Liutprand of Cremona

Relatio de legatione Constantinopolitana

Liutprand of Cremona (c. 920–972) was a Lombard bishop, diplomat, and historian whose works rank among the most vivid – and most polemical – writing to survive from the tenth century. Born into an aristocratic family in Pavia, he grew up at the court of Hugh of Provence, King of Italy, and later became chancellor and then ambassador for Berengar II, who sent him on his first diplomatic mission to Constantinople in 949. There Liutprand had the opportunity to learn Greek and observe Byzantine court culture at close quarters, an experience that left a lasting mark on his writing. After a quarrel with Berengar he defected to the court of the Saxon king Otto I – later Holy Roman Emperor Otto I the Great – in whose service he spent the remainder of his career. Otto rewarded him with the bishopric of Cremona around 961 and employed him in a series of delicate missions, including interventions in the affairs of the papacy in 963 and 965.

In 968 Otto sent Liutprand back to Constantinople, this time to the court of Emperor Nicephorus II Phocas, with a politically sensitive mandate: to negotiate a marriage alliance between Otto’s son (the future Otto II) and a Byzantine princess. The embassy formed part of a broader negotiation over contested territories in southern Italy – Benevento and Capua – where Ottonian and Byzantine interests had recently come to blows. It failed entirely. Nicephorus refused to recognize Otto as a legitimate emperor, objected to a papal letter that addressed him as mere “emperor of the Greeks,” and subjected Liutprand to a sustained series of deliberate humiliations. The bishop’s account of this mission, the Relatio de legatione Constantinopolitana, was written shortly after his return and addressed to Otto and his empress Adelaide. It is at once a diplomatic report, a bitter personal memoir, and a sustained satirical broadside against Nicephorus and Byzantine court culture more generally – written, as scholars have noted, partly to incite Otto to a new war against Byzantium in Italy.

Liutprand writes in a Latin that is classically educated but highly personal: he quotes Virgil, constructs elaborate periodic sentences, and does not hesitate to record his own indignation and embarrassment in the most direct terms. The Relatioremains one of the most frequently read documents for the history of East-West relations in the early Middle Ages, and the most entertaining.

The passage we are reading comes from chapters 19–21 of the Relatio. By this point in the narrative, Liutprand has already been lodged in a dilapidated, draughty palace, denied adequate food and drink, kept under armed guard, and subjected to a bruising argument about Otto’s right to the imperial title. In chapters 19–20, a fresh insult is added: at a ceremonial banquet held on the feast of the Holy Apostles, Nicephorus places the Bulgarian envoy above Liutprand at table – that is, in a seat of higher honour. The Bulgarian ambassador is described with pointed contempt: unshorn in Hungarian fashion, girt with a bronze chain, and possibly not even baptised. For Liutprand, representing the Holy Roman Emperor, to be outranked by such a figure is an outrage directed not at him personally but at his master. He walks out.

In chapter 20, two imperial officials chase after him and explain, unapologetically, the Byzantine protocol: a treaty concluded when the Bulgarian ruler Peter married a granddaughter of the emperor Constantine VII guaranteed that Bulgarian envoys would be seated above all others at court. The bishop is told he will now dine not with the emperor but with imperial servants. Liutprand submits – but makes very sure his readers know exactly what it cost him.

Chapter 21 offers a moment of sardonic relief: the emperor sends Liutprand a dish of goat from his own table, stuffed with garlic, onion, and leek, and drenched in fish sauce. Liutprand presents this gift to his readers in Rome and at the Ottonian court as a kind of evidence. The passage ends with a theological dinner-debate in which the patriarch and bishops quiz Liutprand on the Church Councils – and Nicephorus concludes with a jibe about an invented “Saxon synod,” mockingly suggesting that Western Christendom is too provincial to be taken seriously.

For additional insights into the mission and the attitude towards eating and specific diets between East and West, I recommend Andrea Maraschi’s article “Diet, Prejudice, and Non-Verbal Communication: Liutprand of Cremona’s Embassy to Constantinople,” The Medieval Magazine 108 (April 2018), https://www.themedievalmagazine.com/past-issue-features/dietandprejudice (accessed on 19 July 2026).

This text is suited to upper intermediate readers of Latin (B2 level). Liutprand’s prose combines classical constructions with colloquial directness, Greek loanwords borrowed from Byzantine administrative vocabulary, and moments of vivid dramatic dialogue. For this reason, the text analysis will not include identifying constructions that this level’s learners should be familiar with. But even readers who are not yet fully comfortable with every grammatical detail will find the text immediately engaging: Liutprand’s fury and dry wit come through even before the syntax is fully unpacked.

TEXT

Tunc omnes praeter fratrem cachinno commoti, disceptationem dimiserunt, meque in invisam domum reduci praeceperunt, magnaque custodiri cautela usque in sanctorum apostolorum religiosis cunctis celebrem diem. Qua celebritate me satis aegrotum, necnon et Bulgarorum nuntios, qui pridie venerant, ad sanctos apostolos sibi obviare praecepit.

Cumque post naeniarum garrulitatem et missarum celebrationem ad mensam invitaremur, in citeriori mensae margine, quae erat sine latitudine longa, Bulgarorum nuntium, Ungarico more tonsum, aenea catena cinctum, et, ut mens mihi suggerit, catechumenum, mihi praeponit; ad vestram plane, domini mei augusti, contumeliam. In vobis contemptus, in vobis spretus, in vobis abiectus. Sed gratias ago domino Iesu Christo, cui vos servitis omni spiritu vestro, quod habitus sum pro nomine vestro dignus contumelias pati.

Verum, domini mei, meam non considerans sed vestram iniuriam, mensam reliqui. Cumque indignans abire vellem, Leo coropalates, imperatoris frater, et proto a secretis Simeon pone me sequuntur, haec latrantes:

“Cum Christophori filiam Petrus, Bulgarorum basileus, coniugem duceret, symphona, id est consonantia, scripta, iuramento firmata sunt, ut omnium gentium apostolis, id est nuntiis, penes nos Bulgarorum apostoli praeponantur, honorentur, diligantur. Bulgarorum ille apostolus, quamquam, ut dicis et verum est, tonsus, illotus et catena aenea cinctus sit, patricius tamen est, cui episcopum praeponere, Francorum praesertim, nefas decernimus, iudicamus. Et quoniam te id indigne ferre cognoscimus, non te nunc, ut putas, ad hospitium redire sinimus, sed in diversorio quodam cum imperatoris servis cibum gustare compellimus.”

Quibus ob incomparabilem cordis dolorem nil respondi, sed quae iusserant feci; indignum iudicans mensam, qua non dico mihi, id est Liudprando episcopo, sed Bulgarorum nuntius vestro praeponitur nuntio.

Sed lenivit dolorem meum imperator sanctus munere magno, mittens mihi ex delicatissimis cibis suis haedum pinguem, ex quo ipse comederat, allio, cepe, porris laute suffarcinatum, garo delibutum, quem vestrae tunc mensae inesse optavi, ut qui delicias sancti imperatoris faustas esse non creditis, saltem his perspectis crederetis.

Transactis ergo octo diebus, cum Bulgari iam abessent, putans me mensam magnificare suam, in eodem loco me satis aegrotum secum convivare coegit. Adfuit cum pluribus episcopis et patriarcha, quibus praesentibus plures mihi quaestiones de scripturis sacris proposuit, quas, cum Spiritu sancto afflante, eleganter exposui. Novissime autem, ut de vobis ludum haberet, quas synodos haberemus rogavit.

Cui cum Nicenam, Chalcedonensem, Ephesinam, Antiochenam, Carthaginensem, Ancyranam, Constantinopolitanam edicerem:

“Ha! ha! he!” ait. "Saxonicam dicere es oblitus, quam, si rogas cur nostri codices non habent, rudem esse et ad nos necdum venire posse respondeo."

ANALYSIS

Notes:

1) praeter fratrem – “except for the emperor’s brother.” The phrase is pointed: even in a room full of Byzantines who laugh at the Western envoy, Leo the kouropalates manages to keep his composure. This detail both characterises Leo as the one reasonable interlocutor Liutprand will encounter, and underscores how total the ridicule is otherwise.

2) invisam domum – Literally “the hated house.” Liutprand uses this phrase repeatedly for his lodgings in Constantinople. The repeated epithet functions like a refrain, reminding the reader that even between all the insults he is confined to an unpleasant place.

3) sanctorum apostolorum… celebrem diem – “the day celebrated by all the faithful as that of the holy apostles,” i.e. the feast of Saints Peter and Paul (June 29). The major feast day provides the occasion for the ceremonial banquet that follows. Note how the formal religious register of the phrase contrasts with the petty humiliation about to unfold.

Notes:

1) naeniarum garrulitatem – “the garrulousness of dirges/chants.” A naenia is technically a funeral lament, but Liutprand repurposes the word contemptuously for the Byzantine liturgical acclamations of the emperor. The choice is deliberately insulting: the solemn hymns praising Nicephorus are reduced to tedious caterwauling.

2) citeriori mensae margine, quae erat sine latitudine longa – “on the nearer side of the table, which was long and narrow.” The physical description matters: at a long, narrow table, the order of seating along the single side is a precise register of honour. To be placed further from the emperor’s position is to be ranked lower in the imperial hierarchy.

3) Ungarico more tonsum, aenea catena cinctum – “shorn in Hungarian fashion, girt with a bronze chain.” Liutprand piles on unflattering ethnographic detail: the Bulgarian envoy’s hairstyle aligns him with the Hungarians (themselves regarded as barbarians in Ottonian eyes), and the bronze chain suggests low social status or even servitude. The description is probably exaggerated for rhetorical effect.

4) ut mens mihi suggerit, catechumenum – “a catechumen, as it seems to me.” A catechumen is a person undergoing instruction before baptism, not yet a full member of the Christian community. If true, this would mean the Bulgarian envoy is not even a baptised Christian – a particularly sharp insult given the context of a religious feast day. The qualifying phrase ut mens mihi suggerit (“as my mind suggests”) signals that Liutprand was not certain, but was nevertheless perfectly happy to imply it.

5) mihi praeponit – “places above me” / “seats before me.” The verb praepono carries the full weight of the passage: to be placed after someone in the order of seating is to be publicly ranked below them. What follows is Liutprand’s extended meditation on exactly what this means.

6) In vobis contemptus, in vobis spretus, in vobis abiectus – Three short, parallel clauses in anaphora: “In you despised, in you scorned, in you rejected.” The triple repetition is an emotional crescendo. Liutprand insists throughout the Relatiothat personal slights to himself are in reality political insults to Otto – framing his wounded pride as loyal indignation on his master’s behalf.

Notes:

1) meam non considerans sed vestram iniuriam – “considering not my own injury but yours.” This is a characteristic rhetorical move in the Relatio: Liutprand presents his own reactions as selfless loyalty. He does not walk out because he is personally offended, but because the honour of the Ottonian court demands it.

2) Leo coropalates – The kouropalates (κουροπαλάτης) was one of the highest Byzantine court titles, traditionally reserved for close relatives of the emperor. Leo was indeed Emperor Nicephorus’s brother.

3) proto a secretis – “the chief secretary” or “head of the imperial chancery.” Another Greek-derived Byzantine title (πρωτοασηκρήτης). The appearance of such titles in the text reflects Liutprand’s genuine familiarity with Byzantine administrative culture, acquired during his earlier stay in Constantinople and certainly required for such a diplomatic mission.

4) latrantes – “barking.” Liutprand uses this verb for the speech of the two officials pursuing him. It is a standard piece of literary contempt – to bark rather than to speak is to behave like a dog, not a rational person.

“Cum Christophori filiam Petrus, Bulgarorum basileus, coniugem duceret, symphona, id est consonantia, scripta, iuramento fermata sunt, ut omnium gentium apostolis, id est nuntiis, penes nos Bulgarorum apostoli praeponantur, honorentur, diligantur.”

Notes:

1) Christophori filiam – Maria Lekapene, granddaughter of the Byzantine emperor Romanus I Lekapenos and daughter of his co-emperor Christopher. She married Peter I of Bulgaria (r. 927–969), creating a diplomatic alliance sealed by the treaty Liutprand’s interlocutors now invoke. The reference anchors the protocol claim in a real historical agreement.

2) Bulgarorum basileus – “king/emperor of the Bulgarians.” The use of basileus – the highest Greek imperial title, normally reserved at Byzantium for the emperor himself – for the Bulgarian ruler is itself significant: it reflects the diplomatic recognition extended to Bulgaria under the treaty, and is the kind of detail Liutprand notes with precision.

3) symphona, id est consonantia – Liutprand here glosses a Greek technical term for the reader. Symphona (from Greek συμφωνία, “agreement, accord”) is a term for a formal diplomatic treaty or concordat. He translates it as consonantia(“agreement, harmony”) – a term more familiar to a Latin audience.

4) apostolis, id est nuntiis – Again a gloss: apostolus here is used in its original Greek sense of “one who is sent,” i.e. an envoy or legate, not in its specifically Christian sense of Apostle. Liutprand explains this to his readers (id est nuntiis, “that is, messengers”) while clearly relishing the double meaning – the Bulgarian envoy is to be treated like an apostle, while the actual bishop of Cremona is not.

“Bulgarorum ille apostolus, quamquam, ut dicis et verum est, tonsus, illotus et catena aenea cinctus sit, patricius tamen est, cui episcopum praeponere, Francorum praesertim, nefas decernimus, iudicamus.”

Notes:

1) ut dicis et verum est – “as you say, and it is true.” The concession is deliberately ironic: the imperial officials acknowledge Liutprand’s contemptuous description of the Bulgarian envoy as accurate, while insisting it makes no difference. Protocol outweighs personal appearance.

2) patricius – The title patricius (from Greek πατρίκιος) was a high Byzantine honorary rank. The point is that the Bulgarian ambassador, however unkempt, holds a formal Byzantine court title that, in Byzantine protocol, outranks a Western bishop. The Byzantines are here enforcing their own hierarchy – one in which the Western church and its representatives occupy a relatively low position.

3) Francorum praesertim – “especially of the Franks.” Byzantium habitually referred to the Western Europeans — whether Franks, Germans, or Italians — as “Franks” (Φράγγοι). For Liutprand and his Ottonian readers, this was itself a slight: to be called a Frank by a Greek was to be lumped together with any Westerner and denied one’s specific identity. The casual use of the term here underlines Byzantine indifference to the distinctions that mattered greatly in the West.

4) nefas decernimus, iudicamus – “we deem and judge it sacrilege.” The two near-synonymous verbs, decernimus and iudicamus, create a quasi-legal doubling typical of formal pronouncements. The word nefas – originally a Roman term for a religious taboo, something contrary to divine law – adds a note of ironic solemnity: it would be almost a sin to seat a bishop above a Bulgarian patricius.

Notes:

1) ob incomparabilem cordis dolorem nil respondi – “I said nothing, on account of the incomparable pain of my heart.” The silence is rhetorically loaded: Liutprand does not deign the imperial officials with a reply, but he makes certain his readers know why. The phrase incomparabilis cordis dolor is deliberately elevated and emotional.

2) non dico mihi, id est Liudprando episcopo – “not, I say, to me, that is, to Liutprand the bishop.” This parenthetical self-naming is characteristic of Liutprand’s style. He inserts his own name and title as if for clarity, but the effect is to personalise the outrage sharply while simultaneously asserting his dignity.

Notes:

1) imperator sanctus – “the holy emperor.” The title is formal and conventional in Byzantine usage – the emperor possessed a sacred, quasi-priestly character. Liutprand uses it here with obvious sarcasm, placing it immediately before the description of a dish of heavily spiced goat.

2) haedum pinguem… allio, cepe, porris laute suffarcinatum, garo delibutum – “a fat goat… splendidly stuffed with garlic, onion, and leek, drenched in fish sauce (garum).” The description is precise and deliberately unappetising for a Roman and Ottonian audience. Garum (fish sauce, fermented from fish entrails) was a staple of ancient Mediterranean cooking and remained characteristic of Byzantine cuisine, but was unfamiliar and off-putting to northern European tastes. Liutprand’s insistence on the ingredients is a cultural sneer: this is what counts as a delicacy in Constantinople.

3) quem vestrae tunc mensae inesse optavi – “which I then wished were present at your table.” The aside is addressed directly to Otto and Adelaide: I wish you could have seen – and smelled – what counts as an imperial delicacy here. The shared joke assumes a northern European reader who would find the dish grotesque.

4) ut qui delicias sancti imperatoris faustas esse non creditis, saltem his perspectis crederetis – “so that those of you who do not believe the delicacies of the holy emperor to be auspicious, might at least believe it upon seeing these.” A closing punchline: the gift is presented as evidence in a rhetorical case. Liutprand offers the smelly goat as proof that Byzantine imperial magnificence is, on inspection, rather less magnificent than it claims to be.

Notes:

1) putans me mensam magnificare suam – “thinking that I would lend distinction to his table.” The phrase is pointed: Nicephorus now wants Liutprand present not to honour him but to use him as a prestigious ornament. The dynamic reverses the earlier humiliation — Liutprand is now invited because his learning makes the emperor look good.

2) satis aegrotum – “quite ill.” Liutprand notes his illness here and earlier in the passage. The detail functions on several levels: it underlines the hardship of his mission and heightens the drama.

3) Spiritu sancto afflante – “with the Holy Spirit breathing upon him,” i.e. by divine inspiration. An ablative absolute with an appropriately elevated religious register. Liutprand’s answer to the scriptural questions is, by his own account, elegant – he does not miss a chance for self-praise.

Novissime autem, ut de vobis ludum haberet, quas synodos haberemus rogavit. Cui cum Nicenam, Chalcedonensem, Ephesinam, Antiochenam, Carthaginensem, Ancyranam, Constantinopolitanam edicerem: “Ha! Ha! He!” ait. “Saxonicam dicere es oblitus, quam, si rogas cur nostri codices non habent, rudem esse et ad nos necdum venire posse respondeo.”

Notes:

1) ut de vobis ludum haberet – “in order to have entertainment at your expense.” Liutprand interprets the question about councils as a deliberate trap: Nicephorus wants to mock the Westerner.

2) Nicenam, Chalcedonensem, Ephesinam, Antiochenam, Carthaginensem, Ancyranam, Constantinopolitanam – The seven councils enumerated are a standard list of the recognized ecumenical and significant regional councils of the early Church. The accumulation of names is itself a rhetorical show: Liutprand runs through them fluently, demonstrating his theological competence. But he falls into a trap.

3) “Ha! ha! he!” – Liutprand renders the emperor’s laugh in direct onomatopoeia. This is unusual in medieval Latin prose and gives the scene an almost theatrical quality. The laugh precedes the insult and marks it as deliberate mockery rather than an oversight.

4) Saxonicam dicere es oblitus – “You have forgotten to mention the Saxon one.” There is, of course, no such thing as a “Saxon synod” in the established catalogue of Church councils. Nicephorus is inventing one – implying that the Ottonian church has its own local, sub-standard body of doctrine, too barbaric and peripheral to have reached Byzantine awareness.

5) rudem esse et ad nos necdum venire posse – “that it is too rude/barbarous to reach us.” The implication is that Byzantium is the normative centre of Christendom, from which recognition flows outward. To have a council “reach” Constantinople is to be acknowledged as real.

6) nostri codices non habent – “our codices do not contain it.” Nicephorus grounds his mockery and dismissal in the authority of Byzantine textual tradition: if Constantinople’s books do not recognise it, it does not exist.

We hope that you haven’t identified too painfully with Liutprand’s predicament or started to feel the smell of Byzantine delicacies in your nostrils. No need to say, the mission failed; and the four-month diplomatic disaster was not something that the bishop could easily forget. 🐐

Source:

Liudprand of Cremona, Relatio de legatione Constantinopolitana, ed. Paolo Chiesa. In: Liudprandi Cremonensis Opera Omnia, Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio Mediaevalis 156 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1998), pp. 185–218. Text of chapters 19–21.

BACK TO HOMEPAGE