Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T01:31:08.910Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Internal Forum of the Later Middle Ages. A Modern Myth?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2015

Wolfgang P. Müller
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Scholars today are unanimous about the existence of a forum internum in the Western church since the rise of scholastic theology and jurisprudence in the twelfth century. From that time onward, they agree, an “inner court,” dedicated exclusively to individual believers who confessed their sins in absolute secrecy to a priest was sharply distinguished from the so-called forum externum, which dealt with publicly alleged breaches of the canon law.

Type
Articles
Information
Law and History Review , Volume 33 , Issue 4 , November 2015 , pp. 887 - 913
Copyright
Copyright © the American Society for Legal History, Inc. 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Peter Biller, “Introduction,” in Handling Sin. Confession in the Middle Ages, ed. Peter Biller and Alastair J. Minnis (Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer, 1999), 1–17; compare Goering, Joseph W., “The Internal Forum and the Literature of Penance and Confession,” Traditio 59 (2004): 175CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and, for a slightly different version of the same article, The History of Medieval Canon Law in the Classical Period, 1140–1234, ed. Wilfried Hartmann and Kenneth Pennington (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2008), 379.

2. Ibid., 379 n. 1; Goering, “The Internal Forum,” 175 n. 1; Bruno Fries, Forum in der Rechtssprache (Munich: Beck, 1963), 149–230; Antonio Mostaza Rodriguez, “De foro interno iuxta canonistas posttridentinos,” in Acta conventus internationalis canonistarum, Romae diebus 20–25 maii 1968 celebrati (Vatican City: Typographia Vaticana, 1970), 269–94; and Arnaud Fossier, “Le for ‘interne’ de l’Église (XIIe–XIVe siècle): Entre ordre public et salut des âmes,” in Intus et foris. Une catégorie de la pensée médiévale?, ed. Manuel Guay, Marie–Pascale Halary, and Patrick Moran (Paris: Presses de l'Université de Paris-Sorbonne, 2013), 57–67.

3. Bergfeld, Christoph, “Zur Jurisprudenz des Forum internum,” Ius commune 16 (1989): 133–47Google Scholar, has reinforced the idea of a medieval internal forum by surmising that post-Tridentine recourse to the term indicated a reduction of secrecy requirements and anticipated the present-day distinction between a forum internum sacramentale and a forum internum extra-sacramentale in the Catholic Codex iuris canonici of 1983; compare also Erdö, Peter, “Foro interno e foro esterno nel diritto canonico. Questioni fondamentali,” Periodica de re canonica 95 (2006): 3–35Google Scholar.

4. The tripartite periodization of medieval penance has found its classic expression in Cyril Vogel, Les “libri paenitentiales” (Turnhout: Brepols, 1978), 34–59.

5. Sarah Hamilton, The Practice of Penance, 900–1050 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 1–11; and Rob Meens, Penance in Medieval Europe, 600–1200 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014).

6. Mary Mansfield, The Humiliation of Sinners. Public Penance in Thirteenth-Century France (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1995); and Friederike Neumann, Öffentliche Sünder in der Kirche des Spätmittelalters. Verfahren–Sanktionen–Rituale (Cologne: Böhlau, 2008).

7. Richard H. Helmholz, Canon Law and the Law of England (London: The Hambledon Press, 1987); and Richard H. Helmholz (ed. John Baker), The Oxford History of the Laws of England I: The Canon Law and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction from 597 to the 1640s, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 565–642.

8. Cecilia Cristellon, La carità e l'eros. Il matrimonio, la Chiesa, i suoi giudici nella Venezia del Rinascimento (1420–1545) (Bologna: il Mulino, 2010), 135–84; compare also Elena Brambilla, Alle origini del Sant’Uffizio. Penitenza, confessione e giustizia spirituale dal medioevo al xvi secolo (Bologna: il Mulino, 2000), 202: “La confusione che si verifica in tal modo tra foro interno ed esterno è tale che dà luogo a un vago senso di vertigine e sfida ancora oggi le facoltà di comprensione degli storici non esclusa la mia”. (“The confusion created in this way between the internal and external forum is such that it provokes a vague sense of vertigo and challenges the comprehension of historians to this day, my own not excluded”.)

9. The fundamental study is by Stephan Kuttner, “Ecclesia de occultis non iudicat. Problemata ex doctrina poenali decretistarum et decretalistarum a Gratiano usque ad Gregorium PP. IX,” in Acta Congressus iuridici internationalis VII saeculo a Decretalibus Gregorii IX et XIV a Codice Iustiniani promulgatis, Romae 12–17 novembris 1934, 4 vols (Rome: Pontificium Institutum utriusque iuris, 1935–37), 3:227–46.

10. Jacques Chiffoleau, “‘Ecclesia de occultis non iudicat’? L’Église, le secret, l'occulte du XIIe au XVe siècle,” Micrologus 14 (2006): 359–481.

11. Captured in the proverbial phrase, “The judge does not find in accordance with his conscience but with what is alleged,” which has been tracked in medieval legal discussion by Knut Wolfgang Nörr, Zur Stellung des Richters im gelehrten Prozess der Frühzeit. Iudex secundum allegata non secundum conscientiam iudicat (Munich: Beck, 1967).

12. Simon de Bisiniano, Summa ad C.6 q.6 c.2, Episcopus … quamdiu viderit reo crimen non posse probari: “per testes, non proferat sententiam. Nam si faceret, occultum crimen puniret quod canonibus interdicitur. … Sed quamdiu ipse episcopus crimen quod solus novit probare per testes non potest, nichil proferat … . Punire enim non potest quia non ut iudex sed ut Deus novit;” (“Whenever the bishop … realizes that he cannot prove the defendant’s sin: by way of witnesses, he shall not issue a sentence. Because if he did he would punish an occult sin which is prohibited by the canons. … But whenever the same bishop cannot prove through witnesses a sin that he alone knows, he shall not issue [a sentence] … . For he cannot punish since he knows not as judge but as God [through confession]”.) cited after Nörr, Zur Stellung des Richters, 41.

13. Huguccio (fl. 1188–90), Summa ad C.6 q.2 c.2, non potest: “Dico si tamen notum sit episcopo ut iudici scilicet ordine iudiciario scilicet per convictionem vel confessionem factam in iure; aliter qualitercunque sciret sive ut homo sive ut Deus non preiudicabat;” (“I say, however, that if it was known to the bishop as judge that is, through the judicial order that is, through conviction or a confession made lawfully; otherwise, in whichever way he knew, whether as man or as God, it would not be prejudicial”.) compare Nörr, Zur Stellung des Richters, 42, where the entire canonistic debate about lawful sentencing “as judge (ut iudex)” versus judgment “as man (ut homo)” or “as God (ut Deus)” is summarized as well, ibid., 36–65.

14. See Atria Larson, Master of Penance. Gratian and the Development of Penitential Thought and Law in the Twelfth Century (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2014); with ample bibliography.

15. Raimundus de Pennaforte (ed. Xaverio Ochoa and Aloisio Diaz), Summa de poenitentia, (Rome: Institutum iuridicum Claretianum, 1976); the gloss of Guilelmus Redonensis (with the wrong ascription to John of Freiburg) accompanies Raymond's text in Summa sancti Raymundi de Peniafort Barcinonensis de poenitentia et matrimonio cum glossis Ioannis de Friburgo (Rome: Johannes Tallini, 1603; repr. Farnborough: Gregg, 1967).

16. Among the salient passages, see Raimundus de Pennaforte, Summa 3.29 (De lapsis et dispensationibus), no. 2, ed. Ochoa and Diaz, col. 692: “Si vero sunt manifesta per famam deficiente accusatore et probatione legitima indicetur purgatio qua prestita absolvetur. Si in ea defecerit deponetur;” (“If the sins are manifest by way of hearsay and in the absence of any formal accuser or legitimate proof, purgation will be imposed. Once it has been performed, he [the clerical suspect] will be absolved. If he fails in it, he will be deposed”.) Guilelmus Redonensis, in Summa 3.33 (De sententiis praecepti definitionis et excommunicationis), no. 43, on publica fama, ed., 424a: “Si autem publica fama est aliquem esse excommunicatum ex facto occulto contra quem non est publicata sententia super hoc non teneor talem vitare nisi tunc demum cum super hoc se purgare recusaverit.” (“If public hearsay maintains that someone is excommunicated for an occult wrong and there is no formal sentence issued on account of it, I am not held to avoid him as long as he does not refuse to purge himself from it”.)

17. For introductory information, see Kirsi Salonen and Ludwig Schmugge, A Sip from the Well of Grace. Medieval Texts from the Apostolic Penitentiary (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2009); and Peter Clarke and Patrick Zutshi, Supplications from England and Wales in the Registers of the Apostolic Penitentiary, 1410–1503, 3 vols. (Martlesham: Boydell & Brewer, 2013–15), 1:xiii–lviii. Fossier, “Le for ‘interne’ de l’Église,” 61–67, has already consulted sources of the Poenitentiaria with the same question in mind.

18. Repertorium Poenitentiariae Germanicum (hereafter RPG), ed. Ludwig Schmugge (vols 1–7, Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1996–2008; vols 8–9, Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012–14).

19. None of my statistical observations would have been possible without the exhaustive word indexes to the RPG series, compiled by Ludwig Schmugge and Hildegard Schneider–Schmugge.

20. RPG 6 no. 2268, RPG 8 no. 2624, and RPG 9 no. 1876, speak of poenitentia secreta. Procedural issues are called “secret” in RPG 3 no. 71, RPG 3 no. 583.

21. “Cum autem exponens (sc. Stanislaus) nisi ut premittitur culpabilis non est et est negotium secretum cupitque in suis ordinibus Domino famulari, supplicat igitur exponens quatenus secum premissis non obstantibus in suis ordinibus libere et licite ministrare valeat misericorditer ad cautelam dispensari de gratia speciali. – Fiat ut infra, Nicolaus. Signanda in foro conscientie tantum ex quo quia occultum,” (“Because the petitioner [Stanislaus] is not culpable except in the manner stated above and the matter is secret and he wishes to serve the Lord in his orders, he requests that the aforementioned notwithstanding he may be dispensed out of charity, for the sake of caution, and by special grace to administer in his orders freely and licitly. – It shall be done as below, Nicholas. The letter must be signed only in the forum of conscience because the matter is occult”.) RPG 1 no. 485. RPG 7 no. 2268 uses secretus and occultus synonymously.

22. RPG 1 no. 485 (cf. note 19), RPG 1 no. 520, RPG 2 no. 1040, RPG 3 no. 252 (note 26), RPG 8 no. 139, RPG 8 no. 140, RPG 8 no. 210. Occultus appears alone in RPG 4 no. 10, RPG 5 no. 782 (note 23), RPG 5 no. 2033 (notes 27–28), RPG 6 no. 2022, RPG 8 no. 1146, RPG 9 no. 1848; combined with secretus in RPG 7 no. 2268.

23. In addition to the seven occurrences listed in the previous footnote, in foro conscientiae is used in RPG 1 no. 596, RPG 2 no. 404, RPG 2 no. 748, RPG 2 no. 825, RPG 2 no. 880–81, RPG 2 no. 969, RPG 4 no. 1763, RPG 5 no. 1164, RPG 5 no. 2112, RPG 5 no. 2121, RPG 5 no. 2170, RPG 6, no. 1049, RPG 7 no. 3758, RPG 7 no. 2382, RPG 7 no. 2456, RPG 7 no. 2646 (also note 31), RPG 8 no. 210, RPG 8 no. 1662, RPG 8 no. 1748, RPG 8 no. 3262, RPG 8 no. 3282 (notes 29–30), RPG 8 no. 3305, RPG 8 no. 3311, RPG 8 no. 3323, RPG 9 no. 1422, RPG 9 no. 1606, RPG 9 no. 1672, RPG 9 no. 1829.

24. RPG 2 no. 928 (in foro confessionis); RPG 7 no. 2620 (in foro animae). RPG 8 no. 2633, RPG 8 no. 3235, RPG 9 no. 924, and RPG 9 no. 1790, all have in foro poenitentiali.

25. RPG 5 no. 782: “Tamen id occulto tenens suum adiit confessorem quomodo in huiusmodi causa se tenere deberet quod penitus omnibus hominibus incognitum esset et persuasa est, ut super huiusmodi actu fornicario etiam in quarto affinitatis gradu ipsa cum marito suo coniuncta sit. Petit ab huiusmodi fornicatione absolvi necnon dispensari ut in sic contracto matrimonio libere et licite nullis desuper adhibitis testibus remanere possit cum legitimatione prolis.” (“Keeping this occult, however, she approached her confessor asking how she should comport herself in this case given that it was completely unknown to all people and she was persuaded that due to this act of fornication she had become related to her husband in the fourth degree of affinity. She now petitions to be absolved from her fornication and to be dispensed that she can freely and licitly remain in her thus contracted marriage without recourse to witnesses in the matter and including the legitimization of her offspring”.)

26. A marriage was canonically invalid if one partner had contracted the impediment of sexual affinity as in the case of Elizabeth Wagnerin; compare Richard Helmholz, Marriage Litigation in Medieval England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974), 74–111; and Charles Donahue Jr., Law, Marriage, and Society in the Later Middle Ages. Arguments about Marriage in Five Courts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 33–41.

27. For joint petitions by couples in foro conscientiae, see RPG 3 no. 252, RPG 4 no. 10, RPG 6 no. 1049, RPG 8 no. 139, RPG 8 no. 140, RPG 8 no. 1146; also notes 26 and 39.

28. RPG 3 no. 252: “<Ad cognitionem> vero exponentium pervenit quod frater Georgii dictam Elizabeth pluries in loco publico in quo tunc stetit ante contractum matrimonium actu fornicario cognovit. Premissa autem sunt occulta.” (“It came [to the] petitioners’ [knowledge] that George’s brother repeatedly had sex with Elizabeth in the public place where she stayed then and before contracting marriage. This, however, is occult”.)

29. RPG 5 no. 2033: “Georgius Kramer de Pruck in Styria scolaris Salzeburgensis diocesis ibidem presens exponit quod cum olim ipso existente etiam circiter annorum XVIII et in servitio cuiusdam laici adductus fuerit in domo dicti laici quidam homo cuius conditionis dictus exponens ignorabat intimatum fuit dicto exponenti a quodam nobili cum furia quod … deberet associare dictum hominem usque ad certum locum quod propter timoris causam fecit. Postea predictus homo evasit forsan per duas horas et post evasionem et in absentia dicti exponentis ab aliquibus aliis hominibus captus fuit et ad mortis supplicium condempnatus.” (“George Kramer of Pruck in Styria, a scholar from Salzburg diocese and here present explains that when he once was at the age of 18 and in the service of a certain layman, a certain man whose condition the said petitioner [George] did not know was led to the said layman’s house. The said petitioner was angrily told by a certain nobleman that … he ought to accompany the said man to a certain place which [the petitioner] did out of fear. Afterwards the said man escaped for about two hours, was caught again in the petitioner’s absence by certain other people and condemned to death”.)

30. Ibid.: “Cum autem nonnulli simplices asserant dictum exponentem premissorum occasione excommunicationis sententiam incurrisse, ad ora predictorum emulorum obstruendum … <supplicat> ipsum nullam excommunicationis sententiam ac nullam irregularitatis maculam premissorum occasione contraxisse … <declarari mandare dignemini> ut in forma. … Et committatur episcopo Civitatis Castelli cum negotium sit occultum.” (“Because certain simple folk assert that the said petitioner has incurred the sentence of excommunication due to the aforementioned … he requests that you [the poenitentiarius maior] deign to let declare formally that he [the petitioner] has not incurred any sentence of excommunication nor any stain of irregularity due to the aforementioned. … And the matter shall be committed to the bishop of Città di Castello because it is occult.”)

31. RPG 8 no. 3282: “Cum autem exponens non animo offendendi cum dictis sociis iverit, dictum laicum numquam percusserit ac de illius morte ab intimis doluerit, a nonnullis tamen simplicibus asseritur ipsum homicidii reatum incurrisse, ad ora talium obstruenda ac ad tollendum dubitationem quam habet in mente sua supplicat.” (“Because the petitioner did not go with the said companions intending to hurt anyone, never struck the said layman, and deeply regrets his death, but certain simple folk still assert that he incurred the crime of homicide, he makes his request in order to obstruct their voices and overcome the doubt he has in his own mind.”)

32. Ibid.: “In foro conscientie tantum nullis super his adhibitis testibus;” (“Only in the forum of conscience and without recourse to witnesses.”) echoing Elizabeth Wagnerin's words, in note 23: “Nullis desuper adhibitis testibus.”

33. RPG 8 no. 2646: “Et quia exponens super premissis eius audita confessione etiam quoad ministerium altaris in foro conscientie tantum reconciliatus fuerit, dubitat tamen ne a nonnullis simplicibus et iuris ignaris asseratur ipsum propter premissa homicidii reatum incurrisse, ad ora igitur talium obstruenda supplicat. … Committatur ordinario si vocatis vocandis qui fuerint evocandi sibi de assertis constiterit declaret ut petitur.” (“Because the petitioner, once his confession was heard, was reconciled on account of the aforementioned only in the forum of conscience and with regard to the altar services and he doubts whether certain simple and legally ignorant folk may assert that he has due to the aforementioned incurred the crime of homicide, he petitions in order to silence their voices. … [The matter] shall be committed to the ordinary [judge] who may declare as requested if after calling those who need to be called [as witnesses] everything asserted is evident to him”.)

34. Die Pönitentiarieformularsammlung des Walter Murner von Strassburg. Beitrag zur Geschichte und Diplomatik der päpstlichen Pönitentiarie im 14. Jahrhundert, partly edited by Matthäus Meyer (Fribourg: Universitätsverlag, 1979); for a biobibliographical sketch of Walter, see ibid., 11–18.

35. Ibid. 493 (no. 901): “Sua nobis Johannes scolaris vestre diocesis lator presencium peticione monstravit quod ipse olim tempore sue infancie fuit expositus et in quadam ecclesia seu hospitali dicte diocesis Domino providente repertus. Cum itaque qui fuerint sui parentes penitus ignoratur et ipse ascribi desiderat milicie clericali ut asserit timeatque ne aliqui simplices sibi maculam illegitimitatis imponant supplicari fecit humiliter super his sibi per Sedem Apostolicam de opportuno remedio misericorditer provideri. Nos igitur … circumspeccioni vestre committimus quatenus si dictus scolaris super deffectu natalium non est diffamatus sed semper vixit ut legitimus quod sue consciencie relinquatur aut si forsan infamatus est et nichil illegitimitatis contra eum probari potest <post> eius purgacionem canonicam ipsum legitimum nuncietis;” (“In his petition John, a scholar from your diocese and carrier of the present [letter] showed that during his childhood he was exposed and with God’s help recovered in a church or hospital of the said diocese. Because it is completely unknown who his parents were and he expressly wishes to join clerical rank and worries that certain simple folk may attribute to him the stain of illegitimacy, he humbly requests that out of pity the proper remedy may be provided to him by the Apostolic See in this matter. We therefore commit to your attention that if the said scholar is not defamed for illegitimate birth but always lived as if he was legitimate, it shall be left to his conscience; or, if perhaps he is defamed and no illegitimacy can be proved against him you shall declare him legitimate after he has performed canonical purgation”.) concerning illegitimacy as an impediment to (priestly) ordination, see Wertheimer, Laura, “Illegitimate Birth and the English Clergy, 1198–1348,” Journal of Medieval History 31 (2005): 211–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Ludwig Schmugge, Kirche, Kinder, Karrieren. Päpstliche Dispense von der unehelichen Geburt im Spätmittelalter (Zurich: Artemis Verlag, 1995).

36. On (com)purgation in canon law doctrine and ecclesiastical court practice, see Antonia Fiori, Il giuramento di innocenza nel processo canonico medievale. Storia e disciplina della “purgatio canonica” (Frankfurt/M.: Vittorio Klostermann, 2013); Richard H. Helmholz, “The Law of Compurgation,” in The Ius Commune in England. Four Studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 90–124.

37. Failed purgation usually led to public penance; compare notes 9 and 55.

38. Die Pönitentiarieformularsammlung des Walter Murner 219 (no. 166): “Post factum vero ad ipsius clerici pervenit notitia quod inter eos fuerunt aliqui clerici interfecti, verum cum ipsi clerici in nullo portarunt habitum clericalem et ipsos clericos penitus ignoravit, ne aliqui emuli ipsum clericum reputant aliquam canonis sententiam incurrisse supplicari fecit humiliter. … Nos igitur auctoritate etc. discrecioni tue committimus quatenus si per proprium iuramentum ipsius clerici si alias probari non possit rem ita inveneris esse non reputes eum ex predictis in predictam canonis sententiam incidisse.” (“Afterwards it came to the same petitioner’s notice that a few clerics among them were killed, but because these clerics did not wear any clerical habit and he did not know them at all, he humbly petitioned lest certain invidious people would think that he somehow incurred the sentence of the canon. … Hence we by the authority of etc. commit to your discretion that if by the cleric’s own oath and provided it cannot be proven otherwise you find [his assertions] to be correct, you shall not consider him for the aforementioned as someone who has incurred the said sentence of the canon”.)

39. Ibid. 236 (no. 211): “Cum de morte ipsius hominis quem litere continent ad cautelam presentibus intercluse idem presbyter non est certus nec habet conscientiam probabiliter remordantem si aliud canonicum non obsistat permittatis eum in suis ordinibus ministrare.” (“Since the priest is not certain about the death of the man in the letter that for the sake of caution has been enclosed in the present one and does not have a verifiably bad conscience, you ought to permit him to administer in his orders unless something else that is canonical stands against it”.)

40. Ibid. 220 (no. 170); the text is poorly transcribed and requires correction: “Ex tenore litterarum vestrarum accepimus quod cum talis presbyter de morte cuiusdam hominis infamatus indicta [ed.: in dicta] purgacione sibi defecerit ac quidam coram vobis [ed.: nobis] iurantes dicti homicidii esse reum vos eumdem sentencialiter officioque beneficio privatum ad Sedem Apostolicam destinastis super eo consilium petiturum. Verum cum ipsius contraria vestris litteris videatur eo quod dicit se illorum testimonio condempnatum qui ipsum odio persequuntur antiquo per vos [ed.: nos] suis expurgacionibus non admissis sicut vobis placuit et dixistis et se asserit obiecti criminis lesam conscienciam non habere … nos igitur etc. ipsum presbyterum ad vos duximus remittendum circumspeccioni vestre committentes ut relaxacionem eius meritis sufragantibus, revocato per vos iniusto gravamine pena penitencie non puniatur quem [ed.: quam] secura conscientia non accusat.” (“We learn from your letter that when the said priest who had been defamed on account of a certain man and failed in the purgation that was imposed on him and after some people swore that he was accused of homicide and he was sentenced to be deprived of his benefice, you sent him to the Apostolic See to seek counsel in the matter. But because his own letter seems to go against yours insofar as he says that he was condemned by the testimony of people who pursued him with long-standing hatred and that his purgation was not admitted by you and your will as you have stated and because he asserts that his conscience is not hurt by the alleged crime … we etc. have decided to remit the same priest to you and commit it to your attention that, if his merits warrant relaxation and once the unjust imposition has been revoked by you, he shall not be punished with penance whom an informed conscience does not accuse”.)

41. Ibid. 381–82 (no. 578): “In foro penitentie nullis super hoc adhibitis testibus nullisque concessis litteris sed presentibus laniatis;” (“In the forum of penance without the use of witnesses in this matter and without the concession of a letter and after tearing apart the present one”.) ibid. 473 (no. 852): “In foro conscientie tantum [ed.: tamen] nullis super hoc adhibitis testibus nullisque concessis litteris sed presentibus laniatis;” (“Only in the forum of conscience without the use of witnesses in this matter and without the concession of a letter and after tearing apart the present one”.) compare notes 23 and 30.

42. RPG 3 no. 107 (in foro contradictorio); RPG 7 no. 2626 (in foro contentioso); RPG 8 no. 2663 (in utroque foro tam ecclesiastico quam penitentiali et iudiciali ac contentioso); RPG 9 no. 1422 (in foro conscientie et contentioso); RPG 9 no. 1790 (in penitentiali, ecclesiastico, seculari, iudicali et contentioso foro).

43. On the internal organization of the Poenitentiaria, see, especially, Emil Göller, Die päpstliche Pönitentiarie von ihrem Ursprung bis zu ihrer Umgestaltung unter Pius V, 2 vols in 4 parts (Rome: Loescher, 1907–11), 1.1.85–184, 1.1.202–12, 2.1.9–82, 2.1.90–131. More recent work on the officium maius and minus (my own included) has simplistically described the two as in full alignment with the distinction between the forum externum and the forum internum, for example, Müller, Wolfgang P., “Violence et droit canonique: les enseignements de la Pénitencerie apostolique (XIIIe–XVIe siècle),” Revue historique 131 (2007): 774–96Google Scholar; Clarke and Zutshi, Supplications, 1:xiii n. 2.

44. Göller, Die päpstliche Pönitentiarie, 1.1.185–202, 2.1.82–89. Salonen and Schmugge, A Sip from the Well of Grace, doc. 1, reproduces one of the few surviving litterae ecclesiae (of 1447) known at the moment; it closely follows one of the model letters in Die Pönitentiarieformularsammlung des Walter Murner, 221–22 (no. 175, 177); another such littera (signature: Karlsruhe, Generallandesarchiv, Offenburg–Gengenbach 30/66; dated September 19, 1404) is mentioned by Göller, Die päpstliche Pönitentiarie, 2.1.87.

45. Emil Göller, “Das alte Archiv der päpstlichen Pönitentiarie,” in Kirchengeschichtliche Festgabe, Anton de Waal zum goldenen Priesterjubiläum dargebracht (Rome and Freiburg: Armani & Stein, 1913), 15–19.

46. “Item littere super peccatis et criminibus occultis et verecundiosis et vituperosis ac de quibus si publicarentur scandala et pericula possent illis quorum sunt et ipsarum litterarum portatoribus evenire fiant clause,” (“Also letters about sins and occult, shameful, and reprehensible crimes and those that, should they be published could lead to scandal and danger for those who committed them or for the carriers of those letters, ought to be closed”.) ibid., 18; from the fifteenth century Notabilia de modo scribendi litteras penitentiarie, ed. Göller, Die päpstliche Pönitentiarie, 1.2.88.

47. “Et si bulla erit clausa capit tantum unum carlenum pro auditore et tres quatrenos pro cera ex quo non registratur,” (“And if the bull is closed it fetches only one carlenus for the auditor and three quatreni for the wax because it is not registered”.) Göller, “Das alte Archiv,” 18 n. 2; cited after a list of taxae kept by the Penitentiary and compiled between 1525 and 1530, ed. idem, Die päpstliche Pönitentiarie, 2.2.177.

48. “Gravia exinde scandala verisimiliter possent exoriri,” the risk of scandal, and not the breach of the confessional seal is formulaically tied to the term occultus; compare Fossier, Arnaud, “‘Propter vitandum scandalum’. Histoire d'une catégorie juridique (XIIe–XVe siècle),” Mélanges de l’École française de Rome–Études médiévales 121 (2009): 317–48Google Scholar.

49. In utroque foro is first inserted under Innocent VIII (1484–92), RPG 7 no. 1687 (of May 20, 1486); from the time of Alexander VI (1492–1503), the term distinguishes “secular” from “ecclesiastical” justice (RPG 8 no. 2250, RPG 8 no. 2658, RPG 8 no. 3146, RPG 9 no. 1588–89), or the “penitential” from the “judicial” forum (RPG 8 no. 2663, RPG 9 no. 1431); compare notes 18–22, 40.

50. As in RPG 2 no. 880: “Cum … bonarum mentium est ibi culpam timere ubi culpa minime reperitur pro serenatione conscientie … supplicat quatenus in foro conscientie a premissis excessibus … dispensari mandare dignemini;” (“Because … it is the mark of good minds to suspect guilt where none is found so as to render one’s conscience serene … he petitions that in the forum of conscience you deign to have him dispensed … from the aforementioned excesses”.) and the passage quoted in note 39.

51. RPG 8 no. 3282: “Supplicat quatenus … in foro conscientie tantum nullis super his adhibitis testibus <declarari mandare dignemini>. … – Committatur confessori ut si per confessorem supplicantis sibi constiterit de assertis declaret ut petitur;” (“He petitions that … <you deign to have him declared> only in the forum of conscience and without recourse to witnesses … – He shall be committed to his confessor so that if what is asserted has been verified by the petitioner’s confessor and stands he shall declare as requested”.) also notes 29–30.

52. This is what the earlier-mentioned John Loeder must have prepared himself for in 1491, note 31.

53. Göller, Die päpstliche Pönitentiarie, 1.1.VII; idem, “Das alte Archiv,” 13. At the time of Göller's death, the list of his publications only included works on early medieval penance, see Fink, Karl August, “Verzeichnis der Schriften Emil Göllers,” Römische Quartalsschrift 41 (1933): 9–13Google Scholar.

54. The literature is enormous, from Bertrand Kurtscheid, Das Beichtsiegel in seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1912); trans. F. A. Marks (ed. Arthur Preuss), A History of the Seal of Confession (Saint Louis and London: Herder, 1927); to Larson, Master of Penance.

55. Interpreters have long struggled to explain the heavily juristic emphasis in guides for confessors, which does not fit modern expectations of how the internal forum would work; compare note 15, and especially Trusen, Winfried, “Zur Bedeutung des geistlichen Forum internum und externum für die spätmittelalterliche Gesellschaft,” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte. Kanonistische Abteilung 76 (1990): 254–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

56. At all levels of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, including the trials against higher prelates analyzed by Julien Théry, “Fama. La opinion publica como presuncion legal. Apreciaciones sobre la revolucion medieval de lo inquisitorio (siglos XII–XIV),” in De jure. Nuevas lecturas sobre derecho medieval, ed. Eleonora Dell'Elicine, Paola Miceli, Alejandro Morin, Claudio Azzara (Buenos Aires: Ad-Hoc, 2009), 201–43.

57. Most consistently in registers from the abbey of Cerisy in Normandy, Gustave Dupont, ed.,“Le Registre de l'officialité de l'abbaye de Cerisy, 1314–1447,” Mémoires de la société d'antiquaires de la Normandie 30 (1880): 294 (no. 9f) and passim.

58. For example, ibid. 304 (no. 25c). The most important canonistic textbook, the Liber extra (hereafter X) of 1234, ed. Emil Friedberg, Corpus iuris canonici 2 (Leipzig: Bernard Tauchnitz, 1881), contains part of a decretal by Gregory IX that advises ecclesiastical judges to be agnostic about the oath of a woman in favor of her own matrimonial claim. If the judicial decision went against her, the court was not to grant her license to wed another in order not to encourage perjury. It was better to leave the question of a subsequent marriage to her, X 2.24.34: “Mulieri que in iure prestito iuramento asseruit virum talem in ipsam per verba de presenti matrimonialiter consensisse probationes alias non habenti viro ab eius impetitione per sententiam absoluto non debes licentiam dare cum alio matrimonium contrahendi ne auctor periurii videaris. Nec hoc ei dicimus prohibendum ne forte si falsum iuraverit matrimonium contingat legitimum impediri, sed suae conscientiae est potius reliquendum.” (“To the woman who by oath and not by any other proof has lawfully asserted that this man consented to her in marriage by words of present consent and after the man was sentenced to be absolved from her claim, you must not grant her license to contract with someone else lest you appear as the author of perjury. Nor do we say to prohibit it lest she be kept from a legitimate marriage in case she swore falsely, but it rather must be left to her own conscience”.) For Gregory IX, not privacy, but the impossibility of legal verification marked the sphere of conscience.

59. Venice, Archivio storico del patriarcato di Venezia, Curia patriarcale. Sezione antica, Causarum matrimoniorum, vol. 9 [Martino quondam Baptiste Cursi v. Giovanna filia Johannis Liberalis de Arteno], cited after Cristellon, La carità e l'eros, 177 n. 158: “Quia quantum ad forum contentiosum in quo iudicandum est secundum allegata (see notes 11–13) et probata declaramus non constare neque probatum esse …; quantum autem ad forum conscientie proprie, iuxta formam capituli Mulieri, de iureiurando (X 2.24.34, as in the previous note).” (“Because as regards the contentious forum in which one must judge according to what is alleged and proven we declare that nothing is established and proven …; as regards the forum of conscience, however, is its properly established according to the form of the chapter Mulieri”.)

60. “Iudices curie Augustensis plebano in Wilhain salutem in Domino. Comparuerunt coram nobis in iure Berchtoldus dictus Kolpel calciator et Adelhaidis filia quondam Hainrici calciatoris et iurati publice confitebantur in iure se insimul matrimonium contraxisse per verba legitima de presenti ac insimul per decem et octo annos et amplius legitime cohabitasse. Quare vobis mandamus quatenus ipsos sinatis insimul matrimonialiter permanere ipsis ecclesiasiastica sacramenta ministrantes non obstante quod ipse Berchtold asserat se prius cum Diemudi dicta Riberin clandestine matrimonium contraxisse in cuius probatione defecit omnino,” (“The judges of the Augsburg court send their greetings to the parish priest of Weilheim. Berchthold Kolpel, shoemaker, and Adelhaid the daughter of the late Henry Shoemaker have appeared before us in law and confessed under oath publicly and in law that they contracted marriage together by word of present consent some eighteen years and longer ago and have legitimately cohabited since then. Therefore we order you to let them continue to live together in marriage and administer the ecclesiastical sacraments to them although Berchthold maintains to have contracted marriage at an earlier date and clandestinely with Diemut Riberin, which he has entirely failed to prove”.) Christian Schwab, ed., Das Augsburger Offizialatsregister (1348–1352). Ein Dokument geistlicher Diözesangerichtsbarkeit. Edition und Untersuchung (Cologne, Weimar, and Vienna: Böhlau, 2001), 159–60.

61. Additional letters of “tolerance,” signaled in the Augsburg register by the verbs sinere and permittere, deal with suspected marriage impediments of sexual affinity, ibid. 145, 148, 149, 191; spiritual affinity, ibid. 161–62; and pre-contract, ibid. 121–22, 132–33, 144–45, 263, and the previous note.

62. The fullest discussion of the sixteenth century reform efforts is by Göller, Die päpstliche Pönitentiarie, 2.1.90–131; for the accompanying fiscal considerations, see Wolfgang P. Müller, “The Price of Papal Pardon. New Fifteenth-Century Evidence,” in Päpste, Pilger, Pönitentiarie. Festschrift für Ludwig Schmugge zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Andreas Meyer, Constanze Rendtel, and Maria Widmer–Butsch (Tubingen: Max Niemeyer, 2004), 461 n. 9, 473–74.

63. Since 2012, all of the extant medieval and early modern registers can be consulted in the archive of the Penitenzieria Apostolica at the Palazzo della Cancelleria in Rome, Italy.