“UTILIUS EST VERITATEM PROFERRE”.

A DIFFICULT MEMORY TO
MANAGE: NARRATING THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN BISHOPS
AND DUKES IN EARLY MEDIEVAL NAPLES

by Luigi Andrea Berto•

Abstract: The achievement of autonomy from the Byzantine Empire and the political fragmentation of
southern Italy made the second half of the eighth century and the ninth century a crucial period for the his-
tory of Naples. In those years the Neapolitan rulers tried to legitimize and to strengthen their power, and
during this process they attempted to take control of the Neapolitan Church, which inevitably led to con-
flicts with the local ecclesiastics. This article analyzes how this period is described in the Gesta episco-
porum Neapolitanorum of John the Deacon, who probably composed this work between the end of the ninth
century and the beginning of the tenth century. It demonstrates that the author of the “Deeds of the Nea-
politan Bishops” wanted to emphasize not only that all the Neapolitan prelates had taken care of the reli-
gious buildings and of their flock, but also that they had not been accommodating to secular power.
Key Words: Naples, deeds of the Neapolitan bishops, Neapolitan dukes, memory, disputes, southern Italy
in the early Middle Ages

The second half of the eighth century and the ninth century had a fundamental impor-
tance to the Neapolitans, who during those years acquired complete autonomy from
Constantinople and shaped the foundations of their state, trying at the same time not to
be swept away by the struggles among Lombards, Muslims, and Franks. This article
examines how in the early Middle Ages the Neapolitans remembered that important
phase of their history,1 focusing in particular on the delicate relationship between
dukes and bishops. For the sake of clarity, I begin by providing an overview of that
eventful period.
The way Naples achieved autonomy from Constantinople differs from the areas of
northern and central Byzantine Italy. When the Emperor Leo III promulgated an edict
against the worshiping of holy images, the Neapolitans did not follow the example of
the Pentapolis and of the Venetian Lagoon troops, who rebelled against and killed the
Exarch Paul.2 The loyalty of the Neapolitans to Constantinople was such that the patri-
cian Eutichius, sent to replace the murdered exarch, decided to land at Naples.3 The
need to have military assistance from the Byzantines in order to contain the Lombard
expansionism ensured that the Neapolitans continued to support the religious policy of

•
Department of History, Western Michigan University, 4432 Friedmann Hall, 1903 West Michigan Ave-
nue, Kalamazoo, MI49008-5334. I thank the anonymous readers at Viator for their precious suggestions and
the Committee of the Burnham–MacMilliam History Endowment of Western Michigan University for sup-
porting this research.
1
In general, on memory and the use of the past in the Early Middle Age, see P. J. Geary, Phantoms of
Remembrance. Memory and Oblivion at the End of the First Millenium (Princeton 1994); and Y. Hen and
M. Innes, eds., The Uses of the Past in the Early Middle Ages (Cambridge 2000).
2
T. Brown, “Byzantine Italy, c. 680–c. 876,” in R. McKitterick, ed., The New Cambridge Medieval His-
tory. Volume II c. 700–c. 900 (Cambridge 1995) 325. On Venice in this period, see M . Pavan and G. Ar-
naldi, “Le origini dell’identità lagunare,” in L. Cracco-Ruggini, M. Pavan, G. Cracco, G. Ortalli, eds., Storia
di Venezia, I: Origini-Età ducale (Rome 1992) 432–435.
3
G. Cassandro, “Il ducato bizantino,” Storia di Napoli II, 1 (Naples 1969) 39; F. Luzzati Laganà, “Il
ducato di Napoli,” Il Mezzogiorno dai Bizantini a Federico II, Storia d’Italia III, dir. G. Galasso (Turin
1983) 331; Brown, “Byzantine Italy” (n. 2 above) 341.

Viator 39 No. 2 (2008) xx–xx.

2 LUIGI ANDREA BERTO

the Byzantine emperors. In 762–763, at a moment of particular tension between Rome

and Constantinople, the Neapolitan leaders again gave proof of fidelity by refusing
Bishop Paul II permission to return to their city because he had gone to Rome to be
consecrated by the pope.4 That this was a formal gesture, intended to satisfy the impe-
rial authorities, is confirmed by the fact that the bishop was allowed to reside in the
church of St. Januarius, situated a little outside Naples’s walls, and to reenter the city
after two years.5 The loyalty of the Neapolitans to the emperor was thus not put in
doubt. Shortly after, however, they began to act autonomously from Constantinople,
taking advantage of the fact that the Byzantines were fully occupied against the Mus-
lims and the Bulgarians. Proof of such autonomy can be found in Duke Stephen’s at-
titude; he declared himself a faithful subject of the empire, while seeking simultane-
ously to establish a dynasty at Naples and to take control of the Neapolitan Church.
On Bishop Paul II’s death (766),6 Stephen became bishop of Naples, while his son
Gregory replaced him as head of the duchy. Upon Gregory’s death in 794, Stephen
governed Naples for six months before passing authority to his son-in-law, Theophy-
lact; this indicates that Stephen continued to exert a noticeable influence over Nea-
politan political life.7 On Stephen’s death in 794,8 the duke Theophylact and his wife
Eupraxia managed to elect to the episcopal office their candidate, Paul, a layman, thus
emphasizing once again the power that the rulers of Naples exerted over the Neapoli-
tan Church.9 It is, however, unclear whether Stephen’s plans to create a dynasty were
ever realized; of Theophylact’s successor,10 only his name, Anthimus, is known.11 On
Anthimus’s death in 818, the Neapolitans could not manage to reach agreement on the
nomination of his successor and, according to the testimony of the Neapolitan chroni-
cler John the Deacon, preferred to be governed by a foreigner. As a result, Naples was
ruled by two Byzantine officers probably sent by the Sicilian strategos. Yet the Nea-
politan acquiescence to imperial officers did not last long: in 821 the Neapolitans
drove out the second imperial officer, and elected Duke Stephen, grandson of the
Bishop Stephen II.12
During Stephen’s rule, the Beneventans13 resumed their previous hostility towards

4
Cassandro, “Il ducato bizantino” (n. 3 above) 40–41; P. Bertolini, “La Chiesa di Napoli durante la crisi
iconoclasta. Appunti sul codice Vaticano Latino 5007,” Studi sul Medioevo cristiano offerti a Raffaello
Morghen (Rome 1974) 101ff.; F. Luzzati Laganà, “Tentazioni iconoclaste a Napoli,” Rivista di studi bizan-
tini e neoellenici, n.s., 26 (1989) 99–115; V. Von Falkenhausen, “La Campania tra Goti e Bizantini,” in G.
Pugliese Caratelli, ed., Storia e civiltà della Campania. Il Medioevo (Naples 1992) 21.
5
Cassandro, “Il ducato bizantino” (n. 3 above) 41; Luzzati Laganà, “Il ducato di Napoli” (n. 3 above)
331.
6
P. Bertolini, “La serie episcopale napoletana nei sec. VIII e IX. Ricerche sulle fonti per la storia
dell’Italia meridionale nell’alto Medioevo,” Rivista di Storia della Chiesa in Italia 24.2 (1970) 390ff.
7
Cassandro, “Il ducato bizantino” (n. 3 above) 41–43; Luzzati Laganà, “Il ducato di Napoli” (n. 3
above) 332–323; Russo Mailler, “Il ducato di Napoli,” in G. Galasso and R. Romeo, eds., Storia del Mez-
zogiorno II. Il Medioevo 1 (Naples 1988) 359–360.
8
Bertolini, “La serie episcopale napoletana” (n. 6 above) 405–409.
9
Cassandro, “Il ducato bizantino” (n. 3 above) 50.
10
Teophylact died in 801.
11
Cassandro, “Il ducato bizantino” (n. 3 above) 50.
12
John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chaps. 50, 53.
13
With the conquest of Pavia in 774, Charlemagne put an end to Lombard domination in Italy. Yet, the
Franks were unable to seize the southern part of the Lombard Kingdom, known as the duchy of Benevento,
“UTILIUS EST VERITATEM PROFERRE” 3

the Neapolitans. The city did not fall,14 but the fight with the Lombards was fatal to
the duke, who was assassinated in 832 by some Neapolitans in league with the prince
of Benevento.15 One of the conspirators, Bonus, assumed the ducal office after
eliminating his accomplices.16 Probably prompted by the need to reinforce his posi-
tion, the new duke attempted to take possession of the Neapolitan Church’s properties.
Such an attempt was, however, opposed by the Bishop Tiberius, who, as consequence,
was imprisoned by Bonus and replaced with a deacon named John. This situation per-
sisted under the rule of Bonus’s son, Leo (834), and his father-in-law, Andreas, ending
only on the death of Tiberius (841).17
Following the murder of Andreas by a Frank, who unsuccessfully tried to take
control of Naples,18 the next duke to be elected to office was Sergius (839/840), who
began a dynasty that was to last until the conquest of Naples by the Normans in
1139.19 The main factors that allowed the new duke to consolidate his power and then
to pass it on to his son Gregory were the desire of the Neapolitans to avoid reliving the
period of chaos that characterized the third decade of the ninth century; the end of at-
tempted conquests by the Lombards, gravely weakened by their civil war, and by the
principality of Benevento’s division into two parts; and the fact that Sergius was able
to rule the duchy for a long period (840–864). Also important were the friendly rela-
tions he established with Emperor Lothar and his son Louis II, to whom he lent mili-
tary support during the conflict against the Muslims.20 Also relevant to the internal
peace of the Neapolitan duchy was the solution of the problem in the bishopric when
Tiberius died in 841 and John IV was able to retain his office. Upon John’s death in
849, the duke managed without difficulty to have his twenty-year-old son, Athanasius,
a deacon for only a little more than a year, elected bishop of Naples, and thereby as-
sure himself of effective control over the Church of Naples.21
Sergius did not limit himself exclusively to reinforcing his power within Naples; he
also sought to profit from the divisions among the Lombards in order to take posses-
sion of some of their territories. The decision to enter into open conflict with the
Capuans ultimately proved to be fatal.22 In 859, the Neapolitans, in fact, suffered their

that became an independent principality. B. Kreutz, Before the Normans. Southern Italy in the Ninth and
Tenth Centuries (Philadelphia 1991) 6ff.
14
Cassandro, “Il ducato bizantino” (n. 3 above) 54–56; Russo Mailler, “Il ducato di Napoli” (n. 7 above)
362; G. Vitolo, Città e coscienza cittadina nel Mezzogiorno medievale (secc. IX–XIII) (Salerno 1990) 13.
15
Russo Mailler, “Il ducato di Napoli” (n. 7 above) 362.
16
Cassandro, “Il ducato bizantino” (n. 3 above) 56; Russo Mailler, “Il ducato di Napoli” (n. 7 above)
362.
17
Cassandro, “Il ducato bizantino” (n. 3 above) 56; Cammarosano, Nobili e re, GIVE FULL
REFERENCE170.
18
Cassandro, “Il ducato bizantino” (n. 3 above) 65–66; Russo Mailler, “Il ducato di Napoli” (n. 7 above)
364.
19
Cassandro, “Il ducato bizantino” (n. 3 above) 66–68; Russo Mailler, “Il ducato di Napoli” (n. 7 above)
364.
20
Cassandro, “Il ducato bizantino” (n. 3 above) 68ff.; Russo Mailler, “Il ducato di Napoli” (n. 7 above)
365–366.
21
Cassandro, “Il ducato bizantino” (n. 3 above) 68–69; P. Bertolini, “Atanasio, santo,” Dizionario bi-
ografico degli Italiani 4 (Rome 1962) 508.
22
After the division of the principality of Benevento, the Lombard gastaldate of Capua became an inde-
pendent political entity. Cf. N. Cilento, Le origini della signoria di Capua nella Longobardia minore (Rome
1966).
4 LUIGI ANDREA BERTO

heaviest defeat; the prisoners captured by the Capuans included even Caesarius, Ser-
gius’s son. This humiliating rout must have been an incredibly harsh blow for the
Neapolitans, who were never again able to mobilize against the Lombards.23 The
weakening of Neapolitan military strength influenced the conduct of Gregory, who, on
succeeding his father Sergius in 864, decided to follow a policy of non-intervention in
the complex relations between the Lombards of southern Italy and the emperor Louis
II. It was instead Bishop Athanasius who enjoyed very friendly relations with Louis
and who probably wanted Naples to declare itself openly in favor of the emperor.24 A
different way of interpreting Neapolitan policy regarding the Franks manifested itself
clearly under the rule of Sergius II, who succeeded his father Gregory in 870. The new
duke ordered the imprisonment of his uncle Athanasius, then decided to establish trea-
ties with the Muslims, thus ensuring that Naples would not be attacked by the Sara-
cens, but, at the same time, earning the city its excommunication by the pope.25
The history of Naples in this period is narrated in the Gesta episcoporum Neapoli-
tanorum of John the Deacon. This work, untitled and without prologue or dedication,26
is a continuation of a text narrating the lives of the first thirty-nine bishops of Naples,
from Asprenus to Calvus (d. 762).27 The second section covers events ranging from
the beginning of Paul II’s episcopate (762–766) to Bishop Athanasius I’s death (d.
872). This part is followed by a short unfinished passage on the life of Bishop Athana-
sius II attributed to Peter the Subdeacon, who lived in the tenth century.28 Although
the main subject of John the Deacon’s Gesta is the bishops of Naples, it also provides
information on almost all the Neapolitan leaders who governed between the second
half of the eighth century and 872.29 Before examining the Gesta, I review the evi-
dence for its authorship and date of composition.
The author writes occasionally in the first person, but he tells us nothing of himself,
not even his name. The second section of the Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum is,
however, attributed to a deacon called John, because, after the death of Bishop Atha-
nasius, the account stops and the following note appears: HUC USQUE IOHANNES
DIACONUS QUAE SEQUUNTUR PETRUS EDIDIT NEAPOLITANAE SEDI SUB-

23
Ibid. 101–103; Cassandro, “Il ducato bizantino” (n. 3 above) 78–80; Russo Mailler, “Il ducato di Na-
poli” (n. 7 above) 366–367.
24
Cassandro, “Il ducato bizantino” (n. 3 above) 82–84.
25
Bertolini, “Atanasio, santo” (n. 21 above) 508–509; Cassandro, “Il ducato bizantino” (n. 3 above)
84ff.; Russo Mailler, “Il ducato di Napoli” (n. 7 above) 367–368; Kreutz, Before the Normans (n. 13 above)
73.
26
The title Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum was given by G. Waitz, who edited this text for the
MGH. A few years after Waitz, B. Capasso made another edition of this work and entitled it Chronicon
episcoporum S. Neapolitanae Ecclesiae in Monumenta ad Neapolitani Ducatus historiam pertinentia I
(Naples 1881) 155–221. Given the characteristics of this text, I believe that Waitz’s choice is more appro-
priate.
27
The biography of Bishop Calvus is, however, incomplete, as some folia have been removed. The lives
are found in a manuscript dating from about the first half of the 9th c., while the continuation is in a manu-
script composed roughly at the middle of the 10th c. The texts have been later brought together in a single
codex. D. Mallardo, Storia antica della Chiesa di Napoli. Le fonti (Naples 1943) 31–36; Bertolini, “La
Chiesa di Napoli” (n. 4 above) 103ff.
28
On Peter the Subdeacon, author of hagiographical texts, see the introduction to Pietro Suddiacono na-
poletano, L’opera agiografica, ed. E. D’Angelo (Florence 2002).
29
Gregory (766–794) is the only Neapolitan duke not to be mentioned.
“UTILIUS EST VERITATEM PROFERRE” 5

DIACONUS.30
Though John was a common name in Naples,31 and though his contribution ends
with the death of Bishop Athanasius, suggesting that the chronicler wrote the “The
Deeds of the Neapolitan Bishops” shortly afterwards, it has been hypothesized that the
author of the Gesta was John, deacon of the Church of Saint Januarius in Naples. The
latter was the author of hagiographic texts and the translator of some saints’ lives from
Greek into Latin,32 and, as Domenico Mallardo has suggested, was probably born
around 880.33 According to this assumption, John the Deacon would not have been
coeval to any of the events described in the Gesta.
Mallardo’s hypothesis is, however, based on a chain of suppositions which are not
very securely founded. The date of birth is, for example, determined on the passage in
which John the hagiographer writes that the abbot of San Severinus asked permission
to move the body of Saint Sossus. The passage reads “quia non fore canonicum aesti-
mavit, absque pontificali licentia, cuius et iuris erat, illuc transmittere, per auxilium
Domini sacerdotem meae indolis praeceptorem supplicando direxit domino Stephano
episcopo, quatenus, si divina largitate donatus munere tanto tamque praeclaro fuisset,
permissu eius in suo monasterio collocaretur.”34 Rather than reading “per auxilium
Domini sacerdotem … direxit domino Stephano episcopo” as “he sent to the lord
Bishop Stephen a priest … per auxilium Domini” or as “he sent to the lord Bishop
Stephen a priest of the Lord… per auxilium,” Mallardo has proposed to treat auxilium
as the proper name of a priest ordained by Pope Formosus (891–896) and living in
Naples after the pontiff’s death. For this reason, if Auxilius were John the Deacon’s

30
Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum p. 435. The work continues with the life of the next bishop,
Athanasius II, but ends suddenly after a few lines. Peter the Subdeacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapoli-
tanorum, chap. 66, p. 436.
31
For example, between the 8th and 10th c., three Neapolitan dukes had this name. In the Gesta, there
are four bishops and a deacon named John. Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chaps. 6, 16, 25. John the
Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chaps. 42, 56. An analysis of documents in the Neapolitan
archives of the early Middle Ages has shown that twenty-five percent of men had this name. M. Villani,
“L’antroponimia nelle carte napoletane, sec. X–XII,” Mélanges de l’Ecole Française de Rome 107, 1 (1995)
345–359.
32
F. Dolbeau, “La vie latine de saint Euthyme: une traduction inédite de Jean, diacre napolitain,” Mé-
langes de l’Ecole Française de Rome, Moyen Age–Temps Modernes 94 (1982) 315–335.
33
D. Mallardo, “Giovanni Diacono napoletano. I. La Vita,” Rivista di storia della Chiesa in Italia II, 3
(1948) 317ff. Following D. Mallardo, all scholars dealing with these studies have agreed in identifying the
chronicler John the Deacon with the hagiographer. N. Cilento, “La cultura e gli inizi dello studio,” Storia di
Napoli II, 1 (Naples 1969) 576ff.; M. Fuiano, Libri, scrittorii e biblioteche nell’alto Medioevo (Naples
1973) 38–39; idem, Spiritualità e cultura a Napoli nell’alto Medioevo (Naples 1986) 38ff.; W. Berschin,
Biographie und Epochenstil im lateinischen Mittelalter II. Merowingische Biographie. Italien, Spanien und
die Inseln im frühen Mittelalter (Stuttgart 1988) 159; M. Oldoni, “La cultura latina,” Storia e civiltà della
Campania (n. 4 above) 321. Recently, Thomas Granier and Patricia Skinner, who do not seem to know
Mallardo’s work, have conjectured that the chronicler had written his work in the 880s–890s. T. Granier,
“Le peuple devant les saints: La cité et le peuple de Naples dans les textes hagiographiques fin IXe–début Xe
s.,” in C. Carozzi and H. Taviani-Carozzi, eds., Peuples du Moyen Age. Problemes d’identification (Aix-en-
Provence 1996) 57; idem, “À rebours des laudes civitatum: les Versus Romae et le discours sur la ville dans
l’Italie du haut Moyen Âge,” in C. Carozzi and H. Taviani-Carozzi, eds., Le médiéviste devant ses sources:
questions and méthodes (Aix-en-Provence 1996) 137; P. Skinner, Women in Medieval Italian Society 500–
1200 (Harlow 2001) 78.
34
John the Deacon, Translatio sancti Sosii, ed. G. Waitz, MGH Scriptores rerum Langobardicarum et
Italicarum, chap. 24. The translatio of St. Sossus is a part of the Passio sancti Ianuarii.
6 LUIGI ANDREA BERTO

tutor, he must have been so just shortly after the year 896.35 On the basis of this
hypothesis, the chronicler-hagiographer would have been born around 880. As one can
see, it is a series of suppositions, and I believe that it is not possible to be sure either of
the author’s identity or the period in which he lived.
As for John the Deacon’s sources, he never mentions them. The numerous details
he provides and the fact that on one occasion he states that he wanted to report only
the most important events36 may suggest that he had at his disposal both oral and writ-
ten sources, from which he made a selection.
One of the tensest moments in the problematic relationships between lay and eccle-
siastical rulers in early medieval Naples is undoubtedly the crisis that occurred during
the rule of Duke Bonus. As we have already emphasized, the Neapolitan leader im-
prisoned Bishop Tiberius and forced a deacon, John, to take his place.
The way the author presents John IV differs completely from the lives of the other
Neapolitan bishops. He invites the readers not to laugh at this bishop’s humble origins,
since those possessing true nobilitas know that the Lord moved among the poor. He
underlines that on becoming an adolescent John did not behave like other boys of his
age, instead devoting all of his time to learning the Holy Scripture, to the point that he
rarely left his house. The breadth of knowledge he thus acquired earned him the nick-
name “Scribe.” The author points out that thanks to this intense period of preparation,
John came to combine the simplicity of a dove with the caution of a serpent. He was
also obedient and never lost his temper when reproved. For this reason, he won the
affection of his fellow citizens and was elected deacon. Despite his high office, John
retained his simplicity and patience, saddened more by the criticisms leveled at others
than by those directed at him.37
Immediately after enumerating John IV’s qualities, John the Deacon adds that the
imprisonment of Bishop Tiberius by Duke Bonus greatly grieved John; moreover, he
emphasizes that when the duke ordered the Neapolitan clergy to elect a bishop, the
deacon was the only one to oppose this. Brought before Bonus, John was made to un-

35
The same views had been expressed earlier by Fedele Savio, who had not, however, suggested a date
for John the Deacon’s birth and had emphasized only that John the Deacon must have been young in 896 if
he had need of a master. F. Savio, “Giovanni Diacono, biografo dei vescovi napoletani,” Atti della Reale
Accademia delle scienze di Torino 50 (1914–1915) 311–312.
36
John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chap. 42, p. 425: “Si cuncta, quae in eodem
sacro operatus est episcopio, scribere voluero, et fastidio sunt legentibus, et nos sicut inertes subcumbimus.
Sed pretiosa monilia et magna opera memorantes, vilia dimittamus.”
37
Ibid., chap. 56, p. 430: “Si enim huius vitam vel mores, qualiter a iuventute iuste et pie vixerit,
scribere temptavero, non dico meę adolescentię, cuius sensus propter ętatem adhuc intercluditur, verum
etiam sagacioribus oneri fuerat. Tamen in quantum vires suppetunt, ob laudem eius posteris propagandam,
de vite illius actibus aliquantulum enarrare curamus, obsecrantes prius, ut nullatenus irrideatur, quod non
secundum sęculum ex nobili prosapia oriundus descendit, quia, qui rectę nobilitatis est, quę viget in Christo,
novit Dominum ab initio pauperum egenorumque consortio usum. Igitur ex infimis parentibus procreatus,
pauperem cucurrit pueritiam. Cum autem adolevit, non, sicut illa ętas assolet, mundi secutus est illecebras,
sed magis se preceptorum elegit subdere manibus, quatenus, litteris imbutus, soli Domino sciret vacare. Non
enim magnopere liberalium artium, sed divinę doctrinę potissimum quęsivit magistros, utpote totum se Deo
offerre cupiebat. Cuius desiderium Dominus misericorditer adimplere dignatus est. Nam divinę doctrinę
eruditor pręclarus effulsit. Presertim sic scribere novit, ut ex officio cognomen acciperet et ab omnibus
Iohannes Scribo vocaretur. Pedes quoque eius raro platea tetigit. Simplicitatem columbę cum serpentis
prudentia semper in corde retinuit. Pro conviciis non malum, sed oboedientiam exhibebat ac per hoc omni-
bus dulcis, omnibus carus. Nutu cęlesti ad diaconatus promotus est honorem. In corde vero illius eadem
patientia, eadem perseverabat simplicitas, dolens magis aliorum quam sua convicia.”
“UTILIUS EST VERITATEM PROFERRE” 7

derstand that he was to succeed Tiberius. He refused to obey, affirming that he would
never occupy the episcopal throne while the legitimate bishop still lived. Bonus then
threatened to have Tiberius killed and to take possession of the Neapolitan Church’s
goods. At this point, the author dwells on John’s internal dissension, pointing out that
he was afraid, on the one hand, of being the cause of both the bishop’s death and the
ruin of the Neapolitan Church and, on the other, of being excommunicated by the pope
and censured by the Neapolitan citizens. Finally John, preferring human to divine
detrimentum, acceded to the duke’s demands on the promise that no ill would come to
Tiberius.38
The Gesta’s author does not explain Bonus’s reason for imprisoning Tiberius; he
only narrates that the duke began to act against the Neapolitan Church and that the
bishop had opposed him, fearing heavenly more than earthly anger.39 Upon his death,
Bonus was succeeded by his son, Leo, who was banished after six months by his fa-
ther-in-law, Andreas. The latter released Tiberius from prison but did not restore him
to his episcopal office, but kept him in custody in the church of Saint Januarius where
he remained until his death.40
While glossing on the dukes’ motivations, John the Deacon does emphasize Ti-
berius’s reactions to these events. He reports that, a little before dying, Tiberius deliv-
ered a speech to the Neapolitans exonerating John IV from any charge, emphasizing
the generosity shown by his interventions, and exhorting the Neapolitans not to pursue
any punitive action against him.41 The chronicler also points out the positive judgment

38
Ibid., chap. 56, pp. 430–431: “Maxime ex captione prędicti Tiberii episcopi, ita ut ęgrotaret, afflictus
est. Sed sicut supra retulimus cum prędictus Bonus Tiberium tenebroso carcere et execrabili fame affligeret,
iussit cunctos terque quaterque aggregari clericos, ut illis electum pręberet. Hic autem solus, nonnullis co-
nantibus assumere, immo invadere eandem sedem, absens et contrarius ibat. Ad ultimum vero multis affec-
tus conviciis, adductus est ante Bonum consulem. Cui feroci pectore, ore garrulo comminari coepit. Post
paululum, furiis actus, iuravit, non alium nisi ipsum facere electum. At ille clamabat: ‘Pręsule meo vivo,
non ero sedis invasor.’ Unde dux valde iratus, dixit, eundem iugulare Tiberium et totius episcopii servos
possessionesque infiscari. Tum ille undique angustatus, mentem per varia ducebat, hinc formidans de pręsu-
lis nece pontificatusque clade cęleste examen, illinc apostolicam sententiam et populi infamationem. Sed ubi
respectu misericordię maluit humanum quam divinum subire detrimentum, ait ad consulem: ‘Si iureiurando
sancire volueris, ut licentiam habeam ingrediendi ad Tiberium episcopum et nullatenus eum produces ex
ipso episcopio nec quamlibet maculam facies in corpore eius, licet ad periculum capitis mei prebebo con-
sensum.’ Hac ilico promissione percepta, electus est sublimatus. Tiberio denique episcopo quantum quietis
quantumque exhibebat humanitatis, non est nostrę facultatis evolvere.”
39
Ibid., chap. 55: “Praefatus igitur Bonus, Stephani ducis necator, in eo anno, quo consulatum Neapoli-
tanorum regere orsus est, contra sanctam ecclesiam ad cumulum suae perditionis multa coepit mala pe-
ragere. Cui cum hic idem antistes, in quantum virium erat, obsistere non dubitaret, eligens terreni quam
caelestis iram incurrere iudicis, ei iugiter examen cominabatur divinum. Sed ille antiquae aspidis cauda
aurem cordis optusus, adhuc quia spernebat monita salutis, insuper ut funes peccatorum ad suum prolonga-
ret interitum, lictorum verbositates magis attendebat. Quid multis moror? Ad ultimum iniecit in eum manus
et comprehendit eum atque carceralibus tenebris religatum arto in pane et aqua macerabat.”
40
Ibid., chap. 57.
41
Ibid., chap. 58: “His ita peractis, Tiberio episcopo in prędicta custodia posito, appropinquavit ultima
dies. Qui pridie quam moreretur, residens in pontificali cathedra, de domno Iohanne electo talem sermonem
fecit ad populum: ‘Scitis, fratres karissimi, quia peccatorum mole depressus, iusto iudicio hominibus absque
misericordia traditus sum. Sed Dominus, qui deducit ad inferos tribulationis et reducit, quique cum tempta-
tione proventum faciet ad sustinendum, permisit presentem filium meum domnum Iohannem nostram ingre-
dere sedem, quatenus haberem maxime tribulationis solacium. Ideoque nolumus vestram latere caritatem,
quia de tanta, quam erga me impendit, humanitate, etiamsi omnibus membris loquerer, nullatenus illi gratias
referre valueram. Tamen quia magis misericordia meę consolationis quam presumptione motus, vivo me,
episcopatum assumpsit, nulla immineat illi nec a Romana sede nec ab aliis hominibus condemnatio. Huius
8 LUIGI ANDREA BERTO

of John’s conduct made by a papal commission that acquitted him from any charges,
and allowed him to remain in office.42 John the Deacon goes on to provide further evi-
dence of John IV’s good qualities, narrating several instances of exemplary behavior
and referring enthusiastically to details in a way not to be found in the biographies of
the other bishops.43
Through John the Deacon’s description, John the Scribe emerges as a person of the
utmost integrity both before and after becoming bishop. The account of his life ap-
pears to be deliberately structured in order to allay any suspicion of connivance be-
tween John IV and Duke Bonus. This aim is shown clearly by the fact that Tiberius’s
entire address in defense of John IV is reported; it is confirmed by the manner in
which the author presents John’s last years. Here, within the space of a few lines, there
are six rhetorical questions and the passage is structured in the form of a plea as if
John the Deacon were an advocate defending John IV before a jury.44 Furthermore, the
prelate’s entire life is described in such a way as to leave the stamp of evangelical pre-
cepts. Not only were his childhood and adolescence dedicated to the study of the Holy
Scripture, greatly developing his intellectual gifts, but also his moral qualities, in-
cluding sympathy, simplicity, compassion, and obedience, which already distin-
guished him when he was young, manifested themselves most powerfully in his re-
fusal of the episcopal office. Noteworthy as well is the description of John’s moral
scruples before accepting his ordination as bishop, emphasizing yet again his moral
stature.
Such details may have been determined by John the Deacon’s desire to point out
that no Neapolitan bishop ever bore the slightest suspicion of behaving incorrectly.
They may, however, also have been due to the fact that John IV had in certain ways
complied with Bonus’s policies, or at least had not set himself against them. On such
matters, John the Deacon states only that Bonus began to cause multa mala to the
Church of Naples.45 There are no other sources allowing us to establish what exactly
these mala were. The author’s assertion that Bishop Tiberius defied Bonus, preferring
to incur human rather than divine wrath,46 leads to the supposition that the duke
wanted to seize the property of the Neapolitan Church or to exert pressure in order to
ensure that people whom he could trust would be appointed to influential positions in

etenim professionis, quam sponte pro illo feci, coram Deo et omnibus potestabibus veritatis testes vos
habere decrevimus.’ Hoc autem dicto, surrexit de solio, pręcipiens se ad lectulum portari, ubi per duos dies
Dominum laudans veniamque piaculorum implorans, migravit e seculo. Cuius corpus cum veneratione
domnus Iohannes in ecclesia sancti Ianuarii sepelivit, indictione ..., anno impe. ...”
42
Ibid., chap. 59.
43
Ibidem: “Pro! factus episcopus quantum et qualem se exhibebat, nulla carnis lingua poterit enarrare.
Nam omnia fiebat omnibus, ut omnes lucrifaceret. Senes reverebatur ut patres, iuvenes diligebat ut fratres;
nulli umquam malum pro malo reddebat, neminem nisi pro suis criminibus increpabat. Quem merentem non
consolatus est? Cum quo infirmante non infirmatus est? Sic praeerat cunctis, ut ipse magis videretur
subiectus. Hic, hic fuit secundum apostolum pontifex, ut etiam testimonium foris haberet: non enim nisi
pius, nisi iustus, nisi sanctus per omnia videbatur. Quorsum ista? Num quidnam tanti sumus ingenii, ut
laudes eius exprimere valeamus? Exciditne, nos professos esse, parumper posse de eo effari? Quid ergo?
Accingamur ad alia; haec, quia sunt eminentissima, relinquamus.”
44
Ibid.
45
Ibid., chap. 55: “Bonus... contra sanctam ecclesiam... multa coepit mala peragere.”
46
Ibid.: “Cui cum hic idem antistes, in quantum virium erat, obsistere non dubitaret, eligens terreni
quam caelestis iram incurrere iudicis, ei iugiter examen cominabatur divinum.”
“UTILIUS EST VERITATEM PROFERRE” 9

the ecclesiastical leadership of Naples. After this point, John the Deacon’s work does
not deal with the matter again. But the fact that, after Bonus’s death, Tiberius was not
reinstated, but remained in custody, seems to suggest a certain degree of connivance
on John IV’s part in the dukes’ ecclesiastical policy.
As John was the only Neapolitan churchman to oppose the duke’s wishes, Bonus’s
choice to replace Tiberius with him seems an unlikely decision. Indeed, John the Dea-
con’s reporting of it suggests that he wished to portray Bonus as a sinner and a mad
ruler with a sinister sense of humor. Accusing the duke of having perpetrated multa
mala against the Neapolitan Church, the author points out that Bonus thus earned the
condemnation of his soul,47 and that he was inspired by the Devil because he refused
to listen to Bishop Tiberius’s admonitions.48 In line with this behavior, there is the
depiction of Bonus threatening John IV ore garrulo, and, furiis actus, swearing that if
he did not obey him, Tiberius would have his throat cut and all the church’s posses-
sions confiscated.49 It is more likely that John IV’s humble origins had made him the
ideal candidate for the bishop’s post, as he had no powerful family to support him and
would, therefore, find it difficult to oppose the duke’s decisions.50 Although Bonus is
not the only duke who imprisoned a bishop, in the Gesta episcoporum Neapoli-
tanorum, no other episode reaches the levels of drama that characterized the clash just
described.
John the Deacon is not as harsh toward Duke Sergius II, who ordered the arrest of
his uncles, among whom was Bishop Athanasius. The motive for this action is not
provided; the author only explains that the duke acted on the suggestion of mali homi-
nes.51 The chronicler also reports the words used by the Neapolitan clergy to beseech
the duke to free the bishop, but there is no strong condemnation of Sergius II’s actions
in them.52
It is also worth noting the way in which John the Deacon narrates the continuation
of the event. The duke welcomed the request from the Neapolitan ecclesiastics and
freed Athanasius, but refused to do the same for the other prisoners. The author only
stresses that the duke did not want a tanta mentis obstinatione recedere.53 But when he
relates that Athanasius went to see the emperor Louis II to solve this problem, he adds
that Sergius II advised the people of Salerno and Benevento to rebel against the sover-
eign. John the Deacon is the only chronicler to assert that the duke of Naples was in-

47
Ibid., chap. 55: “ad cumulum suae perditionis.”
48
Ibid.: “Cui cum hic idem antistes, in quantum virium erat, obsistere non dubitaret, eligens terreni
quam caelestis iram incurrere iudicis, ei iugiter examen cominabatur divinum. Sed ille antiquae aspidis
cauda aurem cordis optusus, adhuc quia spernebat monita salutis, insuper ut funes peccatorum ad suum
prolongaret interitum, lictorum verbositates magis attendebat.”
49
Ibid., chap. 56: “Cui feroci pectore, ore garrulo comminari coepit. Post paululum, furiis actus, iuravit,
non alium nisi ipsum facere electum. At ille clamabat: ‘Praesule meo vivo, non ero sedis invasor.’ Unde dux
valde iratus, dixit, eundem iugulare Tiberium et totius episcopii servos possessionesque infiscari.”
50
In this connection, G. Cassandro maintains that the motives for selecting John were political and he
observes that John IV sided with the duke; Cassandro, “Il ducato bizantino” (n. 3 above) 56. P. Camma-
rosano agrees with this opinion. Cammarosano, Nobili e re (n. 17 above) 170. Gleijess holds the view that
John was a member of Bonus’s circle; V. Gleijess, La storia di Napoli dalle origini ai nostri giorni (Naples
1974) 134.
51
John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chap. 65.
52
Ibid.
53
Ibid.
10 LUIGI ANDREA BERTO

volved in the conspiracy against Louis II, but he does not express any judgment on
this behavior.54
The incisiveness of the accusations against Sergius II is accentuated when com-
pared with the Vita sancti Athanasii. This work describes the same events, but the
criticisms aimed at Sergius II are much harsher. The duke is accused of being nothing
like his father, fickle,55 eager for power, inspired by the Devil,56 and a Judas figure.57
Like a madman, he turned to the Saracens in order to seize the island where the bishop
had taken refuge.58 Moreover, he “devoured” the property of the church59 and ordered
the priests to be beaten and paraded naked, a nefandissimum scelus without precedent.
His evil conduct led to the belief that the end of the world arrived, and that he was the
Antichrist.60 His obstinate behavior ultimately persuaded the pope to excommunicate
the Neapolitans.61
The only vile deed that Sergius II is not accused of, and that John the Deacon refers
to, is having supported the conspiracy against Louis II. In the Vita sancti Athanasii it
is, however, said that the Neapolitan soldiers, together with the Saracens, attacked the
prefect of Amalfi, Marinus, who was sent by Louis II to liberate Athanasius, secretly
held on an island near Naples.62 That John the Deacon also narrates that Marinus freed
Athanasius without any mention of the obstacles that he had to overcome63—thereby
omitting the detail that the Saracens were allied with the Neapolitans—appears to con-
firm the suspicion that the Neapolitan chronicler did not want to exaggerate the accu-
sations directed at Sergius II.
The impossibility of knowing exactly when John the Deacon lived means that one
cannot formulate solid hypotheses about the reasons for these choices. It may, how-
ever, be supposed that the chronicler’s reticent attitude was due to the fact that a de-
scendent of Sergius II was in power while he was writing and that some members of
the ducal family who had been active during Sergius II’s rule were probably still liv-
ing. If the hypothesis attributing the compilation of the Vita sancti Athanasii to

54
Ibid.: “Hic itaque eo degente, Beneventani et Salernitani, aemulatores tantae bonitatis predicti impera-
toris, insurrexerunt cum consilio Sergii ducis contra eum.” For an analysis of the sources describing the
imprisonment of the Emperor Louis II, see T. Granier, “La captivité de l’empereur Louis II à Bénévent (13
août–17 septembre 871) dans les sources des IXe–Xe siècles: l’écriture de l’histoire, de la fausse nouvelle
au récit exemplaire,” in C. Carozzi and H. Taviani-Carozzi, eds., Faire l’événement au Moyen Âge (Aix-en-
Provence 2007) 13–39. I thank Thomas Granier for sending me his contribution.
55
Vita s. Athanasii, Vita et Translatio s. Athanasii Neapolitani episcopi (BHL 735 e 737) sec. IX, ed. A.
Vuolo (Rome 2001) chap. 6, p. 132: “Erat namque vir ille mobilis ut arundo, quae ab omni vento movetur,
et avidus in cupiditate et patri in nullo similis.”
56
Ibid., chap. 6, p. 131: “maxime diabolo istigante subversus, ut in nullo supradicto viro obtemperaret,
coepitque cor eius diabolica decipere locutione, ut si vellet monarchiam solus optinere.”
57
Ibid. chap. 6, p. 132: “circumvenit eos prestigiis suis, ut Iudas proditor iustissimum Dominum.”
58
Ibid. chap. 6, p. 135: “At ille solito furore insanivit ... armati omnes una cum Saracenis perrexerunt ad
ipsam insulam.”
59
Ibid., chap. 7, p. 136: “misit ad inquirendas tamen facultates et res aecclesiae avidissime devoran-
dum.”
60
Ibid., chap. 7, p. 137: “sacerdotes Dei contempti erant in tantum, ut etiam ex ipsis fusticatis et tonsora-
tis nudis per plateas traherentur ... numquid finis mundi est? aut antichristus exivit? Nos talia non vidimus
nec audivimus nec legimus facta fuisse tempore Valentis impii augusti, nec quando Eudoxia Iohannem
sanctissimum a sua sede pepulit.”
61
Ibid., chap. 7, pp. 137–138.
62
Ibid.
63
Ibid., chap. 65.
“UTILIUS EST VERITATEM PROFERRE” 11

Guarimpotus is correct,64 the harsher tone of the hagiographer can probably be attrib-
uted to the particular that he wrote his work around eighty years after the events and,
therefore, did not have to worry about incurring the anger of any Sergius II’s direct
relatives. If, on the other hand, this work was written by an anonymous author shortly
after Athanasius’s death, as A. Vuolo, editor of Vita sancti Athanasii’s new edition,
maintains,65 it simply means that the hagiographer was braver than the Neapolitan
chronicler.
John the Deacon was free to use a harsher tone with regard to Bonus, not because
that duke had lived a long time before, but because Bonus was not a member of the
family that, beginning with Sergius, ruled the duchy of Naples for around three centu-
ries. Bonus took possession of Naples by killing the reigning duke with the hated
Beneventans’ help. It is probably no coincidence that John the Deacon opens the ac-
count of Bonus’s action against Bishop Tiberius by emphasizing that he was Stephani
ducis necator.66 In general, the author, on the one hand, aims at demonstrating the
legitimacy of some episcopal elections that, despite some irregularities, allowed wor-
thy people to become Neapolitan prelates, on the other hand, attempts not to be too
critical of the lay rulers.
The character who best embodies the intimate and delicate relationships between
bishops and dukes is Duke Stephen. His election as bishop is justified by the emer-
gency provoked by the death of all the Neapolitan clerics from a plague. John the
Deacon adds that all the Neapolitans offered him the position,67 and that the pope,
having discovered how devout the duke was, tonsured him and ordained him bishop.68
The author also relates that Stephen, having returned to Naples, was instructed in
every aspect of his post as if he were a young boy.69 The latter detail indicates that at
least one expert in ecclesiastical matters survived in Naples, and that, therefore, the
assertion of all the Neapolitan clerics’ death was an exaggeration. The observation that
Stephen’s wife died many years before, while he was still duke,70 serves to avert any
suspicion of irregularity in Stephen’s new life as well. He then proceeded to prove the
equal of the other Neapolitan bishops, enriching the churches with precious objects,
promoting better education for the clergy, and looking after the maintenance of the
ecclesiastics.71
The absence of other sources with which to compare John the Deacon’s narration
as well as any mention on the author’s part of other Neapolitan rulers coeval to

64
P. Devos, “L’oeuvre de Guarimpotus, hagiographe napolitain,” Analecta Bollandiana 76 (1958) 151–
187.
65
See the introduction to the edition of Vita et Translatio s. Athanasii Neapolitani episcopi (n. 55
above).
66
John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chap. 55.
67
Ibid., chap. 42: “In eo siquidem anno, quo Paulus episcopus defunctus est, irato Deo, tanta desaevit
clades in Neapoli, quae a medicis inguinaria vocatur ut patris interitum mors subsequeretur filiorum, et ad
sepeliendum rarus superstes inveniretur; unde etiam prope omnes clerici eiusdem episcopii vitam finirent.
Ac per hoc omnes Neapolites ad praedictum accedentes praesulem, magnis postularunt precibus, ut eccle-
siae sanctae providus pastor accederet.”
68
Ibid.
69
Ibid.
70
Ibid.
71
Ibid.
12 LUIGI ANDREA BERTO

Stephen prevent further comments on this section of the Gesta. However, the desire on
the part of the chronicler to illustrate how, despite slight irregularities, the life of the
Neapolitan Church could be considered absolutely irreproachable, is evident. The list
of the Neapolitan dukes shows that Stephen’s son, Gregory, was duke from 767 to
794, and his son-in-law, Theophylact, succeeded Gregory in 794 after an interval.
During this interval, Stephen assumed power, probably in order to ensure Theophy-
lact’s accession. This fact suggests that Stephen’s decision to become bishop was dic-
tated by the desire to ensure that the control of power in Naples remained firmly in the
hands of his family, and shows that he continued to exert a certain influence on Nea-
politan politics.72 John the Deacon or his source undoubtedly preferred not to mention
such a commixture between religion and politics.
The existence of some dissatisfaction with this situation is confirmed by John the
Deacon himself, whose account indicates that the election of Bishop Stephen II’s suc-
cessor was complicated. He writes that, on the death of Stephen II (794), the duke of
Naples, Theophylact, his son-in-law, did not want to elect a new bishop because of his
stinginess and desire not to displease his wife, Eupraxia. The rejoicing of the Nea-
politan clerics upon her father’s death had in fact angered her very much.73 All the
Neapolitans then asked the duke and duchess to choose whomever they liked as they
could not remain without guidance. Eupraxia, therefore, chose a layman named Paul,
who was tonsured and elected bishop; no one dared to oppose this choice.
The author introduces the event by apologizing to the readers for what he was
about to narrate and emphasizing that he considered it better to report the truth.74 In-
deed, here he gives some hints at the relationship between religion and politics: the
clergy’s joy at the death of Stephen II and the lack of opposition to the decision to
elect a layman. However, he resolves this difficult situation by resorting to a typical
topos of medieval ecclesiastics. The responsibility for what happened is attributed to a
woman, Eupraxia, who, “inflamed with female fury” at the behavior of the Neapolitan
clerics, took her revenge by presenting a lay candidate.75 John the Deacon narrates that
the pope readily agreed to ratify Paul III’s election and that the new bishop ordered the

72
V. Von Valkenhausen agrees with G. Cassandro, and she believes that Stephen had become bishop in
order to control the property of the Neapolitan Church. C. Russo Mailler, on the other hand, maintains that
Stephen had continued to govern Naples and that Gregory and Theophylact had been his corulers. Cassan-
dro, “Il ducato bizantino” (n. 3 above) 42–43; Von Falkenhausen, “La Campania tra Goti e Bizantini” (n. 4
above) 21; Russo Mailler, “Il ducato di Napoli” (n. 7 above) 359–360.
73
John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chap. 46: “Defuncto igitur domno Stephano
episcopo Theophilactus, gener eius, consulatum regebat Parthenopensem. Qui, obstinatus avaritia, nolebat
quempiam ex clericali officio promovere ad sacrum ordinem, dicens: ‘Nequeo exinde amaricari Eupraxiam
meam uxorem.’ Illa quoque quasi comperta occasione referebat: ‘Laetati estis de morte genitoris mei. Mihi
credite, nullus ex vobis ad episcopatum ascendet.’”
74
Ibid., chap. 46: “Scribere igitur incipientes, qualiter iste pontificali culmine sit sublimatus, studiosos
precamur lectores, ut non aegre accipiant et nobis imputent aliquid narrasse ineptum: quia utilius est veri-
tatem proferre quam vitantes quicquam ire per anfractam locutionem.”
75
J. Martinez Pizzaro has recently compared the misogyny revealed by this passage to that highlighted
by Agnellus of Ravenna, telling of the way in which Rosmunda took her revenge against her husband, Al-
boin, the king of the Lombards; Martínez Pizarro, Writing Ravenna GIVE FULL REFERENCE 35. Both
accounts reflect their respective author’s misogyny, but the difference between Agnellus and John the Dea-
con is considerable. In fact, the chronicler from Ravenna takes Rosmunda’s behaviour as his starting point
to warn husbands about their wives, suggesting that they should never provoke their wrath.
“UTILIUS EST VERITATEM PROFERRE” 13

construction of religious buildings to which he donated numerous precious objects.76

The sources do not permit us to identify the relationship existing between Paul and
the ducal family. That John the Deacon defines him as a popularis could suggest that
he was chosen precisely because his condition allowed the dukes to control him easily.
Whatever the reason for this choice, his election does highlight the influence the duke
of Naples had on the choice of bishop.77
This influence is also evident in the election to bishop of Duke Sergius’s twenty-
one-year-old son, Athanasius. Athanasius was already an ecclesiastic, which made the
ducal intervention less heavy, but his young age was probably a reason for embar-
rassment. The desire to put this into the background seems to be underlined by the fact
that Athanasius had become deacon at the age of twenty,78 but the author does not
mention his age when he was elected bishop of Naples.79 Relevant too is the fact that
the chronicler narrates that immediately after becoming deacon Athanasius was vener-
ated as if he were a bishop; this devoutness is even attributed to divine will. Thus, God
was indicating that Athanasius was destined to become bishop of Naples.80 Also rele-
vant is the fact that John the Deacon insists on the affection that Bishop John IV had
for Athanasius.81
The narration then continues with no mention of intervention from the duke,
stressing that the whole populus approved Athanasius’s election and that he then went
to Rome, where he was welcomed honorifice and consecrated honorificentius.82 There
could be no suspicion at the integrity of a bishop, who, upon his death, was revered as
a saint, and John the Deacon appears to make every effort to avoid any inference or
criticism.
In the case of Paul II (762–766), the author relates that while a deacon Paul fre-
quently went to Rome as an ambassador and had a close friendship with the man who
later became Pope Paul. One day the Neapolitan prophesied to the Roman that God
would allow him to become pope; the reply was, “Et tu episcopum.” Both prophecies
were fulfilled within a short time.83 This anecdote probably aimed at emphasizing the

76
John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chaps. 46, 50.
77
In spite of the fact that John the Deacon’s account has some obscure points, it appears to me that N.
Cilento’s way of interpreting it is incorrect. He maintains that the event was the expression of the Neapoli-
tan people’s desire to have a more important role in the election of their own bishop; Cilento, “La cultura”
(n. 33 above) 580. I also disagree with P. Skinner who supposes that “this story may highlight the tensions
in Naples at the end of the ninth century rather than the eighth”; Skinner, Women in Medieval Italian Society
(n. 33 above) 78. There is no evidence proving that in Naples there was not that kind of tension in 794.
78
John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chap. 63.
79
In the Vita s. Athanasii it is reported that Athanasius had become bishop after having been deacon for
one year and two months. Vita s. Athanasii, chap. 3 p. 124. However, Athanasius’s age on becoming deacon
is not given in this text. The hagiographer only relates that the duke’s son was made subdeacon when he was
an adolescent and that he held this office for seven years. Athanasius therefore became subdeacon when he
was thirteen. Ibid., chap. 3, pp. 123–124.
80
John the Deacon, Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum, chap. 63.
81
Ibid., chap. 63, pp. 433–434.
82
Ibid., chap. 63, p. 434.
83
Ibid., chap. 41: “Fuit autem temporibus Pauli pape. Hic quoque cum Neapolitanę ecclesię diaconatus
fungeretur officio, Romanam ad urbem frequens legatus abibat. Ubi predictum papam, adhuc levitali infula
decoratum, cęlesti amore conglutinavit sibi amicum. Qui cum quodam die vicissim sodalia verterentur col-
loquia, tamquam adulando Neapolitanus ait levita: ‘Concedat Omnipotens, ut te apostolicum videam.’ Cui
mox pręfatus papa respondit: ‘Et ego te episcopum.’ Quid plura? In brevi spatio defuncto domno Stephano
14 LUIGI ANDREA BERTO

familiarity and friendship existing between Rome and the Neapolitan Church during
the very tense period of iconoclasm, when the Neapolitan rulers were aligned with
Constantinople against the decisions of the papacy. Indeed, the friendship between the
Neapolitan Paul and his Roman namesake is contrasted immediately afterwards by the
attitude of Bishop Paul II’s fellow citizens who prevented the Neapolitan Paul from
going to Rome to be consecrated by the pope for nine months, and who did not allow
him to reenter Naples after he decided to go to Rome on his own initiative.84 This
story emphasizes that the relations between the papacy and the Neapolitan Church
were very good and that the ecclesiastics of Naples were not responsible for what had
happened.
The Neapolitans were, in any case, later exonerated for having taken the side of the
Byzantines. Initially, the bishop was allowed to reside at the Church of Saint Janua-
rius, which stood just outside the city and where Paul II was safely able to exercise his
function as bishop of Naples. All the clergy and the populus obeyed him without
question, and the Neapolitans brought him their children to be baptized. After two
years, the Neapolitan primates decided that their city could no longer be deprived of so
great a bishop and, therefore, gave him permission to reenter Naples.85
To conclude, one can observe that, like the anonymous author who had written
about the lives of the first thirty-nine bishops of Naples, John the Deacon put the lives
of the Neapolitan prelates at the centre of his work. The possibility of having a greater
number of sources at his disposal and the narrative ability of the Neapolitan author
ensured that the second part of the Gesta is much more detailed than the first. The
greater availability of information did not, however, allow John the Deacon to isolate
the bishops from the environment in which they lived as happened in the first section.
The period he describes, moreover, was extremely delicate. It was characterized by the
strong autonomy of Naples from Constantinople that made the Neapolitan dukes prac-
tically independent from Byzantine rule. In a situation in which the transmission of
power did not follow well-established rules, they had necessarily to reinforce their
own power, and one of the ways to achieve this was through control of the Neapolitan
Church. Unfortunately, it is not possible to determine exactly when and in what milieu
John the Deacon composed his work. In narrating the history of the Neapolitan Church
during that difficult period, the author, however, wished to stress not only that all the

apostolico, Paulus diaconus ad prenuntiatum sibi honorem eligitur. Itaque non multo post migrante ad
Dominum Calvo venerabili episcopo et iste Neapolitanam suscepit cathedram.”
84
Ibid., chap. 41, p. 424: “Sed propter detestabilem imaginum altercationem, quae inter apostolici
tramitis auctoritatem et fedissimam Constantini imperatoris Caballini vertebatur amentiam, novem sunt
menses elapsi, in quibus non potuit consecrari; quia tunc Parthenopensis populus potestati Graecorum fave-
bat. Attamen hic cum cuperet praedicto papae quasi amicus de talibus aliquo modo suffragari, clanculo
Romam perrexit. Qui statim consecratus episcopus, Neapolim est directus, sed propter Graecorum
conexionem noluerunt illum recipere sui concives.”
85
Ibid., chap. 41, pp. 424–425: “Inito tamen consilio, eum ad ecclesiam sancti Ianuarii Christi martyris,
non longius ab urbe dicatam, transmiserunt. In qua duos ferme annos degens, plura construxit aedificia.
Inter quae fecit triclineum, quod est introeuntibus a parte dextra. Sane clerus omnis et populus cunctus ca-
nonice illi ut vero obtemperabant pastori, resque omnes ecclesiae absque ullius detinebat et disponebat
obstaculo. Construxit etiam ibidem marmoreum baptismatis fontem. In quo paschalibus aliisque festis om-
nes occurrentes suos baptizabant filios. Interea Neapolitanorum primates cernentes, tam egregiam urbem
languidam esse de tanto pontifice, uno consilio unoque consensu laetantes et gaudentes eum in ipsius civita-
tis episcopatum introduxerunt.”
“UTILIUS EST VERITATEM PROFERRE” 15

Neapolitan bishops took care of the religious buildings and of their flock, but also that
they did not show themselves to be accommodating to political power. Given the close
connection between dukes and bishops, every unpleasant situation resulting from this
connection had nevertheless to be presented in a way that did not displease the Nea-
politan rulers. The desire not to distort the events too much or to omit any facts (a
wish perhaps dictated by John the Deacon’s reluctance to give up his role of historian)
represents good fortune for scholars, as the way in which he reports the facts allows us
to identify the tensions and connivances between the secular and religious authorities.
If Domenico Mallardo’s identification of the Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum (a
text that would have received harsh criticisms at the time of its writing), with the early
work by the hagiographer John the Deacon is correct, then perhaps it was John’s wish
to avoid creating an idyllic picture of Neapolitan history that spawned these criti-
cisms.86 Obviously, it is a hypothesis based on another theory; but those problems that
also appear to emerge from the Gesta could explain why John the Deacon did not nar-
rate the life of the Bishop Athanasius II, Athanasius I’s successor, who had blinded his
brother, appropriated the title of duke, and then sided with the Muslims, thus proving
himself an unscrupulous ruler.87 Too many events had to be left out.88

86
In the Translatio sancti Sosii, the hagiographer John the Deacon narrates that an earlier work of him
received harsh criticisms. John the Deacon, Translatio sancti Sosii, 459: “Post nonnulla tyrocinii mei opus-
cula, quibus aliquantisper iuvenilem animum caritatis exercuisse videbar imperio, nullius fore disponebam
intentionis, nisi ut magis hebetaret desidia, quam fomenta lividae stomachationis alicui pro talibus submi-
nistrarem experimentis. Didiceram quippe et didiceram, qualiter bilis ignita linguae faculam torrens con-
tinuos ureret dentes.”
87
On Athanasius II, see Cassandro, “Il ducato bizantino” (n. 3 above) 100ff.
88
That the memory of this bishop-duke was unsavory also appears to be suggested by the detail that in
his life, which is in the same manuscript as John the Deacon’s Gesta episcoporum, only a few lines are
found.