2
Since J.E.A. Jolliffe emphasized their important role in the Angevin administration, English historians have paid special attention to the people called familiares regis.1 J. Green and W. L. Warren focused on their administrative functions during the reigns of Henry I (1100–1135) and Henry II (1154–1189), respectively, and confirmed the significance of their place in the royal administration.2 J. O. Prestwich, M. Chibnall and C. Warren Hollister drew attention to the importance of their military role through an analysis of the familia regis as a king’s military household.3 Familiares regis is, according to Warren, “a word which defies adequate translation: a familiaris regis was an intimate, a familiar resident or visitor in the household, a member of the familia, that wider family which embraces servants, confidents, and close associates.”4 This definition is basically shared by modern scholars,5 who have generally followed Jolliffe in arguing that a private royal council (concilium privatum, concilium familiare) was not formed in England until the reign of Henry III (1216–1272).6 In France too, familiares regis were the intimates of kings among the royal entourage, although Bournazel suggests that this term was reserved to designate only the most powerful persons around the palace in the twelfth century.7 However, we do not have proof of a formally constituted royal council until the reign of Philip V (1316–1322), under whom the magnum consilium appeared.8
Historians have applied this very general concept of familiares regis to Sicily. Chalandon defines the Sicilian familiares regis as the counselors chosen from the curia who were the closest to the king, and lists men who bore this title during the Norman period. Although he does not mention such issues as their number, length of service and their functions in the administration of the kingdom, he states that the members of the “Privy Council” called ἄρχοντες τῆς κραταιᾶς κόρτης were chosen from among these familiares regis.9 Other historians mention familiares regis only as kings’ counselors consisting of lay and ecclesiastical vassals, but say nothing more.10 However, the annals of Falcandus seem to suggest that familiares regis (or familiares curie) were not simply intimates or counselors of the kings, but were in fact the members of the royal inner council.11 Dating formulae and witness lists during the reign of William II (1166–1189) also seem to suggest this conclusion. In the Norman Kingdom of Sicily, then, did the term familiares regis really indicate the members of the royal inner council?
It is not easy to determine the date when the first royal inner council was formed and when familiares regis became its characteristic members. To be sure, the term familiaris regis is found in the sources during the reign of Roger II (1105–1154),12 but we cannot confirm whether this term was employed to indicate one of the king’s intimates or a member of a well-defined inner council. In the earlier half of the reign of William I (1154–1166), when the Great Admiral Maio of Bari governed the whole kingdom as head minister,13 the term familiaris regis seldom appears in the sources. Falcandus’ mention of the admission of Archbishop Hugh of Palermo to the familiaritas regis through Maio’s efforts shows the significance of the title and implies that Maio himself was also a familiaris regis, but it does not necessarily demonstrate the existence of a royal inner council.14
The first inner council confirmed by the sources was formed after the assassination of Maio in 1160. The day after the assassination, King William I summoned Henry Aristippus, Archdeacon of Catania,15 and appointed him familiaris so that he would take the role and office of Maio of Bari in dealing with affairs of the kingdom.16 Count Silvester of Marsico, an elderly cousin of the king, and an Englishman, Richard Palmer, bishop-elect of Syracuse, were then appointed to be familiares regis by March 1161. The inner council of three familiares regis was thus formed.17 Although the triumvirate of three familiares regis was to continue until the death of William I in 1166, two of the original members were replaced during this period. First, Henry Aristippus lost the king’s confidence in the revolts of the barons in 1161 and was replaced by Matthew the notary, who had long served Maio of Bari and was later to compile a comprehensive land register.18 Then the converted Muslim Qā’id Peter the eunuch, master chamberlain of the palace,19 entered the inner council (regis consilium) after the death of Count Silvester of Marsico. Thus the new triumvirate of the three familiares regis (Bishop-elect Richard Palmer, Matthew the notary and Qā’id Peter the eunuch) was established.20 These changes in the familiares regis have been arranged in Figure 2.1.
By this time the title familiaris regis appears already to have come to indicate members of the royal inner council: Falcandus, while remarking at one point that “Matthew the notary, familiaris curie, persuaded with many prayers the other regis familiares, the Bishop-elect of Syracuse and Count Silvester,” explained elsewhere that “Count Silvester having died, only the Bishop-elect of Syracuse and Matthew the notary were members of the royal council (consilium regis).”21 These three familiares regis did not include any members of the secular nobility but did represent the other three elements of the kingdom: clergy, southern Italian officials and converted Muslim officials. They continued to administer the affairs of the kingdom until the death of King William I in 1166.
When King William I died on 17 May 1166, there was no problem regarding his successor, because he had already decided that his eldest son, William II (1166–1189), should be crowned.22 The only difficulty was that the new king was only twelve years old. King William I had declared in his testament that his three familiares should keep their status and help the regent, Queen Margaret, as Falcandus relates:
[Latin] William I also ordered that the bishop-elect of Syracuse, Qā’id Peter and Matthew the notary, whom he had chosen as familiares for himself, should remain in the same familiaritas of the curia so that according to their counsel the Queen would manage that which it appears necessary to do.23
However, the new king’s minority could not avoid political instability. The nobility gained more power at the royal court and had a great influence on politics. The familiares regis expanded in number, but their membership changed rapidly, reflecting the political struggles at the royal palace. Falcandus gives us detailed information about these political struggles and the change among the familiares regis during this period.
Figure 2.1 Changes in the familiares regis shown in Falcandus
Note: Uppercase letters indicate head ministers
The first change was introduced by the regent, Queen Margaret. After the coronation of William II, she appointed Qā’id Peter the eunuch, the master chamberlain of the royal palace, head minister and made the other two familiares regis (Bishop-elect Richard Palmer of Syracuse and Matthew the notary) his assistants:
[Latin] But she did not wish the familiares of the curia to remain in the same grade as before or in the same dignity. For, she granted Qā’id Peter the highest power concerning all matters, placed him in a higher position than anyone else and ordered that the bishop-elect of Syracuse and Matthew the notary should obey his orders in all matters, although as his assistants they were certainly to be named among the counselors (consilii) and familiares.24
Thus the effective direction of the kingdom was placed in the hands of a converted Muslim eunuch, Qā’id Peter.
His leadership did not continue long, however. By the middle of the summer, Sicily was almost in chaos. Plots and intrigues raged at the royal palace. Supported by the barons, Count Gilbert of Gravina, the queen’s cousin, advanced his power and pressed the queen to appoint him head minister. In order to offset his power, Margaret appointed Richard of Mandra, the master constable, Count of Molise. But this measure did not prevent Gilbert from initiating serious plots against Qā’id Peter. In the end, the head minister, Qā’id Peter, fled to Tunis.25
Queen Margaret, having sent Gilbert of Gravina to the mainland as captain of Apulia and Terra Laboris, appointed Count Richard of Molise familiaris curie and gave him higher authority than the other familiares to take the place of Qā’id Peter.26 Soon after that, two converted Muslims, Qā’id Richard, master chamberlain of the royal palace, and Qā’id Martin, who directed the duana de secretis, were added to the three familiares regis.27
Thus a new inner council of five familiares regis was formed. It consisted of Count Richard of Molise; Bishop-elect Richard Palmer of Syracuse; Matthew the notary; Qā’id Richard, master chamberlain of the royal palace; and Qā’id Martin.28
At the end of the summer in 1166, Stephen du Perche, a son of the count of Perche in France and a relative of Queen Margaret, arrived in Palermo in response to the queen’s invitation. He was appointed chancellor in November of the same year and elected to the archbishopric of Palermo in October or November of 1167.29 Thus he acquired the two highest positions of the kingdom in a very short time, and stood at the center of power.30 Although it is certain that Stephen himself was appointed familiaris regis, we do not know precisely how the membership of the familiares regis changed under his headship. Falcandus sometimes mentions familiares regis, but he does not list their names. Qā’id Richard and Qā’id Martin enjoyed familiaritas regis at least for a while in 1167.31 Matthew the notary also seems to have kept his familiaritas.32 But it is not clear who the familiares regis were in this period.33 Stephen’s control over the council seems to have been very strong, helped by members of his French entourage.34 Therefore, it is probable that his strong rule overshadowed the power and authority of the other familiares regis. However, he faced serious resistance from the magnates and officials at the palace as well as from native Sicilians, and he left the kingdom during violent disturbances in the spring of 1168.
New familiares regis were appointed immediately, and a royal inner council of ten familiares regis was instituted, as Falcandus explains in detail:
[Latin] In the meantime Bishop Gentile of Agrigento, who had been sent to Val Demone, was called back and appointed familiaris of the curia. Count Henry of Montescaglioso and Count Richard of Molise arrived at Palermo with many armed men of Messina and twenty-four armed galleys. Supported by these forces, they renewed the state of the curia and instituted ten familiares: Bishop-elect Richard of Syracuse, Bishop Gentile of Agrigento, Archbishop Romuald of Salerno, Bishop John of Malta, Count Roger of Gerace, Count Richard of Molise, Count Henry of Montescaglioso, Matthew the notary, Qā’id Richard, and Walter, dean of Agrigento and the king’s tutor (preceptor).35
It is not certain how long this large royal inner council of ten familiares regis remained. By the next February, however, Qā’id Martin seems to have been reap-pointed familiaris regis, because his name was listed among the familiares regis at the end of two charters of February 1169. The same charters did not list the archbishop of Salerno, the bishop of Malta, the count of Gerace, and the count of Montescaglioso among the familiares regis.36 In addition to these four, a charter of May 1169 did not list Bishop-elect Richard of Syracuse.37 This implies that those people might have been excluded from the inner council by that time; but, of course, there is the possibility that they were simply absent from the royal palace, while keeping their title of familiaris regis.
All these changes occurred within the first three years of the minority of William II. But this instability among familiares regis came to an end when Walter, dean of Agrigento and the tutor of King William II and his brother, was consecrated archbishop of Palermo on 28 October 1169, and the political struggles subsided. Falcandus explains the consecration of Walter and the subsequent establishment of three familiares regis:
[Latin] Therefore this affair was prolonged for a few days lest the decision should not seem to be precipitous. Then, the pope ratified the election and ordered that the archbishop-elect should be consecrated by the suffragan bishops. Walter, who was elevated to the highest dignity, immediately changed the constitution of the curia, and appointed Matthew the notary and Bishop Gentile of Agrigento to be familiares under his authority, retaining the highest power for himself.38
Falcandus’ detailed account ends with the establishment of this triumvirate of the familiares regis. But, fortunately, other sources give us information on familiares regis thereafter. Royal diplomas had been customarily dated by chancellors or, during their absences, by their deputies until the death of Maio of Bari in 1160. After this date, however, the position of chancellor became vacant, and the diplomas were dated by Bishop-elect Richard of Syracuse, one of the familiares regis. The short chancellorship of Stephen du Perche (1166–1168) revived the dating by a chancellor, but after his flight in 1168 the office of chancellor was not filled until 1190 and the royal diplomas came to be dated by the familiares regis, as a charter of January 1176 shows:
[Latin] Data in urbe Panormi felici per manus Gualterii venerabilis Panormitani archiepiscopi et Mathei regii vicecancellarii et Bartholomei Agrigentini episcopi domini regis familiarium anno dominice incarnationis.39
Sometimes the title of familiaris regis appears in texts of diplomas as “Guillelmum venerabilem archiepiscopum dilectum fidelem et familiarem nostrum.”40 The names of those with the title of familiaris regis have been gathered from various diplomas and arranged in Figure 2.2.
This figure suggests that the newly established triumvirate continued for more than ten years. In this triumvirate, the archbishop of Palermo maintained the highest position and Matthew, who was promoted to vice-chancellor from notary in December 1169, enjoyed the second highest status, although the third member of the inner council was changed.41 The nobility were kept completely away from the royal inner council, and only clerics and royal officials were appointed familiares regis. It should be noted that during this period the kingdom enjoyed almost complete peace and experienced no serious revolts. At the same time, however, the third familiaris regis changed. First, Bishop-elect Bartholomew of Agrigento, a brother of Archbishop Walter of Palermo, succeeded Bishop Gentile of Agrigento who had died and appeared as the third familiaris regis in December 1171. He remained in familiaritas regis for about five years. Bishop Richard Palmer of Syracuse replaced him by February 1177. Richard Palmer became archbishop of Messina at the end of 1182, but kept the title of familiaris regis for about seven years until 1184.42
This long-established triumvirate of familiares regis was modified by a new element, the archbishopric of Monreale created in February 1183 by the bull of Pope Lucius III.43 William, the first archbishop of Monreale, appeared as one of the four familiares regis in a diploma of May 1184.44 Almost at the same time, Bishop Bartholomew of Agrigento joined the familiares regis again, replacing Archbishop Richard of Messina. Thus in 1184 a new arrangement of the royal council with four familiares regis appeared. The creation of the archbishopric of Monreale probably weakened the power and authority of Archbishop Walter of Palermo. Considering that Vice-chancellor Matthew worked to create this archbishopric, it is probable that Archbishop Walter of Palermo made his
Figure 2.2 Familiares regis shown in diplomas
Notes: Matthew is among the dataries of the diplomas of (4) and (8), but does not bear the title of familiaris regis. Garufi informs that the diplomas of (34), (35) and (36) were dated by Walter, Matthew and Richard (or Bartholomew), but it has not been confirmed yet in the original manuscripts whether these people bore the title of familiaris regis.
Sources: (1) Carlo Alberto Garufi, I documenti inediti dell’epoca normanna in Sicilia (Palermo, 1899) (hereinafter Garufi, Documenti), p. 111. (2) Alessandro Pratesi, ed., Carte latine di Abbazie Calabresi provenienti dall’Archivio Aldobrandini (Città del Vaticano, 1958), doc. 23, pp. 60–62. (3) Garufi, Documenti, p. 112. (4) Ibid., p. 126. (5) Ibid., p. 128; Karl Andreas Kehr, Die Urkunden der normannisch-sicilischen Könige (Innsbruck, 1902) (hereinafter Kehr), pp. 440–441. (6) Rocco Pirro, Sicilia sacra disquisitionibus, et notitiis illustrata, 2 vols., 3rd ed., A. Mongitore (Palermo, 1733) (hereinafter Pirro), p. 669; Wilhelm Behring, “Sicilianische Studien II/2: Regesten des normannischen Königshause 1130–1197,” Programm des königlichen Gymnasiums zu Elbing (Elbing, 1887) (herein-after Behring), no. 181. (7) Kehr, p. 442. (8) Ferdinando Ughelli, Italia sacra sive de episcopis Italiae et insularum adiacentium, 2nd ed., 10 vols. (Venice, 1717–1721), 8:983; Behring, no. 188. (9) Alexandre Bruel, Recueil des chartes de l’abbaye de Cluny, vol. 5 (Paris, 1894), pp. 600–601. (10) Kehr, pp. 375, 382. (11) Behring, no. 192; Pirro, p. 741. (12) Behring, no. 193. (13) G. B. Siragusa, Il Regno di Guglielmo I in Sicilia, 2nd ed. (Palermo, 1929), p. 379. (14) Ibid., pp. 380–381. (15) Kehr, p. 443. (16) Behring, no. 202; Pirro, p. 700. (17) Behring, no. 203. (18) Behring, no. 204; Pirro, p. 107. (19) Kehr, p. 445. (20) Behring, no. 206. (21) G. Bresc-Bautier, ed., Le Cartulaire du chapitre du Saint-Sépulchre (Paris, 1984), pp. 316–317. (22) Kehr, p. 448; Behring, no. 211. (23) Pirro, p. 702; Behring, no. 212. (24) Garufi, Documenti, p. 172. (25) Charles Homer Haskins, “England and Sicily in the Twelfth Century,” English Historical Review, vol. 26 (1911), p. 445. (26) Behring, no. 218. (27) Salvatore Cusa, I diplomi greci ed arabi di Sicilia pubblicati nel testo originale, vol. 1 (Palermo, 1868–1882), pp. 202, 244; Behring, no. 219. (28) Garufi, Documenti,, p. 182; Behring, no. 220. (29) Behring, no. 221. (30) Codice diplomatico Barese,, vol. 5 (Bari, 1902), pp. 252–253. (31) Garufi, Documenti, p. 189. (32) Carlo Alberto Garufi, Catalogo illustrato del Tabulario di S. Maria Nuova in Monreale (Palermo, 1902) (hereinafter Garufi, Catalogo), p. 26; Behring, no. 222. (33) Pirro, p. 460; Behring, no. 223; Garufi, Catalogo, p. 27. (34) Ibid., p. 27. (35) Ibid., p. 28. (36) Ibid., p. 29. (37) Behring, no. 225. (38) Behring, no. 230. (39) Kehr, pp. 455–456. (40) Garufi, Documenti, p. 213. (41) Kehr, p. 457. (42) Garufi, Catalogo, p. 230. (43) Tancredi et Willelmi III Regum Diplomata (Codex Diplomaticus Regni Siciliae, Serie I, tomus V, Cologne, 1982), p. 213. (44) Ibid., pp. 61–62. (45) Ibid., p. 92. (46) Ibid., p. 94. (47) Ibid., p. 96. (48) Ibid., p. 98. (49) Ibid., p. 101. (50) Ibid., pp. 103–104. (51) Ibid., p. 106.
brother, Bishop Bartholomew of Agrigento, familiaris regis in order to create a balance with the other two familiares regis in the royal inner council. This arrangement of four familiares regis continued until the death of William II on 18 November 1189.
The death of William II without an heir caused a dispute over the succession. There were three candidates: Constance, daughter of Roger II, who had married Henry VI, son of the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa; Tancred, count of Lecce, illegitimate son of Duke Roger and thus grandson of Roger II; and Count Roger of Andrea. While Archbishop Walter of Palermo favored Constance, Vice- chancellor Matthew strongly supported Count Tancred, who was finally elected and crowned at Palermo on 18 January 1190.45 The balanced structure of the four familiares regis of William II was then drastically changed. Archbishop Walter of Palermo died before the end of 1190,46 and Archbishop William of Monreale died on 28 October 1191.47 Although Bishop Bartholomew of Agrigento became archbishop of Palermo in succession to his brother Walter, he does not seem to have held the title of familiaris regis during the reign of Tancred (1190–1194). The only remaining familiaris regis, Vice-chancellor Matthew, became head minister and by April 1190 was promoted to chancellor, a dignity which had been vacant since the flight of Stephen du Perche in 1168. At the same time the diplomas came to be dated by Chancellor Matthew or, during his absences, by his deputy and own son Richard,48 and no longer by a group of familiares regis. For this reason, as well as for the paucity of documents, it is difficult to know who the familiares regis were during the reign of Tancred. Besides Chancellor Matthew, his two sons, Archbishop Nicholas of Salerno49 and Richard,50 who became count of Ajello in 1192, held the title of familiares regis. These three familiares regis were the most powerful ministers in the royal government and seem to have formed “a family triumvirate.”51 There may have been other familiares regis,52 but undoubtedly Chancellor Matthew exercised by far the dominant power and influence, and seems to have overshadowed the other familiares regis as had Chancellor Stephen du Perche almost thirty years before. Chancellor Matthew died on 21 July 1193,53 and King Tancred died on 20 February 1194, leaving his child William III as successor.
During William III’s short reign (February–December 1194) under the regency of the queen mother, Sibylla of Acerra, the royal inner council of familiares regis seems to have taken the lead again.54 The dating by the familiares regis in royal diplomas revived. Two diplomas of June and July 1194 were dated by the three familiares regis, Archbishop Bartholomew of Palermo, Archbishop Nicholas of Salerno, and Count Richard of Ajello.55 Thus, Archbishop Bartholomew, who had been a familiaris regis for many years under William II but lost this position under Tancred, received his title anew. Archbishop Nicholas of Salerno and Count Richard, both of whom were sons of Chancellor Matthew, maintained their titles of familiaris regis and the high status which they had enjoyed during the former reign. Five other diplomas (two of August, one of September and two of October) dated after those mentioned above include Archbishop Bartholomew and Archbishop Nicholas as dataries, but not Count Richard of Ajello.56 This practice of dating by the familiares regis shows a strong resemblance to that under William II. But it should be kept in mind that the political situations were completely different. In the very unstable political condition under William III it is difficult to believe that those dataries were the only familiares regis. In fact, we find another familiaris regis, Admiral Margaritus, count of Malta, who was described as domini regis familiaris in a charter of July 1194.57 He was certainly one of the most powerful and influential magnates in the kingdom.
Thus in the Norman Kingdom of Sicily, familiaris regis was neither a general term to indicate a member of the royal household nor a simple honorary title with special privileges. The bearers of this title can be identified very precisely. The number of the familiares regis was usually between three and five, although it expanded to ten in the special circumstances of 1168. These familiares regis were the most powerful ministers in the kingdom. They were not, however, merely ministers or counselors of high status who acted independently and served the kings individually. Rather they were members of a formally recognized royal inner council, in whose hands administrative power was concentrated. This royal inner council should therefore be distinguished from that larger, undefined body of advisers who made up the king’s “great council,” if we may so call it, a body not yet institutionalized or fixed in its composition. The familiares regis acted together to decide important issues and to date royal diplomas. Most importantly they managed the state affairs and royal government. It is well known that William I “devolved the exercise of power upon his ministers, and was content to live in his palace surrounded by his harem like an oriental sovereign” except in the case of “urgent necessity for his personal intervention.”58 William II also entrusted his familiares with management of state affairs throughout his reign. Their authority, however, seems to have derived entirely from the kings they served, and their power and influence therefore probably depended on the personal character of the kings and other political factors. Thus, under the chancellorships of Stephen du Perche (1166–1168) and Matthew (1190–1193), the familiares regis figured less prominently and their activities became less clear. Before the consecration of Archbishop of Palermo in 1169, this inner council seems to have balanced three elements: nobility, bureaucrats and clergy. It is noteworthy that, during this period, converted Muslims were included in the inner council and took part in the decision-making process of the kingdom. The power of the nobility rapidly increased during the minority of William II, but they were completely excluded from the inner council after 1169 throughout the reign of William II until 1189. This practice of choosing familiares regis only from among the royal officials and the clergy seems to have continued until the extinction of the Norman Kingdom in 1194.59
This conclusion, however, raises a serious problem in the historiography of Norman Sicily because it contradicts the traditional idea of members of the “Privy Council” (or royal court council), called ἄρχοντες τῆς κραταιᾶς κόρτης. Chalandon thought that ἄρχοντες τῆς κραταιᾶς κόρτης had been a separate entity chosen from among the familiares regis,60 but this is unlikely if, as I have argued, familiares regis were in fact members of the royal inner council. It does not make sense to assume a more limited royal council than the familiares regis, who frequently numbered only three. What then was the relationship of the familiares regis to the ἄρχοντες τῆς κραταιᾶς κόρτης? The following source of 1172 suggests that ἄρχοντες τῆς κραταιᾶς κόρτης were in fact identical to familiares regis:
[Greek] In October of the sixth Indiction and AM 6681, I, Geoffrey the σεκρετικός, came to the amīr’s house (μινζηλμήρ) to examine carefully and fix the boundaries of Sha‘rānī Village according to the order of the very distinguished and honorable ἄρχοντες τῆς κραταιᾶς κόρτης, that is, Lord Walter, the first familiaris and very sacred and very pious archbishop of Palermo, the honorable Vice-chancellor Matthew, and Bartholomew, the honorable bishop of Agrigento and familiaris.61
This source shows that the ἄρχοντες τῆς κραταιᾶς κόρτης were Archbishop Walter of Palermo, Vice-chancellor Matthew and Bishop-elect Bartholomew of Agrigento, who were, as has been shown, the familiares regis in 1172. The term ἄρχοντες τῆς κραταιᾶς κόρτης never referred to the members of a more limited royal court council chosen from among the familiares regis, as Chalandon thought. This identification of ἄρχοντες τῆς κραταιᾶς κόρτης with familiares regis also makes manifest the fact that there was no special “Privy Council” (or royal court council) consisting of the master chamberlain of the royal palace and the master justiciar of the great royal court but excluding the masters of the duana, as Garufi, Caspar, Caravale and Chalandon have presumed.62
This conclusion also raises a more general and important question for the usage of the phrase familiaris regis in twelfth-century Europe. We have seen that in Sicily familiaris regis was not a vague term indicating a king’s intimate or simply a member of the royal household (familia regis), but a title denoting a member of the royal inner council, which was the most powerful decision-making body in later twelfth-century Sicily. Was this usage of familiares regis limited to Sicily? Or did England, France and other monarchies use this title in much the same way? Considering the close contacts among these royal courts and the similarities in the titles of certain other royal officials, there is the possibility that other monarchies had the same or similar usages of familiaris regis. In fact, Bournazel’s study argues that the familiares regis in twelfth-century France were the most powerful people in the kingdom, and that this term had a close connection with the notion of council.63 Although some scholars seem to believe that in twelfth-century England familiaris regis was just another expression to denote a member of the familia regis, several sources imply that this word had a more positive connotation, as King Henry II gave orders to counts, barons and knights of the kingdom “per consilia familiarium suorum,”64 and sent his familiares to foreign courts as envoys.65 It is, indeed, very suggestive that the bearers of the title familiaris regis included the most powerful people in the kingdom such as Ranulf Flambard under William II,66 Walter de Coutances under Henry II,67 and Peter des Roches under John.68 Of course this evidence does not provide a definite answer to our question, and further conjectures should not be attempted. Only a more thorough investigation of the persons described as the familiares regis of those monarchies will enable us to know the real answer. Such an investigation should, I believe, be attempted because familiares regis could prove to be a key concept in the understanding of medieval government in Western Europe.69
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Professors John Boswell and Robert Stacey of Yale University; Professor Giles Constable of The Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton; and Professor J. C. Holt and Dr. David Abulafia of Cambridge University for their valuable advice. I am also grateful to Professor James Powell of Syracuse University; Professor Michael Altschul of Case Western Reserve University; and Professors Kōichi Kabayama, Takeshi Kido and Tsugitaka Satō of The University of Tokyo for their comments on an earlier version of this chapter; and to Lisa and Jonathan Rotondo-McCord, Colleen Ravillini and Frederick Dickinson for their help in revising this chapter.
Notes
1 John E. A. Jolliffe, Angevin Kingship (New York, 1955), pp. 168–187, 277–297. Although historians have often employed a simpler form familiares to indicate a king’s familiares, I will use the more precise term familiares regis (or curie) based on available sources.
2 Wilfred L. Warren, Henry II (Berkeley/Los Angeles, 1977), pp. 305, 309–311; Judith A. Green, The Government of England under Henry I (Cambridge, 1986), pp. 19–37, especially pp. 19–20, 36–37.
3 John O. Prestwich, “The Military Household of the Norman Kings,” English Historical Review, vol. 96 (1981), pp. 1–35; John O. Prestwich, “Anglo-Norman Feudalism and the Problems of Continuity,” Past and Present, vol. 26 (1963), pp. 39–57; Marjorie Chibnall, “Mercenaries and the Familia Regis under Henry I,” History, vol. 62 (1977), pp. 15–23; Charles Warren Hollister, The Military Organization of Norman England (Oxford, 1965).
4 Warren, Henry II, p. 305. He explained, furthermore, that there were “few who were simply courtiers, for the king employed his familiares on a variety of administrative tasks.” In England, therefore, “the functions of the familiares, indeed, make nonsense of any attempt to describe the king’s government simply in terms of offices or institutions” (p. 305). See also Jolliffe, Angevin Kingship, p. 184.
5 For example, Wilfred L. Warren, The Governance of Norman and Angevin England 1086–1272 (London, 1987), p. 127; Green, The Government, pp. 18–19, 36–37; Charles Warren Hollister and John Wesley Baldwin, “The Rise of Administrative King-ship: Henry I and Philip Augustus,” American Historical Review, vol. 83 (1978), p. 870.
6 Jolliffe, Angevin Kingship, p. 166.
7 Hollister and Baldwin, “The Rise of Administrative Kingship,” p. 901; Eric Bournazel, Le Gouvernement Capétien au XIIe siècle 1108–1180: Structures sociales et mutations institutionelles (Paris, 1975), pp. 147–148. Bournazel suggests the close connection of the term familiares with the notion of council (conseil) and analyses in detail the beginnings of the royal council (pp. 149, 151–173).
8 François Olivier-Martin, Histoire du droit français des origins à la Révolution, 2e tirage (Paris, 1951), p. 661.
9 Ferdinand Chalandon, Histoire de la domination normande en Italie et en Sicile, 2 vols. (Paris, 1907), vol. 2, pp. 632–634; Ferdinand Chalandon, “The Norman Kingdom of Sicily,” The Cambridge Medieval History V: Contest of Empire and Papacy (Cambridge, 1926), p. 205. According to Chalandon the “Privy Council/conseil privé ” itself was called ἡ κραταιὰ κόρτη and included the master chamberlain of the royal palace and the master justiciar of the great royal court, but not the masters of the duana (“Norman Kingdom of Sicily,” p. 205; Histoire de la domination, vol. 2, p. 651). This idea was first presented by Carlo A. Garufi (“Sull’ordinamento amministrativo normanno in Sicilia, Exhiquier o diwan? Studi storico-diplomatici,” Archivio storico italiano, serie V, vol. 27 [1901], pp. 256–257), and has been accepted by Chalandon, and by Erich Caspar, Roger II. (1101–1154) und die Gründung der normannisch-sicilischen Monarchie (Innsbruck, 1904), p. 316; Mario Caravale, “Gli uffici finanziari nel Regno di Sicilia durante il periodo normanno,” Annali di storia del diritto, vol. 8 (1964), pp. 203, 218–219. For the most recent arguments and literature on the Norman administration in Sicily including the duana system, see Hiroshi Takayama, “The Financial and Administrative Organization of the Normans in Twelfth-Century Sicily,” Shigaku-Zasshi, vol. 92, no. 7 (1983), pp. 1–46; Hiroshi Takayama, “The Grand Officials of the Norman Kingdom of Sicily,” Shigaku-Zasshi, vol. 93, no. 12 (1984), pp. 1–46; Hiroshi Takayama, “The Financial and Administrative Organization of the Norman Kingdom of Sicily,” Viator, vol. 16 (1985), pp. 129–157; Hiroshi Takayama, “The Great Administrative Officials of the Norman Kingdom of Sicily,” Papers of the British School at Rome, vol. 58 (1990), pp. 317–335.
10 However, Jamison, Kehr and Loewenthal use this term in a more limited sense. They seem to believe, as I do, that the familiares regis were the members of the royal inner council. See Evelyn Jamison, Admiral Eugenius of Sicily: His Life and Work (London, 1957), pp. 45–49, 93–94, 103–104; Karl A. Kehr, Die Urkunden der normannischsicilischen Könige (Innsbruck, 1902), pp. 86–88; Leonard J. A. Loewenthal, “For the Biography of Walter Ophamil, Archbishop of Palermo,” English Historical Review, vol. 87 (1972), p. 76.
11 Hugo Falcandus, Liber de Regno Sicilie [hereinafter Falcandus, Liber de Regno], in Giovanni B. Siragusa, ed., La historia o Liber de Regno Sicilie e la epistola ad Petrum Panormitane ecclesie thesaurarium di Ugo Falcando (Rome, 1897), pp. 1–165. The identity of the author of the Liber de Regno Sicilie, who has been called Hugo Falcandus, remains a mystery. The best argument is Jamison, Admiral Eugenius, Part II. On the literature of this subject, see ibid., p. 177, note 1. See also Hartmut Hoffmann, “Hugo Falcandus und Romuald von Salerno,” Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters, vol. 23 (1967), pp. 116–170.
12 Falcandus (Liber de Regno, p. 7) suggests that Roger II had his familiares. In fact we can easily find the term familiaris in sources during the reign of Roger II. For example, “saepissima ac familiaris collocutio” in the summer of 1130 (Léon-Robert Ménager, “L’institution monarchique dans les États normands d’Italie,” Cahiers de civilisation médiévale, vol. 2 [1959], p. 445). On 30 November 1133, Archbishop Peter of Otranto was called consiliarius et familiaris noster dilectus (Rogerii II. Regis Diplomata Latina [Codex diplomaticus regni Siciliae, Serie I, tomus II–1, Cologne, 1987], p. 96). In 1142, Count Simon, nephew of the king, and Admiral George of Antioch were familiares regis (Salvatore Cusa, I diplomi greci ed arabi di Sicilia pubblicati nel testo originale [Palermo, 1868–1882], p. 309: “κώμητως συμεὼν καὶ γεωργίου ἀμυρᾶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ καιροῦ φαμιλιαρίων”). In July 1143, Master Thomas Brown and Archbishop-elect Roger of Palermo were familiares regis (Rogerii II., pp. 160, 164–165). In 1144, we find three familiares regis: Archbishop Roger Fresca of Palermo in January (Cusa, p. 25: “τῆς ἀρχιεπισκοπῆς ὑποψιφίω ἡμετέρω πιστωτάτω φαμιληάρι καὶ συμβουλάτωρι κυρῶ ῥογερίω φεσκὰ”), Bishop Osbert of Mazara in March (Rogerii II., p. 174), and Bishop Parisius of Syracuse in May (Rogerii II., p. 178). A Baron Deutesalve was also called fidelis et familiaris (Kehr, Urkunden, p. 498). Cf. Chalandon, Histoire de la domination, vol. 2, p. 632. King Roger’s charter for the abbey of St. John of the Hermits (San Giovanni degli Eremiti) in Palermo, dated July 1148, gives us interesting information on Roger’s familiares. It shows that the abbot of St. John of the Hermits and his successors were granted privileges as consiliarii et familiares (Rogerii II., pp. 221–222, and Rocco Pirro, Sicilia sacra disquisitionibus, et notitiis illustrata [Palermo, 1733], vol. 2, p. 1111). On the abbey of St. John of the Hermits, see Lynn Townsend White Jr., Latin Monasticism in Norman Sicily (Cambridge, MA, 1938), pp. 123–131.
13 Maio of Bari was one of the greatest head ministers of the Norman Kingdom of Sicily. Under King Roger II he was a scriniarius or notarius in the Latin chancery (c. 1144–1148), and became vice-chancellor (vicecancellarius) by 1151. Under King William I he was the chancellor, admiral of admirals (ammiratus ammiratorum), and head minister (1154–1160). See Léon-Robert Ménager, Amiratus-Ἀμηρᾶς. L’Émirat et les origines de l’amirauté (XIe–XIIIe siècle) (Paris, 1960), pp. 55–56.
14 Falcandus, Liber de Regno, p. 10: “hac inita societate, prefatus archiepiscopus, instinctu et consilio Maionis, in familiaritatem regis admictitur, ut quicquid admiratus regi suggereret, socii testimonio confirmaret.”
15 Henry Aristippus is well known as the first translator of Meno and Phaedo of Plato and of the fourth book of Aristotle’s Meteorology. See Charles H. Haskins, The Renaissance of the Twelfth Century (Cambridge, MA, 1927), p. 292; Charles H. Haskins, Studies in the History of Medieval Science (Cambridge, MA, 1927), pp. 53, 142–183; Maria T. Mandalari, “Enrico Aristippo arcidiacono di Catania nella vita culturale e politica del secolo XII,” Bolletino storico catanese, vol. 4 (1939), pp. 87–123.
16 Falcandus, Liber de Regno, p. 44: “Sequenti die rex Henricum Aristippum, archidiaconum Cataniensem,…, familiarem sibi delegit ut vicem et officium interim gereret admirati, preessetque notariis, et cum eo secretius de regni negotiis pertractaret.”
17 Falcandus, Liber de Regno, p. 69: “erant eo tempore familiares regis, per quos negotia curie disponebat, Richardus Siracusanus electus, Silvester comes Marsicensis et Henricus Aristippus.” See also Jamison, Admiral Eugenius, pp. 46–47.
18 Falcandus, Liber de Regno, p. 81: “sed Matheus notarius, familiaris curie, cum et ipse salernitanus esset, alios regis familiares, Richardum Siracusanum electum et Silvestrum comitem, multis precibus exoravit.”
19 Falcandus (Liber de Regno, p. 25) describes Qā’id Peter as “a Christian only in name and dress but a Saracen at heart like all the eunuchs of the palace (sicut et omnes eunuchi palatii, nomine tantum habituque christianus erat, animo saracenus).” According to Falcandus (Liber de Regno, p. 25), Qā’id Peter commanded about a hundred and sixty Sicilian vessels on the expedition to Mahdīya in North Africa on 8 September 1159. G. Siragusa (Falcandus, Liber de Regno, p. 99, note 1) and Michel Amari (Storia dei Musulmani di Sicilia, 2nd ed. a cura di Carlo A. Nallino, 3 vols. [Catania, 1933–1939], vol. 3, p. 496) identify Qā’id Peter with Aḥmad al-Ṣiqillī (Aḥmad the Sicilian) of Berber origin. According to Ibn Khaldūn (“Kitāb al-‘Ibar,” Biblioteca arabo-sicula ossia Raccolta di testi arabici che toccano la geografia, la storia, le biografie e la bibliografia della Sicilia, ed. Michele Amari (Leipzig, 1857), p. 462; Michele Amari, ed. and trans., Biblioteca arabo-sicula, versione italiana, 2 vols. [Turin/Rome, 1880–1881], vol. 2, pp. 166–167), Aḥmad al-Ṣiqillī was taken from the island of Jerba to Sicily by Christians, educated there, and employed by the Prince (sulṭān) of Sicily (Roger II). After the Prince died and was succeeded by his son, Aḥmad al-Ṣiqillī fell into the latter’s disgrace, and fled to Tunis and then to Morocco, where he served Caliph Yūsuf b. ‘Abd al-Mūmin al-‘Asharī (1163–1184).
Jamison (Admiral Eugenius, p. 35) thinks that the title qā’id (qā’id in an original Arabic form, which means a leader, commander and so forth; gaytus or caitus in the contemporary Latin transliteration; and καΐτος [καΐτης] in the contemporary Greek transliteration) was given to “men of Arabic race” while the title κύριος was given to those of “noble Greek origin.” To be sure, Falcandus suggests that Qā’id Peter, Qā’id Richard and Qā’id Martin, all of whom became familiares regis, and Qā’id Iohar, master chamberlain of the royal palace, were converted Muslims, and Qā’id Abū al-Qāsim was a Muslim. But we should be cautious because a certain Brūn, who has been identified with the Englishman Thomas Brown, also had the title qā’id (Cusa, pp. 28–30) and the three familiares regis in 1172 (Archbishop Walter, Vice-chancellor Matthew and Bishop-elect Bartholomew), none of whom has been regarded as of Greek origin, were given the title κύριος (see note 61).
20 Falcandus, Liber de Regno, p. 83: “nec multo post, moriente Silvestro comite, Siracusanus electus et Matheus notarius soli consilio regis intererant et regni disponebant negotia, quibus socius datus est gaytus Petrus eunuchus, qui post mortem gayti Ioharii fuerat magister camerarius palacii constitutus.”
21 See notes 18 and 20 above. It is difficult to know whether the phrase consilium regis in the sentence of note 20 means “council” in a technical and institutional sense, or more vaguely “to be in the king’s confidence.” But it seems to me certain that these three people constituted the royal inner council.
22 Falcandus, Liber de Regno, pp. 87–88; Romualdus Salernitanus, Chronicon siue Annales, ed. Carlo A. Garufi, vol. 8 (Rerum italicarum scriptores, Città di Castello, 1909–1935), pp. 253–254.
23 Falcandus, Liber de Regno, p. 88: “electum quoque Siracusanum, gaytum Petrum, Matheum notarium, quos ipse sibi familiares elegerat, in eadem iussit familiaritate curie permanere, ut eorum regina consilio que gerenda viderentur disponeret.”
24 Falcandus, Liber de Regno, p. 90: “familiares autem curie non in eo gradu quo fuerant aut dignitatis equalitate voluit permanere; nam gayto Petro summa rerum omnium potestate concessa, super omnes eminentiori loco constituens, electum Siracusanum Matheumque notarium precepit, ut eius coadiutores, interesse quidem consiliis et familiares appellari, sed eius in omnibus imperio subservire.”
25 Falcandus, Liber de Regno, pp. 98–99; Romualdus Salernitanus, p. 254.
26 Falcandus, Liber de Regno, pp. 101–102: “eius autem loco regina Richardum Mandrensem Molisii comitem, eo quod gaytum Petrum fidelissime dilexisset, curie familiarem constituit et maiorem ei quam ceteris familiaribus contulit potestatem.”
27 The duana de secretis was a central administrative organization charged with special duties concerning the administration of land. See Takayama, “The Financial and Administrative Organization,” pp. 129–157. On Qā’id Richard and Qā’id Martin, see Takayama, “The Great Administrative Officials.”
28 Falcandus, Liber de Regno, pp. 108–109: “Curie vero status hic erat: Richardus Molisii comes, ceteris familiaribus potestatis eminentia prelatus, apud reginam postulata facilius impetrabat; electus vero Siracusanus et Matheus notarius cancellarii gerebant officium; gaytus quoque Richardus magister camerarius palacii et gaytus Martinus, qui duane preerat, consiliis nichilominus intererant et cum predictis familiaribus negotia regni tractabant.”
29 Chalandon thinks Stephen du Perche was elected to the Archbishopric of Palermo by March of 1167 (Chalandon, Histoire de la domination, vol. 2, p. 322). But I believe that the date of Behring no. 158 is 1168 as Kehr asserts. See Kehr, Die Urkunden, p. 84, note 8; Wilhelm Behring, “Sicilianische Studien II: Regesten des normannischen Königshauses (1130–1197),” Programm des königlichen Gymnasiums zu Elbing (Elbing, 1887), nos. 158, 161, 162.
30 Romualdus Salernitanus, p. 255; Falcandus, Liber de Regno, p. 111. See also Chalandon, Histoire de la domination, vol. 2, pp. 321–322.
31 Falcandus, Liber de Regno, p. 128, note 2, p. 79, note 1.
32 Falcandus, Liber de Regno, p. 122; Romualdus Salernitanus, p. 257.
33 The following text shows the magnates at the palace, but Falcandus does not use the term familiares for them: “hec omnia cum audisset cancellarius, convocatis in domum suam electo Siracusano, Matheo notario, Richardo Molisii comite, Rumoaldo Salernitano archiepiscopo ceterisque episcopis ac plerisque proceribus, rem eis totam exposuit iussitque Salernum eorum consiliis accersiri” (Falcandus, Liber de Regno, p. 123).
34 Chalandon, Histoire de la domination, vol. 2, p. 321; Falcandus, Liber de Regno, pp. 111–112.
35 Falcandus, Liber de Regno, pp. 161–162: “Interea Gentilis Agrigentinus episcopus qui in vallem Demenie missus fuerat revocatur et curie familiaris efficitur. Henricus comes Montis Caveosi et Richardus Molisii comes cum plerisque Messanensium.xxiiii. galeis armatis Panormum perveniunt, viribusque freti, curie statum innovant, et.x. familiares instituunt: Richardum Siracusanum electum, Gentilem Agrigentinum episcopum, Rumoaldum Salernitanum archiepiscopum, Iohannem Maltensem episcopum, Rogerium comitem Giracii, Richardum Molisii, Henricum Montis Caveosi comitem, Matheum notarium, gaytum Richardum, Gualterium decanum Agrigentinum regis preceptorem.”
36 Carlo Alberto Garufi, I documenti inediti dell’epoca normanna in Sicilia (Documenti per servire alla storia di Sicilia, s. 1, Diplomata xviii, Palermo, 1899), p. 111: “Data in urbe felici Panormi, per manus gloriosissimi domini Regis familiarium Gualterii scilicet venerabili Panormitani Electi, Riccardi Venerabili Electi Syracusani, Gentilis Venerabilis episcopi agrigentini, Riccardi comitis Molisii, Gaiti Riccardi Regii magistri camerarii et Gaiti Martini Regii camerarii,” Carte latine di abbazie calabresi provenienti dall’archivio Aldobrandini, ed. Alessandro Pratesi (Studi e Testi 197, Vatican City, 1958), doc. 23, pp. 60–62.
37 Garufi, I documenti inediti, p. 112.
38 Falcandus, Liber de Regno, pp. 163–164: “hoc itaque negotio paucis diebus protracto, ne videretur precipitari sententia, demum Romanus pontifex electionem ratam habuit, ipsumque iussit electum a suffraganeis episcopis consecrari. qui tante dignitatis culmine sublimatus, repente statum immutavit curie, summamque sibi potestatem retinens, Matheum notarium et Gentilem Agrigentinum episcopum sub se familiares instituit.” On Walter, see Loewenthal, pp. 75–82.
39 Kehr, Die Urkunden, pp. 443–444. See also notes 36, 37 above. There was a different style of familiaris regis in a dating line: “Data in urbe felici Panormi per manus Gualterii venerabilis Panormitani Archiepiscopi et Regis familiaris, Mathei domini nostri Regis Vicecancellarii, et Gentilis venerabilis Agrigentini Episcopi et Regis familiaris, anno dominice incarnationis” (Garufi, I documenti inediti, p. 126). Concerning this formula see Horst Enzensberger, Beiträge zum Kanzlei- und Urkundenwesen der normannischen Herrscher Unteritaliens und Siziliens (Kallmünz, 1971), pp. 56, 109–110.
40 Garufi, I documenti inediti, p. 213.
41 See Jamison, Admiral Eugenius, p. 48. Besides the diplomas listed in Figure 2.2, some documents show the bearers of the title familiaris regis. Archbishop Walter of Palermo was described as domini regis familiaris in a document of 1172, and Vice- chancellor Matthew appeared as Matheus domini Regis vicecancellarius et familiarius in the witness list and as domini Matthei regij Vicecancellarii et familiaris in the text of a document of March 1183 (Garufi, I documenti inediti, pp. 152, 190–191).
42 In the meantime, however, Bishop John of Gaeta appeared as the fourth familiaris. See Behring, no. 218.
43 White Jr., Latin Monasticism, pp. 142–145.
44 Behring, no. 225. Archbishop William of Monreale was called domini Regis familiaris in a document of November 1183 or 1184 (Garufi, I documenti inediti, p. 193). In the same document Notary Philip de Claromonte was also called domini Regis familiaris.
45 M. Scaduto, Il monachesimo basiliano nella Sicilia medievale (Rome, 1947), p. 131; Jamison, Admiral Eugenius, p. 79.
46 Norbert Kamp, Kirche und Monarchie im staufischen Königreich Sizilien I: Prosopographische Grundlegung: Bistümer und Bischöfe des Königreichs 1194–1266, 4 vols. (Munich, 1973–1982), vol. 3, p. 1112; Chalandon, Histoire de la domination, vol. 2, p. 428; Jamison, Admiral Eugenius, p. 93.
47 Kamp, Kirche und Monarchie, vol. 3, pp. 1186–1195; Although White Jr. (Latin Monasticism, p. 144) thinks that Archbishop William of Monreale died on 28 October 1189, it is unlikely, as William met King Richard in October 1190 in Messina (Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi Benedicti Abbatis: The Chronicle of the Reigns of Henry II and Richard I, ed. William Stubbs, vol. 2 [London, 1867], p. 128). William was succeeded by Carus (1194–1222) as archbishop of Monreale.
48 Richard assumed his father’s role as chancellor during his father’s absences after July 1191, but never attained the chancellorship.
49 Nicholas succeeded his predecessor Romuald in 1182 (Kamp, Kirche und Monarchie, vol. 1, p. 425; Chalandon, Histoire de la domination, vol. 2, p. 476). Archbishop Nicholas of Salerno was described as dilectus fidelis et familiaris noster in a diploma of 3 October 1190 (Tancredi et Willelmi III Regum Diplomata [Codex Diplomaticus Regni Siciliae, Serie I, tomus V, Cologne, 1982], p. 22), regis dilectus familiaris in a document of November 1190 (Jamison, Admiral Eugenius, p. 325) and dilectus fidelis et familiaris noster in a royal mandate of 30 October 1190 (Jamison, Admiral Eugenius, p. 328).
50 Richard was described as dilectus familiaris noster and regius familiaris in a diploma of June 1192 (Tancredi et Willelmi III., pp. 61, 62).
51 Jamison, Admiral Eugenius, p. 94.
52 Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi (vol. 2, p. 128) named Archbishop Richard of Messina, Archbishop William of Monreale, Archbishop William of Reggio, and Admiral Margaritus among the familiares regis in October 1190, and described Admiral Margaritus and Jordan del Pin as familiares regis Tancredi elsewhere (p. 138). It is possible that these people held the title of familiaris regis for a short period under the unstable political condition, but there is no Sicilian source to support this information.
53 Carlo A. Garufi, ed., Necrologio del Liber Confratrum di S. Matteo di Salerno (Rome, 1922), p. 100; Jamison, Admiral Eugenius, p. 94.
54 Jamison, Admiral Eugenius, pp. 103–104.
55 Tancredi et Willelmi III., doc. 1, p. 92; doc. 2, p. 94.
56 Tancredi et Willelmi III., doc. 3, p. 96; doc. 4, p. 98; doc. 5, p. 101; doc. 6, p. 104; doc. 7, p. 106. For Admiral Margaritus, see Ménager, Amiratus, pp. 96–103.
57 Carlo A. Garufi, “Margarito di Brindisi, conte di Malta e ammiraglio del re di Sicilia,” Miscellanea di archeologia, storia e filologia dedicata al Prof. Antonino Salinas (Palermo, 1907), doc. 2, pp. 281–282: “Margaritus de Brundusio, dei et Regia gratia Comes Malte et Regij uictoriosi stolij amiratus ac domini Regis familiaris.” This document is also published in Codice diplomatico Brindisino, ed. Gennaro Maria Monti (Trani, 1940), doc. 31, pp. 55–56.
58 Chalandon, “The Norman Kingdom of Sicily,” p. 191.
59 Count Richard of Ajello and Admiral Margaritus, Count of Malta, do not seem to have represented the nobility.
60 Chalandon, Histoire de la domination, vol. 2, pp. 632–633. On the ἄρχοντες τῆςκραταιᾶς κόρτης, see p. 33 and note 9 above.
61 Cusa, p. 80: “Kατὰ τὸν ὀκτώβριον μῆνα τῆς ἐνισταμένης ἰνδικτιῶνοςτοῦ ἔτουςχπα’ ἐκ προστάξεως τῶν μεγαλεπιφανεστάτων καὶ θεοτιμήτων ἀρχόντων τῆς κραταιὰς (sic. κραταιᾶς) κόρτης, τοῦ τε παναγιωτάτου καὶ πανευλαβεστάτου ἀρχιεπισκόπου πόλεως πανόρμου κυρίου γαλτερίου τοῦ πρωτοφαμιλιαρίου καὶ κυρίου ματθαίου τοῦ ὑπερτίμου ἀντικαγκελλαρίου καὶ κυρίου βαρθολομαίου τοῦ τιμιωτάτου καὶ θεοφιλεστάτου ὑποψηφίου ἀγραγαντίνης χώρας καὶ φαμιλιαρίου, ἀπῆλθον ἐγὼ ἰοσφρὲς ὁ σεκρετικὸς εὶς (sic. εἰς) τὸ μινζηλμὴρ πρὸς τὸ ἐξετάσαι λευτομερῶς καὶ διαχορῆσαι τὰ σύνορα τοῦ χωρίου σαράνη,”
The term ἄρχοντες τῆς κραταιᾶς κόρτης was expressed al-mawālī al-wuzarā’ in the Arabic version.
62 Garufi, “Sull’ordinamento,” pp. 256–257; Caspar, Roger II und die Gründung, p. 36; Caravale, “Gli uffici finanziari,” pp. 203, 218–219; Chalandon, Histoire de la domination, vol. 2, p. 651.
63 Bournazel, Le Gouvernement, pp. 147–148. See also Hollister and Baldwin, “The Rise of Administrative Kingship,” pp. 901–904.
64 Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi, vol. 1, p. 138: “Praeterea ibidem per consilia familiar-ium suorum, mandavit omnibus comitibus et baronibus et militibus regni, qui de eo in capite tenebant.”
65 Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi, vol. 1, pp. 19, 157; vol. 2, pp. 44–45.
66 Richard William Southern, Medieval Humanism and Other Studies (Oxford, 1970), pp. 183–185.
67 Jolliffe, Angevin Kingship, p. 184, note 2: “regis Henrici secundi clericus familiaris.” Some of Henry II’s familiares seem to have been less powerful, but it is necessary to make a list of familiares regis in order to know whether familiares regis were the most powerful people or just members of the familia regis or intimates and counselors of the king in twelfth-century England.
68 Henry Richards Luard, ed., Annales Monastici, 5 vols. (Rolls Series, London, 1864–69), vol. 2, p. 257: “Petrus de Rupibus clericus curialis, regis Johannis familiaris, ad episcopatum Wintoniensem per regem Johannem electus, Romam adiit, consecratus rediit.” In addition, Warren lists as familiares regis William de Longchamps under Richard I, and Richard Marsh and William Brewer under John (Warren, The Governance, pp. 130, 132, 173).
69 Concerning German familiares regis, there is an interesting passage in a letter of Abbot Bern of Reichenau to Archbishop Gero of Magdeburg (1012–23): “Oportet autem, ut talentum regiae familiaritatis in miseria et afflictione positis pie ac misericorditer per intercessionis auxilium subveniendo Domino, a quo illud percepistis, reportetis cum lucro” (Franz-Josef Schmale, ed., Die Briefe des Abtes Bern von Reichenau [Stuttgart, 1961, Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für geschichtliche Landeskunde in Baden-Württemberg, Reihe A, Quellen 6], pp. 21–22). Cf. Karl J. Leyser, Rule and Conflict in an Early Medieval Society: Ottonian Saxony (London, 1979), pp. 79, 169, note 14.