reference to the laws is very telling, in that it reveals the proud chronicler’s wish to assert his people’s ability to create in Italy a civilized and advanced dominion,144 while his reference to force served to point out that the Lombards had been martially capable when necessary. Erchempert’s satisfaction in recounting how, in his own time, some Lombards succeeded in obtaining military success, almost took on a tone of pompous boasting. In fact, he reported that in the battle just described, only one Capuan had been killed,145 a detail that he also mentioned in his description of another Capuan success over Neapolitan troops. Although in this latter case, the victory is said to have been obtained through divine emissaries, the fact that Erchempert stated ‘­de nostris unus solummodo… extinctus est, (­only one of ours died)’, rather than only one of the Capuans died,146 further emphasizes the fact that, for the chronicler, differences among Lombards disappeared when they had been fighting ‘­foreign’ enemies. Evidence of Erchempert’s happiness in narrating this kind of episode and his sense of belonging to the Lombard people also shows up in the final part of the account of Atenolf’s rise and of Bishop Athanasius II’s decline. After explaining (­rather joyfully) that Naples had been attacked by Muslims, the chronicler, probably remembering that he was after all a monk and should not celebrate violent deeds, wondered whether the misfortune that had happened to the Neapolitans (­who were pillaged after having pillaged others), could happen to ‘­us’, i.e. the Lombards.147 In the light of these examples of Erchempert’s strong, p ­ ro-​­ Lombard sentiments, one might be surprised that Erchempert reported an earlier ­episode—​­the victory, in 872, by the Prince of Benevento, Adelchis, over the great army of Saracens besieging S ­ alerno—​­in a simple, annalistic manner.

History and ethnic pride in southern Italy  123 Furthermore, the Capuan success over the Muslims was recounted immediately afterward in much the same way.148 It almost seems as though these episodes were merely mentioned for the record. Erchempert’s plain narrative style in these passages was probably due to the fact that these victories against the Muslims had not been definitive; the Saracens, in fact, continued to carry out their destructive incursions. After Adelchis had attacked them in Apulia three times without success, they assaulted Benevento and won so great a victory that Adelchis was forced to release the Emir of Bari, Sawdān.149

Conclusions In conclusion, it is possible to state that the Ystoriola cannot be considered as a simple narration of facts, but constitutes the thoughtful testimony of an author not subordinate to any secular power.150 Although he exhibited some understandable hesitation toward contemporary rulers, Erchempert was not afraid of providing a merciless and w ­ ell-​­structured description of the decadence of southern Italy’s Lombards.151 Using harsh language, and a careful, ­point-­​­­by-​­point enumeration, Erchempert examined the ruin of each aspect of the Lombard society. At the same time, the Ystoriola is not characterized by a complete pessimism; the chronicler was hopeful that the tragic events he had narrated could provide a cautionary tale for future generations. Additionally, he proudly asserted his Lombardness, an identity that emerged in the rare moments in which the southern Lombards had still been capable of being real Lombards, when they had fought their adversaries instead of one another. In this way, although he sometimes strayed from his objectives, Erchempert revealed himself to be attuned with the feelings of the Lombards in southern Italy after the fall of the Lombard Kingdom in 774, as he emphasized his pride in being Lombard and his desire to retain and justify the Lombards’ independence.152 For these reasons, we can define him as a reluctant fustigator of his people. His rancor153 was due to the ineptitude of some members of the Lombard elite, who, preoccupied with defending their own petty interests, had not followed the shining example of the rulers of Benevento’s golden period (­­774–​­817)­154 and thus betrayed their mission, putting an end to the unity of the southern Lombards and leading their subjects to ruin.155

Notes 1 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 1: ‘­non regimen eorum set excidium, non felicitatem set miseriam, non triumphum set perniciem, non quemamodum profecerint set qualiter defecerint, non quomodo alios superaverint set quomodo superati ab aliis ac devicti fuerint, ex intimo corde ducens alta suspiria, ad posteritatis exemplum…’ 2 Noteworthy is also Erchempert’s initial statement that he did not want to follow the example of Paul the Deacon (­­720s – ​­c. 799), who had narrated the history of

124  History and ethnic pride in southern Italy the Lombards without describing the end of their Kingdom, thus acting like the historians who, wishing to recount the events of their own people, only report the facts useful for increasing their glory. Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 1. 3 The abbey of ­Montecassino—​­founded by Saint Benedict in ­520s—​­is located 70 miles ­south-​­east of Rome, while Capua is about 38 miles s­ outh-​­east of Montecassino (­distances are expressed as the crow flies). 4 O. Bertolini, ‘­Carlomagno e Benevento’, in Karl der Grosse. Lebenswerk und Nachleben, I, ed. H. Beuman (­Düsseldorf, 1965), p­p. ­609–​­12; Kreutz, Before the Normans, p­p. ­5 –​­8; Zornetta, Italia meridionale longobarda, p­p. ­79–​­87. 5 Bertolini, ‘­Carlomagno e Benevento’, p­p. 656 ff.; Kreutz, Before the Normans, p­p. ­8 –​­9; Zornetta, Italia meridionale longobarda, p­p. ­111–​­28. 6 Russo Mailler, ‘­Il ducato di Napoli’, ­p. 362. ­ .  19; Zornetta, Italia meridionale longobarda, 7 Kreutz, Before the Normans, p p­p. ­154–​­59. 8 Delogu, ‘­Il principato di Salerno. La prima dinastia’, p ­ .  242; Zornetta, Italia meridionale longobarda, p­p. ­211–​­15. 9 The Amalfitans, the Count of Capua, Landolf, and the Counts of Conza and Acerenza. 10 Delogu, ‘­Il principato di Salerno’, p­p.  ­242–​­43; Kreutz, Before the Normans, p­p. ­29–​­32; Zornetta, Italia meridionale longobarda, p­p. ­211–​­30. 11 Musca, L’emirato di Bari, p­p.  ­15–​­18; Berto, Christians and Muslims in Early ­ . 128. Meanwhile, the Muslim dynasty of the Aghlabids, who Medieval Italy, p had created an autonomous state in north Africa, was conquering Sicily. Metcalfe, The Muslims of Medieval Italy, p­p. ­9 –​­12. 12 Musca, L’emirato di Bari, p­p. ­38–​­41. 13 Delogu, ‘­Il principato di Salerno’, p­p.  ­244–​­47; Kreutz, Before the Normans, p­p. ­32–​­35; Zornetta, Italia meridionale longobarda, p­p. ­225–​­30. 14 Cilento, Le origini della signoria di Capua nella Longobardia minore, p­p. ­87–​­90; Delogu, ‘­Il principato di Salerno’, p­p. ­244–​­47. 15 Musca, L’emirato di Bari, p­p. 62 ff. 16 Musca, L’emirato di Bari, ­p. 66; Kreutz, Before the Normans, ­p. 38. 17 Musca, L’emirato di Bari, p­p. ­64–​­66. 18 Musca, L’emirato di Bari, p­p. ­96–​­98; Kreutz, Before the Normans, p­p. ­42–​­45. 19 Musca, L’emirato di Bari, p­p.  ­117–​­20; Kreutz, Before the Normans, p­p.  ­46–​­47, ­55–​­57. 20 Von Falkenhausen, La dominazione bizantina nell’Italia meridionale, p­p. ­20–​­23; Kreutz, Before the Normans, p­p. ­62–​­66. 21 Kreutz, Before the Normans, p­p. ­58–​­60. 22 I. Di Resta, ‘­Il principato di Capua’, in Storia del Mezzogiorno, p­p. ­167–​­68. 23 Cammarosano, Nobili e re, p­p. ­209–​­10. 24 In August 881 he was captured in a small ­town—​­conquered by the Count of Capua, ­Pandonolf—​­, forced to go to Capua on foot under guard of soldiers on horseback, and deprived of all his belongings. Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 44. Another unpleasant experience occurred probably in 886. While on the road from Montecassino to Capua, Erchempert and his fellow travelers were victims of a robbery at the hands of some ‘­Greeks’, probably in the service of the bishop of Naples. Forced once again to travel to Capua on foot, he then went to Naples to seek compensation for the losses, but to no avail. Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 61. Around 887, Atenolf seized power at Capua and confiscated the properties that the community of Montecassino owned in that city. The Abbot of Saint Benedict, Angelarius, then sent Erchempert to Rome to seek

History and ethnic pride in southern Italy  125 the intervention of Pope Stephen V. The author emphasized that the mission had succeeded and that the properties that had been taken had been restored, but that Atenolf had withheld Erchempert’s own goods and also seized from him the cella that Abbot Angelarius had granted him. Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 69. 25 The other historical work produced in southern Lombardy in this period is the Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis (‘­The Chronicles of Saint Benedict of Cassino’), which is composed of three brief separate parts mainly dealing with the period between 839 and early 860s. For further information on this text, see ­Chapter 8 of this book, Berto, Making History, chapter 7, and the introduction to the Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis. Another chronicle reporting some information about the southern Lombards in the late eighth century and the ninth century is the Chronicon Salernitanum that was, however, written in c. 977 and sometimes copied Erchempert’s work. 26 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 8: ‘­ I nterea Radechis, comes Consinus, Sico, Agerentinus castaldeus, quem Grimoalt dudum proselitum receperat honoribus plurimis deferens, sub dolo insurgentes in eum, cum iam extremum spiritum traheret, gladio eum peremerunt’. 27 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 10. 28 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 10: ‘­v irum satis lubricum, inquietum, et petulante animique elatione tumidum’. 29 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 12: ‘­qui iam cum patre sepius memorato per aliquot feliciter imperaverat annos, cepitque populum sibi commissum ex levitate animi beluina voracitate insequi ac crudeliter laniare’. According to the chronicler, Sicard had a great number of Beneventan nobles imprisoned or killed, and had Alfanus, a trustworthy man of great qualities, executed. Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 12. 30 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 13: ‘­Prius enim quam obiret, ut cumulus sue perditionis iustius augeretur, pro amore pecunie spectabilem et Deo dignum virum sanctitate conspicuum, Deusdedit nomine, beatissimi Benedicti vicarium, a pastorali monasterio monachorum, seculari magis potentia quam congrua ratione, deposuit ac custodie mancipavit’. This may explain the particular acrimony of Erchempert, who was a Cassinese monk, toward Sicard. Cf. Falco, ‘­Erchemperto’, ­p. 282. 31 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 12: ‘­Ad hoc nimirum tendens, ut dum relictus ac destitutus solatio esset optimatum, citra suam suorumque sanguinis effusionem facillime interimeretur’. 32 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 23: ‘­Tunc ceperunt predicti fratres concives suos, partim ambitu partim metu agitati, ferina persequi ingluvie et custodiis mancipari’. 33 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapters 29, 51. 34 Persequi was also utilized to describe what the Franks did to the Beneventans at the instigation of the devil after taking Bari. Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 34. 35 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 16: ‘­Hiis quoque diebus Pando quidam Barim regebat, qui iussis optemperans Radelgisi, Saracenorum phalangas in adiutorium accitas iuxta murum urbis et oram maris locavit commorandas. Hii autem, ut sunt natura callidi et prudentiores aliis in malum, subtilius contemplantes munitionem loci, intempesta noctis, christicolis quiescentibus, per abdita loca penetrant urbem, populumque insontem partim gladiis trucidarunt partim captivitati indiderunt.’

126  History and ethnic pride in southern Italy 36 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 31. According to Erchempert, it was predicted, even before Bishop Landolf’s birth, that he would cause the deaths of innumerable innocent persons. Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 21. 37 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 18: ‘­Erat autem adhuc inter Siconolfum et Radelgisum frequentissima pugne concertatio et cotidiana litium seditio, unde et ex diversa parte quibus via iustitie displicebat alternatim ab uno in alterum confugiebant fiebantque crebra pariter rapine incesteque fornicationes. Erant siquidem universi erranei et ad malum prompti, quasi bestie sine pastore oberrantes in saltum.’ Erchempert also mentioned that internal conflicts among the Capuan rulers had led to divisions among the population, causing serious disorders. Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 42. 38 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 18: ‘­ita ut etiam optimates illius pro nichilo ducerent atque ut ineptos servulos taureis duriter flagellarent’. 39 Erchempert is the only early medieval Italian chronicler to make this sort of comparison. Considering the high symbolic value of this description, I think that this comment does not suggest that the Muslims imposed the gizah—​­a tax that Muslims exacted from their Christian and Jewish s­ ubjects—​­on the Beneventans, thus emphasizing their inferiority, as has been asserted by F. Marazzi, ‘­Ita ut facta esse videatur Neapolis Panormus vel Africa. Geopolitica della presenza islamica nei domini di Napoli, Gaeta, Salerno e Benevento nel IX secolo’, Schede Medievali, 45 (­2007), p ­ . 175. Erchempert’s polemical intent is not taken consideration by Di Branco either. This scholar maintains that the chronicler’s comment indicates that either on that occasion the Muslims displayed an ­anti-​­aristocratic attitude, that was typical of the early Islamic period, or the chronicler invented that particular in order to criticize the Muslim rule over Benevento. Di Branco, 915. La battaglia del Garigliano, ­p. 40. 40 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 22: ‘­Horum denique genitor cum iam diei ultime appropinquaret, ut a referentibus audivi, vocatis liberis suis, hoc in edictum illis tradidit, ne unquam, quantum ad se pertinerent, sinerent Beneventum cum Salerno pacisci: ‘­quia non erit’, inquid, ‘­vobis profuturum’. Cuius monitum filii audientes, opere pariter patrarunt atque suis heredibus in ius perpetuum sicut a patre susceperant reliquerunt. Magnum sanum hereditarium sue reliquerunt soboli, adversus divinum dumtaxat preceptum gerentes quod ait Ihesus discipulis suis: “­Pacem meam do vobis, pacem relinquo vobis”.’ 41 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapters ­14–​­15. 42 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 26: ‘­Set ocius ad consueta vitia defluentes et huic statim post excessum Landonis, soceri illius, mentiti’. For other examples, see Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapters 20, 65. 43 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 20. 44 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 65: ‘­promisit reddere Caietanos, quos pridem callide ceperat, adiuvaretque eum contra Saracenos Gariliano residentes. Que postea cuncta oblitus, ex his que promiserat nichil omnino adimplevit’. 45 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 69. 46 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 28: ‘­Hiis quoque diebus Lando senior, crescente interim langore, ad extrema perductus est vocatisque duobus fratribus suis, Pando scilicet et Landolfo antistite, Landonem filium suum eis supplici prece commendare studuit atque in manus eorum

History and ethnic pride in southern Italy  127 tradidit dicens: ‘­Teste Deo sanctaque eius ecclesia vobis eum commendo, ut eodem in iudicio futuro iudicemini, quo eo in presenti abusi fueritis!’ Sicque humanum faciens obiit. Quo migrato, non diu ad iuramentum perstitit fraternum. Nam subdole pro cupiditate castaldatus et Landonem et ceteros fratres urbe repulerunt.’ 47 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 31: ‘­Quod si cui incredibile videtur, animadvertat, quot vicibus Guaiferium fefellit, cui per ter iuravit ipsumque ipse sibi principem instituit’. Atenolf, too, broke the agreement he had sworn three times with Lando’s sons. Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 64: ‘­dirrumpens iusiurandum quod cum filiis Landonis ter iuraverat’. The conflicts among ­n inth-​­century southern Lombards have been recently examined by A. Thomas who, without taking into account the rhetorical devices and the narrative strategies the authors utilized, has used the southern Lombard chronicles like faithful accounts of what had happened on that period. Thomas, Jeux Lombards, parts II, III. Her book is certainly a valuable contribution to the history of southern Langobardia, but her analysis would have certainly benefited from reading the new editions of the primary sources and the bibliography on those topics. 48 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 71: ‘­quidam naturaliter zizaniorum sator Dauferius, Dauferii nostri genitor, urbe Beneventi egressus subdole acsi secuturus principem, ex diverso Capuam cursum properavit et dicto exercitui adventum indicavit Aionis’. As one can see, Erchempert called him sower of discord and stated that he had been the father of ‘­our Dauferius’, who was probably the Cassinese deacon mentioned in Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 80. Without quoting any passage, Walter Pohl has maintained that there were some ‘­tensions between Erchempert and the deacon Dauferius’. Pohl, ‘­History in fragments’, ­p. 373. The Austrian scholar has clearly mistaken the father for the son. 49 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 75: ‘­Primum tamen sacramentum sistebat roboreum aut mensem aut tempus annotinum; istud autem nec ad diem duravit duodecimum’. 50 Sicard also forced his ­brother-­​­­in-​­law Maio to become a monk. Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 12: ‘­Sicque ab eo deceptus et inlaqueatus est, ut germanum suum, Siconolfum nomine, gratis perpetuo dampnaret exilio… Quamobrem et Maionem cognatum suum tonderi iussit et monasterium retrudi’. The Bishop of Naples, Athanasius II, too, had his brother exiled in order to seize power. Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapters 39 and 44. 51 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 23: ‘­a Pandulfo consanguineo suo Suessulam ingenio auferentes, sue ambitioni nexerunt, ipsum et liberos illius extorres fecerunt, de quibus dehinc, unum gladio, alium igne perdiderunt duosque superstites iugi continuoque dampnarunt exilio’. 52 The chronicler pointed out that Adelchis had been killed by his s­ons-­​­­in-​­law, nephews, and friends. Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 39: ‘­Adelgis vero dum castrum Trebentensem obsidem caperet, ad propriam remeans urbem a generibus, nepotibus et amicis extinctus est et in loco eius Gaideris, filius Radelgari, nepos extincti, ordinatus est. Eiectusque est Cailo et Dauferius generi illius. Hic etiam principare voluit; cuius cupiditate socerum suum peremit.’ 53 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 42: ‘­Hac quippe tempestate pene omnes Capuani illustres et omne vulgus cum uxoribus et liberis omnique cum supellectili urbe egredientes, alii filii Landonis, nonnulli

128  History and ethnic pride in southern Italy autem ex eis filii Landonulfi, adeserunt factaque est inter eos valida concertatio et pessima desolatio’. 54 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 47: ‘­i nsania et fraterna civilique expugnatione’. 55 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 46. Erchempert also reported a case in which family solidarity had worked. When the Bishop of Naples, Athanasius II, incited Atenolf to attack his cousins, promising his help with the conquest of Capua, Atenolf revealed the plan to his brothers. The latter, horrified by the plot, convinced Atenolf to renounce his alliance with the bishop of Naples and, along with their cousins, pledge that they would never attack their kin. Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 53: ‘­At illi obstupefacti, signo se crucis Christi munierunt, dicentes: ‘­A nte moriamur aut exulemus, quam super fratres nostros iuste aut iniuste insurgamus unquam; donec enim erit in naribus nostris, non insidiabimur sanguini nostro’’. Nevertheless, one suspects that the chronicler may have recounted the exemplary behavior of the Capuans in order to underscore the wickedness of Athanasius II, whom he considered much worse than the members of the Capuan dynasty. For a literal interpretation of this episode, see Thomas, Jeux Lombards, p­p. ­194–​­95. 56 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 44. 57 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 46. 58 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 42. 59 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 44. 60 For a detailed analysis of these conflicts, see Cilento, Le origini della signoria di Capua, p­p. ­115–​­18. A recent overview of them can be found in Thomas, Jeux Lombards, p­p. ­172–​­75. 61 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 10: ‘­Nam iuxta ora maris muro arietibus ac machinis funditus eliso, iam cum catervatim populus ingredi urbem niteretur, dux iam dicte civitatis, data mox obside genitrice sua ac duobus propriis liberis, magnopere eum callida arte exflagitans per nuntios misit ita: ‘­Tua est urbs cum universis que infra se retinet; placeat ergo pietati tue, ne inter predam detur. Crastina autem die cum trofeo victorie gloriosissime ingredere, possesurus nos omniaque nostra!’ His ergo suggestionibus fidem accommodans, diem sustinuit venturum. Subsequenti vero nocte interrupta urbs muro firmissimo solidata est et crepusculo quo se suamque tradere pollicitus est civitatem, arma bellica suscipiens, contra eum se erexit ingenti certamine.’ 62 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 20: ‘­Set, quod peius, provincia in multis divisa ad exitium magis quam ad salutem de die in diem a dominatoribus ducebatur’. 63 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 31. 64 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 31: ‘­Fuit autem idem Landolfus, ut pollicitus inseram, ex natura prudens, set ex consuetudine callidus, lubricus nimium et petulans, ambitiosior omni homine, elatus supra quam credi potest’. 65 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 31: ‘­Sic ubi federata sensit, totus se strenue iniciens, zizaniorum semina sevit’. 66 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 31: ‘­Quod si cui incredibile videtur, animadvertat, quot vicibus Guaiferium fefellit, cui per ter iuravit ipsumque ipse sibi principem instituit. Multo enim libentius cupiebat captivari animas hominum innocentium, quam vel parem eum habere, non dico seniorem. Contra preceptum apostoli gerens, qui ait: “­Subditi”, inquid, “­estote omni dicioni, sive regi tanquam precellenti, sive ducibus tanquam ab eo

History and ethnic pride in southern Italy  129 missis”; et alibi: “­Non preest potestas, nisi a Deo, itaque qui resistit potestati Dei ordinationi resistit”.’ 67 I would argue that there is no evidence for maintaining that this portrayal of Landolf was inspired by Sallust’s description of Catilina, as claimed by Falco, ‘­Erchemperto’, ­p. 270. 68 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 21: ‘­cum adhuc viscere gestaretur genitricis, eadem mater, cum se quadam die sopori iuxta viri dorsum dedisset, facem igneam peperisse visum experta est. Que fax, cum humi solo cecidisset, in maximum ignis globum aucta est visaque est totius Beneventi confinium concremare sicque cum sompno pariter et visio elapsa est. Que nimium perterrita, proprio mox coniugi mesta curavit indicare. Cuius visionis finem genitor ut audivit, in paucis sillabarum dictionibus futura eius dira opera complexus est, dicens: ‘­Heu me, dulcis amans, que nos tunc fata secuntur; / Augurium sevum monstrat tua visio dira! / Hac tuus hic ortus tegitur qui clausus in alvo, / Diliget haut ullum spernetque sanguine caros, / Postremo cives viperino devoret ore, / Ac velud ignis edax rectorum pectora buret’. Quod ille, in extasi mentis licet, predixerit, nos quoque propriis intuiti sumus optutibus, qui innumerabiles insontes homines illius facto conspeximus pro igne gladiis corruisse. Ignis itaque ille ipsum humanum generis sanguinem, qui postea eo operante fundendus erat, sub quadam ymaginis specie portendebat.’ 69 This was a clear reference to Gabriel’s announciation to Mary. In general on the theme of the pregnant mother’s dream in medieval texts, see F. Lanzoni, ‘­Il sogno presago della madre incinta nella letteratura medioevale’, Analecta Bollandiana, 45 (­1927), p­p. ­225–​­61. 70 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 31: ‘­semiviros solummodo dilexit eosque cunctis pretulit, implevit nichilominus prophetia Ysaye dicentis: ‘­Effeminati dominabuntur eis’’. The reference is to Isaiah 3.4. 71 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 40: ‘­Hiis quoque diebus Landolfus iam fatus presul percussus interiit; qua die sue correctionis ab omnibus presbyteris Sancti Benedicti cavallos expectabat, ut in baratrum non absque equis rueret’. 72 On this topic, see, for example, F. Cardini, Alle radici della cavalleria medievale (­Florence, 1981), passim. 73 Another feature linking Landolf to the behavior of the secular world is the already mentioned reference to Landolf’s belief that seeing a monk brought bad luck. I am not aware of the existence of studies in this field, but it is worth noting that Hincmar of Reims (­­845–​­882) complained because some nobles maintained that seeing a cleric while they were hunting brought bad luck. Hincmar, De Divortio Lotharii regis et Theutbergae reginae, ed. L. Böhringer (­Hannover, 1992), ­p. 208; I wish to thank Eric Goldberg for mentioning this source to me. In Italy, some people still believe that seeing an ecclesiastic (­in particular a religious sister) brings bad luck. Considering the symbolic value of Erchempert’s remark, I think that it is not correct to give a literal interpretation of this passage as Walter Pohl does. The Austrian scholar, in fact, maintains that this passage indicates that ‘­even clerics were not always impressed by the Benedictine spiritual tradition’. Pohl, ‘­History in Fragments’, ­p. 373. 74 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 31: ‘­A nte diem vero exitus sui Capuam trium fratrum suorum filiis ita divisit, ut omni tempore inter eos gladius rixe nunquam omnimodo abesset’. 75 Erchempert reported only that in 886 Abbot Angelarius had ordered the reconstruction of the abbey, which had been destroyed in 884. Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 61.

130  History and ethnic pride in southern Italy 76 Peter the Deacon, Liber de viris illustribus, in Patrologia Latina, 173 (­Paris, 1854), chapter XIV. 77 Armand O. Citarella believes that it is unlikely that Peter the Deacon would have lied and that there was another work by Erchempert that would explain this inconsistency. A. Citarella, ‘­The Political Chaos in southern Italy and the Arab Destruction of Monte Cassino in 883’, in Montecassino dalla prima alla seconda distruzione. Momenti e aspetti di storia cassinese (­secc. ­VI–​­IX), ed. F. Avagliano (­Montecassino, 1987), p­p. ­179–​­80. 78 Of the same opinion is Pohl, ‘­History in fragments’, ­p. 373. 79 The first Cassinese author to describe the destruction of Montecassino in 883 was Leo Marsicanus, who composed his work at the beginning of the twelfth century. Chronica Monasterii Casinensis, ed. H. Hoffmann, MGH, Scriptores, ­ . 114. XXXIV (­Hannover, 1980), p 80 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapters 14, 19, 20. 81 According to Giorgio Falco, Erchempert expressed a positive opinion of these princes because of a ‘­feeling of legitimacy and devotion to the ancient capital and the Principality’. Falco, ‘­Erchemperto’, ­p. 283. 82 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapters 39, 48. 83 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapters 76, 80. Aio’s foreign policy against Byzantines and Muslims, therefore, was not victorious as maintained by A. Thomas, ‘­L’image de la nation lombarde dans la Petite Historie des Lombards de Benevent’, ­p. 60. 84 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 54: ‘­A io autem, princeps Beneventi, et ante principatum et postea partim imbecillis, partim robereus extitit’. Erchempert, therefore, did not depict Adelchis and Aio as role models, as argued by Thomas, ‘­L’image de la nation lombarde dans la Petite Historie des Lombards de Benevent’, ­p. 60. 85 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 20: ‘­fortissimo et illustre viro’. 86 Here I am referring to the Bishop of Capua, Landolf, and his brother Pando. 87 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 28. 88 It is worth noting, in this regard, that Guaifer became a monk just before his death and wished to be buried in the monastery of St. Benedict. Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 48. This detail has also been noted by Giorgio Falco, who adds that Guaifer’s behavior was also influenced by the fact that he was related to Lando of Capua. Falco, ‘­Erchemperto’, ­p. 284. Given that Lando’s brothers, Bishop Landolf and Pando, acted in a completely different way from Lando, I would argue that this familial relationship did not influence Erchempert’s description of Guaifer. 89 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 15. It is worth noting that Paul the Deacon never defined anyone in this way. 90 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 21. 91 Falco, ‘­Erchemperto’, ­p. 284. On this subject, see also Falco, ‘­Due secoli di sto­ . 255, and Cilento, Le origini della signoria di Capua, p ­ . 164. In ria cassinese’, p the Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, II, 16, it is stated that Lando’s wife, Aloara, had been generous to the monastery of St. Benedict. 92 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 53: ‘­singularis et prestantissimi viri’. The author did the same with Lando’s son, Lando II. Lando III was not described as a cruel tyrant or a traitor, but his portrayal is unflattering. Erchempert depicted him as being an inactive person because of his natural laziness. Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapters ­62–​­63.

History and ethnic pride in southern Italy  131 93 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 24: ‘­Qua reperta occasione, Landulfus presul et Landonolfus, germanus eius, consilio inierunt, ut, deserta angusti montis cohabitatione, ad plana et preclara canpestria descenderent ad commanendum: ‘­Non sumus’, inquiunt, ‘­caprearum hovile, ut in saxorum cavernis tueamur, ad humiliaque denique descendamus, ut altos nos et inhumiles circumspicientibus prebeamus!’ Quibus tunc adsensum Lando minime prebuit, quia delirum ac frivolum erat, inter tot procellas, urbem munitissimam deserentes ut suillo ceno locarent.’ Lando later completed the construction of the fortified town begun by his brothers. Visentin does not see Erchempert’s criticism for this kind of behavior and she mistakenly attributes that haughty attitude to all the Capuans. B. Visentin, La nuova Capua longobarda. Identità etnica e coscienza civica nel Mezzogiorno altomedievale (­Manduria, Bari, and Rome, 2012), ­p. 98. 94 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapters ­24–​­25. 95 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 69. Giorgio Falco also agrees with this hypothesis. Falco, ‘­Erchemperto’, p­p. ­285–​­86. 96 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 1. 97 However, Erchempert did not describe the conquest of the Lombard Kingdom as a ‘­founding event for the Lombard nation of Benevento, its origo gentis’ as argued by Thomas, ‘­L’image de la nation lombarde dans la Petite Historie des Lombards de Benevent’, p ­ . 53. 98 Massimo Oldoni has described this period as ‘­ a historiographical myth’. According to Giorgio Falco, Erchempert had a ‘­nostalgic admiration’ for those years, while Huguette Taviani Carozzi believes that the author perceived it as ‘­a golden age’. This evaluation is repeated in Thomas, ‘­L’image de la nation lombarde dans la Petite Historie des Lombards de Benevent’, p­p. ­54–​­56. Falco, ‘­Erchemperto’, p ­ . 282; M. Oldoni, ‘­Erchemperto’, in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, 43 (­Rome, 1993), ­p.  70. ­Taviani-​­Carozzi, La principauté lombarde de Salerne, ­p. 144. In my opinion, the way ­Taviani-​­Carozzi interprets this period is mistaken. Employing the ­three-​­functional hypothesis of the Indoeuropean societies, she argues that the features of the first three Beneventan princes ‘­mettent en relief la symbolique d’un récit qui fait intervenir dans la succession historique des trois princes l’ordre rituel des trois fonctions: le premier souverain sage et pieux, le deuxième belliqueux, le troisième gardien et dispensateur de richesses’. ­Taviani-​­Carozzi, La principauté lombarde de Salerne, ­p. 149. Moreover, I maintain that Erchempert did not want to establish a connection between the first three rulers of the Principality of Benevento and the first characters of the myth of the origins of the Lombards. Besides having several doubts about this kind of methodology, I believe that it is necessary to point out that T ­ aviani-​ ­Carozzi only favors some aspects of Erchempert’s account and justifies the presence of elements against her theories by stating that the pattern of the three functions is not rigid. Carozzi, La principauté lombarde de Salerne, p­p. ­149–​­58. The methodology of the French scholar has been also criticized by Delogu, ‘­La conquista dell’Italia meridionale come ideologia storiografica’, p­p. ­217–​­19. 99 In the prologue of Prince Adelchis’s laws, praise for Arechis II is present, but this does not constitute a proof that Erchempert knew that text as argued by Thomas, ‘­L’image de la nation lombarde dans la Petite Historie des Lombards de Benevent’, p ­ . 25. 100 Erchempert never attributed any title to Arechis II; the chronicler probably assumed that he was the first prince of Benevento. 101 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 2. The fact that Paul the Deacon described only Grimoald, the King of the Lombards, who had been duke of Benevento, as christianissimus (­Paul the Deacon, Historia

132  History and ethnic pride in southern Italy Langobardorum, V, 2), might indicate that Erchempert wished to compare Arechis II to that famous Beneventan leader. Paul the Deacon described only the tutor of the Lombard King Cunipert’s son as ‘­illustrious’. Paul the Deacon, Historia Langobardorum, VI, 17. 102 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 4. 103 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 2: ‘­Neapolitis, qui a Langobardis diutina oppressione fatigati erant, pacem cessit… titubans, ut conici valet, ne ab eorum versutijs Franci aditum introeundi Beneventum repperirent’. 104 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 2: ‘­magis civium saluti quam liberorum affectibus consulens, geminas soboles vice pigneris iam dicto tradidit cesari, hoc est Grimoaldum et Adelchisam, simulque cunctum thesaurum suum’. 105 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 3: ‘­Nanctus itaque hanc occasionem et, ut ita dicam, Francorum territus metu, inter Lucaniam et Nuceriam, urbem munitissimam ac precelsam in modum tutissimi castri idem Arichis opere mirifico muniret, que propter mare conticuum, quod salum appellatur, et ob rivum, qui dicitur Lirinus, ex duobus corructis Salernum appellatum, esset scilicet futurum presidium principibus superadventante exercitu Beneventum.’ The fact that Erchempert depicted Arechis II as a model ruler is also emphasized by ­Taviani-​­Carozzi, La principauté lombarde de Salerne, p­p. ­145–​­46. 106 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 3: ‘­Infra Beneventi autem menia templum Domino opulentissimum ac decentissimum condidit, quod Greco vocabulo Agian Sophian, id est sanctam sapientiam, nominavit’. ­Taviani-​­Carozzi, La principauté lombarde de Salerne, ­p.  150 also supports this view. 107 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 4. 108 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapters ­5 –​­6. The chronicler explained that, although the Franks had succeeded in seizing Teano and Nocera, Grimoald III had been able to reconquer the latter city and to capture the duke of Spoleto and its garrison. Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 5. Erchempert also attributed the continuous fights between the Franks and the Lombards to the young age of the leaders of both peoples, which had made them inclined to war. Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 6. Thus, Grimoald III was not the only one to behave as a iuvenis as argued by ­Taviani-​­Carozzi, La principauté lombarde de Salerne, ­p. 150. 109 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 6: ‘­A iebat itaque per legatos suos Pipinus: ‘­Volo quidem et ita potenter disponere conor, ut sicuti Arichis genitor illius subiectus fuit quondam Desiderio regi Italie, ita sit mihi et Grimoalt!’ Quibus e contra Grimoalt asserebat: “­Liber et ingenuus sum natus utroque parente; / Semper ero liber, credo, tuente Deo!”’ The fact that Grimoald III had not been subdued by the Franks was also mentioned by the anonymous chronicler of Salerno who reported the prince’s epitaph. See Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 29, ­p. 32. 110 It is probably for this reason that Erchempert stressed the good memory left by Grimoald III, calling him ‘­divae memoriae Grimoaldus’. Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 7. It is also worth noting that the only other person for whom Erchempert used this expression was Emperor Louis II, who had helped the Lombards against the Muslims. Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 36. 111 A fact also noted by Capo, ‘­La polemica longobarda sulla caduta del regno’, p­p. ­18–​­19.

History and ethnic pride in southern Italy  133 1 12 Paul the Deacon, Historia Langobardorum, I, 7, 10, and III, 29. 113 In general on Grimoald, see A. Bedina, ‘­Grimoaldo, re dei Longobardi’, in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, 59 (­Rome, 2002), p­p. ­668–​­73. 114 Paul the Deacon, Historia Langobardorum, IV, 37. 115 The fact that the name of Charlemagne was mentioned in a document, issued at Benevento during the second ruling year of Grimoald III, and in some coins made under the government of this prince, confirms this piece of information. Chronicon Sanctae Sophiae (­cod. Vat. Lat. 4939), ed. J.-​­M. Martin (­Rome, 2000), III, 27, p ­ . 525; A. Di Muro, Economia e mercato nel Mezzogiorno longobardo (­secc. ­VIII– ​­IX) (­Salerno, 2009), ­p. 30; E. Arslan, ‘­Monetazione di età longobarda nel Mezzogiorno’, in I Longobardi del Sud, ed. G. Roma (­Rome, 2010), ­p. 89. 116 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 4: ‘­Quorum petitionibus rex annuens, illic continuo predictum contulit virum simulque ius regendi principatus largitus est, set prius eum sacramento huiusmodi vinxit, ut Langobardorum mentum tonderi faceret, cartas vero nummosque sui nominis caracteribus superscribi semper iuberet. Accepta denique licentia repedandi, a Beneventi civibus magno cum gaudio exceptus est. In suos aureos eiusque nomine aliquamdiu figurari placuit, scedas vero similiter aliquanto iussit exarari tempore, reliqua autem pro nichilo duxit observanda. Mox rebellionis iurgium initiavit.’ Erchempert therefore did not state that Grimoald III had had ‘­to style his hair in the Frankish fashion’ as argued by W. Goffart, The Narrators of Barbarian History (­A . D. ­550–​­800): Jordanes, Gregory of Tours, Bede, and Paul the Deacon (­Princeton, 1988), ­p.  346. Reading Goffart’s statement, but not Erchempert’s chronicle, Paul Brown has thus commented this episode in an essay included in a volume devoted to gender in Byzantium. Erchempert also recorded something else that is of more direct relevance to Lombard perceptions of Byzantine virility: Charlemagne consented to release Prince Grimoald II provided the Beneventans agreed to acknowledge Carolingian lordship over their currency, their charters and even their heads! Shaving, it was related in the HLB [Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium], was to be done in the Frankish manner. While he did not relate the actual result of this interesting agreement, apparently the Lombards felt the Byzantines to be manly enough; they promised to adopt – ​­much the chagrin of Pope Hadrian and no doubt Paul the Deacon, ­too – eastern ​­ imperial dress and haircuts once the Franks had returned north. For supporting this latter point, Brown adds a footnote referring to Kreutz, Before the Normans, ­p. 7, where there is no mention of what he writes. Brown, ‘­Perceptions of Byzantine Virtus in southern Italy’, ­p. 16. Maintaining to have a ‘­gender approach’ to the primary sources is certainly not enough for ‘­making (­serious) history’. 117 This has been also emphasized by T ­ aviani-​­Carozzi, La principauté lombarde de Salerne, ­p. 150; S. Gasparri, La cultura tradizionale dei Longobardi: Struttura tribale e resistenze pagane (­Spoleto, 1983), ­p. 150, note 224; Kujawinski, ‘­Le immagini dell’altro’, ­p. 782, note 42; and Thomas, ‘­L’image de la nation lombarde dans la Petite Historie des Lombards de Benevent’, p­p. ­54–​­55. On the myth of the origins of the Lombards and the importance of the beard for the Lombard identity, see Gasparri, La cultura tradizionale dei Longobardi, p­p. 11 ff. and 57 ff.; ­Taviani-​­Carozzi, La principauté lombarde de Salerne, p­p.  ­99–​­105; and M. Coumert, Origines des Peuples: Les récits du Haut Moyen Âge occidental (­­550–​ 8­ 50) (­Paris, 2007), p­p. ­145–​­264. 118 Erchempert also reported that he had been a good man of gentle spirit, capable of pardoning those who had betrayed him. Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum

134  History and ethnic pride in southern Italy Beneventum degentium, chapters 7­ –​­8: ‘­v ir quoque satis mitis et adeo suavis ut, non solum cum Gallis, verum etiam cum universis circumquaque gentibus constitutis pacis inierit fedus et Neapolitis supra memoratis gratiam pacemque donavit… Statim denique ob solitam misericordiam predicto viro donationem de rebus suis precepto firmavit, gratiam vero familiaritatemque primam non denegavit.’ 119 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 7. 120 About 5,000. Noteworthy is the fact that this is the only time that the chronicler mentioned a so high number of casualties for the adversaries of the Lombards. 121 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 8. 122 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 8: ‘­Grimoalt vero acrius eos insecutus est usque ad portam, que dicitur Capuana, ita ut proprio conto eam percuteret; nec erat quispiam qui resisteret’. 123 According to Giorgio Falco, this event has a legendary flavor. Falco, ‘­Erchemperto’, ­p. 282. This detail recalls the episode, reported by the Frankish author Ermoldus Nigellus, roughly sixty years before the composition of Erchempert’s work, in which the son of Charlemagne, Louis the Pious, while besieging Barcelona, then in the hands of the Muslims, threw a javelin which pierced the walls of the city, inducing terror in his enemies as well as provoking their surrender. See Ermold le Noir, Poème sur Louis le Pieux et épîtres au roi Pépin, ed. E. Faral, Les classiques de l’histoire de France au Moyen Age (­Paris, 1932), ­p. 44, lines ­550–​­55. 124 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 8. Giorgio Falco has noted the dramatic quality of this description. Falco, ‘­Erchemperto’, ­p. 279, note 1. 125 Grimoald IV’s victory was decisive, since the Neapolitans were forced to pay him a great sum of money. Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 8. 126 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 8: ‘­Interea Radechis, comes Consinus, Sico, Agerentinus castaldeus, quem Grimoalt dudum proselitum receperat honoribus plurimis deferens, sub dolo insurgentes in eum, cum iam extremum spiritum traheret, gladio eum peremerunt’. 127 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 10. 128 Giorgio Falco, however, maintains that the change occurs when Sicard took power. Falco, ‘­Erchemperto’, ­p. 269. It is true that God’s anger with Sicard is manifest but it certainly cannot be maintained that Erchempert believed that, during the period of Sico’s rule, the Lombards had been under God’s protection. 129 Chronicon Salernitanum, chapter 55. The Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, II, 1, also presented a brief positive evalutation of Sico. 130 Chronicon Salernitanum, chapters ­38–​­41. 131 Sico was probably from Friuli; a source, however, says that he was from Spoleto. For further information on his origins, see L. A. Berto, Ethnic Identity, Memory, and Use of the Past in Italy’s ‘­Dark Ages’ (­Abingdon and New York, 2022), p­p. ­31-​­32, 40. 132 Delogu, ‘­Il principato di Salerno’, ­p. 241; Berto, ‘­L’immagine delle élites longobarde’, p­p. ­209–​­10; Berto, ‘­Erchempert, a Reluctant Fustigator of his People’, p­p. ­162–​­63. These details have not been taken into account by Thomas, Jeux Lombards, p­p. ­103–​­06. 133 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 16: ‘­Confestim igitur intimatur hoc Siconolfo; perstatim mora seposita eos debellaturus properavit atque super eos audacter irruens, cunctos, qui fugere nequiverant, armis stravit tantoque victorie potitus est tropheo, ut ex innumerabili acie paganorum vix pauci elapsi essent, qui urbem residuis casu pereuntium

History and ethnic pride in southern Italy  135 explicarent. Rex vero eorum, Calfo nomine, solus cum dedecore fugiens, equo in itinere iam fesso ammisso, tandem valde lassus plantis propriis urbem introgressus est.’ 134 Erchempert’s sense of satisfaction in this part of the chronicle has also been noted by Giorgio Falco. However, I do not agree with Falco’s claim that the chronicler was even more satisfied when he narrated that Guy of Spoleto had betrayed the prince of Salerno. Falco, ‘­Erchemperto’, p ­ . 283. I would argue that there is no this kind of feelings in this part of the chronicle and that Erchempert used this episode to condemn the behavior of a Frank. 135 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 17: ‘­Siconolfus autem in loco tutissimo tunc constitutus, cum paucis suorum mox super Beneventanos triumphantes ac suos insequentes virili irruit animo et non minima cede prostravit; patrataque victoria, plurimos eorum gladiis extincxit, nonnullos cepit, reliquos vero in fugam compulit’. 136 See the historical introduction above. 137 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 12. I disagree with Huguette T ­ aviani-​­Carozzi, who maintains that, because Erchempert related that the young son of Siconolf had been forced out of power, while the son of Radelchis had managed to succeed his father without any problem, the chronicler implicitly wished to emphasize that God had wanted to punish Siconolf for rebelling against the legitimate prince of Benevento and causing the division of the Principality of Benevento. T ­ aviani-​­Carozzi, La principauté lombarde de Salerne, ­p.  61. If Erchempert wished to point this out, he would have done this explicitly. As has been made clear, Erchempert was not afraid to criticize the Lombard rulers he regarded as bad. Furthermore, there is no reference to God in this passage. 138 Lando II is the only person to be described in this way. In the chronicles of Paul the Deacon and the anonymous chronicler of Salerno and in the Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis no one is ever compared to a lion. 139 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 27: ‘­Quibus audacter occurrit, ceu leo fervidus, Lando iunior repperitque eos transvadatos pontem Teodemundi suos acriter expugnantes. Totis viris super eos irruit atque cuneum eorum scindens gladiis ventilavit captumque Cesarium et ferme octingentos alios, reliquos in fugam vertit’. 140 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 55: ‘­Super quos Lando, ceu leo, audacter cum suis irruens, usque ad ultimam internicionem protrivit eos, ita ut de tanto numero non amplius quam quinque evaderent, ceteris interfectis’. This battle occurred in a period contemporary with the author. 141 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 73: ‘­Ab hoc sane die cepit iam quasi potens esse Atenolfus et Athanasius impotens’. 142 The commander of the amphitheater of the ancient Capua (­turned into a fortress on that period), Guaifer, who had acted as an independent ruler and sided with the Neapolitans, was captured and handed over to Atenolf. 143 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 74: ‘­Ceperuntque preesse qui subesse soliti erant et qui per trecentos et eo amplius anno imperaverant legibus; preesse coeperunt his qui cum Saracenis vicerant per aliquod soles. Tunc cepit cohors Bardica triumphans regnare super eos quos semper armis subegerant’. 144 In this reference one can also perceive the echo of a bitter controversy that lasted for several centuries and became particularly heated during the eighth century, between the new comers, i.e. the Lombards, and the native inhabitants, who claimed to be the heirs of the civilized Roman Empire and true Christians.

136  History and ethnic pride in southern Italy It is very likely that these same feelings of animosity also existed between southern Lombards and Neapolitans. 145 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 73: ‘­De suis autem preter unum ammisit Alderico nomine, et ipsum a suis, ut fertur, occisum’. 146 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 57. 147 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 75: ‘­ita et nos forsan devorabimur, qui nunc devorantes sumus’. Erchempert concluded these reflections by saying that they were blessed those who, with the help of God, were able not to be affected by the storms of the secular world. Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 75: ‘­Beati ergo qui, Domino custodiente, immunes ab hac seculi procella existunt, ubi omne malum et nullum sine Domino bonum regnat, et in eterna numerantur vita, qua omnis felicitas et beatitudo perempnis floret in secula seculorum. Amen’. 148 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 35. 149 Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 38. The description of the success achieved by Guy II of Spoleto and Atenolf, the Count of Capua, over the Muslims near the Garigliano river also lacks detail, despite having occurred in Erchempert’s own time. Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, chapter 79. The reason for this may be that Atenolf’s victory was obtained with the help of Guy II of Spoleto, whom the chronicler held in low regard. 150 L. Capo, ‘­Le tradizioni narrative a Spoleto e Benevento’, in I Longobardi dei ducati di Spoleto e Benevento (­Spoleto, 2003), ­p. 282, also supports this opinion. 151 I think that the evaluation of Massimo Oldoni, who has stated that Erchempert’s rhetorical weapons were blunt, is too severe. M. Oldoni, ‘­Paolo Diacono’, in Montecassino dalla prima alla seconda distruzione. Momenti e aspetti di storia cassinese (­secc. ­VI – ​­IX), ed. F. Avagliano (­Montecassino, 1987), p ­ . 232. 152 M. Berza believes that the Frankish conquest of the Lombard Kingdom led to the strengthening of the ‘­sentiment de l’appartenence à la même race’ among the southern Lombards and to the emergence of the idea that southern Italy was ‘­comme le dernier refuge de la liberté lombarde’. M. Berza, ‘­Sentiment national et esprit local chez les lombards méridionaux aux IXe -​­Xe siècles’, Revue historique du ­S ud-​­Est européen, XIX, 2 (­1942), ­p. 368. In general, on the Lombard pride in this part of the Italian Peninsula after 774, see also the observations of Capo, ‘­La polemica longobarda sulla caduta del regno’, p ­ . 8; and W. Pohl, ‘­Le identità etniche nei ducati di Spoleto e Benevento’, in I Longobardi dei ducati di Spoleto e Benevento (­Spoleto, 2003), p­p. ­101–​­02. It is however necessary to point out that it is not possible to determine whether the ­late-​­eighth and ­early-­​­­n inth-​­c entury Lombards had those feelings or if that Lombard pride was a product of a later period. In his brief overview of southern Italy, which is not based on a close analysis of the primary sources, Stefano Gasparri prefers to speak of ‘­Lombard legitimism’ and of ‘­attachment to the political traditions of the [Lombard] Kingdom’. This scholar also argues that ‘­the idea of a ‘­residue’ of Lombards who took refuge in the South’ is false and that what survived in the southern Italy was a ‘­political’ entity. See Gasparri, Prima delle nazioni, p­p. ­204–​­07. The idea of the existence of a Lombard ‘­race’ is certainly incorrect, but it is also undeniable that, in a moment of crisis, Erchempert exalted some of the values of the Lombard identity and believed that the Lombards of southern Italy had a cohesive identity, and not only ‘­political entities’. Despite using an incorrect terminology for this period, such as ‘­national consciousness’, G. Falco also subscribes to this opinion; see Falco, ‘­Erchemperto’, p­p. ­286–​­87. Falco’s article was

History and ethnic pride in southern Italy  137 published in 1931; more recently a similar expression, ‘­national pride’, has been utilized by B. Visentin, ‘­Strategie politiche nella Capua longobarda: la difficile divisione della sede vescovile’, Nuova Rivista Storica, XCI (­2007), p ­ . 456. In their overviews of Erchempert’s work, Massimo Oldoni has stressed that this chronicler wanted to defend ‘­a strong Lombard etnos’, Stefano Palmieri has maintained that Erchempert was proud of his ‘­stock’, while Aurélie Thomas has stated that this author narrated ‘­how a Lombard nation survived in the South’. Oldoni, ‘­Erchemperto’, ­p. 69; S. Palmieri, ‘­Cronache e cronisti dell’Italia meridionale longobarda’, Rivista storica del Sannio, VII, 14 (­2000), ­p. 300, and Thomas, ‘­L’image de la nation lombarde dans la Petite Historie des Lombards de Benevent’, p ­ . 52. 153 Giorgio Falco, on the other hand, believes that Erchempert’s chronicle is a ‘­lament… for the decadence of the Lombards’. Falco, ‘­Erchemperto’, ­p. 292. 154 I do not think that the Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium manifests a ‘­Beneventan legitimism’, as argued by Falco, ‘­Erchemperto’, ­p. 283, and I believe that it is more correct to maintain that Erchempert had a strong nostalgia for the beginnings of the Principality of B ­ enevento—​­a period in which the southern Lombards were united and effectively faced their adversaries. Erchempert was, however, aware that it was not possible to return to that situation and for this reason he limited himself to urging the Lombards to obey the political entities created after the division of the Principality of Benevento in 849. 155 Although I believe that defining this work as an autobiography, as Mas simo Oldoni does, is mistaken, I find the depiction this scholar has given of Erchempert, as a witness who rebelled against his times, extremely effective. Moreover, I find Oldoni’s evaluation quite appropriate when he points out that ‘­only the awareness of being Lombard sustains the author’. However, Oldoni does not take into account Erchempert’s pedagogical goal, when, in spite of having shortly before emphasized that this was the chronicler’s objective, he maintains that Erchempert has no hope in the future. Oldoni, ‘­Erchemperto’, p­p. ­70–​­71. Erchempert’s rebellion in fact consisted in not passively accepting the crisis of his own people and in utilizing his w ­ ell-​­structured criticism in order to send a message of warning and hope to the future generations. For this reason, I disagree with Giorgio Falco, who believes that Erchempert limited himself to giving a superficial description of the Lombard leaders’ deeds. Furthermore, in my opinion, the way the chronicler criticized the behavior of the lords of the Mezzogiorno is very far from the ‘­p eaceful representation of the turbid and mutable passions’ noticed by Falco. This scholar also appears to forget that Erchempert is our only source for most of the events he narrated and therefore, without resorting to postmodernist theories about the subjectivity of the author, but keeping in mind the chronicler’s goal, it is not possible to consider this work as a faithful mirror of the ‘­southern Italian society… in that century of unrestrained appetites’. Falco, ‘­Erchemperto’, ­p.  276. Neither the content of Erchempert’s chronicle nor its position in Codex Vaticanus Latinus 5001 sopport Walter Pohl’s conclusions: ‘­Seen in context, Erchempert’s History gives a vivid impression of how the monastic community of Montecassino, exiled at Teano and torn between rivalling factions in the continuous power games of Langobardia minor put its past, and its present, to writing’. Pohl, ‘­History in fragments’, ­p. 368. For a more ­i n-​­depth analysis of this flawed interpretation see Berto, Ethnic Identity, Memory, and Use of the Past in Italy’s ‘­Dark Ages’, p­p. ­95–​­101.

7 A difficult memory to manage Narrating the relationships between bishops and dukes in early medieval Naples

The second half of the eighth and the ninth century had a fundamental importance to the Neapolitans who, in those years, acquired complete autonomy from Constantinople and shaped the foundations of their state, trying, at the same time, not to be swept away by the struggles among Lombards, Muslims, and Franks. The aim of this chapter is to examine how in the early Middle Ages the Neapolitans remembered that important phase of their history focusing in particular on the delicate relationship between dukes and bishops.1

John the Deacon’s Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum The history of Naples in this period is narrated in the Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum (­The Deeds of the Neapolitan Bishops) of John the Deacon. This work, untitled2 and without prologue or dedication, is a continuation of a text narrating the biographies of the first ­thirty-​­nine bishops of Naples, from Asprenus to Calvus (­d. 762).3 The second section covers events ranging from the beginning of Paul II’s episcopate (­­762–​­766) to Bishop Athanasius’s death (­d. 872). This part is followed by a short, unfinished passage on the biography of Bishop Athanasius II, attributed to Peter the Subdeacon, who lived in the tenth century.4 Although the main subject of John the Deacon’s Gesta is the bishops of Naples, it also provides information on almost all the Neapolitan leaders who governed between the second half of the eighth century and 872.5 Before examining the Gesta, it is necessary to review the evidence for its authorship and date of composition. The chronicler wrote occasionally in the first person, but he mentioned nothing of himself, not even his name. There is, nevertheless, an allusion to his young age when writing.6 In spite of this lack of information, the second section of the Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum has been attributed to a deacon called John, because, after the death of Bishop Athanasius, the account stops and the following note appears: ‘­HUC USQUE IOHANNES DIACONUS QUAE SEQUUNTUR PETRUS EDIDIT NEAPOLITANAE SEDI SUBDIACONUS (­Deacon John wrote until here. The Subdeacon of the Neapolitan see, Peter, composed what follows)’.7

DOI: 10.4324/9781003109617-7

A difficult memory to manage  139 Though John was a common name in Naples,8 and though his contribution ends with Bishop Athanasius’s passing away, suggesting that the chronicler composed the second part of the Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum shortly afterward, it has been hypothesized that its author should be identified as John, deacon of St. Januarius in Naples. The latter composed hagiographic texts and translated some saints’ biographies from Greek into Latin,9 and, as Domenico Mallardo has argued, was probably born around 880.10 According to this assumption, the author of the Gesta would not have been contemporary with any of the events described in that work. Mallardo’s hypothesis is, however, based on a chain of suppositions which are not very securely founded. The date of birth is, for example, determined on the passage in which John the hagiographer wrote that the abbot of St. Severinus had asked permission to move the body of Saint Sosus. The passage reads quia non fore canonicum aestimavit, absque pontificali licentia, cuius et iuris erat, illuc transmittere, per auxilium Domini sacerdotem meae indolis praeceptorem supplicando direxit domino Stephano episcopo, quatenus, si divina largitate donatus munere tanto tamque praeclaro fuisset, permissu eius in suo monasterio collocaretur.11 Rather than reading ‘­per auxilium Domini sacerdotem… direxit domino Stephano episcopo’ as ‘­he sent to the lord Bishop Stephen a priest… per auxilium Domini’ or as ‘­he sent to the lord Bishop Stephen a priest of the Lord… per auxilium’, Mallardo has proposed to treat auxilium as a proper name and has identified him as a priest ordained by Pope Formosus (­­891–​ 8­ 96), living in Naples after the pontiff’s death. For this reason, if Auxilius were John the Deacon’s tutor, he must have been so just shortly after the year 896.12 On the basis of this hypothesis, the ­chronicler-​­hagiographer would have been born around 880. As one can see, it is a matter of only a series of suppositions, and it is not possible to be sure either of the author’s identity or the period in which he lived. The chronicler never mentioned his sources. The numerous details he provided and the fact that on one occasion he maintained that he wished to report solely the most important events13 may suggest that he had at his disposal both oral and written sources, from which he made a selection.

Bishops and dukes One of the tensest moments in the problematic relationships between lay and ecclesiastical rulers in early medieval Naples is undoubtedly the crisis that occurred during the rule of Duke Bonus (­­832–​­834) who imprisoned Bishop Tiberius (­d. 842) and forced a deacon, named John, to take his place. The way the author presented Bishop John IV (­d. 849) differs completely from the biographies of the other Neapolitan bishops. John

140  A difficult memory to manage the Deacon invited the readers not to laugh at this bishop’s humble origins, since those possessing true ‘­nobilitas’ know that the Lord moved among the poor. He moreover underlined that, on becoming an adolescent, John had not behaved like other boys of his age, instead devoting all of his time to learning the Holy Scripture, to the point that he rarely left his house. The breadth of knowledge he thus acquired earned him the nickname ‘­Scribe’. The author pointed out that, thanks to this intense period of preparation, John had been able to combine the simplicity of a dove with the caution of a serpent. He was also obedient and never lost his temper when reproved. For this reason, he won the affection of his fellow citizens and was elected deacon. Despite his high office, John retained his simplicity and patience, saddened more by the criticisms leveled at others than by those directed at him.14 Immediately after enumerating John IV’s qualities, John the Deacon added that the imprisonment of Bishop Tiberius by Duke Bonus had extremely grieved John. Moreover, the Neapolitan author emphasized that, when the duke had ordered the Neapolitan clergy to elect a bishop, John had been the only one to oppose this. Brought before Bonus, John was made to understand that he was to succeed Tiberius. He however refused to obey, affirming that he would never occupy the episcopal throne while the legitimate bishop still lived. Bonus then threatened to have Tiberius killed and to take possession of the Neapolitan Church’s goods. At this point, the author dwells on John’s internal conflict, pointing out that he had been afraid, on the one hand, of being the cause of both the bishop’s death and the ruin of the Neapolitan Church and, on the other, of being excommunicated by the pope and censured by the Neapolitan citizens. Finally, John, preferring human to divine ‘­detrimentum’, acceded to the duke’s demands on the promise that no ill would come to Tiberius.15 John the Deacon did not explain Bonus’s reason for imprisoning Tiberius; he only narrated that the duke had begun to act against the Neapolitan Church and that the bishop had opposed him fearing heavenly more than earthly anger.16 Upon his death, Bonus was succeeded by his son, Leo, who was banished after six months by his ­father-­​­­in-​­law, Andreas. The latter released Tiberius from prison; nevertheless, he did not restore him to his episcopal office, but kept him in custody in the church of St. Januarius17 where Tiberius remained until his death. While glossing on the dukes’ motivations, the author did emphasize Tiberius’s reactions to these events. He reported that, a little before dying, Tiberius had delivered a speech to the Neapolitans, exonerating John IV from any charge, highlighting the generosity shown by his interventions, and exhorting the Neapolitans not to pursue any punitive action against him.18 The chronicler also pointed out the positive judgment of John’s conduct made by a papal commission that had acquitted him from any charges and allowed him to remain in office.19 John the Deacon went on to provide further evidence of John IV’s good qualities, narrating several instances of

A difficult memory to manage  141 exemplary behavior and referring enthusiastically to details in a way not to be found in the biographies of the other bishops.20 Through John the Deacon’s description, John the Scribe emerges as a person of the utmost integrity both before and after becoming bishop. The account of his life appears to be deliberately structured in order to allay any suspicion of connivance between John IV and Duke Bonus. This aim is shown clearly by the fact that Tiberius’s entire address in defense of John IV is reported. Here, within the space of a few lines, there are six rhetorical questions and the passage is structured in the form of a plea as if John the Deacon were an advocate defending John IV before a jury.21 Furthermore, the prelate’s entire life is described in such a way as to leave the stamp of evangelical precepts. Not only were his childhood and adolescence dedicated to the study of the Holy Scripture, greatly developing his intellectual gifts, but also his moral qualities, including sympathy, simplicity, compassion, and obedience, which already distinguished him when he was young, manifested themselves most powerfully in his refusal of the episcopal office. Noteworthy as well is the description of John’s moral scruples before accepting his ordination as bishop, emphasizing yet again his moral stature. Such details may have been determined by John the Deacon’s desire to point out that no Neapolitan bishop ever bore the slightest suspicion of behaving incorrectly. They may, however, also have been due to the fact that John IV had in certain ways complied with Bonus’s policies, or at least had not set himself against them. On such matters, John the Deacon stated only that Bonus had begun to cause ‘­multa mala’ to the Church of Naples.22 There are no other sources allowing us to establish what exactly these ‘­mala’ were. The author’s assertion that Bishop Tiberius defied Bonus, preferring to incur human rather than divine wrath,23 leads to the supposition that the duke wanted to seize the property of the Neapolitan Church or to exert pressure in order to ensure that people whom he could trust would be appointed to influential positions in the ecclesiastical leadership of Naples. After this point, John the Deacon’s work does not deal with the matter again. But the fact that, after Bonus’s death, Tiberius was not reinstated, but remained in custody, seems to suggest a certain degree of connivance on John IV’s part in the dukes’ ecclesiastical policy. As John was the only Neapolitan churchman to oppose the duke’s wishes, Bonus’s choice to replace Tiberius with him seems an unlikely decision. Indeed, John the Deacon’s reporting of it suggests that he wished to portray Bonus as a sinner and a mad ruler with a sinister sense of humor. Accusing the duke of having perpetrated ‘­multa mala’ against the Neapolitan Church, the author pointed out that Bonus thus had earned the condemnation of his soul,24 and that he had been inspired by the devil because he refused to listen to Bishop Tiberius’s admonitions.25 In line with this behavior, there is the depiction of Bonus threatening John IV ‘­ore garrulo’, and, ‘­furiis actus’, swearing that, if he did not obey him, Tiberius would have his throat cut and all the Church’s possessions confiscated.26 It is more likely that John IV’s

142  A difficult memory to manage humble origins had made him the ideal candidate for the bishop’s post, as he had no powerful family to support him and would, therefore, find it difficult to oppose the duke’s decisions.27 Although Bonus is not the only duke who imprisoned a bishop, in the Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, no other episode reaches the levels of drama that characterized the clash just described. John the Deacon was not as harsh toward Duke Sergius II (­­870–​­878), who had ordered the arrest of his uncles, among whom was Bishop Athanasius (­­849–​­872). The motive for this action is not provided; the author only explained that the duke had acted on the suggestion of ‘­evil men’.28 The chronicler also reported the words used by the Neapolitan clergy to beseech the duke to free the bishop, but there is no strong condemnation of Sergius II’s actions in them.29 It is also worth noting the way in which John the Deacon narrated the continuation of the event. The duke welcomed the request from the Neapolitan ecclesiastics and freed Athanasius, but refused to do the same for the other prisoners. The author only stressed that the duke had been very obstinate and had not wanted to change his decision.30 But when he related that Athanasius had gone to see Emperor Louis II to solve this problem, he added that Sergius II had advised the people of Salerno and Benevento to rebel against the sovereign. John the Deacon is the only chronicler to assert that the duke of Naples was involved in the conspiracy against Louis II, but he did not express any judgment on this behavior.31 The scarce incisiveness of the accusations against Sergius II is accentuated when compared with the Vita sancti Athanasii. This work describes the same events, but the criticisms aimed at Sergius II are much harsher. The duke is accused of being nothing like his father, fickle,32 eager for power, inspired by the Devil33 , and a Judas figure.34 Like a madman, he turned to the Saracens in order to seize the island where the bishop had taken refuge.35 Moreover, he ‘­devoured’ the property of the Church36 and ordered the priests to be beaten and paraded naked, a ‘­nefandissimum scelus’ without precedent. His evil conduct led to the belief that the end of the world arrived, and that he was the Antichrist.37 His obstinate behavior ultimately persuaded the pope to excommunicate the Neapolitans.38 The only vile deed that Sergius II is not accused of, and that John the Deacon refers to, is having supported the conspiracy against Louis II. In the Vita sancti Athanasii, it is, however, said that the Neapolitan soldiers, together with the Muslims, attacked the prefect of Amalfi, Marinus, who was sent by Louis II to liberate Athanasius, held on an island near Naples.39 That John the Deacon also narrated that Marinus had freed Athanasius without any mention of the obstacles that he had had to overcome,40 thereby omitting the detail that the Saracens had been allied with the Neapolitans, appears to confirm the suspicion that the Neapolitan chronicler did not want to exaggerate the accusations directed at Sergius II. The impossibility of knowing exactly when John the Deacon lived means that one cannot formulate solid hypotheses about the reasons for these

A difficult memory to manage  143 choices. It may, however, be supposed that the chronicler’s reticent attitude was due to the fact that a descendent of Sergius II was in power while he was writing and that some members of the ducal family who had been active during Sergius II’s rule were probably still living. If the hypothesis attributing the compilation of the Vita sancti Athanasii to Guarimpotus is correct,41 the harsher tone of the hagiographer can probably be attributed to the particular that he wrote his work around eighty years after the events and, therefore, did not have to worry about incurring the anger of any Sergius II’s direct relatives. If, on the other hand, this work was written by an anonymous author shortly after Athanasius’s death, as A. Vuolo, editor of Vita sancti Athanasii’s new edition, maintains,42 it simply means that the hagiographer was braver than the Neapolitan chronicler. John the Deacon was free to use a harsher tone with regard to Bonus, not because that duke had lived a long time before, but because Bonus was not a member of the family that, beginning with Sergius, ruled the Duchy of Naples for around three centuries. Bonus took possession of Naples by killing the reigning duke with the hated Beneventans’ help. It is probably no coincidence that John the Deacon opened the account of Bonus’s action against Bishop Tiberius by defining him as ‘­Stephani ducis necator’ (­the killer of Duke Stephen).43 In general, the author, on the one hand, aimed at demonstrating the legitimacy of some episcopal elections that, despite some irregularities, had allowed worthy people to become Neapolitan prelates, on the other hand, attempted not to be too critical of the lay rulers. The character, who best embodies the intimate and delicate relationships between bishops and dukes, is Duke Stephen. His election to bishop was justified by the emergency provoked by the death of all the Neapolitan clerics from a plague. John the Deacon added that all the Neapolitans had offered him the position44 and that the pope, having discovered how devout the duke was, had tonsured him and ordained him bishop.45 The author also recounted that Stephen, having returned to Naples, had been instructed in every aspect of his post as if he were a young boy.46 The latter detail indicates that at least one expert in ecclesiastical matters survived in Naples and that, therefore, the assertion of all the Neapolitan clerics’ death was an exaggeration. The observation that Stephen’s wife died many years before, while he was still duke,47 serves to avert any suspicion of irregularity in Stephen’s new life as well. He then proceeded to prove the equal of the other Neapolitan bishops, enriching the churches with precious objects, promoting better education for the clergy, and looking after the maintenance of the ecclesiastics.48 The absence of other sources with which to compare John the Deacon’s narration and the lack of reference to any other Neapolitan rulers contemporary with Stephen prevent further comments on this section of the Gesta. However, the desire of the chronicler to illustrate how, despite slight irregularities, the behavior of the Neapolitan ecclesiastics could be considered

144  A difficult memory to manage absolutely irreproachable, is evident. The list of the Neapolitan dukes shows that Stephen’s son, Gregory, was duke from 767 to 794, and his s­ on-­​­­in-​­law, Theophylact, succeeded Gregory in 794 after an interval. During this interval, Stephen took power probably in order to ensure Theophylact’s accession.49 This suggests that Stephen’s decision to become bishop was dictated by the desire to ensure that the control of power in Naples remained firmly in the hands of his family and shows that he continued to exert a certain influence on Neapolitan politics.50 John the Deacon or his source undoubtedly preferred not to mention such a commixture between religion and politics. The existence of dissatisfaction with this situation is confirmed by John the Deacon himself, whose account indicates that the election of Stephen II’s successor was complicated. Indeed, he wrote that, on the death of Bishop Stephen II (­794), Theophylact, Duke of Naples and Stephen’s s­on-­​­­in-​­law, had not wanted to elect a bishop because of his stinginess and desire not to displease his wife, Eupraxia. The rejoicing of the Neapolitan clerics upon her father’s death, in fact, angered her very much.51 The Neapolitans then asked the duke and duchess to choose whomever they liked, as they could not remain without guidance. Eupraxia then chose a layman named Paul who was tonsured and elected bishop. No one dared to oppose this choice.52 The author introduced the event by apologizing to the readers for what he was about to narrate and emphasizing that he considered it better to report the truth.53 Indeed, here he hinted at the relationship between religion and politics: the clergy’s joy at the death of Stephen II and the lack of opposition to the decision to elect a layman. However, John the Deacon resolved this difficult situation by resorting to a typical topos of medieval ecclesiastics. The responsibility for what happened was attributed to a woman, Duchess Eupraxia, who, ‘­femineis flammis accensa (­inflamed with female flames)’ at the behavior of the Neapolitan clerics, had retaliated by presenting a lay candidate.54 According to the author, the pope readily agreed to ratify Paul III’s election and the new bishop ordered the construction of religious buildings to which he donated numerous precious objects.55 The sources do not permit us to identify the relationship existing between Paul and the ducal family. That John the Deacon defined him as a popularis (­a member of the people) could suggest that he was chosen precisely because his condition allowed the duke and the duchess to control him easily. Whatever the reason for this choice, his election highlights the Neapolitan rulers’ influence on the choice of bishop.56 This influence is evident in the election to bishop of Duke Sergius’s ­twenty-­​­­one-­​­­year-​­old son, Athanasius, as well. The latter was already an ecclesiastic, which made the ducal intervention more acceptable, but his young age was probably a reason for embarrassment. The desire to put this into the background seems to be underscored by the fact that John the Deacon reported that Athanasius had become deacon a little before the age of twenty,57 but the author did not mention Athanasius’s age when he had been elected bishop of Naples.58 It is equally relevant that the author related that,

A difficult memory to manage  145 immediately after becoming deacon, Athanasius had been venerated as if he were a bishop. This devoutness is even attributed to divine will. Thus, God was indicating that Athanasius was destined to become bishop of Naples,59 John the Deacon’s insistence on the great affection that Bishop John IV had for Athanasius60 constitutes a further hint of the destiny of Duke Sergius’s son. The narration then continues with no mention of intervention from the duke, stressing that the whole ‘­populus’ approved Athanasius’s election and that he then went to Rome where he was welcomed ‘­honorifice’ and consecrated ‘­honorificentius’.61 There could be no suspicion at the integrity of a bishop, who, upon his death, had been revered as a saint, and John the Deacon appears to make every effort to avoid any insinuation or criticism. In the case of Paul II (­­762–​­766), the author narrated that, while a deacon, Paul had frequently gone to Rome as an ambassador and had been a close friend with the man who later became Pope Paul. One day, the Neapolitan told the Roman that God would allow him to become pope. The reply was ‘­Et tu episcopum (­And you bishop)’. Both predictions were fulfilled within a short time.62 This anecdote probably aimed at underlining the familiarity and friendship existing between Rome and the Neapolitan Church during the very sensitive period of iconoclasm, when the Neapolitan rulers were aligned with Constantinople against the Papacy’s position on this issue. Indeed, the friendship between the Neapolitan Paul and his Roman namesake is contrasted immediately afterward by the attitude of Bishop Paul II’s fellow citizens. They prevented the Neapolitan Paul from going to Rome to be consecrated by the pope for nine months. Moreover, they did not let him ­re-​­enter Naples after he went to the pontiff on his own initiative.63 This account highlights that the relations between the Papacy and the Neapolitan Church were very good and that the ecclesiastics of Naples were not responsible for what had happened. The Neapolitans were, in any case, later exonerated for having taken the side of the Byzantines. Initially, the bishop was allowed to reside at the church of St. Januarius, which stood just outside the city and where Paul II was able to exercise his function as bishop of Naples without any impediment. All the clergy and the populus obeyed him without question, and the Neapolitans brought him their children to be baptized. After two years, the Neapolitan primates decided that their city could no longer be deprived of so great a bishop and, therefore, gave him permission to ­re-​­enter Naples.64

Conclusions Like the anonymous author who had written about the lives of the first ­thirty-​­nine bishops of Naples, John the Deacon put the biographies of the Neapolitan prelates at the center of his work. The possibility of having a greater number of sources at his disposal and the narrative ability of the Neapolitan chronicler ensured that the second part of the Gesta is much more detailed than the first. The greater availability of information did not,

146  A difficult memory to manage however, allow John the Deacon to isolate the bishops from the environment in which they had lived as happened in the first section. Moreover, the political circumstances he recounted were extremely delicate. They were characterized by the strong autonomy of Naples from Constantinople that made the Neapolitan dukes independent from Byzantine rule. In a situation in which the transmission of the ducal office did not follow ­well-​­established rules, they necessarily had to reinforce their own power, and one of the ways to achieve this was through control of the Neapolitan Church. Unfortunately, it is not possible to determine exactly when and in what milieu John the Deacon composed his work. In narrating the history of the Neapolitan bishops during that difficult period, the author, however, desired to stress not only that all the prelates of Naples took care of the religious buildings and of their flock, but also that they did not show themselves to be accommodating to political power. Given the close connection between dukes and bishops, every unpleasant situation resulting from this connection had, nevertheless, to be presented in a manner that did not displease the Neapolitan rulers. The desire not to distort the events too much or not to omit any episodes (­a wish perhaps dictated by John the Deacon’s reluctance to give up his role as a historian) represents good fortune for scholars, as the way in which he described the facts makes it possible to identify the tensions and connivances between the secular and religious authorities. If Domenico Mallardo’s identification of the Gesta episcoporum with the early work by the hagiographer John the Deacon is correct (­a text that would have received harsh criticisms at the time of its writing),65 then perhaps it was John’s desire to avoid creating an idyllic picture of Neapolitan history that spawned these criticisms. Obviously, it is a hypothesis based on another theory. Yet those problems that also appear to emerge from the Gesta could explain why John the Deacon did not recount the life of Bishop Athanasius II, Athanasius’s successor, who had blinded his brother, appropriated the title of duke, and then sided with the Muslims, thus proving himself an unscrupulous ruler.66 Too many episodes had to be left out.67

Notes 1 For the history of Naples in this period, see the overview in ­Chapter 3 of this book. 2 The title Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum was given by G. Waitz who edited this text for Monumenta Germaniae Historica. A few years after Waitz, B. Capasso did another edition of this work and entitled it Chronicon episcoporum S. Neapolitanae Ecclesiae in Monumenta ad Neapolitani Ducatus historiam pertinentia, I (­Naples, 1881), p­p.  ­155–​­221. Given the characteristics of this text, I believe that Waitz’s choice is more appropriate. 3 The biography of Bishop Calvus is, however, incomplete as some folios were removed. The biographies are found in a manuscript dating from ca. the end of the eighth century, while the continuation is in a manuscript composed roughly at the middle of the tenth century. The texts were later brought together in a single codex conserved in the Vatican Library (­Codex Vaticanus Latinus 5007). D.

A difficult memory to manage  147 Mallardo, Storia antica della Chiesa di Napoli. Le fonti (­Naples, 1943), p­p. ­31–​­36; Storia dei vescovi napoletani, ­p. 28; E. Condello, Una scrittura e un territorio. L’onciale dei secoli ­V-​­VIII nell’Italia meridionale (­Spoleto, 1994), p­p. ­93–​­96. Another ­hypothesis—​­not based on a paleographical analysis of the ­codex—​­maintains that the manuscript was written in the 840s. On this, see Bertolini, ‘­La Chiesa di Napoli durante la crisi iconoclasta’, p­p. ­104–​­05. V. Lucherini, who does not know the works on that codex, argues that the first part was written when the Bishop of Naples John IV (­­831–​­849) ordered the transfer of the relics of some Neapolitan prelates. V. Lucherini, La cattedrale di Napoli. Storia architettura, storiografia di un monumento medievale (­Rome, 2009), p­p.  ­66–​­73. Although he quotes Condello’s book, T. Granier is in favor of this hypothesis. T. Granier, ‘­La difficile genèse de l’Histoire des évêques de Naples (­m ilieu du ­IXe-​­début du Xe siècle): le scriptorium et la famille des évêques’, in Liber, Gesta, histoire. Écrire l’histoire des évêques et des papes de l’Antiquité au XXIe siècle, eds. F. Bougard and M. Sot (­Turnhout, 2009), ­p. 269. 4 On Peter the Subdeacon, author of hagiographical texts, see the introduction of Pietro Suddiacono napoletano, L’opera agiografica, ed. E. D’Angelo (­Florence, 2002). The text has not ‘­an additional chapter about the year 898’ as stated by Whitten, ‘­Franks, Greeks, and Saracens’, ­p. 254, note 7. 5 Gregory (­­766–​­794) is the only Neapolitan duke not to be mentioned. 6 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 56: ‘­Si enim huius vitam vel mores, qualiter a iuventute iuste et pie vixerit, scribere temptavero, non dico meae adolescentiae, cuius sensus propter aetatem adhuc intercluditur, verum etiam sagacioribus oneri fuerat’. 7 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 65, p ­ .  110. The work then continues with the biography of the next bishop, Athanasius II, but ends suddenly after a few lines. Peter the Subdeacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 66. 8 For instance, between the eighth and the tenth century, three Neapolitan dukes had this name. In the Gesta, there are four bishops and a deacon named John. Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum prima pars, chapters 6, 16, 25; John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapters 42, 56. An analysis of early medieval Neapolitan archival sources has shown that ­twenty-​­five percent of men had this name. M. Villani, ‘­L’antroponimia nelle carte napoletane, sec. ­X–​­XII’, Mélanges de l’Ecole Française de Rome, 107, 1 (­1995), p­p. ­345–​­59. 9 F. Dolbeau, ‘­La vie latine de saint Euthyme: une traduction inédite de Jean, diacre napolitain’, Mélanges de l’Ecole Française de Rome, Moyen ­Age—​­Temps Modernes, 94 (­1982), p­p. ­315–​­35. 10 D. Mallardo, ‘­Giovanni Diacono napoletano. I. La Vita’, Rivista di storia della Chiesa in Italia, II, 3 (­1948), p­p. ­317–​­20. Following D. Mallardo, all scholars dealing with these studies have agreed in identifying the chronicler John the Deacon with the hagiographer. Cilento, ‘­La cultura e gli inizi dello studio’, p­p. ­576–​­79; M. Fuiano, Libri, scrittorii e biblioteche nell’alto Medioevo (­Naples, 1973), p­p. ­38–​ ­39; M. Fuiano, Spiritualità e cultura a Napoli nell’alto Medioevo (­Naples, 1986), p­p. ­38–​­41; W. Berschin, Biographie und Epochenstil im lateinischen Mittelalter, II. Merowingische Biographie. Italien, Spanien und die Inseln im frühen Mittelalter (­Stuttgart, 1988), ­p. 159; M. Oldoni, ‘­La cultura latina’, in Storia e civiltà della Campania, ­p. 321. Thomas Granier and Patricia Skinner, who do not seem to know Mallardo’s work, have conjectured that the chronicler had written his work in the ­880s–​­890s. T. Granier, ‘­Le peuple devant les saints: La cité et le peuple de Naples dans les textes hagiographiques fin IXe – ​­début Xe s.’, in Peuples du Moyen Age. Problemes d’identification, eds. C. Carozzi and H. T ­ aviani-​­Carozzi (­­A ix-­​­­en-​­Provence, 1996), ­p. 57; T. Granier, ‘­À rebours des laudes civitatum: les Versus Romae et le discours sur la ville dans l’Italie du haut Moyen Âge’, in

148  A difficult memory to manage Le médiéviste devant ses sources: questions and méthodes, eds. C. ­Carozzi – ​­H. ­Taviani-​­Carozzi (­­A ix-­​­­en-​­Provence, 1996), ­p. 137; P. Skinner, Women in Medieval Italian Society ­500–​­1200 (­Harlow, 2001), p ­ . 78. 11 John the Deacon, Translatio sancti Sosii, chapter 24. This text is a part of the Passio sancti Ianuarii. 12 The same views were expressed earlier by Fedele Savio, who has not, however, suggested a date for John the Deacon’s birth and has emphasized only that John the Deacon must have been young in 896 if he had need of a teacher. F. Savio, ‘­Giovanni Diacono, biografo dei vescovi napoletani’, Atti della Reale Accademia delle scienze di Torino, L (­­1914–​­1915), p­p. ­311–​­12. 13 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 42: ‘­Si cuncta, quae in eodem sacro operatus est episcopio, scribere voluero, et fastidio sunt legentibus, et nos sicut inertes subcumbimus’. 14 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 56: ‘­Si enim huius vitam vel mores, qualiter a iuventute iuste et pie vixerit, scribere temptavero, non dico meę adolescentię, cuius sensus propter ętatem adhuc intercluditur, verum etiam sagacioribus oneri fuerat. Tamen in quantum vires suppetunt, ob laudem eius posteris propagandam, de vite illius actibus aliquantulum enarrare curamus, obsecrantes prius, ut nullatenus irrideatur, quod non secundum sęculum ex nobili prosapia oriundus descendit, quia, qui rectę nobilitatis est, quę viget in Christo, novit Dominum ab initio pauperum egenorumque consortio usum. Igitur ex infimis parentibus procreatus, pauperem cucurrit pueritiam. Cum autem adolevit, non, sicut illa ętas assolet, mundi secutus est illecebras, sed magis se preceptorum elegit subdere manibus, quatenus, litteris imbutus, soli Domino sciret vacare. Non enim magnopere liberalium artium, sed divinę doctrinę potissimum quęsivit magistros, utpote totum se Deo offerre cupiebat. Cuius desiderium Dominus misericorditer adimplere dignatus est. Nam divinę doctrinę eruditor pręclarus effulsit. Presertim sic scribere novit, ut ex officio cognomen acciperet et ab omnibus Iohannes Scribo vocaretur. Pedes quoque eius raro platea tetigit. Simplicitatem columbę cum serpentis prudentia semper in corde retinuit. Pro conviciis non malum, sed oboedientiam exhibebat ac per hoc omnibus dulcis, omnibus carus. Nutu cęlesti ad diaconatus promotus est honorem. In corde vero illius eadem patientia, eadem perseverabat simplicitas, dolens magis aliorum quam sua convicia.’ 15 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 56: ‘­Maxime ex captione prędicti Tiberii episcopi, ita ut ęgrotaret, afflictus est. Sed sicut supra retulimus cum prędictus Bonus Tiberium tenebroso carcere et execrabili fame affligeret, iussit cunctos terque quaterque aggregari clericos, ut illis electum pręberet. Hic autem solus, nonnullis conantibus assumere, immo invadere eandem sedem, absens et contrarius ibat. Ad ultimum vero multis affectus conviciis, adductus est ante Bonum consulem. Cui feroci pectore, ore garrulo comminari coepit. Post paululum, furiis actus, iuravit, non alium nisi ipsum facere electum. At ille clamabat: ‘­Pręsule meo vivo, non ero sedis invasor’. Unde dux valde iratus, dixit, eundem iugulare Tiberium et totius episcopii servos possessionesque infiscari. Tum ille undique angustatus, mentem per varia ducebat, hinc formidans de pręsulis nece pontificatusque clade cęleste examen, illinc apostolicam sententiam et populi infamationem. Sed ubi respectu misericordię maluit humanum quam divinum subire detrimentum, ait ad consulem: ‘­Si iureiurando sancire volueris, ut licentiam habeam ingrediendi ad Tiberium episcopum et nullatenus eum produces ex ipso episcopio nec quamlibet maculam facies in corpore eius, licet ad periculum capitis mei prebebo consensum’. Hac ilico promissione percepta, electus est sublimatus. Tiberio denique episcopo quantum quietis quantumque exhibebat humanitatis, non est nostrę facultatis evolvere.’

A difficult memory to manage  149 16 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 55: ‘­Praefatus igitur Bonus, Stephani ducis necator, in eo anno, quo consulatum Neapolitanorum regere orsus est, contra sanctam ecclesiam ad cumulum suae perditionis multa coepit mala peragere. Cui cum hic idem antistes, in quantum virium erat, obsistere non dubitaret, eligens terreni quam caelestis iram incurrere iudicis, ei iugiter examen cominabatur divinum. Sed ille antiquae aspidis cauda aurem cordis optusus, adhuc quia spernebat monita salutis, insuper ut funes peccatorum ad suum prolongaret interitum, lictorum verbositates magis attendebat. Quid multis moror? Ad ultimum iniecit in eum manus et comprehendit eum atque carceralibus tenebris religatum arto in pane et aqua macerabat.’ 17 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 57. 18 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 58: ‘­His ita peractis, Tiberio episcopo in prędicta custodia posito, appropinquavit ultima dies. Qui pridie quam moreretur, residens in pontificali cathedra, de domno Iohanne electo talem sermonem fecit ad populum: ‘­Scitis, fratres karissimi, quia peccatorum mole depressus, iusto iudicio hominibus absque misericordia traditus sum. Sed Dominus, qui deducit ad inferos tribulationis et reducit, quique cum temptatione proventum faciet ad sustinendum, permisit presentem filium meum domnum Iohannem nostram ingredere sedem, quatenus haberem maxime tribulationis solacium. Ideoque nolumus vestram latere caritatem, quia de tanta, quam erga me impendit, humanitate, etiamsi omnibus membris loquerer, nullatenus illi gratias referre valueram. Tamen quia magis misericordia meę consolationis quam presumptione motus, vivo me, episcopatum assumpsit, nulla immineat illi nec a Romana sede nec ab aliis hominibus condemnatio. Huius etenim professionis, quam sponte pro illo feci, coram Deo et omnibus potestabibus veritatis testes vos habere decrevimus’. Hoc autem dicto, surrexit de solio, pręcipiens se ad lectulum portari, ubi per duos dies Dominum laudans veniamque piaculorum implorans, migravit e seculo. Cuius corpus cum veneratione domnus Iohannes in ecclesia sancti Ianuarii sepelivit, indictione …, anno impe. …’ 19 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 59. 20 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 59: ‘­Pro! factus episcopus quantum et qualem se exhibebat, nulla carnis lingua poterit enarrare. Nam omnia fiebat omnibus, ut omnes lucrifaceret. Senes reverebatur ut patres, iuvenes diligebat ut fratres; nulli umquam malum pro malo reddebat, neminem nisi pro suis criminibus increpabat. Quem merentem non consolatus est? Cum quo infirmante non infirmatus est? Sic praeerat cunctis, ut ipse magis videretur subiectus. Hic, hic fuit secundum apostolum pontifex, ut etiam testimonium foris haberet: non enim nisi pius, nisi iustus, nisi sanctus per omnia videbatur. Quorsum ista? Num quidnam tanti sumus ingenii, ut laudes eius exprimere valeamus? Exciditne, nos professos esse, parumper posse de eo effari? Quid ergo? Accingamur ad alia; haec, quia sunt eminentissima, relinquamus.’ 21 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 59. 22 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 55: ‘­Bonus… contra sanctam ecclesiam… multa coepit mala peragere’. 23 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 55: ‘­Cui cum hic idem antistes, in quantum virium erat, obsistere non dubitaret, eligens terreni quam caelestis iram incurrere iudicis, ei iugiter examen cominabatur divinum’. 24 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 55: ‘­ad cumulum suae perditionis’. 25 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 55: ‘­Cui cum hic idem antistes, in quantum virium erat, obsistere non dubitaret, eligens terreni quam caelestis iram incurrere iudicis, ei iugiter examen cominabatur divinum.

150  A difficult memory to manage Sed ille antiquae aspidis cauda aurem cordis optusus, adhuc quia spernebat monita salutis, insuper ut funes peccatorum ad suum prolongaret interitum, lictorum verbositates magis attendebat.’ 26 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 56: ‘­Cui feroci pectore, ore garrulo comminari coepit. Post paululum, furiis actus, iuravit, non alium nisi ipsum facere electum. At ille clamabat: ‘­Praesule meo vivo, non ero sedis invasor’. Unde dux valde iratus, dixit, eundem iugulare Tiberium et totius episcopii servos possessionesque infiscari.’ 27 In this connection, G. Cassandro maintains that the motives for selecting John were political and he observes that John IV sided with the duke. Cassandro, ‘­Il ducato bizantino’, ­p. 56. P. Cammarosano agrees with this opinion. Cammaros­ . 170. Gleijess holds the view that John was a member of Bonus’s ano, Nobili e re, p circle. V. Gleijess, La storia di Napoli dalle origini ai nostri giorni (­Naples, 1974), ­p. 134. 28 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 65. 29 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 65. 30 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 65. 31 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 65: ‘­Hic itaque eo degente, Beneventani et Salernitani, aemulatores tantae bonitatis predicti imperatoris, insurrexerunt cum consilio Sergii ducis contra eum’. For an analysis of the sources describing the imprisonment of the Emperor Louis II, see T. Granier, ‘­La captivité de l’empereur Louis II à Bénévent (­13 ­août-​­17 septembre 871) dans les sources des ­IXe-​­Xe siècles: l’écriture de l’histoire, de la fausse nouvelle au récit exemplaire’, in Faire l’événement au Moyen Âge, eds. C. C ­ arozzi  – H. ​­ ­Taviani-​­Carozzi (­­A ix-­​­­en-​­Provence, 2007), p­p. ­13–​­39. 32 Vita s. Athanasii, chapter 6, ­p. 132: ‘­Erat namque vir ille mobilis ut arundo, quae ab omni vento movetur, et avidus in cupiditate et patri in nullo similis’. 33 Vita s. Athanasii, chapter 6, p ­ . 131: ‘­maxime diabolo istigante subversus, ut in nullo supradicto viro obtemperaret, coepitque cor eius diabolica decipere locutione, ut si vellet monarchiam solus optinere’. ­ .  132: ‘­circumvenit eos prestigiis suis, ut Iudas 34 Vita s. Athanasii, chapter 6, p proditor iustissimum Dominum’. 35 Vita s. Athanasii, chapter 6, p ­ . 135: ‘­At ille solito furore insanivit… armati omnes una cum Saracenis perrexerunt ad ipsam insulam’. 36 Vita s. Athanasii, chapter 7, ­p. 136: ‘­m isit ad inquirendas tamen facultates et res aecclesiae avidissime devorandum’. 37 Vita s. Athanasii, chapter 7, ­p. 137: ‘­sacerdotes Dei contempti erant in tantum, ut etiam ex ipsis fusticatis et tonsoratis nudis per plateas traherentur… numquid finis mundi est? aut antichristus exivit? Nos talia non vidimus nec audivimus nec legimus facta fuisse tempore Valentis impii augusti, nec quando Eudoxia Iohannem sanctissimum a sua sede pepulit.’ 38 Vita s. Athanasii, chapter 7, p­p. ­137–​­38. 39 Vita s. Athanasii, chapter 7. 40 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 65. 41 P. Devos, ‘­L’oeuvre de Guarimpotus, hagiographe napolitain’, Analecta Bollandiana, LXXVI (­1958), p­p. ­151–​­87. 42 See the introduction to the edition of Vita s. Athanasii. 43 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 55. 44 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 42: ‘­In eo siquidem anno, quo Paulus episcopus defunctus est, irato Deo, tanta desaevit clades in Neapoli, quae a medicis inguinaria vocatur ut patris interitum mors subsequeretur filiorum, et ad sepeliendum rarus superstes inveniretur; unde etiam prope omnes clerici eiusdem episcopii vitam finirent. Ac per hoc omnes Neapolites

A difficult memory to manage  151 ad praedictum accedentes praesulem, magnis postularunt precibus, ut ecclesiae sanctae providus pastor accederet.’ 45 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 42. 46 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 42. 47 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 42. 48 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 42. 49 Chronicon ducum et principum Beneventi, Salerni et Capuae et ducum Neapolis, ­p. 8. 50 V. Von Valkenhausen agrees with G. Cassandro and she believes that Stephen became bishop in order to control the property of the Neapolitan Church. C. Russo Mailler, on the other hand, maintains that Stephen continued to govern Naples and that Gregory and Theophylact had been his corulers. Cassandro, ‘­Il ducato bizantino’, p­p.  ­42–​­43; Von Falkenhausen, ‘­La Campania tra Goti e Bizantini’, ­p. 21; Russo Mailler, ‘­Il ducato di Napoli’, p­p. ­359–​­60. 51 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 46: ‘­Defuncto igitur domno Stephano episcopo Theophilactus, gener eius, consulatum regebat Parthenopensem. Qui, obstinatus avaritia, nolebat quempiam ex clericali officio promovere ad sacrum ordinem, dicens: ‘­Nequeo exinde amaricari Eupraxiam meam uxorem’. Illa quoque quasi comperta occasione referebat: “­Laetati estis de morte genitoris mei. Mihi credite, nullus ex vobis ad episcopatum ascendet”.’ 52 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 46: ‘­Diu autem ista vertentes, coeperunt omnes acclamare: ‘­Date nobis quem vultis, quia sine pastore esse non possumus.’ Tum illa femineis fiammis accensa, hunc Paulum popularem et laicum, licet orbatum uxore, comprehendens, tradidit illis; sed cum reniti nemo auderet, ilico tonsum electum sibi fecerunt.’ 53 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 46: ‘­Scribere igitur incipientes, qualiter iste pontificali culmine sit sublimatus, studiosos precamur lectores, ut non aegre accipiant et nobis imputent aliquid narrasse ineptum: quia utilius est veritatem proferre quam vitantes quicquam ire per anfractam locutionem’. 54 J. Martinez Pizarro has compared the misogyny revealed by this passage to that highlighted by Agnellus of Ravenna, telling of the way in which Rosmunda took her revenge against her husband, Alboin, the King of the Lombards. J. Martínez Pizarro, Writing Ravenna. The Liber Pontificalis of Andrea Agnellus (­A nn Arbor, 1995), ­p.  35. Both accounts reflect their respective author’s misogyny, but the difference between Agnellus and John the Deacon is considerable. In fact, the chronicler from Ravenna takes Rosmunda’s behavior as his starting point to warn husbands about their wives, suggesting that they should never provoke their wrath. 55 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapters 46, 50. 56 In spite of the fact that John the Deacon’s account has some obscure points, it appears to me that N. Cilento’s way of interpreting it is incorrect. He maintains that the event was the expression of the Neapolitan people’s desire to have a more important role in the election of their own bishop. Cilento, ‘­La cultura e gli inizi dello studio’, ­p. 580. I also disagree with P. Skinner who supposes that ‘­this story may highlight the tensions in Naples at the end of the ninth century rather than the eighth’. Skinner, Women in Medieval Italian Society, ­p. 78. There is no evidence proving that in Naples there was not that kind of tensions in 794. 57 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 63: ‘­Infra vicesimum aetatis suae annum levitali honore suffultus’. 58 In the Vita s. Athanasii it is reported that Athanasius had become bishop after having been deacon for one year and two months. Vita s. Athanasii, chapter 3. However, Athanasius’s age on becoming deacon is not given in this text. The

152  A difficult memory to manage hagiographer only related that the duke’s son had been made subdeacon when he was an adolescent and that he had held this office for seven years. Athanasius therefore became subdeacon when he was thirteen. Vita s. Athanasii, chapter 3. 59 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 63: ‘­Infra vicesimum aetatis suae annum levitali honore suffultus, quasi iam episcopus venerabatur. Dominus enim, qui praevidebat ecclesiae suae tantum pastorem, quodammodo de illo suae clementiae signum praecordiis humanis indiderat, antistitem eis designans futurum’. 60 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 63: ‘­Ille, inquam, ille tanto mellifluus nectare sic omnes dulcabat, ut domnus Iohannes episcopus paterno affectu in tantum eum diligeret, quod de eo sine filii vocabulo numquam os aperiret, populus cunctus sine domini assertione. Mirum in modum certatim a singulis laudabatur, et quod ante secula Omnipotens predestinarat, celebs iam et sanctus auspiciebatur.’ 61 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 63: ‘­Profecto igitur domno Iohanne ad caelestem patriam, huius electionem e vestigio cunctus acclamavit populus. Qui mox sublimatus, in paucis diebus Romam properavit. Ubi honorifice susceptus honorificentiusque consecratus, cum magna gloria Neapolim repedavit’. 62 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 41. 63 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 41: ‘­Sed propter detestabilem imaginum altercationem, quae inter apostolici tramitis auctoritatem et fedissimam Constantini imperatoris Caballini vertebatur amentiam, novem sunt menses elapsi, in quibus non potuit consecrari; quia tunc Parthenopensis populus potestati Graecorum favebat. Attamen hic cum cuperet praedicto papae quasi amicus de talibus aliquo modo suffragari, clanculo Romam perrexit. Qui statim consecratus episcopus, Neapolim est directus, sed propter Graecorum conexionem noluerunt illum recipere sui concives.’ 64 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chapter 41: ‘­Inito tamen consilio, eum ad ecclesiam sancti Ianuarii Christi martyris, non longius ab urbe dicatam, transmiserunt. In qua duos ferme annos degens, plura construxit aedificia. Inter quae fecit triclineum, quod est introeuntibus a parte dextra. Sane clerus omnis et populus cunctus canonice illi ut vero obtemperabant pastori, resque omnes ecclesiae absque ullius detinebat et disponebat obstaculo. Construxit etiam marmoreum baptismatis fontem. In quo paschalibus aliisque festis omnes occurrentes suos baptizabant filios. Interea Neapolitanorum primates cernentes, tam egregiam urbem languidam esse de tanto pontifice, uno consilio unoque consensu laetantes et gaudentes eum in ipsius civitatis episcopatum introduxerunt.’ 65 In the Translatio sancti Sosii, the hagiographer John the Deacon narrated that an earlier work of him had received harsh criticisms. John the Deacon, Translatio sancti Sosii, ­p. 459: ‘­Post nonnulla tyrocinii mei opuscula, quibus aliquantisper iuvenilem animum caritatis exercuisse videbar imperio, nullius fore disponebam intentionis, nisi ut magis hebetaret desidia, quam fomenta lividae stomachationis alicui pro talibus subministrarem experimentis. Didiceram quippe et didiceram, qualiter bilis ignita linguae faculam torrens continuos ureret dentes.’ 66 On Athanasius II, see P. Bertolini, ‘­Atanasio’, in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, 4 (­Rome, 1962), p­p. ­510–​­18; Cassandro, ‘­Il ducato bizantino’, p­p. ­100–​­04; and Kreutz, Before the Normans, p­p. ­73–​­74. 67 That the memory of this ­bishop-​­duke was unsavoury also appears to be suggested by the detail that in his biography, which is in the same manuscript of John the Deacon’s Gesta episcoporum, only a few lines are found.

8 Oblivion, memory, and irony in ­ninth-​­century Montecassino

As emphasized in the previous chapters, the arrival of the Muslims in southern Italy and the conflicts among the southern Lombards in the ninth century caused a lot of turmoil in southern ‘­Langobardia’. The goal of this chapter is to analyze how the authors of the Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis (­Chronicles of St. Benedict of Cassino) described those troubled times. These texts were included in a manuscript (­the Codex Casinensis 175) that was composed at the beginning of the tenth century on initiative of the Abbot of Montecassino, John (­­915–​­934). In those years, Saint Benedict’s monks were at Capua where they had taken refuge after the destruction of their abbey in 883, and in the difficult period of the exile Abbot John aimed at recomposing the identity of Montecassino as well as at reasserting its key role as depository of southern Italy’s memory. The Codex Casinensis number 175, in fact, not only contains fundamental texts to the Cassinese community like the Rule of Saint Benedict, but also important documents for southern Lombards’ history such as the treaty of partition between the principalities of Benevento and Salerno.1 The Chronicles of Saint Benedict of Cassino have the role of describing and interpreting that history. This text is known as Cronicae in the plural as it appears to be made up of three separate parts.2 The first is a brief summary of events in southern Italy between the Lombard invasion at the end of the sixth century and Louis II’s campaign against the Muslims in 866/­867. The second is a narrative of the period from the murder of the Prince of Benevento, Sicard, in 839 to the 860s.3 It particularly details episodes that took place at Montecassino and the surrounding area. The third is very different from the other two, being a short summary of the history of the monastery of St. Benedict. It used passages from Paul the Deacon’s History of the Lombards that are followed by a chronological table. There is little or no evidence for the date of composition for the first and second sections. In the final part of the first section, there is a reference to the defeat of the Muslims by Louis II, an event that reduced Islamic territory to Bari and Taranto. Since the emperor conquered Bari in 871, Georg Waitz maintains that the work was written before that year; however, the author may have died before he had time to relate later happenings. For this

DOI: 10.4324/9781003109617-8

154  Oblivion, memory, and irony in ninth-century Montecassino reason, it is impossible to give a terminus ante quem.4 The same uncertainty surrounds the third section. The chronological table that it reports reaches approximately the year 873/­874. This could mean that the chronicler composed the third part in those years, but it is also possible that he did not have time to finish the account during his lifetime. The first two sections appear to have been written for different purposes, but the beginning of the second likely refers to the first. The author addressed an imaginary reader and told him that, if he wished to find a reason for the Saracen victories in the Principality of Benevento, he would find it in this account.5 Therefore, in this example, this chronicler probably elaborated upon an issue treated in part one. None of the parts of the Cronicae has a prologue or a dedication, and only the third section contains a title: ‘­Cronica de monasterio sanctissimi Benedicti’.6 The authors never refer to themselves. That most of the events mentioned in the Cronicae took place in or around Montecassino suggests that the chroniclers were monks of that monastery. This hypothesis finds support in the opening passage of the first part: ‘­Quidam ex nostris scire volentes, quot anni essent a tempore sanctissimi Benedecti patris usque nunc… (­because some of ours want to know how many years there are from the time of the most holy father Benedict…)’.7 The chronicler did not specify exactly who the ‘­nostri’ are, but, since the problem regards Saint Benedict, founder of Montecassino, it is likely that the author is referring to his fellow monks. In addition, the anonymous chronicler stated that he was a contemporary of Abbot Bertharius (­­856–​­883): ‘­a Petronace abbate usque nunc annum domni Berthari abbatis (­from Petronax until now, year of lord Abbot Bertharius)’.8 In the passage where he described the raids by the Bari Muslims, the author of the second part emphasized that they had been particularly harsh ‘­in nos (­against us)’9; this probably referred to the monks of Montecassino as well. The first section of the chronicle is more general in content than the second; nevertheless, it still presents some very relevant issues for modern scholars. Even though the author knew Paul the Deacon’s History of the Lombards, he did not recount anything that the Lombard historian had narrated about Saint Benedict and Montecassino. Instead, he concentrated entirely on the actions of the Lombards and was particularly enthusiastic about their victories in Italy. After reporting how the Byzantine general Narses had employed the Lombards against the Ostrogoths,10 the chronicler copied word for word a passage from Paul the Deacon’s History of the Lombards. This section mentions the time when the Lombards accepted Narses’s invitation to leave Pannonia in order to gain possession of Italy.11 However, the author omitted the reference to what had motivated the Byzantine general to take this course of action. Paul the Deacon actually reported that Narses had called on the Lombards in order to take revenge on Emperor Justin II. He wanted revenge because the sovereign had dismissed him after listening to slanderous rumors some Italians had reported to him. The anonymous chronicler probably felt that this explanation was irrelevant to

Oblivion, memory, and irony in ninth-century Montecassino  155 his account. There is also another, more significant omission. The author deleted the bloody details of the Lombard invasion by leaving out the passage from the History of the Lombards in which Paul the Deacon described an event immediately after Narses’s offer to the Lombards. According to the historian of the Lombards, on that night, an army of fire appeared in the sky, a clear premonition of the blood that was soon to be spilt in Italy.12 From then on, the chronicler only demonstrated an interest in the Lombards in southern Italy. After arriving in the Peninsula, related the author, they had settled in Benevento. There is no mention of any destruction or cruelty on the part of the invaders. Even the plundering of Montecassino, also recorded in the History of the Lombards,13 is omitted. Instead, the Lombard campaign is portrayed as a kind of divine mission. Under the guidance of the Archangel Michael, the Lombards defeated the ‘­Greeks’ and the ‘­Romans’ and took over all the Beneventan area. In addition, they converted the Neapolitans to Christianity.14 In this way, the author highlighted the contrast between the exemplary past of the Lombards and the present,15 in which they were behaving irrationally. The Lombards killed most of their rulers and divided the Principality of Benevento, thus permitting the Muslims to pillage the region.16 It is no coincidence that the chronicler linked the two periods with biblical quotations: ‘­Every kingdom divided against itself is heading for ruin’ and ‘­what one sows is what one reaps’.17 He then offered a comparison with the ­Jews—​­the Chosen People par ­excellence—​­who, after quarreling among themselves, had been dispersed all over the world.18 The Lombards, therefore, reaped what they had sown; the division of the Principality of Benevento did indeed cause their weakness and ruin.19 The chronicler’s omission of a crucial episode in Montecassino’s history20 in order to underscore his message shows the degree of apprehension felt for the situation the Lombard civil war created and the Principality of Benevento’s subsequent partition in the monastery of St. Benedict. As already stated, a description of the manner in which the Muslims managed to dominate southern Italy characterizes the second part of the Cronicae. The critical tone the author utilized to describe the struggles among the Lombard rulers is clear from the first line. Indeed, he affirmed ‘­quam ob causam Beneventanorum regionem Saraceni dominassent (­the Saracens dominated the region of the Beneventans for this reason)’,21 thus emphasizing that the Muslims had become the true controllers of southern Italy. Because the author began with the death of the Prince of Benevento, Sicard, it is possible to deduce that he perceived the rifts between the Lombard leaders as the cause of the Saracen domination. Sicard’s death actually sparked a civil war between the palace treasurer Radelchis, who became Sicard’s successor, and Siconolf, Sicard’s brother. The chaos resulting from this conflict weakened Lombard power and provided the Muslims with the opportunity of creating their own dominions and conducting raids in southern Italy. The chronicler did not limit himself to narrating those tragic events, yet he employed irony and sarcasm in order to blame and ridicule the Lombard

156  Oblivion, memory, and irony in ninth-century Montecassino rulers.22 The clearest instance of the author’s contempt comes in his description of the Lombards’ attempt to confront the Emir of Bari, Sawdān, on the battlefield. Here, he underscored how the Lombards had, at last, seemed to be waking from a long sleep but this awakening had been beset with countless ‘­m iseriae (­m iseries)’. Their intentions may have been praiseworthy, but were useless due to their unending internal problems. The Lombards faced their enemy ‘­non uno agmine, non una eademque intentione (­neither in unified ranks, nor under one leadership)’23 and paid dearly as a consequence of that rift. According to the chronicler, when they saw the Christians in the distance, the Muslims laid down on the ground to rest since it was getting dark. The Christians, on the other hand, went straight onto the battlefield despite the unfavorable conditions and the fatigue from their long journey. The Saracens were already organized into unified ranks and rose up to attack the Lombards, who fled almost as soon as they had arrived. The chronicler then pointed out the seriousness of this defeat for the Lombards, many of whom had been killed by Muslim swords as they fled, while others perished as their fellow soldiers trampled them.24 The author’s insistence on the ordered mode of attack by the ­Saracens—​­’uno agmine (­in one unified rank)’—​­compared to the Lombards’ disorganization is probably a metaphor describing the overall picture of southern Italy at that time, when the Muslims were taking advantage of divisions between Christian factions and easily becoming the dominant power. In an earlier incident, the chronicler utilized the example of a certain foolish Lombard to criticize the people as a whole. He reported that a gastald named Rodoald had built a castle for himself and refused to recognize Capuan authority. The Capuans began to threaten him and so, in order to strengthen his position, Rodoald invited a Frank named Magenolf to his home.25 Soon after, the gastald’s guest imprisoned him and his two sons26 and took over all of his property. Even though the author condemned the Frank’s betrayal as an ‘­iniquitas’ (­iniquity), he admired his ability to turn the local peasants into soldiers and good subjects. At the same time, the chronicler was full of scorn for Rodoald, likely suggesting that the gastald was a typical example of the Lombards. Indeed, in order to underscore the gastald’s stupidity, he cited Aesop’s warning against inviting someone more powerful than yourself into your home.27 Bitter humor is also directed toward the Capuans whom the chronicler believed to be the initiators of the civil war among the Lombards. Narrating the Capuans’ attempt to rebuild Capua after the city was destroyed by numerous fires caused by the sins of her inhabitants, he mocks them, highlighting their vainglorious attitude (­they defined the city a ‘­second Rome’ and they wrote a poem in praise of it) and that they acted like one who flees from a lion only to run into a bear; in fact, their new home was also destroyed by fire.28 Divisions, internal struggles, military incompetence, and foolishness are not the only faults the author attributed to the Lombards. Immediately after the account of the Capuan victory over the Neapolitans, he gave Sawdān’s

Oblivion, memory, and irony in ninth-century Montecassino  157 assessment of the battle. The emir of Bari observed with irony how tow and wadding had fought,29 thus emphasizing his lack of respect toward both the Lombards and the Neapolitans.30 This also showed that, although the odious Neapolitans had been beaten, the real enemies, i.e. the Muslims, had still been at large and taking advantage of the wars between the Christian factions. When set against the Lombard lords’ ineffectiveness, the spirit of initiative which the monks of Montecassino displayed shines out like a beacon in the darkness. The abbots of St. Benedict were portrayed as the sole persons who had managed to achieve positive results in the fight against the Muslims. Above all, they alone were able to put an end to local conflicts. Immediately after mentioning the inhabitants of Capua’s evil actions31 and the Saracen victories,32 the author turned to the deeds of Abbot Bassacius. The Lombards asked this abbot to travel to Francia to obtain assistance from Louis II, who accepted the invitation and inflicted a heavy defeat on the Muslims,33 initiating a period of peace in southern Italy. Subsequently, Abbot Bertharius was able to obtain a pardon from Louis II for one of his relatives, Isembardus, the Gastald of Sant’Agata, who, along with a group of nobles, had been implicated in a plot against the emperor.34 The abbot also obtained the release of the Gastald Rodoald, who, as mentioned above, had been imprisoned and had had all his belongings confiscated by the Frank Magenolf.35 As for the defense of the abbey itself, that the Lombards were in the midst of a military crisis meant that the monks had to count solely on God’s protection. Indeed, the Lord was the only defender of their monastery and He alone punished the Saracens when they dared to attack Montecassino. In his account of the failed Muslim attempt to pillage the abbey of St. Benedict, the chronicler created an atmosphere of suspense rendering the divine intervention that had blocked the way of the Saracens even more extraordinary. Everything seemed lost. After pillaging the basilica of St. Peter in Rome, the Muslims came in sight of Montecassino, and postponed their attack to the following day, because it had already grown dark. Since only a dry riverbed separated them from the abbey, they felt certain that they would achieve their objective.36 The monks, desperate and certain of being killed, went barefoot and in sackcloth and ashes to the tomb of Saint Benedict.37 The chronicler did not limit himself to reporting that God heard their prayers. He made the account more vivid by relating that Apollinaris, one of Abbot Bassacius’s predecessors, appeared to him in a dream, and that a dialogue took place between the two in which Bassacius explained the situation. Apollinaris reassured the abbot, telling him that Saint Benedict and God would help the monks.38 The Lord intervened, and, although the sky was clear, He kindled a violent storm that flooded the dry river, thereby preventing the Muslims from reaching the Abbey.39 The description of the furious Saracen reaction is noteworthy. Enraged, they gnawed their fingers, grinded their teeth, and ran up and down in search

158  Oblivion, memory, and irony in ninth-century Montecassino of a point from which they could cross the river that, until a moment before, could have been forded without any problem.40 As one can observe, this is an extremely evocative description, in which the chronicler’s contempt and irony toward his enemies is evident. Veiled irony is also perceptible in the continuation of the account. Given that it was impossible to reach Montecassino, the Muslims destroyed several monastic cells near the Abbey, after which they boarded their ships for home. At the very moment in which they celebrated the appearance on the horizon of the mountains of their country, a monk and a cleric appeared asking them where they came from and where they were going. The Muslims reported their acts and then asked the two clergymen who they were. They replied that all would be revealed very soon. Then a violent storm broke out, leading to the shipwreck of the Saracen fleet and the death of all the Muslims. Thus, none of them could relate their deeds to their compatriots.41 One notes that the chronicler went beyond a simple reference to the punishment of the Saracens. The account betrays a sort of malicious joy on the part of the author, who wrote that the storm had occurred immediately after the Saracens had rejoiced at the sight of their homeland and had boasted of what they had done. It seems as if he wanted to affirm that the vengeance had been more effective, since the Muslims were punished just as they hoped to achieve their aim. Likewise, he implied that it had been as if the exploits of the Muslims had never happened because nobody was able to report them. In this section, the chronicler vividly underlined that, when all seemed to be lost (­the Muslims had taken over a major Christian holy place and defeated the Franks, the strongest warriors in the West), the abbey of Montecassino had been saved, thus confirming the sanctity of its founder. According to the view of Abbot Desiderius, who wrote in the eleventh century, the monk and the cleric in the ship were actually Saint Benedict and Saint Peter.42 If this were the case, then the destruction of the Muslim vessels clearly represented divine intervention to punish the Muslims for having dared to attack places dedicated to these saints. It is also significant that God had ensured that Montecassino did not suffer any damage, whereas St. Peter’s church was pillaged. In fact, this detail emphasizes even more that only the monastery of St. Benedict deserved God’s protection. The particularity of this account can be further appreciated by comparing it to other sources that refer to this event. In the biography of Pope Leo IV, we hear that, through divine intervention, the Saracen fleet was destroyed by a tempest while returning to Africa, and that this miracle, similar to the one performed in ancient times against the Egyptians, had been possible thanks to the prayers of the Holy Apostles.43 The Annals of St. Bertin related that a violent wind had brought about the shipwreck of the Muslim fleet, that the treasures stolen from St. Peter’s had been retrieved from the bodies of those drowned and scattered along the coast by the sea, and that the precious objects had then been returned to their original places.44

Oblivion, memory, and irony in ninth-century Montecassino  159 Before concluding this chapter, I would like to make some remarks about the problem of the composition date of the second section. I believe that it cannot be attributed to the period following the plundering of Montecassino and the killing of Abbot Bertharius in 883 by the Muslims. My conviction does not derive so much from the fact that this part finishes with episodes that happened at the beginning of the 860s, but to the particularly ironic tone used by the chronicler with regard to the Lombards. The author’s bitter irony seems to reflect the attitude of a witness of a difficult period who, however, had not lived through events as tragic as those of 883. This impression appears to be confirmed by the harsh descriptions of the Lombard nobles by the Cassinese chronicler Erchempert, who wrote after those terrible events. It is significant, too, that the author’s criticisms of Landolf, Bishop, and Count of Capua were veiled in contrast to the violent nature of those made by Erchempert. The distinctive behavior of the anonymous chronicler could indicate that he did not want to fall out with a powerful person contemporary to him.45 Finally, it can be affirmed that the main theme running through the first two parts of the Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis is the wish to express a strong criticism of the Lombards coeval to the authors. The way in which the chroniclers realized their intention is, however, unique. The author of the first section used comparisons between the past and the present, playing on oblivion and memory, while the chronicler of the second part primarily employed irony. This last characteristic and the particular narrative structure of the second section, aiming to catch the reader’s attention, lead to the hypothesis that the author, who probably wrote for an ecclesiastical audience, intended also to address lay people, perhaps with the aim of persuading them to ponder the factors that had provoked the crisis of Lombard southern Italy and to find a remedy for it. At the beginning of the tenth century, when St. Benedict’s monks, sorely tested by the destruction of their monastery in 883, tried to reconstruct their identity, the texts, known as Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, were inserted into the Codex Casinensis 175, a manuscript recognized as a ‘­monument’ of Montecassino.46 Thus, they assumed a fundamental role for the Benedictine community’s history, which, even if it had not been able, or had preferred not, to describe the tragedy experienced in 883,47 did, however, succeed in passing on to posterity the reasons for this terrible event.

Notes 1 For the description of the codex, see Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, pp. ­x xx–​­x xxiv. 2 Falco, ‘­Due secoli di storia cassinese’, p­p.  ­247–​­48; G. Falco, ‘­Voci cassinesi nell’alto medioevo’, in Il monachesimo nell’alto medioevo e la formazione della civiltà occidentale, Settimane di studio del Centro italiano di studi sull’alto Medioevo, IV (­Spoleto, 1957), p­p. ­15–​­18; Pratesi, ‘­La “­Chronica Sancti Benedicti Casinensis”’, p­p. ­332–​­34 and Pohl, Werkstätte der Erinnerung, p­p. 85 ff. On the

160  Oblivion, memory, and irony in ninth-century Montecassino contrary, Georg Waitz has maintained that there are two parts. Chronica Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, ­p. 467. 3 This section ends with the description of a raid by the Emir of Bari, Sawdān. The chronicler did not give any information about it, but in the previous paragraph he recounted that the Bishop of Capua, Landolf, had taken control of Capua, an event that occurred around 863. Cilento, Le origini della signoria di Capua, ­p. 105. 4 Cf. Pratesi, ‘­La “­Chronica Sancti Benedicti Casinensis”’, ­p. 334. According to W. Pohl the Cronicae were written in 867 on the occasion of Louis II’s visit to Montecassino. Pohl, ‘­History in fragments’, ­p. 357. This seems unlikely since the first part of the Cronicae does not end with this episode. Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, I, ­8 –​­11. L. Fabiani, on the other hand, maintains that they were compiled around 872, without providing evidence for this claim. L. Fabiani, La terra di S. Benedetto. Studio s­ torico-​­giuridico sull’Abbazia di Montecassino dall’VIII al XIII secolo, 2 vols. (­Montecassino, 1968), I, p ­ . 17. 5 Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, II, 1. 6 Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, III, 1. 7 Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, I, 1 8 Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, I, 1. 9 Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, II, 2. 10 Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, I, 2. Cf. Paul the Deacon, Historia Langobardorum, II, 1. 11 Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, I, 2­ –​­3. Cf. Paul the Deacon, Historia Langobardorum, II, 5, 7. 12 Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, II, 5. 13 Paul the Deacon, Historia Langobardorum, IV, 17. 14 Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, I, 4: ‘­Post hoc dominantes Italiam, Beneventum introeunt ad habitandum. Horum autem princeps militie celestis exercitus Michahel extitit archangelus. Neapolites ad fidem Christi perducti… Grecorum Romanorumque Langobardi gentes superantes, totam simul Beneventi possiderunt patriam’. 15 S. Gasparri does not see this connection. Although the Frankish conquest of the Lombard Kingdom is never mentioned in the Cronicae, he believes that this ‘­sickly sweet version’ of Lombard history could be an indication of the shock that episode caused among the southern Lombards and the subsequent isolation of Benevento. Gasparri, La cultura tradizionale dei Longobardi, ­p. 160. 16 Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, II, 5: ‘­Langobardorum gens dissidentes mentibus etiam suos interfecere principes. Ob id patrie facta divisio, Beneventanorum principatus duobus equidem partibus efficit divisus’. 17 Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, II, 5: ‘­O mne quippe regnum, ut ait Dominus, in se ipsum divisum desolabitur; et: Quod quis serens seminaverit, hoc et metet’. 18 Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, II, 5. A. Pratesi thinks that this comparison is not convincing. Pratesi, ‘­La “­Chronica Sancti Benedicti Casinensis”’, ­p. 333. In my opinion this actually fits well with what the chronicler wanted to make clear to his readership. Indeed, the comparison with the Hebrew population must have had an evocative meaning that would have been well understood by both ecclesiastical and lay readers who were familiar with the Bible. 19 As one can see, this passage does not indicate that ‘­the chronicler perceived the struggle in southern Italy as between the Israelites and the Saracens’ as maintained by Whitten, ‘­Franks, Greeks, and Saracens’, ­p. 263. 20 After the Lombards destroyed the monastery of St. Benedict, it remained in ruins for more than a century. 21 Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, II, 1.

Oblivion, memory, and irony in ninth-century Montecassino  161 22 Some parts of this chapter have already been mentioned in C ­ hapter  1 of this book. 23 Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, II, 26. 24 Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, II, 26: ‘­Tandem quasi e gravi somno evigilantes, sed gravati atque prepediti nimiis miseriis Wandelpert et Maielpotus gastaldius et Garard comes cum plurimis aliis nobilibus properaverunt Beneventum, ut communi consilio ulciscerent se de Saracenis. Salubre quidem fuit consilium, sed inutilis ordo. Non uno agmine, non una eademque intentione per cohortes incedebant, sed divisi ab alterutro inhordinate proficiscebant. Igitur propinquaverunt secus Saracenos ad Arium. Quod hi cernentes, se protinus straverunt in terram. Iamque sol ad occasum tendebat. Hi vero qui a Benevento venerunt, sicuti fuerant lassi et nimium equidem fatigati sitientesque valde, continuo in aciem introierunt. Ilico Saraceni subito erecti, ut erant in uno agmine conglobati, repente irruerunt super eos. Hi vero terga vertentes, fugere cęperunt. Plurimi interempti a gladiis, nonnulli cadentes, in alterutrum inpingentes, prefocabantur. Alii in fossatis, sepibus et cavernis terre inlesi a gladiis, sed pre siti mortui, inveniebantur. Saraceni autem victores effecti, cęptum peregerunt iter.’ 25 Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, II, 23. 26 The author did not say that Magenolf had killed Rodoald’s sons as maintained by De Angelis, ‘­Capua e i Capuani’, ­p. 167. See Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, II, 23: ‘­c epit Rodoaldum eumque in custodiam retrusit, duos quoque filios eius in turrem proiecit’. 27 Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, II, 23: ‘­Neque diu latuit misterium iniquitatis. Nam quodam die cum suis cepit Rodoaldum eumque in custodiam retrusit, duos quoque filios eius in turrem proiecit omnemque facultatem ipsius abstulit, thesaurum, peculia, mancipia, servi, populum, castrum, villam et omnia subiugavit sibi. Rurem populum et indisciplinatum, quem invenit, docuit more palatii esse prudentissimum. Et qui prius non noverant nisi cepe et alei, nunc ab eis censum principales exquiruntur solidi, etiam et in hostili armati proficiscuntur exercitu. Rodoald offertus dum beato Benedicto fuisset, vix a venerabili viro Berthari abbate et a monachis liberatus est. Ut Esepus doctor fabularum ait: “­Hoc patiatur, qui fortiorem sibi induxerit in domum suam!”’ De Angelis, on the other hand, maintains that the chronicler wanted to emphasize that Rodoald was thus punished for rebelling against the Capuans and that the latter would have been similarly punished for their betrayals by someone more powerful than them. De Angelis, ‘­Capua e i Capuani’, p­p.  ­169–​­70. Considering the highly rhetorical nature of this episode, Jules Gay’s speculation that Magenolf created a regular administration for the Lombard peasants, who lived like ‘­veritables sauvages’, seems misleading. J. Gay, L’Italie méridionale et l’Empire byzantin depuis l’avenement de Basile I jusqu’à la prise de Bari par le Normands (­­8 67–​­1071) (­Paris, 1904), I, ­p. 70. 28 Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, II, 12: ‘­Quamque ludo secundam vocitabant Romam. Nam sicut qui effugerit a facie leonis et incurrerit in ursum, sic ab istis remota civitas ipsa ab igne pari in ultione corruit in abyssum’. In my opinion the chronicler did not wish to emphasize that they had thus behaved as ‘­ingenui (­naive)’ as maintained by De Angelis. Worthy of note is, on the other hand, another observation of this scholar. According to him, the chronicler implicitly outlined his negative evaluation of Landolf the Elder and his descendants by calling them Capuanites, not Capuani. De Angelis, ‘­Capua e i Capuani’, p­p. ­170–​­71. The fact that the Neapolitans, traditional adversaries of the Lombards, are always defined as Neapolites supports this point. Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, I, 4, II, 19, 22. 29 Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, II, 22: ‘­Quod ex utroque latere Seudan audiens factum, irrisit, dicens: ‘­Stuppa cum tomentis pariter iuncta fecerunt bellum’’.

162  Oblivion, memory, and irony in ninth-century Montecassino 30 The word ‘­tomentum’ defines the waste material that is utilized as wadding. G. Musca maintains that the emir of Bari would have equalled the Capuans and the Neapolitans in tow and fire. Yet tomentum means wadding, not fire. Musca, L’emirato di Bari, ­p. 66. 31 Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, II, 12. 32 Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, II, 8, 13. 33 Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, II, 14: ‘­Per idem tempus Bassacius abbas, rogatus a primatibus patrię, adiit Franciam, qui obsecrans gloriosum imperatorem Hludowicum. Veniens Barim et in quantum possibilitas fuit totis viribus cum Saracenis dimicabit. Post complures autem dies venit Beneventum. Igitur sabbato vigilia sanctum pentecosten infra Beneventanam urbem interempti Saraceni, Radelchisi principatum gerens, Massari capitur, ad imperatorem adductus capite plectitur.’ 34 Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, II, 17: ‘­Per Telesiam igitur devenit ad civitatem quę dicitur Sancte Agathe et urbem expugnare coepit. Quę dum valde esset munita, multis diebus obsedit eam. Erat etenim tunc ęstivum tempus. Nemo umquam, ut apostolus ait, carnem suam odio habet, sed nutrit et fobet eam. Tandem Berthari abbas condoluit super Hisembardum, consanguineum sibi et gastaldium obsesse civitatis, et intervenit pro eo apud imperatorem augustum, cuius et promeruit gratiam et pactum dedit civitati.’ 35 Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, II, 23. 36 Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, II, 3: ‘­Quique dum pervenissent ad cellam presulis beatissimi Apollinaris cognomento Albianum, e vicino sanctum beatissimi confessoris Christi conspexerunt montem; quo ilico pergere satagebant, sed tardior quippe eos transire hora vitabat. Igitur tanta tunc et cęli serenitas et terrę siccitas, ut flubium pede quisque volens pertransire posset.’ 37 Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, II, 4: ‘­Beatissimi vero Benedicti patris monachi tam vicinam sibi mortem cernentes, protinus vicissim pacem dederunt, obsecrantes misericordem Dominum, ut illorum propitius in pace animas susciperet, quas in velocitatem mortis continuo expectabant migrare. Ilico universi nudis plantis et cinere sperso capite cum lętaniis ad patronem suum se contulerunt Benedictum beatum.’ 38 Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, II, 4: ‘­Dum nimius esset pavor et formidolosa expectatio et copiosa fieret ad omnipotentem Dominum exoratio, per visum Bassacio patri paruit prędecessor eius Apollinarius abbas: ‘­Quid’, inquiens, ‘­habetis? Quare moerorem patimini?’ Et Bassacius ad hec: ‘­Imminet, imquam, mors, pater, et non verendum?’ ‘­Nolite’, ait, ‘­timere. Benedictus pius pater vestram obtinuit salutem. Deprecamini igitur sedule Deum cum lętaniis et missarum sollemniis. Dominus cito exaudiat voces clamantium ad se. Denique et nos vobiscum in ecclesiis stantes, cęlorum cum civibus communiter pro vobis Iesum Christum dominum exorare non desistimus’. Cumque a somno surrexisset Bassacius pastor et hoc fratribus indicassed, in commune omnes excelsa voce Deum benedixerunt, qui salvat misericorditer sperantes in se.’ 39 Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, II, 5: ‘­Tum subito inmanis facta est pluvia, coruscationes et tonitrua tam vehementia, ita siquidem ut etiam Carnellus fluvius ultra terminos excrescens redundaret. Et quem pridie adversarii transire poterant pede, sequenti videlicet die, divina coherciti repulsione, neque ripam attingere valebant fluvii. Nitebantur quolibet fluvium transmeare modo, sed dum nullus adesset eis ad cęnovium transmeandi aditus.’ Saint Benedict did not therefore appear ‘­in a vision to the m ­ id-­​­­ninth-​­century abbot Bassacius to announce relief from draught’ as maintained by Pohl, ‘­History in Fragments’, p ­ . 363. 40 Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, II, 5: ‘­Nitebantur quolibet fluvium transmeare modo, sed dum nullus adesset eis ad coenovium transmeandi aditus.

Oblivion, memory, and irony in ninth-century Montecassino  163 Sicut est illorum dira barbaries, digitos corrodentes manuum fremebantque seu stridebant dentibus, huc illucque furibundi discurrentes’. 41 Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, II, 6: ‘­Post dies aliquot suos subnervantes equos, navigare ceperunt. Qui dum propius suę adessent provincie, ita ut etiam iam vicinos cernerent montes, nautico plausu laudem suo more dederunt. Mox inter eos una paruit navicula, quę duos ferebat homines, unius velut speciem clerici, alterius ut monachi habitu habentes. Qui dixerunt ad eos: ‘­Unde venitis, vel quo itis?’ At illi responderunt dicentes: ‘­A Petro revertimur. Roma omne illius devastabimus oratorium, populum cum regione depredata. Francos superabimus cellasque Benedicti igne cremavimus’. ‘­Et vos’, inquiunt, ‘­quinam estis?’ Aiunt illi: ‘­Qui nos quoque sumus, modo visuri eritis’. Ilico facta est tempestas valida et procella vehemens; omnes igitur naves confractae sunt cunctique adversarii peremti nullus umquam ex eis penitus remansit, qui ceteris talia nuntiaret.’ 42 Dialogi de miraculis sancti Benedicti auctore Desiderio, eds. G. ­Schwartz  – ​­A. Hofmeister, in MGH, Scriptores XXX/­2 (­Hannover, 1934), I, 2: ‘‘­Nos’, inquiunt, ‘­unus Petrus, alter Benedictus vocamur, quorum domos vos invasisse iactatis. Sed cuius virtute cuiusve potentiae simus, quam citissime experiemini’. Et his dictis ab oculis eorum ablati sunt. Mox igitur undique furentibus ventis fluctibusque tumescentibus tanta subito tempesta exorta est, ut naves omnes vel collisae inter se vel impulsae scopulis confractae sint, ita ut ex omni illa paganorum copia vix pauci superfuerint, qui suis haec, a quibus missi fuerant, civibus nuntiare potuissent. Et quidem permisit omnipotens Deus ad tempus suas ab eis ecclesias divastari, sed non est passus eos super tanto facinore diutius gratulari.’ 43 Liber pontificalis, II, ­p.  107: ‘­Omnes enim cum vellent, iniquitatis ac depredationis scelere patrato, ad Africanam qua venerant regionem revertere, vasto maris pelago, vi ventorum procellarumque, sicut certa relatione cognovimus, Deo permittente demersi sunt, antiquumque illud Aegyptiorum miraculum ecce noviter apostolorum meruit oratio optinere’. 44 Les Annales de Saint Bertin, eds. F. Grat, J. Vielliard, and S. Clémencet (­Paris, 1964), annum 847: ‘­Saraceni, oneratis thesaurorum multitudine, quas ex basilica beati Petri apostoli asportarant, navibus redire conati, cum inter navigandum Deo et domino nostro Iesu Christo eiusque apostolis ore pestifero derogarent, orto repente inevitabili turbine, conlisis in sese navibus, omnes pereunt; quaedam thesaurorum in sinibus defunctorum, quos mare litoribus reiecerat, inventa, ad beati Petri apostoli memoriam revehuntur.’ 45 Landolf took power in Capua in ca. 863 and died in 879. 46 G. Orofino, ‘­Commentarius in Regulam Sancti Benedicti. Chronica Sancti Benedicti. Monumenta Ordinis Monastici’, in I luoghi della memoria scritta. Manoscritti, incunaboli, libri e stampa di Biblioteche Statali Italiane, ed. G. Cavallo (­Rome, 1994), ­p. 20. 47 Pohl, ‘­History in Fragments’, ­p. 373.

9 Old and new invaders Lombards and Franks in Italian Carolingian memory

In 841, during an inquest about the rights of the Cremonese Church, the presbyter Anthony said: ‘­bene memoro quando domnus Karolus rex istam patriam Langobardiam adquisivit (­I remember well when his lordship King Charles acquired this fatherland, the Langobardia)’.1 The vivid memory of an event occurred 67 years before and the use of a meaningful term like ‘­patria’ (­fatherland), which emphasized that in Carolingian Italy an attachment to the previous domination still existed, constitute a perfect introduction for this chapter. My goal, in fact, is to examine the different ways in which the old rulers, the Lombards, and the new ones, the Carolingians, were perceived in Carolingian Italian chronicles and, at the same time, to explore how the memory of the distant past interacted with the recent history of Italy. Carolingian Italy is not certainly characterized by a large historiographical production.2 There are however two works, the Historia Langobardorum codicis Gothani3 and the Historia by Andreas of Bergamo,4 that are extremely precious for my purposes as they express their viewpoints during two relevant periods, i.e. at the beginning of Carolingian Italy and at its end.5 Moreover, both texts narrate the history of the Lombards from their origins to the end of their kingdom in Italy. For the sake of clarity, before analyzing these chronicles, I shall provide an overview of Carolingian Italy’s history.

Carolingian Italy Taking advantage of the problems created in Byzantine Italy by the iconoclastic policy of Emperor Leo III (­­717–​­741) and his son, Constantine V (­­741–​ ­775), the King of the Lombards, Aistulf (­­749–​­756), attempted to conquer the parts of Italy that were not under his rule. After occupying Ravenna in 750/­ 751, he began to threaten Rome.6 In the wake of these events, Pope Stephen II traveled to France in order to request assistance from the King of the Franks, Pippin III. In 754, the pontiff bestowed royal unction on the Frankish sovereign and his sons, thereby legitimizing Pippin III, who had deposed the previous king. With this gesture, Stephen II secured the intervention

DOI: 10.4324/9781003109617-9

Old and new invaders  165 of the Franks against the Lombards. On two occasions Pippin III defeated the King of the Lombards, Aistulf (­in 754 and 756) and imposed the return of all the territories the Lombards had conquered.7 Yet the Frankish ruler could not intervene against Desiderius (­­757–​­774), the new Lombard king, who had once again invaded some of the former Byzantine territories. Desiderius’s position was strengthened by the disagreements between Pippin III’s heirs, Carloman, and Charlemagne. The situation appeared to turn further in favor of the Lombard sovereign when Charlemagne, in need of an ally against his brother, married one of Desiderius’s daughters.8 However, the death of Carloman at the end of 771 rendered this alliance unnecessary and Charlemagne repudiated his Lombard wife.9 In 773, Desiderius threatened to attack Rome. The Frankish ruler then decided to intervene. In June 774, he conquered the capital of the Lombard Kingdom Pavia, captured Desiderius, and assumed the title of king of the Lombards.10 The new sovereign initially chose not to replace all the members of the Lombard ruling class, but to pursue a policy of continuity. In 7­ 75–​­776, however, when several Lombard dukes fomented a rebellion in ­north-​­eastern Italy, Charlemagne seized the opportunity to eliminate those Lombards who still opposed the Franks. In replacing such men with lords from beyond the Alps, the Frankish ruler increased the number of ­non-​­Lombards holding office in Italy.11 He also granted the kingdom to his son Pippin,12 who sought to expand his domains. Nevertheless, Pippin’s sole notable victory was the one over the Avars who resided in an area corresponding approximately to ­present-​­day Hungary.13 His attempts to seize the Italian territories his father left unconquered14 ended in failure.15 Pippin died in 810, and his son, Bernard, became king.16 Charlemagne’s death in 814, however, changed the political scenario. In 817, the new emperor, Louis the Pious, decreed that, on his own death, the Empire should be divided among his three sons: Lothar, Pippin, and Louis. The Kingdom of Italy should have passed to Lothar who was appointed ­co-​­emperor as well. Bernard, feeling himself excluded, rebelled. Louis the Pious immediately sent an army to Italy and Bernard was easily captured and taken to Francia, where he was blinded and died as a result of the inflicted wounds.17 Because Lothar was entangled in the struggles between his father and brothers over the division of the Empire,18 he was frequently gone from Italy. Lothar’s neglect of Italy reduced the stabilizing force of public authority in his kingdom. With recourse to central power being unavailable, a rise in local aristocratic autonomy soon developed.19 The Italian Kingdom had a ‘­full time’ sovereign again only from 844 onwards, when Lothar, totally focused on defending his transalpine inheritance, sent his son Louis II to govern Italy. Louis II, c­ o-​­emperor in 850 and emperor on his father’s death in 855, did not embroil himself in the conflicts over the division of the Carolingian Empire. Instead, he dwelt permanently in Italy and managed, albeit with difficulty, to restore internal order. Following the example of his ­g reat-​­grandfather Charlemagne, who had held an itinerant court, Louis II

166  Old and new invaders travelled his kingdom, seeking to remedy problems personally. His provisions, which aimed to ensure that wrongdoers did not go unpunished, bear testimony to his strength and, at the same time, highlight the gravity of the previous state of affairs.20 Louis II made a concerted effort to defeat the Muslims in southern Italy. Not only did the Saracens undertake to seize Sicily from the Byzantines, but they also ventured throughout southern Italy with frequent incursions, reaching as far as Rome in 846 and sacking St. Peter’s. They took advantage of the continual struggles among the various lords of southern Italy, fighting as mercenaries and establishing some dominions, such as the emirates of Bari and Taranto.21 Because Louis II lacked the southern Lombards’ support, his campaigns were ultimately unsuccessful. Moreover, he was believed to harbor hegemonic aims over southern Italy.22 In 866, Louis II organized a large expedition against the Saracens and in 871, with the aid of a Byzantine fleet, succeeded in conquering the emirate of Bari. This victory seemed to have paved the way for the complete expulsion of the Muslims from southern Italy. The sovereign had not, however, considered the political situation of the area nor the Lombards’ overwhelming desire for independence. With the disappearance of the emirate of Bari, the greatest enemy of the Lombards was, in fact, Louis II himself. The Prince of Benevento, Adelchis, imprisoned the Frankish sovereign, releasing him only after having extracted the promise that he would no longer go to southern Italy on his own initiative. This episode proved to be a harsh blow to the prestige of the sovereign, who, with the exception of an expedition to aid Salerno during a Saracens’ siege, was never able to interfere in the South again.23 Louis II died in 875 without an heir which led to conflict amongst his relatives who wanted to take possession of the Kingdom of Italy and the prestige of the imperial title. The King of the western Franks, Charles the Bald, was eventually crowned emperor at the end of 875, but he died in 877 and the struggles for the control of the Italian crown consequently continued.24

The texts and their authors The History of the Lombards of Gotha’s Codex is anonymous, has no dedication, prologue, or title,25 and describes events from the Lombard people’s origin to the beginning of the ninth century. This chronicle must have been written between 806 and 81026 as it ends with the expedition of Charlemagne’s son, Pippin, against the Muslims in Corsica (­806)­27 and with praise for the rule of Pippin (­d. 810) in Italy.28 The author’s celebration of the victories of Charlemagne and Pippin29 might suggest that he was a Frank who had moved to Italy after Charlemagne’s conquest of the Lombard Kingdom.30 Yet the fact that, recounting the Lombards’ settlement in Saxony, the chronicler referred to what ‘­our ancient forefathers’ had said,31 might indicate that he was very likely of Lombard origin.32 Another biographical detail can be observed in the chronicler’s description of how, in his

Old and new invaders  167 days, one could still see the remains of the residence of Wacho,33 king of the Lombards in the early sixth century when his people had settled in an area between Bohemia and Hungary.34 This could mean that the author participated in one of Pippin’s expeditions against the Avars. Nevertheless, the chronicler did not state that he had seen the ruins in person, so it is also possible that he learned of them from someone who had traveled to Pannonia.35 Unlike the other early medieval Italian chroniclers narrating the history of the Lombards,36 the Gotha Historia’s author did not know Paul the Deacon’s History of the Lombards.37 His main source (­along with some unknown texts) was the Origin of the Lombard people, a text compiled around the ­m id-​­seventh century.38 The lack of a dedication and a prologue characterizes the History of Andreas of Bergamo as well. The little information known about this author comes from his work. The chronicler stated that his name was Andreas, that he was a priest,39 and that he had gone from the Oglio River to the Adda River in the funeral procession carrying the coffin of Emperor Louis II (­d. 875) from Brescia to Milan.40 The chronicle ends abruptly with an incomplete sentence mentioning an event that happened shortly after the year 877;41 this leads to the supposition that Andreas died soon afterward. There is no other evidence to support this hypothesis, yet it can be assumed that the work was compiled not long after 877, since the oldest manuscript of this text, which is not an autograph, dates to the end of the ninth century. The lack of any other biographical details in the chronicle makes it impossible to be sure which episodes were contemporary with Andreas’s life.42 Andreas said nothing about his birthplace or residence. He is usually referred to as Andreas of Bergamo,43 but there is no clear evidence in his writings to suggest that he came from that northern Italian city. There are three details in his work that do, however, support the assumption that the chronicler lived in Bergamo or its vicinity. The first is that he recorded having participated in the procession taking Louis II’s mortal remains from the Oglio to the Adda,44 in other words the district of Bergamo.45 The second detail is that the sole area that the chronicler mentioned when he described the devastation caused by the raids taking place after Louis II’s death was the territory around Bergamo.46 The final point can be found in the section describing Louis II’s campaigns against the Muslims in southern Italy. In this part, Andreas mostly expanded upon an expedition the Count of Bergamo, Otto, had undertaken in Calabria.47 His detailed account of this expedition, which was relatively unimportant to Louis II’s overall campaign in southern Italy,48 was probably included because the chronicler would have heard about the victory from Count Otto or other men from Bergamo who were in his service.49 These men would have possibly emphasized the expeditions in which they took part as principal protagonists rather than those in which they were of secondary importance. Andreas did not explain why he composed this chronicle nor did he dedicate it to anyone. This and the fact that he maintained that he enjoyed

168  Old and new invaders writing his work50 suggest that he composed the Historia for his own satisfaction. Along with many other medieval authors, Andreas affirmed that he wrote this chronicle despite being unworthy of the task,51 which might indicate that he did have a readership in mind. Andreas’s Historia is written in chronological order and covers a period from the origin of the Lombards to approximately 877. As for the sources on which the section following the summary of the History of the Lombards is based, the chronicler explained that he utilized several letters and collected accounts from a number of old men.52 Andreas probably spent most of his life in Bergamo or in the surrounding territory, never went to the imperial court and perhaps collected the testimonies of his fellow citizens, who had fought among the ranks of Louis II’s army in southern Italy, and of travelers passing through Bergamo. The modest size of his work and the lack of a ­well-​­structured framework are, therefore, due more to the sources that he had at his disposal than to his meagre descriptive ability. Yet, for the purposes of this chapter, the information provided by this author and his anecdotes are extremely precious as they reveal some particular feelings toward the Carolingians.53

The Lombards and the Franks in the Chronicles In the Historia Langobardorum codicis Gothani the history of the Lombards is mostly a very brief summary of their migrations from Northern Europe to Italy and a few data about their kings that are often limited to the length of their rule.54 The beginning of this text and the account of the origins of the Lombards are however a striking exception. The author in fact starts by emphasizing the ferocity of the first Lombards, stating that they were ‘­a rough, bloody and lawless progeny’ that took their origin from serpents, and comparing them to rapacious wolves.55 Yet, at the same time, he presented their movements toward Italy as a journey inspired by God ending with the arrival in ­Italy—​­depicted as the Promised ­Land—​­, where the Lombards, through baptism, achieved their salvation, became a part of the ‘­number of the good’, and turned into sheep of the flock of the Lord, who thus raised them from the dunghill. They came into the land of Italy, where milk and honey flow, and, what is more important, they found the salvation of baptism there. Receiving the marks of the Holy Trinity, they were included in the number of the good.56 The paganism and the redemption of the Lombards were certainly fundamental issues to the author who aims at convincing his audience of the drastic change his ancestors underwent when they arrived in Italy and of the fact that they could not be blamed for their past which had not left any mark on them.57 In order to do so, he praised the Lombards, underlining that the

Old and new invaders  169 only reason for moving to Italy had been their wish to achieve their salvation,58 and utilized passages from the Holy Scripture that clearly explain these concepts. The most significant is certainly the invitation of not accusing anyone of sin when there is no ‘­law’.59 Important too are the reminders that one of the most important tenets of Christianity is the necessity to bring the Christian message to everybody. As the compassionate Son of God had preached before, ‘­I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.’ These were the ones of whom the Savior Himself spoke in the parables to the Jews: ‘­I have other sheep, which are not of this fold, and it is appropriate that I take them to seek the living water.’60 Regarding the invasion of the Italian Peninsula and the first years of Lombard dominion, the chronicler used the Origo gentis Langobardorum which did not describe these events in a particularly tragic way.61 Moreover, unlike this text, the author of the Historia of Gotha further outlines the providential characteristics of the Lombards’ move to Italy, by adding the observation that the conquest of Pavia, the future capital of the Lombard Kingdom, and of other Italian cities by the Lombard King Alboin had been predestined by God.62 Among the negative qualities of the Lombards before they settled in Italy, there was the lack of law.63 The author had not forgotten this detail. In order to point out the radical change, the Lombards underwent after their arrival in Italy, the only king, after Alboin, about whom he reported some information other than the length of rule is Rothari (­­636–​­652), that is the sovereign who had the Lombard laws written down. The chronicler however did not limit himself to explain that, thanks to this ruler, the Lombards had had laws and a justice system, but added that in that period a ‘­light arose in the darkness’ thanks to which the Lombards devoted themselves to ecclesiastic matters and became ‘­helpers of the priests’.64 The Historia Langobardorum codicis Gothani is the only source reporting this detail about the rule of Rothari; Paul the Deacon mentioned the transcription of the Lombard laws ordered by Rothari, yet he emphasized that Rothari had been an heretic Arian and that, during his rule, in every city there had been a catholic bishop and an Arian bishop.65 This particular memory about the period of Rothari was probably created because of the need to oppose the ‘­new’ Lombards, who were good Christians and were civilized, i.e., they had laws, to the ‘­old’ Lombards, who were pagan and without laws. In the final section of the Historia, the anonymous author narrated Charlemagne’s conquest of the Lombard Kingdom. He recounted that the Frankish sovereign had gone to Italy to defend the pope,66 but he did not say from whom. There is no mention of the threat the Lombards posed to Rome or of the confrontations between the Franks and the Lombards. The chronicler continued by praising Charlemagne’s behavior, emphasizing that

170  Old and new invaders he had not been pushed into action because of a thirst for conquest and that, even though he had had the power to destroy everything in his path, he had shown himself to be merciful. Charlemagne even allowed the Lombards to keep their own laws with minimal, but necessary, additions on his part.67 Furthermore, the Frankish king pardoned a great number of men even though they had acted against him. God was on Charlemagne’s side and demonstrated his favor by increasing the Frankish ruler’s riches a hundredfold.68 Having reported Charlemagne’s other victories and his coronation as emperor, the author sang Pippin’s praises, pointing out that he had enjoyed the same kind of divine favor as had his father,69 and went on to relate his military victories.70 Finally, the chronicler emphasized that in Pippin’s days Italy had had laws, wealth, and peace and had therefore been enjoying an era of splendor comparable to that of ancient times.71 Unlike the author of the Historia Langobardorum codicis Gothani, the pagan past of the Lombards did not constitute a problem for Andreas of Bergamo, who, although reporting the history of the Lombards from their origin to the rule of King Liudprand (­­712–​­744), limited himself to make a brief summary of Paul the Deacon’s Historia Langobardorum72 without expressing any comment. The more recent past of the Lombards and the Frankish conquest of the Lombard Kingdom had, on the other hand, not left indifferent Andreas of Bergamo, who for these events abandoned his previous neutral tone. Without knowing exactly what sources Andreas utilized, it is impossible to discern whether the information he reported was his own conscious selection or merely what was said by those ‘­old men’ from whom he gathered testimonies.73 What is certain is that the episodes are described from a Lombard viewpoint. The accounts of the rules of Ratchis (­­744–​­749) and Aistulf (­­749–​­756) give the impression that they were designed to eliminate from memory the conflicts that had occurred between the faction which wanted peaceful coexistence with the Papacy and the one which aimed at completing the conquest of Italy and provoked the deposition of Ratchis.74 The defeats Aistulf suffered at the hands of the Franks, who came to the defense of Rome, are overlooked as well. With regard to these two kings, Andreas solely wrote the following sentence: Eorumque factis retinere non possumus; sed quantum audivimus, audaces uterque fuerunt et suorum tempore Langubardi a nulla gens terruerunt (­We cannot say what they did; we have only heard that they were both courageous and during their era the Lombards did not fear any other people).75 Regarding Charlemagne’s conquest of the Lombard Kingdom, on the other hand, the author went into much greater detail. Even though he made a mistake about the pope’s name, there are no relevant omissions in his account

Old and new invaders  171 like those present in the passage about Ratchis and Aistulf. There is a lot of evidence to show that Andreas narrated events from a Lombard standpoint and demonstrated rancor toward the Franks, but this is not always the case. In actual fact, the chronicler did not cover up the Lombards’ responsibility for their own downfall and expressed a certain amount of admiration for their conquerors. A list of the episodes clearly emphasizes an oscillation between the two viewpoints.76 Blame for the dissolution of the marriage between Charlemagne and the daughter of the Lombard King Desiderius is placed not on Charlemagne, but on his brother, the ‘­terrible and evil’ Carloman who paid for his behavior with a painful death.77 According to Andreas, the pontiff then decided to travel to Francia because of the Lombards’ aggressions. Here, the pope discovered how ‘­astute and noble’ the Franks were and he asked them to conquer Italy.78 Like the Frankish and papal sources,79 Andreas did not neglect to remark that the pope’s actions had been legitimate because the Lombards were oppressing him. In addition, he highlighted the good qualities of the Lombards’ enemies. The observation that they were ‘­astute’ could indicate that Andreas wished to underscore that the Franks had astutely taken advantage of the situation in order to seize the Lombard Kingdom. Yet such an interpretation contrasts with Andreas’s description of the Franks as ‘­noble’. Andreas took a more ­pro-​­Lombard stance, when he related that Charlemagne had prepared to attack the Lombards, by stressing that thus the Frankish king forgot all the good things Desiderius had done for him.80 This stance disappears as quickly as it emerged, however. Andreas followed this statement by explaining that the oaths between the Frankish and Lombard kings had been rendered null and void by the pope,81 so Charlemagne could not be accused of betrayal. He then pointed out that the Franks had taken possession of Italy without any arduous battles, because God had spread terror among the Lombards,82 thus implying that God was on the Franks’ side.83 The chronicler however continued to oscillate between praising and criticizing the Franks.84 In reporting the pernicious effects of their victory, he actually told of how ‘­in Italy there were, therefore, many misfortunes; some were killed by the sword, others struck by famine, others were killed by beasts so that few remained in the villages and towns’.85 In his account of the Lombard revolt of 7­ 75–​­776, the author showed a tendency to exalt the Lombards and belittle Charlemagne’s actions. First, Andreas did not say that the Lombards had staged a rebellion. He instead recounted that the dukes of Cividale and Vicenza had heard of the devastation the Franks caused and of how they were heading for Cividale. The Lombards confronted and beat the Franks near the Livenza River.86 The chronicler added that Charlemagne had managed to win only in the end by bribing a Lombard who convinced his companions to lay down their arms.87 According to this account, some Lombards were therefore never defeated, thus saving the honor of their people, and Charlemagne obtained the victory in a dishonorable manner.88

172  Old and new invaders That Andreas did not mention the coronation of Charlemagne as emperor and never referred to him as ‘­imperator’ or ‘­augustus’ could mean that he wanted to omit the event in order to diminish the success of the Lombards’ adversary. This is clearly a very strange omission, especially if one considers that the chronicler made a point of calling Charlemagne’s son, Louis the Pious, who took the throne after his father’s death, ‘­imperator ex Francorum genus’ (­emperor of the people of the Franks).89 Even if it is obvious that this omission was intentional, it is still important to bear in mind that Andreas, in the account of Charlemagne’s death, attributed the great fame of the Franks to this sovereign.90 This last point again highlights the author’s complex stance toward Charlemagne and the Franks. A similar position can be found later in the work as well. The chronicler reported nothing about Charlemagne’s son, Pippin, who had taken over the Kingdom of Italy, yet the emphasis on the great famine afflicting the kingdom during his rule91 is further proof that he wished to provide a negative image of the Frankish domination of Italy as well. From a narrative viewpoint, the reference to the problems during Pippin’s reign allowed Andreas to exalt the rule of Bernard, Pippin’s son. According to the chronicler, as soon as Bernard’s reign began, there had been ‘­prestige and abundance’ which were to last throughout his rule.92 It has been argued that these praises reveal the existence of a nationalistic Lombard spirit aimed at extolling the actions of Bernard, who rebelled against Louis the Pious probably because of his exclusion from the Empire’s subdivision in 817.93 This is a suggestive interpretation, but there is no evidence to prove it. Unlike the Frankish sources, Andreas made no reference to Bernard’s rebellion and he placed the responsibility for the death of the king of Italy entirely on Louis the Pious’s wife. According to the chronicler, when she entered into a conflict with Bernard for unspecified reasons, the empress had him blinded and he died from the injuries. It is noteworthy that Andreas was keen to emphasize Louis’s lack of involvement in the affair, explaining that everything had occurred without the emperor’s knowledge. Moreover, immediately after reporting Bernard’s death, the chronicler described Louis the Pious in a positive way, calling attention to his wisdom and love of peace.94 On the other hand, one can detect a sense of pride that cannot be defined as Lombard, but rather as pride for the Milanese Church, to which Andreas belonged,95 in the description of the conflict between Louis the Pious, his son Lothar and the Archbishop of Milan, Angilbert,96 accused of being among those who had induced Lothar to abduct his stepmother Judith.97 Brought to Lothar, the prelate greeted the Frankish ruler, yet he refused to kneel at the sovereign’s feet ‘­propter reverentiae honorem ecclesiarum (­on account of the honor due to the churches)’.98 Asked if he believed himself to be Saint Ambrose,99 Angilbert replied that he was not Saint Ambrose, but that Lothar was not God.100 The archbishop was then sent to Louis the Pious who asked him what he should do about his enemy. Angilbert reminded him

Old and new invaders  173 of the evangelical precept on the need to love even one’s own adversaries and recommended that Louis the Pious followed this advice otherwise the emperor’s soul would be damned.101 The emperor, put in a difficult position by Angilbert’s skill, confronted the archbishop with a group of sapientes (­learned men) from his court. Angilbert easily defeated them with his superior knowledge and debating abilities, and Louis the Pious asked his pardon and forgave Lothar.102 Imitating Ambrose’s behavior with the Roman Emperor Theodosius at the end of the fourth century,103 the archbishop of Milan was therefore able to confront a too aggressive emperor successfully and to defend the honor of his Church.104 Andreas did not report anything about the rule of Lothar, who, as it has already been emphasized, had resided in Italy only for brief periods. In one of the rare excursus dealing with ­non-​­Italian ­h istory—​­the conflicts among Louis the Pious’s ­heirs—​­the author made a noteworthy comment that implicitly blamed the quarrelsomeness of the Carolingian rulers and their lack of care for the common good. In the description of the battle of Fontenoy (­841),105 the chronicler was not interested in the outcome of the fight, rather he focused on the high number of casualties, who could have made a valuable contribution to the fight against the pagans. According to Andreas, most of those killed at Fontenoy were from Aquitania, with the result that there were no noblemen left in the area to fight the Northmen, who were attacking that region, and the locals were forced to pay tributes to the raiders.106 On a much smaller scale, the recklessness of a Carolingian ruler was stressed in an episode that occurred in 869.107 Andreas narrated that, during the journey to southern Italy to meet his brother Louis II, Lothar II had committed many blasphemous acts and destroyed the homes of numerous ‘­pauperes’.108 Since the author was a contemporary to this event, it is strange that he did not mention that Lothar II had gone to Italy in order to obtain the annulment of his marriage to Theutberga from the pope, an affair that provoked a scandal of large proportions in the 860s.109 Andreas may not have known anything about this, but his silence could be due to a desire to draw the reader’s attention to the damage caused in Italy on that occasion by a Carolingian. The reference to the suffering inflicted to the ‘­pauperes’ is noteworthy precisely because their protection was one of the main and widely acknowledged tasks of any sovereign.110 As for Louis II, the Italian Carolingian ruler coeval with Andreas, nothing is said about either the way he governed the Kingdom of Italy or how he became emperor,111 and the part devoted to him deals almost entirely112 with the final phase of his campaigns against the Muslims in southern Italy.113 The author therefore did not mention the problems the emperor had had with the Lombards of southern Italy before 871, and only reported Louis II’s victories. These were not all described in the same way however. The most important success, the conquest of Bari in 871, which came after a long siege and represented the end of the emirate of Bari, the main Muslim dominion in the southern part of the Italian Peninsula at that time,114 was

174  Old and new invaders concisely recounted,115 whereas the earlier victories in Calabria and Apulia were described in far greater detail.116 This is probably because, as we have already stated, Andreas gathered information from the Bergamasques who had participated in those battles. The numerous details the chronicler provided show that he was aware of the image of ‘­holy war’ which the Frankish sovereigns had wanted to attribute to their campaigns against the Saracens.117 The chronicler blamed the Muslims not only for making raids, but also for the destruction of churches.118 They were referred to as pagans, while Louis II’s soldiers were called Christians.119 Moreover, Andreas related that, before a battle, the emperor’s troops had attended mass, taking Holy Communion and receiving the blessing of priests.120 Then, before beginning the fighting, Louis II’s s­ oldiers—​­called ‘­faithful of Christ’—​­prayed: ‘­O Lord Jesus Christ, you said: ‘­He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood will remain in me and I in him’. So, ‘­if you are with us, what is against us?’121 On this occasion, Andreas added that by virtue of the commitment to battle the Christians had demonstrated ‘­ arma celestis’ (­ heavenly weapons) had helped them win.122 A reference to divine aid is also present in the account of a later confrontation in which the Muslims are depicted as braggarts.123 The Saracens, however, paid dearly for their presumption as they suffered a terrible defeat. Andreas described the whole episode effectively, remarking that ‘­those who had come exalted were humbled’.124 In his perspective, these conflicts were waged only in order to defeat the enemy of God, not out of a desire for conquest or booty. In full agreement with this particular interpretation is the passage in which the chronicler pointed out that Louis II had decided to send troops to save the Calabrians who were being oppressed by the Muslims. The emperor did not take this decision because their ambassadors had promised him loyalty and tribute, but because he was moved by the dire situation they were experiencing.125 Once the threat posed by the Muslims had been dealt with, the Prince of Benevento, Adelchis, immediately imprisoned Louis II because he feared that the emperor would conquer all of southern Italy.126 The subsequent scandal was huge, since the abrupt ­volte-​­face of the Beneventans showed not only their ingratitude, but also their true feelings toward the Franks. The affair, moreover, was embarrassing for the Franks, since the ease with which Louis II’s capture took place exposed the sovereign’s lack of foresight; indeed the Lombards had already in the past shown themselves to be untrustworthy allies.127 Andreas appears to have perceived the complexity of the situation. Indeed, he did not limit his description to the ingratitude of the Beneventans, who had given ‘­malum pro bonum (­evil for good)’ to Louis II, who had in contrast shown the deepest loyalty to them. To justify what had happened, the chronicler brought supernatural intervention into play as well. The account of the emperor’s capture begins with the devil, charged with inciting the Beneventans to act against the Franks.128 If the ‘­ancient enemy’ were really

Old and new invaders  175 to blame for the betrayal, any fault on the Beneventans’ and on Louis II’s part would be diminished. This is the sole time Andreas assigned the devil responsibility for a wrongdoing, a particularity that makes this narrative decision even more significant. In effect, the implication is that this is not just the simple use of a topos; rather the author perceived the need for a special explanation for the incident. Furthermore, Andreas pointed out that the sovereign had constantly enjoyed the favor of God, who ensured that Louis II was released after a brief period of imprisonment by spreading a ‘­timor celestis (­a heavenly fear)’ among the Beneventans,129 thus implicitly freeing the emperor from any responsibility for what had happened. Despite this happy conclusion, Louis II’s imprisonment was a pernicious episode and the prelude to a period of adversities. The chronicler’s tone changed immediately after the liberation of the sovereign and took on dramatic nuances. Andreas was probably influenced by the ­conviction—​­spread by apocalyptic ­literature—​­that terrible events would anticipate the end of the world, since he went on to list a series of progressively negative occurrences: the wine went bad as soon as it was made;130 on Easter, earth fell from the sky;131 in May, frost caused serious damage to the vines and trees;132 in August, locusts destroyed harvests;133 in June of the following year, a comet appeared,134 and in July, the Muslims sacked Comacchio.135 This series of disastrous events ended with the death of Louis II in August.136 In effect, the emperor’s passing represented the end of an era. The quarrels that broke out among his relatives over the succession to the throne marked the end of nearly a century of peace in the Italian Kingdom. Andreas was aware of this, as he affirmed that after the death of Louis II a great ‘­tribulatio’ (­distress) had fallen over Italy.137 The damage constituted by the disappearance of a good ruler is also emphasized by the behavior of the Italian aristocracy and Louis II’s wife, Angelberga, who asked both Charles the Bald and Louis the German to come to Italy,138 and by the destruction caused by the supporters of the two factions.139 To conclude, the Historia of Gotha was likely the work of a Lombard from northern Italy, probably a member of Pippin’s court, who accepted the new dominion and wished to highlight the ­well-​­being it had created and, at the same time, the bloodless nature of the change.140 He was thus trying to make the Lombards forget the suffering, shame, and anger the Frankish conquest had caused. However, his Historia was not merely a call to forget the past and look to the future. Indeed, it is very significant that, from the very beginning of his chronicle, the author insisted that the migration of the Lombards had been divinely inspired and that, once they had arrived in Italy, the Lombards had become good Christians. As such, they should not be reproached for their pagan background. If the chronicler had not thought it important to underscore such features, he could simply have reported them in passing. Hence his aim was not simply to record the purging of paganism from the Lombard population. It is likely that, despite his

176  Old and new invaders willing acceptance of the new rulers, the anonymous author still felt a proud attachment to his Lombard ancestry. Precisely because of this sentiment, he would have been determined to point out that his compatriots adhered to Christianity with sincerity and devotion as soon as they settled in Italy. In this way, he may have been trying to confute various papal sources, which, even in the eighth century, casted doubt on the faith of the Lombards.141 Different is the position of Andreas of Bergamo, who, living in a different period, did not express any concern about the distant past of the Lombards. His concern was, on the other hand, addressed to the more recent past. Thanks to the fact that he did not belong to any official circle,142 he was able to report a Lombard version of the Lombard Kingdom’s fall. Despite the presence of a certain acrimony for the Franks, however, it must be noted that the chronicler’s attitude toward them was not uniformly negative. In fact, Andreas also demonstrated admiration for the new rulers. He, therefore, shared the viewpoint of those who accepted the Frankish domination, while remarking with a certain pride that the defeat of the Lombards had not been a complete debacle and emphasizing the negative aspects that had followed the Frankish conquest.

Notes 1 Le carte cremonesi dei secoli ­VIII–​­XII, ed. E. Falconi (­Cremona, 1979), vol. I, number 7, ­p. 21. 2 For example, the annalistic genre, extremely popular beyond the Alps, was completely absent in Italy. 3 Historia Langobardorum codicis Gothani, in Italian Carolingian Historical and Poetic Texts, edition and English translation by L. A. Berto (­Pisa, 2016), p­p. ­50–​­63. 4 Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, in Italian Carolingian Historical and Poetic Texts, edition and English translation by L. A. Berto (­Pisa, 2016), p­p. ­66–​­95. The Italian Carolingian chronicles have been organized by topic in Franks and Lombards in Italian Carolingian Texts: Memories of the Vanquished, edition and translation by L. A. Berto (­Abingdon and New York, 2021). 5 For Carolingian Italy, I mean the period from Charlemagne’s conquest of the Lombard Kingdom (­774) to the death of Louis II (­875). 6 Th. F. X. Noble, The Republic of St. Peter: The Birth of the Papal State, ­680–​ 8­ 25 (­Philadelphia, 1984), p­p.  ­29–​­40; Brown, ‘­Byzantine Italy, c. 6­ 80  – c. ​­ 876’, p­p. ­324–​­27. 7 Delogu, ‘­Lombard and Carolingian Italy’, p­p. ­298–​­300; Noble, The Republic of St. Peter, p­p. ­74–​­78; A. Barbero, Charlemagne: Father of a Continent (­Berkeley, 2004), p­p. ­18–​­20, ­24–​­25. 8 Delogu, ‘­Lombard and Carolingian Italy’, p­p. ­300–​­01. Rosamond McKitterick has unconvincingly hypothesized that this marriage never took place. R. McKitterick, Charlemagne: The Formation of a European Identity (­Cambridge, 2008), p­p. ­86–​­88. 9 Delogu, ‘­Lombard and Carolingian Italy’, p ­ . 300; J. L. Nelson, King and Emperor: A New Life of Charlemagne (­Oakland, 2019), p­p. ­100–​­10. 10 Delogu, ‘­Lombard and Carolingian Italy’, p­p.  ­301–​­03; Barbero, Charlemagne, p­p. ­26–​­32; Nelson, King and Emperor: A New Life of Charlemagne, p­p. ­127–​­43.

Old and new invaders  177 11 Cammarosano, Nobili e re, p­p. ­102–​­03; Ch. Wickham, Early Medieval Italy: Central Power and Local Society 4­ 00–​­1000 (­London, 1981), p­p. ­47–​­48; Nelson, King and Emperor: A New Life of Charlemagne, p­p. ­159–​­62. 12 Barbero, Charlemagne, ­p. 37; Delogu, ‘­Lombard and Carolingian Italy’, ­p. 304; Nelson, King and Emperor: A New Life of Charlemagne, p­p. ­182–​­83. 13 W. Pohl, Die Awaren. Ein Steppenvolk in Mitteleuropa. 5­67–​­ 822 n. Chr. (­München, 1988), p­p.  ­312–​­23; Barbero, Charlemagne, p­p.  ­67–​­69; Nelson, King and Emperor: A New Life of Charlemagne, p­p. 326, ­333–​­34. 14 These areas were the former Lombard duchy of Benevento, which had become an independent principality after the fall of the Lombard Kingdom, and the Venetian duchy, that was theoretically a part of the Byzantine Empire, but it was in practice autonomous. 15 Bertolini, ‘­Carlomagno e Benevento’, p­p. ­609–​­12; Berto, Early Medieval Venice, chapter 3. 16 G. Albertoni, L’Italia carolingia (­Rome, 1997), p ­ .  33; Barbero, Charlemagne, ­p. 140. 17 P. Depreux, ‘­Das Königtum Bernhards von Italien und sein Verhältnis zum Kaisertum’, Quellen und Forschungen aus italieneschen Archiven und Bibliotechen, 72 (­1992), p­p. ­1–​­25; Cammarosano, Nobili e re, p­p. ­144–​­46. 18 Nelson, Charles the Bald, p­p. ­76–​­129; E. Boshof, Ludwig der Fromme (­Darmstadt, 1996), p­p. ­178–​­95. 19 Wickham, Early Medieval Italy, p­p. ­50–​­51; Delogu, ‘­Lombard and Carolingian Italy’, ­p. 309. 20 P. Delogu, ‘­Strutture politiche e ideologia nel regno di Ludovico II’, Bullettino dell’Istituto storico italiano per il Medio Evo, 80 (­1968), p­p.  ­137–​­89; Albertoni, L’Italia carolingia, p­p. ­43–​­45. 21 Musca, L’emirato di Bari; Kreutz, Before the Normans, p­p. ­29–​­32; Berto, Christians and Muslims in Early Medieval Italy, p­p. ­127–​­28. 22 Musca, L’emirato di Bari, p­p. ­64–​­66. 23 Musca, L’emirato di Bari, p­p.  ­117–​­20; Kreutz, Before the Normans, p­p.  ­46–​­47, ­55–​­57. 24 Nelson, Charles the Bald, p­p. ­230–​­35; Delogu, ‘­Lombard and Carolingian Italy’, p­p. ­313–​­15; Cammarosano, Nobili e re, p­p. ­198–​­200. 25 The title Historia Langobardorum codicis Gothani stems from the fact that the sole manuscript reporting this chronicle, dating to the eleventh to the twelfth century, is in the Forschungsbibliothek of Gotha (­Germany). 26 W. Pohl, ‘­Memory, Identity, and Power in Lombard Italy’, in The Uses of the Past in the Early Middle Ages, eds. Y. ­Hen – ​­M. Innes (­Cambridge, 2000), p ­ . 21; M. Coumert, Origines des Peuples: Les récits du Haut Moyen Âge occidental (­­550–​ 8­ 50) (­Paris, 2007), ­p. 251. 27 Historia Langobardorum codicis Gothani, chapter 11: ‘­Igitur Corsicam insulam a Mauris oppressam suo iussu eiusque exercitus liberavit’. (­Then, by his order, his army liberated the island of Corsica which was oppressed by the Moors.) According to the Frankish Annals, this campaign occurred in 806. Annales regni Francorum, in Annales regni Francorum et Annales qui dicuntur Einhardi, ed. F. Kurze, MGH, Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum separatim editi (­Hannover, 1895), annum 806. 28 The work is not unfinished as it ends with the word Amen. Historia Langobardorum codicis Gothani, chapter 11. 29 Historia Langobardorum codicis Gothani, chapters ­10–​­11. 30 Le leggi dei Longobardi: Storia, memoria e diritto di un popolo germanico, eds. C. ­A zzara – S. ​­ Gasparri (­Rome, 2005, second edition), p. LVIII. 31 Historia Langobardorum codicis Gothani, chapter 2.

178  Old and new invaders 32 S. Cingolani, Bruno Luiselli, and Magali Coumert agree with this opinion. S. M. Cingolani, Le Storie dei Longobardi: Dall’Origine a Paolo Diacono (­Rome, 1995), ­p. 35; B. Luiselli, Storia culturale dei rapporti fra mondo romano e mondo germanico (­Rome, 1992), ­p. 723; Coumert, Origines des Peuples, ­p. 251. Walter Pohl hypothesizes that the Historia of Gotha was composed in Milan while M. Coumert believes that it might have been written in Montecassino. W. Pohl, ‘­La costituzione di una memoria storica: il caso dei Longobardi’, in Studi sulle società e le culture del Medioevo per Girolamo Arnaldi, eds. L. ­Gatto – P. ​­ Supino Martini (­Florence, 2002), p ­ . 574. Coumert, Origines des Peuples, ­p. 252. I think that it is more likely that the Historia of Gotha was composed in northern Italy. 33 Historia Langobardorum codicis Gothani, chapter 2: ‘­Unde usque hodie pręsentem diem Wachoni regi eorum domus et habitatio apparet signa’. (­The remains of the house and dwelling of their King Wacho can still be seen today.) 34 N. Christie, The Lombards: The Ancient Longobards (­Oxford, 1995), p­p. ­18–​­20. 35 For further information about this chronicle, see Italian Carolingian Historical and Poetic Texts, p­p. ­12–​­13. 36 For example, the chronicles of Andreas of Bergamo and Erchempert and the Chronicon Salernitanum. 37 As it has been also emphasized by Coumert, Origines des Peuples, ­p. 219, this detail represents a strong argument against the hypothesis of R. McKitterick, who argues that Paul the Deacon wrote the Historia Langobardorum as an informative text on the Lombards for Pippin and his court. If this were the case, it would be very difficult to explain why the author of the only chronicle produced by a member of Pippin’s entourage did not know the Historia Langobardorum. R. McKitterick, History and Memory in the Carolingian World (­Cambridge, 2004), p­p. ­77–​­83. 38 Luiselli, Storia culturale, ­p.  760, note 1272; Coumert, Origines des Peuples, ­p.  253. The chronicler used chapters ­3 –​­6 of Origo gentis Langobardorum, ed. A. Bracciotti (­Rome, 1998). S. M. Cingolani argues that the Historia of Gotha and the Origo copied from the same source. Cingolani, Le storie dei Longobardi, ­p.  94. Walter Goffart and Nicholas Everett instead believe that the author of the Gotha’s Historia took his information from Paul the Deacon’s Historia Langobardorum. More nuanced is Eduardo Fabbro, who maintains that the anonymous author likely knew this work. Goffart, The Narrators of Barbarian History, ­p. 382, note 163; N. Everett, Literacy in Lombard Italy, c. ­568–​­774 (­Cambridge, 2003), ­p. 94; E. Fabbro, ‘­Charlemagne and the Lombard Kingdom that Was: The Lombard Past in P ­ ost-​­Conquest Italian Historiography’, Journal of the CHA, 25, 2 (­2014), ­p. 14. 39 Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapter 2: ‘­Haec autem adbreviationem superscripta, in quantum potui, exerpsi ego Andreas, licet indignus, presbyter de historiae Langubardorum’. (­The things written above in this summary, I, the priest Andreas, although unworthy, took from the History of the Lombards in so far as I could.) 40 The author highlighted that he had helped to carry the sovereign’s coffin. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapter 22: ‘­Veritatem in Christo loquor: ibi fui et partem aliquam portavi et cum portantibus ambulavi da flumine qui dicitur Oleo usque ad flumen Adua’. (­I speak the truth in Christ. I was there, I carried it for a part of the trip and I walked with the bearers from the river, which is named Oglio, to the River Adda.) 41 Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapter 24: ‘­Quod ille [Charles the Bald] videns, fugam iniit et Galliam repedavit, statimque in ipso itinere mortuus est. Carlomannus vero regnum Italie disponens, post non multum tempus ad patrem in Baioariam reversus est. Inter hec Hludovicus rex’. (­Having seen that, Charles

Old and new invaders  179 fled and went to Gaul, but died suddenly during the journey. Having established order in the Kingdom of Italy, Carloman returned to his father in Bavaria shortly thereafter. Meanwhile, King Louis.) The reference is to the death of Charles the Bald, which occurred in 877. 42 For the various hypotheses about this and the chronicler’s identity, see Berto, Making History, p­p. ­19–​­23. 43 M. G. Bertolini, ‘­A ndrea da Bergamo’, in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, 4 (­Rome, 1966), ­p. 79. 44 Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapter 22. ­ . 79, and G. La Placa, ‘­A ndrea di Bergamo e l’‘­ 45 Bertolini, ‘­A ndrea da Bergamo’, p adbrevatio de gestis Langobardorum’: note biografiche e testuali’, Maia. Rivista di letterature classiche, 46 (­1994), ­p. 62. 46 According to the chronicler, Berengar of Friuli stayed in the monastery of Fara for a week. During that time, he carried out various raids in the surrounding countryside causing many inhabitants of the Bergamo area to seek refuge in the mountains or the city. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapter 23. Cf. La Placa, ‘­A ndrea di Bergamo’, ­p. 62. 47 Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapters 1­ 7–​­18. Andreas did not write that Otto was the count of Bergamo, just that he was ‘­de finibus Bergomensis’ (­from the territory of Bergamo)’. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapter 17. Some documents dating back to this period name the count of Bergamo as Otto, thus demonstrating that the character mentioned by Andreas of Bergamo was indeed the count of Bergamo. Cf. J. Jarnut, Bergamo ­568–​­1098: ­Verfassungs-​­, ­Sozial-​­ und Wirtschaftsgeschicte einer lombardischen Stadt in Mittelalter (­Wiesbaden, 1979), p­p. 21, 22, 68, 256. 48 In general, on this campaign of Louis II, see F. Seneca, ‘­L’avventura di Ludovico II nell’Italia meridionale (­­855–​­875)’, Annali della Scuola Friulana (­­1949–​­1950), p­p. ­5 –​­55. 49 La Placa, ‘­A ndrea di Bergamo’, ­p. 62, note 7. 50 Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapter 2: ‘­h ic scrivere delectatus sum’ (­I have enjoyed writing them here). 51 Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapter 2: ‘­Haec autem adbreviationem superscripta, in quantum potui, exerpsi ego Andreas, licet indignus, presbyter de historiae Langubardorum’. (­The things written above in this summary, I, the priest Andreas, although unworthy, took from the History of the Lombards in so far as I could.) 52 Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapter 2: ‘­quorum hic super continent eorum historiae minime ad nostram pervenit notitiam, sed in quantum per seriem litterarum seu per antiquos homines potui veraciter scire’. (­The things written below did not come to our knowledge from their histories, but I truthfully learned them from some letters and some old men.) M. G. Bertolini maintains that Andreas could have consulted some papal letters, while Ch. Wickham believes that series litterarum could be ­k ing-​­lists included to some legal texts. Bertolini, ‘­A ndrea da Bergamo’, p ­ . 80. Ch. Wickham, ‘­Lawyers’ Time: History and Memory in Tenth and Eleventh Century Italy’, in Idem, Land and Power. Studies in Italian and European Social History, 4­ 00–​­1200 (­London, 1994), p ­ . 279. However, there is no evidence in the work to support these hypotheses. 53 Chris Wickham has a quite negative view of Andreas’s Historia. For example, he believes that Andreas was only ‘­an honest compiler’ and that his work shows ‘­how little impact the Carolingians made on Italian historical consciousness’. Wickham, ‘­Lawyers’ Time: History and Memory in Tenth and Eleventh Century Italy’, p­p. ­279–​­80. 54 Historia Langobardorum codicis Gothani, chapters ­1–​­9.

180  Old and new invaders 55 Historia Langobardorum codicis Gothani, chapter 1: ‘­ deinter serpentibus parentes eorum breviati exissent, sanguinea et aspera progenies, et sine lege… In primis lupi rapaces’. (­their forefathers, a rough and bloody and lawless progeny, of small number, took their origin from snakes… At first they were ravening wolves.) Obviously, the reference to the serpents does not mean that the Lombards practiced a ‘­cult of serpents’ as argued by Pohl, ‘­Le identità etniche nei ducati di Spoleto e Benevento’, ­p. 91. 56 Historia Langobardorum codicis Gothani, chapter 1: ‘­In terra Italię adventantes, fluentem lac et mel, et quod amplius est, salutem invenerunt baptismatis, et vestigia sanctę trinitatis recipientes, inter numerum bonorum effecti sunt’. The providential meaning of the Lombards’ arrival in Italy has been emphasized also by Cingolani, Le storie dei Longobardi, p­p. ­61–​­63, and Pohl, ‘­Memory, identity and power’, ­p. 27. 57 Unlike the Origo gentis Langobardorum, the author of the Historia Langobardorum codicis Gothani narrated that the Lombards had been guided only by Gambara and did not mention her two sons, Ibor and Aio. Another important difference is that, when the chronicler explained the origin of the change of name from Winili to Lombards, he stated only that it had been due to their long beards. Historia Langobardorum codicis Gothani, chapter 2. In contrast, the Origo gentis Langobardorum reported that Gambara had turned to the wife of the god Wotan, Frea, to ask how the Winili could achieve a victory over the Vandals who had consulted Wotan about the same matter. Wotan told the Vandals that the victors would be the ones who appeared first at dawn. Frea suggested to Gambara that the Winili women used their hair to cover their faces like beards and went along with their men at first light to the place where Wotan was usually found. The next day Wotan saw the disguised women and asked: ‘­W ho are those longibarbi?’ Frea then asked him to bestow the victory on those whom he had named. He agreed to this and, from that time on, the Winili bore the name of Lombards. Origo gentis Langobardorum, chapter 1. These differences and the fact that the chronicler of the Historia Langobardorum codicis Gothani pointed out that Gambara’s talent for foresight was due to divine inspiration have led to the hypothesis that the author wanted to censor the pagan aspects of this story and gloss over the warlike characteristics of the migration. Cingolani, Le storie dei Longobardi, p­p. ­86–​­89. It is, perhaps, more likely that he did not include the above story purely because it was unhelpful for his purposes. As it has already been emphasised, the chronicler did not hide the fact that the Lombards had originally been pagans. 58 Historia Langobardorum codicis Gothani, chapter 1: Moviti itaque non ex necessitate aut duricia cordis aut parentum oppressione, sed ut ex alto salutem consequeretur, asserit exituros. Mirumque est omnibus et inauditum, videre, ubi non fuit meritum parentum, talis salus refulgere, qui deinter mucrones spinarum odoramenta aeclesiarum inventi sunt. (­they had left not out of necessity, nor hardness of heart, nor because their parents were oppressive, but to obtain salvation from on high. For everybody it is a wonderful and ­u nheard-​­of thing to see that, where there was no merit in their parents, such salvation shone forth that they found the perfumes of the churches among the sharp points of the thorns.) 59 Historia Langobardorum codicis Gothani, chapter 1: ‘­Non inputatur peccatum, cum lex non esset’. 60 Historia Langobardorum codicis Gothani, chapter 1: sicut ipse misericors filius Dei antea predixerat: ‘­Non veni vocare iustos, sed peccatores’. Isti fuerunt, unde ipse salvator ad Iudęos in proverbiis dicens:

Old and new invaders  181 ‘­Habeo alias oves, quę non sunt ex hoc ovili; et ait illas me oportet adduci ad aquam vivam poscendam’. 61 Historia Langobardorum codicis Gothani, chapter 5: ‘­Et movisse Albuin rex Langobardorum de Pannonia cum exercitu suo valde copiosum mense aperile in Pascha, indictione prima; secunda vero indictione incipiente coeperunt predare finem Italię, tercia autem factus est dominus Italię’. (­A nd the King of the Lombards, Alboin, left Pannonia with his very large army in the month of April, at Easter, during the first indiction; at the beginning of the second indiction, they began to sack Italy and during the third Alboin became lord of Italy.) Cf. Origo Gentis Langobardorum, chapter 5, ­p. 114. 62 Historia Langobardorum codicis Gothani, chapter 6: ‘­Tunc Papiae cives et Mediolanum metropolim cum reliquę alię civitates Italiorum, videntes se vacuę, sicut a Deo fuerat predestinatum, colla sua ipsi Albuino regi subicierunt’. (­Seeing that they were defenseless, the citizens of Pavia and the metropolis of Milan along with the remaining cities of the Italians submitted their necks to Alboin as it had been predestined by God.) This detail was not mentioned by Paul the Deacon, who told instead of how, after the fall of Pavia, Alboin’s horse had collapsed at the city’s entrance and got up again only when the king had sworn not to carry out his former promise to exterminate all the inhabitants of Pavia, a clear sign of the divine protection they had enjoyed. Alboin was reminded that the Pavians were good Christians and that he would be allowed to enter Pavia only if he broke his vow. Paul the Deacon, Historia Langobardorum, II, 27. 63 Historia Langobardorum codicis Gothani, chapter 1: ‘­sanguinea et aspera progenies, et sine lege’. 64 Historia Langobardorum codicis Gothani, chapter 8: ‘­Rothari regnavit annos sedecim; per quem leges et iusticiam Langobardis est inchoata; et per conscriptionem primis iudices percurrerunt; nam antea per cadarfada et arbitrio seu ritus fierunt causationes. Istius Rothari regis temporibus ortum est lumen in tenebris per quem supradicti Langobardi ad cannonica tenderunt certamina et sacerdotum facti sunt adiutores.’ (­Rothari reigned for sixteen years. Thanks to him, laws and justice began for the Lombards. And for the first time the judges used written laws. Previously, all causes were decided by cadarfada, that is either by arbitration or by custom. In the period of King Rothari, light arose in the darkness and, because of it, the aforesaid Lombards devoted themselves to the canonical disputes and became helpers of the priests.) 65 Paul the Deacon, Historia Langobardorum, IV, 42. 66 Historia Langobardorum codicis Gothani, chapter 10: ‘­Hic finitum est regnum Langobardorum, et incoavit regnum Italię per gloriosissimum Carolum regem Francorum; qui adiutor et defensator domni Petri principis apostolorum ab Italia perrexerat ad eius iusticiam requirendam’. (­Here the Kingdom of the Lombards ended and the Kingdom of Italy began with the most glorious Charles, king of the Franks. As helper and defender of the lord Peter, the prince of the apostles, he had gone to Italy to demand justice for him.) 67 Historia Langobardorum codicis Gothani, chapter 10: ‘­Nam nulli lucri cupiditas peragrare, sed bono pius et misericors factus est adiuvator; et sicut poterat omnia demollire, factus est clemens indultor. Et paternę patrię leges Langobardis misertus concessit, et suas, ut voluit, quę necessariae erant Langobardis, adiunxit’. (­The desire of gain had not caused Charles to go, but he became Peter’s helper as he was good, pious, and compassionate. Though he might have destroyed everything, he became clement and indulgent. Because he was merciful, he bestowed on the Lombards the laws of their homeland, adding some when he believed they were necessary for the Lombards.)

182  Old and new invaders 68 Historia Langobardorum codicis Gothani, chapter 10: ‘­Pro quod illi omnipotens Deus centies multiplicavit ubertates’. (­For this reason the Almighty God multiplied his riches a hundredfold.) 69 Historia Langobardorum codicis Gothani, chapter 11: ‘­Post hęc autem omnia regnum Italię tradidit magno et glorioso filio suo domno Pippino magno regi et sicut omnipotens Deus patri concessit fortitudinis gratiam, ita et in filio habundavit’. (­A fter all these things, he handed over the Kingdom of Italy to his great and glorious son, lord Pippin, the great king, and, as the Almighty God granted the father the gift of fortitude, so did it abound in the son.) 70 Historia Langobardorum codicis Gothani, chapter 11: ‘­Per quem Tratia provincia una cum Abaris ad Francorum servitutem est redacta. Illi qui ab inicio malorum stirpe progeniti inimici ęcclesiarum, persecutores christianorum semper fuerunt, per isto, ut diximus, domno Pippino seu et patri suo solatium supradicti Abari sunt evacuati et superati et sanctae aecclesię defensatę et multa vasa sanctorum quae illi crudeles et impii rapuerunt, per istum defensatorem sunt ad propriam reversa. Deinde Beneventana provincia, ut digni fuerunt, suę prevaricationis sacramenti, cives eorum igne sunt exanimati et consumpti et populus eorum capitalem subierunt sentenciam. Post haec et Beowinidis cum exercitu suo perrexit eamque vastavit et populos terrę eius predavit et captivos adduxit. Igitur Corsicam insulam a Mauris oppressam suo iussu eiusque exercitus liberavit.’ (­Through Pippin the province of Thrace and the Avars were brought into subjection to the Franks. As we have said, to his own great comfort and that of his father, the lord Pippin expelled and overcame the aforementioned Avars, who, sprung from a stock that is the root of all evil, had always been enemies of the churches and persecutors of the Christians. The holy churches were defended and many holy vessels, which those cruel and impious men had carried off, were brought back home by the same defender. Then, as they deserved for breaking their oath, the inhabitants of the Beneventan province underwent the capital sentence and their cities were destroyed and burned down. After this, Pippin also went against the Beowinidis with his army, ravaged their land, despoiled the people of that land and carried them captive back with him. Then, by his order, his army liberated the island of Corsica which was oppressed by the Moors.) 71 Historia Langobardorum codicis Gothani, chapter 11: ‘­Praesentem diem per eius adiutorium splenduit Italia, sicut fecit antiquissimis diebus. Leges et ubertates et quietudinem habuit per domni nostri merita prestante domino nostro Ihesu Christo. Amen’. (­At the present day, thanks to his help, Italy shines as she did in the most ancient days. She has laws, abundance, and quietness thanks to the merits of our lord and the will of our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.) 72 Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapter 1. Paul the Deacon’s work ends with the rule of King Liudprand. 73 Chris Wickham believes that Andreas wrote more or less all he knew. Wickham, ‘­Lawyers’ Time’, ­p. 279. 74 M. P. Andreolli, ‘­Una pagina di storia longobarda. “­Re Ratchis”’, Nuova Rivista Storica, 50 (­1966), p­p. ­281–​­327. 75 Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapter 3. 76 On the contrary, C. G. Mor argues that Andreas’s work only points out the existence of a grudge toward the Franks. C. G. Mor, ‘­La storiografia italiana del sec. IX da Andrea di Bergamo ad Erchemperto’, in Atti del II congresso internazionale di studi sull’alto Medioevo (­Spoleto, 1953), ­p. 243. The same opinion is expressed by G. Fasoli, ‘­Carlo Magno nelle tradizioni s­ torico-​­leggendarie italiane’, in Karl der Grosse. Lebenswek und Nachleben, IV, Das Nachleben, eds. W. ­Braunfels – ​­P. E. Schramm (­Düsseldorf, 1967), p ­ . 350. Gasparri only does a brief overview of

Old and new invaders  183 the events. S. Gasparri, ‘­The Fall of the Lombard Kingdom: Facts, Memory and Propaganda’, in 774: Ipotesi su una transizione, ed. S. Gasparri (­Turnhout, 2008), ­p. 64. 77 Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapter 3: ‘­Causa autem discordiae ista fuit. Habebat Carolus suus germanus maior se Karlemannus nomine, ferebundus et pessimus; contra Carolum iracundus surrexit, eum iurare fecit, ut ipsa Berterad ultra non haberet coniuge’. (­This was the cause of the discord. Charles had an elder brother named Carloman, a terrible and evil man. The choleric Carloman rose against Charles and had him swear that he would not have Berterad as his wife anymore.) 78 Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapter 4: ‘­His temporibus aecclesiae Romane Leo papa regebat et oppressiones a Langubardis multa patiebat. Ex sede propria exiens Francia repetavit… Papa vero probata gens Francorum astuti et nobiles, consilium eorum dedit, ut super Langubardos venirent, Italiam possiderent’. (­In those times Pope Leo governed the Roman Church. He suffered great violence from the Lombards. He left his see and went to Francia… Because the pope judged the people of the Franks to be astute and noble, he suggested that they attack the Lombards and take possession of Italy.) As has already been stated, the chronicler made an error in reporting that it had been Pope Leo III who went to Charlemagne for help against the Lombards. In fact, it was Pope Stephen II who crossed the Alps to get help from Pippin III, Charlemagne’s father. 79 For example, Annales qui dicuntur Einhardi, annum 773. 80 Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapter 5: ‘­Karulus siquidem vero, adnitentibus suis, oblitus est tantorum benignitatis, quod ei Desiderius rex tribuit’. (­With the agreement of his men, Charles forgot the many good things that King Desiderius had given to him.) 81 Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapter 5: ‘­Congregata multorum Francorum exercitum, ex iussu apostolici sacramenta irrita facta sunt’. (­Oaths were invalidated by order of the pope and Charles gathered a large army of Franks.) 82 Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapter 5: ‘­Italia contro Langobardos veniens, divino iudicio terror in Langubardus inruit, absque grave pugna Italiam invasit’. (­Through divine will, terror seized the Lombards and Charles invaded Italy without a serious battle.) 83 The claim that God supported Charlemagne is also found in the Chronicle of Novalesa, a text written around the middle of the eleventh century. It narrated that God had appeared to the Frankish king in a vision prompting him to go to Italy. Cronaca di Novalesa, III, 6. 84 These features of Andreas’s work are not taken into consideration by Gasparri, who only provides a brief summary of the chronicler’s account. S. Gasparri, Italia longobarda. Il regno, i Franchi, il papato (­Rome and Bari, 2012), ­p. 175. 85 Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapter 5: ‘­Tantaque tribulatio fuit in Italia, alii gladio interempti, alii fame perculsi, aliis bestiis occisi, ut vix pauci remanerent in vicos vel in civitates’. Here, the chronicler is probably exaggerating, but the hard times of this period are also recorded in other contemporary sources. Capo, ‘­La polemica longobarda’, ­p. 7, note 7; Cammarosano, Nobili e re, ­p. 102; and Barbero, Charlemagne, p­p. ­35–​­36. 86 Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapter 6: ‘­Foroiulanorum dux tunc temporis Rotcausus preerat et in Vincentia Gaidus. Qui auditu Francorum devastatione et eius adventum quod in Foroiuli properaret, congregatisque ut poterant, obviam eorum ad ponte qui dicitur Liquentia exierunt et magna strages de Francis fecerunt’. (­In that time Rotcausus was in command as duke of the Friulans and in Vicenza there was Gaidus. When they heard of the devastation caused by the Franks, of the arrival of Charles and that he was going to Cividale, they gathered

184  Old and new invaders all the men they could find, went toward them and, at the bridge called Livenza, made great carnage of the Franks.) 87 Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapter 6: ‘­Erat quidem ex ipsis, cui iam munera Caroli excecaverat cor, tale dedit consilio: ‘­Quid faciemus? Quomodo eorum resistere possumus? Capud non habemus. Regem confortationis nostrae iam devictus est. Eamus eorum fidelitate; bene nobis erit’. Quid dicam? Ut obtabat, fecerunt’. (­One of those nobles, whose heart had been blinded by Charles’s gifts, gave this counsel: ‘­W hat will we do? How can we resist them? We have no chief. The king, who gave us courage, has already been defeated. Let us swear fidelity to them; it will be well for us’. What can I say? They did as he wished.) This detail is overlooked by Gasparri, ‘­The fall of the Lombard Kingdom’, p ­ . 64, and Gasparri, Italia longobarda, ­p. 125. 88 The Frankish annalist, who probably wrote at that time, perhaps went to the other extreme by not reporting the earlier defeat suffered by the Franks, and relating only that Charlemagne put an end to the uprising by killing the duke of Cividale and conquering the rebellious cities. Annales regni Francorum, p­p. ­42–​ 4­ 4. Scholars have expressed different evaluations about Andreas’s description of the Lombard revolt. For example, A. Barbero argues that ‘­A ndrea’s account could be interpreted as the wishful ramblings of a Lombard who, even after so much time, found it difficult to accept the defeat of his people at the hands of the Franks’. Barbero, Charlemagne, ­p. 35. On the other hand, P. Moro believes that Andreas of Bergamo is a more reliable source than the Frankish Annals. P. Moro, ‘­Q uam horrida pugna’: Elementi per uno studio della guerra nell’alto medioevo italiano (­secoli ­VI–​­X) (­Venice, 1995), p ­ . 35. 89 Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapter 7: ‘­Reliquid sedem suam in Francia Hludowici, filio suo. Iste incipit vocare imperator ex Francorum genus’. (­He left his place in Francia to his son Louis. The latter began to be called emperor of the people of the Franks.) 90 Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapter 7: ‘­Qui per eum nomen Francorum longe lateque percrebuit, sicut est nunc usque ad hodiernum diem’. (­Thanks to him, the fame of the Franks grew greatly far and wide, as it has up to the present day.) 91 Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapter 7: ‘­p enuriae famis Italia preucupata’. (­Italy had been distressed by famine.) 92 Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapter 7: ‘­as Bernard took the Kingdom, it attained to prestige and abundance, and thus it was for as long as he ruled’. (­subito ut Bernardo regnum accepit, dignitatem ubertatemque advenit et sic fuit dum ipse regnavit.) 93 For example, C. G. Mor maintains that this benevolence toward Bernard was due to the fact that he wanted independence from the Empire and to reunite Italy. Mor, ‘­La storiografia italiana del sec. IX’, p ­ . 242. In general on the revolt of Bernard, see Th. F. X. Noble, ‘­The Revolt of King Bernard of Italy in 817: Its Causes and Consequences’, Studi Medievali, 15, 1 (­1974), p­p. ­315–​­26; J. Jarnut, ‘­Kaiser Ludwig der Fromme und König Bernhard von Italien. Der Versuch einer Rehabilitierung’, Studi Medievali, 30, 2 (­1989), p­p. ­637–​­48; Depreux, ‘­Das Königtum Bernhards’. 94 Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapter 9: ‘­Erat quidam Hludowicus imperator multae sapientiae, consilio prudens, misericors et pacis amator. Habebat tranquillitas magna ex omniumque parte pacis gratia. Diligebat lectores, cantores et cunctis servientibus Deo ministrantibus aecclesiae’. (­Emperor Louis was very learned, prudent in counsel, merciful, and a lover of peace. Under his rule, there was tranquility and peace everywhere. He loved lectors, cantors, and all those who serve God governing the churches.) 95 The diocese of Bergamo is a part of the Milanese archbishopric.

Old and new invaders  185 96 In general on Angilbert, who was probably Frankish and was archibishop of Milan from ca. 824 to 859, see M. G. Bertolini, ‘­A ngilberto’, in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, 3 (­Rome, 1961), p­p. ­260–​­63. 97 Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapters ­10–​­11. Andreas seems to have limited information concerning the conflicts over the subdivisions of the Empire that broke out between Louis the Pious and his sons. He stated correctly that Lothar had Judith imprisoned in Tortona, but he did not explain why. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapter 10. Cf. Thegan, Gesta Hludowici imperatoris, chapter 42, and Astronomer, Vita Hludowici imperatoris, chapter 48, ­p.  478. Nor did Andreas report the revolts that Lothar and his brothers had instigated against Louis the Pious. Most significantly, he did not express any judgement about the aforementioned affair. 98 Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapter 11. 99 Saint Ambrose was and still is the patron saint of Milan. 100 Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapter 11: ‘­Tunc imperator dixit: ‘­Sic contenis te, quasi sanctus Ambrosius sis!’ Archiepiscopus respondit: ‘­Nec ego sanctus Ambrosius, nec tu dominus Deus’. (­The emperor then said: ‘­So you behave almost as if you were Saint Ambrose!’ The archbishop replied: ‘­I am not Saint Ambrose but neither are you the Lord God’.) 101 Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapter 11: ‘­Ille autem haec audiens, perrexit in Frantiam. Hludowicus imperator honorifice eum suscepit. Dum ad mensam uterque reficerent, causa exurgens imperator et dixit: ‘­Bonae archiepiscope, quid debet facere homo de inimicum suum?’ Ille respondit: ‘­Dominus dixit in evangelio: ‘­Diligite inimicos vestros et benefacite his qui vos oderunt’.’ Imperator dixit: ‘­Et si haec non fecero?’ Archiepiscopus respondit: “­Si non feceris, non habebis vitam aeternam, si in ipso odio mortuus fueris”.’ (­Having heard this, Angilbert went to Francia. Emperor Louis received him with honor. While they were both eating at table, the emperor, raising an issue, said: ‘­Good archbishop, what must a man do with his enemy?’ Angilbert answered: ‘­The Lord said in the Gospel: ‘­Love your enemies and benefit those who hate you’’. The emperor said: ‘­A nd if I do not do this?’ The archbishop replied: ‘­If you do not do this and if you die with this hatred, you will not have eternal life’.) 102 Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapter 11: ‘­Imperator vero iratus dixit: ‘­Si me vindicabo de adversario meo, non habebo vitam aeternam?’ Et statim subiunxit: ‘­Vide Angelbertus, quomodo haec verba defendas’. Et constituto posito usque in mane. Mane autem facto, coligit imperator sapientes, prout si subito poterant, conflictum habentes de hac verba contra archiepiscopus. Archiepiscopus eorum presentia dixit: ‘­Scitis, quia sumus omnes fratres in Christo?’ Illi autem respondentes dixerunt: ‘­Scimus, quia unum patrem vocamus in cęlis’. Ille autem dixit: ‘­Ergo si scitis, quod fratres sumus, sive liber et servus, sive pater et filius, apostolus Iohannes dixit: ‘­Qui odit fratrem suum, omicida est et omnis omicidam non habet vitam eternam in se manentem’. Si ergo odiosus omicida reputabitur, quomodo vitam eternam possessurus erit?’ Illi autem convicti, ad haec verba consenserunt. Imperator vero manum in terra ponens, veniam petivit et gratiam filii sui reddidit.’ (­The angry emperor then said: ‘­If I take revenge on my adversary, shall I not have eternal life?’ And immediately he added: ‘­You will see, Angilbert, how you will defend these words’. Having reached this position they waited until the following day. In the morning the emperor gathered some learned men to see if they could argue immediately with the archbishop about those words. The archbishop said in their presence: ‘­Do you know that we are all brothers in Christ?’ They then replied saying: ‘­We know that, as we invoke one Father in Heaven’.

186  Old and new invaders Then he said: ‘­So, if you know that we are all brothers, whether free or unfree, father or son, John the Apostle said: ‘­He who hates his brother is a murderer and no murderer will have eternal life dwelling in him’. If therefore you are believed to be a hateful murderer, how will you be able to have eternal life?’ They were convinced and agreed to these words. The emperor then placed his hand on the ground, sought forgiveness, and returned his son to favor.) 103 This connection has been noticed also by Philippe Buc and Ross Balzaretti. According to the latter scholar, the chronicler’s account was influenced by the description of the encounter of Bishop Ambrose of Milan and Emperor Theodosius narrated in Paulinus’s Life of Ambrose. However, as Balzaretti notices, there is no clear evidence suggesting that Andreas of Bergamo read that work. It is not certain that Ambrose’s biography was known in the ninth century. It is more likely that the chronicler knew some details of that story. Ph. Buc, The Dangers of Ritual: Between Early Medieval Texts and Social Scientific Theory (­Princeton, 2001), ­p. 239; R. Balzaretti, ‘­Spoken Narratives in ­Ninth-​­Century Milanese Court Records’, in Narrative and History in the Early Medieval West, eds. E. M. T ­ yler – ​­R. Balzaretti (­Turnhout, 2006), p­p. ­21–​­22. For the conflict between Ambrose and Theodosius, see J. Moorhead, Ambrose: Church and Society in the Late Roman World (­London,1999), p­p. ­192–​­95. 104 As Ross Balzaretti has observed, this account probably had a didactic purpose as well. Balzaretti, ‘­Spoken Narratives in N ­ inth-​­Century Milanese Court Records’, ­p. 21. 105 Unlike the Frankish sources about this period, Andreas’s chronicle does not contain an accusation against Lothar as being responsible for the situation. Instead, the Italian author narrated that Lothar had joined in the conflict because Louis the Pious’s heirs could not agree over the division of the Empire. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapter 13. 106 Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapter 13: ‘­Tantique ibi viri fortes per contentiones malum et improvidentia debellati sunt, quanti potuissent per bonam concordiam et salubrae consilium multa milia sternere contradictorum paganorum. Unde usque hodie sic discipata est nobilitas Aquitanorum, que etiam Nortemanni eorum possedant terrae, nec est eorum fortia qui resistat, sed etiam tributa reddunt.’ (­There, because of evil contentions and improvidence, as many strong men died as, through good harmony and judicious decisions, could have prostrated many thousands of pagan enemies. The nobility of the Aquitanians has been thus wiped out to the present day to the point that the Northmen also own their land and there is no one who can withstand the Northmen’s troops, but instead tributes are even given to them.) It seems that this criticism was not appreciated. Somebody, in fact, tried to delete it from the oldest manuscript of Andreas’s work. Fortunately, one can still read this passage, that is not mentioned in the other medieval manuscript of this chronicle. The two manuscripts date respectively to the late ninth century and the late twelfth century and are held in Saint Gallen. For further information about these codices, see Italian Carolingian Historical and Poetic Texts, p­p. 33 and ­35–​­37. 107 Andreas did not give the date, but the fact that he stated that Lothar II had died in Piacenza means that the episode took place in 869, the year Lothar II passed away. Les Annales de Saint Bertin, annum 869. 108 Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapter 13: ‘­Lotharius ex sede propria exiens, in Italia veniens pacis gratiae videndum germanum suum, ubi cum ipso locutus est finibus Beneventana pago Venosiana. Sed dum iret et reverteret, multa devastantes pauperorum domibus, blasphemia multa incurrit’. (­Lothar left his home and came to Italy to see his brother for the sake of peace. He talked to him

Old and new invaders  187 in the territory of Benevento, in the village of Venosa. But, on his return, he laid waste many houses of poor people and committed many blasphemous deeds.) 109 For further information about this case, see J. Heidecker, The Divorce of Lothar II: Christian Marriage and Political Power in the Carolingian World (­Ithaca, 2010). 110 On this topic, see, for example, M. Lupoi, The Origins of the European Legal Order (­Cambridge, 2000), p­p. ­264–​­67. 111 He only reported for how many years Louis II had ruled. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapter 22. 112 The sole exception is the brief mention to Louis II’s repression of a revolt led by the Burgundian Hupert. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapter 14. In the same chapter, the chronicler explained that the problems the Slavs had caused to the subjects of the Italian Kingdom had ended when Everard was appointed leader of Friuli (­this, however, occurred around 830 when Louis the Pious was still ruling) and that, when Everard died (­m id 860s), his son Unroch took his place. Cf. I. Fees, ‘­Eberardo, marchese del Friuli’, in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, 42 (­Rome, 1993), p­p. ­252–​­55. Shortly after, the chronicler made another excursus saying that the king of the Bulgars had been baptized in Rome. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapter 16. In reality the Bulgar sovereign never went to Rome. He did, however, send some emissaries to the pope who gave them a letter for their king describing the precepts for being a good Christian. 113 The chronicler probably did not have accurate information about Louis II’s expeditions and placed the 848/­849 campaign against the Muslims in Benevento as an episode that had occurred just before the siege of Bari in ­866–​­871. On this see Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapter 15, and the historical commentary about that section. 114 Musca, L’emirato di Bari. 115 Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapter 19. 116 Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapters ­17–​­18. 117 The lack of available sources on Louis II makes it difficult to study this aspect in much detail. Suffice it to say that Andreas’s description of the a­ nti-​­Muslim campaigns has some similarities with the capitulary issued by Lothar in 847, in which there is an account of the preparation for the expedition against the Saracens, following the sack of Rome perpetrated by them in 846. Capitularia regum Francorum, II, eds. A. ­Boretius – ​­V. Krause, in MGH, Legum sectio II (­Hannover, 1897), number 203, chapters 2, 3, 7, 13. 118 Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapter 17. 119 Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapter 18. 120 Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapter 18. 121 Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapter 18: ‘­Cumque prope se coniungerent, fideles Christi oraverunt dicentes: ‘­Domine Iesu Christe, tu dixisti: ‘­Qui manducat carnem meam et bibit sanguinem meum, in me manet et ego in eum’. Ergo ‘­si tu nobiscum, quid contra nos?’’ In general, on the liturgy of war during the Carolingian period, see M. McCormick, ‘­The Liturgy of War in the Early Middle Ages: Crisis, Litanies, and the Carolingian Monarchy’, Viator. Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 15 (­1984), p­p. ­1–​­23. On holy war in early medieval Italy, see Berto, Christians and Muslims in Early Medieval Italy, p­p. ­34–​­40. 122 Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapter 18. 123 When they learned of the fall of Bari, the Saracens arrived in droves to assist their compatriots. Once they had landed, the Muslims destroyed their own boats, saying that they were no longer necessary because the Franks were powerless against them. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapter 19. 124 Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapter 19: ‘­qui venerant exaltati, facti sunt humiliati’. The chronicler quoted either Math 23.10, or Luke 14.10. Andreas

188  Old and new invaders indicated the location of the clashes, but never mentioned any details about the battles, focusing instead on the major losses the Muslims had suffered. 125 Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapter 17: ‘­Igitur dum domnus Hludowicus cum suis Bari custodirent, nuncii venerant de finibus Calabriae dicentes: ‘­Domine imperator, vestri esse volumus et per vestram defensionem salvi fore confidimus. Gens Sarracinorum venerunt, terra nostra dissipaverunt, civitates desolaverunt, aecclesias suffuderunt; tantum ad vos petimus, ut des nos caput confortacionis, qui nos adiuvent et confortent. Sacramenta vobis damus, tributa solvimus’. Tunc domnus imperator misericordia motus, non gaudens cupiditatis eorum promissa, sed de illorum dolens malitia.’ (­W hile the lord Louis was keeping watch over Bari with his men, messengers came from the territory of Calabria, saying: ‘­O lord emperor, we wish to be your subjects and we are confident that we will be rescued through your protection. The people of the Saracens came, sacked our land, emptied the cities, and destroyed the churches. We ask of you only that you grant us a commander who can help and strengthen us. We will swear oaths to you and will give tributes to you’. Then, the lord emperor, moved with compassion, not rejoicing in their lucrative promise, but feeling sorrow over their ills.) 126 C. Russo Mailler, ‘­La politica meridionale di Ludovico II e il “­Rythmus de captivitate Ludovici imperatoris”’, Quaderni Medievali, 14 (­1982), p­p.  ­12–​­15; Kreutz, Before the Normans, p­p. ­45–​­47. 127 Seneca, ‘­L’avventura di Ludovico II’, p­p. ­12–​­13. 128 Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapter 20: ‘­A nticus hostis, qui semper contra dilectionem inimicitiam querit, exsurgentes per malos homines, inter se occulte dicentes: ‘­Quid grabati sumus sub potestatem Francorum?’ Taliter Beneventani per fraudem uno consilio ingerunt, ut rederent malum pro bonum’. (­The ancient enemy, who always seeks enmity against love, acted through evil men, who were secretly saying to each other: ‘­W hy are we oppressed under Frankish dominance?’ The Beneventans acted all together fraudulently to return evil for good.) 129 Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapter 20: ‘­quatenus ubicumque fidelissimi imperatoris invenissent, ibi custodirent, et ad imperatorem non dimisissent redirent. Erant enim Franci separati per castellas vel civitates, fidentes absque ullo terrore, credentes fide Beneventanorum. Fuit autem iste contrarius discessionis dies XXXV, id est idus augusti usque quintodecimo kalendas octobris indictione V. Sed Deus, qui domno imperatore ad regni gubernacula imperialis ordinaverat, cum ipso erat, sicut legitur: ‘­Cor regis in manum Dei est’. Et taliter fideles suos ad eum venire fecit. Caelestis timor super Beneventanos inruit; vis illorum fuit, ut pacifice potuissent, illos dimiterent. Qui letabundi a domno imperatore reversi sunt.’ (­W herever they found the emperor’s men, they held them in those places in order not to let them go back to the emperor. The Franks were in fact spread out in castles and cities, free from all fear and trusting in the loyalty of the Beneventans. This hostility lasted for t­ hirty-​­five days, from the ides of August until the 15th day from the kalends of October, in the fifth indiction. But God, who had appointed the lord emperor to govern the imperial Kingdom, was with him, just as one reads: ‘­The heart of the king is in God’s hand’. And therefore he had his men go to the emperor. A heavenly fear rushed upon the Beneventans; the number of the Franks was so great that, in order to have peace, the Beneventans freed them. Full of joy, the Franks returned to the lord emperor.) 130 Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapter 21. 131 Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapter 21. 132 Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapter 21. 133 Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapter 21.

Old and new invaders  189 1 34 Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapter 22. 135 Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapter 22. 136 Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapter 22. 137 Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapter 23: ‘­Post cuius obitum magna tribulatio in Italia advenit’. (­A fter his death, great distress came upon Italy.) Andreas utilized the word tribulatio also in the description of the situation in which Italy found herself after Charlemagne’s conquest of the Lombard Kingdom. This might suggest that the author wished to show that any intervention from beyond the Alps had always produced the same results. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapter 5: ‘­Tantaque tribulatio fuit in Italia’. (­There was a great distress in Italy.) Still, it cannot be excluded that the repetition is purely due to limited linguistic ability or knowledge of synonyms on Andreas’s part. Having reported that, not long before Louis the Pious had died, an eclipse had occurred, Andreas indeed wrote ‘­facta est tribulatio magna (­There was great distress)’. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapter 12. 138 Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapter 23: ‘­Colligentes se maiores nati in civitate Ticino simul cum Angelberga suorum regina mense septembri indictione nona et pravum agentes consilium, quatenus ad duo mandarent regnum, id est Karoli in Frantia et Hlodovico in Baioaria; sicut et fecerunt’. (­The aristocrats gathered in the city of Ticinum with their queen Angelberga in the month of September, in the ninth indiction, and they gave her evil counsel, inasmuch as they wanted to invite two kings, that is, Charles in Francia and Louis in Bavaria; so they did.) 139 Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chapter 23. 140 Magali Coumert has maintained that the fact that both the first King of the Lombards, Agelmund, and Pippin fought against the Beovinides (­Historia Langobardorum codicis Gothani, chapters 2 and 11) indicates that the Historia of Gotha established a sense of continuity between the first Lombard sovereign and Charlemagne’s son. She argues that it ‘­présentait une identité lombarde fondée sur leur propre histoire, mais compatible avec une domination carolingienne. Malgré le changement de dynastie, les Lombards combattaient toujours les mêmes ennemis et en étaient de nouveau vainquers’. Moreover, she believes that ‘­le point commun d’une ville de Pannonie comme étape importante du trajet des Francs depuis Troie et des Lombards depuis les confins de la Gaule soulignait leur communauté de destin’ and that the mention in the Historia of a ­200-​­year pact between the Avars and the Lombards when the latter left Pannonia to invade Italy (­Historia Langobardorum codicis Gothani, chapter 5, ­p. 10) underscores in particular that ‘­l’alliance avec les Avars eut lieu avec les Lombards païens, avant qu’ils n’aient reçu la grâce du baptême. La durée précise de l’alliance permettait de ­sous-​­entendre qu’il s’agit d’une époque révolue et que les Francs peuvent désormais unir leur force contre les païens qui occupent la Pannonie’. Coumert, Origines des Peuples, p­p. ­258–​­60. These hypotheses are interesting, yet these feelings are not explicit at all, and therefore they certainly did not represent one of the main goals of the author. Furthermore, the chronicler never stated that Franks and Lombards had fought together against the Beovinides and the Avars. Indeed, the successes against those peoples were obtained by Pippin alone. Historia Langobardorum codicis Gothani, chapter 11: ‘­Per quem [Pippin] Tratia provincia una cum Abaris ad Francorum servitutem est redacta. Illi qui ab inicio malorum stirpe progeniti inimici ęcclesiarum, persecutores christianorum semper fuerunt, per istum, ut diximus, domno Pippino seu et patri suo solatium supradicti Abari sunt evacuati et superati et sanctae aecclesię defensatę et multa vasa sanctorum quae illi crudeles et impii rapuerunt, per istum defensatorem sunt ad propriam reversa… Post haec et Beowinidis cum exercitu suo [Pippin] perrexit eamque vastavit et populos terrę eius predavit et captivos adduxit.’

190  Old and new invaders (­Through Pippin the province of Thrace and the Avars were brought into subjection to the Franks. As we have said, to his own great comfort and that of his father, the lord Pippin expelled and overcame the aforementioned Avars, who, sprung from a stock that is the root of all evil, had always been enemies of the churches and persecutors of the Christians. The holy churches were defended and many holy vessels, which those cruel and impious men had carried off, were brought back home by the same defender… After this, Pippin also went against the Beowinidis with his army, ravaged their land, despoiled the people of that land and carried them captive back with him.) 141 For a few examples, see L. Capo, Il ‘­Liber Pontificalis’, i Longobardi e la nascita del dominio territoriale della Chiesa romana (­Spoleto, 2009), p­p. ­217–​­24, and W. Pohl, ‘­Invasions and Ethnic Identity’, in Italy in the Early Middle Ages ­476–​ ­1000, ed. C. La Rocca (­Oxford, 2002), p­p. ­29–​­30. 142 Gasparri’s claim that Andreas of Bergamo was a ‘­supporter’ of Louis II is based on no evidence. Furthermore, the chronicler never described Louis II as ‘­an Italian ruler’ as this scholar argues. Gasparri, ‘­The Fall of the Lombard Kingdom’, ­p. 65.

Bibliography

Primary Sources Amatus of Montecassino, Ystoire de li Normant, ed. V. de Bartholomeis (­Rome, 1935). Another edition in Amatus of Montecassino, Ystoire de li Normant, ed. M. ­Guéret-​­Laferté (­Paris, 2011). Amatus of Montecassino, The History of the Normans, translated by P. N. Dunbar with notes and introduction by G. H. Loud (­Woodbridge, 2004). Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, in Italian Carolingian Historical and Poetic Texts, edition and English translation by L. A. Berto (­Pisa, 2016), p­p. ­66–​­95. Annales Barenses, ed. G. Pertz, in MGH, Scriptores, V (­Hannover, 1844), p­p. ­52–​­56. Annales Fuldenses, eds. G. ­Pertz – F. ​­ Kurze, MGH, Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum separatim editi (­Hannover, 1891). Annales regni Francorum, in Annales regni Francorum et Annales qui dicuntur Einhardi, ed. F. Kurze, MGH, Scriptores rerum Germanicarum in usum scholarum separatim editi (­Hannover, 1895). Les Annales de Saint Bertin, eds. F. Grat, J. Vielliard, and S. Clémencet (­Paris, 1964). R. Bonfil, History and Folklore in a Medieval Jewish Chronicle: The Family Chronicle of Aḥimaʻaz ben Paltiel (­Leiden, 2009). Le carte cremonesi dei secoli ­VIII–​­XII, ed. E. Falconi (­Cremona, 1979), vol. I. Chronica Monasterii Casinensis, ed. H. Hoffmann, MGH, Scriptores, XXXIV (­Hannover, 1980). The Chronicle of Ahimaaz, translated with an introduction and notes by M. Salzman (­New York, 1924). The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor: Byzantine and Near Eastern History AD ­284–​­813, translated with introduction and commentary by C. Mango and R. Scott with the assistance of G. Greatrex (­Oxford, 1997). Il Chronicon Salernitanum (­sec. X), Italian translation by A. Carucci (­Salerno, 1988). Chronicon Salernitanum: A Critical Edition with Studies on Literary and Historical Sources and on Language, ed. U. Westerbergh (­Stockholm, 1956). Chronicon Sanctae Sophiae (­cod. Vat. Lat. 4939), ed. J.-​­M. Martin (­Rome, 2000). Constantinus Porphirogenitus, De administrando imperio, eds. G. Moravcsik – ​­J. H. Jenkins (­Washington, 1967). Cronaca di Novalesa, ed. G. C. Alessio (­Turin, 1982). La cronaca veneziana di Giovanni Diacono, in Cronache veneziane antichissime, ed. G. Monticolo, Fonti per la storia d’Italia, 9 (­Rome, 1890), p­p. ­59–​­171.

192 Bibliography Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, ed. L. A. Berto with an appendix of W. Pohl (­Florence, 2006). Dialogi de miraculis sancti Benedicti auctore Desiderio, eds. G. ­Schwartz – ​­A. Hofmeister, in MGH, Scriptores, XXX/­2 (­Hannover, 1934), p­p. ­1111–​­51. Documenta historiae Croaticae periodum antiquum illustrantia, ed. by F. Racki, Monumenta spectantia Historiam Slavorum meridionalium, 7 (­Zagreb, 1877). Documenti relativi alla storia di Venezia anteriori al Mille, ed. R. Cessi, 2 vols. (­Padua, ­1942–​­1943). Epitaphium Siconis Principis, in MGH, Poetae Latini aevi Carolini, II, ed. E. Duemmler (­Berlin, 1884), p­p. ­649–​­51. Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium, in The Little History of the Lombards of Benevento by Erchempert: A Critical Edition and Translation of ‘­Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium’, ed. L. A. Berto (­Abingdon and New York, 2021). Erchempert, Storia dei longobardi (­ sec. IX), Italian translation by A. Carucci (­Salerno and Rome, 1995). Ermold le Noir, Poème sur Louis le Pieux et épîtres au roi Pépin, ed. E. Faral, Les classiques de l’histoire de France au Moyen Age (­Paris, 1932). J. Ferry, Erchempert’s ‘­History of the Lombards of Benevento’: A Translation and Study of its Place in the Chronicle Tradition (­PhD dissertation. Rice University, 1995). Franks and Lombards in Italian Carolingian Texts: Memories of the Vanquished, edition and translation by L. A. Berto (­Abingdon and New York, 2021). Geoffrey Malaterra, The Deeds of Count Roger of Calabria and Sicily and of his Brother Duke Robert Guiscard, translated by K. B. Wolf (­A nn Arbor, 2005). Geoffrey Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii Calabriae et Siciliae Comitis et Roberti Guiscardi ducis fratris eius, ed. E. Pontieri, Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, Series Secunda, V, I (­Bologna, ­1925–​­1928). Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum prima pars, in Storia dei vescovi napoletani (­I ­secolo – ​­876) / Gesta Episcoporum Neapolitanorum, ed. L. A. Berto (­Pisa, 2018), p­p. ­46–​­71. Hincmar, De Divortio Lotharii regis et Theutbergae reginae, ed. L. Böhringer (­Hannover, 1992). Histoire des guerres et des conquêtes des Arabes en Armenie par l’eminent Ghévond, vardabed arménien, écrivain du huitième siècle, translated by G. V. Chahnazarian (­Paris, 1856). Historia Langobardorum codicis Gothani, in Italian Carolingian Historical and Poetic Texts, edition and English translation by L. A. Berto (­Pisa, 2016), p­p. ­50–​­63. John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, in Storia dei vescovi napoletani (­I ­secolo – ​­876) / Gesta Episcoporum Neapolitanorum, ed. L. A. Berto (­Pisa, 2018), p­p. ­72–​­111. John the Deacon, Istoria Veneticorum, ed. L. A. Berto, Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medio Evo. Fonti per la Storia dell’Italia medievale, Storici italiani dal Cinquecento al Millecinquecento ad uso delle scuole, 2 (­Bologna, 1999). John the Deacon, Translatio sancti Severini, ed. G. Waitz, in MGH, Scriptores rerum Langobardicarum et Italicarum saec. V ­ I–​­IX (­Hannover, 1878), p­p. ­452–​­59. John the Deacon, Translatio sancti Sosii, ed. G. Waitz, in MGH, Scriptores rerum ­ I–​­IX (­Hannover, 1878), p­p. ­459–​­63. Langobardicarum et Italicarum saec. V Liber de apparitione S. Michaelis in monte Gargano, ed. G. Waitz, in MGH, Scriptores rerum Langobardicarum et Italicarum saec. V ­ I–​­IX (­Hannover, 1878), p­p. ­540–​­43.

Bibliography  193 Liber pontificalis, ed. L. Duchesne, I–​­II (­Paris, ­1886–​­1892). Libro delle discendenze: vicende di una famiglia ebraica di Oria nei secoli ­IX -​­XI, Italian translation by C. Colafemmina (­Cassano Delle Murge, 2001). Liudprand of Cremona, Antapodosis, in Id., Opera omnia, ed. P. Chiesa, Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio Mediaevalis, 156 (­Turnhout, 1998), p­p. ­3 –​­150. Origo gentis Langobardorum, ed. A. Bracciotti (­Rome, 1998). Paul the Deacon, Historia Langobardorum, eds. L. ­Bethmann – ​­G. Waitz, in MGH, Scriptores rerum Langobardicarum et Italicarum saec. V ­ I–​­IX (­Hannover, 1878), p­p. ­12–​­187. Peter the Deacon, Liber de viris illustribus, in Patrologia Latina, vol. 173 (­Paris, 1854), columns ­1005–​­50. Pietro Suddiacono napoletano, L’opera agiografica, ed. E. D’Angelo (­Florence, 2002). Storia dei longobardi di Benevento, in Paolo Diacono, Storia dei longobardi. In appendix, Storia dei longobardi di Benevento di Erchemperto, Italian translation by I. Pin (­Pordenone, 1990). ​­ / Gesta Episcoporum Neapolitanorum, Storia dei vescovi napoletani (­I ­secolo – 876) ed. L. A. Berto (­Pisa, 2018). Theophanes Continuatus, Chronographia, in Theophanes Continuatus, Joannes Cameniata, Symeon magister, Georgius Monachus, ed. I. Bekker (­Bonn, 1838), p­p. ­1–​­481. Translatio Marci Evangelistae Venetias [BHL ­5283–​­5284], in E. Colombi, Storie di cronache e reliquie nella ‘­Venetia’ altomedievale (­Trieste, 2012), p­p. ­17–​­63. Vita s. Athanasii, in Vita et Translatio s. Athanasii Neapolitani episcopi (­BHL 735 e 737) sec. IX, ed. A. Vuolo, Istituto storico italiano per il Medioevo. Fonti per la storia dell’Italia medievale. Antiquitates 16 (­Rome, 2001), p­p. ­113–​­43. William of Apulia, Gesta Roberti Wiscardi, ed. M. Mathieu (­Palermo, 1961). Secondary Sources A. Acconcia Longo, ‘­Costantino V a Napoli’, Rivista di studi bizantini e neoellenici, 49 (­2012), p­p. ­221–​­38. G. Albertoni, L’Italia carolingia (­Rome, 1997). E. Albu, The Normans in their Histories: Propaganda, Myth, and Subversion (­Woodbridge, 2001). M. P. Andreolli, ‘­Una pagina di storia longobarda. “­Re Ratchis”’, Nuova Rivista Storica, 50 (­1966), p­p. ­281–​­327. M. Angold, ‘­K nowledge of Byzantine History in the West: The Normans Historians (­Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries)’, ­Anglo-​­Norman Studies, 25 (­2003), p­p. ­19–​­33. M. Angold, ‘­Belle Époque or Crisis? (­­1025–​­1118)’, in The Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire: c. ­500–​­1492, ed. J. Shepard (­Cambridge, 2008), p­p. ­583–​­626. G. Arnaldi, ‘­ A nastasio Bibliotecario’, in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, 3 (­Rome, 1961), p­p. ­25–​­37. G. Arnaldi, ‘­Impero d’Occidente e impero d’Oriente nella lettera di Ludovico II a Basilio I’, La Cultura, 1 (­1963), p­p. ­404–​­24. E. Arslan, ‘­Monetazione di età longobarda nel Mezzogiorno’, in I Longobardi del Sud, ed. G. Roma (­Rome, 2010), p­p. ­85–​­97. C. Asdracha, ‘­L’image de l’homme occidental à Byzance: le témoignage de Kinammos et de Choniatès’, Byzantinoslavica, 44, 1 (­1982), p­p. ­31–​­40.

194 Bibliography M. Balard, ‘­Les Normands vus par le chroniquers byzantins du XIIe siècle’, in Les Normans en Méditerranée dans le silloge des Tancrède, eds. P. ­Bouet – F. ​­ Neveux (­Caen, 1994), p­p. ­225–​­34. R. Balzaretti, ‘­Spoken Narratives in N ­ inth-​­Century Milanese Court Records’, in Narrative and History in the Early Medieval West, eds. E. M. ­Tyler – R. ​­ Balzaretti (­Turnhout, 2006), p­p. ­11–​­37. A. Barbero, Charlemagne: Father of a Continent (­Berkeley, 2004). A. Bedina, ‘­Grimoaldo, principe di Benevento’, in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, 59 (­Rome, 2002), p­p. ­673–​­76. A. Bedina, ‘­Grimoaldo, re dei Longobardi’, in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, 59 (­Rome, 2002), p­p. ­668–​­73. W. Berschin, Biographie und Epochenstil im lateinischen Mittelalter, II. Merowingische Biographie. Italien, Spanien und die Inseln im frühen Mittelalter (­Stuttgart, 1988). L. A. Berto, The Political and Social Vocabulary of John the Deacon’s ‘­Istoria Veneticorum’ (­Turnhout, 2013). L. A. Berto, Making History in ­Ninth-​­Century Northern and Southern Italy (­Pisa, 2018). L. A. Berto, ‘­I musulmani nell’agiografia altomedievale della Toscana e dell’Italia settentrionale’, Hagiographica, XXV (­2018), p­p. ­99–​­112. L. A. Berto, ‘­Iohannes Diaconus Veneticus (­Istoria Veneticorum)’, in La Trasmissione dei testi latini del Medioevo. Medieval Latin texts and their Transmissions. TE.TRA. 6, eds. L. ­Castaldi – ​­V. Mattaloni (­Florence, 2019), p­p. ­396–​­400. L. A. Berto, Christians and Muslims in Early Medieval Italy: Perceptions, Encounters, and Clashes (­Abingdon and New York, 2020). L. A. Berto, Early Medieval Venice: Cultural Memory and History (­Abingdon and New York, 2020). L. A. Berto, Ethnic Identity, Memory, and Use of the Past in Italy’s ‘­Dark Ages’ (­Abingdon and New York, 2022) M. G. Bertolini, ‘­A ngilberto’, in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, 3 (­Rome, 1961), p­p. ­260–​­63. M. G. Bertolini, ‘­A ndrea da Bergamo’, in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, 4 (­Rome, 1966), p­p. ­79–​­80. O. Bertolini, ‘­Carlomagno e Benevento’, in Karl der Grosse. Lebenswek und Nachleben, vol. 1: Persönlichkeit und Geschichte, ed. H. Beumann (­Düsseldorf, 1965), p­p. ­609–​­71. P. Bertolini, ‘­Atanasio, santo’, in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, 4 (­Rome, 1962), p­p. ­508–​­10. Atanasio’, in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, 4 (­ Rome, 1962), P. Bertolini, ‘­ p­p. ­510–​­18. P. Bertolini, ‘­La serie episcopale napoletana nei sec. VIII e IX. Ricerche sulle fonti per la storia dell’Italia meridionale nell’alto Medioevo’, Rivista di Storia della Chiesa in Italia, XXIV, 2 (­1970), p­p. ­339–​­440. P. Bertolini, ‘­La Chiesa di Napoli durante la crisi iconoclasta. Appunti sul codice Vaticano Latino 5007’, in Studi sul Medioevo cristiano offerti a Raffaello Morghen (­Rome, 1974), p­p. ­101–​­27. Cesario’, in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, 24 (­ Rome, 1980), P. Bertolini, ‘­ p­p. ­205–​­10. M. Berza, ‘­Sentiment national et esprit local chez les lombards méridionaux aux IXe -​­Xe siècles’, Revue historique du S ­ ud-​­Est européen, XIX, 2 (­1942), p­p. ­362–​­70.

Bibliography  195 F. Borri, ‘­Gli Istriani e i loro parenti. ‘­Φράγγοι.’ Romani e Slavi nella periferia di Bisanzio’, Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik, 60 (­2010), p­p. ­1–​­25. E. Boshof, Ludwig der Fromme (­Darmstadt, 1996). C. Bottiglieri, ‘­Cultura e culture nella Capua longobarda’, in ‘­Felix Terra’. Capua e la Terra di Lavoro in età longobarda, ed. F. Marazzi (­Cerro al Volturno (­IS), 2017), p­p. ­149–​­62. A. Boureau, The Myth of Pope Joan (­Chicago, 2001). R. Brann, Power in the Portrayal: Representations of Jews and Muslims in ­Eleventh-​­ and ­Twelfth-​­Century Islamic Spain (­Princeton, 2002). P. Brown, ‘­The Gesta Roberti Wiscardi: A “­Byzantine” History?’ Journal of Medieval History, 37, 2 (­2011), p­p. ­162–​­79. P. Brown, ‘­Perceptions of Byzantine Virtus in Southern Italy, from the Eighth to Eleventh Centuries’, in Questions of Gender in Byzantine Society, eds. B. N ­ eill – ​­L. Garland (­Farnham, 2013), p­p. ­11–​­28. Th. Brown, ‘­Ethnic Independence and Cultural Deference: The Attitude of the Lombard Principalities to Byzantium c. ­876–​­1077’, in Byzantium and Its Neighbours from the ­mid-​­9th till the 12th Centuries, ed. V. Vavřínek = Byzantinoslavica. Revue internationale des études byzantines, 54 (­1993), p­p. ­5 –​­12. Th. Brown, ‘­Byzantine Italy, c. ­680–​­c. 876’, in The New Cambridge Medieval History. Volume II: c. ­700–​­c. 900, ed. R. McKitterick (­Cambridge, 1995), p­p. ­320–​­48. L. ­Brubaker  – ​­M. B. Cunningham, The Cult of the Mother of God in Byzantium: Texts and Images (­Farnham, 2012). L. ­Brubaker – ​­J. Haldon, Byzantium in the Iconoclastic Era c. ­680–​­850: A History (­Cambridge, 2011). Ph. Buc, The Dangers of Ritual: Between Early Medieval Texts and Social Scientific Theory (­Princeton, 2001). F. Burgarella, ‘­Echi delle vicende normanne nella storiografia bizantina dell’XI secolo’, in Categorie linguistiche e concettuali della storiografia bizantina (­Naples, 2000), p­p. ­177–​­231. P. Cammarosano, Nobili e re: L’Italia politica dell’alto medioevo (­Rome and Bari, 1998). L. Capo, ‘­La polemica longobarda sulla caduta del regno’, Rivista Storica Italiana, 108, 1 (­1996), p­p. ­5 –​­35. L. Capo, ‘­Le tradizioni narrative a Spoleto e Benevento’, in I Longobardi dei ducati di Spoleto e Benevento (­Spoleto, 2003), p­p. ­243–​­87. L. Capo, Il ‘­Liber Pontificalis’, i Longobardi e la nascita del dominio territoriale della Chiesa romana (­Spoleto, 2009). F. Cardini, Alle radici della cavalleria medievale (­Florence, 1981). F. Cardini, ‘­I Normanni e le crociate’, in I Normanni popolo d’Europa 1­ 030–​­1200, ed. M. D’Onofrio (­Venice, 1994), p­p. ­356–​­62. M. Carrier, ‘­Perfidious and Effeminate Greeks: The Representations of Byzantine Ceremonial in the Western Chronicles of the Crusades (­­1096–​­1204)’, Annuario dell’Istituto Romeno di Cultura e Ricerca Umanistica di Venezia, 4 (­2002), p­p. ­47–​­68. G. Cassandro, ‘­ Il ducato bizantino’, in Storia di Napoli, II, 1 (­ Naples, 1969), p­p. ­3 –​­407. A. Castagnetti, ‘­Teutisci’ nella ‘­L angobardia’ carolingia (­Verona, 1995). R. Cessi, ‘­Venezia e i Croati’, in Italia e Croazia (­Rome, 1942), p­p. ­313–​­76. N. Christie, The Lombards: The Ancient Longobards (­Oxford, 1995).

196 Bibliography N. Cilento, Le origini della signoria di Capua nella Longobardia minore (­Rome, 1966). N. Cilento, ‘­La cultura e gli inizi dello studio’, in Storia di Napoli, II, 1 (­Naples, 1969), p­p. ­521–​­640. N. Cilento, ‘­L’Anonimo di Salerno’, in Id., Italia meridionale longobarda (­Milan and Naples, 1971, second edition), p­p. ­65–​­72. N. Cilento, ‘­I cronisti della Longobardia minore’, in Id., Italia meridionale longobarda (­Milan and Naples, 1971, second edition), p­p. ­72–​­96. N. Cilento, ‘­Le incursioni saraceniche nell’Italia meridionale’, in Id., Italia meridionale longobarda (­Milan and Naples, 1971, second edition), p­p. ­135–​­66. N. Cilento, ‘­I Greci nella cronachistica longobarda e normanna’, in Il passaggio dal dominio bizantino allo Stato normanno nell’Italia meridionale (­Taranto, 1977), p­p. ­121–​­36. S. M. Cingolani, Le Storie dei Longobardi: Dall’Origine a Paolo Diacono (­Rome, 1995). A. Citarella, ‘­The Political Chaos in Southern Italy and the Arab Destruction of Monte Cassino in 883’, in Montecassino dalla prima alla seconda distruzione. Momenti e aspetti di storia cassinese (­ secc. V ­ I–​­ IX), ed. F. Avagliano (­Montecassino, 1987), p­p. ­163–​­80. E. Colombi, Storie di cronache e reliquie nella ‘­Venetia’ altomedievale, Antichità Altoadriatiche, Monografie, 6 (­Trieste, 2012). E. Condello, Una scrittura e un territorio. L’onciale dei secoli V ­ –​­VIII nell’Italia meridionale (­Spoleto, 1994). S. Cosentino, Storia dell’Italia bizantina (­­VI-​­XI secolo). Da Giustiniano ai Normanni (­Bologna, 2008). C. H. Cosgrove, ‘­A Woman’s Unbound Hair in the ­Greco-​­Roman World with Special Reference to the Story of the ‘­Sinful Woman’ in Luke 7:­36–​­50’, Journal of Biblical Literature, 124, 4 (­2005), p­p. ­675–​­92. M. Coumert, Origines des Peuples: Les récits du Haut Moyen Âge occidental (­­550–​ ­850) (­Paris, 2007). A. Cowell, The Medieval Warrior Aristocracy: Gifts, Violence, Performance and the Sacred (­Cambridge, 2007). G. Cracco, ‘­I testi agiografici: religione e politica nella Venezia del Mille’, in Storia di Venezia, I: ­Origini-​­Età ducale, eds. L. Cracco Ruggini, M. Pavan, G. Cracco, and G. Ortalli (­Rome, 1992), p­p. ­923–​­61. Culto e insediamenti micaelici nell’Italia meridionale fra tarda antichità e Medioevo, eds C. ­Carletti – G. ​­ Otranto (­Bari, 1994). V. D’Alessandro, Storiografia e politica nell’Italia normanna (­Naples, 1978). T. De Angelis, ‘­Capua e i Capuani: tra tradizione ed innovazione nella storiografia altomedievale della “­Langobardia Minor”’, in ‘­Felix Terra’. Capua e la Terra di Lavoro in età longobarda, ed. F. Marazzi (­Cerro al Volturno (­IS), 2017), p­p. ­163–​­76. P. Delogu, ‘­Strutture politiche e ideologia nel regno di Ludovico II’, Bullettino dell’Istituto storico italiano per il Medio Evo, 80 (­1968), p­p. ­137–​­89. P. Delogu, ‘­Il principato di Salerno. La prima dinastia’, in Storia del Mezzogiorno, part II. Il Medioevo, 2 vols. (­Naples, 1988), I, p­p. ­237–​­77. P. Delogu, ‘­ La conquista dell’Italia meridionale come ideologia storiografica’, Rassegna Storica Salernitana, 11, 2 (­1994), p­p. ­211–​­21. P. Delogu, ‘­Lombard and Carolingian Italy’, in The New Cambridge Medieval History. Volume II c. 7­ 00 – c. ​­ 900, ed. R. McKitterick (­Cambridge, 1995), p­p. ­290–​­319. ​­ . Zettler, ‘­La traslazione di san Marco a Venezia e a Reichenau’, R. Dennig ­Zettler – A in San Marco, aspetti storici e agiografici, ed. A. Niero (­Venice, 1996), p­p. ­689–​­709.

Bibliography  197 P. Depreux, ‘­Das Königtum Bernhards von Italien und sein Verhältnis zum Kaisertum’, Quellen und Forschungen aus italieneschen Archiven und Bibliotechen, 72 (­1992), p­p. ­1–​­25. P. Devos, ‘­L’oeuvre de Guarimpotus, hagiographe napolitain’, Analecta Bollandiana, LXXVI (­1958), p­p. ­151–​­87. M. Di Branco, 915. La battaglia del Garigliano. Cristiani e musulmani nell’Italia medievale (­Bologna, 2019). T. Di Carpegna Falconieri, ‘­Guido, duca di Spoleto e marchese di Camerino’, in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, 61 (­Rome, 2003), p­p. ­352–​­54. T. Di Carpegna Falconieri, ‘­Guido, duca di Spoleto, marchese di Camerino, re d’Italia, imperatore’, in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, 61 (­Rome, 2003), p­p. ­354–​­61. A. Di Muro, Economia e mercato nel Mezzogiorno longobardo (­secc. ­VIII–​­IX) (­Salerno, 2009). F. Dolbeau, ‘­La vie latine de saint Euthyme: une traduction inédite de Jean, diacre napolitain’, Mélanges de l’Ecole Française de Rome, Moyen A ­ ge  – ​­Temps Modernes, 94 (­1982), p­p. ­315–​­35. M. Douglas, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (­London and New York, 1986, first edition 1966). F. Dvornik, The Slavs: Their Early History and Civilization (­Boston, 1956). D. Džino, Becoming Slav, Becoming Croat: Identity Transformations in Post-​­Roman and Early Medieval Dalmatia (­Leiden, 2010). S. Efthymiadis, ‘­Chrétiens et Sarassins en Italie méridionale et en Asie Mineure (­­IXe – ​­XIe siecle). Essai d’étude comparée’, in Histoire et culture dans l’Italie Byzantine. Acquis et nouvelles recherches, eds. A. Jacob, J.-​­M. Martin, and G. Noyé (­Rome, 2006), p­p. ­589–​­618. C. Erdmann, ‘­Kaiserliche und päpstliche Fahnen im hohen Mittelalter’, Quellen und Forschungen, 25 (­­1933–​­1934), p­p. ­1–​­48. N. Everett, Literacy in Lombard Italy, c. ­568–​­774 (­Cambridge, 2003). E. Fabbro, ‘­Charlemagne and the Lombard Kingdom that was: The Lombard Past in P ­ ost-​­Conquest Italian Historiography’, Journal of the CHA, 25, 2 (­2014), p­p. ­1–​­26. L. Fabiani, La terra di S. Benedetto. Studio s­ torico-​­giuridico sull’Abbazia di Montecassino dall’VIII al XIII secolo, 2 vols. (­Montecassino, 1968). G. Falco, ‘­Due secoli di storia cassinese’, in Id., Albori d’Europa (­Rome, 1947), p­p. ­173–​­263. G. Falco, ‘­Erchemperto’, in Id., Albori d’Europa (­Rome, 1947), p­p. ­264–​­92. G. Falco, ‘­Voci cassinesi nell’alto medioevo’, in Il monachesimo nell’alto medioevo e la formazione della civiltà occidentale, Settimane di studio del Centro italiano di studi sull’alto Medioevo, IV (­Spoleto, 1957), p­p. ­15–​­34 (­reprinted in G. Falco, Pagine sparse di storia e di vita (­Milan and Naples, 1960), p­p. ­59–​­75). S. C. Fanning, ‘­Imperial Diplomacy between Francia and Byzantium: The Letter of Louis II to Basil I in 871’, Cithara, 34 (­1994), p­p. ­3 –​­17. G. Fasoli, ‘­Carlo Magno nelle tradizioni s­ torico-​­leggendarie italiane’, in Karl der Grosse. Lebenswek und Nachleben, IV, Das Nachleben, eds. W. B ­ raunfels – P. ​­ E. Schramm (­Düsseldorf, 1967), p­p. ­348–​­63. I. Fees, ‘­Eberardo, marchese del Friuli’, in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, 42 (­Rome, 1993), p­p. ­252–​­55. A. Feniello, Sotto il segno del leone. Storia dell’Italia musulmana (­Rome and Bari, 2011).

198 Bibliography J. Flori, ‘­Quelques aspects de la propaganda a­ nti-​­byzantine dans les sources occidentals de la première croisade’, in Chemins d’­O utre-​­Mer. Etudes d’histoire sur la Méditerranée médiévale offertes à Michel Balard (­Paris, 2004), p­p. ­333–​­44. R. Folz, The coronation of Charlemagne: 25 December 800 (­London, 1974). J. France, ‘­Byzantium in Western Chronicles before the First Crusade’, in Knighthoods of Christ: Essays on the History of the Crusades and the Knights Templar, Presented to Malcolm Barber, ed. N. Housley (­A ldershot, 2007), p­p. ­3 –​­16. P. Frankopan, The First Crusade: The Call from the East (­London, 2012). P. Frankopan, ‘­Turning Latin into Greek: Anna Komnene and the Gesta Roberti Wiscardi’, Journal of Medieval History, 39, 1 (­2013), p­p. ­80–​­99. M. Fuiano, Libri, scrittorii e biblioteche nell’alto Medioevo (­Naples, 1973). M. Fuiano, Spiritualità e cultura a Napoli nell’alto Medioevo (­Naples, 1986). A. ­Galdi – ​­E. Susi, ‘­Santi, navi e Saraceni. Immagini e pratiche del mare tra agiografia e storia dalle coste campane a quelle dell’Alto Tirreno (­s ecoli ­V I–​­XI)’, in Dio, il mare e gli uomini, Quaderni di storia religiosa, 15 (­Verona, 2008), p­p. ­53–​­102. M. Gallina, ‘­La ‘­precrociata’ di Roberto il Guiscardo: un’ambigua definizione’, in Il Mezzogiorno ­normanno-​­svevo e le Crociate. Atti delle XIV Giornate ­normanno-​ s­ veve (­Bari, ­17–​­20 ottobre 2000), ed. G. Musca (­Bari, 2002), p­p. ­29–​­47. G. Gandino, Il vocabolario politico e sociale di Liutprando di Cremona (­Rome, 1995). C. Gantner, ‘­New Visions of Community in ­Ninth-​­Century Rome: The Impact of the Saracen Threat on the Papal World View’, in Visions of Community in the ­Post-​­Roman World: The West, Byzantium and the Islamic World, (­­300–​­1100), eds. W. Pohl, C. Gantner, and R. Payne (­Farnham, 2012), p­p. ­403–​­26. S. Gasparri, La cultura tradizionale dei Longobardi: Struttura tribale e resistenze pagane (­Spoleto, 1983). S. Gasparri, Prima delle nazioni. Popoli, etnie e regni fra Antichità e Medioevo (­Rome, 1997). S. Gasparri, ‘­The Fall of the Lombard Kingdom: Facts, Memory and Propaganda’, in 774: Ipotesi su una transizione, ed. S. Gasparri (­Turnhout, 2008), p­p. ­41–​­65. S. Gasparri, Italia longobarda. Il regno, i Franchi, il papato (­Rome and Bari, 2012). L. Gatto, ‘­L’eco della Conquista araba della Sicilia nelle fonti cristiane’, Quaderni Catanesi di Studi classici e medievali, I, 1 (­1979), p­p. ­25–​­79 (­reprinted in Id., Sicilia medievale (­Rome, 1992), p­p. ­175–​­96). J. Gay, L’Italie méridionale et l’empire byzantin depuis l’avenement de Basile I jusqu’à la prise de Bari par le Normands (­­867–​­1071) (­Paris, 1904). S. Gero, ‘­The Legend of Constantine V as ­Dragon-​­Slayer’, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 19 (­1978), p­p. ­155–​­59. V. Gleijess, La storia di Napoli dalle origini ai nostri giorni (­Naples, 1974). W. Goffart, The Narrators of Barbarian History (­A . D. 5­ 50–​­800): Jordanes, Gregory of Tours, Bede, and Paul the Deacon (­Princeton, 1988). T. Granier, ‘­Napolitains et Lombards aux VIIIe -​­XIe siècles. De la guerre des peuples à la ‘­g uerre des saints’ en Italie du sud’, Mélanges de l’Ecole Française de Rome, 108, 2 (­1996), p­p. ­403–​­50. T. Granier, ‘­Le peuple de Naples dans les textes hagiographiques fin IXe  – ​­début Xe s.’, in Peuples du Moyen Age. Problemes d’identification, eds. C. C ­ arozzi – H. ​­ ­Taviani-​­Carozzi (­­A ix-­​­­en-​­Provence, 1996), p­p. ­57–​­76. T. Granier, ‘­À rebours des laudes civitatum: les Versus Romae et le discours sur la ville dans l’Italie du haut Moyen Âge’, in Le médiéviste devant ses sources:

Bibliography  199 questions and méthodes, eds. C. ­Carozzi – ​­H. ­Taviani-​­Carozzi (­­A ix-­​­­en-​­Provence, 1996), p­p. ­131–​­34. T. Granier, ‘­La captivité de l’empereur Louis II à Bénévent (­13 ­août-​­17 septembre 871) dans les sources des ­IXe-​­Xe siècles: l’écriture de l’histoire, de la fausse nouvelle au récit exemplaire’, in Faire l’événement au Moyen Âge, eds. C. ­Carozzi – ​­H. ­Taviani-​­Carozzi (­­A ix-­​­­en-​­Provence, 2007), p­p. ­13–​­39. T. Granier, ‘­La difficile genèse de l’Histoire des évêques de Naples (­m ilieu du ­IXe-​ ­début du Xe siècle): le scriptorium et la famille des évêques’, in Liber, Gesta, histoire. Écrire l’histoire des évêques et des papes de l’Antiquité au XXIe siècle, eds. F. ­Bougard – ​­M. Sot (­Turnhout, 2009), p­p. ­265–​­82. H. Grégoire, ‘­La base historique de l’épopée médiévale’, in Europa und der Nationalismus (­­Baden-​­Baden, 1950), p­p. ­5 –​­22. C. Heath, ‘­Third/­Ninth century Violence: ‘­Saracens’ and Sawdān in Erchempert’s Historia’, ­ Al-​­ Masaq: Journal of the Medieval Mediterranean, 27, 1 (­ 2015), p­p. ­24–​­40. J. Heidecker, The Divorce of Lothar II: Christian Marriage and Political Power in the Carolingian World (­Ithaca, 2010). J. Hoffmann, ‘­Venedig und die Narentaner’, Studi Veneziani, 11 (­1969), p­p. ­3 –​­41. Pacem Portantes Advenerint: Ambivalent Images of Muslims in the J. Hysell, ‘­ Chronicles of Norman Italy’, Al Masaq: Islam and the Medieval Mediterranean, 24, 2 (­2012), p­p. ­139–​­56. J. Jarnut, Bergamo ­568–​­1098: ­Verfassungs-​­, ­Sozial-​­ und Wirtschaftsgeschicte einer lombardischen Stadt in Mittelalter (­Wiesbaden, 1979). J. Jarnut, ‘­Kaiser Ludwig der Fromme und König Bernhard von Italien. Der Versuch einer Rehabilitierung’, Studi Medievali, 30, 2 (­1989), p­p. ­637–​­48. E. Johnson, ‘­Normandy and Norman Identity in Southern Italian Chronicles’, ­Anglo-​­Norman Studies, 27 (­2005), p­p. ­85–​­100. A. Jotischky, ‘­The Frankish Encounter with the Greek Orthodox in the Crusader States’, in Tolerance and Intolerance: Social Conflict in the Age of the Crusades, eds. M. ­Gervers – ​­J. M. Powell (­Syracuse, 2001), p­p. ­100–​­17. H. Köpstein, ‘­ L’usurpateur Thomas et les Arabes’, ­G raeco-​­Arabica, 4 (­ 1991), p­p. ­127–​­40. B. Kreutz, Before the Normans: Southern Italy in the Ninth and Tenth Centuries (­Philadelphia, 1991). J. Kujawinski, ‘­Le immagini dell’altro nella cronachistica del Mezzogiorno longobardo’, Rivista Storica Italiana, 118, 3 (­2006), p­p. ­767–​­815 (­this article was originally published in Quaestiones Medii Aevi Novae, 10 (­2005), p­p. ­229–​­71). P. Lamma, ‘­Il mondo bizantino in Paolo Diacono’, in Id., Oriente e Occidente nell’alto Medioevo. Studi storici sulle due civiltà (­Padua, 1968), p­p. ­197–​­214. F. Lanzoni, ‘­Il sogno presago della madre incinta nella letteratura medioevale’, Analecta Bollandiana, 45 (­1927), p­p. ­225–​­61. G. La Placa, ‘­A ndrea di Bergamo e l’‘­adbrevatio de gestis Langobardorum’: note biografiche e testuali’, Maia. Rivista di letterature classiche, 46 (­1994), p­p. ­61–​­72. P. Lemerle, ‘­Thomas le Slave’, Travaux et Memoires, 1 (­1965), p­p. ­255–​­97. G. A. Loud, The Age of Robert Guiscard: Southern Italy and the Norman Conquest (­Harlow, 2000). G. A. Loud, ‘­A matus of Montecassino and His “­History of the Normans”’, in Mediterraneo, Mezzogiorno, Europa. Studi in onore di Cosimo Damiano Fonseca, eds. G. ­A ndenna – ​­H. Houben (­Bari, 2004), p­p. ­715–​­26.

200 Bibliography G. A. Loud, ‘­Byzantium and Southern Italy (­­876–​­1000)’, in The Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire, ed. J. Shepard (­Cambridge, 2008), p­p. ­560–​­82. M. A. ­Lucas-​­Avenel, ‘­Les populations de Sicile et les conquérants normands vus par Geoffroi Malaterra’, in De la Normandie à la Sicile: réalités, représentations, mythes, eds. M. ­Colin – ​­M.-​­A. ­Lucas-​­Avenel (­­Saint-​­Lô, 2004), p­p. ­49–​­66. M. A. ­Lucas-​­Avenel, ‘­L’immagine dei Saraceni nelle cronache ‘­normanne’ dell’XI secolo’, in Mezzogiorno e Mediterraneo, territori, strutture, relazioni tra antichità e medioevo, eds. G. Coppola, E. D’Angelo, and R. Paone (­Naples, 2006), p­p. ­233–​­46. M. A. L ­ ucas-​­Avenel, ‘­Les ‘­Gesta Roberti Guiscardi’ de Guillaume de Pouille: études de quelques éléments épiques’, in De part et d’autre de la Normandie médiévale: recueil d’études en hommage à François Neveux. = Annales de Normandie: Cahiers, 35 (­2009), p­p. ­53–​­70. V. Lucherini, La cattedrale di Napoli. Storia architettura, storiografia di un monumento medievale (­Rome, 2009). B. Luiselli, Storia culturale dei rapporti fra mondo romano e mondo germanico (­Rome, 1992). M. Lupoi, The Origins of the European Legal Order (­Cambridge, 2000). F. Luzzati Laganà, ‘­Il ducato di Napoli’, in Il Mezzogiorno dai Bizantini a Federico II, Storia d’Italia directed by G. Galasso, III (­Turin, 1983), p­p. ­327–​­38. F. Luzzati Laganà, ‘­Tentazioni iconoclaste a Napoli’, Rivista di studi bizantini e neoellenici, n. s., XXVI (­1989), p­p. ­99–​­115. D. Mallardo, Storia antica della Chiesa di Napoli. Le fonti (­Naples, 1943). D. Mallardo, ‘­Giovanni Diacono napoletano. I. La Vita’, Rivista di storia della Chiesa in Italia, II, 3 (­1948), p­p. ­317–​­37. F. Marazzi, ‘­Ita ut facta esse videatur Neapolis Panormus vel Africa. Geopolitica della presenza islamica nei domini di Napoli, Gaeta, Salerno e Benevento nel IX secolo’, Schede Medievali, 45 (­2007), p­p. ­159–​­202. J.-​­M. Martin, La Pouille du VIe au XIIe siècle (­Rome, 1993). J.-​­M. Martin, ‘­Hellénisme politique, hellénisme religieux et p ­ seudo-​­hellénisme à Naples (­­VIe-​­XIIe siècle)’, Nea Rhome. Rivista di ricerche bizantinistiche, 2 (­2005), p­p. ­59–​­77. J. Martínez Pizarro, Writing Ravenna. The Liber Pontificalis of Andrea Agnellus (­A nn Arbor, 1995). M. Mathieu, ‘­Une source negligée de la bataille de Mantzikert: les “­Gesta Roberti Wiscardi” de Guillaume de Apulie’, Byzantion, 20 (­1950), p­p. ­89–​­103. M. McCormick, ‘­The Liturgy of War in the Early Middle Ages: Crisis, Litanies, and the Carolingian Monarchy’, Viator. Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 15 (­1984), p­p. ­1–​­23. M. McCormick, Origins of the European Economy: Communications and Commerce AD ­3 00–​­9 00 (­Cambridge, 2002). M. McCormick, ‘­Western Approaches (­­700–​­900)’, in The Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire: c. ­500–​­1492, ed. J. Shepard (­Cambridge, 2008), p­p. ­395–​­432. R. McKitterick, History and Memory in the Carolingian World (­Cambridge, 2004). R. McKitterick, Charlemagne: The Formation of a European Identity (­Cambridge, 2008). W. McQueen, ‘­Relations between the Normans and Byzantium, 1­ 071–​­1112’, Byzantion, 56 (­1986), p­p. ­427–​­76. A. Metcalfe, The Muslims of Medieval Italy (­Edinburgh, 2009).

Bibliography  201 M. Micucci, ‘­La vita di Benevento nella visione di Erchemperto’, Archivio storico per le provincie napoletane, 35 (­1955), p­p. ­9 –​­29. G. B. Monticolo, ‘­Intorno al significato del nome Venecia nella Cronaca veneziana di Giovanni Diacono’, Nuovo Archivio Veneto, 3 (­1892), p­p. ­379–​­86. J. Moorhead, Ambrose: Church and Society in the Late Roman World (­London, 1999). C. G. Mor, ‘­ La storiografia italiana del sec. IX da Andrea di Bergamo ad Erchemperto’, in Atti del II congresso internazionale di studi sull’alto Medioevo (­Spoleto, 1953), p­p. ­214–​­47. P. Moro, ‘­Q uam horrida pugna’: Elementi per uno studio della guerra nell’alto medioevo italiano (­secoli ­VI–​­X) (­Venice, 1995). G. Musca, L’emirato di Bari (­Bari, 1967, second edition). J. L. Nelson, Charles the Bald (­London and New York, 1992). J. L. Nelson, ‘­Making a Difference in E ­ ighth-​­Century Politics: The Daughters of Desiderius’, in After Rome’s Fall: Narrators of Early Medieval History. Essays Presented to Walter Goffart, ed. C. Murray (­Toronto, 1998), p­p. ­171–​­90. J. L. Nelson, King and Emperor: A New Life of Charlemagne (­Oakland, 2019). D. M. Nicol, ‘­The Byzantine View of Western Europe’, in Id., Byzantium: Its Ecclesiastical History and Relations with the Western World (­London, 1972), essay I. Th. F. X. Noble, ‘­The Revolt of King Bernard of Italy in 817: Its Causes and Consequences’, Studi Medievali, 15, 1 (­1974), p­p. ­315–​­26. Th. F. X. Noble, The Republic of St. Peter: The Birth of the Papal State, ­680–​­825 (­Philadelphia, 1984). J. J. Norwich, The Normans in the South, ­1016–​­1130 (­London, 1967). M. Oldoni, Anonimo salernitano del X secolo (­Naples, 1972). M. Oldoni, ‘­ Paolo Diacono’, in Montecassino dalla prima alla seconda distru­ I  – IX), ​­ ed. F. Avagliano zione. Momenti e aspetti di storia cassinese (­secc. V (­Montecassino, 1987), p­p. ­231–​­58. M. Oldoni, ‘­Erchemperto’, in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, 43 (­Rome, 1993), p­p. ­66–​­71. M. Oldoni, ‘­La cultura latina’, in Storia e civiltà della Campania. Il Medioevo, ed. G. Pugliese Caratelli (­Naples, 1992), p­p. ­295–​­400. G. Orofino, ‘­Commentarius in Regulam Sancti Benedicti. Chronica Sancti Benedicti. Monumenta Ordinis Monastici’, in I luoghi della memoria scritta. Manoscritti, incunaboli, libri e stampa di Biblioteche Statali Italiane, ed. G. Cavallo (­Rome, 1994), ­p. 20. G. Ortalli, ‘­I cronisti e la determinazione di Venezia città’, in Storia di Venezia, II: L’età del comune, eds. G. ­Cracco – ​­G. Ortalli (­Rome, 1995), p­p. ­761–​­82. G. Ostrogorski, History of the Byzantine State, translated by J. Hussey (­New Brunswick, 1969). S. Palmieri, ‘­Un esempio di mobilità etnica altomedievale: i saraceni in Campania’, in Montecassino dalla prima alla seconda distruzione. Momenti e aspetti di storia cassinese (­secc. ­VI–​­IX). Atti del II convegno di studi sul medioevo meridionale (­Montecassino, 1987), p­p. ­597–​­627. S. Palmieri, ‘­L’identità del cronista salernitano’, Rassegna Storica Salernitana, 11, 1 (­1994), p­p. ­225–​­32. S. Palmieri, ‘­Cronache e cronisti dell’Italia meridionale longobarda’, Rivista storica del Sannio, VII, 14 (­2000), p­p. ­293–​­302.

202 Bibliography F. Panarelli, ‘­Goffredo Malaterra’, in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, 57 (­Rome, 2001), p­p. ­541–​­45. F. Panarelli, ‘­Guglielmo Appulo’, in Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, 60 (­Rome, 2003), p­p. ­794–​­97. M. ­Pavan – G. ​­ Arnaldi, ‘­Le origini dell’identità lagunare’, in Storia di Venezia, I: ­Origini-​­Età ducale, eds. L. Cracco Ruggini, M. Pavan, G. Cracco, and G. Ortalli (­Rome, 1992), p­p. ­409–​­56. A. ­Peters-​­Custot, ‘­Le barbare et l’étranger dans l’Italie méridionale ­pré-​­normande (­­IXe-​­Xe siècles): l’Empire à l’épreuve de l’altérité’, in Le barbare, l’étranger. Images de l’autre (­Saint-Etienne, 2005), pp.­147– ​­63. A. ­ Peters-​­ Custot, ‘­ L’identité des Grecs de l’Italie méridionale byzantine’, Nea Rhome. Rivista di ricerche bizantinistiche, 3 (­2006), p­p. ­189–​­206. A. ­Peters-​­Custot, Les Grecs de l’Italie méridionale ­post-​­byzantine (­­IXe-​­X IVe siècle). Une acculturation en douceur (­Rome, 2009). W. Pohl, Die Awaren. Ein Steppenvolk in Mitteleuropa. ­567–​­822 n. Chr. (­München, 1988). English translation: The Avars: A Steppe Empire in Central Europe, ­567–​ ­822 (­Ithaca, 2018). W. Pohl, ‘­Memory, Identity, and Power in Lombard Italy’, in The Uses of the Past in the Early Middle Ages, eds. Y. ­Hen – ​­M. Innes (­Cambridge, 2000), p­p. ­9 –​­28. W. Pohl, ‘­History in Fragments: Montecassino’s Politics of Memory’, Early Medieval Europe, 10, 3 (­2001), p­p. ­343–​­74. W. Pohl, Werkstätte der Erinnerung. Montecassino und die Gestalgung der langobardischen Vergangeheit (­Vienna and München, 2001). W. Pohl, ‘­La costituzione di una memoria storica: il caso dei Longobardi’, in Studi sulle società e le culture del Medioevo per Girolamo Arnaldi, eds. L. ­Gatto  – ​­P. Supino Martini (­Florence, 2002), p­p. ­563–​­80. W. Pohl, ‘­Invasions and Ethnic Identity’, in Italy in the Early Middle Ages ­476–​­1000, ed. C. La Rocca (­Oxford, 2002), p­p. ­11–​­33. W. Pohl, ‘­Le identità etniche nei ducati di Spoleto e Benevento’, in I Longobardi dei ducati di Spoleto e Benevento (­Spoleto, 2003), p­p. ­79–​­103. W. Pohl, ‘­Historiography of Disillusion: Erchempert and the History of ­Ninth-​ ­Century Southern Italy’, in Historiography and Identity III: Carolingian Approaches, eds. R. Kramer, H. Reimitz, and G. Ward (­Turnhout, 2021), p­p. ­319–​­54. A. Pratesi, ‘­La “­Chronica Sancti Benedicti Casinensis”’, in Montecassino dalla prima alla seconda distruzione. Momenti e aspetti di storia cassinese (­secc. VI –​­IX), ed. F. Avagliano (­Montecassino, 1987), p­p. ­331–​­45. V. Prigent, ‘­La carrière du tourmarque Euphèmios, basileus des Romains’, in Histoire et culture dans l’Italie byzantine. Acquises et nouvelles recherches, eds. A. Jacob, J.-​­M. Martin, and G. Noyé (­Rome, 2006), p­p. ­279–​­317. G. Ravegnani, I Bizantini in Italia (­Bologna, 2004). J. ­Riley-​­Smith, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading (­Philadelphia, 1986). I. Rochow, Kaiser Konstantin V. (­­741–​­775): Materialen zu seinem Leben und Nachleben (­Frankfurt am Main, 1994). B. Ruggiero, ‘­Il ducato di Spoleto e i tentativi di penetrazione dei Franchi nell’Italia meridionale’, in Id., Potere, istituzioni, chiese locali: Aspetti e motivi del Mezzogiorno medioevale dai Longobardi agli Angioini (­Spoleto, 1991), p­p. ­1– ​­4 4. C. Russo Mailler, ‘­La politica meridionale di Ludovico II e il “­Rythmus de captivitate Ludovici imperatoris”’, Quaderni Medievali, 14 (­1982), p­p. ­6 –​­27.

Bibliography  203 C. Russo Mailler, ‘­Il ducato di Napoli’, in Storia del Mezzogiorno, part II. Il Medioevo, 2 vols. (­Naples, 1988), I, p­p. ­343–​­405. F. Savio, ‘­Giovanni Diacono, biografo dei vescovi napoletani’, Atti della Reale Accademia delle scienze di Torino, L (­­1914–​­1915), p­p. ­304–​­18. F. Seneca, ‘­L’avventura di Ludovico II nell’Italia meridionale (­­855–​­875)’, Annali della Scuola Friulana (­­1949–​­1950), p­p. ­5 –​­55. A. Sharf, Byzantine Jewry from Justinian to the Fourth Crusade (­London, 1971). P. Skinner, Women in Medieval Italian Society ­500–​­1200 (­Harlow, 2001). T. Smit, ‘­Pagans and Infidels, Saracens and Sicilians: Identifying Muslims in the ­Eleventh-​­Century Chronicles of Norman Italy’, Haskins Society Journal: Studies in Medieval History, 21 (­2009), p­p. ­67–​­86. M. G. Stasolla, ‘­Gli Arabi nella penisola italiana’, in Testimonianze degli Arabi in Italia (­Rome, 1988), p­p. ­77–​­94. H. Taviani-​­Carozzi, La principauté lombarde de Salerne (­IXe-​­X Ie siècle): Pouvoir et société en Italie lombarde méridionale (­Rome, 1991). H. Taviani-​­Carozzi, ‘­La vision imperiale de l’Occident médiéval: un témoignage lombarde du Xe siècle’, in Histoire et société. Mélanges offerts à Georges Duby. Volume III. Le moine, le clerc et le prince (­­A ix-­​­­en-​­Provence, 1992), p­p. ­179–​­92. H. Taviani-​­Carozzi, La terreur du monde. Robert Guiscard et la conquête normande en Italie (­Paris, 1996). A. Thomas, ‘­L’image de la nation lombarde dans la Petite Historie des Lombards de Benevent: dissolution et mutation d’une identité nationale’, in Nation et nations au Moyen Âge (­Paris, 2014), p­p. ­51–​­61. A. Thomas, Jeux Lombards. Alliances, parenté et politique mèridionale de la fin du VIIIe siècle à la conquête normande (­Rome, 2016). H. M. Thomas, The English and the Normans: Ethnic Hostility, Assimilation, and Identity, ­1066–​­c . 1220 (­Oxford, 2003). J. V. Tolan, Saracens. Islam in the Medieval European Imagination (­New York, 2002). P. Tomea, ‘­L’agiografia dell’Italia Settentrionale, ­950–​­1130’, in Hagiographies: histoire internationale de la littérature hagiographique latine et vernaculaire en occident des origines à 1550, ed. G. Philippart, vol.3 (­Turnhout, 2001), p­p. ­99–​­177. P. Toubert, ‘­La première historiographie de la conquête normande de l’Italie méridionale (­XIe siècle)’, in I caratteri della conquista normanna. Diversità e identità nel Mezzogiorno (­­1030–​­1130), eds. R. ­Licinio – ​­F. Violante (­Bari, 2006), p­p. ­15–​­50. W. Treadgold, The Byzantine Revival: ­780–​­842 (­Stanford, 1988). La riconquista e l’invenzione dei mori’, GriseldaOnline (­November A. Vanoli, ‘­ 2004). http://­w ww.griseldaonline.it/­p ercorsi/­4vanoli.htm. (­accessed on September 11, 2011). A. Vanoli, ‘­Musulmani e accusa di idolatria al tempo di Leone IX (­­1049–​­1054)’, in La reliquia del sangue di Cristo: Mantova, l’Italia e l’Europa al tempo di Leone IX (­Verona, 2012), p­p. ­373–​­88. M. Villani, ‘­L’antroponimia nelle carte napoletane, sec. X ­ -​­XII’, Mélanges de l’Ecole Française de Rome, 107, 1 (­1995), p­p. ­345–​­59. B. Visentin, ‘­Strategie politiche nella Capua longobarda: la difficile divisione della sede vescovile’, Nuova Rivista Storica, XCI (­2007), p­p. ­447–​­58. B. Visentin, La nuova Capua longobarda. Identità etnica e coscienza civica nel Mezzogiorno altomedievale (­Manduria, Bari, and Rome, 2012). G. Vitolo, Città e coscienza cittadina nel Mezzogiorno medievale (­secc. IX–​­XIII) (­Salerno, 1990).

204 Bibliography V. Von Falkenhausen, La dominazione bizantina nell’Italia meridionale dal IX all’XI secolo (­Bari, 1978) (­revised translation of Unterschungen über die byzantinische Herrschaft in Süditalies vom 9. bis 11. Jahrhundert (­Wiesbaden, 1967). V. Von Falkenhausen, ‘­La Campania tra Goti e Bizantini’, in Storia e civiltà della Campania. Il Medioevo, ed. G. Pugliese Caratelli (­Naples, 1992), p­p. ­7–​­36. V. Von Falkenhausen, ‘­The Jews in Byzantine Southern Italy’, in Jews in Byzantium: Dialectics of Minority and Majority Cultures, eds. R. Bonfil, O. Irshai, G. G. Stroumsa, and R. Talgam (­Leiden, 2012), p­p. ­271–​­96. N. Webber, The Evolution of Norman Identity, 9­ 11–​­1154 (­Woodbridge, 2005). V. ­West-​­Harling, ‘­Introduction’, in Three Empires, Three Cities: Identity, Material Culture and Legitimacy in Venice, Ravenna and Rome, ­750–​­1000, ed. V. ­West-​ ­ arling (­Turnhout, 2015), p­p. ­13–​­31. H S. Whitten, ‘­Franks, Greeks, and Saracens: Violence, Empire, and Religion in Early Medieval Southern Italy’, Early Medieval Europe, 27, 2 (­2019), p­p. ­251–​­78. Ch. Wickham, Early Medieval Italy: Central Power and Local Society ­4 00–​­1000 (­London, 1981). Ch. Wickham, ‘­Lawyers’ Time: History and Memory in Tenth and Eleventh Century Italy’, in Idem, Land and Power. Studies in Italian and European Social History, ­4 00–​­1200 (­London, 1994), p­p. ­275–​­93. Ch. Wickham, ‘­­Ninth-​­century Byzantium through Western Eyes’, in Byzantium in the Ninth Century: Dead or Alive?, ed. L. Brubaker (­A ldershot, 1998), p­p. ­245–​­56. K. B. Wolf, Making History: The Normans and their Historians in E ­ leventh-​­Century Italy (­Philadelphia, 1995). G. Zornetta, Italia meridionale longobarda. Competizione, conflitto e potere politico a Benevento (­secoli ­VIII–​­IX) (­Rome, 2020).

Index

Abdila, Muslim leader 22 Abraham, Biblical character 95 Acconcia Longo A. 75 Achilles, ancient Greek hero 38 Adda, river 167 Adelchis, prince of Benevento 7, 10, 15, 16, 82–84, 109, 114, 117, 122, 127, 130, 131, 166, 174 Ademarius, prince of Salerno 113, 117 Adriatic Sea 94, 97, 100, 110 Aesop, ancient Greek writer 156 Agar, Biblical character 95 Agnellus, duke of Venice 102 Agnellus of Ravenna, chronicler 102 Aharon, ancestor of the Jewish writer Aḥimaʻaz 12 Aḥimaʻaz, southern Italian Jewish writer 2, 12, 13, 25, 26 Aio, prince of Benevento 110, 113, 117, 130 Aistulf, king of the Lombards 164, 170, 171 Albertoni G. 177 Alboin, king of the Lombards 151, 169, 181 Albu E. 41, 42, 57, 58 Alexander the Great 38 Alexandria 94, 95 Alexius, Byzantine emperor 39, 41, 42 al-Mui’z, Muslim leader 13 Aloara, wife of the Count of Capua Lando 130 Amalekites, enemies of the ancient Jews 7, 84 Amalfi 63, 71, 72, 74, 142 Amalfitans 2, 11, 71, 121, 124 Ambrose, saint 172, 185, 186 Anastasius Bibliothecarius, ambassador, writer 36 Anatolia 30, 47

Andreas, duke of Naples 69, 140 Andreolli M. P. 182 Angelarius, abbot of Montecassino 124, 129 Angilbert, archbishop of Milan 172, 185 Angold M. 57 Aphrodite, Greek godess 56 Apolaffar, Muslim leader 9, 23 Apollinaris, abbot of Montecassino 157 Apulia 2, 90, 105, 110, 117, 123, 174 Arduin, Lombard/ northern Italian man 37, 45, 46 Arechis II, prince of Benevento 28, 29, 35, 68, 73, 83, 88, 108, 119, 120, 131, 132 Arnaldi G. 53, 74 Arrane, Muslim leader 23 Arrane, Muslim who resided in Salerno 10, 23 Arslan E. 133 Asdracha C. 54 Atenolf, count of Capua 87, 110, 113, 118, 122, 124, 128, 135, 136 Athanasius, bishop of Naples 74, 90, 151, 152 Athanasius II, bishop of Naples 12, 22, 25, 86, 87, 93, 104, 110, 113, 114, 122, 127, 128, 138, 146–48 Auxilius, Roman priest who moved to Naples 139 Avars 120, 165, 167 Balard M. 54 Balzaretti R. 186 Barbero A. 176, 177, 183, 184 Bari 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 12, 16, 17, 20, 82–84, 90, 96, 97, 100, 103, 106, 108, 109, 111, 121, 123, 125, 153, 154, 156, 159, 165, 173, 174, 187

206 Index Basil, Byzantine emperor 12, 13, 16, 20, 25, 32, 36, 90, 104 Basil II, Byzantine emperor 104 Bassacius, abbot of Montecassino 17, 157 Bedina A. 133 Berengar, ruler of Friuli 179 Berengar II, king of Italy 22 Bernard, son of the King of Italy Pippin, king of Italy 184 Berschin W. 147, 148 Bertharius, abbot of Montecassino 83, 154, 157, 159 Berto L, A. 14, 17, 48, 51, 55, 62, 76, 77, 88, 101, 102, 104, 124, 134, 137, 177, 179, 187 Bertolini M. G. 179, 185 Bertolini O. 74, 124, 177 Bertolini P. 74, 75, 147, 152 Berza M. 136 Bohemond, son of Robert Guiscard 30, 39, 42 Bonus, duke of Naples 139–43 Borri F. 104 Boshof L. 177 Bottiglieri C. 90 Boureau A. 53 Brann R. 26 Brown P. 42, 50, 54–58, 61, 133 Brown Th. 48–50, 176 Brubaker L. 53, 76 Buc P. 186 Bulgars 29, 63, 67, 187 Burgarella F. 54 Caesarius, son of the Duke of Naples Sergius, military leader 71, 72, 80, 85 Calabria 6, 16, 96, 110, 167, 174 Calvus, bishop of Naples 14, 74 Cammarosano P. 124, 150, 177, 183 Caorle 100 Capo L. 14, 16, 132, 136, 183, 190 Cardini F. 59, 129 Carloman, brother of Charlemagne, Frankish ruler 165, 171 Carrier M. 48 Carucci A. 15 Cassandro G. 78, 150, 151 Castagnetti A. 106 Catilina, ancient Roman character 129 Cessi R. 98, 104 Charlemagne, king of the Franks, emperor 7, 8, 20–22, 72, 83, 85, 88, 95,

103, 108, 110, 119, 120, 133, 134, 165, 166, 169–72, 183, 189 Charles the Bald, son of Emperor Louis the Pious, king of the Western Franks, emperor 85, 91, 166, 175 Christie N. 178 Cilento N. 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 92, 124, 128, 130, 147, 148, 151, 159 Cingolani S. M. 178, 180, 181 Citarella A. 130 Colombi E. 101 Condello E. 147 Constantine, brother of the Byzantine Emperor Michael VII 39, 40 Constantine V, Byzantine emperor 12, 13, 25, 66, 75, 164 Constantine VI, Byzantine emperor 67, 68 Constantine IX, Byzantine emperor 39 Constantinople 13, 22, 66–68, 73, 77, 98, 138, 145 Cosentino S. 49 Cosgrove C. H. 53 Coumert M. 133, 177, 178, 189 Cowell A. 60 Cracco G. 101 Cres 104 Croatia 98, 105 Croats 97–100, 104, 105 D’Alessandro V. 60 Dalmatia 98–101, 104–06 Dalmatians 98, 100 Dauferius, Beneventan noble 108 Dauferius, Beneventan, father of Deacon Dauferius 113, 127 Dauferius, Cassinese deacon 127 Dauferius, son-in-law of the Prince of Benevento Adelchis 114 De Angelis T. 161 Delogu P. 15, 17, 23, 24, 80, 124, 131, 134, 176, 177 Dennig Zettler R. 101 Depreux P. 177, 184 Desiderius, king of the Lombards 21, 68, 72, 119, 165, 171 Deusdedit, abbot of Montecassino 108 Devos P. 150 Di Branco M. 25, 126 Di Carpegna Falconieri T. 20, 88 Di Muro A. 133 Dolbeau F. 147, 148 Douglas M. 18

Index  207 Doukeianos, Byzantine general 43, 44 Drogo of Hauteville, Norman leader 30 Druzec, iudex of the Marians 98 Držislav, king of the Croats 104 Dvornik F. 104 Dyrrachium 41 Džino D. 104, 105 Efthymiadis S. 50 Egypt 95 Erdmann C. 58 Eufimius 34, 77; see also Euthimius, Sicilian man Eugenius, Byzantine commander 22, 35 Eupraxia, daughter of the Duke and Bishop of Naples Stephen II, wife of the Duke of Naples Theophylact 144 Euthimius 67; see also Eufimius, Sicilian rebel Everard, ruler of Friuli 187 Everett N. 91, 178 Exaugustus, Byzantine general 38 Fabbro E. 178 Fabiani L. 160 Falco G. 14, 20, 88, 90, 125, 129–31, 134–37, 159 Fanning S. C. 54 Fasoli G. 182 Fees I. 187 Feniello A. 77 Ferry J. 20 Flori J. 48 Folz R. 81 Formosus, pope 139 France J. 48, 50, 59, 61, 62 Frankopan P. 58, 61 Franks 1, 7, 8, 13, 20, 22, 63, 71–73, 79, 82–85, 88, 95, 106, 108, 109, 119, 125, 132, 133, 138, 158, 164, 166, 168–76, 182, 184, 189 Fuiano M. 147, 148 Gabriel, archangel 129 Gaeta 71–73, 113 Gaideris, prince of Benevento 117 Galdi A. 17 Gallina M. 59 Gandino G. 61, 106 Gantner C. 26 Garigliano river 1, 21, 113, 136 Gasparri S. 16, 133, 136, 160, 181–84, 190

Gatto L. 77 Gay J. 161 George, Byzantine commander 32, 34, 35 Germans 99 Gero S. 75 Gisulf, prince of Salerno 2, 9, 21, 34 Gleijess V. 150 Goffart W. 133, 178 Granier T. 91–93, 147, 148, 150 Grégoire H. 58 Gregory, duke of Naples 12, 70 Gregory, son of the Duke of Naples Stephen 144, 147, 151 Grimoald, duke of Benevento, king of the Lombards 120 Grimoald III, son of the Prince of Benevento Arechis II, prince of Benevento 7, 83, 90, 108, 119, 120, 132, 133 Grimoald IV, prince of Benevento 8, 21, 22, 69, 86, 92, 108, 111, 114, 120, 134 Guaifer, prince of Salerno 9, 10, 23, 86, 111, 113, 114, 117, 130 Guaimar, prince of Salerno 14, 22 Guaimar II, prince of Salerno 35 Guaimar IV, prince of Salerno 46 Guarimpotus, Neapolitan writer 143 Guy, ruler of Spoleto 7, 9, 20, 83, 88, 118, 135, 136 Guy II, ruler of Spoleto 7, 20, 83, 88, 136 Hadrian, pope 72 Haldon J. 76 Heath C. 19–20 Hector, son of the king of Troy 38 Heidecker J. 187 Helyas, patriarch of Grado 103 Hincmar, bishop of Reims 129 Hoffmann J. 104 Hungarians 97, 100 Hupert, Burgundian rebel 187 Hysell J. 61 Irene, Byzantine empress 67, 68, 79 Ishmael, Biblical character, son of Abraham and Agar 95 Jarnut J. 179, 184 Jerusalem 2, 33 Jews 2, 11, 13, 25, 26, 155 Joan, female pope 14

208 Index John, abbot of Montecassino 153 John II, duke of Venice 102 John IV, bishop of Naples 139–41, 145, 147, 150 John IV, patriarch of Constantinople 76 John Niustetis, patriarch of Constantinople 66 John Orseolo, son of the Duke of Venice Peter II Orseolo 95 John Philagathos, antipope 94 John Tzimiskes, Byzantine general, emperor 22, 35 John VIII, pope 32, 86, 110 John X, pope 104 Johnson E. 54, 59 Jotischky A. 48 Judith, wife of Emperor Louis the Pious, mother of Charles the Bald 85, 172, 185 Justin II, Byzantine emperor 154 Justinian, Byzantine emperor 102 Justinian, duke of Venice 102

Liudprand, king of the Lombards 106, 170 Liudprand of Cremona, chronicler 106 Lothar, son of Emperor Louis the Pious, emperor 69, 72, 85, 88, 91, 165, 172, 173, 185–87 Loud G. 49, 57, 59, 60 Louis II, son of Emperor Lothar, king of Italy, emperor 5, 7, 10–12, 14, 16, 26, 72, 82–85, 88–91, 103, 109, 113, 117, 132, 142, 150, 153, 157, 160, 165, 167, 168, 173–76, 179, 187, 190 Louis the German, son of Emperor Louis the Pious, king of the Eastern Franks 91, 175 Louis the Pious, son of Charlemagne, emperor 85, 165, 172, 173, 187, 189 Lucas-Avenel M. A. 55, 60, 61 Lucherini V. 147 Luiselli B. 178 Lupoi M. 187 Luzzati Laganà F. 74

Köpstein H. 78 Kreutz B. 14, 18, 20, 25, 26, 74, 77, 89, 124, 133, 177 Kujawinski J. 18, 74, 90, 133

Magenolf, Frankish character 156, 157, 161 Maio, brother-in-law of the Prince of Benevento Sicard 127 Mallardo D. 79, 139, 146–48 Maniakes, Byzantine general 38, 39, 43, 45–47 Manzikert, battle of 40 Marazzi F. 126 Mariani, inhabitants of Dalmatia 98, 104 Marinus, ruler of Amalfi 142 Mark, saint 95, 96 Maronia, Dalmatian district 98 Martinez Pizarro J. 151 Martin J.-M. 81, 104 Mary the Greek, Byzantine princess, wife of John Orseolo 95 Mary Orseolo, wife of the Duke of Venice Peter II Orseolo, mother of John Orseolo 95 Mary, mother of Jesus 35, 129 Massar, Muslim leader 4, 5, 18, 108, 109 Mathieu M. 57, 59 McCormick M. 74, 187 McKitterick R. 176, 178 McQueen W. 48 Melus, Apulian man 39 Menelaus, ancient Greek king 56 Messina 31 Metcalfe A. 14, 17, 18, 22, 77, 124

Lagosta/Lastovo, Dalmatian island 99, 100, 105 Lambert, ruler of Spoleto 19 Lamma P. 48, 76 Lando, count of Capua 118, 130 Lando II, count of Capua 87, 121, 130, 135 Lando III, count of Capua 110, 130 Landolf, bishop and count of Capua 8, 9, 14, 87, 93, 109–16, 118, 124, 126, 129, 130, 159, 161, 163 Landolf the Elder, Gastald/Count of Capua 8, 124 Landolf, Prince Gisulf of Salerno’s cousin 21 Lanzoni F. 129 La Placa G. 179 Larissa 39, 42 Lemerle P. 77 Leo III, Byzantine emperor 64, 66, 164 Leo III, pope 72, 73, 164, 183 Leo Marsicanus, Cassinese chronicler 130 Leo V, Byzantine emperor 67, 94 Leo VI, Byzantine emperor 13

Index  209 Michael, saint 92 Michael, Slavic duke 98, 105 Michael, false Byzantine emperor 41 Michael II, Byzantine emperor 67 Michael III, Byzantine emperor 25 Michael VII, Byzantine emperor 39, 40, 44, 45 Micucci M. 49, 89 Mislav, Slavic ruler 98 Montepeloso, battle of 38, 43 Monticolo G. B. 98, 101, 104 Moorhead J. 186 Mor C. G. 182, 184 Moro P. 184 Musca G. 17, 18, 26, 89, 124, 177, 187 Narenta/Neretva river 97 Narentans 97–100, 104, 105 Narses, Byzantine general 154 Nelson J. L. 90, 176, 177, 189 Nicaea 67, 76 Nicephorus, Byzantine emperor 67 Nicephorus III, Byzantine emperor 40, 41 Nicephorus, patriarch of Constantinople 76 Nicephorus Phocas, Byzantine emperor 22, 36 Nicholas, pope 36, 84 Nicol D. M. 54 Noble Th. F. X. 176, 184 Nocera 132 Norwich J. 60 Oglio river 167 Oldoni M. 14, 15, 22–24, 131, 136, 137, 147, 148 Olivento river, battle of 43 Oria 2, 12, 13, 25 Orofino G. 163 Ortalli G. 101 Ossero/Osor 98, 100, 104 Ostrogorski G. 57 Otto II, emperor 95, 96, 99 Otto III, emperor 97, 106 Otto, count of Bergamo 179 Palermo 12, 68 Palmieri S. 15, 23, 137 Panarelli F. 54, 59 Pando, count of Capua 113, 130 Pandolf, prince of Capua-Benevento 2 Pandonolf, count of Capua 20, 110, 114 Pannonia 154, 167

Paris, son the king of Troy 56 Paul, Roman deacon, pope 145 Paul II, bishop of Naples 2, 63, 66, 138, 145 Paul III, bishop of Naples 144 Paul IV, patriarch of Constantinople 76 Paul the Deacon, chronicler 14, 105, 130, 135, 178 Pavan M. 74, 101 Pavia 108, 165, 169, 181 Peter, basilica of St., Rome 3, 42, 71, 79, 80, 100, 109, 157, 158, 166 Peter, Salernitan ruler 24 Peter, duke of Venice 98 Peter II Orseolo, duke of Venice 94–99, 100, 105, 106 Peter IV Candiano, duke of Venice 101, 102 Peter the Deacon, Cassinese writer 117, 130 Peter the Subdeacon, Neapolitan writer 138, 147, 148 Peters-Custot A. 16, 50, 53, 58 Philip, father of Alexander the Great 38 Photius, patriarch of Constantinople 32, 36 Pippin, son of Charlemagne, king of Italy 72, 95, 102, 103, 119, 165, 166, 170, 172, 175, 178, 189 Pippin III, king of the Franks 72, 164, 183 Pohl W. 14, 17, 88, 127, 129, 130, 136, 137, 159, 163, 177, 178, 181, 190 Pratesi A. 88, 159, 160 Prigent V. 77 Radelchis, prince of Benevento 3, 5–7, 9, 83, 108, 109, 111, 112, 114, 117, 121, 135, 155 Radelchis II, prince of Benevento 117 Radelgarius, prince of Benevento 90, 117 Radoald, Salernitan abbot 14 Radoald, Salernitan sculdais 14 Rainulf, Norman count of Aversa 30, 46 Raphael, Italian painter 80 Ratchis, king of the Lombards 170, 171 Ravegnani G. 49 Reggio Calabria 31 Richard, prince of Capua 46 Riley-Smith J. 59 Rivoalto, capital of the Venetian duchy 101

210 Index Robert Guiscard, son of Tandred of Hauteville, Norman leader 30, 31, 37, 38, 40–46, 48, 54, 57, 59 Rochow I. 75 Rodoald, gastald 156, 157, 161 Roffredus, advisor of the Prince of Benevento Sicard 14, 22 Roger Borsa, son of Robert Guiscard 30, 37 Roger of Hauteville, son of Tancred, brother of Robert Guiscard, count of Sicily 31, 43–45, 59, 60 Romanus IV, Byzantine emperor 40 Rome 3, 8, 25, 36, 66, 68, 71, 73, 79, 84–86, 100, 109, 110, 145, 156, 157, 164, 165, 169, 170, 187 Rosmunda, wife of the King of the Lombards Alboin 151 Rothari, king of the Lombards 167, 169 Ruggiero B. 19 Russo Mailler C. 78, 124, 151, 188 Sallust, ancient Roman writer 129 Samuel, Jewish prophet 7, 84 S. Maria di Tremiti, monastery 104 Sarah, biblical character, wife of Abrahm 95 Saul, Jewish king 7, 84 Savio, F. 148 Sawdān, emir of Bari 3–9, 12, 14, 16–18, 25, 84, 123, 156, 159 Seneca F. 179, 188 Sergius, duke of Naples 12, 70, 71, 80, 86, 92, 142–44 Sergius II, duke of Naples 12, 70, 86, 142, 143 Sharf A. 26 Shephatiah, ancestor of the Jewish writer Aḥimaʻaz 12, 13, 25 Sicard, prince of Benevento 1, 8–10, 12, 14, 21, 22, 24, 69, 70, 78, 91, 108, 111, 113, 115, 117, 121, 125, 127, 134, 153, 155 Sicily 1, 20, 63, 67, 68, 70, 88, 124, 165 Siconolf, prince of Salerno 5, 7, 10, 20, 23, 83, 88, 108, 112, 117, 121, 135, 155 Sico, prince of Benevento 8, 10, 12, 69, 70, 85, 91, 108, 111, 114, 115, 120, 121, 134 Skinner P. 147, 148, 151 Slavs 94, 97–100, 104, 105, 187 Smit T. 61 Solomon, Jewish king 7

Sorrento 63, 71, 74 Split 104 Stasolla M. G. 17, 18 Stephen II, duke of Naples 69 Stephen II, duke of Naples, bishop of Naples 143, 144, 147, 151 Stephen II, pope 92, 164, 183 Stephen V, pope 90, 125 Stephen Pateranus, Byzantine envoy 40 Susi E. 17 Tancred of Hauteville, father of William, Robert Guiscard and Roger 43, 59 Taranto 1, 100, 153, 165 Taviani-Carozzi H. 14, 20, 21, 49–51, 53, 54, 88, 89, 91, 131–33, 135 Teano 132, 137 Teutonici 99, 106 Theodosius, Roman emperor 173, 186 Theophanes, Byzantine chronicler 67 Theophano, wife of the Byzantine Emperor Nicephorus Phocas 22, 35 Theophylact, duke of Naples 144, 151 Thomas A. 88, 89, 92, 93, 127, 128, 130, 131, 133, 134, 147, 148, 150 Thomas H. M. 16 Thomas the Slav, Byzantine rebel 68, 79 Tiberius, bishop of Naples 139–41, 143 Titus, son of Emperor Vespasianus 2 Tolan J. V. 18, 26, 27 Tomea P. 102 Tomislav, king of the Croats 104 Toubert P. 54, 58, 62 Treadgold W., 76, 77 Troy 38 Turks 30, 39–41, 47 Unroch, son of Everard, ruler of Friuli 187 Urban II, pope 37, 42, 43 Ursel, Norman warrior 46 Ursus, son of the Prince of Benevento Aio, prince of Benevento 110 Ursus Particiaco, duke of Venice 97, 98 Vanoli A. 26 Venetians 94–106 Venice 94, 95, 99, 100, 101 Vespasian, Roman emperor 2 Villani M. 147, 148 Vincent at Volturno, monastery of St., 3, 18, 86, 109, 110

Index  211 Visentin B. 131, 137 Vitolo G. 74 Von Falkenhausen V. 15, 25, 78, 124, 151 Vuolo A. 90, 143 Waitz G. 153, 159 Waltarius, monk of the Novalesa 21 Wantia, Byzantine princess, wife of the Prince of Benevento Grimoald III 32, 50

Webber N. 54, 59 West-Harling V. 101 Whitten S. 26, 147, 160 Wickham C. 177, 179, 182 William of Hauteville, Norman leader 30, 44 Wolf K. B. 38, 54, 55, 57, 59–61 Zornetta 18, 124