 |
MESSINA AND
ITS CONNECTION
WITH THE
MALTESE NOBILITY
John Cilia La Corte © 2007
The city of Messina, with its deep
and sheltered harbour, is situated on the slopes of the
Peloritan Mountains overlooking the Straits of Messina
at the closest point between Sicily and Italy where
the Ionian and Tyrrhenian seas meet. This strategic
position has always given the city a two-fold
importance. It dominates the shipping plying through the
narrow straits and controls the interflow of commerce
and migration, not always friendly, between the mainland
and the island of Sicily.
Founded in 750BC by Greek colonists
from Chalcis, when it was called Zancle, it was
successively settled by various Greek colonists including
the Messenians, who named the city Messana, from which
the modern name is derived, before the Romans took over
in 264BC after a brief Carthaginian occupation.
Under the Romans, Messana was
proclaimed civitas foederata, “a free city allied
to Rome” and was exempt from war and grain taxes. It was
hailed by Cicero as the grandest and richest of cities
and the autonomous stature granted Messina by the Romans
was to influence the privileged status of the city under
successive rulers.
This was interrupted by the Arab
conquest of Sicily which finally was to overwhelm
Messina in 843AD. Following the Norman conquest in 1061,
Roger II de Hauteville restored Messina its ancient
privileges, declared it a free city and decreed that it
bore the title Caput Regni with the right to
strike the coins of the Sicilian realm bearing the motto
M.N.S.C. (MESSANA NOBILE SICILIAE CAPUT). The Royal mint
continued to operate in Messina until as recently as
1678.
Roger II was succeeded dynastically
by the Swabians through the marriage of his daughter and
heiress Constance to Frederick I von Hohenstaufen. The
Swabians’ love affair with Sicily and Messina, in
particular, led to the consolidation of its privileges
with the granting of free port status, and the
consequent free import and export of goods to Messina by
Henry VI, who actually died in Messina.
The vitality and prosperity of the
city continued to wax to the extent that by the 15th
century, then under the Crown of Aragon, it had acquired
a huge arsenal and even built a fleet substantial enough
to combat the Barbary pirates who roamed the
Mediterranean at that time and, eventually in 1571, to
form part of the great armada victoriously engaged in
the Battle of Lepanto under Don John of Austria.
Later the government of the island
was entrusted to viceroys. This period was scarred by
fierce manoeuvring for domination between Palermo and
Messina from which only Aragon benefited.
The sovereignty of Sicily was
transferred to Spain following the union of Aragon and
Castile under Ferdinand and Isabella, and in turn to the
Hapsburgs when the Spanish throne was inherited by the
Holy Roman Emperor Charles V. Under the Hapsburgs,
Messina’s status was further strengthened and its
strategic position gave it a pre-eminent role in the
Kingdom of Sicily.
The
traditional rivalry between Palermo and Messina should
be seen not so much as a clash of municipalities as a
conflict between two opposite communal models or, more
accurately, between two contrasting types of
aristocracy, one feudal, the other municipal. Each of
these sought the backing of the court in Madrid or its
representative in Sicily. Typical was the dispute of
1612 between the Viceroy d’Osuna, backed by the
Palermitan nobility, and the Messinese Patriciate, whose
vital economic interests the viceroy particularly wished
to vitiate by the imposition of excise duty on the
city’s production of silk.
On
that occasion the position of Messina was strongly
upheld by the Italian League
which based its political argument against the viceroy
by adhering to Aragonese patrician tradition, respectful
of the "original character of the prerogatives of the
kingdom" and of the “privileges granted to the city of
the Peloritan hills”.
These privileges were in fact enshrined by contract and
thus entrenched in the rules of private jurisdiction
which not even the Spanish monarchy could bring itself
to violate through its public authority;
Messina, the city of merchants, had in fact “purchased"
its political liberty.
The triumph of Messina over the viceroy clearly
demonstrated that the city was capable of producing a
strong alternative to Palermo’s attempts to create a
political and economic hegemony. In the preceding years,
fortified by a close acquaintance of the “tortuous
meandering of Spanish politics and age-old habit of
building alliances”
and thanks to the “proven manoeuvrability of its
ambassadors”,
Messina had achieved a series of politico-diplomatic
successes which, through the contract of 1591,
definitively legitimised its hegemonic ambitions.
In
1591 the city had in effect entered into a solemn
contract with the Spanish Crown, under the terms of
which and against the payment of the considerable sum of
583,333 scudi, it obtained in concession "general
confirmation of its privileges, the monopoly on the
export of silk from Eastern Sicily and the obligation on
the viceroy to reside for half of his mandate in the
City of the Straits".
In
approving the 1591 contract, the Spanish Crown had
essentially confirmed its recognition of the ancient
rights of the commune of Messina, whose Senate had been
endowed, from time immemorial, with the right of “fons
honorum” for the creation of the Messinese Patriciate.
By
the middle of the 17th century, however, the
Crown was beginning to feel threatened by the municipal
rights and freedoms enjoyed by the Messinese Senate and
tried to suppress them. This provoked a popular uprising
against Spain and in 1674 the Senate sought the aid of
France in its rebellion against the Viceroy Bajona.
Louis XIV sent a fleet under the command of Admiral
Duquesne, with whose help Messina managed to resist for
four years, only to capitulate in 1678 when the Sun
King, satisfied with his victories in Northern Europe
and following the Peace of Nijmegen with Spain,
abandoned Messina to its fate. Spain exacted a terrible
vengeance and through its Viceroy Benavides visited
severe repressions upon its
citizens, many of whom were forced into exile. This was
followed by the complete suppression of all the
privileges enjoyed by Messina. The free port was
abolished, the University and Mint closed down and the
Senatorial Palace razed to the ground.
Better times followed the
Treaty of Utrecht of 11 April 1713 which placed Victor
Amadeus II of Savoy on the throne of Sicily and, within
the first year of his reign, the
Senate of Messina was reinstated in its former powers
and prerogatives. These were further confirmed and even
enhanced under the Bourbons until they were finally
suspended by Ferdinand II, King of the Two Sicilies, on
11 April 1835. On Sicily’s inclusion in the unification
of Italy in 1860, all powers then merged into the Crown
of Savoy.
“European nobility, both ancient and
medieval, was a unitary phenomenon which had its source
in the nobilitas senatoria of the Roman Empire.
It is within that political ambience that its
institutional devices were formed; its legitimisation
mechanisms, its role and indeed dominance in European
politics, to the extent that it completely permeated
public consciousness throughout the centuries. Medieval
kings and emperors, even when competing with it, were
part of it.”
So even if it is an established fact
that only heads of sovereign states are invested with
the “fons honorum” or powers to ennoble, the historical
evolution of these powers from Roman tradition and
practice is an important element in its development. The
political landscape of Italy until its unification in
the 19th century, comprising a multitude of
independent states and cities meant that, not only these
states but also a number of cities, such as Venice,
Genoa, Novara, Florence and Pisa had enjoyed autonomy
and were thereby endowed with the right to create
nobility through the senatorial powers having their
roots in Rome. Messina as well had in the past governed
itself with its own laws on a par with that of an
absolute monarchy and even when it lost its autonomy, as
we have seen, these rights were upheld by successive
rulers until their final suppression by Ferdinand II in
1835.
The practical aspect of Messinese
ennoblement is described by Galuppi
as follows:
“Apart from the ancient noble
families and some foreign nobility, families were
ennobled or appended to the Messinese nobility either
through senatorial privilege, or by due process of the
deeds of the same, that is through the Senatorial mantle
(toga) as born in the
Ordine Civico
(Civic Order). The first method, whereby the
Senate enjoyed, through the ancient privileges of the
city of Messina, the distinguished prerogative exercised
by a Sovereign or independent State,
has had some unfortunate consequences, since with
the passage of time it became somewhat too liberal,
ennobling with senatorial diplomas, a number of persons
who did not possess the necessary requisites to merit
such honours. The other method, undertaken by due
process, was more secure.
The proofs were examined by the
juridical assessor on the sole order of the Noble
Senators and the petitioners had to demonstrate, by the
same proofs, the validity of their own nobility and that
of their forefathers. In this way, many families both
Sicilian and foreign were received into the Noble
Patriciate, after having acquired citizenship either
through residence, through privilege of the Senate, or
through marriage into the nobility (ductionem uxoris).
Everyone of
the citizens thus invested into the Patriciate through
senatorial process, acquired immediate nobility, and it
was then their choice whether to take up their rank
within the nobility or to retain their commoner status,
as declared in the decree of King Alfonso of Aragon
signed in Pozzuolo on 10 May 1451 (14th year of
Indiction).
This right of
choice appears to have been included in the decree with
the rule of election to the rank of Senator in mind.
This rule dictated that senators had to be chosen partly
from the nobility and partly from commoners in
proportions which varied over the years. For this reason
some ennobled families ascribed themselves voluntarily
to commoner status in order to attain the senatorial
grade more easily, whenever it so happened that the
availability of suitable citizens was limited. At first
sight it may seem strange that such a choice could be
contemplated at all, were it not that the Messinese
Civic Rank was so highly regarded in ancient times that
it rivalled the Nobility both in power and splendour,
hence its motto: Populares
acquiparantur Nobilibus et pari passu
ambulant.
Senators lived
on private means without resorting to trade, in very
much the same way as the nobility. They wielded powers
as great if not greater; they intermarried with the
nobility, and were in any case considered to have such
respectable and powerful stature as to be on a par with
the nobility.”
This brings us
to the decisions taken by the Commissioners
investigating the claims of the Maltese Nobility
regarding the conferring of Patriciate titles by the
Senate of Messina.
A Commission
appointed by the British Crown to enquire into the
claims of Maltese Nobility produced a report on 10th
December 1877 which was presented to both Houses of
Parliament in May 1878. (See Appendix III). The
report was a meticulous and detailed instrument, running
to 247 paragraphs and it solved most, if not all,
disputes and uncertainties, establishing a rule of
precedence which is followed to this day.
When
adjudicating on the question of Patriciates awarded by
various Italian cities, it had the following to say, in
particular, about Messina:
238. Now independently of the circumstance that the
distinction of Messinese patrician is a municipal
concession, and that it is not derived from the Crown as
the fountain of all honours, the said instruments were
never registered in the Court of the Castellania or in
the Cancelleria of the Order; nor have the claimants
produced any proof of its having ever been recognised by
the local sovereigns.
It is fair to
say that the Commissioners had been set rigorous terms
of reference which restricted their findings and
compelled them to arrive at conclusions at variance with
the result a more pragmatic view would have reached.
Those rules
established to judge the authenticity of titles created
in Malta by the sovereigns of Malta are perfectly
justifiable in that context. It is an entirely different
matter however when they are applied to titles granted
by foreign states. Whether a title is recognised or not
in Malta can in no way affect the validity or otherwise
of a title created under a different jurisdiction. The
laws and rules of that jurisdiction alone must be used
to decide whether a claim to a title is valid or not.
In reaching
the decision on the awards by the Senate of Messina, the
Commissioners employed parameters derived partly from
British custom and usage and partly from the
registration requirements of the Order of St John for
foreign title recognition.
The decision,
however, should more correctly have been based on the
situation applicable at the time the honour was granted
in Messina which, as we have seen, enjoyed a fons
honorum in its own right, acknowledged and confirmed by
the sovereign powers of the day.
Notes
“Lega italica”, constituted after the peace
treaty of Lodi in 1454 to guarantee peace
between the various Italian states.
F. Benigno,
La
questione della capitale: lotta politica e
rappresentanza degli interessi nella
F. Benigno, Messina e il duca d’Osuna: un
conflitto politico nella Sicilia del Seicento,
in D. Ligresti (editor), Il governo
della città. Patriziati e politica nella Sicilia
moderna, Cuecm, Catania 1990, p. 178
Mineo, E. I., Di alcuni usi della nobiltà
medievale, «Storica», a. VII, n. 20-21
(2001), p.12. “La nobiltà europea di antico
regime, non solo quella medievale, costituisce
un fenomeno unitario che affonda le sue radici
nel mondo antico, nella nobilitas senatoria
dell’Impero romano. È in questo universo
politico che si formano i congegni
istituzionali, i meccanismi di legittimazione,
le idee e il vocabolario della politica europea,
e in particolare della nobiltà come soggetto
principe della politica, cioè il soggetto che
incarna nei secoli la dimensione dello spirito
pubblico. Re e imperatori medievali non sono
soggetti altri, che competono con
essa, sono parte di essa.”
Appendix I
Translation of the Preface [pp. 7-12] from Giuseppe Galuppi:
Nobiliario della
città di Messina (Napoli 1877)
Natural catastrophes and political
vicissitudes have entirely destroyed the rich deposits
of documents of the communal archives of Messina.
Through earthquakes, wars, the barbarism of man, the
many misfortunes that have always tormented this classic
land, and mainly the fire that in 1848 reduced those
papers to a heap of ashes, the precious registers that
legally attested to the noble antecedents of the greater
part of the scions of our country were irretrievably
lost; the processes of many native as well as foreign
families brought into the order of patricians at various
times; and above all the so-called Mastro Nobile
(Noble Rolls) or Libri d’Oro (Golden Books),
in which, in keeping with other Italian cities who
replicated from ancient Rome the distinction of ranks
within the Public Administration, known as
Ordo et Populos,
the nobles of Messina were listed
chronologically from father to son. Of these ancient
Rolls we have in part only the one which was held by the
Chief Notary of the Most Illustrious Senate, Domenico
Mollica, which dates from 1587 to 1610, from which Dr
Francesco Castelli in 1732 published in the press the
lists of the concurrent Noble Counsellors to the
municipal offices, drawn from an original manuscript
entitled: Liber Habilitationis et Creationis, but
not necessarily including all the persons ascribed
noble, as at first sight, one would be lead one to
believe from the title suggested by
Mastra dei Nobili
della città di
Messina del fu
Domenico Mollica (Rolls of the Nobles of city of Messina of
the late Domenico Mollica) of that, now quite rare,
bad little book There were then in the Archives all the
other Rolls of the Nobles which were updated from time
to time, and amongst others those of 1239, 1511, 1552,
1594 known as
Senza Scorza,
1622, 1644 (created by the decree of the Viceroy,
Marquis de los Veles), 1649, 1658, 1676, 1706 etc of
which only the names are extant, and some certificate
left with particular families before the consuming
flames had destroyed them for ever.
The Rolls of the Nobles currently
existing were formed by Senatorial Decree in the year
1798, and bore the title
Album
Nobilium Messanensium
ab anno Dominicae Incarnationis 1798, usque et per
totum annum
1807.
By happy coincidence,
a legal copy of the rolls commonly called
Mastra del 1807 (Rolls of 1807) can be found in the
Grand Archives of Naples, (Section of the former Royal
Commission of Titles and Nobility), and another copy
extracted from the latter, now again in our Commune.
But it is well to warn that that
version is inexact, since the person then charged with
the extraction from the original the copy requested by
the Commission in 1843, applied himself indifferently to
that work, committing several clerical errors, verified
by us, both from the authentic original diplomas kindly
shown to us by the families who had been omitted, as
well as from the total number of noble Messinese carried
forward to the end as 345, which turns out to be fewer
by 14, when adding the sum total under each letter
And since we
have spoken with the Royal Commission of Titles and
Nobility of the past regime seated in Naples, it is
worth taking note that the same had undertaken to
examine the Noble Rolls of some cities of Sicily, but
due to political changes had no time to pronounce on
such documents. Only, the Public Minister of that
Heraldic Court in the charge made on 8 April 1858
advised that the two Rolls of Palermo and Messina were
held as Noble; this, after all, was always considered as
such in our city, where, before the Royal Commission,
other nobles had been ascribed.
Setting aside
the ancient noble families and some of those derived
from elsewhere; the rest were ennobled or appended to
the Messinese nobility either via senatorial privilege,
or by due process of the deeds of the same, that is
through the mantle (toga) of Senator worn in the
Ordine
Civico
(Civic Order). The first method, whereby the
Senate enjoyed, through the ancient privileges of the
city of Messina, the most distinguished prerogative
exercised by a Sovereign or independent State[1],
has been most deplorable; since with the passage of time
it became somewhat over liberal, ennobling in some
number with senatorial diplomas, persons who did not
possess the necessary requisites to merit such honours.
The other way, which was undertaken by regular process,
was more certain.
The proofs were
examined solely on the order of the Noble Senators by
the juridical assessor and the petitioners had to show,
by the same, the validity of their own nobility and that
of their forefathers. In this way, many houses both of
the kingdom and foreign were received into the Noble
Patriciate, after having acquired citizenship either
through residence, through privilege of the Senate, or
through ductionem uxoris.
Everyone of
the citizens thus invested into the patriciate by
senatorial mantle, acquired immediate nobility, and it
was then their choice whether to proceed to the rank of
nobility or to retain their commoner status; as declared
in the decree of King Alfonso of Aragon signed in
Pozzuolo on 10 May 1451 (14th year of Indiction).
This right of
choice appears to have been included in the decree with
the rule of election to the rank of Senator in mind,
since senators had to be chosen partly from the nobility
and partly from commoners. For this reason some ennobled
families ascribed themselves voluntarily to commoner
status in order to attain the senatorial grade more
easily, whenever it occurred that the number of suitable
citizens was limited. The Messinese Civic Rank was so
highly regarded in ancient times that it vied with the
Nobility, both in richness and splendour, hence its
motto: Populares
acquiparantur Nobilibus et pari passu
ambulant.
They lived on
private means without trade; they wielded great powers;
they appeared on a par with the nobility; they
intermarried with them, and were considered such
respectable and powerful families as to rise to the
level of the nobility. It often happened that several
nobles through bad fortune or adverse circumstances
ascribed themselves to commoner status, returning to the
original class in which they had grown in better times.
This is the reason why some of their offspring are seen
split in both ranks. Towards 1718, due to a scarcity of
ancient families within that group of citizens, persons
of a lower condition, mostly from the merchant classes,
were admitted, receiving the senatorial mantle by royal
decree; therefore the few residual ancient families
still extant demanded and obtained rehabilitation to the
Mastra Nobile,
since they perfectly well
merited this honour.
The noble
descendants of Messina, of whom most, as in most
countries, are derived from diverse origins, may
generally be divided into two categories. The first is
Nobility by origin or blood, the other Nobility by
acquisition. The nobles of the first category have been
such since time immemorial, meaning that they were shown
as noble from the very first moment they were recorded
in history, and their origins should naturally be traced
to very ancient dates, at least between the X and XIII
centuries. On the other hand, the period when the
nobility of the second category started, is known. Thus
when the proof of nobility can be traced without
interruption to ancient times, this is called
Generosa in order to distinguish it from that called
privilegio, as well as from the legale or
civile categories. In the Kingdom of the Two
Sicilies a royal despatch of 25 January 1756 explicitly
declared various degrees of nobility. Herewith the
dispositions:
The King, desiring to settle
clearly once and for all the various doubts raised about
the quality and grade of the nobility, which is
necessary for those wanting to serve as Cadets in the
Troops, has commanded that the following declarations be
made, which are to be observed generally with the force
of law, and as a positive ordinance for the future. – I.
That before all else, be it known as law by everyone as
an indisputable presupposition, that the nobility in his
Royal domains are established in three different
classes. - II. The first consists of the Nobility called
GENEROSA; and this is verified whenever a family has
been in possession of some Noble feud for an
uninterrupted sequence of centuries, or when by
legitimate proof it results that the same was admitted
into the noble families of a Royal city, in which there
is a real separation from civil and, even more so,
common families. Or otherwise that it originates from an
ancestor, who through a glorious career in the Military,
the Mantle of Office (Toga), the Church, or the Court
had obtained some distinguished or superior position, or
dignity, and that his descendants through the course of
a considerable length of time had maintained themselves
nobly occupied in ancestral duties without descending to
civil and popular office, or to mechanical or ignoble
crafts[2].
III. The second class of nobility is that called
PRIVILEGIO, and is enjoyed by all those persons who
through their merits and personal services to the Crown,
and the State, go on to be promoted by the munificence
of the Princes to high and honourable grades in the
Military service, the Mantle of Office, and the Court;
in this class of Nobility through privilege must be
considered and comprises all major and minor military
Officials, and those who also serve in the other
classes of the General Staff of the army; as well as
those whose career is in the Church and in letters, and
other classes of royal service, and State government,
who obtain decorous positions of an impressive
character, or which are in an equivalent sphere of
distinction and order, that requires in its quality the
various major or minor dignity of everyone. - IV. And
the third class of those deemed noble is that called
CIVILE or LEGALE; in which
rank are deemed to belong all those who, as had their
father and grandfather before them, appear to have
always lived a civilised life with honour and in
comfort, and, without exercising inferior or common
careers or employment, are publicly held by all and
sundry to have an honourable and well bred reputation.
In
order the better to clarify the concept of generosa
which is the true nobility, we add that it is the
ancestry that is so called, and not the individual, who
may call himself ennobled, but not of noble family.
Gentle birth determined by descent must always be
maintained pure and never degenerate: quod non
degenerat a sua natura, as Tiraquello says.
Wherefore not only are common and mechanical crafts not
to be practised, but a noble life, fame, a good
reputation is called for and above all the continuous
tenure, commencing no less than two hundred years
previously[3],
of an ancient title as foundation[4]
of the proof, which, with some exceptions, such as in
the case of high office of court, a grandee of Spain,
etc., is ordinarily reduced to four sole sources, that
is to say: the enjoyment of some Nobility separate
from the people; the possession of feuds with
jurisdiction; high magisterial office, on a par with
royal counsellors; and military officers ranking
colonel or above. They were distinguished by two
Latin words nobilis et generosus as Horace points
out; since the Romans bestowed the title of nobleman on
a person whose father had been decorated with some
curule magistracy, and by exercise of which the
right to hold the decorations was derived,
distinguishing themselves by matters called novi,
the first of the ancestry to have ceruli. Each
and everyone was different from the ignobiles,
under which name were called those who had never
occupied high office, as their fathers neither had
before them. If the above-mentioned prerogative to be
called nobile was therefore enough under Roman
legislation, it was not sufficient for qualification as
generosus; intending as such all those who
pertained to a long series of major nobles (the word
genus meaning precisely race); thus generosus
was assigned to those of noble race.
But the common origin of every
nobility, in order to conclude with an illustrious
writer[5]
"is labour and the saving outcome of labour. Without
intellectual and manual labour, one does not acquire
nobility, and if acquired it is not preserved. For
however substantial the rents may be prolonged sloth
consumes it, and draws the idler to misery. And if he
succeeds in escaping misery he will be demeaned in
public esteem, without which nobility is a vain name, a
useless burden, a derisory appellation. Living idly on
the proceeds of their properties, applying themselves
with great assiduity to set themselves apart from those
who do not pertain to their rank, not to care about
anyone who does not have important titles and sizeable
rents, is nowadays a bad habit of a few, to be looked
upon with a compassionate smile. Abstaining from public
office even without payment, not engaging in studies
what small or great intellectual talents God may have
granted them, conduces in the long run, as we see all
too often, the members of some noble ancient families to
the mental condition close to imbecility.
Notes to Appendix I
[1]
Although the personages and bodies invested to
exercise the right of full sovereignty [fons
honorum] have sole authority to confer nobility,
the municipal body of certain prominent communes
that anciently ruled over its people, such as
Novara, Florence, Pisa, Livorno, and other
cities of Le Marche and of Umbria, has also
conserved the privilege to raise new citizens to
the nobility. The same may be said of Messina
which at one time governed with its own laws,
almost on parity with absolute monarchy. Emperor
Charles V, by decree signed in 1517, confirming
the ancient attributes and powers of the Senate
of Messina, declared the Mastra della Nobiltà
Messinese equal to the Libro
d’Oro of Bologna, Venice, Milan, to the
peerage (Seggi) of the Kingdom of Naples, and
the Messinese nobility therein ascribed second
to none in all his states. [from p380]
This state of affairs was in force until a royal
edict of 11 April 1835 concerning the
publication of the laws on the Nobility
suspended in the former kingdom of the two
Sicilies, the registration of new families in
the municipal Libri d’Oro.
[2]
In compliance with the decrees of his father,
King Ferdinand IV solemnly declared on 1
December 1770 the generosa nobility as
deriving from, or possessing ancient feuds, or
from titles conceded by royal munificence, or
from high grades in the military service, the
magistracy and ecclesiastical dignity.
[3]
Vide. Statutes of the
Order of St John of Jerusalem and the
Constantinian Order, apart from various Royal
Orders. However dealing with Neapolitan Noble
Seats a Royal Despatch of 17 August 1851
declares that induction into these orders is
enough to prove the generoso nobility of
a family, even though two hundred years may not
have passed since admission to the Seat,
reflecting that the law of 25 January 1756
requires two hundred only for the possessors of
the feuds, and not to those ascribed to Seats
which were enunciated in the same law, and that
such principle was also retained by the law
abolishing the Seats of 25 April 1800.
[4]
We adopt the word
foundation and not principle, because it is
possible that a house could have titles even
more ancient and plausible than nobility, but in
the event restricting ourselves to the
prescribed term of two hundred years as used in
the proof only for that period of time.
[5]
CIBRARIO: Notizie Genealogiche di Famiglie
Nobili degli antichi Stati della Monarchia di
Savoia, seconda edizione, Torino. Botta, 1866
Appendix II
Roman Patricians
PATRICII.
William Smith, D.C.L., LL.D.:
A
Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, John
Murray, London, 1875.
This word is a derivative from pater, which in
the early times invariably denoted a patrician,
and in the later times of the republic
frequently occurs in the Roman writers as
equivalent to senator. Patricii therefore
signifies those who belonged to the patres "rex
patres eos (senatores) voluit nominari,
patriciosque eorum liberos" (Cic. de Re Publ.
ii.12; Liv. i.8; Dionys. ii.8). It is a mistake
in these writers to suppose that the patricii
were only the offspring of the patres in the
sense of senators, and necessarily connected
with them by blood. Patres and patricii were
originally controvertible terms (Plut. Romul.
13; Lydus, de Mens. i.20, de Mag. i.16; Niebuhr,
Hist. of Rome, i. p336). The words patres and
patricii have radically and essentially the same
meaning, and some of the ancients believed that
the name patres was given to that particular
class of the Roman population from the fact that
they were fathers of families (Plut. Dionys.
l.c.); others, that they were called so from
their age (Sallust, Catil. 6); or because they
distributed land among the poorer citizens, as
fathers did among their children (Festus, s.v.
Patres Senatores; Lyd. de Mens. iv.50). But most
writers justly refer the name to the patrocinium
which the patricians exercised over the whole
state, and over all classes of persons of whom
it was composed (Plut. and Sallust, l.c.;
Zonaras, vii.8; Suidas, s.v. Patri/kioi).
In
considering who the patricians were, we have to
distinguish three periods in the history of
Rome. The first extends from the foundation of
the city down to the establishment of the
plebeians as a second order; the second, from
this event down to the time of Constantine,
during which time the patricians were a real
aristocracy of birth, and as such formed a
distinct class of Roman citizens opposed to the
plebeians, and afterwards to the new plebeian
aristocracy of the nobiles: the third period
extends from Constantine down to the middle
ages, during which the patricians were no longer
an aristocracy of birth, but were persons who
merely enjoyed a title, first granted by the
emperors and afterwards by the popes also.
First Period: from the foundation of the city,
to the establishment of the plebeian order.
Niebuhr's researches into the early history of
Rome have established it as a fact beyond all
doubt, that during this period the patricians
comprised the whole body of Romans who enjoyed
the full franchise, that they were the populus
Romanus, and that there were no other real
citizens besides them (Niebuhr, Hist. of Rome,
ii. pp224, 225, note 507; Cic. pro Caecin. 35).
The patricians must be regarded as conquerors
who reduced the earlier inhabitants of the
places they occupied to a state of servitude,
which in our authorities is designated by the
terms cliens and plebs. The other parts of the
Roman population, namely clients and slaves, did
not belong to the populus Romanus, or sovereign
people, and were not burghers or patricians. The
senators were a select body of the populus or
patricians, which acted as their representative.
The burghers or patricians consisted originally
of three distinct tribes, which gradually became
united into the sovereign populus. These tribes
had founded settlements upon several of the
hills which were subsequently included within
the precincts of the city of Rome. Their names
were Ramnes, Tities, and Luceres, or Ramnenses,
Titienses, and Lucerenses. Each of these tribes
consisted of ten curiae, and each curia of ten
decuries, which were established for
representative and military purposes [SENATUS.]
The first tribe, or the Ramnes, were a Latin
colony on the Palatine hill, said to have been
founded by Romulus. As long as it stood alone,
it contained only one hundred gentes, and had a
senate of one hundred members. When the Tities,
or Sabine settlers on the Quirinal and Viminal
hills, under king Tatius, became united with the
Romans, the number of gentes as well as that of
senators was increased to 200. These two tribes
after their union continued probably for a
considerable time to be the patricians of Rome,
until the third tribe, the Luceres, which
chiefly consisted of Etruscans, who had settled
on the Caelian Hill, also became united with the
other two as a third tribe. When this settlement
was made is not certain: some say that it was in
the time of Romulus (Festus, s.v. Caelius Mons
and Luceres; Varro, de Ling. Lat. v.55); others
that it took place at a later time (Tacit. Ann.
iv.65; Festus, s.v. Tuscum vicum). But the
Etruscan settlement was in all probability older
than that of the Sabines (see Göttling, Gesch.
der Röm. Staatsverf. p54, &c.), though it seems
occasionally to have received new bands of
Etruscan settlers even as late as the time of
the republic.
The
amalgamation of these three tribes did not take
place at once: the union between Latins and
Sabines is ascribed to the reign of Romulus,
though it does not appear to have been quite
perfect, since the Latins on some occasions
claimed a superiority over the Sabines (Dionys.
ii.62). The Luceres existed for a long time as a
separate tribe without enjoying the same rights
as the two others until Tarquinius Priscus,
himself an Etruscan, caused them to be placed on
a footing of equality with the others. For this
reason he is said to have increased the number
of senators to 300 (Dionys. iii.67; Liv. i.35;
Cic. de Re Publ. ii.20; cf. SENATUS), and to
have added two Vestal virgins to the existing
number of four (Dionys. l.c.; Festus, s.v. Sex
Vestae sacerdotes; Niebuhr, Hist. of Rome, i.
p302, &c.). The Luceres, however, are,
notwithstanding this equalisation, sometimes
distinguished from the other tribes by the name
patres minorum gentium; though this name is also
applied to other members of the patricians, e.g.
to those plebeian families who were admitted by
Tarquinius Priscus into the three tribes, and in
comparison with these, the Luceres are again
called patres majorum gentium (cf. Niebuhr, i.
p304, and Göttling, p226, &c.). That this
distinction between patres majorum and minorum
gentium was kept up in private life, at a time
when it had no value whatever in a political
point of view, is clear from Cicero (ad Fam.
ix.21). Tullus Hostilius admitted several of the
noble gentes of Alba among the patricians (in
patres legit, Liv. i.30), viz., the Tullii (Sulii?),
Servilii, Quinctii, Geganii, Curiatii, and
Cloelii, to which Dionysius (iii.29) adds the
gens Metilia. Ancus Marcius admitted the
Tarquinii (Dionys. iii.48), Servius Tullius the
Octavii (Sueton. Aug. 1, &c.), and even
Tarquinius Superbus seems to have had similar
intentions (Dionys. iv.57; Sueton. Vitell. 1).
We do not hear that the number of gentes was
increased by these admissions, and must
therefore suppose that some of them had already
become extinct, and that the vacancies which
thus arose were filled up with these new
burghers (Göttling, p222). During the time of
the republic, distinguished strangers and
wealthy plebeians were occasionally made Roman
patricians, e.g. Appius Claudius and his gens (Liv.
x.8; compare ii.16; Dionys. v.40; Sueton. Tib.
1), and Domitius Ahenobarbus (Suet. Nero, 1). As
regards the kingly period the Roman historians
speak as if the kings had had the power of
raising a gens or an individual to the rank of a
patrician; but it is evident that the king could
not do this without the consent of the patres in
their curies; and hence Livy (iv.4) makes
Canuleius say, "per cooptationem in patres, aut
ab regibus lecti," which lectio, of course,
required the sanction of the body of patricians.
In the time of republic such an elevation to the
rank of patrician could only be granted by the
senate and the populus (Liv. iv.4, x.8, compare
especially Becker, Handb. der Röm. Alterth. ii.1
p26, &c.).
Since there were no other Roman citizens but the
patricians during this period, we cannot speak
of any rights or privileges belonging to them
exclusively; they are all comprehended under
CIVITAS (ROMAN) and GENS. Respecting their
relations to the kings see COMITIA CURIATA and
SENATUS. During this early period we can
scarcely speak of the patricians as an
aristocracy, unless we regard their relation to
the clients in this light [CLIENS.]
Second Period: from the establishment of the
plebeian order to the time of Constantine. When
the plebeians became a distinct class of
citizens, who shared certain rights with the
patricians, the latter lost in so far as these
rights no longer belonged to them exclusively.
But by far the greater number of rights, and
those the most important ones, still remained in
the exclusive possession of the patricians, who
alone were cives optimo jure, and were the
patres of the nation in the same sense as
before. All civil and religious offices were in
their possession, and they continued as before
to be the populus, the nation now consisting of
the populus and the plebes. This distinction,
which Livy found in ancient documents (xxv.12),
seems however in the course of time to have
fallen into oblivion, so that the historian
seems to be hardly aware of it, and uses populus
for the whole body of citizens including the
plebeians. Under the Antonines the term populus
signified all the citizens, with the exception
of the patricii (Gaius, i.3). In their relation
to the plebeians or the commonality, the
patricians now were a real aristocracy of birth.
A person born of a patrician family was and
remained a patrician, whether he was rich or
poor, whether he was a member of the senate, or
an eques, or held any of the great offices of
the state, or not: there was no power that could
make a patrician a plebeian, except his own free
will, for every patrician might by adoption into
a plebeian family, or by a solemn transition
from his own order to the plebs, become a
plebeian, leaving his gens and curia and
renouncing the sacra. As regards the census, he
might indeed not belong to the wealthy classes,
but his rank remained the same. Instances of
reduced patricians in the latter period of the
republic are, the father of M. Aemilius Scaurus
and the family of the Sullas previous to the
time of the dictator of that name (Suet. Aug. 2;
Liv. iv.16; Plin. H.N. xviii.4; Zonar. vii.15;
Ascon. Ped. in Scaur. p25, ed. Orelli). A
plebeian, on the other hand, or even a stranger,
might, as we stated above, be made a patrician
by a lex curiata. But this appears to have been
done very seldom; and the consequence was, that
in the course of a few centuries the number of
patrician families became so rapidly diminished,
that towards the close of the republic there
were not more than fifty such families (Dionys.
i.85). Julius Caesar by the lex Cassia raised
several plebeian families to the rank of
patricians, in order that they might be able to
continue to hold the ancient priestly offices
which still belonged to their order (Suet. Caes.
41; Tac. Ann. xi.25; Dion Cass. xliii.47,
xlv.2). Augustus soon after found it necessary
to do the same by a lex Scaenia (Tacit. l.c.;
Dion Cass. xlix.43, lii.42). Other emperors
followed these examples: Claudius raised a
number of senators and such persons as were born
of illustrious parents to the rank of patricians
(Tacit. l.c.; Suet. Oth. 1); Vespasian, Titus,
and other emperors did the same (Tacit. Agric.
9; Capitol. M. Antonin. 1; Lamprid. Commod. 6).
The expression for this act of raising persons
to the rank of patricians was in patricios or in
familiam patriciam adligere.
Although the patricians throughout this whole
period had the character of an aristocracy of
birth, yet their political rights were not the
same at all times. The first centuries of this
period are an almost uninterrupted struggle
between patricians and plebeians, in which the
former exerted every means to retain their
exclusive rights, but which ended in the
establishment of the political equality of the
two orders. [PLEBS.] Only a few insignificant
priestly offices, and the performance of certain
ancient religious rites and ceremonies, remained
the exclusive privilege of the patricians; of
which they were the prouder, as in former days
their religious power and significance were the
basis of their political superiority (see
Ambrosch, Studen und Andeutungen, &c. p58, &c.).
At the time when the struggle between patricians
and plebeians ceased, a new kind of aristocracy
began to arise at Rome, which was partly based
upon wealth and partly upon the great offices of
the republic, and the term Nobiles was given to
all persons whose ancestors had held any of the
curule offices (Cf. NOBILES.) This aristocracy
of nobiles threw the old patricians as a body
still more into the shade, though both classes
of aristocrats united as far as was possible to
monopolise all the great offices of the state (Liv.
xxii.34, xxxix.41); but although the old
patricians we obliged in many cases to make
common cause with the nobiles, yet they could
never suppress the feeling of their own
superiority; and the veneration which historical
antiquity alone can bestow, always distinguished
them as individuals from the nobiles. How much
wealth gradually gained the upper hand, is seen
from the measure adopted about the time of the
first Punic war, by which the expenses for the
public games were no longer given from the
aerarium, but were defrayed by the aediles; and
as their office was the first step to the great
offices of the republic, that measure was a
tacit exclusion of the poorer citizens from
those offices. Under the emperors the position
of the patricians as a body was not improved;
the filling up of the vacancies in their order
by the emperors began more and more to assume
the character of an especial honour, conferred
upon a person for his good services or merely as
a personal favour, so that the transition from
this period to the third had been gradually
preparing.
Respecting the great political and religious
privileges which the patricians at first
possessed alone, but afterwards were compelled
to share with the plebeians, see PLEBS and the
articles treating of the several Roman
magistracies and priestly offices. Cf. also GENS;
CURIA; SENATUS.
In
their dress and appearance the patricians were
scarcely distinguished from the rest of the
citizens, unless they were senators, curule
magistrates, or equites, in which case they wore
like others the ensigns peculiar to these
dignities. The only thing by which they appear
to have been distinguished in their appearance
from other citizens, was a peculiar kind of
shoes, which covered the whole foot and part of
the leg, though they were not as high as the
shoes of senators and curule magistrates. These
shoes were fastened with four strings (corrigae
or lora patricia) and adorned with a lunula on
the top (Senec. De Tranquil. Anim. 11; Plut.
Quaest. Rom. 76; Stat. Silv. v.2.27; Martial,
i.50, ii.29). Festus (s.v. Mulleos) states that
mulleus was the name of the shoes worn by the
patricians; but the passage of Varro which he
adduces only shows that the mullei (shoes of a
purple colour) were worn by the curule
magistrates (cf. Dion Cass. xliii.43).
Third Period: from the time of Constantine to
the middle ages. From the time of Constantine
the dignity of patricius was a personal title,
which conferred on the person, to whom it was
granted, a very high rank and certain
privileges. Hitherto patricians had been only
genuine Roman citizens, and the dignity had
descended from the father to his children; but
the new dignity was created at Constantinople,
and was not bestowed on old Roman families; it
was given, without any regard to persons, to
such men as had for a long time distinguish
themselves by good and faithful services to the
empire or the emperor. This new dignity was not
hereditary, but became extinct with the death of
the person on whom it was conferred; and when
during this period we read of patrician
families, the meaning is only that the head of
such a family was a patricius (Zosim. ii.40;
Cassiodor. Variar. vi.2). The name patricius
during this period assumed the conventional
meaning of father of the emperor (Ammian.
Marcellin. xxix.2; Cod. 12 tit.3 §5), and those
who were thus distinguished occupied the highest
rank among the illustres; the consuls alone
ranked higher than a patricius ( Isidor.
ix.4.1.3; Cod. 3 tit.24 s3; 12 tit.3 s3). The
titles by which a patricius was distinguished
were magnificentia, celsitudo, eminentia, and
magnitudo. They were either engaged in actual
service (for they generally held the highest
offices in the state, at the court and in the
provinces), and were then called patricii
praesentales, or they had only the title and
were called patricii codicillares or honorarii (Cassiod.
viii.9; Savaron ad Sidon. Apoll. i.3). All of
them, however, were distinguished in their
appearance and dress from ordinary persons, and
seldom appeared before the public otherwise than
in a carriage. The emperors were generally very
cautious in bestowing this great distinction,
though some of the most arbitrary despots
conferred the honour upon young men and even on
eunuchs. Zeno decreed that no one should be made
patricius who had not been consul, praefect, or
magister militum (Cod. 3 tit.24 s3). Justinian,
however, did away with some of these
restrictions. The elevation to the rank of
patricius was testified to the person by a writ
called diploma (Sidon. Apollin. v.16; Suidas,
s.v. Grammatei/dion; cf. Cassiodor. vi.2,
viii.21, &c.).
This new dignity was not confined to Romans or
subjects of the empire, but was sometimes
granted to foreign princes, such as Odoacer, the
chief of the Heruli, and others. When the popes
of Rome had established their authority, they
also assumed the right of bestowing the title of
patricius on eminent persons and princes, and
many of the German emperors were thus
distinguished by the popes. In several of the
Germanic kingdoms the sovereigns imitated the
Roman emperors and popes by giving to their most
distinguished subjects the title of patricius,
but these patricii were at all times much lower
in rank than the Roman patricii, a title of
which kings and emperors themselves were proud.
(Rein, in Ersch und Gruber's Encyclopädie, s.v.
Patricier, and for the early period of Roman
History, Göttling's Gesch. der Röm. Staatsverf.
p51, &c., Becker's Handbuch l.c., and p133,
&c.).
Appendix III
Preamble to the Report submitted by the
Commissioners enquiring into the Claims of the
Maltese Nobility
December 10, 1877
To the Hon.
Sir
Victor Houlton G.C.M.G., M.A.,
Chief Secretary to
Government,
&c &c
&c
SIR,
I. By your letter, No. 9066,
dated the 8th March 1877, enclosing a list of
Maltese “Titolati, which had been forwarded to
his Excellency the Governor by the secretary of
a Committee of Nobles formed on the occasion
of H.R.H. the Prince of Wales's late visit to
these islands, we were
required to institute a careful inquiry into
certain questions stated in that
letter, and into such other questions as might
arise in the course of our investigation, in
order to form a correct list for
submission to the Right Honourable the Secretary
of State for the Colonies, with a report showing
the grounds for the inclusion in, or exclusion
from that list of any gentleman claiming a title
of nobility ; for which purpose we were
instructed to look to the records existing in
the Government archives and also, when
necessary, to call for explanations from
claimants themselves or from any other person
whom we might deem fit to examine.
2. The inquiry
with which we have been instructed originated in
a question of precedence, for the committee
aforesaid having on behalf of the Maltese
nobility applied to Her Majesty’s Government
claiming precedence before the Chamber of
Commerce, the Right Honourable Earl of Carnarvon,
Secretary of State for the Colonies, in reply to
that representation by Despatch of the 23rd
December 1876, addressed to His Excellency the
Governor decided that the heads of the families
who before the annexation of Malta to the
British Dominions obtained titles of nobility,
should take precedence of the Chamber of
Commerce ; and in order to ascertain who were
the gentlemen thus entitled to precedence, his
Excellency had called upon that committee to
transmit to him a list of Maltese “Titolati”
with the date of their respective creations.
3. The questions to which the
list forwarded by the committee may give rise
are, in the letters of 8th March 1877, classed
under two heads: some have been reserved
entirely for the decision of Her Majesty’s
Secretary of State, whilst others have been
referred to the Commission, in order to be
settled here in Malta.
4. The former questions are
the following two, namely :-
1st. Whether a grant made to
the applicant and his successors or descendants
without any express limitation, or with a
limitation only to sex, is to be taken to extend
the title to all contemporary successors or
descendants, or to be restricted, to only one of
them, according to the rule of
primogeniture.
2nd. Whether a grant limited to male
descendants under the rule of primogeniture or
otherwise, is to be taken to extend to the sons
of female descendants.
5. The other questions which
have been referred to the Commission are 10 in
number, viz. :-
1st. Whether the grants
mentioned in the list of the committee as
emanating from other authorities than the Grand
Master of the Knights of Saint John, were duly
registered according to the then existing law,
and if they were not, whether, there are records
showing such an official recognition of them by
the Grand Masters as may be taken to be
equivalent to that
registration.
2nd. Whether the claimant of
titles, under unquestionable grants, are the
descendants or successors included in
those grants.
3rd. Supposing that a grant
made to the applicant and his successors or
descendants without any express limitation, to
extend to all contemporary successors or
descendants, whether the list received includes
all those who under such construction might
claim the title, and if not, who are the
gentlemen who have claims equal to
those of the gentlemen included in that list,
or though they may not be disposed to claim it
for themselves, whose issue may do so?
4th. In cases of grants of that
description, taking the words “head of a
family” to mean the first born of the grantee of
the title and his successors, by the
rule of primogeniture, who among the gentlemen
now claiming the title is the head of the
family?
5th. In cases of grants limited to male
descendants, whether the present claimants
descend from the male or from the female line of
the original grantee?
6th. In cases of grants in which the
holder of the title has the power to set aside
the first born, and to assign that title to
another member of the family, if two gentlemen
claim the title, one in virtue of the rule
established in the grant, and the other in
virtue of nomination, which of the conflicting
claims is well founded, or, in other
words, whether the nomination is legally proved.
7th. On what grounds titles
which appear to have been granted to the
applicant or to him and his son, exclusively,
are claimed by other descendants.
8th.
Whether the title of Baron claimed by several
gentlemen is, in all instances, derived from a
special grant of it, as a title of honour, or
only the denomination of
persons holding land
of a superior, a word equivalent or nearly
equivalent to the word “possessor” in the
present law.
9th. Whether, according to the terms of
the grants, any of the claimants is under any
disqualification:
10th. Where, in the list received, a
gentleman bears two or more surnames, which of
the surnames is that which, according to law,
belongs to him, coming from his father,
grandfather, and other male ancestors; and if
one or more surnames have been taken from the
original surnames of female ancestors, for what
reasons, if any, those surnames have been
assumed.
6. By another letter bearing date 8th May
last, we are further required to communicate
to his Excellency the Governor, any remarks we
might make, or any documents we might find. in
the course of our inquiry, bearing on the
questions which by the aforesaid letter of the
8th March 1877, are reserved to the, Secretary
of State; and which might tend to facilitate
their decision.
7. It is hardly necessary to point out
that we shall proceed to consider the foregoing
questions, not in the order in which they are
stated, but with reference to the claims
successively inquired into, as far as they are
applicable thereto.
8. As soon as we entered upon our duties,
we directed our attention to the perusal and
examination of the patents or diplomas
registered in the Government Archives and
referred to by the Committee in their list. We
also proceeded to look to the documents existing
in the said Archives, availing ourselves of the
valuable assistance and co-operation of the
Government Archivist. Our next care was to
consider all such documents and,
genealogical tables as have been
transmitted to us either by the said Committee,
or directly, by several gentlemen
whose names are inserted in the list.
We feel it, however, our duty to state,
before entering upon the subject that we cannot
assure his Excellency the Governor that the
titles included in the committee list, and upon
which we are to report, correspond to all the
existing titles of nobility, and still less that
the thirty-one gentlemen whose names are therein
inserted represent all those, who, under
certain conditions would have the right of
claiming a title by virtue of the same grant. On
the contrary, as it will be hereafter remarked,
many gentlemen not comprised in that list are
exactly in the same condition as others therein
mentioned. As no notice has appeared in the
Government Gazette informing the public of the
existence of our Commission, and inviting all
those who might have a right to a title of
nobility to lay their claims before us, our
inquiry must necessarily be incomplete, and
limited to those titles which are included in
the list, or which after its presentation have
been claimed. On the other hand, we could not
ascertain how far the committee are invested
with a representative character, with regard to
the interests of the Maltese nobility.,
10. The Government having left to our
discretion to fix the mode of proceeding, in
order to obtain the most accurate information
for the dispatch of our inquiry, we thought it
advisable to request the attendance before us of
the gentlemen referred to in the list (with
three exceptions which will be noticed
hereafter), in order to supply us with all the
information and documents requisite for the
careful consideration of their respective
grants.
11. It is gratifying to state that
all those gentlemen, two alone excepted,
have most willingly complied with our request,
and some of them have displayed peculiar
attention in order to facilitate the discharge
of our duties. For that purpose we have held
numerous sittings in the .Government
Archivist’s Office.
12. Some of those gentlemen had, ever
since the commencement of our investigation,
expressed their wish that we should communicate
to them some written queries respecting the
information we solicited from them; but we did
not deem it advisable to deviate from the
practice we had hitherto pursued, and which had
been accepted by the great majority of the
claimants, namely, of communicating orally with
them. Had we sent out written queries to each of
the claimants an endless correspondence would
have been opened, and no result more beneficial
than that which could be obtained by viva
voce information would have been attained.
Nevertheless we have never objected to receive
from the claimants memorandums containing
statements of their rights; and similar
statements have, in some instances, been asked
for directly by us.
13. The two gentlemen who
declined to comply with our invitation, without
giving any explanation for their refusal, were
Dr. Gaetano Delicata, and Dr. Giuseppe Delicata,
as the legal representative of his son, Nicola
Maria Delicata Carbott. Seven gentlemen, not
included in the committee list, appeared in the
course of our inquiry, and referred their claims
to the Commission, viz., Alessandro Preziosi,
Dr. Vincenzo Camilleri, Enrico Testaferrata,
Maria Francesca widow of Dr. Filippo Apap,
Francesco Gauci Testaferrata, Angiolino Attard
Montalto, and Luisa widow of Captain Walter
Strickland, R.N.
14. The three gentlemen
included in the committee list, whose attendance
we did not think proper to call for are Dr.
Pietro Paolo Testaferrata Abela Moroni, who
claims the title of “Barone di Gomerino,”
Augusto Testaferrata Abela, who asserts a claim
to the same title, and Monsignor Don Salvatore
Grech Delicata de Piro who claims the, title of
“Barone di Budak". For this omission we beg
to refer to what will be hereafter remarked -
we must, however, state that Monsignor Delicata
did not fail to insist on his being allowed to
appear, and to have an opportunity of furnishing
the Commission with the necessary information
with regard to .his title.
15. We now conclude the above
preliminary observations by stating, for the
clear understanding of our Report, that the
number of patents or charters of titles does not
and cannot correspond with the number of
claimants included in the list, which amounts to
thirty-one, and which added to that of the
gentlemen who appeared after the presentation
of that list, ascends to thirty-eight. This
difference will be easily accounted for by the
circumstance that several of these gentlemen
claim the same title under the same sovereign
grant. Thus Lorenzo Antonio Testaferrata, Gio
Paolo Testaferrata Olivier de Puget, Lorenzo
Cassar Desain né Testaferrata, Ignazio
Testaferrata Bonici and Dr. Giuseppe
Testaferrata Viani presented themselves
claiming the right of bearing simultaneously the
title of Marquis, in virtue of the same grant
originally made to one of the Testaferrata
family (Don Mario). Emmanuele Testaferrata and
Lorenzo Antonio Testaferrata claim, to the
exclusion of each other, the title of “Marchese
di San Vincenzo Ferreri” granted by another
patent to the aforesaid Don Mario Testaferrata.
Amedeo Preziosi, Dr. Antonio Preziosi, Dr.
Camillo Preziosi, Alessandro Preziosi, and Dr.
Vincenzo Camilleri assert, at the same time,
their claims the title of Count originally
conferred upon one of the Preziosi family ; and
Dr. Pietro Paolo Testaferrata Abela Moroni and
Augusto Testaferrata Abela, both claim, to the
exclusion of each other, the title of “Barone
di Gomerino” which, according to the terms of
the patent is to be enjoyed by only one of the
descendants of the person first ennobled.
16. The foregoing remarks on the list of
the committee and on the way we proceeded with
in our inquiry being premised, we beg
respectfully to submit the following
observations with regard to the
questions which are referred to us.
17. The titles of Maltese
nobility, which are claimed at present, have a
threefold origin. Some proceed from grants made
by the Grand Masters during the Government of
the Order of Saint John of Jerusalem. Others
have been by some of the claimants traced back
to an epoch prior to the domination of the
Knights, and are presumed to have been granted
by the Kings of Sicily of the house of Aragon,
when those rulers held the sovereignty of these
islands; whilst others have been by patent
created by foreign sovereigns, during the
Government of the order of Saint John.
18. We purpose to follow this
triple classification and to divide the present
Report into three sections ; in the first of
which we shall consider the titles conferred by
the Grand Masters, and in the second and third
we shall proceed to inquire into the grants made
by the Sicilian Kings of the house of Aragon and
by foreign sovereigns. We shall subjoin a fourth
section respecting certain hereditary
distinctions conferred by foreign authorities
during the Government of the Knights.
Appendix IV
Documents exhibited to the Commission of the
Maltese Nobility relating to the
Mariano Testaferrata Privilegium, of 20.12.1553
A certificate of the aforesaid
Senate of Messina bearing
date the 12th July
1791, by which it was attested “To
whomsoever these presents shall be exhibited,
whether in judicature or there out, whether in
the kingdom of Sicily or elsewhere that
the family Testaferrata of Malta,
from which Marquis Errigo Testaferrata
dei Marchesi di San Vincenzo Ferreri,
a nobleman of the Holy Roman Empire (the
claimant’s father) descends, is a
noble and patrician
family of this city (and has been so) since
the year 1553, in virtue of
a privilegium granted to Mariano Testaferrata
as appears from il Libro Diverso of the year
1553 . . . .”
Commission on the Claims of the Maltese
Nobility p.30:143
Another privilegium
of the Senate of Messina, bearing
date the 28th August 1792, stating, with
reference to that of 1553, that Mariano Testaferrata had been elected into the
“Senatorium Messinensium Ordinem inter que
Nobiles Cives Mamertinos.”
Commission on the Claims of the Maltese
Nobility p.48:235
Sources
Dalla
Vecchia U.,
Franchigie e regalie del senato di Messina,
Archivio storico messinese, 1906
D’Avenia,
Fabrizio:
Nobiltà “sotto processo” Patriziato di Messina e
Ordine di Malta nella prima età moderna.
(Essay, Università di Palermo, 2004, unpublished)
Galuppi, Giuseppe:
Nobiliario
della città di Messina (Arnaldo Forni
Editore, Napoli 1877)
Smith, William D.C.L.,
LL.D.:
A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities,
John Murray, London, 1875 found in:
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA*/Patricii.html
 |
|
