The conflict between the two empires in the 960s had a further aspect,
however, and one which was of very considerable significance for southern
Italy. In 966, while taking refuge with Prince Pandulf from the hostile
nobility of Rome, Otto’s client Pope John XIII (965–972) raised the see of
Capua to be a metropolitan archbishopric. Three years later, at the height
of the military conflict in Apulia, he did the same for that of Benevento.
The creation of the archbishopric of Capua should almost certainly be
seen as a recognition of Capua’s status as Pandulf’s de facto capital and as
an attempt to boost princely authority over the rest of the principality; the
first archbishop was Pandulf’s younger brother John.However, the creation
of the new ecclesiastical province of Benevento was overtly anti-Byzantine
and the authority granted to the archbishop stretched deep into Byzantine
territory. Among the new suffragan sees to be subject to it were Ascoli
and Bovino, the two key border fortresses under siege from Otto’s and
Pandulf’s forces. Since the bulk of the population of Byzantine Apulia were
Latins, the loyalties of their churchmen were clearly of crucial importance
to the Byzantine government; the creation of the new archbishopric of
Benevento, which was intended to destabilise northern Apulia, was to have
wide-ranging repercussions.
The Byzantines’ reaction was to reorganise the church in Apulia, to create
new archiepiscopal sees rivalling Benevento, and to ensure that the Apulian
church remained loyal to Constantinople. In the 980s, when Otto II tried
once again to invade Byzantine territory, the creation of the archbishopric of
Salerno by Pope Benedict VII (974–83) was a further anti-Byzantine ecclesiastical
measure. The sees of Cosenza and Bisignano in Calabria, previously
suffragans of the Greek archbishop of Reggio and in areas clearly under
Byzantine jurisdiction, were subordinated to Salerno; but unlike most of
Calabria, they almost certainly contained a substantial Latin population.12
Here too, the Byzantine authorities reacted with ecclesiastical changes of
their own, including the creation of an archbishopric at Cosenza in defiance
of papal authority.
The ecclesiastical changes after 970 were one aspect of a more general
overhaul of the administrative structure of Byzantine Italy. In part a reaction
to the renewed threat to its borders, this overhaul also reflected changes in
the distribution of the region’s population, although quite how extensive
these were has been a matter of debate among historians.13 But it seems
clear that Arab raids on Calabria – by no means continuous, but alarming
and destructive – encouraged the population both to retreat from coastal
settlements to more defensible hill sites inland and, in some cases, to move
northwards towards the borderlands with the principality of Salerno. Some
Greeks living in Sicily under Arab rule may also have crossed the straits of
Messina and moved north, although the evidence for this is almost entirely
derived from contemporary saints’ Lives, and we cannot be certain that the
movement of these holy men was accompanied by any substantial numbers
of laymen. Christian monks may well have been more obviously at risk in
periods of disorder in Sicily, as in the 940s, than the laity who were less
of a provocation to the Muslim devout.14 In any case, nearly all the saints’
Lives from tenth-century Calabria show their protagonists settling around
the northern frontiers of the province, in the regions of Mercourion and,
further north still, Latinianon; in the ninth century Latinianon had been a
gastaldate of the principality of Salerno. The saints’ Lives imply that their
heroes were not the only Greeks present in these regions. Luke of Armento,
for example, spent some seven years in the Val di Sinni in Latinianon before
fleeing to escape a crowd of would-be disciples.15 SomeGreeks, both monks
and laymen, crossed into Lombard territory. The most famous example was
Nilus of Rossano, who towards the end of the century spent some fifteen
years at Valleluce, near Monte Cassino (see above, p. 552). But his was
not the only case. In the eleventh century there were at least four Greek
monasteries in the vicinity of Salerno, and one as far away as Pontecorvo,
near the northern border of the principality of Capua.16
The expansion of the Greek population of Calabria into the heel of
Italy led to administrative changes both lay and ecclesiastical. From the
880s onwards there had been two separate and apparently independent
provinces of Byzantine Italy: Langobardia (that is Apulia) and Calabria
(up to the 940s still officially and anachronistically known as the theme of
Sicily, although the Byzantines only retained a few isolated strongholds in
the north-east of the island). In the reign of Nikephoros II Phokas there
came a change. The theme of Langobardia, strategically the more significant
of the two since through its ports the mouth of the Adriatic was in
Byzantine hands and easy access was possible to the European mainland of
the empire, was placed under an official known as the katepan¯o, who was of
more senior rank and status than previous governors. It is probable that the
new katepan¯o was placed in overall authority over Byzantine Italy, and it is
also likely that a new province of Lucania was created at this time, although
the dating is far from certain. Lucania incorporated Latinianon, Lagonegro
and Mercourion, regions to the north of Calabria into which there had
recently been an influx of Greeks, and a new diocese, Tursi, was set up
as the bishopric for Lucania.17 Tursi was made part of a new metropolitan
province, subject to the previously autocephalous archbishopric ofOtranto.
Both these sees had Greek clergy, but four Latin sees in southern Apulia –
Tricarico, Acerenza,Matera and Gravina – were also subjected to the archbishop
of Otranto. In the next few years two further Apulian sees were
raised to the status of archbishoprics: Taranto in 978, and Trani in 987.
The process was continued in the early eleventh century when archbishoprics
were created at Lucera, Brindisi and Siponto. The intention here
was to bind the Latin clergy of these sees firmly to the Byzantine government,
and to combat the claims of the archbishop of Benevento. The policy
was not anti-Latin. Given that the majority of the population in all but
the extreme south of Apulia was Latin, it could not be, and Liudprand
of Cremona’s claim that Nikephoros Phokas and Patriarch Polyeuct (956–
70) wanted to forbid the Latin rite in southern Italy is clearly ludicrous.18
Sees with Latin bishops and clergy remained Latin, even in towns like
Taranto where most of the population were Greek. But these ecclesiastical
changes were clearly political, designed to exclude the influence both of the
papacy – which was under Ottonian control – and of the archbishopric of
Benevento. The latter was an instrument of Pandulf Ironhead’s ambitions
and possibly those of his successors, in so far as they had any power. The
policy seems to have worked. In 983 the katepan¯o granted a privilege to
the bishop of Trani in reward for his support during the recent siege of
the town.19 But no chances were taken. Latin churches in Apulia remained
under very tight supervision. Sees were often merged and then split up
once again. Officials of the government acted as the advocates (i.e. legal
representatives) of churches. Occasional exemptions from taxation given
to Latin clergy were specific and highly restricted,20 although this was part
of a more general desire by the Byzantine authorities to preserve the fiscal
base of the state.
Despite the continued hazard of Muslim raids on Calabria – a problem
which, after a pause, became serious again from the mid-970s – the Byzantine
provinces retained their cohesion and even flourished in a modest
way. Not only did Greek influence increase and push the border northwards
in Lucania – the creation of the theme was a recognition of this; in
the last years of the century, after Ottonian policy in southern Italy had
collapsed and Pandulf Ironhead’s dominions divided, the Apulian frontier
also shifted northwards from the River Ofanto to the River Fortore. The
area of northern Apulia thus incorporated into the theme of Langobardia
became known, significantly, as the Capitanata, i.e. the land of the katepan¯o
(or ‘captain’) – reflecting its incorporation under Byzantine rule after this
new title for the governor had been introduced. At the end of the century
the Byzantine administration can be seen in full operation as far inland as
Tricarico on the Apulia–Lucania border, redefining boundaries and setting
up new ch¯oria (taxable units).21 Monasteries were often the focus for the
clearance of land and new settlement, particularly in the hitherto underexploited
Lucanian region, and the villages which developed around them
were then officially incorporated as ch¯oria. The population, it would seem,
was expanding, although in Lucania migration can explain new settlement
(see above, p. 567). In a few cases population transfers may have been
deliberate, although the evidence for this relates mainly to the reign of Leo
VI (886–912), who is known to have sent settlers from the Peloponnese to
southern Italy. By the end of the tenth century agriculture was apparently
flourishing in at least some parts of Calabria, with extensive vineyards and
the beginnings of silk production which had, by the mid-eleventh century,
reached a considerable scale. Evidence for the Byzantine provinces’ external
trade is extremely scanty, but it would appear that in the tenth century
Otranto and Brindisi were probably the most important ports, with Bari
becoming more important in the eleventh.
While Calabria and Lucania, with a largely, if not exclusively, Greek
population, might seem very much like other Byzantine provinces, Apulia
was different. The presence of a substantially Latin populace meant that
the Byzantine government had to concede a degree of local autonomy,
or at least variation, which was inconceivable in entirely Greek parts of
the empire. While the provincial governors and some of their more senior
officials were Greeks sent out from Constantinople – in the case of the
strat ¯ egoi and katepanoi generally holding office for fairly brief periods, about
three years on average – many of the more junior officials were Latins.
At Bari in the late tenth and early eleventh centuries eight out of eleven
recorded turmarchs were Latins, and only three Greeks; in Taranto, by
contrast, all but one of the known turmarchs were Greeks.22 Such use of
locally born Latin officers was probably even more prevalent in inland
Apulia, where on occasion they might use titles derived from the Lombard
principalities, such as gastald, and in one case at least, from Lucera at
the end of the century, model their documents on Beneventan princely
charters.23 Most significant was the widespread sanction given to the use of
Lombard law. The growth of a fairly prosperous class of small-scale landed
proprietors in Apulia, judged by their own law and with their own Latin
churches, approved of but closely supervised by the provincial government,
was probably the best guarantee for the stability of Byzantine government
in Apulia. But it was by no means infallible. Revolts in the coastal towns
occurred a number of times in the tenth century,24 and intensified after
1000, although contributory factors such as the abnormally harsh winter of
1007–8 should not be underestimated. Nor should the burden of taxation,
which in Italy as in the rest of the Byzantine empire probably increased with
the ambitious military policy of the late tenth-century emperors. While the
Latin chroniclers tend to ascribe instances of disaffection in the Byzantine
provinces to the cruelty or demands of particular governors, one might well
conclude that it was rather the reaction of the populace to a governmental
system which was far more efficient – and thus more oppressive in locals’
eyes – than that in the Lombard principalities.
World History
