PART I
INTRODUCTION
3. The Historia of Andreas of Bergamo
The little information known about this author comes from his work. The chronicler states that his name is Andreas, that he is a priest [67] and that he went from the Oglio river to the Adda river in the funeral procession carrying the coffin of Emperor Louis II from Brescia to Milan. [68]
The chronicle ends abruptly with an incomplete sentence mentioning an event that happened shortly after the year 877, [69] which leads one to suppose that Andreas died soon afterwards. There is no other evidence to support this hypothesis,
67. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. 2.
68. The author highlights that he helped to carry the sovereign’s coffin. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. 22.
69. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. 24: «While he (Charles the Bald) was gathering his army to fight him, some of his men, whose fidelity he trusted greatly, abandoned him and joined Carloman. Having seen that, Charles fled and went to Gaul, but died suddenly during the journey. Having established order in the kingdom of Italy, Carloman returned to his father in Bavaria shortly thereafter. Meanwhile, King Louis.» The reference is to the death of Charles the Bald, which occurred in 877.
16
yet it can beassumed that the work was compiled not long after 877, since the oldest manuscript of this text, which does not seem to he an autograph, dates to the end of the ninth century.
The lack of any other biographical details in the work makes it impossible to be sure which episodes were contemporary with Andreas’s life. The eclipse and the aurora borealis he describes took place not long before Emperor Louis the Pious’s death (840). His account of the widespread fear following these two unusual phenomena [70] could imply that he witnessed them. If this is the case, then it would be possible to deduce that he was already an adult by that time and so was born between 810 and 820. Nonetheless, this is just a hypothesis; the possibility that he was a young man in his twenties in 875 and heard about the strange natural events of 840 from an elder should not he ruled out.
The latter case would explain a factual error in the chronicle: Andreas’s description of Pope Leo III traveling to Francia to ask for Charlemagne’s help to combat the Lombards. [71] In reality, it was Pope Hadrian who asked the Frankish sovereign to intervene in the conflict, but the pontiff never actually crossed the Alps. A voyage into the land of the Franks was made, however, by one of his predecessors, Stephen II, who made the trip at the end of 753 when the ruler of the Franks was Pippin III, Charlemagne’s father. Leo III crossed the mountains in 799, hut with the aim of obtaining Charlemagne’s help against the Romans who had made an attempt on the pope’s life. [72] This type of error is understandable if one assumes that the chronicler learned of these events from people who were not actually contemporaries of that period.
G. La Placa, on the other hand, speculates that Andreas was born between 830 and 840. To support this claim, she argues that, in 875, the chronicler was a presbyter, a position rarely bestowed on young men. She also contends that, as he was one of Louis II’s coffin bearers, a task that would have required a certain amount of physical strength, he must not have been too old at that time. [73]
Andreas says nothing about his birthplace or residence. He is normally referred to as Andreas of Bergamo, [74] but there is no clear evidence in his writings to suggest that he came from that city. There are three details in his work that do, however, support the assumption that the chronicler lived in Bergamo or its vicinity.
The first is that he records having participated in the procession taking Louis II’s mortal remains from the Oglio river to the Adda river, [75] in other words the district of Bergamo. [76] The second detail is that the sole area the chronicler mentions when he describes the devastation caused by the raids taking place after Louis II’s death is the territory around Bergamo. [77] The final point can be found in the section describing Louis II’s campaigns against the Muslims in southern Italy.
70. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. 12. 71. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. 4.
72. Noble, The Republic of St Peter, pp. 292-293.
73. I.a Placa, Andrea di Bergamo, p. 61.
74. Bertolini, Andrea di Bergamo, p. 79.
75. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. 22.
76. Bertolini, Andrea di Bergamo, p. 79, and La Placa, Andrea di Bergamo, p. 62.
77. The chronicler reports that Berengar of Friuli stayed in the monastery of l;ara for a week. During that lime, he carried out various raids in the surrounding countryside causing many inhabitants of the Bergamo area to seek refuge in the mountains or the city. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. 23. Cl. La Placa, Andrea di Bergamo, p. 62.
17
In this part, Andreas mostly expanded upon an expedition the Count of Bergamo, Otto, had undertaken in Calabria. [78] Andreas’s detailed account of the Calabrian expedition, which was relatively unimportant to Louis II’s overall campaign in southern Italy, [79] was probably included because the chronicler would have heard about the victory from Count Otto or other men from Bergamo who were in his service. [80] These men would have possibly emphasized the campaigns in which they took part as principal protagonists rather than those in which they were of secondary importance.
Although Andreas never says anything about his ethnicity, it has been argued that «he saw himself as a man of Bergamo, a Lombard and a Frank.» This would be suggested by «his inconsistent use of ethnic labels,» [81] but this evaluation is based on a misunderstanding of the text [82].
Some scholars have attempted to identify the chronicler as more specific individuals living in the 870s and 880s. It has been supposed that he was the presbyter Andrea mentioned in a document from 870, who was the representative of the Bishop of Bergamo, Garibald, [83] and who would, therefore, have been a member of the Bergamo clergy. [84] M. Lupo has also speculated that the Andrea presbyter, whose signature is one of those on a document from 881, [85] was the chronicler in question. [86] He has further maintained that the work was left unfinished not because the author died unexpectedly in 877, but rather because he abandoned it voluntarily.
G. La Placa has studied the parchments on which these documents of 870 and 881 are found, and concluded that the signatures are too dissimilar to belong to the same person, even if the possibility of a change in handwriting style over the eleven-year gap is considered. La Placa is cautious, but maintains that the author of the Historia is more likely to be the cleric of the 881 document. [87] Her theory is based on the fact that the historian signs his name Andreas, as does the presbyter of 881, whereas the individual in the 870 source calls himself Andrea.
78. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chs. 17-18. Andreas does not write that Otto was the count of Bergamo, but that he was from the territory of Bergamo. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. 17. Other documents dating back to this period name the count of Bergamo as Otto, thus demonstrating that the character mentioned by Andreas of Bergamo was indeed the count of Bergamo. Jarnut, Bergamo 568-1098, pp. 21, 22, 68, 256.
79. On this campaign of Louis II, see Gasparri, Il ducato e il principato di Benevento, pp. 121-125; Kreutz, Before the Normans, pp. 40-45.
80. La Placa, Andrea di Bergamo, p. 62, note 7.
81. MacLean, Kingship and Politics, p. 63. This scholar has also maintained that «these categories were not mutually exclusive.» This opinion has been reported in Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_of_Bergamo (accessed on Februay 25, 2016).
82. MacLean emphasizes that «this is especially clear in encounters with the Arabs and Beneventans.» MacLean. Kingship and Politics, p. 63, note 83. In reality, in the passage he refers to - the above-mentioned expedition of Count Otto in Calabria and the Muslim reaction to it -, the Lombards are never mentioned, only Otto is said to be «from the territory of Bergamo,» and Louis II’s troops are defined as Franks and christians. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chs. 17-18. There is no «inconsistent use of ethnic labels» when Andreas narrates that Louis II besieged Bari with the Franks, the Lombards, and soldiers of «other nations» and that the same peoples fought the Muslims near Capua. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chs. 15, 18.
83. Le pergamene degli archivi di Bergamo, pp. 35-36.
84. Bertolini, Andrea da Bergamo, p. 78; Balzaretti, Spoken Narratives, pp. 35-36.
85. Le pergamene degli archivi di Bergamo, pp. 42-44.
86. Codex diplomaticus civitatis et ecclesiae Bergomatis, I, col. 814.
87. La Placa, Andrea di Bergamo, p. 64.
18
As she also observes, Andreas was a fairly common name at the time and for this reason it is perfectly possible that the chronicler and the presbyteri of 870 and 881 were actually three different people.
N. Gray’s theory is to be excluded entirely. She has speculated that the chronicler was Andreas Iaevita, author of the epitaph of the Archbishop of Milan, Anspertus, who died in 882. [88] The writing on the inscription actually demonstrates a high level of education, [89] contrasting completely with the ungrammatical Latin of the chronicler. [90]
The author’s interest in the rural world is apparent in the Historia. This would suggest that he was familiar with such an environment, though it cannot he determined whether he lived in it. In fact, he states that it snowed so much in one year that the snow settled on the plains for one hundred days and the cold was so intense that many seeds and most of the vineyards were destroyed and wine froze in its barrels. [91] In the early 870s, the wine went bad not long after the wine harvest, [92] in May of the following year, a late frost destroyed the vineyards and the leaves on the trees, while in August locusts severely damaged the crops. In the latter case, Andreas even specifies that the damaged grain types were millet and foxtail millet. [93] When he recounts how the Bergamasques living in the countryside abandoned their homes to escape Berengar of Friuli’s raid, the chronicler states that they had to flee in such a hurry that they took with them only their wives and a few essential items, thus leaving the wine and the crop harvest behind. [94] These are doubtless extraordinary events that do not reflect the reality of daily life, yet that Andreas is the only early medieval Italian chronicler to report specific information of this kind makes his interest in the countryside significant. [95]
Andreas docs not explain why he wrote his work nor does he dedicate it to anyone. This and the fact that the chronicler states that he enjoyed writing his work [96] seem to imply that he composed the Historia for his own satisfaction. Along with many other medieval authors, Andreas affirms that he has written this chronicle despite being unworthy of the task, [97] a statement indicating that he did have a readership in mind.
The chronicler does not label his work in any way; the title Historia was assigned by the modern editors of his chronicle. [98] It can be said that he used the terms cronica (chronicle)
88. Gray, The Paleography of Latin Inscriptions, pp. 93-94.
89. Ferrari, Manoscritti e cultura, pp. 259-260.
90. La Placa, Andrea di Bergamo, p. 66. For Andreas’s Latin, see Pitkaranta, Zur Sprache des Andreas von Bergamo, pp. 129-149, and Molinelli, Riflessi di un mondo plurilingue, pp. 255-272.
91. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. 14. 92. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. 21.
93. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. 21. Al this time, these types of cereals were chosen for their resistance to bad weather. Montanari, L’alimentazione contadina, pp. 114, 133-144.
94. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. 23.
95. A similar attitude can he found in Paul the Deacon’s Historia Langobardorum, where the chronicler relates that the plague that broke out in Narses’s time killed off such a large number of men that neither the crops nor the grapes were harvested. Paul the Deacon, Historia Langobardorum, II. 4.
96. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. 2. 97. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. 2. For this topos, see Curtius, European literature, pp. 83-85.
98. The first editor, J. B. Mencke, entitled it Chronicon. Andreae presbyteri, Itali, scriptoris secuti IX, Chronicon breve.
19
and historia (history) as synonyms, because he defines the History of the Lombards by Paul the Deacon equally as a historia [99] and a cronica. [100]
It has been maintained that his poor Latin grammar indicates that Andreas was not very well educated. [101] Yet, the fact that the first section of his Historia is a summary of the History of the Lombards by Paul the Deacon [102] and that the chronicler quotes Holy Scripture on several occasions suggest that he was at least moderately educated. [103]
As for the sources on which the part following the summary of the History of the Lombards is based, the chronicler states that he utilized several letters and collected accounts from a number of old men. [104]
Except for the description of the motives inducing the Byzantine general Narses to invite the Lombards to invade Italy and the account of the conquests made by Alboin, Andreas’s synthesis of Paul the Deacon’s text is very succinct. For the most part, it is simply a list of Lombard kings, how long they were in power and their most important deeds. [105] Because of certain phrases he uses, such as Quid multu? and Quid plura?, (which can be translated as «why saying many things?») and the fact that, concerning King Rothari, he affirms «are not the other things concerning his rule, his strength, and the wars he had made written in the chronicle of the Lombards, like the things mentioned above?,» [106] it seems that the summary functioned purely as an introduction and that Andreas presupposed that his target audience had a good knowledge of the History of the Lombards.
An important aspect in the section dedicated to the history of the Lombard kingdom is that, along with all the sovereigns’ actions, the chronicler also relates how many new laws they added to the corpus of Lombard legislation (something not reported by Paul the Deacon). This might suggest that Andreas was able to consult a manuscript containing
99. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. 2.
100. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. I. Many medieval chroniclers did not distinguish between chronica and historia. Cf. Guenée, Histoire et Culture historique, pp. 200-207, and Amaldi, Annali, cronache, storie, pp. 463-466.
101. Andreas’s style and language have been called barbarous and rough. Balzani, Le cronache italiane net Medio Evo, p. 112; Bertolini, Andrea da Bergamo, p. 80. Less severe was the evaluation of Viscardi, Le Origini, p. 77.
102. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. I.
103. M. G. Berlolini claims that Andreas received some education, but only during his youth. Bertolini, Andrea da Bergamo, p. 80.
104. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. 2. M. G. Berlolini maintains that Andreas could have consulted some papal letters. Bertolini, Andrea da Bergamo, p. 80, However, there is no evidence in the work to support this hypothesis. Chris Wickham states that series litterarum could be king lists appended to some legal texts, Wickham, Lawyers’ time, p. 279, As for the inclusion of testimonies of old men, this is a characteristic of many medieval chronicles. See, for example, the cases related by Skinner, Gender and Memory, pp. 39-40.
105. For example, about Authari, Andreas reports: «After ten years, they elected Authari, Cleph’s son. Aulhari married a woman named Theodelinda, the saintly and most noble daughter of the Bavarians’ King Garibald [...] King Authari, as they narrate, died in Ticinum from taking poison after reigning for six years.» Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. 1, p. 71. About Liutprand, he reports: «Liutprand was very learned, merciful, virtuous, eloquent, tireless worshipper, and generous in alms. He augmented the laws of the Lombards and ordered them to be written in the collection of the Edict. He reigned for thirty-one years and seven months and died.» Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. I, p. 75.
106. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. I, p. 71.
20
the Lombard laws. [107] However, one must point out that he makes a few mistakes. [108] Therelore, he was either reciting from memory or he learned this information from another person’s account.
After the summary of the History of the Lombards, which ends at the reign of Liutprand (712-744), Andreas gives an account ot the Lombard kingdom’s final years and its conquest by Charlemagne. Without knowing exactly what sources Andreas used, it is impossible to discern whether the information he provides is his own conscious selection or merely what was said by those «old men» from whom he gathered testimonies. [109] What is certain is that the events are narrated from a Lombard point of view.
The accounts of the rules of Ratchis (744-749) and Aistulf (749-756) are obscurely worded. Indeed, they seem to have been designed to eliminate from memory the conflicts that occurred between the faction which wanted peaceful coexistence with the Papacy and the one which aimed at completing the conquest of Italy and provoked the deposition of Ratchis. [110] The defeats suffered by Aistulf at the hands of the Franks who came to the defense of Rome [111] are overlooked as well. With regard to these two kings, Andreas only writes the following sentence: «We cannot say what they did; we have only heard that they were both courageous and during their era the Lombards did not fear any other people.» [112]
Regarding Charlemagne’s conquest of the Lombard kingdom, on the other hand, the author goes into much greater detail. Even though he makes a mistake about the pope’s name, there are no relevant omissions in his account like those present in the passage about Ratchis and Aistulf.
There is a lot of evidence to show that Andreas narrates events from a Lombard standpoint and demonstrates rancor towards the Franks, but this is not always the case. In actual fact, the chronicler does not cover up the Lombards’ responsibility for their own downfall and he expresses a certain amount of admiration for their conquerors. A list of the episodes clearly emphasizes an oscillation between the two viewpoints. [113]
Blame for the dissolution of the marriage between Charlemagne and the daughter of the Lombard King Desiderius is placed not on Charlemagne, but on his brother, the «terrible and evil» Carloman who paid for his behavior with a painful death. [114] Next, Andreas recounts that the pontiff traveled to Francia because of the Lombard «oppressions.» Here, the pope discovered how «astute and noble» the Franks were and he asked them to conquer
107. I believe that this kind of information is not enough for maintaining that Andreas of Bergamo had an «exact knowledge of Lombard legal texts» and that his chronicle demonstrates the existence of a strong connection between history and legislation. For these opinions, see Balzarelti, Spoken Narratives, p. 36, and Gasparri, Italia longobarda, p. 175. More cautious is Wickham who has correctly noted that the chronicler reports how many laws the Lombard kings issued. Wickham, Lawyers’ Time, p. 279.
108. Andreas of Bergamo states that Ratchis and Aistulf added eight and fourteen new laws respectively whereas Ratchis actually added fourteen and Aistulf twenty-two. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. 3.
109. According to Chris Wickham, Andreas wrote more or less all he knew. Wickham, Lawyers’ time, p. 279.
110. Andreolli, Una pagina di storia longobarda, pp. 281-327; Jarnut, Geschichte der Langobarden, pp. 106-109.
111. Wickham, Early Medieval Italy, p. 46.
112. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. 3. Cf. Capo, La polemica longobarda, p. 25.
113. By contrast, C. G. Mor believes that Andreas’s work only expresses a grudge towards the Franks. Mor, La storiografia italiana del sec. IX, p. 243. Of the same opinion is Fasoli, Carlo Magno, p. 350.
114. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. 3.
21
Italy. [115] Like the Frankish and papal sources, [116] Andreas does not neglect to mention that the pope’s actions were legitimate because the Lombards were oppressing him. In addition, he highlights the good qualities of the Lombards’ enemies. The observation that they were «astute» could indicate that Andreas wanted to stress that the Franks had astutely taken advantage of the situation in order to take over the Lombard kingdom. Yet, such an interpretation contrasts with Andreas’s description of the Franks as «noble.»
Andreas takes a more "pro-Lombard" stance, when he recounts that Charlemagne prepared to attack the Lombards, by underlining that thus the Frankish king forgot all the good things Desiderius had done for him. [117] This stance disappears as quickly as it emerged, however. Andreas follows this statement by explaining that the oaths between the Frankish and Lombard sovereigns had been rendered null and void by the pope, [118] so Charlemagne could not be accused of betrayal. He then points out that the Franks took possession of Italy without any arduous battles, because God had spread terror among the Lombards, [119] thus implying that God was on the Franks’ side. [120]
The chronicler continues to oscillate between praising and criticizing the Franks. [121] In reporting the pernicious effects of their victory, he tells of how «in Italy there were, therefore, many misfortunes; some were killed by the sword, others struck by famine, others were killed by beasts so that few remained in the villages and towns.» [122]
In his account of the Lombard revolt of 775-776, the author shows a tendency to exalt the Lombards and belittle Charlemagne’s actions. Firstly, Andreas does not say that the Lombards staged a rebellion. He narrates instead that the dukes of Cividale and Vicenza heard of the devastation caused by the Franks and of how they were heading for Cividale. The Lombards confronted and beat the Franks at the river Livenza. [123] The chronicler adds that Charlemagne eventually managed to win only by corrupting a Lombard who convinced his companions to lay down their arms. [124] The Frankish annalist, who was writing at the same time, perhaps went to the other extreme by not mentioning the earlier defeat suffered by the Franks, and reporting only that Charlemagne put an end to the uprising by killing the duke of Cividale and conquering the rebellious cities. [125]
115. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. 4. As has already been stated, the chronicler makes an error in reporting that it was Pope Leo III who went to Charlemagne for help against the Lombards. It was Pope Stephen II who crossed the Alps to gel help from Pippin III, Charlemagne’s father.
116. For example, Annales qui dicuntur Einhardi, year 773.
117. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. 5. 118. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. 5. 119. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. 5.
120. The claim that God supported Charlemagne is also found in the Chronicle of Novalesa, a text written around the middle of the eleventh century. It narrates that God appeared to the Frankish king in a vision prompting him to go to Italy. Cronaca di Novalesa, III, 6.
121. These features of Andreas’s work are not taken into consideration by Gasparri, who only provides a brief summary of the chronicler’s account. Gasparri, Italia longobarda, p. 175.
122. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. 5. Here, the chronicler is probably exaggerating, but the hard times of this period are testified in other contemporary sources as well. Capo, La polemica longobarda, p. 7, note 7; Cammarosano, Nobili ere, p. 102; Barhero, Charlemagne, pp. 35-36.
123. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. 6.
124. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. 6. This detail is overlooked by Gasparri, The fall of the Lombard Kingdom, p. 64. and Gasparri, Italia longobarda, p. 125.
125. Annales regni Francorum, years 775-776. According to Barbero, «Andreas’s account could be interpreted as the wishful rumblings of a Lombard who, even alter so much time, found it difficult to accept the defeat of his people at the hands of the Franks.» Barbero, Charlemagne, p. 35. On the other hand, Pierandrea Moro believes that Andreas of Bergamo is a more reliable source than the Frankish Annals. Moro, «Quam horrida pugna», p. 35.
22
That Andreas does not report the coronation of Charlemagne as emperor and never refers to him as imperator or augustas could mean that he wished to omit the event in order to diminish the success of the Lombards’ adversary. This is clearly a very strange omission, especially if one considers that the chronicler makes a point of referring to Charlemagne’s son, Louis the Pious, who took the throne after his father’s death, as emperor. [126] Even if it is obvious that this omission was intentional, it is still important to hear in mind that the chronicler, during the account of Charlemagne’s death, attributes the great fame of the Franks to this sovereign. [127] This last point again highlights the author’s complex stance towards Charlemagne and the Franks.
A similar position can be also found later in the work. Andreas of Bergamo says nothing about Charlemagne’s son, Pippin, who took over the kingdom of Italy, but the fact that he mentions the great famine afflicting the kingdom during his rule [128] is further proof that he wanted to provide a negative image of the Frankish domination of Italy as well.
From a narrative point of view, the reference to the problems during Pippin’s reign allows Andreas to exalt the rule of Bernard, Pippin’s son. Andreas states that, as soon as Bernard’s reign began, appeared «prestige and abundance» which were to last throughout his rule. [129] It has been argued that these praises reveal the existence of a nationalistic Lombard spirit aimed at extolling the actions of Bernard, who rebelled against Louis the Pious probably because of his exclusion from the Empire’s subdivision in 817. [130] This is a suggestive interpretation, but there is no evidence to prove it. Unlike the Frankish sources, [131] Andreas makes no mention of Bernard’s rebellion and he places the responsibility for the death of the king of Italy entirely on Louis the Pious’s wife. According to the chronicler, when she entered into a conflict with Bernard for unspecified reasons, the empress had him blinded and he died from the injuries. It is noteworthy that Andreas is keen to emphasize Louis’s lack of involvement in the affair, explaining that everything took place without the emperor’s knowledge. [132] Moreover, immediately after recounting Bernard’s death, the chronicler describes Louis the Pious in a positive way, calling attention to his wisdom and love of peace. [133]
126. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. 7. 127. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. 7. 128. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. 7. 129. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. 7.
130. For example, C. G. Mor maintains that Andreas’s benevolence towards Bernard was because the sovereign wanted independence from the Empire and to reunite Italy. Mor, La storiografia italiana del sec. IX, p. 242. In general on the revolt of Bernard, see Noble, The Revolt of King Bernard, pp. 315-326; Jarnut, Kaiser Ludwig der Fromme, pp. 637-648; Depreux, Das Königtum Bernhards.
131. Annales regni Francorum, years 817-818; Thegan, Gesta Hludowici imperatoris, chs. 22-23; Astronomer, Vita Hludowici imperatoris, chs. 29-30. Regino of Prüm, who wrote at the beginning of the tenth century, also reports a similar version of events. Regino of Prüm, Chronicon eum continuatione Treverensi, year 818.
132. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. 8. 133. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. 9.
23
In line with this positive portrayal of Louis the Pious is the account the author gives of the Archbishop of Milan, Angilbert, who was accused of having induced Lothar, Louis the Pious’s son, to abduct his stepmother Judith. According to the chronicler, the prelate managed to persuade Louis the Pious to pardon the crime by reminding him of the love one ought to show even to one’s enemies. [134]
Andreas probably had limited information concerning the conflicts over the subdivisions of the Empire that broke out between Louis the Pious and his sons. He states correctly that Lothar had Charles the Bald’s mother, Judith, imprisoned in Tortona, [135] but he does not explain why. Nor does Andreas report the revolts that Lothar and his brothers instigated against Louis the Pious. Most significantly, he does not express any judgment concerning the aforementioned affair.
Andreas briefly tells of the quarrels that broke out among Louis the Pious’s sons after his death and underscores that these conflicts caused the battle of Fontenoy (841). [136] Unlike the contemporary Frankish records, Andreas never accuses Lothar of being responsible for the situation. Instead, the Italian chronicler states that Lothar joined in the conflict because Louis the Pious’s heirs could not agree over the division of the Empire. The commentary Andreas gives about the battle of Fontenoy is noteworthy both in its originality and in the sentiments it brings to light. He is actually indifferent to the outcome of the conflict and dwells upon the recklessness of the battle itself, in which many men, who could have made a valuable contribution to the fight against the pagans, died. Andreas adds that most of those killed at Fontenoy were from Aquitania, with the result that there were no noblemen left in the area to fight the Northmen who were attacking that region. [137]
The final account Andreas gives oflhe Carolingians concerns Lothar II, Lothar I’s son. It concerns an episode that took place in 869. [138] He narrates that Lothar II traveled to Italy to meet his brother, Louis II, who was in southern Italy, and explains that, during the journey, Lothar II committed many blasphemous acts and destroyed the homes of many poor people. [139] Since the author was a contemporary of this event, it is surprising that he does not mention that Lothar II went to Italy in order to obtain the annulment of his marriage to Theutberga from the pope, an affair that provoked a scandal of large proportions in the 860s. [140] Andreas may not have known anything about this, but his silence could be also due out of a desire to draw the reader’s attention to the damage caused in Italy by a Frank on this occasion. The reference to the suffering inflicted on the poor is noteworthy precisely because their protection was one of the main and widely acknowledged tasks of any sovereign.
134. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. 11.
135. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. 10. Cf. Thegan, Gesta Hludoivici imperatoris, ch. 42, and Astronomer, Vita Hludowici imperatoris, ch. 48.
136. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. 13. 137. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. 13.
138. Andreas does not give the date, but the fact that he states that Lothar II died in Piacenza means that the episode took place in 869, the year Lothar II passed away. Annales Bertiniani, year 809.
139. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. 13.
140. For further information about this case, see Heidecker, The Divorce of Lothar II.
24
The passages concerning Italy and Louis II indicate that Andreas concentrated almost entirely on the final phase of Louis II’s campaigns against the Muslims in southern Italy. The sole exceptions are brief mentions of the problems the Slavs caused to the subjects of the Italian kingdom before Everard became the leader of Friuli, [141] of Louis II’s repression of a revolt led by the Burgundian Hupert, [142] and of the baptism at Rome of the king of the Bulgarians. [143]
The first important feature that comes to light is that Andreas never writes about the difficulties the emperor had with the Lombards of southern Italy before 871, but only reports the sovereign’s victories. These are not all described in the same way, however. The most important success, the conquest of Bari in 871, which came after a long siege and represented the end of the emirate of Bari, the main Muslim dominion in the southern part of Italian peninsula at that time, [144] is concisely narrated, [145] whereas the earlier victories in Calabria and Apulia are described in far greater detail. [146] This is probably because, as we have already stated, Andreas was able to gather information from the Bergamasques who had taken part in those battles.
The numerous details provided by the chronicler show that he was aware of the image of “holy war” which the Frankish sovereigns wanted to attribute to their campaigns against the Saracens. [147] The chronicler blames the Muslims not only for making raids, but also for the destruction of churches. [148] They are referred to as pagans, while Louis II’s soldiers are called Christians. [149] Moreover, Andreas recounts that, before a battle, the emperor’s troops attended mass, taking Holy Communion and receiving the blessing of priests. [150] Then, before beginning the fighting, Louis II’s soldiers - called «faithful of Christ» - prayed: «O Lord Jesus Christ, you said: "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood will remain in me and I with him.” So, if you are with us who is against us?» [151] On this occasion Andreas also explains that, in virtue of the commitment to battle, that the Christians demonstrated, «heavenly weapons» helped them to win. [152]
A reference to divine aid is also present in the account of a later confrontation in which the Muslims are depicted as braggarts. When they learned of the fall of Bari, the Saracens arrived in droves to assist their compatriots.
141. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. 14. 142. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. 14. 143. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. 16.
144. Musca, L’emirato di Bari.
145. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. 19. 146. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, chs. 17-18.
147. The lack of available sources on Louis II makes ii difficult to study this aspect in much detail. Suffice to say that Andreas’s description of the anti Muslim campaigns has some similarities with the capitulary issued by Lothar in 847, in which there is an account of the preparation for the expedition against the Saracens, following the sack of Rome that they perpetrated in 846. Capitularia regum Francorum, II, number 203, chs. 2, 3, 7, 13.
148. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. 17. 149. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. 18. 150. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. 18.
151. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. 18 (John 6: 56, and Rom. 8: 31). 152. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. 18.
25
Once they had landed, the Muslims destroyed their own boats, saying that they were no longer necessary because the Franks were powerless against them. [153] The Saracens, however, paid dearly for their presumption as they suffered a terrible defeat. Andreas narrates the whole event effectively, remarking that «those who had come exalted were humbled.» [154]
In his perspective, these conflicts were waged only in order to defeat the enemy of God, not out of a desire for conquest or booty. In full agreement with this particular interpretation is the passage in which the chronicler points out that Louis II sent troops to save the Calabrians who were being oppressed by the Muslims. The emperor did not take this decision because their ambassadors had promised him loyalty and tribute, but because he was moved by the dire situation they were experiencing. [155]
Once the threat posed by the Muslims had been dealt with, the Prince of Benevento, Adelchis, immediately imprisoned Louis II because he feared that the emperor would conquer all of southern Italy. [156] The subsequent scandal was huge, since the abrupt volte-face of the Beneventans showed not only their ingratitude, but their true feelings towards the Franks as well. The affair, moreover, was embarrassing for the Franks. The ease with which Louis II’s capture took place exposed the sovereign’s lack of foresight as the Lombards had already in the past shown themselves to be untrustworthy allies.
Andreas appears to have perceived the complexity of the situation. Indeed, he does not limit his narrative to the ingratitude of the Beneventans, who gave «evil for good» to Louis II, who had in contrast shown the deepest loyalty to them. To justify what happened, he also brings supernatural intervention into play. The account of Louis II’s capture begins with a description of the devil, charged with inciting the Beneventans to act against the Franks. [157] If the devil were really to blame for the betrayal, any fault on the Beneventans’ and on Louis II’s part would be diminished. This is the sole time Andreas assigns the devil responsibility for a wrongdoing, a peculiarity that makes this narrative decision even more significant. In effect, the implication is that this is not just the simple utilization of a topos; rather the author perceived the need for a special explanation for the incident. Noteworthy too is the detail that the chronicler emphasizes that God ensured that Louis II was released after a brief period of imprisonment by spreading a «heavenly fear» among the Beneventans. [158] Furthermore, Andreas shows that the sovereign constantly enjoyed God’s favor, thus implicitly freeing the emperor from any responsibility for what had happened. Despite this happy conclusion, Louis II’s imprisonment was a pernicious event and the prelude to a period of adversities.
The chronicler’s tone changes immediately after the liberation of the emperor, and takes on dramatic nuances. Andreas was likely influenced by the conviction, spread by apocalyptic literature,
153. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. 19.
154. Andreas of Bergamo, Hisloria, ch. 19 (Math. 23: 10, and Luke 14: 10). Andreas indicates the location of the battles, bul never mentions any details about the fightings, focusing instead on the major losses suffered hy the Muslims.
155. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. 17.
156. Russo Mailler, La politica meridionale di Ludovico II, pp. 12-15; Gasparri, Il ducato e il principato di Benevento, pp. 125-126, and Kreutz, Before the Normans, pp. 45-47.
157. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. 20. 158. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. 20.
26
that the end of the world would be anticipated by terrible events, as he goes on to list a series of progressively negative occurrences: the wine went had as soon as it was made; [159] at Easter, earth fell from the sky; [160] in May, frost caused serious damage to the vines and trees; [161] in August, locusts destroyed harvests; [162] in June of the following year, a comet appeared, [163] and in July, the Saracens sacked Comacchio. [164] This series of disastrous events ended with the death of Louis II in August 875. [165]
In effect, the sovereign’s passing represented the end of an era. The quarrels that broke out among his relations over the succession to the throne marked the end of nearly a century of peace in the Italian kingdom. [166] Andreas was probably aware of this, as he affirms that after the death of Louis II a great tribulatio (distress) fell over Italy. [167] He also explains that the people responsible for this situation were the aristocracy and Louis II’s wife, Angelberga, who asked both Charles the Bald and Louis the German to come to Italy. [168] As has already been pointed out, the reports Andreas gives of the destruction and raids that characterized this period only concern the area around Bergamo. [169]
The rest of Andreas’s chronicle contains no other points of interest since the events between the arrival of Charles the Bald in Italy and his death are referred to only brietly. There is, nevertheless, a surprising error in it, given that the chronicler was living at that time. According to Andreas, Charles the Bald, having reached an agreement with his nephew Carloman, went to Rome, where the pope crowned him emperor, after which he returned to Pavia. [170] When he heard that Carloman was going to attack him, Charles the Bald rounded up his troops to confront him. However, a number of his men went over to the enemy and, therefore, Charles the Bald went back to France; he never arrived as he died along the way. [171] In reality, once Charles the Bald had been elected emperor on Christmas day in 875, he did not reside in Pavia for long, but returned to France. At the pope’s invitation, in 877 he went back to Italy with a few of his men, leaving the rest to follow later.
159. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. 21. 160. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. 21. 161. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. 21. 162. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. 21.
163. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. 22. 164. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. 22. 165. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. 22.
166. However, it is an exaggeration to maintain that Andreas of Bergamo was a «supporter of Louis II.» Moreover, there is no evidence that the chronicler perceived Louis II as an «Italian sovereign.» For these opinions, see Gasparri, Italia longobarda, p. 176.
167. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. 23. The fact that Andreas also uses the word tribulatio (distress) to describe the situation in which Italy found itself alter Charlemagne’s defeat of the Lombards could serve is evidence to suggest that the author wanted to show that intervention from across the Alpine border always produced the same results. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. 5. Still, it cannot be excluded that the repetition is purely due to limited linguistic ability or knowledge of synonyms on Andreas’s part. Having reported that, not long before Louis the Pious had died, an eclipse had occurred, Andreas writes facta est tribulatio magna (there was a great distress). Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. 12.
168. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. 23.
169. He also adds that they were carried out by Berengar of Friuli who sided with the Eastern Franks. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. 23.
170. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. 23. 171. Andreas of Bergamo, Historia, ch. 24.
27
When he heard that Carloman was about to cross the Alps and that his own army was not going to arrive, because many noblemen had defected, he turned back hastily, but passed away in October 877 in Nantua, a few miles from Geneva. [172] In the Historia, then, any narration of Charles the Bald, who went back to France in 876 before returning to Italy the following year, is lacking. This error likely signifies either that Andreas wrote this last passage several years after the events had transpired or that another non-contemporaneous author completed Andreas’s work.
To conclude, the fact that the public officials are never mentioned with their title in the chronicle and that important events regarding Louis II - for example, when he assumed leadership of the kingdom of Italy or his coronation as emperor - are not recorded lead to the assumption that Andreas did not belong to Louis II’s entourage. He likely spent most of his life in Bergamo or in the surrounding territory and perhaps collected the testimonies of his fellow citizens, who had fought in the ranks of the emperor’s army, and of travelers passing through Bergamo.
The episode concerning the Archbishop of Milan, Angilbert, which underscores the pride of the Ambrosian Church, suggests that Andreas had been in contact with Milanese ecclesiastics. The modest size of Andreas’s work is, therefore, due more to the sources that he had at his disposal than to his meager descriptive ability. In the cases, in which Andreas was sufficiently well-informed, he demonstrates, despite his incorrect use of Latin, that he did not want to write a simple account of the events and that he possessed a reasonable narrative talent. One of the most relevant aspects of this text is the preservation of a Lombard version of the Lombard kingdom’s fall - probably due to the fact the author did not belong to official circles. In spite of the existence of a certain acrimony for the Franks, however, it must be noted that the chronicler’s attitude towards them is not uniformly negative. In fact, Andreas demonstrates admiration for the new rulers as well. He appears, therefore, to be a spokesman for those who accepted the Frankish domination, while remarking with a certain pride that the defeat of the Lombards was not a complete debacle and highlighting the negative aspects that followed the Frankish conquest. [173]
172. Nelson, Charles the Bald, pp. 243-253.
173. A version of the sections on the HLCG and the Historia of Andreas of Bergamo has been published in Berto, Remembering Old and New Rulers, pp. 23-53.