Viator 45 No. 3 (2014) 1–24. 10.1484/J.VIATOR.5.102918

THE MUSLIMS AS OTHERS IN THE CHRONICLES OF EARLY MEDIEVAL SOUTHERN ITALY

Luigi Andrea Berto*

Abstract: Early medieval southern Italian chroniclers related the great strife Muslim forces brought to their lands. Their accounts, however, were far more nuanced than scholars have previously proposed. A closer reading of the evidence reveals that these authors did not consider Saracens to be evil incarnate. Indeed, some sources offer examples of their humanity. Moreover, Muslims were not always considered a distant and unapproachable other. These writers also showed that Franks, Byzantines, and some Lombard rulers could be far worse. Through examining three surviving chronicles, which narrate the history of the southern Lombards, the Deeds of the Neapolitan Bishops, and a Jewish-family history, this article will advocate for a new reckoning of the way southern Italian peoples perceived Muslims during the early Middle Ages. Keywords: Muslims, Southern Italy, Lombards, Byzantines, Franks, Naples, Jews, chronicles, perception.

A century after the Iberian Peninsula, Italy too became the target of Muslim cam-paigns. Sicily was first invaded in 827, was completely subdued during the ninth cen-tury, 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 mid-ninth century and lasted for about twenty-five years while the nest of pirates 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 article 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 un-

*Department of History, Western Michigan University, 4432 Friedmann Hall, 1903 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, MI 49008. I wish to thank the anonymous readers at Viator for their precious suggestions, my assistants Jesse Hysell and Adam Matthews for help in translating this article into English, and the Com-mittee of the Burnham-MacMillan History Department Endowment of Western Michigan University for supporting this research.

1 The term Saracen was the most common word used by early medieval southern Italian authors to refer to Muslims. In this article, Saracen will be utilized as a synonym for Muslim.

2 For a summary of events and relevant bibliography, see N. Cilento, “Le incursioni saraceniche nell’Italia meridionale,” Italia meridionale longobarda (Milan–Naples 19712) 135–166; F. Gabrieli, “Storia cultura e civiltà degli Arabi in Italia,” Gli Arabi in Italia, ed. F. Gabrieli and U. Scerrato (Milan 1979) 109–148; B. K. Kreutz, Before the Normans. Southern Italy in the Ninth and Tenth centuries (Philadelphia 1991) 18ff.; F. Marazzi, “Ita ut facta esse videatur Neapolis Panormus vel Africa. Geopolitica della presenza islamica nei domini di Napoli, Gaeta, Salerno e Benevento nel IX secolo,” Schede Medievali 45 (2007) 159–202; A. Metcalfe, The Muslims of Medieval Italy (Edinburgh 2009) 7–24; A. Feniello, Sotto il segno del leone. Storia dell’Italia musulmana (Rome–Bari 2011) 4–120. For analyses of particular regions, see G. Musca, L’emirato di Bari. 847–871 (Bari 1967); S. Palmieri, “Un esempio di mobilità etnica altomedievale: i saraceni in Campania,” Montecassino dalla prima alla seconda distruzione. Momenti e aspetti di storia cassinese (secc. VI–IX). Atti del II convegno di studi sul medioevo meridionale (Montecassino 1987) 597–627; A. Papagna, I saraceni e la Puglia nel secolo decimo (Bari 1990); R. Tucciarone, I saraceni nel ducato di Gaeta e nell’Italia centro-meridonale (secoli IX e X) (Gaeta 1991); G. Noyé, “La Calabre entre Byzan-tins, Sarrasins et Normands,” Cavalieri alla conquista del Sud. Studi sull’Italia normanna in memoria di Léon-Robert Ménager, ed. E. Cuozzo and J. M. Martin (Rome–Bari 1998) 90–110: S. Del Lungo, Bahr ’as Sham. La presenza musulmana nel Tirreno centrale e settentrionale nell’alto Medioevo (Oxford 2000). For the history of continental Southern Italy in this period, see the essays collected in Storia del Mezzogiorno, II. Il Medioevo 1 (Naples 1988); and Kreutz, Before the Normans (n. 2 above).

2 LUIGI ANDREA BERTO derstanding 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.3

The southern Italian chronicles composed in this period are the Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis (“Chronicles of Saint Benedict of Cassino”), 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.4 The only relevant part for the present analysis is the second sec-tion5 which describes the period between the murder of the prince of Benevento, Si-card (839), and the 860s6 and focuses on events occurred in or around Montecassino. Its author was either coeval to that period or reported the testimony of a witness who had lived in those years.7 The Historia Langobardorum Beneventanorum (“History of the Beneventan Lombards”), written towards 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 ca. 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.8 John the Deacon’s Gesta

3 There are, however, some Lives of Sicilian saints written in Greek. Most of these persons left the is-

land because of the Muslim conquest of Sicily. On these biographies, see S. Caruso, “Sicilia e Calabria nell’agiografia storica italo-greca,” Calabria cristiana: società, religione, cultura nella diocesi di Oppido Mamertina-Palmi (Soveria Mannelli, Catanzaro, 1999) 563–604. For an overview of these sources, see A. Cilento, “Presenze etniche nella Calabria medievale: testimonianze di fonti agiografiche,” Rivista Storica Calabrese XVI (1995) 91 n. 2; and Metcalfe, The Muslims of Medieval Italy (n. 2 above) 35.

4 For further information and bibliography on these texts and the codex, see Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, ed. L. A. Berto (Florence 2006) vii–xli; W. Pohl, Werkstätte der Erinnerung. Montecassino und die Gestalgung der langobardischen Vergangeheit (Wien–München, 2001) 87–107; W. Pohl, “History in fragments: Montecassino’s politics of memory,” Early Medieval Europe 10, 3 (2001) 356ff.; L. A. Berto, “Oblivion, Memory and Irony in Medieval Montecassino. Narrative Strategies of the ‘Chronicles of St. Benedict of Cassino,’” Viator 38.1 (2007) 45–61.

5 The first part is a brief overview of events in southern Italy between the Lombard invasion at the end of the 6th c. and Emperor Louis II’s campaign against the Saracens in 866–867, while the third is a brief summary of Montecassino’s history composed by passages from Paul the Deacon’s Historia Langobar-dorum and a chronological table. Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, 1–13, 38–55.

6 This part ends with the description of a raid by the emir of Bari, Sawdān. The author did not report any date for this episode, but in the previous chapter he recounted that the Bishop of Capua, Landolf, had taken control of Capua (ca. 863). Cf. N. Cilento, Le origini della signoria di Capua nella Longobardia minore (Rome 1966) 105.

7 This view was also shared by G. Falco, “Due secoli di storia cassinese,” id., Albori d’Europa (Rome 1947) 248.

8 The edition of this work can be found in Erchempert, Historia Langobardorum Beneventanorum, ed. G. Waitz, MGH Scriptores rerum Langobardicarum et Italicarum saec. VI–IX (Hannover 1878) 231–264; and Erchempert, Ystoriola Longobardorum Beneventum degentium / Piccola Storia dei Longobardi di Benevento, ed. L. A. Berto (Naples 2013). On Erchempert and his work, see G. Falco, “Erchemperto,” id., Albori d’Europa (n. 7 above) 264–292; M. Oldoni, “Erchemperto,” Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, vol. 43 (Rome, 1993) 66–67. H. Taviani–Carozzi, La principauté lombarde de Salerne (IXe–XIe siècle): Pouvoir et société en Italie lombarde méridionale (Rome 1991) 37–62. W. Pohl, Werkstätte der Erinnerung. Montecassino und die Gestalgung der langobardischen Vergangeheit (Wien – München 2001) 33–42. L. Capo, “Le tradizioni narrative a Spoleto e Benevento,” I Longobardi dei ducati di Spoleto e Benevento

THE MUSLIMS AS OTHERS 3 episcoporum Neapolitanorum (“Deeds of the Neapolitan Bishops”)—likely composed between the end of the ninth century and the beginning of the tenth—is the continua-tion of a text narrating the lives of the first thirty-nine bishops of Naples.9 This work details events ranging from the beginning of Paul II’s episcopate (762/763–766) to Bishop Athanasius I’s death (+872), and is preserved in a mid-tenth-century manu-script.10 Although the main subject of John the Deacon’s work is the bishops of Na-ples, the author also mentioned episodes of Byzantine history and was familiar with the main historical events that had occurred in Italy during this time.11 The Chronicon Salernitanum (“Chronicle of Salerno”), is an incomplete text, was composed by an anonymous author—perhaps a monk12—and is only transmitted in the same manu-script reporting Erchempert’s work. It narrates of events that took place between the second half of the eighth century and 974 and deals primarily with the principalities of Salerno and Benevento.13 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,14 but the

(Spoleto 2003) 265ff. L. A. Berto, “L’immagine delle élites longobarde nella “Historia Langobardorum Beneventanorum” di Erchemperto,” Archivio Storico Italiano CLXX, 2 (2012) 195–233. L. A. Berto, “Linguaggio, contenuto, autori e destinatari nella Langobardia meridionale. Il caso della cosiddetta dedica della “Historia Langobardorum Beneventanorum” di Erchemperto,” Viator Multilingual 43 (2012) 1–14. In English, there is the unpublished PhD dissertation (Rice University 1995) by Joan Rowe Ferry, whose translation should be used with great care; and L. A. Berto, “Erchempert, a Reluctant Fustigator of His People: History and Ethnic Pride in Southern Italy at the End of the Ninth Century,” Mediterranean Studies 20, 2 (2012) 147–175.

9 The first part stops with the biography of Calvus (+762). 10 This work has been edited in John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, ed. G. Waitz,

MGH Scriptores rerum Langobardicarum et Italicarum (n. 8 above) 424–435. 11 For further information concerning this text, its author, and relevant bibliography, see L. A. Berto,

“Utilius est veritatem proferre. A Difficult Memory to Manage: Narrating the Relationships between Bish-ops and Dukes in Early Medieval Naples,” Viator 39.2 (2008) 49–63.

12 The only autobiographical note is a reference to his ancestor, Radoald, who was among the young Beneventans and Salernitans who followed Abbot Alfanus to Naples, forced to leave because of fierce op-position from Roffredus, advisor of Prince Sicard of Benevento (832–839). Chronicon Salernitanum: A Critical Edition with Studies on Literary and Historical Sources and on Language, ed. U. Westerbergh (Stockholm 1956) chap. 68. Huguette Taviani-Carozzi has argued that this is Radoald, abbot of the monas-tery of St. Benedict of Salerno, whose presence is attested in 986 and 990; Taviani-Carozzi, La principauté lombarde de Salerne (n. 8 above) 85–91. This is not the place to discuss the French historian’s assumptions point by point. It suffices to observe that the identification of the sculdais Radoald, who lived under Prince Guaimar of Salerno (880–900) and who is said to have prevented the city from falling to the Saracens, with the name of the writer—the fundamental point of this theory, according to which the author would have kept the name of his ancestors and therefore would have been recognizable as the abbot Radoald only because the author praises him—is hardly logical. It makes little sense to think that a chronicler who reported a relationship with someone who did nothing remarkable would not point to a relationship with a Salernitan hero. Against Taviani-Carozzi’s hypothesis are S. Palmieri, “L’identità del cronista salernitano,” Rassegna Storica Salernitana, n. s. XI.1 (1994) 225 and 232; and P. Delogu, “La conquista dell’Italia meridionale come ideologia storiografica,” Rassegna Storica Salernitana, n. s. XI.2 (1994) 213–214. Consequently, in this work I will refer to the author of the Chronicon Salernitanum as the anonymous Salernitan chronicler.

13 On this chronicle in general, see M. Oldoni, Anonimo salernitano del X secolo (Naples 1972). 14 Unfortunately the only chronological information that the author provided on the period of composi-

tion leaves a wide degree of uncertainty. The fact that, narrating the murder of Prince Adelchis of Bene-vento (853–877), he specifies that the grass did not grow where the prince’s blood had been spilled until his time, that is, 100 years later—Chronicon Salernitanum, chap. 123—is not a definitive way to determine the date of composition. The calculation of years could be incorrect—in the Chronicon chronological references are very rare—and, even if correct, would only mean that in 977 the author was describing the incident, not

4 LUIGI ANDREA BERTO deep sympathy with which the chronicler described the deposition of Prince Gisulf and the harsh way he condemned that ruler’s kinsmen, who had betrayed him, seems to indicate that he witnessed those tragic events.15 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 (ca. 1017–ca. 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.16 Yet Aḥimaʻaz’s chroni-cle is mainly composed out of the history of his ancestors from the ninth century to his own times.17

Before examining these texts, it is necessary to point out that, although the chroni-clers 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.18 In this way these chroniclers, who, unlike the Salernitan author, were coeval with some

that he had finished his chronicle; this episode is in folium 77r and the Chronicon ends in folium 104r. Nicola Cilento and Massimo Oldoni have no doubt and maintain that the work was written between 974 and 978. N. Cilento, “L’Anonimo di Salerno,” id., Italia meridionale longobarda (n. 2 above) 97; and Oldoni, Anonimo salernitano (n. 13 above) 33. The possibility that the calculation is not exact has been considered by Antonio Carucci. Il Chronicon Salernitanum (sec. X), Italian trans. A. Carucci (Salerno 1988) 206 n. 120.

15 For example, the author explained that he was going to recount that episode “with sadness.” Chroni-con Salernitanum chap. 174.

16 R. Bonfil, History and Folklore in a Medieval Jewish Chronicle: The Family Chronicle of Aḥimaʻaz ben Paltiel (Leiden 2009), chap. 2, 232–235.

17 This work is preserved in a manuscript discovered in the Cathedral Library of Toledo in the 19th c. For further information about this text, relevant bibliography, its edition and its English trans., see Bonfil, History and Folklore (n. 16 above). Another English trans. can be found in The Chronicle of Ahimaaz, translated with an introduction and notes by M Salzman (New York 1924). For the Italian translation, see Libro delle discendenze: vicende di una famiglia ebraica di Oria nei secoli IX–XI, trans. C. Colafemmina (Cassano Delle Murge 2001). On Jews, on that part of Italy, see V. Von Falkenhausen, “The Jews in Byz-antine Southern Italy,” Jews in Byzantium: Dialectics of Minority and Majority Cultures, ed. R. Bonfil, O. Irshai, G. G. Stroumsa, R. Talgam (Leiden 2012) 271–296.

18 This terminology is above all utilized by Erchempert. Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, II, 2: “Ab hac gravis vel fortis Saracenorum vastatio †† ut in nos utique sic nimium saeviret.” In reality it is not clear if “nos” in this passage is referred to the Lombards or the monks of Montecassino. Since this chronicle is not an history of the monastery of Saint Benedict, the second hypothesis is more likely. Erchempert, Histo-ria Langobardorum Beneventanorum, chap. 6: “Frequenter autem Karlus cum cunctis liberis, quos iam reges constituerat, et cum immenso bellatorum agmine Beneventum preliaturus aggreditur; set, Deo decer-tante pro nobis, sub cuius adhuc regimine fovebamur.” Ibid. chap. 17: “Siconolfus ... contra Agarenos Radelgisi Libicos Hismaelitas Hispanos accivit, hisque invicem intestino et extero altercantibus bello, ul-tramarina loca captivis nostre gentis diversi sexus et etatis fulciebantur.” Ibid. chap. 27: “Nam octavo Ydus Maias quo beati Michahelis archangeli sollempnia nos sollempniter celebramus, quo etiam die priscis tem-poribus a Beneventanorum populis Neapolites fortiter cesos legimus.” Ibid. chap. 57: “De nostris unus solummodo Onericus nomine, et, ut fertur, a suis extinctus est.” Ibid. chap. 75: “Sicuti enim Neapolites vastantur, qui vastarunt, ita et nos forsan devorabimur, qui nunc devorantes sumus.” Stefano Gasparri’s claim that, after the fall of the Lombard Kingdom in 774, only a “Lombard legitimism” and “political insti-tutions” survived in southern Lombardy is therefore completely misleading. S. Gasparri, Prima delle na-zioni. Popoli, etnie e regni fra Antichità e Medioevo (Rome 1997) 204–207. For some observations about this topic, based on source analysis and not on pre-conceived theories, see L. Capo, “La polemica longo-barda sulla caduta del regno,” Rivista Storica Italiana CVIII, 1 (1996) 8ff., and Berto, “Erchempert, a Re-luctant Fustigator” (n. 8 above) 159–165.

THE MUSLIMS AS OTHERS 5 of those conflicts, remarked their vivid participation to the events, that they were nar-rating, their belonging to the Lombard people as well as the otherness of those peo-ples.19

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,20 the definition employed for them (“pa-gans,”21 “prophanes,”22 “gentiles,”23 and “infidels”24) as well as the Salernitan author's utilization of the term “sin” to refer to the help the Neapolitans gave to the Muslims25 clearly indicate that the chroniclers and probably many Lombards were aware of this.26 The theory that alliances made with the Saracens in that period were not consid-ered impious because of insufficient knowledge about the Islamic faith, therefore, has no basis.27

19 As far as I know, this kind of study has never been made for the early medieval Italian chroniclers.

Here, I limit myself to point out that, by using the search engine available in the website of the MGH (http://www.dmgh.de/) it emerges that in his Historia Langobardorum Paul the Deacon never employed this kind of terminology. This detail emphasizes the originality of these authors, who knew that work. Very similar terms are, on the other hand, utilized in the text, written in Greek, that narrates the life of Saint Nilus of Rossano (Calabria); they are above all employed on occasions of contacts with “non Greeks.” On this, see A. Peters-Custot , “L’identité des Grecs de l’Italie méridionale byzantine,” Nea Rhome 3 (2006) 204–205. Among the studies devoted to non-Italian texts, an important analysis, that pays attention to the use of this kind of language, is H. M. Thomas, The English and the Normans: Ethnic Hostility, Assimilation, and Identity, 1066–c. 1220 (Oxford 2003) passim.

20 Erchempert, Historia Langobardorum Beneventanorum, chaps. 16, 57, 75, and 77. Erchempert also employed this word to explain that a location had not been destroyed by the Muslims, but “Christianorum fraude.” Ibid. chap. 44; Chronicon Salernitanum, chaps. 111, 112 (three times) 113 (three times) 114, 118, 126 (twice) 134 and 139 (three times).

21 Erchempert, Historia Langobardorum Beneventanorum, chap. 16; Chronicon Salernitanum, chap. 118. John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporun Neapolitanorum, chap. 60.

22 Erchempert, Historia Langobardorum Beneventanorum, chaps. 19 and 35. Chronicon Salernitanum, chaps. 113, 114, and 126.

23 Ibid. chap. 112. 24 The Salernitan chronicler employed this definition for the last emir of Bari, Sawdān. This author nar-

rated that, although this Muslim leader was an infidel, he had not harmed the Prince of Benevento Adelchis’s daughter, who had been given to him as a hostage. Chronicon Salernitanum, chap. 108: “Ha-buerat … eam obsidem, et minime, licet infidelis fuisset, adhuc contaminarat.” This term is utilized for the Saracens in the letter of Emperor Louis II to the Byzantine Emperor Basil as well. Ibid. chap. 107, 119: “Nam infidelibus arma et alimenta et cetera subsidia tribuentes, per tocius imperii nostri litora eos ducunt, et cum ipsis tocius beati Petri apostolorum principis territorii fines furtim depredari conantur, ita ut facta videatur Neapolis Panormus vel Africa … Ergo si societatem non dissolverint infidelium secundum apos-tolum, qui precipit dicens: ‘Nolite iugum ducere cum infidelibus.’” Because of a mistake in one of my es-says presenting some of the points for this article, it was erroneously stated that Muslims were termed as infidels also in the Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis. L. A. Berto, “I musulmani nelle cronache altome-dievali dell’Italia meridionale,” Mediterraneo medievale: cristiani, musulmani ed eretici tra Europa ed Oltremare (IX–XIII secolo), ed. M. Meschini (Milan 2001) 7 n. 18.

25 Chronicon Salernitanum, chap. 107: “Sed imminente peccato, Neapolim Agarenos suscipiunt alimen-taque illis nimirum prebunt.”

26 For the Salernitan chronicler, this detail has been also noted by P. Delogu, Mito di una città meridio-nale (Salerno, secoli VIII–XI) (Naples 1977) 87 n. 79. M. G. Stasolla, on the other hand, maintains that the use of the term “infidel” in these sources indicates that Muslims were considered members of “one the many Eastern Christians sects.” M. G. Stasolla, “Gli Arabi nella penisola italiana,” Testimonianze degli Arabi in Italia (Roma 1988) 80.

27 Cilento, “Le incursioni saraceniche” (n. 2 above) 143–144. Mentioning a study by Monneret de Villard, Cilento maintains that Western Europeans believed that the Muslims were Arian christians. This view is shared by A. Galdi and E. Susi, “Santi, navi e Saraceni. Immagini e pratiche del mare tra agiografia

6 LUIGI ANDREA BERTO

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 chroni-cler and his abbey is also discernible in the way that 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 (ca. 847)28 by Saracen troops the prince of Benevento, Radelchis (839–851), recruited to defend that city, the author called the Muslims iniqui (iniquitous)29 and added that they had performed this deed through treachery which is identified as one of their typical customs.30 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 kin-dling a violent storm that flooded a river, thereby preventing the Muslims from reaching the Abbey.31 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 mo-ment before, could have been forded without any problem.32 Moreover, they set fire to some cells so as not give up to their usual mischief.33

The sheer disgust for this people becomes particularly intense when the author wrote about the last emir of Bari, Sawdān.34 Such rancor is explained by the aggres-sive nature attributed to this Muslim leader. It was for good reason that he was dubbed “the enemy of all.”35 In fact, he was guilty of attacking both the abbey of St. Vincenzo al Volturno and that of Montecassino.

St. Vincenzo’s sack happened during Lent, when the monks of Montecassino had gone to visit their brothers there. The chronicler emphasized how the Muslims had

e storia dalle coste campane a quelle dell'Alto Tirreno (secoli VI–XI),” Dio, il mare e gli uomini, Quaderni di storia religiosa, 15 (Verona 2008) 66. None of the authors examined in this article ever said this.

28 The Muslims ruled Bari from 847 to 871. Musca, L’emirato di Bari (n. 2 above). Metcalfe, The Mus-lims of Medieval Italy (n. 2 above) 18–21.

29 Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, II, 2: “Horum iniquorum primus venientum vocabatur Kalfon rex.”

30 Ibid. “In tempesta videlicet noctis hora more solito nominatam rapuerunt civitatem.” 31 Ibid. II, 5: “Tum subito inmanis facta est pluvia, coruscationes et tonitrua tam vehementia, ita si-

quidem ut etiam Carnellus fluvius ultra terminos excrescens redundaret. Et quem pridie adversarii transire poterant pede, sequenti videlicet die, divina coherciti repulsione, neque ripam attingere valebant fluvii. Nitebantur quolibet fluvium transmeare modo, sed dum nullus adesset eis ad cęnovium transmeandi aditus.”

32 Ibid. “Nitebantur quolibet fluvium transmeare modo, sed dum nullus adesset eis ad coenovium trans-meandi aditus. Sicut est illorum dira barbaries, digitos corrodentes manuum fremebantque seu stridebant dentibus, huc illucque furibundi discurrentes.”

33 Ibid. The chronicler also narrated that the Muslims could not celebrate their successes because at the very moment in which they saw their homeland, a violent storm broke out, leading to the shipwreck of the Saracen fleet and the death of all the Muslims. For an analysis of this account, see Berto, “Oblivion, memory, and irony” (n. 4 above) 54–55.

34 In the Latin sources he is called Saudan, Saugdan, or Seodan. 35 Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, II, 32: “omnium contrarius hostis.”

THE MUSLIMS AS OTHERS 7 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.36 Yet, during the sack of the monastery of Saint Vincenzo, this was implied. The author wrote of how the “the most nefarious” Sawdān had drunk from the sacred chalices and used the incense burners.37 Such an insulting gesture could only have been carried out by an adversary of the Christian religion. Another note-worthy episode relates how the Saracens killed an old man who had not indicated the right path to them during one of their expeditions.38 Again, there is not any overt criti-cism, 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 out-lined 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,”39 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 an early medieval Italian author. The Cassinese chronicler even reports that, on one of Sawdān’s expeditions, not a single day 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.”40

The chronicler, however, did not depict all the Saracens in a negative light. For ex-ample, he narrated that, during a previous bloody and destructive raid of Massar’s—a Muslim chieftain who had occupied Benevento41—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

36 This detail is present in both the work of Erchempert and the anonymous Salernitan chronicler. 37 Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, II, 28: “Saraceni vero omne demolierunt monasterium, con-

fringentes omnia, frumenta et legumina in flumine proicientes. Et dum huc illucque foderent, plurimum absconsum reppererunt thesaurum, coronas videlicet, ministeria sacra et quotquot valuit esse ecclesiasticus honor. Nefandissimus autem Seodan rex in sacris calicibus bibebat et cum turibulis aureis incensum sibi fieri iubebat.”

38 Ibid. II, 32: “senem ante cancellos interfecerunt, qui eorum fallitus est viam.” 39 Ibid. II, 25. 40 Ibid. “Nullus omnino preteribat dies, quod ad quingentos et eo amplius non interficeret homines et hoc

pars Dei esse dicebat, ut illud compleretur evangelicum: Omnis qui interficit vos arbitratur se obsequium prestare Deo. Nam sevus ille tyrannus super cadavera mortuorum sedens, edebat tamquam unus putridus canis.” The author, however, employs also a surprisingly ironic tone with the regard to Sawdān, named “our benefactor.” Ibid. II, 32: “Item benefactor noster, id est omnium contrarius hostis, Seodan venit in Benafrum.” This point has also been outlined by Falco, “Due secoli di storia cassinese” (n. 7 above) 249; and N. Cilento, “I cronisti della Longobardia minore,” id., Italia meridionale longobarda (n. 2 above) 82.

41 On Massar, see Musca, L’emirato di Bari (n. 2 above) 25, 29–30, 38. It is believed that this name is the Latinization of either Abū Ma’sar or Abū Ma’shār. Ibid. 196. Metcalfe, The Muslims of Medieval Italy (n. 2 above) 18.

8 LUIGI ANDREA BERTO place like Montecassino.42 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.43

Such examples show that the Cassinese chronicler was capable of respect for his adversaries. The author, moreover, ascribed to Massar deep religiosity and other hu-manitarian 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.44 This is a very remarkable detail if one considers that in that period many Europeans believed that the Saracens were pagans.45

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 clerics, according to the same chronicler)46 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.47

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.48 It could, therefore, be a metaphor for his excessively violent behavior in comparison to his predecessors and the danger he accordingly rep-resented.49

42 Cronicae sancti Benedicti casinensis, II, 8: “Quandoque pervenit secus almi Benedicti monasterium.

Cuius adeo ita divinitus mens immutata est, et, dum unus eius canis vellet in pratis unam comprehendere aucam, per semed ipsum cum flagello cucurrit et eadem de ore captoris expulit abem. Cumque ante ianuas assisteret monasterii, protinus portas claudere iussit, ne subsequentes introire magaritę presumerent.”

43 Ibid. II, 10: “Quod dum Massaro nuntiatum fuisset, ut ruinosam depredaret Iserniam ait enim: ‘Domi-nus omnium illuc iratus est et ego peramplius desebiam? Non utique ibo!’”

44 The fact that the chronicler does not express a “general horror” with regard to the Muslims has also been observed by Cilento, “I cronisti della Longobardia minore” (n. 40 above) 82; Stasolla, “Gli Arabi nella penisola italiana” (n. 26 above) 85; and Jakub Kujawinski, “Le immagini dell’altro nella cronachistica del Mezzogiorno longobardo,” Rivista Storica Italiana, 118.3 (2006) 777–778. These scholars, however, do not consider the implications of the expression “Lord of all.”

45 In general, on the way Christians perceived Muslims in the Middle Ages, see J. V. Tolan, Saracens. Islam in the Medieval European Imagination (New York 2002).

46 Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, II, 8. 47 Ibid. II, 14. 48 In the analysis of this account I have found particularly helpful the ideas expressed about the connec-

tion between disorder and impurity in Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollu-tion and Taboo (1966; London and New York 1986).

49 It is likely that on several occasions Montecassino was able to avoid to be sacked by the Muslims by giving tributes to them and that Sawdān probably tried to obtain more money. Cf. Musca, L’emirato di Bari (n. 2 above) 66; Kreutz, Before the Normans (n. 2 above) 38.

THE MUSLIMS AS OTHERS 9

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 Saint Benedict to pay the Saracens from Spain he had employed in the conflict against the prince of Benevento, Radelchis; their detailed list gives quite an idea of how the author wished this episode to be remembered. The chronicler actually pointed out that Siconolf had thus damned his soul50 and that his deeds had been in vain because after that moment he had obtained no victories, which alluded to a sort of curse falling on the prince of Salerno.51 Having utilized the treas-ure 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 con-flicts between 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,52 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 how the Lombards, at last, seemed to be waking from a long sleep, but this awakening was beset with countless “miseries.” Their intentions may have been praiseworthy, but they were useless due to their endless internal problems. The Lombards faced their enemy “not in unified ranks” and “not under a single leadership,”53 thereby incurring a heavy defeat upon the details of which the chronicler bitterly lingered.54 The author’s insistence on the or-dered mode of attack by the Saracens 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 be-coming the dominant power without too much difficulty.

In order to understand how the Saracens were perceived, it is worth noting that the

50 “iugulavit animam suam (he cut the throat of his soul)” is the effective expression used here. Cronicae

Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, II, 7. 51 Ibid. “Ei neque profuit nichilominus seu patrię, sed videlicet abhinc nullum ei amplius evenit tri-

umphum victorię.” 52 Ibid. II, 25. It is believed that this battle occurred in 860, and that it represented the attempt of the

Duke of Spoleto, Lambert, and his allies to stop Muslim raids. Erchempert, Historia Langobardorum Bene-ventanorum, chap. 29. B. Ruggiero, “Il ducato di Spoleto e i tentativi di penetrazione dei Franchi nell’Italia meridionale,” id., Potere, istituzioni, chiese locali: Aspetti e motivi del Mezzogiorno medioevale dai Longo-bardi agli Angioini (Spoleto 1991) 28.

53 Cronicae Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, II, 26: “Tandem quasi e gravi somno evigilantes, sed gravati atque praepediti nimiis miseriis Wandelpert et Maielpotus gastaldius et Garard comes eum plurimis aliis nobilibus properaverunt Beneventum, ut communi consilio ulciscerent se de Saracenis. Salubre quidem fuit consilium, sed inutilis ordo. Non uno agmine, non una eademque intentione per cohortes incedebant, sed divisi ab alterutro inhordinate proficiscebant.”

54 Ibid. “Igitur propinquaverunt secus Saracenos ad Arium; quod hi cernentes, se protinus straverunt in terram. Iamque sol ad occasum tendebat. Hi vero qui a Benevento venerunt, sicuti fuerant lassi et nimium equidem fatigati sitientesque valde, continuo in aciem introierunt. Ilico Saraceni subito erecti, ut erant in uno agmine conglobati, repente irruerunt super eos. Hi vero terga vertentes, fugere coeperunt. Plurimi inte-rempti a gladiis, nonnulli cadentes, in alterutrum inpingentes, praefocabantur; alii in fossatis, sepibus et cavernis terrae, inlesi a gladiis sed prae siti mortui inveniebantur Saraceni autem victores effecti, coeptum peregerunt iter.”

10 LUIGI ANDREA BERTO chronicler never dwells on 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 op-portunity to criticize the Lombards’ behavior. He snuffed out enthusiasm for a similar victory, making the emir of Bari, Sawdān, saying that tow and wadding were fighting against each other.55 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 between the Christians.

These nuances are absent in Erchempert’s chronicle.56 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 re-sult 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.57

This chronicler utilized a harsh language when writing about the Muslims, like the verbs depopulare (to devastate)58 and laniare (to maul, to tear apart)59 and the term efferitas (“ferocity”).60 Describing the effects of their expeditions, he emphasized that they destroyed everything down to the roots,61 so that not a germ of life remained after their passage,62 while on another occasion nothing had survived but brambles;63 Ca-labria was depopulated as it had been after the Noachian flood.64 The author also de-fined them as a nefanda gens (nefarious people)65 and pointed out that the Muslims were by nature shrewder and more skilled than others in committing evil,66 and grew rich by selling the Lombards they had captured.67 Equally significant is his comment on the havoc the Saracens committed in the lands of their former allies, the Neapoli-

55 Ibid. II, 22: “Quod ex utroque latere Seudan audiens factum, irrisit, dicens: ‘Stuppa cum tomentis

pariter iuncta fecerunt bellum.’” 56 An overview of the way Erchempert depicted the Muslims can be found in Kujawinski, “Le immagini

dell’altro” (n. 44 above) 785–786. 57 Erchempert, Historia Langobardorum Beneventanorum, chap. 16: “Hiis quoque diebus Pando quidam

Barim regebat, qui iussis optemperans Radelgisi, Saracenorum phalangas in adiutorium accitas iuxta murum urbis et oram maris locavit commorandas … intempesta noctis, christicolis quiescentibus, per abdita loca penetrant urbem, populumque insontem partim gladiis trucidarunt partim captivitati indiderunt.”

58 Ibid. chaps. 20, 29, 35 (twice) 39, 47, and 54. 59 Ibid. chap. 51. 60 Ibid. chap. 29 (twice). 61 Ibid. chap. 35. 62 Ibid. chap. 29. 63 Ibid. chap. 51. 64 Ibid. chap. 35. 65 Ibid. chap. 15. 66 Ibid. chap. 16: “Hii autem, ut sunt natura callidi et prudentiores aliis in malum.” Erchempert makes

this observation when he states that the Saracens hired by Radelchis took advantage of the situation in order to take over Bari.

67 Ibid. chap. 17.

THE MUSLIMS AS OTHERS 11 tans. Erchempert remarked that the words of Salomon had thus come true: “Who will cure the wizard once he is bitten by the serpent?”68 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 lan-guage, calling him “nequissimus ac sceleratissimus” (most dissolute/evil and most wicked),69 “efferus rex” (ferocius king),70 and “omnium hominum flagitiosissimus” (the most infamous of all the men)71 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 Be-nevento to fire and sword and left no breath of life. On account of Sawdān’s efferitas, the Franks intervened in defense of the Lombards,72 and no place was ever safe from his efferitas after he defeated the Franks and Beneventans.73 The emir of Bari, moreo-ver, had his prisoners cruelly killed.74 The author’s hatred towards this character is further shown when he maintained that God decided to punish Emperor Louis II be-cause this ruler did not execute Sawdān after the fall of Bari. According to Erchem-pert, 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.75 In this way the Muslim leader and his people are 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 “History of the Beneventan Lombards.” Though describing a period of very serious crisis, strongly characterized by defeats and violence, Erchempert, in fact, made important distinc-tions. For example, although the conquest of the Lombard kingdom by the Franks oc-curred a century before the composition of his work, the Cassinese chronicler showed that the memory of their attempts to take over Benevento was still alive. He stated that Charlemagne went with an immense force against Benevento numerous times76 and that Prince Arechis (758–787) was obliged to come to an agreement with them since they were destroying everything down to the roots like locusts.77 Grimoald III (787–

68 Ibid. chap. 77: “Set Capuani praevalidiores effecti, per se et cum saracenis graviter Neapolim circum-

quaque vastantes lacerant, ut ignis consumantes omnia, aequo Dei iudicio, ut qui saracenis innumerabiles christicolas gladiis et captivitatibus tradidit bonisque eorum ditatus est, non immerito ab his flagelletur, rodatur et depraedetur, ut Salomon ait: Quis medebitur incantatori a serpente semel percusso?”

69 Ibid. chap. 29. 70 Ibid. chap. 33. 71 Ibid. chap. 37. This definition is also used in II Mac 7.34. 72 Erchempert, Historia Langobardorum Beneventanorum, chap. 29. 73 Ibid. “Qua de re audaciam ex illo die potiorem sumens, Beneventum eiusque confinia funditus delevit,

ita ut nullus locus preter urbes precipuas eius efferitati evaderet.” 74 Ibid.. 75 Ibid. chap. 37: “capta Bari et Saugdan, omnium hominum flagitiosissimo, non iuxta voluntatem

Domini eum protinus, ut dignum erat, crudeliter interfici fecerit. Oblitus videlicet, quid Samuel coram Saule de Agath, pinguissimo rege Amalechitarum, egerit, quomodo eum in frusta discerpi fecerit.” (1. Reg. 15).

76 Ibid. chap. 2. 77 Ibid. “Super Beneventum autem Gallico exercitu perveniente, praedictus Arichis viribus quibus valuit

primo fortiter restitit, postremo autem, acriter praeliantibus, universa ad instar locustarum radice tenus corrodentibus.” It is important to note that Erchempert did not explicitly state that the Franks had acted like locusts, because the subject of praeliantibus and of corrodentibus is implied. The translation of Italo Pin seems to refer to the fact that the subject is the soldiers of both armies. Storia dei longobardi di Benevento,

12 LUIGI ANDREA BERTO 806), son of Arechis, likewise had to fight against them and repeatedly encountered setbacks because he could not tame the efferitas of those “barbarians.”78 Erchempert never accused the Franks of having been one of the causes of the serious crisis of Southern Lombardy, but the fact that they are compared to locusts and called “barbari-ans,” definitions that clearly remind terrible devastations and that he did not employ for the Muslims,79 whose raids are a constant element in several parts of 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,80 while the Saracens only wanted to loot that region.

Erchempert unfavorable sentiments toward the Franks are also apparent in the re-maining part of his work. Stating that, during conflict in the 840s between the prince of Benevento, Radelchis, and the prince of Salerno, Siconolf, the duke of Spoleto, Guy, who was of Frankish origins,81 preferred to help the former and not his brother-in-law Siconolf, the chronicler specified that Guy thus subordinated the bonds of kin-ship to the bonds of money, which the Franks yielded to more than anyone.82 The chronicler even called in the forces of evil when he explained the imprisonment of Louis II by Adelchis; the prince was forced to do this as a precaution because the Franks, inspired by the devil, had begun to cruelly oppress and persecute—a verb never used for the Saracens—the Beneventans.83 Although Erchempert did not men-tion that Guy II of Spoleto was a Frank, it is still worth noting that he accused him of being responsible for the Muslims’ plundering of Benevento and this area’s fall to the

in Paolo Diacono, Storia dei longobardi. In appendix, Storia dei longobardi di Benevento di Erchemperto, Italian translation by I. Pin (Pordenone 1990) 186: “When the army of the Franks reached Benevento, Are-chis at first resisted with the forces that he could, but in the end, because the soldiers fought bitterly they destroyed everything to the root like locusts.” Antonio Carucci, on the other hand, while not literally trans-lating the passage, believes that the Franks are the subject; Erchempert, Storia dei longobardi (sec. IX), Italian translation by A. Carucci (Salerno–Rome 1995) 16: “While, in the meantime, the Frankish army approached Benevento, Arechis first resisted valiantly with the forces available to him, and then, advancing them like a mass of locusts that destroys everything to the roots.” Since the Franks attacked and the Bene-ventans defended, it is more likely that Erchempert was referring to destruction wrought by Charlemagne’s soldiers. This view was shared by Falco, “Erchemperto” (n. 8 above) 276–277.

78 Erchempert, Historia Langobardorum Beneventanorum, chap. 5: “Efferitatem tamen supradictarum barbararum gentium sedare minime quivit.”

79 At the time of their conquest of Sicily they are compared to a swarm of bees, a metaphor certainly less strong than that of locusts. Ibid. chap. 11: “Circa hec tempora gens Agarenorum a Babilonia et Africa ad instar examinis apum manu cum valida egrediens, Siciliam properavit, omnia circumquaque devastans.”

80 For more information on Frankish attempts to extend their control into southern Italy, see O. Bertolini, “Carlomagno e Benevento,” Karl der Grosse. Lebenswerk und Nachleben I, ed. H. Beuman (Düsseldorf 1965) 609–671; Cilento, Le origini della signoria di Capua (n. 6 above) 73–80, S. Gasparri, “Il ducato e il principato di Benevento,” Storia del Mezzogiorno. Il Medioevo (n. 2 above) 108ff; and Kreutz, Before the Normans (n. 2 above) 5ff.

81 Guy went to Italy in 830s, married Siconolf’s sister and was duke of Spoleto from 842 to ca. 860. Taviani-Carozzi, La principauté lombarde de Salerne (n. 8 above) 340–343. T. Di Carpegna Falconieri, “Guido, duca di Spoleto e marchese di Camerino,” Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, vol. 61 (Rome 2003) 352–354.

82 Erchempert, Historia Langobardorum Beneventanorum, chap. 17: “Erat autem idem Guido dux Spo-litensium, Siconolfi cognatus, pro cupiditate tamen pecuniarum, quibus maxime Francorum subicitur genus, posposito vinculo parentali, in adiutorium ilico profectus est Radelgisi.”

83 Ibid. chap. 34: “Videns diabolus suos eliminari Christoque universa restaurari, principia recolens et dampna inferni dolens, suo instincto coeperunt Galli graviter Beneventanos persequi ac crudeliter vexare.”

THE MUSLIMS AS OTHERS 13 Byzantines, since Guy II had preferred to abandon the land he governed to satisfy his thirst for power across the Alps, where he was hoping to acquire the imperial crown.84

The harsh invective Erchempert directed against the Byzantines is relevant as well. He narrated that the Muslims defeated one of their fleets because God wanted to pun-ish that people who in spirit and custom were equal to beasts. The chronicler adds 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.85

What is most significant is that the people assigned the worst characteristics are not Muslims, but the chronicler’s own countrymen. He remarked that the majority of them did not respect even the minimal degree of order necessary for peaceful coexist-ence. For example, Erchempert emphasized that the prince of Benevento. Sico (817–832), who had taken power by killing the previous prince,86 “Beneventanos bestiali efferitate persequitur (persecuted the Beneventans with bestial ferocity),”87 while his son Sicard (832–839), when he assumed power, began “populum … beluina voracitate insequi ac crudeliter laniare (to persecute his people with bestial voracity and to tear it cruelly).”88 The same behavior also characterized the sons of the count of Capua, Lan-dolf, who persecuted their fellow citizens ferina ingluvie (with fierce voracity).89 Effe-ritas and laniare are also utilized for the Saracens, while the substantive ingluvies, the adjectives bestialis, ferina and beluina and the verb “persequi” (to persecute) are em-ployed exclusively for these Lombard lords.90

The true “antihero” of the work is, however, the bishop of Capua, Landolf. Ac-cording to Erchempert, this man caused immeasurable grief and always worked to keep the Lombards divided in order to control them more effectively. The list of all the misdeeds the Cassinese chronicler ascribed to him is very long, but to demonstrate how Erchempert regarded Landolf, it is enough to mention that the Capuan prelate is the only person about whom the author reported that, when his mother was pregnant with him, she dreamt she gave birth to a ball of fire that fell upon Benevento spreading death and destruction.91 Furthermore, Landolf is the only character of the chronicle doomed to hell.92

84 Ibid. chap. 79. On Guy II, see T. Di Carpegna Falconieri, “Guido, duca di Spoleto e marchese di

Camerino,” Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, vol. 61 (Rome 2003) 354–361. 85 Erchempert, Historia Langobardorum Beneventanorum, chap. 81 “Achivi autem, ut habitudinis simi-

les sunt, ita animo equales sunt bestiis, vocabulo christiani, set moribus tristiores Agarenis. Hii videlicet et per se fidelium omnes predabant et Saracenis emebant et ex his alios venales oceani litora farciebant, alios vero in famulos et famulas reservabant.”

86 Ibid. chap. 9. 87 Ibid. chap. 10. 88 Ibid. chap. 12. It is emphasized shortly thereafter that he had imprisoned and killed many Beneventan

nobles. 89 Ibid. chap. 23. 90 Actually, this vocabulary is also used to describe the way that Count Pandonolf of Capua treated his

relatives. Ibid. chap. 46. The verb “to persecute” was also employed to narrated how, following the capture of Bari, the Franks acted against the Beneventans with inspiration from the devil. Ibid. chap. 34.

91 Ibid. chap. 21. 92 Ibid. chap. 40. For further information on the way Erchempert portrayed the Lombard élites, see

Berto, “L’immagine delle élites longobarde” (n. 8 above); and Berto, “Erchempert, a Reluctant Fustigator” (n. 8 above).

14 LUIGI ANDREA BERTO

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 mentions several Lombard victories over the Muslims, the only time that he lingers over macabre details is on occasion of a Beneventan vic-tory over the Neapolitans—pluri-secular enemies of the Lombards—that had occurred at beginning of the ninth century. The chronicler remarked that the water near the bat-tleground remained stained with the blood of the Neapolitans for many days and that the graves of the many fallen Neapolitans could still be seen in his day.

The anonymous Salernitan chronicler also showed that the Saracens were fearsome foes.93 They are the only ones compared to locusts.94 The Muslim lord to whom the Sicilian man turned to avenge his wife dishonored by a Byzantine officer is called barbarus (barbarian).95 The Salernitan author emphasized placed the wickedness of the Muslims, stating that several Saracens had gone to Salerno in peace, but in reality planned to take over the city.96 Besides raping several Salernitan girls, one of their leaders is said to have blasphemously committed such a crime under the altar of a church, in a clear sign of disrespect for the Christian religion.97

Hostility toward the Muslims also appears in an episode where one of their ambas-sadors was hosted in the residence of the bishop of Salerno, who for this reason be-came very sad and went to Rome. The bishop returned from Rome 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 hap-pened. 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.98

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. Nevertheless, although he did not fail to describe the violence that char-

93 An overview of the way the Muslims are depicted in the Chronicon Salernitanum can be found in

Kujawinski, “Le immagini dell’altro” (n. 44 above) 806–807. 94 Chronicon Salernitanum, chap. 93. The Bizantines are compared to locusts in the letter to Emperor

Basil. Ibid. 115. In this case, however, the reference is made to indicate their large numbers. 95 Ibid. chap. 60. In this regard, it is important to point out that barbarus is never utilized to define the

improper conduct of the Muslim rex, a fact that would suggest that the anonymous Salernitan chronicler was probably using it to refer to his African origins.

96 Ibid. chap. 151. 97 Ibid. chap. 112: “Tirannus ille Agarenorum rex sanctissima hede beatorum Fortunati videlicet, Gagi et

Anthes cum suis satellitibus degebat, atque in luxuriis et variis inquinamentis fervebant, in tantum ut ille Abdila thorum sibi parari iusserat super sacratissimum altare, ibique puellas quas nequiter depredaverat deludebat.”

98 Ibid. chap. 99: “Set cum sepissime legati Agarenorum Salernum venissent, dum iam dicto Sico Petroque rectore Salernitanis simul preessent, accidit, ut unum eminentissimum Agarenum fuisset missus a Satan domino Salernum. Sed cum Salernum venisset, cum magna sublimitate eum susceperunt; at episcopium illum miserunt, quatenus in domo, ubi Bernardus presul morare solitus, erat, degeret. Dum fuisset nimirum factum, ipso presul exinde mox valde ingemuit, atque ex intimo cordis anelitum trahens, tandem deintus vulnus foras erupit, et quasi pro causa dictis principibus Romam properavit ... Tandem exo-ratus ab omni populo Salernitano et plus nimirum a clero, illis epistolam in hunc modum misit: ‘Si illuc me habere cupitis, edem mihi aliam in loco alio edificate, quia post hec minime ubi moravi iam habito.’”

THE MUSLIMS AS OTHERS 15 acterized the Frankish expeditions, he did not show a bitterness toward them compara-ble 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”99 and added that, during the rule of the prince of Benevento, Grimoald IV (806–817), the Franks had destroyed everything with fire and rapine.100 He also called them “haughty people”101 and emphasized their wrongful behavior when, not tolerating the humilia-tion of seeing one of their compatriots defeated in a duel with a Beneventan, had killed the victor with an arrow.102 Yet the anonymous chronicler also stated that Charle-magne 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,103 that the Beneventan bishops had convinced the Frankish sovereign to abandon his intention to occupy their principality,104 and, in addition, that in the end he became a monk, showing great humility.105

The Salernitan author, however, proved to be like Erchempert in that he expressed hatred for the Neapolitans. Narrating a battle between the latters and his fellow citi-zens, led by Prince Guaiferius (861–880), he actually stated that, among the few sur-viving Neapolitans who were taken prisoner, there was a little boy who begged for mercy but the Salernitan ruler ordered one of his men to kill him; the chronicler speci-fied—the only time that the author inserts this type of clarification—that the Neapoli-tan was struck with such force that his head split in two, then ended the account re-marking that Guaiferius returned to Salerno “with great joy.”106

Much like the 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 ti-

99 Ibid. chap. 10: “‘beatissimi patres, iniamus consilium, qualiter e nostris finibus nefandum Karolum

evellamus’. Et consilium inierunt, quatenus iram eius sevissimam blandirentur.” 100 Ibid. chap. 38: “Per idem tempus Francorum exercitu Beneventani finibus adiit, et quicquid repperiri

potuit incendiis rapinisque demoliti sunt.” 101 Ibid. chap. 39: “iniamus consilium, qualiter ex nostris finibus superba gens protinus evellamus” 102 Ibid. chap. 40. 103 Ibid. chap. 9. 104 Ibid. chaps. 10–12. 105 Ibid. chaps. 31–33. Huguette Taviani-Carozzi, however, while pointing out that the chronicler in-

serted episodes about Charlemagne the monk for edification, believes that they are on the verge of deri-sion—especially the one where Charlemagne offered all his clothes to a thief so that they would not steal the sheep of his monastery, and when he found himself completely naked, attacked the robber and took his loincloth because he was ashamed, and the other story where he carried a lame sheep on his shoulders a long distance and was covered in mud. Taviani-Carozzi, La principauté lombarde de Salerne (n. 8 above) 71–72. It does not seem to me that this is the intent, and in this regard I note that in the Chronicle of Novalesa, written about seventy years after the Chronicon Salernitanum, the following episode is told. The legendary Waltarius, having become old, entered the monastery of Novalesa and one day was sent by the abbot to make some robbers return the goods they had stolen from the abbey. He asked the abbot if he should give the robbers his breeches in addition to all his other clothes if the robbers demanded them, and the abbot replied that he would already show great humility by offering them all his other garments. Waltarius then went to the thieves, refused to give them his breeches, and, when the bandits began to use violence, he killed them. Cronaca di Novalesa, ed. G. C. Alessio (Turin 1982) II.11, 105–109.

106 Chronicon Salernitanum, chap. 127: “Sed dum unum adolessentulum inter eos comprehendissent, ille adolescens veniam postulabat; at princeps cuidam suo fideli verba depromsit, ut cicius eum de hac instabili luce extinguere. Statim cum ingenti virtute per medium celebro mucrone percussit, ita ut pars capitis dextro, parte levo humero superiaceret, et iam exanimatum corruit miserabile corpus; et sic magno tripudio Saler-num regressus est.”

16 LUIGI ANDREA BERTO rannus,107 but the number of Christians who deserved this epithet is certainly greater.108 The same detail is found in the terminology the author employed to describe violent acts committed by Saracens and Christians.109 A negative character compara-ble 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.110

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 that this author narrated several episodes concerning the Muslims.

One example is found in the demise of Apolaffar,111 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 Bene-ventans 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

107 Ibid. chap. 112 (four times). The leader of the Saracens of Garigliano is described in the same way,

but I have not taken this into account because it is a passage taken verbatim from Erchempert’s chronicle. Ibid. chap. 142. Cfr. Erchempert, Historia Langobardorum Beneventanorum, chap. 79.

108 It is used for the king of the Lombards, Desiderius; Prince Grimoald IV of Benevento; Sicard; counselor of Prince Sicard of Benevento; the princes of Salerno Ademar and Dauferius; and Landolf, Prince Gisulf of Salerno’s cousin. Chronicon Salernitanum, chaps. 9, 39, 68, 101 and 180.

109 It is utilized twice (ibid. chaps. 118 and 151) for the Saracens, three times for Prince Guaimar of Sa-lerno (ibid. chaps. 148 and 155 [twice]) and twice for King Berengar II (ibid. chap. 169 [twice]); “ira sevissima” on the other hand is used only for Charlemagne (ibid. chap. 10) and Prince Sicard of Benevento (ibid. chap. 64). Abdila, the terrible Muslim ruler, violated girls whom he had captured nequiter (ibid. chap. 112); his successor Abelmec, although frightened by the defeat his soldiers suffered against the Franks, “ab solita vergens nequicia immo et sevicia.” Ibid. chap. 118. Sicard is especially nequicia plenus (ibid. chap. 69) and Prince Atenolf was expelled from Benevento “propter suas nequicias suaque crudelitate” (ibid. chap. 159); the same words are employed, with the addition of superbia, to explain that Landolf, son of Prince Atenolf, was expelled from Capua (ibid. chap. 175)—he was sent out of Capua for the same reason (Ibidem). The chronicler states that on one occasion the Saracens “terram crudeliter laniabant” and that one of their leaders was a “crudelissimus tirannus”—the fact that both these examples are in paragraphs taken verbatim from Erchempert makes them less significant, however—Erchempert, Historia Langobardorum Beneventanorum, chaps. 51 and 79; the Byzantine patrician Eugenius was taken by his men and sent to Constantinople because of his crudelitas. Theophanes, wife of Emperor Nicephorus, was crudelissima and, because she was in love with John Tzimiskes, killed her husband crudeliter with John’s help. Chronicon Salernitanum, chaps. 129, 142*, 173 and 174. Turning to the Lombards, however, Grimoald IV was a “crudelis tirannus,” while his assassin Angelmond was a “crudelissimus vir.” Ibid. chaps. 39, 50. For other examples of cruel Lombard rulers, see ibid. chaps. 159, 175, 180, 181 and 181*. Nefandus is utilized for the Saracens (ibid. chap. 72) but also for Charlemagne (ibid. chap. 10), the Byzantines (ibid. chaps. 147 and 158), Bishop Athanasius II of Naples (Ibid. chap. 150), and his partners Lando and his children (ibid. chaps. 176 [twice], 177, 181, and 183). Landolf and his son by the same name are defined as inquissimi several times. Ibid. chaps. 181, 181* and 183.

110 Sicard in fact inflicted great suffering on his subjects, dishonored many women, allowed his advisor Roffredus to pursue personal vendetta that caused chaos within the principality of Benevento, and was guilty of perjury, having Abbot Alfanus hanged even though he had promised him immunity. For Sicard’s character, see Oldoni, Anonimo salernitano (n. 13 above) 149ff. Massimo Oldoni, however, states that the Saracens are depicted as “Evil incarnate,” while the “Evil of the Lombard princes is more domestic and more comprehensible.” Ibid. 148.

111 It is believed that this name is the Latinization of Abū Ja’far. Metcalfe, The Muslims of Medieval Italy (n. 2 above) 17–18.

THE MUSLIMS AS OTHERS 17 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.112 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 agree-ment, therefore giving him the moral satisfaction of shaming the one who betrayed him.113

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 Prince Adelchis after the fall of Bari, sug-gested to the prince—evidently against his own interests—that he did not arrest and chase Louis II from 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 sa-gacious)—advising the Beneventan ruler to bring what he had begun to a close, since there was a risk that the plot would be discovered.114

The Saracen Arrane returned the prince of Salerno Guaiferius’s act of friendship. Having met Arrane in the town square at Salerno, Guaiferius immediately agreed to the Muslim’s request to give him his turban.115 In return, Arrane later informed Guaiferius, through an Amalfitan, that a Saracen fleet was arriving from Africa to as-sault Salerno; Arrane even supplied the prince with precise directions on how to im-prove the city’s fortifications.116 In another, equally relevant episode, the chronicler

112 Chronicon Salernitanum, chap. 83: “Die autem alia in stratu in quo Apolaffar dormiebat armatos

milites misit, eumque comprehenderunt, et ad portam civitatis eum nudis pedibus detulerunt. Dum eum nudis pedibus Radelchisi vidisset, mox talia verba depromsit, ad suos inquid: ‘Nudis pedibus eum deferitis?’ At Apolaffar verso capite, torboque aspectu promsit talia dicta, sputo contra Radelchisim proiecit, inquid: ‘Non habes curam de capite meo, de pedibus meis perquiris?’. At ille cum rubore mox inde se movit, et ipsum Apolaffar cum omnibus suis subditis ad Guidonem silicet misit; ille vero statim eos puniri iussit.”

113 Massimo Oldoni offers a completely different interpretation of this episode, seeing only the expres-sion of Saracen malignancy; an interpretation that does not always capture the nuances of the narrative—for Oldoni, the Salernitan chronicler’s narrative is always a black and white story. The Italian scholar believes that Apolaffar was just a cursing infidel and a perjurer because he had joined the adversaries of the Prince of Salerno, Siconolf. Oldoni, Anonimo salernitano (n. 13 above) 134–137.

114 Chronicon Salernitanum, chap. 109: “antequam Adelchis memoratus princeps eum apprehenderet, consilio exinde expetit a predicto Sagdane, Agarenorum rege, qui tunc in carcere tentus erat, utrum appre-henderet et ex sua urbe eiceret imperatorem an non, ipse prediceret. Cui Sagdan: ‘Nequaquam talia facito, quia, quantum conicere valeo, minime me Agareni pretermictunt, sed indesinenter perquirunt.’ Ad hec princeps: ‘Confiteor, quia pluribus predicta re innotuit.’ At Sagdan ut erat sagacissimus, in hunc modum verba depromsit: ‘Quod inchoasti perfice, ne forte consilium promulgetur’.”

115 Ibid. chap. 110: “princeps Guaiferius valneum pergeret; set dum regredi una cum suis palacium malu-isset, quidam Agarenus in foro Salernitane civitatis residens, Guaiferium acclamat, inquid: ‘Da mihi obsecro tegumentum, quod tuo capite geris.’ At ille protinus suo capite denudato, ilico Agareni fasciolum con-donavit.”

116 Ibid. “Dum autem iam factum Agarenum Africam proprium solum adiret, et cerneret omnis navalis exercitus altrinsecus ad pugnam se prepararet, quatenus Italiam pergeret, et nominative castrametatus Saler-num moraret eamque diversis machinis expugnaret, et dum illuc Amelfitani adessent, ipse Agarenus uni illorum talia verba depromsit: ‘Vidistine Gaiferium Salernitanorum princeps aut scis eum?’ Cui Amelfita-nus: ‘Et scio eum et crebrissimo quando illuc sum, ante illius optutum assisto.’ Idem ipse Agarenus: ‘Per filium Marie te obtestor, quem ut Deum colitis, ut fideliter meis dictis illius innuas, ut omnimodis undique urbem suam rehedificari faciat, et antemuralem illum qui est iuxta mare, sine mora in altum elevet, aliam turrem in uno capite et aliam in alio, simulque et in medium non exiguas faciat; et preparet se ad prelium, quia omnis ex multitudine quam cernis, illuc properat. Et si te percontat, quis tibi talia intimavit, illi dicito

18 LUIGI ANDREA BERTO 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.117

With these examples,118 the Salernitan chronicler showed that an act of benevo-lence or a simple gesture of friendship, like that of Prince Guaiferius, 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 chroni-cler perceived as essential, that is upholding an oath sworn with any person whatso-ever, 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 partic-ular that the infidels won that battle rendered their defeat even more significant.

The anonymous author also lingered over the heavy and ignominious routs the sol-diers of the cruel prince of Benevento, Sicard, and those of the Salernitan ruler Peter,

quia Agarenus cui fasciolum condonasti, ipse talia verba depromsit tantum incunctanter credat.’ Vocabatur Agarenus ille nomen Arrane.” With regard to this character, Massimo Oldoni seems so concerned with presenting the Muslims as absolutely evil that he misunderstands this episode. He argues that the way in which Arrane addressed the Amalfitan whom he asked to bring a message to Prince Guaiferius—“Per filium Marie te obtestor, quem ut Deum colitis”—represents blasphemy, but it seems to be a supplication intended to get the Amalfitan to believe him so that Salerno could be saved. Oldoni also thinks that this character was Arrane the “tirannus crudelissimus,” who is found in an episode taken verbatim from Erchempert, Historia Langobardorum Beneventanorum, chap. 79, cf. Chronicon Salernitanum, chaps. 142*, 150,—which no-where indicates that this is the same person—and confuses his generosity as a sign of strength. (Oldoni, Anonimo salernitano [n. 13 above] 139–140.) Paolo Delogu has, on the other hand, acknowledged that Arrane generously returned the gift of Prince Guaiferius “readily and cordially.” Delogu, Mito di una città (n. 26 above) 87. Stefano Palmieri has also mentioned this episode to show that it was not uncommon for a Muslim to move peacefully through Salerno, and that the relationship with the Muslims should not be ex-amined solely from the perspective of conflict. Palmieri, “Un esempio di mobilità etnica altomedievale” (n. 2 above) 609.

117 Chronicon Salernitanum, chap. 126: “et undique ut diximus prefatam urbem affligebant, in tantum ut altrinsecus inter se fedus inirent, Agareni silicet et Salernitani. Sed Salernitani non probum consilium inierunt; clam armis tulerunt, et ubi Agareni sine excitacione degebant, audaciter animo properarunt, qua-tenus prophanos potenter acterrerent. Sed iustus iudex Dominus minime christiani victoriam tribuit, eo quod obliviscerent iusiurandum quod Agareni iuraverant. Nam Agareni protinus sedulam ubi indita erat Sanctissimam et inseparabilem Trinitatem, lancea nexerunt, et in hunc modum promserunt: “O Iesu Marie filius, in hoc cognoscimus veraciter, si Celum terramque regis et dominus tocius creature, si isti periuri potenter prosternis.” Et continuo quamvis exigui illis obviam exierunt bellumque inchoaverunt. Sed ilico Salernitani terga dederunt, et partim percussi in mare se necaverunt, partimque gladio ceciderunt; reliqui, quamvis confusi, per devia silvasque propria adierunt. Ibi magna pars Salernitanorum interiit.” It is worth noting that the fact that the Saracens won despite their small numbers is emphasized. Usually, this detail is applied rather to the victories of the Salernitans to highlight their courage. I believe that all these details clearly show the author’s position on this episode and refute Paolo Delogu’s position, which places importance solely on the fact that the chronicler defined the Salernitans aggression against the Saracens as “non probum consilium,” and which argues that the chronicler did not intend to express “the need to moral-ize the use of cunning, without condemnation, however.” Delogu, Mito di una città meridionale (n. 26 above) 86.

118 The only exception to this pattern is represented by the brief positive evaluation expressed for the successor of the cruel Abdallah. Chronicon Salernitanum, chap. 112: “Agareni ilico regem procreaverunt nomine Abemelec: licet fuisset enuchus, erga res humanas audas fuit et sagax.”

THE MUSLIMS AS OTHERS 19 suffered against the Muslims.119 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.120 Here the author seems to want to demonstrate 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 chroni-cler made no reference to a broken treaty with the emperor, but the providential inter-pretation 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, sent the Saracens against them, until they avenged the offenses made against Louis II who had saved them. In this passage they are compared to the ancient Jews, when they strayed from the Lord.121 The hardships endured during the siege therefore represented for the Lombards the penance needed to cleanse themselves of the sin that they had commit-ted, 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 the 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 Sara-cen dead with his spear.122 In the subsequent duel the enemy appeared a little more normal, but nevertheless it involved the boldest of the sons of Elim, the most coura-geous of the Muslims, endowed with a “a great height.” The Lord however was on the side of the Salernitan Landemarius and did not permit the Saracen’s strong blow to

119 Sicard’s soldiers foolishly fell into ditches that the Saracens had prepared, and were massacred.

Chronicon Salernitanum, chap. 72. Peter’s troops were deceived by one of the Muslims’ usual tricks: fighting a little, retreating, and then suddenly attacking the enemy when least expected. The defeat was made more disastrous since the Muslims terribly sacked the principalities of Benevento and Salerno—it is here that the Saracens are first described as locusts—slaughtering men, carrying their wives and children off in slavery, and forcing the survivors to flee to the mountains. Ibid. chap. 93.

120 Ibid. chap. 94. 121 Ibid. chap. 111. 122 Ibid. chap. 113. Massimo Oldoni does not consider the struggles between the Salernitans and Sara-

cens as a whole; he believes that the reference to the man with three testicles and the challenge to discover the Agarenorum virtutes represent a game of malice of the author, who wanted to show that only that is the virtus of the Saracens and that therefore “having been condemned to flesh and lust, these Muslims are too easily condemned en masse.” Oldoni, Anonimo salernitano (n. 13 above) 142–143. An aspect of derision and criticism is certainly present, but the main message is the description of the Salernitans’ journey to cleanse themselves of sin.

20 LUIGI ANDREA BERTO reach the Christian, who took an opportunity to spear his adversary.123 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 destroy the city’s main defenses.124 Once the people atoned for their sin, God forgot his rage and re-stored 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.125

Right when the Salernitans, forced by famine to eat cats and mice, decided to sur-render to the Saracens if God would not help them,126 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.127 Louis II then de-cided to intervene against the Saracens,128 who suffered a heavy defeat.129

In the period described in the 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, asked their help when the prince of Benevento, Sicard, besieged Na-ples.130 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 how, during their raids, the Muslims had plundered and destroyed,131 the only really pejorative references to them are contained in a hint at their ferocity which had pro-voked numerous massacres in southern Italy during the duke of Naples Gregory’s rule (864–870),132 and the use of the definition “paganissimi (most pagan).”133 John the Deacon never recounted that the Muslims had attacked Naples; perhaps, this repre-sents 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)—the anti-hero of the “Deeds of the Neapolitan Bishops”134—and for the

123 Chronicon Salernitanum, chap. 114. 124 Ibid. chaps. 113, 127. 125 Ibid. chap. 114. 126 Ibid. chap. 115. 127 Ibid. 116. 128 Ibid. 117. 129 Ibid. chaps. 117–119. God knew, moreover, to show mercy when the Christians were without sin and

called for his help. During a terrible Saracen raid, God made it only rain on the castle that the besieging Muslims had deprived of water. Ibid. chap. 139.

130 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chap. 57. 131 Ibid. chap. 54: “Impavidi grassantes, totam divastabant Siciliam.” Ibid. chap. 60: “Africani in forti

brachio omnem hanc regionem divastare cupientes, Romam supervenerunt, atque iaculato de caelo iudicio, ecclesias apostolorum et cuncta quae extrinsecus repererunt lugenda pernicie et horribili captivitate diri-puerunt.” Ibid. chap. 61: “Propter catervas Sarracenorum Apuliae sub rege commanentes et omnium fines depopulantes.”

132 Ibid. chap. 64: “Praeterea, mortuo Sergio consule, et Gregorio, filio eius, ducatum regente, Saraceno-rum ferocitas ita in his praevaluit regionibus, ut multarum urbium atque castrorum cotidianum fieret exci-dium.”

133 Ibid. chap. 60. 134 Bishop Paul (762/763–766) was prevented from returning to Naples, which was still a part of the

Byzantine empire, because he had gone to Rome to be consecrated by the pope, who stood against the reli-gious policy of Constantine V. Naples, therefore, remained without its shepherd for a few years and John the Deacon seems to blame the Byzantine emperor for this. Ibid. chaps. 41, 43.

THE MUSLIMS AS OTHERS 21 Lombard rulers Sico and Sicard, who had tried to conquer Naples in the 820s and 830s.135 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. In the life of the Neapolitan bishop Athanasius (849–872)—who opposed his nephew’s, Duke Sergius II (870–878), friendly policy towards the Muslims—the tone is, in fact, harsher.136 In a letter of Emperor Louis II to the Byzantine sovereign Basil (867–886), dating to ca. 870, the Neapolitans are accused of providing support and shelter to the Muslims. Additionally, it was emphasized that the Campanian city resembled to Pa-lermo.137 The bishop-duke of Naples, Athanasius II (876–898), was, on the other hand, excommunicated because of his friendly relationships with the Muslims whom he em-ployed against the Lombards.138

Returning to the Deeds of the Neapolitan Bishops, it is important 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 brigand-age)”139—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 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 the Christian lands.140 The creation of the Emir-ate of Bari affected his family’s hometown as well, and Aḥimaʻaz recounted the inter-actions 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.141

135 They are described as petty and violent. Ibid. chaps. 53, 57. 136 The author of this work emphasized the cruel and violent nature of the Muslims. Vita s. Athanasii, in

Vita et Translatio s. Athanasii Neapolitani episcopi (BHL 735 e 737) sec. IX, ed. A. Vuolo, Istituto storico italiano per il Medioevo. Fonti per la storia dell’Italia medievale. Antiquitates 16 (Rome 2001) chaps. 5, 7, 8.

137 Chronicon Salernitanum, 119: “Nam infidelibus arma et alimenta et cetera subsidia tribuentes, per tocius imperii nostri litora eos ducunt, et cum ipsis tocius beati Petri apostolorum principis territorii fines furtim depredari conantur, ita ut facta videatur Neapolis Panormus vel Africa. Cumque nostri quique Sara-cenos insecuntur, ipsi, ut possint evadere, Neapolim fugiunt, quibus non est necessarium Panormum repe-tere, sed Neapolim fugientes, ibidemque quousque previderint latitantes, rursus improviso ad exterminia redeunt.”

138 In general, on Athanasius II, see P. Bertolini, “Atanasio,” Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, vol. 4 (Rome 1962) 510–518; Kreutz, Before the Normans (n. 2 above) 73–74.

139 John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chap. 60. 140 Bonfil, History and Folklore, chap. 19: “They (the Muslims) devastated Calabria, terrified their cities,

made desolate their lands, seized their castles, passed through Apulia; there they were victorious, and com-bined forces, shattered their strength, captured many cities, pillaged them and spoiled them.”

141 Ibid. chap. 20.

22 LUIGI ANDREA BERTO Moreover, the Saracen chieftain forced Shephatiah, who had been sent to Bari as am-bassador 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.142 However, with God’s help, Shephatiah reached Oria and its forewarned inhabitants prepared for the Muslim army’s arrival.143

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 of women”144 and that he made many efforts to prevent the learned Jew from returning to Israel.145 A similar relationship was later created between Paltiel and the Muslim leader al-Mui’z.146 This Saracen ruler brought havoc to southern Italy and conquered Oria, but honored Shephatiah’s descendants and took Paltiel as his counselor who quickly be-came the Muslim ruler’s most powerful courtier.147

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”148—had, in fact, issued an edict forcing the Jews to convert to Christianity;149 the sovereign’s attempts to convince Shephatiah to abandon Judaism were labelled as “fury and ill intent.”150 In this case, too, Shephatiah saved his town’s co-religionists. As compensation for curing Basil’s daughter, possessed by an evil spirit,151 the emperor did not accept Shephatiah’s request to annul his edict against Judaism, but allowed the Jews of Oria to practice their religion.152 Although Aḥimaʻaz recounted that Basil’s son and succes-sor, Leo VI (886–912), had rescinded his father’s edict,153 he also narrated how some Byzantines maintained their antipathy toward Jews. When Paltiel became al-Mui’z’s master of palace and an ambassador from Constantinople discovered this, he inso-

142 Ibid. chap. 21. 143 Ibid. chaps. 21–22. When Sawdān arrived in Oria, he discovered that his plan failed. Moreover, he

was unable to execute Shephatiah for disrespecting the Sabbath because the wise and pious Jew had re-turned home before nightfall. Ibid. chap. 23.

144 Ibid. chap. 24. 145 Ibid. chaps. 25–26. Thanks to God’s intervention, this attempt was unsuccessful. 146 It is believed that this character should be identified with the Fatimid ruler Abu Tamim Maad who

did not conquer Oria. Aḥimaʻaz likely made some confusion about these events. Ibid. 68. The Chronicle of Ahimaaz (n. 16 above) 21–23.

147 Bonfil, History and Folklore, chaps. 44–46. 148 Ibid. chap. 11. This information is correct. Basil ascended the throne after having Emperor Michael

III murdered. The Jewish chronicler also called Basil “worshipper of images” and described him as an arro-gant and violent person. Ibid. chaps. 11–15. Moreover, he emphasized that the Byzantine ruler wanted to oblige the Jews to accept “a hopeless faith.” Ibid. chap. 11. Aḥimaʻaz employed harsh language towards Basil also when he recorded his death. Ibid. chap. 17.

149 Ibid. chap. 11. Basil’s decree is recorded in several sources. Von Falkenhausen, “The Jews in Byzan-tine Southern Italy,” (see n. 17 above) 281. In general, on the persecution of the Jews in the Byzantine Em-pire in this period, see A. Sharf, Byzantine Jewry from Justinian to the Fourth Crusade (London 1971) 86–92.

150 Bonfil, History and Folklore, chap. 16. 151 Ibid. chap. 14. 152 Ibid. chap. 15. 153 Ibid. chap. 18.

THE MUSLIMS AS OTHERS 23 lently declared that he would go back to his city “rather than meet with a Jew so as to speak with the king.”154

To conclude, all the early medieval southern Italian chroniclers perceived the Mus-lims 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 en-emies of the Lombards, Neapolitans, and Jews.155 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 suc-cess 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.156 This kind of perception, therefore, seems to be the product of a world in which the interactions between Christians and Muslims were not monochrome.157 Indeed, there was a time for war,158 but, sometimes, also a time for different kind of contacts.159

154 Ibid. chap. 47. Paltiel subsequently taught the arrogant Byzantine a tough lesson. Ibid. An overview

of these episodes can, for example, be found in Musca, L’emirato di Bari (n. 2 above) 81–87; Y. Rotman, “Christians, Jews and Muslims in Byzantine Italy: Medieval Conflicts in Local Perspective,” The Byzantine World, ed. P. Stephenson (London–New York 2010) 231–232; and S. D. Benin, “Jews, Muslims, and Christians in Byzantine Italy,” Judaism and Islam: Boundaries, Communication, and Interaction. Essays in honor of William B. Brinner (Leiden 2000) 27–31. Since Aḥimaʻaz’s chronicle does not contain chronologi-cal references, the dates mentioned in the latter essay should be used with great care.

155 This happens both in the description of the Muslisms as a people and in the portrayal of particular Saracen leaders.

156 In a brief overview devoted to this topic B. Kreutz has, on the other hand, stated that southern Italian chroniclers “consistently referred to the Muslims invaders as pagan monsters.” Kreutz, Before the Normans (n. 2 above) 50. In a section of his article, titled “Inventing the Saracens,” where he also mentions two early medieval southern Lombard chronicles, Alessandro Vanoli states that early medieval Christian authors always portrayed the Muslims in a very negative way. It is clear that he did not read all the texts and based his conclusions on a couple of excerpts from those works. He probably found them in a collection of essays to which he had contributed (see Mediterraneo medievale (n. 24 above) 7 n. 25, and 13 n. 51). If so, he “forgot” to read the remaining part of the essay which emphasizes that the image of the Muslims in those texts contains some nuances. A. Vanoli, “La riconquista e l’invenzione dei mori,” GriseldaOnline (Novem-ber 2004) 1–2, http://www.griseldaonline.it/percorsi/4vanoli.htm. He followed the same methodology in A. Vanoli, “Musulmani e accusa di idolatria al tempo di Leone IX (1049–1054),” La reliquia del sangue di Cristo: Mantova, l’Italia e l’Europa al tempo di Leone IX (Verona 2012) 378 and 385 n. 35. Without taking into consideration the fact that John Tolan’s book on the image of the Muslims in medieval Europe did not examine Italian primary sources—Tolan, Saracens (n. 45 above)—Clemens Gantner, whose essay was on the papacy and the Muslims during the 9th c., has based his conclusion that the “general picture of the Sara-cens … was quite consistent throughout the Early Middles Ages” on that work. C. Gantner, “New Visions of Community in Ninth–Century Rome: The Impact of the Saracen Threat on the Papal World View,” Vi-sions of Community in the Post–Roman World: The West, Byzantium and the Islamic World, (300–1100), ed. W. Pohl, C. Gantner and R. Payne (Farnham 2012) 413 n. 48.

157 Aḥimaʻaz’s family history, on the other hand, suggests the existence of relationships between Mus-lims and Jews in early medieval southern Italy, which share some similarities with those that occurred in medieval Iberia. On this topic and relevant bibliography, see R. Brann, Power in the Portrayal: Representa-tions of Jews and Muslims in Eleventh- and Twelfth-Century Islamic Spain (Princeton 2002).

158 The overtones of religious warfare that the Italian Carolingian chronicler Andreas of Bergamo uti-lized in his description of a battle between the forces of Emperor Louis II and the Muslims in southern Italy are absent in these southern Italian texts. This represents another relevant feature characterizing the way the Muslims were perceived in Southern Italy. Cf. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, Testi storici e poetici dell’Italia carolingia, ed. L. A. Berto (Padua 2002) chap. 18, 54; and L. A. Berto, “Remembering Old and

24 LUIGI ANDREA BERTO

New Rulers: Lombards and Carolingians in Carolingian Italian Memory,” Medieval History Journal 13.1 (2010) 44–45. Another edition of this chronicle (with different chapter numbering) can be found in Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ed. G. Waitz, MGH Scriptores rerum Langobardicarum et Italicarum (n. 8 above) 220–230.

159 I close with some brief methodological observations. It is clear that, for the area and the period I have examined here, the use of “post-colonial” theories are not only useless but counterproductive. I am aware that this study analyzed a limited number of sources and I certainly do not want to extend my conclusions for Italy to other periods or regions of Europe. It is my opinion, however, that within medieval Europe there were different ways to perceive the Muslims, not just one as maintained by recent studies that have utilized that historiographical approach; see for example, Tolan, Saracens (n. 45 above). Europe in the Middle Ages, as in other periods, was a very diverse place and I believe that the task of the historian is to acknowledge continuities as well as discontinuities in all fields and not allow preconceived theories to drive our reading of the sources. Much more work remains to be done in this field.