Notre Dame (B.N. n.a. lat. 3093), a miniature of the duke
of Berry embarking on a journey in the Petites Heures
(B.N. lat. 18014), some scenes in grisaille for a Bible
historiale (B.N. fr. 166), the illuminations of the Belles
Heures (New York, The Cloisters), and, most notably,
miniatures in the Très Riches Heures (Chantilly, Musée
Condé), which remained unfi nished in 1416, when all
three brothers and their patron appear to have died in
an epidemic.
Their miniatures, particularly in the Très Riches Heu-
res, are representative of the height of the International
Gothic style in France, combining courtly elegance,
sumptuous coloration, and a mixture of fanciful and
remarkably naturalistic landscape settings. Although
attempts have been made to defi ne the style of each of
the brothers, these have not always been successful,
and they are generally regarded to have participated
collectively on their productions.
See also John, Duke of Berry; Philip the Bold
Further Reading
Longnon, Jean, and Raymond Cazelles. The Très Riches Heures
of Jean, Duke of Berry. New York: Braziller, 1969.
Meiss, Millard. French Painting in the Time of Jean de Berry:
The Limbourgs and Their Contemporaries. 2 vols. New York:
Braziller, 1974.
——, and Elizabeth H. Beatson. The Belles Heures of Jean, Duke
of Berry. New York: Braziller, 1974.
Robert G. Calkins
LIUDPRAND OF CREMONA
(c. 920–972)
Liudprand (Liutprand, Liuzo) was bishop of Cremona
(961–972) and also a historian and diplomat. He was
born in Pavia in northern Italy into a wealthy family who
may have been either merchants or urban aristocrats. His
father (who died young) and stepfather had served Hugh
of Aries, king of Italy, as diplomats. Liudprand himself
went to Constantinople, capital of the Byzantine (eastern
Roman) empire, in 949 during the reign of Constantine
VII (called Porphorygenitus) on a mission for Hugh’s
successor, Berengar of Ivrea. Liudprand fell out with
Berengar and went into exile at the court of Otto I, duke
of Saxony. There, Liudprand met Recemund, bishop of
Elvira in Muslim Spain, who suggested that Liudprand
write a history of their time. The result was Antapodo-
sis. Liudprand rose in Otto’s favor, was granted the see
of Cremona, and accompanied Otto on an expedition
to Italy that resulted in Otto’s coronation as emperor
in February 962. Liudprand went on at least two mis-
sions to Constantinople on behalf of Otto: in 960 (when
he seems not to have reached Constantinople); and in
968–969, during the reign of Nicephorus II Phocas, to
arrange a marriage with a Byzantine princess for Otto’s
son, Otto II. The second embassy was a miserable fail-
ure, but later Nicephorus’s successor, John I Tzimisces,
did consent to a match between Otto II and Theophano.
Liudprand probably went to Constantinople a fourth
time in 972 (though he seems to have been reluctant
to do so, possibly because of ill health) to help escort
Theophano to the west; and apparently he died at some
point during that trip.
Liudprand’s principal works are Antapodosis (trans-
lated into English as Tit for Tat or The Book of Retribu-
tion); Relatio de legatio Constantinopolitana (Report
on the Embassy to Constantinople), i.e., the embassy
of 968–969; and Liber de rebus gestibus Ottonis (The
Deeds of Otto), i.e., Otto I. Recent scholarship (Bischoff
1984) has also identifi ed Liudprand as author of a ser-
mon given at Easter c. 960.
Antapodosis is a gossipy history running from 887
to 949. It forms our principal guide to northern and
central Italy during that confused period and contains
much information on other areas: Germany, Burgundy,
southern Italy, and the Byzantine empire—especially
Constantinople. Antapodosis was written to show that
the major fi gures in Italian politics of the fi rst half of
the tenth century whom Liudprand disliked—notably
Berengar of Ivrea and his wife, Willa—eventually met
bad ends. Though an excellent storyteller, Liudprand
obviously does not pretend to be impartial.
Relatio is bitterly anti-Byzantine. It is often cited
to show the growing estrangement of the Latin west
from Byzantium but in fact demonstrates no such thing.
Liudprand’s tirades against the “Greeks” are a result
of the hostile and demeaning treatment he received at
the hands of Emperor Nicephorus. There is no trace
of anti-Greek sentiment in Antapodosis, which gives a
good-natured account of Liudprand’s mission of 949.
The fascinating narrative and Liudprand’s caustic humor
compensate for the whining tone of Relatio.
The Deeds of Otto is a record not of the great Saxon
ruler’s entire reign (Liudprand died a year before Otto),
but of one incident: the deposition of Pope John XII by
Otto in 963.
Despite his admiration for and devotion to Otto and
the Saxons, Liudprand is a fi gure essentially centered
on the Mediterranean. He claimed to know Greek
and interlarded his work with Greek words (followed
by their Latin translations). Although some scholars
consider this merely a display of pedantry, most now
believe that Liudprand did know the spoken Byzantine
tongue of his day (which was closer to modern than to
classical Greek), and perhaps some classical or koiné
Greek as well. Although Liudprand had the requisite
education and social background for a diplomat, his ef-
fectiveness was vitiated by his explosive temper (amply
demonstrated in Legatio) and his acerbic disposition (ofLIMBOURG BROTHERS