THE NORMAN KINGDOM IN SICILY[1].
The completion of Signor Amari's "History of the Mussulmans in Sicily" is a matter of congratulation, not only to the historical student, but to the learned world of Europe. It is not too much to say that it will take rank with the very first literary works of the century. Signor Amari adds another name to that distinguished list of Italian exiles who have devoted their banishment to the study of the past with a view to the illustration of the present. And he shows his pre-eminent qualifications for the task by selecting that period of his country's history (Signor Amari, we believe, is a Sicilian) which to the superficial eye may appear to be a break in its continual development. His book is a vindication of the continuity of Sicilian life and history. Not that he gives any support to the old notions of a Sicilian nationality with an existence ever since the time of the Siculi. Rather he does for Sicily the work which M. de Tocqueville has done for modern France in the "Ancien Régime." He shows that much of what it has been customary to attribute to Greek, Norman, and Aragonese origin or influence has often really been the creation of the infidel rulers of the land. What at present, however, we desire to call attention to is the subject of Signor Amari's last volume: the Norman conquest of Sicily and southern Italy, and the Norman kingdom. Putting aside its connection with European politics, papal and imperial — a subject comparatively well known — we would rather illustrate the remarkable union in that state of the diverse elements of civilization which Sicily then possessed — Greek, Arabic, Italian, and Norman. Signor Amari will himself be our principal authority, but we shall make use also of the old work of Gregorio — a work by no means superseded — and of that distinguished series of contemporary chroniclers, the most cultivated and most readable of mediæval historians, Malaterra, Falcandus, the Monk of Telesia, and others.
First of all, therefore, we shall endeavour to estimate the character of the conquerors and the nature of their conquest. We shall then proceed to illustrate the mingling of diverse civilizations and races in the state, and show what really was the condition of these subject nationalities.
The Norman conquest of southern Italy and Sicily occupies a mean position between a barbarian inroad of Vandals in Africa or Saxons in England and a modern political conquest of Schleswig or Alsace. We cannot help comparing it with another and almost contemporary Norman conquest, that of England by William. Both were exploits of the same race, and started from the same soil. And yet in their circumstances and results there is an equally great resemblance and diversity. The armament that sailed from St. Valéry was a national enterprise commanded by the national chief. The Normans of the south were knights-errant, owing allegiance to no recognized head. William before he started for the conquest of his island-kingdom had by dint of his own energy and perseverance acquired for himself a political and military superiority in his dominions that no man dared to gainsay. Amongst soldiers of fortune, on the other hand, one man is the equal of another, and it was after the supremacy of the race had been established that the house of Hauteville had to win its hardest victory, over its own fellow-conquerors. On the field of Hastings, England met Normandy, Harold met William; Harold was defeated and slain, England was conquered once for all. In the south it was far otherwise. There were divers races to contend with and to vanquish in detail. The first attempt to expel the Greeks ends in discomfiture; thirty years elapse between the settlement at Aversa and the assumption of the ducal title by Guiscard; thirty years are necessary for the conquest of Sicily. But when the work is done the results are similiar. Norman impress on the subject peoples forms firm and united nations. The conquerors adapt themselves to the conquered and become their champions. The existence of the Mediterranean kingdom was brilliant, but short-lived. It had shot forth into its brightest bloom and was already on the point of perishing before the northern realm had asserted its national unity.
The conquerors themselves in north and south were essentially the same men. Both are described by implication in a well-known and often-quoted passage of Malaterra[2]. Nevertheless the Sicilian princes have a character of their own, and it is a character that appears to have risen with their fortunes. There is a distinct
- ↑ 1. Storia dei Musulmani di Sicilia. Scritta da Michele Amari. 3 voll. Firenze, 1854-72.
2. Storia di Sicilia sotto Guglielmo il buono. Scritta da Isidoro Lalumia. Firenze, 1867.
3. Considerazioni sulla storia di Sicilia. Da Rosario Gregorio. 5 voll. Palermo, 1805-10. - ↑ Gibbon, vol. vii., chap. 56, p. 106.
