“It would have been right for us, nay, we had wished to receive you kindly and with honor; but the impiety of your master does not permit it since, invading it as an enemy, he has claimed for himself Rome; has taken away, from Berengar and Adalbert their kingdom, contrary to law and right; has slain some of the Romans by the sword, others by hanging, depriving some of their eyes, sending others into exile ; and has tried, moreover, to subject to himself by slaughter or by flame cities of our empire. And, because his wicked endeavour could not take effect, he now has sent you, the instigator and furtherer of this wickedness, to act as a spy upon us while simulating peace.”

I answered him:-“My master did not by force or tyrannically invade the city of Rome; but he freed it from a tyrant, nay, from the yoke of tyrants. Did not the slaves of women rule over it; or, which is worse and more disgraceful, harlots themselves? Your power, I fancy, or that of your predecessors, who in name alone are called emperors of the Romans and are it not in reality, was sleeping at that time.

Emperors Romanus and Constantine

If they were powerful, if emperors of the Romans, why did they permit Rome to be in the hands of harlots? Were not some of them most holy popes banished, others so oppressed that they were not able to have their daily supplies or the means of giving alms? Did not Adalbert send scornful letters to the emperors Romanus and Constantine your predecessors? Did he not plunder the churches of the most holy apostles? What one of you emperors, led by zeal for God, took care to avenge so unworthy a crime and to bring back the holy church to its proper conditions You neglected it, my master did not neglect it.

For, rising from the ends of the earth and coming to Rome, he removed the impious and gave back to the vicars of the holy apostles their power and all their honor, But afterwards those who had risen against him and the lord pope,, according to the decrees of the Roman emperors Justinian, Valentinian, Theodosius and the others he slew, strangled, hung, and sent into exile as violators of their oath, as sacrilegious men, as torturers and plunderers of their lords the popes.

Read More about Roberto`s Tale part 3

But on the eighth day before the Ides (June 6), on the Saturday before Pentecost, I was led into the presence of his brother Leo, the marshal of the court, and chancellor; and there we wearied ourselves out in a great discussion concerning your imperial title. For he called you not emperor, which is Basileus in his tongue, but, to insult you, Rex, which is king in ours.

And when I told him that the thing signified was the same although the terms used to signify it, were different, he said that I had come not to make peace but to excite discord; and thus angrily rising he received your letters, truly insultingly, not in his own band, but through an interpreter. He was a man commanding enough in person but feigning humility; whereon if a man lean, it will go into his hand and pierce it..’

Color an Ethiopian

On the seventh day before the Ides (June 7), moreover, on the sacred day – of Pentecost itself, in the palace which is called the crown hall, I was led before Nicephorus-a monstrosity of a man, a pygmy, fat-headed and like a mole as to the smallness of his eyes; disgusting with his short, broad, thick, and half hoary beard; disgraced by a neck an inch long; very bristly through the length and thickness of his hair; in color an Ethiopian; one whom it would not be pleasant to meet in the middle of the night; with extensive belly, lean of loin, very long of hip considering his short stature, small of shank, proportionate as to his heels and feet; clad in a garment costly but too old, and foul-smelling and faded through age; shod with Sicyonian shoes; bold of tongue, a fox by nature, in perjury, and lying a Ulysses.

Always my lords and august emperors you seemed to me shapely, how much more shapely after this! Always magnificent, how much more magnificent after this! Always powerful, how much more powerful after this! Always gentle, how much more gentle henceforth! Always full of virtues, how much fuller henceforth. At his left, not in a line but far below, sat two petty emperors, once his masters, now his subjects. His discourse began as follows:

Read More about One Autumn Night part 8

It was upon the princess Theophano that the hopes of the emperor were fixed, and it was thought that Nicephorus would give Apulia and Calabria as her dowry. It was to arrange this matter that Liutprand, accompanied by a large suite, went to Constantinople. The reception that he met with will be explained in his own words.

Liutprand bishop of the holy church of Cremona desires, wishes and prays that the Ottos, the unconquerable emperors of the Romans,-and the most glorious Adelaide flourish, prosper and be triumphant.

Before the Nones of June

Why it was that you did not receive my former letters or my envoy the following explanation will make clear. On the day before the Nones of June (June 4) we came to Constantinople, and there, as a mark of disrespect to yourselves, being shamefully received, we were harshly and shamefully treated. We were shut up in a palace large enough, indeed, but uncovered, neither keeping out the cold nor warding off the heat. Armed soldiers were made to stand guard who were to prevent all of my companions from going out and all others from coming in.

This dwelling, into which we alone who were shut up could pass, was so far removed from the palace that our breath was taken away when we walked there – we did not ride. To add to our calamity the Greek wine, on account of being mixed with pitch, resin, and plaster was to us undrinkable- The house itself was without water, nor could we even for money buy water to still our thirst.

To this great torment was added another torment – our warden namely, who cared for our daily support. If one were to look for his like, not earth. but perhaps hell, would furnish it; for he, like an inundating torrent, poured forth on us whatever calamity, whatever plunder, whatever expense, whatever torment, whatever misery he could invent.- Nor among a hundred and twenty days did a single one pass without bringing us groaning and grief.

On the day before the Nones of June (June 4), as stated above, we arrived at Constantinople before the Carian gate and waited with our horses, in no slight rain, until the eleventh hour. But at the eleventh hour, Nicephorus, not regarding us, who had been so distinguished by you as worthy to ride, ordered us to approach; and we were led to the aforesaid hated, waterless, open marble house.

Read More about Report of his Mission to Constantinople part 36

Nevertheless, in the mid-tenth century the productive hinterland of Constantinople was no longer trampled under the boots of Bulgarian troops. Perhaps the most significant indication of the new status quo is the absence of any substantive chapter on the Bulgarians in the treatise known as the De Administrando Imperio (DAI). Compiled on the instruction of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, to whom it is generally attributed, it comprises 53 chapters of advice addressed to his son and heir Romanus II (959-63). Some chapters are culled directly from earlier histories to provide antiquarian information on peoples and places of contemporary concern to the imperial court.

However, the chapters of greatest interest are those based on dossiers of information on the empire’s neighbours compiled in the century before the work was completed c. 954. Virtually all that we know of Byzantine diplomatic procedure is based on the DAI, and it is possible to construct a detailed picture of imperial policy in the Balkans and beyond from a close examination of the text.

Report of his Mission to Constantinople

Introduction [From Henderson translation]
This remarkable and exceedingly original piece of writing has been relegated to the appendix [of Henderson’s source collection] not because it is less important than the other documents in this collection, but because, being more of a narrative, it differs from them in character.

We first hear of Liutprand at the court of Berengar and Willa, who, in the middle of the tenth century, ruled over northern Italy. Becoming estranged from his royal patrons he wrote against them the Antapodosis, or book of retribution, which is one of our most valued historical sources for those times. In 963 Liutprand was envoy of Otto the Great to the shameless Pope John XII., and wrote the only connected account which we have of the latter’s condemnation and deposition.

The journey to Constantinople took place in 968. Otto had, in his efforts to bring Italy into his power, come into collision with the Greeks, who regarded Benevento and Capua as belonging to the provinces of the Eastern Empire. Otto went so far as to occupy Apulia and to besiege the Greek town of Bari, but soon came to the conclusion that more was to be gained by negotiations than by war. Liutprand, now Bishop of Cremona, advised peace, and suggested that a Greek princess should be sought in marriage for the young emperor Otto II., who had commenced to reign ,conjointly with his father.

Read More about One Autumn Night part 5

Byzantine Relations with Northern Peoples in the Tenth Century

Introduction

Byzantine relations with Bulgaria were complicated in the early years of the tenth century: more complicated than many historians have allowed.

The Bulgarian Tsar Symeon (c. 894-927) has been portrayed by both Byzantine and modern authors as an aggressor intent on capturing Constantinople from which he might rule a united Byzantine-Bulgarian empire. However, recent scholarship (notably the work of Bozhilov and Shepard) has questioned this, and maintained that Symeon’s ambitions were more limited until the final years of his reign, the 920s, when he engineered a series of confrontations with the Byzantine Emperor Romanos I Lekapenos (920-44). (We will cover these years elsewhere: see the letters of Nicholas Mystikos and Theodore Daphnopates.) Symeon’s died on 27 May 927, and his successor Peter (d. 967) immediately launched a major invasion of the Byzantine administrative district of Macedonia.

As one of four sons such a show of strength would have been necessary to secure the support of his father’s boyars. However, the Bulgarian troops withdrew swiftly, at the same time razing the fortresses that they had held until then in Thrace, and this early performance was not repeated. Instead, it heralded forty years of apparent harmony and cooperation between the two major powers in the northern Balkans.

The reason for the withdrawal, and the centrepiece of the enduring Bulgarian Byzantine accord was the marriage in 927 of Peter to Maria Lecapena, granddaughter of the (senior) ruling emperor Romanus I Lecapenus.Peter has generally been held to have presided over the dramatic decline of Bulgaria. Thus Browning (1975: 194-5) concludes his stimulating comparative study with the observation ‘the grandiose dreams of … Symeon ended in the dreary reality of Peter’s long reign, when Bulgaria became a harmless Byzantine protectorate’. Such interpretations focus on Bulgaria’s military prowess, comparing Symeon’s successes with his son’s inactivity, and draw heavily on Byzantine narrative sources.

If we examine the material evidence the indications are entirely different, suggesting a period of political consolidation and economic expansion. Byzantine sources, as much by their silences as their occasional references to the tsar’s irenic disposition, bear testimony to the relative peace, if not the prosperity of Peter’s reign and his good relations with Constantinople. This is not to suggest that Bulgaria was not considered a potential threat in Constantinople, for as we will see shortly many other peoples were considered suitable allies against Peter.

Read More about Diego Endara Tour