брой 5
Gerasim Petrinski, Ph.D., associate professor, Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”
Abstract: The mutual alienation between the Catholic and the Orthodox world was a century-long and multifaceted process, conditioned by highly complex internal and external factors. The self-identification of the Holy Roman Empire, as a prominent political representative of the West of that epoch, in the second half of the 10th century was inevitably determined by the need for civilizational and political emancipation from Constantinople, its ancient heritage, ceremonial, and customs. In his Report of the mission to Constantinople (967), Bishop of Liutprandus of Cremona demonstrates his deep knowledge of the Greek literary and rhetorical tradition, using it to create the negative image of the decadent court in the old imperial city and a scathing invective of Emperor Nicephorus II Phocas. The goal of this study is to analyze the rhetorical devices applied by him to achieve the desired effect.
Keywords: rhetoric, propaganda, Byzantium, diplomacy, non-verbal communication, ancient heritage
ОБРАЗЪТ НА „ДРУГИЯ“ В ДОКЛАД ЗА ПОСЛАНИЧЕСТВОТО В КОНСТАНТИНОПОЛ: РЕТОРИКА И ПРОПАГАНДА
Герасим Петрински, доц. д-р, Софийски университет „Св. Климент Охридски“
Ключови думи: реторика, пропаганда, Византия, дипломация, невербална комуникация, антично наследство
Резюме: Взаимното отчуждение между католическия и православния свят е вековен и многопластов процес, обусловен от изключително сложни вътрешни и външни фактори. Самоидентификацията на Свещената римска империя като първостепенен представител на Запада от тази епоха през втората половина на Х в. е неизбежно детерминирана от необходимостта за цивилизационна и политическа еманципация от Константинопол, неговото антично наследство, церемониал и обичаи. В своя Доклад за пратеничеството в Константинопол епископ Лиутпранд от Кремона демонстрира своите дълбоки познания върху гръцката литературна и реторическа традиция, използвайки ги за създаването на негативен образ на упадъчния двор в старата имперска столица и на язвителна инвектива срещу самия император Никифор II Фока. Целта на тази статия е да анализира реторическите инструменти, прилагани от него за постигане на желания резултат.
Introduction
The 10th century is one of the most crucial periods of conflict between the European East and West. The coronation of Otto I the Great on February 2, 967, was yet another symptom of the final clash between the Byzantine world and the kingdoms of the West, officialized with the Great Schism between the Ecumenical Patriarchy and the Papacy in 1054. The Byzantine Empire experienced its last period of significant political upsurge. It could still oppose ideologically and militarily the claims of the newly-founded Holy Roman Empire.
One of the most influential authors, who could provide information about these crucial developments, is the great historian and diplomate Liutprand of Cremona (ca. 920 – ca. 971). With excellent Greek education, this native of Northern Italy, highly influenced by the Byzantine culture, had a strong impetus for cultural self-identification and is an informative source for the clash of two societies that have less and less in common. He draws a thick boundary line between the “civilized” Western man and the Greek who has already cut his ties with the Roman civilization and political greatness. Traditionally, the propaganda devices for creating the image of the “other” include cultural differences, like customs and cuisine, and non-verbal elements, especially organismic (outer appearance), clothing and accessories, and kinesics. In addition, as an educated intellectual well-versed in ancient literature and culture, Liutprand “seasons” his text with numerous references and allusions to the Greco-Roman textual tradition.
This study focuses on the image of the Greeks as opposed to the emerging concept of the Westerner (Langobard, Saxon, Franc, or Bavarian) in Liutprand’s Report of the mission to Constantinople (Relatio de legatione Constantinopolitana) written in 967. The learned bishop makes this opposition, firstly, on the verbal level. In the disputes between the Western diplomat and the Eastern Emperor, Nicephorus II Phocas, each party used terminologies and concepts that were hardly understandable to the other. The set of problems tackled by the German ruler’s ambassador is by no means confined to the field of politics only. They are cultural, religious, and ideological. An overall conceptual crisis has arisen between the two worlds, making communication almost impossible.
The Report is aimed at a particular audience with a tactical, concrete goal and is written with great stylistic mastery. It effectively fulfills its rhetorical functions of giving reliable information, providing solid arguments for the ideological struggle, and, last but not least, entertaining the German emperor. With the rich information about Byzantine dress and cuisine, it also marks the cultural boundary between the Germanic virtues, like strength, courage, and vitality, and the vices of the Easterner with his protracted feasts, oily foods heavily drenched in a sauce of fermented fish entrails, and long “feminine” clothes. These qualities make the source revealing in terms of its author and readers’ thinking. Last but not least, it is essential to examine the degree of knowledge of Greek culture obtained by the Western diplomat. We will see that Liudprand uses methods of Aristophanes, images from Greek mythology, and Greek theological terminology (even ironically). In addition, he embellishes his description with everyday Middle Greek vocabulary.
Origin, life, and works of Liutprand of Cremona
The primary sources for the life of Bishop Liudprand of Cremona are his works. His name also appears in various forms in other authors. His contemporary, the Continuator of Regino[1], dated around 965 AD, calls him “Liuzo,” Bishop Otto of Freising[2], a historiographer of the 12th century, mentions him as “Leoprandus,” and the author himself gives his name as “Liudprandus.”[3] He notes that he was born in the city of Pavia[4], and this probably happened around 920[5]. His family was of Langobard origin, and his father was in the service of King Hugo.
Good education and ties to the Byzantine court were a tradition in the future bishop’s family since his father was sent in 927 as an ambassador to the court of the emperor Romanus Lacapinus (920-944) to deepen the kingdom’s ties with Constantinople[6]. Liutprand tells about this high-ranking official’s last days, reminding us of Byzantine aristocrats’ traditions. Shortly before his death, his father accepted monasticism and retired to a monastery. The boy’s upbringing was taken over by his uncle, whom the Italian king also sent on missions to the Emperor Roman Lecapenos. The writer owes much of his excellent knowledge of the Greek language, Byzantine traditions, and ceremonial to these diplomatic missions. His education, noble origin, and intellect granted him relatively swift ascent in the Church hierarchy. Shortly before 945, still a young man, he was ordained a deacon in Pavia[7].
In 945, count Berengarius II defeated King Hugo and forced him to abdicate in favor of his son Lothar, taking the actual control over Italy. Liutprand retained his position and influence with the new ruler in the court[8]. Berengarius appointed him his confidant and signer of his letters (secretorum eius conscious ac epistolarum signator), i.e., private secretary[9]. The opportunity for a diplomatic career came soon when Emperor Constantine VII, father-in-law of King Lothar’s daughter Bertha, demanded the restoration of the lawful king’s legal rights as a ruler[10]. Berengarius sent the young deacon as an envoy to Constantinople to alleviate the emperor’s concerns. Liutprand’s uncle bore all the expenses for travel, accommodation, and gifts[11]. Unlike the Relatio de legatione Constantinopolitana,[12] written more than twenty years later, the Antapodosis describes the Byzantine court and its ceremonies with evident admiration. Probably, the brilliant reception of the envoy by Constantine VII also influenced this attitude.[13]
After his first mission to Constantinople, the young deacon returned to Pavia, where he was given “hate instead of a reward”[14]. The cause for this cold reception was probably the negative attitude of Bela, the count’s wife, towards Liutprand[15]. After 950, when his former patron was already the King of Italy, he went into voluntary exile to the court of the German king Otto. During his stay in Frankfurt (ca. 958), he started to write his most extensive work, Antapodosis – a history of Italy, Spain, and Germany from the time of Emperor Leo VI (887-912) until the mid-10th century. He finished this text probably ca. 960 on the small island Paxos in the Aegean Sea[16]. The following year, in 961, Otto started his campaign in Northern Italy against King Berengarius and appointed his confidant Liutprad the Bishop of Cremona[17]. As a high-standing Church official, he was present during his patron’s coronation as Holy Roman Emperor in St. Peter’s Cathedral in Rome on February 2, 962[18]. In this way, an ideological alternative to Constantinople was created. The heightened self-confidence of Liutprand is evident in the changed tone of his Report as opposed to the admiration towards the Byzantine court and civilized way of life expressed in the Antapodosis. In the latter work, written in 947, he traveled to the imperial capital as the envoy of the usurper Berengarius who was not even officially a king (rex). Twenty years later, he was already the representative of Otto, an emperor himself, and at least equal to Nicephorus II.
The bishop of Cremona played an essential role in the political events of 961-968. He took an active part in the dispute between Pope John XII and his opponent, Pope Leo VII, supported by Otto I, and afterward helped Leo to depose John’s successor, Benedict V, in 964. In 967, Otto II was officially crowned as the co-emperor of his father, Otto I. The ceremony was held according to the Byzantine ritual. This, along with the siege of Bari the following year, further strained the relations between the Holy Roman Empire and Constantinople. The German Emperor believed it likely that a diplomatic solution could be found for the control over the provinces of Apulia and Calabria, still under the administration of the Eastern Emperor. In his opinion, this could be achieved through the marriage of his son and heir to the throne, and a Byzantine princess. For this reason, Liutprand’s extensive knowledge of the language, customs, and culture of the “Greeks” in Constantinople seemed to be especially valuable for the problematic diplomatic mission. The Bishop of Cremona departed for the capital in the spring of 968 with many gifts for Nicephorus II and his courtiers[19]. He arrived there in early June and enjoyed the controversial hospitality of the emperor for 120 days, until February 2[20]. The only known source for his visit is the report of Liutprand himself. Only Chronicon Benedicti vaguely mentions that Otto “often sent envoys to Constantinople to find wives of royal blood for his sons”[21]. The mission proved a complete failure, and the emperor’s attitude to the bishop was formidable. Liutprand was accommodated, almost imprisoned, in an uncomfortable and cold dwelling. He lacked the necessary funds for his own support, and his freedom of movement was restricted. After the apparent failure of the negotiations, he was not allowed to leave Constantinople. Through the Report, Liutprand attempts to exonerate himself for his inability to lead his mission to success.
Cremona’s bishop supported Emperor Otto in Church affairs after his last mission in the East. He helped establish the Archbishoprics of Magdeburg and Beneventum and participated as an envoy in the Synod of Milan in 969. The last mention of his name in the sources is dated July 20, 972[22]
The image of the Greek: non-verbal stereotype and cultural markers
As it is apparent from his biography, the development of Liutprand of Cremona, both as an author and political figure, was influenced by two civilizations that were increasingly drifting away from one another. On the one hand, his native Italy and his family had strong ties with the Eastern Empire. The father and the uncle of the future confidant of King Hugo, count Berengarius, and Emperor Otto, were often tasked with important and complex missions in the Byzantine court. He was well acquainted with the Greek world’s language, culture, mythology, and customs, and only a few Western diplomats had obtained such education. His vivid and offensive descriptions of the outer appearance and the spiritual vices of Emperor Nicephorus II and his officials follow the main rules of the standard rhetorical handbooks used in Byzantine schools during the Middle Ages, where the physical characteristics reflect the spiritual qualities of the object of the praise or invective[23]. What distinguishes the style of Liutprandus from the typical Byzantine invectives is, however, not so much the Latin language but the extensive use of offenses and vulgarities (Greek τραχύτης and σφοδρότης) that would probably shock a Greek intellectual of the epoch. Even here, however, the learned bishop adheres to the rules set by Hermogenes of Tarsus in his standard treatise On types of style (Περὶ ἰδεῶν λόγου) and uses metaphors, comparisons, irony, and neologisms[24] to manipulate and blacken the image of Nicephorus.
On the other hand, Cremona’s bishop did not consider himself a man of the East or the East – a part of his own cultural and political tradition. The Report is his main work, where the irreconcilable clash between the two worlds is clearly visible. One of the main goals of the following analysis will be to identify these cultural and political differences on a linguistic level in the description of the outer appearance and the spiritual vices of Emperor Nicephorus II, in the accounts on the Byzantine cuisine, and the corrosive attacks against the “Greek” slyness mirrored in the metaphorically used image of Ulysses (Ulix). The Emperor’s physical appearance (organismic) and clothing are described in the following manner:
“He was a monstrous man, as short as a Pygmy, with an extensive, round head and small eyes like a mole. Short, broad, thick, greying beard and a neck as thin as a finger deformed him. He looked like a pig with abundant hair on his head and was as black as an Ethiopian – a person that you would never want to meet in the middle of the night. His belly protruded, his bum was tiny, his legs too long for such short stature, his shoulders narrow, his feet as long as his legs. He was shod in Sikyonic sandals and clad in a purple[25]tunic, but this garment was old, worn out, and hideous to behold with its spoiled decoration. His tongue was imprudent, his mind foxy, and he was a veritable Ulix with his traitorous and deceitful nature”[26].
This person, almost a comic book character, is opposed to Emperor Otto and his son with their physical beauty (formosi), richly decorated clothing (ornati), bodily power (potentes), and spiritual virtues (virtutes). The description is full of Latinized Greek words – a common characteristic of the whole work. The word hyops (ὕοψ), literally pig-eyed, does not occur in other sources and was either typical for the slang of the epoch or an invention of Liutprand himself made by analogy to the Homeric epithet εὐρύοπα/⃰ ευρύοψ[27] (thundering). He undoubtedly uses this neologism in accord with the Hermogenian theory to impress his patron with his education and knowledge of Greek culture. In addition, the skillful emissary obviously expected that the German emperor and his court in Frankfurt could understand the subtle allusions of both the word and the wordplay. A particular characteristic of Liutpard’s style leads us to the same conclusion. When the learned bishop of Cremona uses a rare Greek word whose meaning was supposedly unclear to his audience, he always translates it into Latin and gives a proper explanation[28]. The term hyops lacks such a clarification.
Other allusions to ancient Greek literary works are also discernible in the description of Emperor Nicephorus’s outer appearance. The naturalistic depiction of the Byzantine ruler’s tiny bum (natibus siccum) and narrow shoulders (cruribus parvum) references Aristophanes’s Nebulae. The ancient comediographer outlines the young Athenian, who was tempted by the sophistic education and turned his back on the traditional values of his polis in the following manner:
“But if you take up what’s
in fashion nowadays, you’ll have,
for starters, feeble shoulders, pale skin,
a narrow chest, huge tongue, a tiny bum,
and considerable skill in framing long decrees”.[29]
The Emperor’s garment is also a rude joke against the might of Constantinople. Purple cloth was a century-old monopoly of the Eastern Empire, and its production technology was a jealously guarded secret. Mocking at the worn-out costume of Nicephorus, its faded color and spoiled decoration, Liutprand shows his master that the East was no more worthy of its fame, neither economically nor spiritually. The procession from the Holy Palace to the St. Sophia Church is also described in a derisive and offensive tone[30]. The officials are clad in large and ragged tunics from prolonged use[31]; the price of one of these garments, says the envoy flatteringly, would hardly amount to that of only one costume of a German noble. The clothing appears as a cultural marker as well. The Emperor insists that Liutprand’s retinue conforms to the Byzantine custom and wears a long summer tunic called teristrum (Greek θέριστρον) instead of a military garb (pileati) when hunting. The author answers in the following way:
“Our women wear tiaras and ‘teristra,’ and our men ride in armor. It is indecent to oblige me to change the customs of my predecessors since we allow your envoys to follow theirs. With their long sleeves, broad waistbands, fibulas, long hairs, and ankle-length tunics, they ride and walk among us, sit around the same table with us, and, the most offensive thing, greet our emperors with covered heads”.[32]
It is hard to blame the Emperor, who did not like the idea of having heavily armored Germans around him when hunting. This was forbidden in the Byzantine court since the murder of Basil I during a hunt in 887. We have a reason to doubt that the Germans were compelled to wear a long Byzantine tunic. Liutprand notes that the Bulgarian delegation wore traditional costumes (with a copper chain around the waist) and hairstyles.
The description of the Emperor’s physical appearance and costume is followed by a summary of his spiritual qualities, according to the rhetorical canon. Nicephorus is called Ulix, and the abstract slyness of this ancient hero is not the only allusion to this metaphor. The reference to this personage is probably an attack against the “Greek” Empire’s claims to be the sole successor of Rome. As a learned man, Liutprand was well acquainted with the work of Livius[33] and the story of Troy’s capture through the cunning of Ulises, the wanderings of Aeneas, the foundation of Alba Longa, and the early history of the Eternal City. Calling Nicephorus Ulix, he removes the Roman imperial grandeur of his image – which already belongs to Otto – and leaves him only with Greek cowardice and softness.
The Report shows that cuisine is another cultural marker separating the East and the West. On various occasions, Liutprand describes the eating habits of the court in Constantinople, often in shocking and “fishy” details. According to him, the Greeks used to mix wine with pine resin, pine splinters, and gypsum[34]. He characterizes the official dinner in the Sacred Palace as too long (temporis satis) and obscene/repulsive (obscena)[35]. The food was greasy, the combination of meat and fish sauce (piscium liquor) was distasteful and weird to a Westerner, and the officials indulged in drunkenness. On another occasion, however, and despite his previous resentment of the greasy food, the author describes with apparent pleasure a delicacy sent to him by the Emperor in a rare moment of goodwill, namely fat goatmeat stuffed with garlic and soaked with caviar[36]. As evident from the poems of Ptochoprodromos (12th century), stuffed meat was very popular in Byzantium[37].вият господар е поне равен на Никифор ІІ то дори няма кралска титла (ка си Лиудо
***
In addition to the cultural differences between East and West, Liudprand draws a distinguishable ideological boundary between the two halves of the Roman Empire. In the world hierarchy, the new political entity created by Otho occupies an apparent leading position, while the Roman character of Constantinople is increasingly doubtful. This concept is evident both from Nicephorus II’s comparison with Ulysses and from Liudprand’s charge that the emperors of the East had abandoned Rome and the papacy:
“My master did not invade Rome with violence and as a tyrant, but he saved the city from a tyrant – and indeed from the tyrant of the tyrants. Didn’t effeminate lechers rule there? And what is worse, whores? Sleeping then, it seems to me, was your power and the power of your predecessors, who called themselves “Roman emperors” only in name but not deed. If they were so powerful and genuinely Roman emperors, why did they leave Rome in the hands of prostitutes? Were not some of the popes exiled and others so humiliated by you that they had neither money for daily expenses nor alms to give?”[38]
Despite these grave accusations, it would hardly be correct to think that Liudprand and his contemporaries in Italy and Germany seriously disputed the imperial dignity of the Basileus in Constantinople. In Liutprand’s opinion, the above crimes were committed by individuals unworthy of their rank. Nicephorus himself is represented as a usurper of the Roman throne rather than as a king of the Greeks who had an unfounded claim to the Roman crown. This is evident in the author’s positive attitude towards the legitimate emperors, Basil II and Constantine VIII, sons of Roman II, who were deprived of their legal position by their stepfather. Liudprand calls the boys with evident sympathy two tiny emperors (“duo parvuli imperatores”) and emphasizes that “they, once masters of Nicephorus, now sat humiliated beneath him”[39]. The thrones of the lawful heirs of the Macedonian dynasty, placed beneath that of their mother’s husband as a sign of their lower position, was a shocking sight for Otto’s envoy.
In fact, the bishop of Cremona does not give us any information about the existence of a substantially new political ideology in the West. Otto I used the same means as Charlemagne 160 years before him to justify his power, namely, the coronation by the Pope and the dubious legitimacy of the ruler in Constantinople at the particular moment (in 800, it was a woman, the Empress Irene). The concept that Italy was an independent political entity seems much more innovative and intriguing.
Liutprand defended the idea of the ethnic integrity of the peninsula, albeit under the supremacy of the newly crowned Holy Roman Emperor Otto I. He opposes the Byzantine political power in the themes of Apulia and Calabria because of the ethnic composition of their population and this is in complete contrast to the Roman and Byzantine imperial Ideology:
“The population and the language of the land you claim to be subject to you show that it is part of the kingdom of Italy.”[40]
An attempt at self-identification is also evident in the irony with which Liudprand speaks of the Romans, as opposed to the Lombards, the Franks, and the Saxons:
“We, the Lombards, the Saxons, the Franks, the Lotharingians, the Bavarians, the Suevi, the Burgundians, so despise these people that to insult our enemy when we are angry, we need nothing but to call him a “Roman.” The very name Roman, to us, is a collective term denoting a lowborn origin, cowardice, avarice, decadent luxury, fraud, and vice.”[41]
The author also expresses his utter despise for the Romans on other occasions. As we mentioned above, the Eternal City and her Empire were founded due to Rhea Sylvia’s adultery and the fratricide of the Romulus.
CONCLUSION
As early as the late 9th century, the alienation of the European West and the East, of the Germano-Roman and the Byzantine-Slavic world, became more and more evident with the great dispute about the conversion of the Bulgarians. This process continued throughout the 10th century with the formation of the so-called “Byzantine commonwealth” (after D. Obolenski). In 1054, the Ecumenical Patriarch Michael Kerularius received from the Pope a bull by which he was excommunicated from the Church and declared a heretic. A hundred years later, at the time of the Second Crusade, the emperor in Constantinople was already referred to in papal correspondence simply as “rex Graecorum.” The works of Liudprand of Cremona provide unique insights into the markers of cultural difference that were gradually created and used for the West’s civilizational, ideological, and political self-identification and emancipation. Non-verbal cues such as organismic, clothing, and eating habits, along with language, were identification codes that the West would use not only for its relationship to the dying Eastern Empire but also for the formation of the concept of “Europe” in its encounter with the new worlds of Asia, America, and Africa after the 15th century.
On the other hand, the stylistic devices and the rich allusions abundant in the Report of the mission to Constantinople show the high level of knowledge about the Greek language and ancient literature still existing in Northern Italy in the mid-10th century. Liutprand belonged to probably the last generation of diplomats and intellectuals in the West able to communicate with the Byzantine world in its own language in the broadest meaning of the expression. He was well-acquainted with the poems of Homer, the comedies of Aristophanes, and, most importantly, the rhetorical apparatus used by the Byzantine intellectuals as well.
[1] Contin. Regin.: 628
[2] Ottonis et Rahewini gesta Friderici I imperatoris, III, 37: 210
[3] See Relatio: 347: “Liudprandus sanctae Cremonensis ecclesiae episcopus”.
[4] Antapodosis, III. 3.
[5] On the date of birth (920 or 924), see Karageorgos 1975: 36.
[6] Antapodosis, III. 22; Gay 1960: 223; Karageorgos 1975: 37-38.
[7] Karageorgos 1975: 39.
[8] Liutprand’s account on these events see in the Antapodosis, V, 26-30.
[9] Ibid., V, 30.
[10] On these events see the account of Constantine VІІ himself in DAI, 26. See and Antapodosis, VІ, 2.
[11] Ibid, VI, 3.ве за императора за път ии разходи за път и престой там поема чичо муренгарий. да се н ІІ у е изпратен през 927 г.
[12] The first mission of Liutprand in Constantinople is described in the last book of this work.
[13] Antapodosis, VI, 4: Kalendas Octobris Constantinopolim venimus, ubi quam inaudito miroque simus modo recepti, scribere non pigebit.
[14] Antapodosis, V, 30.
[15] Karageorgos 1975: 40-41.
[16] Antapodosis, I, 1.
[17] Historia Ottonis, 2.
[18] Ibid., 3; Contin. Regin.: 625.
[19] Relatio: 32.
[20] Karageorgos 1975: 47.
[21] Bened. Chron., 38: Statimque nuntios transmisit in Constantinopolim, ut de sanguine regale suos natos iungere.
[22] Bened. Chron.: 49-50.
[23] On the structure and the topoi of the praise (ἐγκώμιον) and invective (ψόγος) in the treatises of Theon of Alexandria, Pseudo-Hermogenes, Aphthonius, and Nicholas of Myra, see in detail Marrou 1956: 198 sq.
[24] On the usage of these stylistic devices, see Herm. Περὶ ἰδεῶν, Ι.7-8 (Wooten 1987: 26-32).
[25] The editor of the text suggests that the form villinus is misspelled in the manuscript, and the original word is visinus.
[26] Relatio, 3: 347: …hominem satis monstruosum, pygmaeum, capite pinguem atque oculorum parvitate talpinum, barba curta, lata, spissa et semicana, foedatum, cervice digitali turpatum, proxilitate et densitate comarum satis hyopеm, colore Aethiopem, cui per mediam nolis occurere noctem, ventre extensum, natibus siccum, coxis ad mensuram ipsam brevem longissimum, cruribus parvum, calcaneis pedibusque aequalem, villino sed nimis veternoso vel diuturnitate ipsa foetido et pallido ornamento indutum, Sicioniis calceamentis calceatum, lingua procacem, ingenio vulpem, peiurio seumendacio Ulyxem.
[27] Hom., Il, I. 498, 5.265, VIII. 206, VIII. 442, IX. 419, IX. 686, XIII. 732, XIV. 203, XIV. 265, XV. 152, XV. 724, XVI. 241, XVII. 545, XX. 455, XXIV. 98, XXIV. 296, XXIV. 331
[28] For example, when he refers to the accusations of espionage that the Emperor made against him, Liutprand says quasi ascopon, id est exploratorem (Relatio, 4).
[29] Aristoph. Nub., 1015-17/Aristoph. Clouds, 1015-1017 (ἢν δ’ἄπερ οἱ νῦν ἐπιτηδεύῃς. πρῶτα μὲν ἕξεις χροιὰν ὠχράν, ὤμους μικρούς, στῆθος λεπτόν, γλῶτταν μεγάλην, πυγὴν μικράν, κωλῆν μεγάλην, ψήφισμα μακρόν.)
[30] Relatio, 9: 349.
[31] Ibid.: magnis et nimia vetustate rimatis tunicis erant induti.
[32] Relatio, 37: 355 Mulieres, inquam, nostrae tiaratae et teristratae, viri equitant pileati. Nec decet vos compellere patrium me hic mutare morem, cum vestros, nos adeuntes, patrium morem tenere sinamus; manicati enim, fasciati, fibulati, crinite, talari tunica induti, penes nos equitant, incedunt, mensae assident, et, quod nostris omnibus nimis turpe videtur, ipsi soli capite operto imperators nostros deosculantur.
[33] Liutprand makes a reference to Livius, for example, about the fratricide of Remus and Romulus (Relatio, 12: 350. Cf. Liv. I. 7. 2-3.)
[34] Relatio 1: 347: …quod Graecorum vinum ob picis, taedae, gypsi commixtionem nobis impotabile fuit.” The usage of not-eatable ingredients is not mentioned in any other source. Still, the Byzantines mixed the wine with various substances, like honey, cinnamon, and rose water, in Koukoules 1959 130-135
[35] Relatio 11: 346)
[36] Relatio 20: 351: haedum pinguem… allio, cepe, porris laute suffracinatum, garo delibutum. On the meaning of garum here, see Koukoules 1959: 35-36.
[37] Relatio: 49-50, with bibliography.
[38] Relatio 5: 348: Romam civitatem dominus meus non vi aut tyrannice invasit, sed a tyranni, immo tyrannorum, iugo liberavit. Nonne effeminati dominabantur eius? Et quod gravius sive turpius, none meretrices? Dormiebat, ut puto, tunc potestas tua, immo decessorum tuorum, quui nominee solo, non autem re ipsa, imperators Romanorum vocantur. Si potentes, si imperators Romanorum errant, cur Romam in meretricum potestate sinebant? Nonne sanctissimorum paparum alii sunt relegati, alii a te afflicti, ut neque cottidianos sumptus nec elemosynam habere quirent?
[39] Relatio 1: 347
[40] Relatio 7 : 348: Terram, quam imperii tui esse narras, gens incola et lingua Italici regni esse declarat.
[41] Relatio 12 : 349-350: quos nos, Langobardi scilicet, Saxones, Franci, Lotharingi, Bagoarii, Suevi, Burgundiones, tanto dedignamur, ut inimicos nostros commoti nil aliud contumeliarum, nisi: Romane! dicamus, hoc solo, id est Romanorum nomine, quicquid ignobilitatis, quicquid timididtatis, quicquid avaritiae, quicquid luxuriate, quicquid mendacii, immo quicquid vitiorum est, comprehendentes.
Bibliography:
Antapodosis: Liudprandi Antapodosis (1968) Ed. G. H. Pertz. – In: Monumenta Germaniae Historica, III, Hanoverae.
Aristoph. Neb.: Aristophanes (1930) The Clouds– In: Aristophanes. With the English translation of Benjamin Bickley Rogers, [Loeb Classical Library], v. 1, London: William Heinemann: 266-404.
Aristoph. Clouds: Aristophanes (2020) Clouds.Translated by Ian Johnston. Nanaimo: Vancouver Island University.
Bened. Chron.: Chronicon Benedicti moncachi. (1968) Ed. G. H. Pertz. – In: Monumenta Germaniae Historica, III, Hanoverae.
Cont. Regin. – Continuator Reginonis. (1826). Ed. G. H. Pertz. – In: Monumenta Germaniae Historica, I. Hannover: 613–629.
DAI – Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De administrando Imperio. (1967) Ed. G. Moravcsik. [Corpus fontium historiae Byzantinae 1]. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.
Karageorgos, G. (1975) The Bishop of Cremona as a historian and diplomat [Καραγεώργος, Γ. Λιουτπράνδος: Ο επίσκοπος Κρεμώνης ως ιστορικός και διπλωμάτης], Athens.
Koukoules, Ph. (1959) Life and civilization of the Byzantines [Κουκουλές, Φ. Βυζαντινών βίος και πολιτισμός], v. Δ΄, Athens.
Gay, J. (1960) L’Italie Meridionale et l’empire Byzantin depuis l’avenement de Basil Ier jusqu’a la prise de Bari par les Normands (867-1071), t. 1, New York.
Herm. Περὶ ἰδεῶν: Hermogenes. Περὶ ἰδεῶν λόγου. (1969). Ed. H. Rabe. In: Hermogenis opera, Stuttgart: 213-413.
Historia Ottonis: Liudprandi Historia Ottonis (1968). Ed. G. H. Pertz. In: Monumenta Germaniae Historica, III, Hanoverae.
Hom., Il: Homeri Ilias. (1931) Ed. T. Allen, v. 2-3. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Liv.: Livius, Titus. (1966) Ab Urbe condita. Ed. M. Mueller, Lipsiae: Teubner.
Marrou, H.-I. (1956) A History of Education in Antiquity. English translation. G. Lamb, New York.
Relatio: Liudprandi Relatio de legatione Constantinopolitana. (1968) Ed. G. H. Pertz. – In: Monumenta Germaniae Historica, III, Hanoverae.
Wooten, C. (1987) Hermogenes’ ‘On types of style.’ Chapel Hill and London: The University of North Carolina Press.
Comments
0 comments
