No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 August 2017
The oldest published inventory of the collegial church of St. Nicolas in Bari dates from A. D. 1313, and testifies to the interest taken by Charles II of Anjou in the basilica, his regia cappella. In 1296 Charles donated to St. Nicolas a number of liturgical ornaments and service-books; in 1304 he required that its thesaurarius (a canon of the basilica appointed by himself) make periodic inventories in quadruplicate of the objects under his care. As a result, detailed inventories of St. Ncolas' treasure begin in the early fourteenth century and continue, though with considerable lacunae, to the nineteenth. Most of these inventories have been published in whole or in part; they show that the basilica once had a large collection of liturgical objects and codices, particularly in the Angevin period. It is clear from the first inventory that the nucleus of this collection was Charles II's donation, which still forms the most impressive part of St. Nicolas' now depleted treasure; accordingly Charles has been considered the ‘founder’ of the treasury.
1 The inventory is published in Codice diplomatico barese (henceforth CDB), ed. F. Nitti di Vito et al., 18 vols., (Bari-Trani 1897–1950) 16 (Trani 1941) no. 23, 42-50; partially by Nitti di Vito in Il tesoro di San Nicola di Bari (Trani 1903) 11-19, and in Napoli nobilissima 12 (1903) 23-5. For the general history of the basilica there is no adequate contemporary work. Essential materials are contained in the CDB, especially vols. 1 and 2 (archives of the cathedral of Bari, A. D. 962-1309; 4, 5, 6, 13, 16 and 18 (archives of St. Nicolas, 939-1381). See also P. F. Kehr, ‘Papsturkunden in Apulien,’ Nachrichten v. d. K. Gesellschaft d. Wiss. zu Göttingen, phil.-hist. Klasse (1898) 245-8; idem, Italia pontificia, 9 (Berlin 1962) 314-41. Some thirteenth-century papal documents concerning the basilica are published by D. Vendola, Documenti vaticani relativi alla Puglia (Trani 1940). Two accounts of the translation of St. Nicolas from Myra to Bari, both composed within a generation of the event (April-May 1087) describe the circumstances of the basilica's foundation; both have been repeatedly published in slightly varying versions. For the account of Nikephorus monachus see N. C. Falconius, Sancti confessoris pontificis et celeberrimi thaumaturgi Nicolai acta primigenia (Naples 1751) 131-9; N. Putignani, Istoria della vita, de’ miracoli, e della traslazione del gran taumaturgo San Niccolo arcivescovo di Mira (Naples 1771) 551-68; Analecta Bollandiana 4 (1885) 169-92; and F. Nitti di Vito, ‘La traslazione delle reliquie di San Nicola,’ Iapigia 8 (1937) 336-56. For that of ‘Iohannes diaconus’ see L. Surius, Historiae seu vitae sanctorum, revised ed., 12 (Turin 1880) 185-96; N. Putignani, Vindiciae vitae et gestorum sancti thaumaturgi Nicolai … Diatriba II (Naples 1757) 215-51; Nitti di Vito, ‘La traslazione …’ Iapigia 8, 357-66. A Greek version is published by G. Anrich, Hagios Nikolaos, 1 (Berlin 1913) 435-49. Two local Apulian chronicles mention the basilica: that of the Anonymus Barensis (to A. D. 1118), published by Camillo Pellegrino, Historia principum langobardorum, 1st ed., 2 (Naples 1644) 185-200; and that of Lupus Protospatharius (to A. D. 1102), ed. by G. Waitz in MGH SS 5 (Hannover 1844) 51-63. The earliest modern historian of the basilica was A. Beatillo, in Historia della vita, miracoli, traslazione, e gloria del confessore di Cristo San Nicolo il Magno, eds. 1 (Naples 1620) through 6 (Rome 1701); and in Historia di Bari (Naples 1637), reissued as Storia di Bari (Bari 1886). Beatillo made much use of St. Nicolas’ archives; it is doubtful whether he knew any documents beyond those extant today, but his conjectures are valuable if taken with caution. F. Carabellese's L’Apulia ed il suo comune nell'alto medio evo (Bari 1905), and his Il comune pugliese durante la monarchia normanno-sveva (Trani 1924), are useful regional histories containing many references to the basilica. See also the historical notice and bibliography of P. Kehr, Italia pontificia 9, 325-6, which replace those of L. Cottineau, Répertoire des abbayes et prieurés, 1 (Mâcon 1935) col. 265. The modern special literature is large but for the most part polemic, concerned with the jurisdictional disputes between the basilica's clergy and the archbishopric of Bari; an idea of it may be gained from the bibliography in Italia pontificia 9.Google Scholar
2 The donation of 1296: CDB 13, no 72, 100-1; published also by D. Bartolini, Sul'antica basilica di San Nicola in Bari (Rome 1882) 35-6; by X. Barbier de Montault, ‘L’Église royale et collégiale de St. Nicolas à Bari,’ Revue de l'art chrétien 26 (1883) 465, republished in his Œuvres complètes, 14 (Poitiers 1899) 106-7; Nitti di Vito, Il tesoro, 8-10, and Napoli nobilissima 20, 22-3. Charles II's provisions of 1304: CDB 13, no. 133, 196-201, especially p. 200.Google Scholar
3 Nitti di Vito's Il tesoro contains a good general survey (also published in Napoli nobilissima 12, 21-6; 59-62; 74-8; 105-9; 171-5). For publications of the 1313 inventory, see n. 1 supra. An inventory of 1326 is published in CDB 16, no. 72, 125-32, and in Nitti di Vito, Il tesoro, 22-9 (both publications incomplete). 1361 (the largest inventory): E. Rogadeo, ‘Il tesoro della regia chiesa di San Nicola di Bari nel secolo XIV,’ L'arte 5 (1902) 320-32; 408-22; also published by Rogadeo as a separate work (Rome 1902); CDB 18, no. 74, 131-65; Nitti di Vito, Il tesoro, 30-7 (incomplete). 1578: Nitti di Vito, Il tesoro, 39-49. 1588: ibid. 50-2. 1802: ibid. 81-5. Nitti di Vito also mentions inventories of 1591, 1594, and 1632: ibid. 52-3. An inventory of 1579 is preserved in the MS Naples Bibl. Naz. Brancacciana III. C. 2: see G. Pertz, in Archiv 12 (1874) 534, and P. Kehr, Italia pontificia 9, 327; T. Fiorillo, in Iapigia 13 (1942) 103, incorrectly dates it to 1529.Google Scholar
4 On the modern contents of St. Nicolas’ treasury, see especially X. Barbier de Montault, Œuvres complètes, 14, 3-247, where a number of articles originally published separately are collected. Even in Beatillo's time, the treasury apparently contained no objects of note older than the Angevin period, except for one cross of indeterminate age and provenance (Historia … di San Nicolo 6, 610). A crown supposed to be the gift of Roger II (cf. Barbier de Montault, op. cit. 14, 83 does not appear in any of the old inventories, and is not mentiioned by Beatillo. The only pre-Angevin manuscript now in St. Nicolas is a hymnary in Beneventan script, written in the first half of the thirteenth century (cf. Paléographe musicale 14, ed. A. Mocquereau [Solesmes 1937] 52,92); it appears in the inventory of 1362 but not in that of 1313. Oxford. Bodl. Can. patr. lat. 175, an anonymous commentary on the Octateuch copied at Bari in the first half of the twelfth century, was certainly in St. Nicolas by the thirteenth; cf. E. A. Lowe, Scriptura Beneventana 2 [Oxford 1929]pl. LXXX); it appears in the inventories of 1313 and 1362.Google Scholar
5 See CDB 13, xxxvii ff. The title thesaurarius was used in St. Nicolas before Charles II's day: it first appears in CDB 6. no. 53, 145 (A.D. 1254).Google Scholar
6 Beatillo, Historia … di San Nicolo 6, 577: Elias, the first rector, ‘donò alla Chiesa di San Nicolo molti belli, e ricchi paramenti, una Mitra di perle, smalti, e pietre preziose, molte Reliquie di vari Santi; molti possessioni, e la dotò di buonissime entrate.’ His assertions have often been repeated, most recently by V. Masellis, Storia di Bari (Bari 1960) 95, 97. The gift to Elias of a relic of St. Vincent is attested by a short work attributed to Johannes, author of one version of the ‘translatio sancti Nicolai’ (published in Acta Sanctorum Januarii II 413-4, ‘ex Ms. Bariensi eruta ab Antonio Beatillo’). It is doubtful on what other traditions Beatillo relied; the mitra sounds very like one of Charles II's gifts to the basilica (see CDB 13, no. 72, 101). The tradition for St. Nicolas’ early prosperity is based in part on the common belief that it was a Norman foundation, richly endowed with property by local seigneurs (cf. e.g. Cottineau Répertoire 1, col. 265). But both versions of the translatio sancti Nicolai indicate that St. Nicolas was a private foundation by a group of citizens — those who had brought the saint's body from Myra — and no documents prove the contrary. It is beyond the scope of this article to examine the documentary evidence for Norman donations of landed property to the new basilica; it is enough to say here that only half a dozen surely authentic Norman donations are recorded between 1087 and 1117: CDB 5, no. 11, 22 (1089); no. 12, 23 (1089); no. 34, 59 (1101); no. 50, 91 (1108?); no. 56, 101 (1111); no. 57, 102 (1111). All these donations were small except the last (the entire castellum of Ioa, modern Gioia, given to St. Nicolas by Richard the Seneschal). The early history of the basilica needs to be studied in relation to the continually shifting rapport between the citizens of Bari and their Norman rulers.Google Scholar
7 The document is written on a rectangular piece of parchment measuring 403 × 154 mm., in light brown ink. The script is an informal Beneventan library hand; it is well known that a more or less calligraphic Beneventan was often used for documents in the region of Bari (see, most recently, A. Petrucci, ‘Note ed ipotesi sull'origine della scrittura barese,’ Bullettino dell'archivio paleografico italiano NS 4-5 [1958–9] 110-4). Letter forms and abbreviations are those usual for ‘mature’ Beneventan (see E. A. Loew, The Beneventan Script [Oxford, 1914] 120-52). Characteristic of the ‘Bari type’ are the rounded forms, the short descenders of f, s, and final r, and the form of z. On the reverse of the document is the recently written number 148, but the inventory does not appear under this number or any other in any volume of the CDB. 148 was the number assigned the inventory in Nitti di Vito's handwritten catalogue, which is still in St. Nicolas’ archives; this was pointed out to me by the archivist, Father Ferdinando Durelli, O.P., to whose kindness I am much indebted. Though Nitti di Vito knew of the inventory, he did not connect it with the basilica, for in Il tesoro 8 he remarks that before the Angevin period ‘non troviamo che solo qualche sporadica notizia di donazioni o acquisti.’ No other users of St. Nicolas’ archives, before or after Nitti di Vito, mention the inventory. Perhaps it was lost in the disorder which soon followed Nitti di Vito's chronological classification of archives, as he himself reports: ‘Basti dire che le carte dell'epoca normanna erano naufragate nel periodo borbonico, che aveva l'onore di essere depositario, se non esclusivo certo principale, di tutti i documenti che passassero per le mani degli studiosi.’ (San Nicola di Bari e il malgoverno dell’ abate Piscicelli-Taeggi [Bari 1915] 258). The documents, which suffered further displacement in World War II, are now reordered and well maintained. I must gratefully acknowledge here the generosity of the Archbishop of Bari and of the Rev. F. Durelli for allowing me to examine and photograph them.Google Scholar
8 For the words not in C. DuCange-L. Favre, Glossarium ad scriptores mediae et infimae latinitatis (Niort 1883–7), see the glossaries appended to CDB 1, 2 and 5. A few require special comment.Google Scholar
Line 13: francigenum, francigenos. Possibly these terms describe books written in ordinary minuscule rather than the Beneventan which was the usual book hand of Bari (cf. E. A. Loew, The Beneventan Script, 23, on francisca). But this expression is not used elsewhere of handwriting in Bari's documents, while CDB 16, no. 91 161 (A. D. 1331) has scripta gallica, lictera latina et lictera longobarda [sic]. Francigenos might mean books brought from France; it is worth noting the entry of the Anonymus Barensis ad ann. 1108: ‘Mense Septembr. celebravit [sc. Boamundus] sanctam missam super altare, ubi beatissimi sancti Nicolai corpus deget’ (Pellegrino, 197). The old quarter of Bari still has a ‘rua Francigena.’Google Scholar
Line 26, zippam: ‘(cloth) cover’; cf. at n. 39. infra. Google Scholar
Line 35, suppedaneos: the word here means ‘chest,’ not ‘footstool’; cf. the inventory of 1313 from St. Nicolas: ‘suppidaneum unum plenum de supersindonibus sindonibus et mandilibus.’Google Scholar
9 Ambiguities of phrasing and punctuation often make it difficult to be sure how many volumes are described in a medieval inventory. The divisions which I have made here are tentative, but correspond to divisions which are found in other medieval Italian inventories (the four books of Kings, for example, are often found in a single and separate volume, as is the Wisdom of Solomon).Google Scholar
10 No study with the scope of É. Lesne's ‘L’Inventaire de la propriété,’ La propriété ecclésiastique en France 3 (Lille 1936) has been made for Italy; it is, therefore, hard to generalize about Italian practice in making inventories. There seems in fact to have been no standard practice in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. The partial inventories embedded in the Chronicon Farfense (ed. U. Balzani, Fonti per la storia d’Italia 33-4 [Rome 1903]) and in the Chronica monasterii Casinensis (ed. W. Wattenbach, MGH SS VII [Hannover 1846] 551-84) suggest that the relevant passage in chapter 32 of St. Benedict's Rule, ‘abbas brebem teneat quid dat aut quid recipit’ (ed., R. Hanslik, CSEL [Vienna 1960] 89-90), was often interpreted in the most limited and literal way, i.e. that lists were made only of the objects lost or acquired under individual abbots. (The Cassinese chronicle's accounts of books acquired by various abbots are usefully collected by M. Inguanez, Catalogi codicum Casinensium antiqui in Miscellanea Cassinese 21 [Monte Cassino 1941]). In cathedral churches, too, lists were often kept of a particular bishop's acquisitions, like the early twelfth-century list mentioned in n. 50 infra. But thorough inventories of libraries or treasuries were also made — to cite only examples geographically close to that published here, an inventory of the treasure of St. Nicolas of Cicogna in the eleventh century (published by A. Caravita, I codici e le arti a Monte Cassino 2 [Monte Cassino 1870] 97; partially by G. Becker, Catalogi bibliothecarum antiqui [Bonn 1885] 146, and by M. Inguanez, ‘Cataloghi dei codici di prepositure e chiese cassinesi nei secoli XI-XIV,’ Gli archivi 3 [1916] 8); a library inventory at St. Angelo in Formis in the twelfth century (Becker, op. cit. 246; Tabularium Casinense [Monte Cassino 1887] 175; Inguanez, ‘Cataloghi,’ 5). The inventory published here is from a collegial church; for the closest analogy to the procedure followed in it, cf. a thirteenth-century inventory from the collegial church of St. Ambrosius in Milan, in which books are consigned by the praepositus to the cimeliarcha (G. Mercati, ‘Un inventario di libri del secolo XIII,’ Opera minora 2, Studi e testi 77 [Vatican City 1937] 44-7).Google Scholar
11 In Bari, clerics served as notaries until the end of the eleventh century. In the later twelfth century a canon of the cathedral with the title of scriniarius prepared the episcopal documents, but the episcopal chancellery is a special case. The last instance in Bari itself appears in 1099 (CDB 5, no. 28, 47); in smaller towns of the area the practice continued longer. But clerics who act as regular notaries always qualify themselves as such (e. g. diaconus et notarius), while Lucas, the scribe of the inventory, does not. He does not appear as the rogatarius of other documents.Google Scholar
12 E. g., the commemoratorium of Theobald, abbot of Monte Cassino, recording the ornaments and codices acquired for St. Liberator della Maiella while he was its praepositus, is witnessed by several monks: see E. Carusi, ‘Intorno al “commemoratorium” dell'abate Teobaldo (1019–22),’ Bullettino dell’Istituto storico italiano 47 (1932) 173-90.Google Scholar
13 The list of known rectors before 1200 (with the dates at which they first and last appear as rectors in St. Nicolas’ documents) is as follows: Elias, 1087–1105; Eustachius, 1105–1123; Maio, 1134–7; Silvester, 1138; Donatus, 1155–56; Stephanus Camelus, 1164; Nicolaus and Johannes, joint priors, 1181; Nicolaus Corbelli, 1183–94; Ambrosius, 1196. On the date of Eustachius see n. 40 infra. Google Scholar
14 (1) The church of St. Nicolas de monte, completed in 1027 (Anon. Barensis, Pellegrino, 188); mentioned again in 1073 (CDB 1. no. 28, 51) and 1079 (Anon. Barensis, Pellegrino, 194). (2) St. Nicolas in turre de Musarra, built by archbishop Nicolas of Bari, dedicated by him in 1039 and entrusted to a ‘Petrus monachus et abbas’ in order to ‘monasterium facere et monachos ibi habere’ (Codex diplomaticus Cavensis, ed. M. Morcaldi et al., 6 [Naples 1880] no. 950, 115). It became a dependency of La Cava (P. Guillaume, Essai historique sur l'abbaye de Cava [Cava 1877] Appendix p. xiv; cf. Cod. dipl. Cav. 7, no. 1186, 211), though it seems also to have been claimed by the church of St. Salvator and St. Maria in Bari (CDB 1, no. 24, 41. A. D. 1059; false). Perhaps it is the St. Nicolas de Episcopo mentioned by the Anon. Barensis as the site of a synod held in 1063 (Pellegrino, 194). Cottineau, 1, col. 265, confuses it with the major basilica of St. Nicolas. (3) The church of St. Nicolas supra porta vetere or Graecorum: CDB 5, no. 1, A. D. 1075; 1, no. 63, 121, A. D. 1192 (where it is said to possess privileges from Robert Guiscard and Roger Borsa); ibid. no. 72, 138, A. D. 1202. Possibly it is identical with St. Nicolas de ipsa pusterula (CDB 1, no. 22, 38, A. D. 1048. It was served by Greek clergy. (4) The church of St. Nicolas de paleariis near Gioia, subject to the monastery of Ognissanti di Cuti (CDB 5, no. 98, 167, A.D. 1144; no. 112, 190, A. D. 1155; no. 126, 220, A. D. 1168). (5) The monastery of St. Nicolas in Celie, modern Ceglie (CDB 5, no. 34, 59, A. D. 1101; no. 112, 90 A.D. 1155; no. 125, 217, A. D. 1167; CDB 1, no. 93, 173, A. D. 1226. (6) The church of St. Nicolas in loco Minerba donated to St. Nicolas of Bari in 1089 (CDB 5, no 12, 23); mentioned again in 1095 (ibid., no. 21, 40).Google Scholar
15 DuCange-Favre, 1, 12, s.v. abbas; O. Prinz, Mittellateinisches Wörterbuch 1, fasc. 1 (Munich 1959–62), s.v. abbas (early examples of the wider use, mainly from German sources); see also M. Monachus, Sanctuarium Capuanum (Capua 1630) 180; A. Pöschl, Bischofsgut und Mensa episcopalis 1 (Bonn 1908) 77, no. 1; K. Blume, Abbatia in Kirchenrechtliche Abhandlungen 83 (Stuttgart 1914) 60-1. To my knowledge there has been no comprehensive study of the subject. Abbas seems to have been used in the wider sense in Italy, France and Germany through the Carolingian period; it was then gradually limited to the rectors of monastic communities. North of the Alps it was revived by certain reformed regular communities in the eleventh century, while in Italy the terms prior, rector, or praepositus were preferred. These were used in south Italy, but abbas in its older sense also survived: proofs can be found in documents of the region, where the signatures of witnesses are often followed by such qualifiers as canonicus et abbas, diaconus et abbas. As Monachus, loc. cit., observes of Capua, the rectorship of churches and the accompanying title of abbot were often given as a kind of commenda to the members of cathedral capitula; hence most signatures of this type appear in episcopal documents witnessed by all or part of a capitulum. Curiously, the same practice and terminology are found in Ravenna: see A. Vasina, ‘La vita comune del clero presso la cattedrale ravennate,’ La vita comune del clero in Pubblicazioni dell’ Università del Sacro Cuore, ser. 3, scienze storiche 2 (Milan 1962) 213. I cite examples from Apulia, and only those earlier than 1200; the earliest appears in a document of 915 from Conversano near Bari. Bari: CDB 1, no. 16, 27; no. 59, 114; no. 60, 115; no. 64, 122; no. 68, 131; 4, no. 13, 26. Brindisi: Codice diplomatico brindisino, ed. A. De Leo (Trani 1940) no. 4, 7; no. 5, 10. Conversano: Chartularium Cupersanense 1 ed. D. Morea (Monte Cassino 1892) no. 5, 11. Polignano: ibid., no. 38, 81. Trani: A. Prologo, Le carte che si conservano nell'archivio del capitolo metropolitano della città di Trani (Barletta 1877) no. 40, 99; no. 68, 146; no. 70, 149; no. 80, 167. Some apparent examples (all after 1200) are in fact. importations of the French practice — e. g. at St. Samuel in Barletta, where Premonstratensian canons were governed by an abbot (Prologo, op. cit. no. 102, 207, A. D. 1214), or at St Petrus ad Aram in Naples, which was connected with the Parisian abbey of St Victor (C. D. Fonsega, Il cardinale Giovanni Gaderisi e la canonica di San Pietro ‘ad Aram’ in Napoli, Pubblicazioni dell’ Università del Sacro Cuore, ser. 3, scienze storiche 4 (Milan 1962) 93.Google Scholar
16 DuCange-Favre 6, 498 s.v. primicerius: dignitas in ecclesiis cathedralibus; it is pointed out there that a primicerius appears among Monte Cassino's dignitaries in 1147, in a document published by E. Gattola, Historia abbatiae Casinensis 1 (Venice 1733) 402. But Gattola noted this as exceptional. The dignities at St. Nicolas of Bari included two primicerii: the word first appears in CDB 5, no. 163, 278 (A.D. 1194); in CDB 6, no 93, 147 (A.D. 1254), a report on the basilica's organization made to Conrad the Swabian, it is said that ‘duo primicerii sunt et fuerunt in … ecclesia.’Google Scholar
17 If they had been monks ordained as priests and deacons, they would probably be qualified as presbyter et monachus, etc. Their number is normal for a collegial church, and very large for a lesser one: cf. the figures given by M. Giusti for the numbers of clergy serving churches in Lucca, ‘Le canoniche della città e diocesi di Lucca,’ Studi Gregoriani 3 (1948) 321-67, especially p. 326. Little work has been done so far on Apulian canoniae, but it is possible to learn the approximate sizes of many cathedral capitula from episcopal statutes and lists of witnesses to episcopal documents. E. g.: Canosa, A. D. 1259 13 (CDB 2, no. 2, 212); Brindisi, 1239: 12 (Cod. dipl. brindisino no. 53, 84; Giovinazzo, 1266: 15 (CDB 2, no. 23, 206); Trani, 1162: 23; 1181: 27; 1184: 24 (Prologo, op. cit., no. 52, 118; no. 71, 152; no. 75 a, 160). The first certain indication of the number of canons at St. Nicolas comes from Charles II's day, when there were 42 (CDB 13, no. 133, 196; A. D. 1304)Google Scholar
18 An exception is the cathedral, which cannot be the source of the inventory; it was dedicated not to St. Nicolas but to the Virgin (later to St. Sabinus of Canosa).Google Scholar
19 CDB 4, no. 45, 89 records his assumption of the abbacy in 1071. According to both versions of the translatio sancti Ncicolai, he was still its abbot when entrusted with St. Nicolas’ relics in 1087.Google Scholar
20 For his consecration in October 1089, see the Anon. Barensis (Pellegrino, 195) and Lupus Protospatharius (MGH SS V 62). Elias remained rector of St. Nicolas until his death in 1105. Before his consecration, documents of the basilica call him abbas (CDB 5, no. 11, 22, possibly false), or abbas et rector (ibid., no. 12,23 12 p. 23); after it, archiepiscopus (ibid., no. 18, 35; no. 19, 37; no. 20, 38; no. 30, 51).Google Scholar
21 The monastery of Ognissanti di Cuti was in Valenzano, near Bari: see Kehr, Italia pontificia 9, 332. In St. Nicolas’ documents Eustachius is usually called abbas, once abbas et rector (CDB 5, no. 48, 88), once abbas et rector et custos (ibid., no. 42, 73), and once abbas ecclesiae scindi Nicolai et monasterii omnium sanctorum (ibid., no. 56, 101; no. 63, 110).Google Scholar
22 CDB 5, no. 81, 139.Google Scholar
23 The title of prior replaced those of custos, rector, etc., in many Italian canoniae in the course of the twelfth century: see M. Giusti, ‘Notizie sulle canoniche lucchesi,’ La vita comune del clero 1, 438.Google Scholar
24 Historia … di San Nicolo,6 555, 558.Google Scholar
25 Ughelli, F., Italia sacra 7, 2nd ed. (Venice 1721) col. 611: ‘Eoque defuncto [sc. Eustachio] coepit Ecclesia haec esse collegiata saecularium canonicorum sub Priore … relicto Abbatiae titulo.’Google Scholar
26 Annales Ordinis sancti Benedicti 5 (Lucca 1740) 223.Google Scholar
27 Ughelli's view by Meisen, K., Nikolauskult und Nikolausbrauch im Abendlande (Düsseldorf 1931) 96; Mabillon's by Cottineau, Répertoire 1, col. 265.Google Scholar
28 It is called monasterium in the Annales Palidenses (MGH SS XVI 79) and the Gesta episcoporum Halberstadensium (MGH SS XXIII, 112). Chronicles composed so far from Bari are not apt to be reliable on this point. In any case, their notices refer respectively to events of 1137 and 1197, by which time St. Nicolas was surely collegial.Google Scholar
29 CDB 5, no. 42, 73.Google Scholar
30 See Carabellese, F., L’Apulia ed il suo comune 314 ff., and the criticisms of Monti, G. M., ‘Per la storia di San Nicola di Bari,’ Iapigia 1 (1930) 144–60. Carabellese took the passage to mean that members of this fraternity might join the basilica's clergy at will; if they decided to return to the condition of laymen (‘relicto seculari habitu’) they would remain members of the fraternity, sharing in the basilica's revenues. But ‘relinquere secularem habitum’ can only refer to the adoption, not the abandonment, of a religious life; for the use of this phrase in the area of Bari, see Chartularium cupersanense 1, no. 81, 70 (A. D. 1134); no. 86, 77 (A. D. 1140) and no. 54, 119 (A. D. 1092).Google Scholar
31 Istoria della vita … del gran taumaturgo San Nicolo 424.Google Scholar
32 Di Meo, A., Annali critico-diplomatici del regno di Napoli 8 (Naples 1803) 302.Google Scholar
33 La basilica di San Nicola è palatina? (Trani 1898) 32. It should be said that both Putignani (Istoria, 433) and Bartolini (Sul'antica basilica, 29) suggested that monks as well as clerics were connected with St. Nicolas, though only for the service of its hospice. But Putignani gave no supporting evidence for his conjecture, while Bartolini's was based on a misinterpretation of the word fratres in a document of 1134 (CDB 5, no. 81, 139).Google Scholar
34 Liège: D. Misonne, ‘Chapitres séculiers dépendant d'abbayes bénédictines au moyen âge dans l'ancien diocèse de Liège,’ La vita comune del clero 1, 413-32. Arezzo: G. Tabacco, ‘Le canoniche aretine,’ ibid. 2, 254. n. 46, Naples: C. D. Fonsega, ‘Congregationes clericorum et sacerdotum a Napoli nei secoli XI e XII,’ ibid. 264-83, especially 277. Nardò: W. Holtzmann, ‘Aus der Geschichte von Nardo in der normannischen und staufischen Zeit,’ Nachrichten d. Akad. d. Wiss. zu Göttingen, phil.-hist. Kl., (1961) III. 52-6. The double congregations of St. Ambrosius in Milan, St. Martin in Tours, and St. Peter in Rome are earlier in origin.Google Scholar
35 Holtzmann, loc. cit. A distinction in the form of stipend received by monks and by clerics, like that specified in the document of 1105, was made in the thirteenth century at Nardò: see Ughelli, Italia sacra 2, 1, col. 1037 (the reform of St. Maria of Nardò by Clement IV, A. D. 1267: ‘Ordinavit decem praebendas ad rationem unciarum quattuor pro qualibet, singulis canonicis assignandas … Quod cetera bona eiusdem [sc. ecclesiae] abbati et usibus abbatis et monachorum cederent.’ The affiliation of clerics with a monastery in Nardò may have been due, as Holtzmann suggests (loc. cit. 55) to the scarcity of Latin clergy in southern Apulia at the end of the eleventh century. But this was not the case in Bari, where despite two centuries of Greek administration (876–1071) the clergy had always been predominantly Latin. The diocese of Liège may provide a closer analogy: there, as Misonne points out (loc. cit. 430), canons rather than monks were attached to certain particularly important shrines destined to receive large numbers of visitors. St. Nicolas’ founders were doubtless aware that it would be a shrine of this kind, and that a community of monks alone would not be ideally fitted to serve it.Google Scholar
36 CDB 13, no. 133, 196. It may be significant that the numbers and ranks of the meliores among these 42 canons almost exactly double those of the twelfth century inventory. CDB 13, no. 133: a prior; 16 priests, including a thesaurarius; 6 deacons and 1 cantor; 4 subdeacons and 1 subcantor. The inventory: an abbot; 6 priests (or 7 if the notary is counted) including a treasurer (?); 3 deacons; 2 subdeacons; 2 primicerii. Of course it is impossible to be sure that an entire canonia is represented in the inventory, but the number of liturgical vestments listed, particularly the 17 pluviales, suggests it cannot have been much larger; see J. Braun, Die liturgische Gewandung (Freiburg im Breisgau 1907) 314.Google Scholar
37 These expressions can sometimes refer to monks and monastic life; see DuCange-Favre 2, 368, s.v. clerici: ‘Clericorum nomine intelliguntur etiam interdum monachi,’ etc. But the examples given there for our period are all French, and I have found none in South Italian sources.Google Scholar
38 None of the objects in the inventory can be identified with existing objects which are now, or were once, in St. Nicolas. Cf n. 4 supra. Google Scholar
39 Bari, A. D. 1266: ‘zeppas duas de seta cum capitibus deauratis’ (CDB 2, no. 1, 3); Terlizzi near Bari, 1232: ‘zeppam unam’ (CDB 3, no. 163, 184); Terlizzi, 1266: ‘zeppam unam cum auro in capite de Mumpillerio [?] et aliam zeppam unam cum auro in capite parvam de Mumpillerio’ (CDB 3 no. 282, 306); Bari, 1065: ‘zippa’ (CDB 4, no. 42, 83); Bari (?), 1232: ‘unam zeppam’ (CDB 8, no. 243, 306); Bari, 1313, inventory from St. Nicolas: ‘zeppam unam nigram longam cum capitibus deauratis,’ ‘zeppas decem diversarum colorum quibus cohoperiuntur calices cum feruntur ad altare,’ ‘zeppam unam parvam cum frisis de auro’ (CDB 16, no. 23, 42); Benevento, 1326: ‘zeppa una de seta cum auro’ (P. Sella, Glossario latino italiano: Stato della Chiesa-Veneto-Abruzzi in Studi e testi 109 [Vatican City 1944] 635). Probably the list should also include the more than 60 ceppae and ceppitellae (of which 6 are nigrae) described in the 1361 inventory from St. Nicolas of Bari (CDB 18, no. 74, 153-5). Sella cautiously suggested the equivalent pezzo, Nitti di Vito (CDB 1,252) borsellino; he compares Greek tzeppé (C. DuCange, Glossarium ad scriptores mediae et infimae graecitatis, 2 [Lyons 1688] col. 1566). The context of the word in South Italian documents shows that it must mean a cloth cover of some sort. It should not be confused with It. zappa (from Lat. sappa), meaning hoe, which also appears as zippa, zeppa in Apulian documents; the two may easily be distinguished by context, as one occurs in lists of fabrics and the other in lists of metal utensils (cf. CDB 3, no. 282, 306, where both words appear in one document). The ‘zippa nigra ad excutiendam crucem’ was presumably used to cover the altar cross in Passiontide, but if so excutere is used with a meaning unexampled in other documents of Bari, where it has the ordinary meanings of ‘shake out,’ ‘cancel,’ etc. (cf. Thesaurus linguae latinae 5.2 [Leipzig 1951–3] col. 1308). Cloth covers of this sort are seldom mentioned in medieval church inventories, probably because of their slight value; it is worth noting that another inventory from Bari (CDB 1, no. 26, 44, A. D. 1067) lists ‘sex vestiture lineis de cruces et de yconas’ [sic].Google Scholar
40 Eustachius is last mentioned in a document of June 1123 (CDB 5, no. 69, 121). A privilege of September 1123 issued by Calixtus II to Ognissanti di Cuti is directed not to Eustachius but to a ‘Melus abbas’ (CDB 5, no. 70, 122, JL 7076). In November 1126 a ‘dominus Iohannes’ received property for the basilica (CDB 5, no. 72, 124); this would normally have been done by its abbot.Google Scholar
41 CDB 5, no. 81, 139. Beatillo, Historia … di San Nicolo 6, 583 (and idem, Storia di Bari, 94) stated that Eustachius died in 1123, and was succeeded by ‘un altro Monaco pur Barese nominato Melo, ch'era stato per molti anni Priore dell'antidetto Monastero di Tutti i Santi … Volle perció nella nuova dignità pur intitolarsi Priore, e fe far decreto ultimato da chi poteva, che per l'avvenire in perpetuo tutti i suoi successori, ancorchè fossero d'altra qualsisia dignità, si denominassero, quanto al governo della Chiesa Barese di San Nicolo, solamente Priori.’ This explanation of the change in title is surely wrong: cf. n. 23 supra. Furthermore, Melus never appears as prior in the extant documents of Ognissanti di Cuti, but only as its abbot, and he has no connection with St. Nicolas of Bari. Beatillo seems to have identified him with Maio; perhaps he was misled by the similarity of i-longa to l in Beneventan script. Melus is called prior of St. Nicolas by Ughelli, Italia sacra2, 7 col. 618; by Lubin, Abbatiarum Italiae brevis notitia (Rome 1693) 41; by Mabillon, Annales, 5, 224; and by Bartolini, Sul'antica basilica, 31.Google Scholar
42 Cf. supra n. 14 ad fin. Google Scholar
43 Beatillo, Historia … di San Nicolo, 6 568.Google Scholar
44 CDB 5, no. 34, 59, a donation to the monastery of St. Nicolas in Ceglie of part of a clausura in Noia (modern Noicattaro), ‘cuius reliquas [sic] tres partes datae et concessae sunt ab eodem domino Boamundo in ospitalium sancti Nicolai de Baro;’ nearly all the property later acquired for the hospice was in Noia. This is the only recorded instance of a donation of property to St. Nicolas of Bari by Robert Guiscard's son Boamund.Google Scholar
45 1134–7: CDB 5, no. 81, 139; no. 82, 141; no. 83, 143; no. 85, 147; no. 86, 148; no. 88, 152; no. 90, 155; no. 91, 156. Hospice and prior hospitalis are not mentioned again until 1155 (CDB 5, no. 110, 186). Possibly the completion of the hospice was contingent on Roger II's pledge, made to the citizens of Bari in 1132, ‘ut contrarius non erit de fabrica sancti Nicolai vel de edificiis qui in honore et proficuo ipsius sunt et erunt in curte circum eandem ecclesiam’ (CDB 5, no. 80, 137).Google Scholar
46 Cf. the hospice subject to Monte Cassino on the Gargano promontory, founded in 1098 and endowed with property between 1098 and 1106: T. Leccisotti, Le colonie cassinesi in Capitanata, II: Il Gargano, in Miscellanea cassinese 15 (Monte Cassino 1938) nos. 2-7, 33-46.Google Scholar
47 It is impossible to identify the other witnesses to the inventory, and to confirm its provenance by this means, for only scattered individual names of St. Nicolas’ clerics survive from the early twelfth century. Possibly Lucas, the writer of the document, is the ‘Lucas sacerdos sancti Nicolai’ of CDB 5, no. 95, 162 (A.D. 1142) and 5, no. 101, 175 (A. D. 1147).Google Scholar
48 Such objects would certainly find their place in a hospice. Monte Cassino's hospice on the Gargano was given ‘medietatem ecclesiae et hortale et de libris et ornamentis suis … ut pauperes … fratres Christi ibi conveniant ad audiendum opus et officium Dei’ (Leccisotti, op. cit., no. 6, 42).Google Scholar
49 Both versions of the translatio sancti Nicolai, with their appended collections of miracles, attest that the flow of pilgrims began as soon as the saint's relics arrived. This is confirmed by a curious piece of rival hagiography, produced before the end of the eleventh century in an attempt to draw pilgrims from Bari to the church of St. Nicolas de Turre Pagana, a Cassinese dependency in Benevento (G. Cangiano, ‘L’Adventus Sancti Nicolai in Beneventum,’ Atti della Societa storica del Sannio 2 [1924] 131-62; also published as a separate work [Benevento 1925]). Jealousy of Bari's success in attracting pilgrims appears in another hagiographic work of the late eleventh century connected with Monte Cassino, the translatio Mennatis (B. de Gaiffier, ‘Translations et miracles de S. Mennas par Léon d’Ostie et Pierre du Mont Cassin,’ Analecta Bollandiana 62 [1944] 5-32; and P. Meyvaert and P. Devos, ‘Autour de Léon d’Ostie et de sa Translatio S. dementis’ ibid., 64 [1956[, 211-17).Google Scholar
50 For bishop William's annual gifts to the cathedral of Troia cf. Carabellese, L’Apulia ed il suo comune, no. 34, 529.Google Scholar
51 R. Krautheimer, ‘San Nicola in Bari und die apulishe Architektur des XII Jahrhunderts,’ Wiener Jahrtuch für Kunstgeschichte 9 (1934) 5-42, has shown that the original building plan for St. Nicolas was influenced by that used for St. Benedict. To his observations it may be added that St. Nicolas’ original plan included an atrium, which would presumably have been like that at Monte Cassino: CDB 5, no. 16 (A. D. 1091) speaks of a burial place to be located ‘intus in atrio predictae ecclesiae quod in antea se laborare debet.’ It is interesting that the two churches were dedicated on the same date — St. Benedict by Alexander II on Oct. 1, 1071, St. Nicolas’ crypt by Urban II on Oct. 1, 1089.Google Scholar
52 Amatus, Histoire de li Normant 3.52 (V. de Bartholomaeis, ed., Fonti per la storia d’Italia 76 [Rome 1935] 175-6); Leo Ostiensis, Narratio de consacratione et dedicatione ecclesiae Casinensis (Migne, PL 173. 997-1002), and Chronica monasterii Casinensis 3.26-32 (MGH SS VII pp. 716-23); Petrus Diaconus, ibid. 3.74 (MGH p. 753).Google Scholar
53 Leo Ostiensis gives four separate lists of ornaments acquired during Desiderius’ abbacy: (1) ‘ecclesiastica ornamenta, quibus ad id tempus pauperes admodum videbamur,’ collected by Desiderius himself for the old church of St. Benedict before he had decided to replace it with a new one (Chron. Cas. 3.18; MGH p. 711); (2) the empress Agnes’ gifts (3.31; MGH p. 722); (3) ‘post ecclesiae dedicationem residua exornationis ipsius’ (3.32); (4) the gifts of Robert Guiscard and Sykelgaita (3.58). Most of the objects in these lists appear in a much longer one given by Petrus Diaconus (3.74; MGH p. 753), which seems to be a complete inventory of Desiderius’ contributions to the treasury of Monte Cassino. Petrus prefaces it with this statement: ‘Ista praeterea ornamenta idem papa Victor ad mortem suam in hoc monasterio dereliquid; quae omnia fere post dedicationem ecclesiae partim ipse cum fratribus huius coenobii acquisivit, partim ab aliis in pignore posita recollegit.’ Amatus confirms the impression that this inventory represents almost the total contents of the treasury: ‘Mès qui voudra savoir tout lo bien qu'il [sc. Desiderius] fist à lo monastier, voise un jor sollempnel, et il porra veoir tout lo bien qu'il fist à lo hedifice et en lo tresor de l’églize. Quar toutes les chozes que tu verras en la églize, ou sont acquestées par lui ou sont renouvelées’ (de Bartholomaeis, 176).Google Scholar
54 Chron. Cas., 3.74. Many of the objects in Petrus’ inventory were clearly not new acquisitions — e.g., the gospel book of Aligern (abbot of Monte Cassino from 949 to 986), and that of Henry II. This was first observed by H. Bloch, ‘Monte Cassino, Byzantium, and the West in the Earlier Middle Ages,’ Dumbarton Oaks Papers 3 (Cambridge, Mass., 1946) 177 ff.Google Scholar
55 Beatillo, Historia … di San Nicolo6 580. It has been plausibly suggested that the consecration of 1197 had a political motive (Bartolini, Su l'antica basilica, 18).Google Scholar
56 As it is difficult to find all the evidence collected in one place, I summarize it here. (1) Documents: A bull of Pascal II issued in 1105 (CDB 5. no. 44, 79, JL 6053) takes St. N icolas under papal jurisdiction ‘quia iam congrua edificatione perfecta est,’ but it also refers to the basilica as ‘edificanda ecclesia.’ CDB 5, no. 57, 102 (A. D. 1111) calls St. Nicolas basilicam Deo opitulante edificatam;’ CDB 5, no. 50, 91 (A. D. 1108), which uses the same phrase, is a forged document. CDB 5, no. 80, 137 (A. D. 1132) records a pledge by Roger II not to hinder the ‘fabrica sancti Nicolai’; cf. n. 45 supra. (2) Epigraphic and other evidence: The crypt was dedicated on Oct. 1, 1089 (Anon. Barensis, Lupus Protospatharius). Elias was buried in 1105 at the entrance to the crypt, with a sepulchral inscription which reads in part hoc templum struxit, te [sc. St. Nicolas] secus aethera vexit. In September 1108 Boamund celebrated Mass in the lower church before departing for the East (Anon. Barensis). An inscription on the steps of the ciborium declares that Eustachius (rector 1105–1123?) sic decorando regit the basilica; on the ciborium itself there is an enamel plaque showing Roger II crowned by St Nicolas. Finally, an inscription on the façade gives the date of consecration as June 22, 1197. It is obvious how ambiguous most of these materials are as evidence for the date of the church's completion, or (what is more important to the present discussion) for that when the upper church was put to use. It is unnecessary to record here all the hypotheses drawn from them. For the followers of Beatillo's hypothesis (1105), see the résumé by Krautheimer, loc. cit. 21 n, 1. Most recent writers familiar with the CDB have agreed, on the evidence of Roger II's pledge, that the upper church was unfinished in 1132, but their estimates of its condition at that date vary widely. Of especially E. Carabellese, Italia artistica: Bari [Bergam o 1909], 105; A. K. Porter, ‘Bari, Modena, and St. Gilles,’ Art Studies 1 [1923] 12; F. Nitti di Vito, La questione giurisdiziale di San Nicola e il Duomo di Bari [Bari 1933] 86; C. Ceschi, La basilica di San Nicola in Bari, I monumenti italiani, fasc. 7 [Rome 1936] 1). Krautheimer (loc. cit. 7) for stylistic reasons proposed a date of completion circa 1150, but thought that Pascal II's document indicated ‘ein Teil der Oberkirche wenigstens soweit fertig, dass sie zu kirchlichen Zwecken benutzt werden konnten.’ The statement that St. Nicolas was completed in 1108, to be found in some current reference works (Enciclopedia italiana, 6 [Rome 1949] 181; cattolica, 2 [Vatican City 1949] col. 851), apparently goes back to an undocumented assertion in F. Colavecchio's Guida di Bari (Bari 1910) 64.Google Scholar