^{page 224 note 1} Caspar, E., Roger II. (1101–1154Google Scholar) und die Gründung der Normannisch-Sicilischen Monarchie. Innsbruck, 1904, p. 5 and n. 2.

^{page 226 note 1} Mayer, E., Italienische Verfassungsgeschichte von der Gothenzeit bis zur Zunftherrschaft. Leipzig, 1909, ii. 372Google Scholar.

^{page 226 note 2} Chalandon, F., Histoire de la Domination Normande en Italie et en Sicile, Paris, 1907, i. 288Google Scholar.

^{page 226 note 3} Ibid., 294–5.

^{page 227 note 1} Caspar, p.6.

^{page 232 note 1} Beneventanus, Falco, Chronicon in Cronisti e Scrittori sincroni Napoletani. Ed. del Re. Naples, 1845, i. 184Google Scholar

^{page 232 note 2} Romoaldus Salernitanus. Annales ed. Arndt, in M.G.H.SS. xix. 418Google Scholar … predictus dux … primo Calabriam pro sexaginta milibus bisanliorum prephato comiti in pignore posuit. Postea mediam civitatem Panormi. Falco (p. 186) combines these two transactions which Romuald places at different times, and ascribes them to the spring of 1122 (after March); the account of Romuald seems to be the more probable. Cf. Kinnamos Ἐπιτομή ed. Meineke, in Corpus script, hist. byz. Bonn, 1836, Lib. III. 1, p. 89Google Scholar.

^{page 232 note 3} Watterich, I. M., Pontificum Romanorum qui fuerunt inde ab exeunU saeculo IX usque ad finem saeculi XIII. Vitae ab aequalibus conscriptae, Leipsic, 1862, ii. 116Google Scholar.

^{page 233 note 1} It seems fairly clear from the combined evidence of the interpolator of Romuald and Falco that there were two treaties in 1122, one in February to make an end of Sicilian aggression, and a second a little later to arrange an expedition against Jordan. The interpolator (R.S. p. 417) gives February as the date of the conclusion of peace, but he places the reception by William of 700 knights against Jordan, at the same time. Falco on the other hand knows nothing of a peace in February and puts the complaint of William against Jordan some time after March (F. B. p. 186). Falco is likely to be well informed about the doings of the count of Ariano, and the supposition that there was a second treaty is the more probable, since Falco's account of William's visit to Roger does not suggest that a state of war existed between them at the moment. Moreover the campaign against Jordan began about the middle of June, and since it was undertaken the moment the Sicilian troops arrived, and these were handed over to William immediately the negotiations were concluded, the agreement between Roger and William must have been drawn up some time in May. Consequently the treaty cannot reasonably be identified with the peace of February.

^{page 233 note 2} Falco (p. 186) states that the cession of the ducal half of Palermo and Messina and the whole of Calabria was the price paid for 600 troops and 500 ounces of gold which William received in the spring of 1122; Romuald (p. 418) on the other hand distinctly separates the pledging of Calabria from the sale of Palermo. It may be that Falco is in error in attributing what were really distinct concessions to the same occasion, or on the contrary, it is possible that Calabria now passed fully into Roger's hands instead of merely being held in pawn.

^{page 233 note 3} R. S. p. 418.

^{page 233 note 4} Alexander Telesinus, De Rebus Gestis Rogerii Siciliae Regis Libri Quatuor, Lib. I. cap. 4, p. 91, in Cronisti e Scrittori Sincroni Napoletani, ed. del Re, Naples, 1845, vol. i.

^{page 237 note 1} Caspar Regesten in Roger Il. p. 501.

^{page 238 note 1} Cf. A. T. Lib. I. Praefatio, p. 28.

^{page 238 note 2} Descriptions of the measures taken at Melfi are supplied by Alexander of Telese and the interpolator of Romuald of Salerno, who emphasise different aspects of the peace, thus supplementing each other's account. A. T. Lib. I. cap. xxi. pp. 99, 100. His quoque peractis Dux Melfiam properans, cunctos Apuliae Optimates ad se convenire jussit, quibus etiam inter caetera edictum dedit, ut in pace permanentes alterutrum non adversarentur. Simulque eos jurare compulit: ut ab ipsa hora, et in antea iustitiam, et pacem tenerent, et adjuvarent tenere, nec manu tenerent homines, qui latrocinium, aut rapinam facerent in terris suis, nec esse consentirent. Et si aliquis ibi hujusmodi malefactor reperiretur, sine fraude, curiae suae, in loco a se constituto, ut justitia ex eo fieret, praesentarent, et quod Ecclesiasticis personis, et rebus earum, videlicet Archiepiscopis, Episcopis, Abbatibiis, Monachis, omnibusque Clericis, laboratoribus, villanis, et cuncto populo terrae suae dominationis cum rebus eorum, nec non peregrinis, viatoribus, mercatoribus pacem tenerent, et observarent, nec eos inquietarent, nec inquietari ad suum posse permitterent. … Cum ergo ibi Dux aliquandiu moratus haec, et his similia ad commune proficuum disposuisset. … Taren turn ipse regreditur..

R. S. p. 419 Anno ab incarnatione Domini 1130, indictione 9. mense Septembris (1129) dux itaque Rogerius postquam omnes Apulie civitates suo subiugavit dominio … venit Melfim fecitque ibidem congregari omnes comites Calabrie, Apulie, Salentine [Salerni ?] Brizie el Lucanie, Campdnie, etiam episcopos, et abbates; iussilque oninibus comitibus ut sibi filiisque suis id est Rogerio et Tancrtdo omni tempore fideles essent. et obedirent suis preceptis, nec in terris eorum furta et latrocinia sinerent esse nec consentirent. Et his omnibus prescriptis Sacramento firmatis mense Octubris reversus est in Siciliam.

^{page 239 note 1} Niese, Die Gesetzgebung der Normannischen Dynastie im Regnum Siciliae, Halle A. S. 1910.

I am indebted in the following pages on the development of peace institutions and their adoption by Roger II as the starting point of his legislation and administration, to this suggestive study—especially to Kapitel II, Der Reichsiandfriede, pp. 19–36.

^{page 240 note 1} Niese does not mention this truce arranged by Calixtus. cf. Chalandon i. 321.

^{page 240 note 2} F. B. p. 176.

^{page 240 note 3} F. B. p. 176.

^{page 240 note 4} Ibid. p. 180.

^{page 241 note 1} The interpolator of Romuald of Salerno (p. 419) alone mentions the oath of fidelity, while Alexander of Telese, who gives a fuller account of the peace in other respects, omits it altogether.

^{page 241 note 2} Niese, Gesetzgebung, does not seem to have noticed this identification of the oath of fidelity with the provisions of the Peace at Melfi.

^{page 242 note 1} Codice Vaticano, ed. Brandileone, F. in Il Diritto Romano nelle Leggi Normanne e Sueve del Regno di Sicilia. Turin, etc., 1884, p. 113Google Scholar, No. xxxi. Si providentia regie celsitudinis nullo modo patitur inter regni nostri limitem baroniun nostrorum quemlibet alterius castrum invadere, predas committere, cum armis insurgere vel inique fraudari. Niese (p. 26) would make only the first of these prohibitions alterius castrum invadere apply to the barons, while the others, predas committere, cum armis insurgere, vel inique fraudari, are of equal application to all classes of the community. Consequently he argues that carrying of arms and pillage were forbidden to all classes. While admitting that these crimes were not specially reserved to the knightly classes, I cannot agree to the distinction which Niese here makes; the quemlibet baronum nostrorum is the subject equally of all the co-ordinate clauses, and the whole passage does no more than describe a baronial feud.

^{page 243 note 1} A.T. Lib. I. capp. xvii. xx. xxi. xxii. Robert was a Calabrian vassal who fought under Roger's banner against the Apulian counts and not one of the rebels. During the war, at the siege of Montalto, Robert demanded permission to leave the army and re-cross the Alps, because his fief was not sufficient to support so long a military service. In spite of Roger's promise to increase his fief when Apulia should be conquered, Robert left the army in haste and anger. Later in the same campaign the duke reproached him in the presence of all for his conduct and gave him formal leave to return to his kinsmen beyond the Alps, on condition that he first restored his fief into the duke's hands. Still he delayed to go, and after the Great Court at Melfi, Roger made him swear to leave Apulia. Even this did not bring Robert of Grantmesnil to submission, and a regular campaign was needed to make him give up the castles which he had fortified against the duke.

^{page 245 note 1} Caspar, Reg. No. 65.

^{page 246 note 1} Caspar, Reg. No. 77.

^{page 249 note 1} A. T. Lib. II. cap. lxiv. p. 126.

^{page 249 note 2} A. T. Lib. III. cap. iii. p. 130.

^{page 250 note 1} Calendar of Documents, No. I and A. T. Lib. III. cap. xxxi. p. 144.

^{page 250 note 2} Ibid.; Cal. Nos. 3 and 4.

^{page 250 note 3} A. T. Lib. III. cap. xxx. p. 143.

^{page 250 note 4} F. B. p. 216: the constables of Montefusco are further mentioned at intervals in documents throughout the period of the monarchy; the first instance is found in a donation of Nov. 1137, in which the name of Pain, the royal constable of Montefusco, appears (State Archives Naples, Pergamene di Monte Vergine, vol. lxxxiii. No. 24). Constables were also established at Naples, and the knights of Naples were specially privileged by Roger II. (F. B. p. 252). The knights of Taranto, Venosa, S. Agata, Bovino, Ascoli, Giffoni, Montecorvino, Tocco, Arce, Sora, and Aquino are mentioned in the Catalogue of the Barons, and it is probable that they were placed under a constable, but of this there does not seem to be any definite evidence.

^{page 252 note 1} Chronica Monasterii Casinensis Auctore Petro Diacono, ed. W. Wattenbach, Lib. III. p. 820, M.G.H.SS. vii. Hanover, 1846.

^{page 252 note 2} Catalogus Baronum in Cronisli e Scrittori Sincroni Napoletani, ed. Re., Del Naples, 1845, i. pp. 589Google Scholar seq., Art. 694 seq. (The numbers of the articles are taken from Fimiani's edition in Commentariolus de subfeudis.) Cf. infra p. 338–41 for the discussion of the date and circumstances of the compilation of the Catalogue.

^{page 253 note 1} Caspar, Reg. No. 124.

^{page 255 note 1} F. B. p. 251.

^{page 255 note 2} Ibid.

^{page 255 note 3} Cal. No. 7.

^{page 256 note 1} Niese, Gesetzgebung; Caspar.

^{page 256 note 2} Ignoti monachi Cisterciensis S. Mariae de Ferraria Chronica, ed. A. Gaudenzi in Socielà Napoletana di Storia Patria, Monutnenti Storici, serie prima: Chronache, Naples, 1888Google Scholar: Apostolicus namque a rege et Jiliis capuanum repetit principatum: it does not seem probable that Lucius II. intended to go back on the concessions of Innocent II. at Mignano, and claim the principality of Capua, hence this passage must refer to the conquests of the king's sons, which they contended belonged of right to the principality.

^{page 257 note 1} This frontier may be established from the Catalogue of the Barons.

^{page 257 note 2} Cf. infra, p. 281.

^{page 257 note 3} Caspar, Reg. No. 146.

^{page 257 note 4} Ibid. No. 158.

^{page 257 note 5} Ibid. No. 159.

^{page 257 note 6} Ibid. No. 210, 211.

^{page 257 note 7} Ibid. No. 224, 225.

^{page 257 note 8} Guerrieri, G., I conti Normanni di Lecce nel secolo XII. in Archivio Storico. Napoletano xxv. Naples, 1900, p. 210Google Scholar. (Caspar, Reg. No. 146.) Cum apud Silvam Marcam cum Anfuso Neapolitanorum duce et Cupuanorum principe filio nostro et comitibus nostris ceterisqtie bafonibus et parte maxima populi regni nostri ad altercationes et iniuslicias corrigendas congregaremus.

^{page 258 note 1} Cat. Bar. p. 585, Art 509.

^{page 258 note 2} Ibid. p. 589, Art 683.

^{page 261 note 1} B. No. 135. M.G.H.CC. i, p. 590.

^{page 261 note 2} Codice Diplomatio Barese, ed. for the Commissione Provinciale di Archeologia e Storia Patria, Bari, 1897–1902, t. v. Nos. 114, 115, 116.

^{page 261 note 3} Ibid. No. 112 before the destruction, Nos. 117, 119, 120, 124, 125 after the destruction of Bari.

^{page 261 note 4} Hugo Falcandus, La Historia O Liber de Regno Sicilie, ed. Siragusa, G. B., in Fonli per la Storia d' Italia, published by the Istituto Storico Italiano, No. 22, Rome, 1897, pp. 86, 87Google Scholar.

^{page 262 note 1} Cf. infra, p. 347.

^{page 262 note 2} Cf. infra pp. 338–41, for a discussion of the date of the Catalogue.

^{page 263 note 1} R. S. p. 434.

^{page 263 note 2} H. F. p. 78.

^{page 263 note 3} Siragusa in edition of H. F. p. 78, n. 1.

^{page 264 note 1} H. F. pp. 86–87.

^{page 264 note 2} Cal. No. 54.

^{page 264 note 3} H. F. p. 90

^{page 264 note 4} R. S. p. 435.

^{page 269 note 1} Mayer, ii. pp. 396–414; Haskins, C. A. England and Sicily in the Twelfth Century in The English Historical Review, July and October, 1911, vol. xxvi. pp. 642–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{page 269 note 2} See Note on the absence of any system of itinerant justices in Apulia and Capua, infra, p. 475.

^{page 269 note 3} Haskins, p. 648.

^{page 271 note 1} For the king's sons cf. R. S. p. 421 Hic autem, cum essel comes et iuvenis Albiriam filiam Regis Yspanie duxit uxorem ex qua plures liberos habuit, Rogerium quern Apulie ducem instituit, Tancredum quem Tarenti principem fecit Anfusium quern Capue principem ordinavit, Guillelmum et Henricutn. A. T. Lib. III. cap. xxvii. p. 142. The eldest son Roger cannot have been born later than 1118: this appears from the information given by Romuald of Salerno (p. 435) that king William I., the fourth of the brothers, was in his forty-sixth year when he died in May, 1166; he must therefore have been born in 1121 or 1122, and since Tancred and Anfusus preceded him, 1118 is the very latest date that can be given for the birth of Roger. Di Meo (t. X. ad an. 1148, n. 2) without giving any authority for the information says that Roger was thirty at the time of his death, which he places in May, 1148. It is however, more probable that this occurred in May, 1149 (cf. infra p. 277), but in spite of this alteration, supposing that di Meo's information as to Roger's age is correct, it is still quite possible that he may have been born in 1118. The suggestion may, however, be hazarded that di Meo based his calculation of Roger's age on the supposed date of his birth, which in turn he calculated from Romuald's information about William.

^{page 271 note 2} In 1136 king Roger granted some property to the nurse of his son Henry (Caspar Reg. No. 109): we may therefore assume that the child was not very old at the time of this donation. He died on a certain August 29 (Necrologia Panormitana in Forschungen zur Deutschen Geschichte, Göttingen 1878, xviii. 473Google Scholar).

^{page 271 note 3} A.T. Lib. III. cap. iii. p. 130; xiv. p. 135; Cal. No. 3; Chron. Casin. auct. Petro M.G.H.SS. vii. p. 815.

^{page 271 note 4} Cf. infra pp. 277–8.

^{page 272 note 1} Archives of Monte Cass. caps. ci. fasc. v. No. LXI. Judgment of Sept., U73, ind. vi. given in the court of the chamberlain Adenulf de Patricio in the course of which certain witnesses testify se uidisse et audisse quando Robbertus cancellarius parutn post mortem domini Anfusi principis venit soram. et recensuit preceptum illud quod dominus Rex Rogerius fecerat apud sanctum Valentinum. et ex parte domini regis mandauit perpetua firmitate obediendum.

^{page 272 note 2} Caspar, Reg. Nos. 176–7.

^{page 272 note 3} Chron. Ferrar. p. 28.

^{page 272 note 4} R. S. p. 422

^{page 272 note 5} Chronicon Casauriense in Rerum Italicarum Scriptcres, ed. Muratori, L. A., Milan, 1726, II. pt. 2, col. 890Google Scholar.

^{page 273 note 1} Chron. Ferrar. p. 27.

^{page 273 note 2} Saresberiensis, Johannes, Ex Policratico vii. c. 19 in M.G.H.SS. Hanover, 1885, xxvii. 48–9Google Scholar.

^{page 273 note 3} Caspar, Reg. Nos. 207, 214, 217, 230,

^{page 273 note 4} Cal. No. 26. Pandulf, a notary of the chancellor, drew up the record of a judgment pronounced by the royal justiciars at Pescara, so that the chancellor himself was probably in the neighbourhood.

^{page 273 note 6} Ex Policratico in M.G.H.SS. xxvii. p. 48–9 Vir qttidem in rebus gerendis strenuus et sine magna copia litteraruni acutissimus, in primis provincialuim facundissimus, eorum non impar eloquio, verendus, omnibus privilegio potestatis et morum elegantia veneralibis, eoque mirabilior in partibus illis, quod inter Langobardos, quos parcissimos ne avaros dicam, esse constat, faciebat sumptus immensos et gentis sue magnificentiam exhibebat.

^{page 274 note 1} Caspar, Reg. No. 54.

^{page 274 note 2} Caspar, Reg. No. 65.

^{page 274 note 3} Ibid. No. 124.

^{page 274 note 4} A. T. Lib. III. cap. xxxi. p. 144.

^{page 274 note 5} Codex Diplomaticus Cajetanus, cccxxxiv. p. 268 in Tabularium Casinense II. Ego talis iuro et assecuro domino nostro Roggerio. dei gratia sicilie, et italie regi magnifico. et domino. Roggerio. duci filio suo aliisque suis heredibus secundum suam ordinationem legium hominium et ligiam fedelitatem et domino. Anfosso capuano principi Fidelitate, de vita et membris et terreno honore …

^{page 274 note 6} R. S. p. 418.

^{page 274 note 7} Ibid.

^{page 274 note 8} Ibid.

^{page 275 note 1} Caspar, Reg. No. 77.

^{page 275 note 2} Ibid. No. 94, cf. A. T. Lib. III. cap. xxvii. p. 142.

^{page 275 note 3} F. B. p. 246.

^{page 275 note 4} Chron. Ferrar. p. 25 Eodem anno [1139] Rex Ragerius filium suum Rogerium fecit ducem Aptilie.

^{page 276 note 1} F. B. p. 250.

^{page 276 note 2} Chron. Ferrar. p. 26. The pope sent cardinals to the princes ne aliena invaderent, et romanos fines non usurparent. Qui respondentes ita eidem rescripserunt ‘aliena se nolle appetere sed solummodo terras principatui Capuano suo pertinentes velle reintegrare, et sic omnes terras principatui capuani et ducatus Apulie sibi subiugare.’

^{page 276 note 3} Annales Ceccanenses (Chronicon Fossae Novae) M.G.H.SS. Hanover, 1866, xix. p. 283Google Scholar.

^{page 276 note 4} Caspar, Reg. No. 133.

^{page 276 note 5} F. B. p. 252 and Caspar, Reg. No. 135.

^{page 276 note 6} Ann. Ceccan. M.G.H.SS. xix. 283.

^{page 276 note 7} Chron. Ferrar. p. 27.

^{page 276 note 8} Ibid. 28 and Annales Casinsenses M.G.H.SS. xix. 310.

^{page 276 note 9} Cf. infra, p. 279.

^{page 277 note 1} Caspar, Reg. Nos. 176, 177.

^{page 277 note 2} Cal. No. 22.

^{page 277 note 3} Caspar, Reg. No. 214.

^{page 277 note 4} Garufi, C. A., Guglielmo I. Duca di Puglia e Re di Sicilia, in Studi Storici e Giuridici dedicati ed offerti a Federigo Ciccaglione, Catania, 1910, iiGoogle Scholar. pt. iii.

^{page 277 note 5} Cal. Nos. 10, 11; cf. Caspar, Reg No. 133.

^{page 278 note 1} Caspar, Reg. No. 77. Treaty with Bari in which the possibility of giving the city to Tancred or another of the king's sons is mentioned. Alexander of Telese (Lib. III. cap. xxvii. p. 142) in 1135 speaks of the previous granting of the principality of Bari to Tancred; cf. R. S. p. 421. Tancredum quem Tarenti principem fecit.

^{page 278 note 2} Tancred died on a certain 16th March (Necrol. Panorm. p. 472). He is not mentioned after the autumn of 1137, when he returned to Sicily with his father (R. S. p. 423), so that it seems probable that he died shortly after this. William is not mentioned as prince, or indeed at all, till Nov., 1140, but the authenticity of the document has been questioned. (Caspar, Reg. No. 135.)

^{page 278 note 3} H. F. p. 51; Chron. Ferrar. pp. 28, 30. It is doubtful whether Simon was prince of Taranto or of Capua. H. F. gives Taranto and the Chronicle of Ferraria gives Capua, but Taranto seems the more probable.

^{page 279 note 1} A. T. Lib. III. cap. xxvii. p. 142.

^{page 279 note 2} Ibid. cap. xxxi. p. 144.

^{page 279 note 3} Cf. supra, p. 274.

^{page 279 note 4} Cal. No. 29.

^{page 279 note 5} F. B. p. 247 … et in his diebus cives Neapolitani venerunt Beneventum, et civitatem Neapolim ad fidelitatem Domini Regis tradenles Ducem filium ejus duxerunt, et ejus fidelilati colla submittunt. Anfusus witnessed the diploma of Roger II. for the Capella Palatina on April 28, 1140, as duke of Naples and prince of Capua.

^{page 279 note 6} Caspar, Reg. p. 554, a. gives the references for Anfusus' death.

^{page 279 note 7} Regeslum S. Angeli ad Formas. Monte Cassino An. 1144. Doc. lxxi, where the first year of William is reckoned in December. Tempore domini nostri roggerii dei gratia sicilie alque ytalie gloriosissimi regis et primo anno principatus domni guiliemi filii ejus gloriosi principis Mense dec. ind. oct.

^{page 280 note 1} Tab. Cas. ii. Cod. Dipl. Caj. cccxxxiv. p. 268.

^{page 281 note 1} Historia pontificalis, ed. Arndt, W., M.G.H.SS. Hanover, 1868, xx. 539Google Scholar; Ann. Casin. M.G.H.SS. xix. 310; R. S. p. 427. The actual date was April 8.

^{page 281 note 2} Di Meo x. ad. an. 1151, n. 3. Capua had probably been in Roger's hands since 1149.

^{page 281 note 3} Cal. No. 42.

^{page 281 note 4} Di Meo x. ad an. 1155, n. 15. Document from Saint Blaise of Aversa: 1155 Ind. III. m. Aprilis & iv. anno Regni D.n. Willelmi Principatum Capuae suis in manibus retinentis.

^{page 281 note 5} R. S. p. 429.

^{page 281 note 6} Chalandon, ii. 263–4; cf. also Cod. Dipl. Bar. t. v. Nos. 117–119, in which the regnal years of duke Roger are noted.

^{page 281 note 7} R. S. p. 429. Robbertum quem Capuanorum principem ordinavit. The date of Robert's elevation appears from two documents of 1159, Ind. VII. March and July, 8th year of King William et secundo anno principatus domini nostri Robberti dei gratia capuanorum Gloriosissimi principis, et ejusdtm domini nostri Regis filii. (Archbishop's Archives Capua. Decina 1126–1200.)

^{page 281 note 8} H. F. p. 52 speaks of Roger in 1161 as novennem fere puerum.

^{page 281 note 9} R. S. p. 429 gives the sons of William I. Rogerium quern ducem Apulie conslituit, Robbertum quem Capuanorum principem ordinavit, Guillelmum et Henricum.

^{page 281 note 10} Ibid. p. 435 testamentum fecit, in quo Willelmum filittm suum maiorum tocius regni heredem instituit, Henrico altero filio principatum Capue, quem concesserat confirmavit.

^{page 282 note 1} Chalandon, ii. 306

^{page 282 note 2} R. S. p. 439.

^{page 282 note 3} Il Chartularium del Monastero di S. Benedetto di Conversano, ed. D. Morea, Monte Cassino 1892, i. No. 106, 1163, Dec. Ind. x. 13th year king William = 1162. Ego Gilibertus del et Regia gratia gravine comes et magnus comestalus totius Apulie et principatus Capue; cf. Ibid. No. 110, 1166 Jan. Ind. xiv. 16th year king William. Ego Gilibertus gratia dei et domini nostri Guilielmi excellentissimi regis gravine comes et magnus comeslabulus totius apulie et principatus capue.

^{page 282 note 4} R. S. p. 429. Dehinc Symonem senescalcum cognatum Maionis amirati magistntm capitaneum Apulie constituit.

^{page 282 note 5} F. p. 24. Symonem ergo senescalcum, maritum sororis sue toti Apulie ac Tern Laboris magistrum capitaneum preficiens ….

Cal. No. 47, domino Simoni regio senescalco et magistro capitaneo tocius apulie.

Chron. Casaur. R.I.SS. ii. pt. 2, col. 1011. Grant of Gilbert of Gravina 1166, Dec. I, Ind. xv. Nos Gilibertus Dei, & Regis gratia Comes Gravinae & Magister Capitaneus Apuliae, & principatus Capuae.

^{page 283 note 1} The earliest instance of this form belongs to the year 1171. Peregrinius, Camillus, Historia Principum Langobardomm. R. I. SS. 1723, ii. pt. I, p. 317Google Scholar. In praesentia Domini Comitis Roberti Casertae, Apuliae & Terrae laboris Magni Comestabili, & Magni (read Magistri) Justitiarii. The title generally runs as quoted above in the text.

^{page 283 note 2} St. Arch Nap. Pergamene di Monte Vergine vol. xv. No. 91. A document of the year 1191, issued by the catepan of Ascoli, mentions Dominus Berardus gentilis dei et regia gratia egregius Comes Alisine et Dominus Ugo Lupus eadem gratia illustris Comes Cupersani capitanei et magistri Justiciarii totius apulie et terre Laboris.

^{page 283 note 3} H. F. p. 11, sub id temporis Ascotinus cancellarius et comes Symon cum magno exercitu in Apulia erant …

R. S. p. 428 Rex autem celebrata festivitate paschali, Ascittino Catheniensi archidiacono, quem candelarium fecerat, Apulie amministrationem commisit.

^{page 283 note 4} Cf. H. F. p. 13. On the recall of count Simon aliusque in eius locum comestabulus subrogatur: from this passage it is clear that he bore the title of constable. It is surely safe to assume from the whole circumstances that he was the master constable of Apulia and not the master constable who was one of the officials at the king's court. If this be granted, the supposition of M. Chalandon (ii. 688) that count Boamund of Manopello was master constable of Apulia, falls to the ground. The Catalogue of the Barons informs us that Boamund was constable in the region of the Abruzzi, and gives no hint that he held the higher office of master constable. M. Chalandon further cites, in support of his view, the quarrel concerning the command of count Robert of Loritello's knights at Capua in the spring of 1155. The facts as narrated by Hugo are as follows: the king, suspecting the fidelity of the count, ordered Aschettin to get him inside Capua on pretence of receiving the royal orders and then to fend him a prisoner to Palermo. Robert had wind of the plan, arrived at Capua with 500 knights and firmly refused to enter the city. Aschettin was forced to come out and meet him and told him that the king's will was for him to place all his knights under count Boamund prout feudum suum exigebat. Robert refused indignantly, saying it was monstrous and against all custom for his knights to fight under any other leader but himself. The exact rights of the case are difficult to discover, but it may be said on Robert's side that as a count he undoubtedly should have led his own men. For the king, it must be remembered that the county of Loritello had been disintegrated from 1137, till its revival in 1154, and probably many of the count's knights had been attributed in the interval to Boamund's constabulary. Robert of Loritello might reasonably object to his men serving under a simple royal constable, but not to their being under the orders of the master constable of Apulia, the commander of the royal army. Thus further evidence is adduced against M. Chalandon's opinion that Boamund was master constable. The significant fact must also be added that he was not commanding the royal army at this moment, and count Simon was.

^{page 284 note 1} Cal. No. 42 … coram domino Ascetino Regio Viae Cancellario et domino Riccardo Andrie comiti et domino Gilberto de Balbano Regio magistro comestabili aliisque quam pluribus baronibus et militibus apud barolum curia congregata; cf. Kehr, K. A. Die Urkunden der Normannisch-Sicilischen Könige, Innsbruck, 1902, p. 80Google Scholar, n. 3 who regards Aschettin as having been at Barletta at the beginning of April 1155 on the evidence of this document; surely this is a misreading, for the court which issued the document bearing this date was held by the justiciars Robert Seneschal and William of Tivilla, and in the course of their judgment they mention a previous court which Aschettin had held as Vice-Chancellor. Moreover in April 1155 Aschettin was almost certainly at Capua. Cf. H. F. pp. 11, 12.

^{page 285 note 1} Gilbert died in 1156 (Haskins, p. 659 and n. 221), but he must have resigned his office before this to make room for count Simon.

^{page 285 note 2} H. F. p. 13.

^{page 286 note 1} Kinnamos, Lib. iv. 4. pp. 141, 143, 144; iv. 6. p. 148.

^{page 286 note 2} Ibid. Lib. iv. 4. p. 144.

^{page 286 note 3} Ibid. Lib. iv. 5. p. 145.

^{page 286 note 4} Ibid. Lib. iv. 8. pp. 152, 153; iv. 9, 156, 157.

^{page 286 note 5} Cal. No. 41.

^{page 286 note 6} Roger is mentioned together with Peter of Castro Kuovo, in the judgments quoted below, as occupying an important position in the court: in the first document neither Roger nor Peter has any specific title, but in the second Peter alone is qualified as magnificus capitaneus. The question whether Roger too was capitaneus must be left open: it may be added that generally two capitanei were in office at the same lime, e.g. Simon the Seneschal and the Admiral Stephen, and in the reign of William II. it was the rule to have two master constables and justiciars acting together.

^{page 286 note 7} Kinnamos, Lib. iv. 5. p. 145.

^{page 286 note 8} H. F. p. 67.

^{page 286 note 9} Chalandon ii. 192.

^{page 286 note 10} Siragusa, G. B., Il Regno di Guglielmo I. in Sicilia, Palermo, 1885, pt. i. 118–9Google Scholar; and H. F. p. 67, n. 1. The chancery being vacant, the story told by Falcandus runs, William I., on his own initiative, wanted to give the office to Robert of St. John, a canon of Palermo. Maio, however, having different designs, sought to get Robert away from the court on the honourable pretext of an embassy to Venice. The plan did not stop here, for the admiral wrote to Peter of Castro Nuovo, who was at that time captain in Apulia, to order him to give Robert unseaworthy ships, so that he might be conveniently drowned. The archbishop of Trani, however, disclosed the plan to the canon, and he in order to escape the plot chartered a ship and sailors at his own expense and came safe to Venice. It has recently been considered that these events belong to the period of the vacancy in the chancery which followed the appointment of Maio as great admiral sometime before June 1154 and that the embassy to Venice referred to, was the one which resulted in the treaty drawn up before ihe death of doge Domenico Morosini in Feb. 1155. No other embassy to Venice belonging to the reign of William I. is known, and it is maintained that the rest of the evidence fits well. Against this view it may be urged that the vacancy in the chancery referred to was, more probably, that caused by the imprisonment of Aschettin in the spring of 1156. At the time of Maio's vacation of the chancery, there is reason to suppose, that Aschettin already had the title of vicechancellor, since in the judgment of April 1155 issued by the justiciars at Bari (Cal. No. 42) a previous court under the presidency of the royal vice-chancellor Aschettin is mentioned. This court must have been held at the end of Roger's reign or the beginning of William's, and if Aschettin was already vice-chancellor it would have been unusual, to say the least, to have passed him over and to have given the chancery to another. It may be noted in passing that the date at which Aschettin was made chancellor seems generally to be placed too late: March 1155 is the usual date given, but Romuald of Salerno when he says that at this time Aschettin was made governor of Apulia, adds that the king had made him chancellor—that is, at a previous date. After the fall of Aschettin, the chancery was, as a fact, not filled up, in accordance with Maio's policy of uniting the post of chancellor de facto with that of great admiral, and so keeping all the threads of administration in his own hands. It may be urged that this was a more likely occasion for the king to assert himself and put forward a candidate of his own than at the previous vacancy when Aschettin was waiting to fill it. Moreover, Maio is said to have represented to William that Robert should have the chancery on his return from Venice: yet, if the autumn and winter oi 1154–5 were the date of the embassy, the treaty being signed in February 1155, it is somewhat strange that the vacant office should be filled during his absence. The story told by Falcandus shows that Maio planned that Robert should never return, but he could not be sure that the plot would succeed.

^{page 287 note 1} Cal. No. 46.

^{page 287 note 2} Cal. No. 46. a.

^{page 287 note 3} R. S. p. 429; H. F. p. 24.

^{page 288 note 1} Cf. supra, p. 282.

^{page 288 note 2} Cal. No. 47.

^{page 288 note 3} Cal. No. 50.

^{page 288 note 4} Cal. No. 36.

^{page 288 note 5} Cal. No. 48; H. F. p. 31. Stephanum quoque fratrem suum, qui militibus in Apulia preerat, ut comitis Roberti crebros impetus sustineret, sepius admonens hortabatur, ut amplionbus stipendiis militum sibi mentes alliceret….

^{page 289 note 1} H. F. p. 29.

^{page 289 note 2} H. F. p. 31.

^{page 289 note 3} H. F. p. 75.

^{page 289 note 4} R. S. p. 432.

^{page 289 note 5} Ann. Ceccan. M.G.H.SS. xix. 285, and R. S. p. 434.

^{page 289 note 6} H. F. pp. 97, 101. Gilbert is actually described in the Chron. Casaur. R.I.SS. ii. pt. 2. col. 903, as Magistro Capitaneo, & gubernatore totius regni.

^{page 289 note 7} H. F. p. 162; R. S. p. 437; Ann. Casin. M.G.H.SS. xix. 312.

^{page 289 note 8} Chron. Casaur. R.I.SS. ii. pt. 2. col. 903.

^{page 289 note 9} Ibid. p. 1011.

^{page 289 note 10} H. F. pp.108, 162.

^{page 289 note 11} Archives of Monte Cassino, caps. 101. fasc. v. No. lxi. Record of a judgment delivered by the judges of Sora in a court held by Adenulf the royal chamberlain in Sept. 1173, concerning the right of exemption from payments of corn, barley, and wine from the churches of S. Mary, S. Dominic, and S. German at Sora. Reference is made to previous stages of the litigation, and a writ of William II. addressed to Ric ð say com;. & Roƀ casēr com; mag Comēst. & māg justiciarii tocius apulie et tre laboris fidelibus suis … data panōr xii die msis oc Indīc vi= Oct. 12 1172, is given in full. It must be noticed however that the words Ric ð say … justiciarii are written upon an erasure, and the case of the last word is incorrect. Besides this there is an apparent diphthong once in the word ecctæ and an accent on Uná cum prephato camerario. Otherwise there does not seem to be anything suspicious about the formulae or contents of the document. The hand is a late form of Cassinese Lombardic and is losing the earlier precision of this writing, as it undoubtedly did in the second half of the twelfth century.

Richard of Aquila, the former count of Fondi, probably returned from exile at the same time as Robert of Loritello in March 1169, and Richard de Say would have to give up the county to him: it is reasonable to suppose, in the absence of direct evidence, that Richard de Say received in exchange the county of Gravina, which was vacant owing to the expulsion of count Gilbert.

A copy of an unedited diploma of Constance, 1196, May, Ind. 14, Palermo, for Nycodemus archimandrite of S. Maria di Patirio, preserved in the State Archives Naples, Processi di Regio Padronato 1080. f. 8, records a judgment given by de Say tune temporis magistro . et . In quo continebatur, quod cum ipse apud sanctum Maurum, in Ecclesia Sancte de Josaphat cum Baronibus, Judicibus, Militibus, et aliis probis viris Vallis Gratis, vallis signi, et de mandate Regio Curiam teneret, accessit ad suam Blasius venerabilis Abbas de Patiro conquerens de Bajulis … et Catepanis Russani, quod ipsi contra tenorem privilegiorum ducis Rogerii, et domini Regis Rogerii Patris nostri , et recordationis trahebant coram se ad justiciam faciendam homines monasterii de Patiro … glandaticum, et herbalicum capiunt, que nionasterium ipsum habere semper et percipere consuevit. Richard de Say, ‘inquisila diligenter per probos homines,’ confirmed the diplomas of duke Roger and king Roger. From this document it appears that after being master constable and justiciar of Apulia and the Terra di Lavoro, Richard de Say held the same office in Calabria, the Val di Crati, and Val di Sinni. He had died before 1178, for di Meo (x. ad an. 1178. n. 6) mentions Teodora Contessa, vedova del C. Riccardo (di Gravina). Chalandon (ii. 431) mentions Tancred de Saye, count of Gravina, as a supporter of Roger of Andria, one of the competitors for the crown on the death of William II. Chalandon also refers to documents issued by Tancred in the Archives of Cava of the years 1185, 1187, and 1188.

^{page 291 note 1} The full description of the Calabrian provinces ran: tota Calabria et Vallis gratis et vallis signi atque Vallis Marsici; they comprised all the country south of a line, roughly speaking, drawn between the Rivers Sinni and Agri. Thus it appears from the Catalogue of the Barons, which does not include the Calabrian provinces, that Tursi, Missanello, and Spinosa, in the valley of the Agri, belonged to the group of provinces described officially as all Apulia and the Terra di Lavoro (cf. Cat. Bar. p. 574, arts. 125, 129, and 105). Places further south do not appear in the Catalogue. On the other hand a document of 1163 (Cal. No. 58) tells us that Sarconi, only a little south of the places mentioned above, and also in the valley of the Agri, belonged to the jurisdiction of the master chamberlain of all Calabria and the valleys of Crati, Sinni, and Marsico.

^{page 292 note 1} Chalandon ii. 676.

^{page 292 note 2} Cal. No. 47.

^{page 292 note 3} Cal. No. 48.

^{page 293 note 1} Cal. No. 47.

^{page 293 note 2} Cal. No. 50.

^{page 295 note 1} Cal. No. 46. Cf. p. 298, where this case is more fully discussed.

^{page 295 note 2} Cal. Nos. 46, 47, 57.

^{page 295 note 3} Cal. No. 58.

^{page 295 note 4} Cal. Nos. 46, 47, 57, 59.

^{page 295 note 5} Gattola, , Access, i. pp. 262, 263Google Scholar.

^{page 295 note 6} Trinchera p. 322, No. 239. 1194 ind. xiii. Dec. Gerace.

^{page 295 note 7} Winkelmann, , Acta Imp. Ined. i. 79. No. 87Google Scholar.

^{page 296 note 1} Cal. No. 57.

^{page 297 note 1} Cal. No. 57.

^{page 297 note 2} Cal. No. 59.

^{page 297 note 3} Cal. No. 47.

^{page 298 note 1} Cat. No. 46.

^{page 298 note 2} Cal. No. 58.

^{page 298 note 3} Cf. infra, pp. 404–7.

^{page 299 note 1} Illustrations of the judicial activity of the masters of the duana are found in documents of 1174 and 1177: in September, 1174, Eugenius magister regie duane baronum curiam congregavit in the castle of Terracina at Salerno in the presence of the stratigotus and judges of Salerno to hear an action brought by the stratigotus pro parte rei puplice against John, judge of Amain, son of Sergius Neapolitanus and Ebolus acting for his father Marinus Neapolitanus, royal justiciar and constable, because they had entered malo ordine land belonging to the state in the Jewry of the city. The defendants brought instruments to prove their right to the land and place in question and judgment was given against the stratigotus. Chartolarium Amalphitanum … cura Matthaei Camera f. 147: extr. Camera, : Memorie i. 364Google Scholar, n. 2: printed by Perla in Archivio Storico Napoletano ix. 346.

Again in June, 1178, the same Eugenius magister Regie Dohane baronum et de secretis assembled a court at Nocera to try a case between the men of Amalfi and the men of Ravello concerning the jurisdiction claimed by both over the men of Forcella: Eugene had received orders from Gualterms de mohac Regii fortunati stolii ammiratus et magister Regie duane baronum et de secretis to settle the dispute iudicio curie, because of the length of time during which it had been raging. It appeared in the course of the suit that it had already come before bishop Leonard of Capaccio, royal justiciar, and before Walter of Moac at Minori. The difficulty in the way of a settlement was the refusal of the men of Ravello to accept trial by battle, to plead except before their own judges, or to admit the testimony of any but Ravellese against them, in virtue of privileges of William I. and William II. Possession of the jurisdiction over Forcella was granted to Amalfi, but the question of proprietary right was postponed pending the decision of the claim of privilege. The case continued at another court held by Eugene at Minori in September, 1178, and in the course of pleading the men of Ravello referred to another dispute with the men of Atrani which was decided by admiral Walter of Moac at Atrani at some period before July, 1177. Camera, Memorie, p. 364 seq.

^{page 300 note 1} In April 1187 a letter of Guillelmus filius Johannis, royal chamberlain of the Terra di Lavoro, to the bailiff and consuls of Gaeta explains that he had received orders from Eugene magister Regie duane baronum to publish a royal constitution throughout his camerariate, granting freedom from tolls in the royal demesne. (Riccio, Minieri, Saggio di Codice Dipl. Supp. pt. i. p. 21Google Scholar.) In May, 1178, Walter of Moac regii fortunati stolii amiratus et magister regie duane de secretis et duane baronum, forbade the oppressions of the bailiffs of Sarno. (Haskins, p. 445 (2)).

^{page 300 note 2} While Walter of Moac regii fortunati stolij ammirahis et magister regiae duanae de secretis et duanae baronum was at Barletta on royal business in February 1179, Joachim, abbot of S. Mary of Corazzo produced a mandate from king William to Walter explaining that the abbot had brought into the king's court two writings of the boundaries of lands which the king had formerly granted to the monastery asserens te divisas ipsas a camerariis ipsius contrate fieri et terminari fecisse, desiring to have a privilege drawn up giving the boundaries. This king William now ordered Walter to do, and after he had learnt the truth per litteras camerariortim, et iestimonio bonorum hominum et inquisitionem nostro mandato factant proprios fines ipsarum terrarwn praesenti privilegio duximus declarandos. At Strongoli, Buda, Maida, drawn up by Apollinis nostri notarij. (Carte delle abbazie di S. Maria di Corazzo e di S. Giuliano di Rocca Fallucca in Calabria, No. IV. p. 275, 13 Feb. 1179, in Studi e documenti di Storia e Diritto, xxii. Rome, 1901Google Scholar.)

^{page 300 note 3} In 1179 Hugh of Belmesia, royal chamberlain of the Val di Crati, narrates that Joachim, abbot of St. Mary of Corazzo in terra … Gvalterij regii amirati, et regiarum sabaduatiarum Magistri, lodged a complaint with the admiral to the effect that he had been disseized of certain lands at Strongoli which he held in virtue of a royal gift, by the orders of admiral Walter. Privileges were shown to prove that two pieces of land had been originally given, and that since these were not enough, a royal order had directed Godinus, formerly the royal chamberlain, to find more land in alia terra regia. The admiral was much disturbed at what he had done, and he ordered Hugh to find another piece of land for the abbot. (Ibid. No. V. p. 278.)

^{page 300 note 4} In 1174 at Salerno a very interesting reference is made to this aspect of the activity of Eugenii magistri duane baronum qui a regia celsitudine ad partes istas delegatus est pro exigendis rationibus a baiulis partium istarum … (Haskins, p. 653, n. 186.)

^{page 301 note 1} Const. Lib. I. Tit. lxi. (39) p. 36.

^{page 301 note 2} Ibid. Tit. xxxvii. et lxi. (40), p. 37.

^{page 301 note 3} In noticing the visitations of the fiscal officials, Professor Haskins attributes them to the influence of England and Normandy: ‘Henry I,’ he writes, ‘had established a system of judicial and fiscal visitations, which could hardly have failed to be brought to the notice of Roger II., and the relations between the two kingdoms under Henry II. were such as to keep the Sicilian rulers well informed of the development of the Anglo-Norman institution.’ The view that members of the central court of justice held visitations of the mainland has already been discussed and shown to be untenable: the visitations of the fiscal officers, on the other hand, are abundantly proved by the notices of their activity in the second part of the reign of William II. At the same time it must be emphatically stated that there is no ground whatever for attributing the practice to the reign of Roger II., and moreover the idea was drawn, not from England or Normandy, but from Sicilian usage: whether the practice that prevailed in Sicily of making the members of the duana responsible for the bailiffs in the different regions of the island had any connection with Anglo-Norman institutions cannot be discussed here.

^{page 302 note 1} Cal. No. 7: Rex autem Rogerius in regno suo perfecte pacis tranquillitate potitus, pro conservanda pace camerarios et iustitiarios per totam terrain instituit.

^{page 302 note 2} Caspar, p. 308.

^{page 303 note 1} For the government of the Italian themes and the imperial judges cf. J. Gay, L'Italie Méridionale et l'Empire Byzantin (867–1071) in Bibliothèque des Écoles Françaises d'Athènes et de Rome, Paris, 1904, pp. 556Google Scholar seq.

^{page 303 note 2} Montfaucon, B., Paliæographia Græca, Paris, 1708, Lib. VI. p. 394Google Scholar.

^{page 303 note 3} B. Montfaucon, Lib. VI. p. 402.

^{page 303 note 4} Caspar, p. 309.

^{page 304 note 1} Montfaucon, Lib. VI. p. 411.

^{page 304 note 2} Società Napoletana di Storia Patria MSS. Pergamene Fusco, No. A, xvii. bis. The genuineness of this document cannot, however, be accepted without some reserve: it is preserved in what claims to be the Greek original and is accompanied by a Latin translation of the 14th century. Unfortunately I have not been able to obtain a transcription or photograph of the Greek, against the authenticity of which it has been urged that all the signatures, even of non-Greek persons, are in Greek. This scarcely seems a valid objection, for many Latin and Norman names appear in Greek form in the Calabrian documents of the 11th and 12th centuries. The translation begins + Signum proprie manus Rogerij filii quondam beate memorie domini Bonj magni Justiciarij tocius Calabrie et magne Curie. Ego Rogerius audiens et sciens uocem Euangelicam dicentem pro uno ex minimis meis fecistis (there follow more texts) feci propria manu signum saticte crucis in uertice scripti huius et dono pro remissione peccatorum meorum atque pro genitorum meorum sancte Marie et sancto Stephano de Bosco et oratoribus qui ibi sunt videlicet Magislro Andree et Johanni farrario et omnibus successoribus suis abbatibus et fralribus qui erunt terras meas quas habeo in tenimento mileli supra casale Mutar. et vineam que dicitur de calocasar, supra idem casale ubi est oliva.J. et terrain que dicitur theophilj et terras que sunt in planicie ab inferiori parte sub ecclesiam sancte Marie … pro hac autem donatione mea predicti patres antidotum contulerunt mihi munera que uahierunt tarenos ccc. quos accepisse ab eos me fateor. et sumarios duos mulos quibus receptis a me per manus eorum …. There follow anathemas for the breach of this grant and a money fine to the curia of 200 talents of gold, fuit autem presens scriptum per manus notarij nicolai precepto domini sui Rogerij annorij boni Justiciarij tocius calabrie mense Januarii xviij° die mentis Indictione iij^a. Anno ab inicio mundi sexto millesitno sexcentesimo xxiiij°.

This date of 6624 ind. 3 = A. D. 1116 is wrong either in the year or the indiction, which do not correspond. If the year is correctly transcribed the whole document is a palpable forgery since Andrew was not then the master of the Eremites, nor Roger justiciar in Calabria. If, however, the indiction be adhered to, then the year 6648 = 1140 may be suggested as the true date. This would agree with the presence of Andrew and Roger, and several of the witnesses are to be found in other Calabrian documents of this decade.

Witnesses.

+ Ego Malgerius de altavilla testor. + Ego Riccardus uileris testis. + Ego petrus fraicosmos testis. + Ego Mātiosalj testis. + Ego bonus Mutarj. + Ego proprius Leo Mutarj. + Ego proprius costa. + Ego notarius Johannes suffragarus. Ego Joffredus filius domini Rogerij aiinuari qui et bona omnia predicta concedo et testis.

^{page 304 note 3} Appendix, No. 1.

^{page 305 note 1} Caspar, Reg. Nos. 158 and 159.

^{page 305 note 2} Trinchera, p. 322, No. ccxxxix.

^{page 306 note 1} Cal. No. 16.

^{page 306 note 2} supra, p.248.

^{page 307 note 1} Cal. No. 1.

^{page 307 note 2} Cal. Nos. 3, 4, cf. No. 2.

^{page 307 note 3} A. T. Lib. III. cap. xxx. p. 143.

^{page 307 note 4} Hamo was among the magnates of the court of Jordan II. of Capua in 1120 (Gattola, E., Historia Abbatiae Cassinensis, Venice, 1733, i. 236Google Scholar) per interventum Aymonis de Argincia. Another link with the past of the principality was thus forged. Cf. infra, p. 384.

^{page 307 note 5} Cal. No. 5.

^{page 307 note 6} Cal. No. 6.

^{page 308 note 1} Cal. Nos. 6, 13.

^{page 308 note 2} Cal. No. 15.

^{page 308 note 3} The district in which Boamund of Manopello exercised jurisdiction is called in the Catalogue of the Barons his, justitia.

^{page 308 note 4} Cal. No. 26, and App. No. 5.

^{page 308 note 5} Cal. No. 28, and App. No. 7; Cal. No. 31, and App. No. 8.

^{page 308 note 6} Cal. No. 27, and App. No. 6.

^{page 308 note 7} Cal. No. 13.

^{page 308 note 8} Infra, p. 369.

^{page 309 note 1} Cat. Bar. p. 571, Art. 9; p. 572, Art. 33.

^{page 309 note 2} Ibid. p. 572, Art. 31.

^{page 309 note 3} Ibid. p. 581, Art. 383. Comes Goffridus Alesinae tenet in capite a Domino Rege Banciam, quam tenuit Henricus de Ullia, quae shut dixit, feudum IV. militum, et cum augmento obtulit milites VIII.

^{page 309 note 4} Ibid. p. 581, Arts. 377, 384, 385. Of the places here ascribed to Geoffrey, Peschici, Biccari, Serracapriola, Varano, Monte S. Angelo, Siponto, Chieuti, Loreto, and Montecalvo, several belonged to Henry of Ollia and are mentioned in documents issued by him. Cf, Cal. Nos. 11, 15. The fiefs belonging to the county of Lesina are recorded in Cat. Bar. p. 581, Arts. 387–8.

^{page 309 note 5} H. F. p. 22.

^{page 309 note 6} St. Arch. Nap. Perg. Mon. Sopp. ii. No. 118: grant by Boamund Briton and his son Thomas in June 1164, ind. xii. reign of king William, of certain arable lands quas in territorio jamdicti nostri casalis candelarii habemus sicut annexmn est. ecclesie sandi leonardi de valle nebularia que in strata siponti sita est, in the presence of Guido Soldanus, royal judge of S. Chirico and others; document written by John public notary of S. Chirico at S. Chirico: at the head of the list of signatures are:

+ Ego boamundus bricto dominus candelarii.

+ Ego Thomas filius Boamundi brilto domini candelarii testis.

There is nothing to show whether Boamund was still royal justiciar at this period.

^{page 309 note 7} Cat. Bar. p. 581, Art. 370, where Candelaro is ascribed to the Curia.

^{page 309 note 8} Cat. Bar. p. 583 seq. Art. 437 seq.

^{page 310 note 1} Ibid. p. 585, Arts. 487–9.

^{page 310 note 2} Ibid. p. 583, Arts. 442–4. It is extremely probable that this group of Lampus' fiefs were held in chief, since at the time the Catalogue for the principality was compiled they were in the hands of the curia; the evidence, however, is not conclusive. The fiefs are classed together with those of the sub-tenants of Henry of San Severino, but it seems as if the heading isti tenent de eo should not apply to all the subsequent entries (p. 583, Arts. 439–462). No information is forthcoming as to the time at which the fiefs of Lampus came into the hands of the curia. He is mentioned as early as 1128 as lord of Fasanella (Di Meo, ad an. 1128, n. 10); and we learn from a grant of 1134 (Archives of Cava, Dictionarium Archivi Cavensis … opus perfectum a R. P. D. Augustino Venereo et exaratum a R. P. D. Camillo Massaro, iii. f. 113), which Lampus Dominus Castelli, quod Fasanella dicitur, made to the monastery of Cava, that he had a son Tancred. In 1184, Tancred, lord of Fasanella in his turn, conferred a privilege on the same convent, but this Tancred calls himself the son of the lord William Palude (Di Meo, x. ad an. 1184, n. 5). A certain Hamutus of Fasanella (Cat. Bar. p. 588, Art. 656) is described as holding twenty-two villeins at Sicignano and doing service with the augmentum for two knights. Lampus belonged to a Lombard family: in the grant of 1134 he describes himself as the son of count Guaifer, while his wife was the great-granddaughter of Guaimar, prince of Salerno.

^{page 310 note 3} Cat. Bar. p. 583, Art. 439; p. 584, Arts. 454, 456–9; p. 586, Art. 578.

^{page 310 note 4} Ibid. p. 586, Art. 578.

^{page 310 note 5} Ibid. p. 597, Art. 934.

^{page 310 note 6} Cal. No. 9.

^{page 310 note 7} Cat. Bar. p. 595, Art. 867; p. 597, Art. 933.

^{page 311 note 1} Cal. No. 26; App. No. 5.

^{page 311 note 2} Cat. Bar. p. 600, Arts. 1014–18.

^{page 311 note 3} Mayer, ii. 397, n. 93, 399, and Haskins, 645, n. 127.

^{page 311 note 4} Cf. the signatures of the judges of Bitonto in 1189: Cod. dipl. Bar. v. No. 153.

^{page 311 note 5} Cat. Bar. p. 571, Art. 8.

^{page 311 note 6} Cal. No. 42.

^{page 312 note 1} Cod. dipl. Bar. v. No. 133.

^{page 312 note 2} Cal. No. 60.

^{page 312 note 3} Cod. dipl. Bar. v. No. 145.

^{page 312 note 4} Cod. dipl. Bar. vols. i. and v.

^{page 312 note 5} Ibid. i. No. 94.

^{page 313 note 1} Cat. Bar. p. 581, Art. 380.

^{page 313 note 2} Cat. Bar. p. 582, Arts. 396–401.

^{page 313 note 3} Cal. No. 31; App. No. 8.

^{page 313 note 4} Cal. Nos. 22, 37, 45.

^{page 313 note 5} Cal. No. 45.

^{page 313 note 6} Cal. No. 51. In addition to Rao the royal justiciar, who was acting as the advocate of the abbot of Orsara, Mainardus de Grino was also among those present at the concord drawn up in 1159 between William III. bishop of Troia and the abbot of Orsara.

^{page 314 note 1} Cal. No. 42.

^{page 314 note 2} Cal. Bar. p. 571, Arts. 4, 8, 12, 24.

^{page 314 note 3} Cal. No. 47.

^{page 314 note 4} Cod. Dipl. Bar. v. No. 133.

^{page 314 note 5} Cf. supra, pp. 308–11.

^{page 314 note 6} Cat. Bar. p. 589, Arts. 700–1, cf. charter of Simon of Tivilla, brother of William, who signs it, May, 1143, ind. v. (St. Arch. Nap. Perg. Mon. Sopp. i. No. 29).

^{page 315 note 1} Novae Constitutiones Regni Siciliae, Lib. I. tit. li. in Huillard-Breholles, , Historia Diplomatica Friderici Secundi, Paris, 1854, iv. 189Google Scholar.

^{page 315 note 2} Cal. No. 44; App. No. 13.

^{page 315 note 3} H. F. p. 22.

^{page 315 note 4} C. A. Garufi, I Documenti Inediti dell' epoca normanna in Sicilia, No. lxii. p. 153 (Documenti p. s. alla storia di Sicilia, serie i. vol. 18).

^{page 315 note 5} Cf. infra, p. 366.

^{page 315 note 6} Caspar, pp. 311–2.

^{page 316 note 1} Cal. No. 61.

^{page 316 note 2} Cal. No. 51.

^{page 316 note 3} Haskins, p. 646, n. 136.

^{page 316 note 4} Constitutiones Regni Siciliae, Lib. I. tit. lviii. in Huillard-Bréholles, , Historia Diplomatica Friderici Secundi, iv. 178Google Scholar.

^{page 316 note 5} Cal. No. 8, Sancimus ut latrocinia, fracture domorum, insultus viarum, vis mulieribus illata, homicidia, leges parabiles, calumpnie criminum, incendia, forisfacte omnes, de quibus quilibet de corpore et rebus suis mercedi curie debeat subiacere a iustitiariis iudicentur, clamoribus supradictorum baiulis depositis, cetera vero a baiulis poterunt detineri.

^{page 317 note 1} Ughelli-Coleti, , Italia Sacra, ix. 32Google Scholar.

^{page 317 note 2} Guillaume, , Essai Historique sur l'Abbaye de Cava. Cava dei Tirreni, 1877, App. p. xxxvGoogle Scholar.–

^{page 318 note 1} Cf. Cat. No. 8, clamoribus supradictorum baiulis depositis.

^{page 318 note 2} Const. Lib. I. tit. lxvi. (42), p. 38.

^{page 318 note 3} Ibid. Tit. lxv. (41), p. 37.

^{page 318 note 4} Cf. supra, p. 317.

^{page 318 note 5} Const. Lib. I. tit. xliv. (54), p. 47: Que igitur ad ipsorum cognitiotiem pertineant predecessorum nostrorum assisiis comprehensa, apertius definimus, latrocinia scilicet, magna furta, fracture domorum, insultus excogitali, incendia, incisiones arborum fructiferaruiu et vitium, vis mulieribus illata, duella, crimina majestatis, arma molita, defense imposite et [contempte ab aliis vel pro aliis ab eisdem], et generaliter omnia de quibus convicti penam sui corporis vel mutilationem membrorum sustinere deberent. Magnum autem furtum accipimus ultra viginti augustales, etiamsi civiliter de furto ipso agatur, ut iamen etiam de quatititate minori coram justitiario [ad corporalem penam] criminaliter possit accusatio intentari.

^{page 318 note 6} The most important addition is that of treason—crimina majestatis: its absence from the assize of king Roger has been explained by the fact that the law of treason had not received its full development as early in the reign of king Roger as the issue of the assize defining the powers of the justiciars; treason, however, is frequently mentioned as a plea reserved to the king and indeed to the count of Sicily long before the formation of the kingdom. The suggestion may be hazarded that under Roger II. cases of treason were reserved for the king's own hearing.

^{page 319 note 1} Cal. Nos. 54, 53.

^{page 319 note 2} Cognizance of a case tried at Bitonto in 1189 is specially attributed to the royal justiciars because it belonged to the justiciariatus officio. The crown claimed a certain tenement since its owner had been tried and condemned for murder, but the justice of the forfeiture was disputed, and the counter-claim was allowed by the justiciars, on the ground that the tenement had been alienated before the murder was committed.—Cod. Dipl. Bar. v. No. 153.

^{page 319 note 3} Del Giudice, G., Codice Diplomatico del regno di Carlo I. e II. D'Angiò, Naples, 1863, i. App. i. p. xliiiGoogle Scholar.; 1179 in a grant of jurisdiction by Robert, Count of Loritello, placitis ad iusticiariam pertinentibus in manus domini nostri gloriosi regis et nostris omnimodo retentis.

^{page 319 note 4} Const. Lib, I. tit. lxxii. (49), p. 44. Circa tamen compalatios Neapolis et slraticos Salerni scilicet et Messane, quibus cognoscere licet de criminibus de speciali et antiqua prerogativa et regni nostri observatione dignoscitur esse concession, ordinatione constitutions presentis nihil volumus innovari.

^{page 319 note 5} Cf. infra, p. 331.

^{page 320 note 1} R. S. p. 460.

^{page 320 note 2} Ibid.

^{page 321 note 1} Cal. No. 6.

^{page 321 note 2} Haskins, p. 646, note a, Cal. No. 55. Two other documents in support of this combination of offices are brought forward by Prof. Haskins without, it would seem, sufficient grounds. The first belongs to the year 1175, St. Arch. Nap. Perg. Mon. Sopp. II. No. 178 bis (Haskins gives the number as II. 99) and contains the mention coram domino Achille Regio jusliciario terre Idronti et Camerario Basilicate: Capasso regards the document as gravely suspect and for a brief discussion of the matter cf. infra, p. 346, n. 3.

The remaining document quoted by Prof. Haskins (p. 654, n. 191) belongs to the year 1183 and records an inquest made by Bereng [arius] Latronici et Robertus Camer[arius] Vallis Sinni regii iusticiarii. Camerarius is obviously the surname of Robert in this case and does not denote his office: he is found previously among the witnesses of a document of 1178 as Robertus Camerarius (Crudo. La SS ^ma. Trinità di Venosa, p. 256). A parallel instance of an official title becoming a surname is to be found in Robertus Senescalcus, the justiciar at Bari and Barletta in 1154 and 1155.

^{page 321 note 3} Const. Lib. I. tit. xliv. (54), pp. 47, 48: Cognitionem civilium etiam causarum in defectu etiam camerariorum et bajulorum ad officium suum pertinere cognoscant. Defectus vero in camerariis et bajulis tunc esse videtur, videlicet cum post duos menses a die proclamations ad ipsos fade [cause eis a superiori commisse fuerint], nee conquerentibus in rationibtis suis satisfaciunt ut tenentur et debent, nisi inslructionis [desiderate] necessitas terminum exigat largiorem…. De feudis etiam et rebus feudalibus ipsi cognoscant, preter questiones de castris et baroniis et magnis feudis que in quaternionibus doane nostre scripta sunt: que omnia singulariter cognitioni nostrecurie reservamus.

^{page 322 note 1} Const. Lib. I. tit. Ix. (45), p. 41.

^{page 322 note 2} Cal. No. 42.

^{page 322 note 3} Cal. No. 16. The plaintiff appeals against a previous sentence which he regards as unjust; Cal. No. 25, App. No. 4, seems to refer to previous litigation ‘exorta controversial’ but this is only a summary; Cal. No. 26, App. No. 5 … qualiler longa controversia que, diu fuerat … per judiciariam sit sententiam diffinita; Cal. No. 34, App. No. 10 … qualiler habui altercationem cum domino romano abbate tremitane insule, i.e. before the present suit was brought before the justiciars; Cal. No. 41, App. No. 12, declaramus quomodo litigia. et altercationes non parvas habuimus…. Postea vero utraque pars, venientes ante presenciam domini Rogerii flandrensis Regii comestabuli (et justitiarii); Cal. No. 42, when there had been four previous attempts to obtain satisfaction from various courts.

^{page 322 note 4} Cal. Nos. 22 (1147), 37 (T. R. R.), 45 (1156) all deal with the agreement between Monte Cassino and John de Boccio; the first document describes the action taken by the abbot before duke Roger, though it is by no means certain that this was the beginning of the suit; the two others narrate a concord negotiated before the justiciar Guimund of Montilari; Cal. No. 28, records a judgment drawn up in the presence of the justiciars Hector of Atina and Adenulf of Caserta; nothing is said of previous litigation, but it appears from another judgment that the case began in the court of the abbot of Monte Cassino in 1142, cf. infra, p. 324.

^{page 323 note 1} Cal. Nos. 25, 34, 37, 42, 45.

^{page 323 note 2} Cal. No. 42.

^{page 324 note 1} Niese, , Urkunden, i. 4, p. 27Google Scholar.

^{page 324 note 2} Archives of Monte Cassino, caps, 101, fasc. v. No. lxi.

^{page 324 note 3} Archives of Monte Cassino, Codex 640. Privilegia et Diplomata pro Monaslerio S. Matthei Servorum Dei MSS. R. R. P. pp. 112, 113.

^{page 324 note 4} Cal. No. 28, App. No. 7.

^{page 325 note 1} Cal. No. 42.

^{page 325 note 2} Const. Lib. I. tit. xliv. (54), p. 48.

^{page 325 note 3} Cal. Nos. 22, 37, 45.

^{page 326 note 1} Cat. Bar. p. 582, Art. 400.

^{page 326 note 2} Cat. Bar. p. 575, Art. 138.

^{page 326 note 3} E. Mayer, i. 453.

^{page 326 note 4} Cal. No. 22.

^{page 326 note 5} Cal. No. 37.

^{page 327 note 1} Cal. No. 45.

^{page 328 note 1} Cal. No. 26, App. 5.

^{page 328 note 2} This seems to be the drift of the fragmentary passage: Sin autem res J…. et nudius tertius fuerat. ita usque ad domini Regis audientiam servaretur.

^{page 329 note 1} Chalandon, ii. 678. All the examples of administrative inquests by justiciars quoted by M. Chalandon belong to Sicily or Calabria, although he does not appear to have noticed the distinction. The same is true of a case cited by Prof. Haskins, p. 654 and n. 151.

^{page 330 note 1} Caspar, p. 615.

^{page 330 note 2} Niese, , Urkunden, i. 8Google Scholar, n. 3, where the grants of jurisdiction to churches in Sicily, with the exception of Cefalù, are collected.

^{page 330 note 3} Caspar, Reg. No. 194. Salvis tamen regalibus nostrae majestatis, fellonia videlicet, traditione et homicidio.

^{page 331 note 1} Niese, , Urkunden, i. 7, 8Google Scholar. The possible exception in the grant of William I. for the Bishop of Troia is recognised by Niese (Gesetzgebung, p. 172) to be inadmissible, since the reference to the privilege of exercising the power of a justiciar is shown to be a later addition.

^{page 331 note 2} Soc. Nap. di Storia Patria MS. xxvii. A 3. Diplomata Monasterii S. Laurentii de Aversa, A.D. 1716, ff. 50 (2) and 51: a donation made by Pizzigaudius of Bitetto to the monastery of S. Laurence in Curia Domini Guillielmi Venerabilis Montis Regalis Archiepiscopi, et Domini Regis familiaris apud Ciuitatem suam Bitecti in ea, et Regente eandem Curiam Domino Joanne fratre, et Justitiario eiusdem Domini Venerabilis Archiepiscopi Ameruzio Joanne Macciacotta, et Petrarcha [sic] Buffo regalibus parentium [sic] Judicibus, et Pascale, et Angelo Curialibus Bitectentium Judicibus. … + Signum manus Domini Joannis Justitiarij Bitecti. There follow the signatures of the judges of Bari (properly described as Barensium) and Bitetlo, 1186, 21st. Kg. William, May 6, Ind. 4; ex suo origin.: Arm°. 2, fasc. 6.

^{page 331 note 3} Tab. Cass. t. ii. Cod. dipl. Caj. ccclxii. p. 312. Insuper concessimus vobis, ut a Magistris Iustitiariis ad iustitiam faciendam non cogamini. Civiles quidem cause in Curia Gajeie diffiniantur sicut diffiniri consueverunt. Criminates vero cause, que amodo in Gajeta emerserint inter concives vestros in Magna Regia Curia Panormi diffiniantur per testes sine duello, et quicquid super his a Consulibus Iudicibus et Consiliariis qui iustitiam et veritatem iuraverint; de his videlicet que acta fuerint coram eis significatum fuerit Curie nostre credatur. De crimine autem Majestatis si appellatio facta fuerit, diffiniantur in magna Curia nostra Panormi…. Postquam autem Princeps statutus fuerit Capue; criminales cause sicit agitari et diffinitivi [sic] debent in magna Curia nostra Panormi; sic in Curia ipsius Principis debent diffiniri.

^{page 332 note 1} Mayer, ii. p. 376, ns. 38, 40; p. 377, ns. 43, 44, 45, 46, brings together a collection of llustrations of the right of alienation and the fiscal, market and forest privileges of the counts before the conquest by Roger II.

^{page 332 note 2} Ibid. p. 377, n. 42. Illustrations of judicial power from the same period: Del Giudice, , Cod. Dipl. Ang. i. p. xxxii. ffGoogle Scholar. 1092, the count of Gravina in establishing a bishopric narrates: integra omnia judicia et compositiones et forisfacturas et plateam et bannum omnium hominum concessi. Ughelli-Coleti, , Italia Sacra, vii. col. 791, 1105Google Scholar, Geoffrey comes Cannarum renounces the right subtrahendi homines a dominio et jurisdictione ejusdem ecclesie nec ponendi eos sub nostro dominio pro aliqua occasione, placito, quaestione, reatu vel controversia, nisi sint publicae homicidae vel nostri proditores. Riccio, C. Minieri, Saggio di Codice Diplomatico, Formato sulle Antiche Scritture dell' Archivio di Stato di Napoli, Naples, 1878–1885, i. 19, 1114Google Scholar, the count of Loreto declares, ut si homines sancte ecclesie rixati fuerint inter se sive homicidium vel incendium aut talium factum fuerit, omnia sua recipiat abbas, et persona ego.

^{page 333 note 1} Supra, p. 241.

^{page 333 note 2} R. S. p. 426. De novo multos in regno suo comites ordinavit.

^{page 333 note 3} Petroni, G., Storia ai Bari, Naples, 1858, iiGoogle Scholar. Consuetudini Barest Rubrica ii. 7, p. 440. Neque a Comitibus, neque a Institiariis, neque a quolibet Magistratu a civitate nostra aliquis Barensis exlraitur, et invitus ad alia loca ducitur iudicandus. Capasso first called attention to this passage and insisted on this view of the counts as judicial officers; his view is adopted with fresh emphasis by Mayer and Niese.

^{page 334 note 1} Cal. No. 17.

^{page 334 note 2} Cal. No. 37.

^{page 334 note 3} Cf. infra, p. 371–2.

^{page 335 note 1} Ughelli-Coleti, , Italia Sacra, vii. col. 805Google Scholar. Grant by count Geoffrey of Andria to the bishop of Monte Verde. Concedo Judicia homimim de Ecclesia facial Episcoptis, praeler criminalia, qnae, mortem inducunt, ilia vero reserventur Curiae nostrae: the date is given as 9th. king William, 7th May, Ind. x. 1177; but the year must be corrected to 1175 (cf. Di Meo, ad an. 1175, n. 2), to agree with the other indications. Besides, in 1177 Roger of Albe was count of Andria. Di Meo, it must be added, without giving any reason, regards the charter as ‘di brutto conio.’

^{page 335 note 2} Del Giudice, , Cod. Dipl. Ang. App. i. No. xx. p. xliiiGoogle Scholar. Robert, count palatine of Loritello and Conversano, in a grant to S. Leonard near Siponto, declares: ut a modo in antea ipsi homines liberi sint et absoluti sine omni nostra nostrorumque heredum seu successorum contrarietate vel requisitione. placitis. ad iusticiariatn pertinentibus, in manibus domini nostri gloriosissimi Regis et nostris omnimodo retentis. May, 1179.

^{page 335 note 3} Ughelli-Coleti, , Italia Sacra, viii. col. 73Google Scholar. Diploma of count Tancred for SS. Nicholas and Cataldus at Lecce: concessimus … in ipsa civitate Lycii de extraneis, & adventitiis affidandi licentiam, Curiam, & Judicem & Notarium de nostris hominibus ex univirsis causis, praeter illas, quae in publico, & ad censuram regiam pertinere videntur. Quod is, qui pro tempore Praelaius extiterit, primò, secundò, tertiove admonitus justitiam facere distulerit, volumus ut exedio ipsius negotii deveniat in Curiam nostrum, et haeredum nostrorum, & si qua compositio inde exacta fuerit, volumus ut ad manus Ecclesiae conferatur. 1181.

^{page 335 note 4} Robert of Loritello, Biblioteca Nazionale, Naples, Cartario di S. Maria di Tremiti, f. 61 verso: ego Leonasius eiusdem domini palatini comitis Justitiarius, 1179, April, Ind. 12; Ughelli Coleti, Italia Sacra, x. Chronica Monasterii S. Bartholomcei de Carpineto, col. 371. Richard of Molise, cf. infra, p. 372.

^{page 336 note 1} Cal. No. 44.

^{page 336 note 2} Niese, Gesetzgebung, pp. 171–173.

^{page 336 note 3} Const. Lib. I. tit. xlix.

^{page 336 note 4} Constitutions of Capua xviii. in Ryccardi de Sancto Germano Chronica Priora, ed. Gaudenzi in Soc. Nap. di Storia Patria, Monwnenti Storici, serie i. Cronache, Naples, 1888, p. 103Google Scholar.

^{page 336 note 5} This fact has led some historians to doubt the existence of any territorial system underlying the activity of the early justiciars; they have been regarded rather as members of a board travelling through the country without fixed districts (Caspar, p. 311); and as the successors of the commissioners who were dispatched from the central court by the Great Count and by Roger II. in the early years of the reign (Chalandon, ii. 676). At first, Chalandon says, they were dispatched temporarily and they became gradually the permanent delegates of the curia in the provinces. This theory of the origin of the local justiciars is attractive, since it offers a logical theory of development, but it must be abandoned, since it is unsupported by the facts of the case: on the one hand the same justiciars were always in the same region and they were always local personages, and on the other, the temporary delegations of the curia ceased after the local justiciars appeared. A juster appreciation of these facts has rightly led the most recent writer on the subject, Professor Haskins, to recognise the existence, from the outset, of provincial justiciars with definite territorial spheres.

^{page 337 note 1} The first use of the word region applied to the Justiciars is found in Romuald of Salerno in recounting the events of 1178 (p. 460).

^{page 337 note 2} Guillaume, Essai, App. p. xli. Q.

^{page 338 note 1} St. Arch. Nap. Registro Angiovino, 242 (1322 A), ff. 13–63.

^{page 338 note 2} C. BorveNi, Vindex Neapolitanae nobilitatis, 1653, App. pp. 5–154; Fimiani, Commentariolus de subfeudis, App. pp. 55–326; Re, Del, Cronisti et Scrittori sincroni Napolet. Naples, 1845, i. App. pp. 571–616Google Scholar.

^{page 339 note 1} Capasso, B., Sul Catalogo dei Feudi e dei Feudatarii delle Provincie Napoletane in Atti della Reale Accademia di Archeologia, Lettere e belle Arti, 1868, iv. 293–371.Google Scholar

^{page 339 note 2} I have not been able to see a copy of Borelli's edition, and have generally used that of Del Re as the most easily accessible. In all references to and quotations from the Catalogue the pages are given according to Del Re; the numbers of the various articles, however, are taken from the edition of Fimiani, who alone adopts this method of making reference easier and surer. I was fortunately able in Naples to compare the greater part of the Catalogue in Del Re's edition with the MS. in the Angevin Register, and in consequence to correct many mistakes as well as to obtain. a ju^ter idea of the document undisfigured by Del Re's typographical eccentricities. Whenever quotations from the Catalogue given here differ from the edition of Del Re, I am able to claim the authority of the MS. for the variations.

^{page 339 note 3} Capasso, Sul Catalogo.

^{page 339 note 4} Prof. Haskins has now adopted this method with somewhat different results.

^{page 340 note 1} Two of the chamberlains, Marius Russus and Riccardus Philippi, were certainly in office after this limit, but they only give very little information compared with the large amount supplied by their predecessor Alfanus for the principality of Salerno. Hence the presence of these later chamberlains must be due to still later additions to the Register. Other officials who are found in the Catalogue are not included in the foregoing table, because it has not been possible to establish the dates at which they held office. They form, however, a small minority of the total number of officials mentioned.

^{page 340 note 2} Archiv. für Urkundenforschung, vol. i. Leipzig, 1908, von Heckel, Rudolf, Das päpstliche und sicilische Registerwesen, pp. 389–390Google Scholar.

In this article Capasso's theory that the loss of the libri consuetudimim, quos defetarios appellant in the sack of the palace at Palermo in 1161 was the occasion of the compilation of the Catalogue, is severely criticised. It is obvious that the former registers cannot have been entirely destroyed, since information is frequently extracted from them in the Catalogue. Von Heckel moreover does not regard the defetarii, to which allusion is made, as belonging to the same class of registers as the Catalogue.

^{page 341 note 1} The Catalogue records for the most part the feudal conditions as they existed after the suppression of the rebellion of 1156, and before the rebellion of 1161. Thus the counties of Conversano, Loritello, Lecce, and Montescaglioso are vacant after the deposition of the counts Robert, Tancred, and Geoffrey, and the count of Lesina is Geoffrey of OUia and not William who was deprived in 1156. On the other hand Conza, Avellino, Fondi, and Acerra are still in the possession of the counts Jonathan, Roger, Richard of Aquila, and Roger respectively, for these only lost their lands after 1161. Many of the other counts mentioned in the Catalogue were in possession before 1156; such were Hugh of Molise, Robert of Aprutium, Silvester of Marsico, and probably Philip of Civitate. Gilbert of Gravina received his county before 1160, but his son Bertram, who appears in the Catalogue, was only made count of Andria in 1166 by the regent Margaret. In the case of Manopello it is impossible to say whether Boamund I., who took part in the revolt of 1156, or his successor Boamund II., is meant.

^{page 341 note 2} Cat. Bar. p. 589, Art. 683.

^{page 343 note 1} St. Arch. Nap. Reg. Ang. 242 (1322 A.). The edition of Del Re omits the words et Terre Bari which are found in the MS.

^{page 343 note 2} Cat. Bar. p. 571. § De Comestabulia Frangalij de Bitricto.

^{page 343 note 3} Ibid. p. 572. §Item de proprio feudo Comestabulie Terre Bari militum Isti sunt milites Baroli de Comestabulia Angoth de Arcis.

^{page 343 note 4} Cat. No. 42.

^{page 344 note 1} Cal. No. 39.

^{page 344 note 2} In 1155 we find that he was royal constable (Cal. No. 42) and in 1173–4 royal justiciar (Cod. Dipl. Bar. v. No. 133).

^{page 345 note 1} Chart. Cup. pp. 288-9.

^{page 345 note 2} Crudo, La SS^ma Trinità di Venosa, p. 254. A judgment of 1175 (St. Arch. Nap. Perg. Mon. Sopp. vol. ii. No. 178 bis) uses the territorial title, but the genuineness of the document has been doubted by Capasso.

^{page 345 note 3} Cal. No. 5.

^{page 345 note 4} Cod. Dipl. Bar. v. No. 153.

^{page 345 note 5} Cal. No. 39.

^{page 345 note 6} Cal. No. 47.

^{page 346 note 1} Cat. Bar. p. 574, Art. 100—p. 578, Art. 267.

^{page 346 note 2} Cf. Huillard-Bréholles, , Historia Diplomatica Friderici Secundi, Paris, 1861, vi. 734Google Scholar. Innocent IV. mentions a grant of Constance and Frederick to Otto Frangipani of the principatum Tarenti cum tota terra Idronti.

^{page 346 note 3} The name Basilicata is not found in the Norman period except in two documents, one of which is a palpable forgery, while the other in the opinion of Capasso is at least suspicious. The former is a judgment of Philippus de Guisone Regius Justitiarius Basilicatae, of 1162, Ind. x., St. Arch. Nap.: Processi di Regio Padronato an. 1784, 159. Atti M. 13. N 6. f. 21: a note adds that this judgment no longer existed in the Archives of the Cathedral of Tricarico and was copied from a book called Esistenza e validità de privilegi conceduti da Principi Normandi alia Chiesa Cattedraledi Tricarico … di Antonio Zavarrone Vescovo della chiesa medesima, seconda edizione, Nap. 30 maggio 1750.

The second document is preserved in the St. Arch. Napoli. Perg. Mon. Sopp. vol. ii. No. 178 bis. It contains a concord between William of Manselleria and his wife Claricia and the abbess-elect of S. Mary of Brindisi, Scholastica, in the course of which domino Achille Regio justiciario terre Idronti et camerario Basilicate is mentioned; the date of the document is 1175, 10th king William, Nov. Ind. 8. =.1174. The opinion of Capasso on this document is expressed in his paper Sul Catalogo dei Feudi. The concord gives rise certainly to considerable suspicion. The title of Achilles is abnormal, for at this date it is unknown for the same man to be justiciar in one district and chamberlain in another; further, it is stated that the deed was drawn up by George of Brindisi, the notary of Achilles the justiciar, while the signature runs AChife MA CAMER, giving yet another form to the title: probably a thorough examination of the document would lead to the discovery of further discrepancies.

^{page 347 note 1} St. Arch. Nap. Perg. di Matera, No. 16. This judgment originally belonged to the Archive of S. Michael of Montescaglioso, for it appears in the list of documents given in the Codex Caveosus preserved at Monte Cassino.

^{page 347 note 2} Capitular Archives Troia, sack K n. 13, M n. 11. Judgment of Nov. 1184 [= 1183] given in favour of the monastery of St. Nicholas of Troia by a court held by Tancred count of Lecce and Roger count of Andria, great constables and master justiciars of Apulia and the Terra di Lavoro at Barletta in the presence of many judges, royal barons, and justiciars, amongst whom was Riccardo de balbano Justitiariatus melfie et honoris montis caveosi Regio Comestabili et Jitsticiario. It is difficult to decide whether Richard was justiciar of the justiciarate of Melfi, and justiciar of the Honour of Montescaglioso, that is to say two separate regions united under one justiciar, or whether Melfi and the Honour formed one justiciarate. For a summary and discussion of this judgment, cf. infra, p. 361–3.

^{page 348 note 1} On more than one occasion the chamberlains of the Honour of Montescaglioso are found, e.g. in Sept. 1188, Robert tituli honoris montis scaveosi regii camerarii was present in Conversano with the chamberlain of that county. Chart. Cup. No. 133, p. 257.

^{page 348 note 2} Cat. Bar. p. 575, Art. 155—p. 578, Art. 267.

^{page 348 note 3} Cal. No. 6.

^{page 348 note 4} Cat. Bar. p. 577, Art. 219, Fulco Veltrus tenet in Tarento fendum quod fuit Mabiliae uxoris quondam Rogerij de Berulo.

^{page 348 note 5} Cal. No. 41, and App. No. 12.

^{page 348 note 6} Cat. Bar. p. 578, Art. 267.

^{page 348 note 7} Cat. Bar. p. 576, Art. 211.

^{page 348 note 8} Ibid., p. 571, Art. 6.

^{page 349 note 1} Ibid., p. 573, Art. 90.

^{page 349 note 2} Ibid. p. 577, Art. 240.

^{page 349 note 3} Ibid. p. 578, Art. 253.

^{page 349 note 4} Kinnamos, p. 152, ; pp. 153, 156, 157.

^{page 349 note 5} Cf. supra, pp. 286–7.

^{page 349 note 6} Crudo, La SS^ma. Trinità di Venosa, p. 254, 1175, Residentibus Nobis Oliverio de Brancamala et Philippo de Hostuno Domini Regis Terrae Idrunti lustitiariis. In regali curia apud Brundusium.

^{page 349 note 7} Cat. Bar. p. 578, Art. 267.

^{page 349 note 8} Ibid. p. 583, Art. 437.

^{page 351 note 1} Chalandon, i. 19, 20.

^{page 351 note 2} Capasso, Sul Catalogo.

^{page 352 note 1} Cf. Winkelmann, E., Acta Imperii Inedita Seculi xiii., Innsbruck, 1880, i. 631Google Scholar, Iusticiariatus Capitinate et honoris Montis Sancti Angeli, and p. 771.

^{page 352 note 2} Cat. Bar. p. 581, Arts. 376–380, and Arts. 383–6, 388–9.

^{page 352 note 3} Ibid. p. 581, Arts. 377, 383–5.

^{page 352 note 4} Ibid. p. 581, Arts. 357–375.

^{page 352 note 5} Cf. supra, p. 335.

^{page 352 note 6} Benedictus Abbas (Rolls Series), pp. 169–172.

^{page 353 note 1} Cat. Bar. p. 581, Art. 380.

^{page 353 note 2} Ibid. p. 581, Art. 362, cf. p. 601, Art. 1024.

^{page 353 note 3} Cal. No. 34.

^{page 353 note 4} Cat. Bar. p. 591, Arts. 735, 736, 740.

^{page 353 note 5} Ibid. p. 581, Art. 380, and p. 591, Art. 745.

^{page 353 note 6} Cal. No. 61.

^{page 353 note 7} St. Arch. Nap. Perg. Mon. Sopp. vol. ii. No. 175, vol. iii. Nos. 216, 217, 218.

^{page 353 note 8} Capit. Arch. Troia, cf. infra, p. 361–2.

^{page 354 note 1} Cat. Bar. p. 582, Art. 396.

^{page 354 note 2} Montilari (Mons Hilaris, Monte Ilaro, Montellara, Montilla) was situated between Troia and Bovino in the Diocese of Bovino, cf. Di Meo, t. xii. p. 408. The castle gained an unenviable reputation in 1051 as the scene of the assassination of count Drogo. In 1100 it formed part of the desmesne of count Robert of Loritello, whose bailiffs at Bovino and Montilari oppressed the church of S. Lawrence in Valle, and in 1118 Raymund, son of Rodolph, count of Loritello, issued a charter from the castle of Montilari (Ughelli-Coleti, , Italia Sacra, t. viii. col. 251Google Scholar).

Under king Roger the castle belonged to the justiciar Guimund, but it does not appear that his descendants inherited the fief. The Catalogue of the Barons states that Guimund's son held Casteluccio.

The Catalogue attributes Montellar to count Jonathan of Conza, but probably this is a mistake for Montella in the diocese of Nusco, which was certainly in the hands of Simon of Tivilla, one of Jonathan's barons, in 1143. However this may have been, Montilari once again formed part of the county of Loritello, for in 1180 its tithes were granted to the see of Bovino by count Robert. By 1226, the castle had passed to count Rao of Balbano, the son of Philip of Balbano. He issued a judgment in this year concerning a dispute about Montilari and mentions that in the time of William I. it was in the hands of count Ritrand of Calinta (Ughelli-Coleti, , Italia Sacra, t. viii. col. 262Google Scholar).

^{page 354 note 3} Cat. Bar. p. 582, Arts. 396–401.

^{page 355 note 1} Cat. Bar. p. 582, Arts. 401–3.

^{page 355 note 2} Ibid. p. 582, Arts. 404–8.

^{page 355 note 3} Ibid. p. 582, Art. 4C9, § De Corneto Sancte Trinitatis de Venusio. § De Sancto Johanne in Fronte. Pro Abbati Sancte Trinitatis de Venusio. § De Valle Sorbi eiusdem Abbatis. § De Orta eiusdem Abbatis. § De Barano eiusdem Abbatis.

§ Abbas Sancti Johannis in Lama.

§ Abbas Sancte Trinitatis Cave.

§ De sancto Petro de Olivula et sancto Jacobo de Luceria.

^{page 355 note 4} e.g. Varano belonging to the Convent of Venosa is situated in the Honour; so too St. John in Lamis belonged to the same region.

^{page 355 note 5} Cat. Bar. p. 579, Art. 294.

^{page 356 note 1} Ibid. pp. 578-579, Arts. 291–293.

^{page 356 note 2} Ibid. p. 578, Arts. 268–290.

^{page 356 note 3} Cat. Bar. pp. 579–580, Arts. 295, 304, 305, 323. It is possible that count Philip of Civitate was a minor at the time when the returns of his fiefs were made by Guimund. A charter was issued in Jan. 1152 by Robertus fuius quondam Roberti comitis dei el regia gratia civitatensium comes (St. Arch. Nap. Perg. Mon. Sopp. vol. i. No. 58), and this Robert was probably the nameless count of Civitate who was associated with Guimund of Monlilari in ‘the time of king Roger.’ Philip must have succeeded to the county about the beginning of William's reign, but unfortunately nothing is known about him. His son Henry was count in 1180 (St. Arch. Nap. Perg. Mon. Sopp. vol. iii. No. 226).

^{page 356 note 4} Cal. Nos. 37, 45.

^{page 356 note 5} Cal. No. 31.

^{page 357 note 1} Cal. Nos. 37, 45.

^{page 357 note 2} Cal. No. 51.

^{page 357 note 3} Ibid.

^{page 357 note 4} St. Arch. Nap. Perg. Mon. Sopp. vol. iii. No. 226, cf. Cat. Bar. p. 616, Arts. 1405, 1406. Appendix of Feudatories of the Capitanata of the 13th century, in which Hugli of Mastrali holds Baselice, and Payn of Mastrali holds Monte Saraceno.

^{page 358 note 1} For the history of this portion of the county and the reason for its attribution to the duchy, cf. infra, p. 373.

^{page 358 note 2} Cat. Bar. p. 582, Art. 392.

^{page 358 note 3} Ibid. p. 580, Art. 344. Terra Beneventana. Comes Rogerius Boni Albergi dixit, quod demanium suum Terre Beneventane de Apice est feudum VI. militum, de Bono Albergo feudum IV. militum, de Sancto Severo feudum III. militum. His sub-tenants fall into three groups: (a) those who held directly of the county; Gerard of Greci held Greci, Savignano, and Ferrara; his sisters the wives of — of Potofranco and William of Potofranco held Monte Calvo and Ginestra; Geoffrey, son of Pain of Montefusco, held Monterone, Campolattaro, S. Croce, and some villeins in Apice; Robert of Monte Maloheld S. Giorgio and Guasto; Robert of Molinaraheld Molinara; in all twenty knight's fees or forty cum augmento: (b) those who held portions of the barony of Thomas of Faicchio; Robert of Monte Malo held Gioia, Palata, and S. Giovanni Maytin; Robert de Marra or Morra (this is the right reading of Robert de Marca, cf. F. B. p. 217, where Pesclo is said to be the fief of Robert de la Marra) held Regina; Mallerius della Marra held Pesclo; Savarin of Terra Rossa or Terra Roggia held Tamaro and Terra Rossa; Bartholomew of Pietrapulcina held Pietrapulcina; Raul Pinellus held Fragneto; in all eleven knight's fees or twenty-two cum augmento: (c) those who held part of the fief of William of San Framondi; Bartholomew of Monteforte held Fragneto; and Hugh Bursellus held Ponte Landolfo; in all three knight's fees or six cum augmento.

^{page 358 note 4} R. S. p. 422.

^{page 358 note 5} Infra, pp. 360–3, 365.

^{page 359 note 1} Cat. Bar. p. 583, Arts. 427–432. The curia held two fees in Pietra Maggiore formerly held by Hugh son of Fulcher, and Simon son of Roger; Hugh son of Fulcher held fifteen villeins in Pietra Maggiore and one fee in S. Andrea; William of Fontanarosa held one fee in Paduli, one in Monte Malo, and one in Santo Lupulo and in Valle Telese; Hugh of Paduli held half Murrone, which was one fee; Raho of Foro Nuovo held one fee; Savarin of Terra Rossa held one fee in Paduli; and Robert of Monte Malo held Monte Leone (two fees).

^{page 359 note 2} Savarin of Terra Rossa, and Robert of Monte Malo, Cat. Bar. pp. 580–1, Arts. 347, 345, and 353.

^{page 359 note 3} The demesne of the county of Ariano contained inter alia Ariano, Montefusco, Apice. The two former became royal towns, while Apice went to the count of Buonalbergo. Former tenants of the county of Ariano which extended from Faicchio to Montefusco (F. B. p. 187), and from Montefusco to Ariano, included Robert della Marra (F. B. pp. 217, 235, 238); Bartholomew of Pietrapulcina (F. B. pp. 217, 235); Robert of Potofranco (F. B. p. 238); Raul Pinellus, lord of Fragneto (F. B. p. 240) (all attributed in the Catalogue to Buonalbergo); Thaddeus de la Greca and Guimund (F. B. 235) (knights of Montefusco); and Robert of Pietramaggiore (F. B. p. 238) (tenant-in-chief). Other places which had belonged to the county of Ariano are Ponte Landolfo, Campolattaro, S. Giorgio, and Tamaro (all attributed to the county of Buonalbergo in the Catalogue), Guardia and Morcone (F. B. p. 242).

^{page 359 note 4} Cf. supra, p. 250.

^{page 359 note 5} St. Arch. Nap. Perg. Monte Vergine, vol. xlvi. No. 20, 1174, 8th year of king William, April, Ind. vii. Grant of Tancred de Molisio and Amelina his wife of land in the district of Montefusco in loco ubi Marcopi dicitur to the monastery of S. Mary of Montevergine Ante dominum Hectorem montisfusculi comestabulum et regium jusliciarium et dominum Raynaldum filium quondam Gimundi pipini, et dominum Tancredum de cantalupo et dominum Herbertum filium quondam Milonis pagani. …

^{page 360 note 1} F. B. p. 238, Rainulf of Alife, ‘nec mora, Trojam dimittens Capilanatam (so Chalandon rightly emends captivatam) totam suae alligavit potestati, et inde procedens super Comitis Rogerii de Ariano Comitatum advenit, qui continuo Alferium Draco, et Robertum de la Marra, et Robertum de Petramajori, et Robertum de Potofranco, aliosque Barones ipsius Comitis suae subjugavit ditioni.’

^{page 360 note 2} A fresh difficulty is raised by the appearance of the chamberlain Alfanus (principality of Salerno) in the section of the Catalogue giving the miscellaneous tenants-in-chief already mentioned. The chamberlain states that Hugh of Paduli holds medietatem Murronis, Cat. Bar. p. 583, Art. 429; probably Murrone was in the principality of Salerno and is only given here in order to complete the fiefs held by Hugh of Paduli, which for the most part belonged to the Terra Beneventana.

^{page 360 note 3} Cat. Bar. p. 583, Arts. 433–6.

^{page 360 note 4} Di Meo, x. ad an. 1152, n. 9.

^{page 361 note 1} Cat. Bar. p. 589, Arts. 702–5.

^{page 361 note 2} Cf. infra, p. 369.

^{page 361 note 3} Capit. Arch. Troia, Sack K n. 13 and Sack Mn. 11. The mandate of William II. contained in the judgment is printed by Niese, Urkunden. Cf. Di Meo, x. ad an. 1184, n. 2, who gives a summary of this suit, although he calls the monastery S. Michele de Troja. The date of the document is given as 1184, nineteenth year of king William, Nov. Ind. ii. which is equivalent to 1183 in southern Apulia: it should be noted that the year of the reign is incorrect, as often happens.

^{page 362 note 1} Benesmirus was already in office in 1175, in which year he is mentioned at Siponto (cf. infra, p. 364): the Guimund of Castelluzzo is not known from other sources.

^{page 363 note 1} It should be noted that Richard heads the list of justiciars present at Barletta.

^{page 364 note 1} It is a curious fact that the Catalogue ascribes the demesne of count Philip of Balbano to the duchy: Comes Philippus de Balbano dixit quod detnanium suum, quod tenet in Ducatu videlicet de Sancto Angelo feudum IV. militum, de Calabrelta feudum III. militum, de Capusele feudum II. militutn de Viara feudum I. militis. Una demanium eius feudum X. militum et cum augmtnto obtulit milites XXIV. et servientes L. Cat. Bar. p. 589, Art. 702. This seems entirely inexplicable.

^{page 365 note 1} A. T. lib. II. cap. xxix.

^{page 365 note 2} Cat. Bar. pp. 583–9, Arts. 437–693.

^{page 365 note 3} Ibid. pp. 589–590, Arts. 694–724.

^{page 365 note 4} Ibid. p. 584, Art. 463, De Comestabulia Robberti de Qualletta, que est de eadem Comestabulia Lampi de Fasanella de Comitatu Principatus.

^{page 365 note 5} Cal. No. 13.

^{page 365 note 6} Cal. No. 32, cf. App. No. 9.

^{page 365 note 7} Cat. Bar. p. 583, Art. 442; p. 585, Arts. 487, 489.

^{page 366 note 1} Di Meo x. ad an. 1165, n. I; cf. Migne, , Patrologia Latina, Paris, cc. col. 332, No. ccciiiGoogle Scholar.

^{page 366 note 2} H. F. pp. 141, 142. At the end of a long list of counts present there follow the names of Rogerius Tironensis magister comestabultis, Florius Camerotensis, iudex quoque Tarentinus et Abdenago Hannibalis filius, qui magistri erant iusticiarii. It is not quite clear whether it is intended to join Florius' name wilh the last two as a master justiciar of the magna curia, but he cannot have held this office together with that of justiciar in the principality: probably he happened to be at Messina at the time.

^{page 366 note 3} Giudice, Del, Cod. Dipl. Ang. App. i. p. liiiGoogle Scholar.

^{page 366 note 4} R. S. p. 442; Benedictus Abbas (Rolls Series), p. 115.

^{page 366 note 5} R. S. p. 460.

^{page 366 note 6} Guillaume, Essai, p. 132, 1178, Guillaume seigneur de San Severino, connétable, justicier royal et baron du Cilento.

^{page 366 note 7} Di Meo x. ad an. 1184, n. 5, Arch, di Cava, Guglielmo di S. Severino, Signor di San Severino, e Regio Comestabolo e Giustiziere.

^{page 366 note 8} Ibid. xi. ad an. 1186, n. 10.

^{page 366 note 9} Ibid. xi. ad an. 1187, n. 4.

^{page 366 note 10} St. Arch. Nap. Perg. Mon. Sopp. vol. ii. No. 172, Luce qui dicitur Guarna Justiciario.

^{page 366 note 11} Ughelli-Coleti, , Italia Sacra, vii. col. 404Google Scholar.

^{page 366 note 12} K. A. Kehr, Urkunden, No. 26, p. 449.

^{page 367 note 1} Di Meo, xi. ad an. 1187, n. 4, Arch, della Cava, Malgerio Signor della Polla, Regio Guistiziere.

^{page 367 note 2} Cf. Table of the Justiciars for the duchy of Amalfi, infra.

^{page 367 note 3} Chron. Casin. Auct. Petro, iv. 108, M.G.H.SS. vii. 820, cf. Chalandon, ii. 70.

^{page 367 note 4} Di Meo, x. ad an. 1152, n. 9.

^{page 367 note 5} See p. 285; Gilbert died 1156, cf. Haskins, p. 659, n. 221.

^{page 367 note 6} St. Arch. Nap. Perg. di Monte Vergine, vol. 16, No. 4.

^{page 368 note 1} Cat. Bar. p. 590, Arts. 719, 724.

^{page 368 note 2} This notice comes from a document of 1171, Ind. 4 which begins: Ante nos Guaferium, Romoaldum, Iohannem et Mattheum Iudices, Iohannes Sirrentinus qui dicitur de domna Miro. filius quondam Iohanni Sirrentini. conjunctus est cum Marino … It is the second of a suit heard before the judges of Salerno in which the justiciar appeared as one of the litigants and not in his official capacity, and it is contained in the record of another judgment drawn up at Salerno in 1176, eleventh year of King William August Ind. 9. Ante me Truppoaldum Iudicem venerunt Mattheus filius quond. Marini Neapolitani olim prefati domini nostri Regis lustitiarij qui fuit filius Constantini. This judgment is further mentioned in the Repertorium omnium scripturarum Monasterii Monialium S. Laurentii de amalfia, in the Bibl. Brancac. Nap. IV. F. 4, f. 25. 158. Masteus [sic] filius quondam marinj Neapolitan; olim regis guilielmj Justitiarij Panthaleo Amalfitanus: transumptari fecerunt quoddam instrumentum sententie seu decisionis factum per Judices salernitanos de quibusdam bonis sitis Salernj a la Judeca: die et mense Augusti. Ind. 9^a 1176. Marinus had therefore died some time between September, 1174, when he is mentioned, and August, 1176.

^{page 369 note 1} This notice of Leonard bishop of Capaccio and royal justiciar is found in a suit heard by Eugene magister Regie Dohane baronum et de Secretis in 1178 at Nocera, between the men of Amalfi and of Ravello, when the previous history of the litigation is narrated and the action of the bishop in the matter on a former occasion is mentioned. It is not possible to fix the precise date at which he was justiciar, but certain limits may be suggested. The judgment of 1178 tells us that he was in office under William II., and we know further that Marinus was justiciar from 1171–1174, consequently he must have been in office between 1166 and 1171, or between 1174 and 1178. The period may, however, be further limited from our knowledge of the bishops of Capaccio: Ughelli does not mention Leonard, and I have been unable to obtain a work by Volpi: Cronologia de' vescovi Pestani ora detti di Capaccio, Naples, 1752, but in the spring of 1176 Arnulf was bishop-elect of Capaccio (Ughelli-Coleti) and he may well have been the successor of Leonard. If this be the case, Leonard must have been justiciar sometime between September, 1174, and the spring of 1176.

^{page 370 note 1} Caspar, Reg. No. 79.

^{page 370 note 2} Chron. Ferrar. p. 25, Et rex cum exercitu suo intrans comitatum Molisii, obtinuit quasdam terras filiorum Borelli.

^{page 371 note 1} Germano, Ryccardus de S., Annales M.G.H.SS. xix. 329Google Scholar.

^{page 371 note 2} Cal. No. 17.

^{page 372 note 1} Arch. Monte Cass. caps. cii. fasc. ii. No. iii. Nos Riccardus dei et regia gratia de molisio comes et domini Regis familiaris dum plenam etiriam ysernie [teti]er[emus]. … Residentibus itaque nobiscum Domino Robber to episcopo Bojani et Domino Raynaldo episcopo ysernie et Domino Raone episcopo treventino et Justiciariis et Baronibus nostris ex decreto sanclissime Regie curie et probatione aperta per breve quod ostensum est in curia plena quod continebat et aperte dicebat. … 1169, Feb. Ind. iii. fourth of king William = 1170.

^{page 372 note 2} Cat. Bar. p. 594, Art. 806.

^{page 373 note 1} Ibid. p. 594, Art. 805—p. 600, Art. 1012.

^{page 373 note 2} A. T. Lib. II. cap. lxii.

^{page 373 note 3} Ibid. Lib. II. cap. xiv. videlicet tota vallis Caudina cum ejus omnibus manentibus oppidis.

^{page 373 note 4} Ibid. Lib. II. cap. lxi.

^{page 373 note 5} Ibid.

^{page 373 note 6} Ibid. Lib. II. cap. liv.

^{page 373 note 7} Ibid. Lib. II. cap. xiii. xv. and other passages.

^{page 373 note 8} Cat. Bar. p. 582, Arts. 392–395.

^{page 373 note 9} Cat. Bar. p. 580, Arts. 345–349, and p. 581, Arts. 355, 381, 382. It should be noted that these two last articles are misplaced in the Catalogue; they ought to follow Art. 355 immediately, since they continue the list of the tenants of the count of Buonalbergo and contain the sum of the fiefs of the county.

^{page 374 note 1} Cat. Bar. p. 599, Art. 978, Guillehmus de Sancto Fraytmundo, sicut dixit tenet in demanio Limatam, que est feudum II. militum, et de Guardia feudum I. militis, et de Cerreto feudum III. militum, et de Finicella feudum II. milittim.

^{page 374 note 2} Ibid. Arts. 982–984, Baronia Feniculi.

^{page 374 note 3} This has been identified by Capasso with the county of Acerra.

^{page 374 note 4} Cf. Cat. Bar. p. 582, Art. 392, and p. 594, Art. 808. Part of the county of Avellino consisting of the fiefs of Calvi and Riardo belonged to the principality: they were situated a long way from the fiefs in the duchy.

^{page 374 note 5} Muratori, , R.I.SS. ii. pars i. p. 317Google Scholar.

^{page 375 note 1} Hamo's tenure of office does not seem to have been a long one. In 1143 he was present at a great court held by Roger II. at Salerno, but without the title of justiciar. Caspar, Reg. No. 159. In 1143 likewise he issued a charter, again without the title: Ego Aymon dei gratia dominus castri cikale filius quondam raynonis de argencia. Arch, di Cava, Armario G. 40. Cf. Haskins, ii. p. 643, who gives two further notices, one of 1136 and another of 1145. Cf. supra, p. 307.

^{page 376 note 1} For the historical geography of this region cf. N. F. Faraglia, , I miei Studii Storici delle cose Abruzzesi, Lanciano, 1893Google Scholar, to which I am greatly indebted throughout this section

^{page 376 note 2} Faraglia, p. 220.

^{page 377 note 1} Cat. Bar. p. 600, Art. 1013.

^{page 377 note 2} Cat. Bar. p. 604, Art. 1095.

^{page 378 note 1} Ibid. p. 610, Art. 1223.

^{page 378 note 2} Faraglia, op. cit.

^{page 378 note 3} Cat. Bar. p. 604, Art. 1095. Under the heading de eadem comestabulia Comitis Boamundi, the list of the fiefs of count Jocelin of Loreto begin with those he held in Penne. So too Ibid. p. 609, Art. 1204. Under a similar heading are fiefs belonging to the abbot of S. John in Venere in Aprutium and Penne.

^{page 378 note 4} Cal. No. 26, App. No. 5.

^{page 379 note 1} Chron. Casaur. col. 912.

^{page 379 note 2} Bibl. Naz. Nap. xv. D. 33, Aggiunte alle Memorie Ragionate di Monsignore Antinori, f. 11 recto Memorie per lo Giustizierato di Abruzzo Residente in Lanciano. The whole matter is very much confused, but there is some useful information including the notice of the justiciar in 1191. f. 12 verso, ‘Nel 1191 Leggonsi negli antichi Monumenti le prime notizie del Giustizierato residente in Lanciano mentre in d°. anno si fece la cautela dei patti, e convenzioni fra i Lancianesi e gli Ebrei, i furono giurati questi patti in Lanzano nel Tocco del Consiglio dell’ Università alia presenza di Serlone o Serbone Conte Giustiziere del Re, di Marco e di Andrea Giudici e di altri molti.' A marginal note in another hand adds the information ‘Nel 1200 il Conte di Chieti non era Giustiziere di Abruzzo, giacchè questo fu stabilito da Gualtieri di Paleara a Iud. Contract. Antiq. Tom 8. pag. 88 Muratori.’ Another marginal note on f. 12 recto, in the same hand as the previous one, says: ‘1159 Morto il Giustiere e Conte di Manopello Boemondo di Frisia, il Re Guglielmo mandò per Conte e per Giustiere nel Contado Teatino un altro Boamondo.’

It may be added that the document of 1191 appears to be taken from Pollidori; De Antiquitate Frentanorum.

^{page 381 note 1} St. Arch. Nap. Perg. di Matera, No. 16, Nos fulco miglionici et Robertus petreperciate regii justiciarii manifestamus quia in craco pro regiis serviciis et altercationibus justicie pertinentibus nobis presentatis curiam regiam tenuimus … hear a complaint brought by the prior of S. Michael of Montescaglioso, who mentions a court held by the justiciars in mense augusti none indictionis, in tursia: at this court the prior displayed regium sacrum preceptum in tursitata curia justiciam habere precepturum.

^{page 381 note 2} The theory that the justiciars followed a regular itinerary receives confirmation from a Sicilian document, which states the termination of a boundary in feram ubi Justitiarii solebant figere tentoria. Garufi, Documenti, No. LI. 1170, p. 119.

^{page 383 note 1} Cf. supra, p. 307.

^{page 383 note 2} Cal. Nos. 3, 4.

^{page 383 note 3} Cal. No. 6.

^{page 384 note 1} 1120, Gattola, , Access, i. p. 236Google Scholar; 1123, Ibid. p. 236; 1125, Ibid. p. 240; 1128, Ibid. p. 248; 1129, Ibid. p. 244; 1132, Ibid. p. 245.

^{page 384 note 2} Cat. Bar. p. 598, Art. 963.

^{page 384 note 3} Ibid. p. 599, Art. 981.

^{page 384 note 4} Cal. No. 2.

^{page 384 note 5} Cal. No. I.

^{page 384 note 6} Cat. Bar. Art 456; cf. Art. 578.

^{page 384 note 7} Ibid. Art. 343; Ibid. Art. 401.

^{page 385 note 1} Cal. No. 23.

^{page 385 note 2} Cal. No. 9.

^{page 385 note 3} Ibid. No. 35.

^{page 386 note 1} Haskins, p. 444 (1), quoting St. Arch. Nap. Perg. Mon. Sopp. iii. 253.

^{page 386 note 2} Cf. supra, p. 299. The master justiciars and constables also continued to direct the chamberlains. Cf. Haskins, p. 445 (3).

^{page 386 note 3} Const. Lib. I. Tit. xxxvii. et lxi. (40), p. 37.

^{page 387 note 1} Const. Lib. I. Tit. lxv. (41), p. 37; Tit. lx. (45), p. 40; Tit. lxii. (46), p. 41; Novae Const. § ix. Super scholis ratiocinii, iii. p. 219; cf. Winkelmann, , Acta imperil inedita, i. 671Google Scholar, where the purchase of the camerariatns or bajulationes under William II. is mentioned.

^{page 387 note 2} Riccio, Minieri, Saggio di Cod. Dipl. Suppl. Parte I. p. 21Google Scholar; Capit. Arch. Troia, Sack no. 13 and Sack M. no. 11; Haskins, p. 445 (4), p. 646, n. 136.

^{page 387 note 3} Cat. Bar. p. 587.

^{page 387 note 4} Chalandon, ii. 684.

^{page 387 note 5} Cal. No. 59.

^{page 387 note 6} Thus Ebulus of Magliano is found in October 1140 at Atina, in May 1149 at Capua, in December 1149 at Pontecorvo, and during the reign of king Roger, date not specified, at Sessa, Rocca, and Pontecorvo. All these places are situated in the Terra di Lavoro. Cal. Nos. 9, 29, 30, 35, 36. Further instances of continuous activity in a particular district are found in the principality of Salerno. Atenulf is mentioned as chamberlain at Salerno in February 1144, at Ravello, in March 1145, at Salerno again in Feb. 1146, and without any place being mentioned in October 1146; Cal. Nos. 14, 18, 20, 21; Alfanus, too, is mentioned in the principality in Oct. 1151, in 1152, Oct. 1156, Dec. 1158. Cal. Nos. 32, 33, 43, 49.

^{page 388 note 1} Cal. No. 59, John was apparently a Greek, to judge from the fragment of signature appended to the document.

^{page 388 note 2} Crudo, La SS^ma. Trinità di Venosa, p. 254, An. 1177, Tasselgardo Regio Camrio [sic] Terrae Bari. Cod. Dipl. Bar. i. No. 65, Diploma of Constance for Doferius, archbishop of Bari: sicut Rex W[idelmus] nepos noster bone memorie sine diminutione aliqua dari precepit Tasselgardo tune temporis camerario.

^{page 388 note 3} Giudice, Del, Cod. Dipl. Ang., App. i. p. li. No. xxviGoogle Scholar. Anno 1176, Urso de ulita terre ydronti regius camerarius. Chalandon (ii. 684–5)Google Scholar mentions Marrotus or Pierre de Marrotto chambrier de la terre d'Otrante, from Cod. Dipl. Brundusinus.

^{page 388 note 4} Cf. supra, p. 346 seq.

^{page 389 note 1} Cat. Bar. p. 574, Arts. 118–124; p. 581, Art. 387; p. 582, Art. 406.

^{page 389 note 2} Cal. No. 48.

^{page 389 note 3} Chart. Cup. No. 133, 1189, Sept. Ind. vii. (p. 257) Ante presentiam … domini Robberti tituli honoris montis scaveosi regii camerarii …

^{page 389 note 4} St. Arch. Naples. Perg. Mon. Sopp. vol. ii. No. 178 bis, cf. supra, p. 346, n. 3.

^{page 389 note 5} Cal. No. 23.

^{page 398 note 6} St. Arch. Nap. Perg. Mon. Sopp. vol. i. Nos. 84 and 86.

^{page 389 note 7} Cal. No. 45.

^{page 389 note 8} Cat. Bar. p. 582, Art. 407.

^{page 390 note 1} Supra, p. 373–4.

^{page 390 note 2} Supra, p. 358 seq.

^{page 390 note 3} Cat. Bar. p. 590, Art. 714. The catalogue has Melito, but in the margin of the MS. is a note Mo. de Mileta, hence Montemiletto near to Atripalda is probably meant rather than Melito nearer to Ariano. Cursano may well be Chiusano between Atripalda and Montemiletto.

^{page 390 note 4} Cat. Bar. p. 583, Art. 429, Murrone may perhaps be identified with Morra or Murra near S. Angelo dei Lombardi.

^{page 390 note 5} Cf. supra, p. 363.

^{page 391 note 1} Cal. No. 24.

^{page 391 note 2} Cal. No. 14.

^{page 391 note 3} Cal. No. 14.

^{page 391 note 4} H. F. pp. 42, 48–50, 70.

^{page 391 note 5} Ibid. p. 49.

^{page 391 note 6} Cat. Bar. p. 585, Art. 518.

^{page 391 note 7} Cal. No. 21.

^{page 391 note 8} All the evidence is against Prof. Haskins' identification of the chamberlain Atenulf with the justiciar Adenulf of Caserta.

^{page 392 note 1} Cat. Bar. pp. 583–584; Art. 451; Archives of Cava, Armario 1°. H. no. 86, Grant of 1144 of Alfanus de Castello maris to Falco, abbot of Cava; Cal. No. 33.

^{page 392 note 2} Cal. No. 43.

^{page 392 note 3} Chalandon, ii. 106, quoting Migne, , Patrologia Latina, Paris, clxxxii. col. 640Google Scholar, S. Bernardi Epistolae. M. Chalandon says that ‘le chambrier Alfan’ was at the head of the embassy; St. Bernard, however, only mentions dominus Alfanus nuntius domini regis Siciliae. Alfanus was certainly not chamberlain of Salerno at the time of the embassy.

^{page 392 note 4} Cal. No. 32.

^{page 392 note 5} Ibid. No. 33.

^{page 392 note 6} Ibid. No. 43.

^{page 392 note 7} Ibid. No. 49.

^{page 392 note 8} Cal. No. 56, Mario Rubeo Regali Camerario.

^{page 392 note 9} Cal. No. 62 … D. Mario di lui fratello (i.e. Cioffo Russo) Regio Camerario.

^{page 392 note 10} Ughelli-Coleti, , Italia Sacra, vii. col. 404, 1178Google Scholar, Suit of D. Lucas Guarna Regius luslitiarius, filiusq. Alferii, qui similiter Guarna dictus est cum Mario Russo cognato suo filioq. Malfridi, qui fuit filius Ademarii Comitis.

^{page 393 note 1} Cat. Bar. p. 585, Art. 517.

^{page 393 note 2} Ibid. Art. 520.

^{page 393 note 3} Ibid. Art. 489.

^{page 393 note 4} Cat. Bar. p. 584, Art. 470; p. 585, Arts. 517, 525; p. 587, Art. 587; p. 588, Art. 635; p. 589, Art. 685.

^{page 393 note 5} Ughelli-Coleti, , Italia Sacra, vii. col. 403Google Scholar.

^{page 393 note 6} Cat. Bar. p. 587, Art. 610.

^{page 393 note 7} St. Arch. Nap. Perg. Mon. Sopp. vol. iii. No. 197 and No. 201. It is interesting to note that Mura, the wife of John Rassica, is commemorated in the Liber Confratrum at Salerno: Anno dominice incarnationis M.C.LXX°. nono. Indictionis terciedecime. Domina Mura obiit. que fuit uxor iohannis rassice (Garufi, C. A., I Diplomi Purpurei della Cancelleria Normanna ed Elvira prima Moglie di Re Ruggiero. Palermo, 1904, p. 25Google Scholar).

^{page 394 note 1} Trinchera, p. 251, No. cxli.

^{page 394 note 2} Ibid. p. 256, No. cxcv.

^{page 394 note 3} Ibid. pp. 272, 273, 274, 275, Nos. ccvii. ccviii. ccix. ccx. cf. Cat. Bar. p. 587, Art. 615, Raho Judex, et idem Judex Eboli de hoc quod tenent in commendationem, obtulerunt aim augmento milites II.

^{page 394 note 4} Haskins, i. 445 (3).

^{page 394 note 5} Ibid. i. 445 (4).

^{page 394 note 6} Capitular Archives, Troia.

^{page 394 note 7} Haskins, ii. 646, n. 136.

^{page 395 note 1} Cat. Bar. p. 590, Art. 726; p. 591, Art. 752; p. 592, Arts. 761, 778; p. 593, Art. 804.

^{page 395 note 2} H. F. pp. 140, 141.

^{page 395 note 3} Cal. No. 52.

^{page 395 note 4} Cal. No. 38.

^{page 396 note 1} Giudice, Del, Cod. Dipl. Ang. i. App. i. p. xxxi. No. xivGoogle Scholar.

^{page 396 note 2} Cat. Bar. p. 599, Art. 991.

^{page 396 note 3} Caspar, Reg. An. 1137.

^{page 396 note 4} Ibid. An. 1138.

^{page 396 note 5} Guillielmus f. Angerii is mentioned several times in the Catalogue, notably at Nocera and Rapara, cf. p. 585, Art. 493, Nuceria. Guillelmus filius Jordani, nepos Guillelmi filij Angerii dixit, quod feudum suum at II. militum, et cum augmento obtulit milites IV.; p. 596, Art. 898, Guillelmus filius Angerii tenet de eo in Rapara feudum I. militis et cum augmento obtulit militem I.

A notice of Guilielmi filii Angerii is found in a diploma of Jordan II. of Capua of 1120. His intervention is mentioned together with that of several other barons and knights of the principality of Capua, Gattola, Access. i. pp. 235–6. The early chamberlain cannot, of course, be identified with the bearer of the name and office at Sarno in 1185.

^{page 398 note 1} Cal. No. 50.

^{page 398 note 2} Cal. Nos. 54, 55.

^{page 398 note 3} Chron. Casaur. R.I.SS. II. pt. 2, col. 1011.

^{page 398 note 4} Cal. No. I … super universam terrain, que sub proprio erat dominio quendam strenuum, cui nomen erat Gaucellinus … procuratorem constituit.

^{page 399 note 1} Cal. No. 9.

^{page 399 note 2} Cal. No. 48.

^{page 399 note 3} Cal. No. 38.

^{page 399 note 4} Chalandon, ii. 685 … Pierre de Marrotto, chambrier de la terre d'Otrante, reçoit de Guillaume II. l'ordre de vèrifier le privilège accorde par Guillaume I^er. à l'archevêque de Brindisi. (Cod. Dipl. Brundusinus.)

^{page 399 note 5} Cf. Novae Constitutiones Regni Siciliae § IX. Constitutiones super scholis ratiocinii, super ratiociniis ab officialibus recipiendis, et responsiones de excomputationibus, de apodixis et expensis, p. 219, iii.

^{page 400 note 1} Riccio, Minieri, Saggio di Codice Dipl. Supp. Pt. i. p. 21Google Scholar.

^{page 400 note 2} Archives of Monte Cass. Cod. Dipl. Tom. iv. Complaint brought by the farmer and chaplain of Monte Cassino against the bailiffs of Teano and Atina, in the presence of Matthew Juncatellus, chamberlain of the Terra di Lavoro, for having exacted placta for the wine of the monastery, Dec. 1174, Ind. 8.

^{page 400 note 3} Cod. dipl. Bar. i. No. 65.

^{page 401 note 1} Cal. No. 50.

^{page 401 note 2} Cal. No. 9.

^{page 401 note 3} Cal. No. 50.

^{page 401 note 4} H. F. p. 140.

^{page 402 note 1} Cat. Bar. p. 579, Art. 294, Comes Robertus Casertanus dixit quod Mandra et Pulcarinum est feudum III. militum. Pulcarinum is certainly Volturino, a village north-west of Troia, near Volturara Appula.

^{page 402 note 2} Cf. supra, p. 299.

^{page 403 note 1} Huillard-Brèolles, , Hist. Dipl. Frid. Sec. t. iv. pars i. p. 36Google Scholar, Tit. lxi. ΛΘ. (39), Rex Guillelmus, Dohane de secretis et questorum magistri discretum officium ab aliis separantes, super quibus et de quibus [per se velper alias quibus hoc specialiter destinant] se intromittere debeant, presentis constitutionis nostre tenore duximus advertendum: in primis videlicet de thesauris inventis, et de pecunia absconsa ab aliquo, quorum domini per prcbationes dilucidas reperiri nonpossunt. Item de his qui de naufragiis curie nostre debentur [cum ex naufragio quorum res sunt aliqui vel ex eis successoves legitimi non supersunt, intromittere se debebunt]. Preterea si aliquis clericorum qui hereditaria possederit [vel laicoruni] de terra demanii nostri sine herede decesserit, nee filium vel filiam legitimam aut aliquem ascendentium vel descendentium ant ex latere venientium qui ad successionem ipsius ab intestate possit [de jure] venire, reliquerit, nee testamentum fecerit`…

^{page 404 note 1} H. F. p. 87 … in eos plurimum qui minus poterant redemptionis exactio seviebat …

^{page 404 note 2} Const. Lib. I. Tit. lx. (45), pp. 40–41.

^{page 404 note 3} Cal. No. 29, cf. Gregorio, , Considerazioni, cap. ii. pp. 150, 151Google Scholar.

^{page 405 note 1} Cal. No. 20.

^{page 405 note 2} Cal. No. 18.

^{page 406 note 1} Cases from the reigns of the first two kings have been cited wherever possible so as to illustrate the activity of the chamberlains from the earliest period. The revising jurisdiction of the chamberlains over the bailiffs is, however, well illustrated in the reign of William II., by suits brought before chamberlains of the Terra di Lavoro, the principality of Salerno, and the Terra di Otranto. These suits exemplify the more regular methods of procedure which grew up in the later Norman period; in all four cases the bailiffs of the king had been guilty of exceeding their rights in a more or less flagrant manner, and the aggrieved parties had been to Palermo to get a royal mandate ordering the chamberlain of the district to investigate the case and to do justice.

The suits in question are:

1. 1173 Between Monte Cassino and the bailiffs of Sora re the exaction of rents of corn, barley, and wine from certain churches; heard by the judges of Sora in the presence of de Patricio, Adenulf, camerarius terre laboris, Arch, di Monte Cass. caps. 101. fasc. v. No. lxiGoogle Scholar.

2. 1174 Between Monte Cassino and the bailiffs of Teano who exacted placta from the wine which the abbot bought in Teano, against the custom of the time of king Roger; heard by the judges of Teano in the presence of Juncatellus, Matthew, Regius Terre Laboris Camerarius, Archives of Monte Cass. Cod. Dipl. vol. ivGoogle Scholar.

3. 1176 Between the men of Castellaneta and the foresters of Matera who seized their goods and animals, thrust them like thieves into the lowest prison and trumped up a charge that they had wounded certain persons in the face; heard by Urso de Ulita, Terre Ydrunti regius Camerarius, Giudice, Del, Cod. Dipl. Ang. i. App. i. p. li. No. xxviGoogle Scholar.

4. 1182 Between the abbot of San Severino at Naples and the bailiffs of Aversa and Somma concerning a tenement between Somma an Ottajano; heard by Russus, William, regius camerarius terre laboris, St. Arch. Nap. Perg. Mon. Sopp. vol. iii. No. 253Google Scholar.

5. 1183 A long-standing dispute between the bailiffs of Sarm and the abbey of Cava concerning a starza and a mill in the bailiwick of Sarno (cf. document of May, 1178, Archives of Cava, xxxvi. 26, and document of 1182, Archives of Cava, xxxviii. 34, giving previous stages of the dispute in which the royal chamberlain, William Butrumilio, had taken the side of the bailiffs in oppression) occasions finally the interference of Alfanus Ioncata, the royal chamberlain, who sends letters to the stratigotus of Sarno ordering him to give up molesting the possessions of the church of Cava in the bailiwick of Sarno. Archives of Cava, xxxix. 13, extr. Haskins, 445–6.

6. In 1185 the royal chamberlain, William filius Angeri, curiam in Sarnum secundum mandatum regium iusticiam omnibus sue baiulationis facturus teneret, and recited the royal letters of general instructions which he had received ut omnia negotia de camerariatu principatus Salerni et cause que ante eum venirent iusti et rationabiliter determinarentur, ut pro defectu iuris ipsa magnifica curia que arduis et magnis uegotiis intenta esset non defatigaretur, Archives of Cava, xxxx. 34, extr. Haskins, 646, n. 136.

There seems to have been a good deal of trouble in the bailiwick of Sarno between 1178 and 1185.

^{page 408 note 1} Haskins. p. 445 (3), 1182, lacobo notario ipsius camerarii.

^{page 408 note 2} Cal. No. 50.

^{page 409 note 1} There are included in this calendar five documents of master chamberlains and two of jusliciars in the Val Sinni.

The date given in the head-line of each No. of the Calendar is reduced to modern reckoning: such a rectification is necessary for the observance of a strict chronological order, since in Apulia the year begins with the indiction on September ist preceding January 1st of our style, and in the principalities of Salerno and Capua on March 25th following. The date as actually given in the document will be found at the end of each number, except in a very few cases, where no rectifica-was needed.

The first reference in the list of sources given at the head of each document has been used as the basis of the Calendar in each case.

^{page 410 note 1} Cf. Cat. Bar. p. 572, art. 45. In view of the attribution of the title of justiciar to Hugh in the signature it seems reasonable to emend et justiciarios into et justiciarium, and to apply it to Hugh rather than to John Gallum Capite and Ebolus. Ebolus may very possibly be Ebulus of Magliano the chamberlain. A Johannes Gallu in capite is mentioned in Cat. Bar. p. 596, art 907. (Capua.)

^{page 412 note 1} Cf. Cat. Bar. p. 577, art. 219.

^{page 413 note 1} A praepositus or provost had taken the place of the bishop at Atina in the time of Innocent II. Cf. Ughelli-Coleti, , Italia Sacra x. Chronicon Atinese § 46Google Scholar, who says Episcopalis dignitas suppressa dicitur Innocentii III temporibus loco Episcopi, in ea Ecchsia Prapositus successit, S. Sedae immediate subjectus. For Inn. III read Inn. II, since Benedict appears in the inquest of 1140 and the Chron. Atin. mentions the deposition of Alberic in 1155.

^{page 413 note 2} Hector of Atina was royal justiciar in 1148. Cf. Cal. No. 28 and Appendix No. 7.

^{page 414 note 1} Startias: I have been quite unable to discover the meaning of this term, which appears sufficiently often in the charters of the Terra di Lavoro.

^{page 414 note 2} Plateaticum, Cancellorum: Perhaps the comma should be omitted, so that Plateaticum Cancellorum would mean tolls at the barriers or entrance to the city, octroi.

^{page 414 note 3} Banna would seem to be a fine in this passage.

^{page 415 note 1} This mention of the viscount of Varano makes it probable that the document was issued like No. 10 at Varano.

^{page 417 note 1} Cf. Cat. Bar. p. 587, arts. 586, 601. In the first passage Gibel Lorie holds 3 villeins in Policastro, and in the second he is a tenant of Gisulf of Palude, who holds Palude and Turturella of count Silvester of Marsico. Both these articles are placed under the general heading of the principality of Salerno, but Policaslro was almost certainly in Calabria, and it should be noticed that the chamberlain Alexander and not Alfanus makes the returns. Count Silvester's lands were to a great extent on the borders of the principality and Calabria. Loria is perhaps Lauria south of the Sinni.

^{page 417 note 2} δικαιω τϵ both here and as the designation of Robert Kletzes should probably read δικαιωτής, a term not infrequently used for judge or justiciar in Calabrian and Sicilian documents.

^{page 417 note 3} Cf. Cat. Bar. p. 587, art. 607 (de Ebulo). Robertus de Cles may possibly be identified with Robert Kletzes. If this is correct he must have held land in Calabria besides the 46 poor villeins in the principality of Salerno at Eboli which are here mentioned.

^{page 417 note 4} Montis Caveoli should read Montis Caveosi.

^{page 418 note 1} Cf. Crudo, p. 256, An. 1178, where among the witnesses to a document mentioning Osbernus Coezinus Regis Justitiarius Calabrie et Vallis Gratis is Alexander Coezimis. In the version of the document given in Cod. Vat. Lat. 8222, f. 59, the name reads Coezinus. Perhaps this Alexander is identical with the chamberlain Alexander. Cf. supra, p. 300, n. 3. Godinus royal chamberlain.

^{page 418 note 2} Perloranu. Haskins.

^{page 418 note 3} Cartam. Haskins.

^{page 418 note 4} A word seems to be omitted in the document afler regis, Haskins.

^{page 419 note 1} Quadrağ iiii.^or Haskins.

^{page 420 note 1} Haskins identifies this chamberlain with the justiciar Adenulf of Caserta, but there seems to be no evidence for the identification. Cf. supra, p. 391, for the history of Atenulf the chamberlain.

^{page 422 note 1} Cf. Cal. Nos. 37, 45.

^{page 422 note 2} Cf. Nos. 10, 11, 15, 27, 34.

^{page 426 note 1} Cf. Cat. Bar. p. 595, art. 872.

^{page 428 note 1} Cf. Cal. No. 45.

^{page 428 note 2} Cf. Cal. Nos. 22, 37, 45.

^{page 430 note 1} For further notices of Henry of Ollia, cf. Cat. Bar. p. 581, art. 383; St. Arch. Nap. Perg. Mon. Sopp. i. No. 38. 1145, 18th year of king Roger. July. Ind. VIII. a grant by Adenolf, warden of S. Peter near Vico, made with the permission of Henry of Ollia, and the prior and brethren of S. Leonard in lama volari to Actus Markesanus; written by Bartholomew notary domini Henrici de Ollia in the Castle of Vico.

^{page 434 note 1} There is an apparent discrepancy in the various elements of this date. Since the year in Apulia began with the indiction on Sept. I, Oct. 1155, Ind. iii. =Oct. 1154, but the regnal year of William I. ought, in Oct. 1154, to be the fourth year and no,t the fifth, as here given, because his reign began on April 8, 1151. It appears, however, from the examination of a considerable number of documents in the Codice Diplomalico Barese, i. and v., that it was customary in Apulia to reckon the regnal year like the year of the Incarnation from Sept. I, and not from the actual date of the king's accession. This conclusion is borne out by Nos. 42, 44, 46, 47, 51, and 59 of the present Calendar; the evidence of No. 42 and of the last three is of special importance, because the dates of these documents do not involve any rectification of the year of the Incarnation, and yet in every case the regnal year is ahead by a single unit.

^{page 435 note 1} Cf. Cat. Bar. p. 595, art. 867, p. 597, art. 933.

^{page 438 note 1} Cf. Note to Cal. No. 39 on the rectification of the date.

^{page 439 note 1} Socium should read socerum because Coligrima, wife of William of Trentenaria, is described in this same document as the daughter of Alfanus.

^{page 439 note 2} Cf. Note to Cal. No. 39 on the rectification of the date.

^{page 440 note 1} Cf. Cal. Nos. 22 and 37.

^{page 440 note 2} Ibid. No. 51.

^{page 440 note 3} Ibid. No. 51.

^{page 440 note 4} Cf. Cat. Bar. p. 580, art. 343; p. 582, art. 401.

^{page 440 note 5} Cf. Cal. No. 31.

^{page 441 note 1} Cf. Note to Cal. No. 39 on the rectification of this date.

^{page 442 note 1} Cf. Cal. Nos. 41 and 46, and chap. iii. (2) supra.

^{page 442 note 2} Cf. Cal. No. 48, and chap. iii. (2).

^{page 442 note 3} Cat. Bar. p. 572, arts. 34–52.

^{page 443 note 1} Cf. Note to No. 39 on the rectification of this date.

^{page 444 note 1} Cf. Cat. Bar. p. 574, art. 118; cf. arts. 119–124 (Monte Peloso) and p. 581, art. 387; cf, p. 582, arts. 404–406.

^{page 445 note 1} Cal. No. 45.

^{page 445 note 2} Ibid.

^{page 445 note 3} Cf. Cat. Bar. p. 582, art. 397, and Cal. No. 31. In 1170 Lucas de Rocca Regius Justitiarius interfui is found among the signatures of a charter of William III, bishop of Troia. Stefanelli, p. 91.

^{page 445 note 4} Cf. Note to Cal. No. 39 on the rectification of this date.

^{page 447 note 1} Two further notices of Sammarus belong to the reign of William II:

(1) Chron. Casaur. R.I.SS. ii. pt. 2, col. 1011. Donation of Gilbert count of Gravina, Magister Capilaneus Apuliae et Principatus Capuae 1166, Dec. I. Ind. xv. 1st king William Sulmona † Signum propriae manus Domini Samari Kegii Camerarii.

(2) Cod. dipl. Bar. i. No. 94. Mention is made in the will of John Amerusius of the son of Sammarus de Trano. 1186, Dec. 4. Ind. 5.

^{page 451 note 1} Cf. Note to Cal. No. 39 on the rectification of this date.

^{page 452 note 1} Cf. Cal. No. 44.

^{page 453 note 1} Ughelli-Coleti, , Italia Sacra, t. vii. col. 404Google Scholar, gives a suit of 1178 of D. Lucas Guarna Regius Justitiarius, filius q. Alferii qui simililer Guarna dictus est, cum Mario Russo cognato suo f. q. Malfridi qui fuit filius Ademarii Comitis … It should be noticed that Marius no longer bears the title of chamberlain.

^{page 453 note 2} In transcribing these documents I have, by the advice of Mr. R. L. Poole, used the forms j and v as consonants, and i and u as vowels except in No. 1. The forms used by the scribes for these letters are so varied that it is impossible to know in every case whether j or i, v or u was intended. The date given in the head-line is reduced to modern reckoning.

^{page 454 note a} B. donec.

^{page 454 note 1} In margin of B. beside the signatures is written

Anno

Indictione VI

extat originale.

^{page 455 note a} in ētno uita A.

^{page 455 note b} sic A.

^{page 455 note c} Originally written milite plecte, altered to milite de plecte A.

^{page 455 note d} ī frigamus A.

^{page 456 note a} adessent inserted between the lines A.

^{page 456 note b} hac civitā.

^{page 456 note c} ad half erased.

^{page 456 note d} hac civitā.

^{page 456 note e} A. affuît √ uit √ is written on an erasure.

^{page 456 note ee} A. pārs and so throughout, except l. 14 on p. 457 pars. Whether expanded pars or partes the verb does not always agree.

^{page 457 note f} A. si: an erasure of one letter follows.

^{page 457 note g} A. velle written on erasure.

^{page 457 note h} Small erasure between terre and pārs.

^{page 458 note a} P. Justitiari.

^{page 459 note b} C. Boamundi.

^{page 459 note c} B.P. Oderisius de Palliaria, Comes.

^{page 459 note d} B.P. Robertas de Aprutio, Comes.

^{page 459 note e} B.P. Richardus Lurgis. C. Comes Richardus Iuruisi.

^{page 459 note f} B.C.P. acta. A. almost disappeared, but certainly not acta.

^{page 459 note g} B. C. P. per judicium sit sententia diffinita.

^{page 459 note h} B.C. Judices, but written over subter. P. judices.

^{page 459 note i} B.C.P. cum.

^{page 459 note j} B.C.P. Maklicdrio.

^{page 459 note k} B.C.P. Valvensi.

^{page 459 note l} C. Petro omitted.

^{page 459 note m} B. reiecerat. P. rejecerat. C. d written over initial r.

^{page 459 note n} A. sui. B.C.P. suis.

^{page 459 note o} B.P. a parte supradicti. C. a parte omitted.

^{page 459 note p} B.C.P. nunc. A. perhaps reads ibidē or inde.

^{page 459 note q} B.C.P. complures.

^{page 459 note r} B.C.P. quatenus.

^{page 459 note s} B.C.P. collata. A. very much rubbed, but the space is too great for collata.

^{page 459 note t} B.P. omit controversia. C. has con.

^{page 459 note u} P. Sin autem res sicut tertius … nudius fuerat. B.C. Sin autem res sicut … tertius nudius fuerat.

^{page 459 note v} B. C. P. omit in nostra et eorum.

^{page 459 note w} B.C.P. proprie utraque … vendicare. A. two words in the space: first begins with a; a large hole in the parchment in place of the second.

^{page 460 note x} B. P. jure.

^{page 460 note y} B. P. suorum.

^{page 460 note z} B.C. P. jurisdictioni.

^{page 460 note a} B. P. submicti.

^{page 460 note b} C. confirmationē.

^{page 460 note c} B.C. P. alia omitted.

^{page 460 note d} B.C.P. ostendent.

^{page 460 note e} A. ostender ². P. ostendit.

^{page 460 note f} C. per.

^{page 460 note g} B.C. P. for ‘confessus est in’ read … offeri.

^{page 460 note h} B. P. cartulam.

^{page 460 note i} B. P. esse. C. esse written over et.

^{page 460 note j} B. P. hodie etiam et dicta. C. … etiam et …

^{page 460 note k} B.C.P. solempniter.

^{page 460 note l} B.P. utrinque. C. utrimque corrected to utrique.

^{page 460 note m} B.C.P. omit tractatis tandem.

^{page 460 note n} B.C.P. Sicenolfus.

^{page 460 note o} B.C. P. sententiam et judicium.

^{page 460 note P} C.P. vel.

^{page 460 note q} P. subcessoribus.

^{page 460 note r} B.P. jamphatis. C. impeditum cancelled.

^{page 460 note s} C. omits Ul.

^{page 460 note t} B.C.P. deinceps for absoluteque.

^{page 460 note u} A. ·g· P. ergo.

^{page 460 note v} A. eo ₄. B.C.P. Te.

^{page 460 note w} P. Amen omitted.

^{page 460 note x} B. P. Ego Gaufridus Theatinus.

^{page 460 note y} A. five lines blank between this signature and that of Ego Tustainus.

^{page 460 note z} B.C.V. Justinus

^{page 461 note a} A. very doubtful. C. omitted. B.P. Melfiensis.

^{page 461 note b} One line blank between this signature and that of Ego comes Rabo.

^{page 461 note c} B.C.P. Signature of Count Berard inserted here before that of Count Robert of Aprinium.

^{page 461 note a} sic A.

^{page 462 note b} A. recordēt.

^{page 462 note a} B. sic.

^{page 462 note b} B. regnal year omitted.

^{page 463 note 1} Cf. Cat. Bar. p. 615, art. 1360.

^{page 463 note 2} Cf. Ibid. p. 594, art. 836; p. 597, art. 934; p. 600, art. 1009.

^{page 463 note 3} C. gives reference ‘De Guarino Episcopo tune Electo Aquinate Chron. Casin. lib. 4. cap. 98. anno 1136.’

^{page 463 note c} B. muniatū.

^{page 463 note d} B. juciarii.

^{page 463 note e} B. suisq; advōc.

^{page 463 note f} B. confirmauerjt.

^{page 463 note g} B. dnō.

^{page 463 note h} B. uxorj.

^{page 463 note i} B. cfirma.

^{page 464 note 1} Cat. Bar. p. 582, art. 397, and Cal. Nos. 45, 51.

^{page 464 note 2} Cat. Bar. p. 582, art. 400, and Cal. Nos. 22, 37, 45.

^{page 464 note a} A. avēn.

^{page 465 note a} om. M.

^{page 465 note b} om. M.

^{page 465 note c} om. M.

^{page 465 note d} carissimi M.

^{page 465 note e} Alumpo M.

^{page 465 note f} Camarata M.

^{page 465 note g} dicti M.

^{page 465 note h} revocavit M.

^{page 465 note i} enim M.

^{page 465 note k} Cossa, Buccafurno M.

^{page 465 note l} dictis M.

^{page 465 note m} alj. A. alii M.

^{page 465 note n} qua A.

^{page 465 note o} ante M.

^{page 465 note P} quos M.

^{page 465 note q} quia de Cantare & de Altari sibi non serviebant M. qa ā ātrē et ā alj. non serbiebant sibi A.

^{page 465 note r} Mantoni M.

^{page 466 note s} earn cantarent sibi M.

^{page 466 note t} Cumque M.

^{page 466 note u} tali veritate M.

^{page 466 note v} om. M.

^{page 466 note w} sicut dictum est hoc Placitum anni preteriti. (recitato om.) M.

^{page 466 note x} fuerit M.

^{page 466 note y} primis M.

^{page 466 note z} om, M,

^{page 466 note a} dictus M.

^{page 466 note b} Florus M.

^{page 466 note c} Guaimarius Terracinenses.

^{page 466 note d} Hanc commemorationem facere de judicio M.

^{page 466 note e} in M.

^{page 466 note f} teneri M.

^{page 466 note g} presentialiter M.

^{page 466 note h} & deinceps quiete pacificare habere M.

^{page 466 note i} partes M.

^{page 466 note k} Candela M.

^{page 466 note l} Tanus M.

^{page 466 note m} nullus M.

^{page 466 note n} exigeretur M.

^{page 466 note p} quod dominus … constituerat appears as … Verum de talibus constituerant M. P & voluerunt predicti Justitiarii, Lampus videlicit et Florins M.

^{page 467 note a} B. sic.