7

Central Power and Multi-Cultural Elements at the Norman Court of Sicily

Historians have characterized the royal court of the Norman Kingdom of Sicily in a variety of different ways.¹ More than seventy years ago Charles H. Haskins illustrated its Oriental features vividly in his well-known study, The Renaissance of the Twelfth Century (1927):

The Sicilian court is more clearly bureaucratic: indeed, it has a strongly Oriental flavor, Byzantine as well as Arabic, and its astrologers and poets, its Arab physicians and many-tongued secretaries come very near to reproducing the entourage described by the poet of Samarcand with whom we started. Its records, in Latin, Greek, and Arabic, required a large staff of expert clerks and a permanent depository at Palermo; its palaces suggest the pleasure dwellings of the Mohammedan East; its household has the seclusion of an Oriental harem.²

In another publication, he had also pointed out the possibility that, in the two Norman Kingdoms of Sicily and England, similar administrative needs might have created similar administrative organizations and emphasized the necessity to investigate their mutual influence in order to explain their organizational similarity.³ However, his basic understanding of the Sicilian court lay primarily in its Eastern and Oriental features. For Haskins, the Norman court of Sicily, “with its harem and eunuchs, resembled that of the Fatimite caliphs,” and the kingdom was “of a far more absolute and Oriental type than is found among the northern Normans or anywhere else in Western Europe.”⁴

Antonio Marongiu regarded the Byzantine Empire as being the most significant of Eastern influences. According to him, the first king of Norman Sicily, Roger II (1130–1154), imitated the Byzantine emperor as the successor of the Roman emperor in an attempt to make an absolute monarchy.⁵ Francesco Giunta similarly emphasized the influence of the Byzantine Empire.⁶ However, Léon-Robert Ménager, objecting to these scholars, argued that the Norman kings of Sicily had many similarities with those of Western Europe and that the kingship of Sicily was not fundamentally different from that of other feudal kings in Europe.⁷

Some other scholars regard the coexistence of Arab, Byzantine and Latin elements as a characteristic of the Norman court of Sicily rather than emphasizing one predominant cultural element.⁸

On the other hand, a number of scholars have taken special note of the highly bureaucratic nature of the Sicilian court, and they have argued for its precocious modernity rather than searching for similarities with Byzantine, Islamic or European courts. Marongiu, who emphasized the importance of Byzantine influence, also examined laws, government and the concept of sovereignty under Roger II and argued for their high level of development within Western Europe.⁹ Contrary to the interpretation put forth by Ménager, Enrico Mazzarese Fardella insisted that the Norman Kingdom had been “born as a negation of the feudal state.”¹⁰ Jean-Marie Martin shared this idea, describing that

thus, the Oriental elements in the royal government should not be considered as relics of the former periods, but surely as governmental techniques developed and completed during the monarchy. Despite (and, at the same time, because of) its Oriental and, in appearance, archaic features, the Norman monarchy was indeed the first “modern” state which the West had at its margin.¹¹

With similar perspectives, Walther Holtzmann examined how the expansion of the power of Roger II affected European politics,¹² and Helene Wieruszowski examined how the new system of the government of Sicily was reflected in the activities and thoughts of contemporary Europeans.¹³

Thus scholars have provided us with differing views of the Norman kings and the royal court of medieval Sicily. At first glance they do not seem to have much common ground. However, a closer look leads us to their two basic concerns. The first of these is which element among Western European, Islamic and Byzantine influences was the most predominant in the royal court and kingship. The other is whether feudal features were dominant in Sicily as in other monarchies of Western Europe, or whether the origin of the organizations of the modern state could in fact be found there. These two main concerns are different, but they are also closely related. For example, Western European elements and feudal features are connected to each other, while Byzantine elements and Islamic elements are connected with the image of the Oriental absolute monarchies. On the other hand, the view that recognizes the beginnings of the modern state in Sicily denies any elements of Western Europe, Islam and the Byzantine Empire.

Should we view the Norman court of Sicily as an Oriental court with an Oriental monarch, as Haskins believed? Or is it fundamentally the court of Western Europe, based on a feudal system as Ménager insisted, and should we consider the Sicilian king as just one of the many feudal monarchs of Western Europe? Alternatively, can we find the beginnings of modern state organizations here, which are completely different from other feudal courts or feudal monarchs of Western Europe, as Marongiu suggests? The purpose of this article is to answer these questions by examining the features of the Norman court of Sicily.

I would like to emphasize two important points in advance, which should be kept in mind in considering these issues. First, we should be fully aware that the nature of the court and sovereignty could change over the course of time. While some features did not change throughout the Norman period, others changed greatly. However, many scholars have thought that the kingdom had an unchanging character and have not paid enough attention to the changing aspects. The second important point is that we need to clarify in detail how the three different cultural elements existed and in which part of the court they existed. Many scholars have focused on a specific cultural element and argued for the strength of the cultural influence of that single element. However, we cannot discover the actual condition of the Norman court in this way. The important thing is to see how and in what form these three cultural elements existed. I will clarify the characteristics of the Norman kings and their court by examining them with full attention to these two points.

I

Concerning the kingship and royal court of Norman Sicily, there are two important features unchanged throughout the Norman period. One is that the kings themselves were always Christians. This may seem obvious, but it is a point that must always be kept in mind or one can lose perspective, as the more one knows the Norman kings of Sicily, the more one feels they were Muslim rulers. In fact, Ibn al-Athīr informs us that there was a rumor that Roger II was a Muslim.¹⁴

It is well known that the Norman kings of Sicily had a deep knowledge of both Arabic and Greek cultures. Roger II was strongly influenced by Greek culture, and almost all of his signatures remaining to us were written in Greek.¹⁵ According to Ibn Jubayr, a Muslim traveler from Spain who visited the kingdom in the second half of the twelfth century, William II had the ability to read and write Arabic, and his seal was written in Arabic as “Praise to Allāh. Praise to Allāh is right,” while his father William I’s seal was the Arabic for “Praise to Allāh. Thank Allāh for His grace.”¹⁶ Roger II’s golden bull¹⁷ and lead seal¹⁸ had a legend in Greek proclaiming “ΡΟΓΕΡΙΟΣ ΚΡΑΤΑΙΟΣ ΕΥΣΕΒΗΣ ΡΗΞ” (Roger, strong and pious king), while the latter also had a Latin inscription on the reverse, “ROGERIUS DEI GRACIA SICILIE CALABRIE APULIE REX” (Roger by the grace of God king of Sicily, Calabria, and Apulia). All the gold and many of the silver and copper coins made by the Norman kings in Sicily had Arabic inscriptions in Cufic or Nashki script.¹⁹

These three Norman kings had a great interest in learning and the arts, and they gathered many scholars, such as doctors, astrologers, philosophers, geographers and mathematicians, to the royal palace in Palermo. According to the Arab geographer Al-Idrīsī, Roger II had a deep understanding of mathematics, political sciences and natural sciences and enjoyed discussing these subjects with scholars.²⁰ We know that he had a Greek theologian named Neilos Doxopatres²¹ at his court in addition to Al-Idrīsī. Moreover, according to Ibn Jubayr, William II had doctors and astrologers under his close care and offered a huge amount of money as living expenses to foreign doctors and astrologers when they passed through the kingdom.²² Thus the Norman kings, while being Christian, were well versed in Greek and Arabic learning and were intellectuals who appreciated Greek and Arabic scholars.

The other important feature unchanged throughout the Norman period concerning the kingship and royal court of Norman Sicily is that the capital was fixed at Palermo. The Norman kings had palaces all over the kingdom, but their principal residence was the palace in Palermo. They stayed in a white palace in Messina for some months every year, and they sometimes traveled from one castle to another within the kingdom.²³ However, their main residence was the palace in Palermo, and this city was also the center of the kingdom.²⁴ This marks a clear contrast with other European monarchies, which did not have fixed capitals; the royal courts moved around with the itinerant kings. The latter was the case with the kingdoms of England, France and Germany, where the kings, without fixing their principal palaces, traveled from one castle to another within their kingdoms with their retinues every several weeks or months.

Palermo was the center of almost all aspects of human activity, including politics, economy and culture, and it was by far the biggest city in the kingdom with the exception of Naples. The population of Palermo in the twelfth century is estimated to have been between 50,000 and 100,000,²⁵ and it was bigger than Rome or London, which had populations of 50,000.²⁶ According to Al-Idrīsī, Palermo consisted of two districts, the castle district and the suburban district, as had been the case under Muslim rule.²⁷ In the castle district “there were high palaces, noble and graceful mansions, mosques, trading halls, public baths, and stores of big merchants.”²⁸ The Muslim traveler Ibn Jubayr also gives us a vivid image of this city. The royal palace stood at the highest part of the castle district, fortified by high towers and ramparts. The buildings of the royal palace, he describes, “stood in a row tidily like a necklace of pearls hanging from a neck of a woman with big breasts.”²⁹

This palace originated from an old Muslim castle. The letter of the so-called Falcandus to Peter, canon and treasurer of Palermo, lets us know the structure of the palace.³⁰ During the reign of Roger II it had two towers: the Pisan Tower and the Greek Tower. The Pisan Tower was used to watch the treasure house. The Greek Tower was so called because it was constructed by Greek craftsmen. It was also called the Red Tower because it was made of red bricks. Between these two towers Roger II built a third, the Joaria Tower, where he might pass leisure time. Its interior was decorated with glittering furniture.³¹ Its name originates from the Arabic word “jawharīya,” which means a jewelry room. William I built a fourth tower, called the Kirinbi Tower.³²

The main building, which connected these towers and the Palatine Chapel, was built at the center.³³ Mosaics of various colors, which illustrated the stories of the Old and New Testaments, decorated the upper parts of its walls.³⁴ Its ceiling was made of wood decorated with sculptures of Arab style. Within the ramparts of the royal palace there were houses for the court ladies, for the girls serving the kings and queens, and for pages. There were also beautiful smaller buildings in which the king consulted with ministers or discussed important issues with magnates.³⁵ This royal palace at Palermo was an important element that remained unchanged throughout the Norman period. The royal court of Sicily is thus this particular royal palace in Palermo and the people working there.

Meanwhile, the Arab historian Ibn al-Athīr noted that there had been a rumor that Roger II was a Muslim because his favor for the Muslims was so conspicuous.³⁶ Some modern historians, including Haskins, think that he even had a harem like a ruler in the Islamic world.³⁷ It is difficult to confirm this, but there is no doubt that he had many Muslims in his court.

Muslims also surrounded the successors of Roger II in their daily lives. William I entrusted his ministers with the affairs of state and preferred to live a tranquil and secluded life with Muslim pages and court ladies. He began to build a beautiful oriental palace called the Zisa surrounded by fruit trees and gardens in a suburb of Palermo.³⁸ According to Ibn Jubayr, William II’s trust of Muslims was so deep that he entrusted all private matters and important affairs to them. His chief cook was a Muslim. He was guarded by a troop of Muslim black slaves.³⁹ More over, most of the pages serving the king were eunuchs and secretly worshipped the faith of Islam. Many of the bureaucrats of the kingdom were recruited from among these pages, and so were the chamberlains, who had great power in the royal palace.⁴⁰

Thus, at the center of the kingdom there were always Christian kings, and the governmental center of the kingdom was the royal palace in Palermo. If we look at the kings’ living environment, they appeared to have lived a life not unlike that of Muslim rulers in the Islamic world. (This is precisely the image of the Sicilian court and kings that Haskins held.) However, this alone cannot lead us to believe that the Norman kings’ court was the same as that of a court in the Islamic world. If we examine the power structure of the court or the administrative system of the kingdom, we see that the actual condition of the court was completely different from that of Muslim courts.

II

An administrative organization was created and the government officials came to reside in the royal palace from the reign of Roger II. Moreover, the royal palace of Palermo continued to function as the center of administration even if the king was absent. However, both the power structure of the royal court and the administrative organization of the kingdom continued to change over the course of time.⁴¹

Although the king was at the center of the court, there were very few royal family members in any reign. When Roger II was crowned in Palermo in 1130, his parents and brothers had already passed away, and his only remaining family members were his wife and children. When William I began his independent rule, only his wife and children were still alive. When William II acceded to the throne, he had only his mother and younger brother Henry. Thus, a powerful aristocratic family line did not branch off from the royal family. The kings had no choice but to depend on government officials, ministers, clerics or lay vassals who had no blood relationship. The power structure of the court depended on their relationship with the kings or on the power balance among powerful people.

In examining the character of the kingship and the power structure of the court, we should also pay attention to head ministers and groups of the familiares regis (the royal inner council). The real power was not always held by a king but sometimes by a head minister or a group of the familiares regis. We should keep in mind that these three forms of central power appeared in turns at the royal court of Sicily.

When a king himself did not exercise power, the court became the stage of an intense struggle for power and a game of cunning diplomacy for hegemony. Confrontations between different groups, such as bureaucrats, clerics and feudal lords, between natives and foreigners, and among different cultural groups and so on, complicated the situation further.

During the reign of Roger II we see the first form of central power: the king himself exercised power. In the royal court, Roger II had many able officials, most of whom he inherited from his parents, as well as Norman aristocrats and Christian clerics. These officials bore various titles of Roman, Frankish, Byzantine and Arabic origins, such as cancellarius, camerarius, καπριλίγγας (kaprilingas), πρωτονοτάριος (prōtonotarios), notarius, νοτάριος (notarios), λογοθέτης (logo-thetēs), amiratus and so on.⁴² The high officials who bore the title of amiratus, originating from the Arabic amīr, were powerful magnates in the court with the king’s full confidence. They commanded the army and were concerned with the administration of the kingdom. Most of them were Greek. A powerful head minister, George, who also bore the title of amiratus, was a typical example of such Greeks.⁴³ He was born in Antioch, served a Zirid ruler in Tunisia and then came to Sicily. He spoke Greek and Arabic, and thus he was very useful for the administration of the kingdom, which had many Greek and Arabic inhabitants.⁴⁴ Although supported by these able ministers, officials and feudal vassals, Roger II solved various problems personally and dealt with important matters himself. Thus Roger II himself exercised power, and he was the real center in administration.

The reign of William I was completely different. Once the unsettled situation after the death of Roger II stabilized, William I entrusted the government to the head minister, Maio, and decided to live an easy life in a secluded palace.⁴⁵ The king stepped down from the center stage of politics, and Maio held full control over the kingdom. This is the second form of central power: a head minister exercising power instead of a king. Maio promoted the centralization of the government, strengthened the bureaucratic system and increased royal power. In the central government, chamberlains achieved hierarchization.⁴⁶

However, after the death of Maio a third form of the central power appeared. William I appointed the archdeacon of Catania, the count of Marsico and the bishop-elect of Syracuse to be familiares regis, and he entrusted them with the administration of the government.⁴⁷ From this time, the familiares regis came to have special significance in the Norman administration. Familiaris regis was a well-defined title to indicate a member of the royal inner council during the reigns of William I and William II. Although the holders of this title swelled to as many as ten people at one time, they were usually between three and five in number. As the decision makers on policy and other important matters, they were the most powerful people in the kingdom.⁴⁸ Thus, under William I central power was transferred from a single head minister to a group of familiares regis.

William II did not exercise direct power either. During his reign, we see the second and third forms of the central power just as under William I. In the early period of the king’s minority, the regent Queen Margaret made Peter, an ex-Muslim eunuch and the master chamberlain of the royal palace, head of the inner council, and had him play the role of head minister by concentrating power in his hands.⁴⁹ However, the dissatisfaction of the Norman lords increased, and Peter fled to North Africa during the confusion. Then Stephen, son of the count of Perche in France, came to Palermo at Margaret’s invitation. He was soon appointed chancellor, and in the following year he was elected to the archbishopric of Palermo. Thus he held the two highest positions of the kingdom and dealt with state affairs as head minister. However, he faced serious resistance from the magnates and Sicilians and fled the kingdom, which was in a state of civil war.

Stability was restored when Walter, one of the familiares regis and the dean of Agrigento, was consecrated archbishop of Palermo. He changed the composition of the inner council and established a triumvirate consisting of himself, Gentile the bishop of Agrigento and the notary Matthew.⁵⁰ In this way, the central power of the court took the third form again. This triumvirate continued for about fif-teen years and was modified by the addition of the archbishop of Monreale. This archbishopric was created in 1183, and William, its first archbishop, joined the familiares regis. The governing of the kingdom by the familiares regis came to an end after the death of William II. It was not restored under the new king, Tancred, but during the reign of his son, William III.⁵¹

Thus central power at the court greatly changed over the course of time. Roger II kept the real power in his hands and managed state affairs by himself, although he was supported by able officials. However, William I and William II were not eager to govern the kingdom. In fact, their head ministers or inner council of familiares regis took care of daily state affairs. Even if the king was the center of the kingdom institutionally or symbolically, the real administrative power was exercised by a head minister or an inner council of familiares regis.

III

What roles did the different cultural elements play, and what influences did they have in the central power at the court? At the beginning of this article, I called attention to the fact that all the Norman kings were Christian. All the queens were also Christian, although foreign-born: Roger II’s first wife Elvira was a daughter of King Alfonso VI of Castile in Spain; his second wife Sibyl was a daughter of Duke Hugh of Burgundy in France; his third wife Beatrice was a daughter of the count of Rethel in France; William I’s wife Margaret was a daughter of King Garcia of Navarre in Spain; and William II’s wife Joanna was a daughter of King Henry II of England. The cultural backgrounds of the head ministers and the familiares regis were remarkably varied. Most head ministers were also foreign-born. As already stated, George, head minister of Roger II, was a Greek born in Antioch.⁵² Peter, head minister during the minority of William II, was a converted Christian eunuch with an Arab-Islamic background and was born in Jerba. Falcandus described him as “a Christian only in name and dress but a Saracen at heart like all the eunuchs of the palace.”⁵³ His successor and head minister Stephen was French.⁵⁴ Maio was the only head minister born in South Italy.⁵⁵

Many foreigners can be found in the inner council, and a good number of them had an Arab-Islamic background. Among the three familiares regis at the end of the reign of William I, Richard the bishop-elect of Syracuse was English,⁵⁶ and Peter the master chamberlain of the royal palace was an ex-Muslim eunuch.⁵⁷ Among the five familiares regis formed after the flight of Peter were the English bishop-elect, Richard of Syracuse, and two ex-Muslim eunuchs, Richard⁵⁸ and Martin.⁵⁹ Three foreigners – Richard the bishop-elect of Syracuse who was English; Gentile the bishop of Agrigento who was Hungarian; and Henry the count of Montescaglioso who was Spanish – were included in the ten familiares regis formed after the flight of Stephen.⁶⁰ Furthermore, the Hungarian Gentile and the English Richard were both included in the three familiares regis established after 1169.⁶¹ Thus we see a great number of foreigners, including those with Arab-Islamic backgrounds, in the familiares regis.

Those within the Arab-Islamic tradition or those within the Greek-Byzantine tradition also occupied some other important offices in the central government. Most of the amirati who played important roles under Roger II were Greek.⁶² On the other hand, most of the chamberlains of the royal palace who were at the center of the royal administration in the latter half of the twelfth century were of Arab-Islamic background. Among the eight chamberlains of the royal palace (including master chamberlains of the royal palace) confirmed in the sources, either four or six had Arab-Islamic cultural background.⁶³ All three master chamberlains of the royal palace – Iohar,⁶⁴ Peter⁶⁵ and Richard⁶⁶ – were eunuchs with Arab-Islamic backgrounds. Many of the masters of the duana de secretis, which kept and dealt with documents related to land, had Arab-Islamic cultural backgrounds.⁶⁷ There were also many foreigners among other governmental officials. Robert the chancellor⁶⁸ and Thomas Brown the chaplain,⁶⁹ both of whom served Roger II, and Florius de Camerota, who served the three kings as justiciar,⁷⁰ were from England.

Thus we see many foreigners, and especially a large proportion of Greeks and those with Arab-Islamic backgrounds, among the ministers and officials at the royal court. It should be noted here, however, that we cannot find any Jews at the center of power or even in the royal administration, although there were certainly Jewish communities within the kingdom. We do not have a good explanation for this important fact. In any case, those who were at the center of power in the royal court had various cultural backgrounds. If we look at them carefully, we can recognize that the predominant culture at the royal court changed over the course of time. Under Roger II, Greek officials such as George had great power, but under William I, officials with Arab-Islamic cultural background such as chamberlains of the royal palace became very influential. Under William II, Latin officials gained more importance. In the long run, influence in the royal court shifted from Greeks to Arabs to Latins.⁷¹

IV

The royal court of the kingdom of Sicily was essentially fixed at the royal palace in Palermo, where people of Arab, Greek and Latin backgrounds coexisted. The Christian Norman kings lived there surrounded by Muslims. This is an important characteristic of the Norman kingship that did not change throughout the Norman period. However, the central power in the court and its power structure greatly changed over the course of time. At various points, the kings themselves, their head ministers and the inner council of familiares regis exercised power. Therefore we should not just focus on kings to discuss the character of the Sicilian sovereignty. The character of sovereignty changes according to the form of the central power, as does the power structure of the court. There were many Arabs, Greeks and other foreigners among head ministers and familiares regis. The culture of influential officials changed over time, from Greek to Arab to Latin.

Many historians have focused on a specific cultural element (Islam, Byzantine or European) at the court and insisted on its paramount influence. However, emphasizing one cultural element in characterizing the court of Sicily is like arbitrarily cutting off a part of reality and building a false image upon that fragment. We cannot characterize the Norman court unless we consider how each cultural element developed.

Moreover, we cannot see the origins of the modern state in the central administrative organization of the Sicilian court. Compared with other monarchies in Western Europe, the administrative organization of Sicily seems to have achieved a high level of bureaucratization. However, we cannot accept the position of historians who argue for such a high level of bureaucratization and an advanced financial and administrative organization. These historians posit an overly complicated organization as a result of the confusion engendered by the complicated use of Latin, Greek and Arabic words.⁷² Of course, it is possible that Sicily’s system affected other kingdoms later, and it is true that the administrative organization of Sicily supported by Arab and Greek officials appears to have been relatively advanced in comparison to that of contemporary Europe. But in fact these advances were nothing more than the adaptation and adoption of former Muslim or Byzantine systems. There were many intellectual bureaucrats with Islamic or Greek cultural backgrounds in the kingdom of Sicily’s court in Palermo, and they exercised great influence. The Norman kings of Sicily, supported by these Greek and Arab bureaucrats, were Christian kings standing knee-deep, so to speak, in Islamic and Greek cultures.

Notes

This is a revised version of my Japanese article published in Hiroshi Takayama and Shun’ichi Ikegami, eds., Courts and Public Squares in Medieval Europe (Tokyo, 2002), pp. 25–45. Previous versions were presented at the American Academy in Rome on 24 October 2002 and at the seminar “Religious Minorities in the Norman World” (Faculty of History, Cambridge University, in conjunction with “EU Culture 2000 Project on the Culture, Settlement and Migration of the Jews in Medieval Europe”) on 28 November 2002.

1 For general accounts of the Norman court of Sicily, see Jean-Marie Martin, Italies Normandes, XIe–XIIe siècles (Paris, 1994), pp. 259–287; Hubert Houben, Roger II. von Sizilien (Darmstadt, 1997), pp. 104–135 [English translation: Graham A. Loud, trans., Roger II of Sicily (Cambridge, 2002), pp. 98–135].

2 Charles H. Haskins, The Renaissance of the Twelfth Century (Cambridge, MA, 1927), p. 59.

3 Charles H. Haskins, The Normans in European History (Boston/New York, 1915), pp. 228–230. See also Charles H. Haskins, “England and Sicily in the Twelfth Century,” English Historical Review, vol. 26 (1911), pp. 433–447, 641–665.

4 Haskins, The Normans in European History, p. 230. Investigation of Islamic, especially Fāṭimid, influence on the Norman kings and court in Sicily had been largely done by Michele Amari in the nineteenth century, and was taken over by Francesco Gabrieli in the twentieth century. See Michele Amari, “Su la data degli sponsali di Arrigo VI con la Costanza erede del trono di Sicilia, e su i divani dell’azienda normanna in Palermo. Lettera del dottor O. HARTWIG e Memoria del Socio Amari,” Atti della R. Accademia dei Lincei, anno 275 (1877–78), serie 3, Memorie della classe di scienze morali, storiche e filologiche, vol. 2 (1878), pp. 409–438; Michele Amari, Storia dei Musulmani di Sicilia, 2nd ed., ed. Carlo A. Nallino, 3 vols. in 5 parts (Catania, 1933–1939), vol. 3, pp. 451–473, 498–499, 541–553; Francesco Gabrieli, “La politique arabe des Normands de Sicile,” Studia islamica, vol. 9 (1958), pp. 83–96. At the end of the twentieth century, a new generation of Arabists resumed emphasizing the importance of Islamic influence on the Norman kings and court. See Jeremy Johns, “The Norman Kings of Sicily and the Fatimid Caliphate,” Anglo-Norman Studies, vol. 15 (1993), pp. 133–159; Jeremy Johns, “I re normanni e i califfi fāṭimiti. Nuove prospettive su vecchi materiali,” Del nuovo sulla Sicilia musulmana, ed. Biancamaria Scarcia Amoretti (Rome, 1995), pp. 9–50; Jeremy Johns, Arabic Administration in Norman Sicily (Cambridge, 2002), pp. 1–7, 193–300; Adalgisa de Simone, “Il Mezzogiorno normanno-svevo visto dall’Islam africano,” Il Mezzogiorno normanno-svevo visto dall’Europa e dal mondo mediterraneo (Bari, 1999), pp. 281–285; Alex Metcalfe, “The Muslims of Sicily under Christian Rule,” The Society of Norman Italy, ed. Graham A. Loud and Alex Metcalfe (Leiden, 2002), pp. 289–317.

5 Antonio Marongiu, “La concezione di sovranità di Ruggero II,” Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi Ruggeriani, 2 vols. (Palermo, 1955), vol. 1, pp. 228–232.

6 Francesco Giunta, Bizantini e bizantinismo nella Sicilia normanna (Palermo, 1950 [2nd ed. 1974]).

7 Léon-Robert Ménager, “L’institution monarchique dans les États normands d’Italie. Contribution à l’étude du pouvoir royal dans les principautés occidentales, aux XIe–XIIe siècles,” Cahiers de civilisation médiévale, vol. 2 (1959), pp. 303–331, 445–468. See also Donald Matthew, The Norman Kingdom of Sicily (Cambridge, 1992), pp. 165–206. Matthew stands with Ménager, stating that the “the inspiration of its government was not Greek, but western. If anything was borrowed from Constantinople, it was its Roman core, not its Byzantine shell” (ibid., p. 170).

8 For example, see Vera Von Falkenhausen, “I gruppi etnici nel regno di Ruggero II e la loro partecipazione al potere,” Società, potere e popolo nell’età di Ruggero II (Bari, 1979), pp. 133–157; Houben, Roger II. von Sizilien, pp. 179–184 [English trans., pp. 176–181].

9 Marongiu, “La concezione di sovranità di Ruggero II,” pp. 231–233; Antonio Marongiu, “Lo spirito della monarchia normanna di Sicilia nell’allocuzione di Ruggero II ai suoi Grandi,” Guiscardo Moschetti, ed., Atti del Congresso internazionale di diritto romano e storia del diritto, Verona 1948, vol. 4 (Milan, 1951), pp. 315–327; Antonio Marongiu, “Concezione della sovranità ed assolutismo di Giustiniano e di Federico II,” Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi Federiciani (Palermo, 1952), pp. 31–46. See also David C. Douglas, The Norman Fate, 1100–1154 (Berkeley, 1976), pp. 115–120, 217.

10 Enrico Mazzarese Fardella, Aspetti dell’organizzazione amministrativa nello stato normanno e svevo (Milan, 1966), p. 18.

11 Martin, Italies Normandes, p. 261.

12 Walther Holtzmann, “Il regno di Ruggero II e gli inizi di un sistema di Stati Europei,” Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi Ruggeriani, 2 vols. (Palermo, 1955), vol. 1, pp. 29–48.

13 Helene Wieruszowski, “Roger II of Sicily, Rex-Tyrannus in Twelfth-Century Political Thought,” Speculum, vol. 38 (1963), pp. 46–78.

14 See note 36.

15 Most of his signatures were written in Greek, not only in Greek documents but also in Latin ones. For example, see a Latin document of 18 October 1144 issued at Messina (Palermo, Archivio di Stato, Tabulario di Santa Maria Maddalena di Valle Giosafat, perg. no. 29; Rogerii II. regis diplomata Latina [Cologne/Vienna, 1987], pp. 183–186, no. 64); a Latin document of 24 October 1144 issued at Messina (Rome, Biblioteca Apost. Vaticana, Fondo Aldobrandini, Pergamene II, 10 (5); Archivio Paleografico Italiano, vol. 14 (1954), Tav. 4; Rogerii II. regis diplomata Latina, pp. 187–189, no. 65); a Latin document of 3 November 1144 issued at Messina (Palermo, Biblioteca della Regione Siciliana, Tabulario di S. Maria Nuova di Monreale, perg. no. 3; Carlo A. Garufi, Catalogo illustrato del Tabulario di S. Maria Nuova in Monreale [Palermo, 1902], Tav. 1; Carlrichard Brühl, Urkunden und Kanzlei König Rogers II. von Sizilien [Cologne, 1978], Tav. XI; Rogerii II. regis diplomata Latina, pp. 189–192, no. 66). However, Von Falkenhausen believes that Roger II’s Greek signatures were not written by his own hand but by one of his scribes. See Vera Von Falkenhausen, “I diplomi dei re normanni in lingua greca,” Documenti medievali greci e latini. Studi Comparativi. Atti del seminario di Erice (23–29 ottobre 1995), ed. Giuseppe De Gregorio and Otto Kresten (Spoleto, 1998), pp. 283–286. For his signature in Latin, see a Latin document from 1124 in Archivio Paleografico Italiano, vol. 3 (1892–1910), Tav. 45; Houben, Roger II. von Sizilien, p. 40 [English trans., p. 40]; Rogerii II. regis diplomata Latina, pp. 16–17, no. 6. For the analysis of the documents issued under the Norman rule, see Johns, Arabic Administration, for Arabic; Von Falkenhausen, “I diplomi dei re normanni,” for Greek; and Horst Enzensberger, Beiträge zum Kanzlei- und Urkundenwesen der normannischen Herrscher Unteritaliens und Siziliens (Kallmünz, 1971); Brühl, Urkunden und Kanzlei; Theo Kölzer, Urkunden und Kanzlei der Kaiserin Konstanze, Königin von Sizilien (1195–1198) (Cologne/Vienna, 1983), for Latin.

16 Ibn Jubayr, Riḥla (The Travels of Ibn Jubair), ed. William Wright, 2nd ed. revised by De Goeje (Leiden, 1907), p. 325 [English trans.: The Travels of Ibn Jubayr, 2nd ed. (trans. by Ronald Broadhurst, London, 1952), p. 341].

17 This is the only surviving golden bull of Roger II as king, and was attached to a diploma of February 1131 (Archivio Paleografico Italiano, vol. 14 [1954)], Tav. 18–19, with an illustration of this bull in Tav. 19; Rogerii II. regis diplomata Latina, pp. 45–48, no. 16). See Enzensberger, Beiträge zum Kanzlei- und Urkundenwesen, pp. 89–92; Brühl, Urkunden und Kanzlei, p. 76; Houben, Roger II., pp. 123–124 [English trans., p. 119].

18 This seal was attached to a diploma of 3 November 1144 (Rogerii II. regis diplomata Latina, pp. 189–192, no. 66). Houben, Roger II., pp. 124–125 [English trans., 120–121], which has illustrations of this seal.

19 Jeremy Johns, “I titoli arabi dei sovrani normanni di Sicilia,” Bollettino di Numismatica, vol. 6–7 (1986), pp. 11–54; Lucia Travaini, La monetazione nell’Italia normanna (Rome, 1995); Philip Grierson and Lucia Travaini, Medieval European Coinage 14: Italy (III) (South Italy, Sicily, Sardinia) (Cambridge, 1998), pp. 1–140.

20 Al-Idrīsī, Kitāb nuzha al-mushtāq fī Ikhtirāq al-Āfāq (Opus geographicum), 6 vols. (Rome, 1970–1976), vol. 1, p. 5; in Michele Amari, ed., Biblioteca arabo-sicula ossia Raccolta di testi arabici che toccano la geografia, la storia, le biografie e la bibliografia della Sicilia (Leipzig, 1857) [hereinafter Amari, Biblioteca, testo arabo], p. 16; in Michele Amari, ed. and trans., Biblioteca arabo-sicula, versione italiana, 2 vols. (Rome/Turin, 1880–1881) [hereinafter Amari, Biblioteca, versione italiana], vol. 1, p. 35.

21 Alexander Kazhdan, “Doxopatres, Neilos,” The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, 3 vols., ed. Alexander Kazhdan (Oxford, 1991), vol. 1, p. 660; Vera Von Falkenhausen, “Doxapatres, Nilo,” Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, vol. 41 (1992), pp. 610–613.

22 Ibn Jubayr, Riḥla, p. 324 [English trans., p. 341].

23 Al-Idrīsī, Kitāb nuzha al-mushtāq, vol. 4, pp. 590–592; in Amari, Biblioteca, testo arabo, pp. 28–30; Amari, Biblioteca, versione italiana, vol. 1, pp. 59–62.

24 The Norman kings had also palaces for resort around Palermo, such as the Favara, which was surrounded by a large garden with thermal springs, and the palace of Altofonte, which was also surrounded by a garden. Romualdus Salernitanus, Chronicon sive Annales, ed. Carlo A. Garufi, vol. 7–1 (Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, Città di Castello, 1909–1935) (hereinafter Romualdus Salernitanus), p. 232 [English translation: Graham A. Loud and Thomas Wiedemann, trans., The History of the Tyrants of Sicily by “Hugo Falcandus” 1154–69 (Manchester/New York, 1998), p. 219]; Hugo Falcandus, Liber de Regno Sicilie, in Giovanni B. Siragusa, ed., La historia o Liber de Regno Sicilie e la epistola ad Petrum Panormitane ecclesie thesaurarium (Rome, 1897), p. 87 [English translation: Loud and Wiedemann, trans., The History of the Tyrants of Sicily, pp. 136–137]. See Houben, Roger II., p. 131 [English trans., pp. 130–131].

25 Illuminato Peri, Uomini, città e campagne in Sicilia dall’XI al XIII secolo (Bari, 1978), p. 108; Hans Van Werveke, The Cambridge Economic History, vol. 3 (1963), p. 38.

26 Van Werveke, The Cambridge Economic History, vol. 3, pp. 38–39; Lester K. Little, Religious Poverty and the Profit Economy in Medieval Europe (Ithaca, 1978), pp. 22–23; Brian Tierney and Sidney Painter, Western Europe in the Middle Ages, 300–1475, 4th ed. (New York, 1983), p. 274.

27 The structure of Palermo had not changed much from the time under Muslim rule. Ibn Hawqal, who visited the city in the tenth century, left us detailed information on it. See Ibn Hawqal, Kitāb Sūra al-Arḍ, ed. Michele Amari, Journal asiatique, 4e série, vol. 5 (1845), pp. 84–85.

28 Al-Idrīsī, Kitāb nuzha al-mushtāq, vol. 4, pp. 590–591; Amari, Biblioteca, testo arabo, pp. 28–29; Amari, Biblioteca, versione italiana, vol. 1, pp. 59–60.

29 Ibn Jubayr, Riḥla, p. 331 [English trans., p. 348]. Cf. Houben, Roger II., pp. 129–130 [English trans., p. 128].

30 Hugo Falcandus, “Epistola ad Petrum Panormitane ecclesie thesaurarium de calamitate Sicilie,” Giovanni B. Siragusa, ed., La historia o Liber de Regno Sicilie e la epistola ad Petrum Panormitane ecclesie thesaurarium (Rome, 1897), p. 177 [English translation: Loud and Wiedemann, trans., The History of the Tyrants, pp. 258–259]. See Houben, Roger II., pp. 130–131 [English trans., pp. 128–129].

31 Falcandus, “Epistola,” pp. 177–178 [Loud and Wiedemann, trans., The History of the Tyrants, p. 259].

32 The Kirinbi Tower was also written as Chirimbi or Chirumbi in Latin narrative sources. Chronicon Siciliae, in Ludovico A. Muratori, Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, 25 vols. (Milan, 1723–1751), vol. 10, p. 814; Otto Demus, The Mosaics of Norman Sicily, (London, 1949 [repr. New York, 1988]), p. 56.

33 Of these four towers, the Greek Tower and the Kirinbi Tower were destroyed. The Pisan Tower remains in an almost original form. The Joaria Tower remains partially intact. The Hall of Roger in the Norman Palace is the remains of the Joaria Tower. For the Hall of Roger, see Demus, The Mosaics of Norman Sicily, pp. 180–186.

34 Falcandus, “Epistola,” p. 180 [Loud and Wiedemann, trans., The History of the Tyrants, p. 260]. We still can see this Palatin Chapel; see Demus, The Mosaics of Norman Sicily, pp. 25–72; Eve Borsook, Messages in Mosaic (Oxford, 1990), pp. 20–41, fig. 16; William Tronzo, The Cultures of His Kingdom (Princeton, 1997).

35 Falcandus, “Epistola,” p. 178 [Loud and Wiedemann, trans., The History of the Tyrants, p. 259]. Cf. Falcandus, Liber de Regno, p. 55 [Loud and Wiedemann, trans., The History of the Tyrants, p. 108].

36 Ibn al-Athīr, Al-Kāmil fī al-Tārīkh, in Amari, Biblioteca, testo arabo, p. 288; Amari, Biblioteca, versione itali ana, p. 464.

37 Haskins, The Normans in European History, p. 230; Amari, Storia dei Musulmani, vol. 3, p. 449; Edmund Curtis, Roger of Sicily (New York, 1912), pp. 309–312; Aziz Ahmad, A History of Islamic Sicily (Edinburgh, 1975), p. 58.

38 Romualdus Salernitanus, pp. 252–253 [Loud and Wiedemann, trans., The History of the Tyrants, p. 237]; Falcandus, Liber de Regno, p. 87 [Loud and Wiedemann, trans., The History of the Tyrants, p. 137] Cf. Amari, Storia dei Musulmani, vol. 3, pp. 500–501.

39 Ibn Jubayr, Riḥla, p. 324 [English trans., p. 340].

40 Ibn Jubayr, Riḥla, pp. 325–326 [English trans., p. 340].

41 For the central administrative organizations and the power structure of the royal court, see Evelyn Jamison, Admiral Eugenius of Sicily: His Life and Work (London, 1957); Fardella, Aspetti dell’organizzazione amministrativa; Hiroshi Takayama, “The Financial and Administrative Organization of the Norman Kingdom of Sicily,” Viator, vol. 16 (1985), pp. 129–157; Hiroshi Takayama, “Familiares Regis and the Royal Inner Council in Twelfth-Century Sicily,” English Historical Review, vol. 104 (1989), pp. 357–372; 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; Hiroshi Takayama, The Administration of the Norman Kingdom of Sicily (Leiden/New York/Cologne, 1993); Martin, Italies Normandes, pp. 107–129; Houben, Roger II., pp. 149–162 [English trans., pp. 147–159]; Mario Caravale, La monarchia meridionale. Istituzioni e dottrina giuridica dai Normanni ai Borboni (Bari, 1998).

42 For the entourage and officials of Roger II, see Takayama, The Administration, pp. 48–56, 66–93.

43 For amiratus, see Jamison, Admiral Eugenius; Léon-Robert Ménager, Amiratus – Ἀμηρᾶς. L’Émirat et les origines de l’amirauté (XIe–XIIIe siècles) (Paris, 1960); Hiroshi Takayama, “Amiratus in the Norman Kingdom of Sicily: A Leading Office of Arabic Origin in the Royal Administration,” Forschungen zur Reichs-, Papst- und Landesgeschichte, ed. Karl Borchardt and Enno Bünz (Stuttgart, 1998), pp. 133–144.

44 Ibn ‘Adhāri, Kitāb al-Bayān al-Mughrib, in Amari, Biblioteca, testo arabo, p. 373; in Amari, Biblioteca, versione italiana, vol. 2, p. 38; Amari, Storia dei Musulmani, vol. 3, pp. 368–369. Ibn Khaldūn, Kitāb al-‘Ibar, in Amari, Biblioteca, testo arabo, p. 487; in Amari, Biblioteca, versione italiana, vol. 2, p. 206; Amari, Storia dei Musulmani, vol. 3, p. 369; Takayama, The Administration, pp. 53, 66–67.

45 Falcandus, Liber de Regno, p. 87 [Loud and Wiedemann, trans., The History of the Tyrants, p. 136].

46 Takayama, “The Great Administrative Officials,” pp. 321–326.

47 Falcandus, Liber de Regno, pp. 44, 69 [Loud and Wiedemann, trans., The History of the Tyrants, pp. 98, 120]. Cf. Jamison, Admiral Eugenius, pp. 46–47.

48 For the familiares regis of Sicily, see Hans Schadek, “Die Familiaren der sizilischen und aragonischen Könige im 12. und 13. Jahrhundert,” Spanische Forschungen der Görresgesellschaft: Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kulturgeschichte Spaniens, vol. 26 (1971), pp. 201–217; Takayama, “Familiares Regis,” pp. 357–372; Takayama, The Administration, pp. 98–101, 115–125.

49 Falcandus, Liber de Regno, p. 90 [Loud and Wiedemann, trans., The History of the Tyrants, p. 139].

50 Falcandus, Liber de Regno, pp. 163–164 [Loud and Wiedemann, trans., The History of the Tyrants, p. 216].

51 Takayama, “Familiares Regis,” pp. 365–370.

52 See note 44 above.

53 Falcandus, Liber de Regno, p. 25 [Loud and Wiedemann, trans., The History of the Tyrants, p. 78]: “sicut et omnes eunuchi palatii, nomine tantum habituque christianus erat, animo saracenus.” Siragusa (Falcandus, Liber de Regno, p. 99, note 1) and Amari (Storia dei Musulmani, vol. 3, p. 496) identify Peter with Aḥmad al-Ṣiqillī (Ahmad the Sicilian) of Berber origin. According to Ibn Khaldūn (Kitāb al-‘Ibar, in Amari, Biblioteca, testo arabo, p. 462; Amari, Biblioteca, versione italiana, 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 of Sicily (Roger II). See Takayama, The Administration, p. 100, note 20; Johns, Arabic Administration, pp. 222–228.

54 Falcandus, Liber de Regno, pp. 109–110 [Loud and Wiedemann, trans., The History of the Tyrants, pp. 159–160]; Ferdinand Chalandon, Histoire de la domination normande en Italie et en Sicile, vol. 2 (Paris, 1907), p. 320.

55 Maio was a son of the regalis protojudex of Bari. For Maio, see Andreas Gabrieli, “Majone da Bari. Indagini storiche con nuovi documenti,” Archivio storico pugliese, vol. 2 (1895), pp. 248–252; Otto Hartwig, “Re Guglielmo I e il suo grande ammiraglio Majone di Bari,” Archivio storico per le privincie napoletane, vol. 8 (1883), pp. 397–485; Takayama, The Administration, pp. 96–98. Francesco Giunta, however, thinks that Maio belonged to a Greek bourgeois family at Bari. See Giunta, Bizantini e bizantinismo nella Sicilia normanna, pp. 51, 60.

56 Norbert Kamp, Kirche und Monarchie im Staufischen Königreich Sizilien, 4 vols. (Munich, 1973–1982), vol. 3, pp. 1013–1018.

57 Falcandus, Liber de Regno, p. 83 [Loud and Wiedemann, trans., The History of the Tyrants, p. 133]. See note 53 above.

58 Although Falcandus does not call Richard a eunuch, the following description implies that he was just that: “Gaytus quoque Richardus illi cum ceteris eunuchis infestissimus erat, eo quod Robertum Calataboianensem contra voluntatem eius dampnaverat” (Falcandus, Liber de Regno, p. 119 [Loud and Wiedemann, trans., The History of the Tyrants, p. 170]). See also Falcandus, Liber de Regno, p. 161 [Loud and Wiedemann, trans., The History of the Tyrants, p. 214]; Takayama, “The Great Administrative Officials,” pp. 323–324; Johns, Arabic Administration, pp. 228–234.

59 Falcandus, Liber de Regno, p. 79, note 1, pp. 108–109 [Loud and Wiedemann, trans., The History of the Tyrants, pp. 129, 158]; Carlo A. Garufi, I documenti inediti dell’epoca normanna in Sicilia (Documenti per servire alla storia di Sicilia, serie 1, Diplomat-ica XVIII, Palermo, 1899), p. 111; Takayama, “The Great Administrative Officials,” p. 323; Johns, Arabic Administration, pp. 219–222.

60 Falcandus, Liber de Regno, pp. 161–162 [Loud and Wiedemann, trans., The History of the Tyrants, p. 214].

61 Falcandus, Liber de Regno, pp. 163–164 [Loud and Wiedemann, trans., The History of the Tyrants, p. 216]; Takayama, “Familiares Regis,” pp. 365–368.

62 In addition to George, John, son of Eugenius, Nicholas, Theodore, Basil and Michael, son of George, were all Greek amirati. See Takayama, “Amiratus,” pp. 138–140.

63 Takayama, “The Great Administrative Officials,” pp. 321–326.

64 Falcandus, Liber de Regno, p. 77 [Loud and Wiedemann, trans., The History of the Tyrants, p. 128]. Cf. Jamison, Admiral Eugenius, p. 44, note 3.

65 See notes 53, 57 above. Cf. Takayama, “Familiares Regis,” pp. 360–362.

66 See note 58 above.

67 Takayama, “The Great Administrative Officials,” pp. 326–331.

68 Karl A. Kehr, Die Urkunden der normannisch-sicilischen Könige (Innsbruck, 1902), p. 75, note 8; Haskins, “England and Sicily,” p. 437; Evelyn Jamison, “The Sicilian Norman Kingdom in the Mind of Anglo-Norman Contemporaries,” Proceedings of the British Academy, vol. 24 (1938), p. 270.

69 Dialogus de Scaccario: De Necessariis Observantiis Scaccarii Dialogus, qui Vulgo dicitur Dialogus de Scaccario, ed. Charles Johnson (London, 1950), p. 35; Haskins, “England and Sicily,” pp. 438–440; Wilfred L. Warren, Henry II (Berkeley/Los Angeles, 1977), pp. 313–314; Reginald L. Poole, The Exchequer in the Twelfth Century (London, 1912), pp. 67, 118–122.

70 Haskins, “England and Sicily,” pp. 437–438; Jamison, “The Sicilian Norman Kingdom,” pp. 274–275.

71 For the decline of the Muslim population in Sicily in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, see David Abulafia, “The End of Muslim Sicily,” Muslims under Latin Rule: A Comparative Perspective, ed. James M. Powell (Princeton, 1990), pp. 103–133.

72 Takayama, “The Financial and Administrative Organization,” pp. 129–157.