¹ Watt, John, The Theory of Papal Monarchy in the Thirteenth Century: The Contribution of the Canonists (New York, 1965), 75–92; Pennington, Kenneth, Pope and Bishops: The Papal Monarchy in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries (Philadelphia, 1984), 13–74.Google Scholar

Work on this article was generously supported by the grant of a two-year M4Human Marie Curie Senior Research Fellowship 2013/14 under the joint sponsorship of the Gerda Henkel Foundation in Düsseldorf, Germany, and the European Research Commission. I am also grateful to Susanne Lepsius, member of the Law Faculty at the Ludwig-Maximilian's University of Munich, Germany, who kindly served as my adviser during the fellowship period.Google Scholar

² d'Avray, David, Medieval Marriage: Symbolism and Society (Oxford, 2005), 74–130, 168–99; cf. Lefebvre-Teillard, Anne, “Cum unica et virgine,” in Exceptiones iuris: Studies in Honor of André Gouron, ed. Durand, Bernard and Mayali, Laurent(Berkeley, CA, 2000), 367–83; repr. in eadem, Autour de l'enfant: Du droit canonique et romain médiéval au Code civile de 1804 (Leiden, 2008), 343–58.Google Scholar

³ D'Avray, , Medieval Marriage, 131–67. The fundamental study of canonical bigamy is byKuttner, Stephan, “Pope Lucius III and the Bigamous Archbishop of Palermo,” in Medieval Studies Presented to Audrey Gwynn (Dublin, 1961), 409–54; repr. with rev. in idem, The History of Ideas and Doctrines of Canon Law in the Middle Ages, 2nd ed. (Aldershot, 1992), no. VII. Bigamy in the modern sense of the word is the focus ofMcDougall, Sara, Bigamy and Christian Identity in Late Medieval Champagne (Philadelphia, 2012), especially 21–23.Google Scholar

⁴ Absolute insistence on the principle of indissolubility did not preclude separation due to the existence of canonical marriage impediments: seeHelmholz, Richard, Marriage Litigation in Medieval England (Cambridge, 1974), 74–111; Donahue, Charles Jr., Law, Marriage, and Society in the Later Middle Ages: Arguments about Marriage in Five Courts (Cambridge, 2007), 33–41. In addition, canon law allowed for divorce if a pagan spouse acted hatefully against the Christian faith of his or her Christian partner (in odium religionis): Rink, Otto, “Die Lehre von der Interpellation beim Paulinischen Privileg in der Kirchenrechtsschule von Bologna,” Traditio 8 (1952): 306–65; Rodriguez, Francisco Cantelar, El matrimonio de herejes: Bifurcacion del impedimentum disparis cultus y divorcio por herejia (Salamanca, 1972).Google Scholar

⁵ Pennington, , Pope and Bishops, 75–114; cf. ibid., 77–78, for an English version of the letter (Reg. 1.326), in which Innocent states: “Although it might seem that a pope might not dissolve a spiritual marriage — that is the marriage of a bishop and his church — nevertheless from customary usage, which is the best interpreter of law and the sacred canons, the pope has full power in the matter and may dissolve a spiritual marriage through the … translation of a bishop.” Proof demonstrating the quotidian nature of episcopal translations in administrative practice is provided byEubel, Conrad, Hierarchia catholica medii et recentioris aevi, 2 vols. (Münster, 1913–14), which lists late medieval bishops (from 1198) along with their prior position within the priestly hierarchy, often indicating a move from one diocese to another.Google Scholar

⁶ Cf. n. 8 below; alsoMacy, Gary, The Hidden History of Women's Ordination: Female Clergy in the Medieval West (Oxford, 2008), 89–127; Martin, John, “The Ordination of Women and the Theologians in the Middle Ages,” Escritos del Vedat 34 (1986): 115–77; ibid., 36 (1988): 87–143.Google Scholar

⁷ Glossa ordinaria, in X 1.21.2; ed. Kuttner, , “Pope Lucius III,” 451–52, who limited his survey of canonistic doctrine to glosses and commentaries written until the mid-thirteenth century, ibid., 415n23. He noted the Libellus dispensationum of Johannes de Deo, ibid., 449–51, as another proponent of the minority stance. Incidentally, a consistent use of the terms interpretative and vere never developed; see n. 11 below.Google Scholar

⁸ [Antonius de Butrio], inPanormitanus, , Commentaria, in X 1.21.2 s.v. Super eo (Venice, 1578), fol. 94r^b (no. 6): “Glossa in hoc tenet quod potestas papae ex hoc minui non videtur et quod poterit papa dispensare cum bigamo. Hoc tenet Hostiensis et fortificatur eius opinio si dicitur quod irregularitas non sit annexa bigamiae de iure naturali sed solum de positivo et quod quem non esse bigamum non sit de essentia ordinis patet quia verum ordinem recipit ut in dicta Glossa, quod non esset verum si illud esset de ipsius essentia.” Because Panormitanus did not write on X 1.21, early modern editions of his decretal commentary often inserted de Butrio's text without proper attribution; cf. Pennington, Kenneth, “Nicolaus de Tudeschis (Panormitanus),” in Niccolò Tedeschi (Abbas Panormitanus) e i suoi Commentaria in Decretales, ed. Condorelli, Orazio(Rome, 2000), 9–36.Google Scholar

⁹ [Antonius de Butrio], inPanormitanus, , Commentaria, in X 1.21.2 s.v. Super eo, fol. 94v^a (no. 8): “Quaero de quibus bigamis loquitur? Respondeo quod de bigamis veris et interpretativis. Unde bigamus dicitur … tertio qui scienter cognovit uxorem adulteram”; see also the immediately following passage, which is cited below, n. 45. Ibid., in 1.21.6. s.v. Debitum, fol. 96r^b–v^a (no. 1): “Quaero cum Glossa quare ad inducendum bigamiae vitium plus ponderatur incontinentia per respectum ad mulierem quam ad virum. Nam si mulier fuit cognita et maritus eam ducat vir bigamus efficitur et tamen si vir ante vel post concubinam tenuisset et cognovisset bigamus non esset.”Google Scholar

¹⁰ Cf. below, n. 39. Canonical matrimony was created by the simple exchange of vows between two viable partners, rendering proof of it in the judicial sphere often difficult; for literature on the doctrine of impediments, see n. 4 above.Google Scholar

¹¹ Decisiones novae Rotae Romanae, no. 447: De bigamis (Lyon, 1509), fol. 107v^b–108v^b; cf. Dolezalek, Gero, “Zur handschriftlichen Verbreitung von Rechtsprechungssammlungen der Rota,” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte: Kanonistische Abteilung 58 (1972): 1–106. Curiously and against scholastic convention, the fourteenth-century Rota decision took the distinction between true and interpretive bigamy to mean the same as that (highlighted especially in X 1.21) between bigamia de iure and de facto; see Decisiones novae 447, fol. 107v^b: “Ad propositum sive casum nostrum in quo secundum omnes dominos reputabant dictum clericum de facto cum vidua contrahentem interpretative bigamum.”de Clavasio, Angelus, Summa angelica de casibus conscientiae (ca. 1486), s.v. Bigamia (Lyon, 1534), fol. 35v^a, presents instead a threefold terminological scheme that defines canonical bigamists de facto as bigami similitudinarie.Google Scholar

¹² Montaigne, Jean, “Tractatus de utraque bigamia,” in Tractatus universi iuris in unum congesti IX: De matrimonio et dote (Venice, 1584), fol. 121v^b–132r^b, at fol. 130v^a–132r^b. For bio-bibliographical information on the author (d. 1520) and his work (first printed ca. April 1513), seede Pins, Jean, Letters and Letter Fragments, ed. Pendergrass, Jan N.(Paris, 2007), 186n1; alsoMarchetto, Giuliano, “‘Primus fuit Lamech’: La bigamia tra irregolarità e delitto nella dottrina di diritto commune,” in Trasgressione, seduzione, concubinato, bigamia (secoli XIV–XVIII), ed. Menchi, Silvana Seidel and Quaglioni, Diego(Bologna, 2004), 43–105, at 45–61.Google Scholar

¹³ Montaigne, , “Tractatus,” fol. 131r^b–v^a (nos. 10–11): “Haec conclusio duas habet partes principales. Prima est quod summus pontifex potest in bigamia ius commune relaxare, secunda quod inferiores quacunque praefulgeant authoritate hanc dispensationem facere non possunt…. Alexander quoque VI et Innocentius VIII feruntur cum nonnullis bigamis dispensasse et plures alii Romani pontifices. Nec quicquam absurdum videatur exemplum in medium adducere per legem Nemo, C. De sen. et inter. omn. iud., ubi dicit quod non exemplis sed legibus iudicandum est (Cod. 7.45.13); et alibi: nunquid fiat vel factum fuerit, sed potius quid fieri debeat consideran oportet, 1. Sed licet, ff. De offi. praesi. (Dig. 1.18.12); c. Cum causam, De elect. (X 1.6.27).”Google Scholar

¹⁴ That is, an earlier matrimonial agreement that invalidates the existing one; for bibliography, see n. 4 above; also n. 17 below.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Grants to British recipients were repeatedly registered by the Chancery; seeCalendar of Entries in the Papal Registers Relating to Great Britain and Ireland, 1198–1521, 20 vols. (London, 1893–2005), 1:90, 5:114, 6:352, 6:415, 7:501, 10:241, 11:83–84, 11:106–7, 11:547–48, 12:585–86, 13:648.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Cf.Kuttner, , “Pope Lucius III,” 423n57. Around 1513, dispensation by bishops was opposed with unprecedented vigor by Jean Montaigne, “Tractatus,” fol. 131v^b (nos. 13–14): “Secunda autem pars conclusionis praedicte probatur authoritate et ratione. Authoritate Innocentii in dicto c. Super eo (X 1.21.2), ubi Johannes Andreae post Franciscum Vercellinum tenet etiam quod in minoribus ordinibus non possit dispensare episcopus. Idem Johannes Andreae in Novellis, in dicto capitulo unico, eo. t. li. 6 (VI 1.12.1), Dominicus Geminianus, Philippus Franciscus, ubi post Johannem Imolensem et Petrum de Ancharano Archidiaconus, in d. c. Si subdiaconus (D.34 c.17) et c. Lector (D.34 c.18). Tangit sed non figit pedem Ricardus et theologi ubi supra [4 lib. senten., dist. 27, art. 4 q. 1], Baptista [in Sum., in ver. Bigamia, par. penul.] et Clavasius [in Sum., ver. Bigamia], Albericus Rosatensis [in Dictionario, in versic. Bigamia] in locis supra allegatis. Et est communis opinio doctorum, licet Hostiensis et Raymundus ubi superius tenuerint quod episcopus possit cum bigamo in minoribus ordinibus dispensare per di. c. Lector (D.34 c.18), quod parum facit, sed pro authoritate et opinione doctorum preallegata facit optime c. II, c. Nuper et c. fin., eodem [De bigamis non ordinandis] (X 1.21.2, 4, and 7), ubi prohibetur dispensare cum bigamo quae prohibitio ad inferiores prelatos est referenda, non ad papam illam facientem nec eius successores per ea quae supra dicta sunt. Ratione: episcopus non potest contra constitutionem concilii generalis vel in concilio generali promulgata dispensare. Imo nec legatus papae etiam de latere notat Glossa in c. Dilectus i., in ver. Cum se facultas, De praeben. (X 3.5.19); in c. Cum dilectus, in ver. In aetate, circa medium, De elec. (X 1.6.32); et c. Dilectus, glossa penult., De fi. presby. (X 1.17.17). Sed in pluribus conciliis generalibus fuit institutum quod bigami ad clericatum non admittantur, maxime … per concilium generale Lugdunense, in quo Gregorius X papa fuit, bigami omni privilegio clericali sunt nudati, c. uno, eo. ti. li. 6 (VI 1.12.1). Ergo non possunt episcopi nec alii inferiores a papa cum bigamis dispensare etiam in minoribus ordinibus.”Google Scholar

¹⁷ No instance appears in the series of English Episcopal Acta, 41 vols. (London, 1980–2012), which mainly covers eleventh- to thirteenth-century material with few dispensations from impediments to ordination in general; registers after 1300 have been published especially by the Canterbury & York Society, with indexes that under the English term of “bigamy” refer to cases of pre-contract rather than canonical bigamia; cf. Robin L. Storey, ed., The Register of Gilbert Welton, Bishop of Carlisle 1353–1362 (Woodbridge, 1999), 191; Joyce Horn, ed., The Register of Robert Hallum, Bishop of Salisbury 1407–1417 (Torquay, 1982), 333.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Archer, Margaret, ed., The Register of Bishop Philip Repingdon, 1405–1419, 3 vols. (Hereford, 1963–82), 3:48 (no. 78), dated 24 May 1413; see n. 42 below.Google Scholar

¹⁹ The four series of papal registers include the Registra Vaticana (Reg. Vat., 1198–); the Registra Avinionensia (Reg. Av., 1308–1417); the Registra Lateranensia (Reg. Lat., 1378–); and the Registra Supplicationum (Reg. Suppl., 1342–); cf.Boyle, Leonard, A Survey of the Vatican Archives and of Its Medieval Holdings (Toronto, 1972), 114–31.Google Scholar

²⁰ That pecuniary interests could persuade the pope to dispense from canonical bigamy is expressly stated in a decision of the Roman Rota from the time of Urban VI (1378–89), in Decisiones novae 447, fol. 108v^b: “Indiget dispensatione papali quam papa Urbanus VI impe<n>dit predicto religioso … quia etiam erat valde nobilis, dives et senex et multa bona intrando religionem secum detulit ac monasterio reliquit que cause interdum dispensationem inducunt.”dit+predicto+religioso+…+quia+etiam+erat+valde+nobilis,+dives+et+senex+et+multa+bona+intrando+religionem+secum+detulit+ac+monasterio+reliquit+que+cause+interdum+dispensationem+inducunt.”>Google Scholar

²¹ “Ut per litteras apostolicas … Les lettres des papes des XIII^e et XIV^e siècles” (Turnhout, 2011), CD-ROM.Google Scholar

²² Archivio Segreto Vaticano (ASV), Reg. Vat. 23 no. 90, fol. 157v; in Les Registres d'Innocent IV (1243–1254), ed. Berger, Elié, 4 vols. (Paris, 1884–1921), no. 7906 (3 August 1254).Google Scholar

²³ ASV, Reg. Av. 173, fol. 341v, in Lettres communes des papes d'Avignon: Grégoire XI (1370–1378), ed. Hayez, Anne-Marie, 3 vols. (Paris, 1992–93), no. 12091 (13 August 1371). ASV, Reg. Av. 188, fol. 344v; ASV, Reg. Vat. 284, fol. 14r; ed. Hayez, , no. 26382 (25 January 1373). A previous dispensation for a canonical bigamist by Pope Urban V permitted only monastic, not clerical, tonsure: ASV, Reg. Av. 165, fol. 375r; ASV Reg. Vat. 256, fol. 21v; Lettres communes des papes d'Avignon: Urbain V (1362–1370), ed. Laurent, Marie-Hyacinthe et al., 13 vols. (Paris, 1954–89), no. 19626 (15 January 1367).Google Scholar

²⁴ Rome, Palazzo della Cancelleria, Archivio della Penitenzieria Apostolica, APA Registrum matrimonialium et diversorum 53, fol. 553v (27 July 1507); ibid. 54, fols. 134v–135r (17 April 1508); ibid., 54, fol. 229r (4 July 1508); and n. 25 below.D'Avray, , Medieval Marriage (n. 2 above), 268–69, has already called attention to the phenomenon, transcribing from APA 75, fol. 298r (10 April 1526); ibid. 75, fol. 473v (21 November 1526), two entries concerning minor clerics from Girona and Barcelona.Google Scholar

²⁵ Rome, APA Registrum matrimonialium et diversorum 59 (of 1515/16), contains such dispensations for recipients from Jaén (fol. 274r), Plasencia (253r), Cordoba (231v–232r), Seville (215r–v; 231v; 242v), Zaragoza (205r), Valencia (176r, thrice), Malaga (202r), Salamanca (34r; 82r; 106v–107r), Lisbon (21v), Cartagena (24v–25r; 240r), Calahorra (36v), Burgos (55r–v), Toledo (147v; 205r); one petitioner was originally from Rodez in southern France, but lived in Valencia (36v); another may have been from Turin (Taurinensis diocesis), although he had a Spanish name, Raimundus Garcia de Salis (135r).Google Scholar

²⁶ “Licentia ut aliquis bigamus possit uti caractere clericali ante contractam bigamiam.”Müller, Wolfgang P., ed., “Die Gebühren der päpstlichen Pönitentiarie (1338–1569),” Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 78 (1998): 249–61, at 261, lines 416–17; for a survey and discussion of these sources, ibid., 189–237; and idem, “The Price of Papal Pardon: New Fifteenth-Century Evidence,” in Päpste, Pilger, Pönitentiarie: Festschrift für Ludwig Schmugge zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Meyer, Andreas et al. (Tübingen, 2004), 457–81. Another list of 1525–30 from within the Poenitentiaria still offers but scattered notices on bigamia: Göller, Emil, ed., Die päpstliche Pönitentiarie von ihrem Ursprung bis zu ihrer Umgestaltung unter Pius V, 2 vols. in 4 parts (Rome, 1907–11), 2:2.146–73, at 170.Google Scholar

²⁷ Vatican, ASV Instrum. misc. 7467, fols. 1r–23r, at 9r–v; a second copy, Vatican, BAV Barb. lat. 2859, fols. 1r–26v, at 9v, presents (in Arabic numerals) the total of taxae next to the portion owed to the college of scribes (in Roman numerals); another version of the list is found at the Vatican, Archivio della Fabbrica di San Pietro (not seen). Compiled around 1536, a series of decrees by the Major Penitentiary may document the earliest comprehensive discussion of dispensations from bigamia in the minor orders: Göller, ed., Die päpstliche Pönitentiarie, 2:2.43–69, at 54.Google Scholar

²⁸ Vatican, ASV Instrum, misc. 7467, fol. 9v: “Pro bigamo ad omnes etiam sacros vidi unam expeditam et taxatam ad Turonenses sexaginta — videlicet Tur. LX. Non tamen datur minime nisi per signaturam pape.” Vatican, BAV Barb. lat. 2859, fol. 9v, specifies the same taxa as: “LX.180”; cf. the previous note above. On the currency of (libri) Turonenses, seeSpufford, Peter, Handbook of Mediaeval Exchange (London, 1986), 121–28.Google Scholar

²⁹ Repertorium Poenitentiariae Germanicum (= RPG) I–VIII: (1431–1503), ed. Schmugge, Ludwig et al. (vols I–VII = Tübingen, 1996–2008; vol. VIII = Berlin, 2012). Supplications from England and Wales in the Registers of the Apostolic Penitentiary, 1410–1503, ed. Clarke, Peter D. and Zutshi, Patrick N. R., 3 vols. (Woodbridge, 2013–15).Google Scholar

³⁰ RPG VII no. 2270, is the sole known dispensation from bigamia sent through the Penitentiary; cf. nn. 32, 36 below. Eight papal signatures were placed under dispensations from homicide for clerics: RPG III no. 444; RPG IV nos. 1526, 1561, 1574, 1596 (in lower orders only), 1793, 1809; RPG VII no. 2156; plus four for declarations that such an offense had not occurred: RPG IV nos. 1260, 1553, 1793, 1803. Another ten entries removed marriage impediments in prohibited degrees: RPG III nos. 252, 1972; RPG IV nos. 180, 348, 355, 445, 631, 697, 712; RPG VI nos. 373, 1121; RPG VII no. 634.Google Scholar

³¹ RPG IV nos. 697, 1380, 1398, 1498. The three mandates signed by Pope Sixtus IV (1471–84) were on behalf of poor supplicants as well: RPG VI nos. 373, 1121, 2598. Eugene IV (1431–47), Paul II (1464–71), and Alexander VII (1492–1503) did not endorse personally any of the petitions in RPG I, RPG V, and RPG VIII; Nicholas V (1447–55) one in RPG II (no. 924).Google Scholar

³² RPG VII no. 2270, where the text is almost fully transcribed. By error, RPG III no. 210 cites another dispensation for promotion to priestly rank as that of a cleric formerly married in statu bigamo. Instead, the original text in Rome, APA Registrum matrimonialium et diversorum 6, fol. 378v, reads in statu virgineo.Google Scholar

³³ Repertorium Germanicum (= RG) 1–9: (1378–1471) (Berlin, 1916–61; 1979–2000). Registres des lettres; Calendar of Entries. The first series of the Analecta Vaticano-Belgica: Textes et analyses (1316–1431), 31 vols. (Rome, 1906–87), is difficult to consult for the lack of analytical indices.Google Scholar

³⁴ A telling entry is provided by the petition of a bigamus from the archdiocese of York, who in 1345 requested a papal dispensation to serve in his clerical rank and as a notary. He obtained only the latter; Vatican, ASV Reg. suppl. 10, fol. 143v (cf. Calendar of Entries, 1.90): “Supplicat sanctitati vestre Johannes Bateman Coutonensis Eboracensis diocesis quatenus sibi specialem gratiam facientes officium tabellionatus auctoritate apostolica non obstante quod ipse contraxit matrimonium cum quadam vidua quam carnaliter cognovit que nunc defuncta est et quod possit in ordinibus ante bigamiam susceptis ministrare et privilegio clericali gaudere concedere dignemini et misericorditer cum ipso dispensare ut in forma. Fiat de tabellionatu, R. Et quod transeat sine alia lectione, fiat R. Datum Avinione xvi kalendas ianuarii anno quarto.”Google Scholar

³⁵ For Boniface IX, cf. Vatican, ASV Reg. Lat. 74, fol. 255v (Calendar of Entries, 5.287): dispensation for a priest, 31 October 1400. For John [XXIII], see ASV Reg. Lat. 172, fols. 57v–58r (Calendar of Entries, 6.438): dispensation for promotion in sacris, 9 October 1413; ASV Reg. Lat. 173, fol. 154v (Calendar of Entries, 6.449): promotion to priesthood, but short of access to altar services, 26 October 1413. On 26 December 1411, John [XXIII] also issued a declaration in favor of a suspected bigamus seeking promotion to priestly orders, ASV Reg. Lat. 157, fols. 17v–18r (Calendar of Entries, 6.286).Google Scholar

³⁶ The case is discussed below, nn. 43–44, 46. Following the end of the schism in 1417, the only other dispensation presently identifiable is the one by Innocent VIII of 1491 (nn. 30, 32 above).Google Scholar

³⁷ Vatican, ASV Reg. suppl. 467, fol. 105r–v (RG 6 no. 3230): “Beatissime pater. Supplicat sanctitati vestre devotus vester Johannes de Meminghen clericus Augustensis diocesis qui olim cum quadam muliere tunc relicta sive vidua et annosa matrimonium per verba legitime de presenti contraxit et ei pluribus annis adhesit prout eam ut coniugem suam de presenti tenet bigamie notam sive vicium incurrendo. Cumque pater sancte dicta uxor sit etatis decrepite dictusque Johannes cupiat propterea et alias zelo devotionis accensus aliquam approbatam religionem ingredi et in ea altissimo sedulum saltem in diaconatus ordine propter officium predicandi prestare famulatum supplicat itaque eidem sanctitati vestre dictus Johannes magister in artibus et in iure canonico baccalarius quatenus ipsius pio et laudabili proposito huiusmodi more pii patris misericorditer annuentes secum et caractere clericali quo dudum ante contractum matrimonium huiusmodi insignitus fuit uti et dicte mulieris ad id expresso accedente consensu religionem huiusmodi ingredi in illaque professionem regularem emittere necnon ad reliquos minores et subdiaconatus et diaconatus ordines promoveri et in illis ministrare ac officio predicationis infra septa monasterii sive loci in quo erit pro tempore et alibi ad hoc electus fungi libere et licite valeat premisso defectu ac constitutionibus et ordinationibus apostolicis ceterisque in contrarium facientibus non obstantibus quibuscumque et cum clausulis oportunis. Fiat de ingressu religionis et de consensu uxoris ut petitur. Datum Rome apud sanctum Petrum quinto nonas iulii anno septimo (3 July 1453).”Google Scholar

³⁸ ASV Reg. suppl. 519, fols. 192v–193r (RG 8 no. 3252; of 10 July 1459); “Beatissime pater. Exponitur sanctitati vestre pro parte pauperculorum vestre sanctitatis oratoris vicarii provincie Argentinensis ordinis minorum de observantia ac guardianorum ipsius quod devotus vestre sanctitatis orator frater Johannes de Menninhenge adhuc secularium artium magister et in iure canonico bacallarius bigamus devotione quadam ad Deum accensus a felicis recordationis Nicolao quinto predecessore vestro per bullam apostolicam super bigamia dispensationem obtinuit videlicet quod posset accipere sacros ordines usque ad diaconatum inclusive religionemque approbatam intrare et verbum Dei in loco seu conventu ubi staret populo predicari. Verum pater cum autem ipsi oratores attendentes fructum qui populo ex suis sermonibus divina gratia sic concedente autem super dicta supplicatione quoddam parvum scrupulum sibi formatum est … an ipse cui data est licentia in locis fratrum predicandi etiam in aliis locis ydoneis dum per obedientiam sibi preciperetur seminare verbum Dei non debeat neque possit, … supplicant … quatenus … ut in omnibus locis per superiores ordinatis … predicare valeat licentiam impertire dignemini…. Et quod presentis supplicationis sola signatura sufficiat: fiat E.”Google Scholar

³⁹ Accordingly, no bigamia had occurred in a letter issued by the Papal Chancery to an Augustinian friar who twice married women within prohibited degrees of affinity, Vatican, ASV Reg. Lat. 416, fol. 32r (Calendar of Entries, 9.948–949; 3 April 1445). Sexual affinity also voided claims of canonical bigamy in a petition to the Penitentiary, RPG VIII no. 2583 (21 May 1496); as did another one due to a spiritual impediment, RPG IV no. 1760 (28 November 1459).Google Scholar

⁴⁰ An invalid wedding (with a widow) because of pre-contract (n. 14 above) is addressed in Calendar of Entries, 16.463; consent among adulterers to marry created the impediment in Supplications, ed. Clarke, and Zutshi, , no. 1420 (21 October 1467); RPG VIII no. 2643 (6 January 1498); also ibid., no. 3288 (5 November 1493), where the legal principle is invoked in the petition itself: “Cum autem secundum canonum instituta nullus in matrimonium ducere possit quam antea per adulterium polluit et presertim ubi data est fides adultere ut defuncto legitimo eam duceret in uxorem … matrimonium inter exponentem et mulierem non valet.”Google Scholar

⁴¹ The theoretical underpinnings are summarized by [Antonius de Butrio], inPanormitanus, , Commentaria, in X 1.21.5 s.v. Debitum, fols. 55v^a–56v^a. Concerning actual cases, RPG VI no. 3616, deals with a virgin who did not consummate with her first husband; RPG VIII no. 3255 (31 October 1492), with a man who did not consummate his second marriage; Calendar of Entries, 10.174 (cf. ASV, Reg. Vat. 403, fol. 89r–v; 21 February 1450) and RPG VIII no. 3404 (9 May 1499), each with weddings to widows (coerced in the second instance), but short of intercourse. Outside the RPG; the RG; the Supplications, ed. Clarke, and Zutshi, ; and the Calendar of Entries, there is another petition granted by the Penitentiaria, in APA Reg. matrimonialium et diversorum 50, fol. 496r–v, under the condition that the supplicant from Tortosa in Spain did not consummate with his second wife, a widow (27 December 1502).Google Scholar

⁴² Above, n. 18; cf.Hostiensis, , Summa, in X 1.21 (Lyon, 1537), fol. 99r^a: “Sexto queritur quid si quis defloravit virginem et postea duxerit in uxorem? Dicunt quidam quod non est bigamus quia non divisit carnem suam in plures…. Et hec opinio celebrior est secundum Goffredum et magistrum Raymundum quam opinio quam amplector. Quamvis enim carnem suam in plures non diviserit tamen negari non potest quin cum corrupta fuerit matrimonium consummatum. Ergo deest signaculum sacramenti…. Ideo audacter dico quod virgo debet esse sponsa eo tempore quo matrimonium contrahitur et etiam quando consummatur.”Google Scholar

⁴³ ASV Reg. suppl. 483, fols. 62v–63r (RG 7 no. 1814): “Beatissime pater. Devotus sanctitatis vestre Johannes Schoneman presbiter Maguntinensis diocesis quondam uxorem suam legitimam unicam ac virginem sibi desponsatam et matrimonialiter carnis copula[m] secuta[m] cum sexus fragilitate indebita alieni concupiscentia devicta in legem commisisset coniugii ut ab erroris sui semita revocari posset pie motus precipue ad suffocandum scandalum quod in populo occasione adulterii admissi exortum tunc extitit eam sibi reconciliavit et matrimoniali thoro restituit.” Continued in the next note, below.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Ibid., fol. 63r: “Qua in Domino defuncta ipse Johannes simplici et sincera intencione ad spiritualem anhelans miliciam statutis a iure temporibus ad omnes se fecit sacros ordines promoveri et confidenter in eisdem ministrans postremo hoc quando intellexisset tamquam iuris ignarus se dicte quondam uxoris sue reconciliationis et subsecutorum occasione bigamiam vere aut interpretative contraxisse verum cum ad hoc avisamentum suscepisset illico se subtrahens ab ordinum predictorum mi<ni>sterio apud sedem apostolicam sibi de remedio oportuno provideri humiliter postulavit. Et licet beatissime pater literis patentibus reverendissimi in Christo Patris et Domini domini Dominici titulo Sancte Crucis in Iherusalem sanete Romane ecclesie presbiteri cardinalis summi penitentiarii sanctitatis vestre declaratum existat ipsum Johannem exponentem nullam ex facto cuius premittitur casus contraxisse bigamiam ipseque huiusmodi declaracionis ac processus executorum de presenti desuper subsecuti intuitu ordinum ipsorum execucionem ac ministerium resumpsisset et aliquamdiu continuasset nichilominus tamen a nonnullis viris timoratis et peritis asseritur iam dictam declarationem a statutis canonum deviare unde id exponens non parum reservatus denuo se subtrahere a celebracione ad sanctitatem vestram tamquam post naufragia plurima perpessa ad portum tutissimum recurrit.” Continued in n. 46 below.sterio+apud+sedem+apostolicam+sibi+de+remedio+oportuno+provideri+humiliter+postulavit.+Et+licet+beatissime+pater+literis+patentibus+reverendissimi+in+Christo+Patris+et+Domini+domini+Dominici+titulo+Sancte+Crucis+in+Iherusalem+sanete+Romane+ecclesie+presbiteri+cardinalis+summi+penitentiarii+sanctitatis+vestre+declaratum+existat+ipsum+Johannem+exponentem+nullam+ex+facto+cuius+premittitur+casus+contraxisse+bigamiam+ipseque+huiusmodi+declaracionis+ac+processus+executorum+de+presenti+desuper+subsecuti+intuitu+ordinum+ipsorum+execucionem+ac+ministerium+resumpsisset+et+aliquamdiu+continuasset+nichilominus+tamen+a+nonnullis+viris+timoratis+et+peritis+asseritur+iam+dictam+declarationem+a+statutis+canonum+deviare+unde+id+exponens+non+parum+reservatus+denuo+se+subtrahere+a+celebracione+ad+sanctitatem+vestram+tamquam+post+naufragia+plurima+perpessa+ad+portum+tutissimum+recurrit.”+Continued+in+n.+46+below.>Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Lack of judicial proof beyond mere fama existed to the contrary in a declaratio concerning the bigamia a certain Henricus had incurred due to his former wife's supposed adultery; it was granted by John [XXIII] in December 1411; see ASV Reg. Lateranen. 157, fols. 17v–18r (Calendar of Entries 6.286): “Cum autem sicut eadem petitio subiungebat a nonnullis asseratur quod mulier ipsa stante huiusmodi matrimonio adulterium commiserit quodque predictus Henricus nequeat propterea licite eandem ecclesiam retinere sive se ad aliquos sacros ordines facere promoveri pro parte dicti Henrici asserentis quod eandem mulierem dicto durante matrimonio commisisse adulterium huiusmodi penitus ignoravit et etiam alias quam assertione huiusmodi ignorat de presenti nobis fuit humiliter supplicatum ut ad obstruendum ora obloquentium sibi in premissis de oportuno declarationis remedio providere de benignitate apostolica dignaremur.” The mandate went against the opinion of many canonists who maintained that ignorance of a wife's unfaithfulness did not excuse the husband from canonical bigamy, cf. [Antonius de Butrio], inPanormitanus, , Commentaria, in X 1.21.2 s.v. Super eo, fol. 94v^a (no. 8): “Bigamus dicitur … tertio qui scienter cognovit uxorem adulteram, D.34 c.11 and c.12. Dicunt doctores quod etiam idem est si ignoranter secundum Huguccionem, Laurentium, Raymundum in Summa huius tituli, § Item pone, Abbas et Petrus qui credit dictum Iohannis Andreae esse verum cum hic non agatur de vitio ordinandi quo casu requiritur scientia sed de defectu sacramenti quem etiam ignorans pati potest.”Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Continued from n. 44 above: “Humiliter ac devote supplicans quatenus a<t>tenta pietate quam defuncte uxori in reconciliatione sua exhibuit unde gratiam pocius sperare debeat quam detrimentum sustinere quandocumque etiam non indigne pensandum sit quod bigamie non sit adiuncta irregularitas iure naturali sed dumtaxat positivo [cf. n. 8 above] alicui probo viro in partibus committere dignemini qui attentis premissis secum super irregularitate ac bigamia premissorum aut alia occasione quacumque preterquam in contemptu clavium contracta auctoritate apostolica dispenset liberam ei eadem auctoritate tribuens facultatem.” The pope's favorable response is preserved word-for-word in the chancery register of outgoing letters, ASV Reg. Vat. 454, fol. 216r–v (RG 7 no. 1814): “Nos igitur de premissis certam noticiam non habentes huiusmodi supplicationibus inclinati discretioni tue per apostolica scripta mandamus quatenus de premissis omnibus et singulis eorum circumstanciis universis te diligenter informes et si per informationem huiusmodi ita esse reperis super quo tuam conscientiam oneramus cum dicto Johanne super irregularitate et bigamia huiusmodi si qua premissorum aut alia quacumque occasione non tamen in contemptum clavium contraxit vel incurrit eadem auctoritate nostra dispenses ac sibi ut in sic per eum susceptis ordinibus etiam in altaris officio ministrare libere et licite possit et valeat eadem auctoritate concedes omnemque aboleas inhabilitatis et infamie maculam sive notam per ipsum Johannem premissorum occasione contractam non obstantibus premissis ac constitutionibus et ordinationibus apostolicis ceterisque contrariis quibuscumque. Datum Rome apud sanctum Petrum, anno incarnationis Dominice mcccc<l>v, quarto idus iulii pontificatus nostri anno primo.”Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Apart from the administrative records with their six incidents to 1500 presently known, there are two passages in the doctrinal literature that refer with near certainty to actual papal dispensations in sacris. The first is mentioned in the Summa of Huguccio, written ca. 1188–90, and speaks of a “certain bigamus to whom Lucius III [1181–85] conceded access to the presbyterate.” Its historicity has been confirmed byKuttner, , “Archbishop Lucius III” (n. 3 above), 430–38. The second occurred under Pope Urban VI (1378–89) following the testimony of a contemporary judge from the Roman Rota (n. 20 above).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ As quoted previously in n. 46: “Quandocumque etiam non indigne pensandum sit quod bigamie non sit adiuncta irregularitas iure naturali sed dumtaxat positivo,” paraphrasing doctrine along the lines of Antonius de Butrio (n. 8 above): “Hoc tenet Hostiensis et fortificatur eius opinio si dicitur quod irregularitas non sit annexa bigamiae de iure naturali sed solum de positivo.”Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Common juristic opinion never questioned the ability of the Apostolic See to dispense below the sub-diaconate, asKuttner, , “Pope Lucius III,” has shown. However, it looks as if the ability of bishops to do the same was increasingly denied after 1250; cf. n. 16 above.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ The text of Altercationis, ed. and trans. Tanner, Norman, Conciliorum oecumenicorum decreta, 2 vols. (Washington, DC, 1990), 1:322(Const. II.16), circulated in the following version as part of the Liber sextus (VI 1.12.1): “Altercationis antique dubium presentis declarationis oraculo decidentes bigamos omni privilegio clericali declaramus esse nudatos et coerctioni fori secularis addictos consuetudine contraria non obstante. Ipsis quoque sub anathemate prohibemus deferrre tonsuram vel habitum clericalem.”Google Scholar

⁵¹ The rule laid down in Altercationis was integrated into the general definition of clerical status by Boniface VIII in 1298 (VI 3.1.2): “Clerici qui cum unicis et virginibus contraxerunt si tonsuram et vestes deferant clericales privilegium retineant canonis ab Innocentio papa.” The Glossa of Johannes Andreae remarked on the word “unicis” (Sexti libri decretalium opus cum glosis Johannis Andreae [Rome, 1474], fol. 125r^b): “Quia si bigami essent, omni privilegio clericali exuti essent nec possunt etiam portare tonsuram, supra, eodem libro, De bigamis, Altercationis (VI 1.12.1).”Google Scholar

⁵² For France, seeGénestal, Robert, Le “privilegium fori” en France du Décret de Gratien à la fin du XIV^e siècle, 2 vols. (Paris, 1921–24); de Carbonnières, Louis, La procédure devant la chambre criminelle du Parlement de Paris au XIV^e siècle (Paris, 2004), 337–41. In a case of 1403, secular judges from Aragon explicitly refused delivery of a bigamus to the bishop of Barcelona: cf.Seoane, Yolanda Serrano, “El sistema penal del Tribunal Eclesiastico de la Diocesis de Barcelona en la Baja Edad Media,” Clio & Crimen 3 (2006): 334–428, 430–528, at 352–53. Concerning England, seeGabel, Leona C., Benefit of Clergy in England in the Later Middle Ages (Northampton, MA, 1929); Baker, John, “Benefit of Clergy in England and Its Secularization, 1450–1550,” in “Ins Wasser geworfen und Ozeane durchquert”: Festschrift für Knut Wolfgang Nörr, ed. Ascheri, Mario et al. (Cologne, 2003), 27–37.Google Scholar

⁵³ Following the analytical categories of the sociologist Max Weber (d. 1920) as summarized byd'Avray, David, Medieval Religious Rationalities: A Weberian Analysis (Cambridge, 2010), 16–26, 164–69, this instance of incompatible teachings with regard to key religious values like papal plenitude of power and the divine institution of the two swords, one spiritual and one lay, would point to a residue of “substantive irrationality” in late medieval canon law. The systematization of doctrine went only so far.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ The canonical principle is invoked by the Decisiones novae 447, fol. 108v^b: “Si vellet intrare religionem … conservantur etiam bigamo privilegia emunitatis prout notat Archidiaconus in dicto capitulo unico, De bigamia (VI 1.12.1).” The same source refers to Urban VI's dispensation in sacris, which also was in favor of a regular cleric: cf. n. 47 above.Google Scholar