Proving Woman (34 page)

¹¹
See, for example, Paolini,
De of
fi
cio inquisitionis
, pp. 16–17; cf. the discussion over the possibility that the bishop and inquisitors might question witnesses independently
to expedite matters, in which case both tribunals were obliged to communicate with one another and agree about the sentencing,
2:135; also see 2:142. For the bishops’ independent action against heresy in the Midi prior to the inquisition, see Dossat,
“La répression,” pp. 217–51. Dossat notes that once the inquisition was in place, it had a free hand in the persecution of
heresy, especially in the matter of the death penalty, until the early fourteenth century when Clement V attempted to reimpose
collaboration with the bishops (pp. 248–49; see Clem. 5.3.1.1). On Clement V’s efforts and the resistance he encountered,
see Lea,
Inquisition
, 1:335, 387, 453, 473, 2:96; on the inquisition’s relations with the episcopacy, generally, see 1:330–36; also see below,
pp. 137–38. Henry Ansgar Kelly argues that the bishop wielded more power than the inquisitor. This may be true with regard
to the bishop’s power over his diocese in a general sense but seems highly unlikely in the context of matters touching on
heresy (“Inquisition and the Prosecution of Heresy: Misconceptions and Abuses,”
Church History
58 [1989]: 442).

¹²
Foucois,
Quaestiones
q. 3, pp. 403–4. On this manual, see n. 10, above.

¹³
See Marina Benedetti, ed.,
Milano 1300: I processi inquisitoriali contro le devote e i devoti
di santa Guglielma
(Milan: Libri Scheiwiller, 1999), p. 54 (hereafter
Processi . . . Guglielma
), where there is an explicit statement that the money will be used to defray inquisitorial expenses; pp. 62, 286 ff.

¹⁴
Lea discusses the trouble that arose in one celebrated case when this formality was not observed (
Inquisition
, 1:376–77).

¹⁵
VI.5.2.20; see Paolini,
De of
fi
cio inquisitionis
, 2:121–22; also see Zanchino Ugolini,
Tractatus
de haereticis
, in
Tractatus universi iuris
, ed. Camillo Campeggi (Venice: Franciscus Zilettus, 1584), vol. 11, pt. 2, c. 15, fols. 248v–49r. Ugolini was writing ca.
1330; see Dondaine, “Le manuel,” p. 121. Also see Gui,
Practica
3.1, p. 83; Lea,
Inquisition
, 1:387–90; Lorenzo Paolini,
L
’
Eresia a Bologna fra XIII e XIV secolo
, vol. 1,
L
’
Eresia catara alla
fi
ne del Duecento
, Istituto storico italiano per il medio evo, Studi storici, fasc. 93 (Rome: Istituto storico italiano per il medio evo),
pp. 18–29; Célestin Douais, “La formule communicatio bonorum vivorum consilio des sentences inquisitoriales,”
Le Moyen Age
, ser. 2,2, 12 (1898): 157–92. Many times, however, the counselors were the bishops or their delegates from the different
dioceses that the inquisition affected (pp. 160–61); cf. idem,
L
’
Inquisition
, pp. 235–56.

¹⁶
Gui,
Practica
4.2.4, k, p. 207; cf. Paolini,
De of
fi
cio inquisitionis
, 1:18–27, 30–32. For the cooperation between the church and the secular arm, see Richard Helmholz,
The Spirit of Classical
Canon Law
(Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1996), pp. 360–66.

¹⁷
Gui,
Practica
4.2.4, pp. 188–89, 193; also see Paolini,
De of
fi
cio inquisitionis
, 1:30; cf. Lea,
Inquisition
, 1:377–78, 391. On the coercive use of such documents and the fear they generated, see Given,
Inquisition and Medieval Society
, pp. 25–51; Arnold,
Inquisition and Power
, pp. 81–86; Lea,
Inquisition
, 1:379–80.

¹⁸
On rumor, see Ugolini,
Tractatus
c. 11, p. 244v.

¹⁹
See Lea,
Inquisition
, 1:401; Albert Shannon, “The Secrecy of Witnesses in Inquisitorial Tribunals and in Contemporary Secular Criminal Trials,”
in
Essays in Medieval Life and Thought
, ed. John Mundy et al. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1955), p. 60.

²⁰
Shannon, “Secrecy of Witnesses,” pp. 61–63; R. C. Van Caenegem, “Methods of Proof in Western Medieval Law,”
Mededelingen van Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen Letteren
en Schone Kunsten van Belgie
ï
, Academiae Analecta
45, 3 (1983): 113.

²¹
The content of their accusations should also be made known “lest the suppression of names lead to the bold bringing false
charges” (Lateran IV, c. 8, Tanner, 1:238). See Paolini,
De of
fi
cio
inquisitionis
, for the various rationales given by councils, etc., for the suppression of names (2:122–23); cf. Ugolini,
Tractatus
c. 9, 6, fol. 240v.

²²
Gui,
Practica
4.3.2, pp. 218–19; Paolini,
De of
fi
cio inquisitionis
, 1:23, 2:66.

²³
Paolini,
De of
fi
cio inquisitionis
, 1:113–14; Gui,
Practica
4.2.4, pp. 198–99. On the pernicious role of familiars, informers, etc., see Lea,
Inquisition
, 1:381–82.

²⁴
Nicolas Eymeric’s manual, written in 1376, provides one of the most detailed sections on torture. See
Directorium inquisitorium . . . denuo ex collatione plurium exemplorum emendatum,
et accessione multarum literarum Apostolicarum
(Rome: In aedibus Pop. Rom., 1578), pt. 3, pp. 313–15; pt. 3, q. 61, pp. 372–73; on partial proof, see p. 373; see Dondaine
“Le manuel,” p. 124. Cf. Ugolini,
Tractatus
c. 9, fol. 240v.

²⁵
Eymeric,
Directorium
pt. 3, col. 314. On Eymeric, see the previous note.

²⁶
Ibid. pt. 3, q. 61, fol. 314.

²⁷
Innocent IV,
Commentaria: Apparatus in V libros Decretalium
X.5.41.6 (Frankfurt, 1570; reprint, Frankfurt am Main: Minerva, 1968), fol. 574r–v.

²⁸
Eymeric,
Directorium
, pt. 3, q. 61, p. 373; cf. Innocent IV,
Commentaria
X.5.41.5, fol. 574r.

²⁹
Gui,
Practica
5.7.3, col. 295;
Doctrina de modo procendendi contra haereticos
, col. 1795.

³⁰
Paolini,
De of
fi
cio inquisitionis
, 2:132.

³¹
For an example, see inquisitor James Fournier’s reorganization of Johannes Maurinus’s confession into a series of articles
(see Jean Duvernoy, ed.,
Le Registre d
’
inquisition de Jacques
Fournier,
è
vê
que de Pamiers (1318
–
1325)
[Toulouse: E. Privat, 1965], 2:507–17). Similar lists of articles were recommended for the assembly of learned consultants.
See n. 74, below.

³²
Sentencing is discussed pp. 139–40, below.

³³
Clem. 5.11.2; see, for example, Paolini,
De of
fi
cio inquisitionis
, 2:137.

³⁴
Hostiensis,
Commentaria in secundum Decretalium librum
ad
de testibus et attestionibus
X.2.20.52; as cited by A. Mitri,
De
fi
gura juridica postularis in causis beati
fi
cationis et canonizationis
(Rome and Paris: Desclée, 1962), p. 41; cf. Aviad Kleinberg, who says that canonization is a trial resulting in a sentence
rather than a philosophical inquiry, “Proving Sanctity: Selection and Authentication of Saints in the Later Middle Ages,”
Viator
20 (1989): 197. For an overview of processes of canonization, see Vauchez,
Sainthood
, pp. 40–48; Margaret Toynbee,
S. Louis of
Toulouse and the Process of Canonisation in the Fourteenth Century
(Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1929), pp. 133–206.

³⁵
Goffred of Trani,
Summa super titulis Decretalium
X.3.45 (Lyon: Neudruck der Ausgabe, 1519), fol. 166r. Goffred’s specificity is apparently unique for the thirteenth century
(Kleinberg, “Proving Sanctity,” p. 199). By the fourteenth century, authorities are more forthcoming. Thus the confessors’
manual of Bartholomew of Pisa, written ca. 1338, repeats Goffred’s criteria but interestingly substitutes “just” for “chaste.”
He also adds that the candidate must be humble and simple, and must sustain persecutions with charity, in
Summa de casibus consciencie secundum
compilacionem Bartholomei de Pisis
ad
canonizacio
, Bodleian MS 736.

³⁶
X.45.1–2; see Kleinberg, “Proving Sanctity,” p. 190.

³⁷
Hostiensis,
In tertium Decretalium librum commentaria
ad X.3.45.1 (Venice: Iuntas, 1581), nos. 1–4, p. 172 (hereafter
Commentaria
). These risks are also central to Hostiensis’s defense of the reservation of canonization to the papacy (nos. 7–10, p. 172a).

³⁸
Ibid., no. 4, fol. 172.

³⁹
Innocent IV,
Commentaria
, p. 457r; Hostiensis,
Commentaria
ad X.3.45.1, no. 10, p. 172a; Kleinberg, “Proving Sanctity,” p. 197. Gaetani has the pope repeat this disclaimer twice during
the public canonization (
Ordo Romanus
c. 15, ed. Dom. Mabillon, in
Museum Italicum
[Paris: Lutetia, 1689], 2:472, hereafter Mabillon). Gaetani’s account is extant only in a fifteenth-century redaction. On
this document, see Toynbee,
S. Louis of Toulouse
, pp. 150–51. In another instance, however, Gaetani reports that the pope alludes to possible failure in the public consistory
as well (
Die Zeremonienbu
ï
cher der ro
ï
mischen Kurie im Mittelalter
, ed. Bernhard Schimmelpfennig [Tubingen: Max Niermeyer, 1973], p. 170, hereafter Schimmelpfennig). Gaetani is discussed below.

⁴⁰
Hostiensis,
Commentaria
ad X.3.45.1, no. 5, p. 172a. See p. 142, below.

⁴¹
Ibid., no. 10, p. 172a. See p. 142, below.

⁴²
For Gaetani’s writings, see n. 39, above. On Bridget’s canonization, see the account ascribed to a certain Peter Amelius
in n. 76, below. Ibid. ad X.3.45.1, no. 3, p. 172.

⁴³
Ibid. ad X.3.45.1, no. 5, p. 172.

⁴⁴
Toynbee,
S. Louis of Toulouse
, pp. 154–56.

⁴⁵
Mabillon, c. 15, p. 418.

⁴⁶
Schimmelpfennig, no. 1, p. 167; Hostiensis also makes note of the fact that this order was not invariable: the martyr’s case,
for example, would be more automatic (Hostiensis,
Commentaria
ad X.3.45.1, no. 5, p. 172a). Philip the Fair’s petition for this canonization was coercive: if denied, he threatened to have
Clement’s predecessor, the dubious Boniface VIII, denounced as a heretic.

⁴⁷
Cf. alternative designations—such as
prosecutor
,
promotor
,
sollicitator
(Mitri,
De
fi
gura juridica
, pp. 31, 34, 45; Toynbee,
S. Louis of Toulouse
, pp. 157–59).

⁴⁸
See Toynbee,
S. Louis of Toulouse
, pp. 164–69.

⁴⁹
Hostiensis,
Commentaria
ad X.3.45.1, no. 5, p. 172a; Gaetani, c. 15, p. 419.

⁵⁰
John’s intense investment in Dorothea is linked to his own truncated career as a theologian. See Franz Hipler (as revised
by Hans Westpfahl), “Johannes Marienwerder, der Beichtvater der seligen Dorothea von Montau,”
Zeitschrift fu
ï
r die Geschichte und Altertumskunde Ermlands
29, 1 (1956): 6–14, 27–32. On Dorothea and John, see Dyan Elliott, “Authorizing a Life: The Collaboration of Dorothea of Montau
and John Marienwerder,” in
Gendered Voices: Medieval Saints and
Their Interpreters
, ed. Catherine

Mooney (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999), pp. 168–91. On Dorothea’s spirituality, see Richard Kieckhefer,
Unquiet Souls: Fourteenth-Century
Saints and Their Religious Milieu
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984), esp. pp. 22–33.

⁵¹
John of Marienwerder,
Vita Dorotheae Montoviensis Magistri Johannis Marienwerder
7.25.f, ed. Hans Westpfahl, Forschungen und Quellen zur Kirchen-und Kulturgeschichte Ostdeutschlands, vol. 1 (Cologne and
Graz: Boïhlau, 1964), p. 364;
Vita Lindana
chap. 87,
AASS
, October, 13:557. Conrad of Marburg likewise preached the pivotal sermon on Elisabeth of Hungary’s virtues that was preliminary
to inviting witnesses to come forward. See chap. 3, n. 23, above.

⁵²
See Stachnik’s introductory remarks to the third set of articles in
Die Akten des Kanonisations-prozesses
Dorotheas von Montau von 1394 bis 1521
, ed. Richard Stachnik (Cologne and Vienna: Boïhlau, 1978), p. 18.

⁵³
See the testimony of the scribe Cristanus Coslaw, in Stachnik,
Akten des Kanonisationsprozesses
, pp. 241–44, esp. p. 243. Coslaw’s miracle book is included in the process after his testimony (pp. 244–50).

⁵⁴
In his testimony, John mentions the scribes by name, along with the fact that they publish the miracles daily in the church
(Stachnik,
Akten des Kanonisationsprozesses
, III, ad 20, p. 283).

⁵⁵
Antoninus of Florence would caution explicitly against revealing a saint’s merits (
Confessionale
Anthonini
3.29 [Paris: Jehan Petit, 1507?], fol. 38v). He even argues against the revelation of a special grace heard in confession
(the example he gives, interestingly, concerns a virgin who had never committed a mortal sin), since other penitents might
suffer by comparison. Note that eventually with the publication of the
Codex
(the code of canon law presently in use), an individual saint’s confessor will be excluded as a witness to his penitent’s
sanctity. See Mitri,
De
fi
gura
juridica
, pp. 101–2 n. 41. Dorothea’s vernacular confessions were appended to the conclusion of the
Septililium
. These have been edited by Franz Hipler as “Die Beichten der seligen Dorothea von Montau,”
Zeitschrift fu
ï
r die Geschichte und Altertumskunde Ermlands
6 (1877): 147–83.