Part I

Administrative organizations and officials

1

The Financial and Administrative Organization of the Norman Kingdom of Sicily

The Norman Kingdom of Sicily has attracted attention not only from Italian historians but also from English, American, German and French medievalists because of its political, cultural, commercial and institutional peculiarities as well as its importance in twelfth-century Europe. The kingdom established by King Roger II, based on commercial prosperity and efficient administration, was competing for hegemony in the Mediterranean region with Venice and the Byzantine and German Empires. Sicily, under a mixture of Roman, Greek and Arabic influences, developed one of the most remarkable civilizations of twelfth-century Europe, a center for translating Greek and Arabic literature into Latin and a meeting point for North Italian and Muslim merchants. A well-developed administrative organization was indispensable to this prosperous kingdom. Its bureaucracy, precocious as England’s, was to be copied by Emperor Frederick II.

The study of its administrative organization contributes not only to a comparative study of other medieval institutions but also to the understanding of the kingdom itself. Many historians have tackled the subject, including the problems of its financial administration; yet the duana (dohana/doana), the central fiscal organization and best example of the advanced bureaucracy of Norman Sicily, has not been reexamined since Garufi expounded his theory in 1901.¹ Garufi explained the structure of the duana as follows (see Figure 1.1): Two offices, the supervising office (ufficio di riscontro) and the treasury office (ufficio del tesoro), were located in the royal palace in Palermo. The latter office was subordinate to the former. The supervising office, which had registers of lands, was divided into two departments, duana de secretis and duana baronum. The duana de secretis supervised the affairs of the royal domains, and the duana baronum handled the feudal affairs. The treasury office, in contrast, kept registers of villeins and collected taxes. This office was called al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr in Arabic. To the treasury office was subordinate the office of profits (ufficio dei proventi), called dīwān al-fawā’id in Arabic.²

Almost all subsequent historians have accepted and built upon Garufi’s assumptions.³ Only Caravale has advanced an independent theory (1964). Against the classic statement of Garufi, Caravale asserted that the functions of the duana de secretis and the duana baronum were distinct in their administrative districts, though he basically accepted Garufi’s structural analysis of the duana. The former had competence over Sicily and Calabria and the latter over the peninsula except Calabria.⁴ As Mazzarese Fardella says,⁵ this theory of Caravale does not completely supersede that of Garufi. The subject should be reexamined to explain a number of points left unclear. Therefore, the central aim of this paper will be a structural and functional analysis of the duana.

Figure 1.1 Sicilian financial and administrative organization as schematized by Garufi

I. Premise

As preliminary steps we shall first try to determine the corresponding terms in Latin, Greek and Arabic sources and to decide the date of the duana baronum’s appearance.⁶

A. Corresponding terms (Latin, Greek and Arabic)

In this section we shall fix the Greek and Arabic corresponding to the most essential Latin terms: duana de secretis, duana baronum, magister duane de secretis, and magister duane baronum (see Figure 1.2).

First let us compare Latin and Greek documents of 1180. These differ a little in details but have the same content:

[Latin] Geoffrey of Modica (Goffridus de moac), palatinus camerarius and magister regie duane de secretis et duane baronum, (send) greeting and love to all baiuli and portulani of Sicily, Calabria, and the principality of Salerno, that is, his friends to whom this letter will be shown.⁷

[Greek] Geoffrey of Modica (ἰοσφρὲς τῆς μοδάκ), ho epi tou megalou sekretou kai sekretou tōn apokopōn (ὁ ἐπὶ τοῦ μεγάλου σεκρέτου καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ σεκρέτου τῶν ἀποκοπῶν) and ho palatinos kapriliggas (ὁ παλατῖνος καπριλίγγας), [send] greetings to all exousiastai (ἐξουσιασταί) and parathalattioi (παραθαλάττιοι) of Sicily, Calabria, and the principality of Salerno, that is, his friends reading this letter.⁸

We find close correspondence of Latin to Greek. Magister regie duane de secretis et duane baronum corresponds to ho epi tou megalou sekretou kai sekretou tōn apokopōn (ὁ ἐπὶ τοῦ μεγάλου σεκρέτου καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ σεκρέτου τῶν ἀποκοπῶν). So, (mS1) magister duane de secretis corresponds to (mS2) ho epi tou megalou sekretou (ὁ ἐπὶ τοῦ μεγάλου σεκρέτου) and (mB1) magister duane baronum to (mB2) ho epi tou sekretou tōn apokopōn (ὁ ἐπὶ τοῦ σεκρέτου τῶν ἀποκοπῶν). Therefore, (S1) duana de secretis corresponds to (S2) mega sekreton (μέγα σέκρετον) and (B1) duana baronum to (B2) sekreton tōn apokopōn (σέκρετον τῶν ἀποκοπῶν). For the Arabic correspondents, our source is a Latin document translated in 1286 from the Arabic of 1175:

[Latin] and Sanson baiulus in the Marrani River presented the document of the dohana mamur, that is, doana secreti including the declaration of the aforesaid division (divisa), and was read in the presence of these aforementioned Christians and Saracens who knew the names of these places… and confirmation was firmly made among them on what was said in the presence of Shaikh Bicca’ib magister doane de secretis which is called in Arabic duén tahki’k elmama. This is doana veritatis in the aforesaid old times.⁹

We are able to establish that (S1) duana de secretis corresponds to (S3) dīwān al-taḥqīq al-ma‘mūr (duén tahki’k elmama in this document). But we cannot verify the relation of (S1) duana de secretis and (*) al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr (dohana mamur in the document).

Figure 1.2 Corresponding terms I (Latin, Greek and Arabic)

Note: S = duana de secretis; B = duana baronum; m = magister; 1 = Latin; 2 = Greek; 3 = Arabic

Our next sources are Greek and Arabic documents of 1161. They have the same general contents but slightly differing styles of expression:

[Greek] Martin, Matthew, and other gerontes (γέροντες), that is, ho epi tou sekretou (οἱ ἐπὶ τοῦ σεκρέτου) who confirm this document below admit the following.¹⁰

[Arabic] This is the writing in which they recorded what Ya‘qūb b. Faḍlūn b. Sāliḥ had bought from al-shaikh al-qā’id Martin, al-shaikh al-qā’id Matthew and al-shuyūkh who are aṣḥāb dīwān al-taḥqīq al-ma‘mūr.¹¹

In these, (mS2) ho epi tou sekretou (οἱ ἐπὶ τοῦ σεκρέτου) corresponds to (mS3) aṣḥāb dīwān al-taḥqīq al-ma‘mūr. Therefore (S2) sekreton (σέκρετον) corresponds to (S3) dīwān al-taḥqīq al-ma‘mūr. Here one should note the terms gerōn (γέρων, pl. γέροντες) and shaikh (pl. shuyūkh). These are not official posts but only titles of honor. They mean something like “elders.”¹²

The aforementioned terms are the only exact correspondents that we can verify. We can ascertain further information from bilingual sources. In documents of October 1172, a certain Geoffrey was called iosphres ho sekretikos (ἰοσφρὲς ὁ σεκρετικός) in Greek and al-shaikh Jāfrāy ṣāḥib dīwān al-taḥqīq al-ma‘mūr in Arabic.¹³ (mS2’) sekretikos (σεκρετικός) corresponds to (mS3) ṣāḥib dīwān al-taḥqīq al-ma‘mūr. Similarly, in documents of February 1172 the same Geoffrey was called domini gaufridi secretarii in Latin and τοῦ σεκρετικοῦ κυροῦ ἰοσφρὲ in Greek.¹⁴ (mS2’) σεκρετικός corresponds to (mS1’) secretarius. These are rough but not exact correspondences, however.

In summary, one can arrange the correspondent words in order as in Figure 1.3.¹⁵

B. Date of the duana baronum ’s appearance

Figure 1.3 Corresponding terms II (Latin, Greek and Arabic)

Note: S = duana de secretis; B = duana baronum; m = magister; 1 = Latin; 2 = Greek; 3 = Arabic

Caravale says of the duana baronum, “This office appears for the first time in two sources of 1174.”¹⁶ Mazzarese Fardella states, “We desire to emphasize that the duana baronum is documented only since 1174 and that, therefore, we should examine what competence the duana de secretis had had before this date.”¹⁷ Jamison also suggests the year 1174.¹⁸ Is it certain, however, that the duana baronum had not existed before 1174?

We have established in the former section that the term duana de secretis corresponds to μέγα σέκρετον or σέκρετον and dīwān al-taḥqīq al-ma‘mūr, and the term duana baronum to σέκρετον τῶν ἀποκοπῶν. Why does the duana de secretis have two Greek names, μέγα σέκρετον and σέκρετον? That is to say, why was the magister duane de secretis called ὁ ἐπὶ τοῦ σεκρέτου in January 1161 and November 1167, though he was entitled ὁ ἐπὶ τοῦ μεγάλου σεκρέτου in 1180?¹⁹ The reason must be that the office corresponding to σέκρετον was originally the duana de secretis, but that when another σέκρετον, that is, the duana baronum, appeared, one had to call the duana de secretis as μέγα σέκρετον to distinguish it from the other σέκρετον.²⁰ Therefore, to find the date of the duana baronum’s appearance, we must search for the date when the expression μέγα σέκρετον began to be used. Μέγα σέκρετον appeared for the first time in a document of October 1170:

[Greek] In October of Indiction IV, honorable Qā’id Richard of μέγα σέκρετον left Palermo, and went to Chaki region to investigate grab of the great king’s lands and villeins.²¹

Furthermore, we see the same terminology in a Latin source of October 1168 translated from Greek by Pirro:

[Latin] In fact, he transcribed the aforesaid division of Buscenia Village denoted at the end of the sigillum from quinterni magni secreti, in which the boundaries of Sicily are included, because the letters were totally deleted and could not be clearly read.²²

The magni secreti in this source is the equivalent for the Greek τοῦ μεγάλου σεκρέτου. Therefore, we surmise that the duana baronum appeared just before October 1168. But we need not decide the date of the duana baronum’s nascence on this surmise alone. It is not in fact, as others have said, that we are unable to find the term τὸ σέκρετον τῶν ἀποκοπῶν in sources before 1174, as the following example shows:

[Greek] However, in order that it should be ensured for future and its ownership would last, we ordered Qā’id Richard, πρωτωκαμπέρι καὶ φαμελλιαρίω ἡμῶν τῶ ἐπὶ τοῦ σεκρέτου τῶν ἀποκοπῶν, to press our majesty’s seal.²³

The date of this source is March of Indiction I and AM 6678, that is, March of AD 1168. From this we can verify that the duana baronum appeared just before March 1168.

II. Structure of the financial and administrative organization during the reign of William II

We have established above the Greek and Arabic correspondents of the duana de secretis. But we could not determine through bilingual documents the relation of the duana de secretis and al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr. To decide this, we must know first whether the dīwān al-taḥqīq al-ma‘mūr and the al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr are the same office or different ones.²⁴

A. Dīwān al-taḥqīq al-ma‘mūr and al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr

Amari says that al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr is an abbreviated expression for dīwān al-taḥqīq al-ma‘mūr.²⁵ Similarly, Besta and Genuardi say they are different names for the office.²⁶ Conversely, Garufi, Mazzarese Fardella, Caravale and others think that the dīwān al-taḥqīq al-ma‘mūr and the al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr are different offices,²⁷ and insist that the former is the supervising office and the latter is the treasury office. Do these terms indicate the same office or two different offices?

A jarīda (pl. jarā’id, an Arabic writ usually including a list of villeins and often used as a deed of transfer) of 1178 contains these terms:

[Arabic] And the supreme ordinance was issued to the aṣḥāb dīwān al-taḥqīq al-ma‘mūr that they should inspect the aforementioned men, extract them from the dafātir al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr and old jarā’id, and write the jarīda in which their names are written.²⁸

In this source the dīwān al-taḥqīq al-ma‘mūr and the al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr are treated as if they were different: The dīwān al-taḥqīq al-ma‘mūr inspects the villeins of the royal domain which is to be transferred, and makes the jarīda which contains the list of these villeins. The al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr keeps the daftar (pl. dafātir, a register of lands in Sicily possibly including the name of inhabitants). This raises our next problem. Can we distinguish the functions of the dīwān al-taḥqīq al-ma‘mūr and the al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr clearly? To answer this we shall examine their functions as related in the sources.

al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr

The preface to a jarīda of 1183 contains two ordinances: First, that all the rijāl al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr in the lands of churches and barons throughout Sicily should return to the bilād al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr; and second, that the inhabitants of St. Mary’s Church should be exempted and, excepting the rijāl al-jarā’id, should be allowed to remain in their present condition and appertain to this church.²⁹

Judging from the context, the rijāl al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr are the people under the control of the al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr and the bilād al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr are the lands under the control of the al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr – that is, the royal lands, because the term was used in contrast to that for the lands of churches and barons.

We can regard the functions of the al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr as keeping the daftar and jarīda, and controlling the royal lands and villeins registered in them. Are its functions limited to royal lands? Our next source is the conclusion of the jarīda written in September 1168:

[Arabic] He has bestowed all things that are written here upon the before-mentioned Isbṭāl (hospital), on condition that the people of Termini who live in ʿAyn al-Liyān Village, have their fields in it, and have reclaimed them for themselves or through their fathers, should keep their fields but go on paying to the Isbṭāl what they have been requested to pay to the tax collector (‘ummāl) hitherto. So, this village, which was under the control (ḥukm) of the al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr, shall never burden them with any increase, and the sailors (baḥrīyūn) and other inhabitants of this village shall follow their practice with the tax collector in all affairs as before. And he put the well-known seal confirming it and proving it at the date written at the head. Allah is enough for us, and what an excellent wakīl He is!³⁰

This source details the conditions when royal lands were conferred, and thus it gives us information about both royal lands and fiefs. From this source we can confirm our hypothesis that the royal lands were under the control (ḥukm) of the al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr. And we see that the inhabitants of royal lands paid taxes to the tax collector of the al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr.³¹ By this fact we understand the role of the jarīda. It served as a register of taxes. The other important fact is that the sailors and other inhabitants in this village continued to keep the old relationship with the tax collector. This means that, even in fiefs, the inhabitants who were not registered in the jarā’id of barons and churches were under the control of the al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr, and the right of collecting their taxes belonged to this office.

Given these points we can regard the functions of the al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr as follows: (1) control over royal lands and their inhabitants, and control over the inhabitants of fiefs not registered in the jarā’id of barons and churches but in those of the al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr; (2) collection of taxes; and (3) preservation of jarā’id and dafātir. Probably by means of these dafātir, this office would embrace all the inhabitants of royal lands and other lands of barons, churches and so on, and collect taxes from them.

dīwān al-taḥqīq al-ma‘mūr

Dīwān al-taḥqīq al-ma‘mūr literally means the office of verification. Thus a Latin source of 1286 translated from an Arabic document issued in 1175 says, “doana de secretis qui arabice dicitur duén tahki’k elmama. hoc est doana veritatis.”³² What functions did the dīwān al-taḥqīq al-ma‘mūr have in fact?

In 1172 Shaikh Geoffrey, in his capacity as ṣāḥib dīwān al-taḥqīq al-ma‘mūr, was ordered to inspect the lands in the area of the amīr’s house and in Sha‘rānī Village which Sayyid George had granted to St. Mary’s Church in Palermo. He gathered the men who lived in the area of the amīr’s house and who knew its boundaries well, had them describe the boundaries, and had the document (sijill) containing their details written. And he put his seal (‘alāma) on it and delivered it to Shaikh Philosopher John (al-shaikh Failasuuf Yānī).³³

The functions of the dīwān al-taḥqīq al-ma‘mūr are the inspection of transferred lands, the fixing of boundaries, and the preparation of documents which record them.

At the end of a jarīda written in 1182 the following statement is found:

[Arabic] On the fifteenth of May in AM 6690, this order of the King was issued… that the boundaries of the estates transferred to St. Mary’s Abbey and the aforementioned village contained in them should be transcribed by the pen of a Latin, Kātib Alexander (al-kātib al-Ṣandr al-laṭīnī), in Latin, and by the pen of Kātib Yūsuf of the dīwān al-taḥqīq al-ma‘mūr in Arabic. So what the supreme order had indicated was transcribed and described from Arabic to Latin by the pen of the aforementioned Kātib Yūsuf from the dafātir of the dīwān al-taḥqīq al-ma‘mūr at the date written in the beginning. Allah is enough for us, and what an excellent wakīr He is!³⁴

From this we gather that the dīwān al-taḥqīq al-ma‘mūr had dafātir containing the boundaries of various domains, and made jarā’id of transferred lands.

We can summarize the functions of the dīwān al-taḥqīq al-ma‘mūr thus: (1) inspection of transferred lands, whether royal lands or fiefs, and fixing of boundaries of the transferred lands; (2) preparation of documents which record the boundaries of transferred lands; (3) preservation of dafātir; and (4) issuance of jarā’id.

Comparing the function of the al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr with those of the dīwān al-taḥqīq al-ma‘mūr, we can see clear differences between them. The al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr carried out routine tasks, principally the control of the royal domains and the villeins on them, as well as the collection of taxes. In contrast, the dīwān al-taḥqīq al-ma‘mūr inspected the lands when they were transferred or exchanged, prepared the documents necessary for these purposes and revised the daftar. Therefore, this latter office controlled all the lands of Sicily, and to do so, it used the dafātir.

Thus we have an answer to the first question: Are the al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr and the dīwān al-taḥqīq al-ma‘mūr the same office, or different offices? They are different offices, because their functions were clearly different – contrary to the theory of Amari, Besta and Genuardi. Two further points need mention. First, both the dīwān al-taḥqīq al-ma‘mūr and the al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr kept dafātir – contrary to Garufi’s and Caravale’s distinction that the dīwān al-taḥqīq al-ma‘mūr kept dafātir and the al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr kept jarā’id.³⁵ Therefore we should also discard Caravale’s suggestion that the dīwān al-taḥqīq al-ma‘mūr recorded the taxes from fiefs and the al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr recorded the taxes of the inhabitants, whether in lands transferred to vassals or in royal lands.³⁶ Second, it is important to recognize that we cannot ascertain from the sources whether the dīwān al-taḥqīq al-ma‘mūr had the function of a financial supervising office, that is, the office supervising the al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr.

B. Duana de secretis

Let us now examine the functions of the duana de secretis in order to answer the next question: Does duana de secretis correspond exactly to dīwān al-taḥqīq al-ma‘mūr, or does it incorporate both dīwān al-taḥqīq al-ma‘mūr and al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr?

First, in a Latin source of 1168 translated from Greek by Pirro, a certain Caitus Richard, thesaurarius et familiaris noster qui est super omnes secretos, was ordered to renew a writ of transfer.³⁷ And from another source concerning the same Richard, we know that the duana de secretis (μέγα σέκρετον) supervised the royal lands and their inhabitants.³⁸ A writ of transfer of the same year from William II to Stephen, a hermit of the monastery of Monte Givello, gives us information about dafātir:

[Latin] And we perpetually grant, and give, to you and your successors in it the mill of Talarico in the appurtenances of Paternò, and a village called Rahal Senec in the appurtenances of Leontini with its lawful appurtenances according to the boundaries (divisae) of the village which have been written in the deptarii Duane nostre de secretis. We give this village to him in exchange for a fief, which had once belonged to Obertus Costa in the appurtenances of Paternò, and which thereafter we had granted to the above-mentioned Brother Stephen, and have now brought back into the demesne of our curia.³⁹

The duana de secretis had dafātir (deptarii) in which both royal domains and fiefs were recorded. Exchanges of domains were carried out according to the divisions of the dafātir. In a writ of 1173 from William II to St. Mary’s Church of Monte Majore, the duana de secretis fixed the boundaries of lands to be transferred:

[Latin] we have granted the aforesaid church… land large enough for fifty modius of seeds as is included in the boundaries which for the aforesaid land Geoffrey of Centuripe and Qā’id Abū al-Qāsim, magistri duane nostre de secretis, had made with the support of our authority.⁴⁰

In 1172 Geoffrey, who was secretarius (σεκρετικός), ordered Geoffrey Femeta, who was stratigotus (στρατιγός), to grant lands to the bishop of Cefalù,⁴¹ and it was the duana de secretis that made the writ of transfer:

[Latin] the name of these villeins are included in the platea then made by our duana de secretis which has been sealed with our leaden seal.⁴²

In a document of 1183, the duana de secretis received the order from the magna curia and the king, and in turn it ordered the iusticiarii regii to examine the loss of royal lands and recover them.⁴³

Therefore, we can summarize the functions of the duana de secretis as follows: (1) fixing of boundaries of transferred lands; (2) grant of royal lands; (3) supervision of royal lands; (4) issuance, confirmation and renewal of writs of transfer; and (5) preservation of dafātir.

Comparing the functions of the duana de secretis with those of the dīwān al-taḥqīq al-ma‘mūr, we find that they are almost the same. The functions of the duana de secretis are clearly different, however, from those of the al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr. Therefore, we have the answer to the second question: The term duana de secretis corresponds only to dīwān al-taḥqīq al-ma‘mūr and it is not an expression that includes both dīwān al-taḥqīq al-ma‘mūr and al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr. The al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr and the duana de secretis (dīwān al-taḥqīq al-ma‘mūr) had different functions, and they were different offices.

As regards the structure and functions of the duana, there is one major problem left that we need to solve. What was the duana baronum, and how was it related to the duana de secretis?

C. Duana baronum

Hartwig thought that the duana baronum was one section of the duana de secretis, and that the duana baronum corresponded to the scaccarium superius and the σέκρετον τῶν ἀποκοπῶν to the scaccarium inferius of England.⁴⁴ Amari thought that the duana baronum was an office of transfer, and so the same as the dīwān al-majlis of the Fāṭimids in Egypt. He reasoned thus: Duana baronum corresponds to σέκρετον τῶν ἀποκοπῶν in Greek. Ἀποκοπῶν is the genitive of ἀπόκοπα and means “things being cut, pieces.” This is the same as ’iqṭā‘ in Arabic. Therefore, the duana baronum was an office of transfer and corresponded to the dīwān al-majlis.⁴⁵ Genuardi thought that the duana baronum had been subordinate to the duana de secretis.⁴⁶ But Garufi concluded from many sources that the duana baronum had been merely one section of the supervising office – that the duana de secretis had supervised the affairs of the royal domains, while the duana baronum had supervised feudal affairs.⁴⁷ His theory is accepted by most subsequent historians.⁴⁸ Only Caravale insists that the duana de secretis had competence over Sicily and Calabria and the duana baronum over the peninsula except Calabria, though at the same time he accepts Garufi’s analysis of the structure of the duana.⁴⁹

Let us examine the functions of the duana baronum in the sources and compare them with those of the duana de secretis. First, in 1175 Eugenius magister regie duane baronum received an order from the king that he should grant lands to St. Sophia’s Monastery at Benevento, and he did so.⁵⁰ And in 1191 Abdeserdus, palatinus, camerarius, et magister dohane baronum, was ordered by King Tancred to grant the tithes of Oria to Peter, archbishop of Brindisi.⁵¹

While carrying out these functions, analogous to those of the duana de secretis, the duana baronum also performed others. In 1187 Eugenius magister regie duane baronum received the king’s writ that he should communicate the royal command, and he sent a copy of it to William regius camerarius terre laboris. In this writ the king ordered that the ius passagii in rivers, bridges and royal lands should be abolished. This command was valid if fiefs where ius passagii had been collected were returned to the royal domain. But lands granted by the king’s favor were excepted.⁵² In 1174 the same Eugenius magister duane baronum granted a sale of lands in Salerno. The proceeds of this sale were delivered to Bartholomew regius ostiarius in order that a debt of ten thousand taris in Sicilian money, which had been received as a loan from the duana baronum, might be reduced.⁵³ From this source one receives the impression that the duana baronum was an independent office. It is far from the image of a feudal section of the central supervising office. And this impression is strengthened by the following source from 1176:

[Latin] I, William, count of Marsico by the grace of the God and the king, declare in the present document that by my good and voluntary will I have sold all my houses that I had in the city of Palermo to the duana baronum, that is, to the hands of Qā’id Matara (= Materacius), the regij sacri palatii camerarius et magister eiusdem duane.⁵⁴

In addition, the duana baronum exercised judicial functions completely different from the preceding. For example, in 1174, Eugenius magister regie duane baronum held court.⁵⁵ Again, in June 1178, the same Eugenius magister regie dohane baronum et de secretis, upon receiving a mandate from Walter of Modica (Moac) (Gualterius de Mohac) regii fortunati stolii ammiratus et magister regie duane et de secretis, held court in the Terracena castle and brought to conclusion a dispute between Amalfi and Ravello.⁵⁶ And in May of the same year, Walter of Modica regii fortunati stolii amiratus et magister regie duane baronum sent to Romoaldus Marchisanus baiulus Sarni the following mandate:

[Latin] The bearers of these letters, Fuscandina and Oddolina of Sarno, came to us and complained about John Cicerus, now baiulus of Sarno, as is included in these letters of complaint which we send to you in this sealed charter of ours. Therefore, we commission you and firmly order you that, upon having seen these letters of ours, such and sufficient justice be done to him that they may not have to complain hereafter for lack of justice or to take troubles to come to the curia regia for this cause. Data Salerni sexto die mensis madii undecime indictionis.⁵⁷

Walter of Modica sent this mandate to the baiulus of Sarno on his own authority, without seeking royal instruction. This shows that he was the most powerful person in this place. And the fact that the two complainants brought their indictment to Walter of Modica in Salerno suggest the existence of an office in Salerno. The content of this mandate is purely judicial, differing completely from the description of the functions of the duana de secretis.

From these examples we can regard the functions of the duana baronum as follows: (1) grant of royal lands and royal properties; (2) communication and promulgation of royal ordinances; (3) permission for sale of lands; (4) lending of monies; (5) buying of houses and paying of the sums owing; (6) holding of court and solving of various troubles by trial; (7) control of officials; and (8) receipt of indictments. The duana baronum had different functions from the duana de secretis. If Garufi’s theory were right, it should have only one difference: the distinction between jurisdiction over royal lands and over feudal affairs. And if Caravale’s theory were right, it would have only this difference: the distinction of administrative district. The sources refute both theories.⁵⁸ According to my analysis of the sources, it appears that the duana baronum included both the routine tasks of the al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr and the special tasks concerning administration of land performed by the duana de secretis.

D. The structure of the duana

Therefore, it is misleading to attempt to juxtapose the duana de secretis and the duana baronum. Instead, we should regard the duana de secretis, the duana baronum and the al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr as three different offices. What relationship did these three offices have, and how were their functions divided?

Caravale’s theory gives us a hint. He erred in regarding the duana de secretis and the duana baronum as two sections of one supervising office; but his theory that they were distinguished by their administrative districts is valid. It is my conclusion that there was one office for the entire peninsula, save Calabria. That office was the duana baronum. From the evidence summarized in Figure 1.4, I believe that the place where this office was situated was Salerno. Historians have hitherto thought that the magistri duane baronum were usually based in the royal palace in Palermo and traveled all over the kingdom. In fact, however, the documents show that they usually stayed in Salerno and issued their mandates

Figure 1.4 Actions of the duana baronum

therefrom to the camerarii and iusticiarii of the various regions in the peninsula, except Calabria.

Thus, I regard the structure of the duana as follows. The duana comprised three offices, namely, the al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr, the duana de secretis and the duana baronum. The al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr and the duana de secretis were located in the royal palace in Palermo and had competence over Sicily and Calabria. The functions of the two offices were clearly distinguished: The al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr was the central office carrying out routine tasks; it collected taxes and controlled inhabitants and officials. The duana de secretis carried out special duties concerning land; it supervised all boundaries, royal domains, fiefs and inhabitants in Sicily and Calabria, and always recorded their conditions in the registers of land, dafātir, to guard the lands and inhabitants in the kingdom. In contrast, the duana baronum was located in Salerno, perhaps in the castle of Terracena, and had competence over the peninsula except Calabria. It carried out various administrative duties needed there.⁵⁹

III. Development of the financial and administrative organization

Thus far, my evidence for the duana’s organization has been assembled from the terminology of various sources. To be valid, however, the theory must make sense historically. In this section, therefore, let us examine the origin and development of the duana focusing on three questions: (1) When and in what circumstances were the al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr and the duana de secretis created? (2) What differences between the functions of these two offices before and after 1168 have been discovered? (3) In what circumstances was the duana baronum created in 1168?

A. The appearance of the duana de secretis and the al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr

When and in what circumstances were the duana de secretis and the al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr created? To solve this problem, first we elucidate the circumstances before these two offices appear in the sources, going back to the period of the Norman conquest.

Continuation of the registers of land and villeins in Sicily and Calabria

According to Amari and Caravale, in Sicily the Arabic registers of land and villeins made prior to the Norman conquest remained in force, and the Normans made use of them.⁶⁰ We can confirm this from a document of 1090 transcribed by Pirro (a writ of transfer from Roger I to the archbishop of Messina):

[Latin] Having heard their petition,… for the welfare of my soul and of the soul of my brother, the most noble Duke Robert Guiscard,… I gave and in perpetuity granted the village (casale) of Saracens called Butahi together with its belongings to the church of St. Nicholas in the bishopric of Messina according to the old divisions of Saracens (antiquae divisiones Saracenorum).⁶¹

Just after the conquest, Roger I must have made use of the Arabic registers of land and villeins in granting fiefs to his feudatories, because the two writs of transfer of 12 and 20 February 1095 were made on the basis of the Arabic registers of villeins, with a Greek foreword and afterword added.⁶² This shows the existence of Greek clerks who knew Arabic, as well as of Arabic clerks. In fact, we know one such Greek clerk, in the person of Iohannes Protonotarius (Ἰωάννης πρωτονοτάριος), who supervised the work of making registers of land and writs of transfer.⁶³

On the basis of these registers, Roger I’s policy about land and villeins was carried out. The afterword of the writ of transfer of 1095 shows this:

[Greek] This platea (πλατεῖα) was written by the order of me, Count Roger, in Indiction III and AM 6603 (= AD 1094/5) in Messina. However, the other plateae of my land and my feudatories (τερρερίοι) had been written in Indiction I and AM 6601 (= AD 1092/3) in Mazara. Therefore, we order that if anyone of those Hagarites (ἀγαρινοί = Saracens) listed in this platea should be found in the plateae of my feudatories the bishop must turn them back without any excuse.⁶⁴

Roger’s policy seems to have been carried out strictly; when he ordered the ἄρχοντες of Calabria and Sicily to see to it that all the landholders should return villeins who were not involved in their plateae (jarā’id) to their rightful lords, he said that severe punishment should be inflicted on the disobedient.⁶⁵

This policy was adopted by his son, Roger II. And we confirm from the following source that under the reign of Roger II the protonotarius continued to make registers of villeins and land:

quaterni of the royal duana which had been once made by the hand of the protonotarius of the Curia sixty five years before.⁶⁶

These examples of the continuation of preexisting registers come from Sicily, which the Arabs had dominated. What was the situation on the mainland?

Caravale says that in Byzantine South Italy there remained Greek land registers similar to those of the Arabs, and that there existed a financial and administrative system similar to that of Sicily.⁶⁷ He refers us to two sources. The first is a writ of transfer of 1046 from the Eustathius Catepanus (Εὐστάθιος κατεπάνω) to the Bisantius iudex (Βυζάντιος κριτής):

[Latin/Greek] We order that all inhabitants of the village of Foliano that live in the village or that have their houses outside the village by chance, should pay Bisantius iudex (κριτής) all the tributes that they used to pay into the publicum, wherever they are, in the castle, in the village or any other place.⁶⁸

From this source we know that the empire supervised all the inhabitants of this pagus and imposed tribute on them. This suggests the existence of land registers. We are further convinced of their existence in another source from 1087, which refers to the quaternus fiscalis:

[Latin] The men dwelling… in the aforesaid fief… and the protected servientes should render and pay jura and servitia as they paid to our camera and are included in quaterni fiscales…. And, to the aforesaid castle they should give and pay all tributa, pensiones, angariae, et perangariae… which they would have been under obligation to pay to our camera for their expenses and arms (arma) as protected servientes as well as for ours in certain days and time as explained more clearly in our fiscalis quaternus.⁶⁹

In Byzantine South Italy, then, there remained registers of land similar to those of the Arabs in Sicily. In fact, the list of inhabitants in the writ of transfer of the village of Laco in Calabria to the archbishop of Palermo, which was translated into Latin by Pirro, had been written in Greek.⁷⁰

But it does not appear that Calabria saw the same continual revision of registers as occurred in Sicily, because Calabria was not constantly in the hands of Roger I and Roger II. Therefore, we must bear in mind the fact that the circumstances in which the registers of land and villeins were preserved differently for Sicily and for Calabria.

Establishment of the kingdom of Sicily and the annexation of Apulia and Capua

In 1130 Roger II was crowned king and the kingdom of Sicily was established. Thereafter, the lands of South Italy were annexed to this kingdom one after another. Most, excepting Calabria, had no tradition of land registers. There, in the first half of the eleventh century, Lombard principalities (Benevento, Salerno and Capua) had coexisted with Byzantine dukedoms (Gaeta, Amalfi and Naples). Complex feudal relations had developed after the Norman conquests in the second half of the eleventh century. Power and authority had been dispersed. The death of Robert Guiscard had caused disorder. And surely, the Byzantine institution of land registers had not existed in all these areas, which had been under completely different circumstances from those of Sicily.

After the establishment of the kingdom and the annexation of the land in the peninsula, a policy based on registers of lands and villeins was in force in Sicily. The registers of land were revised one after another. For example, we can read a detailed explanation of the boundaries of land granted in a writ of transfer of 1131 to Bartholomew, prior of St. Mary’s Monastery in Marsala.⁷¹ This was drafted on the basis of Arabic land registers. The king ordered the baiuli of Marsala to fix the boundaries and confirm them, and had this writ made under his own direction. This suggests that the king himself performed activities which were later to be carried out by the duana de secretis. In the same way, the registers of villeins were used and revised. A writ of transfer of St. Cosmo’s Church from David, prior of St. Trinity Monastery, to the church of Cefalù in 1136 contains a list of thirty-eight villeins.⁷²

Assizes of Ariano and the appearance of the duana de secretis and the al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr

After Emperor Lothar returned to Germany, especially after his reconciliation with Pope Innocent II, Roger II devoted himself to the administration of the kingdom and issued his well-known Assizes of Ariano.⁷³ In these Assizes he established the fiscus and fixed its competence,⁷⁴ promulgated statutes for the control of royal properties and officials,⁷⁵ ordered the financial institutions of the kingdom, and fixed the obligations and competence of officials. At this same time, he appointed provincial officials throughout the kingdom. Romuald of Salerno wrote as follows:

[Latin] King Roger, having obtained the tranquility of perfect peace in his kingdom, in order to maintain peace, instituted chamberlains and justiciars over the whole land, and promulgated the laws newly made by himself, and abolished the bad customs.⁷⁶

In this way the king established the administrative framework. Then he confirmed writs of transfer in a large-scale reconfirmation of privileges. Contemporary writs of confirmation follow this formula:

[Latin] It pertains to our care to lead everything into a better state, especially to confirm what belongs to the liberty of churches more willingly, and to make it stronger by the serenity of our time. Therefore we order that all privileges of churches and subjects of our kingdom made in former times should by our clemency be newly clarified and secured by our highest authority.⁷⁷

Two writs of 18 October and 3 November 1144 have exactly this formula, and a writ of 1145, which we know through Pirro, is almost identical.⁷⁸ It is also in 1145 that the Arabic jarā’id appeared with the following formula:

[Arabic] The archons, bishops, counts, vassals and other men of the whole of Sicily (Allah! May He guard it!) gathered in the town – i.e. Palermo – (Allah! May He guard it!) to renew their jarā’id for inspection and annulment.⁷⁹

This formula was followed literally in the jarā’id of 1 January, 7 January and 24 March 1145. These sources illustrate the large-scale revision and confirmation of writs of transfer in 1144 and 1145. Many Arabic clerks must have worked on them, for while previous writs of transfer had had Greek forewords and after-words with Arabic lists of villeins, they were now entirely in Arabic. Since one of the most important duties of the duana de secretis was the renewal of jarā’id in Arabic, I suggest that the duana de secretis was created during this large-scale revision and confirmation of writs of transfer in 1144 and 1145.⁸⁰

When was the al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr created? The term first appeared in Arabic sources in 1145. But it is unlikely that the al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr was created in this year. Caravale says that the king restored this Arabic office about 1140 to handle financial problems and to fix legal privileges,⁸¹ and I concur. Strictly speaking, however, this new office, al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr, was a reorganized curia regis, in the sense of a royal office whose main duties were collection of taxes and control of officials, and which had many Arabic officials.

We have examined here the date and circumstances of the creation of these two offices. Next we shall examine the functions of these two before 1168 and compare them with those after 1168 that we have already discussed.

B. The duana de secretis and the al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr during the reigns of Roger II and William I (1145–1167)⁸²

The duana de secretis and the al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr in Sicily

Garufi juxtaposes the duana de secretis and the duana baronum even during the reign of Roger II and thinks that each had a tendency to independence during the reign of William II.⁸³ Contrary to Garufi’s theory that the dīwān al-taḥqīq al-ma‘mūr and the al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr were distinct in the whole Norman period, Caravale asserts that during the reign of Roger II they were not yet separated by function.⁸⁴ What explanation is best, then?

We know from a jarīda of 1 January 1145 that, when the monks of Catania came to Palermo to have their jarā’id renewed, a royal council was held and the king ordered their renewal and confirmation on the following condition:

[Arabic] If anyone of them (i.e., the villeins) is found in the jarā’id of the al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr or the jarā’id of vassals or other jarā’id, this church should except him.⁸⁵

In this source, the jarīda of the al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr is contrasted with the jarā’id of vassals. We see that the al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr at this time controlled the villeins registered in the jarīda, as it did after 1168.

In December 1149, the dīwān al-taḥqīq al-ma‘mūr received a royal order to grant to the monks of Furfur Church royal land sufficient for cultivation by four yokes of oxen and the sowing of 120 mudda of wheat, and it ordered the ‘āmil of Jato, Abū al-Ṭayyib, to fix the extent of such land in the royal domain in Jato, with the help of reliable Christian and Muslim shuyūkh. The specific land chosen by Abū al-Ṭayyib in Wazān Village was granted to the monks of Furfur Church according to the boundaries which he established, after these had been recorded in the daftar al-ḥudūd of the dīwān al-taḥqīq al-ma‘mūr. A copy was made for the grantees, and the shuyūkh of the al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr, al-qā’id Brūn and al-kātib ‘Uthmān affixed their seals.⁸⁶ Besides fixing the boundaries of land grants and keeping the dafātir, the dīwān al-taḥqīq al-ma‘mūr sold royal land, as we know from the document of January 1161.⁸⁷

The functions, thus, of the al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr and the dīwān al-taḥqīq al-ma‘mūr are the same before as after 1168. Therefore, the functions of these two offices were not affected by the appearance of the duana baronum. The duana baronum did not branch off from the duana de secretis, then, but was created independently. But we should note the following: Both the al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr and the duana de secretis, I shall argue, had limited their competence to Sicily before the creation of the duana baronum, but extended it to Calabria after. We shall discuss this change in section III.C. First, however, we must examine the evidence that the jurisdiction of the al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr and the duana de secretis was limited to Sicily prior to 1168, and consider the situation during this period of that part of the peninsula which had already been annexed to the kingdom of Sicily.

The situation of the peninsula

The administration of the peninsula differed significantly from that of Sicily. In 1140, the king subdued the cities and barons who had resisted and revolted with the help of the pope and the German and Byzantine emperors.⁸⁸ In the period immediately thereafter, he kept control of the vassals in his own hands. After 1150, however, he delegated this authority to his appointed provincial chamberlains and justiciars. After the death of Roger II, Emperor Frederick Barbarossa, the Byzantine Emperor Manuel Comnenus and Pope Hadrian IV invaded the kingdom, and a revolt of barons and cities broke out again. As a result, the great Admiral Maio imposed a new administrative structure on the peninsula. He divided the peninsula into two provinces: Apulia with the principality of Capua, and Calabria with the valleys of Sinni and Crati. Jamison explains as follows:

In Apulia and Capua two master captains exercised the powers of viceroy and commander-in-chief with extensive judicial functions, while a master chamberlain took over the control of fiscal matters. In Calabria the old office of justiciar of all Calabria was continued and approximated to that of the new master captains in Apulia, and a master chamberlain was introduced. The importance of these reforms cannot be over-estimated: the establishment of permanent governors and fiscal officers on the mainland must be regarded as a part of the anti-feudal and anti-municipal policy of Maio, especially in view of the exclusion of the great nobles from the viceregal office during his life.⁸⁹

Maio’s policy of repression provoked another revolt of barons and cities (1160–1163), in which almost all the barons of Apulia and Capua cooperated with the cities. Maio was assassinated in 1160. When the revolt was finally subdued, a great part of the rebellious barons’ domains were confiscated.

Thus the circumstances of the peninsula were quite different from those of Sicily, and very unstable. The continuation of the Byzantine tradition of land registers would have been impossible on the peninsula, except Calabria, even if such a tradition had existed in limited areas before. The king could control lands and villeins only through vassals, though it was very difficult because the revision of the catalogus baronum could not keep up with the change in landowners. Therefore, it was quite natural that the competence of the duana de secretis and the al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr should be limited to Sicily, and that on the peninsula there existed a completely different administration. It was in these circumstances that the duana baronum was created.

C. Creation of the duana baronum

Transition from the two master chamberlains to the duana baronum in the peninsula

We have established previously that the duana baronum appeared just before March 1168. Although they thought that the duana baronum first appeared in a document of 1174, Jamison, Caravale and Mazzarese Fardella sensitively noticed a slight change in administration just before that date. Jamison says, “Further changes in administration with a somewhat different bearing make their appearance in the years immediately preceding 1174.”⁹⁰ Caravale says that something changed just before 1170,⁹¹ and Mazzarese Fardella says that the competence of the duana extended to Calabria only after 1167.⁹² Jamison explains as follows:

The first of these changes, contingent on the fuller organization which the dîwân had attained, extended the control of the masters of the duana to the mainland regions at some date between 1168 and 1174. Hitherto their activity had been confined to Sicily, and the fiscal oversight of the provinces across the Faro had, as we have seen, been exercised by the master chamberlain of Apulia and Capua and the master chamberlain of Calabria and the Valleys. The first of these officials, after 1168, disappears from the extant records for a quarter of a century and the second is never found again after a mention in 1163, although the office must have continued somewhat later. Once in abeyance in Calabria, it was not revived. The functions formerly exercised by these provincial master chamberlains were carried out by masters of the duana who travelled on tours of duty throughout the regions of the mainland.⁹³

We should especially note that the functions formerly exercised by the provincial master chamberlains were taken over by the masters of the duana. The theory that the duana was a central supervising office cannot explain this. Examining the same sources used by Jamison, one sees that the term duana (or dohana) is always followed by the term baronum, without exception.⁹⁴ Jamison’s duana means duana baronum in this context. I suggest, therefore, that after the institution of the two great provinces and two master chamberlains had been abolished, the office of duana baronum was established in Apulia and Capua, with the functions of the provincial master chamberlain being taken over by the masters of the duana baronum. At the same time, Calabria was annexed to the administrative district of Sicily because it had the Byzantine tradition of land registers and political stability. The date of this alteration was about 1168.

Duana baronum and catalogus baronum

We should also note that “the curia was engaged in bringing the Catalogus up-to-date in 1167” and that “a more thorough revision was undertaken in 1168.”⁹⁵ This catalogus baronum contains the names of vassals, their fiefs, and the number of their milites, servientes and villani.⁹⁶ Jamison observes that it presents precise and detailed statements of the extraordinary contribution owed to the king.⁹⁷ Perhaps the duana baronum could not have functioned properly without the more thorough revision of the catalogus baronum. It would not be accidental, then, that the date of the revision of the catalogus baronum coincides with the date of the appearance of the duana baronum.⁹⁸ Once established, the duana baronum was probably responsible for maintaining the catalogus baronum. The vassals listed in the catalogus baronum were limited to the peninsula, except Calabria. This agrees with the competence of the duana baronum that we have ascertained. In this area were many fiefs – in contrast to Sicily, where there were large royal domains.⁹⁹ This is the reason that led Garufi to interpret the function of the duana baronum as the supervision of feudal affairs, and that caused this office to be called duana baronum, “office of barons.” Considering that its functions were limited to areas that did not have the Arabic tradition of registers, it is natural that in this office there were no Arabic clerks and that we cannot find the Arabic equivalent of duana baronum in Arabic sources. In sum, the structure of the duana proposed in section II fits what one knows of the actual situation.

Conclusion

The structure of the duana described here is quite different from that suggested by earlier historians. Two offices, the al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr and the duana de secretis, were located in the royal palace in Palermo and had jurisdiction over Sicily and Calabria. Another office, the duana baronum, was located in Salerno and had jurisdiction over the peninsula, except Calabria. The al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr was the central office in Sicily engaged in routine and general work. It collected taxes and controlled inhabitants and officials. The duana de secretis was charged with special duties concerning administration of land. It supervised all the boundaries, royal domains, fiefs and inhabitants of Sicily and Calabria, and always controlled and verified transfers and sales of land. In the process this office confirmed, revised and made registers of land and villeins. On the contrary, the duana baronum was, as it were, a branch office on the peninsula, meeting a variety of local administrative needs: grants of royal lands and properties, communication and promulgation of administrative commands, judicial work and so on. This irregular administrative system explains the administrative difference between Sicily with Calabria and the South Italian peninsula. The king had immediate control of inhabitants and lands by means of registers of land and villeins in Sicily and Calabria. Vassals and churches were no obstacle to the royal administration. Here there existed a valid and stable administration. In the peninsular administration, however, the vassals were indispensable. The king could control and govern inhabitants and land only through vassals. The list of these vassals was the catalogus baronum.¹⁰⁰

This administrative difference developed from historical circumstances. In Sicily there existed an Arabic tradition of registers of land and villeins, and both Roger I and Roger II owed much to this tradition in developing their administrative institutions. In the process, the office of the duana de secretis was created and the al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr developed. Also in Calabria there existed a Byzantine tradition of registers of land. Because of the political situation, however, the annexation of Calabria to the district of Sicily was delayed until the date of the creation of the duana baronum. The peninsula, excepting Calabria, was always politically unstable and had no tradition of registers of land and villeins. The landowners changed very frequently due to the unsettled situation. Besides, barons and towns tended to be independent of the king and were great obstacles to a centralized administration. Therefore, a quite different administrative organization was necessary, the duana baronum, an office suited to these conditions. This duana baronum governed inhabitants and lands through vassals, to control whom the catalogus baronum supplied the government with indispensable information. The creation of this office stabilized the peninsula, and henceforth baronial revolts disappeared. Thus we can regard the creation of the duana baronum as the completion of centralization of the Norman administrative system.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Professor Kōichi Kabayama, Professor Takeshi Kido and Professor Tsugitaka Satō of the University of Tokyo for their indispensable advice in the preparation of this chapter. I am also grateful to Professor Kenneth M. Setton, Professor Michael Altschul, Professor James M. Powell, Dr. David Abulafia, Professor Giles Constable, Professor David J. Herlihy and Professor Armand Citarella for their useful comments and encouragement to publish this chapter in English.

Appendix

1. note 11. Cusa, p. 624:

ھذاكتابفیھذكرمااشتراهیعقوببنفضلونبنصالحمناصحابدیوانالتحقیقالمعمورالشیخ

… القایدمرتینو الشیخالقایدماثاووالشیوخ

2. note 28. Cusa, p. 135:

و خرجامرھاالمطاع . . . الىاصحابدیوانالتحقیقالمعموربالكشفعنالرجالالمذكورینو

استخراجھممندفاترالدیوانالمعمورو منالجرایدالقدمو كتبالجریدةباسمایھم

3. note 29. Cusa, pp. 245–246:

لماكانبتاریخشھرابریلالحولالاولمنسنةستةالافو ستمایةواحدوتسعینسنةلتاریخالعالمعندخروجالامرالعالىالمطاع . . . برجوعجمیعمنكانساكنامنرجالالدیوانالمعمورمنالجرایدو المحلاتو الملسببلادالكنایسالمقدسةو البارونیةبسایرصقلیةحماھاللهو انتقالھممنھاالىبلادالدیوانالمعمورخرجامرالحضرة . . . بالانعامعلىكنیسیةصنتماریةباركنةمنت﷼المقدسةببقاجمیعمنكانساكنافىبلادھاو رحایلالكنایسو التراریةالداخلةفىحدودھامنرجالالمحلاتو الملسخاصةدونرجالالجرایدعلىحالھمو تسلیمھمالیھاوالانعامبھمعلیھاانعاماخالصاموبداوعطاسالمامخلدالاتلزمھاعنھخدمةولاتلحقھالاجلھموزنةولاكلفةباقىماتجددة

…الایامثابتماتكررتالشھوروالاعوام . . .

4. note 29. Cusa, p. 246:

و متىظھراناحدامنھولاالرجالالمثبوتیناسماوھمفىھذهالجریدةمنجرایدثنىمنالبلاد

… الدیوانیةاواخذمنالتراریةكانخارجاعنھذاالانعاموراجعاالىمكانھ

5. note 29. Cusa, p. 564:

انكانیوجداحدمنھمفىجرایدالدیوانالمعموراوفىجرایدالتراریةوغیرھمفتتلفھ. . .

…الكنیسة

6. note 30. Cusa, pp. 38–39:

انعمعلىالاسبطالالمذكوربجمیعماذكرعلىاناھلثرمةالسكانبھاوعندھمرباعافىعیناللیانفتحوھاھماواباوھماواجدادھمتبقىبایدیھمعلىحالھایودونعنھامنالاعطیةالىالاسبطالماكانوایودونھمالىالعمالفالرحلالمذكورفىحكمالدیوانالمعمورمنغیرزیادةعلیھموباقىسكانالرحلمنالبحرینوغیرھممن . . . یجرونفىجمیعامورھمعلىعادتھممعالعمالو ختمبالطابع

.المسھورتاكیدالھودلیلاعلیھبالتاریخالمتقدموحسبناللهونعمالوكیل

7. note 34. Cusa, pp. 243–244:

لماكانبتاریخمایوالخامسعشرومنسنىالعالمستةالافو ستمایةو تسعینسنةخرجامرالحضرةالعالیة . . . بكتبھذهالجریدةمتضمنةذكرماانعمتبھعلىالدیرالكبیرالمقدسالمعروفبصنتماریةالملكیةمنحدودرباعالبلادوالرحایلالمذكورینفیھاوانتكتبالحدودالمذكورةباللطینىبخطالكاتبالصندراللطینىوبالغربىبخطالكاتبیوسفبدیوانالتحقیقالمعمورفامتثلماخرجبھالامرالعالىزادهللهعلاومضاوشرحتمنالعربىالىاللطینىبخطالكاتبالصندرالمذكوروبالعربىبخطالكاتبیوسفالمذكورمندفاتردیوانالتحقیقالمعموربالتاریخالمتقدم

.ذكرهوحسبناللهونعمالوكیل

8. note 79. Cusa, p. 563(1/1), pp. 472–473(1/7), p. 127(3/24):

. . . حضربالمدینةحماھاللهالاراكنةوالاساقفةوالقمامسةوالتراریةوغیرھممنسایرصقلیة

صانھاللهلتجدیدجرایدھملاجلتمحیصھاواندراسھا . . .

9. note 86. Cusa, pp. 28–30:

. . . خرجالامرالعالىالمطاع . . . لدیوانالتحقیقالمعموربانیعطلرھبانكنیسیةالھرھرمنالربعالدیوانىبرسمحرثاربعةازواجمایبذرمایةوعشرینمدا . . . فامردیوانالتحقیقالمعمورلابىالطیبابنالشیخاصطفنعاملجاطوانیخرجبنفسھوصحبھشیوخثقاتمنالنصارىوالمسلمینویحدلھممنالرباعالدیوانیةباقلیمجاطومایبذرالمایةوعشرینمداالمذكورةفسلمالیھممنرباعرحلالوزانباقلیمجاطو . . . وقدسلمتھذهالرباعالمذكورةالمحدودةبطنھذاالكتابلرھبانكنیسیةالھرھرالمتقدمذكرھمبعداناثبتتحدودھاالمذكورةفىدفترالحدودبدیوانالتحقیقالمعمورعلىماحدهالسردعوسابوالطیببناصطفنوالشیوخالنصارىوالمسلمینالمذكورونثمكتبتلھمھذهالنسخةلتكونبایدیھمحجةلھموعلیھمواوقعفیھاشیوخالدیوانالمعمورالقایدبرون

… والكاتبعثمانحفظھماللهعلامتھماتاكیدالھاودلیلاعلىصحتھا

Notes

I have added English translations to most of the Latin/Greek texts quoted here. These English translations were not included in the original article published in Viator.

1 For a bibliographical survey of this subject see Carlo Alberto Garufi, “Sull’ordinamento amministrativo normanno in Sicilia, Exhiquier o diwan? Studi storicodiplomatici,” Archivio storico italiano, serie 5, vol. 27 (1901), pp. 225–233; Mario Caravale, “Gli uffici finanziari nel Regno di Sicilia durante il periodo normanno,” Annali di storia del diritto, vol. 8 (1964), pp. 178–185, repr. in his Il regno normanno di Sicilia (Milan, 1966); Enrico Mazzarese Fardella, Aspetti dell’organizzazione amministrativa nello stato normanno e svevo (Milan, 1966), pp. 3–6.

2 Garufi, “Sull’ordinamento amministrativo,” pp. 234–250, 259.

3 Erich Caspar, Roger II. (1101–1154) und die Gründung der normannisch-sicilischen Monarchie (Innsbruck, 1904), pp. 315–318; Ferdinand Chalandon, Histoire de la domination normande en Italie et en Sicile, 2 vols. (Paris, 1907), vol. 2, pp. 648–653; Ernst Mayer, Italienische Verfassungsgeschichte von der Gothenzeit bis zur Zunftherrschaft, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1909), vol. 2, pp. 384–404; Charles H. Haskins, “England and Sicily in the Twelfth Century,” English Historical Review, vol. 26 (1911), p. 653; Carmela Ceci, “Normanni d’Inghilterra e Normanni d’Italia,” Archivio scientifico del R. Istituto superiore di scienze economiche e commerciali di Bari, vol. 7 (1932–1933), pp. 330–331; Pier S. Leicht, “Lo stato normanno,” Il Regno Normanno (Messina, 1932), p. 49; Pier S. Leicht, Storia del diritto italiano: Il diritto pubblico (Milan, 1944), p. 293; Francesco Calasso, Gli ordinamenti giuridici del Rinascimento medievale (Milan, 1949), p. 166; Evelyn Jamison, Admiral Eugenius of Sicily, His Life and Work (London, 1957), pp. 50–53; Adelaide Baviera Albanese, “L’istituzione dell’ufficio di Conservatore del Real Patrimonio e gli organi finanziari del Regno di Sicilia nel sec. XV,” Il circolo giuridico (Palermo, 1958), pp. 269–271; Thomas C. Van Cleve, The Emperor Frederick II of Hohenstaufen (Oxford, 1972), pp. 264–265; Francesco Giunta, Bizantini e bizantinismo nella Sicilia normanna, 2nd ed. (Palermo, 1974), pp. 65–69; Aziz Ahmad, A History of Islamic Sicily (Edinburgh, 1975), pp. 65–66.

4 Caravale, “Gli uffici finanziari,” pp. 206–218. His theory has been accepted by Norbert Kamp, “Vom Kämmerer zum Sekreten: Wirtschaftsreformen und Finanzverwaltung im staufischen Königreich Sizilien,” Problem um Friedrich II. (Sigma-ringen, 1974), p. 52.

5 Mazzarese Fardella, Aspetti, pp. 31–33.

6 We shall consider the date of the duana baronum’s appearance in this section for two reasons. First, only after that date can we analyze the completed structure of the financial organization. It is essential for the elucidation of the structure of the duana to bring it into focus after the date of the duana baronum’s appearance. Second, we should separate sources about the duana de secretis after that date from those before it because there is a possibility that a part of the function of the duana de secretis may have been taken over by the duana baronum.

7 Salvatore Cusa, I diplomi greci ed arabi di Sicilia pubblicati nel testo originale, vol. 1 (Palermo, 1868–1882), p. 489; Giuseppe Spata, Le pergamene greche esistenti nel grande archivio di Palermo (Palermo, 1862), p. 447: “Goffridus de moac palatinus camerarius et magister regie duane de secretis et duane baronum universis baiulis et portulanis sicilie calabrie et principatus salerni quibus littere iste fuerint ostense amicis suis salutem et amorem.”

8 Cusa, p. 490; Spata, p. 448: “ὁ ἐπὶ τοῦ μεγάλου σεκρέτου καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ σεκρέτου τῶν ἀποκοπῶν ἰοσφρὲς τῆς μοδὰκ ὁ παλατῖνος καπριλίγγας πᾶσι τοῖς ἐξουσιασταῖς καὶ παραθαλαττίοις σικελίας καὶ καλαβρίας καὶ τοῦ πριγκιπάτου σαλερίνου τοῖς ἐντυγχάνουσι τοῖς παροῦσι γράμμασι φίλοις αὐτοῦ χαίρειν.”

9 Spata, pp. 453–454: “et presentavit Sanson Báiulus in flumine marrani scriptum dohane mamur idest doane secreti continens declaracionem divise predicte. et fuit lectum in presencia istorum prenominatorum Christianorum et sarracenorum qui sciebant nomina istorum locorum…. et confirmatum est inter eos firmiter super eo quod dixerit in presencia senis Bicca’ib magistri doane de secretis qui arabice dicitur duén tahki’k elmama. hoc est doana veritatis tempore precedente predicto.”

10 Cusa, p. 622: “Μαρτῖνος καὶ ματθαῖος καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ γερώντες [sic, γέροντες] οἱ καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ σεκρέτου οἱ κατωτέρω τοῦδε τοῦ ὕφου ὑποκυρώσαντες ὁμολογοῦμεν.”

11 Cusa, p. 624. For the Arabic text, see Chapter 1 Appendix, no. 1.

12 In reading Arabic or Greek sources, we should ask ourselves whether a title means an official post or a title of honor. Many historians have not noticed that shaikh is merely a title of honor; for example, Garufi treats shaikh as identical with ṣāḥib, and Caravale equates it with preposto. One must also reject Mayer’s opinion that caitus (qā’id, καίτος) is identical with magister. See Garufi, “Sull’ordinamento,” pp. 252–254; Caravale, “Gli uffici finanziari,” p. 203; Mayer, Italienische Verfassungsgeschichte, vol. 2, pp. 386–387.

13 Cusa, pp. 80–83.

14 Cusa, pp. 487–488.

15 Note that the triple-layered structure of officials of the duana which Garufi proposed (Garufi, “Sull’ordinamento,” pp. 252–255, 262) is refuted by a verification of the corresponding terms, though Garufi’s theory has been accepted without challenge by Caspar (Roger II. und die Gründung, pp. 316–317) and Chalandon (Histoire de la domination, vol. 2, pp. 650–653). I will examine the structure of the duana’s officials in another article (see Chapter 3).

16 Caravale, “Gli uffici finanziari,” p. 210.

17 Mazzarese Fardella, “La struttura amministrativa del Regno Normanno,” Atti del Congresso Internazionale di Studi sulla Sicilia Normanna (Palermo, 1973), p. 218.

18 Jamison, Admiral Eugenius, p. 53.

19 Cusa, pp. 622, 624, 321, 489.

20 There is a possibility, however, that the term σέκρετον might be used for indicating the duana de secretis after the duana baronum’s appearance.

21 Haskins, “England and Sicily,” p. 650, note 160: “Τὸν δικέμβριον μῆνα τῆς ἰνδικτιῶνος δ’ ἀπεσχωμένου τοῦ εὐδοξοτάτου καίτου Ῥικάρδου καὶ μεγάλου σεκρέτου ἐκ τοῦ Πανόρμου καὶ ἐξετάζωντα κατὰ ἁρπαχθέντα πράγματα τοῦ κραταιοῦ ῥηγὸς ὁμοίος καὶ τὰ τῶν βελλάνων, κατηντίασε εἰς τὴν χώραν χάκι.”

22 Rocco Pirro, Sicilia sacra disquisitionibus et notitiis illustrata, vol. 2 (Palermo, 1733), p. 1017: “Solam enim divisionem praedictam Casalis Busceniae in fine sigilli denotatam, quoniam totaliter litterae deletae erant, et non poterant clarè legi, transcripsit ex quinternis magni secreti, in quo continentur confines Siciliae.”

23 Karl A. Kehr, Die Urkunden der normannisch-sicilischen Könige (Innsbruck, 1902), doc. no. 19, p. 438: “ἵνα δὲ εἰς τὸ ἐξῆς ἔχει τὸ ἀνενόχλητον καὶ ἀσφαλεστέραν κτίσηται τὴν δεσποτείαν, ἐπετάξαμεν τῶ πρωτωκαμπέρι καὶ φαμελλιαρίω ἡμῶν τῶ ἐπὶ τοῦ σεκρέτου τῶν ἀποκοπῶν καίτη ῥιγκάρδη χαράξαι αὐτῆ τὸ παρὸν τοῦ ἡμετέρου κράτους σιγίλλιον.”

24 I consider this problem as follows. If the duana de secretis was exactly identical with the dīwān al-taḥqīq al-ma‘mūr, we would have no difficulties. But considering that we have no stated Latin equivalent of the al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr, and that the al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr was subordinate to the duana de secretis according to Garufi’s theory, there is a possibility that the Latin duana de secretis may encompass both the dīwān al-taḥqīq al-ma‘mūr and the al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr. Therefore, in order to ascertain the exact relationship of these terms, we must first ascertain whether the dīwān al-taḥqīq al-ma‘mūr and the al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr mean the same office or not. If so, the duana de secretis is identical with both (duana de secretis = dīwān al-taḥqīq al-ma‘mūr = al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr), and we have no difficulties. But if they are different offices, we need to take a second step – that is, to verify whether the duana de secretis is identical simply with the dīwān al-taḥqīq al-ma‘mūr, or instead contains both the dīwān al-taḥqīq al-ma‘mūr and the al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr.

25 Michele Amari, “Su la data degli sponsali di Arrigo VI con la Costanza erede del trono di Sicilia, e su i divani dell’azienda normanna in Palermo. Lettera del dottor O. HARTWIG e Memoria del Socio Amari,” Atti della R. Accademia dei Lincei, anno 275 (1877–1878), serie 3, Memorie della classe di scienze morali, storiche e filologiche, vol. 2 (1878), p. 431; Michele Amari, Storia dei Musulmani di Sicilia, 2nd ed., a cura di Carlo A. Nallino, 3 vols. (Catania, 1933–1939), vol. 3, pp. 327–328, note 2.

26 Enrico Besta, “Il ‘Liber de Regno Siciliae’ e la storia del diritto Siculo,” Miscellanea di archeologia, storia e filologia dedicata al Prof. Antonino Salinas (Palermo, 1907), p. 295, note 2; Luigi Genuardi, “I defetari normanni,” Centenario della nascita di M. Amari: Scritti di filologia e storia araba, 2 vols. (Palermo, 1910), vol. 1, p. 161.

27 Garufi, “Sull’ordinamento,” pp. 234–240; Caspar, Roger II. und die Gründung, pp. 315–318; Chalandon, Histoire de la domination, vol. 2, pp. 648–649; Caravale, “Gli uffici finanziari,” pp. 206–209; Mazzarese Fardella, Aspetti, p. 29.

28 Cusa, p. 135. For the Arabic text, see Chapter 1 Appendix, no. 2.

29 Cusa, pp. 245–246. For the Arabic text, see Chapter 1 Appendix, no. 3. The ordinance has the following exception: [Arabic] “But if anyone, whose name is written in this jarīda, is found to be of royal domains or of fiefs, he should be excepted from this grant and return there” (Cusa, p. 246). For the Arabic text, see Chapter 1 Appendix, no. 4. I think this is almost the same as the following rule of 1145: [Arabic] “That is to say, if anyone of them is found in the jarā’id of the al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr or the jarā’id of vassals or other jarā’id this church should except him” (Cusa, p. 564). For the Arabic text, see Chapter 1 Appendix, no. 5. In 1183 the policy on the basis of jarīda was carried out as in 1145. So, the al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr should have kept a jarīda in 1183.

30 Cusa, pp. 38–39. For the Arabic text, see Chapter 1 Appendix, no. 6.

31 On the taxes of the kingdom see Tommaso Pedio, “L’ordinamento tributario del Regno Normanno,” Archivio storico pugliese, vol. 12 (1959), pp. 79–86; Chalandon, Histoire de la domination, vol. 2, pp. 690–707.

32 Spata, p. 454. See note 9.

33 Cusa, pp. 81–83.

34 Cusa, pp. 243–244. For the Arabic text, see Chapter 1 Appendix, no. 7.

35 Garufi, “Sull’ordinamento,” pp. 236–237; Caravale, “Gli uffici finanziari,” p. 207.

36 Caravale, “Gli uffici finanziari,” p. 207.

37 Pirro, Sicilia sacra, vol. 2, p. 1017.

38 Haskins, “England and Sicily,” p. 650, note 160.

39 Carlo Alberto Garufi, I documenti inediti dell’epoca normanna in Sicilia (Documenti per servire alla storia di Sicilia, serie 1, Diplomatica 18, Palermo, 1899), p. 125: “et tibi tuisque in eo successoribus concedimus et donamus in perpetuum molendinum de Talarico in pertinentiis Paternionis et Casale, quod dicitur Rahal Senec, in pertinentiis Leontini cum iustis pertinentiis suis secundum divisas ipsius Casali, que scripta sunt in deptariis Duane nostre de secretis. Quod Casale dedimus ei in excambio pro feudo, quod fuerat quoddam (sic, quondam?) Oberti Coste in pertinentiis Paternionis, quod jam predicto fratri Stephano concesseramus, et nunc in demanium Curie nostre redegimus.” In this source the royal domain is called demanium Curie nostre. This is expressed as bilād al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr in Arabic (see above at note 29). Comparison of these shows that al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr is identical with curia nostra.

40 Alexandre Bruel, Recueil des chartes de l’abbaye de Cluny, vol. 5 (Paris, 1894), p. 600: “concessimus predicte ecclesie… terram quinquaginta seminum modios capientem, juxta quod continetur in divisis, quas de predicta terra Goffridus de Centurbio et Gaytus Bulcasseni, magistri duane nostre de secretis, nostra fecerunt auctoritate muniti.”

41 Cusa, pp. 487–488; Spata, pp. 443–444.

42 Antonio Mongitore, Bullae privilegia et instrumenta panormitanae Metropolitanae ecclesiae (Palermo, 1734), p. 52: “nomina quorum villanorum continentur in platea facta inde a doana nostra de secretis que est plumbeo sigillo nostro sigillata.”

43 Haskins, “England and Sicily,” p. 654, note 191. The area concerned in this source is Val Sinni in Calabria, while all those we have examined are limited to Sicily.

44 Amari, “Su la data,” p. 414. We have established above that duana baronum is identical with σέκρετον τῶν ἀποκοπῶν.

45 Amari, “Su la data,” p. 432.

46 Genuardi, “I defetari normanni,” p. 164.

47 Garufi, “Sull’ordinamento amministrativo,” pp. 245–250, 261, 263.

48 See note 3 above. Mazzarese Fardella (Aspetti, p. 32), while accepting Garufi’s theory, regards the duana baronum as an office of the camera’s officials, because ἀπόκοπος means eunuch.

49 Caravale, “Gli uffici finanziari,” pp. 210–218.

50 Jamison, Admiral Eugenius, pp. 317–319.

51 Codice diplomatico Brindisino, ed. Gennaro M. Monti (Trani, 1940), p. 51.

52 Camillo Minieri-Riccio, Saggio di codice diplomatico formato sulle antiche scritture dell’Archivio di Stato di Napoli. Supplemento, parte 1 (Naples, 1882), pp. 20–21.

53 Haskins, “England and Sicily,” p. 653, note 186: “Suprascripta venditio celebrata est per licentiam domini Eugenii magistri duane baronum qui a regia celsitudine ad partes istas delegatus est pro exigendis rationibus a baiulis partium istarum, eo quod pretium eiusdem venditionis datum est Bartholomeo regio ostiario pro minuendo debito de decem milibus tarenis monete Sicilie quos prefatus Landulfus a doana baronum cui preest Gaytus Matara regius camerarius et senescalcus mutuo suscepisse dicitur, et ad ipsos tarenos recolligendos regia celsitudo predictum Bartholomeum ad partes istas delegaverat.”

54 Carlo Alberto Garufi, Catalogo illustrato del Tabulario di S. Maria Nuova in Monreale (Palermo, 1902), pp. 163–164: “Ego Guillelmus dei et regia gratia Comes Marsici presenti scripto declaro quod bona et spontanea uoluntate mea uendidi duane baronum in manibus uidelicet Gayti Mataracij Regij sacri palatii camerarij et magistri eiusdem duane… omnes domos meas quas habui in ciuitate panormi.” This count of Marsico received the payment from the aforementioned Gaytus Materacius magister duane baronum.

55 Raffaele Perla, “Una charta iudicati dei tempi normanni,” Archivio storico per le provincie napoletane, vol. 9 (1884), p. 346: “In castello huius civitatis quod terracena dicitur eugenius magister regie duane baronum curiam congregavit ubi landulfus qui dicitur capuanus huius urbis stratigo et nos Guaferius Romoaldus. Petrus soler Landulfus. Petrus Romoaldus et Matheus judices convenimus.”

56 Matteo Camera, Memorie storico-diplomatiche dell’antica città e Ducato di Amalfi, vol. 1 (Salerno, 1876), pp. 364–367.

57 Haskins, “England and Sicily,” p. 445 (2): “Latores presencium Fuscandina et Oddolina de Sarno ad nos venientes nobis conqueste sunt de Iohanne Cicero iam baiulo Sarni secundum quod continetur in cartula clamoris sui quam tibi intus in hanc nostram cartam mittimus sigillatam. Quare mandamus tibi et firmiter precipimus quatinus his nostris visis litteris tantam et talem iusticiam sibi fieri facias quod pro recti penuria de cetero iuste conqueri non valeant nec sit eis opus pro hac causa ad regiam curiam fatigare. Data Salerni sexto die mensis madii undecime indictionis.”

58 Garufi and Caravale develop the same order of argument. They begin with the duana de secretis, and they confirm in the sources that the dīwān al-taḥqīq al-ma‘mūr (duana de secretis) and the al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr are different. But then, because the dīwān al-taḥqīq al-ma‘mūr is identical with the duana de secretis, they assume that the dīwān al-taḥqīq al-ma‘mūr is an office supervising the al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr, that is, a financial supervising office; this assumption is based on the source which says, “hoc [duana de secretis] est doana veritatis tempore precendente predicto” (Spata, p. 454). Therefore, they judge that the al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr must have been subordinate to the dīwān al-taḥqīq al-ma‘mūr. Then, in comparing the duana de secretis with the duana baronum, they reach opposed conclusions. Finally, they think it logical that the al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr, which was subordinate to the duana de secretis, should have also been subordinate to the duana baronum.

 Their line of argument has three weak points. The first is that they assume that the duana de secretis and the duana baronum were two sections of one office, the duana – and so they try to understand them in the same framework. But we should notice that excepting the one word, duana, nothing connects one with the other; their functions differ, as we have seen. The second weak point is the assumption that the al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr was subordinate to the duana de secretis (dīwān al-taḥqīq al-ma‘mūr) because the latter means “supervising office.” One cannot establish the subordinate relationship on the basis of one word taken from a different context. In fact, the sources cited by Garufi and Cara-vale show only that these two terms indicate different offices. The third weak point is the conclusion that the al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr, which was subordinate to the duana de secretis, must have also been subordinate to the duana baronum. No reasons are proffered for this assumption. These weaknesses have allowed Chalandon (Histoire de la domination, vol. 2, pp. 648–650) to design the structure slightly different from that of Garufi(Figure 1.5).

Figure 1.5 Structure of the duana by Chalandon

59 What is the Latin correspondent to al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr? Historians hitherto have ignored this problem. But it is very important because the term appears so often in Arabic sources. Al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr literally means “great office,” “royal office” or “populous office.” It is certain that this office was located in the royal palace. Considering its functions, we can suppose that the al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr was identical with the curia regis in its largest sense. In fact, the royal domain was called bilād al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr in Arabic and demanium curie nostre in Latin (see notes 29, 39 above). Al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr originally meant simply a royal office, and it was used to indicate the royal palace, the body of royal officials and so on. But an office concerning land, the dīwān al-taḥqīq al-ma‘mūr, branched off from it. Therefore the Latin equivalent to al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr is curia regis carrying out routine tasks.

60 Amari, Storia dei Musulmani, vol. 2, p. 34; Amari, “Su la data,” p. 430. Caravale, “Gli uffici finanziari,” pp. 185–187.

61 Pirro, Sicilia sacra, vol. 1, p. 384: “Unde audita ejus petitione pro salute animae meae et fratris mei nobilissimi Ducis Roberti Guiscardi… dedi et in perpetuum concessi Ecclesiae S. Nicolai Episcopi Messanae Casale Saracenorum quod dicitur Butahi cum omni tenimento et pertinentiis suis secundum antiquas divisiones Saracenorum.”

62 The writ of transfer of 12 February, which was written in Palermo, has a foreword in Greek, seventy-five names of villeins in Arabic, and an afterword in Greek (Cusa, pp. 1–3). That of 20 February has a foreword in Greek, 398 names of villeins in Arabic, and an afterword in Greek (Cusa, pp. 541–549).

63 See Carlo A. Garufi, “Censimento e catasto della popolazione servile,” Archivio storico siciliano, vol. 49 (1928), pp. 26–38.

64 Cusa, pp. 548–549: “Εγράφη οἱ τιαύτη πλατεῖα τῆ προστάξη ἐμοῦ κόμητος ῥωγερίου τῆς γ’ ἰνδικτιῶνος τοῦ χγ’ ἔτους ὄντος μου ἐχ τὴν μεσσίνην, αἱ δαὶ ἄλλαι πλατείαι τῆς ἐμῆς χώρας καὶ τῶν ἐμῶν τερρερίων ἐγράφησαν ἐχ τὸ μαζάρρη τοῦχα’ ἔτους τῆς α’ ἰνδικτιῶνος. καὶ διὰ τούτω προστάττομεν ὅτι ἐάν τις εὐρέθη ἐχ τὰς ἐμὰς πλατείας ἤτε ἐχ τὰς πλατείας τῶν τερρερίων μου ἐκ τοὺς ἀγαρινοὺς τοὺς ὄντας γεγραμμένους ἐχ τὴν τοιαύτην πλατεῖαν ἵνα ἀντιστρέφη αὐτοὺς ὁ ἐπίσκοπος ἄνευ πάσης προφάσεως.”

65 Cusa, pp. 532f.

66 Carlo A. Garufi, “Monete e conii nella storia del diritto siculo dagli arabi ai Martini. I,” Archivio storico siciliano, n.s., vol. 23 (1898), p. 151: “quaterni duane regie qui factus fuerat olim per manus protonotarii Curie transactis annis sexaginta et quinque.”

67 Caravale, “Gli uffici finanziari,” pp. 187–188.

68 Codice diplomatico Barese, vol. 4 (Bari, 1900), doc. n. 32, pp. 67–68: “omnes incolas pagi Foliani qui eum incolunt vel qui forte foris sedes habeant ubicumque sunt in castro vel in pago vel alibi, omnia tributa quae in publicum solvebant iubemus eos solvi Bisantio iudici.” “πάντας τοὺς οἰκέτωρας τοῦ χωρίου Φουλιάνου τοὺς ἐν αυτῶ οἰκοῦντας. εῖτ(α) πάλιν ἀπὸ τοὺς αὐτοῦ χωρίτας τυγχάνοντας ἐξοχεῖς τοῦ αὐτοῦ χωρίου ὁποῦ (sic) ἂν ὑπάρχουσιν εῖτεν εἰς κάστρον ἦ χωρίον [ἦ] ἀλλαχοῦ πᾶσας [τας] δουλείας ἂ πρὸς τὸ μέρος τοῦ δημοσίου κατεβάλοντο. τὸ κρίτ(η) Βυζαντ(ίω) διοριζόμεθα ἐκδουλεῦσαι.”

69 Chalandon, Histoire de la domination, vol. 2, p. 649, note 2: “Ita quod homines morantes… in jamdicto feudo… et servientes defensati jura et servitia exhibeant et persolvant sicut nostre camere persolvebant et in quaternis fiscalibus continentur…. Atque castro predicto omnia tributa, pensiones, angarias, et perangarias… quas nostre camere dare et persolvere debuerint tam ad eorum expensas et arma propria ut servientes defensati…, quam ad nostra sub certis diebus et tempore sicut in nostro fiscali quaterno apertius declaratur.”

70 Pirro, Sicilia sacra, vol. 1, pp. 77–78.

71 Garufi, I documenti inediti, doc. n. X, pp. 22–23.

72 Garufi, I documenti inediti, doc. n. XI, pp. 25–26.

73 On the Assizes of Ariano see Francesco Brandileone, Il diritto romano nelle leggi normanne e sveve del Regno di Sicilia (Rome, 1884), pp. 94–138.

74 Brandileone, Il diritto romano, pp. 98, 101–102, 104.

75 Brandileone, Il diritto romano, pp. 97, 107–108.

76 Romualdi Salernitani Chronicon, ed by Carlo Alberto Garufi (Città di Castello, 1909–1935, Muratori, Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, t. 8, pt. 1), p. 226: “Rex autem Roggerius in regno suo perfecte pacis tranquillitate potitus, pro conseruanda pace camerarios et iustitiarios per totam terram instituit, leges a se nouiter conditas promulgauit, malas consuetudines de medio abstulit.”

77 Garufi, I documenti inediti, doc. n. XIX, pp. 45–46; doc. n. XX, p. 49: “Ad nostram spectat sollicitudinem cuncta in meliorem statum reducere et precipue que ad libertatem ecclesiarum pertinet libentius confirmare et serenitate nostri temporis validiora reddere. Iussimus itaque ut omnia privilegia ecclesiarum et subiectorum regni nostri antiquitus composita a nostra clemencia noviter essent elucidata et robore nostri cul-minis communita.”

78 Pirro, Sicilia sacra, vol. 2, p. 1027.

79 Cusa, pp. 563 (1 January), 472–473 (7 January), 127 (24 March). For the Arabic text, see Chapter 1 Appendix, no. 8.

80 The term duana de secretis (dīwān al-taḥqīq al-ma‘mūr) appears for the first time in a document of 1149. See Cusa, pp. 28–29.

81 Caravale, “Gli uffici finanziari,” p. 198.

82 The reign of William I ended in 1166. But here we examine these offices before the duana baronum appeared, that is, through 1167.

83 Garufi, “Sull’ordinamento,” pp. 258–259; Garufi, “Censimento e catasto,” p. 83.

84 Caravale, “Gli uffici finanziari,” pp. 199–200; Mazzarese Fardella, Aspetti, p. 29, accepts Garufi’s theory.

85 Cusa, p. 564. See above at note 20.

86 Cusa, pp. 28–30. For the Arabic text, see Chapter 1 Appendix, no. 9.

87 Cusa, pp. 624–626.

88 On the political situation of the peninsula in this period see Evelyn Jamison, “The Norman Administration of Apulia and Capua, More Especially under Roger II and William I, 1127–1166,” Papers of the British School at Rome, vol. 6 (1913), pp. 221–264.

89 Jamison, “The Norman Administration,” pp. 260–261.

90 Jamison, Admiral Eugenius, p. 53.

91 Caravale, “Gli uffici finanziari,” pp. 203–204.

92 Mazzarese Fardella, Aspetti, pp. 38–39.

93 Jamison, Admiral Eugenius, p. 53; Jamison, “The Norman Administration,” pp. 299–300.

94 Jamison uses duana to mean a supervising office consisting of the duana de secretis and the duana baronum, according to Garufi’s theory.

95 Catalogus baronum, ed. Evelyn Jamison (Rome, 1972), p. xvii.

96 See Evelyn Jamison, “Additional Work by E. Jamison on the Catalogus Baronum,” Bullettino dell’Istituto storico italiano per il Medio Evo e Archivio Muratoriano, vol. 83 (1971), pp. 1–63; Bartolommeo Capasso, “Sul catalogo dei feudi e dei feudatarii delle provincie napoletane sotto la dominazione normanna,” Atti dell’Accademia di archeologia, lettere e belle arti, serie 1, vol. 4 (1868), pp. 293–371.

97 Jamison, “Additional Work,” pp. 3–5.

98 The close relation of the catalogus baronum and the duana baronum is referred to also by Caravale (“Gli uffici finanziari,” pp. 206, 216). Mazzarese Fardella (Aspetti, p. 32) insists on their relation on the basis of the commonality of the word baronum. This is unacceptable because the term catalogus baronum was not used in the Middle Ages but was “devised by Carlo Borrelli for the editio princeps of three separate and distinct documents appended to his Vindex Neapolitanae nobilitatis, Naples, 1653” (Jamison, Catalogus Baronum, Foreword, p. xv).

99 Many historians insist on the difference between these regions. See Wilhelm Heupel, Der sizilische Grosshof unter Kaiser Friedrich II. (Stuttgart, 1940), pp. 479–480; Jamison, “The Norman Administration,” pp. 244, 246, 260; Mazzarese Fardella, Aspetti, pp. 8–9; Mayer, Italienische Verfassungsgeschichte, vol. 2, pp. 384–404; Hans Niese, Die Gesetzgebung der normannischen Dynastie im Regnum Siciliae (Halle, 1910), pp. 164–165; Chalandon, Histoire de la domination, vol. 1, pp. 210–211; Caravale, “Gli uffici finanziari,” p. 217.

100 This suggests the following two points: First, the duana might be seen as a comprehensive administrative organization rather than a particular fiscal organization; second, one should note the institutional difference between the two districts, which in turn indicates the possible existence of social and cultural disparity between them. What interests us most, however, is that the administrative organization of the kingdom of Sicily was quite a new type, even though it stood solidly on Byzantine and Arabic traditions. The creation of this new type of administrative organization needs to be considered in the context of the bureaucratic changes (or renewals) in twelfth-century Europe, particularly in comparison with England.