Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T11:19:58.479Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

AD AGENDAM PENITENTIAM PERPETUAM DETRUDATUR MONASTIC INCARCERATION OF ADULTEROUS WOMEN IN THIRTEENTH-CENTURY CANONICAL JURISPRUDENCE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 November 2017

EDWARD A. RENO III
EDWARD A. RENO III*
Affiliation:
Aldephi University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Medieval canon law recognized detrusion (detrusio in monasterium) as a sentence for women convicted of adultery. Civil law had made adultery a capital crime, so that detrusio was a milder action. This article traces the history of detrusio in canon law, especially in the thirteenth century, and treats further questions that detrusio raised. Detrusio was originally a pastoral provision, meant to provide a woman rejected by her husband for adultery an opportunity to enter religious life. But in the hands of the jurists detrusio became a coercive ecclesiastical penalty for adultery. The practice raised further concerns, for example: how the woman's property was to be treated; whether the woman sentenced to detrusio became a religious; whether a monastery should be a site of confinement for the laity; and, under what conditions a husband could take his adulterous wife back. The case was also raised of a man who accused his wife of adultery so that he could dissolve his marriage and enter a monastery.

Keywords

Bernard of ParmaDetrusion (detrusio in monasterium)Gregory IXDecretalsHuggucio of PisaInnocent IIIJohannes TeutonicusJustinianCorpus Iuris Civilis
Type
Research Article
Information
Traditio , Volume 72 , 2017 , pp. 301 - 340
Copyright
Copyright © Fordham University 2017 

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 The decision (no. 31) is among those edited by a member (and later Vicar) of the Sacra Regia Consilia, the jurist Tommasso Grammatico (1473–1556), in Decisiones sacri regii consilii neapolitani (Frankfurt, 1600), 53–54 Google Scholar. On Grammatico's life, see Ventura, Viviana, “Profilo di Tommasso Grammatico, giurista e letterato,” in Scritti di storia del diritto offerti dagli allievi a D. Maffei, ed. Ascheri, M. (Padua, 1991), 353–75Google Scholar. For the operations of the Neapolitan Royal Council, see Miletti, M. N., Tra equità e giustizia: Il Sacro Regio Consiglio e le “decisiones” di V. De Franchis (Naples, 1995)Google Scholar.

2 John 8:10–11. The decision uses a slightly elided version of the Vulgate text: “mulier nemo te condemnavit, nec ego te condemno.”

3 “Adultera punitur etiam si maritus sibi parcat, quia est de casibus in quibus procedi potest ex officio sine accusatore, cum sit crimen publicum, d. l. 2 § Si publico [Dig. 48.5.2.5]. Accedit bene litera arbitralis, ne turorum, virtute cuius potest procedi ex officio in omnibus casibus in quibus imponi potest poena mortis civilis, vel naturalis, vel membri abscissionis… . Sed in viro poena adulterii est mortis naturalis, et in muliere detrusionis in monasterium, ut d. l. Quamvis, in fi., C. de adulteriis [Cod. 9.9.29], et per constitionem regni Asperitatem, etiam flagellis affici sic videtur, ne dum poena corporis afflictiva, sed certo modo morti civili aequiparata. Et plus subdit Andr. in dicta constitutione Asperitatem, quod eo casu adultera puniri debet, etiam si maritus sibi parcat, ex quo est de casibus ubi proceditur ex officio absque accusatore, ex quo est crimen publicum,” Grammatico, Decisiones, 53. The royal constitution referred to is Frederick II's Legum asperitatem, along with the commentary of Naples University law professor Andrea d'Isernia (1230–1316) in III.84 of the Constitutions drawn up for the Kingdom of Sicily: Constitutiones regni utriusque Siciliae (Lyon, 1568), 276Google Scholar.

4 She would later appeal the case and be transferred to a hospital: “ex quibus condemnata fuit pauperrima mulier, ut flagellis caesa in monasterium detrudatur iuxta regni Constitutionem. A qua poena dissentire mihi fuit visum, cum fuerit fustigata per civitatem, et sic notorie infamis effecta, impossibile foret reperire monasterium, imo nec domum honestam, quae ipsam introduceret et sic cum non turpis aspectus esset, de facili meretrix evaderet, quod permittendum non est. Sed bene conclusi esse in monasterium detrudendam, sed minime fustigatam, et ab huiusmodi condemnatione appellatum fuit, et demum transmissa fuit ad hospitale incurabilium per eandem magnam Curiam, et minime fustigata.” Ibid., 54.

5 The terminology used to describe the monastic confinement was not always consistent and included variants such as retrusio, relegatio, remissio, and inclusio. Since the most frequent term was detrusio/detrudere, the practice will simply be translated as “detrusion.”

6 “The Transformation of Adultery in France at the End of the Middle Ages,” Law and History Review 32 (2014): 491–524 Google Scholar.

7 The main proof text for the practice of detrusion in Roman Law was included in the Novellae among the rest of Justinan's supplementary legislation later added to the Corpus iuris civilis: Nov. 134.10. As will be discussed below, this text was also known in the medieval period in a different, truncated form due to its appearance as several authenticae, which were excerpts from the Novellae keyed to the appropriate titles in the Codex by medieval jurists. Unless otherwise noted, all references and quotations of the Corpus iuris civilis (the Digest, Codex, and Institutes) and the Novellae will be from the Mommsen-Krueger edition: Corpus Iuris Civilis, ed. Mommsen, Theodore and Krueger, Paul, 3 vols. (Berlin, 1892–1912)Google Scholar. When cited by a medieval jurist, the Novellae allegations will be rendered according to the form in which they were accessible to these jurists in the Authenticum, e.g., Nov. 134.10 = Auth. 127.10 or as one of the authenticae inserted into the Codex, e.g., Nov. 134.10 = auth. post Cod. 9.9.29. On the Authenticum and the authenticae, and the differences between them, see below, nn. 30 and 31.

8 For a general account of the development of the ius commune, see Bellomo, Manlio, The Common Legal Past of Europe, 1000–1800, trans. Cochrane, Lydia, Studies in Medieval and Early Modern Canon Law 4 (Washington, DC, 1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 The most recent edition of the Decretals appears in the second volume of: Corpus iuris canonici, ed. Friedberg, Emil, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1879–81; repr., Union, NJ, 2000)Google Scholar. Friedberg's edition has the benefit of a critical apparatus and the inclusion of the so-called partes decisae — portions of the original that were excised when the papal letter, conciliar canon, or whatever the underlying source happened to be was edited for inclusion in a canonical collection. Friedberg's text for all of the collections that make up the Corpus iuris canonici — Gratian's Decretum, the Decretals, the Liber sextus, the Constitutiones Clementinae, and the Extravagantes Communes — is that of the so-called Editio Romana, the version that was revised, published, and given Vulgate status under Pope Gregory XIII in 1582 (available in facsmile online at: http://digital.library.ucla.edu/canonlaw). As the Editio Romana [= ER] also includes the Ordinary Gloss, it will be the version cited in this article. For a study of the fascinating revision process that led to the ER, which was carried out by the commission of scholars and ecclesiastical officials known as the Correctores Romani, see Mary Sommar, The Correctores Romani: Gratian's Decretum and the Counter-Reformation Humanists Pluralisierung und Autorität 19 (Berlin, 2009).

10 On the Liber extra, see the author's forthcoming study: “Gregory IX and the Liber extra ,” in Pope Gregory IX (1227–1241), ed. Egger, C. and Smith, D. (Farnham, 2017)Google Scholar; and Bertram, Martin, “Die Dekretalen Gregors IX.: Kompilation oder Kodification?” in Magister Raimundus: Atti del Convegno per il IV Centenario della Canonizzazione di San Raimondo de Penyafort, 1601–2001, ed. Longo, Carlo, Institutum historicum fratrum praedicatorum: Dissertationes historicae 28 (Rome, 2002), 61–86 Google Scholar. The other contributions to these conference acta provide the best introduction to Raymond's long and impactful life and career. For the Quinque compilationes antiquae (hereafter referred to individually as 1Comp [=Compilatio prima], 2Comp [=Compilatio secunda], etc.), see the version of Friedberg, Émil, which must be used in conjunction with his edition of the Decretals: Quinque compilationes antiquae (Leipzig, 1882; repr., Graz, 1956)Google Scholar.

11 Vatican City, ASV, Reg. Vat. 14–20. Edition: Lucien Auvray, Les registres de Grégoire IX, 4 vols., Bibliothèque des Écoles Françaises d'Athènes et de Rome, ser. 2, vol. 9 (Paris, 1896–1955). Although he gives no indication of this in his preface, Auvray occasionally resorted to printing versions of letters as they appeared in prior document collections rather than the enregistered text, so caution must be exercised when using his edition.

12 Auvray 110; Vatican City, ASV, Reg. Vat. 14, fol. 17v. See below, n. 64 for the full text of the letter.

13 On medieval imprisonment generally, see Dunbabin, Jean, Captivity and Imprisonment in Medieval Europe (Basingstoke, 2002)Google Scholar; Peters, Edward, “Prison before the Prison,” in Oxford History of the Prison, ed. Morris, Norval and Rothman, David (Oxford, 1995), 3–47 Google Scholar. When the documentary base permits it, local and regional studies provide an excellent opportunity for investigating the social history of the prison, as in the case of England: Pugh, Ralph, Imprisonment in Medieval England (London, 1968)Google Scholar; and the Italian cities: Geltner, Guy, The Medieval Prison: A Social History (Princeton, 2008)Google Scholar.

14 Idem, “ Detrusio: Penal Cloistering in the Middle Ages,” Revue Bénédictine 118 (2008): 89–108 Google Scholar. This article is largely a survey of the penitential and other prescriptive sources, but in a follow up study Geltner has found specific recourse to the practice in medieval Italy: “A Cell of Their Own: The Incarceration of Women in Late Medieval Italy,” Signs 39 (2013): 27–51 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 Enfermements: Le cloître et la prison (VIe–XVIIIe siècle), ed. Heullant-Donat, Isabelle, Claustre, Julie, and Lusset, Elisabeth, Homme et société 38 (Paris, 2011)Google Scholar.

16 In Law, Sex and Christian Society (Chicago, 1987)Google Scholar, which remains foundational for understanding the regulation of sexual practices in medieval canon law, James Brundage does not discuss X 3.32.19 Gaudemus or a decretal found in the title on advocates (De procuratoribus) with which it was often paired in canonistic discussions, X 1.38.5 Tuae (on which, see below). For a recent survey of the canon law construction of religious life, see Dannenberg, Lars-Arne, Das Recht der Religiosen in der Kanonistik des 12. und 13. Jahrhunderts, Vita Regularis 39 (Berlin, 2008)Google Scholar; for canon law and criminal sanctions, see Kéry, Lotte, Gottesfurcht und irdische Strafe (Cologne, 2006)Google Scholar; and the still important: Kuttner, Stephan, Kanonistische Schuldlehre von Gratian bis auf die Dekretalen Gregors IX., Studi e Testi 64 (Vatican City, 1935)Google Scholar.

17 Helmholz, Richard, Marriage Litigation in Medieval England (Cambridge, 2007)Google Scholar; Donahue, Charles, Law, Marriage, and Society in the Later Middle Ages: Arguments about Marriage in Five Courts (Cambridge, 2007)Google Scholar; Dunn, Caroline, Stolen Women in Medieval England, 1100–1500 (Cambridge, 2013)Google Scholar. Dunn's study reveals another difficulty in uncovering how adultery was punished since it was often prosecuted in England as wife abduction. This taxonomical hurdle extends beyond England and into the later Middle Ages. Sara McDougall's important study of marriage litigation in northern France in the fifteenth century demonstrates how bigamy became an expansive category that could subsume what other jurisdictions treated as adultery: Bigamy and Christian Identity in Late Medieval Champagne (Philadelphia, 2012)Google Scholar.

18 The canon law commentators used for this study are as follows: (pre-1234) Huguccio, Bernard of Pavia, Laurentius Hispanus, Johannes Teutonicus, Vincentius Hispanus (on 3Comp), Apparatus “Servus appellatur,” Tancred of Bologna; (post-1234) Raymond of Penyafort, Guillelmus Naso, Vincentius Hispanus, Gottfried of Trani, Bernard of Parma, Innocent IV (Sinebaldus Fieschi), Hostiensis, Petrus Sampson, Bernardus de Montemirato (Abbas Antiquus), Guillelmus Durantis, Boatinus.

19 On the legal aspects of the provision, see Gloria, Francesco, “La Nov. 134,10; 12 di Giustiniano e l'assunzione coattiva dell'abito monastico,” in Studi in onore de Giuseppe Grosso 6 (Turin, 1974), 55–76 Google Scholar. For a broader discussion of the provision in the context of Justinian's efforts to reshape the elite culture of the Byzantine court, see Hillner, Julia, “Monastic Imprisonment in Justinian's Novels,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 15 (2007): 205–37Google Scholar. Hillner's conclusions in this article and in others cited below are now part of a comprehensive examination of imprisonment in Late Antiquity: Prison, Punishment and Penance in Late Antiquity (Cambridge, 2015)Google Scholar.

20 Nov. 117.3 and 134.11 prescribed detrusion for both husbands and wives (either separately or together) for initiating an unlawful divorce. Nov. 134.10, to be discussed shortly, ordered detrusion for women who had committed adultery. Nov 134.12 leveled penalties for adulterous couples who had fled justice and subsequently gotten married, with capital punishment prescribed for the man and detrusion for the woman.

21 Some commentators actually drew an interesting parallel between the rigors of pre-Justinianic Roman law and Mosaic law, on the one hand, and the mercy of Justinian's reforms and the law of the Gospel, on the other hand. Alanus Anglicus (fl. 1190–1215) uses this trope in his comments on Pope Celestine III's Si matrimonii causa (2Comp 1.18.2), which advised that marriage litigation is best conducted with the principles present whether proceeding criminally or civilly: “ad sanguinis effusionem secundum iura ueterem, C. ad l. iul. de adulter. Castitati [Cod. 9.9.9]. Similiter secundum legem mosaycam, ut xxxiii. q. v. Hec ymago [C. 33 q. 5 c. 13]. Sed mansuetudine noue legis detruditur hodie in monasterium, C. ad l. iul. de adulter. auth. Sed hodie [auth. post Cod. 9.9.29]. a[lanus].,” ad 2Comp 1.18.2 s.v. questio, Admont, SB 22, fol. 92va. In some manuscripts, albeit ones where gloss attributions are mostly lacking, this particular gloss has no attribution to any jurist (e.g., Paris, BNF, lat. 3932, fol. 75b). For the text of Si matrimonii causa, see below, n. 51.

22 Adultery, of course, applied only when the act involved a married woman who was considered a materfamilias. Roman law took little to no interest in the sexual purity of slaves or women of low social standing: “cum ab his feminis pudicitiae ratio requiratur, quae iuris nexibus detinentur et matris familias nomen obtinent. Hae autem immunes ab iudiciaria severitate praestantur, quas vilitas vitae dignas legum observatione non credidit,” Cod. 9.9.28. The adultery laws were analyzed extensively by Roman jurists at Dig. 48.5. Modifications to the law by pre-Justinianic emperors were compiled in the Codex under the title on adultery and fornication (Cod. 9.9).

23 For a general study of Constantine's regulation of marriage, see Grubbs, J. Evans, Law and Family in Late Antiquity: The Emperor Constantine's Marriage Legislation (Oxford, 1995)Google Scholar.

24 Hillner, “Monastic imprisonment,” 206.

25 The text is given according to the version in Gratian's Decretum (C. 32 q. 1 c. 5): “de Benedicto quoque, quem uxorem alienam indicasti facinoroso substulisse spiritu, et in suum hactenus praesumere detinere consortium, si hoc rerum veritas habet, iubemus experientiae tuae, ut eum cum ipsa quoque adultera districte mactare non differas, et calvatos ab invicem separare, et illum quidem ad Lucium defensorem in Apuliae provinciae patrimonium sine dilatione fac migrare. Illam vero, si quidem maritus suus sine dolo aliquo forte accipere voluerit, tua ordinatione sub cautela recipiat, nullum ei nihil duntaxat de cetero simile committenti periculum illaturus. Si vero omnino eam recipere noluerit, in alium quemdam locum in quo ei non liceat male vivere, provida eam dispensatione constitue.” ER (n. 9 above), vol. 1, coll. 2097–98.

26 Hillner, Julia, “Gregory the Great's ‘Prisons’: Monastic Confinement in Early Byzantine Italy,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 19 (2011): 433–71Google Scholar. Justinian had granted additional civil competence to bishops in the recently retaken Western provinces. As Hillner points out (434, and passim), Gregory was probably influenced just as much by the growing use of monastic confinement for the clergy in the late antique Church — evidenced first in early sixth-century Merovingian conciliar legislation — as he was by imperial precedents.

27 Text from the Liber extra: “pervenit ad nos quod Felix nepos tuus quandam virginem, quod nefas est dici, stupro decepit. Quod si verum est, quamvis esset gravi de lege poena plectendus, nos tamen aliquatenus legis duritiem mollientes hoc modo disponimus, ut aut quam stupravit uxorem habeat, aut certe si renuendum putaverit, districtius ac corporaliter castigatus excommunicatusque in monasterio in quo agat poenitentiam retrudatur, de quo ei nulla sit egrediendi sine praeceptione licentia.” ER, vol. 2, coll. 1720–21. Gregory's exercise of jurisdiction went even further in this case, since Roman law did not recognize marriage between partners whose initial union had been fornicatory. For an extensive analysis of this case, see Sessa, Kristina, The Formation of Papal Authority in Late Antique Italy (Cambridge, 2014), 188–90Google Scholar.

28 On the rediscovery of Roman law, see Lange, Hermann, Römisches Recht im Mittelalter, vol. 1, Die Glossatoren (Munich, 1997)Google Scholar.

29 A collection of 124 Latin summaries of the Novellae was also available in the so-called Epitome Juliani, which was made during Justinian's lifetime by an otherwise anonymous cleric in Constantinople. A summary of Nov. 134, however, was not part of the mainline tradition of the Epitome, appearing only in certain manuscripts. The modern edition of the Epitome, thus, only includes it in an appendix (Epitome CXXXIV De Vicariis, cap. XVI): Iuliani epitome latina novellarum Iustiniani, ed. Haenel, Gustav (Leipzig, 1873), 195Google Scholar.

30 There is still no consensus about the precise date of the Authenticum or whether it was even an official compilation. Some have ascribed it to Justinian himself as the vehicle by which he transmitted his most important legislation to the western provinces. Others, noting that there are no manuscripts of the collection prior to the twelfth century and that the name itself, Authenticum, is a twelfth-century appellation, have pushed the compilation date to the time of the rediscovery of Roman law in the West starting in the eleventh century. For an overview of the medieval reception of the collection and the difficulties of dating it, see Lange, Römisches Recht, 82–85.

31 The formulation of the authenticae, which were short summaries indicating a change to the law introduced by Justinian, has traditionally been ascribed to Irnerius (ca. 1050–ca. 1140), the founding father of the Roman law revival in the West. For the complexities and jurisprudential valence of distinguishing between a medieval citation of the Authenticum and one of the authenticae, see Wallinga, Tammo, “ Authenticum and authenticae — What's in a Name? References to Justinian's Novels in Medieval Manuscripts,” Legal History Review 77 (2009): 43–59 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32 The five authenticae are: post Cod. 9.9.11 Sed novo iure (Nov. 117.8); post Cod. 9.9.15 Si vero criminis (Nov. 134.5); post Cod. 9.9.29 Sed hodie (Nov. 134.10); post Cod. 9.9.29 Si quis ei (Nov. 117.15); post Cod. 9.9.29 Sed novo iure (Nov. 134.12). To see the authenticae in their proper place in the Codex, one has to consult a pre-Mommsen edition of the Codex, such as Corpus iuris civilis, ed. Hermann, Émil, pars altera (Leipzig, 1858)Google Scholar. For our texts, the Kriegel edition has to be supplemented with the collection of authenticae assembled in the Scripta anecdota glossatorum, as one of the detrusion-specific items is not contained in the former (auth. post Cod. 9.9.29 Novo iure): “Authenticarum collectio antiqua,” ed. Palmieri, Johann, in Scripta Anecdota Glossatorum, vol. 3, ed. Gaudentius, Augustus (Bonn, 1901)Google Scholar, no. 216, 95.

33 Post Cod. 9.9.29 Sed hodie: “[sed] hodie licet ut adultera verberata in monasterium mittatur: quam intra biennium viro recipere licet. Biennio transacto vel viro, priusquam reduceret, mortuo, adultera tonsa, habitu monachali suscepto, ibi dum vivit, permaneat; duabus partibus proprie substantie liberis, si habet, applicandis, tertia monasterio. Sed si liberos non habet, parentibus existentibus, huiusmodi iniquitati non consentientibus, tertia pars applicabitur, due monasterio. Quibus non exstantibus, omnis eius substantia monasterio queratur, pactis dotalium instrumentorum in omni casu viro servandis.” Scripta Anectoda Glossatorum, no. 215, 95. Post Cod. 9.9.29 Novo iure: “novo iure licet solus vir fugerit, a iudice comprehensus, post tormenta ultimo supplicio subdetur, nulla eius excusatione audita. Sed mulier castigata in monasterium mittetur, ibi mansura dum vixerit, utriusque substantia secundum ordinem predictum in alia authentica sub hoc eodem titulo, dividetur periculo tam comitis rerum privatarum quam iudicis loci.” Ibid., no. 218, 95. Interestingly, it was not simply the case of one or the other when it came to the two detrusion authenticae, and one finds them copied together, as in Munich, BSB, Clm 22, fol. 197r (Sed hodie) and fol. 199v (Novo iure).

34 For a comprehensive list and analysis of pre-Accursian manuscripts, i.e., manuscripts of the Codex copied prior to the drafting of Accursius's ordinary gloss (ca. 1230), see Gero Dolezalek, Repertorium manuscriptorum veterum Codicis Iustiniani, 2 vols., Ius Commune Sonderheft 23 (Frankfurt am Main, 1985).

35 For the torturous editorial history and controversy over the authorship of the Summa Trecensis, see Lange, Römisches Recht, 403–5; Gouron, André, “L'auteur et la patrie de la Summa trecensis,” Ius Commune 12 (1984): 1–38 Google Scholar; repr. in idem, Études sur la diffusion des doctrines juridiques mediévales, Collected Studies Series 264 (Aldershot, 1987)Google Scholar, III; idem, “L’Élaboration de la Summa Trecensis,” in Sodalitas; Scritti in onore di Antonio Guarino, vol. 3, ed. Giuffrè, Vincenzo, Biblioteca di Labeo 8 (Naples, 1984), 3681–96Google Scholar; repr. in idem, Collected Studies Series, IV; Kantorowicz, Hermann, Studies in the Glossators of the Roman Law (Cambridge, 1938; repr., Aalen, 1969), 146–80Google Scholar.

36 The italicized portions in the following quotation represent text from the revised version of the Summa printed in the 1914 edition that is not found in the 1888 edition: “pena convictorum hoc crimine est capitis amissio quum sacrilegos nuptiarum gladio puniri opportet; de deprehensis vero quemque sine iudice vindicta sumitur … [intervening discussion of when it is permitted to kill a male adulterer and how he may be otherwise handled when discovered in the act]… . Novo iure aliter super his invenies, scilicet ut adultera verberata in monasterium mittatur, quam inter biennium viro recipere licet, et cetera que diligenter exposita invenies, cum omnibus ad hanc partem pertinentibus, in libro authenticorum sub hoc titulo, ut nulli iudicum [Auth. 127],” “Summa Codicis,” ed. Palmerius, Johann, in Scripta Anecdota Glossatorum, ed. Augustus Gaudentius, vol. 1 (Bologna, 1888), 165Google Scholar [215–16 in 1914 edition].

37 “Set quia non est in consuetudine hodie quod matrimonium diuidatur nisi per canones, sicuti propter parentelam uel per adulterium quod facit femina, ideo non est necessarium ut inde aliquid dicamus,” Lo Codi: Eine Summa provenzalischer Sprache aus der Mitte des XII. Jahrhunderts, ed. Fitting, Hermann and Suchier, Hermann (Halle, 1906), 171Google Scholar. The Fitting/Suchier edition is of a contemporaneous Latin translation made of this relatively popular work, composed in the second half of the twelfth century for non-specialists. Richard's knowledge of some of the Justinianic provisions can be inferred from a comment earlier in the chapter containing the passage above (XVII. Per quas causas maritus potest se diuidere ab uxore sua uel uxor a marito) where he asserts that women are able to sue for divorce on the same grounds as their husbands, a change Justinian had introduced in Nov. 117.10. Additionally, Richard alludes to the limitations Justinian placed on the accepted grounds for divorce and notes — without naming either Justinian or the detrusion punishment specified by Nov. 134.11/Auth. 127.11 — that an illegal divorce will be met with a heavy penalty: “similiter et mulier potest dimittere maritum suum sine pena propter illas easdem raciones, quamuis non uelit hoc maritus. Et si aliquis de istis diuidit matrimonium alio modo, hoc est nisi sicut leges precipiunt, debet inde habere grandem penam sicuti est ordinatum.” Ibid., 171. For more on Richard, see Lange, Römisches Recht, 415–21.

38 “Sacrilegi autem nuptiarum gladio puniuntur, set hodie penis adulter competentibus subicitur. Adultera vero competentibus uerberibus pro motu iudicis subacta in monasterium mittitur, quam intra biennium uir sine pena reducere potest. Biennio uero transacto uel uiro intra biennium mortuo ‘adultera tonsa’ — quod sacris canonibus aduersatur — ‘monastico habitu suscepto’ ibi uitam finiat, substantia quidem eius sic diuisa ut duas partes liberi habeant, tertia monasterio competat. Liberis autem non existentibus parentes qui crimini non consenserint tertiam partem habeant, due monasterio competant. His autem non existentibus — id est neque liberis neque parentibus iniquitati tamen consentientibus — omnis eius substantia ad monasterium deuoluatur, ut auth. collat. ix. § Necessarium [Auth. 127.9].” Casus Codicis, ed. Wallinga, Tammo, Studien zur europäischen Geschichte 182 (Frankfurt am Main, 2005), 639–40Google Scholar. William incorrectly cites Auth 127.9 (§ Necessarium), which immediately precedes the detrusion provision, and was instead concerned with limiting the use of monasteries for women as pre-trial jails. The Casus Codicis purportedly reflects many of the lecture room sententiae of William's more famous master, Bulgarus, though it is impossible in this case to tell whether the adultery discussion is William's own or that of his teacher. On William and the Casus Codicis, see Wallinga's introduction.

39 “Et imponitur pena mortis mari quasi pro sacrilegio. Nam sacrilegos nuptiarum gladio puniri oportet, ut infra, eodem, l. Quamvis adulterii [Cod. 9.9.29]; femina autem adultera verberata iure autenticorum in monasterium mittitur, quam infra biennium recipere viro licet. Biennio transacto, vel viro priusquam reduceretur mortuo adultera tonsa monastico habitu suscepto ibi dum vivit permaneat.” Summa Azonis (Venice, 1498), fol. 219vb. On Azo, see Lange, Römisches Recht, 255–71.

40 Ad Cod. 9.9.29 s.v. gladio puniri oportet: “et ita imponitur poena capitis in adultero, secus in adultera, et ita lege authent. Sed hodie, quia debet tonderi etc., sed ibi dicit quod intra biennium ‘viro recipere licet.’ Ergo multo magis si antequam in monasterium mittatur, velit ei remittere illam poenam, et eam recipere sine poena potest. Nec erat contra deum, quia poena illa in favorem mariti inducta est, unde si non accusatur uxor ab aliquo, non patietur poenam; et maritus si vult retinebit, cum post biennium quam in monasterium mittitur possit, et ideo hic hodie non habebit locum poena lenocinii.” Azonis ad singulas leges XII. librorum Codicis Iustinianei commentarius (Paris, 1577; repr., Turin, 1966)Google Scholar, 690.

41 We do not possess a full version of Johannes Bassianus's original Codex commentary and so have to read it through the work of his student, Azo, who normally appended Johannes's siglum (Io.) to his master's opinions: “hodie tamen videtur quod habeat necesse maritus inscribere, si adulterio uxoris velit lucrari dotem, ut Auth. ut liceat mat. et avi. § Quia vero plurimas [Auth. 112.8]. Item per alium Authen. videtur applicari monasterio ut Auth., ut nulli iudic. lic. hab. § Adulteram [Auth. 127.10]. Sed hoc cum non est reclusa in monasterio. Alioqui[n] oneri monasterii subvenitur per substantiam, ut ibi. Vel illud in alia substantia uxoris non de dote respiciendum est, licet huic solutioni repugnet quod est in fine illius Authen., ponit pactum, etc. Si enim ex auctoritate legis lucratur maritus, cur diceret pacta dotalia servari? Nam et sine pacto lucraretur. Et ideo dic quod pactum factum fuerat de dote lucranda vel adulterio commisso, ac si pactum interpositum esset, habet dotem. Io.,” Lectura ad Cod. 5.17.8 s.v. si habere seu vendicare, 407–8. On Johannes, see Lange, Römisches Recht, 215–26.

42 Ad auth. post Cod. 9.9.29 s.v. habitu: “non tamen est monacha, secundum Io. Quod placet, quia pacta dotalia non statim, sed demum naturaliter mortua valent, ut in fine huius §. Sed si esset monacha, statim valerent; supra, de episc. et cleri. l. Deo nobis § 1 [Cod. 1.3.54.1];” and s.v. servandis: “patet ergo quod prius non fuit facta monacha, licet fuerit tonsa. Sed nonne probato adulterio maritus etiam sine pacto dotem lucratur, ut supra, de repud. l. Consensu § Vir quoque [Cod. 5.17.8.3]; et in Auth. ut lic. ma. et avis. § Quia vero plurimas, coll. 8 [Auth. 117.8]? Respondeo illud corrigi secundum quosdam. Vel dic, cum est civiliter convicta, maritus dotem lucratur, sed cum accusata et damnata criminaliter, substantia dividitur, ut hic. Vel hoc cum extranei accusant, illud cum maritus.” Corpus iuris civilis Iusinianei, vol. 4 (Lyon, 1627)Google Scholar, col. 2352.

43 The source of this formula was Gratian himself in a canon attributed to John Chrysostom: C. 32 q. 1 c. 4.

44 On the Summa in the context of the development of Decretist literature, see Pennington, Kenneth and Müller, Wolfgang, “The Decretists: The Italian School,” in The History of Medieval Canon Law in the Classical Period, 1140–1234: From Gratian to the Decretals of Gregory IX, ed. Hartmann, Wilfried and Pennington, Kenneth (Washington, DC, 2008), 121–73Google Scholar, at 142–60. On Huguccio generally, see Müller, Wolfgang, Huguccio: The Life, Works, and Thought of a Twelfth-Century Jurist, Studies in Medieval and Early Modern Canon Law 3 (Washington, DC, 1994)Google Scholar.

45 When they did not simply skip over this canon altogether, earlier decretists took De Benedicto simply as a proof text allowing adulterous wives to be received back by their husbands after the performance of penance. So, for example, Rolandus: “adulteram vero in matrimonium posse teneri vel assumi, auctoritatibus probari posse videtur, unde Pelagius: De Benedicto etc. Hoc capitulo adulteram recipi posse monstratur.” Summa magistri Rolandi, ed. Thaner, Friedrich (Innsbruck, 1874), 160Google Scholar. On De Benedicto, see above, n. 25.

46 “Ut di. lxxxi. Sacerdos, Dictum [D. 81 c. 7 et 8]. Hoc idem dicitur in autentico, nam pro pena decapitationis siue deportationis hodie successit retrusio in monasterium. Ex hoc capitulo [C. 32 q. 1 c. 5] aperte colligitur quod casus est in quo quis non tenetur recipere uxorem adulteram, etiam penitentem.” Summa decretorum ad C. 32 q. 1 c. 5 s.v. in alium locum, Admont, SB 7, fol. 367vb. See above, n. 27, for the letter of Pelagius.

47 Ad C. 32 q. 1 c. 7 s.v. debere ignoscere: “et nota canones preiudicare legibus qui dicunt adulteros interfici. Nam et ipsum authenticum corrigit leges in quo dicitur quod si uir noluerit sibi reconciliare adulteram debet retrudi in monasterium.” Admont, SB 7, fol. 368vb.

48 That this was not a case of lack of knowledge but rather of interest on Huguccio's part can be seen in the contrast with how he gives a very specific allegation when he cites another of Justinian's marriage law reforms (Nov. 117), which instituted penalties for calumny, i.e., when husbands failed to prove accusations of adultery, and also set forth grounds on which a wife could sue her husband for divorce. In a lengthy discussion of the respective rights of accusation for adultery within marriage and that in ecclesiastical cases spouses were not obliged to make a formal inscription (inscriptio) and thus bind themselves to suffer the consequences of calumny according to the poena talionis, Huguccio cites Justinian's constitution to show the difference between Roman and canon law on the poena talionis, giving a very specific reference to the location of the text within the corpus of the Authenticum: “dicitur enim in lege [Romana] quod debet adimplere sollempnia inscriptionis et porrigere libellum, ut ff. de adulter. Miles § Quidam, et § ix [Dig. 48.5.12.5 et 9]. Ipsum iure nouo exprimitur in aut. ut liceat mat. et aui. coll. viii § Quia uero plurimas [Auth. 112.10],” Ad C. 4 q. 4 c. 2, Admont, SB 7, fol. 189va.

49 Although it was an offhand reference, it was made in one of Gratian's dicta and so was taken to reflect his actual teaching. In this particular dictum [post C. 4 q. 4 c. 2] Gratian used extracts from several titles from the Codex, including Cod 9.9 De adulteriis: “aliquando etiam sine inscriptione accusatio fieri potest. Ea enim, que per officiales presidibus nunciantur, et citra solempnia accusationem posse perpendi incognita non est. Item si maritus iure mariti, hoc est infra sexaginta dies utiles, adulterium uxoris suae accusare voluerit, quam ex suspicione sola ream facere valet, non continetur vinculo inscriptionis.” ER (n. 9 above), vol. 1, coll. 1027–28. Gratian also included a pseudo-Augustinian text that used the Deuteronomic prescription that men who accused their wives of adultery, for which the penalty was death by stoning, would only be forced to remain with their wives in perpetuity should their accusation be proven false. The text in question is C. 33 q. 5. c. 14 Satis hinc, though according to its arrangement in many Decretum manuscripts, canonists usually alleged it in their commentaries as part of the previous c. 13, Haec imago. For the purposes of this study, it is not necessary to draw a distinction between recensions of the Decretum, as outlined in Winroth, Anders, The Making of Gratian's Decretum (Cambridge, 2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

50 The parenthetical citations are those added by the editor, Laspeyers, though note the author's correction to the last citation, to be discussed after the quotation: “poena adulterii alia canonica, alia legalis. Canonica poena est, ut si clericus fuerit, deponatur, si laicus, excommnnicetur ut Di. LXXXI. Si quis clericus (c. 10), Clericus (c. 20) et ar. C. VI. qu. 1 llli qui (c. 3) et C. XXII. qu. 1 Praedicandum (c. 17) et de cons. Di. II. Si non sunt (c. 15), Si quis intrat (c. 18). Poena vero legalis est, ut adulter capite puniatur, ut Cod. eod. Quamvis (L. 19), adultera verberetur et in monasterium retrudatur, ut in Authent. ut nulli iudicum liceat habere § Si quando vero (Nov. 127.10) [immo, § Si quis vero (Nov. 134.12)].” Summa decretalium, ed. E. Laspeyers (Regensburg, 1860; repr., Graz, 1956), 229. In a footnote to the text (n. 60: “in Codd. omnibus falso si quis vero”), Laspeyers noted that all of the manuscripts mistakenly gave the section citation of the Authenticum as § Si quis vero (Nov. 134.12), so he decided to change the text to § Si quando vero (Nov. 134.10), presumably because in the later tradition Nov. 134.10 would become the locus classicus. Since the detrusion provision is, in fact, mentioned in Nov. 134.12 (Si quis vero) — the larger concern of this text being directed towards those who escaped punishment and went on to marry their adulterous partners — it is almost certain that this was the allegation intended by Bernard.

51 For the decretists' discussion in the second half of the twelfth century, see Brundage, Law, Sex, and Christian Society (n. 16 above), 319–23. On the papacy muddying the waters, see, for example, Celestine III's response to a solicitation for advice from the archbishop of Canterbury on whether it was permissible for litigants to use an advocate (procurator) in marriage litigation, especially since in other civil cases advocates were a normal part of the process (JL 17615). The letter is known only from its inclusion in decretal collections, the latest one being 2Comp 2.18.2, whence the following text was taken: “hic autem decernimus distinguendam, quod si in causa ipsa matrimoniali questio criminaliter ventilatur, et ob eandem ab adversa parte criminaliter sit agendum, non per interpositam personam, sed per ipsam principalem, causam matrimonii terminari oportet, cum sicut iura testantur, presens presentem accusare debet et se talionis vinculo obligare. Secus autem in causa matrimoniali, in qua non criminaliter agitur, credimus procedendum. Securius tamen ageretur si cum haberi possit principalium presentia personarum, ipsis presentibus in utroque ad diffinitionis calculum procedatur.” Quinque compilationes antiquae (n. 10 above), 71. That adultery would be the quaestio criminaliter ventilata is made clear by one of Alanus's glosses to the text, as given above, n. 21.

52 Die Register Innocenz III, ed. O. Hageneder and A. Somerlecher, vol. 8, Publikationen des österreichischen Kulturinstituts in Rom, II. Abteilung: Quellen, 1. Reihe (Vienna, 2001), no. 190, 324–27. In addition to the conduct of marriage cases, the letter set forth guidelines on the validity of marriages, the administrative procedures for awarding prebends, court summonses, and the repayment of loans. Its importance was immediately recognized by canonists and so the letter was sliced up for inclusion in decretal collections, eventually resulting in five separate capitula in the Liber extra: X 1.38.5; 2.6.3; 3.5.20; 4.1.25; 4.13.10.

53 “Consuluit insuper nos fraternitas tua, utrum vir per procuratorem valeat super adulterio coniugem accusare, cum videantur illud tam leges quam canones inhibere. Ad quod fraternitati tue taliter respondemus. quod si vir accuset uxorem de crimine adulteri coram iudice seculari ad penam legitimam infligendam. quia tunc inscriptionis vinculum debet arripere seque ad penam astringere talionis, non per procuratorem sed per se ipsum presentem oportet presentialiter accusare. Si vero vir accusare velit uxorem de adulterio coram ecclesiastico iudice. ut ab eius cohabitatione discedat, quia tunc — etsi forsan oporteat ipsum inscribere, ut designet in scriptis crimen, locum et tempus et alia, que comprehenduntur in lege civili ad talionem tamen non debet se aliquatenus obligare, ne forte, cum etiam in probatione deficeret, intentionis sue consequeretur effectum, sustineri potest, si necessitas id postulaverit, ut per procuratorem accuset, quoniam huiusmodi accusatio, etsi de crimine fiat, non tamen est criminalis, sed quasi mixta inter civilem et criminalem, quamvis in presentia principalium personarum securius procedatur.” Ibid., 326. There are no substantive differences between the enregistered version of the letter and the text that circulated in decretal collections.

54 Laurentius Hispanus ad 3Comp 1.22.2 s.v. legitimam: “intrusionis secundum monasterium, supra, C. de adult. auth. Set hodie.” “The Ecclesiology of Laurentius Hispanus (c. 1180–1248) and His Contribution to the Romanization of Canon Law Jurisprudence, with an Edition of the Apparatus Glossarum Laurentii Hispanii in Compilationem Tertiam,” ed. Brendan McManus (PhD diss., Syracuse University, 1991), 323. The gloss in Servus appellatur was similarly laconic: “C. ad. l. ult. [sic] de adulter. auth. Sed hodie,” ad 3Comp 1.22.2 s.v. penam legitimam. Paris, BNF, lat. 3932, fol. 128va.

55 Ad 3Comp 1.22.2 s.v. penam talionis: “si accusat post xl. dies ante autem iure mariti accusans ad talionem non astringatur, ut C. de adulter. Iure mariti [Cod. 9.9.6]. Sed hoc nouo iure authenticorum uidetur immutatum, infra [word missing in margin] ut liceat matri et auie § Si uir de adulterio [Auth. 112.9], quod quidam legiste uolunt. Alii istud intelligunt [quando] accusat ut quilibet non ut maritus. Credo quod tam per illud in Auth. coll. viii. ut liceat ma. et auie § Causas [Auth. 112.9], tam per illud [tam per illud: sic] quam per hanc decretalem corriguntur leges que uidentur contrarium dicere, iiii. q. iiii. § Aliquando [dictum post C. 4 q. 4 c. 2]. Sed que pena infligetur uiro deficienti? Mittet ei repudium et perdet donacionem propter nuptias et retrudetur in monasterium, quia hoc pateretur mulier, ut in eodem Auth. causas continentur [sic].” Paris, BNF, lat. 14611, fol. 40ra.

56 Ad Comp 1.22.2 s.v. iudice seculari: “hodie coram ecclesiastico potest, si agat ad penam canonicam, scilicet intrusionem monasterii.” Johannis Teutonici Apparatus glossarum in Compilationem tertiam, ed. Pennington, Kenneth, Monumenta Iuris Canonici, Series A: Corpus Glossatorum, vol. 3 (Vatican City, 1981), 146Google Scholar.

57 The discussion will focus on Johannes's remarks on Gratian's dictum post C. 32 q. 1 c. 10, but he also brought up Tuae for the same purpose in his commentary on C. 33 q. 5 c. 14, the Pseudo-Augustinian capitulum outlining the Deuteronimic affirmation of inequality between men and women in adultery accusations.

58 Ad dictum post C. 32 q. 1 c. 10 s.v. accusationem: “sed quod hic dicitur [viz., by Gratian] non videtur tenere secundum iura nostra. Nam sicut maritus uxorem, sic uxor maritum licite accusat, et inscribit contra eum, et obligat se ad poenam talionis, et hoc quando coram saeculari iudice agit. Sed si agit coram ecclesiastico, non inscribit, ut extra, de procurat. Tuae [3Comp 1.22.2]. Et lex idem videtur dicere in Auth. ut lic. matr. et aviae § quia vero, et § causas, coll. 8 [Auth. 112.8 et 9]. Miror tamen quare dicat Innocentius quod coram saeculari iudice sit inscribendum, cum hodie poena saecularis commutata sit in ecclesiasticam poenam, ut C. de adult. auth. Sed hodie [auth. post Cod. 9.9.29]. Unde etiam secundum leges dico quod uxor possit accusare virum, cum tantum ecclesiastica sit poena adulterii.” ER, vol. 1, col. 2101. All of Johannes's Decretum glosses employed for this study have been checked against the earlier version of the text (as represented in Troyes, BM, 192) prior to its updating by Bartholomew of Brescia to bring it into conformity with the Liber extra. No inconsistencies between the earlier version and the text of the Editio Romana have been found.

59 See previous note for the passage where Johannes rules out the application of the poena talionis when adultery is tried before an ecclesiastical judge. Another possible solution — though one not mutually exclusive of detrusion still being meted out in secular courts — is that Johannes thought the poenam talionis could be applied in an ecclesiastical court, but only when the criminal penalty of detrusion was sought and not when what the husband desired was simple separation. This might explain the distinction Johannes draws when discussing the poena talionis in another gloss between separation and criminal penalties: “sed nec hodie cum agit vir ad separationem substinet talionem. Secus si agatur ad poenam adulterii criminaliter; extra, de procurat., Tuae [3Comp 1.22.2],” ad C. 33 q. 5 c. 14 s.v. demonstraretur, ER, vol. 1, col. 2394.

60 Ad 3comp 1.22.2 s.v. penam legitimam: “set qualiter potest uir se obligare ad penam talionis secundum hodiernum ius, quia si uir non probans debet puniri pena talionis, ergo uir debet detrudi in monasterium, et sic consecutus est id quod forte uir libenter uolebat? Ex hoc sequitur quod quilibet qui non potest habere licentiam uxoris accusabit ipsam, et si non probat crimen, poterit intrare monasterium. Preterea secundum hoc erit iam alia causa quam causa fornicationis que separat uirum ab uxore. Item ex hoc sequitur quod aliquis cogitur esse monachus qui numquam uouit, quod esse non debet, ut xxxii. q.i. Integritas [C. 32 q. 1 c. 13], et xx. q.i. Sicut [C. 20 q. 1 c.9]. Preterea hoc solum deberet uiro esse pro pena: quod cogitur ei adherere perpetuo, qua perpetuo carere uoluit, ut xxxiii. q.v. Hec ymago [C. 33 q. 5 c. 13–14]. Preterea uir et mulier non censentur pari iure quantum ad penam adulterii, ut xxxii. q.i. § Hoc in mulieribus [dicta post C. 32 q. 1 c. 10]. Ad hoc dico quod uir potest se obligare ad penam talionis, et si succumbit, debet detrudi in monasterium eodem modo quo mulier intraret si crimen esset probatum. Set mulier non intrat monasterium nisi uiro placuerit, quia uir eam inuitam potest retinere, ut C. de adult. auth. Set hodie [auth. post Cod. 9.9.29]. Ergo, etsi uir sit conuictus de calumpnia debet ingredi monasterium, mulier tamen, si uult, potest eum retinere inuitum. Hoc tamen scias quod nisi euidens sit calumpnia uiri, non debet puniri pena talionis, ut C. de adul. Iure mariti [Cod. 9.9.6]. Nec est hoc inconueniens quod aliquis inuitus fit monachus, tum quia ad hoc se obligauit, tum quia pro delicto aliquis fit monachus, ut xvi. q.vi. De lapsis [C. 16 q. 6 c. 4] et l. di. Si ille [D. 50 c. 58].” Johannis Teutonici Apparatus, 146–47.

61 In addition to the canons cited in his 3Comp commentary (C. 16 q. 6 c. 4 and D. 50 c. 58), Johannes provides in his Decretum gloss an even fuller catalog of instances for when “propter delictum … cogitur quis intrare monasterium,” including: D. 81 c. 8 Dictum, and c. 10 Si quis clericus; and C. 33. q. 2 c. 8 Admonere. The last example, Admonere, did concern a lay person, though it was the high profile case of a pope imposing monasticization on an uxoricide ruler.

62 See below for the text of the letter. On Conrad's legatine mission, see Pixton, Paul, The German Episcopacy and the Implementation of the Decrees of the Fourth Lateran Council, 1216–1245: Watchmen on the Tower, Studies in the History of Christian Thought 64 (Leiden, 1995), 321Google Scholar and passim. Details on the life of Rudolph, who is occasionally also referred to as Rudolph of Worms, are scant.

63 In a separate letter on the same date Gregory approved the constitution of the house as a new religious order, the Penitential Order of St. Mary Magdalene, also known to contemporaries as the Weisse Frauen or Reuerinnen. For a study of their origins, see Simon, André, L'Ordre des Pénitentes de Ste-Marie-Madeleine en Allemagne (Freiburg, 1918)Google Scholar.

64 Auvray 110; Potthast 7926 (italics indicate sections left out of the Liber extra): “Gaudemus in Domino et tue sollicitudinis studium commendamus, quod quasi vocatus a Domino, de mandato venerabilium fratrum nostrorum C. Portuensis episcopi, tunc apostolice sedis legati, et archiepiscopi Maguntini, ad sancte predicationis officium te convertens, et hominum piscator effectus rete plenum piscibus extrasisti. Dum illas miserrimas mulieres, que humani generis hostis suggestione seducte in lutum ceciderunt, fete libidinis involute de lacu miserie, ne ipsas desperationis absorberet, puteus eduxisti. Sicque factum est, quod multis ex ipsis nuptui traditis, alie facte de meretricibus moniales, et de prostibulo fugientes, ad claustrum servare voverunt Domino castitatem. Potes inquam et tu letari in Domino, cum et ipse chorus angelicus gaudeat ex hoc facto, sed ut tantum a te gaudium nemo tollat, indefessa vigilare sollicitudine te oportet, ac instare viriliter, ne hostis ille antiquus et callidus conversionem mulierum ipsarum penitentiam agentium sue possit calliditatis astutia impedire. Quocirca discretionem tuam monendam duximus et hortandam per apostolica tibi scripta mandantes, et in remissionem peccaminum iniugentes, quia sumens intrepidus auctoritate nostra tam pium predicationis officium ad conversionem mulierum talium prudenter intendas, et conversas salubribus monitis in castitate ac religione conrobores et confortes, ut autem comissum tibi a nobis predicationis officium possis liberius et utilius exercere, auctoritate presentium tibi concedimus potestatem, ut confessiones huiusmodi mulierum audire valeas et eis de comissis iniungere penitentiam salutarem. Illos vero qui mulieres huiusmodi causa lucri tamquam patroni turpidinis manutenent et fovent, quod eas ad audiendum vocem predicationis tue libere venire permittant, et conversionem et salutem earum nullatenus impedire presumant, diligenter moneas et inducis. Mulieres vero, que relicto maritali thoro, lapsu carnis ceciderunt, si mariti earum a te diligenter commoniti, eas ad frugem melioris vite conversas noluerint recipere, propter Deum in claustris ipsis cum praedictis conversis mulieribus studeas collocare, ut perpetuam penitentiam ibi agant. Prius tamen viris ipsis iniungens in remissionem peccaminum, ut easdem uxores suas recipiant, divine intuitu pietatis. Alias autem viros solutos salubribus exhortationibus moneas et inducas, et eis, si expedire videris, in remissionem peccatorum iniungas, ut aliquas ex huiusmodi mulieribus, que castitatem servare nequiverint, dummodo solute fuerint accipiant in uxores. Ad hec quia, sicut audivimus, quidam clerici et laici de pretio scorti lucrum captantes, ex quadam prava consuetudine vel potius corruptela, questum accipere turpitudinis non verentur, licentiam tibi concedimus, ut sub pena excommunicationis inhibeas, ne quisquam decetero exigat vel recipiat huiusmodi turpem questum. Tu igitur tamquam vir prudens ita modeste concessa tibi potestate utaris, quod opera tua, divina favente gratia, Deo et hominibus sint accepta, securus utique quod si viam mandatorum nostrorum cucurreris, eterne felicitatis bravium dante domino comprehendes. Datum Anagnie, VI Idus Iunii, anno primo.” Reg. Vat. 14, fol. 17v. The text of the letter was edited most recently in Rodenberg, Carl, Epistolae saeculi XIIIe Regestis pontificum Romanorum selectae, vol. 1, MGH Epistolae (Berlin, 1883; repr., Munich, 1982)Google Scholar, no. 358, 273.

65 For a discussion of Raymond's editing, see the author's forthcoming study: “Gregory IX and the Liber extra ,” in Pope Gregory IX (1227–1241), ed. Egger, C. and Smith, D. (Farnham, 2017)Google Scholar.

66 One of the best examples of this is X 4.17.3 Per venerabilem, located in the title on the legitimation of children (Qui filii sint legitimi), which became one of the primary loci for the discussion of papal authority, insofar as it articulated a strong claim for the plena potestas of the pope to cancel out the natural impediments to children of an illegitimate or adulterous union. On the interpretation of Per venerabilem, see Pennington, Kenneth, “Pope Innocent III's Views on Church and State: A Gloss to Per venerabilem ,” in Law, Church, and Society: Essays in Honor of Stephan Kuttner, ed. Pennington, Kenneth and Somerville, Robert (Philadelphia, 1977), 1–25 Google Scholar; repr. in iidem, Popes, Canonists, and Texts, 1150–1550, Variorum Collected Studies Series 412 (Aldershot, 1993)Google Scholar, IV.

67 All three were given a modern edition as the inaugural and only works of the Universa Bibliotheca Iuris (vol. 1, pts. A–C), edited by Sanz, Xavier Ochoa and Diez, Alfonso (Rome, 1975–78)Google Scholar.

68 “Pone quod uxor, relicto maritali toro, in lapsum carnis ceciderit, et maritus, ab episcopo diligenter commonitus eam, ad frugem melioris vitae conversam, noluerit recipere propter Deum, poterit religionem intrare? Utique, ut perpetuam paenitentiam ibi agat; extra, de conversione coniugatorum, Gaudemus [X 3.32.19].” Raymond of Penyafort, Summa de paenitentia, ed. Xavier Ochoa Sanz and Alfonso Diez, Universa Bibliotheca Iuris, vol. 1, pt. B (Rome, 1976), I.8.14, col. 358. This text is absent from the first recension of the Summa.

69 Little is known of Naso's biography other than that he started teaching at Bologna during Gregory's pontificate. His commentary, which in form appears to be a reportatio recorded by a student rather than something prepared for formal publication, survives only in one complete manuscript and a few fragmentary copies, though select glosses were included in other apparatus. On Naso, see von Schulte, Johann Friedrich, Die Geschichte der Quellen der Literatur des canonischen Rechts, vol. 2 (Stuttgart, 1877; repr., Union, NJ, 2000), 88–89 Google Scholar; Kuttner, Stephan and Smalley, Beryl, “The Glossa ordinaria to the Gregorian Decretals,” English Historical Review 60 (1945): 103–5Google Scholar; repr. in Kuttner, , Studies in the History of Medieval Canon Law, Variorum Collected Studies Series 325 (Aldershot, 1990)Google Scholar, XIII, with Retractiones, 19–20; “Guillaume Naso,” Dictionnaire de droit canonique, vol. 5 (Paris, 1953)Google Scholar, col. 1079.

70 Lectura ad X 3.32.19 s.v. in claustris: “sed numquid iste mulieres possunt contrahere maritis mortuis? Videtur quod non, quia dicitur hic quod debent perpetuo penitere. Sed dici potest quod si contrahant tenebat matrimonium si non fecerint professionem uel non deuouerint se illi religioni, licet ibi collate fuerunt per episcopum.” Vienna, ÖNB, cod. vind. pal. 2083, fol. 67ra.

71 On Vincentius, see Sanz, J. Ochoa, Vincentius Hispanus: Canonista boloñes del siglo XIII, Cuadernos de Instituto Juridico Español 13 (Rome, 1960)Google Scholar. Since his work straddles the 1234 divide, Vincentius gives us a rare opportunity to track the evolution of canonical jurisprudence in the wake of Gregory IX's reforms.

72 Ad X 3.32.19 s.v. collocare: “cum bonis suis ut non sint onerose, xvi. q. vi. De lapsis [C. 16 q. 6 c. 4]. Sed si ipse non habent monasteria beneficient eis, quia et de micis domini etc., de pe. d. i. In perpetuum.” Paris, BNF, lat. 3967, fol. 144va. There is no canon In perpetuum in the Decretum, but any emendation is speculative given that this reading is also found in the Madrid manuscript of Vincentius's Apparatus (Madrid, BN, MS 30, fol. 198ra).

73 Ad X 3.32.19 s.v. ut perpetuam: “uidetur quod bona adulterie applicetur monasteria in quod intruditur, in Auth. ut nulli iudi. § Adulteram [Auth. 127.10]. Sed hoc non intelligitur de dote. Dotem eius lucrabitur maritus auctoritate legis propter adulterium, supra. de consuetu. Ex parte [X 1.4.10]; uel ex pacto ut eodem Auth. in fi. ubi dicitur uiro seruari pacta dotalia. Et uidetur hodie quod maritus habeat neccesitatem de adulterio uxoris libellum conscribere inscriptionis si uelit ex eius adulterio lucrari dotem, in Auth. ut liceat ma. et auie § Quia uero plurimas [Auth. 112.8].” Ibid., fol. 144va.

74 Specifically, Johannes's glosses s.v. iudice seculari (see n. 56) and penam legitimam (see n. 60). At the end of Vincentius's gloss s.v. legitimam, which otherwise reproduces the text as it stood in his 3Comp commentary, he adds a note directly associating himself with Johannes's comments in the latter's gloss s.v. penam legitimam (which has the incipit per leges): “intrusionis, scilicet in monasterium, C. de adult. auth. Sed hodie [auth. post Cod. 9.9.9]; per ueteres leges ad penam sanguinis, C. de adult. Castitati [Cod. 9.9.9]; et per legem Moysi, xxxiii. q. v. Hec ymago [C. 33 q. 5 c. 13–4]. Dic ut in illa glossa ‘per leges etc.’ Vic.” Ibid., fol. 56va.

75 Ad X 3.32.19 s.v. recipere: “eas sibi reconciliando, quod fieri potest etiam inuitis adulteris, xxxii. q. i. Non erit [C. 32 q. 1 c. 8], et c. Non autem [immo: Quod autem, C 32 q. 1 c.7]; in Auth. ut nulli iud. § Manifesta [cap. incertum]; C. de adulter. in auth. Set hodie [auth. post Cod. 9.9.9]. Dummodo adultere desinant adulterium, alias adulteriis insistentes reconciliari non possunt ut xxxii. q. i. c. iii. et iiii [C. 32 q. 1 c. 3 et 4]. G.” Vienna, ÖNB, cod. vind. pal. 2197, fol. 102vb. Ad X 3.32.19 s.v. mariti: “non delinquentes ante accusationem nec post ut infra, de adulteriis Tua fraternitas [X 5.16.7]; infra, de diuor. Ex litteris [X 4.19.5]. Videtur ab ipsarum consortiis per iudicia ecclesie separati. G.” Ibid., fol. 102vb. On Gottfried, see Bertram, Martin, “Nochmals zum Dekretalenapparat des Goffredus Tranensis,” Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 82 (2002), 638–61Google Scholar; repr. in idem, Kanonisten und ihre Texte, 1234 bis Mitte 14. Jh., Education and Society in the Middle Ages and Renaissance 43 (Leiden, 2013)Google Scholar, VII, 163–81, with Nachtrag, 489–90.

76 Ad X 3.32.19 s.v. collocare: “cum bonis omnibus <ne sint> monasteriis honerose, ut xvi. q. vi. De lapsis [C. 16. q. 6 c. 4]; C. de epis. et clericis l. Raptores [Cod. I.3.53]; xxvii. q. i. Si quis rapuerit [C. 27 q. 1 c. 28]. Et hic est unus de casibus illis in quibus compellitur quis uel aliqua esse in monasterio in <qua> causa compellitur aliquis uel aliqua monachari. Nam cogitur profiteri ut supra eodem tit. Ex parte [X 3.32.9]. G.” Vienna, ÖNB, cod. vind. pal. 2197, fol. 102vb. The words in brackets < > have been supplied as readings for what appear to be scribal errors. The Ex parte referred to in the gloss is a letter of Urban III mandating that a spouse who vowed that he would enter a monastery should, after his first wife dies, be forced to make good on his profession.

77 The earliest datable manuscript containing Bernard's gloss gives us a 1239 terminus ante quem for the first recension: Florence, Laurenziana, S. Croce III sin.9. Initial anlysis by Stephan Kuttner and Beryl Smalley (“The Glossa Ordinaria to the Gregorian Decretals”) identified four recensions of the gloss, with the final recension completed between 1263 and 1266. Kuttner on his own would later develop the four recension hypothesis further in “Notes on the Glossa Ordinaria of Bernard of Parma,” Bulletin of Medieval Canon Law 11 (1981): 86–93 Google Scholar; repr. in idem, Studies, XIV. Martin Bertram has questioned, however, whether the differences observed in Bernard's gloss should be classified as discrete recensions, as opposed to reflecting a more organic revision process per viam additionum: “Zur Entwicklung der Glossa Ordinaria des Bernardus Parmiensis,” Kanonisten, Exk. IV, 525–27.

78 ER (n. 9 above), vol. 2, col. 1272. The first recension has been collated from the Florentine manuscript, fol. 124ra (see previous note) and the second oldest datable copy of the first recension in Oxford, BL, Latin theol. b.4, fol. 132rb.

79 Ad X 1.38.5 s.v. legitimam: “per leges veteres puniebatur mulier convicta de adulterio ad poenam sanguinis, C. de adulte. castitati [Cod. 9.9.9]; et etiam secundum legem Mosaycam lapidatur; 33. q. 5 Haec imago [C. 33 q. 4 c. 13–4]. Hodie vero detruditur in monasterium, C. de adulte. auth. Sed hodie [auth. post Cod. 9.9.29]; et infra, de conver. coniug. Gaudemus [X 3.32.19]. Et potest vir uxorem convictam de adulterio et condemnatam retinere si vult, et uxor virum, ut dicitur in praedicta authentica.” ER, vol. 2, col. 464. This gloss is essentially the same as Johannes Teutonicus's on the same lemma, though in a shortened form attributable to Tancred when he placed it in his own 3Comp Apparatus, which Bernard then simply incorporated into his gloss and updated with the addition of the Gaudemus allegation.

80 Bernard also pins a gloss to an earlier lemma in the text s.v. ceciderunt, where he simply notes that the adultery conviction has to have been enacted through a formal legal process and that the husbands cannot be compelled to take their adulterous wives back.

81 The use of the future active participle moratura demands that there have been some text there with an active verb. If you remove “tunc tondeatur, et habitum monachalem recipiat,” the statement is no longer grammatical. Both the Florentine and Oxford manuscripts concur in the reading “eam recipiat ibi perpetuo moratura.” It is fairly easy, however, to see how a copyist would have fallen victim to homeoteleuton and left this phrase out, since the word recipiat occurs twice in the sentence, bookending the eliminated phrase. Other copies of the first recension will likely show that “tunc tondeatur, et habitum monachalem recipiat” was part of Bernard's original text. Finally, since the phrase is pulled directly from the language of Sed hodie, there would seem little reason for Bernard to have excluded it.

82 Innocent's commentary was completed by 1245, and owing to a long period of development there have survived multiple recensions of the work. In this analysis only the final recension has been used, as represented by the early modern printed edition. On Innocent's commentary, see Bertram, Martin, “Zwei vorläufige Textstufen des Dekretalenapparats Papst Innocenz IV.,” in Juristische Buchproduktion im Mittelalter, ed. Colli, V., Studien zur europäischen Rechtsgeschichte 155 (Frankfurt, 2002), 431–79Google Scholar; repr. in idem, Studies, XI, with Nachtrag, 496–97.

83 Ad X 1.38.5 s.v. ad poenam: “quae, scilicet, mulierem per leges veteres puniebat capite; C. de adulte. Castitati [Cod. 9.9.9]; et per legem Moysi, 33. q. 5 Haec imago [C. 33 q. 5 c. 13–14]. Hodie autem retrudetur in monasterium; C. de adulte. auth. Sed hodie [auth. post Cod. 9.9.29]. Et ibi dicitur maritus potest eam retinere et liberare a poena, unde si coram ecclesiastico iudice accusatur aliqua, quae sit de foro et iurisdictione ecclesiae, hanc poenam retrusionis in monasterium poterit imponere mulieri, et etiam viro, vel etiam aliam quae sibi placuerit. Vel dic quod has causas criminales debent seculares iudices instituti a praelatis audire, si autem mulier non sit de iurisdictione ecclesiae, non debet de adulterio coram ecclesiastico iudice conveniri, sed debet petere alter coniugum matrimonii separationem propter adulterium.” Innocentii quarti Pontificii maximi super libros quinque decretalium (Frankfurt, 1570)Google Scholar, fol. 169ra. Notably, these comments are tied to the commentary on Tuae, showing how much Gaudemus had become linked with that canon.

84 On Petrus Sampson, see Bertram, Martin, “Pierre de Sampson et Bernard de Montmirat: Deux canonistes français du XIIIe siècle,” in L’Église et le droit dans le Midi, XIIIe–XIVe s., Cahiers de Fanjeaux 29 (Toulouse, 1994), 37–74 Google Scholar; repr. in idem, Kanonisten, XIII, 343–74, with Nachtrag, 501–3.

85 Ad X 3.32.19 s.v. collocare: “non tamen sunt in hoc casu compellende nisi ipse uelerint quia hic non agebatur criminaliter ex adulterio commisso. Tunc enim bene essent compellende si agetur criminaliter coram iudice seculari, ut in Auth. ut nulli iudic. § Si uero coll. ix. [Auth. 127.10], et C. de adulter. auth. Sed hodie [auth. post Cod. 9.9.29]. Vero non dicit hic intrudere sed collocare, quod dicit non sunt cogende. B. notat contrarium in glo. precedenti, licet quod dixi uerius sit. In glo. et ita mulier id est unde sumpta fuit hec decretalis hoc non est uerum, cum auth. loquitur quando mulier erat accusata criminaliter ad penam legalem, hec decretalis in <casu?> quando est actum ad thori separationem tantum.” Vienna, ÖNB, cod. vin. pal. 2083, fol. 37rb.

86 On Abbas Antiquus, see Kuttner, Stephan, “Wer war der Dekretalist Abbas Antiquus?” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, kan. Abt. 26 (1937): 471–89Google Scholar; repr. in idem, Studies, XV, with “Retractiones,” 22–24. More recently, with notes on intervening studies: Bertram, “Pierre de Sampson et Bernard de Montmirat.”

87 The following text employs the manuscript version as base, with collations from the early modern printed edition [ Lectura aurea domini Abbatis antiqui super quinque libris Decretalium (Strasbourg, 1511)Google Scholar, fol 170vb. = impr.]: “pena remissionis [intrusionis: impr.] in monasterium non est pena iudicis ecclesiastici, sed secularis, ut dicit glossa. Et hoc innuit uerbum studeas, alias non compelleret, sed amouere [admoneri: impr.] posset. De hoc notat Innoc. supra, de procurat. Tue [X 1.35.8] [de hoc … tuae: deest impr.].” Ad X 3.32.19, Vienna, ÖNB, cod. vind. pal. 2076 (fol. 72va) and cod. vind. pal. 2115 (fol. 61ra). The early modern edition diverges dramatically from the manuscript tradition for the entire work due no doubt to the additions Bernardus made to the text over the years.

88 For a general account of Hostiensis's life and work, see Pennington, Kenneth, “Henricus de Segusio (Hostiensis),” in idem, Popes, Canonists, and Texts, 1150–1550, Variorum Collected Studies Series 412 (Aldershot, 1993)Google Scholar, XVI. For a list of manuscripts and an assessment of the early modern editions of the Lectura, see Bertram, Martin, “Handschriften und Drucke des Dekretalenkommentars (sog. Lectura) des Hostiensis,” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechstgeschichte, kan. Abt. 75 (1989), 177–201 Google Scholar; repr. in idem, Kanonisten, XII, 319–41, with Nachtrag, 499–500. On the first recension of the Lectura, see Pennington, Kenneth, “An Earlier Recension of Hostiensis's Lectura on the Decretals ,” Bulletin of Medieval Canon Law 17 (1987): 77–90 Google Scholar; repr. in idem, Popes, XVI.

89 Ad X 3.32.19 s.v. ut perpetuam: “ergo ex quo ibi collocate sunt sententia divortii lata, cum mariti diligenter moniti ipsas reconciliare noluerint, de cetero ipsas inde extrahere non poterunt. Et hec est nova poena. Olim enim secundum legem Mosaycam adultera lapidabatur, xxxiii. q. v. Haec imago [C. 33 q. 5 c. 14–15]. Secundum legem vero imperialem gladius ultor erat, C. de adul. Quamvis, in fi. [Cod. 9.9.29]. Hodie autem servatur in muliere hoc quod hic dicitur. Vir autem secundum leges ultimo supplicio afficitur, in Auth. ut nul. iudici § Si quando [Auth. 127.10] et § Adulteram [Auth. 127.10.1], coll. ix. Et est hic unus casus in quo cogitur quis religionem intrare. Sunt et alii, xxxiiii. di. Fraternitatis, in fi. [D. 34 c. 7]; l. di. Si ille [D. 50 c. 58]; ii. q. i. In primis [C. 2 q. 1 c. 7]; xvi. q. vi. De lapsis [C. 16 q. 6 c. 4]; xxvii. q. i. Si quis rapuerit [C. 27 q. 1 c. 28]; supra, eodem, Ex parte i. § fi. et c. i. [X 3.32.9 et 1].” Lectura sive apparatus domini Hostiensis super quinque libris decretalium (Strasbourg, 1512), fol. 129ra. All of the passages of Hostiensis are here collated with the first recension text in Oxford, New College, 205 [= NC], where the Gaudemus commentary is on fol. 152va. In the case of the above gloss, there are no textual differences between recensions.

90 In the following gloss, the italicized portions represent text not present in the first recension. Ad X 3.32.19 s.v. in claustris “et ita mulier de adulterio condemnata vel publice deprehensa detruditur in monasterio ad perpetuam penitentiam peragendam, si vir eam reconciliare noluerit. In quo casu, vel si antequam vir ipsam sibi reconciliet moriatur, tondeatur mulier et habitum recipiat monachalem, in Auth. ut nulli iudi. § Si vero quando adulterii crimen, coll. ix. [Auth. 127.10]. Et inde sumpta est hec decretalis, et C. de adulter. auth. Sed hodie [auth. post Cod. 9.9.29], Sive novo iure [auth. post Cod. 9.9.29] secundum Ber. Intelligas autem quod infra biennium ipsam potest reconciliare, si sententia lata non fuerit quo ad torum, et sic sunt intelligende auth. quando sententia quo ad torum non fuit lata. In hoc etiam casu mulier monasterium intrans non profitetur citra biennium, ne marito volenti eam reconciliare preiudicium fiat, et ita patet quod tempus probationis annale prorogatur ex causa, ut et nota supra, eodem, ex publico [X 3.32.7]; et supra, tit. i. Ad apostolicam, et c. Statuimus [X 3.31.26 et 23]. Sin [Si: NC] autem sententia lata sit et maritus sepius monitus ipsam reconciliare noluerit, non auditur maritus volens eam reconciliare, ex quo religionem intravit, et professionem fecit, et sic intellige quod hic dicit. Hoc autem non credas sumptum ex auth. supradictis, que nec in hoc casu loquuntur. Immo est istud ius canonicum de novo promulgatum, quod et in foro tantum canonico locum habet, quia nec iudex secularis posset ferre sententiam quo ad torum, hoc tamen quod tales includuntur, ex auth. sumi potest, quod dic ut not. infra, de divort. De illa § fi. [4.19.6].” Lectura, fol. 129ra. Hostiensis's additions on the issue of the woman's monastic status will be discussed shortly.

91 The earliest versions of Hostiensis's and Bernardus de Montemirato's commentaries, which have a terminus post quem of the early 1260s, were almost certainly inaccessible to Bernard.

92 Boatinus (also sometimes known as Bovetinus) composed his Lectura on the Decretals sometime in the last quarter of the thirteenth century. There has been little scholarship on his Decretals commentary, and so the essential sources of information remain von Schulte, J.-F., Geschichte und Quellen der Literatur des kanonischen Rechts, vol. 2 (Stuttgart, 1875; repr., Union, NJ, 2000), 157–60Google Scholar; and “Bovetino de Bovettini,” Dictionnaire de droit canonique, ed. Naz, R., vol. 2 (Paris, 1937)Google Scholar, coll. 976–80. In the process of examining Boatinus's commentary on the Constitutions of Gregory X, however, Martin Bertram discovered a Bolognese MS of the Lectura, bringing the surviving total to three: “Zur wissenschaftlichen Bearbeitung der Konstitutionen Gregors X,” Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken 53 (1973): 459–67Google Scholar; repr. in idem, Kanonisten, XV, 393–99, with Nachtrag, 506.

93 Ad X 1.38.5 s.v. ne forte: “sed numquid cum maritus agit ad penam legitimam infligendam, que hodie est intrusio in monasterium, debet agere coram iudice seculari uel ecclesiastico. Dic quod ista questio proponenda est coram iudice seculari, et iudex secularis debet infligere hanc penam, nisi iudex ecclesiasticus utrimque gladium haberet, temporalem et spiritualem, quia tunc coram eo potest proponi.” Vienna, ÖNB, cod. vind. pal. 2129. Also, like Innocent's, Boatinus's substantive comments about detrusion occur in his commentary on Tuae rather than Gaudemus. His comments on Gaudemus are limited to a cross-reference to Tuae and a rather bizarre statement that the Gaudemus at X 3.32.19 is part of the same letter as the two other texts sharing that incipit located at X 4.17.8 and X 4.19.8 — bizarre because, while the latter two both deal with marriage law, they are inscribed to Innocent III!

94 Ad X 3.32.19 s.v. ad frugem: “non tamen intraverunt religionem, nec fecerunt votum.” Ad X 3.32.19 s.v. collocare: “non tamen erit monachus, sed poenitens, licet non solemniter; 50. dist., Si ille [D. 50 c.58]; in Auth. ut nulli iud. § Si vero quando ad [Auth. 127.10].” Apparatus, fol. 427va.

95 The exact juridical valence of Innocent's caveat is unclear, viz., that, although penitents, they should not be thought of as performing solemn penance (non solemniter), followed by an allegation to a canon in the Decretum (D. 50 c. 58) concerning the impediment posed by a previous detrusion to men seeking ecclesiastical orders. When Hostiensis repeated these comments in the revised version of his Lectura, he clarified the distinction as meaning they would be performing their penance in secret (occulte) as opposed to the more public manner usually associated with solemn penance (see below, n. 97 for Hostiensis's gloss s.v. cum religiosis). The distinction between solemn and non-solemn penance had been fleshed out considerably over the course of the thirteenth century (cf. Mary Mansfield, Humiliation of Sinners [Ithaca, 1995], 21–34 and passim) and so additional research might help clarify how detrusion for adultery fit in with Innocent IV's and others' penitential theology. For the role of D. 50 in Gratian's penitential theology, see Larson, Atria, Master of Penance: Gratian and the Development of Penitential Thought and Law in the Twelfth Century, Studies in Medieval and Early Modern Canon Law 11 (Washington, D.C., 2014), 238–44Google Scholar.

96 See above, n. 90 for the gloss s.v. in claustris for his initial comments about their monastic status. As can be seen in the italicized portions, he would subsequently modify this gloss in response to Innocent IV.

97 Ad X 3.32.19 s.v. melioris vitae: “non tamen intrarunt religionem, nec fecerunt votum, dominus noster. Quod dicit penitentes sunt tantum et correcte et de crimine emendatas ut in sequenti glossa.” Ad X 3.32.19 s.v. cum religiosis: “non tamen erit monacha sed penitens, et penitens occulte, non solemniter; l. di. Illud quoque [D. 50 c. 66], secundum dominum nostrum. Tu dic ut in praecedenti et sequenti glossis.” Lectura, fol. 129ra.

98 Ad X 3.32.19 s.v. in claustris: “in hoc etiam casu mulier monasterium intrans non profitetur citra biennium, ne marito volenti eam reconciliare praeiudicium fiat, et ita patet quod tempus probationis annale prorogatur ex causa, ut et nota supra, eodem, Ex publico; et supra, tit. i. Ad apostolicam, et c. Statuimus … ,” Lectura, fol. 129ra. See above, n. 90, for the text of the entire gloss into which this passage was inserted.

99 The insertion into the Liber extra of Statuimus, which had begun life as a statute issued by Gregory IX in early 1231 and was recorded into the papal registers (Reg. Vat. 15, fols. 59v–60r), was an example of how Gregory employed the Liber extra as a vehicle to promulgate new legislation for the entire Church, as opposed to the collection being just a body of precedents. On Statuimus specifically, see the author's doctoral dissertation, “The Authoritative Text: Raymond of Penyafort's Editing of the ‘Decretals of Gregory IX’ (1234)” (PhD diss., Columbia University, 2011), 384. For the larger role of the Liber extra in shaping the canon law of religious life, see Melville, Gert, “Zum Recht der Religiosen im ‘Liber extra,’” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, kan. Abt. 87 (2001), 165–90Google Scholar.

100 There is certainly no shortage of examples where the practice of marriage departed dramatically from the idealized categories of jurists. The most obvious example would be the Church's regulations governing consanguinity and affinity, where if the letter of the law had been scrupulously observed, marriage would have been an exceedingly rare event in Europe.

101 For bibliography, see above n. 17.

102 Representative is the collection of libelli compiled by Roffredus Beneventanus in 1235/36, where detrusion is conceived of solely as a secular penalty. Note the reference to Innocent III's Tuae as aligning with the Sed hodie authentica: “ego Lucius accuso Bertam uxorem meam coram vobis domine senator, quod ipsa comisit adulterium cum Ticio in urbe Romana in domo ipsius Ticii in prima camera domus ipsius, regnante domino Frederico imperatore etc., hoc anno, mense Februario. Unde peto ipsam secundum iura puniri, scilicet, quod verberata et tonsa monasterio traditur ibi perpetuo moratura… . Quod sic recte concipiatur libellus dicit decretalis extra, de procurat. c. Tuae fraternitatis; in Auth. ut liceat mat. et avi. § Quia quaedam, coll. 8 [sic.; Auth. 127.8 forsan]. Et est posita C. de adulter. auth. Sed hodie [auth. post Cod. 9.9.29], quia per illam authen. hodie mulieri adultere pena capitalis non imponitur. Si autem maritus accusat uxorem de adulterio coram iudice ecclesiastico, concipiat libellum sic, quia tunc non agitur ad vindictam, sed ad separationem thori … [model libellus follows].” Libelli super iure pontifico (Strasbourg, 1502), fol. 44r–v.

103 What makes Durantis's Speculum particularly compelling evidence for actual practice is that he served as governor of the Papal States in the Romagna and so would have been intimately familiar with the operation of Church courts. On Durantis and the dating of the two versions of the Speculum (1271–91), see “Guillaume Durand,” Dictionnaire de droit canonique, vol. 5 (Paris, 1953), coll. 1014–75Google Scholar.

104 “Eodem modo sic concipiet Ticius secundum antiqua iura contra uxorem verbis competenter mutatis, extra, eodem, Maritue [immo: maritis, X 5.16.4]; C. eodem, Iuris mariti [immo: Iure mariti; Cod. 9.9.6], et l. Castitati [Cod. 9.9.9]. Hodie tamen sic concludet secundum legem quare peto eam verberatam et tonsam in monasterium ad perpetuam penitentiam peragendam detrudi; C. eodem, auth. Sed hodie [auth. post 9.9.29]; xxxii. q. i. De Beneficio [immo: De Benedicto; C. 32 q. 1 c.5]. Vel omitte verba illa ‘verberatam et tonsam’ secundum canones, ut extra, de conver. coniug. Gaudemus [X 3.32.19].” Speculum iudicale (Nuremberg, 1486)Google Scholar, fol. 212va–b.

105 See above, n. 60.

106 Ad X 1.38.5 s.v. consideravit: “iudex ecclesiasticus considerauit quod mulier de adulterio accusata indignaretur de facili ita quod non libenter repeteret uirum uel sibi reconciliaret, et quia hoc frequentius euenit ut ex calumpniosa accustione periurium intemptata mulieres indigarentur ideo ad hoc retulit se iudex ecclesiasticus quia ad ea que frequentius accidit iura adaptantur, ff. de legib. Nam ad ea [Dig. 1.3.5.5]. iudex autem secularis hoc non considerauit. Preterea in multis casibus soluitur matrimonium secundum leges quam secundum canones, unde coram ecclesiastico non debet se ad talionem obligare, licet hoc fiat secundum leges… .” Vienna, ÖNB, cod. vind. pal. 2083, fol. 16va. As mentioned earlier (see n. 85 above), Petrus Samson disputed the use of detrusion in ecclesiastical courts, so his discussion is geared both towards the use of detrusion in the secular forum and towards ecclesiastical litigation ad thori separationem. His student, Bernardus de Montemirato, reproduces this passage almost verbatim in his own Tuae commentary.

107 Ad. X 1.38.5 s.v. ne forte cum in probatione defecerit intencionis sue consequatur effectus: “sed cum hodie pena uxoris conuicte de adulterio sit intrusio in monasterium, uidetur quod maritus cum accusat ad penam legitimam infligendam non debeat se obligare ad penam tallionis, quia … semper habebit intencionem suam ut si probabit illa ponatur in monasterio, si non probabit iste ponetur, qui forte pro nullo alio accusabat uxorem, nisi ut posset intrare monasterium. Dic quod aliud est ingredi monasterium, et aliud est intrudi, sicut aliud est ascendere pallacium et aliud est carcerari ibi. [Vel: add. in marg.] dic quod bene dixit se obligare ad penam tallionis, nec propter hoc consequetur [sic] intencionem, quia aliud est intrare monasterium et aliud est intrudi ad penitenciam peragendam, quia taliter condempnatur posset uxor retinere si uellet, infra, de diuort. [sic] Gaudemus [X 3.32.19], et non consequeretur intencionem suam… .” Vienna, ÖNB, cod. vind. pal. 2129. fol. 132va–b. As he had already linked Tuae with X 3.32.19 in an earlier gloss, it seems likely that his reference to another letter with the same incipit under the title on divorce (X 4.19.8) is a mistake — though see above, n. 93, for Boatinus's odd and erroneous linkage of all the Gaudemus canons in the Liber extra to the same letter.

108 We should not forget, though, that this bifurcation was gendered. The new openess of the monastic model for male monks stands in stark contrast to what would happen with female religious by the end of the thirteenth century, when Pope Boniface VIII enforced strict enclosure on convents through his Periculoso decree. For a thorough study of the decree and its canonical reception, see Makowski, Elizabeth, Canon Law and Cloistered Women: Periculoso and Its Commentators, 1298–1545 (Washington, DC, 1997)Google Scholar.

109 Dunbabin, Captivity and Imprisonment (n. 13 above), 118.