The silence of the Greek and Latin writers who escaped the injury of time on the origin of our city, which not without reason Paciucchelli says it is very ancient and therefore obscure, made the investigation of it very rough. It is therefore that men, however very learned, who have not deliberately occupied themselves with penetrating into the darkness that covered it, have disposed of things that are inconsistent both on its nomenclature and on its etymology. The times, however, in which the said ancient writers flourished were enlightened. From what they have left written on the Region in which our city is located, and on the Greek colonies from which it was occupied and inhabited, by its ancient coins, and by the very valuable monuments of ancient fine arts found there, I was able to take those torches which have enabled me to push my steps forward in the midst of so much darkness.
Here we are now at an age of ignorance, barbarism, destruction and servitude, which is that which after the fall of the Western Empire the invasions of the northern peoples as well as of the Saracens brought into unfortunate Italy. Failure, indeed extinguished the culture, from which to draw an orderly history of our city? Given the reason for the times and the quality of the writers that the same could produce, it is not a little that the main events which took place in Italy are known at least in general.
Francesco Maria Pratilli in his aforementioned book On the Appian Way , among the few things he said about our city, which now makes so much talk about itself, bears what follows: Ruvo suffered his misfortunes by the Goths without the Greek Emperor Zeno being able to to offer relief and help, and it was then that she came to be poor in inhabitants who had passed elsewhere to make domicile. Nor did she have to succumb to minor ruins due to the fury of the Saracens and the Lombards who waged war with the Greeks at the report of the Chronologists of that time [142] . It has also been said by some that it was destroyed by the Goths and leveled with the ground.
[a108]
I well believe that at that time of destruction and depredation my homeland could not escape those disasters to which so many other cities of miserable Italy suffered. On the contrary, the circumstance I pointed out in the preceding Cape that the current city of Ruvo is seen to be built on the ruins of the ancient city gives a strong argument for this. It is also noteworthy that while it was in all respects a considerable city, no vestige has remained above ground of factories which present a remote antiquity, which proves that these were all destroyed from the foundations. But these things were said by Pratilli and others without mentioning the writers from whom they were drawn. In this way one can truly say whatever one wants.
From the Chronicles, however, which have spoken of the events of that time which I have read, I have not been able to detect anything in particular. In referring to them the events that took place in that Province, they were all limited to talking about those that concerned the city of Bari which was the most important, since all the other secondary ones ordinarily followed its fate. Rarely is there any mention of these minor cities.
In any case, if something has escaped me by chance, I am not sorry. It was a very interesting thing, and at the same time glorious for my homeland, to remove its ancient and noble origin from obscurity. In order to succeed, I have spared nothing, and I have omitted nothing. But what good is it for the same and for me in tiring myself to the advantage of tracing the news of those damages that could suffer from barbarous nations, and exacerbate my soul by going through those facts that I would be forced a hundred times to regret not having them. left in deep oblivion? I thank the Most High who survived so many ruins, while so many other cities were destroyed, without being resurrected. I leave these sad and unpleasant trifles (even if we may have traces of them) to those who are vague about them, and have more time, less years, and healthier than me. I will therefore limit myself to the few information that there is of the time of the Normans, without advancing myself of advantage in the research of those times that preceded their domination, in which certainly the profit would not have been able to adapt the labor and the annoyance that would be cost.
[a109]
Before making this small collection, however, I do not omit that Pratilli in the place just mentioned has brought back a sepulchral plaque found in Ruvo, which in truth is little thing, since it was this mass from a woman to her deceased husband who is said to be the freedman of Caesar , without even knowing which of the Caesars at that time ruled. Another inscription found later is worth something more, as it was the work of the Ruvestine Municipal Authorities at the time of the Gordian Emperor.
IMP CÆS M ANTO
ni GORDIANO PIO
FEL AVG
PON MAX
TRIB P II
COS PROC
DECVRIONES
ET AVGVST
EX ÆRE COL
SIDE
The transcribed inscription just unearthed was thought to be preserved as it got stuck in the wall of a public building, that is, the clock that stands in the public square of our city. It is believed that this plaque formed part of the pedestal of a statue or other public monument erected in honor of the Gordian Emperor. Without this, the mention made in it of having been put ex ære collato de ‘Decurioni and the Augustali would fall into ridicule. The single and simple plaque would have cost only a few money, which would not have deserved such a boast.
Meanwhile, the aforementioned plaque shows that there was a College of Augustali in Ruvo. It is known that this institution was created by Tiberius in honor of Caesar Augustus. The College of the Augustali was in Rome made up of the most distinguished characters in the number of twenty-five, as Cornelius Tacitus tells us: Idem annus novas cæremonias recepit addito sodalium Augustalium Sacerdotio, ut quondam Titus Tatius retinendis Sabinorum [a110]sacris, sodales Titios instituerat. Sorte ducti a Primoribus civitatis unus et viginti. Tiberius, Drususque, et Claudius, et Germanicus adjiciuntur [143] . This was therefore considered a dignity and an honor. Suetonius therefore in the life of Claudius says that before he had been Emperor, Senatus quoque ut ad numerum sodalium Augustalium sorte ductorum extraorderm adjiceretur, censuit [144] . He also says the same of Galba, who before he was elevated to the Empire, inter sodales Augustales fuit cooptatus [145] .
This new cult that Cornelius Tacitus calls it a new ceremony suggested by the mad pride of those who dominated and by the vile adulation of those they served, was in the following stretch also extended to the other Emperors, to whom divine honors were lavished after their death. Hence, Giusto Lipsio in his Commentary on the transcribed place of Cornelius Tacitus observes: Idque exemplum placuit deinceps in omnibus Imperatoribus, qui facti sunt Divi. Ita sodales Flavii, Hadrianales, Antonini passim in Historiis memorantur. Levino Torrentio says the same in his notes to the aforementioned place of Suetonius. Quemadmodum ab Augusto Augustales, sic ab aliis Imperatoribus nominates traxere, ut Flaviani, Æliani, Antoniniani, Helviani.
It should also be noted that this Priesthood, later propagated also to other cities outside Rome, became a municipal office with the passing of time. It is useful to hear how Barnabas Brissonio reasoned about it, who says that this Priesthood was instituted by Tiberius In urbe XXV ex viris primariis, in municipiis quaterni, seni, et aliquando plures: Tacitus Annal. I, 54, Histor. II, 95. Gruterus Inscript. p. CXLIX 5, et CCXLIX 5. Præerat toto Corpori Magister Augustalis. Gruterus p. CCXLIX 5. et p. CXLIX, 5. Reinesius ad Inscript. p. 186, qui æque ac ipsi Augustales and decurionibus lecti. Noris. Cenotaph. Pisan. p. 78. Hi vero non solum sacra faciebant, sed et aliquando jus dicebant, et curam viarum gerebant. Gruterus CCCCXXI 7 [a111]p. CCLII 3 CXLIX 5, non quidem tanquam Augustales, sed tanquam Magistratus, quia sæpe such dignitate cum Sacerdotio isto fungebantur, ceu contra Reinesium probavit laudatus Noris. Cenotaph Pisan. I 6 p. 77 et sequent. Qui et docuit non perpetuum fuisse hoc Augustalium Sacerdotium, sed temporarium. Unde II Augustalis appellatur L. Cancrius apud Gruterum p. XIX 6 [146] .
Now it is well understood why in the transcribed tombstone the Augustales are seen united with the Decurions of Ruvo to erect a monument to the Emperor Gordian. It is not known whether this suggested the flattery or some benefit done to our city by the aforementioned Emperor. I now pass on to report the few things that exist from the Norman era, missing any particular information relating to our city of the time preceding it. I could have actually touched on that part which has the same by necessity as it had in the general events that followed in that Region. But these belong to the History of the Kingdom, and being already exposed by others, I do not like to replicate the known things, and leave my topic.
In the Chronicle of Lione Ostiense we speak of the inauguration, and the dedication of the grandiose Church of Montecasino followed on October 30, 1071 with the intervention of Pope Alexander II. It is said that interfuere tantæ tunc celebrated Archiepiscopi decem, et Episcopi quadraginta . Among the first there is Archiepiscopus Tranensis , which also proves that the city of Trani, which belonged to Count Pietro Normanno, was since then a conspicuous city, and that Guglielmo Appulo calls it præclari nominis urbem . Among the latter we read: Episcopus Cannensis, Rubesanus (di Ruvo), Monorbinensis, Juvenaciensis, Monopolitanus, all places that belong to the Land of Bari according to the current division of the Provinces of the Kingdom [147] .
The anonymous Cassinese reports the same fact. Commemorates the Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops and Magnates who intervened in the consecration of the aforementioned Church with an immense crowd of people [a112]that there was from all places for that great solemnity. He also lets us know one by one the names of the aforementioned Archbishops and forty Bishops who attended, and among the latter there is Guilelmus, sive Guibertus Episcopus Rubesanus [148] .
From Lupo Protospata we have the following news: Anno 1082 Episcopus Rubensis donavit Priori Montis Pelosi Ecclesiam Sancti Sabini, quæ est in civitate Rubi, qui Prior tenebatur omni anno ad quatuor libras ceræ in die Sabathi Sancii, et mittere unum hominem equestrem ad suas expensas when Episcopus Rubensis ibat ad Barum, seu ad Canusium [149] . However, the small church of S. Sabino exists in Ruvo, and the Bishop of Montepoloso has it as his own Abbey, takes care of it and receives the income from the goods with which it is endowed. But he no longer undertakes either to pay the four pounds of wax to the Bishop of Ruvo, or to send a man on horseback at his expense when the latter wishes to go to Bari or Canosa [150] .
Alessandro Abbate Telesino in his History De rebus gestis Rogerii Siciliæ Regis says that Pope Honorius raised against Ruggiero the Magnates of Puglia including Grimoaldus Barensis Princeps, Goffridus Comes Andrensis, Tancredus de Conversano, atque Rogerius Orianensis Comes, aliique complures . These Magnates gathered in Troja where the Pontiff had gone from Benevento called by the inhabitants of that city, and made an alliance with him. Meanwhile Ruggiero landed in Taranto with a good number of troops. Having surrendered the city to him, he went to besiege [a113]Brindisi that Tancredi di Conversano had occupied. Since the inhabitants of it could no longer tolerate the damage of the siege, they made themselves at the discretion. After this he also took other castles of the Barons who were his enemies.
The Pope then united his forces with those of the aforementioned Barons and marched against Ruggiero. Having learned this, he went to camp with his army near the Bradano river in the place called Vado petroso . The Papal troops encamped on the opposite bank of the aforementioned river. However, knowing from Ruggiero that the Pontiff was in the field in person, out of respect he refrained from attacking him. Nor did he fail to manage to appease his soul, and induce him to discharge him from the excommunication against him and recognize him as Duke of Puglia and Calabria.
As things went on for a long time, both the connected Barons and their soldiers began to murmur, because they saw lacking the means to maintain themselves longer in the countryside. Many of them then withdrew, and the Pope returned to Benevento, and from there he continued his practices with Ruggiero. Finally she arranged with him in a meeting they had together in the city of Benevento where Ruggiero went in person, and was recognized by the Pope as Duke of Puglia and Calabria.
After that he passed with his army to besiege Troja. However, having seen that that city was well prepared to resist him vigorously, and having calculated that winter was approaching, he thought it appropriate to leave the siege of it, and take care to recover the city of Melfi and other Ducal cities that voluntarily they submitted, and called him through the legates sent to him. This fact he retired to Salerno and from there he immediately left for Sicily, reserving for the good season the expedition against the Magnates of Puglia, enemies of him.
In Ruggiero’s absence, Tancredi di Conversano managed to recover the city of Brindisi, and other castles that Ruggiero had taken from him. But when the latter returned to the good season with a mighty army, after having recovered some of the aforesaid castles, he went to besiege the aforesaid city of Brindisi. However, having calculated that the siege of it could last for a long time, he reserved this undertaking for a better one [a114]time, and he thought it more expedient to subdue the other cities and castles of his enemies. After having therefore destroyed a country called Castrum which, taken from him the previous year, had followed the parts of Tancredi di Conversano again, he laid siege to Monte Alto .
Here then continues to say the Abbot Telesino: Capto itaque Monte alto Rubeam præfati tancredi urbem invasurus properat, qua demum devicta, Alexander Comes, Tancredus, Grimoaldus Barensis Princeps, necnon Goffridus Comes Andrensis tantam ipsius potentiam experti, saniori consilio inter se habito, moxox experti and the subjiciuntur. Unde Tancredi ipso Dux animo jam sedatus. He terras quascumque abstulerat reddidit. Quibus deinde præcepit ut post ipsum Trojam celeriter accessuri essent . He further added that in marching towards Troja he also took the city of Salpi [151] .
There can be no doubt that Abbot Telesino with the words Rubeam urbem indicated the city of Ruvo. In the aforementioned place he occupied himself with narrating the exploits of Ruggiero which took place in Puglia. There is no other city in that region bearing this name. He also says that Rubea urbsit depended on Tancredi di Conversano connected with the Prince of Bari and with the Count of Andria. Conversano Bari Ruvo and Andria form a group of cities not very distant from each other. It is also noteworthy that from the catalog of the Barons who contributed the soldiers for the expedition to the Holy Land at the time of William the Good, of whom we spoke before p. 84 it appears that at that time our city nevertheless continued to form part of the County of Conversano. This proves that it was also united to the same at the time of Ruggiero and therefore belonged to Tancredi di Conversano.
The History of the Abbot Telesino is written in a Latin that can be said to have been good about the time in which it was written. He was a contemporary of King Ruggiero, as Muratori warned him in the preface to the same, and as he said it and the same with praising himself [a115]of the opportunities had to approach that Sovereign. To indicate the city of Ruvo, therefore, he used the expressions Rubeam urbem for example of Virgil who said likewise.
Nunc facilis Rubea texatur fiscina virga [152] .
On this verse of Virgil observes Servius; Rubea virga, quæ abundat about Rubos Italiæ oppidum. Horatius Inde Rubos fessi pervenimus; idest ea virga, quæ circa Rubos nascitur . Basilio Fabro also conforms to Servius [153] . The Commentators of Horace on the aforementioned verse to which Servius refers transcribed in front of p. 19 observe: Rubi urbs Apuliae XX millibus pass. to Canusio distabat. In the countryside Rubeo vimen mollissimum bornbatur, quo fiscinæ texebantur. Virgil. Georg. lib. I vers. 266.
And in truth even today that territory abounds with a kind of mastic very useful for the fire that is needed for the ovens, for the furnaces and for the calcaje. The shoots of that fruit are very suitable for the work of baskets of all kinds. Even today they are made in large quantities no less for the use of the population than to sell them in neighboring cities. They are taken when they are one year old after the cut given to the plants, as they are then more tender, more flexible and more suitable for work. These virgults with the language of the place are called vinchioni perhaps from the Latin vimen, as the popular Ruvestino language has retained several words from both Greek and Latin. This happened, as Canon Mazocchi well observes, in our ancient Greek cities, which later passed under the Roman domination, both languages were spoken in them; from which Orazio li Canosini calls them bilinguals .
The Abbot Telesino in his address to Ruggiero printed at the end of his History took the opportunity to make an honorable mention of Virgil. He proves what he had culture, and also a fondness for the Prince of Latin Poets. Therefore, using his phrase to indicate the city of Ruvo, Rubeam urbem said .
[a116]
On the other hand, this intelligence will remain more established by paying attention to the Chronicle of Romualdo Salernitano . The same facts of Ruggiero are reported in it, albeit with some variety of circumstances, which is always encountered in historians of all times. The aforementioned writer therefore says that Ruggiero Conversanenses obsedit, eorumque civitates, et castella viriliter expugnavit . He used the plural Conversanenses , because Tancredi also had a brother named Alexander [154] , as can be seen from what he later says.Quumque Dominus Tancredus corporis molestaretur infirmitate, et Ducis Rogerii molestaretur oppression, tandem cum Domino Alexandro fratre his, et cum Domino Grimoaldo Barensi Prince tempore æstatis, idest tenth of August (MCXXIX) facta est pax cum dicto Duce Rogerio, reddentes Terras ab cisdem In reporting the war factions that took place in that meeting he says that Ruggiero cum exercitu adveniens comprehendit Salpim, et civitatem Rubum [155] . Which removes any doubt that Abbot Telesino also spoke of Ruvo.
Returning therefore to what he said about it, it seems that from the time of the Normans Ruvo was an important city for its fortifications, and that he opposed a vigorous resistance to Ruggiero. In the first place the expressions, qua demum devicta , which make us understand the difficulty that that valiant prince endured to be able to take it. Neither is opposed to this concept what the already said Romualdo Salernitano says that the city of Ruvo took it Ruggiero, ut fertur, traditione civium . Given this too true, it would be clear that Ruggiero used cunning and the handling where he saw the use of force difficult, since as Ugone Falcando observes in the foreword of the History of him Sicula Ruggieroid curabat ut non magis viribus, quam prudentia hostes contereret . Indeed the same voice that made him run from the emoli of him that [a117]had taken our city for treason, more and more confirms the opinion that one had of its fortress.
And indeed, both from what Romualdo Salernitano says, and from the tale of the Abbot Telesino, it appears that the Barons connected against him were so discouraged and dismayed by this that tantam potentiam ipsius experti, saniori consilio inter se habito, mox ei subjiciuntur . It must therefore be said that they had Ruvo for a very strong city, having produced this effect in their minds by taking it.
Abbot Telesino says nothing of what our city suffered in that sad situation. If you want to consider what Falcone Beneventano wrote about it in general in his Chronicle , also contemporary of Ruggiero, he says that he was the Duke extremely angry especially against Tancredi of Conversano whose merit and value he exalts, and that all cities of Puglia that belonged to his enemy Barons, he exterminated them with iron and fire with unprecedented cruelty and barbarism [156] .
However, I reflect that Falcone Beneventano shows himself to be an implacable enemy of Ruggiero, and his Chronicle is written with a very sour, indeed angry, pen. On the contrary, Abbot Telesino wrote with manifest partiality. He emphasized only the virtues of Ruggiero, and made a magnificent eulogy of them. On the contrary, he dedicated his history to him. So it seems that the first said too much and the second nothing. Natural reasoning, however, makes it clear that a city taken by force of arms ( qua demum devicta ) after a vigorous resistance opposed to an angry and greedy soldier, had to suffer her misfortunes. Væ victis.
After that Tancredi di Conversano with his brother Count Alessandro, and other Barons of Puglia rebelled against Ruggiero, who again turned his weapons against them and defeated them. Having vigorously attacked the city of Montepeloso, which also depended on the said Tancredi di Conversano, the latter marched in person with his forces to defend it. However, he had the injury of being beaten and a prisoner. Ruggiero exulted a lot for having had it in his hands. He condoned them [a118]nevertheless his life, but he sent him to Sicily where he was locked up in a prison having lost all his fiefs [157] .
It is not known who was granted the County of Conversano by Ruggiero, and with it the city of Ruvo which, as mentioned above, was part of it. But from the aforementioned Chronicle of Romualdo Salernitano it is noted that at the time of Ruggiero’s death in 1153, he was Count of Conversano Roberto di Basavilla , of whom he says what follows: Defuncto autem Rege Rogerio, Guillielmus filius ejus, qui cum patre duobus annis, et mensibus decem regnaverat, illi in Regni administratione succit. Hic autem post mortem patris, convocatis Magnatibus Regni sui, proximo Pascha est solemniter coronatus, to which Curiæ Robertus de Basavilla Comes de Conversano, Consobrinus frater ejusdem Regis interfuit. Huic Rex Guillielmus Comitatum de Lauritello concessit, et cum in Apulia cum honore emisit[158] .
Robert of Basavilla was a wise and valiant gentleman, a close relative of the King and very fond of the Court. He nevertheless fell into disgrace of King William I for the perfidious suggestions and intrigues of his evil courtiers exposed so well and with the language of truth by Ugone Falcando in the beginning of his Sicilian History [159] . Seeing therefore both his freedom and his life in positive danger, he was forced in spite of himself to make himself rebellious. He drew into the rebellion many Barons and all the cities of Puglia, where he had a lot of credit, and he greatly annoyed King William I, as the aforementioned writer continues to narrate it.
However, the King having rushed there with a mighty army, had to yield to force majeure, exiled from the Kingdom and lost his fiefs. All the cities of Puglia returned to the obedience of the King. There can be no doubt that the [a119]our city, but there is nothing particular about it. William I died in the year 1167, and his son William II succeeded him in the Kingdom, Count Robert of Basavilla who was priced and loved by all the great ones of the Kingdom and especially by the cities of Puglia, as the aforementioned Writer also says, he was recalled from his exile, returned in favor of the King, and was granted by the same again the County of Loritello, and also that of Conversano, as the aforementioned Romualdo Salernitano tells us [160] .
Now the most often cited Catalog of the Barons who gave the soldiers for the expedition to the Holy Land dates back to the time of William II, known as the Good, as noted above. It is noted from it that the city of Ruvo was part of the County of Conversano at that time, but it is not said who the Count of Conversano was then. However, knowing from History that this Robert of Basavilla was, it is a consequence that the city of Ruvo, which depended on the aforementioned County, also belonged to him.
It is not known until what time he owned it, and who was his successor. William II died in 1188 and passed the Kingdom to Corrado Svevo for those events that are reported in History, we know what follows from the Chronicle of Riccardo da S. Germano. In the year 1197, the year of the death of the said Corrado and the first year of the Reign of Frederick II, Imperatrix (i.e. Corrado’s widow) filium suum in Marchia apud Hesim civitatem relictum sub Ducatu dicti Cœlani Comitis, et Berardi Laureti Comitis et Cupersani, ad if duci jubet in Regnum, et de Apulia in Siciliam transmeare [161] . We know from what Conte di Conversano was then this Berardo. Whether this was the son of Count Roberto di Basavilla or others, I have not been able to verify it. Whoever, however, was, as Count of Conversano, it is a consequence that he also owned the city of Ruvo.
Here ends the news of that era. It is not known in what time and on what occasion our city remained detached from the County [a120]of Conversano, and has begun to constitute a separate and distinct fiefdom, as there are no public registers that could indicate it. However, that this separation had already followed at the time of the Angevin Dynasty we will go and see it in the Capo that follows. The passage from the happy centuries of our city to those of feudalism is painful. At that time agriculture and the industry which produced its opulence made the sciences and fine arts flourish in the most eminent degree, of which we have so many valuable monuments. On the contrary, feudality extinguished industry, and with it also taste and genius, was the bearer of so many servitudes, suggestions, restrictions and extortions, of which the only names that can be read in the Lexicons of the Middle Ages, and in the Writers feudists are enough to make you creep, and they could produce nothing but humiliation and misery. History, however, must follow time.
These are the few and scarce news that I have been able to gather from the time of the Normans. It also boasts the remote antiquity of that Bishopric, of which Ferdinando Ughellio says: Hujus civitatis maximum ornamentum esse potest quod inter Italicas urbes una ex primis fuerit, quæ S. Petro Apostolorum Principe prædicante hauserit Evangelii lumen anno salutis XLIV, et fert traditio primum Rubensem Episcopum ab eodem Petro consecratum Cletum, here post Linum et Clementem Pontificatum gessit, cujus solemnis dies agitur, veluti civitatis Patrono [162] .
It is also said that Epigonio Bishop of Ruvo attended the Council of Carthage together with St. Augustine. That in the deeds of S. Sabino existing in a Code which is kept in the Montecasino Library at no. 289 fol. 246 we read that Gelasius Pope in the year 443 was in Barletta for the consecration of the Church of S. Andrea Apostolo, and that among the Bishops invited to that sacred function there was also Giovanni Bishop of Ruvo.
I am not unaware that there have also been some writers who have thought that our bishopric is less ancient. However, I refrain from entering into this discussion. The main object that I proposed to myself in this work of mine was to tear the veil that kept it hidden [a121]very remote and illustrious origin of our city. Nothing in this can affect the greater or lesser antiquity of his bishopric. This investigation depends on researches in Ecclesiastical History, and in that of the Concilj. Those of my fellow citizens will always do a laudable thing if they wish to take care of this matter on purpose.
It is enough for me to have asserted the consideration of the antiquity of our bishopric to free it from the suppression it found itself in danger of undergoing in the execution of the last Concordat with the Holy See. In fact, this was on the table because of the tenuousness of his income, increased even more by the lack of foresight with which some of the past bishops had made the permutations of valuable funds from the Bishop’s Table with other funds of lesser value and value.
This suppression greatly displeased that Population. The Decurionate then turned to me, and honored me with the task of working to ensure that our city had not suffered such disfigurement, and to assert a warm resigned plea to the King for the preservation of his Bishopric. The Chapter of that Cathedral also took a very active part in it, which sent two Deputies to Naples, from whom I was assisted very effectively.
These were the late Canon Theologian D. Michele Cassano of honored memory, and my cousin Primicerio D. Domenico Chieco, both men very educated, cultured and full of zeal for the luster of both our city and our Church. They provided me with a very timely memory on the antiquity of that bishopric. This was presented to HE the Marquis D. Donato Tommasi at the time Minister of Grace and Justice, and of Ecclesiastical Affairs, since the consideration of antiquity was highly valued in such discussions.
There was no lack of that warm commitment and assistance that the thing demanded. The votes of that population remained satisfied. The Bishopric of Ruvo was preserved and joined to that of Bitonto æque principaliter with the Bull of Pope Pius VII of venerable memory of the day 27 June 1818. And since the first was recognized as an older Bishopric than the second, the Bishop took the title of Bishop of Ruvo and Bitonto , [a122]and not from Bitonto and Ruvo as the Bitontini Lords who were too attached to smoking claimed. Except for this mere frivolity, however, it was a very opportune combination that two of the most ancient cities of Peucezia thus remained united in their respective bishoprics.
