¹ On Stephen of Tournai see Lepointe, G., ‘Etienne de Tournai’, in Dictionnaire de droit canonique, ed. Naz, R., 7 vols. (Paris, 1935–1965), vol. 5, pp. 487–92Google Scholar and Kalb, Herbert, Studien zur Summa Stephans von Tournai: Ein Beitrag zur kanonistischen Wissenschaftsgeschichte des späten 12. Jahrhunderts (Innsbruck, 1983).Google Scholar

² Stephen of Tournai, Summa, proem., ed. von Schulte, Johann Friedrich (Giessen, 1891Google Scholar; repr. Aalen, 1965), 2; also quoted from Brussels, Bibliothèque Royale, MS 1410, fol. 3ra in Fowler-Magerl, Linda, Ordo iudiciorurn vel ordo iudiciarius: Begriff und Literaturgattung, Ius commune, Sonderhefte, vol. 19 (Frankfurt am Main, 1984), 1.Google Scholar

³ ‘Servare ordinem iuris’ was the usual medieval term for this idea, although the phrase ‘due process’ does occasionally appear in medieval texts see Pennington, Kenneth, The prince and the law, 1200–1600: sovereignty and rights in the Western legal tradition (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), 145.Google Scholar

⁴ Calasso, Francesco, Introduzione al diritto comune (milan, 1951)Google Scholar and Medio evo del dirirto, vol. 1: Le fonti (Milan, 1954), especially pages 345–629Google Scholar; Koschaker, Paul, Europa und das römische Recht (Munich, 1947);Google ScholarBellomo, Manlio, The common legal past of Europe, 1000–1800, trans. Cochrane, Lydia G., Studies in Medieval and Early Modern Canon Law, 4 (Washington, DC, 1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵ Kejř, Jiří, ‘Pojem soudního důkazůve středověkych právnívh naukách [The notion of evidence in medieval legal documents]’, Stát a právo 13 (1967), 187 (English summary).Google Scholar

⁶ Fraher, Richard M., ‘“Ut nullus describatur reus prius quam convincatur”: presumption of innocence in medieval canon law?’, in Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress of Medieval Canon Law, ed. Kuttner, Stephan and Pennington, Kenneth, Monumenta iuris canonici, Subsidia, 7 (Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1985), 493–506.Google Scholar

⁷ Regesta pontificum Romanorum ab condita ecclesia ad annum post Christum natum MCXCVIII, ed. Jaffé, Philip, rev, by Loewenfeld, S., Kaltenbrunner, F., and Ewald, P., 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1885–1888Google Scholar; repr. Graz, 1956), no. 2812. As Fraher pointed out (‘“Ut nullus describatur”,’ 495), however, Pope Nicholas himself borrowed this wording from the unknown writer of a still earlier text, De septem ordinibus ecclesiae, which medieval writers often attributed to St Jerome.

⁸ Codex Theodosianus 9.40.1, interpretatio: ‘Iudex criminosum discutiens non ante sententiam proferat capitalem, quam aut reus ipse fateatur aut convictus vel per innocentes testes vel per conscios criminis sui aut homicidium aut adulterium aut maleficium commisisse manifestius convincatur.’ The text on which the interpreters were commenting was a rescript by the Emperor Constantine, dating from 314.

⁹ Capitula Angilramni, c. 1 bis, in Decretales Pseudo-Isidorianae et Capitula Angilramni, ed. Hinschius, Paul (Leipzig, 1863; repr. Aalen, 1963), 766.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Burchard, , Decretum 16.6, in Patrologiae cursus completus… series Latina, ed. Migne, J.-P., 221 vols. (Paris, 1844–1864) 140, col. 910.Google Scholar; On Burchard's sources see Hoffmann, Hartmut and Pokorny, Rudolf, Das Dekret des Bischofs Burchard von Worms: Textstufen – Frühe Verbreitung – Vorlagen, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Hilfsmittel, 12 (Munich, 1991).Google Scholar

¹¹ I am not persuaded by SirRichard, southern's speculation in Scholastic humanism and the unification of Europe, vol. 1: Foundations (Oxford, 1995) (pp. 303–4)Google Scholar, that Gratian may not have taught canon law. I have explained some of the reasons in my Medieval canon law (London, 1995), 47–9.Google Scholar

¹² Gratian, Decretum C. 15 q. 8 c. 5: ‘[A]nte probationem accusationis illatae neminem a communione tua suspendas, quia non statim qui accusatur reus est, sed qui conuincitur criminosus.’ For an explanation of the Romano-canonical citation system used throughout this paper see Brundage, , Medieval Canon Law, 190–205.Google Scholar

¹³ Fraher, Richard M., ‘Preventing crime in the high Middle Ages: the medieval lawyers' search for deterrence’, in Popes, teachers, and canon law in the Middle Ages, ed. Sweeney, James Ross and Chodorow, Stanley (Ithaca, NY, 1989), 225.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Gratian, Decretum C. 2 q. 1. See also Esmein, Adhémar, A history of continental criminal procedure with special reference to France, trans. Simpson, John, Continental Legal History Series, 5 (Boston, 1913), 3–8, 78–80.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Gratian, Decretum C. 2 q. 3 c. 1–4 and d.p.c. 4; Tancred, Ordo iudiciarius 2.7.5, in Pillius, Tancredus, Gratia libri de iudiciorum ordine, ed. Bergmann, Friedrich Christian (Göttingen, 1842; repr. Aalen, 1965), 157Google Scholar; Durandus, William, Speculum iudiciale, lib. 3 partic. I tit. De accusatione §6.24,2 vols. (Basel, 1574; repr. Aalen, 1975) vol. 2, 17–22.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Gratian, Decretum C. 2. q. 8 c. 2: ‘Sciant cuncti accusatores, eam rem se deferre debere in publicam notionem, que munita sit testibus idoneis, uel instructa apertissimis documentis, uel indiciis ad probationem indubitatis et luce clarioribus expedita.’ This text is taken, in fact, from the Codex lustinianus 4.19.25. Accursius, in the Glossa ordinaria to this passage added: ‘Et luce, scilicet meridiana.’

¹⁷ Gratian, Decretum C. 2 q. 1 c. 2; Tancred, Ordo iudiciarius 2.4.5, ed. Bergmann, 157.

¹⁸ Gratian, Decretum C. 2 q. 4 pr.; Justinian, , Digest…, in Corpus iuris civilis, ed. Mommsen, T. et al. (Berlin, 1872–1895), 22.5.12 (Ulpian)Google Scholar; Tancred, , Ordo iudiciarius 3.7, ed. Bergmann, , 228–30.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Matt. 18:15–17; cf. Deut. 19:15; Lev. 19:17; 2 Cor. 13:1.

²⁰ Fraher, , ‘The theoretical justification for the new criminal law of the high Middle Ages “Rei publicae interest, ne crimina remaneant impunita”, University of Illinois Law Review (1984), 577–95Google Scholar, and ‘Preventing crime in the high Middle Ages’, 225; Esmein, , History of continental criminal procedure, 81.Google Scholar

²¹ X 3.2.8 Tua nos duxit: ‘[S]i crimen eorum ita publicum est, ut merito debeat appellari notorium, in eo casu nec testis nec accusator est necessarius, quum huiusmodi crimen nulla possit tergiversatione celari. Si vero publicum est, non ex evidentia, sed ex fama: in eo casu ad condemnationem eorum sola testimonia non sufficiunt, quum non sit testimoniis, sed testibus iudicandum. Sed si de clericis ipsis talis habeatur suspicio, ut ex ea scandalum generetur in populo, licet contra ipsos non apparuerit accusator, eis tamen est canonica purgatio indicenda. Quam si praestare noluerint, vel defecerit in praetestanda, eos canonica debebis animadversione punire.’

²² Gratian, Decretum C. 2 q. I d.a.c. 15 and d.p.c. 17.

²³ An early example appears in Ambrosius, Summa super titulos to 3 Comp. 3. 1. 1, quoted in Liotta, Filippo, La continenza dei chierici nel pensiero canonistico classico da Graziano a Gregorio IX, Quaderni di ‘Studi Senesi,’ 24 (Milan, 1971), 357–8.Google Scholar

²⁴ Tancred, , Ordo iudiciarius 2.7.1, ed. Bergmann, , 151Google Scholar: ‘De notoriis ideo dixi tacendum, quoniam in eis nec accusatione nec testibus opus est…’. Cf. the nearly identical statement in his Summula de criminibus, ed. Fraher, Richard M., ‘Tancred's “Summula de crirninibus”: a new text and a key to the Ordo iudiciarius,’ Bulletin of Medieval Canon Law 9 (1979), 29.Google Scholar

²⁵ Tancred, , Ordo iudiciarius 2.7.l, ed. Bergmann, , 151–2.Google Scholar

²⁶ Teutonicus, Johannes, Apparatus to 3 Comp. 3.2.1 v. Ex euidentia, ed. Pennington, Kenneth J., in A study of Johannes Teutonicus' theories of church government and of the relationship between church and state, with an edition of his apparatus to Compilatio tertia (Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, 1972), 430–1Google Scholar: ‘Si constet aliquem habere suspectam mulierem secum in domo, eo ipso probata est fornicatio; supra eodem titulo Vt nullus. Ergo si publice eam detinet, eo ipso conuictus est, sicut et legitur de illo qui cum quadam uagos incessus habebat par inuia, ut supra de spon. Tertio, lib. ii. Alias illud opus uix notorium esse posset rei euidentia, cum semper latebras querat. laur.’

²⁷ Teutonicus, Johannes, Apparatus to 3 Comp. 3.2.1 v. Scandalum, ed. Pennington, , 431Google Scholar: ‘Vnde patet quod propter solam suspitionem uel infamiam non est indicenda purgatio, nisi amplius sine scandalo non possit tollerari…’

²⁸ Bernard of Parma, Glossa ordinaria to X 3.2.8 v. Ex euidentia and Scandalum. The Glos. ord. to X and other parts of the Corpus iuris canonici is cited throughout from the Venice, 1605 edition in 3 vols.

²⁹ Kieckhefer, Richard has questioned whether the ‘Inquisition’ in any institutional sense even existed at this period; see ‘The Office of Inquisition and medieval heresy: the transition from personal to institutional jurisdiction’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History 36 (1995), 36–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁰ Kelly, Henry Ansgar, ‘Inquisition and the prosecution of heresy: misconceptions and abuses’, Church History 58(1989), 439–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and ‘Inquisitorial due process and the status of secret crimes’, in Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Medieval Canon Law, ed. Chodorow, Stanley, Monumenta iuris canonici, Subsidia, 9 (Vatican City, 1992), 408–28.Google Scholar

³¹ Pennington, , The prince and the law, 1200–1600, 157–60Google Scholar. One reason why academic canonists were reluctant to admit the use of torture is that it seemed to violate the longstanding privilege against self-incrimination, which was an important feature of traditional due process under the ordo iuris; see X 2.19.1 Ex epistolae verbis (= JE 1757) and the Glos. ord. to the words contra te.

³² Tancred, , Ordo iudiciarius 2.7.3, ed. Bergmann, , 153–4.Google Scholar

³³ X 5.3.31 Licet Heli; Regesta pontficum Romanorum inde ab a. post Christum natum MCXCVIII ad a. MCCCIV, ed. Potthast, August, 2 vols. (Berlin, 1874–1875Google Scholar; cited hereafter as Po), no. 888, 2 December 1199.

³⁴ X 5.1.17 Qualiter et quando; Po 2672, 29 January 1206. On the origins and background of inquisitorial procedure see Trusen, Winfried, ‘Der Inquisitionsprozeβ: seine historischen Grundlagen und frühen Former’, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, kanonistische Abteilung 74 (1988), 168–230.Google Scholar

³⁵ 4 Lat. c. 8, ed. Garcia, António Garcia y, Constitutiones Concilii quarti Lateranensis una cum Commentariis glossatorum, Monumenta iuris canonici, Corpus Glossatorum, vol. 1 (Vatican City, 1981), 54–7.Google Scholar For an English translation of Qualiter et quando see Decrees of the ecumenical councils, ed. Tanner, Norman P., 2 vols. (London and Washington, DC, 1990), vol. 1, *237–*239Google Scholar. This canon was subsequently incorporated into the Liber extra as X 5.1.24. See also Trusen, ‘Inquisitionsprozeβ’, 214–18.

³⁶ X 5.1.9; Tancred, , Ordo iudiciarius 2.7.1, 2.7.3, ed. Bergmann, , 151, 153–4.Google Scholar

³⁷ Durandus, Speculum iudiciale lib. 3 partic. 1 tit. De inquisitione §§1–2, 1574 ed., vol. 2, 27.

³⁸ Sbriccoli, Mario, ‘“Tormentum est torquere mentem”: processo inquisitorio e interrogatorio per tortura nell'Italia comunale’, in La parola all'accusato, ed. Vigueur, Jean-Claude Maire and Bagliani, Agostino Paravicini (Palermo, 1991), 21.Google Scholar

³⁹ Tancred, , Ordo iudiciarius 2.7.3, ed. Bergmann, , 154Google Scholar; Durandus, , Speculum iudiciale lib. 3 partic. 1 tit. De inquisitione, passim, but especially §33, 1574 ed., vol. 2, 27–30.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ This concept turned out to have unforeseeable consequences for the history of gambling, insurance, and mathematics; see Franklin, James, ‘The ancient legal sources of seventeenth-century probability’, in The uses of antiquity, ed. Gaukroger, Stephen (Dordrecht, 1991), 123–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴¹ Tancred, , Ordo iudiciarius 3.5.6, ed. Bergmann, , 221–2.Google Scholar

⁴² Digest 12.2.1 (Gaius), 2 (Paulus), and 38 (Paulus).

⁴³ Durandus, , Speculum iudiciale lib. 2 partic. 2 tit. De probabionibus 3.28 (1574 ed., vol. 1, 628).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Ibid., lib. 3 partic. 1 tit. De notoriis criminibus §4 (1574 ed., vol. 2, 47).

⁴⁵ But not the right to be present, either in person or through an agent, during the testimony of witnesses, whether they be friendly or unfriendly. Judges, or officials delegated by them, took testimony under oath but did so privately, in the presence of a notary who made a record of the testimony. The notarial record of testimony was published (that is, copies of it were furnished) to the parties only after the conclusion of the evidence-taking process, so that parties and their advocates could respond to allegations during argument.

⁴⁶ See generally Bellomo, , Common legal past, especially pages 112–25Google Scholar, Esmein, , History of continental criminal procedure, 96–9.Google Scholar. See also Pennington, , The prince and the law, 171–90Google Scholar; Chiffoleau, Jacques, ‘Dire l'indicibile: osservazioni sulla categoria del “nefandum” dal XII al XV secolo’, in La parola all'accusato, 42–73, especially page 48.Google Scholar