The Penitentiary under Pope Pius II. The Supplications and Their Provenance

THE PENITENTIARY UND ER POPE PIUS ll
THE SUPPLICATIONS AND THEIR PROVENANCE
Kirsi Salonen
The pontificate of Pope Pius II, Enea Silvio Piccolomini, Iasted from
August 1458 until August 1464. Because it is impossible to present an all-encompassing
study about the Penitentiaxy during this rnod in one contribution, I
have chosen some ofthe main themes and questions.
My frrst aim is to study all the petitions registered in the Penitentiaxy
during these years, to see what kind of cases the office handled, and how many
there were. This may reveal why Christians turned to the Penitentiaxy and which
were the most important groups of petitions.
Another problern to be treated is the provenience of the petitions: first,
how many petitions in generat came from each diocese or territory and, second,
which kind of cases came from each diocese? This will allow a comparison of
the ‚activities‘ of different territories.
The answers to these two basic questions will then Iead to the third, most
interesting and also most important problem: Why did differences exist in the
needs for graces, even though canon law in theory was equal for all Christians?
Such a question no Ionger refers to how the Penitentiaxy functioned, but to the
significance of the office for individual Christians, and how canon law was differently
understood or respected in different parts of Christendom. 2
The registers: new boss – new technique
There are two main reasons why I have chosen the pontificate of Pius II
as the period of this study. On the one band, it is long enough to allow some
quantitative study; but, on the other hand, it is also short enough so that the
number of cases is not too I arge for a detailed study of them. The second, and in
fact more important, reason for the choice ofthe pontificate ofPius II as the period
of study is that during these years important developments took place in the
Penitentiaxy as weil as in the registration of cases.
1 I would li.ke to thank the Academy of Finland for financing my research project „Tbe Papal
Penitentiary and the Local Church“, of which the first results are published here.
2 In this article I will not yet be able to give any final results concerning the third question, but
will concentrate on the first two.
1 9
\
The person who was mainly responsible for all the changes and innovations
that took place in the Penitentiary during these years was not the Pope Pius
II himself, but the Cardinal Penitentiary, the so-called poenitentiarius maior,
Philippus Calandrini, Cardinal Priest of Sancti Laurentii in Lucina. Calandrini
was nominated as Cardinal Penitentiary in October 1458, that is, very soon after
the election of Pius II, and he stayed in charge until June or July 1476. It was
actually he who took the initiative for all the new deve1opments. 3
One of the first activities that Philippus Calandrini seems to have undertaken
was to renew the registration system. One can recognise this c1early when
comparing the registers of the Penitentiary from the six pontifical years of Pius
II (volumes 7, 8, 9, 10, 1 1 , and 13) to the previous ones.4 While the earlier registers
of the Penitentiary were quite badly written and not very logically organised,
the registers under Philippus Calandrini 1ook very different.
The earlier volumes contained petitions from several years. Instead, the
volumes from Calandrini’s period are, for the first time, organised so that in
each volume those petitions were registered that the Penitentiary handled and
approved during one year. Thus, concerning the pontificate of Pius II, volume 7
contains petitions from the year 1459, volume 8 from 1460, vo1ume 9 from
1461, volume 10 from 1462, vo1ume 1 1 from 1463, and volume 13 from 1464.5
Since the first volume from the papacy of Pius 11 begins with 1459, the
petitions (apart from a few cases that are registered in volume 7) from the year
1458 are missing. As vo1ume 7 also contains only few entries from January and
February 1459, one can say that the systematic registration ofthe cases actually
started only in March 1459.6
Apart from the new technique of one volume for each year, the internal
organisation of the volumes also changed from volume 7 onwards. Earlier, the
entries were put into the registers in quite a disordered way, but from then onwards
the petitions are neatly divided into several categories, each of which is
placed under a different title. This division is mainly respected in the later reg-
3 Conceming Calandrin.i as the Cardinal Penitentiary, see Emil Göller, Die päpstliche
Pönitentiarie von ihrem Ursprung bsi zu ihrer Umgestaltung unter Pius V., 2: Die päpstliche
Pönitentiarie von Eugen IV. bis Pius V., 1: Darstellung, Bibliothek des Kg. Preuss.
Historischen Instituts in Rom 7 (Rome: Loescher, 1907), 9-10.
4 A description of these volumes (with o1d foliation numbers – the folios have been renumbered
after publishing the edition) can be found, e.g., in Repertorium Poenitentiariae Germanicum
IV, ed. Ludwig Schmugge et al. (Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1996), xvxx.ii.
5 Actually, in vo1ume 13, which covers the calendar year 1464, there are entries both from the
last months of the pontificate of Pius li (January – August) and from the first months of the
pontificate ofPaul li (August – Decernber), while volume 12 in between contains petitions
from the year 1465, which was partly the first and partly the second pontitical year ofPaul
li.
6 Volume 7 contains one case from September 1458, one case from November 1458, three
cases from December 1458, four cases from January 1459, and 56 entries from February
1459, while from March 1459 tbere are 233 entries.
20
isters also. During the pontificate of Pius li there were nine categories: de matrimonialibus,
de diversis formis, de declaratoriis, de defectu natalium, de
uberiori, de promotis et promovendsi , de sententiis generalibus, de confessionalibus
in forma ‚Cupientes ‚, and de confessionalibus perpetuis.1
In practice, this division means that the register volumes were divided into
‚chapters‘, of which each contained petitions concerning one and the same issue,
named in the title. In addition, the scribes of the Penitentiary began to register
the petitions in chronological order within each chapter. In my opinion,
these new registration techniques were not introduced casually. By organising
the entries chronologically under several categories, the officials could fmd the
supplications more easily. Finding an entry was important, for the Penitentiary,
as every other papal office, needed to consult the earlier records now and then. It
happened that someone had lost the Ietter of grace, for example through fire, and
wanted a new copy, etc. In these cases it was necessary to consult the old registers
in order to find the previous decision.
Wh ich kind of cases did the Penitentiary handle?
Table 1: Number ofcases in each supplication category during Pius‘ U pontificate
Category Total %
De matrimonialibus 4 1 95 28 %
De diversis form i s 3650 23 %
De declaratoriis 334 2 %
De defectu nata/ium 2698 17 %
De uberiori 483 3 %
Pe promotis et promovendis 1008 6 %
De confessiona/ibus perpetuis 2750 17 %
De confessionalibus informa ‚Cupientes ‚ 179 1 %
De sententiis genera/ibus 432 3 %
Total 1 5729 1 00 %
Source : ASV, Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 7- 1 1 , 13.
7 Later the categories of de diversis formis and de declaratoriis were united under the title de
diversis materiis and the categories of de defectu natalium and de uberiori were put together
under the title de i/legitimiis. Also the different categories containing petitions related
to confession were united under the rubric de confessionalibus.
8 I have to warn that my numbers do not correspond totally to the ones in Ludwig Schmugge,
Patrick Hersperger and Beatrice Wiggenhauser, Die Supplikenregister der päpstlichen
Pönitentiarie aus der Zeit Pius ’11. (1458-1464), Bibliothek des Deutschen Historischen Instituts
in Rom 84 (Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1996) (bereafter Schmugge, Hersperger
and Wiggenhauser, Supplilcenregister). Counting the cases is not easy; because of the
registration technique it is sometimes difficult to decide whether to consider an entry as one
petition or two petitions. Especially problematic was counting the supplications for receiving
a Ietter of confession, as the registration in this category is less systematic than in the
others. I decided to count each supplicant person (or family, if busband and wife applied
together) as one unit.
2 1
Table 1 gives the list of categories to be found in the registers as well as
the number of petitions registered in each category. lt shows which kind of cases
the Penitentiary handled during the pontificate ofPius II, and how many cases of
each type.
From these numbers it is easy to distinguish the most common reasons
were for turning to the Penitentiary.9 There are four petition categories that contain
a high number of cases, while the other groups remain relatively small. The
most common reason was the need to have a dispensation or/and absolution in
marriage matters (almost 4200 cases).10
The second biggest category is the de diversis fonnis group, with 3650
cases. It is, however, different from the other categories, for it contains various
types of petitions and, as such, does not refer to the need for a certain kind of
grace.1 1 Another large petition category is the group de defectu natalium, with
nearly 2700 petitions. It contains petitions for receiving a dispensation from illegitimacy
and the right to hold an ecclesiastical benefice despite the supplicant‘!:
illegitimacy.12 The de confessionalibus perpetuis group contains supplications
for getting a Ietter of confession that allowed the holder to choose bis own confessor;
2750 such petitions are copied into the registers ofthe Penitentiary.13
The other five petition categories remain quite small, meaning that these
kinds of graces were not needed very often. The de promotis et promovendis
category that contains dispensation petitions related to promotion or ordination
matters, consists of about 1000 entries.14 The de uberiori category that offers
petitions from illegitimate children for having a dispensation that allowed them
to be ordained to the priesthood or to hold an additional benefice, consists of
483 cases.15 The de sententiis generalibus group that contains petitions from
priests for the authorisation to absolve their parishioners from sins that normally
9 Actually, this result can 1° also be generalised for the subsequent pontificates.
Concerning the petitions in the De matrimonia/ibus category, see Schmugge, Hersperger
and Wiggenhauser, Supplikenregister, 68-74; Kirsi Salonen, The Penitentiary as a Weil of
Grace in the Late Middle Ages. The Examp/e ofthe Province o[Uppsala 1448-1527, Suomalaisen
Tiedeakatemian Toimituksia – Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae 3 13
(Saarijärvi: Academia Scientiarum Fennica, 200 1), 103-1 19 (hereafter Salonen, The Peni11
tentiary).
Concerning the petitions in the de diversis formis category, see Schmugge, Hersperger and
12 Wiggenhauser, Supplikenregister, 96-162; Salonen, The Penitentiary, 1 19 -175.
With regard to the petitions in the de defectu natalium category, see Ludwig Schmugge,
Kirche, Ki nder, Karrieren. Päpstliche Dispense von der unehelichen Geburt im Spätmittelalter.
(Zurich: Artem.is & Winkler, 1995); Schmugge, Hersperger and Wiggenhauser, Supplikenregister,
1 86-1 89; Sa1onen, The Penitentiary, 192-203.
13 For the petitions in the de confessionalibus perpetuis category, see Schmugge, Hersperger
and Wiggenhauser, Supplikenregister, 207 -208; Salonen, The Penitentiary, 203-210.
14 Concerning this category, see Schmugge, Hersperger and Wiggenhauser, Supplikenregister,
IS 196-198; Salonen, ThePenitentiary, 178-192.
With regard to the petitions in the de uberiori category, see Schmugge, Hersperger and
Wiggenhauser, Supplikenregister, 186-189 ; Salonen, The Penitentiary, 192-203.
22
were reserved to papal decision has 432 entries.16 The de declaratorisi group
contains petitions for receiving a declaratory Ietter that freed the supplicant from
murder accusations, illegal matrirnony or a forced monastic career. Under this
title 334 cases are registered.17 In the de confessionalibus in forma ‚Cupientes ‚
category petitions were copied for being able to absolve from more serious sins
than priests could normally do. This small group consists of only 179 registered
supplications.18
This kind of division of the cases into different groups was quite typical
for the Penitentiary. The groups containing many petitions during the pontificate
of Pius ll tend to be numerous also during the other pontificates. Until now,
quantitative information has been received from the beginning of the pontificate
of Niebolas IV (1455) until the end of the pontificate of Alexander VI (1503),
and the trend is more or less the same: marriage, illegitimacy cases, and different
kinds of petitions concerning breaking the rules of canon law are very common,
while the other groups occur less frequently.19
Who turned to the Penitentiary?
F or the study of the provenance of the petitions, I have divided Christendom
into 12 !arger territories20 (see Table 2): Anglia means England and Wales,
Eastem Europe consists of all dioceses east of the German territory and Italy
(including also the almost-non-existent titular dioceses in the East and the Greek
islands), Gallia means present-day France, Germania is the territory ofthe Empire
– meaning actually the old German-speaking areas, Hibemia is Ireland,
Hispania Spain, ltalia inferiore means all of southem Italy and Sicily, ltalia media
stands for central Italy and Sardinia, ltalia superiore refers to northem Italy
including Corsica, Lusitania covers the area of present Portugal, Scandinavia
refers to the territories of Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, lceland, also including
Greenland and the Hebrides that, after 1472, were joined to the Scottish
isles; Scotia means Scotland.
16
For the petitions in the de sententiis generalibus category, see Schmugge, Hersperger and
Wiggenhauser, Supplikenregister, 214; Salonen, The Penitentiary, 203-210.
1187 Conceming this group, see Salonen, The Penitentiary, 1 19-175.
Referring to the petitions in the de confessionalibus in forma ‚Cupientes‘ category, see
Schmugge, Hersperger and Wiggenhauser, Supplikenregister, 214; Salonen, The Penitentiary,
203-210.
2109 I thank Ludwig Schmugge for allowing me to use these still unpublished results.
In this division, I have followed the indications given in Konrad Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica
Medii Aevi sive Summerum Pontificum S.R.E. Cardinalium, Ecclesiarum Antistitum
Series ab anno 1198 usque ad annum 1431 perducta e documentis tabularii praesertim vaticani
(Münster: Regensberg, 1901). The same division has also been used by Götz-Rüdiger
Tewes in his recently published study of the connections between the papal curia and different
territories in the Jater Middle Ages; see: Götz-Rüdiger Tewes, Die römische Kurie
und die europäischen Länder am Vorabend der Reformation, Bibliothek des Deutschen
Historischen Instituts in Rom 95 (Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 2001).
23
Provenance
Anglia
Bast. Europe
Gallia
Germania
Hibernia
Hispania 􀀆talia inf.
Italai med
IJtalia sup.
!Lusitania
Scandinavia
Scotia
?
Total
Table 2: The provenance ofthe cases handled by the Penitentiary
during the pontificate of Pius li
matr!l div.f. decl. def. n. uber. prom. conf. cup.
27.5 49 3 75 2 22 35 5
74.5 200 72 48 2 55 124 6
745.5 1015 43 423 146 180 1649 75
710.0 752 64 992 202 165 583 52
355.0 36 2 216 7 3 1 0 0
565.5 465 72 488 76 84 78 8
293.0 207 16 53 5 72 1 1 1
392.0 287 23 51 1 85 17 7
817.5 442 16 128 19 290 80 22
19.0 72 10 50 9 16 20 1
10.0 13 5 49 1 1 19 0
123.5 9 1 100 8 6 93 0
62.0 103 7 25 5 29 3 1 2
4195.0 3650 334 2698 483 1008 2750 179
Source: ASV, Pemtenz1ena Ap., Reg. Matrim. et DN., vol. 7-1 1, 13.
sent. Total
2 220.5
8 589.5
136 4412.5
78 3598.0
21 650.0
61 1897.5
1 6 674.0
21 884.0
54 1 868.5
21 218.0
3 101.0
2 342.5
9 273.0
432 15,729.0
Sometimes there is a problern in studying the provenance ofthe petitions;
it concems the possibility of distinguishing the dioceses from each other. Normally
this is easy, as the names ofthe dioceses are generally quite clearly copied
into the entries. But, unfortunately, there are some dubious cases. That is why I
created the last group of questionable provenance.22
If one concentrates on the total nurober of clear cases, it can be noted that
the most petitions came from French territory, followed by the German area. If
21
The half nurnbers refer to the fact that the spouses sometimes came from two different dio22
ceses or even territories. In these cases I have given half units.
There are, for examp1e, the dioceses of Aosta in Italy and Augsburg in Gennany that are
both called in Latin Augustensis. Normally, it is quite easy to distinguish between them, for
the ltalian names sound very different from the German ones. Ancl, fortunately, in this case
it is also possible to compare with the entries in the Repertorium. It is more difficult to find
the difference between, for instance, all those dioceses called in Latin Aquensis; this is Dax
and Aix in France, and Aqui in ltaly, for the French and Italian names are sometimes so
similar that it is impossible to decide. It is similarly difficult to recognise the difference
between the dioceses of Reggio-Emilia and Reggio-Calabria in ltaly, both called Reginensis.
The situation is even made more problematic because the French diocese ofRiez is also
called Regensis. One also has difficulties concerning the differences between Valencia and
Valence, Constance and Coutances, as weil as Plasencia and Piacenza. Furthermore, sometimes
names of dioceses appear in the registers that do not correspond to any of the dioceses
given in the Hierarchia Catho/ica. These are obviously mistakes of the scribes or the
proctors, who did not know which diocese was meant and, therefore, they might have put
the name of the nearest town, for example. In some cases, the scribes probably just made
spelling errors. When a supplicant was not connected to a certain diocese, the diocese was
not given but replaced by sine dioc. These were often the cases of royal or other persons
administering a territory !arger than one diocese or of people who travelled a great deal.
24
one adds the cases from all the three Italian territories, Italy reaches the third
place with 3442.5 cases. The Iberian Peninsula is in fourth place with 2 1 13.5
petitions (the Spanish and Portuguese cases added together). Thereafter, one
finds the ‚British Isles‘ and Ireland, together with 1213 entries. The lowest frequencies
are found in Eastem Europe and, finally, Scandinavia.
The most populated areas near the centre of the Church are the ones with
the most petitions. The further away from the Holy See one moves, the fewer
petitions occur. Considering a journey to the curia for making a petition, this
kind of result seems to be quite obvious. lt was not so usual to leave for Rome
from the remote parts of Christendom as it was from nearer areas. Moreover, the
remote parts of Scandinavia or Scotland were less populated than the centrat territories
of Europe and, consequently, there were also fewer petitions from Scandinavia,
although the territories could be ofthe same size.
Secondly, if one compares the numbers to the size and wealth of the dioceses
(and here I refer to the sums of taxes that each diocese bad to pay to the
Holy See23), there seem to have been more petitions from the riebest and biggest
dioceses than from the smaller and poorer ones?4 This result also seems to be
obvious, but, as the example of England shows, it was not necessarily so. There,
for example, one can note that only very few petitions came from the archdiocese
of Canterbury, even though it was very rich. Such an exceptional underrepresentation
is, however, easy to explain, as the archbishop of Canterbury had
great authority to handle cases similar to those with which others went to the
Penitentiary, so that people from there did not have to turn to Rome. Unfortunately,
there are not the sources from all other dioceses that might be informative
about the kind and extension of authority that bishops or archbishops had?5
Provenance of supp/icants and reasons for tuming to the Penitentiary
If one compares the provenance of the supplicants and the petition category,
great differences in the numbers of petitions from different territories can
be found. Concerning the marriage petitions, most of them came from Italy
( 1 502.5 cases). From northem ltaly alone (817.5 cases) there are more cases
23 About taxes see Konrad Eubel, ed., Hierarchia Catholica Medii Aevi sive Summarum Pontificum
S.R.E. Cardinalium, Ecclesiarum Antistitum Series ab anno 1198 usque ad annum
1431 perducta e documentis tabularii praesertim vaticani, vol. 2 (Münster: Regensberg,
1901).
24 For example, the number of petitions from northem ltaly varies strongly according to the
importance and size of the diocese. From the largest dioceses there are many petitions
(Milan 148, Genova 131), from the middle-sized dioceses fewer (Mantova 29, Verona 21)
and from the smallest ones only a few, if any (Qtioggia 1, Pedena 2); ASV, Penitenzieria
Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div., vol. 7-1 1 , 13.
25 Conceming the activity ofthe archbishop ofCanterbury, Thomas Bourgchier (1454-1486),
see, for exarnple, Registrum Thome Bourgchier Cantuariensis archiepiscopi a. d. 1454–
1486, ed. F.R.H. du Boulay, The Canterbury and York Society, 54 (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1957).
25
than from France (745.5 cases) or from Germany (710 cases). It is also interesting
to note that many marriage petitions came from the Irish dioceses.
French ( 1 0 1 5 and 43 cases), German (752 and 64 cases) and Italian (936
and 55 cases) petitions dominate the de diversis formis and de declaratoriis
groups, as they should, according to their general quantities. However, if one
looks at the petitions for dispensation from illegitimacy, that is, the de defectu
natalium and de uberiori categories, we see that German petitions (992 and 202
cases) are in great majority when compared to the other territories; Spain (488
and 76 cases) and France (423 and 146 cases), that follow it in number, have
less than half as many petitions.
The promotion cases follow the same pattern as the marriage cases. The
Italian dioceses (445 cases, ofwhich most – 288 – came from northern ltaly) are
in first place, followed by the French ( 179 cases) and the German (165 cases)
territories.
The most striking difference in can be found in the petitions for receiving
a confessional letter or other graces in confessional matters (the de confessionalibus
perpetuis, de confessionalibus in forma ‚Cupientes ‚ and de sententiis
generalibus categories), as more than half ofthem originated from France ( 1860
cases). The dominance of the French supplicants in these categories is very
large; from the German territories, in second place, there are only 7 1 3 such petitions.
These ‚general trends‘ in provenance ofthe petitions show only frequencies
but do not tell anything about the actual reasons for turning to the Penitentiary.
On the basis ofthe total, for example, it can be shown that Frenchmen bad
intensive contacts with the Penitentiary, but, in fact, one third of these connections
concentrated on only one type of petition.
Particularities of each territory
Table 3 presents the proportion of each supplication category in the
different territories. It shows clearer which kind of cases were the most common
in each territory and the differences between them.26
For the territory of Anglia, one can easily note that the illegitimacy cases
formed the most important supplication category (34%). In the second and third
place, but quite far away from the illegitimacy numbers, there are the de diversis
form is and the de confessionalibus petitions.
Eastem Europeans turned to the Penitentiary for different reasons. They
bad various problems with canon law (that is, the categories of de diversis formis
and de declaratoriis, together 46%). In addition they often asked for confession
letters.27
26
As has already been said, it is not possible to explain minutely the details behind the results
shown in table 3.
27 More detailed information concerning the Eastern European petitions may be found in the
article by Piroska Nagy and Kirsi Salonen in this volume.
26
Table 3: Reasons to turn to the Penitentiary from different territories (in percentages)
Provenance matr. div.f. dec/. Def. n. uber. �rom. conf. cup. sent. Total
!Ang/ia 12 22 1 34 1 10 16 2 1 100
East. Europe 13 34 12 8 0 9 2 1 1 1 100
Gallia 17 23 1 1 0 3 4 37 2 3 100
Germania 20 21 2 28 6 5 16 1 2 100
IHibernia 55 6 0 33 1 0 2 0 3 100
IHispania 30 25 4 26 4 4 4 0 3 100
􀂾talia inf. 43 3 1 2 8 1 1 1 2 0 2 100
􀂾ta/ia med 44 32 3 6 0 1 0 2 1 2 100
ltalia sup. 44 24 1 7 1 16 4 1 3 100
fLusitania 9 33 5 23 4 7 9 0 1 0 100
Scandinavia 10 1 3 5 49 1 1 19 0 3 100
Scotia 36 3 0 29 2 2 27 0 1 100
? 23 38 3 9 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 100
All cases 27 23 2 17 3 6 1 7 1 3 100
Source: ASV, Pemte11ZierraAp., Reg. Matnm. et DN., vol. 7-1 1 , 13.
As already mentioned above, Frenchmen turned to the Penitentiary in the
first place for receiving confessional letters (37%). But there are also many de
diversisformis petitions from the French territory.
Germans often wrote to the Penitentiary concerning matters of illegitimacy
(28%), but other kinds of categories are equally represented: marriage
(20%) as well as canon law matters (23%), and also confession letters (16%).
Thus, Germans turned to the Penitentiary with quite heterogenic needs.
The Irish situation is rather different; Irishmen turned to the Penitentiary
only for certain matters. More than half ofthe petitions concem marriage (55%)
and illegitimacy (33%) and only very rarely other matters.
Spaniards used the Penitentiary for marriage (30%) and illegitimacy
(26%) matters as well as for problems with canon law (29%). The situation is
again quite heterogeneous; there was no special need for them to turn to the
Penitentiary.
Italians (all three territories may be combined as they followed more or
less the same pattem) tumed to the authority ofthe Penitentiary first of all conceming
marriage matters (43-44%), but also regarding canon law, while they
were, for example, not interested in illegitimacy dispensations or confessional
letters.
The Portuguese seem to have needed the Penitentiary in canon Jaw (38%)
and illegitimacy (23%) matters. The other petition categories contain only relatively
few cases.
Scots in their turn used the Penitentiary mainly for three different matters:
marriage (36%), illegitimacy (29%) and confession Ietter (27%) issues.
27
Strangely, only very few entries are to be found in the de diversis fonnis and in
the de declaratoriis categories that normally are relatively large petition groups.
Such divisions, however, do not tell the actual reasons behind the need for
grace in the individual territories, as there still might have been important differences
between the dioceses in one territory. For example, according to table 2,
Scandinavians turned to the offi.ce mainly for illegitimacy matters (49%). This
fact is, however, an illusion, for 3 1 ofthe total 49 Scandinavian illegitimacy entries
came from Danish dioceses, where the nurober of these matters was, therefore,
much larger than in Scandinavia generally.
Conclusions
In this contribution, I have shown that each Christian territory had its own
kind of needs for turning to the Penitentiary. Frenchmen needed letters for being
able to confess to their own father confessor, Irishmen for getting legally married
to relatives in some degree, and illegitimate German men to start an ecclesiastical
career.
Such a divergent result is extremely interesting, for the regulations of
canon law were the same for each Christian. Consequently, in theory, Christians
from all over the world should have turned to the Penitentiary similarly and in
similar kinds ofmatters. This was, however, not the case; they tended to come to
the Penitentiary for different reasons that they considered important. It varied
from territory to territory. Behind this variety, one probably has to Iook for local
customs, regional laws, and different authorities – why and how still remains a
matter to be studied in the future.
28
The Long Arm ofPapal Authority
Edited by
Gerhard Jaritz, Torstein J.ergensen. Kirsi Salonen
MEDIUM AEVUM QUOTIDIANUM
SONDERBAND XIV
Gedruckt mit Unterstützung der Kulturabteilung
des Amtes der Niederösterreichischen Landesregierung
nlederösterreicll kuHur
CEU MEDIEV ALIA 8
TheLongArm
of Papal Authority
Late Medieval Christian Peripheries
and Their Communication
with the Holy See
Edited by
Gerhard Jaritz, Torstein J0rgensen, K.irsi Salonen
Bergen · Budapest · Krems
2004
Copy Editor: Judith Rasson
Cover lliustration: Pope Pius II, Hartmann Scbedel, World Cbronicle (Nuremberg, 1493), fol. 250
Joint Publlcation by:
Centre for Medieval Studies (CMS)
University of Bergen, P.O.Box 7800, N-5020 Bergen, Norway
Telephone: (+47-55) 58 80 85, Fax: (+47-55) 58 80 90
E-mail: post@cms.uib.no, Website: http://www.uib.no/cms/
ISBN 82-997026-0-7
􀀔
Department of Medleval Studies
Central European University
Nädor u. 9, H-1051 Budapest, Hungary
Telephone: (+36-1) 327-3024, Fax: (+36-1) 327-3055
E-mail: medstud@ceu.hu, Website: http://www.ceu.hu/medstud/
ISSN 1587-6470 CEU MEDlEY ALIA
‚􀆦 􀁝 􀁖CE U PRESS … 􀆥
Central European University Press
An imprint of the Central European University Share Company
Nädor u. 11, H-1 051 Budapest, Hungary
Telephone: (+36-1)327-3138, 327-3000, Fax: (+36-1)327-3183
E-mail: ceupress@ceu.hu, Website: http://www.ceupress.com
and
400 West 591b Street, New York NY 10019, USA
Telephone: (+l-212)547-6932, Fax: (+1-212) 548-4607
E-mail:mgreenwald@sorosny.org
ISBN 9-63 86569 5 6
Library ofCongress Cataloging-in-Publication Data:
A CIP catalog record for this book is available upon request.
Medium Aevum Quotidianum
Gesellschaft zur Erforschung der materiellen Kultur des Mittelalters
Körnermarkt 13, A-3500 Krems an der Donau, Austria
Telephone: (+43-2732) 847 93-20, Fax: (+43-2732) 847 93-1
E-mail: imareal@oeaw.ac.at , Website: http://www.imareal.oeaw.ac.at/maq/
ISBN 3-90 1094 17 2
© Editors and Contributors 2004
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in retrieval systerns, or
transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the permission of the Publisher.
Printed in Hungary by Printself(Budapest).
T ABLE OF CONTENTS
Abbreviations related to the collections of the Vatican Secret Archives . . ….. … 7
Preface . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …. . . . . . . 8
Piroska Nagy, Peripheries in Question in Late Medieval Christendom . . ….. .. . 11
Kirsi Salonen, The Penitentiary under Pope Pius TI. The Supplications
and Their Provenance . . . . . . … . . . . . . . .. … . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Torstein Jergensen, At the Edge ofthe World: The Supplications
from the Norwegian Province of Nidaros . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …. . . … . … 29
K.irsi Salonen, The Supplications from the Province of Uppsala.
Main Trends and Developments . . . .. . .. . . . . . … . . . . . . . . . . . . . … . . . . . . .. . . . . 42
Irene Fumeaux, Pre-Reformation Scottish Marriage Cases
in the Archives of the Papal Penitentiary . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Jadranka Neralic, Central Europe and the Late Medieval Papal Chancery . . … 71
Etleva Lala, The Papal Curia and Albania in the Later Middle Ages . …. . . . . . . . 89
Piroska N agy and Kirsi Salonen, East-Central Europe
and the Penitentiary (1458-1484) ……………………………………. 102
Lucie Dolezalova, „But if you marry me“: Reflections
on the Hussite Movement in the Penitentiary (1438-1483) ………….. 113
Ana Marinkovic, Socia1 and Territorial Endogamy
in the R.agusan Republic: Matrimonial Dispenses
during the Pontificates ofPaul li and Sixtus IV (1464-1484) ……….. 126
Gastone Saletnich and Wolfgang Müller, Rodolfo Gonzaga (1452-1495):
News on a Celebrity Murder Case . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . 145
5
Blanka Szegbyovä, Church and Secular Courts in Upper Hungary
(Fourteenth to Sixteenth Century) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 151
Ludwig Schmugge, Penitentiary Documents
from Outside the Penitentiary . . . . . . . . . . … . . . . . . .. . .. .. . . .. .. : …………… 161
Gerhard Jaritz, Patternsand Levels ofPeriphery? ………………………….. 170
List of Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. .. . . . . . . 173
6
ABBREVIATIONS RELATED TO TBE COLLECTIONS OF THE
V ATICAN SECRET ARCHIVES
ASV = Archivio Segreto Vaticano
Arm. = Armadio
Congr. Vescovi e Regolari, Visita Ap. = Congrega zione dei Vescovi e Regolari,
Visita Apostolica
Instr. Mise. = Instrumenta Miscellanea
Penitenzieria Ap., Reg. Matrim. et Div. = Penitenzieria Apostolica, Registra
Matrimonialium et Diversorum
Reg. Vat. = Registra Vaticana
Reg. Lat. = Registra Lateranensia
Reg. Suppl. = Registra Supplicationum
Reg. Aven. = Registra Avenionensia
RPG = Repertorium Poenitentiariae Germanicum
7
PREFACE
The present publication contains selected papers from two international
conferences: the first was held at the Centre for Medieval Studies, University of
Bergen (Norway), in October, 20031 and the second at the Department of Medieval
Studies, Centrat European University, Budapest (Hungary), in January,
2004.2 The purpose of these meetings was to gather researchers interested in the
history and significance of the papal curia and, in particular, the Apostolic Penitentiary,
in the later Middle Ages. The main emphasis was placed on a comparative
approach and on the role of peripheral areas of Western Christendom in
their communication with the Holy See.
There are various kinds of centre-and-periphery hierarchies.3 There are
geographic, social, economic, and cultural peripheries and centres.“ The generat
textbooks … address materials from the geographical and social peripheries of
privileged cultures only as adjuncts to their central narrative …. The history of
Scandinavia and Eastern Europe become excursus to a central narrative.'“‚
However, conceming the communication of the Holy See with various areas
of Christendom in the Middle Ag es, the irnpact of ‚peripheries‘ has attracted
a new interest in recent years. Since the opening of the archives of the Apostolic
Penitentiary to researchers in 1983 relatively few scholars have exploited the
sources, but recently their number has increased. Most of them have studied the
supplications to the Penitentiary of petitioners from their own home countries
and edited material on a national basis. The German Historical Institute, under
the leadership of Ludwig Schmugge, has already published several volumes of
entries concerning German-speaking territories. Also, the Norwegian and Icelandic
material has recently been released by Torstein Jßi’gensen and Gastone
Saletnich. Sirnilar enterprises are in process in several other countries: Poland,
Denmark, Sweden and Finland, England and Wales. The examination of territo-
1 „The Lote Middle Ages and the Penitentiary Texts: Centre and Periphery in Europe in the
Pre-Refonnation Era.“
2 „Ad Confines. The Papal Curia and the Eastern and Northern Peripheries of Christendom
in the Later Middle Ages(l41h
– 151h c.).“
3 For this and the following, see Teofilo F. Ruiz, „Center and Periphery in the Teaching of
Medieval History,“ in Medieval Cultures in Contact, ed. Richard F. Gyug (New York:
Fordham University Press, 2003), 252.
4 Ibidem, 248.
8
ries on the geographic peripheries in their relation to Rome has been a main focus
in these studies.
The archival material of the Penitentiary and the communication of the
papal curia with the various regions of late medieval Europe should, however,
not be studied only on national Ievels. There is an increasing need for such
studies to be supplemented by comparative searcbes for differences and analogies
in how Christians from different corners of Europc used the papal offices
and were treated by them. It is well known that even though the regulations of
canon law were in theory the same for everyone, regional differences in interpreting
and applying them emerged in the Late Middle Ages. The need to turn to
the papal authority in matters of canon law varied depending on the role of local
bishops and the presence or absence of papal Iegates or collectors, who often
bad the power to deal with similar matters in partibus. Also, people in the
centml territories of Christendom bad different opportunities for turning to the
papal curia with their requests than those living on the peripheries of the
Christian world.
Questions like these played the central role in the discussions of the two
conferences noted above. In this book we will render an overview of the present
status of this new field of research. As an introduction, Piroska Nagy deals with
the question of how to apply centre-periphery models to a comparative analysis
of the sources. Kirsi Salonen uses the Penitentiary registers from the period of
Pope Pius II to analyse the supplications, their provenance, and the role of peripheries.
Two peripheral parts of late medieval Europe and their significance concerning
the communication with the Holy See represent the main part of the
publication: Northem Europe and East Central Europe. Comparative analyses of
Scandinavian and Scottish source material from the Penitentiary Registers are
made by Torstein Jsrgensen, Kirsi Salonen, and lrene Fumeaux. The studies on
East Central Europe are introduced by an inquiry concerning the general importance
of the area for the papal curia (Jadranka Neralic), and an overview of the
communication of the Holy See with Albania (Etleva Lala). Piroska Nagy and
Kirsi Salonen offer a quantitative analysis of East Central Europe and the Penitentiary
(1458-1484), followed by contributions on individual territories, such
as the Czech Iands (Lucie Dolezalova) and Dalmatia (Ana Marinkovic). The
contribution by Gastone Saletnich and Wolfgang Müller indicates that in any
studies of the roJe of peripheries one must not neglect the more central areas.
Blanca Szeghyova and Ludwig Schrnugge show that local archives and their
contents are an indispensable additional source for comparative analyses.
Many friends and colleagues have helped in preparing this book for print.
We are pleased to thank the personnet of the Penitenzieria Apostolica, especially
Padre Ubaldo Todeschini, for reading the manuscript and suggesting useful corrections.
We are also much obliged to the skilled staff of the Sala di Studio in
the Vatican Archives, who patiently brought us volume after volume of the reg-
9
isters and helped with other problems. Judith Rasson from Central European
University deserves our gratitude for copyediting our text.
Finally, we wish to thank the academic institutions which in a more direct
way have promoted this project: the Centre for Medieval Studies at the
University of Bergen, the Department of Medieval Studies at the Central
European University in Budapest, the Institut filr Realienkunde of the Austrian
Academy of Seiences and the Academy of Finland, and the Department of History
at the University ofTampere.
Bergen, Budapest, and Tampere, November 2004
Gerhard Jaritz, Torstein Jergensen, Kirsi Salonen
10