Otto and Theophanu

Holy Roman Emperor Otto I was looking for a suitable bride for his son, Otto, and thought the daughter of a Byzantine Emperor was a good choice. The Byzantine Emperor, however, saw themselves as the emperors of the Roman Empire, West as well as East, and so disliked Otto styling himself as Holy Roman Emperor and Pope John XIII referring to him as "Emperor of the Greeks." This caused the breakdown of initial attempts to arrange a marriage with Anna Porphyrogeneta, daughter of former Emperor Romanus II, as recorded by Liudprand of Cremona.

There was more than one attempt to get a Byzantine bride for young Otto. The later ruler, Emperor John I Tzimiskes, had been treated a little differently. He had been referred to as Roman Emperor and so was not insulted. A round of negotiations was led by Archbishop Gero of Cologne. (Liudprand might have been involved, since he spoke and wrote Greek and was familiar with Constantinople, but his previous encounter might have made him a detriment to diplomacy.)

John chose his niece Theophanu, who was 14. There were some concerns in the West. For one, she was not "Porphyrogeneta," which means "born to the purple," so she was less royal than Anna. Also, she was even "less royal" because she was the emperor's niece through his brother-in-law by marriage and not actually a member of there powerful Macedonian dynasty.

John I Tzimiskes had come to power by overthrowing Nicephorus II Phocas, and the Ottonians were concerned that John's status as a usurper would invalidate Theophanu's suitability and standing as a link to the Byzantine Empire. Otto was advised to send her back to Constantinople, but for whatever reason he was persuaded otherwise. They were wed by Pope John XIII on 14 April 972. (You can actually see the marriage charter here.) She was also crowned Holy Roman Empress on the same day. The illustration is of Christ blessing the young couple.

One historian claims that Otto I, her father-in-law, was very supportive until his death a year later. Theophanu was later very involved in the running of the empire: she is mentioned in one quarter of the imperial documents. Although she was from a different culture, which made many of Otto's subjects wary of her, the only serious difficulty was with her mother-in-law, Adelaide of Italy. Before we go on to see what kind of ruler Theophanu was, let's take a look at Adelaide starting tomorrow.

Liudprand in Constantinople

When Liudprand of Cremona went to Constantinople a second time, it was specifically to arrange a marriage between the son of Holy Roman Emperor Otto I and Anna Porphyrogeneta, daughter of former Emperor Romanus II.

The atmosphere in Constantinople was not as welcoming as his first visit there, and he described it in a letter to Otto:

On the day before the Nones of June (June 4) we came to Constantinople, and there, as a mark of disrespect to yourselves, being shamefully received, we were harshly and shamefully treated. We were shut up in a palace large enough, indeed, but uncovered, neither keeping out the cold nor warding off the heat. Armed soldiers were made to stand guard who were to prevent all of my companions from going out and all others from coming in. This dwelling, into which we alone who were shut up could pass, was so far removed from the palace that our breath was taken away when we walked there - we did not ride. To add to our calamity the Greek wine, on account of being mixed with pitch, resin, and plaster was to us undrinkable - The house itself was without water, nor could we even for money buy water to still our thirst. To this great torment was added another torment - our warden namely, who cared for our daily support. If one were to look for his like, not earth. but perhaps hell, would furnish it; for he, like an inundating torrent, poured forth on us whatever calamity, whatever plunder, whatever expense, whatever torment, whatever misery he could invent.- Nor among a hundred and twenty days did a single one pass without bringing us groaning and grief. [source]

Why such a different reception?

The current Byzantine Emperor, Nicephorus Phocas, still lay claim to Benevento and Capua in Italy, and Byzantine forces had clashed recently with Otto's forces. Nicephorus, as the Eastern Emperor, also objected to Otto calling himself Holy Roman Emperor. Nicephorus was also annoyed that, in a letter from Pope John XIII, Nicephorus had been called "Emperor of the Greeks," when technically he was Emperor over the entirety of the Roman Empire, including the western parts.

The "insult" went both ways. Liudprand was brought before the emperor's brother, who (he says in the letter to Otto):

...called you not emperor, which is Basileus in his tongue, but, to insult you, Rex, which is king in ours. And when I told him that the thing signified was the same although the terms used to signify it, were different, he said that I had come not to make peace but to excite discord;

Liudprand was not the most diplomatic of diplomats. He relates how, after he purchased purple cloth, and it was confiscated because (they told him) it was reserved for royals because it is unique, he replied:

"Such a garment can hardly be called unique," I answered, "when with us the street-walkers and conjurers wear them."

A marriage between Otto II and Anna never took place. Liudprand might have gone to Constantinople one more time after that, during the negotiation that led to Otto getting a Byzantine bride, but there is no account of it.

A new bishop of Cremona was installed in 973, so Liudprand must have died by then. But we have no other stories from him except his histories. How Otto got his Byzantine bride, however, will come next. See you tomorrow.

Liudprand of Cremona

We are grateful that some people in the past chose to record what they saw and heard, or what they were told by others. Surviving histories help to build a picture of what life was like centuries ago. Unfortunately, many wrote with an agenda. Liudprand of Cremona certainly had opinions he wanted to get across with his writings, along with his histories.

He was born c.920 in Pavia, in northern Italy, and was a page to Hugh of Arles who was styled King of (northern) Italy and married Marozia of Rome. Hugh died in 947, after which Liudprand became confidential secretary and then chancellor to Berengar II, King of Italy from 950 - 961.

Liudprand, by then a deacon, was sent by Berengar to the court of Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus where he learned Greek and became one of the first Western writers to use the lettering style called Greek minuscule. Liudprand's father and stepfather had both visited Constantinople as ambassadors, and Liudprand praised Byzantine hospitality.

Liudprand also brought gifts to the emperor. In his account of Constantinople in his work Antapodosis ("Retribution"), he says:

I offered, therefore, nine excellent breastplates, seven excellent shields with gilt bosses, two gilt silver cups, swords, spears, skewers, and four carzimasia slaves, to this emperor the most precious of all these things. For the Greeks call a child-eunuch, with testicles and penis cut off, a carzimasium. The merchants of Verdun do this on account of the immense profit they can make, and they are accustomed to bring them to Spain.

Back in Italy, Liudprand and Berengar had a falling out, so Liudprand joined Holy Roman Emperor Otto I, who became king of Italy after the death of Berengar's son Lothair. In 961 Liudprand went to Italy with Otto. A year later he became Bishop of Cremona.

While with Otto he met Recemund, a Mozarabic Bishop of Elvira and ambassador for Abd al-Rahman III. Recemund persuaded Liudprand that he should write a history of his times. The result was the Antapodosis.

In 963, Liudprand attended the Synod of Rome that deposed Pope John XII. His account of the events around that Synod is the only source we have.

In 968 he went to Constantinople again, this time to arrange a marriage between Otto I's son, Otto, and Anna Porphyrogeneta, daughter of (former) emperor Romanus II. This visit was not as happy as his first, for many reasons, and I'll share those and some of his account tomorrow.

Marozia

The daughter of Theophylact I and Theodora, Marozia, was wedded to Alberic I of Spoleto in 909. Alberic's link to the counts of Tusculum (who were the chief power in Rome) was advantageous for him. With the death of Theophylact in 924 or 925, Alberic (via Marozia) became the ruler of Rome.

Their first child, John, was born in 910, shortly after they were married, but Liudprand of Cremona claimed John was the result of an affair between Marozia and Pope Sergius III, whom Alberic and Theophylact had put on the throne after ousting an antipope.

Marozia would have known Sergius for years as her father's cousin, and the story of the affair is found not only in Liudprand but also in the Liber Pontificalis ("Book of the Popes"). Another historian of the time, Floduard, refers to John as the brother of Alberic II, another of Marozia's sons (but that to me does not mean they could not have different fathers).

After Alberic I died in 924, Marozia married Guy of Tuscany, who was an enemy of the then-Pope John X. John had been supported by the counts of Tusculum, especially Marozia's mother, Theodora. John's dream of a unified Italy meant supporting powerful lords who might assume that role. This did not sit well with Marozia and Guy. They imprisoned Pope John in 928. He either died in a dungeon due to its horrible conditions, or was smothered with a pillow.

Marozia made sure the next two popes were under her control, Leo VI and Stephen VII.

Guy of Tuscany died in 929, and Marozia planned to marry Guy's half-brother Hugh of Arles (seen in the illustration). Hugh was considered King of Italy (which at the time was the northern part of the Italian Peninsula and Corsica). This marriage would be illegal under canon law because of their affinity.* The teenaged Alberic II was opposed to this. There are two stories that explain his hostility to Hugh. One is that during the wedding banquet Alberic spilled some water on Hugh, who slapped the boy in public. The other is that Alberic discovered a plot by Hugh to have him blinded and therefore disqualify him from ruling when his time came. In either case, Alberic raised troops and prevented the wedding, causing Hugh to flee and imprisoning Marozia.

Marozia spent five years in prison. In 931, Marozia's son became Pope John XI. Several more popes were descended from her. Alberic II's son Octavian became Pope John XII in 955. Popes Benedict VIII, John XIX, and Benedict IX, and antipope Benedict X were also descended from her.

We should probably take a closer look at Liudprand of Cremona, from whom we may be getting lots of (mis?)information. But that's for tomorrow.

*This was the same case as Henry VII and Catherine of Aragon, who was his brother's widow.

The Theophylact Family

In The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon (1737 - 1794) wrote of two "sister prostitutues" whose beauty and wealth was such that they wielded great influence. Their names were Theodora and Marozia, the daughters of Count of Tusculum Theophylact I (pre-864 - 924/250 and his wife, Theodora. (The illustration is the emblem of the Counts of tusculum.)

We (as did Gibbon) are currently exploring a time and place (as so often) when records were scarce and the chroniclers (as so often) had their own agendæ. Much of what I am about to tell you comes from Liudprand of Cremona. Bishop Liudprand (c.920 - 972) was around for the actions of Theophylact and his descendants, but was certainly personally and politically opposed to them.

Theodora the mother (c. 870 – 916) was so influential that she was given the titles senatrix and patricia of Rome. Their daughters Marozia and Theodora II were also titled senatrix omnium Romanorum  ("senators of all Romans"). This was a time in Rome that is called the Saeculum obscurum ("the dark age/century"), also known as the Rule of the Harlots or the Pornocracy. Liudprand called Theodora a "shameless harlot" and claimed that Pope John X (914 - 928) was appointed pope because he was her lover.

Theophylact and Alberic I of Spoleto were instrumental in the overthrow of the antipope Christopher and putting Sergius III (possibly Theophylact's cousin) on the Chair of Peter. Alberic I married Theophylact's daughter Marozia and had five children (Alberic II among them). It is suggested by Liudprand that Marozia's eldest, who became Pope John XI, was actually the son of Marozia and Pope Sergius. Gibbon wrote that John's birth coming after Marozia's marriage to Alberic I indicates that Alberic was the father. Was Gibbon being naive or was Liudprand simply too ready to create a reason to condemn?

(Gibbon also points out that it may be the influence of Theodora and her daughters over Rome in the 9th century that led to the story—not created until the 11th century—that there was a female pope in the 9th century. This makes much more sense than believing that a woman rose to become pope within two years and was discovered when she gave birth during a procession.)

Tomorrow we'll take a closer look at the next generation, specifically Marozia, who retained the power in Rome after the death of her husband.

Alberic II of Spoleto

The House of Theophylact (the counts of Tusculum) ruled Rome for four generations. A grandson of the founding Theophylact I was Alberic II of Spoleto.

His parents were Alberic I and Marozia (Theophylact's daughter). Their eldest son, John, was Pope John XI as of 931. (According to Liudprand of Cremona, John was the son of Marozia and her lover, Pope Sergius III.)

Alberic I died when Alberic was young, and Marozia retained power in Rome, marrying a couple more times. According to one historian, Benedict of Soracte, Marozia's third husband (seen here between the young Alberic and Marozia) intended to have Alberic blinded (disqualifying him from being a ruler). When Alberic found out, he raised a mob that stormed the palace, drove the man out of Rome and imprisoned Marozia, allowing him to rule unencumbered.

His reign from 932 to 954 was peaceful. He styled himself princeps ("prince") of Rome, a title that was twice used in official documents by Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII. He controlled Rome firmly, and the popes. When his brother Pope John XI died, Alberic pressured Leo VII to become pope. Leo did not want the position, but Alberic wanted someone pliable. After Leo died (in 939), Pope Stephen VIII succeeded him.

After a number of bishops were involved in an assassination attempt against Alberic, he (it is reported) imprisoned and tortured Stephen. Stephen was succeeded by Pope Marinus II (sometimes called Martin III) on 30 October 942. Marinus supported many monasteries. Alberic was also in favor of restoring monasteries that had been devastated by Muslim attacks. The two got along, but it was said Marinus did nothing without Alberic's approval.

After Marinus came Pope Agapetus II. Alberic's hold on the papacy was so complete that in 951 he was able to prevent the coronation of Otto the Great as Holy Roman Emperor (which needed a pope as celebrant) until after Alberic died.

Before Alberic died in 954, he had made the nobles of Rome promise to make his son the next pope. Agapetus was succeeded in 955 by Alberic's son Octavian, who took the name John XII. Otto the Great was finally crowned Holy Roman Emperor by John in 964.

Several more popes were descended from or related to Alberic, which means they were descended from Marozia, and we really ought to find out more about her and her family before perhaps exploring her descendants. See you tomorrow.

The Fatimids Sack Genoa

In the 10th century, Genoa was becoming an important port on the Ligurian Coast in far northwest Italy. Their ships were trading with much of the Western Mediterranean. This made them a target for competition, and additionally a target for the Fatimid Caliphate in 934CE. The Fatimid Caliphate had conquered Ifriqiya (Northern Africa), and wished to dominate the Mediterranean. (The illustration shows the extent of the Fatimids in the 10th century; the red star represents Genoa.)

Although there are no eyewitness accounts of the Fatimid navy attacking Genoa, it was a well-known event to both Christian and Muslim writers not long after. Bishop Liudprand of Cremona (c.920 - 972), writing in 960CE (samples of his chronicling were mentioned here and here), wrote about the Muslims first attacking the city of Acqui, not far from Genoa, and then says:

At the same time, in the Genoese city, which has been built in the Cottian Alps, overlooking the African sea, eighty miles distant from Pavia, a spring flowed most copiously with blood, clearly suggesting to all a coming calamity. Indeed, in the same year, the Phoenicians [North Africans] arrived there with a multitude of fleets, and while the citizens were unaware, they entered the city, killing all except women and children. Then, placing all the treasures of the city and the churches of God in their ships, they returned to Africa.

Liudprand mentions, among the treasures taken away from Genoa, linen and silk. This would have been too early for the West to be developing silk production, and so it suggests that Genoa was prosperous enough to be trading in such valuable materials with the East.

The first Arabic source is from even later, and names the caliph who ordered the attack. Other Arabic sources get very specific in details, although they don't always agree on things like the number of ships (20 or 30). As they approached, the Muslim ships encountered merchant ships, attacking and appropriating their goods and taking prisoners.

Genoa is described here as a well-fortified city, and although other cities would have been attacked, Genoa is the only one named. Unlike Liudprand's report, the Arabic source says the Genoese fought outside the city walls and then on the streets. The city was plundered and burned on 16 August 935. Because of the medieval tendency to exaggerate, we have to consider carefully whether we believe the report of 8000 prisoners taken, including 1000 women sold into slavery.

The fact that Genoese records don't exist in any large numbers before the second half of the 10th century gives further evidence that there was destruction prior to that. The author of the Golden Legend, Jacobus de Voragine, writing 300 years later, claims the attack was successful because the Genoese fleet was away at the time, but they pursued the Fatimid fleet and rescued the captives. (Not very likely, Jacob.)

Genoa slowly recovered, however, and we'll look at its rise to commercial powerhouse starting tomorrow.

Leo VI the Wise, Part 1

Emperor Leo VI (866 - 912) had a rocky relationship with his father, or did he? It all depends on whom you think his father was. In the records, his father was Basil I, but Basil was absolutely not a loving father.

No one disputes that Leo's mother was Eudokia Ingerina (c.840 - 882), but prior to marrying Basil she was the mistress of Michael III, emperor from 842 until 867. Michael was assassinated by Basil, who assumed the imperial throne.

So many historians believe that Leo was actually the son of Eudokia and Michael, as clearly did Basil, so he treated his "son" poorly. To be fair, Leo was different from Basil's other sons, preferring bookish education over imperial management, hence his nickname of "Leo the Wise."

When Basil died in 886 and Leo became Emperor Leo VI, his first official action was to remove Michael III's remains from a monastery on the far side of the Bosphorus and re-inter them in the imperial mausoleum in the Church of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople. For historians (and no doubt for Leo's contemporaries), this confirmed not only that Leo was Michael's son, but that Eudokia had made sure Leo knew his proper parentage.

He then elevated Stylianos Zaoutzes, the father of Leo's mistress, Zoe Zaoutzaina, to the position essentially of a prime minister, running administrative affairs. Not only was Stylianos the father of Leo's mistress, but when Basil imprisoned Leo on suspicion of an assassination attempt, Stylianos had argued for Leo's release. Leo even created a new title for Stylianos, basileopator ("father of the emperor"). There were no known duties attached to the title, but it seemed clear that it was Leo's way of honoring the father of his mistress.

There is a story offered by Bishop Liudprand of Cremona that Leo would disguise himself and walk around Constantinople looking for injustice and corruption. At times he would be accosted by the city guards, who did not recognize him. One time, he bought off two patrols, but a third arrested him and put him in jail overnight. The next morning, he was recognized by a panicked guard. The company that arrested him was rewarded; the two patrols that accepted bribes to let a wandering stranger go were found and dismissed from service.

Tomorrow we'll look at how he interfered with religion, and dismissed someone who had been his tutor and ally.

Pope John XII

After the story of Gregorius by Hartmann von Aue, I became curious if there ever was a pope who was the product of incest. The only pope I could find with any connection to incest was John XII, who was called Octavian at birth and probably should never have become pope.

His father was Alberic II of Spoleto (912 - 954). Alberic styled himself Prince of Rome, and for all intents and purposes, he controlled Rome politically after a quarrel with the actual King of Rome, Hugh, when Alberic incited a mob that drove Hugh out of the city. Alberic married his step-sister Alda, which would (sort of) make their son the product of incest. But their son was Gregory I of Tusculum. Octavian's mother was actually Alberic's concubine. On Alberic's deathbed, he had the nobles and clergy of Rome swear to make Octavian the next pope (Gregory was a count, and didn't need anything else).

This idea was not completely out of the blue. Octavian had entered holy orders and was a cardinal deacon of a basilica in Rome. Pope Agapetus II died in November 955, and the 25-year-old Octavian was elected his successor one month later, taking the name John XII.

A note about the name: for centuries, popes used their own names when elected; they rarely took a new name when they became pope. When Octavian chose to call himself "John" it was only the third time that a pope took a new name. This is called a "regnal name"; that is, the name used when one starts a reign or pontificate. The only other times prior to this when a pope used a different name were John II (born Mercurius, reigned 533-535) and John III (born Catelinus, reigned 561-574). Octavian would use 'Octavian" when issuing directives on secular matters, and "John XII" when issuing papal bulls.

There were plenty of secular issues. In 960 he personally led an attack on some Lombard duchies to reclaim part of the Papal States. He did not achieve that goal, and in fact had to agree to relinquish a claim on certain territories. He was equally ineffective in controlling Rome the way his father had. When King Berengar II of Italy began to attack papal territory, John appealed to Otto I "the Great" of Germany. For his help, John crowned Otto Holy Roman Emperor.

At home, John was considered coarse and immoral; the Lateran Palace was described as a brothel. At a Synod of Rome in 963, charges of corruption were brought against him. The contemporary priest and historian Liudprand of Cremona offers us this (hearsay) account:

Then, rising up, the cardinal priest Peter testified that he himself had seen John XII celebrate Mass without taking communion. John, bishop of Narni, and John, a cardinal deacon, professed that they themselves saw that a deacon had been ordained in a horse stable, but were unsure of the time. Benedict, cardinal deacon, with other co-deacons and priests, said they knew that he had been paid for ordaining bishops, specifically that he had ordained a ten-year-old bishop in the city of Todi ... They testified about his adultery, which they did not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he had fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father's concubine, with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred palace into a whorehouse.

I have italicized the relevant phrase. (I promised an incestuous pope, after all.)

It was his deal with Otto that ultimately caused him trouble. Otto wanted John to abandon his worldly ways. As Otto did what John wanted—subduing Berengar—John feared Otto's hold in Italy and sent for help from the Magyars and the Byzantines. Seeing John turn on him, Otto besieged Rome. John fled Rome, taking papal treasure with him. A council summoned in Rome by Otto deposed John and elected Pope Leo VIII in his place.

After Otto left Rome, John re-entered (Leo fled) and summoned his own synod to declare his deposition invalid. Before he could negotiate with Otto, he died on 14 May 964. The cause of his death is uncertain. All accounts say it involved an adulterous encounter, but some say he died of apoplexy and some say he was caught and killed by the husband.

His very worldly behavior may explain a papal legend that won't go away. A medieval writer claims that among John's concubines was one named Joan who wielded great authority during John's pontificate. It has been suggested that this gave rise to the legend of "Pope Joan," that supposedly there was a pope who was secretly a woman—a claim for which no evidence exists. But I suppose that legend is worth examining next time.