No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Notoriety: A Mediaeval Change of Attitude
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 31 July 2008
Extract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Scripture refers to an ‘informer’ in the story of the rich man who had a steward, and was told that he was mismanaging his master's resources (Luke 16: 1ff). The Vulgate has hic diffamatus est apud ilium. We hear nothing more about the informer in this parable, or what became of him. He is not reproached for his action.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Ecclesiastical Law Society 1997
References
1 The question of bearing false witness against one's neighbour, forbidden by the commandment (Exodus 20: 16), belongs to a different area, for the informer may very well be telling the truth. On the issue of propriety in a witness, and all the formal restrictions which attach to his acceptability in a court, the mediaeval texts have a great deal to say. but for reasons of space that must form the subject of a different study.
2 Digest 48.16.6.3 (Paul). Cf. Code 9.2.7, falsis necne notoriis may be closer to the mediaeval notorius. Gratian has notorius twice, but of the offence not the person, cf. Causa 2.6.41 (titulus); Causa 2.1.1.
3 By the early fourteenth century. It appears at the Council of Pisa in 1409. Latham has it in 1280 (Revised Medieval Latin Wordlist).
4 Pólay, Elemér, Iniuria Types in Roman Law (Budapest, 1986).Google Scholar
5 Balon, J., Traité du Droit Salique, Ius Medii Aevi, 3 (Namur, 1965), p. 375.Google Scholar
6 But loss of position or standing in mediaeval societies was a more complex matter, for arguably, even if everyone thought less well of him afterwards, the miscreant might remain—and mostly would remain— whoever he was before in terms of rank and possessions.
7 E.g. Tertullian Ad nationes I.vii, p. 17.
8 Marius Victorinus, De Definitionibus, p. 10. Cf. Augustine, Letters 86, CSEL.34.2, p. 396.
9 Chromatius of Aquilegia, Tractatus 47, CCSL 9A.
10 Augustine, De Moribus Ecclesiae Catholicae et Manichaeorum, I, PL 32.1321.
11 Summa ‘Elegantius’, vol. 2, p. 66.Google Scholar
12 E.g. Theodosian Code 8.11.4.
13 Summa ‘Elegantius’, vol. 2, p. 51.Google Scholar
14 Summa ‘Elegantius’, vol. 2, p. 67.Google Scholar 15 Cf. Augustine, , Enchiridion 21, CCSL 46.Google Scholar
15 Augustine, , Sermo 20, CCSL 41, line 140.Google Scholar
16 Gregory the Great, Regula pastoralis III.31, PL 77.113.
17 The Collection in 183 titulos digesta, ed. Motta, J., Monumenta luris Canonici, Corpus Collectionum 7 (1988), Tit. 85(1), p. 137, from ‘Augustine’.Google Scholar
18 Fourth Lateran Council, Canon 8.
19 Dahyot-Dolivet, Jehan, ‘La procédure judiciaire d'office dans I'Église jusqu'à l'avenement du pape Innocent III’, Apollinaris, 41 (1968), 443–55Google Scholar; Trusen, W., ‘Der Inquisitionsprozess: Seine historischen Grundlagen und frühen Formen’, ZRG Kan Abt. 74 (1988), 168–230Google Scholar; Kelly, Henry Ansgar, ‘Inquisitorial due process and the status of secret crimes’, Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress on Medieval Canon Law, Monumenta luris Canonici, 9 (1992), 407–427.Google Scholar
20 Kelly, Henry Ansgar, ‘Inquisitorial due process and the status of secret crimes’, Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress on Medieval Canon Law. Monumenta luris Canonici, 9 (1992), 407–427, p. 411Google Scholar. Kelly suggests that the defendant's right to know his rights is first discussed as late as Philip Probus (=Philippe Lepreux), a jurisconsult of Bourges, in John Monk's Glossa aurea (1535). Here it is argued that a defendant who does not use a defence allowed to him loses it, but that would apply only if he knew he had it.
21 Decretal Inquisitionis Negotium of 1212. Gregory IX. Decretals. X.5.1.21.
22 Summa ‘Elegantius’, vol. 2. p. 51.Google Scholar
23 Summa ‘Elegantius’, vol. 2. p. 54.Google Scholar
24 Gregory IX. Decretals V.I., from ‘Augustine on Genesis’.
25 Fraher, Richard M., ‘Ut nullus describatur reus prius quam convincatur: Presumption of innocence in medieval canon law,’ Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress, Monumenta Iuris Canonici. Series C: Subsidia. 7 (1985). 43-506. p. 495Google Scholar. See, too, Paradisi, Bruno, ‘II diritto Romano nell'alto medio evo, le epistole di Nicola I e un ipotesi del conrat’. Studia Gratiana XI. Collectanea S. Kuttner. 1 (Bologna, 1967). 211–51.Google Scholar
26 In manifestis enim calliditate accusantium non opprimitur reus, nec tergiversatione proprium crimen celatur quum culpa sua oculis omnium sponte se ingerat. atque ideo institutes est. ut nec innocentia insidiis pateret adversantium. nec culpa delinquentium sententiam effugeret justi examinis: Gratian. Decretum. II.2 q.l.15 ff., PL 187.590–1. and Friedberg. Vol. I.
27 He comments: hoc autem servandum est quando reum publica fama non vexat. Tunc enim auctoritate eiusdem Gregorii proprer scandalum removendum, famam suam reum purgare oportet. Gratian, Decretum, II.vii.q.5.2, PL 187.742 and Friedberg, vol. I.
28 Gratian, Rubric to Causa 2 q.1.c.1.
29 Summa ‘Elegantius’, vol. 2, p. 54Google Scholar. See, too, Fraher (note 26 above), p. 499.
30 Fraher, op. cit., p. 499, discusses this eventuality.
31 Summa ‘Elegantius’, vol. 2, p. 54.Google Scholar
32 Summa ‘Elegantius’, vol. 2, p. 54.Google Scholar
33 Summa ‘Elegantius’, vol. 2, p. 52.Google Scholar
34 The Collection in 183 titulos digesta, ed. Motta, J., Monumenta luris Canonici, Corpus Collectionum 7 (1988), Tit. 76 (3), p. 12Google Scholar, from Ps. Felix (Prius probare debet).
35 Burchard of Worms, Decreta, xvi. 18, PL 140.912.
36 Gregory IX, Decretals V.I.8.
37 De Ordo Invocato Christi Nomine, ed. Wahrmund, , Quellen Vi (1931). p. 69.Google Scholar
38 Richard M. Fraher, op. cit. (note 26 above), p. 495.
39 Summa ‘Elegantius’, vol. 2. p. 55.Google Scholar
40 Sunma ‘Elegantius’, vol. 2, p. 62.Google Scholar
41 Gregory IX, Decretals, V.2.1 and 2.
42 Summa ‘Elegantius’, vol. 2. p. 61Google Scholar. Ubicunque potest dubitari, numquid actori ius competal ex probationibus factis, nec constat, ei ius non competere, nec in evidenti calumpnia invenitur, illic reus debeat condempnari: de Pisis, Johannes Fagelli, Tractatus brevis de summariis cognitionibus ed. Wahrmund, L., Quellen zur Geschichte des Romische-Kanonischen Prozesses im Mittelalter (Innsbruck, 1928) IV.v. p. 24.Google Scholar
43 Summa ‘Elegantius in iure divino’, V (26) ed. Fransen, G. and Kuttner, S.Google Scholar. Monunenta Iuris Canonici. Series A: Corpus glossatorum, 1. Vol. 2. p. 63. The word can be used equivocally: equivocatur autem nomen ad falsum et fraudulentem advocatum et ad fictum accusatorem qui vera crimina non sincere prosequitur, contigentia omittens.
44 Summa ‘Elegantius in iure divino’, V (27) ed. G. Fransen and S. Kuttner. Monunenta Iuris Canonici. Series A: Corpus glossatorum, 1. Vol. 2, p. 64.
45 Theodosian Code 9.38.3 (398 AD). This notion reappears in the twelfth century, for example in the Summa ‘Elegantius’, where it is asked whether fresh allegations ought to be accepted after sentence has been pronounced: Part VII. 2a. p. 153.
46 Burchard of Worms. Decreta, xvi. 9. PL 140.911.
47 , Gregory IX. Decretals, V. I.6. ed. Friedberg, A., Corpus Iuris Canonici (Leipzig, 1881).Google Scholar
48 This becomes X.5.1.24 of the Decretals of Gregory IX.
49 On the acceleration of hearings, see Helmholz, R. H., ‘Ethical standards for advocates and proctors in theory and practice’. Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of Mediaeval Canon Law (1972)Google Scholar, Monumenta Juris Canonici, Subsidia, 5 (Vatican, 1976), p. 291 ff.Google Scholar
50 de Pisis, Johannes Fagelli, Tractatus IV.v, p. 1.Google Scholar
51 de Pisis, Johannes Fagelli, Tractatus IV.v, p. 1.Google Scholar
52 de Pisis, Johannes Fagelli. Tractatus IV.v. p. 25.Google Scholar
53 de Pisis, Johannes Fagelii, Tractatus IV.v. p. 5.Google Scholar
54 de Pisis, Johannes Fagelli, Tractatus IV.v, p. 7.Google Scholar
55 de Pisis, Johannes Fagelli, Tractatus IV.v, p. 14.Google Scholar
56 de Pisis, Johannes Fagelli, Tractatus IV.v, p. 2.Google Scholar
57 de Pisis, Johannes Fagelli, Tractatus IV.v, p. 3.Google Scholar
58 de Pisis, Johannes Fagelli, Tractatus IV.v, p. 4. Here he cites Azo as authority.Google Scholar
59 Summa ‘Elegantius’. vol. 2, p. 51.Google Scholar
60 Summa ‘Elegantius’, vol. 2. p. 51.Google Scholar
61 de Pisis, Johannes Fagelli, Tractatus IV.v, p. 10.Google Scholar
62 de Pisis, Johannes Fagelli, Tractatus IV.v. p. 12.Google Scholar
63 de Pisis, Johannes Fagelli. Tractatus IV.v, p. 13.Google Scholar
64 de Pisis, Johannes Fagelli, Tractatus IV.v, p. 20. Mihi autem videtur sine praeiudicio sententiae melioris, quod in his et similibus, ubi reo potest maius praeiudicium generari. quam in actione ad exhibendum et in aliis suprascriptis, [quod semiplena probatio] non per sacramentum. sed saltim per unum testem, quid semiple-nam inducit probationem: IV.v, p. 23.Google Scholar
65 Clement V, V. 11.2. Johanes de Lignano's text is edited by Wahrmund, Quellen, IV.vi.
66 de Lignano, Johanes, Super Clementina ‘Saepe’. ed. Wahrmund, , Quellen, IV.vi, p. 1.Google Scholar
67 de Lignano, Johanes, Super Clementina ‘Saepe’, IV.vi, p. 1.Google Scholar
68 de Lignano, Johanes, Super Clementina ‘Saepe’, IV.vi, p. 9.Google Scholar
69 de Lignano, Johanes, Super Clementina ‘Saepe’, IV.vi, p. 9.Google Scholar
70 Summa ‘Elegantius’, vol. 2, p. 89.Google Scholar
71 Summa ‘Elegantius’, vol. 2, p. 89.Google Scholar
72 See in this area Lefebvre, C., ‘Les origines romaines de la procédure sommaire aux xiie et xiiie siecles, Ephemerides Juris Canonici conscience’, Law and History Review 7 (1989), 231–88Google Scholar; Baldwin, J. W., ‘The intellectual preparation for the canon of 1215 against ordeals’, Speculum 36 (1961), 613–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pennington, K., The Prince and the Law (Berkeley, 1993).Google Scholar
You have
Access