Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought

FAMILY POWER IN SOUTHERN ITALY

This book explores how political power was exerted and family identity
expressed in the context of a reconstruction of the noble families of the
medieval duchies of Gaeta, Amalfi and Naples. Localised forms of power,
and the impact of the Norman conquest on southern Italy, are assessed by
means of a remarkable collection of charters preserved in the Codex
diplomaticus Cajetanus.
The duchy of Gaeta, like its neighbours, was ruled as a private family
business, with few formal offices visible. An integral part of its ruling
family's power was its monopolisation of parts of the duchy's economy
and the use of members of the clan to rule local centres. When the family
broke up, the duchy followed suit. Gaeta, Amalfi and Naples reacted in
different ways to the Normans. Gaeta flourished commercially in the
twelfth century, and its unique political response to contacts with the
cities of northern Italy (especially Genoa) forms the final part of this study.
Dr Skinner demonstrates that the socio-economic basis for power is as
important as its political exercise, and overturns many conventional
views on the workings of early medieval power structures.
 Cambridge studies in medieval life and thought
Fourth series

General Editor:
D . E. LUSCOMBE
Professor of Medieval History, University of Sheffield

Advisory Editors:
R. B. DOBSON
Professor of Medieval History, University of Cambridge, and Fellow of Christ's College

ROSAMOND MCKITTERICK
Reader in Early Medieval European History, University of Cambridge, and Fellow of
Newnham College

The series Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought was inaugurated by
G. G. Coulton in 1921. Professor D. E. Luscombe now acts as General Editor of
the Fourth Series, with Professor R. B. Dobson and Dr Rosamond McKitterick as
Advisory Editors. The series brings together outstanding work by medieval
scholars over a wide range of human endeavour extending from political
economy to the history of ideas.

For a list of titles in the series, see end of book.

FAMILY POWER IN
SOUTHERN ITALY
The duchy of Gaeta and its
neighbours, 850—1139

PATRICIA SKINNER
University of Birmingham

I CAMBRIDGE
UNIVERSITY PRESS
PUBLISHED BY THE PRESS SYNDICATE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE
The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK
40 West 20th Street, New York NY 10011-4211, USA
477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, VIC 3207, Australia
Ruiz de Alarcon 13,28014 Madrid, Spain
Dock House, The Waterfront, Cape Town 8001, South Africa

http://www.cambridge.org

© Cambridge University Press 1995

This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception

and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements,
no reproduction of any part may take place without
the written permission of Cambridge University Press.

First published 1995

First paperback edition 2002

A catalogue recordfor this book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication data

Skinner, Patricia, 1965—
Family power in southern Italy: the duchy of Gaeta and its
neighbours, 850-1139 / Patricia Skinner,
p. cm. - (Cambridge studies in medieval life and thought:
4th ser., 29)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0 521 46479 X
1. Nobility - Italy - Gaeta - History. 2. Nobility - Italy - Amalfi -
History. 3. Nobility - Italy - Naples - History. 4. Italy, Southern -
Social conditions. 5. Italy, Southern - History - 535-1268. 6. Land
tenure - Italy, Southern - History. I. Title. II. Series.
HT653.I8S59 1995
305.5/223/0945623-dc20 94-9512 CIP

ISBN 0 521 46479 X hardback

ISBN 0 52152205 6 paperback
 CONTENTS

List of illustrations page vii

Preface ix
List of abbreviations xi

INTRODUCTION I
1 SOURCES IO

PART I: FROM THE BEGINNINGS TO THE ELEVENTH

CENTURY
2 T H E ORIGINS OF DYNASTIC RULE 27
3 T H E FOUNDATIONS OF DUCAL POWER IN THE
TENTH CENTURY 57
4 N O B L E FAMILIES IN THE TENTH CENTURY 103

PART II: A TIME OF CHANGE: THE ELEVENTH CENTURY

AND BEYOND
5 FROM LOCAL DUKES TO N O R M A N KINGS 149
6 T H E EMERGENCE OF NEW FAMILIES 210

PART III: THE ECONOMICS OF POWER

7 L A N D O W N E R S AND EXCHANGES IN THE
TYRRHENIAN 247
8 L O C A L EXCHANGE AND L O N G - D I S T A N C E
CONTACTS: THE N O R M A N KINGDOM AND THE
NORTH 282
 Contents
CONCLUSION 293

Appendix: Greek signatures in Neapolitan documents 304

Bibliography 309
Index 317

VI
 ILLUSTRATIONS

MAPS
2.1 The papal patrimony in Gaeta 39
3.1 Property of Docibilis I 59
3.2 Property of John I 64
3.3 Lands under the control of Docibilis II 6j
3.4 Properties of Gregory the Magnificent 80
3.5 Amalfitan ducal Land 82
3.6 Neapolitan ducal Land 83
4.1 Lands of the Christopherii family 108
4.2 Lands of the Kampuli family 115
4.3 Centres of landowning in Amalfi 130
5.1 The plain ofFondi 182
6.1 Lands of the Car acci family 212
7.1 Population centres and crops in Gaeta 257

FIGURES
1.1 The family of Docibilis I 17
2.1 Dynastic marriages of the early Docibilans 36
2.2 Docibilans with Neapolitan links 42
2.3 The family of John miles 44
2.4 The Neapolitan ducal family 48
2.5 The family of Manso the prefect of Amalfi 51
2.6 The family of Duke Sergius of Amalfi 53
3.1 Inscriptions of John I 62
4.1 Recurrence of the Docibilis lead-name 105
4.2 77ze Christopherii family no
4.3 The Kampuli family 113
4.4 TTie Agnelli family 122
4.5 T7*e Monteincollo family 129
4.6 The Neapolitani family of Amalfi 131
vii
 List of illustrations
4.7 The Isauri family 135
4.8 Prefects in the Docibilan clan 138
5.1 Gaetan dating clauses, 1012—1032 152
5.2 The counts of Traetto 161
5.3 The de Papara family 163
5.4 The family of Count Crescentius 176
5.5 The dukes ofFondi 179
5.6 The Conjulo family 184
5.7 The consuls of Gaeta 198
6.1 77ze cotmte of Suio and their descendants 223
6.2 T/ze Baraballu family 228

Vlll
 PREFACE

This study began life as postgraduate research at the University of

Birmingham, under the supervision of Chris Wickham. I am
greatly indebted to him for his guidance, and continue to benefit
from his advice. Graham Loud has been generous in his support,
and his help and suggestions are much appreciated. It has been my
good fortune to meet David Abulafia, whose encouragement led
me to pursue the Gaetans further afield. I am indebted to Lucia
Travaini, who has provided me with invaluable insights into the
problems of southern Italian coinage.
I have been aided in revision work and further research
financially by the British Academy and the British School at
Rome. I owe a debt of thanks to the librarian at the latter, Valerie
Scott; to don Faustino Avagliano, at the Archive of Montecassino,
for his good-humoured assistance; and to the library staff at the
University of Birmingham, whose persistance has unearthed many
gems which I would not have expected to find in England. I also
received much valuable assistance from the staff at the Archivio di
Stato in Naples, especially from Elvira Pollastro; many of the
placenames would not have come to light without the help of the
staff at the Ufficio Catastale in Latina, particularly Messrs. Alfonzo
Fiorito and Mario Gucciardo.
Rosamond McKitterick's editorial comments have been acute
and stimulating, and I am grateful for her help in developing the
final version of the study. At Cambridge University Press, Gillian
Maude has provided invaluable guidance in the final production of
the book. Any shortcomings remain my responsibility.
One problem that recurs in studies involving foreign languages
is that of personal and placenames. No one convention suits all
tastes. I have adopted Anglicised versions of common names (John,
Gregory, Constantine) and titles (St). Lombard names present
more difficulty, and I have followed the most commonly used
ix
 Preface
version in most cases, for example Landolf and Atenolf, but
Guaimarius, etc.
My acknowledgements would not be complete without recog-
nising the enormous support given to me by my mum and my
husband during the writing of this book; I dedicate the final version
to them.
 ABBREVIATIONS

Amatus Storia de'Normanni di Amato di Montecassino, ed. V.

de Bartholomeis (Rome, 1935)
ASPN Archivio Storico per le Province Napoletane
ASRSP Archivio della Societa Romana per la Storia Patria
Barletta Codice Diplomatico Barese, VIII: Le Pergamene di
Barletta, ed. F. Nitti di Vito (Bari, 1914)
BISALM Bollettino delVlstituto di Storia e di Arte del Lazio
Meridionale
BISI Bollettino delVlstituto Storico Italiano per il Medio
Evo e Archivio Muratoriano
BN Codice Diplomatico Barese, X: Le Pergamene di
Barletta del R. Archivio di Napoli, ed. R. Filangieri
di Candida (Bari, 1927)
CDA Codice Diplomatico Amalfitano, ed. R. Filangieri di
Candida, 1 (Naples, 1917), 11 (Trani, 1951)
CDC Codex Diplomaticus Cajetanus, Tabularium
Casinensis, 1-11 (Montecassino, 1887-92)
CMC Chronica Monasterii Casinensis, ed. H. Hoffmann
(MGH, Scriptores 34, Hanover, 1980)
CodCav Codex Diplomaticus Cavensis, i-vm, ed. M.
Morcaldi et al. (Milan, Naples, Pisa, 1873—93), i x -
x, ed. S. Leone and G.Vitolo (Badia di Cava,
1984, 1991)
Corato Codice Diplomatico Barese, IX: I Documenti Storici di
Corato, ed. G. Beltrani (Bari, 1923)
CP II Codice Penis: Cartulario Amalfitano, ed. J.
Mazzoleni and R. Orefice 1 (Amalfi, 1985)
CSB Chronica Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, ed. G. Waitz
(MGH, Scriptores series 3, 1, Hanover, 1878)
Cusa Diplomi Greci ed Arabi di Sicilia, ed. S. Cusa, 2
vols. (Palermo, 1868, 1882)
DCDN Diplomata et Chartae Ducum Neapolis, in
Monumenta, nii
xi
 List of abbreviations
Epp Epistolae
IP Italia Pontijicia, ed. P. F. Kehr, i (Berlin, 1906), 11
(Berlin, 1907), vm (Berlin, 1935), ix (Gottingen,
1962)
LC Le Liber Censuum, ed. P. Fabre and L. Duchesne, 1
(Paris 1905)
LP Le Liber Pontificalis, ed. L. Duchesne, 1 (Paris,
1886)
MEFRM Melanges de VEcole Franqaise de Rome, Moyen Age,
Temps Modernes
MGH Monumenta Germaniae Historica
Mon.Sopp. Naples, Archivio di Stato: Monasteri Soppressi 3437
Monumenta Monumenta ad Neapolitani Ducatus Historiam
Pertinentia, ed. B. Capasso, 1, ni, nii (Naples, 1881,
1885, 1892)
NSK Die Urkunden der Normannische-Sizilienischen
Konige, ed. K. A. Kehr (Innsbruck, 1902)
PAVAR Le Pergamene degli Archivi Vescovili di Amalfi e
Ravello, 1, ed. J. Mazzoleni (Naples, 1972); 11, ed.
C. Salvati (Naples, 1974); ni> e d. B. Mazzoleni
(Naples, 1975)
PBSR Papers of the British School at Rome
PC Codice Diplomatico Pugliese, XX: Le Pergamene di
Conversano, ed. G. Coniglio (Bari, 1975)
PCT Codice Diplomatico Barese, HI: Le Pergamene della
Cattedrale di Terlizzi, ed. F. Caraballese (Bari,
1899)
QFIAB Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven
und Bibliotheken
RN Regesta Neapolitana, in Monumenta, ni
RNAM Regii Neapolitani Archivii Monumenta, ed. M. Baffi
et al. ii, in, iv (Naples, 1845-54)
Theristes S. Jean-Theristes, ed. A. Guillou (Vatican City,
1980)
Trani Le Carte che si Conservano nello Archivio del
Capitolo Metropolitano della Citta di Trani, ed. A.
Prologo (Barletta, 1877)
Tremiti Codice Diplomatico del Monastero Benedettino di S.
Maria di Tremiti, ed. A. Petrucci (Rome, i960)
Troia Codice Diplomatico Pugliese, XXI: Les Chartes de
Troia, ed. J.-M. Martin (Bari, 1976)

Xll
 INTRODUCTION

The history of southern Italy is often ignored prior to the coming

of the Normans in the late eleventh century, except for the
moments when the peninsula impinged on the consciousness of the
medieval rulers of northern Europe, particularly the German
emperors. Recently, though, historians have attempted to treat the
South less as an appendage of the rest of Europe than as a valuable
area of study in its own right. 1 For varying reasons, however, no
recent study has shed much light on the pre-Norman period, and
pre-eminence in histories of the whole area is still held by works
well over fifty years old.2
It is very hard to package pre-Norman southern Italy neatly into
one study because it was a disparate area made up of several
different political jurisdictions. The Lombards who had penetrated
furthest South during the invasion of the peninsula in the latter half
of the sixth century had coalesced into three Germanic principali-
ties, Benevento, Salerno and Capua. In the territories remaining
under Byzantine rule, Naples had become autonomous in the
1
For example, Storia d'Italia, in: // Mezzogiorno dai Bizantini a Federico II, ed. G. Galasso,
(Turin, 1983); B. Kreutz, Before the Normans: Southern Italy in the Ninth and Tenth
Centuries (Philadelphia, 1991);J. Decarreaux, Normands, Papes et Moines (Paris, 1974); the
early part of D. Matthew, The Norman Kingdom of Sicily (Cambridge, 1992) and H.
Takayama, The Administration of the Norman Kingdom of Sicily (Leiden, 1993). Recent
local studies of quality include P. Toubert, Les Structures du Latium Medieval, 2 vols.
(Rome, 1973), G. Loud, Church and Society in the Norman Principality of Capua (Oxford,
1985). On Byzantine southern Italy, V. von Falkenhausen, Untersuchungen uber die
byzantinische Herrschaft in Siiditalien vom 9 bis ins 11 Jahrhundert (Wiesbaden, 1967), and A.
Guillou, Studies on Byzantine Italy (London, 1970). In general histories of Italy, the South
perhaps tends to be treated as an appendix to discussions of the main developments in the
North, for example, C. J. Wickham, Early Medieval Italy, (London, 1981), chapter on
'The South'; G. Tabacco, The Struggle for Power in Medieval Italy (Cambridge, 1989)
integrates southern Italy, but fails to come to grips with the area on its own terms.
2
J. Gay, L'ltalie Meridionale et VEmpire Byzantin (New York, 1904) is still the standard
work of reference; R. Poupardin, Les Institutions Politiques et Administratives des
Principautes Lombardes de Vltalie Meridionale (Paris, 1909); F. Chalandon, Histoire de la
Domination Normande en Italie et en Sicile, 2 vols. (Paris, 1907); C. Cahen, Le Regime Feodal
de l'ltalie Normande (Paris 1940).
 Family power in southern Italy
eighth century, and Amalfi and Gaeta would do so in the ninth. In
addition to these, Byzantium still ruled the far South of the
peninsula throughout our period, but lost control of Sicily to the
Arabs in the ninth century.
Loyalties did not divide along these political lines, however, and
even in areas of political control by Byzantium, the culture of the
Lombards might still persist strongly, and vice versa.3 In the area I
propose to study here, Campania4 and southern Lazio,5 the
interaction between Lombard and Byzantine can be seen quite
clearly; and there was the added complication in this area of a
persistent Arab presence.
Early in the ninth century, neither Gaeta nor Amalfi were states
in their own right, both being subject to the dukes of Naples.
However, in the middle of the ninth century both Gaeta and
Amalfi broke away from Neapolitan rule. The expansionist
Lombard princes of Salerno may have been responsible for
Amalfi's move to independence, having briefly captured the city in
838/9. After this, Amalfi never returned to the Neapolitan fold,
maintaining instead its existence as an independent entity with
continuing close ties to its Lombard neighbour.
Gaeta's detachment seems to have been precipitated by Arab
incursions on the Tyrrhenian coast, as the people of Formia across
the bay took refuge on the easily defensible rocky peninsula. From
839 onwards we have documented rulers of the castle, later city, of
Gaeta, known as hypatoi. The first, Constantine, and his son
Marinus, visible in documents of 839 and 866, seem to have had
links with Naples, and still seem to have been under the
sovereignty of the larger city. In 867, however, a change of regime
occurred, with the previously unknown Docibilis I taking power.
His relationship with the Arab raiders, who were causing chaos
throughout the Tyrrhenian littoral, earned Docibilis the censure of
the pope. It may have been in recognition of Docibilis' break with
the Arabs that he and his son John I were made rectores of the papal
patrimonies of Fondi and Traetto, estates whose exploitation
allowed the Docibilans to grow in power. The Amalfitans, too,
3
For example, the case of Byzantine Apulia, strongly Lombard in its customs despite its
Roman rulers.
4
Kreutz, Before the Normans, has looked at some of the areas I shall be exploring. Her book,
however, was somewhat limited in its coverage, tending to focus on particular aspects of
Amalfitan and Salernitan history rather than synthesising the whole.
5
Toubert, Structures, concentrated largely on the documents from Farfa for his work on
southern Lazio. Gaeta featured very little in his study.
 Introduction
frequently collaborated with the infidel, and this seems to have
been a foundation for that city's rise to a great trading power.
The tenth century was one of Docibilan domination over Gaeta.
Naples, too, enjoyed continuous government by one ducal family.
Amalfi's rulers were somewhat less stable, perhaps reflecting the
intensity of internal competition in a state that could not support
the ambitions of all the noble families there.
Ducal power ultimately relied on landed resources and family
unity. The gradual diminution of the former and the deterioration
of the latter in Gaeta led to individual branches breaking away and
setting up their own, smaller power blocs in outlying castles in the
duchy. Militarily, the duchy had always been relatively weak; this
development served only to weaken it still further. Amalfi
experienced a similar instability of rule. Both smaller cities
succumbed to the expanding power of the Capuan prince Pandolf
in the 1030s, and then to prince Guaimarius of Salerno early in the
1040s. Naples was also briefly taken over by the aggressive Capuan,
but his rule there did not last long, and the ducal dynasty was able
to resume its rule, continuing in power until the city fell to the
Norman king, Roger, in the mid-twelfth century.
Both Gaeta and Amalfi were eventually able to rid themselves of
Lombard rule, but the vacuum left by the Capuans and Salernitans
only opened the way to a more dangerous power. The dukes of
Naples had used a group of Norman mercenaries to enable them to
regain control of their city. These soldiers seem to have rapidly
become aware that the rulers for whom they were fighting were
weaker than themselves. It took only the rise of a talented leader,
Robert Guiscard, to begin to fulfil the potential of the Normans to
take over from their masters. It is important to realise, however,
that different groups of Normans were trying to carve out their
own spheres of influence. When Richard of Aversa and his son
Jordan captured Capua, they swiftly extended their dominions to
take in Gaeta as well. Thereafter the history of that duchy is one of
Norman domination via a nominated duke; Gaeta's history as an
independent duchy was at an end. Meanwhile Robert Guiscard
captured Amalfi, and set about extending his Tyrrhenian territory.
The process was by no means easy, and the late eleventh century
can be characterised as the point when the Byzantine empire
realised the danger to its territories in the South and began actively
to campaign to resist the Normans as a whole. The campaign was
based at Naples, which successfully resisted Norman siege action.

3
 Family power in southern Italy
The actions of the papacy can be said to have been decisive in
sealing the fate of the Tyrrhenian cities. The popes were at best
ambivalent in their attitude to the Normans, but in the wider
political context of their contests with the German empire and the
Byzantine church, they appear to have regarded the army of
occupation to the south of papal territories as simultaneously a
danger and a potential ally. The creation of the kingdom of Sicily
in 1130 legitimised the rule of the Normans and led to the fall of the
now isolated city of Naples.
This brief history, based on existing historiography, suggests
that each duchy underwent a series of tumultuous changes during
the three centuries under review. The folio wing study examines
these changes, and investigates the extent to which the internal
structures of the Tyrrhenian states were able to withstand much of
the upheaval. How stable was the political life in each duchy? How
strong were the ruling families and what was the basis of their
relationship with their noble subjects? Did those subjects in turn
rely on their wealth, their birth or their place at the rulers' courts
for their position in society?
In attempting to answer these questions, the study will examine
and compare the three duchies of Gaeta, Naples and Amalfi. This is
a departure from the established local historiographical norm.
Many monographs on the three cities have been inspired more by
civic pride than by a desire to place them in their medieval south
Italian context.6 After an initial group of studies on Gaeta which
appeared when the primary source material was first published at
the end of the nineteenth century, including excellent work by
Fedele7 and Merores,8 Gaetan history writing languished some-
what. Apart from a thesis written in 1941 by Fedele's pupil
6
For example, for Gaeta: D. Monetti, Cenni Storici delVAntica Citta di Gaeta (Gaeta, 1872);
O. Gaetani d'Aragona, Memorie Storiche della Citta di Gaeta (Caserta, 1885); S. Ferraro,
Memorie Religiose e Civili della Citta di Gaeta (Naples, 1903); G. Fiengo, Gaeta: Monumenti
e Storia Urbanistica (Naples, 1971). The latter work reminds us that not only nineteenth-
century writers felt such pride. However, one should not now overlook the more recent
work of local historical centres at Amalfi and Gaeta. For example, the Centro di Cultura
e Storia Amalfitana's Fonti series has been responsible for the publication of much
primary source material used in the present study, and its new Biblioteca Amalfitana series
has recently commenced publication with Giuseppe Gargano's La Citta davanti al Mare
(Amalfi, 1992).
7
In particular, 'II ducato di Gaeta all'inizio della conquista normanna', ASPN, 29 (1904),
50—99. This and Fedele's other major articles on the duchy have recently been reprinted
in P. Fedele, Scritti Storici sul Ducato di Gaeta (Gaeta, 1988).
8
ML Merores, Gaeta imfruhen Mittelalter (8. bis i2.Jahrhundert) (Gotha, 1911).
 Introduction
9
Leccese, little significant work has been done on the duchy. This is
largely due to the fact that Margarethe Merores' history of Gaeta,
published in 1911, has remained unassailably the first point of
reference for all subsequent studies, and is still heavily relied upon
today. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Merores used the
documentary material intelligently to produce a detailed history of
Gaeta from its origins to around AD 1200, and most of her
arguments remain valid to this day. What Merores did not do,
however, was examine the socio-economic structures of the
duchy; her work concentrated exclusively on the rulers of the
Gaetan territory and the ways in which they exercised their power.
So influential has her work been on later historians that no one has
questioned its purely political nature, nor made any real attempt to
expand its picture of Gaetan history. A recent article by Jean-
Francois Guiraud,10 examining the population patterns of the
duchy, promised much in its title, but unfortunately limited itself
to listing the appearance of new placenames in the documents. No
real attempt was made to address the problem of who actually lived
in the new settlements. Guiraud concentrated on the rise of newly
fortified places within the duchy to illustrate the failure of
centralised ducal power. He thus returned to one of Merores' main
themes.
In the present study, I hope to widen the focus of Gaetan
historiography and use it to illuminate other parts of the
Tyrrhenian coast. I shall be examining Gaeta to see the extent to
which it provides a model of a small state, and comparing it with
neighbouring Naples and Amalfi in order to determine the degree
to which they were culturally similar. Comparisons of the type I
shall make may have been discouraged hitherto by the disparity of
evidence available from different areas, a problem which is
discussed below. However, if we approach the material using a
point of contact between the three states — the existence of traceable
landowning or mercantile families — rather than trying to
9
A. Leccese, Le Origini del Ducato di Gaeta e le sue Relazioni coi Ducati di Napoli e di Roma
(Gubbio, 1941), tried to unravel the early links with both Rome and Naples before the
ninth century, when much of southern Italy was under Byzantine domination.
However, her work succeeded only in illustrating the ambiguity of Gaeta's position, and
it is not my intention here to reopen a question which, because of the lack of evidence,
cannot be satisfactorily resolved.
10
J.-F. Guiraud, 'Le reseau de peuplement dans le duche de Gaeta du Xc au XIIIC siecle',
MEFRM, 94 (1982), 482-511.

5
 Family power in southern Italy
concentrate only on the ruling dukes and prominent churchmen,
comparison becomes not only possible, but valuable.
It may be possible to use the documents of a duchy less than
50km by 25km in area to generalise about the social structures of
southern Italy as a whole. Its very smallness makes Gaeta the perfect
testing ground, for it epitomises the fragmentation of southern
Italy and lack of institutionalised forms of power here during the
tenth and eleventh centuries, the feature which strikes historians
when writing about the South. If, therefore, we can analyse how
one of these fragments worked from day to day, we may be able to
make more sense of the whole. It must be noted that the study
focuses on the formerly Byzantine enclaves on the Tyrrhenian
coast. However, some of the methods used may be applicable to
the Lombard areas of southern Italy as well, and could be tested, for
example, on the copious archive material relating to the abbey of
Cava near Salerno and its hinterland. 11 Huguette Taviani has
recently published a monumental work on the latter city. 12
The three states on which I concentrate did not live in a vacuum.
They came into daily contact with their Lombard neighbours, and
were in some instances influenced by Lombard practice. Gaeta was
taken over by the Lombards of Capua in 1032, and the city's
ambivalent relationship with its Lombard neighbours, and the
parallels between this and the relationship between Amalfi and
Salerno will be examined.
After an introductory survey of the source material available,
the study is arranged in three parts. The first investigates ducal
power and how it was expressed. It goes on to look at what
happened when dukes lost power, and what structures emerged to
replace the single ruler. We have a great deal of material available
from Gaeta to assess how dukes ruled, what property they held and
what functions they performed in their daily dealings with their
subjects. Indeed, the dukes of Gaeta loom so exceptionally large in
the documentation that it would be folly to attempt any study
which did not include some analysis of their rule. I intend,
however, to approach the problem from a different perspective.
1
* Codex Diplomatics Cavensis, i—vm ed. M. Morcaldi et al. (Milan, Naples, Pisa, 1873—93);
ix and x, ed. S. Leone and G. Vitolo (Badia di Cava, 1984, 1991) (= CodCav) represent a
new campaign of editing, although its future is in some doubt. The published documents
go up to 1080; the remainder are still kept in the abbey of the Holy Trinity, Cava.
Preliminary work on Apulia in the tenth and eleventh centuries seems to support the
applicability of the methods used in this study.
12
H. Taviani-Carozzi, La Principaute Lombarde de Salerne, 2 vols. (Rome, 1991).
 Introduction
Firstly, the origins of ducal power at Gaeta have never been
examined in any great detail. Who were the dukes of Gaeta, and
what were their origins? Was there any clear basis for ducal rule in
place in this area in the late ninth century? We have rather less
evidence from Amalfi and Naples to test them against the Gaetan
picture, though both cities have been the subject of detailed
studies13 and both seem to have followed the same pattern of
dynastic rule.
How then do we delve further into ducal relations with each
other and with their people? This is the subject of the second strand
of the study, looking at the great men (and women) of each duchy
who lived near, served and married into the ducal families. I shall
be looking at ways in which we can examine the hitherto
unexplored way of life of the nobility and aristocracy in this area,
and how they reacted to the events around them. In doing so, many
of the internal structures of these states will come to light.
The noble families in all three duchies are well documented, yet
have not been systematically studied before. My research has
revealed the existence of a large number of wealthy landowning
and merchant clans who, despite being politically active, have
never featured in the political histories of the duchies simply
because they did not achieve the position of ruler. How they
created and fitted into political patterns, and how their economic
influence may have affected the political balance, forms one of the
main themes of the present study. Their relationships with each
other, their property and their power, both political and economic
(much the same thing, in this context) are examined in detail.
There is interest too in looking at how the noble families viewed
themselves, and how their identity changed with the passage of
time. Such investigations have been carried out as a result of a new
prosopographical analysis of the documents: much can be achieved
if we know to whom people were related, with whom they did
business and where they owned land. The genealogical methods I
have used to build up family profiles have been profitably used on
northern European evidence, but rarely applied to material from
the South. 14
Establishing landowning patterns has necessitated a reappraisal
13
G. Cassandro, 'II ducato Bizantino', in Storia di Napoli n, i (Naples, 1967); U. Schwarz,
Amalfi imfriihen Mittelalter (g—njahrhundert) (Tubingen, 1978) (pp. 1-68 trans. G. Vitolo
as Amalfi nel Medioevo, Amalfi, 1985); M. del Treppo and A. Leone, Amalfi Medioevale
14
(Naples, 1977). On the methods used, see below, chapter 4, section (a).
 Family power in southern Italy
of the list of known place-names in the three areas. The third part of
the study looks at the economic basis on which power was built up.
Did monopolisation of land ownership affect the political make-up
of any of the duchies? Figliuolo has argued convincingly that it did
in part of Amalfi.15 Was the political fragmentation of the area a
cause or an effect of economic break-up? What part did the noble
families play in the famed commercial activities 16 of the area in this
period?
One issue which will be addressed is whether existing families,
their property and their status were greatly affected by the coming
of the Normans into the area in the eleventh century, or whether
they remained undisturbed. Again, the experiences of the Tyrrhe-
nian states could act as a microcosm of the whole of the South
under Norman rule.
I hope to show from this examination of Gaeta and its
neighbours that historians' attempts to package the South neatly
into small, discrete states may be imposing an order on the area that
never existed. Instead, the tendency of small states was to become
even smaller, and even the Norman conquest may not have solved
the 'problem' of this intense localisation. At the same time, even as
political fission was occurring, the problems of daily life and
property management faced by the documented population of
each of these areas reveal notable parallels across political
boundaries. This, I contend, is a far richer seam to mine if we are to
understand southern Italy. We cling to dukes, counts and princes
because there is little evidence of any other central power. Yet, if
we juxtapose the histories of these leaders with the concerns of their
leading subjects, we find more homogeneity and continuity of
structures across political divides and beyond the Norman
advance. By revealing these themes we could perhaps go some way
15
B. Figliuolo, 'Gli Amalfitani a Cetara', Annali, Istituto Italiano per gli Studi Storici, 6
(1979-80), 31-82.
16
Amalfi's commerce has formed the subject of work by A. Citarella: 'Patterns in medieval
trade: the commerce of Amalfi before the crusades',Jo«ma/ of Economic History, 28 (1968),
531—55; 'Scambi commerciali fra l'Egitto e Amalfi in un documento inedito della Geniza
di Cairo', ASPN, 3rd ser. 9 (1971), 141—9; 'II declino del commercio marittimo di
Amalfi', ASPN, 3rd ser. 13 (1975), 9-54; see also del Treppo and Leone, Amalfi
Medioevale. A new line of inquiry has recently been proposed by David Abulafia,
'Southern Italy, Sicily and Sardinia in the medieval Mediterranean economy', in
Commerce and Conquest in the Mediterranean, 1100-1500 (London, 1993), essay 1, p. 17. He
stresses the need for further research into other cities of the South in order to more
accurately assess Amalfi's importance as a trading city.
 Introduction
towards explaining the political events which have already
received attention and have led to the characterisation of the South
in the ninth, tenth and eleventh centuries as an area of anarchy. 17
17
Tabacco, Struggle for Power, deals with the period currently under review, including the
South in the tenth century, in a chapter entitled 'Political anarchy'.
 Chapter 1

SOURCES

The source material for this study is of two main types. Firstly, a
large corpus of medieval charters, recording mostly land transac-
tions, exists in published form, and has remained relatively
unexploited as a source of information about life in this area
between the ninth and the early twelfth centuries. This is despite
the fact that it allows individual families to be examined in some
detail. The landless and unfree, on the other hand, make only
fleeting appearances in the documents. They never reached a level
of wealth which allowed them a permanent presence in a written
record that was concerned mainly with land transactions. And, as
we shall see, even those who owned land sometimes seem not to
have thought it necessary to write down all their transactions.1
Nevertheless, the material at our disposal is copious, and offers a
valuable opportunity to piece together the lives of many
inhabitants of the Tyrrhenian coast. The charters will be discussed
in detail presently.
The second body of written evidence consists of letters and
narrative sources, and is useful in creating a wider framework in
which to set the detailed information from the charters. Apart
from specific material relating to individual cities, several sources
are relevant for a history of the South as a whole. They include
letters of the popes, especially John VIII,2 and other material
relating to the papacy's history and interest in its southern
properties, including the Liber Pontificalis and the Liber Censuum.3
In addition, there are several chronicles written in the South at this
time. From the tenth century there is the anonymous Chronicon
Salemitanum which, although its main focus is the history of the
princes of Salerno, includes much information about Salerno's
1
See below, this chapter, section (d).
2
MGH, Epistolae, vn, eds E. Caspar et al. (Munich, 1978).
3
Liber Pontificalis, ed. L. Duchesne, 1 (Paris, 1886) (= LP); Liber Censuum, ed. P. Fabre and
L. Duchesne, I, (Paris, 1905) ( = LC).

10
 Sources
4
neighbours. The eleventh-century source, the Chronicle of Monte-
cassino5 of Leo of Ostia, was described as the most balanced
medieval history of its time by Ugo Balzani.6 Such glowing praise
should perhaps be treated with caution. Nevertheless, Leo's work
and one of its main sources, the earlier Chronicon Sancti Benedicti
Casinensis,7 are valuable for the light they shed on the rise of the
abbey of Montecassino, and on the abbey's self-image in the tenth
and eleventh centuries. The views of a near contemporary from
northern Italy, Liutprand, bishop of Cremona, offer us further
glimpses of medieval southern life, and, being tangential to his
main themes, may perhaps be relied upon as accurate.8 Also
relevant in this context are the occasional interventions by outside
powers in the South, particularly the German emperors. All three
Ottos have left some record of their presence here.9 Later, the
chroniclers of the Norman conquest, Amatus of Montecassino and
Geoffrey Malaterra,10 shed light on that tumultuous period in the
history of the South. For the most part, however, I shall be
examining the conquest from the documents of those conquered
rather than the historians favourable to the conquerors.
Naples, Amalfi and Gaeta each furnish us with collections of
charters and narrative sources to illuminate their past, and it is to
these individual cities that the remainder of the chapter is devoted.

(a) NAPLES

Most of the Neapolitan charter material comes from the royal

archives, and was published by the distinguished historian and
archivist Bartolomeo Capasso in the nineteenth century. Capasso's
4
Chronicon Salernitanum, ed. U. Westerbergh (Stockholm, 1956). Italian version:
Chronicon Salernitanum, trans. A. Carucci (Salerno, 1988). Taviani-Carozzi, Principaute, 1,
p. 8 iff. suggests an identification for the author of the chronicle.
5
Chronica Monasterii Casinensis, ed. H. Hoffmann (MGH, Scriptores 34, Hanover, 1980)
(=CMC).
6
U. Balzani, Le Cronache Italiane nel Medio Evo (Milan, 1884), p. 156.
7
Chronica Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, ed. G. Waitz (MGH, Scriptores series 3, 1 Hanover,
1878) (=CSB).
8
Liutprand of Cremona, Works, trans. F. A. Wright (London, 1930); repr. with new
introduction b y j . J. Norwich (London, 1993).
9
For example, in the document collections from individual cities themselves; also in
isolated documents preserved in the MGH series. References will be given to these as they
occur in the text.
10
Storia de'Normanni di Amato, ed. V. de Bartholomeis (Rome, 1935) (= Amatus); Geoffrey
Malaterra, De Rebus Gestis Rogerii Calabriae et Siciliae Comitis, ed. E. Pontieri (Bologna,
1927).

II
 Family power in southern Italy
edition, under the umbrella title Monumenta, divides the charters
into those issued by the dukes and all the remaining documents.
These date up to 1139, and taken together number some 700. The
edition also includes other evidence for Neapolitan history such as
early evidence about the relationship between the dukes of Naples
and their Lombard neighbours of Benevento, Salerno and Capua,
and the chronicle of the bishops of Naples.11 Some of the charter
evidence, however, was published in an earlier edition of 1845.12
Capasso drew on this for some of the documents in his edition. The
earlier work also contains material which Capasso did not include
in the Monumenta. Indeed, Capasso's selective method of editing
sometimes leaves much to be desired. Although it is clear from
surviving material that some of the documents he listed existed
only in registers, in other cases he had access to complete
documents and yet reproduces only what he considered the salient
points: date clause, author, transaction and receiver. His frequent
omission of formulae (though he signalled that he had done so) and
signatures, is frustrating when one is trying to build up a picture
both of how documents were used and who was using them.
However, his edition remains the essential source of Neapolitan
information, and preserves much valuable material.
Much of the documentation came from the great monasteries of
Naples, whose documents were moved to the Naples State
Archive.13 It is certainly the case that Capasso had access to far
more material than survives, and many of the documents that he
published from the suppressed houses are now only listed in
registers. One of the main collections was that of the monastery of
St Sebastian, which preserved documents relating to its many
subject houses as well as the monastery itself. The convent of St

11
B. Capasso, ed., Monumenta ad Neapolitani Ducatus Historiam Pertinentia, i: Chronicon
ducum et principum Beneventi, Salerni et Capuae et ducum Neapolis, Chronicon
Episcoporum Sancti Neapolitani Ecclesiae, Papal letters and documents, Acta Sanc-
torum, (Naples, 1881), ni: Regesta Neapolitana, 912— 1139 ( = RN), (Naples, 1885), nii:
Diplomata et Chartae Ducum Neapolis ( = DCDN), Capitularia et pacta, Inscriptions
and seals (Naples, 1892).
12
Regii Neapolitani Archivii Monumenta, ed. M. BafTi et al., ii, iii, in, iv (Naples, 1845-1854)
( = RNAM).
13
On the holdings of the Naples State Archive, based in the former monastery of SS
Severinus and Sossus, J. Mazzoleni, Le Fond Documentarie e Bibliografiche dal Secolo X al
Secolo XX conservate presso VArchivio di Stato di Napoli (Naples, 1978). The Introduction
to this relates the destruction of much of the Archive during World War II; using
inventories made by R. Filangieri di Candida in 1919, Mazzoleni also lists the destroyed
material. See also Taviani-Carozzi, Principaute, 1, xlvi and associated bibliography.

12
 Sources
Gregory was also a rich source of information.14 Thus the majority
of the charter material from Naples is concerned with matters
affecting the ecclesiastical institutions which preserved it. The
number of ducal documents from the city makes up only a small
part of the corpus.
Naples was by far the largest city in the area, and its documents
record in detail the activities of an urban population. Both city life
and written transactions evidently had a long history here.
Whatever the ambiguities of the archaeological evidence concern-
ing urban survival between the late Roman and early medieval
periods,15 the documents have an air of stability and unchanging
practice,16 which is also reflected in the political life of the duchy.

(b) AMALFI

By contrast, the documentary evidence from Amalfi has been

published in a much less coherent form, though the editions are
later and better. Until recently, the Codice Diplomatico Amaljitano
of Filangieri di Candida was the only published material.17 Since
1972, however, Jole Mazzoleni has doubled the amount of easily
accessible evidence by producing editions of the diplomatic
collections of the bishoprics of Amalfi and Ravello,18 and more
recently the archive of the church of St Laurence in Amalfi, known
as the Codice Perris.19 It is fortunate that Filangieri's first volume
preserved the earliest charters from Amalfi, for the transfer of the
Naples State Archive's most valuable material to a villa near Nola,
for protection during World War II, proved disastrous when it was
14
Some of the St Gregory documents were published by J. Mazzoleni, Le Pergamene del
Monastero di S. Gregorio Armeno di Napoli (Naples, 1973). Filangieri's inventory of the St
Gregory documents, taken from an earlier list, is held in the Archivio di Stato, Naples:
Sezione Politico-diplomatica, Inventari delle Pergamene, 99. A copy of the earlier list is
held in the same archive: Monasteri Soppressi 3437 ( = Mon.Sopp. ) .
15
On this, see P. Arthur, 'Naples: a case of urban survival in the early middle ages?',
MEFRM, 103 (1991-2), 759—84; for a document-based view, P. Skinner, 'Urban
communities in Naples, 900-1050', PBSR, 62 (1994, in press).
16
A document of 1003 acknowledges this long history explicitly, stating that it is
'customary for a notary to record' documents, in this case a will: RN 319.
17
Codice Diplomatico Amaljitano, ed. R. Filangieri di Candida, 1 (Naples, 1917), 11 (Trani,
1951) ( = CD A).
18
Le Pergamene degli Archivi Vescovili di Amalfi e Ravello, 1, ed. J. Mazzoleni (Naples, 1972),
11, ed. C. Salvati (Naples 1974), 111, ed. B. Mazzoleni (Naples, 1975), iv, ed. L. Pescatore
(Naples, 1979) (= PA VAR).
19
// Codice Perris: Cartulario Amaljitano, 1, ed. J. Mazzoleni and R. Orefice (Amalfi, 1985)
(=CP).

13
 Family power in southern Italy
destroyed by fire in 1943.20 Altogether, the Amalfitan charters
number approximately 300 for the period under discussion.
The work of Schwarz has provided more material relating to the
duchy, including his edition of the Chronicon Amaljitanum.21 The
work of the Centro di Cultura e Storia Amalfitana has also made
more unpublished material available.22 The Amalfitans have
hitherto received more attention from historians for their pioneer-
ing, long-distance trading exploits than their domestic history. 23
Yet there is much that is comparable in the history of this small state
and its territorially limited contemporary, Gaeta.

(c) GAETA

Despite an initially smaller number of documents, approximately

350 up to 1139, the charters of Gaeta have a homogeneity which
allows us to look in more depth at the social structures of the duchy.
Because topics are covered in these charters which are absent in the
collections from Naples and Amalfi, they may enable us to fill in
gaps in our understanding of the other duchies. It is worth pausing,
therefore, to examine the Gaetan charter collection in some detail.
The city of Gaeta recently celebrated a notable anniversary: the
centenary of the first systematic publication, by the monastery of
St Benedict at Montecassino, of medieval documents relating to
the city and its duchy. Certainly many of the documents had
appeared in earlier publications, but the Cassinese edition was the
first to add criticism of the material, as well as to publish a wealth of
new Gaetan documents arranged systematically and dated where
possible. This Codex Diplomaticus Cajetanus,24 of which three
volumes have so far appeared, has formed the basis for all studies of
the city and duchy of Gaeta since its publication, and the recent
Convegno held in the city to celebrate the centenary of the first
volume recognised the fact.25 Despite its availability, however,
this charter collection has remained remarkably underexploited by
historians of the South. Yet a closer examination of its contents
20
Schwarz, Amalfi nel Medioevo, p. 28; see also note 13, above.
21
Schwarz, Amalfi imfriihen Mittelalter, pp. 193—224.
22
CP was published as the first of the Fonti series; the latest volume (vi) of PA VAR has also
appeared under this rubric.
23
See above, Introduction, note 16, for bibliography.
24
Codex Diplomaticus Cajetanus 1,11 (Montecassino, 1887, 1891) ( = CDC).
25
// Ducato di Gaeta Secoli IX—XII, (V Convegno di Studi sul Medioevo Meridionale, Gaeta
23-8 October 1988, forthcoming).

14
 Sources
reveals it to be unique among southern Italian document
collections for several reasons.
It has become apparent that the Codex Diplomatics Cajetanus is
not entirely reliable as far as the authenticity and dating of all of the
documents proposed by the editors is concerned. Nevertheless, its
volumes remain an essential tool for Gaetan research. In the case of
individual documents whose dates are in question, I have included
discussions at relevant points in the chapters which follow. Here I
propose only to discuss in general terms the origins of the collection
and the reasons why these documents were preserved.
Over two-thirds of the documents published by the Cassinese
monks came from their own archive, most in their original form,
others surviving only in seventeenth- or eighteenth-century
copies. It is not surprising that so much Gaetan material found its
way to Montecassino, since in the course of the eleventh and
twelfth centuries much of the duchy of Gaeta fell into the
monastery's hands through gifts made by the Norman princes of
Capua or the dukes and counts of Gaeta itself. It was common
practice at this time to hand over documents relating to the pieces
of land being donated, since production of such material alongside
the document recording the donation itself was often a decisive
factor in disputes over ownership. 26
As the power of Montecassino grew in the late eleventh century,
so did its ambitions, giving rise to a collection of documents known
as the Register of Peter the Deacon. Their author sought to justify
the Cassinese claim to as much territory as possible. Donations by
princes and ex-dukes, not only of Gaeta, were forged to further
these claims, and it was only relatively recently that some of these
forgeries were brought to light and discussed.27 Peter's documents
rarely affect the present study's arguments; where they do, I have
discussed them at relevant points in the text.
As well as the contents of their own archive, the monks used
documents from the cathedral archive at Gaeta. Most of this
material survived only in later copies, and many of these may have
been destroyed in World War II.
26
See below, section (d), for further discussion of this point.
27
H. Bloch, 'The schism of Anacletus and the Glanfeuil forgeries of Peter the Deacon',
Traditio, 8 (1952), 159-264; A. Mancone, 'II Registrum Petri Diaconi', Bullettino
dell'Archivio Paleografico Italiano, 2—3 (1956—7); H. Hoffmann, 'Chronik und Urkunde in
Montecassino', QFIAB, 51 (1972), 93-206; Loud, Church and Society, pp. 78-9, 183-4;
and 'A calendar of the diplomas of the N o r m a n princes of Capua', PBSR, 49 (1981),
99-H3.

15
 Family power in southern Italy
The Cassinesi were also able to gather together material which
had already been published, taking individual documents from
Ughelli's Italia Sacra,2S Contatore's history of Terracina,29 and the
mid-nineteenth-century edition of the royal archives at Naples.30
The largest source of such material, however, was a two-part work
by don Erasmo Gattola on the history of Montecassino, written in
the eighteenth century. 31 The editors of the Codex themselves
admitted that using Gattola's work was less than satisfactory,32
since some of his transcriptions were incomplete. Given that the
originals did not survive, however, they were forced to accept the
limitations of his work, and unfortunately we are obliged to do so
as well.
These were the sources upon which the editors of the Codex
could draw, but what were the origins of the documents
themselves, and why were they preserved?
The most striking feature about the Codex as it stands is the very
high proportion - almost half - of documents authorised by, or
relating to, the dukes of Gaeta, especially the family of Docibilis I,
which ruled the city and its territory from the ninth to the middle
of the eleventh century (see genealogy, Figure I . I ) . No other
contemporary collection from the states neighbouring Gaeta, nor
further South, can match this proportion. Neither Naples nor
Amalfi have many ducal documents. Their collections, like nearby
Cava's, fall into the more usual pattern of being largely ecclesiasti-
cal in origin. If one adds to the Gaetan ducal documents those
authorised by the bishops who belonged to the ducal family, and
those of the churches known to have been founded by the
Docibilan dynasty, the result looks very much like an archive kept
by the family and augmented by their successors as dukes.
However, it is not quite as simple as this, for documents
authorised by men and women with no apparent links to the ducal
family survive in the collection as well. If these latter documents
could be included in the ducal family archive on the basis that they
mentioned lands which later fell into the hands of the dukes, we
could continue to think of the Gaetan material as the ducal archive.
This, though, does not appear to be the case. It is possible that what

28
F. Ughelli, Italia Sacra, i-x, ed. N . Coleti (Venice, 1717-22).
29
D . A. Contatore, De Historia Terracinensi Libri Quinque (Rome, 1706).
30
See above, note 12.
31
E. Gattola, Historia Abbatiae Casinensis (Venice, 1733); Ad Historiam Abbatiae Casinensis
32
Accessiones (Venice, 1734). CDC 1, p. 212.

16
 DOCIBIUSU Matrona

r_
Sikelgaita Leo prefect Anatolius Megalu JOHNI Euftmia Maria Bona
(906) duke of (906) 890-337) (906-24) (906-18)
Terracina = Rodipert = Stephen = John
1 (906-24)
#
John Docibilis Aligernus 1rheotista Bona DOCIBILIS II Matrona Maru Sikelgaita Constantine* F>eter Leo* Agnellus Angelarus
(944-6) (937-63) (955) (937) (933) 914-54) (949) (941-62) (941-94) ( 941-62) (922-63) (924) (919-24)
-- Orania = Kampulus (958)
1
KAMPIIII

Megalu Drosu Gemma f MRINUS Anna Viaria Leo OHN II GREGORY Deusdedit Atenolf
(954) (954) (954) c ukeof (954) 954) prefect (934-62) (939-64) (986) (937-78)
f•ondi (954) = Drosu

I
(945-84) = Maria
1
Gregory Bernard bishop Idarinus Daufenus 1 JOHN III Leo Stephania = Docibilis John Gregory Iriaria Landolf Docibilis Gregory
count of (997-1049) (999) count of 978-1008) duke of (981-1010) (992-1024) (981-1013) (981-999) (999-1002
Castro Argento Traetto -- Emilia Fondi = Maria = Poryssena = Anna

L
= Maria (992) 1002-1029) (992) > (1010)
<
(992-1026) >
1 <
Daufenusll Girard eo Littefrid ohn Marinus JOHN IV Leo John Crescentius Leo Laidulf Gregory John Papa Docibilis
(1014) (1071) ( 1071-95) (1072) ( 1053-69) count of 993-1011) (1014-24) (1014) (1049) = (1)Bona (1024) (1024) (1002-12) (1002-25)

l_
= Alzeiza Castro Argento = (2)Amata

I
(1029) (1029)

I I

I
Dauferms til MannusJohn Iando Leo Crescentius I ittefrid John count JOHNV (1 (Bernard (2)Constantine LEOII Hugh
(1117) (1089-99) ( 1089) (1045) 1002-32) (1069) (1039) <1042) count of
= Offa Theodora Suio
(1023-40)
I
DauferiusV Landc Gregory Docibilis Raynerius Leo bishop Peter John
(1049) (1045-48) (1054) (1054) (1055) (1056-79)
1 = Mira = Ageltruda
'natural sons of John 1 J 1 [
Leo Landolf Raynerius Peter John
(1062-4) (1062-8) (1125) (1053-62) (1062-4)
= Domnella

Figure I . I The family of Docibilis I

 Family power in southern Italy
we are dealing with, in addition to the documents relating to the
ducal family, are the contents of a public depository for private
documents, used as insurance against future disputes.
As will become apparent as the study progresses, however, a
public archive and a Docibilan family archive at Gaeta might have
been much the same thing. The Docibilans seem to have claimed or
gained control over much of Gaetan life, making little distinction
between their public and private actions. Whether the documents
record public actions of the dukes of Gaeta or the private ones as
members of the clan may therefore be immaterial. Other
inhabitants of the duchy may have seen the ducal archive as a secure
place to deposit their own charters, and thereby turned it into a
public one. Were it not for the unique situation whereby a large
proportion of the lands of the duchy, which had been controlled by
one family, fell into the hands of the most powerful of the southern
Italian monasteries, which had a vested interest in keeping all the
documents relating to its possessions, we would not have such a
rich resource at our disposal. It is likely that, had Amalfi and Naples
suffered much the same fate, we should find just as high a
proportion of ducal documents in their collections as well. As it is,
the Gaetan material offers a unique opportunity to study the
workings of a medieval duchy from the point of view both of its
rulers and of those they ruled. It thus has a significance beyond its
immediately local context, providing comparative material from
Italy for future research on the fragmented European states of this
period.
The Codex Cajetanus is not the only evidence at our disposal. It is
fortunate that many of the documentary collections of the area
around Gaeta appeared in published form at the turn of the
century, since the bombardments and wreckage of World War II
destroyed much of the original material. Tragically, the archive at
Terracina, a vital source of papal-Gaetan relations, was completely
destroyed, leaving only documents published in 1706 by Conta-
tore, fragmented copies of two others in the Vatican, 33 and an
unpublished handful at Montecassino.34 This means that we must
rely heavily for information in this sphere on the letters of the
popes, in particular those of John VIII, which to say the least
33
Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Cod. Vat. Lat. 12634.
34
Montecassino, Archivio, Aula 11, Caps. uu,fasc. 1, nos.i—3; Aula m, Caps, vn, no. 13; five
other documents dated pre-i 100 were published by I. Giorgi, 'Documenti terracinensi',
BIS I, 16 (1896), 55-92, but they add little to our knowledge of papal— Gaetan relations.

18
 Sources
present a one-sided view of very specific events. One or two other
published papal documents also have a bearing on the present
study, and will be discussed in the main body of the text.
On a brighter note, the remarkable survival of much material at
Montecassino means that we have the Codex Diplomaticus Pontis-
curvi, an unpublished eighteenth-century copy of documents
relating to the castle of Pontecorvo. 35 This castle was held by the
duke of Gaeta, and its history is therefore relevant to a study of
loyalties on the border between Gaetan and Cassinese lands. It
yields information, too, on the relationship between the dukes and
abbots. Also unpublished, but cited by several authors, is the
notebook of C. Caietano,36 a seventeenth-century list of docu-
ments held in the cathedral archive at Gaeta. This provides us with
at least one piece of evidence not found elsewhere. Finally, the
published documentary material of other neighbours of Gaeta, for
example from Aquino and Capua,37 may provide further
comparative evidence and explain to some degree the attitudes and
actions of the rulers who in turn took control of Gaeta.

(d) DOCUMENTS AS SOURCES

We are fortunate that so many documents survive from the ninth

to the twelfth century to use as tools in recreating the patterns of life
in the Tyrrhenian coastal cities during this period. Before
examining their contents, however, it is necessary to address the
question of why they survive, or exist, at all. What function did
written charters perform in the three cities under scrutiny? And
how far do they truly reflect the lives of those cities?
As I have already said, most documents recorded the movement
of land between individuals of institutions, in the form of sales,
gifts, leases, wills, or exchanges. A small number recorded the
transfer of other, moveable, property. A significant proportion
recorded the proceedings or final outcome of court-cases, when
property was disputed between two parties. This gives the
impression that documents were an essential adjunct to transfers of
property, and formed a part of many people's lives in the three
duchies.
35
Montecassino, Biblioteca: Codex Diplomaticus Pontiscurvi ab anno 953 ad anno 1612.
36
Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Cod. Vat. Barb. hat. 3216.
37
Aquino: F. Scandone, 'II gastaldato di Aquino dalla meta del secolo IX alia fine del X ' ,
ASPN, 33 (1908), 720-35, and 34 (1909), 49-77; Capua: J. Mazzoleni, Le Pergamene di
Capua, 1 (Naples, 1957).

19
 Family power in southern Italy
There are, however, important variations in distribution
between one duchy and the next. For example, the number of lease
documents from Gaeta is extremely small,38 whereas in Naples and
Amalfi they are relatively well represented. Does this mean that the
leasing of land was virtually unknown at Gaeta? It is unlikely: the
existence of evidence for leasing in the other two duchies, as well as
further north, 39 suggests that it is the pattern of recording in
writing that is exceptional here. Alternatively if, as I suggested
above, Gaeta had a ducal or public archive, it may have preserved
certain documents, made when ownership of land was transferred,
rather than those which only recorded a change in tenure. 40
The preservation of ducal documents in Gaeta indicates that the
rulers thought written records were important, and it is, as I have
stated, only an accident of survival that we do not have similar
evidence from the other two cities. The rulers of Naples, in
particular, might have been expected to place great emphasis on
writing in their administration, since their city had been a key
centre of Byzantine rule before drifting into autonomy in the
eighth century. 41 Echoes of this can be detected in the numerous
signatures in Greek script on Neapolitan documents of the tenth
century,42 their dating by imperial rule and in the coinage of the
city.43 The persistence of Byzantine culture, what Toubert has
termed 'snobisme byzantinisant', 44 is explicable in terms of
Naples' continued amicable, if distant, relationship with its
erstwhile rulers. A persuasive case has also been put forward for an
essential continuity of structures in the Byzantine enclaves,
including Naples, which resisted the Lombard invasions of the
sixth century.45
Gaeta originally formed part of the duchy of Naples, but became

38
There are less than twenty surviving leases from a document total of over 300.
39
Toubert, Structures, 1, pp. 507—45 discusses leases from other parts of Lazio.
40
For more discussion on this point, see below, chapter 7, section (b).
41
O n the importance of writing in Byzantine administration, see M. Mullett, 'Writing in
early medieval Byzantium', in The Uses of Literacy in Early Medieval Europe, ed. R.
McKitterick (Cambridge, 1990), especially pp. 162—3.
42
Greek signatures of both clerics and laymen are ubiquitous in the tenth-century
documents of the city. In the eleventh century most examples are found on the
documents of the Greek monastery of SS Sergius and Bacchus. For a full list, see
Appendix 1; see also F. Luzzati Lagana, 'Le firme greche nei documenti del ducato di
Napoli', Studi Medievali, 3rd series 23.2 (1982), 729-52.
43 44
See below, chapter 3, section (h). Structures, 1, p. 655, note 1.
45
T. S. Brown, Gentlemen and Officers: Imperial Administration and Aristocratic Power in
Byzantine Italy, 554-800 (Rome, 1984).

20
 Sources
detached during the ninth century. It had not been a city during the
Byzantine period; it was still only a small fortification when it
became independent. However, its rulers imitated Naples in many
areas of government, 46 and they valued written documents
recording their actions. They also occasionally used inscriptions as
part of this record, claiming credit for building work in the city of
Gaeta.47
The latter use of writing by the rulers presupposes that there was
a substantial number of people in Gaeta able to read and to take in
the message that the inscriptions conveyed. Direct evidence of this
ability is difficult to find.48 The use of documents ostensibly
indicates that even if people could not read they still valued written
evidence of their actions. But was this use imposed from above or
did the Gaetans, and for that matter the Neapolitans and
Amalfitans, place as much importance on written records as their
rulers?
We do have a great deal of evidence of use of documents,
enabling us to recreate the histories of some of the noble families of
the area,49 but there is reason to believe that documents did not
become a trusted record in these duchies until the eleventh century.
I stated above that one of the main reasons a document was kept
was to prove ownership in case of dispute. Yet the court-cases of
the tenth century tell a rather different story.
For example, in 867 two men disputed with the bishop of Gaeta
over a piece of land. Their case was heard by Docibilis I, and they
won. A document was then drawn up recording their victory. 50 In
945 the case flared up again, this time between the bishop and the
two men's sons. Again the duke heard their cases, and again the
bishop lost.51 What is important about this second case, however,
is that the two sons swore oaths to the veracity of their claim. They
did not use the 867 document, which is undoubtedly genuine, to
prove their case. This suggests that either they did not have access
to it or that they did have access to it (either in their possession or in
a public archive) and chose not to use it. The latter seems more
likely; the majority of court cases in both Gaeta and Naples were
settled by oaths in the tenth century, sometimes in the face of
46 47
See below, chapters 2 and 3. See below, p. 62.
48
I gathered together the circumstantial evidence in my paper, 'Women, literacy and
invisibility in medieval southern Italy', read at the conference Women and the Book, St
49 50
Hilda's College, Oxford, August 1993. See below, chapter 4. CDC 13.
51
CDC 48.

21
 Family power in southern Italy
documentary evidence which was rejected.52 Thus the documents
which we have may have been drawn up to record the actions of
the Docibilans in hearing the case, rather than for the benefit of the
disputants. It was important to the rulers that records of court-cases
be kept, perhaps influenced by standard Byzantine practice, 53 but
those in dispute did not place such trust in the written word at this
time. This would change in the eleventh century, when there is far
more evidence of charters being used to prove title.
The pattern of use has implications for the picture presented in
this study, in that what we can now see happening represents only
those actions thought worth writing down. In Gaeta's case, this in
practice means that the prominence of the dukes may be a
reflection of their early use of writing (in relation to their subjects)
rather than their actual power. We are seeing their actions and
those of their subjects through a 'ducal filter'. In other duchies one
might detect an ecclesiastical slant, again reflecting the interests of
powerful institutions which also thought charters to be an essential
part of that power. Returning to an earlier theme, the documents
are created by those in power, whether as rulers or as wealthy
landowners, and for the most part exclude the powerless, the poor
and the landless.
This picture must be modified to explain the presence of
documents which do record the actions of those outside the
apparent power structure of the duchies. I suggested above that in
some cases these documents might include land now in the hands of
the dukes or churches. Another factor to bear in mind, particularly
as the tenth century gave way to the eleventh, is a perceptibly
increasing use of written records by the inhabitants of these
duchies, perhaps in imitation of their rulers or in response to some
coercion on the part of the powerful to keep a tangible record of
their actions. For, if rulers' endorsement of written evidence could
successfully gain them land at the expense of their subjects, the
latter would soon begin to employ the same weapon in defence of
their property. The court-cases of the eleventh century are a prime
example of such increased use, perhaps reflecting and being
reflected in the growing awareness of the outward forms of public
administration in the duchies.
52
See, for example, CDC 16 (890), CDC 39 (936) and CDC 56 (958). In another case, in
945, a charter used as evidence is torn up, CDC 47; a compromise is reached in a case of
957 which oaths have failed to settle, CDC 54.
53
See below, chapter 3, section (e), for further discussion of this point.

22
 Sources
On the face of it, there was no need to write down transactions if
oral agreements in the presence of witnesses were equally binding.
The increasing use of documents may, therefore, reveal a greater
complexity in transactions which could no longer rely on memory
for their record. Alternatively, a conscious effort may have been
made by those who needed to use documents to keep track of their
widespread estates, that is, by rulers and the church, to encourage
the acceptance of documents as valid proofs, and their adoption by
their subjects and neighbours. Thus the pattern of surviving
documents reveals how power was exerted, and that charters were
part of that exercise. Use of the written word did not in itself
convey power, but in the context of proving landownership it
became a potent ally in preserving power. The documents can be
used to explore this and reveal how networks of influence were
created. The voice of the powerless is rarely heard; with this in
mind, the remainder of this study examines the picture that the
documentary sources present.
 Parti

FROM THE BEGINNINGS TO THE

ELEVENTH CENTURY
 Chapter 2

THE ORIGINS OF DYNASTIC RULE

The histories of the three duchies examined in this study exhibit

certain parallels, chief among which is the fact that all three came to
be ruled by single, powerful clans for all or part of the period
between 850 and 1050. We know something of the background of
the ducal dynasties of Amalfi and Naples; these will be examined
later in this chapter. Very little, however, has previously been
written about the family who came to power at Gaeta in 867. This
is partly due to the fact that they have no known history before
their emergence in the Gaetan documentation. Who were they and
how did they come to power? Was their rise similar to that of the
ruling families of contemporary neighbours?
From the main source of documentary material for Gaeta in this
period, the Codex Cajetanus, it emerges that a man named Docibilis
appears to have taken control in 867. His family were to dominate
the castle and its territory for some 150 years. In the following
discussion, I shall examine the evidence from the Codex and other
sources to build up a more detailed picture of the beginnings of
Docibilan rule.
In 839 one Constantine son of Anatolius received from his sister
Elizabeth and her son-in-law Theodosius, prefect of Naples, two
landed estates at a rent in kind which had to be delivered to Naples.
The document recording the transaction was witnessed by
Constantine's son Marinus.1 Both father and son were recipients of
land from Elizabeth and Theodosius on similar terms in 866.2
Constantine and Marinus, who are described as hypatoi of the
castle, appear to have been the rulers of Gaeta at this time. The two
lease documents have led historians to conclude that up until 866
Gaeta was a satellite of Naples, her rulers related to, and controlled
by, the dukes of the latter city:3 the use of Greek in the signatures of
1 2
CDC 5. CDC 12.
3
P. Delogu, 'II ducato di Gaeta dal IX all'XI secolo: istituzioni e societa', in Storia del
Mezzogiorno, eds. G. Galasso and R. Romeo, n, i (forthcoming), p. 193.1 thank Professor
Delogu for showing me his chapter in advance of publication.

27
 From the beginnings to the eleventh century
the Gaetan rulers at this time is cited as an indication of their
Neapolitan origins.4
The suggestion of a Neapolitan relationship will be examined in
detail a little later in this chapter. By 867, however, a change had
occurred. In that year we see our first document in the Codex
Cajetanus written at Gaeta and dated by the rule of Docibilis the
prefect. Furthermore, Docibilis himself appears in the document,
holding court to settle a dispute between the bishop of Gaeta,
Ramfus, and two inhabitants of the castle, Mauro the cleric and
John. 5 He does not appear to have been a relative of either
Constantine or Marinus, or of the Neapolitan dukes. Even his
name is virtually unknown outside the Gaetan document collec-
tion. So who was Docibilis and how had he come to prominence?
This question has never been fully confronted in Gaetan
historiography, nor has any attempt been made to explain the
continuing domination of Docibilis' family in Gaetan affairs after
his death. Merores was of the opinion that Docibilis owed his rise to
the fact that he received large amounts of land from, and the
patronage of, the papacy.6 She based her argument on the
documentary evidence of the gifts, discussed below, and the
assertion of Leo of Ostia in the Chronicle of Montecassino that 'at
that time [880-1] the Gaetans served the pope'. 7 Guiraud also used
the papal link to explain the rise of the Docibilans to power. 8 Von
Falkenhausen, however, questioned this assumption, pointing out
that Docibilis and his son John may have received papal land
because they were powerful, rather than to help them to power. 9
Of what did the gifts consist, and how were they made? It seems
that in the late 870s pope John VIII handed over control of the papal
patrimonies of Traetto and Fondi to Docibilis in return for
breaking off a pact with the Saracens.10 This transaction was
certainly not carried out in any atmosphere of goodwill; John's
series of threatening letters to the rulers of all the Tyrrhenian states
about their relationships with the Arabs are perhaps the most
evocative and oft-quoted sources for the history of the area in the
late ninth century. 11 And, if a fragment dated 873 of a letter to
'Degivili excommunicato' does refer to Docibilis, papal-Gaetan
relations had clearly reached a low before the cession of the

4
V. von Falkenhausen, 'II ducato di Gaeta', in Storia d'ltalia, in, ed. G. Galasso (Turin,
5 6 7
1983), p. 348. CDC 13. Gaeta, p. 15. CMC 1, 43-
8 9 10 X1
'Reseau', p. 489. 'Ducato', p. 349. CDC 130. MGH, Epp. vn.

28
 The origins of dynastic rule
patrimonies was made. 12 Of particular interest in this fragment is
the way John addressed the Gaetan, who was 'redeemed with
difficulty from the Saracens by the mercy of the Amalfitans'.13
Before he became their ally, then, Docibilis seems to have been
captured by the Saracens. That the Amalfitans had freed him
illustrates their closeness to the infidel at this point, and Docibilis
may have learnt much about such co-operation from them. 14
The events of this period, particularly the cession itself, are
shrouded in obscurity, not least because the documents recording
the initial transaction between Docibilis and John VIII, and a later
confirmation of the cession, by John X to Docibilis' son John in
c.914, survive only in an eleventh-century charter recording a
court-case about the boundaries of the two patrimonies, Fondi and
Traetto. 15 The Chronicle of Montecassino records only that in 876
the Gaetans were among the Tyrrhenian states in league with the
Saracens blockading Rome, 16 and that later Gaetans aided the
Arabs against an expedition of Amalfitans and Neapolitans. 17 The
cession itself may have taken place at a meeting held between pope
John and the leaders of Gaeta, Amalfi, Naples, Capua and Salerno
at Traetto in 877, at which the Amalfitans accepted a promise of
papal cash for their renunciation of their links with the Arabs. 18 If
the pope's concessions, including the handing-over of the patrimo-
nies to Docibilis andjohn, were intended to detach the leaders from
their infidel allies, they clearly only had sporadic success. A letter
threatening excommunication against Docibilis, John and the
Gaetan bishop, the prefect and bishop of Amalfi and Athanasius,
bishop of Naples, survives from 879.19 It is unclear whether the
threat was carried out against the Gaetans.
The title that Docibilis took as controller of the patrimonies was
rector, succeeding earlier holders of that post.20 However, the
essential point to note is that he only appears for the first time with
this title in 890, over twenty years after he appears as ruler of
Gaeta.21 It could be argued that this is due to the extreme scarcity
of ninth-century evidence in the Codex Cajetanus, and that the
12
Ibid., p. 275.
13
'vix a Saracenis Amalfitanorum miseratione . . . redemptus'.
14
On Saracens at this time, N. Cilento, 'I Saraceni nell'Italia meridionale nei secoli IX e X',
15 16
ASPN, 77 (1959), 110-22. CDC 130. CMC 1, 40.
17 18
Ibid. 1, 50. Schwarz, Amalfi nel Medioevo, p. 61.
19
MGH, Epp. VII, p. 204.
20
Rectores: Gregory, CDC 3 (830); Grossus, CDC 7 (841); Mercurius, CDC 9 (851), and
21
CDC 11 (862). CDC 15.

29
 From the beginnings to the eleventh century
Gaetans did 'serve the pope', in the words of Leo of Ostia, before
that date. However, it must be remembered that Leo's statement
was written much later, and may have been affected by hindsight.
That is, Docibilis' receipt of papal land may have been seen as the
culmination of a period of obedience to the pope. Leo's own
evidence illustrates that this obedience was at best sporadic. Whilst
the cession of the patrimonies clearly enhanced Docibilis' position,
it seems that other reasons must be sought to explain his initial rise.
Although no evidence survives of Docibilis leasing land from the
Neapolitans as Constantine had done, the title hypatos indicates
persistent Neapolitan influence. Constantine had been hypatos of
Gaeta, and the most notable parallels to his position are in the tenth-
and eleventh-century references in the Neapolitan archive to the
rulers of Sorrento, with the titles prefect22 and hypatos.23 Earlier
rulers of Amalfi24 and, as we have seen, Docibilis himself, also used
the title prefect. Both Sorrento and Amalfi owed nominal
allegiance to Naples, the former more than the latter, and Gaeta
probably had a similar status under Constantine. Further investi-
gation of Gaetan and Neapolitan archives, however, suggests that
assuming the title of hypatos may not have automatically conferred
on Docibilis the right to rule Gaeta, subject to Naples or not. For
among the witnesses at Docibilis' first court in 867 was one Leo son
of Tiberius hypatos, and alongside the ipatos of Sorrento docu-
mented c. 1021 we can place six examples of men who, between 957
and 1038, bore the title, but were not subject rulers. 25 It would
seem that the title hypatos had a vaguer honorific function and was
borne by men to denote noble status. It is possible that Constantine
and his son Marinus were hypatoi before they came to Gaeta.
Certainly Constantine's brother John used the title in a witness list
of 855 without, apparently, achieving the status of ruler. 26
The difference between Docibilis and his predecessors and the
Sorrentans, however, is that, whilst the latter two groups generally
named their aristocratic fathers (the father of Constantine and John
was count Anatolius), we have no information regarding Docibi-
22
RN 220: Marinus son of Sergius prefect (979).
23
RN 402: Sergius ipatos son of Marinus (1021?).
24
CD A 584: Maurus prefect (860); CD A 1: Mastalus prefect (907). In 957 we have our first
documented duke of Amalfi, at which point the title prefect was dropped: CP 31.
25
Gaeta: CDC 13; Naples: RN 96 (957), heirs of John kataypatiae; RN 169 (968/9), John son
of Stephen kata domni ypatiae; RN 287 (994), John son of Peter ipati; etc. At Naples the
Ipati may even have been a family with that surname rather than a group of titled men.
26 27
See below, chapter 4, section (b). CDC 10. CDC 19.

30
 The origins of dynastic rule
lis' birth or ancestry. This fact, coupled with Docibilis' will of
90627 showing that he owned immense quantities of mobile
wealth, but little land, suggests a man of non-noble birth who had
perhaps enriched himself by trade and whose rise to power was,
therefore, based on his wealth and opportunism. This picture must
be modified by a later document of 924 showing that Docibilis had
owned land and left it, undivided, to his children. 28 This may have
been acquired while he was in power, however; the image of him
as a wealthy newcomer persists. Docibilis is noticeably absent from
the witness lists of pre-867 documents featuring members of noble
families with whom he and his clan later associated. If he was not a
nobleman, how did he gain acceptance as ruler of Gaeta? And if, as
seems likely from the suddenness of the takeover, he came to
power through some sort of coup d'etat (a scenario favoured by
Delogu 29), why did Naples not take any action against the man
who had deposed her own nominees?
The answer to these questions may lie in the will of Docibilis I
and the eighteen Gaetan documents surviving from before 906.
From these we can establish that Docibilis' father-in-law was a
certain Bonus 30 and that the hypatos Constantine's brother was also
called Bonus. 31 The latter certainly appears as a witness at
Docibilis' first recorded court in 867.32 Far from opposing the
Docibilan takeover, we see Constantine's (presumably) younger
brother in open assent with Docibilis' position, and it does not seem
too far-fetched to suppose that he and Docibilis' father-in-law
were one and the same.
If Bonus had a hand in the elevation of Docibilis to power, an
opportune moment would have had to be sought. It is possible that
Constantine died in 866, leaving his son Marinus vulnerable to
attack. It does not appear that Bonus himself had a son; if he had, he
would surely have tried to gain power for himself and his heir.
Docibilis, wealthy enough to buy support, but with no ties with
the existing nobility that could threaten Bonus' position, may have
seemed the ideal candidate to marry Bonus' daughter and be
promoted to power.
If we accept that what occurred at Gaeta in 866/7 was a shift in
power within the ruling family, whom I have called the Anatolii,
rather than its complete overthrow, we can explain why Naples
did not intervene. Outwardly, there was little change in Gaeta's
28 29 30 31
CDC 31. 'Ducato', p. 198. CDC 19. CDC 10.
32
CDC 13.

31
 From the beginnings to the eleventh century
position vis-a-vis her nominally sovereign state. Perhaps, though,
neither Naples nor Bonus was fully aware of what sort of man they
had allowed to take over Gaeta.
That Bonus had underestimated Docibilis' ambitions or power,
or both, is illustrated by the document of 867; Bonus did not appear
alongside his supposed protege as ruler of Gaeta. Instead, he was
relegated to a secondary role as witness to the proceedings. One can
only speculate that Docibilis was able to pay Bonus off, or force
him to step down, whilst maintaining an honourable position
beside his son-in-law.
Both of these options, and my entire hypothesis about Docibilis'
rise, require that he had immense amounts of mobile wealth. He
must have been noticeably wealthier than any of his contemporar-
ies to attract Bonus' attention or, if we attribute to Docibilis the
role of prime mover of the takeover, to persuade him to support
the deposition of Constantine or Marinus. From where did this
wealth originate?
The exotic mobile goods listed in Docibilis' will have suggested
to Delogu 33 that he invested in trading ventures during his period
in power. I would suggest that Docibilis' fortune was made before
he came to power, as well as during his rule. The emphasis in his
will on the moveables (each of his seven children is assigned a share
of gold, silver, silk cloths, bronze and spices) and the rather careless
clause stipulating that the children themselves should divide their
landed inheritance, suggests that the former were held to be a more
important part of the family's wealth. 34 We must also surmise that
Docibilis' fortune was made outside Gaeta. Had it been possible to
acquire such wealth within the city and its territory, we must ask
why neither Constantine or Marinus were able to defend
themselves against the takeover, and why the takeover bid did not
come from those noblemen visible at Gaeta prior to 867.
The idea of Docibilis making a fortune from commerce gains
added plausibility if we remember that Gaeta is recorded as having
a fleet from at least the early ninth century. In 810 its ships joined
those of Amalfi in an attack on the Saracens.35 The latter were
almost perennially present in the Tyrrhenian area throughout the
ninth century. If Docibilis is to be considered as a spectacularly
successful entrepreneur, he must have been able to come to some
33
'Ducato', p. 198.
34
O n the family's landed wealth, see below, chapter 3, section (a).
35
Merores, Gaeta, p. 8.

32
 The origins of dynastic rule
arrangement with the Saracen pirates and raiders. We do not know
under what terms such an agreement might have been made, but it
may relate to the period he spent as a hostage of the infidels; that
Docibilis was at least perceived to have a special relationship with
the Arabs, particularly the group operating in the vicinity of Gaeta,
is illustrated by the evidence of the Montecassino Chronicle. In
880/1, pope John VIII, presumably incensed at Docibilis' continued
association with the infidels, took away from him control of the
area around Traetto and gave it to Pandenolf of Capua. The latter
began to attack Gaeta's territory, and in retaliation against the pope
Docibilis unleashed a group of Arabs from Agropoli near Salerno
on the area around Fondi. The pope was 'filled with shame' and
restored Traetto to Docibilis. Their agreement seems to have
sparked off a Saracen attack on Gaeta itself, in which many Gaetans
were killed or captured.36 Eventually peace was restored and the
Saracens made a permanent settlement on the mouth of the
Garigliano river.37
This account from Leo of Ostia is revealing in that it shows how
unpredictable Docibilis' allies were. 38 It also seems to indicate that
they were his main source of military power, for when they turned
against Gaeta it was the Gaetans who came offworse. Nevertheless,
he seems to have been able to call upon their aid when he needed it;
possibly they were his trading partners as well as his military allies.
Little wonder that Docibilis was accepted as the new ruler of Gaeta
in 867.
Even with support of a member of the Anatolii clan, though,
Docibilis may not have been able to take his new power for
granted. From the register of pope John VIII we see Docibilis in
power at Gaeta in 877,39 and in the Montecassino Chronicle he is,
as we have just seen, visible in the years 880—1. After his initial
appearance in 867, however, we have only one document in the
Codex Cajetanus from the following twenty-three years before
Docibilis returns to view, as hypatos and papal rector, in 890.40
This apparent lack of documented activity from domestic
sources may be an accident of survival, or may reflect Docibilis'

36
Evidence of such capture occurs in a document of 890, CDC 15.
37
CMC 1, 43.
38
Leo's chronicle was written some t w o centuries after the events it relates. The earlier
Cassinese chronicle, the Chronica Sancti Benedicti, does not include this episode, although
it is clearly the source, sometimes verbatim, of other sections of Leo's work.
39 40
MGH, Epp. VII, p. 38. CDC 15.

33
 From the beginnings to the eleventh century
preoccupation with unruly Saracens and predatory Capuans in the
late ninth century. Alternatively, he may have faced early
opposition to his rise to power from the established noble families
at Gaeta, or from the papal rectors whom he replaced, to the extent
that his ability to establish a new regime and hold documented
courts, and their ability to make land transactions, were both
severely curtailed by the effort of a power struggle. The best
indication of the insecurity of the takeover is that, whilst Docibilis'
first document of 867 is dated 'in the time of lord Docibilis
magnificus the prefect', the next occurring text issued by one John
comes son of Ramfus in 887 reverts to the pre-Docibilan dating
custom of referring to the rule of the Byzantine emperors Leo and
Alexander.41 This in itself is not conclusive; Docibilis' own will is
dated by the emperor's rule, but this may be an acknowledgement
on his part that some outward forms of power at Gaeta could not
be quickly or easily changed. After a lengthy run of documents
which have no date clause — itself indicative of uncertainty over
who was in charge at Gaeta - imperial dating returned, followed
by a system combining the date of the emperor's rule with that of
the Docibilans at Gaeta. It was not until 936 that Docibilis I's
grandson, Docibilis II, dropped the imperial dating altogether.
Docibilis' need to fit in with the established order at Gaeta
extended further than marrying into the Anatolii clan and calling
himself hypatos. In 890 he and his son John I confirmed a sale made
by John son of count Anatolius, brother of the hypatos Constantine,
to count Christopher, the founder of the dynasty whom I have
termed the Christopherii.42 This document is illuminating for two
reasons. Not only does it illustrate Docibilis' desire to win the
support of Christopher's grandchildren, but it also shows that
Docibilis felt that it was his right to act as a member of the Anatolii
family, confirming a land sale, which it was if he had married
John's niece.
The frequent appearances of members of the Christopherii
family as witnesses in the documents authorised by Docibilis and
his family, as well as the transaction just cited, suggest that Docibilis
needed, and actively sought, the co-operation and approval of men
who had been associated with the rulers of Gaeta before his rise. His
marriage into the Anatolii clan and other such associations gave his
takeover a degree of respectability to compensate for the brutal fact
41 42
CDC 14. CDC 16; on the Christopherii, see below chapter 4, section (a) (i).

34
 The origins of dynastic rule
that he could afford to force the Gaetan lords into co-operation if
he wished. Docibilis' observation of such political niceties was
backed up by the threat of a Saracen attack against any who
opposed him. At the same time he convinced the pope to hand over
the patrimonies of Traetto and Fondi, on the understanding that he
had broken off his relationship with the infidel. Docibilis was a
talented and unscrupulous politician.
To become truly respectable in the eyes of others, Docibilis
needed landed property of his own. His marriage to Bonus'
daughter Matrona may have laid the foundations of that wealth
and, as we shall see, Docibilis and his family were not slow to
acquire land.43 In his early years as ruler, however, Docibilis issued
very few documents buying support by giving out land, indicating
that he had not yet fully realised the potential value of the public
lands he now controlled.
Docibilis' need for approval is particularly apparent in his
relationship with another family associated with the old regime,
the Kampuli. I have so named the clan after Kampulus the prefect
(fl.890—949), and discuss their history below. 44 However, it is
possible that the Kampuli clan should be regarded as continuing the
line of the Anatolii. A series of clues suggests that Kampulus was
the son of the hypatos Constantine's son Marinus. His father was
one Marinus comes, possibly the title Marinus the hypatos assumed
once deposed from power. If Kampulus was in fact the grandson of
the hypatos Constantine he was, as far as heredity applied, an heir
with a strong claim to the seat of power at Gaeta. Here we must be
careful not to assume a right of inheritance which may not have
existed. However, Constantine had associated his son Marinus,
Kampulus' father, in power with himself by 866 and there is no
reason to suppose that Marinus was not intended to take over as
ruler when his father died.45 Such attempts at establishing dynastic
rule were common in the Tyrrhenian states throughout the period
900-1100, and we find sons being associated in power with varying
degrees of success not only at Amalfi and Naples, but at Salerno and
Capua too.
Kampulus, then, could claim some right to rule at Gaeta. His
43 44
See below, chapter 3, section (a). See below, chapter 4, section (a), (ii).
45
Cassandro, 'Ducato', p. 85 is of the opinion that Marinus did rule for a short while, but
bases his view on coinage which cannot now be safely attributed to either him or the later
duke Marinus. For the latest analysis of the southern Italian coinage, see L. Travaini, La
Monetazione ne\V Italia Normanna (Rome, Istituto Storico per il Medioevo, forthcoming).

35
 From the beginnings to the eleventh century
Anatolius comes
Bonus Constantine John

I
Docibilis I = Matrona
hypatos
I
Marinus hypatos
I
John I
I
Matrona = Kampulus the prefect

Figure 2.1 Dynastic marriages of the early Docibilans

father Marinus disappears from view after 866. We cannot be sure

about the sequence of events due to lack of documentation, but,
had Marinus acquiesced to, or survived, the takeover, we would
surely have seen him in the witness list of Docibilis' first court
alongside his uncle Bonus in 867. How was Kampulus persuaded to
accept the new situation?
The first point to note is that he, like Docibilis in 867, used the
title prefect. As we shall see in a later discussion, this title came to be
associated at Gaeta with a very exclusive circle, consisting mostly
of family members, surrounding the ruler. Given that Docibilis
was apparently not from a noble background, he may perhaps have
found the title already in use at Gaeta, and appropriated it for
himself whilst allowing those who used it already to continue
doing so.
The family of Docibilis was able to associate its fortunes more
securely with the old ruling line when Kampulus accepted his
granddaughter Matrona, daughter of John I, in marriage. We do
not know when the wedding took place, but it had certainly
occurred by 937, when John's other daughter Theotista referred to
Kampulus as her relation46. It is significant that Matrona bore the
name of her paternal grandmother, Docibilis' wife, and the parallel
nature of these two unions between Anatolii and Docibilans cannot
have been lost on contemporary observers (see Figure 2.1).
How did Kampulus benefit by his association with the
Docibilans? The most important benefit was that he was one of the
very few men seen to have received landed property from them,
and the property itself was of a very special nature. The two

46
CDC 40.

36
 The origins of dynastic rule
documents we have showing Kampulus as a property-owner
feature him exchanging portions of mills with Docibilans, in 937
with his sister-in-law Theotista 47 and twelve years later with his
brother-in-law Docibilis II. 48 Such property attracted high prices
in the duchy, and rarely appears in documents other than those of
the rulers.49 In the latter transaction he states specifically that he
received the shares from his father-in-law John I as a gift. Although
not now visible in the documentation, it is likely that Kampulus
received land as well as the mill shares which were, quite literally,
status symbols.
The consequence of accepting the new regime at Gaeta, as
Kampulus did by 890 when he witnessed a document authorised by
Docibilis I and John, 50 was that he suffered no loss of his
honourable position among Gaeta's elite. Although such calcula-
tions are always hazardous, the time between Docibilis I's and
Kampulus' appearance suggests that in 867 Kampulus may have
been too young to challenge the overthrow of his father and
grandfather. In this situation his great uncle Bonus' candidate for
power may have won acceptance over a child in the eyes of
supporters of the Anatolii. This point gains added validity when
we remember that this was the period of the greatest Saracen threat
to the Tyrrhenian area, and that Docibilis earned the wrath of pope
John VIII precisely because he had the resources either to bribe or to
make an alliance with the invaders, and thereby protect Gaeta from
the worst ravages of the later ninth century. It is worth noting that
under Constantine in the middle of the same century the raiders
had rampaged through the territory and sacked Formia, 51 the seat
of the bishopric and the old centre of power across the bay from
Gaeta. The Neapolitans were willing to lease the former hypatos
land, but not, it seems, grant him armed protection. In accepting
the new situation, Kampulus maintained for himself a position of
prestige and wealth and, as we shall see, his family became some of
the staunchest supporters of Docibilan rule.
What little documentary evidence we have indicates that,
whatever the pope's attitude, local churchmen accepted, and may
even have approved of, the takeover by a man who, ostensibly,

47 48
Ibid. CDC 50.
49
This close control over milling, and some reasons for it, are discussed below, p. 72.
50
CDC 15.
51
For the Arabs' 846 campaign d o w n the Via Appia, CSB 6. Formia is described as still
destructe as late as 1058 (CDC 206).

37
 From the beginnings to the eleventh century
could control the worst excesses of the Arab raiders. It would seem
that as early as 831 the bishop of Formia had to take refuge in the
castle at Gaeta. In that year bishop John had his will written there, 52
and after the sack of 846 the bishop used the formula 'bishop of the
church of Formia and castle of Gaeta' as in an example of 855.53
Did this reflect a desire on his part to maintain ties with the old seat
and perhaps eventually to return there? If so, Docibilis must have
seemed the ideal choice of protector, and in his very first
documented appearance in 867 his court heard the plea of bishop
Ramfus, a clear indication that the latter immediately submitted to
the authority of the new ruler. The seat of the bishopric remained
at Gaeta, where close ties were forged between the bishop and the
Docibilans, as we shall see.
To conclude this discussion of the beginnings of Docibilan
power, it is necessary to return to the question of the papal
patrimonies of Fondi and Traetto, given to Docibilis I by pope
John VIII, a transaction confirmed by John X to Docibilis' son John
I in recognition of the latter's participation in the successful
expedition to remove the Saracen settlement from the mouth of
the Garigliano river in 915. 54
Ostensibly, the original donation was intended to detach
Docibilis from his Saracen alliance, but the alliance does not wholly
explain the pope's action. The papacy had owned land in the Gaeta
area for a long time. The Liber Pontificalis records the massa
Garigliana as papal property as early as the fourth century, 55 and
Fondi came into papal hands in the fifth.56 Pope Zacharias (741—52)
is recorded in an eleventh-century source as having acquired the
massa called Formia.57 Another source, the twelfth-century Liber
Censuum, shows Zacharias leasing out the fundus Teianellum and
thefundus Quadrantala, afieldin Scauri and empty land outside the
walls of the castrum Caietani, all property of the patrimony of Gaeta
iuris Romane ecclesiae58 (see Map 2.1). The overthrow in 866 of the
hypatos Constantine may have represented a break with Neapolitan
rule in papal eyes. For all that Docibilis' actions present a picture of
52 53
CDC 4. CDC 10.
54
Further discussion in this study will focus on the lands rather than the 915 campaign itself,
which has been the subject of several studies: Merores, Gaeta pp. 2ofF; Cilento, 'Saraceni';
P. Fedele, 'La battaglia del Garigliano dell'anno 915 ed i m o n u m e n t i che la ricordano',
ASRSP, 22 (1899), 181-211; O . Vehse, 'Das Bundnis gegen die Sarazenen v o m Jahre
55 56
915', QFIAB, 19 (1927), 181-204. LP, 1, p. 173. Ibid., p. 221.
57
Deusdedit, Collectio Canonum, ed. P. Martinucci, (Venice, 1869), p . 314.
58
LC, 1, p. 353-

38
I Land over 1OOOm
I Land over 300m
_5km
3 miles

Map 2.i The papal patrimony in Gaeta

 From the beginnings to the eleventh century
a man trying to fit in with the established order at Gaeta, and
marrying into a branch of the old ruling family, his position did not
depend on Neapolitan patronage. Nor did Docibilis have any
reason to respect the integrity of the papal properties around Gaeta;
he needed land, and he had the Arab military force, albeit a volatile
one, to acquire it. To the pope, then, it must have seemed the lesser
of two evils to give Docibilis and his son John control of the
patrimonies within a framework of papal authority rather than lose
them altogether. It seems that Vera von Falkenhausen's argument
that Docibilan power might have led to papal grants, rather than
the reverse, is correct. Paradoxically, it was probably in the
uncertain early years of Docibilan power that the papal grant
secured Docibilis' position vis-a-vis the Gaetan nobility. He had a
title, he had powerful relatives by marriage, and now he had papal
backing and land.
The issue of why Docibilis chose to make his base in the
promontory fortress of Gaeta remains to be discussed. If we
examine the documentary evidence in detail, we can see that in the
ninth century Traetto was far more important politically, and that
historically there was a division between the two settlements that
has not previously been noted. Four documents in particular are
worthy of attention. The first, dated ?83O, details the settlement of
a dispute between the rector of the papal patrimony of Gaeta and
John, the bishop of Gaeta.59 The second shows the consul and
rector leasing out some land in 841. 60 The other two show
Mercurius, consul and duke of the Traettan patrimony also making
land leases in 851 and 862.61 The patrimonies of Traetto and Gaeta
may have been territorially one and the same - both the 841 and
851 leases record land being let out in the district of Paniano, just
outside Gaeta. But the striking feature of all four is that the centre
of the rector's activity seems consistently to have been Traetto. The
first document was written at the short-lived fortress of Leopolis
nearby, the second bore the signatures of men who, since they then
witnessed the 851 and 862 documents, might have come from the
Traetto area.62 The other two identify the patrimony as Traettan'.
59
CDC 3; the text shows John as the bishop of Gaeta, but contemporary documents show
that the episcopal see at this date was still centred at Formia. The document itself is a
tenth-century copy, and the copyist may have amended 'Formia' to 'Gaeta' to reflect the
60 61
state of affairs in his own day. CDC 7. CDC 9, CDC 11.
62
CDC 7; the rector of the Gaetan patrimony's witnesses include counts Palumbus and
Theophilact, both of whom appear in the documents issued by Marinus, rector of
Traetto.

40
 The origins of dynastic rule

It would seem, then, that it was Traetto which was the original
centre of what would become Gaetan territory, being the papacy's
chosen centre.63 Docibilis, however, owed his rise indirectly to
Neapolitan backing, and made his base in the more easily defended
Neapolitan fortress on the promontory. Subsequently, when he
became rector of the papal patrimony, he brought it under the
control of Gaeta rather than moving to Traetto. The memory of
Traetto's formerly pre-eminent position would nevertheless cause
problems to the Docibilan dynasty later on.
As we have already seen, one of the key factors in the successful
establishment of Docibilan power at Gaeta was the fact that Naples
did not intervene to prevent the overthrow of its nominees,
Constantine and Marinus. This was probably due to Docibilis' care
in maintaining an outwardly similar regime to that of his
predecessors; no unilateral declaration of Gaetan independence was
made and, as far as we can see, the documents of Docibilis'
administration utilised the old form of dating by the reign of the
Byzantine emperors, just as Neapolitan ones did. (This after a
solitary attempt at dating 'in the time of lord Docibilis' in 867.64)
The Gaetan nobility remained largely static, and Docibilis I seems
to have made little attempt to raise his own men. This situation
would change somewhat under his successors, as we shall see in
chapter 4.
However, if the papal donations to Docibilis and his son John
were made to counter the Neapolitan influence on the new rulers
of Gaeta, they did not achieve their purpose, for the documentary
evidence available to us suggests that intermittent contact conti-
nued with the Neapolitans (see Figure 2.2). John I's sister Eufimia
seems to have married into the Neapolitan ducal family: her
husband Stephen was a younger son of duke Gregory. John's son,
Docibilis II certainly took a Neapolitan wife, Orania, daughter of
duke Marinus I. She is mentioned as having given (or possibly
bequeathed) to Docibilis land in Cimiterio and Liburia in the
duchy of Naples in Docibilis' will of 954. 65 Coincidentally,
Docibilis II was the first of his family to use the title dux alongside
that of hypatos, which soon disappeared. He is first seen with the
title in 93 3 ; 66 could this have coincided with his marriage to
63
The choice of Traetto as the venue for the 'summit' meeting of 877 is indicative of its
64 65
continued importance to the papacy. CDC 13. CDC 52.
66
CDC 35.

41
 From the beginnings to the eleventh century
DOCIBILIS I = Matrona (?of Neapolitan ducal house)
I
John I EUFIMIA Leo the
I = Stephen prefect
DOCIBILIS II W- d u k e GreQory) |
: Orania
(d. duke Marinus) ALIGERNUS John Docibilis
co-owns with her (at Naples)
brother duke John III
I
GREGORY
(at Naples)

Figure 2.2 Docibilans with Neapolitan links

Orania? Docibilis may have used the opportunity of his marriage

combined with the fact that he was the son of an imperial patrician
to stake his claim to parity of status with his new father-in-law. The
family of Docibilis I were now securely in control at Gaeta, and this
may also have influenced Docibilis II to use the ducal title. The
marriage links were accompanied by at least some exchange of
property: Docibilis co-owned property with John III of Naples,
Orania's brother, in the city of Naples itself, and one count
Marinus of Naples is recorded as owning land at Mola in 954.67
Docibilis was not the only Gaetan property-owner in Naples. In
955, in a transaction recorded in both cities, Aligernus the Gaetan
son of Leo the prefect leased an estate near the Garigliano to
Angelus and Leo sons of Bonus for ten years.68 It appears that
Aligernus was resident in Naples, and the occurrence of the title
prefect suggests he may have been a member of a cadet branch of
the Docibilan house —John (fl.944—946) and Docibilis (fl.937—963)
sons of Leo the prefect may have been his brothers — and may have
been representing Gaetan interests at Naples. If this was the case and
he was living there, he could also be the Aligernus son of Leo the
monk who appears as a witness in seven Neapolitan documents
between 952 and 964, many with links to the church of SS Sergius
and Bacchus there. 69 Parallel name evidence suggests also that
Gregory son of 'Decibilis' who appears as a witness to two
Neapolitan transactions in 933 and 93570 may have been the future
duke of Gaeta and son of Docibilis II. His father's name occurs only
on one other occasion in the entire Neapolitan document

67 68
CDC 52. CDC 53.
69 70
RN 77, RN 80, RN 91, RN 124, RN 129, RN 130, RN 138. RN 23, RN 285.

42
 The origins of dynastic rule
collection to 1050, suggesting that he was not Neapolitan. If
Docibilis' family was linked more closely to Naples than has
hitherto been thought, it would allow for younger members of
that family, such as Gregory and Aligernus, to have spent a certain
amount of time in the latter city.
The existence of parallel names in the Gaetan and Neapolitan
document collections of the tenth century raises another question
of relationships. I proposed above that Kampulus the prefect, who
married Docibilis II's sister Matrona, was the son of the former
ruler of Gaeta, Marinus. If Marinus and his father Constantine were
of Neapolitan origin, it would be reasonable to suppose that (a)
their family was of a relatively high status and (b) members of the
same family might be visible in the documentation from that city.
Although based on the most circumstantial evidence, it seems that
this was in fact the case.
Particularly worthy of note are an early tenth century family
headed by one John miles (see Figure 2.3). It seems that his children
achieved a high degree of prominence as landowners. One son,
Theofilact, may have been the count of Cuma; another, Sergius,
used the honorific title magnijicus; and a third, Anastasius, was a
priest. It is the fourth son, Kampulus miles, who attracts our
attention here, however. He appeared three times as a witness
between 927 and 931, 71 and on a fourth occasion for his nephews
and niece, the children of his brother Sergius, in 942. 72 He is also
recorded as a landowner in the border area of Liburia between
Naples and Capua, and defended his property successfully against
his nephew John son of Theofilact in 937 and Peter, the abbot of SS
Ianuarius and Agrippinus, in 942. 73 As we learn from a later
document, the land was co-owned with a Lombard, Gari exercitalis
son of Teudi, and Kampulus gave his portion to his son-in-law
Stephen son of Leo. 74 The terms under which Liburian land was
co-owned by Lombards and Neapolitans, the so-called pars
Langobardorum and pars militie,75 is the subject of controversy, and
it is not my intention to reopen the debate here. 76 If we look a little
more closely at the family, we can see on what their power was
based.

71 72 73
RN 14, RN 16, RN 18. RN 42. RN 36, RN 48.
74
RN 102 (958).
75
Translated: 'Lombard part', and 'military/soldiers' part'.
76
Cassandro, 'Ducato', p. I29n\; see also 'La Liburia e i suoi tertiatores', ASPN, n.s. 65
(1940).

43
THEODONANDA = JOHN = MARIA
I miles I
SERGIUS PETER ALIGERNUS STEPHEN THEOFILACT ANASTASIUS MARIA KAMPULUS
magnificus (937) (932-37) (937-948) (937) (932-36) (932) (927-42)
(935-6) = Maria count of priest miles
Cuma
I
MARU STEPHEN JOHN THEODONANDA JOHN PETER
STEPHEN = PITRU
(+939) (939) (939^1) (939) curial
magnificus (951-7) (951-77)
(937-52) (962)

Maria and Anastasius the priest children of John miles RN19. Theodonanda and Sergius wife and son of John miles RN27.
Sergius magnificus I John and Anastasius f. John and Maria, co-owners and landlords of land at St Ciprianum in 936, are probably
stepbrothers, indicated by the stressing of Anastasius' mother's name RN 32.
The children of Sergius have an uncle named Theofilact RN42.
Theofilact, Aligernus and Peter sons of John miles RN35.
Dispute between John magnificus son of Theofilact count of Cuma and Kampulus miles son of John miles, Stephen son of John and Maria
d. John may be a family dispute, RN36. John owns house next door to Kampulus in vico Virginum, RN45, and Kampulus' daughter Pitru buys
another there, RN99.

Figure 2.3 The family of John miles

 The origins of dynastic rule
The first point to note is that the family's history in the
Neapolitan documents only seems to reach the late tenth century,
with a concentration of family members and landowning towards
the first half. This may be deceptive; in a group of people whose
only identifying factor was that they were descendants of John
miles, later generations may simply have dropped this titular
identification and therefore 'blend' into the names recorded in our
documentary sources. Members of the ducal family are remarka-
bly anonymous in this way.
However, it is clear that this family wielded great power and
influence economically. They owned land in the border area of
Liburia, had a proprietary church of St Peter ad Paternum (S. Pietro
a Paterno) 77 and also owned houses in the vicus Virginum in the
city of Naples.78 In 937 a group of family members allowed a
certain Stephen to build a house on his garden next to theirs,
suggesting that they had the power to prevent him if they so
wished (not, in this case, that they owned the site; the document is
clear that Stephen was building on his garden). 79 It is also quite
striking that few other noble families can be identified alongside
this one in the Neapolitan documentation, apart from the patchy
evidence for the dukes of Naples themselves. We shall return to this
point when considering the nobility.
Was the Neapolitan family ofJohn miles another branch of that
to which the hypatoi Constantine and Marinus and Kampulus the
prefect of Gaeta belonged? Given their wealth, the fact that they
had experience of dealing with non-Neapolitans through their
Liburian property, and their obvious social standing from the point
of view of titles, they seem likely candidates to provide a satellite
ruler for Gaeta; the parallel occurrence of an unusual name,
Kampulus, in the two lines certainly raises the possibility. Our
most valuable clue though, is the fact that this family numbered a
count of Cuma among its members; this links it inextricably with
duke Sergius and his dynasty, of whom more presently, perhaps in
a cadet branch. The possibility arises that the early Gaetan rulers
were related to the Neapolitan ducal family in the same way.
What was the effect of this longstanding relationship? Although
our evidence is again scarce, it appears that the friendly exchanges
between Gaetan and Neapolitan rulers, particularly during the

RN 113. On proprietary churches, see below, chapter 4, section (d).

79
RN 99, RN 132, RN 141, RN 181. RN 35.

45
 From the beginnings to the eleventh century
period of Docibilan ascendancy at Gaeta, led to a freedom of
movement between their two states by their subjects. It is true that
only one other Neapolitan, Theodore, appears in the Gaetan
evidence in this early period, in 903, 80 but the main traffic is always
likely to have been the other way. Several Gaetans were welcomed
in the larger city in the eleventh century, and will be discussed
later.81
Another consequence seems to have been the adoption by the
Docibilans of Byzantine and Neapolitan honorific titles, adapted to
suit the Gaetan political situation. The case of the titles of hypatos
and prefect is illustrative of this, and, as we shall see, the latter title
came to have a special role within the Gaetan ducal house. 82
Finally, if the Kampuli family at Gaeta were related to a powerful
branch of the Neapolitan ducal dynasty it would help to explain
their continued pre-eminence in Gaetan affairs long after other pre-
Docibilan dynasties had failed. As we shall see, there is some
fragmentary evidence that the Kampuli may have influenced the
course of Gaetan politics even after the fall of the Docibilans, and
we cannot rule out the possibility that they were acting with the
support of their relatives in Naples. If we accept this hypothesis,
then the image of Gaeta as a small but autonomous state in the tenth
and early eleventh centuries must undergo serious revision.
Naples should perhaps, therefore, be seen as the source of many
of the structures visible in Gaeta in our period. As early as the sixth
century we see a duke in control there, though one who was still
part of the wider Byzantine sphere in southern Italy at this time.
The real founder of the duchy, however, in that he was able to
establish himself and his successors on the ducal throne, was Sergius
I (840-65), already count of the castle of Cuma and member of a
well-established noble family. He came to power after a period of
instability and ducal coups, being chosen by the Neapolitans to be
their leader. Since there was by this time little of the Byzantine
hierarchy left in which to operate, dukes were finding it difficult to
legitimise their power. As at Gaeta, there were no formal means to
set oneself apart from one's contemporaries, all of whom were
equally fitted to rule. Docibilis had risen because he was able to use
a mixture of diplomacy and outright threat - his relationship with
the Arabs was a decisive factor. But the way Docibilis held onto
power was to associate his son John in power with himself, thereby

80 81 82
CDC 18. See below, chapter 7. See below, chapter 4, section (b).

46
 The origins of dynastic rule
ensuring that the latter grew up expecting, and being expected, to
take over. Sergius, too, used this method, associating his son
Gregory alongside him, and went a step further by installing
members of his family in other prominent posts (see Figure 2.4).
His son Athanasius became bishop of Naples in 849, his other son
Stephen bishop of Sorrento. 83 We shall return to this issue of the
ducal relationship with the church, but it is important to highlight
that in Naples the closeness was such that at least two early dukes
took on the episcopal role as well.
Like the Docibilans, Sergius' descendants were able to establish
themselves as rulers over many generations, but we have very little
documentation from which to piece together their activities. Of
course, they did not need to overcome the feeling of illegitimacy
that had surrounded the beginnings of Docibilan rule. I stated
above that Naples may not have intervened in the changeover of
power at Gaeta in 865/6 because little change was perceived.
However, it may also be significant that Naples herself had a new
duke, Sergius' son Gregory, at precisely this time. Since he was
attempting to consolidate the notion that as successor to his father
he had the right to rule, Gregory may not have had too much time
to worry about Naples' former satellite.84 Also, there is some
evidence that the threat from the Saracens was growing at this
time: in 868 the author of a document written in the city acted on
behalf of his brother who had been captured by the infidel.85
Internal tension in the family in the ninth century partly caused
by this threat is revealed by the coup of bishop Athanasius II, who
blinded his brother Sergius II and took control of both the duchy
and the episcopate in 878. He ruled for twenty years, but acted just
as any other secular Tyrrhenian ruler at this time. It is possible that
Athanasius was acting under papal instruction, or at least with
John's tacit approval, when he blinded Sergius and sent him to
Rome. 86 Sergius had already blinded their uncle, bishop Athana-
sius I, who had protested at his pro-Saracen actions.87 The rule of a
bishop at Naples, however, did nothing to lessen the duchy's
involvement with the Saracens who were perennially present in
the Tyrrhenian area. In 879 pope John, frustrated that Athanasius

83
Cassandro, 'Ducato', p. 69.
84
H e may have been more concerned about Amalfi than Gaeta: see below, p. 50.
85 86
Capasso, Monumenta, 1, p. 266, document 4. Cassandro, 'Ducato', p. 96.
87
Kreutz, Before the Normans, p. 84.

47
 From the beginnings to the eleventh century
Marinus = Euprassia

SERGIUS I
(840-865)

Cesarius Stephen Athanasius GREGORY III

bishop Sorrento bishop Naples (865-870)

Athanasius SERGIUS II
bishop, duke (878-898) (870-878)
I I
Gemma GREGORY IV
= Landolf of (898-7915)
Capua/Benevento
Docibilis I of Gaeta

Eufimia Stephen JOHN II

(915-919)

Gregory MARINUS I
(919-928)

Docibilis II = Orania Stephen JOHN III = Theodora

of Gaeta (928-969)

MARINUS II
(969-997?)
?l
SERGIUS III
(7992-7)
?l
JOHN IV
(997-7)

Sikelgaita= 1) Leo duke SERGIUS IV

of Fondi (7-1027, 1029-7)
2) Rainulf I
Drengot
JOHNV
(7-1053)

John SERGIUS V
senator (?-?)
I Richard of Capua
Landolf duke = Inmilgla SERGIUS VI = Limpiasa
of Gaeta I (7-1107)
Marinus
Geoffrey Ridell,
duke of Gaeta

Eve/Anna JOHN VI
(7-1123)
SERGIUS VII
(1123-1127)

Figure 2.4 The Neapolitan ducal family

48
 The origins of dynastic rule
was unwilling to detach himself from the entanglement, excom-
municated him. 88
Although we can build up a fairly complete list of the dukes of
Naples throughout the reigns of Sergius' descendants, there is very
little evidence up to 1050 of land transactions within the family,
such as those which occurred frequently at Gaeta. This perhaps
points to a level of family unity among the various members which
did not need constant reinforcement by means of small land
exchanges, or may reflect a family who did not produce quite so
many members per generation as the highly fertile Docibilans did.
Whatever the case (and the ninth-century coup suggests that all
was not harmonious within the family), all of the early Neapolitan
ducal documents point to a concern to establish external contacts
and support. The majority which survive chronicle the dukes'
relationship with the church. 89
The dukes of Naples seem to have been particularly keen to
establish marital relationships with other dynasties in the area
(although, conversely, other dynasties may have seen the Neapoli-
tan ducal family as the most important in the area with whom to
establish marital links). The marriages between Neapolitans and
members of the Docibilan family at Gaeta have already been noted;
the always uncertain relationship between the Neapolitans and
their Lombard neighbours at Capua was occasionally strengthened
with dynastic marriages. For example, bishop-duke Athanasius'
daughter Gemma was married to Landolf, son of Atenolf of
Capua-Benevento in 897.90 In the middle of the tenth century, the
senatrix of Rome, Theodora, cousin of Alberic II, became the wife
of duke John III.91 The issue of relations with Rome is an important
one for all the Tyrrhenian duchies, and will be discussed separately,
but the marriage is just one indication that the duchies were by no
means insular in their outlook.
This statement is especially true of the third duchy under
examination, Amalfi. The city is held to have detached itself from
Neapolitan overlordship in 838, when it was briefly taken over by
the Lombard prince of Benevento, Sicard. When Sicard was
assassinated the following year, the Amalfitans drifted into self-

88
MGH, Epp. VII, p. 246; the Campanian bishops were informed of Athanasius'
excommunication.
89
See below, chapter 3, section (c), for a discussion of church patronage.
90
Cassandro, 'Ducato', p. 120.
91
She is documented in a land transaction of the duke in 951, RN 75.

49
 From the beginnings to the eleventh century
government. 92 This would not be surprising, given that the
Neapolitans were at that time in the middle of a struggle to decide
who their duke should be. The events of 839 are probably not as
cataclysmic as they have been portrayed, nor was there a specific
'moment' when Amalfi became detached. The eastern border of
Amalfi's territory was never really firmly defined, and exchange
across it with the Salernitans, as we shall see from later evidence,
was a permanent feature of life here. After a period of rule by a
shadowy figure named Peter, one Marinus became prefect of the
city, and handed on power to his son Sergius.93 A prefect named
Mauro is documented in 860,94 but when he was assassinated in
866, Sergius son of duke Gregory III of Naples became prefect of
Amalfi. His rule lasted just thirteen days, 95 perhaps reflecting his
father's inability to devote resources to maintaining him in power
here when Gregory himself was newly in power at home. The fact
that Naples intervened at all, however, suggests how concerned
its dukes were at Amalfi's apparent drift into the Lombard sphere
of influence in the ninth century.
After a brief period of uncertainty in 866, in which several
families were involved in the fight for power, the prefect Marinus
returned to rule, and associated his son Pulcharus. Marinus is best
known for his intervention in 870 in the political life of Naples,
when he provided the ships to rescue bishop Athanasius I from the
prison into which duke Sergius II had thrown him. He also seems
to have been on good terms with his Lombard neighbour, prince
Guaiferius I of Salerno, to whose daughter he married his son
Pulcharus.96 The latter features more prominently in the sources as
the third in the trio of Tyrrhenian rulers who defied pope John VIII
in 879. Like Gaeta and Naples, Amalfi was not inclined to war with
the Saracen invaders of the Tyrrhenian in the 870s, and although it,
like the other cities, signed the pact of Traetto arranged by the pope
in 877, its observance of the treaty was at best half-hearted. When
Naples and Amalfi did join in a concerted attack on the Arabs of the
Garigliano in 903, they were beaten off by the invaders and the
Gaetans. There is no mention of Amalfitan participation in the 915
campaign, and Kreutz links this with the fact that Amalfi's
development as a trading power was partly influenced by the rise of
the Fatimids in North Africa in 909. 97 The Amalfitans would,
92 93
Kreutz, Before the Normans, p. 23. Schwarz, Amalfi nel Medioevo, p. 48.
94 95
CD A 584. Schwarz, Amalfi nel Medioevo, p. 53.
96 97
Taviani-Carozzi, Principaute, p. 807. Before the Normans, p. 83.

50
 The origins of dynastic rule
MANSO I (898-914)
I
MASTALUS I (900-957)
I
LEO (920-?) JOHN I (939-957) = Androsa
I
MASTALUS II
(947-958)

Figure 2.5 The family of Manso the prefect ofAmalfi

therefore, be reluctant to upset relations with their Muslim

partners.
Pulcharus was succeeded by a relative named Stephen, but the
family of Marinus fell from power in 898. From the end of the
ninth century for about sixty years control was exerted by the
dynasty of prefect Manso (Figure 2.5). The family of Marinus had
tried to make the position of leader at Amalfi hereditary; Manso's
clan succeeded in doing so. They, just like Docibilis I at Gaeta, did
not automatically assume a ducal title on coming to power. Up
until 957, the rulers of Amalfi styled themselves prefects, and
Manso associated his son Mastalus in 900. 98 Mastalus succeeded in
his own right in 914 when his father retired to the monastery of St
Benedict in Scala." Mastalus associated two sons in turn with
himself in power. In 920 he and his son Leo appear in a dating clause
as gloriosi iudicibus, ('glorious judges'), 100 and two years later as
imperial patrician and protospatharius respectively.101 After a
period of sole rule, 102 Mastalus associated his second son John as
co-ruler, and the pair are documented until at least 947. 103 When
John retired from power, his son Mastalus II became his
grandfather's associate;104 they appear together in a dating clause
of 952. 105 Mastalus II was probably still a minor when he
succeeded - the Chronicon Amalfitanum says he ruled with his
mother Androsa.106 One significant change occurred at this time:
Mastalus II was the first of his family to be called 'glorious
98
They are recorded as co-rulers in a document of 907, CD A 1.
99
Schwarz, Amalfi nel Medioevo, p. 69. Manso is recorded in 922 as having donated a mill to
the monastery; this may have coincided with his entry to the community, CD A 2.
100 101
CD A 585; on this role, see below, chapter 3, section (e). CD A 2.
102
Dating clause of 931 has just Mastalus in power, CD A 3.
103
John first appears in 939, CD A 4 and a series of documents thereafter; his last appearance
104
is in 947, CD A 6. Schwarz, Amalfi nel Medioevo, p. 72.
105 106
CDA 587. Schwarz, Amalfi nel Medioevo, p. 72.

51
 From the beginnings to the eleventh century
107
duke'. The conscious changeover to the ducal title may have
been prompted by the weak position of the last member of the
early ruling dynasty. If so, it did not succeed in protecting him. The
shifting political life of Amalfi, with several families competing for
power, ensured the swift downfall of the young duke and his
mother. He was assassinated in 958, making way for the accession
of the third, and most successful, ruling dynasty of Amalfi (Figure
2.6).
The name of the head of this family, Sergius, hints at Neapolitan
involvement in the takeover, even if we have no direct proof of the
Neapolitans becoming entangled in the local politics of Amalfi at
this time. The Chronicon Amaljitanum identifies the new ruler as a
member of an Amalfitan comital family, but this does not
necessarily rule out Neapolitan influence. The documented
activity of a family descended from one John, 'comes Neapolita-
nus', in Amalfi during this period attests to close links. 108
Cassandro suggests that the ducal families of Amalfi and Naples
had marital ties during this period as well, 109 but does not specify
any examples. Although such ties are likely, I have been unable to
find any conclusive proof of their existence.
Sergius and his descendants retained the ducal title, thereby
establishing themselves on an equal footing with their Neapolitan
and Gaetan neighbours. That the rulers of both the smaller states
became dukes within twenty-five years of each other in the middle
of the tenth century has not attracted much attention from
historians,110 but must have completed the process of detachment
that each had undergone since the ninth century.
Sergius ruled with his son Manso II from the start of his reign,
and the latter succeeded him as sole ruler in 966. 111 Manso's rule
was perhaps the most eventful of the dynasty's so far, and can be
characterised by its intervention in the affairs of Salerno. When
prince Guaimarius II died, Amalfi opposed Naples and Capua-
Benevento in its support of Gisolf as his successor.112 But in 973,
when it seemed that Gisolf was going to die without an heir,

107
CP 31 (957). 108 § e e below, chapter 4, section (b), and Figure 4.6.
109
'Ducato', p. 223.
110
Brown, Gentlemen and Officers, p. 56, sees the delay in claiming the ducal title as evidence
that the rulers of Amalfi and Gaeta still respected the official cursus honorum, and did not
wish to appropriate a title that rightfully belonged to the military governor in Naples.
111
Dating clauses of that year show this succession; Sergius and Manso: CP 59, CP 60,
112
Manso alone: CP 29. Kreutz, Before the Normans, p. 100.

52
 The origins of dynastic rule
SERGIUS II (958-966)

Ademarius Leo MANSO II John ADELFERIUS = Drosu

(958-1004) (982) .

Drosu = Marinus JOHN II Maura Ademarius SERGIUS

(977-1007) (982)
= Regalis
I
SERGIUS III Riso
(1002-1028) I
= Maria
Manso = Riccia
(102&-9)
(1034-7) I
(1040-?) John Riso Regalis Aloara Stephen
I
JOHN III MANSO III THE BLIND
(1014-1028) (1028-1029)
(1029-1033) (1034-1037)
(1038-1039) (1040-1052)
(1047-?)
I
SERGIUS IV Sergius GUAIMARIUS Manso
(1031-?) (1047-52) I
I John Manso = Gaitelgrima
JOHN IV I
(1054-1077)
John

Figure 2.6 The family of Duke Sergius of Amalji

Amalfi joined with Landolf of Conza and the Neapolitan duke in

deposing him.
This episode was brief, and Gisolf was restored with the help of
Pandolf of Capua, whose son he made his heir. Manso did not give
up his aim to rule the principate, however. Having associated his
son John in 977, *13 Manso did not have long to wait for his chance.
When Pandolf died in 981, he was able to take and rule Salerno
himself. His rule lasted two years, 114 and he was deposed in a coup
in 983. Although his son John was taken hostage in this coup and
not released until 990, 115 he continues to appear in Amalfitan
dating clauses alongside his father. 116 His Lombard wife Regalis
makes no reference to her husband's imprisonment in a document
113
The two are documented as co-rulers in 979, CP 21.
114
Recorded in contemporary Salernitan dating clauses, CodCav 11/343 a n d CodCav 11/344,
115
RNAM 192 (all 982). Schwarz, Amalfi nel Medioevo, pp. 81-2.
116
CDA 11 (984).

53
 From the beginnings to the eleventh century
of 986, in which she made a gift of land. 117 Manso's brother
Adelferius also briefly seized power at Amalfi and associated a son
in 985. 118 A dating clause of 988 gives an indication of the
weakness that ensued, when Manso, John (still unfree), Adelferius
and two other brothers, Leo and Ademarius, all state themselves to
be rulers of the city in their donation to the church of St
Laurence.119 A year later the situation seems to have been resolved
in favour of Manso and John again, who continued to enjoy power
until 1002. Adelferius is recorded as still issuing documents in
Amalfi as late as 998, 120 but he and his family may have found life
in the city uncomfortable after his attempt at power; his widow
and children, including the son he had associated as his co-ruler,
were living in Naples by 1012.121
In 1004/5 Manso died, but the security of the succession of his
family was firmly established in 1002/3 to judge by a document
preserved by Matteo Camera, showing 'Manso 44, John his son 27,
Sergius his grandson 2' in its dating clause.122 John outlived his
father by two years, and having already associated him in office
handed over peacefully to his son Sergius III in 1007. 123 It would
appear that John had a second son, Riso, but the latter's exclusion
from the ducal role did not prevent him or his descendants from
acquiring valuable property, as a document of ?ioo6 illustrates. In
that year the widow of Riso's son Manso, Riccia, sold offa piece of
land in the piano Amalfi for an enormous sum, 450 solidi.124 The
buyer was her nephew John, grandson of a Salernitan count and
judge. There must have been some intermarriage between the
ducal house and the Salernitan nobility which is now not visible.
Close ties with another Lombard state are suggested by the
marriage of John's elder son and successor Sergius to a sister of
Pandolf IV of Capua, Maria. Sergius nominated his son John as co-
ruler in 1014.125
117
CodCav 11/386; however, since she seems to have been acting according to the customs
of her homeland, her father substituted for John in giving her permission to make the
118 119 120
transaction. CDA 12. CDA 588. CP80.
121
RN 346; the memory of their previous position had not escaped Adelferius' widow or
children, however. She appears as Drosu 'duchess' and her son as Sergius 'duke'.
122
Cited in Schwarz, Amalfi nel Medioevo, p. 88 note 194. The document does not survive
in any other publications.
123
A document published from Cava, CodCav iv/586, is perhaps wrongly dated 1006 in
this context, as it has 'Sergius and Manso' in its dating clause. Unless Sergius had by this
time already produced the son he would later associate in power, it is difficult to see who
Manso was. I would suggest that the document should be redated later or rejected as
124 125
spurious. CP 82. Schwarz, Amalfi nel Medioevo, p. 89.

54
 The origins of dynastic rule
The next decades were traumatic ones for the ruling family.
When Pandolf expanded his power as far as Naples, Sergius and
John fled to Constantinople in 1028, leaving Maria and another
son, Manso, in charge. John III returned in 1029 and captured his
mother and brother, appearing in dating clauses as sole ruler in that
year;126 Sergius remained in exile.
John associated his son Sergius 1031, but was unable to maintain
his position, and by 1034 Maria and Manso were back in power. By
this time, however, the Capuans had been dislodged from Naples,
and John and Sergius were able to find refuge there. In 1038
Guaimarius IV of Salerno became prince of Capua; without
external support, Maria and Manso were once again ousted by
John and Sergius. This time Manso was blinded, but Maria
remained formally in power and in dating clauses of 1038 and
1039.127 In the latter year the rapid spread of Guaimarius' power
led to a third self-imposed exile for John, this time taking his son to
Constantinople. At first Guaimarius ruled Amalfi directly, then he
used the blind Manso as his puppet. The latter even named a son
after his patron, whom he associated in power with himself in 1047.
This may have been the final straw for some Amalfitans, although
it was five years before a rebellion ousted Guaimarius and his
protege and finally reinstated John and his son Sergius. 128 These
two would rule until the coming of the Normans in the 1070s.
Perhaps the most striking feature of the histories of the rulers of
these three ducal families is the way they intersected each other
repeatedly. None existed in isolation, whether their power was
secure or less stable.
They all saw intermarriage as an important way of gaining
mutual support, and it is likely that more unions of this type took
place than are now visible from the surviving evidence. Without
any other formal structures of power, the extension of the family
and its influence was paramount. The success of the Docibilans,
newcomers at Gaeta, was due as much to their establishment of
advantageous marriages and numerous children as to any other
factor. One might speculate that the failure of the early ruling
families at Amalfi was caused by their lack of numbers, although
this must remain speculation. Even duke Sergius I of Naples, who
only had three known sons, used them efficiently to root his family
in power.
126 127
CP 40. CP 37, 36.
128
The last document dated by Manso and Guaimarius his son was dated 1052, CDA 62.

55
 From the beginnings to the eleventh century
Also remarkable is the coincidence of the periods of instability
for each duchy. When Naples was racked by in-fighting for its
duchy in the 830s, Amalfi became detached; in 866 new dynasties
rose in both Amalfi and Gaeta just as Naples' first duke, Sergius,
died. The coincidence of the two smaller states becoming titular
duchies in the middle years of the tenth century has already been
noted, and the weakness of all three in the face of Lombard
aggression, be it from Capua or Salerno, is graphically illustrated in
their histories.
Another feature is their rulers' continued use of Byzantine titles.
Byzantium repeatedly conferred honours on the Tyrrhenians as a
tenuous hold on them, but these were probably more valuable to
the dukes as an extra legitimisation of their power, implying
Byzantine back-up for their rule over their compatriots, than as an
obligation to loyalty. The Byzantine connection proved of limited
use to the dukes of Amalfi in the mid-eleventh century, when
Constantinople provided a refuge for Sergius and John, but could
not actively participate in John's restoration.
We shall return to the issue of the states' relationships with their
erstwhile sovereign, and the titles they used, in the next chapter,
but one should perhaps see the latter as a purely honorific
phenomenon, with little practical effect on the life of the
Tyrrhenian cities. The more solid foundations of ducal power
form the subject of the next chapter.
 Chapter 3

THE FOUNDATIONS OF DUCAL POWER IN

THE TENTH CENTURY

Once the families discussed in the previous chapter had established

their hold on their respective seats of power, the exercise of
authority became their goal. In this chapter, the bases on which
ducal power was founded will be examined. There was a high
degree of common ground between the three duchies, as might be
expected from their common background of ruling traditions, but
each modified these traditions in the tenth century to suit the needs
of autonomous cities. Chief among the priorities of a family such as
the Docibilans was the acquisition of control over the lands of
Gaeta, as land formed the mainstay of any ruler's power. In all three
duchies we see land termed public and private under the control of
the rulers, and the origins of the distinction need clarification. At its
most basic, land gave a ruler the resource with which to pay for
military support. But other factors were present as well, even as
early as the tenth century. Rulers associated their heirs in power
with themselves, and thereby kept their dynasties in power. There
was a notion of the duke as the ultimate source of justice; he derived
this status, in part, from the authority that the support of the
Church conferred upon him. Yet we need to determine how much
support these petty rulers received, and how they cultivated the
clergy. In raising, and responding to, these questions, we shall
begin to see the development of political structures which were to
mature in the eleventh century, and change still more in the
twelfth.

(a) LAND: PUBLIC AND PRIVATE

The papal cession of the patrimonies of Fondi and Traetto may not
have brought Docibilis I his initial rise to power at Gaeta, but it
certainly elevated him to a position of prestige which the
assumption of titles such as prefect and hypatos did not automati-
cally guarantee. What limited evidence survives suggests that
57
 From the beginnings to the eleventh century
Docibilis used his wealth to acquire some land of his own to control
alongside the papal properties. His will of 9061 reveals some of the
property he acquired during his period of rule. We know from the
906 text that he built the church of St Michael at Planciano and
owned land surrounding it on what is today Monte Orlando above
the city of Gaeta. Docibilis also states that his family had bought
land at St Laurence (near Mola) and near to St Theodore's church at
Gaeta. Later in the will, among the clauses freeing slaves and
endowing them with small plots of land, we learn that Docibilis
'both bought and inherited' land at Paniano (Pagnano) and owned
more at Pertusillum. He also clearly owned a substantial amount of
property in the city of Gaeta itself; each of his seven recorded
children received at least one house, two daughters received the
church of St Irene in the city, and his son Leo was to have the care of
a further two churches, St Angelus and St Silvinian. A measure of
Docibilis' liquid wealth can perhaps be gained from his statement
that he had spent 120 gold solidi on the latter church; in comparison
a house in the city with a small plot of land cost just 8 solidi eight
years later.2 Docibilis' will did not list all his property. In a specific
clause, he stated that all lands and houses outside the city were to be
divided equally among his children.
We are fortunate to have a document of 924 in which such a
division took place.3 It is clear that the original division envisaged
by Docibilis had occurred earlier, for this version took the form of
a settlement of a dispute between Docibilis' son, Leo the prefect,
and the other six children or their heirs. Although not all of the
place names are identifiable, the amounts of land and the extent
over which they spread present a complete contrast to the limited
holdings mentioned in the will. The specific assertion in the
document that the lands belonged to Docibilis and Matrona his
wife obviates any confusion with the lands he held from the pope.
A survey of these lands reveals that, as well as consolidating his
holdings in the central region around Gaeta, Docibilis had
broadened his horizons and owned property in the fertile eastern
plains as well (see Map 3.1). In the central area we learn that he
owned land at Saraquiano above Mola and in Azzano (Arzano). In
the east his heirs divided among themselves over a hundred modia4
of arable land in Cupano. At least 112 modia in unlocatable places
1 2 3
CDC 19. CDC 22. CDC 31.
4
A. Lizier, L'Economia rurale dell'Eta prenormanna nelVItalia meridionale (Palermo, 1907), p.
180, equates one modium with about 360 square metres.

58
^ 0 0 0 4 Land over 1000m
Y////VA Land over 3 0 0 m
Unlocated property
Cessano (50 modia) Pampilinum (mill)
Losetra (50modia) PertusiHum
Palma (62 modia) Casole
casalia Gamnano, Siliano

Map 3.1 Property ofDocibilis I

 From the beginnings to the eleventh century
are recorded in addition to this. The division may represent the
sharing-out of Docibilis' entire estate, or simply an arrangement of
a select few properties which had caused disputes. In either case, this
document and Docibilis' will represent the minimum amount of
land that he owned; he probably acquired much more than is
actually recorded.5
The same is true of Docibilis' son and successor, John I. It was he
who, having helped in the expulsion of the Saracens from their
encampment on the Garigliano river in 915, received confirmation
of his rights over the papal patrimonies of Fondi and Traetto. The
confirmation is preserved alongside the original cession of John
VIII to John's father Docibilis in an incomplete citation dated
1014.6 Was pope John X now merely confirming the rectorship of
papal lands, or was he acknowledging an outright donation of
them to the Gaetan? On the basis of his reconstruction ofJohn X's
document from the 1014 sources and a 1347 inventory of papal
documents from Terracina,7 Vehse thinks the latter.8 I would
question whether the two sources taken together allow his
reconstruction of the original document, but I agree that in 915
John of Gaeta must in effect have taken possession of the papal
lands. Delogu9 is of the opinion that John and his father had already
been diverting the revenues from the lands into their own coffers
instead of sending them to the pope.
We know that John I had shared the rectorship of the
patrimonies with his father, but after 890 he is no longer
documented as using the title. This could be explained after 915, at
least if he was now the owner of the lands. It can also be explained
by the fact that after that date he could use a much better title, that
of imperial patrician, which was another reward for his participa-
tion in the Garigliano campaign.
For all this, John continued to acquire land by purchase in
relatively small amounts. In 919 we see him buying up two pieces
in Dragoncello (near Torre Argento) and in 921 he received
another piece here as a gift.10 John gave the Dragoncello land to
Gregory his son, archdeacon of the church of Gaeta, in 923/4.11 By

5
We should note, however, that not all property showed up on medieval wills; the share
of heirs who had to inherit by law would not need to be written down, being assumed to
6
pass to them automatically. CDC 130.
7 8
Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Cod. Vat. Lat. 12634. 'Bundnis'.
9 10
'Ducato', p. 196. CDC 25, CDC 26, CDC 27.
11
Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Cod. Vat. Barb. Lat., 3216, f.2O3v.

60
 Foundations of ducal power in the tenth century
933 he owned (and may even have built) the mill called Minore; in
that year he gave 4 months' and 20 days' use of it to his daughter
Bona.12
In Gaeta, although a fortified stronghold did exist on the hilltop,
the Docibilans at least seem to have preferred to live in purpose-
built dwellings nearer the harbour. In his will of 906, Docibilis I is
recorded as having built at least eleven houses; 13 by the tenth
century a ducal palace had been constructed. It is described in the
will ofJohn's son Docibilis II, dated 954, 14 but had probably been
built by John I. The remains of the palace are modest today, but
from the will we learn that the complex stretched down to the sea,
had baths, houses, separate kitchens, aviaries and courtyards, and
must therefore have taken up quite a considerable area of the lower
part of the city. John's awareness of his power is reflected in several
structures in Gaeta incorporating inscriptions proclaiming the
patrician's new building work in the city (see Figure 3.1). These
suggest that John expected others to be able to read them and be
impressed by his work, reinforcing the image of Gaeta as a state
where literacy was the norm. 15
As we shall see later, the Docibilans mirrored other Tyrrhenian
rulers when they sited the palace on the seashore, for this seems to
have been the most prestigious area to have the ruler's residence.
The dukes of Amalfi certainly controlled the shore area of that city,
and the Neapolitan evidence suggests that the same was true of the
dukes there.
The richness of the ducal accommodation contrasts with that of
their subjects. In 980, we learn, servants of dukes Marinus and John
III lived in a wooden house measuring seven metres by six. 16
Although we have very few documents authorised by John I
himself, more evidence for his acquisitions can be found in later
charters. For example, we know from a document of 944 that John
owned at least 30 modia of corn-growing land at Paternum, near
Suio,17 and among the bequests of his son Docibilis II in 954 we
find an estate called Aralectum (near Castellonorato) which John
had owned, and land at Ventosa which he had bought. 18 A much
later document, from 983, reveals him to have owned the estate

12 13 l4
CDC 34- CDC 19. CDC 52.
15
On literacy in southern Italy generally, Skinner, 'Women, literacy and invisibility'; see
also chapter i, section (d).
16
CDC 75; eleventh-century documents from Traetto also record similar-sized house
17 18
plots: CDC 183, CDC 214. CDC 44. CDC 52.

6l
 From the beginnings to the eleventh century

(a) Piazza Comestibili, Gaeta

inscription circa I metre by .7 metre, in fabric of tower; drawing: PES.

(b) Via Docibile, Gaeta

inscription circa .8 metre by .4 metre, in city wall

Figure 3.1 Inscriptions of John I

called Cucilli (near the Ausente river) and to have given it to his
daughter Sikelgaita.19
These transactions and John's ownership of land at Alviniano
(near Torre Argento) as a result of the division of 924 illustrate the
statement above that the papal patrimonies, in this case that of
Traetto, did not encompass the entire Traetto area, but were made
19
CDC 83.

62
 Foundations of ducal power in the tenth century
up of individual estates and pieces of land interspersed with
privately owned properties (see Map 3.2 for the distribution of
John's lands). Here perhaps we have the origin of the distinction,
which is documented from the reign of Docibilis II, between
public and private land.
In 1907 Auguste Lizier, working from the Gaetan document
collection among others, defined the publicum or public land in
southern Italy as that belonging to the state, regardless of who was
ruling at any one time. It could be increased, he said, by
confiscation or by the fisc inheriting from those who died without
heirs, and was constantly being depleted due to grants to public
officials, the relatives of rulers and the church. 20 It is difficult to
improve on the acuteness of his definition, which could apply to
Gaeta alone,21 but some modification and comment is appropriate.
Parts of Gaeta s publicum, for instance, may have been assembled as
a result of its ninth-century history. In 890 Docibilis I and John I
claimed land, whose original owners had been captured by the
Arabs, and sold it off for cash.22
What public land existed in the area prior to 867 is unclear. The
castle of Gaeta itself was under Neapolitan control and probably
considered public. Similarly, the lands leased to the hypatoi
Constantine and Marinus may have been public - its revenues were
certainly delivered to Naples. But there must have been very little
public land for the hypatoi to draw upon; this may in part explain
their swift overthrow in 866/7.
It is arguable that most of what later Docibilans termed public
land consisted of the patrimonial lands granted by the pope to
Docibilis I and John I, and held initially by them only as rectors,
whilst land without the description could have been obtained by
way of private transactions. As we have already seen, both men
were considerable landowners in their own right. It is difficult to
prove this theory, since no descriptions of public land survive from
the reigns of the first two Docibilans. However, a link can at least
be established between papal and public land in a document of 950,
in which Docibilis II gave public land in Marana, Maranula,
Soriana and Quadrantula in Flumetica to his son Marinus. 23 The
latter property, as we saw earlier, had been part of the papal

20
L'Economia, p. 25.
21
Lizier's statement was based also on evidence from Salerno and Naples.
22 23
CDC 15. CDC 50.

63
KXxxxl Land over 1000m
v///\ Land over 300m
Unlocated property inherited from DocibilisI:
Gamnano, Siliano, Casole

Map 3.2 Property of John I

 Foundations of ducal power in the tenth century
patrimony of Gaeta in the eighth century, making it more likely
that other 'public' properties had papal origins.
It can be ascertained that Docibilis II felt at liberty to grant out
the lands described as public. He gave some in Costranu (in
Flumetica) to his son Gregory in 939, 24 30 modia in Paternum near
Suio to his cousins John and Docibilis in 944, 25 and more to
Gregory in Timozano (near Piroli?) in the same year. 26 Unfortu-
nately the Paternum land is described in the same document as both
'public' and 'the property ofJohn I', and it is striking to notice that
another piece of public property, at Timozano (also spelt
Temuzzano or Termuzzano), lay in the same area as one of the
bequests of Docibilis I shared out by his heirs in 924. How did the
dual description of the Paternum land arise?
Two solutions present themselves. The first is that John had been
the rector of papal or public land there, and had bought some of the
land lying alongside. The second, and more likely, is that John had
come to treat the papal land as his own, whether or not the 915
document of pope John X had given him title to it, and that not
even his own son could establish the legal position (even assuming
he would want to: he would not want to prove conclusively that
the land was not his to dispose of).
The difficulty of stating the origins of the land that he was giving
out is best summed up by a document issued by Docibilis to his son
Marinus in 945.27 This handed over land in Mola, Aqua Longa
(Aqualunga), near the Ausente river, in Seriana, and land 'up the
cartway to Corene' (Ausonia). The property, Docibilis said, was
'either inherited, public, bought, given or exchanged'. Such
vagueness was dangerous, as a court-case of 946 illustrates. In that
year Docibilis disputed two estates, Caput Piro and Iuniano, with
his cousins John and Docibilis sons of Leo. They claimed part of the
estates had been bought by their grandfather, Docibilis I, and came
to them via inheritance from Leo (if this was so, the land did not
appear in the division of 924). Docibilis II claimed the land on the
basis that it was all public. Eventually the parties settled on a
compromise and divided the spoils.28
The fact that Docibilis II gave out public land only to members
of his own family may indicate that he was under some constraint
not to dissipate it. However, if this was the case, those who received
the land felt themselves under no such obligation. Docibilis' son
24 25 26 27 28
CDC 41. CDC 44. CDC 45. CDC 46. CDC 49-

65
 From the beginnings to the eleventh century
Gregory promptly exchanged the public land he had received in
Costranu for land in Cupano nearby with Docibilis son of Leo
Cacafurfure in 939.29 There may be a reason for Docibilis II's
limitation of his public gifts to his own family, however. If there
were any doubt about the status of the land (which the examples
cited above show there was), giving out the property to his family
as the public act of the duke of Gaeta 30 was a far more secure way of
leaving it in Docibilan hands than assuming that he owned it and
leaving it to his heirs in his will. This theory is lent weight by the
fact that we have Docibilis' will, 31 and that neither the pieces of
land mentioned above, nor any other land described as public,
appear in it.
The will does show another group of previously unrecorded
properties in the hands of the Docibilans. Unlike his grandfather,
Docibilis II specified each piece of land and who should inherit it.
The responsibility for some of the new acquisitions lay with
Docibilis himself; quite apart from the striking number of houses
that he says he bought or built in the city of Gaeta, we learn that he
had been given land in Vetera, had inherited Neapolitan territories
from his wife Orania and had bought property at Alipi, Virga near
Scauri and Serapiano (Serapo). Closer examination shows that at
least some of these purchases had been made from Docibilis' sister
Maru and her husband. It could be argued that the lands had
therefore been part of the Docibilis' family property before
Docibilis himself bought it. Alternatively, if Maru's husband
Guaiferius was a Lombard, as his name suggests, Maru could have
received the land from her husband after her wedding, for under
Lombard law she had a right to a quarter of Guaiferius' property as
a morning-gift (morgengab).32 A final point to note about Docibilis'
will is that alongside the landed bequests was a vast amount of
moveable treasure - gold, silver, silks - Docibilis bequeathed 200
'bizants' or gold solidi for his soul alone, a vast amount by
contemporary standards.
It is easy to be dazzled by the contents of Docibilis II's will, and
his widespread control of Gaetan lands (see Map 3.3) might suggest
29
CDC 42; but Docibilis son of Leo Cacafurfure may have been another member of the
Docibilan clan, despite his rather bizarre nickname. He was probably the son of Leo the
prefect, and therefore Gregory's cousin.
30
He assumed the title, the first of his family to do so, in 934, associating his son John in
31
power with himself: CDC 36. CDC 52.
32
Laws of king Liutprand, no. 7, The Lombard Laws, ed. K. F. D r e w (Philadelphia, 1973), P-
147.

66
 • Paternum
S.Cosmate \ Vellota

Unlocated: Sozzione (arable)

Caput Piro* Cornazzano
luniano* Dossano (vineyard)
Alipi Grumu (casale)
Casale (vineyard) Costulo (vineyard)
• Public lands
E&88I Land over 1000m Y///A Land over 300 m
9 $km
0 3 miles

Map 3.3 Lands under the control ofDocibilis II

 From the beginnings to the eleventh century
that during his reign the dynasty reached its apogee of wealth. In
fact the family continued to acquire lands after Docibilis' death. In
962 his son John II contested some land at Cilicie (near
Mondragone), which lay in the principality of Capua and which he
claimed (successfully) had been given to him by the late prince
Landolf.33 This case, and the earlier evidence of Docibilis I's
possessions in Naples, reveal the dukes of Gaeta forging links with
their neighbours. Such exchanges, and their implications for
Gaeta's status within the southern Italian world will be discussed in
more detail below. 34
John was succeeded by his brother Gregory as duke in 963. The
reign and extant documents of the latter reveal that, if the
Docibilans were continuing to increase their private landholdings,
the publicum of Gaeta was slowly diminishing. In 963 Gregory
echoed the earlier exchange he had made by giving Docibilis son of
Leo Cacafurfure more public land in Costranu. 35 In the same year
he augmented a gift made by his father and brother by giving his
uncle Leo 36 all the public land in Iuniano, 37 and finally in 964
continued the family tradition by giving Planciano land to
Docibilis I's church of St Michael there. 38
A gap of some fourteen years occurs before our next ducal
documents. In 978 we find Marinus, Gregory's brother, in power
with his son John III.39 Marinus had previously held power as duke
of Fondi, and this is reflected in his gift of an estate on the northern
edge of that plain to the foremost monastery of the territory, St
Magnus.40 The rest of his many documents deal with more
familiar lands, but it is interesting that almost all the territories are
described as public land, and that the dukes were making a series of
gifts. Also striking is that these gifts were no longer exclusively to
members of the Docibilan family. The only gift to a Docibilan was
33 34 35
CDC 61. See below, chapter 5, sections (b,ii) and (c). CDC 64.
36 37
The natural son of John I. CDC 65.
38
CDC 66; Docibilis I himself had endowed the church, and the 964 document mentions a
gift by John I as well as Gregory's offering. Further discussion of ducal gifts to the church
follows later in this chapter.
39
Although Gregory had succeeded John II, his elder brother, it seems to have been due to
the latter having no sons. (Daughters, apparently, were not eligible to succeed.) Gregory,
though, is k n o w n to have had at least three sons. It is possible that they were too young to
succeed, although this did not prevent John V from coming to the throne as a minor in
1012. Alternatively, there may have been a power struggle at Gaeta. An internal conflict
would explain the big gap in the documentation of a family w h o had no external threats
to their power. Marinus w o n the struggle, but Gregory's sons do not disappear from
40
view. CDC 74.

68
 Foundations of ducal power in the tenth century
made in 983. In this Marinus and John III gave to Marinus son of
Constantine, 'our relative' one third of the estate Cucilli from the
public land. The other two thirds had belonged to Sikelgaita,
daughter of John I; again we see the blurring of the distinction
between public and private land when it came to benefiting the
clan.41
We must not make the assumption, however, that alienation of
public land within the family ensured that the dukes retained
control of it, nor that it guaranteed internal harmony. The duke's
own family was perhaps the most potent threat to his power. In a
family which produced many sons in each generation, it would
have been all too easy for one brother to overthrow another. Land
grants bought loyalty, and overall seemed to have worked well.
Who then received land from outside the family circle? Two of
Marinus and John's grants were to churches,42 another two were to
Leo son of Constantine,43 (otherwise unknown, but perhaps
related to the Marinus son of Constantine mentioned above) and
Docibilis son of Mirus, (grandson of Kampulus the prefect and so
perhaps to be included among the very distant branches of the
Docibilan clan).44 The remaining two transactions are particularly
interesting. Both dated 980, the first was a grant of a plot of public
land outside the city walls to the dukes'fidelesMartin and Marinus,
the other a similar grant to one Mauro and his wife Martha. 45 The
two men in the first document had already built a wooden house
on their plot, implying either that they had previously leased the
land, or that the dukes were recognising a fait accompli in the
medieval equivalent of squatter's rights. The former would seem
more likely — the men would hardly have been termed faithful had
they usurped the land.
What did these men do to earn the titlefideles?Clearly they
served the dukes in some way. They may have sworn an oath to do
so, and are likely to have been soldiers, settled close to the city to
protect their lord in times of trouble. We are very poorly informed
about Gaetan military arrangements, but if, as stated earlier,
Docibilis I relied on Arab mercenaries, some replacement for these
allies must have had to be found after the Garigliano expedition of

41
CDC 83: given his designation as a relative of the dukes, it is possible that Marinus was
the son of John I's natural son Constantine, the latter being the only member of the
42
Docibilan clan with that name. CDC 74 (979), CDC 78 (980).
43 44
CDC 76. CDC 84.
45
CDC 75, CDC 77; on Mauro and Martha's descendants, see below, p. 123.

69
 From the beginnings to the eleventh century
915. The will of Docibilis' eponymous grandson reveals that large
amounts of liquid wealth continued to be available to the
Docibilans by the middle of the tenth century. The example of
Martin and Marinus and another piece of evidence from the latter
half of the century suggest, however, that the lords of Gaeta may
have moved from cash payments to mercenaries (whether Arab or
Christian), to grants of land from the publkum. In a boundary
clause of a document dated 991 we have a reference to the territorio
de milite just outside the city at Valle Helena. 46 The reference is
isolated, but its designation is a striking parallel to that in Naples,
discussed earlier, and it does give the impression that the dukes of
Gaeta had a small standing army paid in land, perhaps augmented
from time to time by mercenaries. This hint at land set aside for the
military also serves as a reminder that there may have been far more
demand on the public land the dukes had to give out than our
documentary evidence now shows.
Slightly later evidence from Amalfi shows that granting public
land in return for services was not merely a Gaetan phenomenon.
In 1058 dukes John and Sergius confirmed to Mauro son of Peter de
Mauro, and Urso, public land which they had bought from Berta
daughter of Hademar. Hademar had received the land from duke
Manso, and now John and Sergius confirmed Mauro and Urso's
ownership in recognition of their services.47 More important than
the confirmation itself here, however, is the fact that the land is
described as public in the past tense. When had it ceased to be so?
Had duke Manso changed its character by giving it to Hademar, or
was Hademar's bequest to Berta the point at which the property
was deemed to have passed into private ownership? Or did Berta's
subsequent alienation include a convenient neglect of the public
nature of the land, which John and Sergius were now legally
recognising? We shall never know, but the case highlights the
fluidity and progressive diminution of the publicum which would
soon cause real problems for rulers of territorially limited states
such as Gaeta and Amalfi. An earlier document from the latter city
may reveal one member of the ducal family attempting to reverse
the decline. Leo son of duke Sergius is seen buying land which the
vendor co-owned with the publicum and another individual;48 it
would have been all too easy for the vendor's family to ignore the
public part of the property later and claim it as their own.

46 47 48
CDC 89. CD A 66. CP 66 (992).

70
 Foundations of ducal power in the tenth century
Only one document from tenth-century Naples refers specifi-
cally to public land, when duke Marinus in 975 confirmed to the
monastery of SS Severinus and Sossus all rights over the servants of
the monastery together with any publicum they might hold. 49 It is
sometimes unclear whether the dukes are doing business as private
individuals or in their public role as dukes, though the latter is
always more likely in the case of donations to major churches or
grants of water-related rights, discussed below. The overt and
stated distinction in a high number of Gaetan and Amalfitan
documents cannot but be related to the scarcity of land in these two
duchies, making more important the careful recording of what
belonged to whom and how it did so. We shall return to the land
transactions of the Neapolitan and Amalfitan dukes shortly.
Perhaps it was the awareness that he was running short of land
which led duke Marinus of Gaeta to attempt to take control of
some property in the territory of Aquino. In 982 his seizure was
challenged by the abbey of Montecassino, owner of the land, and at
the court of the German emperor Otto II the monastery won its
case.50 Significantly, Marinus claimed the land on the basis that it
had been granted to the hypatoi of Gaeta by pope John VIII. Clearly
the memory of where the Docibilan dynasty's public wealth and
power had originated remained strong in the family.
By the latter years of the tenth century, however, that power
was beginning to wane. The only major addition to Docibilan
landholdings was the castle of Pontecorvo, granted to John III by
emperor Otto III in 999. Even this may have been only a nominal
gift, however, for contemporary Pontecorvan documents up to
1032 are dated exclusively by the reign of the Capuan, not Gaetan,
rulers.51 That land was becoming too scarce even to support the
ambitions of the Docibilan clan's various offshoots is signalled by
the occurrence of disputes between different branches. Such a
dispute took place in 992 between Dauferius count of Traetto and
Leo the duke of Fondi over some public land in the county of
Traetto. Leo won the case, claiming that it was his own private
property. 52 Disputes such as this were ultimately very damaging to

49
RN 208.
50
CDC 81; the intervention by O t t o illustrates the concern of the German emperors to
gain some influence in southern Italy, using patronage of Montecassino as a starting
point.
51
CDC 102; dating clauses at Pontecorvo from 1030, 1030, 1034 and 1036: Montecassino
52
Archive, Codex Diplomatics Pontiscurvi, fos. 64, 69, 73, 75. CDC 90.

71
 From the beginnings to the eleventh century
the Docibilans' hold on power, as they revealed divisions within
the family and gave their enemies the opportunity to exploit the
arguments.53
The Docibilans' problems by the end of the tenth century may
have been caused by the fact that they gave away too much public
land. Evidence from elsewhere in the Tyrrhenian region suggests
that other dukes were more careful about keeping control of their
valuable resources. In a document from Amalfi dated 1048, for
example, we see duke Manso leasing out public land on Capri for
an annual rent of \\ modia of vegetables, 2^ pigs, 1 sheep, some
quails and some willow boughs. By prohibiting the lessees, Peter
and Anastasius sons of Sergius de Iordano, from alienating the land,
Manso was clearly indicating that their tenure did not allow them
to control the property. 54 However, duke Manso also apparently
granted out public land permanently, 55 an illustration of how
dukes could exploit public land in different ways. They could
either grant it in return for loyalty from local lords, or they could
lease it directly to cultivators and enjoy the revenues produced.
The fact that we have no examples of the Docibilans doing the
latter at Gaeta does not mean they did not lease public land; it is
simply that the documents recording the leases have not survived,
or that the leases were never recorded in writing. 56 In this context,
the fact that the Docibilans used unfree cultivators on their own
lands may be significant; these too would not usually be
documented, and the Docibilans may have used them on public
land as well.57
One type of public property which we do see the Docibilans
jealously guarding throughout the tenth century was the right to
construct water-mills and to control all inland water resources in
the duchy. This part of the publicum was perhaps the most valuable
to the dukes in terms of revenue.
Bread was a staple of the medieval diet, and, whatever type of
grain used, the flour needed milling. For domestic purposes, small
hand-mills could be used, and the will of Docibilis I in 906
mentions a horse-mill which he left to his son Anatolius. 58

53
As the Traettans seem to have been wooed away from the rest of the family: see below,
54 55
chapter 5, sections (b,i and ii). CD A 591. See above, p. 70.
56
O n the production of documents, see above, chapter 1, section (d); on the leases
specifically, see below, chapter 7.
57
For further discussion of the Docibilans' use of unfree cultivators, see below, chapter 7.
58
CDC 19.

72
 Foundations of ducal power in the tenth century
However, under the Docibilans we have our first evidence of
water-mills in Gaeta, and it seems likely that many were built in the
early tenth century, possibly by the Docibilans themselves. Most of
those mills recorded were water-mills, and their concentration
around Formia can be explained by their need for fast-flowing
water to drive them, in that the mountains behind the destroyed
settlement gave rise to several fast streams. The largest of these
flows down the same gorge as the Via Appia from Itri, and may
have given the district through which it passes, Pontone ('ferry' or
'large bridge') its name. We know of one mill at Pontone, 59 but the
majority of water-mills lay on the stream flowing into the sea at the
place which took its name from them, Mola. Here we know of at
least five mills, all of which were specifically named, for example St
George,60 de Tauro 'under the road', 61 Armenia,62 Maiore,63 and
Minore. 64 The latter two, despite the adjectival nature of their
names, do seem to have been particular mills, as we have references
to their proximity to each other and to other mills. 65
The striking feature to note about the mills of Gaeta is the fact
that they were usually co-owned in the most complex way. From a
very early date, mills there were divided down into days. Thus in
933 the imperial patrician John I gave his daughter Bona 4 months
and 20 days of the mill called Minore. 66 In 937 another daughter,
Theotista, exchanged her 15 days' use of the mill called Padula for
Kampulus the prefect's similar stake in the mill Armenia. 67 Did
these unusual units of division relate to a kind of time-share
arrangement, with each owner controlling specific weeks and days
in the calendar, or was this just a strange way of expressing portions
of one twelfth (a 'month') and smaller? The Gaetan material gives
us no clues; it contains no references to named months or specific
dates. However, mills in Amalfi were also subdivided into
'months' or even smaller portions for the purpose of ownership,
and an Amalfitan document of 1036 does reveal fluctuation in the
price for two different portions of the same mill. 68 Another of 1079
seems to seal the matter. In that year, an Amalfitan widow, Maru,
sold off the portion of a mill in Atrani bequeathed to her by her

59 60 61
CDC 2. CDC 52, CDC 200, CDC 284. CDC 143.
62
CDC 40, CDC 132, CDC 162, CDC 190, CDC 206, CDC 235.
63
CDC 34, CDC 50, CDC 52, CDC 107, CDC 120, CDC 121, CDC 122, CDC 176, CDC
64
202, CDC 270, CDC 284. CDC 34, CDC 50.
65
Maiore upstream from Minore: CDC 34, CDC 50. Maiore downstream from St
66 67 68
George: CDC 284. CDC 34. CDC 40. CDA 46.

73
 From the beginnings to the eleventh century
mother. The portion was i month and 5 days 'that is the month of
May and five days of July'. 69 The complexity of mill divisions in
Gaeta suggests that the portions, as in Amalfi, did relate to real days
and months.
If this were the only method used in dividing mills for
ownership in Gaeta, it would be relatively easy to compare one
person's stake with another's. However, on the river Caput Aqua
(Capo d'Acqua) we meet the term 'one foot of a mill* in 1060.70
This may relate to a length of the channel leading into the mill, and
says much for the high value of mills if such a small portion was
thought worth owning. An alternative explanation may possibly
be provided by a later English example, where use of the mill-stone
was sold or rented at a fixed rate per inch of wear. 71
Finally, in ?IO58 one Docibilis son of Marinus Frunzo expressed
his stake in the mill Armenia as 2 modia of grain per year —
presumably the amount he had the right to mill there. 72
Unfortunately we cannot reconcile this measurement with the
more common ownership of days in the mill, since it is impossible
to calculate with any consistency the amount of grain which could
be milled in a day. Nor do we know for how much of the year a
mill was in operation. It is possible that here we have moved a step
down from the 'time-share' owners, to those who actually used the
mill and bought the right of use from those who controlled the
time.
In Gaeta at least, the latter group appear to have been very
exclusive. During the period of Docibilan rule, only members of
that family are documented as mill-owners. After their fall from
power in the city of Gaeta itself in 1032, others entered the mill
ownership market, suggesting that up until that date the Docibi-
lans had exercised some kind of monopoly. Certainly mills in
Gaeta were very expensive throughout the tenth and eleventh
centuries. Some idea of their price in comparison with land can be
gained from a document of 1056, recording the sale by John, count
of Suio, of an unspecified portion of the mill Maiore for 24 pounds
of silver.73 For that price, a year before, a purchaser could have
bought 250 modia of prime grain land at Cozara in the eastern half
of the duchy. 74 To put the price even further into perspective, in

69 70 72
CDA 74. CDC 211. CDC 206.
71
R. Holt, The Mills of Medieval England (Oxford, 1988), p. 99.
73 74
CDC 202. CDC 199: i£ modia sold for just over 2oz silver.

74
 Foundations of ducal power in the tenth century
1054 the main candidate had renounced his claim to the bishopric
of Gaeta for just 20 pounds!75
Evidence from other parts of Italy shows that expensive mills
were not only a Gaetan phenomenon. In Amalfi in the early
eleventh century, for example, i^ months of a mill were sold for 30
gold solidi.76 In the same year, 1012, a piece of vineyard went for
the equivalent of 1^ solidi;77 a piece of empty land in 1013 was sold
for just half a solidus,78 and even two pieces of land nearer the coast
(and therefore both more accessible and fertile) in 1013 only raised
10 solidi.79
Further afield, Chiappa Mauri has noticed a similar difference
between the prices of fields and mills and pieces of land around
Milan in the eleventh century, citing the average price of the latter
as being five times the price of the former. 80
The inflated price of mills is a particularly notable feature of the
southern Italian documentation under discussion. Lizier attributes
the high prices to the large amount of capital needed to construct
them, and del Treppo too sees them as investment opportunities
for wealthy merchants with spare capital. 81 But if, as seems likely
from the size of some of the streams on which they were built, the
Gaetan and Amalfitan mills at least were small, horizontally
wheeled constructions, Lizier's theory is not entirely convincing.
Why were prices so high? The elevation in the price of land
which had a mill built on it as demonstrated by Chiappa Mauri is
understandable, but in the South the disproportion seems to have
reached an extreme level. A clue may lie in the degree of partition
involved. Unfortunately, we have no idea of mill prices in Naples,
but we can see that some mills were owned as whole entities. 82 In
Milan the division of mills did occur, but those divided into tenths

75
CDC 197: this event is discussed more fully below, chapter 5, section (a).
76 77 78 79
RN346. CP 72. PAVAR 1/6. CodCavw/664.
80
L. Chiappa Mauri, 'I mulini ad acqua nel milanese (secoli X - X V ) ' , Nuova Rivista Storica,
67 ( X 983), 14- There is as yet only a limited a m o u n t of literature on water-mills,
particularly Italian ones. In addition to Chiappa Mauri and Holt, Mills, see the classic
article by M . Bloch, ' T h e advent and triumph of the watermiH', in Land and Work in
Medieval Europe, trans. J. E. Anderson (London, 1967), pp. 136—68; also,J. Muendel, 'The
distribution of mills in the Florentine countryside during the late middle ages', in
.Pathways to Medieval Peasants, ed. J. A. Raftis (Toronto, 1981), pp. 83-112; C. Dussaix,
'Les moulins a Reggio d'Emilie aux XHe et XHIe siecles', MEFRM, 91 (1979), H3~47;
and B . Condorelli, 'La molitura ad acqua nella valle del torrente Farfa', in Atti del g°
Congresso Internazionale di Studi sull'Alto Medioevo, 11 (Spoleto, 1983), pp. 837-41.
81
Lizier, L'Economia, p. 8; del T r e p p o and Leone, Amalfi, p. 50.
82
E.g. RN 72, RN 268, RN 335, RN 367, RN 414, RN 443, dating from 951 to 1033.

75
 From the beginnings to the eleventh century
were regarded as extremely fractionalised.83 Mill division into
even smaller parts in Amalfi and Gaeta may therefore be an
indication of rarity, partly explaining their higher value.
The fact remains, though, that such mills were not difficult to
build and so did not need to be rare. In northern Italy even peasants
owned mills.84 The paradox can be partly explained in the case of
Amalfi and Gaeta by the geography of these two territories. Both
were limited in extent, and both, being predominantly limestone
areas, had only limited numbers of reliable streams for mill
building. Nevertheless, mill ownership in Gaeta, Amalfi and
Naples too seems to have been limited to very wealthy laymen
(including two dukes of Naples) or ecclesiastical institutions. 85 It is
difficult to provide an adequate reason for this phenomenon - it
may be the case that mill ownership was seen as a sign of prestige in
the South.86 Could the apparent attempt at monopolisation of mill
ownership by the Docibilans in the tenth and early eleventh
centuries be a manifestation of this?
It is likely: there is some evidence to suggest that the rulers of
Gaeta went to some lengths, even within their own family, to
ensure that they maintained a strict control over their milling
facilities. For example, Docibilis Ts bequest to Anatolius in 906
stipulated that the latter was not to build anything on to his horse-
mill, that is, increase its capacity. And in 933, John I's gift to his
daughter Bona was made on condition that she did not use any
other mill. There are also indications in our documents that the
siting of several water-mills was planned deliberately to maximise
their use. Quite apart from the necessary water-power, they also
needed to be easily accessible. Thus the mills Maiore and Minore,
we learn, were next to a bridge, possibly at the point where the Via
Appia crossed the stream of Mola. 87 In 978 Marinus and John III
gave two of Kampulus the prefect's sons a water-mill in the
Ausente river 'next to the bridge where travellers cross'. 88 This
type of care seems to show that the Docibilans were keen not only
to restrict mill ownership to themselves, but also that the ruling
83
Chiappa Mauri, 'Mulini', 22.
84
Their ubiquity in the Casentino valley near Arezzo is commented on by C. J. Wickham,
The Mountains and the City (Oxford, 1988), p. 165. Even in northern Lazio they are visible
as co-owned by small allod-owners: Toubert, Structures, 1, p. 460 note 3.
85
DCDN1, DCDN 8; see below, this chapter, for further discussion of the mill owners of
Naples and Amalfi.
86
I suggest another reason for their importance in Gaeta and Amalfi in chapter 7, below.
87 88
CDC 120. CDC 73.

76
 Foundations of ducal power in the tenth century
members of the clan wanted to control the amounts of grain that
could be processed. And, whilst the public land controlled by the
Docibilans gradually diminished, they held on very tightly to their
mills, suggesting that the revenues from milling far outweighed
the value of selling mills (which in themselves were relatively
modest structures) or granting them away.
With only two exceptions, Docibilan ducal gifts or sales of mills
are all exclusively to other members of the Docibilan clan. The
exceptions occurred under special circumstances. In 954 Docibilis
II bequeathed two and a half months' use of the mill of St George to
the slave Rosula, who perhaps should be identified with the slave of
the same name listed among those manumitted earlier in the will. 89
But even as a freedwoman neither Rosula nor her stake in the mill
need necessarily have passed out of Docibilan control. The will of
Docibilis II's grandson Gregory, dated 1024, shows five personal
slaves being manumitted on condition that they did not take servile
wives or husbands and that they offered a gift of chickens to
Gregory's heirs every year. Three female slaves were to serve
Gregory's daughters until the latter married and the two males
were freed to the 'protection' of Gregory's son Laidulf.90 It is likely
that Rosula enjoyed the same status as these five slaves, and the
value of her manumission gift makes it probable that her freedom
was hedged round with even more restrictions than theirs.
The other example we have of a Docibilan duke granting away
milling rights is in a document issued by Leo II in 1042.91 In that
year he granted a portion of the mill Maiore to Marinus son of
Kampulus and Gregory son of John 'in return for their services'.
This grant must be viewed against the political background at
Gaeta; since 1032 the city had been in Capuan hands, and Leo's
brief appearance as duke may represent a last attempt by the
Docibilans to wrest back their position of supremacy. In this case
extreme measures, even granting away their most prized assets,
may have been required to gain support. Such localised measures,
however, were not sufficient to prevent Guaimarius of Salerno
imposing his own candidate for the dukedom of Gaeta, Raynulf,
on the city in the latter half of 1042.92
The situation at Gaeta is mirrored by evidence from the other
Tyrrhenian states. In 1012, duchess Drosu of Amalfi sold off a

89 90 91
CDC 52. CDC 143. CDC 176.
92
On the history of Gaeta's rulers in the eleventh century, see below, chapter 5, section (a).

77
 From the beginnings to the eleventh century
portion of a watermill to archbishop Leo. 93 We know that the
rulers of Naples and Salerno also owned mills 94 in the tenth
century and later, although in larger states such as these there does
not seem to have been such a conscious effort at monopolisation as
there was in Gaeta and, possibly, Amalfi. In 949 duke John of
Naples exchanged mills in the Tertium district with Peter, the
abbot of SS Severinus and Sossus in Naples. This transaction was
followed shortly by another in which Peter exchanged some land
for the mill he had given to the duke. 95 Unfortunately we have no
indication as to whether mill prices in the larger state were lower as
a result of the greater availability of mill-building sites.
Not only the mills themselves, but the water supply to them,
was considered within the ruler's jurisdiction. In 1028 duchess
Emilia of Gaeta was involved in a dispute about a channel or clusa
built to feed a mill with water. 96 As Chiappa Mauri has put it, the
right to build this channel was the right to use the water for any
purpose. That is, by winning the right to block offpart of the river,
the ruler emphasised his or her public authority. 97 In the same way,
duke Sergius of Amalfi in 1018 granted all the water running
through an aqueduct to the church of St Peter to its abbess Blattu. 98
That control over aquatic resources continued to be a public
prerogative into the twelfth century is illustrated by the list of
public or regalian rights demanded of the Italian communes in the
north by Frederick Barbarossa in 1158. They included mills,
fisheries, bridges and all the use accruing from running water. 99
Apart from those in the lake called Capratica Longa, granted out
to the monastery of St Theodore in 957, 10 ° the Docibilans
controlled fishing rights on the Ponzian islands as well. In 1019 Leo
I granted fisheries and other public property there to Kampulus son
ofDocibilis. 101
Elsewhere, in 997/8, duke Sergius of Naples gave the monastery
of SS Severinus and Sossus permission to fish in half the lake called
Patriensis. 102 In 986, princess Aloara of Capua had allowed the
monastery of St Laurence to fish in the same lake, and it is possible
that each ruler may have claimed rights over the lake, or possibly
half each. 103

93 94
RN 346. Naples: DCDN 3 (949); Salerno: CodCav m/425 (990).
95 96 97 98
DCDN 3a and 3 b. CDC 155. 'Mulini', 11. CDA 33.
99
Rahewin's continuation of Otto of Friesing's Deeds of Frederick Barbarossa, trans. C. C.
10 101 102
Mierow, p. 238. ° CDC 55. CDC 135. RN 306.
103
RNAM206.

78
 Foundations of ducal power in the tenth century
Whilst their public land was beginning to dwindle, we can see
the Docibilans holding on very tightly to their private property.
Their gifts and exchanges of their fortune took place almost
entirely within the family circle. Thus duke Docibilis II gave
property in various parts of the duchy to his son Marinus. 104
Another son, Gregory, bought Vetera land from his aunt Megalu,
daughter of John I, 105 and passed on land to be divided between his
sons.106 No member of the family was excluded from this web of
transactions, and it is interesting to see that the three natural sons of
John I were substantial landowners. In 991 they divided up
property in Bluzano outside Gaeta, Rubiano in Flumetica and
Melogranu (Migliorano?).107 Their inclusion in family affairs may
have owed something to the influence of Lombard law, as
observed by the Gaetans' southern neighbours, the Capuans.
According to this, natural sons, that is those born out of wedlock,
but not of illegal (for example, slave-free) unions, had a claim on
their father's inheritance alongside their half-brothers and sisters
born of his wife.108
The Docibilan family extended well beyond the direct ruling
line, and the measure of the wealth of one of its more minor
members is provided by a will of 1024.109 Gregory 'the
magnificent' was the son of Leo the prefect and grandson of
Docibilis II. Quite apart from the collection of mobile goods which
he left to his wife Maria (gold, silver, silks (siricos), linen (lineos),
both cositi and excositi (cut and uncut), bronze and reeds), what is
remarkable is the long list of landed properties that he owned,
stretching from Sperlonga to the Garigliano river (see Map 3.4).
Notable too is the fact that Gregory's two sons were to receive all
of this land, and that his daughters received only 30 pounds of silver
and three slaves. It appears that Gregory was avoiding the
alienation of large chunks of family land in the form of dowries by
providing liquid assets for that purpose, and his careful husbandry
of his land contrasts with the bequests of, for example, Docibilis II,
to his daughters, which reflect a greater confidence and wealth of
land in the tenth century than in the eleventh.
Given that several different families appear to have provided
Amalfi's rulers at different stages in its history, and that external
intervention was also not unusual, the political struggle may have

104 105 106 107

CDC 46. CDC 58. CDC 79. CDC 43.
108 109
Rothari 154 and 155, Lombard Laws, ed. Drew, pp. 77-8. CDC 143.

79
I Land over 1OOOm
I Land over 300m
5km
3 miles

Map 3.4 Properties of Gregory the Magnificent

 Foundations of ducal power in the tenth century
had economic repercussions. Although the ducal family clearly
controlled valuable public 110 and private1 x x property in the city of
Amalfi itself, what evidence we have of rural ducal possessions in
the tenth and eleventh centuries suggests that the dukes were forced
to buy peripheral land (see Map 3.5). In 992 Leo the son of duke
Sergius bought land on Capri which had been co-owned with the
publicum,112 and in 998 another son, Adelferius, leased out land on
Capri to John son of Anastasius.113 This does not appear to have
been public, but Adelferius took great care in defining the
boundaries of each piece that he handed over, suggesting that a
potential for confusion existed. Capri continued to be the focus of
ducal transactions in the eleventh century; in 1033 Capritan land,
apparently with public obligations, was still owned by duke John's
aunt Drosu. 114 In 1048 duke Manso assigned public land on the
island to two brothers at a rent in kind. 115 After the Norman
takeover of Amalfi we lose sight of the public land on Capri, but in
1090 and 1098 descendants of duke Manso are seen giving property
on the island to the church of St Laurence. 116 In 1004 part of the
public land under the duke's supervision was in Stabia. 117 All of
this land still lay within the duchy of Amalfi, but in 986 we see that
there were Amalfitan ducal possessions in Salerno as well. In that
year Regalis, wife of duke John, gave to Niceta the imperial
spatharius a piece of land in Vietri. 118 This land is likely to have
been Regalis' own, probably her dowry, but John's motives for
marrying her may have included the extension of landed property
that she would bring. Certainly many ofJohn's compatriots seem
to have seen the benefits of owning Salernitan land, as we shall see.
From what limited evidence we have, it is clear that the dukes of
Naples had widespread landholdings, perhaps privately owned.
The dukes and their family are documented as owning land in
Gualdo, 119 Quillaci,120 Calvizzano and S. Iacobo, 121 Tertium and
Arcora,122 Faragnano,123 Pozzuoli 124 and St Peter ad Cancel-
lata. 125 In addition, duke Sergius leased land from the wealthy
monastery of SS Sergius and Bacchus in 1016.126 Frustratingly, we
cannot get much sense of the extent or location of most of these
10
As discussed in this chapter: see above, pp. 70, 72.
11
John, grandson of duke Manso, made a gift of a house and four apotheke in the city to St
112 113 114
Laurence in 1090, CP 85. CP 66. CP 80. CDA 591.
15 116 117
CDA 60. CP 85 (1090), CP 91 (1098). CDA 18.
18 119
CodCav 11/386. T h e heirs of duke Sergius, RN 8, (921).
20
RN 55, (945): Maria w i d o w of Anastasii, daughter of duke John.
21
RN 75, (951): duke John exchanges in one area for land in the other.

8l
Y///A Land over 3 0 0 m
Borders
9 9 10 km
5 miles

Map 3.5 Amalfitan ducal Land

 Foundations of ducal power in the tenth century

V//A Land over 300m

Border
9 , , , . 5km
6 ' ' 3 miles

Map 3.6 Neapolitan ducal Land

possessions (but see Map 3.6 for those which are locatable). Perhaps
the latter transaction illustrates a lack of land disguised only by the
numerous locations where the family owned property. There is
some indication that within the city of Naples the dukes may have
defined their territory very precisely: the entire coastal sector of the
city near the ports may have been part of the palace complex. This
at least is the impression gained from the fact that no places
recorded in urban transactions in this period lay in the palace sector.
Either it was a very poor area, whose residents did not record their
transactions in writing, 127 or very exclusive, so that no transactions
occurred. A similar vacuum visible in contemporary Milan can be
explained by the ducal compound lying there, 128 and Naples may
have witnessed a similar phenomenon.
If we were better served with evidence for the ducal possessions
in Naples and Amalfi, it is likely that a similar picture to that
122
DCDN 3, (949): duke John exchanges land and mills.
123 RJSJ 2i2, (977): heirs of duke Stephen, predecessor of the Sergian dynasty.
124
RN$%i, (1019): Drosu daughter of duke John had exchanged land here with SS Sergius
125
and Bacchus. RN 426, (1030): the heirs of duke John.
126 127
RN 372. See above, chapter 1, section (d).
128
Personal communication Ross Balzaretti: I thank him for pointing this out.

83
 From the beginnings to the eleventh century
provided by Gaeta would emerge, with numerous transactions
kept within the family. Only co-operation between family
members would preserve the integrity of the family property:
judging by the Docibilan example, division of land at each
generation was still a strong tradition. Only one son could become
duke, but all shared in his wealth and were expected to support
him. This was a key to the dynasty's rule.

(b) FAMILY UNITY

Family unity seems to have been overlooked in discussions of

political power in the tenth-century South, yet was clearly a vital
asset, particularly when dynasties were trying to establish their
power.
In the case of public land donations, the unity of the family
inheritance could only be maintained if all those who had a share
co-operated with one another, and the in-fighting which began in
earnest over public properties in Gaeta at the end of the tenth
century was probably reflected in a similar partition of the
Docibilan patrimony. Throughout their period of rule, we see
members dividing lands which they had inherited, rather than
holding them in common, and this can only have accelerated the
process of disintegration. As soon as their wealth waned, they were
bound to begin losing their hold over the duchy. But was
Docibilan power simply a matter of their position as the richest
family in the territory? In the tenth century it had to be allied with
another factor, that of co-operation, and for a while the Docibilans
exhibited a very high level of this as they established themselves as
the leading family. This may have been the key to enabling them to
ride the storms of their early years in power, as we have no
recorded disputes between members of the family until at least the
mid-tenth century, and family coherence was consolidated by
attaching themselves by marriage to the Neapolitans. In a way,
their peaceful sharing-out of the important posts in the duchy of
Gaeta is made more remarkable if we look at their genealogy; there
were many brothers in most of the early generations of the family,
yet no sign of tension between them until localised areas of power
began to coalesce in the latter half of the tenth century. 129
129
Taviani-Carozzi, Principaute, p. 468, illustrates the instability which could occur in states
which retained the idea of all male heirs sharing the sovereign power, as at Capua, and
contrasts this with the relatively stable situation at Salerno, where single, patrilineal
succession was adopted.

84
 Foundations of ducal power in the tenth century
The family of Sergius of Naples was even more successful, in
that it retained a high level of unity throughout its rule. Sergius
recognised that one way of ensuring at least some hold on the
position that the people of Naples had conferred upon him was to
insert his family into both lay and ecclesiastical posts. This worked
as long as each family member was content with his role and the
support of the people lasted. Even when someone stepped out of
line, as bishop Athanasius did in 878 when he blinded duke Sergius
II and took over in both roles, the family were able to remain
dominant, and Athanasius was succeeded by Sergius' son Gregory
as duke in 898. The stability of the ducal family's hold on power
was such that they remained the only clan to provide the rulers of
Naples, with a brief hiatus in the mid-eleventh century, until 1137,
when the last duke was killed in battle. Perhaps a reason for the
family's dominance can be found in the history of Naples prior to
840, which is best characterised as bloody, with incessant coups and
assassinations. The desire for peace and stability must have played a
strong part in the people's choice and continued support of the
count of Cuma and his family as their rulers.
In Amalfi, three dynasties ruled between the ninth and eleventh
centuries, and the late tenth and early eleventh centuries were the
apogee of such dynastic rule, as the family of Sergius II held onto
power. Even the disastrous enterprise of Manso in trying to rule
Salerno, which resulted in him losing power briefly to his brother
at Amalfi, did not dislodge the family itself from power, and the
strong tradition of dynastic rule created by the family was able,
ultimately, to withstand the upheavals of the mid-eleventh
century.

(c) CHURCH PATRONAGE

No medieval ruler could hope to gain any support without some

kind of help from the church, and it is a fact that all of the rulers of
the states on this part of the Tyrrhenian coast saw the foundation,
endowment and protection of churches as part of their role. The
rulers provided protection and landed wealth. In return they
received spiritual approbation of their rule and heavenly rewards.
An early example of such a gift occurs at Amalfi, where the
prefect Manso is recorded in 922 as having given a mill to the
church of St Benedict in Scala.130 In 979, the priests of St Felix in
130
CDA 2.

85
 From the beginnings to the eleventh century
Caput de Amalfi acted with ducal permission in a land transaction,
suggesting that the dukes had control of the church or had founded
it, or both. 131 The most frequent beneficiary of ducal generosity,
however, was the church of St Laurence to which gifts were made
in 988, 1004 and 1018.132 In the first, made by the duke Manso and
his brothers, they stated that they had built the church, and now
gave to it another foundation of their family, St Peter's in Bostopla.
The second gift comprised public land in Stabia, the third the right
to use water running to St Peter's. Bearing in mind that part of the
Amalfitan document collection is preserved in St Laurence's
archive and so may exaggerate the favour in which the church was
held, we should nevertheless suppose that it was the recipient of
many more ducal gifts as a family foundation.
In Naples, as well as controlling the installation of abbesses to the
convent of SS Gregory, Sebastian and Pantaleo, 133 the dukes made
gifts to the churches of SS Severinus and Sossus and St Salvator.
The former church seems to have been an early favourite of the
dukes of Naples, although this may simply be a matter of chance
documentary survival again. It features in several ducal documents,
receiving a church dedicated to St Severinus in 907 from duke
Gregory, 134 exchanging mills with duke John, receiving immu-
nity from ducal control over its servants in 975 from duke
Marinus,135 and concessions of fishing rights in lake Patriensis
from duke Sergius in 997 and 998. 136 Documents from 1036 and
1037 show patronage of St Salvator. In the first the church received
one dedicated to SS Sergius and Bacchus, 137 and in the second the
monastery sold off land to a son of its former abbot with duke
Sergius' permission.138 As well as founding 139 and patronising
Neapolitan churches, the dukes also made gifts to the powerful
monastery of St Vincent on the Volturno river. 140 Duke John gave

131
CP 21.
132
CP 79, CD A 18, CD A 33; a further gift is reported in 1090, CP 85.
133 134 135
In 1009 (RN 335) and 1033 (DCDN 10). DCDN 1. RN 208.
136 # M 4 M 246, RN 306; the earlier document included the right to cut w o o d there too.
137 138
DCDN 11. RN 460.
139
Dukes John and Marinus are recorded as having built the church of St Michael
Portanoba in Naples in a document of 950, RN 70; an unidentified duke John is recorded
as the founder of St Simeon's in a document of 1038, RN 468.
140 Yhc monastery has been the subject of a number of studies, including: M . del Treppo,
'La vita economica e sociale in una grande abbazia del Mezzogiorno: S. Vincenzo al
Volturno nell'alto medioevo', ASPN, 74 (1955), 31-110; C. J. Wickham, // Problema
dell'Incastellamento nell'ltalia Centrale: VEsempio di S. Vincenzo al Volturno (Florence,
1985). Archeological work on the site of the monastery by the British School at Rome

86
 Foundations of ducal power in the tenth century
it a cell in Naples and some land in 944. 141 This transaction was
confirmed by his son Marinus four years later. 142
How closely did Gaetan documents reflect patterns elsewhere?
How did the Docibilans cultivate the support of the church? We
have a gratifyingly large amount of material with which to
attempt to answer these questions. In view of the aid they had
received from the pope, it is perhaps not surprising to see that, from
the very start of their rule over Gaeta, Docibilis I and his heirs were
concerned to be seen to be patrons and benefactors of the
church. 143 That they were aware of their need for continued
ecclesiastical support is best illustrated by the level of expenditure
on the churches he built recorded by Docibilis I in his will of 906.
His major foundation seems to have been the church of St Michael
at Planciano. With Docibilis' permission this church had already
received the church of St Maria outside the city gates and all of its
lands from Deusdedit the bishop of Gaeta in 899. 144 Now in the
will Docibilis enriched it further with lands near to the city and a
water-mill at Pampilinum, the latter having the potential to be a
very rich gift indeed. Docibilis did not limit his spending to one
church alone. Since he left the choice of the priest of St Silvinian's
church in Gaeta to his son Leo, it is likely that the latter church was
also a Docibilan foundation. The 120 gold solidi which Docibilis
spent on the church seems designed to impress; St Silvinian's was
adorned with a pavement, marble blackbirds, roofwork and
beams, a store for sacred objects, a gold procession cross, jewels and
pendants.145
After Docibilis' death, his son Leo also had control of St
Michael's, and in 930 we see him appointing an abbot, Anasta-
sius.146 This fact is significant for our perception of Docibilan
'power', for, whilst Leo was a member of the ruling family, it was
his older brother John I who was perceived as the ruler of Gaeta by
contemporaries. One had the care of his family's churches, the
other was indulging in rather more spectacular feats driving the
Saracens from the Garigliano and winning papal favour. Both

has provided much new and important information about the significance of S.
Vincenzo to Carolingian political aspirations in southern Italy in the ninth century. The
results are to be published in a series of reports, of which one, San Vincenzo al Voltumo, I,
ed. R. Hodges (British School at Rome, 1993) has so far appeared.
141 142
RN 52. RN 64.
143
Although external relations with the papacy, and internal ones with the local church,
were not necessarily dependent on, or affected by, each other.
144 145 146
CDC 17. CDC 19. CDC 33.

87
 From the beginnings to the eleventh century
were ensuring continued ecclesiastical support for their family's
position; their complementary actions underline the fact that early
on the Docibilans acted as a mutually supportive group, not yet
divided by the quarrels which are a feature of their documents later
on in the tenth century.
St Michael's acquired more land in 935, with the permission of
Docibilis II and John II. 147 In 958, the latter's concern to protect the
family foundation's land is shown in a court-case. The natural sons
of John I claimed a piece of land which lay within the territory of St
Michael's, and at John II's court they lost their case. 148 John also
gave land to the church, as a document of his brother and successor
Gregory making a donation in 964 records. 149
St Michael's may have remained the family's favourite church
throughout the rule of the Docibilans, but from a relatively early
date it seems to have been in competition for their grants of land
with the monastery of St Theodore, also in Gaeta. In 914 John I and
Docibilis II agreed to bishop Deusdedit's sale of a house and a piece
of land to the church, 150 and in 923 they gave St Theodore's a piece
of shoreline.151 In 980 dukes Marinus and John III made a gift of
public land to the same church 152 and in 993 we learn that St
Theodore's had been given control of the Docibilans' own
foundation at Planciano. 153 It seems that whilst St Michael's acted
as a family chapel, endowed with private lands, St Theodore's was
seen as the ecclesiastical establishment which, after the bishopric,
could provide most support for the dukes in power, and was
cultivated accordingly. The fact that two much later rulers of
Gaeta, dukes Atenolf I and Atenolf II, also patronised the church
suggests that this was the case. 154 Whether St Theodore's was a
Docibilan foundation, or pre-dated their rise, is unclear, but, by the
end of the tenth century, dukes John III and John IV were styling
themselves as its adiutores, protectores, defensores etpastores ('helpers,
protectors, defenders and caretakers'). 155
Whilst there were a few major churches patronised by the
Docibilans, this did not prevent them from making isolated gifts
to, and taking control of, other churches. In 906 Docibilis I left the
church of St Irene in Gaeta to two of his daughters. 156 In 954
Docibilis II made a bequest to the church of St Maria outside the

147 148 149 15

CDC 37- CDC 56. CDC 66. ° CDC 22.
151 152 153
CDC 30. CDC 98. CDC 91.
154 155 156
CDC 203 (1057), CDC 218 (1063). CDC 91. CDC 19.

88
 Foundations of ducal power in the tenth century
gates, which belonged to St Michael's.157 Other recipients of the
dukes' generosity included St Michael's at Altino in 978, 158 the
church of St Innocent at Vetera which Leo of Fondi acquired in
995, 159 and St Magnus' at Fondi, in 995. 160 John III and his wife
Emilia also founded the church of St John at Filline, endowed by
their son Leo with the casale or estate Ercli in 1036.161
A survey of the documentation reveals that, as elsewhere, the
Docibilian dukes at Gaeta claimed control over churches which
they had not founded, as well as those which they had, and made
gifts to them. These churches are to be seen as part of'thepublicum of
Gaeta, to be exploited as the dukes wished, and in fact were dealt
with little differently from the public lands under Docibilan
control. Thus in 934 Docibilis II and his son John sold control of the
ancient church of St Erasmus in Formia to Bona, widow of Leo,
and her son Leo for their lives at a price of 25 pounds of silver.162
Bona and Leo were still alive and in possession of the church in 959,
when it was promised by John II to his brother Leo as soon as they
should die. 163 That the Docibilans should claim control, and
successfully, over this church is not surprising, since St Erasmus was
seen as the protector of Formia, and would later be translated and
adopted as the patron saint of Gaeta as well. 164 If Docibilis and
John could be seen as the protectors of this saint's church, it could
only fuel the idea that their rule had a spiritual legitimacy.
The point of making donations to the church was not usually to
gain protection against external enemies. Land in this case was
probably better directed towards buying military rather than
ecclesiastical aid. Church support was needed to legitimise and
maintain the power of the Docibilan family in the eyes of their own
subjects, and in this respect the Docibilans succeeded in gaining it.
They established major foundations and endowed them with lands
which the monasteries themselves could not permanently alienate.
They exerted control over the bishop too, and thereby gained not
only spiritual, but also economic, aid.

157 158 159 160

CDC 52. CDC 72. CDC 94- CDC 74-
161 162 163
CDC 165. CDC 36. CDC 59.
164
It is unclear when the adoption took place, but it may have been the occasion for John of
Gaeta to produce his version of the saint's life in the 1080s: O. Engels, 'Papst Gelasius II
(Johannes von Gaeta) als Hagiograph', QFIAB, $ (1955), 1-45, gives bibliography on
this subject. This would fit well with the appearance of bronze coinage stamped with SE
(Sanctus Erasmus), which Lucia Travaini dates to the late eleventh century. (See below,
note 218).

89
 From the beginnings to the eleventh century

(d) EPISCOPAL SUPPORT

One of the most potent allies of any ruler was the bishop of the city.
Our documentary evidence shows that, moved from the old
episcopal seat at Formia to Gaeta after the former was destroyed by
Saracen attacks, the bishops very quickly acknowledged the power
of the new lords of Gaeta. Deusdedit deferred to Docibilis I and
John I in both his recorded transactions.165 Bishop Bonus helped
John I to increase Docibilan lands by selling him one piece of land
in Dragoncello and approving the sale of another in 919. 166 The
land, as we have already seen, seems to have been destined for
Gregory, John's son, who was also archdeacon of Gaeta and thus
Bonus' effective deputy. This series of transactions perhaps
illustrates better than any other the mutually beneficial relationship
between the Docibilans and the Gaetan church. The relationship
was not without times of friction, however. In 936 Docibilis II and
his son gave security to bishop Peter about an estate called
Logrezzano, suggesting that there had been a dispute over its
ownership.167 Peter's successor, Marinus, also won a court-case
against a Docibilan, this time one ofJohn I's natural sons Peter, in
945. The case was judged by Peter's half-brother Docibilis II,
indicating that in some cases political expediency could overcome
family loyalty. 168 Peter received better treatment at the hands of
bishop Stephen, who gave him land in Flumetica in 962. 169 We
may see here the bishop taking advantage of the fact that there were
many male members of the Docibilan line to choose from to
endow with land, and hinting to those in power that the bishop's
voice should not be ignored.
It may have been desire to eliminate this inherent threat to
Docibilan power which led to the installation of Bernard, son of
duke Marinus, as bishop of Gaeta at the end of the tenth century. In
one move a compliant bishop was, in theory, obtained and the
pretensions to the dukedom of a younger son contained.
(Although men who held both posts were not unknown in
southern Italy - the bishop/duke of Naples in the 880s, Athanasius,
is a case in point. 170 )
As part of two landowning networks, those of the church and
the ruling dynasty, Bernard was uniquely powerful — he held onto
his position as bishop until his death in 1047, twelve years after his
165 166 167
CDC 17, CDC 22. CDC 25, CDC 26. CDC 39.
168 169 170
CDC 47. CDC 62. See above, chapter 2.

90
 Foundations of ducal power in the tenth century
family had been ousted as dukes of Gaeta. How did he achieve this?
Part of Bernard's success must be due to his longevity. He had
fifty years in power to establish respect for himself and, more
importantly, an economic base from which to meet his episcopal
obligations. Many of his documents survive, revealing him to have
been a careful collector and manager of land, but the two which
interest us most are those in which he had dealings with his
relatives. In 999 he was involved in a dispute with his nephew,
count Dauferius II of Traetto, over the estate called Spinio (Spigno
Vecchia), and settled on a division of the land. 171 In 1002 he gave
his sister-in-law duchess Emilia a piece of land in return for the help
she had given the bishopric. 172 The significance of these two
cessions is that they occurred just as the Docibilan family faced a
critical period in their rule, when those branches of the clan ruling
the counties, especially Traetto, were acting more and more
independently.173 In the first document, we see the aggressiveness
of a new power trying to establish a landed base. In the second we
perhaps see the drawing together of allies at the centre in a
defensive mood. After years of ducal gifts to the bishopric, the
bishop was reciprocating with his support for the old regime. If
land was the way to express this, then that was what he would give.
However, if Bernard saw himself as the defender of his family's
position at Gaeta, Emilia and her successors did not. In 1009, she
confirmed the decision of a court-case against him in favour of the
monastery of St Benedict at Montecassino, 174 and signalled the
beginning of a new era. 175
At Naples, the closeness between rulers and bishops reached a
high point with the holding of both offices by Athanasius between
878 and 898. Pope John VIII, so disappointed with Docibilis'
attitude towards breaking off relations with the Arabs, had high
hopes that a bishop in power at Naples would set a better example.
If so, these hopes were dashed; Athanasius had just as acute a sense
of needing to come to some arrangement with the raiders as his
contemporary at Gaeta, and suffered the same excommunication.
Subsequent bishops of Naples also seem to have come from the
ducal family, although information is somewhat lacking as to their
precise relationship, since only two documents refer to ducal-
171 172
CDC 101. CDC 105.
173
For the relationship between Bernard and Emilia, and for the detachment of Traetto, see
174
below, chapter 5, sections (a) and (b) respectively. CDC 118.
175
Relationship between Gaeta and Montecassino, see below, chapter 5, section (c,iii).

91
 From the beginnings to the eleventh century
episcopal action. The first records bishop Acculsarius and duke
Gregory's donation of the monastery of St Severinus at Lucullano
to SS Severinus and Sossus in 907. 176 The second attests to the
closeness between individual dukes and their bishops: after the
death of archbishop Leo folio wing a visit to Constantinople, dukes
John and Marinus commemorated him by ordering books to be
made. He had apparently been an avid reader, and so this was a
fitting tribute to him. 177
The remaining Neapolitan episcopal documents from the early
period, however, are remarkably detached from ducal affairs.
They mostly relate to the churches and property over which the
bishops had control. 178 Another series of documents perhaps
reveals why the bishops do not seem to have been as prominent in
Neapolitan affairs as we might have expected. In a trio of disputes
over land with the powerful Greek monastery of SS Sergius and
Bacchus, the bishops lost twice and came to a compromise
settlement in the other case. 179 This may reflect a contest for
authority between the two main ecclesiastical institutions in the
city which now can only be glimpsed, and our ducal documents
can give us no further information as to which the dukes favoured.
At Amalfi again the fragmented survival of the documents
makes establishing a relationship between the dukes and bishops
difficult. In 1012 archbishop Leo bought a water-mill portion from
members of the ducal family including duke Sergius. 180 But only
one document, dated 1023, shows the dukes actively supporting
the archbishop, when Sergius and John ordered the goldsmiths
Sergius and Ursus to make a document of security to archbishop
Leo. 181
Otherwise, episcopal documents follow the familiar pattern of
control over smaller churches in the duchy, and leasing out of
pieces of landed property. For example, in 993 archbishop Leo
176 177
DCDN 1. Monumenta, I, p. 339.
178
E.g. RN 3, (915): Athanasius agrees to a lease by SS Festus and Desiderius; RN 8, (921):
Athanasius signs a document of the abbess of SS Gregory, Sebastian and Pantaleo to the
episcopal church; RN 153: Athanasius recorded as having sold land in Balusanu before
966; RN 266, (990): Sergius signs a sale by servants of the episcopal church of
Mauganum land to St Severus; RN 273, (992): Sergius signs a settlement involving SS
Marcellinus and Peter over land; RN 318: Athanasius recorded as having agreed to gift
to St George Maioris before 1003.
179
RN 125, (962): Niceta disputes land with St Sebastian and loses; RN 154 (966): Gregory
disputes land with SS Sergius and Bacchus and divides it; RN 356, (1015): John disputes
18
and loses land at Nonnaria to the same church. ° RN 346.
181
CD A II, 590.

92
 Foundations of ducal power in the tenth century
appointed a priest to St Sebastian in Pigellula, and seems also to
have supervised St Benedict in Scala.182 In 1007 he lost a court-case
over land in Stabia to one of the more prominent families of the
duchy. 183 In 1008 a trio of documents show the son of a former
archbishop, Constantine, buying up land, and the signature of the
current archbishop Stephen suggests that he had initiated the action
or at least approved of it. 184 In 1012 archbishop Leo received a
piece of land near Radicosa from a tenant unable to continue
working it because 'the Lombards came'. 185 Further evidence of
the archbishop's economic activity comes in documents of 1024,
when Leo bought land in Stabia, and 103 5, when he leased out land
in Carniano. 186 Several of the transactions reveal that the
archbishops performed a dual role as incumbents of the episcopal
seat and as abbots of SS Ciricus and Iulicta. The latter monastery,
however, does not appear to have attracted ducal patronage.

(e) JUSTICE
187
Merores discusses the role of the early hypatoi or dukes of Gaeta
as judges of court-cases, and this is just as important a manifestation
of Docibilan power as the other aspects. The fact that the first
document 188 we have of Docibilis I in 867 shows him in the role of
judge is significant, for the act of submitting a dispute to his
judgement meant that the disputants, Ramfus bishop of Gaeta and
Maurus and John of Gaeta, recognised his authority and that his
decision would, it was hoped, be respected by any other interested
parties. The presence of such illustrious witnesses as Bonus, son of
count Anatolius, also implies recognition of Docibilis' position of
superiority. A generation later the dispute flared up again between
the bishopric and the sons of Maurus and John. Again the case was
brought before, and settled by, the dukes of Gaeta. 189
We see the Docibilan rulers sitting in judgement at court-cases
throughout the tenth century. In 945, for example, bishop Marinus
disputed with Peter, the natural son of John I, about land in
Traetto's territory; Docibilis II and John II decided in favour of the
bishop. 190 Peter did no better before John II in 958, when he and
182
CD A II, 589.
183
CD A 21; the case went to the Neapolitani, of w h o m more later: see below, chapter 4,
184 185
section (b). CD A 25, CD A 26, CD A 27. CD A 31.
186 187 188
CDA 37, CDA 41. Gaeta, chapter 2. CDC 13.
189 190
CDC 48. CDC 47.

93
 From the beginnings to the eleventh century
his brothers Leo and Constantine clashed with the priest of St
Michael's at Planciano. 191 Both decisions may have owed more to
the dukes' desire to maintain good relations with the church than
with the facts of each case; we cannot justifiably interpret them as a
way of keeping potential challengers for power in their place.
When the heirs of Kampulus the prefect and the three natural sons
of John I were in dispute in 957, the decision of John II was to divide
the contested territory, thereby attempting to appease both
parties.192
What happened when the dukes themselves were in dispute? In
946, when Docibilis II fought over the estates called Caput Piro and
Iuniano with his cousins John and Docibilis sons of Leo the prefect,
no external help seems to have been available to appeal to, so a
compromise and share-out of the estates was reached. 193 This
reveals the weakness of a situation where the disputes of the great
men of Gaeta could only be heard by the duke. However, our
documentary evidence may be rather deceptive here; just thirty-
five years later the two sons of duke Gregory quarrelled over some
land, and referred their dispute not to the reigning dukes Marinus
and John III (their uncle and cousin), but to the nobiliores of
Gaeta.194 To ask for the judgement of their peers must have been a
normal practice for those outside the ducal circle throughout the
tenth century. We have several references in our witness lists to
men bearing the title index in the tenth century, even if we do not
see them at work until the eleventh. 195
It is possible, therefore, that the role ofjudge was one which the
dukes would lose to men who specialised in the work during the
eleventh century. (In a case heard at Pontecorvo in 1058, we even
see duke Atenolf I, 'growing tired of a particularly long-running
dispute and handing it over to an appointed judge, ordering him to
settle the matter. 196 ) The important point to note, however, is that
they had established their right to judge others very early on in
their period of rule, and that this right does not appear to have been
questioned.
The right to sit in judgement over court cases was one claimed
by most medieval rulers, and it is not surprising to find the dukes of
Naples fulfilling the same role. Their interest, however, suggested
191 192 193 194
CDC 56.. CDC 54. CDC 49. CDC 79.
195
Nicephorus CDC 43 (941); Paul CDC 62 (962), CDC 63 (963), CDC 66 (964); on
eleventh-century judges, see below, chapter 5, sections (d,ii) and (e,ii).
1 QA y^» r\S~*

94
 Foundations of ducal power in the tenth century
by the two surviving tenth-century cases judged by the duke, lay in
the affairs of the great men of their duchy. In 932 duke John was
present at a dispute involving men titled tnagnijici; in 992 duke
Sergius was called in to a dispute involving the powerful
Neapolitan monastery of SS Sergius and Bacchus.197 This reflects
Gaetan evidence, where most cases coming before Docibilans were
contested by the nobility, it seems. What is striking about the two
Neapolitan examples is that although the disputes came before the
dukes of the day, John in 932 and Sergius in 992, in neither case was
a decision by the duke recorded. Instead, the mere bringing of the
cases seems to have acted as a catalyst to a settlement; the earlier case
was decided by an oath, the latter apparently by written evidence.
It may well be that the duke was in no position to enforce a
decision, even if he had made one. Alternatively, the function of
bringing the case before him may have been to ensure that the
correct procedures were seen to have been followed before a
settlement was reached. In northern Italy, slightly earlier, the
function ofjudges at court seems to have been precisely this; their
primary aim was not to adjudicate, but to oversee the process of
producing proofs and settlement.198 The 932 case mirrors other
Neapolitan evidence of disputes being settled by oaths, 199
although not, apparently, before the duke. The earliest recorded
judge at Naples appears in 927, but this is in a document preserved
at Cava outside Salerno, and his title may reflect local customs
rather than Neapolitan ones. 200 Certainly men known by the title
of index are extremely difficult to find in the Neapolitan
documents, and it is only in the eleventh century that we have any
further record of their activities.201
The importance of oaths in settling disputes is again illustrated in
evidence from Amalfi, where the earliest evidence of ducal
involvement occurs in 969. In that year, duke Manso ordered the
two parties in a land dispute to swear to their cases, and a settlement
was obtained.202 In 1023, the dukes of Amalfi backed up the

197
RN 2 i , RN 277.
198
C. J. Wickham, 'Land disputes and their social framework in Lombard-Carolingian
Italy, 700-900', in The Settlement of Disputes in Early Medieval Europe,ed. W . Davies and
P. Fouracre (Cambridge, 1986), p. n o .
199
Oaths: RN 36 (937), # N 4 8 (942), RN 73 (951), RN 114 (960), RN 127 (963), RN 136
(964), RN 143 (965), RN 180 (970), RN 193 (972), RN201 (974), RN210 (976), RN217
(978), RN 259 (989), RN 276 (992).
200
CodCav 1/46; the public judge of Naples made a decision about a house. The parties in
20t 202
the case are not nobles, it seems. RN 466, (1039). CodCav 11/261.

95
 From the beginnings to the eleventh century
archbishop in a transaction with two goldsmiths. 203 In 1055 duke
John took a more active role when a case was brought before him
involving a piece of land disputed between one Gregory of the
powerful Monteincollo family and two women. Since the women
refused to attend the court, for unknown reasons, John decided in
favour of Gregory. 204 The latter two examples are relatively late;
it is likely that the dukes sat in judgement as elsewhere in the
Tyrrhenian from an early date. In a document of 920, the dating
clause refers to the rulers Mastalus and his son as * glorious judges',
which is fairly conclusive evidence of a role they were expected to
play. 205 However, judges are fairly heavily documented from 977
onwards in the Amalfitan evidence, and they may have taken on
most cases. If they did, we have no record of it. The relatively few
Amalfitan disputes which survive reveal only that the parties in the
disagreement sometimes had recourse to a 'court'. 206 The majority
of judges' documents, on the other hand, shows them as witnesses,
suggesting that their presence was becoming necessary to validate a
transaction. It is striking, too, that a high proportion of surviving
ducal documents include judges in their witness lists. 207 This
closeness between ruler and judges would be significant later in the
duchy's history, when the latter began to take on a more active
governmental role.
It is worth pausing for a moment to consider what the evidence
from the Tyrrhenian cities tells us about dispute settlement in this
area in the early medieval period. Very few court-cases were held
before judges during this period. Instead, dukes presided over
courts; but their concern might only have been for the disagree-
ments of their major subjects. This brings up the issue of how well
the documentary evidence reflects the actuality of everyday
disputes. Although 'the recording of cases and judgements was...
of paramount importance' in the Byzantine world of which these
three cities were the direct heirs, 208 the documents which we have
203
CDA 11, 590.
204
CP 33; for more on the Monteincolli, see below, chapter 4, section (b).
205
CDA 11, 585; see also Schwarz, Amalfi nel Medioevo, p. 69.
206
CP 30 (984), CDA 21 (1007), CDA 49 (1037).
207
Judges witnessing ducal documents: John CodCav 11/386 (986), CDA 588 (988); Manso
CDA 590 (1023); Sergius CDA 591 (1033), CDA 60 (1048); John son of Niceta CDA
591 (1033); John CDA 60 (1048); Constantine CDA 66 (1058); John CDA 592 (1079);
Leo and Pardus CDA 87 (1091); Sergius, John and Leo CDA 593 (1098).
208
R. Morris, 'Dispute settlement in the Byzantine provinces in the tenth century', in
Settlement of Disputes, p . 140. Morris uses evidence from southern Italy to support her
findings.

96
 Foundations of ducal power in the tenth century
reflect only the cases which were thought worth recording.
Winners were likely to want documentary evidence of their
victory in court; churches in particular kept records of this type,
and feature in the majority of cases which survive.209
However, many surviving documents record cases which seem
to have ended in compromises being reached, and it is likely that far
more disputes were settled in this way without even reaching the
court. In cities which do not, at this time, seem to have had
professional judges, the arbitration of peers (as in the case of the
nobiliores at Gaeta mentioned above) may have worked on a far less
formal basis to end disagreements. Those cases which did come
before the duke might, therefore, be seen as the ones which could
not be settled in private, perhaps requiring a document to be made
as proof of the winner's case.
Thus, although dukes claimed the right to judge disputes in the
ninth and tenth centuries, the surviving evidence suggests that they
may have overseen only a small minority of the processes of
settlement between their subjects. Most disagreements may have
been settled by verbal agreements in the presence of neighbours. It
is important to bear this in mind when assessing the level of'power'
the role of judge conferred on a duke.

(f) PUBLIC FINANCE AND PUBLIC SERVICE

We have no evidence of how the Docibilans in the tenth century
controlled the publicfinancesof Gaeta. This is not really surprising
in a document base which deals primarily in land transactions.
However, given their apparently conscious monopolisation of
such public assets as milling, we can perhaps postulate that any
revenue to be had from such things as market or port dues was
swiftly taken over. The evidence from the wills of men like
Docibilis I, Docibilis II and Gregory son of Leo the prefect points to
some interest in the luxury goods reaching Gaeta, but no firm
documentary evidence points to their active participation in the
importation of such merchandise.
Such problems dog the Neapolitan evidence as well. It is
unlikely that the dukes of Naples monopolised commercial
undertakings as perhaps the Gaetans did. However, a hint of the
sources of public revenue which the dukes could call upon may be

, 'Land disputes', p. 105, makes this point for northern Italy.

97
 From the beginnings to the eleventh century
contained in a document of 999, in which John, consul and duke,
gave the monastery of SS Sergius and Bacchus the right to sail its
ships and boats wherever the abbot wanted, and permission to use
nauticis extraneis, or foreign sailors.210 There is clearly an issue of
ducal control of shipping here, and we can only assume that those
who wished to sail and land their ships in the duke's ports would be
charged for the privilege. This image is strengthened if we
remember that the area covered by the ducal palace complex in the
city may well have comprised most of the shoreline. In a more
direct reference, although later, duke Sergius gave the church of SS
Sergius and Bacchus to that of St Salvator and exempted it from
any public services or angaria.211 Other public controls which seem
to have been enforced at Naples included that over water, already
mentioned, over walls and towers and over gates. Gate duty seems
to have been 'privatised', from twelfth-century evidence; 212
giving out such sources of income to other families may have
reinforced their ties to the dukes. One role in which the dukes of
Naples are quite frequently seen is that of consenters to transac-
tions, all but one involving alienation of land. 213 In one document
the reason for the ducal intervention is specified - the party
authorising the document is a minor 214 - and it is likely that the
other examples are similarly motivated. Such protection of minors
might have been highly profitable for the dukes, who in effect
gained control over their property.
Again at Amalfi we can get only a glimpse of the kind of fiscal
revenues that the dukes could call upon, and our one reference to
them is late, from 1033. In that year duke John excused his aunt,
Drosu the wife of Marinus son of duke Manso, from dues owed to
the treasury on a piece of land she had bought on Capri. These
consisted of 27 congia of wine, 3 modia of vegetables, 10 sheep and 20
quails.215 Such a document hardly suggests a sophisticated fiscal
administration in the duchy at this time, but Amalfi's neighbours
do not seem to have been much more advanced.

210 211
RN 309. DCDN 11 (1036).
212
Cassandro, 'Ducato', p. 206.
213
RN 195,(973): Marinus consents to a sale; RN 366, (1016): dukes Sergius and John give
permission for a sale; RN 395, (1022): Sergius gives permission for a lease; RN 412,
(1027): Sergius gives permission for a sale; RN 470, (1038): duke John gives permission
214
for a sale; see also Cassandro, 'Ducato', p. 215. RN 390 (1021).
215
CDA 591.

98
 Foundations of ducal power in the tenth century

(g) CENTRAL AND LOCAL POWER

In all three of the Tyrrhenian duchies, we have a sense of the duke
forming the focus of political power, but varying amounts of
documentation as to the actual functions he performed. None of
the three issued laws, adhering perhaps to the notion that they were
still in effect subjects of the Byzantine emperor, and, therefore, to
the laws issued by him. 216 There seems also, from the documen-
tary evidence, to have been a distinct lack of fighting men in the
three duchies, but this image may be illusory. The milites
documented among Naples' citizens clearly performed some
defensive function on that duchy's border with Capua. But it is
apparent that these men were not directly answerable to the duke.
They protected their own property, which lay on the border, and
to some extent power to administer these areas must have devolved
to them.
The devolution of power from the centre is an issue which I shall
return to in a discussion of the duchies in the eleventh century,
when the reasons for fragmentation in Gaeta are examined. The
dukes of Gaeta too shared their power out to local counts, but in
their case the exercise proved disastrous.

(h) RELATIONS WITH BYZANTIUM

It remains only to comment briefly on the relationship that the
three duchies had with their former overlords, the emperors of
Byzantium. Dating clauses can be revealing when looking at
formal acknowledgements of power. The Docibilans flirted with
dating by their own rule, reverted to imperial dating for a time, but
then took the plunge when they began calling themselves dukes in
the mid-tenth century and dispensed with the imperial regnal years
in their documents. The Amalfitans seem not to have had such
qualms, perhaps because they were ruled briefly by Salerno before
becoming independent, and the earliest document we have, from
860, is dated by Manso the prefect's regnal year. 217 But Naples'

216
That the dukes' subjects certainly had a vague idea that they were part of a wider sphere
is suggested by the continued citations of'Roman law' in some documents. But the lack
of legislation in the tenth century was mirrored in Lombard states as well, where royal
laws of the seventh and eighth centuries continued to be cited.
217
CDA 11, 584.

99
 From the beginnings to the eleventh century
documents were dated by the imperial regnal year in the ninth and
tenth centuries and would continue to be so in the eleventh. In this
city, with a long curial tradition and a long memory, formalities
were strictly observed even when they clearly had no basis in
reality. The air of conservatism that surrounded the ducal dynasty
permeated the documents written during their reign.
Another indicator of attachment, or lack thereof, to their
erstwhile ruler can be seen in the coinage of the three duchies.
Although the documents reveal a variety of gold and silver coins in
use, the most frequent currency in use for accounting purposes was
the Byzantine solidus. If we look at the everyday bronze coins used
in the three cities, however, we see that they struck their own.
Gaetan bronze or copper follari bore the name of the duke and a
representation of the city's patron saint, Erasmus; 218 Naples' coins
were similar, with saint Ianuarius depicted. But Naples also struck
silver coinage, and this continued to show the current Byzantine
emperor, not the duke. 219 Amalfi, perhaps not unexpectedly, was
the least inclined to maintain an outward show of deference to the
Byzantines, and her coinage followed the Arabic example in
producing gold taxi or quarter-dinars from the mid-eleventh
century. 220
A final link with the Byzantine empire was the continued use of
Byzantine honorific titles in all three duchies, and here the different
types of charter evidence, discussed above, may be responsible for
producing a somewhat surprising picture. For, whilst both
Amalfitan221 and Gaetan 222 documents reveal a continued use of
218
On Gaetan coinage, S. Ferraro, Le Monete di Gaeta (Naples, 1915), cannot now be relied
upon. The coinage of Gaeta and the surrounding area is the subject of new work by
Lucia Travaini, who is engaged in a critical reappraisal of how many surviving coins are
genuine, and how many of these can be attributed to a Gaetan mint: Travaini,
219
Monetazione. Cassandro, 'Ducato', p. 257.
220
Ferraro, Monete, p. 30; see also G. Sambon, // Tari Amaljitano (Milan, 1891): again, the
work of Travaini is providing a critical survey of both the Amalfitan tari and the
surviving bronze coinage from the city. See L. Travaini, 'I tari di Salerno e Amalfi',
Rassegna del Centro di Cultura e Storia Amalfitana, 19-20 (1990), 7—71, n o w to be
modified by Travaini, Monetazione.
221
Titles were conferred on several rulers of Amalfi, as dating clause evidence reveals:
Manso imperial spatharocandidatus (907, CD A 1); Mastalus imperial patrician and Leo
protospatharius (922, CD A 2); Mastalus again with his son John imperial patricians (947,
CD A 6); Manso imperial patrician (966, CP 29); Sergius imperial patrician (1018, CD A
33); John imperial patrician (1033, CD A 39) and then patrician, anthipatus et vestis (1055,
CP 33). A few of their subjects also had titles: John son of Niceta imperial protospatharius
(1005, CD A 19, onwards); John son of Sergius imperial protospatharius (1006, CD A 20);
Niceta son of John protospatharius son of Niceta archbishop (1007/22?, CD A 23); John
son of Mauri son of Sergii protospatharius (1013, PAVAR 1/6); Ursus son of Niceta

IOO
 Foundations of ducal power in the tenth century
Byzantine titles throughout the tenth century and into the
eleventh, such titles are extremely rare in those from Naples. 223
Given the fact that Naples seems to have been the most 'Byzantine'
of the three duchies, this lack is initially puzzling. However, if the
titles were conferred to bring recalcitrant subjects back into the
Byzantine fold, the reason for their frequency at Amalfi,
particularly the high number awarded to the rulers of that city, and
low number at Naples, becomes clear. For the Amalfitans, since
839, had maintained a relationship with both the Arabs attacking
the Tyrrhenian and with their Lombard neighbours in Salerno.
Neither was viewed with any amity by the Byzantines 224 or, after
915, by Naples. When duke John of Amalfi faced the Lombard
challenge to his power in the mid-eleventh century, Byzantium
reacted by conferring titles upon him, almost as a show of support.
Similarly, the Garigliano campaign against the Arabs in 915 was
accompanied by the conferring of imperial patriciates on all the
main parties to reinforce their adherence to the alliance. Thus titles
did have a function beyond honouring their bearers, but as the
eleventh century progressed only Amalfi seems to have been seen
as a duchy needing attention from the Byzantines (perhaps related
not only to its proximity to Lombard Salerno, but also to its role as
an important trading partner of the eastern emperors). Naples, as
we have seen, had very few title-holders, and Gaeta seems to have
experienced a sharp drop as memories of men honoured in the
tenth century faded.

CONCLUSION

This chapter has attempted to illustrate the wealth which the early
dukes had at their disposal, and the administrative functions they

protospatharius (1037, CDA 50). These were clearly not handed on, but were important
enough to be remembered by the descendants of those w h o had held them.
222
Apart from the imperial patriciate awarded to John I for his part in the Garigliano
campaign, we see no other rulers of Gaeta with imperial titles. Several of their subjects
did, however, have minor titles: Marinus spatharius (924, CDC 31); Leo son of John
spatharius (936, CDC 39); Leo son of"Leoprotospatharius (983, CDC 83,1002, CDC 108),
and a significant number of John's children continued to cite their father's title, for
example Leo in 922, CDC 29, Theotista in 937, CDC 40, Mirus, Leo and Constantine in
941, CDC 43, Megalu in 958, CDC 58, and duke Docibilis in 946, CDC 49.
223
In Naples, only the title spatharius occurs, and this is rare: t w o men named Gregory bore
the title in 941, RN 44, and in 1015, Mon.Sopp. 532.
224
Even the conferring of titles upon individual Lombard rulers can be interpreted as a
means to encourage cooperation.

101
 From the beginnings to the eleventh century
performed. At Gaeta land was used to secure the position of the
Docibilans vis-a-vis the nobles who came to their courts and the
church.
There is one intangible aspect of power which cannot be proven
-from the documentary evidence, however, and that is the energy,
industry and charisma of men like Docibilis I and his son John I. It
was these which allowed them to overcome their lack of family
background, and possibly some opposition, and to lay the
foundations of dynastic rule. For the dukes of Amalfi and Naples
there was perhaps less of an air of illegitimacy about their rise,
despite the rather traumatic circumstances of the former's break
from the latter.
The tenth-century duchies can be characterised as lacking strong
administrative structures. Central power revolved around the
dukes and their families, all of whom had a relatively loose notion
of their public function. Public and private land were intermin-
gled; their rule was based purely on dynastic inheritance and
received no outside legitimisation from either the Byzantine
empire (although the conferring of imperial titles on all three rulers
at least suggests approbation of their position) or the church. The
latter's co-operation was useful, but not essential.
The distinct lack of bureaucratic or fiscal offices visible in the
documents may owe something to the fact that the latter largely
recorded property transactions, but an argument from lack of
evidence probably is safe in this period. Later on, as chapter 5 will
illustrate, such offices did exist, and they show up in the documents
of the rulers. In the tenth and early eleventh centuries, however,
these small states really do look like extended family businesses.
However, none of the ruling families could exercise power
without the co-operation of their leading subjects. Taking Gaeta as
its main example, the next chapter will explore how different
families could influence the fortunes of the ruling house, and how
they built up power bases of their own.

102
 Chapter 4

NOBLE FAMILIES IN THE TENTH

CENTURY

(a) GAETA

The economic and political power of the Docibilan rulers of Gaeta

can only be appreciated fully if it is treated within the context of a
comparison with the fortunes of other contemporary families in
Gaeta. This subject has only been patchily dealt with in the Gaetan
historiography so far. Both Merores and Fedele have discussed
certain eleventh-century clans, but neither really addressed those of
the tenth century.1 And Delogu, whilst recognising the import-
ance of the early Docibilans' relationships with the sons of count
Anatolius and with Kampulus the prefect, did not examine the
family histories of either man or cast his net wider to discuss other
noble families.2
One reason for this oversight may be that during the tenth and
early eleventh centuries, the use of surnames to identify blood ties
was still extremely rare at Gaeta,3 which renders the tracing of
tenth-century lines of descent less obviously simple. Only one of
the families to be discussed in this chapter, the Caracci, consistently
used that surname after their first appearance in 1020,4 relatively
late. It is likely that they derived it from the genitive form of the
name of an ancestor, Caraccius, losing the final -i. 5 In a similar
way, for ease of identification, I have created genitive-form

1
Merores, Gaeta, p. 118; P. Fedele, 'La famiglia di Gelasio II', in Scritti Storici, pp. 434-440.
2
'Ducato', p. 200.
3
It would become common from the middle of the eleventh century: see below, chapter
4
6. CDC 138.
5
Merores, Gaeta, p. 118, thinks that the family were descended from one Stephen of
Tremonsuoli. His sons, John and Ferruccius, are visible in 981 (CDC 80), and we have
one Carruccius son ofJohn Firruccius authorising a document of 1012 (CDC 125). The
name Carruccius is unusual enough to make some kind of family link likely, but perhaps
not via direct descent, for the three Caracci brothers who appear in 1020 (CDC 138) are
the sons of John Caracci, and thus may be too close to Carruccius in date to be his
grandsons.

103
 From the beginnings to the eleventh century
surnames based on their earliest or most prominent member for the
families discussed in this chapter. Thus the family of count
Christopher are called the Christopherii, that of Kampulus the
prefect the Kampuli, and the descendants of count Anatolius,
whose son Constantine ruled Gaeta from c. 83 9 to 866, the Anatolii
and so on.
In the absence of surnames in the documentation itself, other
methods were used to establish relationships by blood or marriage.
Whilst none guarantees absolutely that family ties exist, they could
be used effectively in conjunction with each other to build up a
substantial case in favour of a relationship.
The first method which yielded promising results when applied
to the Gaetan documentation was the use of lead-names, that is
isolating names which recur within a family from one generation
to the next. Karl Schmid demonstrated the use of this method in
building up a history of the Carolingian Udalriching clan,6 that is a
family in which the name Ulrich or Odalrich recurred. The lead-
name came from the founder of the family's fortunes, who was a
brother of the wife of Charlemagne, Hildegard. However, as he
pointed out, could we really assign to this same family all
occurrences of the name throughout the Carolingian empire?
Clearly not, but, if one limited the investigation to a restricted
region within the empire (Schmid used the district around Lake
Constance), more localised groups could be built up who, because
of their proximity to each other, were more likely to be related.
This method seemed to be ideal for Gaeta, a territorially limited
area. Using names of men who could be said to have founded or
greatly enhanced their family fortunes, such as those of count
Anatolius, his possible great-grandson Kampulus the prefect,
count Christopher and Docibilis I himself, it soon became apparent
that the lead-name method worked very well on Gaetan material.
An emergent pattern was that of the lead-name occurring in
alternate generations, which can be illustrated if we look at a
truncated genealogy of the Docibilan clan (see Figure 4.1).
Even within such a limited area as Gaeta, however, it is clear that
not all occurrences of a particular name, such as Docibilis,
automatically represent a relationship with the dynasty whose
lead-name it is. Other traceable families also named the occasional

K. Schmid, 'The structure of the nobility in the earlier middle ages', in The Medieval
Nobility, ed. T. Reuter (Oxford, 1979), pp. 37-59.

IO4
 Noble families in the tenth century
DOCIBILIS 1(867-906)
1
Leo John I
i i
1 i

DOCIBILIS (937-963) DOCIBILIS II (914-54)

I
Gregory Leo
|
Landolf DOCIBILIS DOCIBILIS
1 (980-999) (980-1010)
DOCIBILIS (1025)
i
1
Leo
1
i
DOCIBILIS (1054)

Figure 4.1 Recurrence of the Docibilis lead-name

son Docibilis. But it is a sign of their eagerness to associate

themselves in a literally nominal way with the ruling line, and it is
noticeable that the Docibilan genealogical table in full does not
feature one blood-relation by the name of Kampulus or Christo-
pher, the lead-names of other dynasties. Particularly significant,
though, is the fact that Docibilis I used the lead-name of the former
ruling family of Gaeta, the Anatolii, for one of his own sons,
Anatolius the duke of Terracina. This fits very well with the
discussion above of Docibilis' aspirations to links with the Anatolii,
almost giving the impression of blood ties, as well as the marital
ones which occurred.
Similar lead-name patterns to the one in the Docibilan
genealogy can be built up for the three other families mentioned,
and are included in the discussions of each in the main body of the
chapter. What should be noted also, in this context, is a less strong,
but nevertheless identifiable, tendency to use female lead-names
within the clan as well. The parallel Matronas mentioned earlier are
one example of this.7
The second method of family identification which yielded
results was to examine cases where possible members of the same
family, but perhaps of different generations, could be associated
with the same piece of land. This clearly has limitations; it would be
hazardous to assume a relationship between two people on the basis
7
See above, chapter 2 and Figure 2.1.

IO5
 From the beginnings to the eleventh century
of both owning unspecified pieces of land in a named district such
as Scauri, which could have contained any number of estates.
However, if we tighten up our definition and use only examples
where an estate (casale or curtis) called by a certain name is the link,8
we can justifiably propose a relationship between its two owners/
tenants.
A similar use of association through generations can be applied
to those men and women in the documents who appear alongside
members of a firmly identified family. For example three men
named Franco, Grimaldo son of Franco and Guitto son of
Grimaldo appear in the eleventh century in documents from Fratte
(Ausonia).9 Their names and their association with the same place
points to a father, son and grandson, but the addition of further
circumstantial evidence - that Franco had been a witness for one
Peter Giczi in 1030 and that Grimaldo and Guitto were both co-
witnesses with Peter's son in 1048 and 1079 respectively — tipped
the balance. For, if two men were friends or regularly acted
together in business transactions, in all likelihood their sons would
follow suit. (Men with less obviously linkable and unusual names
have also been successfully related using this method.)
Such methodology is not without its risks, and so the
genealogies which follow are footnoted to provide additional
information. It is also true to say that one can fall into the trap of
isolating one family too much from another, when in fact marriage
ties not readily visible in our documents could have existed. A
consequence might be that two families acted far more as one clan.
Conversely, in neatly packaging sets of relatives, it is easy to
overlook the fact that they may not have co-operated with each
other all the time; the Docibilans are a prime example of this. Why
then attempt to associate them with each other at all and write their
family histories? Because these noble families owned land outside
Docibilan control, in some cases had lived in Gaeta prior to
Docibilan rule, and yet are visible in Docibilan documents and
never seemed to have questioned their subordinate position. Such a
situation requires explanation. This can only be attempted if the
families are examined in more detail.

8
See, for example, the case of the casale Faonia, discussed later in this chapter, section (a,ii).
9
CDC 159, CDC 185, CDC 252 (from Suio): for more on this family, see below, chapter
5, sections (b,iii) and (c,iii).

106
 Noble families in the tenth century

(i) The Christopherii

The landowning history of the first major family in the documents,
the Christopherii, begins long before Docibilis I came to power in
867. In a document dating from between 800 and 81410 count
Christopher, the family's chief ancestor bought a piece of land near
to the church of St Sabae outside Sperlonga from John, a son of
count Anatolius. Christopher himself was thus linked with the
Anatolii, the previous rulers of Gaeta, and his successors soon won
their way into the good graces of the new rulers from 867 onwards.
This seems to be indicated by the appearance of one Christopher
son of Sergius as witness to the court held by Docibilis I in 867, lx
and from then on the Christopherii benefited from Docibilan
patronage. In 890 count Christopher's son Peter leased some land in
Paniano from Docibilis I and John I in perpetuity, for a cash
payment of 6 solidi.12 In the same year Peter's three children were
confirmed as owners of the land near St Sabae, which the count
their grandfather had bought, 13 by Docibilis I and John I. Whether
Docibilis did this because he felt himself to be the heir, however
tenuously, of the vendor, John son of Anatolius, or whether it was
because he was asserting himself as the new lord of the lands which
his predecessors in power had controlled, is unclear. There may
have been some dispute over the ownership of the land,
particularly since the record of the sale contains errors in the date
clause.14 But the effect of the confirmation itself must have been to
draw attention to the fact that however rich and influential the
Christopherii had been before, they now had to depend on the
goodwill of the new regime.
From then on, records of the Christopherii family's landowning
exhibit both a gradual spread of their lands from the early centre
around Sperlonga eastwards towards the Garigliano river, and
continuing links with the Docibilans (see Map 4.1). In 909
Christopher son ofJohn agreed to his presumably now quite aged
grandmother Anna's gift of St Laurence land (near Mola) to the
10
CDC 1; the dating clause of this document, by the reign of the emperor Charles, means
that the date assigned to it by the editors of the Codex Cajetanus, 787, cannot possibly be
correct. I disagree with Brown, Gentlemen and Officers, p. 60, note 39, who redates the
document to the late ninth century. The names recorded in the charter undoubtedly
X1 12 13
place it earlier. CDC 13. CDC 15. CDC 16.
14
That the original sale document may be forged remains a possibility, but one which is
difficult to prove.

107
^ 9 ^ 1 Land over 1OOOm
X////A Land over 300 m
9 5km
0 3 miles

Map 4.1 hands of the Christopherii family

 Noble families in the tenth century
Docibilan foundation of St Michael at Planciano. 15 He appeared as
a witness for members of Docibilis' family in 918 and 919, 16 as did
his cousin Christopher son of Leo in 939.17
Acting as their witnesses over several generations is one
indication that the Christopherii were quite close to the ruling
Docibilan dynasty. The family genealogy is an illustration of their
continuous activity in this area (see Figure 4.2).
Meanwhile their property-owning spread. In 991 we learn that
they had land at Marana in Flumetica.18 In 1006 Gaetanus son of
Christopher bought some land in Castro Argento, 19 and Leo son
of Christopher magnijicus is mentioned as owning land near
Corene, Simproniano (in Gaeta) and Passignano near Traetto. 20 In
1032 the daughters of his brother Docibilis divided lands owned at
Vellota and Campo Maiore, again in Flumetica. 21 As well as all
their land in the eastern half of the duchy, there is evidence that
members of the family did not forget the original centre of their
wealth in the Sperlonga area. In 1021 we see John and Marinus sons
of Christopher dividing the estate Antonianu in Calvi. 22
Had the Christopherii obtained these lands from their patrons,
the Docibilans? There is no direct evidence that they did, but the
fact that five out of the named locations where they owned land
were also the sites of Docibilan-controlled public land suggests that
they may have owed their wealth to this source. After the family of
Docibilis was ousted from power, the Christopherii soon disap-
peared from view. Their last appearance is in 1041, when Ramfus
son of Christopher magnijicus witnessed a document. 23
Ramfus himself is worth investigating in more detail. A frequent
witness to Gaetan documents, he co-owned land with his brothers
Leo and Docibilis at Passignano and Vellota. In 1012, however, we
see him in quite a different role. In that year he gave a guarantee via
Marinus son of Constantine that he would pay Ubertus magister
Romanus 7^ pounds of silver, silk, pepper and cotton for a house and
a piece of land eight days before Ubertus' ship was to sail for
Rome. 24
This document, which is the earliest overt reference to
commerce in these goods at Gaeta, 25 has aroused considerable
15 16 17 18
CDC 20. CDC 24, CDC 26. CDC 42. CDC 88.
19 20 21
CDC 113. CDC 125, CDC 139, CDC 151. CDC 163.
22 23 24
CDC 141. CDC 175. CDC 123/4.
25
Although, as we have seen, others owned, and may possibly have traded in, such
valuables.

109
 Sergius (2) Anna? = CHRISTOPHER comes = (1) ?Herania*
I I I
Christopher W John Peter
(867) i (890)
I
Christopher Leo Peterc Dilicciosa Maria
(909-19) (890) i? (890) (890)
I I
I?
JohnW Christopher W Christopher W
(949) magnificus (944)
(939)
I
Christopher W DocibilisW Ramfus LeoW
(981) (980-91) (972-1041) (991-1026)
J l
Gaetanus* John Marinus Maria Drosu
(1006) (1021) (1006-21) (1032) (1032)
= Landolf = Gregory of Rome

* It is unclear whether Herania and Anna were the same woman known by different name forms, but the quite different name patterns descending from
each suggest that Christopher married twice.
+ The unprovable line of descent from Christopher rests on the pattern of lead-names and the sons' continued association with the dukes.
£ If there were two branches of the Christopherii, descended from the count's sons Peter and John, it is possible that the sons' names would be used as
the lead-names as often as the founder's; thus Christopher son of Peter probably does belong to the Petrine line.
$ Gaetanus is an unusual name for this clan, but the appearance of Marinus son of Christopher as a witness to his purchase of land in 1006 suggests that
they may have been brothers.

Figure 4.2 The Christopherii family (W= witnesses for the Docibilans)
 Noble families in the tenth century
interest, and was discussed at some length by Merores. 26 Not only
was a member of one of the most prominent families at Gaeta
involved in trading activities, but he was also dealing with a man
from Rome, an easy trip by sea from Gaeta.27 This Roman
connection may explain why one of Ramfus' nieces, Drosu, was
married to a certain Gregory of Rome. If the Christopherii had
business contacts there, what better way to secure them than with a
marriage?
There is still further interest in the document when we look at
why Ramfus was buying the property. He states that his cousin
John, who cannot be identified with certainty, had sold the house
and land to Ubertus, and so Ramfus was in fact retrieving family
property. Here we have a phenomenon which appears frequently
in southern Italy at this time; that most 'merchants' were in fact
predominantly landowners using their landowning wealth to
support their trading activities. Merores used Ramfus to support
her argument that merchants achieved high status at Gaeta. 28 In
doing so she missed the point that as a member of one of the oldest
landed families in the territory, and as the son of a man titled
magnijicus, Ramfus could already claim high status and use it to
further his business interests. The popular image of the landless
man forced to make his living and rise to prominence through
trade is, as I have argued in a previous study, comparatively rare. 29
The problem for the landowners, though, was how to liquefy
some of their wealth for commercial investment. Is the document
of 1012 an illustration of an attempt to do so? There is always a
danger of overinterpretation, but I would propose the following
sequence of events.
The Christopherii, in need of capital for either a trading
expedition in their own right or, more likely, to finance such an
expedition, agreed through their representative John to sell off the
house and land to Ubertus in a mortgage arrangement, under-
taking to pay him in cash and goods which he could sell at Rome.
Their guarantor was Marinus son of count Constantine. The 1012
document as we have it consists first of Ramfus' promise to
26
Gaeta, p. 97.
27
A trip most recently discussed by V. von Falkenhausen, 'Reseaux routiers et ports dans
l'ltalie meridionale byzantine (VIe-Xe siecles)', in / Kathimerini Zoi sto Byzantio (Athens,
28
1989), p. 274. Gaeta, p. 99.
29
P. E. Skinner, The Mobility of Landowners between the Tyrrhenian City-States of Italy,
unpublished M. Phil., University of Birmingham (1988), chapter 9; the activities of some
merchants are discussed below, chapters 7 and 8.

Ill
 From the beginnings to the eleventh century
Marinus that he would fulfil the contract with Ubertus, or else
Marinus would be compensated with double the amount of goods
specified; and then Marinus' promise to Ubertus that he will pay
him off as Ramfus has agreed. Once the transaction was completed
Ramfus and his kin could reclaim their house and land and the
whole process could begin again.
It is perhaps a little surprising, given their close contact in other
ways, that the Christopherii are not seen raising the finance they
needed from the Docibilans, who as we know could call upon
considerable amounts of liquid wealth. But perhaps in their trading
activities they were in direct competition with the rulers, or
possibly they did not desire to become economically, as well as
politically, independent. We must remember though that their
landed property must always have remained their more important
source of wealth. Without land, how could they trade?
It is unfortunate that we have no evidence at all about how the
Christopherii cultivated and/or exploited their landed property.
The main points to note are that it was widespread and owned in
sufficient quantities to allow the risk of small parts on trading
ventures. It was a pattern which was repeated in other families'
wealth in the tenth century.

(ii) The Kampuli

One clan who seem to have had close connections with the
Docibilan family were the Kampuli, descendants of Kampulus the
prefect (fl.890—949). They achieved immediate prominence over
their contemporaries the Christopherii by marrying into the
Docibilan dynasty. Kampulus himself married the daughter of
John I, Matrona, and thereby secured the fortunes of his kin, or so it
appears. The compliment he paid to his new father-in-law's family
by naming a son Docibilis and having another Docibilis and three
Johns among his grandsons only serves to reinforce the impression
of closeness between the Docibilans and the Kampuli. This
impression is further strengthened when we discover that success-
ive generations of the Kampuli clan, like the Christopherii, appear
as witnesses to Docibilan documents (see genealogy Figure 4.3),
and that they received many pieces of landed property from the
rulers. However, the case of the Kampuli clan is somewhat more
complex than a direct relationship of patronage by the Docibilans.
For, by appearing as their witnesses, and making ties of marriage,
112
 Marinus count John I of Gaeta
I
§
Stephen W Kampulus prefect W = Matrona
(922-36) (890-949) I (949)
I I
Kampulus W DocibilisW Mirus Dusdedi Kampulus W Marinus W
(963-74) (957-9) (950-9) (930) (957-80) (959-1020)
= Drosu

Kampulus W JohnW Constantino W Matrona DocibilisW KampulusW JohnW SergiusW JohnW

(998-1042) (978) (972-84) (1004) (984) (983-93) (97&-96) (991-1071) (972)
I I I
Marinus W* Euprassia Kampulus* Mirus Kampulus£ Constantino
(1010-59) (1004) (1028-36) (1020) (1064-71) Berpamuzza
= Gemma*
(1064)
I
Leo
(1064-89)

§ Stephen's career as a witness for the Docibilans (in 930 alongside Dusdedi), and the existence of Kampulus son of Stephen who is associated heavily
with Kampuli and Docibilans between 963 and 974 indicate that this is another branch of the same clan.
$ In 1042 Marinus son of Kampulus received a gift from Leo II of Gaeta (CDC 176). Kampulus son of Docibilis witnessed the duke's only surviving
document (CDC 177); Marinus may therefore have been his son rather than son of Kampulus son of Mirus.
* Kampulus son of John does not specify his grandfather's name to enable secure identification. However, he is twice a witness for members of the
Caracci family, to whom Mirus son of John gave land in 1020. The association suggests strongly that he and Mirus are brothers.
+ Gemma, widow of Constantine Berpamuzza, mentions a 'Kampus' as her brother-in-law. This is more likely to be Kampulus son of John rather than
Kampulus son of Sergius, because the latter may have died prematurely (see £). If Constantine is a member of the Kampuli clan, his adoption of a
surname may indicate a change in the family's status.
£ In 1071 Sergius son of Kampulus made his will. His son Kampulus (identified on the basis of lead-name and the fact that both he and Sergius are
associated with the Caracci family) seems to have died before that date, for Sergius left his goods to his wife Gaitelgrima and to the church.

Figure 4.3 The Kampuli family (W— witnesses for the Docibilans)
 From the beginnings to the eleventh century
the Kampuli, as a cadet branch of the old ruling house, were
lending support and prestige to the Docibilans, and they would
expect to be paid accordingly. Again there is little direct evidence
of Kampuli lands coming from the Docibilans, but like the
Christopherii, many of their estates were situated in or near areas
where there was public land.
A measure of Kampulus the prefect's standing, as I have already
pointed out, can be gained if we look at the type of property he
held. In two documents of 937 and 949, we see him handling the
most prestigious landed property of all, water-mills.30 The shares
he exchanged could have belonged to his wife, Matrona daughter
of hypatos John I, but she does not appear in the 937 document, as
she should have done had this been the case.
All was not harmony between the two families, however. In 957
Kampulus' eponymous son and the heirs of three others disputed
with the natural sons ofJohn I (their uncles/great-uncles) over the
estate called Rubeanu or Robiano in Flumetica (near Maranula: see
Map 4.2). The contestants agreed to divide the land between
themselves.31 The case was judged by duke John II, nephew to
John I's sons and cousin to Kampulus', who must have found it
very difficult to make a decision against either party.
From later divisions between the younger Kampulus and his
nephews, we know that they also owned land at Marana and some
woodland in an unnamed part of Flumetica.32 There is no inherent
problem with the notion that the Kampuli divided amongst
themselves land which may have been a gift from thepublicum. The
tendency for such land to be treated as private property was a
common theme in this period. It should be noted that not all of the
land they held was divided; some they chose to hold communally,
presumably because it was easier to exploit that way; perhaps
because it was too small to be worth dividing.
Once again we are poorly served with evidence for how the
Kampuli exploited their land, or who cultivated it. A valuable
document of 922 does, however, indicate that they themselves
granted out the land to be cultivated. In that year one Sergius of
Cliucurvo (north-east of Traetto) gave a piece of land there to
Heligerno son of Constantine to compensate the latter for the fire
that Sergius had caused in his cornfield.33 He did so with the

30
CDC 40, CDC 50; for a discussion of mills, see above, chapter 3, section (a).
31 32 33
CDC 54. CDC 68, CDC 69. CDC 28.

114
I Land over 1000 m
I Land over 3 0 0 m
_jpkm
3 miles

Map 4.2 LiJ«i/5 of the Kampuli family

 From the beginnings to the eleventh century
permission of one Stephen son of count Marinus, who appears to
have been Kampulus the prefect's brother. That this permission
was necessary suggests that Sergius was the manager of, or a tenant
on, the Kampuli lands in Cliucurvo, but there is no written
evidence to prove this.
More evidence that the Kampuli were frequent beneficiaries of
ducal goodwill comes in a stream of documents from 978 onwards.
In that year Kampulus and John, sons of Docibilis, received a
water-mill in the Ausente river from dukes Marinus and John III. 34
Clearly the family had retained their special status in Docibilan eyes
by receiving such valuable property. In 984 the same dukes
patronised another grandson of Kampulus the prefect by giving
Docibilis son of Mirus some empty public land outside the city
walls.35
In 991 we meet one of the most successful of the Kampuli clan,
Sergius son of Kampulus. The piece of land he bought then in
Marana from Docibilis and Leo Christopherii was not large - only
1^ modia, but it lay next to the Garigliano river and to Sergius' own
land.36 We see here an example of a familiar practice by the late
tenth century, the buying-up of small, possibly uneconomic, plots
of land to consolidate into larger blocs. In doing so, Sergius may
have been reconstituting pieces of Kampuli family land which had
become fragmented by years of division between innumerable
heirs. Such reconstitution was not uncommon. Herlihy has noticed
it both in other parts of Italy and in southern France by the eleventh
century.37 Toubert too, records the practice of buying up and
consolidating on the part of ecclesiastical institutions in northern
Lazio in the tenth century. 38 Violante, however, has demonstrated
that, in parts of Lombardy, Emilia and Tuscany, family lands were
divided zonally, thereby avoiding the uneconomic division of
individual pieces.39 Why was such a practice not adopted in Gaeta?
One factor may be the difference in quality of land between one
zone and another (discussed below), making fair divisions wellnigh
impossible. Thus the Kampuli and others were forced to undertake
divisions of some pieces of land and hold others communally.
34 35 36
CDC 73. CDC 84. CDC 88.
37
Italy: D. Herlihy, 'The history of the rural seigneury in Italy', in The Social History of Italy
and Western Europe, 700—1500 (London, 1978); France: Herlihy, 'The agrarian revolution
38
in southern France and Italy', Speculum, 33 (1958), 33. Structures, 1, pp. 490-1.
39
C. Violante, 'Quelques caracteristiques des structures familiales en Lombardie, Emilie et
Toscane aux Xle et XHe siecles', in Famille et Parent^ dans VOccident Medieval, ed. G. Duby
andj. Le Goff(Rome, 1977), p. 107.
 Noble families in the tenth century
Sergius was certainly a man of substance, as his will dated 1071
illustrates. The document lists only those lands that needed
instructions as to their distribution. Along with the Marana land he
left properties at Azzano (Arzano), Rubeanu, Maurici (unidenti-
fied) and on the Ponzian islands.40 The Kampuli seem to have had
quite an interest in the latter; in 1019 Sergius' cousin, Kampulus son
of Docibilis, received public land on Ventotene and St Stefano
from duke Leo I, regent for the young John V. 41
Sergius' aunt, Matrona, is visible in 1004, when she handed over
estates in Cilicie (near Mondragone), Faonia (unidentified) and
Vivano (S. Agostino), plus land near the Garigliano, moveable
goods and property in Gaeta itself to her daughter Euprassia.42 The
latter was to pay her a pension of 20 modia of corn, 10 modia of beans
and peas and 30 jars of wine, and supply Matrona with a slave and
such clothes as she might require.
There is much of interest in this document. Matrona was a
widow at the time of the transaction,43 but it is unclear whether
Euprassia was married. If not, the gift could be interpreted as a
dowry with strings attached to ensure Matrona's well-being for
life. Alternatively, Matrona could have been ensuring that the
property she wanted to bequeath to Euprassia on her death was
already firmly in her daughter's hands. The latter is probably the
case, for the lands that Matrona was ceding have a special
significance in the history of the Kampuli clan which made their
secure transfer to the next generation more important than usual.
The key lies in two pieces of land that Matrona handed over.
One was an estate called Faonia, the other land in Vivano. The only
other document in which Faonia appears is the lease of 839, when it
and an estate called Vivarius (Vivano?) were leased to Constantine
Anatolii, the then ruler of Gaeta, by his sister Elisabeth and her
Neapolitan son-in-law Theodosius.44 How had both pieces of land
come to be in the hands of Matrona over a century later?
One explanation is that Docibilis I, when he came to power in
867, dispossessed Constantine and his son and co-ruler Marinus of
all the lands they were holding, and that the estate came into the
hands of the Kampuli family via John I's daughter Matrona,
possibly in the form of a dowry when she married Kampulus the

40 41 42
CDC 245. CDC 135- CDC no.
43
Her husband was a certain Docibilis clarissimus, who is otherwise unidentifiable.
44
CDC 5.

117
 From the beginnings to the eleventh century
prefect. It may then have come to the younger Matrona via direct
inheritance from her father Docibilis, Kampulus' son.
However, rather like a jigsaw with square-shaped pieces, the
fragments of evidence we have can be assembled in quite a different
way. I suggested in an earlier chapter that Matrona's grandfather
Kampulus was the son of hypatos Marinus and grandson of
Constantine himself. His special treatment by the Docibilans was
one indication of this, and his line's continued association with a
specifically named estate - Faonia - is an important clue in favour
of this hypothesis.
If the memory of their illustrious origins remained strong, the
family would take particular care in the transfer of its pre-
Docibilan lands, the most tangible evidence of those origins,
between successive generations. An indication of the care taken in
the 1004 transaction is that one of the witnesses, Ramfus son of
Christopher magnijicus, was a member of another family with pre-
Docibilan origins. His presence secured Matrona's gift by guaran-
teeing its defence by the only other family who could appreciate
the importance of the transaction.
The Kampuli and Christopherii frequently appear together as
witnesses,45 but that the two families were particularly friendly
with each other is shown by an actual land transaction between
them - Sergius son of Kampulus' purchase of Marana land from
Docibilis and Leo Christopherii. Whilst witnessing each other's
documents is a common feature of all the families described in this
and the following chapters, actual transfers of land were very rare.
A closer investigation of the witnessing pattern between the
Kampuli and Christopherii is a final strong indicator that the
Kampuli were the heirs of the former rulers of Gaeta, for it was
always a Christopherii witness appearing on their documents,
rather than the other way about, and the act of witnessing had the
effect of denoting some degree of support for the document's
author.
Something quite remarkable occurred in the history of the
Kampuli lands in 1020. In that year Mirus son of John received
confirmation from his by now elderly grandfather Mirus, son of
Kampulus the prefect, of his gift of lands in Castro Argento,
Tremonsuoli, Tizanellum (in Calvi), Massa (unknown) and
Calabritti (near Tizanellum) to Docibilis, Leo and John the sons of
45
Co-witnesses: CDC 15 (890); Christopherii witnesses for Kampuli: CDC 50 (949), CDC
67 (972), CDC n o (1004), CDC 138 (1020).
 Noble families in the tenth century
46
John Caracci. This gift may have merely consisted of very small
plots of land in many places, but that the younger Mirus required
his grandfather's approval suggests that it was somewhat more
significant. Why did the transaction take place?
There may be a very simple reason. Just as the dukes of Gaeta
may have been expected to be generous with their land grants in
order to gain support, then so were their subject nobles. The
Kampuli, with their illustrious background, were possibly more
concerned than most to build up a clientele of lesser families to
enhance their own prestige. Were the Kampuli buying the support
of the Caracci in an attempt to gain power at Docibilan expense? It
does not appear so; their strength was accompanied by continued
support for the Docibilan family even during the eleventh-century
crisis of rule at Gaeta.47 In 1042 duke Leo II issued a document in
which he gave Marinus, son of Kampulus, and another man,
Gregory, son ofJohn, the whole of the mill Maiore 'in return for
their services'.48 Marinus had witnessed the execution of the will of
duke John III in 1010,49 and was clearly still seen by Docibilans as a
valuable ally.
The history of the Kampuli extends beyond the rule of the last
Docibilan, Leo II. We have already seen how Sergius son of
Kampulus left large amounts of land in his will of 1071, and had he
had an heir the fortunes of his side of the family would no doubt
have continued to flourish. Another clan member, Kampulus son
of John, appears as a witness to a document of duchess Maria and
her son duke Atenolf II in 1063,50 and frequently in documents of
other nobles in the period to 1071.51 If my genealogy is correct, he
also owned land at Formia, next to that which his sister-in-law
Gemma sold to the abbot of St Erasmus in 1064.52 Gemma's son
Leo appears as a witness in documents until 1089.53
What was the secret of the success of the Kampuli clan? It can be
summed up in one word, independence. True, they were in receipt
of land gifts from the Docibilan dukes, but their history, and
presumably their landed wealth, extended further back than 867,
the beginnings of Docibilan rule. So, whilst they benefited from
Docibilan patronage, they certainly did not rely on it, enabling
them to survive after the Docibilans themselves disappeared from
46 47
CDC 138. For a discussion of this, see below, chapter 5, section (a).
48 49 50
CDC 176. CDC 120. CDC 218.
51
Kampulus son ofjohn as witness: CDC 232, CDC 234, CDC 235, CDC 237, CDC 238,
52 53
CDC 240, CDC 245 (1066 to 1071). CDC 221. CDC 232.

119
 From the beginnings to the eleventh century
view. Meanwhile the Kampuli had also built up their own circle of
supporters, among whom were the Caracci. Before the 1020 land
transfer described above, we do not hear of the Caracci under that
name. If Merores' version of their history is correct 54 then they
were of modest origin, and may have owed their rise to Kampuli
benefaction. Thereafter, John Caracci's three sons and their heirs
were active throughout the eleventh century and into the twelfth.
Other families of a similar social level to the Caracci are very
difficult to trace in this early period, simply because, as clients, their
land transactions are unlikely to appear in documentary form as
often as those of their patrons.
The Kampuli and Christopherii are very heavily documented,
possibly because their pre-Docibilan origins gave them a head start
in wealth over their contemporaries under Docibilan rule.
However, we do see other landowners whose families can be traced
over one or two generations, and who perhaps more truly
represent the nobility under Docibilis and his successors.

(iii) The Gaetani and the Coronellas

In 950, for example, one count Gaetanus received a piece of public
arable land in Marana from dukes Docibilis II and John II.55
Gaetanus appears again as a witness to a document issued by duke
Gregory in 964.56 In 998 his son, also called Gaetanus, sold off a
piece of land in the Ausente valley below Marana. 57
One of the younger Gaetanus' witnesses in this sale was one
'Maria' de Coronella. Given that women appear in no other
witness lists in our Gaetan documents in this period, 58 I am inclined
to think that 'Maria' was in fact Marinus son of John Coronella
who, acting as a trustee and will executor in 1000, sold off some
land at Grazanu (unidentified).59 In a court-case of 1109 we learn
that this same Marinus had received land from duchess Emilia (fl.
54 55 56
See above, note 5. CDC 51. CDC 66.
57
CDC 99; the land had been b o u g h t from one Maria w i d o w of Mirus, w h o is otherwise
u n k n o w n . Although Marana is a territorial area, not a specific, named estate, it is
tempting to identify her late husband with Mirus son of Kampulus the prefect, whose
sons are k n o w n to have owned land in Marana in 974 (CDC 68). A tenuous connection
between the Gaetani and Mirus can further be made - the document mentioning the
elder Gaetanus' land in Marana in 950 was witnessed by Mirus (CDC 51).
58
There seems to be n o evidence of w o m e n witnessing documents in any part of southern
Italy up to c.i 150. For m o r e discussion of their roles generally, see P. Skinner, ' W o m e n ,
wills and wealth in medieval southern Italy', Early Medieval Europe, 2 (1993), 133-52.
59
CDC 103.

120
 Noble families in the tenth century
1002—1028) near the Maiore and St George mills, and that he had
given it to his slave, Petrocurso. 60 A Marinus Coronella appears
termed a noble of Gaeta at three court-cases in the mid-eleventh
century.61 We do not know whether he is the same man as Marinus
son ofJohn, nor what his relationship was to Gregory son ofJohn
Coronella, who used his wealth to promote a candidate to the
bishopric of Gaeta in 1054.62 Such uncertainty exposes the
inadequacies of the evidence. Both the counts Gaetanus and the
members of the Coronella family had dealings with the dukes of
Gaeta and, in the case of the latter, played a major role in the
political history of the duchy. Yet we know very little about them
in comparison to the Kampuli and the Christopherii. This raises
not only the question of documentary survival again, but also the
question of whether association with the Docibilans necessarily
brought wealth and power.
This last question must be addressed in the case of a particular
group visible in our documents at this time - the witnesses of ducal
transactions. Whilst some individuals cannot be linked to lan-
downing, they can be assembled into clans much like the Kampuli
or Coronellas. In some cases they can as justifiably be called the
nobility of Gaeta as those landed families.

(iv) A hidden nobility: the witnesses

An examination of the details of witness lists in documents issued
by the Docibilan dukes and their immediate family reveals a very
interesting picture. As well as members of the landed families
mentioned above (except the Caracci), the Docibilans called upon
the witnessing signatures of over eighty other people, less than a
quarter of whom can be seen in other contexts as landowners. That
is not to say, however, that the remaining three-quarters should be
seen as a landless pool of witnesses, merely that our documentary
evidence is inadequate to give us indications either way.
Who then were the witnesses? I have already mentioned above
the importance of the appearance of Bonus son of count Anatolius
as a witness to Docibilis I's first document in 867. Such an
appearance, by a member of the old ruling clan, was an important
acknowledgement of the new state of affairs. Can any more of the
Anatolii be seen performing a similar function? From lead-name
60 61
CDC 284. CDC 180 (1047), CDC 187 (1049), CDC 195 (1053)-

121
 From the beginnings to the eleventh century
Agnellus comes
I
Gregory
maanificus comes
(830-839)
I?
(Agnellus?)
I
Gregory
(922)
I
I I
John Agnellus
(958-99) 036)

John = Megalu
(976)

Figure 4.4 The Agnelli family (based on lead-name evidence)

evidence and the fact of their continued association with Docibilan

documents, Anatolius son of John (witness 890 and 918),63 Leo son
of Anatolius (witness 906)64 and Anatolius son of Leo (witness
919)65 can probably be identified as members of the old family.
Another pre-Docibilan family, the Agnelli (see genealogy,
Figure 4.4), also seems to have found itself a niche under the new
regime. After their initial appearance as landowners and witnesses
in the 830s under Anatolian rule, there is a gap of a century before
they eventually re-emerge as regular witnesses for the Docibilans.
Significantly Agnellus son of Gregory appears in a charter of
Docibilis II and John II alongside Stephen son of Marinus the
count, brother of Kampulus the prefect.66 Were the old families
sticking together in their activities? It is difficult to tell. Certainly
John son of Gregory de Agnello acted as a witness for Kampulus
son of Kampulus the prefect in 974,67 but the continued association
of older families could just be symptomatic of the limited number
of witnesses available in what was, after all, a small city. John
witnessed for Megalu daughter ofJohn I in 958,68 and was present
at a dispute between bishop Bernard of Gaeta and count Dauferius
of Traetto in 994.69 Soon afterwards the Agnelli disappear from
view in our documents. If we look at their genealogy, with pre-

62 63 64 65
CDC 197. CDC 16, CDC 24. CDC 19. CDC 26.
66 67 68 69
CDC 39. CDC 68. CDC 58. CDC 101.

122
 Noble families in the tenth century
Docibilan members of the family using titles to denote their noble
birth and post-Docibilans not, it may be the case that the Agnelli
suffered a dramatic decline in their position during the tenth
century.
A third family whose appearances are almost entirely confined
to witness lists are the Mauri. They emerged later, during the
heyday of Docibilan rule in the latter half of the tenth century. The
head of the family, Mauro appears as a witness to three ducal
documents in the years 978, 979 and 980, 70 and in one of a great-
grandson of Docibilis I, Deusdedit son of Angelarus, in 986. 71
Mauro's services were rewarded in 980 when he and his wife
Martha received some public land from dukes Marinus and John
III.72
Mauro had two sons, one of whom, Mauro, was present at two
disputes involving bishop Bernard of Gaeta in 999. 73 His brother
Mastalus was also present, and it is he who seems to have continued
to mingle in the higher reaches of Gaetan society. He was a witness
for John III and John IV in an exchange dated 1002.74 His co-
witness was Landolf, son of the former duke Gregory, and the
connection with the Gregorian branch of the Docibilan family
continued in 1010, when Mastalus witnessed a sale made by Anna,
widow of Landulf s brother Docibilis, to John IV. 75 Mastalus' two
final appearances as a witness occur in 1042, when he signed
documents issued during the short reign of the Docibilan duke Leo
II. 76 Mastalus' activities brought him into contact with members
of the major families of Gaeta, for example, the Kampuli 77 and
Christopherii78 and these links, plus his family's presence in ducal
documents, may have led him to use the title magnijicus. If this is the
case, we know that he had a son called Bernard who in 1068 acted as
an advocate for the church of St Theodore, 79 heavily patronised by
the Docibilans, and a natural grandson called John who was the
priest of SS Cosma and Damian. 80
The major lesson to be learnt from the case of the Mauri family is
that it cannot automatically be assumed that the aristocracy of
Gaeta was made up only of those families recorded as having land.
But, whilst the Mauri were aristocratic in the sense that they were
part of the Docibilan ducal circle, they may not have had noble
70
CDC 73, CDC 74, CDC 76. 71 C D C 8 ? 72 C D C 7 ?
73 74 75
CDC 100, CDC 101. CDC 107. CDC 121/2.
76 77 78
CDC 176, CDC 177. CDC no, CDC 177. CDC no.
79 80
CDC 237. CDC 211.

123
 From the beginnings to the eleventh century
origins. We do not, for instance, know the name of the elder
Mauro's father, nor is Mauro himself distinguished by a comital or
other title. Perhaps the Mauri formed part of the Docibilan
clientele as the Caracci were part of that of the Kampuli. In this
context Mastalus' title may have been adopted as a means of
assimilation into the higher aristocracy with whom he mixed.
And, if the Mauri are to be understood to be dependent on the
Docibilans, it explains their pattern of witnessing almost entirely
Docibilan documents until the fall of that dynasty.
In addition to the ducal witnesses who can be assigned to
identifiable families, we have over seventy individuals who appear
in the lists, of whom just over half witnessed once only. This
suggests that, whilst the Docibilans did favour (or need the
approval of) a few noble families, they did not really assemble a
well-defined entourage or court of men. The fluidity of the
witnessing group was such that in an early document, dated 890,
we even have an Amalfitan, Bonus, as a signatory. 81 On the other
hand, the witness list of Docibilis I's will of 906 presents a slightly
different picture. Along with Docibilis' son John we see Alagernus
son of George, who may have heen a member of the old, pre-
Docibilan nobility, for his father's name, Greek in origin, was
unusual at Gaeta and suggests links with the old Byzantine-
influenced and Neapolitan-backed regime. This theory is lent
weight by the identity of the final witness Leo, a member of the
Anatolii clan. In private documents as well as public ones, the role
of the old families in Docibilan life was a prominent one, and it is
open to question just how much actually changed at the level of
nobility when Docibilis took over at the top.
It may have been to combat such stagnation that men like the
Mauri were promoted, and there is evidence of other individual
witnesses who seem to have been promoted to the ducal circle in
the same way.
The Docibilans may not have had a fixed court, as such, but one
Leo son of Bonus' witnessing career — he appears on no less than
nine Docibilan documents — suggests that he had some sort of
permanent position in their retinue. However, his identity is
elusive. In 1012 he is recorded as owning land in the district of
Corene close to that of Leo Christopherii, one Anatolius son of

81
CDC 16.

124
 Noble families in the tenth century
Peter (one of the Anatolii?) and Caruccius son of John, 82 but he
cannot be appended to any of the known families of Gaeta, nor
does he use a title. Yet like Paul he frequently came into contact
with members of the Gaetan nobility. That he may have been
raised to his high position by Docibilan patronage is made more
likely by the fact that he disappears from view at around the time
the Docibilans were becoming weaker, during the minority of
John V.
The witness lists are perhaps more revealing than the documents
of the noble families who owned land when trying to isolate a
Docibilan nobility.
An examination of the men whom the Docibilans raised may,
however, provide further clues to the background of their
ancestor. From a survey of the personal names used in the
Tyrrhenian documents, it is clear that the names of the Mauri
family, in particular Mauro and Mastalus, were very unusual at
Gaeta, but extremely common in Amalfi. Linking this with earlier
evidence that Docibilis I had been ransomed by the Amalfitans
from the Arabs,83 and that an Amalfitan appears as witness to an
early document issued by Docibilis and his son John I, 84 it is
possible to speculate that Docibilis I was himself an Amalfitan. This
would fit well with my suggestion that he was not Gaetan, and that
he may have had large amounts of liquid wealth to enable him to
seize power. His name is unknown in the Amalfitan documents
until the twelfth century, but since only one ninth-century
document survives from the city this absence cannot be used as an
argument against an Amalfitan identity.
Once securely in power, the Docibilans may have tried to
elevate some of their compatriots to positions where they might be
termed aristocrats, that is taking part in the political life of the
duchy by witnessing the documents of the dukes and possibly
receiving land in return for their loyalty. This would explain the
appearance of the name Mauro at Gaeta. The rulers could not,
however, create a new nobility to replace or exist alongside that
which they inherited from the Anatolii. What distinguished these
two groups from each other?

82
CDC 125; as we have seen, a possible member of the Caracci family (see above, note 5).
83 84
See above, chapter 2. CDC 16.

125
 From the beginnings to the eleventh century

(b) NOBILITY AND ARISTOCRACY! TYRRHENIAN

PATTERNS IN THE TENTH CENTURY

Leopold Genicot, making some general comments on the nature of

the uppermost stratum of medieval society, defined the nobility as
those who were powerful de iure, and the aristocracy as those whose
position was de facto the most powerful. 85 This distinction can be
adapted to apply to Docibilan Gaeta; families like the Kampuli,
Agnelli and Christopherii, whilst they may not in fact have had any
legal status, were nevertheless identifiably noble. They had their
origins in the pre-Docibilan period, they can be seen to have
owned land in the territory and could justifiably be called the
nobility under Docibilan rule. Their very 'oldness' was in itself an
important contribution to their status. In the words of Schmid,
'even when men no longer knew exactly who their ancestors were,
they knew enough to be able to say they were noble'. 86 Our
families had not yet reached that stage of vagueness, but it is
striking how all three of those mentioned, and the Anatolii as well,
derived their status from descent from an early count.87 An
examination of the twelve extant pre-Docibilan documents from
Gaeta reveals that no fewer than nine other counts or their sons are
mentioned, mostly in witness lists. What did the comital position
mean before 867? The evidence is limited, but we find counts
witnessing the documents of the three most powerful men in Gaeta
at that time — the hypatos Constantine, the bishop of Formia/Gaeta,
and the rector of the papal patrimony. Some, as I have said, are seen
owning lands as well, and this small group might justifiably be
termed the landed aristocracy of Gaeta whom their descendants
considered to be noblemen.
Sergi illustrates well this process of change from public officials
to private dynasts in northern Italy, taking as as examples the
Aldobrandeschi family from Lucca and the Manfredi of Piemonte
in the eleventh century. 88 Both were 'noble' families descended
from 'aristocratic' men. Aristocratic status though, has its pitfalls,
the main one being the deposition of the regime on whom the
85
L. Genicot, 'Recent research on the medieval nobility', in Medieval Nobility, p . 18.
86
'Structure of the nobility', p . 48.
87
Kampuli: count Marinus (pre-890); Anatolii: count Anatolius (c.8oo); Agnelli: count
Agnellus (pre-830); Christopherii: count Christopher (c.8oo).
88
'La feudalizzazione delle circonscrizioni pubbliche nel regno d'ltalia', in Structures
Feodales et Feodalisme dans VOccident Mediterranean (Xle-XIIIe Siecles) (Rome, 1980), p.
252.

126
 Noble families in the tenth century
aristocrat depends for patronage. In 867 two corners of the triangle
of patronage were removed in Gaeta when Constantine was
deposed and Docibilis I took on both his rule and that of rector of
the papal lands. The Anatolii/Kampuli line survived because
Docibilis needed its help, and to a lesser extent that of the wealthy
Christopherii. Other counts simply disappear from the witness
lists, whilst the family of count Agnellus seems to have suffered a
drop in status.
That comital status had merely been a reward for serving the
ruler, rather than a mark of noble status linked to landholding, is
suggested by the fact that the title was not handed on. Kampulus
styled himself prefecturius, son of count Marinus; none of count
Anatolius' three known sons used the title of their father. Similarly,
count Christopher's title was used by none of his descendants;
instead alternative indicators of status, such as the title magnijicus,
were used.
The way in which our recognisably 'noble' families traced their
descent back to a comital ancestor who may merely have been a
service aristocrat is mirrored dramatically in evidence from
Amalfi. There also only the founder or ancestor of each family
seems to have been distinguished by the title of count, but in this
city the counts seem to have lived a century earlier than those in
Gaeta. This was illustrated by del Treppo and Leone, using the
frequent tendency of Amalfitans in tenth and eleventh century
documents to list every generation back to that ancestor and
calculating each generation as about thirty years. They found that
the earliest Amalfitan counts could be dated to the late eighth
century, and suggest that they may have been the original
Byzantine governors of the fortress of Amalfi.89 The nobility may
have traced their descent from late ninth-century ancestors with a
military role possibly derived from Amalfi's early history as a place
of refuge.90 Such listing is an almost unique feature of the
Amalfitan documentation. A list of three or four generations is a
very useful tool for building up family genealogies and dating the
origins of the families (for the joining together of series of three or
four ancestors, in a similar way to joining the patterns of tree rings
in dendrochronology, can create longer strings from which to
derive a date). One has to use the method with caution, however,

Amalfi, p. 100.
G. Galasso, 'Le citta campane nell'alto medioevo', ASPN, n.s. 38 (1959), p. 16.

127
 From the beginnings to the eleventh century
for when the list became too cumbersome it seems that one or two
intermediate generations were omitted from its citation, so that the
line of descent could still include the original comital ancestor. This
tells us much about the importance of their origins to Amalfitan
noblemen, and also shows that the comital title was not handed
down. Thus here again we have early aristocratic ancestors giving
rise to a group who, with later land acquisitions and their
longevity, came to be regarded as a nobility.
The title of count does not necessarily seem to have brought
with it any kind of territorial jurisdiction, although the appearance
in early Amalfitan documents of counts associated with place-
names does suggest a series of fortified bases protecting the city. 91
One example of a possible territorial base is the case of a family in
Amalfi descended from one 'Mauro comes Monteincollo' (fl. late
ninth century), whose history illustrates how strong the memory
of its prestigious ancestor was. His son Peter appears in a document
of 920,92 and thereafter the family are regularly documented up till
1097, always adding the 'Monteincollo' to their ancestor's name. In
that year Gregory and his brother Mauro were still able to list the
four generations of descent linking them to the lord of Montein-
collo (see Figure 4-5).93
Landed property could be built up and bequeathed. Perhaps
deriving from their origins as holders of fortified places, and partly
due to the fact that Amalfi itself was territorially even more limited
than Gaeta, the nobles seem to have been very localised in their
landowning. Given the geographical nature of the name Montein-
collo, it would seem that it was a territory of some kind, and this
finds support in the documentary evidence. All of the documented
lands of the Monteincolli family were in Ponte Primaro (see Map
4.3), and they seem to have given their name to a part of this district
by 1080.94 Lands of other families were also tightly clustered, as in
the case of the counts of Ferafalcone, which lay along the river
Reginnis Maiore. 95 Work on other areas of the duchy has also
revealed similarly close-knit landowning, as in the case of Cetara
and Vietri, which lay on the fluid border with the principality of
91
E.g. CDA 584 (860): Constantine count de Pastina; CDA 585 (920): Peter son of Mauro
count Monteincollo; CDA 2 (922): Leo son of Constantine count de Aprile.
92
CDA 585.
93
CP 89: Gregory and Mauro 'sons of Mauro son of Gregory de John de Mauro count de
Monteincollo'.
94
For example, CDA 587 (952), CDA 58 (1044), CDA 64 (1053). As a placename, CDA 75.
95
CP 76, CP 84.

128
 Noble families in the tenth century
Mauro count Monteincollo

Sergius John Peter = Eufimia

, , (920) | (920)
Gregory Gregory Lupinus
(1044-64) (952-964)
= Drosu
I
Mauro John
(1093-97) (1097)
= Rikelgaita
(1097)

Mauro Gregory
(1097) (1097)
I
Mauro
I
Itta*
(1146)

Documents: CDA 585, CDA 587, CDA 7, CDA 58, CDA 64, CDA 65,
CP50, CP44, CP38, CP42, CP33, CP87, CP89, CP107, CP137, CD/1150
The genealogy appears as the documents present the family; however, problems of
chronology might be explained by later members of the family skipping generations to their
ancestor.
Lupinus appears in 964 as 'Lupinus de Eufimia'; his mother may have been widowed by this
time.
* For more on Itta, see chapter 6.

Figure 4.5 The Monteincollo family

Salerno. Here other families seem to have carved out territories for
themselves, and have formed the subject of close study.96 They
will be discussed in a little more detail in chapter 7, when
interactions between the Tyrrhenian states will be examined.
The use of the name Monteincollo provides an easy way to
identify those who belonged to this comital clan throughout the
tenth and eleventh centuries, and other examples of surnamed
comital clans can be added to this one. They include the
Scaticampuli clan, whose history stretches back as far as the 860s.
They seem to have taken the name of an early member, Kampulus,
as their surname, despite the fact that it was Kampulus' son, Ursus,
96
Figliuolo, 'Gli amalfitani'.

129
 From the beginnings to the eleventh century

_5km
3 miles

Map 4.3 Centres of landowning in Amalfi

who seems to have been their comital ancestor. 97 The family of

another count John, distinguished by the surname Neapolitanus,
and in all likelihood originating from that city, seem to have settled
in Amalfi quite early (Figure 4.6).They are first documented in
939,98 selling a water-mill on the river Amalfi held in common
with the Scaticampuli family. The value of that property itself is an
indication of the family's status. Count John's son, Leo, appears in
957 witnessing a charter relating to land in Ponte Primaro," but
the family's interests were not limited to the river area. In 1007
John's direct descendant Drosu was able to force the payment of
compensation from the bishop of Amalfi for land sold to him in
97
Leo son of Ursi de Campulo is documented in 920, CD A 585; the heirs of 'Urso count
Scaticampulo' appear in 939, CD A 586. That others belong to the same family is strongly
suggested by the recurrence of key names, Kampulus, Ursus, John and Leo, and the fact
that their landowning seems, like the Monteincolli, to have been focused on a particular
area: mill above Atrani CD A 586 (939), house in Atrani CDA 8 (970), land near Ravello
CD A si (1039).
98
CDA 586; the transaction in this document is also recorded in CP 32, with t w o names
changed (see genealogy). " CP 31.

130
 Noble families in the tenth century
John count Neapolitanus
I
Sergius Leo
count (939) (957)
= Drosu
I
Marinus0 John = Johanna*
I i _ _
Constantine Sergius Leo Marinus
I (939) (939) (939)

Drosu = Mauro
(1007)

Documents: CDA 586, CP 32, CP 31, CDA 21

o Marinus is identified as 'de John count'; the chronology suggests that Drosu, his
granddaughter, has omitted a generation in her document. It is unlikely that she was of the
same generation as her cousins, documented in 939.
* 'Johanna1 in CDA 586, 'Norma' in CP32

Figure 4.6 The Neapolitani family of Amalfi

Stabia.100 There is no clear indication of the family's activities after

this date. It is possible that in the political upheavals of the eleventh
century in Amalfi they returned to their home city.
The Ferafalcone clan, already mentioned, are first documented
in 922, when count Leo, who seems to have been the family's
ancestor, acted as a witness to a document of another count. 101
However, perhaps because the family's comital status was later in
date, Leo's descendants did not trace their origins to him. Rather,
they identified themselves in their documents simply by their
surname. Ironically, this renders the reconstruction of the family's
genealogy more difficult, for, whilst members of the family can
definitely be identified, their relationships to each other cannot
safely be defined.102
This problem recurs with another group of Amalfitans visible in
the documents. Relatively early in Amalfi's history other families
emerge in the documentation who did not claim illustrious
ancestors, simply identifying themselves by a surname. Given the
100 101
CDA 21. CDA 2.
102
Documented members of the Ferafalcone family to 1100: count Leo (922, CDA 2); his
son Ursus (943, CP 43); Sergius son of Sergius (1004, CDA 18); Sergius and Pantaleo
sons of Gregory and Marenda (1062, CP 76, 1089, CP 84); Sergius son of Leo (1090-
1097, CP 85, CDA 88, CP 88, CP 89).
 From the beginnings to the eleventh century
care with which most noble Amalfitans seem to have cited their
illustrious forbears, it seems that this group of surnamed families,
which included the Victorini, 103 the Cullonannas,104 and the
Iactabecti,105 might be characterised as belonging to a different
social class from the comital clans. They were still landowners,
however, and often appear as neighbours to or witnesses for those
clans.106 The early and wide variety of surnames among families
who were not noble points to a need for definite identification,
even in a duchy where sheer proximity to each other in the limited
city and viable land space must have led to people becoming well-
acquainted. Like the noblemen, surnamed clans also seem to have
preferred to own coherent, very localised blocks of land. The
Rogadeum family are a prime example of this tendency; they based
their activities in Ravello, but also had property on the coast at
Ercli. These two locations form the focus of their documents. 107
Turning now to the material emanating from Naples in this
period, we can see that in the tenth century there was a group of
men distinguished with titles such as miles and prefect. The title of
miles is first documented at Naples in 921, but must have had much
earlier origins. Naples' fluid border area with her often aggressive
Lombard neighbour, Capua, was from the seventh century known
as the pars militie,10S and those later known as milites still held estates
in the territory. 109 The prestige gained by these men in their role of
103
CP 21 (979), CDA n (984), CP 66 (992), CP 73 (1005), CP 61 (1039) N o further
evidence of this family's activities survives.
104
They appear later, from 1037: CDA 48, CP 37 (1038), CodCav vi/967 (1041), CDA 90
(1092), but their period of activity ceases after 1092.
105
CDA 36 (1020), CodCav v/777 (1025), PAVAR 1/11 (1029), CDA 57 (1044), CP 42
(1053), CP 47 (1061), CDA 69 (1062), CP 46 (1064), CP 49 (1067), CP 57 (1069), CDA
84 (1090).
106
Other surnamed families, traceable over t w o or three generations, include the
Mazzocculas, landowners in several parts of the duchy: CDA 8 (970), CP 74 (974, land
in Bostopla), CP 61 (1039, land in Ponte Primaro), CP 70 (1057, land in Paternum
Piczulum), CDA 70 and CDA 80 (1066 and 1086, land in Reginna Maiori); the Cocti of
Ponte Primaro: CP 33 (1055), CP 50 (1061), CP 38 (1064); the Benusi of the same place,
documented in a variety of forms of their name from 1012, CP 72, onwards; and many
other families w h o appear briefly in the documents, including the Falangulas, the Russi,
the Gangellas, the Cantalenas, the Cullusigillu, the Dalaquas, the Maioppuli, the
Pironti, the Zinziricapras, the Piczilli and the Musceptolas.
107
Significantly, charters of this family survive in the archive of the bishoprics of Amalfi
and Ravello, reflecting the fact that at least one member achieved the latter position:
PAVAR 1/3 (1010), CDA 34 (1018), PAVAR 1/14 (1039), PAVAR 1/16 (1047), CDA
593 (1098), CDA 98 (1100).
108
Galasso, 'Citta campane', ASPN, n.s. 38, 1959, 18.
109
For example, Marinus miles and Anastasius miles RNj (921); Kampulus miles son of John
miles RN 36 (937), RN 48 (942); John tribune and Lupi miles RN 102 (958).

132
 Noble families in the tenth century
defenders gave them a leading status in Neapolitan society. They
were the equivalent of the counts recorded in Amalfi. It is perhaps
not surprising then to find that the dynasty who controlled Gaeta
in the early ninth century on one occasion claimed descent from
Anatolius miles rather than Anatolius comes.110
On the basis of their important military position, I suggest that
they founded the families of Naples that we would call noble; that
is, the descendents of such men would be proud to claim descent
from an ancestor with such high prestige. Unfortunately, it is far
less easy to trace these lines of descent. Apart from John miles and
his clan111 it is difficult to distinguish them from the rest of the
urban population as one can in, say, nearby Amalfi or Gaeta.
Because we are dealing here with a far greater number of people,
the method of tracing families by lead-names, so effective in the
confined area of Gaeta, cannot be used with any safety. Nor did the
Neapolitans adopt the Amalfitan style of citing long lists of
ancestors to identify themselves. Instead, as in the latter city, the use
of surnames appeared early, and is a hallmark of the Neapolitan
documents.
It is likely that, as in Amalfi, surnames were used by the nobility
of the city. (The anomalous lack of surname attached to John miles
and his family was probably related to the fact that they were part
of the ducal house and therefore needed no further identification.)
For example, we see the Isauri family, perhaps deriving its name
from its racial origins, documented in the tenth century, and the de
Rotunda clan, unusually deriving its name from that of a female
ancestor.112 Over one hundred other surnamed families, who can
only be traced through one or two generations, are also visible in
the tenth-century Neapolitan documents, and it is possible that one
or two were the ancestors of later, similarly surnamed families in
the smaller duchies. 113
The Isauri or Isabri family are first documented in 920, when the
widow Maru and her daughter Barbaria gave to their church of St
Eufimia in the district Duos Amantes a garden next to it.x 14 Maru's
110 1X1
CDC 1. See above, chapter 2, and figure 2.3.
112
Isauri: Francesca Luzzatti Lagana, 'Firme', p. 747, note 77, links the name with the
Isaurians who accompanied the Byzantine general Belisarius into Italy in the sixth
century. De Rotunda family: RN 109, RN 144, RN 299, RN 385, RN 463, and see
below, section (c) for more on Rotunda's clan.
113
See below, chapter 6, section (a,viii): I am currently in the process of preparing a
prosopographical database of Neapolitans recorded to 1139, in order to investigate
114
family patterns in that duchy in more detail. RN 6.

133
 From the beginnings to the eleventh century
brothers John and Gregory owned property bordering the garden.
The two women charged the abbot of SS Sergius and Bacchus with
seeing that the gift was protected, suggesting that their church was
already subjected to the larger foundation. In our next reference,
one Peter Isabri is documented as the owner of a house in the platea
Augustali.115 Then we have a series of documents issued by
different members of the family dealing in rural property, but they
show a certain continuity in that many involve the church of SS
Sergius and Bacchus as the other party in the transaction. 116 The
will of Maria Gemma, wife of Gregory Isabri in 960 began with a
bequest to the same church. 117 The Isauri continued to patronise
the smaller St Eufimia as well. When Basil gave up his property to
SS Sergius and Bacchus in 970, he reserved zfundus for the smaller
church.118 Later, in 1002, another member of the family, Andrea,
who bore the evocative nickname Pungente, acted as a member of
the congregation of St Severus.x 19 In their lack of artisanal activity,
extensive landowning and connections with a powerful church,
the Isauri can safely be characterised as part of the nobility of
Naples.
One title which seems to have crossed into usage at Gaeta from
Naples was that of prefect. It is difficult to see what function the
title had in the latter territory beyond denoting a certain prestige
on the bearer's part. It is possible that the title was used by those
subject to the duke, but holding the most important centres. 120 (A
notable exception to this rule is the count of Cuma, but if this
position continued to be held by a cadet branch of the ducal
dynasty, its special distinction is understandable). The extreme
rarity of ducal documents from Naples means we cannot definitely
assign to the prefects a role of witnessing for the duke — a civilian
aristocracy to balance the military one — but this seems likely given
that these men witnessed the very few Neapolitan documents that
we have. 121 The title does not appear to have been hereditary — we
have evidence of sons of prefects who do not use the title — and thus
may not have indicated landed wealth, but it was clearly thought
115
KN2 9 (935).
116
For example, an exchange ofland in Caucilione in 936, RN 34; a gift of Balnearia land to
117
the church in 963, RN 131, and another in 970, RN 185. RN i n .
118 119
RNiSs- RN 317, RN 318.
120
Cassandro, 'Ducato', p. 200; see also the discussion of the title in Brown, Gentlemen and
Officers, p. 136.
121
For example, Peter prefect son of Sergius and Gregory prefect appeared on an exchange
of duke John son of Marinus in 949: DCDN 3a.

134
 Noble families in the tenth century

John Maria Maru Gregory

(920) (920) (920) = John (920-960)
I | = Maria
Stephen Gregory Barbaria (920) I
John Anna
(936) (955)
I = Anna \VT\JI \*J\J\JI

(963) Bonito Basil

w o ;
(970) (970)
= Eufimia
Documents: RN6, 34, 68, 87, 111, 131, 185

Figure 4.7 The Isauri family

an important enough indicator of power (and noble birth?) for the

widow of Theodore the count to trace his descent back via his
untitled father to his grandfather Aligernus the prefect in 1016. 122
It may have been the title's perceived importance which led
Docibilis I to use it rather than the title of hypatos in his first
document in 867. Neither title denoted special ruling status, but
Docibilis may have wanted to use the title familiar to the nobility
of Naples. He soon reverted to hypatos, but this was perhaps a
reaction to the fact that Kampulus, son of count (or hypatos)
Marinus, and Docibilis' most potent rival, used the title prefect
from his first documented appearance in 890 123 onwards.
I stated earlier that the title of hypatos may have conferred
honour, rather than a right to rule, on its holder, using examples of
its occurrence in other Tyrrhenian states, including Naples.
However, in the latter city the title may have become the surname
of a family, who must, one assumes, have thought themselves to be
noble. The earliest occurrence of the surname or title is in 957,
when the heirs of Stephen son of John 'kataypatiae' are recorded in
a boundary clause.124 Taken together with another document of
969, 125 in which one of those heirs, John son of Stephen 'kata
domini ypatiae' appears, it seems that the surname developed out
of the family's descent from an unnamed ancestor who held the
title of hypatos, kata in Greek meaning 'down' and so translatable as
'decended from'. Thus the family followed a by now familiar
pattern of citing their titled forebear as a means of identification.

122 123 124 125

RN 369. CDC 15. RN96. RNi6g.

135
 From the beginnings to the eleventh century
By 994 the unwieldy formula by which they did so had been
jettisoned in favour of the shorter, but no less identifiable, Ipati as a
surname.126 Members of the family are documented until 1038,
including Sergius son of John, who bought land on Mount
Vesuvius in 1014,127 Gregory and Sergius in a boundary clause of
1016,128 and the heirs of Peter in 1038.129 There are also frequent
references to Mi ypati in other boundary clauses, recording them as
landowners in Calbetianum 130 and Pumilianum. 131 This collec-
tive identification, and the fact that we do not know who the titled
ancestor of the family was, may suggest that those who owned land
near them were also not familiar with their neighbours' back-
ground. A valuable clue as to why this should be is provided in the
will of an Amalfitan resident in Naples, dated 1021. Sergius the
Amalfitan appointed as his executors his two uncles, John and
Sergius Ipati sons of Marinus 'de Sirrento'. 132 One should perhaps
be cautious in using this evidence to assign Sorrentan origins to the
Ipati family, particularly since variations of 'Sorrentinus' may
again have become a family name at Naples. However, Sergius'
careful description of his uncles as 'of Sorrento', and the fact that
the title hypatos was certainly used there, point to this conclusion.
To take the hypothesis a step further, the lack of a name for the Ipati
family's ancestor may be because their ancestor was the hypatos of
Sorrento, and needed no more identification. A final clue
supporting the family's non-Neapolitan origins is that after 1038
they disappear from the documents. Either they dropped the name,
which is possible, or they returned to their homeland. Unfortuna-
tely, the woeful amount of evidence surviving from Sorrento
ensures that their fate remains a mystery.
A survey of the noble families of the Tyrrhenian coast has
revealed a number of strategies used in identifying themselves, but
all seem to have valued the use of titles to add prestige and to
reinforce the power brought by their landed wealth. Nowhere is
this more apparent than in Gaeta, where the Docibilans seem to
have put the title of prefect to a special use during the tenth century,

126 127
John son of Peter Ipati bought land in that year: RN2S7. RN 352.
128 j^^y 370- (hey o w n e d land in C a m p o de Piro, an u n k n o w n location.
129
RN463. * 3 0 Calvizzano: RN 324 (1005).
131
Pomigliano: RN 342 ( i o n ) and RN 420 (1028).
132
RN 402; a version of the will published as CP 81 is dated 1025, perhaps reflecting a delay
in making a copy which was preserved in Sergius' homeland.

136
 Noble families in the tenth century
as the genealogy below indicates. The title appears to have been
held by the youngest son of the hypatos or duke. For example,
Docibilis I had three sons. One succeeded him as ruler, one became
the duke of Terracina and the third, Leo, became known as the
prefect. Neither of Leo's two sons actually used the title, but in the
next generation both John and Docibilis' sons called their father
'prefect'. And two ofJohn's sons, basking in the reflected prestige
of a title which could not, or had not, been passed on to them,
styled themselves magnificus instead (see Figure 4.8).
The second Leo the prefect we meet in the family again seems to
have been a youngest son. His three brothers succeeded each other
as dukes of Gaeta, and, whilst the prefecture may not have carried
with it any specific role or function, it may have been a sufficiently
prestigious compensation for not achieving the higher office.
Again one of Leo's sons, Gregory, bears the title magnificus. The
prefecture may not have necessarily come with landed possessions,
although it is difficult to imagine either of the Docibilans named
Leo the prefect without land.
It is very difficult to pin down exactly what titles such as
magnificus, count or prefect signified in Gaeta, but they all pre-
dated Docibilan rule there, and because of this could perhaps be
taken as indications of noble birth in the tenth century, even if the
bearers of such titles, for example Christopher magnificus, could
really only trace their ancestry back to service counts. But if this
was so, how did men of unknown background like Docibilis I, or
his family's retainers such as Mauro's son Mastalus come to use such
titles?
In Docibilis' case this question has largely been answered in an
earlier chapter; he needed to clothe himself in some kind of
prestigious identity to obscure his non-noble origins, and titles
were one way of doing so. Men like Mastalus, as close to the dukes
of Gaeta as their higher-born contemporaries, were merely doing
the same, using titles like magnificus which were meaningless
functionally, but sounded good, to assimilate with the class which
they aspired to join.
The Docibilans were successful in creating an aristocratic group
of supporters, but could not dislodge or modify the composition of
the nobility of Gaeta whose histories were longer than their own.
Whilst they had wealth, and could build up a retinue, the latter
were ultimately dependent on the fortunes of their benefactors.
137
 DOCIBILIS I (prefect then hypatos)
I
Leo prefect JOHN I Anatolius
(906-30) duke of Terracina
(906-24)
John prefect? Docibilis prefect DOCIBILIS II
(944-6) (937-63) I

Docibilis Leo Leo JOHN II GREGORY MARINUS Leo prefect

magnificus magnificus duke duke duke (954-9)
(945-63) (935-62) I
Landolf Gregory Docibilis John
magnificus magnificus (980-1010)
(991-1013) (1002-24)

Figure 4.8 Prefects in the Docibilan clan

 Noble families in the tenth century
This dependence on the ruler, what the German historians term
Konigsnahe,133 made the position of the aristocrats of Gaeta
precarious, whilst the nobility, friendly towards the Docibilans,
but not in need of their patronage, had a solid base of landed wealth
to fall back on should political upheaval occur. Whilst there is no
direct evidence that this was the case, the use of leading names in the
oldest families may have been a means of reasserting the family's
hold on particular pieces of land associated with the lead-name
ancestor, a phenomenon noted by Werner in his study of
Carolingian noble families.134 Such tight identification may have
been useful given the disparate locations of each family's lands. As
we have seen, the possessions of such as the Kampuli and
Christopherii were scattered throughout the territory of Gaeta,
their only common feature being that they were owned by the
same clan.
This points to a very strong sense of identity as a clan on the part
of each of these families, and their longevity seems to have owed
something to very careful husbandry of their lands and, if each
family had to look outside itself for business transactions at all, it
would look to another similar ancient clan rather than to the
newcomers of the Docibilan aristocracy. For this is the crucial
point; noble status in the tenth century in Gaeta was not derived
from association with the Docibilan dukes, however powerful the
latter might have seemed to be. And the Docibilan aristocracy
were never wealthy enough to be able to buy their way into closed
noble circles.

(c) ROLE OF WOMEN IN THE TENTH-CENTURY NOBILITY

The discussions of family relationships and descent in this chapter

have focussed almost exclusively on the roles and relationships of
men. However, as mentioned above, at least one family in Naples
traced its descent from a female ancestor, Rotunda, and this was by
no means an isolated example. Also, the successful continuation of
133
G. Tellenbach, 'From the Carolingian imperial nobility to the German estate of
imperial princes', in Medieval Nobility, p. 207, stresses the need aristocrats had to be close
to the ruler. W. Metz, 'Reichsadel und Krongutverwaltung in karolingischer Zeit',
Blatter fur deutsche Landesgeschichte, 94 (1968), 11-119, argues that it was the king who
benefited from this closeness, a view endorsed by K. F. Werner, 'Important noble
families in the kingdom of Charlemagne', in Medieval Nobility, p. 176. In Gaeta, both
scenarios are valid; the nobility of the city supported Docibilis, and he in turn patronised
134
a new aristocracy. 'Important noble families'.

139
 From the beginnings to the eleventh century
the family line relied upon the women who bore the male heir(s);
failing these, the blood of the family ran through daughters. How
important were the female members of these noble families in
cementing relationships?
First, we must establish precisely how many families accorded a
primary role to a female ancestor in their histories. A survey of the
documents from the three duchies in this early period reveals that
several of the Amalfitan nobility's name-chains of descent ended
with a female ancestor, titled countess. 135 In addition, all three
duchies have evidence of men and women citing descent from a
female ancestor without necessarily giving her a title. 136 Why
were women cited rather than men in these cases? Several sets of
circumstances could lead to a female ancestor being cited rather
than a male. Among the nobility, a woman's ancestry might be
more illustrious than her husband's. For example, in 1002 one John
Papa, who appears in several Gaetan documents of the early
eleventh century, gave his mother Maria's name in a document,
rather than his father's, which we do not know. 137 Maria was a
member of the ruling Docibilan dynasty, the daughter ofJohn II,
and John was clearly underlining where he derived his status from.
On the latter point, the mother's status could be crucial further
down the social ladder. In a court-case of 999, a group of men
argued that they could not possibly be slaves of bishop Bernard of
Gaeta because their mother had been a free woman. 138
Widowhood could sometimes lead to a woman's name being
135
For example, Cristina daughter of Leo son of countess Muscu in 1005, CD A 19; John
son of Leo the priest son of Urso de Anna countess in 1013, CD A 32.
136
In Amalfi: early examples include count Lupino son of Stephen de Anna, CD A 1 (907)
and CD A 2 (922); Sparanus son of Leo de Mauro de Rosa, CP 5 (981) and a possible
relative, Mauro son of Constantine de Rosa, CD A 34 (1018); later a group of men
descended from one Eufimia appear, w h o may all have been of the same family,
Lupinus de Eufimia in 964, CD A 7, Leo son of Mauro de Eufimia in 1018, CD A 34, and
the brothers Fuscus, M a u r o and Ursus sons of Leo de Eufimia in 1037, CD A 49. It is
possible that they were in fact a cadet, or possibly a natural, branch of the Monteincollo
family, argued on name evidence. W e k n o w from a document of 920 that Peter, son of
count Mauro Monteincollo, was married to a w o m a n named Eufimia, CD A 585, and
their son, named Lupinus, appears in a document of 952, CD A 587. Any definite
identification, however, is not possible from the surviving evidence. In Naples and
Gaeta the evidence for female ancestors is less clear because the lengthy name-chains
popular with the Amalfitans were not used. However, at Naples we see Peter son of
John de Adelgarda in 987, RN 252, Atitio son of Peter Leo de Leoperga in 990, RN 267,
Andrea son of Gregory de Rosa in 1016, RN 367 and Sergius son of Sergii de Mira in
1027, RN 412; and at Gaeta Peter de Megalu in 1006, CDC 113 and, later, Maria
137
daughter of Leo de Orania in 1068, CDC 238. CDC 107.
138
CDC 100; for further discussion of this case, see below, chapter 7.

140
 Noble families in the tenth century
used by her children. For example, in 1031 one Stephen signed his
widowed mother's document at Gaeta as 'son of Sergia', despite
the fact that his father's name appeared earlier in the charter. 139
The occurrence of matronymic identification rather than patrony-
mic is well documented in all three duchies. 140 There could,
however, be another reason for this, and that is that the parties
either did not know their fathers or that they were natural children.
This in itself was not necessarily a disablement. The most striking
example of a line of descent which may have had these beginnings
is that of the counts of Suio in the duchy of Gaeta. 141
It is possible that the Docibilan rulers of Suio were an illegitimate
offshoot (or at least, a natural one) from the line of duke Gregory.
We know that count Hugh's father was Docibilis magnijicus, who
may have been the son of Gregory's son Landolf. Docibilis,
though, is also recorded by Hugh and in another document as 'son
of Pulissene/Polyssena';142 we know that at the time of the first
occurrence of this nomenclature, 1002, Landolf was still alive, and
so the citation of Polyssena's name was not caused by her
widowhood. The other main reason for citing descent from a
woman, that she was the more illustrious parent, also does not seem
to apply here. Polyssena is otherwise unknown and Landolf was a
fifth-generation member of the Docibilan clan. It seems that
Docibilis' birth was not to a married couple. Not that this was any
hindrance to his sons; Hugh became lord of Suio and Leo briefly
ruled Gaeta in 1042, but it was in the former castle that Polyssena's
line became firmly entrenched.
The circumstances in which the family of Rotunda at Naples
came to cite her as their ancestor are unclear, but the name itself is
unusual enough to be able to link its occurrences. In 916 a gift to St
Martin's convent in Naples was received by its abbess, Militu
'named Rotunda'. 143 An abbess was able to enjoy an identity not

139
CDC 160.
140
In Gaeta: Peter de Musa CDC 82 (983), Peter de Megalu CDC 113 (1006), Docibilis son
of Maria CDC 120 (1010), Gregory son of Bona CDC 164 (1034); Leo son of Marozza
CDC 120, 121, 125 (1010—1012) may be the same man as Leo son of Bonus, the regular
witness for the Docibilans discussed above, but if so we do not k n o w w h y he sometimes
chose to give his mother's name. In Amalfi: Leo son of Muscu CD A 19 (1005), Peter son
of Rosa CD A 54 and 61 (1041,1051), Leo de Anna CP 47 (1061). In Naples: Peter de
Matrona RN 51 (944), Peter son of Bona RN 53 (945), Stephen de Marina RN 90 (956),
John son ofTheotista RN 259 (989), etc.
141
O n their history, see below, chapter 5, sections (b,ii) and (c,ii).
142 143
CDC 108, CDC 173. RN4.

141
 From the beginnings to the eleventh century
linked with that of a man. She also had high status derived from her
abbacy, and, since it was common for religious houses to have links
with the nobility throughout Europe at this time, her identity as
the laywoman Militu may have gained her equal respect as that of
the abbess Rotunda. She is a likely candidate to be remembered
with pride. This remembrance could take two forms, however. As
well as direct descendants, other members of her family might have
named their children after her. Since we cannot be sure whether the
abbess had any children, 144 we cannot securely identify the
Rotunda documented in 959 as her daughter or granddaughter, 145
but it would be unwise to discount the possibility of a relationship
altogether. The second Rotunda and her husband Gregory are
recorded in that year as being the previous owners of a piece of land
in Anglata (unknown). Significantly, Rotunda is named before her
husband, suggesting that she had been the actual owner. Six years
later, the 'heirs of Rotunda' are recorded in a boundary clause of
land at Miana. 146 Furthermore, the same document records in
another boundary the 'heirs of Militum'. Could this possibly be a
link to abbess Rotunda, whose lay name was Militu? The
hypothesis is persuasive, even taking into account that militum
could equally mean 'of the soldiers'. But the location of this land in
Miana does not correspond with that recognised to be the pars
militie further afield in Liburia. Either way, the family seem to have
found a focus for their landowning in the area north-west of
Naples in the tenth century. In 997 one Palumbus the priest bought
land for his nephew Bisantius, son of Rotunda, in Maranum. 147
The land had previously belonged to a member of the Caputo
family; the same family was earlier documented owning land on
the boundary of the Anglata property owned by Rotunda and
Gregory. Thus a web of connections tying isolated Rotunda
references into a plausible family begins to emerge. Nearby, in
Quarto, Gregory de Rotunda is recorded as a landowner in
1020.148 His wife and children made a charter of security for the
igumenos of SS Sergius and Bacchus in Naples in 1038 about land
which Gregory had leased, and over which there had been a
dispute, but we do not know where the land was. 149 Finally,

144
Although she may have entered monastic life as a w i d o w , a very c o m m o n occurrence in
the Tyrrhenian as elsewhere in this period.
145
RN 109; allowing thirty years per generation, the latter relationship is more likely.
146 147 148 149
RN 144. RN 299. RN 385. RN463.

142
 Noble families in the tenth century
Gregory is recorded as a previous owner of land at Antinianum
(Antignano), again north-west of Naples, in 1074.150
The family of Rotunda do not appear to have been particularly
prosperous, to judge by the fact that they were still leasing land as
well as owning it in the eleventh century. One might postulate
that, if their ancestor was an abbess, they inherited prestige rather
than wealth. The bulk of the latter is likely to have followed
Rotunda to her convent, especially if she had no children.
Nevertheless, her family's continued use of her name illustrate how
a woman could be commemorated for over a century.
Having seen the circumstances in which women were cited as
the source of the family's lineage, what sorts of activities would
they have been expected to undertake? Were they merely
caretakers of the dynasty's fortune, or was their role more
important?
Starting right at the top of society, the women of the ducal
houses are more visible in some areas than others. In the Docibilan
family, although daughters seem not to have been considered fit to
rule, the women did share in the family's wealth. One effect of this
may be the difficulty which surrounds the identification of their
husbands in many cases. The latter seem to emerge in the
documentation only when widowed and claiming their wives'
portions. For example, in 924, when the children of Docibilis I
divided up lands which they had inherited, one Rodipert received
the portion of his late wife Megalu, Docibilis' daughter. 151 A
survey of ducal wives in the three duchies does not provide us with
very much information about their backgrounds either. As already
noted, Docibilis II was married to Orania of Naples and duke John
of Amalfi's wife was Regalis of Salerno, both women members of
the ruling houses of their home states, and both bringing property
to their husbands.
It is a favourite historical motif to blame the decline of a
dynasty's power on the perceived weakness of a female ruler or
regent, but the widows of dukes had a crucial role to play in
ensuring that their children succeeded to the duchy. Their success
or failure depended in large part on the alliances that they had made
locally.152 Only in exceptional circumstances could a foreign
duchess use her family connections elsewhere to reinforce her

150 151
RN 520. CDC 31.
152
For examples of this in the eleventh century, see below, chapter 5, section (a).

143
 From the beginnings to the eleventh century
power, as for example in the case of duchess Maria of Amalfi, sister
of Pandolf IV of Capua, discussed above. 153 A widowed duchess
with strong local connections and landed wealth was far more
likely to succeed in buying support for her son and maintaining her
own position as his guardian. This ties in with the documented
activity of noble wives and widows in the former Byzantine coastal
cities, who had a legal basis for their position and who seem to have
wielded a great deal of economic power and influence. 154
Marriage was not the only route to such power. For example,
Pitru daughter of Kampulus, of the Neapolitan family of John
miles, had a great deal of economic influence. As a member of a
wealthy and powerful family, although not, it now seems, her
father's only child (she appears to have had a brother, Peter the
curial, but nevertheless seems to have inherited a large share of their
father's wealth), she is seen in the tenth and early eleventh centuries
exploiting her position to the full. She owned and managed large
quantities of land and the family's proprietary church, seems to
have totally dominated her husband Stephen to the extent that he
retired to a monastery for a while and pursued court cases in Naples
on her own behalf, always successfully.
What is interesting is the position of Stephen in relation to his
wife, for, although he appears in 968/969 making two leases of
Liburia land on his own account, 155 there are ten other documents
in which his wife is named first as the author, giving the impression
that she was the real controller of their property, or at least that
their wealth was largely fron her family, not his. Pitru is the best-
documented woman we know from medieval Naples, and was
clearly aware of her power; in 963 she apparently acted alone in a
court-case to have her neighbour's window, which looked straight
into hers, blocked up. 156 The court-case, and a reference in another
document to her house in 965, 157 raises the possibility that up to
this date she and Stephen lived apart, and that he really was living a
monastic life. If so, he apparently lost his vocation between then
and 968, when he reappears in the documents as Stephen miles.15*
From that point on he no longer used the title of monk, and appears
beside his wife in all her transactions (and vice versa) until both
disappear from view in 977.
153
See above, chapter 2.
154
For more on the economic power of w o m e n , Skinner, ' W o m e n , wills and wealth'.
155 i56 157 158
RN 170, RN 171. RN 132. RN iso. RN 170.

144
 Noble families in the tenth century
Women's roles in pulling together both the noble families in this
area and in linking the ruling dynasties have been somewhat
ignored hitherto in studies of southern Italy. 159 This section has
attempted to introduce the ways in which they did so, and more
will be said as the study progresses. One area in which they are
often heavily documented is in pious donations to the church.
Pitru, for example, was the controller of her family's proprietary
church. What significance did such foundations have in the family
histories of the tenth century?

(d) NOBILITY AND THE CHURCH: 'EIGENKIRCHEN'

A good relationship with the local church was seen by the dukes of
each city as a contributory factor in achieving dignity and respect,
and there is evidence that noble families thought in the same way.
At Gaeta, an analysis of their transactions reveals that they dealt
almost exclusively with the four main ecclesiastical institutions —
the bishopric, St Michael at Planciano, SS Theodore and Martin
and St Erasmus at Formia. Their activities also show a tendency on
the part of both old nobility and new aristocrats to associate
themselves with the oldest institutions of the duchy, perhaps
another manifestation of the importance attached to age discussed
earlier. In addition to these transactions, however, we have
evidence that the Kampuli patronised another church, SS John and
Paul, 160 and owned a further two, St Gregory at Castro
Argento 161 and St Martin at Casa Hortali. 162 This is the only
instance we have of a Gaetan family prominent in the tenth century
controlling proprietary churches, apart from the Docibilans
themselves (those of eleventh-century families are discussed later).
In Naples, the family ofJohn miles also owned a church, as did the
Isabri family, perhaps indicating that this activity was the preserve
of the very highest nobility. Such churches existed in some
numbers in northern Italy, and from a much earlier date than in the
south. In the words of Tabacco, possession of churches 'not only
gave the lord a religious insurance and increased his income ... but

159
But see Taviani-Carozzi, Principaute, pp. 384—409, for a recent discussion of the role of
marriage, the 'echange des femmes', in linking the ruling dynasties of Salerno,
Benevento and Capua.
160
CDC 208 (1059): Marinus son of Kampulus recorded as having previously donated land
161 162
to the church. CDC 208. CDC 245.

145
 From the beginnings to the eleventh century
constituted one of the foundations of the social prestige of the
aristocracy'.163
It is particularly significant that the only known tenth-century
Gaetan family owning churches were the Kampuli. For in
establishing these foundations they were not only emphasising
their landed wealth and social status, but were also making the very
political statement that they, just like the Docibilans, were capable
of supporting their own churches as well as making gifts to those of
the ruling family.
This attitude of detachment on the part of the Kampuli (and
perhaps, other older families) was ultimately very damaging, for
by, to a certain extent, remaining aloof from the Docibilans and
their patronage, the older noble families of Gaeta indirectly
weakened the rulers. They acquiesced to the Docibilan rise possibly
because they had not the strength to resist Docibilis I's strong-arm
force of Saracen mercenaries, or because the Docibilans were
initially so much richer than they were. Having accepted Docibilan
rule they received a certain amount of land, and acted as witnesses,
but never entirely succumbed to Docibilan patronage in return for
their wholehearted support. In refusing to do so they contributed
to the fragmentation of Docibilan power, and, ultimately, to their
own decline. As will become clear in a later chapter, landed
possessions scattered across the whole duchy were only viable if
that duchy was peaceful. We have already seen that the Docibilans
themselves were running into land problems by the end of the
tenth century. For them, and for the landed nobility, as well as for
the fledgling Docibilan aristocracy of Gaeta, the eleventh century
would be anything but one of peace.
163
Tabacco, Struggle for Power, p. 166, records northern examples from at least the ninth
century, although documentary survival must partly explain this difference.

I46
 Part II

A TIME OF CHANGE: THE ELEVENTH

CENTURY AND BEYOND
 Chapter 3

FROM LOCAL DUKES TO NORMAN KINGS

(a) GAETA: NEW REGIMES

The tenth century was one of remarkable continuity and stability

in the political affairs of Gaeta. The same ruling family was in
power, and the same group of noble families prominent,
throughout the century. However, the Docibilans seem to have
been experiencing problems maintaining their position by the end
of the century, leading to squabbles within the clan over what
public land remained in its hands.1 More significantly, the
participants in these disputes identified themselves and their cause
with smaller areas of jurisdiction, such as the duchy of Fondi and
the county of Traetto. 2 The eleventh century saw a series of regime
changes at Gaeta itself, in which much of the old pattern of power
and patronage was swept away. This section seeks to illuminate
that process from a number of different viewpoints. First, I shall
outline the sequence of regime changes in order to provide a
framework and background against which to discuss some issues in
more detail. Secondly, I shall re-examine the process of the
fragmentation of the duchy itself, looking at external pressures and
internal developments. The history of Gaeta in this period will then
be set against those of her neighbours, to see whether a
'Tyrrhenian' pattern can be established.
The land disputes just referred to between count Dauferius of
Traetto and his relatives the bishop of Gaeta and the duke of Fondi,
Leo, are significant for the light they shed on the emergence of new
areas of territorial jurisdiction within the duchy of Gaeta in the late
tenth century. The latter dispute, in 999, was judged at the court of
the German emperor, Otto III, who was at that time trying to
impose his authority on this part of Italy. His imposition of
1
See above, chapter 3, section (a).
2
For example, CDC 90 (992): Dauferius count of Traetto v. Leo duke of Fondi; CDC 101
(999): bishop Bernard v. Dauferius count of Traetto.

149
 The eleventh century and beyond
Ademarius as prince of Capua in the same year is a prime example
of Otto's heavy-handed, and ultimately short-lived, Italian
intervention.3 Otto, of course, was not the first of his family to
entangle himself in Italian politics. After his imperial coronation by
pope John XII, Otto I had in 962 issued a privilege confirming the
pope's jurisdiction over much of the peninsula. Among the
possessions conceded were the cities of Naples, Gaeta and Fondi
and the patrimonia of Benevento, Naples and upper and lower
Calabria. Presumably recognising the political situation as it stood
at that time, Amalfi is not mentioned, suggesting that its drift
towards Salerno was well known. 4
The earlier dispute of 992, however, was still submitted to the
judgement of the duke of Gaeta, John III, suggesting that the
disputants continued to recognise his overall authority. It may have
been to preserve that authority that John's father Marinus had
succeeded his brothers John II and Gregory in power, despite the
fact that Gregory had at least two sons. We do not know the ages of
the latter, but it may have been the case that the Docibilans were
trying to avoid a minority succession to power, particularly if they
were aware that their stocks of disposable public land were running
low.5
Such fears were well founded. John III died in 1008, closely
followed by his eponymous son in 1011/2. This led to a child, John
V, assuming the ducal title. Initially this weakness does not seem to
have affected the duke's sovereign status; in 1012 a document
authorised and received by residents of Castro Argento was still
written at Gaeta and dated according to the duke's reign. 6 By 1014,
though, the counts of the much larger settlement of Traetto had
taken advantage of the fact that Gaeta was being ruled by a minor
and his grandmother, duchess Emilia, the widow of John III, to
assert their identity as quasi-independent counts. In that year a
document recording a dispute between count Dauferius and the
abbey of Montecassino was written at Traetto and dated by the rule
of its counts, Dauferius, Lando, Ederado and Marinus. Also
significant about the case is that it was argued in the presence of the
archbishop and prince of Capua, the duke of Naples, the abbot of

3
Loud, Church and Society, p. 28.
4
MGH, Constitutiones et Acta Publica Imperatorem et Regum, 1, ed. L. Weiland (Hanover,
1893), P. 23ff.
5
See above, chapter 3, section (a) and note 39 for more on the fraternal succession.
6
CDC 125.

150
 From local dukes to Norman kings
Montecassino, the son of the duke of Fondi and the bishop and
various noblemen of Gaeta. The duke of Gaeta is noticeably absent.
Unless the bishop, Bernard, was seen as the duke's representative
(which is likely - documentary evidence suggests a close relation-
ship between Bernard and his sister-in-law, the duchess-regent
Emilia), the views of the duke of Gaeta seem to have mattered little
to the Traettans.
Matters were not helped by the fact that there seems to have been
a power struggle between Emilia and her son Leo for the regency in
the following years, revealed by the dating clauses of documents
written at Gaeta during this period (see Figure 5.1).
In the period 1017-23 Leo granted out public land to Kampulus
son of Docibilis, a member of the powerful Kampuli clan,7
possibly in an attempt to win over that family's support for his
removal of Emilia. The dating clause of a document authorised by
a member of the clan, Mirus son ofJohn, in 1020,8 suggests that he
may initially have succeeded in convincing the Kampuli to
recognise his position. But Emilia had a far more potent ally in her
brother-in-law, bishop Bernard, who gave her land in 10029 and
whose sole authorised document of the period in question
recognised the rule of the young John, without Leo, in 1014.10
Perhaps it was his support which allowed Emilia to emerge
triumphant by 1025, or perhaps Leo had died by that time.
Whatever the cause, her victory was not without cost. By that date,
Traettan documents had ceased to acknowledge the rule of the
Gaetan dukes, and the Sperlongan ones would soon follow. 11
There is also some evidence to suggest that Emilia and her
grandson were losing their authority at Gaeta too. In 1028 they
ceded victory in a land dispute to onejohn son of Constantine, who
may have been a descendant of John I via one of the latter's
illegitimate sons, Constantine. 12 It is significant also that when
duke Sergius IV of Naples sought refuge in Gaeta in 1029, he
addressed his appeal for help not only to Emilia and John, but also
to all of the Gaetans magnis et mediocris.13 The identity of the latter
will be established later in this chapter, but the important point to
note is that the duchess and her grandson were not perceived by
their Neapolitan counterpart as capable of raising the military force
that he needed.
7 8 9 10
CDC 135. CDC 138. CDC 105. CDC 129.
11
CDC 154 (1028) was dated by Leo son of Leo, consul of Fondi.
12 13
CDC 155. CDC 156; see also Cassandro, 'Ducato', 310.
 The eleventh century and beyond
DOCUMENT DATE AUTHOR DATE CLAUSE
CDC 125 1012 Carruccius Minority of John V
CDC 126 IOI2 Bernard bishop* JohnV
CDC 128 IOI3 Landolf f. Gregory* Emilia and John V
CDC 129 IOI4 Bernard bishop JohnV
CDC 131 IOI4 Marenda JohnV
CDC 132 I0l6 Gregory f. Leo* JohnV
CDC 133 1017 Sergia John V and Leo f. John III
CDC 134 I0I8 Bona John V and Leo f. John III
CDC 135 IOI9 Leo f. John III* John V and Leo f. John III
CDC 136 1019 John Cecus no date clause
CDC 138 1020 Mirus f. John@ John V and Leo f. John III
CDC 139 1021 Matrona John V and Leo f. John III
CDC 140 1021 Alberic abbot + John V and Leo f. John III
CDC 141 1021 John f. Christopher John V and Leo f. John III
CDC 142 1023 Hugh count of Suio* Emilia, John V and Leo
CDC 143 1024 Gregory f. Leo John V and Leo
CDC 144/5 1024 Leo priest no date clause
CDC 146 1025 Gregory f. John Emilia and John V
CDC 147 1025 consorts of S. Peter Emilia and John V
CDC 148 1025 George f. John Emilia and John V
CDC 150 1026 Leo f. Marinus@ Emilia and John V
CDC 153 IO28 Constantine f. Paul Emilia and John V
CDC 155 1028 Emilia and John* Emilia and John V
CDC 156 1029 Sergius duke (Naples) Emilia and John V
CDC 160 103 I Sergia Emilia and John V
CDC 161 103 I Maria Emilia and John V
CDC 162 1032 John f. Constantine Emilia and John V
CDC 163 IO32 Drosu Christopheri Emilia and John V
CDC 166 IO36 Peter Pandolf and Pandolf

* = Docibilans @ = Kampuli + of St Theodore in Gaeta

Figure 5.1 Qaetan dating clauses, 1012—1032

Nor, it seems, was the Gaetan regime capable of defending itself

against the attention of the rulers of Capua, Pandolf and his
eponymous son. The last documented appearance of Emilia and
John V in a dating clause is in 1032.14 By 1036 Emilia was dead,15
and from the same year survives the first of five Gaetan documents
dated by the two Capuans' reign. 16
The late 1030s saw a dramatic expansion in the power of prince
14 15
CDC 163. CDC 165.
16
CDC 166 (1036), CDC 167 (1036), CDC 168 (1037), CDC 169 (1038), CDC 170 (1038).

152
 From local dukes to Norman kings
Guaimarius of Salerno. By 1038 he is recorded as prince of Capua,
and the counts of Traetto were including him in their dating
clauses;17 in 1040 he was named in a Gaetan clause.18
That the rule of the Salernitan was by no means welcome is
illustrated by the brief appearance of one Leo, son of Docibilis
magnificus, as duke Leo II in 1042. If his bid for power can be
characterised as a revolt of the former supporters of the Docibilans
at Gaeta, then the Kampuli family were certainly at the forefront of
that movement. One member of the clan, Marinus son of
Kampulus, received a portion of the mill Maiore from the duke to
share with one Gregory son of John, both men receiving the gift 'in
return for their services'.19 Another family member, Kampulus
son of Docibilis, witnessed the duke's other extant document. 20
The Codex Cajetanus furnishes no evidence between the years
1042 and 1045, but in the latter year, the Chronicle of Montecas-
sino records that the Gaetans 'on account of the ill-will of
Guaimarius, called out Atenolf of Aquino to make himself their
duke'. 21 Were the Kampuli again among the leaders of the
discontented Gaetans? Although the documentary evidence is by
no means conclusive, it suggests that members of the family
achieved a position of honour and prestige under the rule of
Atenolf and, later, that of his widow Maria and their son Atenolf II.
For example, Sergius son of Kampulus appeared at a court held by
Atenolf I at Traetto in 1053 described as a 'noble of Gaeta', and
Kampulus son of John witnessed a document issued by duchess
Maria and the younger Atenolf in 1063.22
Why did men like the Kampuli invite another foreigner to come
and take the place of prince Guaimarius' puppet duke Raynulf23
rather than seize power themselves? I would suggest that, made
cautious by the failure of the Docibilan pretender Leo II in 1042,
they realised that a Gaetan could not call upon sufficient resources
to fend off the attentions of foreign predators, and so sent to
Atenolf promising support for his rule if he would leave their
position of privilege intact. The wider political scene must also be
considered. If, as I argued in the previous chapter, the Kampuli
were related to the dukes of Naples, their actions in trying to

17 18 19 20
CDC 171. C D C 174. ChC 176. CDC 177.
21 22
CMC II, 74. CDC 195, CDC 218.
23
CDC 203; Amatus, 11.32, records Raynulf s tenure of the city, and the choice of his
nephew Asclettin by 'li fidel Normant' of A versa and Gaeta as his successor. The latter,
however, does not appear in documents from Gaeta.

153
 The eleventh century and beyond
remove Gaeta's Salernitan puppet may have been prompted as
much by Neapolitan interests as their own.
The evidence suggests that both Atenolf and the nobles found
the agreement worked well. The Kampuli continued to prosper,
and were joined in Atenolfan witness lists by the Caracci and the
Coronellas (though not, interestingly, by the Christopherii).
Atenolf seems to have consciously wooed the Docibilan party at
Gaeta; it is significant that his only surviving land donation was
made to the church of SS Theodore and Martin, 24 the favoured
church of the Docibilan rulers. In return for his respect of local
political patterns, Atenolf enjoyed sixteen years' rule until his
death, and was able to hand on power to his widow and son.
That there was a resurgance of pro-Docibilan sympathy at Gaeta
during these years is illustrated by a document of 1054. If the
supporters of the Docibilans could not have one of that family as
duke, it was possible at least to influence the choice of successor to
Bernard, a Docibilan, as bishop of the city, and that, as the
document reveals, is precisely what Gregory, son of John
Coronella, and one Stephen, son of John de Arciu, 25 did. It appears
that when Bernard died, the man in line for the bishopric was
Laidulf son of Gregory the magnificent, who is recorded as
archdeacon of Gaeta as early as 1024.26 It is true that he had
Docibilan blood, being the great-nephew of three dukes. How-
ever, the man who became bishop instead, Leo, was the son of the
last Docibilan duke, Leo II, and was perhaps a more immediately
attractive candidate to those who supported his father. Leo,
moreover, received money from Gregory Coronella and Stephen
de Arciu to pay Laidulf off.27
Atenolf s death in 1061 signalled the end of the Docibilan
'revival'. In a situation strongly reminiscent of duchess Emilia's
reign, his widow Maria was left as regent for a minor, Atenolf II.
Like the earlier woman she seems to have required the approval of
those about her in Gaeta to carry out transactions, or so her
documents suggest. In 1062, her anti-Norman pact with the counts
of Traetto, Maranola and Suio also included the people of Gaeta. 28
Maria was here continuing her husband Atenolf s apparent policy
towards the Normans, for Gaetans are recorded by Amatus, 29 as
having participated in the ill-fated papal expedition against the
24
CDC 203 (1057).
25
For more on the de Arciu family, see below, chapter 6, section (a,vi).
26 27 28 29
CDC 143. CDC 197. CDC 215. Amatus m.24.

154
 From local dukes to Norman kings
Normans in 1052. In 1063 she and her son gave public land to St
Theodore's with the consent of bishop Leo, Bonus the judge and
the Gaetan people.30 These facts in themselves, however, do not
explain the vulnerable nature of her rule. What problems did
women like Maria and Emilia face when left as regents?
Although the supposed weakness of female rule cannot realisti-
cally be sustained as the reason for the breakdown of a dynasty's
power, the role of the prominent women of the duchy of Gaeta
during its breakup has never been investigated further. The rule of
a woman, even as a regent for a minor, seems to have brought with
it a crisis of power at Gaeta under both Emilia and Maria. How was
their power viewed in the context of women's roles?
It should be stated at the outset that neither Emilia nor Maria
were members of the dynasties ruling Gaeta at the time they came
to power, that is, they had married into the ruling family. Their
power, therefore, derived wholly from the fact that they were
mothers to the rightful heir to the duchy. That the latter had an
unchallengeable right to rule was by now accepted totally in the
duchy, and the two regencies simply underline that fact. Even
when Emilia was challenged by her son Leo, it was only for the
right to act as regent for his young nephew, not for the post of duke
itself. Significantly, though, Emilia was able to resist the challenge.
Why was this?
Several factors may be at work here. The first, as I have
indicated, is that Emilia seems to have enjoyed the support of
bishop Bernard, whose authority would carry weight not only
within the family, but also with the Gaetan people as well. Emilia
could also, however, draw upon legal tradition for her role as
regent. For, dowager duchess or not, her position as a widow
endowed her with a right, in the Byzantine law which prevailed in
the duchy, to ensure the upbringing and protection of her children,
in this case her son's child.31 Her daughter-in-law, John IV's
widow, who should have exercised this role, is not even known to
us by name, suggesting that Emilia was able to supplant her as the
senior woman in the family. Significant here may be the fact that

30
CDC 218.
31
'A w i d o w shall control her marriage portion and all her husband's property as becomes
the head of the family and the h o u s e h o l d . . . And the children shall not take her place nor
claim from her the patrimony, but treat her with all obedience and honour'; Leo III,
Ecloga 11,6, quoted from G. Buckler, ' W o m e n in Byzantine law about 1100 A.D.',
Byzantion, n (1936), 410.

155
 The eleventh century and beyond
Emilia is the first wife of a duke to have been accorded the title
duchess in the documentation, and this may also have been decisive
in her fight to rule.
In contrast, duchess Maria does not seem to have faced the type
of threat to her regency from within posed by Leo against Emilia,
but her rule as regent with the young Atenolf seems to have been
fragile from the outset, owing much, perhaps, to the fact that she,
unlike her predecessor, had no family to fall back upon at Gaeta for
support. Important, too, was the fact that she and her husband had
come to Gaeta from Aquino, an area where Lombard law and
custom was followed, rather than Byzantine. For, although it was
quite common for Lombard men to leave the care of heirs in their
widows' hands, women under Lombard law were legally 'incom-
petent', and so such care was exercised under the tutelage of a male
relative, or mundoald. At Gaeta, Maria does not appear to have had
this male tutelage (which could also, of course, provide support
and protection). The Lombard custom in her case may well have
been ignored, but it is significant that it was from a city of Lombard
law and practice, Capua, that two men came to take advantage of
the situation and assume power at Gaeta.
Richard I, prince of Capua, and his son Jordan I took over in
1062 and are recorded as dukes of Gaeta for the first time in the
documents from the city in 1064.32 Dating clauses of that year
reveal that for a short time the young Atenolf was permitted to rule
alongside them, presumably as a subject rather than a colleague. 33
He soon disappeared, however, and it seems that thereafter Richard
and Jordan nominated a series of puppet dukes for Gaeta, whilst
they continued to make Capua their base.
One point that seems to be missed in discussions of the weakness
of female regencies in the Middle Ages is the strength of challenge
they faced, and Emilia and Maria were unfortunate enough to be in
power during two periods of Capuan strength and aggression.
Maria's action in joining in a pact with Traetto, Maranola and Suio
32
CDC 221; the documents in the Codex Cajetanus record Jordan alone as the duke of Gaeta
as early as 1058. One, CDC 205, has been identified as a forgery from the Register of
Peter the Deacon by Loud, on the basis that Richard I is omitted from the date clause
during his lifetime, that Jordan's wife in the document, Rapizza, is otherwise unknown,
and that the indiction number cannot be reconciled with the date of the document: G.
Loud, 'Calendar', p. i n . The other, CDC 206, must be regarded with suspicion for
similar reasons, although the mistake here may simply be in the date assigned to the
document by the editors of the Codex, and the fact that it survives only in a seventeenth
33
century copy. CDC 221, CDC 222, CDC 225.

156
 From local dukes to Norman kings
against the Capuan Normans shows a great deal of political
acumen in recognising that the weakness of the duchy lay in its
disunity. (I may be mistaken in attributing the idea to participate to
Maria, but similarly it is totally unjustified to assume some male
'eminence grise' behind her regency.) However, when Richard
and Jordan took over, she was no longer needed as regent, and
disappears from the city's documentation. She was not inactive for
long, however. Richard handed over the city to his son-in-law
William of Montreuil briefly, but after the latter's revolt, in which
he repudiated the prince's daughter and sought to marry duchess
Maria,34 less identifiable figures appear as dukes. In 1064/5 the
Capuans' choice fell on one Lando, 35 in 1066/7 we see Danimbol-
dus as duke, 36 and then in 1068 a Norman, Geoffrey Ridell, took
power. 37 Maria's participation in the revolt is as a shadowy figure,
but that she was seen as an essential part of William's attempt to rule
suggests that her role as mother of the rightful duke may still have
carried influence. The choice of insignificant and now unidentifi-
able figures to act as puppet dukes from that point onwards
underlines the danger that the rebellion had carried with it.
The Ridells, however, were by no means insignificant.38
Geoffrey was duke of Gaeta for almost twenty years — his son
Raynald succeeded him in 108639 — but what is remarkable about
his reign is the level of detachment he exhibited from the state of
affairs at Gaeta. Duke Atenolf had courted the noblemen of the city
and had patronised its major church.-The only document we have
authorised by Geoffrey was written at his castle at Pontecorvo,
gave the church of St Erasmus at Formia to Montecassino and was
witnessed by two Pontecorvan judges, a man of Isernia and the
count of Aquino, Atenolf.40 Gaeta was no longer a political focus
of attention; rather, it was now a satellite of the greater power of
Capua and seemingly given to the lords of Pontecorvo simply

34
William's petition to annul his marriage on the grounds of consanguinity was refused by
the pope; Loud, Church and Society, p. 12 note 50 and p. 45. Amatus, VI.I, reports that he
was joined in rebellion by Lando of Traetto, but it is unclear which Lando is meant here.
35 36
CDC 228, CDC 229, CDC 230. CDC 232, CDC 233, CDC 234.
37
CDC 235.
38
O n their origins, see G. Loud, ' H o w " N o r m a n " was the N o r m a n conquest of southern
Italy?', Nottingham Medieval Studies, 25 (1981), 13—34. Amatus, v.9, reports that Geoffrey
had led the N o r m a n expedition into Sicily in 1061, a responsibility that perhaps led to his
39
being given Gaeta and Pontecorvo later on. CDC 257.
40
CDC 249; Atenolf is identified by Amatus, v.9, as one of the rebels against Richard of
Capua. He had clearly come back into line by this time.

157
 The eleventh century and beyond
because geographically they were the closest to the newly acquired
territory.
This detachment may have been a contributory factor to a
renewed Gaetan revolt in 1091, leading to several changes in rule.
After the death of prince Jordan I of Capua, the Ridells were ousted
from power at Gaeta (Raynald's son Gualganus having died
without issue) and were forced to continue their claim to rule from
their residence at Pontecorvo. 41
They were replaced by the last documented eleventh-century
duke of Gaeta, one Landolf, who is recorded as being in the second
year of his reign in 1094.42 Merores thinks he may have been a
Docibilan, descended from the family of Leo II, since he is recorded
in a much later document with the title senator by his son Marinus.
As she points out, the son of Leo II used this unusual title too. 43 Her
argument is strengthened by the fact that only two other
documented occurrences of the title at Gaeta in the eleventh
century reveal it being used by Docibilans too. The son of duke
John III appears as Leo senator in 1036,44 and John's other son
Marinus appears to have borne the title too, as his son John appears
as John comes son of Marinus senator son of duke John in 1045.45
Landolf s reign might, therefore, be a final attempt by the
Docibilan party to regain the initiative in the city. It is worth
noting that the title senator was used as an honorific title within the
Neapolitan ducal family, and Neapolitan involvement in the rise of
Landolf is highly likely, given the latter city's opposition to
Capuan and Norman interests. This theory is given further weight
by the fact that Landolf s underage son Marinus appears later in
Naples, selling property under the supervision of the Neapolitan
duke, John VI. 46 Landolf s attempt to gain power was made
during a period when the Capuans were diverted by a feud with
Richard de Aquila, count of Pica. In the course of the struggle,
Landolf was replaced by another Capuan nominee, William of
Blosseville, who is documented as duke in 1103,47 but by 1105 it
was Richard who had gained power and who is recorded as consul
and duke of Gaeta.48 Thereafter, the history of Gaeta's rulers is one
directed by the balance of power between the various political

41 42 43
Loud, Church and Society, p. 91. CDC 269. Gaeta, p. 51.
44 45 46
CDC 165. CDC 179. RN 606.
47
CDC 275; but he had been duke from 1101/2.
48
William is later found documented as a vassal of the de Aquilas; Loud, Church and Society,
p. 91.

158
 From local dukes to Norman kings
factions holding castles in and around Capua and on the eastern
border of Gaeta's territory. As we shall see later in this chapter, the
frequent changes of duke in the early twelfth century seem to have
had little effect on the internal politics of the city.
A document of 1105 provides a glimpse of the balance of power
around the city and its territory in that year, when various local
magnates gave security to the bishop of Gaeta, Albert, not to harm
ecclesiastical property in the course of their contests. The list of
lords included Richard de Aquila, the consul and duke of Gaeta,
prince Robert son of Jordan of Capua (his elder brother Richard,
the prince of that city, would die the following year), William
Blosseville, Richard of Spigno, Leo count of Fondi, Landenolf of
Maranola and Marinus of Itri. 49 Dating clauses of the Gaetan
documents reveal Richard de Aquila in the fourth year of his rule in
1108,50 and the following year he held a documented court in the
city.51 From 1112 onwards the city was held by a cadet branch of
the prince of Capua's family.52
The most successful of these rulers was duke Richard II, who was
also the count of Carinola, and, therefore, probably already had
quite a detailed knowledge of the duchy's territory. He is first
recorded as duke in 1121,53 having succeeded his nephew
Jonathan, who had ruled as a minor from 1112.54 It is highly likely
that Richard had been the regent in the city before he came to
power in his own right, for a document of 1117 reveals that at the
Capuan court prince Robert's barons included 'duke' Richard son
of count Bartholomew of Carinola. Alongside him Leo of Fondi
appears again.55 Richard had achieved even more power by 1123; a
date clause at Gaeta records him as prince of Capua, count of
Carinola and duke of Gaeta.56 It is interesting that the three
dignities were distinguished during his rule, mirroring the
tendency towards fragmentation ofjurisdictional areas, even if the
same person held all the positions of power. On an even more
localised level, it is evident from the documents that the duchy of
Gaeta by this date had completely dissolved into separate territories

49 50 51
CDC 280. CDC 283. CDC 284.
52 53
Loud, Church and Society, p . 12, note 50. CDC 296.
54
Jonathan is recorded as in the fourth year of his minority in 1116, CDC 289, and in the
seventh year of his rule in 1119, CDC 292.
55
CDC 290; Leo appears as baiuli of Fondi in a document written at Sperlonga in the same
year, CDC 291. T h e power base of Gaeta had therefore shrunk considerably from its
56
height under the Docibilans. CDC 301.

1
S9
 The eleventh century and beyond
concentrated around often fortified settlements. How had this
fragmentation occurred?

(b) THE FRAGMENTATION OF GAETA

Much Gaetan historiography blames the fall of the Docibilan

dynasty from power and the capture of the city of Gaeta by the
Capuans in 1032 on the fragmentation of the duchy into smaller
counties. Consequently, it was unable to defend itself against
predators.57 The break-up is usually held to have originated during
the reign of duke Marinus (fl.945-84). Guiraud claims that Marinus
consciously detached pieces of the duchy from the centre at Gaeta
for his sons to rule.58 Giraud bases his argument on the fact that
Marinus' sons Dauferius I, Gregory and Leo were the first
documented rulers of Traetto, Castro Argento and Fondi respecti-
vely, and has identified a strengthening of localised interests in the
duchy in the eleventh century which led to the rise of later
fortifications such as Fratte, Suio, Itri, Sperlonga and Maranola.
On the second point Guiraud is undoubtedly correct, but the
scenario of Gaeta's fragmentation begins from the mistaken
assumption that the duchy had ever been a unified, public entity. It
was not: Docibilis I and his clan had divided it among themselves
along the lines of a large family estate, and this was how it was
ruled. But did duke Marinus deliberately carve up the duchy still
further, as Guiraud claims? Or was Gaeta's continuing division into
smaller pieces simply a result of being run as a private estate?
The first point to note is that Marinus himself had been duke of
Fondi before he achieved power at Gaeta. There seem to have been
other forces at work in the Fondi area which go some way to
explaining the separate status of that city, where the Docibilans
continued in power until the 1070s.59 The same is true of Traetto
and Suio, but there is no evidence that Marinus created the counties
deliberately as places for his sons to rule. As late as 981, just three
years before his death, he judged a dispute at Traetto as 'duke of
Traetto'. 60 The only decision that we know he made was that his
son John (III) should succeed him, and he associated the younger
man in power with himself from 978.61 If he did make
arrangements for his other sons Leo (duke of Fondi from at least

57 58
See, for example, von Falkenhausen, 'Ducato', 352. Guiraud, 'Reseau', 491.
59 60 61
See below, this chapter, section (c,ii). CDC 80. CDC 74.

160
 From local dukes to Norman kings
Marinus
duke of Gaeta/Fondi
(945-84)
I
Gregory Dauferius I John III
count of (992) duke of Gaeta
Castro (978-1008)
Argento
(992-1026)
= Maria
(widow of Dauferius I)
I?
I?
Dauferius II Marinus
(1014) count of
= Alzeiza Castro
(1029) Argento (1029)
I I
Marinus John Dauferius III Lando John count
(1030-62) I (1045)

Lando Dauferius V
I
Gregory
(1049) (1045-48)

Figure 5.2 The counts of Traetto

992), Gregory (count of Castro Argento) and Dauferius (count of

Traetto from 992), there is no direct evidence of his actions.
That the idea of distinct counties of Traetto and Suio was
strongly entrenched in the eleventh century, however, is indicated
by the fact that, even when the Docibilans lost power at Gaeta in
1032, their relatives continued to rule these two centres and Fondi
(Castro Argento, briefly a separate county, was early on amalga-
mated into the growing power of Traetto). Their contact with
each other continued even in periods when they had little contact
with the larger city. What then were the origins of the counties?

(i) Traetto
It was shown in chapter 2 that, as a settlement, Traetto's history was
far longer than Gaeta's. Yet, during the apogee of Docibilan rule,
some memory must have survived of Traetto as the centre of a
jurisdictional territory. It was this, together, perhaps, with an
internal disagreement between the Gaetan Docibilans and the cadet
rulers of Traetto (see Figure 5.2), which provided the conditions
for a reassertion of Traettan power in the early eleventh century.
How was this power gained and expressed?
161
 The eleventh century and beyond
There are difficulties in building up a picture of the comital
family and their relations, but a very familiar pattern emerges in
the ways they expressed their power. Like their ancestors the
Docibilans, the Traettans rapidly adopted a lead-name, Dauferius,
expressing its self-identity and confidence.
We have no evidence of churches at Traetto in the tenth century;
such was the impact on the documentation of the arrival in power
of the Docibilans at Gaeta that the smaller settlement almost
disappears from view. Nevertheless, Traetto was the centre of an
episcopal see (bishop Andrea is recorded among the witnesses at a
court-case held at Gaeta in 99262) and the church of St Peter there
reflects this fact. It is the most visible sign of links between the
hilltop settlement and old Minturno, for much of its fabric was re-
used from the buildings of the Roman town. We hear little of this
church, and, when in the eleventh century documents begin to
appear to record pious donations by the Traettan counts, it was not
to St Peter's that they were directed. This may be linked to the fact
that Traetto seems to have lost its episcopate after Andrea's death.
His last appearance in the documentation was in 999.63 If he died
soon afterwards, his see may have been taken over by the ambitious
and capable bishop, Bernard of Gaeta, who lost no opportunity to
increase his influence.64
The counts of Traetto, like their western neighbours, were
active church patrons. Count Dauferius V imitated the policies of
his ancestors when he patronised the most prominent monastery in
the county, the family foundation dedicated to St Marinus at
Coriano. 65 By obtaining the support of the saint, the counts of
Traetto seem to have been establishing their right to rule on moral
as well as economic grounds, and having no bishop to hand relied
on the next best thing. Did such a relationship help them? It would
seem so; although relying on Capuan amity as well as divine
approbation, they remained in power until 1060, some twenty
years after the last duke of Gaeta had fallen, and it was not internal
opposition that finally overthrew them.
The clearest indication from our documents that the counts and
countesses of Traetto saw themselves as the heirs to Docibilan
power is that by 1014 they had their own notary, Peter, and that by
62 63
CDC 90. CDC 100.
64
O n this and later evidence for the see becoming part of the Gaetan bishopric, see R.
Castrichino, Gli Antichi Episcopati di Minturno e Traetto (Minturno, 1975), p. 28.
65
CDC 188.

162
 From local dukes to Norman kings
Paul Franco judge (f 1.1030-39)
I I
Constantine = ? Gemma (fl. 1028-53) Grimaldo (fl. 1048-55)
I I
John Guitto(1079)

Figure 5.3 The de Papara family

1020 they considered the gran ting-out of public land in the area as
their prerogative. Using this power, they may have begun to build
up a circle of followers at Traetto.
For example, Peter Giczi, an inhabitant of Fratte, is seen as the
beneficiary of four documents issued by various rulers of Traetto.
In 1020 he bought some public land in Cirasa from countess Maria,
and received part as a gift from her. 66 Five years later, count
Ederado gave him some land and a house in Fratte.67 In 1029
countess Alzeiza gave him more public land in Cirasa, 68 and finally
in 1030 he exchanged land in Coriano for a larger amount in
Silbakaba (Selvacava) with counts Lando, Marinus and John. 69
Peter's last appearance was as a witness for an otherwise unknown
group of inhabitants of Fratte in 1048,70 but in the same year his son
John continued the Giczi family's links with the counts of Traetto
when he acted as a witness for the count Marinus.71
The Giczi are frequently joined in the documents by another
Traettan family, the de Paparas. Franco, the head of the family (see
genealogy, Figure 5.3), was a judge, and in this capacity witnessed
two comital land transactions in 1030 and 1034,72 the former being
the exchange with Peter Giczi already mentioned. The private side
of Franco is revealed in a document of 1039, when he and nine
others, including Peter Capomazza and Sicard the notary at Fratte,
were accused of seizing land in the area belonging to the abbey of
Montecassino.73 The men came to an agreement with the
monastery to rent the land on preferential terms.
Franco's son Grimaldo maintained the comital link when he
witnessed a document of count Marinus of Traetto in 1048.74 Co-
witness with him was John son of Peter Giczi, suggesting that the
counts of Traetto were indeed creating a permanent circle of
aristocrats. Grimaldo is mentioned as the lessee of some land,
belonging to the major Traettan monastery of St Marinus in
66 67 68 69
CDC 137. CDC 149. CDC 157. C D C 171.
70 71 72
CDC 184. CDC 185. CDC 159, CDC 164.
73 74
CDC 171. CDC 185.

163
 The eleventh century and beyond
Coriano, at Silbakaba, near to where his father had had the dispute
with Montecassino, in 1049.75 The monastery itself had been
founded by count Marinus of Traetto.
The close links between the Giczi and de Papara families - their
co-witnessing activity, witnessing for each other and ownership of
land in the same place, Silbakaba - may be indicative of a blood or
marital relationship between the two families, but none can be
detected from the documents. A fragment of extremely circum-
stantial evidence can be added to the picture if we accept that abbot
Giczo of St Marinus at Coriano was a member of the Giczi family.
(The name is, after all, almost uniquely confined to this area). Giczo
was abbot between 1049 and 1061 as far as we can see. In the earlier
year we have already seen Grimaldo son of Franco de Papara
leasing the church's land; in 1055 he witnessed an exchange
transaction between Giczo and Gregory son of Peter. 76 Whether
he did so in the capacity of tenant of the church or relative of the
abbot, though, is unclear.
The de Papara clan can be extended in another direction. Franco
the judge had a daughter named Gemma, who was in some way
connected with Constantine son of Paul. She was left a sum of
money in Constantine's will of 1028,77 and was given the usufruct
of his Flumetica estates for life in 1053, when he gave the estates
themselves to Montecassino.78 In the 1028 document, these estates
had been originally bequeathed to Constantine's natural son John,
and the subsequent donation suggests that the latter died before
1053. One cannot help suspecting that Gemma may have been
John's mother, hence Constantine's provision for her from her
deceased son's estates.
By virtue of his connection with the de Papara family, John may
have been the same John son of Constantine who appears as a bonus
homo of Traetto, witnessing a dispute between the counts, in
1049.79
Another family who witnessed for the counts were the
Capomazzas. Leo first appears at Castro Argento in 1006.80
Thereafter his son Peter witnessed for the counts of Traetto in 1029
and 1030,81 and in 1039 was among the group of men from Fratte
in dispute with Montecassino.82 The Capomazzas seem to have
been displaced by the Capuan takeover of the 1060s and 1070s; they
re-emerge further west in Palazzo and Gaeta in the late eleventh
75 76 77 78
CDC 188. CDC 201. CDC 153. C D C 194.
79 80 81 82
CDC 187. CDC 113. CDC 157, CDC 159. CDC 171.

164
 From local dukes to Norman kings
and early twelfth centuries.83 These and the other families
mentioned all seem to have made up a court circle around the
counts of Traetto, and appear regularly in the counts' documents.
However, their status did not solely revolve around their
witnessing activities.
The term bonus homo, a 'common title for civil officials in the
pre-consular period', 84 appears in the documents from Traetto
almost fifty years before its first appearance in Gaeta in 1094, when
the boni homines of that city requisitioned the access to a couple's
house in order to build the city wall. 85 This responsibility for
building work later belonged to the consuls of Gaeta. There is,
however, no evidence of consuls at Traetto. This may be due to the
fact that, whilst the settlement was the centre of a district territory,
it was never large enough to merit a more sophisticated
administration, and remained under the direct control of its counts.
This picture of an independent county is deceptive, however.
Whilst the rulers of Traetto seem to have been successful in
detaching their territory from the direct jurisdiction of the dukes of
Gaeta early in the eleventh century, the evidence suggests that they
soon came under increasing influence from their neighbours to the
east, the Capuans. Furthermore that influence would lead to the
Capuans winning power at the expense of the Gaetans in 1036.
How did this situation come about?

(ii) The expansion of Capuan power

Early evidence suggests that, after Docibilis I's repulsion of
Pandenolf of Capua's encroachment across the Garigliano river in
the 880s,86 relations between Gaeta and Capua appear to have been
relatively cordial. This may partly have been achieved by political
marriage; Rodipert the gastald, who married Docibilis' daughter,
Megalu, was certainly a Lombard from his name and title, and is
likely to have been a Capuan. This is suggested by a document of
962 surviving in the Gaetan collection, recording the exchange of
slaves between Lzndolfgastald son of Pandolf and Pandenolf son of
RodipertgastaId, written at Capua. 87 Its survival at Gaeta, when it
83
CDC 171, CDC 265, CDC 299. Although they appear as landowners in these
documents, they do not seem to have achieved any prominent position in Gaetan life.
84
J. K. Hyde, Society and Politics in Medieval Italy (London, 1973), p. 51.
85 86 87
CDC 271. See above, chapter 2. CDC 60.

165
 The eleventh century and beyond
contained no reference to Gaetan lands or people, makes it highly
likely that this is Rodipert's son. Rodipert himself benefited from
his marriage by inheriting his wife's portion of the lands of
Docibilis I, in the division of 924.88
Two documents of 983 and 984 reveal another Capuan
marriage, between Sikelgaita, daughter of John I, and an unnamed
Capuan prince.89 In the latter year her grandson, Landolf, is seen
living in Gaeta and making a gift of his lands there to Marinus son
of Constantine, and receiving launegild or a countergift according
to Lombard law. 90 These documents provide clues to the identity
of the people named in a document of 981, issued at Suessa across
the Capuan border. In it, the same Marinus received from one
Atenolf son of Atenolf, who can probably be identified as Landolf s
nephew, more lands in Gaeta. Atenolf stated that he had inherited
the lands, which are not named in any detail, from his visabia
(great-grandmother), princess Sikelgaita, who may fairly safely be
identified as John's daughter. Marinus again handed over laune-
gild.91
Sikelgaita's marriage appears, therefore, to have opened the way
to Docibilan landowning in the Capuan principate. In a memo of
962 it is recorded that duke John II of Gaeta received land at Cilicie
(near modern Mondragone) from the late prince Landolf of
Capua.92 His distant relative Matrona, granddaughter of Kampu-
lus the prefect, gave property there to her daughter Euprassia in
1004.93 Another Gaetan apparently owning land in the Capuan
dominions was Benedict, mentioned in a document written at
Carinola in 1013. Unfortunately it is unclear whether the city
property mentioned in the document was in Gaeta and owned by
Carinolans or in Carinola and sold by them to a Gaetan, Dauferius
the priest son ofJohn. 94 The evidence is still valuable testimony to
exchange between inhabitants of the duchy and the principate,
however.
A focus for some of this exchange, not surprisingly, was the area
known as Flumetica, along the Garigliano river. The river itself
seems to have formed a boundary between the two areas of
jurisdiction, but one which was only loosely adhered to. In 984
Veneroso son of John the Lombard bought Flumetica land from
88 89
CDC 31. CDC 83, CDC 85.
90
CDC 85; see also Rothari 175, ed. Drew, Lombard Laws, p. 83.
91 92
G. Caetani, Regesta Chartarum, 1 (Perugia, 1925), p. 6. CDC 61.
93 94
CDC no. CDC 127.

166
 From local dukes to Norman kings
the Gaetans Leo and Gregory; 95 and in his will of 1024 Gregory,
grandson of Docibilis II, stated specifically that he owned land on
the 'other side' of the Garigliano, including property at Suessa.96
Given its proximity to the border area, it is perhaps not
surprising that Traetto should exhibit signs of Capuan influence.
What evidence we have suggests the Lombards had become a
potent force within the county long before it ceased to be ruled by
the Docibilan line in 1062. Merores, for instance, comments on the
frequent occurrence of Lombard names among the Docibilan
counts of Traetto. 97 The influence seems to have gone further,
however, and during the first half of the eleventh century we find
several Lombard landowners in the county. For example, in 1026
Landolf son of Astolf drew up a document at Capua selling land at
Passignano near Traetto to countess Maria of Traetto. His cousins
Landolf and Guaimarius sons of Guaimarius also owned land there,
and he sold his portion 'according to Roman law' for 11 pounds of
silver.98 Other Lombard landowners recorded in the county
include Farrolfo at Silbakaba in 1049" and Ratteri at Cozara in
1055.10°
Another development is visible in 1029, when men with
Lombard names acted as witnesses for countess Alzeiza; Maienolf
and Leodemar signed in that year. 101 Whether they were native
Lombards or simply Traettans taking Lombard names is unclear,
but an indication that the counts and countesses were actually
encouraging such men comes in another document of 1047, which
Maienolf s son Lodoico signed.102 Lodoico also received public
land from count Marinus in 1048.103 The latter transaction was
signed by Grimaldo, son of Franco de Papara, whose name also
seems to reflect a growing Lombard influence. Perhaps the
culmination of the foreigners' infiltration is seen in 1059, when the
judge of Traetto alongside count Marinus was one Roctio. 104
It would seem that Lombards, most likely Capuans, were
welcomed to Traetto. In the years prior to 1032, it is possible that
they were befriending the Traettans in order to facilitate their
takeover of Gaeta. Traettan co-operation with the Capuans is
suggested strongly by the dating clauses of 1034 and 1036. These
95 96
CDC 86. CDC 143.
97
Gaeta, p. 34; but see Toubert, Structures, 1, p. 693, for a timely warning against relying on
98
personal names as an indication of ethnic origins. CDC 151.
99 10 101 102
CDC 188. ° CDC 199. CDC 157. CDC 182.
103 104
CDC 185. CDC 210.

167
 The eleventh century and beyond
show that whilst Pandolf and his son Pandolf took over and ruled
Gaeta directly, the Traettans were allowed to rule themselves. 105
The separateness of Traetto is further emphasised by a dating clause
of a document of 1039. By that time prince Guaimarius of Salerno
had taken over Capua, and he is named alongside the counts of
Traetto in the document, written at Traetto. 106 That the latter
place was recognised by the prince as a completely separate entity
from Gaeta is revealed by documentary evidence after his takeover
of Gaeta. Initially he is named in Gaetan dating clauses (for example
in 1040107), but after the brief appearance of the apparently
Docibilan duke Leo II in 1042, Guaimarius' nominee Raynulf is
seen ruling Gaeta as its consul and duke, 108 whilst the Traettan
counts continue to appear as rulers of their own territory. Their
relationship with their neighbours across the Garigliano continued
too. The counts of Suessa and Carinola are visible at Traetto in
1047,109 and count Peter of Suessa was present at a court-case there
in 1049.110 The appearance of Atenolf I of Gaeta holding court at
Traetto in 1053111 might suggest that he was able to reassert
Gaetan control over the castle, but this is deceptive. Throughout
the period of his;reign and that of his widow and son we have many
documents written at Traetto and dated by the reign of its counts,
not that of the Gaetan duke.
Traetto, then, had gone its own way, but it was not the only
settlement to have counts of its own during the eleventh century.
Let us turn now to the history of another, Suio.

(iii) Suio
Suio, lying on the banks of the Garigliano river, may originally
have been a Capuan fortress. Our first sign that the castle had come
into Gaetan, or rather Docibilan, hands, is in a document of 1023 in
which count Hugh transferred ownership of half the castle to the
abbey of Montecassino.112 The donation itself will be discussed a
little later - it does not seem to have had very much practical effect
at this date.
The counts of Suio were particularly active (or rather, their
105
CDC 164 (1034) and CDC 167 (1036), issued at Traetto, are dated by the rule of the
counts, whilst contemporary Gaetan documents CDC 166 (1036), CDC 168 (1037) and
106 107
CDC 169 (1038) are dated by the Capuans. CDC 171. CDC 174.
108 109 110 11X
CDC 178. CDC 180. CDC 187. CDC 195.
112
CDC 142.

168
 From local dukes to Norman kings
documents increase in number) around the middle decades of the
eleventh century, and their transactions include several sales of
land. There is no clear evidence that by such transactions the counts
were building up a circle of followers (although a document of
1079, discussed below, does suggest that Suio had a distinct
aristocratic group). What is clear is that they, like the counts of
Traetto, had their own notary, John, by 1063.113
The last appearance of the de Papara and Giczi families of
Traetto occurs in 1079, when Guitto son of Grimaldo and John son
of Peter Giczi co-witnessed a document of the Suian count John,
son of Hugh. 114 Their appearance at Suio is relatively simple to
explain, since Traetto had been taken over by the Norman princes
of Capua in the previous decade. The Docibilan counts cease to be
documented after 1062, and presumably their regular companions
saw the neighbouring Docibilan fortress of Suio as an attractive
place of refuge. However, when the counts of Suio were deposed
by the Capuans, the Giczi and de Papara families also disappear,
indicating the insecurity of their position. It is ironic, given its
probable origins as a Capuan fortress, that Suio's history is one of a
castle staunchly loyal to the Docibilans and their successors as dukes
of Gaeta. For example, even though he was distant enough in terms
of blood and location to act independently during the Gaetan
power struggle of the early eleventh century, we still find count
Hugh's charter of 1023 dated by the rule of duchess Emilia and
dukes John V and Leo. 115 This was at a time when the Traettans
were already dating by their own comital rule. Such loyalty may
have been prompted by economic concerns as much as political
ones —John son of Hugh, for example, is documented as the owner
of parts of mills in the Gaeta area. 116 We must remember too that it
was from this branch of the family that the short-lived duke Leo II
of Gaeta came, and that his line also provided the bishop of Gaeta,
Leo, in the mid-eleventh century. These close and continuing
connections with Gaeta may explain why two members of the
Suian comital line, Leo and Landolf, married two daughters of the
Gaetan Cotina family in the 1060s.117
In 1062, however, it appears that all the rulers of petty castles in
the area, regardless of their previous loyalties, were beginning to
113
CDC 217; John wrote five documents for the comital family, including three for count
114
Raynerius, CDC 223, CDC 224, and CDC 243. CDC 252.
115 116
CDC 142. Maiore and Zoppella in 1056, CDC 202.
117
See below, chapter 6, section (a,viii).

169
 The eleventh century and beyond
feel threatened by the growing power of the Normans at Capua. In
1058 Capua had been taken by the Norman count of Aversa,
Richard, who was confirmed as prince by pope Nicholas II in
1059. *18 That this event caused some disquiet in the duchy of Gaeta
is illustrated by the agreement made by the counts of Traetto,
Maranola and Suio with duchess Maria and duke Atenolf II of
Gaeta not to make any pact with the Normans for one year. 119
That separate parts of the duchy found it necessary to make a
documented agreement with each other, rather than acting
together naturally, illustrates the degree of localisation present by
the late eleventh century. That localisation was not merely
focussed on large settlements like Traetto and Suio, however.

(iv) Incastellamento in the duchy of Gaeta

In his study of the appearance of the castles in the duchy of Gaeta,
Guiraud listed Traetto, Castro Argento, Fratte, Suio, Itri, Sper-
longa and Maranola as new fortifications. We should perhaps
remove Traetto and Suio from this list in view of their histories and
add the 'castello Conca' recorded in 1064.120 It is possible too that
the existence of a casale Capomazza and a tone di Cotina
foreshadowed later castle-building on the part of those families.
What was behind this assertion of local power? Two issues
emerge. The first is that of people's perception of the world around
them. If we examine the way in which residents cited individual
towns and villages in their documents we find their identity was a
very localised one. They had little stake in describing themselves as
citizens of the duchy of Gaeta, or county of Traetto or any similar
polity.
An analysis of these citations of residence indicates a gradual shift
away from residence in Gaeta between the tenth and eleventh
centuries. Gaeta had been the centre of Docibilan power in the
tenth century, and it was perhaps politically wise for those who
wished to gain favour to live there. After 1000, however, new
centres of power offered other opportunities. Gaeta was still the
dominant centre, but her residents made up a smaller proportion of
the total of people declaring their place of residence. By 1050, the
proportion had dwindled still further, and the documented

118 119
Loud, Church and Society, p. 38. CDC 215.
120
Guiraud, 'Reseau'; CDC 227.

170
 From local dukes to Norman kings
residents of Gaeta had dropped slightly from their tenth-century
levels.121
This picture of a dispersal of population parallels that of a
dispersal of power, which perhaps caused the decline of the old
Gaetan landowning nobility. In the new atmosphere of localisa-
tion, those whose fortunes were based on estates scattered
throughout the duchy of Gaeta may have faced problems of
control over lands that were now in areas of separate political
jurisdiction.
The issue of localisation and how, in the late tenth and early
eleventh centuries, it came to be translated into the development of
concentrated settlements or castles (a process known by the Italian
term incastellamento) is one which has attracted a considerable
amount of attention from historians of this and other parts of Italy.
What lay behind the development of such centres in the territory of
Gaeta?
In his substantial study of Latium during the medieval period,
Toubert addressed the problem of incastellamento. However he
admitted that it is difficult to get at the origins of castle-building in
the southern half of the area because, unlike the north, new
concentrations of population were not being created. Instead, old
Roman sites were merely being re-used. 122 In addition the tenth-
and eleventh-century documentation for southern Lazio is not
nearly so detailed as that for the north, and so Toubert's study
concentrated on the latter, particularly the collection from the
abbey at Farfa. Here, incastellamento could be seen to accompany
the abbey's policy of opening up new lands for cultivation and the
creation of new peasant settlements, which was largely a tenth-
century phenomenon. 123 An increase in population in the tenth
century in the area provided the settlers for the abbey's new
centres.124
The abbey of Montecassino, too, had to take similar action to
repopulate its territory after devastation by the Saracens in the
ninth century. Encouraged by his Capuan allies (whose own
principate was witnessing the growth of new castles in the
tenth century, controlled by castellans who co-ordinated their
local agrarian economy 125 ), abbot Aligernus presided over the
121 122
For more on this, see below, chapter 7, M a p 7.1. Structures, 1, p. 315.
123 124
Ibid., p. 526. Ibid., p. 313.
125
N . Cilento, Le Origini della Signoria Capuana nella Langobardia Minore (Rome, 1966),
p. 41.

171
 The eleventh century and beyond
construction of the castles of St Angelo in Theodice, St George and
Rocca Janula in the 960s.126 These castles did not merely provide
protected habitations for peasant cultivators. It appears that some
had more than one function. Cilento and Fabiani both comment
on the particularism and turbulence of subjects of Capua such as the
counts of Teano and Aquino, and view the Capuan princes'
encouragement of Cassinese castle-building as insurance against
the unruly gastalds extending their spheres of influence too far. 127
Guiraud sees both of these evident functions as reasons for
incastellamento in the territory of Gaeta, and cites the reclamation of
forested land in Flumetica as one of the incentives for new
settlements in the east in the eleventh century. 128 Fratte, he says,
was of strategic importance in that it lay near to the borders of
Cassinese territory. 129 This is true, but a document of 1030 already
mentioned above may point to Fratte as a base for new agricultural
enterprise as well. In that year Peter Giczi exchanged 30 modia of
land at Coriano for 44 modia at Silbakaba with the counts of
Traetto. 130 Peter at this time lived at Fratte, and the fact that his
acquisition bears a name derived from the Latin for woodland
{silva) and that he obtained a larger quantity of it suggests that he
intended to clear it.
Suio, too, might have been a centre for new cultivation, lying as
it does at the edge of the Flumetica region. Its function was also
military - a border post on the rather indefinite border between
Gaeta and Capua, and a post which seems to have changed hands
during Docibilan supremacy at Gaeta. Such strategic fortresses are
known also in Campania, though this time they were built as
defences against the Normans in the eleventh century. 131 Some in
time became centres of administration for the incoming rulers, and
local officials were based at both Itri and Maranola by the early
twelfth century.
A defensive posture against the Normans of Capua is increas-
ingly apparent in the duchy of Gaeta in the eleventh century.
Besides the anti-Norman pact mentioned above, a series of
documents in the Codex Cajetanus suggests that the counts and

126
L. Fabiani, La Terra di S. Benedetto, I (2nd edn., Montecassino, 1968), p. 56.
127 128
Cilento, Origini, p. 38; Fabiani, Terra, p. 56. 'Reseau', 500.
129 130
Ibid., 505. CDC 159.
131
P. Toubert, 'La terre et les hommes dans l'ltalie normande au temps de Roger II;
l'exemple campanien', in Histoire du Haut Moyen Age et de l'ltalie Medievale (London,
1987).

172
 From local dukes to Norman kings
dukes who signed the pact were none too confident of resisting the
Capuans on their own. Instead, it seems, they turned to a
neighbour whose political stature was growing by the mid-
eleventh century, namely the abbey of St Benedict at Montecas-
sino. In doing so, they were not the first to have dealings with an
external power.

(c) GAETA'S EXTERNAL RELATIONS

So far the history of the city-state of Gaeta has been characterised

by its intensely internalised administration and family-based rule.
Little has been said to place the duchy in its wider Italian context,
yet the establishment of Docibilan power and, arguably, the
'golden age' of Gaetan statehood would hardly have been possible
without Neapolitan goodwill and Roman, or more strictly papal,
land donations. Later, the influence of Montecassino would come
to dominate the area. This section will attempt to illustrate how
external factors were influential in developments at Gaeta, and to
examine their role in the collapse of the independent duchy.

(i) Naples
Gaeta's history is intertwined with that of Naples from the very
start of the documentary evidence. That close political links were
maintained between the two states is shown by two early eleventh-
century documents. In 1014 duke Sergius of Naples appears as an
observer at a court-case held at Castro Argento. 132 Then in 1029 he
is seen at Gaeta itself. A fragmentary Gaetan document of that year,
issued by the Neapolitan duke in the presence of duchess Emilia of
Gaeta, her grandson John V and the Gaetan magnis et mediocres,
promises them that, given help to re-enter his city (he had been
deposed by Pandolf IV of Capua), he would allow Gaetans to come
into his territories on business and not pay any tolls to the seniores,
judges or portolani.133 His offer was clearly acceptable, for with
help from the Gaetans and Norman mercenaries he was soon
restored to power. His exile had not lasted long — we have only four
documents, all of 1029, dated by Pandolf s rule at Naples. 134
Whether the help of the Gaetan navy signified that the smaller
state really was strong militarily is open to question, for Gaeta itself
132 133 134
CDC 130. CDC 156. Cassandro, 'Ducato', p. 312.

173
 The eleventh century and beyond
fell to the depredations of the Capuan in 1032, and the fact that its
weakness was almost contemporary with Naples' suggests that
neither duchy was really in a position to resist. The motive for
Sergius' appeal to the Gaetans may not have been entirely military,
however. Amatus of Montecassino states that the duke of Naples'
sister was the widow of the duke of Gaeta, and that when Sergius
was restored to power in Naples with the help of the Norman,
Raynulf, he gave Raynulf his sister's hand in marriage in 1030.135
The chronicler does not name this sister, but the obvious candidate
is John IV's wife, mother of John V. Opinions differ, however.
Amatus' statement, that Sergius' sister was 'novellement estoit faite
vidue par la mort de lo conte de Gaite' ('newly widowed by the
death of the count of Gaeta') in 1030, has prompted speculation
that she had been the wife of Leo, the regent, for John IV had died
in 1012.136 However, Leo himself disappears from the documen-
tation by 1025. Neither candidate, therefore, can be definitely
proven as the late husband of Sergius' sister. But neither John's
widow nor Leo's may have found life especially comfortable at
Gaeta under Emilia's regency. The former seems to have been
totally overshadowed by her formidable mother-in-law at Gaeta,
and, with Emilia in control of her son, may have seen the marriage
with the Norman as a means of escape. As the widow of Emilia's
former adversary for the regency, Leo's wife may have found it
expedient to return to Naples after the death of her husband.
Whatever the case, neither woman is anywhere recorded in the
charter evidence.
The fall of the Docibilan dynasty did not signify the end of the
relationship between the dukes of Gaeta and Naples. After a period
of instability, discussed above, the city was taken over by the
Normans in 1068. Geoffrey Ridell, who attempted to found his
own ruling dynasty at Gaeta by associating his son Raynald in
power, married off his daughter to John VI, duke of Naples. Some
two hundred years after Gaeta had become a state in its own right,
the close link with the larger city still exerted a great influence.

(ii) Rome
If Naples can be credited with supporting the establishment of
Docibilan power at Gaeta, then Rome played an equally suppor-
135 136
Amatus 1.42. On the debate, ibid., p. 53.

174
 From local dukes to Norman kings
tive role. It is necessary at the outset to point out that 'Rome' in this
context indicates the papacy, and that the receipt of control of
'Roman' lands by the Docibilans in the late ninth century should be
understood to refer to the papal patrimonies and their rectorship.
There is some evidence that Roman laymen attempted to intervene
in the politics of the Gaetan duchy, but certainly not on the
immediate and grand scale of the pope's actions.
Cassandro interprets the transfer of the Byzantine title of
imperial patrician to John I of Gaeta, on the eve of the 915
campaign to rid the Garigliano estuary of its Arab settlement, as a
means of obliging the Gaetan ruler to fight.137 Alternatively, the
transfer may have functioned as a public gesture that Gaetan
power, if only loosely, was ultimately derived from the goodwill
of the Byzantine emperor. Cassandro's statement could have been
applied equally well to the relative positions of John I, his father
Docibilis I and the popes after the conferring of the patrimonial
rectorships. In this case some way of obliging the new rulers to
serve Rome was being sought. If the popes responsible, John VIII
and John X, were thereby hoping to maintain control of the
Gaetan patrimonies using the Gaetan hypatoi as their agents, they
appear to have underestimated the ability of Docibilis and John to
take over the lands for their own benefit rather than that of the
popes.
Nevertheless, some parts of the former patrimonies maintained a
more 'Roman' character than others. For example, from docu-
ments of 906 and 924 we know that Docibilis I's son Anatolius was
the holder of the title duke of Terracina. 138 We also know that
Docibilis II's son Marinus, before becoming the duke of Gaeta,
held the post of duke of Fondi. 139 After the fall of the Docibilans
from power at Gaeta, however, these two cities followed a
different course from those of Traetto and Suio. Whilst the latter
provide us with documents dated by the rule of their counts 140 or
not at all, those from Terracina are dated by the reigning pope. 141
The evidence suggests that Terracina's position oscillated between
being part of Gaeta and loyal to Rome, and is worth further
investigation.
Terracina had a long history of being under papal control, and it
appears that after a period of Docibilan rule, following the papal
137 l38 139
'Ducato', p. 126. CDC 19, CDC 31. CDC 46.
140
Suio for example, CDC 217; Traetto for example, CDC 201.
141
For example, CDC 172, CDC 186.

175
 The eleventh century and beyond
Theodora

Marozia Stephania Crescentius

I I I
Gregory Benedict =Theodonanda John Crescentius
count of count of count of
Tusculum Sabina Terracina
(988-7999)
Figure 5.4 The family of Count Crescentius

concessions of the late ninth to early tenth centuries, the city

reverted to Roman masters. This is at least how historians have
interpreted the appearance of Crescentius 'excellentissimus vir et
omnium Romanorum senator atque gloriosus comes' 142 as ruler of
the city in fragmentary evidence from the years 988 and 991. The
first appearance, from a document surviving only in an eighteenth-
century copy of a thirteenth-century inventory of documents,
reveals that Crescentius received the city and province of Terracina
from pope John XV. 143 From detailed research, Gerstenberg
illustrated that this Crescentius may have been related to several
noble Roman families. His father led the revolt in Rome in 974
which could only be put down with German intervention. By his
sister's marriage, moreover, the Terracinan count was related to
the counts of Sabina and Tusculum (see Figure 5.4).144
In 1000, Terracina passed to the control of count 'Daiferius',
being ceded to him by pope Sylvester II, with the approval of the
German emperor Otto III. 145 It is now generally accepted that this
man was a member of the Gaetan family of Docibilis. Likely
candidates are either Dauferius I or Dauferius II of Traetto.
Toubert sees the cession of Terracina to him as a way of curbing the
growing power of the family of Crescentius and, at the same time,
pulling Gaeta into the Roman political sphere. 146 The family
history of the Crescentii lies outside the scope of this study.
Relations between Gaeta and Rome must remain open to question.
Certainly the fact that one of their number was now directly
answerable to the pope does not seem to have had much impact on
the Docibilans outside Terracina; documents at Gaeta, for instance,

142
'most excellent man and senator and glorious count of all the Roman people'.
143
Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Cod. Vat. hat. 12632; see also IP, 11, p. 120.
144
O . Gerstenberg, 'Studien zur Geschichte des Romischen Adels a m Ausgange des 10.
Jahrhunderts', Historische Vierteljahrschrifte, 31 (1937—9), 1-26.
145 146
Giorgi, ' D o c u m e n t s , p. 65. Structures, 11, p. 1101.

I76
 From local dukes to Norman kings
did not begin to be dated by the pope's rule. Due to the lack of
much Terracinan documentary evidence, we cannot in any case
determine how long 'Daiferius' was in control of the city. By 1042
we see one Teodald, bishop, consul and duke of Terracina giving
out land there,x 47 although a Daiferius magnificus - possibly a son of
the former ruler - witnessed a Terracinan document of 1049. 148
What can be said, if dating clauses on documents are any
indication, is that the city remained under papal influence. In 1092 a
document issued in the city was still using papal dating. 149 Pope
Leo IX was also able to intervene directly in 1052, returning the
church of St Stephen at Terracina to the abbey at Montecassino. 150
Churches from near Rome also had interests in the area. We
know that SS Basil and Scholastica at Subiaco controlled a cell in
the territory. 151 As a final indication that Terracina largely lay
outside the sphere of Gaetan rule, it is apparent from a
prosopographical study of surviving documents from the city that
the landowners and witnesses of both cities were moving in totally
separate circles. As in Gaeta, it is possible to connect fathers with
sons in the witness lists of Terracinan documents (although, of
course, on a much more limited scale), and to find the same men on
more than one document, 152 but we never find the same person on
a Terracinan and a Gaetan document, as (perhaps) we might expect
if Gaeta and Terracina were closely linked. A culmination of the
two cities' detachment from each other might be seen in a treaty of
the twelfth century, made between Gaeta and Monte Circeo
against Terracina. 153
Far more overlap can be found between evidence from
Terracina and Fondi. Several of the inhabitants mentioned in the
documents were landowners in both areas. For example, in
1039,154 one Constantine son of Leo, an inhabitant of Fondi, had
fallen ill whilst visiting his father-in-law in Terracina, and in
gratitude for his recovery with the aid of holy water gave the estate
'ad Flexu' at Portelle, mid-way between the two cities, to the
bishop of Terracina. In 1093, the same estate was given - probably
147 148
Giorgi, 'Documenti', p. 82. CDC 186.
149 15
Giorgi, 'Documenti', p. 84. ° CDC 192.
151
Regesto Sublacense, eds. L. Allodi and G. Levi (Rome, 1885), p. 60.
152
For example, Giorgi, 'Documenti', p. 80 has a document dated 1011 featuring Marinus
son of Palumbus magnificus; in 1049 Marinus' son Bonizzo is documented, CDC 186.
153
G. Falco, 'L'amministrazione papale nella Campagna e nella Marittima', ASRSP, 38
(1915), 704. For more on this, and other Gaetan pacts of the twelfth century, see below,
154
chapter 8. CDC 172.

177
 The eleventh century and beyond
confirmed - to the bishopric by Leo, count of Fondi. 155 In 1049,
Adilasci of Terracina gave property there and in Fondi to the
monastery of St Magnus outside the latter city. 156
The position of the rulers of Fondi, who like the Terracinans
used the title duke, is worth further investigation. It is first
necessary to establish their relationship to the Docibilans at Gaeta,
and to clarify some kind of genealogy, since that given by Amante
and Bianchi seems somewhat confused.157 Part of the confusion
arises from the assumption by these two authors that men with
different mothers cannot possibly have had the same father, which
has led to rather more men named Leo appearing in their
genealogy than mine (see Figure 5.5). In a society where
remarriage on the part of widowers was the norm, it is not an
unlikely scenario to expect to find men with children from more
than one marriage or by concubines.
The first duke of a distinct territory of Fondi was Docibilis II's
son Marinus. Under his son Leo the separation of Fondi from Gaeta
and its counties became more acute; in 992 we see Leo in open
dispute with Dauferius, his brother and count of Traetto, over the
boundaries between their respective territories. 158 This dispute,
which Leo lost, may give a false impression of the relationship
between the dukes of Fondi and their relatives further east, for,
unlike the rulers of Terracina, the dukes (often also called consuls)
of Fondi can be seen regularly present at courts in Gaeta. For
example, Marinus II and Leo II were witnesses in 999 to their uncle
Bernard, bishop of Gaeta's dispute with Dauferius,159 and in the
same year Marinus witnessed another between Bernard and a
group of men trying to prove they were not slaves of the
bishopric.160 The continued involvement of the Fondi branch in
their family's affairs at Gaeta is also attested to by the fact that Leo II
executed the will of his brother John III of Gaeta. 161 Leo II's son
John was the next member to represent Fondi as a witness to a
dispute at Gaeta in 1014 between Dauferius II of Traetto and the
abbey of Montecassino.162 Such interest in the affairs of another
branch of the Docibilan clan is perhaps understandable when both
had Gaeta as a meeting place of their interests; but it is striking that
the relationship of witnessing continued between the Fonditans
155 156
CDC 267. CDC 186.
157
B. Amante and R. Bianchi, Memorie Storiche e Statutarie del Ducato di Fondi (Rome,
158 159 160
1903), p. 88. CDC 90. CDC 101. CDC 100.
161 162
CDC 120. CDC 130.

178
 Marinus I
(945-84)

Marinus II Leo II = Sikelgaita

(999) (992-1021)
I I .
Girard Leo Littefrid John John Crescentius I Leo III
(1071) (1071-95) (1062-72) (1053-69) (1014) (1049) (1028-49)
= (DBona ; (2)Amata

Leo Crescentius Littefrid Crescentius I Bernard Constantine

(1117) nobilissimus (1089) (1069) (1069) (1039)
(108&-99) = Offa

Figure 5.5 The dukes ofFondi

 The eleventh century and beyond
and Traettans even after their family had fallen from power in the
central city. Thus Leo III and Crescentius I are present at Traetto in
1049, during the settlement of an internal quarrel between the
counts of Traetto. 163 At the same time the dukes of Fondi seem to
have distanced themselves from the regime of Atenolf of Gaeta.
They are noticeably absent from a court held by the duke in
1053.164 Similarly, in the agreement made in 1062 not to make any
pacts with the Normans, the signatories were Maria duchess of
Gaeta, her son Atenolf II and the counts of Traetto, Suio and
Maranola.165 Fondi did not participate: it is likely that its rulers'
continued interest in Traettan affairs stemmed from their interest in
Traettan lands; the dispute in 992 had centred on lands around
Ventosa and Apranum, far to the east of Fondi. This is hardly
surprising, since the eastern lands were more fertile and productive
than the uncontrollable swamp of the Fondi plain. 166 The river
plains may even have aroused the interest of those further north;
we have an eleventh-century charter from Subiaco noting a gift to
the church of land in Flumicello 'next to the casale called
Aprano'. 167
The dukes of Fondi also had interests nearer home. In 1028, for
example, Leo III was accustomed to receiving the fruits of the land
near Sperlonga belonging to the monastery of St Michael
Planciano in Gaeta. In that year he and his wife renounced this right
to the monastery, and in return received a piece of land. 168
More informative are two documents of 1072, in which dukes
Girard and Littefrid, sons of duke Marinus II, gave their Fondi
property to the abbey of Montecassino. Girard gave the monastery
of St Magnus with its lands, mills, vineyards and in addition the
churches of St Andrea in Terracina, St Maurus, St Martin in Tirille,
St Maria 'next to the amphitheatre' and St Nicholas ad Fossa in
Rome. 169 Littefrid donated his 'portion' of the duchy - a third of
the city, the castles of Aquaviva, Valledecursa, Ambrise, Pastena,
Lenola and Campu de Melle and Vetera, and the monasteries of St
Archangel and St Anastasia.170 The remaining third presumably
belonged to Girard and Littefrid's brother Leo. It would appear
that the donations were pre-arranged in that one brother gave most

163 164 165 166

CDC 187. CDC 195. CDC 215. See below, chapter 7.
167
Regesto Sublacense, p. 219. In a similar context, it is interesting to see that the church of St
Nicolas in R o m e had an interest in the island of Zannone: its representative disputed
property there in R o m e with the abbot of St Magnus, Fondi, in 976, CDC 70.
168 169 170
CDC ISA- C D C 247. CDC 248.

I8O
 From local dukes to Norman kings
of the churches and another gave the fortified places, but by the late
eleventh century the dukes had extended their interests well inland,
perhaps to compensate for the unpromising marshland of the plain
(see Map 5.1).
Fondi's relationship with Rome was far looser than Terracina's,
however, and its rulers were more eager to extend their contacts
eastwards. It is in this context that consul Bernard of Fondi's
marriage to the count of Suessa's daughter Offa in 1069 can be
placed.171 Following the unsuccessful claims in the tenth century
to Traettan land on the Gaetan side of the Garigliano discussed
above, the marriage could perhaps be seen as an attempt to gain
some friendly relations on the Capuan side. Bernard's contract to
marry Offa was guaranteed by his cousin, the consul Crescentius II
of Fondi, son of Crescentius 'the prefect'. Is it merely coincidence
that this most Roman of names should begin to occur with some
frequency in the ducal family of Fondi during the eleventh
century? It is striking that the dynasty should begin to include the
name only fifty years after the disappearance of count Crescentius
of Terracina, who was of Roman origin. Could his family have
continued to wield power in a more indirect way in southern
Latium by marrying into the family of the dukes of Fondi? There is
no direct evidence, but another Crescentius comes into view in
1089, witnessing a dispute between a group of Normans and the
Terracinan monastery of St Stephen at Fossanova, alongside his
brother Littefrid.172 This fusion of the Crescentius name and one
known in the Fondi dynasty raises further the possibility of a union
between the two families. This Crescentius seems to be the same
man as Crescentius nobilissimo son ofJohn, inhabitant of Rocca de
Montecelli (modern Monte S Biagio, near Fondi) who in 1099 sold
a house site in the castle of Asprana to one Docibilis Gattula. 173
Another Crescentius, titled miles and son of Marinus, sold some
Gaetan land to one John Mancanella son of Stephen in 1121, and
may be another member of the Fondi dynasty if his name is any
indication.174
Does this possible union between a Roman family and the Fondi
rulers, and later transactions with men whom we shall see were
members of leading Gaetan clans, indicate a growing closeness
between the Roman aristocracy and the duchy of Gaeta? We
171 172
CDC 239. CDC 262.
173
CDC 274; on the Gattula family, see below, chapter 6, section (a,xii).
174
CDC 298; on the Mancanella family, see below, chapter 6, section (a,iii).
 The eleventh century and beyond

^•* Marsh
E&88 Land over 1OOOm
Y///A Land over 3 0 0 m
I-''.'••'•[ Land over 5 0 m
if Grain y Vineyard
UJ Castle + Church
0 Woodland
9 3 km
2 miles

Map 5.1 The plain ofFondi

182
 From local dukes to Norman kings
cannot discount the idea, particularly since there is further
circumstantial evidence of intermarriage, and direct evidence of
exchanges between the two.
The possibility that the Crescentii had aims further afield than
Fondi is suggested by the name, or rather the title, of duke Leo II of
Gaeta's wife, Theodora senatrix.175 The only other occurrence of
this name and title in the area had been that of the wife of duke John
HI of Naples in the tenth century, and she is securely identifiable as a
Roman. It can remain only a possibility that Leo's wife was
similarly a member of the same family.
Sporadic direct relations between Gaetans and Romans are
documented, however, such as the example of Ramfus son of
Christopher's trade transactions with Ubertus the Roman in 1012
discussed at some length above. 176 The Gaetan bishop Leo is
recorded as present in documents issued at the Lateran in 1050 and
1059.177 It was in the late eleventh century and the early twelfth
that more significant contacts began to be made, however. If a
document of 1093 written at Rome is at least partially genuine, a
former duke of Gaeta, Lando, was resident there. Lando's donation
of all his lands in Gaeta to the abbey of Montecassino may be
interpolated, as the document is contained in the Register of the
notorious Peter the Deacon, but Peter had no reason to invent
Lando's presence in Rome. 178
Most revealingly, a document of 1105 shows that members of
the Cotina, de Arciu, Salpa, Baraballu, Boccapasu and Lazaro
families of Gaeta had co-invested in a ship with Gregory count of
Tusculum. 179 The Tusculans were loosely related to, although
permanently in dispute with, the family of count Crescentius of
Terracina, but it may be significant that their partners in the
shipping venture came from almost every active noble family at
Gaeta apart from the Gattula and Mancanella clans, whose
members we have just seen dealing with Crescentii. It is possible
that two powerful Roman families were trying to establish
toeholds in the duchy of Gaeta. Gaeta's worsening relationship
with Terracina in the twelfth century may be a result of this rivalry.
Another family, the Conjuli, seem to fit in with the increasing

175
Her son Peter uses this title of her in 1055, CDC 200.
176
See above, chapter 4, section (a,i).
177 ip V I I I j p g^ document no.4 and p. 11, document no. 12.
178 179
CDC 268. CDC 278; on these families, see below, chapter 6.

183
 The eleventh century and beyond
Anatolius
I
John = Anna
(1042) I

pope Gelasius Gregory = Domnella

(1118-9) (1068) I

John Marinus
(1103-8) (1085)
I
Constantine (scribe?)
(1116-25)

Figure 5.6 The Conjulo family

pattern of interaction with Rome and emerge in the eleventh

century.
In 1042 John Conjulo son of Anatolius bought a piece of empty
land (terra vacua) in the city of Gaeta from Domnella, widow of
Sergius.180 John's son Gregory (see genealogy, Figure 5.6)
obtained more empty land in the city in 1068, but this time it was a
gift from the abbot of SS Theodore and Martin to make a tomb, in
return for all the services that Gregory and his wife Domnella had
rendered to the church. 181 There is no information about these
'services', but they can possibly be understood as allusions to one or
several donations of land made by the couple to the church.
The only other references to the Conjuli's landowning come in
twelfth-century material. In 1119 the heirs of Marinus Conjulo,
son of Gregory, are mentioned as owning a cellar in Gaeta, 182 and
in 1125 Marinus' nephew Constantine son of John borrowed 20
solidi for three years from Leo son of Radi, secured on a medialoca or
warehouse in the city. 183 This transaction and the modest nature of
the family's landed property suggests that they were engaged in
some commercial activity. If so, they seem to have moved in
different circles to the consortium mentioned above, and this is
perhaps reflected in the lack of a Conjulo among Gaeta's consular
aristocracy during the early twelfth century. The witnessing
activities of members of the clan show a similar detachment. 184 If
Fedele is correct, however, the Conjuli were participants in much
180 181 182 183
CDC 178. CDC 233. CDC 292. CDC 307.
184
Marinus son of Gregory, his brother John and nephew Constantine all appear for, and
with, a number of men who are otherwise unidentifiable in 1085 (CDC 259), 1103
(CDC 295), and n 16 (CDC 289) respectively.

184
 From local dukes to Norman kings
wider political events, and one of the family became pope in 1118
with the name Gelasius II. 185 He issued a document to the people of
Rome from Gaeta in that year. 186 Although his reign was brief- he
died in 1119 - the event should warn against supposing that Gaetan
families under Norman rule were content to pursue their political
ambitions within the city walls. An alternative hypothesis might be
that the Conjuli were in fact a Roman family who decided to enter
the Gaetan land market, but who remained on the periphery of the
city's political life. The fact that they do not appear in the
remaining twelfth-century evidence from the city supports the
latter possibility.
The hypothesis that Gaeta and Rome moved closer together
does not necessarily mean that relations between their respective
citizens were always cordial. In 1124 the consuls of Gaeta were in
dispute with Bello of Rome, son of Bobo, and his sons, over a ship
and its goods which he was captaining on behalf of a Roman
consortium. It is significant that pope Calixtus called the case to
Terracina to be settled by cardinal Matthew in the presence of John
count of Terracina. Still more significant is that Bello could call
upon one Nicolas de John de Fasano among his witnesses to testify
for him and, ultimately, win the case. 187 For Nicolas was from
Sperlonga - at least his father had bought land there, 188 and his
testimony on behalf of a man who should have been regarded as a
foreigner to Gaetan soil suggests that Romans had contacts deep
within Gaetan boundaries by this time. The impotence of the
Gaetan consuls in this situation in the face of stronger outside
influence should be noted, and one could almost see the case as a
triumph of landed aristocracy with connections over the adminis-
trators of what was a very much less powerful city. The contrast
here is apparent; a Roman citizen could call upon the full weight of
Rome to back him, yet the consuls of Gaeta, whose overlord by this
time was Richard, prince of Capua, and who should have been able
to call on his support, were left to deal alone with what was viewed
as an internal matter. Richard's appearance in our discussion
reminds us that Gaeta no longer stood alone.

(iii) Montecassino
So far little has been said about Gaeta's relationship with
Montecassino. Until 982 there is no sign in the documents that the
185 186 187 188
P. Fedele,'La famiglia'. IP I, p. 180. CDC 302. CDC 233.

185
 The eleventh century and beyond
abbey's territory did border on that of the duchy. Yet the late
tenth- and eleventh-century evidence from the Codex Cajetanus
detailing the monastery's exchanges with the Gaetans indicates that
their contact was frequent and, ultimately, had a profound effect
on the history of the duchy.
It is not the intention here to take up the history of Montecassino
in these centuries. Such ground has been covered more than once in
studies by Fabiani, Cowdrey and Bloch. 189 It should be noted,
however, that when it comes into view at Gaeta, the monastery
was entering a phase of territorial expansion and was of sufficient
political (and ecclesiastical) stature to lead the German emperor
Otto II to decide in its favour in a land dispute with duke Marinus
of Gaeta in 982. 190 Particularly significant is Otto's dismissal of
Marinus' evidence - a document recording pope John VIII's gift of
the lands, which lay near Aquino, to the hypatoi of Gaeta; the
Cassinesi produced an even more aged gift charter from Charle-
magne. The precedent having been set, another court of 1014 also
accepted the Carolingian evidence against charters of John VIII and
John X when Montecassino complained that Dauferius II of
Traetto was trespassing on the same lands. 191 The north-eastern
border of the territory of Gaeta seems to have been a constant
theatre of conflict between its inhabitants and the abbey. In 1039
we see abbot Riccherius in dispute with a group of men from
Fratte, 192 and in 1047 Sergius of the Kampuli clan acted as a
guarantor in a settlement between Riccherius and count Marinus of
Traetto, made in the presence of Atenolf duke of Gaeta and the
counts of Suessa and Carinola. 193 Finally, in 1064, the counts of
Suio gave a guarantee that they would come to an agreement with
the abbey over further border disputes in the Garigliano area. 194
The fact that Montecassino won all of these disputes is a good
illustration of the monastery's growing prestige. Rulers like Otto
wished to be seen patronising the abbey, as a means of gaining a
political toe-hold in the area as well as winning spiritual favour.
Such protection brought the monastery wealth in terms of land
and valuable moveable wealth, 195 and so was mutually beneficial.

189
Fabiani, Terra; H. Bloch, Montecassino in the Middle Ages, (Cambridge, Mass., 1986); H.
190
E. J. Cowdrey, The Age of Abbot Desiderius (Oxford, 1983). CDC 81.
191 192 193 194
CDC 130. CDC 171. CDC 180. CDC 227.
195
For a description of the latter in the ninth century, H. Willard and A. Citarella, The
Ninth Century Treasure of Montecassino in the Context of Political and Economic
Developments in Southern Italy (Montecassino, 1983).

186
 From local dukes to Norman kings
In this context, and given their proximity to the Cassinese
territory, it is perhaps not surprising that inhabitants of Gaeta
feature in some of our documents recording gifts to the monastery.
Thus, for example, Constantine son of Paul made a bequest in his
will of 1028196 and made another gift before becoming a monk in
the abbey in 1053.197 The abbey also had property in the city itself.
In 1024 the church of St Salvator in Platea Maiore was under its
control, 198 and in 1027 abbot Theobald arranged for an exchange
of lands so that the abbey's cell of St Scholastica was not
overshadowed by a wooden house. 199
Four years previously, however, Theobald had received a much
more substantial gift: half of the castle of S\iio and its lands donated
by its count, Hugh. 200 Taken at face value, this was a pious
donation (albeit a large one) on account of Hugh's ill health, which
he mentions. However, taken into the context of the events
mentioned above — the political instability at Gaeta, Capuan
encroachment and the overt detachment of Traetto — could not the
gift also represent an attempt by Hugh to gain a protector, or at
least an ally, in a time of insecurity? Montecassino was, after all, not
far from the castle, and, as a foundation regularly patronised by the
Lombard princes, may have acted as an intercessor on Hugh's
behalf. The gift appears to have worked - Hugh is recorded as the
count of Suio even after the Capuan takeover of Gaeta. In 1040 he
reiterated his gift, this time to abbot Riccherius and in more detail,
reserving half of the castle for his son John, 201 who remained in
possession until 1079.
It may have been fear of the Norman princes of Capua, who
were keen to be seen as friends of Montecassino, that prompted the
counts of Traetto to follow their relative's example in 1058/9. In
those years Marinus count of Traetto issued three documents
handing over a quarter of his county, half of the castle of Spigno, a
quarter of Fratte, the monastery of St Marinus at Coriano and a
quarter of the monastery of St Martin near Maranola in 1058/9. 202
These donations were, in the words of a 1059 document, made for
the souls of Marinus and his wife Oddolana, but there is no
doubting the political intent behind them. Having been friends of
the Lombards at Capua, the Traettans could expect no sympathy
196 197 198 199
CDC 153- CDC 194. CDC 144. CDC 152.
200 201
CDC 142. CDC 173.
202
CDC 204 addressed to abbot Stephen; CDC 209/10, the same donation repeated to
abbot Desiderius.

187
 The eleventh century and beyond
from the Normans unless they gained some representation from an
institution whose word held weight. In 1058 Richard of Aversa,
the conqueror of Capua, had been received at Cassino 'as a
king', 203 and the close relationship between him and abbot
Desiderius indicates that Marinus did well to try to win the latter as
a friend. The lack of success of his gift is, unfortunately, self-
evident; he and his relatives disappear from our documents after
1062. John son of count Hugh's gift204 of half of the castle of Suio
in 1079 plus his portion of the church of St Erasmus in Formia was
similarly unsuccessful; again the count disappears from view. His
gift was made in slightly different circumstances, for the year
before prince Jordan of Capua, Richard's son, had confiscated the
castle from John's relatives, the other counts. 205 It looks as if it was
the prince whom John was trying to win as an ally rather than the
abbey, by transferring his portion of the castle into Cassinese hands.
Two documents issued by the abbot of Montecassino, Desider-
ius, are particularly interesting in this context. In the first he
promised the Traettans in 1061 that he would allow them to keep
their houses and land, would do them no injustice and would not
demand service or any payments except one tenth of their large
pigs and one fifteenth of their small ones. In a final clause he
promised he would not take their wives - a statement of which the
significance has yet to be discovered.206 To named men of Suio in
1079 he promised exemption from service, which they had
enjoyed under the counts; the other inhabitants owed one day
seeding, one day reaping and one day winemaking. 207 These
agricultural practices confirm both Traetto and Suio as centres of
cultivation. The named group of men at Suio also indicates that
there was a recognisable group of aristocrats in the fortress,
although these were not evident in the other documentary material
from the castle. Conversely, the named men and families we have
seen as forming a favoured group around the counts of Traetto
were clearly not perceived as the leading citizens of that place by
outsiders. The documents do not show the growth of a communal
spirit in these castles. To interpret them as such ignores the
donations preceding each document, and is at the very least an
overinterpretation of the documentation. 208
Noticeably absent from our documentary evidence after their
203 204 205
Loud, Church and Society, p. 39. CDC 252. CDC 251.
206 207
CDC 213. CDC 253.
208
See, for example, Loud, Church and Society, p. 42; Cowdrey, Age, p. 7.

188
 From local dukes to Norman kings
gifts are the counts themselves. Marinus' Traettan transaction and
John son of Hugh's donation of Suio in 1079 mark their last
appearances. The same is largely true of the counts of Fondi, who
also handed over large areas of their territory in 1071/2. Leo, consul
of Fondi, however, appears in a document of 1117,209 suggesting
perhaps that this branch of the Docibilan clan was not quite so
easily removed. Why did the Docibilans disappear elsewhere?
In the case of Suio, a document of the incoming prince Jordan of
Capua provides a clue. Dated 1078, it relates that count Raynerius
and his consorts culpam fecerunt (loosely, 'had done blameworthy
things', that is, rebelled) and were deprived of their castle. 210 At
Traetto, it is possible that Marinus was the last of his line to rule
there, and that his donation was intended to secure the safety of
himself and his wife, both of whom must have been quite elderly
by 1062. In neither case is there any hint from the charters that the
counts were allowed to continue living in their castles as private
citizens.211
I have presented the wholesale handover of large chunks of the
duchy of Gaeta as a move initiated by the various counts out of fear
of the Normans. The agreement of 1062 illustrates apprehension at
least. Given that Montecassino had a long history of interaction
both with Capua and Gaeta, and that its abbots were keen to
expand their landed territories (abbot Desiderius' use of Suio as a
port to bring building materials from Rome by water illustrates
how valuable parts of the duchy could be to him 212 ), might it not
conceivably be the case that the Cassinesi and the Capuans came to
some agreement whereby the monastery would act as a friend to
the isolated counts, encouraging them to seek protection and
smoothing away resistance to the Capuans? The case of Suio, for
instance, is striking - one branch of the comital family (Hugh and
son) seem to have acquiesced to Capuan rule, whilst the others
rebelled and were consequently deposed. Taking this a step further,
if Montecassino were seen as a benign ally, might not the word
have spread between different branches of the Docibilans that
handovers of territory were a good idea, encouraging the
Fonditans, who ostensibly had no need to seek protection as early as
they did, to follow the example of their relatives? This may be
overinterpreting the actual content of the documents and ascribing
209
CDC 290. 210 CDC 251.
211
In a rare appearance of a Docibilan as a private citizen, however, Raynerius' eponymous
212
son witnessed a charter in 1125 (CDC 307). CMC in, 26.

189
 The eleventh century and beyond
to Montecassino and Desiderius a deliberate policy which did not
exist. The possibility, though, remains, and is worth further
investigation in a separate study.
How can we sum up the pattern of Gaeta's relations with her
neighbours? Throughout the period in question, the duchy seems
to have been split in two between the two great powers, Rome and
Naples, with the Neapolitan party in the ascendance at Gaeta
through the rule of the Docibilans. The split dated from as early as
the ninth century, when Naples seems to have controlled the
fortress of Gaeta itself and Rome the lands around it. Later, the
Neapolitans may have been responsible for Atenolf I of Aquino
taking power at Gaeta in 1044. They do *~ot appear to have been
capable of sustaining Docibilans in control there. But the Romans,
strongly entrenched in the western part of the duchy, were
similarly unable to take advantage of the mid-eleventh century
instability in the city, in order to reafBx it firmly to the formerly
papal lands. The beneficiaries of this indecisive contest were,
ultimately, the rising powers of Norman Capua and the increas-
ingly assertive abbey of Montecassino, the wholesale transfer of
Gaetan lands to the latter ensuring that the documents enabling the
reconstruction of the history of the area were preserved.
The ideas set out in this section prompt a revision of the picture
of the duchy of Gaeta. Historians in the early years of this century,
many from the city itself, presented it as a small, proudly
independent state. This image cannot now be realistically sus-
tained. At various points in its history Gaeta was formally subject
to larger states, and, even during its period of supposed indepen-
dence, outside influences were at work. Good relations with larger
neighbours were necessary for Gaeta's political and economic well-
being, and its naturally sheltered coastal position would make it an
attractive possession for Rome, Naples or Montecassino.
That Gaeta's political life was subject to more external influences
than was previously thought, should come as no surprise, given
that its commercial life seems always to have brought it into
contact with other states. 213
This section has examined the border areas of the duchy of
Gaeta, where exchange with external powers is most marked. Such
exchanges, however, could have far-reaching effects at the centre
of the duchy. The eleventh century saw the Capuans take over at
213
On Gaeta's commercial life, see below, chapters 7 and 8.

190
 From local dukes to Norman kings
Gaeta twice, but these events were only part of a much larger
process of change. It is to Gaeta's internal development during the
eleventh century that we must now turn.

(d) ROUTES TO POWER: SCRIBES, JUDGES AND CONSULS

AT GAETA

Throughout the period under examination in this study, Gaeta was

ruled by a duke, whether independent or subject to the sovereignty
of others. However, from the early eleventh century onwards the
administrative functions within the duchy seem to have been
carried out by the duke's officials, some of whose roles increased in
importance as the power of the Docibilan dukes waned. The
documentary evidence highlights three particular posts as worthy
of further investigation; the scribes and notaries in the duchy, the
judges and, finally, the emergence of consuls at the beginning of
the twelfth century.

(i) Scribes and notaries

Scribes, by their very function, appear in the Gaetan documen-
tation from our first surviving document onwards. It is likely that
in this part of southern Italy the level of lay literacy was quite high,
and that many of the participants in the transactions recorded could
read, but that fewer were able to write. 214
Early documents were almost exclusively written by clerics, and
there is evidence of a pride in the ability to write not only Latin, but
Greek as well. 215 By the middle of the tenth century, there is a
visible tendency on the part of the dukes of Gaeta to have their
documents written by the current archdeacon of the city. Thus
Marinus the archdeacon acted as scribe for Docibilis II on four
occasions between 939 and 946, and the other four documents
written by him all involved other members of the Docibilan
family.216 Martin the archdeacon wrote Docibilis IPs will in
214
Skinner, ' W o m e n , literacy and invisibility'.
215
Three clerics, Leo (fl.909—26), John (fl.922—59) and Peter (fl.935—45), describe
themselves as 'Greek and Latin priests and scribes'. All three were based in Gaeta, and
dominate the Gaetan documents from 909 (CDC 21) to 935 (CDC 38).
216
For Docibilis II: CDC 41, CDC 45, CDC 46, CDC 49; for Gregory son of Docibilis II,
CDC 42; for bishop Marinus in dispute with Peter, natural son ofJohn I, CDC 47; for
the heirs of Kampulus the prefect in dispute with the natural sons of John I, CDC 54; for
the natural sons themselves, CDC 56.

191
 The eleventh century and beyond
217
954, and Lordemanno the archdeacon was used by both
Docibilis, son of duke Gregory, and bishop Bernard. 218
The archdeacons did not have exclusivity as scribes at Gaeta,
however. Other clerics also performed the role, and there was a
growing number of lay notaries by the middle of the tenth century
(at least, they give their occupation simply as 'notary' or 'scribe'
and do not append that of'cleric'). 219 John, the protonotary and
scribe, was one of the first lay notaries, and seems to have enjoyed a
prolonged career at Gaeta between 958 and 999. 220 As Docibilis II
had patronised Marinus the archdeacon, so John seems to have been
favoured by dukes Marinus and John III, writing three documents
for them. 221 Again, he was also used by other members of the
Docibilan family, writing for Megalu, daughter ofJohn I, in 958;
Leo, duke of Fondi (at Gaeta) in 995; and bishop Bernard in 997. 222
During the same period Leo the scribe was also active at Gaeta,
again writing a mixture of ducal and noblemen's documents, and it
is possible that he was John's deputy. 223
Despite this slight indication of a rise in lay literacy, no surviving
document from any part of southern Italy seems to have been
written by the participants: the intervention of a notary to write
down the record was universally required. Why was this so? The
first and most obvious reason might be that neither party in the
transaction could read, but each wanted a written record in case of
future dispute over the exact terms of their agreement. The main
problem with this argument is that many relied on the memories of
the witnesses to a verbal transaction, and did not see a document as
necessary. The proof of this is furnished by the numerous court-
cases in which testimony was accepted as sufficient to decide the
argument in the form of oaths. 224 There is also the occasional
document which proves that charters were not always drawn up
immediately after the time of the transaction they record. Thus in
968, the daughters of John Sirrentino drew up a document at
Naples recording his sale, in the past tense, to Peter the freedman,

217
CDC 52. 218 CDC y 9 ( 9 8 l ) ) CDC 9 ?
2 x9
On the ambiguity of the status of scribes and notaries elsewhere, in this case in the St Gall
charters, see R. McKitterick, The Carolingians and the Written Word (Cambridge, 1989),
p. 116.
220
Given that no notary thought it necessary to use a patronym or other identifier beyond
his title, it is always possible that there was more than one John. But the title protonotary
was unusual enough in this period to allow that the same man is indicated throughout.
221 222
CDC 74, (979), CDC 75 (980), CDC 84 (984). CDC 58, CDC 94, CDC 96.
223
Leo's documents: CDC 55 (957), CDC 62, CDC 63, CDC 65, CDC 72, CDC 80 (981).
224
See above, chapter 1, section (d) and chapter 3, section (e).

192
 From local dukes to Norman kings
because John had failed to do so. 225 Perhaps Peter was now
contemplating selling the land, and needed written proof of his
ownership. The fact that he was of lowly social status possibly
increased his need to prove his title to the land. It is unclear whether
John was still alive at the time of his daughters' document, and
because of this it cannot be asserted that he originally had thought a
charter unnecessary. Perhaps he had died very soon after the sale,
before he and Peter had reached a notary. As long as the witnesses
to the original transaction could be assembled, there was no
problem in delaying the process of redaction. 226
However, evidence from Gaeta and other parts of the Tyrrhe-
nian littoral seems to show an increasing preference for written
proof in court-cases. In Naples, the almost universal use of oaths in
the tenth century gave way to a mixture of oaths and documents in
the eleventh. There is also a certain amount of care shown in a
document of 994 from Gaeta, replacing a charter which may have
been lost or whose terms might have changed. 227 This indicates
that memory was no longer sufficient to secure a transaction.
As this tendency towards written evidence grew, the role of
scribe changed from simply producing a record of an agreement,
to someone who had a responsibility to see that that record was
accurate. The scribe had always had a legal function as an extra
witness to the transaction; now he might be the first person to
whom parties in a disagreement might appeal before taking their
dispute to court.
Scribes and notaries could have a wider role to play than simply
writing their communities' documents. Politically, the fact that
Traetto had its own notary by 1014, Peter, and that other local
centres followed suit in the troubled middle years of the eleventh
century, indicates that public power now no longer emanated
solely from Gaeta. It is striking that, unlike the situation at Gaeta,
where clerics still wrote the majority of documents, 228 the new
225
RN16S.
226
Rosamond McKitterick, Carolingians, pp. 94—8, discusses this process from the evidence
227
of the St Gall charters. CDC 93.
228
Scribes active at Gaeta: Ranerius the deacon (978-84), Constantine the priest (986-98),
John the priest (1002-16), Leo the priest (1006-60), Constantine the priest (1008-9),
John the priest (1021-38), Dauferius the priest (1041-2), John the deacon (1047-61),
Marinus the deacon (1058-84) and Peter the deacon (1089—96). Leo the priest's long
career may have been linked to the fact that he was the priest of SS Salvator and
Benedict in the central Platea Maiore in Gaeta, which he held from the abbey of
Montecassino. In 1024 he gave half of the church back to the abbey; unfortunately,
although he gives his father's name, Dominicus, in this document, it provides no further
clues to his family background, CDC 144.

193
 The eleventh century and beyond
local notaries were almost all laymen. After Peter at Traetto came
Sicard (fl.1029-49),229 Gregory (1036),230 Giczo the priest (1047-
8), 231 and Benignus (1050-87).232 Notaries appear for the first
time in Castro Argento in 1029,233 Maranola in 1045,234
Pontecorvo in 1058,235 and Suio in 1063.236
From the trust placed in them in legal matters, it was a short step
for a notary to become a judge, and we have evidence of this
progression in a man's career. For example, Venerius, who wrote a
document for Girard, consul of Fondi, in 1071, gives his title as
judge and scribe.237 John Caracci, who in 1085 is recorded simply
as a scribe, then as a scribe and judge, appears finally as a judge in
1116.238 The early role of judges has already been examined, but
how did the position develop in the eleventh century onwards?

(ii) Judges

In 981, for the first time, the nobles of Gaeta judged a dispute
between the two sons of duke Gregory. The ruler of Gaeta at that
time was duke Marinus, and the case represents a departure from
the norm in that it was not referred to him for a decision.239 In the
eleventh century, men titled index appear far more frequently in
the documents. One, Gregory, appears in court-cases alongside the
duke, and at the head of witness lists to land transactions between
1021 and 1037,240 indicating that he made a career out of this
function. Such expertise did not require that he be of noble birth,
and we never find out who his father was. To be a judge was a
position of status in itself, as the care with which one witness named
John in 1054 cited his father as John the judge illustrates.241
Unlike the tenth-century evidence, however, the eleventh-
century documents reveal judges in wider roles than simply
witnessing. For example, in a dispute of 1053, Raimari the judge
acted as advocate for two men contesting land with Leo, the bishop
229
CDC 157, CDC 159, CDC 164, CDC 171, CDC 184, CDC 185.
230 231
CDC 167. CDC 182, CDC 183.
232
CDC 189, CDC 199, CDC 201, CDC 204, CDC 209, CDC 214, CDC 215, CDC 216,
CDC 258.
233
Lando the priest, CDC 158; a layman, Stephen, appears as the notary of Castro Argento
234
in 1071 and 1086, CDC 246, CDC 2$j. John the notary and scribe, CDC 179.
235
Littefrid the notary, CDC 207, CDC 249 (1075).
236
John the notary, CDC 217. He appears frequently until 1070: CDC 220, CDC 223,
237
CDC 224, CDC 242, CDC 243, CDC 244. CDC 247.
238 239
CDC 259, CDC 275 (1103), CDC 289. CDC 79; Merores, Gaeta, p. 115.
240 241
CDC 140, CDC 147, CDC 150, CDC 162, CDC 168. CDC 196.

194
 From local dukes to Norman kings
of Gaeta. When documentary proof of the men's case was
demanded by duke Atenolf, it was Raimari who produced it.
Despite the fact that his party lost the case, the record provides rare
and valuable evidence of the judge's representative function. 242
A Bonus index appears in another role beside duke Atenolf I in
1057, and beside his widow and son in 1063, in the latter case
consenting to Maria's land donation. 243 The 1063 document is
particularly important, for we have previously seen that one of the
roles of dukes was that of consenting to the transactions of a minor,
which was the work undertaken by Bonus here. The legal
authority of the duke had, therefore, been taken over by specialists.
In 1109 one John the judge is recorded at a court of Richard, duke
of Gaeta, and again in documents of duke Richard son of
Bartholomew in 1121 and 1123.244 In the latter document he
appears listed in order of prominence before the four named
consuls, and again in 1124.245 Was this John the same man as John
Caracci? It is unclear, but highly likely, and the later documents
illustrate just how a man of humble origins could achieve one of the
highest positions of power at Gaeta.
As in the case of notaries, there is some evidence to suggest that
the increasing localisation of political power in the eleventh
century led to individual centres having their own judges. Franco,
thejudge at Traetto recorded between 1030 and 1039, was an active
and prominent member of the community living in the Flumetica
area, and the presence of Roctio in the same settlement has already
been noted above. A document of 1064, recording the end of a
dispute between the counts of Suio and the abbot of Montecassino,
was witnessed by three judges, all of whom stated their local
affiliations.246
Judges had been a familiar part of Amalfitan life in the tenth
century, 247 and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that their role
became more important in the eleventh. The role of witnessing
ducal documents has already been discussed, but what other
functions can we see judges performing? A survey reveals that,
despite the odd appearance as landowners, 248 the overwhelming
242 243 244
CDC 195. CDC 203, CDC 218. CDC 284, CDC 297, CDC 301.
245
CDC 302.
246
CDC 227, witnessed by Giso, thejudge of Mortula, Peter, thejudge of castello Conca
247
and John, the judge of Fondi. See above, chapter 3, section (e).
248
In 1028 the children of John the judge are recorded as landowners in Supramonte,
PAVAR1/10; John thejudge owned a house in the same place in 1043, PAVAR1/15; the
son and daughter of Manso thejudge owned Capri land in 1059, CP 75; Constantine
Piczilli t h e j u d g e is also recorded as a landowner in 1099, CD A 96.

195
 The eleventh century and beyond
majority of judges are recorded as witnesses to transactions, as they
did for the dukes of Amalfi. Not all transactions were thus
witnessed, but the high number of instances suggests that, like the
presence of notaries described above in the Gaetan context, the
presence of a judge was often seen as added insurance in case of
dispute. A strong link between the two roles is provided by the case
of a man recorded in 1059 buying land, who gives his name as John
'judge and curial'. 249 He appears as a witness in 1087,250 again with
the twin titles. It is likely that the notariate was the entry point to
becoming a judge, and an indication of how the process worked is
given in 1062,251 when Leo son of John the judge completed a
document written by his son Leo. It is likely that the elder Leo was
himself a scribe, allowing his son to learn the trade under his
supervision, and that he aspired to his father's position as a judge.
The Amalfitan evidence thus supports the picture from Gaeta that
judges often began their careers as scribes.
The identity of the judges is difficult to pin down, but several
general points can be made. The majority, as at Gaeta, do not seem
to have been of noble origins, but there is the odd exception. 252
Several give their fathers' names, but many conformed with the
Gaetan pattern of simply giving their title; this was identity enough
for many men, and a survey of the eleventh-century sample shows
that the judges of Amalfi may have been limited in number, for the
same names recur with some frequency. 253 They may be the group
ofboni homines recorded as witnessing the settlement of a dispute in
1092.254 The continued shortage of court-case evidence from
Amalfi, however, does not allow us to see whether judges managed
to take over the handling of disputes generally. 255 Even a cursory
249 250 251
CP 57. CDA 81. PAVAR 1/19.
252
For example, John the judge recorded in 1028 was a descendant down three generations
from one Sergius the count, PAVAR 1/10, CDA 10.
253
They include: John, CDA 10 (977), CP 9 (993), CDA 28 (1011); Lupinus son of
Pantaleo, CP 80 (998), CodCav v/826 (1030), CP 39 (1033); Sergius, PAVAR 1/4 (1010),
CP 39 (1033), CDA 46 (1036), PAVAR 1/14 (1039); and John son of Niceta, PAVAR 1/4
(1010), CodCav v/826 (1030), CDA 591 (1033), CDA 42 (1035), CP 36 (1039). T w o
other judges, Constantine and Anthimus, also appear regularly, together on three
occasions, but the date of their first appearance in 986, CP 11, must be open to doubt
given their subsequent cluster of appearances in the later eleventh century (together in
1059, CP 65, and 1062, C P 7 6 ; Constantine in 1062,1067 and 1068, CDA 69, CP 49, CP
254
48; Anthimus in 1064, CP 46). CDA 89.
255
The cases we have from the eleventh century break d o w n as follows: t w o were settled
by the duke, CDA 590 (1023) and CP 33 (1055); two by the 'court', which is likely to
have been ducal, CDA 21 (1007) and CDA 49 (1037); one was settled with a payment
PAVAR 1/5 ( i o n ) and one by sharing the disputed property, PAVAR 1/25 (1094).

I96
 From local dukes to Norman kings
survey of the evidence, however, reveals that the main function of
judges in the twelfth century remained that of witnessing
documents, and again their number may have been limited.
It is possible to analyse the roles that judges performed in the
Tyrrhenian cities of the South as those of service to their
communities. They were, in some sense, representatives of the law
to their fellow citizens, and men appear for long periods making a
career out of performing this duty. However, as in contemporary
England, there is no sense as yet of professionalism on the part of
judges, nor of a legal profession as such. 256 That is, if men
performed the role of judges, be it as witnesses, ducal deputies or
representatives, they did so as respected members of their
communities and not (overtly, at least) for regular payment. The
advocates who sometimes appear in the documents performed a
similar representative function, and again do not seem to have
received payment.
Only in the twelfth century is there any indication at all that
legal practice was becoming the preserve of suitably qualified men,
and the evidence comes not from the Tyrrhenian states, but from
Bari, the other major city of the South. In 1180, Bisantius made his
will prior to travelling to Bologna to study law. That his case is
applicable to other parts of the South, however, is suggested by the
fact that he was a notary: again, the link between the notariate and
the law is apparent.

(iii) Consuls
Another position of power at Gaeta was that of consul. The families
who held the consulate in the city will be discussed in more detail in
chapter 6, but it is worth looking at the number of recorded consuls
in the documents, and the distribution of the posts among various
families, to try to get some idea of how the consulate actually
worked.
Hagen Keller recently furnished a timely warning against
assuming that the first documented evidence for the presence of
consuls necessarily indicates the creation of a commune. 257 He was
referring to Lombard cities, but the relevance of his warning
256 p a u j B r a n c i characterises England before 1150 as 'a land without lawyers': P. Brand, The
Origins of the English Legal Profession (Oxford, 1992), chapter 1.
257
H. Keller, 'Gli inizi del comune in Lombardia; limiti della documentazione e metodi di
ricerca', in L'Evoluzione delle Citta Italiane nell'XI Secolo (Bologna, 1988), p. 47.

197
 The eleventh century and beyond
1123 Docibilis Mancanella, Jacob Maltacia, Anatolius Castanea, Constan-
tine Burdo Gattula
1124 Constantine Burdo Gattula, Gregory son of Marini Castanea
1125 ?
1126 ?
1127 Stephen Mancanella, Marinus Boccapasu
1128 ?
1129 Docibilis son of Marinus Mancanella, John Bonus Mancanella, Jacob
Maltacia, Matthia Madelmo de Arciu, John son of Leo Castanea,
Constantine son of Constantine Gattula
1130-33 ?
1134 John son of Leo Castanea, Constantine son of Docibilis Gattula
113 5 Hieronymus son of Hieronymus Maltacia, Gualganus son of Leo
Castanea
1136-48 ?
1149 Bonus son of Boni Maltacia

Figure 5.7 The consuls of Gaeta

becomes apparent if we remember that most members of new

families at Gaeta had appeared, and were influential in the political
life of the duchy, at least fifty years before some achieved consular
status.
The appearance of the consuls in Gaeta may have been facilitated
by the fact that the city's Norman rulers, based in Capua, were too
preoccupied with their own political struggles to worry too much
about the city on the coast. Nevertheless, there is no evidence to
suggest that the Capuans disapproved of the development of the
consulate. Rather, they seem to have been happy to allow the
Gaetans to regulate their own internal affairs. Only when their
subjects overstepped the mark, as in the case of the Suian rebels
mentioned above, did the princes of Capua actively intervene.
Several comments can be made about the Gaetan consulate from
the evidence of the list of consuls. It seems that initially there were
four consuls, and that this may have risen to six in the late 1120s.
However, we must remember that the Gaetan year ran from
September to September for dating purposes, and so the high
number of consuls recorded for 1129 may represent two sets. There
is no indication of the process by which the consuls were chosen,
but it is almost certain, looking at the incumbents, that no one was
allowed to serve for two years running. This did not prevent a man
from becoming consul more than once in his lifetime, however, as
the appearance of John son of Leo Castanea in 1129 and again in
198
 From local dukes to Norman kings
1134 proves. It is quite striking that all the recorded consuls
belonged to the new, surnamed aristocracy of Gaeta, and that some
families were extremely successful in raising different members to
the post in different years, thereby securing a political dominance
in the city.
In addition to specific factors such as their wealth and the entry
into the aristocracy provided by the professions of scribe and judge,
the rise of the new families was helped by the instability of the ducal
throne throughout the eleventh century. The focus of attention on
the dukedom drew the spotlight away from the fact that new men
were encroaching in the aristocratic circles once dominated by the
old nobility. It was also greatly to the advantage of the new men
that the rulers of Gaeta from 1064 onwards had their main centre of
power at Capua. Unlike the Docibilans, men like the princes
Richard I and Jordan I had no need to cultivate the older noble
families, and seemed quite content to allow the internal power
structures at Gaeta to develop however they would. Only when
their new subjects acted against them, as in the case of the counts of
Suio in 1078, did the Capuans take direct control. Otherwise, an air
of co-operative autonomy prevailed at Gaeta. In the words of
Loud, 'In spite of its supposed subjection to Capua, Gaeta
continued to act as it pleased.'258 This is well illustrated by a
document of 1123, in which duke Richard promised the judge and
consuls at Gaeta that he would leave the coins known asfollari as
they were. 259
This agreement is evidence of one of the public powers of the
consuls of Gaeta, that of regulating its financial and commercial
concerns. This function is apparent again in a document of the
following year when the consuls were in dispute with the Roman
merchant, Bello. 260 In 1125 a merchant of Salerno, Peter Sfagilla,
acknowledged the return of his ship and his goods from the consuls
of Gaeta, who had seized it during a war between the two cities.261
Of course, although these documents present the consuls acting as
public representatives of Gaeta, private interest may also have
influenced their actions. For example, Miro son of Leo, consul of
1124, may have been a member of the Baraballu clan, to which
Girard, consortium member of 1105, belonged. To such men, any
change of Gaeta's coinage, which they used beside the ubiquitous

258 259
Church and Society, p. 15. CDC 301.
260 261
CDC 302; see above, section (c,ii); see also chapter 8 CDC 308.

199
 The eleventh century and beyond
Pavian denarius, could have proved financially problematic,
perhaps even invalidating contracts they had made.
Other consular functions seen in the surviving documents
included the regulation of building work at Gaeta. In 1124
Docibilis son of Gregory de Anatolii promised to the consuls that
he would build his house only to the height of his nephew's house
and no taller, and would roof it 'according to the laws'. 262 Again
there may be a certain amount of self-interest involved here. As one
of the features of the civic elite at Pisa during the same period,
Bordone has isolated the fact that urban prestige was expressed by
the ownership of towers, the taller the better. 263 This phenomenon
is by no means uncommon; Hughes illustrates how each family's
house and tower in Genoa in the eleventh and twelfth centuries
went to the eldest son, thus identifying the family with its
fortification from generation to generation. 264 Could the regula-
tion of house heights in Gaeta by the consuls therefore represent an
attempt to maintain their pre-eminence or to prevent anyone else
from gaining it? It is possible. That Gaeta may have witnessed a
period of intense tower-building is suggested by a sculpted panel of
the thirteenth-century paschal candlestick in Gaeta's cathedral,
representing the city during the sculptor's lifetime and positively
bristling with tall, stylised towers.
This concern with the regulation of the city's internal life is
reflected in another example of the consuls' work in 1129. In this
year they declared that whatever profit should come from the
Jewish dye-works or other work, including salt-pans, in the city
should be devoted to the city's use. 265 Unfortunately they do not
specify what uses they had in mind for the money (nor, for that
matter, what cloth the Jews were dyeing and what other work the
Jewish community did). However, we can speculate that the two
main concerns so far highlighted, building work in the city
(perhaps of churches as well as defences?) and commerce, probably
received some of this profit. A more illuminating document of
1135 reveals that 'the Gaetans' (including a judge and seven
consuls) had decided to tax the sale of olive-oil, and that the
revenue would be used to light the cathedral. 266

262
CDC 305.
263
R. Bordone, 'Le "elites" cittadine nell'Italia communale (XI-XII secolo', MEFRM, 100
(1988), 51.
264
D . Hughes, 'Urban growth and family structure in medieval Genoa', Past and Present, 66
265 266
(1975), 10. CDC 317. CDC 327.

200
 From local dukes to Norman kings
External relations continue to be the area in which the consuls
were most active in the first half of the twelfth century. In 1129,
they made peace with a group of named Neapolitans who had had
their ship stolen by unnamed Gaetans. 267 This, and another
document of the same year, in which the Gaetans and Sergius, the
duke of Naples, made a ten-year peace, 268 suggest that relations
between the two cities had suffered a considerable souring in the
latter half of the eleventh century. Such a breakdown is probably
most easily explicable in terms of the takeover by the Lombard,
and then Norman, princes of Capua, with whom Naples had never
enjoyed peaceful relations. In the context of events in the late 1120s
and early 1130s, the peace can be understood to be a holding
gesture on the part of the Neapolitans, who were still engaged in
resisting the might of the Normans, and would successfully do so
until 1139. If so, it clearly failed at some point during the cease-fire
period, for in ?i 137 a letter from the consuls of Pisa warned those of
Gaeta that the Pisans would take measures against anyone who
harmed their ally, Naples. 269
There is some evidence to suggest that the Gaetans were not
averse to conflict. In 1132, Geoffrey de Aquila made peace with 'the
Gaetans', over what dispute we do not know. 270 Geoffrey was lord
of Itri, just above Gaeta, and so the most likely cause of acrimony
was probably the latter city's by now very cramped territory. One
of Geoffrey's barons recorded in a document of 113 5 was William
Blosseville, the former duke of the city. 271 In 1134 the Gaetans are
seen making a treaty with the lord of Monte Circeo, Marinus
Formosus, against the city of Terracina. 272 Four years later a group
of Atranians confirmed that they had received compensation for
the 8 ounces of gold they had 'lost' in Gaeta whilst on their way to
ransom men of their city from the Pisans. 273 All of these
documents have implications for the history of Gaeta's commercial
life, and will be discussed more fully in a later chapter. 274
It is likely that had the history of the proto-commune of Gaeta
been allowed to continue, we should have seen similar commercial
and territorial ambitions to those of contemporary northern cities
(Pisa itself being a notable example). Duke Richard II seems to have
been content to allow internal autonomy on the part of the consuls
during his rule, which lasted until his death in 1134/5. However, its
267 268 269 270
CDC 319. CDC 318. CDC 331. CDC 323.
271 272 273
CDC 329. CDC 325. CDC 332.
274
See below, chapter 8.

201
 The eleventh century and beyond
life seems to have come to an end soon afterwards. A document of
?i 140 contains a formulaic oath of the duke of Gaeta to king Roger
and to his sons duke Roger and prince Anfusus of Capua, and one
of the following year an oath by the Gaetan people to the man
nominated to rule them, Atenolf count of Spigno. 275 Thereafter,
apart from one isolated reference to a man titled consul and baiulus
in the city in 1149 (and these titles might well relate to a function
within the Norman hierarchy, as the dating clause of the document
cited king Roger's rule 276 ), the documents are largely silent about
the internal administration of the city and its territory.
It is clear that Gaeta underwent some dramatic changes in its
internal administration in the eleventh and early twelfth centuries,
mirroring the external turmoil that accompanied the rise of
Norman power. How did the duchies of Amalfi and Naples fare
during this period, and did their political lives develop in the same
way?

(e) AMALFI IN THE ELEVENTH CENTURY

(i) Changes of rule

After the upheavals of Capuan rule in the mid-eleventh century,
discussed earlier, the ducal line of Amalfi was restored to power.
However, its tenure of the duchy was not to last very long. In 1073
duke Sergius died, and, mindful of the problems encountered
when a minor came to power, the Amalfitans seem to have
preferred to take their chance with a new political force in
Campania, the Norman Robert Guiscard. The city placed itself
under his protection in that year.
The history of the Guiscard's rise is long overdue for re-
examination, but is not directly relevant here. A shrewd politician,
one of his main tactics in extending his influence seems to have been
marriage. His first wife, Alberada, was repudiated on grounds of
consanguinity in 1058, and Robert took as his second wife
Sikelgaita, the daughter of the prince of Salerno. She succeeded in
promoting her son by Robert, Roger, over his half-brother
Bohemond, and it is Roger whom we see as co-ruler of Amalfi
with his father by 1077. He subsequently became sole ruler on the
death of his father, and is recorded as being in his first year as duke
in 1089.277
275 276 277
CDC 334, CDC 335- CDC 340. CP 64, CP 84.

202
 From local dukes to Norman kings
Sikelgaita herself may have been instrumental in the Amalfitans'
decision to submit to Robert. Amalfi had a long history of
exchange with Salerno, as we shall see in a later chapter. Certainly
in 1079 Sikelgaita showed distinct political sensitivity when she
gave land to the church of St Trophimenus, the patron saint of
Amalfi and Atrani, 278 and Roger followed her example in
confirming the gift in 1091.279
For all their efforts, however, Amalfi was not entirely subdued,
and on a wider front both the pope and Byzantium were becoming
alarmed by the rise of Norman power in the South. It may have
been the efforts of the latter that led Amalfi to rebel. Between 1092
and 1097 the lack of dating clauses on surviving Amalfitan
documents is indicative that the Normans had run into problems,
and the ruler documented as in his first year in power in 1097,
Marinus sebaste,280 clearly owed his position to Byzantine backing.
As with all Byzantine intervention in southern Italy, however,
this period of rule was not able to resist Norman pressure. Marinus'
need to have his actions witnessed by the public judges of Amalfi in
1098, when he made a gift to the bishop of Ravello, may itself point
to a feeling that his position was by no means secure. 281 By 1102
the dating clauses of Amalfitan documents reveal duke Roger back
in power, in the second year after his restoration.282 He was
succeeded by his son William as duke in 1110, although the latter is
identified in an isolated date clause as prince and duke as well. 283
He asserted his authority in 1113, when he confirmed to the
monastery of SS Ciricus and Iulicta all the lands which the
monastery had bought by the river Reginna Maiori at the sea-shore
from duke Marinus sebaste.284
William died in 1127/8. In the latter year a document dated by
duke Roger reveals Williams' successor.285 In 1130 the creation of
the Norman monarchy in southern Italy led to Roger, now king,
requiring the authorities of Amalfi to submit to his rule. When
they refused he sent an army to impose his terms forcefully. As a
result the Amalfitans and the Neapolitans submitted. 286
This issue of resistance is worth investigating. It is at least hinted
at in the failure of many Amalfitans to acknowledge the current
ruler in their documents after 1100. Why, after thirty years of
continuous Norman rule, did they balk at Roger's request in 1130?
278 279 280 281
CDAS92. CDAS7. CP 89. CDAS93-
282 283 2 4 285
CDA 100. CP 98 (1115). * CDA 114. C P 119.
286 Matthew, Norman Kingdom, p. 38.

203
 The eleventh century and beyond
The answer may lie in the internal history of the duchy during this
period.

(ii) Internal administration

Amalfi's political life in the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries
seems to have followed a different line from that of Gaeta, reaching
much earlier the situation of direct rule by a Norman nominee, and
never experiencing the embryonic consular rule that Gaeta had
been allowed to enjoy. This might be explained by the difference of
styles between duke Roger and prince Richard, the latter having
less power to enforce his rule, and therefore working on the basis of
leaving the existing power structures of Gaeta intact with simply a
nominal duke at their head. Roger, on the other hand, dealt
directly with the Amalfitans. In 1104 a document issued by the
duke to hisfideleSergius the judge, of the Piczillo family, granted
land near the sea-shore in Amalfi in return for his service. 287 There
are several issues to examine here. The first is the terminology
which the document uses, which was by now a standard Norman
practice throughout the South. Further, that Roger's favour fell on
a faithful judge suggests at least some deputisation of power within
the city. This is supported by the fact that the land granted, on the
piano Amalfi, had a long history of ducal association, and would be
the natural choice of a sovereign wishing to indicate that the
recipient was a man of some standing.
The document collection from Amalfi in the twelfth century
reveals other public officials in the city. In two documents
recording land exchanges in 1115 between SS Ciricus and Iulicta
and Peter son of John Viscatari, both witness lists include one
Mauro protonobilissimus and one Mauro coropalatus, both of the
Comitemaurone family.288 The latter re-appears in another
document of 1120, which he both wrote and witnessed.289 Given
that we have previously noted the rise of curials to positions of
responsibility and power in the duchy of Gaeta, could this be
another layer of internal power under the sovereignty of the
Norman dukes, with judges and men with various titles actually
running the city and its territory subject to ducal approval? It is
possible, and the fact that the two Mauros are listed as the witnesses
to a further document of 1129 suggests that their presence may

287 288 289

CDA 595- CD A 117, CD A 118. CP 106.

204
 From local dukes to Norman kings
have lent authority or validity to the transaction. 290 The title of
coropalatus persists sporadically in the Amalfitan documentation
throughout the twelfth century. 291
Much later on, there is evidence of more titles of this type
emerging at Amalfi, and from the middle of the twelfth century
we have documented examples of men known as the stratigotus of
Amalfi and of Ravello. 292 The latter is seen in 1177 authorising the
seizure of goods in repayment of a debt, witnessed by two judges,
and so is clearly the official who was delegated to ensure justice and
smooth local administration. This is lent weight by the fact that the
stratigotus of Amalfi in 1183 was also titled judge, and is recorded
acting in the presence of the boni homines of the city. 293 Alongside
what can probably be described as the civil authorities in the latter
half of the twelfth century, there is some evidence that the Norman
kings organised military authority as well, with isolated references
to the castellani of both Amalfi and Turris Maioris. 294
It is probable, therefore, that there were local officials at Amalfi
under the control of the Norman dukes, and that they had the
responsibility of day-to-day administration of the city. It is likely
that this was the more usual pattern of power under Norman rule,
and that the nascent commune at Gaeta, which added an extra layer
to the chain of command, was an anomaly which developed in a
period of weakness for the Capuan princes. However, Roger's
request in 1130 for the keys of Amalfi suggests, if only
symbolically, that he intended to intervene in the internal life of the
city. At this point, the Amalfitans refused to co-operate, with
predictable consequences.

(f) Naples
The history of Naples is the most stable throughout the period
from the mid-eleventh to the mid-twelfth centuries, in that it
291
290 pAVAR 1/36. PAVAR 11/73 (1170), PAVAR 1/55 ( " 7 7 ) .
292
Stratigotus of Amalfi: CD A 597 (1145), 219 (1186) and 244 (1200); of Ravello: CD A 153
(1150), PAVAR 11/58 (1159) and PAVAR 11/85 ( " 7 7 ) .
293 Qp J73. a s u r v e y of published documents from elsewhere in southern Italy confirms the
role of the stratigotus as a chief judge in each city under N o r m a n rule. The appearance of
the title earlier in the far South (men with the title are documented in Messina ( m o ,
NSK3); Terlizzi (1123, P C T 4 2 ) ; Conversano (1128, PC78); Stilo (1128, Theristes 13);
Troia (1130, Troia 56), Corato (1135, Corato 36); Barletta (1138, Barletta 41); Trani
(1139, Trani 37) and Lesina (1141, Tremiti 103)) may reflect a swifter acceptance of
N o r m a n administration there than in the cities of the Tyrrhenian littoral, such as Amalfi
and Salerno, which had been more used to autonomy. (See Abbreviations for full
294
references). Amalfi: CDA 231 (1193); Turris Maioris: PAVAR 1/64 (1188).

205
 The eleventh century and beyond
enjoyed the continuous rule of its ducal dynasty and experienced
very few internal changes to its administration. The only
significant break came in the late 1020s, when Pandolf IV of Capua
briefly seized the duchy and expelled its duke, Sergius. The hiatus
was short-lived, however, to judge by the minimal effect the rule
of the Capuans had on the dating clauses of Neapolitan documents
written during their supremacy, 295 and Sergius was able to call in
Norman reinforcements to restore him to power. His use of these
mercenaries in the 1030s, however, is seen as a turning-point in the
history of the area, for, in giving them the settlement of A versa as
their base, Sergius legitimised their military presence within his
borders, and allowed the Normans to see the fragility of the
duchy's security. It is during the rule of the Normans at Capua that
a letter survives from pope Gregory VII to John, archbishop of
Naples. Gregory urged him to avoid the magister militum and the
other Neapolitans and prince Jordan of Capua, for they were
anathema.296
The history of Naples' resistance to the Normans spans sixty
years. In 1077 the city was besieged by Robert Guiscard and his
brother, but the death of the latter led to the siege being lifted. A
document written in the city in 1078 illustrates the insecurity and
disruption that the siege had caused. It records a dispute between
Peter, the abbot of the monastery of St Gregory in the Furcillense
district of the city, 'which monastery has no congregation as the
monks have left the city on account of the war with the Normans
who surround the city', and Andrea, the abbot of the monastery of
St Felix, outside Naples at Pumilianum. Peter claimed that during
the war Andrea had allowed two sorole to be dug from St
Gregory's land and moved to Pumilianum. Andrea claimed that he
had bought them from Lidolf the viscount, and that it was Lidolf
who had dug them up. Andrea now paid 32 Amalfitan tari to Peter
for the sorole, suggesting that in the uncertainty of the war
unscrupulous men like Lidolf relied on the disruption being caused
by the Normans to attempt illegal sales of this type. 297
When the siege was lifted, Naples seems to have enjoyed a
respite as the Guiscard's successors concentrated their efforts
elsewhere, but pope Anacletus is seen as sealing the city's fate in
1130. Raising Roger II to the status of king, he granted him the
295
A document from Capua dated 1029 refers to the rule of Pandolf IV and his son at
Naples: T. Leccisotti, Abbazia di Montecassino: IRegesti dell'Archivio, x (Rome, 1976), p.
296 297
362. Capasso, Monumenta, 1, p. 261 document 19. RN 528.

206
 From local dukes to Norman kings
'honour' of Naples, thereby implicitly endorsing any action that
the king might have to take to win the city. When Roger gained
entry to Amalfi in that year, Sergius VII of Naples submitted too.
The rumour of Roger's death which swept the South when he
withdrew to Sicily to mourn his wife's death in 1135, however, led
to the reversal of Naples' position. The city became the focus for
opposition to Roger, and, as reinforcements arrived from the
German emperor Lothar, it was able to withstand the Norman's
forces for two years. Some indication of the pressures to which the
city was subjected can be gained from a document written there in
1136. It records a sale of land between two former inhabitants of
Calbetianum (Calvizzano) who were now inhabitants of Naples,
presumably because they were unable to leave. The vendors used
the 10 solidi raised to live on {opus et necessitates eorum) and also to
pay off their debts, citing the siege as the reason (pro istaguerra ubi
modo suni).298 Clearly their enforced stay in the city was causing
them hardship. The siege was lifted in the face of pressure
elsewhere in 1137, but just as it seemed that the German efforts
would bear fruit Lothar fell ill, and the army withdrew. Sergius,
aware that his position was precarious, immediately submitted to
Roger a second time. His submission was accepted, but he did not
have long to enjoy his renewed position of favour; he died on
campaign with Roger soon afterwards.
The two years between these events and the formal submission
of Naples in 1139 deserve further study. For, deprived of a duke,
the Neapolitans seem to have experimented with the kind of
consular rule that their neighbour Gaeta had enjoyed. Although
the title consul was not used, by 1139 there are isolated references in
the sparse documentation to the 'most noble men' as authorisers of
actions. The two examples that survive both show them allowing
minors to undertake land transactions, a role which the duke of the
city had previously performed. What is especially interesting,
however, is that the nobiliores homines seem to have acted on a
regional level within the city. That is, they did not have jurisdiction
over the entire city, but acted within areas of it. Thus the first
transaction, of 20th March 1139, was permitted by the noblemen de
regione S. Pauli, and the second, on 20th May, by those of the regione
Nilo.299 Both groups appointed representatives for the young
authors of the documents. In the first document, even the. witnesses
signed 'with the permission of the noblemen'.
298 2
RN666. " RN 680, RN 681.

207
 The eleventh century and beyond
Who were these noblemen? Most histories of Naples have left
this question unasked, but the assumption seems to have been that
the Neapolitans maintained their independence from Norman rule
for the two years to 1139. This is based mainly on the formal act of
submission that took place in that year. I am not entirely convinced
of this. That the Normans could have set up an informal
administration for the city, whose capture was prized, is more than
likely. After all, they had a long history of proximity to the city,
holding Aversa. There is also the odd reference to Norman
landowners in the Neapolitan documentation after 1137. 300 A
Norman identity would perhaps explain why the 'noblemen' are
not named in the two examples which we have. To accept Norman
intervention in their daily lives did not compromise Neapolitan
dignity, since their duke had already submitted to the foreigners.
Another factor to consider is that, unlike Gaeta, Naples does not
seem to have witnessed a dominant group of noble families around
the duke. The ducal family was at the forefront of Neapolitan
society. The fall of its head left a vacuum. It is possible that the
noblemen were the remnants of that family, though this would
surely have been stated. The same is true if the nobiliores homines had
been members of families known at Naples. Certainly there is no
reticence about identification in the documentary evidence as a
whole.
If we accept that the Normans were able to take over in 1137, the
letter of the Pisans to the Gaetans in that year, advising them not to
harm Pisa's allies at Naples, must be explained. 301 The Pisans were
certainly no friends of the Normans at this date. The letter may
well relate to the Pisans' involvement in the force which had raised
the siege of Naples in that year, that is, before duke Sergius'
submission. If so, it illustrates that the Gaetans were by this time
acting as loyal subjects of Roger. Whatever the case, Pisan help
does not seem to have been able to sustain Naples' independence
for long.
According to the chronicler Falco, when the Neapolitans
submitted in 1140 each existing Neapolitan knight was given 5
modia of land and 5 villani.302 Again the identity of the knights
poses a problem. Was the grant a sweetener to those Neapolitans
who had always held the rank of miles and their followers, or are we
here witnessing the share-out of the spoils to the invading army?
300
For example, Rupert Lorvangno, documented in 1138, RN 674.
301 302
CDC 331. Matthew, Norman Kingdom, p. 146.

208
 From local dukes to Norman kings
Possibly both scenarios are correct. Naples was now part of a larger
political entity, and a certain amount of harmonising of locals and
incomers may have occurred. The history of the city after this date,
however, is outside the scope of the present study.

CONCLUSION: A TIME OF CHANGE?

The eleventh century saw great upheavals in the regimes of the

three Tyrrhenian cities under discussion, also a widening of their
horizons as outside forces sought to gain control of southern Italy.
Yet the impact of the Normans has perhaps been exaggerated. In
the Tyrrhenian cities many administrative offices continued to
function just as they had under their old rulers, and dukes
continued to rule at Gaeta and Naples, albeit with Normans filling
the ducal post. The stability represented by this continuous pattern
requires an explanation. I would suggest that to find one we must
return to the population of the cities, in particular their noble
families. How well did these weather the storms of the eleventh
and early twelfth centuries? Was their survival a key factor in the
survival of patterns of rule in the cities?

209
 Chapter 6

THE EMERGENCE OF NEW FAMILIES

(a) GAETA: A NEW ELITE

We have seen in the previous chapter that, despite the upheaval of

the mid-eleventh century, a few of the older Gaetan families
continued to be prominent after 1032. Although that date is seen as
a watershed in the history of the duchy of Gaeta by many writers, it
did not signal the end of Docibilan power, which continued to be
supported actively by clans such as the Kampuli and Coronellas.
However, the instability led to the disappearance of the Christo-
pherii from our documents after 1041, and those whom I identified
as a new tenth-century aristocracy patronised by the Docibilans,
such as the Gaetani and Mauri, also fared less well. The former
disappear after 998, and, whilst members of the Mauri family are
present in our documents right up until 1109,1 they suffered a
period away from court between the fall of duke Leo in 1042 and
the end of the eleventh century. Even the Kampuli, who may have
owed their longevity to their enormous wealth, disappear after
1071.
But the survival of their erstwhile patrons until the 1070s may
explain why the Caracci continue to appear in the documents
throughout the eleventh century and into the twelfth.

(i) The Caracci

After their initial receipt of lands in the more western parts of the
duchy and at Caput Aqua,2 the three brothers, Docibilis, Leo and
John Caracci, in 1036 expanded their interests into Flumetica,
1
Atenolf son of Bernard appears as a witness at the court of Richard in 1109 (CDC 284),
and the rarity of the name Bernard makes it likely that he was the son of Bernard son of
Mastalus Mauri. Atenolf is associated in the document with Gregory son of Constantine
Salpa; Bernard had been associated with the latter in 1071 (CDC 245).
2
See above, chapter 4, section (a,ii).

210
 The emergence of new families
when they exchanged an unknown piece of land (there is a lacuna
in the document) for property at Vellota (see Map 6.1).3 It is
interesting that their opposites in this transaction were from the
city of Carinola, which lay well within the boundaries of the
principate of Capua. This fact may simply be seen as a result of the
Capuan take-over at Gaeta (the transaction is dated by the rule of
Pandolf and Pandolf his son), but even when Gaeta and Capua had
been separate political entities their boundary does not seem to
have been a bar to economic exchange.4
The progress which the three Caracci brothers made in building
up their Flumetica holdings is well illustrated by the will of one of
them, Leo, in 1067.5 In it he left lands in Vellota and Costranu as
well as other property in Conca, Tremonsuoli and Pedemonte
(unknown). He seems to have died childless; his wife Matrona is
named as his main heir, and on her death the lands were to be
divided between the churches of St Theodore, St Angelus and SS
George and Salvator in Gaeta, and St Martin Aqua Mundula near
Maranola. Leo's benefaction of the church of St George was later
copied by his nephew Peter, son ofJohn, in 1069.6 The land given
by Peter lay in Marana, another indication of Caracci family
interests in Flumetica.
There is no apparent reason for the family's choice of this church
to receive their donations. Its documented history stretches back as
far as 887, relatively early by Gaetan standards, but the only notable
feature is that it was not a church which enjoyed the patronage of
the dukes of Gaeta. Unlike their contemporaries and patrons the
Kampuli, the Caracci did not have a place among the highest ranks
of Gaetan society.
It was precisely at the time the Kampuli disappear from our
documents that the Caracci seem to have suffered some disruption
in their landowning activities. After his land donation of 1069,
Peter son of John only appears as a witness in 1089 and 1091.7
Similarly modest in his activities in the 1080s was Peter's cousin
John, possibly a son of Docibilis. He is first recorded as a scribe in
1085 and again in 1087.8 The fact that his customers in these two
documents were not, as far as we can tell, noblemen, fits in well
with the idea that the Caracci were themselves of relatively modest
origins. John rose above these however. In 1103 he is described as a
3 4
CDC 166. For a discussion on this exchange, see above, chapter 5, section (b,ii).
5 6 7
CDC 234. CDC 240. CDC 261, CDC 264.
8
CDC 259, CDC 260.

211
I Land over 1OOOm
Land over 3 0 0 m
_5km
3 miles

Map 6.1 Lands of the Caracci family

 The emergence of new families
scribe and a judge, writing and witnessing a document for one
Alferius son ofJohn. 9 In 1108 he did the same for Bona, widow of
Anatolius Cotina. 10 By m 6 J o h n owned land at Palazzo and was
designated by the title ofjudge only. 11 This indicates a recovery in
the Caracci fortunes, and in 1125 the family was still active at
Gaeta. In that year Maria, widow of Docibilis Caracci and her son
Kampulus ('Kampus') sold a cellar in the city to Leo son of Radi. 12
The occurrence of the name Kampulus in the Caracci family
genealogy should be noted. Whilst they were now independently
wealthy and enjoyed some prominence, they had perhaps not
forgotten their erstwhile patrons. Their prominence may not have
lasted much longer, however, as our last record of the family is the
appearance in a witness list of 1128 of one Constantine son ofJohn
Caracci.13 Thereafter the evidence reveals no more Caracci
members, although a change of surname (through marriage into a
more important clan, for example) might obscure them from
view.
I said earlier that other families on the same social level as the
Caracci may be difficult to see in the tenth century precisely
because their origins were modest and their land transactions may
not have been significant enough to record in writing or to keep for
posterity. But in the first half of the eleventh century a whole
group of families emerge in our documents who, like the Caracci,
used surnames and do not seem to have traced their origins back to
a noble ancestor.

(ii) The Coronellas

The Coronella family have already been mentioned within the
context of the 'old' aristocracy at Gaeta, but perhaps fit more
comfortably into this group, in view of their surname and
obscure origins. They really only rose to prominence in the mid-
eleventh century, by courtesy, it seems, not of the Docibilans, but
of the Atenolfan dukes. Marinus Coronella was a 'noble of Gaeta'
in documents of 1047 and 1049,14 and the disappearance from view
of the family for over forty years after the death of Atenolf I
suggests that their elevated status owed much to his patronage.
9 X1 12
CDC 275. CDC 289. CDC 309.
13
CDC 314: Constantine son ofJohn witnesses the execution of Docibilis Frunzo's will by
Bonus Pedeacetu and the sons of the count of Suio and Constantine Gattula son of
14
Munda. CDC 180, CDC 187.

213
 The eleventh century and beyond
Nevertheless, the Coronellas were clearly a wealthy family -
Gregory son of John Coronella was able to put up half of the 20
pounds of silver required to buy off the candidate for the bishopric
of Gaeta in 1054.15 But the essential point to note here is that the
wealth was in the form of cash, not land, which perhaps goes some
way to explaining their rather ephemeral appearance in what is
largely a documentary collection of land transactions. This image
is reinforced by the only other reference to the family in a
document of 1128. In it, the deceased John Coronella is recorded as
having lent \\ pounds of denarii to bishop Leo (the same man the
family had earlier helped to power) against a mortgaged mill,
which he subsequently gave to his son Marinus as a dowry. Now,
Marinus' son-in-law, Marinus son of Landulf, returned the mill to
bishop Richard, who paid off the debt. 16

(iii) The Mancanellas

Similarly limited were the landowning activities of the Mancanella
family. They are first recorded in 1000, with property at the
unidentified estate Mallianum. 17 Like the Coronellas, it was under
the rule of dukes Atenolf I and Atenolf II that a family member
achieved prominence, for John Mancanella seems to have been
favoured as a scribe under Atenolf I 18 and his eponymous son and
successor.19 Unlike Marinus Coronella, however, he did not
disappear after the Atenolfan fall, but seems to have come under
the protection of the Gaetan church of St Theodore. He had
written the donations of the dukes to the church, 20 and acted as a
scribe for the abbot of St Theodore in a dispute in 1068.21 In the
same year, we discover he had a tomb plot within the church
precincts.22 This connection leads me to suspect that John was
himself a cleric. Alternatively it may be the case that the
Mancanellas had made substantial donations to the church to earn
the tomb plot; if so, no evidence survives.
A thirty year gap ensues before we meet the Mancanellas again.
Their prolonged absence from the documentation is partly
attributable to the patchy nature of the latter; very few documents
issued at Gaeta survive from this period, when the Capuan
Normans took control of the city.
15 16 17
CDC 197; see above, chapter 5, section (a). CDC 313. CDC 104.
18 19 20
CDC 203. CDC 218, CDC 222. CDC 203, CDC 218.
21 22
CDC 237. CDC 236.

214
 The emergence of new families
That the takeover did not affect the status of the Mancanella
family as modest landowners with a place at the ducal courts is
shown by our evidence from the late eleventh and early twelfth
centuries. Bonus Mancanella is mentioned in 1098 as owning land
in Scauri.23 In 1109 we see John Bonus Mancanella acting as a
witness at a court-case brought before duke Richard of Gaeta. 24
Some indication of John's status, apart from the very fact of his
presence, can be gained by examining the other people mentioned
in the document; his co-witnesses included Docibilis Caracci and
one Gregory Salpa. The dispute to be judged was between the
church of St Erasmus and one Constantine Gattula, and was
recorded by Leo Baraballu. We have already traced Docibilis'
family connections, and we shall soon see that the other three
named men were all members of prominent families. John
Mancanella was in very good company.
In 1121 we see another John Mancanella, son of Stephen, buying
a piece of land in Planciano (Monte Orlando) just outside Gaeta. 25
Although comparisons are not without their problems, it seems
that John was charged a very high price for his new property. The
100 solidi of Pavian denarii that he spent was the price of four cellars
in Gaeta in 1119.26 A loan of that sum would have required
security of five warehouses in Gaeta in 1125.27 It is unfortunate that
there are not directly comparable land transactions, but the
Planciano sale can be put in some sort of context if we look at a sale
in 1104 of another piece of land, which lay in Dragoncello and sold
for just one-twentieth of the price. 28
Why was the Planciano land so valuable? Its proximity to Gaeta
was a major factor; the Mancanellas' activities largely centred
around the city. It is possible that the city itself was expanding at
this time, and that the family were speculatively buying up land in
the only possible direction of expansion along the narrow Gaetan
peninsula.
However, the point is surely not how valuable the land was per
se, but how much the Mancanellas were prepared to pay for it. Like
their contemporaries the Coronellas, they may have been seen as
having large amounts of disposable wealth, causing vendors to
raise the price accordingly. It is also important to remember that
the Mancanella clan could not boast any titled member among

23 24 25 26
CDC 273. CDC 284. CDC 298. CDC 292.
27 28
CDC 307. CDC 276.

215
 The eleventh century and beyond
their number. They had wealth, but they had little status in the eyes
of others if they could not tie that wealth to landed property. In this
context, what better land to buy than a piece of property in the old
heartland of Docibilan power? Although only John is named as the
purchaser, his action must have met with the approval of the rest of
the clan, for another member, Docibilis son of Bonus Mancanella,
appears as a witness. The latter's name, repeated in other eleventh-
century clans may represent another facet of the family's attempt to
'age' itself; it could, after all, claim a history extending back into the
period of Docibilan rule. At the very least the more frequent
occurrence of the name Docibilis in Gaeta in the eleventh century
may represent a political statement on the part of the families who
included it in their genealogies, or proof that the former rulers of
the city had had a profound effect on that city's memory.
As far as the Mancanellas' attempt to create an impression of
semi-nobility is concerned, their association with the Caracci
family in 1109 and 112129 cannot be coincidental, for the latter too
are traceable from the Docibilan period and, of course, had
themselves been associated with (or more precisely, patronised by)
the noble Kampuli.
The social aspirations of the Mancanella appear to have paid off
by 1123. In that year one Docibilis Mancanella son of Marinus
(note again the occurrence of the Docibilan lead-name) is
numbered among the consules et maiores of Gaeta. 30 Other
members of the family, Stephen in 1127 and John Bonus in 1129,
also achieved the consular office, and Docibilis himself is named as
son of Marinus the consul in the latter year. 31 In 1132 Docibilis son
of Bonus Mancanella acted as a judge in a dispute between two
members of another prominent family, the Gattulas (see below),
and it is reasonable to assume that he did so with the same or even a
greater degree of authority as the consuls.32 This group of men
seems to have been responsible for running the internal and
commercial affairs of the city under the sovereignty of the princes
of Capua.33
This political prominence was mirrored by evidence of an
increase in the wealth of the family, if the case of Mira Mancanella,
widow of one Peter Aderradi, can be taken as any indication.

29 30
CDC 284, CDC 298. CDC 301.
31 32
CDC 311, CDC 319, CDC 317 respectively. CDC 322.
33
On judges and consuls, see above, chapter 5, section (d).

216
 The emergence of new families
Becoming a member of the cathedral community, 34 she surren-
dered all her lands to the bishopric of Gaeta. These included: houses
in the city, a shop, a cellar, land in Casaregia, Mola, Flumicello,
Fondi, Capua, Teano, Aversa, Carinola, Traetto, Itri, Maranola,
Spigno, and Fratte.35 The ownership of lands outside the old
borders of the duchy of Gaeta is the most obvious result of the new
political situation from the late eleventh century onwards.
Mancanella interests in commerce even further afield are illustrated
by a later piece of evidence. In 1190 one Bonus 'Manganella'
witnessed a contract written at Genoa. 36
A final piece of evidence from the seventeenth century indicates
that the Mancanellas did eventually achieve the status of nobles of
Gaeta. Onorato Gaetani d'Aragona relates how the development
of an urban patriciate of Gaeta, or Sedile, culminated in a series of
royal charters in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, listing
those families who were officially recognised as noblemen of
Gaeta. From the list of 1660 we see that the 'Manganella', by then
extinct, had been classed among these noblemen. 37

(iv) The Maltacias

Alongside Docibilis Mancanella in the 1123 document appears one
Jacob Maltacia, also titled consul and maior. The Maltacias are
present in our documentation from 1006. In that year Marinus son
of Anatolius de Maltacia appeared as a witness for the otherwise
unknown Leo son of Gregory.38 Throughout the eleventh century
all we see the Maltacias doing is acting as witnesses. Marinus' sons
Leo and Constantine are both visible in this role, the latter
achieving the status of a witness for duke Atenolf II and his mother
duchess Maria in a gift to the church of St Theodore in 1063.39 In
1064 he appears alongside Peter Caracci and John Mancanella in a
witness list for one Peter son of Sergius.40 The family's next
appearance was in 1124, when Bonushomo Maltacia's house in
Gaeta was used as a point of reference in a boundary clause.41 The

34
Perhaps in the same way as the conversi of the N o r t h in the same period: D . Osheim,
'Conversion, conversi and the Christian life in late medieval Tuscany', Speculum, 58
35
(1983), 368-90. CDC 321.
36
D . Abulafia, The Two Italies (Cambridge, 1977), p. 179. O n the external contacts and
commerce of Gaeta, see below, chapter 8.
37
Gaetani d'Aragona, Memorie Storiche, p. 95.
38 39 40 41
CDC 112. CDC 218. CDC 222. C D C 305.

217
 The eleventh century and beyond
history of the Maltada family at Gaeta does not end there,
however. Both the Caracci and Mancanella families continue to
appear in the twelfth-century documentation, and the Maltacias
seem to have formed part of their circle of associates, reaching a
similar level on the social scale with the elevation of Jacob to the
consulate in 1129.42 Other families too associated with the
Maltacias: Docibilis son of Marinus Cotina co-witnessed with Leo
son of Bonus in 1128,43 and the execution of Jacob's will in 1135
reads like a Who's-Who of Gaetan society. It was executed by Leo,
just mentioned, and reveals that Jacob's concubine (amabili) was a
Capomazza, Matrona. 44 The execution was witnessed by a Gattula
and a Boccapasu.45 The will itself reveals much about Jacob's life.
He left 40 solidi of Pavian denarii for his soul, and 3 pounds each to
Matrona and to his daughter Bona. Matrona received his bed and
bedclothes as well, but no other property from her former lover.
The church of St Maria at Sperlonga benefited from a bequest of
land in Valle Caprina and Vetera, and the church of St Angelus,
where Jacob was buried, received land at Bazzanu. Apart from
another bequest at 'Cepopa' (Cecropa?), the executors were
ordered to sell the remainder ofJacob's property and, having paid
his debts, divide the cash between Bona, Jacob's nephews and the
daughter of Matrona Capomazza. The will is quite reticent about
Jacob's landed estate, suggesting that he had other property which
did not need to be distributed in a will. 46 It also shows the
importance of liquid wealth to the Gaetan aristocracy at this time,
although it is notable that land had to be sold before debts could be
paid.
Other recorded property of the family includes a vineyard at
Vendici given to Marinus son of Leo by his uncle Constantine son
of Gregory in 1132.47
The family's history continues throughout the twelfth century,
with various members achieving prominence. The otherwise
unknown Hieronymus son of Hieronymus is recorded as consul in
1135,48 and another member of the family, Bonus son of Bonus,

42 43
CDC 317. CDC 316.
44 45
O n the Capomazzas, see above, chapter 5, section (b,i). CDC 328.
46
If Jacob had other children, especially sons, for example, it would be automatically
assumed that they would inherit most of his property. His wife must have been dead by
now: there is no indication that Jacob's daughter Bona was by Matrona.
47 48
CDC 324. CDC 327.

218
 The emergence of new families
achieved that dignity in 1149, although the status of the latter is
open to question.49 He and his brother Marinus are seen in that
year receiving a tomb in the cathedral 'next to that of duke
DocibihY. What they had done to gain such an honour is unclear,
although the likelihood is that they had contributed to the fabric or
finances of the church. 50 It is certain that the family had risen to the
highest rank of Gaetan society, and it is probably the same Marinus
who acted as advocate in a dispute of 1157.51 The culmination of
the family's history was the elevation in the late thirteenth century
of one Bartholomew Maltacia to the position of bishop of Gaeta.
He was a close associate of king Charles I of Anjou, and was
responsible for the construction of the bell-tower on top of Gaeta
cathedral.52 Finally, 'perche vivevano nobilmente', 53 the Maltacia
family are included in the 1660 list of the prominent families of
Gaeta as 'substitute nobles' (nobili surrogati). Like the Mancanellas
by this time, the family is described as extinct.

(v) The Salpas

The origins of the Salpa family were almost as early as those of the
Maltacias in the documents. The first member we meet, Gregory
son of John, witnessed a dispute between count Dauferius of
Traetto and the abbot of Montecassino, Atenolf, in 1014.54 The
court-case was held at Traetto, and this marries well with the
districts in which Gregory owned land. His donations to the
church of SS John and Paul at Gaeta are recorded in 1059 as lying in
the districts of Flumicellum (the Ausente valley) and Scauri. 55 Five
years later one John Salpa, who is not securely identifiable, is
mentioned as having offered land in Maranula (between the
Ausente and Garigliano rivers) to the church of St Erasmus at
Formia.56
The Salpas are documented as frequent church patrons. Not
only do we hear of their gifts to the churches mentioned above, but
also a document of 1052 shows that the heirs of John Salpa had a
tomb plot at the church of St John the Baptist at Gaeta, 57 and later
49
I suggested above, chapter 5, section (d,iii), that by this date the function of consul might
have been as part of an incoming N o r m a n hierarchy.
50
CDC 340; the document is witnessed by their relative Gregory son of Pero.
51 52
CDC 344. Gaetani d'Aragona, Memorie Storiche, p. 359.
53 54 55 56
ibid., p. 97. CDC 130. CDC 208. CDC 222.
57
CDC 191.

219
 The eleventh century and beyond
evidence of their activities does indicate that, whilst their
landowning interests were concentrated in the east around Traetto,
much of their political activity took place in Gaeta. It also indicates
that they were of a similar aristocratic standing as those clans
already discussed. In 1071 Constantine son of John Salpa was
present when Sergius son of Kampulus the prefect drew up his
will.58 Quite apart from the fact that he was witnessing for a
member of the prestigious Kampuli clan (whose last appearance in
our documents this is), Constantine was co-witnessing with
Bernard son of Mastalus the magnificent (of the Mauri family) and
members of another prominent family, the Lanciacane, of whom
more presently.
Constantine's son Gregory, the last of the Salpa family to appear
in the period under discussion, seems to have had an even wider
circle of contacts. In a remarkable document of 1105 he is listed as
one of a Gaetan consortium in dispute with Ptolomeus, consul and
count of Tusculum, over the co-ownership of a ship. 59 One of his
partners was a Leo Cotina, 60 and Gregory renewed his association
with that family in 1108 when he witnessed a document for Bona,
widow of Anatolius Cotina. 61 The following year he was present
at a dispute between the church of St Erasmus at Formia and one
Constantine Gattula, son of Christopher. 62 His co-witnesses were
highly respected men at Gaeta, and included John Mancanella, Leo
Baraballu,63 and Docibilis Caracci. With Constantine's disappear-
ance from the documents, the Salpas vanish too.

(vi) The de ArciujMaulottas

The de Arciu/Maulotta family, too, had external contacts, two of
their number being included in the consortium who disputed the
ship with Ptolomeus of Tusculum in 1105. However, one member
of the family had been very heavily involved in influencing the
internal pattern of power at Gaeta, putting up the silver to buy the
bishopric for Leo in 1049. The fact was acknowledged by Leo in
1054, when he granted to Stephen and his partner Gregory
58
CDC 245.
59
CDC 278; to settle the dispute, the Gaetans seem to have bought out the Tusculan share -
they paid 24 pounds of Pavian denarii and received the ship.
60 61 62
See below, section (a,viii). CDC 283. CDC 284.
63
See below, section (a,xi).

220
 The emergence of new families
Coronella the profits of the episcopal water-mill called de
Ferruccio, for as long as he and his brother Docibilis owed them the
silver.64 Two years earlier, Leo had given Stephen a site for the de
Arciu family sepulchre in the church of St John the Baptist at Gaeta
in return for his 'services and building work'. 65 Whether Stephen
had literally been involved in the building work for the bishop, or
whether he had patronised the work monetarily is unclear. 'Some
noble Gaetans' are recorded as contributing $2 pounds of silver in
1008 towards the building work to Bernard, the bishop at that
time. 66 We do not know if Stephen was among them, but, given
the evidence that he could produce a substantial amount of liquid
wealth in the middle of the century, he had probably made a
similar donation.
Unlike some of their contemporaries, the de Arcius do not
appear to have been concerned to turn their liquid wealth into land.
In 1087 Stephen's heirs are mentioned as owning a house in
Gaeta,67 and, even after a marriage between Benedict son ofJohn
de Arciu and Maria Maulotta, the lands of the combined clan did
not extend beyond Casa Regula (modern Casarevole?), less than 5
kilometres from Gaeta.68 This pattern continues in the twelfth-
century evidence. We know that one 'Matthia Madelmo' was
consul of Gaeta in 1129, and on the basis of the occurrence of the
unusual name Madelmus he may have been a member of the
family.69 Similarly, one Docibilis son of Madelmus appears as a
witness in a much later document, dated 1167, but we know
nothing of the family's landed possessions in this period. 70 An
explanation for this, and for the isolated appearances of the de
Arcius, might be found if we pursue the connection with the
authors of the latter document, the Gattula family. For in 1179
Marucza de Arcia is recorded as the widow of one John Gattula,
and her son took his father's name. 71 The history of the Gattulas
will be discussed presently, but, if the de Arciu clan were less
wealthy or politically important, they might have found it difficult
to acquire property without 'disappearing' into the families with a
higher profile at Gaeta. It is significant that they do not appear in
the later lists of Gaetan noble families, and we should probably
characterise them as one of the client families in the city at this time.

64 65 66 67
CDC 197. CDC 191. CDC 115. CDC 258.
68 69 70 71
CDC 272. CDC 319. CDC 348. CDC 358.

221
 The eleventh century and beyond

(vii) The Boccapasus

Similarly limited were the landed interests of the Boccapasu
family, who had a representative, Leo, in the consortium of 1105.
They are the most poorly documented of the families under
scrutiny, yet they fall into what is becoming a recognisable pattern
of clans with modest landowning interests, some commercial
activity and, as a document of 1059 illustrates, a desire to give to the
church. In that year Marinus, the priest of the church of SS John
and Paul in Gaeta drew up a list of its possessions.72 Among them
was land at Fontanulo (near Mamurrano) given by Docibilis
Boccapasu and Maru wife of Agnellus Boccapasu. Leo's experience
of dealing within a Gaetan consortium may represent the family's
attempt to achieve a network of contacts with other families at
Gaeta, and Marinus Boccapasu benefited from this when he
became consul in 1127.73 But the appearance of Gregory son of
Leo Boccapasu as a witness to the execution of Jacob Maltacia's will
in 1135 probably confirms the Boccapasu family's status as clients,
and they disappear from the sources after this date.

(viii) The Cotinas

It is in the role of donors to the church that we can see the next
family to emerge in the documents, the Cotinas. In 1064 J o n n
Cotina, son of Nicephorus gave his family's church foundation
dedicated to St Mary at Gruttelle in Flumetica, plus some land, to
the church of St Erasmus in Formia. 74 The family's interests seem
to have largely centred on the Flumetica district, in particular Suio.
In 1056 John Cotina had acted as a witness for John son of Hugh,
count of Suio,75 and in the 1064 transaction we learn that his two
daughters were married to two brothers descended from a cadet
branch of the Suian comital dynasty, (see genealogy, Figure 6.1).
This close relationship with the Suians was disrupted soon
afterwards, however. In 1078, as we saw earlier, prince Jordan of
Capua had confiscated the castle from count Raynerius and his
consorts, and taken away their goods. 76
The effects of this upheaval can be seen on the pattern of Cotina
documents thereafter. All the recorded activities of the family from

72 73 74
CDC 208. CDC 311. CDC 225.
75 76
CDC 202. CDC 251; see above, chapter 5, section (c,iii).

222
 The emergence of new families
Gregory duke of Gaeta
I
Landolf Polyssena?
(981-1013)

Docibilis
(1002-25)

Hugh count Leo II duke

of Suio of Gaeta = Theodora senatrix
(1023-40) (1042) ,
I
John count Leo bishop Docibilis Raynerius Peter
of Suio of Gaeta (1054) count of Suio count
(1056-79) (1064-78) of Suio
= Sikelgrima = Mira (1055)
= Ageltruda
(1064)
JL
Landolf Leo Raynerius John Peter
(1062-8) (1062-4) (1125) (1062-4) (1053-64)
= Aloara = Domnella
Cotina Cotina
I? I
Pandolf Leo's sons known as
(1109-35) PIZZACADEMONI

Atenolf Docibilis
(1128) (1119-28)
I I
Alberic Landolf
(1159) (1157)

Figure 6.1 The counts of Suio and their descendants

1079 onwards were centred around Gaeta. In that year Anatolius

son of Gregory Cotina witnessed a sale of Mola land recorded in
the city.77 Perhaps the clearest indication of the direction of Cotina
interests after the fall of the Suian dynasty is a document issued by
the widow of John Cotina, Marenda, in 1089. In it she states that
she is resident in Gaeta, and gives land at Scauri to the church of St
Theodore in the city. 78 Her sons, John and Anatolius, gave their
consent to the transaction.
It is unfortunate that later members of the Cotina clan cannot be
related with certainty to their earlier ancestors, but their activities
can still be said to have been Gaeta-based. Leo Cotina, son of
Docibilis, was the family's representative in the Gaetan trading
77 78
CDC 254. CDC 261.

223
 The eleventh century and beyond
consortium of 1105. Leo's only recorded property was a cellar in
Gaeta, mentioned in 1119.79 One is tempted to characterise this
kind of property as somewhere to keep his stocks of merchandise
before selling them on. Certainly there is a parallel to be drawn
with the Amalfitans resident at Salerno, some of whom leased or
bought very small houses in that city for the same purpose. 80 In
1108 another member of the Cotina clan, Bona widow of
Anatolius, gave a house and zpothega in Gaeta and land in Scauri to
the bishop of Gaeta.8 x It had been willed to the bishopric by her son
Leo, who was now buried in the cathedral. The document itself is
illuminating; it confirms that the Cotina family did keep
commercial premises in Gaeta - the word pothega can be translated
as warehouse.82 This particular one lay next to the sea-shore below
the medialoca or storeroom of one Docibilis Purina. The house
given by Bona is also described in terms of its usefulness: it was, she
said, made up of a cellar, a medialoca and a ventum or top floor, the
latter presumably acting as living accommodation. A final
confirmation of the family's interest in commercial affairs is
furnished by a court-case of 1124, when Docibilis son of Marinus
Cotina witnessed a dispute between the consuls, maiores (of which
he was one?) and the minores of Gaeta and Bello the Roman over a
ship.83
We must be careful not to overemphasise this interest, however.
For we must note that the Cotinas had land, particularly, it seems,
in Scauri. De Santis records that there existed in the vicinity of
Traetto in the fourteenth century a Terra or Torre di Cotina,
which could very well refer to the family's lands or fortified house
in Scauri.84 This evidence is a timely reminder that very few men
in this period could make a living from trade alone. Individual
members of the family continue to appear as witnesses to
documents throughout the twelfth century, 85 but we have no
further evidence about their property or political activities.
Unlike most of the other families under discussion in this section,

79 80 81
CDC 292. See below, chapter 8. CDC 283.
82
It is derived from the Greek w o r d (nrodnkn, meaning storehouse. Given that Gaeta had
previously strong links with Naples, the adaption of a Greek term into Latin should
83
perhaps not surprise us. CDC 302.
84
A. de Santis, 'Centri del basso Garigliano abitati nel Medioevo e abbandonati nei secoli 16
e 17', BISI, 75 (1963), 394-
85
CDC 316 (1128): Docibilis son of Marini co-witnesses with a Maltacia; CDC 348 (1167):
Girard son of Leo witnesses a Gattula document, suggesting clientage again; CDC 344
(1157): Pandulf witness to a dispute.

224
 The emergence of new families
we may be able to postulate where the Cotinas came from. Two
documents from Naples, dated 1027 and 103 8,86 include references
to members of the 'Cutina' family who owned land in the Piscinule
district north-east of Naples and had strong connections with the
church of Sorrento. Nothing but the similarity of their name
relates the Neapolitans to the Gaetan clan, but one should not
discount the possibility that the former were the ancestors of the
latter.

(ix) The Castaneas

One of the consuls of Gaeta named in the dispute with Bello the
Roman in 1124 was Gregory, son of Marinus Castanea. In the same
year, and in the same capacity, he appears again receiving a
guarantee from Docibilis son of Gregory de Anatoli 87 that the
latter would not build his house above a certain height. Gregory,
however, was not the first of his family to achieve the position of
consul: his relative (in what capacity we do not know) Anatolius is
named as one of the consuls of 1123/ 8 and other members of the
family, John son of Leo (twice, in 1129 and 1134) and Gualganus
son of Leo, possibly his brother (in 1135) also achieved this dignity.
Add to this the fact that Anatolius son of Anatolius Castanea
witnessed a ducal document in the city in 1134,89 and the picture is
of a family who were at the centre of Gaeta's political life.
There is very little documentation from which to ascertain the
reason for the powerful position of the Castaneas in the early
twelfth century. We know from a document of 1059 that Marinus
Castanea, Gregory's grandfather, owned land at Fontanulo, 90 and
that Gregory's father Marinus, son of Marinus, had been witness to
a settlement between bishop Raynald of Gaeta and one Leo Trituru
in 1091.91 But the latter association was surely a result of a now
undocumented prominence in the eleventh century, rather than a
cause of their prominence in the twelfth? If we examine other
pieces of twelfth-century evidence, the power of the Castaneas is
apparent. In a rare document, perhaps conforming more to
contemporary northern Italian examples, they are recorded in 1131
as owning a tower in the city, 92 itself a statement of their
ambitions. Association with other powerful families followed, or
86 87 88 89
RN 412, RN 470. C D C 305. CDC 301. CDC 326.
90
CDC 208; Marinus' vineyard lay next to land belonging to the Boccapasu family.
91 92
C D C 264. CDC 321.

225
 The eleventh century and beyond
perhaps contributed to, this rise: Munda Castanea is recorded as the
widow of Christopher Gattula in 1132,93 and her gift of a shop by
the Salini gate of Gaeta reveals that the family still had commercial
interests.
It seems that the rise of the Castaneas did not end, for the
'Castagna' family are recorded as nobles in the patriciate list at
Gaeta in 1587.94 By the seventeenth century, however, like other
families we have met in this chapter, their line died out.

(x) The Lanciacani

Association with the older nobility may explain the brief period of
prominence of the Lanciacane family, from 1067 to 1084. They
appear exclusively as witnesses during that period, but the social
status of those for whom they witnessed suggests that the
Lanciacane clan do belong among the families under discussion
here. John Lanciacane and his sons Marinus and Kampulus all
appeared as witnesses for Sergius son of Kampulus the prefect in
1071,95 and both John and Kampulus were associated more than
once with Peter son of John Caracci.96 The most likely explanation
for the Lanciacane family's appearance in our documentation is
that they, like the Caracci, were patronised by the powerful
Kampuli. But, whilst the Caracci were able to use a strong land
base to survive the rise of new families at Gaeta, the Lanciacane do
not seem to have had that degree of security, and so faded back into
obscurity when the Kampuli were no longer powerful. No further
evidence for them survives.

(xi) The Baraballus

The Lanciacani could not have been helped by the rapidity with
which some families emerged to challenge the old order. Such a
family were the Baraballus, who are first recorded only in 1071. In
that year, we learn, Mirus son of Constantine Baraballu owned a
house in Gaeta.97 This family, too, had a member, Girard,
involved in the Gaeta trade consortium of 1105, and he is recorded
earlier as a landowner at Curallum just outside Gaeta in 1085.98
Perhaps the clearest indication of where the Baraballus centred

93 94 95
CDC 322. Gaetani d'Aragona, Memorie Storiche, p. 95. CDC 245.
96 97 9
CDC 240, CDC 241. CDC 245. « CDC 259.

226
 The emergence of new families
their landed wealth is given by a document of 1091, in which John
son of Landulf Baraballu sold land in Palazzo near Formia to his
daughter Sergia and her husband John son of Peter." Other
landowners in the area included Minis, who was John's nephew,
another nephew (or niece?) Beneincasa, and John's sister-in-law
Matrona Mancina. Just over a mile further down the Via Appia lay
Scauri, and in 1098 John divided land here with his brother Leo son
of Landulf.100 In this context Girard Baraballu's commercial
outing of 1105 seems to be the action of a man whose family had a
strong landed base and could afford to risk some capital on less
secure money-making enterprises.
The Baraballus had contacts with many of the other aristocratic
families of the period. As witnesses we can link Minis son of
Constantine with the de Arciu/Maulotta family in 1096, 101 and his
brothers Gregory and Leo with the Caracci and Castanea clans in
1091.102 In 1109 Leo son of Constantine mediated in a dispute
between the abbot of St Erasmus and Constantine Gattula, in the
presence of many prominent men of Gaeta including John
Mancanella, Gregory Salpa and Atenolf of the Mauri family. 103
With such contacts, one might expect a member of the
Baraballus to achieve the dignity of consul of Gaeta, as the other
families had done, but we have no record of this happening. 104
This, though, is perhaps the fault of the documentation, for there
was nothing wrong with the family's credentials to hold office. In a
document of 1120 we see they had expanded their formerly
localised landed base. In that year six descendants of the earlier
Baraballus (see genealogy, Figure 6.2) divided up communally
held land. As might be expected, property in Palazzo was included,
and the document reveals an expansion westward into Mola. But,
far from conforming to the pattern of compact landholdings that
has emerged from the evidence of other families, the Baraballus
also now had land at Paniano near Itri, and in the Ausente
valley.105
Despite the lack of consuls on the family, it is not surprising to
find the wealthy Baraballus in positions of responsibility in Gaeta
in the twelfth century. Particularly worthy of note is Docibilis son
of Leo, who appears as a witness to a Mancanella document
99 10 101 102
CDC 265. ° CDC 273. CDC 292. CDC 264.
103
CDC 284.
104
Although Mirus son of Leo, consul in 1124, may have been a Baraballu on account of his
105
fairly distinctive name. CDC 295.

227
 Constantine* Landolf
I I
Mirus* Gregory* Leo John Maria Leo
(1071-96) (1091-4) (1091-1109) (1091-8) (1091) (1098)
I
Leo Mirus* Docibilis Constantine*
(1120)
IL
(7 + 1120) (1120-1) (1091)
= John
Mirus* Docibilis5 Gregory* Leo Sergius
the consul the judge (1120) (1120) (1120)
(1124) (1135)
= Grusa

Philip
(1157)

Other members: Girard (1085-1105), Bonus ( + pre 1091), Beneincasa (1091), Gemma (1159)

The family is traceable down two distinct lines: perhaps Landolf and Constantine were brothers.
* Although the Baraballus identified themselves with a surname, lead-names seem to have persisted.
$There is no direct evidence for the identity of Docibilis' father; I have suggested that he was the son of this Leo on the basis that nephews
were often named after uncles.

Figure 6.2 The Baraballu family

 The emergence of new families
alongside a Gattula in 1131106 and perhaps should be identified as
the same man as Docibilis the judge. In 1134 the latter acted
alongside the consuls of Gaeta. 107 In the same year Docibilis son of
Leo witnessed a ducal document issued by duke Richard. 108 It is
likely that the two Docibilis' were the same man, for Docibilis the
judge continued his association with the duke's nominee, William
Blosseville, in the following year when he and his wife Grusa
bought land from William. 109 The position of judge may then
have been equivalent in honour to the consulate, but with a
specifically legal function. It may simply be coincidence that the
sole appearance of Docibilis' son, Philip, occurs as a witness to a
dispute in 1157,110 but by citing his father's occupation Philip
added greater authority to his presence.
Records of the family's wealth and connections continue in the
twelfth century. In a rare example of its type, a document of 1171
records that Pasca widow of Constantine Baraballu and her sons
John and Nicolas had provided a dowry for her daughter Trocta to
marry. 111 The groom, Bonus Campello, acknowledged receipt of
8 pounds of Amalfitan tari, some silk and a pair of gold earrings.
Contemporary evidence from elsewhere in the South reveals this
to have been something of a standard trousseau: the appearance of
Amalfitan coinage will be discussed a little later. In 1159 Gemma
Baraballu, daughter of Mirus and widow of John Gattula,
mortgaged land in Paniano to the abbess of St Martin, Scholas-
tica.112 Apart from revealing a continued link with the Gattula
family, this document may also suggest a reason for the earlier rise
of the Baraballu family to prominence. For Gemma states that she
had bought the land from Aloara 'Glossavilla', her mother. The
similarity between this surname and that of the rulers of Gaeta
suggests strongly that the Baraballus had close links with the latter,
although these are now obscured by the lack of documentation.
The Baraballu rise clearly continued, however. In 1290 Matteo
Baraballu became bishop of the city, 113 and the family are listed
among the highest ranks of the Gaetan patriciate in 1660, although
by that date their line was extinct. 114

106 107 10
CDC 321. CDC 325. « CDC 326.
109
CDC 329 (1135); the couple subsequently received a guarantee of loyalty from
110
William's vassals on the land: CDC 330 (1136). CDC 344.
111 112 113
CDC 352. CDC 346. Ferraro, Memorie, p. 210.
114
Gaetani d'Aragona, Memorie Storiche, p. 95.

229
 The eleventh century and beyond

(xii) The Gattulas

Similarly highly honoured were the Gattula family, who are again
a late addition to our circle of Gaetan aristocrats, and who have
featured prominently in the histories of other families so far
mentioned. As the Gattolas, they appear in the 1660 patriciate list as
the lords of Sperlonga,115 and among their descendants in the
eighteenth century were don Erasmo Gattola, historian and abbot
of Montecassino116 and Girolamo Gattola, author of an incom-
plete history of Gaeta conserved in manuscript form in the archive
of Montecassino. x17
What were the origins of this illustrious family? When we meet
our first member in 1091, he was already exhibiting a degree of
authority. Constantine Gattula son of Constantine appears as a
guarantor of the settlement of a dispute between Raynald, bishop
of Gaeta, and one Leo Trituru. 118 In the twelfth century, using the
additional name Burdone, we see Constantine as a consul of Gaeta
alongside Mancanella and Castanea family representatives. 119
Other members of the family appear in landowning context.
Leo Gattula was a neighbour of the Baraballus in Palazzo, 120 and in
1099 Docibilis Gattula bought a house site in the castle of
Asprana121 from Crescentius lord of Rocca de Monticelli. 122
Although tenuous, this interest in the extreme west may indicate
the beginnings of the Gattula family's rise to the position of lords of
Sperlonga.
Other members of the clan had interests closer to Gaeta. In 1109
Constantine Gattula son of Christopher disputed and lost land near
to the mills of St George and Maiore, near Mola, to Ursus, the
abbot of St Erasmus at Formia. 123 It is interesting to look at the
background of this case, which was judged at the court of duke
Richard in the presence of Mancanella, Salpa, Baraballu and
Caracci family representatives. Constantine claimed that the land
had been given to his ancestors by the parishioners of St George 'in
the time of duke John I', and showed the charter recording the gift.
Ursus in response produced charters showing how duchess Emilia
115 116
Ibid., p. 96. See above, chapter I, section (c).
117
At least the manuscript was preserved there in 1887; CDC, 1, preface p. xii.
118 119 120
CDC264. CDC 301 (1123), CDC 302 (1124). CDC265.
121
For the location of this castle: V. Bartoloni, 'Indagine preliminare del sito di Asprano',
BISALM, 12 (1987), 174.
122
CDC 274. Monticelli lay on the site of the modern Monte S. Biagio: Amante and
123
Bianchi, Memorie, p. 3. CDC 284.

230
 The emergence of new families
of Gaeta had given the land to Marinus Coronella, who had given
it to his slave Petrocurso, who had subsequently given and sold it to
St Erasmus. In addition, Ursus swore to his case, whilst Constan-
tine was unwilling to do so, and so St Erasmus was adjudged to
own the property.
This case in effect shows up the way in which members of the
newly prominent families at Gaeta were eager to associate
themselves with the older order - the lands around Mola, rather
like those at Planciano bought by the Mancanellas, had strong
Docibilan ducal connections. Whilst the Gattulas mingled freely
with other new families - as well as being neighbours of the
Baraballu clan, Girard Gattula witnessed the division of the
Baraballu lands in 1120124 - they also seem to have tried to 'age'
themselves. This tendency is illustrated perhaps by the occurrence
once again of the name Docibilis in the family, but more
particularly by Constantine's assertion that Gattula claim to the St
George land stretched back 200 years. It is noticeable, though, that
he was not prepared to swear to the veracity of his claim. Another
way of suggesting that the family were more established than they
actually were was the association with older clans. We see evidence
of this in two documents of 1119 and 1125. In the first Maria,
widow of Docibilis Caracci, bought a cellar in Gaeta. In the second
she resold it at a profit.125 Witness to both was Christopher Gattula
son of Docibilis. Since the Caracci by this time could claim to have
the longest family pedigree at Gaeta, the Gattulas perhaps saw
them as useful patrons or associates. The association certainly did
them no harm, as their subsequent history illustrates. Whilst the
Caracci fade from view, Gattula documents dominate the twelfth-
century evidence from Gaeta.
Before examining this evidence in detail, a problem of
identification arises. It is clear as the century progressed that the use
of a surname became acceptable in itself as a means of identifica-
tion, sometimes allied with a secondary surname (Constantine
Burdo or Burdone, mentioned above, is a good example of the
latter). However, whilst the surname became the norm, families
tended to retain the idea of a lead-name as well, Constantine being
the favourite of the Gattulas. The result is that there are several
Constantine Gattulas present in the documents who are difficult to
distinguish from each other, especially when they do not give their

124 125
CDC 295. CDC 292, CDC 309.

231
 The eleventh century and beyond
fathers' names. This causes a problem in trying to follow the careers
of individual members of the family, but the inability to do so may
not be a particular drawback. The power of the Gattulas lay in their
number, and in the fact that they seem to have been represented in
all the important spheres of influence in Gaeta at this time. Acting
as a group, just as earlier the Docibilans or the Kampuli had done,
the Gattulas were able to assert themselves as one of the most
influential families at Gaeta, arguably the most powerful. How is
this reflected in their twelfth-century documents?
One feature of Gattula documents that is immediately apparent
is the number of links the family had with other clans in the city.
We have already seen some evidence of this, but further examples
occur in the later documents. Thus Constantine son of Munda
executed the will of Docibilis Frunzo in 1128 with a member of the
Pizzacademone family. 126 Another Constantine, son of Leo, was
present at the execution of Jacob Maltacia's will inii35. 1 2 7 Inii3i
Constantine son of Constantine co-witnessed a document of a
member of the Mancanella family with a representative of the
Baraballus.128 If we could safely connect this Constantine with the
consul of the same name visible in 1129,129 his appearance as a
witness might be connected with his office. However, the Gattulas
might have had a more personal relationship with both the
Mancanellas and the Baraballus. In a rare dispute between
members of the family in 1132, it was to a Mancanella that they
went to resolve the problem. 130 Later evidence reveals that John
Gattula had been married to one Gemma Baraballu. 131
The consulate was an office which the Gattulas seem to have
been keen to dominate. Given the breadth of action and power that
the Norman sovereigns of Gaeta seem to have allowed the consuls,
this is not surprising. Besides Constantine Burdo (1123/4) a n d
Constantine son of Constantine (1129), another Constantine, son
of Docibilis, held the office in 1134.132
Another position of influence with which the family developed
a close association was the bishopric of Gaeta. Leo son of
Christopher acted as a witness on an episcopal document of 1128,

126 127 128

CDC 314, and see below, p. 236. CDC 328. CDC 321.
^9 CDC 317, CDC 319.
130
CDC 322: Constantine son of Constantine the consul disputed with Christopher,
Girard and Burdo (another Constantine?) sons of Constantine over a shop by the Salini
gate. Another member of the family, Leo son of Christopher, witnessed the settlement.
131 132
CDC 346 (1159); Gemma was by this date widowed. CDC 325.

232
 The emergence of new families
and Matrona the widow of Iaquintus, and Constantine and
Marinus sons of Constantine contributed in 1152 to the cost of
building steps for the bishopric. 133 This interest may be connected
with the Gattulas' property-owning in the city, for the shop by the
Salini gate that had formed the subject of the dispute of 1132 seems
to have lain near the bishopric. It or other shops owned by the
family near the same gate are described as near to the episcopal
building in a later document. 134 The Gattulas seem to have had
several similar properties in the same area. 135
The family continues to be documented at Gaeta throughout the
twelfth century, 136 but it may have been their commercial
activities which lead the Gattulas to look outside the former duchy
for exchanges. Munda, daughter of Christopher Gattula, is
mentioned in 1175 as about to marry in Rome. 137 In the same
decade, Gattulas begin to appear in some numbers in Amalfitan
documents,138 and here a far stronger case can be made for their
involvement in commerce.

(b) A NEW ELITE: DEFINING FEATURES

I have discussed above different families, with different names and

different economic interests, but it is striking how similar many of
the histories sound. The adoption of surnames is a similarity
between these clans in itself, and will be discussed presently. Also,
most of the families can be shown to have had only limited
amounts of land, concentrated in particular districts. Of course, the
133 134
CDC 313, CDC 341. CDC 360 (1182).
135
Later evidence of such ownership includes CDC 358(1179): Marucza de Arcia w i d o w
of John Gattula, and Constantine Gattula her son promise not to claim a shop owned by
Richard Burdo, their relative. Further family interest is indicated by the presence of
Christopher de Thoma, another Gattula, as a witness; CDC 360 (1182): Ugotonis
Gattula son of Marini and Marenda his wife offer their shop near the bishopric near
Salini gate to Montecassino. His cousins, the heirs of Iaquintus his uncle, o w n a shop
nearby. Again a family member, Constantine son of John, witnesses the document.
136
CDC 324 (1132) Christopher owns land at Vendici (boundary); CDC 327 (1135)
Constantine son of Constantine the consul features; CDC 347 (1166) John Dallacerca
son ofLittefrid Gattula judges a dispute; CDC 348 (1167) and CDC 354 (1175) Tomaula
wife of Christopher gives property to her sons and then to her husband; CDC 359
(1180) Marinus son of Christopher gives land to St Maria Casaregula; CDC 365 (1197)
Marocta is abbess of St Maria and Gregory son of Adenulf witnesses her document.
137
CDC 3 54; this marriage may have nothing to do with commercial ties, but it does at the
very least illustrate that the Gattulas had established links there.
138
Gattulas in Amalfi: CDA 182 (1172), CDA 194 (1177), CDA 196, CDA 203, CD A 215,
CD A 216, CP 158 (1176), CP175 (1184), PAVAR1/54, PAVAR1/63, PAVAR1/64. See
below, chapter 7.

233
 The eleventh century and beyond
phenomenon of the smaller landowner was nothing new at Gaeta;
about a sixth of the Gaetan documents record modest landowners
who may only appear once, and who cannot be related by
transaction or birth to any well-known place or person.
Bearing in mind that the new families of the eleventh century
could have owned far more land than our documentation reveals,
the evidence available shows one major difference between these
families and earlier 'small' landowners. That is that most of the new
clans played an active role in the public life of Gaeta, either being
present at the courts of post-Docibilan dukes or, after 1123,
appearing as consuls. How had these men risen from their humble
origins to achieve the status of representatives of the Gaetan
people?
It became apparent from the story of the landowning nobility of
Gaeta in the tenth century that noble birth usually conferred a
position of prominence and aristocratic status, but that the
aristocracy was not merely confined to those of noble birth. The
rise of the Docibilans to the summit of power illustrates that wealth
could sometimes compensate for lack of birth. However, it is also
clear that they tried to establish marital links with the older nobility
to disguise their origins still further, and ultimately these shaky
foundations of their power crumbled beneath them.
The position of the new families of the eleventh century was a
similar one; they had no noble ancestry to call upon, and their
efforts to associate themselves with the remnants of the Docibilan
nobility indicate that they were well aware of the fact. Did these
links with the old order, however tenuous, help the rise of the new
families? Probably not: by the time we see them buying up land
and rubbing shoulders with the Kampuli and Caracci, they had
already reached a certain status. They had done this through the
liquidity of their wealth. Most of the families seem to have had
commercial interests, and they used the profits shrewdly. The
prime case is the overt buying of the bishopric at Gaeta in 1049, in
outright defiance of the anti-simoniacal rumblings emanating
from Rome at this time, by Stephen de Arciu and Gregory
Coronella. Other transactions of the eleventh century, however,
suggest that if the papal disapproval of simony was largely ignored
at Gaeta, the new families did begin to heed warnings about
proprietary churches. The Caracci received St Gregory from the
Kampuli in 1020, and the social prestige attached to church
ownership seems also to have been realised by the Cotina family,
234
 The emergence of new families
whose foundation of St Mary at Gruttelle is recorded in 1064. In
that year, however, John son of Nicephorus Cotina is seen
relinquishing control of the church of St Erasmus at Formia. 139
Boyd notes a trend in the eleventh century for Italian families to
begin releasing their churches from family control, 140 and her
evidence from northern Italy is mirrored by examples from Gaeta.
As early as 1025 a consortium relinquished its share of the income
of St Peter's in Scauri,141 and in 1061 one Bonushomo son of
Marinus freed his family's church of St Augustine at Vivano. 142 He
did, however, make the proviso that the church was to take no
other patron. Clearly if his family (who are unknown to us) could
not enjoy the prestige of ownership of St Augustine's, no other
family was going to either.

(c) SURNAMES

If the new families of Gaeta could express their identity through

wealth, some landowning and positions of political power, what
function did their surnames perform? Elsewhere, surnames were
usually derived from a prominent ancestor (as I have created the
surnames Kampuli or Christopherii) or from the place where the
family lived or had large landholdings. Such a 'residence' surname
is unknown at Gaeta. The surnames of the new elite at Gaeta did
not fit in with these characteristics at all. Why should this be?
The first reason is that such surnames denoted landed wealth or
noble birth, and very few of the new men, when they emerge with
surnames, had either, relying instead more on liquid wealth. Their
names were a peculiar mixture of meaningless words and words
which derived from often colourful nicknames, neither conferring
status on their bearers, nor denoting descent from a noble ancestor
or ownership of land. So why did they use them at all?
The answer may lie in the occupation of these families. Most
were engaged in some kind of commercial activity. Also it is a fact
that a very small pool of personal names was used at Gaeta; a large
proportion of the male population bore the names John, Leo,
Gregory and, in the eleventh century especially, Docibilis. The
essential need in a commercial transaction, particularly if it was
going to be written down, was surely to be easily identifiable - to
139
CDC 225.
140
C. E. Boyd, Tithes and Parishes in Medieval Italy (New York, 1952), p. 125.
141 142
CDC 147. CDC 212.

235
 The eleventh century and beyond
call oneself John son of Leo was not sufficient.143 This may account
for the unusual, but memorable, surnames being used by the newly
prominent men of Gaeta. As we have seen, similar names of
identification can be found among the Amalfitans and Neapoli-
tans, although the former also solved the problem of identification
by resorting to lengthy, confusing and instantly forgettable lists of
their ancestors. A second reason may be that, faced with the in-
coming foreigners taking up estates and positions as a new nobility,
the names of the Gaetans were adopted almost as a reaction to the
Norman Ridells, Hautevilles, or Blossevilles, to put the administra-
tors of Gaeta almost on an equal footing with the retinue of their
new rulers.
A notable example of this phenomenon involves one line of the
former counts of Suio who, deprived of that position, appear in the
late eleventh and early twelfth century as a surnamed family, the
Pizzacademoni. After they lost the county, the family seem to have
moved to Gaeta and are seen acting very similarly to the other
'new' families there. Thus the first document to mention them
overtly under their new identification shows Docibilis Pizzacade-
mone (note the continuation of their ancestor's lead-name) as the
owner of a medialoca or warehouse in Gaeta in 1119.144 However,
not all of the former comital family was content to make a new life
and identity, as the witnessing of 'Raynerius son of Raynerius
count of Suio' (the latter having been named as one of those
deposed in 1078) to a document of the Conjulo family in 1125
attests.145 The Pizzacademone name seems to be associated with
the line of Docibilis, son of duke Leo II of Gaeta, a generation after
Docibilis' sons Leo and Landolf are documented marrying into the
Cotina family. The document of 1119 shows that Docibilis
Pizzacademone's medialoca lay above Leo Cotina's cellar in Gaeta.
Once established in the city, the family forged links with other
clans. In 1128 Docibilis and his brother Atenolf were among the
executors of Docibilis Frunzo's will, together with individuals
from the Gattula and Pedeacetu families.146 In 1157 Docibilis' son
Landolf is documented as the judge of a dispute at which a Maltacia
acted as advocate for one of the disputants and where a Baraballu
and a Cotina were witnesses. Finally in 1159 Atenolf s son Alberic
co-witnessed a Baraballu document with another Pedeacetu. 147
143
Although the further a man was from h o m e the m o r e likely it was that the use of
'Gaetanus' or 'de Gaeta' w o u l d be sufficient identification.
144
CDC 292. i 4 * CDC 307. 146
CDC 314. 147
C D C 346.

236
 The emergence of new families
Certainly, in the attempts to associate themselves with older
forms of nobility and status at Gaeta there seems to have been a
collective consciousness on the part of the new families of
preserving their Gaetan identity in the face of the Norman
takeover. That many of the families survived as nobles of Gaeta
into the sixteenth century, to be listed alongside a new influx of
foreigners, the Spanish, is testament to the success of their attempts.

(d) NEW FAMILIES: SPHERES OF INTERACTION

Although hampered somewhat by the less than consistent

availability of evidence for the period iooo to 1139, it is possible not
only to build up a picture of the individual families who emerged at
Gaeta during this period, but also to try to reconstruct some of the
political and economic groupings that occurred between them. In
the twelfth century especially, when some families achieved
commercial prominence and the position of consuls of Gaeta,
relationships are clearly traceable. This is hardly surprising in a city
which remained small, and whose nobility saw urban residence as
essential (the tower-house mentioned earlier is the most overt
evidence of this). In the twelfth century we see at least three
examples of intermarriage between the clans, with Maria Maulotta
marrying a de Arciu, Munda Castanea being the wife of
Christopher Gattula in 1132, Gemma Baraballu the widow of John
Gattula in 1159 and Marocza de Arciu marrying and being a
widow of John Gattula in 1179. That many should involve the
Gattula family is not surprising. Although the clan emerged
relatively late in the eleventh-century political life of Gaeta, it
swiftly gained a strong and permanent position in the city's life,
and is ever-present in the documentation from the city in the
twelfth century. It is notable that in all of the marriages, despite the
fact that the woman in each remained identified by her surname,
her offspring took the name of their father. Thus we hear nothing
more of the Maulottas after they married into the de Arcius, and
many of the 'Gattulas' we meet in the twelfth century may well be
the last surviving members of other families who had become
integrated into the Gattula clan.
If we examine the histories of the families a little further into the
twelfth century, the complete disappearance from the documents
of a large number of families in the 1130s and 1140s becomes
apparent. This cannot but be related to the change in the nature of
237
 The eleventh century and beyond
Norman rule at about this time, discussed in the previous chapter. I
argued there that the rule of the consuls, the identity in which
many of the prominent families appear in the twelfth century, only
lasted as long as the Capuan supremacy over Gaeta, when the
princes of Capua were too concerned with their continuing
struggles nearer home to worry too much about what was going
on in the smaller city. The fact that many of the families who
benefited from this laissez-faire approach to the government of
Gaeta disappear after 1140 only serves to reinforce the impression
of a new regime sweeping in with a different attitude towards the
rule of its subjects. Some were able to come to an arrangement with
the Norman king and his nominees, and continued to play
important roles in the life of the city; others simply fade from view.
How did developments in Gaeta compare with those in the
surrounding area? The following section provides some local
context for the trends discussed in this and the previous chapter.

(e) ELEVENTH-CENTURY FAMILIES IN NAPLES AND

AMALFI

(i) Naples
In Gaeta, the advent of the surnamed families in the late tenth
century signalled a threat to the older established nobility.
Eventually the latter were eclipsed as the new clans took advantage
of the instability of rule at Gaeta to build up their own positions in
the eleventh century and on into the twelfth. In Naples, too, we
have surnamed families, too numerous to list. Far from replacing
the nobles, they emerged at the same time in the documentation,
that is, in the 930s. Like the Gaetans, the Neapolitan surnamed
families appear to have been fairly localised in their landown-
ing. 148 Although the surnamed families here seem to have been
more securely land-based than at Gaeta, there are one or two slight
indications that commercial exchanges took place. For example,
we see in 959 that Sergius Pictuli son of John was obliged to
transport the wine produced on his leased vineyard by sea. 149
Where he had to take it is unclear, but it illustrates that he had access
to shipping.
148
T h e Millusi family, (RN 79, RN 289), of w h o m m o r e in a m o m e n t , the Bulcani family
(RN 289), the de Piperas (RN 312, RN 427, RN 470), all exhibit this pattern.
149
RN 104.

238
 The emergence of new families
The need for definite identification in commercial contracts was
proposed as a reason for the use of surnames at Gaeta. Although
commerce does not seem to have played such a great part in the
lives of the Neapolitans, the need for identification remained. The
territory itself, was larger and the choice of Christian names was
even more limited. A survey of named individuals in Naples to
1050 reveals a total ofjust under 2,900 men and women. Of these,
about 500 were women, almost half of whom were named Maria
or its variant, Maru. Of the c.2,400 men, a quarter were named
John, 272 Peter, 237 Stephen, 229 Gregory, 216 Sergius and 160
Leo. Or, to put it another way, three-quarters of the Neapolitan
male population was named one of these six names. This is only a
rough indication of the problem, however; the limited pool of
names, many without surnames in the documents, makes secure
identification of each individual for the purposes of listing well-
nigh impossible. Being a larger area and more populous, and with
such a limited pool of names, the need for identification in the
duchy of Naples emerged earlier than in Gaeta.
With the small amount of Neapolitan ducal evidence available
to us, it is difficult to see whether the surnamed families became
part of the nobility of Naples. I suggested in an earlier chapter that
many of them, such as the Isauri and Ipati families, were probably
recognised as nobles of the city: the appearance of a count among
the ranks of the Millusi in 1036 supports this view. 150 As at Gaeta,
more links may have occurred between individual families than are
now visible.151 The artisan families of the city, however, seem not
to have mixed very much with those of a higher social status. One
identifiable group, the smiths, seem to have concentrated their
activities in one street in the city and to have intermarried
gradually, creating a clan centred around a profession.152 Their
insularity suggests that there was very little opportunity for social
mobility in Naples. This must be largely due to the fact that apart
from a brief hiatus around 1029, when we find duke Sergius of
Naples taking refuge at Gaeta having been ousted from power by
the aggressive Capuan Pandolf,153 the Neapolitan duchy was
150
RN 458.
151
For example the double surnames of Gregory Cutina son of John de Pipera (RN 470),
John Miscino son of Romani Pappadeum (RN 428) and Sergius Pictulo son of John
Pappadeum (RN 428) suggest a great deal of intermarriage, and the appearance of
Gemma daughter of Stephen Pappadeum and wife of Stephen Cannabari (RN 218)
152
illustrates it. For more on the smiths, see Skinner, 'Urban communities'.
153
CDC 156.

239
 The eleventh century and beyond
politically very stable. The rule of its dukes was continuous up until
the 1130s, when the Normans finally conquered the city, and so the
power vacuum which contributed to the rise of the new aristocrats
at Gaeta never occurred in the larger city.

(ii) Amalji
In Amalfi, too, the distinction between the nobility and the group
of surnamed families was not always clear cut. It is true that the
former group, distinguished by their ties of descent to a comital
ancestor, provided witnesses for the dukes more frequently than
the latter. 154 If landowning patterns were the only criteria,
however, little would distinguish the nobility from the surnamed
families of Amalfi. Both owned land in localised areas, as we have
seen in a previous chapter, and the nobility took on surnames as an
additional means of identification in their unwieldy name strings.
One family which did this, the Monteincolli, continues to
feature in Amalfitan documents of the eleventh and twelfth
centuries. They appear to have remained close to their landed base
in Ponte Primaro, as the heirs of Mauro 'Monsincollu' feature in a
boundary clause there in 1126.155 Their neighbours were the
Benusi family, and in 1122 John Benuso and his wife sold a
vineyard in the same place to one Sergius son of Urso Campanella
and Itta, his wife. 156 From later evidence it is possible to identify
Itta as a member of the Monteincollo clan. 157 Her will, executed in
1146, reveals that both Sergius and her daughter Gaitelgrima had
predeceased her: her son-in-law Constantine was one of her
executors. In that year her entire bequest at Ponte Primaro, which
she and Sergius had received as dowry from her mother Sikelgaita,
was sold off, and the 210 solidi raised donated for her soul. 158 It may
be because of Gaitelgrima's premature death that the Monteincolli
disappear from the Amalfitan documents at this point. The
possibility that they may have become Campanellas on Itta's
marriage (assuming that she was the only surviving member of the
family at this time) does not find support in the written records.
154
For example Leo, a member of the Scaticampuli family, witnessed for duchess Regalis in
986 (CodCav II/386). A member of count Sergius' family, Sergius de Lupo, witnessed
the same document. His brother Constantine witnessed for duke Manso in 988 (CDA
588) and 1004 (CDA 18). The latter document also features Sergius Ferafalcone.
155 156 157
CDA 128. CP 107. See above, Figure 4.5.
158
CDA 150; the purchasers of the land, Manso son of J o h n Capuani and Anna his wife,
later gave the land to the convent of St Laurence: CP 137 (1153).

24O
 The emergence of new families
Another noble, surnamed family were the Ferafalconi, whose
switch to that surname was discussed in chapter 4. They feature in
documents of the early twelfth century, but seem to have
disappeared by 1120.159 Sergius son of Gregory, who featured
with his brother Pantaleo in documents of 1062 and 1089,160 and
witnessed a sale of 1100,161 had died by 1102. In the latter year, his
widow Maru sold land in Reginna Maiore to her brother-in-law,
Pantaleo. She acted on behalf of her son Lupinus, whom she stated
was away at the time of the transaction. 162 It is easier to trace and
recreate the Ferafalcone genealogy in the twelfth century than the
eleventh, for Pantaleo and his children were much more conscious
of their origins than were previous members of the family.
Pantaleo named his son and daughter Gregory and Marenda, after
his parents' names. Although it is less apparent than at Gaeta, the
use of lead names is certainly discernible among Amalfitan families,
and would reward further investigation. The most interesting
feature of the documents of Gregory and Marenda, however, is
that they reverted to the use of long name-chains, and thus allow us
to trace their descent from the ancestor of the Ferafalcone clan,
count Leo. 163 It is likely that this reversion was prompted by the
instability caused by the Norman takeover of the duchy, causing
people to define their status vis-a-vis the newcomers. If this was so,
it does not seem to have had the effect of securing the family's
position. In 1115 Gregory and Marenda sold all their inherited land
in Reginna Maiore to one Mastalus Pizzillo. 164 They are recorded
in 1118 as having sold another piece to Ursus Falangula, who
subsequently also sold it to Mastalus.165 It looks as if the Ferafalconi
were under pressure from another family in their favoured area

159 CP 92 (1100): Sergius Ferafalcone; CD A 101 (1102): Maru daughter of Lupini Scirice,
w i d o w of Sergius son of Gregory Ferafalcone, and Pantaleo her brother-in-law; C P 98
(1115): Gregory and Marenda son and daughter of Pantaleo de Gregory de Sergio de
Urso de Leo count Ferafalcone; CP 102 (1118): Gregory son of Pantaleo (as 1115).
160 161 162
CP 76, CP 84. CP 92. CDA I O I . _
163 cp ^g. Gregory and Marenda, son and daughter of Pantaleo de Gregory de Sergio de
Urso de Leo count Ferafalcone. However, the date of this document, 1115, suggests that
they may have omitted two or even three generations of the family (working on del
Treppo and Leone's calculation of thirty years per generation) in order to link
themselves with count Leo, w h o is documented in 922 (CDA 2). A further problem
arises on reading the document, for they sell land which was bought by their father from
Maru, his sister-in-law, w i d o w of Sergius son of Sergius their grandfather (sic). This reveals
a misreading in this document, for other evidence strongly suggests that Maru's
husband and Pantaleo's brother was Gregory, not Sergius. The two names are easily
confused in script form, but such errors illustrate the care needed to establish accurate
164 165
genealogical lists. CP 98. CP 102.

241
 The eleventh century and beyond
around Maiori. Their disappearance after this date supports that
view.
The Rogadeum clan owned land in Ircli, but lived in Ravello,
where a member of the family became bishop. 166 However, the
family appears to have suffered some disruption to their fortunes in
the unstable conditions of the early twelfth century. Although
plenty of documentary material survives from the diocesan archive
from the period, they do not appear between noo and 1172.
Thereafter they once again feature prominently in the charter
material.167
The Iactabecte family appear to have weathered the storms of
the Norman takeover, only to disappear in the late 1120s.168 In
their period of prominence, however, one of their number, John,
had achieved the post of judge in the city, which carried its own
prestige.

(f) GAETA IN CONTEXT: POINTS OF COMPARISON

What do the documents from Naples and Amalfi demonstrate?

The first point to make is how different the development of the
political and social pattern of each was from that of Gaeta.
Neapolitan society seems to have been somewhat static; the
documents of Amalfi and Gaeta reveal far more social mobility. I
think there must be at least some link between this and the fact that
the latter two cities suffered more upheaval as far as the rule of their
dukes was concerned, particularly during the mid-eleventh
century. 169 At Gaeta the effect was to allow new families into the
aristocracy, whilst at Amalfi there were many families competing
for land and position. The result in the latter city is that it is difficult

166
For early references to the family, see above, chapter 4, note 107; Constantine son of Leo
Rogadeum, bishop of Ravello: CD A 98.
167 pAVAR 11/73 (1170): Urso son of Leo de Mauro; PAVAR 11/75 (1172): his sons Leo and
John 'de Urso de Leo de Monso Rogadeo' (this name-chain at least proves that the
family had an idea of its continuity, even if the documents do not reflect it); PA VAR 11/
102 (1186): Landulf son of Mauri Rogadei; PAVAR 11/109 (1188): Leo son of Urso
Rogadio; PAVAR 1/67 (1193): Rogadio; PAVAR 11/116 (1195): Urso son of Mauro
Rogadeo. All of these documents reveal that the family continued to base their activities
in Ravello.
168 Qp I 0 ^ ( I I 2 o ) : Maria daughter of John de Constantine de count Marinus, widow of
Sergius son of John judge Iactabecte; CP 109 (1124): land recorded as having been
bought from Sirgia and Gemma daughters of Gregory Iactabecte; CD A 126(2) (1125):
Pantaleo son of John judge Iactabecte.
169
See above, chapter 2, and chapter 5, section (a).

242
 The emergence of new families
to trace many families over more than three or four generations, or
that the histories we can trace exhibit breaks, such as that seen in the
case of the Rogadeum family. These could be interpreted perhaps
as periods of political exile. (The city-states of northern Italy
frequently used this method to curb the ambitions of their
prominent families; the presence of Norman sovereignty in the
South does not preclude the possibility that such a sanction was
available to the citizens of individual cities. 170) Unlike Gaeta, a
communal-type internal structure does not appear to have
developed at Amalfi, making the development in Gaeta even more
interesting. It is clear, though, that some families were able to
maintain their position as landowners over a long period. They did
so by concentrating their holdings into one specific area. This
mirrors Gaetan evidence, where the localised new aristocratic
families were able to displace the nobility. The latter's widespread
estates were no help to them when the lands lay in separate political
jurisdictions.
In making this point, we return to a constant factor in the lives of
aristocrats and noblemen, their role as landowners in the Tyrrhe-
nian world. How could land be exploited to produce political
power? And why did some of the wealthiest landowners not
survive into the twelfth century?
170
On this phenomenon in the northern cities, see D. Waley, The Italian City-Republics
(3rd edn., Harlow, 1988), p. 1546°.

243
 Part III

THE ECONOMICS OF POWER

 Chapter 7

LANDOWNERS AND EXCHANGES IN THE

TYRRHENIAN

So far this study has focused on the political life of the three ex-
Byzantine duchies of the Tyrrhenian, but in the narrative it has
become apparent that landed wealth and commercial exchange
may have been crucial to individual and family power. This and
the following chapter explore the economic life of the area in a
little more detail. Firstly, the local and landed bases of wealth will
be examined, and then the picture will be widened outside the
immediate area of the Campanian and Latin coast to investigate the
evidence for the effects of long-distance trade connections on the
political life of the duchies.

(a) GAETA

The natural features of the territory of Gaeta clearly dictated the

economic life of the duchy and shaped its political history. At its
widest extent, the duchy of Gaeta spread from Terracina to the
Garigliano river, and inland as far as Valledecursa (Vallecorsa) and
Fratte (Ausonia).1
At their highest the mountains rise to some 1500m. At its lowest
the plain is several metres below sea-level. In some places one gives
way to the other so suddenly that the sheer scarps formed have still
not been tamed for agricultural use. Nor has it been necessary to do
so, for since the nineteenth century a programme of drainage has
opened up large areas of the flat land to the type of intensive
cultivation seen also in the English fenlands.
The rivers of the duchy present a contrast too. Those rising in the
mountains behind Gaeta and Formia flow swiftly down steep
inclines and disgorge into the sea in some cases only a few
kilometres from their source, whilst the main river of the duchy,

1
AH placenames used are those in the medieval documents. Where there is a modern
equivalent it follows in brackets.

247
 The economics of power
the Garigliano, meanders slowly across its plain, fed by other
rivers, before finally reaching the sea.
This dichotomy between mountain and plain is one key to
understanding the territorial ambitions of the dukes of Gaeta as
manifested in the documentary evidence, and their subsequent
successes and failures. For the Aurunci mountains split the duchy
into three distinct areas: the plain of Fondi and Terracina, the
central highlands around Gaeta and the plain of the Garigliano to
the east.
The plain of Fondi was once much wetter than it is now. It is no
accident that the Via Appia, which crossed the Pontine Marshes
further north, skirted around those of Fondi, and is still recorded as
having been flooded during the late Roman period. 2 We have no
references to the Lago di Fondi during our period, but its greater
extent would provide some explanation for the total lack of
documented medieval placenames in the centre of the plain today.
All the habitation centres recorded in our period were located on its
edges, either in the lower, fertile hill slopes, as in the case of the
town of Fondi itself and the estates called Portelle, Raviniano,
Flexu and Vetera; or on the coast, for example Sperlonga and
Terracina. The coastal area does not seem to have been as
waterlogged as the interior. Another Roman road, the Via Flacca,
ran along the coast and passed the monastery of St Anastasia3
midway between Sperlonga and Terracina.
The Gaetan documents are singularly unhelpful when it comes
to describing how the lands of Fondi were exploited. This is partly
due to a comparative lack of Fonditan material, but also to the lack
of lease documents in the entire Codex Cajetanus. These are the
documents which would have been most useful in a discussion of
land use, specifying, as they frequently do, rent as a fraction of the
crops.
Although much changed from its medieval state, some aspects of
the landscape of the plain of Fondi remain largely unaltered. The
two main communication routes through the plain still follow the
lines of the old Roman roads, and, despite the arrival of intensive
soft fruit cultivation on the fertile, drained land, the agricultural
exploitation of the peripheral areas perhaps follows older patterns.
For example, olive trees grow along the Via Appia between
2
M.-R. de la Blanchere, Terracine: essai de Histoire Locale (Paris, 1884), p. 184, reports an
inscription of king Theoderic recording his work to de-flood the road.
3
CDC 248.

248
 Landowners and exchanges in the Tyrrhenian
Terracina and Fondi, and the Via Flacca, with cereals, vines near
Lago Lungo and reeds. The latter crop was as important in
medieval households as food crops, being used for a variety of
domestic purposes including lighting. Contemporary evidence
from Amalfi shows that reeds were deliberately cultivated there, 4
and it is likely that the Fonditans exploited the marshland in the
same way. We have seen that lake Lungo was a valuable resource to
the dukes of Gaeta, who obtained fish as rent from its tenants.5 The
larger Lago di Fondi may also have been exploited; the name of the
later Torre di Pesce on its shores about two kilometres outside
Terracina suggests that recognised fisheries were known in the
area.
To add a little to our picture of the land use on the plain we are
fortunate to have three documents from Terracina.6 Two are
transactions in marshland outside the city, one a sale dated 1011, the
other a gift of ? 1042, from which fish and eels could be caught. The
third is a lease dated 1092 of arable land, 'at Lianum outside the city'
(probably the foothills of Mt Leano), made by Peter, bishop of
Terracina, to Rico son of John. Rico and three generations of his
heirs were ordered to improve the land, growing grain, but paying
a rent in cash. This perhaps illustrates the uncertainty of revenue
from land which, to judge from the length of the lease, was going
to take a long time to bring up to its full potential. An unpublished
document from Terracina surviving in the archives of Montecas-
sino seems to confirm that land near the city needed much care to
bring it into production. In ?gij John, the abbot of St Stephen
there leased land to be improved with vines to one Lea and Stephen
the priest for three generations, again at a cash rent. 7
The plain of Fondi was linked to the central area around Gaeta
by the Via Appia, running through the foothills of the Aurunci
mountain range near Itri, then descending to emerge on the coast at
Formia, and the Via Flacca, which folio wed a cliff-top route along
the coast from Sperlonga and then cut through the Valle Helena.
The hills between these two roads are rolling and hospitable. The
Flacca's cliff-top route is interrupted at intervals by small caves
where streams rising in the hills reach the sea. Further east the

4 5
Skinner, Mobility, p. 42. CDC 55; see above, chapter 3.
6
Giorgi/Documenti', 80, 82, 84.
7
Montecassino, Archivio, Aula 11, Caps, LIII, fasc. 1, no.i. Vines were also grown at
Pallari (unknown), as another document of 973 from the same archive illustrates:
no. 3.

249
 The economics of power
Gaetan peninsula and hinterland are made up of limestone and have
no rivers, but modern military maps show many perennial wells
and springs.8 There is no reason to suppose that these did not exist
in medieval times, making the settlement of these areas possible. It
is at Formia that the character of the central highlands changes.
Foothills give way to steep mountain slopes, rising behind the city
and continuing southwards. Forcing the road and most human
habitation into a narrow strip of coast which only widens at Scauri,
the scarp then turns inland, forming a steep western edge to the
Ausente valley as far as Silbakaba (Selvacava). This mass effectively
creates a barrier between the eastern and western parts of the
duchy. No roads run across it, and the major communication line is
still the Via Appia. Much of this mountainous area was, and still is,
barren, infertile scrubland, but the documentary evidence shows us
that those areas below 300 metres in height were intensively
cultivated during the Middle Ages, particularly along the coast and
up the Itri valley. In the west, we know that the coastline between
Sperlonga and Gaeta was dotted with vineyards.9 We find some
more vines above Mola at Saraquiano (unidentified), at Mola itself
(Formia, suburb),and further east on the widening coastal plain at
Fontanulo (near Castellonorato).10
Although there was other vegetation present, 11 the evidence
from the documents points to an almost exclusive cultivation of
vines. No grain is recorded, which is striking given the number of
mills recorded in the same area.
The tight control exercised over the milling facilities in the
duchy has already been discussed.12 The question must now be
raised as to the source of the grain processed by the mills of the
central area of Gaeta's territory. In the absence of evidence of
cultivation in the central area, we must examine the eastern part of
the duchy; to transport it from here to the Formian mills would
have been considerably easier than transporting any grain from the
Fonditan plain.
The eastern part of the duchy of Gaeta is dominated by two great
river systems, the Ausente and the Garigliano. The Ausente cuts
8
Istituto Geografico Militare, Carta d''Italia, 1:25,000, F.171 iv SO.
9
At Sperlonga: CDC 154, CDC 228; Vivano: CDC 19, CDC 228; Serapiano: CDC 52;
Casa Regula: CDC 272, CDC 294; Mt Conca: CDC 234; and Ciceriniano: CDC 52.
10
Saraquiano: CDC 31; Mola: CDC 221; Fontanulo: CDC 208.
11
We have frequent references in this area to woodland, for example, at Sperlonga,
Paniano, Cirasa and Maranola: CDC 1, CDC 15, CDC 137, CDC 175.
12
See above, chapter 3, section (a).

25O
 Landowners and exchanges in the Tyrrhenian
past the eastern flank of the Aurunci, forming a valley up which the
Via Ercolana wends its way to Cassino. It flows into the Garigliano
about i^ kilometres from the sea, and together the rivers form a
flat, marshy estuary.
The Garigliano is formed by the joining of the Gari and Liri
rivers near Montecassino, and descends through the ever-widening
valley towards its confluence with the Ausente. On its way it is fed
by at least ten minor rivers. Small wonder then that this area was
known in medieval times by the name Flumetica, whose sense is
roughly 'river-land'. The Ausente, itself no minor stream, was in
comparison to the Garigliano sometimes called Flumicellum, or
'little river'. Often the additional name Frigido was used of it, a
description echoed by the nineteenth century traveller Keppel
Craven when he recorded that the Ausente was 'of such icy
coldness, that it was impossible to keep the hand in it for more than
half a minute'. 13 Doubtless if he had put his hand into other rivers
and streams he would have achieved much the same result, but it is
possible that he was testing the aptness of a local name for the river
which had persisted since medieval times.
Unlike the marshy plain of Fondi, the river valleys and coastal
land from Scauri to the Garigliano were heavily cultivated. There
are signs today of some drainage channels on the low-lying
coastline between Scauri and Castro Argento but the area's
apparent tendency to wetness does not seem to have deterred its
medieval cultivators, who grew vines and grain, tended woodland
and built mills on the Caput Aqua river. 14
This picture of mixed land use was repeated up the intensively
farmed Garigliano valley, with grain and vines being grown in an
apparently random pattern. Again there was woodland, and one
mill is recorded on the river. 15
We are slightly less well furnished with information about the
Ausente valley. Again one mill is recorded, although both the
Ausente and the Garigliano must have had more. At Cocciaria
(Cozara) we have evidence of grain cultivation and the rearing of
pigs.16 Further up the valley, woodland and vines covered the
more hilly terrain.17
The eastern area of the duchy was thus considerably different in
character from the central highlands. Whereas the latter grew only
13
K. R. Craven, Excursions in the Abruzzi (London, 1838), p. 70.
14 15 16
CDC 138, CDC 146. CDC 96. CDC 10.
17
CDC 125, CDC 188.

251
 The economics of power
vines, as far as we can see, Flumetica was an area of mixed, and
possibly deliberately integrated, cultivation. The grain fields were
never far from a mill; but if, as is most probably the case, the mills
of the Ausente and Garigliano could grind the grain from the
surrounding district (an assumption which depends greatly on two
unknown factors — how much grain was produced and the capacity
of the mills to grind it), there was no reason to transport it to the
mills of Mola and Pontone near Formia and Gaeta. What then did
these latter mills grind? Either we must reappraise our view of what
was grown in the central highlands, and hypothesise that grain was
cultivated there which does not appear in our documentation, or
we must conclude that Gaeta had to import some of its grain. The
latter seems more likely, and the problem will be discussed
presently.
Whether Flumetica can be regarded as the granary of the duchy
or not, it is clear that the land here was regarded as economically
important by the Gaetans. The Docibilan family, which provided
the rulers of the duchy for over a century, and other major families
of Gaeta all owned land here. Flumetica was also valued by the
Capuans, with whose state the Garigliano formed a loose border.
Capuan encroachment in the area was part of the process which led
to the fall of the Docibilans from Gaetan rulership.
Could control of much of the land where food was grown and a
monopoly of the milling facilities of the area explain the Docibilan
supremacy for over a century and a half? Was enough food grown
in the duchy to support its people? We have little idea ofjust how
many people lived in the duchy - an attempt to show at least a
distribution of its population follows in the next section. But there
can be no doubt that the holding by one family of large areas of
Flumetica may have reinforced its political power.

(b) PRODUCERS AND CONSUMERS IN GAETA

This picture of the landed resources of the duchy of Gaeta gives us
some idea of what was grown, but who was responsible for the
actual work of cultivation? Was the resultant produce sufficient to
feed the inhabitants of the duchy?
One obstacle to producing a satisfactory answer to the first
question is the comparative lack of leases to cultivators in the Codex
Cajetanus. Of over 300 documents from the ninth century to the
twelfth, less than 20 are leases. This total is cut when we exclude
252
 Landowners and exchanges in the Tyrrhenian
those leases that were clearly not made to the eventual cultivators
of the land, or were made against a cash rent, leaving the identity of
the cultivator open. This leaves us with just 7 leases to consider. The
identity of the lessors suggests very strongly that in Gaeta at least
only the church used written lease agreements.
A clue as to why we have so few Gaetan leases emerges if we look
at the length of the tenancies recorded. Most span at least two
generations, and Merores suggests that written renewals to each
generation were thought unnecessary.18 This would indicate a
very static land lease market at Gaeta, with the same families
holding pieces of land over many generations, which may reflect
the relative stability of Gaetan political life. If the same noble
families owned land over several generations, there would be little
reason for them to seek new tenants for their lands, assuming the
existing holders had children willing to take over the lease.
The wide distribution of the dating of the seven surviving lease
documents allows us to postulate that free cultivators formed a part
of Gaetan society throughout our period. Their obligation to their
landlords extended only to producing the required rent; they did
not have to remain on the land for the full lease period, but the
lessors guaranteed a secure tenancy. Rents varied enormously;
perhaps the most interesting is the very high amount of grain
demanded from Merco son of Andrea when he was given control
of a mill.19 This clearly reflects its elevated value, thrown into relief
by the fact that only a fifth of the rental amount for the mill was
demanded for the land leased along with it.
If most lease agreements in the tenth- and eleventh-century
Gaeta were made orally in the presence of witnesses, we cannot
now assess what proportion of cultivators in the duchy were free
tenants. That bishop Bernard could specify the terms of a lease of
1047 as 'the usual rent' suggests that leases were very common and
fairly uniform in their terms. 20
There is some evidence, however, to suggest that not all
cultivators were free. We would not expect unfree tenants to be
able to make documents themselves, but in 906 Docibilis I freed a
number of slaves in his will, among whom were Leo the
vicedominus or farm manager, Petrulus the miller and Lupulus the
swineherd. He endowed them with land or livestock, but it is likely
that they remained as free workers on his lands. 21 Almost fifty
18 19 20 21
Gaeta, p. 92. CDC 96 (997). CDC 181. CDC 19.

253
 The economics of power
years later his grandson, Docibilis II, freed over thirty more slaves in
his will, including a swineherd, pack-horse handlers, a groom and a
herdsman.22 More revealing still is the fact that many of the slaves'
names were followed by their place of residence. The widespread
distribution of these, mirroring the locations of the Docibilans'
property, suggests that the family preferred to use unfree labour, at
least in specialist functions, and perhaps also to cultivate their lands.
This is not to say that all the Docibilans' workers were unfree; they
may well have leased out some of their land in verbal transactions.
Or, if Merores' theory is correct, the relative stability of the ducal
lands over a long period might have rendered written leases
unnecessary as tenants' children took over their holdings. The duke
could, in either case, call upon some fairly powerful witnesses to
ensure that terms of the leases were closely observed.
Slavery in the duchy of Gaeta was not just a tenth-century
phenomenon. In 1067 the will 23 of Leo Caracci left 3 modia of land
in Tremonsuoli and a small piece outside the city gate to John
Gutium, his clientulus or client. John was to serve Leo's wife
Matrona for her lifetime, and would be freed on her death. Here
we can see that in the mid-eleventh century a man could be tied to
serving another; that John's origins were lowly is indicated by the
diminutive ending of his title. He was not necessarily a cultivator of
Leo's land, but his case and those of others whom we find
manumitted in the tenth- and eleventh-century wills 24 illustrates
that servility was by no means uncommon.
One group who may have been cultivators were John and
Anatolius sons of Passari Caprucce and their relatives, who in 999
disputed their status with the bishop of Gaeta, Bernard. They were
referred to asfamuli; he claimed they were his slaves, they that they
were free, and the title had no definite meaning to decide the
matter. After failing to persuade them Bernard called in the missus
of emperor Otto III, Notticher, requesting that he should
accompany him to Gaeta, Traetto and Castro Argento and enforce
the bishop's authority over his workers. Notticher, with Otto's
authority, ordered that John and Anatolius, who were also acting
on behalf of their relatives, should prove their case in trial by
combat. This was highly irregular, such proof being unknown in
Gaetan courts, and not surprisingly neither John nor Anatolius
22 23
CDC 52. CDC 234.
24
E.g. CDC 143 (1024): two male and three female slaves freed; CDC 153 (1028): two
female slaves freed; CDC 168 (1037): one male slave freed.

254
 Landowners and exchanges in the Tyrrhenian
were prepared to submit. Instead they offered to swear oaths to the
effect that their mother, Benefacta, had been free, and that their
father Passari had not been obligated to the bishop. This oath, plus
payment of a pound of gold, secured their freedom.25
The cash payment probably had far more influence in gaining
these men's freedom than the oath. It is striking that men whose
status teetered on the brink of servility could raise a pound of gold
between them, a fact remarked upon by Wickham as an indication
of the rise in status of slave cultivators. 26 But if his interpretation is
correct, some explanation for this wealth and rise in status must be
attempted.
To explain this particular case, it would help if more were
known about the labour situation in Gaeta at this time, and
whether the Caprucci went on to work for Bernard as free men
after the case. Bernard's plea to the emperor himself suggests that
he was more than a little disturbed at the prospect of losing his
workers, particularly since their discontent seems to have been
widespread (suggested by Notticher's itinerary through three
areas, Gaeta, Traetto and Castro Argento). It would make sense,
therefore, that he exacted a hefty price for their freedom. 27 If
labour were short in Gaeta, the gold could quite feasibly have come
from another wealthy landowner, eager to secure the services of
the bishop's disgruntled men in return for buying their freedom.
This must remain merely a hypothesis in the absence of any other
documents featuring the Caprucce family, but the case does
illustrate that the status of cultivators in Gaeta was often open to
question. It may also reflect the growing instability of the
Docibilans' hold on their lands at precisely this time. We saw
earlier that disputes had begun to break out among different
members of the family, including Bernard, over their landed
properties. This may have encouraged men like the Caprucci,
whose status before the trial is unclear, to question the authority of
the family and perhaps, if they had originally been slaves, to
challenge that status. That they won is a clear indication of the
weakening of Docibilan power.
Were the goods produced by the cultivators sufficient to feed the
population of the duchy? To offer an answer to this question, it is

25 26
CDC ioo. Wickham, Early Medieval Italy, p. 152.
27
The case is unusual in itself; one wonders why Bernard did not ask for the help of his
brother, duke John III.

255
 The economics of power
necessary to address the thorny matter of food production and its
relation to population numbers.
With regard to produce, it is clear that the documentary material
from the duchy gives a far from complete picture. For example, the
plain of Fondi had limited potential for arable farming and
viticulture, but we cannot say whether this deficiency was
compensated for by keeping herds of animals. The area today
produces large quantities of dairy products, but it cannot be
assumed that the medieval plain was grazed by cattle and buffalo.
Other, more general problems, exist for the duchy as a whole.
There is a notable lack of references to animal husbandry. Those
that we have often refer to the modest stocks kept by the priests of
churches.28 Yet some of the uplands must have been grazed by
sheep, and pigs and possibly cattle were kept in Flumetica.
Grain and vine products are certainly present in our documents,
but the other corner in the Mediterranean diet triangle, olive oil,
does not appear at all. If olive trees were grown, as they are still
today in some places, not in groves, but dotted along the edges of
vineyards, they might not show up in land transactions.29 That oil
was used in the duchy, however, is clear from a few documents in
which churches charged a measure of oil for lighting whenever a
body was buried in one of their crypts. 30 Gaetan householders may
have supplemented their diets from kitchen gardens - houses were
often sold along with small plots of land. 31 But was the produce of
the duchy sufficient to feed the population?
Any attempt to quantify the medieval population of any district
is fraught with hazards. All documented males could perhaps be
counted and multiplied by a factor of 4 or 5 to account for their
families, but this is unsatisfactory, particularly if we remember that
in Gaeta the first 3 Docibilan rulers had 7, 11 and 9 offspring
respectively! A straight head-count of documented names would
also severely underestimate numbers. The small sample of the
actual population of Gaeta and its territory can be used in a
productive way, however, if the distribution of named inhabitants
of different places is plotted onto a map and compared with the
distribution of food resources studied earlier (see Map 7.1).
28
For example, in 1061, St Augustine's at Vivano (S. Agostino) owned a cow and a sow
CDC 212.
29 30
A feature noted by Toubert in northern Lazio: Structures, I, p. 261. CDC 191.
31
Mola seems to have been an area popular for this type of cultivation; gardens (hortus), are
recorded here in 1025 (CDC 146), 1055 (CDC 200), 1071 (CDC 245), 1120 (CDC 295)
and 1124 (CDC 303).

256
E&2SJ3 Land over 1000 m
V//A Land over 300 m
>|f Grain % Mill
A Vineyard
9 5km
0 3 miles

M a p j.i Population centres and crops in Qaeta

 The economics of power
Between the ninth and tenth centuries, there is a rise in the number
of people who say they lived in the city of Gaeta itself, and then a
levelling-offof its population in the eleventh as that of the duchy as
a whole was focused on new centres such as Castro Argento, Suio,
Fratte and, in particular, Traetto.
What emerges from this survey is that throughout the entire
period the bulk of the documented population lived in precisely
the area where a basic dietary staple, cereal, cannot be found
growing. With evidence of such cultivation further east, it would
be logical to speculate that some of the cereal produce went to feed
Gaetan mouths. When hypatos Constantine of Gaeta leased
unlocated lands in Gaetan territory in 839 and 866, he was able to
actually export the rent, in grain, to Naples. 32 His example was
followed by Aligernus son of Leo, who had grain from his
Garigliano estate brought to Naples too. 33 Just because these
powerful landowners could do this, however, does not necessarily
mean that the territory of Gaeta as a whole produced a surplus.
The beginning of the tenth century seems to have been a time
not only of political change, as the new regime of Docibilis and his
family established their power, but also of economic develop-
ments. The population of Gaeta had, it seems, quadrupled, partly
due to an influx of refugees from the Saracen raiders who had razed
Formia and settled at the mouth of the Garigliano river. This
period also heralds the arrival in the documentation of references to
the mills at Mola near Formia. These were clearly meant to serve
the needs of Gaeta, for Formia was in ruins and Gaeta had no
suitable streams to drive the mills. For so many new ones to be
constructed would require that the level of production increased as
dramatically as the number of Gaetan consumers. Fragments of
documentary evidence suggest that some land improvement did
take place in the Flumetica area in the tenth century, 34 and that the
area continued to provide some of Gaeta's grain requirements, 35
32
CDC 5, CDC 12. 33 CDC 53.
34
E.g., at Sozzione, a grain-growing area, a piece of land called upastinum is recorded in 954
(CDC 52). Another is recorded at Mola in the same document, and another at Rubiano in
Flumetica in 972 (CDC 67). Contemporary evidence from elsewhere shows that to take
on land to 'pastinate' it was to improve it for crop growing. RN 189 (971) requires
tenants to cultivate vines and wheat in Naples; RN 198 (973) specifies only vines. That the
phrase ad pastinandum was more usually associated with the latter crop is suggested by
Salernitan and Amalfitan examples CodCav 11/230 (965), CodCav 11/393 (987) and
PAVAR 1/11 (1029). See also Lizier, L'Economia, p . 77.
35
CDC 96 (997): bishop Bernard of Gaeta demanded a total of 120 tnodia of grain per year
as income from a mill and land near the Garigliano.

258
 Landowners and exchanges in the Tyrrhenian
but a large increase in production is not apparent. It seems, then,
that Gaeta did have to import some of its grain.
Unfortunately, there is no tenth-century evidence at all for such
importation. The only clues we have come from the twelfth
century, with a document of 1125 recording a Salernitan merchant
who had been hired to bring grain from Tunis to Gaeta, 36 and king
Tancred of Sicily's promise in c.1191 that Gaetans would not be
prohibited from bringing grain from Sicily to Gaeta, unless a
general prohibition on exports from the island was in force. 37 It is
very hazardous to try to stretch twelfth-century evidence to cover
the inadequacies of the tenth-century material, but if importation,
be it from Africa, Sicily38 or even just along the coast from Naples,
did take place in the tenth century, several points raised so far fall
into place. The appearance of new mills becomes logical,
processing grain from outside the duchy which was now needed.
(Grain travelled better if left unmilled; flour would have gone bad
if transported any great distance). The high value of mills, out of all
proportion to their construction costs, can be explained in terms of
their function; the provision of a lifeline to the city population. The
political power of Docibilis and his family may, therefore, have
derived from the controls that they were able to exert through
their monopoly of the milling process.

(c) AMALFI

The problem of limited amounts of grain was one which

concerned the rulers of Amalfi even more. The city of Amalfi lies at
a point on the coastline where the gorge through which its river
runs opens out to the sea. Hemmed in by cliffs, it has been unable to
expand much beyond its medieval size, and access to it is still much
easier by sea than by the winding coastal road. The mountainous
terrain of the duchy is punctuated by fast-flowing rivers, and these
had been harnessed by the tenth century to provide the power for
water-mills.
As at Gaeta, Amalfitan mills were bought and sold in portions
expressed in terms of months. 39 The divisions of mills in some cases
36 37
CDC 308. Abulafia, Two Italies, p. 40.
38
That these areas were by the tenth century Arab strongholds did not prohibit the
possibility of exchanges with Gaeta: here the duchy's economic life reflected the political
situation.
39
For example, J o h n son of M a u r o b o u g h t a m o n t h of a water-mill in Amalfi to make his
share up to one third in 971: CP 63.

259
 The economics of power
were not as simple as a whole or half month. In io 13 John, son of
Leo the priest, rented four months and seven and a half days of an
Atranian mill from Leo son of Constantine. John would hold this
time for four years, at an annual rent of 46.75 modia of corn.40 In
1034 Maria, daughter of John, gave her father two months minus
five days of a mill in Atrani. 41 With such complex divisions it is
difficult to avoid the conclusion that specific times of use were
being referred to. Just how the times were allocated is not specified,
nor who was responsible for allocating them.
The value of mills appears to have restricted their ownership to
the upper classes of Amalfi, including noblemen, describing their
ancestors as counts, or Amalfitan churches such as the wealthy
foundation of SS Ciricus and Iulicta. Such exclusivity is again
likely to be linked with the control of the grain supply.
There is no documentary evidence of any kind of cereal-
growing in the duchy except for a piece of 'seed-land' (arable) at
Carniano (unknown) owned by SS Ciricus and Iulicta.42 Nor have
I been able to find much evidence of Amalfitans investing further
afield in order to provide themselves with grain. 43
Vera von Falkenhausen has proposed that the Amalfitans bought
in their grain, 44 and in the apparent absence of self-sufficiency
either within the duchy or through external landowning she is
probably correct. Citarella's citation of Liutprand of Cremona's
assertion that 'the merchants of Amalfi . . . need our wheat to live'
may not necessarily support his argument that they needed it to
export to North Africa,45 but certainly supports the idea that they
imported it. Loud concurs that the presence of Amalfitan colonies
at S. Germano, A versa and Capua in the latter's principality
'represented the search for foodstuffs and local products to
underpin Amalfitan overseas trading'. 46 The role of the Amalfitans
as merchants will be dealt with more fully later.
In contrast to the situation at Gaeta, however, individual ducal

40 41 42
CDA 12. CDA 40. CDA 41.
43
An oft-cited document recording men of Atrani buying up unusually large tracts of land
near Paestum in the principate of Salerno may well indicate that such investment took
place, but does not specifically state the purpose for which the land was being purchased.
44
See below, note 78. 'Ducato', p. 342.
45
Citarella, 'Patterns', 540. The translation of the relevant passage from The Embassy to
Constantinople by F. A. Wright, in Works: 'Amalfitan traders . . . by bringing [silk cloths]
support life by the food we give them' (chapter 55), does not support the idea that the
46
food was sold on. On silk, see below, chapter 8. Church and Society, p. 21.

260
 Landowners and exchanges in the Tyrrhenian
families at Amalfi were unable to enforce the type of monopoly
held by the Docibilans over milling and, by implication, some of
the grain importation. This may have been one cause of the
political instability in the duchy, as no early family was able to rise
far enough above the others in terms of economic power to enjoy a
sustained period of rule.
The limestone massif of the Lattari mountains supports little
agriculture even today, and the rocky slopes can have been no
more productive during medieval times. Those centres of
cultivation whose placenames can be located lay almost exclusively
along river valleys or, less often, on high plateaux such as that of
Agerola. The vine was certainly the most widely cultivated crop in
Amalfi, and wine-presses are often recorded in the documents. 47
The area around Ponte Primaro on the river Reginnis Maiore is still
predominantly vineyard, as it was in frequent documentary
references to it from 957 to 1044.48 Apples were also grown here,
and it is interesting to note references to the deliberate cultivation
of reeds. A reed-bed was specifically mentioned in a sale of 957,49
and other similar references indicate the importance of reeds and
willows in domestic life.
The rest of the river valley of the Reginnis Maiore appears to
have been under similar crops to Ponte Primaro. Nubella was an
apple-growing area, as a sale of an orchard there in 1037
illustrates.50 Paternum Piczulum (unknown) had vineyards, one of
which formed a wedding gift from Leo son of Peter to his daughter
Drosu and son-in-law Ursus in 1007.51 The land around Pecara is
described as vineyard and woodland. 52 Minule, which lay above
the river, was described in 1038 as having deserted vineyards and
apple orchards converted to vine cultivation. 53 The latter example
is particularly significant, since it suggests a certain flexibility in
Amalfitan agriculture. It was possible to grow apples in the area,
but the landowner in question, Leo Rufolo, had deliberately
changed to vines. Del Treppo and Leone have suggested that such
changes occurred to meet market demands, 54 and certainly it
seems likely that the Amalfitans may have exported their surplus
wine, probably in exchange for grain. Lizier was in no doubt about
the eventual destination of one of the products of these estates: 'i
47
For example, CD A 5 (939) and CD A 7 (964).
48 49 50
See, e.g., CD A 20, CD A 58, CP 31, CP 73, etc. CP 37. CD A 50.
51 52 53 54
CP 55. CDA 22, CDA 584. CP 37. Amalfi, p. 42.

26l
 The economics of power
paesi musulmani, che non producevano vino, consumavano quello
dell'Italia meridionale'. 55
A variety of crops were sometimes grown in what was
apparently a limited area. In three documents of IOIO, 1039 and
1047, the Rogadeum family divided, bought and leased out
vineyards, chestnuts and apple orchards, woods and uncultivated
land at Torum de Ircli.56 In other areas cultivation appears to have
been more specialised, as on the plateau of Agerola, where chestnut
seem to have been the dominant crop. 57
Surprisingly, given the fact that most landowners in Amalfi
seem not to have cultivated their property themselves, there are
very few examples of leasing out to cultivators. Amalfitan
landlords appear to have come later to written leases than their
Salernitan or Neapolitan counterparts. The distinct lack of
documents of this type reflects the Gaetan model, and, despite
Amalfi's rather more eventful political life, may still reflect a basic
stability at the level of landowning and tenancy. The first written
lease from Amalfi is dated 1029, when Drosu widow of Leo gave a
piece of empty land in the castellum supramonte (unknown) to the
son of Ursus Calvelli to cultivate with vines for four years at a rent
of 2 solidi a year.58 It is clear that leasing had been happening before
this date, since in 1036 Leo son of Sergius de Palmola received an
apple orchard which his father before him had tended. 59 The
survival of documents from this date may be accidental, but I
would suggest that at a time (the mid-eleventh century) when the
duke of Amalfi was under constant pressure from Pandolf of
Capua,60 the recording in writing of agreements between landlord
and tenant may have been perceived as a prudent defence against
future instability.61
To sum up, Amalfi offered a living to those who could exploit its
difficult terrain and produce wine and fruit either for home
consumption or export, but the most basic sustenance in the form
of grain had to be bought in. Those in control of this were of
necessity wealthy, since both bulk importation and the ownership
55
'the Muslim countries, which did not produce wine, consumed that of southern Italy':
56
Lizier, L'Economia, p. 147. PAVAR 1/3, PAVAR 1/14, PAVAR 1/16.
57 58 59 60
CDA31. PAVAR I/II. CP 35. See above, chapter 2.
61
Taviani-Carozzi, Principaute, p. 577, makes the point for Salerno that land disputes and
the signatures ofjudges on documents from that city increased dramatically when there
were crises of rule in the principality. People trusted to the law to preserve their
possessions in periods of instability; it is likely that Amalfitans thought in the same way.
62
CDA 586/CP 32 (939).

262
 Landowners and exchanges in the Tyrrhenian
of whole or divided mills was expensive. Some early mill-owners
were Neapolitan counts, 62 until their wealthy Amalfitan counter-
parts took over. Yet the limited amount of land available in Amalfi
made it difficult for any one family to assert its dominance or have a
permanent presence in the documents. Survival of evidence also
makes it difficult to reconstruct the patterns of Amalfi's internal
economic life. One very visible phenomenon, however, is the
movement of Amalfitans and Atranians towards Salerno, and their
investments in the neighbouring principality. It seems clear that
such activity was caused by economic necessity, but it may also
have reflected political changes within the duchy. This movement
and investment will be discussed in more detail presently.

(d) LAND TRANSACTIONS AS A MEANS OF COHESIVENESS

It has become apparent that in their landscapes and the types of

property owned, Gaeta and Amalfi are quite similar. The relatively
limited amount of land available seems to have encouraged the
rapid development of wealthy elites in both duchies, with a high
level of social mobility based partly on economic influence.
Commerce featured strongly in the lives of many families discussed
so far, and the striking parallel between the two cities over mill
ownership suggests that the inhabitants of both viewed property
ownership in a similar way to each other. Limited land, it seems,
artificially inflated the value of other kinds of property. When
associated with a shortage of grain, the value of mills as a means of
processing imported foodstuffs shot up. There is, however, another
factor which I should like to explore, and that is the significance of
mill-owning to the family-based social patterns we have witnessed
in the two smaller duchies.63
Family unity seems to have been preserved among the clans of
Gaeta, especially the Docibilan house, by means of a remarkably
high number of documents detailing exchanges of land within the
clan. This pattern is repeated among the noble families to a lesser
extent, and seems to work in Amalfi as well, from the limited
investigation that is possible from the evidence. Another way in
63
An earlier version of the discussion which follows was first presented as a paper, 'Mill
ownership and social status in medieval southern Italy', at the conference Medieval Europe
1992, held at York in September 1992. There are, regrettably, no plans to publish the
proceedings.

263
 The economics of power
which a family could express its unity, common throughout
Europe in the early Middle Ages, was by founding a family church
(Eigenkirche), an option which was taken up by some families.
However, given the lack of land in both duchies, even the richest
families may have found it difficult to satisfy the demand from
within the clan for portions of the family property. I would
suggest, then, that the emphasis placed upon mills and their inflated
value was because they were built precisely to satisfy this need.
With the potential to be divided into as many as 365 portions
(though none seems to have achieved this level of fractioning), a
mill could act as the focus for a family's exchanges. In itself the
property was modest, but, because it was the medium through
which different lines of the same extended clan could communicate
their willingness to co-operate, it had a symbolic value far
outweighing its physical construction. As a result, portions were
given high prices, in part to avoid their alienation outside the
family.
Significantly, I have found no evidence of this type of
fractioning anywhere else in southern Italy at this time. Where land
was plentiful, there was no need for what was in effect an artificial
property exchange, and the difficulty in reconstructing Neapolitan
noble families may be precisely because they did not indulge in so
many land transactions. This lack of exchanges, so necessary to
reinforce social and familial ties in the other two duchies, reflects
the basic stability of Neapolitan political life throughout most of
the period in question.

(e) CROSS-BORDER MOVEMENT! AMALFITANS AND

ATRANIANS
One aspect of the history of the three duchies of Gaeta, Amalfi and
Naples which has never been examined in much detail is the
amount of cross-border movement and investment that went on
between them, and their interaction with their Lombard neigh-
bours in Salerno and Capua. 64 Yet there was much exchange across
the border between Gaeta and Capua, perhaps prompted by a need
for foodstuffs, and certainly motivated by political considerations.
Amalfi, too, clearly needed a source of grain to import, and seems
64
The cases which have been most discussed are those of Amalfitans who migrated to
Salerno, see e.g. Kreutz, Before the Normans; del Treppo and Leone, Amalfi; Figliuolo, 'Gli
Amalfitani'; Taviani-Carozzi, Principaute, pp. 800—35.

264
 Landowners and exchanges in the Tyrrhenian
to have looked to Salerno. The inhabitants of both small duchies,
therefore, had regular contact with their Lombard neighbours.
There is evidence to suggest that a large number of Amalfitans
and Atranians took a further step, leaving their homeland to go and
live in the principate of Salerno. A large number of them went to
live in the city of Salerno itself, renting plots of land on which to
build houses, often from the church of St Maximus, or buying
houses in the St Trophimenus area which, significantly, was close
to the harbour.65 None of these immigrants appears to have held
land elsewhere, and with no other apparent means of support —
none, for example, is surnamed with an occupational title — it is
possible that they too acted as middlemen in the food trade or as
sailors on ships plying along the Tyrrhenian coast and to the Arab
countries.
Relevant in this context is a transaction of 1006, in which Peter
the Amalfitan son of Ursus paid 2 taxi to Disigius son of
Ingnelgardus for permission to cut wood from Disigius' slopes of
Mt Falerio outside Salerno in order to build a ship.66 Given the
abundance of wood available in Amalfi, it seems that Peter must
have been based permanently in Salerno, and was probably either a
merchant or one who built boats for the mercantile community.
Many of the Amalfitan and Atranian immigrants gained their
toe-hold in Salerno by taking on leased land, and the fact that they
agreed to cultivate it or build houses on it indicates that they did
take up residence. They focused their activities in three main areas
apart from Salerno itself: Vietri and Cetara on the coast towards
Amalfi, and Lucania, south of Salerno.
Lease lengths ranged from six to twelve years, but were
probably renewable without further documentation. There was a
pattern of varied cultivation for periods up to life,67 repeated all
over the principate, and the terms of the leases, which usually
demanded a portion of the crops grown, allowed the cultivators to
make their own living. Among the tenants in Cetara we can
identify several dominant families, whose histories are traceable
through two or more generations. One family which appears to
have lived on the land they owned was that of the Atranian
Marinus the judge. In 980 in a sale of lands in Fonti, his sons stated

65
Leases from St Maximus to Amalfitans/Atranians include: CodCav 11/33J (981), CodCav
11/372 (984), CodCav iv/705 (1018); St Trophimenus street: CodCav 11/315 (979), CodCav
66 67
n/377 (985), CodCav vi/1033 (1044). CodCav iv/587. CodCav 11/362.

265
 The economics of power
that their father had received land from prince Gisolf,68 indicating
perhaps that the de Marini had begun life in the principate as
tenants.69 Significantly, though, such families do not appear
among the clans whom we have seen active in the Amalfitan
hinterland. Nor do any of the latter appear to have invested in
Salerno, and it is likely that the division between them reflected the
shifting political life of the duchy.
In some cases the tenants went on to own the land they had
initially rented and, renting it out in turn to cultivators, they often
moved back to Amalfi. This is illustrated by the case of Amalfitans
and Atranians in the district of Fonti near Cetara, where the de Rini
family were able to establish themselves as tenants of the bishop of
Salerno.70 The rent on the episcopal leases, moreover, was
demanded in cash, possibly indicating that the bishops thought that
their new tenants were well able to pay in this way rather than in a
share of their crops, and that the bishops had a use for cash. They
probably did not cultivate their lands themselves, unlike Mastalus
son of Leo Roibuli, another Amalfitan tenant of the bishop, who
paid half the wine from the vineyards he leased.71 By 972 the
bishops were beginning to sell land to the foreigners as well as lease
it out. In that year a former tenant, Peter de Lupeni de Rini, bought
the church of St Felix at Fonti and its land with his nephew Leo. 72
Hardly any of the Amalfitans or Atranians owning land in
Salerno appear to have had land in Amalfi, and, although many
were clearly resident in the latter city, their landholding in the
duchy may not have been great. The major difference between
these landowners and the immigrants was that the former were
wealthy enough not to have to cultivate their own land, and often,
as already stated, moved back to, or remained in, Amalfi. Many of
these lessors appear to have been engaged in the kind of
entrepreneurial landowning mentioned above in an Amalfitan
context, by which crops were grown specifically for the market. In

68
CodCav 11/326.
69
The de Marini and other clans w h o moved to Vietri and Cetara are discussed in Skinner,
Mobility, pp. 16—24; see a l s o Figliuolo, 'Gli Amalfitani'.
70
In 940 bishop Peter leased out the church of St Felix and its lands to be restored and
worked by three Amalfitans including Ursus de Rini: CodCav 1/169. Another member of
the de Rini family received half the church and its estates in 966, the other half going to
Sergius Calendola: CodCav 11/242. O n the history of the church itself, see Taviani,
Principaute, pp. 625—7. She and Figliuolo, 'Gli Amalfitani', 74, disagree, however, on the
reconstuction of the de Rini family. I tend towards Figliuolo's interpretation.
71 72
CodCav 11/303. CodCav 11/270.

266
 Landowners and exchanges in the Tyrrhenian
1024 Leo son of John leased to Peter son of Amorus an apple
orchard in Fonti in which Peter was to plant chestnut trees for
ten years.73 Such cultivation must have produced high profits
to be worth a ten-year investment. Leo also owned, and possibly
exploited for the market in the same way, vineyards and reed-beds
in Fonti, exacting the very high rent of two thirds of the crops
(against the norm of a half) from his tenant Marinus son of John. 74
Another manifestation of growing to demand are those leases by
which land was given ad pastinandum, that is, to cultivate from new
land. The amount of uncultivated land brought under crops in this
way was significant, and the leases must have proved very
profitable for the landowner. He could buy 'empty land' cheaply,
specify the crop to be grown, take his share as rent and then sell off
the land at a profit as an established vineyard or orchard. The
fertility of such land must have been higher due to the fact that it
had lain fallow,75 and rendered pastination leases even more
efficient.
The need for land certainly seems to have prompted some
Amalfitans and Atranians to invest or live in Salerno. Those who
went as tenants were probably attracted by the fact that many leases
led to the eventual ownership of some of the land leased, usually
half. This type of arrangement suited both the landowner, who
needed labour, and the tenant, whose shortage of capital meant that
he could not buy outright, and whose only obligation on
becoming the proprietor of his holding was to give first refusal on
any sale of the land to his former landlord.
Those who were wealthy enough to invest in foreign land were
possibly also affected by the shortage of it at home, having the
money to buy, but little land available to purchase. Cheaper land
prices in Salerno may also have attracted investment there,
especially if the buyers were engaged in the production of crops for
the market, as their heavy investment in vineyards indicates, and so
needed to extract the greatest profits possible. Once established as
landlords, they exploited their estates almost ruthlessly, with
relatively high rents demanded. There is evidence to suggest,
however, that the Amalfitans and Atranians came to be in Salerno
through a deliberate policy of encouraging immigration.
The early history of their arrival in the principate was linked to
the capture of Amalfi by prince Sicard in the ninth century, and his
73 74 75
CodCavvfrss. CodCav 11/363. Lizier, L'Economia, p. 79.

267
 The economics of power
subsequent transfer of a group of Amalfitans to his own city. 76 It is
probably true that Sicard wanted to bring Amalfitan money and
trade to his state, but royal involvement in the lives of the
foreigners certainly did not end with his death. In a document
referred to in a court-case of 1065/6 and published in paraphrase,
prince Guaimarius conceded to Guttus the Atranian son of Peter
some lands in Albole (unknown). Cherubini attributes the
document to Guaimarius II, and thus dates it to between 913 and
923-77
Later on, in 957 and 977 John, the bishop of Paestum, had to ask
prince Gisolf s permission to sell Lucanian land to a group of
Atranians.78 Gisolf appeared posthumously in a document of 980,
when Ursus the Atranian confirmed the sale of some land at Fonti,
which the prince had conceded to his father Marinus the judge, and
gave the documents relating to the history of the land to the
purchaser, John the Amalfitan son of count Mauro. 79
Even when the Capuans took over Salerno in 974, the Atranians
seem to have maintained good relations with the rulers, if the claim
made in a dispute of 985 by Ligori son of John, that he had received
a house in St Trophimenus street from Pandolf Ironhead and his
son Pandolf, can be believed.80 Unfortunately, because Ligori and
the other litigant were ordered to swear to their cases at a later date,
and the document recording that event has not survived, the
outcome of the case is not known.
The sale of a piece of land, almost 4 miles (approximately 6.5
kilometres) square, near Paestum in Lucania, by the bishop of
Salerno to a group of men from Atrani in 977, was certainly the
largest single investment made by them in the principality, but it
was not the first. Ligori son of John the Atranian had paid the
bishop 12 pounds of silver in 957 for a piece of uncultivated land
here. 81 What he and his compatriots in 977 were planning to do
with their property is unclear, but it seems likely that it was
destined for grain cultivation. Significantly, some of the 977 group
were described as being at sea, suggesting either mercantile
activities or, closer to home, that these men were actively involved
in bringing foodstuffs to their home city.
It is significant that all records of either the princes' or bishops'
76
M . Berza, 'Amalfi preducale (596-957)', Ephemeris Dacoromana, 8 (1938), 360.
77
P. Cherubini, 'Nuovi documenti dei principi di Salerno in parafrasi', ASPN, 3rd series 19
78
(1980), 45ff. CodCav 1/197, CodCav 11/296, CodCav 11/299.
79 80 81
CodCav 11/326. CodCav 11/377. CodCav 1/197.

268
 Landowners and exchanges in the Tyrrhenian
transactions with the foreigners end in this year, and only resume in
1035 with a document freeing Iannaci the Atranian's church of SS
Maria and John in Vietri from episcopal control, for which
archbishop Grimoald exacted a payment of 2 pounds of silver.82
Although the unpredictability of documentary survival must be
taken into account, it is surely no coincidence that records of
princely interest in the immigrants end precisely as a new dynasty
assumed power in Salerno. Certainly records of a foreign presence
continue throughout the period, but given that he had deposed an
Amalfitan to win his throne, John of Spoleto was unlikely to show
the Amalfitans and Atranians under his rule any favours.
Why though do the princes of Salerno after 984 appear to have
ignored such a source of income? The answer lies in the nature of
the documentary evidence, which for the most part records
transactions in land. Perhaps by the late tenth century the task of
attracting foreign settlement by means of land grants was seen to
have been achieved by the rulers of Salerno, and so the number of
documents recording such grants would tail off. The benefits to the
state provided by the existing foreigners may also have made more
immigration unnecessary.
Less well documented are the activities of the Amalfitans in
Naples, but their presence in the city seems to have been constant.
In 946 John the monk, son of Leo, bought a strip of rural land for 48
solidi from the abbot of SS Sergius and Bacchus in the city, and in
the same year donated it to the abbot as a gift. It is likely that he did
so on entering the monastery, as the gift document records him as
'monk of SS Sergius and Bacchus'.83 In 984 Leo son of Gregory and
Peter son of Leo, both from the city of Amalfi, made a gift of land
and their ruined church of St Peter in Ercica (unknown) to the
Neapolitan monastery of SS Severinus and Sossus, but on
condition that the monastery paid them an annual rent in kind
from the land.84 There is little further information in this
document to work out the background to the Amalfitans' links
with SS Severinus and Sossus, nor is it clear whether Ercica lay
within the duchy of Amalfi or that of Naples. 85 What is unusual is
that the Amalfitans were receiving some income from the
monastery, rather than simply making a pious donation. This case
and that of John the monk reveal similar patterns to Amalfitan
82 83 84
CodCav 1/98. RN 56, RN 57. RN 82.
85
Other documents featuring the placename, RN 237 (982) and RN 301 (997) provide no
further clues, except perhaps to tip the balance in favour of a Neapolitan location.

269
 The economics of power
movement and investment in Salerno, in that the church may have
acted as a major conduit in both areas. In this respect, however, the
'ecclesiastical filter' at work must be taken into account, in that
most of the surviving Neapolitan evidence comes from SS Sergius
and Bacchus and St Gregory, and so these two houses will
inevitably seem important.
This impression is reinforced if we examine other documents
from Naples. In 956 the church of St Euthimius in Naples divided
rural land with Leo son of Ursus the Amalfitan. 86 In 970 the land of
Cesarius the Amalfitan is included in the boundary clauses of land
in Mesanum (unknown), where the monastery of SS Severinus and
Sossus also had property. 87 Mauro the Amalfitan is cited as the
previous owner of land in Piscinule (Piscinola, 5 kilometres north
of Naples) which was sold in 1027 to the convent of St Gregory. 88
In the same document several members of the Cutina family are
recorded as previous owners too; I have already raised the
possibility that they should be identified with the later Cotina
family of Gaeta. One Sergius de Sillicta of Amalfi is mentioned in
the boundary clause of land on which wheat and wine was
produced in 1034 a t Malitum (unknown) in Naples. 89 The convent
of St Gregory features again in a document of 1050, in which one
Anna became a nun, and gave all of her land in Clibo Galloro
(unknown), which she had partly obtained from her nephew and
niece, children of Leo the Amalfitan, to the convent. 90 It does not
seem to be the case that Leo was Anna's brother; she mentions that
some of the land had also come from her own brother and sister,
and would surely have provided that information in Leo's case.
Leo's presence in the document, therefore, arises from the fact that
he had married into Anna's family.
Intermarriage seems to have taken place quite frequently
between Neapolitans and Amalfitans, though it is unclear whether
it led to, or was the result of, the movement between the two cities.
In 1022 land bought in Casole (unknown) had previously been
owned by John Pappamaurontum and his wife, Maria Amalfi-
tana.91 That Maria's origins are stated suggests that her husband
was Neapolitan.
Maria was a rarity: a woman who had come from her home city
86
RN 90; frustratingly, the location of the land, in the fundus Turandi, is once again
87 88 89
unknown. RN 183. RN412. M448.
90
RN 485; the land was bordered by that of Ademarius the Amalfitan as well.
91
RN397-

27O
 Landowners and exchanges in the Tyrrhenian
to a different one. It is likely, though all too easy to assume, that she
had come to Naples as John's bride. That is, the initiative for her
move had come from the fact that he had travelled to Amalfi for
some reason and met her there. Alternatively, Maria may have
been the daughter of an Amalfitan already settled in Naples. In
either case, her presence in the latter city probably stemmed from
men's actions. Although Amalfitan women had considerable
freedom of action at home, the general restriction on female
activity visible in southern Italy at this time makes it unlikely that
Maria had travelled to Naples independently.
Marriage occurred more frequently between women of Naples
and men of Amalfi, where it was the men who were the travellers.
Mauro the Amalfitan's wife Drosu, who had to contest some of his
Stabian property whilst he was at sea in 1007, was of Neapolitan
stock.92 Anna Millusi, documented in 1085 in Naples and certainly
of a Neapolitan clan, was the widow of Leo the Amalfitan,
imperial protospatharius.93
One man who seems to have frequently travelled between
Amalfi and Naples was Sergius the Amalfitan, son of Pardus,
whose will survives in two copies. The first, dated 1021, was
preserved at Naples. 94 The second, dated four years later, survived
in the collection of charters from the church of St Laurence in
Amalfi.95 Although Sergius had houses in the city of Naples, his
main land base remained in the duchy of Amalfi, including some
property on Capri. Most of his bequests, however, were in money,
and reveal his connections in the larger city. It is likely that the St
Gregory included in the list of beneficiaries was the church of that
name in Naples, and, in common with other Neapolitan wills,
Sergius' last bequest was a tremissus to the church of Naples for
candles. This may reflect a strong notarial practice in the city, but
the fact that Sergius allowed his will to be expressed within this
framework suggests that he was attuned to that practice. Sergius
appears to have had two daughters. The first, Marenda, was a nun,
and a bequest was made to her convent. To his other daughter,
Blacta, Sergius left a rich array of plain and embroidered cloths, in
linen and silk, including one piece worth 4 ounces of gold alone.96
The detail with which the cloths were described indicates
strongly that Sergius may have been in the textile trade. His interest
in linen partly explains his presence in Naples, for that city was
92 93 94 95
CDA 55. RN 537. RN 402. CP 81.
96
pannum sericum unum balientum uncias quactuor de aureum.

271
 The economics of power
famed as a centre of linen production. Indeed, an Arab writer of the
tenth century stated that the city based its wealth on linen. 97 He
may have exaggerated somewhat, since there are only two
references to linen cultivation in the entire Neapolitan document
collection,98 and one of these refers to the growing of the crop in
Capua.99 Possibly linen cultivation was sufficiently profitable to
make transactions in its land comparatively rare. Alternatively, the
production of the cloth may have been a Neapolitan state
monopoly, so that the lands where its raw material was grown
were tightly controlled and rarely available on the open market.
Direct evidence for manufacture of the cloth comes in 1083, when
three millers promised to work a mill co-owned by the convent of
St Gregory and others. The millers undertook to make a chute
(sfosario), and after six years to soak and mature 2$ofaschios of linen
and spread them out free of charge for the convent each year. 100
Because it has proved impossible to locate most of the places
where Amalfitans appear in the territory of Naples, it is difficult to
decide whether, as in Salerno, their landowning exhibits any areas
of particular concentration. However, because they seem to have
arrived from Amalfi in a far less structured way, it is likely that
there was no real preference for one area of Neapolitan territory
over another. In an urban context, however, the limited evidence
does suggest a faint concentration of Amalfitan interests and
connections with the western area of the city. Sergius the
Amalfitan owned houses in the vicus Nilum. This lay very close to
the vicus Sol et Luna, the street in which the church of St Euthimius,
divider of lands with Leo son of Ursus, lay. On Salernitan
evidence, it might be expected that the Amalfitans would
congregate near the sea-shore in Naples, but much of the harbour
frontage seems to have been monopolised by the palace and
property of the dukes of Naples. They do not seem to have actively
encouraged Amalfitan settlement in the same way as the princes of
Salerno.
(f) CROSS-BORDER MOVEMENT: GAETANS

Investment by Gaetans in Naples must have been relatively easy

due to the long-standing political ties between the two states. I have
97
Abu al-Qasim Muhammed ibn Hawqal, The Book of the Routes and the Kingdoms,
extract trans. R. Lopez and I. Raymond, Medieval Trade in the Mediterranean World
98
(London, 1955), p. 54. RN 233, RNAM 208. " RNAM 208.
100
RN 532.

272
 Landowners and exchanges in the Tyrrhenian
already suggested that members of the Docibilan house at Gaeta
may have spent time in the larger city. 101 They were joined there
by several of their compatriots. Drosu Maria, daughter of Leo the
Gaetan, appears in 960, receiving repayment of a loan made by her
aunt to Eupraxia, mother of one Leo, from Leo's wife Anna the
nun. 102 Anna repaid the debt of 21 solidi in land, but again its
location cannot be ascertained. From the similarity of his name to
that of the river Garigliano, a previous holder of the land, one
Marinus de John de Curilianum, should possibly also be identified
as Gaetan.
Another Gaetan woman, Anna the nun daughter of John, 103
bought land in Quarto Maiore (probably near modern Madonna
di Quarto) and Pausillipense (Posillipo), both west of Naples, in
1013. She was the widow of one Gregory Millusi, and that family's
documented unions with both a Gaetan in this case and with an
Amalfitan man, already mentioned, indicates far more activity on
the part of that clan than is now visible. Anna's widowhood,
however, does not seem to have resulted in her return to Gaeta.
Freed of the authority of her husband she was able to engage in this
land transaction completely alone; there is no evidence to suggest
that as a nun she was buying land on behalf of her convent.
There is a gap of over sixty years before another non-Docibilan
Gaetan appears in the Neapolitan charters. In one of the most
detailed wills left by a woman to have survived from eleventh-
century southern Italy, a certain Maria made her bequests in the
presence of her husband, John 'Gaytani'. 104 It may be significant
that one of her landed bequests to him lay in Posillipo, where
Gaetan property-owning is documented. John is also recorded as
having given to Maria houses in the Furcillense105 district of the
city of Naples, and these reverted to his ownership in the will. Cash
bequests were made to Maria's nephews, the sons of John's brother
Peter.
It is likely that these Gaetans and others from their city came to
Naples as a result of flourishing trade exchanges between Gaeta and
its larger neighbour. These are now not visible in the documents,
but a clue that they existed is provided by the document issued by
Sergius IV of Naples when he was overthrown from the duchy by
101 102
See above, Figure 2.2. RN 115.
103
Although it is tempting to do so, there is no evidence to identify this Anna with the nun
104
mentioned in the previous document. RN 523.
105
In the eastern part of the city.

273
 The economics of power
Pandolf IV of Capua in 1029. In it he promised many commercial
concessions to the Gaetans if they would help him to retake the
city. 106 Such an offer must have been significant either to have
been made or accepted, and so continued good relations benefited
more than just the rulers themselves.
It is difficult to gauge whether members of the prominent
families of Gaeta engaged in such trading activities, as none of those
Gaetans visible at Naples can be identified with any certainty.
From the documentary evidence from Amalfi, however, a rather
different picture emerges. Here, in the twelfth century, there is
limited evidence of a Gaetan presence which can be linked into the
Gaetan documents.
The most obvious example, already signalled in the previous
chapter, was the sudden appearance of the Gattula surname in
Amalfitan material from 1137 onwards. In that year Ursus son of
Sergius Gattula and his wife Ciuzza bought a chestnut grove and
vineyard in the Transmonti district between Amalfi and
Naples. 107 Much later, in 1172, Matthew Gattula is documented in
a boundary clause of an unlocated chestnut grove. 108 The buyer
was Ursus Castallomata, who may also have been the purchaser of
land in Pogerola in 1176. That transaction was witnessed by
Sergius son of Mauro Gattula. 109 The following year Sergius
witnessed three further documents, one involving the archbishop
of Amalfi, the second a lease of Transmonti land and the third yet
another purchase by Ursus Castallomata. 110 The latter man was
named in a will of 1180 as the intended purchaser of half of Sergius
da Tabernata's property, and once again Sergius Gattula acted as
witness.111
Four years later, Sergius appears in the witness list of another sale
of land in Pogerola, and in another document that gives us the first
real clues about the Gattulas' background in Amalfi. 112 In the
latter, Sergius and his brother Matthew (almost certainly the man
documented in 1172), and their nephew Sergius sold off land
bequeathed by the younger Sergius' brother Mauro. All three
vendors provide a long list of their ancestry, in the tradition of
Amalfitan noblemen. Matthew and Sergius were the sons of
107 108 109
!<>6 CDC 156. CDA 141. CDA 182. CP 158.
110
CDA 194, PAVAR 1/54, CDA 196. ^ CDA 203.
112
CDA 216, CDA 217 (published also as CP 175). No other information is available;
Sergius went on to witness two further Amalfitan documents in 1186 and 1188,
PA VAR 1, documents 63 and 64.

274
 Landowners and exchanges in the Tyrrhenian
Mauro Gattula, son of Pantaleo de Leo de Pantaleo de Leo de
Pantaleo de count Iusto. Their nephew did not use the Gattula
surname, giving his pedigree as 'son of John de Pando de Sergius de
count Ursus de count Pardo'. The names look very Amalfitan, and
the Gattula surname is used on top of the precise ancestry list given.
It is likely, from this combination and the fact that their nephews
do not appear to have been Gattulas, that the Gaetans had married
into an Amalfitan line. Given that we have very little information
about their landed property in Amalfi, and that no real pattern is
visible in their witnessing activities, it seems that the Gattulas were
trading in Amalfi, but did not settle there.
Earlier compatriots of the Gattulas do seem to have come to
Amalfi to settle, though. In 1133 the Amalfitan monastery of SS
Ciricus and Iulicta leased land in Transmonti to one Palumbus son
of Palumbus de Garofalo 'da Gete'. 113 The land was bordered by a
piece belonging to Leo 'da Gete'. A pair of leases issued by the
monastery in 1139 granted out more land, to Lupino son of John
'da Gete' and Stephen son of Palumbus 'da Gete' respectively.
These two tenants had adjoining plots. 114 Again we see the church
actively participating in transactions with outsiders. That these
men were Gaetans and not all members of the same family (though
Stephen and Palumbus were probably brothers) is suggested by the
use of the word da, which like the modern Italian had already come
to mean 'from' in the Latin of southern Italy.
Perhaps the most intriguing indication of a Gaetan presence in
Amalfi comes in a document of 1164, in which the abbot of SS
Ciricus and Iulicta leased out land near Lettere, again in the
Transmonti area, to Athanasius son of Ursus 'de Docibile'. 115 This
is the sole occasion on which the name Docibilis occurs in the
Amalfitan documents, but, given that Athanasius was leasing land
in the same district as earlier Gaetans, there is a very strong case for
suggesting he was one too. It cannot be suggested that he was
related to the Docibilans of Gaeta, since many families used the
name Docibilis for their sons. It is striking, however, that we
cannot trace the Docibilans at Gaeta after their final pitch at power
in the late eleventh century. If, as I have tentatively suggested,
Docibilis I was an Amalfitan, might not his line have chosen to
return to their homeland, or to have always retained property
there? Endless speculation is possible, but it would make sense for a
family ousted from power to do so.
113 114 115
CDA 137. CDA 144, CDA 145. CDA 176.

275
 The economics of power

(g) CROSS-BORDER MOVEMENT: NEAPOLITANS

Although the flow of immigration between Gaeta, Amalfi and

Naples is always likely to have been dominated by movement
from the smaller cities to the larger, there is some evidence of
Neapolitans choosing to invest or make their homes in the smaller
duchies, such as the family ofJohn the Neapolitan count, resident
in Amalfi.116 Further research among the surnames of other
families in the smaller duchy reveals several ofJohn's compatriots
there.
For example, there is a number of references to a family
descended from one Cunari. In 984 the latter is described as being
of Capri. 117 However, in another document featuring the family
dated 1031, Cunari is described as being 'da Marmorata' (from
Marmorata). 118 Marmorata was the name of an urban district of
Naples. Neapolitan origins cannot definitely be assigned to the
Cunari family, and an explanation might be that one of the clan
had moved from Amalfi to Naples. However, some contact had
clearly been made.
There seems to be no doubt that the creation of the Norman
kingdom led to a greater degree of movement and exchange
between the inhabitants of its constituent duchies. Certainly there
is a marked increase in the number of Neapolitans recorded in
Amalfi after 1130. Thus Drosu daughter of Guainerii de Aldemar-
iscu of Naples and her daughter sold land in Transmonti in
1138,119 and the heirs of one Sergius Guindazzi of Naples are
recorded as owning a portion of the church of St Sebastian above
Amalfi in 1151. 120
More evidence of Neapolitans becoming involved in the
internal life of Amalfi comes in the documents of the Cacapice clan
of Naples. They had a long history in their home city, being
116
See above, chapter 4, section (b).
117
CDA 11: the document records a sale by Ursus and Manso sons of Leo 'de Cunarene' to
Leo the priest son of Sergius de Leo de Cunari of Capri of the ground floor of a house in
Caput de Crucis near Amalfi.
u s PAVAR 1/12: the document records a sale of property in Supramonte by Gemma wife
ofJohn son of Cunari 'da Marmorata', Drosu widow of Mauro son of Cunari for her
son Cunari, and Drosu wife of Stephen son of Cunari for her son John. Clearly there are
chronological problems in fitting these and the personnel featured in the 984 document
into the same family, but the recurrence of a very unusual name suggests that they were
119
related in some way. CP 130.
120
CDA 154; the Guindazzi are recorded in Naples in 1016 and 1026, RN 370, RN 408.

276
 Landowners and exchanges in the Tyrrhenian
documented from 935. 121 In 1127 they appear in Amalfi, with
John son of Gregory and his wife selling off their entire inheritance
in Reginna Maiori to Sergius, her cousin, and Sergius' wife
Gaitelgrima, daughter of Ursus Cacapice. 122 Even more signifi-
cantly, both John's wife, Marocta, and her cousin Sergius were
from the Agustarizzo family, prominent in Amalfitan documents
throughout the twelfth century. It seems that a double marriage
had accompanied the Neapolitans' internal investment in Amalfi.
Another marriage is documented in 1171, with Truda daughter of
Leo recorded as the widow of Gregory son of Sergius Cacapice. In
that year she and her children Leo, Rachel and Redentiana sold land
bought by her father in Nubella. 123 They acted on behalf of their
sisters in Naples, and Pantaleo son of Sergius Neapolitani signed
the document as witness.
It is unclear whether this Pantaleo, and others with names ending
in 'Neapolitani', can safely be identified as coming from Naples. It
could be argued that, since Pantaleo was in this instance associated
with a Neapolitan family, he himself was probably Neapolitan.
Three years previously, however, he had appeared as a witness to a
charter where none of the participants in the transaction had any
Neapolitan links. 124 Furthermore, a document of 1172 records
Pantaleo and his brother John, the judge of Amalfi, receiving land
and wooden houses in the iudaica of Salerno for themselves and
their brother Sergius, to hold for two years and spend 100 ounces of
Sicilian taxi building there. 125 In 1176 the three brothers divided
the houses they had built with the heirs of the original lessor of the
land, Marinus. 126 Clearly the Neapolitani were active entrepre-
neurs and prominent in both the political and economic life of
Amalfi. Two valuable documents of 1169 and 1174 may provide
more information about their possible Neapolitan origins. The
first records John the judge as co-executor of a will with one
Cesarius, deacon and abbot and son of Gregory Brancatii of
Naples. 127 As in the case of the Cacapice above, association with
another Neapolitan family does strongly suggest that John and his
brothers were from Naples. In 1174, in settlement of a dispute over
the iudaica houses, John made his agreement with Ebolus, son of
121
RN 28; thereafter they appear frequently in the Neapolitan documents throughout the
eleventh century: RN, documents 241, 259, 331, 350, 419, 423, 485, 516, 520, 528, 555.
122 123
CDA 131. CP 149; the land was subsequently sold on in 1193, CDA 231.
124 125 126 127
CDA 177. CDA 183. CP 161. CDA 180.

277
 The economics of power
Marinus the Neapolitan royaljusticiar. 128 The name Ebolus recurs
as one of the heirs mentioned in the 1176 division, and is so unusual
that identification as the same man is fairly secure. Thus the lease
reveals not only the Neapolitani, but also their landlord in Salerno,
as Neapolitans investing in that city.
Ebolus' brother Matthew appears in another document of 1176,
receiving confirmation from Truppoald, the judge of Salerno, of a
document recording a sale of lands and houses in the city by the sea-
shore to Matthew's father Marinus in 1171.129
The Brancatii family, mentioned above, are again documented
at Naples from the tenth century. 130 Although less well docu-
mented at Amalfi, they again seem to have invested in the smaller
duchy in the twelfth century. Anna, daughter of Cesarius
'Brancazzi', is seen selling land near Agerola in 1138. 131 She does
not reveal her Neapolitan background, but her father's name
recurs again in the family in the 1169 document when Cesarius the
abbot identifies his father's family as Neapolitan.
The increase in Neapolitan activity in Amalfi and Salerno is
quite notable after 1130, and perhaps requires some explanation. It
could be argued simply that movement became easier between one
state and another when all were subject to the king of Sicily, but in
fact there is little evidence to prove that it had been difficult before.
The frequent political and economic exchanges in the tenth and
eleventh centuries between Gaeta and Capua, and Amalfi and
Salerno, make it unlikely that travel and migration between
Naples and Amalfi were difficult. Also, it is clear that Amalfitans
had been settling in Naples before 1130. What is striking about the
migration pattern I have just described is that (a) it was from the
larger city to the smaller, and (b) it does seem to have been
concentrated in the latter part of the twelfth century. I would
suggest that the emigration from Naples took place partly as a
result of the city's previous, longstanding resistance to Roger.
Although it is impossible to recreate the internal political patterns
of the city in the early twelfth century, might not the families
found in Amalfi and Salerno after 1130 represent those who found
the incoming (and presumably hostile) regime uncomfortable to
live with, and who preferred to transfer their livelihood to the
nearby cities where the Normans had ruled for much longer, and
128 129
CP 155- CDA 192.
130 £jy j I 9 (964); an earlier appearance may be in 934, when Marinus 'Brancii' is recorded,
131
RN 26. CDA 142.

278
 Landowners and exchanges in the Tyrrhenian
where life had therefore stabilised somewhat? This issue, and much
of the twelfth-century history of those under Norman rule, must
await further study.

(h) CROSS-BORDER MOVEMENT: CONCLUSIONS

The large number of emigrants and cross-border landowners

encountered in the documents suggests that to move to, or invest
in, a foreign land was relatively easy. This may have been partly
due to the fact that borders between the states do not seem to have
been firmly delineated or controlled. Areas such as Liburia
(between Naples and Capua) and Stabia (between Naples and
Amalfi) had no firm political identity, and subjects of different
states lived here side by side.132 There is documentary evidence
that other borders may have been similarly fluid. For example,
although Cetara was part of the principate of Salerno, many of the
landowners there were Amalfitan and authorised their Cetara land
transactions from Amalfi. Land in S. Marzano (unknown), which
again was Salernitan, formed the subject of a sale between two
Neapolitans at Naples in 941, with the boundary clauses including
the land of the 'Langubardi'. 133 The confusion as to whether the
participants in the sale of a garden in Mairano 134 were Salernitan or
Neapolitan, since the document was written at Naples, but
preserved at Salerno, may be caused by the fact that this area again
appears to have lain on the border between the two states.
Thus immigrants found it easy to move from one territory to
another, even if they had few resources to help them in their new
homes. Sergius Calendola was clearly free to cross the border
between Amalfi and Salerno in order to act as an agent for Lupenus
of Atrani. 135
From this section, it can be seen that various motives made men
invest in, or move to, other lands, but all were linked in some way
or another. The initial need for land in Amalfi, for example, led
many to take up property in Salerno, forming a community of
landowners and merchants who found the coast between the two
cities an ideal base for their activities, with both sides benefiting as a
result. For those who ruled the states, landowning elsewhere was a
132
In 933 the fluidity of Liburia's status is illustrated graphically by an agreement made
between Naples and Capua over the terms by which they shared it: MGH n,ii, p. 144,
133
quoted in Taviani-Carozzi, Principaute, p. 289. RN 44.
134 135
CodCaviw/640. CodCav 11/408.

279
 The economics of power
secure manifestation of good political relations. These relationships
at the highest level benefited their subjects, whose right of passage
into other states was made easier if cordial relations existed.
The movement of people may have had another significant
economic result. A survey of the coinage used in the documented
transactions of the three duchies 136 reveals that Amalfitans almost
constantly used their own city's tari, at a rate of 4 to the solidus, and
began in the twelfth century to use Sicilian tari as well. 137 As the
century progressed, the use of the latter became more and more
common; Amalfi's political subjection to the Sicilian monarch was
thus matched by increased economic adherence.
In Gaeta the situation was a little different, in that the city only
minted its own bronze coinage. After a cluster of very early
documents mentioning tari,138 presumably Arabic, Gaetan prices
were expressed in Byzantine solidi, or gold or silver by weight. The
latter was the most common throughout the eleventh century, and
seems to have given way smoothly to the use of Pavian silver denarii
in the early twelfth century. 139 However, there are a couple of
isolated examples later in the century of the use of Amalfitan
tari,140 suggesting that these two cities had frequent enough
economic contact to enable free circulation of the latter's coinage,
even if it did not replace the use of silver. Taken together with the
instances of Gaetans documented at Amalfi in the late twelfth
century, it is clear that far more contact took place between the two
cities than is now visible.
It is in Naples that there is perhaps the most surprising use of
coinage, for from an early date the tari dominates as the currency in
which sales and a few other transactions were negotiated. It seems
likely that the tari used were Arabic; an early document refers to
solidos siculos (Sicilian solidi, perhaps a way of expressing the use of
Arabic dinars, of which the tari was a quarter). 141 Alongside the
tari, Byzantine solidi also feature as a unit of currency, and from 987
136
The survey was based on coinage mentioned in actual transactions, and ignored the
formulaic use of the Byzantine solidus in penalty clauses. It is also acknowledged that the
prices and rents quoted may have been expressed in coinage of account, yet paid in
much smaller denominations. The coinage of account can, however, tell us much about
political and economic affiliations.
137
First use of Sicilian tari: 1138 {CD A 142).
138
CDC 25, CDC 29, CDC 32, CDC 38.
139
First mention of Pavian denarii: 1105 (CDC 278).
140
CDC 346 (1159), CDC 352 (1171).
141
Capasso, Monumenta, 1, p. 267, document 5 (882).

280
 Landowners and exchanges in the Tyrrhenian
references to the exchange rate of 4 tari to the solidus begin. 142 This
rate remained constant throughout our period, despite a reference
in a document of 1027 to tari in 'good old money', suggesting a
debasement had occurred which might be expected to affect the
value of the coin. 143 More overt evidence to such fluctuations in
the coinage available comes from 1063. In that year, a garden of the
convent of St Gregory in Naples was leased to its tenant for life, at
an annual rent of 25 solidi at a rate of 4 Amalfitan tari — the first
direct evidence of coin from that city in Naples. However, this
arrangement would last only as long as Amalfitan coinage
continued to circulate in Naples. If it was replaced by better
coinage, the rent would decrease to 20 solidi, but only if the convent
agreed to accept the new coins. 144
It is not stated whence this new coinage might come, but, given
that Amalfi had just emerged from thirty years of political
upheaval at this date, it is perhaps not surprising that the city's mint
may have been disrupted. The Amalfitan tari continued to circulate
in Naples throughout the remainder of the eleventh century, but it
is perhaps indicative of its varying quality that another document
of St Gregory, dated 1072, again stresses the uncertainty of supply
of Amalfitan coin. 145
The interchangeable use of coin visible in the documents of the
three cities under consideration reinforces the impression of free
movement between them. Movement was not merely limited to
neighbouring states, however. In the final chapter I shall consider
briefly the issue of the long-distance trading activities of the three
duchies under investigation. This will not encompass a detailed
examination of Amalfi's activities, which are already well
documented, but will instead seek to set that city in its Tyrrhenian
context and to examine the less well known commercial life of
Gaeta and Naples.

142 143 144 145

RN2S1. RN 412. RN 493. RN 512.

28l
 Chapter 8

LOCAL EXCHANGE AND LONG-DISTANCE

CONTACTS: THE NORMAN KINGDOM
AND THE NORTH

Urban residence offered political advancement in all three of the

duchies under consideration. The presence of the aristocracy
stimulated the towns economically, creating a market for the
produce of the surrounding countryside and for the outward
trappings of wealth and status, including imported luxury goods.
The role of Gaeta as a centre of exchange is very visible. Itsforum or
market-place lay near the palace,1 and the city's commercial life is
evident from documents recording medialoca or warehouses. From
their name — 'middle places' — these seem to have been constructed
above open shops and below living accommodation in three-
storey buildings.2 Gaeta's variety of trades is reflected in the
inhabitants recorded in her documents. Not only the duke, his
retinue and clergy, but also lime-burners, goldsmiths, a master
smith, a painter and a teacher can be seen.3 In 906, the carpenters of
the city were to be found congregated in the platea near the church
of St Salvator.4
Hints of early trading activity may be found in the presence of
inhabitants of other cities in Gaeta. As early as 890, an inhabitant of
Amalfi, Gaeta's more famous commercial neighbour, appears as a
witness to a document of the ruling family,5 and one Bonizzo the
Pisan is recorded as having owned a warehouse in the city in a
document of 1040.6
The evidence for Amalfitans travelling long distances to trade is
fairly well known, their presence being attested in Cairo, 7 Pavia,8

1 2
CDC 82. CDC 14, CDC 174.
3
CDC 167, CDC 92, CDC 80, CDC 140, and CDC 8 and CDC 140 respectively.
4 5 6
CDC 19. CDC 16. CDC 174.
7
In 978 Leo, a member of the de Rini family, who owned land and may have produced
some of his own exports, confirmed an exchange made by his wife Anna while he was
away in Babilonia, the pre-Arab name for Cairo: CodCav 11/300. See also A. Citarella,

282
 Local exchange and long-distance contacts
Jerusalem, Palermo, 10 and Constantinople.11 The bronze doors
9

of many major Tyrrhenian churches were brought from the latter

city, itself indicative of regular exchange. 12 The Amalfitans also
feature in documents from other parts of southern Italy, though
not directly in a trading context. 13 Here, however, identification
becomes a problem, in that Amalfitans can be confused with
Melfitans. The confusion was already apparent in the eleventh
century, as Amatus of Montecassino explains:
et est a noter que il sont II Melfe, quar est Melfe et Amelfe: Melfe est en la
confine de Puille, et Amelfe est vers Salerne et Naple.14
(it should be noted that there are two Melfe, which are Melfi and Amalfi:
Melfi is in the district of Apulia, and Amalfi is near Salerno and Naples.)
Less well known is the fact that the Gaetans, too, appear to have
engaged in a variety of trading activities. The possibility that
Docibilis I was an enterprising Amalfitan merchant who took
advantage of the political situation in Gaeta to make himself ruler
must remain only speculation. Gaetans, however, are recorded at
Pavia alongside the Amalfitans in the tenth century, arriving in the
city cum magno negotio (literally, 'with great business'), and paying
one-fortieth of its value to the Pavian treasury.15
Gaetans are also recorded in Constantinople. A letter to the
bishop of Gaeta, Leo, dated 1064, relates the death in the Byzantine
capital of the Gaetan John son of Peter de Benedict. John had
bequeathed a substantial amount of money to various churches in
'Scambi commerciali fra l'Egitto e Amalfi in un documento inedito della Geniza di
Cairo', ASPN, 88 (1971), 141-9. In the latter half of the tenth century, many of the
Amalfitan community in Fustat (old Cairo) were massacred on suspicion that they had
burnt some ships: A. Citarella, 'Patterns in medieval trade: the commerce of Amalfi
before the crusades', Journal of Economic History, 28 (1968).
8
Honorantie Civitatis Papie, ed. C.-R. Briihl and C. Violante (Koln-Wien, 1983), p. 20.
9
Matthew, Norman Kingdom, p. 123.
I
° Ibid., p. 75; evidence for the Amalfitan community in Palermo, and the fact that they had
a 'master' at their head, comes in documents of 1172 and 1183, Cusa 117 and Cusa 146.
II
A. R. Lewis, Naval Power and Trade in the Mediterranean (Princeton, 1951), p. 215: by the
middle of the eleventh century, the Amalfitans had a permanent quarter in the city.
12
On those of Montecassino, Amalfi cathedral and others, Bloch, Montecassino, pp. 140-55.
13
See, for example, evidence for Amalfitans in Monte S. Angelo on the Gargano peninsula:
Barletta 30 ( n 12) and BN 6 (twelfth century); the house of Ioannaci the Amalfitan
appears in a document from Tricarico in 1148, Naples, Archivio di Stato, Sezione
Politico-Diplomatica, Inv.99, no.39; an Amalfitan also witnesses a document from Lecce
in 1198, SGL 16. Saints' lives also provide valuable evidence for Amalfitan activities in
the South, as A. Cerenza illustrates:' Amalfitani in Calabria e Siciliani ad Amalfi in epoca
prenormanna', Rassegna del Centro di Cultura e Storia Amalfitana, 3:5 (1983), 175-9.
14 15
Amatus, 11.7, p. 65. See note 8.

283
 The economics of power
Gaeta, and the bishop was asked to send someone to collect the
cash.16 The letter is endorsed with Leo's agreement to do so,
suggesting that contact between Gaeta and Constantinople was
frequent enough by this time to enable prompt action. The
evidence of Liutprand of Cremona supports the idea that Gaetans
had long been a familiar sight in the imperial city. He reports a
speech by the two sons and deposers of emperor Romanus, saying
that their opposition had consisted not only of Greeks, but also of
foreigners, including Amalfitans and men of'Caieta'. 17 Whilst the
speech itself may be a fabrication, the presence of Gaetans and
Amalfitans in the city must have been a credible notion.
One commodity that was certainly brought from Constantino-
ple to the West was silk. A survey of the documents of the noble
men and women of the Tyrrhenian states in the tenth and eleventh
centuries reveals that silk cloths formed a valued part of their
moveable property. 18 Liutprand of Cremona explicitly states that
the silk worn by 'street-walkers and conjurors' in the West came
via the Amalfitans.19 Amatus of Montecassino also characterises
Amalfi as 'rich in gold and cloths'. 20 The Amalfitans, as members
of a state nominally subject to Byzantine overlordship, probably
received the same treatment as provincial Greeks, who could buy
and export from Constantinople any kind of silk fabric except that
worn exclusively by the emperors. 21 This concession could equally
well have applied to the Gaetans. However, if we can trust a
reference to 'Gaetan silk' in a will from 1028,22 it seems that the
latter city was engaged in the manufacture of the cloth.
From an eleventh century source we learn that as early as the
ninth century Gaeta had a Jewish community. 23 This community
seems to have played a very important part in Gaeta's commercial
life by the twelfth century. We have already met a document of
16 17
CDC 219. Liutprand of Cremona, Antapodosis, v, 21.
18
For example, the wills of the Gaetan rulers Docibilis I and Docibilis II, CDC 19 (906),
CDC 52 (954), and of Sergius, an Amalfitan resident in Naples, CP 81 (1025), all contain
references to bequests of silk. Other documents featuring silk cloths (panni serici): CDC
66 (964), CDC 143 (1024), CDC 153 (1028), RN 482 (1045), CodCav 11/382 (986),
CodCav m/528 (999), CodCav iv/582 (1006), CodCav iv/688 (1015), CodCav v/738
(1022), CodCav v/812 (1029), CodCav vii/1096 (1046).
19
Liutprand of Cremona, The Embassy to Constantinople, chapter 55, in Works, p. 268.
20
Amatus, 11.7, p. 65.
21
R. Lopez, 'The silk industry in the Byzantine Empire', Speculum, 20 (1945), 38.
22
CDC 153.
23
Ahimaaz ben Paltiel, Chronicle ofAhimaaz, trans. M. Salzmann (New York, 1924, repr.
1966), p. 63.

284
 Local exchange and long-distance contacts
1129, in which the consuls of Gaeta declared that profits from the
Jewish dye-works or other arts should be used for the benefit of the
city. 24 The other 'arts' referred to seem to have been olive oil and
salt extraction. The Jews thus had a vital role to play in providing
the city's necessities of life, as well as dyeing its cloth, and this may
have prompted the consuls' concern to control the trade in some
way. Jewish communities in the cities of the South were well used
to such supervision of their activities, and there are many charters
granting control of entire communities to local noblemen or
rulers.25
Given the early and continuing involvement of the Tyrrhenian
cities with the Arabs of North Africa and Sicily, Jews may have
been used as middlemen in trade with these areas. Certainly there is
evidence to suggest that they rose to prominent positions at
Muslim courts.26
One area in which Jewish middlemen might have been used was
in the slave trade of the South. Slavery continued in southern Italy
until at least the mid-eleventh century. An early document from
Naples reveals an inhabitant of that city who had bought three
slaves from the Saracens and was now freeing them. 27 Given the
general condemnation of Christians who owned slaves, it may well
be that the Neapolitan bought the slaves, all women, in order to
free them. However, the widespread occurrence of slave-owner-
ship among the documents of the southern cities suggests that such
scruples were largely ignored.

24
CDC 317.
25
See, for example, a document of 1086, in which duchess Sikelgaita, w i d o w of Robert
Guiscard, gave all the Jews in the city of B a n to Urso, archbishop of the city. She had
received them as her dowry: Codice Diplomatico Barese, 1—11, ed. G. B. Nitto de Rossi and
F. Nitti di Vito (Bari, 1897—99), document no.30. In 1107 countess Adelaide, wife of
count Roger of Sicily, gave to the monastery of St Bartholomew at Lipari the tithe of the
Jewish community at Termas: Codex Diplomaticus Regni Siciliae, 11, 1, Rogerii II Regis
Diplomata Latina, ed. C.-R. Briihl (Koln, 1987), document n o . i . In 1136 king Roger
exchanged the dye-works of Bibone, Leo the Jew and all his family, plus various other
property and a number of villeins, for t w o churches belonging to the abbey of St Trinity
at Mileto: ibid., document no. 42. Closer to Gaeta, Taviani-Carozzi, Principaute, p. 448—9,
cites an important document from Capua dated 1041 and listing the obligations of the
Jews of that city to the fisc; in Salerno, the Jews, w h o lived in a defined iudaica near St
Trophimenus street, were subject to the control and financial demands of the archbishop:
C. Carucci, 'Gli ebrei in Salerno nei secoli XI e XII', Archivio Storico della Provincia di
Salerno, 1 (1921), 74—9. See also A. Marongiu, 'Gli ebrei di Salerno nei documenti dei
secoli X-XIIF, ASPN, 52 (1937), 3-31.
26
The eleventh-century writer Ahimaaz ben Paltiel's ancestor became master of astrology
27
at the Fatimid court: Ahimaaz, Chronicle, p. 22. RN 15 (928).

285
 The economics of power
The Neapolitan document does provide concrete proof that
trading between Christian and Muslim occurred. To this other
fragments of evidence can be added from the Amalfitan evidence,
in so far as it supports general points about the relationship of the
Tyrrhenian cities with the Arabs. Some references to exchanges are
fairly explicit. In 978 Leo, a member of the de Rini family, who
owned land and may have produced some of his own exports,
confirmed an exchange made by his wife Anna while he was away
in Babilonia, the pre-Arab name for Cairo. 28 The Amalfitan
documents reveal other men away at sea or 'not in this land', with
their wives and mothers handling their business at home. 29
If the East provided the source of luxury goods for some
Amalfitans, Salerno probably acted as the point of exchange for the
agricultural goods that the Amalfitans and Atranians needed to sell
in order to buy such luxuries, and for the grain they needed to buy
to eat. The focus of Amalfitan and Atranian activity in the city was
in St Trophimenus street, near the harbour. Mercantile activities
there may be indicated by the leasing out by Leo the Atranian son
of Ursus of his house for the very short period of eighteen months
in 1044.30 This may have been the duration of a trading expedition.
It is possible that some of the city-dwellers spent very little time in
the houses they bought or leased, viewing them rather as pieds-a-
terre to be used between trips. It appears that from a very early stage
the immigrants in Salerno had reserves of spare cash. In 932
Iohannelgarius son of John the Atranian lent 16 taxi to Magelgardus
for a year, secured on Magelgardus' land. After a year the
repayment would consist of the money plus five barrels of wine, a
healthy rate of interest and a shrewd form in which to obtain it if
the Atranian was in the wine trade, although whether he was a
merchant lending out a small amount of his profits is unclear.31
In Gaeta we saw that individual noblemen had commercial
interests, but that the newer families were far more heavily
involved in trade. In Amalfi it was the former group whose
members are cited as being at sea or abroad most often; I would
suggest that in the duchy where any landed property was at a
premium, it was the nobility who could amass more to use as
collateral against commercial loans. For example, the family
descended from Cunari (fl.late ninth century), had two members,
28
CodCav 11/300; Cairo: Citarella, 'Scambi commercials.
29 30
See, for example, CDA 42, CDA 45, CDA 48. CodCav vii/1033.
31
CodCav 1/i 52.

286
 Local exchange and long-distance contacts
Cunari son of Mauri and John son of Stephen, at sea in 1031.32 The
sons of Lupus de Sergius de Lupo de Sergius comes were at sea four
years later,33 and Mauro Monteincolli went abroad in 1097.34
Such evidence does somewhat dispel the idea that the Amalfitans
became a great maritime people because they were forced into
trade through lack of land.
Later in the Gaetan evidence, it is possible to see a growing
commercial exchange, sometimes reinforced with marriage ties,
between the great families of Gaeta and Rome. 35 Some of the
aristocratic families clearly owned shops and medialoca in Gaeta,
perhaps to support trade further afield.36 Although we have little
idea of the commodities traded, the economic ties may have led to
the political interest of the Tusculani and Crescentii families in the
northern part of the duchy. Also, the pattern of certain families in
Gaeta trading with the former Roman house, and other families
trading with the latter, may reflect not only competition between
the Romans, but also a growing factionalism in Gaeta itself.37 This
is not explicitly expressed in the Gaetan documents, but there was
presumably a certain amount of competition to gain the consulate
in Gaeta when the consuls' powers covered many aspects of Gaeta's
economic life.
Most of the documents illustrating these powers deal with
Gaeta's external relations, and provide a fascinating glimpse of the
constant need for negotiation in a world of fast-developing
commercial cities. This was the period in which the northern city-
states, particularly Genoa and Pisa, were staking a claim to both
local and long-distance trading rights, and the twelfth century can
be characterised as one in which the cities of the South were forced
to fight for their continued place in the commercial world of the
Mediterranean. The fate of Amalfi is most often studied as evidence
of this phenomenon. As the power of the northern cities grew,
however, Amalfi gradually lost ground compared with its

32 33 34
PAVARil12. CDA 42. CP 89.
35
T h e first evidence is the document of Ramfus Christopheri, see above, chapter 4; on later
links, see above, chapter 6.
36
Shops were owned in Gaeta by the Mancanella family (CDC 321, 1131), the Cotinas
(CDC 283, a 'pothega'), the Castaneas and the Gattulas (CDC 322,1132). Other families,
such as the Coronellas (in 1054 and 1128, CDC 197 and CDC 313) and the de Arcius (in
1054, CDC 197) seem to have had large amounts of liquid wealth at their disposal, again
indicating that they were active in trade.
37
I have developed this image of factions at Gaeta further in P. Skinner, 'Politics and piracy:
the duchy of Gaeta in the twelfth century', Journal of Medieval History, forthcoming.

287
 The economics of power
previously dominant position.38 The rivalry between the Campa-
nian city and its northern competitors culminated in the famed
Pisan sack of Amalfi in 1136/7.39 Gaeta, on the other hand, whilst
not having such extensive trading contacts (at least, no evidence has
survived if it did), does not seem to have suffered such a dramatic
decline as its neighbour,40 and its history provides a rather different
picture.
Although little evidence survives for Gaetan commercial
activities before the twelfth century, external sources, such as the
isolated references cited above, reveal that Gaetan traders were
known from an early date in both northern Italy and other parts of
the Mediterranean. Gaeta's flourishing commercial life does not
seem to have been adversely affected by the fall of its independent
dukes and their replacement in 1062, after a period of rule by the
duke of Aquino, by the Norman princes of Capua. In the twelfth
century the external sources for the city's trading activities become
fuller, in particular the archives from Genoa.
The Gaetans and Genoese seem to have had an ambivalent
relationship. In 1128 a Genoese commune tariff list showed the
respective payments of the Gaetans, Neapolitans, Amalfitans and
Salernitans at Genoa for each person on board their ships docking
at Genoa as 12 denarii, 18, 18 and 18.41 Thus the Gaetans enjoyed a
favoured position over merchants from the other three cities, and
over inhabitants of Rome, who also paid 18 denarii. Such a
concession suggests that the Gaetans already had a longstanding
relationship with the Genoese which is not now visible. The only
circumstantial clue, before the twelfth century, is that a Gaetan ship
took the mission of monks from Montecassino to the island of
Sardinia in 1063.42 The significance of this fact is simply that the
island was colonised by both the Pisans and the Genoese, raising the
possibility of Gaetan-Genoese meetings or exchanges there.

38
A. Citarella, 'II declino del commercio marittimo di Amalfi', ASPN, 3rd series 13 (1975),
9-54-
39
Bernardo Maragone, Annales Pisani, ed. M . L. Gentile (Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, iv,
ii, Bologna, 1930), pp. 9—10 (1136).
40
There has recently been a revision of the picture of Amalfi's commercial 'decline',
summed up by David Abulafia in 'Southern Italy, Sicily and Sardinia' (see above,
Introduction, note 16).
41
Codice Diplomatico delta Repubblica di Genova, ed. C . Imperiale, 1 (Rome, 1936), p . 61;
Abulafia, Two ltalies, p. 74 has the amounts as I2d, I2.sd, 10.5d and 10.5d, and therefore
comes to a rather different conclusion about the respective relationships of the four cities
42
with Genoa. Loud, Church and Society, p. 51.

288
 Local exchange and long-distance contacts
It is not known when the consulate in Gaeta came into being
(using the term consulate as an executive power in the city, not
the title of consul which the dukes of Gaeta often used), but, if we
compare the date of its earliest appearance - 1123 - in the
documents to the datable references to consulates in northern cities,
Gaeta falls in the list of the 'more precocious cities' to use Waley's
term. 43 More significantly, Genoa is known to have had consuls by
1099. Did the trading links between this city and Gaeta influence
the development of the consulate in the latter city? It is highly
likely; the Gaetans did not have any similar southern example to
model their institutions on. It is important, however, to bear in
mind that Gaeta had a long history of exchanges with Rome. That
city's consuls and senators appear in a Gaetan document of 1127,
conceding safe passage by boat to a group of monks, 44 but I am
inclined to prefer Genoa as a source of the political patterns that
developed at Gaeta on the grounds that Rome's political structures
were always exceptional. The strong link between the consuls and
the commercial life of the city also suggests external influence.
However, in 1140 the Genoese annals of Caffaro show that
relations had soured somewhat:
adhuc in eodem consulatu galee II Gaitanorum ad depredandum
Ianuenses Provintiam venerant. Ilico galee II Ianuensium armate fuerunt,
et eas sequentes apud Arzentarium invenerunt, et unam preliando
ceperunt, et cum hominibus ac cum tota preda quam fecerant Ianuam
adduxerunt.45
(In this same consulate two Gaetan ships came to plunder the province of
Genoa. So two Genoese ships were armed, and following them found
them at Arzentarium, and captured one, taking its men and all its plunder
back to Genoa.)
It is unclear where Arzentarium was, but perhaps it could be
identified with Castro Argento on the Gaetan coast.46 What is
particularly interesting about this account is the stress on the
Gaetans as the aggressors. The raid may not necessarily have
reflected commercial rivalry, however. In the political upheavals
43
Waley, Italian City-Republics, p. 35, tentatively lists six cities with consuls before 1100,
44
and a further seven between 1100 and 1125. CDC 312.
45
Annali Genovesi di Caffaro e de' suoi Continuatori, ed. L. T. Belgrano, 1 (Genoa, 1890), p.
30.
46
It could also, perhaps, have been Monte Argentario in Tuscany, given that the Genoese
would have been more concerned to defend their o w n coastline (personal communica-
tion D. Abulafia: I thank him for pointing this out).

289
 The economics of power
of the creation of the Norman kingdom in the South, northern
states often intervened, and this raid might have been to warn the
Genoese not to become involved in the internal matters of the
kingdom. Documents issued at Gaeta in the first half of the twelfth
century, however, give a clear indication of the links between
politics and commercial interests.
The striking feature of these documents is the number of
occasions on which the consuls of Gaeta are seen making peace and
restoring goods to foreign merchants in the city. Again the political
background must be taken into account, but confiscation of goods,
an economic weapon, seems to have been a favourite tactic of the
Gaetans. Thus in 1124 Bello of Rome son of Bobo and his sons won
a dispute against the consuls over a ship and its goods which he was
captaining on behalf of a Roman consortium.47 In the following
year, Peter Sfagilla of Salerno, who had arrived from Tunis,
acknowledged the return of his ship and its cargo of grain from the
consuls of Gaeta, who had seized it during a war between the two
cities.48 Sometimes such seizure may have come close to outright
piracy, as a document of 1129 reveals. In this year a group of named
Neapolitans49 acknowledged the return of a ship which had been
stolen by 'men of Gaeta', and made peace with the consuls.50
Similarly, in 1138a group of named Atranians received compensa-
tion for 8 ounces of gold 'lost' in Gaeta while they were on their
way to ransom captives in Pisa.51
Whatever the political situation, however, commercial life
seems to have continued, and by the latter part of the twelfth
century we again find Gaetans in Genoa. It may be significant,
however, that the individuals recorded were integrated into
Genoa's commercial life, and in two cases signed up as crew on a
Genoese ship. In 1190, for example, Peter son of Leo Gaetanus
made a contract at Genoa in July, and John Gaetanus and Ricardus
Bonus Fides Gaete signed up as crew on a Genoese ship.52 Does this
indicate that Gaeta's own fleet was now less frequently seen in the
northern port? It is possible that the Gaetans had been forced off the
routes to Genoa and had to seek other markets. The city was now
part of the Norman kingdom, of course, and this perhaps opened
up new trading opportunities. Matthew makes the valid point that
47 48
CDC 302. CDC 308.
49
Including one Constantine de Ranuzzu Pisanu, whose surname belies his origins.
50 51 52
CDC 319. CDC 332. Abulafia, Two Italies, p. 179.

290
 Local exchange and long-distance contacts
much of the southern cities' most significant trade had been with
areas outside the new kingdom. 53 However, it is clear that, while
Amalfi found conditions more difficult, Gaeta flourished in the
new markets. This at least is the impression given by other evidence
from the late twelfth century. Several members of the Gaetan
Gattula family, for example, begin to appear in Amalfitan
documents in the 1170s, suggesting that they may have been
seeking internal markets to replace trade lost outside the king-
dom. 54 In c.i 191, king Tancred of Sicily promised that Gaetans
would not be prohibited from bringing grain from Sicily to Gaeta,
unless a general prohibition on exports from the island was in
force.55 Nevertheless, fragments of evidence show that Gaeta had
not entirely abandoned their northern connections. In 1198 the
Doge of Venice apologised to Gaetan merchants whose goods had
been seized.56
That Gaeta's relationship with the northern cities underwent
changes in the middle of the twelfth century is perhaps not
surprising when political events are taken into account. It seems
that much of the stimulus for the city's period of intense trading
activity in the first half of the century came from the patriotic and
sometimes piratical members of the consulate, in imitation of
northern models. When Roger became Norman king in 1130, he
set about establishing his authority. His most vigorous opposition
came from the princes of Capua, allied with the dukes of Naples,
and he did not succeed in crushing this resistance until 1137. More
telling, however, is the fact that the last record we have of consuls
in the city is in 1135.57 Nevertheless, at least two acts of Gaetan
aggression occurred after this date: the apparent seizure of the
Atranians' ransom money and the raid on the Genoese coast. The
latter occurred in 1140.
Thereafter, Gaeta's leaders became part of the Norman hier-
archy. The same families are still visible, but the cavalier
confiscations and raids that had characterised the period of the
consulate, together with treaties with other southern cities, 58 were
53
Norman Kingdom, p . 73.
54
Gattulas in Amalfi: CDA 182 (1172), CDA 194 (1177), CDA 196, CD A 203, CD A 215,
CDA 216, CP 158 (1176), CP 175 (1184), PAVAR 1/54, PAVAR 1/63, PAVAR 1/64.
55 56
Abulafia, Two Italies, p . 40. Abulafia, Two Italies, p . 10.
57
CDC 327.
58
For example, a ten-year peace with Naples in 1129, CDC 318, and a treaty with the lord
of M o n t e Circeo against the Terracinans in 1134, CDC 325.

291
 The economics of power
no longer left to their discretion. The Mancanellas, however, may
have taken advantage of their commercial contacts to leave Gaeta
for a while: Bonus 'Manganella' appears in Genoa as a witness to a
contract in 1190.59
This chapter and the preceding one have dwelt at some length on
the commercial lives of the Tyrrhenian cities and their inhabitants,
at both a local and international level, in order to illustrate the level
of movement that there was between them, and the effect this
might have had on their internal politics. Naples has not featured
very heavily in these discussions. It is no coincidence that of the
three cities under examination, Naples was the one with the most
stable history, perhaps because it was rather less receptive to any
external influences that the merchants of Amalfi and Gaeta brought
back to their own cities. Certainly this is suggested by the static
nature of its political life and in the unchanging character of its
documents.
Movement was vital to the existence of these two smaller states,
however, for neither seems to have been able to support itself from
its landed resources. We might speculate that a man like Docibilis I
was already involved in the supply of foodstuffs or luxury items to
the Gaetans when he perceived that the city could be taken over
politically.
It is difficult to judge the importance of commercial exchange to
any of these cities when the source material under scrutiny is
concerned far more with land transactions. This fact in itself is
significant, for, as I pointed out earlier, much trade could not have
taken place without landed resources from which to raise the
capital. Land was the most important factor in assessing the power
of the families and individual rulers that this study has examined,
but the trade connections that are visible force a scrutiny of these
cities in their wider context. Amalfi and Gaeta are all too often
characterised as petty states with little significance in the history of
southern Italy. Their history is ignored in favour of that of the
larger, Lombard principalities. Yet, as we have seen in this chapter,
their links with other parts of the peninsula and with the East
suggest that they may have been far more important to their
trading partners (and perhaps to the economy of the South) than
can now be ascertained. The histories of these states, furthermore,
can illuminate a number of general problems in medieval
European history.
59
Abulafia, Two Italies, p. 179.

292
 CONCLUSION

What contribution can an examination of a tiny duchy like that of

Gaeta and its neighbours make to our understanding of early
medieval political and economic life? Does its history have a
significance beyond southern Italy, let alone the borders of Italy as a
whole?
The history of the duchy of Gaeta is one of contradictions.
Documents of the tenth century present the image of a duke whose
territory, if not large, was united and firmly ruled by his powerful
family. Yet, as we have seen, the base from which he chose to rule
had never been the natural centre of that territory. It was chosen
because of the need for a defensive site in the face of Arab incursions
and, perhaps, because the Docibilans were making a deliberate
break with the old centres of papal administration for the area,
Fondi and Traetto. This created internal tensions and led ultimately
to the reassertion of the older pattern of a fortress on the peninsula
and two separate jurisdictions. The major achievement of Docibilis
and his clan is that for a century they were able to paper over these
natural divisions and forcibly create a duchy.
What though, did the creation of the duchy of Gaeta entail? The
answer to this question is to be found in the surviving documentary
evidence from Gaeta, which is so unusual as to be worthy of
examination by medieval historians working in other areas. This
evidence, unlike much of that from southern Italy, does not seem
to have been produced or preserved by an ecclesiastical institution
before Montecassino received it in the late eleventh century. It is
full of documents authorised by laymen, particularly members of
the remarkable Docibilan family. Numerically their transactions
predominate; suggesting either that they must have had more
property to administer, or that they were seen as so important by
their contemporaries and successors that their documents were
thought worth preserving. A third factor may also be at work, and
that is the importance attached to the written evidence of their
actions by the Docibilans.
293
 Family power in southern Italy
It is unlikely that the value placed on charters was introduced by
the family, however. The strong patterns of local continuity with a
Byzantine and late Roman past meant that some vestige of their
tradition of written administration probably survived throughout
the 'dark ages' of the sixth to the eighth centuries. And, unlike
other parts of Italy or Europe, the Tyrrhenian coastal cities were
not taken over by incoming Germanic rulers; one might imagine,
therefore, that their tradition of writing records of legal transac-
tions remained relatively unaffected during the Lombard invasions
of the South. Only the preservation of such material, once the
work of the gesta municipalia, seems to have been disrupted.1
The Gaetan evidence shows early medieval rulers acting like
private citizens, managing the publicum of Gaeta in much the same
way as they would their own lands, and frequently blurring the
distinction between the two. Gaeta's identity as a duchy seems to
rest solely on the fact that during its history it had documented
dukes. Prior to the Docibilans' rise, the ruler of the castle had been a
hypatos and the governor of the territories surrounding it was called
the rector. The Docibilans themselves used these titles before
adopting the ducal one; little seems to have changed perceptibly,
except perhaps in their self-esteem, when the Docibilans began to
style themselves dukes.
It may not be entirely coincidental, however, that the rule of the
first duke coincided with the first documented use of the term
publicum or public land, at Gaeta. Perhaps the Docibilans were
trying to formalise their position, clothing their de facto power in
more legalistic phraseology. This reveals a need to legitimise their
position. The documentation reveals that a 'state' did not
necessarily have to have formalised institutions to run it, but could
rely upon different members of the ducal family performing
loosely defined functions which, after a while, came to be centred
on settlements other than Gaeta.
It is in relation to the problem of their public power that the
documents of the Docibilans become less informative. We have
seen that the duke controlled land termed public, and that he
sometimes held courts to judge disputes. It is difficult, however, to
1
Compare R. McKitterick, The Carolingians and the Written Word (Cambridge, 1989), p. 82
on the survival of written culture in Alemannia and Rhaetia, where 'It may . . . be due to
the assertion of familiar written modes of record by one section of an early medieval
community, drawing on its Roman past, that we owe the gradual adoption of written
modes by other [Frankish] sections.'

294
 Conclusion
gauge the territorial limit of his jurisdiction. Nor were there any
publicly appointed officials or a formal court circle. Hints of the
latter can be gained from analysis of ducal witness lists, but there is
no indication of the type of palace circle familiar to historians of
northern Europe (particularly Carolingian France) or recently
identified in other parts of Italy, as in the Salernitan example
investigated by Taviani-Carozzi.
Taviani-Carozzi attempted to survey the early offices visible in
the Salernitan documents, such as treasurer, count of the palace,
and referendarius, but was unable to define their functions beyond
the distinction they brought to members of the prince's own
family. In Gaeta, Naples and Amalfi the situation was much the
same, with titles other than that of the ruler having no real power
or function attached to them.
Nor do public officials appear to have had any fixed function.
Judges, one of the few groups for whom there is substantial
evidence, seem almost universally to have had a witnessing
function, validating documents with their presence. They are
hardly ever seen deciding the outcome of disputes, but they may
occasionally have deputised for the duke in other roles, particularly
the supervision of minors.
A public treasury is documented in the early twelfth century
under Norman rule, but none seems to have existed under the
Docibilans. Whether the family did impose any controls over the
financial affairs of the duchy is unclear; I suggested that they may
have tried to monopolise milling activities in the territory. They
may conceivably have attempted to enforce other restrictions on
the economy of the duchy, but if so there is no documentation of
these. It is essential to note that such activity did not have to be the
public action of the rulers, but may simply have been the aggressive
tactics of a particularly powerful private family. The absence of
any Docibilan public legislation supports this view.
The Docibilans' use of informal networks of power was their
major weakness, however, in that there was no secure foundation
for their cosmetic changes at Gaeta. By virtue of their wealth they
were able to dominate in the duchy itself, welding together
historically separate pieces into a whole. But their failure to secure
that with any military provision or administrative framework,
together with the fact that the territory itself was still only a tiny
area, meant that the duchy was easy prey to outsiders.
Paradoxically, the absorption of Gaeta into the lands ruled by
295
 Family power in southern Italy
the Norman princes of Capua did not so much signal the end of the
duchy as the creation of an entity far more public and state-like in
its nature. Since the duchy had fallen under the control of the
Norman princes of Capua before the latter succumbed to the
power of king Roger, its history in the early twelfth century is
often obscured by their actions. Its Norman dukes, with other
territories to control besides Gaeta's, delegated the internal running
of the duchy to those men whose families had gained prominence
during the latter half of the eleventh century. Suddenly, formal,
governmental processes become visible in our documents — a fisc,
the permanent consular posts filled each year by different men,
public control by these consuls of Gaeta's trade activities and,
crucially, some kind of legislative activity. This latter is suggested
by the case of the consuls' imposition of a limit on the height of
buildings in the city; there must have been a point at which a
decision was made and thereafter stood as a precedent for future
cases.
The informality displayed by the Tyrrhenian states in their
administration until the late eleventh century is reflected in their
loosely defined boundaries. Stabia, between Naples and Amalfi,
Liburia, between Naples and Capua, and Flumetica, between
Capua and Gaeta, all seem to have been fluid border areas in which
the inhabitants of one state might frequently interact with those of
another. A fourth area, the district of Cetara and Vietri between
Amalfi and Salerno, seems to have witnessed almost complete
integration between inhabitants of those two cities. Given the
evidence set out in this study, it is difficult to sustain the idea of all
these small states as discrete and separate from one another.
Gaeta can certainly no longer be viewed as an autonomous or
unified duchy. Even before the Capuan/Norman takeover it was
subject to external influence, and may have been more closely
attached to Naples in particular. This position, which can be
described as 'detached subjection', may also have been the lot of
another minute state in this area, that centred on Sorrento. The
latter, however, is so poorly documented that Sorrentan historio-
graphy has not created the myth of a separate state. Again we
return to the question of relative documentation - would the
duchy of Gaeta be so prominent if its charter collection had not
contained such a large number of transactions authorised by its
dukes? The rise of the Docibilan family to power was dramatic and
quite sudden, as far as we can see, but their power was ephemeral in
296
 Conclusion
comparison to that of the families who provided later rulers of the
city, and the families who surrounded them without ever
providing a ruler.
Detailed prosopographical and genealogical analysis does not
seem to have been widely employed by historians working on the
southern Italian documents, yet the use of these methods is
common in northern Italian and German studies. As I have shown,
prosopography and genealogy can be used profitably in research
into the political structures of southern Italian states. Real power
was often held in the hands of local noble families, who have not
been studied at all. There is considerable potential for similar
studies in other areas of the South.
Clearly the approach must be modified in each individual case.
For example, tracing genealogies in the Lombard states of southern
Italy might present problems when men stated only their own
name without a patronym (this is the case, for example, in a large
number of the documents from Cava). The Lombards, a Germanic
people, may potentially reveal clearer lines of descent through the
lead-name method. Certainly the sheer confusion of Pandolfs,
Paldolfs and Landolfs visible as rulers of Capua suggest that the
repetition of ancestral names was a feature of Lombard family
tradition. The gratifyingly large number of Salernitan documents,
both published (in the Codex Cavensis) and unpublished, may
provide a useful database on which to test this theory in some
detail.
There is a copious amount of documentary evidence for the
history of southern Italy before the coming of the Normans, yet it
has never been systematically explored. The area has previously
suffered from a lack of study due, no doubt, to the poverty of
documents about the various rulers. If we look instead at the rulers'
subjects, however, a whole new vista opens out, which may
necessitate a reappraisal of the political life of the whole area.
Even taking a small sample of the documentation available in the
South can provide much information on its history. By breaking
down Gaeta's population into smaller power groups, we have seen
that this area was not so much a state as a loosely knitted collection
of smaller political units, family estates and public land which,
during the period under review, was united under Docibilan rule,
fell apart in the eleventh century and then reunited as a part of the
Capuan and Norman territories in the late eleventh and early
twelfth centuries. By focusing on the subject families rather than
297
 Family power in southern Italy
the rulers at Gaeta, the true political patterns of the petty states are
revealed.
The major implication of all this is fairly disquieting. If even tiny
states such as Gaeta and Amalfi cannot justifiably be treated as
political units, where does that leave our perception of the other
southern Italian 'states'? Giovanni Tabacco calls the tenth and
eleventh centuries in Italy the period of political anarchy. It would
seem that the image of southern Italy as made up of small, but
recognisably unified, states identified by the titles of their rulers
(duchies, principates, etc.) has endured so long in the historiogra-
phy simply because historians of the area felt the need to impose
some order on what may have been an area of total political
incoherence.
It might be argued that Gaeta's territory lay too far north really
to be counted among the cities of southern Italy at all. Its history
reveals it to have been something of a border area between Rome
to the north and Byzantine and Lombard territories to the south. Its
political life in the early twelfth century reveals the influence of
contact with the northern cities. Freed of the restrictions appar-
ently in force under Docibilan rule, Gaeta seems to have flourished
economically under the Normans, with documented commercial
exchange with other parts of Italy and the Mediterranean. Such
interaction may explain why a city some seventy-five miles south
of Rome began to act in a way more commonly associated with
cities in the North, that is have consuls at all. Here there is (as far as I
am aware) the unique situation of a southern city displaying
communal characteristics, whilst at the same time being under the
sovereignty of a greater power. It is a phenomenon which requires
that we reconsider the division of Italian history into 'North' and
'South', and begin to look at the features common to both the
northern city republics and the southern kingdom.
The development of an aristocracy with consular titles is
certainly an unusual one, and pulls Gaeta more firmly into the
northern half of Italy. Yet its political life was profoundly affected
by southern powers, and the level of exchange with Naples and
Amalfi, and Gaeta's eventual identity as part of the southern
kingdom of Naples, mean that its southern identity cannot be
jettisoned too quickly. Its unique position may make it an
exceptional case, therefore, but until we re-examine the histories of
some of its neighbours in more detail, we cannot be sure.
For a short while the city of Gaeta had, to all intents and
298
 Conclusion
purposes, behaved in exactly the same way as the more famous
northern communes. The essential difference to remember is that
the Gaetan consuls were always subject to the overlordship of the
princes of Capua. The latter condoned the consuls' activities by
entering into agreements with them. In 1123 duke Richard
confirmed to the consuls that he would not change Gaeta's copper
coinage, thereby recognising the importance of commercial
activities to the city's leaders.2 In 1127 he conceded to them the
building of the curia in Gaeta.3
Gaeta's history in the early twelfth century adds a valuable new
perspective to the study of the development of communes and
consulates in the North of Italy, and should temper our perception
of communal government as one which could only flourish as an
independence movement. And, while it is true that some of the
city's more original activities in the fields of politics and piracy
were suppressed by the creation of the Norman kingdom, its
success as a trading city under Norman rule is an important counter
argument to the more common picture of small, enterprising cities
of the South, notably Amalfi, being stifled by Norman influence.4
It can be argued that the creation of a unified kingdom opened up
new markets to individual cities, the essential difference being that
those cities' exchanges were now focused within the kingdom.
Gaeta took advantage of this, but still seems to have been able to
maintain intermittent contact with Genoa. Amalfi, whose most
spectacular trading successes had always been outside Italy, lost
ground in these markets to the northern cities, with whom it does
not seem to have been able to reach agreement, and was unable to
compensate with the type of internal trade that Gaeta came to
specialise in.
It should be added that many cities of the North, including
Genoa, Pisa and Rome, feature men surnamed Caetani in their
charter collections. It is unlikely that these were men of Gaeta;
rather, they may have had Gaetan ancestors from whom they took
their distinctive surname. Toubert has raised the problem of trying
2 3
CDC 301. CDC 311.
4
For example, G. Day, Genoa's Response to Byzantium, 1153—1204 (Urbana, 111., 1988), p. 22,
characterises the Norman conquest as a time of disruption in the commercial links
between the southern cities and Byzantium. The issue of whether the Normans stifled the
commercial life of the southern cities is a contentious one, and recent work by Abulafia,
Commerce and Conquest, essay I and Delogu, 'The crisis of Amalfitan trade', paper read to
the Medieval Society, University of Birmingham, November 1990, revises the rather
gloomy picture of the fate of their trading activities.

299
 Family power in southern Italy
to identify ethnic origin by personal names; his warning is equally
applicable to surnames deriving from cities.5 This certainly seems
to be true in the cases of the 'Sirrentini' in Naples and Amalfi
(derived from Sorrento), and the 'Capuani' in the latter city.
The problem of surnames such as these and their meaning has
not received much attention from historians. Here again, a future
line of inquiry across traditional North/South boundaries, map-
ping such surnames and perhaps deriving a better idea of how far
individuals travelled or how common the surnames were, could
produce striking results. Only when studies devoted to individual
cities are compared, or less circumscribed studies undertaken, will
the potential for such discoveries be fulfilled. Until then, the
example of Gaeta, a tiny duchy under Norman rule, serves as a
reminder that the division between North and South in Italian
historiography is a tool for the convenience of historians rather
than a reflection of political and economic reality.
The type of family history which has dominated this study can
again give a more accurate picture of the impact of the Norman
conquest. Power could be gained by intermarriage at a local level,
as the pre-Norman history of the area demonstrates. Such a means
of spreading their influence seems to have been used by the
Crescentii family of Rome in their dealings with the dukes of Fondi
and Terracina. The Gattulas of Gaeta may well have obscured the
identities of less powerful families in that city by their marital
tactics. The most successful example of a kin group dominating an
area is that of the Docibilans at Gaeta, but their achievements rested
as much on the number of children they were able to produce in
each generation as upon the political unions that they made.
There is evidence to suggest that the Normans were well aware
of the benefits of such unions, as Robert Guiscard's second
marriage to Sikelgaita of Salerno illustrates. What is less clear is the
level of success such an approach had. We know that most of the
previous petty rulers in the South were replaced by Norman local
rulers or administrators. However, the pattern of local, family
power in each of the individual states that were taken over seems to
have remained relatively constant until at least 1130. To judge by
the private documents issued between the late eleventh and mid-
twelfth centuries, the Normans had little effect on daily life. This is
not surprising - there were not all that many Normans. Politically,

5
Structures, 1, p. 693.

300
 Conclusion
they merely superimposed a layer of power above the local elites,
most of whom were not displaced. Only very gradually do we
become aware that Normans are present at all, in the odd reference
to disruption when a city is besieged, or a Norman name appearing
among the landowners of a particular area.
The use of intermarriage to extend political influence was not
limited to Italy in the early Middle Ages. In an age when state
boundaries throughout Europe were still subject to fluctuation, the
kin group could provide cohesion and a focus for loyalty. The
Normans themselves had initially expanded their power in
northern France by astute use of marital bonds. 6 Historians have
long been aware of the Normans' very strong sense of family
identity, which has been ably exploited in studies of Norman
England.7 Southern Italy can provide valuable material for
comparative study, much of which remains underused.8
The patterns established in the analysis of individual families in
the Tyrrhenian documents may also be applicable elsewhere in
Europe. The success of the use of German lead-name methods on
the southern Italian documents suggests that some patterns were
common to European families as a whole. By refining the ways in
which relatives can be identified when no surnames are available,
further work on political and kin groupings (often the same thing,
in an early medieval context) may be possible. Strong and
recurrent themes in the evidence surveyed in this study are the use
of the lead-name in alternate generations, which consolidated the
family vertically, and the naming of nephews after their uncles,
which did so laterally.
The importance of this kind of work in early medieval studies is
self-evident. It is often very difficult to establish hierarchies in
societies where political structures were informal and based not so
much on a legally defined right to rule as on the level of support for
a particular ruler. Returning to the area studied in this book, Tom
Brown has argued that the rulers of the smaller states of the
Tyrrhenian, Amalfi and Gaeta, were late in assuming the consular

6
On this, see, E. Searle, Predatory Kinship and the Rise of Norman Power (Berkeley, 1988).
7
Close study of the families in power in Norman England in the early twelfth century can
reveal impressive amounts of information, as J. Green, The Government of England under
Henry I (Cambridge, 1986) illustrates.
8
Loud, 'How Norman?', and Matthew, Norman Kingdom, have pioneered the use of
northern evidence to explain and make comparison with the southern experience, and
point the way to future work.

301
 Family power in southern Italy
title because they still recognised the right of the duke of Naples,
their erstwhile ruler, to hold that title; in doing so, he argues, they
held on to some memory of the late Roman cursus honorum and
were aware of their subordinate position.9
This view has much to recommend it, and can be augmented
from the subsequent histories of both states. For, when their rulers
did assume the ducal title, they had little legal reason or justification
for doing so. Consequently, both rulers used more informal ways
to secure their power, including (in the case of Gaeta) the
establishment of members of their extended families in key
positions in the new duchies, and (in both cities) the association of
their sons in power with themselves to ensure the continuation of
their families' dominance. Both then set about building up
support, using the landed resources of their limited territories to
win over other noble families in their duchies. The difference
between the two dukes was in their level of success: at Gaeta the
Docibilans were able to become firmly entrenched, but in Amalfi
there were several false starts before one family was able to enjoy an
extended period in power.
Thus studies of the informal networks of power, via land
transactions, marriages, the expansion of individual families and
their own sense of self-identity, can often be as revealing, if not
more so, than the occasional contemporary chronicle of a
particular area's rulers. One effect of this type of research has been a
reassessment of the apparently powerless members of medieval
states. This has been most apparent in the field of medieval
women's history. Few medieval women were accorded a formal
role in the public life and administration of their towns or states.
Thus historians working from legal and public or prescriptive
material tended to ignore the women living in these places. The
emphasis on the private relationships of medieval rulers and their
major subjects, however, has revealed a much greater level of
female influence than had previously been thought possible. Future
research in the southern Italian archives may produce similar
results.
For the moment, it is necessary to adjust the focus of study away
from the fragments of evidence for public institutions in southern
Italy. The lack of use to which the southern Italian documents of
the tenth and eleventh centuries have been put may reflect our own
9
'Gentlemen and officers', p. 56.

302
 Conclusion
'filter' of what we expect a medieval state to be. The surviving
charter evidence has perhaps been ignored in favour of the more
accessible chronicles from the South; but with its emphasis on the
day-to-day transactions and negotiations of private individuals, it
may give a more accurate picture of the nature of political power.

303
 Appendix 1

GREEK SIGNATURES IN NEAPOLITAN

DOCUMENTS

*Capasso's comments

Document Signature
RN i 912 IOANNEC OIAIOYI AN MARINI
RN2 914 0EOAOPOYC $ AN OYPCI TPB
RN$ 917 MEKXPIOYX 0 forlQXANNI
RN6 920 MAPINOYXj&IAIOYZ AN I1ETPI, IOANNES
^IAIOYI 3N0EOAORI
RN7 921 € 7 0 ) LOaVV€O <|>LXIO

RN9 921
RN 11 924 ITE^ANOC $ AN CEPriMON, ia> <>|
RN 1$ 928 0EOAOPOYC $IAIOY^AN BITAAI KOM
RN 18 93i IEPrIOYI frIAIOYI ~AN AEONI
RN 21 932 TPErOPIYC CYB, IOANNEC ^IAIOYX AN
0EOAOPI, IOANNEC OIAIOYI AN Ann I,
XTEOANOYC ^IAIOYZ AN ANAPE
RN 22 932 0EOAOPOYI OIAIOYI AN BITAAI
RN 24 934 IOANNEC ^IAIOYI AN XTE$ANI, IOANNEC
OIAIYC AN Anni, MAPINOY2 ^IAIYC AN nETPI
RN2S 934 MAPINYC OIAIYC AN nETPI, IOANNEC $IAIYC
AN ITE^ANI, CEPriYC ^IAIYC AN IOANNI
936 BENEAIKTOYC HMENOYI, CTEOANOYC nPB E0
M° COYB
937 CTE$ANOYC ^IAIOYI AN EOYITPATH
937 TPErOPIOYC 0 AN ATACAAPYKY, CEPriOYC $
AN IOANNI
941 TPEropioYc <s> AN KONCTANTINI
941 *'et testes subscripti sunt omnes caractere greco'
RN 46 942 TPErOPIOC $ AN CTE^ANI
RN 49 942 aaoiXiouo ^vTioavvi, MACACniOYC ^ AN"IOANNI
MON
RNSo 943 IOANNEC 0 AN Ann I, CEPHOYC ^> AN BACIAII
RN 56 946 BENEAIKTOYC HrOMMENOYC, ElnPB E0 M,
CTE$ANOC nPB, IOANNEC OIAIOYC AN
XTEOANI, 0EOAOPOYI ^IAIOYC AN nETPI
304
 Greek signatures in Neapolitan documents
RN 57 946 BENEAIKTOYI HrOMENOYC, IOANNE <S> AN
CTEfcANI, 0EOAOPOYC $ AN I1ETPI
RN62 947 CEPriOYC $ AN AEONI
RN6$ 948 ANAPEA$ ANlQKOM _
RN67 949 BENEAIKTOYC HrOYMENOYC, EX IIPECBYTEP,
iu> ifpe €Tpw, CTEOANOYC 0 AN TPErOPII
RN6S 949 ANAPEAC ^ AN IQ KOM
DCDN3 949 IOANNECJCONCOYA E0 AOYS, TPErOPIOYC
AOICIC 0 ANI IQ
RN 70 950 IOANNE 0 AN CTEfcANI, CEPriOYC AN AOMETI,
IQ 0 AN KECAPII
RN 72 951 CEPriOYC $ AN IOANNI, MAPINOYC $ AN
CEPni
951 IQ APXinP
RN 75 951 IOANNEC $ AN EYCTPATII, TPErOPIOYC $
KECAPII, IOANNE KONCOYA EQ AOY5
RN 76 952 TPErOPIOYC 0,JTErOPIYC 0 AN AAirEPNI,
TPErOPIOYC ^ AN nETPI
RN 77 952
RN 79 952 IO $ AN nETPI
955 IQ $ ANAKAI $
RNS6 955 IIETPOYC 0 AN ANACTACH, TPErOPIOYC,
CEPriOYC ^ AN NIKETA n P ^ , TPErOPIOYC ^>
AN BACIAI
RN87 955 *'et testes sunt graeco caractere subscript^
RNS9 956 TPErOPIOYC O AN KECAPII, TPErOPIOYC $ AN
nETPI
RN 90 956 nETPOYC ^> AN IQ, nETPOYC 0 AN ANACTACII,
MAPINOYC 0 AEONI
RN 92 956 ANACTACIOYC 0 AN KPICTOOOPI, 0EOPYC 0
AN AEONI, IQ $ AN AEONI
RN 100 957 CTEOANOYC, IOANNEC
RNios 959 a€pyr]o\)a <(>io\)o SvrTeo^iXaKTTq, C E P I T O Y C $ AN
CTE^ANI
RN 106 959 ANACTACIOYC $ AN KPICTO^OPI, TPErOPIOYC
$ AN TPErOPI
RN 109 959 MAPINYC ^ AN nETPI
RN in 960 TPErOPIOYC $ AN MAYPONI KOM, IQ 0 AN
nETPI
RN 112 960 IIETPOYC $ AN ANACTACII, nETPOYC $ AN IQ,
IQ $ AN CEP
JW114 960 MAPINOYC $ AN ©EOftlAAKTII, TPErOPIOYC $
AN nETPI, TPErOPIOYC $ AN KECAPII
960 IQ $ CEPni
RN 117 961 AAirEPNOYC $ AN BONI
RN119 961 rpEropioyc ^> AN nETPi, rPEropiOYC $ AN
EYCEBI, IQ 0 AN IQ
305
 Appendix
RN121 962 rPErOPIOYCJ>_AN AAirEPNI
RN123 962 CEPHOYCO ANTPErOPII
RN 126 963 KT $ AN CEPHIJIETPOYC $ AN ANACTACII,
IIETPOYC$ ANIQ
£ N 129 963 0EOAOPOYC <I> AN TPErOPH
RN 136 964 ANAITAXIOYZ $ AN IIETPI, KEX APIOY2 $ AN
IQ, 0EOAOPOY2 $ AN IQ
RN 13 8 964 CEPr HOYC Hr OYMENOYC, IQ n BR, CEPr HOYC
n_BP, Ypevopiouo Wpe, /Q $ AN CEPm
RN 146 965 IQ $ AN CEPrH, KECAPIOYC $ AN IQ,
CTEOANOYC ANAKAI _
RN 147 965 IQ 0 AN IIETPI, AAirEPNOYCO^AN IQ
RN 148 965 ANACTACIOYC 0 AN IIETPI, SI 0 AN CEPm
RN 150 965 MAPINOYC $ A N IIETPI
RN 152 966 *'et testes subscripti sunt caractere greco'
RN 154 966 CTEfcANOYCANlQ
RN 156 966 CEPrHOYC Hf OYMENOYC, IQ nPECB,
r P E r o p i o Y c nPEB, Ki n p
RN 157 966 IOANNEC ^ AN£PETOPII
RN 160 967 0EOAPOYC $ AN IQ
.RN 164 968 *'et testes sunt greco caractere'
RN 165 968 JQ Hr OYMENOYC, ypcyopiouo ^ovaXos, IOANNEC
MON, CEPriOYCIIPE_ _
RN 168 968 CTE$ANOYCJ>_AN K^, IQ 0 AN TPETOPI
RN 169 969 CEPriOYC ^ AN IQ, IQ $ AN AEO, IQ 0 AN AEO
RN 174 970 IQ$ANIIETPI _
i?N 175 970 ANACTACIOYC $ AN US, IIETPOYC $ AN
ANACTACII, CEPn 0 AN IIETPI
RN 177 970 rPEropioYc o AN rPEropn
i?N 178 970 IQ Hr OYMENOYC
RN 179 970 !Q Hr OYMENOYC, IQ MON, IQ HP MON
RN 184 970 rPEropioYc o AN rPEr, IQ $ AN IIETPI
RN 185 970 0EOAOPOYYC $ AN TPErOPII
ieNi88 971 IQSANIIETPI
RN 189 971 IQ $ AN ANAPEE
i?N 191 972 *'et testes subscribuntur caractere greco'
RN 192 972 *'et testes subscribuntur in idiomate greco'
RN 202 974 IQ $ A N AEONI, IQ $ A N KECAPII
RN 203 974
RN 205 975 *'et testes caractere greco'
RN 207 975 ANACTACIOYC $ AN IQ
RN 212 977 nETPOYC $ AN CEPTII
RN 216 978 CTEfcANOYC 0 AN IQ
£ N 218 978 0EOAOPOYC$ A N ^ . _
RN 220 979 CTEOANOYC $ AN IQ, MAPINO YC 0 AN IQ
RN 222 979 IQ $ A N CEPr II

306
 Greek signatures in Neapolitan documents
RN 229 981 CTEfcANOYC
RN 230 981 jxapivovs W o p , 0EOAOPOYC $ A
RN 234 982 IQ$ AN nETPI _
RN 241 983 0EOAOPOYC 0 AN TPErOPII, IQ 0 AN TPErOPII
£ N 243 984 *'et testes subscripti sunt caractere greco'
# N 244 985
RN246 985
0EOAOPOYC 0 AN AEONI, Xeo $ ^
987 AAirEPNOYC 0 AN Cn APANI
CEPriOYC $ AN CEPni MON, ANACTACIOYC $
RN2S7 988 AN IIETPI, 0EOAOPOYC $ AN IQ
CEPriOYC APXinBP, IQ $ AN nETPI, nETPOYC $
AN rPEI\ TPErOPIOYC ^ AN IIETPI, KECAPIOYC
RN2S9 989 $_AN ANACTACII, ANACTACIOYC 0 AN IQ
RN263 990 IQ $ AN CEPni
RN267 990 *'et testes subscripti sunt caractere greco'
RN 268 990 IQ ^ AN TPErOPH, CTE$ANOYC <E> AN !Q
<|>iXnTTTOo a|xapTo\oo Kai ava£ioa tyyov(xevoa, AEO M O N
I1PCB, v€tXoo a|xapTU)Xoo Kai ava^ioo Trp€oviT€poa, IQ
RN 270 991 AHAKONOC E0 MOKOC
<|>iXnnToa ajxapToXoo Kai ava^ioo -r]7O^€voo, AEO IIPB E 0
M O N , vciXoa |xo Kai avaSioo iTp€aPvT€poa, la) ajjiapToXoo
^o
£ N 274 992
AAirEPNOYC $ ANJQ
RN27S 992
TPErOPIOYCO AN 10^
RN276 992
RN 27S AAirEPNOYC $ AN IQ
993
RN 279 AAirEPNOYC $ AN nETPI
993
RN 292 jxapivovsfcicrrpujovTop,TPEFOPIOYC ^
996
RN29S IQO ANCEPni
997
<t>iXiinToa a|xapTO)Xoo Kai ava^ioa T|7O\)(x€voo, p
Kai icpevo, IQ AIAKONOC E 0 MX, VIKOX
Kai iep
RN 319 1003
IQ^ANDREAE
1005
CEPriOYC ^ AN AAirEPNI
1009
ANACTACIOYC
£ N 343 1012
KECAPIOYC ^ AN AAirEPNI
#N347 1012
AAirEPNOYC $ AN Cn APANI
UN 352 1014
AAirEPNOYC $ AN Cn APANI
1016
O\)JJ.€VOS, Xaup€VTios a^apTcoXos iTp€o\)iT€
TTpeaDiTiqp ^.ovaxos, ica a^apTcaXos KpipiKos
RN362 1016
nETPOYC $ AN AEONI
RN 363 1016
nETPOYC $ AN AEONI
£N373 1017
nETPOYC 0 AN AEONI
RN 379 1019
nETPOYC $ AN AEONI
RN 381 1019
nETPOYC $ AN AEONI
1019
AAirEPNOC $ AN Cn APANI
i?N 385 1020
nETPOYC 0 AN AEONI
307
 Appendix
RN 387 1020 -navKpCLTios VYOUJJLCVOS, Xaup€VTios iTpeoviTep KCLI |xovaxos
p, I Q I I P M O , K€(jap€U)S
SaT loaveis
RN 388 1021 nETPOYC $ A N AEONI
KN398 1023 " toaw€i
RN 401 1025 n ETPO YC $ A N AEONI
KN4O6 1026 oJ a|xapTO)\os \LO% »<ai Wp, C T E ^ A N O Y C M O N , iw puox
Kai a|xapToXos, Xco ajxapToXos ifp KCW p ^ x
KN411 1027 uU
i?N 414 X027 LOI ajxapTcoXos ajSfia ifp, Koajxas pCo Wp, E F Q A E O N ABBA
TIP, CTE^>ANOYC MON
RN419 1028 IIETPOYC $ 4 N AEONI
RN 420 1028 nETPOYC $ A N AEONI
RN 421 1029 *4et 2 testes caractere greco'
JUV423 1030 CEPriOYC $ AN CnAPANI
ieN 428 1031 n ETPO YC $ AN AEONI
i?N43O 1031 IIETPOYC $ AN CTESANI
£JV 432 1031 KECAPIOYC $ A N AAirEPNI
i^N 43 5 1032 toavvci
i?N 4 37 1032 XaupcvTios TTpeojJv jjiovax Kai p€KTop, uo Tip Kai ]Iox,
Koa|xaa KXT^PIKOS Kat |xox, p^TaXir^os KXTJPIKOS Kai piox
12N 441 1033 AANAOA^OYC $ AN CTE^ANI
RN 443 1033 *'et testes subscripti caractere greco et langobardo'
.RN456 1036 AANAOA^OYC ^> AN CTEOANI
i?N468 1038 *'testes subscribunt . . . caractere greco et langobardo'
i?N 489 1058 TPErOPIOYC AICTPIB
RNsig 1074
RN 556 1093 KXir)pTqKoo oo\)PKpnr)i(>T]^, vrjKoXaos oovp
£ N 568 1095 nrjaKovos T^€p€i>s Kai |xovaxos, viTaXios (xovaxos, v
i€p€vs Kai ^ o v a x o s
RN60S 1113 p Tainvos, TraKouvios |xovaxos,

RN 631 1126 NHKo)AIMa>C H r o v M E N O o , Io IEPEvs, oT€<j>avos

308
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

PRIMARY SOURCES: U N P U B L I S H E D
Montecassino, Archivio:
Aula ii, Caps, LIII, fasc. i, nos. 1,2,3.
Aula m, Caps, vn, no. 13.
Montecassino, Biblioteca:
Codex Diplomatics Pontiscurvi ah anno 953 ad anno 1612.
Naples, Archivio di Stato:
Sezione Politico-Diplomatica, Inventari delle pergamene 99.
Monasteri Soppressi 3437.
Rome, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana:
Cod. Vat.Barb.Lat. 3216, ff. 196—218 (notebook of C. Caietano, 1601-2).
Cod.Vat.Lat. 12634 (inventory of Terracina documents, 1782).

PRIMARY SOURCES IN PRINT

Ahimaaz ben Paltiel, The Chronicle of Ahimaaz, trans. M.Salzmann (New York,
1924, repr. 1966).
Amatus, Storia de'Normanni di Amato, ed. V. de Bartholomeis (Rome, 1935).
Le Carte che si Conservano nello Archivio del Capitolo Metropolitano della Citta di
Trani, ed. A. Prologo (Barletta, 1877).
Chronica Monasterii Casinensis, ed. H. Hoffmann (MGH, SS, 34, Hanover, 1980).
Chronica Sancti Benedicti Casinensis, ed. G. Waitz (MGH, SS series 3,1, Hanover,
1878).
Chronicon Salernitanum, ed. U . Westerbergh (Stockholm, 1956).
Chronicon Salernitanum, Italian translation, A. Carucci (Salerno, 1988).
Codex Diplomatics Cajetanus, 1 (Montecassino, 1887), 11 (Montecassino, 1891), in
(Montecassino, 1967).
Codex Diplomatics Cavensis, 1—vm, ed. M. Morcaldi et al. (Milan, Naples, Pisa,
1873-93), i x - x , ed. S. Leone and G. Vitolo (Badia di Cava, 1984, 1991).
Codice Diplomatico Amalfitano, ed. R. Filangieri di Candida, 1 (Naples, 1917), 11
(Trani, 1951).
Codice Diplomatico Barese:
in: Le Pergamene della Cattedrale di Terlizzi, g7i-i^oo, ed. F. Caraballese (Bari,
1899).
vm: Le Pergamene di Barletta, Archivio Capitolare, 8g7~i285, ed. F. Nitti di Vito
(Bari, 1914).
ix: I Documenti Storici di Corato, 1046—1327, ed. G. Beltrani (Bari, 1923).

309
 Bibliography
Codice Diplomatico del Monastero Benedettino di S. Maria di Tremiti (1005-1237), 3
vols., ed. A. Petrucci (Rome, i960).
Codice Diplomatico Pugliese:
xx: Le Pergamene di Conversano, 901—1265, ed. G. Coniglio, (Bari, 1975).
xxi: Les Ghartes de Troia, 1024—1266, ed. J.-M. Martin, (Bari, 1976).
Codice Penis: Cartulario Amalfitano, 1, ed. J. Mazzoleni and R. Orefice (Amalfi,
1985).
Deusdedit, Collectio Canonum, ed. P. Martinucci (Venice, 1869).
Geoffrey Malaterra, De Rebus Gestis Rogerii Calabriae et Siciliae Comitis, ed. E.
Pontieri (Bologna, 1927).
Giorgi, I., 'Documenti Terracinesi', BISI, 16 (1896).
Honorantie Civitatis Papie, ed. C.-R. Briihl and C. Violante (Koln-Wien, 1983).
Italia Pontificia, ed. P. F. Kehr, 1 (Berlin, 1906), 11 (Berlin, 1907), VIII (Berlin,
1935), ix (Gottingen, 1962).
Leccisotti, T., Abbazia di Montecassino: I Regesti dell'Archivio, 1 (Rome, 1964), 11
(Rome, 1965), VIII (Rome, 1973), x (Rome, 1976).
Liber Censuum, ed. P. Fabre and L. Duchesne, 1 (Paris, 1905).
Liber Pontificalis, ed. L. Duchesne, 1 (Paris, 1886).
Liutprand of Cremona, Works, trans. F. A. Wright (London, 1930); reprinted
with new Introduction by J. J. Norwich, (London 1993).
Bernardo Maragone, Annales Pisani, ed. M.L. Gentile, (Rerum Italicarum
Scriptores, iv, ii, Bologna, 1930).
Monumenta ad Neapolitani Ducatus Historiam Pertinentia, ed. B. Capasso, 1 (Naples,
1881), ni (Naples, 1885), nii (Naples, 1892).
Monumenta Germaniae Historical
Constitutiones et Ada Publica Imperatorem et Regum, 1, ed. L. Weiland
(Hanover, 1893).
Epistolae, vn, eds. E. Caspar et al. (Munich, 1978).
Pergamene degli Archivi Vescovili di Amalfi e Ravello, 1, ed. J. Mazzoleni (Naples,
1972), 11, ed. C. Salvati (Naples, 1974), in, ed. B. Mazzoleni (Naples, 1975).
Le Pergamene del Monastero di S. Gregorio Armeno di Napoli, ed. J. Mazzoleni
(Naples, 1973).
Pergamene di Capua, 1, ed. J. Mazzoleni (Naples, 1957).
Regesta Chartarum, 1, ed. G. Caetani (Perugia, 1925).
Regesto di Far/a, eds. I. Giorgi and U. Balzani, 1 (Rome, 1914), 11 (Rome, 1879), in
(Rome, 1883).
Regesto Sublacense, eds. L. Allodi and G. Levi (Rome, 1885).
Regii Neapolitani Archivii Monumenta, ii, in, iv, eds. M. Baffi et al. (Naples,
1845-54).
Registrum Johannis VIII Papae, ed. E. Caspar (MGH, Epp. vm, Munich, 1978).
S.Jean-Theristes (1054—1264), ed. A. Guillou (Vatican City, 1980).
Ughelli, F., Italia Sacra, i - x (2nd edn., Venice, 1717—22).
Die Urkunden der Normannische-Sizilienischen Konige, ed. K. A. Kehr (Innsbruck,
1902).

3IO
 Bibliography

SECONDARY WORKS
Abulafia, D., Commerce and Conquest in the Mediterranean, 1100—1500 (London,
1993)-
The Two Italies (Cambridge, 1977).
Amante, B. and Bianchi, R., Memorie Storiche e Statutarie del Ducato di Fondi
(Rome, 1903).
Arthur, P., 'Naples: a case of urban survival in the early middle ages?', MEFRM,
103 (1991/2).
Balzani, U., Le Cronache Italiane nel Medio Evo (Milan, 1884).
Bartoloni, V., 'Indagine preliminare del sito di Asprano', BISALM, 12 (1987).
Berza, M., 'Amalfi preducale (596—957)', Ephemeris Dacoromana, 8 (1938).
Blanchere, M.-R. de la, Terracine: Essai d'Histoire Locale (Paris, 1884).
Bloch, H., Montecassino in the Middle Ages (Cambridge, Mass., 1986).
'The schism of Anacletus II and the Glanfeuil forgeries of Peter the Deacon',
Traditio, 8 (1952).
Bloch, M., Land and Work in Medieval Europe\ trans. J. E. Anderson (London,
1967).
Bordone, R., 'Le "elites" cittadine nell'Italia communale (XI-XII secolo)',
MEFRM, 100 (1988).
La Societa Cittadina del Regno dfItalia (Turin, 1987).
Bordone, R. and Jarnut, J., eds., UEvoluzione delle Citta Italiane nell'XI Secolo
(Bologna, 1988).
Borsari, S., 'Monasteri bizantine nell'Italia meridionale longobarda (sec. X e XI)',
ASPN, n.s. 32(1950-51).
Boyd, C. E., Tithes and Parishes in Medieval Italy (New York, 1952).
Boyle. L., A Survey of the Vatican Archive and its Medieval Holdings (Toronto,
1972).
Brand, P., The Origins of the English Legal Profession (Oxford, 1992).
Brown, T. S., Gentlemen and Officers: Imperial Administration and Aristocratic Power
in Byzantine Italy, 534—800 (Rome, 1984).
Buckler, G., 'Women in Byzantine law about 1100 A.D.', Byzantion, n (1936).
Cahen, C, Le Regime Feodal de Vltalie Normande (Paris, 1940).
Capasso, B., 'Pianta della citta di Napoli', ASPN, 16 (1891), 17 (1892), 18 (1893).
Cassandro, G., 'II ducato Bizantino', in Storia di Napoli, II,i (Naples, 1967).
'La Liburia e i suoi tertiatores', ASPN, n.s. 65 (1940).
Castrichino, R., Gli Antichi Episcopati di Minturno e Traetto (Minturno, 1975).
Chalandon, F., Histoire de la Domination Normande en Italie et en Sidle, 2 vols. (Paris,
1907).
Cherubini, P., 'Nuovi documenti dei principi di Salerno in parafrasi', ASPN, 3rd
series 19 (1980).
Chiappa Mauri, L., 'I mulini ad acqua nel milanese (secoli X—XV)', Nuova Rivista
Storica, 67 (1983).
Cilento, N., Le Origini della Signoria Capuana nella Langobardia Minore (Rome,
1966).
'I Saraceni nell'Italia meridionale nei secoli IX e X', ASPN, JJ (1959).

311
 Bibliography
Citarella, A., 'II declino del commercio marittimo di Amalfi', ASPN, 3rd series 13
(1975).
'Patterns in medieval trade: the commerce of Amalfi before the crusades',
Journal of Economic History, 28 (1968).
'Scambi commerciali fra l'Egitto e Amalfi in un documento inedito dalla
Geniza di Cairo', ASPN, 3rd series 9 (1971).
Condorelli, B., 'La molitura ad acqua nella valle del torrente Farfa', in Atti del g°
Congresso Internazionale di Studi sull'Alto Medioevo, 11 (Spoleto, 1983).
Contatore, D. A., De Historia Terracinensi Libri Quinque (Rome, 1706).
Conte-Colino, G., Storia di Fondi (Naples, 1901).
Cowdrey, H. E. J., The Age of Abbot Desiderius (Oxford, 1983).
Craven, K. R., Excursions in the Abruzzi and the Northern Provinces of Naples
(London, 1838).
Davies, W. and Fouracre, P., eds., The Settlement of Disputes in Early Medieval
Europe (Cambridge, 1986).
Decarreaux, J., Normands, Papes et Moines en Italie Meridionale et en Sicile, XI-XII
Siecles (Paris, 1974).
Delogu, P., 'II ducato di Gaeta dal IX all'XI secolo: istituzioni e societa', in Storia
del Mezzogiorno, eds. G. Galasso and R. Romeo, n,i (forthcoming).
Drew, K. F., The Lombard Laws (Philadelphia, 1973).
'The immunity in Carolingian Italy', Speculum, 37 (1962).
Duby, G., The Early Growth of the European Economy (London, 1974).
Hommes et Structures du Moyen Age (Paris, 1973).
Duby G. and Le Goff, J., eds., Famille et Parente dans VOccident Medieval (Rome,
1977).
Dussaix, C , 'Les moulins a Reggio d'Emilie aux Xlle et XHIe siecles', MEFRM,
91 (1979).
Engels, O., 'Papst Gelasius II (Johannes von Gaeta) als Hagiograph', QFIAB, 5
(1955).
Fabiani, L., La Terra di S. Benedetto, 1 (2nd edn., Montecassino, 1968).
'II placito di Castro Argento', BISALM, 4 (1966).
Falco, G., 'L'amministrazione papale nella Campagna e nella Marittima', ASRSP,
38 (1915).
Falkenhausen, V. von, 'II ducato di Gaeta', in Storia d'ltalia, in, ed. G. Galasso
(Turin, 1983).
'Reseaux routiers et ports dans l'ltalie meridionale bizantine (VIe-XIe
siecles)', in / Kathimerini Zoi sto Byzantio (Athens, 1989).
Untersuchungen u'ber die byzantinische Herrschaft in Suditalien v o m 9. bis ins 11.
Jahrhundert (Wiesbaden, 1967).
Fedele, P., 'La battaglia del Garigliano dell'anno 915 ed i monumenti che la
ricordano', ASRSP, 22 (1899) .
'II ducato di Gaeta all'inizio della conquista normanna', ASPN, 29 (1904).
'La famiglia di Gelasio II', in Scritti Storici, pp. 434—40.
Scritti Storici sul Ducato di Gaeta (Gaeta, 1988).
Ferraro, S., Le Monete di Gaeta (Naples, 1915).
Memorie Religiose e Civili della Citta di Gaeta (Naples, 1903).
Fiengo, G., Gaeta: Monumenti e Storia Urbanistica (Naples, 1971).

312
 Bibliography
Figliuolo, B., 'Gli Amalfitani a Cetara', Annali, Istituto Italianopergli Studi Storici,
6 (1979-80).
Gaetani d'Aragona, O., Memorie Storiche della Citta di Gaeta (Caserta, 1885).
Galasso, G., 'Le citta campane nell'alto medioevo', ASPN, n.s. 38 (1959), 39
(i960).
Gargano, G., La Citta davanti al Mare (Amalfi, 1992).
Gattola, E., Ad Historiam Abbatiae Casinensis Accessiones (Venice, 1734).
Historia Abbatiae Casinensis (Venice, 1733).
Gay, J., L'ltalie Meridionale et VEmpire Byzantin (New York, 1904).
Gerstenberg, O., 'Studien zur Geschichte des Romischen Adels am Ausgang des
10. Jahrhunderts', Historische Vierteljahrschrifte, 31 (1937/9).
Giuliani, C , 'Fondi', Quaderni delVIstituto di Topographia Antica dell'Universita di
Roma 2, 1966.
Guillou, A., 'Inscriptions du duche de Rome', MEFRM, 83 (1971).
Studies on Byzantine Italy (London, 1970).
Guiraud, J.-F., 'Le reseau de peuplement dans le duche de Gaeta du Xe au XHIe
siecle', MEFRM, 94 (1982).
Herlihy, D., 'The agrarian revolution in southern France and Italy', Speculum, 33
(1958) -
The Social History of Italy and Western Europe, 700—1500 (London, 1978).
Hodges, R., ed., San Vincenzo al Volturno 1 (British School at Rome, 1993).
Hoffmann, H., 'Chronik und Urkunde in Montecassino', QFIAB, 51 (1972).
Holt, R. A., The Mills of Medieval England (Oxford, 1988).
Hughes, D. O., 'Urban growth and family structure in medieval Genoa', Past and
Present, 66 (1975).
Hyde, J. K., Society and Politics in Medieval Italy (London, 1973).
Jones, P. J., 'An Italian estate, 900-1200', Economic History Review, 2nd series, 7
(1954).
Keller, H., 'Gli inizi del commune in Lombardia: limiti della documentazione e
metodi di ricerca', in UEvoluzione delle Citta Italiane nelVXI Secolo
(Bologna, 1988).
Kreutz, B., Before the Normans: Southern Italy in the Ninth and Tenth Centuries
(Philadelphia, 1991).
Leccese, A., Le Origini del Ducato di Gaeta e le sue Relazioni coi Ducati di Napoli e di
Roma (Gubbio, 1941).
Leyser, K., 'The German aristocracy from the ninth to the early twelfth century',
Past and Present, 41 (1968).
Lizier, A., L'Economia Rurale delVEta Prenormanna nelVItalia Meridionale (Palermo,
1907).
Lopez, R. S., 'The silk industry in the Byzantine Empire', Speculum, 20 (1945).
Lopez, R. S. and Raymond, I. W., eds., Medieval Trade in the Mediterranean World
(London, 1955).
Loud, G. A., 'A Calendar of the diplomas of the Norman princes of Capua',
PBSR, 49 (1981).
Church and Society in the Norman Principality of Capua, 1058—1197 (Oxford,
1985).
'Churches and churchmen in an age of conquest: southern Italy, 1030-1130',

313
 Bibliography
The Haskins Society Journal, 4 (1992) .
'How "Norman" was the Norman conquest of southern Italy?', Nottingham
Medieval Studies, 25 (1981).
Luzzati Lagana, F., 'Le firme greche nei documenti del ducato di Napoli', Studi
Medievali, 3rd series 23:2 (1982).
Luzzatto, G., An Economic History of Italy (London, 1961).
McKitterick, R., The Carolingians and the Written Word (Cambridge, 1989).
McKitterick, R., ed., The Uses of Literacy in Early Medieval Europe (Cambridge,
1990).
Mancone, A., 'II Registrum Petri Diaconi', Bullettino delVArchivio Paleografico
Italiano, 2—3 (1956-^7).
Matthew, D., The Norman Kingdom of Sicily (Cambridge, 1992).
Mazzoleni, J., Le Fonti Documentarie e Bibliografiche dal Secolo X al Secolo XX
conservate presso VArchivio di Stato di Napoli (Naples, 1978).
Merkel, G., 'Sopra un documento dell'anno 994 risguardante la citta di Fondi', //
Saggiatore (1846).
Merores, M., Gaeta imfruhen Mittelalter (8. bis 12. Jahrhundert) (Gotha, 1911).
Metz, W., 'Reichsadel und Krongutverwaltung in karolingische Zeit', Blatter fur
deutsche Landesgeschichte, 94 (1968).
Monetti, D., Cenni Storici delVAntica Citta di Gaeta (Gaeta, 1872).
Muendel, J., 'The distribution of mills in the Florentine countryside during the
late middle ages', in Pathways to Medieval Peasants, ed. J. A. Raftis
(Toronto, 1981).
Nicosia, A., 'La valle della Quesa e il monastero greco di S. Pietro', Benedictina, 24
(1977).
Osheim, D., 'Conversion, conversi and the Christian life in late medieval Tuscany',
Speculum, 58 (1983).
Poupardin, R., Les Institutions Politiques et Administratives des Principautes Lombardes
de Vltalie Meridionale (Paris, 1909).
Reuter, T., ed., The Medieval Nobility (Oxford, 1979).
Rossetti, G., Forme di Potere e Strutture Sociale in Italia nel Medioevo (Bologna,
1977).
Ruggiero, B., Principi, Nobilta e Chiesa nel Mezzogiorno Longobardo: L'Esempio di
S. Massimo di Salerno (Naples, 1973).
Sambon, G., // Tari Amalfitano (Milan, 1891).
Santis, A. de, 'La toponomastica del commune di Minturno', BISALM, 3 (1965).
'Centri del basso Garigliano abitati nel medioevo e abbandonati nei secoli
XVI e XVII', BISI, 75 (1963).
Scandone, F., 'II gastaldato di Aquino dalla meta del secolo IX alia fine del X',
ASPN, 33 (1908), 34 (1909).
Schipa, M., 'Storia del principato langobardo di Salerno', ASPN, 12 (1887).
Schwarz, U . , Amalfi imfruhen Mittelalter (g.-11. Jahrhundert) ( T u b i n g e n , 1978).
Amalfi nelVAlto Medioevo, trans. G. Vitolo (Amalfi, 1985).
Serafini, A., VAbbazia di Fossanova e le Origini delVArchitectura Gotica nel Lazio
(Rome, 1924).
Skinner, P. E., The Mobility of Landowners between the Tyrrhenian City-States of
Italy, C.850—1050A.D. (unpubl. M.Phil, thesis, University of Birmingham,

3H
 Bibliography
1988).
'Noble families in the duchy of Gaeta in the tenth century', PBSR, 60 (1992).
'Urban communities in Naples, 900—1050', PBSR, 62 (1994, in press).
'Women, literacy and invisibility in medieval southern Italy', paper
presented to the conference Women and the Book, St Hilda's College,
Oxford, August 1993.
'Women, wills and wealth in medieval southern Italy', Early Medieval
Europe, 2 (i993)-
Sterpos, D., Communicazioni Stradali attraverso i Tempi: Roma-Capua (Rome,
1966).
Storia d'Italia, III: II Mezzogiorno dai Bizantini a Federico II, ed. G. Galasso (Turin,
1983).
Structures Feodales et Feodalisme dans VOccident Mediterranean (XI-XIHe Siecles)
(Collection de l'Ecole Francaise de Rome 44, Rome, 1980).
Stutz, U., 'The proprietary church as an element of medieval Germanic
ecclesiastical law', in Medieval Germany gi 1—1250, ed. G. Barraclough, 11
(Oxford, 1938).
Tabacco, G., L'origine della dominazione territoriale del Papato, Rivista Storica
Italiana, 101 (1989).
The Struggle for Power in Medieval Italy (Cambridge, 1989).
Takayama, H., The Administration of the Norman Kingdom of Sicily (Leiden, 1993).
Taviani-Carozzi, H., La Principaute Lombarde de Salerne, IXe-XIe Siecle, 2 vols.
(Rome, 1991).
Toubert, P., Histoire du Moyen Age et de Vltalie Medievale (London, 1987).
Les Structures du Latium Medieval (Rome, 1973).
Touring Club Italiano, Guida d'Italia: Campania (Milan, 1963); Lazio (Milan,
1964).
Travaini, L., La Monetazione neWItalia Normanna (Rome, Istituto Storico per il
Medioevo, forthcoming).
'I tari di Salerno e Amalfi', Rassegna del Centro di Cultura e Storia Amalfitana,
19-20 (1990).
Treppo, M. del, 'La vita economica e sociale in una grande abbazia del
Mezzogiorno: S. Vincenzo al Volturno nell'alto medioevo', ASPN, 74
(1955).
Treppo, M. del and Leone, A., Amalfi Medioevale (Naples, 1977).
Tucciarone, R., / Saraceni nel Ducato di Gaeta enelVItalia Centromeridionale (secoli
IX eX) (Gaeta, 1991).
Vehse, O., 'Das Bundnis gegen die Sarazenen vomjahre 915', QFIAB, 19 (1927).
Waley, D., The Italian City-Republics (3rd edn., London, 1988).
Wickham, C. J., Early Medieval Italy (London, 1981).
The Mountains and the City (Oxford, 1988).
II Problema delVIncastellamento nelVItalia Centrale: VEsempio di S. Vincenzo al
Volturno (Florence 1985).
Willard, H., and Citarella, A., The Ninth-Century Treasure of Montecassino in the
Context of Political and Economic Developments in Southern Italy (Montecas-
sino, 1983).

315
 INDEX

Agnelli family, 122, 126-^7 arbitration/compromise, 65, 92, 94, 97

agriculture, aristocracy, 30, 123—4, I 2 6-9, 134, 137,
Amalfi, 249, 25811.34, 259-63, 286 139, 145, 163, 169, 181, 184-5, 188,
Flumetica, 114, 172, 188, 251-2, 256, 199, 210, 213, 218, 230, 234, 239-40,
258 286-7, 297
Gaeta and district, 249—50 association, 35, 46-^7, 50-1, 54~5, 57,
plain of Fondi, 248-9, 256 66n.3O, 160, 175, 302
Aligernus, son of Leo the prefect, 42, 258 Atenolf I, duke of Gaeta, 88, 94, 153-4,
Amalfi, 1-8, 29-30, 35, 49-55, 61, 70, 157, 168, 180, 186, 190, 195, 213-4
72-3, 75^7, 79, 81, 85-6, 92, 95-6, Atenolf II, duke of Gaeta, 88, 154, 156,
98, 101, 125, 127-32, 140, I4in.i4o, 170, 180, 195, 214, 217
150, 195-6, 202-5, 207, 233^138, Athanasius I, bishop of Naples, 47—9
240-2, 249, 259-63, 264-72, 274-81, Athanasius II, bishop of Naples, 29, 47—9,
282—4, 286—8, 292, 299-300 85, 90-2
bishops, 13, 29, 78, 92-3, 96, ioon.221, Atranians, 201, 263, 265-6, 268, 280, 286,
130, i32n.iO7, 274 290-1
commerce, 8n.i6, 14, 50, 101, 282,
286, 288, 288n.4O Baraballu family, 183, 199, 215, 220,
rulers, (see also Manso, Mastalus, 226-32, 236-7
Sergius), 3, 16, 27, 29-30, 35, 49~5<5, Benevento, 1, 12, 49, 52, 145^159, 150
61, 70, 72, 78-9, 81, 85-6, 92-3, Bernard, bishop of Gaeta, 90—1, 122—3,
95-6, 98, 100, ioon.221, 143, 198, 140, I49n.2, 151, 154-5, 162, 178,
202—4, 3 0 2 192, 221, 253-5
Amalfitans, 2, 14, 21, 29, 49, 55, 101, Boccapasu family, 183, 198, 218, 222,
124-5, 127, 131-2, 136, 203, 205, 225n.9O
224, 236, 260-2, 264-72, 278, 280, boni homines, 164—5, 196, 205
282-4, 286, 288 Bonus, son of count Anatolius, 31-2,
Amatus of Montecassino, 11, 153^23, 35-6, 122
154, 157, 174,283-4 books, 92
Anatolii family, (see also Anatolius, Brancatii family, 277—8
Bonus, Constantine, Marinus,
hypatos), 31, 33-4, 36, 93, 103, 105, Cacapice family, 276—7
107, 117, 122, 125-6, 133 Cairo, 8n.i6, 282, 282n.7, 286
Anatolius, count, 27, 30, 34, 93, 103, 119, Capomazza family, 163—4, !70, 218
127, 133 Capua, 1, 3, 6, 12, 15, 19, 29, 33, 35, 49,
ancestors, female, (see also Rotunda), 133, 53-<5, 68, 71, 78, 84, 99, 132, 144,
139-45 I45n.i59, 156-60, 162, 165—73, J 85,
ancestry, memory of, 126—8, 131—3, 136, 187-9, 198—9, 201, 206, 211, 216,
139-40, 162, 231, 236, 241, 274 238, 252, 260, 272, 285, 296
Apulia, 2n.3, 6n.ii, 283^13 princes, (see also Jordan, Pandenolf
Arabs, 2-3, 28-9, 32-3, 35, 37n.5i, 38, Pandolf, Richard), 3, 6, 15, 29, 33,
40, 47, 50, 63, 70, 91, 101, 125, 175, 35, 49, 53, 54, 68, 71, 78, 84, 144,
258, 265, 272, 285-6, 293 145, 156—9, 166, 168, 170, 172, 185,

317
 Index
Capua, princes (cont.) Cuma, 43, 45-6, 85, 134
187-9, 198-9, 201, 206, 211, 216, Cunari family, 276, 286-7
238, 252, 269, 272, 285, 296
Caracci family, 103, 119-26, 154, 194-5, dating clauses, 15, 20, 28, 33, 41, 53,
210-11, 213, 215, 217, 220, 226, 231, 54-5, 71, 86, 99, iO7n.io, 151-2,
254 I56n.32, 159, 168, 169, 173, 175,
Castanea family, 198, 225-7, 230, 237, 198, 202—3, 206, 211
287 de Arciu family, 154, 183, 198, 220-1,
Castro Argento, 109, 119, 145, 150, 227, 234, 237, 287^36
160-1, 164, 170, 173, 194, 255, 258, de Papara family, (see also Franco), 163—4,
289 167, 169
Cava, archive, 6, 16, 5411.123, 95 Desiderius, abbot of Montecassino,
charters, 10-11, 13, 19, 23, 29, 61, 100, i87n.2O2, 188, 190
13211.107, 169, 180, 186, 188, 192-3, disputes, (see also arbitration/compromise),
230, 271, 285, 293, 297, 300-1 18-19, 21-2, 28, 40, 60, 65, 71, 78,
Christopherii family, (see also Ramfus), 84, 90-7, 114, 122, 142, 149-51, 161,
34, 104, 107—12, 116, 118, 123—4, 163-4, 178, 180-1, 183, 185-6,
154, 183, 210, 287 192-3, 194, 201, 206, 214-6, 219,
Chronicle of Montecassino, (see also Leo 220, 224, 227, 229-30, 232, 236,
of Ostia), 11, 28-9, 33, 153 254-5, 262, 268, 278, 290, 294
Chronicon Amalfitanum, 14, 51—2 division, 60, 62, 73-6, 84, 114, 116, 231,
churches, patronage of, (see also 260
proprietary churches), 16, 45, Docibilis I, 2, 16, 21, 27-43, 4<5, 51, 57~9,
49n.89, 54, 71, 85-9, 123, 133-4, 61, 63, 65, 68-9, 104—5, 107, 109,
144-6, 154, 157, 162, 203, 211, 214, 117, 121, 123-6, 135, 137, 143, 146,
217-9, 221-2, 234-5, 264, 271, 284 166, 175, 283, 284, 292
Codex Diplomaticus Cajetanus, 14—16, lands of, 28—31, 57—9, 107, 109, 117,
18, 27-9, 33, iO7n.io, 153, 156^32, 166, 253
172, 186, 248, 252 Docibilis II, 34, 37, 41, 43, 61, 63, 65-6,
Codex Diplomaticus Pontiscurvi, 19, 70, 77, 79, 88-90, 93-4, 97, 105, 120,
7in.5i 122, 143, 167, 175, 178, 192, 219,
coinage, 35*M5, 89^164, 100, 199, 229, 253,284
280-1, 299
commerce, (see also Amalfi, commerce, Emilia, duchess of Gaeta, 78, 89, 91, 121,
shipping), 8n.i6, 32, 101, 109, i n , 150-2, 155-6, 169, 173-4, 230
183, 200, 202, 216, 222, 224, 226, emperors, Byzantine, 34, 41, 99-102, 175,
233, 235, 273-4, 282, 285, 288, 284
291-2, 299 emperors, German, (see also Otto), 1, 4,
Conjulo family, (see also Gelasius), 183-5, 11, 7111.50, 149, 150, 176, 186, 207,
236 254
Constantine, hypatos of Gaeta, 2, 27-8,
30-2, 35-8, 41, 43, 63, 104, 117, Ferafalcone family, 128, 131, 241
126-7, 258 finance, public (fisc), 63, 97-8, 102, 199
Constantinople, 55-6, 92, 283—4 fisheries, 78, 249
consuls, 165, 184-5, 195. 197-202, 207, Fondi, 2, 28-9, 33, 35, 38, 57, 60, 68, 71,
216-8, 221-2, 224-5, 227, 230, 232, 89, 149, 159-60, 175, 177-81, 183,
285, 287, 289-91, 298-9 217, 248-50, 256
Coronella family, 120-1, 154, 210, 213-4, rulers, 68, 71, 89, 149, 159-60, 175,
221, 231, 234, 287^36 177-81, 183, 189, 192
Cotina family, 169-70, 183, 213, 218, Formia, 2, 37, 73, 89-90, 119, 126, 145,
220, 222-5, 234-6, 270 157, 188, 219-20, 222, 227, 230, 235,
counts, 99, 126-8, 134, 137, 141, 240, 262, 247, 249-50, 252, 256, 258
274-5 Franco de Papara, judge, 106, 163-4, 167,
Crescentii family, 176, 181, 183, 287, 300 195

318
 Index
Fratte, 106, 160, 163-4, 170, 172, 186-7, Hugh, count of Suio, 141, 168-9, 187,
217 222
Frunzo family, 74, 21311.13, 232, 236 hypatoi, 2, 27, 30, 34-5, 41, 46, 63, 71, 93,
118, 126, 135, 175, 186, 258, 294
Gaeta, 20, 27, 29-34, 37~8, 40-2, 45-6,
55-6, 57-^79, 84, 87-91, 93-4, Iactabecte family, 132, 242
99-102, 103-4, 109, 119, 123-4, imperial patricians, 42, 51, 60, 73, 101-2,
133-4, 136-7, 139, 14111.140, 175
149-61, 162, 165-6, 169-71, 173-4, incastellamento, 86n.i4O, 170—3
178, 182-3, 185, 189, 191-202, 209, inscriptions, 12n.11, 21, 61, 248n.2
211, 214-5, 217, 221, 231, 234-5, Ipati family, 3on.25, 135-6, 239
238, 247, 249, 254, 256, 258, 263, Isauri family, 133-4, 239
280, 282-92, 293-303 Itri, 73, 159-60, 170, 172, 201, 217, 227,
bishops, (see also Bernard, Leo), 16, 21, 249, 250
28—9, 37—8, 40, 75, 87, 90—1, 93, 121,
126, 140, 145, 149, 151, 154-5, 159, Jews, 200, 277—8, 284—5, 285n.25
162, 178, 182, 192, 194, 214, 217, John I, hypatos of Gaeta, 2, 28-9, 34,
219, 221, 224-5, 229-30, 232-3, 36-8, 41, 46, 60-3, 65, 68-9, 73, 76,
253-5, 283 79, 87—8, 90, 93, 101, 107, 112, 114,
historiography, 4-5, 16, 28, 103, 160, 117, 122, 125, 151, 166, 175, 191,
230 230
Gaetani family, 120, 210 lands of, 60-3, 65, 73, 76, 90, 230
Garigliano, campaign (see also Arabs), 38, John II, duke of Gaeta, 68, 88-9, 93, 114,
50, 69, 101, 175 120, 122, 140, 150, 166
Gattula family, 16, 181, 183, 198, 215-6, lands of, 68, 107, 117, 166
220-1, 226, 229-33, 236-7, 274-5, John III, duke of Gaeta, 61, 68-9, 71, 76,
28711.36, 291, 300 88-9, 94, 116, 119, 123, 150, 158,
Gelasius II, pope, 8911.164, 185 160, 178, 192, 255
Genoa, 200, 217, 287-92, 299 John HI, duke of Naples, 42, 92,
Geoffrey Ridell, duke of Gaeta, 157, 174 I34n.i2i, 182
Giczi family, 106, 163—4, X69, 194 John IV, duke of Gaeta, 88, 123, 150, 155,
gifts, 15, 19, 28, 37, 54, 60, 66, 68, 71, 174
76-7, 79, 85-9, 107, 115-8, 133, H5, John V, duke of Gaeta, 68n.39, 117, 125,
153, 166, 180, 183, 186-7, 189, 203, 150-2, 169, 173-4
217, 219, 230, 249, 261, 269 John VIII, pope, 10, 18, 28-9, 37-8, 40,
grain, 49-50, 60, 71, 91, 175, 186
cultivation, 114, 188, 249, 251, 258, John X, pope, 29, 38, 60, 65, 175, 186
258n.34, 268 John XII, pope, 150
importation, 252, 259-60, 286, 290-1 John miles of Naples, 43—5, i32n.iO9, 133,
Greek script, 20, 27, 135, 191, 224n.82 144-5
Gregory archdeacon, son of John I, 60, Jonathan, duke of Gaeta, 159
90 Jordan I, prince of Capua, 3, 156—8,
Gregory, duke of Gaeta, 42, 65—6, 68, 188-9, 199, 206, 222
68n.39, 79, 88, 94, 120, 123, 141, 150 judges, 51, 54, 90, 93""7, 155, 157, 160,
Gregory HI, duke of Naples, 47, 50 163, 167, 194-7, 204—5, 213, 215—6,
Gregory IV, duke of Naples, 41, 85—6, 92 229-30, 233, 236, 242, 262, 265, 277,
Gregory the magnificent, 77, 79, 97, 137, 295
154, 167 justice, administration of, 53, 93-7, 205
Guaiferius I, prince of Salerno, 50
Guaimarius II, prince of Salerno, 52, 268 Kampuli family, (see also Kampulus the
Guaimarius IV, prince of Salerno, 3, 55, prefect), 35-7, 43, 45H5, 69, 76-7,
77, 153, 168 94, 151, 153-4, 186, 210, 220, 226
Gualganus Ridell, 158 Kampulus miles of Naples, 43, 132, 144
Guindazzi family, 276, 276m 120 Kampulus the prefect, 35-7, 43, 45, 69,

319
 Index
I^ampulus the prefect (cont.) 35, 35n.45, 36, 41, 43, 63, 118
73, 76-7, 94, 103-4, 112, 114, 117, Marinus, prefect of Amalfi, 50-1
120, 122, 127, 135, 166, 191 marriage, dynastic, 34-6, 40—2, 49, 54—5,
84, 106, i n , 112, 117, 143,
Lanciacane family, 220, 226 145^159, 155, 157, 166, 169, 174,
Lando, duke of Gaeta, 157, 183 176, 181, 202, 213, 221-2, 232, 237,
Landolf, duke of Gaeta, 158 239, 239^151, 240, 270-1, 275, 277,
law, Lombard, 66, 79, 156, 166, 26211.61 287, 300-1
law, Roman, 60, 99, 155, 167 Mastalus II, duke of Amalfi, 51—2
lead-names, 104-5, 122, 133, 139, 162, Matrona, daughter of John I, 36, 43, 105,
216, 231, 236, 241, 297 112, 114, 118
leases, 20, 27, 40, 42, 43, 63, 69, 72, 81, Matrona, wife of Docibilis I, 35—6, 58,
93, 107, 117, 142, 144, 164, 224, 238, 105
248-9, 252-4, 258, 261-2, 265^7, Mauri family, 69, 69^45, 123, 125, 137,
275, 277, 281, 286 2ion.i, 220, 227
Leo I, regent/duke of Gaeta, 78, 117, mercenaries, 3, 70, 146, 173, 206
151-2, 155-6, 169, 174 migration,
Leo II, duke of Gaeta, 77, 119, 123, 141, to Amalfi, 274-8
153-4, 158, 168-9, 178, 183, 210, to Naples, 269—74
236 to Salerno, 264-9, 278, 286
Leo the prefect (I), 42, 58, 66n.29, 94, 137 military power,
Leo the prefect (II), 79, 97, 137 Gaetan, 33, 40, 57, 70, 151, 172-3, 295
Leo, bishop of Gaeta, 154, 169, 183, 214, land and, 43, 57, 70, 89, 99, 127, 132,
221, 283 142, 205
Leo of Ostia, 11, 28, 30, 33, 33^38 Neapolitan 99, 132, 142, 151, 173, 206
letters, 10, 12n.11, 18, 28—9, 201, 206, mills, 37, 5in.99, 61, 72-8, 85-7, 97, 114,
208, 283 116, 119, 121, 130, 153, 169, 180,
Liburia, 41, 43n.76, 45, 142, 144, 214, 221, 230, 250—3, 258—61, 263-4,
279n.i32, 296 272
linen, 79, 271-2 Millusi family, 238-9, 271, 273
Liutprand, bishop of Cremona, 11, 260, minors, protection of, 68n.39, 98, 150-1,
284 155, 159, 195, 207
Montecassino, abbey of, 11, 14-15, 71,
Maltacia family, 198, 217—9, 222, 232, 91, 150, 157, 164, 168, 171—2, 177,
236 178, 180, 183, 185-90, 193, 195, 219,
Mancanella family, 181, 183, 198, 214-^7, 230, 233, 283
220, 227, 230, 232, 287n.36, 292 Monteincollo family, 96, 128—9,
Manso I, prefect of Amalfi, 51, 85, 99, I4on.i36, 240, 287
ioon.221
Manso II, duke of Amalfi, 52—4, 70, 85—6, Naples, 1^7, 11-13, 20, 27-32, 35, 37-8,
95,98 40-9, 52, 55-6, 63, 66, 70-1, 75-6,
Manso HI, duke of Amalfi, 55, 72, 81 78, 81, 83^7, 91—2, 94—5, 97—101,
Maranola, 154, 156, 159—60, 170, 172, 132-5, 140, 141, 150, 158, 173-4,
J
180, 187, 194, 211, 217, 250n.11 83, 193, 201, 205—9, 224, 238—40,
Maria, duchess of Gaeta, 119, 153-7, 170, 258-9, 269-73, 276, 278-9, 283, 285,
180, 195, 217 291, 296
Marinus, duke of Gaeta and Fondi, 61, bishops, (see also Athanasius), 12, 29,
63, 68, 68n.39, 69, 71, 76, 79, 88, 90, 47-9, 85, 91-2, 206
94, 116, 123, 135, 150, 160—1, 175, narrative sources, 10, 28, 30, 33, 51, 284
178, 186, 192, 194 natural children, 79, 123, 140^136, 141,
Marinus I, duke of Naples, 41 164
Marinus II, duke of Naples, 71, 86, 92, ofJohn I, 68n.36, 79, 88, 90, 93, 114,
98n.2i3 151, I9in.2i6
Marinus, hypatos of Gaeta, 2, 27—8, 30-2, Neapolitani family, 52, 130, 276-7

320
 Index
Normans, i, 3, 4, 8, 11, 55, 81, 153, 154, Rome, 5n.9, 29, 47, 49, 109, i n , 174-85,
157-8, 169-70, 172-4, 180-1, 187, 233, 287-90,299
198, 201, 203, 205-8, 214, 232, 236, Rotunda, family of, 133, 139, 141—2
238, 241, 278, 290-1, 296, 300
notaries, I3n.i6, 162-3, 169, 191-7, 271 St Erasmus, church, 89, 89^164, 119,
145, 157, 188, 219-20, 222, 230, 235
oaths, 21, 69, 95 St Gregory, convent, 13, I3n.i4, 86,
oral transactions, 23, 253 92n.i78, 270-2, 281
Orania, wife of Docibilis II, 41, 66, 143 St Michael ad Planciano, church, 58, 68,
Otto I, 11, 150 87-8, 94, 109, 145, 180
Otto II, 11, 71 St Sebastian, monastery of, 12, 92n.i79,
Otto III, 11, 71, 149, 176, 186, 254 129, 145
St Theodore, monastery, 58, 78, 88,
palaces, 61, 83, 98, 272, 282 154-5, 184, 211, 214, 217, 223
Pandenolf of Capua, 33, 165 St Vincent on the Volturno, monastery,
Pandolf IV, prince of Capua, 3, 54, 144, 86, 86n.i4O
152, 168, 173, 206, 239, 262, 274 SS Sergius and Bacchus, monastery,
papacy, (see also Gelasius, John), 4, 10, 28, 2on.42, 42, 81, 86, 92, 95, 98, 134,
38,41, 87, 175,234 142, 269
papal patrimonies, (see also Fondi, Salerno, 1-3, 6, 10, 12, 29, 33, 35, 50,
Traetto), 2, 28-9, 35, 38-41, 57, 60, 52-5, 78, 81, 84n.i29, 85, 95, 99,
62-3, 65, 126, 175 129, 143, I45n.i59, 150, 190, 202,
Pavia, 282-3 224, 262n.6i, 263, 265-9, 277-9,
Peter the Deacon, 15, I56n.32, 183 283, 285n.25, 286, 290, 295
Pisa, Pisans, 200-1, 208, 282, 287—8, 290, princes, (see also Guaiferius,
29on.49, 299 Guaimarius), 2-3, 10, 29, 50, 55, 78,
Pizzacademone family, (see also Suio, 84n.i29, I45n.i59, 153, 168, 202,
counts), 232, 236 267-9
Pontecorvo, 19, 71, 157, 194 Salpa family, 184, 21 on. 1, 215, 219-20,
prefect, 30, 36, 42, 46, 51, 57, 127, 134-5 227, 230
proprietary churches, 45, 85—9, 144—6, senators, 158, 176, 289
234-5 Sergius I, duke of Naples, 46-9, 55, 85
public land, 35, 57, 63, 65-6, 68-72, 81, Sergius II, duke of Amalfi, 52, 70, 81, 85
86, 88, 102, 109, 114, 116—7, 120, Sergius II, duke of Naples, 47, 50, 85
123, 150-1, 155, 163, 167, 294 Sergius III, duke of Amalfi, 54-6, 78, 92,
Pulcharus, prefect of Amalfi, 50-1 ioon.221
Sergius IV, duke of Amalfi, 55, 70, 202
Ramfus, son of Christopher, 109, i n , Sergius IV, duke of Naples, 81, 86,
118, 183, 287^35 98n.2i3, 151, 173-4, 206, 239, 274
Ravello, bishops of, 13, I32n.io7, 203, Sergius VII, duke of Naples, 201, 207—8
242, 242n.i66 shipping, 32, 50, 98, 109, 184-5, 199, 201,
rector, 2, 29, 34, 40-1, 60, 65, 126, 175 220, 224, 238, 265, 288-90
Richard II, duke of Gaeta, 159, 195, 199, Sicard of Benevento, 49, 268
215, 229-30, 299 Sicily, 2, 4, 207, 259, 280, 285, 291
Richard de Aquila, duke of Gaeta, 158-9 Sikelgaita, daughter of John I, 62, 69,
Richard of Aversa, duke of Gaeta, 3, 166
156-7, 170, 188, 199 silk, 32, 66, 79, 109, 229, 26on.45, 271,
Ridell family, (see also Geoffrey, 284, 284n.i8
Gualganus), 157, 236 slavery, 58, 77, 79, 117, 121, 140, 165,
Robert Guiscard, 3, 202, 206, 300 178,231,253-5,285
Rogadeum family, I32n.io7, 242, smiths, 239, 282
242n.i67, 262 Sorrento, 30, 47, 136, 225, 296, 300
Roger, king of Sicily, 3, 202—3, 205—7, source material,
278, 285^25, 291, 296 Amalfi, 13-14, 51

321
 Index
source material (cont.) counts, 71, 91, 122, 149-51, 153—4,
Gaeta, 14-19, 27-8, 3311.38, 33, 60, 293 160-5, 167-9, 172, 176, 178, 186-90,
Naples, 11—13, 45 219
Stabia, 81, 86, 93, 131, 271, 279, 296 Tusculani family, 176, 183, 287
Suessa, 166-8, 181, 186
Suio, 61, 65, 74, 154, 156, 160-1, 168^70, unfree, 10, 72, 253—5
172, 175, 180, 187-8, 194-5. 258
counts, (see also Hugh, Pizzacademone vine cultivation, 75, 180, 218, 238, 240,
family), 74, 168-70, 187-8, 198, 250-1, 258n.34, 261-2, 266, 274
2i3n.i3, 222-3, 236
surnames, use of, 30n.25, 103, 129, 131-3, water, control of, 71-2, 78, 86, 98
I3in.io6, 135, 199, 213, 229, 231, William of Blosseville, 158-9, 201, 229
233, 235-9, 239^151, 240, 265, William of Montreuil, 157
274-5, 29011.49, 299-300 wills, I3n.i6, 19, 31-2, 34, 38, 41, 58, 60,
61, 66, 72, 77, 79, 87, 117, 119-20,
Terracina, 16, 18, 60, 105, 137, 175-7, 124, 134, 136, 164, 167, 178, 187,
180-1, 183, 185, 201, 248-9, 29in.58 191, 211, 2i3n.i3, 218, 220, 222,
Theotista, daughter of John I, 36-7, 73, 224, 232, 236, 240, 253-4, 271,
ioin.222 273-4,277, 284n. 18
titles, Byzantine, 46, 56, 60, 100-1, 175, witnessing, 23, 30-2, 34, 36-7, 40, 42, 93,
204, 271 96n.2O7, 106-7, 109, 112, 118-9,
towers, 200, 219, 224-5, 237 120-5, 134, 146, 2ion.i, 211, 215,
Traetto, 2, 28-9, 33, 35, 38, 40-1, 50, 57, 217-8, 220-7, 229, 231-2, 233^135,
60, 6in.i6, 71, 91, 93, 109, 114, 122, 236, 240, 254, 274-5, 282, 292
149-51, 153, 160-5, 167-9, 170, 175, writing, use of, 20, 2on.4i, 21—2, 6on.5,
178, 186-90, 193, 195, 217, 219-20, 72, 95, 100, 191-4, 253, 262, 293
224, 254-5, 258, 293

322
 Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought
Fourth Series

Titles in the series

1 The Beaumont Twins: The Roots and Branches of Power in the Twelfth
Century
D. B. CROUCH
2 The Thought of Gregory the Great*
G. R. EVANS
3 The Government of England under Henry i*
JUDITH A. GREEN
4 Charity and Community in Medieval Cambridge
MIRI RUBIN
5 Autonomy and Community: The Royal Manor of Havering, 1200—1500
MARJORIE KENISTON MCINTOSH
6 The Political Thought of Baldus de Ubaldis
JOSEPH CANNING
7 Land and Power in Late Medieval Ferrara: The Rule of the Este, 13 50-1450
TREVOR DEAN
8 William of Tyre: Historian of the Latin East*
PETER W. EDBURY AND JOHN GORDON ROWE
9 The Royal Saints of Anglo-Saxon England: A Study of West Saxon and East
Anglian Cults
SUSAN J. RIDYARD
10 John of Wales: A Study of the Works and Ideas of a Thirteenth-Century Friar
JENNY SWANSON
11 Richard III: A Study of Service*
ROSEMARY HORROX
12 A Marginal Economy? East Anglian Breckland in the Later Middle Ages
MARK BAILEY
13 Clement VI: The Pontificate and Ideas of an Avignon Pope
DIANA WOOD
14 Hagiography and the Cult of Saints: The Diocese of Orleans, 800-1200
THOMAS HEAD
15 Kings and Lords in Conquest England
ROBIN FLEMING
16 Council and Hierarchy: The Political Thought of William Durant the
Younger
CONSTANTIN FASOLT
17 Warfare in the Latin East, 1192—1291*
CHRISTOPHER MARSHALL
18 Province and Empire: Brittany and the Carolingians
JULIA M. H. SMITH
19 A Gentry Community: Leicestershire in the Fifteenth Century, c. 1422—c. 1485
ERIC ACHESON
20 Baptism and Change in the Early Middle Ages, c. 200-1150
PETER CRAMER
21 Itinerant Kingship and Royal Monasteries in Early Medieval Germany,
c. 936-1075
JOHN W. BERNHARDT
22 Caesarius of Aries: The Making of a Christian Community in Late Antique
Gaul
WILLIAM E. KLINGSHIRN
23 Bishop and Chapter in Twelfth-Century England: A Study of the Mensa
Episcopalis
EVERETT U. CROSBY
24 Trade and Traders in Muslim Spain: The Commercial Realignment of the
Iberian Penninsula, 900-1500
OLIVIA REMIE CONSTABLE
25 Lithuania Ascending: A Pagan Empire within East-Central Europe,
1295-1345
S. C. ROWELL
26 Barcelona and its Rulers, 1100—1291
STEPHEN P. BENSCH
27 Conquest, Anarchy and Lordship: Yorkshire, 1066—1154
PAUL DALTON
28 Preaching the Crusades: Mendicant Friars and the Cross in the Thirteenth
Century .
CHRISTOPH T. MAIER
29 Family Power in Southern Italy: The Duchy of Gaeta and its Neighbours,
850-1139
PATRICIA SKINNER

*Also published as paperback