No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 May 2020
In high and late medieval England, general sentences of excommunication pronounced against unnamed wrongdoers were common. Responding to crimes whose perpetrators were unknown, general excommunications were a valuable tool that sought to discover and punish offenders in a number of ways. Solemn denunciations might convince the guilty to confess in order to avoid damnation, or persuade informants to volunteer information. General sentences were also, however, merely a precursor to investigations launched into those responsible. Public denunciations aided investigations conducted by clergy in the local community by publicizing and forcibly condemning the crime committed. Once discovered, suspects were summoned to the bishop's court and were either forced to make amends and do penance or excommunicated by name. This article therefore argues that general sentences were far more complex, effective and legally significant than they are often perceived to be.
I am grateful to John Arnold and John Hudson for their comments on drafts of this article, as well as to the editors and anonymous peer reviewers.
1 ‘Before the martyrdom of St Thomas’.
2 Peter of Cornwall, Book of Revelations, ed. Easting, R. and Sharpe, R. (Toronto, ON, 2013)Google Scholar, no. 2897.
3 Arnold, John, Belief and Unbelief in Medieval Europe (London, 2005), 182Google Scholar.
4 Little, Lester K., Benedictine Maledictions: Liturgical Cursing in Romanesque France (London, 1993), 186–229Google Scholar.
5 Barton, Richard E., ‘Making a Clamor to the Lord: Noise, Justice and Power in Eleventh- and Twelfth-Century France’, in Tuten, B. S. and Billado, T. L., eds, Feud, Violence and Practice: Essays in Medieval Studies in Honor of Stephen D. White (Farnham, 2010), 213–35Google Scholar.
6 That the faithful might unwittingly incur ipso facto sentences was a cause for concern amongst medieval canonists: see Hill, Felicity, ‘Magna Carta, Canon Law and Pastoral Care: Excommunication and the Church's Publication of the Charter’, HR 89 (2016), 636–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For concerns about unknown excommunicates interacting with the faithful, see Jaser, Christian, Ecclesia maledicens. Rituelle und zeremonielle Exkommunikationsformen im Mittelalter (Tübingen, 2013), 369–70Google Scholar.
7 Logan, F. D., Excommunication and the Secular Arm (Toronto, ON, 1968), 139Google Scholar; Vodola, Elisabeth, Excommunication in the Middle Ages (Berkeley, CA, 1986), 80, 99, 181–2Google Scholar.
8 Hill, Rosalind, ‘The Theory and Practice of Excommunication in Medieval England’, History 42 (1957), 1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
9 The distinction is not always clear: the papal yearly excommunication is termed a ‘general sentence’ but corresponds better with this definition of latae sententiae. For latae sententiae, see Huizing, Peter, ‘The earliest Development of Excommunication latae sententiae by Gratian and the earliest Decretists’, Studia Gratiana 3 (1955), 277–320Google Scholar; Jaser, Ecclesia maledicens, 359–73; Vodola, Excommunication, 28–35; Helmholz, R. H., The Spirit of Classical Canon Law (London, 1996), 383–90Google Scholar; Arnaud Fossier, Le Bureau des âmes. Écritures et pratiques administratives de la Pénitencerie Apostolique (XIIIe–XVIe siécle), Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d'Athènes et de Rome 378 (Rome, 2018), 402–6. Much of my book, Excommunication in Thirteenth-Century England: Community, Politics and Publicity (Oxford, forthcoming) will deal with ipso facto excommunications.
10 Agostino Paravicini Bagliani has traced the development of papal general sentences pronounced annually on Maunday Thursday: ‘Bonifacio VIII, la loggia di giustizia al Laterano e i processi generali di scomunica’, Rivista di storia della Chiesa in Italia 59 (2005), 377–428, at 391–405; idem, ‘Il rito pontificio di scomunica da Gregorio VII a Innocenzo III’, in idem, Il potere del papa. Corporeità, autorappresentazione, simboli, Millennio Medievale, Strumenti e studi n.s. 21 (Florence, 2009), 215–26; Fossier, Le Bureau des âmes, 409–24; Christian Jaser, ‘Ostensio exclusionis. Die päpstliche Generalexkommunikation zwischen kirchenrechtlicher Innovation und zeremoniellem Handeln’, in Bernd Schneidmüller et al., eds, Die Päpste. Amt und Herrschaft in Antike, Mittelalter und Renaissance (Regensburg, 2016), 357–83. The fourth part of Jaser, Ecclesia Maledicens (374–525) focuses on the Maundy Thursday papal sentence. R. H. Helmholz has also linked the growing power of the papacy to latae sententiae: ‘“Si quis suadente” (c.17 q.4 c.29): Theory and Practice’, in Peter A. Linehan, ed., Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Canon Law: Cambridge, 23–27 July 1984 (Vatican City, 1988), 425–38.
11 Jaser, ‘Ostensio exclusionis’, 364.
12 Helmholz, ‘“Si quis suadente”’, 432–7; Véronique Beaulande, Le Malheur d’être exclu? Excommunication, réconciliation et société à la fin du Moyen Âge, Histoire ancienne et médiévale 84 (Paris, 2006), 96–102.
13 Jaser, Ecclesia Maledicens, 370–3.
14 For example, The Register of Ralph of Shrewsbury, Bishop of Bath and Wells, 1329–1363, ed. Thomas Scott Holmes, Somerset Record Society 10 ([London], 1896), 2: 470; The Register of John Waltham, Bishop of Salisbury, 1388–1395, ed. T. C. B. Timmins, CYS 80 (Woodbridge, 1994), no. 66.
15 Robert of Flamborough, Liber Poenitentialis: A Critical Edition, ed. Francis Firth, J. J. (Toronto, ON, 1971), 147Google Scholar; Registrum epistolarum fratris Iohannis Peckham, archiepiscopi Cantuariensis, ed. Charles Trice Martin, 3 vols, RS 77 (London, 1882–5), 1: 178, 392s, 180, 392t.
16 Liber extra X 5.39.21 (CICan, 2: 896). This perhaps contradicts earlier practice: see Flamborough, Liber Poenitentialis, 146–7; Thomas of Chobham, Summa Confessorum, ed. D. Broomfield (Louvain, 1968), 210–11.
17 These typically simply note ‘manifest offences and contumacy’: see Logan, Excommunication.
18 Gratian, Decretum C.17 q.4 c.29 (CICan, 1: 822); F. M. Powicke and C. R. Cheney, eds, Councils and Synods with other Documents relating to the English Church, 2: A.D. 1205–1313, 2 vols (Oxford, 1964), 1: 106–7, 2: 764, 905–7. All eleven of Pecham's collected excommunications could result in general sentences, but those I have not mentioned above were less commonly cited in the process.
19 Helmholz, ‘“Si quis suadente”’, 432.
20 Ian Forrest notes that violation of sanctuary, involving multiple jurisdictions, was a point of contention: Trustworthy Men: How Inequality and Faith made the Medieval Church (Princeton, NJ, 2018), 315–16.
21 In formulae, ‘nisi’ clauses offered offenders an opportunity to avoid this fate. Much has been written about ritual excommunication. Jaser, Ecclesia maledicens treats it at length. For further references, see Hill, Felicity, ‘Damnatio eternae mortis or medicinalis non mortalis: The Ambiguities of Excommunication in Thirteenth-Century England’, in Spencer, Andrew M. and Watkins, Carl, eds, Thirteenth-Century England XVI: Proceedings of the Cambridge Conference, 2015 (Woodbridge, 2017), 37–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 49–53.
22 Jaser, ‘Ostensio exclusionis’, 364; Jaser, Ecclesia Maledicens, 369.
23 Hill, ‘Theory and Practice’, 10.
24 See, for instance, A Formulary of the Papal Penitentiary in the Thirteenth Century, ed. H. C. Lea (Philadelphia, PA, 1892).
25 The Register of Thomas de Cantilupe, Bishop of Hereford (A.D. 1275–1282), ed. Robert G. Griffiths, CYS 2 ([London], 1906), 227–8.
26 See John Arnold's discussion of the weight historians give to religious conviction as opposed to political functionalism: Belief and Unbelief, 7–8.
27 Registrum Johannis de Pontissara, episcopi Wyntoniensis, A.D. 1282–1304, ed. Cecil Deedes, 2 vols, CYS 19, 30 ([London], 1915–24), 352–3.
28 For example, Registrum Henrici Woodlock, Diocesis Wintoniensis, A.D. 1305–1316, ed. Arthur Worthington Goodman, 2 vols, CYS 43–4 (Oxford, 1940–1), 352.
29 The Register of Walter Giffard, Lord Archbishop of York, 1266–1279, ed. William Brown, SS 109 (Durham, 1904), 225–6.
30 The Life of St Hugh of Lincoln, ed. and transl. D. L. Douie and D. H. Farmer, 2 vols (Oxford, 1961–85), 2: 197–9.
31 Flamborough, Liber Poenitentialis, 153–4.
32 Rotuli Hugonis de Welles, episcopi Lincolniensis, A.D. MCCIX–MCCXXXV, ed. W. P. W. Phillimore and F. N. Davis, 3 vols, CYS 1, 3, 4 ([London], 1905–9), vol. 1. It does not, however, contain general sentences of the sort under discussion.
33 Powicke and Cheney, eds, Councils and Synods, 106–7, 125.
34 Poos, L. R., ed., Lower Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in Late-Medieval England: The Courts of the Dean and Chapter of Lincoln, 1336–1349, and the Deanery of Wisbech, 1458–1484, RSEH n.s. 32 (Oxford, 2001), lx–lxiGoogle Scholar; Brown, Andrew D., Popular Piety in Late Medieval England: The Diocese of Salisbury 1250–1550 (Oxford, 1995), 77–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Forrest, Ian, ‘The Transformation of Visitation in Thirteenth-Century England’, P&P 221 (2013), 3–38Google Scholar.
35 Helmholz links English canonical ‘juries’ to earlier Carolingian practices: ‘Canonical “juries” in Medieval England’, in Mario Acheri et al., eds, ‘Ins Wasser geworfen und Ozeane durchquert’. Festschrift für Knut Wolfgang Nörr (Cologne, 2003), 403–18.
36 Many registers contain general sentences, both with and without the instruction to investigate, which may have been sent as a separate mandate (e.g. Registrum Johannis de Pontissara, 312–13). In this case, not bothering to enregister this standard request would make sense. Investigations were conducted in cases where there is no extant mandate to conduct one, e.g. Register of Ralph of Shrewsbury, 2: 596–8, 694.
37 For example, The Rolls and Register of Bishop Oliver Sutton 1280–1299, 4: Memoranda, May 19, 1292 – May 18, 1294, ed. Rosalind M. T. Hill, Lincoln Record Society 52 (Hereford, 1958), 4: 35.
38 Registrum Simonis de Gandavo, diocesis Saresbiriensis, A.D. 1297–1315, ed. C. T. Flower and M. C. B. Dawes, 2 vols, CYS 40–1 (Oxford, 1934), 1: 171–3.
39 For example, Registrum Roberti Winchelsey, Cantuariensis Archiepiscopi, A.D. 1294–1313, ed. Rose Graham, 2 vols, CYS 51–2 (London, 1952–6), 1: 216–17. More usually, recipients were ordered to tell the bishop what they had done.
40 And thus might be compared to the Assize of Clarendon: Helmholz, Richard H., ‘The Early History of the Grand Jury and the Canon Law’, University of Chicago Law Review 50 (1983), 613–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 616–17.
41 Vetus Liber Archidiaconatus Eliensis, ed. Charles Lett Feltoe and Ellis H. Minns, Cambridge Antiquarian Society 48 (Cambridge, 1917), 176–7.
42 Register of Ralph of Shrewsbury, 2: 733–4.
43 Registrum Roberti Winchelsey, 1: 16–18.
44 Act books did so, but survive only rarely and in fragments before the fifteenth century.
45 See, for example, the rationale for general sentences expressed in Registrum Simonis de Gandavo, 1: 8–9: failing to punish sinners was negligent.
46 Register of Ralph of Shrewsbury, 2: 658–61, 694.
47 The Register of William Wickwane, Lord Archbishop of York 1279–1285, ed. William Brown, SS 114 (Durham, 1907), 99–102. Several other letters relate to this case, which continued.
48 Ibid.
49 Registrum Simonis de Gandavo, 1: 280–2.
50 Forrest, Trustworthy Men, particularly 307–30; idem, ‘Trust and Doubt: The Late Medieval Bishop and Local Knowledge’, in Frances Andrews, Charlotte Methuen and Andrew Spicer, eds, Doubting Christianity: The Church and Doubt, SCH 52 (Cambridge, 2016), 164–85.
51 Helmholz, ‘Canonical “juries”’; cf. idem, ‘Early History’.
52 Registrum Simonis de Gandavo, 1: 280–2.
53 Logan, Excommunication, 139; Vodola, Excommunication, 80, 99, 181–2.
54 Registrum Simonis de Gandavo, 1: 24–6. For compurgation, see R. H. Helmholz, ‘Crime, Compurgation and the Courts of the Medieval Church’, LHR 1 (1983), 1–26, at 13, 17.
55 The Register of Bishop Philip Repingdon, 1405–1419, 3: Memoranda, 1414–19, ed. Margaret Archer, Lincoln Record Society 74 ([Lincoln], 1982), 254–7. Repingdon appears not to have excused their ‘avarice’ on this account.
56 John Le Neve, Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae 1300–1541, 3: Salisbury Diocese, ed. Joyce M. Horn (London, 1962), 5, 7, 21, 26, 44, 47, 100. Helmholz noted that further inquests could be ordered: ‘Canonical “juries”’, 414–15.
57 Registrum Simonis de Gandavo, 1: 280–2.
58 For example, the citizens of Beverley who obtained absolution through ‘false prayers’, and were re-excommunicated: Register of Walter Giffard, 151.
59 Registrum Simonis de Gandavo, 1: 283–4. The dean's final letter is dated 1309, which may be an error: the manuscript's layout indicates it could have been added later, but why would it have taken over a year for penances to have been started?
60 Compare Fossier, Le Bureau des âmes, 280–4, which discusses inquests to determine appropriate penances.
61 For public penance, see Mary C. Mansfield, The Humiliation of Sinners: Public Penance in Thirteenth-Century France (London, 1995). It is conceivable that some malefactors did face secular justice; more research is required.
62 Registrum Simonis de Gandavo, 1: 24, 26–8.
63 Ibid. 1: 138–40, 145–51.
64 Registrum Ricardi Swinfield, episcopi Herefordensis, A.D. 1282–1307, ed. W. W. Capes, CYS 6 (London, 1909), 407–9.
65 Ibid. 431–2.
66 My forthcoming book examines at greater length the general excommunications concerning the church at Thame in 1292–4.
67 Helmholz, ‘Early History’; Poos, Lower Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, lx–lxiii.
68 Forrest, Trustworthy Men, advances this argument throughout Part 4; see also idem, ‘Trust and Doubt’.
69 Not to publicize that malefactors had incurred automatic excommunication would have been pastorally irresponsible.