Die beiden Bände dieser Monographie (1. Teilband: Text / 2. Teilband: Katalog und Verzeichnisse) sind außer für Historikerinnen und Historiker (Mittelalter) auch für Lehrende und Lernende/Studierende der Mediävistik und der Historischen Hilfswissenschaften sowie historisch interessierte Laien von Bedeutung, insbesondere mit Blick auf Herrschafts-, Sozial-, Regional- und Kulturgeschichte Italiens und Deutschlands im Hochmittelalter.
Aristokratie auf Abruf.
Die Grafen und Gräfinnen Manfreds von Sizilien (1198–1312), 2 Bände
von Marie Ulrike JarosThe work consists of 2 volumes: subvolume 1 contains the text, subvolume 2 the catalogue and the indices!
North of the Alps, King Manfred is more of an unknown. A Sicilian king with such a name? Yes, the great-grandson of Frederick Barbarossa. Oh, aha. South of Rome, on the other hand, the memory of Re Manfredi is alive. Streets and squares are named after him, as well as bars, hotels, and pizzerias, there is wine that bears his name, and the hearty Torta di Re Manfredi. A popular figure who died tragically. Nearby is a castle of Manfred, here in the church he is also said to have been ... Anyone who follows in Manfred’s footsteps in the former Kingdom of Sicily likes to be questioned a little, reaps delighted astonishment, can listen to anecdotes. Oh, it’s supposed to be about the counts at Manfred’s side? There are also some names known: Corrado d’Antiochia, Galvano Lancia, Manfredi Maletta. They look like shining knights: courageous, noble, loyal, musical. But what tasks did these aristocrats take on in the Kingdom of Sicily, in this well-organized “model state” in which there were specially appointed functionaries for the administration? What distinguished the counts from other aristocratic groups, what connected them with each other? Why did the ruler need them when he could just appoint or depose them? And who belonged to this precarious, illustrious circle in the first place?
In order to be able to carry out a study of a part of the organisation of the Regni Siciliae at the end of the High Middle Ages – in the case of the counts – it is necessary to take into account various specifics of this kingdom: 1) the still comparatively young kingship and the diverse cultural influences in the region; 2) the well-organized administrative structure; 3) the feudal sovereignty of the pope, which was not necessarily recognized by the kings. All these aspects are related to the counts and counties: they had an impact on the feudal structure and the anchoring of the nobles in their region; they were able to provide incentives for the development of offices and dignities; they provided the organizational structure into which the counts were incorporated as one of different groups; they offered an alternative to the leading noblemen of the kingdom, in that papal authority could be invoked in addition to royal authority.
Thus, both in the Reich and in (Upper )Italy, the well-known factors of office, heredity, military authority, jurisdiction, and variability again play an important role. The counts were subordinate to other aristocratic groups in the empire, but the counts were the highest-ranking aristocratic group in the Regnum Siciliae during the period under investigation. There were neither dukes nor margraves in the Mezzogiorno, and the only prince was Manfred himself, until this title was held under Conradin or the Anjou-dynasty again. The holders of the Sicilian fiefs were the comites, followed in rank by the barones and the milites. These three groups of Sicilian vassals were directly subordinate to the ruler by virtue of the nature of their fiefs. At the top of this hierarchy were the counts. Beyond the title, however, the boundaries in the hierarchy are difficult to draw. Although research has identified some criteria to describe the hierarchy of vassals, but they are rather diffuse.
So what was the role of the counts in the Kingdom of Sicily, that had been the subject of so much struggle since the death of the Emperor, but whose position always seemed to depend on the benevolence of the ruler, and who nevertheless led the nobility? Was it primarily a distinction or were there also specific rights and duties associated with the dignity as a count? First of all, it will be necessary to ask whom the men fighting for precedence in the Regnum tried to woo. And vice versa: whose side took the counts and when did they change them? Who – and this needs to be considered at both the ruler’s and nobility’s part – benefited from the uprisings? Did those nobles stand out due to influence, capability, a particularly close relationship to the ruler? What was the basis for claims to the title of a count? What tasks were they entrusted with, and where did they stay? Even after the disappearance of the Hohenstaufen in the Regnum, the counts once again faced the question of acceptance and partisanship. Were they able to defend their social position? What options did they still have as followers of Manfred?
In addition to structural issues, attention also will be paid to the count’s as issuer of charters. Beyond the count’s activities and their itinerary, questions arise about the formal design. Did the counts appear as a enclosed powerful group through the use of certain symbols, formats, a uniform formal structure, etc.? Who wrote the deeds of a count? What can be deduced from the formulas used about the political partisanship of the counts? In the end, the author tries to characterize the group of Sicilian counts, to determine their place and function in the structure of the kingdom.
North of the Alps, King Manfred is more of an unknown. A Sicilian king with such a name? Yes, the great-grandson of Frederick Barbarossa. Oh, aha. South of Rome, on the other hand, the memory of Re Manfredi is alive. Streets and squares are named after him, as well as bars, hotels, and pizzerias, there is wine that bears his name, and the hearty Torta di Re Manfredi. A popular figure who died tragically. Nearby is a castle of Manfred, here in the church he is also said to have been ... Anyone who follows in Manfred’s footsteps in the former Kingdom of Sicily likes to be questioned a little, reaps delighted astonishment, can listen to anecdotes. Oh, it’s supposed to be about the counts at Manfred’s side? There are also some names known: Corrado d’Antiochia, Galvano Lancia, Manfredi Maletta. They look like shining knights: courageous, noble, loyal, musical. But what tasks did these aristocrats take on in the Kingdom of Sicily, in this well-organized “model state” in which there were specially appointed functionaries for the administration? What distinguished the counts from other aristocratic groups, what connected them with each other? Why did the ruler need them when he could just appoint or depose them? And who belonged to this precarious, illustrious circle in the first place?
In order to be able to carry out a study of a part of the organisation of the Regni Siciliae at the end of the High Middle Ages – in the case of the counts – it is necessary to take into account various specifics of this kingdom: 1) the still comparatively young kingship and the diverse cultural influences in the region; 2) the well-organized administrative structure; 3) the feudal sovereignty of the pope, which was not necessarily recognized by the kings. All these aspects are related to the counts and counties: they had an impact on the feudal structure and the anchoring of the nobles in their region; they were able to provide incentives for the development of offices and dignities; they provided the organizational structure into which the counts were incorporated as one of different groups; they offered an alternative to the leading noblemen of the kingdom, in that papal authority could be invoked in addition to royal authority.
Thus, both in the Reich and in (Upper )Italy, the well-known factors of office, heredity, military authority, jurisdiction, and variability again play an important role. The counts were subordinate to other aristocratic groups in the empire, but the counts were the highest-ranking aristocratic group in the Regnum Siciliae during the period under investigation. There were neither dukes nor margraves in the Mezzogiorno, and the only prince was Manfred himself, until this title was held under Conradin or the Anjou-dynasty again. The holders of the Sicilian fiefs were the comites, followed in rank by the barones and the milites. These three groups of Sicilian vassals were directly subordinate to the ruler by virtue of the nature of their fiefs. At the top of this hierarchy were the counts. Beyond the title, however, the boundaries in the hierarchy are difficult to draw. Although research has identified some criteria to describe the hierarchy of vassals, but they are rather diffuse.
So what was the role of the counts in the Kingdom of Sicily, that had been the subject of so much struggle since the death of the Emperor, but whose position always seemed to depend on the benevolence of the ruler, and who nevertheless led the nobility? Was it primarily a distinction or were there also specific rights and duties associated with the dignity as a count? First of all, it will be necessary to ask whom the men fighting for precedence in the Regnum tried to woo. And vice versa: whose side took the counts and when did they change them? Who – and this needs to be considered at both the ruler’s and nobility’s part – benefited from the uprisings? Did those nobles stand out due to influence, capability, a particularly close relationship to the ruler? What was the basis for claims to the title of a count? What tasks were they entrusted with, and where did they stay? Even after the disappearance of the Hohenstaufen in the Regnum, the counts once again faced the question of acceptance and partisanship. Were they able to defend their social position? What options did they still have as followers of Manfred?
In addition to structural issues, attention also will be paid to the count’s as issuer of charters. Beyond the count’s activities and their itinerary, questions arise about the formal design. Did the counts appear as a enclosed powerful group through the use of certain symbols, formats, a uniform formal structure, etc.? Who wrote the deeds of a count? What can be deduced from the formulas used about the political partisanship of the counts? In the end, the author tries to characterize the group of Sicilian counts, to determine their place and function in the structure of the kingdom.
