The Intellectual Preparation for the Canon of 1215 Against Ordeals Author(S): John W

Medieval Academy of America

The Intellectual Preparation for the Canon of 1215 against Ordeals Author(s): John W. Baldwin Source: Speculum, Vol. 36, No. 4 (Oct., 1961), pp. 613-636 Published by: Medieval Academy of America Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2856788 . Accessed: 17/02/2015 14:17

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Medieval Academy of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Speculum.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Tue, 17 Feb 2015 14:17:55 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions THIE INTELLECTUAL PREPARATION FOR TIIE CANON OF 1215 AGAINST ORDEALS BY JOHN W. BALDWIN AMONGthe most importantof the deliberationsof the Fourth Lateran Council convenedby Pope InnocentIII in 1215 was canon 18, whichdealt withthe problem of ordeals.'In the generalcontext of prohibitingclerics from involving themselves in judicial decisionswhich resulted in the sheddingof blood, the pope and his assembled bishops spoke authoritativelyagainst judicial proofsby ordeals. These practiceswere dividedinto two classes: the unilateral,represented by the hot and cold water and the hot irontrials, and the bilateral,represented by the judicial duel. The firstcategory of unilateralordeals was merelyremoved from ecclesiasticalauspices by forbiddingpriests to bless or consecratethe elements. Their use, however,in secular justice was not specificallydisallowed. In the second categoryof bilateralordeals the Council renewedthe censuresof former councils against judicial duels.2In the lightof canonical traditionthis prohibi- tionmost likely envisaged secular as well as ecclesiasticaljustice. Historiansof ordeals generallyconsider the Council of 1215 to be the turning point in the disappearanceof these customarypractices from European law.' In the realm of legal practicethe prohibitionsof InnocentIII had immediateand significanteffect against certain unilateral proofs at least in England,Normandy, and Denmark.4Although such customarytrials antedated the Christianera, in mediaeval practicethe blessingand consecrationof the elementsby the clergy played an importantpart in theiroperation. Withdrawal of the clergyplaced

1 J. D. Mansi, Sacrorumconciliorum nova et amplissimacollectio (Venice, 1778), XXII, 1006-1007. Othercustomary proofs not mentionedby the Councilbut foundin practiceare the unilateralwalking on glowingcoals and the eucharisticordeal, and the bilateralcross ordeal. 2 Apparentlythese censuresrefer to formerprohibitions against tournaments:for example, c.14 of the Lateran Council of 1139 (Mansi, xxi, 530) and c.20 ofthe Lateran Council of 1179 (Mansi, xxii, 229). 3 Of the numerousworks on the generalsubject of mediaeval ordeals whichserve as introduction to thisstudy may be citedthe olderclassic, Frederico Patetta, Le ordalie(Turin, 1890) and the recent and magisterialHermann Nottarp, Gottesurteilstudien, Bamberger Abhandlungen und Forschungen, 2 (Munich, 1956). Nottarpmakes abundant use of PetrusBrowe, De ordaliis,Textus et documenta in usum excercitationumet praelectionumacademicarum, Series theologica,4 et 11 (Rome, 1932, 1933), a comprehensivecollection of sources,which was not available to me. Kurt-GeorgCram, ludicium belli: Zum Rechtscharalcterdes Kriegesim deutschenMittelalter, Beihefte zum Archiv fur Kulturgeschichte,5 (Munster-Cologne,1955), is a recentwork which treats judicial battle. Two monographswhich concentrate on the ecclesiasticalopposition to ordealsare S. Grelewski,La Reaction contreles ordaliesen Francedepuis le IXI sieClejusqu'au Decretde Gratien,Thesis, Faculty of Catholic Theology(Strasbourg, 1924), and CharlotteLeitmaier, Die Kircheund die Gottesurteile,Wiener rechts- geschichtlicheArbeiten, 2 (Vienna,1953). 4Thomas Rymer,-ed., Foedera,conventiones, litterae (London, 1816), i, 154; Tres anciencoutumier, ch. 38, 51, and 71, in E.-J. Tardif,ed., Coutumier8de Normandie(Rouen, 1881), I, 33, 42, and 67; Niels Skyum-Nielsen,ed., DiplomatariumDanicum, 1211-1223 (Copenhagen, 1957), I Raekke,5 Bind, 141. 613

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Tue, 17 Feb 2015 14:17:55 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 614 Preparationfor theCanon of 1215 againstOrdeals serioushandicaps on theirpopular effectiveness.5Trial by battle was practiced more tenaciously,particularly because it was the customaryproof in cases in- volvingserfdom,6 but King Louis IX's famousordinance abolishing judicial duels in the French domain was obviouslyinspired by ecclesiasticalprecedent.7 Like- wise, EmperorFrederick II forbadeboth kinds of customaryproofs throughout his lands in Sicily,although religious influence is not immediatelyapparent.8 To be sure,neither unilateral nor bilateral ordeals disappearedaltogether from judicial practice;note the persistenceof the water ordeal in witches'trials as late as the seventeenthcentury. Nor was the Lateran Council solelyresponsible for the disappearanceof ordealsin practice.Their declinemust be viewedin the context of a generalmovement towards more rational legal procedureas exemplifiedby the use of the inquest in ecclesiasticaland French law, the developmentof jury trialin English law, and the appearance of merchantlaw throughoutEurope. In the developmentof the church'slegal positiontowards ordeals the canon of 1215 has even greatersignificance. Prior to 1215 two points of view concerning the mattermay be discernedin the canons of councilsand the decretalsof popes. Against such practicesauthoritative statements may be found as early as the popes of the ninthcentury9 or the Emperor Constantine.10These prohibitions were renewedat various times by the councils and the papacy up throughthe twelfthcentury. On the otherside, as early as the eighthcentury certain councils under the pressureof legal practice publisheda number of canons which permittedvarious types of ordeals and were preservedin collectionsof church law.11XVhile succeeding popes and councils were usually unfavorableto these practices,on occasion they could be foundadmitting exceptions to the general prohibition.As late as the eleventhand twelfthcenturies Popes GregoryVII,

6 For the theoreticalfoundations which supportedthe practice of both bilateral and unilateral ordealsin mediaevalsociety see the discussionof Paul Rousset, "La croyanceen la justice immanente a l'epoque feodale,"Le MoyenAge, LIV (1948), 235 if. 6 PierrePetot, "La preuvedu servageen Champagne,"Revue historique de droitfranQaiset 4tranger, xiii (1930), 466-469; Paul Fournier,"Quelques observationssur l'histoiredes ordaliesau moyenAge," MWlangesGlotz (Paris, 1932), i, 374, 375. 7 Jourdan,DeCrusy, Isambert,Recueil ggne'ral des a?wiennesloisfranCaises (Paris, 1822), i, 284-290; Paul Viollet,ed., Les Etablissementsde Saint Louis (Paris, 1881), I, 483-493, ii, 8 if;Philippe de Beau- manoir,Coutumes de Beauvaisis,ed. A. Salmon (Paris, 1900), ii, no. 1148. Cf. Nottarp, Gottesurteil- studien,p. 377. 8 Constitutionesregni Siciliae, ii, 31, 33, in J.-L.-A. Huillard-Brbholles,ed., Historia diplomatica Fredericisecundi (Paris, 1854), iv(1), 102, 105, 106. Frederickcalled themsuperstitious and irrational. 9 Amongthe moreimportant examples, Pope Nicholas I in 867 prohibitedthe judicial duel in the affairof King Lothair II and Queen Teutberga,although he countenancedthe ordeal of hot water. Jaffe-Loewenfeld,Regesta pontificum Romnanorum (Leipzig, 1885), no. 2872; Gratian,Decretum, C.2 q.5 c.22 Monomachiam(references in Gratian will be cited,as here,solely by the methodof allegation approvedby the Instituteof Researchand Study in Medieval Canon Law). Pope StephenV between 886 and 889 prohibitedunilateral ordeals such as hot iron and cold water in a case of infanticide. Jaffe-Loevenfeld,no. 3443; C.2 q.5 c.20 Consului8ti.Although the pope actually misunderstoodthe nature of such ordeals, thinkingthem to be means of tortureto produce confessionrather than evidencein themselves,the wordingof his decretalimposed a generalcensure. 10 Constantine'sprohibition of gladiatorialcontests: Cod. 11.44.1 Cruenta. 1 A convenientlist of these councilsmay be foundin Leitmaier,Die Kirche,pp. 38-40.

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Tue, 17 Feb 2015 14:17:55 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Preparationfor theCanon of 1215 againstOrdeals 615

Eugenius III, and AlexanderIII permittedordeals in special instances.'2Even Pope InnocentIII priorto the Council of 1215 was ambivalenton the subject.'3 Afterthe pronouncementof 1215, however,the authoritativestand of the churchagainst customaryproofs was firm.14In 1222 Pope Honorius III cleared up any ambiguityin the Lateran decreesby extendingthe prohibitionof unilateral ordealsspecifically into secularlaw.'5 It is truethat the frequentreissuing of the censuresby later popes and councilsindicated that the churchwas having difficultyin enforcingits stand in practice,but in theorythe officialstatements held true to the position of 1215. In theory,even more than in practice,the FourthLateran Council of Pope InnocentIII may be consideredas markingthe beginningof the end of ordealsin European law. The hesitantattitude of popes and councilstowards ordeals before1215 suig- gestsa certainamount of debate withinthe intellectualcircles of the church.The decisivenessof the position of 1215 suggests significantpreparation by those who opposed the customarypractices. Undoubtedly this intellectualdebate and preparationtook place in the growingmovement of schools and universitiesin the twelfthcentury, particularly those at Bologna and Paris. To appreciatethe issuesof the debate and the solutionsattained, let us examinethe teachingsof the facultiesof Roman law, canon law, and theologyat Paris and Bologna in the centurypreceding the Lateran Council. Such an inquirywill illuminate the intellectualbackground for the decree against ordeals in generaland may offer some suggestionsof influenceon the role of Pope InnocentIII in particular. Since the revivalof Roman law studiesat Bologna in the earlytwelfth century the mediaeval Romanistsgenerally ignored the whole problemof ordeals. Such customaryproofs were non-Roman in originand thereforeof littleinterest to the studentof Roman law. However, certainmanuals on the procedureof judicial (luelsdo appear among the writingsof the Romanists.Among these are a treatise falselyattributed to Hlugoof Porta Ravennate and anotherwritten by Roifredus of Benevento(d. 1248); both writingsare clearlyof Lombard origin.'6From the earlyMiddle Ages the Lombardswere reputed to be strongadvocates of combat as a meansof decidingmany legal points.'7Both pseudo-Hugoand Roffredusap- pear to have writtentheir treatises as Lombardistsand, as faras is known,made

12 Cf. Nottarp, Gottesurteilstudien,pp. 340-342. For additional referencesto Eugenius III and AlexanderIII, see below,n. 111, n. 97, n. 122, n. 123. 13 Nottarp,Gottesurteilstudien, pp. 143, 144, 342, 343. 14 An exceptionmay be foundin Pope GregoryIX's renewalof the statutes of Benevento which recognizedtrials of hot iron,water, and duels. Ibid., p. 144. 15 Pope GregoryIX, Decretales(hereafter cited as X), 5.35.3 Dilectifilii;Augustus Potthast, Regesta pontificumRomanorum (Berlin. 1874). no. 6910. 16 Sumnmulade pugna et modis purgationumcriminati in Augusto Gaudenzi, Bibliothecaiuridica mediiaevi (Bologna, 1888), i, 3-6; Summade pugna in Patetta, Le ordalie,pp. 480-492. For a general discussioiisee Ilermann Kantorowicz,"De pugna: La letteraturalongobardistica sul duello giudi- ziario," Studi di storiae dirittoin onoredi EnricoBesta (Milan, 1931), ii, 3-25. 17 In 731 King Liutprandcomplained that he was powerlessto abolish judicial duels because they wereso deeply ingrainedin Lombard custom. LiutprandiLeges, Anni XIX, c.118 in Franz Beyerle, ed., Die Gesetzeder Langobarden (VVeimar, 1947), 282. Cf. Nottarp,Gottesurteilstudien, pp. 52-53.

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Tue, 17 Feb 2015 14:17:55 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 616 Preparation for the Canon of 1215 against Ordeals no attemptto incorporatethis device into Roman legal procedure.Only Azo, writingat Bologna about 1205, grantedjudicial duels the slightestattention.18 He definitelyrejected them as legalproof, adopting as his authorityConstantine's prescriptionagainst gladiatorialcombats.'9 After 1215 the Glossa ordinariaof Accursiussimply condemned them with theological arguments.20 The Romanists of the twelfthand earlythirteenth centuries were preoccupied with the re-estab- lishmentof ancient Roman jurisprudence.To them full and clear legal proof consistedmainly of writteninstruments and witnesses.Some discussionper- sisted as to the precedenceof these two means. Certainwriters followed Justin- ian's preferencefor documents, others favored witnesses,2' but all of theirdiscus- sions concerningproof were centeredon the two factors.22The Romanists re- alized,however, that full proof was not alwayspossible. Azo statedplainly that in criminalcases whenthe plaintiffwas not able to establishcomplete evidence the defendantwas immediatelyacquitted, because it was preferableto allow the guiltyto escape thanito punishunjustly the innocent.23In civil cases the Roman- ists generallyrecognized a categoryof semi-completeproof which included certain kindsof evidence, such as presumptions,notoriety, or one witness,instead of two,which constituted full proof. In the case of certainsemi-complete evidence the judge could assign an oath (iusiurandum,iuramentum, sacramentum) to one of the parties,and the case would be decidedon the basis of that oath.24Intricate rules were drawn up to determinewhether the oath should be taken by the plaintiffor the defendant.By the timeof Azo thisjudicial oath of the Romanists was called purgatioand containedmarked similarities to the canonicalpurgation ofthe ecclesiastical courts. It is significantthat within this fairly extensive scheme of full and semi-completelegal proofthe Romanists of the twelfthand early thirteenthcenturies made no mentionof the contemporarypractices of ordeals. One mightsay that,except for the bare referencesof Azo to Lombard duels,there was a conspiracyof silenceagainst thesenon-Roman devices.

18 Azo, Lecturain codicemto armatavi: Cod. 4.10.9 Negantes(Paris, 1581), p. 275; ibid.,to athletis: Cod. 8.17.5 Spem,p. 631. 19Ibid., to Cod. 11.44.1 Cruentes,p. 769. 20 Accursius,Glossa ordinaria to nisi dominocommittente: Dig. 9.2.7 Qua actione,par. 4. 21 On the side of witnesseswhich was becomingincreasingly characteristic of the mediaeval Ro- manistswas Placentinus(d.1191), Summacodicis, iv, 20 (Mainz, 1536), 151. For the generalproblem see Jean Philippe Levy, "La formationde la theorieromaine des preuves," Studi in onoredi Siro Solazzi (Naples, 1948), pp. 418-438. 22 Amongthe manymediaeval discussions, Placentinus' statement may be taken as representative: "In summa notandumest quoque illud, quod et in accustationibusopus est probationibusluce clarioribus,sive instrumentisindubitatis, sive testibusviginti non minoribus."Summa, iv, 19, p. 151. 23 Azo, Summacodicis, iv, 1 (Lyons, 1576), 60vb, and Lecturato testibusidoneis: Cod. 4.19.25 Sciant, p. 286. 24 For example:Excerpta legum edita a Bulgarinocausidico (written before1148), in Ludwig Wahr- mund, ed., Quellenzur Geschichtedes rimischl-kanonischenProcesses im Mittelalter(Innsbruck, etc., 1905-1931),iv(1), 11; Vacarius (ca 1149), LiberPauperum, iv, 2, F. de Zulueta, ed. (London, 1927), p. 112; HermannFitting, ed., Summa codicisdes Irnerius (Summa Trecensis,ca 1150), iv, 1 (Berlin, 1894), 70; Placentinus,Summa, iv, 1, p. 133; Azo, Summa,iv, 1, fol. 60va; Lecturato Cod. 4.1.3 In bonaefidei,p. 254.

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Tue, 17 Feb 2015 14:17:55 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Preparationfor theCanon of 1215 againstOrdeals 617

During the twelfthand early thirteenthcenturies an increasingamount of Roman law was incorporatedinto the legal systemof the church.In the realmof precedurethe canonistsby 1215 had generallyadopted the Romanist emphasis on writteninstruments and witnessesas principalmeans of proof.Where these means were lacking or insufficientthe canonistspossessed an ancient device knownas purgationby oath or purgatio.The offerof an oath as evidencehad its rootsin the apostolicstatement that "an oath forconfirmation is to theman end of all strife"25and was utilizedparticularly in cases involvingthe clergy.Ecclesi- astical use of such purgationundoubtedly encouraged similar practices in Roman law, but in bothsystems of jurisprudence it was regardedonly as a last resortafter all means of fullproof by documentsand testimonyhad failed.26On the other hand,the canonistsfell heir to the practiceof ordeals, which enjoyed the sanction of certainpopes and councilsin the past. Unlikethe Romanists,the churchlaw- yerswere obligedto devote considerableattention to the problem. The authoritativestatements of the popes of the ninthcentury against ordeals were well knownto the canonistsof the twelfthcentury. Following the lead of the popes, the canonistsof this period were on the whole hostiletowards such customarypractices. Ordeals were usually assigned to the categoryof purgations,that is, semi-completeproof only to be used when fullproof was lacking. By the middle of the twelfthcentury they were termedcommon purgations (purgationesvulgares), i.e., originatingfrom popular practice, to distinguishthem fromoaths or canonical purgations(purgationes canonicae), which arose from regularcanonical tradition.27 Sometimes they were identified as iudicia peregrina or judgmentsforeign to the law of the church.28Nonetheless, the collectionsof canon law containeda numberof ancientcanons and decretalspermitting ordeals in certaincases. These statementswere authoritativeand could not be lightly dismissed.To the canoniststherefore fell the task of reconcilingthese conflicting authorities.Moreover, certain popes and councilsof the eleventh,twelfth, and early thirteenthcenturies had countenancedsuch proofson occasion, and the pressureof customarylegal practiceswas stillstrong on the church.The problem of these conflictingsources and contemporarylegal practicesencouraged among the canon lawyersan attitudeof hesitancytowards ordeals. This ambivalentattitude may be foundas early as Ivo (d. 1115), bishop of Chartresand an influentialcompiler of canon law. In his collectionof churchlaw

25 Heb. vi. 16. 26 For example:Bernard of Pavia (1191-1198), Summadecretalium, ii, 12 and 17, E. A. T. Laspey- res,ed. (Ratisbon, 1860), pp. 43, 44, and 51, 52; RichardusAnglicus (1196), Summa de ordineiudiciario in Wahrmund,Quellen, ii (3), 39-41; Ordo"Invocato Christi nomine" (ca 1200) in Wahrmund, Quellen,v (1), 91, 92, 120, 121; Summa de ordineiudiciario (attributedto Damasus, ca 1215) in Wahrmund,Quellen, iv (4), 40, 42. 27 This distinctionappears to have been introducedfirst by Rufinus(1157-1159), Summa decretorum,to C.2, q.5, H. Singer,ed. (Paderborn,1902), p. 248. It was inspiredby the terminologyof C.2 q.5 c.7 Mennam. Cf. the explanationof Stephenof Tournai (ca 1160), Summa decretorumto C.2 q.5 c.7 Mennam,ed. J. F. von Schulte (Giessen,1891), p. 170. 28 For example,the decretalof Pope Lucius III (1184-1185) foundin X 5.34.8 Ex tuarum.Cf. the explanationof peregrinain this decretalby Bernard of Parma (ca 1241) in the Glossa ordinaria.

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Tue, 17 Feb 2015 14:17:55 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 618 Preparationfor the Canon of 1215 againstOrdeals

Ivo assembled the principalauthorities against ordeals, but he also included canons favorableto hot iron,boiling water, duels, and crossordeals. That these compilationsreflect Ivo's hesitationsabout customaryproofs is confirmedby his letters.On five differentoccasions Ivo wrote lettersattacking the practice of variousordeals. His most famouswas a letterto Hildebert,bishop of Le Mans, urgingthe harassedprelate not to submitto the hot ironproof desired by his tor- mentor,King William Rufus.29On fourother occasions Ivo condoned or permittedthe use of ordeals; e.g., in a letterto the same Hildeberthe approvedof a hot irontrial of a man accused of carnal relationswith the motherof his future spouse.30Generally hostile to ordeals,Ivo permittedthem in cases whereall nor- mal means of proofhad been exhausted.3' Ivo's hesitancywas reinforcedby the authorityof the Decretumof Gratian completed about 1140 at Bologna. Like Ivo, Gratian assembled the major authoritiescondemning ordeals. These includedthe decretalMonomachiam (867) of Pope Nicholas I, whichprohibited judicial duels as temptingGod, the Biblical exampleof David and Goliath notwithstanding;32the decretalConsuluisti (886- 889) of Pope Stephan V, which condemnedthe trials of hot iron and water as superstitiousinventions foreign to the traditionsof the sacred canons and fathers;33and an excerptfrom a decretalof Pope AlexanderII (1063) whichpro- hibitedhot and cold waterand hot ironproofs as customaryand popular inven- tionsand thereforedevoid of canonical and apostolicsanction. This last authority Gratianconfusingly joined to a decretalMennam of Pope Gregoryl.34 In opposi- tion Gratian included three authoritiesfavoring certain kinds of ordeals: the canon Sepe contingitof the Councilof Worms (868), which permittedthe eucharisticordeal to detecttheft within a monastery;35the canon Statuitof the Synod of Seligenstadt(1023), whichpermitted a divinejudgment in an accusationof adultery;36and the canon Si episcopoof the Council of Worms(868), whichallowed bishopsand prieststo clear themselvesof falseaccusations through the eucharis- tic ordeal.37 Later editorsof the Decretumadded to the originaltext further material known as paleae. By the timeof Rufinus of Bologna (1157-1159) two paleae wereinserted which supported Gratian's favorable tendenciestowards ordeals.38These included the canon Nobilis homoof the Council of Tribur (895), which assigned purgationby oath to the freebornand purgationby hot ironor waterto the un- free,39and the canon Qui presbiterumfrom the Council of Mainz (847), whichin

29 Ivo of Chartres,Epistolae, no. 74 in P.L., CLXII, 95-96. 30 Ibid., no. 232 in P.L., CLXII, 235. 31 This is the general conclusionof Grelewski,La Reaction,pp. 70-83, who has assembled and analyzed the materialof Ivo of Chartres. 32 C.2 q.5 c.22 Monomachiam. 33C.2 q.5 c.20 Consuluisti. 34 C.2 q.5 c.7 Mennam. 36 C.2 q.5 c.23 Sepe contingit. 36 C.2 q.5 c.25 Statuit. 87 C.2 q.5 c.26 Si episcopo. 88 Rufinusappears to be the firstto referto these paleae, Summa to C.2 q.5, p. 248. 39 C.2 q.5 c.15 Nobili8 homo.

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Tue, 17 Feb 2015 14:17:55 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Preparationfor theCanon of1215 againstOrdeals 619 cases involvingthe murderof a priestsimilarly designated purgation by oath for freemen and ordeal by firefor serfs.40 Gratian's hesitancy was not merelya matter of assembling contradictorylegal statements.After listing the decretal Consuluisti,which condemned hot ironand waterproofs, Gratian asked whether this prohibitionincluded all ordeals or merelythe two specified.4'He then in- serteda Scripturalquotation from Numbers v.12-28 whichdescribed a proofde- signedfor jealous husbandsto test the fidelityof theirwives by means of bitter watersadministered by priests.42This Biblical examplecontained several features similarto an ordeal and therebycast doubt on the universalcharacter of the papal prohibition.Although Gratian's final judgment in thisapparent conflict of authoritiesappears to have suppressedthe Scriptural example in favorof the papal decree,nonetheless the whole question of thesecustomary proofs was keptopen.43 For the remainderof the twelfthcentury the Decretumof Gratian became the standardtext of canon law. The canonistsof thisperiod devoted their writings to commentingon, teaching,and developingits main principles.In these works appeared the hesitationsof the canonistsengendered by conflictingtexts and contemporarypractice. As late as the 1160's the Summa Parisiensis was still consideringGratian's questionwhether the papal decreesagainst certaindevices implieda generalprohibition of all ordeals.In particularthe author argued for the cold watertrial.44 In a similarmanner the Rhetoricaecclesiastica, also fromParis (1160-1180), merelylisted the authoritiespro and con withoutcoming to a certain decision.45 Strangelyenough, the few types of customaryproofs recognized by Gratian were generallydisapproved by the consensus of later canonist opinion. The eucharisticordeal, which was formerlypermitted to monks,priests, and bishops, was ruledof no presentforce by a numberof canonistsbeginning with Rufinus.46 Only the Parisian Summa: Tractaturusmagister (1175-1191), generallymore lenienttowards customary practices than others,declared this proofmore effective for establishinginnocence than guilt.47The divine judgmentpermitted in cases of adulterywas consideredabrogated by Rufinusand others.48Huguccio

40 C.17 q.4 c.24 Qui presbiterum. 41 DictumGratiani post C.2 q.5 c.20. 42 C.2 q.5 c.21 In libro. 43Dictum Gratiani post C.2 q.5 c.21. Cf. GabrielLeBras, "Les iRcrituresdans le Decret de Gratien," Zeitschriftder SavignyStiftung fur Rechtsgeschichte,Kanon. Abteilung,xxvii (1938), 66. 44 Summa Parisiensis to C.2 q.5 dictumpost c.20, T. P. McLaughlin,ed. (Toronto,1952), p. 107. 46 Rhetoricaecclesiastica in Wahrmund,Quellen, i (4), 59-60. 46 Rufinus,Summa to C.2 q.5 c.23 Sepe, p. 250, 251; Stephen of Tournai, Summa to C.2 q.5 c.23 Sepe, p. 172; "Derogatum est hodie capitulo huic, cum sic faciendovideatur quis temptaredeum. Pretereasuspectis non videturesse dandum viaticum." Huguccio (ca 1188), Summa decretorumto C.2 q.5 c.23 Sepe, Paris Bibl. Nat. Lat. 15396,fol. 114vb;Alanus Anglicus, Apparatus: Ius naturale (1210-1215) to the same canon states the same as Huguccio, Paris Bibl. Nat. Lat. 15398, fol. 96va. 47 "Si hac intentioneut probatusinnocensque appareas: bonum.Si hac ut per hoc probeturfurtum: malum." Summa: Tractaturusmagister to ad probationem:C.2, q.5 c.23 Sepe, Paris Bibl. Nat. Lat. 15994, fol. 37va 48 Rufinus,Summa to C.2 q.5 c.25 Statuit,p. 250, 251; Stephen of Tournai, Summa to si duo: C.2 q.5 c.25 Statuit,p. 172; JohannesFaventinus (after 1171) merelycopies Stephen,Paris Bibl. Nat. Lat. 14606,fol. 59vb and 60^.

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Tue, 17 Feb 2015 14:17:55 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 620 Preparationfor theCanon of 1215 againstOrdeals at Bologna (about 1188) simply interpretedthe term "divine judgment" as ecclesiasticaljudgment by oath or witnesses.49Perhaps.such opinions suggest that these particularordeals had actually disappearedin practice.Finally, the anonymousSumma Coloniensis(about 1169) foundthat the Council of Tribur, whichpublished the Palea Nobilis homopermitting hot ironand water trialsfor servileclasses, was schismaticand hence not of great authority.50 When the canonistsof the twelfthcentury turned to thoseordeals, such as the hot iron, cold water, and judicial duel, which were commonlypracticed but stronglycensured by some canonicalauthorities, they made occasional qualifica- tionsand exceptions.For example,the SummaParisiensis, the Rhetoricaecclesi- astica, and the Summa Monacensis (1175-1178), also of the French school, ex- plained that these proofsarose fromcustomary practices.5' Stephen of Tournai and the Summa: Tractaturusmaintained that theywere institutedfor deterring heinouscrimes.52 For this reason ordeals,especially those of the unilateralkind, wereto be limitedto the servileclasses accordingto Rufinus,Summa Monacensis, Tractaturus,and the BologneseBernard of Pavia (1191-1198).53Finally, several of the canonistsapplied the Augustinianprinciple that no one shouldtempt God while he has rational means at his disposal. It could then be assumed that if rational means were not available, one mightbe justifiedin temptingGod in certain cases.54At Bologna Simon of Bisignano (1177-1179) seems to suggest that one tempted God in judicial duels only when rational deliberationwas available.55In a passage that is somewhatambiguous the authorof Tractaturus

49 "Id est, ecclesiastico,scilicet, per iuramentumvel per testes." HIuguccio,Summa to divino iudicio: C.2 q.5 c.25 Statuit,Paris Bibl. Nat. Lat. 15396,fol. 114vb. 60 "Triburiensetamen concilium hanc serviset liberisqui ita suspectiet vilesfacti sunt imponit.... [The textof the canon follows.]Hoc conciliumquia sub scismatehabitum est, ideo canoneseius minus cogentemautoriatatem habent. In germaniatamen nostra ubi conciliumhabitum est adhuc ita servatur."Summa: Elegantiusin iure divinovernantia (Summa Coloniensis)to C.2, Paris Bibl. Nat. Lat. 14997,fol 58v. 51 Summa Parisiensis to C.2 q.5 Dictum post c.21, p. 107; Rhetoricaecclesiastica in Wahrmund, Quellen,i (4), 60; Summa Monacensis,see n. 63 below. 52 Stephen of Tournai, Summa to vulgarem:C.2 q.5 c.7 Mennam,p. 170; "Et si alicubi aliud in- veniatur;ad terroremdicitur, vel de servilibuspersonis." Summa: Tractaturusmagister to namferri candentisetc.: C.2 q.5 c.20 Consuluisti,Paris Bibl. Nat. Lat. 15994, fol. 37rb. 5 Rufinus,Summa to C.2 q.5, p. 248; "Sciendumest quod est purgatiodupplex vulgaris et canonica. Vulgaris est ubi ferricandentis iuditium et calide et frigideaque et vomerumcandentium. Iste expurgationespenitus hodie in canonibusprohibuntur quia qui talia agit deum temptarevidetur. Sunt tamen quedam capitula in burcardoet in libro conciliorumque talem expurgationemappro- bant. Dicimus illa esse antiquata vel solomodo de purgationeservorum et infamiumesse intelli- genda." Summa Monacensisto Deficientibus:C.2 q.5, Munich, Staatsbibl. 16084, fol. 18rb;Summa: Tractaturusmagister, see above, n. 52; Bernardof Pavia, Summa,v, 29, p. 259. 5 Augustine,In question.Genes., quest. 26, also foundin C.22 q.2 c.22 Queritur. 65"Hinc collige monomachiamesse prohibitamcum deum temptaresit illicitum.Scriptum est enim: non temptabisdominum deum tuum, et hoc intelligasdum habent quod rationabiliconsilio faciant.... Simon of Bisignano, Summa decretorumto Deum solomodotemptare videantur: C.2 q.5 c.22 Monomachiam,Paris Bibl. Nat. Lat. 3934A, fol. 66rb.The Summa of Simon existsin two versions.The versionof London,Brit. Mus. Addit. 24659, fol. 18rb, does not containthe key phrase, "dum habent . . . faciant."The version,however, of Bamberg,Can. 38, p. 28a agrees withthe Paris

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Tue, 17 Feb 2015 14:17:55 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Preparationfor theCanon of 1215 againstOrdeals 621

said that such ordeals are superstitiousinventions if the verdictof the case is certainbut may be necessaryif the verdictis inconclusive.56Through such quali- ficationsthe canonistswere perhapsindicating their difficulty in reconcilingthe discordanttexts. Because of the pressuresof customarylegal practicethe churchlawyers were forcedto devoteparticular attention to the problemof judicial duels. The nature of these pressuresis well illustratedby the career of the canonist Stephen of Tournai. In his Summa decretorum,written in the 1160's, Stephenmade only a passing and neutral referenceto the question of duels.57But in 1179, when a dispute arose betweenhimself, as abbot of Sainte-Genevieveof Paris, and his tenants of Rosny-sous-Vincennesover the nature of their personal services, Stephen took the case beforethe court of King Louis VII. In the absence of authenticcharters the kingordered a judicial duel "accordingto the customof the Franks." When the championsof the men of Rosny, frightenedby those of Sainte-Genevieve,retired from the field,the king confirmedthe servileservices owed by the losersof the ordeal.The affairwas witnessedby an imposingarray of the Parisian clergy,including the abbots of Saint-Germain-des-Presand Saint- Denis and the dean and archdeaconof Notre Dame, and the decisionwas recon- firmedin chartersfrom Popes Lucius III and ClementJJJ.58 In the twelfthand thirteenthcenturies such an affairwas not at all unusual in Paris.59 In generalthe canonistsattributed the originof judicial duels to customaryor Lombardpractices.60 While none would go as faras to permitunequivocally these manuscriptand thenadds the phrase: "unde actoridebent negari sacramenta non reo qui invicusad pugnamaccedit." 11"Est adinventiosupersticiosa ubi certa est iuris censura, ut hic; necessaria ubi incerta.... utilis:et hec dispensationis:minuendo ... provisionis:mutando ... rigoris:addendo.... Summa: Tractaturusmagister to supersticiosaadinventione: C.2 q.5 c.20 Consuluisti,Paris Bibl. Nat. Lat. 15994,fol. 37rb. The ambiguityof the passage lies in the termcensura iuris, which I have interpreted to mean the "judgment" or "verdict" of the case in order to harmonizethis passage withthe principles of Augustine.This interpretationis furthersubstantiated because the author of Tractaturus himselflater quotes the principlesof Augustinein the same passage: "deum temptare.dum habent quid faciant,xxii q.ii queritur." 57 "Monomachiam,id est, singularecertamen duorum. Monos namque unum, machia pugna in- terpretatur."Stephen of Tournai, Summato C.2 q.5 c.22 Monomachiam,Paris Bibl. Nat. Lat. 3912, fol.42vb. This section,which is similarto that of Paucapalea (see below, n. 60), was omittedin the editionof Von Schulte. 58 Stephen of Tournai, Lettres,J. Desilve, ed. (Paris, 1893), 421; Cf. J. Warichez, Etienne de Tournaiet son temps(Paris, Tournai, 1936), pp. 53-56. 59For example,in Paris therewas a case about 1152 concerningthe abbey of Saint-Germain-des- Pres; cf. Jacques Bouillart,Histoire de l'abbaye de Saint-Germain-des-Pr4s(Paris, 1724), p. 89. In 1193 the chapterof Notre Dame of Paris claimedto use duels to defendits rightsover the village of Viry-Noureuilin Vermandois;cf. B. E. C. Guerard,Cartulaire de NotreDame (Paris, 1850), i, 234. As late as 1245 the papacy was askingNotre Dame to foregothe judicial duels in favorof charters and witnesses.Ibid., ii, 394. 60 Paucapalea (1140-1148), Summa decretorumto C.2 q.5 c.22 Monomachiam,J. F. von Schulte, ed. (Giessen,1890), p. 60; Summa Monacensis,see n. 63 below. "Quod diciturin hoc capitulo et in illo supra eadem questioneConsuluisti videtur contrarium conseutudini ecclesie que penitentiamdat pugnatoribuset benedicitferrum vel aquam benedictionead hoc instituta." Summa: Tractaturus

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Tue, 17 Feb 2015 14:17:55 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 622 Preparationfor theCanon of1j215 against Ordeals

means of proofin canonicalcourts for ecclesiastical cases, the BologneseMaster Simon of Bisignanoand the FrenchMaster Sicard of Crernona(1179-1181) sug- gested that they were not forbiddento secular justice.61The Parisian Summa: Tractaturuspermitted them to ecclesiasticswho exercisedtemporal rights.62 While the Parisian SummnaMonacensis eventuallyrejected the legitimacyof battle underany circumstances,in the courseof its discussionit enumerateda number of currentarguments which would permitthese trials in churchas well as secular courts.63Even if it were agreedthat canonicalauthority generally made judicial duellingunlawful, there remained the special case of the defendant.What if one were accused in law and the plaintiffoffered to prove his case by battle or the judge imposedthis means of resolvingthe litigation?Although the accuseror the judge mightbe wrong,could it be said that the defendantwas sinningmortally if he were forcedto defendhis cause or his person?This exceptionto the general prohibitionagainst judicial duellingarose in the discussionsof the canonistsby the time of Huguccio in the late twelfthcentury, and it receivedsympathetic treatmentfrom Bernard of Pavia and Alanus Anglicus (1210-19215).64Finally,

magisterto in lege: C.2 q.5 c.22 Monomachiam,Paris Bibl. Nat. Lat. 15994, fol. 37rb; Peter of Blois (ca 1180), Speculumiuris canonici,c.16, T. A. Reimarus,ed. (Berlin,1837), pp. 40-41; Bernard of Pavia, Summa,V. 12, p. 226. 61 "Scilicet, in personis ecclesiasticis,quibus arma movere non licet ... et secundum hoc non peccant principesqui hoc fierimandant." Simon of Bisignano, Summa to in lege non assumimu8: C.2 q.5 c.22 Monomachiam,Paris Bibl. Nat. Lat. 3934A fol. 66rband Bamberg, Can. 38, p. 28a. Not foundin the versionof London, Brit. Mus. Addit. 24659. "Queritursi secularesiudices licite vulgaribusutantur purgationibus. Videtur turn propter consuentudinem, turn propter institutam ab ecclesiabenedictionem. Respondeo: laudaremsi non fieret,quia deus ibi temptarividetur, cum etiam apostolus dicat: luramentumest finisomnis controversie." Sicardus of Cremona,Summa decretorum to C.2 q.5, Paris Bibl. Nat. Lat. 14996, fol. 5or and Vatican Pal. Lat. 653, fol. 80ra. 62 "Sed hoc toleraturin laicis et etiam precipitura clericus(secundum quarumdam ecclesiarum consuetudinesque dicunt se habere ius utriusquegladii) illud etiam aliquando precipiturpersonis servilibusvel quasi." Summa: Tractaturusmagister to in lege: C.2 q.5 c.22 Monomachiam,Paris Bibl. Nat. Lat. 15994, fol. 37rb. 63 "Queri potest an seculares iudices licite utantur illa vulgari purgationescilicet monomachia. Quibusdam videtur quoniam illiciturnsit, quoniam videtur per hoc dominus temptari.Alii, ne contra multarumregionum conseuetudinem aliquid dicere videantur,dicunt quod in his constitu- tionibusnihil aliud prohibeturnisi ne in ecclesiasticoiuditio hoc fiat.In seculariautem licitehoc fit. Unde et sacerdotesad exorcismumaque vel ferrilicenter accedunt, nam in antiquis canonibus in- veniunturstatua. Unde et ecclesia in iudiciissuis admittebat ea; quod postea correcturnest, sed non prohibitumest quia sacerdotesad huius examinisexorcismum veniant ut secularis iudex eo postea utatur.Sed opponiturquod nec facturnest c. u. c. d. qd'. Sed sciendurnest quod necessitasalia tolerabilisalia intolerabilis.Tolerabilis est que rem illam facit licitam, et sic interceditad veniam sicut impellitad culpam. Intolerabilisest que accedens non facitrem licitam. Unde dicendumest quod nullus mortalepeccatum debet facerealiqua neccesitatecogente. Quare nullus monomachiam intraredebet quia temptatiodei est, quia introductaest invidia fabricante,que quia respuituret eius effectusrespuendus est? Precise ergo dicimus quod potius quilibet debet resignarequerelam quam ingrediaturmonomachiam." Summa Monacensis to C.2 q.5 c.22 Monomachiam,Munich, Staatsbibl. 16084,fol. 18vb. 64 Huguccio rejectedthis exception in law althoughhe made someconcessions in practice.See n. 74 below. Bernardof Pavia, Summa,v, 12, p. 226; "Peccat ergo quicumque monomachiamcommittit, quia nullitali monomachiamingredienti eucharistia danda est. Quidem tamendicunt quod defensor

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Tue, 17 Feb 2015 14:17:55 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Preparationfor theCanon of 1215 againstOrdeals 623

the authorof the Apparatus:Ecce vicitleo, of the Frenchschool of the earlythir- teenthcentury, compared trial by battle with singlecombat whichdecided the outcomeof a war betweentwo contendingmonarchs. He could see no real differ- ence betweena judicial duel and such combat,which was justifiedon the same groundsas a just war, and forthis reason he was doubtfulof the generalrule against trial by battle.65 Hesitancy,then, was characteristicof the attitudeof many canoniststowards the prohibitionof ordeals in the twelfthand earlythirteenth centuries. Influential writerssuch as Gratian,Rufinus, Simon of Bisignano,Bernard of Pavia,66and Alanus Anglicusof the Bologneseschool, and Ivo of Chartres,Stephen of Tour- nai, Sicard of Cremona, the anonymousauthors of the Summa Monacensis, Summa Parisiensis, the Rhetoricaecclesiastica, Tractaturus magister, and the Apparatus:Ecce vicitleo of the French school all made exceptionsand qualifica- tionsto the generalcanonical prohibition. It seemsas if the discrepanciesamong the authoritiesand the confusionof contemporarypractice hindered them from arrivingat an unequivocalsolution. Possibly the authorof the Summa Colonien- sis was referringto theproblem of ordeals when he complained;"When the canons are in such disagreement,it is no wonderthat the opinionsof the mastersare so varied."67 By the end of the twelfthcentury there is evidencethat some canonistswere interpretingthe traditionalprohibitions with greater rigor. In the Frenchschool Peter of Blois, the younger(1180), consideredthe generalproblem of rival juris- dictionbetween secular laws and sacred canons. While as a rule canons do not supersedesecular laws in affairsbetween secular persons,in the specificcase of practicessuch as hot waterand ironand duels thisprinciple does not hold. These customaryproofs cause theirparticipants to sin by temptingGod and are abrogated by the canonseven in purelysecular justice. In a fairlyextensive discussion Peter of Blois admittedno exceptionto the ecclesiasticalprohibition of ordeals.68 non peccat. Licitum est enim unicuique se defenderesicut se redimere....." Alanus Anglicus, Apparatus:lus naturaleto C.2 q.5 c.22 Monomachiam,Paris Bibl. Nat. Lat. 15393,fol. 96rb and Paris, Mazar. 1318, fol. 129rb. fi5"Credo quod si rexhabet bellum,et ille et adversariusvelint mittere duos ad omnebellum facieli- dum, non credo quod sit monomachia.Licetne idem regi sine peccato? Videturquia potest generale bellum etiam iusta causa sine peccato exercere.Quare scilicetmonomachia non potest? Si dicatur quod potest,hoc est prohibitum.Ergo peccat in dicendo.Si non potest,ratio diversitatis non videtur posse assignari.Propter hoc mihi dubita." Apparatus: Ecce vicitleo to C.92q.5 c.292Monomachiam, Paris Bibl. Nat. nouv. aq. Lat. 1576, fol. 153rb. 16It is true that, afterdiscussing exceptions to the generalrule at considerablelength, Bernard states that commonpurgations should not be admittedtoday with any person.But the attention devoted to the exceptionsand a lack of specificrefutation still indicatesthat they were important issues. Bernardof Pavia, Summa,v, 29, 30, pp. 259-260. 67 "In tanta canonumndissonantia, non est mirumsi magistrorumdiverse sunt sententie."Summa: Elegantiusin iure divinovernantia (Summa Coloniensis)to C.2, Paris Bibl. Nat. Lat. 14997,fol. 58r. This sentenceis foundin a passage whichgenerally treats the canon Mennam. It is possiblethat the commentrefers to the questionof the numberof oath helpersrequired in the canonicalpurgation of ecclesiasticswhich is also treatedin the canon. 68 Peter ofBlois, Speculum,c.16, pp. 40-41.

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Tue, 17 Feb 2015 14:17:55 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 624 Preparationfor theCanon of 1215 againstOrdeals

Amongthe canonistsat Bologna duringthe twelfthcentury the greatestfigure was Huguccio, and his Summa decretorummarked a highpointin the developmentof canonisticjurisprudence. Not only did Huguccio considerinvalid those canons whichpermitted certain kinds of ordeals,as we have already seen,69but he also sharpenedand reinforcedthe terminologyof those authoritieswhich at- tacked the customarypractices.70 His significantcontribution was to take up and answer at lengthsome of the more importantexceptions offered by previous canon lawyersto the generalprohibitions. Many of these solutionswere then adopted by succeedingwriters. Similar to Gratian's problem of whetherthe canons whichattacked specificordeals could be applied generallyto all ordeals was the questionof whethernew legal devicesnot coveredby existingcanonical authorityshould therebybe condoned.Against these exceptionsHuguccio applied the legal principlesthat all is prohibitedwhich is not explicitlycommanded or permittedand that interpretationsor exceptionsnot foundin the canons are not to be admitted.71 To the moreimportant distinction offered by the Summa: Tractaturusmagister that customaryproofs, although superstitious, may also be necessary,Huguccio repliedat length.In a discussionperhaps influenced by the Summa Monacensis he definedthe categoriesof superstitious,necessary, and useful. Ordeals were definitelyrelegated to the status of the superstitiousbecause theywere superflu- ous noveltiescreated by new laws in an area alreadycovered by canonicallegisla- tion. In contrastto otherlegal inventionswhich could be necessaryor useful, these superstitiousdevices should be rejected.72Concerning the more specific

69 "Ergo derogata sunt illa capitula que videnturindicere vulgarem purgationem." Huguccio' Summa to prohibemus:C.2 q.5 c.7 Mennam,Paris Bibl. Nat. Lat. 15396,fol. 114vb. See n. 46 above. 70 "Immo prohibuerunt."Ibid. to non censuerunt:C.2 q 5 c.20 Consuluisti,fol. 114rb. "Scilicet, prohibitiohic facta de purgationevulgari que canonum documentosanctita non est. Purgationis, vulgaris,scilicet, ut quelibetprohibita intelligantur." Ibid. to hoc autem:C.2 q.5 post c.20, fol.114-a. 71 "Argumentumcontra: quosdam qui novas et superstitiosasadinventiones de ingenio suo faciunt.... Item argumentumeo ipso aliquid videriinhibitum quia non est preceptumvel permis- sum.... Item: argumentumquod interpretatiovel exceptio que non habetur in canone non est admittenda..... " Ibid. to sancitumnon est: C.2 q.5 c.20 Consuluisti,fol. 114rb. "Argumentum aliquid esse inhibitumeo ipso quod non est concessum.... Argumentumubi lex vel canon non excipit,non excipiendumesse." Alanus Anglicus,Apparatus: lus naturaleto presumendum:C.2 q.5 c.20 Con- suluisti,Paris Bibl. Nat. Lat. 15393,fol. 96- and Paris, Mazar. 1318,fol. 129-v. 72 "Non removet utilem vel necessariamadinventionem. Est enim triplex adinventio,scilicet, superstitiosa,necessaria, utilis. Superstitiosa est cum superid, de quo canones aliquid statuerunt,de novo aliquid superflueinvenitur, et hoc fitduobus modis: scilicet,vel novum ius infaciendo,sicut est probatioferri candentis vel aque ferventis,ut hic, vel vetus ius male interpretando.... Neces- saria est cum super eo, de quo canones nichil dixerunt,aliquis de novo statuitur,sicut sepe fit a dominopape ad diversorumconsultationes respondendo. Utilis est quando circa illud,de quo canones aliquid statuerunt,aliquid immutatur.Et hoc fitin tribusmodis: vel corrigendo,ut cum aliquid per erroremintroductum, postea per manifestationemveritatis corrigetur. .. vel detrahendo,ut cum aliquid de rigoreiuris per misericordiamdispensative relaxatur . -. vel addendo, et hoc duppliciter: scilicet,vel addendo religioni... vel addendo gravaminipenarum. . . . Et nota quod adinventio que fitcorrigendo dicitur correctionis, que fitdetrahendo dicitur misericordie vel dispensationis,que fitaddendo diciturprovisionis. Omnis ergo talisadinventio probatur. Preter superstitiosam hec enim reprobatur."Huguccio, Summa to superstitiosa:C.2 q.5 c.20 Consuluisti,Paris Bibl. Nat. Lat. 15396, fol. 114va. Prior to Huguccio the Summa Monacensishad discussed the problemin similarterms:

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Tue, 17 Feb 2015 14:17:55 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Preparationfor the Canon of 1215 againstOrdeals 6295 questionof judicial duels, Huguceciofollowed the suggestionof the canon Mono- machiamand disallowedany legal justificationto be gained fromthe Biblical combat of David and Goliath. Their duel was permittedby special divine in- spirationand, likethe conductof manyOld Testamentpersonages or morerecent saints,their example should not set a precedent.73Firmly convinced of the moral guilt of a plaintiffwho voluntarilyoffered battle, Huguccio also turnedto the morethorny question of the defendantfaced with such a trial.Despite the penalty of automaticloss of one's cause, Huguccio urgedthe defendantnot to sub- mit to battle. Under no circumstancescould judicial duels be justifiedby reason of customaryor frequentpractice, any more than fornicationor usury. Why then,one may ask, does the pope know about and yet not disapproveof such trials?He may toleratejudicial duels in practice,concluded Huguccio, just as he toleratesprostitutes and usurersin Rome, but this does not justifythese prac- ticesin law.74 In his answersto thesepractical questions Huguccio representsthe

"Adinventioquedam est superstitiosa,quedam neccesaria,quedam utilis. Superstitiosaquando id quod canonibussufficienter statutum est, aliquis novitatequadam ostentationisaut presumptionis causa immutarequerit, ut de ista vulgaripurgatione que fitaqua vel igne.Necesaria est illa adinventio que eam rem, super qua nihil cautum est lege vel canone, novum aliquid constituendodiffinivit. Utilis est illa que ius pridemconstitutuim cum cause cognitionealiquatenus immutataddendo vel detrahendoaut commutando.Et ipsa triplexest nam aut est misericordieaut veritatisaut accelerate provisionis:quandoque enim misericordiecausa a generali iure recedimus per dispensationem, quandoque veritatemanifestata quod per erroremmale constitutumerat corrigitur,quandoque pena legibus inserta pravitas hominun non reprimitur.Ideoque penis aliud addendum nova consti- tutione. . . " to C.92q.5 c.20 Consuluisti,Munich, Staatsbibl. 16084, fol. 18vb. For the somewhat ambiguoustext of the Summa: Tractaturussee n. 56 above. 73 "Argumentumnon esse argumentandumab exemplis... non exemplo et presertimveteris testamenti.... Item: argumentumnon omnia exempla vel facta sanctorumpatrum esse trahenda ad consequentiam;nec in omnibussanctos esse imitandos,ut ideo nos faciamus aliqua quia ipsi fecerunttalia.... Sed numquidpeccavit david in tali pugna? Credo cum inde commendareturquod non peccaverit in hoc, quia divina inspiritionehoc fecit,et ideo excusatur,sicut sanson...... Huguccio,Summa to licetiniisse: C.2 q.5 c.22 Monomachiam,Paris Bibl. Nat. Lat. 15396,fol. 114va. This interpretationof the Biblical incidentwas followedby manysucceeding canonists. For example, see Bartholomewof Brescia, Glossaordinaria to C.92q.5 c.22 Monomachiam. 74 "Ex hoc capituloaperte colligitur quod monomachiaest res illicitaet prohibita.Mortaliter ergo peccat qui eam precipit,qui eam facit.Nec danda est eucharistiavolentibus illam committere.De actorenullus dubitat, sed et reo non debet dari. Cum enimsit illicitumet contradeum, potius debet tollerarequelibet mala quam hoc facere.Nec potest quis defendivel excusariconsuetudine, cum sit contrariarationi. Numquid defendituraliquis a peccato fornicationisvel usure proptermultorum consuetudinem?Item: nec defenditurquis rationemultitudinis, quia non minusquis pecat fornicando quia pauci inveniuntursine tali delicto.... Sed numquid papa scit talem consuetudinemet non improbat?Scit quidemet improbatde iure ... sed non improbatde facto.Immo tolerat,sicut tolerat meretriceset usurariosin civitate,sed numquidideo excusanturmeretrices et usurarii?"Huguccio, Summa to temptare:C.2 q.5 c.22 Monomachiam,Paris Bibl. Nat. Lat. 15396, fol. 114vb." Resume sponte, quoniam si periculumcorporis vel rerum,nisi susceperit,evadere non potuit. Secundum quosdam licite suscipit,quod enim quisque facit ob suam defensionemlicitum iudicatur.... Sed magis placet quod nulla necessitatepossit clericusmonomachiam suscipere, nec etiam laicus. Est enimgeneraliter in iureprohibitum ... et pociusest omnemalum sustinere quam malo consentire.... Contrariumtameii facientespropter generalem consuetudinem aliquantulum excusantur." Alanus Aiiglicus(1201-1210), Apparatusto susceperit:1 Comp. 5.12.1 Porro si, Paris Bibl. Nat. Lat. 3932, fol. 62rband Melk 518, fol. 85ra.Also foundin Tancredus (1210-1215), Glossaordinaria to 1 Comp., Paris Bibl. Nat. Lat. 3931A, fol. 691-.

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Tue, 17 Feb 2015 14:17:55 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 626 Preparationfor the Canon of 1215 againstOrdeals firstsignificant canonist to take a rigorousand uncompromisingline against ordeals. The theologianstook noticeof the problemof ordealsas early as the Carolin- gian era. The fieryAgobard, archbishop of Lyon (d. 840), subjected customary proofsof all kindsto a blisteringattack,75 but his opinionswere opposed by the authorityof Hinemar,archbishop of Reims (d. 856), who advocated theiruse in the case betweenKing LothairII and Queen Teutberga.76From the ninth century to the end of the twelfthcentury little attention was paid to the questionby the theologians.77The revival of theologicalstudies at the beginningof the twelfth centuryby such writersas Abelardwas occupiedchiefly with speculative issues, and it was not until the end of the centurythat theologiansturned to more practicalaffairs. At thistime a groupof theologiansappeared in Paris who were concernedprimarily with Biblical studies and questionsof practicalmoral be- havior. Prominentamong them was Peter the Chanter (d. 1197). Born to a noble familyat Gerberoiin the dioceseof Beauvais and schooledat Reims,Peter appeared in Paris around 1170 as a lecturerin theology.By 1184 he assumedthe dignityof chanterat the cathedralof Notre Dame.78 His writingsappear to be the authorizednotes of his lecturesdelivered at Paris in the mediaeval manner ofreportationes and consistchiefly of a greatmass ofScriptural commentaries, the JVerbumabbreviatum (1191, 1192), devotedto moraltheology, and the Summa de sacramentiset animae consiliis (1192-1197), concernedwith dogmatictheology and cases of conscience.79A conscientiousprofessor, Peter occasionallyrewrote his lectures,and his writtenworks may be foundin several versions.His im- portantVerbum abbreviatum, for example, exists in at least threedifferent recen- sions.80 The problemof ordeals was a crucial issue forPeter the Chanterand one in

75Agobard of Lyons, Liber contra judicium dei, P.L., civ, 249-268; Liberadversus legem Gundobadi, P.L., civ, 113-126. The fullestdiscussion of Agobardmay be foundin Grelewski,La Re'action. 76 Hinemarof Reims, De divortioLothari et Teutbergae,P.L., cxxv, 659 if. 77 Occasionally one findsreferences to ordeals among the theologicalliterature but these ap- pearances are briefand sporadic. For example, the anonymouswriter found among the works of Hugh of Saint Victor,Exegetica, Questiones in epistolamad Hebraeos,65, P.L., CLXXV, 624. 78 F. S. Gutjahr,Petrus Cantor Parisiensis: Sein Lebenund seineSchriften (Graz, 1899), pp. 11-17. 79 For a recentdiscussion of the dates of the Verbumand Summa, see Damien Van den Eynde, "Precisionschronologiques sur quelques ouvrages theologiquesdu XII siecle," Antonianum,xxvi (1951), 235-239. 80 The Verbumabbreviatum is importantfor the problemof ordealsand thereforethe major versions shouldbe specified:(1) The shortestversion, edited in 1639 by GeorgiusGalopinus from three Belgian manuscriptsand reprintedin P.L., ccv, 21-370. (2) MIarginaladditions to the shortestversion, best representedby such manuscriptsas Paris, Mazar. 773 and Paris Bibl. Nat. Lat. 3246. Some of these additionsare includedin Galopinus' notes reprintedin P.L., ccv, 369-528. (3) The longestversion, best representedby Paris, Sainte-Genevieve250 (Part I), Paris, Mazar. 772 (Part II), and Vatican Reg. Lat. 106 (complete).A fragmentof this version(cap. 66-80) was edited by Galopinusand reprintedin P.L. ccv, 527-554. Because of the abundance of anecdotes concerningReims, Van den Eynde believes that this last versionwas made by an interpolatorworking at Reims around 1200. Cf. Damien Van den Eynde, "Notices sur quelques 'Magistri' du XIIO siecle," Antonianum,xxix (1954), 133-134. If we accept Peter's residenceand studiesat Reims, the Reims materialshould not disprovePeter's authorshipof this version.

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Tue, 17 Feb 2015 14:17:55 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Preparationfor theCanon of 1215 againstOrdeals 627 whichhe took characteristicpersonal interest. Perhaps his interestwas prompted by the contemporaryFrench school of canonistsrepresented by the authors of the Summa Monacensis,Summa Parisiensis,Summa: Tractaturusmagister, and Rhetoricaecclesiastica, who were having difficultiesin taking a rigorousstand against these customarypractices. We have evidencethat at least one student eitherheard the lecturesor at least knew the workof both the Chanterand the authorof the Rhetoricaecclesiastica.8' OftenPeter was consultedat Paris in spe- cificcases involvingmoral questions.We have the reportof a man who was ac- used of murderand against whom therewere strongpresumptions. Offered the chance of clearinghimself by the cold water trial,he soughl the counsel of the Chanter.Peter advised him not to submitto the test and was rewardedfor his good advice by seeing the unhappy defendantcarted offto the gibbet.82The Chanterreferred constantly to the problemof ordealsin his lectures,and we find discussionsof the question scatteredthroughout his writings.Even when in- volved in Biblical exegesis83or sacramentaltheology84 he raised the issue. An anonymousflorilegium which excerptedthe opinionsof a numberof mastersof theologyat the turnof the twelfthand thirteenthcenturies reported a statement on ordealsas characteristicof the Chanter.85Peter's fullestand mostcomprehen- sive treatmentof the problemmay be foundin the variousversions of the Verbum abbreviatum.86In termsof lengthand intensityof interesthe offeredthe most imDortantdiscussion of ordeals to be foundin the twelfthcentury.87

81M.S. Zurich,Zentralbibliothek C.58 appears to consistof the notebookof an anonymousGer- man clericwho studied at Orleansand Paris. Amongthe rules of grammar, poetry on women,love, and saints, lecturenotes, etc., appear a condensed versionof the Chanter's Verbumabbreviatum, fol. 102va-105va,and the Rhetoricaecclesiastica, fol. 78rb-102va. The literaryportions of the manuscript, excludingthe Verbumand Rhetoricia,have been edited in Jakob Werner,Beitrage zur Kunde der lateinischenLiteratur des Mittelalters(Aarau, 1905). Wernerdid not identifythe Rhetorica;it was identifiedlater by A. M. Stickler,"Iter Helveticum,"Traditio, xiv (1958), 480-481. 82The anecdoteis foundonly in Paris Bibl. Nat. Lat. 14521,fol. 154- and rb ofthe manuscriptsof the Summa de sacramentis.It has been printedin Charles V. Langlois and C. Miroux, "Les manu- scritsdu 'Verbum abbreviatum'de Pierrele Chantre,"Journal des savants,xxv (1916), 313. " For example in commentingon the Biblical phrase,"Ye shall not temptthe Lord your God," Deut. vi. 16: " . . . sed numquidtemptat qui etiamse sciensimmunem a peccato se commititcandenti ferro?Nonne hoc ipso quod deumsic temptatreus efficitur, et sacerdosde sua confidensconinuratione? Numquid deum videturtemptare?" Peter the Chanter,Commentary to Deut. vi, Paris, Arsenal44, p. 307b and Oxford, Balliol Col. 23, fol. 69ra. 84 For example, in discussingexcommunication: Peter the Chanter, Summa de sacramentiset animae consiliis,par. 147, J. A. Duguaquier, ed., Analecta medievalia Namurcensia,7 (Louvain- Lille, 1957), II, 355-358. 86"Et promotuset promovendusiudicio sanguinispotest interessead defendendaminnocentiam, ad temperandumrigorem, ut retardetsentencie precipitationem, ut testes diligentiusexaminet vel examinaridoceat, si iudex odit accusatum,si facto interfuittempore, ut ex hoc sciat an iuste vel iniusteaccusetur, et quanta pena sit dignussic[ut] fecit daniel [et]nicholaus, quod de sigillosuperius diximus.Idem de litterisomnes peregrini iudicii [sic]ut ignis,aque, monomachie,sortilegii, maleficii intelligimus."Paris Bibl. Nat. Lat. 14883,fol. 114v.The opinionis identifiedin the marginwith the seal can. 16Peter the Chanter,Verbum, ch. 78, P.L., ccv, 226-233 (firstversion) and 542-;548 (thirdversion). 87 The importanceof the Chanter has been recognizedby Leitmaier,Die Kirche,pp. 66-68 and especiallyNottarp, Gottesurteilstudien, p. 360.

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Tue, 17 Feb 2015 14:17:55 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 628 Preparationfor theCanon of 1215 againstOrdeals

In the domainof moraltheology Peter the Chanterconsidered ordeals clearly unlawfulby Scripturalauthority contained in both the Old and New Testa- ments:"Thou shaltnot temptthe Lord thyGod" (Deut. vi. 16 and Matt. iv. 7).88 Ordeals requirethe miraculousintervention of God into the regularaffairs of judicial procedureand constitutea flagranttempting of God. As an exegete Peter demonstratedhow a numberof Biblical passages may not be interpreted to justifythese customaryproofs.89 More important,he was obliged to explain how the numerousinstances of divineintervention in the Old Testamentdid not constituteprecedents for ordeals. For example,the Mosaic test of bitterwaters foradultery, which caused Gratianso muchtrouble, was interpretedby Peter as a specificdivine concession to the malice of the Jews,just as God had conceded the rightof divorce.90The well-knownmiraculous stories of the Bible represent the privilegesof a fewand not generallaw.9' Although miracles are certainlypos- sible in our day, theyare not always necessary,and therefore,ordeals are wrong because theyconstantly demand miracles in theiradministration.92 God's prom- ises of interventionapply only to the righteousand our presentsins hinderthe effectivenessof miraclestoday.93 In generalthe New Testamenthas abrogated the ordeals of the Old.94 Althoughin theoryPeter the Chantercondemned ordeals as immoral,it was fromthe realm of experienceand practicethat he drew the greaterpart of his arguments.According to the Scripture(Deut. xviii.20, 21), ifa man claimsto be a prophetof God and prophesiesa certainevent and that eventdoes not come to pass, that man is to be killed as a deceiver.95Applying this empirical,test, the Chanterfound ordeals wanting. To him it was a factthat customarytrials often producedfalse judgments. In oppositionto the vast mediaeval storeof accounts drawn frompopular lore and saints' lives whichillustrated the effectivenessof miraculousordeals, Peter began to collect accounts showinghow these devices did not work.96Throughout his writingshe delightedin tellinganecdotes of the failuresof ordeals.For example,Pope AlexanderIII once lost one of his precious vessels and forceda certainsuspect to undergothe proofof the hot iron. The man was unfortunate,lost the judgment,and was compelledto make restitution,

88 Peter the Chanter,Verbum, 2926A and 542C. 89 Ibid., 9-28Dand 544D; 231D and 547D; 544A. 90"Item hinc habemusargumentum quod sorteset huiusmodiprobationes aque et ferricandentis licitesunt. Quod non est trahendumad consequenciam,quia factalegis ammiranda et sepeliendasunt ad opera, nisifuerunit moralia. Vel sustinuithoc fieridominus propter iudeorum maliciam ut libellum repudii." Peter the Chanter,Commentary to Num. v, Paris, Arsenal44, p. 227b and Oxford,Balliol Col. 23, fol. 14ra. 9' Peter the Chanter,Verbum, 2927C and 543D. 92 Ibid., 228A. 93 Ibid., 228B and 543D. 94 Ibid.,546C. 95Ibid., 226B and 542D. 96 For one of the largercollections in English of storiesillustrating the efficacyof ordeals,see that irdefatigablecompiler of anecdotes,Henry C. Lea, Superstitionand Force (Philadelphia,1878), ch. ii and iii.

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Tue, 17 Feb 2015 14:17:55 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Preparationfor theCanon of 1215 againstOrdeals 629 but moreunfortunate was the pope whenthe stolenvessel was laterfound in the hands of the true thief.97A similarcase happened in Orleans,but this time the falselyconvicted victim was hangedbefore the true thiefwas discovered.98Per- haps the most strikingcase was the storyof two English pilgrimswho were re- turningfrom Jerusalem. The one divertedhis path to the shrineof Saint James of Compostella;the other,on arrivinghome first,found himself accused by his formercompanion's kinsmen of having murderedhim. He was put to the water test,failed, and was promptlyhanged. To the amazementof all, the "murdered" companionreturned home shortlythereafter.99 Anotherargument from experience was based on the mannerin whichordeals were administered.In trial by battle the participantsinvariably chose their championsaccording to skillin arms.Why didn't theychoose aged and decrepit men to demonstrateclearly the miracle?'00It is no marvel that of three men accused of the same crimeand thereforecompelled to carrythe same hot iron, the last man has the best chance to provehis innocence.Innocence is too closely connectedwith calluses !101 Perhaps the cold waterprobe was susceptibleto great- est manipulation.Controversy prevailed as to the standardof judging innocence. Must the victimsink to the bottomor merelybe totallysubmerged? Some con- tendedthat his hair need not be submergedbecause this did not constitutethe substanceof his body. A participantcould be taught to blow out the air from his mouthand nose and thus sink.Finally, there was the case of the fathercom- pelled to defendhis inheritanceby such means throughone of his sons. He pri- vatelyconfided to the Chanterthat he had testedall of his sons beforethe ordeal and foundone that was certainto win.102In a mannerwhich anticipated the discussionsof the EmperorFrederick II, Peter concludedthat it was onlyreasona- ble to respectthe naturalproperties of heat and waterand not to expectthrough them the demonstrationof the miraculous.103 If miraculousproofs were effective,queried the Chanter,why were they not used by the churchin importantaffairs? Despite certainBiblical precedents, prel- ates and popes, on whom depend the salvationof theircharges, are not chosen throughlots but throughthe more rationalprocedure of election.'04Through a singletrial of the hot ironwould not the churchbe able to prove the truthof its faithand convertthe unbelievers?Peter cited the incidentof a severe drought

97 "Tamen alexander iii amiserat vas preciosumet cogit quendam suspectumpurgare se iudicio ferricandentis. Ipse incidit in iudicium et cogebaturreddere usque ad novissimumquadrantem. Postea inventumest vas illud in manu alteriuset compertumest prioremomino fuisseimmunem. Percussitalexander iii pectus suum dicens: Bone iesu! quis diabolus decepitme ut ego miser[usus sim]diabolico illo iudicio?" Peter the Chanter,Summa, Paris Bibl. Nat. Lat. 14521,fol. 154rb and va. 98 Peter the Chanter,Verbum, 230C and 546C. 99Ibid., 230D, 231A, and 547A. 100 Ibid.,233A and 548B. 101 Ibid.,233B and 548A. 102Ibid., 233B and 548C. 103 Ibid., 227D, 228A and 544B. For the comparisonbetween the Chanterand FrederickII, see Nottarp,Gottesurteilstudien, pp. 383, 384. 104 Peter the Chanter,Verbum, 227B,C, and 543C.

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Tue, 17 Feb 2015 14:17:55 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 630 Preparationfor theCanon of 1215 againstOrdeals

that afflictedthe city of Reims. In solemnprocession the faithfulof both sexes and all ranks carriedthe sacred relicsaround the city to gain divine favorand relieffrom the drought.When not the slightestcloud appeared afterthree days, the leader of the synagogueproposed that the Jewishtorah be paraded in a similar manner.If afterthree days rain did not fall,the Jewishcommunity would embrace Christianity.A number of the faithfulwere disposed to accept the challenge,but Master Albericusof Reims put a stop to the whole matter.Even the seductiveprospect of convertingthe Jewishcommunity, he contended,did not justifyjeopardizing the true faith through such presumptuous means. For sim- ilarreasons Peter concludedthat the churchcannot entrust its positionto theun- certaintiesof the hot iron.'05 To be consistentthe Chanterhad to oppose the use of ordeals in the trial of heretics.How can the heart,where mattersof faithlie, be examined by such proofs?He deploredthe practiceof the princesand prelateswho took no notice of the confessionof orthodoxfaith of an accused hereticbut demandedthe hot irontrial. Such a case happenedat Paris in the presenceof the king,princes, and prelatesof France. The accused consentedto bear the hot iron to confirmhis orthodoxbeliefs only if the assembledchurchmen could assure him that this act would not temptGod. Despite the protestsof a certain Cistercianmonk, Ge- rardus,the prelateskept theirsilence, and the man was speedilyassigned to the flames.In generalPeter vigorouslyopposed the death penaltyin convictionsof heresy; rather,he approved of the example of Samson, archbishopof Reims (1140-1161), who merelyimprisoned a confessedManichean in orderto prevent him fromcontaminating the faithful.The combinedeffect of proofby ordeals and an immediatedeath penalty produced many abuses in the treatmentof accused heretics.Cathari were not grantedthe customaryreprieve of thirtydays to reconsidertheir errors, and decentwomen in Flanderswho refusedto yield to the lusts of priestswere inscribed in the recordsas Cathari and immediatelyexe- cuted.'06 Peter the Chanterunderscored the essentialrelationship between the practice of ordealsand the church.Churches lend relicsand books forthe consecrationof the elements,and churchmencontribute the sanctionof theirpresence.107 As a matter of fact, without the priesthoodordeals would not be possible.'08The obviousline of the Chanter'sattack was to prohibitthe clergyfrom any participation in these affairs.Peter had the supportof canonical tradition,which forbade the participationof clericsin any affairimmediately involving the shedding

105 Ibid.,229C and 546A,B. 108 Ibid., 229D, 280A,B, 231B, and 545A-D. The example of Samson was furtherrecorded by Al- beric of Trois Fontaines,Chronica, anno 1148, M.G.I., SS, xxiii, 840. 107 "Item incidenteraditnxit de eo quod quedam ecclesieadhibent presentiam suam iudiciispere- grinis,hoc habentesex consuetudine,non dico tamenauctoritatem et assensum,ut comodandolibrum et reliquiasad sacramentaet benedictiones.Sed etiam presentiamsuam adhibentquedam personein duellisimmo et auctoritatemin iudicandoduellis." Peter the Chanter,Summa, Troyes, 276 fol.96va and b, Paris Bibl. Nat. Lat. 9598, fol. 121vb.Verbum, 548D. 108 Ibid.,548C.

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Tue, 17 Feb 2015 14:17:55 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Preparationfor theCanon of 1215 againstOrdeals 631

ofblood. Clearly, then, priests are forbiddento extendtheir blessing to judicial duels,where the sheddingof blood is inevitable.109He specificallycomplained aboutthe custom of permitting champions to attendmass, although not to com- municate,before the conflict. How can thispractice be justifiedwhen each par- ticipanthas theintent to killhis opponent? No exceptionshould be madefor the defendantwho also harborsthis intention and shouldtherefore be excludedfrom thedivine offices."' Particularly vexing was thecustom of holding judicial duels in cases involvingserfs in the verycourtyard of the archdeaconof Paris. The Chanter'sreply to thispractice would be unmistakableifit werenot for the sanctionof Pope EugeniusIII, whopermitted it on thebasis of custom."1 Canonicaltradition further prohibited the participation of clerics in anyjudg- mentwhich eventually resulted in theshedding of blood. Archbishop Samson of Reims,although permitting the single practice of the water ordeal, forbade any clericalparticipation unless the temporalauthorities furnished guarantees that theaffair would not result in mutilationor the shedding of blood.'12 The Chanter constantlywarned the clergyabout the relationshipbetween ordeals and the sheddingof blood.'13In a practicalmanner priests tend not to remainneutral

109 Ibid.,282C. 110"Preterea hodie est consuetudoquod campionibusconducticiis non datur eucharistia.Audiunt tamen missam antequam pugnent,et si alter occidaturin duello arcetura terrabenedicta. Que est ista particularisconsuetudo [mss. communio]quod iste recipiebaturprius ad missammodo arcetura sepultura?Forte fitad terrorem.Item: si aliquis pugnaretpro capite suo defendendo,ita quod neces- sario oportereteum morivel se defendere,dubitarem an ei, si peteret,esset danda eucharistia,quia vix posset pugnarecontra aliquem ad mortemnisi haberetfraternum odium quod est peccatum in spiritumsanctum. Tamen tales confitentursacerdotibus. Unde mirumest quod consiliumdent eis sacerdotes,cum impenitentibuspenetentia non debeat iniungi.Ipsi autem impenitentessunt, cum habeant propositumet voluntatemoccidendi." Peter the Chanter,Summa, Troyes 276, fol. 122vb, and Paris Bibl. Nat. Lat. 9593, fol. 1461a. 111"Item: quedam ecclesiehabent monomachias et iudicantmonomachiam debere fieri quandoque interrusticos suos. Et faciunteos pugnarein curia ecelesiein atrio episcopivel archidiaconi,sicut fit parisius.De quo consultuspapa eugeniusrespondit: Utimini consuetudine vestra. Sed cum clericus indicatmonomachiam debere fieri,ex qua sequiturdampnatio alterius et mors,nonne cum iudicat ad antecedens,iudicat ad consequens?Scio quid dicerem,nisi papa ita respondisset."Peter the Chanter,Summa, Troyes 276, fol. 140Va and Paris Bibl. Nat. Lat. 9598, fol. 164ra.This passage was noticedby J. LeBeuf, tlistoirede la villede Paris (Paris, 1888), i, 9-10. See n. 122 below. 112 Peter the Chanter,Verbum, 280A and 545B. Samson did forbid,however, the hot iron trial. "I Ibid., 227B and 548C. "Sicut etiam dicitur in decretisquod iudex ecclesiasticusnon debet discuterede crimineseculari ad delegationemprincipis nisi prius princepsprestiterit iuratoriam cautionemquodsi ille qui accusatur iudiceturreus ab ecclesiasticoiudice, et non condempneteum ultimoiudicio. A similividetur nobis quod etiam si peregrinaista iudicia vera essent,non deberet ecclesiasticapersona interesse vel ministeriumsuum exibere,nisi priusprestita cautione de indemp- nitate corporis,si incideretreus in iudicium,sed tradereturin perpetuumcarcerem, vel proscri- beretur,vel exheredaretur,vel alio modo sine sanguine puniretur."Peter the Chanter, Summa, Paris Bibl. Nat. Lat. 14521, fol. 154va."Item: constat quod omnia peregrinaiudicia, ut iudicium aque frigidevel ferricandentis et similia,a diabolo sunt inventa.Nonne peccat ergo sacerdosbene- dicens aquam aut ferrum?Nonne ipse prebetministerium suum ad effusionemsanguinis? Preterea si accusaretsacerdos aliquem ad mortemin hoc solo peccaretquod accusaret.Nunc autem dupliciter peccat quia prestatauctoritatem suam illi iudicio diabolico,et quia per ministeriumsuum ita facit hominemmori sicut si accusareteum. Cum enimaccusat, incertusest hincinde utrunmdampnabitur

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Tue, 17 Feb 2015 14:17:55 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 632 Preparationfor theCanon of 1215 againstOrdeals throughoutthe procedureof the ordeal,but to become involvedin the decision and therebyimplicated in the condemnation."4Just as one,sins by furnishingthe occasion for fornication,so priestsare guiltywho bless the customaryproofs which eventuallyproduce the sheddingof blood. Neithercan the frequencyof the practiceremove the blame any morethan in the case of adultery.1"5 Peter the Chanterapproved of the exampleof ArchbishopSamson as faras it went,but he himselfwent further by holdingthat priestswere forbidden to par- ticipatein ordeals even when therewas no chance of the eventual sheddingof blood."16By the unequivocalremoval of the priesthood,he hoped to deal a final blow to the practice of ordeals. Despite the contraryexamples of populace, priests,and popes, the Chanter's position was clear: "Even if the universal churchunder penalty of anathemacommanded me as a priestto bewitchthe iron or bless the water,I would quickerundergo the perpetualpenalty than perform such a thing."117 Not all of Peter's theologicalcolleagues at Paris shared his unequivocal atti- tude towardsthe ordeals.It is truethat RadulphusArdens, probably inspired by Peter himself,came out stronglyagainst themin his Speculumuniversale (1193- 19200).1118But MagisterMartinus, that elusive figureof the early thirteenthcen- tury,in a few passing remarkswas contentto quote the canonist Sicardus of Cremonain a passage whichseemed to granttheir use in secularjustice.119 More reus quia possunttestes eius deficere.Ergo minuspeccaret in accusando,quod ego credo.Nescio ergo quomodo sancta ecclesia sustineatsacerdotes benedicere aquam in tali iudicio, cum ipsi exhibeant ministeriumsuum effusionisanguinis et quodam modo homicideefficiantur." Ibid., Troyes 276, fol. 140raand Paris Bibl. Nat. Lat. 9593, fol. 164ra. 114 "Hic autem, preterhoc quod canones dampnanttalia peregrinaiudicia et dicunt ea diabolica inventioneinventa, quia per illa temptaturdeus, potestopponi in hunc modum.Si queretura sacer- dote utrumfactum alicuius rei presentisesset simplexfurtum vel rapina, et sciretquod pro rapina dampnaretur,pro furtominime, nullatenus discuteret hoc in iudicio, quia si sacerdos iudicaret. . . esse rapinamstatim per consequensiudicaret istum condempnandum. A similiex quo iste sacerdos benedicendoaquam et [ ... ] ministeriumprebet eis discuntutrum iste sit reus huius criminisan non. Per consequens iudicat eum absolvendumvel condempnandumultimo supplicio,et ita si in discussioneilla ostenditsacerdos istum esse rerum,condempnat eum mortaet ita deberetdegradari." Ibid., Paris Bibl. Nat. Lat. 14521,fol. 154rb. 115 Peter the Chanter,Verbum, 232B and 548C. 116Ibid., 227B. 117 Ibid., 543A. The editor,Galopinus, doubted the authenticityof thisremarkable passage, which is foundonly in the thirdor longestverion of the Verbumabbreviatum. It is found,however, also in Vatican Reg. Lat. 106, fol.97-a, accompaniedwith the marginalnotation: verba magistri. The passage bears the characteristicsof a reportatio. 118 Radulphus Ardens,Speculum universale,Lib. X, Vat. Lat. 1175 (Part II), fol. 194rb-195ra. For example,Radulphus cites the examples of the two English pilgrimsand the theftat Orleans. For recentdiscussion of the date ofthe work,see Van den Eynde, Antonianum,xxvi (1951), 241-243. 119 "Item: Queritursi secularesiudices licite vulgaribuspurgationibus utantur, quod videturtum propterconsuetudinem tum propterinstitutam ab ecclesia benedictionem.Respondeo: laudarem si non fieretquia deus ibi temptarividetur, cum apostolus dicat: Juramentumest finisomnis controversie.... ludiciumautem ferricandentis et ferventisaque reprobantsancti canones.Unde nicolaus papa: iudiciumferri candentis et ferventisaque examinationeconfessionem extorqueri ab aliquo non

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Tue, 17 Feb 2015 14:17:55 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Preparation for the Canon of 1215 against Ordeals 633 significantwas the attitudeof Robert of Courson,an acknowledgedstudent of the Chanter's.In his Summa,composed at Paris between19204 and 19207,Robert presentedat least threedifficult cases of conscienceconcerning the practice of ordeals.120 The firstwas an unhappy case, similarto the one with which the Chanter dealt, of a man accused of murderwho sufferedmartyrdom for the cause of re- sistingordeals.12' The second involveda perplexingsituation faced by a bishop who held the rightsof both spiritualand temporaljustice and beforewhom was broughta man of importanceaccused by public notorietyof a grosscrime, such as heresy.The bishop could not convictthe accused throughnormal means. Be- cause of his greatinfluence no one would personallytestify against him. On the otherhand, the bishop could not dismissthe case because of the greatpresump- tionsinvolved and because of the scandal of appearingto submitto bribery.The recourseto canonicalpurgations or the swearingof seven compurgatorswas held of no popular repute,and commonpurgation through ordeals was forbiddenby the canons. Robert offeredtwo solutions.On the basis of public defamationthe bishopcould imprisonthe accused on bread and wateruntil enough evidence or a confessionhad been securedto producea conviction,and thus popular opinion would be satisfied.Or the bishopcould offerpurgation through an ordeal,on the groundsthat whenno legitimateproof was available, such means did not consti- tute a temptingof God. In supportof the secondalternative Robert cited the re- sponsesof Pope AlexanderIII to Bishop Baldwin ofNoyon (1167-1175), including the decretalAd abolendam,which advised the bishop to followthe customof the realmin such cases, althoughRobert concededthat thisadvice evoked great scandals.122The thirdcase was similarto the firstand involvedthe dilemmaof a censentsacri canones. Quod autem legibus diffinitumnon est superstitiosis;non sunt presumenda adinventionibus."Magister Martinus, Summa, Paris Bibl. Nat. Lat. 14526,fol. 118Va. P.S. Moore has identifiedhim as Martin of Fougeres, The Worksof Peterof Poitiers(Notre Dame, Indiana, 1936), p. 39. For the passage of Sicardus see n. 61 above. 120 For the dates of Robert and his relationto Peter, see Marcel and ChristianeDickson, "Le Cardinal Robert de Courson, sa vie," Archivesd'histoire doctrinale et litt&rairedu moyenage, ix (1934), 64-83. 121 "Casus notabilisde quodamcui oblatumest peregrinum iudicium cum contraheretur adfurcas....." Robert of Courson,Summa, Paris Bibl. Nat. Lat. 3259 fol. 2raand rb. See n. 82 above. 122 "Quid faciendumepiscopo habenti utrumque gladium cum aliquis prepotensducitur ad forumeius quemfama publica accusatsed nemoaudet accusare eum personaliterpropter potentiamn eius. Item: de facto sepe accidit quod prepotentesinfames aut per usuram aut per rapinamaut per heresimaccu- santura publica infamia.Sed non est aliquis propterpotentiam eorum qui audeat prosilirein accusa- tionemeorum, et tu es episcopusloci habens utrumquegladium. Adducitur aliquis talis potens ad forumtuum. Tu proptertantam eius infamiamretrudis eum in carceremquo usque purgetse vel quo usque accuseturab aliquo. Quid faciesin hoc articulode illo? Tu non dimitteseum duplicide causa: tu cognivistiquod hereticusest, et scis quod si tu dimitteriseum, tota regioscandalizaretur, credens te dimisisseeum ad interventumpecunie. Respondeo: ita ne omnesscandalizes non potes eum dimittere. Item: non potes eum condempnare,quia neque convictusneque confessusest in iure. Item: si tu pro purgationefacta septiimamanu dimitteseum, nulla erit talis purgatio,quia per illam non satisfacietpopulo, quia inveniettalis centum purgatoresqui nichilireputant sacramenta nostra.

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Tue, 17 Feb 2015 14:17:55 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 634 Preparation for the Canon of 1215 against Ordeals

priestfaced on one hand withpressure from his temporaland spiritualsuperiors and the customof theland to bless the ordeals,and on the other,with the knowledge of theirimmoral nature. Again Robert's eventual solutionto the dilemma was to accede to the forceof customsanctioned by the decretalAd abolendam.'23 These threecases presentnot the determinedopposition and rigorousconsist- encyof the master,Peter the Chanter,but ratherthe perplexitiesreminiscent of the canonistsof the twelfthcentury. In 1212 Pope InnocentIII rewardedRobert withthe cardinal'shat and later commissionedhim as papal legate in France to preachthe crusade,reform the church,and preparefor the greatLateran Council of 1215. When presidingover the Councils of Paris (1212) and Rouen (1214), Robert did not come out fullyagainst ordeals but merelybanished them from cemeteriesand othersacred places.'24 Perhaps the debate over the questionof ordeals in the facultiesof canon law and theologyat Bologna and Paris was reflectedin the hesitantattitude of Pope InnocentIII duringthe earlyyears of his pontificate.At somepoint prior to 1215, however,Innocent made up his mind definitelyagainst these practicesand declared himselfunmistakably in the FourthLateran Council.Was thereany rela-

Sed quid si offeratse ad iudiciumferri vel aque, contracanones que illi detestantur?Solutio: in tali articulonon debet prelatusdimittere talem et tam [sic?]infamem. Immo tam vehemenspotest esse presumptiocontra ipsum, quod non debeat dimittere,sed interduos murosin aqua tribulantioniset pane angustie,tam diu recluderequo usque aliquis ad eius accusationemaccedat vel quo usque crimen confiteatur,et peniteatvel aliquam condignampurgationem subeat, ut populo vel eccelsiesatisfaciat. *Respondeo:si ipse iudiciumferri vel aque petat, officialisepiscopi ei non debet denegare.Videlicet ubi nullum aliud inveniturremedium, quia tunc non temptaturdeus, quia papa alexanderfertur respondissebalduino noviomensi episcopo petenti quid fieretde talibus.Sequere consuetudinemregni. Respondeo: hoc [sic?]elicitur ex illa decretali,Ad abolendam.Hec de scandalo et de omni diversitate scandalorumdicta sufficiant."Ibid., Paris Bibl. Nat. Lat. 3259, fol 113ra-va.At this point (*) the scribeprotested with a marginalcomment: "alii dicuntcontrarium." I have notbeen able to findeither thisdecretal of Alexander III or that of Eugenius III (see n. 111 above) in the printedcollections of papal decretals. Communicationsfrom Professor J. Ramackers of Aachen and ProfessorWalther Holtzmannof Rome advise me that the textsof thesedecretals have yet to be discovered. 123 "De sacerdotecui princepset episcopusprecipiunt et consulendoinducunt ut benedicatferrum vel aquam ad iudicia quibustemptatur deus. De perplexitatequam incurritsacerdos cui ex una parte pre- cipitet princeps[mss. principes] et episcopussuus et consuetudoregni eum ad hoc inducit,ut ferrum candensvel aquam benedicatad iudicia illa quibus deus temptatur,que suntdiabolice adinventiones. Respondeo: gregorius,immo tota ecclesia precipitei contrariumcum facienteset consentienteset precipuecooperantes par pena constringat.Satis diximussuperius in tractatude penitentia,et illo qui impetitursuper homidicio vel alio criminequod ipse patravit et confessusest et contritus sufficienterde eo, an sacerdosdebeat ei consulereut subeat iudiciumillud maledictum,an inhibere ne subeat. Nam si dicat,sibi iudiciumillud oporteteum iurarequod non occiditeum de quo impetitur, et sic de consiliosacerdotis periurium incurret. Si autem dicat, noli subire iudicium,satrape regis statimparati eruntqui rapiant eum nolentemsubire iudicium et totam eius parentelamad furcas. Ad respondendumprimo articulo recurre ad illam decretalem,Ad abolendam, et ad responsionem alexandripape qui dixit noviomensiepiscopo querentiquid super purgandisper tale iudiciumesset ei faciendum:sequere inquiens consuetudinemregni tui," Ibid., Paris Bibl. Nat. Lat. 3259, fol. 117rband Va 124 C.15 of the Council of Paris (1212), Mansi, xxii, 842 and c.15 of the Council of Rouen (1214), ibid.,XXII, 920.

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Tue, 17 Feb 2015 14:17:55 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Preparationfor theCanon of 1215 againstOrdeals 635 tionbetween his finaldecision and the teachingat the universities?It is, of course,possible that he reador was influencedby theworks of Peterof Blois, Huguccio,Peter the Chanter,or perhapsothers, but it is also highlyprobable thatthe influence of thesemen was moredirect. Although much of Innocent's lifeprior to hiselevation to thepapacy remains unknown, we do knowthat as a youngman Lothario di Segnistudied at Rome,Paris, and Bologna.125Apparently at Bolognabetween 1187 and 1189he readlaw withsuch masters as Bernardof Pavia and,especially, Huguccio. Later, as pope,he expressedhis gratitude to his formerteachers by conferring on themecclesiastical dignities; Huguccio he raised to the see ofFerrara.'26 Very likely the greatcanonist's theories influenced the popeon thesubject of ordeals as theydid in otherareas. Prior to 1187Lothario preparedhimself in philosophyand theologyat the schoolsof Paris,where, he laterconfessed, he had receivedthe giftof knowledge.'27 His one acknowledged masterof theology at Pariswas Peterof Corbeil, to whomhe, as Pope Innocent III, latergranted the archbishopric ofSens (1900).128 Peterwas knownespecially forhis Scripturalstudies, but unfortunatelynone of his academicworks has so farbeen identified.129It is also knownthat while at Paris Lothariowas acquainted withRobert of Courson,Stephen Langton, and Jean de Toucy (afterwards abbotof Sainte-Genevieve,1192-1222). The positionof Roberton ordealswas uncertain;the other two are not known to havediscussed the matter. The importantquestion is whetherLothario knew Peter the Chanterand hiswork. As popefrom 1198 to 1216Innocent made no directmention of Peter, butthe Chanter was alreadydead by 1197.Lothario was certainly in Paris (a few yearsbefore 1187) at a timewhen Peter was at theheight of his academic career, exercisingthen the dignity of chanterof Notre Dame (by at least 1184).Peter gaveto thequestion of ordeals the fullest treatment of the twelfth century. His consistentand rigorousopposition to thesepractices contrasted markedly with theperplexities of many of his colleagues in thefaculties of canon law and theology.Of greater significance, the Chanter emphasized two aspects of the problem whichalso dominated the formulation ofInnocent's decrees in theLateran Coun- cilof 1215. Both the Chanter and thePope clearlyrelated the practice of ordeals to thequestion of clerical involvement in affairswhich resulted in theshedding of blood,and bothcentered their attack against these abuses by energetically

125 GestaInnocentii III, c.2, P.L., ccxiv, xvii. The most recentstudy of Innocent's early life is Michele Maccarrone,"Innocenzo III primadel pontificato,"Archivio della R. deputazioneromana di storia patria, LXVI (1943), 59-134, whose conclusionshave been adopted in the generalstuidv of Helene Tillmann,Papst InnocenzIII. (Bonn, 1954). 126 Tillmann,Innocenz, pp. 8, 9; Maccarrone,Archivio, LXVI, 79-81; and AchilleLuchaire, Innocent III (Paris, 1905), i, 6. 127Letter to King Philip Augustus,1198, P.L., ccxiv, 148. 128 P.L., ccxiv, 444; Gallia christiana(Paris, 1770), xii, 57. 129 Cf. FridericusStegmuller, Repertorium biblicum medii aevi (Madrid, 1954), iv, 300, 301. A commentaryon the Apostle foundin Paris Bibl. Nat. Lat. 15603, fol. 168-173 and 176-187 was claimed forPeter of Corbeil by H. Denifle,Die abendldndischenSchriftausleger bis Luther,(Mainz, 1905), p. 90, but thisattribution has been disputedby A. Landgraf,"Die Schriftzitatein der Scholas- tik um Wende des 12. zum 13. Jahrhindert" Biblica, XVIII (1937), 91-92.

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Tue, 17 Feb 2015 14:17:55 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 636 Preparationfor theCanon of1215 againstOrdeals prohibitingfurther participation to the clergy.Is it not possiblethat Innocent was firstinfluenced by the Chanter'steachings at Paris, later receivedconfirmation and legal clarificationfrom Huguccio at Bologna, and finallyafter a period of hesitationtranslated these principlesinto action in Canon 18 of the Lateran Council of 1215? Huguccio's influenceon Innocent is more certain, but the Chanter'sremains a strongprobability. In thelight of the circumstantialevidence and withthe absence of significantalternatives, might we hazard the conclusion that Peter the Chanter,theologian at Paris, and Huguccio,canonist at Bologna, werethe movingspirits behind the canon of 1215 whichmarked the beginningof the end of ordealsin European society?

THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY

This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Tue, 17 Feb 2015 14:17:55 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions