This chapter discusses the formal and less formal ways in which Christians in the first millennium, especially during the early Middle Ages, could compensate for transgressing moral rules. Monastic ways of confessing and atoning for transgressions were introduced to specific lay audiences. Especially in the insular world, penitential books were composed that provided guidelines for this process. Such works were closely connected to other forms of ecclesiastical regulation. In the Carolingian world, penance became an issue of central concern, discussed at councils and in canonical collections. As a consequence, a substantial number of new texts were composed and disseminated widely. Such works of Carolingian inspiration reached an audience outside of the Carolingian realms: in Spain, Italy, and England. They were also increasingly included in canonical collections. The close connection between penitential books and canonical collections suggests that both genres could be employed in diverse settings. Distinctions between public and private penance, or between penance and jurisdiction (judicial punishment) are not as clear or self-evident as used to be thought.

Christian leaders and scholars during the first millennium in the West were preoccupied with written norms and corrective practices. Law (lex) during this era needs to be understood in a broader normative context. This introductory chapter provides historical and historiographical background to the specialized chapters that follow, explores the notions of lex, ius, norma, regula, and canon, and proposes an overarching schema of four normative fields, as understood by authors of the period: laws, canons, penitential prescriptions, and monastic rules, with their corresponding normative practices and textual compilations. The legal status of conciliar canons and papal decretals during this era is problematic. Although scholars today usually construe these as constituting a body of law, Isidore of Seville did not, and authors of the era usually treated laws (leges) and canons as distinct but complementary categories. The final section of the chapter examines this problem, proposing several fields of inquiry that would shed light on it, and suggesting that canonical collections, as a genre, were practical but not attached to any particular application.