The Inception of the Career of the Normans in Italy--Legend and History

Author(s): Einar Joranson

Source: Speculum, Vol. 23, No. 3 (Jul., 1948), pp. 353-396
Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of the Medieval Academy of
America
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2848427
Accessed: 14-03-2019 16:57 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2848427?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Medieval Academy of America, The University of Chicago Press are collaborating with
JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Speculum

This content downloaded from 194.27.134.79 on Thu, 14 Mar 2019 16:57:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
SPECIJLUM
A JOURNAL OF MEDIAEVAL STUDIES
VOL. XXIII JULY, 1948 No. 3

THE INCEPTION OF THE CAREER OF THE

NORMANS IN ITALY-LEGEND AND
HISTORY*
BY EINAR JORANSON

THE subject here proposed involves a rather knotty source problem. Two tradi-
tions of uncertain origin, which seem not to have been put into writing before
the last third of the eleventh century, give us to understand that the initial
emigration from Normandy to Italy, in the year 1017, resulted from an ante-
cedent sojourn of Norman pilgrims on Italian soil. Is either of these traditions
worthy some credence, or must they both be regarded as essentially fabulous?
Every position hitherto taken on this question has proved to be, in more or less
considerable part, open to challenge. The problem appears to have received no
detailed investigation since Ferdinand Chalandon dealt with it over forty years
ago;' but in the meantime incisive critical studies, and also new editions, have
been published of some of the pertinent sources. A comprehensive reconsideration
of the subject, taking into account the materials not available to Chalandon, is
offered in this article.2 The discussion has been arranged in the following manner:
(I) an account of certain reliably attested developments in lower Italy to which
the traditions append unverifiable events; (II) description of the forms in which
the traditions have been transmitted, and translation of their contents in each
form; (III) review of the appraisals of the traditions by previous investigators;
(IV) presentation of the grounds on which the writer finds it necessary to reject
the traditions; (V) analysis and evaluation of the testimony of contemporaries
concerning the Norman emigrants of 1017; (VI) conclusions.

With masterly precision Charles H. Haskins has summarized, in the passage

quoted below, the general political situation in lower Italy at the period im-
mediately preceding the arrival of the Normans :'
In the year 1000 the unity of the south was largely formed. The Eastern Empire still
claimed authority, but the northern region was entirely independent under the Lombard
princes of Capua, Benevento, and Salerno, while the maritime republics of Naples, Gaeta,
and Amalfi owed at best only a nominal subjection. The effective power of Byzantium was
limited to the extreme south, where its governors and tax-collectors ruled in both Apulia

353

This content downloaded from 194.27.134.79 on Thu, 14 Mar 2019 16:57:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
354 The Inception of the Career of the Normans in Italy

and Calabria. Of the two districts Calabria . .. was the more Greek, in religion and lan-
guage as well as in political allegiance .... The large Lombard population of Apulia re-
tained its speech and its law and showed no attachment to its Greek rulers, whose exac-
tions in taxes and military service brought neither peace and security within nor protec-
tion from the raids of the Saracens. There was abundant material for a revolt, and the
Normans furnished the occasion.

It may be added that the district of Apulia formed at this time the chief part of
a Byzantine frontier province denominated the 'theme of Italy,' to which the
still distinct 'theme of Calabria' appears to have been subordinated or annexed;
and the ultimate responsibility for the administration and defense of these two
themes rested upon a high military and civil official entitled 'catapan of Italy
and Calabria,' who resided in the Apulian seaport Bari on the Adriatic.4
The revolt referred to by Haskins, in the last sentence of the quoted passage,
broke out in the year 1017, soon after the Normans made their appearance; but
preparations for it, as we shall see presently, were already under way before that
time. Its leader was a certain Melo, or Meles,5 reputed to have been, in his day,
Bari's first citizen and the most distinguished individual in all Apulia - a man
of extraordinary energy and very sagacious.6 Melo had once before, with his
wife's brother Datto, tried to emancipate Apulia from subjection to Byzantium.
In the earlier uprising, which began in May, 1009, the insurgents speedily gained
control of a considerable block of territory in the central part of the country,
including the towns of Bari, Trani, and Ascoli; and they seem to have held their
ground until after the arrival, in March, 1010, of a new catapan, Basilius Mesar-
donites, who brought with him a sizeable army from Constantinople. Mesardon-
ites forced his opponents to fall back upon Bari, to which he laid siege in April,
1011. Two months later the Baresi surrendered and tried to deliver up the leaders
of the rebellion;7 whereupon Melo and Datto fled secretly to Ascoli. Within a
few days, however, Ascoli was in turn beleaguered by the Greeks. Melo and
Datto, therefore, fearing that the citizens here too were ready to betray them,
departed by night and went to Benevento. They eventually betook themselves
to Salerno and, later, to Capua,8 where Melo seems to have abided until the
spring of 1017.9
Meanwhile the Baresi had apprehended Melo's wife, Maralda, and also his
son, Argiro, both of whom were sent to Constantinople. Datto, with his wife
and sons, tarried some days with Abbot Atenulf in the monastery of Monte
Cassino; but finally, in consideration of his fidelity to the German emperor
Henry II (1002-1024), Datto was entrusted by Pope Benedict VIII (1012-1024)
with the custody of a stronghold called the 'tower of Garigliano,' situated on the
right bank of the Garigliano River and belonging at this time to the pope.'0
Melo appears to have remained confident that he would ultimately bring to
victory the cause he had undertaken to champion. During his sojourn in Bene-
vento, Salerno, and Capua 'he did not,' it is said, 'indulge in leisure, but exerted
himself in every way to find means whereby he might overthrow the domination
of the Greeks and liberate his fatherland from their tyranny.'1' Probably these
efforts of the Apulian patriot had at least the moral support of the pope. For

This content downloaded from 194.27.134.79 on Thu, 14 Mar 2019 16:57:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Inception of the Career of the Normans in Italy 355

Benedict VIII nursed a grievance against the Byzantines because they had en-
croached - apparently in northern Apulia, which theretofore was included in
the principality of Benevento - upon the sphere of authority claimed by the
Western empire and the Roman Church;"2 and, as was mentioned above, he took
Melo's brother-in-law into his service. That Melo received aid from the Lom-
bard princes may be regarded as likely, though it is nowhere definitely stated;
they seem to have permitted him to pursue his project in their respective terri-
tories without hindrance; and at least one of them, Pandulf IV of Capua, ex-
tended him hospitality.'3 He succeeded perhaps in obtaining some funds, as well
as in enlisting a number of men, for an eventual invasion of Apulia; because,
when the first Normans came to Capua, he was in position to engage these foreign
warriors as his allies. Having formally concluded with the latter a military com-
pact, Melo quickly mustered the adherents he had gathered in Capua, Salerno,
and Benevento, and he then proceeded forthwith to execute his plan of invasion."4
It is certain that he opened hostilities in May, 1017,15 probably not more than
six or seven weeks at the most after the arrival of the Normans in Capua.16

II

How came it about that there appeared in Capua, in the early spring of the
year 1017, a group of knights from Normandy? We touch here what constitutes
the heart of our problem - the question as to the occasion of the introduction
of the Normans into Italy. Among previous investigators of this question, by far
the majority have been disposed to place more reliance upon one or both of the
two traditions mentioned above'7 than upon the pertinent testimony furnished
by writers who were contemporaries of the event,"8 notwv ithstanding that the said
testimony lends little or no support to either one of the traditions. For this reason,
and because in the judgment even of their severest critics the traditions do con-
tain some elements of truth, we are obliged to subject these tales to a searching
scrutiny, with a view to ascertaining any value they may have as evidence of the
particular series of incidents to which each of them refers. Since one of the stories
is associated with the city of Salerno, and the other with Monte Gargano, for
convenience in discussion they may be denominated respectively the 'Salerno
tradition' and the 'Gargano tradition.'19
As far as can be determined from the source materials in our possession, the
Salerno tradition was recorded initially by the monk Amatus (Fr. Aime) of
Monte Cassino, in a work entitled 'Historia Normannorum,'" which dealt mainly
with the history of the Normans in Italy to about the year 1078.21 Amatus began
the composition of the 'Historia Normannorum' after 1071, and completed it not
earlier than 1079 nor later than 1086.22 Though the original, Latin text of this
work no longer exists as a whole, there are numerous borrowings from it - in-
cluding the narrative of the Salerno tradition - in the second and subsequent
redactions of Leo of Ostia's Chronicle of the Monastery of Monte Cassino;23 and its
content has been preserved, approximately entire, in a very free Old French
version, the Ystoire de li Normant, done by an anonymous and ill qualified trans-
lator in the first quarter of the fourteenth century.24

This content downloaded from 194.27.134.79 on Thu, 14 Mar 2019 16:57:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
356 The Inception of the Career of the Normans in Italy

In the Latin form in which it appears in the Chronicle of the Monastery of

Monte Cassino, the Salerno tradition has been familiar to historians since the
time of Cardinal Baronius (d. 1607), who drew attention to it in his Ecclesiastical
Annals.25 Baronius accepted the story on what he mistakenly regarded as the
authoiity of Leo of Ostia, and for more than two hundred years thereafter Leo of
Ostia was generally believed to have been its initial recorder. This view became
untenable in 1830, when the Ystoire de li Normant was identified as a translation
of Amatus's 'Historia Normannorum.'26 From that time to 1926 the opinion pre-
vailed that Leo of Ostia, after discovering the Salerno tradition in the 'Historia
Normannorum,' had substituted this tale for his own (briefer and allegedly less
exact) account of the coming of the Normans to Italy. It was demonstrated in
1926 that the latter opinion is no less erroneous than its predecessor, and that the
evidence in the case points to the following facts. Some twenty-five to thirty
years after Leo of Ostia had completed the first redaction of the Chronicle of the
Monastery of Monte Cassino, Peter the Deacon, a less reputable writer in the same
monastery, undertook to revise and interpolate this text as he saw fit. Peter,
among other things, deleted Leo's account of the arrival of the Normans in
Italy and inserted in its place (for the second and subsequent redactions of the
Chronicle) the Salerno tradition, which he copied, to a considerable extent ver-
batim yet without akenowledgement, from the 'Historia' of Amatus.17
Peter the Deacon's method of revision is, of course, censurable. Yet, had this
literary pilferer refrained from interpolating the text of Leo of Ostia, we would
know Amatus's narrative of the Salerno tradition only in the Old French version
of the Ystoire de li Normant. Peter has supplied a close approxirnation to the
original, Latin form, even though, in copying the text of Amatus, he may have
omitted some of its details, and made such minor alterations and additions as he
deemed desirable or the new context required.28 The Old French translator, on
the other hand, probably has amplified the original somewhat, and, in one point
at least, he seems to have misrendered its purport.29 Undeniably, however, Peter
and the translator between them have transmitted the substance of the Salerno
tradition as it was recorded by Amatus. English renderings of their respective
reproductions of this tale30 are here subjoined in parallel columns.

Ystoire de ii Normant, Chronicle of the Monastery of

Bk. i, chaps. 17-20 entire, chap. 21 ad init. Monte Cassino,

second and subsequent redactions, Bk. ii,

chap. 37 in part
37. In Abbot Atenulf's seventh year
[A.D. 1017-1018] the Normans, with Melo
as their leader, began to invade Apulia.3'
It seems appropriate to explain how and on
what occasion Normans first came to these
parts [lower Italy], and who and whence
this Melo was, and why he adhered to these
17. Before [the year] 1000 after Christ,33 same Normans.32 About sixteen years be-
our Lord, assumed flesh in the Virgin Mary fore this time,34
there appeared in the world forty valiant forty Normans returning from Jerusalem in

This content downloaded from 194.27.134.79 on Thu, 14 Mar 2019 16:57:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Inception of the Career of the Normans in Italy 357

pilgrims. They came from the Holy Sepul- pilgrim attire landed at Salerno - tall and
cher of Jerusalem, [where they had gone] to handsome men, expert in the practice of
adore Jesus Christ. And they came to arms.35 They found the city besieged by
Salerno, which was being besieged by Saracens,
Saracens, and they took it very ill that the
Salernitans were willing to yield. And previ-
ously Salerno had been made tributary to
the Saracens. But if the tribute was not paid
each year at the specified term, immediately
the Saracens came there with many ships
and they smote and killed [the people] and
harried the land.36 And the pilgrims from
Normandy came there. They could not and their souls
tolerate such great injury from Saracen through the influence of God were inflamed
lordship, nor, indeed, that the Christians thereat.
were subject to the Saracens. These pilgrims Having demanded horses
went to Guaimar,37 the most serene prince, and arms from the elder Guaimar,37 who
who governed Salerno rightly and justly, ruled Salerno at that time,
and prayed that arms and horses be given
them, because they wished to battle against
the Saracens; and not for money compensa-
tion, but because they could not tolerate
such arrogance on the part of the Saracens.
And they asked for horses. And when they
had taken arms and horses they assailed the they rushed
Saracens and killed many of them; and upon the Saracens unexpectedly, killed
many ran toward the sea, and the others many, put the others to flight, and, God
imparting it, gained a wonderful victory.38
fled through the fields. And thus the valiant
Normans were the victors. And the Saler-
nitans were delivered from servitude to the
pagans.38
18. And when this great victory had thus
been achieved by the valor of these forty
Norman pilgrims, the prince and all the
people of Salerno thanked them much; and They were extolled by all
they offered them gifts, and promised to in triumph, honored with lavish gifts by
render them great reward, and begged them the prince, and with many entreaties in-
that they remain there to defend the Chris- vited to remain with him.
tians. But the Normans did not wish to ac- But the
cept remuneration in money for what they Normans, asseverating that they had done
had done for the love of God. And they this solely for love of God and the Christian
excused themselves for being unable to re- faith, refused the gifts and said it was not
main. possible for them to remain there.
19. After this, the Normans took counsel The prince, accord-
as to how all the princes of Normandy ingly, after conferring with his counselors,39
might come there.39 And they invited them.
And some found the good will and the cour-
age to come to these parts [lower Italy],
on account of the wealth that was here.40
And they [the Salernitans] sent their mes- despatched envoys of his
sengers with these victorious Normans; and own to Normandy together with these Nor-
they sent citrons, almonds, confectioned mans; and like another Narses41 he sent
nuts, cloth imperial, instruments of iron with the envoys citrus fruit, almonds, gilded
adorned with gold. And in this manner they nuts, cloth imperial, and equestrian trap-

This content downloaded from 194.27.134.79 on Thu, 14 Mar 2019 16:57:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
358 The Inception of the Career of the Normans in Italy

urged them to come to a land that yielded pings adorned with purest gold, thereby
milk and honey and so many fine things. not only inviting but also enticing men in
And the Normans who were victors testified Normandy to go to the land that produced
in Normandy that these things were true. such things.
20. And at this time there was rancor In those days there was
and hatred between two princes of Nor- bitter dissension between two magnates in
mandy, namely, Gisilberte and William. Normandy, namely, Giselbertus, known
And Gisilberte, who was called Buatere, also as Buttericus, and William, surnamed
took will and courage against William,42 Repostellus;42 and their animosity toward
who had injured him in his honor, and he each other led at last to a flagitious act, in
hurled him down from a very high place, that Giselbertus killed William.
whereof he was killed. And when William
was killed he held the dignity of viscount
of the entire land.43 And Robert, the count When Robert, the count
of the land," was greatly angered at the of that land," gained knowledge of this, he
killing of William, and threatened to put to became vehemently angry and threatened
death the one who had committed this Giselbertus with death. Giselbertus, there-
homicide; because, if this offense were not fore, using precaution against the wrath of
punished, it would appear that there was his lord,
license in all parts [of Normandy] to kill the gath-
viscount.45 And Gisilberte had four broth- ered together his four brothers - Rainul-
ers, namely, Raynolfe, Ascligime, Osmude, fus, Asclittinus, Osmundus, and Rodulfus46
and Lofulde.46 And although these were not - and some others,47 and these men, tak-
guilty of the death of William, nevertheless ing with them only their horses and arms,
they fled with their brother and came [to joined our48 envoys and fled.49
Italy] with the messenger of the prince of
Salerno. And they came armed,49 not as
enemies, but as angels; and through all
Italy they were received as such. The neces-
sities of food and drink were given by the
seigniors and good people of Italy. And they
passed the city of Rome and came to They arrived at last in Capua, where at
Capua. And they found that an Apulian that time the previously mentioned Melo
named Melo was in exile there; and he was was tarrying with Prince Pandulf.50
in exile because he had been a rebel against
the emperor of Constantinople.
21. These men were of aid to Melo, and
entered the confines of Apulia with him.
And they began to battle against the
Greeks....

The Gargano tradition also has been transmitted in two texts, both of which,
however, are in Latin. One of them, and the earlier of the two, forms a part of the
epic poem entitled The Deeds of Robert Guiscard, which William of Apulia com-
posed at some time within the period 1088-1111.r' The other text dates from the
last decade of the twelfth century and was written by a monk named Alexander,
who included it in his Chronicle of the Monastery of St Bartholomew of Carpineto.62
Though neither William of Apulia nor the monk Alexander gives any indication
of the source from which he derived his knowledge of the Gargano tradition, it
seems fairly certain that the chronicler was indebted to the poet for this story.
Alexander omits one part of the tale as it is set forth in the epic, and recounts the

This content downloaded from 194.27.134.79 on Thu, 14 Mar 2019 16:57:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Inception of the Career of the Normans in Italy 359

rest more succinctly in prose;" also, he adds a touch or two of his own, and man-
ages in some part to avoid copying William's diction;54 but withal there is nothing
in the later text that could not have been derived from the earlier one, either
directly or by inference as the following approximate renderings of the two
texts in English prose will adequately show.55
The Monk Alexander,
William of Apulia, Chronicle of the Monastery
The Deeds of Robert Guiscard, of St Bartholomew of Carpineto,
Bk. i, vss. 11-46 entire Bk. iII in part

Some of these [Normans] climbed the sum- At the time when the army of the Greeks
mit of Monte Gargano, to fulfill a vow ruled in Apulia, it chanced that some Nor-
they had made to thee, Archangel Michael. mans came to the grotto of Sant' Angelo on
When they saw there a certain man dressed Monte Gargano56 for the sake of prayer.
in the Greek fashion, whose name was Melo, When they saw there a certain nobleman57
they marvelled at the exile's strange garb and citizen of Bari named Melo, who was
and at the unfamiliar windings of a turban attired in vestments after the fashion of the
on his bandaged head. As they gazed upon Greeks and had his head wonderfully
him they inquired who he was and whence adorned as if58 with a turban, they inquired
he came. He replied that he was a Lombard of him who he was and whence he came. He
by birth and a freeborn citizen of Bari, but replied that he was a Barese living in exile
had been banished his native soil by the fe- from his fatherland because of the treachery
rocity of the Greeks. As the Gauls commiser- of the Greeks; but he said that if he had the
ated him in his exile he exlaimed: 'I could, aid of the Normans, it would be possible for
if you please, very easily return, provided him both to regain his fatherland and easily
some of your people would come to our to expel the Greeks from it.
help!' He averred that with such assistance
the expulsion of the Greeks could be ef-
fected quickly and easily. The Gauls has-
tened to assure him that if perchance it When the
should be permitted them to come there Normans heard this they promised to give
again, he would be granted the aid of their him the aid both of themselves and their
people. people.59
Accordingly, after they returned to their Having returned to their own
native land60 they begani to urge their com- country,
patriots to go with them to Italy. Apulia
was described to them as a land where the
soil was fertile and the people were by na-
ture listless. The countries through which
the journey might be accomplished were
made known; and it was promised that a
prudent patron would be found under
whose leadership victory over the Greeks
would be easy. Many made up their minds
and prepared to go, some because they had
little or nothing, others because they
wished to make large possessions still larger;
for acquisitiveness was the one quality com-
mon to them all. And so they set out, each
taking with him what he deemed it neces-
sary for a man of his ability to bring, in
order to accomplish the journey.

This content downloaded from 194.27.134.79 on Thu, 14 Mar 2019 16:57:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
360 The Inception of the Career of the Normans in Italy

I After the Norman folk had passed, un- they afterwards came with a
armed, through Rome they halted on the large host, unarmed, to Rome, and de-
shores of Campania, fatigued with the labor scended into Campania,
of travel. The rumor spread that Normans
had landed in Latium. When Melo learned where Melo went
of the arrival of the Gauls in Italy, he
speedily approached them. He gave weap- to meet them. He first saw to it that they
pons to these weaponless men; then he con- were provided with weapons; then he has-
strained them to hasten with him [to Apu- tened to invade Apulia.
l as his companions-in-arms.

A summary of the more notable previous appraisements of these tales will

provide the necessary background for a fresh valuation. From the time of
Baronius to about 1830 the Salerno tradition, as we have seen, was only known
in the form in which it had been interpolated into Leo of Ostia's chronicle.61 It
appears to have been challenged for the first time in Antoine Pagi's Commentaries
on the Ecclesiastical Annals of Cardinal Baronius, published posthumously in
1705.62 Pagi rejected the Salerno tradition as an anachronistic and fabulous
story, for which the Gargano tradition should be substituted. The latter, he as
serted, could have been obtained by William of Apulia from eyewitnesses of the
events and it was chronologically in agreement with other testimony concerning
the arrival of the Normans in Italy. Pagi's views seem to have gained a wide
acceptance, especially among Italian scholars.63 Even Muratori, in 1744, expressed
his preference for the Gargano tradition, after merely mentioning its rival.64
Early in the nineteenth century, however, the rival was presented with a new
lease on life by Alessandro di Meo. Having demonstrated that the Chronicle of
La Cava - a counterfeit historical writing published in 1753, whose spuriousness
had not yet been revealed65 - lent support to the Salerno as well as the Gargano
tradition, Di Meo declared the rejection of the former story by Pagi and his fol-
lowers to be utterly unjustified.66 And the discovery of the Ystoire de i ATormant,
which appeared in its editio princeps in 1835,67 gave the Salerno tradition so much
new color of authenticity that it quite escaped falling under suspicion when the
Chronicle of La Cava, in 1847, was shown to be a forgery.68 Shortly after the
middle of the century, it found favor with historians of high caliber, such as
Wilhelm von Giesebrecht69 and Michele Amari.7n Giesebrecht accepted it virtu-
ally in toto; Amari, with some modifications. With the Gargano tradition Giese-
brecht concerned himself but little, and Amari temporarily left this tale unmen-
tioned.71
An attempt to turn the prevailing current of opinion was made by Giuseppe
De Blasiis, in the first volume of his work on the Norman conquest of southern
Italy, published in 1864.72 De Blasiis found both traditions to be legendary in
character, combining fictitious elements with distorted historical facts. That
Sarcens had laid siege to Salerno about the year 1000 and had been defeated by
Norman pilgrims returning from the Holy Land might perhaps be true, even
though the sole testimony was the Salerno tradition as recorded in the narratives

This content downloaded from 194.27.134.79 on Thu, 14 Mar 2019 16:57:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Inception of the Career of the Normans in Italy 361

of Amatus and Leo of Ostia. It also probably was true that Prince Guaimar of
Salerno (at a later date and under other circumstances) had invited Normans to
come to southern Italy, and that the murderer Giselbertus and his brothers had
emigrated from Normandy to Italy in the time of Duke Robert I (1027/28-1035)
But there was no possibility of a causal connection between the first and the last
of these three events, because they were separated from one another by a period
of more than twenty-five years. In all likelihood, the Salerno tradition repre-
sented an endeavor to enhance the splendor of the Norman achievement in Italy
by making its actually humble beginnings correspond to its glorious outcome.
The Gargano tradition, in so far as it connected the coming of the Normans with
the effort to eject the Byzantines rather than with the struggle against the
Saracens, departed less widely from historical truth; yet, this tale too contained a
fabulous element - the pious legend of Norman pilgrims visiting the shrine on
Monte Gargano and meeting Melo there - which William of Apulia had grafted
into the history of the emancipation of his fatherland.
Soon after the publication of De Blasiis' volume Ferdinand Hirsch found oc-
casion to examine the traditions critically, in connection with an investigation
of the reliability of Amatus's 'IHistoria Normannorum' as a whole, which he con-
tributed to the Forschungen zur deutschen Geschichte in 1868.73 Though Hirsch
differed with De Blasiis on certain points, in the main he agreed with him :4 the
traditions were mixtures of truth and fiction, designed to make it appear that the
migration of Normans to Italy was an outcome of earlier Norman pilgrimages.
It was very probable, he conceded, that Norman pilgrims had found their way to
lower Italy before the appearance there, in 1017, of Norman emigrants. Some of
these pilgrims might well have helped to drive away Saracens besieging Salerno;
others, no doubt, had visited Monte Gargano. But the Salerno tradition clearly
was incorrect when it dated the Saracen siege of Salerno about the year 1000,
since the investment in question could only be identified with the elsewhere at-
tested siege of 1016; and in crediting the victory solely to the pilgrims it quite
obviously partook of the fabulous, as Pagi and others already had remarked. The
indication in the same tradition that the first migration from Normandy to Italy
had come about as a result of the murder of a Norman magnate, found some sup-
port in the similar accounts of this murder and its consequences given by William
of Jumieges and Orderic Vitalis; though here again there was an error in dating,
the events being assigned, incorrectly, to the time of the Norman duke Robert I.
Finally, it was undeniable that the emigrants of 1017, after arriving in lower
Italy, had associated themselves with Melo; both tales gave this item of informa-
tion and it was confirmed by several south Italian annals. Their apparent con-
tacts with historical reality, however, only served to render the traditions mis-
leading, inasmuch as their main point - that the initial Norman emigration had
a direct connection with a preceding pilgrimage - unquestionably was false.
Support for this point in other sources could not be adduced; on the contrary,
one of these sources - the account of Orderic Vitalis - indicated that the pil-
grimage associated with the siege of Salerno took place after the arrival of the
first emigrants. The reports about conditions in lower Italy that the early pil-

This content downloaded from 194.27.134.79 on Thu, 14 Mar 2019 16:57:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
362 The Inception of the Career of the Normans in Italy

grims presumably brought back to Normandy might indeed have influenced, in a

general way, the later mass migrations. But there was no evidence, apart from
the traditions, to prove that such reports gave the impulse to the initial emigra-
tion, or that the participants in this adventure were responding to a summons
from Italy. Relying chiefly on the testimony of Ade,mar of Chabannes, Raoul
Glaber (whose respective accounts antedated the earliest records of the tradi-
tions) and Leo of Ostia (in the first redaction of his chronicle), Hirsch concluded
that the emigrants of 1017 left Normandy for reasons that bore no relation either
to pilgrimages or to southern Italy. These fugitive knights were discontented
with the stern rule of their duke, and one of them had been threatened with pun-
ishment for murder. Without a definite plan or aim they proceeded to Rome,
where they placed themselves at the disposal of Pope Benedict VIII. The pope
suggested that they join Melo, who just then was collecting new forces for the
struggle against the Greeks.
No scholar other than De Blasiis and Hirsch seems ever to have ventured an at-
tempt to establish the intrinsic falsity of both traditions; and even they, as we
have seen, conceded the likelihood of Norman pilgrims visiting lower Italy prior
to the coming of the first Norman emigrants, though they denied the possibility
of any connection between these occurrences. It is to be noted that the argu-
mentation of Hirsch, especially in re the Salerno tradition, attracted much wider
notice than De Blasiis' discussion. Perhaps this was due, in part, to the more
thoroughgoing, and more forceful, character of Hirsch's criticism. Yet it cannot
be dissociated from the fact that his examination of the traditions formed a part
of his investigation of the general value of the 'Historia Normannorum,' and that
he utilized the results of the former as partial support for the decidedly unwel-
come conclusion he arrived at in the latter - namely, that Amatus, except in the
last two books of his work, failed to show the earmarks of a trustworthy his-
torian.75 This severe judgment upon an author who had gained the reputation of
being in general reliable, impelled his supporters to come to his defense. And
they deemed it necessary, for the restoration of the good credit of Amatus, to
maintain, among other things, that the Salerno tradition as he had recorded it
was essentially true, opinions to the contrary notwithstanding.
The first effort in this direction appears to have been that of Adolf Schultze,
in his disquisition on Melo and the early battles of the Normans in Apulia,76
published in 1872. Three years later, Harry Bresslau followed up Schultze's con-
tentions with a more elaborate argument to the same purpose, presented in an
excursus appended to one of the Jahrbiicher for the reign of Emperor Henry II.77
And, in 1884, there appeared in the Forschungen zur deutschen Geschichte a long
article, by G. Baist, in which Hirsch's investigation of the 'Historia Norman-
norum' was itself subjected to a close scrutiny, and refuted in virtually every
point to which exception could be taken.78 It is true that Schultze, Bresslau, and
Baist readily made two concessions with respect to the narrative of the Salerno
tradition - viz., the Saracen siege therein referred to was without question mis-
dated, and the name Robert incorrectly given to Duke Richard II of Normandy.
But this story as a whole, they unanimously insisted, could not be put aside as

This content downloaded from 194.27.134.79 on Thu, 14 Mar 2019 16:57:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Inception of the Career of the Normans in Italy 363

incredible. There was nothing fabulous in the assertion that the Saracens were
routed by forty Norman pilgrims; for, selbstversttndlich, an armed body of
Salernitans had participated in the fighting, though Amatus omitted to mention
this point. As for the accounts of Ademar of Chabannes, Raoul Glaber, and Leo
of Ostia (in his first redaction), they did not contradict, and they could be
reconciled with, what the tradition had to say about the immediate occasion for
the Norman emigration of 1017; besides, the tradition was confirmed in this
matter - except for the (allegedly) inconsequential detail of the names of some
of the emigrants - by William of Jumieges and Orderic Vitalis. Referring to
Hirsch's contention that it was impossible to prove a causal connection between
the deliverance of Salerno by Noiman pilgrims in 1016 and the emigration from
Normandy in 1017, Bresslau suggested that here, if ever, the argument post hoc,
ergo propter hoc was applicable; and he charged Hirsch with having perverted
the sense of a passage in which Arnulf of Milan (ca 1070-10792) clearly supported
(according to Bresslau) what the tradition said about the dispatch of messengers
to Normandy by Prince Guaimar of Salerno.79 In the last-mentioned matter
Baist expressed a similar view, though he thought it possible that the messengers
in question represented not only Guaimar, but also the princes of Capua and
Benevento, as the text of the Ystoire de 1i Normant seemed in his opinion to in-
dicate.80 Thus, the Salerno tradition remained in substance unassailable, corrob-
orated as it was by Leo of Ostia, who, after discovering this narrative in the
'Historia' of Amatus, had substituted it for his own account of the coming of
the Normans, and therewith subscribed to its truth.8"
In the matter of the Gargano tradition, Schultze, Bresslau, and Baist were
more nearly in accord with De Blasiis and Amari than with Hirsch. Schultze and
Bresslau dismissed this tale as obviously incapable of being defended ;82 and
Baist asserted that Melo could not have been found on Monte Gargano in 1016,
nor had Normans, except ecclesiastics, so early begun to make pilgrimages to
that place.83 Other scholars, however, especially in France, shrank from setting
aside the testimony of William of Apulia, and continued to regard the Gargano
tradition as plausible. Prominent among the latter was the abbe Odon Delarc,
author of a history of the Normans in Italy published in 1883. In his opinion, it
seemed possible and even likely that the same Norman pilgrims figured in both
traditions; they first had driven away the Saracens at Salerno and subsequently
had visited Monte Gargano - in other words, there probably was a connection
between the respective series of incidents set forth in the two traditions.84 Delarc
reiterated this conjecture in his edition of the Ystoire de 1i Normant (18992) ;85 and
in 1907 it was adopted, with some elaboration, by Ferdinand Chalandon,88 who
gave it renewed expression as late as 19926.87
Meanwhile, Michelangelo Schipa in 1887 and Jules Gay in 1904 had voiced
different opinions. Schipa - who did not commit himself clearly on the tradition
associated with Monte Gargano - accepted, almost if not quite ad verbum, the
first part of the Salerno tradition including the date there given; at the same time,
however, he pronounced this tradition false in so far as it credited Prince Guaimar
IV with sending messengers to Normandy for the purpose of recruiting knights

This content downloaded from 194.27.134.79 on Thu, 14 Mar 2019 16:57:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
364 The Inception of the Career of the Normans in Italy

in his service.88 In the judgment of Gay the Gargano tradition seemed altogether
probable; but there was a confusion of events, he contended, in the Salerno tradi-
tion.89 Chalandon90 tried, indeed, to dispose of these and other views not con-
sonant with his own. Yet, his proposed solution of the problem presented by the
traditions - a solution to which we shall return later in this discussion91 - has
not itself escaped challenge. Roberto Palmarocchi in 1913 judged Chalandon's
position to be 'somewhat venturous';92 and in 1934 Wilhelm Smidt questioned the
validity of Chalandon's assumption (shared with various other scholars) that the
siege of Salerno which Amatus dated 'before [the year] 1000,' really took place
in 1016.93

IV

In an attempt to evaluate the traditions from a fresh point of view, it seems

best to defer consideration of their respective particulars until after certain mat-
ters pertaiiiing to each of them as a whole have been dealt with. The initial ques-
tion, accordingly, is whether these stories, considered as integrated accounts of
how the Norman emigration to Italy in 1017 came about, may be said to con-
stitute admissible historical evidence.
We have seen that the Gargano tradition rests upon the single authority of
William of Apulia, who recorded it in verse approximately three generations after
the occurrences to which the tradition refers. The retelling of this tale in prose
about a century later by the monk Alexander yields it no additional support,
inasmuch as Alexander seems to have derived his knowledge of it solely from
XWilliam's verses.94
There is not much better authority for the Salerno tradition. Amatus, its
earliest known transmitter, could have had no direct knowledge of the events
related in this story, if, as seems likely, he was born after the year 1017.95 His
mere presentation of the tale is clearly not a warrant of its authenticity, since
Amatus - even on the assumption that he only wished to narrate what he be-
lieved to be true96 - may by no stretch of definition be considered a critical
historian; on the contrary, he seems to have accepted rather naively such in-
formation concerning the early Norman arrivals in Italy as was current in
Salerno or Capua at his time.97 As for the old view that the tradition eventually
received the indorsement of Leo of Ostia, we have seen that it is erroneous, the
insertion of this story into the second redaction of Leo's chronicle being the work
of Peter the Deacon,98 a Monte Cassino monk of the generation next after Leo's.99
Nor may we suppose that Peter, before he grafted the tradition into the narrative
of Leo, had by investigation assured himself of its authenticity. The few minor
alterations that Peter made in the text of Amatus evince no critical attitude on
his part, but only his desire to adjust this text so that he could exploit it for his
own immediate purpose.100
The sole writer other than Leo of Ostia who has been alleged to give support to
Amatus's narrative of the Salerno tradition as a whole, is Orderic Vitalis. In the
third book of his Ecclesiastical History, written near the end of the first quarter
of the twelfth century,'01 Orderic relates a story that bears some resemblance to

This content downloaded from 194.27.134.79 on Thu, 14 Mar 2019 16:57:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Inception of the Career of the Normans in Italy 365

the story told by Amatus, though it has a very different chronological setting
and also some variant details. The contention is that this narrative of Orderic,
notwithstanding its discrepancies, confirms Amatus's narrative in substance.
It may be profitable to re-examine Orderic's story and to note the context in
which it appears, with a view to determining whether this contention is valid. An
English rendering of the entire passage in question is here subjoined.102

When Pope Benedict was the incumbent of the Apostolic See, Saracens from Africa came
to Apulia by ship every year and exacted with impunity as much ransom as they wished
from the indolent Lombards in the Apulian cities and the Greek inhabitants of Calabria.
In these days103 Osmundus surnamed Drengotus slew William Repostellus, who had inso-
lently vaunted himself in the presence of the optimates of Normandy on having dishonored
Osmundus's daughter. On account of this murder, which was committed before the eyes
of Duke Robert in a forest where he was hunting, Osmundus together with his sons and
grandsons fled from the face of the duke, first to Brittany, afterwards to England, and
finally to Benevento. He was the first of the Normans who chose to settle in Apulia, and
he obtained from the prince of the Beneventans the grant of a town as a place of residence
for himself and his heirs. Afterwards Drogo, a Norman knight, went to Jerusalem on
pilgrimage with one hundred [other] knights. When Drogo and his companions were
returning from thence, Duke Guaimar by reason of humaneness detained them some days
at Salerno, in order that they miglht recuperate. While they were there twenty thousand
Saracens made a descent on the Italian coast, and, with dire threats, began to demand
tribute from the citizens of Salerno. While the duke and his satellites were collecting the
impost from the citizens, the Saracens disembarked from their fleet and sat down for
luncheon in excessive security, and with immoderate delight, on a grassy plain lying be-
tween the city and the sea. When the Normans became aware of this and saw that the duke
was collecting money to appease the barbarians, they upbraided the Apulians in a friendly
way for thus buying themselves off with money, like defenseless widows, instead of defend-
ing themselves by force of arms like brave men. Then they seized weapons and made a
sudden attack on the Africans, who were awaiting in security the payment of the impost;
they prostrated many thousands of them and compelled the rest to flee in disgrace to their
ships. When the Normans returned, laden with gold and silver vessels and much other
precious spoil, they were much pressed by the duke to remain with honor in Salerno; but,
being anxious to revisit their fatherland, they did not accede to these solicitations. How-
ever, they promised the duke that they either would themselves return to him, or else
would speedily send him some of the select youths of Normandy. After they had reached
their native soil they recounted to their compatriots the many things they had seen, and
heard, and done, and experienced. Subsequently, some of them, in fulfillment of their
promises, repaired to Italy again, and by their example incited many lighthearted men to
follow them. For Turstinus Citellus and Ragnulfus, Richard, son of Anschetillus of
Quarrel, and Tancred of Hauteville's sons - viz. Drogo and Humphrey, William and
Hermann, Robert surilamed Guiscard, and Roger, and their six brothers - also William of
Montreuil and Ernaldus of Grantmesnil, and many others, left Normandy and went to
Apulia, not simultaneously, but at different times. When they came there they at first
were hired as mercenaries, by Duke Guaimar and other potentates, to fight against the
pagans; but later, after some causes of dissension had arisen, they warred against those
whom previously they had served....

It is undeniable that the part of the passage quoted above which pertains to
the exploits of the knight Drogo and his hundred companions, has certain ele-
ments in common with the Salerno tradition recorded by Amatus. But this fact
does not, as far as the writer can determine, furnish an adequate basis for the

This content downloaded from 194.27.134.79 on Thu, 14 Mar 2019 16:57:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
366 The Inception of the Career of the Normans in Italy

view that Amatus's story in the main is confirmed by the story Orderic tells. The
points on which the two narratives coincide may be summed up as follows: a
group of Norman pilgrims returning from Jerusalem arrive at Salerno and they
there put to rout a Sarcen army which had come to enforce a payment of tribute;
the pilgrims decline an invitation to remain in Salerno, but they subsequently are
instrumental in bringing other Normans to Italy. It seems manifest that these
points only constitute in part the substance of the tradition Amatus indited.
Orderic says nothing of the dispatch of Salernitan envoys and Salernitan products
to Normandy for the purpose of attracting warriors to Italy. He does, it is true,
give an account of the slaying of William Repostellus, but not in connection with
his tale of the returning pilgrims; and the man he names as William's slayer is
Osmundus Drengotus rather than Giselbertus Buttericus, of whom he makes no
mention. Orderic and Amatus agree that when William Repostellus was murdered,
Duke Robert I (1027/28-1035)104 ruled in Normandy; but Orderic says it was
after this murder - even after Osmundus Drengotus had fled from Normandy
and already was established in an Italian town that the Norman pilgrims came
to Salerno. Orderic, accordingly, assigns the deliverance of Salerno to the period
when its prince was Guaimar V (1027-1052); whereas the Salerno tradition as
Amatus relates it dates the same event before the year 1000 (i.e., in the time of
Guaimar IV, 999-1027),105 and purports to explain how it happened that Normans
could be enlisted in the cause represented by Melo in 1017. There is, moreover,
no good reason to suppose that any of the several emigrations from Normandy
to which Orderic refers in this context, actually took place before the time of
Duke Robert I. For, of the seventeen individuals specifically included by him
among the 'lighthearted' Normans who were incited to go to Italy by the repre-
sentations and the example of the returned Jerusalem-pilgrims, fourteen un-
questionably arrived there later than 1027;I06 and it cannot be proved that the
three others - Turstinus Citellus,107 Ragnulfus,108 and Ernaldus of Grant-
mesnil'09 - came at an earlier date. These considerations make it impossible to
admit that Orderic in any wise confirms what Amatus has to say about the oc-
casion of the Norman emigration to Italy in 1017. And though we are unable,
indeed, to verify Orderic's story of Norman pilgrims delivering Salerno from the
Saracens in the time of Prince Guaimar V,110 yet this circumstance, however
prejudicial it is to the credibility of Orderic's story as such, may in no case be
interpreted as support for the tale told by Amatus.1"'
If the conclusions arrived at thus far are valid, the Salerno tradition considered
as a whole has, from the point of view of testimonial value, much the same rating
as the Gargano tradition. Both stories are posterior accounts of the events to
which they refer; and each of them depends in last analysis upon a single au-
thority - Amatus in the one case and, in the other, William of Apulia. These
facts, the writer submits, suffice to render the traditions inadmissible as historical
evidence, unless it can be shown that their leading particulars are adequately
substantiated by other testimony, or have per se a high degree of probability.
Before examining their particulars, it may be well to consider briefly the
hypothesis of a connection between the two traditions; for it is possible to con-

This content downloaded from 194.27.134.79 on Thu, 14 Mar 2019 16:57:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Inception of the Career of the Normans in Italy 367

tend, on this basis, that the Gargano tradition lends support to the Salerno tradi-
tion and vice versa. In the twice expressed opinion of Delarc, the pilgrims who
routed the Saracens at Salerno were to be identified with the pilgrims who met
Melo on Monte Gargano, the latter incident being sequent to the former. Chal-
andon accepted Delarc's (admittedly conjectural) identification of the one pil-
grim group with the other, on the ground that it almost imposed itself; and he
went on to suggest that the meeting of Melo and the pilgrims was perhaps not
fortuitous, but arranged by Prince Guaimar IV of Salerno. This possibility he
judged to be the more likely because the Ystoire de 1i Normant made it evident,
as he thought, that the Salernitan envoys who accompanied the pilgrims to
Normandy had recruited there for Melo as well as for Guaimar.112
Though the tenability of this hypothesis, either in whole or in part, depends in
the first place upon the validity of a point which the hypothesis presupposes -
namely, that the siege mentioned in the Salerno tradition is misdated - consider-
ation of this point may be deferred,"3 since, even if it were valid, the hypothesis
still could not be sustained. Chalandon's claim that the Ystoire yields proof of
recruiting in Normandy by Italian envoys on behalf of Melo is demonstrably
erroneous.1" Nor is there any testimonial basis for his view that Guaimar had
arranged the alleged meeting of the pilgrims with Melo. The Salerno tradition
contains not the slightest allusion to Monte Gargano; and the Gargano tradition
not only has no reference to either Salerno or Guaimar, but also it says nothing
about Italian envoys accompanying the pilgrims to Normandy. On these grounds,
the hypothesis of a connection between the two tales must be rejected as un-
workable. It is not apparent that either one of these stories, in the forms in which
they have been recorded, depends in any way upon the other; and to combine
them is plainly impossible without the aid of unwarranted assumptions.
Our inquiry into their particulars may be first directed to the incident on
which the Gargano tradition hinges the initial Norman emigration to Italy - the
meeting of Melo and the Norman pilgrims at the Apulian shrine of the archangel
Michael. Many savants, including Pagi, Muratori, Di Meo, Delare, Gay, and
Chalandon, have insisted upon the actuality of this meeting, contending that it
has likelihood in its favor and that William of Apulia could have gained knowl-
edge of it from an oral source."5 Even Ferdinand Hirsch found in William's de-
scription of the incident an indication that Monte Gargano had been visited by
Norman pilgrims before the inception of emigration from Normandy to Italy,
though he disaffirmed a direct connection between the visits of the pilgrims and
the subsequent emigration movement. The weakness of Hirsch's position in this
matter did not escape the notice of Baist, who emphatically denied that Norman
laymen had begun so early to go on pilgrimage to Monte Gargano.116 Apart from
the verses of the Apulian poet, no independent testimony relative to such pil-
grimages has ever been adduced. And, a priori, they seem very unlilkely, despite
the undoubted devotion of the Normans to Monte Gargano's patron saint; for
there is no reason to presume that the lay population of Normandy, in the early
part of the eleventh century, was not fully satisfied to venerate the militant
archangel in his (already famous) Norman sanctuary on Mont-Saint-Michel.117

This content downloaded from 194.27.134.79 on Thu, 14 Mar 2019 16:57:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
368 The Inception of the Career of the Normans in Italy

William of Apulia, moreover, tells of only one pilgrimage by Normans to Monte

Gargano before 1017; while, on the other hand, he strongly suggests that the
Normans in general were, at this period, utterly uninformed about the entire
region of Apulia.1"8
The foregoing considerations do not, it is true, suffice to disprove the alleged
actuality of the incident with which we are at present concerned. We must
reckon with the possibility that a single group of Norman pilgrims - the partic-
ular group referred to in the tradition - could by chance have found its way to
Monte Gargano a year or so before the arrival in Italy of the first Norman emi-
grants. In such event, what likelihood is there that the pilgrims would have met
Melo at the grotto of Sant' Angelo? The distinguished Barese had fled from
Apulia after the unsuccessful rebellion of 1009-1011, and he was now living as an
exile either in Salerno or, more probably, in Capua."19 Would he have been dis-
posed to venture a journey to the Gargano peninsula, which lay well within the
area of Byzantine authority in Italy?120 Since the tradition presents him in Greek
dress, it could perhaps be taken to imply that he repaired to the sanctuary in dis-
guise. Nevertheless, it is difficult to believe that he went there at all, at this
time. A man of Melo's sagacity, and with his political aspirations, would hardly
have permitted his desire to visit Monte Gargano - assuming that he really
felt such desire - to wax so strong as to induce him to risk capture by the By-
zantines,'2' who already had sent his wife and son to Constantinople as prisoners.
And even in case he could have entered with perfect security upon a journey to
and from Monte Gargano, the probability is that he would not have made the
pious excursion at the time in question (ca 1015-1016); for we are reliably in-
formed that Melo's entire effort, throughout the period of his exile, was devoted
unremittingly to finding means of overthrowing the Greek domination in
Apulia.'22
The evident unlikelihood of Norman pilgrimages to Monte Gargano prior to
1017 and the high improbability of a visit to the shrine by Melo during the
period of his exile make it virtually certain that his alleged meeting there with a
group of pilgrims from Normandy is fictitious. The tradition which relates this
spurious incident and makes it the starting point for the history of the Normans
in Italy must therefore be characterized as totally deceptive.
XYe pass on to the particulars of the Salerno tradition. In this story the break-
ing of the Saracen siege of Salerno by Norman pilgrims is said to have occurred
'before [the year] 1000' and in the period when the prince of Salerno was Guaimar
- which is equivalent to dating the event in 999, the year in which Guaimar IV
(999-1027) became Salerno's prince.'23 Many investigators who have denied the
existence of any acceptable evidence of a siege of Salerno near the end of the
tenth century have substituted for this date the year 1016, on the ground that a
Saracen investment of Salerno in the latter year is adequately attested.'24 The
correction, however, has no proper warrant, because the trustworthy sources that
mention the siege of 1016 fail to indicate the presence of Normans in Salerno or its
vicinity at this time.'25
According to a recently expressed view, there are two pieces of testimony that

This content downloaded from 194.27.134.79 on Thu, 14 Mar 2019 16:57:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Inception of the Career of the Normans in Italy 369

support the information about the siege giveil in the tradition.'26 In a late twelfth
century codex of the Excerpted Cassinensian Annals - this codex is now lost, but
it had been edited and published before it disappeared'27 - it was stated under
the year 1000, which date has been shown to be an error for 999, that 'some Nor-
mans coming from Jerusalem delivered Salerno from the Saracens."l28 And a
charter issued in the year 1005 by Archbishop Grimoald of Salerno to a man
named Jannaci, who is identified in the charter as the builder of a church in
Vietri (close by Salerno), declares that Jannaci had rebuilt the church after it was
destroyed by Saracens;129 implying, it would seem, that the destruction took place
only a few years before the rebuilding, possibly in 999.
The quoted statement in the lost codex would virtually suffice to prove the
point at issue, had that statement really derived from the original source of the
Excerpted Cassinensian Annals.'30 There is, however, every reason to believe that
it was interpolated into the last recension of these annals in the second quarter of
the twelfth century, and that its basis is the Salerno tradition as set forth by
Amatus in his 'Historia Normannorum."'3 The charter issued to Jannaci would
seem to establish that Saracens raided in the neighborhood of Salerno at some
time near the date assigned in the tradition to an investment of the city. Yet, even
if we assume that a reference to raiding in the environs implies that the town was
under siege, it still remains to prove that Norman pilgrims arrived on the scene
and drove away the besiegers. Since we have no evidence to this effect, the first
part of the Salerno tradition would appear to be apocryphal. As for the second
part, which tells of Salernitan envoys accompanying the victorious pilgrims when
the latter returned to Normandy, it cannot be true if the first part is not; and its
implication that the envoys pursued recruiting activities in Normandy during a
period of about seventeen years is simply absurd.
In the third part of this tradition the initial Norman emigration to Italy is
represented as being the direct result of a notorious murder committed in Nor-
mandy in the time of Duke Robert I (1027/28-1035). Since Robert did not take
over the ducal office in Normandy until at least ten years after the first arrival in
Italy of Norman emigrants, it has been supposed'32 that his name in the tradition
is an error for the name of his father, Duke Richard II (996-109.6/27). 33 But
there are adequate grounds for rejecting this view.'34 According to the tradition,
the man slain was William Repostellus, and his murderer, Giselbertus Buttericus.
The killing of William Repostellus at the hands of a certain Osmundus Drengotus
has twice been related by Orderic Vitalis, first in a passage interpolated by him
into William of Jumieges' Deeds of the Norman Dukes,'35 and again in his own
Ecclesiastical History;136 and in both places the commission of this crime is dated
in the period when Robert I was duke. That Orderic and the tradition refer to
the same William Repostellus seems indubitable, notwithstanding their disagree-
ment as to the identity of his murderer. It may be asserted, therefore, that
Orderic verifies the tradition in so far as it assigns the killing of WTilliam Repos-
tellus to the time of Duke Robert I. But the tradition obviously errs when it
makes this murder, which was committed not earlier than 1027, the occasion of
an emigration of Normans in 1017.

This content downloaded from 194.27.134.79 on Thu, 14 Mar 2019 16:57:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
370 The Inception of the Career of the Normans in Italy

Whether the slayer of William Repostellus was the man designated as such in
the tradition, or the man named by Orderic, is of small consequence for the pur-
poses of this investigation; because the person whom Orderic identifies as the
murderer, namely Osmundus Drengotus, is in all likelihood the same Osmundus
that figures in the tradition as one of the four brothers of Giselbertus Buttericus.
And the participation either of Giselbertus or of his brothers in the emigration of
1017 is clearly ruled out, since the tradition associates all five of these men with
an event which occurred in Normandy at some time between 1027 and 1035.
The writer rests his case at this point, as far as the Salerno and the Gargano
traditions are concerned. If the tests he has applied to these tales are valid, their
real character stands revealed. They are invented legends, which quite obviously
serve a twofold purpose of delusion; for, besides furnishing the Norman emigra-
tion to Italy with a nonexistent background of pilgrim piety, they falsely make
it appear, in the one case, that Prince Guaimar IV of Salerno provided the initial
incentive to this movement, and, in the other case, that the incentive was given
by the Apulian patriot Melo. What it was that elicited such propaganda, in the
second half of the eleventh century, is a problem lying outside the scope of the
present piece of research.

Contemporary testimony on the subject of our study is available in three well

known sources - the Histories of Raoul Glaber,'37 the Chronicle of Ademar of
Chabannes,'38 and the first redaction of Leo of Ostia's Chronicle of the Monastery
of Monte Cassino.'39 The first two of these writers were living (in Burgundy and
western Aquitaine respectively) when the Norman emigration of 1017 took place,
each being then not far from the age of thirty;'40 and they wrote their accounts o
the event some fifteen to twenty years later.'4' Leo of Ostia's work was not com-
posed until the last decade of the eleventh century; but the information supplied
therein about the arrival of the Normans in Capua and their enlistment as allies
of Melo, appears to be derived from a contemporary source of Italian origin,
which, though now lost, was undoubtedly extant in Leo's time and accessible to
him in his capacity of librarian at Monte Cassino.'42
Since neither of the two contemporary chroniclers themselves participated in
the emigration, the value of their testimony obviously depends in large part upon
the character of their sources of information. In the case of Ademar it is impossi-
ble to ascertain who or what these sources were. His account, though it is very
brief, raises difficulties, which apparently have not been hitherto perceived, and
which will be dealt with subsequently in the proper place.'43 The more detailed
narrative of Glaber probably rests on data furnished by two of this monk's suc-
cessive abbots - William of Saint-Benigne in Dijon and Odilo of Cluny.
During the period when Glaber lived under the abbatial authority of William
of Saint-Benigne (ca 1010-ca 1030), William spent much of his time in Nor-
mandy,'" where he could scarcely have escaped gaining knowledge of the c
stances attendant upon the emigration to Italy in 1017. This knowledge, we may
believe, he communicated in some part to Glaber, because Glaber states, in his

This content downloaded from 194.27.134.79 on Thu, 14 Mar 2019 16:57:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Inception of the Career of the Normans in Italy 371

biography of William, that the latter had ordered him to prepare an account of
events and prodigies which occurred about and subsequent to the year 1000.145
By the time Glaber came under the authority of Odilo at Cluny - just before or
soon after the death of William of Saint-Benigne on 1 January 1031 - he had
only produced a preliminary sketch of the account desired by William. Odilo,
however, evidently ordered him to proceed with the task; for Glaber not only
finished the first book of his Histories, but also wrote a good part of the second
book, before he left Cluny (ca 1033/1035) and he dedicated the work as a whole
to Odilo.'46 The third book did not reach completion until after 1037, when Glaber
was no longer an inmate of Cluny but of Saint-Germain in Auxerre.'47 Yet Odilo
may well have supplied the historian, while he still lived at Cluny, with some
part of the material utilized by him at Saint-Germain. It is significant in this con-
nection that the first chapter of the third book contains the narrative of the
Norman emigration to Italy; and that Odilo, on the occasion of a visit he made to
Rome and Monte Cassino in 1027,148 had had abundant opportunity to gather in-
formation concerning the experiences of the emigrant Normans subsequent to
their arrival in Rome. Now, if Glaber obtained from Odilo of Cluny and William
of Saint-Benigne the materials on which his narrative of the emigration is based,
as in all likelihood he did, there is no reason to doubt the essential truth of this
narrative, especially since it was written in Odilo's lifetime and included in a
work that he certainly would wish to peruse.
To facilitate their comparison, the accounts by Glaber, Ademar, and Leo are
brought together below and rendered into English. It should be understood that
when any of these three writers is mentioned subsequently in the present discus-
sion, the reference is, unless otherwise indicated in an appended note, to the part
of his work here quoted.

Glaber:
It happened ... that a very audacious Norman named Rodulfus, who had incurred the
displeasure of Count Richard [Duke Richard II] and feared his wrath, went to Rome
with all whom he could draw with him and laid his case (causam propriam) before the
preme pontiff Benedict. The pope, perceiving that Rodulfus was a choice warrior, began
explain to him a grievance concerning the invasion of the Roman Empire by the Greeks,
and greatly to deplore that there did not exist among his own people anyone capable of
expelling the foreigners. After Rodulfus had heard these things he promised that he would
battle against the invaders from oversea if some aid were given him by those who felt
weighed down with the great distress of their fatherland. Then, indeed, the aforesaid pope
sent Rodulfus together with men of his own to the Beneventan primates, who were in-
structed to receive him peaceably, always to have him at the head when they went forth
to battle, and to give unanimous obedience to his command. And Rodulfus went out to
the Beneventans, who received him as the pope had directed. Thereupon he immediately
attacked those of the Greek officials who levied taxes upon the people....149

Ademar:

When Richard [II] . .. governed the Normans a multitude of the latter with Rodulfus as
leader went under arms to Rome; and from there, with the connivance of Pope Benedict,
they moved on to Apulia, where they laid everything waste. Against them Basilius [the
Byzantine emperor Basil II] directed an army.... 150

This content downloaded from 194.27.134.79 on Thu, 14 Mar 2019 16:57:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
372 The Inception of the Career of the Normans in Italy

Leo:

In these days [i.e., when Melo was sojourning in Capua with its prince; see above, p. 354]
for the first time there came to Capua some Normans, approximately forty in number.
Fleeing from the wrath of their lord, the count of Normandy, they, like many of their
fellows scattered about in this place and that, were seeking to find wherever they could
someone who would take them on. They were tall and handsome men, very skilled in
the use of arms. The names of the chief (praecipui) among them were . .. Rodulfus
Todinensis, Gosmannus, Rufinus, and Stigandus. When Melo heard of this he promptly
summoned those men, and after a diligent inquiry had acquainted him with their case
(causa) he forthwith allied himself to them by a military compact; then he hastened to
Salerno and Benevento, to unite the many who out of hatred of the Greeks as well as for
his own sake were disposed to join him; and immediately thereafter he invaded the land
of the Greeks, delivering a vigorous attack upon the opposing forces.'5'

In accordance with a joint tendency toward vagueness in chronology, Glaber

and Ademar do not assign to the departure of Normans for Italy, of which they
tell, any more specific date than the period when Richard (II) was duke of Nor-
mandy and the pontiff at Rome was Benedict (VIII). Glaber, however, does
furnish, in another context, a connecting link in the chain of evidence and
legitimate inference that clinches the approximate date of the first Norman
emigration to Italy. We learn from him that a second emigration, much larger
than the first, eventuated after news was brought to Normandy of a military
victory won by the initial group of emigrants over the Greeks in Apulia. 52 Testi-
mony has previously been cited which shows not only that Normans came to
Capua for the first time in the spring of 1017, but also that Normans fought
against the Greeks in May and June of this same year; and in each case the Nor-
mans in question can have been none other than the initial group of emigrants.'53
In order to reach Capua about the middle of April or a little later, these emigrants
need not have departed from Normandy before the preceding January; for, even
at so low a speed of travel as, say, twelve miles per day on an average,'54 not
more than fourteen weeks would have been required to cover the distance from
Rouen to Capua - which, since it is less than 875 miles by air, could hardly have
exceeded 1125 miles by road. It seems evident, then, that the first emigration
took place at some time within the period from January to April, 1017.
The leader of the emigrants, according to both Glaber and Ademar, was named
Rodulfus. Contrary to the usual opinion, this individual cannot have been the
Rodulfus who figures in the Salerno tradition as a brother of the murderer
Giselbertus Buttericus; for the tradition represents Giselbertus and his brothers as
emigrating from Normandy in the time of Duke Robert J,155 whereas the emigra-
tions recorded by Glaber and Ademar took place when Richard II was duke. It
will be recalled that Leo in speaking of the earliest Norman arrivals in Capua
singles out four among them as 'praecipui.' Concerning three of these - Gos-
mannus, Rufinus, and Stigandus - no other trustworthy information h-as been
transmitted.'56 But the praecipuus whom Leo mentions first, Rodulfus Todinensis,
is by all odds the same person that Glaber and Ademar indicate was the leader of
the emigration, though they apparently knew only his given name. From the
surname 'Todinensis' - which undoubtedly appeared in the source used by Leo
for this part of his work - it may be inferred that Rodulfus hailed from the

This content downloaded from 194.27.134.79 on Thu, 14 Mar 2019 16:57:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Inception of the Career of the Normans in Italy 373

seignory of Toeni, near Louviers, in the central part of eastern Normandy.'57 He

probably was a member of the family of nobles that possessed the said seignory,
and the possibility of his having been the head of the family at this time is not
precluded. Dropping the Latin form of his name, we shall refer to Rodulfus
Todinensis hereinafter either as Rodulf of Toeni or, simply, as Rodulf.
May credence be given to Leo's statement that the Normans who came to
Capua with Rodulf of Toeni numbered about forty? The question presents itself
because Ademar terms Rodulf's following a 'multitude,' which would seem to
imply that it was vastly more numerous than Leo has indicated. Fortunately,
the discrepancy admits of an explanation. It will be demonstrated, in the next
paragraph, that Ademar's testimony must be considered in the main inapplicable
to the first emigration. Leo very likely obtained his information concerning the
number of the first emigrants from the same contemporary source that yielded
the other data he presents in this connection.'58 And when Glaber contrasts the
'innumerable multitude' of Normans participating in the second emigration
with the 'few' who had gained the initial victory over the Greeks, he may be said
to verify in a general way the more exact information of Leo.
Ademar does not, like Glaber, distinguish the first emigration from the second.
Instead, he tells of a single emigration and makes Rodulf its leader. Now, the
emigration actually headed by Rodulf was the first one. But the data presented
by Ademar fit only the second emigration; for, besides speaking of a 'multitude'
of Normans, he asserts that after they had arrived in Rome they proceeded
directly to Apulia, on a raiding expedition which Pope Benedict chose to connive
at. Thus, Ademar combines the second emigration with the first; and in doing so
he makes it appear that the Normans invaded Apulia on their own initiative,
without any suggestion from the pope, who merely refrained from interfering. It
may be conceded that, with exception of his reference to Rodulf as leader, Ademar
has probably described with approximate correctness the second emigration.159
The question as to whether he was unaware there had been two emigrations, or
whether he has deliberately obscured this fact, may be left undecided. All that
needs to be here insisted upon is that his account as it stands is misleading. The
emigrants with whom Rodulf of Toeni journeyed to Italy were certainly not a
multitude; and they neither raided Apulia on their own initiative nor did they
go there directly from Rome. The joint testimony of Glaber and Leo on these
three points would seem to be conclusive.
According to Glaber, the object of Rodulf in journeying to Rome was to lay
his case before the supreme pontiff. Probably we shall not go far wrong if we
identify what Glaber calls Rodulf's causa propria with the causa that Leo assigns
to the entire group of Normans who arrived with Rodulf in Capua. Having fled
from Normandy in order to escape the wrath of their suzerain, these men found
themselves at large and strictly on their own. Their causa was evidently that of
refugee men-at-arms in search of employment in their profession; and to lay this
case before the pope amounted simply to seeking his advice as to where such em-
ployment might be had. There is no acceptable evidence that Rodulf, when he
directed his course toward Italy, had any intention to go farther south than
Rome; or that, prior to his interview with the pope, he possessed any information

This content downloaded from 194.27.134.79 on Thu, 14 Mar 2019 16:57:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
374 The Inception of the Career of the Normans in Italy

about the position of affairs in Apulia. Glaber represents the emigrant Norman
as being wholly unaware of the recent Byzantine encroachment in that region,
until the grievance it had engendered was explained to him by the pope.
Apart from the Salerno and Gargano traditions, Glaber is our sole source of
information on how the Normans were initially attracted to lower Italy. It seems
very unlikely that what he brings out on this fundamental point is mere invention.
If Pope Benedict VIII had not actually induced the Normans to employ their
arms against the Byzantines, Glaber scarcely would have presumed to indicate
as much in a work dedicated to Abbot Odilo of Cluny, who without question was
well informed in the matter and would not have wished to see the deceased
pontiff misrepresented.'60 But if, accordingly, we are obliged to reckon with
Glaber's testimony, yet this does not mean that it may be accepted entirely ad
verbum. Probably the pope in his conference with Rodulf did not go quite as far
as to say that the Italians had no leader capable of expelling the Byzantines from
their country, since such a statement would have been tantamount to a disparage-
ment of the leadership qualities of Melo, which Benedict must rather have seen
fit to praise.'6' It should be remembered that the Burgundian Glaber - who,
like the Aquitanian Ademar, never mentions Melo at all - was a Frenchman,
tempted perhaps to underrate Lombard-Italian military competence in order to
emphasize the prowess of the Normans. On the other hand, there would seem to
be little room for doubt that the pope did make representations to Rodulf which
persuaded the latter to offer the services of himself and his followers in a war to
be waged against the Greeks. Moreover, Benedict may well have sent with the
Norman knights some papal messengers, to recommend them to the personages
whom Glaber designates 'Beneventani primates.' Our Burgundian monk either
deemed it unnecessary further to identify the said personages or, more likely,
he did not know precisely who they were. If he is using the term primates in the
secular rather than the ecclesiastical sense, it may be taken to apply to the
brother princes Landulf V of Benevento and Pandulf IV of Capua, both of whose
territories lay in the region commonly called 'Beneventan."162
From Rome the emigrants proceeded - perhaps along the old Roman Via
Appia - southeastward to Capua,'63 where, according to Leo's account, the ar-
rival of Normans was then a novel event. Glaber's failure to mention either Capua
or Melo, and his vague statement concerning the reception of Rodulf by the
Beneventans, betray his lack of detailed information as to how the Normans were
formally engaged to fight against the Greeks. Fortunately, Leo comes to our as-
sistance at this point, with data obviously derived from his contemporary south-
Italian source. The pertinent items in Leo's narrative are the following: (1) when
the Normans came to Capua Melo was sojourning there with Prince Pandulf;
(2) Melo promptly summoned the emigrant warriors to an interview, in the
course of which he made inquiry into their causa; and (3), having satisfied him-
self that they could render effective aid in the campaign he was preparing to
launch, he concluded with them a military alliance. On the basis of this testi-
mony it must be held that Glaber has mistakenly represented Rodulf as the ac-
cepted commander-in-chief of the troops that subsequently invaded Apulia.
Very probably the Normans formed the spearhead of these troops, and Rodulf

This content downloaded from 194.27.134.79 on Thu, 14 Mar 2019 16:57:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Inception of the Career of the Normans in Italy 375

no doubt led the attack and gave tactical directions. But the supreme command
unquestionably was in the hands of Melo, as is attested not only by Leo, but also
by the records entered for the year 1017 in several trustworthy compilations of
south-Italian annals.'64

VI

Acceptance of the Salerno and the Gargano traditions - along, perhaps, with
an indiscriminating interpretation of the testimony of Ademar has led his-
torians to misconceive, and consequently to underrate the importance of, the
part taken by Pope Benedict VIII in the events that brought the first group of
Normans to southern Italy. It is an error to believe that the pontiff merely sanc-
tioned a course of action which had been proposed to Rodulf of Toeni and his
followers before they departed from Normandy.'65 When these men set out for
Italy they were wholly uncommitted, and neither Melo nor the Lombard princes
had made any attempt to attract them.'66 They journeyed to Rome on their own
initiative, and with no definite plan other than to seek the advice of the pope as
to where refugee knights like themselves might employ their arms to good pur-
pose. Benedict promptly resolved to utilize this unanticipated opportunity for
the furtherance of his anti-Byzantine policy. With consummate art, it would
appear,'67 he induced the expatriate warriors to enlist in the cause of Apulian
independence. Then he directed them to Capua, where they became allies of
Melo; and soon afterward the impending campaign was launched.'68
In such wise did the military career of the Normans in the Italian southland
commence. There is no warrant in authentic testimony for the view that it began
with an attack on Saracens besieging Salerno, or that it was preceded by visits of
Norman pilgrims to Jerusalem and Monte Gargano. Among the duly attested
factors that combined to bring about its inception, none may be considered
more decisive than the action of Pope Benedict VIII.169
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

APPENDIX
I

The Salerno tradition according to Amatus, as reproduced by (A) the OF.

translator in the Ystoire de 1i Normant'70 and (B) Peter the Deacon in Leo of
Ostia's Chronica monasterii Casinensis:17'

A B

37. Septimo huius abbatis anno coepe-

runt Normanni, Melo duce expugnare Apu-
liam. Qualiter autem vel qua occasione
Normanni ad istas partes primo devenerint,
et quis vel unde Melus hic fuerit, quave
de causa eisdem Normannis adhaeserit,
opportune referendum videtur. Ante hos
xvii. Avan mille puis que Christ, lo circiter 16 annos,
nostre Seignor, prist char en la Virgine
Marie, apparurent en lo monde .XL. vail- quadraginta numero Normanni in habitu
lant pelerin. Venoient del saint Sepulere peregrino ab Ierusolimis revertentes, Sa-

This content downloaded from 194.27.134.79 on Thu, 14 Mar 2019 16:57:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
376 The Inception of the Career of the Normans in Italy

de Jerusalem, pour aorer Ihesu Crist. Et lernum applicuerunt, viri equidem et sta-
vindrent a Salerne, laquelle estoit assege tura proceri, et specie pulchri, et armorum
de Sarrasin, et tant mene mal qu'il se experientia summi. Quam a Saracenis
vouloient rendre. Et, avant, Salerne estoit obsessam reperientes,
faite tributaire de li Sarrazin. Mes, se
tarderent qu'il non paierent chascun an li
tribut a lor terme, encontinent venoient li
Sarrazin o tout molt de nefs, et tailloient et
occioient et gastoient la terre. Et li pelegrin
de Normendie vindrent la. Non porent sous- accensis nutu Dei animis
tenir tant injure de la seignorie de li Sar-
razin, ne que li Christiens en fussent subject
a li Sarrazin. Cestui pelegrin alerent a a Guai-
Guaimarie, serenissime principe, liquel go- mario maiore qui tunc Salerni principaba-
vernoit Salerne o droite justice, et proYerent tur equis armisque expostulatis,
qu'il lr fust donne arme et chevauz, et
qu'il vouloient combatre contre li Sarrazin;
et non pour pris de monoie, mes qu'il non
pooient soustenir tant superbe de li Sar-
razin. Et demandoient chevaux. Et quant
inopinate super illos irruunt, et pluribus
il orent pris armes et chevaux, ils assallirent
li Sarrazin et molt en occistrent; et molt eorum peremptis, ceterisque fugatis, mira-
s'encorurent vers la marine, et li autre bilem victoriam Deo praestante adepti
fouirent par li camp. Et ensi li vaillant sunt.
Normant furent veinceor. Et furent li
Salernitain delivre de la servitute de li
Pagan.
xviii. Et quant ceste grant vittoire fu
ensi faite par la vallantise de ces .xL. Nor-
mant pelegrin, lo Prince et tuit li pueple de Attolluntur ab
Salerne les regracierent molt; et lor offrirenit omnibus in triumphum, donis a principe
domps, et lor prometoient rendre grant amplissimis honorantur, utque secum ma-
guerredon, et lor prierent qu'il demorassent nere debeant multis precibus invitantur.
a deffendre li Chrestien. Mes li Normant Illi vero amore tantum Dei et christianae
non vouloient prendre merite de deniers de fidei hoc se fecisse asseverantes, et dona
ce qu'il avoient fait por lo amor de Dieu. recusant, et ibi manere posse se denegant.
Et se excuserent qu'il non pooient demorer.
xviiII. Apres ce, orent conseill li Nor- Princeps
mant que la venissent tuit li principe de itaque habito cum suis consilio
Normendie. Et les enviterent. Et alcun se
donnerent bone volonte et corage 'a venir
en ces partiez de sa, pour la ricchece qui i simul
estoit. Et manderent lor messages avec ces cum eisdem Normannis legatos suos in
victoriouz Normans; et manderent citre, Normanniam dirigit, et veluti alter Narsis
amigdole, noiz confites, pailles imperials, poma per eos cedrina, amigdalas quoque,
ystrumens de fer aorne d'or. Et ensi les et deauratas nuces, ac pallia imperialia, nec
clamerent qu'il deuissent venir a la terre non
qui et equorum instrumenta auro purissimo
mene lat et miel et tant belles coses. Et insignita illuc transmittens, ad terram talia
que ceste cosez fussent voires, cestui Nor- gignentem illos transire non tam invitabat
mant veinceor lo testificarent en Normen- quam et trahebat.
die.
xx. Et en cellui temps estoit rumor et Per eos dies duo mag-
odie entre .11. princes de Normendie, c'est nates partis illius, Giselbertus scilicet qui
Gisilberte et Guillerme. Et Gisilberte, et Buttericus, et Guilielmus cognomento

This content downloaded from 194.27.134.79 on Thu, 14 Mar 2019 16:57:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Inception of the Career of the Normans in Italy 377

loquel estoit clame Buatere, prist volente Repostellus acriter inter se dissidentes, ad
et corage contre Guillerme, liquel co[n]tres-
id tandem flagitii devenerunt ut Giselbertus
toit contre l'onor soe, et lo geta d'un lieu Guilielmum occideret.
molt haut; dont il fu mort. Et quant cestui
fu mort, ot cestui ceste dignite: que estoit
viceconte de toute la terre. Et Robert, Quod cum Rob-
conte de la terre, fut moult ire de la mort de comes terrae ipsius comperisset,
bertus
cestui, et manecha de occire cellui qui avoit vehementer iratus mortem Giselberto inter-
fait celle homicide; quar, se ceste offense minatus est. Giselbertus igitur iram domini
non fusse punie, parroit que licence fust de sui praecavens,
toutes pars de occirre li viceconte. Et assumptis
Gisilberte avoit .IIII. freres, c'est Raynolfe, quattuor fratribus suis, Rainulfo, Aselit-
Ascligime, Osmude et Lofulde. Et avieingne tino, Osmundo, atque Rodulfo, et aliquot
que cestui n'avoient colpe de la mort de aliis, cum equis tantum et armis iuncti
Guillerme, toutes foiz foyrent avec lo frere nostrorum legatis aufugiunt,
et vindrent avuec lo message del Prince de
Salerne. Et vindrent armes, non come
anemis, mes come angele; dont par toute
Ytalie furent recetuz. Les coses necessaire
de mengier et de boire furent donnees de
li seignor et bone gent de Ytalie. Et pas- et
serent la cite Rome, et vindrent a Capue Capuam tandem perveniunt, ubi eo tem-
Et troverent que un de Puille qui se clamoit pore praedictus Melus cum Pandulfo prin-
Melo estoit la chacie; et estoit chacie cipe morabatur.
pource qu'il avoit este rebelle contre lo
Empereor de Costentinnople.
xxi. Cestui furent en aide de Melo, et
entrerent en la fin de Puille avuec lui. Et
commencerent a combatre contre li
Grez. ...

II

The variant Salerno tradition recorded by Orderic Vitalis in his Historia ec-
clesiastica, and its context:172
In sede apostolica Benedicto papa residente, Sarraceni de Africa in Apuliam navigio sin-
gulis annis veniebant, et per singulas Apuliae urbes vectigal quantum volebant a desidibus
Langobardis et Graecis Calabriam incolentibus impune accipiebant. His diebus Osmundus
cognomento Drengotus Willermum Repostellum, qui sese de stupro filiae ejus in audientia
optimatum Normanniae arroganter jactaverat, inter manus Rotberti ducis in sylva, ubi
venabatur, occidit; pro quo reatu a facie ejus prius in Britanniam, deinde in Angliam,
postremo Beneventum cum filiis et nepotibus aufugit. Hic primus Normannorum sedem
in Apulia sibi delegit, et a principe Beneventanorum oppidum ad manendum sibi suisque
haeredibus accepit. Deinde Drogo quidam Normannus miles cum centum militibus in
Jerusalem peregre perrexit; quem inde revertentem cum sociis suis Waimalchus dux apud
Psalernum aliquantis diebus causa humanitatis ad refocillandum retinuit. Tune viginti
millia Sarracenorum Italico littori applicuerunt, et a civibus Psalernitanis tributum cum
summis comminationibus exigere coeperunt. Duce autem cum satellitibus suis vectigal a
eivibus colligente, de classe egressi sunt, et in herbosa planitie, quae inter urbem et mare
sita est, ad prandium cum ingenti securitate et gaudio resederunt. Cumque Normanni hoc
comperissent, ducemque pro leniendis barbaris pecuniam colligere vidissent, Apulos ami-
cabiliter inerepaverunt quod pecuniA sese ut inermes viduae redimerent, non ut viri fortes
armorum virtute defenderent. Deinde arma sumpserunt, Afros secure vectigal expectantes
repente invaserunt, multisque millibus fusis reliquos cum dedecore ad naves aufugere

This content downloaded from 194.27.134.79 on Thu, 14 Mar 2019 16:57:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
378 The Inception of the Career of the Normans in Italy

compulerunt. Normanni itaque aureis et argenteis vasis, aliisque spoliis multis et pretiosis
onusti redierunt, multumque a duce, ut ibidem honorifice remanerent, rogati sunt; sed
quia revisendi patriam cupidi erant, poscentibus non adquieverunt. Attamen promiserunt
ei quod ipsi ad eum redirent, aut de electis juvenibus Normanniae aliquos ei cito mitterent.
Postquam vero natale solum attigerunt, multa quae viderant et audierant, vel fecerant, seu
passi fuerant, compatriotis suis retulerunt. Deinde quidam eorum promissa complentes
reciprocato calle Italiam repedarunt, exemploque suo levia multorum corda ad sequendium
se excitarunt. Nam Turstinus cognomento Citellus et Ragnulfus, Richardus Anschetilli
de Quadrellis filius, filiique Tancredi de Alta-Villa: Drogo videlicet atque Umfridus, Wil-
lermus et Hermannus, Rotbertus cognomento Wiscardus et Rogerius et sex fratres eorum;
Willermus de Monsteriolo et Ernaldus de Grentemaisnilio, aliique multi Normanniam
reliquerunt, et Apuliam non simul, sed diversis temporibus, adierunt. Illuc autem perve-
nientes, primo quidem Waimalchi ducis, aliorumque potentum stipendiarii contra paganos
facti sunt; posteaque exortis quibusdam simultatum causis, eos quibus antea servierant
impugnaverunt....

III

The Gargano tradition as (A) recorded in verse by William of Apulial73 and

(B) paraphrased by the monk Alexander :174

A B

Eo igitur tempore, quo Graecorum

exercitus dominabatur Apuliae,
11 Horum [sc. Normannorum] nonnulli Gargani cul- contigit, quosdam Normannorum
mina montis ad cryptam S. Angeli sitam in
Conscendere, tibi, Michael archangele, voti monte Gargano causa orationis
Debita solventes. Ibi quendam conspicientes venire, ubi dum viderent, quem-
More virum Graeco vestitum, nomine Melum, dam virum nobilem civem Baren-
15 Exulis ignotam vestem capitique ligato sem, nomine Meluum, more Grae-
Insolitos mitrae mirantur adesse rotatus. corum vestibus indutum, caput
Hunc dum conspiciunt, quis et unde sit ipse, mirifice habentem quasi mitra
requirunt. ornatum, interrogantes eum, quis,
Se Langobardum natu civemque fuisse et unde esset, qui se Barensem
Ingenuum Bari, patriis respondit at esse esse respondit,
20 Finibus extorrem Graeca feritate coactum. et Graecorum perfidia exulare a
Exilio cuius dum Galli compaterentur, patria,
'Quam facilem reditum, si vos velletis, haberem, sed dicebat, si Norman-
Nos aliquot vestra de gente iuvantibus,' inquit. norum haberet subsidium, et pa-
Testabatur enim, cito Graecos esse fugandos triam posse recuperare, et facile
25 Auxiliis horum, facili comitante labore. Graecos ab ea expellere.
Illi donandum patriae munimine gentis Norman-
Hunc celeri spondent, ubi forte redire licebit. ni itaque hoc audientes, et sua,
Ad fines igitur postquam rediere paternos, et suiae gentis promiserunt ei dare
Coeperunt animos mox sollicitare suorum, auxilia,
30 Italiam secum peterent. Narratur et illis et repatriantes,
Appula fertilitas ignaviaque insita genti.
Sola quibus peragi possit via, ferre moventur;
Tutor ibi prudens promittitur inveniendus,
Quo duce de Graecis facilis victoria fiat.
35 Arrectis igitur multorum mentibus ire cum magno post exercitu,
Pars parat, exiguae vel opes aderant quia nullae,
Pars quia de magnis maiora subire volebant:

This content downloaded from 194.27.134.79 on Thu, 14 Mar 2019 16:57:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Inception of the Career of the Normans in Italy 379

Est adquirendi simul omnibus una libido.

Aggrediuntur iter, sumptis quae cuique videtur
40 Ferre necesse viam pro viribus peragendam.
Postquam gens Romam Normannica transit Roma[m]
inermis, transeuntes inermes
Fessa labore viae Campanis substitit horis: in Campaniam
Fama volat, Latio Normannos applicuisse. descenderunt, ubi eis malum
Melus ut Italiam Gallos cognovit adisse, [Meluus?] occurrit, et primo fecit
45 Ocius accessit; dedit arma carentibus armis; eos arma parare, deinde ad in-
Armatos secum comites properare coegit. vadendam Apuliam'properare....

NOTES

* The essence of this article was presented as an address at the dinner of the Mediaev
of America held 27 December 1947 in Cleveland, in connection with the sixty-second annual meeting
of the American Historical Association.
1 F. Chalandon, Histoire de la domination normande en Italie et en Sicile (2 vols.; Paris, 1907), i,
48-54. In the period between World Wars I and II a German investigator of high competence an-
nounced at least twice a forthcominig study on the transmitted information concerni-ng the first
appearance of Normans in Italy. See Wilhelm Smidt, 'Uber den Verfasser der drei letzten Redaktionen
der Chronik Leos von Monte Cassino,' in Papsttum und Kaisertum, Forschungen ... Paul Kehr . . .
dargebracht, ed. A. Brackmann (Munich, 1926), p. 288, n. 1; idem, in Monumenta Germaniae historica,
Scriptores (cited hereinafter as MGH SS), xxx, Pt. ii, Fasc. iii (Leipzig, 1934), 1409, n. 8 ad fin. If
the promised contribution is now in print, I have failed to find it.
2 The following works will be referred to, in the subsequent notes, simply by the names of their re-
spective authors:
Bresslau, H. Jahrbiicher des deutschen Reichs unter Heinrich II. Vol. iII. Leipzig, 1875. (Vol. i of these
Jahrbiicher [Berlin, 1862] was done by Siegfried Hirsch; Vol. ii [ibid., 1864], by Hirsch and
H. Pabst; and Vol. iii, by Hirsch, Pabst, and Bresslau. The principal author of Vol. iii, however,
is Bresslau, who has written everything in it from p. 141 onward, with the exception of Excursus
ii [see the Preface, pp. v-vi]. In this article, all references to Bresslau are to the part of Vol. iII
that is exclusvely his work.)
Chalandon, F. op. cit., supra, n. 1.
De Blasiis, G. La insurrezione pugliese e la conquista normanna nel secolo XI. Vol. i. Naples, 1864.
Gay, Jules. L'Italie meridionale et l'empire byzantin depuis l'avenement de Basil Ier jusqu'a la prise de
Bari par les Normands (867-1071). Paris, 1904.
Heinemann, L. von. Geschichte der Normannen in Unteritalien und Sicilien. Vol. i. Leipzig, 1894.
Kuypers, H. Studien iiber Rudolf den Kahlen (Rodulfus Glaber). (Academy of Mtinster diss.) Goch,
1891.
Manitius, M. Geschichte der lateinischen Literatur des Mittelalters. Vols. ii, iII (Handbuch der Alter-
tumswissenschaft, hrsg. von W. Otto, ix, ii, 2, 8). Munich, 1923, 1931.
Molinier, A. Les sources de l'histoire de France. Vol. ii. Paris, 1902.
Schocher, Jenny. Aimet: Ystoire de li Normant, eine textkritische Untersuchung. (Univ. of Berlin diss.)
Berlin, 1935.
Schultze, Adolf. Ein Beitrag zur unteritalisch-normannischen Geschichte. (Univ. of Rostock Promo-
tionsschrift.) Oldenburg, 1872.
C. H. Haskins, The Normans in European History (Boston and New York, 1915), pp. 197-198.
Among the more detailed accounits, the fullest and best is that of Chalandon (i, chap. 1). Cf. Gay, pp.
366-375; Hleinemann, i, 19-29; Bresslau, pp. 144-147; De Blasiis, i, 27-45.
4 Gay, pp. 348, 347-349; Chalandon, i, 3, 4 and n. 4; Heinemann, pp. 8, 20; Bresslau, p. 144.
5 Other forms of his name also occur, e.g., Melus, Mel, Ismahel. Notwithstanding Chalandon's as-
sertion to the contrary (i, 48, 54, n. 6), the form Ismahel (or Ysmahel) appears in Italian as well as
German sources. See Annales Beneventani monasterii Sanctae Sophiae, Redaction A2, sub anno 1017,
ed. 0. Bertolini (in Bulletino dell' Istituto storico italiano e Archivio Muratoriano, No. 42 [Rome, 1923]),

This content downloaded from 194.27.134.79 on Thu, 14 Mar 2019 16:57:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
380 The Inception of the Career of the Normans in Italy

p. 181 and n. 5 ad fin. Both of the first two redactions (Al and A2) of these annals appear to have been
compiled, in the monastery of St Sophia at Benevento, as late as the second decade of the twelfth cen-
tury (ibid., pp. 19-21, 24, 30-31); but they depend largely upon older Beneventan annals which have
been lost (ibid., pp. 43-63).
6 See infra, n. 8 (first sentence in the quotation from Leo of Ostia); also Chalandon, i, 42; Gay, pp.
399-401; Heinemann, pp. 29-30; Bresslau, p. 147 and nn. 2, 3.
7 What is said above of the Apulian revolt of 1009-1011 is not intended to be more than a sum-
mary. For detailed accounts, with references to all the sources, see Chalandon, i, 42-46; Gay, pp. 401-
402; Heinemann, pp. 30-31; Bresslau, pp. 147-149; Schultze, pp. 3-4, 13-18. The pertinent passage
in one of the principal sources is quoted in the next note.
8 Leo of Ostia (also called Leo Marsicanus), Chronica monasterii Casinensis, Bk. ii, chap. 37, Redac-
tion 1 (ed. WV. Wattenbach, in MGH SS, vii, 652 and notes i, k, 1, m, n, o, p): 'Barensium civium immo
totius Apuliae primus hic [sc. Melus] et clarissimus erat, strenuissimus valde ac prudentissimus vir;
sed cum superbiam insolentiamque ac nequitiam Grecorum qui non multo ante, a tempore scilicet
primi Ottonis Apuliam sibi Calabriamque . . . vendicaverant, Apuli ferre non possent, cum eodem
Melo et cum Datto quodam aeque nobilissimo, ipsiusque Meli cognato, tandem rebellant. Verum
cum exercitui quem imperator hoc audito Barim transmiserat, idem Barenses resistere non valerent,
post non longum tempus turpiter se suaque dedentes, eundem quoque Melum Grecis tradere nequiter
conabantur. Quod prudentissimus vir advertens, una cum Datto clam fugit, et Asculum introivit;
atque post paucos dies, timens ne etiam ipsi, Grecis qui eum obsidebant contraderent, noctu egressus,
cum Datto pariter Beneventum venit; inde Salernum, ac deinde Capuam.... '
Of the four different redactions in which Leo of Ostia's Chronica has been transmitted, only the first
may, according to recent investigation, be ascribed to the author. The oldest manuscript representing
the first redaction (Munich, Clm 4623) is judged by palaeographers to have been written, either in
whole or in part, by Leo himself. This manuscript, however, presents certain problems with respect
to Leo's text which have not yet found an entirely definitive solution. As for the subsequent redac-
tions of the Chronica, there is no doubt that the text in each case is one which has been interpolated
and otherwise tampered with by Leo's second continuator, the twelfth-century Monte Cassino monk
Peter the Deacon, an ingenious and very prolific faslifier of records and documents. See W. Smidt,
'tber den Verfasser,' loc. cit. (supra, n. 1), pp. 263-286; idem, 'Guido von Montecassino und die "Fort-
setzung" der Chronik des Leo durch Petrus Diaconus,' in Festschrift Albert Braclcmann dargestellt
(Weimar, 1931), pp. 293 f.-; H. -XV. Klewitz, 'Petrus Diaconus und die Montecassineser Klosterchro-
nik des Leo von Ostia,' in Archiv fiur Urkundenforschung, hrsg. v. K. Brandi, xiv (1936), 414-453;
W. Smidt, 'Die vermeintliche und die wirkliche Urgestalt der Chronik Leos von Montecassino,' in
Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken, xxviii (1937-38), 286-297.
Smidt contends (ibid., pp. 293-295) that it remains to be proved, by a comparison of style, whether
the first redaction of the chronicle as it appears in the earliest preserved manuscript really is Leo of
Ostia's unaltered work. Unquestionably, however, the text contained in this manuscript - as distinct
from the marginal glosses, and with the exception of a few leaves which are written in a different hand
- yields the closest approach to the original that is now available.
According to Klewitz (loc. cit., pp. 421-423), Leo of Ostia began to write his chronicle ca 1090 and
completed it before the end of the eleventh century; whereas Smidt had previously (in MGJI SS, xxx,
Pt. ii, Fasc. iii, 1401) dated the composition between ca 1098 and ca 1101. Cf. idem, 'Die vermeint-
liche und die wirkliche Urgestalt,' loc. cit., p. 290 and n. 5; idem, 'tfber den Verfasser,' loc. cit., p.
264 and nn. 6, 7, pp. 267-269; Manitius, iii, 547, n. 2, 549, 550. For the early part of the eleventh cen-
tury Leo's chronicle indubitably depends upon older sources that are now lost. Two of the latter have
been identified, respectively, as old Monte Cassino annals (see Smidt, in MGI SS, loc. cit., p. 1401
and nn. 14, 15, p. 1411, n. 9; cf. Wattenbach, in MGHI SS, vii, 551, 560 and n. 82, 651, n. 60) and old
Beneventan annals (see 0. Bertolini, ed., Ann. Benee., loc. cit. [pra, n. 51, pp. 70-74). In addition,
Leo utilized an unidentifiable but well-informed source for his account of the history of Melo and the
first appearance of Normans in Italy (see Smidt, 'tber den Verfasser,' bc. cit., p. 279 ad fin., p. 280
and nn. 2, 3, p. 281 [quotation from Cod. 11, p. 282 adfin., p. 283 and n. 1).
I See the end of the quotation from Leo of Ostia in the preceding note, and infra, nn. 13, 14, 16. The
ruler of Capua from 1008 to 1014 was Prince Pandulf II, the Old, of Benevento, who functioned as
regent for his young nephew the Capuan prince Pandulf III (called by some historians Pandulf II, the

This content downloaded from 194.27.134.79 on Thu, 14 Mar 2019 16:57:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Inception of the Career of the Normans in Italy 381

Young). Pandulf II, the Old, at his death in August, 1014, was succeeded in the principality of Bene-
vento by his son Landulf V, and in the principality of Capua by Pandulf III. The latter appears to
have ruled alone until February, 1016, when he associated with him in the government of Capua his
cousin Pandulf IV, who was a brother of Landulf V of Benevento and also of Abbot Atenulf of Monte
Cassino. Thereafter Pandulf III disappears from our records, and apparently Pandulf IV was the
sole prince of Capua in the spring of 1017. See Ann. Benev., sub annis 1014 (Redactions Al and A2)
and 1016 (Redaction A2), loc. cit., p. 131 and n. 4; Leo of Ostia, Chron., Bk. ii, chap. 29, loc. cit., p.
646. Cf. Gay, pp. 403, 409.
We have no specific information as to when Melo and Datto came to Capua. It is quite possible
that they remained in Benevento for a year or two, and also that they spent a year or so in Salerno.
The fact that the catapan Basilius Mesardonites visited Salerno in October, 1011 does not necessarily
imply, as Bresslau (p. 149) seems to have thought it did, that Melo and Datto had come there pre-
viously and been turned away. Melo may well have postponed going to Salerno until long after the
catapan's visit (cf. Gay, p. 403, second par.), being content meanwhile to promote his cause in Bene-
vento with the aid or at least the connivance of Prince Pandulf II, the Old. Bresslau (loc. cit.) labored
under the erroneous impression that in the year 1011 the principalities of Benevento and Capua were
being ruled respectively by Landulf V and Pandulf IV; whereas in fact their father, Pandulf II, the
Old, governed both of these principalities from 1008 to his death in 1014. There is, accordingly, no
reason to believe with Bresslau that Melo had been received less favorably in Benevento than he was
later in Capua. The Salernitan prince Guaimar IV (999-1027) may have deemed it politic to receive
the catapan at Salerno in October, 1011; but he seems also to have permitted Melo, presumably at a
subsequent time, to pursue anti-Byzantine activities in Salerno. See infra, n. 11 and cf. M. Schipa,
'Storia del principato longobardo di Salerno,' in Archivio storico per le province napoletane, xii (Naples,
1887), 258-259.
10 Leo of Ostia, Chron., Bk. ii, chap. 37, Redaction 1 (loc. cit., p. 652 and notes r, t, u, v, y): 'Interea
[the reference is to the period between Melo's flight from Bari and his sojourn in Capua] Barenses
captam uxorem ipsius [sc. Meli] Maraldam, et filium Argiro, Constantinopolim ad imperatorem trans-
mitunt. Dattus itaque, cum apud praefatum abbatem [sc. Atenulfum] una cum uxore et filiis diebus
aliquot commansisset, demum ob Heinrici imperatoris fidelitatem a Benedicto papa in turre de Gari-
liano, quam idem tunc retinebat, positus est.'
Chalandon's assumption (i, 46-47) that Abbot Atenulf requested Datto to depart from Monte
Cassino in October, 1011, when the catapan Basilius Mesardonites visited Salerno, is impossible; be-
cause Datto evidently did not arrive at Monte Cassino until after the consecration of Pope Benedict
VIII, on 22 June 1012 (P. Jaffe, Regesta pontificum Romanorum ... ad annum ... MCXCVIII, 2d
ed., rev. and enl. under the auspices of W. Wattenbach, i [ed. S. Loewenfield; Leipzig, 1885], 506).
Nor does it seem likely that Datto would be considered a fidelis of Emperor Henry II until after
Henry had been crowned emperor, on 14 February 1014 (ibid., p. 507). Cf. Gay, p. 409. I cannot
convince myself that Bresslau (p. 150) was right when he interpreted the phrase 'ob Heinrici impe-
ratoris fidelitatem' as referring to Benedict rather than to Datto.
On the Tower of Garigliano, see P. Fedele, 'La battaglia del Garigliano dell' anno 915 ed i monu-
menti che la ricordano,' in Archivio della R. Societa romana di storia patria, xxii (1899), 199-211.
Fedele appears to have proved that in the eleventh century there were two towers guarding the
Garigliano, one of which was known as Turris Gariliani, and the other as Turris ad mare. The former
stood on the right bank near the place where the river was crossed by persons traveling on the old
Roman Via Appia; it was the older tower, having been reconstructed by the imperial patrician John
of Gaeta soon after the battle of the Garigliano in 915. The Turris ad mare, which stood on the left
bank close by the river's mouth, had been built between ca 961 and ca 981 by Pandulf (I) Ironhead,
Lombard prince of Capua and Benevento. Datto, it would seem, became custodian of the Turris
Gariliani (see ibid., p. 200 and n. 1, p. 201, n. 4, pp. 208, 209 and n. 1).
11 Leo of Ostia, loc. cit., p. 652: '[Melus] nullo interim otio indulgens, quin modis omnibus satageret,
qualiter Grecorum dominationem abicere, atque ab eorum tyrannide suam posset patriam liberare.'
This sentence intervenes between the passages quoted supra in nn. 8 and 10.
12 See infra, n. 149; also Chalandon, i, 19-20, 23, 52-53; Heinemann, pp. 20, 31-32; Gay, pp. 407-
409; Schultze, p. 4.
13 Leo of Ostia, loc. cit., p. 652, note a: 'Melus interea Capuae cum principe morabatur.' If the word

This content downloaded from 194.27.134.79 on Thu, 14 Mar 2019 16:57:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
382 The Inception of the Career of the Normans in Italy

'interea' were used here in the strict temporal sense, the sentence would mean that Melo tarried at
Capua while Datto repaired to Monte Cassino and, later, to the Tower of Garigliano (cf. supra,
n. 10). It seems more likely that 'interea' in this context (cf. the first seven words of the quotation
in the next note) approximates the sense of 'however,' in which case the purport of the sentence is
that, though Datto had left Capua, Melo was still staying there. The prince referred to is probably
Pandulf IV, though it could be Pandulf III or even Pandulf II, the Old (cf. supra, n. 9). It also is
possible that the phrase 'cum principe' refers to each one of these three princes in succession.
14 Leo of Ostia, loc. cit. (directly after the sentence quoted in the preceding note) and ibid., p. 658
and note a: 'His primum diebus venerunt Capuam Normanni aliquot.... Hoc cognito Melus, mox
illos accersit, eorumque causa diligentius perquisita et agnita, illis de more militiae protinus foede-
ratur; et evestigio Salernum ac Beneventum repedans, multos sibi tam Grecorum odio, quam sui
gratia ductos associat, statimque Grecorum terram ingressus, expugnare repugnantes viriliter coe-
pit.'
16 Ann. Benev., sub anno 1017, Redaction Al, loc. cit., p. 131: 'mense magii venerunt Normanni in
Apulia; et in mense iunio fecerunt bellum cum Grecis.' Ibid., Redaction A2: 'Normanni conducti ab
Ysmahele pugnaverunt cum Grecis.' See also ibid., n. 5. Lupus Protospatarius, Rerum in regno
Neapolitano gestarum breve chronicon sive annales, sub anno 1017 (MGM SS, v, 57): 'Et in hoc anno
descendit Turnichi catepani mense Maii. Et fecit proelium cum Mele et Normannis Leo Patiano
exubitus. Iterum in mense Iunii 22. die proelium fecit praefatus Turnichi catepani ....'
The real name of the compiler of the last-cited annals is unknown, and he has been denominated
Lupus Protospatarius only since the seventeenth century. His work is usually dated between 1082
and 1090 (ibid., p. 51; Molinier, ii, 265, No. 2068); but according to Ferdinand Hirsch (De Italiae
inferioris annalibus saeculi decimi et undecimi [Diss.; Berlin, 18641, p. 44 ad init.), the time of its com-
position remains uncertain. Cf. Chalandon, i, Introd., pp. xxvii-xxix; W. Wattenbach, Deutschlands
Geschichtsquellen im Mittelater, ii (6th ed.; Berlin, 1894), 233, n. 1. The compiler drew most of his
information from old and now lost annals of Bari, but he also made considerable use of the lost
Beneventan annals (see Hirsch, op. cit., pp. 2-11, 16, 20O24, 88-39, 49-58; Bertolini, ed., Ann. Benev.,
loc. cit., p. 35 and n. 2, pp. 63-64, 67). The fact that he followed the Byzantine custom of beginning
the year on 1 September (cf. Chalandon, loc. cit., p. xxix; Bresslau, pp. 320-322) is immaterial in
this connection; for within the period from 1 January to 31 August his reckoning would not differ
from ours as far as the number of the year is concerned, and he clearly indicates that the Greek
commander Leo Patiano engaged in battle with Melo and the Normans in May, 1017.
1B The words 'mox,' 'protinus,' 'evestigio,' and 'statimque,' used by Leo of Ostia in the passage
cited supra, n. 14, indicate that the interval of time between the arrival of the Normans in Capua and
the beginning of the attack on the Byzantines in Apulia (cf. the preceding note) was a short one.
Moreover, in using the expression 'his . . . diebus' (ibid.), Leo may well be referring not only to the
time of Melo's sojourn in Capua, but also to the seventh year of the abbacy of Atenulf at Monte
Cassino; for he says at the beginning of the chapter here in question (loc. cit., p. 651 and notes *, d, f,
g, h, i): 'Huius abbatis [sc. Atenulfi] anno sexto, luna tota conversa est in sanguinem; et sequenti
coeperunt Normanni, Melo duce expugnare Apuliam. Quis sane vel unde Melus fuerit, et qua de causa
Normannis adhaeserit, compendiosa narratione dicendum est. Barensium civium,' etc. (cf. supra, n. 8
ad init.). Since Atenulf became abbot of Monte Cassino some days after the death of his predecessor
John on 18 March 1011 (Leo of Ostia, Chron., Bk. ii, chaps. 28, 29, loc. cit., p. 646 and note n), his
seventh abbatial year could hardly have begun earlier than 21 March, nor much later than 31 March
1017. In all likelihood, therefore, the Normans arrived at Capua in April or very early in May of
that same year.
17 Supra, p. 353. Cf. Chalandon, I, 48-53; Gay, pp. 404-409; Heinemann, pp. 33-35; 0. Delarc, Les
Normands en Italie depuis les premieres invasions jusqu'a l'avenement de S. GrWgoire VII (859-862,
1016-1073) (Paris, 1883), pp. 36-48; Bresslau, pp. 151-153, 322-325. James van Wyck Osborne, in
his recent popular book entitled The Greatest Norman Conquest (New York, 1937), pp. 20-25, has gar-
nished the traditions with embroideries of his own.
18 For the testimony in question, see infra, pp. 370 ff.
19 This terminology is only in part new, for a French scholar has previously referred to 'la tradition
salernitaine sur l'arrivee des Normands en Italie.' See 0. Delarc, ed., Aime, Ystoire de li Normant
(Paris, 1892), Introd., p. lxvi.

This content downloaded from 194.27.134.79 on Thu, 14 Mar 2019 16:57:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Inception of the Career of the Normans in Italy 383

20 Our total evidence that a Monte Cassino monk named Amatus was the author of the 'Hi
Normannorum' is furnished by Peter the Deacon (cf. 8upra, n. 8, second par.) who functioned as
librarian and archivist at Monte Cassino in the second quarter of the twelfth century (see E. Caspar,
Petrus Diaconus und die Monte Cassineser Fllechungen [Berlin, 1909], pp. 25, 26 and n. 3). Peter's
testimony is contained in the following two passages: 'Amatus quoque episcopus et huius monasterii
monachus, his diebus [i.e., in the time of Abbot Desiderius, 1058-1086] scripsit versus de gestis apo
tolorum Petri et Pauli, et hos in quattuor libros divisit. Ystoriam quoque Normannorum com-
ponens, nomini eiusdem abbatis dicavit' (Chronica monasterii Casinensis, Bk. iII, chap. 35, MGII SS,
VII, 728). 'Amatus Episcopus, et Casinensis Monachus, in Scripturis disertissimus, et versificator ad-
mirabilis. Scripsit ad Gregorium Papam [i.e., Gregory VII, 1073-1085] versus De gestis Apostolorum
Petri et Pauli, et hos in quatuor libros divisit.. .. Historiam quoque Nortmannorum edidit, ean-
demque in libros octo divisit' (Liber illustrium virorum Casinensis archisterii, chap. 20, in L. A. Mura-
tori, ed., Rerum Italicarum 8criptores, VI [Milan, 1725], col. 36). It is to be noted that Peter, in both
of these passages, ascribes to Amatus the (extant) poem De gestis apostolorum Petri et Pauli as well as
the (lost) 'Historia Normannorum.' In a dissertation published in 1935 (cited supra, n. 2), Jenny
Schocher contends (pp. 89-91) that the author of the poem - who, indeed, calls himself Amatus (see
ibid., p. 90 ad fin.) - may not be identified with the author of the 'Historia,' because the poem ex-
presses an attitude toward the city of Rome and Pope Gregory VII that is very different from the at-
titude reflected in the 'Historia'; and she concludes that the author of the 'Historia' was an anony-
mous Monte Cassino monk, probably of Salernitan origin. The inference as to the anonymity of the
author of the 'Historia' must, I believe, be set aside as a non sequitur. Even on the hypothesis that
Peter erroneously credited the poem and the 'Historia' to the same author, it is necessary to reckon
with the possibility that both authors had the same name and that Peter simply confused them. The
fact that a Monte Cassino monk named Amatus composed the poem, in no wise proves that the
'Historia' was not written by another Amatus of the same monastery; especially since two Monte
Cassino necrologies, one prepared before 1101 and the other in the twelfth century, register between
them the deaths of no less than eleven monks each of whom was named Amatus. See Vincenzo De
Bartholomaeis, ed., Storia de' Normanni di Amato di Montecassino volgarizzata in antico francese, in
Fonti per la storia d'Italia (pub. by the Istituto storico italiano per il medioevo), No. 76 (Rome, 1935),
Preface, pp. xxv-xxvi. There is, accordingly, no valid reason for considering the 'Historia Nor-
mannorum' anonymous. The author of this work may or may not have written the poem De gestis
apostolorum Petri et Pauli; but, on the basis of the information we have, he was in any case a Monte
Cassino monk by the name of Amatus (cf. De Bartholomaeis, loc cit., pp. lxviii, lxxiv-lxxvi, 177, n.
2). On the mooted question as to whether he was also a bishop - a matter which may be left here
untouched - see ibid., pp. xxvi-xxxvi and the references there cited; cf. Schocher, p. 91.
21 Cf. Schocher, pp. 31-32; also p. 83, where it is stated that 'Der Tod Richards [von Capual im
Jahre 1078 (1. Vin. c. 34) war das zuletzt geschilderte Ereignis.'
22 Various opinions have been expressed as to the time at which the 'Historia Normannorum' was
composed. According to De Bartholomaeis (loc. cit., pp. lxvii-lxx), Amatus began to write this work
after July, 1080, and probably completed it within two or three years, certainly before May, 1086.
Jenny Schocher (pp. 84, 91) dates the composition in the period 1071/72-1079/80. For previously ex-
pressed views on this point, see Smidt, 'Vber den Verfasser,' loc. cit. (supra, n. 1), p. 277 and n.
cf. Manitius, in, 452-454. The years 1071 and 1086 mark the extreme limits of the period withi
which it may be contended that the 'Historia Normannorum' came into existence.
23 See Smidt, 'tYber den Verfasser,' loc. cit., pp. 279-286. When Wattenbach edited Leo's chronicle
he distinguished four successive redactions (cf. supra, n. 8, second par.), which he numbered 1, 2, 3,
and 4, respectively (see MGH SS, vii, 556-558, 562; cf. Smidt, 'tYber den Verfasser,' loc. cit., pp. 266-
267). Smidt, however, has shown (ibid., pp. 270-271, 285-286) that the true chronological sequence
of these four redactions is 1, 3, 4, 2. The Salerno tradition was first inserted into Redaction 3, but it is
retained in Redactions 4 and 2 (ibid., pp. 281-283). Smidt (ibid., p. 265 and n. 4) dates Redaction 3 in
the period 1123-1126.
24 The most recent edition of the Ystoire de li Normant is that of Vincenzo De Bartholomaeis (cited
8upra, n. 20 ad fin.). There have been two previous editions, one by Aime-Louis Champollion-Figeac
(Paris, 1835), and another by 0. Delarc (cited upra, n. 19). An edition by the well known German
mediaevalist Adolf Hofmeister was indicated to be in preparation in 1934 (see MGH SS, xxx, Pt. u,

This content downloaded from 194.27.134.79 on Thu, 14 Mar 2019 16:57:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
384 The Inception of the Career of the Normans in Italy

Fasc. iii, 1408, n. 3 ad fin.), but apparently it has not yet been published. On the date of the Ystoire,
the problem of the translator's identity, and the general character of his translation, see the following
works and the references therein cited: De Bartholomaeis, loc cit., pp. xcvi-cviii; Schocher, pp. 5-24,
91 et passim. I think Jenny Schocher may be credited with having proved that the Latin text of the
'Historia Normannorum' had been interpolated by a second redactor, probably Peter the Deacon,
before it came into the hands of the translator (see ibid., pp. 8, 25-927, 31-88, 69-74, 80-81, 91; cf. De
Bartholomaeis, loc. cit., p. 177, n. 2 ad fin.); but this is a matter which may be left out of account
in the present study, since the part of the 'Historia' that contained the Salerno tradition (Bk. I,
chaps. 17-20) had evidently not been interpolated (cf. Schocher, pp. 32, 84, 35-36, 42-44, 50).
25 Caesar Baronius, Annales ecclesiatici ... una cum critica historico-chronologica P. Antonii Pagii
xvi (Lucca, 1744), sub anno 1002, p. 427, [No.] xxiv.
26 The identification is credited to the French scholar Pierre Amable Floquet. See De Bartho-
lomaeis, loc. cit., p. cix.
27 The demonstration of these several points was the work of Smidt, in his highly important essay
'tber den Verfasser' (loc. cit., pp. 277-286). See also supra, nn. 8, 23.
28 See infra, nn. 34-36, 38-42, 47-49.
29 See infra, nn. 39, 40, 43, 45, 49.
80 For the OF. and the Latin texts, see the Appendix, i (infra, pp. 375-377).
31 In this and the following sentence, Peter the Deacon has altered Leo of Ostia's text (quoted
supra, n. 16), with a view to disguising the subsequent interpolation of the tradition.
32 In Leo of Ostia's text the recital of Melo's activities in the period 1009-1017 precedes the account
of the coming of the Normans (cf. supra, nn. 8 [ad init.], 11, 10, 18, 14). Peter the Deacon found it
suitable for his purpose to reverse the order of presentation (cf. infra, n. 50).
33 In the clause 'Avan mille puis que Christ ... prist char,' the word an (or ans) would seem to be
required, either before or after 'mille' (cf. ed. De Bartholomaeis, p. 21, note b; also Bresslau, p. 328,
n. 2), and it probably has been inadvertently omitted by the copyist. But to assume, as De Barthol-
omaeis does (loc. cit.), that the copyist also omitted the numeral .XVI. after 'mille' is, I think, un-
warranted. See the next note.
84 There is no reason to suppose that Peter the Deacon copied his 'Ante hos circiter 16 annos' ver-
batim from Amatus. If Amatus had written, for example, 'Ante annum millesimum (or annos mille)
postquam Christus . . . ,' Peter naturally would have reworded this phrase to make it fit the context
of Leo of Ostia's chronicle (cf. Bresslau, loc. cit.; Schocher, p. 34). Peter, however, did not in this
instance adhere strictly to the statement of Amatus; for, whereas Amatus had evidently written to
the effect that the Norman pilgrims 'appeared in the world' before the year 1000, Peter indicates that
they came to Salerno about the year 1001 (cf. Schipa, 'Storia del princ. long. di Salerno,' loc. cit.
[supra, n. 9 ad fin.], p. 256, n. 1).
35 In the opinion of Jenny Schocher (p. 34), the words which describe the appearance and special
qualification of the Normans - 'viri equidem et statura proceri, et specie pulchri, et armorum exper-
ientia summi' - probably appeared in the original; 'denn es ist anzunehmen, dass Petrus kritiklos
von der Vorlage abschrieb, ohne das Latein des Autors zu komplizieren.' This argument quite obvi-
ously misses the mark.There is no denying that Peter the Deacon copied uncritically; but what needs
to be explained is the absence in the OF. translation of an equivalent for the Latin phrases here in
question. Since virtually the same phrases were used by Leo of Ostia to describe the first Normans who
came to Capua (see infra, n. 151 ad init.), it seems fairly evident that Peter, in his redaction of Leo's
Chronica, simply transferred these phrases to their present place, and that they did not occur in
the Latin text of Amatus. Cf. Bresslau, p. 323; Smidt, 'Uber den Verfasser,' loc. cit., p. 288, n. 2.
36 Peter evidently omitted the passage in the 'Historia Normannorum' which explained that the
Saracens had come to Salerno to enforce the payment of tribute.
37Guaimar IV (999-1027). Cf. Schipa, 'Storia del princ. long. di Salerno,' loc. cit., pp. 255, 256 and
n. 1.
38 It will be noted that, according to Amatus, the action of the Normans was determined by their
unwillingness to tolerate Saracen domination over Christians, and the victory they won was due to
their valor. Peter, on the other hand, ascribes both the action itself and the victorious outcome to
divine intervention. These points have been brought out effectively by Smidt ('tUber den Verfasser,'
loc. cit., p. 282 and n. 5).

This content downloaded from 194.27.134.79 on Thu, 14 Mar 2019 16:57:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Inception of the Career of the Normans in Italy 385

39 There can be little doubt that the translator has here misrendered the original, which probably
is correctly reproduced by Peter - as both Jenny Schocher (pp. 35-36) and De Bartholomaeis (loc.
cit., p. 24, n. 1 ad init.) suggest.
40 Jenny Schocher rightly states (p. 36) that it is impossible to determine whether this and the
preceding sentence were added by the translator, or omitted by Peter the Deacon. In the latter case,
the purport of the original may have been that the prince of Salerno, after conferring with his coun-
selors, decided to extend a general invitation to warriors in Normandy to emigrate to southern Italy,
his expectation being that at least some Normans would come when they were informed of the wealth
of this land.
41 It seems doubtful that the reference to Narses appeared in the original. There is good reason to
ascribe it to Peter the Deacon. See Caspar, Petrus Diaconus, pp. 27-28 and cf. Bresslau, pp. 323-324.
42 Despite its omission by the translator, William's surname, Repostellus, probably was given in
the original, as De Bartholomaeis (loc. cit., p. 25, n. 1) also believes.
43 I am less certain than Jenny Schocher was (p. 50 ad fin.) that the original ascribed the dignity
of viscount to William Repostellus. The translator may conceivably have mistaken the proper name
Repostellus for a common noun derived from the verb reponere (which sometimes signifies 'to put in
the place of' or 'to substitute'), and so have inferred that in Normandy the officer who took the place
of the count was called 'repostellus.' Cf. infra, n. 45.
44 Robert 1, 1027/28-1035 (see infra, n. 133). In the tenth and eleventh centuries the duke of Nor-
mandy was often referred to as 'count' and even as 'count of Rouen' (see J. M. Lappenberg, Geschichte
von England, ii [Hamburg, 1837], pp. 18, 19 and n. 1; A. Luchaire, Manuel des institutions frangaises,
p6riode des Cap6tiens directs [Paris, 1892], p. 238, second par.; C. H. Haskins, Studies in Norman In-
stitutions [Cambridge, 1918], pp. 78, 274 and n. 39; also infra, n. 150 ad init.). Since the count here in
question is called Robert by both the translator and Peter the Deacon, it must be inferred that this
name appeared in the original.
45 This clause, as Jenny Schocher suggests (loc. cit.), probably was added by the translator to supply
a particular reason for the anger of Duke Robert at the killing of William Repostellus. Cf. supra, n. 43.
46 Whereas Bresslau (p. 152, n. 2, p. 323) believed that the OF. names in this chapter of the Ystoire
were 'entstellt' or 'zum Theil verstUimmelt,' Jenny Schocher (p. 50) declares them to be 'verfalscht.'
It seems obvious that the translator did not falsify, but only Gallicized, the names of Giselbertus
Buttericus, William Repostellus (whom he calls Guillerme), Rainulfus, and Osmundus. Probably,
therefore, the same holds true in the case of the other two names, and their OF. forms have simply
been mis-copied. Elsewhere in the Ystoire, the name Asclittinus appears as Asclicien, Ascletine, Ascli-
tine, or Asclitunie (see ed. De Bartholomaeis, p. 58, lines 28, 24, p. 96, line 10, p. 98, lines 1, 5, 11, 27,
p. 110, line 4, p. 111, line 12). The form Lofulde probably represents Rodulfe (cf. ibid., p. 96, line 5),
the copyist having inadvertently exchanged the initial letter R for an L and transposed the letters
d and f. Chalandon (i, 52, n. 8) mistakenly refers to 'la forme Lodolfe qui est dans Aime.'
47Whether the words 'et aliquot aliis' appeared in the original remains uncertain, though I am in-
clined to believe they were added by Peter the Deacon. Cf. infra, n. 151.
48 Jenny Schocher (p. 42 ad fin., cf. p. 34) contends, with good reason, that the word 'nostrorum' in
the expression 'iuncti nostrorum legatis' proves that Peter the Deacon - who himself was not a
Salernitan - in general copied the text of Amatus uncritically. For other instances of this tendency
on Peter's part, see Caspar, Petrus Diaconus, pp. 29-30.
49 At the two points where this note is indexed above, the narrative of the Salerno tradition may
be said to end in the Ystoire and the interpolated text of Leo of Ostia's chronicle, respectively. A few
more lines from the texts have been included in the quotations, in order to show how the events set
forth in the tradition were linked to Melo's projected invasion of Apulia. It is difficult to determine
whether the translator added, or Peter the Deacon omitted, what is said in the OF. version about the
friendly reception given the Normans in Italy. Probably, however, the original text of Amatus did
contain an equivalent of the translator's statement that the Normans 'passerent la cite Rome,' since
according to Peter they arrived in Capua 'tandem' - a word which may well signify that Peter
passed over certain details of their journey.
50 After this sentence Peter the Deacon in the following words effects a transition to Leo of Ostia's
account of the activities of Melo prior to the coming of the Normans: 'Hic itaque Melus, ut retro
aliquantulum redeam, Barensium civium,' etc. (see the references cited supra, n. 32). Except for a few

This content downloaded from 194.27.134.79 on Thu, 14 Mar 2019 16:57:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
386 The Inception of the Career of the Normans in Italy

inconsequential changes in phraseology, this account remains the same in the last redaction of Leo's
chronicle as in the first.
51 William of Apulia, Gesta Roberti Wiscardi, Bk. i, vss. 11-46, ed. R. Wilmans in MGH SS, ix,
241-242. This poem constitutes the single work accredited to William of Apulia. On its date, the
person of its author, and the sources he utilized, see Wilmans, ibid., pp. 239-241; idem, 'tber die Quel-
len der Gesta Roberti Wiscardi des Guillermus Apuliensis,' in Archiv der Gesellschaftfuir diltere deutsche
Geschichtkunde (hrsg. v. G. H. Pertz), x (1851), 87-121; Chalandon, i, Introd., pp. xxxviii-xl; Manit-
ius, iii, 453 adfin., 660-662; Molinier, ii, 265, No. 2070; Wattenbach, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen,
ii, 239; Delarc, Normands, p. 36, n. 2. Wilmans's statement ('Ter die Quellen,' loc. cit., p. 87), that
the epic written by William of Apildia 'keinem der nach ihm lebenden Geschichtschreiber, wenig-
stens so weit unsere Kenntniss reicht, vorgelegen hat,' was based on inadequate information, as will
appear from what follows above.
52 Chronica monasterii S. Bartholomaei de Carpineto, Bk. iII, in F. Ughelli, Italia sacra, ed. N. Coleti,
x, Pt. ii (Venice, 1722), col. 358, Ughelli correctly states (ibid., col. 389) that the author of this
chronica was the monk Alexander, 'qui eam scripsit Coelestini III. Papae temporibus' (1191-1198).
On its value in general, see Chalandon, i, Introd., p. xli and cf. infra, n. 55.
53 See infra, p. 359 and n. 60; cf. De Bartholomaeis, ed., Storia de' Normanni di Amato, p. 27, n. 1.
54 See infra, nn. 56, 58. To facilitate comparison of their diction, the two Latin texts are reproduced
in parallel columns in the Appendix (iII, infra, pp. 378-379). Chalandon (i, Introd., p. xli and n. 1)
exaggerates when he says of Alexander, that 'il a notamment copie des passages entiers de Guillaume
de Pouille.' Even in the case of the Gargano tradition, Alexander paraphrased rather than copied and
he did not paraphrase the tradition entire. Moreover, from the part of William's epic that follows
immediately after the recital of the tradition (vss. 47-187, loc. cit., pp. 242-245) Alexander only bor-
rowed the salient points. He failed, it is true, to acknowledge his borrowings.
55 Without shifting to others the responsibility for any part of my translation, I wish gratefully
to acknowledge the helpful suggestions I received from two specialists in mediaeval Latin, Mr Charles
H. Beeson and Miss Blanche B. Boyer, when I requested their opinions as to the exact purport of
some of William of Apulia's verses.
56 Alexander substitutes for the poet's 'Gargani culmina montis' the phrase 'ad cryptam S. Angeli
sitam in Monte Gargano.' For an account of the origins of the cult of St Michael on Monte Gargano,
and of the introduction of the name Monte Sant' Angelo, see De Blasiis, i, 61-65; also Germain
Bazin, Le Mont-Saint-Michel (Paris, 1933), pp. 8-9.
5 In vss. 18-19 William of Apulia has Melo identifying himself as 'civem . . . ingenuum Bari,'
which words I have rendered 'a freeborn citizen of Bari' (see a few lines further on in the left-hand
column above). Alexander evidently interpreted the word 'ingenuum' as being equivalent to 'virum
nobilem.'
58 Alexander's use of the word 'quasi' may show that he doubted whether the headdress worn by
Melo actually was a turban, as William of Apulia (vss. 15-16) seems to indicate.
59 I cannot agree with De Bartholomaeis (loc. cit. supra, n. 53) when he suggests that Alexander
here adds something to what William of Apulia says in the corresponding verses (26-27) of his epic.
Alexander merely disregarded the clause 'ubi forte redire licebit,' with which William had qualified
the promise made by the Normans.
60 A moink recording the fortunes of the monastery of St Bartholomew of Carpineto might properly
omit from his narrative the content of the remainder of this paragraph (vss. 29-40), on the ground
that it is unessential from the point of view of the subject he has in hand. In the sentence in his
Chronica which immediately precedes the passage translated above, Alexander explains that he will
deal 'breviter' with the coming of the Normans to Italy, and in fact his account of this matter is
relatively brief. Alexander's omission of one part of the Gargano tradition as it was indited by
William of Apulia may not, therefore, be considered an indication that he obtained his knowledge of
this tale from another source.
61 Cf. supra, p. 356.
62 A. Pagi, Critica historico-chronologica in universos Annales ecclesiasticos ... Cardinalis Baronii,
Opus posthumum, ed. F. Pagi, iv (Antwerp, 1705), 90, No. ix, 111-112, Nos. v-ix (reprinted in Vol.
xvI of the ed. of Baronius cited supra, n. 25; see p. 427, No. xxiv, pp. 501-508, Nos. v-ix. Though

This content downloaded from 194.27.134.79 on Thu, 14 Mar 2019 16:57:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Inception of the Career of the Normans in Italy 387

Pagi published the first part of his Critica, covering about four centuries of Baronius' Annales, in
1689 (in Paris), the completed work in four folios did not appear (at Antwerp) until six years after its
author's death. See the article on Pagi, by F. W. Rettberg, in J. S. Ersch and J. G. Gruber, eds.,
Allgemeine Encykclopddie der Wissenschaften und Kuinste, Sec. iii, Pt. ix (Leipzig, 1837), 261.
63 This may be gathered from the following statement of Alessandro di Meo, in his Annali critico-
diplomatici del regno di Napoli della mezzana eta (vii [Naples, 1802], 50): 'Cosi favoleggio il P. Pagi, di
cui veggano ancora tutti i nostri, che lo han ciecamente seguito,' etc.
64 L. A. Muratori, Annali d'Italia, rx (Milan, 1744), 56 (sub anno 1016), 57 (sub anno 1017).
65 Chronicon Cavense, sub anno 1016, in F. M. Pratillus, ed., Camillus Peregrinus, Historia prin
cipum Langobardorum, iv (Naples, 1753), 431. Pratillus (also called Pratilli or Pratillo) forged this
entire chronicle, which covers the period A.D. 794-1085. See the reference cited infra, n. 68.
66 Di Meo, op. cit., vi (Naples, 1801), 349-350 (sub anno 1003), 355-360; vii, Preface, pp. iii-iv, pp.
49-50 (sub anno 1016).
67 Cf. supra, n. 24, first par.
68 See G. H. Pertz and R. Kopke, 'Ueber das Chronicon Cavense und andere von Pratillo herausge-
gebene Quellenschriften,' in Archiv der Geselt3chaftfur dltere deutsche Geschichtkunde, Ix (1847), 1-239.
69 Geschichte der deutschen Kaiserzeit, ii (5th ed.; Leipzig, 1885), 178-179, 621-69.2. The second
volume of this work was originally published, in successive parts, at Brunswick in 1857-58.
70 Storia dei Musulmani di Sicilia, ii (Florence, 1858), 343, 344 and n. 1. In the second ed. of
Amari's work, by C. A. Nallino (ii [Catania, 1935], 399-401), no comment is made on what the author
says in this context.
71 Giesebrecht may be said to allude to the Gargano tradition when he (mistakenly) states (loc. cit.,
p. 692 ad init.) that William of Apulia drew his information about the first Norman expedition to Italy
from Amatus. Amari made no reference to the Gargano tradition in the second volume of his work,
which appeared in 1858; but in Part I of his third volume (Florence, 1868) he characterized this story
as an 'episodio classico posto a capo del poema' (p. 22, n. 2) and also as an 'episodio poetico, contrario
alla tradizione di Amato' (p. 27, n. 1). It should be noted that Giuseppe De Blasiis (see the next para-
graph in the text above) had expressed a similar view in 1864.
72 op. cit. (supra, n. 2), i, 65-66, 69-77, 82-83.
73 'Amatus von Monte Cassino und seine Geschichte der Normannen,' loc. cit., vill, 236-243.
74 See ibid., p. 238, n. 2, p. 2492. n. 1.
75 See ibid., pp. 226-230, 322-325.
76 Schultze (op. cit. supra, n. 2), pp. 4-5, 36-38.
77 Bresslau, pp. 322-325.
78 'Zur Kritik der Normannengeschichte des Amatus von Monte Casino,' loc. cit., xxiv, 284-288.
For a recent evaluation of the positions taken by Hirsch and Baist respectively, see Schocher, p. 6.
79 Bresslau, p. 324.
80 Baist, loc. cit., p. 285 ad init., p. 286, n. 1. The correctness of Baist's interpretation of tbe pertinent
passage in the Ystoire (Bk. i, chap. 19) seems very dubious. Cf. supra, nn. 39, 40.
81 See esp. Schultze, p. 38 ad fin.; Baist, loc. cit., pp. 277-278.
82 Schultze, pp. 35-36; Bresslau, p. 3925, sec. 2, last sentence. For the respective positions of De
Blasiis and Amari, see supra, n. 71 ad fin.
83 Baist, loc. cit., p. 285 and n. 1.
84 Delarc, Normands (cited supra, n. 17), pp. 36, 38-39.
85 P. 25.
86 I, 48, 50-51.
87 Cambridge Medieval History, v (New York, 1926), 169.
88 M. Schipa, 'Storia del princ. long. di Salerno,' loc. cit. (supra, n. 9 ad fin.), pp. 255, 256 and n. 1,
257. Though Schipa gives a reference to William of Apulia's poem (ibid., p. 9260, n. 2), it applies not
to the part of this poem in which the Gargano tradition is recited, but to the part that follows im-
mediately thereafter. Cf. idem, 'A proposito della prossima edizione dell' Ystoire d'Amato,' in Ar-
chivio storico per le province napoletane, xiii (1888), 499-501.
89 Gay, pp. 404-407.
90 i, 48 and n. 9, 49 and n. 5, 50 and n. 2, 51-53.

This content downloaded from 194.27.134.79 on Thu, 14 Mar 2019 16:57:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
388 The Inception of the Career of the Normans in Italy

91 See infra, p. 367.

92 R. Palmarocchi, L'abbazia di Montecassino e la conquista normanna (Rome, 1913), p. 70.
93 MGH SS, xxx, Pt. ii, Fasc. iii, 1408-1409, n. 3 adfin.
94 Cf. supra, pp. 358-359 and nn. 51-52, 54, 56-60.
95 According to the respective calculations of Ferd. Hirsch ('Amatus,' loc. cit., p. 229) and Baist
(loc. cit., p. 280 and n. 1), Amatus was born ca 1020 or ca 1030. Smidt, however, correctly observes
(tber den Verfasser,' loc. cit., p. 280, n. 7) that these calculations lack a firm basis. Amatus himself
expressed the wish (Bk. iII, chap. 52, ed. De Bartholomaeis, p. 177) that he might be survived by
Abbot Desiderius and that, on the last day of his life, he would be absolved by him from his sins. In
the opinion of Baist, this statement, when considered in the light of several other (more or less cer-
tain) data, justifies the inference that Amatus was younger than Desiderius, who was born in 1027.
It may be noted that, even if Amatus had been as much as ten years older than Desiderius, the
year of his birth still would not antedate 1017.
96 This was the view of Baist (loc. cit., pp. 279-9280), who probably qualifies as Amatus's most
ardent defender. But see also Schipa, 'A proposito,' loc. cit. (supra, n. 88), pp. 496-510; Schocher, pp.
6, 83, 91; De Bartholomaeis, loc. cit., Preface, pp. lxx-lxxiv.
97 It has usually been inferred that Amatus was a native of Salerno (see Ferd. Hirsch, 'Amatus,'
loc. cit., p. 206 and n. 1; Schipa, 'A proposito,' loc. cit., pp. 488-489; Delarc, ed., Aime, Ystoire de li
Normant, Introd., pp. ix-x; Schocher, p. 91); but according to De Bartholomaeis (loc. cit., Preface,
pp. xxxvi-xxxviii), he was probably a Capuan.
98 Cf. supra, p. 356 and n. 27. Smidt ('tber den Verfasser,' loc. cit., pp. 277-280), after summarizing
the views of earlier scholars on Leo of Ostia's literary relation to Amatus, expresses the opinion that
Leo, though he (even at the time he was writing his Chronica) undoubtedly had acquaintance with the
'Historia Normannorum,' made no use of it, because other source material pertaining to the early
history of the Normans in Italy was accessible to him and it was not his intention to treat of the Nor-
mans in detail. This opinion obviously does not exclude the possibility that Leo may have doubted
the truth of the Salerno tradition. And, in any case, he can no longer justifiably be cited in support
of this story, there being not the faintest allusion to it in the first redaction of his chronicle, which is
the sole redaction ascribable to Leo.
99 Peter the Deacon was born probably in 1107 and he entered the monastery of Monte Cassino as
an oblate in 1112 or 1115. The date of his death is unknown, but it occurred after 1145 and perhaps
after 1153. See Caspar, Petrus Diaconus, pp. 18, 21-22, 26. Leo of Ostia died after 1114 and before
1118 (Molinier, ii, 190, No. 1871; Wattenbach, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen, ii, 235).
100 Cf. supra, p. 356 and n. 28.
101 See the Notice by L. Delisle in A. Le Prevost, ed., Orderic Vitalis,l Historia ecclesiastica, v (Paris,
1855), xlvi, xlviii. Cf. Molinier, ii, 219-9220, No. 1973; Manitius, iII, 522-5528.
102 Ord. Vitalis, op. cit., Bk. iII, chap. 3, ed. Le Prevost, ii (Paris, 1840), 53-55. Thomas Forester's
translation of this passage (The Ecclesiastical History of England and Normandy by Ordericus Vitalis
[in the 'Bohn Series'], i [London, 1853], 410-412) needs some emendation; but I am indebted to it in
several places. For the Latin text see the Appendix, ii, infra, pp. 377-378.
103 The words 'his diebus' need not be taken in the narrow sense that they refer exclusively to the
period when Benedict VIII was pope (1012-1024). The depredations of the Saracens in Apulia and
Calabria seem not to have come to an end until ca 1033 (see Gay, pp. 433-435; Chalandon, i, 89).
Orderic's phrase may therefore well include a considerable part of the time when Robert I (who is
mentioned in the next sentence) was duke of Normandy (1027/28-1035; cf. infra, n. 133).
104 See ibid.
105 On Guaimar IV and V, see Schipa, 'Storia del princ. long. di Salerno,' loc. cit., pp. 255-264, 513-
542; idem, in Enciclopedia italiana, xviii (1933), 9, s.vv.
106 Richard, the son of Anschetillus (Asclettin) of Quarrel, became count of Aversa in 1049, and
later prince of Capua. He had come to Italy toward the end of the year 1046 (see Amatus, Ystoire de
li Normant, Bk. ii, chap. 44, ed. De Bartholomaeis, p. 110 and n. 2; Ord. Vitalis, op. cit., Bk. iII, chap.
5, ed. Le Prevost, pp. 87-88; Chalandon, i, 115 and the genealogical table opposite p. 112; Heinemann,
pp. 115-116, 364, n. 17; De Blasiis, i, 9201). The first two of Tancred of Hauteville's sons to go to
Apulia (William of the Iron Arm and Drogo) seem not to have arrived there before ca 1036 at the

This content downloaded from 194.27.134.79 on Thu, 14 Mar 2019 16:57:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Inception of the Career of the Normans in Italy 389

earliest (see Chalandon, i, 79-82; De Bartholomaeis, loc. cit., p. 67, n. 1; Heinemann, pp. 63, 76, 353-
354, n. 9), and Tancred's youngest son (Roger) did not arrive until some twenty years later (Chalan-
don, i, 148, n. 2, 150 and n. 1; De Bartholomaeis, loc. cit., p. 159, n. 3; cf. Heinemann, p. 158 and
n. 1). William of Montreuil was a son of William Giroie (Geroianus) and he is said to have acquired
in Italy the sobriquet of 'the good Norman' (see Ord. Vitalis, Bk. iII, chap. 2, loc. cit., p. 27; also ibid.,
chap. 3, p. 56). He must have arrived there later than the above mentioned Richard; for Richard,
at some time after he had become prince of Capua in 1058 (Amatus, Ystoire de li Normant, Bk. Iv,
chap. 11, ed. De Bartholomaeis, p. 190 and n. 1), adopted William of Montreuil as his son and (ca
1062) gave him his daughter in marriage (ibid., chap. 27, p. 201). De Bartholomaeis, without giving
any reason, indicates (ibid., n. 1) that it is doubtful whether Amatus in the place last cited refers to
the William of Montreuil mentioned by Orderic in the passage quoted above (p. 365). As far as I
am aware, only one William of Montreuil figures in the history of the Normans in Italy (cf. Chalan-
don, ii, Index, p. 769, s.v. 'Guillaume de Montreuil'). In Heinemann's opinion (pp. 232, 233 and n. 1),
William of Montreuil appeared in Italy ca 1061. See also Chalandon, i, 215 and n. 1.
107 In his interpolation of William of Jumireges' Gesta Normannorum ducum (Bk. vii, chap. 30, ed.
J. Marx [Rouen and Paris, 1914], pp. 188-189), Orderic Vitalis has the following to say of Turstinus
Citellus (or Scitellus): 'Primus Apuliensibus Normannis, dum adhuc ut advenae Waimalebi ducis
Salerniae, stipendiarii erant, prefuit Turstinus cognomento Scitellus, vir in multis probitatibus ad-
modum expertus. [Follows the tale of how Turstinus, after he had been drawn by the Lombards into a
dragon's lair, killed the dragon, but died on the third day as a result of inhaling the dragon's poisonous
breath.] Defuncto autem Turstino, Normanni principes sibi Rannulfum [see infra, n. 108] et Ri-
cardum [cf. supra, n. 106 ad init.] elegerunt, quibus ductoribus mortem Turstini ulciscentes contra
Langobardos aspere rebellaverunt. Post aliquod tempus Constantiniensis Drogo, filius Tancredi de
Alta Villa princeps Normannorum in Apulia factus est [Drogo appears to have been invested as duke
of Apulia by Emperor Henry III in 1047; see Chalandon, i, 10 and n. 3, 113, 114 and n. 1].' It seems
to me that Marx (loc. cit., p. 188, n. 2) and De Bartholomaeis (loc. cit., Preface, p. xi adfin. and p. 42,
n. 1) are in error when they identify Turstinus Citellus with the Trostayne, or Torstainus balbus, who,
according to Amatus's Ystoire de li Normant (Bk. i, chap. 31, ed. De Bartholomaeis, p. 42) and the
interpolations in Leo of Ostia's Chronica (Bk. ii, chap. 41, MGH SS, vii, 655 and notes e, n), was one
of the Normans left by Emperor Henry II in 1022 to aid Melo's nephews in defending the county of
Comino. I consider it more likely that Turstinus Citellus is identical with the Tristan (Tristaine) to
whom Guaimar V in 1043 assigned the seignory of Monte Peloso (Amatus, Ystoire de li Normant,
Bk. ii, chap. 31, ed. De Bartholomaeis, p. 96; cf. Peter the Deacon's interpolation in Leo of Ostia's
Chronica, Bk. ii, chap. 66, loc. cit., p. 676). For the development of the legend concerning Turstinus
Citellus, see De Bartholomaeis, loc. cit., Preface, pp. xi-xiii, 42, n. 1.
108 On the theory that the name Ragnulfus is a variant form of Rainulfus, it might be inferred
that the person to whom Orderic refers by this name is identical with the Rainulfus who, according
to the Salerno tradition as recorded by Amatus,was one of the five brothers that left Normandy in
the time of Duke Robert and went to Italy with the emissaries of Prince Guaimar of Salerno. In such
case, however, the mentioned prince must have been Guaimar V (1027-1052) rather than Guaimar IV
(999-1027). It is quite possible that the Ragnulfus (or Rainulfus) in question was the Norman who
about the year 1030 became count of Aversa, and who in the latter capacity is commonly referred
to as Rainulf (Rainolf) I. In an interpolated passage in Leo of Ostia's Chronica (Bk. ii, chap. 56, loc.
cit., p. 665 and note c), mention is made of this Rainulf in connection with events in the latter part of
1024, i.e., before he was made count of Aversa (cf. Chalandon, i, 70 and n. 5,71 and n. 2). But we have
no reliable information about him prior to ca 1029-1030, when, according to the first redaction of
Leo's Chronica (loc. cit., pp. 665-666), Duke Sergius of Naples 'Rainulfum strenuum virum affinitate
sibi coniunxit, et Aversae illum comitem faciens, cum sociis Normannis ... ibidem manere con-
stituit.' This statement, it should be noted, is fully supported - even in the matter of the time to
which it refers - by Amatus (Ystoire de li Normant, Bk. i, chaps. 41-42, ed. De Bartholomaeis, pp.
52-54). Orderic may be right, therefore, when he includes Ragnulfus (Rainulf) among the Normans
who departed from their homeland at the time of Duke Robert I and, upon arriving in lower Italy,
first took service with Prince Guaimar V or with other contemporary potentates in that region.
109 Since Ernaldus (Arnaud) of Grantmesnil is mentioned in a charter issued by the Norman duke

This content downloaded from 194.27.134.79 on Thu, 14 Mar 2019 16:57:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
S30 The Inception of the Career of the Normans in Italy

William I about 1050 (see Le Prevost's ed. of Ord. Vitalis, list. eccl., v, 174), he presumably was still
in Normandy at that time. Ernaldus had a brother named Robert (see Ord. Vitalis, Hist. eccl., Bk.
in, chap. 2, ed. Le Prevost, ii, 30, 31), who became abbot of the Norman monastery of Saint-Evroul-
sur-Ouche, and, subsequently, of the monastery of Saint Euphemia in Calabria. Robert seems to
have arrived in Italy about 1061 (see Chalandon, i, 197; Delarc, ed. Aime, Ystoire de li Normant,
p. 343, n. 1; De Bartholomaeis, loc. cit., p. 362, n. 1), i.e., about the same time as William of Mon-
treuil (cf. supra, n. 106). By placing the names of William of Montreuil and Ernaldus of Grantmesnil
at the end of his list of 'lighthearted' Normans who went to Apulia, Orderic probably meant to in-
timate that these two men emigrated at a considerably later time than the others.
110 Le Prevost's opinion (see his ed. of Ord. Vitalis, Mist. eccl., ii [1840], 55, n. 1), that Orderic simply
invented this story, is, of course, untenable. In 1840, Le Prevost had perhaps not yet seen the Ystoire
de li Normant, although the first edition of this work appeared in 1835 (cf. supra, n. 24, first par.).
111 The fact that the two narratives correspond in certain points, and yet differ so much as to pre-
clude any dependence of Orderic upon Amatus, was explained by Hirsch ('Amatus,' loc. cit., p. 238 and
n. 2, p. 239) on the ground that both authors had derived the essence of their accounts from the
same source, namely, Norman oral tradition. I am disposed not only to accept this view, but also to
believe that Orderic - who lived in Normandy all but the first eleven years of his life - has repro-
duced the oral tradition more correctly than did the Italian Amatus.
112See supra, p. 363 and nn. 84, 85; Chalandon, i, 50-51.
13 See infra, p. 368 and nn. 124, 125.
114 Chalandon (i, 50 and n. 4, 51) inferred from a passage in the Ystoire (Bk. i, chap. 292; it is chap.
23 in the ed. of De Bartholomaeis, pp. 31-32), that the first Norman arrivals in Capua separated into
two bands, one of which went to Salerno while the other joined Melo; and this, he says, 'tendrait
a prouver que le recrutement fut fait a la fois pour le compte de Meles et pour celui de Guaimar.'
Beyond any doubt, Chalandon's inference is mistaken. The Old French translator specifically
states (Ystoire, Bk. i, chap. 922 ad fin., ed. De Bartholomaeis, p. 30) that it was not apparent from
the text of Amatus whether all the Normans who arrived in Capua became allies of Melo, or whether
some of them went on to Salerno. In a subsequent context, it is true, the Ystoire does give the in-
formation that Melo, after he had fought several battles with the Greeks, was joined by three
thousand Normans from Salerno; but the translator significantly adds: 'Et second ceste ultime pa-
role, pert que cestui troiz mille Normant venissent novelement [italics mine] de Normendie' (loc.
cit., chap. 23, pp. 30-32). Chalandon unfortunately overlooked the word 'novelement,' and so
confounded the second group of Norman emigrants (cf. infra, nn. 152,,159,,166) with the first group.
In asserting that Melo awaited 'impatiemment A Capoue l'arrivee des Normands,' Chalandon (i,
51 and n. 1) read into a statement of William of Apulia (see supra, p. 360 ad init., left-hand column)
an implication which William may or may not have intended to convey. In any case, the implication
in question will be found disproved by what is said infra, pp. 367-368, 373-375.
"I Cf. supra, pp. 360, 363-364.
116 It may be proper to quote verbatim the following statement of Hirsch ('Amatus,' loc. cit., p.
241): 'Dass nun nach dem berfihmten Heiligthum des Monte Gargano schon frUher Normannen
gewallfahrtet sind, ist an und fur sich sehr wahrscheinlich, und diese Nachricht werden wir ohne
Bedenken [!] aus Wilhelms Erzahlung entnehmen dtirfen . . . '; but see also supra, pp. 361-362. For
Baist's rejoinder on this point, see supra, p. 363 and n. 83.
117 Concerning the development of veneration for Mont-Saint-Michel on the part of the Norman
dukes and their people, in the period up to 1017, see Paul Gout, Le Mont-Saint-Michel, histoire de
l'abbaye et de la ville; 6tude archUologique et architecturale des monuments, i (Paris, 1910), 101-116; also
Bazin, Le Mont-Saint-Michel, pp. 14, 22-23.
118 See the first two paragraphs of the quotation from William of Apulia, supra, p. 359.
19 Cf. supra, pp. 354-355.
120 Chalandon has shown (i, 19-20, 23) that the entire region beyond (i.e., south and southeast of)
the Fortore River - which would include the Gargano peninsula - was Byzantine in the period
just prior to the insurrection led by Melo in 1017. See also ibid., p. 47, n. 1 and.the second map at the
end of Gay's volume.
121 For a different opinion, see Gay, p. 405, second par.

This content downloaded from 194.27.134.79 on Thu, 14 Mar 2019 16:57:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Inception of the Career of the Normans in Italy 391

m Cf. supra, p. 354 and nn. 8 ad init., 10 ad init., 11.

m Cf. Smidt, in MGM SS, xxx, Pt. II, Fasc. iii, 1408, n. 3.
124 See, e.g., Bresslau, pp. 151, 323-325; Delarc, ed., Aime, Ystoire de li Normant, p. 19, n. 1, p. 20,
D. 2; Heinemann, p. 33 and n. 1; Gay, p. 406; Chalandon, I, 49; De Bartholomaeis, loc. cit., p. 21, n. 1
and also note b.
125 Our only reliable information on this siege is contained in the following two statements: 'Et
civitas Salerni obsessa est a Sarracenis per mare et per terram' (Lupus Protospatarius, a. 1016, MGH
SS, v, 57, where it is indicated that the words 'et nihil profecerunt' are added in Mss. la and 4, but
do not appear in Mss. 1, 2, 3, 5, or 5b); 'obsederunt Saraceni Salerno per mare, et terra' (Anonymous
Barensis, Chronicon, a. 1016, in Muratori, ed., Rerum Italicarum scriptores, v [Milan, 1724], 148). On
Lupus Protospatarius, see supra, n. 15. The Chronicon of the Anonymous of Bari was not compiled un-
til the first quarter of the twelfth century, but its contents, up to the year 1027 at least, appear to have
been derived from contemporary (though no longer extant) annals of Bari. See Hirsch, De Ital. inf.
annal. (cited supra, n. 15), pp. 4-8, 26 ff.; Chalandon, i, Introd., pp. xxvii-xxviii.
126 See Smidt, in MGH SS, xxx, Pt. ii, Fasc. iii, 1408-1409, n. 3.
127 Smidt (ibid., p. 1398) classifies this codex as C1IO; in the Monte Cassino archives it was num-
bered 199.
128 Annales Casinenses ex Annalibus Montis Casini antiquis et continuatis excerpti (cited hereinafter
as Annales Casinenses ... excerpti), ibid., p. 1409, Recension C: 'M. ind. XIII. Otto imperator puer
Beneventum venit. Quidam Nortmanni, Hierosolymis venientes, Salernum a Sarracenis liberarunt.'
On the error in dating, see ibid., p. 1408, n. 1.
129 Codex diplomaticus Cavensis, ed. M. Morcaldi et al., vi (Milan et al., 1884), pp. 40-41, No.
DCCCXCVIII: 'In nomine domini septimodecimo anno principatus domni nostri guaimari gloriosi prin-
cipis, mense nobember, quarta indictione. Declaro ego grimoaldus domini gratia archiepiscopus sancte
sedis archiepiscopatus salernitano, quoniam iannaci atrianense filius quondam ursi abuit ecclesia con-
structa in rebus sua de locum beteri in onore sancte dei genetricis et virginis marie, et in onore sancti
ioannis bactista, et ecclesia ipsa a sarraceni destructa est, et postmodum ipse iannaci ecclesia ipsa
iterum fabricabit et conciabit et ad culmen illam perduxit, et postulabit meipse iannaci, ut ecclesia
ipsa dedicaremus,' etc. The editor has misdated this document 'A.D. 1035.' Since Guaimar IV was
associated with his father John (Giovanni) II as prince of Salerno in March, 989 (Schipa, 'Storia del
princ. long. di Salerno,' loc. cit., p. 252 and n. 1), his seventeenth year as prince evidently extended
from March, 1005 to March, 1006. The date of this charter is, therefore, November, 1005; and this
date would fall in the fourth indiction as the charter states, because at Salerno the year began (ac-
cording to the Byzantine custom) on 1 September.
130 The mentioned statement not only is missing in the several codices (Al, Bla, and Bla) repre-
senting the first two recensions (A and B) of the Annales Casinenses . . . excerpti (loc. cit., p. 1408),
dated respectively ca 1098-1099 and ca 1104-1105 (see Smidt, ibid., pp. 1392-1396, 1404); but also it
does not appear in Codex Cla, which represents the third recension (C; ca 1154) and is older than
the earliest codex, C1O," containing this statement (see ibid., p. 1409, note d and cf. pp. 1396-139
1404). In the opinion of Smidt (ibid., p. 1398; cf. p. 1408, n. 3 ad init.), Codex C1I,, although it agree
for the most part wvith Cla, yet does not derive from it, because C1O has two entries not found in C
one of these being the statement concerning the Normans under the year 1000, and the other a terse
record of the death in 1001 (really 1031) of a certain 'beatus Dominicus.' I do not see how Smidt's
opinion can be sustained. He concedes (ibid., p. 1398) that both CCiY and CIO were derived from the
lost Codex Cla, which itself was derived from Cl, the archetype of the third recension (ibid., p. 1397
ad init.). Now obviously, if the writer of Codex CIO did not interpolate into that codex the entry
concerning the Normans under the year 1000, this entry must have appeared in the codex from which
he was copying, namely, the lost Codex Cla. But on this theory it would be necessary to assume that
the writer of Cla, who copied from the same lost codex (Cla), deliberately omitted the entry in ques-
tion - which seems very improbable. The fact that Codex CIO contains two entries which are not
found in CCia does not prove, as far as I can see, that those entries appeared in Cla, especially since
C1O was a more recent codex than Cla and had many inserted writings (ibid., p. 1398).
181 On this point I agree with Delarc (ed. Aime, Ystoire de li Normant, pp. 21-22, note; Normands,
p. 43, note) and Gay (p. 406, n. 1).

This content downloaded from 194.27.134.79 on Thu, 14 Mar 2019 16:57:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
392 The Inception of the Career of the Normans in Italy

182 Not only by Bresslau and Baist (cf. supra, nn. 77, 78), but also by Delarc (ed. Aime, Ystoire de
li Normant, p. 22, n. 1), Heinemann (p. 34), Chalandon (i, 52), De Bartholomaeis (loc. cit., p. 25, note
a, also n. 1 ad fin.), and others.
133 On the date of Richard II's accession, see C. Pfister, Etudes sur le rgne de Robert le Pieux (996-
1031) (Paris, 1885), p. 212 and n. 1. He died 23 August 1026 or 1027, the year being uncertain (see
William M. Newman, Catalogue des actes de Robert II roi de France [Paris, 1937], No. 69, p. 86, n. 1),
and he was succeeded by his two sons, Richard III and Robert I, in turn (Pfister, op. cit., pp. 216-
217). Richard III ruled from 23 August 1026/27 to 6 August 1027/28 (Newman, op. cit., No. 74, p. 94,
n. 1). It is well known that Robert I, who has been called 'the Devil' and was the father of William
the Conqueror, died 2 July 1035 at Nicaea, on his return from a pilgrimage to Palestine (see Raoul
Glaber, Historiarum libri quinque, Bk. iv, chap. 6, ed. M. Prou ['Collection de textes pour servir a
l'etude et a l'enseignement de l'histoire'; Paris, 1886], p. 108, par. 20 and nn. 1-3).
134 De Blasiis (i, 74 and n. 3) seems to be the only scholar who has hitherto recognized its untenabil-
ity.
135 'Deinde, temporibus Henrici imperatoris, filii Corradi, et Rodberti, Normannorum ducis, Os-
mundus Drengot, audax miles Apuliam adiit, cum quibusdam aliis Normannis. Nam Willelmum cog-
nomento Repostellum, militem clarissimum, in venatione, in presentia Rodberti ducis, occiderat,
metuensque animositatem ducis, et insignis equitis nobilium parentum iras, in Apuliam secessit,
et, propter magnam probitatem ejus, a Beneventanis honorifice detentus est. Deinde prefati Drengoti
exemplo agiles Normannorum seu Britonum tirones incitati Italiam diversis temporibus expetierunt,
et primo juvare Langobardos contra Sarracenos sive Grecos viriliter ceperunt. [Eventually, however,
the Normans turned their weapons against the Lombards, seized their strongholds,] et incolas terrae
sibi fortiter subegerunt. Primus Apuliensibus Normannis [for the continuation, see supra, n. 107 ad
init.]' (loc. cit., pp. 187-188). The error of making Henry III of Germany (1039-1056), who was not
crowned emperor until 1046, a contemporary of Duke Robert I of Normandy may be due to an in-
advertent transposition, either by Orderic himself or by a later copyist, of the names 'Henrici' and
'Corradi.' If the statement were corrected to read, 'temporibus Corradi imperatoris, filii Henrici,'
it would be exact, since Emperor Conrad II was the son of a Carinthian noble named Henry (see the
genealogical table in Gebhardts Handbuch der deutschen Geschichte [7th ed. by R. Holtzmann; Stutt-
gart, Berlin, Leipzig, 1930], i, 223; also ibid., p. 259, n. 1 ad init.). It is possible, of course, that Or-
deric, who lived in Normandy, may have been somewhat hazy on the chronology of the German
emperors. What seems unlikely is that a Norman historian would have erred in placing the murder
of William Repostellus in the time of Duke Robert.
136 Cf. supra, p. 365. In another context (list. eccl., Bk. v, chap. 9, ed. Le Prevost, p. 369) Orderic
again refers to Osmundus Drengotus (Drengot) as one of the first Normans who settled in Apulia;
but he does not there mention the murder of William Repostellus, and he erroneously makes the
Byzantine emperor Romanus IV, Diogenes (1067-1071) a contemporary of Osmundus.
137 Historiarum libri quinque, Bk. iII, chap. 1, ed. Prou, par. 3, pp. 52-53. For what is known of the
life of Raoul Glaber (ca 985/990-ca 1045/1050), and for analysis and criticism of his work, see, in
addition to the summaries of Manitius (ii, 347-353) and Molinier (ii, 2-3, No. 957), E. Petit, 'Raoul
Glaber,' Revue historique, XLvIIi (1892), 283-299; H. Kuypers, op. cit. (supra, n. 2); J. Havet, 'Note
sur Raoul Glaber,' Revue historique, XL (1889), 41-48. Ernst Sackur's contentions with respect to the
original plan of Glaber's work, and the dates at which it was written ('Studien uiber Rodulfus Glaber,'
in Neues Archiv der Gesellschaftfiir dltere deutsche Geschichtskunde, xiv [1889], 377-418), were shown
by Havet to be unacceptable. As for Prou's preface to his edition of Glaber's Historiae, it is to be noted
that the first part, on the life of the author (pp. v-vi), has become antiquated.
138 Chronicon, Bk. iII, chap. 55, ed. J. Chavanon ('Collection de textes pour servir a l'6tude et A
l'enseignement de l'histoire'; Paris, 1897), p. 178. An adequate account of the life of Ademar (ca
988-1034) and a critical estimate of his chronicle is supplied by Chavanon (ibid., Preface). See also
Manitius, ii, 284-294; Molinier, ii, 3-6, No. 958; L. Delisle, 'Notice sur les manuscrits originaux
d'Ademar de Chabannes,' in Notices et extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliotheque Nationale et autres
bibliothetques, xxxv (Paris, 1896), 241-243.
139 Bk. ii, chap. 37, Redaction 1, loc. cit., p. 652, note a.
140 When Chalandon (i, 51) assured his readers that the Western sources which tell of the departure

This content downloaded from 194.27.134.79 on Thu, 14 Mar 2019 16:57:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Inception of the Career of the Normans in Italy 393

of the first Normans for Italy are 'Toutes ... tres posterieurs aux 6venements,' he apparently forgot
that Glaber and Ad6mar were contemporaries of the events in question.
141 Bk. iII of Glaber's Ilistoriae probably was written between 1035 and 1044 (see Petit, loc. cit.,
p. 295; cf. Kuypers, pp. 18, 27; HIavet, loc. cit., pp. 47-48. Ademar had completed his Chronicon before
he undertook his pilgrimage to Palestine, where he died in 1034 (see Delisle, loc. cit., p. 243 and
n. 4).
142 See supra, n. 8, last par., esp. the references cited at the end.
143 See infra, pp. 371, 373.
144 Petit appears to have established (loc. cit., pp. 289-292; cf. p. 298) that Glaber was under Wil-
liam's authority for twenty years, from 1010 to 1030. For slightly variant views on this point, see
Kuypers, pp. 6, 10-11, 27, and Havet, loc. cit., pp. 44-46. Ernst Sackur (Die Cluniacenser in ihrer
kirchlichen und allgemeingeschichttichen Wirksamkeit Lis zur Mitte des elften Jahrhunderts, ii [Halle
S., 1894], 45-51) dates William of Saint-Benigne's reform work in Normandy in the period 1001-ca
1029. Though Kuypers states (p. 6) that Glaber accompanied William on his journeys, he cites no
specific evidence that Glaber was with William in Normandy.
145 Vita sancti Guillelmi abbatis Divionensis, chap. 27, in Acta sanctorum ordinis S. Benedicti, VIII
(Saeculum sextum, Pars prima, ed. J. Mabillon and T. Ruinart; Venice, n.d. [1738?]), 296: 'Ipsius
[sc. Guillelmi abbatis] namque imperio maxima jam ex parte eventorum atque prodigiorum, quae
circa et infra Salvatoris annum contigere millesimum, descripseram. Quae etiam causa ad praesens
opus me compulit inflectere articulum.' J.-P. Migne has published a reprint of the Benedictine ed. of
the Vita, in his Patrologiae cursus completus, Series Latina, cxui (Paris, 1880), where the passage
quoted in this note appears in col. 718. There is another ed. in the Bollandist Acta sanctorum; see
Vol. I for January (new ed. by J. Carnandet; Paris, n.d.), p. 64, Caput xv, 40.
146 See Petit, loc. cit., pp. 291-293; Havet, loc. cit., pp. 44-48. Cf. Kuypers, pp. 6, 7, n. 1, pp. 10-12,
27. The dedication runs as follows (ed. Prou, p. 1): 'Clarorum virorum illustrissimo Odiloni, Cluni-
ensis coenobii patri, Glaber Rodulfus.' Probably it was formulated by Glaber before he wrote the first
book; for he says in his prologue (ibid., p. 2): 'prout valeo, vestre [sc Odilonis] preceptione ac fra-
terne voluntati obedio,' and the last book remains unfinished.
147 See Kuypers, pp. 18, 27; Petit, loc. cit., pp. 292-295; Havet, loc. cit., pp. 44-48.
148 See Sackur, Die Cluniacenser, ii, 195 and n. 5. The old view, that Odilo was with Emperor Henry
II in Italy in 1022, lacks support in the sources (ibid., p. 159 and n. 4). On what appear to me to be in-
adequate grounds, the abbe P. Jardet, in his Saint Odilon, abbe de Cluny, sa vie, ses temps, ses oeuvres
(962-1049) (Lyon, 1898), p. 543, note, dated the pilgrimage of Odilo to Monte Cassino in 1023.
149 Loc. cit. (supra, n. 137): 'Contigit autem ipso in tempore [i.e., after the year 1000 and, more
specifically, at the time of Emperor Henry II (1002-1024), King Robert II (the Pious) of France
(996-1031), and Pope Benedict VIII (1012-1024); see ibid., par. 1, p. 51] ut quidam Normannorum
audacissimus, nomine Rodulfus, qui etiam comiti Richardo displicuerat, cujus iram metuens cum
omnibus que secum ducere potuit Romam pergeret, causamque propriam summo pontifici exponeret
Benedicto. Qui, cernens eum pugne militari elegantissimum, cepit ei querelam exponere de Grecorum
invasione Romani imperii, seque multum dolere quoniam minime talis in suis existeret, qui repelleret
viros extere nationis. Quibus auditis, spopondit se idem Rodulfus adversus transmarinos preliaturum,
si aliquod ei auxilium preberent vel illi quibus major incumbebat genuine necessitudo patrie. Tunc
vero predictus papa misit illum cum suis ad Beneventanos primates, ut eum pacifice exciperent, sem-
perque preliaturi pre se haberent, illiusque jussioni unanimes obedirent; egressusque ad Beneventanos
qui eum, ut papa jusserat, susceperunt. Illico autem illos ex Grecorum officio qui vectigalia in populo
exigebant invadens Rodulfus,' etc.
160 Loc. cit. (supra, n. 138): 'Ricardo [i.e., Richard II, 996-1026/1027] vero comite Rotomagi, filio
Richardi [i.e., Richard I, d. 996], Normannos gubernante, multitudo eorum cum duce Rodulfo armati
Romam, et inde conivente papa Benedicto Appuliam aggressi, cuncta devastant. Contra quos exer-
citum Basilius [976-1025] intendit,' etc.
'a1 Loc. cit. (supra, n. 139; cf. supra, n. 13): 'Melus interea Capuae cum principe morabatur. His
primum diebus venerunt Capuam Normanni aliquot, quadraginta fere numero; qui domini sui comitis
Normanniae iram fugientes, tam ipsi quam plures eorum socii quaquavorsum dispersi, sicubi re-
perirent qui eos ad se reciperet requirebant; viri equidem et statura proceri, et habitu pulchri, et armis

This content downloaded from 194.27.134.79 on Thu, 14 Mar 2019 16:57:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
394 The Inception of the Career of the Normans in Italy

experientissimi, quorum praecipui erant vocabulo, Gislebertus Botericus [?], Rodulfus Todinensis,
Gosmannus, Rufinus, atque Stigandus. Hoc cognito Melus [for the continuation, see supra, n. 14].'
It will be observed that, in my rendering of this passage, I have omitted the name Gislebertus Bo-
tericus. I believe the omission is justifiable and proper. The fact that this passage occurs only in
Redaction 1 of Leo's Chronica is not conclusive proof that it has been transmitted in the form given
it by Leo, without any addition (cf. supra, n. 8, second par. adfin.). We have seen (supra, pp. 369-370)
that Gislebertus Botericus (Giselbertus Buttericus) could not have emigrated from Normandy earlier
than 1027. Accordingly, he does not belong with the men whom Leo here designates as the 'prae-
cipui' of the Normans that came to Capua when Melo was there (1017). In all likelihood, his name has
been inserted in the place where it now stands by a scribe intent upon reconciling Leo's account of
the first arrival of Normans in Capua with the Salerno tradition as recorded by Amatus; and probably
the scribe in question was none other than Peter the Deacon, who eventually eliminated this account
from Leo's Chronica and substituted for it the Salerno tradition. It is to be noted, however, that
when Peter added Gislebertus Botericus to Leo's list of 'praecipui,' lie did not otherwise tamper with
this list. There is nothing to indicate that the names Rodulfus Todinensis, Gosmannus, Rufinus,
and Stigandus did not appear in the original text; and it is impossible to admit that the last three
of these names are 'corruptions' or 'deformations' of names given by Amatus, as Bresslau (pp.
324-325) and Chalandon (i, 52, n. 3) supposed. The simple fact is that Amatus does not men-
tion Gosmannus, Rufinus, and Stigandus. He does mention a Rodulfus ('Lofulde' in the OF. version;
cf. supra, n. 46 ad fin.), but this person must be distinguished from Leo's Rodulfus Todinensis. The
Rodulfus to whom Amatus refers was one of the four brothers of Giselbertus Buttericus, all of whom
went with Giselbertus to Italy - a decade or more after the arrival there of Rodulfus Todinensis.
152 Glaber, loc. cit. supra, n. 137, p. 53: 'Interea cum auditum esset ubique quoniam paucis Nor-
mannorum concessa fuisset de superbientibus Grecis victoria, innumerabilis multitudo etiam cum
uxoribus et liberis prosecuta est a patria de qua egressus fuerat, Rodulfum, non solum permittente
sed etiam compellente ut irent Richardo, illorum comite.' See also Bresslau, p. 154 and n. 2; Delarc,
ed., Aime, Ystoire de li Normant, p. 30, last half of n. 1; Chalandon, I, 56.
163 Cf. supra, nn. 9-11, 13-16; and see also the very comprehensive argument of Schultze on this
point (op. cit. supra, n. 2), pp. 28-34.
154 In a paragraph dealing with the difficult matter of the speed of mediaeval travel, J. W. Thomp-
son expressed the opinion that 'perhaps 18 miles per diem was considered a fair distance.' See his
Economic and Social History of the Middle Ages (300-1300) (New York and London, 1928), p. 575.
A considerable amount of documented information on this general subject may be found in Fried-
rich Ludwig's Untersuchungen iiber die Reise- und Marschgeschwindigkeit im XII. und XIII. Jahrhun-
dert (Berlin, 1897). Ludwig arrived at the conclusion that the normal distance journeyed in one day,
during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, was 40-45 kilometers (25-28 miles), though the German
emperors and kings usually averaged only 20-35 kilometers (12-21 miles) in one day (ibid., pp. 180,
181). In its march across southeastern Europe in 1147, the crusader host of Conrad III covered on an
average not more than 17 kilometers (10k miles) per day, whereas the pilgrim troop of Henry the
Lion in 1172 penetrated the same area at an average daily speed of 30 kilometers (181 miles) (ibid.,
p. 183). Travel through the marshy region known as the Bulgarian Forest probably was much more
laborious than on the well-worn roads over the Alpine passes (cf. my essay, 'The Palestine Pilgrimage
of Henry the Lion,' in Medieval and Historiographical Essays in Honor of James Westfall Thompson,
ed. J. L. Cate and E. N. Anderson [Chicago, 1938], pp. 175 f.).
155 See supra, pp. 369-370, also n. 151 ad fin.
156 In what appears to be a spurious addition to the first redaction of Leo's Chronica (Bk. ii, chap.
41, loc. cit., p. 655, note e), it is stated that, at the time of Emperor Henry II's departure from Italy
(in 1022), the Normans Giselbertus (!), Gosmannus, Stigandus, Torstainus balbus (cf. supra, n. 107),
Gualterius of Caliosa, Ugo Falluca, and some others remained with Melo's nephews in the county of
Comino.
157 On the source used by Leo in this context, cf. supra, n. 8 ad fin. Chalandon (i, 52, n. 3; ii, Index,
p. 806, s.v. 'Toeni') identifies the place to which 'Todinensis' refers, as 'Toeni, dep. de l'Eure, arr. de
Louviers.' The latter town is situated '17' m. S.S.E. of Rouen' (Encyclopaedia Britannica [14th ed.,
1929], s. v. 'Louviers'). According to R. Dozy (Recherches sur l'histoire et la litt6rature de l'Espagne

This content downloaded from 194.27.134.79 on Thu, 14 Mar 2019 16:57:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Inception of the Career of the Normans in Italy 395

pendant le moyen dge [3d ed.; Leyden, 1881], ii, 335), the family of the seigniors of Toeni a
Conches, which played an important part in the historyof Normandy, was descended from Malahu
an uncle of Hrolf, the first Norman duke. The earliest fairly well attested ancestor of this fam
appears to have been Hugh of Cavalcamp, a contemporary of Hrolf. Hugh of Cavalcamp had two
sons, Raoul and Hugh, the second of whom became archibishop of Rouen in 942, and as such is desig-
nated Hugh II. At some time between 942 and his death in 989, Hugh II granted Toani - which until
then had been a possession of the archdiocese of Rouen - to his brother Raoul, who became thus
the first seignior of Toeni. Presumably, the leader of the initial Norman emigrants to Italy, as well
as the better known Roger of Toeni, were Raoul's descendants. See Le Prevost's ed. of Ord. Vitalis,
Hist. eccl., i, 181, note; ii, 362, n. 1. On Roger of Toeni, see Dozy, op. cit., pp. 333-335.
158 Cf. supra, n. 8 adfin.
159 Cf. supra, n. 152. We learn from Glaber (loc. cit. supra, n1. 137, pp. 53-54) that the second group
of emigrants crossed the Alps via the Great St Beriiard. Glaber gives no details as to the route they
followed thereafter, but he states that they 'non parvum Rodulfo contulerunt auxilium.' In all
likelihood they joined Rodulf in Apulia, having gone there by way of Rome, as Ademar says.
160 Cf. supra, p. 871 and nn. 146, 148. Glaber did not begin writing Bk. iII (which contains the account
of the emigration of the Normans to Italy) until at least eleven years after the death of Benedict VIII
in 1024 (cf. supra, n. 141).
161 The pope may conceivably have intimated that the Lombards of lower Italy had no soldiers to
match the troops in the Byzantine service. Cf. Melo's alleged reply to the Normans at the fictitious
meeting on Monte Gargano, as formulated by William of Apulia (supra, p. 359).
162 Cf. supra, n. 9.

163 William of Apulia, it will be recalled, has them going from Rome to the shores of Campania (cf.
supra, p. 360 ad init.), which indicates he took for granted that they followed the Via Appia; for
this road did in fact approach the Tyrrhenian coast in the northwest corner of Campania, then turned
inland toward Capua and Benevento (see the first map at the end of Gay's volume).
164 In addition to the Annales Beneventani (Redaction A2) and Lupus Protospatarius (see supra,
n. 15), the following testimony may be cited. Annales Casinenses ... excerpti, Recension A (cf. supra,
n. 130 ad init.), a. 1017 (loc. cit., p. 1410): 'Normanni Melo duce coeperunt expugnare Apuliam.'
Anonymus Barensis (cf. supra, n. 125), a. 1017, loc. cit., p. 148: 'Descendit Adroniki Cap. [the Byzan-
tine catapan who succeeded Mesardonites; cf. supra, p. 854 and Chalandon, i, 54 and n. 2] et fecit
proelium cum Mel, et vicit Mel.' Cf. William of Apulia, Bk. i, vss. 52-55 (loc. cit., p. 242): 'Emptis
Normannos Campanis partibus armis / Invadenda furens loca duxit ad Appula Melus. / Hlunc habu-
ere ducem sibi gens Normannica primum / Partibus Italiae'; and the quotation from Amatus,
supra, p. 858, left-hand column ad fin.
165 Bresslau (p. 152), Chalandon (i, 51-58), and various other scholars have taken this view.
166 I see no reason to deny that the second emigration from Normandy to Italy (cf. supra, nn. 152,
159) probably was due, in considerable part, to a solicitation by Melo and the Lombard princes. Im-
pressed by the initial victories of Rodulf of Toani and his companions in Apulia, Melo and the
princes may well have offered to take into their pay a larger body of Normans who were disposed to
cross swords with the Byzantines. Support for this opinion may be found in Arnulf of Milan's
Gesta archiepiscoporum Mediolanensium and in the Dialogi de miraculis sancti Benedicti by Abbot
Desiderius of Monte Cassino (who became Pope Victor III in 1086). The former seems to have been
written ca 1070-1072 (see the editorial preface in MGH SS, viii, 2; also Manitius, iII, 508), and the
latter within the period 1076-1079 (see G. Schwartz, ed., in MGHI SS, xxx, Pt. ii, Fasc. ii, 1113 and
nn. 8-7). In Arnulf's work the pertinent passage (Bk. i, chap. 17, loc. cit., pp. 10-11) runs as follows:
'Illis in diebus [the last event previously mentioned is the death of Arduin of Ivrea (14 December
1015; see Siegfried Hirsch, Jahrbiicher des deutschen Reichs unter Heinrich II, ii [Berlin, 1864], 438 and
n. 1)] primus in Apuliam Normannorum fuit eventus, principum terrae consultu vocatus, cum Graeci
eam innumeris gravarent oppressionibus.' Desiderius tells us (Bk. ii, chap. 22, loc. cit., p. 1138) that
Abbot Atenulf of Monte Cassino (1011-1022; cf. supra, n. 16 adfin. and Leo of Ostia's Chronica, Bk.
ii, chap. 39, loc. cit., p. 654 and nn. 74, 77) 'aliquot ex Normannis, qui tunc temporis conductu nostro-
rum principum Italian adventabant, in possessiones huius monasterii ... induxit.' (The italics in
both of these quotations are mine.) Arnulf's testimony, according to his own statement (Bk. xi, chap,

This content downloaded from 194.27.134.79 on Thu, 14 Mar 2019 16:57:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
396 The Inception of the Career of the Normans in Italy

1 ad init., loc. cit., p. 11; cf. Manitius, iII, 509), is based on hearsay information. Its value is increased,
however, by the fact that it is confirmed by Desiderius, who, before inditing what he says about
Atenulf and the Normans, undoubtedly had consulted a written record identical with one used later
by Leo of Ostia (see Leo's Chronica, Bk. II, chap. 38 ad init., loc. cit., p. 658 and notes k, 1).
Ferd. Hirsch, after considering the two passages quoted in the preceding paragraph of this note
from the point of view of their possible bearing on the Salerno tradition as narrated by Amatus, ar-
rived at the following conclusion ('Amatus,' loc. cit., p. 243): 'Allein beide besagen durchaus nicht das,
was sie, um Amatus zu helfen, bestimmt aussprechen mtissten, dass naimlich jene erste Schar, welche
sich mit Melus verband, in Folge der Aufforderung Waimars nach Italien gekommen sei. Sie sind
vielmehr ganz allgemein gehalten und bezeugen nur, dass die Normannen nicht von vorneherein
selbstindig als Eroberer in Italien aufgetreten sind, sondern dass sie anfangs im Solde und Dienste
langobardischer Fursten gestanden haben.' In his comment on Hirsch's position, Bresslau (p. 324)
conceded that the words of Desiderius 'immerhin etwas Unbestimmtes haben'; but he argued, rather
warmly, that Arnulf supplied 'die vollste Bestaitigung der Angabe des Amatus.' Baist (cf. supra, n. 78)
went further than Bresslau in contradicting Hirsch; for he insisted (loc. cit., p. 285) that the pertinent
data given by Amatus were confirmed not only by Arnulf, but also by Desiderius (not to mention
William of Apulia!). The contentions of Bresslau and Baist are of course obsolete if the Salerno tradi-
tion is false, as we have found it to be. On the other hand, however, the testimony of Arnulf and
Desiderius indubitably has a significance which even Hirsch seems not to have fully perceived. This
testimony indicates, I think, that the second emigration of Normans to Italy - which probably
took place in the late summer of 1017, as I hope to be able to show in another article - was pre-
ceded by a recruiting of mercenaries in Normandy for Melo and the Lombard princes.
167 Cf. the statement of Glaber quoted supra, n. 149.
168 Cf. supra, pp. 354-355.
169 These conclusions, it will be observed, are to some extent in harmony with those of De Blasiis
and Hirsch, yet differ from them in several respects (cf. supra, pp. 360-362, 367 and n. 116, n. 166 ad
fin.). Hirsch, I may add, did not, in my opinion, sufficiently stress the import of Benedict's action,
and De Blasiis gave it still shorter shrift.
170 Bk. i, chaps. 17-20 entire, chap. 21 ad init., ed. De Bartholomaeis, pp. 21-27.
171 Bk. ii, chap. 37, Redactions 2, 3, 4 (cf. supra, n. 23), MGH SS, viI, 651 -652.
172 Loc. cit. supra, n. 102 ad init.
173 Loc. cit. supra, n. 51 ad init.
174 Loc. cit. supra, n. 52 ad init.

This content downloaded from 194.27.134.79 on Thu, 14 Mar 2019 16:57:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms