We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 July 2009
The policy of Frederick II toward the Church in the kingdom of Sicily during the period 1220 to 1224 follows logically from that of his Norman predecessors. Its aim was the restoration of the ecclesiastical privileges which had been held by the Norman kings to the death of William II (1189) and the recovery of dues, rents, services and prerogatives usurped from the crown by the ecclesiastical magnates of the kingdom during the “Time of Troubles” (1189–1209). Practical considerations were of fundamental importance in the formation of this policy. Within the kingdom, the Church was a potential rival to the establishment of a strong monarchy. The Norman kings of Sicily, like the Norman kings of England, had exercised considerable control over the appointment of bishops and, in Sicily and Calabria, over the holding of church councils and the attendance of the bishops at them. Though generous in their grants to the Church, the Norman kings of Sicily both expected and obtained the cooperation of churchmen in imposing strong rule over the kingdom. In desiring to restore the Norman pattern of relations between the church and kingdom, Frederick was faced with the fact that important changes had taken place since the death of William II. Not only had the personnel of the Church changed, but the authority of the papacy within the kingdom had been greatly increased while Innocent III acted as regent during Frederick's minority (1198–1209).
1. de Saneto Germano, Riccardus, Chronica, Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, new edition (Città di Castello: Istituto Storico Italiano, 1900-), VII: 2, 88Google Scholar. “Inprimis precipimus omnibus fidelibus, videlicet prelatis ecclesiarum, comitibus, baronibus civibusque, terris et omnibus de regno nostro omnes bonos usus et consuetudines, quibus consueverunt vivere tempore regis Guillelmi, firmiter observari.”
2. Ibid., p. 90. Laws VIII, VIIII (sic), X.
3. Ibid., p. 89. “Item precipimus eccieslis decimas dari iuxta consuetuthnem regis Guillelmi, et ut nullus justitias ecclesiarum detineat et bona eorum invadat.”
4. Huillard-Bréholles, J. L. A., Historia Diplomatica Friderici Secundi. 6 vols. with a Preface and Introduction. (Paris: H. Plon, 1852–1861), II, 139–40Google Scholar. (Hereafter cited as H.-B.)
5. Riccardus de Sancto Germano, op. cit., p. 92.
6. Ibid., p. 91. “Volumus et districte iubemus ut quia post obitum domini imperatoris Henrici sigillum nostrum devenit ad manus Marcualdi; qui de ipso sigillo plura confecisse diciturque sunt in praeiudicium nostrum, et simile factum patatur de sigillo imperatricis matris nostro post obitumeius, universa privilegia, que facta sunt et concessa ab eisdem imperatore et imperatrice ab hiis qul sunt citra Farum usque ad Paseha resurrectionis Domini presentetur: et ab illis de Sicilia usque ad Pentecostem. Omnia etiam privilegia et concessionum scripta a nobis cuilibet hactenus facta in eisdem terminis precipimus presentari. Quod si non presentauerint, ipsis privilegiis non impune utantur; set irritatis penitus qui ea conculcauerint, indignationem imperialem incurrant.”
7. Scheffer-Boichorst, Paul, “Das Gesetz Kaiser Friedrich's II. ‘De resignandis privilegiis,’,“ Sitzungsberichte der königlichen preusrischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, I (1900), 133.Google Scholar
8. Most of these charters have been collected in two sets: Winkelmann, Eduard, Acta Imperii inedita seculi XIII. 2 vols. (Innsbruck: Wagner'schen Universitäts-Buchhandlung, 1880–1885), IGoogle Scholar; H.B., II.
9. Riccardus de Sancto Germano, op. cit., p. 92. Law XVI.
10. See, for example, the privilege of October, 1222 to the Cistercian monastery of Sancta Maria de Ferraria. H.-B., II, 267.Google Scholar
11. Ibid., II, 194.
12. Cf. the discussion on this point in Niese, Hans, Die Gesetzgebung der normannischen Dynastie im Regnum Siciliae (Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1910), p. 159.Google Scholar
13. Scheffer-Boichorst (op. cit., p. 159) pointed to the form, salvo mandato et ordinatione nostra et heredum nostrorum, as the more common usage by Henry VI. But Clementi, Dione (“Calendar of the Diplomas of the Hohenstaufen Emperor Henry VI concerning the Kingdom of Sicily,” Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken, XXXV, 1955, 192Google Scholar) cites a grant of Henry to the monastery of St. John of Lecce dated February, 1197, containing the formula: salvo mandato et ordinatione nostra.
14. See especially the work of SchefferBoichorst (Ibid.), of Hans Niese (op. cit.) and, for a summary, that of Cohn, Willy, Das Zeitalter der Hohenstaufen in Sizilien (Breslau: M. and H. Marcus, 1925), p. 83.Google Scholar
15. H.-B., Preface et Introduction, xvii.
16. Ibid., II, 197. “Preteria licet in quibuslibet privileglis nostris illam clausularn jubeamus apponi que dicitur: salvo mandato et ordinatione nostra, ab hujusmodi tamen privilegio de solita benignitatis nostre gratia quam pluribus jam monasterlis fecimus super clausula lila, eam omnino precipimus amovendam.”
17. Ibid., II, 204. October, 1221.
18. Ibid., II, 261. “… eximit ab illa clausula libertati ejus praejudicanti qua dicitur salvo mandato et ordinatione nostra.”
20. Ibid., II, 405–9.
21. Ibid., II, 239. Letter of April 23, 1222.
23. Pybus, H. J., “The Emperor Frederick II and the Sicilian Church,” Cambridge Historical Journal, III (1929), 134Google Scholar. For the view that Frederick was motivated by anti-religious sentiments, see the discussion in Monti, Gennaro M., Lo Stato normanno-svevo (Trani: Vecehi, 1945), pp. 62–3.Google Scholar
24. Pybus, op. cit., p. 137.
25. Ibid., p. 163.
