The Long Arm of Papal Authority: Late Medieval Christian Peripheries and Their Communication with the Holy See

THE LONG ARM OF PAPAL AUTHORITY CEU MEDIEVALIA 8 The Long Arm of Papal Authority Late Medieval Christian Peripherie...

Author: Gerhard Jaritz

164 downloads 647 Views 811KB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

THE LONG ARM OF PAPAL AUTHORITY

CEU MEDIEVALIA 8

The Long Arm of Papal Authority Late Medieval Christian Peripheries and Their Communication with the Holy See Edited by Gerhard Jaritz, Torstein Jørgensen, Kirsi Salonen

Central European University Press Budapest N New York

^ Editors and Contributors 2005 Second revised edition Copy Editor: Judith Rasson Cover design for the series by Péter Tóth Cover illustration: Pope Pius II, Hartmann Schedel, World Chronicle (Nuremberg, 1493), fol. 250 Joint publication by: Department of Medieval Studies Central European University Nádor u. 9, H-1051 Budapest, Hungary Telephone: (+36-1) 327-3051, Fax: (+36-1) 327-3055 E-mail: [email protected], Website: http://www.ceu.hu/medstud/ ISSN 1587-6470 CEU MEDIEVALIA Central European University Press An imprint of the Central European University Share Company Nádor u. 11, H-1051 Budapest, Hungary Telephone: (+36-1)327-3138, 327-3000, Fax: (+36-1)327-3183 E-mail: [email protected], Website: http://www.ceupress.com 400 West 59th Street, New York NY 10019, USA Telephone: (+1-212) 547-6932, Fax: (+1-646) 557-2416 E-mail: [email protected] All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in retrieval system, or transmittes, in any form or by any means, without the permission of the Publisher. ISBN 963 7326 06 5 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data The long arm of papal authority: late medieval Christian peripheries and their communication with the Holy See / edited by Gerhard Jaritz, Torstein Jørgensen, Kirsi Salonen. p. cm. – (CEU medievalia; 8) Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 9637326065 (pbk.) – ISBN 8299702607 (pbk.) – ISBN 3-901094-17-2 (pbk.) 1. Catholic Church. Poenitentiaria Apostolica–History–To 1500–Congresses. 2. Catholic Church. Curia Romana–History–To 1500–Congresses. 3. Communication–Religious aspects– Catholic Church–History–To 1500–Congresses. 4. Catholic Church–Europe, Northern–History–To 1500–Congresses. 5. Europe, Northern–Church history–Congresses. 6. Catholic Church–Europe, Eastern–History–To 1500–Congresses. 7. Europe, Eastern–Church history–Congresses. I. Jaritz, Gerhard. II. Jørgensen, Torsten Bo. III. Salonen, Kirsi. IV. Title. V. Series. BX1862.L66 2005 282'.4'0902–dc22 2004028434 Printed in Hungary by Akadémiai Nyomda, Martonvásár

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables .......................................................................................................

vii

List of Figures .....................................................................................................

ix

Abbreviations related to the collections of the Vatican Secret Archives .......

x

Preface .................................................................................................................

xi

Piroska Nagy, Peripheries in Question in Late Medieval Christendom .......

1

Kirsi Salonen, The Penitentiary under Pope Pius II. The Supplications and Their Provenance ...........................................................................................

11

Torstein Jørgensen, At the Edge of the World: The Supplications from the Norwegian Province of Nidaros ..................................................................

23

Kirsi Salonen, The Supplications from the Province of Uppsala. Main Trends and Developments .............................................................................

39

Irene Furneaux, Pre-Reformation Scottish Marriage Cases in the Archives of the Papal Penitentiary .....................................................................................

59

Jadranka Neralić, Central Europe and the Late Medieval Papal Chancery .

73

Etleva Lala, The Papal Curia and Albania in the Later Middle Ages ...........

93

Piroska Nagy and Kirsi Salonen, East-Central Europe and the Penitentiary (1458–1484) .................................................................................................... 107 Lucie Doležalová, “But if you marry me”: Reflections of the Hussite Movement in the Penitentiary (1438–1483) ................................................ 121 Ana Marinković, Social and Territorial Endogamy in the Ragusan Republic: Matrimonial Dispenses during the Pontificates of Paul II and Sixtus IV (1464–1484) ............................................................................................... 135 Gastone Saletnich and Wolfgang Müller, Rodolfo Gonzaga (1452–1495): News on a Celebrity Murder Case .............................................................. 157

vi

Blanka Szeghyová, Church and Secular Courts in Upper Hungary (Fourteenth to Sixteenth Century) ........................................................................ 165 Ludwig Schmugge, Penitentiary Documents from Outside the Penitentiary ................................................................................................................. 177 Gerhard Jaritz, Patterns and Levels of Periphery? ......................................... 187

List of Contributors ........................................................................................... 191

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Number of cases in each supplication category during Pius’ II pontificate Table 2 The provenance of the cases handled by the Penitentiary during the pontificate of Pius II Table 3 Reasons to turn to the Penitentiary from different territories (in percentages) Table 4 Number and type of petitions from the Norwegian dioceses Table 5 Number of supplications per year Table 6 The Swedish cases handled by the Penitentiary before 1448 Table 7 The wealth and the number of inhabitants of the Swedish dioceses Table 8 The number and percentage of supplications from each diocese Table 9 Distribution of the cases into different categories Table 10 The number and percentage of marriage supplications from each diocese Table 11 The number and percentage of the de diversis formis and de declaratoriis supplications from the Swedish dioceses

14

17

20

25 26

40 43 46 47

48

52

viii

Table 12 Different kinds of cases in de diversis formis and de declaratoriis categories Table 13 The number and percentage of illegitimacy supplications from each diocese Table 14 The number and percentage of confession supplications from each diocese Table 15 Scottish cases in the Penitentiary records Table 16 Petitions (in percentages; N=2814) from East-Central Europe to the Penitentiary (1458–1484) Table 17 Number of case types from East Central Europe (1458–1484) Table 18 Comparative lists of Ragusan families concerning their political power and involvement in marriages of familial relationship (fifteenth century)

53

55

57

62

110 113

147

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Swedish cases handled by the Penitentiary in time-axis Figure 2 Czech cases referring to dioceses Figure 3 Czech cases referring to type Figure 4 Percentage of dioceses within the total of East Central European matrimonial cases Figure 5 Percentage of different types of cases within the diocese of Dubrovnik Figure 6 Percentage of matrimonial cases among the total of cases within East Central European dioceses

41

124 125

137 138

139

ABBREVIATIONS RELATED TO THE COLLECTIONS OF THE VATICAN SECRET ARCHIVES

ASV = Archivio Segreto Vaticano Arm. = Armadio Congr. Vescovi e Regolari, Visita Ap. = Congregazione dei Vescovi e Regolari, Visita Apostolica Instr. Misc. = Instrumenta Miscellanea Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div. = Penitenzieria Apostolica, Registra Matrimonialium et Diversorum Reg. Vat. = Registra Vaticana Reg. Lat. = Registra Lateranensia Reg. Suppl. = Registra Supplicationum Reg. Aven. = Registra Avenionensia RPG = Repertorium Poenitentiariae Germanicum

PREFACE

The present publication contains selected papers from two international conferences: the first was held at the Centre for Medieval Studies, University of Bergen (Norway), in October, 20031 and the second at the Department of Medieval Studies, Central European University, Budapest (Hungary), in January, 2004.2 The purpose of these meetings was to gather researchers interested in the history and significance of the papal curia and, in particular, the Apostolic Penitentiary, in the later Middle Ages. The main emphasis was placed on a comparative approach and on the role of peripheral areas of Western Christendom in their communication with the Holy See. There are various kinds of centre-and-periphery hierarchies.3 There are geographic, social, economic, and cultural peripheries and centres. “The general textbooks … address materials from the geographical and social peripheries of privileged cultures only as adjuncts to their central narrative. … The history of Scandinavia and Eastern Europe become excursus to a central narrative.”4 However, concerning the communication of the Holy See with various areas of Christendom in the Middle Ages, the impact of ‘peripheries’ has attracted a new interest in recent years. Since the opening of the archives of the Apostolic Penitentiary to researchers in 1983 relatively few scholars have exploited the sources, but recently their number has increased. Most of them have studied the supplications to the Penitentiary of petitioners from their own home countries and edited material on a national basis. The German Historical Institute, under ———————————— 1

“The Late Middle Ages and the Penitentiary Texts: Centre and Periphery in Europe in the PreReformation Era.” 2 “Ad Confines. The Papal Curia and the Eastern and Northern Peripheries of Christendom in the Later Middle Ages(14th–15th c.).” 3 For this and the following, see Teofilo F. Ruiz, “Center and Periphery in the Teaching of Medieval History,” in Medieval Cultures in Contact, ed. Richard F. Gyug (New York: Fordham University Press, 2003), 252. 4 Ibidem, 248.

xii

the leadership of Ludwig Schmugge, has already published several volumes of entries concerning German-speaking territories. Also, the Norwegian and Icelandic material has recently been released by Torstein Jørgensen and Gastone Saletnich. Similar enterprises are in process in several other countries: Poland, Denmark, Sweden and Finland, England and Wales. The examination of territories on the geographic peripheries in their relation to Rome has been a main focus in these studies. The archival material of the Penitentiary and the communication of the papal curia with the various regions of late medieval Europe should, however, not be studied only on national levels. There is an increasing need for such studies to be supplemented by comparative searches for differences and analogies in how Christians from different corners of Europe used the papal offices and were treated by them. It is well known that even though the regulations of canon law were in theory the same for everyone, regional differences in interpreting and applying them emerged in the Late Middle Ages. For this reason, a collective research project was born in 2001 in the Department of Medieval Studies of the CEU in order to study in a comparative approach the East-Central European data of the Penitentiary Registers. The need to turn to the papal authority in matters of canon law varied depending on the role of local bishops and the presence or absence of papal legates or collectors, who often had the power to deal with similar matters in partibus. Also, people in the central territories of Christendom had different opportunities for turning to the papal curia with their requests than those living on the peripheries of the Christian world. Questions like these played the central role in the discussions of the two conferences noted above. In this book we will render an overview of the present status of this new field of research. As an introduction, Piroska Nagy deals with the question of how to apply centre-periphery models to a comparative analysis of the sources. Kirsi Salonen uses the Penitentiary registers from the period of Pope Pius II to analyse the supplications, their provenance, and the role of peripheries. Two peripheral parts of late medieval Europe and their significance concerning the communication with the Holy See represent the main part of the publication: Northern Europe and East Central Europe. Comparative analyses of Scandinavian and Scottish source material from the Penitentiary Registers are made by Torstein Jørgensen, Kirsi Salonen, and Irene Furneaux. The studies on East Central Europe are introduced by an inquiry concerning the general importance of the area for the papal curia (Jadranka Neralić), and an overview of the communication of the Holy See with Albania (Etleva Lala). Piroska Nagy and Kirsi Salonen offer a quantitative analysis of East Central Europe and the Peni-

xiii

tentiary (1458–1484), followed by contributions on individual territories, such as the Czech lands (Lucie Doležalová) and Dalmatia (Ana Marinković). The contribution by Gastone Saletnich and Wolfgang Müller indicates that in any studies of the role of peripheries one must not neglect the more central areas. Blanka Szeghyová and Ludwig Schmugge show that local archives and their contents are an indispensable additional source for comparative analyses. Many friends and colleagues have helped in preparing this book for print. We are pleased to thank the personnel of the Penitenzieria Apostolica, especially Padre Ubaldo Todeschini, for authorizing the research and reading the manuscript and suggesting useful corrections. We are also much obliged to the skilled staff of the Sala di Studio in the Vatican Archives, who patiently brought us volume after volume of the registers and helped with other problems. Judith Rasson from Central European University deserves our gratitude for copyediting our text. Finally, we wish to thank the academic institutions which in a more direct way have promoted this project: the Centre for Medieval Studies at the University of Bergen, the Department of Medieval Studies at the Central European University in Budapest, the Institut für Realienkunde of the Austrian Academy of Sciences and the Academy of Finland, and the Department of History at the University of Tampere. The editors would like to thank Piroska Nagy for her valuable contribution in coordination of research and her editoral contributions. Bergen, Budapest, and Tampere, May 2005

PERIPHERIES IN QUESTION IN LATE MEDIEVAL CHRISTENDOM Piroska Nagy

Some time ago, the Hungarian medievalist Jenő Szűcs put the important question, “Where do the internal borders of Europe run?”1 Seeking an answer to this question, one can work with a large number of criteria in order to determine Europe’s centers and peripheries. Concerning the inner structure of Europe, one may ask, for instance, how far the geographical situation of an area on the periphery of the centers of civilisation influenced, at any given moment, its cultural and political position and role; or how far the evolution of two peripheries can be seen as parallel or similar.2 Were the countries on the geographical periphery considered as such in the different kinds of networks of the medieval West? How far did geographical structures determine historical structures? In this article, I will reflect on the notion of periphery in such perspectives. A frequently used concept, it now has a long history and its use necessitates clarifying the pre-suppositions relating to its choice. I shall be

———————————— 1

Jenő Szűcs, “The Three Historical Regions of Europe. An Outline”, Acta Historica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 29 (1983), 131–184; also published in: John Keane, ed., Civil Society and the State: New European Perspectives (London: Verso, 1988), 291–332 (hereafter Szűcs, “The Three Historical Regions”). See also Gábor Klaniczay, “The Birth of a New Europe about A.D. 1000. Conversion, Transfer of Institutional Models, New Dynamics”, in Johann P. Arnason and Björn Wittrock eds., Eurasian Transformations, Tenth to Thirteenth Centuries (Leiden–Boston: Brill, 2004) 99–130. (hereafter Klaniczay, “The Birth”). 2 See Klaniczay, “The Birth”. Concerning the Central European and Scandinavian evolution in the context of ecclesiastical history, see André Vauchez, L’Eglise et le peuple chrétien dans les pays de l’Europe du Centre-Est et du Nord (XIVe–XVe siècles), Actes du colloque organisé par l’École Française de Rome (27–29 Janvier 1986) (Rome: École Française de Rome, 1990); Gábor Klaniczay, ed., Procès de canonisation au Moyen Age – Aspects juridiques et religieux, Medieval Canonization Processes – Legal and Religious Aspects (Rome: École Française de Rome, 2004); Márta Kondor, “Case Studies on the Problem of Center and Periphery in Western Christendom: Uppsala and Spalato in the Time of Pope Alexander III (1159–1181)”, MA thesis (Budapest: Central European University, 2004).

2


concerned mainly with East Central Europe,3 and somewhat less with Northern Europe, in posing the problems of peripherality in a concrete way.

MEDIEVAL CHRISTENDOM AND ITS PERIPHERIES While Christendom is a clearly defined notion for the later Middle Ages, and the papal curia a well-known institution, peripheries are far less defined; Firstly, because the notion of periphery itself needs to be discussed; secondly, because the peripheries of Christendom have had fluctuating definitions and geographical limits throughout history, especially in the late medieval period. Thirdly, one may certainly pose the question if, and how far, the East Central European regions we are interested in – from the Baltic to Albania – formed a unity in the late Middle Ages which could be compared to the northern peripheries or to the central regions of Christendom. Medieval Europe put in the context of Christianitas/Christendom4 may be ———————————— 3

On this notion, see Oscar Halecki, The Borderlands of Western Civilization. A History of East Central Europe (New York: Ronald, 1952); Francis Dvornik, The Making of Central and Eastern Europe (London: The Polish Research Centre, 1949). Concerning the progressive emergence of the idea of Central Europe, see Gérard Beauprętre, ed., L’Europe Centrale. Réalité, mythes, enjeu XVIIIe–XXe siècles (Warsaw: Université de Varsovie, 1991) (hereafter Beauprętre, L’Europe Centrale); a historiographical overview in Jerzy Kłoczowski, L’Europe du Centre-Est dans l’historiographie des pays de la région (Lublin: Institute of East Central Europe, 1995), and, recently, Klaniczay, “The Birth”. 4 See Dominique Iogna-Prat, Ordonner et exclure. Cluny et la société chrétienne face à l’hérésie, au judaïsme et à l’islam 1000–1150 (Paris: Seuil, 1998), 11; “Christianitas”, in Lexikon des Mittelalters 2, col. 1915–1916; “Chrétienté” and “Chrétientés nouvelles”, in: André Vauchez, ed., Dictionnaire Encyclopédique du Moyen Age Chrétien (Paris: Cerf, 1997), 319–320; André Vauchez, ed., Histoire du christianisme (Paris: Desclée, 1993), vols. 4–5 (hereafter Vauchez, ed., Histoire du christianisme); Piroska Nagy, “Les notions de christianitas et chrétienté et leur sens spatial. Abbon de Saint-Germain et la spatialisation de la christianitas”, in: Dominique Iogna-Prat and András Zemplényi, ed., Frontières, espaces et identités en Europe (Paris: CNRS, in press). A few older studies on the notion are: Maurice Hélin, “Christianitas”, Archivum Latinitatis Medii Aevi 29 (1959), 229–237; F. Kempf, “Das Problem der Christianitas im 12. und 13. Jahrhundert”, Historisches Jahrbuch 79 (1960), 104– 123; Bernard Landry, L’idée de chrétienté chez les scolastiques du XIIIe siècle (Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1929); Gerhart B. Ladner, “The Concepts of ‘Ecclesia’ and ‘Christianitas’ and their relation to the idea of papal ‘plenitudo potestatis’ from Gregory VII to Boniface VIII”, in: idem, Images and Ideas in the Middle Ages. Selected Studies in History and Art (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1983), vol. 2, 487–515; Raoul Manselli, “Il medioevo come ‘Christianitas’: una scoperta romantica” and “La Christianitas medioevale di fronte all’eresia”, in: V. Branca, ed., Concetto, storia, miti e immagini del Medio evo (Venice: Sansoni, 1973), 51–135; P. Rousset, “La notion de Chrétienté aux XIe et XIIe siècles”, Le Moyen Age, 69 (1963), 191–203; Jean Rupp, L’idée de

PERIPHERIES IN QUESTION IN LATE MEDIEVAL CHRISTENDOM

3

defined as a religious entity composed of countries of Roman obedience and rite. As such, it was also a cultural unit. Its unity came from a cultural heritage, from the linguistic unity of its literate elite and its written tradition. Finally, this religious and cultural framework defined the whole form of society, with its inner structures and principles that could take different shapes but showed some structural similarities. Such a definition of Christendom includes, most of the time, the western part of the medieval Christian world, excluding the Orthodox sphere.5 In the Middle Ages, people meant the whole of the Christian world by Christianitas only when they opposed it to the pagan world or Islam. Western Christendom was gradually formed from the early Middle Ages on, especially through Carolingian and Roman ecclesiastical construction, which can be described in three steps: the Christianization of peoples and their rulers (fifth–eleventh centuries), the construction of an ecclesiastical system (eighth– thirteenth centuries), and finally the domination of the Roman curia over the whole of the Western Christian world (eleventh–fifteenth centuries). In this way Christendom attained its full development: a huge territory with a churchnetwork of Latin rite, obedient to, and more and more controlled by, Rome. The papal curia became the center.6 Despite the growing uniformity of ever-increasing papal administration and justice, and the consequent uniformity of the framework of relations with the partes, the individual churches, the various parts of Christendom had quite different relations with the curia. The structure and the framework of these relations were the same: from the center, communication was passed down by papal letters and bulls and by legates; from the partes towards the curia there was a constant flow of embassies, pilgrims, different kinds of supplications and of supplicants themselves. However, the density and the nature of the relations varied. The reasons for this were both political and geographical. In the central regions of ————————————————————————————————— Chrétienté dans la Pensée pontificale des origines à Innocent III (Paris: Les Presses modernes, 1939); Jan van Laarhoven, “‘Christianitas’ et réforme grégorienne”, Studi gregoriani 6 (1959–1961), 1–98. Two excellent definitions of the notion are: Robert Bartlett, “The concept of Christendom”, in: idem, The Making of Europe. Conquest, Colonization and Cultural Change 950–1350 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), 250–255, and Nora Berend, At the Gate of Christendom. Jews, Muslims and ‘Pagans’ in Medieval Hungary c. 1000 – c. 1300 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 42–43. 5 See Judith Herrin, The Formation of Christendom (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987), 8, 12; Vauchez, ed., Histoire du christianisme. 6 Ludwig Schmugge has also addressed the question of the curia and the partes in the fifteenth century in the direction of ‘centro e periferia’; see idem, “Centro e periferia attraverso le dispense pontificie nel secolo XV”, in: Sergio Gensini, ed., Vita religiosa e identità politiche. Universalità e particolarismi nell’Europa del tardo Medio Evo (Ospedaletto (Pisa): Pacini, 1998), 33–58.

4


Christendom (Italy, France, and the Empire), their relations with the curia were both strong and frequent. Popes frequently came from Italy, France, or the Empire; the circulation of clergymen, of knowledge and of wealth (benefices and taxes) was intense. Moving away towards the East, North, or West, relations weakened and their nature changed. One can see the difference between the central regions of Christendom and its remote parts in terms of core and periphery, in degrees of development, in terms of dependence, and in the density of relations.

PERIPHERY, WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR? The term ‘periphery’, derived from the Greek peripheria, is used in its first, geometric, sense to describe perimeter and arc; its broader use, in a geographical sense, is widespread. It means, then, either the limit itself, the boundary or edge of an area or surface, the outer edge of an area, or what is beyond its limits. Defined in this way, periphery assumes a whole to which it belongs, and a center to which it is contrasted. The ‘center-periphery’ model is now a well-known conceptual framework for studies in geography and economics. In recent decades, center and periphery have become fundamental categories used to characterize the status of places in a spatial system,7 and the idea of studying cultures or human societies as spatial systems according to this scheme has been widely diffused. The conceptual framework was first popularized by Fernand Braudel in his work The Mediterranean,8 where he defined the notion of world economy (‘économie-monde’, ‘Weltwirtschaft’) and analyzed the nature of relations inside such a world economy. In the 1970s, it was taken up both by Immanuel Wallerstein, who described the economy of the modern world system in terms of core, semi-

———————————— 07 See Christian Grataloup, “Centre/Périphérie”, http://193.55.107.45/hpt/hpt_c9.htm (accessed September 2004). This conceptual pair goes back at least to Werner Sombart, Der moderne Kapitalismus (1902) and was frequently used in Marxist social analysis. In economics, see Samir Amin, Le développement inégal (Paris: Editions de Minuit, 1973) and in geography Alain Reynaud, Société, espace et justice (Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1981). 08 Fernand Braudel, La Méditerranée et le monde méditerranéen à l’époque de Philippe II. (Paris: Armand Colin, 1949), 325, 328. (English translation: The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II [London: Harper Collins, 1992]); see also idem, Civilisation matérielle, Economie et Capitalisme XVe–XVIIIe siècle (Paris: Armand Colin, 1979), vol. 3. Le temps du monde, 11–12. (English translation: Civilization and Capitalism, 15th–18th century. [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992]) (hereafter Braudel, Civilisation matérielle).


5

periphery and periphery,9 and again by Braudel himself, in the third volume of his Civilization and capitalism, The Time of the World,10 in which he discussed the notion of world economy enriched by the reading of Wallerstein, whom he also criticized. Braudel extended the spatial system description to phenomena other than economic: political systems, social systems (slavery, serfdom) and to cultural structures. The model, as best developed by Wallerstein and his followers who have used his approach, describes the relation between center and peripheries in terms of domination and dependence, frequently including a Marxist analysis. In this scheme, the center or core is defined as dominant, and as such having an influence on its environment. Degrees of periphery are defined according to the intensity of the influence of the core and according to the strength of dependence on it. Semi-peripheries are described as highly dependent on the core but dominating peripheries themselves; the ambivalence of their features suggests that they are “changing state”: they are either attempting to improve their relative position in the system or they are core regions in decline. This model, based on changing relations between zones, challenged social scientists and is still highly popular in geography, sociology, and political science.11 Its concepts remain helpful for historians who wish to establish the model of a spatial system that evaluates places at a given moment from a given point of view which can be economic, political, or cultural. However, before considering medieval Christendom with its center, Rome, and its peripheries as a spatial system, let us consider the dangers of the model. Besides its main advantage of conceiving worlds and networks as spatial systems, the center-periphery model poses problems by its schematism. Relations among the participants of the model are described according to a rigid dominant/dominated scheme, while reality is generally more complex. The model does not take into account the fact that with growing distance, peripherality cannot only increase dependence, but can also help to maintain or develop independence. Contrasting core and periphery suggests that all equally distant peripheries of a world system are uniform in terms of the consequent disadvantages in exchange. It assumes that any country or region in a peripheral situation will respond and behave in a similar or comparable way. However, a more thorough study of any spatial system shows the great variety of situations at the ———————————— 09 Immanuel Wallerstein, The Modern World System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World Economy in the Sixteenth Century (New York: Academic Press, 1974). 10 Braudel, Civilisation matérielle, vol. 3, 11–12. 11 On the world–system theory, see the rich bibliography at http://www.zmk.uni-freiburg.de/ Wallerstein/seclit.htm (accessed September 2004).

6


same distance from the ‘core’, where geographical, geopolitical, cultural, and historical determinants may play important roles. The same region can represent different situations, independent of the distance from the center; mountain areas, for instance, frequently produce a kind of local micro-peripherality, which contrasts with nearby valleys or plains. One has to be aware that many factors (proximity to the sea, position in an exchange system, etc.) frequently modify the scheme to the extent that they in fact invalidate it. In the present volume, we are dealing with center-periphery relationship in the domain of religious institutions and social life. While economic relations between center and periphery are at least partly spontaneous, in the case of the medieval Church, Rome gradually became the explicit center, for historical, cultural, and political reasons, among which tradition had a strong symbolic weight. In the later Middle Ages, Rome maintained or even strengthened its status, while other cultural, political, and economic structures of Europe were in constant change and new types of dynamics appeared. In spite of the changes in different fields, once Rome and the curia had become the institutional center of Western Christendom and had a well-functioning network as a tool, they also exercised a growing impact on various fields of social life: not only on ecclesiastical structures, taxes, and careers, but also on matrimonial habits and structures and in the field of everyday life and mores.

EAST CENTRAL EUROPE AS A PERIPHERY OF CHRISTENDOM IN THE LATER MIDDLE AGES I do not think that one may consider all of the partes equally, from France to the Empire, from Finland to Croatia, as peripheries of the Western Christian worldsystem. One has to refine one’s vocabulary after a thorough study of relations to Rome, which may allow finding levels and degrees of the spatial system of late medieval Western Christendom. To what extent did being geographically peripheral mean being culturally or religiously peripheral at the same time? How far did the one involve the other – and if not, why? For the present, I have uniformly called all of the East Central European area belonging to the Roman Church and lying eastwards of Italy and the German-speaking countries ‘Eastern peripheries’ of Christendom, and Scandinavia and the British Isles ‘Northern peripheries’. However, for the curia, all these different regions, institutions and operating spheres did not have the same importance; they did not represent the periphery in the same way. One realizes that ‘peripherality’ was far from uniform. Cultural and religious situations varied, as well as political importance and integration in economic flows. Areas


7

having borders with other Christian regions, like the countries of the Balkans with Orthodox neighbours, were in a different situation than those which also had pagan neighbours, like Poland, or only natural frontiers on one or more sides, like Scandinavia and the British Isles. The major lines of contact such as the Mediterranean determined a better integration in all kinds of exchange. The eastern shore of the Adriatic, for instance, belonged to Italy throughout the Middle Ages more than to the Balkans. From a geographical and cultural point of view, East Central Europe had a specific position. Unlike Northwestern Europe, a natural frontier area of the continent, East Central Europe lies in the middle; the religious and cultural borders that cross it are also major contact lines.12 This region was not perceived as a well-defined area until the nineteenth century; the birth of an intense reflection about its shape, borders, and characteristics was linked to the specific political context created at the time around the two World Wars. It may be considered as having ‘moving limits’.13 An “oscillation des confins”, as Evelyne Patlagean put it, characterized East Central Europe from Late Antiquity to our days. In the Middle Ages, great areas of it were under the double influence of the Roman Church and Orthodox Christianity, as well as being in contact with pagans and Muslims. The features of both were present in monasticism, in architecture, and in liturgy. The two Christian worlds interpenetrated each other – even though the great lines of division went back as far as the late Roman division of the empire. In such circumstances, the research problems of the East Central European “peripheries” of Western Christendom may be expected to be, at least, partly different from those of Northern Europe. After the Mongol incursions in the middle of the thirteenth century, Hungary and Poland had to cope with the pagan threat on their borders for centuries. In the later Middle Ages, East Central Europe was the point of departure for Catholic missions towards the East. These are specific data of the context that we have to consider when speaking of comparing the ‘peripherality’ of Northern and East Central Europe. In the latter, not only the distance from the curia, but also from Constantinople, the center of Byzantium, counted toward the definition of the position of a region or a diocese. The strength of Orthodox networks in an area could influence the integration in the concurrent Latin ———————————— 12 See also Krzysztof Pomian, “L’Europe centrale: essais de définition”, in: Europe centrale – Mitteleuropa, Revue Germanique Internationale 1 (1994), 11–24; Beauprêtre, L’Europe Centrale, 7– 15; Bernard Barbier, “L’Europe centrale: une définition géographique”, in: Beauprêtre, L’Europe Centrale, 21–35. 13 See Evelyne Patlagean, “Les Etats d’Europe centrale et Byzance, ou l’oscillation des confins”, Revue historique 302, n. 4 (2000), 827–868.

8


Church. All these features make East Central Europe a somewhat specific part of the Christian world,14 difficult to compare to the ‘pure’ Western or ‘pure’ Eastern model. That is why historians since the nineteenth century have chosen to speak about a third region of Europe between the other two:15 a Mitteleuropa which has changing shapes according to the schemes describing it.16 Seeking the traces of this particularity in the Penitentiary registers also constitutes a test of how far such a feature is mirrored in the supplications addressed to the curia. The questions are twofold: on the one hand, can we distinguish different features of ‘peripherality’ comparing, for instance, Eastern Central and Northern Europe? On the other hand, were there specificities in one area, for example Eastern Central Europe as such, which allow it to be described as a late medieval unity?

PERIPHERIES AND PERIPHERALITY IN THE PENITENTIARY ARCHIVES Because of the uniformity of registration in the curial office, the material of the Penitentiary archives of the Holy See may well serve to concentrate on the criteria that define peripherality. It allows dealing with the question of the extent to which it was the geographical situation on the edges of Western Christendom that created peripherality mirrored in the cases and their contents, especially in contrast to other, more ‘central’, areas. How far are we able to perceive different kinds of periphery? Certainly, the findings of the Penitentiary registers alone do not allow answering these questions; rather they need to be placed side by side with other types of evidence that they can usefully complete. The most important aspect in this context is, first, to define what can be recognised as a characteristic of peripherality in the Penitentiary archives. One may interpret a high number of petitions as a sign of numerous relations and strong contacts with the center. In any case, one has to examine the quantity of findings and registered cases in order to analyze what such quantities depended on; however, numeric data alone do not tell us a great deal. Geographic peripherality was mirrored by fewer cases; proximity to the center meant that relations with the curia were easier to establish and use frequently; geographic proximity lessened the cost and the difficulties of the application procedure. Certainly proximity influenced ———————————— 14 See László Makkai, “Les caractères originaux de l’histoire économique et sociale de l’Europe orientale pendant le Moyen Age”, Acta Historica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 16 (1970), 261–287. 15 See note 3. 16 See also Szűcs, “The Three Historical Regions”.


9

the number of supplications and perhaps also the local application of canon law. One may ask if it was more respected nearer to Rome than in remoter parts of Christendom, which might have been difficult to control. If there was not a greater acknowledgment of canon law related to other cultural features, what determined a high number of cases arriving at the curia? This would also mean that, contrary to the Wallerstein model, greater peripherality might have accompanied less dependence on the center. Other factors complicate the equation connecting distance with the number of cases and the degree of relations with the center. The level of urbanisation and the wealth of a diocese, expressed in the taxes expected from there, may also be reflected in the Penitentiary entries. Local situations, customs, and laws and their relation to canon law, the diffusion of literacy, and political relations with the Holy See may have influenced the number of cases and produced variations from one region or one period to the other which had nothing to do with geographical peripherality. Wars and religious troubles also created different backgrounds for the application procedures that may be reflected in the number as well as the content of the findings. It seems clear that one cannot link, in a linear way, geographic and cultural peripherality. One always has to work with distinct kinds, levels and degrees of it, influenced by local particularities. Such an approach may lead to a better characterisation and understanding of local situations also emerging from comparisons with other dioceses or areas.

THE PENITENTIARY UNDER POPE PIUS II THE SUPPLICATIONS AND THEIR PROVENANCE Kirsi Salonen

The pontificate of Pope Pius II, Enea Silvio Piccolomini, lasted from August 1458 until August 1464. Because it is impossible to present an all-encompassing study about the Penitentiary during this period in one contribution, I have chosen some of the main themes and questions.1 My first aim is to study all the petitions registered in the Penitentiary during these years, to see what kind of cases the office handled, and how many there were. This may reveal why Christians turned to the Penitentiary and which were the most important groups of petitions. Another problem to be treated is the provenience of the petitions: first, how many petitions in general came from each diocese or territory and, second, which kind of cases came from each diocese? This will allow a comparison of the ‘activities’ of different territories. The answers to these two basic questions will then lead to the third, most interesting and also most important problem: Why did differences exist in the needs for graces, even though canon law in theory was equal for all Christians? Such a question no longer refers to how the Penitentiary functioned, but to the significance of the office for individual Christians, and how canon law was differently understood or respected in different parts of Christendom.2

THE REGISTERS: NEW BOSS – NEW TECHNIQUE There are two main reasons why I have chosen the pontificate of Pius II as the period of this study. On the one hand, it is long enough to allow some quantitative study; but, on the other hand, it is also short enough so that the number of ———————————— 1 2

I would like to thank the Academy of Finland for financing my research project “The Papal Penitentiary and the Local Church”, of which the first results are published here. In this article I will not yet be able to give any final results concerning the third question, but will concentrate on the first two.

12


cases is not too large for a detailed study of them. The second, and in fact more important, reason for the choice of the pontificate of Pius II as the period of study is that during these years important developments took place in the Penitentiary as well as in the registration of cases. The person who was mainly responsible for all the changes and innovations that took place in the Penitentiary during these years was not the Pope Pius II himself, but the Cardinal Penitentiary, the so-called poenitentiarius maior, Philippus Calandrini, Cardinal Priest of Sancti Laurentii in Lucina. Calandrini was nominated as Cardinal Penitentiary in October 1458, that is, very soon after the election of Pius II, and he stayed in charge until June or July 1476. It was actually he who took the initiative for all the new developments.3 One of the first activities that Philippus Calandrini seems to have undertaken was to renew the registration system. One can recognise this clearly when comparing the registers of the Penitentiary from the six pontifical years of Pius II (volumes 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 13) to the previous ones.4 While the earlier registers of the Penitentiary were quite badly written and not very logically organised, the registers under Philippus Calandrini look very different. The earlier volumes contained petitions from several years. Instead, the volumes from Calandrini’s period are, for the first time, organised so that in each volume those petitions were registered that the Penitentiary handled and approved during one year. Thus, concerning the pontificate of Pius II, volume 7 contains petitions from the year 1459, volume 8 from 1460, volume 9 from 1461, volume 10 from 1462, volume 11 from 1463, and volume 13 from 1464.5 Since the first volume from the papacy of Pius II begins with 1459, the petitions (apart from a few cases that are registered in volume 7) from the year 1458 are missing. As volume 7 also contains only few entries from January and

———————————— 3

4

5

Concerning Calandrini as the Cardinal Penitentiary, see Emil Göller, Die päpstliche Pönitentiarie von ihrem Ursprung bis zu ihrer Umgestaltung unter Pius V., 2: Die päpstliche Pönitentiarie von Eugen IV. bis Pius V., I: Darstellung, Bibliothek des Kg. Preuss. Historischen Instituts in Rom 7 (Rome: Loescher, 1907), 9–10. A description of these volumes (with old foliation numbers – the folios have been renumbered after publishing the edition) can be found, e.g., in Repertorium Poenitentiariae Germanicum IV, ed. Ludwig Schmugge et al. (Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1996), xv–xxii. Actually, in volume 13, which covers the calendar year 1464, there are entries both from the last months of the pontificate of Pius II (January – August) and from the first months of the pontificate of Paul II (August – December), while volume 12 in between contains petitions from the year 1465, which was partly the first and partly the second pontifical year of Paul II.

THE PENITENTIARY UNDER POPE PIUS II

13

February 1459, one can say that the systematic registration of the cases actually started only in March 1459.6 Apart from the new technique of one volume for each year, the internal organisation of the volumes also changed from volume 7 onwards. Earlier, the entries were put into the registers in quite a disordered way, but from then onwards the petitions are neatly divided into several categories, each of which is placed under a different title. This division is mainly respected in the later registers also. During the pontificate of Pius II there were nine categories: de matrimonialibus, de diversis formis, de declaratoriis, de defectu natalium, de uberiori, de promotis et promovendis, de sententiis generalibus, de confessionalibus in forma ‘Cupientes’, and de confessionalibus perpetuis.7 In practice, this division means that the register volumes were divided into ‘chapters’, of which each contained petitions concerning one and the same issue, named in the title. In addition, the scribes of the Penitentiary began to register the petitions in chronological order within each chapter. In my opinion, these new registration techniques were not introduced casually. By organising the entries chronologically under several categories, the officials could find the supplications more easily. Finding an entry was important, for the Penitentiary, as every other papal office, needed to consult the earlier records now and then. It happened that someone had lost the letter of grace, for example through fire, and wanted a new copy, etc. In these cases it was necessary to consult the old registers in order to find the previous decision.

WHICH KIND OF CASES DID THE PENITENTIARY HANDLE? Table 1 gives the list of categories to be found in the registers as well as the number of petitions registered in each category. It shows which kind of cases the Penitentiary handled during the pontificate of Pius II, and how many cases of each type. From these numbers it is easy to distinguish the most common reasons for turning to the Penitentiary.8 There are four petition categories that contain a ———————————— 6

Volume 7 contains one case from September 1458, one case from November 1458, three cases from December 1458, four cases from January 1459, and 56 entries from February 1459, while from March 1459 there are 233 entries. 7 Later the categories of de diversis formis and de declaratoriis were united under the title de diversis materiis and the categories of de defectu natalium and de uberiori were put together under the title de illegitimiis. Also the different categories containing petitions related to confession were united under the rubric de confessionalibus. 8 Actually, this result can also be generalised for the subsequent pontificates.

14


high number of cases, while the other groups remain relatively small. The most common reason was the need to have a dispensation or/and absolution in marriage matters (almost 4200 cases).9 Table 1 Number of cases in each supplication category during Pius’ II pontificate Category De matrimonialibus De diversis formis De declaratoriis De defectu natalium De uberiori De promotis et promovendis De confessionalibus perpetuis De confessionalibus in forma ‘Cupientes’ De sententiis generalibus Total

Total 041958 036508 003348 026988 004838 010088 027508 001798 004328 1572910

% 028% 023% 002% 017% 003% 006% 017% 001% 003% 100%

Source: ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 7–11, 13.

The second biggest category is the de diversis formis group, with 3650 cases. It is, however, different from the other categories, for it contains various types of petitions and, as such, does not refer to the need for a certain kind of grace.11 Another large petition category is the group de defectu natalium, with nearly 2700 petitions. It contains petitions for receiving a dispensation from

———————————— 09 Concerning the petitions in the De matrimonialibus category, see Schmugge, Hersperger and Wiggenhauser, Supplikenregister, 68–74; Kirsi Salonen, The Penitentiary as a Well of Grace in the Late Middle Ages. The Example of the Province of Uppsala 1448–1527, Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian Toimituksia – Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae 313 (Saarijärvi: Academia Scientiarum Fennica, 2001), 103–119 (hereafter Salonen, The Penitentiary). 10 I have to warn that my numbers do not correspond totally to the ones in Ludwig Schmugge, Patrick Hersperger and Béatrice Wiggenhauser, Die Supplikenregister der päpstlichen Pönitentiarie aus der Zeit Pius’ II. (1458–1464), Bibliothek des Deutschen Historischen Instituts in Rom 84 (Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1996) (hereafter Schmugge, Hersperger and Wiggenhauser, Supplikenregister). Counting the cases is not easy; because of the registration technique it is sometimes difficult to decide whether to consider an entry as one petition or two petitions. Especially problematic was counting the supplications for receiving a letter of confession, as the registration in this category is less systematic than in the others. I decided to count each supplicant person (or family, if husband and wife applied together) as one unit. 11 Concerning the petitions in the de diversis formis category, see Schmugge, Hersperger and Wiggenhauser, Supplikenregister, 96–162; Salonen, The Penitentiary, 119–175.


15

illegitimacy and the right to hold an ecclesiastical benefice despite the supplicant’s illegitimacy.12 The de confessionalibus perpetuis group contains supplications for getting a letter of confession that allowed the holder to choose his own confessor; 2750 such petitions are copied into the registers of the Penitentiary.13 The other five petition categories remain quite small, meaning that these kinds of graces were not needed very often. The de promotis et promovendis category that contains dispensation petitions related to promotion or ordination matters, consists of about 1000 entries.14 The de uberiori category that offers petitions from illegitimate children for having a dispensation that allowed them to be ordained to priesthood or to hold an additional benefice, consists of 483 cases.15 The de sententiis generalibus group that contains petitions from priests for the authorisation to absolve their parishioners from sins that normally were reserved to papal decision has 432 entries.16 The de declaratoriis group contains petitions for receiving a declaratory letter that freed the supplicant from murder accusations, illegal matrimony or a forced monastic career. Under this title 334 cases are registered.17 In the de confessionalibus in forma ‘Cupientes’ category petitions were copied for being able to absolve from more serious sins than priests could normally do. This small group consists of only 179 registered supplications.18 This kind of division of the cases into different groups was quite typical for the Penitentiary. The groups containing many petitions during the pontificate of Pius II tend to be numerous also during the other pontificates. Until now, quantitative information has been received from the beginning of the pontificate of Nicholas IV (1455) until the end of the pontificate of Alexander VI (1503), and the

———————————— 12 With regard to the petitions in the de defectu natalium category, see Ludwig Schmugge, Kirche, Kinder, Karrieren. Päpstliche Dispense von der unehelichen Geburt im Spätmittelalter. (Zurich: Artemis & Winkler, 1995); Schmugge, Hersperger and Wiggenhauser, Supplikenregister, 186–189; Salonen, The Penitentiary, 192–203. 13 For the petitions in the de confessionalibus perpetuis category, see Schmugge, Hersperger and Wiggenhauser, Supplikenregister, 207–208; Salonen, The Penitentiary, 203–210. 14 Concerning this category, see Schmugge, Hersperger and Wiggenhauser, Supplikenregister, 196– 198; Salonen, The Penitentiary, 178–192. 15 With regard to the petitions in the de uberiori category, see Schmugge, Hersperger and Wiggenhauser, Supplikenregister, 186–189; Salonen, The Penitentiary, 192–203. 16 For the petitions in the de sententiis generalibus category, see Schmugge, Hersperger and Wiggenhauser, Supplikenregister, 214; Salonen, The Penitentiary, 203–210. 17 Concerning this group, see Salonen, The Penitentiary, 119–175. 18 Referring to the petitions in the de confessionalibus in forma ‘Cupientes’ category, see Schmugge, Hersperger and Wiggenhauser, Supplikenregister, 214; Salonen, The Penitentiary, 203–210.

16


trend is more or less the same: marriage, illegitimacy cases, and different kinds of petitions concerning breaking the rules of canon law are very common, while the other groups occur less frequently.19

WHO TURNED TO THE PENITENTIARY? For the study of the provenance of the petitions, I have divided Christendom into 12 larger territories20 (see Table 2): Anglia means England and Wales, Eastern Europe consists of all dioceses east of the German territory and Italy (including also the almost-non-existent titular dioceses in the East and the Greek islands), Gallia means present-day France, Germania is the territory of the Empire – meaning actually the old German-speaking areas, Hibernia is Ireland, Hispania Spain, Italia inferiore means all of southern Italy and Sicily, Italia media stands for central Italy and Sardinia, Italia superiore refers to northern Italy including Corsica, Lusitania covers the area of present Portugal, Scandinavia refers to the territories of Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, also including Greenland and the Hebrides that, after 1472, were joined to the Scottish isles; Scotia means Scotland. Sometimes there is a problem in studying the provenance of the petitions; it concerns the possibility of distinguishing the dioceses from each other. Normally this is easy, as the names of the dioceses are generally quite clearly copied into the entries. But, unfortunately, there are some dubious cases. That is why I created the last group of questionable provenance.21 ———————————— 19 I thank Ludwig Schmugge for allowing me to use these still unpublished results. 20 In this division, I have followed the indications given in Konrad Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica Medii Aevi sive Summorum Pontificum S.R.E. Cardinalium, Ecclesiarum Antistitum Series ab anno 1198 usque ad annum 1431 perducta e docu-mentis tabularii praesertim vaticani (Münster: Regensberg, 1901). The same division has also been used by Götz-Rüdiger Tewes in his recently published study of the connections between the papal curia and different territories in the later Middle Ages; see: Götz-Rüdiger Tewes, Die römische Kurie und die europäischen Länder am Vorabend der Reformation, Bibliothek des Deutschen Historischen Instituts in Rom 95 (Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 2001). 21 There are, for example, the dioceses of Aosta in Italy and Augsburg in Germany that are both called in Latin Augustensis. Normally, it is quite easy to distinguish between them, for the Italian names sound very different from the German ones. And, fortunately, in this case it is also possible to compare with the entries in the Repertorium. It is more difficult to find the difference between, for instance, all those dioceses called in Latin Aquensis; this is Dax and Aix in France, and Aqui in Italy, for the French and Italian names are sometimes so similar that it is impossible to decide. It is similarly difficult to recognise the difference between the dioceses of Reggio-Emilia and Reggio-Calabria in Italy, both called Reginensis. The situation is even made more problematic because the French diocese of Riez is also called Regensis. One also has difficulties concern-

17


Table 2 The provenance of the cases handled by the Penitentiary during the pontificate of Pius II Provenance Anglia East. Europe Gallia Germania Hibernia Hispania Italia inf. Italia med. Italia sup. Lusitania Scandinavia Scotia ? Total

matr.22 27.5 74.5 745.5 710.0 355.0 565.5 293.0 392.0 817.5 19.0 10.0 123.5 62.0 4195.0

div. f. 49 200 1015 752 36 465 207 287 442 72 13 9 103 3650

decl. 3 72 43 64 2 72 16 23 16 10 5 1 7 334

def. n. 75 48 423 992 216 488 53 51 128 50 49 100 25 2698

uber. 2 2 146 202 7 76 5 1 19 9 1 8 5 483

prom. conf. 22 35 55 124 180 1649 165 583 3 10 84 78 72 11 85 17 290 80 16 20 1 19 6 93 29 31 1008 2750

cup. 5 6 75 52 0 8 1 7 22 1 0 0 2 179

Total sent. 2 220.5 8 589.5 136 4412.5 78 3598.0 21 650.0 61 1897.5 16 674.0 21 884.0 54 1868.5 21 218.0 3 101.0 2 342.5 9 273.0 432 15,729.0


If one concentrates on the total number of clear cases, it can be noted that the most petitions came from French territory, followed by the German area. If one adds the cases from all the three Italian territories, Italy reaches the third place with 3442.5 cases. The Iberian Peninsula is in fourth place with 2113.5 petitions (the Spanish and Portuguese cases added together). Thereafter, one finds the ‘British Isles’ and Ireland, together with 1213 entries. The lowest frequencies are found in Eastern Europe and, finally, Scandinavia. The most populated areas near the centre of the Church are the ones with the most petitions. The further away from the Holy See one moves, the fewer petitions occur. Considering a journey to the curia for making a petition, this

————————————————————————————————— ing the differences between Valencia and Valence, Constance and Coutances, as well as Plasencia and Piacenza. Furthermore, sometimes names of dioceses appear in the registers that do not correspond to any of the dioceses given in the Hierarchia Catholica. These are obviously mistakes of the scribes or the proctors, who did not know which diocese was meant and, therefore, they might have put the name of the nearest town, for example. In some cases, the scribes probably just made spelling errors. When a supplicant was not connected to a certain diocese, the diocese was not given but replaced by sine dioc. These were often the cases of royal or other persons administering a territory larger than one diocese or of people who travelled a great deal. 22 The half numbers refer to the fact that the spouses sometimes came from two different dioceses or even territories. In these cases I have given half units.

18


kind of result seems to be quite obvious. It was not so usual to leave for Rome from the remote parts of Christendom as it was from nearer areas. Moreover, the remote parts of Scandinavia or Scotland were less populated than the central territories of Europe and, consequently, there were also fewer petitions from Scandinavia, although the territories could be of the same size. Secondly, if one compares the numbers to the size and wealth of the dioceses (and here I refer to the sums of taxes that each diocese had to pay to the Holy See23), there seem to have been more petitions from the richest and biggest dioceses than from the smaller and poorer ones.24 This result also seems to be obvious, but, as the example of England shows, it was not necessarily so. There, for example, one can note that only very few petitions came from the archdiocese of Canterbury, even though it was very rich. Such an exceptional under-representation is, however, easy to explain, as the archbishop of Canterbury had great authority to handle cases similar to those with which others went to the Penitentiary, so that people from there did not have to turn to Rome. Unfortunately, we don’t have sources from all other dioceses that might be informative about the kind and extension of authority that bishops or archbishops had.25

PROVENANCE OF SUPPLICANTS AND REASONS FOR TURNING TO THE PENITENTIARY If one compares the provenance of the supplicants and the petition category, great differences in the numbers of petitions from different territories can be found. Concerning the marriage petitions, most of them came from Italy (1502.5 cases). From northern Italy alone (817.5 cases) there are more cases than from

———————————— 23 About taxes see Konrad Eubel, ed., Hierarchia Catholica Medii Aevi sive Summorum Pontificum S.R.E. Cardinalium, Ecclesiarum Antistitum Series ab anno 1198 usque ad annum 1431 perducta e documentis tabularii praesertim vaticani, vol. 2 (Münster: Regensberg, 1901). 24 For example, the number of petitions from northern Italy varies strongly according to the importance and size of the diocese. From the largest dioceses there are many petitions (Milan 148, Genova 131), from the middle-sized dioceses fewer (Mantova 29, Verona 21) and from the smallest ones only a few, if any (Chioggia 1, Pedena 2); ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 7–11, 13. 25 Concerning the activity of the archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Bourgchier (1454–1486), see, for example, Registrum Thome Bourgchier Cantuariensis archiepiscopi a. d. 1454–1486, ed. F.R.H. du Boulay, The Canterbury and York Society, 54 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1957).


19

France (745.5 cases) or from Germany (710 cases). It is also interesting to note that many marriage petitions came from the Irish dioceses. French (1015 and 43 cases), German (752 and 64 cases) and Italian (936 and 55 cases) petitions dominate the de diversis formis and de declaratoriis groups, as they should, according to their general quantities. However, if one looks at the petitions for dispensation from illegitimacy, that is, the de defectu natalium and de uberiori categories, we see that German petitions (992 and 202 cases) are in great majority when compared to the other territories; Spain (488 and 76 cases) and France (423 and 146 cases), that follow it in number, have less than half as many petitions. The promotion cases follow the same pattern as the marriage cases. The Italian dioceses (445 cases, of which most – 288 – came from northern Italy) are in first place, followed by the French (179 cases) and the German (165 cases) territories. The most striking difference can be found in the petitions for receiving a confessional letter or other graces in confessional matters (the de confessionalibus perpetuis, de confessionalibus in forma ‘Cupientes’ and de sententiis generalibus categories), as more than half of them originated from France (1860 cases). The dominance of the French supplicants in these categories is very large; from the German territories, in second place, there are only 713 such petitions. These ‘general trends’ in the provenance of the petitions show only frequencies but do not tell anything about the actual reasons for turning to the Penitentiary. On the basis of the total, for example, it can be shown that Frenchmen had intensive contacts with the Penitentiary, but, in fact, one third of these connections concentrated on only one type of petition.

PARTICULARITIES OF EACH TERRITORY Table 3 presents the proportion of each supplication category in the different territories. It shows clearer which kind of cases were the most common in each territory and the differences between them.26 For the territory of Anglia, one can easily note that the illegitimacy cases formed the most important supplication category (34%). In the second and third place, but quite far away from the illegitimacy numbers, there are the de diversis formis and the de confessionalibus petitions. ———————————— 26 As has already been said, it is not possible to explain minutely the details behind the results shown in Table 3.

20


Table 3 Reasons to turn to the Penitentiary from different territories (in percentages) Provenance Anglia East. Europe Gallia Germania Hibernia Hispania Italia inf. Italia med. Italia sup. Lusitania Scandinavia Scotia ? All cases

matr. 12 13 17 20 55 30 43 44 44 09 10 36 23 27

div. f. 22 34 23 21 06 25 31 32 24 33 13 03 38 23

decl. 01 12 01 02 00 04 02 03 01 05 05 00 03 02

Def. n. 34 08 10 28 33 26 08 06 07 23 49 29 09 17

uber. 1 0 3 6 1 4 1 0 1 4 1 2 2 3

prom. 10 09 04 05 00 04 11 10 16 07 01 02 11 06

conf. 16 21 37 16 02 04 02 02 04 09 19 27 11 17

cup. 2 1 2 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1

sent. 01 01 03 02 03 03 02 02 03 10 03 01 03 03

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100


Eastern Europeans turned to the Penitentiary for different reasons. They had various problems with canon law (that is, the categories of de diversis formis and de declaratoriis, together 46%). In addition they often asked for confession letters.27 As already mentioned above, Frenchmen turned to the Penitentiary in the first place for receiving confessional letters (37%). But there are also many de diversis formis petitions from the French territory. Germans often wrote to the Penitentiary concerning matters of illegitimacy (28%), but other kinds of categories are equally represented: marriage (20%) as well as canon law matters (23%), and also confession letters (16%). Thus, Germans turned to the Penitentiary with quite heterogenic needs. The Irish situation is rather different; Irishmen turned to the Penitentiary only for certain matters. More than half of the petitions concern marriage (55%) and illegitimacy (33%) and only very rarely other matters. Spaniards used the Penitentiary for marriage (30%) and illegitimacy (26%) matters as well as for problems with canon law (29%). The situation is again

———————————— 27 More detailed information concerning the Eastern European petitions may be found in the article by Piroska Nagy and Kirsi Salonen in this volume.


21

quite heterogeneous; there was no special need for them to turn to the Penitentiary. Italians (all three territories may be combined as they followed more or less the same pattern) turned to the authority of the Penitentiary first of all concerning marriage matters (43–44%), but also regarding canon law, while they were, for example, not interested in illegitimacy dispensations or confessional letters. The Portuguese seem to have needed the Penitentiary in canon law (38%) and illegitimacy (23%) matters. The other petition categories contain only relatively few cases. Scots in their turn used the Penitentiary mainly for three different matters: marriage (36%), illegitimacy (29%) and confession letter (27%) issues. Strangely, only very few entries are to be found in the de diversis formis and in the de declaratoriis categories that normally are relatively large petition groups. Such divisions, however, do not tell the actual reasons behind the need for grace in the individual territories, as there still might have been important differences between the dioceses in one territory. For example, according to Table 2, Scandinavians turned to the office mainly for illegitimacy matters (49%). This fact is, however, an illusion, for 31 of the total 49 Scandinavian illegitimacy entries came from Danish dioceses, where the number of these matters was, therefore, much larger than in Scandinavia generally.

CONCLUSIONS In this contribution, I have shown that each Christian territory had its own kind of needs for turning to the Penitentiary. Frenchmen needed letters for being able to confess to their own father confessor, Irishmen for getting legally married to relatives in some degree, and illegitimate German men to start an ecclesiastical career. Such a divergent result is extremely interesting, for the regulations of canon law were the same for each Christian. Consequently, in theory, Christians from all over the world should have turned to the Penitentiary similarly and in similar kinds of matters. This was, however, not the case; they tended to come to the Penitentiary for different reasons that they considered important. It varied from territory to territory. Behind this variety, one probably has to look for local customs, regional laws, and different authorities – why and how still remains a matter to be studied in the future.

AT THE EDGE OF THE WORLD: THE SUPPLICATIONS FROM THE NORWEGIAN PROVINCE OF NIDAROS Torstein Jørgensen

At the time when the office of the papal Penitentiary was at its peak in the fifteenth and the first half of the sixteenth century, the archdiocese of Nidaros was still the northernmost of all Church provinces in Western Christendom. To be sure, the discoveries of new lands in the Americas in the years before and after the turn of the century were just in the process of opening up a whole new world. On the one hand, the new discoveries paved the way for political and economic conquest, on the other they added new and virginal ground for the Catholic Church to extend its faith, practices and institutional order. The old world scope as seen from the papacy, and in which Norway held a position as the last country of the world at the very border of the enormous abyss surrounding the lands of the earth, was about to lose its relevance. And, for sea-faring nations like Spain, Portugal, and Norway, the ocean represented an easier and speedier way of travel and communication than land. By means of the winds of the seas and efficient ships the miles of the seas were shorter in terms of travelling hours than miles on land, especially if one belonged to the strata of the population that had to travel on foot. Despite these facts the distance from Rome to the metropolitan See of Nidaros in Norway was still a long journey. However, it is important to note that long distance in terms of kilometres was by no means equivalent to long distance in mentality, faith, and conduct. It is not difficult to point out distinctive features and characteristics of Scandinavian ways of life, social organisation, behaviour, and thinking in the period; but, when looking at late medieval Norwegian and Icelandic societies, one also cannot escape notice of the strong imprint of an overarching common European culture, with its joint set of norms and practices. As in Naples, Wittenberg, Dublin, or whatever place on the map of Central and Western Europe at the time, the people of Norway and Iceland were from the cradle to the grave framed by the religious apparatus of the Catholic Church in all its different aspects. Distance in geography, thus, did not by necessity imply distance

24


in religious thought and practices. One field to which this fact applied indeed was the administration of grace and penance by the Apostolic Penitentiary.

THE NIDAROS MATERIAL – A BRIEF OVERVIEW1 The register protocols of the Apostolic Penitentiary contain altogether a hundred supplications from the dioceses under the province of Nidaros.2 This means, for instance, when comparing with the German material, that for every Norwegian entry there are roughly 500 to 600 petitions to be counted from the German provinces. Nevertheless, in a Norwegian setting the collection of the penitentiary supplications represents the most comprehensive discovery of medieval sources related to the country for the last 50 years. The archdiocese of Nidaros3 consisted of five dioceses on the Norwegian mainland during the period concerned. Besides the See of Nidaros itself, these were Oslo, Bergen, Stavanger, and Hamar. In addition, the province included – with some variations – five suffragan Sees on the Norwegian-dominated islands in the North Atlantic, that is, Skálholt and Hólar on Iceland, the Orkney and Faeroe Islands plus Gardar (Greenland). In our material, we also have included 44 supplications from the Hebrides,4 as this group of islands was old Norwegian territory and the connecting ecclesiastical lines to Nidaros remained long after the political inclusion of these lands into England and Scotland. For the dioceses of the Orkneys and Hebrides we have, however, circumscribed the evidence at the year 1472/1473 as these dioceses at this time were formally transferred to the

———————————— 1

For a more detailed survey see Torstein Jørgensen and Gastone Saletnich, Synder og Pavemakt: Botsbrev fra den norske kirkeprovins og Suderøyene til Pavestolen 1438–1531. Diplomatarium Poenitentiariae Norvegicum [Sinners and papal power. Penitentiary supplications from the Norwegian Church province and the Hebrides to the Holy See, 1438–1531] (Stavanger: Misjonshøgskolens forlaget, 2004) (hereafter Jørgensen and Saletnich, Synder og Pavemakt). 2 Giving the exact number is a question of principles of counting. In this study, I have counted entries with lists of persons being granted one and the same grace, but who must have addressed the Penitentiary with different petitions, as one supplication. Also supplications with an additional case attached to them under the same date count as one entry in our study. (Jørgensen and Saletnich, Synder og Pavemakt, 62, 91–92, 133, 157–158). 3 The name of the city of the metropolitan See has throughout the ages alternatively been Nidaros and Trondheim. Today, the city name is Trondheim, whereas the episcopal see carries the old name of Nidaros. 4 In Norwegian ‘Suderøyene’ means ‘The Southern Islands’, which is the background of the Latin diocesis Sodorensis.

25

AT THE EDGE OF THE WORLD

newly founded Scottish archdiocese of St. Andrews. For the other dioceses we have searched the protocols up to the year of the Danish-Norwegian reformation in 1537. Our last registration dates from September 1531. With July 1438, as the first dating of a registered – and preserved – supplication from Nidaros, our material covers a period of a little less than a century. In addition we have included one supplication from the Danish-Norwegian queen, Dorothea, wife of King Christian I. By the beginning of the fourteenth century the Norwegian mainland is estimated to have been home to a maximum of 350,000 souls. The numbers fell drastically from the Black Death and the subsequent plagues that ravaged Europe in the course of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, down to a minimum of 150,000 around 1450, that is, a depopulation rate somewhere between 50 and 65%.5 Compared to what is known about the effects of these plagues in the other parts of Europe, Norway was one of the countries to suffer the most severe loss of people, taken from an already small population.6 This is an imporTable 4 Number and type of petitions from the Norwegian dioceses7 Case Matrim. Diversis formis Declaratoriis Def. nat. Uberiori Promotis Conf. Sent. Gen. Alt. Port. No category Total

Bergen

Hamar

00 06 01 01 00 01 00 01 00 00 10

0 2 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 6

Nidaros Orkn& crown øyene8 02 1 12 0 03 0 09 3 02 1 00 0 06 0 00 0 00 0 01 0 35 5

Oslo 01 12 01 08 00 01 01 00 01 01 26

SkálHolt 05 01 – 01 02 00 01 00 00 00 10

Stavan ger 0 4 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 9

Suderøyene 10 00 00 28 03 00 02 00 00 01 44

Total 019 037 010 053 008 003 010 001 001 003 145

Source: ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 1–75.

———————————— 5

Ole Jørgen Benedictow, Plague in the Late Medieval Nordic Countries: Epidemiological Studies (Oslo: Middelalderforlaget, 1992), 104–105, 272–273. 6 Andreas Holmsen, Norges historie: Fra de eldste tider til 1660 [History of Norway: from the oldest times until 1660] (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1977), 333. 7 From the dioceses of Færo and Greenland (Gardar) there are no petitions. All contacts with the Norse population in Greenland were cut off in the 1420’s, although titular bishops to Gardar were still appointed later in the fifteenth century. 8 Until 1472/1473.

26


tant piece of information to bear in mind when comparing the numbers of Nidaros supplications with those from more central and densely populated provinces throughout Europe. Above all, one should not jump too quickly to the conclusion that the main or only explanation lies in geographical distance. A combination of a scarcely populated area and a location on the very outskirts of the orbis christianae probably explains the matter. For a more definite conclusion, however, a comparison of the number of supplications from different Church provinces held up against that of population in the same areas would be needed. The changes and sometimes lack of consistency to be found in the register protocols in this period when it comes to categorisation naturally also apply to the Norwegian material. The simple Table 4 however, shows how the Nidaros supplications were actually classified at the time when they were treated. The number of Nidaros supplications, however, is by far too low to develop any sort of basis for statistic observations. Still, it is of interest to show the following survey of how the 96 supplications from the Norwegian mainland dioceses and Iceland are spread in actual years and to add a few comments: Table 5 Number of supplications per year 1438: 1 1441: 1 1454: 2 1456: 2 1457: 2 1458: 4 1460: 2 1461: 2 1463: 1 1464: 1 1465: 2 1467: 1

1468: 2 1470: 4 1471: 1 1472: 3 1473: 2 1474: 7 1475: 1 1476: 5 1477: 2 1479: 1 1480: 3 1481: 1

1484: 3 1486: 1 1487: 1 1488: 3 1489: 1 1491: 2 1492: 1 1493: 4 1494: 1 1496: 1 1498: 1 1499: 1

1500: 8 1504: 1 1510: 2 1515: 2 1516: 1 1517: 2 1518: 1 1519: 1 1523: 3 1525: 1 1531: 1

The only year clearly distinguished from the rest is 1500 with its eight supplications. This can only be explained by the fact that this year was a Holy Year with its marked increase in the number of pilgrims to Rome. The tendency


27

in the Norwegian material corresponds well on this point with the material from the neighbouring province of Uppsala, as shown by Kirsi Salonen.9 A peculiar feature requiring some further comments is the Jubilee Year 1475 with, surprisingly, only one Nidaros supplication, whereas the preceding year 1474 had seven supplications and the subsequent year, 1476, five. All seven cases from 1474, however, date from November and December, that is, only few weeks before the beginning of the Jubilee Year on Christmas Day; and all seven supplications derive from Bergen and the See of Nidaros itself. The most reasonable explanation is that the supplications were handed in, probably in one pile, by Archbishop Olav Trondsson himself in connection with his stay in Rome that autumn. Together with the electus to Bergen, Hans Teiste,10 Olav went to Rome in the summer or early autumn 1474 with the intention, we may suppose, of taking part in the celebration of the Jubilee Year. However, Olav died in Rome on November 25,11 and Hans Teiste was ordained bishop in Rome on December 18.12 I see no other reasonable explanation than ascribing the seven supplications to the archbishop himself and his retinue. Olav’s successor, his nephew Gaute Ivarsson, received his archiepiscopal ordination on the basis of papal provision in June 1475. No Penitentiary supplications related to this event have been found.13 Four of the five registered supplications from 1476 stem from Skálholt. They were granted almost simultaneously in December and must have been handed in to the Penitentiary together. Also, the three supplications from 1523 came to the Penitentiary at the same time and by one hand, namely that of the last archbishop of the See of Nidaros, Olav Engelbrektsson. In two of them the archbishop himself was the supplicant, the third was handed in on behalf of Hans Rev, who at that time was a canon in Nidaros, but two years later entered the bishop’s See of Oslo. ———————————— 9

10 11 12

13

Kirsi Salonen, The Penitentiary as a Well of Grace in the Late Middle Ages: The Example of the Province of Uppsala 1448–1527. Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian Toimituksia – Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae 313 (Saarijärvi: Academia Scientiarum Fennica, 2001), 255, 281, 348, 362. Elected by the chapter in Bergen on June 22, 1474, on which occasion Archbishop Olav was also present. Buried in San Agostino Church. Diplomatarium Norwegicum (hereafter DN), XVII, n. 683; Oluf Kolsrud, “Erkebiskop Olav Throndsson av Nidaros. 1459–1474” [Archbishop Olav Throndsson of Nidaros], Norvegia Sacra 1924 (Oslo: St. Olavs Forlaget, 1924), 19–34. The only registered supplication from the Jubilee Year 1475 came from the diocese of Oslo and was granted on August 2. It may have been handed in by Archbishop Gaute, but there is no firm evidence, ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 23, fol. 271r; Jørgensen and Saletnich, Synder og Pavemakt, 79–80, 147.

28


REPRESENTATION – THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG

One important question when discussing numbers is to ask to what extent the registered cases form a representative selection of cases of the same sort or to what extent we see here only the tip of the iceberg. A full clarification of this point lies, of course, beyond the reach of research, but the perspective has to be taken into account and should necessitate some moderation and caution when making conclusions based on the existing material. It will be interesting to make comparisons with the material from other areas as this is being investigated. Entering into the actual circumstances around the different Norwegian supplications one sees several elements which one may point out as occasional, such as possibilities of transport to Rome, the resources of the supplicant, and the general focus and pressure on the case. A search into other contemporary sources for similar cases which do not seem to have been taken to the pope might contribute to better answers.

TAKING THE CASE FROM NIDAROS TO ROME Only very few of the Nidaros texts provide precise information on the time needed to take a case from Norway and Iceland to the papacy. In a supplication from the year 1525, however, we find both the exact date of the criminal act and the date when the case was recorded as settled in the Penitentiary office.14 The entire course of events – the killing, the local treatment of the case, the drafting of a letter, the transport to Rome, the dealings with the proctor, and the handling of the case in to the Penitentiary office – took place between February 8 and July 4, that is, a time span of a little less than five months. Considering the distance from Norway to Italy and the means of transport available, there would have been no reason for the supplicant to complain. From other cases we know that it could take more time, but the overall picture shows that the process of taking a case from Scandinavia to the curia in Rome took something between a few months and two years.

———————————— 14 ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 73, fol. 1135r–1136r. Jørgensen and Saletnich, Synder og Pavemakt, 99–100, 165–166.


29

THE PENITENTIARY TEXTS IN A NORWEGIAN-ICELANDIC SETTING It has already been made clear that the collection of Nidaros supplications is too small for making statistical tables – even though some comparative glimpses aside to material from other countries might be helpful. When searching for the historic value of the Norwegian texts, thus, the primary focus must be on their content. On this point the penitentiary supplications are indeed more valuable and informative than a first glance might perhaps indicate. In a Norwegian setting a number of more than 150 new texts is a substantial addition to the already existing material.15

Names As the Penitentiary texts always give the name(s) of the supplicant(s), and often of other persons as well, the texts provide a basis for drawing some 150 named individuals into the light of research. Some of them are familiar in advance; a few were well-known persons from the upper classes, but whose vitae become more fully drawn up with the help of these texts, sometimes on very crucial points. In the case of Iceland, for instance, which is the country of Europe with probably the most complete survey of named individuals within her borders at the time, we have found that fourteen16 of the total of fifteen persons mentioned in the ten supplications from Skálholt are already listed in Íslenzkar Æviskrár.17 As for the individuals from the Norwegian mainland, the vast majority seem to step out of the shadows of history for the first time in these texts. To identify persons on the basis of the latinised, often very distorted, representations of their original Norwegian names in the penitentiary protocols is not an

———————————— 15 All hitherto known medieval texts – or better: all medieval sources in the country and abroad containing some piece of information about Norway – have been collected over the last 150 years in the Diplomatarium Norvegicum I–XXII (Christiania and Oslo, 1849–1990). For some years now, these texts have been available on a full-text database – in their original Latin or Old Norse language – with search possibilities on words either in the text itself, on the regests, date, or volumes. 16 In addition to the thirteen persons in Jørgensen and Saletnich, Synder og Pavemakt, we have now, on the advice of Stefán Karlsson, Reykjavik, also identified dominum Simonem mentioned in our entry n. 94 as Sveinn Pétursson, bishop of Skálholt, 1466–1476. 17 Íslenzkar Æviskrár: frá landnámstimum til árloka 1940 [Icelanders’ life stories. From the landtaking time until the end of 1940], I–IV, ed. Páll Eggert Ólason (Reykjavik: Íslenzka Bókmenntafélag, 1948–1976).

30


easy task.18 Searches on names in the data base of the Diplomatarium Norvegicum combined with some creative imagination on how names could be spelt will probably give at least some positive results.

Kinship and family relations Although the registrations under the de matrimonialibus cases are generally rather short, their value is quite significant on a number of points. First of all, some of these texts add substantial information on persons about whom we possess some knowledge in advance, but whose marriage and family relations have not yet been fully clarified. An example of such useful information is given in a supplication from 1484, about the noble member of the Norwegian national council, Arild Kane, and his marriage to Ingjerd Erlendsdotter, the widow of Olav Guttormson, also a member of the same council.19 Secondly, these texts offer some indications about the matrimonial customs of the second to fourth degree of consanguinitas and affinitas as actually practised in the historical Norwegian setting. An interesting difference between Norway and Iceland becomes discernable with the help of this material. In Iceland, all these supplications came from people who were already aware of their – consumed or not yet consumed – forbidden relations. In Norway, the majority of the petitioners stated that they were not. As seen together with other historic material, this underpins the general idea of Iceland as an extremely transparent society compared to Norway.

Colourful glimpses into actual episodes of life When looking at the contents of the penitentiary supplications there is no doubt that the de declaratoriis texts are the most informative and interesting. These texts, together with some cases under the de diversis formis group, are generally ———————————— 18 To exemplify this, I will mention that in the papal documents from the time we have found the name of Stavanger, which after all was a name of a diocese, spelt in more than 20 different ways: Stavuangre, Stawange, Stawarge, Stawagre, Stawage, Stawrangar, Stavantze, Staffnagar, Stawanger, Stadhangre, Staffuangre, Stawangher, Staunagle, Slanangre, Stalbangie, Stabbangrie, Stauangre, Stauangrie, Stauagre, Stangrane, Stavanger. Torstein Jørgensen and Gastone Saletnich, Letters to the Pope. Norwegian Relations to the Holy See in the Late Middle Ages (Stavanger: Misjonshøgskolens Forlaget, 1999), 45, note 30. 19 ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 34, fol. 18r; Jørgensen and Saletnich, Synder og Pavemakt, 80, 148.


31

long, up to three folios, with a longer narrative section as their most substantial part. Here, the Norwegian material seems, not surprisingly, to be fully in line with that from other countries, as the standards for these texts were set in Rome and not in the local communities. Even with the low number of such Norwegian texts it is quite easy to make overviews and to harvest from the different points of their contents. The particular format of this group of supplications renders, with its narrative part, short, but often quite detailed and colourful glimpses into life episodes of the persons involved. If not unique, such actual descriptions of the acts and doings of identifiable persons in something between daily life and exceptional situations are quite rare amongst the already existing Norwegian texts from that period. The texts provide short zoomed-in snapshots of one, two or a few more persons in all the texts with a perpetrator and a victim as the main figures and with a clergyman in both of the roles or in only the first. These persons jump out of darkness into the light of history, stay there for a little while, and then disappear again. But during this little while we see them the picture can be quite sharp. Above all, one receives a description of the different aspects of the actual event causing the address to the Holy See, the rise and increase of a conflict ending up in violence or killing. The texts also add valuable pieces of information to our knowledge about weapons, tools, clothing, means of transport, housing, food, and social customs. In a few cases, the Latin texts even enable us to recognise remnants of words from the Norwegian language of the time.

AN EXAMPLE FROM THE TEXT MATERIAL – THE CASE OF SIMON ANDREASSON

Among the longer narrative texts of the kind mentioned above, the following supplication from Stavanger cleric Simon Andreasson makes a good example. As an illustration of the richness of these texts I will quote this petition in extenso and in English. First of all, the narrative of the chain of dramatic incidents is an exciting story in itself. Along the way, the text gives valuable small notes on patterns of social gatherings, different kinds of weapons, indirect indications of heavy drinking, clothing, and reasons for disputes combined with prestige and status, as well as references to Civil Law. In good accordance with the standards of these texts, the document also offers a detailed account of a priest who became involved in unintentional murder. The unfortunate priest’s name was Simon Andreasson (Simon Andree), and the parish in which he served was Spangereid

32


(Spangerydk) near Lindesnes, at the very southern point of Norway.20 In addition to the name of the petitioner the document mentions three other names: that of the victim, Nikolas Eyvindsson (Nicolaus Ewindi); that of the host, Sigvart Beruldsson (Siwardus Beruldi), at whose house Simon and Nikolas were guests at a banquet, and finally the first name of one of the witnesses, Karl (Karolingus), a friend of the priest’s. We are also well informed about the cause of the conflict. The object of the strife is described as dealings about a piece of land that Nikolas Eyvindsson claimed to have had the right to rent and which the priest had rented out to someone else in the meanwhile. The name of the farm is mentioned as Dipla (diipla), a name which is also known from other Norwegian sources. The property was obviously Church land and not the priest’s private property. The bishop, not a magistrate, is referred to as the one who could have tried the mortgage deeds Nikolas claims to have had on the property. The supplication text also gives further details about some of the weapons in use at the time: the lance, dagger, and axe, all evidently easily at hand. The fact that people in their daily life carried different sorts of weapons for the sake of their safety confirms what we know from other sources, that the last decades of the fifteenth century were insecure times.21 An interesting connection can be seen between the event of this supplication and a conflict between the clergy and common people that is known to have taken place in the very same area.22 In 1484, peasants in the district gathered for a meeting at which they wrote a letter of protest to the bishop in Stavanger complaining that the representatives of the Church in the area had seized properties,23 and requesting that the old order of ownership be re-established. The ———————————— 20 Spangereid is referred to in several Norwegian documents from the Late Middle Ages; see DN XV, n. 101. 21 The second half of the fifteenth century was characterised by a weak royal power during the reigns of Christian I (1450–1481) and Hans (1483–1513); by the dominance of Hanseatic merchants, who on several occasions proved that they did not recoil from using force when their interests were at stake; by piracy along the coasts; and finally by attempts at revolt in different places. 22 The following documents show how disputes about land were resolved by civil magistrates in the same area and at the same time as in the case of the conflict between Simon and Nikolas: DN XVIII, n. 94; DN VI, n. 615; DN IX, n. 377; DN XXI, n. 657. 23 From DN XV, n. 101, of September 8, 1476, we know that the name of the ecclesiatical “ombudsman” of the Spangereid church (Spongareidh kyrkio) and adjacent properties was Thore Aslaksson, and that he had held this office for the preceding three years. The document confirms that the bishop had received the accounts from the church properties in Spangereid from him. Thus, there is a good possibility that Nikolas Eyvindsson’s tenant agreement during the time of Thore Aslaksson was in order, and that the priest, Simon Andreasson, had changed this to Niko-


33

judicial basis of the complaint was the book of land registers, the so-called jordebok, drawn up by a former bishop of Sta-vanger.24 The case also included other grievances, and it was not settled until a meeting in Bergen on July 31, 1486, when archbishop Gaute decided in favour of the requests of the peasants.25 It is highly possible that Simon Andreasson and his counterpart, Nikolas Eyvindsson, were also active participants in this conflict. The fact that it also included a case of murder indicates how strong this strife must have been. Since the date of the Penitentiary supplication is December 12, 1487, the killing of Nikolas Eyvindsson must have taken place around the time of the meeting in Bergen the year before. Simon Andreasson, priest of the parish church of Spangerydk in the diocese of Stavanger, says that he was once a guest at the house or inn of Sigvart Beruldsson, a layman from the same diocese. One day after lunchhour, the late Nikolas Eyvindsson, a layman from the same diocese, told the petitioner, whom he had come upon in the sitting-room: “The Lord have mercy with you, who have rented out the property” – called diipla in the native tongue – “to someone else!” He claimed that according to mortgage deeds in his possession, the land had to be rented to him. The petitioner told Nicolas to produce the letter, and once the letter had been examined by the bishop he would render him what was rightfully due. Nikolas, however, maintained that the affair lay within the petitioner’s own discretion and that he could, if he so wished, implement the said transfer even without the bishop’s permission. In turn the petitioner responded that this was not the case. After this dispute between the petitioner and Nikolas, Nikolas left the sitting room of the house, mounted his horse in the courtyard and rode away. A little later the petitioner likewise took his horse intending to ride home together with Karl, a layman of the same diocese. Having travelled for a while from the aforementioned inn, the said Nikolas, on foot and in arms, silently stepped out of the woods somewhere near the road along which the petitioner and his friend Karl were coming, intent, as it seemed, on doing harm to the petitioner. He called on Karl to stay away saying that he had to speak with the priest, i.e. the petitioner. On Karl’s admonition he calmed down for a moment, but the former exchange of words flared up ————————————————————————————————— las’ disfavour. See also DN XV, n. 110, of August 3, 1487, about the “ombudsman” for church properties in Bjelland. 24 Bishop Botolf (1355–1380). 25 DN I, n. 951.

34


again until Nikolas wielded the lance he held in his hand and said to the petitioner: “A while ago you trusted in the bishop, now look at the weapon in my hands in which I trust!” Taken by fear the petitioner returned to the inn he had just left where Nikolas followed him unnoticed and attacked him with these words: “Mary curse you, devil’s priest!” The petitioner, making the sign of the cross, answered: “The Lord have mercy with you!” Nikolas repeated his curse another time: “The devil have mercy with you in hell!” and again the petitioner answered: “The Lord bless you!” whereupon Nikolas answered: “The devil bless you!” But the petitioner exclaimed: “The laws protect me against you!” They continued to argue back and forth until Nikolas brandished a lance in his left and a dagger in his right hand and would have stabbed the petitioner if he had not been impeded from doing so by the people surrounding them. As Nikolas continued to go after the petitioner in a hostile manner the petitioner averted violence by violence and hit Nikolas with an axe which by chance was lying on the ground and wounded him on his upper right forearm and in the armpit of the same hand, holding the dagger just raised to stab him. Nikolas died from this wound about three weeks later. Although the petitioner was not guilty of this death other than in the aforementioned manner, but regrets it deeply, etc., and wishes to serve the Lord in the mentioned vocation, some people, however, etc., assert that he had thus committed the crime of homicide and become irregular; to silence the voices of these detractors the petitioner now asks for a declaration stating that he, when the mentioned incidents took place, neither committed the crime of homicide nor incurred any stain of irregularity, and unhindered by the mentioned incidents, can serve, etc. Granted as below, Jul., bishop of Bertinoro, Regent. The letter is to be examined by the bishop of Nocera, Jul. The case is to be committed to the ordinary who, provided that the necessary inquiries prove that the petitioner wounded Nikolas in defending himself from mortal danger, shall declare as has been requested. Rome, at Saint Peter’s, 12 December 1487.26 If we cast a glance at the concluding phrases of the supplication, the imprint of a canon law scholar is clearly visible. Most likely we see here the pen stroke of one of the official Apostolic proctors in Rome. These proctors were trained to know which buttons to press in order to make the case as favourable ———————————— 26 ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 37, fol. 228r–v. For the original Latin version see Jørgensen and Saletnich, Synder og Pavemakt, 161–162.


35

for the supplicant as possible. The supplication text in this section consists largely of fixed formulas. In a case like the one of Simon, the petitioner could plead guilty or not guilty. When it comes to Simon, he chose, probably on the advice of the proctor, to plead not guilty. His request, therefore, was for a papal declaration to confirm his innocence, and to be held up against accusations of guilt stated by people normally referred to as simple and ignorant. Following the normal procedure in these cases, Simon’s petition was committed to be tried by Simon’s ordinary, that is, his local bishop. By granting grace on the condition that the local ordinary confirmed the facts of the case, the papacy, at least to some extent, had a safeguard against too-biased resolutions based solely on the subjective versions of the petitioners. The ordinary who received Simon’s case was Eiliv Jonsson, bishop of Stavanger 1481–1512. In this case, there is an irony in it, as Eiliv was one of the counterparts of the peasants mentioned above. One may probably conclude that his evaluation of Simon Andreasson’s role in the killing of Nikolas Eyvindsson was not stricter than necessary. The concluding formulas of the supplication state that the petition was signed by the then-Regens, Julianus, bishop of Bertinoro.27 In accordance with the normal procedure for such cases it was left to the Auditor28 for judicial examination.

CANON LAW AND INDIGENOUS JUDICIAL SYSTEMS No systematic studies exist of the status of canon law and other papal regulations in their relations to the different areas of national law codes and practices in the cases of Norway and Iceland. For the actual period, one knows that the civil judicial system was indeed in operation. The Diplomatarium Norvegicum contains case after case treated by tribunals at different levels, such as disputes about wills and inheritance, rights to land, farming, fishing, etc., as well as different kinds of criminal cases. When it comes to ecclesiastical law and the so-called reserved cases many circumstances of a political and practical nature must be taken into account when trying to establish a survey of the actual state of affairs. Our general impression is, however, that the general right of the clergy to privilegium fori was in power. But in Norway, as elsewhere, one has to consider that the force of muscles and arms in many cases was more decisive than the power of tribunal ———————————— 27 Julianus de Matteis de Volterra, O.F.M. 28 Johannes de Ceretanis, bishop of Nocera, 1476–1492.

36


decisions. An interesting event in the case of Norway at the time was the National Council Convent in Oslo in 1478, with King Christian I and all the Norwegian bishops present.29 At this meeting the council made an attempt to draw a demarcation line between the jurisdiction of king and Church, especially concerning marriage, incest, adultery and oaths/perjury. According to the council, cases of incest in the third and fourth degrees, as well as fornication and relations with concubines, were irrelevant to the king and came under the Church. Adultery, or as it is phrased “breaking into another man’s wedlock”, and bigamy were to be compensated, half to the king and half to the Church. More serious cases of incest in the first and second degrees and fornication against nature should result in the perpetrators being declared outlaws, their estate being shared half and half between Church and king, with the king deciding whether the perpetrator should live or not.30 An interesting case from the Norwegian supplications in which we see an overlapping of canon and civil law is the petition from the Stavanger man, Svein Igulsson, or Sweno Ygeldi, as he is called in the penitentiary protocols. According to the registered petition, Svein had made himself guilty of repeated severe incest by having intercourse with his own daughter. Because of this, the text tells that he had been imprisoned for some period, obviously on the basis of verdicts from the civil tribunal. His supplication to the Penitentiary contains a petition for absolution for incest and adultery, for a dispensation to resume his matrimonial life with his wife, and to yield and claim the normal matrimonial duties. His argument is that he considers himself too young to continue life without these goods.31

CONCLUDING REMARKS I have given an overview of the newly discovered penitentiary supplications from the Norwegian church province of Nidaros. I have shown that from its location in the utmost periphery on the northwestern edges of Western Christendom, the peoples of Norway, Iceland and the North Sea Islands were indeed ———————————— 29 Perhaps the most important event in Norwegian medieval history on specifying the jurisdiction of the king/state versus the Church was the so-called composicio (in Norwegian sættargjerd) of August 19, 1277. 30 Norges Gamle Love, 2.r., II, n. 166, Lars Hamre, “Erkebispedømmet i Unionstiden” [The Archbishopric in the times of the Union], in: Andreas Holmsen and Jarle Simensen, ed., Norges nedgang – senmiddelalderen (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1979, 2nd ed.), 196–197. 31 ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 24, fol. 108v; Jørgensen and Saletnich, Synder og Pavemakt, 93, 159.


37

part of the common late medieval theological, judicial and organisational setting of the Roman Catholic Church. The number of registered supplications from Nidaros is very small compared to the numbers from other provinces, but they do provide a new opening to increase knowledge about the lives of a number of individuals in this section of the partes in the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries and their communication with the Holy See. Together with the penitentiary supplications from other provinces which are currently under registration, these texts represent a most valuable basis for new insights into a number of hitherto hidden elements of European history in the decades leading up to the great schism of Western Christendom.

THE SUPPLICATIONS FROM THE PROVINCE OF UPPSALA MAIN TRENDS AND DEVELOPMENTS Kirsi Salonen

Even though the church province of Uppsala was one of the most remote provinces within the Catholic Church, Swedish Christians also had to respect the regulations of canon law and, in case of a lack of respect, had to turn to the papal curia or Apostolic Penitentiary for pardon.1 I have studied all the archive material of the Penitentiary from the beginning of the fifteenth century until the year 1539. The connections between Sweden and the papal curia were officially cut off already after the Diet of Västerås in 1527, which stipulated Reformation in Sweden. To study the registers of the Penitentiary until 1540, however, makes it possible to find out, whether the connections were really cut off at the time of the Reformation or whether they still continued. Apart from the Penitentiary records kept in the Vatican Archives, I have also dealt with the local Swedish and Finnish source material in order to complete the possible lacuna in the entries of the Penitentiary records caused by missing volumes or imperfect registration. Using the local archives is important, as sometimes they have preserved documents that cannot be found among the Penitentiary records. The records of the Penitentiary and the local archives contain information on 439 cases from the province of Uppsala that were handled in the Penitentiary. Analysing 439 documents among tens of thousands of petitions that were han-

———————————— 1

Concerning the relations between the Penitentiary and the province of Uppsala, see also Kirsi Salonen, The Penitentiary as a Well of Grace in the Late Middle Ages. The Example of the Province of Uppsala 1448–1527, Suomalaisen Tiedea-katemian Toimituksia Suomalaisen – Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae 313 (Saarijärvi: Academia Scientiarum Fennica, 2001) (hereafter Salonen, The Penitentiary). In this contribution, I have completed my earlier research with some new cases that I had not included in my thesis because of errors in registration that impeded recognising the cases as Swedish. Thus, this article is an up-dated version of my earlier studies.

40


dled by the Penitentiary during the late Middle Ages2 means that these cases are not representative for making any further conclusions about the whole material – or even about the other Scandinavian evidence (Denmark, Iceland, and Norway). They just describe the situation in the province of Uppsala. Moreover, the numbers before 1448 are not valid for any quantitative analysis because of imperfect registration and the absence of volumes.3

CONNECTIONS IN THE TIME-AXIS Table 6 shows that there were some connections between the Swedish dioceses and the Penitentiary as early as the first half of the fifteenth century, beginning from the first volume of the registers with the year 1410.4 It is not possible to draw any further conclusions from them, but one can clearly see that there are Swedish entries in almost all years from which records of the Penitentiary exist. This means, therefore, that there was already some kind of connection between Sweden and the Penitentiary at that time. Table 6 The Swedish cases handled by the Penitentiary before 1448 Year 1409 1410 1438 1439 1440 1441 Total

Cases 01 02 02 04 00 01 10

ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 1, 2, 2bis.

———————————— 2

The Penitentiary handled almost 160,000 petitions during the pontificates of Calixtus III, Pius II, Paul II, Sixtus IV, Innocent VIII, and Alexander VI (1455–1503). I thank Ludwig Schmugge for letting me use this still unpublished information. 3 The first register (number 1) of the Penitentiary contains material from 1409–1411, while the next two volumes (2 and 2bis) jump to the years 1438–1442. The Penitentiary records begin to be more complete only from volume 3 onwards, that is, from the year 1448. Since then the series remain almost complete until the beginning of the pontificate of Julius II, in 1503. After 1503 the volumes again become less complete. Concerning the medieval volumes of the Penitentiary, see Salonen, The Penitentiary, 425. 4 Presenting the cases before 1448 separately from the other cases is necessary, because the imperfect registration does not allow studying numbers quantitatively.

THE SUPPLICATIONS FROM THE PROVINCE OF UPPSALA

41

In Figure 1 the Swedish petitions to the Penitentiary are presented year by year, from 1448 to 1527. It shows that the number of cases handled yearly by the Penitentiary varied remarkably. As a general observation, it may be noticed that the Penitentiary dealt with fewer Swedish cases during the early and also the late years of the period in question, while the years between the 1460s and the 1490s formed a period of relatively intense connections. Figure 1 Swedish cases handled by the Penitentiary in time-axis

Source: Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., Vol. 3-75.

The scarcity of the cases before the mid-1450s could easily be explained by the incomplete registration, but, in my opinion, this is not the only explanation. We have to keep in mind that before the 1450s a strong counciliar tendency was common in the Swedish Church, because of which Swedes were not yet used to going to Rome to resolve their problems. Also, the political crisis within the Nordic Union after the death of King Erik of Pomerania in 1448, after which the Swedes and Danes fought for dominance within the union, surely drew the attention of the Swedes elsewhere than to Rome. The period from the 1460s until the end of the 1480s was the period of the most frequent connections. Afterwards, the cases became less numerous, but the connections were not cut off, as in the 1490s the Penitentiary still handled several Swedish cases. Until the first years of the sixteenth century petitions from the province of Uppsala were still brought to the Penitentiary

42


every year. What happened then is more difficult to decide, because the records of the Penitentiary are no longer well-preserved. However, for those years from which the Penitentiary records are complete, such as between 1520 and 1524, one can see that the Penitentiary did not handle as many Swedish cases as earlier. Consequently, the number of cases declined towards the end of the Middle Ages. This decline of the connections during the first quarter of the sixteenth century probably depended (at least in part) on the unstable political situation in Scandinavia. The Swedes and Danes were fighting once again for political dominance within the Nordic Union; because of the more or less constant state of war, travelling was not secure and people had other things on their minds than dispensations and absolutions. According to Ludwig Schmugge, this was a common tendency in all the territories.5 Figure 1 also shows that, according to the records of the Penitentiary, the connections between the papal curia and the Swedish Church were cut off after the Reformation took place in the Swedish Church in 1527; the last Swedish case handled in the Penitentiary dates from 1526. This result may seem obvious, but one has to remember that, for example, monasteries still functioned until the mid-sixteenth century,6 and there are also testimonies that persons from other reformed territories still turned to the Penitentiary after the Reformation. In the State Archives of Hamburg, for instance, an original letter of the Penitentiary is on file in which a priest from the diocese of Bremen got a dispensation from illegitimacy; this letter dates from the year 1537.7 Another interesting phenomenon, when speaking of the context of cases and time, is the effect of the Holy Years. Figure 4.1. shows that the Penitentiary handled more Swedish cases during the Holy Years than during the years around them. This phenomenon is typical not only for the Swedish material, but for the Penitentiary records in general. Concerning illegitimacy, Schmugge noticed that the number of cases handled in the Penitentiary during the Holy Years was always greater than during normal years.8 This is, of course, understandable because more people came to Rome for the Jubilee than in other periods. ———————————— 5

Ludwig Schmugge, Kirche, Kinder, Karrieren. Päpstliche Dispense von der unehelichen Geburt im Spätmittelalter (Zurich: Artemis & Winkler, 1995), 173–176 (hereafter Schmugge, Kirche, Kinder, Karrieren). 6 About the dissolution of the Swedish monasteries, see Martin Berntson, Klostren och reformationen. Upplösningen av kloster och konvent i Sverige 1523–1596 [Monasteries and Reformation. The dissolution of monasteries and convents in Sweden 1523–1596] (Malmö: Prinfo, 2003). 7 Staatsarchiv, Hamburg, 710–1I, Threse I, R 71. See also ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 94, fol. 601r–v (supplication). 8 Schmugge, Kirche, Kinder, Karrieren, 176–180.


43

Schmugge also noticed in connection with his illegitimacy study (this result can be generalised for the whole Penitentiary material) that the Holy Years were not equally busy. He pointed out that the number of illegitimacy cases during the Holy Year 1450 (2100 cases) was higher than during the other Holy Years. In the years 1475 and 1500 the Penitentiary handled over 1000 illegitimacy cases, whereas during normal years there were only some 400–600 supplications. The volume of illegitimacy petitions is missing from the Jubilee of 1525.9 If one compares the Swedish pattern with the figures presented by Schmugge, one notes some differences. From the Holy Year 1450, there are 13 Swedish cases, from 1475 more than twice as many, that is, 28. From the Jubilee of 1500, there are 19 entries, while from the Holy Year 1525 there are only two recorded cases because of a missing volume from that year. These numbers also confirm my earlier hypothesis that in 1450 the Swedes had probably not yet discovered Rome and the Holy Year, and, therefore, the number of cases was relatively small. The next Holy Year, instead, was well publicised in Scandinavia, and a greater number of people left for Rome. 1500, and especially 1525, were, on the other hand, turbulent periods which may have prevented Christians from leaving for Rome.

PROVENANCE OF THE SWEDISH PETITIONS As such, the numbers of supplications tell only how many cases came from each diocese, but when these numbers are compared with the population density and richness of the dioceses, it is possible to find out whether one diocese had proportionally more connections to the Penitentiary than others. Table 7 The wealth and the number of inhabitants of the Swedish dioceses Diocese Linköping Skara Strängnäs Turku Uppsala Västerås Växjö

Tax 15th c. 0660 0470 266 2/3 0200 1000 0250 0050

Order 2 3 4 6 1 5 7

Tax 16th c. 2500 2000 2000 3000 4000 1000 0500

———————————— 9

Schmugge, Kirche, Kinder, Karrieren, 179.

Order 3 4 4 2 1 6 7

Inhabitants 200 000–250 000 150 000 075 000 250 000–300 000 150 000–180 000 050 000–60 0000 025 000–30 0000

Order 2 4 5 1 3 6 7

44


The province of Uppsala consisted of seven dioceses: the archdiocese of Uppsala, and the dioceses of Linköping, Skara, Strängnäs, Turku, Västerås and Växjö. The archdiocese of Uppsala and the diocese of Turku were territorially the biggest, but most of the areas were uninhabited. The diocese of Växjö was territorially very small, while the dioceses of Linköping, Strängnäs, Skara and Västerås were of medium size. In Table 7, the dioceses are compared on two different bases: economically and in population. In the first column are the taxes in florins that the newly elected bishops of the dioceses had to pay to the Holy See.10 These numbers reveal the idea the Holy See had about the wealth of each diocese. The archbishop of Uppsala had to pay the largest tax, 1000 florins, and followed by the bishops of Linköping, Skara, Strängnäs, Västerås, Turku, and Växjö. In order to give an idea of how big these numbers actually were when compared to the taxes paid to the Holy See in general one may consider that 12,000 florins was the biggest tax that the bishops of Rouen in France and Winchester in England had to pay, while the smallest, and quite common, tax was 33 1/3 florins. Hence, the Swedish bishops did not have to pay large amounts of money to the Holy See, but were seen as rather poor representatives within Christendom.11 Because these taxes are probably from a period too early for the years concerned here,12 I have also used another tax list from the sixteenth century for comparison, namely, what the dioceses had to pay to the Swedish Crown during the reign of King Gustav Vasa in the 1530s. If one compares these two lists, one notes that in both of them the dioceses appear in more or less the same order. Consequently, the situation had probably not changed very much in the course of the fifteenth century. Only the diocese of Turku seems to have been a bit richer according to the sixteenth-century taxes than according to the papal tax lists. I assume that the economic situation that emerges from the Swedish taxation documents corresponds better with the actual situation than the earlier numbers of the remote papal curia. ———————————— 10 About taxes see Konrad Eubel, ed., Hierarchia Catholica Medii Aevi sive Summorum Pontificum S.R.E. Cardinalium, Ecclesiarum Antistitum Series ab anno 1198 usque ad annum 1431 perducta e documentis tabularii praesertim vaticani, vol. 2 (Münster: Regensberg, 1901), 77 (Turku), 95 (Västerås), 178 (Linköping), 232 (Skara), 242 (Strängnäs), 260 (Uppsala), 266 (Växjö) (hereafter Eubel, Hierarchia). 11 Eubel, Hierarchia, vol. 2, 225 (Rouen), 269 (Winchester). 12 It is not known exactly when the Holy See established these taxes. It may be assumed that they were already in use at the beginning of the fifteenth century and, thus, they represent the situation of an earlier time period. However, since these taxes are the only information available and one knows that they were still in use until the Reformation, I consider using them here as legitimate.


45

Another important factor affecting the number of supplications is the number of inhabitants in each diocese – the more inhabitants the bigger should be the need for absolutions and dispensations. Trying to estimate the number of inhabitants in the Swedish dioceses is not easy, for no census is known from medieval Sweden. Concerning the dioceses, it is possible to estimate the number of inhabitants using the sums of Peter’s pence paid to the Holy See, for each Swedish Christian had to pay one penning – or half a penning, depending on the diocese in question. Even though these numbers are from the early period of the 1350s, they are considered valid for the late medieval period because of the effect of the Black Death that raged in Scandinavia in the first half of the 1350s. Scholars have estimated that the population only grew back to the level before the Black Death as late as the fifteenth century.13 Thus, these mid-fourteenthcentury numbers should correspond to the situation of late fifteenth-century Sweden. Fortunately, there is also another possibility for estimating the number of inhabitants; the number of Swedish households was calculated for taxation purposes in 1560.14 Since the later numbers more or less confirm the numbers deduced from the mid-fourteenth-century Peter’s pence, one may get some idea of the population in each Swedish diocese during the late Middle Ages. The only problem is to estimate the number of inhabitants in the diocese of Turku, for the Finns did not have to pay the Peter’s pence. The average estimations of the medieval Finnish population vary a great deal, from 150,000 to 300,000. Since the taxation documentation from 1560 gives an average of 330,000,15 one may assume approximately 300,000 inhabitants in Finland during the second half of the fifteenth century. Thus, as can be seen from Table 8, the wealthiest and most populated dioceses were Uppsala, Turku, and Linköping, followed by Skara, Strängnäs, Västerås, and Växjö. Table 8 shows that the number of supplications corresponds to the size, wealth and the population of each diocese, that is, to the order of the Uppsala dioceses in terms of wealth as it appears in the taxation documents, and also to the number of inhabitants. Only from the most densely populated Swedish diocese of Linköping are there fewer supplications that one might expect when, for instance, comparing it to the dioceses of Uppsala and Turku. ———————————— 13 Hans Hildebrand, Sveriges medeltid, I. Kulturhistorisk skildring (Sweden’s Middle Ages, I. Cultural historical description) (Stockholm: Norstedt & söner, 1884), 58–60 (hereafter Hildebrand, Sveriges medeltid); Yngve Brilioth, Den påfliga beskattningen af Sverige intill den stora schismen. (The papal taxation of Sweden until the Great Schism) (Uppsala: Appelbergs boktryckeri, 1915], 337–341. 14 Hildebrand, Sveriges medeltid, I, 60–61. 15 Ibidem.

46


Most Swedish petitions came from the archdiocese of Uppsala, which was the richest and biggest. The diocese of Linköping had slightly fewer contacts with the Penitentiary; it was, however, ahead of the dioceses of Skara, Strängnäs, and Västerås, which were less wealthy and not as densely populated. From the smallest diocese, Växjö, there are only very few petitions in the Penitentiary records, as one might also assume from the small size and population of the diocese. Table 8 The number and percentage of supplications from each diocese Diocese Linköping Skara Strängnäs Turku Uppsala Västerås Växjö Other Total

Cases 070.5 044.5 041.5 128.5 116.5 029.5 007.5 002.5 439.5

% 516% 510% 559% 529% 527% 557% 552% 550% 100%

Source: ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vols. 1–73.

It is, however, peculiar that the Finnish diocese of Turku is somewhat over-represented in the number of supplications. There are even more petitions from Turku than from the archdiocese of Uppsala and twice as many as from the most densely populated Swedish diocese of Linköping. One may speculate concerning this ‘extraordinary Finnish activity’ towards the Penitentiary, in comparison to the other, Swedish, dioceses; I have found that in certain cases the Finnish bishops themselves were very active in taking cases to the Penitentiary. For example, a marriage supplication, handled by the Penitentiary in July 1460, was brought to the Penitentiary because of the activity of the newly elected Finnish bishop Konrad Bitz, who visited the papal curia at that time for his consecration. It can be demonstrated that Bishop Konrad was behind this supplication, and the reason for his personal activity may be explained by the fact that the female supplicant was the daughter of his cousin.16 ———————————— 16 See Salonen, The Penitentiary, 258.


47

In conclusion, the number of petitions from the province of Uppsala corresponded well with the size, wealth and population of each diocese. Ludwig Schmugge has discovered a similar result with regard to the German Penitentiary cases.17

REASONS FOR TURNING TO THE PENITENTIARY Table 9 shows that all the different supplication categories of the Penitentiary are present for the Swedish dioceses. The two most important reasons for turning to the Penitentiary were different kinds of violations against canon law rules (de diversis formis and de declaratoriis) and matters related to illegitimacy (de defectu natalium and de uberiori). The supplications concerning marital matters (de matrimonialibus) and the petitions for confession letters (de confessionalibus) are also relatively numerous. Only the petitions in the de promotis et promovendis category were few. Comparing the Swedish distribution to that of the complete material, one notes that such a distribution was quite common in the Penitentiary registers as a whole.18 Thus, it corresponds relatively well to the general trend. Table 9 Distribution of the cases into different categories Case type Matrimony Diversis formis Declaratory Promotions Defectus natalium Uberiori Confessions Procurator Total

Number of cases 067 120 065 010 115 004 057 001 439

% 015% 027% 015% 002% 026% 001% 013% 000% 100%


———————————— 17 See the number of supplications from the German dioceses in Ludwig Schmugge, Patrick Hersperger and Béatrice Wiggenhauser, Die Supplikenregister der päpstlichen Pönitentiarie aus der Zeit Pius’ II. (1458–1464), Bibliothek des Deutschen Historischen Instituts in Rom 84 (Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1996), 220–221 (hereafter Schmugge, Hersperger and Wiggenhauser, Supplikenregister). 18 I thank Ludwig Schmugge for letting me use his still unpublished results from the period from the pontificate of Calixtus III until the pontificate of Alexander VI, i.e. from the years 1455– 1503.

48


Which kinds of cases did Swedish supplicants take to the Penitentiary? One of the early supplications, from the year 1409, is a petition by a priest from the diocese of Linköping for a job as a proctor in the Penitentiary. All the other Swedish petitions are regular supplications for a dispensation or an absolution.

MATRIMONY The Penitentiary material from the province of Uppsala contains 67 marriage supplications.19 The first petition for a marriage dispensation or/and absolution is from July 1438 and the last one is from 1513. Concerning the provenance of the petitions (Table 10), it is surprising that half of the cases came from the diocese of Turku. The diocese of Uppsala is also quite well represented, with one third of the petitions, while from the other Swedish dioceses there are only a few cases. Table 10 The number and percentage of marriage supplications from each diocese Diocese Linköping Skara Strängnäs Turku Uppsala Västerås Växjö Crown Total

Cases 54.5 53.5 51.5 35.5 19.5 51.5 51.5 51.5 67.5

% 556% 555% 552% 552% 529% 551% 552% 551% 100%


When studying the Swedish marriage petitions more closely, a common feature can be found: They were quite often taken to the Penitentiary together with other similar supplications. These jointly made petitions also often came from the same or neighbouring dioceses – never Finnish and Swedish petitions together. It was also noted that the jointly presented supplications often origi———————————— 19 About the Swedish marriage cases in the Penitentiary, see also Salonen, The Penitentiary, 2001, 251–278 and concerning the ecclesiastical marriage legislation, see Schmugge, Hersperger and Wiggenhauser, Supplikenregister, 68–72 and Salonen, The Penitentiary, 103–119.


49

nated from the members of the same family, from siblings or from cousins. For example, once the Penitentiary handled together the petitions of four sisters from the archdiocese of Uppsala.20 These jointly made marriage petitions are quite understandable, as the petitions for receiving a dispensation (and an absolution) from a marital impediment were matters of no hurry. Quite often, the couples who turned to the Holy See to remedy an impediment were already married. But just as often one finds couples who were still engaged and wanted to be legally married.21 Among the marriage supplications one also finds another interesting phenomenon: the renewing of one’s supplication. The regulations of canon law stipulated that a papal letter of grace was valid only if all the details mentioned in the letter were correct.22 For this reason, some couples had to renew their supplications. These renewals were particularly common among the marriage supplications, for the petitioners normally were not personally in the curia while their supplication was handled, and sometimes it happened that the proctor who took care of their case made errors in the details. Quite often these were errors in the impediment (fourth degree instead of third, or consanguinity instead of affinity) or in other conditions of the marriage.23 The legal procedure in the marriage cases – as well as in the other cases – was that once the couple had received the letter of grace, they had to present this letter to the local bishop (or some other prelate) who, after having examined the correctness of the details mentioned in it, gave them the permit to get married. If the examiner noticed some error he could not let the couple get married and they had to procure a new letter of dispensation. For instance, a Finnish couple, Sten Henriksson of the Renhuvud family and Anna Jakobsdotter of the Kurki family, appears three times in the Penitentiary records. In the first entry, it is said that they were already married, that they were related to each other by the double fourth degree of consanguinity, and that they had consummated their marriage in ignorance of the impediment. In the second version, the impediment of consanguinity was corrected to affinity; the final version stated that they had gotten married and consummated the marriage even though they were aware of their relationship to each other by the double fourth degree of affinity. As they

———————————— 20 ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 43, fol. 3v–4r. 21 See also Salonen, The Penitentiary, 267. 22 X 4.14.6: Non valet dispensatio, obtenta a Papa super matrimonio inter consanguineos contracto, si ibi causa falsa sit expressa, nisi postea eam Papa confirmaret. H.d. secundum verum et communem intellectum. 23 See also Salonen, The Penitentiary, 261–264.

50


were already married, they do not seem to have been in a hurry to renew their supplication, for the first entry dates from September 1470, the second from December 1471, and the last and correct one from August 1477.24 The reason why the marriage supplications had to be renewed depended not only on the fact that the couple wanted a legal ecclesiastical marriage, but also – and more probably – on the fact that it legalised the position of their children. The legal position was especially important for men who wanted to strive for an ecclesiastical career, as the church did not allow illegitimate children to become priests without a dispensation. Another important reason for legalising children was economic. For instance, in some societies, children born from an illegal relationship had no right to inherit from their parents. There are several medieval cases where the relatives tried to deprive someone the right to inherit by claiming that they were illegitimate.25 The third particularity in the Swedish marriage petitions is the social status of the petitioners. When I tried to identify the Swedish supplicants,26 I found that most of the Swedish petitioners were of the upper class. Several noble families could be identified, like Tott, Sture, and Bielke. When comparing the large proportion of the upper class supplicants in the Swedish material to the results of other studies of supplicants asking for marriage dispensations, one can note that such a remarkable proportion of upper class or noble persons is not a normal situation in the Penitentiary records. For example, Paolo Ostinelli has found that most petitioners from the diocese of Como in northern Italy were common people.27

———————————— 24 ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 18, fol. 46v (September 13, 1470); vol. 20, fol. 24v (December 13, 1471); vol. 25, fol. 63v (August 6, 1477). 25 Medieval Swedish law was very tolerant in this case. It also granted illegitimate children the right to inherit from their parents – but only if they had recognised the children as theirs (Magnus Erikssons landslag, Giftermålsbalken, vol. 2 § 5: Avlar en man barn i lönskaläge, och tager han sedan den kvinnan till laggift hustru, då tager det barnet arv liksom laggift hustrus barn. Ty då han bättrade kvinnan, då bättrade han ock barnet; Upplandslagen, Ärvdabalken 18. ... Avlas barn av fästehjon, sådant barn skall taga arv och orv. Tvistas därom och säger någon, att honicke varit lagligen fäst, då skall hon styrka det med åtta fastar ... 26 Identifying the supplicants is not easy and in many cases also not possible. The scribes of the Penitentiary often latinised the local names (Fisher becomes Pescator, for example), and this practice often makes the persons unidentifiable. Also the numerous mistakes in the spelling of difficult German or Scandinavian names, not to mention those from Ireland or Scotland, make the entries not understandable. 27 Paolo Ostinelli, Penitenzieria Apostolica. Le suppliche alla Sacra Penitenzieria Apostolica provenienti dalla diocesi di Como (1438–1484), Materiali di storia ecclesiastica lombarda (secoli XIV–XVI), 5 (Milan: Ed. Unicopli, 2003).


51

There are several explanations for the over-representation of the members of the Swedish upper class as petitioners. One of them is the scarcity of upper class and noble persons in Sweden, and especially in Finland, meaning that, in practice, they had to marry a relative if they wanted to marry someone of their own rank, and in this case they needed a dispensation. Another possible explanation is that an ecclesiastical wedding was not considered that important in Scandinavia, where, according to customary law, marriage was considered an economic transaction between two families.28 Thus, it might be claimed that the Swedes, at least those who did not have so much property that they had to be worried about their children’s legal position before the ecclesiastical and secular authorities, did not consider the ecclesiastical wedding and dispensation so important that they would have bothered turning to the papal curia. The third possible explanation for the rare presence of common people in the Penitentiary records is that poor people might have received their dispensations locally, through the papal legates, for example, who had the right to grant a certain number of such dispensations. Furthermore, it is also possible that the Swedish bishops had some special privilege for granting marriage dispensations for poor people – even though the sources do not mention it. However, this was the case in Denmark, where Per Ingesman found that at least one Danish bishop (and thus probably also the others) had a special privilege to grant dispensations.29

CHALLENGING CANON LAW The Penitentiary records offer information about 185 cases in which the Swedes had broken or wanted to act against canon law.30 65 of the Swedish petitions were registered as declaratory cases; in almost all of them the supplicant claimed innocence concerning someone’s death and asked for a declaration. 120 suppli———————————— 28 The Catholic Church established its authority in marriage matters in Sweden very late. The provincial laws from the thirteenth century describe marriage only as a secular matter, while the medieval Swedish Landlaw (Magnus Erikssons Landslag from the 1350s) recognised the role of the church in marriages, but did not force the Swedes to enter into an ecclesiastical marriage contract. 29 Per Ingesman, “Danish Marriage Dispensations: Evidence of an Increasing Lay Use of Papal Letters in the Late Middle Ages”, in: Kirsi Salonen and Christian Krötzl, ed., The Roman Curia, the Apostolic Penitentiary and the Partes in the Later Middle Ages, Acta Instituti Romani Finlandiae 28 (Rome: Institutum Romanum Finlandiae, 2003), 129–157, esp. 146–147. 30 About the Swedish cases in the de diversis formis and de declaratoriis groups, see also Salonen, The Penitentiary, 278–339; concerning the ecclesiastical legislation in these cases, see Schmugge, Hersperger and Wiggenhauser, Supplikenregister, 96–162, and Salonen, The Penitentiary, 119– 175.

52


cations are registered in the de diversis formis category, the supplicant asking for absolution with regard to breaking canon law or for dispensation because of such an intention. Most of the petitions came from the most populated dioceses, that is, Turku, Linköping, and Uppsala, while there were fewer from Skara, Strängnäs, Västerås, and Växjö. The first of these Swedish petitions dates from 1439, and the last one was approved in 1526. Table 11 The number and percentage of the de diversis formis and de declaratoriis supplications from the Swedish dioceses Diocese Linköping Skara Strängnäs Turku Uppsala Västerås Växjö Crown Total

Cases 539 523 527 548 533 511 553 551 185

% 521% 512% 515% 526% 518% 556% 552% 551% 100%

Source: ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vols. 1-73.

What kinds of cases were handled in the Penitentiary? Table 12 presents the different de diversis formis and de declaratoriis cases according to the content of the supplication. Approximately two out of three cases concerned violence or someone’s death, quite severe crimes against canon law. Other Swedish cases were about monastic matters such as apostasy or transfer from one monastery or order to another, priests celebrating mass for excommunicated people or others being sentenced as excommunicated, sacrilege, dispensation (or commutatio) from a religious vow, corporal defect, sexual misconduct, marriage, fasting, wrong ordination, priests’ participation in war, arresting a priest, overstepping one’s priestly authorities, etc. These numbers show that the Swedes did not leave for the papal curia because of small matters, but the supplications concerned quite severe situations such as violence or even murder or manslaughter. Many murder cases are registered as declaratory supplications. The petitioners, who were often priests, had normally – because of a violent act followed by a quarrel – caused the death of another person and wanted a declaration that they were not judged guilty of murder but of an involuntary manslaughter that, according to canon law, was

53


not a crime because of having been caused involuntarily. In these cases, the question of self-defence that had lead to the death of the aggressor often occurred. Knowing that a priest who was guilty of a murder was not suitable for altar service, being declared guilty of murder would have meant the end of an ecclesiastical career for many clerics. Instead, if they could procure a letter of declaration that assured that they were not guilty of murder they could keep their benefices. This also explains why so many priests asked for a declaration, while laymen just admitted that they had killed someone and asked for absolution.31 Table 12 Different kinds of cases in de diversis formis and de declaratoriis categories Type of case Murder Violence Monastery Exc./Interd. Sacrilege Vow Def.corp Sexual crime Marriage Fasting Ordination War Judging Def.nat. Arrest Authority Spec.exc. Other Total

div. f. 041 025 017 005 002 003 001 004 001 002 002 002 005 000 001 002 001 006 120

% 034% 021% 014% 004% 002% 003% 001% 003% 001% 002% 002% 002% 004% 000% 001% 002% 001% 005% 100%

decl. 50 01 05 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 06 02 01 00 00 00 00 65

% 077% 002% 008% 000% 000% 000% 000% 000% 000% 000% 000% 009% 003% 002% 000% 000% 000% 000% 100%

Total 091 026 022 005 002 003 001 004 001 002 002 008 007 001 001 002 001 006 185

% 049% 014% 012% 003% 001% 002% 001% 002% 001% 001% 001% 004% 004% 001% 001% 001% 001% 003% 100%


The supplicants whose petitions were registered as the de diversis formis and de declaratoriis petitions were more often personally present in Rome than the supplicants whose petitions were of some other type. For a person (often a priest) who was accused of a murder and wanted to cleanse his con———————————— 31 See also Salonen, The Penitentiary, 73–77.

54


science, it was probably, better to act as quickly as possible. Thus, some supplicants left for Rome to handle their case there personally. The Penitentiary records testify the presence of the supplicants in 45 cases, meaning that approximately every fourth person came to the curia personally. Sometimes, their presence is explicitly mentioned in the supplication (in curia romana presens, or ad curiam romanam venit), sometimes it emerges from the taxation mark (gratis pro presente paupere) or from the fact that the case was committed to a person in the curia, like the minor penitentiaries in St. Peter’s, for further examination.32

PROMOTIONS Only ten Swedish cases fall into the de promotis et promovendis category. The first three cases originated from the year 1439 and the last two from quite late years, 1522 and 1524. In between there are three cases from the 1460s and two from the 1470s. All dioceses from the province of Uppsala are represented in these ten cases: from Skara there are three petitions, from Linköping and Turku two and from the other dioceses one case each. One finds supplications for the dispensation from a bodily defect or from a promotion regulation of canon law (extra tempora or for being promoted by someone else than the local bishop). Five of the Swedish petitions concern the defect of age. The supplicants did not ask for a dispensation in advance; they had already been promoted illegally and wanted to be absolved and dispensed to make their promotions and positions valid. Three cases concern bodily defect: two the deformity of a thumb and one insufficient sight in the left eye. Two petitioners just wanted to be promoted without referring to any defect or special need.33

ILLEGITIMACY The Swedes turned to the Penitentiary with 119 illegitimacy petitions, of which four were de uberiori supplications (3%); all others concerned simple de defectu natalium dispensations.34 According to the studies of Schmugge, such a propor———————————— 32 See, more precisely, ibidem, 282–285. 33 About the Swedish promotion cases in the Penitentiary, see also ibidem, 339–344; about the ecclesiastical legislation concerning the ecclesial promotions Schmugge, Hersperger and Wiggenhauser, Supplikenregister, 196–198, and Salonen, The Penitentiary, 178–192. 34 About the Swedish illegitimacy cases in the Penitentiary, see also Salonen, The Penitentiary, 344–358.


55

tion of these two categories is typical for the whole Penitentiary material.35 Furthermore, in Scandinavia there were few possibilities for such pluralism as was commonly known in the papal curia, and, therefore, it is normal that the proportion of the de uberiori cases is relatively small. The Swedish illegitimacy petitions vary in the period from 1410 until 1516. There is a diminishing tendency in the number of supplications when coming closer to the Reformation. This certainly depends partly on the fact that the Penitentiary records from the later period have not survived entirely, but, as Schmugge has noted similar tendencies in the whole material, this is probably not just a coincidence. It could be possible – even though not yet verified by local sources – that during the last years before the Reformation there were more channels for getting this type of dispensation locally, just as with the marriage supplications. Table 13 presents the number of illegitimacy petitions from the Swedish dioceses. It shows that every third illegitimacy petition came from the archdiocese of Uppsala, every fifth from Turku, and so on – more or less according to the general trend in the material from the whole province. Table 13 The number and percentage of illegitimacy supplications from each diocese Diocese Linköping Skara Strängnäs Turku Uppsala Västerås Växjö Total

Cases 519 512 557 . 522 542 .514 553 119

% 516% 510% 556% 518% 535% 512% 553% 100%

Source: ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vols. 1-73.

Like the marriage supplications, the illegitimacy petitions were also quite often brought to the curia together with other similar supplications from the same or neighbouring dioceses. Also in the illegitimacy cases, the presence of the petitioners in the curia was extremely rare. The accumulation of petitions is ———————————— 35 About the ecclesiastical legislation concerning the illegitimacy and the illegitimacy cases handled by the Penitentiary during 1448–1533, see Schmugge, Kirche, Kinder, Karrieren.

56


quite understandable, for dispensations from illegitimacy were matters that did not require urgent intervention. Illegitimacy was also not a sudden surprise for the supplicants, and when a young man decided to strive for an ecclesiastical career he had plenty of time to procure dispensations before he reached the age when he could be promoted to the priesthood. In fact, two supplicants out of three declared themselves to be schoolboys or students (scolares), meaning that they asked for dispensation in good time. Only four Swedish petitioners had been illegally promoted to priesthood despite their illegitimacy. Comparing the information about the social background of the parents of the illegal supplicants to the general trend discovered by Schmugge, it can be noted that in the Swedish evidence the proportion of priest fathers is slightly higher than in the whole material (70% against 60%). This higher percentage may be seen as a sign of some kind of continuity so that priests’ sons often followed their fathers’ footsteps. One could also speculate about the low morals of the Swedish priests, but I do not see this as an explanation for this phenomenon.

CONFESSION There are, in total, 55 Swedish petitions for confession letters, plus one supplication for a licence to carry a portable altar and another for receiving a de sententiis generalibus licence.36 Table 14 shows the provenance of the Swedish confession petitions, which came from all dioceses. The proportional division of the cases does not, however, correspond to the size of the dioceses or to the number of inhabitants. A bit more than one third of the supplications came from the archdiocese of Uppsala, and another ample third from the diocese of Turku. There were only few petitions from the other Swedish dioceses. Compared to the Swedes, the Finns were thus especially active in asking for confession letters. One reason for this is the possibility of having similar letters from other authorities. I have observed that the presence of indulgence sellers can be seen directly in the number of supplications, for there are no petitions from those periods when indulgence-sellers were active in Sweden. As Finland was situated far from Sweden, the indulgence sellers seldom ended up in Finland, and the Finns had to turn to the Penitentiary for receiving them.37 ———————————— 36 About the Swedish confession petitions in the Penitentiary, see also Salonen, The Penitentiary, 358–369; about the ecclesiastical legislation concerning the letters of confession, see Schmugge, Hersperger and Wiggenhauser, Supplikenregister, 207–208, 210, and Salonen, The Penitentiary, 203–210. 37 See Salonen, The Penitentiary, 364–367.


57

Table 14 The number and percentage of confession supplications from each diocese Diocese Linköping Skara Strängnäs Turku Uppsala Västerås Växjö Crown Total

Cases 55 52 55 21 21 52 50 51 57

% 559% 554% 559% 537% 537% 554% 550% 552% 100%


The petitions for confession letters are limited between the years 1438 and 1500. It is quite interesting that after 1500 there are no more such supplications. In my opinion, this results mainly from two facts. Firstly, the confession letters were not really necessary, and, because of the turbulent political situation in Scandinavia, the Swedes probably had other interests than thinking of sending such petitions to Rome. Furthermore, one also had other possibilities for procuring similar kinds of graces: the indulgence sellers who were actively travelling all over Christendom. Sometimes several petitions for having a confession letter were carried together to the Penitentiary. This happened, however, quite rarely, and, in these cases, the petitions were always from one and the same diocese. The confession letter supplications sent jointly occur sometimes in connection with the Holy Years, when groups of pilgrims came together to Rome and presented their petitions together.

CONCLUSION Compared to the complete material, the number of 439 Swedish cases in this period is very small. But if one considers it against the Scandinavian source material that has been preserved from the same period, one deals with an important addition to our knowledge about the Swedish Middle Ages. All the Swedish cases are of quite an ordinary type, as a small number of petitions means that the variety in their contents remains smaller. The Swedes seemed to turn to the Penitentiary in similar matters as all other Christians, but

58


there are also some ‘national’ tendencies to be traced. The most striking of these differences in the content of the petitions can be seen in the de diversis formis and the de declaratoriis entries; the Swedish corpus contains proportionally many more severe cases than one finds when studying all the entries. This means that the Swedes did not turn to the Penitentiary for small matters, but, mainly, only when they really had to do so, for example, after having murdered or mutilated someone. This tendency probably depended on the long distance between Sweden and the papal curia. Swedes did not want to leave for the long and expensive journey to Rome for minor issues. Another reason for going to Rome with a petition was the high social rank of a person. The nobility had more need (and the money) to turn to the Holy See; they wanted to make sure that their marriages were legal in order to be sure that their offspring were legitimate. On the other hand, getting absolved from an excommunication was more important for priests, who could not exercise their priestly functions before they were absolved. The higher the priestly rank of the supplicant, the more important the supplication became. Concerning the distribution of the cases on the time-axis it can be stated that the relatively late relations between Sweden and the Roman Church, as well as the politically turbulent times in Scandinavia, may be seen as a reason for the small number of petitions in the earlier part of the treated period. Similarly, the number of petitions tended to diminish close to the Reformation, which also probably depended on the difficult political situation in Scandinavia.

PRE-REFORMATION SCOTTISH MARRIAGE CASES IN THE ARCHIVES OF THE PAPAL PENITENTIARY Irene Furneaux

For a marriage to be deemed canonically legal, couples had to marry outside the prohibited degrees of consanguinity and affinity which, until 1215, had stood at seven. Pope Innocent III, concerned about illegal marriages, relaxed these degrees from seventh to fourth at Lateran IV in 1215, but this remedy still placed prohibitive restrictions on the choice of partners, especially amongst the nobility in a small country such as Scotland. The Penitentiary registers are a rich source for discovering how these prohibitions affected the attitudes of the Scottish people.1 Cosmo Innes quoted the comment of the Archbishop of St. Andrews, John Hamilton who, writing in 1554, stated that “such was the connection between families in Scotland, that it was scarce possible to match two persons of good birth who should not come within the forbidden degrees; and on that account (ut sunt hominum ingenia semper in vitium proclivia) many married without dispensation.”2 The marriage cases from Scotland are mostly concerned with the degrees of relationships in which the couple found themselves. It was discovered during the research that an inordinately high volume of supplications reached the Penitentiary during the years 1500–1508. From 1438 until 1500, the average ———————————— 1

I would like to take this opportunity to thank James J. Robertson from the Faculty of Law at the University of Dundee for allowing me easy access to the archive which was acquired under the auspices of the Ross Fund; also for his patience in assisting me with my research and for all the scholarly advice he has so willingly imparted. His article on Scottish legal research done in the Vatican Archives gives a good overview of the material kept there. James Robertson, “Scottish Legal Research in the Vatican Archives: A Preliminary Report”, Renaissance Studies 2 (1988), 339–347. Leslie J. MacFarlane has also touched on the subject. Leslie MacFarlane, “The Vatican Archives: With Special Reference to Sources for Medieval British History”, Archives 4 (1959), 29–44, 84–101. 2 Cosmo Innes, Liber Officialis Sancti Andree (Edinburgh: The Abbotsford Club, 1845), xxv. See also on this topic John Barry, William Hay’s Lectures on Marriage (Edinburgh: The Stair Society, 1967); James Brundage, Law, Sex and Christian Marriage in Medieval Europe (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987).

60


number of cases going to Rome every year was 10. From 1500 to 1508, this figure suddenly increased to an average of 41 cases each year before decreasing again from 1509 to 1533 with an average of 5 cases. In considering these figures we must ask ourselves why there should have been such a surge of supplications from 1500 to 1508. In 1503, King James IV of Scotland married Margaret Tudor, daughter of Henry VII of England, thus affording him “a unique opportunity to expand the scope of the cult of the Stewart monarchy”,3 a course which he quickly pursued. In the Sixth Parliament of James IV, held at Edinburgh in 1504, an Act was passed stating That it be liefful to our Soveraine Lord to set all his landes in few, and the Act directly following was worded That it sall be liefful to everie man baith Spiritual and Temporal, to set their landes in few.4 With these acts came, as Jenny Wormald notes, “one of the most dramatic changes in Scottish society with a sudden infusion into the local level of a new group of landed proprietors, many of whom succeeded in greatly increasing their wealth’.5 James J. Robertson suggests that in fifteenth century Scotland, there was a deliberate evolution of the law of leases and three acts changed a personal right into a real right. Firstly on April 16, 1429, an act passed which gave tenants security for a year unless the landowners wanted the land for their own use. Next an act giving the tenant real right to possession was passed on January 19, 1450, whereby tenants were permitted to stay on their lands until the end of their leases irrespective of changes in ownership of the lands and then finally, an act passed on November 20, 1469, gave the tenant protection against distraint by a landlord’s creditor, thus ensuring that the tenancy and possessions were secure. He further suggests that with the introduction of the instrument of sasine, which records a conveyance in writing instead of by a charter, which relies on its authenticity with witnesses and seals, reflected an increasing commercialism in society and long with this commercialism came the encouragement of feu farming by an act of March 6, 1458, making land the subject of commerce.6 However it was not until the Act of 1504 that feu farming began in earnest and that as Leslie Macfarlaine states:

———————————— 3 4

5

6

Michael Lynch, Scotland a New History (London: Pimlico, 1998), 160. Thomas Murray of Glendook, The Laws and Acts of Parliament made by James the First and his Royal Successors Kings and Queen of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1682), vol. 1, 187–188 (hereafter: Murray of Glendook, The Laws and Acts). Jenny Wormald, Court, Kirk, and Community. Scotland 1470–1625. (London: Arnold, 1981; reprint Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1992), 80 (hereafter Wormald, Court Kirk and Community). James J. Robertson, “The Development of the Law”. in: Jennifer M. Brown, ed., Scottish Society in the Fifteenth Century (London: Arnold, 1977), 144–149.

PRE-REFORMATION SCOTTISH MARRIAGE CASES

61

“Its popularity had much to do with rising land values, but more with the fact that the feuars at last had security of tenure, which would now be heritable, and that they also were possessed of the rights which went with the fey.”7 Thus, people who could afford it bought land, secure in the knowledge that their land was now heritable and they had security of tenure. These were the people most likely to be responsible for the large increase seen in the number of marriage supplications to the papal Penitentiary in the years 1500 to 1508. The Jubilee Year of 1500 would possibly have prompted the increase of supplications seen in 1499–15008 and in 1500–1501,9 when there were 29 and 60 cases respectively (conversely, in the Jubilee year of 1475, there had been only twenty-eight cases). Much of this activity around 1500 is perhaps due to the piety of the faithful, but unfortunately one cannot know if there was a fall in numbers afterwards, because for 1502–150310 only a fragment of the records survived in the register.11 Among the fragments of this volume are four Scottish supplications and all four are dated November 10, 1503, during the Sede Vacante, two weeks before Julius della Rovere was crowned Julius II. In 1503–1504 however, Scottish activity began to build up, with 33 cases recorded in vol. 52,12 but again one cannot say for certain if this build-up progressed because the volumes for the first and second pontifical years of Julius II, namely 1504–1505 and 1505–1506, are also missing. It is a great pity that the two volumes crucial to the study of marriage in Scotland are missing but it is to be assumed that in all probability the number of cases did increase, because in 1506–150713 one finds an astonishing 102 marriage supplications followed by 39 in 1507–150814 and 21 in 1509–151015. Piety can be dismissed as the reason for this sudden increase in the Scottish supplications; indeed the records suggest another reason as will be seen from this breakdown of a ten-year period from 1498/1499 to 1510/1511 of the various categories within the register. ———————————— 07 Leslie J. Macfarlane, William Elphinstone and the Kingdom of Scotland 1431–1514 the Struggle for Order. (Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press, 1995), 415–416 (hereafter Macfarlane, William Elphinstone). 08 ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 49. 09 ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 50. 10 ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 51. 11 See also Kirsi Salonen, The Penitentiary as a Well of Grace in the Late Middle Ages. The Example of the Province of Uppsala 1448–1527. Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian Toimituksia – Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae 313 (Saarijärvi: Academia Scientiarum Fennica, 2001), 425 (hereafter Salonen, The Penitentiary). 12 ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 52. 13 ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol 53 14 ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 54 15 ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 55.

62


As can be seen, in the year 1506–1507, there was a slight increase in de diversis formis, de promotis et promovendis and de defectu natalium categories. By far the largest category is de matrimonialibus which peaked, the same year as the king gave his commissioners authority to feu ferme Ettrick forest, profitability of this can be seen from the rent received. In 1501, before the act of Parliament, the forest had brought in 525£ 13s 4d which by 1510 had risen to £7,269.16 Table 15 Scottish cases in the Penitentiary records Vol. 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 sub total Faculties: 53 55 56 Totals

Marriage 041 029 060 052 004 033 102 039 021 018 489

Diversis 00 03 04 04 00 00 06 03 05 06 31

Declar 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 5

Promot 00 00 01 00 00 03 04 00 02 01 11

Def nat 14 15 10 03 03 08 25 14 05 02 99

Confess 01 02 05 00 00 02 00 00 00 00 10

Uberiori 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

036 035 060 620

31

5

11

99

10

0

Source: ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 47-56.

The Statute of 1504 gave men permission to set their lands in feu. This new faculty sparked a frenzy of activity from the newly landed classes to ensure the legitimization of their marriages and their offspring. As their land was heritable, it became essential to ensure clarity in the line of succession; thus one sees multiple entries from the same kin groups. The regularization of their marriages would have consolidated their holdings. Many of the important families of Scotland, and especially those from the borders, were well represented in the surge to legitimize their marriages and offspring to ensure succession. There was much inter-marrying between families, making a canonically legal marriage almost impossible. Most of the cases in ———————————— 16 Macfarlane, William Elphinstone, 415.


63

the register concern either single or double relations of consanguinity, but there are variations occurring throughout the material. Gilbert Hay and Agnes Gordon17 were cousins and stood in second degree of consanguinity but received dispensation nonetheless, as did Alexander Kildayre and Elizabeth Murray18 who were second cousins. Multiple entries include William Gordon and Joneta Ogilvy19 who made supplications three times within four years, first they declared the fourth degree of affinity, then the third and third degrees of consanguinity, and finally third and fourth degrees of consanguinity. This possibly arose from squabbling within the family regarding the lawful ownership of land, in which case William and Joneta may have presumed it prudent to ensure that the wording of the supplication made their marriage as watertight as possible to ensure their children’s inheritance. The same may possibly be true for Jacob Maitland and Margareta Douglas20 with first the fourth degree of consanguinity and the fourth degree of affinity and then with fourth degree of consanguinity and fourth and fourth degrees of affinity. George Chesum and Helena Scot are slightly different, in that their second supplication concerned Helena’s relationship not only to George’s first wife but also to his mistress, whom he had known carnally many times. Helena must have balked at this, but may have felt it necessary for her children’s future.21 It must also be kept in mind that at the time many nobles in Scotland, in line with the rest of Europe, kept a mistress, sometimes more than one.22 With regard to the spiritual relationship (cognatio spiritualis), Margaretta Newton’s father was godfather to Jacob Scot and had “held him at the baptismal font”, and thus was affine to Margaret.23 Interestingly, two of these supplications come from paupers. These persons may have been without cash at the time of their petition, but they or their offspring must have stood to inherit in the future; although the Penitentiary described them as paupers, it made them pay the fees, possibly forcing them to scrape together the money to have their marriages and offspring legitimized. Michael Banatan and Catherina Cairncross24 may have been disappointed at the ———————————— 17 18 19 20 21 22

ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 53, fol. 110v. ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 52, fol. 166r–v. ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 49, fol. 170v–171r; vol. 52, fol. 121r–v. ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 53, fol. 93v; vol. 53, fol. 128r. ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 49, fol. 146r–v; vol. 53, fol. 133v. George Duby, Medieval Marriage. Two Models from Twelfth-Century France (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1991), 93–94; Duby mentions Count Baldwin II whose funeral was attended by 33 of his sons and daughters, ten from his wife and 23 illegitimate offspring. 23 ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 53, fol. 133v. 24 ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 55, fol. 561v.

64


outcome of their supplication, as not only did they have to pay, but also the case was committed to the Abbot of the Cistercian Monastery of Melrose, where they had to do their penance. These two cases consequently were not classed as gratis pro pauperi presenti [free for paupers present in Rome], which is in contrast to another supplication by a couple claiming to be of poor status.25 These few cases illustrate that in a small, closely knit, endogamous society based on kinship, there was a remarkable knowledge of who was related to whom, which today would seem irrelevant to all but a few. After 1508, there was again a decrease in the use of the Penitentiary by the Scots for marriage supplications. One possible reason for this was the increasing use of Faculties to dispense couples within the prohibited degrees; 19 of them were requested by Church officials between 1506 and 1535, where my research to date ends. I have chosen a few of these entries to illustrate the types of faculty for which these ecclesiastics supplicated. These samples also show the change in the register that first appears in the Scottish material in January 1510 where the inclusion of the cost of the petition along with the name of the proctor appeared at the beginning of the entry. The regular appearance of only a few names would suggest that proctors were allocated to cases from certain countries, hence the appearance of Galteri in the Scottish material in 1517 and he is still handling Scottish cases 18 years later in 1535. On February 16, 1507, the vicar26 acting on behalf of Alexander Stewart, the fifteen-year-old illegitimate son of James IV, who had been trained and educated from birth for a high position in the church and who was now Archbishop of Saint Andrews,27 made a supplication for a license to dispense 24 couples with no stipulated time limit. At this stage, the cost is not recorded in the register. In the same year, on June 16,28 Patrick Murray, treasurer of Dunblane, made a petition for a license to dispense twelve couples, with neither time limit nor cost. Entered on July 30, 1510,29 Gavin Douglas, provost of the Church of the Blessed Giles in Edinburgh, made a supplication for a license to dispense ten couples to run for four years with still no cost as yet. On July 15, 1510,30 Gilbert Strath———————————— 25 See below. 26 Presumably a Dominican named John Adamson. 27 ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 53, fol. 41v–42r. On the tender age of the Archbishop: Norman Macdougall, James IV (East Linton: Tuckwell, 1997), 156; Wormald, Court, Kirk, and Community, 80; Robert Hannay, The Letters of James the Fourth. 1505–1513 (Edinburgh: Scottish History Society, 1953), xxix; John Dowden, The Bishops of Scotland (Glasgow: James Maclehose, 1912), 37. 28 ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 53, fol. 133r. 29 ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 55, fols. 433r–v. 30 ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 55, fols. 316v–317r.


65

achin, Canon of Brechin, made a petition for a license to dispense 25 couples over four years at a cost of 201 papal ducats, and then on November 24, 1524,31 Gavin Dunbar, Archbishop of Glasgow, made a supplication for a license to dispense ten couples over four years at a cost of 121 ducats. On April 13, 1527,32 John Dingwall, Provost of the Holy Trinity Church near Edinburgh and Chancellor of Aberdeen, in tandem with Gilbert Strathachin, who was then Master Canon of the Church in Aberdeen and Moray, made a supplication for a license for John to dispense 23 couples at a cost of 259 ducats, and for Gilbert to dispense 21 couples at a cost of 211 ducats, respectively, over five years. It would seem that they had decided to enter supplications together and dispense each other’s Faculties, as John Dingwall’s contains the words “supplicate that the Pope would license him who is an Apostolic Notary or Gilbert Strathachin [a clerk canon of Aberdeen and Moray also an Apostolic Notary],” and Gilbert Strathachin’s33 supplication has the same wording vice versa. Gilbert Strachachin is regularly mentioned in the letters of James IV as being in Rome, so the possible reason for sharing the Faculty arises, as John Dingwall would also have gone to Rome at some point. Within the text of John Dingwall’s supplication we discover the reason for these Faculties: Many of the faithful in Scotland, to make peace and friendship among relatives and avert enmity and dissention and for other reasons arrange marriages within the forbidden degrees but because of the great distance from the Apostolic See cannot obtain dispensation. The final Faculty supplication found until now is dated March 6, 1533,34 again from John Dingwall of the Holy Trinity in Edinburgh, in which he made a supplication for a license to dispense 25 couples at a cost of 301 ducats. John names one John Thornton, presumably to share the dispensing but, alas, the subsequent folio is missing, so we cannot know for sure. Also, the time scale and cost of the dispensation would have been on this folio. In all, these Faculties cover 30 years and number in total 195, which gives an average of thirteen dispensations per year. From the prices found, one can average out that a dispensation cost 12.5 ducats to the holder of a Faculty, which was the same price as at the Penitentiary.

———————————— 31 32 33 34

ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 73, fols. 1795r–1796v. ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 75, fols. 305r–306v. ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 75, fols. 306v–307r. ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 80, fol. 229–231 (old foliation).

66


However, in making a supplication to Rome costs would have been added for the procurators along with their travel expenses, bed and board and, certainly, many incidentals along the way. So, a dispensation granted in Scotland was cheaper. This remains unknown but it would be an interesting topic for investigation. The traffic in expensive appeals, which employed a large contingent of Scottish lawmen who traveled regularly to and resided in Rome, and which was “lavishing money to Rome”, was a constant worry to the king. As early as 1493 he exhorted his subjects to “refrain from the practice”, with little effect; and again in 1560 an Act was passed requiring supplications to be given to the Lords of the Session, which met with the same result. It is not until after the Reformation, in 1581, that an Act was passed describing the evils of appeals in declamatory language.35 In accounting for the drop in supplications to the Penitentiary while the Scottish faculties remained relatively stable in numbers, several possible reasons can be suggested. First, it is highly likely that couples, still making supplications to Rome, belonged to the upper classes of Scottish society, the great landowners and those newly enriched by the recent changes enabling them to feu their lands. They would have been the only ones able to afford this avenue and, in fact, the only Scottish supplication componat cum camera and componit J pontificus that I found was on March 5, 1513,36 when a couple from Candidacasa Diocese paid an enormous 48 ducats for their dispensation from cognatio spiritualis and the third degree of both consanguinity and affinity. It is interesting to note that this entry in the register was written during sede vacante, twelve days after Julius II died and six days before Leo X had been elected. In sharp contrast to this, in 152337 I found a couple from Glasgow Diocese, the only paupers to receive a free dispensation with declaratory letters fiat de speciali and gratis pro pauperi presenti.38 The ecclesiastical Faculties would have been within easy financial reach of the newly emerging merchant classes, but when we consider that the forbidden degrees of consanguinity and affinity were so prohibitive to canonically legal wedlock within such small a country, a total average of thirteen dispensations a year from each source does not seem to be a great number. ———————————— 35 Lord Patrick Fraser, Treatise on Husband and Wife according to the Law of Scotland (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1876), vol. 1, 10. 36 ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 58, fol. 209v. 37 ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 69, fol. 146v. 38 It has been noted that these supplicants were not necessarily poor, but sometimes a dispensation was granted for free when the officials of the Penitentiary wanted to grant a favour to someone who was close to the office or to the Pope. The real pauperes had to make an oath of povery in order to get their graces for free. Salonen, The Penitentiary, 85.


67

A second reason could be that the people were heeding the king’s exhortations on the evils of appeals to Rome and beginning to use the Courts of the Officials; but the Scots, in sharp contrast to the English, seemed reluctant to use these courts and preferred dealing directly with Rome.39 This could be accounted for by the fact that Scotland, with the exception of Galloway and Orkney, had been part of the Roman See from 1192, when with the bull cum universis, Celestine III granted Scotland the position of filia specialis, answerable only to Rome, and this distinction was confirmed by Innocent III and again by Honorious III. The status of filia specialis was granted by Urban III (1185–1187) only referring to the diocese of Glasgow, but with cum universis it became the constitutional basis of the ecclesia Scoticana until 1472, when St. Andrews became a bishopric.40 It would have been interesting to access the records of these Courts but, due to many fires and some overzealous reformers, most church records were destroyed and only fragments of these Court records remain.41 We must also remember that Scottish couples were still, at least until 1510, occasionally using the Dataria Apostolica which was, of course, more expensive than the Penitentiary. This register will provide another insight into marriage in Scotland once it has been fully researched. When observing the profusion of records that survive in England, such as those in to be found in York which have provided great insight into medieval marriage,42 it is a vexing source of frustration to the Scottish historian to find so few records from which to chart the history of the interchange between the people, the church, and the courts. Occasionally however, a civil action appearing in the Acts of the Lords of Council records people seeking redress for broken contracts of marriage. On December 2, 1500, an action was raised against John Menteith of Caverca by David Bruse of Clackmannan for £500 for the wrangus postpoyng and differing til raise and bring hame ane dispensacione fra the Court of Rome for the compleating and solempnyng of lauchfull matrimonie and marriage betuex the said John and Marione Bruse … John eventually produced the dispensation and promptly raised his own action against David for ———————————— 39 David Ditchburn, Scotland and Europe. The Medieval Kingdom and Its Contacts with Christendom, 1214–1560 (East Linton: Tuckwell, 2000), 88; Wormald, Court, Kirk, and Community, 79. 40 Leslie Macfarlane and. J. McIntyre, ed., Scotland and the Holy See (Edinburgh: The Heritage Commission of the Scottish Catholic Hierarchy, 1982), 5. 41 Simon Ollivant, The Court of the Official in Pre-Reformation Scotland (Edin-burgh: The Stair Society, 1982). In this volume, Ollivant lists all the surviving records of the courts in St. Andrews and Edinburgh. 42 Frederik Pedersen, Marriage Disputes in Medieval England (London: Hambledon Press, 2000). This fascinating and comprehensive study of the York material illustrates the abundance of records that survive in England.

68


restitution of £401.43 On January 27, 1503, Henry Lovale of Ballummy raised an action against Thomas Maxvale of Teiling for the wrangus withalding fra him of fifteen ducatis of gold of the chawmer (curial ducats) … fifteen pundis usuale money of the realme, deliverit be him and his factouris in his name to the toune of Bruges for the raising and hamebringin furth of the court of Rome of ane dispensacione for matrimonie completit betuex Andro Lovale, son and aire apperand to the sade Henry, and Ysabell Ogilby, dochtir till umquhile David Ogilby of that ilk … The Lords gave Thomas two weeks to appear, if not, they would ‘decern’ him to have agreed to pay.44 It seems that Thomas Maxvale was a law agent in Bruges, possibly working with the Scottish procurators at the curia to carry dispensations to and from Rome. In this case, we can discern a disregard for the forbidden degrees, as this marriage had already been comleatit and some investigation is needed to see if they actually were dispensed. So prohibitive were the degrees that it appears that many Scots married within them, ignoring the rules promulgated by the church until such time, as with Henry Lovale, that it suited them to make supplication to Rome or, as in the case of David Bruse, once they were matched to the mutual satisfaction of their families or as with Henry Lovale, when it suited them to make a petition to Rome. A third discernable reason for this drop is that, the later the year, the more social and religious unrest was gripping Scotland, as there was a general dissatisfaction with the Roman Church. Books were now being printed and brought into Scotland mostly by the east coast merchants who traded in the Baltic and the North Sea, and although very expensive, they were eagerly purchased by the nobility, the nouveau riche, and the emerging merchant classes who were by now quite wealthy and literate.45 Professor Nicholson’s analysis of sales of land in James IV’s reign shows that the gentry sold more, whereas the 11 merchants from Edinburgh and 14 others sold little and bought much, illustrates the merchant’s wealth. Jenny Wormald’s observation that “A more sinister form of contact with Europe, from the church’s point of view, was the Lutheran literature which began to circulate in the east-coast boroughs, prompting a panicky ———————————— 43 George Neilson and Henry Paton, ed., Acts of the Lords of Council in Civil Causes 1496–1501 (Edinburgh: His Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1918), vol. 2, 456. 44 Alma Calderwood, ed., Acts of the Lords of Council 1501–1503 (Edinburgh: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1993), vol. 2, 192. 45 Wormald, Court, Kirk and Community, 79.


69

act banning it in 1525”46 illustrates that the laity in Scotland were becoming more interested in this new religion which was sweeping across Northern Europe. However, Martin Luther’s writings and other Lutheran texts were being distributed as fast as they could be printed and Scotland was slowly beginning to move toward the Reformation; so it is possible that people were beginning to find dissatisfaction with the Church and its remoteness in Rome. A nobleman may have thought it worthwhile to pay a large sum for a dispensation, but a cautious wealthy merchant may have thought otherwise. It will be interesting to discover if devoutly Catholic Scottish couples continued making supplications to Rome after 1567, when an act was passed by the Scottish Parliament Anent lawful marriage of awin blude, in degries not forbidden be God his Word,47 outlawing the Roman Church and reducing the forbidden degrees of consanguinity and affinity from the fourth degree to the second. This was backdated to 1558, and all marriages within the scriptural degrees were ratified. Finally one has to ask again, what drove the Scots to make supplications in such large numbers from 1500 to 1508, piety or profit. Possibly piety in the Jubilee Year of 1500 prompted an increase but, on the other hand, the intention of the king to feu the land in the near future may have been well known within the noble families, many of whose patriarchs were royal advisors. The very substantial increase after 1501, which saw many of the great families of Scotland legalizing existing and new marriage alliances to consolidate their heritable tenure, leads me to the conclusion that this must have been driven by profit.

———————————— 46 Ibidem, 91. 47 Murray of Glendook, The Laws and Acts, n. 15.

70


Appendix An example of Noble Family Marriage Alliances in Scotland 1501–1508 COUPLE

DIOCESE

William Turnbull and Biseta Ridal Robert Turnbull and Joneta Scot Thos Turnbull of Bedderoul and Mariota Scot of Hayning James Turnbull and Catherine Cranston John Cranston and Agnes Scot Jasper Lawdor and Mariota Cranston Andrew Turnbull and Margaret Turnbull Roger Schewel and Catherine Turnbull Andrew Schwel and Joneta Douglas John Carncross and Elizabeth Turnbull Michael Banatan and Catherina Cairncross James Turnbull and Agnes Schewel John Schewel and Joneta Morison Philip Schewel and Margareta Schewel John Campbel and Margareta Campbel John Mackay and Mariota Campbel Duncan Macgregor and Elizabeth Campbel Duncan Murtard and Mariota Campbel George Cockburn and Elena Douglas James Douglas and Catherina Stewart Jacob Emmetterlant and Margareta Douglas Jacob Maitland and Margareta Douglas William Douglas and Elizabeth Auchinlecke Alexander Kildayre and Elizabeth Murray William Murray and Margaret Stewart Thomas Murray and Elizabeth Levynston Charles Murray and Elizabeth Murray Alexander Stewart and Margaret Murray David Murray and Catherine Edmonston Walter Scot of Turlschanlan and Eliz. Scot of Mighoty William Scot of Seycalvis and Eliz. Scot of Quhonnys Jacob Scot and Margaretta Newton Walter Scot of Siretoun and Margaret Langlands George Chesum and Helena Scot George Chesselm and Helena Scot Robert Scot and Johantete Scot Patrick Ogilby and Joneta Calder William Gordon and Joaneta Ogilvy William Gordon and Joneta Ogilvy William Gordon and Joane Ogilby James Gordon and Catherine Balze

Glasgow Glasgow Glasgow Glasgow Glasgow St Andrews Glasgow Glasgow Glasgow Paupers Glasgow Glasgow Paupers Glasgow Glasgow Glasgow Lismore Lismore Lismore Lismore / Dunkeld St Andrews St Andrews Glasgow Glasgow St Andrews St Andrews Dunblane / Dunkeld Dunblane / Dunkeld Dunblane / Dunkeld Dunblane / Dunkeld Dunkeld Glasgow Glasgow Glasgow Glasgow Glasgow Glasgow Glasgow Moray / Aberdeen Moray / Aberdeen Moray / Aberdeen Moray / Aberdeen Moray


COUPLE

DIOCESE

George Bardi and Elizabeth Gordon Gilbert Hay and Agnes Gordon John Stewart and Mariota Gordon John Auchoryeguhy and Margarete Gordon William of St Clare and Elena Gordon Duncan Forbes and Mariona Gordon Jacob Gordon and Margaret Gordon John Mcculloch and Margaret Gordon

Moray / Aberdeen Moray / Aberdeen Moray / Aberdeen Moray St Andrews / Moray Aberdeen Moray / Aberdeen Candidacasa

71

CENTRAL EUROPE AND THE LATE MEDIEVAL PAPAL CHANCERY Jadranka Neralić

In my contribution, I will examine the relations between the late medieval papal chancery and men from the East Central European nations: Croatians, Hungarians, Bohemians and Poles. By studying the documents in some of the most valuable sets of registers of late medieval papal letters, Vatican and Lateran registers and the petitions in the registers of supplications, I have tried to trace their careers. Some of them made a supplication for a simple benefice in their diocese, while others – with degrees in theology in their pockets – applied for the post of a penitentiarius minor in the great Roman basilicas. Some followed well-programmed paths towards the highest posts in the ecclesiastical hierarchy – starting from a low curial officer to become an archbishop or a cardinal. Some had a decisive role in the governments of their dioceses or countries, others had important and influential posts in the curia. This paper will be a sketch of some of the most prominent biographies or curious situations seen in the Chancery registers, but not an exhaustive list of all persons working for the Apostolic Chancery and their relations with the East Central Europe in the fifteenth century.

HOW DID THE CURIA FUNCTION? As the central judicial, financial, and administrative body of the Church, the Roman curia functioned through numerous and various offices with specific jurisdiction. The most important offices until the fourteenth century were the Consistory, the Apostolic Chancery (administration), and the Apostolic Chamber (financial), all of which operated along hierarchically organized lines of authority; subordinates answered to specifically designated superiors in performing their duties. The very complex structure required a large number of learned men to do the paper work and to settle legal disputes. A talented young man with a good knowledge of Latin or with a degree in law, especially if he had good connections or, in the second half of the fifteenth century, enough

74


money to buy an office, could find a socially and financially rewarding post in Rome. The functions of the curia increased enormously throughout the Middle Ages. It grew as a result of the position of the papacy as the court of final appeal in spiritual matters (its prerogative to dispense from ecclesiastical or civil censures or impediments) and temporal matters (its claims to control the distribution of a wide variety of ecclesiastical offices throughout Europe). Historically, these powers and prerogatives evolved in response to Christians’ seeking forgiveness for their sins or legitimization of their ecclesiastical authority from the pope. In order to meet these requests, the papacy and the canon lawyers created a variety of rules and exceptions that could be applied only by the Holy See and through the machinery of the curia. The normal procedure consisted of the petitioner submitting a request or supplicatio to the pope, who then issued his decision in the form of a littera apostolica, which was then communicated to the interested party. For the requested justice or favour a tax was charged; in theory, this was a charge for the document containing the dispensation of favour and not for the act itself. Originating as free will donations, they subsequently became standardized and obligatory. This arrangement must have appealed to many Christians because the initiative for most papal documents came from outside the curia. The products of the Consistory, the Chancery and the Chamber were recorded in the Vatican registers. Between the beginning of the fourteenth century and the Council of Trent, new departments were founded or developed: the Sacra Romana Rota, the Datary,1 the Sacred Penitentiary, and the Secretariate ———————————— 1

Traces of the office of datarius are found in the pontificate of Martin V (1417–1431). Its origin was due to the distinction introduced at the beginning of the Great Schism between the signatura on papal letters and the actual dating of the letter, the fixing of which was entrusted to a specific person. Under Sixtus IV (1471–1484) his duties expanded so that by the end of the fifteenth century he directed the office Dataria, where grants of favour, especially of non-consistorial benefices reserved to the Holy See and certain dispensations were prepared and dated. The archives of the Dataria were set up in 1671 by Clement X (1670–1676) and were later housed in the Lateran Palace. The early volumes of the Registers of Supplications come from the period when the Datary was developing out of the Chancery. Other volumes come from the period after the establishment of the Datary as such (c. 1450–1500), when it had full powers to handle all the graces which did not fall within the competence of the Penitentiary or that of the Sacra Romana Rota (disputed benefices). As a result of the vast amount of business which the Datary eventually had to deal with (supplications, collations to benefices, dispensations, pensions, informative processes relative to episcopal appointments, validation of graces, exchanges of benefices), new sets of registers were introduced over and above the old Registers of Supplications, and, as the volume of business grew, more expeditious forms of letters of grace were devised and registered in the Registra brevium.

CENTRAL EUROPE AND THE LATE MEDIEVAL PAPAL CHANCERY

75

of State. Their records occur in one or other, and sometimes several, of the various sets of registers of the period: Vatican registers, registers of supplications,2 Lateran registers,3 and the cameral register, registers of briefs. At the head of the curia stood the Pope and his assistants, the cardinals. Naturally, not all the cardinals resided in Rome and assisted in the administration of the curia. Those who lived in Rome helped the Pope govern the Church and supervised the curia by participating in the Consistory which made policy and decided in certain legal questions, in provisions for the beneficia maiora (bishops’ and abbots’ appointments). Some cardinals supervised specific offices: for example, the cardinal vicechancellor4 directed the Chancery,5 the cardinal-camerarius or chamberlain, lead ———————————— 2

The set of registers known under the name of Registra Supplicationum (Registers of Supplications) begins with the first year of the pontificate of Clement VI (1342–1352) and is composed of 7,365 paper volumes in folio format (for the period from 1342 until 1899). Each register contains an integral copy of the supplication submitted to the pope in order to get some kind of favour, grace or privilege. Prevalently, one finds supplications for provisions in external tribunals, granted by the pope himself or by the vice-chancellor until the fifteenth century. From the fifteenth century onwards they were granted through the Datary. The registration of the supplications guaranteed the interested party the existence of the text, especially if the original were lost. Throughout the fourteenth century they were kept in the Apostolic palace in Avignon. Two volumes of supplications for the lands of the Crown of St. Stephen were edited by Árpád Bossányi as Regesta Supplicationum, vol. 1, Clement VI (1342–1352) (Budapest: Stephaneum Nyomda, 1916), and vol. 2, Innocent VI (1352–1362) and Urban V (1362–1370) (Budapest: Stephaneum Nyomda, 1918). 3 When the Great Schism began in 1378 the paper registers of common letters, known as ‘Avignon Registers’, remained in Avignon (in 1419, after the termination of the Schism, the registration in this series was abandoned). The popes of Roman obedience, beginning with Boniface IX (1389– 1404), established the practice of registering common letters of grace in a new series of paper registers now called the Registra Lateranensia; these volumes were simply a continuation of the old Avignon registers. From then on the Vatican Registers series lost their contact with the Chancery, and most of the registers from this period actually came from the Camera. The Lateran Registers form, in effect, an original and independent series of Chancery registers, generally of common letters, nicely grouped under headings in each volume: benefices, pardons, dispensations, indulgences. Since many of the outgoing letters of grace and justice were occasioned by supplications, the text of the original supplication and papal reply that prompted a given letter may often be checked in the Registers of Supplications. The common letters registered in the Lateran Registers originated in the Chancery, but the Datary was the custodian from the second half of the fifteenth century and they were eventually housed in the Archivum Bullarum of the Datary in the Cortile of Sixtus V in the Vatican. Thus, although they really belonged to the Chancery in origin, because they were sent out per cancellariam, by provenance they belonged to the Datary. This long and consistent connection with the Datary often created the impression that they, too, originated from the Datary. 4 Ludwig Pastor, Storia dei Papi,. vol. 1: Storia dei Papi nel periodo del Rinascimento fino all’elezione di Pio II (Rome: Desclée E. E. editori, 1925), 683–684: “L’ufficio più ragguardevole, importante e lucruoso in Curia era quello del vicecancelliere, che, siccome capo della cancelleria

76


the Apostolic Chamber,6 the cardinal-nephew was in charge of the Secretariate ————————————————————————————————— apostolica, aveva a lato una grossa schiera di impiegati: un ambasciatore afferma addirittura, che era la prima dignità dopo il papa.” Throughout the fifteenth century the most prominent figures to direct this important office were the cardinals Johannes de Rupescissa (cardinal from July 6, 1427; died March 24, 1437); for more information see: Conradus Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica Medii Aevi sive summorum pontificum, S.R.E. cardinalium, ecclesiarum antistitum series ab anno 1431 usque ad annum 1503 perducta ex documentis tabularii praesertim vaticani collecta, vol. 2 (Münster: Regensberg, 1914; reprint Passau: “Il Messaggero di S. Antonio” [hereafter HC 2], 6); Francesco Condulmer and Roderigo Lanzol-Borja (cardinal from September 17, 1456; appointed vicecancellarius on May 1, 1457 by his uncle, Pope Calixus III; he remained in office until August 11, 1492, when he was elected pope); for more information see: Thomas Frenz, Die Kanzlei der Päpste der Hochrenaissance (1471–1527) (Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1986), 439, n. 2035. 5 The Cancellaria Apostolica had the responsibility for expediting or issuing papal letters, especially the solemn bulls, on which it had a monopoly until the beginning of the fifteenth century. However, as the various other departments began to issue their own bulls and some papal correspondence became the duty of the papal secretaries, the chancery retained control of only those bulls reflecting public decisions made in the Consistory (its judicial statements and the nominations of cardinals and bishops), certain decisions from other offices, and the graces granted by the pope. As the Chancery lost many of its duties and the popes reformed it under pressure from the councils, the number of its employees actually increased. Below the vice-chancellor were twelve apostolic protonotaries, functionary and honorary. The other members had specific duties relating to producing or policing the bulls. For example, the abbreviatores litterarum apostolicarum composed the minuta, the concept, and were responsible for the legal contents of the documents issued by the Chancery; the correctores litterarum apostolicarum corrected legal documents (one of the main requirements for this post was a degree in law); the collectores taxae plumbi guarded the bulls until they were retrieved by the interested party and the taxes were paid; E. Fournier, “Abbre-viatores ou abbreviateurs de lettres apostoliques”, Dictionnaire de Droit Cano-nique 1, col. 98–106; Thomas Frenz, “Die Gründung des Abbreviatorenkollegs durch Pius II. und Sixtus IV.”, in Miscellanea M. Giusti 1 (Città del Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1978), 297– 329; Brigide Schwarz, “Abbreviature officium est assistere vicecancellario in expeditione litterarum apostolicarum: Zur Entwicklung des Abbreviatorenamtes vom Grossen Schisma bis zur Gründung des Vakabilistenkollegs der Abbreviatoren durch Pius II.”, in Römische Kurie. Kirchliche Finanzen. Vatikanisches Archiv. Studien zu Ehren von Hermann Hoberg, ed. Erwin Gatz, Miscellanea Historiae Pontificiae 46 (Rome: Pontificia Università Gregoriana), 789–823 (hereafter Schwarz, “Abbreviature officium”); eadem, “Die Abbreviatoren unter Eugen IV.”, Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 60 (1980), 200–274; eadem, “Der Corrector litterarum apostolicarum: Entwicklung des Korrectoramts in der päpstlichen Kanzlei von Innocenz III. bis Martin V.”, Quellen und Forschungen aus Italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 54 (1974), 122–191. 6 The Camera had the responsibility of collecting funds due to the Holy See such as annates and Peter’s pence from spiritual and temporal sources, of directing the pope’s personal finances and governing the papal states. Some of the more important duties of the chamberlain were the appointment and control of the activities of collectors in their turn responsible for collecting the numerous papal taxes in partibus. The chamberlain with the treasurer-general of the Roman Church (thesaurarius generalis Ecclesiae Romanae) and the clerics of the Camera, seven active members (de numero) with assistants and other (supranumerarii) members formed the Collegium Camerae. The Camera controlled the revenues accruing from the papal state; these funds became


77

of State whereas the cardinal penitentiarius maior directed the Sacred Penitentiary.7 The cardinal-priest of Saint Clemens, Francesco Condulmer, vice chancellor during the pontificate of Eugene IV and his nephew, was sent as the pope’s legate and commander of the papal fleet against the Turks in 1443–1444; he personally organized the project of the crusade, in which the most active roles were played by the pope, the Venetian senate and Philipp, the duke of Burgundy.8 Pope Eugene IV’s personal physician and chamberlain, the cubicularius, Ludovico Trevisan (often even better known as Scarampi Mezzarota) was appointed papal treasurer, camerarius, on January 1, 1440. He was very active in the affairs of the curia for many years. Under Calixtus III he was a conspicuous figure in the Levant (1456–1458) as the commander of the papal fleet sent on a crusade against the Turks.9 ————————————————————————————————— the major source of money for the Renaissance papacy, outdistancing the funds collected for the pope’s spiritual gifts. Other offices in the curia, such as the Datary and the Penitentiary, also had financial aspects. The reports of the collectors and other documents issued in the Camera not only register the tax payment, but sometimes they reveal the reasons for which the payment did not happen, thus making it possible to intuit whether a papal provision was successful or not. The financial documentation produced by the Camera throws light on some of the procedures in the Chancery. Numerous registers which make up part of the Vatican Registers set today actually come from the Apostolic Chamber. Short notices registered in the Obligationes et Solutiones, Obligationes pro communibus servitiis, Annatae, Introitus et Exitus-registers of the Camera can be of greater importance than the registers of bulls themselves. See Martino Giusti, I Registri Vaticani e le loro Provenienze originarie. Miscellanea Archivistica Angelo Mercati, Studi e Testi 165 (Città del Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1952), 383–459. 7 Prominent cardinals led this office throughout the fifteenth century: Jordanus de Ursinis (HC 2, 3), Dominicus de Capranica (HC 2, 6), Johannes de Tagliacotio (HC 1, 7), Philippus Calandrini (HC 2, 11), and Julianus de Rovere (who became Pope Julius II in 1503; HC 2, 16; HC 3, 9). 8 On February 12, 1444, Pope Eugene IV wrote to Cardinal Cesarini that the Christian successes in Central Europe betokened the coming liberation of those parts of Greece and Europe which were occupied by the Turks, so that the Greeks and other easterners would soon enjoy the fruits of the union of the Churches proclaimed in Florence. The pope also assured the cardinal that plans were going forward for sending a papal fleet to the Levant to be commanded by his nephew, Cardinal Francesco Condulmer, for service against the Turks: ASV, Reg. Vat., 382, fol. 206v–208v. HC 2, 7: Franciscus Condulmarus, Venetus, nepos, protonot. apost. = tit. S. Clementis, dein. (c. a. 1445) ep. Portuen. (Venetiarum), vicecancellarius (nominated in 1439), died October 30, 1453 (card. in prima promotione die 19 Sept. 1431 habita); Achille Olivieri, “Francesco Condulmer”, Dizio-nario Biografico degli Italiani 27 (Rome: Istituto della enciclopedia italiana, 1982), 761–765, especially 763. 9 ASV, Reg. Vat., 382, fol. 111r, 144v–145r; see also Kenneth M. Setton, The Papacy and the Levant (1204–1571), vol. 2: The Fifteenth Century (Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society, 1978), 54–55 (hereafter Setton, The Papacy).

78


In the Vatican and the Lateran registers, there are also records of cardinals being appointed bishops in the Central European dioceses. I have divided them into two groups: First, there were those for whom being appointed cardinal was the highest point in their career: they had started at some lower level in their diocese and progressed in the hierarchy within it. They generally remained in their bishoprics, even after having become cardinals, and sometimes assumed the administration of nearby bishoprics. This was the case of several ecclesiastical persons. The decretorum doctor Dionysius, son of Nicholas Szech, for instance, followed a well programmed path to a successful career. On April 21, 1438, he was appointed bishop of Nitra; on June 5, 1439, bishop of the diocese of Eger, void since the death (per obitum) of Peter and the removal (amotio) of master Wenceslas, and on March 9, 1439, provost of the church of S. Thomas in promontorio of Esztergom. He kept the bishopric even after December 18, 1439, when he was appointed cardinal priest of S. Ciriaco in Termis by Eugene IV. He was made archbishop of Esztergom on February 15, 1440,10 and already on February 25 his proctor Tadeo de Aldemariis – artium et medicinae doctor, penitentiarius apostolicus and scriptor – applied on his behalf for the pallium. The bishops of Gyõr and Vác were entrusted with handing over the pallium, whereas the apostolic penitentiarius, Valentinus de Kapos, got the mandate to bring it personally to the newly appointed archbishop.11 After a supplication of the Hungarian King Ladislas, on March 24, 1452, Pope Nicholas V confirmed all the legate faculties and primatial jurisdiction that Cardinal Dionysius and his successors on the Esztergom See would have, both in foro conscientiae and contentioso.12 Dionysius had the cathedral, which had deteriorated over the years, rebuilt with financial assistance from the governor, János Hunyadi, and in 1453 consecrated it amid great celebration.13 With the Turkish threat looming, he tried ———————————— 10 ASV, Reg. Lat., 365, fol. 216v; Pál Lukcsics, Diplomata pontificum saeculi XV, 1: Martinus papa V. (Budapest: Academia Scientiarum Hungarica, 1931); 2: Eugenius papa IV., Nicolaus papa V. (Budapest: Academia Scientiarum Hungarica, 1938) 2, n. 672 (hereafter Lukcsics, Diplomata). 11 The Pauline friar Valentinus, son of Laurentius de Kapos, was appointed penitentiarius in the Basilica Principis Apostolorum and in the Roman curia, as well as apostolic chaplain, on August 10, 1439: ASV, Reg. Lat., 382. fol. 92r: Lukcsics, Diplomata 2, n. 665. On February 25, 1440, it was decided that Valentin de Kapos brought the pallium. ASV, Reg. Lat., 365, fol. 218r: Lukcsics, Diplomata 2, n. 675. Frater Valentinus procurator ordinis fratrum B. Pauli primi heremitae sub regula S. Augustini, who together with the general prior of the Order applied on January 10, 1448, that the church of St. Blase de Anulo sub titulo S. Laurentii in Damaso de regione S. Eustachii be given to their order might be the same person. ASV, Reg. Suppl., 422, fol. 135v; Lukcsics, Diplomata 2, n. 998. 12 ASV, Reg. Vat., 398, fol. 185r; ASV, Reg. Vat., 420. fol. 36r; Lukcsics, Diplomata 2, n. 1252. 13 Margit Beke, “Esztergom – the Hungarian Zion”, in A Thousand Years of Christianity in


79

to bring about an agreement between the country’s quarrelsome oligarchs using his superb diplomatic skills, but had little success.14 He died on February 1, 1465.15 Another interesting path to the top of the ecclesiastical career ladder, the cardinalship, was that of Johannes de Bucca (Bucka). In 1388, he was appointed bishop of the Bohemian diocese of Litomyšl. On December 14, 1416, the conciliar fathers gathered in Konstanz appointed him legate of the Council to the Kingdom,16 to the diocese of Olomouc, to administer it until the new pontiff be elected.17 In fact, quite soon after his consecration, on February 14, 1418, Martin V appointed him bishop of Olomouc.18 He retained the administration of Litomyšl until May 13, 1420, when Albertus Alson, the canon of St. Peter’s church in Vy¹ehrad near Prague, was appointed its new bishop.19 During the second promotion of Martin V, on May 24, 1426, he was created cardinal priest of S. Ciriaco.20 On September 24, 1427, he was appointed provost in Transylvania with an annual income of 200 silver marks; the office became void after the promotion of Provost George Lepes to bishop.21 Before his death on October 9, 1430, the cardinal administered the dioceses of Olomouc, Vác, and Prague (from August 13, 1421, after the suspension of his predecessor Conrad de Vechta).22 His successor, Kunšo (Conrad) de Zwola, provost of Olomouc, doctor of canon law, papal chaplain and auditor causarum Palatii apostolici, was appointed on January 10, 1431, to the bishopric of Olomouc, and on January 24, 1431, to the bishopric of Prague.23 ————————————————————————————————— 14

15 16

17 18 19

20 21 22 23

Hungary, ed. István Zombori et al. (Budapest: Hungarian Catholic Episcopal Conference, 2001), 184. ASV, Reg. Vat., 438, fol. 79v, 129r–129v: Rome, September 1, 1455. Calixtus III himself wrote to Dionysius Széchy on August 5, 1456, that up to the preceding May 31 the crusade had cost him, Deo teste, more than 150,000 ducats: ASV, Arm. XXXIX, vol. 7, fol. 25r. HC 2, 242; ASV, Reg. Lat., 365, fol. 216v. Rome, February 15, 1440. Lukcsics, Diplomata 2, 672. Jaroslav Eršil, Acta Summorum Pontificum res gestas Bohemicas aevi praehussitici et hussitici illustrantia 2 (Prague: Academia, 1980), n. 1096: Constance, March 27, 1416 (hereafter Eršil, Acta). Ibidem, n. 1099. Jaroslav Eršil, Monumenta Vaticana Res Gestas Bohemicas illustrantia 7: Acta Martini V. 1417– 1431, 1: 1417–1422 (Prague: Academia, 1996), n. 208–210. HC 1, 318 (Luthomuslen.). Jaroslav Eršil, Monumenta Vaticana Res Gestas Bohemicas illustrantia 7: Acta Martini V. 1417–1431, 2: 1423–1431 (Prague: Academia, 1998), 7, 1, n. 609 (hereafter Eršil, Monumenta). HC 2, 34; Eršil, Monumenta, n. 1580. HC 1, 493; ASV, Reg. Suppl., 216, fol. 6v; Lukcsics, Diplomata 1, n. 964: Bishop George Lepes was killed in a battle on March 18, 1442. HC 1, 409; HC 2, 6. HC 1, 376 (Olomouc); Eršil, Monumenta, n. 2237; HC 1, 409 (Prague); Eršil, Monumenta, n. 2251.

80


The second, and throughout the fifteenth century more numerous category of cardinals (elevated to the cardinalate solely on the recommendation of kings or princes or because they were nephews of the reigning pope or sons of great baronial Roman or Italian families), pursued a career in the curia, in the vicinity of the pope. For them, the appointment to bishop in East Central European dioceses was only a reward for some service offered to the pope or the curia or a sinecure which did not even oblige them to reside in their diocese. Three cardinals were appointed bishops in Dalmatian bishoprics. In Trogir, one finds two curial officials in search of benefices to increase their revenues and in pursuit of a successful ecclesiastical career. For the medicinae doctor Ludovico Trevisan (Scarampi Mezzarota) the bishopric in Trogir24 was only one step in an extremely successful carreer. During his lifetime he was appointed patriarch of Aquileia and cardinal of S. Laurence in Damaso on July 1, 1440. Above all, he directed the Apostolic Chamber. He died very rich on March 22, 1465.25 Giovanni Viteleschi, on the other hand, although he also pursued a brilliant ecclesiastical career, preferred the military career of a general in Eugene IV’s army against the duke of Milan.26 Pietro Riario, one of Sixtus IV’s nephews, was given in commendum the archbishopric of Split on April 28, 1473.27 This was only one in a long series that the illustrious uncle gave in commendum to the spendthrift nephew: on September 4, 1471, Treviso; September 25, 1472, Valence and Die in France; June 25, 1473, Sevilla; July 20, 1473, Florence; November 3, 1473, Mende in France.28 On November 23, 1472, followed appointment to the patriarchate of Constantinople, void after the death of Cardinal Bessarion.29 Obvi-

———————————— 24 The appointment is dated October 31, 1435. 25 HC 2, 8; ASV, Reg. Lat., 329, fol. 158r–v: Rome, October 31, 1435; HC 2, 235: (transfertur ad Florentinam diocesim); Ludwig von Pastor describes him as short, vain, and gloomy (“piccolo, superbo e dallo sguardo cupo”). His portrait, painted by Andrea Mantegna, is kept in Berlin. It seems that he had managed to cure cardinal Gabriele Condulmer (the future Pope Eugene IV) from some illness. After Cardinal Vitelleschi’s death, Trevisan (Scarampi) assumed the government of Rome; von Pastor, Storia dei papi 1, 272–273; Pio Paschini, “La Famiglia di Lodovico Cardinal Camerlengo”, L’Arcadia. Atti dell’Accademia e scritti dei soci 5 (1926), 91–101. 26 Daniele Farlati, Illyrici Sacri 4: Ecclesiae suffraganeae metropolis Spalatensis (Venice, 1769), 406. As apostolic notary he was appointed bishop of Macerata-Recanati on April 16, 1431: HC 2, 220. The appointment as patriarch of Alexandria came on February 21, 1435: HC 2, 85; on 15 October 1435 as archbishop of Florence; on August 9, 1437, he was both appointed cardinal priest of S. Laurentii in Lucina and administrator of the Trogir bishopric. Viteleschi, above all, was a soldier, a commander in the papal army. 27 HC 2, 240 (Spalatensis). 28 HC 2, 248 (Treviso), 262 (Valence and Die), 165 (Sevilla), 154 (Florence), 192 (Mende). 29 HC 2, 135.


81

ously, Pietro Riario was never in his commenda, to him they were only a source of revenues to pay his numerous gambling debts. The Franciscan friar, Gabriele Rangone from Verona, made his way to the cardinalate starting with an inquisitorial mission to Bohemia on March 20, 1467, sent by Pope Paul II ... ad extirpationem heresium et precipue nephandae Hussitarum septe ... per Boemie regnum et partes illi adiacentes ... .30 On December 16, 1472, he was appointed bishop of Alba Iulia (Transylvania),31 and on April 24, 1475,32 he assumed possession of the diocese of Eger, which he retained even after having become cardinal deacon of SS. Sergii et Bacchi in 1477.33

CARDINALS AS COMMENDATARY ADMINISTRATORS OF MONASTERIES

Cardinals were frequently provided with monasteries in commendum. Several records of these appointments are preserved in the Vatican and Lateran registers. Gabriele Condulmer, Pietro and Marco Barbo34, Pietro Foscari35, or Giovanni Michieli are frequently mentioned as administrators (commendatarii) of the Benedictine abbeys of S. Grisogonus in Zadar, S. Ambrogio in Nin, S. John the Baptist in Trogir, S. Nicholas de portu in Šibenik, S. Cosmas and Damian on the island of Pašman, and S. Stephen de pinis in Split. Cardinal Bessarion also held the latter in commendum. From 1458 until his death he received a yearly pension of 150 florins from its revenues.36 At the council of Mantova in 1459 Pope Pius II Piccolomini appointed him his legatus a latere for the crusade against the Turks. ———————————— 30 ASV, Reg. Vat., 519, fol. 250v. See also the bull against the Hussites addressed to Gabriele Rangoni on March 15, 1467 (ASV, Reg. Vat., 519, fol. 235r–236v). Contemporary texts show the importance of Gabriele da Verona during this period, when Paul II’s concern with the Hussite king was an impediment to the crusade. 31 HC 2, 254. 32 HC 2, 82. 33 HC 2, 18. 34 Cardinal of St. Marco, Marco Barbo, nephew of Pope Paul II, bishop of Vicenza and the patriarch of Aquileia, received the Benedictine abbey of St. Michael in Trogir, void after the death of its abbot, barely a year after his appointment. Its revenues were estimated at only 40 small libras of Tours. Marco Barbo died on 11 March 1491. HC 2, 15. 35 HC 2, 18 (20): appointed cardinal on November 10, 1477; died on August 11, 1485. He was also a papal notary and the primicerius of S. Marco in Venice and held in commendum the benedictine abbey of S. Cosmas and Damian on the island of Pašman. Through his vicar Franciscus Damiani (who himself was closely related to the curia being the archideacon of Zadar, papal acolyth and chaplain, nucio and collector for the Camera) he invested a large sum of money in 1461 for the reconstruction of the abbey) ASV, Reg. Vat., 516, fol. 37r. Rome, August 1, 1461. 36 ASV, Reg. Vat., 464, fol. 104r–105r: Rome, March 31, 1458.

82


DIPLOMATS AND COLLECTORS Johannes Dominici,37 now revered as blessed, was appointed legate of Pope Gregory XII to the Polish King Ladislas Jagello and the Hungarian King Sigismund. On his way he stopped at the castle of the count of Celje to secure the latter’s support of Gregory’s party. This could partly explain his absence when Gregory XII fled from Gaeta to Rimini. Johannes went to Bohemia, too, to control the situation after the condemnation and execution of Jan Hus.38 In summer 1414, Cardinal Dominici was sent on another mission to Sigismund, but all his efforts were already in vain because the king was preparing for the council. After the end of the council, on February 1, 1418, Cardinal Dominici set out on a journey to Constantinople, where he was supposed to convince Emperor Manuel II Paleologus (1391–1425) and Patriarch Joseph (1416–1439) to join the negotiations on the reunion. Because of his sudden death in Buda, on June 10, 1419, he never reached Constantinople. The cardinal of S. Angelo in Pescheria, the Spaniard Juan de Carvajal,39 papal chaplain and auditor, legatus a latere to Emperor Frederick III and to the Hungarian kingdom, was an able and eminent figure despite his badly managed anti-Utraquist mission to Prague,40 which failed in May 1448. He was sent to ———————————— 37 Johannes Dominici (Florence, 1357 – Buda, June 10, 1419) entered the Dominican order in 1374. He lived in a Venetian friary from 1387 to 1399 and founded the nunnery of Corpus Christi in Venice. Until 1406 he preached in Florence and was elected prior of Fiesole. From 1415 to 1416 he was councilor to Gregory XII, who appointed him archbishop of Dubrovnik in 1408 and Cardinal of Saint Sixtus on March 26, 1408 (after which he was known as Cardinalis Ragusinus). Gregory XII sent him to the Council of Constance. Martin V comissioned him to arrange affairs in Bohemia, where he stayed from 1417 to 1419, but the mission ended in total failure; Pino da Prati, Giovanni Dominici e l’Umanismo (Naples: Mezzogiorno, 1965); Thomas Kaeppeli, Scriptores Ordinis Praedicatorum Medii Aevii 2 (Rome: Sabinae, 1975), 406–413. Giorgio Cracco, “Gio-vanni Dominici e un nuovo tipo di religiosità”, in Conciliarismo, Stati nazionali, inizi dell’Umanesimo. Atti del XXV convegno storico internazionale. Todi 9–12 ottobre 1988, Atti dei convegni dell’Accademia Tudertina e del Centro di studi sulla spiritualita medioevale, n.s. 2 (Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 1990), 1–20. 38 Augustin Theiner, Vetera Monumenta Slavorum Meridionalium 1 (Rome, 1863; reprint Osnabrück: Zeller, 1968), n. 499: 8 January 1409 (hereaf-ter Theiner, Monumenta Slavorum Meridionalium). 39 HC 2, 9: Placentin., Diaconus Tituli S. Angeli, dein Portuen. He died on December 6, 1469. 40 He was sent by Nicholas V on August 4, 1447. Lukcsics, Diplomata 2, n. 969–970: ASV, Reg. Vat., 386. fol. 7r–8r. Augustin Theiner, Vetera Monumenta historica Hungariam sacram illustrantia, maximam partem nondum edita ex tabulariis Vaticanis deprompta, collecta ac serie chronologica disposita 2: Ab Innocentio papa VI. usque ad Clementem papam VII (1352–1526) (Rome: typis Vaticanis, 1860). On his activities see also: Lukcsics, Diplomata 2, n. 981, 1021, 1092, 1246, 1308, 1311.


83

Germany, Hungary, and Poland41 on another mission and was present at the Great Diet assembled in Buda on February 6, 1456. There he described the papal preparations for the fleet to attack the Turks, as well as the aid that was expected from King Alfonso V and from Duke Philip of Burgundy. A plenary indulgence was offered to every soldier who would bear arms against the Turks. It was at this diet that Carvajal bestowed a cross sent by the pope on the famous Minorite friar Giovanni da Capistrano and gave him a special papal brief to preach the crusade. In 1459, Carvajal continued his efforts to make peace between Emperor Frederick and Mathias Corvinus. He also played a role with regard to the problem of continuing Turkish attacks.42 On August 27, 1457, he was granted numerous important faculties, among them those of dispensation and absolution.43 Branda Castellione was one of the cardinals renowned as apostolic nuncios in the Hungarian kingdom. He was appointed cardinal by the schismatic Pope John XXIII on June 6, 1411, and, also by the latter, administrator of the Veszprém church (which he resigned on May 5, 1424, when Peter Ladislai de Rosgon became the new bishop).44 Giuliano Cesarini, another cardinal and nuncio, was killed at the battle of Varna on November 10, 1444, together with the young King Ladislas and numerous bishops.45 ———————————— 41 ASV, Reg. Vat., 438. fol. 212r–213v, 233v–234v. The date of his departure from Rome is fixed by an entry in the Acta Consistorialia (1439–1486) for the year 1455. ASV, Arm. XXXI, vol. 52, fol. 58r: Recessus domini cardinalis Sancti Angeli: Anno et pontificatu predictis [1455 de tempore Calixti III] die vero XXV. Septembris, que fuit dies Iovis, fuit factum consistorium secretum, et reverendissimus dominus cardinalis Sancti Angeli recessit legatus in Alamaniam et Ungariam de mane per portam Sancte Marie de Populo. See also HC 2, 31a. 42 Cf. Pius II’s letter to Carvajal, dated Mantua, June 11, 1459 (ASV, Arm. XXXIX, vol. 9, fol. 47v: Ex litteris tue Circumspectionis in Nova Civitate [Wiener Neustadt] ultimo datis intelleximus que de tenenda inter imperatorem et regem Ungarie dieta deque novo ac repentino Turcorum adventu significas: fuerunt nobis hec nova satis molesta et dolemus. Note the letters of the same date to Frederick III and the Venetians; ibid. fol. 48r–49r; and those of almost a year later, dated Siena, April 25, 1560, to Carvajal and Frederick; ibid. fol. 185v–187r: ... Iterum atque iterum rogamus tuam Excellenciam ut omnibus tuis desideriis quamquam etiam iustissimis orthodoxam nostram Christianae religionis fidem et eius defensionem maxime nunc dum periculum immineat, ut decet religiossisimum imperatorem pro Dei et tua gloria et cunctorum tibi subdictorum salute, anteponas ...; to Frederick, fol. 186v. A letter to Carvajal, dated May 2, 1461, noted the expectation of another Turkish siege of Belgrade: ... Turchum magnis apparatibus ad obsidendam Nandoralbem venturum ...; ibidem, fol. 211r. 43 ASV, Reg. Vat., 449, fol. 133v–135r. See also: Lino Gómez Canedo, Un Español al servicio de la Santa Sede. Don Juan de Carvajal, cardenal de Sant’Angelo, legato en Alemania y Hungria. (1399?–1469) (Madrid: Consejo superior de investigaciones cientificas. Inst. J. Zurita, 1947), 22– 23, 105, 113–119. On Carvajal’s Hungarian mission, which lasted from 1455 to 1461, see 153– 185, and on his becoming protector of the Hungarian nation, 187–219. 44 ASV, Reg. Lat., 239, fol. 46v; Lukcsics, Diplomata 1, n. 739. 45 See Setton, The Papacy, 82–107.

84


On February 1, 1444, the cardinal priests Gerardo of S. Marie in Transtiberim46 and Ludovicus of S. Laurentii in Damaso47 were authorized by Eugene IV to exact tithes in the territories subject to them. The money collected was to be given to Giuliano Cesarini, mentioned above, auditor of the Roman Rota and cardinal priest of Santa Sabina,48 for the sustaining the army against the Turks in the kingdoms of Hungary, Poland, and Wallachia.49 On January 10, 1448, the cardinal treasurer Ludovico Trevisan (Scarampi Mezzarota) agreed that the church of S. Blasius de Anulo in the regio S. Eustachii in Rome be given to the Pauline friars, after a supplication by their prior general and friar Valentin, proctor of the Order, who propter continuum ad Urbem accessum Ungarorum apud quos ordo fundatus et honoratus existit, cupiunt unum locum in urbe Romana habere. The church was a curata with two simple benefices with revenues estimated at 50 florins in recompense for the church of S. Savior prope pontem ruptum in the very center of Rome, which the order had owned for quite a long time (per plura tempora canonice habuit).50 Nicholas (1427–1480), bishop of Senj and Modruš, was sent twice to the last Bosnian King Stephan Tomašević. During the first mission, which began in September 1460 and ended in August 1461, he was to crown the young king. His second mission started on December 11, 1462,51 and ended with the ferocious death of the king and most members of Nicholas’ household in June 1463. Nicholas described the events immediately preceding the disastrous fall of the Kingdom into Turkish hands in his work Defensio Ecclesiasticae Libertatis, kept in the Vatican Apostolic Library.52 Soon after June 1463, Nicholas was sent to ———————————— 46 HC 2, 8, 63: Gerardus Landrianus, bishop of Cuma, created cardinal priest of S. Marie in Transtiberim on September 19, 1439. 47 HC 2, 8: Ludovico Scarampi. 48 HC 2, 6 (43): Julianus de Cesarinis, auditor Rotae, diaconus S. Angeli, presbiter S. Sabine, episcopus Tusculanus, poenitentiarius maior March 7, 1444; died on November 10, 1444. According to Setton, cardinal Cesarini was a militarist at heart and his determination to suppress the Hussite heresy by “crusades” provided clear evidence ot this; Setton, The Papacy, 78. On Cesarini’s career see Roger Mols, Dictionaire d’histoire et de géographie ecclésiastiques 12 (1953), col. 220– 249. 49 ASV, Reg. Vat., 376, fol. 10r: Rome, February 1, 1444. Lukcsics, Diplomata 2, n. 804: Julianus, tituli S. Angeli. Between April 20, 1431, and November 12, 1431, he was given vast powers to act in the territories of his legation (Lukcsics, Diplomata 2, n. 2, 3, 28, 65). In the meantime he was promoted to cardinal of St. Sabina, legatus to Hungary and Poland. About his actions see Lukcsics, Diplomata 2, n. 746, 771, 781, 790, 802–804, 809, 833, 835, 865, 1282, 1308. 50 ASV, Reg. Suppl., 422, fol. 135v: January 10, 1448, Fiat ut petitur. T. 51 ASV, Reg. Vat., 508. fol. 102r–v: December 11, 1462, letter of appointment. 52 BAV, Vat. Lat., 8092. See Jadranka Neralić, “Udio Hrvata u papinskoj diplomaciji” (The Role of the Croatians in the papal Diplomacy), Hrvatska srednjo-vjekovna diplomacija. Zbornik Diplomatske Akademije 4 (1999), 89–118, esp. 100–102 (hereafter Neralić, “Udio Hrvata”), and ea-


85

the court of Mathias Corvinus, his main task being to help the king reorganise the resistance and defence in Bosnia and to convince him to lead a military expedition there. Nicholas himself went to Venice on October 13, 1463, to ask for financial and military support and to inform the senate about the further actions that the king planned. By the end of October, he had reached the king in Belgrade and continued to follow him during his three-month-long winter campaign in Bosnia, in which some seventy fortresses, towns and villages (including the royal town of Jajce) were liberated. The newly elected pontiff, Paul II, must have been satisfied with the services that Nicholas had offered to his predecessor, because he entrusted him numerous important public offices of the papal state. Starting from September 18, 1464, until January 17, 1468, he became castellanus of Viterbo; on February 5, 1468, he was appointed governor of Ascoli, on October 31, 1470, governor of Fano, Sinigaglia, and Montefiore, and on January 11, 1471, governor of Sassoferrato; during the short vacancy between the death of Paul II and the coronation of Sixtus IV, July 26 – August 25, 1471, Nicholas was governor of Cesena.

CLERICS EMPLOYED AS COLLECTORS Numerous bulls of appointment to apostolic collectors in Dalmatian dioceses can be found in the Vatican registers: Secundus, bishop of Argos, was appointed nuncio and collector in the dioceses Zadar, Split, Dubrovnik, and Bar53 (and became bishop of Kotor soon after), the abbot of the Benedictine monastery of S. Stephen de pinis in Split was appointed collector in Dalmatia on August 19, 1432;54 Paganino, the bishop of Ulcinj, was appointed nuncio and collector in Zadar, Osor, and other dioceses illarum partium on March 20, 1445;55 Jacobus de Cadaporto was appointed collector for Istria and Dalmatia on January 12, 1455;56 finally, there is the bull of appointment for Ivan Tolinić, the primicerius and canon of Šibenik, to become nuncio and collector in Istria, Dalmatia, and Dubrovnik, dated June 18, 1473.57

————————————————————————————————— 53 54 55 56 57

dem, “Nicholas of Modruš (1427–1480): Bishop, Man of Letters and Victim of Circumstances,” Bulletin of the Society for Renaissance Studies 20, no. 2 (2003), 15–23. ASV, Reg. Vat., 352, fol. 237v–239r: March 18, 1419. ASV, Reg. Vat., 381, fol. 185v–186r. ASV, Reg. Vat., 382, fol. 255r. ASV, Reg. Vat., 465, fol. 141r–143r. ASV, Reg. Vat., 567, fol. 162v–164r.

86


On April 20, 1455, Pope Calixtus appointed Nicholas Spitzinuri (the name occurs in the registers with different spellings), cantor of the church of Cracow and decretorum doctor, as collector and receiver general for the Holy See in Poland;58 on 21 December of the following year, he granted him the faculty of giving absolution to those who rendered military service in the war against the Turks or contributed money thereto.59 Similar grants had been given to Spitzinuri by Nicholas V five years before.60 Spitzinuri’s activity continued into the reign of Pius II, who informed the Polish episcopacy in a letter of August 24, 1459: ... disponimus enim auxiliante Deo pro viribus nostris frenare superbiam et insolentiam horum perfidorum Turcorum propter quod iam plurimas in terrestribus et maritimis expeditionibus expenere [sic] pecunias non desinimus ... .61 On 17 May 1465 Paul II appointed Spitzinuri to be general collector for the Holy See in Poland, ... Romane Ecclesie ac camere apostolice inibi debitorum et debendorum collector ac generalis receptor usque ad nostrum et dicte sedis beneplacitum, the papal concern being especially for the oblata et data pro Cruciata in subsidium contra Turchorum.62

MEMBERS OF THE CARDINALS’ HOUSEHOLDS Cardinals had their households composed of various ecclesiastical persons in their service. In the registers of the Chancery I have traced some clerics serving in them. The sine cura chapel of St. Peter super platea in Zadar, void due to the promotion of its last rector Angelo Cavazza to the bishopric of Rab, was given to the master of arts Aloisius Blasii, the protegee of Gabriele Condulmer, cardinal priest of S. Clement and future Pope Eugene IV, who recommended his supplication.63 The Dominican friar Dominico de Ragusio, professor of theology and one of the minor penitentiaries in the Lateran basilica, applying for the benefice in the sine cura church called ruralis abbatia S. Dumnii de Pontis in the diocese of Senj (void after the death of its late rector Antonio Morade de Modrusio), stated that he was a member of the household of cardinal vice-chancellor Roderigo ———————————— 58 59 60 61

ASV, Reg. Vat., 465, fol. 31r–32r. ASV, Reg. Vat., 440, fol. 89r–90r. ASV, Reg. Vat., 393, fol. 297r–300r; documents dated January 9, 1451. ASV, Arm. XXXIX, vol. 8, fol. 67v–68r, where a letter of the same tenor is also addressed to King Casimir IV of Poland; see also fol. 68v, a letter to Spitzinuri himself. 62 ASV, Reg. Vat., 542, fol. 65r–67r. 63 ASV, Reg. Lat., 278, fol. 191r–192r. Rome, February 29, 1428. Angelo Cavazza was appointed thesaurarius on September 4, 1441. See: ASV, Reg. Vat., 382, fol. 167r and Theiner, Monumenta Slavorum Meridionalium 1, n. 545.


87

Borgia.64 Dominico de Ragusio was already in office in 1469 when he applied for the Benedictine abbey of S. Nicholas in the Senj diocese.65 In the late 1460s, Luca Dominici, a priest in the diocese of Split, was a chaplain in the household of Cardinal Bessarion Trapezuntinus. He applied for an archdeaconry in Nigropontensis diocesis, void after the resignation of its last archdeacon George de Crescencia.66 The cardinal personally recommended the supplication of his chaplain. Cardinal Pietro Barbo personally recommended to Pope Nicholas V two supplications by Marco Mauroceno, a noble cleric from Castellan diocese, both for the Benedictine abbey of S. Ambrogio in Nin, void after the death of its last abbot. Gregorius Conradi, a cleric from Chulm applying for the post of a canon in the church of Warmia (Ermland) on December 2, 1460, declared himself to be the familiaris of John, tituli S. Marci presbyteri cardinalis.67 Before being appointed archbishop of Dubrovnik, Johannes Venerius, nephew to cardinal Antonio Giacomo Venier, was scriptor litterarum apostolicarum in the chancery.68 His brother Matthew, doctor in canon law and cleric, was a scriptor penitentiarie and familiaris et cubicullarius to Pope Sixtus IV; upon the recommendation of his protector, penitentiarius maior Cardinal Philippus Calandrini,69 brother of Pope Nicholas V, he was given a portio of the church of All Saints in Dubrovnik, in lay patronage of the noble family Gučetić. Even the low ranked curial officials were provided with benefices: they became papal chaplains and auditors in the Sacra Rota,70 papal notaries, scribes and abbreviators.71 Some of them had legal disputes running for years before ———————————— 64 65 66 67

68 69 70

71

ASV, Reg. Lat., 770, fol. 92r–93r: Rome, November 29, 1471. ASV, Reg. Lat., 700, fol. 21r–v: Rome, October 10, 1469. ASV, Reg. Suppl., 645, fol. 47v–48r: Rome, March 5, 1469. At that time the only cardinal of S. Marco was Pietro Barbo, nephew of Pope Eugene IV, protonotarius apostolicus; cardinal deacon of S. Maria nova from July 1, 1440 (fourth promotion), promoted cardinal priest of S. Marco on June 16, 1451, elected Pope Paul II on August 30, 1464. He died on July 26, 1471 (HC 2, 8, 14). ASV, Reg. Suppl., 722, fol. 60v (June 29, 1475): Antonius Iacobus Venier was appointed cardinal of S. Vito on May 7, 1473. He died on August 3, 1479. (HC 2, 17). HC 2, 11. For example, Fantino de Valle, one of the 12 auditors mentioned in the constitution Romani Pontificis indefessa sollicitudo issued on May 14, 1472, by Sixtus IV, was also sent on a diplomatic mission to the Bohemian king George Podiebrad and was a beneficiary in numerous dioceses throughout Dalmatia and the Venetian Republic. Neraliæ, “Udio Hrvata”, 99–100. Master Paulus Stanghe de Leghendorff, canon of the diocese of Warmia (Erm-land) and litterarum apostolicarum scriptor et abbreviator, applied on October 23, 1453 for the canonry in the diocese of Wroc³aw, void after the death in the Roman court of Marcus Bonfilii, member of the household of Cardinal S. Grisogoni (ASV, Reg. Suppl., 470, fol. 19r–v). Ludovichus de Orto, scriptor litterarum apostolicarum and familiaris Sedis Apostolicae, was granted the faculty to re-

88


various auditors of the Sacred Rota. An example of a long process in the rota is that of Master Peter de Casaciis, bacallarius in canon law, scriptor et abbreviator of apostolic letters in the chancery, member ot the household of Martin V and archdeacon of Cuma,72 against another member of the same household and scriptor in the chancery, Master Antonio de Pago, canon of Šibenik cathedral. On October 25, 1447, Master Guillermo de Fondera, chaplain and auditor of the Rota, was given the mandate to decide in their dispute for a provision of the sine cura parochial church of the Blessed Mary of Stomorie in the diocese of Šibenik, resigned by Antonio Gazzari. The church was still the object of contention four years later, and three more auditors were engaged: Stephano de Paperonibus, Agapito de Rusticis,73 and Gaspare de Teramo.74

————————————————————————————————— ceive the income of his office although he had been sent to Hungary and Bohemia with an apostolic mandate issued on March 14, 1426 (ASV, Reg. Suppl., 196, fol. 196r; Lukcsics, Diplomata 1, n. 861). Nicolaus de Costen, licenciatus in decretorum, employed as abbreviator of papal letters in the Chancery and present in the curia, applied for the office of dean in Poznan cathedral, void after the resignation of Iohannes de Sprowa, ASV, Reg. Suppl., 468, fol. 250v–251r; Bullarium Poloniae litteras apostolicas aliaque monumenta Poloniae Vaticana continens, VI: 1447–1464, ed. Irena Sułkowska-Kuraś, Stanislaus Kuraś et al. (Rome and Lublin: Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski, 1998), n. 708. 72 Petrus de Casaciis, cleric from the Milan diocese, was active in the curia from 1426, when one finds him as scriptor cancellariae, a post which he resigned in 1433; from 1436 he is only mentioned as abbreviator (ASV, Reg. Suppl., 320, fol. 72v; see Schwarz, “Abbreviature officium”, esp. 823. For himself he claimed the ecclesia S. Marie Stomorie de Campo inferiori de Verpoglo Sibenicensis diocesis under lay patronage and void after its last rector, the secular priest Jacobus Mikitich, was ordained and appointed to the post of abbot in the Benedictine monastery of S. Nicholas de portu in Šibenik. The bishops of Cività Castellana and Città di Castello as well as the abbot of the monastery of S. Ambrogio in Nin were appointed executors of the papal mandate. The yearly income of the church was estimated at 24 florins. Peter de Casaciis already owned two benefices: the church of S. Nazarius in Brolio in Milan and that of Saint Trinity in Pavia, a canonry with a prebend, the altar of S. Dionisius in the church of S. Iohannis de Varisio, the archdeaconry in Cuma, whereas he still had not taken possession of the benefices in the parochial church of S. Maria de Mezzocorone in Milan and in Trento had a legal dispute in the curia (cuius possessionem nondum est assecutus in Romana Curia noscitur litigare). These benefices assured him a yearly income of approximately 200 florins. Two processes in the curia had already been decided in his favour and letters in form of gratia expectativa for the canonries with a prebend in Todi and Torino had already been written; ASV, Reg. Lat., 278, fol. 39v–40v: Genzano, July 27, 1428; ASV, Reg. Lat., 278, fol. 238v–239v: Rome, April 21, 1428 (the yearly income of S. Mary’s church was estimated at 40 florins); ASV, Reg. Lat., 279, fol. 116v. Rome, January 3, 1428. 73 He was also involved in numerous legal disputes for Polish beneficial cases in the period 1447– 1464; see Bullarium Poloniae VI, n. 1029, 1212, 1240, 1397, 1425, 1430, 1437, 1461. 74 ASV, Reg. Lat., 441, fol. 248r–251r: Rome, October 25, 1447; ASV, Reg. Lat., 473, fol. 98r–100r: Rome, May 25, 1451.


89

Johannes de Tremosnicz, canon of Prague cathedral, scriptor and member of Pope Alexander V’s household, applied for the custody, a simplex officium sine cura, with the yearly income of 45 silver marks. He already owned the canonry with the prebend in the cathedral and the chapel of S. Maurice in the castle of Prague with 26 silver marks, and had a legal dispute in partibus about the canonry and prebend in Wissegrad and Olomouc with the yearly income estimated at 60 silver marks.75 Even the nephew of a scriptor in the Chancery made good use of his connections with a curial official to be provided with several benefices, one of them in Dalmatia. Johannes Dominicus, a priest from Venice and nephew of Dominicus Petri, received from Pope Sixtus IV personally a provision for a beneficium simplex clericatus nuncupatus in the church of SS. Cosmas and Damian in the diocese of Hvar, and the priory of the collegiate church of SS. Apostles in Venice, void after the death of the curial official, Cristofor de Ubertis.76

PENITENTIARII MINORES IN THE CHANCERY REGISTERS In the fifteenth-century registers of supplications, (for the supplication) as well as in the Lateran and Vatican registers (for the letter of appointment), there are also records of clerics from East-Central-European countries applying for the post of penitentiarius minor77 in various Roman basilicas: the Augustinian professor Johannes de Cormentino was recommended on June 2, 1423, by Duke Peter in Trecz de Ungaria from the diocese of Győr for the post in the Basilica Principis Apostolorum because of the lack of confessors able to speak Hungarian.78 On the same day, the priest Andreas Galli of the Order of S. Paul first hermit, de natione Ungarica, applied for the same post and got it.79 Some years later Andreas Galli was an acolyte in the diocese of Zagreb and rector of the parochial church of S. Nicholas de Lovaz80 when he applied to be ordained a priest in the curia: the grant ———————————— 75 ASV, Reg. Lat., 138, fol. 19r–20r; Eršil, Acta 1 (Prague: Academia, 1980), n. 433. 76 ASV, Reg. Suppl., 706, fol. 278r: Rome, May 23, 1474. 77 Throughout the fifteenth century there were eleven penitentiary offices in St. Peter’s (Principis Apostolorum) in Rome, divided among the nations: two each for Germany, France, Spain, and Italy, and one each for England, Poland, and Hungary. 78 ASV, Reg. Suppl., 168, fol. 60v; ASV, Reg. Lat., 234, fol. 156r: Rome, June 2, 1423; Lukcsics, Diplomata 1, n. 599. 79 ASV, Reg. Suppl., 168, fol. 85v; ASV, Reg. Lat., 234, fol. 83r: Rome, June 2, 1423; Lukcsics, Diplomata 1, n. 600. 80 ASV, Reg. Suppl., 239, fol. 276r: Rome, March 22, 1429; Lukcsics, Diplomata 1, n. 1223.

90


was conceded with the only condition that he be liable – atratus – for the ordination.81 Only a few days before the death of Martin V, the nobleman Emeric Gregorii de Cherdy, son of Gregory de Cherdy, canon of Pécs cathedral, chaplain in the chapel of S. Ladislas in Buda, and magister artium, applied for the post of penitentiarius minor, although he did not have the required qualifications for the post (non obstante quod in aliquo iurium seu theologie magistratus aut licentiatus non existat). In his supplication, he informed those who were to decide in his case that for some years (diversis anni temporibus) huge numbers of people (maxima multitudo populi) had been coming to Rome applying to the Penitentiary for indulgencies and absolutions of their sins, so that now one or two penitentiarii no longer sufficed to satisfy the need.82 He was appointed on November 14, 1432, by Eugene IV.83 He acted as proctor in the Roman curia on May 20, 1433 in the case of the Pécs priest Martin Stephani, when the latter resigned the office of rector to the altar of S. Mary in the Bosnian Church, immediately applied for by its canon Johannes Fabian (with a revenue estimated at 30 florins).84 On January 19, 1449, Nicholas V proclaimed a jubilee for the following year, when thousands of pilgrims flocked to Rome, to be decimated by a violent outbreak of the plague and to witness the pope’s timorous flight (on July 15) from the Eternal City. During the jubilee, however, the needs of Hungary were kept in mind, and a special indulgence was proclaimed for the archbishops, bishops, abbots, and other prelates, the barons, knights, nobles, and lesser folk of the kingdom, with special mention of John Hunyadi. They were dispensed from the visit to Rome and the principal basilicas of the city to earn the plenary remission of sins because they had to defend the country against the Turks, “so that the rest of its inhabitants ... might be able to live in sweet security without fear and peril ...”.85 A special bull dated April 12, 1450, was sent to honor Hunyadi and extend to him and his family omnium peccatorum suorum remissio plenaria under the same conditions as those noted above.86

———————————— 81 ASV, Reg. Suppl., 234, fol. 41r; ASV, Reg. Lat., 290, fol. 281v–282v: Rome, March 24, 1429; Lukcsics, Diplomata 1, n. 1229. 82 ASV, Reg. Suppl., 265, fol. 279v; ASV, Reg. Lat., 299, fol. 272v–273r: Rome, January 16, 1431; Lukcsics, Diplomata 1, n. 1440. 83 ASV, Reg. Vat., 381, fol. 147r: Rome, November 14, 1432; Lukcsics, Diplomata 2, n. 122. 84 ASV, Reg. Suppl., 286, fol. 232v; ASV, Reg. Lat., 320, fol. 271r–272r: Rome, May 20, 1433; Lukcsics, Diplomata 2, n. 151. 85 For the bull in question see ASV, Reg. Vat., 391, fol. 252v–254r. Indulgentia pro nobilibus et prelatis Regni Hungarici ... [in the margin of fol. 252v]: ... pro parte ... nobilis viri Johannis de Hunniad, gubernatoris ac rectoris ... [fol. 253r]. 86 ASV, Reg. Vat., 391, fol. 249r.


91

A Pauline hermit, Valentinus Laurentii de Kapos, was appointed poenitentiarius in the Basilica Principis Apostolorum and apostolic chaplain on August 10, 1439.87 There is also a supplication88 with a concession to Dyonisius Johannis de Henne, priest in Veszprém diocese and scriptor of letters in the Sacred Penitentiary, to be provided with the office of provost in the chapter of the Bosnian diocese (de Diaco) – its yearly income was estimated at 70 golden florins – and the canonry (estimated at 30 florins) void after the death outside the Roman Court of Jacob, its last holder. Dyonisius Johannis de Henne was already in possession of the canonry in Eger with the yearly income estimated at 40 florins, but there was a legal dispute, a process going on over it in the Apostolic Palace. The original letter had been lost somewhere during the process of making and expedition, so that Dyonisius demanded another one. Pope Eugene IV ordered that the new letter be written with the same old date of provision, out of the registers of his predecessor Martin V (ut e registris Martini pape V. litterae provisionales sub dato Rome apud Sanctos Apostolos 6. Kal. Maii an. 10 ei de predicta prepositura confecte transcriberentur).89 A very interesting supplication with a curious report on the work of the minor Penitentiary for the Polish nation office can be found in the supplication register.90 Namely, a French religious person (religiosus), Master Jacob, professor of theology, was provided with the post in the office for the Polish nation, although he did not speak the language. He was also provided with two benefices in the diocese of Ferrara, which kept him constantly absent from his Penitentiary office in Rome. Since Polish pilgrims coming to Rome to confess were not adequately taken care of, Paulus Polonus de Xansch, rector of the parochial church in Wiszkocz in the diocese of Poznan, decretorum doctor, and the substitute of the Polish nation, applied for the post. Another piece of curious information from this supplication is that three more nations, Slavonica (probably the Croatians), Bohemica, and Russa, were counted under the Polish nation. Because of the insufficient number of confessors and their inadequate linguistic preparation, many penitents left the Office unsatisfied.

———————————— 87 ASV, Reg. Vat., 382, fol. 92r: Florence, August 10, 1439; Lukcsics, Diplomata 2, n. 665. 88 ASV, Reg. Suppl., 212, fol. 128r; ASV, Reg. Lat., 275, fol. 181v–182v: Rome, April 27, 1427; Lukcsics, Diplomata 1, n. 931. 89 ASV, Reg. Lat., 303, fol. 164r–165r: Rome, May 12, 1431; Lukcsics, Diplomata 2, n. 43. 90 ASV, Reg. Suppl., 542, fol. 31r–v: Tivoli, August 1, 1461; Bullarium Poloniae 6, n. 1641.

THE PAPAL CURIA AND ALBANIA IN THE LATER MIDDLE AGES Etleva Lala

During the fourteenth century, especially, numerous papal letters were addressed to the archbishopric of Antibari (Bar in Serbian/Tivar in Albanian) and its dioceses1, to the archbishopric of Dyrrachium or Durazzo (Drač in Serbian/Durrës in Albanian) and its bishoprics2, as well as to other bishoprics in the area, such as Prisriana (Prizren in Kosova), Scopia (Scopia in Macedonian/Skoplje in Serbian/Shkup in Albanian), Achrid (Ohrid in Macedonian/Ohri in Albanian), and Bothroto (Butrinti in Albanian). The question of whether they were in any way Albanian or Albania3 in the Middle Ages is not the focus of this paper, and should not draw the attention of the reader. The important fact for this study is that they lay at the borders of Western Christianity, in, or directly connected with, the political structure of the Regnum Albaniae, a Catholic kingdom bor———————————— 1

Dulcinium (Ulcinj in Serbian/Ulqin in Albanian), Scodra or Scutari (Skadar in Serbian/Shkodra in Albanian), Dagno (Danja in Albanian), Alessio (Lezha in Albanian), Polati (Pulti in Albanian), Sappa (Sapa in Albanian), Sarda (Shurdhah in Albanian), Satti (Svač in Serbian/Shasi in Albanian). 2 Avlona (Vlora in Albanian), Balezo (Baleci in Albanian), Tzernic (Çermenikë in Albanian), Stephaniaka (Stefaniakë in Albanian), Cunavia (Kunavia in Albanian), Croya (Kruja in Albanian), Wregu (Vregu in Albanian). 3 Opinions differ about what Albania was in the Middle Ages. Oliver Jens Schmitt, Das Venezianische Albanien (Munich: R. Oldenbourg, 2001), 47, holds to the statement of Simon Fitzsimons (Symon Semeonis) of 1322 that Albania was simply a geographical region, although the latter was more complete in his opinion because he also attributes to this geographical region a particular language: Albanya est provincia inter Sclavoniam et Romanyam, per se linguam habens. Ducellier connects the term Albania with its inhabitants rather than with the geographical spread in his definition: “From the eleventh century onward, a compact Albanian nucleus, known henceforth as Arbanon, extended between the central valleys of the Shkumbin and Devoll, which moreover did not exclude the existence of Albanian communities all the way to the seacoast, especially in the areas surrounding Dyrrachion, as well as in northwestern Macedonia, where the Hellenic influence had always been superficial, and Slavic invasions had definitely not led to the disappearance of all preexistent elements.” See Alain Ducellier, “Genesis and Failure of the Albanian State in the XIV and XV Centuries”, in Studies on Kosova, ed. Arshi Pipa and Sami Repishti (New York: Columbia University Press, 1984), 4.

94


dering the Byzantine Orthodox kingdoms in the Balkans. The question of this survey is whether the political structure of the Regnum Albaniae meant anything important for Catholic religiosity in these territories at the borders of the Eastern Church and, if yes, what it meant. The term Regnum Albaniae appears for the first time in 1267, in the Treaty of Viterbo, between Charles I Anjou and the Latin emperor of Byzantium, Baldwin II, to attack the Balkans.4 The term was registered only in the chancellery of Anjou. De jure, Regnum Albaniae was proclaimed in 1272, when Charles I of Anjou made known his election as its legitimate king.5 Charles I Anjou presented the regnum as a natural descendent of the Principatum Albaniae,6 but ———————————— 4

The Treaty of Viterbo (May 27, 1267) became the cornerstone of Angevin hostility towards the Palaiologoi in the following decades. According to the treaty, Charles would provide 2,000 cavalry to fight for Baldwin; in exchange, the king would be given one third of the conquered territory, besides suzerainty over Achaea. See Ludwig Thallóczy, Konstantin Jireček, Milan von Šufflay, Acta et Diplomata res Albaniae Mediae Aetatis Illustrantia, vol. 1 (Vienna: Holzhausen, 1913, reprint: Tirana and Pristine: DPA and Ekskluzive, 2002) (henceforth AA) 1, n. 253, Pëllumb Xhufi, “Shqiptarët përballë Anzhuinëve (1267–1285)” (The Albanians Facing Anjou), Studime Historike (1987), 205 (henceforth Xhufi, “Shqiptarët”). 5 February 21, 1272 (AA 1, n. 268). According to the Angevin document, the Albanian “bishops, contes, barones, soldiers and the citizens” elected and accepted Charles I Anjou as their king. See also Donald Nicol, The Despotate of Epiros 1267–1479: A Contribution to the History of Greece in the Middle Ages (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 15; Gennaro Maria Monti, Mezzogiorno d’Italia nel medioevo: Studi Storici (Bari: Laterza, 1930), 80; Historia e popullit shqiptar (The History of the Albanian people) (Tirana: Toena 2002), 204; John Deno Géanakoplos, Byzantine East and Latin West: Two Worlds of Christendom in Middle Ages and Renaissance. Studies in Ecclesiastical and Cultural History (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1966), 234. Ducellier interprets this fact as an expression of desire for the independence of the Albanians of Durres: “Les Albanais de Durazzo, en mettant Charles d’Anjou à la tête de ce royaume d’Albanie, entendaient, tout en s’assurant de leur autonomie théorique, ne pas renoncer à la forme oligarchique qui régissait leur cite-Etat et ses environs.” See Allain Ducellier, La Façade maritime de L’Albanie au Moyen Age, Durazzo et Valona du XIe au XVe siècle (Thessaloniki: Institute for Balkan Studies, 1981), 263 (henceforth Ducellier, La Façade maritime). For more about Charles I Anjou and his dynasty, see Andreas Kiesewetter, Die Anfänge der Regierung König Karls II. von Anjou (1278–1295): das Königreich Neapel, die Grafschaft Provence und der Mittelmeerraum zu Ausgang des 13. Jahrhunderts, Historische Studien, 451 (Husum: Matthiesen, 1999) (henceforth Kiesewetter, Die Anfänge). 6 Principatum Albaniae appeared in the historical source at the end of the twelfth century. At the beginning of the thirteenth century, in February 1208, Pope Innocent III addressed a letter to Demetrius (nobili viro Demetrio, Arbanensi principi); see AA 1, n. 133; the principate had started to function as a political entity and had also begun to expand in the north as well as in the south. According to Stoian Novaković, the term “Arbanon” extended in the north, in the province of Pulati, as early as during the suzerainty of Archont Progon, who was the Albanian noble proclaiming the principatum Albaniae; see Stoian Novaković, Spomenici zakonski, sropskich drzava srednega veka (Belgrade, 1912), 384. During the reign of Demetrius, the toponym “Arbanon” was also extended to the southern territories of Chunavia and Cernick up to the valley of the

THE PAPAL CURIA AND ALBANIA

95

the Albanian medievalist Pëllumb Xhufi argued that there was no historical basis for such a representation, since the two political structures did not have any continuation, neither in the purpose for which they came into being nor in their function nor in the way they were received by the locals. That is why he called the Regnum Albaniae an Angevin invention.7 According to the studies of Francesco Carabellese, the Regnum Albaniae of Charles I Anjou extended from the mountains of Accroceraunt (from Avlona in the south at the mouth of Drini River) to Lissus in the north, with undetermined borders in the hinterland.8 Charles I Anjou had projected this regnum as the core of a whole empire, to be reached step by step with the help of crusades and campaigns.9 Proclaiming himself king of a fraction of the Balkan territories, although this section was very small, he wanted to legitimize in advance his suzerainty over the peninsula and, if possible, over the whole Byzantine Empire.10 About the functioning of the Angevin Regnum Albaniae, Ducellier concluded that it was a “structure politique artificielle … régime d’occupation militaire, tout y a été fait par la guerre et pour la guerre”,11 and Kiesseweter called it a “fantome” which could not expand its borders beyond the city walls of Durres.12 Nevertheless, it was a kingdom, un royaume distinct du royaume de Naples,13 and as a such it had its own means and organs of government, which

————————————————————————————————— 07 08

09

10 11 12 13

Shkumbin River; see Georgii Acropolitae Opera, vol. 14, ed. Augustus Heisenberg (Leipzig: Teubner, 1903), 28. Xhufi, “Shqiptarët”, 204. Francesco Carabellese, Carlo d’Angiò nei rapporti politici e commerciali con Venezia e l’Oriente: Documenti e Monografie (Bari, 1911), 45 (hereafter Carabellese, Carlo). See also Gennaro Maria Monti, Ricerche sul Dominio Angioina in Albania, Studi Albanesi, vols. 5–6 (Rome: Istituto per l’Europa Orientale, 1935–1936), 1–22; idem, Mezzogiorno d’Italia, 80–81. Durrës was thought to be the main base of Charles I Anjou for his expeditions against Constantinople. With regard to his oriental policy see George Yver, Le Commerce et les Marchands dans l’Italie mèridionale au XIIIe et au XIVe siècle, Bibliothèque des Écoles Françaises d’Athènes et de Rome, 88 (Paris: Librairie des Écoles Françaises d’Athènes et de Rome, 1903), 9–23; Gennaro Maria Monti, Da Carlo I a Roberto di Angiò: Ricerche e documenti (Trani: Vecchi e C., 1936); Lénárt Boehm, “De Karlingis imperator Karolus, princeps et monarcha totius Europae. Zur Orientpolitik Karls I. von Anjou”, Historisches Jahrbuch der Görres-Gesellschaft 88 (1968), 1–35; Peter Herde, Karl I. von Anjou (Berlin: W. Kohlhammer, 1979); see also Silvano Borsari, “La politica Bizantina di Carlo I d’Angiò dal 1266 al 1271”, Archivio Storico per le provincie Napoletane 74 (1955), 319. Ducellier, La Façade maritime, 262. Ibidem. Kiesewetter, Die Anfänge, 69. Ducellier, La Façade maritime, 262.

96


were located mainly in Durres, the capital of the kingdom. It had also its governmental organs, such as the general captain who, in other words, was a viceking;14 the capitaneus et vicarius generalis; “the marescallus in partibus Albaniae, who commanded the army etc.”15 Thus, functional or artificial, with or without a king, the royal status of the kingdom could not be erased once it was proclaimed and recognized. Although the Regnum Albaniae was officially proclaimed in 1272, its first mention in the papal chancellery dates from 1317, in a document in which Pope John XXII asked Guillelmo de Montegrano, the bishop of Cunavia in the archbishopric of Durres in the Regnum Albaniae, to present himself at the papal curia within twenty days (Guillelmo de Montegrano episcopo Cunaviensis de Archiepiscopatu Duraseno in Regno Albaniae … ut infra viginti dierum spatium post citationem huiusmodi se coram nobis personaliter representer).16 The other papal letters in which Regnum Albaniae is mentioned, dating from 1317 to 1320, show the papal concern for the Catholics of the Regnum Albaniae, who were being persecuted by Serbian schismatics that had occupied the territories of the Regnum.17 This concern gave birth to serious preparations for a Christian crusade against the Serbs in 1319, in which the Albanian nobles would have played the basic role. On June 17, 1319, Pope John XXII sent letters to the Albanian nobles encouraging them to resist the Serbian occupation and the mistreatment of the Catholics in Albanian territories (sub gravi tirannide illius regis perfidi Rascie nedum scismatici et religionis christiane totaliter inimici).18 He addressed them in groups according to their geographical location. One letter was for the Musaka ———————————— 14 Ducellier, La Façade maritime, 264. 15 The first was probably Guillaume Bernard, who later became general captain, AA 1, n. 290. He was succeeded by Philippe d’Artulla (Ervilla) (see Carabellese, Carlo, 72) and then by Geoffroy de Polisy, (ibidem, 104), who for some months was replaced by Jacques de Campagnol due to illness. After the 1280s, no more marescalls are mentioned (Ducellier, La Façade maritime, 265). 16 ASV, Reg. Aven., 2, fol. 183r; ASV, Reg. Vat., 63, fol. 363v. This document is also mentioned in AA 1, n. 633, and also given as a regestum in Guillaume Mollat, Jean XXII (1316–1334). Lettres communes (Paris: Boccard, 1921–1947), n. 5251 (hereafter Mollat, Jean XXII). It is edited by Louis Guérard, Documents pontificaux sur la Gascogne, vol. 1 (Paris: H. Champion, 1896), n. 14 (hereafter Guérard, Documents). 17 Dum ad personam venerabilem fratrem nostrum Andream episcopum Croiensem, qui ab ecclesia sua, per Urošium regem Rasciae schismaticum occupata, exulare compellitur, ASV, Reg. Aven., 8, fol. 70, ep. 96; ASV, Reg. Vat., 67, fol. 26, ep. 96; ed. Aloysius L. Tautu, Acta Joannis XXII (1317–1334) e registris vaticanis aliisque fontibus (Rome: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1952), n. 4 (hereafter Tautu, Acta Joannis), mentioned as a regestum by Mollat, Jean XXII, n. 5629. 18 ASV, Reg. Aven., 2, fol. 183r; ASV, Reg. Vat., 63, fol. 363v; mentioned in AA 1, n. 633, also given as a regestum in Mollat, Jean XXII, n. 5251, edited by Guérard, Documents 1, n. 14.


97

family, which had its possessions in the south of present day Albania. The papal letter was addressed to Mentulo Musatio comiti Clissaniae, to Andrea Musatio Regni Albaniae marescallo, and to Theodoro Musatio, prothosevastori.19 Another letter was addressed to the nobles of middle and northern Albania: to Guillermo Bleniste prothosevastoni, Guillermo Aranite protholegaturo, Caloiohanni Bleniste comiti, Paulo Materango ceterisque baronibus regni Albanie.20 A third letter was sent to Baldislao Conome Dioclee et maritime Albanie comiti,21 whose possessions are understood to have defined the territorial extension of the Regnum Albaniae in the north. In the official textbook of the history of Albania, these papal bulls are interpreted as if the Albanian nobles wanted to abandon the Byzantine rite and embrace the Catholic rite in order to also be separated ecclesiastically from the Serbs.22 Nevertheless, this was not the case, at least not until one comes across a document in which the Albanian nobles directly or indirectly asked for this. Pope John XXII addressed them as dilectis filiis and such an intitulatio could never be made to non-Catholics.23 Such a description, as a devoted Catholic, may even be attributed to Ladislav,24 who is often believed to have been a Slav of the Eastern rite.25 The starting point of such a mistake has been his name,26 for———————————— 19 ASV, Reg. Vat., 109, fol. 140r, ep. 571; it is also given in AA 1, n. 648, and also in Tautu, Acta Joannis, n. 22a; Augustin Theiner, Vetera monumenta historica Hungariam sacram illustrantia maximam partem nondum edita ex tabularis Vaticanis (henceforth Theiner, Mon. Hung.) 1 (Rome: Typis Vaticanis, 1852), n. 1264; Daniele Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum, vol. 7 (Venice: Sebastiano Coleti, 1817), 64B (hereafter Daniele Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum); a fragment is given by Caesare Baronio, Odericus Raynaldi and Giacomo Laderchi, Annales Ecclesiastici (hence-forth Baronio et al., Ann. Eccl.) vol. 18 (Paris and Freiburg 1887, in the years 1318 and 1335; Theiner, Mon. Hung. 15, 178. 20 ASV, Reg. Vat., 109, fol. 140r–140v, ep. 572, (secret letter). It is partly given by Ann. Eccl. 1318 and 1335, 178; and Daniele Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum 7, 63; it is fully edited in Theiner, Mon. Hung. 1, n. 1264; and also in AA 1, n. 649. 21 ASV, Reg. Vat., 109, fol. 140v, ep. 573. 22 Selim Islami and K. Frashëri, Histori e Shqipërisë, vol. 1 (Tirana: Universiteti shtetëror, 1959), 273. 23 Thomas Frenz, Papsturkunden des Mittelalters und der Neuzeit (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2000), 44–46. 24 ASV, Reg. Vat., 109, fol. 140v, ep. 573. 25 Claudine Delacroix-Besnier, “Les Ordres mendiants et l’expansion de l’Église latine dans les Balkans”, in Alle frontiere della Cristianità. I frati Mendicanti e l’evangelizzazione tra ’200 e ’300. Atti del XXVIII Convegno internazionale, Assisi, 12–14 ottobre 2000 (Spoleto: Centro Italiano di studi sull’alto Medievo, 2001), 245; AA 1, n. 650, comment of Šufflay. 26 Jireček’s method of basing his study of ethnic relations mainly on the interpretation of personal names has been taken too seriously. On the basis of the personal names, facts cannot be created to prove ethnicity, especially as regards the Albanian and Slavic personal names, which are all hidden under the Latin writing elements.

98


getting that Dioclea, where his possessions were, had been under the direct influence of Helena, the Catholic French princess and wife of the Serbian King, Stephen I Uroš,27 who oversaw intense Catholic activity in these regions28 and had a vivid correspondence with the papacy regarding issues of faith.29 The papacy was allowed to direct activities in these territories during her lifetime, but since the Catholic element was strong, it certainly also had continuing influence after her death. In the context of the preparations for a crusade against the schismatics, Pope John XXII might have considered these territories as active for the issue and that is why it should be no wonder that a ‘Slav’30 from the Dioclean region was considered a dilectus filius and one of the leading political forces of the Regnum Albaniae, which was first of all a Catholic kingdom. Politically seen, Pope John XXII addressing the Albanian nobles and not the king of the Regnum Albaniae himself31 indicates his interest in direct and effective diplomatic relations with the leaders of these territories. Grouping them and addressing them in this way may show his attempt to create unity among the local authorities, a Catholic stronghold in this threatened region. From the papal side the instructor viva vocis of this unity was an Albanian bishop, Andreas Croensis,32 who himself had suffered persecution by the Ser———————————— 27 When Stephen Dragutin, who reigned for only a short time alone, divided his reign into three parts among his sons and his wife, Helena, she received the territories at the coast of the Adriatic, from Dubrovnik to Shkodër, and these regions were for a long time known as the territories of domina regina mater. In the hinterland, she received Plava (near Gucia) in the northern Lim and the castle of Brnjac in the uper part of the Ibri. In this way, Helena had all of Dioclea under her dominion. See Konstantin Jireček, Geschichte der Serben. Erster Band bis 1371 (Gotha: Friedrich Andreas Perthes A.-G., 1911, reprint Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1967) (hereafter Jireček, Geschichte der Serben). 28 Helena, who is praised for her eloquence, her good spirits, generosity, religious life, and her good behaviour, was very active in building and founding religious institutions. According to Barleti, she renewed Drishti and other towns in Dioclea, destroyed by the Mongol invasion, founded Catholic churches and monasteries in Kotor, Bar, Ulcinj, Shkodër; and in the hinterland she founded the Serbian monastery of Gradac, on the Iber (Jireček, Geschichte der Serben, 318–319, 328). 29 On March 23, 1291, Pope Nicholas IV praised Helena, the Queen of Serbia and Rascia, because through Marino, the archbishop of Bar, she had made known to the pope that she would take care for the conversion even of the emperor of the Bulgarians to the Catholic rite. See ASV, Reg. Vat., 46, fol. 14r–17v. 30 Whether Ladislaus was a Slav should not be determined only by his name. The kings of Hungary were often called Ladislaus, and they were certainly not Slavs. 31 Pope John XXII addressed Philip of Tarent: Dilecto filio nobili viro Philippo clarae memoriae regis Siciliae filio, principi Tarentino, and did not address him as the King of the Regnum Albaniae. ASV, Reg. Vat., 109, fol. 162v, ep. 671 (Litt. Secr.); AA 1, n. 648; Theiner, Mon. Hung. 1, n. 1263; Tautu, Acta Joannis, n. 22. 32 Konrad Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica Medii Aevi sive Summorum Pontificum S.R.E. Cardi-


99

bian schismatics. In other words, it might also be asserted that Pope John XXII wanted to strengthen the local identity of this Catholic kingdom, which was to become a strong papal weapon in the Balkans. Even if Ladislaus were a Slav, this is not a counter-argument for the statement, as Regnum Albaniae was not a kingdom based on ethnicity but on religion, specifically the Catholic religion. Not only politically, but also religiously, the territories of the Regnum Albaniae were continuously threatened by the expansion of the Eastern rite. This was strongly supported by the political powers of the Byzantine Empire or other states such as the Serbian kingdom, which, being merged at expense of the Byzantine Empire, strictly followed the Byzantine rite.33 Serbian rule, which from the beginning of the fourteenth century had started to expand over almost the whole Balkans, violently imposed the Eastern rite on the population. This tendency reached its peak with King Stephen Dušan, who in December 1348 proclaimed himself “Emperor of the Serbs and the Greeks”. In his widespread kingdom, the Latin rite was called Latin heresy and as such it was also recorded in his codex of laws, the Zakonik, which was promoted in Scopia in May 1349.34 This was a normative apparatus to be applied not only in the Serbian kingdom, but also in the occupied territories of Macedonia, Thesalia, Epirus, and Albania. Persecutions of the Catholics, which became legitimate through this codex,35 were recorded in the papal letters and also ————————————————————————————————— nalium, Ecclesiarum Antistitum Series ab anno 1198 usque ad annum 1431 perducta e documentis tabularii praesertim vaticani, I (Münster: Regensberg 1898), 216: Andreas Croensis is mentioned only in 1318 and 1320. Giorgio Fedalto, La Chiesa Latina in Oriente, vol. 2 (Verona: Mazziana, 1976), 103, is more detailed when giving the years (June 6, 1318 and July 16, 1320), but he offers no other details. 33 Jireček, Geschichte der Serben, 328. 34 For this study, I have used the translation of Ðurica Krstić, ed., Dushan’s Code: the XIV Century Code of Serbian Tsar Stephan Dushan / the Bistritza Transcript, 2nd ed. (Belgrade: Vajat, 1997) (hereafter Dushan’s Code). 35 Dushan’s Code: “Article 6: And concerning the Latin heresy: Christians who have turned to the use of unleavened bread shall return to the Christian observance. If any fail to obey and do not return to Christian Orthodoxy, let him be punished as is written in the Code of the Holy Fathers. Article 7: And the great church shall appoint head priests in all market towns to reclaim from the Latin heresy those Christians who have turned to the Latin faith, and to give them spiritual instructions, so that each one of them returns to Christianity. Article 8: And if a Latin priest be found to have converted a Christian to the Latin faith, let him be punished according to the Law of the Holy Fathers. Article 9: And if a half-believer be found to be married to a Christian woman, let him be baptized into Christianity if he desires it. But if he refuse to be baptized, let his wife and children be taken from him, and let a part of his house be allotted to them, and let him be driven forth. Article 10: And if any heretic be found to live among the Christians, let him be branded on the face and driven forth, and whoever shall harbour him, let him too be branded.

100


by different travelers.36 Religious persecution of the Catholic population in these territories, such as confiscation of property, expulsion, physical mutilation, and the death penalty, was massive after the year 1349. After having pushed his boundaries into Greece and having assumed the title “Emperor of the Serbs and the Greeks,” Stephen Dušan was meditating the conquest of Constantinople, but under the flag of the Western Christian army, which he himself wanted to lead with the blessings of the papacy. The situation was quite favorable for his strategy: on March 2, 1354, Suleiman, son of the powerful Emir Orkhan, had taken Gallipoli. Byzantium turned to Rome for help, playing again on the question of church union, for which the papacy had fought so hard. Stephen Dušan made use of these circumstances, and addressed himself to the papacy for conversion to the Catholic rite. In the 1350s, the papal curia sent legates to Regna Rasciae, Albaniae, et Sclavoniae, to accomplish what Stephen Dušan had requested and to instruct the converts, if this were going to become true. Letters about the legation of December 1354 are addressed to Stephen Dušan,37 to Helena, the Queen of the Serbs,38 to the Serbian patriarch Joanichi,39 to Ludwig, the King of Hungary,40 to the secular powers nobilibus viris universis principibus commitibus et Baronibus Servie, Sclavonie ac Albaniae,41 and to the religious authorities of these territories.42 The conversion never took place because of the death of Stephen Dušan. ————————————————————————————————— 36 37

38 39

40 41 42

Article 83: And who so utters a heretical word, if he be noble let him pay 100 perpers, and if he be a commoner, let him pay 12 perpers and be beaten with sticks.” Pëllumb Xhufi, “Albanian Heretics in the Serbian Medieval Kingdom”, in Kristaq Prifti, ed., The Truth on Kosova (Tirana: Encyclopedia publishing house, 1993), 48–54. ASV, Reg. Vat., 236, fol. 222v; ASV, Reg. Vat., 244B, fol. 125r, ep. 288; also edited by Pierre Gasnault, Innocent VI (1352–1362). Lettres Secrètes et Curiales (Paris: Boccard, 1959), n. 1249 (hereafter Gasnault, Lettres Secrètes). ASV, Reg. Vat., 236, fol. 224v; ASV, Reg. Vat., 244B, fol. 37r, ep. 76. Gasnault, Lettres Secrètes, n. 1250. ASV, Reg.Vat., 236 fol. 225r–226r.; ASV, Reg. Vat., 244B, fol. 36r, ep. 75; ASV, Reg. Vat., 244C, fol. 80r, ep. 211; Aloysius L. Tautu, Acta Innocenti VI (1352–1362) e regestis vaticanis aliisque fontibus (Rome: Typis Pontificiae Universitatis Gregorianae, 1961), n. 30; Augustin Theiner, Vetera Monumenta Slavorum Meridionalium Historiam Illustrantia (henceforth: Theiner, Mon. Slav.) 2 (reprint Osnabrück: Zeller, 1968), n. 22; Luke Wadding, Annales Ordinis Minorum seu trium Ordinum a S. Francisco institutorum (Roma: Bernabò, 1731–1745), vol. 8, a. 1354, 1–5, 108–115 (hereafter Wadding, Annales Minorum); Györgyi Fejér, Codex Diplomaticvs Hungariae, Ecclesiasticvs ac civilis (Buda: Typogr. Regiae Universitatis Ungaricae, 1829–1844), vol. 9, vol. 7, n. 81; Gasnault, Lettres Secrètes, n. 1251. ASV, Reg. Vat., 244C, fol. 76r–v; ASV, Reg. Vat., 236, fol. 238v. Gasnault, Lettres Secrètes, n. 1248. ASV, Reg. Aven., 127, fol. 32r–v; ASV, Reg. Vat., 227, fol. 4v–5r, ep. 12. Gasnault, Lettres Secrètes, n. 1259. ASV, Reg. Vat., 236, fol. 230r–v; ASV, Reg. Vat., 244B, fol. 36v; ASV, Reg. Vat., 227, fol. 5r, ep.


101

Regnum Albaniae, although no longer playing an important role as such, since it had become quite weak under Serbian rule, was still addressed as a Regnum by the papal curia, and this might have made the Albanian nobles remember their political status and its importance. As an indirect result, after the death of Stephen Dušan there was a massive conversion of schismatics in partibus Albaniae.43 It started with the conversion of the zupans of Zeta, the brothers Balsha, in 1369,44 and it continued in the whole area. The flourishing of Catholicism on the borders of the Eastern rite was not without internal problems of discipline, which seem to have been known in the whole area which bordered the Eastern rite, as some of the papal letters show. For instance, on March 31, 1304, Pope Benedict XI wrote to the prior of the Dominicans in Hungary, pointing out some of the main problems, which presented the state of being ad confines in the southeast of Catholic Europe: Dilecto filio priori provinciali fratrum Predicatorum in Ungaria. Cum sicut nobis extitit intimatum, nonnulli fratres tui ordinis sint filii sacerdotum latinorum, quos patres ipsorum ex matrimonio ab eis contracto ante susceptionem sacrorum ordinum secundum ritum Grecorum in sacerdotio genuerunt, discretioni tue, de cuius circumspectione fiduciam gerimus in Domino specialem, dispensandi auctoritate nostra cum duobus ex eis defectum huiusmodi patientibus, quibus ad hoc propria merita repereris suffragari, quod eodem non obstante defectu ad administrationes, prelaturas et officia predicti dumtaxat ordinis, citra tamen officium provincialis prioris ejusdem ordinis, assumi licite valeant, plenam concedimus tenore presentium facultatem. Datum Rome apud Sancum Petrum, II kalendas aprilis, anno primo.45 The geographical affinity of the people using the Eastern rite in these territories led to the canon law being ignored or deformed among the Catholics of the region. Secundum ritum Graecorum was not only the marriage of a priest ————————————————————————————————— 15; ASV, Reg. Vat., 236, fol. 229r–v. Gasnault, Lettres Secrètes, n. 1253: Ven. fratribus – Archiepiscopis et episcopis et dilectis filiis electis abbatibus et aliis ecclesiarum et monasteriorum prelatis et clericis ac personis ecclesiasticis secularibus et regularibus Capitulis quoque ac conventibus ecclesiarum et monasteriorum ipsorum dictorum Benedicti et Augustini necnon Cuniacensi, praemonstaensi, cisterciensi ac aliorum ordinum necnon Hospitalis sancti Johannis Jerusalemi sancte Marie Theotonicorum et Calatanensis magistris prioribus et preceptoribus universis et singulis per Regna Rassie et Serviae ac Albaniae constitatur gratiam et comunionem apostolice sedis habentibus salutem etc. 43 ASV, Reg. Vat., 250, fol. 142r, 155r; Aloysius L. Tautu, Acta PP. Urbani V (1362–1370) e regestis vaticanis aliisque fontibus. (Rome: Typis Pontificiae Universitatis Gregorianae 1964), n. 212, n. 212b (hereafter Tautu, Acta Urbani V). 44 ASV, Instr. Misc., 2526. 45 ASV, Reg. Vat., 51, fol. 154r, ep. 664, ed. Ch. Grandjean, Le registre de Benoit XI (Paris: Bibliothèque des Écoles Francaises d’Athènes et de Rome, 1905), n. 832.

102


and his illegitimate children, but the direct result of this was also that these illegitimate children received ecclesiastical offices. There were many other errors, which needed to be addressed by the papacy in these parts, and the papal curia started a whole campaign against them. The Hungarian Dominicans and later also the Minorites became the leaders of this campaign against errors which originated from the affinity to the Eastern rite. The inquisition instituted by Pope Nicholas IV46 and Pope Boniface VIII47 in provinciis Serbiae, Rasciae, Dalmatiae, Croatiae, Bosnae, et Istriae nec non in archiepiscopatibus Duracensi, Antibarensi, Ragusino, Spalatensi ac Iadrensi et eorum dioecesibus was put under the supervision of the prior of the Dominicans in Hungary.48 In other letters, one receives a clearer description of the activities that the Dominicans and Minorites were supposed to conduct in these territories. Pope Clement V49 and John XXII50 addressed the Minorites and Dominicans to missionize the terras Sarracenorum, paganorum, Graecorum, Bulgarorum, Cumanorum, Iberorum, Ala-norum, Gazarorum, Gothorum, Zichorum, Rutenorum, Jacobitarum, Meclitarum aliarumque non credentium nationum Orientis, granting them the authority to communicate with the locals non obstante si aliqui sunt excommunicatione ligati. The Minorites and the Dominicans were also granted the authority to baptise, to grant the confirmation of the sacraments, and the faculty to absolve and to give dispensations for every kind of irregularity, such as to those clerics who had received the ecclesiastical offices without reaching their mature age, or without being proper (ydoneus) according to canon law; to those who had been married in a prohibited blood affinity or with schismatics, or had been living together with the latter; to those who had murdered ecclesiastics, had used violence upon clerics, or were excommunicated for other different reasons like apostasy, simony, etc. The Dominicans and Minorites certainly also conducted their missionary activity in the territories of Albania, although this is not explicitly said in the ———————————— 46 Theiner, Mon. Hung. 1, n. 611, n. 610. 47 Theiner, Mon. Hung. 1, n. 614. 48 ASV, Reg. Vat., 82, fol. 4r, ep. 13; Theiner, Mon. Hung. 1, n. 787; Mollat, Jean XXII, n. 29, 662; Tautu, Acta Iohannis, n. 91. 49 Wadding, Annales Minorum 6, 110; Konrad Eubel, Bullarium Franciscanum 5 (Rome: Typis sacrae congregationis de propagnada fide, 1898), n. 84 (hereafter Eubel, Bullar. Francisc.); Tautu, Acta Clementis V (1303–1314) e regestis vaticanis aliisque fontibus (Rome: Typis polyglottis vaticanis, 1955), n. 17. 50 ASV, Reg. Aven., 10, fol. 448r; ASV, Reg. Vat., 67, fol. 319v, ep. 62; Baronio et al., Ann. Eccl., n. 7; Thomas Ripoll, Bullarium Ordinis Praedicatorum 2 (Rome: Mainard, 1730), 136; Mollat, Jean XXII, n. 8186, n. 46, 791; Tautu, Acta Iohannis, n. 14 (October 23, 1321); ASV, Reg. Aven., 17, fol. 337r; ASV, Reg. Vat., 73, fol. 4v, ep. 24; Eubel, Bullar. Francisc. 5, n. 35–37, 84; Mollat, Jean XXII, n. 16,102; Tautu, Acta Iohannis, n. 48.


103

papal letters. It is obvious that the enumeration of the territories into which the Minorites and Dominicans were sent as missionaries started with Saracens, Greeks and Bulgarians, and their territories included the direct borders of Regnum Albaniae, and parts of the Albanian territories themselves, such as the Orthodox autocephaly of Ohrid. Even the Latin archbishopric of Durrës, which was the core of the Regnum Albaniae, was freely considered oriental, because it depended on the Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople51 and was thus either the base for or aim of missionary activities. Thus, seen from the ecclesiastical viewpoint, although Regnum Albaniae was completely Catholic it included two archbishoprics which were dependent on different patriarchates: the archbishopric of Dyrrachium or Durazzo with its bishoprics dependent on the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the archbishopric of Antibari with its bishoprics dependent on the Patriarchate of Aquila. To return to the general problems of the area as lying at the borders of the Eastern rite, mirrored in the religious life inside the Regnum Albaniae and its surroundings, it is worth mentioning some of the main encountered cases to see how problems were handled. In January 1347, Pope Clement VI addressed a letter to Antonio, the bishop of Dulcinj who, being born of a marriage legitimate according to the Eastern rite (ex legitimo tamen matrimonio, secundum ritum Orientalis Ecclesiae, cui vicini sunt, geniti) was accepted by the Benedictine Order, and even confirmed as abbot, after having received an apostolic dispensation by Pope Clement VI.52 A supplication letter of the archbishop of Antibari from September 9, 136353 shows a variety of cases which needed papal dispensation. One of these cases was certainly regarding promotion: sons of schismatic priests (about 25 of them) who had received an ecclesiastical office in the Catholic hierarchy (in sua provincia sint multi filii presbyterorum ad sacerdotium promoti) needed papal dispensation from their defectibus natalium.54 Another case was the usage of violence against clerics and canonicals. This violence must have been quite fierce, since the papal nuncios and legates did not absolve them (quod impositas et collectas Legatorum et Nuntiorum Sedis Apostolicae non solverunt).55 Because of the mixture of rites and ———————————— 51 Michael Le Quien, Oriens christianus in quatuor patriarchatus digestus; quo exhibentur Ecclesiae, Patriarchae, caeterique praesules totius orientis, vol. 2 (Paris, 1740), 240–255; Giorgio Fedalto, La Chiesa Latina in Oriente, vol. 2: Hierarchia Latina Orientis (Verona: Mazziana, 1964), 276–277. 52 ASV, Reg. Vat., 174, fol. 336r, ep. 1004; Theiner, Mon. Slav. 1, n. 287; AA 2, n. 28; Tautu, Acta Clementis VI (1342–1352) e regestis vaticanis aliisque fontibus (Rome: Typis polyglottis vaticanis, 1960), n. 118 (hereafter Tautu, Acta Clementis VI). 53 ASV, Reg. Suppl., 40, fol. 141r. Tautu, Acta Urbani V, n. 42. 54 Ibidem. 55 Ibidem.

104


population in the province of Antibari (propter diversas nationes schismaticas ac aliorum ac partialitates terrarum), there were often also cases concerning consanguinity (multi sunt qui pro pace contrahenda vicissim matrimonium contraherunt in quarto consanguinitatis seu affinitatis gradu), which also needed papal dispensation once the couples had converted to the Catholic rite.56 As a matter of fact, the cases of matrimonial irregularity, namely those of fourth degree consanguinity relationships, were so numerous that Pope Urban V granted the archbishop of Antibari the faculty to absolve such marriages whenever they appeared.57 Two main reasons for this phenomenon are given in the same letter: because of the multitude of schismatics in the province and because of war among the powerful believers (marriages served as a means to set peace and friendship among them).58 The dispensation for such marriages was to be given, independently of actual guilt (non ignorantes se quarto consanguinitatis vel affinitatis gradu fore coniunctos). The impossibility of distinguishing between Catholics and schismatics, especially in cases concerning the visitation of holy places, ‘forced’ the papal curia to give indulgences to all of them alike. Thus, for instance, the church of St. Stephen in Shkodra seems to have been visited by Catholics and schismatics alike (Ecclesia cathedralis beati Stephani protomartyris de Scutaro apud catholicos et schismaticos in magno honore et reverentia habeatur),59 because the bishop of Shkodra asked Pope Clement VI for indulgences for each of them and the indulgences were granted (Fiat in festis Sancti Stephani de uno anno et una quadragena; in aliis de centum diebus. R).60 ***

———————————— 56 Ibidem. 57 ASV, Reg. Vat., 252, fol. 148v, ep. 546; Tautu, Acta Urbani V, n. 43. 58 Ibidem: Cum itaque sicut exhibita nobis tua periculo continebat in provincia tua Antibarensi nonulli viri et mulieres existant, qui non ignorantes se quarto consanguinitatis vel affinitatis gradu fore coniunctos, propter multitudinem schismaticorum ibidem existentium et partialitatis gentium illarum partium necnon guerras inibi inter fideles vigentes, pro pace contrahenda inter eorum consanguineos et amicos, per verba de presenti matrimonium invicem contraxerunt et ex eis soboles procrearunt, Nos in hac parte tuis supplicationibus inclinati, Fraternitati Tuae absolvendi hac vice auctoritate nostra iuxta formam Ecclesiae sex insimul matrimonium contraxerunt et de quibus tibi videbitur quod conscientiam, eis tamen prius separatis ad tempus de quo videbitur currisse noscuntur, si hoc humiliter petierint, iniunctis eis inter alia nec committentibus praebeant consilium, auxilium vel favorem et poenitentia salutari et aliis quae de iure fuerint iniungenda et demum cum venit, non obstante, matrimonia de novo insimul contrahere et in ex eis susceptam et suscipiendam legitimam decernendi, plenam et liberam concedimus tenore praeseentium facultatem. 59 ASV, Reg. Suppl., 13, fol. 25v; Tautu, Acta Clementis VI, n. 117. 60 Ibidem.


105

In sum, it may be concluded that the religious situation along the southeastern Adriatic coast changed a great deal after the installation of the Angevin dynasty in these territories, and especially after the proclamation of the Regnum Albaniae. Since the spread and consolidation of the Catholic faith lacked the supporting political framework up to then, the Regnum Albaniae promoted by the Angevins was a good ground for the spread and flourishing of the Roman Catholic rite in these parts on the borders of Eastern Christianity. The Regnum Albaniae was thus more than a political structure; for the papacy it was the secular arm responsible for the implementation of Catholicism in the local population, and a basis for outreach to the Balkans. The political impact of the French dynasty and the French popes61 in the region brought the so-called “Third Period of the Albanian Diocesan Formation”,62 which, as a matter of fact, had started with the fall of Constantinople but was not very obvious until the end of the thirteenth century. The process of diocesan formation begun to arise with the proclamation of the Regnum Albaniae, and it reached its end more or less at the time when the Great Schism started and the area of the Avignon papacy finished. The emergence of new Catholic dioceses and the transformation of Byzantine-Orthodox sees into Latin Catholic ones was characteristic for this period. Catholicism spread in all the territories of the southeastern Adriatic coast, although just for a short time. The Regnum Albaniae offered a political structure for the Catholic religion and served the papal curia as a vessel in which the religious feelings could best be shaped. It was a period of strong differentiation, which after a short term of quietness was followed by the Ottoman suppression and, as its direct result, by the impoverishment and contraction of the bishoprics.63

———————————— 61 One of the main goals of the French popes was the propagation of Christianity and its spread in the Orient; see Ludovico Pastor, Storia dei Papi dalla fine del medio evo, 1 (Rome: Desclee e C. Editori, 1925), 66. 62 Šufflay distinguished three periods of the formation of bishoprics in Albania: Primäre Bishofssitze were those which came into being during the third and fourth centuries until 602. Besides Dyrrachion, they included Doclea, Sarda, Scodra, Lissus, Scampa, Amantia, Appolonia, Byllis, Aulona, and perhaps Ulcinium. The secundäre Schicht (until 1250) was characterized by new and metamorphisierte bishoprics, exemplified by Stephaniaka, Arbanum, Kruja, Antibari, Drivasto, Suacium, etc. The third period started around the end of the forth crusade and lasted approximately until the year 1370. See Millan von Šufflay, “Die Kirchenzustände im vortürkischen Albanien, Die orthodoxe Durchbruchzone im katholischen Damme”, in Illyrisch– albanische Forschungen, 2 vol. (Munich: von Duncken and Humlot, 1916), 188–282. 63 Ibidem, 209.

EAST CENTRAL EUROPE AND THE PENITENTIARY (1458–1484) Piroska Nagy and Kirsi Salonen

The aim of this contribution is to give a first overview of ongoing research rather than to offer final answers to the questions it raises. We will discuss the petitions to the Penitentiary from East Central Europe during the years 1458– 1484, that is, from the beginning of the pontificate of Pius II until the end of the pontificate of Sixtus IV. By East Central Europe, we understand the area of Western Christendom situated eastwards of Italy and of the German territories, and westwards of the overwhelmingly Orthodox lands. Our definition of this territory and its name, East Central Europe, are not rooted in well-defined medieval entities. There were great differences in the consideration and status of the different parts of this East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, which were never considered as a unity.1 It is only recent historical inquiry which has constituted them as an individual region of Europe, especially in the context of the political division of Europe after the Second World War. Their common lot of state socialism for half a century generated, on its decline, an important reflection on the common historical features of the countries of “Mitteleuropa.”2 Thus, recent historical studies have shown that the lands and ———————————— 1

The area defined here as East Central Europe crosses territories of the Holy Roman Empire and regions with mainly German-speaking populations. Therefore the researched material is also partly included in the Repertorium Poenitentiariae Germanicum, prepared by the German Historical Institute in Rome; six volumes have been published so far by Ludwig Schmugge and his collaborators, with indices by Hildegard Schneider-Schmugge, covering the period from Eugene IV to Sixtus IV (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1996 ff.). The Polish cases have been published in the Bullarium Poloniae 6 (1447–1464), ed. Irena Sulkowska-Kuras and Stanislaus Kuras (Rome–Lublin: Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski, Fundacja Jana Pawla II, 1998). 2 See Jenő Szűcs, “The Three Historical Regions of Europe. An Outline,” Acta Historica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 29 (1983), 131–184; also published in Civil Society and the State: New European Perspectives, ed. John Keane (London: Verso, 1988), 291–332 (hereafter Szűcs, “The Three Historical Regions”); on the link between the idea and the historical context, see János M. Bak, “Königreich Ungarn: Staatstrukturen und Rolle in Ostmittel-europa im 14.–16. Jahrhundert,” in Ostmitteleuropa im 14.–17. Jahrhundert – eine Region oder Region der Re-

108


churches we consider here had some common features that make it sensible to study them together as an entity.3 Most of the peoples concerned in the area converted to Christianity quite late,4 between the millenium and the fourteenth century (Lithuania), which means that Christianization progressed far slower here than in the West. Almost all these territories were (with the exception of Bohemia-Moravia), at some period or all through their existence, influenced by Orthodox Christianity.5 When the whole Latin world was roughly centered around the regions of Italy, France, and the western part of the empire, and when Rome, with the papal curia, was the symbolic and administrative center of Christendom, the East Central European lands seem to have belonged to the edges or borderlands of Western Christendom. Because of their ties with the neighbouring cultures some of these societies could be described as ‘frontier societies.’6 In the second half of the fifteenth century, the area defined in this way7 comprised the kingdoms of Hungary, Poland-Lithuania, the Czech lands (or Bohemia-Moravia) integrated into the Holy Roman Empire, and a number of

————————————————————————————————— gionen? ed. Marian Dygo, Slawomir Gawlas and Hieronim Grala (Warszawa: “DIG”, 2003) (hereafter Ostmitteleuropa im 14.–17. Jahrhundert), 41–50, esp. 41–42. 3 See, among others, Szűcs, “The Three Historical Regions;” Francis Dvornik, The Making of Central and Eastern Europe (London: Polish Research Centre, 1949), 262; Oscar Halecki, Borderlands of Western Civilization. A History of East Central Europe (New York: Ronald Press Company, 1952), 136–140 (hereafter Halecki, Borderlands); for a recent treatment, see Ostmitteleuropa im 14.–17. Jahrhundert. 4 For an extensive bibliography and the status questionis, see Gábor Klaniczay, “The Birth of a New Europe about A.D. 1000. Conversion, Transfer of Institutional Models, New Dynamics,” in Eurasian Transformations, Tenth to Thirteenth Centuries: Crystallizations, Divergences, Renaissances, ed. Johann P. Arnason and Bjorn Wittrock (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 99–130. 5 For the Balkans, see John V. A. Fine, The Late Medieval Balkans. A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century to the Ottoman Conquest (Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press, 2000) (hereafter Fine, The Late Medieval Balkans); for Poland–Lithuania, see Juliusz Bardach, “La rencontre des Eglises catholique et orthodoxe sur les territoires orientaux du Royaume de Pologne et de Lituanie aux XIV–XVIe siècles,” in The Common Christian Roots of the European Nations. An International Colloquium in the Vatican. Pontifical Lateran University – Catholic University of Lublin (Florence: Le Monnier, 1982), vol. 2, 817–826; see also Evelyne Patlagean, “Les Etats d’Europe centrale et Byzance, ou l’oscillation des confins,” Revue historique 304, no. 4 (2000): 827–868. 6 See Nora Berend, At the Gate of Christendom. Jews, Muslims and ‘Pagans’ in Medieval Hungary c. 1000–c. 1300 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), especially chapter 1: “Hungary: A Frontier Society;” see also Robert Bartlett and Angus MacKay, ed., Medieval Frontier Societies (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989). 7 In order to represent this territory on the map of fifteenth-century Europe, we refer to two maps: Paul Robert Magócsi, Historical Atlas of Central Europe. From the Early Fifth Century to the Present (rev. ed., London: Thames and Hudson, 2002), maps 10 and 13.

EAST CENTRAL EUROPE AND THE PENITENTIARY (1458–1484)

109

smaller entities, like Carniola (part of the Holy Roman Empire and ecclesiastically dependent on the archbishop of Aquileia, today’s Slovenia), Croatia, Dalmatia, Albania-Epirus, and what one calls today the Baltic countries (medieval Prussia and Livonia). In the later Middle Ages, the registers of supplications presented to the Penitentiary and coming from the whole of Western Christendom were kept in a uniform way at the papal curia. Therefore, through the registered data one can compare the content and numbers of cases, and infer from them basic information about the intensity and frequency of the relations of one diocese, region, or country with the Holy See, particularities in canon law, and differences concerning their relative importance in the affairs of the curia. This possibility of comparison allows inserting East Central Europe into the framework of general European history. However, for a firm interpretation of the data and a clear understanding of the phenomena behind them, it will be necessary to compare them with other kinds of evidence for the period, which can complete or sometimes modify the information found here. The period of our interest starts with the pontificate of Pius II, when the copying of incoming supplications into the registers of the office was reformed.8 This study concentrates on the pontificates of Pius II, Paul II, and Sixtus IV, covering a 26-year period from 1458 until 1484, volumes 7 to 33 of the registers.

PETITIONS FROM EAST CENTRAL EUROPE TO THE PENITENTIARY

During this period there were 2814 petitions from East Central Europe to the Penitentiary (691 under Pius II, 917 under Paul II, and 1206 under Sixtus IV).9 Comparing these numbers (Table 16) to all the petitions directed to the Penitentiary during these years (in total 77,426 cases: 15,656 under Pius II, 24,731 under Paul II, and 37,039 under Sixtus IV), one notices that 3.6% of all petitions directed to the Penitentiary during that period came from the East Central European areas (4.4% under Pius II, 3.4% under Paul II, and 3.3% under Sixtus IV).

———————————— 8 9

See Kirsi Salonen’s contribution on “The Penitentiary under Pius II” in this volume. The data used here are based on the studies of Kirsi Salonen concerning the time of Pius II, and on a research project at the Department of Medieval Studies of Central European University (Budapest). One case in the tables represents one entry in the registers of the Penitentiary, without consideruing the number of persons applying. On the difficulty of counting the data, see also Salonen, “The Penitentiary under Pius II,” note 8.

110


Thus, the proportion of petitions from East Central Europe to the Penitentiary remained relatively small during the whole period, without great variation.10 Comparing the corpus of the East Central European petitions and their types to the totality of cases handled in the Penitentiary during the years 1458– 1484, one recognizes different proportions in the violations of canon law, reflected especially by the categories of de diversis formis, with 29% of petitions from the area, and de declaratoriis, with 16%, altogether 45%. For the totality of the cases from the same period these categories are significantly less important (21% de diversis formis and 4% de declaratoriis). Possible explanations may lie in the remoteness of the regions concerned – this could explain that people applied to the curia only for important reasons and saw canon law violations as such. Also the proportion of the confession petitions (21%) among the cases from East Central Europe is higher than that in the whole material (14%). On the other hand, fewer marriage petitions (16%) and illegitimacy cases (10%) seem to have arrived in Rome from East Central Europe compared to all the cases handled by the Penitentiary (35% and 19%). The proportion of the de promotis cases (8%) corresponds to the general trend of the whole material (8%). Table 16 Petitions (in percentages; N=2814) from East-Central Europe to the Penitentiary (1458–1484) Category Matrim. Diversis Declarat. Def. Nat. Uberiori Promotis Confess.11 Total

ECE Pius II 12% 33% 12% 9% 0% 9% 25% 100%

ECE Paul II 13% 37% 17% 10% 0% 7% 16% 100%

ECE Sixtus IV 23% 23% 17% 10% 1% 8% 18% 100%

ECE total 16% 29% 16% 10% 0% 8% 21% 100%

Total Europe 1458–1484 35% 21% 4% 16% 3% 8% 14% 100%

Source: ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., Vol. 7–33.

———————————— 10 For the explanation of the supplication categories, see Salonen, “The Penitentiary under Pius II,” 47–48. 11 The “confession” category of our table contains all the supplications related to confession matters, i. e. all the cases registered in the chapters de confessionalibus perpetuis, de confessionalibus in forma ’Cupientes,’ and even de sententiis generalibus.


111

The numbers vary quite strongly from one pontificate to the other. Explanations for this phenomenon may only be found by thorough studies of the local contexts. For instance, one notices a steady increase in the proportion of the marriage petitions during the period studied; under the pontificate of Pius II they formed only 12% of the petitions, but during the pontificate of Sixtus IV they almost doubled to 23%. At the moment, no definite explanation for this development may be given. A similar situation occurs for some other changes and developments. Concerning the de diversis formis cases, their number, after a slight proportional increase from Pius II to Paul II (33% and 37%, respectively), declined (only 23% under Sixtus IV). Comparisons with the subsequent pontificates will allow us to see if this tendency to decline continued. It is also worth noting that the declaratory cases first followed a proportional increase from Pius II to Paul II (12% and 17%, respectively), then stabilized under Sixtus IV (17%). The number of confession petitions varied without a general trend of decline or growth. On the whole, 21% of the East Central European petitions were sent to ask for a confession letter, while the global proportion shows only 14%.12 A possible explanation for this slight over-representation may be that these letters from East Central Europe came mostly from pilgrims to Rome. A person who visited Rome could easily ask for a letter of confession for himself or herself once he or she were there; back home, it constituted visible proof of the accomplishment of the pilgrimage as well as a kind of spiritual autonomy. For a layman, the letter of confession allowed its holder to choose his own confessor (de confessionalibus perpetuis); for a priest it meant the authorisation to absolve his parishioners from sins that normally were reserved for papal decision (de sententiis generalibus), and it represented a growth in spiritual power. Frequently, several confession letters for different persons were asked for in the same petition at the same time. Thus, the value of a confession letter from the curia was high in the eyes of the faithful coming from remote countries, as a proof of an important effort accomplished for the sake of spiritual comfort as well as an authoritative means to gain greater autonomy in spiritual matters. Another possible explanation for the over-representation of the confession petitions in comparison to the totality of cases is that in other territories there were many papal legates with the right to sell indulgence letters – which were in effect similar to confession letters. As East Central Europeans could not procure ———————————— 12 We are grateful to Ludwig Schmugge for giving us the opportunity to use these still-unpublished data.

112


this kind of grace locally, they might have turned to the papal curia. A parallel situation has been noticed for Swedish confession letters; during the years when indulgence sellers were active in Sweden there were no petitions to the Penitentiary for confession letters. From Finland, where the indulgence sellers hardly set foot, one finds petitions during the periods when no Swedes turned to the Penitentiary for these matters.13

INTERNAL DIVISION WITHIN EAST CENTRAL EUROPE East Central Europe is large and heterogeneous. Therefore, it is challenging to investigate whether there were different kinds of needs for grace in the various parts of this area. Table 1714 shows that most of the East Central European cases come from the Hungarian dioceses (33%), while the Polish cases are in the second position (28%). This distribution corresponds roughly to the demographic importance of the two largest countries of the region – the population of Hungary with Slavonia at the end of the fifteenth century is estimated to have been between 2.9 and 3.4, or for certains, it attained even 4 million,15 while the estimations concerning Poland are between 2.5 and 3.2 million16 – which would mean that the greater distance separating Poland from Rome did not play a role

———————————— 13 Kirsi Salonen, The Penitentiary as a Well of Grace in the Late Middle Ages. The Example of the Province of Uppsala 1448–1527, Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian Toimituksia – Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae 313 (Saarijärvi: Aca-demia Scientiarum Fennica, 2001), 362, 364–367 (hereafter Salonen, The Penitentiary ). 14 The numeric data of this table are provisory and may, because of unclear dioceses, present a small margin of error. 15 See András Kubinyi, “A magyar királyság népessége a 15. század végén” (The population of the Hungarian kingdom at the end of the fifteenth century), in Magyarország történeti demográfiája 896–1995. Millecentenáriumi előadások (The Historical Demography of Hungary 896–1995. Lectures for the millecentenary of Hungary), József Kovacsics, ed. (Budapest: Központi Statisztikai Hivatal, 1997), 93–110, here 110; and Pál Engel, “Az Anjou- és Zsigmond-kori Magyarország történeti demográfiájának problémái” (The historical demographic problems of Hungary in the age of the Anjou and Sigismund), in ibidem, 111–116, especially 116. See also Eric Fügedi, “The demographic landscape of East Central Europe,” in East-Central Europe in Transition. From the Fourteenth to the Seventeenth Century, ed. Antoni Maczak, Henryk Samsonowicz and Peter Burke (London and Paris: Cambridge University Press and Editions de la MSH, 1985), 53 (hereafter: Fügedi, “The democraphic landscape”). 16 Fügedi, “The demographic landscape;” György Székely, “Cseh- és Lengyel-ország a késő középkorban” (Czech Lands and Poland in the late Middle Ages), in Európa ezer éve: a középkor II (A Thousand Years of Europe: the Middle Ages II), ed. Gábor Klaniczay (Budapest: Osiris, 2004), 265 (hereafter Székely, “Cseh- és Lengyelország”).

113


in the frequency of petitions. Christians from other regions did not send so many petitions to the Penitentiary. This is an understandable state of affairs, if one reasons in terms of the population,17 size, and wealth of a country. There were 18 dioceses in the kingdom of Hungary, many of them quite rich and important, such as Esztergom (its tax to the Holy See was 4000 florins during the period studied), Pécs (3300 florins), Zagreb (2000 florins), and NagyVárad (2000 florins).18 Generally, fifteenth-century Hungary was a quite relevant country in Europe; its relative political weight grew considerably with the accession to the throne of the empire of Sigismund, king of Hungary, and with the function of the kingdom, as a “bastion of Christendom” in the defense against the Ottomans. Hungary had well-developed relations with the papacy, although for political reasons they were not without troubles.19 Among the Hungarian petitions, one may underline the overwhelming importance of the violations of canon law, and among them many criminal cases: the de diversis formis and de Table 17 Number of case types from East Central Europe (1458–1484) Territory Hungary Czech lands Dalmatia Croatia Albania Slovenia Poland Baltic lands East Total

Matr. 52 5 160 89 44 23 51 30 2 456

DF 335 30 62 39 52 14 220 61 3 816

Decl. 155 11 18 18 14 11 188 25 4 444

DN 55 13 12 12 41 17 102 19 0 271

Uber. 0 0 0 0 1 0 8 4 0 13

Prom. 61 17 33 21 31 3 46 5 0 217

Conf. 274 31 11 8 11 2 171 83 6 597

Total 932 107 296 187 194 70 786 227 15 2814

% 33% 4% 11% 7% 7% 2% 28% 8% 0% 100%

Source: ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., Vol. 7–33.

———————————— 17 In the field of demographic data for the area, however, the state of surviving documentation does not offer comparable data for all the regions. 18 Concerning the taxes an (arch)diocese had to pay to the Holy See in the Middle Ages, see Konrad Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica Medii Aevi sive Sum-morum Pontificum S.R.E. Cardinalium, Ecclesiarum Antistitum Series ab anno 1198 usque ad annum 1431 perducta e documentis tabularii praeser-tim vaticani II (Münster: Regensberg, 1914), passim. According to the Hierarchia Catholica the maximum tax was 12,000 Florins (Rouen and Winchester), while the minimum (if something had to be paid) was 33 1/3 florins. 19 Péter E. Kovács, “A Szentszék, a török és Magyarország a Hunyadiak alatt (1437–1490)” (The Holy See, the Turks and Hungary under the reign of the Hunyadi), in Magyarország és a Szentszék kapcsolatának 1000 éve (Budapest: Magyar Egyháztörténeti Munkaközösség, 1996), 97– 117.

114


declaratoriis cases form 36% and 17% of the total, respectively; this means that together they represented more than half of the petitions coming from the kingdom to the Penitentiary. The kingdom of Poland-Lithuania20 also consisted of important and great dioceses, which seem to have been even richer and more valuable in the eyes of the Holy See than those of Hungary, if we judge from the taxes they paid: Gniezno (tax 5000 florins), Wrocław (4000 florins), and Cracow (3000 florins). Poland, however, is more remote from Rome than Hungary, and in parts of it Christianization was still relatively recent, as Lithuania converted only in 1386. Although numerically less important than the Hungarian petitions, the Polish petitions present a similar structure: 52% of them belong to the de diversis formis and de declaratoriis types. This is interesting because in the Scandinavian countries, especially Sweden and Finland, one finds a similar pattern.21 In third position, in both the Hungarian and Polish material the supplications for confession letters show a rather high proportion compared to the remaining types. They represent 29% of the Hungarian cases and 22% of the Polish. All the other types of petitions are far less important. Such a similar structure of the petition series in the two great kingdoms of the area requires explanation, the more as the two countries determine, by their overwhelming importance (33% and 28%, respectively, of all the East Central European petitions) the case-type profile of the whole region. From the other territories and areas, Bohemia-Moravia, Dalmatia, Croatia, Albania, Slovenia, and Prussia, there are many fewer petitions. One general reason is certainly that they were far smaller, both in terms of territorial extent and population. The only astonishing case in this set of explanations seems to be that of the densely populated Czech lands, which should have produced more petitions if it depended only on size, distance, and demography. Here, however, the variations in numbers seem to have had quite different reasons. Despite its relatively small territory, Dalmatia represents the third place in the number of East Central European petitions to the Penitentiary. This need not astonish, though; it fits well with the general situation of Dalmatia in later medieval Europe. Frequent communication and strong relations with the papal

———————————— 20 See Norman Davies, God’s Playground. A History of Poland, vol. 1: The Origins to 1795 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982), chapter 5; Daniel Stone, The Polish–Lithuanian State 1386– 1795 (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2001), chapters 1–2 (hereafter Stone, The Polish– Lithuanian State). 21 Concerning the Swedish pattern, see Salonen, “The Penitentiary under Pius II,” as well as eadem, The Penitentiary.


115

curia and, thus, also with the Penitentiary, may be explained by the fact that the whole Dalmatian coast belonged to the “empire” of Venice. Dalmatian towns had a very similar development to Italian towns in economic and social terms; Dalmatia was an extension of Italy. Thus, the numbers from the archives of the Penitentiary only confirm what one knows about this part of Christendom. They clearly show that the Dalmatian towns of the Adriatic coast, with a numerous and important Italian population, did not belong to the ‘periphery’ of fifteenth-century Christendom, but rather to a periphery of Italy. An important observation in the Dalmatian cases is the relatively high number of petitions concerning marriage matters (160 cases out of the total of 296, that is, 54%). This specificity of Dalmatia, which is echoed also in neighboring Croatia, may be explained by the local marriage customs.22 Among all the other categories the most important ones are the de diversis formis cases, with 21% of the total. Together with the declaratory cases, 27% of the cases represent violations of canon law. Regarding Albania and Croatia, there are almost 200 registered cases from each. Each is situated at an equal distance from the papal curia and consists of more or less the same number of relatively small dioceses. However, the structural differences of the distribution of the cases merit a few remarks. In Croatia, one finds almost the same importance of matrimonial cases (47% of the total) as in Dalmatia, which may be explained by the same reasons, the existence of strict marriage rules in local society. Secondly, there is also a proportion of canon law violations similar to Dalmatia: 30% of the de declaratoriis and de diversis formis cases together. In Albania, matrimonial cases declined in proportion, though still remaining quite high (23%). The most important ones there were the de declaratoriis and de diversis formis cases, together 34%. One needs an explanation for the relatively low number of petitions from these regions at the margins of Italy. Of course, the situation was different, as Albania was a missionary front of the Roman Church in the Orthodox Balkans, which started to be organized from the twelfth century onwards, while Croatia and Dalmatia were firm Catholic lands.23 Beside the small size of the areas, the low number of registered data may probably have originated from the danger of Ottoman conquest. The Ottomans were in continual progress towards the West after the fall of Constantinople in 1453, when they quickly captured even the

———————————— 22 See Ana Marinković’s article in this volume. 23 Alain Ducellier, L’Albanie entre Byzance et Venise, Ve–XVe s. (London: Variorum 1987) (hereafter Ducellier, L’Albanie), chapter 11: “Aux frontières de la Romanité et de l’Orthodoxie au Moyen Age: le cas de l’Albanie.”

116


western part of the Balkans. Christian resistance in the area depended essentially on the Hungarians. After John Hunyadi’s death (1456) and that of Pius II (1464), the idea of a concerted western crusade against the Ottomans vanished for a while. During the decades of our study, there were ceaseless wars and hostilities in the southern and southeastern areas of the kingdom of Hungary. Bosnia was taken in 1463, Hercegovina in 1465, and finally Albania in 1479.24 It would be interesting to investigate case by case the evolution of the presence of the dioceses affected by Ottoman conquest in the Penitentiary registers. However, the Ottoman presence does not seem to have affected the number of petitions coming from the Balkans immediately in a catastrophic way, even if the conquest produced the desertion of the local clergy, frequently of Italian or Dalmatian origin.25 In order to establish if there was any immediate effect of the Ottoman conquest on the contacts of these regions with Rome, two methods might help. One should compare the data with those from the first half of the fifteenth century, which is not possible in the present state of research and documentation. Neither the ways of registration nor the numbers are comparable. Thus only further comparison of the data with other types of evidence from the region may allow answering the question. In any case, it seems that religious relations were not at all interrupted – just like the Reformation did not stop immediately the flow of Swedish petitions to Rome.26 This fact may also be explained by the Ottomans’ methods of conquest. Like medieval Muslim conquest in general, it did not involve religious conquest, but the integration of the conquered non-Muslim population into the empire as a category apart, the dhimmi, paying special taxes. Consequently, conversions to Islam in the conquered lands were not directed by a coercive policy but by the possibilities of social integration and power reserved for Muslims in the Ottoman state, and as such, they intervened only after a few generations in the dominated territories.27 In the long term, another defense of the Catholic faithful, frequently abandoned by their clergy, was slow conversion to Orthodoxy.

———————————— 24 See Fine, The Late Medieval Balkans, 548–612. 25 Ducellier, L’Albanie, chapter 11. 26 See Kirsi Salonen, “The Supplications from the Province of Uppsala, Main Trends and Developments,” in this volume. 27 Antal Molnár, Katolikus missziók a hódolt Magyarországon I (1572–1647) (Catholic missions in Hungary under the Ottoman rule [1572–1647]) (Budapest: Balassi, 2002), 30–31; Dóra Kerekes, “Identité d’enfance et identité de service: mémoire et solidarité ethniques des renégats dans l’Empire Ottoman,” in Construction d’identités dans l’histoire européenne du Moyen Age à nos jours. Actes des colloques franco–hongrois, ed. Piroska Nagy and Péter Sahin-Tóth (Rouen: Presses Universitaires de Rouen, forthcoming).


117

Concerning the number of petitions to the Penitentiary, the Baltic dioceses follow Dalmatia. This seems to be astonishing considering their remote situation, but may be explained by the presence of the Teutonic Knights. Through the knights, the Baltic area fell under German influence which, in its turn, affected the frequency of contacts and the number of petitions to the Penitentiary. All the Baltic dioceses were relatively small and rather poor, therefore insignificant in the eyes of the curia (the tax listed for the archdiocese of Riga was only 800 florins, while the highest tax paid to the Holy See by a Baltic diocese was that of Ösel, 1300 florins). Nevertheless, there were proportionally many petitions registered from the Baltic dioceses to the Penitentiary. Many petitions came especially from those dioceses that were situated along the coast of the Baltic Sea and which were under German domination, Hanseatic towns (Reval/ Tallinn) or areas connected directly to the Teutonic Knights (Riga). Even though the influence of the Teutonic Knights in the Baltic region started to decrease towards the end of the Middle Ages (especially after the revolt of the Prussian Union against them in 1454, the 13 Years’ War that followed and the peace of Torún28), their effect can still be felt in their relations. The dioceses along the Baltic Sea were accustomed to keep contacts with the Holy See. The Teutonic Knights had always had special legates or representatives residing at the curia and handling important issues in favor of the order, and other persons, for payment. These well-established contacts might have made it easier for individual Christians of the Baltic area to turn to the authority of the popes, although one has no evidence for the channelling of supplications via the Knights. The Balkan regions are followed in number of petitions by the Czech lands. The weak absolute number of petitions from Bohemia-Moravia may be explained by the small size of the territory; however, as there were only three dioceses there, one also may consider that there are proportionally many petitions coming from the individual Czech dioceses. Two of them were wealthy and important: Olomuc (tax 3500 florins) and especially Prague, a very populous city29 and also important in European terms, both from the political and cultural point of view (tax 2800 florins). Litomys³ was less relevant (tax 800 florins). Bohemia-Moravia has to be seen in its specific political and religious context in the fifteenth century due to the Hussite movement, which troubled communication with Rome. During the period we are interested in, communi-

———————————— 28 See Stone, The Polish–Lithuanian State, 29–31; Halecki, Borderlands, 136–140; Aleksander Gieysztor, “The Kingdom of Poland and the grand duchy of Lithuania,” in New Cambridge Medieval History, vol. 7 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 737. 29 Around 1415 Prague had 35,000 inhabitants (Székely, “Cseh- és Lengyel-ország,” 258).

118


cation with Rome was intense, but petitioning was less as most of the country was attached to the moderate form of Hussitism.30 As far as the typological structure of the petitions is concerned, one finds the same kind of proportions both in the Baltic lands and Bohemia-Moravia: the de diversis and declaratory cases make up 38% of the petitions in both territories, followed by the confession letter requests, 37% and 29% respectively. This is the same typological structure as that observed in Hungary and Poland, even though the proportions changed in a way that demands further explanation by further research. The region of today’s Slovenia was composed of only two dioceses, both relatively small: Ljubljana (Laibacum, tax 150 florins) and Koper (Iustinopolis, 100 florins). Such a small importance explains the small number of petitions. Their distribution, however, is reminiscent of the proximity of Dalmatia and the situation near the Adriatic coast; even if the totality of de diversis and declaratory cases makes 36%, the number of matrimonial petitions is also high, representing 33%.

CONCLUSIONS Studying the number of supplications, it seems clear that one has to reason first in demographic and only secondly in geographic terms. There are many petitions from the areas such as Hungary and Poland, which were densely populated and urbanized in terms of the area (which means far less populated and urban than the West) and had well developed relations with the papal curia, which considered them important. If the geographical situation of a diocese or region situated far away from the papal curia made the way to the Penitentiary longer, a long distance did not necessarily mean that the connections were fewer, as one can see in the case of the Baltic dioceses, from which there were relatively many petitions despite long distances. The political situation within each territory had its own influence on the relations and may explain fluctuations. On the basis of this survey, we may now underline a few features which seem to be East Central European tendencies in the late medieval Penitentiary registers. Three trends may be revealed: ———————————— 30 For more about the influence of the Hussite phenomenon on communications with the Penitentiary see Lucie Doležalová, “‘But if You Marry Me.’ Reflections of the Hussite Movement in the Penitentiary (1438–1483)” in this volume.


119

N In the whole area, the most numerous petitions were sent to the Penitentiary demanding grace for canon law violations. N The area is equally characterized by the high number of petitions for confession matters, but their overall proportion is the same as in the general situation of Europe. N These two trends are altered in the Adriatic area by a regional specificity that had a local explanation: the overwhelming importance of matrimonial cases, extraordinary in Dalmatia, lesser but comparable in Croatia and Albania. Further comparison with the structures of the material from the northern and southwestern peripheries of Christendom shall allow to find out if these trends were specific for East Central Europe or also for other peripheral areas. Future research into the local contexts and comparison with other source types will also help to better understand the meanings, causes, and variations of these features.

“BUT IF YOU MARRY ME:” REFLECTIONS OF THE HUSSITE MOVEMENT IN THE PENITENTIARY (1438–1483) Lucie Doležalová

The Hussite movement, one of the most important chapters of Czech history, has been presented in many contradictory ways.1 Marxist historians, not concerned with the nature of the religious dispute, saw Hussites as national heroes, fighters against the rigid feudal system;2 Catholic historians pointed out the destructive aspects of the movement.3 It has only been in the last few years that some historians do not consider it necessary to be either entirely for or entirely against it.4 Medieval sources are similar in this respect: the Calixtines gathered evidence for the corruption of the Church, the Catholics criticized the Calix———————————— 1

The history of the evaluation of the Hussite revolution reflects Czech history and national consciousness very well, as the interpretation has always been viewed as relevant to the present. The positive view culminated in 1848 and is best represented in the work of František Palacký (the “leader of the nation” at the time), especially in his five-volume Dejiny národa českého v Čechách a na Morave [The History of the Czech Nation in Bohemia and Moravia] (Prague, 1848–1876) (hereafter Palacký, Dejiny), in which he presented Czech history as a constant fight against the German element. Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk also saw in the Hussites a model for the Czech nation; see his Jan Hus, naše obrození a naše reformace [Jan Hus – Our Renaissance and Our Reformation] (Třeboň: Brandeis, 1899). The first firm critic of the glorification of the Hussite movement was Josef Pekař; see his Jan Žižka a jeho doba [Jan Žižka and His Time] (Prague: Vesmír, 1927–1933). He put the Taborite wing of the movement especially into a negative light, and called its final loss at the battle of Lipany “a happy day in Czech history”. The discussions continue and the issue is still burning. 2 E.g., Zdenek Nejedlý, Hus a naše doba [Hus and Our Times] (Prague: Svoboda, 1946); or his Komunisté, dedici velkých tradic českého národa [The Communists, Heirs of the Great Traditions of the Czech Nation] (Prague: Svoboda, 1946). 3 E.g., Jiří Sahula, Sociální postavení knežstva v době husitské [The Social Conditions of Catholic Priests during the Hussite Period] (Hradec Kralové: self-published, 1915). 4 Most significant in this respect is the work of František Šmahel, who has concentrated on an impartial evaluation of the Hussite revolution; e.g., his exhaustive Hussitská revoluce, I–IV [The Hussite Revolution] (Prague: Charles University, 1993), or his problem-oriented Husitské Čechy: struktury, procesy, ideje [Hussite Bohemia: Structures, Processes, Ideas] (Prague: Lidové noviny, 2001). In his Idea národa v husitských Čechách [The Idea of Nation in Hussite Bohemia], 2nd ed. (Prague: Argo, 2000), Šmahel argued persuasively against the firmly established idea that the Hussite movement was primarily nationalist.

122


tines for their violence and disobedience to the Pope. The strategies of accusation applied to both parties were basically the same, only the labels were switched. One aspect which the sources have in common is that they reflect the split in the country. Everyone at the time took sides, and the sources, even if they were not of a political nature, clearly reveal the viewpoints of their authors. The sources are numerous and various: there are circulars and public letters providing, for instance, insight into the organization of the meetings of the two sides, as well as private letters which make it possible to follow the complicated plots and conspiracies.5 A great boom of vernacular literature was brought about by the Hussite movement: religious songs, sermons, the first translations of the Bible, satires, short stories, and so on. The Penitentiary registers are a very different type of source, concerned with different issues, offering a different type of information. Yet, they also reflect the Hussite movement, and its different perspective provides new questions to be asked. There are no Penitentiary records from the time when the Hussite movement was moving the land.6 The first surviving cases are from the year 1438, long time after Jan Hus had been burnt at stake in Constance (1415), after the radical wing of the Hussites had developed and survived the five Crusades (1420, 1421, 1426, 1427, 1431) and finally lost at the decisive battle of Lipany (1434), after Sigismund of Luxemburg had signed the tolerance treaty (the socalled Compacts) in Jihlava (Iglau) (1436), and after he had died (1437). The period reflected in the Penitentiary is a period of uncertainties marked by religious disputes and the gradual rise to power of George of Poděbrady.7 The year ———————————— 5

The letters of Oldřich of Rosenberg, an influential south Bohemian Catholic nobleman, are especially valuable: Blažena Rynešová, ed., Listář a listinář Oldřicha z Rožmberka [The letters and charters of Oldřich of Rosenberg] (Prague: Československá akademie ved, 1929, 1932, 1937, 1954) (hereafter LLOR). 6 As far as the relationship between the Holy See and the Czech lands during the Hussite revolution is concerned, a number of sources were edited by Jaroslav Eršil, of which the last so far is Acta Martini V pontificis Romani 1423–1431, Monumenta Vaticana res gestas Bohemicas illustrantia 7, n. 2 (Prague: Akademie věd České republiky, 1998). Aleš Pořízka analysed the libri formatarum in detail, an important source on the group ordinations at the papal curia (Aleš Pořízka, “Svěcenci z českých zemí u papežské kurie v letech 1420 1447” [The ordained from the Czech lands at the papal curia during the period 1420–1447], Acta Universitatis Carolinae. Philosophica et historica. Z pomocných ved historických 15, n. 2 (2003), 245–264. 7 On the period 1438–1485 see, e.g., Rudolf Urbánek, České dejiny, III, 1–3: Vek podebradský [Czech History: The Time of George of Podebrady] (Prague: J. Laichter, 1915, 1918, 1930) (hereafter Urbánek, České dejiny); Josef Macek, Jiří z Podebrad [George of Podebrady] (Prague: Svobodné slovo, 1967) (hereafter Macek, Jiří); or Josef Polišenský, Doba Jiřího z Poděbrad [The Time of George of Podebrady] (Prague: Václav Petr, 1940); Frederick G. Heymann, George of Bohemia: King of Heretics (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1965); Otakar

“BUT IF YOU MARRY ME”

123

1485 is usually perceived as the end of the Hussite period, when the religious tolerance treaty was signed in Kutná Hora, thus making Bohemia and Moravia officially a land of two faiths.8 However, chronology is not of much use as far as the Penitentiary records are concerned. The only date provided in them is that when each case was recorded, but the time of the events related is rarely referred to differently than olim.9 From the years 1438–1483,10 there are 172 recorded cases from Bohemia and Moravia:11 91 from the diocese of Prague (Bohemia), 75 from Olomouc (Moravia), and 6 from the little Bohemian-Moravian diocese of Litomyšl.12 Figure 2 shows the overall distribution of the cases among the dioceses, and Figure 3 gives an overview of the different types of cases recorded in different years. Although Hussites or heretics are explicitly mentioned only in ten of them, many cases may be interpreted as linked to the Hussite movement. For example, among the de diversis formis and de declaratoriis types, there are eight cases of exponentes (all of them from the Prague diocese!) who participated in spoliis, rapinis, homicidiis et incendiis (or some combination of them).13 These ————————————————————————————————— 8 9

10

11

12

13

Odložilík, The Hussite King: Bohemia in European Affairs, 1440–1471 (New Brunswick, N. J.: Rutgers University Press, 1965). This treaty is sometimes interpreted as the greatest achievement of the Hussite movement, as the first time of official religious freedom in European history. Although excommunicated priests were certainly more in a hurry to receive dispensations and absolutions than lay people, as their living depended on it, it is impossible to make conclusions about the time of the event from the date of registering the case (e.g., frequently a sin was discovered a long time after it was committed, etc.). That is, from the earliest surviving Penitentiary records until the end of the pontificate of Sixtus IV. When referring to the cases, I note the number of the volume of the Penitenzieria Apostolica (ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div.) followed by the folio number. I note whenever the case also appears in the Repertorium Poenitentiariae Germanicum (RPG), that is, RPG, I: Eugen IV. 1431–1447, RPG, II: Nikolaus V. 1447–1455, RPG, III: Calixt III. 1455–1458, RPG, IV: Pius II. 1458–1464, RPG, V: Paul II. 1464–1471, ed. Ludwig Schmugge et al. (Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1996 ff.), or in the Bullarium Poloniae (BP), that is, BP litteras apostolicas aliaque monumenta Poloniae Vaticana continens, V: 1431–1439, VI: 1447–1464, ed. Irena Sułkowska-Kuraś and Stanislaus Kuraś (Rome and Lublin: Polish Christian Institute, 1995 and 1998) providing the case and page numbers. Although several cases from other dioceses are referred to in the article, only these two areas, that is, regions where the Hussite movement spread the most, have been systematically studied to date. The fact that the number of cases from Bohemia and Moravia is very similar (81 and 91) does not at all support the accepted fact that Hussitism was much more widespread in Bohemia than in Moravia. It is recorded in 1450 that Jacobus Fasingli homicidiis, spoliis et incendiis locorum sacrorum et non sacrorum interfuit (ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 3, fol. 180r; RPG II, n. 611), and Johannes Schynffer rapinis, spoliis et homicidiis cum effractione locorum sacrorum et non sacrorum interfuit (vol. 3, fol. 181r; RPG II, n. 636), in 1458 that Jacobus Smolick spoliis,

124


could refer to the Hussite fights, and they probably do, although the explicit mention is made only in one case.14

Figure 2 Czech cases referring to dioceses

At the same time, however, there are twelve cases of the ‘usual’ accidental violence: a priest was mistaken for a thief and strangled,15 a drunken priest fell ————————————————————————————————— rapinis, incendiis et homicidiis interfuit (vol. 5, fol. 433v; RPG III, n. 562) in 1461 that Swateslaus de Taszowitz spoliis et rapinis in sacris et profanis locis interfuit et auxilium prestitit (vol. 9, fol. 158v; RPG IV, n. 1341), in 1465 Petrus Schamfelt that spoliis, rapiis, incendiis locis sacris et non sacris et cum effractionem dictorum locorum ac homicidiis et laicalibus pluribus interfuit (vol. 12, fol. 76v; RPG V, n. 995), in 1466 that Wentzeslaus Odolen interfuit spoliis rapinis homicidiis (vol. 14, fol. 187r; RPG V, n. 1176), in 1471 that Johannes de Lungkwicz interfuit homicidiis laicalibus et non laicalibus (vol. 19, fol. 180r–v; RPG V, n. 2188), and in 1474 that Johannes filius Johannis de Kapliz interfuit homicidiis (vol. 23, fol. 158r). 14 That is, in the last one of 1474. The fact that the dead were heretics is pointed out in the typical closing formula: Cum autem dictus exponens in morte dictorum hereticorum et adherentum et complicis et favorum culpabilis non fuit sed de morte eorum doluit prout dolet de presenti …, ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 23, fol. 158r. 15 Valentinus Fechau in Břevnov monastery, registered in 1464, ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 13, fol. 135r; RPG V, n. 1675.


125

and died,16 a woman died because the exponens sent for the wrong specialist to heal her neck,17 and so on.

Figure 3 Czech cases referring to type

Similarly, although many nuns and monks were forced to leave their monasteries as the Hussites attacked and destroyed them, the case of a monk or a nun leaving his or her monastery, keeping their habit (and/or without the knowledge of their superior) is another typical penitentiary case. In Bohemia and Moravia, nine such cases are recorded in the study period, and in only one of them the exponens stated explicitly that he had left because the monastery was destroyed by heretics.18 ———————————— 16 Registered in 1441, ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 2bis, fol. 210r; RPG I, n. 596. The event takes place at the door in a hospital – the exponens, Johannes de Clobuch (i.e. Jan z Klobouk), carried a piece of wood with which he wanted to close the door so that no thieves or stipendiarii [!] could get in, but the drunken priest suddenly opened the door, and they both fell – the priest exactly on the piece of wood. (Curiously enough, all the cases in which alcohol is mentioned come from the diocese of Olomouc). 17 Johannes Karzark from Krumlov, registered in 1476, ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 25, fol. 117v. 18 Nicolaus Crause from St. Charles’ Augustinian monastery in Prague diocesis (June 22, 1452): ipse olim postquam monasterium per hereticos desolatum fuisset, sine licencia sui superioris…, ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 3, fol. 323r; RPG II, n. 951.

126


Only the de promotis et promovendis cases seem clearly linked to the Hussites. According to the Compacts, the distribution of parishes between the Calixtine and Catholic priests was to preserve the status quo ante – if a Calixtine priest died he was to be succeeded by another Calixtine priest and vice versa. Thus, due to the prevalence of heretics in the Czech lands, the possibilities for Catholic clerics to build up their ecclesiastical careers were limited. In addition, the Prague archbishopric did not have a confirmed Catholic leader, so there was no one to offer the higher offices. Several exponentes from 1449 made this point – ecclesia Pragensis pastore caret – in order to support their cases.19 Many of the priests went abroad, most frequently to Italy, and had themselves promoted there (13 cases), or, alternatively, they asked the pope for letters to let them be ordained a quocumque antistite catholico (that is, “by any Catholic presiding priest”20) (22 cases).21 These two variants of solving the problem were sometimes even combined: Two exponentes from 1441 ask both for being allowed to be ordained by another prelate and, eight days after, for absolution because they promoted themselves in Italy.22 Even though it is impossible to judge the scope of the Hussite influence on this type of case based on the Penitentiary alone, the fact in itself that 20% of the cases from the Czech lands belong to the De promotis et promovendis type suggests that there was indeed a special situation. During the pontificate of Pius II (1458–1464), 6% of all the registered cases are of this type;23 among Central Eastern European cases in 1464–1483 this type forms 8%,24 and in Germany in 1458–1471 only 5%25. ———————————— 19 ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 3, fol. 24v, 31r; RPG II, n. 21, n. 32. 20 It is understood without saying that the person should be in a position to ordain priests. 21 These cases are: 6 from 1439, 3 from 1440, 6 from 1441, 1 from 1443, 2 from 1449, 1 from 1457, 1 from 1458, and 2 from 1481; their connection to the Hussite movement is clearer. The cases of selfpromotions are documented later (there is one case from each year 1455–1457 and 1461–1463, 2 from 1465, 1 from 1470, 2 from 1471 and 1 from 1474), as promoting oneself provided the priest with some time during which he could remain in the office without (or before) applying for absolution. The influence of the Hussites on the self-promotion cases is less clear, as they include also typical cases (promotion in spite of an impediment such as age) which are not always explicitly distinguished. 22 Paulus Nicolai in February 1441 (ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 2, fol. 199v; RPG I, n. 575, n. 576) and Alexius de Melinez in September of the same year (ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 2, fol. 268r and 268v; RPG I, n. 649, n. 651). 23 See the article by Kirsi Salonen in this volume 27. 24 This information is taken from the unpublished database of the Central Eastern European Penitentiary cases from the pontificate of Paul II and Sixtus IV. See the article of P. Nagy and K. Salonen in this volume, 105. 25 This number is based on the RPG IV–V (because volumes I–III do not have de promotis et promovendis cases; vol. V, the so far last published volume, covers the pontificate of Paul II; thus, the following pontificate of Sixtus IV is not included).


127

33 cases are not linked to the Hussites at all. They concern marriages among relatives, accidents, de defectu natalium, or asking for confessional letters. Among them, in one peculiar case, the exponens wanted the Eucharist in the manner of the Roman curia,26 and three “butter letters” (Butterbriefe) from 1474 and 1475, cases in which the exponentes ask to use butter and milk instead of olive oil during a fast.27 Such requests are surprising from a country where the official Catholic faith had to fight for its existence, a country strictly divided and undergoing transformations in its relation to the Holy See. They can be explained by considering that the basic cause of the argument between the Holy See and the Hussites was neither the way they served the Eucharist (the popes knew and stated openly that the sub utraque specie was the practice of the early church), nor any other theological issue. It was obedience. All Christians were required to subject themselves to papal authority, and the Hussites were dangerous in giving the primary authority to the Bible (or their interpretation of it). Applying to the Penitentiary, especially in cases when the person concerned was not immediately threatened by excommunication, can thus be interpreted as a sign of obedience to the Holy See, as support for the pope against the heretics. As far as explicit mentions of the Hussites in the Penitentiary are concerned, the overview is incomplete because only the cases from the Czech lands and the explicitly Hussite-linked cases edited in RPG and BP have been taken into consideration to date. Thus, one of the questions, which cannot be answered before a careful inspection of the whole Penitentiary material has been completed, is the spatial scope of the Hussite movement as reflected in the Penitentiary. Rarely are the Hussites mentioned in the Penitentiary as a mere circumstance. Johannes de Vroyken from the Lübeck diocese, for instance, married for the second time in tempore quo rabies Hussitarum et hereticorum de regno Boemie sevit in christianos fideles.28 Most often the danger they presented is pointed out. Thus, for example, Laurentius Vethe from the Breslau diocese left his monastery and, when crossing the Czech lands, he put on secular clothes propter discrimina viarum presertim patriam hereticorum Tabaritanum pretere———————————— 26 Nicolaus Slepoticz, registered in 1450, ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 3, fol. 142r; RPG II, n. 336. 27 In 1474 abbot Johannes Bawor (ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 23, fol. 95r), and in 1475 Jaroslav of Šternberk (ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 24, fol. 82v), and Catherina de Warkenstat (ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 24, fol. 86v). 28 Registered in 1440, ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 2, fol. 146v; RPG I, n. 527.

128


undo.29 Johannes Johannis Sagitarii wanted to be promoted in Zagreb as propter sectas Boemorum redire ausus non est.30 Several people participated in the fights. If they were on the Catholic side they never forget to stress that their enemies were enemies of the Catholics, for instance, Hussiti heretici Bohemi et inimici dicte parochialis ecclesie.31 Thomas of Laa organized the burning of a heretic, because dicti heretici ecclesie delapidatores, excisores linguarum sacerdotum predicantium verbum Dei erant et eos castrarunt, immo tunc quasi Germaniam impugnabant. Nicolaus Pfeffer was only 10 years old at the time but participated in the burning by gathering the wood.32 Supporters of the Hussites were, on the other hand, either too young, too ignorant, forced by their masters, or they had sincerely believed the errors of the Hussites and were sorry now.33 (There is one exponens who fought alternately on each side but did not provide details.34) Two cases concern George of Poděbrady. They are both from 1475, four years after his death. In both, the exponentes ask for absolution for helping George of Podìbrady. On the one hand, there is a noble woman, Katherina, widow of Johannes de Werterberek, together with her son Sigismundus from Děčín, on the other hand, the brothers Jaroslav, Jiří, Jan, and Petr Borko. As George was the steward of their property when their husband and father died, they supported him materially in his wars, and when he was excommunicated, they were excommunicated, too. Both exponentes stress the subject position ———————————— 29 Registered in 1455, ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 5, fol. 40v; RPG III, n. 49. 30 Registered in 1463, ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 11, fol. 411r; RPG V, n. 3298. 31 Passau diocese, 1466, ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 14, fol. 106r; RPG V, n. 1996. 32 Both men turned to the Penitentiary at the same time as monks at Melk: October 24 and 27, 1451, ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 3, fol. 253v and 254r; RPG II, n. 880, n. 881. 33 E.g., Hynolinus Andree who first became a priest but then married and joined the Taborites, eorum erroribus credidit et contra christianos fideles unacum dictis Taboritis armatus interfuit, but now he saw the truth, refused all the errores, hereses et superstitiones, and wanted to remain priest. (registered in 1442, ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 2, fol. 326v; RPG I, n. 696); or Mauritius de Franconia from the Mainz diocese who terras quorundam hereticorum intravit et sectas eorum tenuit et matrimonium cum quadam muliere heretica illarum partium contraxit et consumavit et in eorum exercitu in sacris et profanis locis cum illorum fractione interfuit et auxilium prestitit …, but now returned to Mother Church (registered in 1463, ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 11, fol. 242r; RPG V, n. 1635). 34 … in guerris tam cum hereticis quam christianis, ubi plura homicidia et incendia eccl. facte fuerunt, interfuit, et ad ea facienda auxilium prestitit. (Willermus Rener from the Passau diocese, registered in 1461; ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 9, fol. 116r; RPG IV, n. 1284).


129

they had to George, but, at the same time, they call him tutor et defensor – perhaps not only a formula, but an indication of a positive relationship. None of them called George simply a heretic. Katherina said that tutor et defensor ipsorum exponentum per processus apostolicos propter heresim Wiclevistarum excomunicatus fuisset. The brothers stated: pro heretico per processus apostolicum dampnatus et publice denunciatus fuisset. The first case can be partly verified based on the surviving local sources: there are mentions of Jan (Johannes) the Younger of Vartenberk on Děčín who supported George of Poděbrady.35 Sigmund fought together with his brother Kryštof against king Mathias, even after the death of George of Poděbrady.36 A case from the diocese of Mainz concerns a man who participated in fights when rex Bohemorum, qui pro heretico tenebatur prout tenetur, ad presentem civitatem Iglau hostiliter invasisset.37 These mentions, in my opinion, without questioning the excommunication itself, reflect the awareness of the changing attitude of the Holy See to George of Podebrady. Most of the cases where Hussites played an important active role concern the service sub utraque specie or in front of the excommunicated. This was sometimes done by mistake or through ignorance, other times it was forced, as in the case of Hermanus de Strelen from the Breslau diocese who coram quibusdam Bohemicis hereticis volentibus destruere eius ecclesiam divina officia celebravit.38 Different types of direct force and general influence of the Hussites can be discerned in the case of Martinus Jacobi from the Prague diocese, who was affected by the movement three times: he wanted to become a priest, but as the Hussites were spreading in the land at the time, he followed the advice of his

———————————— 35 The first mention comes from 1441. In 1448, Jan participated in George of Poděbrady’s attack on Prague, in 1454 he was present at the council, in 1458 at the elections, in 1458 at George’s attack on Jihlava (Iglau). The last mention is from 1459, at the occasion of George’s visit to Cheb (Eger) (Palacký, Dejiny, IV, passim). He probably died in 1464 (August Sedláček, Hrady, zámky a tvrze království českého, XIV [Castles, palaces and fortresses of the Czech kingdom] (Prague: Argo, 1999), 83). 36 Sigismund is mentioned 1482 at the occasion of an agreement between Czechs and Saxonians in Most; from 1485 onwards he attended the lawcourt (Palacký, Dejiny, IV, passim). 37 Registered in 1465, ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 12, fol. 114v; RPG V, n. 1962. In 1485, George of Podìbrady attacked Jihlava (Iglau) twice. The first attack took place in July, but on July 22 his army went to Austria. In October, after the end of the fights in Austria, George’s army returned to Jihlava, and on November 15 George succeeded in signing a peace treaty (see Macek, Jiří, 128; Urbánek, České dejiny III, 394–395, 437–439). 38 Registered in 1460, ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 8, fol. 186v; RPG IV, n. 1271.

130


parents and relatives and married instead. But, because the sect was flourishing, he felt his life was in danger, went far away and lived with a certain widow. Then he fell into the hands of the Hussites, who forced him to return to his proper wife: … exponit, quod ipse olim vovit Deo et sanctis suis ad omnes sacros ordines promoveri, sed quia heu secta Hussitarum et Bohemorum presbyterorum et clericorum inimica superveniente de consilio suorum parentum et consanguineorum, premisso voto non obstante, quandam virginem … duxit in uxorem. … Exinde, cum prefata secta supra modum et contra humanam naturam superhabunda-vit, prefatus exponens, propter metum sui corporis ad alienas et incognitas partes se transtulit ibique se cum qua-dam vidua sibi ad serviendum pro competenti precio associavit, et cum ipse cum prefata muliere aliquamdiu moram traxit ipsamque sepius actu fornicatorio cognovit, et sic simul cohabitarunt. Post hoc idem exponens in manus predictarum Hussitarum incidit, qui ipsum exponentem, ut uxorem suam ita relictam more conthorali sub pena ignis tractaret, compellerunt …39 However, on the way home he got the news that his wife had died, and so he promoted himself and now asked to be allowed to keep his offices. The number of Penitentiary cases is, nevertheless, so low that it is impossible to make generalizations without taking into account other sources. There is, however, one exception, one pattern, which clearly stands out even from the Penitentiary alone: many cases concern women, and, as I would like to argue, the Penitentiary reflects the change in their social position brought about due to the Hussite movement. A number of sources from the time testify that women became temporarily much more included in public, and even in theological life.40 Catholic satires reveal the fear of this phenomenon, argue against the ‘emancipation’, and stress the traditional role of women – they should sit at home, cook, and take care of the children.

———————————— 39 This is the earliest Hussite-linked case I have found so far, recorded in 1439, ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 2, fol. 125r; RPG I, n. 202. 40 Cf. e.g. Božena Kopičková, Historické prameny k studiu postavení ženy v české a moravské středověké společnosti [Historical sources for the study of the position of women in Czech and Moravian medieval society] (Prague: Historický ústav, 1992); Anna Císařová-Kolářová, Žena v hnutí husitském [Woman in Hussite Movement] (Prague, 1915). This aspect of the Hussite movement has been also explored by John M. Klassen, Warring Maidens, Captive Wives, and Hussite Queens: Women and Men at War and at Peace in Fifteenth-Century Bohemia (New York: Columbia University Press, 1999).


131

The Penitentiary shows, on the one hand, female independence – while from Central Eastern Europe some 2% of individual women applied to the Penitentiary,41 from the Czech lands they were 8%. They applied both in the usual matters like de perpetuis, nuns leaving the monastery,42 women organizing their marriage affairs,43 etc., and with special requirements.44 On the other hand (and more strikingly), women appear not only as exponentes but as crucial figures in the narrative parts of the cases by male exponentes. Most of these women were heretics, and they were not only independent but also powerful and dangerous and thus presented serious complications. Andreas Melczer, a Benedictine monk and priest gave the Eucharist to a puella heretica under one specie, but then was imprisoned and forced by Jan Rokycana45 (a Rokyzano perverso heretico) to give sub utraque specie.46 Jaroslav married Margarita knowing that they were related in the second grade, and he consummated the marriage, as he said, in order to draw Margarita out of a Hussite sect. If they divorced now, he claimed, she would certainly return to the sect: ———————————— 41 The source of this number is, again, the Central Eastern European database. 42 Elizabeth de Blonden, a noble nun in the St. Claire’s nunnery in Krumlov was forced to go to a different monastery, but she escaped from there to her parents. Registered in 1442, ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 2, fol. 240r; RPG I, n. 388. She is attested also in LLOR IV, 455. 43 Catherina Fritzkowa promised to marry a certain Henricus but she changed her mind and married someone else (Prague diocese, 1463, ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 11, fol. 281v; RPG IV, n. 1828). Elizabeth de Stanaw vowed after the death of her husband that she would not remarry but she changed her mind (Olomouc diocese, 1474, ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 23, fol. 13r). Martinus Mercatoris had married a certain Barabara, who left him after she confessed to him that she had been the mistress of a priest and had children with him, then killed them all with her own hands; as Martinus could not trace her, he had remarried and wanted to remain in the new marriage (Prague diocese, 1480, ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 29, fol. 185r). 44 E.g., a noble woman, Anna Moše z Řetče (spelled Musze de Rzecze in the Penitentiary record), built a hospital in Olomouc, and, as its chapel had not been consecrated yet, she asked for permission that a priest could serve masses there with a portable altar (registered in 1466, ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 14, fol. 210v; RPG V, n. 1240). This woman is documented in two charters. On October 16, 1465 she gave her house under the Dominican monastery to the city of Olomouc, and a pay that should be used for supporting the poor in this house (Olomouc City Archives, chart. n. 312, inv. 251). On November 17, 1466 she made slight changes to the previous donation: the house should be used for pilgrims (Olomouc City Archives, chart. n. 323, inv. 261). For information about these charters I am indebted to Antonin Kalous. 45 Johannes of Rokycany (1390–1471), elected but never confirmed archbishop of Prague, leader of the Calixtines. 46 Recorded in 1453, ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 3, fol. 363v; RPG II, n. 1009.

132


… verum dictus Jaroslaus matrimonium consumavit, ut prefatam Margaritham, que per prius secte Hussitarum erat, a dicta heresi traheret; et si divortium fieret inter eos, gravia scandala verisimiliter exoriri possent ac dicta Margaritha ad sectam hereticam rediret.47 This is, to my knowledge, the only case when a man desired to keep a heretic wife. Conradus Muratoris was forced by threats of his master to marry a certain Marta. He realized that she was a heretic, and she soon left him and joined a sect. After ten years, when Conradus had had no news of her, he married a good Catholic, Catherina, and had children with her. But, after thirty more years, Marta returned and insisted that he was her husband, while he wanted to remain with Catherina.48 Two more cases might refer to a woman leaving her husband and joining the Hussites, even though heretics are not mentioned in them: Stephanus Petri ———————————— 47 Therefore, they applied to remain together or to be allowed to contract the marriage anew; recorded in 1456, ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 5, fol. 155v; RPG III, n. 179. 48 Conradus Muratoris laicus Pragensis diocesis exponit cum ipse laboribus manuum suarum serviens cuidem nobili viro qui sibi mandavit ut matrimonium cum quadam Martha contraheret quod facere ipse exponens recusavit ex quo forsan dictus nobilis de dignatus eidem exponenti minatus fuit quod nisi matrimonium cum dicta Martha contraheret et deinde sibi maritali affectionem adhereret ac vite consuetudinum duceret, sibi oculos cruceret et aliis tormentis eum afficere velle minatus fuit huiusmodi igitur vi et metu coactus et compulsus et timore huiusmodi tormento etc. que aliter evadere non sperabat nisi voluntatem domini sui adimpleret et dictum tale quale matrimonium licet preter suum consensum contrahere videretur pro ut eandem matrimonium ymmo potius contubernium ad iussum et mandatum domini sui ibidem presenti per vim absolutam cum ipsa Marta contraxit et vite consuetudinem per aliquod tempus duxit cum ab ea evadere non potuit ignorans eam facte heretice pravitarum Bohemorum fore infectam pro ut infecta erat. Que cum dictum exponentem in fide Catholica firmum et stabilem esse ac perseverantem sciret et dicte secte inimicum eundem exponentem dimisit et ad Bohemorum hereticorum partes aufugit. Qui exponens post decem annos vel circa nulla de dicta Marta memoria atque fama ymmo ut mortuorum ymago a vita delecta reputata, matrimonium eandem cum alia Catherina bona Catholica contraxit et carnali copulatione consumavit et proles procreavit et per triginta annos vel circa cum eadem Catherina vite consuetudinem duxit. Qua Marta post XL annos vel circa a suo ut premittitur recessu effluxos ad exponentem est reversa repetens eundem tamquam in suum maritum legitimum cui ipse exponens ulterius adherere recusavit ymmo apud sedem apostolicam per remedio oportuno se contulit. Et quamvis ipse exponens aliter quam ut premittitur cum dicta Martha matrimonium non contraxit neque aliter consenserat in eadem et eam hereticam fore ignoravit, a nonnullis ignorantes asseri possit matrimonium cum dicta Catherina contractum non tenere neque proles ex ea susceptas legitimas esse et ipsam Catherinam dimittere et dicte Marthe heretice adherere debet …, ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 31, fol. 96r–v. This case establishes a clear contrast between Marta heretica and Catherina bona Catholica. That is done for a clear reason: to present the choice of the exponens as the right one.


133

Cristophori from Příbram married a certain Agna and lived with her for a year, but then, seduced by an evil spirit, she left him and committed adulteries and other bad things. As the exponens was unable to trace her for fifteen years, he became a priest.49 Nicolaus Cardonarii married Margarita, but she left him and lived far away with another man, and so, after seven years searching for her, Nicolaus remarried.50 Nycolaus von der Gehtutner was imprisoned by heretics in Prague. Together with two other men he was kept in a house of a heretic woman, who came to him with a proposal: Nisi ducas me in uxorem etiam decapitaveris, et si me ducere vis ac matrimonium mecum contrahere intendis, te ab huiusmodi periculo vite liberabo.51 So he married her, and she saved him while the other two men were decapitated. And now Nicolas did not want her any more! *** The Penitentiary records from Bohemia and Moravia from 1438 to 1483 reveal two anomalies: a high number of de promotis et promovendis cases and a far greater participation of women (whether as exponentes or included in the description). Both phenomena are to be linked to the Hussite movement, which, on the one hand, disturbed the smooth functioning of the Church organization and thus complicated the promoting of priests, and, on the other hand, involved women and prompted their ‘emancipation’. Besides these two basic patterns, most of the Penitentiary cases describe sudden and radical decisions and events in individual people’s lives: priests getting married and returning to priesthood,

———————————— 49 … Postmodum vero dicta Agna spirito melino [!] seduta [!] a dicto exponente viro suo legitimo recessit et ad partes alienas se transtulit adulteria et alia mala crimina forsan pluries commitendo de quo recessu ipse exponens non modicum doluit et infra aliquot annos inquisitiones necessarias ad dictam Agnam inquirendam facere et inquirere non cessavit, tamen nuncione per testes fide dignos seu alias personas aliquam veram informationem nec famam dicte Agne invenire potuit de vita vel de morte ipsius Agne – unde dictus exponens videns quod erant quindecim anni iam elapsi et ultra quod dicta Agna ab dicto exponente recessit et interim nuncam noticiam habere potuit, et sic certificatus ad omnes sacros ordines…, Registered in 1441, ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 2bis, fol. 216v; RPG I, n. 609. 50 … Ipsa mulier se ad alienas et ignotas partes cum quedam alieno viro transtulit et ab ipso exponente per VII annos absens extitit et licet exponens dilligentiam sibi possibilem de reperiendo ipsam fercavit de ipsa vita vel morte certifaceri non potuit… (Olomouc diocese, 1474, ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 23, fol. 136v). 51 Registered in 1459, ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 7, fol. 291v; RPG IV, n. 1758.

134


nuns and monks leaving monasteries, wives leaving their husbands, laics fighting against Hussites and then joining them, Catholic priests temporarily giving sub utraque specie, etc. The country was indeed split. Yet, the Penitentiary not only re-established the omnipresent divisions in the land at the time, but also shows the specific diverse ways in which people lived between the contrasts, ways in which they accommodated to the constantly changing conditions.

SOCIAL AND TERRITORIAL ENDOGAMY IN THE RAGUSAN REPUBLIC: MATRIMONIAL DISPENSES DURING THE PONTIFICATES OF PAUL II AND SIXTUS IV (1464–1484) Ana Marinković

The very first observations on the East Central European records in the registers of the Apostolic Penitentiary during the pontificates of Paul II (1464–1471) and Sixtus IV (1471–1484)1 have put to the foreground the remarkably high percentage of de matrimonialibus cases in the towns of the eastern Adriatic coast, notably the diocese of Dubrovnik (Ragusa). A more precise look at the data has revealed that the striking majority of 31% of the East Central European matrimonial cases originate from this diocese. Moreover, within the total number of cases coming from the Ragusan diocese to the Penitentiary, matrimonial cases comprise as much as 63%. Unfortunately, there is no scholarship yet on the matter of the recurrent appearance of supplications for matrimonial dispenses coming from certain dioceses or certain regions of Europe.2 In general, the majority of supplications

———————————— 1

Cases from these two pontificates are registered in volumes 12 to 33; the part of volume 13 belonging to the last year of pontificate of Pius II was not included in the analysis, neither was the volume 27 wich is not related to the Penitentiary issues. 2 The existing studies concerning the matrimonial cases from the Penitentiary registers deal with other sets of questions; see Filippo Tamburini, “Le dispense matrimoniali come fonte storica nei documenti della Penitenzieria Apostolica (sec. XIII–XVI)”, in Le modèle familiar européen: Normes, déviances, contrôle du pouvoir, Collection de l’École française de Rome 90 (Rome: École française de Rome, 1986), 9–30; David d’Avray, “Marriage Symbolism and the Papal Penitentiary”, Review of the British Academy, The National Academy for the Humanities and Social Sciences 7 (2003), 43–44. The most recent scholarship on Ragusan matrimonial policy in a sociopolitical context, including a bibliography, is to be found in David B. Rheubottom, “Genealogical Skewing and Political Support: Patrician Politics in Fifteenth-century Ragusa (Dubrovnik)”, Continuity and Change 9 (1994), 369–390 (hereafter Rheubottom, “Genealogical Skewing”); idem, Age, Marriage, and Politics in Fifteenth-Century Ragusa (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000) (hereafter Rheubottom, Age, Marriage, and Politics); Zdenka JanekovićRoemer, Okvir slobode: Dubrovačka vlastela između srednjovjekovlja i humanizma [The framework of freedom: Ragusan nobility between the Middle Ages and humanism] (Zagreb: Zavod za povijesne znanosti Hrvatske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti (hereafter HAZU), 1999), 69–73 and passim (hereafter Janeković-Roemer, Okvir slobode).

136


originated from today’s Italy, France, Germany, and Spain; however, those regions are best represented in general, since they formed the core of the Western christian world at the time. Nevertheless, the number of matrimonial cases in their overall statistics is not excessive. Dalmatia, however, and also, for example, Irieland show the predominance of supplications related to obstacles in contracting a marriage. Without an attempt to address the question of the geographical distribution of de matrimonialibus cases in general, I will try to find an explanation for the phenomenon of the abundant matrimonial supplications from Dubrovnik, as far as the local history context will allow. At this point already, I have to express my doubts that the results will be applicable to other regions, which show a similar quantitative predominance of matrimonial cases. The answer valid for the Ragusan case should, in my opinion, be sought in the particularities of a rigid matrimonial policy and practice, as well as in the complex levels of endogamy existing in the Ragusan city-state. Therefore, it is necessary to compare the matrimonial cases from the Penitentiary records with the secular regulations existing in the Dalmatian cities and in Dubrovnik, and, furthermore, to put them into their socio-political context.3 However, the direction of the research should not lead to further knowledge on the relations between the Church of Dubrovnik and the Holy Penitentiary. Rather, it should lead to conclusions drawn from the data recorded in the Penitentiary registers as far as they reflect the social processes in the late medieval and early modern city. Before analysing the social structures, the foreign policy, and the marital practices in Dubrovnik and the Dalmatian cities, I will briefly point out the main quantitative tendencies related to the matrimonial issues in the region concerned.4 Among all the dioceses of the East Central Europe, Dubrovnik appears to be the best represented, with 175 out of altogether 2010 East Central European cases, which amounts to 9%. The case of the second-ranked Church of Zagreb

———————————— 3

4

After the agreement of 1420 between Ladislaus of Naples, pretender to the Hungarian throne, and the Republic of Venice, the eastern Adriatic coast was divided into two political entities. Istria and the Dalmatian cities (including the towns in Boka Kotorska Bay and subsequently the north Albanian coastal cities) were subject to the Republic of Venice, whereas Dubrovnik was finally recognized as a relatively independent city state, with only minor obligations to the Hungarian king. In this context, under ‘Dalmatian cities’ I mean the cities subject to Venetian rule, Dubrovnik obviously excluded. The following calculations are only approximate, since the database is still under construction. For a more detailed statistical overview concerning East Central Europe, see the article by Piroska Nagy and Kirsi Salonen in this volume.

SOCIAL AND TERRITORIAL ENDOGAMY

137

needs a special note: the archdiocese of Zagreb had jurisdiction over the Croatian territory politically strictly and traditionally subject to the Hungarian king, and, therefore, was in many aspects more similar to the other Hungarian dioceses. As the second-most represented diocese of all of East Central Europe, with 148 cases or 7%, it features only four matrimonial cases, while the great majority of 60% were cases belonging to the de declaratoriis and de diversis formis categories. The best represented Dalmatian dioceses are: Kotor with 43 cases, Korčula and Bar with 36 each, Hvar 29, and Zadar 25 cases. The percentage of dioceses within the total of the matrimonial cases is shown in Figure 4.5 Of the 365 total matrimonial cases in East Central Europe, as many as 112 cases originated from the Ragusan diocese, which amounts to 31%. As mentioned, the diocese of Zagreb, in general the second-ranked diocese, had only four matrimonial cases (1%). The Dalmatian dioceses generally led in the number of matrimonial cases: Korčula with 31 (8%) and Kotor with 21 (6%), Hvar with 18 (5%), Bar with 14 (4%); Split, Trogir, Zadar, Rab with 6 to 8 cases (2% each). Poreč, located in the Venetian part of Istria, had 3%.

Figure 4 Percentage of dioceses within the total of East Central European matrimonial cases

———————————— 5

Only those dioceses that have more than ten matrimonial cases are included in the table.

138


Figure 5 shows the percentage of different types of cases within the diocese of Dubrovnik: out of the 175 Ragusan cases, 112 (63%) concerned matrimonial issues; 29 (16%) belonged to the group de diversis formis, and 10 (6%) to the related de declaratoriis group, which amounts to 22% of the cases dealing with violent acts; 16 cases (8%) concern ecclesiastical promotions, 3 (2%) illegitimacy, and 6 (4%) the granting of confession letters (de perpetuis); and only one case was about giving a special licence for absolving a sentence of excommunication. As regards to the percentage of matrimonial cases among all entries for each of the East Central European dioceses (Figure 6), one has to observe the discrepancy between the Eastern Adriatic dioceses and the continental ones (Hungarian and Polish); whereas in the former group the matrimonial cases are represented by 40–80%, in the latter they remain around 10%. The territory under jurisdiction of the Ragusan Church is the second best represented: out of the total of 175 cases originating from Dubrovnik, 112 or 63% are matrimonial cases.

Figure 5 Percentage of different types of cases within the diocese of Dubrovnik


139

Figure 6 Percentage of matrimonial cases among the total of cases within East Central European dioceses

Korčula is leading with 84% and Hvar occupies the third place with 62%.6 Similar results resulted from Jadranka Neralić’s analysis of supplications for matrimonial dispensation from sources other than the Penitentiary registers (Vatican, Lateran, and Avignon registers) for the period 1320–1480.7 33.5 petitions or 45% came from the Ragusan diocese.8 As far as the social status of petitioners is concerned, among the 26 documents involving noblemen, 19 or 73% were Ragusan cases.9 ———————————— 6 7

8 9

The table includes all the dioceses that have more than six matrimonial cases. Jadranka Neralić, “‘Ut matrimonium libere et licite contrahere possint:’ Papal 14th- and 15thcentury Matrimonial Dispensations”, in Hereditas rerum croaticarum, ed. Alexander Buczynski (Zagreb: Hrvatski institut za povijest, 2003), 38–43. Ibidem, 39. There are 32 cases involving spouses who were both Ragusan, and three cases involving a combination of spouses from Dubrovnik and Kotor. Ibidem, 41. The supplicants to the Holy Penitentiary, even though they rarely stressed their belonging to a noble family by using the title nobilis, were, at least in the majority, members of the nobility who can be identified in the genealogical tables compiled by Irmgard Mahnken, Dubrovački patricijat u XIV veku [Ragusan nobility in the fourteenth century], Izdanja Srpske akademije nauka i umetnosti (hereafter SANU), Odelenje društvenih nauka, 36 (Belgrade: SANU, 1960) (hereafter Mahnken, Dubrovački patricijat).

140


MATRIMONIAL ISSUES: CANON LAW AND SECULAR AUTHORITIES IN DALMATIAN CITIES

The differences that appear between the Dalmatian cities and the rest of the Eastern Central European dioceses, such as Zagreb, Eger, Alba Iulia, Wrocław, Poznań, or Cracow, can perhaps be explained by the distinctive historical development of the Dalmatian towns as city communes. This type of social and political structure implied a strict demarcation between maiores and minores, that is, patricians and commoners. In Dalmatia, this separation was underlined by the origin of the members of these social groups: the patricians were mostly of Roman origin, while the majority of commoners constituted the Slavic population. It is a commonplace in the social history of the communes that the upper strata were not officially allowed to mix with the commoners, but the Church did not recognize any similar regulation. Among the impediments to marriage as set by canon law, the most often violated was the familial relationship (consan-guinity and affinity), which was considered an impediment to the fourth grade after the reforms of the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215.10 However, as the Penitentiary records witness, it was difficult to respect these regulations because they limited the possibilities in the choice of a partner which were further limited by other, secular, regulations. Canon law allowed marriages among members of different social groups but from the lay point of view, marriage was primarily an economic and political contract, and therefore another set of rules was established for the preservation of the existing social structures. Thus, despite the differences between the lay and the ecclesiastical concept of marriage caused by different priorities, a compromise of those two concepts was necessary. From the fourteenth century onwards, the laity accepted the ceremony of ecclesiastical marriage and its rules, while the church in certain cases allowed divorce and endogamy.11

———————————— 10 For a more detailed analysis of marriage impediments as set by canon law, and their remedy through the institution of the Holy Penitentiary, see Ludwig Schmugge, Patrick Hersperger and Béatrice Wiggenhauser, Die Supplikenregister der päpstlichen Pönitentiarie aus der Zeit Pius’ II. (1458–1464), Bibliothek des Deutschen Historischen Instituts in Rom 84 (Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1996), 68–74; Kirsi Salonen, The Penitentiary as a Well of Grace in the Late Middle Ages: The Example of the Province of Uppsala 1448–1527, Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian Toimituksia – Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae 313 (Saarijärvi: Academia Scientiarum Fennica, 2001), 103–119. 11 Zdenka Janeković-Roemer, Rod i grad: Dubrovačka obitelj od XIII do XV stoljeća [Family and the City: Ragusan family from the thirteenth to the fifteenth century] (Dubrovnik: HAZU u Zagrebu, 1994), 60 (hereafter Janeković-Roemer, Rod i grad).


141

Since all the issues concerning marriage were under the jurisdiction of canon law, one usually does not find regulations on marriage in the city statutes or any other form of secular law except those concerning dowry and inheritance, that is, the most direct economic aspects of marriage. Nevertheless, in addition to the impediments for marriage according to Canon law, the secular authorities also set certain regulations for marriages of noblemen, in other words, to promote class endogamy. However, those were usually neither very clear nor strict, and they appear in Dalmatian and Venetian statutes as late as in the sixteenth century. From the end of the thirteenth century, all questions related to contracting a marriage in Dalmatia were, in general, solved by the ecclesiastical court. This is evident in the statute regulations; for instance, the Statute of Split (codified in 1312), although the regulation itself might imply the existence of such secular interventions: Item statuito et ordinato che se nela corte del comune de spalato movera alguna questione principalmente di alguno matrimonio perche questa questione e mere spirituale. in quella fiada la corte di spalato secolare di questa questione per niguno modo si intrometta ma rimetasi ala corte di Messer arcivescovo spalatino. del quale e la iurisdictione et cognitione principalmente del matrimonio.12 However, in the case of Dubrovnik there was a somewhat different distribution of authority on matrimonial issues, which demands a more thorough analysis of the context and the roots of Ragusan social endogamy. As early as the thirteenth century, matrimonial relations within the Ragusan nobility were concentrated within the circle of the most powerful families, which led to the separation of the upper social class and its homogenisation. The serrata or closing of the Ragusan city councils in 1332 did not represent the ultimate act of class ideology, because even after the closing of the councils the concept of nobilitas developed in a more and more exclusive direction. Secular law still did not explicitly forbid marriages between patricians and commoners, but took all possible measures to make such marriages as few as possible. As early as the end of the fourteenth century there were measures of prevention, which are discernible in the case of Nicholas Ser Mathei de Gradi, a Ragusan patrician who married the commoner Caterina Radosaglich in the 1420s: the mar-

———————————— 12 Giuseppe Alačević, ed., Statuti di Spalato (Split: Zannoni, 1878), lib. III, cap. VI, 91.

142


riage was approved by the Church, but the children were not allowed to enter the city councils.13 This tendency culminated with a regulation on the marriages of noblemen, written down as chapter eighteen of Liber croceus, the book of amendments to the Ragusan Statute. The regulation passed the Great Council on March 19, 1462, by a majority of 103 to 23 votes, and represented the conclusion and codification of a custom mentioned as early as the 1440 as ancient. The regulation forbade members of the nobility to marry commoners, under the threat of loss of all patrician offices and benefices, not only concerning the person committing the offence but also all his descendants without the possibility of rehabilitation.14 Contemporary opinion on such marriages is discernible from the description of Dubrovnik and its customs written by Philippus de Diversis de Quartigianis from Lucca in 1440, who at the time held the office of teacher in Dubrovnik. Part IV, chapter 16 of the description is dedicated to the “praise-worthy custom of Ragusan nobility that does not accept plebeian wives, neither give noblewomen to plebeian husbands”.15 Diversis directed praise to “the custom that had been and still was obeyed, and would be obeyed as long as the state of

———————————— 13 Janeković-Roemer, Rod i grad, 70. However, Rheubuttom and Mahnken believe that Nicholas was a commoner himself. 14 Statuimus et ordinamus quod si quis ex nobilibus nostris de cetero in contrahendo matrimonium acciperet uxorem filiam alicuius Ragusei qui non esset nobilis Ragusii, excepto si talis esset filia alicuius nobilis alterius civitatis maritime aut alicuius ex descententibus ex dictis nobilibus alterius civitatis maritime talis accipiens huiusmodi uxorem, ipso facto, amota omni exceptione cum suis heredibus et successoribus descendentibus ex dicto matrimonio sit perpetuo privatus omnibus consiliis, officiis et beneficiis communis Ragusii, nec ad ipsa consilia, officia et beneficia, ullo (modo) unquam tempore admitti possit ipse contrahens, nec aliquis ex dictis heredibus et successoribus suis ex dicto matrimonio descendentibus. Et alicui qui huiusmodi matrimonium contraheret gratia fieri non possit, nisi per omnes consiliarios omnium consiliorum nostrorum, Liber croceus (1460–1803), Historical Archives in Dubrovnik, ser. 21.1, vol. 12a–1, cap. 18, fol. 13r; Branislav Nedeljković, ed., Liber croceus, Zbornik za istoriju, jezik i književnost srpskog naroda, 24 (Belgrade: SANU, 1997), 21–22 (hereafter Nedeljković, Liber croceus). Shortly afterwards, in 1464, the Great Council made the punishment less extreme by the decision that violators could be rehabilitated if members of the council voted for it. However, although those persons would keep their position and offices, the children of patricians who married a commoner would lose the social status and become commoners, as shown in the case of Laurentius de Mence in 1505 (Janekoviæ-Roemer, Rod i grad, 70). 15 Philippi de Diversis de Quartigianis Lucensis, artium doctoris eximii et oratoris situs aedificiorum, politiae et laudabilium conusuetudinum inclytae civitatis Ragusii ad ipsius senatum descriptio, Historical Archives in Dubrovnik (no shelfmark), 156–160 (hereafter Philippi de Diversis descriptio); Vitaliano Brunelli, ed., “Philippi de Diversis de Quartigianis … descriptio”, Programma dell’ I. R. Ginnasio superiore in Zara, 25 (1882), 26–28 (here-after Brunelli, “Descriptio”).


143

Dubrovnik existed” (consuetudo antiquissima Ragusinorum pertinaciter cum summa virtute observata, atque nunc servatur, et dum Ragusium regnaverit, observanda), that is, to take care for the provenance of the ancestors of the spouse (inter genus proavorum a quo mores plerunque trahi videmus, maxime considerare oportet). According to Diversis, Ragusans considered it shameful to accept a spouse from a lower social position (Indignum prorsus iudicant Ragusini nobiles se foeminis ignobilibus matrimonio copulare, aut nobiles dominas viris non claris coniungi.). Such an attitude culminated in the (probably somewhat exaggerated) statement that “until today it was not discovered that a Ragusan nobleman or woman accepted a commoner for wife or husband” (Nec inventum est usque in hoc tempus, quempiam nobilem Ragusinum sponte plebeiam in uxorem, aut matronam proavis claram plebeium hominem in maritum … delegisse.).16 Considering the early date and the radical measures, one is inclined to agree with scholars who consider Ragusan marital practice the most severe social endogamy in Europe.17 Such rigorous regulations on social endogamy resulted in the fact that mixed marriages were less represented in Dubrovnik than elsewhere.18 In Dalmatian cities, marriages between different social groups represented the legitimate means for the rise of families of commoners, and it was usual for descendants of a commoner to acquire patrician status. The city of Trogir only codified the regulations on not accepting the sons from mixed marriages into the city councils in 1553. However, the regulation was not obeyed, since twenty years later, in 1573, concerning alcuni de nobili di questo spetabil conseglio, li quali con puoco rispetto della condizion loro contrazeno matrimonii con donne vilissime et di bassissima conditione et puoco honorevole, it was added to the regulation that de caetero alcuno nobile di questo conseglio non ardisca contrazer matrimonio, ne tuor per moglie alcuna donna, che non fosse gentildonna, o’ saltem cittadina honorata.19 It ———————————— 16 Philippi de Diversis descriptio, 157; Brunelli, “Descriptio”, 26–27. 17 Susan Mosher Stuard, “Dowry increase and increments in wealth in medieval Ragusa (Dubrovnik)”, Journal of Economic History 41 (1981), 798; eadem, A State of Deference: Ragusa/Dubrovnik in the Medieval Centuries (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1992), 63 (hereafter Mosher Stuard, State of deference); Janeković-Roemer, Rod i grad, 70; eadem, Okvir slobode, 69–73. 18 Janeković-Roemer, Okvir slobode, 70. 19 Chapter “Quod legitimati per subsequens non possint essere nobiles” of 1553: ... E ancorche esso tal fiol fosse nato de donna di qualsivoglia stato, grado et condition esser, si sia avanti il matrimonio legitimamente contratto, non ostante, che dappoi la sua natività frà il padre et la madre fosse contratto esso legitimo matrimonio, non possa ne debbia in modo alcuno esser ricevuto ne accettato in detto conseglio: ma’ di quello totalmente sia et esser s’ intenda espulso, privato e abdicato, si come mai fosse nato de gentilhuomo di questo conseglio, Ivan Strohal, ed., Statutum et reformationes civitatis Tragurii, Monumenta historico-juridica Slavorum meridionalium, 10 (Zagreb:

144


should be pointed out that it was still not necessary that a wife was a noblewoman; the council was satisfied with an honourable commoner. Roughly at the same time, in 1551, the regulation on not accepting illegal patricians’ sons in the councils was codified in the Dalmatian city of Šibenik. Such marital practice in Dalmatian cities should be seen as following the example of their Venetian ruler; the Republic of Venice passed a similar regulation, precisely the obligation of writing down the mother’s name in the Libro d’Oro, the list of nobility, only in the sixteenth century.20

RAGUSAN DISPENSATIONS FOR MARRIAGE IN THIRD AND FOURTH DEGREE OF FAMILIAL RELATION:

EVIDENCE OF SOCIAL ENDOGAMY The earliest preserved papal dispensation for the territory of the Ragusan archbishopric dates to 1321, the fifth year of the pontificate of John XXII, and involves the Ragusan patricians Nicolaus Mathie de Mentio and Rosa Martii Lucari, related in the fourth degree of consanguinity.21 This early dispensation provides in so many words one of the reasons for contracting such a marriage: solving the conflicts between noble families, or their different branches: ad sedandum graves guerras et inimicicias periculosas et odia, que ab antiquo inter parentes, consanguineos et amicos utriusque vestrum fuisse noscuntur, ac periculis animarum et corporum, que ex eis verisimiliter pro————————————————————————————————— Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti (hereafter JAZU), 1915), Reformationum Liber II, cap. 85, 274; and the chapter “De matrimoniis nobilium” of 1573: ... sono alcuni de nobili di questo spetabil conseglio, li quali con puoco rispetto della condizion loro contrazeno matrimonii con donne vilissime et di bassissima conditione et puoco honorevole.... Che de caetero alcuno nobile di questo conseglio non ardisca contrazer matrimonio, ne tuor per moglie alcuna donna, che non fosse gentildonna, o’ saltem cittadina honorata. Et se contrafara’ in tuor per moglie qualche donna di bassissima conditione over infame, che li figlioli suoi non possano ne debbano in modo alcuno esser ricevuti ne’ accettati in questo conseglio, ma’ totalmente siano et esser debbano esclusi et privati, si come mai fossero nati de gentilhuomo di questo conseglio, Statutum et reformationes civitatis Tragurii, Reformationum Liber II, cap. 86, 275. 20 For the Venetian matrimonial policy see Stanley Chojnacki, “Marriage legislation and patrician society in fifteenth-century Venice”, in Law, custom and the social fabric in medieval Europe, ed. Bernard S. Bachrach and David Nicholas, Studies in Medieval Culture 28 (Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute, 1990), 163–184. 21 ASV, Reg.Vat., 71, par. I, fol. 264v, ep. 587; published in Codex diplomaticus regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae, vol. 9, ed. Tadija Smičiklas (Zag-reb: JAZU, 1911), 9–10; a sketch of the letter in ASV, Reg. Aven., 15, fol. 77r.


145

venire poterant, obviandum, parentum, consanguineorum et amicorum ipsorum interveniente consensu, affectatis ad invicem matrimonialiter copulari. Related to this, the direct cause of endogamous marriages, according to Mosher Stuard, is the Ragusan strategy of creating stable network among families by multiple remarrying, which increased the probability of violation of canon law.22 Rheubottom stresses another aspect that lead to the same result: requirement of patrician parentage on both sides, which differentiated Dubrovnik from cities like Florence and Venice.23 However, both interpretations are related to the same general reasons for marriages between cousins: continuation of the family line, preservation of family possessions, acquisition of the stability of the state offices, and, on a wider scale, securing the homogeneity of the social group. Therefore, if one presumes that the reason for marrying between members of the family was to preserve their positions in the secular authority and their possessions within this family, then one should expect that the most powerful families followed this custom more strictly. Before I start analysing the data concerning some of the most powerful families among the Ragusan nobility, I will explain the criteria for calculating the influence that the Ragusan noble families exercised on the city government. For this I used the results offered by Bariša Krekić,24 who argued that it was not only economic power, but also the number of grown-up male family members that contributed to the impact of a certain family on the political life of the city. According to him, that impact was proportional to the number of state offices held by the members of a certain family. Therefore, economic power was not equated with political power, and as the main criterium for the latter, Krekiæ took the number of offices within each family.25 ———————————— 22 Mosher Stuard, State of deference, 63. 23 Rheubottom, Age, Marriage, and Politics, 80–81. 24 Bariša Krekić, “O problemu koncentracije vlasti u Dubrovniku u XIV. i XV. veku” [On the problem of the concentration of power in fourteenth- and fifteenth-century Dubrovnik], Zbornik radova Vizantološkog instituta 24–25 (1986), 397–406 (hereafter Krekić, “O problemu”); idem, “Influence politique et pouvoir économique dans Dubrovnik (Raguse) du XIIIe au XIVe siècle”, in Gerarchie economiche e gerarchie sociali nei secoli XII–XVI, ed. Annalisa Guarducci (Florence: Le Monnier, 1990), 241–258. 25 Rheubottom calculated that even if the proportion of family members and offices held were reciprocal, the power exercised by each of the patrician families was the same, since none of the most powerful families used the number of its members in the Great Council to disproportionally enlarge its share of the state offices; Rheubottom, “Genealogical Skewing”, 374–376. However, this fact did not influence the issue of matrimonial dispensations.

146


According to the early lists of noble families commissioned on the occasion of distributing newly acquired lands in the mid-fifteenth century, there were approximately 34 noble families in Dubrovnik. It should be stressed, which is important for the issue of the class endogamy that the tendency was for a decrease in the number of families and growth of the number of family members. For example, in the fourteenth century there were 71 families, whereas in the fifteenth less than half of them survived. In the list of noblemen of 1442 there were 553 males, and the calculations show that there were approximately 800 noblewomen.26 If we consider that at the time as much as 20% of the Ragusan population were members of the nobility (in sixteenth-century Venice they made up only 4.5%), then the high number of matrimonial cases coming from Dubrovnik is not surprising. It may be added that among the Ragusan Penitentiary cases of matrimonial type 90% involved noblemen, whereas only 10% concerned commoners, who were almost exclusively of Slavic origin, and more than half of whom were inhabitants of the islands subject to the Ragusan Republic. Another important issue should also be addressed, the concentration of power within a few leading families, a process that reached its peak during the fifteenth century. In the fourteenth century, 3,428 state positions were distributed among 71 families, whereas in the following century there were 5,084 positions distributed among 34 families. Five leading families held 33% and 42% of the positions in the respective centuries.27 In addition, not all the offices were equally important, and the distinction between upper and lower nobility was created according to the offices held continuously by a family, especially those of rector, judge, senator or member of the Minor council. Only by accepting certain commoners’ families into the patrician class in the seventeenth century did the criteria for the distinction within the group change. Prestige was no longer gained through state offices but through consanguine relation to the old nobility. The families were grouped into so-called ‘old’, ‘middle’, and ‘new’ nobility, which practised class endogamy among themselves.28 Turning back to the data from the Penitentiary registers, it is important to see what conclusions may be drawn from the comparison of the Penitentiary data with the data gathered from local notary sources. If one compares the list of the fifteenth century’s most numerous families with that of the families holding the highest number of positions and the families with the highest number of ———————————— 26 Krekić, “O problemu”, 399. 27 Ibidem, 401. 28 Ibidem, 405.

147


matrimonial dispensations (Table 18), it turns out that the top-positioned families in all the three lists coincide, primarily the first four: Gozze, Bona, Gondola and Sorgo. The Gozze family was by far the best represented, with almost 12% of the offices – the second-ranked Gondola had only 8.5%; there were 76 members of the Gozze family, whereas the second-ranked Bona had 45; and, finally, the Gozzes acquired 25 marriage dispensations (22% of all Ragusan matrimonial dispensations), which is three more than the second-ranked Bona. Table 18 Comparative lists of Ragusan families concerning their political power and involvement in marriages of familial relationship (fifteenth century) State offices (%) 1. Gozze 11.88 2. Gondola 08.63 3. Bona 08.55 4. Giorgio 07.02 5. Resti 06.51 6. Sorgo 06.23 7. Pozza 05.40

Family members 1. Gozze 76 2. Bona 45 3. Zrieva 39 4. Resti 37 5. Sorgo 36 6. Gondola 35 7. Georgio 31

Matrimonial dispenses 1. Gozze 2. Bona 3. Sorgo 4. Gondola 5. Zrieva / Zamagno 6. Caboga / Giorgio / Gradi 7. Mence / Pozza

25 22 20 15 09 08 06

Although it is expectable that families with more family members would have asked for more matrimonial dispenses, still a certain tendency can be observed for the leading families to make supplications for dispenses more often. Among 224 partners from 112 matrimonial cases registered in the Penitentiary records in the period examined here, 105 (47%) are members of the seven most powerful fifteenth-century Ragusan families (Gozze, Gondola, Bona, Sorgo, Giorgio, Mence, and Zrieva).29 Moreover, there are nine cases that involve isonomic partners; again they concern the four leading families: Gozze, Bona, Gondola, and Sorgo, and only one case involves the Pozza family, who ranked seventh according to the state offices they held. The local sources show that throughout the fifteenth century there were at least seven marriages between members of the Sorgo family,30 and eight between the Gozze in the period 1400–1520.31 Further on, the same ———————————— 29 It should be noted that the seven most powerful families are not the same as in the list of the families who held the highest positions, because Krekić did not calculate the sudden decline of certain families (such as Mence and Sorgo). 30 Janeković-Roemer, Rod i grad, 69. 31 Rheubottom, Age, Marriage, and Politics, 102. Rheubottom also provides patterns of intermarrying families during the same period, 103–107.

148


sources reveal that the non-patrician branches of the Ragusan noble families as well as wealthy commoners took over certain customs of the nobility. Thus, by marrying among themselves they formed another endogamous social group, an upper commoners’ stratum, but this issue is beyond the scope of this paper.32 Approximately 40% of the cases deal with the impediment of familial affiliation in the third degree, and there are three cases of second degree and three cases of first degree relation, but those latter concern the affinal relation between a first and second wife/husband. The rest of the cases involve affiliation in the fourth degree. In 41 Ragusan cases (37%,), there is a supplication for a declaratory letter which bear witness to the social importance of legitimate marriage. This tendency is not surprising if one considers the rigid statute regulations on marriages of the nobility and the danger one was exposed to for breaking this law. The letters almost exclusively concern third degree impediment, except for five cases of the fourth degree, which involved at least one member from each of the four leading families. A peculiar piece of information is that the names of the members of those families were often not only written with the father’s but also with the grandfather’s; in one case a member of the Gozze family also added the name of his great-grandfather.33

INDICATIONS OF TERRITORIAL ENDOGAMY IN THE MATRIMONIAL POLICY OF THE RAGUSAN REPUBLIC The extremely high percentage of de matrimonialibus cases from the Ragusan diocese within the total of matrimonial cases, but also within the total of Ragusan cases, indicates a certain distinction between Dubrovnik and the other Dalmatian cities. I have presented the argument that this is due to the stricter social endogamy. However, this tendency may also be explained by the fact that, unlike the rest of Dalmatia, Dubrovnik was not subject to Venetian rule after the events of 1409–1420, when Dalmatia was sold by the Angevins to the Republic

———————————— 32 Mahnken, Dubrovački patricijat, 411–415; Stjepan Krivošić, Stanovništvo Dubrovnika i demografske promjene u prošlosti [The population of Dubrovnik and demographic changes in the past] (Dubrovnik: Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti u Zagrebu, 1990), 105; Janeković-Roemer, Rod i grad, 70. 33 Jelusa Nicolai Marini Raphaelis de Goze, ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 17, fol. 28r.


149

of Venice. On the contrary, from 1420 onwards, Dubrovnik was established as an independent city-state. This independence dated back to the Treaty of Visegrad of 1358, after which Dubrovnik unofficially gained complete independence and began to be referred to as a republic. However, even before 1358, Dubrovnik had enjoyed quite a long tradition of political independence and rivalry with Venice that resulted in a sense of deliberate isolation from Venetian Dalmatia. The Ragusan attitude towards the citizens of the other Dalmatian cities was far from being the same as that towards the inhabitants of the neighbouring Slavic regions. According to the statute regulations, the Dalmatian cities were nevertheless considered to be ‘the others’. This sense of ‘indepen-dence’ is already obvious in the 1272 Statute regulations on the consuetudines between Ragusans and the inhabitants of the Dalmatian cities of Zadar, Šibenik, Trogir, Omiš, and Split; the Slavic areas Hum, Bosna, Raška, and Zeta; the civitates Dalmacie superioris (that is, Kotor, Bar, Ulcinj, Duros, etc.); and the other Sclavoniae.34 This kind of self-definition of the commune in relation to the neighbouring political entities, notably other Dalmatian communes, does not appear in other Dalmatian statutes; in those the neighbours were mentioned by their ethnonyms only when it concerned the Slavic regions of the inlands.35 In the records of the Ragusan city councils, much more often than in other cities, we find cases of the secular authorities forbidding marriages with citizens of other communes. The most striking example is the regulation by which the Ragusan authorities forbade marriages between Ragusans and inhabitants of Kotor, a regulation that stayed valid from the end of the thirteenth century until 1328, and sporadically after that period. The reasons behind this decision were of an economic nature: Ragusans considered that there were too many cases of possessions being transferred to the citizens of Kotor through marriage. It should be noted that Kotor did not set regulations with reciprocal strictness. 36 ———————————— 34 Baltazar Bogišić and Konstantin Jireček, ed., Liber statutorum civitatis Ragusii, Monumenta historico-juridica Slavorum meridionalium 9 (Zagreb: JAZU, 1904), lib. III, c. XLIX–LVII, 75– 80. 35 For example, in the Tragurian Statutes only one regulation from 1347 mentions foreigners by ethnonyms: “De non mutuando Sclavis, Bossinentibus seu Croatis supra pignus”, but it does not involve citizens of Dalmatian cities; Statutum et reformationes civitatis Tragurii, Reformationum Liber I, cap. 43, 163–164. Moreover, there is an addition to the chapter which includes an agreement between the cities of Split, Trogir and Šibenik from 1327 not to pay any tribute to Slavic barones, ibidem, 164. 36 Janeković-Roemer, Rod i grad, 73–74. In 1362 Hungary requested that Ragusans, when marrying patricians from other cities, choose among those under Hungarian rule; Mosher Stuard, State of Deference, 90, n. 15.

150


David Rheubottom examined all registered Ragusan marriages involving at least one patrician spouse during the period between 1400 and 1520. One of the quantitative outputs important for this issue is that only 2% of males and 3% of females married foreigners, that is, patricians from Kotor, Zadar, and other Dalmatian cities.37 However, the Ragusan authorities officially supported marriages with ‘amicable’ maritime cities, which is mentioned by Diversis: “Ragusan patricians, however, do marry the noblewomen from other cities, such as Duros, Kotor, Split, Zadar, Trogir, and others”.38 But the regulation on contracting the marriage with members of the nobility of the maritime cities, passed in 1499 in the Great Council, shows the double game played by the Ragusans. Under the cover of protecting the dowry of wives coming from abroad, the Great Council banned such marriages unless the husband held stable properties of at least 800 golden ducats.39 Therefore, although the Great Council principally supported marriages between members of the nobility of Ragusa and of other maritime cities, that is, Dalmatia and Venice, the limitations set by this regulation significantly diminshed the chances of marrying a foreign person, and

———————————— 37 Rheubottom, “Genealogical Skewing”, 381–382; idem, Age, Marriage, and Politics, 81. 38 Philippi de Diversis descriptio, 159; Brunelli, “Descriptio”, 28. 39 Ordo super matrimoniis contrahendis. Captus sub die xi martii 1499. Quoniam Inter alias bonas et laudabiles observantias et consuetudines quas nostri predecessores tenebant hec etiam fuit: Quod delectabantur contrahere matrimonia et affinitates cum Nobilibus civitatum maritimarum et dictam consuetudinem hac potissimum causa ut per huiusmodi affinitates conservarentur amicitie quae erant inter civitatem nostram et nobiles dictarum civitatium maritimarum. Idcirco ne sub pretestu dictarum affinitatum que contrahebantur ad conservationem antique amicitie aliquando sequi possit contrarium videlicet dissensio et inimicitia Dominis provisoribus videtur quod provideri debeat hoc modo, videlicet. Quod aliquis ex nobilibus nostris de caetero non possit contrahere matrimonium cum aliqua ex nobilibus mulieribus Civitatum maritimarum si talis nobilis noster contrahens non habebit de stabili in Civitate nostra: aut in eius districtu de bonis suis propriis ad minus valorem dotis que dari solet comuniter inter Nobiles nostros in Ragusio videlicet ducatorum 800 vel circa. Et si quis ex nobilibus nostris non habens in bonis suis dictum valorem dictorum ducatorum octingentorum ad minus vel circa contraxerit matrimonium cum aliqua ex nobilibus dictarum Civitatum maritimarum ipse contrahens, et proles tam masculina, quam faemenina ex dicto matrimonio nascitura ac ipsius prolis descendentes sint perpetuo privati omnibus officiis et beneficiis communis nostri. Et hoc quia intentio nostra est quod nobiles mulieres dictarum civitatum maritimarum contrahentes cum nobilibus nostris pro conservatione amicitie et pro honore civitatis nostre in omnem casum et eventum sint caute, tute et secure pro dotibus quas dabunt dictis nobilibus nostris. …, Liber croceus, pars 1, cap. 178, fol. 123v–124r; Nedeljković, Liber croceus, 194–195. The regulation was passed by 153 to 20 votes. As evidence that the regulation was not pro forma, I quote here the case of Ciprianus Petri de Lucari, who was expelled from the councils in 1502 for marrying a woman from Korčula without having the prescribed property; Janeković-Roemer, Okvir slobode, 72.


151

thus show evidence of a somewhat different matrimonial policy with elements of territorial endogamy. If one examines the level of social endogamy in other Dalmatian cities (as shown by the matrimonial cases in the penitentiary registers), it becomes evident that Korèula with 31 and Kotor with 21 cases, the southern and the northern neighbouring dioceses to Dubrovnik, are the best represented among the cities of Venetian Dalmatia. The high percentage of cases from Kotor and Korčula among de matrimonialibus could possibly be explained by their proximity and economic orientation to Dubrovnik with whose inhabitants they had difficulty in agreeing on marriages. The Hvar and Bar dioceses had 18 and 14 matrimonial cases, respectively. These four cities might have been influenced by the Ragusan marital practice and, in the case of Korčula and Kotor, even restricted in the choice of partners because of the difficulties of marrying persons from the diocese of Dubrovnik.

SIXTEENTH-CENTURY EVIDENCE: VARIATIONS Considering all the regulations as well as the rigour of following the customs, the patricians of Dubrovnik had an extremely limited choice of partners, which resulted in an excessive number of marriages between blood relatives and relatives through marriage. It seems that, in addition to the social endogamy typical of Dalmatian communes, Ragusans practised another kind of endogamy limited to the confines of the city-state. Thus, we find a remarkably high number of supplications for dispensation to marry in the third and fourth degree of familial affiliation originating from the Ragusan diocese in the fifteenth century. In that sense, it is not altogether surprising, although it was quite bold for the secular authorities, that the Ragusan Great Council in 1535 passed a regulation which forbade marriages in the third grade of consanguinity and affinity under the threat of deprivation of all patrician privileges, without leaving the possibility of remedy through papal dispensation:40 Vedendo che le pene delle censure et excommunicationi inposte dalli sacri canoni alli contrahenti matrimonio in gradi prohibiti, non suono sofficienti ad obviare che non si contrahi, ma molti non curando le censure. Sotto pretexto da poi esser’ absoluti et dispensati dalla sede apostolica, ven———————————— 40 Liber croceus, pars 1, cap. 252, fol. 186v–187r; Nedeljković, Liber croceus, 278. The regulation was passed by 130 to 22 votes.

152


gono ad contrahere in detrimento delle anime loro, e scandalo di tutta la citta nostra. Pero par’ alli signori proveditori della terra, che rimanendo le pene ecclesiasticae in suo robore di piu si habbia di provedere inquesto modo: Che qualumche persona, quale di qua in avante, havesse ardimento di contrahere matrimonio in terzo grado di consanguinita et affinita, e piu stretti gradi, cio e primo e secundo, essendo delli nobili, Lui con tutti suoi descendenti, se intenda essere privato in perpetuo da tutti gli ufficii e beneficii del comune nostra.41 The possibility of papal dispensation was restricted to the fourth degree of consanguinity: Lassando la solita liberta a quelli quali per’ impedimento di quarto grado di consanguinita, non potessero contrahere, che secondo lo consueto, et senza alcuna altra pena, possino dalla sede apostolica impetrare la dispensa supra tal impedimento.”42 Penitentiary records confirm the statement that many marriages had been contracted under the pretext of later acquisition of papal dispense. Out of one third of Ragusan cases transcribed so far, only eight concern couples asking for dispensation in advance, whereas thirty couples requested it a posteriori. Moreover, confirmation can even be found in contemporary papal bulls; in 1555, Paul IV issued a bull regarding this very matter.43 Let us examine another sixteenth-century source reflecting the development of Ragusan endogamy over the centuries, and also the ambivalent policies of the city’s Great Council, which are probably due to different priorities of individual families, the nobility as a social group, and the State as representative of all its inhabitants. On March 5, 1566, the Great Council commissioned the bishop of Ston, who was travelling to Rome on other business, to request a general dispensation for marrying in third and fourth degree of consanguinity and affinity from Pope Pius V. Here is part of the letter which is the most indicative of the Ragusan matrimonial policy:

———————————— 41 Liber croceus, pars 1, fol. 186v; Nedeljković, Liber croceus, 278. 42 Liber croceus, pars 1, fol. 187r; Nedeljković, Liber croceus, 278. 43 Franciscus Gaude, ed., Bullarium diplomatum et privilegiorum sanctorum romanorum pontificum, vol. 6 (Turin: Franco et Dalmazzo, 1860), 507.


153

Da più di cinquecento anni in qua, per evitare molte confusioni, et per giusti, et convenienti rispetti, e’ stato in usanza nella città nostra, et per legge statuito che alcuno nobile nostro non possa contrahere matrimonio, se non con nobiles, la qual cosa, fino a’ poco tempo fa, agevolmente si e’ osservata, senza incorrere in terzi, o’ quarti gradi di consanguinità, et afinità, siando si qui ritrovete circa 100. casate di nobili, le quali col tempo, et per la mortalità i poco a’ poco si sono consumate, et del tutto estirpate in modo tale, che hora sono ridotte a’ 28 casate solamente di nobili, fra le quali, stretti ad aparentarsi, giornalmente siamo venuti a’ tale, che quasi tutti, siamo congionti in terzo, et in quarto grado di consanguinità, et afinità, et per che hora i Canoni del sacro concilio Tridentino, sub vinculo anathematis prohibiscono il contrahere matrimonio in tali gradi, noi desideriamo sopra modo per nostra conservatione, di ottenere da sua Beatitudine una dispensa che si assolui da i Canoni del detto concilio, contrahendo matrimonio in tali gradi, et che del tutto ci concedi poterlo fare.44 It is interesting that the strategy of obtaining authorisation for matrimonial dispensations was based on the quest for preservation of the Ragusan patriciate, which came to be identified with the state itself, referring to the quest as giustissima domanda a’ conservatione della Patria nostra.45 Another interesting (but false, however) excuse for such marriages appears in the letter, namely, the obstacle of marrying members of the nobility of neighbouring regions which were under Ottoman occupation. Such an interpretation was obviously misleading, since Ragusans were never inclined to relate to the nobility of those areas but limited their choice of foreign spouses to the Dalmatian cities.46 The apostolic visitation of the Ragusan diocese by Iohannes Franciscus Sormano, bishop of Montefeltro, in 1573, provides an intereresting insight into the actual marital practice of the Ragusan nobility.47 On October 21, the visitor

———————————— 44 Littere et Commissiones Levantis, Historical Archives in Dubrovnik, ser. 27.1, vol. 30 (1565–69), fol. 100r–101r. 45 Littere et commissiones, fol. 100v. 46 “… vivendo noi in questa Patria cosi angusta et per le cause che vi habbiamo detto, contrahendo solamente matrimonii li nobili, con nobili, et siando ridotti a’ tanta stretezza di casate, et queste quasi tutte congionte in 3.o et in 4.o grado di consanguinità, et affinità, et non potendo più aparentarci con nobili di terre qui vicine, per che sono in potere di Turchi, noi supplichiamo sua Beatitudine che si degni concederci di poter contrahere matrimonio in 3.o et in 4.o grado …”, Littere et commissiones, fol. 100v. 47 ASV, Congr. Vescovi e Regolari, Visita Ap., 28.

154


interrogated the Ragusan Archbishop Chrisostomus Calvinus (1564–1575), on, among other issues, the contracting of marriages. From the archbishop’s answers it is clear that the patricians were still neglecting certain Church regulations, notably, they refused to make the announcements for marriage in the Church, a custom which served precisely to discover possible impediments for marriage: Interrogatus an debite denuntiationes in ecclesia fiant pro matrimoniis contrahendis iusta formam sacri Tridentini concilii, et alia qua in dicto concilio mandantur, Respondit non si osserva questo capo perche i signori non permetano che i Preti faccino queste denonciationi nella città ma fuori le facio fare come ho’ ordinato e’ non vogliano i signori che si faccino per certi loro rispetti quali e bene a tacerli, ma si dirano cosi senza metterli in scritto...48 The Archbishop mentioned the faculty of dispensation in the fourth degree granted by Pius IV, finally admitting the number of such marriages: Interrogatus an sciat aliqua matrimonia contracta in gradibus a’ iure canonico prohibitis, Respondit io non so’ che si siano contratti matrimonii tali eccetto per ho alcuni in quarto grado, i quali mi furno concessi dalla bona memoria di Pio quarto di dispensarli in detti gradi per diece anni, come appari un breve apostolici ch'e presso me, e’ lo mostraro a Vostra santita Reverendissima e’ in essecutione del qual /comme ho’ detto/ ho’ fatto molte dispense in detto grado.49 The Ragusan concept of social groups as hermetically closed and self-sufficient bodies changed radically during the first half of the seventeenth century, when Dubrovnik faced a drastic reduction in the number of noble families. As if foreshadowing the great earthquake of 1667 that erased a large part of the Ragusan nobility, in 1666 the Great Council passed (though with only a slight majority) the regulation Super libero matrimonio nostrorum nobilium. This removed three intolerable hindrances to the matrimonial agreement of a nobleman: marriage with a commoner (except with daughters of physical workers), marrying in the third degree of consanguinity provided papal dispensation was acquired, and marrying members of the nobility from all neighbouring cities, not only Dal———————————— 48 Visita, fol. 47v–48r. 49 Visita, fol. 48r–v.


155

matian.50 It is indicative of the new liberal policy of openness towards lower social groups that in the same year the first two families de populo were introduced to the Great Council, that is, were accepted to the patriciate.51 Although as early as 1682 the article on marriage with commoners was withdrawn by decision of the Great Council,52 a century later the most radical regulation followed: in 1791 the Great Council decided to allow all marriages between relatives (except for those in the first degree of consanguinity and affinity), provided there was a corresponding papal dispensation.53 For the time being, any interpretation of these later regulations, would certainly be farfetched because the contemporary Penitentiary sources have not been gathered nor the papal policy on marriage compared. However, a wider perspective on research lies exactly in the comparison of ecclesiastical and secular sources over a longer period of time.

———————————— 50 … Che si debba levare la prohibitione della legge di poter aparentare nel terzo grado tanto per affinità, quanto per consanguinità in modo che in avenire non osti alli Nobili nostri la detta prohibitione, ma ogn’uno della nostra Nobiltà possi aparentare nel detto grado. Che dove fin’ hora li nostri Nobili potevano aparentar con le Gentildonne delle città maritime sola-mente, possino in avenire aparentar ancora con le Gentildonne di qualumque altra Città. Che similmente li detti Nobili nostri sinche altrimente sarà terminato con altro provedimento possino contrattar matrimonii con le figliole di persone honorate e civili di questa Città, li cui Padri non hanno essercitato alcun’arte mechanica. Liber croceus, pars 1, cap. 328, fol. 263v–264r; Nedeljkoviæ, Liber croceus, 384. However, the regulations were passed by slight majority: the first 54 vs. 36, the second by 60 vs. 30, and the third concerning marriage with commoners by tight 48 vs. 42. 51 Dragoljub Pavlović, O krizi vlasteoskog staleža u Dubrovniku XVII veka [On the crisis of the patrician class in 17th-century Dubrovnik], Zbornik radova Instituta za prouèavanje književnosti SAN, 17 (1952), 27–38. 52 … Che si debba rivocar il terzo Capitolo del Provedimento preso nell’ Eccelentissimo Maggior Conseglio sotto li 3 Novembre 1666 in cui si concedeva alli Nobili nostri di poter contrahere Matrimonii con le figliole di persone honorate, e Civili di questa Città, li cui Padri non hanno essercitato arte mecanica …, Liber croceus, pars 1, cap. 350, fol. 275v–276r; Nedeljković , Liber croceus, 403. The regulation was accepted by 41 vs. 28 votes. 53 … Che da oggi all’avvenire non ostante qualunque proibizione faciente in contrario sia, e s’intenda permesso ad ogniuno di qualunque stato, grado, e condizione il contrarre gli sponsali, e li matrimonii fra’ i primi cugini tanto per affinità, quanto per consanguinità previa la necessaria pontificia dispensa …, Liber croceus, pars 2, cap. 441, fol. 70v–71r; Nedeljković, Liber croceus, 532–533. The regulation was passed by 24 vs. 18 votes.

RODOLFO GONZAGA (1452–1495): NEWS ON A CELEBRITY MURDER CASE Gastone Saletnich and Wolfgang P. Müller

In recent years there has been a flurry of publications cataloguing, transcribing, and translating petitions registered by the fifteenth-century scribes of the Penitentiary. Full texts relating to requests made by Scandinavians, for example, are now available in print.1 The Repertorium Poenitentiariae Germanicum, assembling summaries of German supplications has produced a constant flow of printed volumes, and a similar project covering English entries from the beginning of the extant penitential registers in 1410 until 1503 is meanwhile underway.2 On the other hand, the recorded material from core areas of the late medieval Latin church, such as the French kingdom, the Iberian peninsula, and, last but not least, Italy, still await systematic exploration and editing, except for a few investigations on the local and diocesan level.3 By dedicating this article to the examination of a single celebrity case involving an important family of the early Renaissance, we wish to offer but a glimpse of the rich information stored in the archives of the Penitentiary with regard to the history of the Italian citystates.

———————————— 1

Torstein Jørgensen and Gastone Saletnich, Synder og Pavemakt. Botsbrev fra Den Norske Kirkeprovins og Suderoyne til Pavestolen 1438–1531 (Sinners and Papal Power: Penitentiary Supplications from the Norwegian Church Province and the Hebrides to the Holy See 1438–1531) (Stavanger: Misjonshøgskolens forlag, 2004), 125–187 (with translations into Norwegian); for an introductory survey on the medieval Penitentiary, see Kirsi Salonen, The Penitentiary as a Well of Grace in the Late Middle Ages. The Example of the Province of Uppsala 1448–1527. Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian Toimituksia – Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae 313 (Saarijärvi: Academia Scientiarum Fennica, 2001), 13–216 (hereafter Salonen, The Penitentiary). 2 Repertorium Poenitentiariae Germanicum, ed. Ludwig Schmugge et al. (5 vols to date) (Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1996 ff.). The English and Welsh petitions are being catalogued by Peter Clarke and Patrick Zutshi. 3 An outstanding example is the commented edition of late medieval petitions from the North Italian diocese of Como by Paolo Ostinelli, Penitenzieria Apostolica. Le suppliche alla Sacra Penitenzieria Apostolica provenienti dalla diocesi di Como (1438–1484). Materiali di storia ecclesiastica lombarda 5 (Milan: Ed. Unicopli, 2003).

158


The document we will discuss in the following was directed to the papal court of penance during the first pontifical year of Innocent VIII (August 1484 to August 1485) and it is registered in the Penitentiary registers under the title of de diversis formis (on various matters). Rodolfo, from the noble family of the Gonzaga, layman of Mantua, [explains that] he ordered his adulterous wife to be killed, which in fact turned out to be the case. He thus rendered himself incapable of contracting marriage with another woman. Considering, however, that he is of an age in which he cannot live in chastity, he petitions that Your Holiness be mercifully disposed to mandate by special grace that the petitioner be absolved from this crime of spousal murder (uxoricidium). Your Holiness be further disposed to offer dispensation, to the effect that the petitioner, once he is readmitted to the church, can contract marriage with another woman, provided that there is no further canonical impediment between them. So be it by special grace and express [mandate], F., bishop elect of Anagni and regent. Rome, at Saint Peter’s, 8 December.4 The document is of great interest for at least three different reasons. First of all, because it has hitherto been unknown to local and Renaissance historians. Next, because it displays a flurry of succinct legal formulas not immediately comprehensible to modern readers. And finally, because it sheds additional light on an episode of betrayal, a broken marriage, and murder, long said to have been committed by a member of one of the most important families of the Early Renaissance: the Gonzaga of Mantua. Each of these aspects will be explored in the present paper. Prior to undertaking a canonistic analysis of the document, we would like to trace the identity and circumstances of the principal protagonists and events mentioned in the text. Rodolfo di Gonzaga was the fourth child of Ludovico III, second margrave of Mantua, and his wife, Barbara of Hohenzollern. Rodolfo was born in Mantua in 1452. According to his father’s plans, he was destined for a career in ———————————— 4

ASV, Penitenzieria Ap, Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 34, fol. 127r: Rodulphus nobilis de Gonzaga laicus Mantuanensis [exponit quod] ipse olim uxorem suam adulteram interfeci mandavit prout interfecta fuit propter quod reddidit se indignum ad contrahendum cum alia. Cum autem in tali etate constitutus quod continenter vivere non possit petit ipsum a reatu uxoricidii huiusmodi absolvi secumque quod cum alia muliere sibi nullo iure prohibita contrahere possit introitu ecclesie sibi restituto dispensari misericorditer mandare dignemini de gratia speciali. Fiat de speciali et expresso, F. electus Ananiensis regens. Rome apud sanctum Petrum, vi idus dec. anno primo (December 8, 1484).

RODOLFO GONZAGA (1452–1495)

159

arms. From an early age, Rodolfo was sent on official missions representing his father’s political interests. Between 1463 and 1470, we find him at Innsbruck, in the service of Margaret of Wittelsbach, the future wife of Rodolfo’s oldest brother, Federico. In 1469, Rodolfo was at Ferrara to do homage on behalf of the Gonzaga family to Emperor Frederick III, who in turn elevated him to knighthood. Later the same year, Rodolfo went to Brussels to offer his services to Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy. Ever since he turned eighteen in 1470, Rodolfo served in various capacities as a professional soldier and condottiere, hired successively by the Holy See, the Florentine Republic, and Venice. Before long, he became known as one of the most highly paid military captains of his time. In 1486, Rodolfo went on to fight under the banner of the dukes of Milan, before eventually enlisting again for Venice in February 1495. Rodolfo died a few months afterwards during the battle of Fornovo, alongside his nephew, Francesco, who had become margrave of Mantua following the death of Rodolfo’s brother Federico in 1484.5 We know comparatively little about Rodolfo’s adulterous wife, Antonia, a daughter of Sigismondo Pandolfo Malatesta, the papal vicar of Rimini, and Sigismondo’s spouse, Isotta. Born in the 1460s, Antonia was wedded to Rodolfo in 1481, in a marriage that sealed one of the precarious political alliances so typical of the Renaissance period. Contemporary witnesses assure us that the wedding ceremony, celebrated at Palazzo Schifanoia in Mantua, was splendid. Local narrative sources have a good deal to report on Rodolfo’s first marriage and its tragic conclusion, with modern historiography frequently at a loss to distinguish fact from partisan and even romanticized fiction. Following the most colorful accounts, Rodolfo, while at Luzzara on Christmas Day of 1483, was informed by one of his favorites about rumors, which implicated his wife in an adulterous affair. Ravaged by suspicions, the battle-hardened condottiere appears to have surprised Antonia in bed with her lover, the dance master Fernando Flores Cubillas. Rodolfo, we are told, killed the intruder on the spot. Not content with the bloody vengeance brought upon his rival, Rodolfo then dragged his wife Antonia naked into the courtyard. In front of numerous bystanders, he forced her to implore him for mercy. Her sighs were to no avail. Rodolfo eventually pulled out a dagger and finished her off with a single stroke to the head.6 ———————————— 5

For a convenient summary of the available bibliographical information, see Isabella Lazzarini, “Gonzaga, Rodolfo”, Dizionario biografico degli italiani 57 (2001), 838–840 (with additional bibliography) (hereafter Lazzarini, “Gonzaga, Rodolfo”). 6 The earliest narrative of the events by the chronicler Bernardino Zambotti, Diario ferrarese dall’anno 1476 sino al 1504, ed. Giuseppe Pardi. Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, Nova Series, vol. 24/7.

160


Modern historical accounts have viewed Antonia as a victim of political conspiracies and intrigues plaguing the court of Mantua during those years. While the precise circumstances of her end have remained rather obscure, the historical outcome for Rodolfo’s private life is quite certain. Within the span of a year, by 1485, Rodolfo found himself remarried to another women, Caterina, the daughter of Gian Francesco Pico, the lord of Mirandola.7 Let us now turn to the specifics of the newly discovered document in the archives of the Penitentiary. A careful canonistic analysis of the brief text arguably provides a fair amount of additional, albeit less sensational information on Rodolfo Gonzaga’s marital drama of 1483. As briefly mentioned earlier on, Rodolfo’s petition appears in the records of the Penitentiary under the rubric de diversis formis.8 As we learn from the narrative, Rodolfo wished to remarry, which might look like a case that rather pertained to the sub-category of petitions concerning marriage (de matrimonialibus). Curial scribes, however, preferred to include Rodolfo’s and parallel cases of spousal murder under de diversis formis instead of de matrimonialibus, side by side with dispensations and absolutions from other forms of homicide. The procedural and canonistic technicalities implicit in Rodolfo’s request help convey a better sense of the significance once attached to it. To begin with, the absolutions and dispensations from spousal murder recorded by the Penitentiary suggest that the killing of marital partners constituted a case of great rarity. A comprehensive survey of German petitions submitted and registered during the pontificate of Innocent VIII (1484–1492) has yielded numbers amounting to an average of less than one case per year. Besides their infrequency, the entries are also consistent in that they always couple absolutions with dispensations.9 The papal penitentiarius maior conceded the latter pending ulterior works of penance, to be imposed on the supplicant by the ordinary bishop back in the home province.

————————————————————————————————— (Bologna: N. Zanichelli, 1937), 131, lines 32–36, only mentioned that Rodolfo had killed his wife after discovering her adulterous affair with “a dance teacher”; See also Lazzarini, “Gonzaga, Rodolfo”, 839. 7 Alfonso Morselli, Caterina Pico della Mirandola (Reggio-Emilia: Tip. Moderna-U. Costi, 1939), 7, has dated Rodolfo’s second wedding “toward the end” of 1484. 8 On the rubrics of penitential registers, which became fairly stable in the years after 1450, see Salonen, The Penitentiary, 20–22. 9 There is a total of just 7 cases in the registers for 1484–1492 (ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vols. 34–41): vol. 36, fol. 167v; vol. 36, fol. 179v; vol. 36, fol. 185v; vol. 38, fol. 180v; vol. 38, fol. 216v; vol. 41, fol. 151v; vol. 41, fol. 175v; the count is based on the material prepared for volume VII of the RPG, ed. Ludwig Schmugge, Alessandra Mosciatti and Wolfgang P. Müller (to appear).


161

The registration of petitions related to spousal murder was apparently only required for those repentant sinners who were at the same time in need of a dispensation, either because absolutions alone did not call for papal intervention, or due to the secrecy of the confessed offense. Equipped with such a dispensation and presuming the successful completion (introitu ecclesie sibi restituto) of prescribed (and frequently public) acts of penance, recipients like Rodolfo could again contract canonical marriages. The cancellation of irregularitas, barring access to the blessings inherent in the sacrament, formed an administrative necessity ever since the formative period of classical canon law (1140–1234), when church lawyers had established that uxoricidium constituted a full-fledged marriage impediment, an impedimentum criminis.10 In line with the absolute parity attributed by canon law to husband and wife in terms of marital rights, women killing their spouses also had recourse to the remedy. As a result, the mention of a certain Margareta Knotzinger from the diocese of Salzburg, asking for dispensation from the murder (mariticidium) of her first husband in 1488, is not altogether surprising.11 The rare references to spousal killing from the hands of Germans (and, we would suppose, non-Germans) allows for speculation on whether Rodolfo’s appearance in the records was a reflection of his social and political prominence. Were average Christians prevented from availing themselves of the favor bestowed by the papal administration on a member of the eminent Gonzaga family? How important were the privileges of birth when it came to the question of who would receive a dispensation like Rodolfo’s and who would not? Given the small sample of dispensations granted to Germans under Innocent VIII, the numbers may not offer an accurate reflection of the overall decision-making process. It is striking, however, that of the seven German dispensations recorded under Innocent VIII, none went to a person of noble origin. Each of the recipients was a commoner. Our entry in the registers of the Penitentiary presents conclusive evidence to the effect that Rodolfo had commissioned someone else to kill Antonia. He thereby admitted to the voluntarily nature of the act not only in the secrecy of confession, but also in public, before the ecclesiastical court of Rodolfo’s ordi———————————— 10 For details, see Josef Freisen, Geschichte des canonischen Eherechts bis zum Verfall der Glossenliteratur (Paderborn, 1893; reprint: Aalen: Scientia Verlag, 1962), 891–906; Jean Dauvillier, Le mariage dans le droit classique de l’Église depuis le Décrét de Gratien (1140) jusqu’à la mort de Clement V (1314) (Paris: Sirey, 1933), 158–159, 201–278. 11 ASV Penitenzieria Ap, Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 38, fol. 180v (November 21, 1488); the second entry, vol. 36, fol. 185v (April 27, 1487), relates the case of a widow from Salzburg diocese, who had asked for absolution and dispensation from spousal killing in the secrecy of the internal forum.

162


nary, most likely the bishop of Mantua. At first sight, the cooperation of this local prelate in favor of Rodolfo appears to be a foregone conclusion, considering that the Mantuan bishop at the time was none other than Rodolfo’s own brother, Ludovico (in office 1483–1511).12 It is very probable that Rodolfo’s desire to be formally readmitted to the church was sparked by the imminence of new wedding plans rather than despair about his sinful state. This is evident from the chronological proximity between the signing of Rodolfo’s request for dispensation on December 8, 1484, and the fulfillment of its purpose by way of his second marriage to Caterina Pico di Mirandola just weeks later. We begin to abandon firm ground, however, once we try to understand the procedural technicalities involved in the granting of dispensations for uxoricidium and mariticidium by the fifteenth-century church hierarchy. Was it a favor only the pope could bestow, or did local bishops share the same right?13 Given the paucity of entries in the registers, one might be led to believe that bishops, too, were able to issue grants remitting spousal murder, independently and without need for papal approval.14 If this was true, recourse to the Apostolic See would not have occurred unless local ordinaries had wished to submit a particularly serious incident to Rome, or supplicants had decided to go there on their own. It would, therefore, seem as if the relationship between Rodolfo and the Mantuan ordinary, Ludovico, had been less cordial than their family ties would suggest. Is it possible that the two were not on the best of terms when the Penitentiary interceded in December of 1484, at long last overcoming Bishop Ludovico’s attempts to stall Rodolfo’s plans for a new marriage alliance? An alternative line of reasoning would depart from the observation that the papal Penitentiary treated marriage impediments arising from the killing of ———————————— 12 Konrad Eubel, ed., Hierarchia Catholica Medii Aevi sive Summorum Pontificum S.R.E. Cardinalium, Ecclesiarum Antistitum Series ab anno 1198 usque ad annum 1431 perducta e documentis tabularii praesertim vaticani, vol. 2 (Münster: Regensberg, 1914), 185; Raffaele Tamalio, “Gonzaga, Ludovico”, Dizionario biografico degli italiani 57 (2001), 801–803. 13 The registration of homicidium and uxoricidium under the same rubric of de diversis formis (see note 8) may provide a first important clue; perhaps, cases like Rodolfo’s did not enter the rubric of de matrimonialibus because marriage dispensations were a papal prerogative, whereas dispensations from spousal homicide were not? There was certainly no agreement on the matter among the (classical) canonists; see the literature given in note 10. 14 As again suggested by the scarcity of registered German petitions for absolution and dispensation from spousal murder (see note 9), relative to the much higher total of registered absolutions obtained by German laity for the murder of a priest (presbitericidium): 7 versus 65 during the pontificate of Innocent VIII. Penitential theory did not reserve absolutions from presbitericidium to the papacy alone!


163

husbands and wives on a par with those caused by prohibited degrees of consanguinity or affinity between spouses, with hundreds of dispensations for the latter being issued and registered each year.15 Parallel to cases of consanguinity and affinity, spousal homicide did not merely impede (impedit) perpetrators to remarry canonically, but also rendered unions already contracted null and void (dirimit).16 Now, dispensations from consanguinity clearly exceeded episcopal competence, in what might imply that bishops were likewise disqualified to dispense from spousal killings. Further investigation by local historians and a better knowledge of contemporary penitential procedures is needed before we can transform this array of hypothetical situations into a more definitive scenario. Meanwhile, our register entry addresses at least one point of contention with sufficient certainty. While Rodolfo did not murder Antonia with his own hands, he did plead guilty to the charge of uxoricidium. Finally, attempts by older historiography to deny his responsibility for the act can be laid to rest.

———————————— 15 Salonen, The Penitentiary, 103–119, provides an overview of the incoming requests for dispensation from impediments of consanguinity and affinity. They formed the bulk of material registered annually under the rubric of de matrimonialibus. 16 Of the seven German entries for dispensation from spousal murder under Innocent VIII (see note 9), two applied to existing (iam contractum) instead of future (contrahendum) marriages: ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 36, fol. 185v; vol. 38, fol. 180v. Both unions had only been contracted in fact (de facto); to turn them into canonical marriages, dispensation was paramount.

CHURCH AND SECULAR COURTS IN UPPER HUNGARY (FOURTEENTH TO SIXTEENTH CENTURY)1 Blanka Szeghyová

While studying urban judiciary and judicial practice in sixteenth century Upper Hungarian (today eastern Slovakian) towns, I was puzzled by the relation of these secular courts to church courts and about their division of jurisprudence.2 According to the law, church courts, apart from the jurisprudence over their own people and church matters, had the right to decide in some secular fields, such as marital property litigation, dowry, marriage gifts, the daughter’s quarter, cases of widows and orphans, false oaths, usury, and tithe.3 On the other hand, from the urban judicial records in the sixteenth century, it is clear that all serious offences, including matrimonial and sexual, and some offences that were previously judged by the church courts, were tried in front of the secular courts.4 From the studied material I have tried to find some evidence that would elucidate the development of the secular and church courts, the division of their jurisdictions, their co-existence, co-operation, and possible conflicts and ways of resolving the controversies between them. This research – at the moment still in the initial stages – may also serve for comparative studies concerning local laws and courts, on the one hand, and the necessity to approach the Penitentiary, on the other hand.

———————————— 1

I wish to thank the ‘Europa Institut’ and ‘Domus Hungarica’ in Budapest for the scholarships that allowed me to write this paper. 2 Blanka Szeghyová, “Súdnictvo a súdna prax v mestách Pentapolitany v 16. storočí” [Judiciary and judicial practice in the towns of the Pentapolitany in the sixteenth century], PhD thesis (Bratislava: Historical Institute of Slovak Academy of Sciences, 2003). 3 According to law n. 3 from 1462 and n. 45 from 1492, in: János M. Bak, György Bónis and James Ross Sweeney, tr. and ed., The Laws of the Medieval Kingdom of Hungary. Decreta Regni Mediaevalis Hungariae, 1458–1490, vol. 3 (Los Angeles: Charles Schlacks, 1997), 17; Dezső Márkus, Corpus Juris Hungarici 1: 1000–1526 (Budapest: Franklin Társulat, 1899), 508–510. 4 Compare with the situation in England, where matrimonial and sexual cases were tried in ecclesiastical courts; see Martin Ingram, Church Courts, Sex and Marriage in England, 1560–1640 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), passim.

166


I will not focus on internal problems of the church and its members, but rather on matters that concerned both ecclesiastical and lay people, and on the relations of church and secular courts in practice. Because of the scarcity and character of the archival material in this study, this paper is only a collection of introductory remarks and observations rather than a comprehensive study of the topic. Examples are taken mostly from the town archives of Bratislava (Pozsony, Pressburg, Possonium), Bardejov (Bartfa, Bartpha) and Prešov (Eperjes) from the fourteenth to the sixteenth century. There is little judicial material from the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries in the town archives. However, there is some evidence that tells about the combined activities of urban authorities and ecclesiastical institutions. The Bratislava chapter had an agreement with the town authorities about the election of the parish priest. Other towns also had the right to elect parish priests, that being one of the privileges granted to free royal towns.5 The co-operation between parish priests, preachers or other church authorities, on the one hand, and town authorities, on the other, can be demonstrated by the practice of penitential or expiatory pilgrimages. In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, such pilgrimages were widely used as a punishment for those who had committed murder or homicide. Although it was a religious form of penance, sending a culprit on a penitential pilgrimage to Rome or to some other shrine was a common practice of the town authorities, who used it predominantly as an alternative to a stricter punishment. A precondition for the pilgrimage was reconciliation between the culprit and the closest kinsmen of the victim, usually mediated by the arbitrators, and the culprit’s inability to pay blood money. Penitential pilgrimages can be seen as a substitute for paying such blood money to the closest relatives of the victim. Part of the penitential procedure was the public act of asking pardon before the family of the victim. The culprit, dressed in traditional pilgrims’ clothes and usually followed by his closest relatives, appeared in front of the bereaved family and asked for the remission of his sin. This kind of punishment was not used generally, but it seems that some urban communities preferred it to other forms of punishment. For example, as

———————————— 5

Darina Lehotská, D. Handzová, V. Horváth, L. Hrabuššay, V. Kendeffy, V. Merglová and H. Pežovská, Inventár stredovekých listín, listov a iných príbuzných písomností [Inventory of medieval charters, letters and other related documents], Archív mesta Bratislavy (Prague: Archívní správa Ministerstva Vnitra Praha, 1955) (hereafter Lehotská, “Inventár”), 20–22, 74, 123; ubomír Juck, Výsady miest a mestečiek na Slovensku (1238–1350) [Privileges of towns and little towns in Slovakia (1238–1350)] (Bratislava: Veda Slovenská Akadémia vied Bratislava, 1984).

CHURCH AND SECULAR COURTS IN UPPER HUNGARY

167

Enikő Csukovits shows, most of the cases of penitential pilgrimages came from two Upper Hungarian mining towns, Selmecbánya and Besztercebánya (Banská Bystrica and Banská Štiavnica), and only a few cases are known from other towns, such as Bratislava, Sopron or Zagreb.6 Around 1416, the town council of Bratislava wrote to the archbishop of Esztergom about the murderer Jakub Gorgcher, who had to go on pilgrimage to Rome.7 The practice of penitential pilgrimages as punishment for murder and homicide ceased in the sixteenth century as town authorities increasingly imposed more secular forms of punishment on the guilty party such as the pillory, banishment or the death penalty. However, the co-existence of church and secular institutions was not always peaceful. They had several conflicts during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, for instance, over the privilege of not paying taxes for the houses of ecclesiastical people and institutions in the town’s territory, the right to sell wine, the unlawful extortion of tolls from burghers by the chapter, and matters of property and tithes.8 Some of the conflicts had to be resolved by the king or other higher authorities. For example, in 1307 the conflict over the administration of the hospital in Bratislava between the town authorities and the Order of St. Anthony was resolved and the final agreement made in front of the chapter of Bratislava.9 In 1364, the resolution of a conflict between Bratislava’s mayor and a parish priest from Geley involved the high royal official of the tavernicus and the court of the palatinus, the highest administrative dignitary in Hungary. The tavernicus was also involved in a conflict between Bratislava’s mayor and the abbot of Pannonhalma in 1372.10 Similarly, in 1498 King Wladislas II ordered that Bratislava’s town council should transfer the case of the canon Martin Nyethaymer to the court of the tavernicus.11 ———————————— 6

7 08

09 10 11

Enikő Csukovits, “Bűn és bűnhődés. Vezeklő zarándoklatok a középkori Magyarországon” [Crime and Punishment. Expiatory Pilgrimages in Medieval Hungary], Századok 136, no. 2 (2002), 303–326; eadem, Bűn és bűnhődés. Középkori magyar zarándokok [Crime and Punishment. Medieval Hungarian Pilgrimages], História Könyvtár monográfiák 20 (Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, Történettudományi intézete, 2003), 204–206. Municipal archive of Bratislava (hereafter AMB), lad. 34, n. 5147. Lehotská, Inventár, 126. AMB, lad 10, n. 594, 595; lad 7, n. 314, 330; lad. 9, n. 544; lad 11, n. 761, 763, 76; lad. 22, n. 2253– 2255, 2296; lad. 29, n. 3368; lad 14, n. 1020; lad 15, n. 1109, 1223; lad. 19, n. 1796; Lehotská, Inventár, 32, 56, 59, 94, 126–127, 129, 207, 230, 280, 445. AMB, lad. 2, n. 24; Georgius Fejér, Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus ac civilis 8, n. 1 (Buda: Typis universitatis, 1829–1830), 620–622 (hereafter Fejér, Codex). AMB lad 5, n. 193, 195; lad 6. n. 272, 273; lad. 29, n. 3260. Lehotská, Inventár, 37, 49–50. AMB, lad. 22, n. 2197. See also lad. 22, n. 2185, 2194, 2195. Lehotská, Inventár, 551, 553.

168


Sometimes, the conflicts went so far that the church authorities threatened to excommunicate the town council, and in a few cases they put the threat into practice. Such a case happened in 1397, between the vicar of Esztergom and Bratislava’s town council; the controversy originated from the fact that the council kept a cleric in prison.12 Coincidentally, later in the same year, King Sigismund commanded the town council not to prosecute a certain Jakub Gyngenher (Syngenher?) who had accidentally killed the imprisoned cleric.13 Another excommunication is known from 1416, when the vicar general of Esztergom excommunicated three burghers of Bratislava because they had attacked some of the town’s clerics in Pyspekfalva (Podunajské Biskupice). The case later appeared before the king, who admonished them not to trouble clerics.14 In a case from 1436, the archbishop of Novohrad demanded that two canons from Bratislava coerce the town council to pay their debts to a parish priest from Kremnica, under the threat of excommunication.15 However, excommunication was probably only the last resort, when they could not reach agreement otherwise, and before choosing this option they used other means. For example, in 1400 the archbishop of Esztergom demanded in a letter that the town authorities should not imprison his subjects travelling to Bratislava, and in 1428 he demanded that the town council should release his subjects from prison.16 On the other hand, town authorities and local priests co-operated in cases that led to the excommunication of some town inhabitants. For example, in 1500, on the request of the judge and the town council of Prešov, the parish priests from the nearby towns of Košice (Cassovia, Cascha, Kassa), Bardejov, Sabinov (Cibinium, Kisszeben) and Šariš (Saros) excommunicated Elizabeth Krausz, because she did not pay 24 gulden to St. Elizabeth’s church in Košice.17 The heirs of Paulus Moderer were excommunicated in 1470 because they had failed to appear in court in a litigation in which even the pope had intervened.18 ———————————— 12 AMB, lad. 9, n. 532; Lehotská, Inventár, 92. 13 AMB, lad. 9, n. 540; Lehotská, Inventár, 93; Fejér, Codex 10, n. 3, 195–196. 14 AMB, lad. 11, n. 745, 747, 748, 749, 750; Lehotská, Inventár, 125–127. A year later, there was yet another argument between clerics from Bratislava and the town council: AMB, lad. 29, n. 3370; Lehotská, Inventár, 128. 15 AMB, lad. 32, n. 4380. 16 AMB, lad. 29, n. 3312, 3437. Lehotská, Inventár, 97, 152. 17 Regional archive of Prešov, Collection of Municipal records (hereafter AMP), n. 334 and 480. Béla Iványi, Eperjes szabad királyi város levéltára. Archivum liberae regiaeque civitatis Eperjes 1245–1526, vol. 1–2 (Szeged, Az Egyetem és a Rothermere-alap támogatásával, 1931), 817. 18 AMB, lad. 20, n. 1935. See also lad. 20, n. 1887, 1888, 1900. Lehotská, Inventár, 478, 483, 492.


169

The controversy or bone of contention that can best elucidate the problems over jurisdiction of secular and church courts during the fourteenth, fifteenth and the beginning of the sixteenth centuries is, however, that over the privilege of sanctuary. This old privilege, dating back to ancient times and also adopted by Hungarian law, caused many controversies between the church and the town authorities. This is evident in the example of Bratislava, the town in the immediate neighbourhood of the chapter, which, as an ecclesiastical institution, had the right of sanctuary. As early as 1359, Louis the Great was forced to address the problem after he was informed that criminals, after they had committed their crimes, often sought asylum in churches, monasteries, and cemeteries of Bratislava. In his decree, the king ordered that they should be removed from the sanctuaries and brought to the town court, where they should be tried and sentenced for their crimes, according to the custom rite et racionabiliter, although under the condition that the clergy and other ecclesiastical persons were not against it.19 At the beginning of the fifteenth century, the controversy resumed again. The judge Ulrich (Ulrichus dictus Wenwarder) and the town notary Konrad complained at the royal court about the behaviour of people belonging to the chapter (familiares et iobagiones praepositi, canonicorum et capituli ecclesiae sancti Martini sexus utriusque …). These people, falling under the jurisdiction of the chapter, quarrelled with the burghers and inhabitants of Bratislava and allegedly committed robberies, murders, and violence (non-nullae intricationes, rixae, brigae, spolia, hominum interemtiones, mutilationes, et quam plurima mala opera patrarentur) in the territory of the town. Their crimes, however, remained unpunished, because they would return and seek asylum in the houses of the provost, chapter, and canons. These buildings were next to the church and included in the protection area.20 After having consulted the prelates and barons (maturo prealatorum et baronum nostrorum habito consilio), King Sigismund decided that if anyone belonging to the chapter, familiares or jobagiones, regardless of their status or sex, committed a crime in the territory of the town (in dicta civitate, in eius districtu, tenutis et territoriis), they should be tried in front of the municipal court, that is, the judge and the members of the town council. Should they hide in the ———————————— 19 AMB, lad. 5, n. 147; Lehotská, Inventár, 29. Daniela Hrnčiarová, K otázke vzniku a vývoja azylového práva do konca 16. storočia. (Z pohadu jeho uplatňovania v cirkvi) [On the question of the origin and development of asylum right until the end of the sixteenth century (from the perspective of its practice in the Church)], Diploma thesis (Bratislava: Comenius University, 1999) (hereafter Hrnčiarová, K otázke vzniku). 20 Fejér, Codex 10, n. 4, 400–402.

170


houses of the provost, canons or in the chapter, the town magistrates were fully authorised to remove them, bring them into the town court and punish them. The chapter appealed against the decision to the general vicar of the archbishop of Esztergom. The vicar decided in favour of the chapter, although he was subsequently (in 1418) ordered by King Sigismund not to deal with the complaints of the chapter any longer because the king would do it personally. Moreover, he ordered the archbishop of Esztergom to hand over criminals who were hiding in the houses of the canons in Bratislava.21 It was probably the connection with this matter that induced King Sigismund in his charter of 1419 to forbid anyone to summon inhabitants of Bratislava to a court outside of Hungary, particularly the Roman curia.22 In 1436, the town council asked the king for the right to enter canonical houses, where criminals were seeking asylum.23 Nevertheless, before long the chapter complained again, this time accusing the town authorities of infringing on their rights. According to the chapter, the council unlawfully removed two thieves, who had robbed a salt camerarius and his escort of money and guns, from a parish church in the possession of the chapter and (in ecclesiam parochialem in possessione Pyspekfalva existenti) had them executed.24 The conflicts between the Bratislava chapter and the town council also continued during the rule of King Wladislas II. In 1503, Provost Nicolaus complained about the judge and a town magistrate who, at night, with arms in their hands, burst into the house of the provost, abducted a certain Johannes of Nitra and imprisoned him. According to the town magistrate, Johannes, who was a familiar of the provost, had committed several brutal deeds, but the provost had failed to punish him. That was why the judge, and also by some other burghers, urged by the husband of a woman who had died after being attacked by Johannes, decided to capture the offender. The king summoned the town authorities to his court to explain their behaviour, but the result of the incident is not known.25 Wladislas II also intervened in a case from Prešov in 1501. In that year he repeatedly ordered the vicar of Eger to transfer the litigation between a burgher ———————————— 21 AMB, lad. 11, n. 765; Lehotská, Inventár, 129; Fejér, Codex 10, n. 6, 189. Hrnčiarová, K otázke vzniku, 50–51. 22 AMB, lad. 12, n. 782; Lehotská, Inventár, 35; Fejér, Codex 10, n. 6, 203. 23 AMB, lad. 22, n. 2250; Lehotská, Invéntar, 206. 24 Hrnčiarová, K otázke vzniku, 51. 25 Hrnčiarová, K otázke vzniku, 52.


171

from Prešov and the canon of Eger over a house in the town of Prešov from the church court to the curia (that is, the royal court).26 The relationship of the town council with the parish priest and preachers was of highest importance for the everyday life in an urban community. They were the ecclesiastical people with whom the town council and inhabitants of the town came into contact most frequently. If on good terms with them, the town council would even defend a priest, if necessary. In 1526, a preacher was criticised for saying that it was allowed to eat butter, cheese, and eggs during a period of fasting and was ordered to either take back what he had said or come to the vicar of Eger and defend himself, because the church authorities were not so benevolent to tolerate preaching against the true faith. The town council of Košice wrote a letter in favour of the preacher to the vicar of Eger, explaining that he only said that pregnant women, children, elderly, and the sick could do it with the permission of their priest.27 Despite the right of choice of parish priests, town authorities were not always lucky in selecting them. At the beginning of the sixteenth century, the town authorities of Bardejov did not get on with their parish priest, Johannes, at all. The first evidence of animosity comes from 1502, when Johannes had some controversy with several burghers and with the whole guild of brewers. According to the citation issued by the town notary Janos Boson at the request of the papal prothonotarius Filip de Sarginedis, and a judge delegated by the apostolic see, the case was supposed to be solved by Filip.28 A year later, the case was brought before Cardinal Peter, a papal legate.29 King Wladislas intervened and reproached Johannes for turning to the papal legate and admonished him to turn to the town council instead in cases of minor controversies.30 In his letter to the town, the king informed them that he had intervened in their behalf before the papal legate and admonished them to live in peace with the parish priest in the future.31

———————————— 26 AMP, lad. 12, n. 822. 27 György Bónis, Szentszéki regeszták. Iratok az egyházi bíráskodás történetéhez a középkori Magyarországon [The Regesta of the Holy See. Charters for the history of clerical jurisdiction in Medieval Hungary] (Szeged: József Attila Tudományegyetem Állam- és Jogtudományi Karának Tudományos Bizottsága, 1997), 664, n. 4371. 28 Regional archive in Bardejov (hereafter AMBJ), Collection of municipal records, n. 3706. Béla Iványi, Bártfa szabad királyi város levéltára 1319–1526 [Archives of the Town of Bartfa, a free royal town] (Budapest: Athanaeum, 1910). 29 AMBJ, n. 3706. 30 AMBJ, n. 3707. 31 AMBJ, n. 3719.

172


Nevertheless, six months later, Johannes was still not at peace with them, because the king, after receiving a complaint from the burghers of Bardejov, wrote another letter to him saying that since the time he had been selected as a parish priest he had been harassing the town council with quarrels and litigations that cost them a lot of money. Wladislas admonished him once more to try to live in peace with them.32 We do not know whether peace was achieved, but even if it was, it definitely did not last long. Two years later, in 1505, the burghers of Bardejov complained to the king again, this time because of the Johannes’ refusal to provide the schoolmaster and chaplains with food at his own table. This was an obviously old custom that the priest did not want to comply with. He probably resisted the king’s order because there was a second admonition of the king in the same matter two months later.33 One of the possible causes of the animosity between Johannes and the people of Bardejov might have been his engagement in the campaign of the canon of Eger against those executors of last wills who concealed and appropriated the money or property bequeathed to religious fraternities, hospitals, poorhouses and for charity. On many occasions, Johannes urged those guilty of such misuse to return unlawfully appropriated possessions within a month, otherwise they would be excommunicated.34 One hears again about Johannes in 1514.35 This time, the magistrate of Bardejov wrote to the bishop of Eger about him, not surprisingly complaining about his conduct. On St. Stephens’s day, after the elevation of the chalice, he had made a personal public announcement before the gathered congregation in the church. He had accused some of the people present that they had talked about him in the pubs in a dishonourable and scandalous way, suggesting that he should be executed. Moreover, he gave his interpretation of the letter he had received from the king, stating that it was not he who wanted to quarrel and have litigation, but that he was actually pushed into them. Also, it was not his fault if, as a result, the burghers were burdened by heavier taxes; thus, he warned them not to be tricked. The town council believed that, with this and other proclamations, Johannes was trying to incite revolt and spread unrest among the people; therefore, they asked the bishop to put a stop to it. In several municipal judicial cases, it is apparent that local church authorities tried to intervene in favour of laymen in trials in front of town courts. It is not always clear how these cases were brought to the attention of the church ———————————— 32 33 34 35

AMBJ, n. 3748. AMBJ, n. 3885, n. 3895. AMBJ, n. 3702. AMBJ, n. 4459.


173

authorities. However, it is likely that it was the initiative of either the accused or the victim, if they were not satisfied with the procedure of the town court and tried to influence or change the municipal court verdict by intervention of the higher, ecclesiastical authorities. In 1508, Georgius, bishop of Pécs and at the same time royal chancellor, wrote to the council of Bardejov that, with authorisation from the church in Eger, he had absolved a certain Stephanus Ruswalth, accused of homicide. According to Stephanus’ deposition, his horse startled while he was sitting on it and rushed towards a fence. A man standing nearby was hit on the head by a stick that accidentally fell from Stephanus’ hand. The impact was so strong that the man died. Since then, Stephanus had been continuously bothered by the son of the deceased man, who demanded blood money.36 According to the bishop, he was not entitled to blood money, because it was an accident and not intended homicide. He urged the town council to see to it that the son of the deceased did not bother Stephanus any more. Another case brought to the attention of the church authorities was that of Elizabeth Jakcho, wife of Paul from Prešov. In 1499, the town council of Prešov accused her of slander and disgraceful insult of the town authorities, arrested her, confiscated her property and condemned her to banishment. Elisabeth was not a woman who could come to terms with her lot and give up easily. In the following four years, she wrote numerous complaints and appealed to several church authorities, including the bishop of Eger, two cardinals, and papal legates and, after that failed, she appealed to the king. On the latter’s request, high church authorities delegated four local parish priests to re-examine the case and hear the witnesses. After a lengthy procedure, also hindered by Elizabeth’s occasional failure to appear in court, the delegated parish priests from Košice and Prešov, due to the lack of new evidence, resolved the case by forbidding Elizabeth to continue with her accusations against the town authorities of Prešov and confirming the original verdict of the latter. And what did Elizabeth do or say to be accused of slander and condemned to banishment in the first place? She publicly accused a pregnant woman of adultery, stating that, if the baby were a boy, the father was Thomas Plawniczer, the judge of Prešov, and if it were be a girl, the father must be Stephanus Sartor, a burgher from the same town.37 After the defeat at Mohács in 1526, when the Catholic hierarchy was decimated, many of the lower clergy were won over by the Protestants. By the ———————————— 36 AMBJ, n. 4023. 37 AMP, n. 809, 824, 826, 848, 851, 855, 856, 865, 866, 870.

174


middle of the sixteenth century, the new faith prevailed in most Hungarian towns. Stimulated by the ideas of the Protestant theologians, town authorities turned their attention to family life, sexual behaviour, and the conduct of ordinary people, trying to enforce what they saw as basic standards of Christian morality. It is in this period that urban justice became extremely severe, with the town authorities increasingly imposing the capital penalty for a broad range of crimes such as murder and homicide, violent behaviour in public, sacrilege (stealing from churches), adultery, bigamy and incest. Town courts often dealt with cases of fornication and did not hesitate to force the couple that fornicated to marry in prison. The promise to take a girl for a wife was taken seriously and almost impossible to be taken back. Nevertheless, it seems that the church courts and jurisdiction were not completely forgotten, even in the period when the Reformation was at its highest in Hungary. Apart from cases that can be seen as controversies or clashes between creeds or followers of the Catholic and Protestant faith, such as the excommunication of priests as heretics or because they had concubines or were married, other cases illustrate the existence and functioning of the church courts. In 1572, Barbara, the daughter of Johann Raimensattl, a burgher of Bratislava, was violated and deprived of her virginity by the blacksmith Andreas Horn. The man at first denied her allegations, but after investigation and interrogation of witnesses, he confessed. The victim claimed that, apart from that he had done her no harm, he wanted to marry her. The town council, perhaps at a loss as to how they should decide, and not certain whether the case belonged to the church court or not, finally transferred it to the chapter of Bratislava.38 It is not known how the church court resolved the case, though. Similarly, in the 1587 case of Joannes Rewez the verdict of the court is unknown. All that is known is that Joannes appealed to the church court of the Bratislava chapter to get a separation from his wife, Anna Zenthkiraly, because of her animosity towards him and her attempt to kill him by magic.39 Several aspects of division of jurisdiction between ecclesiastical and secular urban courts still remain unclear, as there is only limited evidence in the municipal archives. In an undated letter from the end of the fourteenth century, the archbishop of Esztergom announced to the urban community of Bratislava that in spiritual matters it was the court of the chapter that should decide.40 ———————————— 38 Slovak National Archives in Bratislava, Private archive of the Bratislava chapter, Privata Capsa 25/1/42. 39 Ibidem, Capsa 84/11. 40 AMB, n. 6517. Lehotská, Inventár, 101.


175

How this rule was reflected in practice, however, is a subject for further research. *** In conclusion, it seems that both church and town courts claimed jurisdiction in cases where an ecclesiastical person was involved in litigation on a secular matter. The power of the church courts reached its peak in the middle of the thirteenth century. From then onwards, the kings (Sigismund, Mathias Corvinus and Wladislas II) slowly and gradually limited the jurisdiction of the church courts in favour of the secular courts by exempting some matters from church authority.41 In general, the kings tried to favour secular courts and limit church jurisdiction. As a result, the number of cases with questionable jurisdiction increased and the king had to intervene, as was demonstrated by the examples of conflicts noted above, especially between the town council of Bratislava and the Bratislava chapter. In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries there were many areas where both secular and church courts thought it fit to handle the matter. Similarly, a plaintiff or an accused, if not satisfied with the process or result of a litigation, would not only turn to the local secular authority, but also to church courts and church authorities, sometimes even royal courts and the king, or to the papal Penitentiary, in the hope that these other courts or authorities would be better disposed to his or her interests.

———————————— 41 Eugen Bidovský, “Orgány stredovekého súdnictva v Uhorsku 1000–1526” [Institutions of medieval judiciary in medieval Slovakia (1000–1526)], Slovenská archivistika 19, n. 2 (1976), 151– 176.

PENITENTIARY DOCUMENTS FROM OUTSIDE THE PENITENTIARY Ludwig Schmugge

When Professor Emil Göller1 left the German College Santa Maria del Campo Santo situated south of Saint Peter’s Square in Rome on November 22, 1913, he was very excited, indeed. Since the fall of 1900 he had had the privilege of studying, first as a borsista of the Görres-Gesellschaft, later on the payroll of the Preussisches Historisches Institut in Rome, thousands of papal documents accessible to the public since Pope Leo XIII had opened the Vatican Archives to historical research. During his research Göller’s special interest was more and more focussed on the Penitentieria Apostolica, the papal office which in the later Middle Ages was crucial for granting tens of thousands of absolutions, dispensations, and licenses to men and women, lay persons and clerics alike, throughout Christendom, who had fallen into some conflict with the rules of canon law. Only after he had published his well-known opus magnum, the four volumes on the Peni-tentiary,2 did he learn, talking to Cardinal Serafino Vanutelli3 (since 1899 the Penitenziere Maggiore), who as protector of the Campo Santo often had dinner with the members of the College, that the historical archives of the central papal office for grace, penance, and indulgences where not totally lost after Napoleon had all Vatican documents transferred to Paris in 1809. On the contrary, some 4500 volumes were found in three rooms of the Cortile delle Corazze in the Vatican, where they had remained hidden since returning from Paris in 1817.4

———————————— 1

For concise information about him see Remigius Bäumer, “Göller, Emil”, in Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche 4 (1995), col. 829. 2 Emil Göller, Die päpstliche Pönitentiarie von ihrem Ursprung bis zu ihrer Umgestaltung unter Pius V, 2 vols. in 4 parts, Bibliothek des Kgl. Preuss. Historischen Instituts in Rom 3, 4, 7, 8 (Rome: Loescher, 1907, 1911). 3 See Enciclopedia Italiana di scienze, lettere ed arti 34 (1950), 978, and Mario de Camillis, “Vannutelli, Serafino”, in Enciclopedia cattolica 12 (1954), col. 1026–1027. 4 Emil Göller, “Das alte Archiv der päpstlichen Pönitentiarie”, Römische Quartalschrift, Supplement vol. 20. Festgabe für Anton de Waal, ed. Franz Xaver Seppelt (Rome: Herder, 1913), 1–19.

178


When he was confronted with the original documents of the Penitentiary, the papal office, ubi morum censura et animarum salus vertitur – as Pope Leo X had formulated in 15135 – Göller was about to leave Rome to become professor of canon law at the University of Freiburg in Germany. As far as I can tell, he never published any article using the newly discovered documents of the Penitentiary archive.6 Only in 1983 did Pope John Paul II give access to the registers of the Penitentiary for the medieval period. Since then the former archivist of the Penitentiary, Filippo Tamburini (†1999), has published many books and important articles, and international research has started to exploit the registers that are officially titled Registra Matrimonialium et Diversorum.7 The Northern European countries play an important role in the orchestra of international research. James J. Robertson (Scotland) was among the first to make use of the penitentiary records but, as far as I am aware, he has not yet published any study. For the province of Uppsala, that is the area of modern Sweden and Finland, Kirsi Salonen8 has presented her exhaustive and most informative Tampere dissertation, and together with Christian Krötzl she is the editor of a fine volume on The Roman Curia, the Apostolic Penitentiary and the Partes in the Later Middle Ages.9 I would also like to mention Mia Korpiola’s collection of articles10 with important contributions concerning the topic by Per Ingesman, Agnes Arnórsdóttir, and Kirsi Salonen. Torstein Jørgensen and Gastone Saletnich are the authors of a well-illustrated volume, in which the documentation of cases from the Stavanger diocese is included.11 In the meantime, ———————————— 05 In his Bulla Pastoralis cura, ASV, Reg. Vat., 1200, fol. 428r. 06 See the ‘Nachruf’ by Johann Peter Kirsch and the list of his publications by Karl August Fink in Römische Quartalschrift 41 (1933), 1–13. 07 For the publications of the late Filippo Tamburini see his last book Häresie und Luthertum. Quellen aus dem Archiv der Pönitentiarie in Rom (15. und 16. Jahrhundert), Quellen und Forschungen aus dem Gebiet der Geschichte, N. F. Heft 19 (Paderborn: Schöningh, 2000), especially the bibliography on p. 7 ff. 08 Kirsi Salonen, The Penitentiary as a Well of Grace in the Late Middle Ages. The Example of the Province of Uppsala 1448–1527, Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian Toimituksia – Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae 313 (Saarijärvi: Academia Scientiarum Fennica, 2001) (hereafter Salonen, The Penitentiary). Since then, Salonen has published a series of fine contributions on matters of the Penitentiary. 09 Kirsi Salonen and Christian Krötzl, ed., The Roman Curia, the Apostolic Penitentiary and the Partes in the Later Middle Ages, Acta Instituti Romani Finlandiae 28 (Rome: Institutum Romanum Finlandiae, 2003) (hereafter Salonen and Krötzl, ed., The Roman Curia). 10 Mia Korpiola, ed., Nordic Perspectives on Medieval Canon Law, Publications of the Matthias Calonius Society 2 (Saarijärvi: Matthias Calonius Society, 1999). 11 Torstein Jørgensen and Gastone Saletnich, Letters to the Pope. Norwegian Relations to the Holy See in the Late Middle Ages (Stavanger: Misjonshøgskolens Forlaget, 1999).

PENITENTIARY DOCUMENTS

179

many other articles making use of Northern European cases from the Penitentiary sources have been published. Besides scholars from Northern Europe, historians from the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland have started intensive research into the documents of the Penitentiary. The Bullarium Poloniae, for a long time edited by Irena and Stanislaus Kuraœ, includes the Polish supplications from the Penitentiary registers, starting with volume 7 in the pontificate of Pius II.12 Aleš Pořizka from the Istituto Storico Ceco in Rome published an important survey in the institute’s journal on clerics from Bohemia who were ordained at the Roman curia, which touches upon the subject of de promotis et promovendis in the Penitentiary registers,13 and uses the Bohemian cases from the first three volumes of the Repertorium Poenitentiariae Germanicum.14 He is going to include the respective supplications to the Penitentiary from the Bohemian territories in the following volumes of the Monumenta Vaticana res gestas Bohemicas illustrantia. Recently, Piroska Nagy and Katalin Szende15 have outlined a research project on “Conflicts, Control and Concessions. The Archives of the Holy Apostolic Penitentiary. Hungarian Records in East Central European Context”, which intends to dig mainly into the supplications de diversis formis and de declaratoriis for the period of Paul II and Sixtus IV (1464–1484). Finally, I also would like to mention the British project of Peter Clarke and Patrick Zutshi for publishing all English and Welsh petitions. This project is similar to the Repertorium Poenitentiariae Germanicum published by the German Historical Institute in Rome, of which my wife and I are in charge.16 The British publications will contain all supplications from the provinces of York and Canterbury up to the English Reformation in a calendared form, when the German Repertorium contains Latin regesta. Recently Paolo Ostinelli has presented a valuable volume on the diocese of Como.17 This book may duly be called a pilot-study, because Ostinelli has for ———————————— 12 Bullarium Poloniae litteras apostolicas aliaque monumenta Poloniae Vaticana continens, VI 1447– 1464, ed. Irena Sułkowska-Kuraś and Stanislaus Kuraś, (Rome: École Française de Rome and Lublin: Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski, 1998). 13 Aleš Pořizka, “Ordinandi delle terre Boeme presso la curia pontificia negli anni 1420–1447”, Bollettino dell’Istituto Storico Ceco di Roma 3 (2002), 32–55. 14 Aleš Pořizka, “Repertorium Poenitentiariae Germanicum. Středoveká papežská penitenciárie op et v centru pozornosti”, Mediaevalia Historica Bohemica 8 (2001), 97–120. 15 Annual of Medieval Studies at CEU 9 (2003), 333–339. 16 Repertorium Poenitentiariae Germanicum, ed. by the German Historical Institute in Rome: until today six volumes have been published by Ludwig Schmugge and collaborators, indices by Hildegard Schneider-Schmugge, covering the period from Eugene IV to Sixtus IV (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1996 ff.) (henceforth RPG). 17 Paolo Ostinelli, Penitenzieria Apostolica. Le suppliche alla Sacra Penitenzieria Apostolica pro-

180


the first time compared the Vatican documents with the respective material in partibus of a Mediterranean area. For the northern Italian diocese of Como he has collected all the available material, charters, notarial registers and other documents from the local archives, illustrating the development of the cases before and after they were taken to the papal office. What should be done in the near future with or around the supplications of the papal Penitentiary? As there are many problems to be resolved I shall concentrate on one item, the documents in partibus coming from the Penitentiary. Ostinelli’s valuable contribution to research in the supplications of the Penitentiary and other findings of documents related to the field of our interest in different archives of Europe have led me to speak about ‘Peniten-tiary documents from outside the Penitentiary’. This seems to be quite contradictory at first glance, but in my opinion it opens a wide new field of interesting research possibilities regarding the ecclesiastical and social history of the later Middle Ages all over Europe. I will try to explain my point in more detail. As we know, the Vatican Archives retain only the registered supplications sent or taken to the papal curia. We know further that the registrations have survived only from the early fifteenth century onwards18 with many years missing up to 1447. For the time before the mid-fifteenth century we can find Penitentiary documents only outside of the Penitentiary, because – as far as we know – very few documents have survived in the Vatican Archives. But, from the thirteenth century onwards and also for the time when registered supplications have survived, there is also plenty of evidence about cases in local archives all over Europe. That is why I propose looking into this kind of important Penitentiary source-material. The different types of such documents may be roughly divided into four groups: 1. original supplications; 2. litterae ecclesiae of the minor penitentiaries; 3. litterae of the maior penitentiarius; 4. documents related to supplications to the Penitentiary, as copies, transsumpts, protocols, notarial registration, and so on.

————————————————————————————————— venienti dalla diocesi di Como (1438–1484), Materiali di storia ecclesiastica lombarda 5 (Milano: Ed. Unicopli, 2003) (hereafter Ostinelli, Penitenzieria Apostolica). 18 From the first volume (ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 1) Monique MaillardLuypaert has recently published the supplications coming from Belgian dioceses: Les suppliques de la Pénitencerie Apostolique pour les diocèses de Cambrai, Liège, Thérouanne et Tournai (1410– 1411). Analecta Vaticano-Belgica, première série 34 (Brussels and Rome: Institut historique belge de Rome, 2003).


181

ORIGINAL SUPPLICATIONS Let us first look into the original supplications. When a petitioner wished to submit a request for papal grace, he had to take care that a proper supplication describing his case would be presented to the Roman curia in a written form. In most cases the petition would have been set up through a proctor,19 who was able to write the individual request in a good Latin form according to canon law, the formularies, and the stilus curia. This piece of paper itself, once it had entered the administrative process of the Penitentiary, was useless as soon as the petition was granted and a littera confirming the positive response of the Penitentiary had been sent back to the petitioner. Therefore, an original supplication had a very tiny “Überlieferungs-Chance” (“chance of survival”).20 As far as we know, only one original medieval supplication has survived, which Kirsi Salonen found in the Helsinki University Library in Finland.21 The exceptional reason why it has survived may be that the petition had been granted sola signatura, meaning that the original petition, after having been signed, was taken back to the supplicant and thus ended up in the local archives.

LITTERAE ECCLESIAE OF THE MINOR PENITENTIARIES Almost as rare as the original supplications are the litterae ecclesiae. They have to be distinguished from the litterae of the penitentiarius maior (see below). Besides the tens of thousands of petitions handled by the Penitentiary office, many pilgrims and other people who went to Rome personally did not necessarily want their petition to run through the long route of papal administration. If a “Rome-runner” could make his confession directly to one of the minor penitentiaries in the three major Roman basilicas to whom the pope had delegated the power to absolve, a penitentiarius minor would confirm the act of confession with a written document (without, of course, naming the content of the confession), so that the petitioner could prove his absolution at home with the help of this document, called littera ecclesiae. The document would have

———————————— 19 As to proctors, see the forthcoming book by Daniel Rutz on Penitentiary proctors in the second half of the 15th century. For the moment, D. Rutz, “Pöniten-tiarie-Prokuratoren”, Lizentiatsarbeit, University of Zurich, 2000 (hereafter Rutz, “Pönitentiarie-Prokuratoren”). 20 This expression was launched by Arnold Esch, “Überlieferungs-Chance und ÜberlieferungsZufall als methodisches Problem des Historikers”, Historische Zeitschrift, 240 (1985), 529–570. 21 See Salonen, The Penitentiary, 94, with a photo of the document.

182


been written on behalf of or by a minor penitentiary himself and handed over to the petitioner immediately. And as in the case of the original supplication, the littera ecclesiae was of no use after the death of the beneficiary, so that in most cases it was thrown away. Once again, it is the merit of Kirsi Salonen to have discovered such a rare littera ecclesiae from the pontificate of Pope Nicholas V.22

LITTERAE OF THE MAJOR PENITENTIARY Much more frequent than the original supplications and the litterae ecclesiae are litterae of the penitentiarius maior. At the end of each petition process, a littera had to be issued in the name of the penitentiarius maior on the basis of the faculties he had received from the pope at the beginning of his career as cardinal penitentiary. These litterae, written on parchment with the oval seal of red wax of the Penitentiary, showing the Virgin Mary with the child on a Gothic throne, affixed at the bottom,23 were sent to the petitioners or to persons to whom the Penitentiary had committed the investigation of the case presented to the curia by the petitioner. In most cases, this person was the bishop as ordinarius loci or another ecclesiastical person in the petitioner’s diocese. Thus, logically, local archives are the places where one would expect to find the litterae today, and we do indeed, with some luck! As the litterae did not fit easily into the system of medieval documents built up by modern charter-specialists as Bresslau and others, they were often put aside or overlooked. In rare cases, the text of a littera was also copied into the first registers of the Penitentiary. The reason why the scribes did so is not quite clear. For the German-speaking countries these registered litterae have been edited in the RPG.24

———————————— 22 Swedish National Archives, Or. Perg. (5. 8. 1449). Salonen, The Penitentiary, 311–312, 402–405; eadem “Fallet Nanne Kärling. Att kombinera biografiska upgifter ur olika arkiv” [The case of Nanne Kärling. To combine biographic information from different archives], in Ny väg till medeltidsbreven. Från ett medeltidssymposium i Svenska Riksarkivet 26–28 november 1999, Skrifter utgifna av Riksarkivet 18 (Stockholm: Riksarkivet, 2002), 99–106. This littera ecclesiae was issued by the German minor penitentiary Johannes Calp. As to his activity see RPG IV, Index sub voce, and Rutz, “Pönitentiarie-Prokuratoren”. 23 See, for example, the marvelous piece published by Milena Svec, which is used as the cover of Salonen and Krötzl, ed., The Roman Curia. 24 See, e.g., RPG I, n. 1, a littera from Nicolaus Capranica for a nun from the monastery of Münsterlingen on Lake Constance (February 29, 1438); RPG V, n. 2126 issued by Philippus Calandrini for a priest from Utrecht (March 26, 1470).


183

In the meantime, dozens of such litterae have surfaced. For some Germanspeaking areas, Brigide Schwarz25 inserted them into her Repertorium published for Niedersachsen, Bremen, and Baden-Württemberg. The “Censimento” of papal documents unfortunately excludes the letters of the Penitentiary. Thus Tilmann Schmidt,26 who published two fine volumes of original papal documents in Germany, did not include any litterae of the Penitentiary. The originals are of special importance for the period before the mid-fifteenth century, because – as has already been mentioned – no registration of the supplications has survived. Thus, any documents in partibus from that time are the only testimonies for the graces granted by the Penitentiary. The litterae, mostly written on good parchment, have frequently been ‘recycled’ and are to be found in bookbindings or on cover-leaves of late medieval manuscripts.27 Many examples have been discovered recently in different archives in Switzerland: by Milena Svec in the Kantonsarchiv of Frauenfeld and the State Archives of Basel,28 by Barbara Vanotti in the City Archive of Rapperswil,29 and by Silvan Freddi in the State Archives of Solothurn.30 Paolo Ostinelli found litterae in the ecclesiastical and state archives of the Ticino and in ———————————— 25 Brigide Schwarz, Regesten der in Niedersachsen und Bremen überlieferten Papst-urkunden 1198–1503, Quellen und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Niedersachsens im Mittelalter 15 (Hannover: Hahn, 1993). 26 Tilmann Schmidt, Die Originale der Papsturkunden in Baden-Württemberg: 1198–1417, Index Actorum Romanorum Pontificum 6, 2 vols. (Città del Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1993); idem, “Originale Papsturkunden in Baden-Württemberg. Nachtrag”, Zeitschrift für die Geschichte des Ober-rheins 151 (2003); Miscellanea Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae 10 (2003); idem, Die Originale der Papsturkunden in Norddeutschland: 1199–1415, Index Actorum Romanorum Pontificum 7 (Città del Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 2003). 27 University Library of Bonn, S 327 contains a littera from Domenico Capranica (February 13, 1454). Andreas Meyer, Marburg, discovered two letters in the archives of the Cistercian monastery of Zwettl (Austria): Zwettl 337, a littera from Jordanus ep. Sabinen. (Ferrara, 1439) and another one from Jordanus ep. Albanen. (Florence, 1420). See Charlotte Ziegler, Zisterzienserstift Zwettl. Katalog der Handschriften des Mittelalters, Teil IV: Codex 301–424 (Vienna: Schroll, 1997), 417, 420. Kirsi Salonen discovered a nice littera from Leonardus of Santa Susanna in the Stadtarchiv Köln, HUA 1, a large parchment 53.0 K 37.7 cm (of which 5.7 cm plica), with the seal of the Penitentiary (April 6, 1512). 28 The Frauenfeld littera (Staatsarchiv des Kantons Thurgau 7’44’9, dated February 8, 1482) is directed to the bishop of Constance. He was ordered to look into the case of apostasy of an Augustinian nun, Barbara of Rischach, who had left her monastery in Diessenhofen. The respective supplication, which Barbara directed to the pope, is to be found in ASV PA vol. 31, fol. 162v; RPG VI, n. 3241. The littera from Basel (Staatsarchiv Basel, Klosterarchiv Klingental, Urkunde Nr. 2460) is a transsumpt. See Milena Svec, “Apostasie und Transitus in der Registerüberlieferung und in partibus”, in The Roman Curia, ed. Salonen and Krötzl, 183–200. 29 Rapperswil, Stadtarchiv, C 2a I 5, C 2a II 10. 30 Staatsarchiv Solothurn, charter from March 7, 1425 and June 5, 1489 (I thank Silvan Freddi for his help).

184


Northern Italy.31 Even in the Vatican Library such documents do exist: Martin Bertram drew my attention to the codex Vat. Pal. lat. 1018, which on a cover sheet contains a littera confessionalis for Jacobus Lutifigulus, priest at Trinity Church in Speyer (Germany), dating from 1447. This text is even more important than others, because the registers of confessional letters from the time of Pope Nicolas V were not registered. Another way to discover litterae of the Penitentiary will be by scrutinising episcopal and chapter registers. In the archive of the Prague Metropolitan Chapter, Zdenka Hledíková, director of the Istituto Storico Ceco di Roma, found the transcription of a littera directed to Wenzel of Crumlau, dean of the chapter,32 who had to investigate a matrimonial case which corresponds to the supplication printed in the RPG (vol. III, n. 1688). Thus, we may rightly assume that especially in the ecclesiastical archives of various countries plenty of such litterae will show up as well.

DOCUMENTS RELATED TO A PENITENTIARY CASE The fourth rubric consists of a great variety of documents. As petitions submitted to the pope often had a long history in the area where the petitioner lived before the request arrived in Rome, the cases sometimes have an even longer history after the petitioner received the papal grace. Local ecclesiastical and lay administrations consequently produced a huge number of sources which are connected with the decisions of the Penitentiary. This is true especially for matrimonial dispensations, but also for cases where an investigation had been ordered by the papal office through commission in partibus, which is expressed especially in the de declaratoriis cases through the words et committatur, followed by the name of an ecclesiastical person, mostly the local bishop. Paolo Ostinelli gives ample evidence showing how episcopal administration and sometimes even simple parochial priests produced such documents.33 As another example, I mention the many documents in the Staatsarchiv Solothurn resulting from the action taken by a certain Johannes Umbendorn, a priest from So———————————— 31 A littera issued by Domenico Capranica is to be found in the archives of Chiavenna directed to a canon of this church granting him a dispensation to be ordained to the priesthood at the age of 23 (February 13, 1454; Chiavenna/ Italy, Archivio Capitolare Laurenziano, Pergamene 784), see Ostinelli, Penitenzieria Apostolica, 88–89. Another littera from Como, Archivio diocesano, ex Museo, will be discussed later. 32 Archiv prazske metropolitni kapituly, Cod. VI–5, fol. 62v. 33 See Ostinelli, Penitenzieria Apostolica, 79–126.


185

lothurn in Switzerland, who had to tackle an impediment to his ordination because he had lost two fingers of his left hand in a fight and thus had incurred inhabilitas for service at the altar.34 The value of all the types of documents mentioned above for our knowledge of the functioning and the procedure of administration in the Penitentiary, for the biographies of its personnel, for the form of the litterae issued by the office, and for the cost of graces granted to the petitioners cannot be overestimated. This may be explained in some detail with the help of one document that has come to us from the ecclesiastical archives of Como in Italy.35 The littera, rescued from a sixteenth-century book-binding, issued in the name of the maior penitentiarius, Julianus della Rovere, Cardinal-bishop of Sabina, was directed to the bishop of Como. On March 2, 1481, Giacomo de Zobiis, canon of San Lorenzo in Lugano (Switzerland), asked Pope Sixtus IV for absolution from a simoniacal action connected with his benefices, for dispensation to keep his canonry, and to act as a priest in the future.36 Julius, the major Penitentiary, wrote in response to the bishop of Como and commissioned the case to him or his vicar. Not only the content, which is basically the same as in the supplication, is of special interest, but also the information about the procedure and the personnel involved. First, the name of the procurator is given on the back of the document, a certain M. de Castello.37 As a compositio had been imposed (which was always the fine in cases concerning simony), this was annotated in the upper right corner of the parchment (concorda cum datario). Before getting his littera, the petitioner had to contact the datarius, the cleric at the curia who was responsible for administering the personal income of the pope. In his supplication, the respective passage reads as componat cum datario. However, Giacomo de Zobiis cleverly avoided paying a considerable amount of money to the datarius. In the right hand corner of the document, under the plica, one reads: Iuravit paupertatem, Stephanus decanus Matisconensis, datarius. Giacomo had chosen the only way to avoid the payment of the fine, that is, by swearing the poverty oath.38 No information can be garnered from the registered supplication about the taxes the petitioner had to ———————————— 34 Daniel Rutz, “‘Hans Umbendorn sin dispensatz der zweyen klinen vingern halb an der linken hand.’ Ein Werkstattbericht zur Solothurner Überlieferung einer defectus corporis-Dispens”, in Salonen and Krötzl, ed., The Roman Curia, 45–51. 35 Como, Archivio di Stato, Ex Museo 3, n. 108. 36 Paolo Ostinelli has treated this case in Penitenzieria Apostolica, 90–91. The supplication is published there as n. 490. 37 As to him see Ostinelli, Penitenzieria Apostolica, 150–151. 38 Ostinelli, Penitenzieria Apostolica, 91, note 174, mentions the career of the papal datarius Stephanus with further references.

186


pay. Only the original littera reveals the amount of money which had to be paid for the littera. In the Como case the indication as usual is inserted into the name of the distributor: We read on the lower left side of the parchment Je. Galba/tresdecim Tur./nus. This was the normal way to indicate the tax, writing the amount in the middle of the name of the taxator, here a certain Je(ronimus) Galbanus. After the poverty oath, when impediments for his littera no longer existed, we learn from a note above the plica that the document was sent to the petitioner on May 26, 1481. This Como original offers a nice example of another common procedure in the papal Penitentiary as well. Before a letter was ready to be sent to the person who had asked for grace or to a commissioner (as in our case the bishop of Como), the head of the office (or his substitute, the regens or the auditor of the Penitentiary) had to check and sign the littera. This is indicated in the middle of the document on top of the text, where the following words are visible: Videat eam reverendus dominus regens. Sometimes the text is more specific and adds ad quintam lineam. One may see this also from this document. Actually, at the left and right margin of the text, precisely on the fifth line, the regens, Bishop Julius of Bertinoro, added in his own handwriting Visa per me (on the left margin) and Jul. eps. Brictonorien. regens (on the right side). Litterae of minor canonical impact that did not need to be checked show a different kind of procedure. Instead of the long formula Videat eam with the respective signature ad quintam lineam by the Major Penitentiary, the regens, or the auditor, one finds a simple abbreviation: bn. for bene, with the sigla of an officer at the height of the fifth line.39 *** Closing my few introductory remarks on the Penitentiary documents from outside the Penitentiary, I would like to express my strong conviction that many other examples of sources described in this paper still exist and are waiting to be discovered in numerous archives all over Europe. It is worthwhile going for them!

———————————— 39 E.g., Generallandesarchiv Karlsruhe (Germany), B IV 1650, which belongs to the de defectu natalium supplications in RPG IV, n. 1999.

PATTERNS AND LEVELS OF ‘PERIPHERY’? Gerhard Jaritz

“There is an important research field to formulate the social, cultural, political and economical role of areas called marginal, peripheries and other such problematic designations.”1 This statement was recently given by the Swedish archeologist Hans Andersson. It can also be supported by historians who concentrate their research on any kind of communication, like that of the Holy See with various areas and regions of late medieval Christendom. The communication of the medieval papal curia with whole of the Christian world took place in a variety of elaborate forms.2 “The divergent needs and receptivity of clergy and laity on the one hand, and the geographical scattering of the Christian audience on the other, encouraged the development of a sophisticated commu-nication system.”3 This seems to have been particularly true for territories that, at least in the geographical sense, may have been seen as peripheral areas of Christendom. Piroska Nagy has shown that one may well use this component of ‘periphery,’ at least as an (auxiliary) criterium for the comparative analysis of the communication of Christians with the Holy See and vice versa.

———————————— 1

Hans Andersson, “Outland, Centre, Periphery and World Sytem Theories,” in Wider das “finstere Mittelalter.” Festschrift für Werner Meyer zum 65. Geburts-tag, ed. M. Letizia HeyerBoscardin, Schweizer Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte und Archäologie des Mittelalters 29 (Basel: Schweizerischer Burgenverein, 2002), 30. 2 For such forms see, from a general point of view, Willem Frijhoff, “Communi-cation et vie quotidienne à la fin du Moyen Age et à l’époque moderne: réflexions de théorie et méthode,” in Kommunikation und Alltag in Spätmittelalter und früher Neuzeit, ed. Helmut Hundsbichler, Sitzungsberichte der Österreichischen Akade-mie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historische Klasse 596 (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1992), 37: “Lorsqu’on parle de communication en histoire, il faut bien distinguer entre la communication comme processus technique et la communication comme action signifiante (instrumentale, communicative ou stratégique). ... En tant qu’action signifiante, la communication est avant tout un fait culturel impliquant pratiques sociales, représentations et codes symboliques ... .” 3 Sophia Menache, The Vox Dei. Communication in the Middle Ages (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), 51 (hereafter Menache, The Vox Dei).

188


Concerning the communication of the papal curia with medieval ‘peripheries’ and the roles of the latter, some important research has been done recently.4 Systematic research in this direction, however, is still at its beginnings. This book is also an exploratory volume, based on comparative approaches, trying to show possibilities for future systematic and broader studies. It is mainly meant to encourage further analyses into the role that ‘peripheries’ played in late medieval papal policy, and into the comparability of such ‘peripheries.’ In no way, is it able or intends to present something definitive. It should be seen as an intermediary stage to facilitate a continuation of work at a ‘site under construction.’ The papers in the present proceedings have proved that the communication was influenced by a variety of regional or local phenomena. Sometimes they led to important differences in regard to the numbers as well as the contents of communicative acts between the papal curia and people in the respective areas. This is nicely shown by the contributions of Irene Furneaux and Ana Marinkoviæ concerning the predominance of matrimony supplications from Scotland and Dalmatia in the Penitentiary Registers, which, however, occurred for different reasons. Lucie Doležalová has ascertained significant influences of the Hussite movement on the types and numbers of supplications to the Penitentiary coming from the Czech lands. For any communication with the Holy See, the papal legates, that is, “the prolonged arms of the papacy,”5 played an important role. For Sweden and Finland, Kirsi Salonen has been able to document the differences in the number of supplications to the Penitentiary dependent on the presence or absence of legates in the respective territories. Beside these local differences, analogue accomplishments also seemingly existed in the communication of the Holy See with the ‘peripheries’ of Christendom. Kirsi Salonen, Torstein Jørgensen, and Piroska Nagy have found Northern European and East Central European patterns, for East Central Europe, for instance, concerning the leading type of De diversis formis-petitions to the Penitentiary from the territories of Hungary, the Czech lands, Poland———————————— 4

5

See, in particular, Ludwig Schmugge, “Centro e periferia attraverso le dispense pontificie nel secolo XV,” in Vita religiosa e identità politiche. Universalità e particolarismi nell’ Europa del tardo Medio Evo, Atti del VI Convegno di Studi sulla Civiltà del Tardo Medioevo. S. Miniato, ottobre 1996, ed. Sergio Gensini, Centro di Studi sulla Civiltà del Tardo Medioevo, San Miniato. Collana di studi e ricerche 7 (Ospedaletto: Pacini Editore, 1998), 33–58; Rolf H. Bremmer Jr., Kees Decker, and David F. Johnson, ed., Rome and the North. The Early Reception of Gregory the Great in Germanic Europe, Mediaevalia Groningana, New Series 4 (Paris: Peeters, 2001). See also the contributions of Piroska Nagy, Kirsi Salonen, Torstein Jørgensen, and Ludwig Schmugge in this volume and their bibliographical references. See Menache, The Vox Dei, 51.

PATTERNS AND LEVELS OF ‘PERIPHERY’?

189

Lithuania and the Baltic region. But only accurate and detailed analyses comparing such results with those from less peripheral neighbouring dioceses and areas, and with other ‘peripheries,’ will make it possible to trace whether it is really possible to see such patterns as more general ‘periphery models’ or if they were also significant for other, less peripheral, areas. Some of the most valuable results of the contributions in this volume are, in my opinion, the direct or indirect hints towards existing contexts, which have to be taken into account when doing systematic comparative, qualitative, and quantitative analysis of source corpora like the Penitentiary Registers. It is the context with all the other phenomena of communication that determined the connections of the papal curia with peripheral regions of Christendom. This is well shown in the contributions of Jadranka Neraliæ and Etleva Lala. The possible context with the incidents in more central areas also have to be taken in consideration (see the contribution by Gastone Saletnich and Wolfgang Müller). The context to the activities and functions of local ecclesiastical and secular courts in the different areas has been well shown in the case study by Blanka Szeghyová. Ludwig Schmugge has impressively demonstrated that also other source material kept in various local archives has to be consulted and utilised for any further context-dependent and comparative studies. Thus, the contributions of the present volume offer a multiplicity of references, motivations and further research possibilities which have to be considered in any future analyses. It does not really matter whether future research, at the end, will lead to the outcome that the concept and designation of ‘periphery’ has proved important or advantageous for the comparative analysis of the varieties of papal communication with different areas and levels of Christendom, or not. This should be considered all the more as one also might only acknowledge different levels and hierarchies of ‘periphery,’ and their relations to one centre that was clearly Rome and the popes themselves. However, as long as further context-bound comparative approaches yield new results and significant patterns and levels of communication that may be seen as an effect of social practices, representations and symbolic code sets,6 one may be generally satisfied, independent on the role of ‘peripheries’ in the research process. Comparative analyses of that ilk can only be fruitful if accomplished within the framework of international cooperation. The first moves in this direction have already been made; the volume at hand is a result of such an attempt. But there is still a long way to go, a way that will be enthralling and, hopefully, effective.

———————————— 6

See note 2.

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Lucie DOLEŽALOVÁ Department of Medieval Studies Central European University Nádor utca 9 H-1051 Budapest Hungary

Torstein JØRGENSEN Centre for Medieval Studies University of Bergen P.O. Box 7800 N-5020 Bergen Norway

Irene FURNEAUX School of History, Divinity and Philosophy University of Aberdeen Meston Walk, King’s College GB-Aberdeen AB24 3FX Scotland, UK

Etleva LALA Department of Medieval Studies Central European University Nádor utca 9 H-1051 Budapest Hungary

Gerhard JARITZ Department of Medieval Studies Central European University Nádor utca 9 H-1051 Budapest Hungary

Ana MARINKOVIĆ Department of Medieval Studies Central European University Nádor utca 9 H-1051 Budapest Hungary

and Institut für Realienkunde Austrian Academy of Sciences Körnermarkt 13 A-3500 Krems Austria

Wolfgang P. MÜLLER Department of History Fordham University Bronx, NY 10458-9993 USA

192


Piroska NAGY Université de Rouen UFR de Lettres et Sciences Humaines Departement d’Histoire F-76821 Mont Saint Aignan Cedex France and Department of Medieval Studies Central European University Nádor utca 9 H-1051 Budapest Hungary Jadranka NERALIĆ Hrvatski institut za povijest Opaticka 10 HR-10000 Zagreb Croatia

Gastone SALETNICH Archivio Segreto Vaticano Vatican City Kirsi SALONEN Department of History FIN-33014 University of Tampere Finland Ludwig SCHMUGGE Deutsches Historisches Institut in Rom Via Aurelia Antica 391 I-00165 Rome Italy Blanka SZEGHYOVÁ Historical Institute Slovak Academy of Sciences Klemensova 19 SK-813 64 Bratislava Slovakia

The Long Arm of Papal Authority: Late Medieval Christian Peripheries and Their Communication with the Holy See

The Long Arm of Papal Authority: Late Medieval Christian Peripheries and Their Communication with the Holy See

The Formation of Papal Authority in Late Antique Italy: Roman Bishops and the Domestic Sphere

The Long ARM of Gil Hamilton

The Long ARM of Gil Hamilton

The Long ARM of Gil Hamilton

The Long ARM of Gil Hamilton

Prestige, Authority and Power in Late Medieval Manuscripts and Texts

The Long Arm of the Law and Other Short Stories

Society and the Holy in Late Antiquity

Long ARM of Gil Hamilton

The Letters of Jerome: Asceticism, Biblical Exegesis, and the Construction of Christian Authority in Late Antiquity (Oxford Early Christian Studies)

Catch rope: the long arm of the cowboy

The Moneylenders of Late Medieval Kyoto

The Papal Decree

Arm of the Law

Long Time No See

Long Time No See

The Man with the Golden Arm

The Man with the Golden Arm

The Man with the Golden Arm

The Man With the Golden Arm

Alchemy and Authority in the Holy Roman Empire

Transforming Talk: The Problem With Gossip in Late Medieval England

Larry Niven - The Long ARM of Gil Hamilton

Niven, Larry - The Long ARM of Gil Hamilton (SSCol) (Done)

The Papal Decree

Late Marx and the Russian Road: Marx and the Peripheries of Capitalism

Niven, Larry - The Long ARM of Gil Hamilton

Larry Niven - The Long ARM of Gil Hamilton UC

Arm of the Law

The Long Arm of Papal Authority: Late Medieval Christian Peripheries and Their Communication with the Holy See