¹ Lamma, Paolo, ‘Il problema dei due imperi e dell 'italia meridionale nel giudizio delle fonti letterarie dei secoli IX e X,’ Oriente e occidente nell'alto medioevo (Padua 1958) 312–337, examines Relatio in light of the controversy over southern Italy; Martin Lintzel, Studien über Liudprand von Cremona. Historische Studien, 233 (Berlin 1933) 34 ff, offers a careful consideration of the bishop's political notions vis à vis the Ottonian empire at the time of the mission.Google Scholar

² Ohnsorge, Werner, ‘Die Anerkennung des Kaisertums Ottos I. durch Byzantium,’ Konstantinopel und der Okzident (Darmstadt 1966) 176–207, proposes that Relatio was an intermediate step in the fostering of a universal concept of empire at the German court by the papacy.Google Scholar

³ Lamma, , ‘Problema dei due imperi,’ 320, 321.Google Scholar

⁴ Still the fundamental work on the subject remains Gay, Jules, L'Italie méridionale et l'empire byzantin depuis l'avènement de Basile 1 ^er jusqu'à la prise de Bari par les Normands (867–1071). Bibliothèque des écoles Françaises d'Athènes et de Rome, Fasic. 90 (Paris 1904 ), II, passim; on the specifics of the recovery of southern Italy, Arnaldi, Girolamo, ‘La fase preparatoria della battaglia del Garigliano,’ Annali della Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia dell'Università di Napoli 4 (1954) 123–44, also reviews the more recent literature. On Byzantine organization in southern Italy, most recent is Vera von Falkenhausen, Untersuchungen über die byzantinische Herrschaft in Süditalien vom 9. bis ins 11. Jahrhundert. Schriften zur Geistesgeschichte des Ostlichen Europa I (Wiesbaden 1967) 45–52.Google Scholar

⁵ Lamma, , ‘Problema dei due imperi,’ 231–300.Google Scholar

⁶ Hiestand, Rudolf, Byzanz und das Regnum Italicum im 10. Jahrhundert. Geist und Werk der Zeiten (Zurich 1964 ); Runciman, Steven, The Emperor Romanus Lecapenus and His Reign (Cambridge 1929) 177–204.Google Scholar

⁷ Lamma, , ‘Problema dei due imperi,’ 312–315; of Calabria and Apulia, Antapodosis, 2.44,45.Google Scholar

⁸ On Otto's motivations, Schramm, Percy Ernst, Kaiser, Rom und Renovatio. Studien zur Geschichte des römischen Erneuerungsgedankens vom Ende des karolingischen Reiches bis zum Investiturstreit (Leipzig and Berlin 1929) 1.74,75; on Otto's theory of empire and the resultant unfolding of the Italian policy, I have followed Carl Erdmann, ‘Das ottonische Reich als Imperium Romanum,’ Deutsches Archiv 6 (1943) 412–441.Google Scholar

⁹ On the development of Otto's empire and his goals, supra, n. 8; on the chronology, Rudolf Köpke and Ernst Dümmler, Kaiser Otto der Grosse (Leipzig 1876) 452–465; Holtzmann, Robert, Geschichte der söchsischen Kaiserzeit (Munich 1941) 215–218.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Antapodosis , 6. 4, namely Liutfrid who was a merchant of Mainz involved in trade with the Levant. Heyd, Wilhelm, Histoire du commerce du Levant au moyen ǎge, tr. Furcy Raynaud (Leipzig 1885, 1886) 1.80.Google Scholar

¹¹ On Otto's view of the east, in general, Werner Ohnsorge, ‘ Otto, I. und Byzanz, ,’ Konstantinopel und der Okzident (Darmstadt 1966) 208–226; Dölger, Franz, Byzanz und die europäische Staatenwelt, 2nd ed. (Darmstadt 1964), 30–32; and of course, Lamma, ‘Problema dei due imperi,’ 231–337; Ohnsorge, ‘Anerkennung,’ 176–207. This by no means exhausts the literature on the relationship but does suggest the modern trends of thought about Otto's view in relation to the question of imperial titles, and relations before 962.Google Scholar

¹² On the Byzantine question I am indebted to the advice of the late Professor Jenkins, R. J. H. of Dumbarton Oaks. Literature on this phase of Byzantine history, Georg Ostrogorsky, Geschichte des byzantinischen Staates, 3rd ed. (Munich 1963) 236–242; general chronology, Gustave Schlumberger, Un empereur byzantin au X ^e Siècle: Nicéphore Phocas (Paris 1890); most recently, Henri Grégoire, ‘The Amorians and Macedonians 842–1025,’ CMH IV. 1, 151–154.Google Scholar

¹³ See the interesting interpretation of the reign in Romilly Jenkins, J. H., Byzantium: the Imperial Centuries (London 1966) 276–283.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Concerning the development of Otto's southern campaigns I have followed Gay, L'Italie méridionale, 2.295. Also, he notes (2.300) our knowledge of many of the developments rests on little evidence and much speculation. Also, a more interpretative approach, Lamma, ‘Problema dei due imperi,’ 312–323. Google Scholar

¹⁵ Continuator Reginonis, MGH SS, 1. 629, ann. 967; Relatio, 31.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Ibid., 25, 31; see also Holtzmann, Sächsische Kaiserzeit, 215–218; Gay, L'Italie méridionale, 2. 300–303.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Ibid., 2. 304–310.Google Scholar

¹⁸ The literature on the purpose to Relatio will be discussed below; on Liudprand's personality and style of writing, Misch, Georg, Geschichte der Autobiographie (Frankfurt am Main 1949–1962 ), 2. pt. 2, 523–531, discusses the memoir tradition in his early writings and the motivation for such tracts; Lintzel, Martin, ‘Die Mathildenviten und das Wahrheitsproblem in der Überlieferung der Ottonenzeit,’ Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 38 (1956) 164 165 demonstrates the techniques that our bishop employed as an expounder of historic myth rather than fact. Liudprand was capable of turning his writing to a cause that he espoused or to his own personal ends (cf. Antapodosis, 3. 1). Yet, when Liudprand did so, he made his intentions perfectly clear to the reader. The results of his labor might be complicated, but at least the reader was well aware both of his position and purpose in the exposition. Hence, when Liudprand suggests that he is reporting on his mission, it is difficult to make Relatio into anything but what he says it is, especially to transform it into a tract on rulership. See below. Also Jon Sutherland, Liudprand of Cremona, Bishop, Diplomat, Historian. Studies of the Man and His Age. Studi Medievali (forthcoming), chapter 1, part 6.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Dändliker, Carl, Müller, Johan Jacob, Liudprand von Cremona und seine Quellen. Untersuchungen zur allgemeinen Geschichte der Jahre 888–967 nach Christi (Leipzig 1871) 231, in reference to history that depended on hearsay. Moreover, the weakness of his sections on Byzantium in Antapodosis supports the thrust of this observation.Google Scholar

²⁰ Relatio , 2. Yet, Ohnsorge suggests that Otto's title was not really in doubt and that Constantinople had given recognition to it shortly after Lechfeld (‘Anerkennung,’ 178). To support Greek recognition of the title he cites Kedrenos' phrase, βαsιλεὺς τν Θϱάγων,the meaning of which is at best open to question. See also Lamma, , ‘Il problema,’ 238. Albert Brackmann's discussion of the relationship in 955 vis à vis the expansion of Otto's claims north of the Alps is germain to the point: ‘Die Ostpolitik Ottos des Grossen,’ Gesammelte Aufsätze, 2nd ed. (Darmstadt 1967 ), 140–153. Also Beumann, Helmut, ‘Das Kaisertum Ottos des Grossen,’ Historische Zeitschrift 195 (1962) 568–573.Google Scholar

²¹ Moreover, at one point he has the emperor quote Ovid, Ars Amatoria, 1. 57 (Relatio, 4). I am doubtful that a Greek, especially an active ascetic like Nicephorus, would know Latin authors well enough to salt them in an impassioned speech. Google Scholar

²² Relatio, 5.Google Scholar

²³ Ibid. 6.Google Scholar

²⁴ Ibid. 7.Google Scholar

²⁵ Ibid. 7.Google Scholar

²⁶ Ibid. 8–10.Google Scholar

²⁷ Ibid. 12.Google Scholar

²⁸ Arnaldi, Girolamo, ‘Liutprando e l 'idea di Roma nell'alto medioevo,’ Archivio della Società romana di Storia patria, 79 — X, 3rd series — (1956), 23–43 claims that Liudprand had a bias against only classical Romans, to the donation of Constantine. His theory, however, takes the conversation herein described out of context: Liudprand was definitely talking of the present, referring to the right of the new people; he, it would seem, thought of the present Romans as descendants of the ancient Roman stock.Google Scholar

²⁹ Relatio, 37.Google Scholar

³⁰ Ibid. 38.Google Scholar

³¹ Ibid. 40.Google Scholar

³² Ibid. 37.Google Scholar

³³ Ibid. 41.Google Scholar

³⁴ Ibid. 41.Google Scholar

³⁵ Ibid. 42.Google Scholar

³⁶ In years past there has been some discussion of the date of Liudprand's mission. In the nineteenth century most scholars assumed that it occurred in 969. But because Liudprand mentioned the presence of Bulgarian ambassadors and the preference they received, the date of the mission must be 968. By 969 Byzantium was hostile to the Bulgarians. On this question, cf. Grégoire, ‘The Amorians and Macedonians,’ 151, n. 1; Georg Ostrogorsky, Geschichte des byzantinischen Staates, 3rd ed. (Munich 1963) 241, 242.Google Scholar

³⁷ Relatio, 2.Google Scholar

³⁸ Ibid. 32.Google Scholar

³⁹ Ibid. 11, 12.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Ibid. 13.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Ibid. 14.Google Scholar

⁴² Ibid. 16, 17.Google Scholar

⁴³ See the assessment of Otto as an idealist in Hampe, Karl, Herrschergestalten des deutschen Mittelalters, 6th ed. (Heidelberg 1955) 69, 70.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Relatio, 20–22.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Ibid. 23.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Ibid. 24, 25.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Ibid. 26.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Ibid. 27.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Ibid. 29.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Ibid. 29.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Ibid. 30.Google Scholar

⁵² Ibid. 31, 32.Google Scholar

⁵³ Ibid. 36.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Otto may have responded to Byzantine preparations, but it seems more likely that he precipitated the action. On November 2 in a synod at Fermo, he said: ‘Quapropter omnibus sancte dei ecclesie fidelibus notum esse volumus quod, dum in Apuliam expeditionem ageremus, ut ipsam sublatam a Grecis nostro Italico regno redintegrare laboraremus, causa orationis sanctam Firmanam adivimus ecclesiam ibique. …’ MGH DD O I, 367. See also Köpke and Dümmler, Kaiser Otto, 457, 458; Holtzmann, Sächsische Kaiserzeit, 219, 220; Gay, L'Italie méridionale, 2. 310 ff. Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Relatio, 46.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Ibid. Google Scholar

⁵⁷ On September 14 he was allowed to attend a special church celebration. In the hustle of the crowd he momentarily escaped his guard: ‘Unknown to the guards, in the hurly burly of the crowd some persons came up to me, who through furtive encouragements restored good humor for my sorrow.’ He was closely watched outside the house as inside. Moreover, his conversational Greek must have been adequate enough for him to communicate with the people. Ibid. 49. Still, at court, he had translators present, which leads one to suspect that his formal Greek may not have been as good. Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Ibid. 48, 49.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Ibid. 50.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Ibid. 52, 53.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Ibid. 54, 55.Google Scholar

⁶² Ibid. 64.Google Scholar

⁶³ Ibid. 7, 31; Lintzel, Studien, 36. Note Nicephorus' repetition of Dominicus' terms from the previous year (Relatio, 31); Liudprand ends his report: ‘… quod cum audissem tacitus “Deo gratias!” dixi “et haec atque haec tuo domino nuntiato. …”Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Antapodosis, 3. 1, 6. 1–5; Misch, Geschichte der Autobiographie, 2. pt. 2.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Relatio, 46, 47, for example.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Sutherland, , Liudprand of Cremona, chapt. 2, pt. 3 (supra n. 18).Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Becker, Josef, ‘Textgeschichte Liudprands von Cremona,’ Quellen und Untersuchungen zur lateinischen Philologie des Mittelalters, ed. Traube, Ludwig (Munich 1908) 3. Heft 2; Becker, Josef, ‘Zur handschriftlichen Ueberlieferung Liudprands von Cremona,’ Neues Archiv, 36 (1910/1911) 209–211.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ On the moral theme Gundlach, Wilhelm, Heldenlieder der deutschen Kaiserzeit (Innsbruck 1894–99) 1. 34 ff; recently explained in terms of the development of Antapodosis, Girolamo Arnaldi, ‘L’Antapodosis di Liutprando,’ Il Mulino 2 (1953) 555–559.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Antapodosis broke off in the middle of Liudprand's mission to Constantinople in 949. The only references to Otto are found in the last book, written after 962 (6. 1, 5).Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Historia Ottonis, 1. Lintzel, Studien, 7–34; Sutherland, Liudprand of Cremona, Chapter 3, pt. 1.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Ohnsorge, , ‘Anerkennung,’ 176–199.Google Scholar

⁷² Ibid. 202–207.Google Scholar

⁷³ The most obvious example is the opening salutation: ‘Ottones Romanorum invictissimos imperatores augustos. …’ But Liudprand, contrary to Ohnsorge's hypothesis, had used the same classical vocative reference before John XIII became pope. In discussing imperial supervision over papal elections in the context of November 963, Historia Ottonis, 8: ‘… domni imperatoris Ottonis caesaris augusti, filiique ipsius regis Ottonis.’ The use of this form of address is just as likely to have refected Liudprand's classical education as it would a particular type of imperial thought. Google Scholar

⁷⁴ On Liudprand's knowledge of the Donation and quotations from it: Ohnsorge, ‘Anerkennung,’ 195, 196; here he argues against Schramm's position that the Donation is part of the theory of rulership that the Ottomans assumed on their arrival. (Kaiser, Rom, 1.74,75.) Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Relatio, 17.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Ibid.: ‘Sane quicquid in Italia, sed et in Saxonia, Bagoaria, omnibus domini mei regnis est, quod ad apostolorum beatorum ecclesiam respicit, sanctissimorum apostolorum vicario contulit. Et si est, ut dominus meus ex his omnibus civitates, villas, milites aut familiam obtineat, Deum negavi. Cur imperator vero non ibidem facit, ut ea, quae suis insunt regnis, apostolorum ecclesiae reddat, et per laborem atque munificentiam domini mei ditem et liberam, ditiorem ipse ac liberiorem reddat?’Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Ibid. 12.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Ibid. Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Ibid. 19.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Ibid. 7.Google Scholar