Download PDF | (Studies in Medieval History and Culture) Luigi Andrea Berto - The ‘Other’, Identity, and Memory in Early Medieval Italy-Routledge (2022).
225 Pages
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 centuries—, 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.
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 centuries—, 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 twenty-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-century/early fourteenth-century manuscript and 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’)— likely 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-nine 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 mid-tenth-century 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 author—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 ninth- and tenth-century episodes mentioned in the southern Italian Jewish family history—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.
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 the Saracens’ greed. The very fact that they were not in search of food—they threw it into the river—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’, ‘pestiferous’, and ‘cruel tyrant’,38 but above all he is depicted as a type of bloodthirsty monster. Such a spine-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 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 image— the ingestion of nutrients, a primary requirement of life, taking place in the face of death—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 ‘miseriae’ (miseries). 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, 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 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: ‘Who 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 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 ‘his 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 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 specified—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 ‘with 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 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 non-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 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 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’ action—‘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 Aharon—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 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 al-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.
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق