The Priest Barbius and His Crime before the State and Church Authorities of Medieval Dubrovnik

THE PRIEST BARBIUS AND HIS CRIME BEFORE THE STATE AND CHURCH
AUTHORITIES OF MEDIEVAL DUBROVNIK
Nella Lonza
The last days of August or early September of 1284 witnessed a crime that
caused quite a stir among the citizens of Dubrovnik (Ragusa) and sealed the fate of both
the perpetrator and the victim.1 The crime took place on the road to the Benedictine
monastery of St. James at Visnjica (in via sancti]acobi de Visiniza), located east of the city
and overlooking the island of Lokrum. Today a popular promenade to the green oases
surrounding the monastery, wedged between two urban zones, the area was once a road
leading to Zupa and further, to the borders of the Ragusan district (Astarea) and the
hinterland 2 At the time, the whole area between the city walls and the St. James monastery
was uninhabited.
Indeed, a commoner and a noblewoman – a priest and a Benedictine nun –
happening to run into each other in 1284 at such a secluded spot can hardly be described
as chance, the violent outcome suggesting that these two persons were not
strangers. A. crin1e of passion? There is little reliable evidence on the personal relationship
of the two people involved and the events underlying this incident, leaving much
room for speculation. Of all the places where the Benedictine nun Mira might have
been expected to be, this certainly was not one of them. At that time Dubrovnik bad
Primary sources are published in: Tadija Smiciklas, (ed.), Codo:: dip!omalit11J Rtgni Croatiat, Da!matai e el
S!az.ooniae (hereafter: CD] . vol. 6 (Zagreb: Jugoslavcnska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti [hereafter:
JAZU], 1908), 499-500, doc. 416; 510-1, doc. 427; 545-7, doc. 463;Josip Lucic (ed.), Spi.1i dubmva<‚ke kance!a
rije (Registers of the Ragusan chancellary) [hereaftcr: JOK], vol. 3, Monumenta historica Ragusina, vol.
3 (Zagreb: JAZU and Zavod za hrvatsku povijest, 1988), 195, doc. 508; 196, doc. 509; 199-202, doc. 513.
Documents from CD have recurrently been referred to in older historiography, most comprehcnsively in:
Dusanka Dinic-Kneievic, „Prilog iz zivota kaluderica u srednjevekovnom Dubrovniku“ (Contribution to
the life of nuns in medieval Dubrovnik), Islraijwnja !nstilllla ‚{;‘ islorjiu 6 (1979): 325-6. Howevcr, it was
not until thc publication of the complementary sources from SDK that many important and interesting
aspects of this case came to li ght.
Vinko Foretic and Ante Marinovic, „Narpis iz XIV stoljeca na Dupcu kod Dubrovnika“ (A fourteenthcentury
inscription from Dubac near Dubrovnik), Anali Hislnrijskog inslilula Jugos!avenskt akademijt -:;:tanosli i
umjelnosli 8-9 (1 960-61 ): 172.
78 NElLA LONZA
seven Benedictine nunneries (St. Andrew, St. Bartholomew, St. Simon, St. i\fary of
Kaste!, St. Peter the i\1inor, St. Nicholas de lave and St. Thomas), all of which, except for
the last, were located inside the city walls, even in Kalte/, the core of early Dubrovnik
built on the cliffs above the sea.3 Although the monastic ideal was permeated with the
ideals of modesty, retreat from the world, and contemplation, neither the Rule of St.
Benedictine nor monastic practice insisted on strict enclosure. ;\t the time this case took
place, preparations were at an early stage for the drawing up of the decretal Periculoso, by
which Pope Bornface VIII fotbade nuns to leave the cloister.4 Even if Mira were allowed
to leave the cloistered space, it does seem odd that a woman, moreover of noble
birth and a nun, should find herself alone, outside the ciry walls and weil beyond the
bounds that both physically and symbolically encircled her social communiry.
Mira was a nun of St. Andrew’s convent, which was located on the western
edge of the sexterium of Kalte!, close to the walls enclosing the ciry from the sea. The
monastic complex had been severely damaged in the Great Earthquake of 1667 and was
never reconstructed .S The size of Mira’s coenobitic communiry cannot be established
with exactitude. Evidence from the mid-fourteenth century bears witness to four Benedictine
nuns, this number remaining stable in the latter half of the same century.6 At thc
time, Benedictine nunneries in Dalmatia were generally small in size,7 and it is plausible
that Mira shared her cloistered life with but a few nuns.
Unlike the Franciscan convent of St. Clare, established in 1 290 and staffed
exclusively by patrician daughters,s the Benedictine nuns made no such distinction and
equally adrnitted plebeian girls. With regard to Mira, however, we have conclusive evidence
that she was a noblewoman (nobilis domina). Mira evidently belonged to the patri-
SDK, vol. 4 (Zagrcb: Hrvatska akadcmi1a znanoso t UtnJetnosu [hercafter: HAZU) and Zavod za hrvatsku
po1·ijcst, 1 993), 279, doc. 1296; h·an Ostojic, llenediktitm “ 1/n<Jtskoj (Benedictines in Croatia), vol. 2
(Sp!tr. Bcncdtktinslu priorat Tkon, 1964), 474-85.
VI 3.16.1: Aenuuus fonedbcrg, ed., Co1p11s i11nr ctJnonid, vol. 2, Dm-.talium mllectione.r (Letpztg 1 879, reprint
Graz Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt, 1 955), 1053-4; Jean Leclerq, „La clorurc: points de reperc
htstonques,“ Colleclanea Cütemefl!ai 43 (1981): 370-1; Ehzabeth Makowslu, Canon Llwand Ctoirtmd Women:
l’enculoso and lt.r Commenlalor.r 1298-1545, Srudies in Medieval and Early Modem Canon Law, vol. 5
(\l(‚ashtngton The Cathouc University of America Press, 1997), 1-3.
Luksa Benbc, „Ubtkacija n􀓴stauh gradevinsluh spomenika u Dubrovruku“ (On the locatton of unprc·
scrveJ monuments in Dubrovnik), Prilo􀂄 pm-ijerti 11mjetnorli u Dalmatiji 10 (1956): 72-4; Ostojic, Bemdiktinti,
477-8.
State Arch11•cs of Dubrovnik [hercafter: SAD). Dirtn“buttimr.r le.rlamenlor��m, ser. 10.2, vol. 1 , ff. 159v-160r;
vol. 2, f. 19v; vol. 5, f. 1 30r.
Ostopc, Benediktinci, 30.
Zdenka Janekovic Römer, Okz􀂅r slobode: duhrolJ(Itka l’lastela i<Jnet111 mdnjozjekozoga i humani<Jna (The frame·
work of freedom: the Ragusan patriciate betwcen the Middle Ages and H umanism (Zagreb and Dubrovruk.
Zavod za povijesne znanosti HAZU u Dubrovruku, 1999), 215.
THE PRIEST BARBIUS AND HIS CRIME 79
cian clan of „Mlascagna („Mlascogna), descendants of the Naimeri/Maineri family,9 judging
from the fact that Marinus „Mlascagna was determined to avenge hi.mself on Barbius
for the shame inflicted upon him (ad vindicandum ontam meam).1o
The social and family background of the male participant in th.is case can be
traced with utmost accuracy. The priest, Barbius, was born into a non-noble family of
merchants and artisans by the name of Longo.11 \Xfhile the highest church positions
(e.g., in the chapter) were distributed among the ecclesiastics of patrician origin, the
Ragusan diocesan clergy stem.med mainly from the non-noble ranks.12 Before this violent
incident, Barbius appears in a document from 1282 concerning an exchange of
communal plots between Pasqua de Volcassio and the confraternity of St. Stephen. Fraternitas
5. Stephani was, at that time, one of the most revered confraternities, receiving a
considerable number of legacies.13 In th.is legal act, carried out in front of the
archbishop, Barbius represented the confraternity as one of its rwo adrninistrators,14
which indicates that he was among the more distinguished ecclesiastics. In the sentence
passed by the archbishop’s court he is referred to as a „vile person“ (vilis pmona) not on
account of his low origin but because of the horrible crime he had com.mitted.
On the road outside the city Barbius mutilated Mira by cutting offher nose (se
diele domine Mire … nasum incisisse). This violent act is also the key to what may have preceded
it, for it bears very clear social implications. One rnight say that Mira’s permanently
disfigured face served Barbius as a medium for broadcasting a certain message.
Mutilation in the form of cutring off the nose was the punishment inflicted on
women whose behaviour seriously undermined the concept of honour.15 This form of
For thc Mlascagna clan see lrmgard Mahnken, Dubrovafki patniija/ 11 XTV vek11 (Thc Ragusan patriciate in
the fourtecnth century), l’osebna i􀐍danja SANU, vol. 340 (ßdgrade: Srpska akademija nauka i umemosti,
1960), vol. 1, 349-51 and vol. 2, table !L. For valuablc assistance 111 genealogical matters I am indcbtcd to
Nenad Vekaric.
10 In the documents related to BarbtUs‘ case, Marinus is also mentioned under the sumame of Mayncro
(SDK, vol. 3, !99, doc. 5 1 3).
11 Gregor Cremosnik (ed.), Trlorijslei rpnmenid D11IJrozw’kog arhiz’rJ. Kancrlanrki i nolar.rlei rpiri g. 1278-1301
(H!Storical documents from thc arcluvcs of Dubrovnik. Chancellery and notary volumes, 1278-1301)
(Belg rade: Srpska ksaljevska akademija, 1932), 52; SDK, vol. 3, 76, doc. 230; 251, doc. 708; 333, doc. 1 072;
337, doc. 1098; SDK, vol. 4, 89, doc. 308; 150, doc. 582; 162, doc. 665; 182, doc. 788; 223, doc. 1048; 228,
doc. 1079; 324, doc. 1378. Th􀐎 family is traced in a series of documcnts from the fourteenth century
(Mahnkcn, Dubrawfki patricijal, vol. 1, 47).
12 Zdenka Janekovic Römer, MaruJa ili suduzje ljubavi: Brafno-fjubtiV1ta pri{a i‘:; mdnjoiJ“ekovnog Dubrovnika (Marusa
or the trial of Iove: a story on marriage and Iove from medieval Dubrovnik) (Zagreb: Algoritam,
2007), 193-4.
n Cf. SDK, vol. 4, 255-35 l .
“ SDK, vol. 2 (Zagreb: JAZU and Centar za povijesne znanosti Svcucilista u Zagrebu, 1984), 194, doc. 852.
1s See espccially Valentin Groebner, Drfocrd: 1/x Visual Cullurt nf Vzaknce in 1/x Ulte Middk Ages (New York:
Zone Books, 2004), 60-86. Apart from women, this form of punishmem was also intended for passive
homose􀐏-uals (ibidem, 73-80) .
80 NELLALONZA
punishment is mentioned in Roman literature, and it later appeared in Byzantine law
and the penal system of the Italian cities.l6 Ragi.ISan laws from 1 299/1300 and 1366
employed this form of punishment to threaten female thieves unable to pay the fine or
maids who entertained men in their master’s premises at night, and the judicial practice
of fifteenth-century Dubrovnik had actually witnessed such sentencesP By cutring off
the nose, judicial authorities attained a two-fold stigmatisation: a Iasting mark on the
uncovered part o f the body that reminded viewers of the crime also aimed to degrade
the woman and diminish her social prospects.18
Cutring away the nose may also be traced in the out-of-court social practice as
a retribution for rnisconduct, suspected or real, for a woman who had dishonoured her
farnily, particularly by committing adultery or some other form of sexual misbehaviour.
19 Its verbal equivalent – where the actions did not go beyond threat – was a stream
of abuse inllicted upon women in everyday Situations. Records of the medieval Ragusan
Crirninal Court bear witness to cases involving mere threats, but also to those in which a
man actually cut off his wife’s nose if he believed rhat he had been dishonoured by her
behaviour.211 The meaning of Barbius‘ violent act against Mira rnight be elucidated with a
16
17
II
19
For the Byzantine law 􀀣ee Lujo Margctic, „0 nekim osnovnim znacajkama pok.retanJa kaznenog postupka
u srcdnjovjekovnim dalmatinskim gradskim opcinama“ (On somc clements of the imtiation of criminal
procedure in mcdicval Dalmatien cJties), Rad HAZU 475 (1997): 28; for southern ltaly see the codc of
Frederick li from 1231, 111, 14 in Domenico Maff,; (ed.), Un’tpilnme in 1’0/gart del 7.Jbtr Augurlalis‘ (Ban:
Laterza, 1995), 182; for Vcruce 􀅼ee Guido Rugg.ero, „ConHructing civic morahty, deconstructing the
body: civ•c riruals of purushment 111 Renaissance Vcmce,“ in Rlti e ritliali nelle rf1<7tfti medmrJI!, cd. Jacque􀀣
(h,ffoleau, Lauro Martme􀀣 and Agosono Paravic1111 Baglmni (Spoleto: Ccntro 1taliano d1 􀀣tudi sull’alto
medioevo, 1994), 180; for Bologna, Sarah Rubin B1an􀀣ht•, „Crirmnal l.aw and l’oht•c􀀣 111 Mcd•c,·al Ho1ogna,“
Criminaljusltt ‚t Hi.rtn!y 2 (1981): 19-20, notc 7.
Sec Valta<oar Bogisic and Constantin Jirccck (cd.), I iber rialuforum ,i/itati.r ll.agurli‘ ,·nmptJ.•itu.r anno 1212,
Menumenta historico-juridica Slaverum Merid1onalium, vol. 9 (Zagrcb: JAZU, 1904), 127, 136-7 (VI, 4
and 33); Jesephus Gelc•ch (ed.), Libri nfonnationum, vol. 4, Menumenta spectan!Ja h1stonam Slaverum
Mendionalium, vol. 28 (Zagreb: JAZU, 1 896), 53; Consta-.tin J•recek, „Der ragusaruscht: o.chter Sisko
Mencetic,“ Arrhiz•flir Jlavirrht Philologie 1 8 (1897): 30-1; Ristcjcrcmic andJo’lo Tad•c, Pnlo:::J ‚\!‘ irtoriju :;Jfraz􀍄t'“
ne leH/Jw• 􀁰 DubmiAtiko (Contriburions to the history of pubbc health in old Dubrovruk), vel. I (Belgrade: ß•l>lioteka
Cemralnog higijenskog 7.avoda, 1938), 1 27-8; llija Mille, „Prilog proucavanju kazne sakacenja na
pedrucju Dubrovackc Republlke i u nekim dalmatinsk1m gradovima“ (A contribution to thc rcscarch imo
thc mutilation penalty on thc territory of the Rt:public o: Dubr01’nik and in wmt: Da1matian towns),
Zhnmik Pramogfakulltla 11 Zt1gnbu 32, no. 1-2 (1 982): 144.
Cf. Guido Ruggiero, Viokna in Ea􀍆ly RmaiJsam• Venit• (Ne.v Brunswick: Rutgt:rs Univcr􀅽•ty Prc􀀣s. 1980),
108.
Groebncr, Dtjaad, 72-3.
SDK, vol. 3, 178, doc. 476; SAD, Limenla politira, ser. 11, vol. 2, f. 37v, 31 9r; SAD, Limenla de intur, ser.
51, vol. 21, f. 57; SAD, Limenla dt intus eljoris, ser. 53, vol. 1, f. 175rv; Bar1sa I<J’t:k•c, „Dubrovnik’s
Strugg1e Against Fires,“ in idem, Duhrovnile: a Medittmmean Urban Soriety, I 300- 1600 (Aider􀀣hot and
Brookfield: Variorum, 1997), section VI, 13-4; Slavica Stojan, „Mizoginija i hrvatski pisci 18. 􀀣toljeca u
Dubrovni1-:u“ (Misoginy in tht: werks of eightet:nth-century Croat writers in Dubrovn•k), Anak Zal’nda ‚\tJ
TIIE PRJEST BARBIUS AND HIS CRJME 81
case that occurred the same year: the nobleman Johannes de Crossio erdered Bratusa,
his mistress, to undress, took her earrings, had her nose cut off, and put her aboard a
ship to Dalmatia, the crew being given permission to sell her or act as they willed.21 Barbius‘
violent act labelled Mira as a dishonoured woman, too. We can presume that he
attacked and mutilated her because something in their relationship led him to believe
that he had been betrayed. Had they been related, one might speculate that Barbius
punished Mira on account of her intercourse with a third person. This not being the
case, he evidendy sought revenge for something that included no other person but
themselves.
Having committed the act, Barbius decided to flee, but not in haste or panic
towards the Republic’s border, a couple of hours‘ walk from the city, as might have
been expected. Surprisingly, he took refuge with d1e pious women who dwelled next to
the church of St. Blaise at Gorica, overlooking the western sea access to Dubrovnik.
These recluses (recluse) were a typical female form of medieval piety and paramonastic
religious life. At the time of Barbius‘ escape, there were about twenty of them in Dubrovnik,
located close to the city churches or those in the city environs. The solitary
dwelling next to the small church of St. Blaise at Gorica was a most important one and
usually provided a home for several anchoresses. Here Barbius not only found muchneeded
refuge, but also obtained aid for his escape. In this sanctuary he remained as
long as SL'<teen days, during which the recluses did their best to help him flce Dubrovnik
by sca. Several futile attempts fmally resulted in engaging Andreas de Vixi, who was
about to sail his ship from the island of Kolocep to Venice, to fetch „some of their
things to be transported.“ Carefully cloaked, Barbius was accompanied down the Gorica
cliff, smuggled into a small boat and then aboard the ship, which set out for Venice.22
Did the recluses know the true identity of the man they offered shelter to? Since a decision
to flec the Republic was not taken lighdy, they must have realised the gravity of the
situation. We shall never know if Barbius told them the truth or if the recluses gathered
me detat..ls of the incident from some other source. Contrary to what their name suggests,
the recluses communicated freely with the outer world, and, accordingly, may
have learnt about me background of Barbius‘ escape. In any event, the determination of
these women to defy the church and state authorities by helping the fugitive earned
them a pivotal role in this Ragusan case.
At the request of the Ragusan count (comes), the Venetian authorities seized
Barbius and extradited him to Dubrovnik, where he was to face trial before the criminal
court. The unsettling news that Barbius‘ would shortly arrive at the city gave rise to
21
22
pmijune !{!lllnosti HAZU 11 Dubro1niku 39 (2001): 446-7. On the protection of women again􀃱t violence and
preservation of their „sexual chastity“ as a component of male honour see Groebner, Dtj<md, 81-2.
SDK, vol. 3, 180-1, doc. 481; 210, doc. 520.
SDK, vol. 3, 196, doc. 509.
82 NELLALONZA
widespread speculation about bis punishment, apparently only a fine of 75 perpers. Indeed,
such a fine was in accordance with the Statute regulations: 50 perpers for serious
injury of the face, plus half the amount for an escape.23 It should be noted, however,
that tbis sum was more than a trifle: the current price of Bosnian female slaves, sold by
Ragusan merchants, ranged between 6 and 1 5 perpers.24
The penal system of Dubrovnik in the late thirteenth century was based on
fines,25 similar ro the legal practice of Venice and the Ital.ian cities of the day.26 However,
the drastic disproportion between a violent crime and the monetary punishment
could easily give way to a feeling of injustice and consequently lead to friction. This can
be seen in the case of Barbius. A group advocating on Mira’s behalf pointed out the
distinctive meaning of the terms ratio (law) and iusticia Gustice). In their view, justice
ought to target Barbius‘ person and not only his purse. The retribution or deserved
punishment was felt to be social honour; the position of the victim and her family could
be restored only by dishonow:ing the perpetrator’s body. Having no „healing effeet“ in
kind, money was of little help here.
The avengers were headed by Marinus de Mlascagna, most likely in his thirties
at the time, apparently a well-established merchant and nobleman.27 Judging by his passionate
approach to the matter, he might have been related to Mira by blood, even a
brother, cousin or nephew. Aware of the possible implications of his intentions, he
sought advice and support from noblemen he trusted28 Grubesa de Ragnina,29 a man of
the world from whom Marinus sought advice, disapproved of hasty decisions and suggested
a „moderate approach“ – that is, „to find companions more prudent than himself‘
(inveniat socios … sapienciom quam ipse) and go before the count to seek justice the
legal way. Gervasius de Martinusü30 also advised Marinus „not to distance hirnself from
the government“ (non moveas te a dominacione). Succumbing to his impulsive nature, Ur-
,.
2S
27
28
l?
J(l
SDK, vol. 3, 200, doc. 513; Bog;sic and Jirecek, Libtr .r/alllltmim, 125-6 (VI, 3).
SDK, vol. 2, 252-79.
Nella Lonza, „‚Coram Domtno Coffilte et suis lud,cibus‘: Penal Procedure 1n Early-Fourtecnth-Cenrury
Dubrovnik,“ Criminal }11<1ice Hi.rtory 1 5 (1994): 17-9; for a Ionger ume span cf. eadem, Pod plafltm prm•de:
Ko􀁽enapravni .<IIJiat• Dubroz<Jt’ke lvp11blike 11 XVI TI. .rtoljetu (Under the veil of justicc: cnminal justice in thc
eightcenth-century Republic of Dubrovnik) (Dubrovnik: Zlvod za povijesne znanosti HAZU, 1997), 190.
Guido Ruggiero, „Law and Punishment in Early Renaissance Venice,“ Journal o[Cnininal U.w & CnminoIIJgy
69 (1978): 247; idem, „Politica e giustizia,“ in Storia di Vene?fa dalle origini alla auluta ddla Semri.rsmi a,
vol. 3, uforma<;jone dei/Q stalo patn“?fo, ed. Girolamo Amalda, Giorg10 Cracco and Albcrto Tenenti (Rome:
lstiruto della Enciclopedia ital!ana, 1997), 393-4 and 402-3.
For the age estimate and othcr biographical data I thank Nenad Vekaric.
SDK, vol. 3, 195, doc. 508; 199, doc. 513.
Mahnken, Dubrovacki patri<ijat, vol. I, 379.
On the clan see ibidun, 305.
THE PRIEST BARBIUS AND HIS CRJME 83
sac1us de Villarico31 readily affered to cut off Barbius‘ nose and band on conclicion rhat
Marinus promised to pay the fme prescribed for such a crime.32
True, some of Marin’s confidants proved wiser and more reasonable than himself,
as Grube5a de Ragnina had thoughtfully recommended, yet he turned a deaf ear to
their advice. Did he believe that the chances of the court abandoning the legal framewerk
and reaching a barsher punishment than that prescribed by the law were very
slim?B Or did he think that the only way to „wash out“ rhe shame inflicted was to act
personally?
While the count’s entourage waited for Barbius to disembark in the city port
and to then escort him to the Communal Palace, an angry crowd obstructed passage
shouting: „Let him die, let the devil die“ (moriatu1; motiatur diabolus), s tining up revenge.
Ir was then that Marinus de lv1lascagna drew a knife and attacked the priest in an attempt
to cut off his leg. In so doing, he called his kin and friends to join him in revenge
(si habeo parentes et amicos meos, veniant nunc ad adiuvandum me vendicare ontam meam). Young
Helias de Bonda34 joined in by trying to trick the guards 1nto placing Barbius in his custody,
claiming that the count had given his consent to lynching (Dimitite presbiterum, quia
ego scio quod dominus comes vu/t quod interftciatui‘). The court records tes cify to a serious
commocion, in which the count’s guards managed to overpower the assaulter. It was not
until the arrival of Deacon Gregorius de Cernelio that thc situacion was finally controlled.
Once he had soothed the guards‘ fear and persuaded them to hand lv1lascagna
over to him (Dimittatis dictum Marinum mihi. Nolite timere), the social tensions abated and
Barbius was escorted to the counr.
This, apparendy, was not the only case of attempted lynching that Dubrovnik
witnessed in medieval times,3S but it certainly attracted great attention and resulted in an
official inquiry. Barbius enjoyed the status of an arrested person under the juri sdiction
of the state and/ or ecclesiascical authorities, thus any attempt at revenge on him was
necessarily interpreted as defiance of the official inscitucions. Therefore, two parallel
trials were initiated: one investigating Barbius‘ assault on Mira, and the other Marinus‘
assault upon Barbius. The accion against Marinus de Mlascagna lasred about a weck and
included hearing eleven witnesses, with bail being set at the high amount of 200 per-
•11 On thtVillarico/Gullerico family set ibideon, 286.
l2 SDK, vol. 3, 200, doc. 513.
“ Although the principle of legality in the modern sense of the word was not at work at the time, the Statute
allowed the application of custom, interpretation by analogy and, as a last resort, free judgcment of
the court only for actions not covcred by the law. Cf. Bogtstc and Jirecek, Libtr JIIJiulonlfn, 2 and 27
(proemium; II, 4).
>< Mahnken, D11browiki JXllricijiJI, vol. I, 159.
JS Nella Lonza, „Tuzba, osveta, nagodba: mode􀄟 reagiranja na zloön u srednJovjekovnom Dubrovniku“
(Sett􀄠ng disputes in medieval Dubrovnik by court proceedings, revengc or out-of-court settlcment), Anali
Zavoda za povtjesm 2JII lnosti HAZU “ D11brovniku 40 (2002): 88-92.
84 NE.LLA LONZA
pers.36 Although Marinus denied all the accusations („I clid not draw a knife, nor have I
done anythi.ng wrong, nor have I been talked into doing anything of the kind“), the witnesses
gave a detailed account of the events, sufficient for the court to bring a guilty
verclict and a fine of 30 perpers. This was by no means a small fme, considering that the
assault went no further than an attempt. The court evidently decided on the highest
punishment possible in order to demoostrate that defiance and mob rule would not be
tolerated.
At the same time, without delay, Barbius was brought to trial. Since the defendant
was a cleric, his case came before the ecclesiastical authorities.37 Given the nature
of the crime, this personal immunity clid not protect Barbius from forcible acts of the
state institutions,38 and his arrest was never questioned. The process was initiated in the
late September of 1284 by the archbishop of Dubrovnik, a learned Franciscan,
Bonaventura of Parma, who had sat in this high ecclesiastical position for several
years.39 At that time, this office was tranquil and offered litcle opportunity for its holder
to ensconce hirnself on the throne; but shorcly after Bonaventura’s arriva1 in Dubrovnik
his entourage had been attacked by a group areund the cleric Johannes de Prodanelle
and the archbishop’s palace was also stoned.􀂼11
Barbius faced inquisitorial procedure (ir.quisilio), a kind of procedure in use in
the ecclesiastical courts, introduced by the decision of the Fourth Lateran Council in
121 5 41 By the rules of this procedure, the court was authorised to inclict someone ex
officio and examine the evidence without having to wait for the plaintiff to press charges
and submit evidence against the defendant. Although the i.nquisitorial procedure had
formally maintained its suborclinate place, in practice it proved to be a simpler, more
flexible and more efficient form than the paracligmatic accusatorial model, and quickly
spread in the practice of the state courts.42 It is i.nteresting to note that while making the
l7
l8
l9
On the court strucrure and the criminal proccdurc of the early fourteenth cenrury cf. Lonza, „Pred
gosparom knczom,“ 28-47.
Paul Fournier, UJ ofdfi alifiJ a11 MI!Jen Age: Et11dt rar /’org.mirafion, Iu compifenre ef Iu pro.id11rr du tribJJJI(J.’CJI.
ecdisia.rtiq11er ordinaim en France dt 1 180 J I 328 (Paris, 1880, reprint Aalen: Scienua, 1984), 65-73.
Ibrdem, 70-2.
He acccpted the archbishopric in 1281, and arrivcd in Dubrovnik shortly aftcrwards. On him sce Danicl
Farlati and Jacobus Coleti, Ecrlesiae Rag11.<inae hiJtona (Venice: Sebastianus Co1eti, 1 800), 1 1 5-6; Scrafino
Razzi, „Narrazioni o vero storia degli arcivescov• d1 Raugia,“ in Poz,Yt.Jt dubroiKJilu metropoi!Je i d11brot>aikih
nadbirkupa (X.-XVI. Jfo/jeai ) (1-Ustory of the archbishopnc and archb1shops of Dubrovnik, 10•• – 16•• c), ed.
Stjepan Kras1<: and Serafino Razz1 (Dubrovnik: Biskupsk1 ordinan1at DubroviUk, 1999), 1 1 9.
CD, vol. 6, 426-7, doc. 362; 476-7, doc. 394; 504-5, doc. 421.
Ca non Qualiter et qucmdo was includcd in X 5.1.24 (rriedberg, Corpus iun:r amonid II, 745-7).
Fournier, u.r ofdfi alifis au MI!Jtn Age, 266-70; JUchard M. Fraher, „[V Latcran’s revolullon in criminal
procedure: The birth of inquisitro, the end of ordeals, and lnnocent l ll’s ,.,s,on of ecclesiasncal polincs,“ in
Studza in honor<m emni enfirsimi cardinaliJ Alpbonsi M. Stitkler, ed. Rosahus losephus CastJIJo Lara, Srudia et
texrus histonae iuris canonici, vol. 7 (Rome: Librena Areneo Sales•ano, 1992), 99- 1 1 1 ; James Brundage,
M<dieiKJ! Canon L11v (Harlow: Longman, 1995), 147-51; Massimo Vallerani, LI gi1ilti:;:fa pMbhlka medittale
THE PRIEST BARßlUS AND HIS CRIME 85
formal accusation, the archbishop’s court called upon the fact that the whole city of
Dubrovnik was familiar with Barbius‘ crime ifama publica defermte ad clamorem totitts civitatis
Ragusine).43 Here we are not deahng with a provisional rhetorical qualifier but with
public opinion ifama publica, clamory as a prernise upon which the court could com.mence
action ex officio.44 At the time of Barbius‘ trial, legal doctrine took a consensual approach
to the role of public opinion, best illustrated by Tractatus de ordine iudiciario, composed by
Aegidius de Fuscararüs araund 126045
Of the procedural acts concerning this case only the verdict has survived. Thus
we learn that Barbius had spontaneously confessed to the crime (de plano confmur jueri􀄖,46
yet details concerning the motive for his assault on Mira, likely to have been woven into
the defendant’s testimony, failed to surface. As the confession was sufficient for a guilty
verdict, the court did not have to go to the trouble of submitring other evidence, contributing
most likely to an expedient and simple trial.
A historian accustomed to the examples of latent tensions and open jurisdictional
controversies between ecclesiastical and state authorities rnight find it curious that
Barbius was tried before the representatives of the chapter tagether with the full state
court of five members presided over by the count. Although the sentence was eventually
passed by the archbishop in his palace, it was not fonnulated by the notary Antonio
de Carletis of Parma, at the time member of archbishop’s staff,47 but by the government
chancellor, Tomasi.no de Savere.48 In the comparative literarure I have not been able to
trace similar examples of such cooperation between the church and state authorities,49
yet I harbour doubts about the exclusiveness of the Ragusan practice. In his still-unrivalled
study of the competence of medieval diocesan courts in France, Paul Fournier
<S
49
(Bologna: 1 1 Mulino, 2005), 34-45. For Dubrovnik see Nclla Lonza, „L’accusatoire et l’infrajudiciaire: Ia
«fonnulc mixte>> a Raguse (Dubrovnik) au Moyen Age,“ in Pratiqms sm:iales ,, politiquu judiciair<r darrs le.r lilkr
d• I’Occidenl turopün d Ia }irr du MI!Jen Äge, ed. Jacqucs Ch.iffoleau, Claude Gauvard and Andrea Zorzi
(Rome: Ecole fran􀟩a.ise de Rome, 2007), 644-650.
CD, vol. 6, 499, doc. 416.
Vallcrani, LA giurti<fa pubblica muiieiKIIe, 35-6.
Ludwig Wahrmund (ed.), Dtr Orrio iudiciarius des Aegidius de Fuscurariis, Quellen zur Gesch1chte des Römisch-
kanonischen Prozesses im Mittelalter, vol. 3.1 (lnnsbruck 1916, reprint Aalen: Sc1cntia Verlag,
1962), 156-9. On the author and his work see Johann Fr iedrieb von Schulte, Dei Geschi,·hte der Qudlm urrd
Uteralurde.r Carrorrischerr R.d;t.r, vol. 2 (Stuttgart 1875, reprint Gra7. . Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt,
1 956), 139-42.
CD, vol. 6, 499, doc. 416.
For instance, he wrote documents in CD, vol. 6, 477, doc. 395; 478, doc. 396; 504-5, doc. 421.
CD, vol. 6, 500, doc. 416. On this chancdlor see Constantin Jirecek, „Die mittelaherliehe Kanzlei der
Ragusaner,“ Arrhivfiir sloviscm Philolo§e 26 {1904): 1 87-8.
Cf. Fournier, Les r!lJicialilis au MI!Jtll Äge. Paolo Prodi emphas1zts that h.istonography should not examine
the ecclastiastical and secular courts separately, considering their partial overlap in practicc; Paolo Prodi,
Urra sloria defla giusti<fa: Da! p!uralismo dd j01i al modemo dualismo :ra cosarr<fl • din.llo (Bologna: II Mulino,
2000), 129-37.
86 NELLA LONZA
has outlined the gradual institution of ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the clergy, a process
that occurred during the thirteenth century, providing a series of later examples which
demoostrate the reluctance of the state institutions to observe clerical immun.ity.so lt is
also likely that elsewhere in Europe, in the general demarcation between the ecclesiastical
and secular jurisdictions, overlapping and provisional institutional forms still
emerged. A case from Dubrovnik’s jurispmdence supports this assumption, the trial
against Johannes de Prodanello mentioncd above. It was presided over by the
archbishop and conducted before several canons, the Ragusan count and his assistant,
the full Minor Cotmcil (i.e., the government) with its eleven members, and numerous
clerics and laymen. The representatives of secular institutions were not a mere audience
witnessing a public trial, but were adequately appointed by virtue of their office. One
might say that in late thirteenth-century Dubrovnik the church had predominant jurisdiction
over the derics, but still lacked a dear-cut boundary with the secular authorities.
With reference to some common rhetoncal figures on the retributive and prevenuve
implications of punishment (nolentes quod tantum maleficium maneal inpunitum, sed
quod pena ist;us sit metus multorum),51 Barbius LongtlS was to be dept1ved of all ecdesiastical
honours and benefices (privamus … omni officio et ecclesiastico beneficio) and sentenced to
life imprisonment (ut pmitentiam agat … perpetuis carceribus detinen). The fust component of
the verdict did not deprive Barbtus of his clerical Status, but interfered deeply in his
existence by leaving him without a stable source of livelihood; the secend component
scems even more serious, for it threatencd life-long imprisonment, the harshest pun
i
shment
that could be inflicted by the ecclesiastical court. The conditions of Barbius‘ pwlishment
and penitence were defined in detail by the archbishop of Dubrovnik. Two
months after the verdict, by a special decree – issued in the cathedral, again in the presence
of the count and the secular court! – the archbishop specified the terms of Barbius‘
confinement.52 The prisoner was thrown imo the dw1geon below the church of St.
Saviour de palude, which stood opposite the Communal Palace. In the fourteenth and
fifteenth century this cellar was occasionally used for keeping prisoners (women in particular),
who, for some reason, cou.ld not be kept in one of the regu.lar prisons.53 ,-\.1-
though located under a church, the dungeon was at the disposal of the government
institutions. In these premises Barbius was to live on bread and water (commedere debeat
panem et aquam solummodo), with both legs and one arm chained (conpedibus et vinculis ftrreis
sc> Fourn.ier, /J.r of!icialilir au Mqyen Age, 65-6.
s• Drawn from Roman law, this formula spccifically echoes thc dccretal Ut famt from 120.􀆠 (X 5.39.5). See
Richard M. Fraher, „The thcorctical justification for thc ncw criminal law of the high Middlc i\gcs: ‚Rc1
publicae interest nc crirruna remancant impun1ta‘,“ Unilwzty of/UintJi,· i.ßw Rmew 3 (1984): 577-!l.
52 CO, vol. 6, 510-1, doc. 427.
SJ SDK, vol. 3, 135, doc. 407; Bentic, „UbikaciJa,“ 61-2; Nida Gru1ic, „Kne7.ev dvor u Dubrovruku prije
1435. godine“ (Ibe Rector’s Palace m Dubrovtllk bcfore 1435), Prilo:::J pozi;esli umjttno.rli “ Dalmaciji 40
(2003-2004): 157.
THIZ PRJEST BARBIUS AND HIS CRIME 87
ad pet/es et unam manum), and only in the case of poor health could these terrns be alleviated.
54 In fact, this was the harshest punishment cloaked in penitence that the diocesan
court was empowered to impose,55 being considerably closer to the „just punishment“
which had been demanded than that the secular court could have passed. However,
the implementation of such penalties tended to dilute the strict verdict because the
criminal’s subsequent rcpentance alrnost inevitably opened the door to a merciful pardon
56
Judging by the evidence, Barbius showed no resistance to the trial: apparently,
he lodged no objection of either a procedural or matenal nature, and we know for certain
that he confessed to the crime. Captivity, however, contributed to a change of his
attitude, adding a new chapter to the story. Eventually, Barbius fJ.!ed an appeal to the
pope, claiming that the state authorities were not authorised to keep him imprisoned. 1\s
I have noted earlier, the sentence was passed by the archbishop, but the „secular-based“
elements of rhe trial and the execution of punishment helped Barbius build his appeal
areund rhe court’s disregard for the immunity that he, as a cleric, was entitled to. As the
appeal procedure entailed the local institutions,57 the fact that this case would be
rcconsidered by the hoclies of the papal curia soon became the talk of the town. This
turn of events led the Ragusan count to refute custody (refuto custodiam) before the
archbishop, the decision being properly formulated and drafted on 2 July 1285.58 This
was merely a fonnal act of transferring jurisdiction to the church authorities, aimed to
counteract Barbius‘ vexatious proof of the immunity violation, but ir failed to open the
door of his cell.
The papal curia acted in accordance with the regular procedure: the case was
assigned to a high ecclesiastic to act as judge delegate (iudex delegatus).5􀄫 In Barbius‘ case
it was the archbishop of Bari, whom the pope’s Ietter authorised threatening with excommunication
if Barbius was not set free, on the condition that the statements in the
appeal were true, commonly phrased as Ji est ita. For further dealings in this case the
prelate appointed the priest Rogerius de Lupizo and furnished him with concrete instmctions.
Maintaining the right to act directly in this case, Rogerius demanded that
Sol CD, “01. 6, 531 -2, doc. 450.
ss Joseph Blötzer, „Inquisition,“ in Tbt Catbo/i,· En􀁦ydopedia, vol. 8 (Ncw York, 1910, onune: http://www.
newadvent.org/c:uhen/08026a.htm: consulted on 17 July 2008); Bernard Hamilton, ‚/’bt Mediet’IJ! lnquili·
lion (London: Edward Arnold, 1981 ), 49-54; J ean Dubabin, G.ptil1/y and lmpn’ronmenl in Medieml lf.urope
1000-1300 (New York: Palgravc, 2002), 144-5, 151-2.
56 Dubabin, Captitity and lmprilonmml, 157.
17 Wahrmund, Der Ordo iudici“‚iur dtJ Aegidius dt FuJtarariir, 146; Charlcs Duggan, „Papal Judges Odegate
and the Makmg of thc ‚New Law‘ in the Twelfth Century,“ 111 01/tum ojl’ower. Lordshtp, Staii,iJ and Prrxm
in Twe!fib-Gntury Europe, ed. Themas N. Bisson (Philadelphm: Um,·ers>ty of Pennsylvama Press, 1 995),
174.
S8 CD, vol. 6, 531-2, doc. 450.
so On this procedure see Duggan, „Papal Judges Delegate,“ 174-6.
88 NEI..LA LONZA
Barbius be released from prison, that the Ragusan authorities voueh for his personal
seeurity, and that all the aetors in this „saerilege“ be expelled from the government until
they had submitred to the ehureh demands. Rogerius arrived in Dubrovnik in the early
spring of 1 286 earrying two letters from his superiors, most formally styled but of hypothetieal
nature – his first task was to establish whether Barbius‘ clerieal immunity had
aemally been violated.
Aeting in conformity with his aeeountable offiee, the Ragusan eount summoned
all those who, in one way or the other, partieipated in authority – seeular or eeclesiastieal.
Thus, the whole Major Couneil (all adult male pauieians), the chapter and its
dignitaries, the Ragusan clergy, and representatives of the Dominiean and Franeisean
Orders gathered in the largest building, St. Mary’s eathedral. After the letters Rogerius
had brought were read out, the eount replied „in h.is name and that of the whole eommune
and the Ragusan eommunity“ (nomine suo et vice et nomine totius comunis et universitatis
Rtrgusti) that he did not have Barbius arrested and kept in eustody, as was eommonly
known and evideneed by arehbishop’s verdiet and other doeuments. The eount’s Statements
were not eompletely true, but allowed manipulation beeause the loeal seeular and
ehureh authorities held a shared view of Barbius‘ ease. As no one feit the need or interest
to refute the eount’s words, the absenee of dissenring voiees provided poor grounds
for Barbius‘ appeal.
The ensuing legal aetions, if any, and the fate of Barbius are unknown. Did he
meet his end in the dark eellar of St. Saviour’s? Or was he eventually pardoned and
walked out a free man, although deprived of his clerical benefits? His life remains i.n the
obseurity of unreeoverable past events. Equally obseure is the fate of Mira. Probably she
spent the rest of her life in the eonvent of St. Andrew, her disfigured faee a eonstant
reminder of Barbius.
The baekground of Barbius‘ story antieipates a nurober of themes whieh I aim
to address in the eonclusion. Firstly, the judieiary still had difficulty in winning a dominant
position among the devices designed to resolve soeial eonfliets, and thus stood
small chanee in eompetition with revenge. Additionally, the penal system, based on
ftnes, ereated prineipally to provide revenues and finanee the eount as well as the eommune,
not only failed to fulfil the Iust for revenge of a eertain soeial group but did not
fit the understanding of artieulated eommunal government, justiee (iustitia) – granring
eaeh person due reward – being among its eivie virtues. Most importantly, in the eomplex
soeial teetotlies surrounding „the ease of Barbius“ the deepest fissures did not
emerge where one expeets them the most, on the edge separating the competenee of
the seeular a.nd ehureh institutions. The main tensions built on other issues: thc state
authorities faeed the problern of having to bridle a serious veogeful attempt of a patrieian
group, while the chureh had to deal with the wilful aetion of the recluses. However,
the question of jurisdietion over Barbius did not give rise to any friction between the
THE PRJEST BARBIUS AND IIIS CRJME 89
two authoricies during his escape, arrest, trial or imprisonment. In this case, the ecclesiastical
and state authorities exhibited exemplary cooperacion on the local Ievel, moreover,
thcy acted side by side.
(translated by Vesna Bace)
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)