The works of Liudprand of Cremona

Front matter

ah ie Sd miei eit Du ii re ell a s i gil Uae j* : i i e

The orks of Liudprand of Cremona vs LI

Liudprand of Cremona

Index

PAGE

233 279

I. LIUDPRAND'S LIFE AND TIMES

LiupPRAND—the name is variously spelled in Latin as Liudprandus, Liutprandus, Liuprandus, Liucius, Leucius, and in Italian as Liuzo, Liutio, Luzo, Luiso, Luizo—was born a.p. 920 at Pavia, the ancient Ticinum,thenoneof the most importantand flourishing towns in North Italy, a rival to Milan, Verona, and even Rome herself. He came of a wealthy and learned Lombard family, whose members were closely connected with the royal service, and when Hugh of Arles, King of Italy, decided to send an embassy to Constantinople in 927, Liudprand's father was chosen -as envoy, the uprightness of his character and the urbanity of his language, as his son declares, especially fitting him for the post. The mission, which was of a complimentary nature, was completely successful in spite of the fact that twolarge hounds, one of Hugh's presents to the Greek emperor, were with difficulty prevented from biting their new master when for the first time they saw him wearing a hood. ‘This mishap however was more than compensated for by a gift which the envoy was able to make on his own account, namely two chiefs of the Slavonic tribes, then in revolt against Romanos, who had attacked the embassy at Salonica and had been beaten off with the loss of their two leaders. ‘The emperor was hugely pleased to get them in his power, and Liudprand's father came back to Italy richly rewarded.

i

Soon after his return, however, he was seized by a serious malady, and retired to a monastery, where after a very short illness he died, leaving behind him a wife and one small son. The wife soon married again, her second husband, like her first, being a person of rank and diplomatic experience; a man, his stepson says, grave and honourable and full of wisdom. As for the young Liuzo, he was taken into the royal household at Pavia as a singing page, and by the sweetness of his voice secured the especial favour of the king, who was a passionate lover of music. Unfortunately, Hugh was also a passionate lover of women, and the ladies of easy virtue, such as the three nicknamed Juno, Venus and Semele, who thronged his court, may have given the studious youth that low opinion of female chastity which appears so frequently in his later writings. However that may be, a page in Hugh’s palace had unique opportunities for observing the weaker side of human nature and must have been only too well acquainted with the scandals that arise when a queen is openly slighted and a succession of royal favourites take the place that is properly hers. It is certain that the future historian was from his early years familiar with the private life of kings, and when in 942 Hugh sent a second embassy to Constantinople, it was Liudprand’s stepfather who was placed at its head and successfully arranged for the despatch of a Greek fleet to Italy and also for a marriage between the grandson of Romanos and one of Hugh’s illegitimate daughters.

But by this time Hugh’s fortunes were definitely on the wane and his hold on Italy weakening. He had never quite recovered from the check he had sustained in 932, when at the invitation of Marozia, who was then mistress of Rome, he had come to take both the lady and the city for himself, but had been compelled by a sudden revolt of the Romans under Marozia’s son Alberic, to leave a warm bed and slip ignominiously down the city wall. It was becoming obvious to all that Hugh’s real power was over, and that the rising star was Berengar, marquess of Ivrea, heir through his mother Gisla of Berengar I, successor through his wife Willa to Boso, marquess of ‘Tuscany. Hugh tried to capture and blind him, but Berengar escaped into Germany, whence in 945 he marched with a small force into Italy and was by everyone enthusiastically welcomed. Hugh, in order to save something for his son Lothair, was compelled for three years to be king only in name and died in 948, leaving Berengar nominally guardian to Lothair but really ruler of Italy.

These stirring events had their repercussion on Liudprand's life. In his teens he must have studied zealously, making himself thoroughly acquainted with the great classics of Latin literature, and when the time came for him to decide upon his career, he chose the pen rather than the sword, the cloister in preference to the camp. As with the drunken Helot and the Spartan boy, the wanton pleasures of Hugh’s court served to turn him to the narrow path of virtue and serious reflection, and when we next hear of the quondam singing page, he has entered the church and become a deacon at Pavia. The clerical profession however, in the tenth century did not preclude a vast amount of worldly activity, and Liudprand’s parents were both fully alive to their son’s literary talents and also determined that he should use them to advantage in State service. Accordingly Berengar was approached and, if we may believe our account, was induced by lavish gifts of money to appoint the young man as his private secretary and chancellor, “ secretorum. conscius ac epistolarum signator,! whatever the words may mean. King Hugh was dead and Berengar reigned in his stead.

For a time all went well; and then there was a rift. It became necessary for Berengar in his turn to send an embassy to Constantinople, and being “a man stuffed full of cunning” he looked about to see if he could find an envoy who would make the voyage at his own expense. Liudprand’s stepfather was very anxious that his talented stepson should add a knowledge of Greek to the Latin he already possessed. Berengar easily persuaded him that a visit to Constantinople was the very thing necessary. The stepfather supplied the money for the journey, and Liudprand set off down the Po from Pavia on August Ist, 949, reached Venice in three days, sailed across the Adriatic in company with an envoy from Otto of Saxony, who was bound for the same destination, and finally arrived at Constantinople on September 17th.

The embassy was largely a matter of formal courtesy and the envoy should have been supplied with handsome gifts for the Greek emperor. But when Liudprand came to examine his baggage, he found that all Berengar had thought necessary in the way of complimentary presents was a letter to Constantine Porphyrogenitus “packed with lies," and that therefore he would be obliged to make the customary offerings from his own private store. This he did when the time came for him to be received by Con- Stantine, the presence of other envoys from Spain and Germany compelling him to a generosity he scarcely felt. But it is plain that the mean trick which he considered Berengar had played on him rankled bitterly in his mind, and we need hardly look for any other reason than this to account for the ill feeling between master and servant that arose after the latter’s return to Italy.

The young Lothair died in November, 950, and Berengar secured the election of himself and his son Adalbert as joint kings. But, as so often happened in this period, no sooner had he reached the summit of his ambition than his power began to fail. His own avarice and the cruel greed of his wife Willa alienated many others besides Liudprand, and soon a Steady Stream of malcontents began to make its way across the Alps into Germany, where Otto of Saxony was in course of consolidating his position and already thinking of adventures in the south. Among these voluntary exiles was Liudprand, who must have left his native land some time before 956, since we know that in February of that year he made the acquaintance at Otto’s court of the Spanish bishop, Recemund of Elvira, envoy of Abd-ar-Rahman III, the greatest of the Umayyad princes, who was then making Cordova a rival in splendour to Bagdad. Between the Spanish and the Italian cleric a close friendship soon sprang up, and it was Recemund who advised Liudprand to solace the griefs of the exile, which he so often compares to the captivity of the Jews in Babylon, by composing a history of his own times. In response to this suggestion the Antapodosis was begun at Frankfort in 958, reached its third book in 960, and was stillin progress in 962. But meanwhile Liudprand had added a knowledge of German to his Latin and Greek, and by his varied accomplishments had commended himself to the favourable notice of Otto the Great. As early as 960 it would seem that he undertook a mission to Constantinople on Otto’s behalf, halting for a time on his way back at the island of Paxos, off the coast of Epirus. As a reward for this and similar services he was given the bishopric of Cremona towards the end of 961, and accompanied Otto when the latter at last decided that the time was ripe for him to enter Italy. In Liudprand Otto found a skilful and devoted instrument for his Italian policy, in Otto Liudprand gained a staunch and powerful protector ; and the result of this combination of German vigour and Italian subtlety was seen on February 2nd, 962, when Otto with his queen Adelaide was crowned as Emperor of the West by Pope John XII at St Peter's, and the Holy Roman Empire came into existence.

So far Otto had triumphed ; but he and his minister had still some difficulties to overcome before they could be sure of success. ‘The Pope proved unfaithful to his compact, and Liudprand’s old employer, Berengar, was still obstinately holding out in the Apennines. In 964 therefore, both Otto and Liudprand appeared again in Italy, and with Liudprand as his interpreter, for Otto could only speak German, the Emperor denounced John’s conduét to a synod of bishops and had him deposed from the papacy. ‘Then he turned on Berengar, captured him in his castle of St Leo, and sent him and his wife as prisoners to Bamberg, where they both died in 966.

Thus the wheel of fortune brought prosperity to Liudprand and disaster to the two enemies who had so cruelly oppressed his family ; and after 966 we find the name of the Bishop of Cremona continually occurring in the records of the time. He was again with Otto in South Italy, when the Emperor made his unsuccessful attack upon the Byzantine dominions in Apulia, and it was very probably at his own suggestion that he was sent to Constantinople in June, 968, to conclude a treaty of marriage between Theophano, daughter of the late Emperor Romanos, and Otto II, the emperor’s son. ‘This embassy, rendered fruitless by the obstinate cunning of Nicephorus Phocas, of whom he draws a life-like portrait in his best known book the “‘ Legatio,” kept him away for over half a year, and not until 969 did he return in deep disgust to his imperial master.

So we come to the last two years of Liudprand’s life. We learn from legal documents still extant that he was at Cremona in April, 970, and it must have been in the next year that he made his last journey to Constantinople, probably as a member of the embassy that succeeded this time in arranging the marriage between Theophano and Otto which he had vainly tried to negotiate in 968. Of that journey we only know from the curious and very characteri$tic Latin story given by von Ughelli (Ltalia sacra IV. 589) which is here translated :—'' In the days of the most illustrious Emperor Otto I there was a certain bishop of Cremona named Liuzo of holy memory. He was one of the emperor's chief confidants, a man prudent in counsel and filled with the love of God ; and it was he who found and graciously brought to Cremona the body of the great Saint Hymerius. In the faithful execution of the emperor's orders he had frequently to go backwards and forwards from the royal presence, and one day it happened that he was in the neighbourhood of Rome. There he was visited by the Bishop of Amelia, who had been driven from court by the noisy voice of malicious envy and now addressed him in mournful tones: ‘ Dearest father, as the emperor has given you the second place of honour in his realm, I beg you to lend me your aid. Condemned on a frivolous charge and stricken by a severe and unjust sentence, I have now completely lost the emperor’s favour. Have sympathy for my trouble and come to my help, and I will give you in recompense any gift that you please.

To him Liudprand replied :— * You are the fortunate possessor of the bodies of the saints. If you will make me fortunate by giving me i one of them, I will regain for you the king’s good will.’ Thereupon the other said: ‘I do not dare to satisty your request in this matter; for the bodies of the saints are buried under their sacred altars. But I have one saint held in high honour by the people of this district named Hymerius, and his body lies in a wooden chest. If I were able in some way or other to get him for you and you could transport him to your own city, Í am quite sure that the presence of so mighty a saint would bring you happiness.’ After this conversation they went at once to the town of Amelia and entered the church, pretending in kindly cunning that they were going to celebrate the night mysteries. Flinging themselves upon the ground in prayer they devoted themselves for a long time to vows and entreaties, begging favour for their holy request, and before their prayers were hardly over the whole piece of ground where Saint Hymerius was lying trembled and shook. But though the bishops were frightened, their credulous hopes drew them on, and as the guardians of the church were fast asleep they finally stood face to face with the Saint’s tomb. They were just beginning to break open the chest and extract the holy corpse, when one of the guards awoke and started shouting—‘ Get up, brothers, get up quickly: they are stealing away the body of our Saint Hymerius) At that worthy Bishop Liuzo ran up to the guard, and giving him some money on the spot asked him to stop his noise. The man saw that his own bishop was there, and putting the money in his pocket said no more but gave them his assistance. So they lifted out the precious body rejoicing and doing homage, and after placing the holy members in a perfectly clean receptacle they left the town unobserved. Bishop Liudprand then returned to Cremona with this joyful and longed for gift, and entering his city called together the people and showed them the body of the blessed Saint Hymerius, while they fell down in prayer and gave praise loudly to God for bestowing on them such a patron. Later on the Saint’s body was laid for the time behind the Virgin’s altar, until the worthy bishop should decide its final resting place. But this he was not allowed to do; for soon afterwards the needs of the imperial service took him to Constantinople, whence he never returned."

With that we must leave Liudprand. We know that he died in January, 972, one year before the death of his great magter the emperor, but whether his death took place in Constantinople or in Italy soon after his return is quite uncertain.

II. LIUDPRAND'S WORKS

Manuscripts of Liudprand's three books are fairly numerous, though few exist in the great Italian libraries. Liudprand's own autograph has perished, but a copy of it made in Italy by three scribes, one of whom knew no Greek, is now in Munich. This MS., which bears the inscription, Liber sanie Marte santiigue Corbin Frising, was probably once the property of Abraham, Bishop of Freising (957-993), and it is the archetype from which Becker’s three families of MSS., A.B.C. derive. Each of these families is represented by one manuscript in the British Museum, and upon them modern editors depend. The first printed edition of the Antapodosis was that of Petit (Paris, 1514), followed by that of Hervagen (Bale, 1532). In the next two centuries we g have Du Breul (Paris, 1603), Duchesne (Paris, 1641) and Muratori (Milan, 1723). The first complete edition of all the works is due to Pertz (Hanover, 1840), reprinted in Migne’s Patrologia Latina, vol. cxxxvi (Paris, 1853) and revised by Dümmler (Hanover, 1877). But all these have now been superseded by Joseph Becker’s edition (Hanover, 1915), an excellent example of German scholarship at its best, to which this translation is greatly indebted.

Rejecting as spurious two or three books that have been wrongly attributed to Liudprand, we have three genuine works from his pen, the Antapodosts, the Gesta Ottonis, and the Legatzo. Of these the Legatto is the best known, and of it there is an English translation, fairly accurate but disfigured by some curious mistakes, by E. Henderson in Bohn’s Library (“ Seled Documents of the Middle Ages,” 1896). The Legatto, an account of Liudprand’s embassy to Constantinople in the reign of Nicephorus Phocas, is a valuable document for the social life of Constantinople in the tenth century. Of it, Schlumberger makes full use in his brilliant study, ** L’épopée byzantine a la fin du dixiéme siecle," and concerning it he says: *' relation célébre, qui est certainement un des documents contemporains les plus précieux sur les événements de cette époque, le seul qui nous donne les plus piquants détails sur la cour de Nicéphore . . . les portraits sont certainement exacts dans leurs contours généraux, mais la colére a aveuglé l'écrivain à un point extraordinaire dans l'exposé des détails. Il ne faut donc accepter que sous bénéfice d’inventaire ses perpetuelles injures à l'endroit de tous ceux auxquels ila eu affaire à Constantinople . . . ces réserves faites on peut considérer d'une maniére générale les renseignements fournis par Liutprand comme étant d'une exactitude remarquable." Not only does the

IO

Legatio give us a brilliant picture of Constantinople, with its palaces, parks and churches, its troops of state officials and its gorgeous state ceremonies, but from it also we derive a clear idea of why it was that there was so little real intercourse between Constantinople and Western Europe during medieval times. It is plain that Liudprand and his companions cordially disliked Byzantine food, Byzantine drink, Byzantine dress, and Byzantine manners; that they were not allowed to ride on horseback through the streets seemed to them an insult ; that the palace in which they were lodged admitted the air freely was an intolerable hardship. Byzantine splendour they thought extravagance, Byzantine simplicity meanness. Evidently also in dealing with a rough soldier like Nicephorus, the cultured Italian prelate was at a disadvantage, and his punctilious regard for ceremony and readiness to take offence go far to explain the failure of his mission. The Legatio therefore has a psychological as well as an historical interest, and as a narrative it is a wonderful production. The pen picture of Nicephorus may be quoted as an example: “A monstrosity of a man, a dwarf, fat-headed and with tiny mole's eyes; disfigured by a short, broad, thick beard half going gray ; disgraced by a neck scarcely an inch long ; pig like by reason of the big close bristles on his head ;

a big belly, a lean posterior, very long in the hip considering his short $tature, small legs, fair sized heels and feet ; dressed in a robe made of fine linen, but old, foul-smelling and discoloured by age; shod with Sicyonian slippers; bold of tongue, a fox by nature, in perjury and falsehood a Ulysses."

As regards the Gef Ottonis, the only fault that can be found with it is its brevity, and the fact that in spite of its title it deals fully with but one episode in Otto's reign. That episode, the deposition of

II

Pope John XII, is, it is true, highly important in itself and moreover is connected with one of the cardinal events in history, the crowning of Otto as Emperor at Rome in 962. To this the opening chapters briefly refer and then pass on to the main subject. In the year 963 Otto received evidence that John had summoned Adalbert to Italy and was trying to stir up the Hungarians to invade Saxony, and he determined to depose his former ally from the papacy. He therefore summoned a synod of the church under his own presidency, of whose members Liudprand gives a long list, beginning with the patriarch of Aquileia, and descending by way of archbishops, bishops, cardinals, minor clergy and Roman magnates to the one solitary representative of the common people. At this synod charges were brought forward against the Pope of simony, sacrilege, fornication, drunkenness, and many minor misdemeanours; and he was summoned to appear and clear himself in person. John’s answer was a threat of excommunication, and a second letter to him could not be delivered, as he had prudently left Tivoli for an unknown destination. ‘Therefore, since it was impossible to give the three canonical warnings, Otto in person accused John of a breach of fealty to himself, and the synod deposed him, electing Leo the chief notary in his place. An abortive attempt to regain Rome was made by John, an attempt which Liudprand with his usual prejudice againgt the female sex attributes to the influence of his lady friends, but it was crushed with much bloodshed by Otto, who had remained with a few veteran soldiers in the city. A second usurper, Benediét, was sent into exile, and the record closes with the reinstatement of Otto’s nominee as Pope Leo VIII.

The Antapodosis is considerably the longest of

Liudprand’s works, in bulk just three times the size of the Legatio and the Gefta Oztonis taken together, so that a brief summary of its contents may be useful. The period covered by it extends from 887 to 949, and the first three of its six books are concerned with events that happened before the author's time, each book being carefully arranged to make a dramatic whole. Book I, after a preface addressed to Recemund, begins with the Saracens in Provence, and then diverges abruptly to Constantinople, with tales of the Emperors Basil and Leo. Returning to Europe the narrative takes up its main theme, the long struggle for the throne of Italy between Berengar and Wido, better known to us as Guido or Guy, a struggle complicated by the intervention of Arnulf, Emperor of Germany. A digression to Roman affairs affords opportunity for the grim story of Pope Formosus, and then comes the equally strange episode of the deadly potion given to Arnulf by Wido's wife. Wido's death leads to the appearance of his son Lambert, the hero of this drama, © and his lamentable end by treachery at Marengo brings down the curtain.

As the first book of the Antapodosis began with the Saracens, so the second book begins with the Hungarians, the other great scourge of Italy at this period, and with their fierce conflicts against Berengar I, now ruler of Italy. ‘Then we pass into Central Europe and are introduced to Henry of Saxony, father of the Otto afterwards emperor, who, more fortunate than Berengar, succeeds in defeating the Hungarians at Merseburg. Returning southwards again we take up the fortunes of Berengar, who henceforth becomes the chief actor in the play. An interlude deals with Pope John of Ravenna, elevated to the papacy by the harlot Theodora, and with the Saracens in South Italy defeated by a joint force of Italians and Greeks, So we come to the revolt against Berengar led by Adalbert and Gislebert, and its complete failure. Berengar’s success against these rebels, however, is counterbalanced by the arrival of a more powerful rival, Rodulf, king of Burgundy, and the unfortunate ruler retires to Verona, where his tragical death ends this book.

The first chapter in Book III explains the title ‘“¢ Antapodosis,” and then we have the highly coloured account of the burning of Pavia by the Hungarians in 924, when Liudprand was a small boy of four. The episode of the captivating Ermengarde and the effeét of her charms on Rodulf leads to the entrance of a new hero in Hugh of Arles, whose embassy to Constantinople gives occasion for another long digression on Byzantine affairs and for an account of the rise to power of the Emperor Romanos. Hugh’s cautious handling of the plot hatched against him at Pavia, and his rash adventure with the fair Marozia at Rome form the next two scenes, and this book comes to a . happy conclusion with his victory over Arnold, duke of Bavaria.

Book IV brings us to events of which Liudprand has personal knowledge, and introduces us to the villain of the piece, Berengar, marquess of Ivrea, together with his brother Anscar and his wife Willa. Hugh for the moment retires into the background and his place is taken by Otto of Saxony. With German affairs the last two-thirds of this book are entirely concerned, and we have an elaborate account of the death of King Henry, of the succession of Otto, and of the rebellion of his brother Henry against him. Then a long description of the sacred spear and proofs from Scripture that Otto's triumph was due to God's 23 UN favour lead up to the final scene of Henry's

ereat.

I4

Book V takes us back to Hugh and to his dealings with Berengar and Anscar. The latter’s death and the escape of Berengar to Otto’s court are described, and then Hugh’s second embassy to Constantinople leads us eastwards once more for an account of the deposition of Romanos by his son and of their expulsion by Constantine Porphyrogenitus. Then returning to Italy the action quickens. Berengar marches over the Alps and is joined by the intriguing bishop Manasses. Hugh’s supporters desert and this book ends with the villain apparently successful. Book VI is now only a fragment of a few chapters describing Liudprand’s first Byzantine mission, and it is impossible to say how the Antapodosis ended. As things stand the Gesta Ottonis may be regarded as the pendant that sets forth the ultimate triumph of virtue and defeat of vice.

It will be seen from this analysis that the Antapodosis in its present form has very little to do with Berengar II and his misdeeds. The narrative is fairly equally divided between Italy, Germany and Constantinople, and its chief interest, apart from its very great literary skill, is the light that it throws upon the condition of Southern Europe in the author’s time. A modern reader who has cherished the belief that the tenth century was the darkest period of a dark and barbarous age will find with surprise that the Italy of which Liudprand writes was not after all much more uncivilized than the Italy of Augustus or the Italy of Mussolini. Life was certainly more dangerous then than it had been under the Roman Empire or than it is to-day; but it was neither stagnant nor mechanical.

If we read Liudprand carefully we shall discover that there are many bright colours in the picture for which some historians have used such gloomy hues.

I5

Hungarians and Saracens may raid and plunder, Normans burn Utrecht, and Danes in their long ships sail up the Rhine and destroy the great Roman palaces in Aix and Tréves; but commerce and agriculture flourish in spite of these disturbances, and when the Hungarian scouts come down into the Lombard plains they see such wealth as they never expected to behold in this world. Sea-borne trade also goes briskly on, and of two of its branches in Italy and France Liudprand gives us some curious information. The merchants of Amalfi, it appears, specialized in a contraband trade with Constantinople. To it they exported the oil and fruit of their home country and from it they returned with smuggled cargoes of the precious purple-dyed cloth which the Byzantine authorities thought too good for the rest of the world to wear. The merchants of Verdun for their part were engaged in a business even more immoral. Emissaries from their town searched Northern France for well grown boys, and got them from their homes by force or fraud or bribery. Once within the walls of Verdun their fate was certain; they were castrated and sent into Spain, and those unfortunates who were not absorbed by the Spanish market were taken overseas to Constantinople and disposed of there.

It may be thought that trades such as the last two mentioned are no very strong proof of civilization. They are not; but they are evidence of a business intercourse between distant countries which would be impossible in a barbarous age. ‘This facility of communication, fostered by a common language and a universal religion, was one of the greatest advantages of Liudprand's time, and it enabled our historian to acquire that knowledge of his world which he uses to such excellent advantage.

I6

IIT. LIUDPRAND AS A WRITER

Liudprand was a remarkable man, a character in the English sense of the word, full of whims and idiosyncrasies ; he lived in stirring times and in many of the great events of those times he played a prominent part; and thirdly he possessed a keen eye for the dramatic and a rare sense of humour. ‘The style is the man, and the triple influence of personality, environment and natural genius is plainly evident in Liudprand’s writings. A bishop well versed in the Holy Scriptures and able to turn them readily to his own purposes, he was equally well acquainted with, and equally ready to use such extremely unclerical writers as ‘Terence and Horace. A patriotic Italian deeply devoted to his native city of Pavia, he was also a cosmopolitan traveller who had personal knowledge of most countries in Central Europe, of all the northern coasts of the Mediterranean, the Greek islands, and those parts of Asia Minor that border on Constantinople. A learned scholar and a brilliant linguist, he was also a man of the world and a diplomat admitted to the secret councils of kings and emperors, able to hold his own with the Caliph’s confidential agents and the Byzantine emperor’s eunuch ministers.