The Cathedral of Cefalù and Roger Ii's Patronage in a Multicultural Context

The Pennsylvania State University

The Graduate School

College of Arts and Architecture

THE CATHEDRAL OF CEFALÙ

AND ROGER II’S PATRONAGE

IN A MULTICULTURAL CONTEXT

A Dissertation in

Art History

Heather Hoge

 2019 Heather Hoge

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

May 2019

The dissertation of Heather Hoge was reviewed and approved* by the following:

Elizabeth Smith Associate Professor of Art History Emerita Dissertation Co-Advisor Co-Chair of Committee

Madhuri Desai Associate Professor of Art History Dissertation Co-Advisor Co-Chair of Committee

Anthony Cutler Evan Pugh University Professor of Art History Emeritus

Kathryn Salzer Associate Professor of History

Elizabeth Mansfield Professor of Art History Head of Department of Art History

*Signatures are on file in the Graduate School

iii

ABSTRACT

This dissertation examines the patronage of Roger II at the Cathedral of Cefalù.

The building campaigns at the Cathedral were ongoing for several decades following

Roger’s coronation in 1130, and included changes in the shifting needs and desires of the patron. I examine the cathedral as an entire monument, taking into consideration the architecture, decorative programs, and functions, in order to understand how it relates to Roger’s goals as the newly crowned king. This includes looking not only at this monument, but also other objects and building connected to the royal court in

Norman Sicily. The visual culture of the Norman court in Palermo displayed the cosmopolitan character of Sicily, exhibiting influence from the Christians of Western

Europe, Byzantines in the Eastern Mediterranean, and Muslims of al-Andalus and

North Africa. This is also the case at the Cathedral of Cefalù. In looking at the building holistically, and placing it within the context of the cosmopolitan society of Norman

Sicily, I argue that the decisions made at Cefalù help promote the new kingdom of

Sicily, particularly showing Roger as a powerful ruler with the same power, legitimacy, and status as his contemporaries.

Table of Contents

LIST OF FIGURES ...... vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... xiv

Introduction ...... 1

Goal of Research...... 1

State of the Research ...... 3

Summary of the Text ...... 12

Chapter One: The History of Sicily ...... 17

Sicily before the Arrival of the Normans ...... 18

Norman Conquest and Consolidation of Power in Sicily and South

Italy ...... 28

The Creation of the Norman Kingdom of Sicily ...... 43

Muslims and Greeks in the Latin Kingdom of Sicily ...... 50

Conclusion ...... 61

Chapter Two: Town and Cathedral of Cefalù ...... 63

Location of Cefalù ...... 64

History of the Cathedral of Cefalù ...... 67

The Cathedral of Cefalù and Romanesque Architecture in Normandy,

South Italy, and Sicily ...... 73

The Rogerian Parts of the Cathedral ...... 86

Masonry of Cefalù ...... 94

Conclusion ...... 106

Chapter Three: The Twin-Tower Façade of the Cathedral of Cefalù and its

Political Implications ...... 132

The Towers of Cefalù ...... 133

Twin-Tower Façades in the Duchy of Normandy ...... 136

Twin Towers and the Norman Kingdom of Sicily ...... 141

Islamic Imagery, Minarets, and Power in Roger II’s Sicily ...... 152

Conclusion ...... 174

Chapter Four: The Interior and Function of the Cathedral of Cefalù in the

1140’s ...... 190

The Program and Dating of the Mosaics at Cefalù ...... 192

The “Classical System” of Middle Byzantine Church Decoration ...... 197

Byzantine-style Mosaics in Twelfth-Century Palermo ...... 205

The Mosaic Program in its Context at Cefalù ...... 216

King as Autokrator, “Imperial Liturgy,” and Roger II at Cefalù ...... 227

Conclusion ...... 234

Conclusion ...... 248

References ...... 252

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 - View of Cefalù from the sea...... 15

Figure 2 - Cathedral of Cefalù. Nave towards apse...... 16

Figure 3 - Plan of the Cathedral of Cefalù...... 16

Figure 4 - Greek tomb from Marsala ...... 62

Figure 5 - Map from Book of Roger...... 62

Figure 6 - Ancient temple, known as the Temple of Diana...... 107

Figure 7 - The Rocca, Cefalù ...... 108

Figure 8 - Plan of the town of Cefalù ...... 108

Figure 9 - Cathedral of Cefalù. Façade...... 109

Figure 10 - Cathedral of Cefalù. Details of the lower sections of the west towers.

North tower on the left, south tower on the right...... 109

Figure 11 - Cathedral of Cefalù. View of the exterior showing the triumphal

arch rising above the roof...... 110

Figure 12 - Plan of Cluny II ...... 110

Figure 13 - Cathedral of Cefalù. Passage in south transept arm...... 111

Figure 14 - Cathedral of Trani. Interior showing the north gallery and the

walkway along the west wall ...... 111

Figure 15 - Saint-Étienne in Caen. Interior ...... 112

viii

Figure 16 - Reconstruction drawing of Montecassino ...... 112

Figure 17 - Cathedral of Salerno. Courtyard, including bell tower ...... 113

Figure 18 - Cathedral of Salerno. Medieval nave arcade and columns within the

fabric of the Baroque church...... 113

Figure 19 - Cathedral of Salerno. East wall of the transept ...... 114

Figure 20 - Santa Maria della Libera in Aquino ...... 114

Figure 21 - Cathedral of Cefalù. Main apse...... 115

Figure 22 - Cathedral of Cefalù. Oculi on south transept arm ...... 115

Figure 23 - Cathedral of Cefalù. Oculi on north transept arm ...... 116

Figure 24 - Plan of the Cathedral of Catania ...... 116

Figure 25 - Cathedral of Catania. South chapel and main apse, with crenellated

walkway running along the top, and lancet window and oculus on main

apse...... 117

Figure 26 - Cathedral of Catania. North chapel and crenellated walkway ...... 117

Figure 27 - Cathedral of Cefalù. Exterior of the south aisle and nave ...... 118

Figure 28 - Cathedral of Catania. Interior, west wall ...... 118

Figure 29 - Cathedral of Cefalù. Passage on west wall...... 119

Figure 30 - Cathedral of Catania. Excavations under the Baroque floor ...... 119

Figure 31 - Cathedral of Catania. Interior, north chapel ...... 120

Figure 32 - Saint-Benoît-du-Sault. Interior ...... 120

Figure 33 - Bernay, Notre-Dame. Interior, nave ...... 121

Figure 34 - Cathedral of Catania. Main apse ...... 121

Figure 35 - Cathedral of Cefalù. Main apse...... 122

Figure 36 - Cathedral of Cefalù. South chapel ...... 122

Figure 37 - Cathedral of Cefalù. Arch leading from nave to transept...... 123

Figure 38 - Plan of the Cathedral of Mazara del Vallo ...... 123

Figure 39 - Cathedral of Cefalù. Exterior of north aisle and nave ...... 124

Figure 40 - Cathedral of Cefalù. Exterior of south apse wall...... 124

Figure 41 - Cathedral of Cefalù. Exterior of north apse wall...... 125

Figure 42 - South apse, Cathedral of Cefalù...... 125

Figure 43 - Cathedral of Cefalù. South transept from the southwest ...... 126

Figure 44 - Cathedral of Cefalù. South transept and south wall of choir ...... 126

Figure 45 - Cathedral of Cefalù. Exterior of the north transept from the

northwest...... 127

Figure 46 - Cathedral of Cefalù. Exterior of choir and north transept...... 127

Figure 47 - Sant’Angelo in Formis. Interior view towards apse...... 128

Figure 48 - Santa Maria dell'Ammiraglio, Palermo. Bell tower...... 128

Figure 49 - Bāb al-Futūh Gate, Cairo ...... 129

Figure 50 - Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem. South portal ...... 129

Figure 51 - Plan of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem...... 130

Figure 52 - La Magione, Palermo. Façade...... 130

Figure 53 - Mosque of Bab Mardum, Toledo...... 131

Figure 54 - Plan of Krak des Chevaliers ...... 175

Figure 55 - Cathedral of Ávila ...... 176

Figure 56 - Abbey of Corvey. Westblock ...... 176

Figure 57 - Saint-Pierre, Jumièges ...... 177

Figure 58 - Saint-Pierre, Jumièges. View west towards westblock ...... 177

Figure 59 - Notre-Dame, Jumièges. Façade...... 178

Figure 60 - Notre-Dame, Jumièges. View towards westblock...... 178

Figure 61 - La Trinité, Caen. Façade...... 179

Figure 62 - Saint-Etienne, Caen. Façade...... 179

Figure 63 - Cathedral of Trani. Façade...... 180

Figure 64 – Basilica of San Nicola, Bari. Façade...... 180

Figure 65 - Basilica of San Nicola, Bari. Plan...... 181

Figure 66 - Fresco of Catania, showing the medieval cathedral...... 181

Figure 67 - La Zisa, Palermo. Plan...... 182

Figure 68 – Zirid Palace of Ashir, Algeria. Plan ...... 182

Figure 69 - La Zisa, Palermo. Central room...... 183

Figure 70 - La Zisa, Palermo. Façade...... 183

Figure 71 - Cappella Palatina, Palermo. Muqarnas ceiling...... 184

Figure 72 - Cappella Palatina, Palermo. Detail of the muqarnas ceiling ...... 184

Figure 73 - Bath of Abu'l-Su'ud, Fustat. Detail of muqarnas...... 185

Figure 74 - Cappella Palatina, Palermo. Detail of muqarnas ceiling ...... 185

Figure 75 - Cappella Palatina, Palermo. Detail of muqarnas ceiling ...... 186

Figure 76 - Marble relief from al-Mahdiyya, Tunisia...... 186

Figure 77 - Cathedral of Cefalù. Painted ceilingDetail of 13th painted beam in the

foreground with 12th century rafters in the background...... 187

Figure 78 - Cathedral of Cefalù. Detail of inscription on 13th century painted

beam...... 187

Figure 79 - Cathedral of Cefalù. Detail Islamic imagery on rafters...... 188

Figure 80 - Opus sectile designs from the Cappella Palatina ...... 188

Figure 81 - So-called Coronation Mantle of Roger ...... 189

Figure 82 - Kairouan, Great Mosque. Minaret ...... 189

Figure 83 - Cathedral of Cefalù. Apse and presbytery mosaics...... 236

xii

Figure 84 - Cathedral of Cefalù. Detail of the Pantokrator...... 236

Figure 85 - Cathedral of Cefalù. Detail of apse mosaic...... 237

Figure 86 - Cathedral of Cefalù. Detail of vault mosaics...... 237

Figure 87 - Cathedral of Cefalù. Presbytery mosaics, south wall ...... 238

Figure 88 - Cathedral of Cefalù. Presbytery mosaics, north wall...... 238

Figure 89 - Hosios Loukas. Interior of Katholikon ...... 239

Figure 90 - Cappella Palatina, Palermo. Cupola mosaics ...... 239

Figure 91 - Cappella Palatina, Palermo. South transept mosaic detail...... 240

Figure 92 - Cappella Palatina, Palermo. South wall mosaic detail ...... 240

Figure 93 - Cappella Palatina, Palermo. Pentecost (above) and Ascension (below)

mosaics from pseudo-transept vaults ...... 241

Figure 94 - Cappella Palatina, Palermo. North wall mosaics ...... 241

Figure 95 - Cappella Palatina, Palermo. Mosaics facing the royal box...... 242

Figure 96 - Santa Maria dell'Ammiraglio, Palermo. Cupola mosaics...... 242

Figure 97 - Santa Maria dell'Ammiraglio, Palermo. Detail of mosaics, the Nativity

and Dormition...... 243

Figure 98 - Santa Maria dell'Ammiraglio, Palermo. Dedication panel of George

of Antioch kneeling before the Virgin ...... 243

Figure 99 - Cathedral of Cefalù. North wall of presbytery ...... 244

xiii

Figure 100 - Cathedral of Cefalù. South wall of presbytery ...... 244

Figure 101 - Cathedral of Palermo. Porphyry tomb of Roger II...... 245

Figure 102 - Cappella Palatina, Palermo. Throne platform...... 245

Figure 103 - Cappella Palatina, Palermo. Pavement design...... 246

Figure 104 - Isometric of the Cappella Palatina, showing the balcony in the nave,

throne platform, and the path from the entrance to the platform...... 246

Figure 105 - Santa Maria dell'Ammiraglio (Martorana), Palermo. Mosaic panel of

Christ crowning Roger II ...... 247

xiv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My research in Sicily was made possible by the Susan W. and Thomas A.

Schwartz Endowed Fellowship for Dissertation Research, Francis A. Hyslop, the

College of Arts and Architecture, and the Department of Art History. I would also like to thank the Diocese of Cefalù, particularly Bishop Vincenzo Manzella and Don

Cosmino Leone, for the permission to enter and photograph limited-access parts of the

Cathedral. I am also very grateful for Tancredi Bella’s help in navigating the process of getting permissions, as well as sending relevant articles and introducing me to the eleventh-century architecture of Sicily.

I am deeply grateful for all of the love, encouragement, and support given by my parents, Bill and Priscilla Hoge, throughout my career as a graduate student. I also would like to thank my sister, Hilary Hoge, for being a patient travel companion during my early research trips. My grandparents, Dorothy and Grady Ragland, were always encouraging and made it possible to extend my early research trips through their generous gifts. I am also very grateful for Jared Blecher’s love and support at home during the writing process. Writing this dissertation and organizing my arguments was aided by my friends and colleagues Theresa Kutusz Christensen, Laura Freitas

Almeida, Andrea Middleton, Katherine Koltiska, and Brynne McBride. They sat through conference paper run-throughs, talked with me about my research, and provided moral support at cafés while writing our respective dissertations. I am

xv extremely grateful for the mentorship and guidance of Elizabeth Smith during my time as a doctoral student, and especially the time she spent editing, discussing, and providing feedback on this dissertation. Also, I am very thankful for the time and support given by my doctoral committee, Madhuri Desai, Anthony Cutler, and Kathryn

Salzer. Finally, I am forever grateful to Edson Armi for instilling in me a love of

Medieval Architecture and supporting my decision as an undergraduate to pursue graduate school.

Introduction

Goal of Research

The Cathedral of Cefalù was the first cathedral founded by Roger II, in 1131, after the Kingdom of Sicily was created in 1130. The Kingdom of Sicily was unique in

Christian Europe. Roger II, and his father before him, were accepting of the Muslims who had occupied the island for several centuries prior to the arrival of the Normans.

They also incorporated Byzantine officials and practices into the Norman court. This cosmopolitan culture was unique in Christian Europe, and is reflected in the objects and monuments associated with the Norman royal court. The Cathedral of Cefalù is one of the monuments that can be directly related to Roger’s multicultural kingdom.

Furthermore, it was the first royal cathedral established by Roger, and carried particular significance for him. Not only was it a royal cathedral, but Roger also intended it to serve as his mausoleum.

Construction began during Roger II’s reign and continued through his reign, with changes in plan and design, but it was not completed until after his death. The appearance of the Cathedral today displays the shifts in building campaigns. The western and eastern ends of the buildings are the most monumental and architecturally

2 interesting parts (Fig. 1). The western façade is dominated by two large towers, and the transept and chevet have steep proportions, looming over the lower nave. The nave is a three-aisle basilica with an open timber roof and an arcuated colonnade with a clerestory (Fig. 2). There are three aisles, a projecting transept, and three apses in

échelon (Fig. 3). The nave was not finished until after Roger’s death, and appears to have originally been planned to be much taller. Also, modifications were made in the east end during the early years of construction to reflect new functions and changes in visual culture of the Norman Kingdom.

One of my goals is looking at the overall plan and design of the Cathedral order to determine the dating of the building, the origins of the plan and certain design elements, and the reasons for their use at this cathedral. I examine its plan and place it within the wider context of eleventh and twelfth-century architecture in Europe

(specifically France and the Norman Kingdom of the Two Sicilies). I also delve into the twin-tower façade, a feature not commonly associated with Italy, in order to understand its use here, including the meaning this form could have had for visitors to Cefalù and why it might have been an important and meaningful part of the design to Roger II. The plan and twin-tower façade would have been decided on and begun early in the life of the Cathedral, making these parts fundamental in understanding the references made at

Cefalù and any associations Roger meant to make for himself.

I have also expanded my study beyond the architectural plan and design to look at the changes made to the east end, especially the addition of a mosaic program and installation of two porphyry sarcophagi. These changes were made during Roger’s reign, most likely at the request of the king himself. Therefore, these interventions speak to the desires of the king and the image he was developing for the Norman Kingdom of

Sicily. In this project, I look at the entire monument holistically, in order to understand how it fits within the multicultural Norman Kingdom, as well as how the building and its decorative elements relate to the development of the image of kingship for the newly crowned king. To do this, I looked at the history and cultural makeup of Sicily, as well as the imagery used by Roger II and his close circle in other royal commissions. This entire process will help explain the complete Rogerian monument of Cefalù, and place it within the cosmopolitan visual culture of the new Norman Kingdom of Sicily.

State of the Research

Interest in Sicily had been present in the Early Modern era, however solely on the monuments and history of antiquity. It was not until the end of the nineteenth century that the first scholarly article on the Cathedral of Cefalù was published by George

Hubbard.1 In this article, Hubbard provided a general description of the monument, as well as an overview of the history of Norman Sicily and the Cathedral of Cefalù. His main point in this article was to demonstrate that the Cathedral of Cefalù has one of the earliest examples of the pointed arch in Western European architecture. He supported his argument by discussing the use of the pointed arch, which he identified as Saracen in origin, in Norman buildings in Sicily. He also discussed English architecture of the twelfth-century to show the Siculo-Norman pointed arches predate those in England.2

Following the work of George Hubbard, scholarship on the architecture of the

Cathedral of Cefalù has been focused on dating the building and a stylistic analysis of the monument. The first detailed architectural plans and elevations were published by

Giuseppe Samonà in 1939.3 He followed these drawings with a monograph on the

Cathedral in 1940.4 Samonà argued that most of the building dates to the thirteenth century. He stated that the nave had been part of a building that was already standing on this site before Roger began funding the building campaigns. According to Samonà, the lower parts of the west and east end were built during Roger II’s time, while all of

1 George Hubbard, “Notes on the cathedral church of Cefalù, Sicily,” in Archaeologia 56 (January 1898): 57- 70.

2 Ibid, 58-60.

3 Giuseppe Samonà, Il Duomo di Cefalù, I mounmenti italiani, rilievi raccolti a cura della Accademia d’Italia, vol. 16 (Roma: La Libreria dello stato, 1939).

4 Giuseppa Samonà, Il Duomo di Cefalù (Roma: Nuove Grafiche, 1940).

5 the upper parts were completed in the thirteenth century. By dating the building this way, he also argued that the Cathedral of Cefalù is essentially Gothic in style, falling at the end of the chronology of Norman Sicilian architecture. Not long after Samonà’s work was published, Heinrich M. Schwartz provided an opposing view regarding the style and dating of the Cathedral.5 Schwartz dated the entire monument to the second half of the twelfth century, beginning in the east end in the 1140s, followed by the transept, and finally the nave in the 1180s-90s. His stylistic analysis does not follow

Samonà’s. Rather, he argued that the architectural elements at Cefalù have their origins in Normandy and Norman England, and that the design was innovative, paving the way for later Siculo-Norman architecture.

Scholars of the 1960s and 1970s followed the example set by Samonà and

Schwartz, focusing their scholarship on the dating and architectural style of the

Cathedral. The discrepancy in size between the east end and nave presented a problem for these scholars to attempt to solve. The chronology was the main goal, while the style was discussed in the context of the hypothesized dating. Guido di Stefano was the first in this line of scholars to address the dating issue of the Cathedral.6 Di Stefano argued

5 Heinrich M. Schwartz, “Die Baukunst Kalabriens und Siziliens im Zeitalter der Normannen: I. Teil: Die lateinischen Kirchengründungen des 11. Jarhunderts und der Dom in Cefalù,” Römisches Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte 6 (1942-1944): 1-112.

6 Guido di Stefano, Il Duomo di Cefalù: Biografia di una cattedrale incompiuta (Palermo: Italiamondo, 1960).

6 that the entire building was constructed in the mid-twelfth century, pushing the beginning of construction closer to the coronation of Roger in the early 1130s and claiming it was finished by the 1160s. Just as his chronology is based on the dating first proposed by Schwartz, di Stefano also compared the style of the building to Norman and Anglo-Norman architecture.

Wolfgang Krönig followed in the same line as di Stefano, arguing for a twelfth- century dating of the Cathedral, as well as placing the architecture stylistically with

Norman and Anglo-Norman structures.7 The last of the publications dating to the 1960s is a two-part article written by Pierre Heliot.8 His dating also follows that first established by Schwartz, however, he argued that construction began in 1131, with several campaigns throughout the rest of the twelfth century, and a completion date in the thirteenth century. Heliot also includes a more detailed stylistic analysis of the

Cathedral, in the hopes of supporting the prevailing argument at this time that the architectural elements found at Cefalù have their origins in the architecture of Norman and especially Norman England.

7 Wolfgang Krönig, Cefalù, der Sizilische Normannendom (Kassel: F. Lometsch, 1963).

8 Pierre Heliot, “La cathédrale de Cefalù, sa chronologie, sa filiations et les Galeries murals dans les églises romanes du midi, Arte Lombarda 10, no. 1 (Primo Semestre 1965): 19-38; and Pierre Heliot, “La cathédrale de Cefalù, sa chronologie, sa filiation et les Galeries murals dans les églises romans du midi (2e partie), Arte Lombarda 11, no. 1 (Primo Semestre 1966): 6-25.

In the 1970s, Thomas Thieme and Ingamaj Beck published a study on Cefalù, addressing both the town and the Cathedral.9 They examined the layout of the town and the fortifications, in order to show that the Cathedral was integrated into the plan of the town rebuilt during Roger II’s time. They also argued that there had been a church built on this site during Roger II’s reign, parts of which were subsequently demolished to make way for the new plan, which included the east end and west façade still visible today. However, they claimed the entire building was not completed until the thirteenth century.

Crispino and Maria Valenziano published two articles in French and an Italian monograph on the Cathedral of Cefalù in the late-70s.10 In both these works, they provide the original Latin documents relating to the foundation of the Cathedral of

Cefalù, and comment on the documents while relating them to the construction of the

Cathedral. Using this approach, they argued that there was a cathedral built earlier on this site. This was rebuilt throughout the course of the mid-twelfth century, and into the

9 Thomas Thieme and Ingamaj Beck, La cattedrale normanna di Cefalù: un frammento della civiltà socio-politica della Sicilia mediovale (Odense: Odense University Press, 1977).

10 Maria Valenziano, Crispino Valenziano and Yvonne Labande-Mailfert, “La supplique des chanoines de la cathédrale de Cefalù pour la sepulture du roi Roger,” Cahiers de civilisation médiévale 81 (Jan-Mar 1978): 3-30; Maria Valenziano and Crispino Valenziano, “La supplique des chanoines de la cathédrale de Cefalù pour la sepulture du roi Roger, II (suite),” Cahiers de civilisation médiévale 82 (April-June 1978): 137-150; and Crispino Valenziano and Maria Valenziano, La basilica cattedrale de Cefalù nel period normanno (Palermo: O Theologos, 1979).

8 thirteenth and fourteenth. For the Valenzianos, the lower parts of the towers, and the east end (including the crossing piers) belong to Roger’s period.

Finally, rounding out the scholarship which had focused on the dating and style of the Cathedral of Cefalù is a dissertation by Kristin Ann Mortimer.11 She looked at the details of the documents, former scholarship on the topic, and the fabric of the building to argue for a twelfth-century dating of the majority of the building. She also closely studied the sculpture found throughout the Cathedral to support her dating of the building, as well as to analyze the stylistic characteristics of the design. She stated that the design of the Cathedral, particularly the features found in the sculpture and architectural details, demonstrates an eclectic character related to the cultural makeup of Roger’s kingdom. However, most of the architectural sources she identified were ultimately traced back to the Norman and Anglo-Norman kingdoms.

There have been many publications on the mosaics of Cefalù. The earlier studies, published by Victor Lasareff, Otto Demus and Ernst Kitzinger, focused on the iconography, style and dating of these mosaics.12 Victor Lasareff also dedicated the

11 Kristin Ann Mortimer, “Cefalù Cathedral: A Study in the Development of Architecture and Sculpture in the Norman Kingdom of Sicily” (PhD diss., Harvard University, 1980).

12 Otto Demus, The Mosaics of Norman Sicily (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd, 1949); Ernst Kitzinger, “Mosaic Decoration in Sicily under Roger II and the Classical Byzantine System of Church Decoration,” in Italian Church Decoration of the Middle Ages and Early Renaissance: Functions, Forms and Regional Traditions: ten contributions to a colloquium held at the Villa Spelman, Florence, ed. William Tronzo (Bologna: Nuova Alfa Editoriale, 1989), 147-165; Victor Lasareff, “The Mosaics of Cefalù,” Art Bulletin 17, no. 2 (June 1935): 184-232.

9 majority of his article to a formal analysis of the mosaics, drawing comparisons between the figures at Cefalù and those found in Byzantine churches. All three scholars came to the same conclusions that the mosaics were not completed in one single campaign. They also all agree that the apse mosaic was the first phase.

Later publications on the mosaics delve into the meaning behind the iconography, as well as the dating. Mark J. Johnson focused on the walls of the presbytery, and argued that the figures were chosen based on the location of a royal and bishop’s throne in the sanctuary.13 While he does not state that the entire mosaic was executed at once, in fact he follows the dating of the earlier scholars, he does maintain that the whole program was designed as a single unit during the time of

Roger II. This is also suggested by Demus, Maria Andaloro, and Kitzinger.14 Thomas

Creissen, who also maintained that the mosaics were done in several phases, compared the figures in the registers below the Pantokrator to those found in the Pentecost mosaic from the Cappella Palatina.15 In doing so, he argued that the apse mosaic at Cefalù depicted the Pentecost, an identification that I do not agree with since there is no

13 Mark J. Johnson, “The Episcopal and Royal Views at Cefalù,” Gesta 33, no. 2 (1994): 118-131.

14 Maria Andaloro, “I mosaici di Cefalù dopo il restauro,” in III Colloqiuo internazionale sul mosaico antico Volume 1, ed. R. Farioli Campanati (Ravenna: Edizioni del Girasole, 1983), 105-116.

15 Thomas Creissen, “Architecture religieuse et politique: À propos des mosaïques des parties basses de l’abside dans la cathédrale de Cefalù,” Cahiers de civilisation médiévale 43, no. 183 (July-September 2003): 247- 263.

10 apparent transmission of the Holy Spirit to the apostles. Beat Brenk also does not agree with Creissen’s interpretation. In his forthcoming article on the subject, Brenk not only dates the entire program to a single campaign of the 1140s, but also looks at the program in context with the porphyry sarcophagi, inscriptions, and events of the early years of Roger’s reign.16 Before having the opportunity to read Brenk’s article, this is the approach I took when I began looking at the mosaics, and his article has helped me further develop my ideas regarding the building as a whole.

Mirjam Gelfer-Jørgensen’s work on the painted ceilings at Cefalù provides an in depth study of the imagery found on the rafters far overhead, and places these image within the tradition of Islamic figural painting, as well as the Cappella Palatina.17 Since so much of the focus at Cefalù on interior decoration is centered on the mosaics, the presence of these paintings illustrates that Greek and Muslim artists were working at

Cefalù, as was found at the Cappella Palatina in the 1130s and 40s as well. While the ceiling does not factor as prominently into my argument as the mosaics, it is still instrumental in demonstrating the diverse traditions out of which came the various decorative and architecture elements.

16 Beat Brenk, “The Mosaics of Cefalù Revisited: Innovation and Memory,” Codex Aquilarensis 34 (2018): 13-34.

17 Mirjam Gelfer-Jørgensen, Medieval Islamic Symbolism at the Painted Ceilings in the Cefalù Cathedral (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1986).

Instead of looking only at one aspect of the Cathedral of Cefalù, my study examines the whole monument. I do not look at the details of architectural sculpture, nor the sources of each architectural element. The smaller details of the sculpture would not have been as legible to visitors. Similarly, the sources of the articulation of the building most likely would not have been recognizable to the various groups passing through Cefalù. Instead, I am focusing on the plan and monumental architectural elements which recall forms and plans throughout Western Europe and the

Mediterranean world. These would have helped in projecting a message about Roger’s power as a new king, as well as provide associations with other rulers, either his predecessors or contemporaries. My goal is to discuss the design as a whole, including the architectural design, function, and interior decoration, and place it within the context of Norman Sicily and South Italy to fully understand the decisions made at this new royal cathedral. I hope to provide another approach to viewing the Cathedral, showing it as a product of the diverse culture found in Sicily in the mid-twelfth century, as well as the patron’s desires as a newly crowned king establishing his legitimacy and power in the Mediterranean and European world.

Summary of the Text

This project is divided into four chapters. My first chapter examines the history of Sicily in the first part, beginning with the Islamic presence on the island. This is important since there continued to be a strong Islamic presence during Roger II’s reign.

It also provides context for the invasion, and subsequent conquest, of the Normans. The rest of the chapter is dedicated to the consolidation of power under Roger I and then

Roger II, and culminates in a discussion of the development of the Kingdom of Sicily.

This is vital for understanding the context in which the Cathedral of Cefalù was founded. The Cathedral was founded less than a year after Roger II was crowned, and the progress and changes were linked to the political tensions and desires of its patron, the king.

In Chapter Two, I turn to the town and Cathedral of Cefalù. The setting helps establish the Cathedral’s significance in the new kingdom. I then address the secure dates related to the building, which is necessary for establishing which elements belong to Roger’s reign. After discussing the recorded dates, I apply this information to a formal analysis of the building in order to further support the argument that the monumental parts of the building belong to Roger’s period. I also relate this royal cathedral to the important foundations of Robert Guiscard and Roger I, the Normans responsible for the conquest of South Italy and Sicily. This helps situate the new

Cathedral within the context of the architectural tradition of the Normans of the previous generation, particularly those of Roger I in Sicily. Finally, I address the question of masons in the Kingdom of Sicily to better understand the possible workforce at the Cathedral. All of these elements contribute to an understanding of the overall design and appearance of the Cathedral.

Chapter Three is focused on the most monumental aspect of the Cathedral – the twin-tower façade. This design is out of place in the context of the Italian peninsula, and easily recognizable as Northern European, particularly Norman. I address this factor, as well as the precedent of towers in South Italy and Sicily, to explain why this feature was included in such a significant building of Roger’s early years as king. This will also include a discussion of the significance of Islamic imagery in the Norman Kingdom of

Sicily, since the towers at Cefalù have been compared to the minarets of North Africa and there continued to be a large Muslim population in Sicily during Roger’s reign.

The last chapter addresses the changes made at the Cathedral in the 1140s. These include the donation of two porphyry sarcophagi and the addition of a mosaic program to the apse and sanctuary. The addition of the mosaics occurred at the same time as the porphyry sarcophagi were added, therefore these two events are inextricably linked.

The study of the changes made will include a study of Byzantine mosaic programs, contemporaneous decorative programs in Palermo, and the importance of Greek culture and court practices in the Norman Sicilian court. This helps situate the new

14 mosaic program at Cefalù within the established Byzantine type and those in Sicily in order to understand why it was used, what was different, and why changes were made.

I will also look at the use of porphyry by Roger’s contemporaries to explain why these objects were placed in his cathedral. This will help illustrate the image Roger was projecting and his desired status within the European and Mediterranean world.

Methodologically, I am most influenced by William Tronzo’s work, especially his book on the Cappella Palatina.18 In this monograph, he looks at the multicultural character of Roger’s kingdom to explain the entire program of the Cappella Palatina.

This holistic approach to the royal chapel is the method on which I modeled my study.

The Cathedral of Cefalù was an important royal commission, as was the Cappella

Palatina, in the early years of Roger’s reign as king. Therefore, it is logical to look at the building as a whole, specifically the parts that can be assigned to the reign of Roger II, including the decorative elements, and relate the entire monument to the wider multicultural context of the Norman Kingdom of Sicily. In doing so, I ask from where the plan of the entire church derived, and why these forms were used. I also examine the changes to the east end after construction had begun. I address why Roger might have wanted the mosaics included, and how this decorative program complemented the new function of the Cathedral. In looking at the monument as an entire object,

18 William Tronzo, The Cultures of His Kingdom: Roger II and the Cappella Palatina in Palermo (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997).

15 reflecting the Kingdom of Sicily and the king, I hope to show that the choices made at the Cathedral of Cefalù relate to and reflect the image of kingship developing for Roger

II, as well as visually connect him to the established and powerful rulers already present in the Mediterranean. The Cathedral of Cefalù communicated Roger’s power as a new king, and legitimized his reign by placing him at the same level as his contemporaries in the Mediterranean world.

Figure 1 - View of Cefalù from the sea, including the cathedral and the Rocca. Photo: author.

Figure 2 - Cathedral of Cefalù. Nave towards apse. Photo: author.

Contact author or program for image

Figure 3 - Plan of the Cathedral of Cefalù. Plan: Wolfgang Krönig and Giuseppe Samonà.

Chapter One

The History of Sicily

The Norman Kingdom of Sicily under Roger II in the mid-twelfth century has been characterized as a multicultural, polyglot society in which Latins, Greeks, Arabs and Berbers lived in relative harmony.19 Prior to the arrival of the Normans, Sicily had been occupied by various civilizations throughout the centuries. In Antiquity, these included the Greeks, followed by the Romans and the Byzantine Empire. Eventually, the island was taken from the Byzantines by Muslims from North Africa, followed by the conquest of the Normans in the eleventh century. This diverse nature of the island is vital for the formation of the Norman kingdom. In this chapter, I will first examine the history of Sicily, focusing particularly on the island in the centuries leading up to the

Norman conquest, the arrival and conquest of the Normans, and the creation of the

Kingdom of Sicily under Roger II. The formation of the new kingdom is of particular importance within the context of the present inquiry, as the Cathedral of Cefalù was the first cathedral commissioned by the new king, and was intended to serve as the royal sepulchre. Of particular significance in the creation of the kingdom were the ongoing

19 Dirk Booms and Peter Higgs, Sicily: Culture and Conquest (London: The British Museum Press, 2016), 19- 20 and 179-181; Graham A. Loud, Roger II and the Creation of the Kingdom of Sicily (Manchester, UK and New York: Manchester University Press, 2012), 4-5; John Julius Norwich, Sicily: An Island at the Crossroads (New York, NY: Random House, 2015), 71-79.

18 struggles with the papacy, which also directly impacted the cathedral of Cefalù. I will also examine some of the specifics of the multicultural kingdom, particularly the ways in which Muslim and Greek culture were influential in the development of the new kingdom, in an effort to understand the character of the kingdom and the cultural climate in which objects and buildings were being commissioned by the Normans.

Sicily before the Arrival of the Normans

Sicily has a long history of foreign invasions, beginning with occupation and control by the Phoenicians starting in the ninth century BCE, the Greeks shortly thereafter in the mid-eighth century BCE, the Romans in the mid-third century BCE, and finally the Goths at the end of the fifth century CE.20 Since the focus of my project is on the Norman kingdom of Sicily, I will not include a lengthy discussion of this earlier history.21 One important aspect of Roman rule, however, is the acceptance and blending

20 For the chronology of Sicily from the prehistoric period to the end of the thirteenth century, see Booms and Higgs, Sicily: Culture and Conquest, 13-14.

21 For a discussion of the prehistoric and Greek history of Sicily, including the artistic tradition of these periods, see Booms and Higgs, Sicily: Culture and Conquest, 31-131; R. Ross Holloway, The Archaeology of Ancient Sicily (London and New York: Routledge, 1991); Robert Leighton, “Indigenous society between the ninth and sixth centuries BC: territorial, urban and social evolution,” in Sicily from Aeneas to Augustus: New Approaches in Archaeology and History, ed. Christopher Smith and John Serrati (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2000), 15-40; and John Serrati, “Sicily from Pre-Greek Times to the Fourth Century,” in Sicily from Aeneas to Augustus: New Approaches in Archaeology and History, ed. Christopher Smith and John Serrati (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2000), 9-14. For the Roman period of Sicily, see Booms and Higgs, Sicily: Culture and Conquest, 133-144; Denis Sami, “Sicilian cities between the fourth and fifth centuries AD,” in The Theodosian Age (A.D. 379-455): power, place, belief and learning at the end of the Western

19 of the cultures present on the island during this period. This is commented on by Ovid in his Metamorphoses (The Golden Ass), where he mentions the “three-tongued Sicilians.”

He most likely was referring to Greek, Punic, and Latin, the languages of the three main groups living on the island.22 The hybrid culture of Sicily was evident not just in the various languages spoken by the residents, but also in the arts. One early example of this hybridity can be seen in the tombs in western Sicily, which depict the deceased at a

Greek-style funerary banquet, with the name written in Greek, alongside Punic religious symbols, including the symbol for Tanit, the chief goddess of the Phoenicians

(Fig. 4).23 While these peoples are different from the various groups found on the island in the eleventh century at the arrival of the Normans, the tombs demonstrate an early example of a shared culture that continued up to and through the Norman rule.

The medieval history of Sicily could be said to begin with the reconquest of the island by the Byzantines in 536-536. During this time, Greek culture and religion

Empire, BAR International Series 2493, ed. Rosa Garcia-Gasco, Sergio Gonzalez Sanchez and David A Hernandez de la Fuente (Oxford: Archaeopress, 2013), 27-36; John Serrati, “The Coming of the Romans: Sicily from the fourth to the first centuries BC,” in Sicily from Aeneas to Augustus: New Approaches in Archaeology and History, ed. Christopher Smith and John Serrati (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2000), 109-114; and John Serrati, “Garrisons and grain: Sicily between the Punic Wars,” in Sicily from Aeneas to Augustus: New Approaches in Archaeology and History, ed. Christopher Smith and John Serrati (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2000), 115-133. For the end of Roman rule, and the coming of the Goths, see Booms and Higgs, Sicily: Culture and Conquest, 145-147; Andy Merrills and Richard Miles, The Vandals (Chichester, UK and Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010), 129-134.

22 Apulieus, The Golden Ass, trans. Sarah Ruden (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2011), 251; and Booms and Higgs, Sicily: Culture and Conquest, 134.

23 Booms and Higgs, Sicily: Culture and Conquest, 134-135.

20 thrived, and it continued to be present, particularly in the eastern part of Sicily, through the Muslim rule. Since this is one of the two cultures that was influential in the formation of the Norman duchy, and later the Norman kingdom, it is useful to address briefly the Byzantine rule of Sicily. However, I will pay more attention to the events of the Muslim occupation, since this was immediately followed by the arrival of the

Normans, after which there continued to be connections with Muslim courts in the

Mediterranean during Norman rule.

In the 530s, during the reign of Justinian I, there was a desire to restore the glory of the Roman Empire. Under the command of Belisarius, Sicily was “reconquered” for

Byzantium in 535-536.24 This was the first territory in the former Western Empire that was reconquered. In order to help stabilize the newly conquered island, and to promote trade and boost the economy, the Byzantine forces fortified harbors and coastal cities.25

Byzantine minting, both in gold and bronze, was established in Catania and Syracuse, which helped link the economy of Sicily to that of the rest of the Byzantine world, and the Byzantine government controlled the island through the appointment of a

Byzantine governor, called a stratēgos. This military governor was usually an official

24 Booms and Higgs, Sicily: Culture and Conquest, 145; Sarah Davis-Secord, Where Three Worlds Met (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 2017), 30; Merrills and Mills, The Vandals, 233.

25 Booms and Higgs, Sicily: Culture and Conquest, 145-146. Also see Vivien Prigent, “Palermo in the Eastern Roman Empire,” in A Companion to Medieval Palermo: The History of a Mediterranean City from 600 to 1500, ed. Annliese Nef (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2013), 11, for a description of the Byzantine siege of Palermo under Belisarius.

21 appointed from Constantinople, who would return to the capital after his service was complete.26 Furthermore, the patriarch in Constantinople took direct control of the church in Sicily in the eighth century, shifting the ecclesiastical power from the Pope in

Rome to the Greek Church.27

The government, ecclesiastical community, and economy of Sicily were relatively stable during this period, until the early ninth century when the naval commander

Euphemius rebelled against the Byzantine governor in Sicily, conquered the island, and declared himself emperor in Syracuse.28 Euphemius did not have complete control of

Sicily, with some people remaining loyal to the Byzantine emperor and governor, resulting in revolts and fighting throughout the island. In addition to the revolts of troops loyal to Constantinople, two officers who had helped Euphemius in his rebellion

26 Davis-Secord, Where Three Worlds Met, 33-34.

27 This is an important shift, since prior to the Byzantine conquest in the sixth century, the Roman church had control of the church on the island. Additionally, there were many papal estates and numerous Latin Christian churches in Sicily. These all came under the control of both the Byzantine emperor and patriarch. Davis-Secord, Where Three Worlds Met, 30-33.

28 Syracuse had a long history of being an important city. It was the first colony founded by Corinth, and was the seat of powerful Tyrants during the Archaic and Classical periods. During the reign of Augustus, the city was one of the six granted the status of colonia. Most importantly, in the 660s, Emperor Constans II moved the Byzantine court and capital to Syracuse, where it remained until his assassination in 668. This move might have been to reconfigure the empire, and make the capital be more central in the Mediterranean. This also recognized Sicily’s importance in the politics and economy of the Early Medieval Mediterranean. For the importance of Syracuse, see Booms and Higgs, Sicily: Culture and Conquest, 145; Davis-Secord, Where Three Worlds Met, 36-39.

22 turned against him.29 For help, Euphemius turned to the Aghlabids of Ifriqiya.30 There had been Arabs raids of Mazara in western Sicily, the closest point to North Africa, during the eighth century, but Euphemius’s invitation to the ruling Arab dynasty in

North Africa opened the door for the Muslim army, resulting in the eventual conquest of the island by the Aghlabids.31

The events of the Muslim conquest of Sicily, and the circumstances under which the people on the island lived are important to understand in order to fully understand the situation the Normans acquired with their conquest of the island in the last half of the eleventh century. The Muslims were able to launch raids, and eventually invade

Sicily, from North Africa because of their earlier defeats of the Byzantines and the

Berbers. In 642, Alexandria surrendered to the Muslim invaders, and by 709 they held

North Africa from Egypt to Tangier.32 Once the entire region was under Arab control,

29 The two officers were Balata and the governor of Palermo, Michael. They helped Euphemius overthrow the Byzantine governor, and then brushed him in aside in an attempt for control of the island. See Prigent, “Palermo in the Eastern Roman Empire,” 12.

30 For Euphemius’s revolt and request for aid from the Aghlabids, see Brian A. Catlos, Muslims of Medieval Latin Christendom (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 92; Leonard C. Chiarelli, A History of Muslim Sicily (Santa Venera, Malta: Midsea Books, 2011), 20-23; and Davis-Secord, Where Three Worlds Met, 94-95.

31 The raids of Sicily, which happened frequently in the seventh and eighth centuries, began soon after Byzantine North Africa fell to the Muslims. The earliest incursions into North Africa started around 639, with a final defeat of the Byzantines in Carthage in 698. Booms and Higgs, Sicily: Culture and Conquest, 147-148; Chiarelli, A History of Muslim Sicily, 13-17; Davis-Secord, Where Three Worlds Met, 15 and 77-79.

32 North Africa had previously been controlled by the Byzantine Empire and Berbers, and Alexandria had been the capital of the Byzantine province. From their new military base in Qayrawān, the Muslim army attacked Carthage, the seat of the Byzantine exarch. The fall of Carthage marked the end of Byzantine

23 three provinces were created. The invasions and eventual conquest of Sicily was carried out from Qayrawān, the capital of Ifriqiya, one of the three new provinces.33 According to extant sources, the annual Muslim raids of southern Sicily began in the late-seventh century, and then escalated after the fall of the Byzantine city of Carthage.34 Ifriqiya was governed by the Aghlabid dynasty, ruling on behalf of the Abbasid caliph in Baghdad.

The third emīr, Ziyadat Allah I, began the invasion of Sicily after Euphemius requested help. The attack on the island was led by Asad ibn al-Furāt, a jurist and theologist in

Ziyadat Allah I’s court who had encouraged the emīr to take advantage of the invitation to provide assistance in an invasion of Sicily. Furthermore, al-Furāt confirmed

Euphemius’s report of Muslims being held prisoner by questioning Sicilian envoys.

This allowed the Aghlabids to break the peace treaty that had been in place with

Byzantium, and gave them more legal grounds on which to argue for an invasion.35 Ibn al-Furāt’s forces arrived in Mazara on June 18, 827, and captured Palermo in 831.36

presence in North Africa. See Booms and Higgs, Sicily: Culture and Conquest, 148; Chiarelli, A History of Muslim Sicily, 1-5; Davis-Secord, Where Three Worlds Met, 78.

33 Booms and Higgs, Sicily: Culture and Conquest, 148. Ifriqiya is roughly the modern country of Tunisia.

34 Throughout the eight and early ninth centuries, there were regular raids on Sicily. However, Byzantium was quick to respond to the attacks with ships and military reinforcements. Along with the raids, there were pauses in the attacks due to a series of pacts made between the Aghlabids and Byzantines. See Davis-Secord, Where Three Worlds Met, 80-93.

35 Chiarelli, A History of Muslim Sicily, 23-25; and Davis-Secord, Where Three Worlds Met, 94-97, for the decision to invade Sicily.

36 For the early years of the conquest, from the invasion of Mazara to the capture of Palermo, see Chiarelli, A History of Muslim Sicily, 28-31.

Palermo was made the capital, replacing Syracuse which had been capital for 1500 years, and a Muslim governor was installed by the Aghlabids. They claimed to rule the entire island, while in actuality they only controlled part of the western side until 902 when the conquest was completed under Emīr Ibrahim II.37

Once the Aghlabid conquest of Sicily had begun, and after some territories had come under Muslim control, immigrants from North Africa began moving to Sicily.

Before this influx of Arab and Berber Muslims, Sicily had already been a multicultural society, composed of Greek-Byzantines, Jews, Lombards, and Latin peoples. After the mid-ninth century, Arabs, Berbers, and Andalusians were added to the population.38

The Arab Muslim colonists made up the elite of the island, while the North African

Berbers, Jews, and indigenous Sicilians were the lower classes and farmers.39 The ruling

Aghlabids were tolerant of the Christians and Jews, and those who did not convert, the dhimmi, had only to pay an extra tax called a jiyza.40 In spite of Sicily not being

37 Booms and Higgs, Sicily: Culture and Conquest, 148-149; Chiarelli, A History of Muslim Sicily, 52; Hubert Houben, Roger II of Sicily: A Ruler between East and West (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 13. Also see Davis-Secord, Where Three Worlds Met, 15 and 97-98 for different accounts of the sieges of Sicily by the Aghlabids.

38 Berbers are people indigenous to North Africa, and Andalusians were settlers from Islamic Spain. See Booms and Higgs, Sicily: Culture and Conquest, 149; and Chiarelli, A History of Muslim Sicily, 52-53 for the peoples who moved to Sicily after the Aghlabid conquest.

39 When I say indigenous Sicilians here, I mean the Christians who had been living on the island prior to the Muslim conquest, including the Greek-Byzantines, Lombards, and Latin peoples.

40 This tax was not prohibitively high, but was enough for the lower classes to be encouraged to convert to Islam. See Booms and Higgs, Sicily: Culture and Conquest, 149; Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 12.

25 completely populated by Muslims, the immigrants from North Africa soon renounced their North African heritage, and began considering themselves Sicilian.41 This suggests that there was widespread acceptance of the multicultural character of Sicily that the

Muslims had inherited with their conquest. They did not try to drastically change the society they ruled, although they did encourage conversion to Islam. Prior to the

Muslim conquest, being Sicilian meant living in a society composed of Latin and Greek

Christians, Jews, and possibly some Arian Christians. After the late-ninth and early- tenth centuries, this term would have been expanded to include Sunni Muslims, both

Arabs and Berbers. Not only did the peoples of Sicily have a shared identity, which was not based on their culture or religion, but they spoke various languages. Greek- speaking Christians learned Arabic, and took it as their native language, while many

Muslims learned Greek.42 The Aghlabid conquest created the society that the Normans encountered in the eleventh century, while the Fātimid conquest of North Africa created the environment in which outside military forces were welcomed in the island, opening the door for the Normans in the eleventh century.

41 Booms and Higgs, Sicily: Culture and Conquest, 149 and 158; Chiarelli, A History of Muslim Sicily, 39-40.

42 Booms and Higgs, Sicily: Culture and Conquest, 158.

Soon after the Aghlabids had consolidated their control in Sicily, Ifriqiya came under the control of the Fātimid dynasty.43 By extension, rule over Sicily passed to the

Fātimids. However, unlike the Aghlablids, whose capital was in Qayrawān in Ifriqiya, the Fātimids ruled from Egypt. Ifriqiya was given to the Zirid dynasty, and Sicily was governed by Kalbid emīrs.44 Under the Aghalbids, Sicily had become more efficient in agricultural production, and under the Kalbids, the culture on the island became equal with that of Ifriqiya, the Maghreb, and al-Andalus.45 The agricultural innovations of the

Aghlabids were important for helping to create a prosperous economy, while the cultural circumstances of the Kalbid dynasty continued the acceptance of a multicultural society, which would affect and influence the early Norman rulers.

Muslim scholars of religious sciences, jurisprudence, grammar and the physical sciences

43 The Aghlabids had completed their conquest of Sicily in 902, and the Fātimid forces conquered Ifriqiya in 909. See Booms and Higgs, Sicily: Culture and Conquest, 149-158; Catlos, Muslims of Medieval Latin Christendom, 93; Chiarelli, A History of Muslim Sicily, 67-69; and Davis-Secord, Where Three Worlds Met, 15, for the shift in power from the Aghlabids to the Fātimids.

44 Both of these dynasties were subjects of the Shi’i Fātimid caliphate, whereas the previous rulers had been Sunni. See Booms and Higgs, Sicily: Culture and Conquest, 158; Catlos, Muslims of Medieval Latin Christendom, 93; Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 13.

45 The Aghlabids brought new fruits and vegetables to Sicily, both from Asia and the Middle East. By introduction new plants, they extended the growing season. They also built new irrigation technologies, including irrigation channels above and below ground, sloping underground channels with access shafts, and Persian waterwheels. Trade also continued due to treaties with the Byzantines of South Italy, resulting in a prosperous society that did business with North Africa, Italy, and the Eastern Mediterranean. See Booms and Higgs, Sicily: Culture and Conquest, 149-155; Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 12.

27 were found in the elite circles of Kalbid Sicily, while Greek culture continued to thrive in Catania and Syracuse.46

The fragmented nature of rule of the Fātimid holdings in North Africa and Sicily eventually led to political instability and internal fighting.47 The Kalbid family split, and the different factions went for help either to the Byzantines or the Zirids for help, both groups who had aspirations of incorporating Sicily in their kingdoms and who had attempted to invade several times.48 By the mid-eleventh century, there was no remaining central control of Sicily. The island was broken into autonomous entities under the control of local military leaders and competing emīrs, all wanting sole rule of

Sicily. One of these local leaders asked for help from the Norman mercenaries Robert

Guiscard de Hauteville and his brother Roger.49 This invitation marked the end of

46 Sicilian libraries had important Greek classical works, and some Arab scholars and poets either owned Greek works, or were versed in Greek writings. See Booms and Higgs, Sicily: Culture and Conquest, 166.

47 There was a civil war in the Kalbid family, eventually resulting in the final overthrowing of the last Kalbid emīr in 1053. After this, the different regions and cities of Sicily were governed by local warlords. See Catlos, Muslims of Medieval Latin Christendom, 94.

48 One of these attempts to invade by the Byzantines was under George Maniakes in 1038. His army included Puglian and Calabrian soldiers, as well as troops of the Lombard Prince Guaimar IV of Salerno. Guaimar had Norman mercenaries fighting for him, including William de Hauteville. The Normans returned to Italy after a dispute over the spoils of war, but members of the same family would return in about 20 years at the request of a local Muslim leader. See Booms and Higgs, Sicily: Culture and Conquest, 168-169; Catlos, Muslims of Medieval Latin Christendom, 94; Davis-Secord, Where Three Worlds Met, 100; Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 14.

49 Robert and Roger had started as mercenaries in Southern Italy, coming to the area after older siblings had already established themselves. See Booms and Higgs, Sicily: Culture and Conquest, 168; Davis-Secord, Where Three Worlds Met, 15.

Muslim rule of Sicily, and opened the door for the Normans to begin their conquest of the island.

This story of Sicily up to the Norman conquest, particularly that of the Muslim period, is vital for understanding the beginning of the Norman rule. The Normans encountered a society in which Muslim culture was dominant, but the Greek language, religion, and culture were still present, especially in the eastern part of the island. With the arrival of the Normans, these two cultures were not suppressed. Instead, the

Normans used various elements of these two groups in the formation of their dynasty and control. The multicultural character of the Norman kingdom is central to my research on the Cathedral of Cefalù and on the early years of Roger II’s reign as King of

Sicily. This history of the Byzantines and the Muslims in Sicily provides an essential background to the Norman conquest and their creation of a county, which later became a duchy and then a kingdom, drawing all the while from various aspects of Greek and

Muslim culture, as it suited them.

Norman Conquest and Consolidation of Power in Sicily and

South Italy

The history of the Normans in South Italy is complex, and not all of it is relevant to the events of the mid-twelfth century Kingdom of Sicily under Roger II. However,

29 certain elements are fundamental in the formation of first the Duchy of Puglia, Calabria and Sicily, and later the Kingdom of Sicily. Before focusing on the conquest of Sicily and the events that led to the creation of a kingdom under Roger II, I will first review the more important moments of the Norman’s early history in South Italy.50

The first appearance of the Normans in Southern Italy was in the city of Salerno in Campania in 999. They are recorded as returning from a pilgrimage to Jerusalem and the Holy Sepulchre, and staying with Prince Guaimar III, the Lombard ruler of Salerno, when the city was attacked by Arab raiders. The Normans helped with the defense of the city, driving the Muslims away.51 Another group of Normans also gave assistance to the local population in Puglia around 1016. A group of Norman pilgrims at Monte

Gargano were approached by Melus, a local Lombard, who requested help in rebelling

50 Two contemporaries of the eleventh-century Normans, Amatus of Montecassino and Geoffrey Malaterra, provide written accounts of the arrival of the Normans in South Italy, and their later incursions in Sicily. Amatus was a monk of Montecassino during the time of Desiderius, and his text was written for the Prince of Capua. It focuses more on the activities of the Normans in South Italy. Geoffrey Malaterra’s origins are unknown, but he claims to come from north of the Alps. This is too vague to definitively call him a Norman, since French and Germans were present in South Italy. However, he does call himself an Puglian and Sicilian. His text is centered on Roger I, and his older brother Robert. Therefore, the conquest of Sicily has a stronger presence in Malaterra’s account. Amatus of Montecassino, The History of the Normans, trans. Prescott N. Dunbar (Woodbridge, UK: The Boydell Press, 2004); Geoffrey Malaterra, The Deeds of Count Roger of Calabria and Sicily and of his brother Duke Robert Guiscard, trans. Kenneth Baxter Wolf (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2005).

51 Amatus, The History of the Normans, I.17 (pp. 49-50); Booms and Higgs, Sicily: Culture and Conquest, 173; Hubert Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 8; G.A. Loud, The Age of Robert Guiscard: Southern Italy and the Norman Conquest (New York and Harlow, England: Longman, 2000), 60-61.

30 against the local Byzantine ruler in Bari.52 Among the Normans who eventually moved to South Italy over the course of the early eleventh century were several sons of Tancred de Hauteville, a minor nobleman with twelve sons. The first to arrive in South Italy were the two oldest, William ‘Iron Arm’ and Drogo. They were among the mercenaries in George Maniakes’ army in the attack of 1038 on Muslim Sicily.53 After their return to

South Italy, the brothers settled between Puglia and Basilicata, with Melfi becoming their capital.54 William was eventually given the title Count of Puglia by a local

Lombard prince, making him the most powerful of the Norman lords in south Italy.55 In

1059, Pope Nicholas II became involved in the politics of South Italy due to the Holy

Roman Emperor’s claims in Italy. He invested Robert Guiscard, Count of Puglia, with the Duchy of Puglia and Calabria, and in the future Sicily. The Normans had not yet

52 Amatus, The History of the Normans, I.21, 51; Booms and Higgs, Sicily: Culture and Conquest, 173; Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 9; Loud, The Age of Robert Guiscard, 61-62.

53 See note 48 of this chapter. Also Booms and Higgs, Sicily: Culture and Conquest, 173. They had been in the service of Prince Guaimar IV of Salerno, but had become a nuisance and were sent to Sicily to help the Byzantines. See Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 9-10; and Chiarelli, A History of Muslim Sicily, 126. Amatus also mentions this campaign, and says that William was the captain of the Norman forces sent by Prince Guaimar. Amatus, The History of the Normans, II.8 (p. 66). Geoffrey Malaterra goes into more detail about the service in Maniakes’ army, including the circumstances under which they left the service of Maniakes and returned to South Italy. Malaterra, The Deeds of Count Roger, I.7-8 (p. 55-57).

54 Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 10.

55 Booms and Higgs, Sicily: Culture and Conquest, 173; Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 10. This was passed on to William’s younger brothers, Drogo and Humphrey, and eventually Robert Guiscard, William’s half- brother. Both Amatus of Montecassino and Geoffrey Malaterra include this succession in their accounts. Amatus, The History of the Normans, II.35 and IV.2-3 (pp. 79 and 111-112); Malaterra, The Deeds of Count Roger, I.12-13 and I.18 (pp. 60-61 and 66).

31 conquered Sicily, but the pope was hopeful that the Christian forces would expel the

Muslims from the island.56

Even though Robert technically was Duke of Calabria and Puglia in 1059, he did not have complete control over both regions for about ten more years. He held most of

Calabria in 1059, but Reggio, the capital, held out until 1060. Establishing himself as the overlord of Puglia was more problematic. Over the course of the first half of the eleventh century, other Norman lords had established themselves in Puglia and revolted against Robert.57 Roger I, the youngest of the Hauteville sons, had arrived in

South Italy in 1055, and after Robert had been made Duke, Roger I gave his assistance in putting down rebellions.58 After helping with the uprisings, Roger I was given control of half of Calabria. This was the first step in ruling a region, albeit under his brother, that would eventually be central to Roger II’s Kingdom of Sicily.59

56 In this year, the Pope also invested Richard Quarrel, Count of Aversa, as Prince of Aversa. Aversa was the only town in South Italy founded by the Normans, and was established by 1030. The Count of Aversa was also the first title any Norman given in South Italy when Rainulf I Drengot was enfeoffed in May 1038 by Guaimar IV of Salerno. Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 9-10; Malaterra, The Deeds of Count Roger, I.35 (p. 74); Paul Oldfield, City and Community in Norman Italy (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 19.

57 Oldfield, City and Community, 20. These uprisings in Puglia would sporadically happen into the twelfth century, until Roger II was able to put an end to the various petty lords of the region.

58 The designation of “the first” occurred later in Roger I’s tenure as Count. I am using it here for clarity, since I will be discussing his son, Roger II, in greater detail in this chapter and throughout this dissertation.

59 Roger II would first consolidate his power as the Count of Sicily and Calabria. This will be discussed later in this chapter. For the uprisings in Calabria and the division of land between Robert Guiscard and Roger I, see Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 12, and Malaterra, The Deeds of Count Roger, I.19-29 (pp. 66-72).

Sicily again came to the attention of the Normans in 1061, when one of the local

Muslim lords asked for help in the fighting amongst the various local lords in control on the island.60 Rather than providing assistance to the local Muslim lord, the brothers decided to invade with an army of around 450 men and attempt to conquer the island for themselves. Before they could fully dedicate themselves to the conquest of Sicily, however, they focused on completing the conquest of Puglia.61 After Bari fell in 1071, they invaded Sicily again. Catania fell quickly in 1071, and by early 1072, the Normans had conquered Palermo.62 When Palermo surrendered, the inhabitants were allowed to keep their beliefs and remain mostly self-governing if they paid a tribute; however a

Norman town commander was put in place. The title of this official was ammiratus, from the Arab title amīr/emīr, which had been the Muslim title of ruler of Sicily. The

60 The local lord, Ibn al-Tumna, ruled in Syracuse. His two opponents, Ibn al-Hawwās and al-Maklātī, controlled Agrigento and Catania respectively. In the fighting, Ibn al-Tumna killed al-Maklātī, and then was defeated by al-Hawwās in 1060. After this defeat he turned to the Normans for help. See Booms and Higgs, Sicily: Culture and Conquest, 168 and 173; Catlos, Muslims of Medieval Latin Christendom, 94; Davis- Secord, Where Three Worlds Met, 15; Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 14. Also the end of the previous section of this chapter, on page 8. This is also commented on by Amatus of Montecassino and Geoffrey Malaterra. Amatus, The History of the Normans, V.8 (p. 136); Malaterra, The Deeds of Count Roger, II.3 (p. 87).

61 Both Amatus of Montecassino and Geoffrey Malaterra include an account of the attacks and victories of the Normans right after this first invasion of Sicily. See Amatus, The History of the Normans, V.9-25 (pp. 136-143); Malaterra, The Deeds of Count Roger, II.4-5 and 10-18 (pp. 87-88 and 90-94).

62 Amatus, The History of the Normans, V.26-27 and VI.19 (pp. 143-146 and 157-158); Booms and Higgs, Sicily: Culture and Conquest, 168; Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 15; Loud, The Age of Robert Guiscard, 148-165; Malaterra, The Deeds of Count Roger, II.45 (pp. 124-125).

33 agreements in the surrender of Palermo became the accepted model for the rest of the

Norman conquest of the island.63

When Robert returned to Puglia in 1072 to deal with another uprising of Norman nobles, the Normans had only conquered about half of the island. The southern part was securely under Muslim control for the next several decades, while the northern portion was ruled by the Roger I, a vassal of Robert Guiscard. As Duke, Robert kept legal control of half of the most important conquests in Sicily, which were Palermo,

Messina, and the Val Demone.64 However, Roger I’s position as Count of Sicily was arguably stronger than his brother’s as Duke, given that Roger I was living in Sicily.

Roger I also did not have Norman vassals to keep under control or to take into account when making decisions, a factor Robert had to consider in his governing of the mainland.65 This somewhat absolute power continued under Roger II, even after he

63 Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 15-17.

64 The Val Demone, one of the three main regions Sicily, was the northeast and included Messina. The Greek Orthodox population was mostly in this region during the Muslim period. The other two regions are the Val di Mazara and Val di Noto. These were the west and southeast of the island, respectively, and both had a majority Muslim population during the Muslim period and the Norman Conquest. See Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 12-15; Donald Matthew, The Norman Kingdom of Sicily (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 93. For the division of the land, see Malaterra, The Deeds of Count Roger, II.45 (pp. 124-125); and Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 15.

65 Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 16.

34 became Duke of Puglia, and then King. By 1091, the Normans had completed their conquest of the island.66

The environment created in Sicily under Roger I set a precedent that Roger II would follow, both in his relations with outside powers and in his own image as ruler.

First of all, a new church organization had to be established, since there had been no structure, Latin or Greek, during the Muslim period. After the Muslim conquest of

Palermo in 831, the Cathedral of the city had been turned into the main mosque. One of the first actions taken by Robert Guiscard after the surrender of Palermo in 1072 was to reverse this and install a bishop.67 Roger I also founded bishoprics at Syracuse, Catania,

Agrigento, and Mazara del Vallo between 1086 and 1090. In addition to reestablishing the old dioceses, he also founded new bishoprics, including at Troina in 1080. During this period, Pope Urban II also became involved with the restructuring of the Church.

He convinced Roger to unite the bishopric of Troina with that of Messina, which had been the traditional diocesan town in the region, and move the residence to the older city.68 More importantly, Urban also gave Roger and his heirs the practice of apostolic

66 Booms and Higgs, Sicily: Culture and Conquest, 168; Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 18.

67 Elena Pezzini, “Palermo’s Forma Urbis in the 12th Century,” in A Companion to Medieval Palermo: The History of a Mediterranean City from 600-1500, ed. Annliese Nef (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2013), 200.

68 See Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 19-21, for a discussion of the restructuring of the church of Sicily under Count Roger I.

35 legation.69 This effectively made the church in Sicily a ‘national church’ under the direct control of a ruler. It also gave Count Roger a power that no other prince or king in

Europe could claim.70 Roger II would later claim this right, while his contemporary popes would deny it. This created so much friction between Roger II and the papacy, that it became a major factor in the Cathedral of Cefalù remaining incomplete for so long.

Roger I used imagery and titles other than the typical Latin titles found in

Western Europe, a practice that Roger II continued throughout his reign.71 In 1097, an

Arab coin was minted in Agrigento that showed Roger I as imām and malik (lord and sovereign) of Sicily. This was the first time imagery such as this was used for Roger I, while the title malik had been used on coins of Robert Guiscard minted after the

69 Malaterra, The Deeds of Count Roger, IV.29 (pp. 212-213).

70 Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 21; I.S. Robinson, The Papacy 1073-1198: Continuity and Innovation (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 375.

71 The titles used by the Normans in Sicily developed in three stages. First, they transliterated their titles into Arabic. For example, Duke became al-dūqa. This was the practice during the time of Robert Guiscard and Roger I, and continued into the regency of Adelaide and young Roger II. Next, they translated their titles into Arabic, using terms including malik and sultān, so Rogerius comes Siciliae became Rujār sultān Siqillīya. Finally, after the coronation of Roger II, the Arabic titles reach full maturity, and would continue in the established form until the end of the dynasty. The personal name of the ruler was accompanied by the dynastic title of the Hauteville family. This was clearly an Islamic tradition, with no comparable formulae in Latin or Greek titles. Roger’s title became ‘Roger the glorified king’ or ‘the royal, sublime, Rogerian, supreme majesty, may God make his days eternal and give strength to his banners.’ For details on the evolution of titles and the translation of terms to and from Arabic, see Jeremy Johns, “The Norman Kings of Sicily and the Fātimid Caliphate,” in Anglo-Norman Studies 15 (1993): 135-136; and Jeremy Johns, Arabic Administration in Norman Sicily: The Royal Dīwān (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 268.

36 conquest of Palermo.72 Also, in Arab charters from 1095 on, Roger I called himself

Sultan. While there is no agreement on what exactly this meant for Roger I, a Sultan is second to Caliph. This could be Roger I’s way of indicating his powerful status, albeit as second to a more powerful ruler, in this case his brother, Duke of Puglia. It could also simply be the Arab equivalent and translation of Count.73 Roger I’s official title was

‘count, brother of the duke’ while Robert Guiscard was referred to as ‘very great duke.’74 After his death, Roger I was described as ‘magnus comes,’ which would usually mean great count, in documents of Roger II. However, during his life, Roger I never used this title.75

While both Latin and Arab titles were used by Roger I, it was during the regency of Adelaide del Vasto, from 1101 until Roger II came of age in 1112, that the Greek population and culture became influential on the noble family.76 During the early years

72 Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 23. Also Boom and Higgs, Sicily: Culture and Conquest, 175, and Philip Grierson and Lucia Travaini, Medieval European Coinage, with a Catalogue of the Coins in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, Vol. 14: South Italy, Sicily, and Sardinia (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 73-77, for a more general discussion of coinage under Roger I.

73 Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 23.

74 Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 23; Boom and Higgs, Sicily: Culture and Conquest, 175.

75 This could have been Roger II’s way of elevating his predecessor’s title, or it could simply mean elder. See Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 23.

76 Roger I had married Adelaide del Vasto in 1089/90, and they had two sons – Simon and Roger. Roger I died in 1101, and Adelaide served as regent for their older son, Simon, until his death at the age of 12 in 1105. See Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 24-26.

37 of Adelaide’s regency, the seat of the noble family was moved from Troina to Messina. 77

This part of Sicily had maintained a Greek population during the Arab period, and continued to have a Greek presence during the Norman rule.78 While during the early years of the twelfth century the center of power was in Byzantine influenced Messina,

Norman nobles had also begun settling in the south and west of the island, a region that had been mostly Arab until this point. This shift of population and the Norman extension further west in Sicily eventually resulted in the center of power moving from

Greek Messina to Arab Palermo between March and June of 1112, near the end of her regency.79 Roger II grew up and was educated in a Greek influenced household, but then came into his majority and developed into a multicultural king in a city that had been predominantly populated by Muslims since the Arab conquest several centuries earlier. Not only did the center of power shift to Palermo, but Roger and his court established their palace in the walled al-Khālisah neighborhood, which had been the government quarter of Arab Palermo.80

77 Based on surviving charters, Adelaide only effectively acted as ruler in Calabria and northeast Sicily. This relates to her preference of the Graeco-Byzantine culture and religion. See Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 26-27.

78 See Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 13 and 26.

79 Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 27.

80 This was one of two walled areas. The other walled neighborhood was al-Qasr, which included the merchant’s quarter and the principal mosque turned cathedral. See Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 27-28.

Roger II entered his majority as Count of Sicily in 1112.81 He spent the first few years of his reign establishing himself in his own right, and then expanding his power.82

Based on the agreement between Roger I and Robert Guiscard, the Count of Sicily only had half control over Palermo and Messina, as well as only half of Calabria. After 1111, the Duke of Puglia was the minor William, whose mother Adela of Flanders acted as regent. Compared to his grandfather, Robert Guiscard, William was a weak leader who ended up turning to Roger II for military and financial help.83 In exchange for this

81 The early years of Roger’s reign as count, duke and finally king were documented, most notably by Abbot Alexander of Telese and Archbishop Romuald of Salerno. The former was the abbot of a Benedictine monastery in the region around Benevento. He was commissioned by Matilda, Roger’s sister and the wife of Count Rainulf of Alife, to write a history of Roger II’s rose from count to duke, and finally to king. It is a positive portrayal of the king, and justifies Roger’s conquest of Southern Italy by claiming the Italian Lombards were guilty of many sins. Alexander’s account is focused on the difficulty Roger encountered subduing Southern Italy, and it ends in 1136.The latter was Archbishop of Salerno from 1153-1181, and served as William I of Sicily’s court doctor and advisor. For Alexander of Telese, see Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 5, 30, 107, and 182-183; Alexander of Telese, “The History of the Most Serene Roger, First King of Sicily,” in Roger II and the Creation of the Kingdom of Sicily, ed. and trans. Graham A. Loud (Manchester, UK and New York: Manchester University Press, 2012), 63-129. For Romuald of Salerno, see Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 31 and 183; Romuald of Salerno, “Chronicon Sive Annales, 1125- 54,” in Roger II and the Creation of the Kingdom of Sicily, ed. and trans. Graham A. Loud (Manchester, UK and New York: Manchester University Press, 2012), 250-268.

82 On June 12, 1112, Roger and his mother issued a charter together, which listed Roger as “now knight, now Count of Sicily and Calabria.” This was the last charter issued by the two together. Soon after he came of age, Adelaide moved to Jerusalem where she married King Baldwin I, leaving Roger with his advisors in Sicily. See Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 28-30.

83 William’s father was Roger Borsa, Robert’s son. While Roger was not as strong of a leader as Robert Guiscard, his son was even weaker. This was partly due to his status as a minor, with a mother ruling as his regent. See Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 31-32.

39 assistance, Roger required William to sign over his control of Messina, Palermo, and

Calabria, the end result of which was Roger’s sole control of Sicily and Calabria.84

Duke William died childless in 1127 at the age of 30, two years after Pope

Honorius II (1124-1130) invested him with the Duchy of Puglia, Calabria, and Sicily.85

After William’s death, Roger claimed that he had been made the heir to the duchy.86 At this point, Roger had his second major disagreement with the pope over the nature of the feudal relationship between the pope and the lords in South Italy.87 According to the pope, whose theory of feudal relationships was rooted in the earlier practices of the

Carolingian period rather than those of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the South

Italian fiefs were held by the Norman vassals through the act of grace from the pope who was the lord of the lands. Therefore, according to the pope, there was no hereditary succession and no automatic claim to the lands by vassals. The investiture

84 Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 37; Romuald of Salerno, “Chronicon Sive Annales,” 250.

85 Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 39-41.

86 Both Alexander of Telese and Romuald of Salerno state that William made Roger his heir in the event that his wife had no sons. However, they differ in the acceptance of the people of Salerno. According to Romuald, Roger was honorably welcomed by the people, while Alexander claims the people originally did not want to accept Roger as the new duke. They finally submitted with Roger agreed to let them keep control of the fortified citadel. See Romuald of Salerno, “Chronicon Sive Annales,” 250-251; Alexander of Telese, “The History of the Most Serene Roger,” I.4-6 (66-67).

87 The first disagreement had been in 1117 over the question of papal legation and whether the right given to Roger I by Urban II extended to his heirs. In a letter of October 1, 1117, Pope Paschal II confirmed the right of papal legation to Roger II, but then denied it in a post-script claiming the duty of rulers was to support the Church, not control it. See Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 21 and 34-35.

40 had to be renewed when a new pope was elected, and at the death of a vassal, the fief would return to the pope who would then pick a successor.88 This idea that the pope had the sole right to assign the lordships of South Italy is evident in the oaths of investiture of both Richard of Aversa and Robert Guiscard, in which the principal emphasis in the oath was on the rights of St. Peter, and therefore the pope.89 This emphasis on papal investiture is present in the investiture of Duke William of Puglia of

1125. An uninterrupted list of papal investitures, from 1059-1120, was included, providing a reminder that the Hauteville family’s right to rule came from papal authority, and that the three generations of Hauteville dukes (Robert, Roger, and

William) did not inherit their titles. Rather they were conferred by the pope.90 In deciding who to invest with the duchy, the pope relied partly on the idea of suitability to reign, and judged the lord on his moral worth and political effectiveness. Duke

William was a pious ruler, who allowed the pope to have more influence in the Norman duchy than had the previous rulers.91 This made him a suitable duke in the pope’s opinion, while Roger II’s attitude and behavior towards the Church would make it

88 Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 42-44; Robinson, The Papacy 1073-1198, 368-369.

89 Robinson, The Papacy 1073-1198, 370.

90 Ibid, 371-372.

91 Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 44-45; Robinson, The Papacy 1073-1198, 371-372 and 380.

41 difficult for him to get papal approval after the death of his cousin William in 1127, and in the future.

Roger II’s theory of rulership was based on the eleventh and twelfth century practice. According to this, the vassal’s land was a hereditary fief, and would pass on to the next in line. While the pope would invest the new lord, this was purely a ceremonial recognition of the vassal’s rights. The claim to the fief was not invalid without the papal investiture.92 Since William died childless, Roger used this theory of a hereditary fief combined with the statement that William had made him his heir to claim the Duchy of

Puglia for himself.93 Since the pope believed the right to assign a new duke rested solely with him, Pope Honorius II refused to invest Roger with the Duchy of Puglia, Calabria, and Sicily.94 Nevertheless, Salerno, the capital of the Duchy of Puglia, had accepted

Roger’s lordship in exchange for the promise of self-government, as did Benevento, and

Roger went as far as having his army declare him duke in Reggio Calabria, as Robert

Guiscard had done in 1060 after he had been invested by the pope.95 In response to this,

Pope Honorius excommunicated Roger and gave the duchy to Prince Robert II of

Capua, whom Honorius deemed a more suitable duke. Roger’s attitude towards the

92 Robinson, The Papacy 1073-1198, 369.

93 Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 42-44.

94 Ibid, 42-44.

95 Ibid, 41-45.

Latin Church was not appropriate for a duke, according to the pope. The offensive behavior included Roger’s controversy with Paschal II (1099-1118) over the right to papal legation, taking away power from Latin Archbishops, and his disregard for the pope’s right to assign a new duke.96

Roger marched into mainland Italy with his army, and easily conquered the

Basilicata and southern Puglia. Having a standing army, Roger had the advantage, while his opponent’s army was based on feudal contingents of the local counts. That meant that the length of a war did not affect Roger’s army, while the feudal army of the pope was only bound to serve the Puglian and Calabrian princes for forty days.97 In addition to the time limit of the feudal army, Robert of Capua and his troops were affected by supply issues and the summer heat, with the result that they abandoned the fight early on.98 After holding out for forty days, Honorius II negotiated peace with

96 In July 1112, after the start of his majority, Roger took the Greek community of Reggio Calabria under his own authority, taking it away from the Latin Archbishop. Also, in 1114, he forced the Archbishop of Cosenza to resign and return to a monastery. See Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 34. For the investiture of Robert of Capua, see Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 71.

97 During the term of Paschal II, the relationship between the pope and the lords in South Italy changed. His term coincided with the minorities of all three Hauteville princes, William of Puglia, Simon of Sicily (then Roger II), and Bohemund II of Taranto. All three of these princes had regent-mothers who partly relied on papal support. During this period, a new policy was started which made the vassals of the Duke of Puglia vassals of the pope as well. This created a direct feudal relationship between the pope and local lords, which the pope would take advantage of until 1139 to attempt to undermine the political structure of the duchy under Roger II. See Robinson, The Papacy 1073-1189, 378-380.

98 Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 46.

Roger and invested him with the duchy on August 22, 1128.99 Even though he had been confirmed by the pope, it would take Roger two more years to gain complete control over South Italy.100

These early years of Norman rule and the consolidation of power under Roger II saw major events that would continue to have an impact on the later reign of Roger. His contentious relationship with the popes in Rome result in difficulty being confirmed king. Additionally, the popes were reluctant to approve bishops when Roger created new dioceses. This directly relates to the Cathedral of Cefalù, which was never confirmed as a diocese by the pope and where the bishops remained bishop-elect throughout Roger II’s reign. Due to this, the cathedral remained unfinished for years even though Roger intended it to be an important royal cathedral.

The Creation of the Norman Kingdom of Sicily

The circumstances of the creation of the Kingdom of Sicily were also dependent on papal controversies, centering on both a competition between two elected popes, and the intervention of secular powers in supporting the different popes. The background

99 Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 46-47; Robinson, The Papacy 1073-1198, 383; Romuald of Salerno, “Chronicon Sive Annales,” 253; Alexander of Telese, “The History of the Most Serene Roger,” I.14 (71).

100 See Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 47-49, for a discussion of the various uprisings and revolts throughout Puglia. By 1130, Melfi, Salerno, and Troia (three of the four main ducal towns) had to accept ducal control and have garrisons in their citadels.

44 for the Papal Schism of 1130 was the Investiture Contest, and the subsequent Concordat of Worms in 1122, which settled the disputes.101 The two elected popes, Innocent II and

Anacletus II, each took a different side in the controversy, which by the mid-twelfth century had focused on the question of friendship or enmity towards the Holy Roman

Emperor. Innocent eventually formed an alliance with Lothar III after receiving the support of Bernard of Clairvaux, which brought the majority of Europe to his side, while Anacletus relied on Roger II.102 Even though Innocent had more support throughout Europe than Anacletus, the latter was securely established in Rome while

Innocent had to flee to France after the double election in 1130.

In exchange for Roger’s support, Anacletus invested him as King of Sicily. The bull of investiture, dated September 27, 1130, was witnessed by two cardinals and several members of the Pierleoni family, which was unusual for a papal bull and shows

101 During the church reform of the eleventh century, Pope Gregory VII had challenged secular authority, claiming that papal authority was superior in both spiritual and temporal spheres. The Investiture Contest was related to this claim. Popes believed they had the power to invest bishops and abbots, as well as jurisdiction over the property and administrative offices of bishoprics and abbeys, while secular rulers felt they should have jurisdiction and power over the events that transpired in their kingdoms. Furthermore, if secular rulers had the power to invest bishops and abbeys, did that mean that their power extended to the papacy itself? In 1122, Pope Calixtus II and Emperor Henry V reached an agreement in the Concordat of Worms. Calixtus agreed to the following terms: episcopal and abbatial elections would take place in presence of the emperor at the imperial court, the elect would receive his regalia from the emperor, and then he would do homage to the emperor. See Mary Stroll, The Jewish Pope: Ideology and Polities in the Papal Schism of 1130 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1987), xiii; Robinson, The Papacy 1073-1198, 437-438.

102 Anacletus was a member of the powerful Pierleoni family in Rome. This family also had had close ties with Roger I and continued having close ties with the Hauteville family, entering into a vassal relationship with Roger II in 1134. See Robinson, The Papacy 1073-1198, 382; Stroll, The Jewish Pope, 65; Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 51.

45 that Anacletus did not have support from the College of Cardinals in this decision, nor did he seek their agreement after the fact. Not only was there limited supported for the creation of a new kingdom, but there was also no history of a monarchy in Sicily, and this title could not just be invented. Roger’s uncle, Henry del Vasto, argued that the title

Duke was not sufficient anymore, given that Roger had subdued Sicily, Calabria,

Puglia, and all of Southern Italy up to Rome.103 Also, at court in Salerno, the subject of a kingdom was discussed, and it was determined that kings had ruled from Palermo long ago and had disappeared by the will of God. The exact date of this meeting at Salerno is not known, but it most likely coincided with the bull of investiture and included an acclamation by the vassals who were present.104 Roger’s goal was to present his title as one restored by the Pope and supported by the people and princes, rather than as something that had been created from nothing.105

In the bull of investiture, Roger was enfeoffed with the kingdom of Sicily,

Calabria, and Puglia. The bull also included the principality of Capua and the duchy of

Naples as vassal dependencies, and gave Roger the right to demand the aid of

103 Alexander of Telese, “The History of the Most Serene Roger,” II.1 (77-78).

104 Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 51-53; Stroll, The Jewish Pope, 79.

105 This is evident in the foundation charter of the Cappella Palatina of 1140. “Through the authority of our holy mother the Roman Church, and with the unanimous counsel of archbishops, bishops, abbots, princes, counts, nobles, clerics and all the people of our dominions, the kingdom which was for a long time in abeyance has through the Redeemer’s benevolence been fully restored to its original state, honorably promoted and exalted.” See Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 54-55.

Benevento against enemies. Anacletus also made concessions and granted everything that had been denied Roger by his predecessors. Roger could designate which of his sons would be his successor, he could pick from which archbishop he would receive unction and coronation, he was allowed to make three bishoprics subject to the archbishop of Palermo (Syracuse, Agrigento, and Mazara or Catania), and he was given the right to refuse to pay homage to the pope if investiture was prevented by the fault of the pope.106 The coronation was planned for Christmas day, 1130, in Palermo. Prior to the coronation, Roger had himself proclaimed king in a popular assembly, probably similar to that at Salerno. In this proclamation, his vassals confirmed what had already been decided, rather than voluntarily elevating Roger to the status of king. His coronation was based on the German ritual, along with some French elements. Instead of receiving the scepter and staff of kingship, Roger received the scepter and orb.107

Anacletus died in January of 1138, leaving Innocent II the only pope in Europe and therefore giving to him sole power in investing the vassal titles in South Italy.108

106 Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 52-53; Robinson, The Papacy 1073-1198, 384-386.

107 See Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 54-56, for a description of the coronation. Alexander of Telese also provides a description of the coronation, including the decorations, attire of the people attending and participating, and the food and drink served. It is unlikely that he was actually present. Rather, the event was most likely described to him by Roger’s sister Matilda or Count Rainulf of Alife, her husband. See Alexander of Telese, “The History of the Most Serene Roger,” II.3-6 (78-79).

108 Anacletus’s supporters elected a successor, Victor IV, but he did not have much support and abdicated quickly. See Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 70, and Stroll, The Jewish Pope, 80.

While Innocent recognized Roger’s hereditary claim to Puglia, he resisted the unification of the southern Italian principalities, and demanded the independence of the principality of Capua, which Roger refused. In April, 1139, at the Second Lateran

Council, Innocent excommunicated Roger and his followers. Innocent also relied on the vassal relationships established by earlier popes in South Italy, and led an alliance of

Roger’s enemies against him, hoping to force a settlement by a show of strength.

Instead, Innocent was defeated at the Battle of Galluccio on July 22, 1139, and was taken prisoner along with his entourage. This was the second time a pope had led an army into South Italy and met with defeat.109 Innocent was forced to recognize Roger as King of Sicily and as a prisoner negotiated the rest of the terms of his investiture. In July,

1139, Innocent granted to Roger all of the privileges granted by Anacletus, except for the ecclesiastical reorganization that had taken place. The kingdom of Sicily became a hereditary claim that could be held even without the investiture of the pope. Innocent’s investiture made no mention of Anacletus, and instead made the claim that Honorius II had promoted the duke to King of Sicily. He also avoided investing Roger with a single fief, as Anacletus had done. The territories of the kingdom were described as the kingdom of Sicily, the duchy of Puglia, and the principality of Capua, with a very

109 The first time was in 1053, and resulted in the investiture of Robert of Guiscard as Duke of Puglia, and the last time would be in 1156, during the reign of William I. After the last defeat, the Norman king was acknowledged by the pope as the independent ruler of South Italy. See Robinson, The Papacy 1073-1198, 367-390.

48 specific distinction between the titles. Furthermore, Roger II was given the banner representing Sicily, his eldest son Roger received the banner of Puglia, and his third son, Alfonso, was given the banner of the principality of Capua. In name there appeared to be a separation of the titles, but in actuality, it was all controlled by one family, with the sons acting as vassals of the father. 110

The contentious relationship between Roger II and the popes in Rome created tensions each time a new pope was elected, and would prevent the Cathedral of Cefalù from being confirmed as the seat of a bishopric during Roger II’s reign. The popes after

Innocent II each initially refused to renew the investiture of Roger or to renew the privileges given by Innocent. It was not until 1156, after Roger’s death, that the pope finally agreed to the King of Sicily’s terms, and that was after defeat and capture in battle. Hadrian IV’s forces were defeated by those of William I in 1156, and at the

Concordat of Benevento on June 18, 1156, representatives of the king and pope came to a definitive settlement of the territorial disputes of the last several decades. The

Norman king was recognized by the pope as the independent ruler of all of South Italy, the conquests of Roger II and his sons in the 1140s were legitimized, and it was agreed that South Italy could receive papal legates while in Sicily there could be no legates without the king’s permission. Finally, the territories were listed as the “kingdom of

110 Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 70-71; Robinson, The Papacy 1073-1198, 367-368 and 385-386; Romuald of Salerno, “Chronicon Sive Annales,” 259; and Stroll, The Jewish Pope, 66-81.

Sicily, the duchy of Puglia and the principality of Capua, together with their appurtenances, Naples, Salerno and Amalfi with their appurtenances, Marsia and what lies beyond Marsia.”111 This recognized the territories as one, rather than having a separation of the titles as had been specified in the bull of investiture of Innocent II.

The popes would again become directly involved with the kingdom of Sicily during the reign of William II, after he designated Constance, his aunt, as his heir. This was problematic for the popes, since Constance had married Henry VI, son of Emperor

Frederick I, king of the Germans. The papal curia did not want the Kingdom of Sicily and the Holy Roman Empire to unite, so they revived the oath of fealty sworn by the

Sicilian king to the pope, and after William II’s death, used the pope’s feudal authority to try to prevent the succession of a ruler who they saw as unsuitable. Tancred of Lecce,

William II’s cousin, was briefly supported by the pope, but eventually Frederick II, son of Constance and Henry VI, would become king of Sicily with his mother ruling as regent.112 This renewal of hostilities between the king and pope resulted in a delay of the consecration of the Cathedral of Cefalù. Even though work on the cathedral

111 See Robinson, The Papacy 1073-1198, 390-391, for the details of the agreement reached at the Concordat of Benevento.

112 Robinson, The Papacy 1073-1198, 391-396.

50 progressed in the late twelfth and first half of the thirteenth century during the reign of

Frederick II, the church would not be consecrated until 1267, after his death.113

Muslims and Greeks in the Latin Kingdom of Sicily

Before turning to the Cathedral of Cefalù, it is useful first to look at the role played by Muslims and Greeks in Roger’s new kingdom. Since both of these cultures had had a strong presence on the island prior to the arrival of the Normans, an awareness of their involvement with the new administration is instrumental for understanding the reasoning behind certain choices made by Roger, including those relating to architectural and artistic patronage. In the early years of Norman rule, administrative continuity was important in Roger’s new lands. He relied on the Greek officials who had been present during the Muslim period, appointing officials from the provincial Byzantine administration to senior positions; these officials would also have had knowledge of Arabic, having previously served under the Muslim rulers. In addition, because Roger I inherited Arabic officials in Sicily, he was able to use the

113 The diocese was created during the reign of Pope Anacletus II in 1131, however it was not confirmed by the subsequent popes until 1166 by Alexander III. The cathedral itself was not consecrated until 1267, during the reign of Charles of Anjou. For the creation of the diocese, see “Anacletus II’s privilege to the Bishop of Messina, 1131,” in Roger II and the Creation of the Kingdom of Sicily, ed. and trans. Graham A. Loud (Manchester, UK and New York: Manchester University Press, 2012), 306-308; Thieme and Beck, La cattedrale normanna di Cefalù, 28. For the consecration of the cathedral in the thirteenth century, see Thieme and Beck, La cattedrale normanna di Cefalù, 30.

51 administrative institutions established under the Muslim rulers, keeping intact the

Arabic registers of land, the lists of serfs, and administrative districts. However, the

Arabic dīwān did not become central to royal administration until after Roger II’s coronation in 1130.114 Furthermore, the titles of the new administration came from a variety of sources, including Arabic, Greek and Norman as well. The majority, however, were Greek in origin, and until the mid-twelfth century most of the people who occupied these positions were Greek.115

The knowledge and implementation of Byzantine practices was most likely brought to Sicily by the Amiratus Christodoulos, who held this office from 1107 until around 1125, and the interest in Byzantine culture was instilled in Roger II at a young age by his upbringing in Messina, which had a large Greek population. During Roger’s minority, his mother, Adelaide, served as regent and had moved the seat of the noble family to Messina. The Graeco-Byzantine culture, which had survived to a certain

114 See Karen C. Britt, “Roger II of Sicily: Rex, Basileus, and Khalif? Identity, Politics, and Propaganda in the Cappella Palatina,” Mediterranean Studies 16 (2007): 24; Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 148; G.A. Loud, “Byzantine Italy and the Normans,” in Byzantium and the West c. 850-c. 1200. Proceedings of the XVIII Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Oxford 30th March-1st April 1984, ed. J.D. Howard-Johnston (Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1988), 225.

115 Amiratus, which first was the title for the governor of Palermo and eventually evolved into the equivalent of a Prime Minister, came from the Arabic emīr. Viscount (vicecomes) and Chamberlain (camerarius) were from Frankish-Norman heritage. Logothete came from Byzantine palace administration, protonotar was a provincial administrative title, and stratege (strategus) and katepano were senior officers in provincial administration who had civil and military experience and power. See Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 148; Loud, “Byzantine Italy,” 225; Vera von Falkenhausen, “The Graeco- Byzantine Heritage in the Norman Kingdom of Sicily,” in Norman Tradition and Transcultural Heritage: Exchange of Cultures in the ‘Norman’ Peripheries of Medieval Europe, eds. Stefan Burkhardt and Thomas Foerster (Burlington, VT and Farnham, England: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2013), 62.

52 extent in Calabria and northeast Sicily, was influential in Adelaide’s reign, and in the upbringing of Roger II. Christodoulos, a Greco-Sicilian who had been brought up in the

Byzantine culture, became a leading official at the court of Adelaide. He had first been appointed Amiratus (governor) of Palermo by Adelaide in 1107, an office which he held until around 1125. He was also a trusted advisor to Adelaide during Roger’s minority, was responsible for the financial affairs in Sicily, and was entrusted with Roger’s education in Messina. This education from a Greek official familiar with Byzantine practices and court culture would be influential for the formation of Roger’s kingdom and image as king. Christodoulos was well versed in the practices and history of the

Byzantine court, which is evident in his title protonobilissimos. This was an honorary title from the Emperor Alexios I Komnenos, indicating his level of knowledge and respect for the Byzantine court.116

Christodoulos also served in military campaigns, as did other Greek figures including George of Antioch, both leading campaigns in Ifrīqiya.117 George was the son

116 For the Adelaide’s reign and the involvement of Christodoulos, including his position within the Norman court, see Britt, “Roger II of Sicily,” 24; Catlos, Muslims of Medieval Latin Christendom, 102-104; Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 25, 100, and 150; Jeremy Johns, Arabic Administration, 69-73. For the title protonobilissimos, see Britt, “Roger II of Sicily,” 24; Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 25.

117 Another Greek man who served as an admiral under Roger II with George of Antioch was the Amiratus John. This was after George of Antioch had been promoted to a more prestigious position created for him in the new kingdom. George of Antioch was still the naval commander, while the army was entrusted to John. John is not as important as George when discussing artistic and architectural patronage, or the development of the new kingdom, along with which came the development of new royal imagery and practices. For the Amiratus John, see Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 150; von Falkenhausen, “The Graeco-Byzantine Heritage,” 61.

53 of a Byzantine Christian from the Eastern Empire, probably Antioch. According to the

Egyptian historian al-Maqrīzī, when the family was traveling by ship to Constantinople, they were captured by Zirid forces of the sultan Tamīm. After resettling in Ifriqīya, the family entered the service of Tamīm as accountants. Before defecting to Palermo in

1114, George had served as finance minister to the Zirid lord Tamīn in al-Mahdīya. He first served as a tax officer in Iato, near Palermo, and was later taken on by

Christodoulos as a protégé, eventually succeeding Christodoulos in the role of prime minister or vizier around the year 1126. After the Kingdom of Sicily was created,

George of Antioch’s new title was magnus ammiratus (grand admiral/emīr) or ammiratus ammiratorum (admiral of admirals/emīr of emīrs). He is also described as the wazīr/vizier

(prime minister) in Arabic sources.118

George of Antioch is considered responsible for the reorganization of the administration in the new kingdom, particularly the fiscal administration. From 1112, when Roger assumed sole rule of the County, until the creation of the Kingdom, comital administration was in Greek and was centered on eastern Sicily and Calabria. In the early years of Norman rule directly following the conquest, there was continuity with

118 For George of Antioch’s origins, see Catlos, Muslims of Medieval Latin Christendom, 104; Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 33 and 150; Jeremy Johns, “Malik Ifrīqiya: The Norman Kingdom of Africa and the Fātimids,” in Libyan Studies 18 (1987): 95; Johns, Arabic Administration, 74-83; Ernst Kitzinger, The Mosaics of St. Mary’s of the Admiral in Palermo (Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1991), 15; Alex Metcalfe, Muslims and Christians in Norman Sicily: Arabic Speakers and the end of Islam (London and New York: RoutledgeCurzon, 2003), 42-43. For his later career see Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 150; Johns, Arabic Administration, 82-83.

54 the previous Arabic administrations. There had been a group of specialists around the

Hauteville family who were not only responsible for negotiating surrenders and treaties, but also for seizing and keeping track of the tax records of the Muslim administration. These records were adapted by the conquerors and used by Count

Roger and his staff, becoming the basis upon which land distribution was carried out with the indigenous population. The ruling Normans based the defined boundaries of land on those of the pre-conquest Muslim charters. Until around 1111, Adelaide and

Roger II issued documents in Arabic similar to those of Roger I and the Arabic administration before the arrival of the Normans.119

After the kingdom of Sicily was created in 1130, the royal dīwān, or fiscal administration, was reformed over the next two decades. Whatever had been inherited from the Kalbids by the first generation of Normans had disappeared and did not serve as the model for the new royal administration. Instead, George of Antioch turned to

Fātimid Cairo for ideas of remodeling the dīwān. George had been to the Fātimid court many times as ambassador, and the two courts continued to have close and cordial relations until the end of the 1140s.120 The name of the dīwān, al-dīwān al-tahqīq or dīwān

119 See Johns, “Norman Kings and the Fātimid Caliphate”: 136; and Johns, Arabic Administration, 40-41 and 63.

120 This is supported by a surviving letter from the Fātimid caliph al-Hāfiz to Roger II. Based on the content of the letter, it seems to be at least the fourth in an exchange between the two rulers. Furthermore, this letter suggests that the Fātimid dīwān instructed and helped its Sicilian counterpart. See Johns, “Norman Kings and the Fātimid Caliphate,” 145-147.

55 of verification, in the 1140s is also only found in Fātimid Egypt prior to its establishment in Sicily. In both Norman Sicily and Fātimid Egypt, this new office was created at a time of major administrative reorganizations and renewal of land privileges.121 With the creation of the royal dīwān, a standardized script was put into place. This also seems to have been imported from an Eastern Mediterranean source, having similar characteristics to scripts in contemporary dīwāns in Egypt and the Levant. During the comital period, documents were written in different scripts, none of which appear to be the source for the highly elegant, professional script of the royal dīwān.122 One last element of Roger’s court that draws from the Eastern Mediterranean, either Byzantium or Islamic courts, is the placing of eunuchs in positions of power. This is unique in

European kingship, but a common feature in the courts of Byzantium and Islamic rulers. In Sicily, these eunuchs were Muslim converts to Christianity, and were referred to as ‘palace Saracens’ in Latin sources from the twelfth century. Even though these men were theoretically Christian, many contemporary documents suggest that they continued to practice Islam in secret.123

121 For details of the royal dīwān in Sicily, and its counterpart in Egypt, see Johns, “Norman Kings and the Fātimid Caliphate,” 135-139; and Johns, Arabic Administration, esp. 193-211 and 257-283.

122 For specifics on the so-called royal dīwānī script, see Johns, “Norman Kings and the Fātimid Caliphate,” 136-137; and Johns, Arabic Administration, 210-211 and 274-277.

123 For the palace Saracens, see Metcalfe, Muslims and Christians in Norman Sicily, 46-51 and Alex Metcalfe, Muslims of Medieval Italy (Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press, 2009), 193-208. For specifics about contemporary documents and the particular eunuchs who served under the Normans, see Johns, Arabic Administration, 212-256.

In addition to high ranking officials of Greek heritage, there was also widespread patronage of Greek Orthodox monasteries by the two Rogers, especially in the northeast part of Sicily, known as the Val Demone. This demonstrates the continued presence of

Greek religious officials in the Norman domains, as well as the acceptance and encouragement of a multicultural society. During the reign of Roger I, twenty Greek monasteries were established, fourteen of which were founded by the count. Those that were connected to other high-ranking persons were usually confirmed, and sometimes endowed, by the ruler. This positioned the new rulers as patrons of the majority Greek

Christian population in this region. This was also practical, since in Sicily there was no indigenous Latin Christian population so that it was beneficial to favor the Greek

Church.124 Not only did the ruling family patronize Orthodox establishments, but there was also a spiritual kinship between the Normans and their Greek subjects. This is evident in the Norman lords becoming godparents to children of some senior Greek officials.125

The most important establishment connected with Roger II was the monastery of the Holy Savior in Messina, which became the head of the Greek monastic congregation

124 Catlos, Muslims of Medieval Latin Christendom, 107; Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 34; Loud, “Byzantine Italy,” 227; von Falkenhausen, “The Graeco-Byzantine Heritage,” 68.

125 Roger I was the godfather of Roger, son of the notary Bonos, a senior Greek official. This family apparently enjoyed close ties with the Hauteville family, considering the Greek Roger had a successful career in legal administration under Roger II. This practice continued under Roger II. His sister, Maximilla, was godmother to the daughter of Nicholas of Reggio, a Greek judge active in Palermo. See von Falkenhausen, “The Graeco-Byzantine Heritage,” 60-61.

57 in Roger’s kingdom. In the foundation charter dated May 1131, the status of the monastery was clearly equivalent to a monastery founded by the Byzantine emperor.

As in imperial foundation charters in Byzantium, this monastery was called a basilikon monasterion (imperial or royal monastery) in its foundation charter. The comparable status to a monastery in Byzantium founded by the Byzantine emperor not only shows

Roger’s knowledge of Byzantine court practices, but also demonstrates his attempt to model himself on the emperor after becoming king of Sicily. The monastery of the Holy

Savior was also exempt from the authority of the Archbishop of Messina. The head of this monastery, or Archimandrite, was elected by the monks, but had to be confirmed by the king, giving him more control over the workings of the monastery. Furthermore, most of the monasteries that were dependent on the Holy Savior had been founded by

Roger’s family, particularly Roger I and Adelaide. The priors or abbots of these dependencies were appointed by the Archimandrite. Patronage of this monastery and control of the elected officials, both the Archimandrite and the prior and abbots by extension, helped Roger consolidate power in the country side, particularly in northeastern Sicily and Calabria, where the monks had a strong influence over the population, especially in rural areas.126

126 Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 58-59; Loud, “Byzantine Italy,” 231; Matthew, The Norman Kingdom of Sicily, 95; von Falkenhausen, “The Graeco-Byzantine Heritage,” 68-69.

Roger was also curious about the history of the Greek church, and corresponded with a Greek monk living in the Kingdom of Sicily. In response to Roger’s questions, apparently concerning the relative positions of Constantinople and Rome in the history of the church, Neilos Doxapatres wrote a lengthy text called the Order of the Patriarchal

Thrones. Neilos was a Byzantine theologian and canonist who had been exiled from

Constantinople and was living in exile in the Norman Kingdom, probably at the monastery of the Holy Savior in Messina. A theologian from Constantinople, Neilos would have had knowledge of Byzantium’s attempt to claim power over Sicily and

South Italy, and of the continuing connection between the Norman Kingdom and the

Empire. The overarching argument was that the patriarchate of Constantinople should have primacy over all Christendom. In order to support this claim, Neilos provided a detailed breakdown of the geographical jurisdictions of the five patriarchates and the hierarchy of the episcopal sees under Constantinople. He continued, explaining that

Rome, as the capital of an empire, was first in the hierarchy of the episcopal sees. After the Council of Chalcedon in 451, Constantinople was given privileges equal with those of Rome. Rome lost its primacy only after it was conquered by the Goths and ceased being an imperial capital. This extensive response to Roger’s inquiries regarding the

Byzantine church and the position of the patriarchate of Constantinople reflects the interests of Neilos and his abbot, most likely a Greek abbot. Primacy of the patriarch of

Constantinople over all of Christendom would have extended to South Italy and Sicily.

Roger’s interest in this question could simply have been to better understand the state of the church or to appease his Greek subjects. It could also have been a passive way to threaten Pope Innocent II. His reasoning is not known, but no matter the purpose, the questioning and response in an official treatise shows Roger’s interest in church affairs and in the history of both the Roman and Byzantine churches. 127

Roger’s court also attracted Muslim scholars from throughout the Mediterranean

Muslim world. One of the most well-known intellectuals who gravitated to Norman

Sicily around 1138 was Muhammad al-Idrīsī, a native of Ceuta and a descendant of the last Hammadid prince of Málaga. He was commissioned to write a geographical and ethnographic treatise on the known world, which included ethnographical descriptions of people and elements of their cultures, such as architecture, trade, religion, dress and language. The text was known as both The Book of Roger (Kitāb Rujār) and The book of entertainment for he who longs to travel the world (Kitāb nuzhat al-mushtāq fī ikhtirāq al-āfāq).

Accompanying this text were seventy maps dividing the world into seven climates or sectors, based on Ptolemy’s description of the world in antiquity, and a silver planisphere (Fig. 5). Al-Idrīsī had travelled extensively around the Mediterranean, and even up to England, prior to coming to Roger’s court, so he had first-hand knowledge of part of the world. What he did not know, he learned from travelers passing through

127 Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 91 and 201; James Morton, “A Byzantine Canon Law Scholar in Norman Sicily: Revisiting Neilos Doxapatres’s Order of the Patriarchal Thrones,” Speculum 92, no. 3 (July 2017): 724- 754.

Sicily. Furthermore, according to the preface, Roger was not just the patron, but actively took part in the research. This text also provides a positive portrayal of Sicily under

Roger II, including information about all of the town throughout the island. Sarah

Davis-Secord argued that by commissioning a map and treatise such as this, in what can be considered the lingua franca of the larger area he governed, Roger was portraying himself as a truly Mediterranean king.128 He was following in a tradition established by

Muslim rulers, and this treatise could speak the lingua franca, sending a message to the local Muslim population and the wider Muslim world around him that the kingdom was culturally Muslim, while being politically Christian, and that he was suited to govern.129

128 Davis-Secord, Where Three Worlds Met, 231.

129 For al-Idrīsī and The Book of Roger, see S. Maqbul Ahmad, “Cartography of al-Sharīf al-Idrīsī,” in Cartography in the Traditional Islamic and South Asian Societies, eds. J.B. Harley and David Woodward (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), 156-174; Allaoua Amara and Annliese Nef, “Al-Idrīsī et les Hammūdides de Sicile: nouvelles données biographiques sur l’auteur du ‘Livre de Roger’,” in Arabica, 48, 1 (2001), 121-127; Booms and Higgs, Sicily Culture and Conquest, 230-231; Catlos, Muslims of Medieval Latin Christendom, 108; Davis-Secord, Where Three Worlds Met, 114 and 230-231; Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 102- 106; Emilie Savage-Smith, “Cartography,” in A Companion to Mediterranean History, eds. Peregrine Horden and Sharon Kinoshita (Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons Ltd., 2014), 190-191. For the tradition of Arabic cartography, and how this treatise fits in, see Savage-Smith, “Cartography.”

Conclusion

The multiple cultural groups who conquered and ruled Sicily throughout the centuries created an accepting and eclectic society which the Normans encountered and continued after their conquest and in the years leading up to and including the formation of their kingdom. The strong Muslim and Greek presence on the island, as well as the tolerant atmosphere established throughout the centuries, influenced the administration, court culture, and artistic patronage of Roger II. This society, as well as the political and religious controversies surrounding the formation of the Norman

Kingdom of Sicily, form the backdrop for the decisions made at the Cathedral of Cefalù.

Without the presence of Muslims and Greek, and the acceptance and interest in their culture and artistic expressions, the design and decoration of the cathedral under Roger

II would not have the variety of forms that resulted from the multicultural kingdom.

Furthermore, Roger’s relationship with the papacy, the Fātimid caliph, and the

Byzantine emperor were instrumental in his decisions regarding his royal image and his display of power, including the construction of the Cathedral of Cefalù.

Contact author or program for image

Figure 4 - Greek tomb from Marsala, 200 BCE. Image: Museo Archeologico Regionale Lilibeo Baglio Anselmi, Marsala.

Contact author or program for image

Figure 5 - Map from Book of Roger, c. 1300-1500 copy of original of c. 1154. Image: Bodleian Libraries, Oxford. MS Greaves 42 fols 1a-2b.

Chapter Two

Town and Cathedral of Cefalù

This chapter focuses on Cefalù, on both the background and significance of the town, and on the cathedral. The town of Cefalù had been inhabited prior to the arrival of the Muslims, and continued to be an important site for Roger II and his admiral,

George of Antioch. Regarding the cathedral, I will pay particular attention to the cathedral as it relates to the reorganization of the church structure in the Norman

Kingdom of Sicily under Roger II. This reorganization was part of the development of the new kingdom, and increased the discord between Roger II and the papacy, resulting in the Cathedral of Cefalù not being recognized until later in the twelfth century and its consecration being put off until the thirteenth. I will also address the overall plan of the building, the wider context of the plan in relation to the Norman Kingdom of Sicily and

South Italy, the known dates related to the building, and the issue of who might have been responsible for the actual construction of the cathedral during the reign of Roger

II. Understanding the similarities with eleventh-century architecture in Normandy,

South Italy and Sicily will aid in understanding the origins of the plan. This can also help in explaining associations that would have been desirable for Roger II, and how these connections contribute to developing a visual language in Norman Sicily that would project power and legitimacy for the new king. The relation between the

64 recorded dates and the building itself is important for fully understanding which parts can securely be assigned to Roger’s reign and patronage. This is important to establish, since in the last two chapters I focus on parts of the cathedral which are directly associated with Roger II.

Location of Cefalù

The town of Cefalù is located on the north coast of Sicily, between Palermo and

Messina. Ibn Jubayr, a Muslim traveling back to Spain from the Eastern Mediterranean in 1184-1185, recorded his impression of the town of Cefalù from sea while en route from Messina to Palermo.

“Cefalù is a coastal town, with an ample produce from its soils and with many

commodities, beset with vine and other trees, having well-ordered markets. A

community of Muslims lives there. Set over the town is a mountain, on whose

large circular summit is a fortress, than which I have never seen any more

formidable. They hold it in readiness for any sea attack that a fleet from the land

of the Muslims – may God render them victorious – might make upon them

unawares.”130

130 Muhammad Ibn Ahmad, The Travels of Ibn Jubayr, being a chronicle of a mediaeval Spanish Moor concerning his journey to the Egypt of Saladin, the holy cities of Arabia, Baghdad the City of Caliphs, the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, and the Norman Kingdom of Sicily, trans. R.J.C. Broadhurst (London: Jonathan Cape, 1952), 344.

This mountain described by Ibn Jubayr, called the Rocca, protects the town on one side, while the other sides are encircled by water. Muhammad al-Idrīsī, the Muslim scholar commissioned to write a treatise on the known world for Roger II, described the town of Cefalù as well, pointing out similar features. His description mentions the fortress, as well as the port: “[…]it has a beautiful port at which ships come from all over[…] a citadel dominates the fortress at the top of a steep mountains that appears nearly inaccessible.”131 The town had been occupied for centuries, and had a Latin bishop prior to the Muslim invasion.132 Evidence of habitation in Cefalù in antiquity can be found on the ascent up the Rocca. At the first semi-flat level one reaches, there is a ruin of an ancient temple (Fig. 6). Around this level, and the upper part of the Rocca, Muslim era fortifications enclose the ancient temple and a fortress above (Fig. 7).

The Arab city of Cefalù was almost completely destroyed by Count Roger I in

1062.133 After the conquest was completed, the fortifications were rebuilt, along with walls around the city. During the course of construction, Roger II’s Cathedral was

131 The original text of this is in Arabic. This is my translation of the French translation included in Valenziano, et al’s article. See Valenziano, et al, “La supplique des chanoines,” 17. For Muhammad al- Idrīsī and The Book of Roger, see Chapter 1, pages 59-60, and note 129.

132 Valenziano, et al, “La supplique des chanoines”: 11; Valenziano and Valenziano, La basilica cattedrale di Cefalù, 8.

133 Valenziano, et al, “La supplique des chanoines,” 11; Valenziano and Valenziano, La basilica cattedrale di Cefalù, 8.

66 inserted in this new system of walls.134 Cefalù had two rings of fortifications – one enclosing the castle on the top of the Rocca, and the other surrounding the sides of the town not sheltered by the Rocca (Fig. 8). The upper fortification around the Rocca was connected to the entire city’s enclosure, which went as far as the harbor.135 Cefalù was a practical location to resettle and fortify. It is located on the coast, and could serve as a stopping point for people traveling across the north coast of Sicily. Furthermore, before rebuilding the earlier defensive walls the city would have been easy to defend due to its natural fortifications. There was also a natural harbor at Cefalù. This brought the town to the attention of George of Antioch, who identified it as a strategic point on the north coast to rebuild and use for the navy. The reorganization of the navy and ports, including the rebuilding of the defenses at Cefalù, predates the foundation of the town’s cathedral.136 By the end of summer in 1131, most of the town of Cefalù had been rebuilt.137 Not only was Cefalù an important town in the reorganization of Roger II’s navy, but it also became directly connected with the king after the foundation of his first cathedral in 1131.

134 Thieme and Beck, La cattedrale normanna di Cefalù, 18.

135 Ibid, 19.

136 Valenziano, et al, “La supplique des chanoines,” 17.

137 Valenziano and Valenziano, La basilica cattedrale di Cefalù, 8.

History of the Cathedral of Cefalù

Before Roger was made king of Sicily, the bishops in Sicily were direct subjects of the pope in Rome and had to be consecrated by the pope. Also, Sicily only had one archbishopric – Palermo. After Roger was crowned, the antipope Anacletus made

Messina an archbishopric. He also gave these two prelates the right to consecrate their own bishops.138 The bishoprics of Syracuse, Agrigento, and Mazara were given to

Palermo in 1130. A year later, Catania, Lipari-Patti, and Cefalù were made subordinate to the newly created archbishop of Messina.139 Lipari-Patti and Cefalù were both new foundations, and they were given endowments from Roger II. In 1136, five years after the Cathedral of Cefalù was founded, fifty local villeins were granted to the cathedral.140

By 1145, there were at least 188 villeins associated with the diocese of Cefalù. Most of these people had names with Arabic roots.141 While this does not mean that the villeins were Muslim, it does demonstrate the multicultural character of the island, and of the area surrounding Cefalù.

138 Matthew, Norman Kingdom of Sicily, 192.

139 Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 53-57.

140 Metcalfe, Muslims and Christians in Norman Sicily, 72.

141 Ibid, 72.

Royal interest and influence at Cefalù is evident in the people and property connected with the cathedral. The first two bilingual documents issued by the royal dīwān in Palermo, both dating to March 1132, were related to the newly founded cathedral.142 The first document was a register of villeins in the area, some of which were given to the diocese. The second was a decree that gave the cathedral complete control over the whole fishery at Cefalù. This referred not only to the fishing activities in the harbor, but also included any shipments by sea or land of goods related to the church. The bishop received market and anchorage fees from merchants bringing their wares to Cefalù. Any ships that belonged to the cathedral and carried cargo for use by the church were free from customs and taxes, as long as they did not travel further north than Amalfi. Finally, any foodstuff or timber for the church was exempt from duties.143

Roger also granted royal tithes to the new bishoprics of Cefalù and Lipari-Patti, giving each foundation one-tenth of the crown’s income from the respective diocese.144

This made the connection between the crown and the bishoprics stronger, giving Roger

142 The two languages these documents were written in were Greek and Arabic. See Johns, Arabic Administration in Norman Sicily, 91-92. For the royal dīwān in Palermo, see Chapter 1, pages 54-56 and notes 120-123.

143 Johns, Arabic Administration in Norman Sicily, 91-92; Lynn Townsend White, Latin Monasticism in Norman Sicily (Cambridge, MA: The Medieval Academy of America, 1938), 190. For these documents, see Valenziano and Valenziano, La basilica cattedrale di Cefalù, 13-15.

144 Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 57.

69 more control over the clergy. Roger also claimed the right of serving as papal legate, which he argued he inherited from his father.145 As legate, he would have the ability to appoint bishops, and in his mind, create new bishoprics with the blessing of the pope.

Reorganizing the church in Sicily and creating stronger links between the crown and the bishoprics gave Roger direct power of the church. He might have seen this direct control as more similar to the relationship between the patriarch and the emperor in

Byzantium, than the western princes and the pope. Additionally, by creating bishoprics directly connected to the Hauteville dynasty, Roger would have more support within the church in his struggles with the papacy.146

Several decades after the cathedral was begun, a legend relating to the founding of the church was recorded. The legend was written down during the reign of William

II, but probably reflected a story that had been circulating since Roger’s era.147 The story

145 Urban II gave Roger I and his heirs the right to serve as apostolic legate, effectively making the church a Sicily under the direct control of the ruler. See Chapter 1, pages 34-35 and note 69. Also Malaterra, The Deeds of Count Roger, IV.29 (pp. 212-213).

146 Even though the Cathedral of Cefalù was founded during a period of agreement between the Norman Kingdom and Rome, Roger had already experienced conflict with the papacy. Also, he would have been aware of the situation in Rome, and the possibility that the next pope might not be as agreeable to his claims of power as Anacletus.

147 It is apparent that the document was not written during the reign of Roger II since the bishop referred to in the preface to the legend is Bishop Boso. In the preface, he is referred to as the first bishop of Cefalù. However, he was bishop in 1166, when the Cathedral of Cefalù was finally recognized by Pope Alexander III. Therefore, since Boso was the first bishop to be confirmed officially by the pope, he became the first official Bishop of Cefalù. See Johnson, “The Episcopal and Royal Views at Cefalù,” 119 and 128. For Boso as the first bishop, see Valenziano, et al, “La supplique des chanoines,” 138; Valenziano and Valenziano, La basilica cattedrale di Cefalù, 43.

70 was most likely meant to hide the strong political motivations behind the creation of the new bishopric at Cefalù. According to the legend, Roger was returning from the mainland and was caught in a terrible storm while at sea. During the storm, Roger prayed to Christ, asking for salvation from the storm. In return, he promised to build a church dedicated to Him and the Apostles wherever he came ashore. Immediately after the prayer, the storm stopped and the ship eventually arrived in Cefalù after a few days. Upon arrival, Roger measured out the place where the church, to be dedicated to the Saviour and Saints Peter and Paul, was to be built.148 The story presented a purely religious justification for founding a new cathedral. Rather than being motivated by politics, it was a response to a miracle at sea and reflects Roger’s piety.

The various dates connected to this miraculous landing at Cefalù are 1125, 1128 and 1129. Roger is also known to have visited Cefalù in the summer of 1130.149 While the events surrounding the foundation of the cathedral are unknown, there are a few documented dates relating to the founding and construction of the cathedral during

Roger’s reign. In 1130, the same year Roger is known to have visited Cefalù, he visited the Augustinian canons at Santa Maria in Bagnara in Calabria to propose a relationship

148 For the Latin document recording this legend, see Isidoro Carini, “Una pergamena sulla fondazione del Duomo di Cefalù,” in Archivio storico siciliano VII (1882): 136-138. Also see Demus, Mosaics of Norman Sicily, 3-4; Johnson, “Episcopal and Royal Views,” 128-129; and White, Latin Monasticism, 189.

149 For these dates relating to Roger’s presence in Cefalù prior to the foundation of the Cathedral, see Demus, Mosaics of Norman Sicily, 3; Johnson, “Episcopal and Royal Views,” 128; White, Latin Monasticism, 189.

71 between the established monastery and his newly planned cathedral.150 According to

Roger’s plan, the roles would be reversed. Santa Maria in Bagnara, the mother church, would be subservient to Cefalù, the daughter church. Roger also announced that

Iocelmo, Prior of Bagnara, would be the first Bishop of Cefalù. Initially, the canons rejected this plan. However, by the next year the canons agreed.151 The church was founded on June 7, 1131, Pentecost, and dedicated to the Savior.152 Additionally, Roger expressly stated that the church was founded in the memory of his parents, Roger I and

Adelaide.153 In the documents detailing the foundation ceremony of June 7, no details are included about the ceremony that supposedly involved the king laying the cornerstone of the church. Therefore, it is possible that the building was already partially built by this date, and the “foundation” was in actuality a liturgical ceremony

150 Valenziano, et al, “La supplique des chanoines,” 12.

151 See Demus, Mosaics of Norman Sicily, 5; Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 57; Valenziano, et al, “La supplique des chanoines,” 12; Valenziano and Valenziano, La basilica cattedrale di Cefalù, 9-11. The events of 1130 and 1131 as they relate to Santa Maria in Bagnara and Cefalù were recorded by Arduin, the second Bishop Elect of Cefalù. Arduin had previously been prior of Santa Maria in Bagnara, and wrote a document that describes the origins of the canons at Cefalù. For this document, see Valenziano and Valenziano, La basilica cattedrale di Cefalù, 9-10.

152 Eve Borsook, Messages in Mosaic: The Royal Programmes of Norman Sicily, 1130-1187 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), 6; Demus, Mosaics of Norman Sicily, 4-5; Johnson, “Episcopal and Royal Views,” 118; Guido di Stefano, Monumenti della Sicilia Normanna (Palermo: Società Siciliana per la Storia Patria, 1979), 46; Valenziano, et al, “La supplique des chanoines,” 10; Valenziano and Valenziano, La basilica cattedrale di Cefalù, 6; White, Latin Monasticism, 189.

153 “Apud Cephaludem in die Pentecostes fundandi gratia in eodem loco ecclesiam ad honorem sancti Salvatoris et beatorum apostolorum Petri e Pauli pro anima patris sui pie memorie Rogerii primi comitis matrisque sue Adelasie regine.” See Brenk, “The Mosaics of Cefalù Revisited,” 15; Valenziano and Valenziano, La basilica cattedrale di Cefalù, 6.

72 blessing the project already in process.154 Roger’s activities relating to the appointment of a new bishop and the transfer of Augustinian canons to Cefalù a year prior to the founding suggests that the royal project had already begun. Anacletus elevated the church to a cathedral in a papal bull dated September 14, 1131.155 A month later, in

October 1131, Archbishop Hugh of Messina issued the official foundation charter. This document included the limits of the newly created diocese.156

The next two secure dates are from the 1140’s. The first is April 1145, when Roger donated two porphyry sarcophagi to the cathedral.157 One of these was meant to be the tomb of Roger, and the other was supposed to serve as a cenotaph honoring his name.

The other secure date is derived from an inscription below the lowest register in the apse mosaic, providing a date of 1148.158 This suggests that a substantial part of the east

154 Valenziano, et al, “La supplique des chanoines,” 11; Valenziano and Valenziano, La basilica cattedral di Cefalù, 8.

155 See Borsook, Messages in Mosaic, 6; Demus, Mosaics of Norman Sicily, 5; Valenziano, et al, “La supplique des chanoines,” 10. For this papal bull, see Valenziano and Valenziano, La basilica cattedrale di Cefalù, 7-8.

156 Demus, Mosaics of Norman Sicily, 4-5. For the privilege issued by Archbishop Hugo, see Valenziano and Valenziano, La basilica cattedrale di Cefalù, 6-7.

157 Borsook, Messages in Mosaic, 8; Josef Deér, The Dynastic Porphyry Tombs of the Norman Period in Sicily, trans. G.A. Gillhoff (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1959), 1. For the donation documents, see Valenziano and Valenziano, La basilica cattedrale di Cefalù, 33-34.

158 “Rogerius rex egregious plenus pietatis / Hoc statuit templum motus zelo deitatis / Hoc opibus ditat variis varioque decore / Ornat magnificat in Salvatoris honore / Ergo structori tanto Salvator adesto / Ut sibi submissos conservet corde modesto. Anno ab Incarnatione Domini millesimo centesimo XLVIII indictione XI anno vero regni eius XVIII hoc opus musei factum est.” See Demus, Mosaics of Norman Sicily, 6; Valenziano and Valenziano, La basilica cattedrale di Cefalù, 36.

73 end of the cathedral, including the walls of the main apse, were completed by the late

1140’s. However, it cannot be assumed that the rest of the cathedral was complete by this time. I will discuss the addition of the sarcophagi and the new mosaic program in the apse in Chapter Four. The other two important dates in the life of the cathedral are

1166 and 1267. In 1166 Pope Alexander III issued a papal bull recognizing the Cathedral of Cefalù and officially confirming Bishop Boso, making him the first true bishop.159 In

1267 the Cathedral of Cefalù was consecrated.160

The Cathedral of Cefalù and Romanesque Architecture in

Normandy, South Italy, and Sicily

The Cathedral as seen today is a product of construction and modification over the centuries. In this section, I will first describe the major architectural features of the building before discussing of the organization of the interior. This will help in determining the parts of the building belong to Roger’s period, and in identifying any changes that were made mid-construction. After briefly describing the plan of the

159 Before 1166, the bishops had remained bishops elect having not been officially confirmed by the pope. See Demus, Mosaics of Norman Sicily, 4; Johnson, “Episcopal and Royal Views,” 119; Matthew, Norman Kingdom of Sicily, 192; White, Latin Monasticism, 192ff.

160 Valenziano and Valenziano, “La supplique des chanoines (suite),” 147-148.

Cathedral of Cefalù, I will place it in the wider context of Romanesque architecture in

Sicily, South Italy, and the Duchy of Normandy.

The west façade includes two towers projecting from the main body of the church (Fig. 9). Each tower has five windows ascending to the top, which is capped by a smaller square story and a pyramidal structure. The lower parts of the towers were built using larger framing stones and a fill of smaller, more irregularly cut masonry. The upper levels appear to be constructed with finely dressed stones (Fig. 10). Between the two towers, there is a vaulted porch covering a single entrance. Above the porch the façade is decorated with two rows of blind arcades with chevron motifs, and a window in the middle of the lower arcade. Within the upper arcade, there are small openings corresponding to a passageway in the thickness of the wall. This passageway is open to the interior of the church. The nave is a three-aisle basilica plan (Fig. 2). The central nave and side aisles are separated by a pointed arcade resting on monolithic columns.

The projecting transept and choir rise above the nave (Fig. 11). The upper level of this section is also articulated with syncopated arches. As on the façade, those of the transept correspond to a passage in the thickness of the wall. Finally, the cathedral terminates in a tripartite apse (Fig. 3).

The Cathedral of Cefalù includes references to various regions and traditions.

These are evident in the overall plan of the church, the elevation (including the wall passages), and the towers. The towers are the focus of the next chapter, so I will refrain

75 from any discussion of them at this point. At this point, I will first address the similarities between Cefalù and transalpine Romanesque architecture, particularly of

Normandy. Then I will focus on the eleventh-century architecture of the Norman lands in South Italy and Sicily, since these buildings, rather than those north of the Alps, might have served more directly as models for certain aspects of the Cathedral.

Several notable features at Cefalù are found in transalpine architecture. One is the tripartite stepped apse plan, or apse échelon (Fig. 3).161 This is traditionally connected to the Abbey Church of Cluny II (Fig. 12).162 This type of plan is also found in eleventh-century Norman buildings, such as the Abbey Church of Bernay and La

Trinité in Caen, and possibly the original plan of Saint-Étienne in Caen.163 However, it is

161 Having an échelon plan simply means that the chapels are staggered off the east end of the transept and choir, rather than having a single apse in the Early Christian tradition or an ambulatory with radiating chapels, which was also developing as a popular chevet design in Northern Europe. Échelon literally means “step.” This type was common in Benedictine churches of Northern Europe, especially after it was used in Cluny II. For apse échelon, see Kenneth John Conant, Carolingian and Romanesque Architecture 800-1200 (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1993), 66; Eric Fernie, Romanesque Architecture: The First Style of the European Age (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2014), 23, 47, and 280; Eliane Vergnolle, L’Art Roman en France (Paris: Flammarion, 1994), 55-56.

162 For the Abbey Church of Cluny II, see Conant, Carolingian and Romanesque Architecture, 146-148; Fernie, Romanesque Architecture, 47; Vergnolle, L’Art Roman, 55-56.

163 I say possibly because the east end was changed in the thirteenth century and now includes an ambulatory and radiating chapels. The monks from Saint-Étienne were responsible for building a smaller church in Caen, Saint-Nicholas, with a plan similar to that of Cluny II and Bernay. It is believed that this smaller church, begun in 1085, was a copy of Saint-Étienne, begun in 1067/68. For Bernay, see Conant, Carolingian and Romanesque Architecture, 443; Fernie, The Architecture of Norman England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 14; Fernie, Romanesque Architecture, 105. For La Trinité, see Conant, Carolingian and Romanesque Architecture, 447-448; Fernie, Romanesque Architecture, 107; Lindy Grant, Architecture and Society in Normandy, 1120-1270 (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2005), 53. For the plan of Saint-Étienne and its similarities to Saint-Nicholas, see Conant, Carolingian and Romanesque Architecture,

76 not limited to northern buildings. The échelon plan was also used in eleventh-century

Sicilian buildings. The specifics of these buildings will be discussed later this section.

Wall passageways, like those on the upper level of the transept arms at Cefalù

(Fig. 13), are also found in eleventh-century Norman churches, such as Bernay and the

Abbey Church of Notre-Dame at Jumièges.164 At these two churches, the wall passage is located on the west wall of the south transept arm, providing a link between a stair turret at the end of the transept arm and the space above the aisle of the nave.165

However, by the twelfth century, wall passages and galleries were not confined to

Normandy, but can be found throughout Europe, including Puglia. Two notable examples of galleries in the Norman Kingdom of Sicily are the Basilica of San Nicola at

Bari and the Cathedral of Trani. San Nicola, begun in 1089, has a gallery in the nave and

449; Fernie, Romanesque Architecture, 107; Grant, Architecture and Society, 53; Vergnolle, L’Art Roman, 153- 154.

164 Conant, Carolingian and Romanesque Architecture, 443-447; Fernie, Romanesque Architecture, 105-106; Grant, Architecture and Soceity, 53; Vergnolle, L’Art Roman, 104-105; Eliane Vergnolle, L’Art Monumentale de la France Romane: Le XIe Siècle (London: The Pindar Press, 2000), 280.

165 At Notre-Dame in Jumièges, there is an additional passage on the west wall of the north arm. Fernie claims this was added for compositional balance rather than a functional purpose. Fernie, Romanesque Architecture, 105-106.

77 an open walkway across the west wall connecting the galleries.166 The Cathedral of

Trani, begun in 1098, has a similar arrangement of galleries and walkway (Fig. 14).167

The passage at Cefalù is more similar to those found in eleventh-century

Norman architecture, particularly those of Saint-Étienne in Caen (Fig. 15). At Cefalù, it is a continuous passage around the top of both transept arms. The passage at Saint-

Étienne expanded on the form used at Bernay and Jumièges, extending continuously throughout the entire church, possibly even into the east end.168 The passage at Cefalù might have originally been conceived of as a continuous passage throughout the building as at Caen. However, due to the halt in construction and later completion on a smaller scale, it was never realized. This passage, along with the apse échelon and the towers, provides multiple references to the Duchy of Normandy. I will address the towers in further detail in Chapter Three.

166 Raffaella Cassano, Mimma Pasculli Ferrara, Cosimo Damiano Fonseca and Stefania Mola, Cattedrali di Puglia: Una storia lunga duemila anni (Milan: Mario Adda Editore, 2001), 137-143; Gerardo Cioffari, “Dalle origini a Bona Sforza,” in San Nicola di Bari e la sua Basilica, ed. Giorgio Otranto (Milan: Edizioni Electa Spa, 1987), 140-151; Conant, Carolingian and Romanesque Architecture, 346-348; Nicola Milella, “Storia dei restauri,” in San Nicola di Bari e la sua Basilica, ed. Giorgio Otranto (Milan: Edizioni Electa Spa, 1987), 212- 221; Luigi Mongiello and Marco Mongiello, Bari: Basilica di San Nicola (Milan: Mario Adda Editore, 2006), 45-61. Mongiello and Mongiello include the donation document of Robert Guiscard. See Mongiello and Mongiello, Bari, 46.

167 Cassano, et al, Cattedrali di Puglia, 107-115; Conant, Carolingian and Romanesque Architecture, 349; Stefania Mola, La Cattedrale di Trani (Bari: Mario Adda Editore, 1996), 25-46 and 60-64.

168 Fernie, Romanesque Architecture, 107; Grant, Architecture and Society, 53; Vergnolle, L’Art Roman, 153.

While there are similarities between the Cathedral of Cefalù and Romanesque buildings throughout Europe, particularly in France, it is most relevant to place the design of this new cathedral within the context of Norman buildings in Sicily and South

Italy, especially those associated with the Duchy of Puglia, Calabria and Sicily, and

Count Roger I in Sicily. The first of these buildings is the Cathedral of Salerno, the capital of the Duchy of Puglia. This cathedral was begun in 1077 and consecrated in

1084.169 Even though it was begun during the reign of Duke Robert Guiscard, in plan the building appears more similar to the churches of Central Italy, especially the

Benedictine plan found at Montecassino and related churches, rather than the churches of Normandy (Fig. 16).170 This is evident in the atrium preceding the church, the single detached bell tower, the Early Christian profile, continuous transept, and the basilica nave with an arcade resting on columns (Figs. 17 and 18). Additionally, there are oculi present on the transept of the Cathedral of Salerno (Fig. 19). In Conant’s restoration study of Montecassino, he locates the oculi in similar places to those found at Salerno

(Fig. 16). This is also seen at the late eleventh/early twelfth-century church of Santa

169 Antonio Braca, “Oltre Montecassino: la pianta originaria del duomo di Salerno,” Rassegna storica salernitana vol. 14, 29 (1997): 13; Antonio Braca, Il Duomo di Salerno: Architettura e culture artistiche del Medioevo e dell’Età Moderna, (Salerno: Laveglia Editore, 2003), 13-17; Fernie, Romanesque Architecture, 95.

170 Braca, “Oltre Montecassino,” 10ff; Braca, Il Duomo di Salerno, 29-33; Giovanni Carbonara, Montecassino e l’architettura Campano-Abruzzese nell’undicesimo secolo (Rome, Italy: Istituto di Fondamenti dell’Architettura, 1981), 64-68; Conant, Carolingian and Romanesque Architecture, 364; Fernie, Romanesque Architecture, 95.

Maria della Libera in Aquino, which appears to be a copy of Montecassino as well (Fig.

20).171 Since Montecassino was rebuilt in the seventeenth century and badly damaged during World War II, it is necessary to reconstruct the original appearance of Abbot

Desiderius’s church of 1066-1071 based on the writings of the monk Leo of Ostia and by observing contemporaneous building that were probably similar in design. Based on

Leo of Ostia’s chronicles and archaeological evidence, Montecassino was based on the plan of Old Saint Peter’s in Rome. Both buildings had a large colonnaded atrium, and were basilicas with a single continuous transept as tall as the nave and projecting as far as the outer aisle.172 This plan was used at the Cathedral of Salerno, begun six years after the dedication of Montecassino.

The Cathedral of Cefalù shares multiple features with the Cathedral of Salerno.

The original plan at Salerno was a columnar basilica nave, which is also found at Cefalù

(Figs. 2 and 18).173 While the scale of the current nave at Cefalù appears to be a reduced version of the original plan, this original plan might have initially been a taller nave arcade of monolithic columns. I will address another possibility for the original plan

171 Carbonara, Montecassino e l’architettura Campano-Abruzzese, 99-132.

172 For Old St. Peter’s, see Conant, Carolingian and Romanesque Architecture, 38-39; Fernie, Romanesque Architecture, 16-17. For Montecassino, see Conant, Carolingian and Romanesque Architecture, 362; Fernie, Romanesque Architecture, 95.

173 For the original nave at the Cathedral of Salerno, see Braca, Il Duomo di Salerno, 37-38.

80 later in this section. Another similarity is the tall continuous transept. Both Cefalù and

Salerno have this feature, which can be traced back to Montecassino.

A unique element that connects the two cathedrals is the use of oculi, a feature which also can be traced back to Montecassino. Both the Cathedral of Salerno and

Cathedral of Cefalù have oculi on their transepts. At Salerno, as at other churches whose designs derive from Montecassino, such as Santa Maria della Libera, there are oculi on the upper parts of the transept arms (Figs. 16, 19, and 20).174 It has been suggested that the ultimate source for this window type was the architecture of Islam.175

This is a unique window type, not found in the architecture of eleventh-century

Normandy or the Carolingian empire. However, it appears in multiple places on the

Cathedral of Cefalù. There are three present on the main apse and two on each transept

(Figs. 21-23). Unlike those found at Salerno, these at Cefalù are closer to the ground. It is possible that the oculi at Cefalù were intended to recall the Cathedral of Salerno.

Salerno was the capital of the Duchy of Puglia, Calabria, and Sicily, and therefore would have been Roger’s official capital until 1130 when he was crowned king.176

174 Carbonara, Montecassino e l’architettura Campano-Abruzzese, 99-132

175 See Franz Heinrich, “Les fenêtres circulaires de Cefalù et le problème de l’origine de la ‘rose’ du Moyen âge,” Cahiers archéologiques fin de l’antiquité et moyen âge 9 (1957): 253ff; Heliot, “La cathèdrale de Cefalù,” 23-24; di Stefano, Il duomo di Cefalù, 47.

176 Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 46-47; Robinson, The Papacy 1073-1198, 383; Romuald of Salerno, “Chronicon Sive Annales,” 253; Alexander of Telese, “The History of the Most Serene Roger,” I.14 (71).

Furthermore, the Cathedral of Salerno was begun in 1077 during the reign of Duke

Robert Guiscard, the first Norman duke, and consecrated in 1084. The link to a religious foundation connected to the first Norman Duke of Puglia might have been desirable for

Roger II, and this reinforces the possibility of connections between the designs of the two cathedrals.

In Sicily, the Cathedrals of Catania and Mazara del Vallo were both founded by

Count Roger I, and located in Sicily. Catania was original founded as a monastic church by Prior Angerio from the Benedictine monastery of Sant’Eufemia in Calabria around

1086.177 A diploma issued by Count Roger I on 9 December, 1091, confirmed the presence of a church and monastery in the town. Within three months, Urban II issued a papal bull, elevating Angerio to Bishop of Catania.178 The cathedral was built between

1086 and 1094, and located within the fortified walls of Catania. Much of the original building was destroyed in an earthquake in 1693, which brought down the bell tower onto the nave of the cathedral. However, the transept and chevet of the original cathedral remained standing, along with some of the lower parts of the western façade.

177 This connection between Sant’Eufemia and the Cathedral of Catania will be discussed at greater length in Chapter 3.

178 For the foundation of the Cathedral of Catania, see Tancredi Bella, “Bâtir Face à la Mer: La Cathédrale Normande de Catane en Sicile. État de la Question,” Les Cahiers de Saint-Michel de Cuxa XLVIII (2017): 23- 24; di Stefano, Monumenti della Sicilia Normanna, 7; Malaterra, The Deeds of Count Roger, IV.7 (p. 183); and White, Latin Monasticism, 105-107.

The overall plan was a three aisled Latin cross basilica with a stepped chevet, which is similar to that of Cefalù (Figs. 3 and 24). This also can be related to the

Romanesque plans of Benedictine churches, particularly those of the Cluniac order. All three of these chapels have slender lancet windows, and the central apse has a single oculus above the lancet (Fig. 25). A walkway enclosed by crenellations runs along the top of the three apses, suggesting that the cathedral was once a fortress church (Figs. 25 and 26).179 This draws a comparison to the south aisle of the Cathedral of Cefalù, where crenellations extend from the western tower to the transept (Fig. 27). The oculus can also be connected to Cefalù. While Catania only has one on the main apse, Cefalù has three (Figs. 21 and 25). The oculi at Cefalù were blocked up in the 1140s to accommodate the new plan for mosaics, but it would seem they were initially meant to function as windows. As at Catania, the central oculus at Cefalù is placed above a lancet window. I mentioned previously the possibility of the Cathedral of Salerno being the source for the oculi at Cefalù. While this might be true, the likelihood of Catania’s design being another inspiration is very high due to the similarity in apse design and placement of the oculi.

Another other notable part of the original building that survives is the first bay of each side aisle. These two bays were separated from the main body of the church by

179 Bella, “Bâtir Face à la Mer,” 27; di Stefano, Monumenti della Sicilia Normanna, 9.

83 thick walls. There are still small doors visible on inside of the west wall of the

Cathedral, as well as small slit-like windows of a spiral staircase (Fig. 28). Guido di

Stefano and Tancredi Bella both argue that these might have formed the foundations for towers that were never completed.180 The stairs might have been built to allow access to the towers, or simply to lead to a walkway along the west façade. Cefalù does have a walkway on the west façade, enclosed within the thickness of the wall (Fig. 29). Though this passage at Catania is hypothetical, the possibility of a twin tower façade here, when compared to Cefalù which does exhibit this arrangement, suggests a similar design. I will return to the towers in the next chapter.

In recent years, Caroline Bruzelius has been studying the remains under the floor of the Cathedral of Catania, in order to reconstruct the original appearance of the nave.

She proposes that instead of the Early Christian basilica type of an arcuated colonnade, the nave elevation included piers with reused ancient columns attached to the sides.

This hypothesis is supported by the archaeological evidence under the Baroque floor, which shows finely and consistently carved ashlar masonry flanked by columns (Fig.

30). Bruzelius argues that the piers would have supported pointed arches, matching the entrances to the main apse and the lateral chapels (Fig. 31).181

180 Bella, “Bâtir Face à la Mer,” 32-33; di Stefano, Monumenti della Sicilia Normanna, 8.

181 Caroline Bruzelius, “The Norman Cathedral of Sant’Agata in Catania,” in L’officina dello sguardo: Scritto in onore di Maria Andaloro, eds. Giulia Bordi, Iole Carlettini, Maria Luigia Fobelli, Maria Raffaella Menna, and Paola Pogliani (Rome: Gangemi Editore, 2014), 121-122.

The study of the Cathedral of Catania is significant because it provides another possible solution for the unknown nave elevations of incomplete or destroyed churches in Sicily, including the Cathedral of Cefalù. Rather than being based on the Early

Christian architectural tradition found at Montecassino, this elevation provides a connection with eleventh-century architecture in the north, including Normandy. The proposed arrangement of piers with reused columns attached is found at the church of

Saint-Benoît-du-Sault, dating to before 1040 (Fig. 32).182 Closer to home for the

Normans, a modified version of this elevation is found at the church of Notre-Dame at

Bernay (Fig. 33). Here, piers support a rounded arcade. However, instead of attaching reused columns, engaged columns were integrated into the fabric of the piers. Bruzelius points out that these might have originally been painted to imitate marble, thus following the style of attaching columns to piers.183 Since this type elevation would be studier and better able to support a tall nave, it is possible that this was the original plan for the Cathedral of Cefalù. A similar arrangement is found at the entrance to the chapels and main apse at Catania (Figs. 31 and 34). In these locations, columns are imbedded in the wall under a pointed arch. This is also found at Cefalù at the entrances

182 Bruzelius, “Cathedral of Sant’Agata,” 123; Eliane Vergnolle, Saint-Benoît-sur-Loire et las sculpture de XIe siècle (Paris: Picard, 1985), 155-157; Vergnolle, L’Art Monumentale, 349.

183 Bruzelius, “Cathedral of Sant’Agata,” 123.

85 to the south chapel and main apse (Figs. 35-37).184 Therefore, it is possible that there were more similarities to the Cathedral of Catania in original plan for the nave of the

Cathedral of Cefalù than resulted in the final, smaller-scale building.

The Cathedral of Mazara del Vallo was founded between 1086/88 and 1093. The earlier date relates to the reorganization of the diocese, as recorded by Geoffrey of

Malaterra, and the later date is a diploma of endowment issued by Roger I. This diploma was copied in another confirmation diploma of Roger II in 1144.185 It was built within the fortifications of the city, which had already been founded by Roger I in 1074.

The cathedral underwent many changes over the years, including the façade being rebuilt in 1477. However, these changes preserved the perimeter walls, making the original footprint of the cathedral possible to discern. The original plans seems to have been that of a short columned basilica, with two western towers, a narrow transept with protruding wings, and a stepped tripartite choir (Fig. 38).186

All three of these buildings seem to have been in the minds of those responsible for designing Cefalù. The plan of Cefalù is clearly based on the basilica type with a continuous transept, both features found in all three eleventh-century churches. The

184 The north chapel was extensively redecorated in the Baroque period, so it is less useful to look at this chapel for understanding the original layout.

185 di Stefano, Monumenti della Sicilia Normanna, 11; Malaterra, The Deeds of Count Roger, IV.7 (p. 183).

186 di Stefano, Monumenti della Sicilia Normanna, 12.

86 towers and oculi both recall various buildings from the era of the conquerors. I will discuss the towers, which have strong political implications in their use at Cefalù, in greater detail in Chapter Three. It is reasonable to posit that the designers and builders of the Cathedral of Cefalù would have been familiar with the eleventh-century cathedrals, particularly those in Sicily. Roger most certainly would have known the eleventh-century buildings, especially Salerno and Catania, both cities in which he is known to have spent time earlier in his life. While the individuals making decisions at

Cefalù might have been recalling the earlier buildings on the island, the actual masons doing the construction were most likely from a diverse background, reflecting the population of Sicily at this time.

The Rogerian Parts of the Cathedral

Before moving on to the question of who might have been responsible for the physical labor of building the cathedral, it will prove useful to outline the parts of the structure which can reasonably be assigned to Roger’s reign. I will briefly discuss the nave and aisles, to summarize the twelfth-century chronology with which I agree.

However, the most important parts to discuss for the purposes of this dissertation are the towers and the east end, including both the transept and the tripartite apse. The following two chapters focus on these two elements of the design. Therefore, this

87 discussion will support that the west and east ends can be assigned to the patronage of

Roger II. This patronage is central to my argument that these two ends were instrumental in portraying various images of Roger’s power and legitimacy.

Proponents of the twelfth-century dating argued that the perimeter of the cathedral was built first, starting with the south aisle wall.187 This idea appears to be supported by visual evidence. First of all, the south aisle has crenellations along the roofline (Fig. 27). This is not found on the north aisle, nor on the transept and apses

(Figs. 11 and 39). Secondly, while the size and shapes of the windows on each aisle are similar in size and shape, the articulation around them is different. The south aisle windows have a continuous stringcourse molding creating a rounded arch frame above the windows. The exterior of the north aisle has pilasters articulating the flat wall. These pilasters connect to slightly pointed framing arches. Around these framing arches is a molding which also comes to a slight point.

Both aisles appear to be built using similar masonry techniques, in contrast to the more finely dressed stones of the nave clerestory. This is most obvious on the south aisle, where the small, irregularly cut stones are still visible on the walls, with finely carved, larger stones framing the windows. The north aisle wall has been covered by a

187 di Stefano, Il Duomo di Cefalù, 51-60.

88 layer of plaster, hiding most of the masonry. However, some of it is visible directly below the windows, particularly below the two eastern-most windows.188

The uniformity of masonry between the south and north aisle, as well as the masonry on the lower levels of the towers which was mentioned earlier (Fig. 10), suggests that these were built around the same time. However, the differences between the aisles, including the crenellations on the south aisle, the articulation of the wall around the windows, and the transition from rounded to pointed arch provides clues as to which was built first. It appears that the south aisle was built first, followed by the north aisle. Furthermore, the lower parts of the towers appear to have been built around the same time as the aisles.

The two side apses are stylistically connected to the north aisle. The articulation of the outer walls of these two apses appear to have once been identical.189 The original design included a corbel table below the roof line and lombard bands (Fig. 40).190 Below the corbel table is a blind arcade of three pointed arches. Within two of these arches are

188 Much of the masonry on the transept and the north wall is covered with plaster. This observation is based the exposed masonry on the relevant portions of the building.

189 The wall on the north appears to have been altered in later centuries. The wall of the south chapel does appear to have been restored, but not change as the north one. There was an oculi cut into the north chapel.

190 I have not used this term when describing pilaster previously, since they are not connected to a corbel table. These two forms together are typical features of Romanesque architecture. See C. Edson Armi, “The Corbel Table,” Gesta 39, no. 2: 89-116.

89 slender windows. These windows are framed in a way similar to those on the north aisle. The north apse still includes some of these elements, but the windows have been filled in and an oculus was cut into the arcade above the older windows (Fig. 41). The curved walls of the small apses are very similar, each consisting of a corbel table and syncopated arches resting on slender double colonnettes (Fig. 42). Much of the masonry on these two apses have been covered by plaster, as on the north aisle, but the larger stones framing the structure are still visible. Since the articulation of the walls of the side apses are similar to that on the north aisle, it is possible the masonry technique used here was the same as that found on the aisle walls. Furthermore, this uniformity between the side apses and the north wall provides more support for the perimeter walls being built first.

The transept, main apse, and choir appear to have been the next campaign. The crossing shows evidence for a taller nave originally being planned. A triumphal arch is exposed above the nave roof, suggesting that the nave was built after the transept had been completed (Fig. 11). This shows that there was a break in construction and reduction in the height of the nave. It is highly unlikely that the original plan would have included the sculptural molding of the triumphal arch being above the roof.

Therefore, the transept and entire east end would predate the completion of the upper levels of the nave.

There are also some unifying features on the transept and choir. First of all, there is a syncopated blind arcade, the arches of which are decorated with chevrons, running around the transepts and choir (Figs. 43-46). Secondly, the lancet windows on the three walls of the transept and the choir are articulated by a stringcourse molding that comes to a subtle point.191 Finally, there is a pilaster between each window, running down from the roofline. This articulation and the syncopated arches around the top suggests that the transept and choir were planned and executed together.

The date provided in the apse mosaics helps limit the construction of the sanctuary, including the choir and the main apse, to Roger’s reign. At least the mosaics in the apse, including the images of the Pantokrator and the registers below Him, were completed by 1148, the date provided below the lowest register. That would mean that the apse itself was built prior to 1148. In his soon-to-be published article on the mosaics at Cefalù, Beat Brenk argues that the entire program was complete by 1148. He states that the mosaics would have constructed scaffolding to work on the uppermost images in the vaults. They then would have lowered the scaffold, completing the rest of the program.192 Additionally, Brenk reminds the reader that Maria Andaloro found similarities in the tesserae from both the choir and apse – both included pieces that had

191 When I say three sides, I am referring to the west, north and east walls of the north arm, and the west, south and east walls of the south arm.

192 See Brenk, “The Mosaics of Cefalù Revisited,” 20.

91 been painted red.193 I will return to the specifics of this mosaic program in Chapter 4. If all of the mosaics were completed at the same time, and finished by 1148, that would mean the construction on the entire choir was complete well before.

Further supporting the argument that the apse was completed prior to 1148, and therefore securely during Roger’s reign, are the three oculi found on the apse. After being built with the oculi as windows, they were filled in, most likely to create more continuous wall space on the inside for the mosaic program. Therefore, the majority of the apse had to have been constructed before the plan to put in mosaics had been considered. All three parts – the transept, choir and apse – reach the same height, suggesting they were built together. Furthermore, similar features can be found in the three parts, such as the stringcourse moldings around the windows, the syncopated arches at the top level, and the oculi are found at the first level of the transept arms and the main apse. Based on the date provided in the apse mosaic, and the idea that the entire mosaic program completed by 1148, it is reasonable to hypothesize that the upper parts of the east end, the transept, choir and apse, were built begun in late 1130s and

193 Andoloro, “I mosaici di Cefalù dopo il restauro,” 107-108; Brenk, “The Mosaics of Cefalù Revisited,” 32.

92 finished by the early 40s.194 This would allow the mosaicists enough time to complete the 630 meters square area covered in mosaics.195

The wall passage found in the west wall and that in the wings of the transept suggests that these two parts were planned at the same time, and most likely built in the same campaign (Figs. 13 and 29). As discussed previously, the transept was likely part of the earlier building campaigns of the twelfth century. Based on the argument that the transept was completed in the twelfth century, the passage along the top of the transept wings would have been part of the original plan for the building. A continuous passage along the upper level of the building might have originally been planned, and this would suggest that the passage in the western wall was conceived at the same time as the transept. The possibility of a continuous passage throughout the entire building brings to mind Saint-Étienne in Caen (Fig. 15). As was mentioned earlier, this church has a continuous wall passage in the nave and transept which might have continued in the chevet. The exposed triumphal arch supports the idea that the nave would have been much taller, which would have provided space for the passage to continue down the length of the nave.196

194 Similar ideas were suggested by Guido di Stefano, Wolfgang Krönig, and Pierre Héliot. See di Stefano, Il Duomo di Cefalù, 51-60; Heliot, “La cathédrale de Cefalù,” 32-35; Krönig, Cefalù, 6-16.

195 This measurement is provided by Beat Brenk in his soon-to-be published article. See Brenk, “The Mosaics of Cefalù Revisited,” 13 and 20.

196 Pierre Heliot, “La cathédrale de Cefalù (2e partie),” 22-23.

The interior is now a traditional basilica nave with an arcade resting on columns, similar to churches in South Italy, such as Montecassino, the Cathedral of Salerno, and

Sant’Angelo in Formis (Figs. 2, 18, and 47). Cefalù has a pointed arcade, clerestory, and open timber roof (Fig. 2). As already mentioned, the nave does not reach the same height as the transept. This fact means the nave was built after the transept. Also, the triumphal arch rising above the nave roof suggests that originally the nave was meant to be much taller. I have already mentioned two possible original plans for the nave.

The reduction in scale might be evidence of a final building campaign that was rushed.

It could also be that the masons were unable to find classical columns of the appropriate height, resulting in a lower nave height than planned. Regardless, it is clear from the visual evidence that there was a change in plan after the monumental east end was completed. But this does not necessarily mean that the nave does not date to the mid- twelfth century. The nave could have been built during the reign of Roger II, with the reduction in scale a factor of available materials or the need for complete the cathedral quickly.

Based on the observations and known dates related to the building, the outer walls, eastern end (including the transept, apse and chapels, and choir), and the majority of the towers seem to date to the era of Roger II. The lower parts of the towers and the south aisle were the first to be built, followed by the transept, east end, and north aisle. The exact sequence in which the transept, east end, and north aisle were

94 built does not concern me for this project, though it does seem the transept and upper parts of the east end were built after the north aisle. Being able to place the west and east ends in Roger’s reign is useful for the remaining two chapters. These chapters will address features of the east and west in order to understand the choices that were made in the design of the cathedral, and how those decisions relate to the image Roger wanted to impart as a newly crowned king.

Masonry of Cefalù

Now I will turn to the masonry of the Cathedral, focusing on the west façade, and the question of who the masons might have been. As Émile Bertaux pointed out a hundred years ago, the situation in Sicily was different from that in other Norman conquered territories. In the Holy Land, the Normans brought masons from France, and these builders designed structures similar to those in Northern Europe. In Sicily and

South Italy, on the other hand, the Normans used local masons.197 While there might be elements similar to buildings in the North, it is likely that they were built by a team of masons from various cultural backgrounds. There are no documents regarding the masons responsible for the construction of the Rogerian parts of the cathedral, so it is

197 Émile Bertaux, L’art dans l’Italie Méridionale de la fin de l’Empire Romain à la Conquête de Charles d’Anjou (Rome: École Française de Rome, 1968), 343. This is a second printing of the original volume published in 1903.

95 necessary to look at the type of stone and masonry techniques, and the context of masonry in Sicily at the time of Roger. To discuss some of these elements requires going further afield to better understand the origins of some of the techniques and styles of masonry found in Sicily.

The Cathedral of Cefalù is constructed of two different types of stone – a yellowish Sicilian tufa and a harder limestone.198 These both are cut into large ashlar blocks. Along with the courses of ashlar is rubble, composed of both brick and smaller blocks of limestone. The finely dressed ashlar blocks were used to frame openings, including the doors and windows, and on the corners of the transept and towers, as well as on the upper parts of the towers and at the clerestory level. The irregular stones are still visible on the south aisle wall and the lower part of the towers (Figs. 10 and 27).

This technique is not common in contemporary Norman Sicilian buildings, such as the

Cappella Palatina and Santa Maria dell’Ammiraglio, so in her dissertation from 1980,

Kristin Mortimer suggested that it was not executed by a local workshop.199 She also identified masons’ marks in the later and upper parts of the building, drawing the conclusion that there was a shifting and diverse workshop.200 I do not believe this means that no local masons worked on the cathedral, but that as the project became

198 Mortimer, “Cefalù Cathedral,” 75-76.

199 Ibid, 76-77.

200 Ibid, 162-162.

96 more significant for Roger, more workers arrived at the site. There was also probably a desire to complete the project quickly, resulting in an influx of workers in the later part of the 1130’s into the 1140’s. The need for expediency could also relate to the use of rubble in the ashlar construction.

Since Cefalù was the first commission by Roger as king, there might have been a desire to complete the project as fast as possible. As discussed earlier in this chapter,

Cefalù occupied an important strategic location on the north coast of Sicily. This new royal cathedral would have made a strong statement of Roger’s power, visible to passing ships in the Mediterranean. Also, from the early 1140’s, the cathedral was meant to serve as Roger’s royal sepulchre, possibly also adding to the urgency of completing this important project as quickly as possible. Finally, there would not have been a dearth of workers in Sicily able to work on various aspects of the cathedral, including the most manual and labor-intensive jobs related to construction. At this point in time, the Normans had been living in Sicily and South Italy for at least two generations. There likely was a very skilled Muslim workforce who, due to the acceptance of Muslims by Roger’s administration, were still living on the island. To establish the precedent of Muslim masons working for the Norman court, I will examine contemporaneous buildings in Palermo, focusing on the church of Santa Maria dell’Ammiraglio, also known as La Martorana.

La Martorana was founded by George of Antioch, the principal minister of Roger

II.201 He was an Orthodox Greek born in Syria, and had been in the service of the Zirid princes of al-Mahdiah (present day Tunisia).202 The original layout of this church is a typical Middle Byzantine cross in square. The interior is decorated with Byzantine mosaics, following the established organization of Byzantine churches, as well as panels depicting both George kneeling before the Virgin Mary and Roger II being crowned by

Christ. However, the focus for my purposes here is the single bell tower. The tower has four stories separated by a continuous horizontal stringcourse (Fig. 48). The ground floor includes a frieze of polychrome inlay at the top, and each side has a single lancet opening. The next level has three openings, on the three exposed sides. Each opening is divided by a slender colonnettes, and these openings are framed by godroons, polychrome inlay, and moldings. Godroons are also known as cushion voussoirs, and are made of rows of deeply beveled stones arranged radially around an arch.203 It is the godroons that provide a link to architectural decoration and masons of the Eastern

Mediterranean, and they are seen on the next two levels of the tower as well. The third

201 Kitzinger, The Mosaics of St. Mary’s of the Admiral in Palermo, 15.

202 See Chapter 1, pages 52-54, especially note 118, for George of Antioch’s origins.

203 In scholarship, the spelling for godroons varies. Depending on the time and place of publication, they are called gadroons, godroons, and goudroons, as well as cushion arches at times. For consistency between the three different spellings of the term, I will use godroons. See T. S. R. Boase, “Ecclesiastical Art in the Crusader States in Palestine and Syria,” in The Art and Architecture of the Crusader States, vol. 4, ed. Harry W. Hazard (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1977), 81.

98 story would have extended above the exonarthex to which the tower was attached, so there is an opening on each side. All four of these are framed by godroons. The top level has a similar decorative program to one just below, however the cushion voussoirs alternate with flat voussoirs.204 Godroons are a unique architectural element, found in

Fātimid Egypt as early as the eleventh century and in twelfth-century Jerusalem. To show the relevance of the godroon within the context of the Cathedral of Cefalù, it will be useful to examine the origins of this form, and the uses both in the Islamic world and the Latin Christian Crusader lands.

The earliest known example of godroons is found at the Bāb al-Futūh Gate in

Cairo (Fig. 49). This gate is composed of two great towers flanking a great archway leading to a passageway covered by a dome of stone voussoirs. Set back between the towers is a splayed semicircular arch made of godroons.205 Inscriptions on the gateway indicate that it was begun in April/May 1087.206 The Bāb al-Futūh Gate was part of a building campaign including new fortifications for Cairo under the Emīr al-Guyūsh, an

204 For a description of the architecture of La Martorana, including the tower, see Slobodan Ćurčić, “The Architecture,” in The Mosaics of St. Mary’s of the Admiral in Palermo, ed. Ernst Kitzinger (Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1991), 40-56.

205 See K.A.C. Creswell, The Muslim Architecture of Egypt, Volume 1 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952), 176- 178.

206 In the inscription, the hegira date is provided as Muharram 480, which corresponds to April/May 1087. See Creswell, Muslim Architecture of Egypt, 164.

Armenian Mamluk named Badr al-Gamālī who had risen to a high office during the

Syrian wars of the tenth century.207

During the next three centuries, godroons were used at multiple foundations in the Fātimid Caliphate. Notable examples include the main entrance to the mosque of

Baybars, the minaret of Sultan Qalā’ūn’s mausoleum, and the minaret of the Madrasa of

Salār and Sanjar. These were all built when Syrian influence in Egypt was strong.208 This influence could have come with Badr al-Gamālī, or it could have been a result of the

Seljuk Turk expansion in Syria. In 1086, the year prior to the inscription on the gate,

Urfa (Edessa) had been taken by the Seljuk Turks.209 According to al-Maqrizi, an

Egyptian historian who lived about 300 years after the gate was built, Christian architects from Urfa were responsible for its construction.210 If this is true, and it must be taken with a grain of salt since the record postdates the construction of the date by 300 years, it could be due to the tolerance of Christians under the Fātimids as opposed to the Seljuks. Whether the Bāb al-Futūh Gate was built by Christians from Syria or Syrian masons associated with the troops who arrived with Badr al-Gamālī is not important

207 Ibid, 161.

208 Ibid, 213.

209 Ibid, 163.

210 Ibid, 162.

100 for showing that godroons originated in Fātimid Egypt and can be associated with architecture of the Islamic world.

The next use of godroons that is significant for this study is in twelfth-century

Jerusalem during the Latin rule, where they can be found on the south portal of the

Church of the Holy Sepulchre (Fig. 50). This was established as the main entrance after the eleventh-century rebuilding of the complex.211 In 1009, the Fātimid ruler of Egypt and Palestine, al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, ordered the Holy Sepulchre to be destroyed.212

All of the church furnishings were seized, and the interior, including the roof, columns and piers, were brought down. However, the parts that were more difficult to destroy, including the outer wall of the Anastasis Rotunda up to the gallery level, survived.213

After al-Hakim’s death in 1021, the Byzantine Emperor Romanus III negotiated a peace treaty with the son of al-Hakim, Daher. This treaty allowed for the rebuilding of the

211 Robert Ousterhout, “Architecture as Relic and the Construction of Sanctity: The Stones of the Holy Sepulchre,” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 62, no. 1 (March 2003): 7.

212 In the latter half of the tenth century, the complex had suffered a few damages and repairs, including the timber roof of the Anastasis Rotunda and Basilica burning and being replaced. However, most of the complex remained essentially the way it had been built in the fourth century by Constantine the Great. See Martin Biddle, The Church of the Holy Sepulchre (New York: Rizzoli in cooperation with Israel Antiquities Authority, 2000), 43; Robert Ousterhout, “Rebuilding the Temple: Constantine Monomachus and the Holy Sepulchre,” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 48, no. 1 (March 1989): 69. For the destruction of 1009, see Ousterhout, “Rebuilding the Temple,” 68-69; Ousterhout, “Architecture as Relic,” 7.

213 Biddle, The Church of the Holy Sepulchre 44; Ousterhout, “Rebuilding the Temple,” 69.

101

Holy Sepulchre complex at the expense of the Byzantine emperor.214 The end result of this reconstruction was a courtyard with chapels on the east side and the Anastasis

Rotunda (Fig. 51a).215 The courtyard became a focal point, including chapels marking events from the Passion of Christ. It is at this point that the south portal became the main entrance.

After the conquest of Jerusalem by Crusaders in 1099, the Holy Sepulchre was altered to include architectural elements recalling Romanesque pilgrimage architecture in Western Europe (Fig. 51b). While the eleventh century Rotunda remained unaltered, a domed transept and pilgrimage choir, including an ambulatory and three radiating chapel, replaced the eleventh-century courtyard and chapels. The Byzantine south portal was also replaced by a monumental façade (Fig. 50).216 Most of this building

214 Nurith Kenaan, “Local Christian Art in Twelfth Century Jerusalem,” Israel Exploration Journal 23, no. 3 (1973): 174; Ousterhout, “Rebuilding the Temple,” 70; Ousterhout, “Architecture as Relic,” 7.

215 The five-aisled basilica and atrium preceding it, both original elements of the Constantinian complex, were not rebuilt. The walls of the Rotunda had mostly been spared in the destruction, so the reconstructed Rotunda adhered to the fourth-century design. For the Byzantine rebuilding, see Ousterhout, “Rebuilding the Temple,” 70; Ousterhout, “Architecture as Relic,” 7-9.

216 For the Crusader rebuilding, see Jaroslav Folda, The Art of the Crusaders in the Holy Land, 1098-1187 (New York and Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1995),177-229; Ousterhout, “Architecture as Relic,” 9-18; Myriam Rosen-Ayalon, “The Façade of the Holy Sepulchre,” Rivista degli studi orientali 59, no. 1 (1985): 289.

102 activity happened before the new choir was dedicated on July 15, 1149 (the 50th anniversary of the capture of Jerusalem by the First Crusade).217

The south façade of the Holy Sepulchre is divided into two stories and decorated with architectural sculpture that is both spolia and newly carved. The lower storey includes a double arch portal. Each doorway is topped with a pointed arch, and neither tympanum includes extant decoration. Both tympana are framed by two friezes. The inner is made of godroons and the outer of rosettes. The upper story has double windows and repeats the design found below.218 The façade is further enlivened by two cornices, which seem to be a combination of spolia and reworking by the crusaders.219

The most important part of this sculptural program for my discussion are the godroons. As discussed earlier, this form originated in Fātimid architecture in Egypt.220

217 Folda, Art of the Crusaders, 178-179; Ousterhout, “Architecture as Relic,” 9; Rosen-Ayalon, “Façade of the Holy Sepulchre,” 289.

218 Jaroslav Folda, “The South Transept Façade of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem: An Aspect of ‘Rebuilding Zion’,” in The Crusades and their Sources: Essays Presented to Bernard Hamilton, ed. John France and William G. Zajac (Aldershot, Great Britain: Ashgate, 1998), 239-257; Nurith Kenaan, “Local Christian Art in Twelfth Century Jerusalem,” Israel Exploration Journal 23, no. 4 (1973): 221.

219 Charles Couasnon and Jaroslav Folda both argued that the upper cornice dates to the second century CE, while the lower one is a crusader imitation. Nurith Kenaan believes both cornices to be works by crusader sculptors. Robert Ousterhout argued that both are from the second century CE, with some crusader era recarving on the upper cornice. See Charles Couasnon, The Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem (London: Oxford University Press for the British Academy, 1974), 60; Folda, “South Transept Façade,” 243; Kenaan, “Local Christian Art,” no. 4, 225; Ousterhout, “Architecture as Relic,” 18. The jamb columns on the first storey are also spolia. See Ousterhout, “Architecture as Relic,” 18.

220 Robert Ousterhout also mentions the godroons being a local Islamic form, though he calls them gadroons. See Ousterhout, “Architecture as Relic,” 18.

103

It is not found in European architecture, with which the crusaders would have been familiar. If the south façade was constructed by masons who came with the Latin

Christians, the likelihood of using godroons and other elements associated with the

Syria-Palestine region is low. The rosette frieze around the godroons is a motif that appears on fifth and sixth century Syria-Palestinian monuments.221 This decorative program is not spolia, but was carved to fit the arches around the portals. The rosette friezes follow the curve of the arches, and the stone blocks of the frieze are of equal size and quality to those on the surrounding wall.222 Therefore, some of the masons had to be familiar with local decorative traditions, rather than being sculptors arriving with the crusaders from Western Europe.

Godroons are also found on the west façade of a slightly later church in Palermo, the Cistercian Abbey of the Holy Trinity of the Chancellor, or La Magione (Fig. 52). The three portals are framed by pointed arch with godroons. The precise date of this abbey’s foundation is not known. The first document mentioning the abbey is the sale of a house in November 1191 to the Abbot of the Holy Trinity of the Chancellor.223 However, the abbey was founded by Matthew of Agello, a notary under William I and vice-

221 Folda, “South Transept Façade,” 244; Kenaan, “Local Christian Art,” no. 4, 223-225; Ousterhout, “Architecture as Relic,” 18; Rosen-Ayalon, “Façade of the Holy Sepulchre,” 289-296.

222 Kenaan, “Local Christian Art,” no. 4, 225.

223 di Stefano, Monumenti della Sicilia Normanna, 88; White, Latin Monasticism, 181.

104 chancellor of William II. The abbey also was a daughter house of the Holy Spirit in

Palermo, which was founded in the 1170’s. Here godroons are used around the window of the apse.224 Therefore, La Magione can most likely be dated to the end of the Norman era of Sicily. Both of these Norman foundations of the second half of the twelfth century include godroons, a masonry feature that can be traced back to Islamic architecture in

Egypt. This demonstrates the continued use of Islamic forms, and possibly masons. It is not likely that this practice would start later in the Norman period, and is more reasonable to argue that it is a continuation of customs from Roger II’s reign.

The presence of godroons on buildings of the twelfth century in Sicily suggests the presence of masons familiar with masonry styles that can be traced back to Fātimid

Egypt, just as had been done with the muqarnas ceiling of the Cappella Palatina. This ceiling was made by Fātimid artists, and was included in the nave of the Cappella

Palatina.225 Since the masonry at Cefalù is mostly covered with plaster, it is difficult to fully study the techniques in order to discern the origin of the masons. Looking at

Islamic masonry techniques used in Christian kingdoms, including Sicily, helps in illustrating the use of these forms and probably Muslim masons by Christian rulers,

224 According to Cistercian tradition, work on the Holy Spirit began on the same day as a solar eclipse. There was a total eclipse on September 13, 1178 over Palermo. See White, Latin Monasticism, 168.

225 Ernst Grube, “The Painted Ceilings of the Cappella Palatina in Palermo and their Relation to the Artistic Traditions of the Muslim World and the Middle Ages,” in The Painted Ceilings of the Cappella Palatina, ed. Ernst Grube and Jeremy Johns (Genova and New York: Bruschettini Foundation for Islamic Art, 2005), 23-25; Tronzo, The Cultures of His Kingdom, 61-62. I will discuss this feature in greater detail in the following chapter.

105 such as Roger II. I traced the godroons back to the gate in Cairo to establish the form was originally used in Fātimid architecture of Egypt. The Fātimids controlled Sicily for a time before the Normans, so just as the ceiling of the Cappella Palatina can be traced back to muqarnas in Fātimid Egypt, so can the masonry on the tower of Santa Maria dell’Ammiraglio and on the later Cistercian abbey churches. This supports the idea that the masons being employed by Roger’s court were from various cultures, including

Muslim, and would have been familiar with different techniques and styles. One of the defining characteristics of Roger II’s reign is the multicultural environment of his kingdom, especially Sicily. This, combined with the continued practice of Islamic masonry techniques in Sicily, suggests that the masons building the Cathedral of Cefalù were a diverse group of workers and reflected the population of Sicily at this time.

Further support for this can be seen in the syncopated arches on the façade and around the top of the transept and choir at the Cathedral of Cefalù (Figs. 9 and 43-46).

This element is not found on the contemporaneous buildings in Sicily, nor on the cathedrals of the previous generation. However, similar arches are found in Islamic architecture in al-Andalus, such as the Mosque of Bāb Mardūm in Toledo, from 999-

1000 (Fig. 53).226 On this private mosque, the syncopated, or interlaced arches as they are

226 For the Mosque of Bāb Mardūm, see S. Calvo Capilla, “The Mosque of Bab-el-Mardum and the process of consecration of the small mosques in Toledo,” Al-Qantara 20, 2 (1999): 299-330; Richard Ettinghausen and Oleg Grabar, The Art and Architecture of Islam 650-1250 (London: Penguin Group, 1991), 134-135; Robert Hillenbrand, Islamic Art and Architecture (London: Thames and Hudson Ltd., 2010), 181; Geoffrey

106 called by Robert Hillenbrand, are located above the main entrance. Even though the interlaced arches at Cefalù have decorative relief sculptures on their surfaces, the basic form is similar to the decorative arches on the Islamic architecture of al-Andalus.227

Muslims from the Western Mediterranean did migrate to Sicily, and they might have brought these forms with them, and some might have ended up in Cefalù, working on the new cathedral.

Conclusion

Early in Roger’s reign, Cefalù was already an important town with a significant strategic location on the north coast of Sicily. It was identified as an important port city, included in George of Antioch’s reorganization of the Norman navy, and the fortifications were rebuilt. The royal cathedral added to the prestige of this city, and was a noticeable symbol of royal patronage and presence. Today the cathedral remains an imposing structure, with massive towers and a monumental east end. These parts seem to have been part of the original plan under Roger II, and would have appeared similar to twelfth-century viewers. The entire nave was most likely meant to be as tall as the transept, creating a more monumental building, presenting an even more powerful

King, “The Mosque of Bāb Mardūm in Toledo and the influences acting upon it,” AARP: Art and Archaeology Research Papers, 2 (1972): 29-40.

227 Heliot, “La cathédrale de Cefalù,” 24;

107 image of royal authority. The church was most likely built by masons from diverse backgrounds. However, the plan seems to recall significant buildings found in Norman buildings of previous generations, both in the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies and in

Normandy. In the next chapter I will discuss the twin tower façade of Cefalù in greater detail to better understand its use here, and the meaning behind the design of the

Cathedral of Cefalù.

Figure 6 - Ancient temple, known as the Temple of Diana, 5th-4th century BCE. Photo: author.

108

Figure 7 - The Rocca, showing the ring of crenellations around the first level, a tower to the right, and one tower of the Cathedral. Photo: author.

Contact author or program for image

Figure 8 - Plan of the town of Cefalù, indicating the walls around the Rocca and the town. From Thieme and Beck.

109

Figure 9 - Cathedral of Cefalù. Façade. Photo: author.

Figure 10 - Cathedral of Cefalù. Details of the lower sections of the west towers. North tower on the left, south tower on the right. Photos: author.

110

Figure 11 - Cathedral of Cefalù. View of the exterior showing the triumphal arch rising above the roof. Photo: author.

Contact author or program for image

Figure 12 - Plan of Cluny II, as in 1050. Plan: Kenneth John Conant.

111

Figure 13 - Cathedral of Cefalù. Passage in south transept arm. Photo: author.

Figure 14 - Cathedral of Trani. Interior showing the north gallery and the walkway along the west wall. Begun 1098. Photo: author.

112

Contact author or program for image

Figure 15 - Saint-Étienne in Caen. Interior, begun c. 1068. Photo: Mapping Gothic France.

Contact author or program for image

Figure 16 - Reconstruction drawing of Montecassino, as in 1075. Drawing: Kenneth John Conant.

113

Figure 17 - Cathedral of Salerno, begun 1077. Courtyard, including bell tower. Photo: author.

Figure 18 - Cathedral of Salerno, begun 1077. Medieval nave arcade and columns within the fabric of the Baroque church. Photo: author.

114

Figure 19 - Cathedral of Salerno, begun 1077. East wall of the transept showing the oculi. There are oculi on the west wall as well. Photo: author.

Contact author or program for image

Figure 20 - Santa Maria della Libera in Aquino, late-eleventh/early-twelfth century. Photo: Giovanni Carbonara.

115

Figure 21 - Cathedral of Cefalù. Main apse. Photo: author.

Figure 22 - Cathedral of Cefalù. Oculi on south transept arm. Photo: author.

116

Figure 23 - Cathedral of Cefalù. Oculi on north transept arm. Photo: author.

Contact author or program for image

Figure 24 - Plan of the Cathedral of Catania, as completed before the earthquake. Plan: Wolfgang Krönig.

117

Figure 25 - Cathedral of Catania, late-eleventh century. South chapel and main apse, with crenellated walkway running along the top, and lancet window and oculus on main apse. Photo: author.

Figure 26 - Cathedral of Catania, late-eleventh century. North chapel and crenellated walkway. Photo: author.

118

Figure 27 - Cathedral of Cefalù. Exterior of the south aisle and nave. Photo: author.

Contact author or program for image

Figure 28 - Cathedral of Catania. Interior, west wall. This shows the late-eleventh-century doorways and slit windows. Photo: Tancredi Bella

119

Figure 29 - Cathedral of Cefalù. Passage on west wall. Photo: author.

Figure 30 - Cathedral of Catania. Excavations under the Baroque floor, showing the column and pier arrangement of the late-eleventh-century nave. Photo: author.

120

Figure 31 - Cathedral of Catania, late-eleventh century. Interior, view of north chapel. Photo: author.

Contact author or program for image

Figure 32 - Saint-Benoît-du-Sault, before 1040. Interior. Photo: Wikimedia Commons

121

Contact author or program for image

Figure 33 - Bernay, Notre-Dame, 1017-c. 1055. Interior, nave. Photo: Mapping Gothic France.

Figure 34 - Cathedral of Catania, late-eleventh century. Main apse. Photo: author.

122

Figure 35 - Cathedral of Cefalù. Main apse. Photo: author.

Figure 36 - Cathedral of Cefalù. South chapel. Photo: author.

123

Figure 37 - Cathedral of Cefalù. Arch leading from nave to transept. Photos: author.

Contact author or program for image

Figure 38 - Plan of the Cathedral of Mazara del Vallo, late-eleventh century. Plan: Heinrich Schwartz.

124

Figure 39 - Cathedral of Cefalù. Exterior of north aisle and nave. Photo: author.

Figure 40 - Cathedral of Cefalù. Exterior of south apse wall. Photo: author.

125

Figure 41 - Cathedral of Cefalù. Exterior of north apse wall. Photo: author.

Figure 42 - South apse, Cathedral of Cefalù. Photo: author.

126

Figure 43 - Cathedral of Cefalù. South transept from the southwest. Photo: author.

Figure 44 - Cathedral of Cefalù. South transept and south wall of choir. Photo: author

127

Figure 45 - Cathedral of Cefalù. Exterior of the north transept from the northwest. Photo: author.

Figure 46 - Cathedral of Cefalù. Exterior of choir and north transept. Photo: author.

128

Figure 47 - Sant’Angelo in Formis, founded 1058. Interior view towards apse. Photo: author.

Figure 48 - Santa Maria dell'Ammiraglio (Martorana), Palermo, 1143-1151. Bell tower. Photo: author.

129

Contact author or program for image

Figure 49 - Bāb al-Futūh Gate, Cairo, begun 1087. Photo: Wikimedia Commons

Contact author or program for image

Figure 50 - Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem. South portal, completed by 1149. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.

130

Contact author or program for image

a) b)

Figure 51 - Plan of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem. a) Eleventh-century Byzantine rebuilding. Plan: Jelena Bogdanovic. b) 12th century crusader reconstruction. Plan: Columbia University.

Contact author or program for image

Figure 52 - La Magione, Palermo, late-twelfth century. Façade. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.

131

Figure 53 - Mosque of Bab Mardum, Toledo, c. 1000. Photo: author.

132

Chapter Three

The Twin-Tower Façade of the Cathedral of Cefalù and

its Political Implications

Having discussed the history of Norman Sicily, the architectural plan and dating of the Cathedral of Cefalù, the context within late-eleventh century Norman architecture in both northern and southern Europe, and the possible masons, I will now turn to twin-tower façade. In discussing the tradition of this type of façade in Europe, I will return to the religious architecture of the eleventh century in Normandy, Sicily and

South Italy, focusing on the presence or absence of this type of façade on the eleventh- century churches in order to explain how this feature traditionally associated with the

Duchy of Normandy ended up in Sicily. I will also examine the integration of Islamic artists and artistic practices in the Norman court. The use of Islamic artists and imagery is useful to explore in order to establish that the visual language of Roger’s kingdom was rooted in multiple traditions. This will also support my argument that the towers not only convey an image of power rooted in the European Christian tradition, but also can be connected with symbols of power in Islam.

133

The Towers of Cefalù

From the sea, the towers of the cathedral stand out prominently above the cityscape, and add to the fortified appearance of Cefalù (Fig. 1). Even today, the towers are the most prominent feature of the skyline, alongside the imposing Rocca with the ruins of the Muslim and Norman fortifications. As discussed in the previous chapter, it has been suggested that the cathedral was originally incorporated into the walls of the city.228 The history of cathedrals being part of the fortifications in Norman Sicily is apparent in the two main cathedrals from Roger I’s era – the Cathedral of Catania and the Cathedral of Mazara del Vallo. At Catania, a walkway enclosed by crenellations runs along the top of the three apses, and continues to the lower structures extending from the transept arms (Fig. 26).229 Incorporating churches into defensive walls was not uncommon in the medieval world. It is seen in the cities of the Crusader states in the

Eastern Mediterranean, such as at Krak des Chevaliers where the chapel was built into the fortifying wall (Fig. 54).230 This phenomenon is also found in Europe, such as in

228 Thieme and Beck, La cattedrale normanna di Cefalù, 18-20. See Chapter Two, pages 64-65 for Ibn Jubayr’s description and the fortifications of Cefalù.

229 These two structures are lower than the transept, and are closed off from the church. However, there are small windows near the top of the north and south walls of the north and south transept, looking into the church. See Bella, “Bâtir Face à la Mer,” 29-32.

230 Thieme and Beck, La cattedrale normanna di Cefalù, 18-20; T. S. R. Boase, “Military Architecture in Crusader States in Palestine and Syria,” in The Art and Architecture of the Crusader States, vol. 4, ed. Harry W. Hazard, (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1977), 140-164.

134

Ávila in the Kingdom of Leon and Castille, and Lomello in northern Italy. The

Romanesque cathedral of Ávila was located next to the city walls, and possibly was intended as part of the defenses of the city. Now, the Gothic cathedral is enclosed within a projecting part of the fortification wall (Fig. 55). Conant noted that the Gothic building seemed to have inherited the structural lines of the Romanesque church, suggesting that the original plan of the cathedral placed it nestled inside the curves of the turrets of the walls.231 The church of Santa Maria at Lomello was also part of the city walls. In this case, the façade was connected to the city walls.232 Even though the

Cathedral of Cefalù was not integrated into the fortifications of the town in the same way the previous examples were, it would nevertheless have created a powerful, militaristic impression through the strong, blocky towers of the west end. The crenellations on the south aisle wall, part of the cathedral that was constructed first, also add to its fortified appearance. It is possible that the crenellations were originally intended to be used on other parts of the cathedral, such as the north aisle wall and possibly even the east end, as at Catania (Fig. 26).

Originally the towers at Cefalù would have projected forward from the façade, flanking the approach to the single entrance (Fig. 9). The vaulted porch between them

231 Conant, Carolingian and Romanesque Architecture, 320.

232 See Fernie, Romanesque Architecture), 50, 105 and 213.

135 was added in the fifteenth century, and it is unknown whether there was a porch in the earlier phases of the cathedral.233 The lower zones of the exterior walls of the towers are built of large, regularly cut limestone blocks framing smaller irregular stones. These huge limestone blocks impose a monumental impression as one approaches the entrance. The pyramidal structures that top the towers were a later addition, so that the towers would have originally appeared blockier. These pyramidal structures add an element of decoration. Without them, the towers would have appeared unornamented, and the focus would have been on the large mass of stone construction, emphasizing the defensive appearance of the cathedral’s west façade. Another element supporting the suggestion that this was a fortified cathedral, and might even have served a defensive function, are the firing slits angled in to the direction of the harbor, placed in the lower sections of the towers. These slits, as well as the massive masonry and stark appearance, support the argument that the Cathedral of Cefalù was originally intended to be a fortress cathedral.

The towers seem to have been a deliberate choice, through which Roger’s power and connections could be displayed to viewers of various cultural backgrounds. To understand these references and messages, it is useful to look at the precedent of twin-

233 The porch is common in the architecture of South Italy, and is seen, for example, at the Abbey Church of Montecassino and Sant’Angelo in Formis. Since Montecassino has been changed and rebuilt many times over the years, the smaller church Sant’Angelo in Formis, a church directly related to Montecassino due to the patronage of Abbot Desiderius, is viewed as a model for the eleventh century appearance of the larger abbey church.

136 tower façades in Norman Sicily, as well as the form of towers outside of the newly minted kingdom.

Twin-Tower Façades in the Duchy of Normandy

The fortress-like appearance of the west façade has been routinely compared to the monumental twin tower façades of Normandy, which can be traced back to the architecture of the Carolingian empire. The best surviving example of this is the Abbey

Church of Corvey, the only Carolingian westblock still standing today (Fig. 56).234 The westblock here is dated to between 873 and 885.235 In Normandy, the abbey church of

Saint-Pierre at Jumièges is a link between the Carolingian architecture of the eighth and ninth centuries and the monumental Norman Romanesque buildings of the eleventh century (Fig. 57). Saint-Pierre was re-established as a monastery in 942, and the church was built sometime in the following decades, being completed by the end of the tenth

234 The westblock is also sometimes called a western massif or a westwork. In his recent publication on Romanesque architecture, Eric Fernie argues that westblock or western massif is a more appropriate term for this structure than westwork. This is because there seems to be a separate function for this structure in the Carolingian period and later. Fernie believes that using a more general term, such as westblock, western massif, or avant-corps is more appropriate to describe this western element of Carolingian architecture. I will be using either the term westblock or western massif. See Conant, Carolingian and Romanesque Architecture, 63-64; Fernie, Romanesque Architecture, 213. For the Abbey of Covey, see Fernie, Architecture of Norman England, 11 and 39.

235 This was part of the reconstruction of the Abbey Church following a fire in 870. See Conant, 63; Fernie, Romanesque Architecture, 37.

137 century.236 The plan of Saint-Pierre at Jumièges, except the towers, can be traced to tenth-century Burgundian architecture, particularly that of Cluny II, through William of

Volpiano (also known as William of Dijon).237 At the invitation of Duke Richard II,

William arrived in Normandy in 1001 and was made Abbot of Fécamp. The Benedictine reform spread through Normandy from this monastery.238 Based on descriptions of the late-tenth century Church of the Holy Trinity at Fécamp, it had a westblock similar to that found at Corvey.239 Similarly, the towers and western massif of Saint-Pierre belong to the Carolingian architectural tradition, and are some of the earliest known westblocks still standing.240 In addition to the two towers, the westblock also has a tribune between the towers, connecting with the nave galleries by a passage in the thickness of the walls (Fig. 58). This tribune would have opened up into the nave, providing a view towards the altar, an arrangement that can also be seen at Corvey.241

236 Eric Gustav Carlson, “Religious Architecture in Normandy 911-1000,” Gesta 5 (January 1966): 27; Fernie, Architecture of Norman England, 90-91.

237 For Saint-Pierre, see Carlson, “Religious Architecture,” 27; Conant, Carolingian and Romanesque Architecture, 442; Fernie, Romanesque Architecture, 37 and 108; .

238 For the Cluniac reform in Normandy, see Conant, Carolingian and Romanesque Architecture, 443; Fernie, Architecture of Norman England, 11-14; Fernie, Romanesque Architecture, 105; Grant, Architecture and Society, 76.

239 Fernie, Romanesque Architecture, 105.

240 Ibid, 37.

241 Conant, Carolingian and Romanesque Architecture, 442; Fernie, Architecture of Norman England, 90.

138

While Jumièges is one of the earliest known surviving westblocks, there is textual evidence of a twin-tower façades on earlier Carolingian buildings. According to Abbot

Suger, the late-8th century Abbey Church of Saint-Denis included a two-tower façade.242

The connection of the Norman buildings to the Carolingian tradition is logical, considering that the region that became the Duchy of Normandy was once part of the

Carolingian kingdom.243 The Normans quickly assimilated in their new territories,

Normandy in the tenth century and England in the eleventh. Using an architectural type associated with the former imperial power in the region would have been a practical way to express visually the power of the new ruling dynasty. This twin-tower façade became a hallmark of Norman Romanesque architecture of the eleventh century, as were passages in the thickness of walls.244 The use of a twin-tower westblock continued in eleventh-century ecclesiastic architecture in Normandy, and was transported across the English Channel after William the Conqueror’s victory in 1066.

The twin towers were taken up again at Jumièges, this time at the Abbey Church of

Notre-Dame, built adjacent to the earlier church of Saint-Pierre (Fig. 59). Notre-Dame

242 Fernie, Architecture of Norman England, 91; Fernie, Romanesque Architecture, 108.

243 Fernie, Norman England, 11; Grant, Architecture and Society, 7.

244 As discussed in Chapter 2, these passages first seem to have developed as a functional feature on the transept arms. At the Abbey Churches of Bernay and Notre-Dame at Jumièges, they were found on the west wall of the south transept, and provided a connection between a spiral stair turret at the end of the transept and the space under the roof of the nave aisle. In the later part of the eleventh century, they were expanded to extend continuously around the church, as seen at Saint-Étienne in Caen. See Chapter 2, pages 76-77 and notes 164, 165, and 168.

139 was begun around 1040, and ready for consecration in 1066.245 The plan includes two blocky towers and a gallery between looking down into the nave (Fig. 60).246

The tradition of using the Carolingian twin-tower façade continued in buildings commissioned by Duke William II and his wife Matilda. They both were patrons of abbeys in the ducal capital Caen, the Abbaye-aux-Hommes, dedicated to Saint-Étienne, and the Abbaye-aux-Dames, dedicated to La Trinité, founded in atonement for their marriage, initially viewed by the church as inappropriate due to their close familial relationship.247 La Trinité was begun first, in 1059/1060, and completed by 1080 (Fig. 61).

It features a westblock of two towers. However, here the towers are not integrated with the entire structure. Eric Fernie suggests that this feature might be following the

Ottonian tradition. Being from Flanders, Matilda would have been familiar with this imperial tradition.248 Regardless of the exact reference here, whether Carolingian or

Ottonian, La Trinité remains a ducal, and later royal, foundation, exhibiting the use of two towers. Saint-Étienne in Caen, the abbey church founded by William for the men’s monastery, was begun in the 1060s, slightly later than La Trinité, and completed by

245 It was not consecrated until 1067, due to Duke William’s absence. It was consecrated after he returned victorious from England.

246 Conant, Carolingian and Romanesque Architecture, 445-447; Fernie, Romanesque Architecture, 106; Fernie, Architecture of Norman England, 94.

247 For the foundation of these abbeys, see Fernie, Romanesque Architecture, 107; Fernie, Architecture of Norman England, 98-101.

248 Fernie, Romanesque Architecture, 107.

140

1081 (Fig. 62).249 Its twin-tower façade is integrated into the entire church design, displaying a severe and fortified appearance, recalling the idea of a fortress church. The two towers rise up from the flat façade, which is divided vertically by four massive pier buttresses, adding to the massive fortified appearance.

While the towers at Caen are not projecting as at Cefalù, the façade has the same fortified presence. In French Romanesque architecture, this type of façade is unique to

Normandy.250 The norm in eleventh-century Capetian architecture was a single bell tower, whereas the masons of Normandy built not only twin-tower facades, but also constructed large crossing towers.251 The idea of a twin-towered façade would have been familiar to the Normans migrating to Southern Italy and Sicily in the eleventh century; however, the Cathedral of Cefalù is one generation removed from the

Normans who arrived as mercenaries in the south of Italy and Sicily. Therefore, the possibility that the twin-tower form was borrowed directly from Norman architecture north of the Alps is highly unlikely. However, the façade might have arrived in Sicily by way of late-eleventh-century churches in South Italy and Sicily. By the end of the

249 Conant, Carolingian and Romanesque Architecture, 449; Fernie, Romanesque Architecture, 107; Fernie, Architecture of Norman England, 101; Grant, Architecture and Society in Normandy, 52.

250 The twin towered façade became a hallmark of Gothic architecture, and was also used in pilgrimage churches. However, the fortified west façade is unique to Normandy and is my focus in this chapter since both Normandy and Sicily were ruled by different Norman families.

251 Grant, Architecture and Society in Normandy, 53-54.

141 eleventh century, the Normans had secured their control of this region, and were endowing churches on both the mainland and Sicily. In the next section, I explore the architecture of the late-eleventh century associated with the Normans in Sicily and

South Italy in order to understand how the twin-tower façade might have ended up at the Cathedral of Cefalù.

Twin Towers and the Norman Kingdom of Sicily

The architecture of the South of Italy and Sicily is a diverse as the peoples who populated the various counties and duchies. A common feature found in the South of

Italy is the single, detached bell tower, rather than two towers integrated into the building, as seen in the Duchy of Normandy. An excellent example of this is the Abbey

Church of Montecassino, which was in the Norman kingdom. In Conant’s reconstruction of the monastery, the freestanding tower is at the north east corner of the atrium (Fig. 16).252 As the headquarters of the Benedictine order, this church was a model for religious architecture throughout the Latin West, and particularly in the

Italian peninsula. The Early Christian basilica type with a single bell tower, which can be traced back to Old Saint Peter’s, is found throughout the Norman kingdom of the

Two Sicilies. Two notable examples are the Cathedral of Salerno in Campania and the

252 Conant, Carolingian and Romanesque Architecture, 362-363.

142

Cathedral of Trani in Puglia.253 Both of these cathedrals have a layout derived from the

Early Christian basilica type. At Salerno, the cathedral is approached through an atrium, not unlike Montecassino, and the tower is located on the south east side of the atrium (Fig. 17). Trani, on the other hand, has a single bell tower semi-detached from the west façade. There is access to the upper levels of the tower from the gallery of the cathedral, while at ground level it is detached allowing for uninterrupted movement around the cathedral (Fig. 63).254

The Basilica of San Nicola at Bari, with two western towers, presents a unique example in South Italy (Fig. 64). The façade includes the foundations for two, however not twin, towers. This is helpful when looking for sources for those at Cefalù. San

Nicola was under construction from 1089, when the remains of St. Nicholas were moved here, until the dedication in 1197.255 It is obvious that the towers were built at different times, and by different masons. This is apparent not only in the design of each, but also in the plan (Fig. 65). The towers on the west end do not appear to have originally been planned and integrated into the earlier phases of construction, whereas at Cefalù, they seem to be integrated into the structure. At Bari, the towers are accessed

253 Both of these cathedrals date to the eleventh century, with the Cathedral of Trani being started in 1098 and Salerno dedicated in 1084. See Conant, Carolingian and Romanesque Architecture, 348 and 364.

254 Cassano, et al, 107-110; Mola, La Cattedrale di Trani, 34-38 and 60-64.

255 Cassano, et al, 137-142; Cioffari, “Dalle origine a Bona Sforza,” 140 and 149-151; Conant, Carolingian and Romanesque Architecture, 346-367.

143 from the cathedral in unusual places, they are attached at different points on the west end, and they do not share the same measurements. The north tower projects away from the church, both to the west and north. It is also open at ground level, in a similar fashion to the tower at Trani, opening to the north flank of the church. The south tower, on the other hand, does not have a passage through the base. Although it is connected to the exterior walls of the church, it is clear that the tower was not planned at the outset. The masonry on the lower levels is larger than the corresponding masonry on the façade, and it is rusticated. These differences in plan between the two towers provide support for the fact they were not originally intended to be included in the façade, and that they were completed at different times by different masons.

While these are not the monumental twin towers of Normandy, or Cefalù, they nonetheless demonstrate that the idea of the two towered façade was present in the

Norman Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. However, in this case, the local masons and styles are key in the design and construction of each. The northern tower has a corbel table and Lombard bands, whereas the southern tower has a mostly flat surface until the base, which is rusticated. These differences resulted in Conant identifying one as having a Lombard influence, and the other somewhat Islamic.256 These styles, he suggested, especially the Lombard one, may have related to the people who had lived in Puglia

256 Conant, Carolingian and Romanesque Architecture, 347.

144 prior to the Norman Conquest.257 Just like the plan of each tower, these differing masonry techniques also support the supposition that the towers were not an integral part of the original west façade design.

The situation in eleventh-century Sicily was different from that found in

Southern Italy. In the two major cathedrals from this period, at Catania and Mazara del

Vallo, both founded in the eleventh century, the heritage of Norman twin-tower façades can be tracked. 258 These foundations can both be connected to Count Roger I. In the

1090s, Roger I issued diplomas confirming the presence of both churches. These diplomas coincide with the final conquest of Sicily by the Normans.259 The walls of

Catania and Mazara del Vallo had already been built, and construction on the churches most likely started several years before Count Roger’s consolidation of power in Sicily.

The two cathedrals were then endowed shortly after the conquest of Sicily was complete, and Roger I had become the sole ruler. Therefore, the cathedrals, along with the fortifications, would have served as a monumental presence and symbol of the

Norman occupation, and subsequent conquest, of Sicily. It is reasonable to deduce that

257 See Chapter One for the discussion of the people who lived in the regions which eventually became part of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies.

258 The abbey church, and later cathedral, of Catania was founded in 1086. The cathedral of Mazara del Vallo was founded sometime between 1086/88 and 1093. For the dates associated with the cathedral of Catania, see Bella, “Bâtir Face á la Mer,” 23-24; di Stefano, Monumenti della Sicilia Normanna, 7; Malaterra, The Deeds of Count Roger, IV.7 (p.183); and White, Latin Monasticism, 105-107. For Mazara del Vallo, see di Stefano, Monumenti della Sicilia Normanna, 11; Malaterra, The Deeds of Count Roger, IV.7 (p. 183).

259 Booms and Higgs, Sicily: Culture and Conquest, 168; Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 18.

145 the designers of the cathedrals would use architectural forms expressing the Norman presence in the newly conquered island.

As discussed in Chapter Two, the Cathedral of Mazara del Vallo was modified many times over the years, but the original footprint was preserved, making it possible to understand the original plan (Fig. 38). This seems to have included two western towers, an arrangement not common in the Italian peninsula.260 It is possible that the origin is the two-tower façades of tenth and early-eleventh century Normandy. Saint-

Pierre at Jumièges and the Holy Trinity at Fécamp had already been built. It is reasonable to assume that the Normans arriving in South Italy in the mid-eleventh century would have been familiar with these churches. These, and other Carolingian- type buildings in Normandy and surrounding areas, could have served as inspiration for the new churches in Norman Sicily.

The original arrangement at the Cathedral of Catania is easier to discern. Also, there is a direct link between the Cathedral of Catania and Normandy. The monastic church was founded by Prior Angerio from Sant’Eufemia in Calabria. This Benedictine monastery had been founded by Robert Guiscard in 1062, and was headed by the exiled

Abbot of Saint-Évroult-en-Ouche, Robert of Grandmesnil.261 Saint-Évroult-en-Ouche

260 di Stefano, Monumenti della Sicilia Normanna, 12.

261 Corrado Bozzoni, Calabria normanna: ricerche sull’architettura dei secoli undicesimo e dodicesimo (Rome: Officina Edizioni, 1974), 22; Malaterra, The Deeds of Count Roger, 2.19 (p. 95) and note 28, and note 58 on page 115; Chiara Garzya Romano, Calabre e Basilicate romanes (La Pierre-qui-vire, Yonne: Zodiaque, 1988), 132; White, Latin Monasticism, 47-48.

146 was a monastery in Normandy that had been part of the Cluniac reform brought to

Normandy by William of Volpiano.262 According to Geoffrey Malaterra, Angerio was from Saint-Évroult-en-Ouche and probably arrived with Robert of Grandmesnil.

Therefore, the monk responsible for establishing the monastery in Catania was from

Northern France, and had lived in a monastery in Normandy. 263

I have already outlined how the two-tower façade was well-established in Ducal

Normandy in the eleventh century. While the original plan of Saint-Évroult-en-Ouche is not known, it seems to have included stepped apses, another common form found in

Normandy with origins in the Benedictine Cluniac order.264 The plan of Sant’Eufemia seems to have included a three-aisle nave, transept and stepped apses, all features which can be seen in the Abbey Church of Cluny II (Fig. 12).265 Given this background, it can be deduced that Angerio might have brought to Sicily the ideas of these Norman

262 Grant, Architecture and Society, 196; White, Latin Monasticism, 47 and 107.

263 Bella, “Bâtir Face à la Mer,” 23; Malaterra, The Deeds of Count Roger, IV.7 (p. 183); White, Latin Monasticism, 105-107.

264 The stepped apses, or apse échelon, probably arrived in Normandy with William of Volpiano, and was first used at the Abbey Church of Bernay. The apse échelon is a Benedictine architectural type that can be traced to the Abbey Church of Cluny II. See Conant, Carolingian and Romanesque Architecture, 66 and 443; Fernie, Romanesque Architecture, 23, 47, 105, and 280; Vergnolle, L’Art Roman, 55-56. For the plan of Saint- Évroult-en-Ouche, see Grant, Architecture and Society, 196.

265 I say seems to because the monastery was destroyed by earthquakes in 1638 and 1783. The hypothesized plan is based on archaeological evidence and extrapolations form the fact that this was a Benedictine monastery founded by monks from Normandy. See Bozzoni, Calabria normanna, 25-26; Romano, Calabre et Basilicate romanes, 132-134.

147 architectural forms to Sicily, which were appropriate for a Benedictine monastery. It is probable that Roger I was aware of the connection between Sant’Eufemia and the monastery in Normandy, considering his brother was responsible for the foundation of

Sant’Eufemia. Geoffrey Malaterra also tells us that Count Roger I picked Angerio because he was a prudent manager of the Calabrian monastery and a religious man.266

Therefore, Roger appears to have deliberately selected an abbot, and later bishop, with origins in Northern France and strong connections to the Hauteville family in South

Italy.

The Cathedral of Catania had a single bell tower later in the Middle Ages, but it is highly likely that the masons of the eleventh-century structure intended there to be a two-tower façade. The single freestanding tower at Catania is no longer extant, but it is represented in a fresco in the sacristy of the cathedral (Fig. 66). 267 In 1693, the tower fell on the nave of the cathedral during an earthquake, destroying all but the Romanesque portal sculpture, transept, and chevet.268 Following this earthquake, the cathedral was rebuilt in the Baroque style. Evidence for a two-tower façade can be found in the extant eleventh-century structure at the west end of the Baroque cathedral. As I mentioned in

266 Malaterra, The Deeds of Count Roger, IV.7 (p. 183).

267 This fresco depicts the eruption of Mount Etna in 1669, and includes representations of major buildings in the city of Catania.

268 The portal sculpture was moved to a smaller church nearby, and survives in excellent condition. Excavations under the floor of the Baroque church have revealed the organization of the nave arcade in the cathedral.

148 the previous chapter, the first bay of each side aisle survives from the eleventh century within the fabric of the seventeenth-century cathedral. These bays were separated from the main body of the church by thick walls (two meters thick), and were only accessible through small doors, still present on the west wall of the church. These two doors, as well as small slit windows, are still visible today (Fig. 28). The windows provide light into a spiral staircase, which would have allowed access to the planned towers.269 They might also have led to a walkway along the top of the west façade.

The possibility of a two-tower façade being planned for the Cathedral of Catania, along with the towers present on the eleventh-century Cathedral of Mazara del Vallo, shows that the idea of this façade type was known to the Normans in Sicily. They did not need to rely on the architecture of South Italy to import forms such as the single bell tower but brought ideas from their homeland. For the designers of the eleventh-century cathedrals, the twin tower façade would have recalled the churches of the Duchy of

Normandy, providing a visual statement of dominance for the Count of Sicily, Roger I.

Both of these cathedrals were also founded at the end of the eleventh century. Palermo had been conquered in 1072, but the conquest of Sicily was not completed until 1091.270

The presence of the monastic church in Catania, which would shortly become the

269 Both Tancredi Bella and Guido di Stefano suggest that these features would have formed the foundations for towers that were never built. See Chapter 2, pages 82-83, note 180.

270 See Chapter 1, pages 32-34 and notes 62 and 66.

149

Cathedral, was confirmed by Roger I in 1091.271 Two years later, in 1093, Roger I issued a diploma of endowment for the Cathedral of Mazara del Vallo.272 These two dates coincide very closely to the consolidation of power in Sicily under Roger I. Norman power was established on the eastern side of the island, including Catania, much earlier than the west and southwest. Mazara del Vallo is located in the Val di Mazara, the southwest part of the island where the population was mostly Muslim.273 Therefore, both of these cathedrals can be connected to the firm establishment of Norman power in

Sicily. Once Roger I gained control over the island, he began endowing religious foundations. These buildings were located within newly constructed Norman fortifications, and would have been visually and conceptually connected to the Norman rule.

It is these eleventh-century cathedrals that most likely provided the inspiration for the design of the façade at Cefalù, especially since other features at Cefalù are also found in the earlier cathedrals. Both of the eleventh-century cathedrals had a tripartite

échelon plan, as does the Cathedral of Cefalù. The height of the transept at Mazara del

Vallo is not known, but it does seem to have had projecting wings. The Cathedral of

Catania exhibits the same steep, monumental proportions found at the Cefalù. For the

271 See Chapter 2, page 81 and note 177.

272 See Chapter 2, page 85 and note 185.

273 See Chapter 1, note 64.

150 fortified, strong style that seems to have been desired at Cefalù, the masons had a perfect example to follow at Catania. These two cathedrals both have very tall transepts with projecting arms, as well as a main apse that extends up to the roofline of the transept and choir. In addition, as discussed in the previous chapter, the nave elevation at Cefalù might have been modeled after the design at Catania.274 There are similar arrangements of columns embedded in the walls found at both Cefalù and Catania

(Figs. 31, and 34-36). Also, the south aisle of Cefalù has crenellations along the roofline, as is seen along the east end at Catania (Figs. 25-27). Finally, discussed in Chapter Two, there are oculi present on the main apse of both the Cathedral of Catania and the

Cathedral of Cefalù.

Given the numerous similarities between Catania and Cefalù, so it seems reasonable that the oculi at Cefalù could be counted among them. The placement of the oculi on the main apse is the same at Cefalù as at Catania, though there are three at the former and only one at the latter (Figs. 21 and 25). This differs from the oculi at Salerno, where they are placed high on the transept arms (Fig. 19). Catania is also a more practical reference point for the masons and designers at Cefalù. Since Catania is also in

Sicily, the masons at Cefalù might have been familiar with the specifics of the eleventh- century cathedral. There would have been no need to rely on architectural forms from

274 See Chapter 2, pages 84-85.

151 the mainland. Even though the placement of two oculi on the transepts at Cefalù is somewhat similar to their use in Salerno, Salerno should be viewed as a stepping stone in the line from Montecassino to Catania to Cefalù.

By using a façade that was similar to those of the period of Roger I, King Roger II was connecting himself to the generation of conquerors, including his predecessor and father. As the first cathedral founded by the newly crowned king, Cefalù presented him with an opportunity to connect himself visually to foundations associated with his father, who had succeeded in consolidating Norman rule in Sicily. Both Mazara del

Vallo and Catania provided models for the design and architectural elements of Cefalù.

The connection to his father was clearly very important for Roger II, as is reflected in the foundation diploma of 1131 in which he dedicated the church not only to the

Saviour and Saints Peter and Paul, but also to the memory of his parents.275 By using architectural forms present in the eleventh-century cathedrals, Roger II visually linked his cathedral to those of his father.

All three of these cathedrals would have been monumental markers of a

Christian Norman presence on Sicily. For travelers passing by Sicily from Europe, or visiting for longer periods, this form might have also recalled architectural types from the north, thus expressing the Norman presence on the island. While this connection might not have been known to the designers of the cathedral, the eleventh-century

275 See Chapter 2, pages 70-71 and notes 148 and 152-153.

152 structures provide a connection to the north. Therefore, in an abstract way, Cefalù can be viewed as a continuation of the twin-tower façade originating in the earlier

Carolingian empire and later in late-tenth/early-eleventh century Normandy. Through the use of this form in eleventh-century Norman Sicily, the idea of the fortified twin- tower façade continued, and was used at Cefalù.

Islamic Imagery, Minarets, and Power in Roger II’s Sicily

While the façade of Cefalù is linked to cathedrals of the reign of Count Roger I, buildings which coincided with the construction of fortifications and were symbols of the new Norman presence, the reception of the Cathedral of Cefalù’s façade by Muslim subjects and travelers might have extended beyond simply following the tradition of the earlier generation. Roger II’s court seems to have been well aware of Muslim symbols of power, having used multiple forms in various artistic and architectural projects throughout the kingdom. Roger II and his advisors, especially George of

Antioch, had contact with wider Muslim work, particularly in Fātimid North Africa.

Moreover, Muslims from other regions, such as al-Andalus and the Maghreb, travelled to Sicily and were incorporated into the royal court at Palermo. The most notable example of this is Muhammad al-Idrīsī, who arrived in Palermo from the Western

Mediterranean after having travelled extensively throughout the Mediterranean and

153

Europe.276 Also, Sicily had been controlled by Muslims for several hundred years prior to the Norman Conquest, and Muslims continued to live in Sicily after Roger established his kingdom. Therefore, not only would Muslim iconography related to power have been understood by a large proportion of the population, but they also probably made up part of the workforce creating the objects and monuments.277 Islamic imagery and styles were used in different types of objects, ranging from the ceremonial garments of the king, visible only to the people closest to him and those who made and cared for the clothes, to the buildings associated with him. I will focus here on notable monuments, such as the Cappella Palatina, that are directly associated with Roger II and his image as a new king.

The Norman rulers relied on Islamic architectural types in private royal architecture. Roger II, William I, and William II all built suburban garden palaces, La

Favara (c. 1150), La Zisa (1165-1167) and La Cuba (1180) respectively, in the land surrounding Palermo (Fig. 67).278 These garden palaces were laid out symmetrically,

276 See Chapter 1, pages 59-60, especially note 129.

277 It is known that Muslims were instrumental in making objects such as the ceiling of the Cappella Palatina and the “Coronation” Mantle of Roger. I will be discussing these later in this section. In other instances, it is likely that they were part of building campaigns, such as the Cathedral of Cefalù, simply due to the need for a large workforce to construct the building as quickly as possible.

278 For La Favara, see Giuseppe Bellefiore, Architettura in Sicilia nelle età islamica e normanna (827-1194) (Palermo and Siracusa: Arnaldo Lombardi Editore, 1990), 147-149; Booms and Higgs, Sicily: Culture and Conquest, 207 and 211; di Stefano, Monumenti della Sicilia Normanna, 95-97. For La Zisa, see Bellefiore, Architettura in Sicilia, 149-151; Booms and Higgs, Sicily: Culture and Conquest, 207-208; di Stefano, Monumenti della Sicilia Normanna, 103-108. For La Cuba, see Bellefiore, Architettura in Sicilia, 154; Booms and Higgs, Sicily: Culture and Conquest, 207; di Stefano, Monumenti della Sicilia Normanna, 108-110.

154 with smaller rooms arranged around the central space. This draws directly from the palaces of Ifriqiya and Fātimid Egypt, with notable examples being in Ashur, Bani

Hammad, and Fustat (Fig. 68).279 Islamic elements in the Norman palaces include the muqarnas ceilings, water features, such as fountains with lion-spouts and water basins in throne rooms, and marble inlay on the lower parts of walls (Fig. 69).280 Rather than incorporating select ideas from Islamic art, the Norman kings entirely copied a familiar

Fātimid architectural type found in North Africa.

The idea and meaning behind the garden and palace in Islam was also appropriated by the Norman kings, which is evident in the fragmentary inscription found above the entrance arch at La Zisa (Fig. 70). Part of this inscription reads, “This is the Jannat al-Ard (Earthly Paradise) that opens to view; this king is the Mustaizz

(Glorious One), this palace the al-Aziz (the Magnificent).”281 The term al-Aziz is the origin for the name the palace eventually took on. In Sicilian vernacular, al-Aziz became

La Zisa. The palace reflected the magnificence of the kings, and the gardens reflected the idea of Paradise, much in the same way the Arab garden was an earthly manifestation of the Garden of Paradise. In Islam, earthly gardens were divided into

279 Booms and Higgs, Sicily: Culture and Conquest, 207; Johns, “The Norman Kings of Sicily and the Fātimid Caliphate,” 139-140; Metcalfe, Muslims of Medieval Italy, 244-245.

280 Booms and Higgs, Sicily: Culture and Conquest, 207.

281 Booms and Higgs, Sicily: Culture and Conquest, 207; Metcalfe, Muslims of Medieval Italy, 245.

155 quadrants, reflecting descriptions of Heaven in the Qur’an.282 Even though the extant inscription on La Zisa is from the palace built during the reign of William I, Roger’s son, it is highly unlikely that William would have started this practice. In twelfth-century poems composed by Muslim Sicilians, the garden palaces of Roger II, including La

Favara, were compared to Paradise.283 Therefore, it stands to reason that William followed his father’s example of building Heavenly garden palaces, which was also practiced in contemporary and earlier Muslim kingdoms. This also supports the idea that incorporating, or fully copying, Islamic forms in his own commissions would not have been unusual or unacceptable for Roger II. These garden palaces were found in the countryside surrounding Palermo and while access to the spaces would have been limited, the overall complexes would have imposed an Arab image on the Christian kings, particularly in the eyes of Muslim viewers.

282 Different descriptions of the palaces around Palermo provide support for the idea that the Norman gardens were designed in a similar way to Islamic gardens, reflecting the idea of paradise on Earth. One traveler from Roger II’s era, ‘Abd al-Rahmān al-Buthīrī, wrote that Roger’s al-Mannānī palace had “untrodden gardens which have returned the world to bloom, / the lions of its waterslide which pour forth abundant waters, / its quarters Spring with its beauty has draped with marvelous clothes.” See Metcalfe, Muslims of Medieval Italy, 245. For the connection between gardens and paradise, see D. Fairchild Ruggles, Islamic Gardens and Landscapes (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 2008), esp. 89-101.

283 “And in the palaces of the victorious state / joy breaks its journey and settles / How admirable its site: / the Compassionate Lord has perfected its appearance / And the loggias, more radiant than / any architectural work / And his gardens of new herbage, where / earthly existence reverts to splendor / And from the mouths of the lions in his fountain / the waters of paradise gush forth / And spring dresses the land / with its beauty in radiant cloaks.” This was referring to one of Roger II’s palaces, possibly La Favara. See Karla Mallette, The Kingdom of Sicily, 1100-1250: A Literary History (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2005), 140-141. Also see Booms and Higgs, Sicily: Culture and Conquest, 208-211, for poems written on Roger II’s palaces.

156

Alex Metcalfe pointed out that while the Muslim travelers commented on the

Norman king’s gardens, and used terms associating it with the idea of paradise,

Christian travelers relating their experiences in Latin do not use any terms evoking religious imagery or ideas. Instead, they viewed the gardens as completely secular spaces in which the king could relax.284 This is an example of the use of Islamic forms and imagery by the Christian Norman kings, and only legible at a higher level by

Muslim visitors and subjects. They would have seen these palaces and gardens as evoking a Heavenly Paradise, thus relating the realm of the king to one closer to

Heaven. The western viewers simply saw these spaces as exotic, beautiful, lush pleasure gardens. Being raised in a multicultural kingdom, and having contact with Muslim rulers such as the Fātimids, it is highly possible that Roger II was aware of the deeper meaning of the Muslim garden designs.

The Cappella Palatina in the Norman Palace of Palermo is the best-known monument from the reign of Roger II, and an excellent example of the use of the visual language from other cultures. The east end includes a centralized domed space covered in Byzantine style mosaics, executed by Byzantine mosaicists.285 This part of the chapel served as the private chapel for Roger and his court. The nave, which had originally

284 Romuald of Salerno commented on the Zisa being surrounded “with beautiful fruit trees and delightful pleasure gardens, furnished with m any streams and splendid fish ponds.” See Metcalfe, Muslims of Medieval Italy, 245.

285 These mosaics will be discussed at greater length in the following chapter.

157 been the secular royal audience hall, is a basilica plan with a large central aisle flanked by a smaller aisle on each side. The walls of these aisles are now covered in mosaics depicting scenes from the Old Testament at the clerestory level of the main aisle, and scenes from the lives of Saints Peter and Paul in the aisles. These are not original to

Roger’s building, but were added during the reigns of William I and William II.286 The central aisle is covered by a muqarnas ceiling made by Fātimid artists and is decorated with a wide range of subjects that at first seems unfocused, but upon closer look is at the core imagery of courtly pursuits (Figs. 71 and 72).287 At this time, muqarnas was used in elite architecture of the Islamic world.288 There are no other surviving large-scale paintings similar to this ceiling in Norman, or Arab, Sicily, suggesting that the artists responsible for this work were invited from Egypt to Palermo.289 The Bath of Abu’l-

Su’ud at Fustat, dating to the eleventh century, provides a close parallel to the Cappella

286 The addition of these mosaics unified the entire space in a Christian chapel, and created an axial alignment from the nave to the eastern apse which includes a mosaic of Christ Pantokrator. I will be returning to the mosaics at the east end of the Cappella Palatina in the following chapter, in the context of the mosaics at the Cathedral of Cefalù. For the mosaic additions in the nave of the Cappella Palatina, see Booms and Higgs, Sicily: Culture and Conquest, 197; Metcalfe, Muslims of Medieval Italy, 238; Tronzo, Cultures of His Kingdom, 62-68.

287 Sheila Blair and Jonathan Bloom. Islamic Arts (London: Phaidon Press, 1997), 68; Ettinghausen and Grabar, Art and Architecture of Islam, 207; Grube, “The Painted Ceilings of the Cappella,” 18-23; Metcalfe, Muslims of Medieval Italy, 240; Tronzo, Cultures of His Kingdom, 59-60.

288 Boom and Higgs, Sicily: Culture and Conquest, 200.

289 Boom and Higgs, Sicily: Culture and Conquest, 201; Grube, “The Painted Ceilings of the Cappella Palatina,” 23-25; Tronzo, The Cultures of His Kingdom, 61-62.

158

Palatina. While the muqarnas at the Bath of Abu’l-Su’ud is made of plaster and the ceiling of the Cappella Palatina is cedar, the frame created by the muqarnas design and the images within this frame are very similar. The images in both examples are arranged in small compartments, which are bordered by dots in a bead-like design. The small compartments in the muqarnas from Fustat include rinceaux, birds, a drinker, and a dancer, similar to imagery found in the Cappella Palatina (Fig. 73).290

The range of figures found in the muqarnas frame at the Cappella Palatina includes wrestlers, dancers, musicians, seated rulers, nobles playing chess, exotic animals and birds, hunting and jousting, processions, and drinking or feasts. These all fit into an image cycle relating to courtly life in the Islamic world.291 The images on this ceiling are crammed into every available space of the honeycombed muqarnas ceiling.

While in princely cycles certain images would have been given more emphasis based on placement or size of the composition, here minor scenes sometimes are given a larger space.292 This suggests that the emphasis is not on a hierarchy of image types, but the general idea of courtly life. In addition to scenes that seem to draw from life, or an ideal

Muslim courtly experience, are mythical beasts, and western scenes such as a Norman

290 Tronzo, The Cultures of His Kingdom, 58-59; Jonathan Bloom, “The Introduction of the Muqarnas into Egypt,” Muqarnas 5 (1988): 21-24.

291 Blair and Bloom, Islamic Arts, 68; Boom and Higgs, Sicily: Culture and Conquest, 200-201.

292 Hillenbrand, Islamic Art, 69.

159 knight fighting a Muslim horseman, and a man, possibly Noah, holding a bird.293 These images which are not based on Muslim courtly life reflect the involvement of Norman officials in the planning of this ceiling. One example of this involvement is apparent in the four images of a horseman slaying a dragon (Fig. 74). It has been suggested that this represents Saint Theodore, the popular warrior saint who, prior to the veneration of

Saint George, was a favorite of Roger II’s family.294 In these images, the saint is missing the typical attributes of a warrior saint, suggesting the artists were unfamiliar with the established iconography of Saint Theodore. A Christian living in the court of Roger would have included the typical attributes, so it is reasonable to believe that Muslims artists were responsible for this image.

The ceiling also includes images which can relate directly to the Norman court and Roger’s power. Two images of a king, possibly Roger II, are found on the ceiling

(Fig. 75).295 However, these should not be taken to be faithful portraits of Roger. While the figure has Western physical features that distinguish him from the other figures depicted on the ceiling, he is in a seated pose similar to depictions of Fātimid rulers, such as that found on a marble relief from al-Mahdiyya (Fig. 76).296 Both of these figures

293 Ibid, 69.

294 Alessandro Vicenzi, ed., La Cappella Palatina a Palermo (Modena: Franco Cosimo Panini, 2013), 52.

295 Booms and Higgs, Sicily: Culture and Conquest, 201; Johns, “Norman Kings and the Fātimid Caliphate,” 153-154; Metcalfe, Muslims of Medieval Italy, 240; Tronzo, Cultures of His Kingdom, 59-60.

160 are flanked by attendants. In one scene, the attendants are in Muslim dress while in the other, they appear as Christians. In another segment, a man is shown holding two crosses above an Arabic inscription of a common prayer asking for power and good fortune for the sovereign.297 Furthermore, the narrow bands that separate the stars on the ceiling have kufic inscriptions with benedictions for Roger II.298 These inscriptions are appropriate since the ceiling covers the throne room and accompanies secular images. Including such an elaborately decorated ceiling with Islamic connotations in the

Christian throne room, which was attached to the private chapel, suggests that Muslim court life was a prestigious concept for Christian rulers living in a region still under the influence of Islamic ideas.299

296 Booms and Higgs, Sicily: Culture and Conquest, 201; Johns, “Norman Kings and the Fātimid Caliphate,” 153-154.

297 This is the only figural scene with a supplication included, and the only figural scene with formal text. The text is a single line, asking for “lasting power, established good fortune…power…”. See Jeremy Johns, “Arabic Inscriptions in the Cappella Palatina: Performativity, Audience, Legibility and Illegibility,” in Viewing Inscriptions in the Late Antique and Medieval World, ed. Antony Eastmond (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 132, for the original Arabic and the translation. Also, Vicenzi, Cappella Palatina, 44.

298 One example of these benedictions is translated as follows: “victory and propitious-fate bliss and attainment and security and vigilance and protection and bliss and power, attainment victory, power, perfection and good-fortune and security and bliss and power and victory and good-fortune and perfections and [magnificence/generosity/propitious-fate?]”. For the original Arabic and this translation, see Johns, “Arabic Inscriptions in the Cappella Palatina,” 132. For the benedictions/prayers in general and their locations, see also Booms and Higgs, Sicily: Culture and Conquest, 201; Johns, “Arabic Inscriptions in the Cappella Palatina,” 128-129 and 132-133; Tronzo, Cultures of His Kingdom, 60. 299 Blair and Bloom, Islamic Arts, 69.

161

The ceiling of the nave of Cefalù, which is timber roofed, includes some Islamic imagery belonging to the same princely motif of courtly life found in the muqarnas frame of the Cappella Palatina. These images at Cefalù are even harder to discern from the ground than those at the Cappella Palatina. Painted on the rafters of the ceiling, about 21 meters above the ground (roughly 69 feet), they decorate seven bays near the middle of the cathedral (Figs. 2 and 77).300 There are also stabilizing tie beams every other rafter, supporting a footbridge that is decorated with geometric images executed in tempera. These are not Islamic, however, and include an inscription dating the imagery to 1263 (Fig. 78). The paintings on the rafters have been stylistically dated to the mid-twelfth century.301 This makes them contemporaneous with the ceilings in the

Cappella Palatina. Like the imagery at the Cappella Palatina, that on the rafters of

Cefalù includes courtiers eating and drinking, dancers, musicians, animals, and vegetal designs (Fig. 79).302 It is not certain whether the Fātimid artists responsible for the

Cappella Palatina muqarnas ceiling also worked at Cefalù, or if local artists copying the

300 In her book on the paintings, Mirjam Gelfer-Jørgensen identified 15 bays in the nave of the cathedral demarcated by 16 rafters on each side of the roof. The fifth through the eleventh bays on the north side have surviving paintings, while only the fifth, ninth and tenth include images. See Gelfer-Jørgensen, Medieval Islamic Symbolism, 7-10. Also Booms and Higgs, Sicily: Culture and Conquest, 204.

301 Booms and Higgs, Sicily: Culture and Conquest, 204; Gelfer-Jørgensen, Medieval Islamic Symbolism, 10.

302 Booms and Higgs, Sicily: Culture and Conquest, 204. For an in-depth discussion of the imagery at Cefalù.

162 style and imagery painted the rafters.303 What is certain is that different methods were used in each. At the Cappella Palatina the artists painted the images on gesso, while at

Cefalù they were painted directly on the wood.304 The most important idea to take away from the presence of these painted rafters is that imagery securely associated with Islam was used in the royal cathedral. It is even possible that there were Muslim artists present on site working on this part of the cathedral. It is also worth noting that the rafters were most likely not put in place until later in the cathedral’s life, possibly even after Roger’s death. However, based on the similarities with the Cappella Palatina, it seems these wood beams were part of the original plan for the cathedral. As I mentioned in Chapter Two, it is possible that the nave itself was built during Roger’s reign. The painted rafters could have been installed immediately after they were completed, coinciding with the possible completion of the nave, albeit on a smaller scale than initially planned, before Roger’s death in 1154.

Islamic features are not limited to the ceiling of the Cappella Palatina, but were also included in the opus sectile designs that originally framed the entrance to the royal audience hall (Fig. 80). These porphyry and green marble inlay in white marble forms an inscription in Arabic which makes reference to the rite of the Hajj, which translates to

303 For support of the Fātimid workshop from the Cappella Palatina, see Grube, “The Painted Ceiling of the Cappella Palatina,” 19. For the argument that a local workshop was responsible for the paintings at Cefalù, see Tronzo, The Cultures of His Kingdom, 88.

304 Booms and Higgs, Sicily: Culture and Conquest, 204.

163

“kiss its corner after having embraced it // and contemplate the beauty that it contains,” and “an object of desire and you hurry to give the kiss and to make the submission //

Roger has sought to surpass…”.305 The corner this inscription refers to is the Black Stone that pilgrims would kiss at the end of each seven circuits of the Kaaba. The presence of this inscription at Roger’s palace is most likely another connection to the palace architecture of the Fātimids, since this act was performed by visitors to Fātimid palaces.

A tenth-century African poet recorded that visitors to the Fātimid palace at al-

Mahdiyya would kiss the walls of the palace. He compared this act to the pilgrims visiting the Ka‘ba in Mecca. They would circumambulate the Ka‘ba seven times, kissing the Black Stone after each circuit.306 The opus sectile inscriptions found at the Cappella

Palatina were probably copied after those found in Fātimid palaces, and are another example of the use of Muslim symbols of power and kindship by Roger II.307

The inscriptions and imagery found in the Cappella Palatina would have had a limited audience. Only courtiers and official ambassadors would have had access to the

Cappella Palatina, and within that group, those who could read and understand the deeper meaning of the inscriptions would have been even smaller. Muslim scholars,

305 Booms and Higgs, Sicily: Culture and Conquest, 197; Johns, “Arabic Inscriptions in the Cappella Palatina,” 130-131; Metcalfe, Muslims of Medieval Italy, 238.

306 Johns, “Norman Kings and the Fātimid Caliphate,” 152-153.

307 Booms and Higgs, Sicily: Culture and Conquest, 197-198; Metcalfe, Muslims of Medieval Italy, 238; Tronzo, The Cultures of His Kingdom, 105.

164 such as al-Idrīsī, elite visitors from the Fātimid court, leaders in the Muslim community, members of the royal dīwān, and the artists would made the objects are among those who would have had access to the images, and the knowledge to read them.308 The benedictions included on the ceiling are virtually illegible from the ground, but they help emphasize the star shape found on the entire ceiling. The entire form and imagery of the ceiling works together, creating an Islamic decoration in the Christian king’s audience hall. This was associated with Fātimid rulers, and could have been a way for

Roger to show his status as being equal with that of the Caliph in Egypt.

The opus sectile, on the other hand, would have been visible to all who entered the audience hall. While the layout and appearance of the inlaid marble script makes the inscription more difficult to understand, Jeremy Johns argued that after puzzling over the combination of “horizontal lines of text with vertical ones that might run from top to bottom or from bottom to top,” a reader fluent in Arabic would eventually come to grasp the meaning.309 Some of these people, particularly those familiar with the

Fātimid court, would have immediately recognized the similarity with Fātimid palaces.

Therefore, the Islamic elements of the Cappella Palatina would have spoken to those familiar with courtly Fātimid visual culture, and conveyed an image of a powerful ruler. This is another instance in which Roger and his ministers used Islamic imagery to

308 Johns, “Arabic Inscriptions in the Cappella Palatina,” 135-136.

309 Ibid, 136.

165 communicate his status to a specific group, in this case, the Muslims, and possibly even more specifically, the Fātimids.

It was not only in Roger’s building campaigns that local artisans and styles from his vast kingdom were used, but also in the decorative arts. An excellent example of this is in the royal garments, particularly the so-called Coronation Mantle of Roger (Fig.

81).310 Roger had been crowned king of Sicily on Christmas day, 1130. However this event predates the date provided in the inscription on the robe. The elaborately embroidered red silk mantle has an Arabic inscription in rhymed prose along the hem providing the hegira date of 538, which corresponds to 1133/1134 of the Christian calendar, and says that it was made in the royal workshop of Palermo (“the city of

Sicily” referred to in the inscription).311

310 Another of these royal garments is the Blue Dalmatic. This was a Byzantine style garment, and would most likely have been worn under a red alb, similar to the dress of the Byzantine emperor. Rober’s alb does not survive, but the embroidery from William II’s does. There are two inscriptions on William II’s alb, one in Latin and the other in Arabic, which date the embroidery to July 14, 1181. Palermo is identified as the location of the workshop and the date as the fifteenth year of William’s reign. It also provided a list of his titles and ancestry. The kufic script says the garment was “commissioned by the magnificent king Gulyalm [William] the Second, he who is highly honoured by God, […titles…], the mainstay of the Imam of Rumiya [pope of Rome], the defender of the Christian faith, at the time of July the 14th, in the year 1181 in the era of our lord Jesus, the Messiah.” These inscriptions were embroidered by Muslim women working in the royal workshop in Palermo. See Maria Andaloro, ed., Nobiles Officinae: perle, filigrane e trame di seta dal Palazzo Reale di Palermo, vol. 1 (Catania: Giuseppe Maimone Editore, 2006), 51-53 for the blue dalmatic and 55-59 for the alb; Rotraud Bauer, “Il manto di Ruggero II e le vesti regie,” in Nobiles Officinae: perle, filigrane e trame di seta dal Palazzo Reale di Palermo vol. 2, ed. Maria Andaloro (Catania: Giuseppe Maimone Editore, 2006), 171-181; Bertaux, L’art dans l’Italie Méridionale, 342; Booms and Higgs, Sicily: Culture and Conquest, 214-215.

311 Blair and Bloom, Islamic Arts, 234; Booms and Higgs, Sicily: Culture and Conquest, 214; Johns, “Arabic Inscriptions in the Cappella Palatina,” 134.

166

“This was made in the most royal, flourishing wardrobe, with good

fortune, magnificence, splendor, perfection, might, superiority, generosity,

prosperity, propitious fate, dignity, glory, beauty, attainment of desires

and hopes, pleasure of days and nights without end or removal, with

power, declaration of faith, vigilance, protection, good fortune, security,

victory and capability, in the city of Sicily, in the year five-hundred and

twenty-eight [1133/1134 CE]”312

The part of the mantle that was made in Sicily was most likely just the embroidery, and it was mostly likely embroidered by Muslim women.313 In his account of his travels around the Mediterranean, Ibn Jubayr lists the different positions that Muslims filled in the court of William II. This included the name of one of the embroiderers in the palace,

Yahya ibn Fityan.

312 This translation is Jeremy Johns’. The original Arabic is as follows: “mimmā ‘umila bi-l-khizānati // l- malakīyati l-ma ‘mūrati // bi-l-sa ‘di wa-l-ijlāli // wa-l-majdi wa-l-kamāli // wa-l-tawli wa-l-ifdāli // wa-l- qabūli wa-l-iqbāli // wa-l-samāhati wa-l-jalāli // wa-l-fakhri wa-l-jamāli // wa-bulūghi l-amānī wa-l-āmāli // wa-tībt l-ayyāmi wa-l-layāl[ī] // bi-l zawāli wa-lā ntiqāli // bi-l- ‘izzi wa-l-di ‘āyati // wa-l-hifzi wa-l- bimāyati // wa-l-sa ‘di wa-l-salāmati // wa-l-nasri wa-l-kifāyati // bi-madīnati Siqillīyata // sanata thamānin // wa- ‘ishrīna wa-khamsimi’atin.” For both the translation and the original Arabic, see Johns, “Arabic Inscriptions in the Cappella Palatina,” 134.

313 In the 1130s, the quality of silks made in Sicily were below those produced in the Byzantine Empire. Silkworm and silk had been introduced to Sicily by the Arabs, and finished silk fabric was exported from Palermo, Mazara, and Syracuse, but the quality did not equal that of Byzantine textiles until later in the twelfth century. Therefore, the red-dyed samite silk used for this royal robe was most likely imported from Thebes, one of the important places of textile production in the Byzantine Empire. After 1147, when Roger sacked Thebes and Corinth, Byzantine weavers were included in the royal workshops. These two cities had both been important centers of Byzantine silk production, and Greek weaver were brought as captives back to Sicily. See Booms and Higgs, Sicily: Culture and Conquest, 211-214.

167

“The handmaidens and concubines in his palace are all Muslims. One of

the strangest things told us by this servant, Yahya ibn Fityan, the

Embroiderer, who embroidered in gold the king’s clothes, was that the

Frankish Christian women who came to his palace became Muslims,

converted by these handmaidens.”314

Even though this account dates to the reign of William II, Roger’s grandson, this was an established practice and workshop when William assumed the throne. Since the island had been populated by Muslims prior to the Norman conquest, Roger would not have needed to bring in skilled embroiderers when establishing royal workshops. Rather, he could turn to the local population for the artisans to fulfill this need.

The iconography on the back of the “Coronation Robe” combines Persian and

Middle Eastern motifs of the Tree of Life and the dominant lion.315 The Tree of Life in the form of a palm runs down the center of the robe, separating two scenes of lions attacking camels, and the borders are decorated with gold thread and hundreds of pearls. There are two common interpretations of this imagery. One is that it simply shows the king’s prowess. The other is that the camels symbolize Islam, and the lions

Christianity. Therefore, this would represent the triumph of Christianity over Islam.316

314 Ibn Jubayr, The Travels of Ibn Jubayr, 341.

315 Andaloro, Nobiles Officinae, 45-49; Booms and Higgs, Sicily: Culture and Conquest, 212.

316 Blair and Bloom, Islamic Arts 235; Eva R. Hoffman, “Pathways of Portability: Islamic and Christian Interchange from the tenth to the twelfth century,” Art History 24.1 (2001): 29-30.

168

This interpretation can be connected even more closely to Roger II. In many societies, rulers are associated with or represented as lions, so in this context, would symbolize

Roger while the camel, specifically the North African camel, represents the Muslim

North African conquered by Roger.317 When Roger was wearing this mantle, the palm tree would have run down his spine, while the lion heads would have been on his chest and the camels would have been forced to the floor by the lions. This image emphasizes the idea that the robe was showing the triumph of the Christian king over a foreign religion and ruler, specifically in this case of Roger over the North African Muslims.

Another interpretation, suggested by William Tronzo, is that this imagery more generally reflects Roger II’s strength and ability to rule, preventing those who are less equipped from taking power. Traditionally camels are the least noble creature, associated with bad rulers, including those who were illegitimate, usurped power, or were incompetent. At the other end of the spectrum is the lion, the most noble creature and the king of the realm of animals. In this context, Roger was being depicted as the rightful king of the new Norman kingdom.318 This robe provides another example of

Muslim artists creating an object for the Christian king which could be interpreted as

317 Booms and Higgs, Sicily: Culture and Conquest, 212; William Tronzo, “The Mantle of Roger II of Sicily,” in Robes of Honor: The Medieval World of Investiture, ed. Stewart Gordon (New York: Palgrave, 2001), 244.

318 See Tronzo, “Mantle of Roger II,” 249-250.

169 representing the dominance of Christianity, and more specifically, the power of Roger II and the Hautevilles in Sicily.

The question of accessibility raised in relation to the inscription in the Cappella

Palatina comes up with the royal garments as well. The language of the inscription on the mantle would have automatically limited the comprehension of the words.

Additionally, while the mantle and other garments were being worn, the folds and location of the inscriptions would hinder the viewer’s ability to fully read the text.

Jeremy Johns argued that the Arabic texts on the garments were not important for the specific phrases, but rather because of their form. The presence of the Arabic calligraphy on the royal garments communicated the nature of Roger and the Norman kingdom to the outside world. While some would have been able to read the text, if given the chance, most would have recognized the Islamic style and viewed it as a representation of Roger’s power in a multicultural kingdom.319

All of these examples of objects making use of Islamic imagery, as well as the fact of their having been made by Muslim artists, demonstrate that this was a common practice in Roger II’s court. Not only was Islamic imagery accepted, it was used to show the power of Christianity over Islam, as is seen in the Coronation Mantle, or more specifically the power of the king as is apparent in some of the scenes in the ceiling of the Cappella Palatina. The idea of using Islamic forms to communicate the Roger II’s

319 Johns, “Arabic Inscriptions in the Cappella Palatina,” 140-142.

170 power and dominance as the Christian king of Sicily could equally be applied to the façade of Cefalù, especially when considering the fact that the towers dominated the cityscape and would have been visible to any travelers sailing by.

Although the idea of a twin-tower façade most likely derives from the earlier churches built during the reign of Count Roger I, it is also possible that there was a general awareness of the significance of minarets for Islam, of both in the acceptance and use of this architectural type as a symbol of power, and of the dislike of minarets on the part of the Fātimids. At Cefalù, the towers help create a monumental, fortified appearance emphasizing the power of the king. However, on the robe, the use of

Islamic iconography in an image of power supports the possibility that the minaret- shaped towers could be in themselves a symbol of victory and dominance over an opposing religion. The proportions and appearance of the towers at Cefalù have been compared to those of the tower minarets of Tunisia, such as at the Great Mosques of

Kairouan and Sfax (Fig. 82).320 To understand the significance of a tower minaret, the message it would send, and by extension, what the towers at Cefalù could convey to the

Muslim population, it is useful to look at the Islamic architecture of the western

Mediterranean, and particularly Umayyad Spain.

320 Heliot, “La cathédrale de Cefalù,” 29.

171

In the tenth century, Emīr Abd al-Rahman III, who declared himself caliph, commissioned an extensive reworking of the Great Mosque of Cordoba.321 Al-Rahman

III did not make changes to the interior space, but instead remodeled exterior elements on the mosque. In 951, he had the courtyard refurbished, using alternating piers and columns; this design renewed the visual connection to the Great Mosque of

Damascus.322 The most significant addition to the building was the construction of a tower minaret. There had been a minaret present in the form of a stair minaret by the end of the eighth century;323 however this new construction was a true tower.324 This tower form would have had a strong presence over all of Cordoba. Furthermore, this is one of the earliest mosques in which the tower minaret became a symbol of Islamic presence.325 The use of this form could be a reaction to the Fātimid presence in North

Africa. For the Fātimids, the use of tower minarets was unacceptable.326 When Abd al-

Rahman III conquered Fez, he had the short staircase minarets of the city’s two most

321 Jerrilynn D. Dodds, “The Great Mosque of Cordoba,” in Al-Andalus: The Art of Islamic Spain, ed. Jerrilynn D. Dodds (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1992), 16.

322 Ibid, 17.

323 By staircase minaret, I mean the stairs that led up to a platform on mosque roofs, from which the call to prayer could be sounded. See Jonathan Bloom, Minaret: Symbol of Islam (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), 16.

324 Bloom, Minaret, 16.

325 Ibid, 106.

326 Ibid, 99-100.

172 important mosques replaced with tower minarets, thus showing the Umayyad dominance of this region.327 The use of this form in a conquered city demonstrates how quickly the forms which were developed in Cordoba became a symbol of the Muslim

Umayyad rule in al-Andalus.

The tower minaret can also be associated with a display of the dominance of

Islam over Christianity in al-Andalus. The ninth century was marked by social and political stress in Cordoba and the surrounding region. Christians were trying to organize themselves, embarking on a movement of martyrdom to fight against the

Islamic control. Just as the minaret was a symbol of Islam, the bell tower of Christian churches was considered a symbol of Christianity.328 During this turbulent time, the bell towers of the Christians were destroyed in order to assert the dominance of Islam in al-Andalus.329 About a hundred years after the bell towers were destroyed, al-Rahman

III appropriated the form to demonstrate visually the strong presence of Islam, as well as to cast himself as a caliph who rivaled the Abbasid caliph in Iraq. The Abbasids had already developed the tower minaret as a symbol of their new caliphate when the

Umayyads first used this form in Cordoba.330 Therefore, not only does the addition of

327 Dodds, “The Great Mosque of Cordoba,” 17.

328 In this instance, I am making reference to the staircase minaret.

329 Dodds, “The Great Mosque of Cordoba,” 17-18.

330 Ibid, 17-18.

173 the tower minaret at the Great Mosque of Cordoba show the dominance of Islam over

Christianity, but it also is an attempt to elevate the new caliphate of al-Andalus to the same status as the Abbasids in the Near East.

Even though there are no surviving tower minarets in Sicily, this form was probably familiar to Muslims on the island, since it is found throughout the

Mediterranean world. Furthermore, the Muslims who settled in Sicily were from

Ifriqiya, the part of Africa where Kairouan is located. They most likely brought the idea of this minaret type to Sicily in the ninth century. If Muslim masons did work on the

Cathedral of Cefalù, it is likely that tower minarets are the form they had in mind when building the Norman twin-tower façade. It is possible that Roger, or at least some of his ministers, were aware of the significance of the minaret, especially for the Fātimids with whom they were in frequent contact, and who might have understood the message this façade would send to the wider Muslim population of the Mediterranean. To the

Fātimid caliphate, the presence of towers in royal foundations might have represented the end of Fātimid rule on the island. At a more general level, the towers displayed the

Christian dominance over the former Muslim emirate. This would have been understood by Muslims and Christians alike, as displaying Christian Norman supremacy and reign in Sicily.

174

Conclusion

The decisions made for architectural elements of the exterior of the Cathedral of

Cefalù were not random. There were specific buildings and ideas referenced, and deliberate associations of power and dominance conveyed through the appearance of the building. First, there is most definitely a reliance on the buildings of eleventh- century Norman Sicily. This provided a connection to the previous generation, and showed the continuity of the Hauteville line. Additionally, for those familiar with the architecture of the Duchy of Normandy and the Carolingian Empire, the twin-tower façade would have referenced the monumental architecture of powerful realms north of the Alps. The façade also might have been read as a symbol of Christian dominance and power. The use of Islamic imagery and inscriptions related to royal power was common in the court of Roger II and is seen in the rafters of Cefalù. These rafters suggest that

Muslims were directly involved in the activities at Cefalù. Those responsible for designing the cathedral might have been aware of the significance of the tower minaret and factored this into their decisions. Not only would the towers refer to earlier buildings of Christian Sicily, they could also communicate the victory of Christianity over Islam, or of the Hautevilles over the Fātimids. In sum, the entire cathedral would have conveyed Roger II’s status as a Norman King, showing his dominance over the island, and communicating his power to all who viewed it from sea or within the town.

The towers are thus a hybrid type, combining the twin-tower façade of the north with

175 the political implications of minarets in the Mediterranean. This message continued on the interior of the cathedral, with the addition of the Byzantine-inspired mosaics in the east end, and with the shift in function to serve as Roger II’s mausoleum. Both of these factors which will be discussed in the following chapter.

Contact author or program for image

Figure 54 - Plan of Krak des Chevaliers, after 1142. Chapel placed against the walls. Plan after F. Anus.

176

Figure 55 - Cathedral of Ávila, twelfth century. Photo: author.

Contact author or program for image

Figure 56 - Abbey of Corvey. Westblock, 873-885. Photo: Penn State VRC.

177

Contact author or program for image

Figure 57 - Saint-Pierre, Jumièges, c. 942. Plan: Eric Fernie.

Contact author or program for image

Figure 58 - Saint-Pierre, Jumièges, c. 942. View west towards surviving westblock. Photo: Mapping Gothic France.

178

Contact author or program for image

Figure 59 - Notre-Dame, Jumièges, begun c. 1040. Façade. Photo: Mapping Gothic France.

Contact author or program for image

Figure 60 - Notre-Dame, Jumièges, begun c. 1040. View west towards westblock. Photo: Mapping Gothic France.

179

Contact author or program for image

Figure 61 - La Trinité, Caen, begun c. 1059/1060. Façade. Photo: Mapping Gothic France.

Figure 62 - Saint-Etienne, Caen, begun c. 1068. Façade. Photo: author.

180

Figure 63 - Cathedral of Trani, begun 1098. Façade. Photo: author.

Figure 64 – Basilica of San Nicola, Bari, 1089-1197. Façade. Photo: author.

181

Contact author or program for image

Figure 65 - Basilica of San Nicola, Bari, 1089-1197. Plan: Kenneth John Conant.

Contact author or program for image

Figure 66 - Fresco of Catania. Photo: Tancredi Bella.

182

Contact author or program for image

Figure 67 - La Zisa, Palermo, 1165-1167. Plan: “Castello della Zisa,” Hidden Architecture.

Contact author or program for image

Figure 68 – Zirid Palace of Ashir, Algeria, c. 947. Plan: Richard Ettinghausen and Oleg Grabar.

183

Figure 69 - La Zisa, Palermo, 1165-1167. Central room. Photo: author.

Figure 70 - La Zisa, Palermo, 1165-1167. Façade. Photo: author.

184

Contact author or program for image

Figure 71 - Cappella Palatina, Palermo. Muqarnas ceiling, 1140s. Photo: Prefettura di Palermo, Servizi Comuni Siciliani.

Figure 72 - Cappella Palatina, Palermo. Detail of the muqarnas ceiling, 1140s. Photo: author.

185

Contact author or program for image

Figure 73 - Bath of Abu'l-Su'ud, Fustat, eleventh century. Detail of muqarnas. Photo: Jonathan Bloom.

Contact author or program for image

Figure 74 - Cappella Palatina, Palermo. Detail of muqarnas ceiling, 1140s. Photo: Giovanni Chiaramonte.

186

Contact author or program for image

Figure 75 - Cappella Palatina, Palermo. Detail of muqarnas ceiling, 1140s. Photo: Giovanni Chiaramonte.

Contact author or program for image

Figure 76 - Marble relief from al-Mahdiyya, Tunisia, tenth-eleventh centuries. Photo: Discover Islamic Art.

187

Figure 77 - Cathedral of Cefalù. Detail of 13th painted beam in the foreground with 12th century rafters in the background. Photo: author.

Figure 78 - Cathedral of Cefalù. Detail of inscription on 13th century painted beam. Photo: author.

188

Figure 79 - Cathedral of Cefalù. Detail of ceiling, showing Islamic imagery on rafters. Photo: author.

Contact author or program for image

Figure 80 - Opus sectile designs from the entrance to the Cappella Palatina, 1140s. Photo: William Tronzo.

189

Contact author or program for image

Figure 81 - So-called Coronation Mantle of Roger, 1133-1134. Image: KHM-Museumsverband, inv. SK WS XIII 14.

Contact author or program for image

Figure 82 - Kairouan, Great Mosque. Minaret, 836-875. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.

190

Chapter Four

The Interior and Function of the Cathedral of Cefalù in

the 1140’s

In the 1140’s, after construction of the east end had already begun, changes were made to the architecture in order to accommodate a mosaic program in the sanctuary of the cathedral. The original design for the apse, still visible from the outside, included three oculi, originally intended to serve as windows (Fig. 21). However, these were blocked up to make room for the newly planned mosaic program, while a single lancet window was inserted in the center of the apse. This change in design and decoration coincided, and possibly was motivated by, the installation of two porphyry sarcophagi in 1145. One of these was meant to be Roger’s tomb, and the other a cenotaph honoring his name.331 In his forthcoming article, Brenk suggests that the mosaic program, along with the porphyry sarcophagi, was meant to compare Roger with God. He states that

“Roger compares himself with God whose name is mentioned in Psalm 72.17 and 19”

331 Deér, The Dynastic Porphyry Tomb, 1; Kitzinger, “Mosaic Decoration in Sicily,” 159; Johnson, “Episcopal and Royal Views,” 118; Borsook, Messages in Mosaic:, 8; Valenziano and Valenziano, La basilica cattedrale di Cefalù, 34-36. For the donation document, see Valenziano and Valenziano, La basilica cattedrale di Cefalù, 33-34.

191 by designating the second sarcophagus to serve as a memory for his name.332

Additionally, in the donation charter for the sarcophagi, the second sarcophagus was meant to commemorate his name because God the Saviour had “decorated Roger’s name with royal praise.”333 In his closing argument Brenk suggests that the ultimate goal of the program was to maintain the memory of Roger’s name for eternity, and that this was the reason for Roger’s comparing himself to Christ. By using an empty sarcophagus and the carefully chosen words in the donation charter, Roger compared himself to Christ while not being represented.334 Brenk’s compelling and useful hypothesis does not weaken the argument presented here, that this entire program was meant to elevate Roger’s status above that of the pope. Nor does it detract from the hypothesis proposed here that we should look at the sarcophagi and mosaics within the context of Byzantine court culture in Roger’s kingdom. Rather, Brenk’s holistic approach to the entire program is helpful in stressing its importance, and Roger’s attempts to show himself as more than just a king.

In this chapter, I will consider the addition of the mosaic program at the

Cathedral of Cefalù within the context of the contemporaneous mosaic programs in

332 Psalm 72.17 reads, “May his name go on forever, as long as the sun,” and Psalm 72.19, “Praise to the gory of his noble name forever.” See Brenk, “The Mosaics of Cefalù Revisited,” 16.

333 Brenk, “The Mosaics of Cefalù Revisited,” 16.

334 Ibid, 33.

192

Palermo and the addition of the porphyry sarcophagi. The program at Cefalù does not follow the traditional Byzantine model, neither in location nor in program. Missing from the program are the feast scenes that are an established component in Byzantine programs. To better understand the programs and the traditions from which they derive, I will also address the classic Middle Byzantine program. This will help explain the entire program at Cefalù, including both the mosaics and porphyry sarcophagi, as an all-inclusive program intended to put Roger in a position where he would not be reliant upon papal approval.

The Program and Dating of the Mosaics at Cefalù

The mosaic decoration used at Cefalù was derived from the Byzantine system, centering on a bust of Christ Pantokrator (Fig. 83). At Cefalù, the Pantokrator occupies the conch of the apse and holds an open book, with the text from John 8:12 in Latin and

Greek (Fig. 84).335 Above Him is a Latin inscription identifying Christ as a human, the savior and the creator, as well as the judge of all of humanity.336 Directly below him is

335 “I am the light of the world. He that follows me will not walk in darkness but will have the light of life.”

336 FACTUS HOMOS FACTOR HOMINIS FACTIQUE REDEMPTOR IUDICO CORPOREUS CORPORA CORDA DEUS. Beat Brenk translated the last part of this inscription. “As a corporeal, physical God I judge the bodies and hearts of humanity.” See Brenk, “The Mosaics of Cefalù Revisited,” 23.

193 the Virgin Mary flanked by archangels – Michael and Raphael on the left, and Gabriel and Uriel to the right (Fig. 85). This is a drastic departure from the Byzantine norm, in which the Pantokrator would be in the dome and the Virgin Mary in the conch.

Furthermore, this is the first depiction of the Pantokrator in an apse in Norman Sicily.337

The next two registers below the Virgin include Apostles and Evangelists (Fig. 85). The single lancet window visible from the outside cuts these registers in half. Peter,

Matthew and Mark are on the upper left, and Andrew, James and Philip are below them; Paul, John and Luke occupy the upper right, with Simon, Bartholomew and

Thomas on the lower register.338 Below the last register is an inscription with the date of

1148, indicating that this part of the church was complete by 1148 (Fig. 85).339

337 The apse mosaic in the Cappella Palatina of the Pantokrator was most likely installed around the time the nave mosaics, depicting Old Testament scenes, were added. The biblical mosaics in the nave changed the space from a secular audience hall to a place overtly Christian and meant for a congregation, however small. The mosaic of the Pantokrator in the apse creates a stronger emphasis on the east-west axis, and the direction of the altar. See Tronzo, The Cultures of His Kingdom, 92-94. There was also an image of the Pantokrator in south transept, in a lunette on the east wall. Here, he is holding an open book with John 8:12 written in Greek. Otto Demus argued that this lunette was completed during the reign of Roger II, and that it would have been strange to have two Pantokrator’s both depicted in such a similar manner. He suggests that the apse was originally occupied by the Virgin, either seated or standing, as was common in Byzantine churches. See Demus, Mosaics of Norman Sicily, 41 and 53.

338 See Demus, Mosaics of Norman Sicily, 11-12, for the breakdown of the location and identity of the figures in the apse, as well as the inscription in the book held by the Pantokrator. Also, Kitzinger, “Mosaic Decoration in Sicily,” 160;

339 “Rogerius rex egregious plenus pietatis / Hoc statuit templum motus zelo deitatis / Hoc opibus ditat variis varioque decore / Ornat magnificat in Salvatoris honore / Ergo structori tanto Salvator adesto / Ut sibi submissos conservet corde modesto. Anno ab Incarnatione Domini millesimo centesimo XLVIII indictione XI anno vero regni eius XVIII hoc opus musei factum est.” See Demus, Mosaics of Norman Sicily, 6; Valenziano and Valenziano, La basilica cattedrale di Cefalù, 36.

194

The east bay of the presbytery is covered with a quadripartite rib vault decorated with Seraphim and Cherubim (Fig. 86).340 The mosaic decoration continues on the walls of this bay with single figures of prophets, martyrs, and bishops. Both of the north and south walls are divided into four registers. The uppermost registers of the north and south walls each have a medallion flanked by figures (Figs. 87 and 88). The south wall has a half-figure of Abraham in the medallion, flanked by David and Solomon (Fig. 87).

In the register directly below are the Old Testament prophets, from left to right, Jonah,

Micah. and Nahum. The lower two registers both depict saints – four Holy Warriors and four of the Greek fathers of the church. The Holy Warriors are Theodore, George,

Demetrius, and Nestor. The Greek Fathers include Nicholas, Basil, John Chrysostom, and Gregory the Theologian. On the north wall, Melchizedek is in the medallion with

Hosea and Moses on either side (Fig. 88). As on the facing wall, Old Testament prophets are directly below. Here they are Obadiah, Joel, and Amos, from right to left. Holy

Deacons are in the next register, followed by Western saints. The former includes

Stephen, Peter of Alexandria, Vincent, and Lawrence. The latter depicts Western

Church Fathers, including Dionysius the Areopagite, Gregory, Augustine, and

340 The Seraphim are in the western and eastern webs, while the Cherubim are in the northern and southern. Due to the rectangular shape of the bay, the western and eastern webs are wider and have more room in the corners. Each of these sections have two half-figures of winged Angels. Demus, Mosaics of Norman Sicily, 13.

195

Silvester.341 These Western Church fathers are paired with the Greek Fathers across the sanctuary. Dionysius and Nicholas were both important saints for the Normans,

Dionysius because of his association with France and Nicholas due to the popular pilgrimage site in Bari. Basil and Silvester were both bishops of important dioceses.

Basil was the Archbishop of Caesarea and Silvester was Bishop of Rome. John

Chrysostom and Augustine were both orators, writers and bishops. Finally, the two

Gregories shared a name, and were both considered Church Fathers.342 Missing from the middle of this program are the festival scenes normally found in Byzantine churches and contemporaneous Norman buildings.343

Traditionally scholars have agreed that the mosaics of Cefalù were completed in two phases, with the decorations in the apse completed by 1148 and those of the adjoining walls completed in the 1160’s during the reign of William. Demus lays out a sequence for the mosaic decoration at Cefalù as follows.344 The apse is securely dated to

1148 through the inscription provided below the lowest register. The next mosaics set in

341 See Demus, Mosaics of Norman Sicily, 13-14; Creissen, “Architecture religieuse et politique,” 249-251; Lasareff, “The Mosaics of Cefalù,” 189-190, for the breakdown of the identifications and order of the saints and prophets on the sanctuary walls, as well as the apse. Also Johnson, “Episcopal and Royal Views,” 121, fig. 3, for a diagram of the location of each figure on the sanctuary walls and in the apse.

342 Johnson. “Episcopal and Royal Views,” 128.

343 The traditional Byzantine program and twelfth century Norman buildings will be discussed in detail in the next two sections.

344 Demus, Mosaics of Norman Sicily, 16-18.

196 place, in the late 1150’s/60’s, would have been those in the vaults and two lunettes above, as well as the lowest register on the sanctuary wall. Demus maintained that scaffolding for the upper parts would not have interfered with the artists working on the lower register. Therefore, he argued that a team could have been working on both at the same time. Finally, as late as the early 1170’s, the Prophets were completed. Victor

Lasareff came to a similar conclusion of three different phases. However, he switches

Demus’s last two phases. For Lasareff, the two lower registers of the presbytery walls were completed before the vault and the upper part of the walls.345 Ernst Kitzinger identified a close parallel between the mosaics of the nave and aisles in the Cappella

Palatina and those on the walls of the presbytery of Cefalù. The nave and aisle mosaics at the Cappella Palatina have been attributed to the reign of William I, placing them securely in the late 50s or 60s of the twelfth century.346 This dating suggests that the wall mosaics might have been completed around the time the cathedral was recognized by

Pope Alexander III in 1166.

In his forthcoming article on the topic, Beat Brenk argues that all of the mosaics at Cefalù were completed in one campaign, from top to bottom. First, he claims that

345 Lasareff, “Mosaics of Cefalù,” 205-206.

346 For the dating of the Cappella Palatina’s nave and aisles, see Borsook, Messages in Mosaic, 31; Kitzinger, “Mosaic Decoration in Sicily,” 153-154; Tronzo, Cultures of His Kingdom, 62-68 (esp. 66-67). For the comparison with the mosaics at Cefalù, see Kitzinger, “Mosaic Decoration in Sicily,” 159; Demus, Mosaics of Norman Sicily, p 16.

197 scaffolding would have been built to apply the tesserae at the highest levels. Then, the scaffolding would have been lowered as needed allowing the mosaics to complete the rest of the program.347 He also argues for stylistic similarities between the apse and the mosaics in the vault, using the heads of the Virgin and a Seraphim in the vault as a comparison point.348 Finally, Brenk observed that the tesserae on the faces of the

Apostles and Prophets in the apse and presbytery were painted red with a brush, making the faces more expressive.349 The possibility that entire program was executed together, or at least planned as a cohesive whole at the start of work, will prove important for my argument that the mosaics, along with the porphyry sarcophagi, were meant to elevate Roger’s status to a level at which the pope would not have influence over or power in the workings of the Norman Kingdom.

The “Classical System” of Middle Byzantine Church Decoration

Before examining the context and motivations of Roger’s new decorative program at Cefalù, it is necessary to understand the Byzantine system from which

347 Brenk, “The Mosaics of Cefalù Revisited,” 20.

348 Ibid, 21.

349 Andaloro, “I mosaici di Cefalù dopo il restauro,” 107-108; Brenk, “The Mosaics of Cefalù Revisited,” 32-33.

198 mosaics in Norman Sicily were derived. In addition to the overall decorative programs, the architectural space these images were meant to occupy is also significant for appreciating the meaning of the mosaic programs in Byzantium. These decorative programs worked together as a whole, creating an image of the Byzantine kosmos. They were also designed with a specific building type in mind, a Middle Byzantine centrally planned structure, in which the architectural elements frame the decorative program.

After the end of Iconoclasm, an ordered system of church decoration was developed.350 Otto Demus called this newly developed system of the Middle Byzantine

Period the “Classical System.”351 This decorative program developed from the ninth to

350 During Justinian’s era, mosaics were used simply to decorate the architectural space. They were secondary to the architecture, and helped define and frame the architectural elements. Narrative scenes did not have the theological emphasis found in the Middle Byzantine period. The scenes would usually be placed on flat walls, and sometimes would have typological relationships with either the scenes across the aisle or with the Eucharist. An excellent example of this type of decoration is the church of San Vitale in Ravenna. In the presbytery, the walls are covered with mosaics of scenes from the Old Testament. These are prefigurations of the Passion of Christ, which is recalled by the ceremony of the Eucharist taking place at the altar below the images. See Robin Cormack, Byzantine Art (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2000), 58-60; John Lowden, Early Christian and Byzantine Art (London and New York: Phaidon Press Limited, 2012), 128-131; Marilyn Stokstad, Medieval Art (Boulder, CO and Oxford, UK: Westview Press, 2004), 62-63. Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome is an excellent example of narrative scenes placed on flat walls. The length of the nave here is decorated with scenes from the Old Testament, while the triumphal arch at the east over the apse has New Testament imagery. See Jás Elsner, Imperial Rome and Christian Triumph (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 227-228; Lowden, Early Christian and Byzantine Art, 52-55; Stokstad, Medieval Art, 35-37. After the triumph of the iconodules, single figures, considered to be icons in church decoration, were reintroduced. The Virgin Mary was in the apse, Christ and the Angles in the dome, and the Apostles, Prophets and Saints in the naos. The image of Christ as All-Ruler (Pantokrator) in the dome united all three persons of the Holy Trinity. The post-Iconoclastic decoration reflected a different approach to mosaics than that found in churches of pre-Iconoclastic Byzantium. See Otto Demus, Byzantine Mosaic Decoration: Aspects of Monumental Art in Byzantium (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Limited, 1964), 44-55, for the discussion of the development of church decoration from the Early Christian period to the post-Iconoclastic and Middle Byzantine/Classical period.

351 Demus, Byzantine Mosaic Decoration, 3ff.

199 the eleventh century and was intended to be placed in centrally-planned buildings, in which it could be most fully realized. The basic layout of the Middle Byzantine church consists of a vaulted superstructure creating an equal armed cross, with a higher cupola at the center. The areas between the arms of the cross are filled with lower vaulted units, making the ground plan square in shape, while still preserving the cross-shape of the vaulted superstructure; the cross arms in this plan would usually be covered with smaller domes. Sometimes this is reversed, with the corner bays covered by domes and the cross arms with groin or barrel vaults. To this arrangement three apses were attached to the east, and sometimes an entrance hall (narthex) or two were included on the west.352 Otto Demus called this type of architecture “hanging architecture.”353 The viewer’s eye is first drawn to the highest point, the central dome. From there, the view descends through the lower zones of figural decoration in the squinches or pendentives, half-domes of the apse and chapels, and finally the flat walls below. The curved surfaces of the superstructure provided ideal spaces for mosaic decoration. Not only

352 For the development of this architectural type, see Demus, Byzantine Mosaic Decoration, 10-12; and Stokstad, Medieval Art, 135-136. For the basic design of the Middle Byzantine churches, see Demus, Byzantine Mosaic Decoration, 11-12; and Stokstad, Medieval Art, 135. Richard Krautheimer identified four specific building plans and variations on these types. The four different plans are the “atrophied Greek cross plan,” octagon-domed churches, ambulatory church, and the cross-in-square or quincunx. All of these plans are characterized by a centrally planned structure with a high dome in the middle. For my purposes, the general idea of a centrally planned building with a central cupola is sufficient for a discussion of the Middle Byzantine decorative cycle in its architectural context. For details on the different types of buildings, see Richard Krautheimer, Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture (Harmondsworth, England and New York: Penguin Books, 1986), 337-341.

353 Demus, Byzantine Mosaic Decoration, 12.

200 did the curved surface help hold the tesserae in place, but the scenes appeared to have more dynamic movement when placed on a curved rather than flat surface.354 This building type framed the hierarchical arrangement of images, while also working with the liturgical needs of the Eastern Church in the ninth century.

The Middle Byzantine decorative program was ideal for this type of domed, centrally planned church, and was able to evolve and be fully realized. The imagery was divided into three zones, representing the Heavenly realm, Paradise or the Holy

Land, and the terrestrial world (Fig. 89). Higher images in the architectural framework were more sacred than those below. These three zones descend from the top, with the highest zone of decoration being the domes and high vaults, as well as the conch of the main apse. The holiest persons, including Christ, the Virgin and Angels, were placed in the domes and vaults of the uppermost zone. Scenes relating to the Holy Land or

Paradise are found in the squinches or pendentives, and upper parts of the vaults around the main dome, while terrestrial imagery occupies the secondary vaults and lower parts of the walls.355 All three of these zones are part of a whole, meant to be understood together as support for the Byzantine emphasis on Christ’s Incarnation.

354 Demus, Byzantine Mosaic Decoration, 12 and 25.

355 For a general overview of the arrangement of mosaics in this type of church, see Cormack, Byzantine Art, 170-171; Demus, Byzantine Mosaic Decoration, 16; Kitzinger, “Mosaic Decoration in Sicily,” 147-148; Stokstad, Medieval Art, 137-138.

201

Through the hierarchical arrangement of the zones, the church interior came to represent the kosmos, while also serving as a topographical and time guide.

This highest realm was the celestial sphere, with scenes that either were imagined as taking place in heaven, or in which goal of the action was heaven. The three main schemes for the apex of the dome were the Ascension, Pentecost, and the

Glory of the Pantokrator. In the ninth century, the Ascension was the most popular scene for the dome.356 This was soon replaced by the Pantokrator which depicted Christ in Glory after the Ascension, and was an abstract representation of the dogma. This was more in line with the intellectual and theological emphasis of Middle Byzantine decoration. The Pentecost would most commonly be used if there was a second dome to fill. All three of these subjects have a focused center around which Angels, Apostles or

Prophets could be placed radially. While the Angels, Apostles, or Prophets would be arranged around the image of Christ in the dome, the Virgin would usually be found in the conch of the main apse, either seated our standing.357 The enthroned Virgin became the most popular type by the eleventh century, while the standing, or Orante, Virgin was favored in Palace chapels since this type was seen as the Protectress of the ruler.358

356 The Ascension was related to the traditional narrative aspect of pre-Iconoclastic decorations and connected into the narrative element of the rest of the mosaic program.

357 The standing Virgin was either the Orante Platytera or the Hodegetria, while the seated was the Virgin Panachrantos. See Demus, Byzantine Mosaic Decoration, 21.

358 For the decorative program of the highest zone, see Demus, Byzantine Mosaic Decoration, 17-21; Kitzinger, “Mosaic Decoration in Sicily,” 147-148.

202

Within the highest zone, Christ is depicted as the All-Ruler in Heaven, in human form.

The Old and New Testament figures around the Pantokrator either foretold his arrival, or were witnesses to the events of His time on Earth.

The second zone consisted of a monumental depiction of the major Christian festivals. Traditionally, twelve feasts were included in eleventh century programs, illustrating the major events of Christ’s Life. These episodes are the Annunciation,

Nativity, Presentation in the Temple, Baptism, Transfiguration, Raising of Lazarus,

Entry into Jerusalem, Crucifixion, Anastasis (Descent into Hades), Ascension, Pentecost, and the Koimesis (Dormition of the Virgin).359 Occasionally scenes were added to this part of the program, elaborating on the story of Christ’s Passion or Infancy.360 The whole Life of Christ, from Annunciation to Resurrection, was meant to be depicted.

However, there was some flexibility regarding the number and choice of scenes included from the middle part of the cycle. The placement of these scenes in the naos was based on both the architectural design of the church, and on the sequence of festivals in the liturgical calendar. The scenes best suited for curved spaces were placed in the pendentives or squinches, since the curvature of these spaces could help illustrate

359 Demus, Byzantine Mosaic Decoration, 22.

360 The usual additions found relating to Christ’s Passion were the Last Supper, Washing of the Apostles’ Feet, Betrayal of Judas, Descent from the Cross, and the Appearance to Thomas. The story of His parents, Adoration of the Magi, and the Flight into Egypt were common additions to His Infancy. See Demus, Byzantine Mosaics Decoration, 22; Kitzinger, “Mosaic Decoration in Sicily,” 152.

203 movement in a scene. If there were smaller domes in the building, subjects that were appropriate for a rounded space could be placed in them.361 Also, while there was flexibility in the specific feast included, a certain sequence of the chosen scenes had to be adhered to in order for the second zone to also serve as a guide to the Eastern liturgical calendar.362

The feast scenes found in this zone simultaneously show the sequence of festivals in the Orthodox calendar and symbolize the Holy Land. These two interpretations support the overarching theme of the Incarnation by showing the most important events of Christ’s life and by symbolizing the most holy places of His life. Also, by representing the Holy Land, the scenes of the second zone allow visitors to perform a symbolic pilgrimage to the sacred sites.

Finally the lowest zone, representing the terrestrial realm, included single figures of Apostles, Martyrs, Prophets, and Patriarchs. The saints depicted here were figures who carried on Christ’s message in the past, or more recent church figures continuing the teaching – the Prophets foretold the Incarnation, Disciples and Martyrs witnessed it,

361 For example, the Pentecost or Ascension could be placed in the smaller dome over the sanctuary, complementing the Pantokrator in the main dome and adding to the narrative. Single figures in these scenes could be arranged radially around the main focal point, either the Hetoimasia in the Pentecost or Christ ascending. The Hetoimasia is the prepared throne in depictions of the Pentecost. See Demus, Byzantine Mosaic Decoration, 17.

362 For the arrangement of the scenes in the second zone, see Demus, Byzantine Mosaic Decoration, 25; Kitzinger, “Mosaic Decoration in Sicily,” 149.

204 and the remaining figures carried on Christ’s redemptive works through their service to the Church. These figures were arranged based on rank and function, and the calendrical sequence of their feast days, with the former being more important in the overall arrangement. Sainted priests and patriarchs were the most important, and were placed in or near the main apse.363 Martyrs, including Holy Moneyless Healers and

Warrior Saints, were placed in the naos.364 Any remaining martyrs were placed in the transept, and arranged in groups according to the dates of their feasts. Finally, Holy

Monks were in the western part of the church, guarding the doorway between the naos and narthex, while Holy Women and canonized emperors were in the narthex.365

Temporal rules would be included in this zone, serving as Christ’s vice-regents on

Earth. There was a degree of flexibility relating to the single figures depicted in this zone. The designers could take into consideration the dedication of the church and the patron’s desires.

The individual icons of the lowest zone represent the continued teaching of the

Incarnation throughout the Church’s history. The arrangement of these figures also

363 Within this group, the Patriarchs from the Old Testament were placed highest, followed by the Prophets and Doctors from the first centuries of Christianity, and finally the sainted priests of the Eastern Church.

364 The Healers would be placed next to the sanctuaries, while the Warriors would be on the pillars and arches of the central dome.

365 See Demus, Byzantine Mosaic Decoration, 26, for the arrangement of the single figures in the third zone.

205 follows their place in the liturgical calendar. The time sequence of feasts, both those related to Christ’s life and to the lives of the saints, are part of a closed cycle repeated every year, with each image being the focus of veneration annually. All three of these zones work together as an organic whole, depicting the Byzantine program’s central message, making the Christian mystery visible to all, and transforming the building into a microcosm of the Orthodox Christian universe.366 This type of program is important to understand since it was also used in twelfth-century Norman churches, including the

Cathedral of Cefalù. However, the space in which it was placed, as well as the complete program at Cefalù, show a break from the established Middle Byzantine norm. Before delving into the program at Cefalù, it will be useful to examine the contemporaneous buildings in Palermo to illustrate the use of the “Classical System” in Norman Sicily, and the changes made based on patronage, dedication, and the viewer.

Byzantine-style Mosaics in Twelfth-Century Palermo

It is apparent that those responsible for the design and decoration of twelfth- century buildings in Palermo were familiar both with the iconographic model of Middle

Byzantine churches, and with the flexibility that existed within that established order.

366 For the different interpretations of the decorative program, see Demus, Byzantine Mosaic Decoration, 3-5, 15-16, 30; Kitzinger, “Mosaic Decoration in Sicily,” 147-148.

206

Both the Cappella Palatina in the Norman palace, and especially Santa Maria dell’Ammiraglio, are buildings in which the Byzantine program was used, but was changed to suit the patrons. Both buildings feature a dome, the focus of decorative programs in Byzantium. The Cappella Palatina has a basilica nave with a domed sanctuary on the east. Santa Maria dell’Ammiraglio was originally a central-plan building with a single dome.367 The mosaic decoration in both churches date to the mid-

1140’s, with a completion date of around 1143 for the Cappella Palatina and 1146/47 for

Santa Maria dell’Ammiraglio.368

At the Cappella Palatina, the domed sanctuary is decorated with a modified classical system, in which the King’s view from the royal box on the north wall of the pseudo-transept served as the determining factor for the narrative scenes. 369 To follow

367 For the architectural plan of the Cappella Palatina, see Kitzinger, “Mosaic Decoration in Sicily,” 153; Demus, Mosaics of Norman Sicily, 27-29; and Tronzo, Cultures of His Kingdom, 10. For Santa Maria dell’Ammiraglio, see Kitzinger, “Mosaic Decoration in Sicily,” 161-162; Demus, Mosaics of Norman Sicily, 76-77; Ćurčić, “The Architecture,” 29-32.

368 For the dating of the Cappella Palatina dome mosaics, see Demus, Mosaics of Norman Sicily, 25-29 and 47-48; Kitzinger, “Mosaic Decoration in Sicily,” 153-154; Ernst Kitzinger, “The Mosaics of the Cappella Palatina in Palermo: An Essay on the Choice and Arrangement of Subjects,” Art Bulletin 31, no. 4 (Dec. 1949): 269-270; Tronzo, Cultures of His Kingdom, 15-16. For the dating of the mosaics in Santa Maria dell’Ammiraglio, see Demus, Mosaics of Norman Sicily, 82-84; Kitzinger, “Mosaic Decoration in Sicily,” 161; Kitzinger, The Mosaics of St. Mary’s of the Admiral, 15-16.

369 This side of the chapel opened into the residential part of the palace to the north, the Torre Pisana, the Joharia (which includes the Norman Stanza), and the Chirimbi. From the box, the king would be able to look down into the sanctuary during Mass. For the royal box and its relation to the palace, see Demus, Mosaics of Norman Sicily, 25; Kitzinger, “Mosaic Decoration in Sicily,” 156; Kitzinger, “Mosaics of the Cappella Palatina,” 283-284; William Tronzo, “The Medieval Object-Enigma and the Problem of the Cappella Palatina in Palermo,” Word and Image 9, 3 (1993): 206; Tronzo, Cultures of His Kingdom, 8-9.

207 the hierarchy of imagery as described in the previous section, it will be useful to start with a brief description of the dome, drum, and squinches before moving to the festival cycle. The Pantokrator is in the dome, surrounded by eight angels (Fig. 90). The four on the eastern half of the dome, the Archangels Raphael, Michael, Gabriel and Uriel, wear

Byzantine court costumes. In the drum below the angels, on the flat wall between squinches, Old Testament prophets carry scrolls with quotations from their writings.

Each wall has a full length prophet flanked by two half-length prophets (Fig. 90).370

Below the prophets, the Evangelists are depicted in each squinch, seated and in the act of composing their Gospels (Fig. 90).371 This follows the hierarchy of the Middle

Byzantine system discussed in the previous section. However, the scenes and figures from the remaining two zones of the Byzantine decorative program are arranged in a way that favors Roger II’s view from the royal box. This demonstrates an example where the Byzantine program was changed with the patron, Roger II, in mind.

The majority of the festival scenes are located on the south wall, directly across from the royal box. However, the feast cycle starts in the central dome. The

Annunciation and Presentation in the Temple are located below the Old Testament

370 The full length figures are David on the east, John the Baptist on the south, Solomon on the west, and Zacharias on the north. The half-length figures include Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Jonah, Daniel, Moses, Elijah, and Elisha. This order starts on the east above David and moves around the drum to the right. See Demus, Mosaics of Norman Sicily, 39.

371 For the organization of the mosaics in the dome and drum, see Kitzinger, “The Mosaics of the Cappella Palatina,” 271-272.

208

Prophets and Evangelists, the former on the spandrel of the east arch under the dome and the latter on the west spandrel (Fig. 90).372 The cycle then shifts to the south wall of the pseudo-transept (Figs. 91 and 92).373 The Nativity is mostly on the east wall of the pseudo-transept, with some of the figures overflowing onto the south wall. The story has been expanded to include the approach and adoration of the Magi, the bathing of the new-born child, and the annunciation to the shepherds. All of these elements are arranged around the traditional group of the Virgin reclining in the manger with the infant. Next is an elaborate depiction of the Flight into Egypt, not traditionally part of a

Byzantine cycle, beginning with Joseph’s dream and ending with a personification of

Egypt receiving the Holy Family. The end of this sequence spills over on the west wall of this bay of the pseudo-transept. Directly below the Flight into Egypt are the Baptism,

Transfiguration and Raising of Lazarus. Finally, the Entry into Jerusalem is on the lowest register between the two windows. The vault of the south and north wings of the

372 The north and south spandrels have medallions of Prophets, as well as a spill-over of the imagery from the Annunciation and Presentation in the Temple. In the Annunciation, Gabriel’s left foot and some of the folds from his robes continue onto the north wall while Mary’s throne and a cluster of buildings meant to represent Nazareth are on the south. The Presentation in the Temple includes Joseph and Hannah, in addition to Mary holding Christ and Simeon. Joseph is depicted on the south wall, and Hannah on the north. See Demus, Mosaics of Norman Sicily, 38.

373 William Tronzo suggests that pseudo-transept would be a better term to describe the lateral spaces to the north and south. He points out that the barrel vaults of these spaces are parallel to the main axis (east- west axis), rather than at right angles as a true transept would be. See William Tronzo, “Byzantine Court Culture from the Point of View of Norman Sicily: The Case of the Cappella Palatina,” in Byzantine Court Culture from 829-1204, ed. Henry Maguire (Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1997), 102, note 9.

209 pseudo-transept are decorated with Pentecost and the Ascension, respectively (Fig. 93).

Missing from this cycle are the Crucifixion and Anastasis.374 It is possible that the two missing scenes were flanking the royal box (Fig. 94).375 This area is now covered with an eighteenth and nineteenth century landscape mosaic depicting John the Baptist.376 The two missing scenes would easily fit in this space, and there is a precedent for pairing these scenes together in Byzantium.377 The unbalanced arrangement of scenes from the

Life of Christ shows a preferential treatment of the royal view. Scenes of triumph were directly across from the king, in this case triumphal entrances and the

Transfiguration.378

374 For the festival cycle mosaics, see Demus, Mosaics of Norman Sicily, 38 and 40-42; Kitzinger, “Mosaic Decoration in Sicily,” 156-158; Kitzinger, “Mosaics of the Cappella Palatina,” 275-276.

375 Kitzinger, “Mosaics of the Cappella Palatina”: 275; Kitzinger, “Mosaic Decoration in Sicily,” 156; Tronzo, “Byzantine Court Culture,” 105; Tronzo, Cultures of His Kingdom, 55-56.

376 The eighteenth-century mosaic, by Cardini, depicts a desert type landscape with the cross-staff of John the Baptist leaning against a tree. In the nineteenth century, Riolo extended this landscape to the west side of the arched opening to include John the Baptist speaking his prophecies on the Lamb. See Demus, Mosaics of Norman Sicily, 43; Tronzo, Cultures of His Kingdom, 55.

377 In Byzantine churches, these scenes are frequently paired together. At Hosios Loukas, they are placed in the narthex, in the lunettes over the two side doors. The Pantokrator is in the lunette over the main door. At the Monastery of Daphni, they are across from each other, on the eastern faces of the north and south cross arms. In this arrangement, they can be viewed as flanking the Pantokrator in the dome or the altar below. Each image these scenes frames an image or symbol of Christ, as well as a type of opening. At Hosios Loukas, it is the opening between the narthex and the nave. At Daphni, the transition from the nave to the sanctuary. In both cases, the images mark and guard the transition to a more holy space. The church is a representation of heaven on earth, and the sanctuary is the most holy part of the building. See Anna D. Kartsonis, Anastasis: The Making of an Image (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986), 217- 219; Tronzo, “Byzantine Court Culture,” 105-106.

378 In his article on the mosaics in the Cappella Palatina, Ernst Kitzinger argued that the Flight into Egypt and the Entry into Jerusalem should be viewed as an ‘adventus’ or ceremonial entrance of a ruler. The

210

The single figures of saints and bishops are also arranged asymmetrically around the central domed space and the pseudo-transept. Most of the saints are found as portrait busts in medallions in the soffits of the north, west, and south arches supporting the dome (Fig. 90).379 Five saints important to royalty, and to the Normans, are placed outside the north arch of the central dome and would have been visible only to the king seated in the royal box on the north wall of the chapel (Fig. 95). They include the four military saints Theodore, Demetrius, Nestor and Mercurius, and Nicholas of

Myra.380 Bishops were placed at the lowest level of the north and south wings of the pseudo-transept. However, there are fewer on the south wall than the north. The central part of the lowest register on the south was reserved for part of the narrative cycle, specifically the Entry into Jerusalem. Therefore, there are only two bishops on the south wall, each at the outer edge next to the window (Fig. 92). The two flanking the feast

former was an allegorical adventus, and the latter a realistic. In the Flight into Egypt, which is considered a triumphal progress across heathen lands, an allegorical figure of Egypt welcomes the Holy Family. The Entry into Jerusalem is the arrival of the Messianic King of Israel into his capital city. This type of realistic adventus traditionally would include a retinue behind the ruler, and a crowd greeting him. The scene in the Cappella Palatina features both of these elements. In twelfth century Sicily, both of these events were viewed as triumphal processions. See Kitzinger, “Mosaics of the Cappella Palatina,” 279-281. The Transfiguration was placed directly across from the king for two reasons, according to William Tronzo. The king was able to see the glorification of Christ, and the courtiers in the nave might have understood the pairing as a parallel between the terrestrial and heavenly rulers, both divinely appointed. See Tronzo, “Byzantine Court Culture,” 109. See also, Kitzinger, “Mosaic Decoration in Sicily,” 158; Tronzo, Cultures of His Kingdom, 54-56 for the preferentially view from the king’s balcony.

379 See Demus, Mosaics of Norman Sicily, 39, for the saints found on the soffits.

380 Demus, Mosaics of Norman Sicily, 43; Kitzinger, “Mosaics of the Cappella Palatina,” 284-285; Kitzinger, “Mosaic Decoration in Sicily,” 156.

211 scenes might have been picked due to political associations. These two are Dionysius the Areopagite and St. Martin, both saints important to France. They were both traditional patrons of the French kings and the French army, and were the closest parallel to Byzantine warrior saints in France. Kitzinger suggested that the presence of these two French saints could be related to the relationship between France and Sicily during the 1140’s.381 The north wall has five bishops – three in the middle and two on the outer edge as on the facing wall (Fig. 94).382 Although the location of all of the bishops was not completely based on who the king would see, political concerns were possibly taken into account when deciding which saints to place across from the royal box.

In this chapel, the idea of the Pantokrator presiding over the single figures is preserved, but the festival scenes supporting the overarching Byzantine program is modified, resulting in a loss of the unified Byzantine decoration. Greek culture was

381 Roger II had wanted to work with Louis VII in planning the Second Crusade, and possibly an attack on Constantinople. However, there was no interaction between the two rulers until Louis was returning from the Second Crusade. Louis and his wife, Eleanor of Aquitaine, stayed in Sicily during their return to France. The two kings also had a meeting in Potenza, where Roger was treated as an equal rather than an upstart by a legitimately crowned king. There is also the association, although a generation removed, of the Normans being from a vassal duchy of the French Kingdom. From his royal box, the Norman king would have had both Byzantine warrior saints and French patron saints in his direct view. See Kitzinger, “Mosaics of the Cappella Palatina,” 289-290.

382 The five on the north wall are Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Nazienzen, Basil, John Chrysostom, and Nicholas of Myra. See Demus, Mosaics of Norman Sicily, 42-43; Kitzinger, “Mosaics of the Cappella Palatina,” 274-275; Kitzinger, “Mosaic Decoration in Sicily,” 155-156;

212 significant in the early years of Norman occupation of Sicily, so it is safe to assume that many of the courtiers would have been familiar with this type of imagery. Roger II’s closest advisors were from the Greek-speaking world, and some had even been awarded the title of protonobilissimos by the Byzantine emperor.383 Not only would courtiers have been present in this chapel, but foreign ambassadors would have as well.

Some of these ministers would have been from the east, including Byzantium, and therefore would have recognized the iconography decorating the east end of the chapel.

While some of the imagery placed in the king’s view would have been hidden from them, they still might have recognized the unorthodox way of organizing the feast scenes throughout the domed space. The king would have been visible to them, therefore the arrangement which favored the king’s view would have been apparent, as well as the juxtaposition of the king next to the Crucifixion and Anastasis.

The other contemporaneous Palermitan building with Byzantine mosaics, Santa

Maria dell’Ammiraglio, was designed as a centrally-planned building, unlike the combination of central and basilical plan found at the Cappella Palatina. Originally it was a small cross-in-square type church, with four barrel vaulted arms extending from the central dome. This type of plan is ideal for a fully realized Middle Byzantine program. However, changes were made here as well. While the changes made at the

383 This title signified the level of knowledge and respect for Byzantine history and court culture. See Chapter 1, page 52, note 116.

213

Cappella Palatina to the Middle Byzantine program are based on the presence and view of the king, those at Santa Maria dell’Ammiraglio, also known as the Martorana, are due to the dedication and special interest of the patron. The dome here is occupied by the Pantokrator (Fig. 96). However, unlike at the Cappella Palatina, in the Martorana

Christ is enthroned and surrounded by four bowing Archangels.384 In the drum below are Old Testament Prophets, standing and holding scrolls with quotations, followed by the Evangelists in the squinches, writing their Gospels.385 This arrangement is identical to that found at the Cappella Palatina, however the drum at the Martorana is taller, allowing full length depictions of the Prophets rather than busts. Also, as in the palace chapel, the soffits of the arches have busts of saints. As at the chapel, the north, south and west soffits bear images of martyrs. However, the bishops at the Martorana are located on the east soffit, along with church fathers.386 The final individual figures

384 Christ is holding a closed book, but there is an inscription included here. It is around the medallion and is the same quote from John found in the open book in the apse at Cefalù. However, here it is only in Greek. Demus, Mosaics of Norman Sicily, 79; Kitzinger, The Mosaics of the St. Mary’s of the Admiral, 124-125.

385 The prophets are Jeremiah, Isaiah, David, Moses, Zachariah, Daniel, Elisha, and Elija. It was possible to depict all of them standing, unlike at the Cappella Palatina, because the drum here is taller. For the mosaics of the dome and drum at Santa Maria dell’Ammiraglio, see Demus, Mosaics of Norman Sicily, 79; Kitzinger, “Mosaic Decoration in Sicily,” 162-163; Kitzinger, Mosaics of St. Mary’s of the Admiral, 138-139 and 147-148.

386 See Demus, Mosaics of Norman Sicily, 80; Kitzinger, Mosaics of St. Mary’s of the Admiral, 158-160, for the saints included on all four of the soffits.

214 included here are eight Apostles, placed in the barrel vaults of the north and south cross arms.387

The festival scenes in the Martorana present the biggest departure from the

Byzantine program. There are four scenes included, and they do not encompass Christ’s entire life, according to the established norm in Byzantium. Instead, only scenes in which the Virgin Mary plays a primary role are included. The Annunciation and

Presentation in the Temple are on the east and west arches of the central dome, as at the

Cappella Palatina, while the Nativity and Koimesis share the barrel vault of the western cross arm (Figs. 96 and 97).388 All four of these were part of the traditional twelve scenes in Byzantine churches and still serve to highlight the Incarnation, particularly the

Nativity.389 However, Christ’s redemptive work, central to the Byzantine sequence of festival scenes, is no longer a major theme. The Christological cycle central in

Byzantium has been turned into a Marian cycle as a result of the patron’s private religious concerns. The patron, George of Antioch (the Ammiraglio or admiral in the name of the church), and Roger’s prime minister, founded this church in the early

387 For the Apostles, see Demus, Mosaics of Norman Sicily, 80; Kitzinger, “Mosaic Decoration in Sicily,” 163; Kitzinger, Mosaics of St. Mary’s of the Admiral, 154.

388 For the festival scenes at Santa Maria dell’Ammiraglio, see Demus, Mosaics of Norman Sicily, 80-81; Kitzinger, “Mosaic Decoration in Sicily,” 163-164; Kitzinger, Mosaics of St. Mary’s of the Admiral, 169.

389 See page 209 in this chapter for the list of scenes included a typical Middle Byzantine church.

215

1140’s in gratitute to the Virgin for his good fortune in life.390 George’s veneration of the

Virgin Mary is evident in the dedication of the church, and in the mosaic panel, most likely placed in the narthex originally, in which George prostrates himself at Mary’s feet

(Fig. 98). She in turn holds a document with a plea for his personal salvation, presenting it to her son.391

While both of these buildings had different audiences, patrons and dedications, they each exhibit an understanding of the flexibility of the Middle Byzantine decorative program. Changes were made in both buildings as suited the plans, patrons and function or dedication. Although the Cappella Palatina is more easily relatable to the

Cathedral of Cefalù, both being royal foundations of Roger II. However, Santa Maria dell’Ammiraglio was also associated with the royal court through its founder, George of

Antioch. Santa Maria dell’Ammiraglio also more closely resembles a Byzantine church in plan and decoration, demonstrating the depth of knowledge of Byzantine culture in

Norman Sicily, as well as the access to artists at the top of their craft.

390 For more on George of Antioch, see Chapter One, especially page 52-54 and note 118.

391 Kitzinger, “Mosaic Decoration in Sicily,” 164; Kitzinger, Mosaics of St. Mary’s of the Admiral, 197.

216

The Mosaic Program in its Context at Cefalù

As at the Cappella Palatina and Santa Maria dell’Ammiraglio, the Byzantine system of decoration was used at Cefalù, but it was modified to suit the function and design of the building. The apse includes the Pantokrator and three registers of the

Virgin, archangels and apostles, while the flanking walls have single figures of prophets and saints. Festival scenes are missing from this program. The entire program was most likely planned as a cohesive unit under Roger II, and possibly even completed in one campaign.392 Except for the missing festival scenes, this program appears to be an adaptation of the Middle Byzantine type on an abbreviated scale. Moreover, saints were placed to favor the view from the royal and episcopal thrones in the sanctuary.393 The placement of these thrones, at the entrance to the sanctuary, was most likely established before this decoration was planned. From its origins, Cefalù was a royal foundation not far from Palermo, so it is likely that there would have been a designated space for the king.394 By the 1140’s, Roger had high aspirations for the cathedral of Cefalù, intending it to serve as the burial site for the Hauteville dynasty. The fact that its importance

392 For the entire program being planned under Roger II, see Andaloro, “I mosaici di Cefalù,” 109; Demus, Mosaics of Norman Sicily, 18; Johnson, “Episcopal and Royal Views,” 124; Kitzinger, “Mosaic Decoration in Sicily,” 160. For the program being executed as a single project before 1148, see Brenk, “The Mosaics of Cefalù Revisited,” 20-23.

393 Johnson, “Episcopal and Royal Views,” 125.

394 The town of Cefalù is about 40 miles east of Palermo.

217 decreased later in Roger’s reign and later under his son suggests that the presbytery thrones would have been included in the original plan. Both the king and bishop would have required a distinguished place to sit.

The royal throne was at the entrance to the choir, on the north, or left, side, putting the king on the right side of the bust of Christ in the apse mosaic (Fig. 99).

Roger’s status as apostolic legate, inherited from his father, gave him the right to sit in the sanctuary during services.395 The prophets and saints on the south wall of the presbytery, the most easily visible to someone seated in the royal throne, were selected based on their connection to royalty, and the specific preferences of Roger and the

Normans (Fig. 87). David and Solomon were great biblical kings, and models for good kingship. They are both depicted at the top, wearing diadems with jeweled pendants.

Military saints dressed as the Imperial Household guard are depicted below the Old

Testament prophets. Of those included, Theodore was particularly important to the

Hauteville family, especially Roger II.396 In general, military saints were viewed as protectors of rulers and their armies. The bishop saints below the military saints were

395 Johnson, “Episcopal and Royal Views,” 125. For Roger II as apostolic legate, see Chapter 1, page 69 and note 145.

396 In 1147, Roger’s army attacked Greece, and successfully sacked Thebes and Corinth. Accounts of the attack mention specifically that the icon of Theodore was taken from the church in Corinth. See Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 84-85; Johnson, “Episcopal and Royal Views,” 128. Theodore’s importance is also apparent through his presence across from the royal balcony in the Cappella Palatina. See pages 217-218 of this chapter.

218 all from the east. Three of the bishops, Basil, John Chrysostom and Gregory of

Nazianzus, were important bishops in the early church. They had a significant influence over the shaping of Christian theology, and were acknowledged in the western church as Doctors of the Church. The fourth, Nicholas of Myra, was meaningful for the

Normans of South Italy, as his relics had been taken from Myra to Bari in the eleventh century. He appears twice in the Cappella Palatina, as well as on an enamel blessing

Roger II.397

The bishop’s throne at Cefalù was situated on the south, or right, side of the sanctuary (Fig. 100). The mosaics in view from this location included figures associated with the clergy, the bishop, and the authority of the church (Fig. 88). Melchizedek is in the top register in a roundel, the prototypical Old Testament priest who received an offering from Abraham. This offering was seen as the antetype of the Eucharist, which would have been performed at the altar below this mosaic. Below Melchizedek are the

Old Testament Prophets Joel, Amos and Obadiah, whose primary functions were being

397 In 1087, sailors from Bari stole the body after supposedly hearing of a Venetian plan to take it. They installed Nicholas’s body in the Basilica of San Nicola in Bari which became a very popular pilgrimage site. See Donald Matthew, The Norman Kingdom of Sicily (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 101. For the presence of St. Nicholas in the Cappella Palatina, see page 24 of this chapter. The enamel on which Nichols is depicted blessing Roger is a dedicatory plaque originally from the ciborium of the high altar of Basilica of San Nicola at Bari. This is now in the Museo Nicolaiano in Bari. There is a mix of Western and Byzantine imagery evident on the plaque. Roger wears the typical Byzantine ceremonial dress, including a loros over his tunic, and holds an orb and banner with a cross, both traditional elements of Byzantine regalia. However, he wears a western style diadem and has long hair and a beard, which was common for the Frankish kings and not the Byzantine emperors at this time. See Booms and Higgs, Sicily: Culture and Conquest, 181-182; Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 115-116.

219 witnesses to Christ.398 The next register down includes four saints, all associated with the Latin church and serving as episcopal role models. These are Stephen the

Protomartyr, Lawrence, Vincent, and Peter of Alexandria. Lawrence and Vincent are western saints, and Peter sided with Rome against the Eastern Church.399 The lowest register includes Silvester, Augustine and Gregory the Great, all western church fathers, and Dionysius.400 Dionysius was probably included because of the Norman associations with France, and his connection with the abbey church of Saint-Denis, burial site of the

French kings. The inclusion of Dionysius reflects the shift in function of Cefalù in the

1140s to serve as the burial place for Roger and his dynasty. These saints in the lowest register were paired with the eastern saints on the south wall. Dionysius and Nicholas were both important saints to the Normans, and had a connection to royal families. The two Gregories shared a name and were both considered Church fathers. Silvester was

Bishop of Rome and Basil was the Archbishop of Caesarea. John Chrysostom and

Augustine were both orators, writers, and bishops.

398 For these upper two zones, see Johnson, “Episcopal and Royal Views,” 125-126.

399 Johnson, “Episcopal and Royal Views,” 126.

400 Silvester received the donation from Constantine, Gregory wrote the book that essentially became the handbook for bishops, and the cathedral was populated with Augustinian canons. Dionysius was included most likely because of his association with France and the French kings. Also, the church dedicated to him, Saint-Denis, was the mausoleum of the French kings. This can be related to the shift in function of Cefalù to include the tomb of Roger II. Johnson, “Episcopal and Royal Views,” 126.

220

This program was planned, and possibly completely installed, in the mid-1140s, when the function of the cathedral altered so that it might also serve as a royal mausoleum. While the decorative program did not extend to the crossing, where the tombs are believed to have been placed, the mosaics should still be understood within the context of this royal association.401

In April 1145, more than a decade after construction on the cathedral began, two porphyry sarcophagi were donated to the cathedral, on intended to serve as the tomb of

Roger II, and the other as a cenotaph to his name (Fig. 101).402 It is likely that the porphyry used to construct the tombs came from Rome, where Roger still had allies in the Pierleoni family, the family of Anacletus.403 This addition of porphyry to the cathedral coincided with the installation of the apse mosaics, completed by 1148. Ever since ancient Rome, porphyry had been a stone reserved for imperial use, and associated with the emperor. This imperial association continued into the Byzantine era, with the term ‘porphyrogenitus’ used to indicate children of the emperor were legitimate.404 Porphyrogenitus means born in the purple, and refers to the bed chamber

401 Brenk, “The Mosaics of Cefalù Revisited,” 17

402 See note 331 at the beginning of this chapter, especially, Deér, Dynastic Porphyry Tombs, 1.

403 Anacletus was the Antipope who approved the creation of the kingdom of Sicily, and Roger’s coronation, as well as the elevation of Cefalù to a bishopric. See Chapter 1, page 43-46.

404 Constantine VII was born illegitimately, before his parents Leo and Zoe were married in secret and against the wishes of the Patriarch. When he was eighteen months old, he was declared legitimate and

221 in which empresses would give birth.405 The presence of a Byzantinizing decorative program alongside an imperial material shows an attempt to represent Roger as having the same status as a Byzantine emperor, a factor which would help him in his struggle with the papacy.

Both the choice of porphyry for these tombs, and their installation at the Cefalù can be connected with the ongoing rivalry between Roger and the papacy, going back to the early years of his reign as count, and later as duke. The dispute intensified after the death of the antipope Anacletus in 1138, with the result that three succeeding popes were hesitant to confirm Roger’s crown, each refusing initially. This began with

Innocent II in 1138 immediately after the death of antipope Anacletus. Not only did

Innocent refuse to confirm Roger’s crown, but he also excommunicated Roger and his followers. Innocent did not recognize Roger as King of Sicily until losing to Roger at the

Battle of Galluccio on July 22, 1139.406 Innocent’s successors, Celestine II (1143-1144) and

Lucius II (1144-1145), both refused to renew Roger’s investiture.407 Celestine eventually

the term ‘porphyrogenitus’ associated with him. See John Julius Norwich, A Short History of Byzantium (New York: Vintage Books, 1999), 162-164.

405 Anna Komnenos describes this room as having marble floors and walls, all purple in color with white dots like grains of sand. See Anne Comnène, Alexiade (Règne de l’empereuer Alexis I Comnène), Vol. 2, trans. Bernard Leib (Paris: Société d’édition “Les Belles lettres,” 1967), 90; Deér, Dynastic Porphyry Tombs, 134.

406 See Chapter 1, page 47, note 109.

407 Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 91; Robinson, The Papacy, 387.

222 acquiesced in return for the cessation of attacks by Roger on Benevento, but died before officially investing Roger as king. At the start of the pontificate of Lucius II, Roger’s troops began invading papal territories, resulting in a seven year truce.408 These three pontiffs’ reigns coincide with the early years of the Cathedral of Cefalù, and, most importantly, coincide with the donation of the porphyry sarcophagi in 1145 and the completion of some, or possibly all, of the mosaics by 1148.

At one level, the use of porphyry at Cefalù could be viewed as a reaction to the tomb that Pope Innocent II created for himself at the Lateran: a porphyry sarcophagus from the Castel Sant’Angelo, believed to have been an ancient imperial tomb, possibly even Hadrian’s.409 Roger might have understood this as a claim to imperial power by the pope. He had been raised by Greek tutors and had in his court Greek officials who were thoroughly familiar with Byzantine history and court practices. Therefore, he would have recognized the significance of the material and the history of the sarcophagus appropriated by Innocent. By using porphyry for his own funeral monument, Roger was also demonstrating his desire for imperial status. While this can

408 Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 91-92.

409 The Castel Sant’Angelo held the tombs of Roman emperors from Hadrian to Geta. In the twelfth century, the sarcophagus taken to the Lateran for Innocent II’s tomb was believed to be Hadrian’s. It was placed in the Lateran Basilica, near the altar. See Deér, Dynastic Porphyry Tombs, 150-151.

223 be read as a challenge to the Byzantine emperor, it should also be understood as a challenge to the pope’s power in the west.410

This change in function can also be seen as a reaction to activities of contemporaneous rulers, both in France and Byzantium, who were building or refurbishing royal mausoleums. The rebuilding of the abbey church Saint-Denis by

Abbot Suger in 1137-1144 is an easy parallel to Roger’s decision to make Cefalù his burial site.411 The timing of Suger’s remodeling predates the addition of the sarcophagi and mosaics by several years, and the fact of the Royal Abbey of Saint-Denis serving as a burial site of French kings mirrors the shift at Cefalù in 1145. While the use of porphyry at Cefalù is not relevant for the comparison to Saint-Denis made here, the shift in function of the Cathedral of Cefalù to become Roger’s mausoleum can be compared to the importance of Saint-Denis to the kings of France. I have already mentioned that Louis VII and Roger II were in contact and apparently on good terms in

410 Deér argued that Roger’s use of porphyry was a reaction to the Popes in Rome, rather than Byzantium. By the twelfth century, the use of porphyry in Byzantium was very limited. In her account, Anna Komnene associated porphyry with the emperors who ruled centuries before her time, and claimed even these historic figures had to look for it in Rome. In Constantinople, the Church of the Holy Apostles had sarcophagi made of porphyry, but not all of the emperors buried in the church were favored with a sarcophagus of this material. However, Innocent II used an ancient sarcophagus from Castel Sant’Angelo for his tomb. Innocent would have been planning this tomb slightly prior to Roger’s decision to have two porphyry sarcophagi constructed for the Cathedral of Cefalù. See Anne Comnène, Alexiade, Vol. 2, 90; Deér, Dynastic Porphyry Tombs, 129-135.

411 For the rebuilding of this abbey church under Abbot Suger, see Erwin Panofsky, Abbot Suger: On the Abbey Church of St-Denis and its Art Treasures (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979), 1-37.

224 the 1140’s. In addition, the Normans were originally from France. The presence of

Dionysius in the mosaic program at Cefalù could serve to link Roger’s foundation with the royal abbey outside of Paris. However, I do not propose Saint-Denis as the sole, or even the most influential, mid-twelfth century building complex in Roger’s decision to make the Cathedral of Cefalù his burial site.

In 1118, John II Komnenos and his wife Irene founded a monastery, dedicated to the Pantokrator, in Constantinople. The entire complex included three domed churches side by side, and was built between 1118 and 1136. The south church was the first church built, dedicated to the Pantokrator, and served as the katholikon for the monastic community. The north church was added next. This was dedicated to the

Virgin Eleousa (Merciful) and was open to the laity. Finally, a third church was placed between the two existing structures. This was an imperial mausoleum and dedicated to

St. Michael.412 It is this middle church that is particularly relevant for the addition of the sarcophagi at Cefalù. The typikon from the monastery survives, and in this text, the middle church is referred to as a ‘heroon’.413 A heroon was the shrine of a hero, and in

412 For the history of the Pantokrator monastery and an overview of the architectural elements, see Cormack, Byzantine Art, 159-161; Lowden, Early Christian and Byzantine Art, 350-351; Robert Ousterhout, Master Builders of Byzantium (Princeton: Princeton Unviersity Press, 1999), 120-121; Robert Ousterhout, “Contextualizing the Later Churches of Constantinople: Suggested Methodologies and a Few Examples,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 54 (2000): 245-248; Robert Ousterhout, “Architecture, Art and Komnenian Ideology at the Pantokrator Monastery,” in Byzantine Constantinople: Monuments, Topography and Everyday Life, ed. Nevra Necipoğlu (Leiden and Boston: Brill Academic Publishers, 2001), 133-135.

413 In the typikon, the middle church is described as being “in the form of a heroon.” See Robert Jordan’s translation of the typikon in “Pantokrator: Typikon of Emperor John II Komnenos for the Monastery of

225 this context, it meant the tomb of a great imperial hero. It seems the Komnenians were attempting to connect themselves to the prestigious Early Christian emperor of

Byzantium by drawing comparisons between their mausoleum and that of Constantine the Great. Constantine the Great, the powerful Early Christian emperor, won significant battles for the Roman Empire, and founded the Church of the Holy Apostles to be the imperial mausoleum. Considering the imperial status of the Komnenian mausoleum, the term heroon used in its typikon, the Early Christian designs in the opus sectile floor, and its proximity to the Church of the Holy Apostles, the Pantokrator Monastery was intended to be equated with the mausoleum of Constantine the Great and his successors.414

The changes made to the east end of the Cathedral of Cefalù all appear to parallel elements and events in of the Byzantine Empire. The decorative program is clearly an adapted version of the Middle Byzantine program. The use of porphyry has imperial connotations, as well as suggesting competition with the pope. And while the use of a royal cathedral as a mausoleum can be compared to the Abbey Church of Saint-Denis,

Christ Pantokrator in Constantinople,” trans. Robert Jordan, in Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents: A Complete Translation of the Surviving Founders’ Typika and Testaments, eds. John Thomas and Angela Constantinides Hero (Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2000), 753. Also, Ousterhout, “Architecture, Art and Komnenian Ideology,” 144; Robert Ousterhout, Master Builders of Byzantium, 121.

414 For the Early Christian designs, see Ousterhout, “Architecture, Art and Komnenian Ideology,” 143-144. For the comparison with the Church of the Holy Apostles, see Ousterhout, “Architecture, Art and Komnenian Ideology,” 144; Ousterhout, Master Builders of Byzantium, 121; Cormack, Byzantine Art, 161.

226 the connection with the Pantokrator Monastery in Constantinople is stronger. This complex was built during Roger’s life, and completed when the Cathedral of Cefalù had already begun. It is likely Roger would have been aware of the new Komnenian complex. Therefore, Roger’s interest in using Byzantine models could have motivated him to establish his own mausoleum. Futhermore, the decorative program at Cefalù could also be linked with the Pantokrator Monastery, as well as the general Byzantine tradition of mosaic decoration. According to the typikon of the Pantokrator Monastery, it was decorated with mosaics, among other things.415 While the addition of mosaics in

Cefalù might simply be related to the new decorations in Palermo, as well as to Roger’s desire to appear imperial and a legitimate ruler, another source of inspiration might have been the new Komnenian foundation. Like the Hautevilles, this dynasty was relatively new, having been started in 1081, and so could have served as a model for

Roger as he established his rule.416 Roger’s advisors, especially George of Antioch, would have been familiar with the recent history of Byzantium and could have steered him, encouraging him to model himself on the new Byzantine emperors.

415 Cormack, Byzantine Art, 159.

416 See Norwich, A Short History of Byzantium, 247-290, for a history of the Komnenian dynasty.

227

King as Autokrator, “Imperial Liturgy,” and Roger II at Cefalù

The Byzantine idea of kingship was appealing to Roger II, and closest to his idea of his own power and authority. In Byzantium, the emperor ruled as an autokrator. He was viewed as being Christ’s representative on earth and ruling on behalf of God, having complete control over both ecclesiastical and state affairs. This meant that the emperor would have more power than church officials.417 Roger also believed his power came directly from Christ, rather than from the pope. This belief is seen in the coronation of Roger II, where he received unction from Anacletus II’s nephew, Cardinal

Conte. In France, England, and Byzantium, this unction with a special holy oil symbolized the divine right to rule. For both French and Byzantine monarchs, their authority came directly from God. In France, the unction with holy oil gave the king a sacred status, and can be traced back to the belief that the Holy Spirit descended at

Clovis’s baptism.418 The Norman kingdom of Sicily was a new kingdom, without established court practices. Therefore, Roger and his court officials had to look for examples elsewhere. It seems reasonable that Roger would turn to his ancestral land

417 See Cormack, Byzantine Art, 156-157; Kitzinger, “Mosaic Decoration in Sicily,” 165; Kitzinger, “On the Portrait of Roger II,” 30-31.

418 Borsook, Messages in Mosaic, 2-6; Kitzinger, “Mosaic Decoration in Sicily, 165”

228 and Byzantium, both kingdoms that viewed a monarch’s power as coming directly from Christ, for customs and ceremonies that promoted the new king’s view of himself.

The coronation was a one-time event, but Roger also seems to have followed

Byzantine practices for the emperor’s involvement in liturgical feasts and his reception of courtiers. This “imperial liturgy” included acclamations relating the emperor to

Christ, and homage paid to the ruler by his court through the act of proskyensis.419 The acclamations were meant to show clearly the link between emperor and Christ and to equate the feasts of the liturgical calendar to imperial triumphs, especially emphasizing that imperial power started with Christ’s birth.420 After the religious ceremony, there followed a ceremony called prokypsis, named after the raised platform used. In this ceremony, the emperor stepped onto a platform, where he was hidden from the court behind closed curtains. He was then given his crown, cross and a purse, and candelabra were placed beside him. He was then revealed to the members of the court, who had been carefully arranged in an organized and hierarchical order, illuminated and in full

419 For the imperial liturgy, see Tronzo, “Medieval Object-Enigma,” 225; Tronzo, Cultures of His Kingdom, 111-115.

420 These types of acclamations were used in the Komnenian court. One example was written for John II Komnenos on Christmas. “Once more, [we celebrate] the birthday of Christ and the victory of the emperor. The birth of one inspires awe, the victory of the other is irresistible.” Henry Maguire, “The Mosaics of Nea Moni: An Imperial Reading,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 46, Homo Byzantinus: Papers in Honor of Alexander Kazhdan (1992): 211. For more examples from the Komnenian period, see Maguire,” Mosaics of Nea Moni,” 208-211. For the origins of imperial power being the birth of Christ, see Tronzo, Cultures of His Kingdom, 115.

229 imperial regalia accompanied by music and more acclamations. The curtained dais was compared to the place of Christ’s birth, and thus the emperor was presented to his court in a Christ-like manner.421

In his work on the Cappella Palatina, Tronzo argued that the western part of the chapel was used for secular ceremonies, possibly mirroring those that occurred in

Byzantium. His evidence for this is the platform at the west end of the chapel, the pavement patterns, as well as the Nativity being visible upon entrance. Tronzo also points out that the nave mosaics were added under Roger II’s successors, so what appears as the nave of a church now would originally have looked more like a secular audience hall. While the mosaic decoration above the platform was installed after

Roger’s reign, the platform itself seems to have been part of the original design (Fig.

102). The intercolumniation in the first arch of the nave colonnade is wider than the other arches. Also, two of the nave columns sit on the platform. If this had not originally been planned, the platform most likely would have been built around the columns rather than underneath them.422 Therefore, in the original design, there was a low platform or dais in the palace chapel similar to the prokypsis in Byzantium.

421 For the prokypsis ceremony, see Maguire, “Mosaics of Nea Moni,” 210; Tronzo, Cultures of His Kingdom, 116-119.

422 See Tronzo, “Medieval Object-Enigma,” 212-215, for the dating of the mosaic above the platform and the arguments for the platform being part of the original plan of the chapel.

230

The pavement designs in the two bays next to the main entrance to the chapel seem to be related to ceremonial greetings of the king. This pavement is made up of symmetrical designs, in a series of square and rectangular compartments. Most of these sections have simple frames, whereas those near the southwest door are separated by large designs and narrower decorative bands (Fig. 103). This is similar to designs that mark thresholds, suggesting that this area of the south aisle marked transitions into the chapel.423 Upon entering the chapel, the visitor would follow these pavement markers and turn to the east, having a full view of the Nativity (Fig. 91). Then he would turn into the nave and face the king. The pairing of the Nativity and king reflects the Byzantine idea that imperial power started with the birth of Christ.424

Finally, Tronzo argued that there was a balcony on the north side of the nave at the clerestory level, next to the crossing (Fig. 104). From here, the sanctuary and mass would not be visible, but the platform to the west would have been easily observed. He believes this balcony was also part of the Rogerian design. The space where this balcony was located is now covered with later mosaics.425 All of these features of the Cappella

423 For the pavement designs and the indication of thresholds and movement, see Tronzo, “Medieval Object-Enigma,” 223-225; Tronzo, Cultures of His Kingdom, 99-100.

424 Tronzo, “Medieval Object-Enigma,” 226; Tronzo, Cultures of His Kingdom, 119.

425 The medallions of saints between the top of the arch and the lower border of the register with Old Testament scenes shows an inconsistency in the far east bay on the north side. The saint below the later mosaic does not fill the entire space, unlike the rest of the medallions. This suggests that when the nave mosaics were being installed in the 1160’s and later, there was something above the arch preventing a

231

Palatina related to court ritual suggest that there was an established ceremony occurring somewhat regularly in the nave. There was a place designated for the king to stand, and receive visitors or take part in court ceremonies. The pavement was designed to lead courtiers and visitors to the king while taking in specific views of the decorative program. And there was a place where members of Roger’s court, possibly his queen or family, could watch the ceremony. This balcony was located on the north side of the chapel which, as was discussed earlier, was the side of the royal residences.426 Therefore, the family could view the ceremonies from an elevated, separate space. Since

Byzantium was a strong influence on Roger in the development of his court customs, and because of the features which mirror Byzantine practices, it seems likely that this ceremony was similar to imperial ceremonies in the Byzantine court. Furthermore,

Philagathos of Cerami, a Greek monk from Rossano, wrote sermons and royal panegyrics comparing Roger and Christ.427 Based on his writings, it appears that

Philagathos was thoroughly familiar with the court of Palermo, classic literature, and

Byzantine culture. Having panegyrics written similar to those found in Byzantium more completely connects the practices of Roger’s court to those of the Byzantine Empire.

design similar to the rest of the nave. See Tronzo, “Medieval Object-Enigma,” 216-218, and Tronzo, Cultures of His Kingdom, 49-54, for the presence of a balcony in the nave during Roger’s reign.

426 See page 214 and note 369 in this chapter.

427 Tronzo, “Medieval Object-Enigma,” 226; Tronzo, Cultures of His Kingdom, 120.

232

Roger not only used Byzantine court practices to show his status, but was also portrayed in the style of Byzantine emperors. The best-known example of this is found at Santa Maria dell’Ammiraglio, in the mosaic panel of Christ crowning Roger (Fig.

105). In this image, Roger is wearing the ceremonial costume of the Byzantine emperor, including the loros over a tunic embroidered with gold and pearls.428 However, the crown, an open diadem with pendilia, was outdated by the twelfth century. Byzantine emperors were wearing a closed hemispherical bowl-like crown at this time, so this image of Roger is not meant to be a copy of the contemporary emperor.429 It seems unlikely that George of Antioch and the other courtiers from the east, and therefore

Roger, would not have been aware of the change in fashion. However, this was a recent shift in fashion, and the older crown would have been more recognizable by general populations as an imperial crown, rather than the new Komnenian design. Therefore, we can deduce that this image is meant to show Roger as an emperor, with all of the

428 For the Middle Byzantine court costume, see Elisabeth Pilz, “Middle Byzantine Court Costume,” in Byzantine Court Culture from 829-1204, ed. Henry Maguire (Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1997), 39-51, esp. 40-44 & 48-51.

429 The crown of the early part of the Middle Byzantine period was an open diadem with a large precious stone in front, over the forehead, in either red, white, blue or green. When the Komnenians came to power, the crown was changed to a closed hemisphere. In her account of the reign of Alexis I Komnenos, Anna Komnenos described the crown worn by her father. According to Anna, it was a closed hemisphere, sitting closely on the top of the head, and adorned with pearls and precious stones. Some of the stone were inlaid and others were on pendants. On each side, at the temples, strings of pearls and jewels hung down. This last feature was unique to the imperial crown, while the other elements could be found on crowns for officials or the emperor’s family. See Anne Comnène, Alexiade (Règne de l’empereuer Alexis I Comnène), Vol. 1, trans. Bernard Leib (Paris: Société d’édition “Les Belles lettres,” 1967), 113-114. Pilz, “Middle Byzantine Court Costume,” 40-41.

233 recognizable trappings of Byzantine rule, representing his authority and power.430

Roger also bears a physical resemblance to Christ as depicted in this mosaic, showing the close relationship between God and King, and suggesting that Roger belongs to a sphere halfway between god and mankind. It also shows the source of Roger’s power, which was God and not the pope or an emperor.431 This image could be understood by any of Roger’s subjects, regardless of religion or language.432 In William Tronzo’s words, it was a “visually self-sufficient image” that did not need any explanation.433

This echoes the Byzantine view of kingship, in which the emperor rules for God on earth. Furthermore, Roger is receiving divine approval from God, thus legitimizing his claim to the kingdom.

Byzantine kingship was an attractive concept for Roger II, and his use of court practices and imagery from Byzantium reflects this. Another easy interpretation of this is that Roger’s Byzantinizing is that he saw himself as being in competition with the

430 This image of Christ crowning Roger was based on a Byzantine prototype, for example the ivory plaque of Constantine VII crowned by Christ. See Ernst Kitzinger, “On the Portrait of Roger II in the Martorana in Palermo,” Proporzioni: studi di storia dell’arte 3 (1950): 30; Tronzo, “Byzantine Court Culture,” 107.

431 Ernst Kitzinger, “On the Portrait of Roger II in the Martorana,” 30; Tronzo, “Byzantine Court Culture,” 108-109;

432 This mosaic would have been seen by Greeks, Normans, Muslims, and Latins. Tronzo, “Byzantine Court Culture,” 109. See also Ibn Jubayr’s account of his travels for evidence that Muslims could and did visit the church. Ibn Jubayr, The Travels of Ibn Jubayr, 349.

433 Tronzo, “Byzantine Court Culture,” 108.

234

Byzantine emperor, and wanted to have the same or higher status than the eastern ruler. However, it is imperative to keep in mind that Greek culture was important in

Norman Sicily before it became a kingdom. Therefore, in order to identify a power struggle influencing court policies, it is more fruitful to look elsewhere. Throughout the years, as he confirmed his control of Sicily, progressing from count to king, Roger II had an ongoing conflict with the popes in Rome. He relied upon papal confirmation to legitimize his kingdom, and although he had initially received this from the antipope

Anacletus II, succeeding popes were reluctant to grant him the crown. By casting himself as a Byzantine emperor, Roger represented himself as free from papal control. If

Roger’s status was the same as that of a Byzantine emperor, being God’s representative on earth, he would then be equal with the pope and would not require papal approval.

Conclusion

The changes made in function, structure, and decoration to the east end of the

Cathedral of Cefalù reflect an increased interest in elements associated with imperial powers, intended to emphasize Roger’s desire for imperial status. The function of the choir was changed, becoming a mausoleum. The tombs alone express this for the occupants, in this case, Roger and his name, while the shift in function of the cathedral can be linked to the Byzantine practice of burying the ruler in a monastic church that he

235 had founded. The use of porphyry for the two tombs at Cefalù can also be read as a reaction to the use of this imperial material by Pope Innocent II. The design of the main apse was altered to better accommodate a mosaic program clearly rooted in the Middle

Byzantine tradition. The typical middle zone in the Byzantine tradition is missing at

Cefalù. This typically provided a guide to the liturgical calendar in the Eastern

Orthodox church, a spiritual pilgrimage, and visual support for the Incarnation. With this section being removed, the focus of the program at Cefalù shifts to the Pantokrator and to those who support him and continue his message. The royal throne of Roger II, located on the north side of the sanctuary, put the king on Christ’s right, in the place of honor. I would like to suggest that the emphasis on Christ as the All-Ruler, and the placement of the king to His right, should be understood as a representation of Roger as

Christ’s minister on earth, in the style of the Byzantine emperor as autokrator. This, combined with the porphyry sarcophagi located in the transept near the sanctuary, reinforced Roger’s claim for imperial status, similar to that of the emperor in

Byzantium, thus making Roger equal to the pope and freeing him from the necessity of papal confirmation of his crown.

236

Figure 83 - Cathedral of Cefalù. Apse and presbytery mosaics. Photo: author.

Figure 84 - Cathedral of Cefalù. Detail of the Pantokrator. Photo: author.

237

Figure 85 - Cathedral of Cefalù. Detail of apse mosaic. Photo: author.

Figure 86 - Cathedral of Cefalù. Detail of vault mosaics. Photo: author.

238

Contact author or program for image

Figure 87 - Cathedral of Cefalù. Presbytery mosaics, south wall. Photo: Web Gallery of Art.

Contact author or program for image

Figure 88 - Cathedral of Cefalù. Presbytery mosaics, north wall. Photo: Web Gallery of Art.

239

Contact author or program for image

Figure 89 - Hosios Loukas. Interior of Katholikon, late-tenth/early-eleventh century. Photo: Penn State VRC.

Contact author or program for image

Figure 90 - Cappella Palatina, Palermo. Cupola mosaics, 1140s. Photo: Web Gallery of Art.

240

Contact author or program for image

Figure 91 - Cappella Palatina, Palermo. South pseudo-transept mosaic detail, 1140s. Photo: Giovanni Chiaramonte.

Contact author or program for image

Figure 92 - Cappella Palatina, Palermo. South wall mosaic detail, 1140s. Photo: Giovanni Chiaramonte

241

Contact author or program for image

Figure 93 - Cappella Palatina, Palermo. Pentecost (above) and Ascension (below) mosaics from pseudo- transept vaults, 1140s. Photos: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library (Ascension) and Luigi Artini, Kunsthistorisches Institut, Florence (Pentecost).

Contact author or program for image

Figure 94 - Cappella Palatina, Palermo. North wall mosaics, including the opening for the royal box, 1140s. Photo: Giovanni Chiaramonte.

242

Contact author or program for image

Figure 95 - Cappella Palatina, Palermo. Detail of mosaics facing the royal box, 1140s. Photo: Luigi Artini, Kunsthistorisches Institut, Florence.

Figure 96 - Santa Maria dell'Ammiraglio (Martorana), Palermo. Cupola mosaics, 1140s. Photo: author.

243

Figure 97 - Santa Maria dell'Ammiraglio (Martorana), Palermo. Detail of mosaics, the Nativity and Dormition, 1140s. Photo: author.

Figure 98 - Santa Maria dell'Ammiraglio (Martorana), Palermo. Dedication panel of George of Antioch kneeling before the Virgin, 1140s. Photo: author.

244

Contact author or program for image

Figure 99 - Cathedral of Cefalù. North wall of presbytery, showing where the royal throne had been. Photo: Soprintendenza deni culturali, Palermo.

Contact author or program for image

Figure 100 - Cathedral of Cefalù. South wall of presbytery, showing where the bishop's throne had been. Photo: Soprintendenza deni culturali, Palermo.

245

Contact author or program for image

Figure 101 - Cathedral of Palermo. Porphyry tomb of Roger II. Photo: Regione Siciliana, Cricd.

Contact author or program for image

Figure 102 - Cappella Palatina, Palermo. Throne platform at the west end of the hall. Platform, 1140s. Mosaics, 1160s. Photo: Giovanni Chiaramonte.

246

Contact author or program for image

Figure 103 - Cappella Palatina, Palermo. Pavement design. Image: after Serradifalco.

Contact author or program for image

Figure 104 - Isometric of the Cappella Palatina, showing the balcony in the nave, throne platform, and the path from the entrance to the platform. Drawing: Ju Tan.

247

Figure 105 - Santa Maria dell'Ammiraglio (Martorana), Palermo. Mosaic panel of Christ crowning Roger II, 1140s. Photo: author.

248

Conclusion

The Cathedral of Cefalù was in important royal foundation during the reign of

Roger II. However its status and significance decreased after the death of its patron.

This is evident in the extant building, in which breaks in construction, as well as changes to its fabric and function, are evident. These changes raise of the question of

Roger’s desires for the Cathedral, as well as why the changes were made. To understand the reasoning behind the design and changes, I looked at the Cathedral as an entire monument, rather than focusing on one specific detail. I also related the parts of the building that can securely be dated to Roger’s period to the visual culture of his cosmopolitan kingdom. In this study, I demonstrated that the cultural character of the

Norman Kingdom of Sicily was reflected in the monuments built by the rulers, especially Roger II. I also showed the understanding and acceptance of Muslim and

Greek society, and the incorporation of these cultures in Norman monuments, including the Cathedral of Cefalù.

The Norman Kingdom of Sicily was a multicultural anomaly in Medieval

Christian Europe. Muslims continued living on the island after the Norman conquest, and were influential in the development of the royal court at Palermo. Greek culture also thrived from the arrival of the Normans in the eleventh century through the reign of Roger II. This acceptance of non-Latin Christians was reflected not only in the court

249 at Palermo, but also in the objects and monuments associated with the ruling Normans, including the Cathedral of Cefalù. This cathedral was meant to communicate the power and legitimacy of Roger II and the Norman kingdom, and the designers drew from various imagery found throughout the kingdom to accomplish this.

The plan of the Cathedral shows a combination of sources, including plans of eleventh-century churches in Sicily and South Italy. The columnar nave and continuous transept recall eleventh-century churches in South Italy, such as Montecassino and the

Cathedral of Salerno. The stepped apse and twin-tower façade can be directly linked to the Duchy of Normandy by way of eleventh-century Sicilian churches. The twin-tower façade was instrumental in displaying a powerful image of the Norman presence in

Sicily. Not only did the façade relate to Norman buildings north of the Alps, but also to those founded by Roger II’s father, the conqueror of Sicily. Therefore, in two ways, the building referenced Norman dominance and power. The façade also emphasized

Roger’s presence as Norman Christian king. While the towers can be linked to monumental architecture of powerful rulers, both in Sicily and north of the Alps, they might also have been understood by the Muslims as proclaiming Christian dominance of the island. Therefore, this hybrid façade would communicate not only the Norman presence, but also the power of Roger II to all who saw the Cathedral.

The message of power was carried to the interior, with the addition of Byzantine- inspired mosaics and the installation of two porphyry sarcophagi. These elements are

250 not necessarily related to showing the power of the Norman kingdom. Rather, they can be read as elevating Roger to a higher status than simply a western king, placing him in a position not reliant on the pope for confirmation and approval. Therefore, these additions of the late 1130s and 1140s are directly related to the political environment in the Italian peninsula, particularly the relationship between Roger and the various popes of the 1130s and 40s. The entire monument of the Cathedral of Cefalù was an ensemble meant to display Roger’s presence, power, and legitimacy as a king of a newly created kingdom.

While the building’s status decreased after Roger’s death, the entire design of the

Cathedral played an integral role in the development of the artistic language of Norman

Sicily. The plan and decorations here drew from Western, Byzantine, and Muslim sources, a practice found in Roger II’s patronage of other objects and monuments, which continued during the reigns of Roger’s son and grandson, William I and William

II. Placing this cathedral more securely in the context of contemporaneous and later

Siculo-Norman monuments would be useful for illustrating the significance of this building to the Norman kings. This would emphasize the continued importance of using imagery derived from the multicultural population of the island after Roger’s death. Going down this avenue would require more focused research and discussions of the other monuments than is possible here. This would be a fruitful way to expand on understanding the significance of the Cathedral of Cefalù in the future. Also, a close

251 study of the fabric of the building would be useful for understanding the details of the architecture. This was not possible for the current project, but would be a practical next step in explaining the twelfth-century design and construction of the Cathedral. A deeper understanding of the Cathedral of Cefalù, and its context within Norman monuments of the next generations, would help emphasize the importance of the

Cathedral in setting a precedent followed by Roger’s successors, and its role in the development of imagery reflecting the values of the Norman kings of Sicily.

252

References

Primary Sources

“Anacletus II’s privilege to the Bishop of Messina, 1131.” In Roger II and the Creation of the Kingdom of Sicily, edited and translated by Graham A. Loud, 306-308. Manchester, UK and New York: Manchester University Press, 2012.

Alexander of Telese, “The History of the Most Serene Roger, First King of Sicily.” In Roger II and the Creation of the Kingdom of Sicily, edited and translated by Graham A. Loud, 63-129. Manchester, UK and New York: Manchester University Press, 2012.

Amatus of Montecassino. The History of the Normans. Translated by Prescott N. Dunbar. Woodbridge, UK: The Boydell Press, 2004.

Anne Comnène. Alexiade (Règne de l’empereuer Alexis I Comnène), Volume 1. Translated by Bernard Leib. Paris: Société d’édition “Les Belles lettres,” 1967.

―――. Alexiade (Règne de l’empereuer Alexis I Comnène), Volume 2. Translated by Bernard Leib. Paris: Société d’édition “Les Belles lettres,” 1967.

Apulieus. The Golden Ass, translated by Sarah Ruden. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2011.

Geoffrey Malaterra. The Deeds of Count Roger of Calabria and Sicily and of his brother Duke Robert Guiscard. Translated by Kenneth Baxter Wolf. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2005.

Muhammad Ibn Ahmad. The Travels of Ibn Jubayr, being a chronicle of a mediaeval Spanish Moor concerning his journey to the Egypt of Saladin, the holy cities of Arabia, Baghdad the City of Caliphs, the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, and the Norman Kingdom of Sicily. Translated by R.J.C. Broadhurst. London: Jonathan Cape, 1952.

Romuald of Salerno, “Chronicon Sive Annales, 1125-54.” In Roger II and the Creation of the Kingdom of Sicily, edited and translated by Graham A. Loud, 250-268. Manchester, UK and New York: Manchester University Press, 2012.

253

Secondary Sources

“Pantokrator: Typikon of Emperor John II Komnenos for the Monastery of Christ Pantokrator in Constantinople.” Translated by Robert Jordan. In Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents: A Complete Translation of the Surviving Founders’ Typika and Testaments, edited by John Thomas and Angela Constantinides Hero, 725-781. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2000.

Ahmad, S. Maqbul. “Cartography of al-Sharīf al-Idrīsī.” In Cartography in the Traditional Islamic and South Asian Societies, edited by J.B. Harley and David Woodward, 156- 147. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.

Amara, Allaoua and Annliese Nef. “Al-Idrīsī et les Hammūdides de Sicile: nouvelles données biographiques sur l’auteur du ‘Livre de Roger’.” Arabica, 48, no. 1 (2001): 121-127.

Andaloro, Maria. “I mosaici di Cefalù dopo il restauro.” In III Colloqiuo internazionale sul mosaic antico Volume I, eited by R. Farioli Campanati, 105-116. (Ravenna: Edizioni del Girasole, 1983.

―――, ed. Nobiles Officinae: perle, filigrane e trame di seta dal Palazzo Reale di Palermo, Volume 1. Catania: Giuseppe Maimone Editore, 2006.

Armi, C. Edson. “The Corbel Table.” Gesta 39, no. 2: 89-116.

Bauer, Rotraud. “Il manto di Ruggero II e le vesti regie.” In Nobiles Officinae: perle, filigrane e trame di seta dal Palazzo Reale di Palermo Volume 2, edited by Maria Andaloro, 171-181. Catania: Giuseppe Maimone Editore, 2006.

Bella, Tancredi. “Bâtir Face à la Mer: La Cathédrale Normande de Catane en Sicile. État de la Question.” Les Cahiers de Saint-Michel de Cuxa XLVIII (2017): 23-37.

Bellefiore, Giuseppe. Architettura in Sicilia nelle età islamica e normanna (827-1194). Palermo and Siracusa: Arnaldo Lombardi Editore, 1990.

Bertaux, Émile. L’art dans l’Italie Méridionale de la fin de l’Empire Romain à la Conquête de Charles d’Anjou. Rome: École Française de Rome, 1968.

Biddle, Martin. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre. New York: Rizzoli, in cooperation with Israel Antiquities Authority, 2000.

254

Blair, Sheila and Jonathan Bloom. Islamic Arts. London: Phaidon Press, 1997.

Bloom, Jonathan. “The Introduction of the Muqarnas into Egypt.” Muqarnas 5 (1988): 21- 28.

―――. Minaret: Symbol of Islam. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.

Boase, T.S.R. “Military Architecture in Crusader States in Palestine and Syria.” In The Art and Architecture of the Crusader States, Volume 4, edited by Harry W. Hazard, 140-164. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1977.

―――. “Ecclesiastical Art in the Crusader States in Palestine and Syria.” In The Art and Architecture of the Crusader States, vol. 4, ed. Harry W. Hazard, 69-139. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1977.

Booms, Dirk and Peter Higgs. Sicily: Culture and Conquest. London: The British Museum Press, 2016.

Borsook, Eve. Messages in Mosaic: The Royal Programmes of Norman Sicily, 1130-1187. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990.

Bozzoni, Corrado. Calabria normanna: ricerche sull’architettura dei secoli undicesimo e dodicesimo. Rome: Officina Edizioni, 1974.

Braca, Antonio. “Oltre Montecassino: la pianta originaria del duomo di Salerno.” Rassegna storica salernitana vol. 14, 29 (1997): 7-42.

―――. Il Duomo di Salerno: Architettura e culture artistiche del Medioevo e dell’Età Moderna. Salerno: Laveglia Editore, 2003.

Brenk, Beat. “The Mosaics of Cefalù Revisited: Innovation and Memory.” Codex Aquilarensis 34 (2018): 13-34.

Britt, Karen C. “Roger II of Sicily: Rex, Basileus, and Khalif? Identity, Politics, and Propaganda in the Cappella Palatina.” Mediterranean Studies 16 (2007): 21-45.

Bruzelius, Caroline. “The Norman Cathedral of Sant’Agata in Catania.” In L’officina dello sguardo: Scritto in onore di Maria Andaloro, edited by Giulia Bordi, Iole Carlettini, Maria Luigia Fobelli, Maria Raffaella Menna, and Paola Pogliani, 121-126. Rome: Gangemi Editore, 2014.

255

Calvo Capilla, S. “The Mosque of Bab-el-Mardum and the process of consecration of the small mosques in Toledo.” Al-Qantara 20, 2 (1999): 299-330

Carbonara, Giovanni. Montecassino e l’architettura Campano-Abruzzese nell’undicesimo secolo. Rome, Italy: Istituto di Fondamenti dell’Architettura, 1981.

Carini, Isidoro. “Una pergamena sulla fondazione del Duomo di Cefalù.” Archivio storico siciliano VII (1882): 136-138.

Carlson, Eric Gustav. “Religious Architecture in Normandy 911-1000.” Gesta 5 (January 1966): 27-33.

Cassano, Raffaella, Mimma Pasculli Ferrara, Cosimo Damiano Fonseca and Stefania Mola. Cattedrali di Puglia: Una storia lunga duemila anni. Milan: Mario Adda Editore, 2001.

Catlos, Brian A. Muslims of Medieval Latin Christendom. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2014.

Chiarelli, Leonard C. A History of Muslim Sicily. Santa Venera, Malta: Midsea Books, 2011.

Cioffari, Gerardo. “Dalle origini a Bona Sforza.” In San Nicola di Bari e la sua Basilica, edited by Giorgio Otranto, 140-173. Milan: Edizioni Electa Spa, 1987.

Conant, Kenneth John. Carolingian and Romanesque Architecture 800-1200. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1993.

Cormack, Robin. Byzantine Art. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Couasnon, Charles. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. London: Oxford University Press for the British Academy, 1974.

Creissen, Thomas. “Architecture religieuse et politique: À propos des mosaïques des parties basses de l’abside dans la cathédrale de Cefalù.” Cahiers de civilisation médiévale, 43, no. 183 (July-September 2003): 247-263.

Creswell, K.A.C. The Muslim Architecture of Egypt, Volume 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952.

256

Ćurčić, Slobodan. “The Architecture.” In The Mosaics of St. Mary’s of the Admiral in Palermo, edited by Ernst Kitzinger, 27-104. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1991.

Davis-Secord, Sarah. Where Three Worlds Met. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 2017.

Deér, Josef. The Dynastic Porphyry Tombs of the Norman Period in Sicily. Translated by G.A. Gillhoff. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1959.

Demus, Otto. The Mosaics of Norman Sicily. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd, 1949.

―――. Byzantine Mosaic Decoration: Aspects of Monumental Art in Byzantium. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Limited, 1964.

Dodds, Jerrilynn D. “The Great Mosque of Cordoba.” In Al-Andalus: The Art of Islamic Spain, edited by Jerrilynn D. Dodds, 11-25. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1992. di Stefano, Guido. Il Duomo di Cefalù: Biografia di una cattedrale incompiuta. Palermo: Italiamondo, 1960.

―――. Monumenti della Sicilia Normanna. Palermo: Società Siciliana per la Storia Patria, 1979.

Elsner, Jás. Imperial Rome and Christian Triumph. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Ettinghausen, Richard and Oleg Grabar. The Art and Architecture of Islam: 650-1250. London: Penguin Group, 1991.

Fernie, Eric. The Architecture of Norman England. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

―――. Romanesque Architecture: The First Style of the European Age. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2014.

Folda, Jarosalv. The Art of the Crusaders in the Holy Land, 1098-1187. New York and Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

―――. “The South Transept Façade of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem: An Aspect of ‘Rebuilding Zion’.” In The Crusades and their Sources: Essays

257

Presented to Bernard Hamilton, edited by John France and William G. Zajac, 239- 257. Aldershot, Great Britain: Ashgate, 1998.

Gelfer-Jørgensen, Mirjam. Medieval Islamic Symbolism and the Painted Ceilings in the Cefalù Cathedral. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1986.

Grant, Lindy. Architecture and Society in Normandy, 1120-1270. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2005.

Grierson, Philip and Lucia Travaini. Medieval European Coinage, with a Catalogue of the Coins in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, Vol. 14: South Italy, Sicily, and Sardinia. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Grube, Ernst. “The Painted Ceilings of the Cappella Palatina in Palermo and their Relation to the Artistic Traditions of the Muslim World and the Middle Ages.” In The Painted Ceilings of the Cappella Palatina, edited by Ernst Grube and Jeremy Johns, 15-34. Genova and New York: Bruschettini Foundation for Islamic Art, 2005.

Heinrich, Franz. “Les fenêtres circulaires de Cefalù et le probléme de l’origine de la ‘rose’ du Moyen âge.” Cahiers archéologiques fin de l’antiquité et moyen âge 9 (1957): 253-270.

Heliot, Pierre. “La cathédrale de Cefalù, sa chronologie, sa filiation et les Galeries murals dans les églises romanes du midi.” Arte Lombarda 10, no. 1 (Primo Semestre 1965):19-38.

―――. “La cathédrale de Cefalù, sa chronologie, sa filiation et les Galeries murals dans les églises romanes du midi (2e partie).” Arte Lombarda 11, no. 1 (Primo Semestre 1966): 6-25.

Hillenbrand, Robert. Islamic Art and Architecture. London: Thames and Hudson Ltd., 2010.

Hoffman, Eva R. “Pathways of Portability: Islamic and Christian Interchange from the tenth to the twelfth century” Art History 24, 1 (2001): 17-50.

Holloway, R. Ross. The Archaeology of Ancient Sicily. London and New York: Routledge, 1991.

258

Houben, Hubert. Roger II of Sicily: A Ruler between East and West. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Hubbard, George. “Notes on the cathedral church of Cefalù, Sicily.” Archaeologia 56 (January 1898): 57-70.

Johns, Jeremy. “Malik Ifrīqiya: The Noman Kingdom of Africa and the Fātimids.” Libyan Studies 18 (1987): 89-101.

―――. “The Norman Kings of Sicily and the Fātimid Caliphate.” Anglo-Norman Studies 15 (1993): 133-159.

―――. Arabic Administration in Norman Sicily: The Royal Dīwān. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

―――. “Arabic Inscriptions in the Cappella Palatina: Performativity, Audience, Legibility and Illegibility.” In Viewing Inscriptions in the Late Antique and Medieval World, edited by Antony Eastmond, 125-137. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2015.

Johnson, Mark J. “The Episcopal and Royal Views at Cefalù.” Gesta 33, no. 2 (1994): 118- 131.

Kartsonis, Anna D. Anastasis: The Making of an Image. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986.

Kenaan, Nurith. “Local Christian Art in Twelfth Century Jerusalem.” Israel Exploration Journal 23, no. 3 (1973): 167-175.

―――. “Local Christian Art in Twelfth Century Jerusalem.” Israel Exploration Journal 23, no. 4 (1973): 221-229.

King, Geoffrey. “The Mosque of Bāb Mardūm in Toledo and the influences acting upon it.” AARP: Art and Archaeology Research Papers, 2 (1972): 29-40.

Kitzinger, Ernst. “The Mosaics of the Cappella Palatina in Palermo: An Essay on the Choice and Arrangement of Subjects.” Art Bulletin 31, no. 4 (Dec. 1949): 269-292.

―――. “On the Portrait of Roger II in the Martorana in Palermo.” Proporzioni: studi di storia dell’arte 3 (1950): 30-35.

259

―――. “Mosaic Decoration in Sicily under Roger II and the Classical Byzantine System of Church Decoration.” In Italian Church Decoration of the Middle Ages and Early Renaissance: Functions, Forms and Regional Traditions: ten contributions to a colloquium held at the Villa Spelman, Florence, edited by William Tronzo, 147-165. Bologna: Nuova Alfa Editoriale, 1989.

―――. The Mosaics of St. Mary’s of the Admiral in Palermo. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1991.

Krautheimer, Richard. Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture. Harmondsworth, England and New York: Penguin Books, 1986.

Krönig, Wolfgang. Cefalù, der Sizilische Normannendom. Kassel: F. Lometsch, 1963.

Lasareff, Victor. “The Mosaics of Cefalù.” Art Bulletin, 17, no. 2 (June 1935): 184-232.

Leighton, Robert. “Indigenous society between the ninth and sixth centuries BC: territorial, urban and social evolution.” In Sicily from Aeneas to Augustus: New Approaches in Archaeology and History, edited by Christopher Smith and John Serrati, 15-40. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2000.

Loud, G.A. “Byzantine Italy and the Normans.” In Byzantium and the West c. 850-1200. Proceedings of the XVIII Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Oxford 30th March-1st April 1984, edited by J.D. Howard Johnston, 215-233. Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1988.

―――. The Age of Robert Guiscard: Southern Italy and the Norman Conquest. New York and Harlow, England: Longman, 2002.

―――. Roger II and the Creation of the Kingdom of Sicily. Manchester, UK and New York: Manchester University Press, 2012.

Lowden, John. Early Christian and Byzantine Art. London and New York: Phaidon Press Limited, 2012.

Maguire, Henry. “The Mosaics of Nea Moni: An Imperial Reading.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 46, Homo Byzantinus: Papers in Honor of Alexander Kazhdan (1992): 205- 214.

Mallette, Karla. The Kingdom of Sicily, 1100-1250: A Literary History. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2005.

260

Matthew, Donald. The Norman Kingdom of Sicily. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

Merrills, Andy and Richard Miles. The Vandals. Chichester, UK and Malden, MA: Wiley- Blackweel, 2010.

Metcalfe, Alex. Muslims and Christians in Norman Sicily: Arabic Speakers and the end of Islam. London and New York: RoutledgeCurzon, 2003.

―――. Muslims of Medieval Italy. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press, 2009.

Milella, Nicola. “Storia dei restauri.” In San Nicola di Bari e la sua Basilica, edited by Giorgio Otranto, 212-258. Milan: Edizioni Electa Spa, 1987.

Mola, Stefania. La Cattedrale di Trani. Bari: Mario Adda Editore, 1996.

Mongiello, Luigi and Marco Mongiello, Bari: Basilica di San Nicola. Milan: Mario Adda Editore, 2006.

Mortimer, Kristin Ann. “Cefalù Cathedral: A Study in the Development of Architecture and Sculpture in the Norman Kingdom of Sicily.” PhD diss., Harvard University, 1980.

Morton, James. “A Byzantine Canon Law Scholar in Norman Sicily: Revisiting Neilos Doxapatre’s Order of the Patriarchal Thrones.” Speculum 92, no. 3 (July 2017): 724- 754.

Norwich, John Julius. A Short History of Byzantium. New York: Vintage Books, 1999.

―――. Sicily: An Island at the Crossroads. New York: Random House, 2015.

Oldfield, Paul. City and Community in Norman Italy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2009.

Ousterhout, Robert. “Rebuilding the Temple: Constantine Monomachus and the Holy Sepulchre.” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 48, no. 1 (March 1989): 66-78

―――. Master Builders of Byzantium. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999.

―――. “Contextualizing the Later Churches of Constantinople: Suggested Methodologies and a Few Examples.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 54 (2000): 241-250.

261

―――. “Architecture, Art and Komnenian Ideology at the Pantokrator Monastery.” In Byzantine Constantinople: Monuments, Topography and Everyday Life, edited by Nevra Necipoğlu, 133-150. Leiden and Boston: Brill Academic Publishers, 2001.

―――. “Architecture as Relic and the Construction of Sanctity: The Stones of the Holy Sepulchre.” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 62, no. 1 (March 2003): 4-23.

Panofsky, Erwin. Abbot Suger: On the Abbey Church of St-Denis and its Art Treasures. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979.

Pezzini, Elena. “Palermo’s Forma Urbis in the 12th century.” In A Companion to Medieval Palermo: The History of a Mediterranean City from 600-1500, edited by Annliese Nef, 195-232. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2013.

Pilz, Elisabeth. “Middle Byzantine Court Costume.” In Byzantine Court Culture from 829- 1204, edited by Henry Maguire, pp. Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1997.

Prigent, Vivien. “Palermo in the Eastern Roman Empire.” In A Companion to Medieval Palermo: The History of a Mediterranean City from 600-1500, edited by Annliese Nef, 9-38. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2013.

Robinson, I.S. The Papacy 1073-1198: Continuity and Innovation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

Romano, Chiara Garzya. Calabre et Basilicate romanes. La Pierre-qui-vire, Yonne: Zodiaque, 1988.

Rosen-Ayalon, Myriam. “The Façade of the Holy Sepulchre.” Rivista degli studi orientali 59, no. 1 (1985): 289-296.

Ruggles, D. Fairchild. Islamic Gardens and Landscapes. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 2008.

Sami, Denis. “Sicilian cities between the fourth and fifth centuries AD.” In The Theodosian Age (A.D. 379-455): power, place, belief and learning at the end of the Western Empire, BAR International Series 2493, edited by Rosa Garcia-Gasco, Sergio Gonzalez Sanchez and David A Hernandez de la Fuente, 27-36. Oxford: Archaeopress, 2013.

262

Samonà, Giuseppe. I mounmenti italiani, rilievi raccolti a cura della Accademia d’Italia, vol. 16, Il Duomo di Cefalù,. Roma: La Libreria dello stato, 1939.

―――. Il Duomo di Cefalù. Roma: Nuove Grafiche, 1940.

Savage-Smith, Emilie. “Cartography.” In A Companion to Mediterranean History, edited by Peregrine Horden and Sharon Kinoshita, 184-199. Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons Ltd., 2014.

Schwartz, Heinrich M. “Die Baukunst Kalabriens und Siziliens im Zeitalter der Normannen: I. Teil: Die lateinischen Kirchengründungen des 11. Jahrhunderts und der Dom in Cefalù.” Römisches Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte, 6 (1942-44): 1- 113.

Serrati, John. “Sicily from Pre-Greek Times to the Fourth Century.” In Sicily from Aeneas to Augustus: New Approaches in Archaeology and History, edited by Christopher Smith and John Serrati, 9-14. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2000.

―――. “The Coming of the Romans: Sicily from the fourth to the first centuries BC.” In Sicily from Aeneas to Augustus: New Approaches in Archaeology and History, edited by Christopher Smith and John Serrati, 109-114. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2000.

―――. “Garrisons and grain: Sicily between the Punic Wars.” In Sicily from Aeneas to Augustus: New Approaches in Archaeology and History, edited by Christopher Smith and John Serrati, 115-133. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2000.

Stokstad, Marilyn. Medieval Art. Boulder, CO and Oxford, UK: Westview Press, 2004.

Stroll, Mary. The Jewish Pope: Ideology and Polities in the Papal Schism of 1130. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1987.

Thieme, Thomas and Ingamaj Beck. La cattedrale normanna di Cefalù : un frammento della civiltà socio-politica della Sicilia mediovale. Odense: Odense University Press, 1977.

Tronzo, William. “The Medieval Object-Enigma and the Problem of the Cappella Palatina in Palermo.” Word and Image 9, 3 (1993): 197-228.

―――. “Byzantine Court Culture from the Point of View of Norman Sicily: The Case of the Cappella Palatina,” in Byzantine Court Culture from 829-1204, ed. Henry

263

Maguire, 101-114. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1997.

―――. The Cultures of His Kingdom: Roger II and the Cappella Palatina in Palermo. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997.

―――. “The Mantle of Roger II of Sicily.” In Robes of Honor: The Medieval World of Investiture, edited by Stewart Gordon, 241-253. New York: Palgrave, 2001.

Valenziano, Maria , Crispino Valenziano, and Yvonne Labande-Mailfert, “La supplique des chanoines de la cathédrale de Cefalù pour la sépulture du roi Roger.” Cahiers de civilisation médiévale 81 (Jan-Mar 1978): 3-30.

Valenziano, Maria and Crispino Valenziano. “La supplique des chanoines de la cathédrale de Cefalù pour la sépulture du roi Roger, II (suite).” Cahiers de civilisation médiévale 82 (April-June 1978): 137-150.

―――. La basilica cattedrale di Cefalù nel period normanno. Palermo: O Theologos, 1979.

Vergnolle, Eliane. Saint-Benoît-sur-Loire et les sculpture de XIe siècle. Paris: Picard, 1985.

―――. L’Art Roman en France. Paris: Flammarion, 1994.

―――. L’Art Monumentale de la France Romane: Le XIe Siècle. London: The Pindar Press, 2000.

Vicenzi, Alessandro, ed. La Cappella Palatina a Palermo. Modena: Franco Cosimo Panini, 2013. von Falkenhausen, Vera. “The Graeco-Byzantine Heritage in the Norman Kingdom of Sicily.” In Norman Tradition and Transcultural Heritage: Exchange of Cultures in the ‘Norman’ Peripheries of Medieval Europe, edited by Stefan Burkhardt and Thomas Foerster, 57-78. Burlington, VT and Farnham, England: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2013.

White, Lynn Townsend. Latin Monasticism in Norman Sicily. Cambridge, MA: The Medieval Academy of America, 1938.

VITA Heather Hoge EDUCATION PhD, The Pennsylvania State University, Art History. Primary Field: Medieval Art and Architecture. Secondary Fields: Islamic Art and Architecture and Byzantine Art and Architecture. Committee: Elizabeth Bradford Smith, Madhuri Desai, Anthony Cutler, Kathryn Salzer Master of Arts, Columbia University, History of Art and Architecture, May 2010 Bachelor of Arts, University of California at Santa Barbara, History of Art and Architecture, with Distinction in the Major, December 2006.

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Instructor, ARTH 100, Introduction to Art History, Penn State (Jan – May 2019) Instructor, ARTH 111, Prehistoric to Medieval Art, Penn State (Aug – Dec 2018) Instructor, ARTH 201, Prehistoric to Medieval Architecture, Penn State (Aug – Dec 2018) Instructor, ARTH 100, Introduction to Art History, Penn State (June – August 2017) Section Leader and TA, ARTH 111, Prehistoric to Medieval Art, Penn State (Aug – Dec 2013, Aug – Dec 2016) Section Leader and TA, ARTH 112, Renaissance to Modern Art, Penn State (Jan – May 2015) Research Assistant for Dr. Anthony Cutler, Penn State (Jan – May 2018) Graduate Assistant, Visual Resource Center, Penn State (Aug – Dec 2015) Intern, Centro Internazionale di Studi di Architettura Andrea Palladio, Vicenza, Italy (May – June 2009)

PAPERS PRESENTED “Breaking the Cycle: Roger II and Byzantine Iconography at Cefalù,” 21st Annual International Congress, Mediterranean Studies Association, Sorrento, Italy (May 30-June 2, 2018) “The Towers of Cefalù: A Display of Power in Roger II’s New Kingdom,” Art and Ideology in the Twelfth Century Western Mediterranean, Symposium at the Bard Graduate Center, New York City, NY (October 14, 2016)

FELLOWSHIPS AND GRANTS Dissertation Fellowship, Department of Art History, Penn State, $10,000 (awarded for Fall Semester, 2017); The Schwartz Endowed Fellowship for Dissertation Research, Department of Art History, Penn State, $10,585 (awarded for the 2016-2017 academic year); Department of Art History Research Travel Grant, Penn State, $2200 (awarded spring 2015); Department of Art History Research Travel Grant, Penn State, $1800 (awarded spring 2014); Department of Art History Limited Travel Grant, Penn State, $300 (awarded summer 2014); University Graduate Fellowship, The Pennsylvania State University, awarded for the 2012-2013 academic year

LANGUAGES French, Italian, German