8
The Norman conquest of Sicily and Southern Italy in the eleventh century marked a watershed in Mediterranean history. It destroyed the old political order in this region, balanced among several states with different cultural traditions, and created a new set of political circumstances under the Normans.1 Islamic Sicily, Byzantine Apulia and Calabria, the Lombard principalities of Benevento, Salerno and Capua and the city-states of Naples, Amalfi and Gaeta were placed under Norman rulers and eventually unified into the Norman Kingdom of Sicily in the twelfth century. Thus Sicily and Southern Italy, one of the most important strategic points and most important trading centers in the Mediterranean, ceased to be the border region between the Arab Islamic, Greek Byzantine and Latin European cultural zones, and became a part of the political sphere of Latin-Christian Europe.
The Norman conquerors occupied a vast area spanning Sicily and Southern Italy, establishing themselves as a ruling class consisting of the kings, lay aristocrats and high clerics. They were the new masters of the conquered Muslims, Greeks and “Lombards.”2 Thus we tend to draw a line of confrontation between the Normans and the others, especially between the Normans and the conquered Muslims and Greeks. The name-lists of Muslim peasants in the writs of transfer of lands issued in the eleventh and twelfth centuries seem to illustrate well these Muslims under Norman lords.3
It is well known that Greek and Muslim (or ex-Muslim) officials served the Norman kings in the royal palace.4 Scholars have been inclined to think that they were a small portion of the entire population of officials and that they were employed to govern the Greek and Muslim populations, acting as intermediaries between the ruling Normans and the ruled Greeks and Arabs.5 This inclination seems to be justified from the fact that a large number of cities in Sicily were allowed their autonomy when they submitted to Roger I,6 and also from the fact that Abū al- Qāsim, a leader of the Muslims in Sicily, served William II as a high official.7 However, the relationship among those people was not simple. There were very few wars fought based on differences in religion or culture after the establishment of the kingdom.8 The Norman kings often fought against rebellious Norman barons, cities and outside powers, such as popes or German and Byzantine emperors, all of them Christian. The power struggles in the royal palace also lack confrontation purely based on differences in religion or culture.9 It is difficult to see a clear line of confrontation between the Norman kings and Muslims or Greeks.
Then how should we see the power structure of the kingdom? We could list various human groups such as kings, aristocrats, cities, high clerics, bureaucrats, Muslims, Greeks, Jews and so forth as possible actors confronting each other. What kind of relationships did they have in terms of power? The main line of confrontation could be different during the conquest and after the establishment of the kingship. Here I focus on the period after the pacification of the kingdom in 1140.
I
In considering the power relationships or the lines of confrontation within the kingdom, we should first understand the changing nature of the central power.10 We need to pay sufficient attention to head ministers and groups of the familiares regis (members of the royal inner council), because the real power was not always held by a king, but sometimes by a head minister or a group of the familiares regis. It is important to keep in mind that three forms of central power appeared in turns at the royal court of Sicily.11 During the reign of Roger II we see the first form of central power: The king himself exercised power. Roger II was supported by able ministers, officials and feudal vassals, most of whom he inherited from his parents, as well as Norman aristocrats and Christian clerics.12 The high-level officials with the title of amiratus, originating from Arabic amīr, were powerful magnates in the court with the king’s full confidence.13 However, Roger II solved various problems personally and dealt with important matters himself. Thus for a large part of his reign, Roger II himself exercised power and was the real center in administration.
His son William I’s attitude was different. After having overcome a crisis at the beginning of his reign, William I entrusted the government to the head minister, Maio, and tried to live a secluded life.14 The king stepped down from the center stage of politics and the head minister took full control of the government. This marked the appearance of a second form of central power: A head minister exercising power instead of a king. Maio promoted centralization of the government and tried to exclude Norman barons from the royal court.15 This policy raised their hostility against him and brought about his assassination. After the death of Maio, 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 government of the kingdom.16 Thus a third form of central power appeared. From this time on, the familiares regis were members of the royal inner council. As decision makers on policy and other important matters, they were the most powerful people in the kingdom under William I and his son William II.17
William II was another ruler who did not exercise power personally. During his reign we see the second and third forms of central power just as under William I. In the early period of William II’s reign, the regent Queen Margaret made Peter, an ex-Muslim eunuch,18 and Stephen, son of the count of Perche in France, head ministers by turns, entrusting them with state affairs. However, both of them faced serious resistance from the magnates and Sicilians, and they fled the kingdom in disturbances. Stability was restored when Walter, one of the familiares regis and the dean of Agrigento, was consecrated archbishop of Palermo. As soon as he gained the highest ecclesiastical position in the kingdom, he changed the composition of the inner council and established a triumvirate consisting of himself, Gentile the bishop of Agrigento and Matthew the notary.19 In this way, the central power of the court returned to the third form again. This triumvirate continued for about fifteen years and was modified by the addition of the archbishop of Monreale.20 The governing of the kingdom by the familiares regis came to an end after the death of William II.21
Thus the 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. In contrast, William I and William II were reluctant to govern the kingdom for themselves. 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 power was exercised by a head minister or an inner council of familiares regis. Therefore, we should not just focus on kings to discuss the character of the Sicilian sovereignty. The character of sovereignty varies according to the form of the central power, as does the power structure of the court. We must pay full attention to head ministers and familiares regis to discuss the central power of the kingdom.
II
Although the kings were Normans, none of the head ministers was a Norman from Normandy or their offspring. George, head minister of Roger II, was born in Antioch of Syria and had a Greek cultural background.22 Maio, head minister of William I, was a son of a local judge of Bari in South Italy.23 Peter, head minister during the minority of William II, was born in Jerba and was a eunuch with an Arab-Islamic tradition, although he was a converted Christian.24 His successor Stephen was French, a son of the count of Perche, but not of Norman origin from Normandy.25 Few of the familiares regis were Norman aristocrats or offspring of such aristocrats. Among the three familiares regis appointed just after the assassination of Maio, only Sylvester, count of Marsico and cousin of William I, was a Norman aristocrat.26 After his death, no Norman lords entered the inner council of three familiares regis until the flight of Peter in 1166.27 The inner council of five familiares regis established at that time included one aristocrat, Richard of Mandra, count of Molise, and that of ten familiares regis reorganized after the flight of Stephen in 1168 included three aristocrats: Richard of Mandra, count of Molise; Roger, count of Gerace; and Henry, count of Montescaglioso.28 The last was a brother of the regent Queen Margaret and a Spaniard.29 Richard of Mandra was originally the constable of Robert, count of Loritello and Conversano.30 He was imprisoned for the support of the rebel but was liberated in 1161 and appointed master constable of the king.31 Then he was made count of Marsico by the regent Queen Margaret.32 He might be of Norman origin, but this fact is difficult to ascertain. We have little information concerning Roger, count of Gerace.33 After the establishment of the triumvirate of three familiares regis in 1169, no aristocrats entered the inner council until the death of William II.34
The list of the familiares regis rather shows remarkable variance, like that of head ministers, in terms of their origins and cultural backgrounds. Among the three familiares regis at the end of the reign of William I, Richard the bishop-elect of Syracuse was an English cleric,35 and Peter the master chamberlain of the royal palace was an ex-Muslim eunuch.36 The group of five familiares regis formed after the flight of Peter consisted of two ex-Muslim eunuchs, Richard37 and Martin;38 Matthew, a notary born in Salerno; and count Richard of Molise. The group of ten familiares regis formed after the flight of Stephen included three foreigners – the English Bishop-elect Richard of Syracuse, the Hungarian Bishop Gentile of Agrigento and the Spanish Count Henry of Montescaglioso – besides three ecclesiastics, two counts, and one notary.39 Furthermore, the Hungarian Gentile and the English Richard were both included in the three familiares regis established after 1169.40 Thus a great number of foreigners and those with Arab-Islamic backgrounds attained the rank of familiares regis. Feudal lords joined the inner council in serious situations for a limited extent of time, but their numbers were very few in ordinary conditions and nil after 1169.
It should be also noted that Muslims (or ex-Muslims) and Greeks occupied other important offices at the central government. Most amirati under Roger II were Greek.41 Most chamberlains of the royal palace under William II were Muslims or ex-Muslims. Of the eight chamberlains of the royal palace (including master chamberlains of the royal palace) confirmed in the sources, at least four, and possibly as many as six, had Arab-Islamic cultural backgrounds.42 All three master chamberlains of the royal palace – Iohar,43 Peter44 and Richard45 – were eunuchs with Arab-Islamic backgrounds.46
Thus those who were at the center of power had various cultural backgrounds, although influence in the royal court shifted from Greeks to Arabs to Latins.47 A Greek, an ex-Muslim eunuch, a Frenchman and a southern Italian reached the post of head minister; ex-Muslim eunuchs and foreigners joined the familiares regis; and all three master chamberlains of the royal palace were ex-Muslim eunuchs. These were not simple government officials of the king but people that had real power and influence.
Why did the king appoint those with a different culture or even a different religion to such a high position? Why did he have such a trust in them? What elements tied them together? What could the main confrontation axes be if not differences in religion or culture?
III
At the royal court, the difference in religion or cultural background did not serve as a clear line of confrontation. It is true that Muslims were attacked, pillaged and killed by Christians during disturbances,48 and religious differences served as a reason of hatred.49 However, the main line of confrontation did not lie between Christians and Muslims or between Latins and Greeks or Arabs, but between kings and aristocrats – both Christians.
Although the kings and barons shared many common characteristics, such as Norman origin, Christianity, Latin tradition and knightly status, they were different in other respects. The kings had more in common with bureaucrats than with the aristocrats. For example, both the kings and bureaucrats were intellectuals. It is well known that the Norman kings of Sicily were well versed in Arabic and Greek cultures. Roger II had a strong influence of Greek culture and most of his signatures appear to have been written in Greek.50 According to Ibn Jubayr, William II was able to read and write Arabic. The Norman kings were very interested in learning and the arts, and they gathered many scholars – doctors, astrologers, philosophers, mathematicians including Greek theologian Neilos Doxopatres51 and geographers including the Arab Al-Idrīsī – to the royal palace in Palermo. According to Al-Idrīsī, Roger II had a deep understanding of mathematics, political science and natural sciences and enjoyed discussing these subjects with scholars.52 Moreover, according to Ibn Jubayr, William II had doctors and astrologers under his close care, and he offered vast sums as living expenses to foreign doctors and astrologers passing through the kingdom.53 Thus the Norman kings, while being Christian, were intellectuals who appreciated Greek and Arabic scholars. Many of the kings’ ministers and bureaucrats were also highly educated and learned intellectuals. Henry Aristippus, a Latin-Christian cleric who served William I as familiaris regis, translated Meno and Phaedo by Plato, and Meteorology by Aristotle, from Greek into Latin.54 Eugenius, a Greek official who served William II as master of the duana baronum, translated Optics by Ptolemy into Latin from Arabic.55
Both the kings and bureaucrats lived in Palermo, the capital of the kingdom. Palermo was the center of almost all aspects of human activity including politics, the economy and culture, and it was the second biggest city in the kingdom after Naples. Its population in the twelfth century is estimated to have been between 50,000 and 100,000,56 and it was bigger than Rome or London, which had populations of 50,000.57 Palermo, which had been also the capital under Muslim rule, was populated by many Muslims even after the Norman conquest, thus Islamic culture was dominant there. Ibn Jubayr described that
The Christian women of this city follow the fashion of Muslim women, are fluent of speech, wrap their cloaks about them, and are veiled. They go forth on this Feast Day dressed in robes of gold-embroidered silk, wrapped in elegant cloaks, concealed by colored veils, and shod with gilt slippers.58
Although the Norman kings had palaces all over the kingdom, their principal place of residence was the palace in Palermo,59 which was originally an old Muslim castle.60 The royal court of Sicily effectively meant this royal palace in Palermo and the people working there. This marks a clear contrast with other European monarchies. In the kingdoms of England, France and Germany, the kings did not fix their capitals in one place, instead moving within their kingdoms from one castle to another once every several weeks or months with their retinues in tow. The Norman kings of Sicily lived in the royal palace in Palermo surrounded by Muslims. 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. According to Ibn Jubayr, William II trusted Muslims deeply, assigned all private matters and important affairs to them, hired a Muslim chief cook, and had a troop of Muslim black slaves.61 Moreover, most of the pages serving the king were eunuchs and secretly worshipped Islam.62
On the other hand, most aristocrats were feudal lords who lived in the countryside of the peninsula, distant from Palermo, in marked contrast with the kings, who lived in gorgeous palaces with Muslim pages and court ladies, and the intellectual bureaucrats engaged in government. The aristocrats were Christians, and many of them were Normans. Unlike the kings, few of them had opportunities to come into contact with sophisticated Arab or Greek cultures or to enjoy their studies and arts. We do not know much about their activities except those pertaining to the military and maintenance of peace. There is little information about their cultural activities. Many of them lived a substantial distance from the larger cities, which offered various cultural activities and opportunities of education, and they probably did not have much opportunity to receive a literary education, although they were certainly trained as warriors and knights. Although their lord, the king, understood plural languages, was well versed in Islamic and Greek cultures as well as Latin, and enjoyed an urban life at a gorgeous palace in the capital city Palermo, most aristocrats lived in castles or houses in remote rural areas, had no opportunity to receive a good education, and lived their lives in a wholly Christian culture.
IV
Thus the kings and aristocrats show marked contrast in many respects, although both were Christian knights. The contrast between them is shown by whether they were located in the center or a regional district, a large cosmopolitan city or a rural country, and whether they were intellectuals or warriors. Palermo, in which the kings and bureaucrats resided, was an overwhelmingly large city. The population, wealth and cultural activities of the kingdom were concentrated on this capital. There were other big cities such as Naples, Amalfi and Gaeta that were prosperous with commerce. Some of them, surrounded by ramparts, even had the power to revolt against a king. However, these cities, with some exceptions, were not places inhabited by aristocrats.
Other rulers in contemporary Western Europe, without fixing a residential palace, traveled with their suites from one place to another. Since their courts moved around, a capital was not fixed in one place, which was not conducive for development of the bureaucracy. In the kingdoms of England, France and Germany, those who supported the kings were aristocrats and clerics who accompanied the kings. The kings’ government officials were, in general, aristocrats of lower ranks who were the kings’ vassals. The kings and aristocrats shared the same Christian culture. In these monarchies, there was not such marked difference between kings and aristocrats as seen in the kingdom of Sicily.
In Sicily, however, there was a more developed bureaucracy and bureaucrats had varied cultural backgrounds. The kings and these bureaucrats took a stand against the aristocrats, who had solely Latin-Christian backgrounds. In fact, the keynote of the political history of the kingdom was a process in which the kings together with bureaucrats held down the aristocrats and cities of the peninsula. The kings and bureaucrats, who had different cultural backgrounds but were highly educated and cultured, took a stand against aristocrats who were not well cultured but trained as warriors. It should not be forgotten, however, that this line of confrontation was visible only during peacetime. During wartime, a line of confrontation was drawn between aristocrats and cities that had military power. Aristocrats and cities were divided into pro-king and anti-king groups and fought amongst each other, while bureaucrats were usually on the side of the kings. This suggests that even the mighty Norman kings supported by the bureaucrats were by no means absolute. The strong Norman kingship of Sicily was in fact only made possible by a delicate balance of power among aristocrats, cities and bureaucrats.
Notes
1 The impact of the Norman conquest in Southern Italy has long been discussed by scholars. See Einar Joranson, “The Inception of the Career of the Normans in Italy: Legend and History,” Speculum, vol. 23 (1948), pp. 353–396; Hartmut Hoffmann, “Die Anfänge der Normannen in Süditalien,” Quellen und Forschungen aus Italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken, vol. 49 (1969), pp. 95–144; Léon-Robert Ménager, “Pesanteur et étiologie de la colonisation Normande de l’Italie,” Roberto il Guiscardo e il suo tempo (Rome, 1975), pp. 189–215; Norbert Kamp, “Vescovi e diocesi nell’Italia meridionale passaggio dalla dominazione bizantina allo stato normanno,” Forme di potere e struttura sociale in Italia nel Medioevo, ed. Gabriella Rossetti (Bologna, 1977), pp. 379–397; Graham A. Loud, “How ‘Norman’ was the Norman Conquest of Southern Italy?,” Nottingham Medieval Studies, vol. 25 (1981), pp. 3–34; Graham A. Loud, “Continuity and Change in Norman Italy: The Campania during the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries,” Journal of Medieval History, vol. 22 (1996), pp. 313–343; Wolfgang Jahn, Untersuchungen zur normannischen Herrschaft in Süditalien (1040–1100) (Frankfurt, 1989); John France, “The Occasion of the Coming of the Normans to Southern Italy,” Journal of Medieval History, vol. 17 (1991), pp. 185–205.
2 From a demographic point of view, the Normans were a minority with respect to their number. The majority of Sicilians were Muslims and Greeks. Many of the inhabitants in Calabria and a part of Apulia were Greeks, while the majority in Apulia and Campania were those with Latin-Christian traditions, often described as “Lombards” in contemporary sources. Concerning the survival of Lombard aristocrats after the conquest in Campania, see Loud, “Continuity and Change in Norman Italy,” pp. 324–336.
3 For example, a Greek document issued on 20 February of AM (annus mundi) 6603, Indiction III (AD 1095), lists 390 names of peasants (Catania, Archivio Capitolare della Cattedrale di Catania, Pergamene Greco-arabe e greche, note 1; Salvatore Cusa, I diplomi greci ed arabi di Sicilia pubblicati nel testo originale, vol. 1 in 2 parts [Palermo, 1868–1882], pp. 541–549; Jeremy Johns, Arabic Administration in Norman Sicily [Cambridge, 2002], pp. 301–302, Appendix 1, no. 4), and an Arabic document (the revision of the document of 1095) issued in AM 6653, AH (annus hegirae) 539, Indiction VIII (AD 1145) includes 525 names of the people of Catania, 94 names of widows, 23 names of “slaves of the church (‘abīd al-kanīsa),” 25 names of Jews, and 8 names of the blind (‘umy) (Catania, Archivio Capitolare della Cattedrale di Catania, Pergamene Greco-arabe e greche, note 6; Cusa, pp. 563–585; Johns, Arabic Administration, pp. 119–120, 306, Appendix 1, no. 21).
4 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); 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; Johns, Arabic Administration, pp. 212–256.
5 Denis Mack Smith, Medieval Sicily 800–1713 (New York, 1968), pp. 15–17. On the other hand, many scholars think that Greek and Muslim officials were employed for their skills to carry out specialized work for royal finance. This view is typically shown in the following sentence: “during the reign of Roger the Great the responsibility for royal finance came to be vested almost exclusively in the hands of Greek and Saracen officials” (David C. Douglas, The Norman Fate 1100–1154 [Berkeley/Los Angeles, 1976], p. 116). It is true that many Muslim and some Greek officials worked for the duana (dīwān), which scholars have regarded as a highly specialized financial office. However, the duana was not a specialized financial office. See my argument on the duana in Hiroshi Takayama, “The Financial and Administrative Organization of the Norman Kingdom of Sicily,” Viator, vol. 16 (1985), pp. 129–157; Takayama, The Administration. Cf. Johns, Arabic Administration, p. 193.
6 When the Muslims of Palermo surrendered to Roger I and Guiscard in 1072, their representatives, two qā’ids, together with other magnates, negotiated with Roger I (Amatus Casinensis, Storia de’ Normanni di Amato di Montecassino, ed. Vincenzo de Bartholomaeis (Rome, 1935) (hereinafter Amatus), Lib. VI, Cap. XVIIII [sic, =XIX], p. 281), and gained his assurance of the safety of Muslim residents and permission of their own faith on the condition that they should pay annual tributes and give service to him (Gaufredus Malaterra, De rebus gestis Rogerii Calabriae et Siciliae comitis et Roberti Guiscardi ducis fratris eius, ed. Ernesto Pontieri [Bologna, 1928] [hereinafter Malaterra], Lib. II, Cap. XLV, p. 53). Cf. Michele Amari, Storia dei Musulmani di Sicilia, 2nd ed., 3 vols., ed. Carlo A. Nallino (Catania, 1933–1939 [1st ed., 3 vols., Florence 1854–1872]), vol. 3, pp. 130–131, 277; Ferdinand Chalandon, Histoire de la domination normande en Italie et en Sicile, 2 vols. (Paris, 1907), vol. 1, p. 208; Graham A. Loud, The Age of Robert Guiscard (Harlow, 2000), pp. 161–162. At this time the Muslims in Palermo seemed to be allowed to keep some sort of autonomy, especially to have their own laws, judges and judicial system (Amari, Storia dei Musulmani, vol. 3, p. 132; Chalandon, Histoire de la domination, vol. 1, p. 208; Francesco Gabrieli, “La politique arabe des Normands de Sicile,” Studia Islamica, vol. 9 [1958], p. 93). In many other cities, such as Catania, Mazara, Trapani, Taormina, Syracuse, Castrogiovanni, Butera and Noto, Roger I probably kept their old administrative systems (Amari, Storia dei Musulmani, vol. 3, p. 277). See Hiroshi Takayama, “The Administration of Roger I,” Ruggero I Gran Conte di Sicilia, Guglielmo De’ Giovanni-Centelles (Rome, Istituto Italiano dei Castelli, 2007), pp. 124–140.
7 Ibn Jubayr, Riḥla (The Travels of Ibn Jubair), ed. William Wright, 2nd ed. revised by Michael J. De Goeje (Leiden, 1907), p. 341 [English translation: Ronald J.C. Broadhurst, trans., The Travels of Ibn Jubayr (London, 1952), p. 358]; Takayama, The Administration, pp. 136–138, 141–142; Johns, Arabic Administration, pp. 234–242.
8 Even during the conquest, there were few wars purely based on difference in religion or culture. The Normans first entered Sicily to support a Muslim lord who was in war with another Muslim lord. Ibn al-Athīr, Al-Kāmil fī al-Tārīkh, 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. 276; Michele Amari, ed. and trans., Biblioteca arabo- sicula, versione italiana, 2 vols. (Turin/Rome, 1880–1881) [hereinafter Amari, Biblioteca, versione italiana], vol. 1, p. 447; Nuwayrī, Nihāya al-Arab fī Funūn al-Adab, in Amari, Biblioteca, testo arabo, p. 447; in Amari, Biblioteca, versione italiana, vol. 2, pp. 143–144; Ibn Khaldūn, Kitāb al-‘Ibar, in Amari, Biblioteca, testo arabo, pp. 484–485, 497; in Amari, Biblioteca, versione italiana, vol. 2, pp. 202, 221; Malaterra, Lib. II. Cap. 1–11, pp. 29–33; Amatus, Lib. V, Cap. 8–18, pp. 229–237. Cf. Loud, The Age of Robert Guis-card, pp. 148–158.
9 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) [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)].
10 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); Enrico Mazzarese Fardella, Aspetti dell’organizzazione amministrativa nello stato normanno e svevo (Milan, 1966); Takayama, “The Financial and Administrative Organization,” 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; Takayama, “The Great Administrative Officials”; Takayama, The Administration; Jean-Marie Martin, Italies Normandes, XIe–XIIe siècles (Paris, 1994), pp. 107–129; Hubert Houben, Roger II. von Sizilien (Darmstadt, 1997), pp. 149–162 [English translation: Graham A. Loud, trans., Roger II of Sicily (Cambridge, 2002), pp. 147–159]; Mario Caravale, La monarchia meridionale. Istituzioni e dottrina giuridica dai Normanni ai Borboni (Bari, 1998).
11 For a fuller argument on the central power, see Hiroshi Takayama, “Central Power and Multi-Cultural Elements at the Norman Court of Sicily,” Mediterranean Studies, vol. 12 (2003), pp. 1–15.
12 For the entourage and officials of Roger II, see Takayama, The Administration, pp. 48–56, 66–93. These officials bore various titles of Roman, Frankish, Byzantine and Arabic origins, such as cancellarius, camerarius, καπρελίγγας (kaprelingas), πρωτονοτάριος (prōtonotarios), notarius, νοτάριος (notarios), λογοθέτης (logothetēs), amiratus, ἀμηρᾶς (amērās) and so forth. See also Vera Von Falkenhausen, “I ceti dirigenti prenormanni al tempo della costituzione degli stati normanni nell’Italia meridionale e in Sicilia,” Forme di potere e struttura sociale in Italia nel Medioevo, ed. Gabriella R. Pepe (Bologna, 1977), pp. 321–377; 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. 133–156.
13 They commanded the army and were concerned with the administration of the kingdom. Most of them were Greek. For amiratus, see Evelyn Jamison, Admiral Eugenius of Sicily (London, 1957); 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.
14 Falcandus, Liber de Regno, p. 87 [Loud and Wiedemann, trans., The History of the Tyrants, p. 136].
15 Takayama, The Administration, pp. 95–98; Evelyn Jamison, “The Norman Administration of Apulia and Capua More Especially under Roger II and William II 1127–1166,” Papers of the British School at Rome, vol. 6 (1913), p. 260.
16 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.
17 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.
18 He was the master chamberlain of the royal palace. Falcandus, Liber de Regno, p. 90 [Loud and Wiedemann, trans., The History of the Tyrants, p. 139]. For Peter, see note 24.
19 Falcandus, Liber de Regno, pp. 163–164 [Loud and Wiedemann, trans., The History of the Tyrants, p. 216].
20 This archbishopric was created in 1183 and its first archbishop William joined the familiares regis.
21 It was not restored under a new king, Tancred, but restarted during the reign of his son William III. Takayama, “Familiares Regis,” pp. 365–370.
22 George, who also bore the title of amiratus, was a powerful head minister. He was born in Antioch, served a Zirid ruler in Tunisia, then came to Sicily. He spoke Greek and Arabic, thus being very useful for the administration of the kingdom, which had many Greek and Arabic inhabitants. For George, see 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.
23 Maio was a son of 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 province 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 Francesco Giunta, Bizantini e bizantinismo nella Sicilia normanna, 2nd ed. (Palermo, 1974), pp. 51, 60.
24 Falcandus described him as “a Christian only in name and dress but a Saracen at heart like all the eunuchs of the palace.” Falcandus, Liber de Regno, p. 25 [Loud and Wiede-mann, trans., The History of the Tyrants, p. 78]: “sicut et omnes eunuchi palatii, nomine tantum habituque christianus erat, animo saracenus.” Giovanni B. Siragusa (Falcandus, Liber de Regno, p. 99, note 1) and Michele Amari (Storia dei Musulmani, vol. 3, p. 496) identify Peter with Aḥmad al-Ṣiqillī (Aḥmad 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, “Familiares Regis,” pp. 360–362; Takayama, The Administration, p. 100, note 20; Johns, Arabic Administration, pp. 222–228.
25 Falcandus, Liber de Regno, pp. 109–112 [Loud and Wiedemann, trans., The History of the Tyrants, pp. 159–162]; Chalandon, Histoire de la domination, vol. 2, pp. 320–322.
26 Falcandus, Liber de Regno, pp. 44–69 [Loud and Wiedemann, trans., The History of the Tyrants, pp. 98, 120]; Takayama, “Familiares Regis,” pp. 359–361; Takayama, The Administration, pp. 98–101. Count Silvester of Marsico was the son of Geoffrey of Ragusa (son of Roger I), and thus the grandson of Roger I. See Errico Cuozzo, Catalogus baronum. Commentario (Rome, 1984, Fonti per la storia d’Italia, vol. 101), pp. 159–160; Loud and Wiedemann, trans., The History of the Tyrants, p. 84, note 55.
27 Takayama, “Familiares Regis,” pp. 360–361; Takayama, The Administration, pp. 100–101, 115–116.
28 Falcandus, Liber de Regno, pp. 108–109, 161–162 [Loud and Wiedemann, trans., The History of the Tyrants, pp. 158, 214]; Takayama, “Familiares Regis,” pp. 362–363; Takayama, The Administration, p. 117.
29 Falcandus, Liber de Regno, p. 107 [Loud and Wiedemann, trans., The History of the Tyrants, pp. 155–156].
30 Falcandus, Liber de Regno, p. 24 [Loud and Wiedemann, trans., The History of the Tyrants, p. 77]. He had lands at Terlizzi and near Troia (Codice diplomatico barese, vol. 3 [Bari, 1899], pp. 128, 136). Cf. Evelyn Jamison, “The Administration of the County of Molise in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries,” English Historical Review, vol. 44 (1929), p. 532. According to Garufi (Romualdus Salernitanus, Chronicon sive Annales, ed. Carlo Alberto Garufi [Città di Castello, 1909–1935] [hereinafter Romualdus Salernitanus], p. 241 note 3, p. 389), he was a son of Count Robert of Molise, but I could not confirm this in sources.
31 Falcandus, Liber de Regno, pp. 24, 56, 69 [Loud and Wiedemann, trans., The History of the Tyrants, pp. 77, 109, 120]; Romualdus Salernitanus, p. 246.
32 Falcandus, Liber de Regno, pp. 97–98 [Loud and Wiedemann, trans., The History of the Tyrants, pp. 146–147].
33 Cf. Loud and Wiedemann, trans., The History of the Tyrants, p. 193, note 227.
34 Takayama, “Familiares Regis,” pp. 365–369; Takayama, The Administration, pp. 118–123.
35 Norbert Kamp, Kirche und Monarchie im Staufischen Königreich Siziliens, 4 vols. (Munich, 1973–1982), vol. 3, pp. 1013–1018.
36 Falcandus, Liber de Regno, p. 83 [Loud and Wiedemann, trans., The History of the Tyrants, p. 133].
37 Although Falcandus does not call Richard a 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 dampnaverat” (Falcandus, Liber de Regno, p. 119 [Loud and Wiedemann, trans., The History of the Tyrants, p. 170]). See also Falcandus, Liber de Regno, pp. 161–162 [Loud and Wiede-mann, trans., The History of the Tyrants, p. 214]; Takayama, “Great Administrative Officials,” pp. 323–324; Johns, Arabic Administration, pp. 228–234.
38 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’epo ca normanna in Sicilia (Palermo, 1899), p. 111; Takayama, “The Great Administrative Officials,” p. 323; Johns, Arabic Administration, pp. 219–222.
39 Falcandus, Liber de Regno, pp. 161–162 [Loud and Wiedemann, trans., The History of the Tyrants, p. 214].
40 Falcandus, Liber de Regno, pp. 163–164 [Loud and Wiedemann, trans., The History of the Tyrants, p. 216]; Takayama, “Familiares Regis,” pp. 365–368.
41 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.
42 Takayama, “The Great Administrative Officials,” pp. 321–326.
43 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; Takayama, “The Great Administrative Officials,” pp. 322–323; Johns, Arabic Administration, p. 224.
44 See note 24 above.
45 Takayama, “The Great Administrative Officials,” pp. 323–324; Johns, Arabic Administration, pp. 228–234.
46 Many of the masters of the duana de secretis, which kept and dealt with documents related to land, had Arab-Islamic cultural background. Takayama, “The Great Administrative Officials,” pp. 326–331. There were also many foreigners among other government officials. Robert the chancellor and Thomas Brown the chaplain, both of whom served Roger II, and Florius de Camerota, who served the three kings as justiciar, were from England. For Robert the chancellor, see 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. For Thomas Brown, see Dialogus de Scaccario: De Necessariis observantiis scaccarii dialogus qui vulgo dicitur Dialogus de scaccario, ed. Charles Johnson (London, 1950), p. 35; Charles H. Haskins, “England and Sicily in the Twelfth Century,” English Historical Review, vol. 26 (1911), 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. For Florius de Camerota, see Haskins, “England and Sicily,” pp. 437–438; Jamison, “The Sicilian Norman Kingdom,” pp. 274–275.
47 Takayama, “Central Power and Multi-Cultural Elements,” p. 14. 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.
48 For example, many Muslims were killed by Christians in the riot in 1161 after the assassination of Maio. Falcandus, Liber de Regno, pp. 56–57 [Loud and Wiedemann, trans., The History of the Tyrants, pp. 109–110]; Romualdus Salernitanus, pp. 246–247 [English translation: Loud and Wiedemann, trans., The History of the Tyrants, p. 230].
49 According to Falcandus, Martin, an ex-Muslim eunuch, raged all the Christians fiercely and imputed his brother’s death to them, because he knew his brother had been killed by some Christians. Falcandus, Liber de Regno, p. 79 [Loud and Wiedemann, trans., The History of the Tyrants, p. 129].
50 Most of his signatures were written in Greek not only in Greek documents but also in Latin ones. See Takayama, “Central Power and Multi-Cultural Elements,” p. 5, note 16. 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.
51 Alexander Kazhdan, “Doxopatres, Neilos,” The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium ed. Alexander Kazhdan, 3 vols. (New York/Oxford, 1991), vol. 1, p. 660; Vera Von Falkenhausen, “Doxapatres, Nilo,” Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, vol. 41 (1992), pp. 610–613.
52 Al-Idrīsī, Kitāb nuzha al-mushtāq fī Ikhtirāq al-Āfāq (Opus geographicum), 6 vols. (Rome, 1970–1976), vol. 1, p. 5; in Amari, Biblioteca, testo arabo, p. 16; in Amari, Biblioteca, versione italiana, vol. 1, p. 35.
53 Ibn Jubayr, Riḥla, p. 324 [English trans., p. 341].
54 Jamison, Admiral Eugenius, pp. xvii–xxi; Charles H. Haskins, The Renaissance of the Twelfth Century (Cambridge, MA, 1927), pp. 60, 292, 298, 332, 344; Charles H. Haskins, Studies in the History of Medieval Science, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, MA, 1927), pp. 53, 142–143, 150, 152, 159–163, 165–172, 179–183, 190; Maria T. Mandalari, “Enrico Aristippo Arcidiacono di Catania nella vita culturale e politica del secolo XII,” Bolletino storico catanese, vol. 4 (1939), pp. 87–123.
55 Jamison, Admiral Eugenius, pp. xxi–xxii, 4.
56 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 (Cambridge, 1963), p. 38.
57 Van Werveke, The Cambridge Economic History, vol. 3, pp. 38–39; Lester K. Little, Religious Poverty and the Profit Economy in Medieval Europe (Ithaca, NY, 1978), pp. 22–23; Brian Tierney and Sidney Painter, Western Europe in the Middle Ages 300–1475, 4th ed. (New York, 1983), p. 274.
58 Ibn Jubayr, Riḥla, p. 333 (English trans., pp. 349–350).
59 The Norman kings had also a white palace in Messina, and the palaces of Favara and Altofonte near Palermo. See 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; Romualdus Salernitanus, p. 232 [Loud and Wiedemann, trans., The History of the Tyrants, p. 219]; Falcandus, Liber de Regno, p. 87 [Loud and Wiedemann, trans., The History of the Tyrants, pp. 136–137]; Houben, Roger II., p. 131 [English trans., 130–131].
60 For the royal palace, see Hugo Falcandus, “Epistola ad Petrum Panormitane ecclesie thesaurarium de calamitate Sicilie,” Siragusa, La historia o liber de Regno Sicilie, p. 178 [English translation: 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].
61 Ibn Jubayr, Riḥla, p. 324 [English trans., p. 340].
62 Ibn Jubayr, Riḥla, pp. 325–326 [English trans., p. 340].