“… Killings, Unfortunately, Take Place More Often Here than Anywhere Else:” Civil and Clerical Homicide in Late Medieval Norway

“ . . . KILLINGS, UNFORTUNATELY, TJ\KE PLACE
MORE OFTEN HERE THAN ANYWHERE ELSE:“
CIVIL AND CLERICAL HOMICIDE IN L’\TE MEDIEV.-\L NORWAY
Torstein J 11rgensen
Introduc/ion
The quotation in the tide is taken from a Ietter of rebuke from the bishop of
Oslo to the people of the clistrict of Upper Telemark in 1395 l The bishop, who had
visited the area, was consternated about what he had seen of violence and killing, both
in terms of frequency and the degree of brutality. Whether the bishop was right in his
comparative assertion or not can, of course, never be fully ascertained. But it is a fact
that accorcling to the preserved late medieval sources this area seems to have been especially
stricken with violence and killing 2 From different sources we know that physical
brutality and fighting, with or without weapons, often endi.ng in death, occurred frequendy
in Norwegian society in the late Middle Ages. A.ltogether, some 300 cases of
killing are registered as havi.ng been dealt with by the Norwegian civil jurisdictional
apparatus during the period from 1300 to 1 560 J When it comes to the ecclesiastical
structure, we know from the registers of the office of the Papal Penitentiary that clerics
were by no means left out of these matters, either as perpetrators or victims. From the
rather limited period of surviving protocols from the meclieval operation of this offtce,
i.e., from around 1450 onwards,4 altogerher 34 supplications deal.ing with clerics who
. . . manndrapp, puj wrer, hrenda hocr meir ren j nokrom adrom bygda:lagom,“ Norges Gamlt Love (henceforth
NGL) 2. Rrekke, vol. I (Kristiania: Gmndahl & s0n, 1 904), 329.
Steinar Imsen, Norsk bondekommunalismefra Magnm Lagabete til Krislian kiKlrl, I. M.iddelalderen (Trondhjem:
Tapir, 1990), 91.
Olav Solberg, Forteljingar om drap – kriminalhistorier.frJ seinmellomaldmn (Bergen: Fagbokforlaget, 2003), 15;
Steinar lmscn, „Den gammelnorske drapsprosessen,“ HirtOt iJk Tidrskriji 88, no 2 (2009), 188.
Thc oldcst existing protocol dates from 1409. A few scattered volumes are preserved from the first half
of the fifteenth century, but a more complete series of annual register volumes have only been prescrved
from 1450 onwards.
30 TORSTEIN J0RGENSEN
had somehow been involved in killing and violence originated from the Norwegian
chw:ch province. s
This article will outline different aspects connected to dealing with violence
and homicide in late medieval Norway. The act of killing was a most dramatic event that
involved a set of societal aspects such as legal proceedings and law, economics in the
form of fines and compensation, morals, honour, and sometimes vengeance. For the
perpetrator it was a most severe matter that meant that almost everything was suddenly
at stake: One’s total existence could end by banishment or pardon, in ruin or restitution.
Or it could remain more or less unresolved, or result in cases when the decisions of the
courts and authorities were not enforced, such as when the imposed compensations
were not paid and acts of revenge from the offended party entailed more killing. Particular
focus will be put on cases of killing in which clerics were somehow involved.
Clerics committing crimes were, in accordance with the privilegjum fori, in principle only
to be put on trial by ecclesiastical courts. In the later Middl.e Ages such cases were also
among the matters that the popes reserved for themselves to decide, i.e., they could no
langer be rcsolved by local bishops or archbishops, but had to be addressed to the Holy
See.
First, I will take a closer Iook at the issue of hornicide in medieval Norway as
treated by the civil system of justice. This will function as a backdrop for my second and
more detailed focus on acts of violence and killing in which clerics were involved. Final.ly
I will draw some perspcctives on the connecting lines between the two.
Homicide and the civil system of kuv andjurisdiclion
Two kinds of killing – the ubotamäl and the bolamal
Old medieval Norwegian legislation distinguished between two categories of
homicide that to some extent can be compared with the modern distinction between
mw:der and manslaughter. The more serious felony of the former kind is often referred
to in Norwegian texts as nidingsdrap, which indicates that the killing was a most disgraceful
act of shame and dishonour 6 Examples of nidingsdrap are murder in thc qualified
sense as a premeditated act, killing of a close relative,? or in places of peace, protection
All rcgistered penitentiary suppbcauons are published in Torstein Jorgensen and Gastone Salctnich, Synder
og pawmakl: Botsbm• fra Den Norsk.t Kirleeprrmits og S udetY!J<n< Ii/ Pm>eslnlen I +38 ./5 J I, Diplomatarium
Poenitentiariae Norvegicum (Smvanger: Misjonshogskole:􀓸s forlaget, 2004).
See, for •nstance, Gulatingsloti, trans. Knut Robberstad (Oslo: Samlaget, 1952), IX, 29, p. 186, MagnHJ
LAgab11m l.n.A dslm· (henceforth MU.).. , trans. Absa.lon Taranger (Oslo: Un•versitetsforlaget, 19 15-79), IV,
3-6, p. 44-47.
Such as parents, childrcn, brothers, and sisters.
„K.IlliNGS, UNFORTUNATELY, TAKE I’LACE MOIU! OFTEN HERE THAN ANYWI-IF.RE LLSE“ 3 1
or safe conduct,8 or killing someone by setring fire to a locked hause. Tagether with
other kinds of the most severe felonies these kinds of killing were categorised as ubotamäP
and the perpetrator was called ubotamann.w The terms refer to an act of killing and
a person who had committed homicide in a way that was so grave that it could not be
compensated by fines, neither to the relatives of the murdered person nor to the king.
The generat semence to be imposed on culprits of this category was to dcclare them
outlaws and confiscate their property.11 Often such a person was simply put to death,
either randomly by anyone12 or by an official execution.13 In many cases banished persons
managed to flee the country, but some are also known to have remained untouched
in thcir local communities.14
If, on the other band, it was possible for the killer to raise an argument of sufficient
mitigati.ng circumstances, the act would be categorised as botamä/’5 and the perpetrator
would be declared botamann.16 In such a case the culprit would be sentenced to
pay compensation to the family of the deceased person and, in most cases, a fme to the
king. In fact, a decisive condition for a homicide case to be accepted as botamälwas that
the person who had actually and in objective terms caused another’s death declared the
killing on hirnself in public. This announcement was called vgi jysing, and was supposed to
take place within the county, notmally at the nearest farm unless it was inhabitcd by
relatives of the deceased, on the same day as the killing had been committed.17 If, on the
other hand, the killer committed his crime in secret or tried to conceal his act or to
escape, the crime would be regarded as murder, or as the Landishw of King Magnus the
Lawmender puts it, „But if he does not in this way declare tbe killing, then he is a
proper murderer and has forfeited his livestock and his peace.“18
The category of cases that could be resolved by fi.nes and compensation is by
far the best documented in the preserved source material. This is not surpristng since
,.
I I
1 2
11
18
Such as churches and churchyards, lhing locations and coum aml somebody’s own homc.
A cnminal act that cannot be solved by mdernnification.
A person who has committed a cnme that cannot be resolved by mdemrufication. MU.., IV, 2-6, p. 43-
47.
GulalingJ!Oii, IX, 29, p. 186. For a W>der overview of cnmcs leadmg to sentences of ban>shment and
confiscation, see MU.., IV, 3, p. 45-47.
MU.., IV, 3, p. 45.
MU.. , IV, 9, p. 49.
Solberg, Forlt/;ingar om dmp, 28.
A criminal act that can be rcsolved by indernnification.
A person who committed a crime that can be resolved by 111de:nnificarion; Imscn, „Den !,;ammclnorskc
drapsprosessen,“ 185-229.
„I f someone k.ills anorher, rhen that person is the slayer who declares the k.illing on lumself. Bur thc
killing shall be announccd on rhe samc day within the county, and he shall teil his name and lus placc of
dwellmg for the night, and the place from wherc he comes, and hc shall state his declarat>on to a free and
full-grown man.“ MU.., IV, 12, p. 51-12. Sec also lm$en, „Den gammelnorske drapsprosessen,“ 199-200.
MLL, IV, 12, p. 5 1 .
32 TORSTEIN J0RGE:-JSEN
this kind of case required more argwnentation and deliberacion, and not least negotiacion
on economic issues, than the more Straightforward ubotamtil cases. But due to this
imbalance and the generally low number of cases it is impossible to suggest any numerical
proportion between ubotamcil and bolamal cases.19
Docwnentation
Wirhin the civil system of legal procedure the treatment of botamcil cases is reflected
in different kinds of docwnenrs. In the fust instance the killer would be in need
of a so-called gridsbrev,20 i.e., a Ietter authorised by the king21 that granted him the right
to remain untouched for the period when his case was under investigation and trial. It
seems that a common procedure was that the culprit hirnself traveUed to the royal chanceUery
and brought the Ietter back to the local authoricies.22 Another point of this Ietter
was to instruct the magistrate of the district or some other official to investigate and try
the case, to register the facts of the event as accurately as possible by hearing witnesses.
The result of this investigation was then pur on paper in a so-caUed provJbrev,23 i.e., a
Ietter of proof, addressed to the king. If the king accepted the argumentation presented
in the Ietter of proof that the circwnstances of homicide included enough mitigating
elements to classify the killer as a botamann, a so-called landsviJtbrev24 would be issued in
the name of the king. This document granred the killer the right to live in peace in the
realm once rhe fmes imposed and amounts of compensation had been paid. Since killing
was a matter of considerable public interest, not the least in the setting of the perpetrator’s
and victim’s local community, the contents of the landsvistbrev seem to have
been publicly announced at the local things. When the fines to the king had been received
a kvitteringsbrev, i.e., Ietter of receipt, would be issued.2; With these two documents
in possession the case was in principle resolved as far as the relation to the king
was concerned. A remai.ning matter, however, was the settling of accounts with the
kinsmen of the deceased.
Fines and compensation
Whereas murderers forfeited all their property – and were happy if they saved
their lives by escaping – two kinds of penalcies were levied on the part of the king on
19
21
22
2)
lmsen, „Den gammelnorske drapsproscssen,“ 188.
Solberg, f’orteljingar om drap, 29; lmsen, „Den gammelnorske drapsprosessen,“ 200-2.
Thc Ietter was normally issued by the royal chancellery.
lmsen, „Den ganunelnorske drapsprose.’5en,“ 200.
lbidem, 203-9. The document could also be called drap1bm•, i.c., the Ietter that reported the killing.
lbidem, 216-9.
Solberg, Fortdjingar om drap, 29.
„K!LUNGS, UNFORTUNATELY, TAKE PLACE MORE OFTEN HER.E THAN ANYWHERE ELSE“ 33
killers who had the established status of botamenn. One was a flne called tegngjeld, established
to compensate the k.ing for the loss of one of his subjects;26 the other, called
fredkjop, was instituted as a purchase of the k.ing’s peace.27 The formet seems to have
been imposed on the basis of a certain tariff, which, however, could be increased or
reduced according to the circumstances. The latter seems to have been more the object
of individual evaluation in each case.28 Notiflcation of rhe amounts of these flnes was
the main issue of the /andsvistbrev.
For someone who had commirted homicide the resolution of the case with
the civil authorities was, of course, the flrst priority as far as questions of guilt and
economy were concerned. The settlement with the k.insmen of the deceased, however,
was also of the highest importance. The economic compensation levied on a killer and
paid to the relatives of the victim was called frendebot.29 In some cases, such as if the
killing was accidental, the king could abstain from claiming any kind of flne at aU from
the perpetrator. This did not, however, alter the necessity of compensating the kinsmen.3
0 The process of meting out this compensation, which included both an economic
setdement and a formal reconciliation between the two parties, was normally a matter
organised on the local Ievel, either between the parties themselves or by the local law
speaker assisted by members of some kind of jury.31 Examples of the size of the frendebot
that we have from the sources show that this could be a very expensive affair and could
be meted out in gold or silver, land or cattle. Sometin1es the levied burden was so heavy
that it took years until the final setclement was completed . • \nd until this was clone, the
case was still pending. Somctimes the unsolved case could also be submitred to the
authorities, with whom the killer could lose his status as botamann and be re-convicted as
ubotamann .32 Bur the k.insmen of the victim could also take the matter into their own
hands and revenge themselves on the killer. An example of this course of action is described
in a Ietter of proof from 1 3 1 5. The document teils of a killer who had obtained
his royal gridsbrev, which he read in public, and also affered compensation to the family
of the deceased. But the killer never applied to the magistrare for investigation of the
case and the family of the deceased never saw anything of the promised compensation.
Instead, six kinsmen of the killed man found the killer and put him to death, apparently
26 Tegn=subject, gjeld=dept.
27 Fred=peace, kjop=purchase.
2s MLL., IV, 2 and 6; Jmsen, „Den gammelnorske drapsprosessen,“ 220-1.
“ Frende=kin, bot=fine, compensation. Solberg, Fortel;i’ngar om drap, 29; lmsen, „Den gammelnorske
drapsprosessen,“ 202, 223-227.
‚“ In this we see a distinction between punishment and compemation. Imsen, „Den gammelnorske
drapsprosessen,“ 21 3-4.
“ Diplomalanilm Norvegr<11m (henceforth DNJ, I, No 297; lmsen, „Den gammelnorske drapsprusessen,“ 217.
“ DN I, No 153; Jmsen, „Den gammelnorske drapsproscssen,“ 216.
34 TORSTEIN J0RGENSEN
motivated by the idea that if compensation failed revenge was better for the honour of
the family than nothing -‚3
Homicide among clerics and the ecclesiastical system oj legal and penitentiary procedum
Turn to the dom.i.n.ion of the medieval Church, the Statutes of canon law and
the legal procedures developed over the centuries to deal with matters pertaining to its
jurisdiction reached into alJ corners of Western Christendom including the very northernmost
of its provinces, the Norwegian archdiocese of Nidaros. The established system
was in itself a well-structured tool for church authorities to deal with these matters
both in theoretical terms as issues of theological and juridical nature and as far as procedures
were conceroed. The actual application and practice of the system in local
communities far from the cenrre of the papal curia was, however, another matter.
i\lso, when it came to the treatment of violence and killing in which clergymen
werc involved the Statutes of canon law were, of course, both in theory and practice thc
basic platform for handling such cases. The main point here was that clerics who comrnitted
or took part in violence or killing ipso facto became irregulars.>1 This implied that
their priestly acts became invalid, and in practice such a person fell into a state of suspension.
JS The need for a solution was therefore i..mportant. Since the act belonged to
the so-called reserved delicts,36 i.e., matters that the pope had reserved for the papal
administration to resolve, cases of this kind had to be sent all the way to the Holy See.
On the mandate of the pope, the Apostolic Penitentiaty was the principal office that
was comrnissioned to deal with cases of clerical violence and killing.37 It is, however,
unportaot to note that although canon law principles fonned the grounds upon which
this office handled the cases submitred to them, the aim of the procedure was not only
the execution of justice, but also, and no lcss important, the administration of divine
grace.
Of the already-mentioned 34 Norwegian cases of clerics involved in violence
and killing registered as having been submmed to the Penitentiary Office, 27 supplications
deal with killing and seven with violence. In 29 of the cases the perpetrators were
clerics38 in the remaining five cases they were the victims.39
;; ON Il, No 123; Solberg, Fot1eljingar om drap, 81-7.
-“ Corpu.r lmi.r Canonia; II, L1bcr Extra 5.31.10, ed. AemJlius Friedbcrg, II, (Le•pz•g 1 879, reprinr Graz:
Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, 1 9 59), col. 838.
;s J ohannes Baptist Sägmüller, Lehrburh de.r leotiJo!iJrhtn Kirrhuruhl.r I (F reiburg: Herdcr, 1914), 226-7, Ludw1g
Schmugge er al., Die S“pp!ikem•giJter der pipi .rllidxn Plini/mitarie au.r der Zeil Piu.r‘ ll. (1-1-58-1-16-l) (T’übingen:
Niemeyer, 1996), 99.
30 Prov•s•on from LJteranum ll, 1 1 39.
31 Sarra Poenilentieritl Apostolica.
24 cases of killing and five cases of violence.
„KILLINGS, UNFORTUNATELY, TAKE PLACE MORE OFrEN HERE THAN ANYWHERE ELSE::“ 35
Documentation
Three stages of documentation reflected the course of such cases, namely, the
supplication from the perpetrator, the Ietter of reply from the penitentiary office, and
the records of register protocols kept in this office. In the supplication the petitioner
presented his or her case to the Penitentiary. For the purpese of speedy and efficient
treatment the supplication had to be submitred in accordance with the so-called curial
style,40 stressing the elements and aspects of the case that were relevant for an assessment
according to canon law. Normally the supplication thus passed through the hands
of one of the proctors officially comrnissioned to work as mediators between petitioners
and the curial offices 41 Since clerics who had comrnitted hornicide – as irregulars had
an urgent need to have their cases resolved, they often travelled to the Holy See
with their own supplications. Other cases which were not so urgent could be brought to
Rome by messengers. Unfortunately, it seems that the Penitentiary office found no
reason to keep the original supplication. They were supposed to have been handed back
to the petitioner and, si..nce they were generally not written on parchment but on paper,
most of them have been lost42
If the supplication was granred the resolution was passed on to the petitioner
in the form of a littera ecclesiae, i.e., a Ietter of reply 43 As a Ietter prin1arily of personal
value to the petitioner, at least in the matter of clerical violence,44 he was supposed to
keep it as long as he lived, but after his death it lost its relevance. Since these documents
were generally composed on parchment, however, they have survived in lirnited numbers
in different archives around the world 45 Sometimes the grant was given
unconditionally, but sometimes it was commissioned to the curial auditor for juridical
examination or to the ordinarius, in most cases the local bishop, for an assessment of the
facts of the case.
The third category of documentation of penitentiary petitions, which lays the
groundwork for more substantial research on these matters today, consists of the re-
39
40
41
Thrcc cases of killing and two cases of violence.
Stil111 cun{u. Schmugge et al., Supp!ikenregiJter, 19.
Ibidcm, 19-20.
Filippo Tamburini, „Suppliche e lettere di pcnitenzieria (sec. XlV-XV),“Archivium Hi.rtoriae Pontißcae 11
(1973), 149-208. See also Torstein j0rgensen and Gastone Saletnich, Lellers lo the Pope: Norwegian Relation.\‘
to the 1-/oly See in the Leite Mzddk Age1 (Stavanger: Misjonshogskolens forlaget, 1999), 28-9.
Schmuggc et al., Supp!ikenregiJier, 18.
l n other matters, such as the marital cases, the grace from the Pope was generally relevant also for the
children and other relatives of the petitioncrs.
Only one document of this category referring to the Norwegian church province scems ro have survived.
‚lhe /ittera was issued in Rome on 2 April 1400 and authorised the bishop of Stavanger to absolve a priest
of homicide on the condition tlmt the killing was committed in self-defence. ON, IV, No 709, p. 521-2.
For the English tramlation, sec J 0rgensen and Saletnich, Lellm /o llx Pope, 402.
36 TORSTErN J0RGENSE:–I
corded versions of the resolved cases in the register prorocols of the penitentiary office.
These registers include, however, only the cases granred. The refused cases did not
change anything in the case of the supplicant and were worthless both to him and the
papal curia. Most likely the negative decisions of rhe penitentiary were simply added ro
the sheet of the supplication which was sent back to the petitioner, who on his side
cannot have been very interested in keeping it.
The penitentiary protocols conrain thousands of supplications from all over
Western Christendom, of which those from clerics who bad killed or hurt someone and
from laymen who bad killed or hurt clerics form an important part. However, as already
mentioned, the oldest surviving protocols date only from the fifteenrh century onwards.
46
Argumentation and aim of the petition
The ecclesiastical system also had a categorisation of cases that can be seen as a
kind of parallel to the distinction between botamann and ubotamann. Bur unlike civil
cases, the matter at stake in the ecclesiastical realm was not a question of life and death
or different kinds of fmes and monetary compensation to the victims. For a cleric who
had killed someone and become irregular it was a matter of keeping or losing one’s
means of livelihood. And both for him and for a lay person who had killed a priest the
state of exconm1Unication from the Church was a matter of the greatest importance
implying that no less than one’s hope for eternal salvation was at stake.
As far as economy was concerned, the submission of a supplication to the
pope also had its costs, for travelling or sending the petition, and in terms of fees ro be
paid at different stages of the process. Also, clerics who had killed someone were not
exempt from the civil imposition of compensation to the victim’s relatives.
When guilt is admitted
For priests who had killed and addressed the curia there were two main options:
They could plead guilty or not guilty. If the guilt was obvious, the aim of the
petition would simply be to obtain a papal absolution.47 For such a petitioner there was
no need to go into derail about the course of events of the case. The decisive points
were that an act of hornicide had been committed, that the perpetrator was a priest, that
46 Only scatttred protocols date from the first half of the century, but from 1450 onwards a morc complcte
senes of annual register protocols is prcscrved.
„7 for examples from the Norwegian material, see Anhivio Jegnlo Vatirann (henceforth AJv), Pmllm’imit
Rtg. Matrim. el Div., vol. 5, fol. 146r, vol. 5, fol. 294v, vol. 15, fol. 86r, vol. 18, fol. 183,·, vol. 44, fol. 164,·;
j0rgensen and Saletnich, J.ynder ogpmemakt, no. 39, 40, 44, 46, 79.
„KII.LJNGS, UNFORTUNATELY, TAKE PLACE MORE OFfEN HERE THAN ANYWHERE ELSE“ 3 7
he bad been sentenced to excornmunication, and that guilt was admitted. Thus, the
records of these cases48 are generally short. An example of a standard supplication of
tbis lcind, as recorded in the penitentiary registers, is that by the priest lvarus Gunnari,
or Ivar Gunnarsson, wbich must have been bis Norwegian name, who had killed another
priest:
Blessed Father, Your devoted Ivar Gunnarsson, priest from the diocese of
Oslo, explains to Your Sanctity that he one day, instigated by the devil, killed a
priest, thereby incurring the sentence of excommunication, as generally promulgated
in such cases. The said petitioner now asks that Your Holiness may
absolve him from the crime of homicide and in the same way from the sentence
of excommunication and from bis other sins, by ordinary mandate.
Granted, by ordinary mandate, Dominicus, Santa Croce, Rome, 1 8 August,
1456.49
When guilt is not admitted
If on the other band, it was possible, as in some of the civil cases mentioned
above, to avoid guilt on the basis of extenuating circumstances the perpetrator could
plead innocent. The aim of the petition to the pope in such a case was a papal letter to
confum this innocence. Such a docwnent would have the effect of debarring accusations
of the opposite in the community of the supplicant, or as is often expressed in the
texts, „to stop the mouth of’SO ignorant and simple accusers who thought otherwise
about the question of guilt. The confirmation from the pope, wbich was issued in the
form of an officiaJ declaration, generally also authorised the supplicant to remain in
office and to be eligible for other offices and benefices. A special characteristic of the
supplications in wbich the petitioner asked for a papal declaration of innocence is that
they contain a Ionger narrative section in wbich the details of the dramatic event are
“ The supplications from laymen who had killed or hurt clerics and whose guilt had bcen settled follow the
same pattern as the same kind of petitions from clerics. The aim was papal absolution and a lifting of ehe
statc of excommunication. ASV, Penitw􀍇jena Reg. Matrim. el Div., vol. 9, fol. 1 78r, vol. 8, fol. 184r, vol. 18,
fol. 1 83v, vol. 35, fol. 152r, vol. 38, fol. 251 r; Jorgensen and Salernich, Syndtr ogpm􀁙makt, no 6, 42, 47, 68,
77.
<9 The English verston is my own translatton of the followmg La􀅔n text: Beatimme f>al<r, exponil Samlilali
Vulre dtwtus vir Jwm11 Gunnan· pmbiter Asloensis diomis quod ipse olim dyabolo insliganie quendam pre•bitemm
intu:ftcil, prapter quod senlenliam excommunicationis incumt in ta/es gmerolzter promulgalam. Supplicat Sanäilali Vwre
predictus e>.ponms quatenus ipsum a realu homicidii ac sen/enlia ex,·ommunicatoi nis huiusmodi et pucalis suis aliir absoM
dignemini, u/ in Jorma. Fai l in fonna. D<ominicii>i , S< ancte> Cnm:r. <Rome>, xv leaL ,·ept. <a11no smmdo domir.i
Calixti pape iii>. ASV, Peniltn􀅖eria Rtg. Malrim. et Div., vol. 5, fol. 294v;Jorgensen and Salcllllch, Synder og
pat􀁙makt, no 40.
50 “ . . . ad ora igitur . . . obstruenda . . . „. See, for insrance, AS V, Pem“ttn􀅗eria Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 41, fol.
277r-v; Jorgenscn and Saletnich, Synder ogpavemakt, no 78.
38 TORSTEIN J0RGENSEN
recounted. The text below can serve as an example to illustrate the different formats of
a supplication for absolution versus a petition for a declaration of innocence. The supplication
reports the case of the priest Jon Ingemundsson, of the cliocese of Stavanger,
who killed his servant, Hermann Bolbersan, in a quarre! about salary, probably in the
year 1483:
Jon Ingemundsson, a priest from the diocese of Stavanger, explains that one evening
he was sitting at the dinner table in a house together with Hermann Bolbersan,
a layman, who, when he was still alive, was his servant, on purpose to ear or
to refresh hirnself lt then happened during an exchange of words between them
that the said Hermann demanded from the petitioner the salary owed to him by
the latter for his service or his job as a servant. Since the petitioner refused to pay
the salary when he was asked, Hermann added that he would kill hirn in case he
did not satisfy his request immediately. When the pet:itioner again refused to pay,
Hermann struck the said petitioner with a sword he held in his hands, and with
one blow pierced and ripped the latter’s coat at his right shoulder without, however,
injuring his body. The petitioner, afraid of being exposed to Hem1aru1’s anger
and by no means intending to kill Hermann but rather to keep hirn away and
to block his hands, averted violence by violence. Wtth a small kn.ife he had used at
the table he injured Hennann w:ith one stab in the ehest. Of this Hermann died
before nightfall.
;\lthough the petitioner was not guilty of this death other than in the aforementioned
manner, but has been mourning his death deeply and is still mourning, and
has a devoted and fervent desire to serve licidy in all his holy and priesdy orders,
some people who are env:ious of the petitiooer assert, however, that he thus has
made hin1self guilty of homicide and therefore is unable to licidy serve in alJ his
holy and priesdy orders. To silence the voices of these detractors the said petitioner
now asks Your Holiness for a declaration to be issued stating that by what
happened he neither made hirnself guilty of homicide nor incurred any stain of irregular:ity
or inability, but ut1inlpeded by the said circumstances, can freely and
licidy serve in his holy orders by special mandate.
Granted as below, Julianus, Bishop of Bertinoro, Regent. To be committed to the
ordinary, who, provided that the necessary inquiries prove that the petitioner by
averting v:iolence with violence hit Hermann in self-defence against mortal danger,
shall declare as is requested. Rome 9 February, 1484.51
This text is by no means the Iongest in this category, but it gives a good i.mpression of
the way in which such a petition was set up. i\s a Ietter whose main purpose was to
argue that the petitioner met the requirements of one to be granred a declaration of
51 For the original text, see the appendix.
„KlLLINGS, UNI’ORTUNATELY, TAKE PLACE MORE OFTEN HERETHAN ANYWHERE ELSE“ 39
innocence, a somewhat Ionger preseotation of the course of events of the case was
needed.
The background of the actual conflict is stated briefly, in this case a servant’s
claim of a salary from his clerical master. The scene of the case is a banquet at someone
else’s house where both the priest and his servant sit at the same table as guests. The
situation seems to be peaceful at the beginn.ing, tmtil the servant states his claim. Nothing
is indicated as to whether the claim was rightful or not, nor was this an issue once
the case developed into a homicide case. The description of the course of events is,
despite its qualities of a dramatic narrative, a strictly edited version focused on, aod
more or less limited to, the points which are in favour of the petitioner that are relevant
for the evaluation of the case in the penitentiary office.
Ooe crucial point in the trial of the case was the context in which the weapon
was used, especially, as menti.oned above, if a situation of self-defence could be establi.shed.
52 Violence used in self-defence was regarded as an act within the framework of
the law (vis /icita). There is no doubt that the motif of self-defence was appli.cable to the
case of Jon lngemundsson, attacked as he was by the sword of his servant, trying to
block the attacker’s hands. In such a situation to avert violence by violence was accepted
.53 The term vim vi repellendo is a term with deep historical roots in pre-Christian
Roman law. In the penitentiary supplications the term is one of the most frequently
occurring poi.nts in texts where a petitioner applies for an apostoli.c declaration of innocence.
54
Also, the tool used by the priest in this case to commit the killing was wiehin
the acceptable framework of canon law. Generally clerics were not allowed to carry and
use weapons, as formulated in the I.iber Extra: Clerici am1a portantes et usurarii excommunicentur,
ss but sometimes it was difficult to distinguish between weapons and tools. Axes
and kn.ives could be used for both purposes, and it was often the use rather than the
item itself that decided if it was one thing or the other. The use of a small knife for
cutring bread, for instance, was, of course, allowed for a priest.s6 Thus, in addition to
the circumstance of self-defence also the fact that the item used for the k.illing was a
54
ss
S6
Oemenlinat 5.4.1., Friedberg, Corpus !uns Canonici II, col. 1 1 84, Schmugge et al., Supplilelflregültr, 99,
C.orpus luris Canonici, II, über Extra 5.39.3: . . . ri in conlinenli zim 11′ repellal, quum vim n· reptllm omnes kgt.r
imnai qut tilm pmnillanl. Fr ieclberg, Corpus ilfris Canonici II, col. 890.
Schmugge et al., Supplikenregzs/er, 176.
Cotpus luris Canonici, Tl, /,jber Extra, 3.1 .2; Friedberg, Corpus Iuris Ctmonici l l , col. 449.
Stephan Kuttner, Kononistischt Schuldlehre von Gralion bis auf die Dekrelakn Gregors IX: syslemalisch auf Grund
der handJdJ!iftlichtn Quellen da’lfsle/11, Srudie e testi 64 {Citt:l. del Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana,
1935), 342-3. Examples: ASV, Penilen?jeria Rtg. Matn’m el Dil•., vol. 16, ff. 128r-v; vol. 48, ff. 428r-,·; vol.
59, ff. 363v-364v; vol. 77, ff. 9\·-!0r; Jorgensen ancl Saletruch, Synder ogpaz•makl, no 26, 29, 35, 65, Dan
Sebastian Cri􀓵an, „Physical Violence and the Church: The De DeclaraloriiJ Supplications from the German-
Spcaking Area during the Pontificate of Paul 1!,“ MA thesis (Budapest: Centrat European University,
2006).
40 TORSTErN J0RGENSEN
small table knife is a most relevant point in the penitentiary evaluation of his case. The
priest’s conduct and use of weapon also comply with the canon law principles of moderation.
According to these the violence of the defender was not allowed to be stronger
than that of the attacker. The so-called moderamen ratione inslrumenti-principle implied that
the weapon used was lighter and not heavier than that of the attacker.57
The text of this supplication also mentions something about the killer’s motives
and general attitude. Already at the beginning it is stated that Jon’s purpese in
attending the dinner was to eat, and nothing else, Iet alone some hidden intenr of killing
his servant. As grounds for his petition it is, by the use of rather fiXed formulas, stressed
that the supplicant has been mourning Hermann’s death and is still mourning it and that
he has a devoted and burning desire to continue to serve in his orders in a licit way. The
theological underpinning of canon law principles and their actual adrninistration becomes
visible in these formulations about a pious and compassionate person, to some
extent a repentant sinner, with a strong holy vocation in his heart. For absolution to be
obtained, which in fact was no less than the granting of divine grace, a repentant hean
was necessary.S8 Even in cases when guilt was not adrnitted, as in the case of Jon Ingemundsson,
the demonstration of a clean and pious heart was relevant when assessing
whether a person was innocent or not. A zealous determination to be faithful to one’s
vocation was also an argument in this.
When the guilt question is pending
In the ecclesiastical system, there was also a third possibility that did not exist
in the civil structure, namely, that of pleading not guilty and at the same tin1e applying
for absolution59 as a precaution against some guilt being attached to the event in spite of
one’s argun1ent for the opposite 60 Like the supplications for a declaration of .i.nnocence,
the petitions for an absolution as a precaution against possible guilt also include longer
narrative passages. An example of a supplication of this k.i.nd is that by the priest Bavald
Larsson, from the diocese of Nidaros, who killed his drunken servant, Gudleik Eriksson,
in 1 51 4 or 1 515. 11Us killing also took place in con.nection with a banquet. The text
briefly sketches a situation in which the drunken Gudleik broke into the setting of a
peaceful meal and started to attack another of Bavald’s servants. After several vain attempts
to reprove Gudleik, the priest punched him on his chin so he feil to the ground.
\Vhen standing up again the drunken servant pulled his belt-k.nife and threw hirnself
57
58
59
Kuttner, Kononi!liJche Sch111dkhrt, 340-1.
Cfr the principle of confession in thc general tcrm of contrilin cm-dis tl confmin oro/ir.
In the civil strucrure the corresponding grace would have been a reprieve.
Examples from thc Norwegian material: ASV, Ptnli eniferia Reg. Matrim e/ Div., vol. 46, fol. 256r-v; vol.
48, fol. 428r-v; vol. 59, fol. 363v-364v; vol. 48, fol. 6 1 3v-614r; vol. 62, fol. 6 1 2v-613v; Jorgensen and
Saletnich, Synder ogpaumakt, no 24, 26, 29, 54, 61.
„KIUJNGS, UNFORTL!NATELY, TAKE PLACE MORE OrTEN HERE 11-lAN ANYWHERE ELSE“ 4 1
against the priest, who for his part, in order t o defend hirnself, had drawn a small knife
that he was carrying. In the heat of the fight the priest’s knife caused a wound in Gudleik’s
ehest of which he died some days later.
This group of penitentiary supplications, like those asking for declarations of
innocence, also normally contains the same standard formulation stating that the petitioner
is not guilty in any other way than as described in the account of the event. But
instead of asking for a declaration to confum innocence in order to silence the mouth
of opponents who thought otherwise, these supplicants ask for absolution as a precaurion
in case they might have been guilty after all. A representative example of this category
is the following excerpt from Bavald Larsson’s supplication:
The said petitioner did not aim to kill the deceased, but is mourning deeply,
and from what has been presented he is not guilty other than in the aforementioned
manner since it all happened accidentally. It seems therefore that he is
almost without guilt. But it is typical for good people to fear guilt where there
is no guilt. He wishes, Holy Father, as a precaution, to be absolved from
homicide, if he in this way has made hirnself guilty of it, and to remain in his
orders and to serve at the altar. Therefore, as a precaution, he asks Your Holiness
to instruct that this petitioner be absolved from homicide in case he
comm..itted such a cri.me in what has been described.61
These examples show that the argumentation of the supplications for a declaration of
innocence and those asking for absolution as a precaurion are very similar. Both focus
on codifted mitigating circwnstances supporting the alleged innocence of a priest who
has killed someone. The recorded courses of events also follow the same pattern. As far
as the stressing of extenuating circwnstances is concerned, the variation between the
two categories o f texts seems no !arger than that between texts within each of the two
categories. It is, therefore, difficult to give a general conclusion based on the facts o f
the cases about why some of these petitions asked for a declaration of innocence and
others for absolution as a precaution against possible guilt. The best explanation seems
to be that in the requests for absolution as a precaution the supplicant hirnself seems to
have harboured doubts about Jus innocence, either because of the facts of the case or
with regard to the canonical evaluation of them by the papal penitentiary. In none of
these cases did the assessment of the penitentiary result in the conclusion that the supplicant
was innocent by the grant of a declaration of innocence instead of the requested
absolution as a precaution against possible guilt.
61 … /icel idem oralor in mor/em dicli defoncli, de qua ab inlimis dolel, minime tJJfJirazmi nec de ea, aliar quam u/ premillitur,
rulpabi/is fueril, sed premiJsa casu artidtrinl el qu01i inculpabi/is me video/ur, quai lamen boncm1m menlium es/ ibi
limm rulpam, ubi Cl/pl a mni ime repmiur, mpmtque, Pater Sancle, a realu homiridii, si quem propltr ea incsmit, lutiori
pro ca111lla abso/vi ac in s11is ordinibus eliam in allans minislerio manere, supplica/ qua/t/1111 ora/ortm ipsum ab homiridii
rea/11, si quem propter prtmissa incun•rtl, ad rauteiom el e:xressibus huiu!modi nunon pucalis e/c. absoft.i. AS V, Penilen:{
jeria Reg. Malrim. el Div., vol. 59, ff. 363v-364v. T: ]0rgensen and G. Saletruch, Synder ogpavtmakt, No 29.
42 TORSTErN J0RGENSEN
A.n explanation may be that when the grace was granted by the penitentiary
cardinal or his regent, the process of assessment was not necessarily fully completed.
What could remain were both a more thorough juriclical examination and a further
clarification of the true facts of the case. Hence, the vast majority of Norwegian supplications
of both categories were committed either to the curial auclitor or to the orclinary
of the supplicant after the grant of the penitentiary, or to both, for juriclical evaluation
and examination as to whether the written petition agreed with the facts of the case. i\
standard formulation of this concern was:
Granted by special and express mandare, J ulianus, Bishop of Bercinoro, regent.
The case be comrnitted to the bishop of Mylopotamos, presently resicling at
the Roman Curia, who will examine whether the petitioner has the necessary
evidence for his case as it has been presented in this Ietter, granted, Julianus.
Rome at St. Peter’s, 16 January 1500. 62
Overlaps between the two systems
The presentation here of dealing with homicide in the civil and ecclesiastical
structures of legal procedures has so far focused on the handling of these cases as if it
took place in totally separate rooms. To be sure, there were several similar and more or
less parallel features, not the least as far as the principles of reasoning and argumentation
were concemed. The good overview that has been established of the documented
Norwegian cases of homicide63 leaves the general impression that a rather clear
demarcation line between civil and ecclesiastical juriscliction was in force, i.e., that civil
cases of homicide were treated by the civil authorities and cases in which clerics were
involved by the ecclesiastical system. The principle of a privilegium fori for clerics, thus,
scems to have been respccted in the main.
The picttue was, however, not that simple. Lay killers, of course, were not only
forced to deal with civil authorities. They also had to settle their cases with the Church
in the form of confession and penance. But these latter processes belonged to the forum
internum, normally at the local or regional Ievel, and they entailed little written evidence.
Since most of the meclieval church archives in Norway, like the rest of Scanclinavia,
were destroyed during the time of the Reformation, knowledge of all kinds of clisciplinary
and penitentiary cases as dealt with by local church authorities is limited. This also
62
6)
Fai l dt sptciali et expmso, lul<ianus>, epiJcopiiJ Btictononenns, ngenr; et commiltatur tpircopo Milapotamen.ri ad
pnsens in Romana C;m(J n.ridtnti allento, quod oralor suf!icienter pmbcJiones ad !JOt‘ .1’b1 i nectJrariiJ.r habtat ni eadem;jiat,
lul<ianur>
Rome apud Sandum Petmm, xvii kaL fibr. (lnno oclavo domini Akxandri pape zi. AJ V, Pemltn:;Jtria Reg. Matrim. el
Diz•., vol. 48, fol. 428r-v. T. j0rgensen and G. Saletnich, SyndtrogpaLtmakt, no 26.
As for the c•vil cases, see S. lmsen, „Den gammelnorskc drapsprosessen,“ and for the ecclesiastical cascs,
T. J orgensen and G. Saletnich, Syndtr ogpavemakt.
„KILLINGS, UNFORTUNATELY, TAKE PLACE MORE OFfEN 1-:ER.E THAN ANYWilERJ:: ELSE“ 43
applies to the treatment of cases of homicide committed by the clergy. From other
coumries .it is known that the existence of such local documcntation is necessary to
obtain a more complete and detailed understanding of thc many different aspccts that
were part of the case.64
i\mong the homicide cases dealt with by the civil authorities, however, a limited
number of cases appear in which the perpetrator was a priest. J\.lthough they are
few, these docmnented cases leave an indication that there was also a civil jurisdictional
s.ide of the cases of clerical homicide. The question to ask, therefore, is whether this was
a violation of the privilegium .fori-principle. In order to answer this, a closer Iook at the
Norwegian variant o f the medieval discourse between King and Church on the drawing
of a demarcation line between civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction .is necessary, here confmed
to some of the main points.
In 1 277 a formal agreement, referred to as the Compositio Tunbergensis or the
T0nsberg Concordat,65 was signed by King Magnus the Lawmender and Archbishop
Jon the Red of Nidaros. A main principle of the agreement .is a concess.ion on the part
of the lcing renouncing royal jurisdiction in matters pertaining to Church law – causarum
ad ecdesiam spectancium- which he, as the document states, renounces fully – renunciavit . . .
omni iuri.66 Such cases were, again in the words of thc document:
Cases in which clcrgymen are at law with onc another or are sued by laymen,
matrimonial cases, birth, patronage, tithes, holy vows, wills – especially when
gifts to churches are involved – monasteries and holy foundations, protection
of pilgrims com.ing to Saint Olav’s or other Norwegian cathedrals‘ doorsteps.
Further, cases concerning church property, sacrilege, pcrjury, usury, simony,
heresy, concubines, adultery, and incest and all other things which in any way
may belong to the ecclesiastical forum according to separate jurisdiction, but
with thc rescrvation of royal right in cases in wh.ich, according to custom or
the laws of the country, fines are to be imposed.67
The reservation stated in the concluding phrase of this paragraph .is important to note.
The king’s renunciation of jurisdictional r.ights in the matters l.isted was li.m.ited to cases
that did not involve econom.ic sctdements in the form of fmes. This impl.ies that both
GS
“
67
A very useful srudy of such cases is given m Paolo Ostmelli (ed.), Ptnzlm::t:J ria Apn.rlolit“a: u JlljJplicht alla
Sacra Peniltn<ftria Aposlnlica provienli dalla dii!CtSi di Como (1+38-1-18-1) (Milane: ed. Unicopu, 2003).
In Norwegian referred to as S(J!/Iawerdw. See Norske middela/derdokumwler i ultulg, ed. Svcrrc Baggc et al.
(Bergen: Universitetsforlaget, 1973), 136-5 1 .
Norskt Middtlaldtrdok11111enler, 143.
Our translation from ibidem: „Omnes cause ckricorum quando inltr se litiganl utl a Iaicis impe111n1ur, malrimnn111m,
nalalium, iuris patmnalus, deainamm, mlomm, ltSiamenlomm – maxime q11cmdo agilur dt kgatfjs e�;�;ksij.r tl piir Iosd tl
rrligiosis -, 111icio pmgrinomm visilrmcium limina beali 0/aui el aliantm e>Cie.riamm calhtdralium in Nonvagai tl enrum
tai/Jt. llem taust possessionem tcrksiantm, sacrikgij, per=i J , usuromm, simonei , htnssi ,Jornicalionis, tldulterij tl inetslus
e/ alie consimiks que ad ad t>Cksiam sputanl mtro iiiT“t .raluo .rmrptr nfio iun in hijr cauris uhicumque dtbtlllf ex
consueludint appmbala ut! kgibus rrgni mulcla pene pecuniarie per.rnluenda.“
44 TORSTEIN J0RGENSEN
the ecclesiastical and civil jurisdictional structures operared in cases emailing penalties,
and also in cases that, according to the contents (ratione materiae) or personal status (ratione
personae), belonged to the ecclesiastical forum.
The dividing line in the question of jurisdiction berween the two realms was an
issue that was never precisely drawn throughout the Middle Ages, and from time to
time it was the object of further discussion and attempts at clarification. Thus, in 1337,
the Norwegian National Council issued, after a disagreement berween the king and
archbishop, a prescript on how the episcopal officialis and the royal lagmanrf>B should
cooperate and share power when fines were to be imposed for violations in the realm of
ecclesiastical law.69 In the course of the fifteenth century, already-agreed-upon principles
were again confirmed or specified.7°
One of the few cases of clerical homicide that was dealt with by the civil authorities
dates from 1357. The case was reported in a letter of proof from Telemark
County,71 the very district that was rebuked by the bishop of Oslo for widespread violence,
as mentioned at the beginning of this article. The Ietter contains a Ionger narrative
secaon, similar to that found in the penitentiary supplications for a papal declaraaon of
innocence, reporting the course of events of the case. The killing took place at the
manor of the priest Gutterm Thorlaugsson, who had been found at his home by three
aggressive neighbours. A dispute of words escalated into a free fight and ended with the
priest killing one of the intruders with a blow to his head with an axe.
The Ietter also states that the priest who corrunitted the killing, in accordance
with civil law,12 declared the killing on hirnself at a neighbouring fatm before nightfall.
The examination of the case by the hearing of witnesses and the sumrnoning of the
heirs of the deceased also follow the ordinary procedures of a civil homicide case. But it
also bears clear similarities to the penitentiary supplications, such as tbe argumem
stressing similar mitigating circumstances. When it comes to the conclusion about the
guilt question, the Standard term used in the Norwegian letters of proof, i.e., the word
ufyrirry‘!fa,13 is a parallel to the standard formulation – cum autem ipse exponens alias quam ut
premittitur culpabi/is non Juerit – of the penitentiary petitions for declarations of innocence.
It is not known whether the way th.is case was dealt with in the civil jurisdictional
system had a parallel in the ecclesiastical strucrure, i.e., whether it was not only
reported to the royal chancellery in the form of a letter of proof wi th a petition for a
la11dsvistbrev, but also to the papal administration in the form of a supplication for a de-
68
69
70
71
72
7l
Law speaker.
NGL 1, 1Il, p .. l61-2.
NGL 1, IV, p. 160-82; 2, 11, p. 140-4; 1 , 11, p 270-1.
DN l, no 359.
See above, nole 17.
The term is normally translated with the word „mad,·ertcntly,“ but in fact it cover$ a wider range from
„accidental“ to „by somc kind of intent.“
„KlLLINGS, UNFORTUNATELY, TAKE PLACE MORE Ofo’TEN HERE THAN ANYWHERE ELSE“ 45
claration of innocence. As already mentioned, the oldest surviving penitentiary supplications
date from the early fifteenth century. The fact, howcver, that Guttorm’s case
was brought to the ki.ng as far as the matter of ftnes was concerned – to the king in the
form of 􀄗egngjeld and j-edkjep and compensation in the form off rendebot to the kinsmen of
the deceased – was in agreement with the established regulations of royal and ecclesiastical
jurisdiction. The Ietter of proof in the case of the priest, Gutterm Thorlaugsson,
who killed a man, does, however, follow the general pattern of such letters in every
respect. Thus, it leaves the impression that a cleric who had committed homicide was,
or could be, treated in exactly the same way as a layperson who killed someone.
Conclusion
Because of the general scarcity of sources it is difficult to draw a more complete
and consistent picture of how clerical violence was dealt with in Norway in the
high and late Middle Ages. Very few cases are witnessed by more than one document,
so it is impossible to follow the sequence of a case as it was dealt with by the authorities.
It seems that civil and ecclesiastical authorities managed to agree upon some basic principles
of a dividing line berween their fields of jurisdiction and to some extent these
principles were followed. During the period of preserved cases from the Apostolic
Penitentiary office, supplications were regularly Submitted by Norwegian clerics who
had committed homicide, and a number of similar cases regarding laymen in the civil
structure are registered and prese1ved in the sources. An overlapping field berween the
two realms is to be found in cases involving fines. But m some cases, as in the one described
from Telemark, the royal power seems to have overruled the agreed-upon balance
of power.
46 TORSTEfN J0RGENSEN
Appendix
1484, February 9: Supplication of the priest Jon Ingemundsson, who had killed his
servant, to the Apostolic Pen.itentiary:
Iohannes lngemundi presbiter Stawargensis diocessi <exponit> quod, cum zpse o/im in quadam domo
de sero in mensa seu tabu/a cum quodam Hermanno Bolberran /aico ipsius domini adhuc vivente Jamiliari
anmi o ibidem comedendi seu se recreandi cum sedisset, accidit quod inter verba inter eos habita,
dictus Hermannus ab ipso exponenle sa/arium, in quo sibi ratione Jamulatus seu servicii erat obnoxius,
primum dan· petisi set et cum sibi petenti huiusmodi sa/arium dare obstinuimt, demum et ipse Hennanus1
subiunxisset quod nisi ipse exponens sibi ad statim de salario huismodi sattifaceret, eum inteiftceret,
uti et tune ipse Hennannus dictum exponentem quam primum tune non solvebat, in ipsius scapula
dextra vestes sibi Cllm quodam gladio, quem in suis tenebat manibus, unico ictu peiforando seu scindmdo
absque tamen sui corporis /esoi ne pemmit, et cum expmens Juron· ipsius Hennanni cedere pavesset,
non animo ipsum Hennannum inteiftciendi, sed potiur zpsum a se divertmdi et ut manus eius
impedire possit vim vi repellendo cum quodam parvo cu/tello, quo ipse exponens in dicta mensa seu
tabu/a utebatur, in illüts pectore rmico actu vu/neravit, ex quo idem Hennannus il/atenus nocte diem
vite sue c/ausit extrem um.
Cum autem, Pater Sancte, dictus exponens in morte dicti Hermanni, absque ut premittitur, culpabi/is
non jtmit, ymo de ipsius morte ab intimü do/uerit et do/et de presenti, cupai tque ex magno devotionis
fervore in omnibus etiam sacris et pmbiteratus ordinibus Sllir licite ministrare, a nonnu/Jis lamm ipsius
exponentis emu/is asmitur ipmm propter premissa homicidii reatum incurrisse et propter ea in omnibus
sacris etiam presbiteratus ordinibus suis /icite minislrare non posse; ad ora igilur talium etc. emu/omm
obstmenda, supplical eidem Sanctitati Vestre prefatus exponens quatenus zpsum occasione premissorom
nul/um homicidii reatum incum’sse nullamque irregularitatis sive inhabi/itatsi notam contraxisse, sed
predictis non obstantibus ipsum in dictis suis etiam sacris et presbiteratus ordinibus /ibere et licite ministrare
posse, misericorditer declarari mandare dignemini de gratia specia/i.
Fiat ut infra, Iul<ianus>, episcopus Brethonorienssi , regens.
Committatur ordinario et si vocatis vocandis sibi constiterit quod exponens vim vi repel/endo et se defendendo
a/iterJ ugere seu movere non valens evadere dictum Hermannu m percuuerit, ut prefertur et de a/isi
expositis, dec/aret ut petitur.
Rome v id Jeb. <anno xiii Sixti pape iv>. (ASV, Peniten‘.(jeria Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 33, fol.
173v; j0rgensen and Saletn.ich, S]nder ogpavemakt, no 75).
VIOLENCE AND THE MEDIEVAL CLERGY
CEU MEDIEVALIA 16
MEDIUM AEVUM QUOTIDIANUM
Sonderband 26 (201 0)
Series Editor: J6zsef Laszlovszky
Series Teclmical Editor: Annabella Pal
Violence and the Medieval Clergy
Edited by
Gerhard J aritz
and
Ana Marinkovic
Medium Aevum Quotidianum
Krems/Donau
&
Centtal European University
Department of Medieval Studies
&
Centtal European University Press
Budapest · New York
Budapest, 2011
© Editors and Contributors 2011
Ist edition
Technical Editor: Gerlurd Ja ritz
Copy Editor: Judith Rasson
Cover design for the series by Peter T6th
Cover Illustration:
Trec of Vices (detail), th.ird quartcr 13″‚ cenrury, Austria.
Vicnna, Austrian National Library, cod. 12538, fol. 13r
Joint publication by:
Medium Aevum Quotidian um
Körnermarkt 13, 3500 Krems, Austria
Telephone (+43-2732) 84793, Fax (+43-2732) 64793-1
Centrat European University
Department of Medieval Studies
Nador u. 9, H-1051 Budapcst, Hungary
Telephone: (+36-1) 327-3051, Fax: (+36-1) 327-3055
E-mail: medsrud@ceu.hu, Website: htr;:p://mcdsrud.ceu.hu
Central European University Press
An imprint of the Ccntral European University Share Company
Nador u. 11, H-105 I Budapest, Hungary
Telephone: (+36-1) 327-3138, Fa.“ (+36-1) 327-3183
E-mail: ccupress@ccu.hu, Website: http-//www.ceupress.com
400 West 59″‚ Street, New York NY 10019, USA
Telephone (+1-212) 547-6932, Fax: (+1-646) 557-2416
E-mail: mgreenwald@sorosny.org
All rights reserved. No part of th.is publication may be reproduced, storcd in rerrieval system,
or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the permission of the Publishers.
Published with the support of niederosterreich kultur
!SSN 1587-6470 CEU MEDIEVALIA
ISBN 978-615-5053-26-9
Libraty of Congrcss Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Violence and thc Mcdieval Clergy / edited by Gcrhard Jaritz, Ana Marinkovic- Ist ed.
p. cm. — (CEU medievalia; 16)
Papers from the workshop „Coping with violencc, and the mcdicval clcrgy (from thc local settlement of
dispure to approach.ing the Papal Penitentiary),“ held at Dubrovnik in 2008.
I ncludes bibliographical refcrcnces and index.
ISBN 978-6155053269 (pbk.)
1. Violencee–Religious aspects–Catholic Church–History–To 1500–Congresscs. 2. Catholic ChurchEuropc–
Cicrgy–History–To 1500–Congresses. 3. Church history–Middle Ages, 600-1500–Congresses.
!. Jaritz, Gerhard, 1949- 1!. Marinkovic, Ana.
BX1069.5.V56 2011
261.8’3–dc22
2010052375
Printed in Hungary by Akaprint Kft., Budapcst
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ………………… . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Peter Clarke, The Meclieval Clergy and Violence: An Historiographical Introduction . . . . 3
Kirsi Salonen, The Apostolic Penitentiary and Violence in the Roman Curia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Torstein jorgemen, „Killings, Unfortunately, Take Place More Often Here than
Anywhere Else:“ Civil and Clerical Homicide in Late Meclieval Norway . . . . . . . 29
Etleva Lo/a, Violence and the Clergy in Late Meclieval Albania:
with and without the Penitenriary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Gerhard Jmitt The Bread-Knife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Gordan Ravanfif, Sacred Space, Violence and Public Law 111 the Cloisters
of the Franciscan and Dominican Hauses ofDubrovnik . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Ne/la Lonza, The Priest Barbius and His Crime before the State and Church
Authorities of Meclieval Dubrovnik . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
List of Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
PREFACE
Studies of the Apostolic Penitentiary and its role and function for all strata of
late medieval society have become an important field of research at tbe international
Ievel. The requests of Christians for grace to be granred by the papal curia offer information
about a variety of problems and needs that confronred both clerics and laypeople
and made petitions to rhe pope necessary or, at least, advisable.
Since 2001, the Department of Medieval Studies of Central European University
has been concentrating on comparative researcb in the East Central European dara
of the Penitentiary Registers. This has led to intensive cooperation with other scholars
in the field, to a number of international meetings and the publication of their results.1
The most recent of these workshops was held in Dubrovnik in 2008 and dealt with a
research question for which rhe Penitentiary registers contain rich material: „Coping
wirb Violence, and the Medieval Clergy (from the Local Settlement of Dispute to Approaching
the 1\postolic Penitentiary).“
In recent decades research into violence in the Middle Ages has seen a particular
boom. In a !arge number of studies historians discovered that violence was omnipresent
in medieval society and affected all areas of life and the members of all social
strata. Although one has to be careful with such generalizations, it can be stated that the
survivi.ng sources deal regularly with issues of violent actions, signs and results of violence,
violent people and coping with violence. Members of the clergy played an important
role in recordi.ng such evidence – as weiters about violence and critics of violence,
but also as perpetrators, victims, and witnesses. However, systematic analyses of
the patterns of behaviour and the different functions and actions of clerics on these
issues have not yet been realized often in a context-bound and comparative way. The
Dubrovnik workshop aimed to contribute towards changing this situation and offer a
forum to discuss questions about the various roles of medieval clerics in the attempts
The results of meetings at Bergen (2003) and Budapest (2004) were published in Gerhard Jaritz,
Torstern J0rgensen and Kirsi Salonen (ed.), The Lang Arm of Papal Authority. Late Medieva/
Chnsllan Peripheriesand Their Commumcation wllh the Holy See, CEU Medievalia 8 (Budapest and
New York: Central European University Press, 2005); selected papers of a workshop at Rome (2005)
may be found in iidem (ed.), … et usque ad ultimum terrac The Apostolic Penitentiary in Local
Contexts, CEU Medievalia 10 (Budapest and New York: Central European University Press, 2007).
2 PREFACE
and processes designed to cope with violence. Particular emphasis was put on the function
of the Apostolic Penitentiary and its decisions in th.is context. This volume contains
selected contributions from the meeting.
In his introductory paper, Peter Clarke offers an overview of the state of the
art of research into the connection of the clergy and violence in the :Middle J\ges. Kirsi
Salonen concentrates on violence at the Roman curia and its reflection in the Perutentiary
records. Torstein ]0rgensen and Etleva Lala deal with violence and the clergy in
two peripheral areas of medieval Western Christianity, namely, Norway and Albania,
and also include Penitentiary evidence in their analysis. Gerhard Ja ritz sn1dies the role of
one important object in the violence-bound argumentation of the supplicants to rhe
Penitentiary: the short bread-knife that was allowed to be carried by everyone and did
not count as a weapon, but seems to have been used regularly as such. Gordan Ravancic
and Nella Lonza offer analyses of problems of violence occurring in the clerical space of
medieval Dubrovnik.
November, 2011 Gerhard Jaritz (Budapest and Kl:ems)
Ana Marinkovic (Budapest and Zagreb)