dear tom and john
on inquisitorial practice, there is a little more to say. Before
"officium inquisitionis heretice pravitatis" was established in the early
thirteenth century, the practice of "inquisition" as a method of
investigation and prosecution had already existed, primarily used "in
house", as it were, to investigate monasteries etc. Inquisition did grow
out of notions of ex officio action on the grounds of "infamia", but it
differs - particulary "inquisitionis heretice pravitatis" - in that
investigations can be launched without specific "notoriety" to
investigate. "Infamia" originally took the place of the accuser in the
older system of "accusatio", thus allowing ex officio actions;
inquisition goes looking for trouble in the first place. Inquisition
into heresy also has its roots in the recording, parish by parish, of
those who had and those who hadn't come to confession, or had otherwise
transgressed [nb this may only be in southern French statutes]. The
Church was producing its own ascription of "infamia". If anyone wants
some background reading, the best thing on the general move from
accusatio to inquisitio is still A.Esmein's *A History of Continental
Criminal Procedure*; on heresy inquisition, H.C.Lea *A History of the
Inquisition in the Middle Ages* vol.I, Yves Dossat *Les Crises de
L'Inquisition*, and best of all H.Maisonneuve *Etudes sur les origines
de l'Inquisition* [apologies if i have any titles slightly wrong, but
the books aren't in this room!]
On public penances for heresy, the simple answer is "yes, they did grow
out of the older tradition of public punishment for sins" - in fact, one
ought to stress "public punishment for public sins"; although Mansfield
points out that the notion of what constituted "public" sin was extremely
confused, one should note that part of the development of the discourse
around heresy in the thirteenth century [actually maybe earlier too] was
to assert the "public" nature of the crime. The semiotics of the
punishments for heresy were drawn largely from earlier rituals, but I
think that there is an important difference: earlier practices were, as
far as I can gather, usually fashioned to fit the specific
transgression. PUnishments for heresy were not so much about specific
crimes, as establishing a hierarchy of transgression - the penance
altered in several different ways depending upon the extent of your
contact with heresy, and the penance was designed to shout aloud those
differences to the rest of the population. And, of course, you had to
wear the yellow crosses every day of your life, until penance was
complete [up to 15 years later] which also differs, i think, from other
penances. Note also that there were other punishments/penances, such as
fines, pilgrimages [usually very demanding ones - i.e Canterbury,
Compostella and Rome! all quite a long way from the Pyrenees!],
imprisonment, and of course burning.
WIth a bit of luck, i might get an article out about all of this next
year [or get it in the pipeline anyway].
er, sorry to have gone on so long!
cheers
john arnold
Centre for Medieval Studies
Kings Manor
Exhibition Square
York YO1 2EP
ENGLAND
(01904) 433948
On Sat, 29 Jun 1996, John Sherry wrote:
> On 28th June, Tom Izbicki wrote:
>
> > ... would the inquisitors' practice grow out of the older tradition of
> public punishment for sins,
> > then taking on a life of its own?
>
> I always understood that inquisitorial practice developed as a response to
> a need for an investigative procedure that placed less rigorous
> constraints on the investigators than those associated with ordo iuris. The
> conditions governing the making of accusations and the presentation of
> evidence were sufficiently rigorous to make succesful prosecution difficult
> in some cases - in cases of concubinage, for example, which might be very
> widely known but which were often difficult to prosecute under the strict
> conditions that governed the making of accusations and the presentation of
> evidence. The changes in investigative practice associated with the
> inquisition mean that crimes known by "public repute" (rather than by
> direct and individual witness) became more accessible to investigation. In
> particular, the possibility was created of amassing evidence as a body of
> fragmented reports, none of which might amount to a "proof" on their own
> but all of which, taken as a whole and properly interpreted, could provide
> strong indications of guilt. Where the indications were strong enough, the
> clincher - confession by the accused - would be sought, if necessary by
> means of torture. I don't know how traditions of "public punishment" feed
> into all of this, but traditions of "common knowledge" (notorium, fama
> etc.) were certainly important to it. (The whole business becomes suspect,
> of course, when "common knowledge" is little more than an accumulation of
> vicious and superstitious twaddle - "everybody knows" that Mad Meg flies
> off of an evening to sate her evil lusts with the Devil, etc. - but that
> is, as they say, another story).
>
> JS.
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|