3
The emergence of the powerful Norman monarchy in Sicily, as well as that in England, constituted one of the most important factors in the transformation of European society in the eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth centuries. It affected the development of new political and intellectual ideas as well as the actual relationship of various political elements in Europe.1 It also influenced the commercial network. The kingdom of Sicily brought Mediterranean trade increasingly under its control and thus contributed to the emergence of Western Europe “as a single, powerful and aggressive economic system.”2 It also developed as an unparalleled center for translating Arabic and Greek literature into Latin, and became one of the focal points of the so-called Twelfth-Century Renaissance.3 These conditions promoted “the unity and strength of Western Europe,” which led to “the formation of a European identity.”4
The efficient and rigorous administration of the kingdom of Sicily has been considered one of the forerunners of modern secular governments. Its financial administration, as well as the judicial, is said to have been highly bureaucratic and the most advanced in Europe.5 Heinrich Mitteis argued that it had influenced French, German and even English administrations.6 Surprisingly, however, almost all the opinions hitherto expressed about the financial administration were based on only one Italian scholar’s theory about the structure of the duana (dohana, doana, dīwān), a central financial and administrative organization. This Italian scholar, Carlo Albert Garufi, expounded his theory in 1901, stating that the duana had consisted of three offices: the supervising office (dīwān al-taḥqīq al-ma‘mūr), the treasury office (al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr) and the office of profits (dīwān al-fawā’id).7 His idea that the supervising office was divided into two departments – the duana de secretis supervising the affairs of the royal domains and the duana baronum handling feudal affairs – has been commonly accepted by historians since.8 According to his theory, the treasury office keeping registers of villeins and collecting taxes had been subordinate to the supervising office, while the office of profits had been subordinate to the treasury office. Following this theory, subsequent historians have developed various views on the financial officials of the kingdom. Of these, two significant ideas have emerged, illustrating the remarkable advancement of the administration and bureaucracy of this kingdom: (1) a specialized financial committee (Gran Secrezia), which had branched off from the curia regis and (2) a triple-layered structure of officials in the supervising office.
Many historians believe the supervising office was controlled by a group of higher financial officials, although they differ in defining the character and members of this group. Some, including Garufi himself, believe that the supervising office was controlled by a special financial committee (Gran Secrezia), whose members were described as ἄρχοντες τοῦ σεκρέτου in Greek, and which included the master chamberlain of the royal palace, the master justiciar of the great royal court and the masters of the duana. They distinguish this financial committee from the royal court council (consiglio aulico), which had higher authority and controlled the whole administration of the kingdom. The members of the royal court council were called ἄρχοντες τῆς κραταιᾶς κόρτης in Greek, 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.9 Some historians simply regard the members of the financial committee (ἄρχοντες τοῦ σεκρέτου) as identical with the masters of the duana.10 Norbert Kamp states, however, that some of the ἄρχοντες τοῦ σεκρέτου (Archonten der Sekretie) belonged to both the duana de secretis and the duana baronum and some to one or other of them, and that the masters of the duana, with the title of master chamberlain, excelled other members of the ἄρχοντες τοῦ σεκρέτου.11 Adelaide Baviera Albanese proposed a different opinion from all the above. Identifying ἄρχοντες τοῦ σεκρέτου (arconti del segreto) with qā’id (gaiti) in Arabic, he put the camerarius palatinus et magister regie duane de secretis et baronum at the top of the office of the duana.12
It should be noted here that despite their seeming complexity, the differences of the various opinions, in fact, derive from one issue, that is, how to recognize the ἄρχοντες τοῦ σεκρέτου: (1) Were they members of the special financial committee (Gran Secrezia) or simply identical with the masters of the duana? (2) Did they include the master chamberlain of the palace, the master justiciar of the great royal court or other great officials? (3) What was their relationship with the ἄρχοντες τῆς κραταιᾶς κόρτης? To reexamine the existing literature related to these questions, and thus to investigate the true meaning of the Greek term ἄρχοντες τοῦ σεκρέτου, as it compares with corresponding terms in Arabic and Latin, is the intent of this paper.
The idea of the triple-layered structure of officials in the supervising office was also expounded by Garufi and has been accepted by others. He explained that the supervising office had consisted of officials of three ranks – master of the duana,σεκρετικός, and kātib – and compared this structure to that of Byzantine financial officials, which had quaestor, ἐκσκέπτωρ, and σκρίβας, in that order.13 Concerning the officials of the treasury office, most scholars mention a treasurer as head of this office, but they think the treasurership was usually held by the master chamberlain of the royal palace.14
These reconstructions all presume Garufi’s model for the duana. Recently, however, I suggested a new model for the duana.15 The al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr, which had been regarded simply as the treasury office by Garufi and subsequent scholars, was in fact the central office in Sicily engaged in routine and general work. The duana de secretis was not a department of the supervising office, as Garufi thought, but an independent office charged with special duties concerning administration of land. On the other hand, the duana baronum, which Garufi regarded as another department of the supervising office, this time for feudal affairs, was in fact a branch office at Salerno, meeting a variety of local administrative needs on the peninsula which included, but were by no means limited to, feudal matters.
This model is not at all compatible with previous reconstruction of the financial officials. Here I will describe the responsibilities of the chief administrative officials in the duana, based on newer understanding of its organization.
I. Camerarii regii palatii
The al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr was the central office engaged in routine and general work. It was a reorganized curia regis, a royal office whose main duties were the collection of taxes and control of officials, and whose officials included many ex-Muslims.16 Who was the head of the al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr? Although Garufi, Chalandon and Caravale assume that the treasurer (thesaurarius) was its head, this opinion cannot be accepted. The al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr was not purely a treasury office as they believe, and the term thesaurarius in the source of 1168, upon which they developed their argument, seems to be a translation of πρωτοκαμπήρ (magister camerarius).17 Considering the function of the al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr (or curia regis), its head must have been the highest official of the curia regis who directed the financial administration of the kingdom. Only the chamberlains of the royal palace (camerarii regii palatii) corresponded to this office during the reigns of William I and William II, especially after the assassination of Maio of Bari (1160).18
During the reign of Roger II (1105–1154), the chamberlains of the royal palace (camerarii regii palatii) had not appeared yet. Instead, we find the royal chamberlains (regis camerarius, καμβριλλίγγας, καπρελίγγας) working at the royal palace. A certain Nicholas was in office at least from 1090 to 1105.19 In 1117 Basil (Basileios) was a chamberlain, and in 1122 Jordan and Paenos were described as καμβριλλίγγας.20 Paenos reappeared as καμβριλλίγγας in 1125.21 Philip of Mahdīya also seems to have been the king’s camerarius.22 In 1153 John was the king’s καπρελίγγας.23 At the beginning of the reign of William I, when Maio of Bari was the head minister, Atenulf, the former royal chamberlain of Salerno (regis camerarius), appeared as chamberlain of the royal palace (camerarius regalis palatii). This is the first chamberlain defined as camerarius regalis (regii, regis) palatii.24 Thus the existence of regis camerarius staying at the royal palace is confirmed, but it is difficult to find their precise functions and roles in the administration. After the death of the last Great Admiral Maio of Bari in 1160, another title of magister camerarius regii palatii (master chamberlain of the royal palace) appeared, which suggests the plurality of chamberlains of the royal palace. This master chamberlain of the royal palace came to take a significant role in the central administration. One can recognize at least three master chamberlains of the royal palace between the death of Maio of Bari in 1160 and the establishment of the triumvirate of familiares regis (the king’s familiars) by Walter, archbishop of Palermo, in 1169.25 The first master chamberlain of the royal palace was an ex-Muslim, Qā’id Iohar the eunuch. He was probably appointed to the office by Maio of Bari. Falcandus noted his death in narrating the baronial revolts in 1162:
[Latin] In those days Qā’id Iohar the eunuch, the magister camerarii palatii, fled to the count of Loritello with the royal seals, because, as he said, he had undeservedly received much injustice and lashing from the king in the army. But he was caught on the way and brought to the king. The king ordered that he should be put on a boat, brought to the sea, and submerged there.26
Another ex-Muslim, Qā’id Peter the eunuch, succeeded Qā’id Iohar after his death.27 Qā’id Peter was appointed familiaris regis, a member of the royal inner council, by William I, and became one of the most powerful persons in the kingdom. Thereafter he was to deal with the affairs of the kingdom with the other two familiares regis, Bishop-elect Richard of Syracuse and Matthew the notary, until the death of William I in 1166. Then he was appointed head minister by the regent Queen Margaret. He took control of the whole kingdom until his own flight to Tunis.28 His successor, the third master chamberlain of the royal palace, was also an ex-Muslim, Qā’id Richard.29 He became one of the five familiares regis organized after the flight of Qā’id Peter. Although the number of familiares regis fluctuated thereafter, Qā’id Richard seems to have remained in this position until Walter established the triumvirate of the familiares regis in 1169.30 Thereafter, Qā’id Richard was to devote himself to the office of magister camerarius regii palatii (see Figure 3.1).
These three qā’id s were the master chamberlains of the royal palace. But Qā’id Martin the eunuch also appeared as magister camerarius regii palatii in 1167, when Stephen was the head minister. Thereafter, however, his title was camerarius regii (palatii) as the sources of February 1169, May 1169 and 1176 indicate.31 He seems to have had great power in the royal palace even before his appointment as chamberlain of the royal palace. Falcandus described his importance in 1162 as follows:
[Latin] For, Qā’id Martin the eunuch, whom the king left as the guard of the city and the palace of Palermo, raged against all the Christians fiercely and secretly, and imputed his brother’s death to them, because he knew that his brother had been killed by some Christians in the capture of the palace, but could not find the particular persons responsible for that affair.32
Figure 3.1 Camerarii regii palatii
Note: M= magister camerarius regii palatii; s = magister chiane de secretis; b = magister chiane baronum
Sources: (1) Falcandus, Liber de Rengo (note24), pp. 108–109. (2) Falcandus, Liber de Regno, p. 128. (3) Kehr (note 17), p. 438. (4) Pirro (note 17), vol. 2, p. 1017. (5) Garufi, I documenti inediti (note 31), p. 111. (6) Haskins, “England and Sicily” (note 5), p. 654. (7) Garufi, I documenti inediti, p. 214. (8) Cusa (note 19), p. 83. (9) Falcandus, Liber de Regno, p. 79. (10) Falcandus, Liber de Regno, p. 79. (11) Garufi, I documenti inediti, pp. 111–112. (12) Falcandus, Liber de Regno, p. 79. (13) Haskins, “England and Sicily,” p. 653. (14) Garufi, Catalogo illustrato (note 42), p. 163. (15) Cusa, p. 489. (16) Cusa, p. 83.
He became one of the five familiares regis in 1166, and entered the royal inner council with his superior Qā’id Richard.33 Qā’id Martin directed the duana at that time, though he had not yet been appointed camerarius regii palatii.34 When the new royal inner council of ten familiares regis was established in the spring of 1168, he was excluded from it. But he was reappointed familiaris regis by February 1169, by which time he had already been appointed camerarius regii palatii.35
After the establishment of the triumvirate of familiares regis in 1169, no chamberlains of the royal palace took part in the royal inner council.36 Instead, they seem to have concentrated on their administrative duties. Qā’id Richard held the office of the master chamberlain of the royal palace during most of the reign of William II, at least until 1183.37 However, he seems to have had two subordinate chamberlains, as Jamison suggests.38 The first one is Qā’id Martin mentioned above. He was a chamberlain of the royal palace until his death in 117639 and directed the duana de secretis (gaytus Martinus, qui duane preerat).40 The other chamberlain of the royal palace was Qā’id Materacius. He appears in the two sources of 1174 and 1176. In 1174 he directed the duana baronum (doana baronum cui preest gaytus Matara) with the title of regius camerarius et senescalcus.41 In 1176, representing the duana baronum, he bought houses from Count William of Marsico with the title of camerarius regis palatii et magister duane baronum.42 Thus Qā’id Materacius, the chamberlain of the royal palace, also held the office of magister duane baronum, and directed the duana baronum.
After the death of Qā’id Martin, Geoffrey of Modica seems to have been appointed chamberlain of the royal palace. In the decree of 8 January 1180, he ordered baiuli and portulani of Sicily, Calabria and the principality of Salerno to accept the privileges which King Roger had granted to the church of Cefalù, such as exemption from port taxes, sales taxes and transit taxes.43 At this time Geoffrey of Modica also held the offices of magister duane de secretis and magister duane baronum (palatinus camerarius et magister regis duane de secretis et duane baronum), and issued the above decree from the royal palace in Palermo. Finally, another chamberlain of the royal palace, Qā’id John, appears only in the source of March 1187. He received a piece of land from St. Andrew’s Church with the permission of his superior, Qā’id Richard, the master chamberlain of the royal palace.44
Thus the chamberlains of the royal palace were central to the administration of the kingdom. Especially after the death of the Great Admiral Maio of Bari in 1160, they took an important role in the central administration. Qā’id Peter became one of the three familiares regis during the reign of William I and was appointed head minister of the kingdom after the coronation of William II. Qā’id Richard and Qā’id Martin were also members of the decision-making council of the kingdom as familiares regis.
In 1169 they were excluded from the council, but they retained control of the three duana s thereafter. Qā’id Richard, the master chamberlain of the royal palace, always held the central position, and the other two chamberlains of the royal palace were subordinate to him. One of the two chamberlains seems to have directed the duana baronum with the title of magister duane baronum until an admiral took charge. The other chamberlain usually also held the office of magister duane de secretis, and seems to have directed the duana de secretis with Qā’id Richard. Almost all these chamberlains of the royal palace were ex-Muslims, amply demonstrating the important role of this group in the administration of the kingdom during this period.
II. Magistri duane de secretis and ἄρχοντες τοῦ σεκρέτου
The duana de secretis was an office in charge of special duties concerning land: It supervised all boundaries, royal domains, fiefs and inhabitants in Sicily and Ca labria; it always recorded their conditions in the registers of land (dafātir) to guard the lands and inhabitants of the kingdom. This office was called dīwān al-taḥqīq al-ma‘mūr in Arabic and μέγα σέκρετον or σέκρετον in Greek.45 Who was the head of this office? Historians have regarded the magister duane de secretis as the head of the duana de secretis. For example, Mayer and Caspar assume one magister duane de secretis to be undoubtedly the head of the duana de secretis. Caravale thinks “one person usually held the office of magister, but two officials could have been placed in charge of the duana at the same time.”46
As shown previously, however, the duana de secretis was directed by the chamberlains of the royal palace, first Qā’id Martin and then Geoffrey of Modica. Qā’id Martin had been appointed magister duane de secretis before he became the chamberlain of the royal palace. He appeared as ὁ ἐπὶ τοῦ σεκρέτου (Greek correspondent to magister duane de secretis) and ṣāḥib dīwān al-taḥqīq al-ma‘mūr (Arabic correspondent to magister duane de secretis) in 1161, and again as ὁ ἐπὶ τοῦ σεκρέτου in 1167.47 However, Falcandus clearly states that he directed the duana de secretis in about 1166. Qā’id Martin was appointed chamberlain of the royal palace by 1167 and seems to have continued to direct the duana de secretis until his death in 1176. After Qā’id Martin’s death, Geoffrey of Modica seems to have taken over this position. Although Geoffrey of Modica had been a master justiciar of Val di Noto in 1172,48 he was a chamberlain of the royal palace, magister duane de secretis, and magister duane baronum in 1180, and issued orders from the royal palace in Palermo to the officials in Sicily, Calabria and Salerno.49 Their superior, Qā’id Richard, master chamberlain of the royal palace, also held the office of the magister duane de secretis from 1168 to 1187.50 Although his role at the duana de secretis was not clear, it is probable that he also directed this office with his subordinate.
The office of the magister duane de secretis was not occupied only by the chamberlains of the royal palace, as we can find many other magistri duane de secretis in our sources (see Figure 3.2). Some of them held only this office. For example, Qā’id Matthew (ματθαῖος, al-shaikh al-qā’id Māthā’ū) appeared as ṣāḥib dīwān al-taḥqīq al-ma‘mūr or ὁ ἐπὶ τοῦ σεκρέτου in a source of 1161.51 He
Figure 3.2 Magistri duane de secretis
Note: ()* = άρχοντες του σεκρέτου; C = camerarius regii palatii; A = ammiratus regii fortunati stolii, b = magister duane baronum
Sources: (1) Cusa (note 19), pp. 622–624. (2) Cusa, pp. 622“624. (3) Cusa, p. 321. (4) Pirro (note 17), II, p. 1017, (5) Haskins, “England and Sicily” (note 5), p. 650. (6) Haskins, “England and Sicily,” p. 654. (7) Cusa, p. 432; Spata (note 19), p. 293. (8) Garufi, I documenti inediti (note 31), p. 214. (9) Cusa, p. 83. (10) Cusa, pp. 484—486; Spata, pp. 437–442. (11) Bruel (note 52), p. 600. (12) Cusa, pp. 484–186; Spata, pp. 437–142. (13) Cusa, p. 432; Spata, p. 293. (14) Cusa, p. 81. (15) Brael, p. 600. (16) Spata, pp. 452, 454. (17) Garufi, p. 195. (18) Cusa, p. 432; Spata, p. 293. (19) Garufi, “Monete” (note 55), p. 195. (20) Siragusa (note 57), p. 438. (21) Camera (note 75), p. 364. (22) Ibid., p. 364. (23) Haskins, “England and Sicily,” p. 445. (24) Pometti (note 75), p. 276. (25) Cusa, pp. 489–190; Spata, pp. 447–148.
was probably Matthew the notary who had served the Great Admiral Maio of Bari and who became one of the familiares regis in 1161. He was never called magister duane de secretis thereafter. Qā’id Abū al-Qāsim and Geoffrey of Centuripe appeared as magistri duane de secretis in 1173, and fixed the boundaries of the land to be granted to a church.52 Qā’id Abū al-Qāsim was an influential leader of the Sicilian Muslims.53 Geoffrey of Centuripe may have been the same Geoffrey that appeared in the charter of 1172: The latter Geoffrey, in the capacity of σεκρετικός or ṣāḥib dīwān al-taḥqīq al-ma‘mūr, inspected the land granted to St. Mary’s Church by Admiral George.54 Furthermore, Eugenius Calì worked as magister duane de secretis, in 1175, 1183 and 1189.55 He was called Abū al-Ṭayyib in Arabic, and had been the ‘āmil and stratigotus (sardaghuus) of Jato in 1143.56 A certain Nicholas was a σεκρετικός in 1175.57
All these five (or six) magistri duane de secretis seem to have devoted themselves only to the duties of the duana de secretis. But there were other officials who concurrently held the offices of the magister duane de secretis and the magister duane baronum. For example, Eugenius, magister duane baronum at least from 1174 to 1190, had the office of the magister duane de secretis in 1178.58 Walter of Modica, the admiral, also held both offices in 1178 and 1179.59 However, these persons stayed at the duana baronum in Salerno and do not seem to have carried out the duties of the magister duane de secretis.
Thus, one can confirm that besides the chamberlains of the royal palace, some people worked in the position of magistri duane de secretis. It is certain that more than a couple of magistri duane de secretis existed at the same time. Records indicate that in 1178 more than four magistri duane de secretis worked at the same time. What does this plurality of magistri duane de secretis mean? It is clear that the magister duane de secretis did not designate the head of the duana de secretis. I suggest that the magister duane de secretis was a member of the board of higher officials of the duana de secretis. This system of the board of the magistri duane de secretis is incompatible with the triple-layered structure of officials in the supervising office proposed by Garufi. But it is enough to say here that this triple-layered structure is not sound because Garufi’s argument has unacceptable weaknesses,60 and also because the verification of the corresponding terms refutes it.61 The following source in February 1172 suggests that the magistri duane de secretis (secretarii) had districts of their own jurisdiction:
[Latin] Therefore I, Geoffrey Femeta, who was the stratigotus of Syracuse in those days, assigned the above-mentioned land according to the order of the king and the lords of the curia, especially of Lord Geoffrey, secretarius, to whose baiulia this affair mainly belonged and to whom I answered about my baiulia… as was said before I handed over the above-mentioned land to the canons of Cefalù according to the order of the king and the lords of the curia to whose dispensatio this affair mainly belonged.62
Unfortunately, there is no available information about these districts; the preceding text is the only reference to them.
If the magistri duane de secretis designated the members of the board of higher officials in the duana de secretis, what was their relationship with the ἄρχοντες τοῦ σεκρέτου? Garufi, Caspar, Caravale and Chalandon believe that the ἄρχοντες τοῦ σεκρέτου were the members of the specialized financial committee (Gran Secrezia) which had branched off from the curia regis, and which controlled the supervising office consisting of the duana de secretis and the duana baronum.63 However, an examination of the sources never suggests the existence of such a special financial committee consisting of the master chamberlain of the royal palace, the master justiciar of the great royal court and magistri duane. What, then, were the ἄρχοντες τοῦ σεκρέτου?
From a source of June 1168, we obtain the following information about the ἄρχοντες τοῦ σεκρέτου. Eufemius of Traina and William Murize of Petralia, the catepani and foresters of the land of the queen, were called to the royal court during their stay in Palermo by Lord John and Qā’id Abū al-Qāsim, ἄρχοντες τοῦ σεκρέτου. They were ordered to go to the place in Capizzi, where the Church of the Saviour stood, to divide one jugerum of land in the assigned part of the forest and to give the land to the church.64 A charter of April 1183 provides the following information. The abbot of St. Philip’s Monastery came to Andrea Raimond, στρατηγός of Centuripe, and Adam, ἐξουσιαστής (= baiulus) of Centuripe, with a letter sent from the ἄρχοντες τοῦ σεκρέτου, that is, Lord Qā’id Richard, Lord John Graffeus and Lord Eugenius Calì. The letter ordered them to inspect land belonging to Kallestos, a monk, and his brothers.65
From these sources we learn two characteristics of the ἄρχοντες τοῦ σεκρέτου: (1) they worked in the royal palace in Palermo and (2) they ordered local officials to grant a piece of land in the queen’s forest to a church or to inspect land belonging to a monk. These characteristics are the same as those of the duana de secretis, as I have confirmed in another paper.66 In addition, all the persons who appeared as ἄρχοντες τοῦ σεκρέτου in the sources were in fact magistri duane de secretis except John (Graffeus), but not magistri duane baronum. Furthermore, in the source of 1168, Lord John and Qā’id Abū al-Qāsim were called ἄρχοντες τοῦ σεκρέτου in one place but ἄρχοντες and σεκρετικοί in another.67 The σεκρετικοί were identical with magistri duane de secretis, as I have already shown elsewhere.68 Therefore, I suggest that the ἄρχοντες τοῦ σεκρέτου were actually identical to magistri duane de secretis.
The assumption by Garufi, Caspar, Caravale and Chalandon that a specialized financial committee (Gran Secrezia) consisting of the master chamberlain of the royal palace, the master justiciar of the great royal court and the magistri duane existed is unfounded. Rather, we should see that these authors misinterpreted the Greek term ἄρχοντες τοῦ σεκρέτου. The present detailed reexamination of the existing literature on the subject seems to refute the previous models of a specialized financial committee (Gran Secrezia).
III. Magistri duane baronum
The duana baronum was, as it were, a branch office at Salerno on the peninsula, meeting a variety of local administrative needs: grants of royal land and properties, communication and promulgation of administrative commands, judicial work and so on. It was called σέκρετον τῶν ἀποκοπῶν in Greek, but its Arabic correspondent is not known.69 The duana baronum was established just before 1168, when Stephen du Perche was the head minister.70 Although historians have regarded the magister duane baronum (ὁ ἐπὶ τοῦ σεκρέτου τῶν ἀποκοπῶν in Greek) as the head of the duana baronum,71 this is not likely. The magister duane baronum seems to have designated a member of the board of high officials at the duana baronum, as the magister duane de secretis was a member of the board of high officials at the duana de secretis.
The first magister duane baronum confirmed in the sources is Qā’id Richard, the master chamberlain of the royal palace. He was described as τῶ πρωτωκαμπέρι καὶ φαμελλιαρίω ἡμῶν τῶ ἐπὶ τοῦ σεκρέτου τῶν ἀποκοπῶν καίτη ῥιγκάρδη in a source of 1168.72 This suggests that Qā’id Richard, the master chamberlain of the royal palace, was involved in the creation of the duana baronum. Considering the political situation at that time, it is possible that Qā’id Richard, the most powerful of all the ex-Muslim officials, was appointed magister duane baronum in order to decrease the power of the barons of the peninsula, or at least to create a balance of power between officials and the nobility. Qā’id Richard resigned this office shortly after his appointment, possibly because the duana baronum was located at Salerno, most likely requiring the presence of the magister duane baronum, which would have been difficult, given Qā’id Richard’s position in Palermo.
Qā’id Materacius, the chamberlain of the royal palace, seems to have directed the duana baronum in the first half of the reign of William II (see Figure 3.3). He was described as doana baronum cui preest gaytus Matara regius camerarius et senescalcus in September 1174.73 He bought some houses in Palermo from the Count of Marsico and made payment on behalf of the duana baronum in 1176.74 Subsequently, Admiral Walter of Modica seems to have taken over his charge and directed the duana baronum. He appeared as regii fortunati stolii ammiratus et magister regie duane de secretis et duane baronum in three sources: 6 May 1178, June 1178 and 13 February 1179.75 In May 1178, he gave an order to the baiulus of Sarno on his own authority without following any decrees from the central government.76 In June 1178, he ordered Eugenius, another magister duane baronum, to hold a curia, at which Eugenius received and obeyed the decisions of the curia held by Walter of Modica at Minori. In February 1179 Walter of Modica received the king’s order at Barletta to fix the boundary of the land granted to the monastery St. Maria of Corazzo.77
Eugenius, another magister duane baronum, worked for about twenty years under these directors of the duana baronum. Eugenius appeared in the sources in 1174, 1175, 1178, 1187, 1189 and 1190.78 He was promoted to admiral in 1190
Figure 3.3 Magistri ducine baronum
Note: A = ammiratus regii fortunali stolir; C = camerarius regis palatii; s = magister chiane de secretis
Sources: (1) Kehr (note 17), p. 438. (2) Haskins, “England and Sicily” (note 5), p. 653. (3) Garufi, Catalogo illustrato (note 42), p. 163. (4) Haskins, “England and Sicily,” p. 445. (5) Camera (note 75), p. 365. (6) Pometti (note 75), p. 276. (7) Cusa (note 19), p. 489. (8) Perla (note 78), p. 346. (9) Haskins, “England and Sicily,” p. 653. (10) Jamison, Admiral Eugenius (note 8), pp. 317–318. (11) Camera, p. 364. (12)Minieri-Riccio (note 19), p. 21. (13) Jamison, Admiral·Eugenius, p. 342. (14) Jamison, Admired Eugenius, p. 320. (15) Jamison, Admired Eugenius, pp. 342–345.
after having held the office of magister duane baronum for a long time.79 One finds another magister duane baronum, Geoffrey of Modica, the chamberlain of the royal palace, in 1180. However, he also held office as magister duane de secretis and seems to have stayed at the royal palace in Palermo.80
Thus it was Qā’id Materacius, the chamberlain of the royal palace, and Eugenius for the first half of the reign of William II, and admiral Walter of Modica and Eugenius for the second half, who managed the duana baronum. The change of director from chamberlain to admiral should be noted, because it suggests that the office of the duana baronum was originally placed under the direction of a more bureaucratic official and later under a more military-oriented administrative official. If one considers the political conditions in these regions, it is not difficult to understand this change: In these areas there were many fiefs; vassals and cities had a tendency to become independent from the authority of the king. One of the main functions of the duana baronum was to watch over and control the vassals and cities, and this was one of the main reasons why the duana baronum had been created. The creation of the duana baronum was successful, and baronial revolts disappeared thereafter. However, the admiral may have been more suitable for the office than the chamberlain of the royal palace, as he had more authority due to his military skills as a commander and could more easily control and recruit nobles and knights.
Conclusion
Having analyzed and described high officials of the duana s in later twelfth-century Sicily, I have arrived at a new understanding of their organization. As a result, I have developed a structure of the central administration different from that of previous historians. At the top of the Sicilian government, the royal inner council, whose members were called familiares, made decisions on important issues of the kingdom or on matters concerning the kings’ interests.81 The executive and administrative organizations were the al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr, the duana de secretis and the duana baronum. The al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr, the central office engaged in routine and general work at Palermo, was directed by the master chamberlain of the royal palace with his two subordinate chamberlains of the royal palace. The duana de secretis, the office at Palermo charged with special duties concerning the administration of land, was directed by one of the two chamberlains of the royal palace. Its high officials were called magistri duane de secretis, aṣḥāb dīwān al-taḥqīq al-ma‘mūr, οἱ ἐπὶ τοῦ μεγάλου σεκρέτου (οἱ ἐπὶ τοῦ σεκρέτου) or ἄρχοντες τοῦ σεκρέτου. The duana baronum, a branch office at Salerno meeting a variety of local administrative needs on the peninsula, was directed first by the other chamberlain of the royal palace and later by the admiral. The high officials of this office were called magistri duane baronum or οἱ ἐπὶ τοῦ σεκρέτου τῶν ἀποκοπῶν.
This structure of the central administration is different from that posited by previous historians. It does not allow for the Gran Secrezia, a specialized financial committee. This new model refutes the triple-layered structure of officials at the duana and suggests that the functions of the high officials at the duana were not purely financial as had been believed, but rather concerned more general administrative duties. It should be noted that the administrative structure summarized above has limitations. First, it should not be applied to the whole period of the kingdom, but rather should be confined to the period after the establishment of the duana baronum. The administrative structure before the death of Maio of Bari was different. During the reign of Roger II, for example, admirals were far more important in the administration, and familiares regis figured much less prominently. Second, in order to understand the whole administrative structure, one has to analyze the positions of the local officials such as camerarii, justiciarii and stratigoti. In most cases the chamberlains of the royal palace, the magistri duane de secretis, and magistri duane baronum carried out their duties by issuing orders to these local officials. Additionally, the task of writing documents was often entrusted to them as well.
Working within these limitations, some characteristics of the administration in late twelfth-century Sicily can be observed. First, it was common in Sicily for high officials to hold more than one office concurrently, which has caused a problem in defining the duties and functions of offices. Schematization of their functions and relationships based on a strict definition of each office is an inevitable result of our efforts to understand the administrative structure, but it should not be forgotten that the power and authority of offices were often greatly affected by the personal character of the individuals who held the offices. Second, the balance of power among officials, clergy and nobility is an important element of the administration, although there was a marked tendency to exclude the nobility from the central government. Third, officials included many ex-Muslims, as well as Greeks and Italians, who were closely connected with the Muslim population in Sicily. The participation of ex-Muslims in the central government was an important characteristic of Sicilian administration. It is probable that the kings appointed many ex-Muslims to offices under their direct authority in order to weaken the power of the barons and thus strengthen their own power. More importantly, the kings needed the Muslims’ sophisticated skills and knowledge of administration, and the Muslims, opposed to the barons, needed the kings as their protectors. Ibn Jubair described Muslims working at the royal palace in 1184 as follows:
[Arabic] The king trusted in Muslims so much and relied on them so much in his own affairs and important work that he had a group of black slaves and had a qā’id of them chosen from among them, and the ministers (wuzarā’) and the chamberlains (ḥujjāb) were Muslim fityān, and had a group of officials of the kingdom and the royal court chosen from among these fityān…. As for the fityān who were the important persons in his government, and administrators of the royal properties, they were Muslims.82
We should be careful in accepting this description because it is natural that Ibn Jubair had his own bias as a Muslim. However, it is clear that many Muslims or ex-Muslims were working at the royal palace.
Considering the close connection of this kingdom with England and other monarchies, one may wonder how much the administration of Sicily affected those monarchies.83 As I mentioned in my introduction, Mitteis believes that it influenced those of England, France and Germany. The genealogical relationship of the duana of Sicily and the Exchequer of England has been one of the biggest questions of institutional historians.84 Some historians believed that both institutions were the earliest independent financial organizations stemming from the curia regis in medieval Europe. To be sure, the duana de secretis, the duana baronum and the Exchequer were very conspicuous in their great independence from the curia regis in twelfth-century Western Europe, and worthy of comparison. However, this present study seems to suggest that the duana in Sicily was created by emergent necessity based on existing local conditions, but not necessarily according to a financial criterion. It also seems to suggest that the Sicilian administrative structure was different from that of England, and the duana functioned differently from the Exchequer in the administration. There is no doubt that skills and knowledge imported from the outside could affect any medieval administration. But during the formation of an administrative system, traditional and regional conditions could determine the type and structure of the administration, as the Sicilian system examined here illustrates.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Professor John Boswell of Yale University; Professor Robert Stacey of University of Washington; Professor Giles Constable of The Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton; and Professor James C. Holt and Dr. David Abulafia of Cambridge University for their 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 Colleen Ravillini and Lisa Rotondo-McCord for their help in revising this chapter.
Notes
1 Robert L. Benson, “Political Renovatio: Two Models from Roman Antiquity,” Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth Century, ed. Robert L. Benson and Giles Constable (Cambridge, MA, 1982), p. 339; Helene Wieruszowski, “Roger II of Sicily, Rex-Tyrannus, in Twelfth-Century Political Thought,” Speculum, vol. 38 (1963), pp. 47–48; Albert Brackmann, “The Beginning of the National State in Medieval Germany and the Norman Monarchies,” Medieval Germany 911–1250, ed. and trans. Geoffrey Barraclough, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1938), vol. 2, pp. 288–292, 296–298. It is well recognized that the political philosophy of John of Salisbury was much influenced by the contemporary political condition of the two Norman Kingdoms in England and Sicily.
2 Richard W. Southern, Medieval Humanism and Other Studies (Oxford, 1970), p. 140. On the commercial activity of Sicily, see David Abulafia, The Two Italies: Economic Relations between the Norman Kingdom of Sicily and the Northern Communes (Cambridge, 1977), and a series of his articles which have been reprinted in Italy, Sicily and the Mediterranean, 1100–1400 (London, 1987); Shelomo Dov Goitein, A Mediterranean Society: Vol. 1, Economic Foundations (Berkeley, 1967); Shelomo Dov Goitein, “Sicily and Southern Italy in the Cairo Geniza Documents,” Archivio storico per la Sicilia orientale, vol. 67 (1971), pp. 9–33.
3 Charles Homer Haskins, The Renaissance of the Twelfth Century (Cambridge, MA, 1927), pp. 283–284, 291–302.
4 David C. Douglas, The Norman Fate 1100–1154 (Berkeley, 1976), pp. 5, 216–217.
5 Douglas, The Norman Fate, pp. 2–3, 120, 217; Brackmann, “The Beginnings of the National State,” p. 289. In his book, Douglas assessed “the contribution made by the Normans to the political growth of Europe between 1100 and 1154,” and underlined the effects of the Norman administration on the later development of secular government in Western Europe: “The Norman rulers everywhere, and particularly in the South, had initiated in Europe a new development in secular government” (Douglas, The Norman Fate, p. 120). Besides Douglas, not a few scholars have considered comparing the administrative system of Norman Sicily with that in England, which is also regarded as the most advanced in Western Europe, in order to find the common Norman influence or to look for other important factors causing them. For example, Charles H. Haskins, “England and Sicily in the Twelfth Century,” English Historical Review, vol. 26 (1911), pp. 433–447, 641–665; Charles H. Haskins, The Normans in European History (Boston, 1915); Charles H. Haskins, Norman Institutions (Cambridge, MA, 1925), pp. 23–24, 61, 111–112, 232–234; 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); Dione Clementi, “Notes on Norman Sicilian Surveys,” Vivian H. Galbraith, The Making of Domesday Book (Oxford, 1961), pp. 55–58; Antonio Marongiu, “I due regni normanni d’Inghilterra e d’Italia,” I normanni e la loro espansione in Europa nell’alto Medio Evo, vol. 16 (Settimane di studio del centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo, Spoleto, 1969), pp. 497–557; Sally Harvey, “Domesday Book and Its Predecessors,” English Historical Review, vol. 86 (1971), p. 765.
6 Heinrich Mitteis, Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte, ein Studienbuch, rev. by Heinz Lieberich, 15th ed. (Munich, 1978), p. 186. See also Brackmann, “The Beginnings of the National State,” pp. 290–292.
7 Carlo Alberto Garufi, “Sull’ordinamento amministrativo normanno in Sicilia, Exhiquier o diwan? Studi storico-diplomatici,” Archivio storico italiano, serie 5, vol. 27 (1901), pp. 234–250, 259. Duana, also written as dohana or doana, is a transliteration of Arabic dīwān into Latin letters, literally meaning an office. I use duana, not dohana or doana, in this study simply because duana seems to me more often used in Latin sources and may be more pertinent from a phonetic point of view. Some authorities such as Chalandon and Caravale use dohana, and I followed their usage in my former studies. Whichever usage scholars follow, there is no difference between duana, dohana and doana.
8 Works which have accepted this theory include 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; Haskins, “England and Sicily,” p. 653; Ceci, “Normanni d’Inghilterra,” pp. 330–331; Pier Silverio Leicht, “Lo stato normanno,” Il regno normanno (Messina, 1932), p. 49; Pier Silverio 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 (Islamic Surveys 10, Edinburgh, 1975), pp. 65–66. This theory is easily accessible in English: see Brian Tierney and Sidney Painter, Western Europe in the Middle Ages 300–1475, 4th ed. (New York, 1983), p. 249.
Contrary to the classic statement of Garufi, Mario 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. He explained that the former had competence over Sicily and Calabria and the latter over the peninsula except Calabria. See 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). His theory has been accepted by Norbert Kamp, “Vom Kämmerer zum Sekreten: Wirtschaftsreformen und Finanzverwaltung im staufischen Königreich Sizilien,” Problem um Friedrich II., ed. Josef Fleckenstein (Sigmaringen, 1974), p. 52. Concerning the meanings and Arabic usages of dīwān (duana), al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr and dīwān al-taḥqīq al-ma‘mūr, see Albrecht Noth, “Die arabischen Dokumente Roger II.,” Carlrichard Brühl, Urkunden und Kanzlei König Roger II. von Sizilien (Cologne, 1978), pp. 254–257.
9 Garufi, “Sull’ordinamento amministrativo,” pp. 256–257; Caspar, Roger II. und die Gründung, p. 316; Chalandon, Histoire de la domination, vol. 2, p. 651; Ferdinand Chalandon, “Norman Kingdom of Sicily,” The Cambridge Medieval History, Vol. 5: Contest of Empire and Papacy (Cambridge, 1926), p. 205; Caravale, “Gli uffici finanziari,” pp. 203–204, 218–219. I have proposed a different view on the ἄρχοντες τῆς κραταιᾶς κόρτης: Hiroshi Takayama, “Familiares Regis and the Royal Inner Council in Twelfth-Century Sicily,” English Historical Review, vol. 104 (1989), pp. 370–371.
10 Haskins, “England and Sicily,” p. 653; Jamison, Admiral Eugenius, p. 51; Ceci, “Normanni d’Inghilterra,” pp. 331–332. Jamison explains that “the duana were directed by the board of senior officials, perhaps some ten in number; among them were always the three chamberlains,” and says that “the general designation of the board was ἄρχοντες τοῦ σεκρέτου, magistri duane, and sayh (sheik) of the dīwān al-taḥqīq al-ma‘mūr according to the language used.”
11 Kamp, “Vom Kämmerer,” p. 52.
12 Baviera Albanese, “L’istituzione,” p. 271.
13 Garufi, “Sull’ordinamento amministrativo,” pp. 251–256, 262; Chalandon, Histoire de la domination, vol. 2, pp. 651–652; Caspar, Roger II und die Gründung, p. 316; Mayer, Italienische Verfassungsgeschichte, vol. 2, p. 386, notes 36–37; Caravale, “Gli uffici finanziari,” pp. 203–204, 209. Only Jamison disagrees with this triple-layered structure, and insists that σεκρετικός had been identical with master of the duana (Admiral Eugenius, pp. 51–52).
14 Garufi, “Sull’ordinamento amministrativo,” pp. 251, 261; Chalandon, Histoire de la domination, vol. 2, p. 654; Caravale, “Gli uffici finanziari,” pp. 204, 209. Garufi listed “kātib” and “gaiti” as officials of the treasury office. Only Caspar holds that the financial administration at this office was controlled by the “Kaids” and “Hakim” who had been judicial officials of the Arabs in the former ages (Caspar, Roger II. (1101–1154) und die Gründung, pp. 316–317).
15 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 Financial and Administrative Organization of the Norman Kingdom of Sicily,” Viator, vol. 16 (1985), pp. 129–157. I should like to express my special gratitude to Ms. Mary A. Rouse, managing editor of Viator, who gave me indispensable advice on the texts in English in the process of publication.
16 Takayama, “The Financial and Administrative Organization of the Norman Kingdom of Sicily,” pp. 149, 145, note 59.
17 Garufi confirms the existence of the treasurer (thesoriere), the head of the treasury office, in the source of 1168 which we know through Pirro’s translation. He thinks that this office was not a specialized one but was held by the master chamberlain of the royal palace (magister camerarius regii palatii), and reasons as follows: Qā’id Richard, the treasurer, was also a master chamberlain of the royal palace; Qā’id Materacius, the master chamberlain of the royal palace, carried out tasks of completely financial nature such as a payment of 8,000 tari for the duana baronum in 1176. He thinks kātib and gaiti belonged to this office (“Sull’ordinamento amministrativo,” pp. 251, 261). Chalandon accepts this opinion (Histoire de la domination, vol. 2, p. 654), and Caravale, based on Garufi’s argument, developed this idea further, stating that the first appearance of this treasurer in 1169 (1168?) means the beginning of the process of forming and completing the treasury office (“Gli uffici finanziari,” pp. 204, 209). However, their supporting source of 1168 is not reliable: “et paterno nostro amore more solito usi cessimus tuae petitioni et praecipimus Thesaurario et familiari nostro qui est super omnes secretos Caiti [sic] Riccardo renovare praedictum sigillum” (Rocco Pirro, Sicilia sacra disquisitionibus et notitiis illustrata, vol. 2 [Palermo, 1733], p. 1017). This source is a translation from Greek by Pirro. The original phrase of the “thesaurario et familiari nostro… Caito Riccardo” is supposed to be “τῶ πρωτωκαμπέρι καὶ φαμελλιαρίω ἡμῶν… καίτη ῥιγκάρδη” found in another source (Karl A. Kehr, Die Urkunden der normannisch-sicilischen Könige [Innsbruck, 1902], p. 438), which in turn corresponds to “gaytus Ricardus domini regis magister camerarius et familiaris” (Giovanni B. Siragusa, ed., La historia o Liber de Regno Siciliae [Rome, 1897], p. 128, note 2). In sum, the word “thesaurarius” in the source of 1168 seems to be a translation of magister camerarius (πρωτοκαμπήρ). Therefore we should not assume that the thesaurarius was the head of the al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr nor should we think, as Caravale does, that the function of the al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr began to be defined at this time. We have not yet succeeded in identifying the head of the al-dīwān al-ma‘mūr from the sources.
18 Before the death of Maio of Bari, the condition of the curia regis and the administrative officials had been completely different. One cannot talk about the royal administration without mentioning an admiral (amīr, ammiratus, ἀμῆρ, ἀμηρᾶς). See Chalandon, Histoire de la domination, vol. 2, pp. 634–638; Jamison, Admiral Eugenius, pp. 35–44; Léon-Robert Ménager, Amiratus-Ἀμηρᾶς. L’Émirat et les origines de l’amirauté (XIe–XIIIe siècles) (Paris, 1960), pp. 26–56.
19 Carlo Alberto Garufi, “Censimento et catasto della popolazione servile. Nuovi studi e ricerche sull’ordinamento amministrativo dei Normanni in Sicilia nei secoli XI e XII,” Archivio storico siciliano, vol. 49 (1928), p. 32, note 1. For example, Νικολάου πρωτονοταρίου καὶ καπριλλίγγουα καὶ πρωτοσπαθαρίου in June 1090 (Salvatore Cusa, I diplomi greci ed arabi di Sicilia pubblicati nel testo originale, vol. 1 [Palermo, 1868–1882], p. 384; Giuseppe Spata, Le pergamene greche esistenti nel grande archivio di Palermo [Palermo 1862], p. 247); nicolao canberlario on 16 June 1101 (Francesco Trinchera, Syllabus graecarum membranarum [Naples, 1865], p. 87); ὁ ἡμέτερος πιστοτατος νικόλαος καπριλινγας in June 1104 (Camillo Minieri-Riccio, Saggio di codice diplomatico formato sulle antiche scritture dell’Archivio di Stato di Napoli, Supplemento, parte prima [Naples, 1882], p. 6); Νικολάου τοῦ ἐνδοξοτάτου καπριλίγγα in March 1105 (Cusa, p. 399); Nicolaus Caplinga, seu Camerarius in 1105 (Pirro, Sicilia sacra, p. 1042; cf. Caspar, Roger II. und die Gründung, reg. no. 5). Jamison states that Nicholas held this office from 1086 to 1105 (Admiral Eugenius, p. 34).
20 Léon-Robert Ménager, “Notes et documents sur quelques monastères de Calabre à l’epoque normande,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift, vol. 50 (1957), p. 336.
21 Caspar, Roger II. und die Gründung, reg. no. 48; Jamison, Admiral Eugenius, p. 34. Jamison identifies this Basil (Basileios) with Admiral Basil. Paenos was among the witnesses of a charter in 1125: Παένος καμβριλλίγγας μάρτυρ ὑπέγραψα (Cusa, p. 556).
22 Rumualdus Salernitanus, Chronicon sive Annales, ed. Carlo A. Garufi (Città di Castello, 1909–1935), pp. 234–236. See also ibid., p. 341 and Jamison, Admiral Eugenius, pp. 41–42.
23 John was among the witnesses of a charter in 1153: Ἰωάννης καπρελίγγας τοῦ μεγάλου ῥιγὸς μάρτυρ (Cusa, p. 33). Jamison identifies this John with the son of Admiral Graffeus (Admiral Eugenius, p. 42).
24 Jamison, Admiral Eugenius, p. 45: “in presentia domini Atenulfi supradicti domini nostri regis camerarii regalis palatii.” See also ibid., pp. 391–392, 394. However, Falcandus called him simply Adenolfus camerarius (Hugo Falcandus, Leber de Regno Sicilie, in Giovanni B. Siragusa, ed., La historia o Liber de Regno Sicilie e la epistola ad Petrum Panormitane eccclesie thesaurarium [Rome, 1897], pp. 42, 48–50, 72). Atenulf was killed in the spring of 1161.
25 Familiaris regis was a well-defined title to indicate a member of the royal inner council during the reigns of William I (1154–1166) and William II (1166–1189). As the decision makers on policy and other important matters, they were the most powerful people in the kingdom. See Hiroshi Takayama, “The Grand Officials of the Norman Kingdom of Sicily,” Shigaku-Zasshi, vol. 93 (1984), no. 12, pp. 17–22; Hiroshi Takayama, “Familiares Regis and the Royal Inner Council in Twelfth-Century Sicily,” English Historical Review, vol. 104 (1989), pp. 357–372.
26 Falcandus, Liber de Regno, p. 77: “eisdem diebus gaytus Iohar eunuchus, magister camerarius palatii, cum in exercitu multas a rege preter meritum, ut aiebat, iniurias pertulisset ac verbera, cum sigillis regiis ad comitem Lorotelli transfugiens, in itinere captus est et ad regem perductus; quem rex impositum lintri, deduci iussit in pelagus ibique submergi.” Falcandus’ narration implies that Qā’id Iohar was killed in about 1162, but Jamison identifies him with Theodore, the master chamberlain of the king, whose death in February 1163 was recorded: “A.D.I..M.C.LXIII. indictionis.XII. dominus Theodorus domini regis magister camerarius ob.” (Carlo A. Garufi, ed., Necrologio del “Liber Confratrum” di S. Matteo di Salerno [Fonti per la storia d’Italia, LVI, Rome 1922], p. 20). See Jamison, Admiral Eugenius, p. 44, note 3.
27 Falcandus, Liber de Regno, p. 83.
28 Takayama, “Familiares Regis,” pp. 360–362.
29 Although Falcandus does not call Qā’id Richard eunuch, the following description implies that he was also a eunuch: “Gaytus quoque Richardus illi cum ceteris eunuchis infestissimus erat, eo quod Robertum Calataboianensem contra voluntatem eius damp-naverat” (Falcandus, Liber de Regno, p. 119).
30 Takayama, “Familiares Regis,” pp. 362–364.
31 Falcandus, Liber de Regno, p. 79, note 1; Carlo Alberto Garufi, I documenti inediti dell’epoca normanna in Sicilia (Documenti per servire alla storia di Sicilia, serie 1, Diplomatica XIX, Palermo, 1899), pp. 111, 112. Qā’id Martin’s appointment as master chamberlain of the royal palace was probably temporary in the conflict of Qā’id Richard with the head minister Stephen.
32 Falcandus, Liber de Regno, p. 79: “nam gaytus Martinus eunuchus, quem rex ad custodiam civitatis ac palacii Panormi reliquerat, cum in captione palacii fratrem suum a Christianis sciret occisum, nec eius facti certos repperisset auctores, in omnes Chris-tianos atrociter occulteque deseviens, fratris mortem omnibus imputabat.”
33 Takayama, “Familiares Regis,” p. 363.
34 Falcandus, Liber de Regno, pp. 161–162.
35 Takayama, “Familiares Regis,” p. 364; Falcandus, Liber de Regno, pp. 108–109; Garufi, I documenti inediti, p. 111.
36 Takayama, “Familiares Regis,” pp. 364–368.
37 This is confirmed in some sources: “gaytus Ricardus domini regis magister camerarius et familiaris” in 1167 (Falcandus, Liber de Regno, p. 128, note 2); “τῶ πρωτωκαμπέρι καὶ φαμελλιαρίω ἡμῶν τῶ ἐπὶ τοῦ σεκρέτου τῶν ἀποκοπῶν καίτη ῥιγκάρδη” in March 1168 (Kehr, Die Urkunden, p. 438); “thesaurario et familiari nostro qui est super omnes secretos Caiti [sic] Riccardo” in 1168 (Pirro, Sicilia sacra, vol. 2, p. 1017); “τοῦ εὐδοξοτάτου καίτου Ῥικάρδου καὶ μεγάλου σεκρέτου” in October 1170 (Haskins, “England and Sicily,” p. 650, note 160); “magistro palatino camerario domino gayto Riccardo magistro regie duane de secretis” in January 1183 (Haskins, “England and Sicily,” p. 654, note 191).
38 Jamison, Admiral Eugenius, p. 49. But I am suspicious of her reasoning from the following source: “Putifares omnes claves et scrinia portant; Adsignant quasquas fiscus habebat opes; Thesauros numerant, quos vermis araneus ille Auserat, et frustra retia nevit apris; Primus neutrorum claves escriniat omnes, Alter apodixas explicat, alter opes; Hec quantum Calaber seu quantum debeat Afer, Apulus aut Siculus debeat orbis habet” (Petrus de Ebulo, Liber ad Honorem Augusti, ed. G. B. Siragusa [Rome, 1906], pp. 91–92). To be sure we see three putifares working like treasurers, but it is not certain that these putifares were identical with camerarii regii palatii. As examined above, the camerarii regii palatii in this period were high administrative officials at the center of the administration rather than just specialized financial officials. It is impossible, either, to identify eunuchs (neutri) with camerarii regii palatii, because there were many eunuchs in the royal palace besides the chamberlains.
39 Falcandus, Liber de Regno, p. 79, note 1.
40 Falcandus, Liber de Regno, pp. 108–109.
41 Haskins, “England and Sicily,” p. 653, note 186.
42 Carlo Alberto Garufi, Catalogo illustrato del Tabulario di S. Maria Nuova in Monreale (Palermo, 1902), pp. 163–164: “Ego Guillelmus… declaro quod… uendidi duane baronum in manibus uidelicet Gayti Mataracij Regij sacri palatii camerarij et magistri eiusdem duane… omnes domos meas.”
43 Cusa, pp. 489–490; Spata, pp. 447–449.
44 Cusa, pp. 83–84.
45 Takayama, “The Financial and Administrative Organization of the Norman Kingdom of Sicily,” pp. 133, 145.
46 Mayer, Italienische Verfassungsgeschichte, vol. 2, p. 386; Caspar, Roger II. und die Gründung, p. 316; Caravale, “Gli uffici finanziari,” p. 217.
47 Cusa, pp. 622–624, 321. On the Arabic and Greek corresponding terms, see Takayama, “The Financial and Administrative Organization of the Norman Kingdom of Sicily,” pp. 131–133.
48 Garufi, I documenti inediti, p. 152.
49 Cusa, pp. 489–490; Spata, pp. 447–448.
50 Pirro, Sicilia sacra, vol. 2, p. 1017; Haskins, “England and Sicily,” pp. 650, 654; Cusa, p. 432; Spata, p. 293; Garufi, I documenti inediti, p. 214; Cusa, p. 83.
51 Cusa, pp. 622–624.
52 Alexander Bruel, Recueil des chartes de l’abbaye de Cluny, vol. 5 (Paris, 1894), p. 600.
53 Falcandus, Liber de Regno, p. 119: “nec minus Bulcassem inter Sarracenos Sicilie nobilissimus ac prepotens multam illi Sarracenorum conflarat invidiam, cum eum ab initio plurimum dilexissent.”
54 Cusa, pp. 81–83; Takayama, “The Financial and Administrative Organization of the Norman Kingdom of Sicily,” p. 137.
55 Spata, pp. 452, 454; Garufi, I documenti inediti, pp. 195–196; Garufi, “Monete e conii nella storia del diritto siculo dagli arabi ai Martini,” Archivio storico siciliano, n.s., vol. 23 (1898), p. 153.
56 Cusa, pp. 29, 35.
57 Giovanni B. Siragusa, Il Regno di Guglielmo I in Sicilia, 2nd ed. (Palermo, 1929), p. 438: “Νικόλαος ὁ σεκρετικός.”
58 See note 78.
59 See note 75.
60 On the triple-layered structure of the supervising office, see p. 53 and note 13 above. Garufi’s argument consists of two parts. First, he demonstrates the difference between the ranks of magister duane and σεκρετικός. According to Garufi, the σεκρετικός received an order from the dignitaries (altissimi dignitari) of the royal palace and executed it. For example, Martin, one of the γέροντες τοῦ σεκρέτου which Garufi regards as identical with σεκρετικός, carried out an order from the king or chancellor in 1161. In 1172, likewise, Geoffrey of Modica (Moac/Modac), σεκρετικός (ṣāḥib), received an order from the ἄρχοντες τῆς κραταιᾶς κόρτης and carried it out. In contrast, the magistri duane, Garufi believes, concluded issues of an administrative nature by themselves. For example, Eugenius Calì, magister duane, dealt with one issue without any orders from the king or ἄρχοντες in 1174; Geoffrey of Modica, magister duane, ordered the local officials to grant lands to the bishop of Catania on his own authority in 1180. Thus Garufi insists that there were differences of rank between the σεκρετικός and the magister duane (Garufi, “Sull’ordinamento,” pp. 253–254). However, this argument should not be accepted, because the ἄρχοντες τῆς κραταιᾶς κόρτης who gave orders to the σεκρετικός in 1172 were the three regis familiares at that time, and all officials including both σεκρετικός and magister duane should have been under their direction. One can easily find an example of a magister duane who received an order and carried it out: In 1178 Eugenius, magister regie duane baronum et de secretis, received an order from Walter of Modica, regii fortunati stolii ammiratus et magister regie duane baronum et de secretis, and held a curia (Garufi, I documenti inediti, p. 152). We should not accept Garufi’s insistence on the difference of the ranks between the magister duane and the σεκρετικός.
The second part of Garufi’s argument is the demonstration of the difference of ranks between σεκρετικός and kātib. He explains as follows: Geoffrey of Modica, who had been a master justiciar of Val di Noto on 1 September 1172, became σεκρετικός in the same month. This suggests that the rank of the σεκρετικός was higher than, or at least same as, that of the master justiciar of Val di Noto. The master justiciar of Val di Noto had a fairly high judicial power and was a far higher rank than a kātib. Therefore, Garufi insists, σεκρετικός was a higher rank than kātib. On the other hand, Geoffrey of Modica had also been σεκρετικός in April before he became the master justiciar of Val di Noto. He had the authority over the stratigotus (στρατηγός) of Syracuse in both cases. Therefore, Garufi believes, the master justiciar of Val di Noto and the σεκρετικός were of the same rank (Garufi, “Sull’ordinamento,” pp. 248, 254).
The sources to which Garufi refers concerning Geoffrey of Modica are in fact as follows: in 1172 (Garufi notes as September 1 in 1172), Gaufridus de Moach eo tempore in Valle noti magister iusticiarius (Garufi, I documenti inediti, p. 152); on February 20 in 1172 (Garufi notes as April), dominus Gaufridus secretarius and τοῦ σεκρετικοῦ κυροῦ ἰοσφρὲ (Cusa, pp. 487–488); in October 1172 (Garufi notes as September) ἰοσφρὲς ὁ σεκρετικός and al-shaikh Jāfrāy (Cusa, pp. 80–83). In sum, “de Moac” is not written in the sources of 20 February 1172 and of October 1172. It is possible that the Geoffrey in these two sources was someone other than Geoffrey of Modica because the expression “Gaufridus de Moac” or “ἰοσφρὲς τῆς μοδάκ” appears in the sources of 1180 again (Cusa, pp. 489–490; Spata, pp. 881–889). In fact, one can confirm another Geoffrey, Geoffrey of Centuripe magister duane de secretis, in a source of 1173 (Bruel, Recueil des chartes, vol. 5, p. 600). Even if Geoffrey and Geoffrey of Modica were the same person, it is reasonable to think that he served concurrently as σεκρετικός and master justiciar of Val di Noto, because it was customary for high officials to hold more than one office at the same time. In either case, one should not say that σεκρετικός and the local master justiciar were in the same rank of offices. The only difference of rank which we can confirm in the sources are between a simple kātib and magister duane, or σεκρετικός.
61 Takayama, “The Financial and Administrative Organization of the Norman Kingdom of Sicily,” pp. 131–133, note 15.
62 Cusa, pp. 487–488: “unde ego gaufridus femeta tunc temporis siracuse stratigotus regio precepto et dominorum curie et maxime domini gaufridi secretarii ad cuius baiuliam hoc potissimum pertinebat cui ego respondebam de baiulia mea, adsignavi predictam terram… ego ut predictum est regio precepto et dominorum curie quorum dispensationi hoc potissimum pertinebat prefatam terram tradidi canonicis chephaludi.”
63 On the Gran Secrezia and the ἄρχοντες τοῦ σεκρέτου, see p. 53 and notes 9–10 above.
64 Cusa, p. 484; Spata, pp. 437–438: “Ἐπειδεὶ κατὰ τὸν ἰούνιον μῖνα τῆς ἰνδικτιῶνοςα’ ὄντων ἡμῶν τῶν κατεπάνων χώρας τῆς εὐσεβεστάτης ῥηγένης καὶ μαΐστρων φοριστερίων τοῦ τε εὐφημίου τῆς δραΐνας καὶ γουλιάλμου δεμουρίτζη τοῦ ἀπὸ τῆς πετραλίας ἐν τῆ πόλει πανόρμου, ἐπίησαν ἡμᾶς ἀπελθεῖν ἐνώπιον αὐτῶν οἱ ἄρχοντες τοῦ σεκρέτου ὅ ται κυρὸς ἰωάννης καὶ κάϊτος βουλκάσιμ…. ὅθεν προστάττωμεν ὑμᾶς τοῦ ἀπελθῖν ἐκεῖσαι ἐπιτοπίως εἰς τὴν καπίτζην ἐν ὧ καὶ ὁ τιμιώτατος ναὸς τοῦ σωτῆρός ἐστην καὶ διαχωρήσεται ἀπὸ τῶν ἐκεῖσε χωραφίων τῆς φορέστας ζευγαρίου ἐνὸς καὶ ἀποδόσεται ταῦτα εἰς τὸν τιμιώτατον ναὸν τοῦ σωτῆρος.”
65 Cusa, p. 432; Spata, pp. 293–294: “Τὸν ἀπρίλλιον μῆνα τῆς ἰνδικτιῶνος α’ ἦλθεςσυ ὁ καθηγούμενος μονῆς ἁγίου φιλίππου δεμέννων κομίζωντα γραφὴν παρὰ τῆς θεοφρουρήτου κούρτης καὶ τῶν ἐνδωξωτάτων ἀρχόντων τοῦ σεκρέτου κυρίου κάϊτου ῥικκάρδου καὶ κυρίου ἰωάννου γραφέου καὶ κυρίου εὐγενίου τοῦ καλοῦ πρὸς μὲ τὼν στρατηγὸν κεντουρύπη καὶ τῶν καλῶν ἀνθρώπων διλωποιοῦντα οὕτος· τοῦ ἀπελθεῖν ὑμᾶς ἠς τὰ χωράφη ὅπου ὑπήρχουν τοῦ γέρωντος καλλήστου μοναχοῦ καὶ τῶν αὐταδέλφων αὐτοῦ, ὁμίος ἐκάτηλαβα καὶ ὁ κῦρ γεώργιος τοῦ μοδίου ὑπὸ προστάξεως τοῦ ἐνδοξωτάτου ἄρχοντος κάϊτου ῥηκκάρδου καὶ τῶν συντροφῶν αὐτοῦ.”
66 Takayama, “The Financial and Administrative Organization of the Norman Kingdom of Sicily,” pp. 137–140.
67 Cusa, pp. 484–486; Spata, pp. 437–440: “ἀρχόντων καὶ σεκρετικῶν τοῦ τε κυροῦἰωάννου καὶ κάϊτου βουλκάσιμ.”
68 Takayama, “The Financial and Administrative Organization of the Norman Kingdom of Sicily,” pp. 131–133.
69 Takayama, “The Financial and Administrative Organization of the Norman Kingdom of Sicily,” pp. 133, 142–145.
70 Takayama, “The Financial and Administrative Organization of the Norman Kingdom of Sicily,” pp. 132–135, 152–153.
71 See note 46 above.
72 Kehr, Die Urkunden, p. 438.
73 Haskins, “England and Sicily,” p. 653, note 186.
74 Garufi, Catalogo illustrato, pp. 163–164.
75 Haskins, “England and Sicily,” p. 445 (2); Matteo Camera, Memorie storico-diplomatiche dell’antica città e Ducato di Amalfi, vol. 1 (Salerno, 1876), pp. 364–366; Francesco Pometti, “Carte delle Abbazie di S. Maria di Corazzo e di S. Giuliano di Rocca Fallucca in Calabria,” Studi e documenti di storia e diritto, vol. 22 (1901), p. 276.
On Walter of Modica, see Ménager, Amiratus, pp. 93–96. His name was mentioned as Gualterius Modicensis by Falcandus in his description of the disturbance of 1168 against Stephen du Perche (Falcandus, Liber de Regno, p. 142). In April 1171, he appeared among the witnesses of an act: “Ego Gualterus de Moac, regie private masnede magister conestabularius, testis sum.” (Eugène de Rozière, Cartulaire de l’église du Saint-Sépulcre de Jérusalem [Paris, 1849], doc. n. 165, p. 296). He had already been appointed regii fortunati stolii admiratus in 1177 (Ménager, Amiratus, p. 94, note 4).
76 Takayama, “The Financial and Administrative Organization of the Norman Kingdom of Sicily,” p. 142.
77 On 11 June 1179, Hugh of Belmesia, a royal chamberlain of Val di Crati, received an order from Walter of Modica, regius ammiratus et regiarum sabaduatiarum magister, and assigned land in the region of Decollatura to the monastery S. Maria of Corazzo (Pometti, “Carte delle Abbazie di S. Maria,” p. 278).
78 Raffaele Perla, “Una charta iudicati dei tempi normanni,” Archivio storico per le province napoletane, vol. 9 (1884), p. 346; Haskins, “England and Sicily,” p. 653; Jamison, Admiral Eugenius, pp. 317–318; Camera, Memorie storico-diplomatiche, vol. 1, p. 364; Minieri-Riccio, Saggio di codice diplomatico, p. 21; Jamison, Admiral Eugenius, p. 342; Jamison, Admiral Eugenius, pp. 320, 342–345.
79 Jamison, Admiral Eugenius, p. 344.
80 Cusa, pp. 489–490; Spata, pp. 447–449.
81 Takayama, “Familiares Regis,” pp. 369–370.
82 Ibn Jubair, Riḥla, ed. William Wright, 2nd ed. De Goeje (Leyden, 1907), pp. 324–326.
83 This close connection is, for example, reflected in foreign elements of the people who were working at the royal palace. Stephen du Perche, head minister, chancellor and archbishop of Palermo, came from France with many of his fellowmen. The familiares regis included an Englishman, Archbishop Richard Palmer, although Archbishop Walter and Bishop Bartholomew should not be regarded as Englishmen (Leonard J. A. Loewenthal, “For the Biography of Walter Ophamil, Archbishop of Palermo,” English Historical Review, vol. 87 (1972), pp. 75–82. Thomas Brown, who held “an extraordinary position at the exchequer” (Wilfred L. Warren, Henry II [Berkeley/Los Angeles, 1977], p. 313) and was “associated with them [i.e. barons] in all important business” (Dialogus de Scaccario: De necessariis observantiis scaccarii dialogus, qui vulgo dicitur Dialogus de Scaccario, ed. Charles Johnson [London, 1950], p. 35), had been “a great man at the court of the great King of Sicily [i.e. Roger II], a prudent counsellor, and almost at the head of the King’s confidential business” (Dialogus de Scaccario, p. 35). For more details about Thomas Brown, see ibid., pp. 35–36; Warren, Henry II, pp. 313–314; Reginald L. Poole, The Exchequer in the Twelfth Century (London, 1912), pp. 67, 118–122. It should be noted that some historians have seen in Bishop Richard of Winchester and Thomas Brown “the forerunners of officials of the exchequer known as King’s Remembrancer and Lord Treasurer’s Remembrancer” (Warren, Henry II, p. 314; see also Poole, The Exchequer, pp. 119–122). On other evidence of constant intercourse between England and Sicily, see Haskins, “England and Sicily,” pp. 435–443.
84 For example, William Stubbs, The Constitutional History of England, 3 vols. (Oxford, 1896–1897), vol. 2, p. 408; 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, serie 3, anno 275 (1877–78), Memorie della classe di scienze morali, storiche e filologiche, vol. 2 (1878), pp. 409–438; Haskins, “England and Sicily,” pp. 651–655; Poole, The Exchequer, pp. 66–69, 118–119. For more recent studies, see note 5 above.